ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA

A DICTIONARY OF T H E BIBLE

VOLUME I
ENCYCLOP
B A
A CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF T H E LITERARY
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY
THE ARCHBOLOGY GEOGRAPHY
AND NATURAL HISTORY
O F THE BIBLE

EDITED BY

T HE R E V . T. K. C H E Y N E , M.A., D.D.
ORIEL PROFESSOR O F T H E INTERPRETATION O F HOLY SCRIPTURE A T OXFORD
A N D FORMERLY FELLOW O F BALLIOL COLLEGE
CANON OF ROCHESTER

AND

J. S U T H E R L A N D BLACK, M.A., LL.D.

FORMERLY ASSISTANT EDITOR O F T H E ' ENCYCLOPXDIA BRITANNICA'

VOLUME I
A to D

Neb @!ark
T H E MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON: ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK

I899
 COPYRIGHT, 1899,
BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

NQrbYUQb
J. S. Cushing & Co. - Berwick & Smith
Norwood Mass. U.S.A.
 TO THE

MEMORY
OF

WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH

 PREFACE
THE idea of preparing a new Dictionary of the Bible on critical lines for the
benefit of all serious students, both professional and lay, was prominent in the
mind of the many-sided scholar to whose beloved memory the
Genesis Of the present volume is inscribed. It is more than twelve years since
Encyclopedia.
Prof. Robertson Smith began to take steps towards realising this
idea. As an academical teacher he had from the first been fully aware of the
importance of what is known as Biblical Encyclopaedia, and his own earliest
contributions to the subject i n the Encyclopdia Brztannica carry us as far back
as to the year 1875. If for a very brief period certain untoward events arrested
his activity in this direction, the loss of time was speedily made up, for seldom
perhaps has .there been a greater display of intellectual energy than is given in
the series of biblical articles signed ' W. R. S.' which appeared in the EncycZojmz!ia
Britannica between 1875 and 1888. T h e reader who is interested in Bible
study should not fail to examine the list, which includes among the longer articles
BIBLE, CANTICLES, CHRONICLES, DAVID,' HEBREW LANGUAGE, HOSEA, JERU-
SALEM, J OEL , JUDGES, KINGS, LEVITES, MALACHI, MESSIAH, MICAH, PI-IILIS-
TINES, PRIEST, PROPHET, PSALMS, SACRIFICE, TEMPLE, TITHES, ZEPHANIAH :
and among the shorter, ANGEL, ARK, BAAL, DECALOGUE, ELI, EVE, HAGGAI,
LAMENTATIONS, MELCHIZEDEK, MOLOCH, NABATZANS,NAHUM, NAZARITE, NINE-
VEH, OBADIAH, PARADISE, R UTH, SABBATH, SADDUCEES, SAMUEL, TABERNACLE,
vow.
Nor should the students of our day overlook the service which this far-
seeing scholar and editor rendered to the nascent conception of a n intcrnatzonal
biblical criticism by inviting the co-operation of foreign as well as English con-
tributors. That names like those of Noldeke, Tiele, Welhausen, Harnack, Schurer,
Gutschmid, Geldner, appeared side by side with those of well-known and honoured
British scholars in the list of contributors to the Encyclopdia was a guarantee of
freedom from dangerous eccentricity, of comprehensiveness of view, of thorough-
ness and accuracy of investigation.
Such a large amount of material illustrative of the Bible, marked by unity
of aim and consistency of purpose, was thus brought together that the Encyclopa?-
dia Byitannica became, inclusively, something not unlike an Encyclopadz'a Biblicn.
The idea then occurred to the editor and his publishers to republish, for the
guidance of students, all that might be found to have stood the test of time, the
lacunae being filled up, and the whole brought up, as far as possible, to the high
level of the most recent scholarship. It was not unnatural to wish for this ; but
there were three main opposing considerations. I n the first place, there were
other important duties which made pressing demands on the time and energy of
 ...
Vlll PREFACE
the editor. Next, the growing maturity of his biblical scholarship made him less
and less disposed to acquiesce in provisional conclusions. And lastly, such con-
stant progress was being made by students in the power of assimilating critical
results that it seemed prudent to wait till biblical articles, thoroughly revised and
recast, should have a good chance of still more deeply influencing the student world.
T h e waiting-time was filled up, so far as other occupations allowed, by
pioneering researches in biblical archaeology, some of the results of which are
admirably summed up in that fruitful volume entitled The ReZigion of the Semites
(1889). More and more, Robertson Smith, like other contemporary scholars,
saw the necessity of revising old work on the basis of a more critical, and, in a
certain sense, more philosophical treatment of details. First of all, archaeological
details had their share - and it was bound to be a large share - of this scholar’s
attention. Then came biblical geography -a subject which had been brought
prominently into notice by the zeal of English explorers, but seemed to need the
collaboration of English critics. A long visit to Palestine was planned for the
direct investigation of details of biblical geography, and though this could not be
carried out, not a little time was devoted to the examination of a few of the more
perplexing geographical problems and of the solutions already proposed (see e.g.
APHEK, below, col. 191f.). This care for accuracy of detail as a necessary pre-
liminary to a revision of theories is also the cause of our friend’s persistent refusal
to sanction the republication of the masterly but inevitably provisional article
BIBLE in the Encycdopadia Britannica, to which we shall return later. T h e reader
will still better understand the motive of that refusal if he will compare what
is said on the Psalter in that article (1875) with the statements in the first edition
of The OM Testament in theJewish Church (1880), in the EneycZopadia Britannica,
article PSALMS (1885), and in the second edition of The Old Testament zn the
Jewish Chzmh ( I 892).
It is only just, however, to the true ‘begetter ’ of this work to emphasise the
fact that, though he felt the adequate realisation of his idea to be some way off,
he lost no time in pondering and working out a variety of practical details-a
task in which he was seconded by his assistant editor and intimate friend, Mr.
J. S. Black. Many hours were given, as occasion offered, to the distribution of
subjects and the preparation of minor articles. Some hundreds of these were
drafted, and many were the discussions that arose as to the various difficult practi-
cal points, which have not been without fruit for the present work.
I n September, 1892, however, it became only too clear to Prof. Smith that
he was suffering from a malady which might terminate fatally after no very dis-
tant term. T h e last hope of active participation in his -1ong-cherished scheme of
a Bible Dictionary had well-nigh disappeared, when one of the present editors,
who had no definite knowledge of Prof. Smith’s plan, communicated to this friend
of many years’ standing his ideas of what a critical Bible Dictionary ought to be,
and inquired whether he thought that such a project could be realised. Prof.
Smith was still intellectually able to consider and pronounce upon these ideas,
and gladly recognised their close affinity to his own. Unwilling that all the
labour already bestowed by him on planning and drafting articles should be lost,
he requested Prof. Cheyne to take up the work which he himself was compelled
to drop, in conjunction with the older and more intimate friend already mentioned.
Hence the combination of names on the title-page. The work is undertaken by the
editors as a charge from one whose parting message had the force of a command.
 PREFACE ix

Such is the history of the genesis of the EncycZopdia BibZica, which is the
result primarily of a fusion of two distinct but similar plans -a fusion desired by
Prof. Robertson Smith himself, as the only remaining means of
p ~ realising adequately
~ his own~ fundamental ?ideas. With regard~ to ~ ~
details, he left the editors entirely free, not from decline of physical
strength; but from a well-grounded confidence that religion and the Bible were
not less dear to them than to himself, and that they fully shared his own uncom-
promisingly progressive spirit. T h e Bible Dictionary which h e contemplated was
no mere collection of useful miscellanea, but a survey of the contents of the Bible,
as illuminated by criticism -a criticism which identifies the cause of religion
with that of historical truth, and, without neglecting the historical and archaeo-
logical setting of religion, loves best to trace the growth of high conceptions,
the flashing forth of new intuitions, and the development of noble personalities,
under local and temporal conditions that may often be, to human eyes, most
adverse. T h e importance of the newer view of the Bible to the Christian com-
munity, and the fundamental principles of the newer biblical criticism, have been
so ably and so persuasively set forth by Prof. Robertson Smith in his Lectures
that his fellow-workers may be dispensed from repeating here what he has said so
well already. ‘There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.’ Let us
assume, then, that the readers of this EncycZopmhh, whatever be their grade of
knowledge or sphere of work, are willing to make an effort to take this widely
extended land in possession.
Every year, in fact, expands the narrow horizons which not so long ago
limited the aspirations of the biblical scholar. It is time, as Prof. Robertson
Smith thought, to help students to realise this, and to bring the standard books on
which they rely more up to date. It may seem hopeless to attempt this with an
alphabetically arranged encyclopaedia, which necessarily involves the treatment
of points in an isolated way. By an elaborate system of cross references,
however, and by interspersing a considerable number of comprehensive articles
(such as, in Part I , APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, CAINITES, D RAGON), it has
been sought to avoid the danger of treating minute details without regard to
their wider bearings. Many of the minor articles, too, have been so constructed
as to suggest the relation of the details to the larger wholes. Altogether the
minor articles have, one ventures to hope, brought many direct gains to biblical
study. Often the received view of the subject of a ‘ minor article ’ proved to be
extremely doubtful, and a better view suggested itself. Every endeavour has
been used to put this view forward in a brief and yet convincing manner, without
occupying too much space and becoming too academic in style. T h e more com-
prehensive articles may here and there be found to clash with the shorter articles.
Efforts, however, have been made to mitigate this by editorial notes in both
classes of articles.
It will also doubtless be found that on large questions different writers have
sometimes proposed different theories and hypotheses. The sympathies of the
editors are, upon the whole, with what is commonly known as ‘advanced ’ criticism,
not simply because it is advanced, but because such criticism, in the hands of a
circumspect and experienced scholar, takes account of facts and phenomena which
the criticism of a former generation overlooked or treated superficially. They
have no desire, however, to ‘ boycott ’ moderate criticism, when applied by a critic
who, either in the form or in the substance of his criticism, has something original
a2
X PREFACE
to say. A n ‘advanced’ critic cannot possibly feel any arrogance towards his
more ‘moderate’ colleague, for probably h e himself held, not very long ago, views
resembling those which the ‘ moderate ’ critic holds now, and the latter may find
his precautionary investigations end in his supporting, with greater fulness and
more complete arguments, as sound the views that now seem to him rash. Prof.
Robertson Smith’s views of ten years ago, or more, may, at the present day, appear
to be ‘ moderate ’ criticism ; but when he formulated them he was in the vanguard
of critics, and there is no reason to think that, if he had lived, and devoted much
of his time to biblical criticism, his ardour would have waned, and his precedence
passed to others.
There are, no doubt, some critical theories which could not consistently have
been represented in the present work; and that, it may be remarked, suggests
one of the reasons why Prof. Robertson Smith’s early Encyclopczdia Brztannica
article, BIBLE, could not have been republished, even by himself. When he wrote
it he was still not absolutely sure about the chronological place of P (Priestly
Code). H e was also still under the influence of the traditional view as to the
barrenness and unoriginality of the whole post-exilic period. Nor had he faced
the question of the post-exilic redaction of the prophetic writings. T h e funda-
mental principles of biblical criticism, however, are assumed throughout that fine
article, though for a statement of these we must turn to a more mature production
of his pen. See, for example, The Old Testament in t h e J e w i s h ChwrwP, pp. 16
fJ (cp 1st ed. pp. 24f.); and notice especially the following paragraph on p. 17 :-
‘Ancient books coming down to us from a period many cenfuries before the invention of
printing have necessari& undergone many vzczssitudes. Some of them are preserved on& in
i?npe,fect copies made by an ignorant scribe of the dark “,yes. Others have been &$guyed by
editors, who mzxed up forezgn matter wzth the origznaZ text. Very often an iinjortant book
fell altogether out of s&htf o r a Zong time, and when it came to Zkht again aZZ knowZedge of zts
orzgzn was gone; f o r old books did not gene?,aZZy have titze-pages and prefaces. And, when
such a nmneZess roZZ was agazn brought znto notice, some ha&%formed reader or transcriber
was not unfike& to give it a new tz’tZe of hzs own devzszng, which 7 ~ a handed
s down thereafter
as g it had been ori@naZ. Or agazn, the true meanzng and purpose of a book often became
obscure in the lapse of centurzes, and Zed to f a h e interpretations. Once more, anti@@ has
handed down to us many wntings which are sheer forgenes, Zike some of the Apocryphal’ books,
o r the SibyZZinnc orades, or those famous EpzstZes of PhaZaris, which formed the subject of
BentZey’s great cn’tical essay. In aZZ such cases the hzstorical critic must destroy the recezved
view, in order to establish the truth. He must reziew doubtful titles, purge out interpodations,
expose forgeries; hut he does so on& to mangest the tmth, ana’ exhibit the genuine remains of
antiquity zn their real’ chap-acter. A book that is rea@ oZa’ and rea@ vaZuabZe has nothing to
fear from the cntic, whose Zabours can on& p u t its worth an a dearer fight, and estabfish its
authorzty on a surer basis.’
T h e freedom which Prof. Robertson Smith generously left to his successors
has, with much reluctance, yet without hesitation, on the part of the editors, been
exercised in dealing with the articles which he wrote for the Encydopczdia
Britannzca. T h e editors are well assured that he would have approved their
conduct in this respect. Few scholars, indeed, would refrain from rewriting, to a
large extent, the critical articles which they had produced some years previously ;
and this, indeed, is what has been done by several contributors who wrote biblical
articles for the former Encyclopzdia. T h e procedure of those who have revised
our friend’s articles has in fact been as gentle and considerate as possible. Where
these articles seemed to have been destined by himself for some degree of per-
 PREFACE xi

manence, they have been retained, and carefully revised and brought up to date.
Some condensation has sometimes been found necessary. The original articles
were written for a public very imperfectly imbued with critical principles, whereas
now, thanks to his own works and to those of other progressive scholars, Bible
students are much more prepared than formerly to benefit by advanced teaching.
There is also a certain amount of a new material from Prof. Smith’s pen (in two or
three cases consisting of quotations from the M S of the second and third courses
of Burnett Lectures), but much less, unfortunately, than had been expected.
Freedom has also been used in taking some fresh departures, especially in
two directions -viz., in that of textual criticism of the Old Testament, and in that
of biblical archaeology. T h e object of the editors has been, with the assistance
of their contributors, not only to bring the work up to the level of the best
published writings, but, wherever possible, to carry the subjects a little beyond
the point hitherto reached in print. Without the constant necessity of investi-
gating the details of the text of the Old Testament, it would be hard for any one
to realise the precarious character of many details of the current biblical arch=-
ology, ge’ography, and natural history, and even of some not unimportant points
in the current Old Testament theology. Entirely new methods have not indeed
been applied; but the methods already known have perhaps been applied with
somewhat more consistency than before. With regard to archzology, such a
claim can be advanced only to a slight extent. More progress perhaps has been
made of late years in the field of critical archzology than in that of texual criti-
cism. All, therefore, that was generally necessary was to make a strong effort
to keep abreast of recent archzological research both in Old Testament and in
New Testament study.
The fulness of detail with which the data of the Versions have been given
may provoke some comment. Experience has been the guide of the editors, and
they believe that, though in the future it will be possible to give these data in a
more correct, more critical, and more condensed form, the student is best served
at present by being supplied as fully as possible with the available material. It
may also be doubted by some whether there is not too much philology. Here,
again, experience has directed the course to 6e pursued. I n the present transi-
tional stage of lexicography, it would have been undesirable to rest content with
-simply referring to the valuable new lexicons which are now appearing, or have
already appeared.
With regard to biblical theology, the editors are not without hope that they
have helped to pave the way for a more satisfactory treatment of that important
subject which is rapidly becoming the history of the movement of religious life and
thought within the Jewish and the Christian church (the phrase may be inaccurate,
but it is convenient). Systems of Prophetic, Pauline, Petrine, Johannine theology
have had their day ; it is perhaps time that the Bible should cease to be regarded
as a storehouse of more or less competing systems of abstract thought. Unfor-
tunately the literary and historical criticism of the New Testament is by no means
as far advanced as that of the Old Testament. It may not be long before a real
history of the movement of religious life and thought in the earlier period will
be possible. For such a history for the later period we shall have to wait longer, if
we may infer anything from the doubtless inevitable defects of the best existing
handbook of New Testament theology, that of the able veteran critic, H. J. Holtz-
mann. The editors of the present work are keenly interested in the subject at
xii PREFACE
present called ' Biblical Theology ' ; but, instead of attempting what is at present
impossible, they have thought it better to leave some deficiencies which future
editors will probably find it not difficult to supply. They cannot, however, con-
clude this section without a hearty attestation of the ever-increasing love for the
Scriptures which critical and historical study, when pursued in a sufficiently com-
prehensive sense, appears to them to produce. T h e minutest details of biblical
research assume a brightness not their own when viewed in the light of the great
truths in which the movement of biblical religion culminates. May the reader find
cause to agree with them ! This would certainly have been the prayerful aspira-
tion of the beloved and lamented scholar who originated this Encyclopadia.
To the contributors of signed articles, and to those who have revised and
brought up to date the articles of Prof. Robertson Smith, it may seem almost
superfluous to render thanks for the indispensable help they have so
Acknowledg-
ments. courteously and generously given. It constitutes a fresh bond
between scholars of different countries and several religious com-
munities which the' editors can never forget. But the special services of the
various members of the editorial staff require specific acknowledgment, which the
editors have much pleasure in making. Mr. H0pe.W. Hogg became a contributor
to the Em-yclopdia Biblica in 1894, and in 1895 became a regular member of the
editorial staff. To his zeal, energy, and scholarship the work has been greatly
indebted in every direction. I n particular, Mr. Hogg has had the entire responsi-
bility for the proofs as they passed in their various stages through the hands of the
printer, and it is he who has seen to the due carrying out of the arrangements-
many of them of his own devising- for saving space and facilitating reference
that have been specified in the subjoined ' Practical Hints to the Reader.' Mr.
Stanley A. Cook joined the staff in 1896, and not only has contributed various
signed articles, which to the editors appear to give promise of fine work in the
future, but also has had a large share in many of those that are of composite
authorship and unsigned. Finally, Mr. Maurice A. Canney joined the staff in
1898 ; he also has contributed signed articles, and has been eminently helpful in
every way, especially in the reading of the proofs. Further, the editors desire to
acknowledge their very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A.,
editor of the Concordance to the Septuagint, who placed his unrivalled experience
at their disposal by controlling all the proofs at a certain stage with special
reference to the LXX readings. H e also verified the biblical references.
T. K. C HEYNE.
J. SUTHERLAND BLACK.
20th S e j t e d w 1899.
 ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
NOTES
T h e following pages explain t h e abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see
above, p. xiv. 3 i. [a]) of the Encyclopcedia. T h e list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for t h e
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly
obvious. T h e bibliographical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome t o t h e student.
T h e Canonical a n d Apocryphal books of t h e Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev.,
Nu., D t . , Josh., Judg., Ruth, S ( a . ) , K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles.,
C(an)t., Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag.,
Zech., Mal. ; I Esd., 4 Esd. (i.e., 2 E s d . of E V ) , Tob., Judith, Wisd., Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of
Jeremy (i.e., Bar. ch. 6), S o n g of the Three Children (Dan. 323), Susanna, Bel a n d t h e Dragon,
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Macc. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Roin., Cor., Gal., E p h . , Phil., Col., Thess.,
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude, Rev. [or Apoc.].
An explanation of some of t h e symbols (A, M, B, etc.), now generally used to denote certain
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will b e found above, at p. xvi. I t may be added that
t h e bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached: thus
UTJC(z)=The OM Testainent i n the Jewish Church, 2nd edition (exceptions liP(Z),AUF(2) ; see
below). T h e unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes ; for those under the line see
below under DB, +, Jz, Pz.
W h e n a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
I t is suggested that this work be referred to as the Encyclopedia Biblica, and that the
name may be abbreviated t h u s : Ency. Bib. or E B i . I t will be observed that all t h e larger
articles can be referred t o by t h e numbered sections ($0); or any passage can readily be cited
by column and paragraph or line. T h e columns will be numbered continuously to the end
of the work.

Abulw. . . Abulwalid, the Jewish grammarian A T, A Tliche Das Alte Testament, Alttestanzent-
(b. circa 990)~author of Book of Ziche. Old Testament.
Roots, etc. A T Unters. AZttestumentliche Untersuchungen.
Acad. . . The Academy: A Week& Review
of Literature, Science, and Art. AV:. .
See Winckler.
Authorised Version.
London, ' 6 9 8
Ai?.
AHT. .. .. SeeAOF.
Ancient Hebrew Tradition. See
Hommel.
6.
BB.
. .
. .
ben, b'lze (son, sons, Hebrew).
Baer and Delitzsch's critical edition
of the Massoretic Text, Leipsic,
ALt[test]. Unt. . See Winckler. '69, and following years.
Amer. Joum. of American ]oumaZ of PhiLoZogy, Bab.. . Babylonian.
PhiZ. %of. Baed., or Baedeker, PaZestine (ed. Socin),
A[nzer.]J[ourn.] AnrericanjournaZ of Semitic Lan- Baed. Pal. (21, '94; (3), '98 (Benzinger) based
S[em.] Llang.1 guages andliteratures (continu- on 4th German ecl.
ing Hebraica ['84-'95]), '95 Baethg., or Baethgen, Beitrage zur semitischen
. .
Am. Tab. TheTell-el-Amarna Letters( =KBg) Baethg.Bei& KeZigions-geschichte,'88.
Ant. . . . Josephus, Antipuin'es. BAG . C. P. Tiele, BabyZonische-assyrische
A OF . . ALtorientaZische Forschungen. See Geschichte, pt. i., '86; pt. ii., '88.
.
Afocr. Anecd.
Winckler.
Apocryjha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd
Ba.NB. . Barth, Die fVonzinaZbi1dung in den
semitischen Sprachen, i., '89; ii.,
series, published under the '91; (2) '94.
general title ' Texts and Studies ' Baraitha . See LAW LITERATURE.
at the Cambridge University BDB Lex. [Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon]
Press. A Hebrew and EngZish Lexicon
Aq. . . . Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp. of the OZd Testament, based on
revolt against Hadrian), author the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F.
of a Greek translation of the Old Brown, with the co-operation of
Testament. See TEXT. S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs,
Ar. . . . Arabic. Oxford, '92, and following years.
Aram.
Arch. .
. . Aramaic. See ARAMAIC.
. ArchaoZogy or Archaologie. See
Be. . . E.Bertheau (1812-88). I n K G H ;
Richter zi. Ruth, '45 ; '83;
Benzinger, Nowack. Chronik, '54; @), 73; Esra,
. .
Ar. Des. Doughty, Arabia Deserta, '88. Nehemia u. Ester, '62; (z), by
Ar. Heid., or Reste arabischen Heidenturns. See Ryssel, '87.
Heid.
Arm. . .
Wellhausen.
Armenian.
Beitr. . BeitrZge, especially Baethgen (as
above).
Ass. . . Assyrian. Beitr. z. Ass. Beitrage ZUY AssyrioZogie u. scnzi-
Ass. HWB . Asyrisches HandvXirkrbuck. See tischen Sprachwissenschaf t ; ed.
Delitzsch. Fried. Delitzsch and Paul Haupt,
As. a. Eur. . W. M. Miiller, Asien u. Europa i., 'go; ii.,'g4; iii., '98; iv. 1,'99.
nach altagyf tischenDenkmiilern, Benz. HA. I. Benzinger, IIee6ruische Arch&
'93. dogie, '94.
xviii
 ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xix
Kb'n. .Konige in K H C , '99. Is. SBOT. Isaiah in SBOT [Eng.],
Bertholet, Stel- A. Bertholet, Die Jtellung der Is- ('97); CHeb.1, ('99).
Zung raeliten u. der f u d e n zu den Jeremiah, his Lzye and Times in Men of the
Fremden, '96. Bible ' ('88).
Bi. . . . Gustav Bicltell : Yew. Rel. Lzye Jewish Religious Lzye aJrter the
Grundriss der hebraischen fixile,. '98.
.
Grammatik, '69f:; ET,'77. CIG . . Corpus Inscripiionum G r m a r u m
Carmina BT metrice etc., '82. (ed. Dittenberger), ' 8 z f . See
Dichtungen der Hebraer, '82f: also Boeckh.
Kritische Bear6eitung der CIL . . Corpus Inscriptionurn Latinarum,
Prov., 'go. Berlin, '63,and following years,
Bibioth. Sac. , Bi6liotheca Sacra, '43f. 14vols., with supplements.
;p. . .' De BeZlo fudaico. See Josephus.
Schenltel, Bibel- Lexicon ; Real-
CIS . . Corpus Inscriptionunc Semitica-
rum, Paris, '81f. Pt. i., Phceni-
worterbuch zum Handgebrauch cian and Punic inscriptions; pt.
fur Geistliche u. Gemeinde- ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
glieder, j vols., '69-'75. S. Arabian inscriptions.
Boch. . S. Bochart (1599-1667): Class. Rev. . The Classical Review, '87f.
Geopaphia Sacra, 1646;
Hierozoicon, sive de Animali-
C1.-Gan. ,
Rec. .
. .
Clermont-Ganneau :
Recueil d'A~chdologie,'8jf.
bus Scripturre Sacra, 1663. co. . . . Cornill:
Boeckh . . Aug. Boeckh, Corpus Inscr. Grcec.,
4 VOlS., '28-'77.
Ezek. Das Buch des Propheten
Ezechiel, '86.
%OR . . Babylonian a n d OrientaZ Record, EinL . Einkitung in das AZte Testa-
ment, '91; @), '96.
Bottch. . .
'87.8
Friedrich BGttcher, AusfZhrZiches
Lehrbuch der hebraischen Spra-
Hist. Histmy of the People of LwaeZ
from the earZiestdimes, '98.
che. '66-'68. COT . . TheCunezyorm Inscriptions andthe
Bottg. Lex. . BGttger, Lexicon z. d. Schr@en des OZd Testament. See Schrader.
Fl. Josephus, '79. Crit. Mon. . A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism
BR
Bu.
.. . ...
Biblical Researches. See Robinson.
Karl Budde:
and the Verdict o f the Monu-
ments, '94.
- .
Urfesch. Die bibdische Urreschichte (Gen.
I-Iz~),'83. -
CY. Rev. . . Critical Review of TheoZogicaZ and
PhiZosophical Literature [ea.
RiSa.. Die Hiicher h'ichter und Samuel,
ihre QuelZen und ihr Aufbau,'go.
Salinond], '91f.
Sam.. Samuel in S B O T (Heb.), '94. D . . . Author of Deuteronomy; also used
Das Buch k i o b in HK, '96. Deuteronomistic passages.
Klugelieder and Hohelied in K H C , '98. Dz . . . Later Deuteronomistic editors. See
Buhl . . See PaZ. .
HISTORICAL LITERATURE.
Buxt. Syn.Jud. Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629), Dalm. Gram. Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-
Synrtgoga judaica, 1603,etc. paZastinischen Araniaisch, '94.
Buxt. Lex. . Johann Buxtorf, son (I 599-1644),
Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi-
Worte j e s u
Arum. Lex.
Die Worte J e w , i., '98.
Aranziiisch - Neuhebraisches
cum et Kabbinicum, 1639,folio. W+te&uh zu Targum,
Reprint with additions by B. TaZinzid, u n d Midrasch,
Fischer, a vols., '69 and '74. Teil i., '97.
Dav. . . A. B. Davidson :
c., cir. . , circa. job . Book o f j o b in Camb. Bible, '84.
CaZwer Bib.
Lex.
~. Calwer KircheZexikon, TheoZogi-
sches Handwb'rterbuch, ed. P.
Ezek. Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, '92.
c. Ap. . .
Zeller, '89-'93.
contra Apionem. See Josephus.
D%. . . W. Smith, A Dictionary of the
Bible, comprising its Antipities,
CH . . . Composition des Hexateuchs. See Biography, Geopaphy, a n d Nat-
Wellhausen. ural History, 3 vols., '63; D B P ) ,
ChaZd. Gen. . The ChaZdean Account of Genesis,
by George Smith. A new edi-
and ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
'93.
tion, thoroughly revised and cor- or, J. Hastings, A Dictionary of
rected by A. H. Sayce, '80. the Bibb, dealing with its Lan-
Che. . . T. K. Cheyne': guage, Literature, a n d Contents,
.
Proph. Is. The Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols. i n c h d i n s the BibZicaZ Theology,
('80-'81; revised, ( 5 ) , '89). vol. i., '98; vol. ii., '99.
Job and SOL Job andSoZomon, or The Wisdom or, F. Vigouroux, Dictioianaire de
of the OM Testament ('87). Za Bible, '95f
Ps. . . The Book of PsaZms, transl. de C. Orig. . Alph. de Candolle, Ovigine des
with comm. ('88); @), re- PZantes CuZtivdes, ' 8 2 ; (4), '96.
written (forthcoming). ET in the InternationaZ Scien-
. . The O r i s n and Religious Con-
.. ..
OPs. hpc Series.
tents of the PsaZter (Barnpton De Gent. De Gentibus. See Wellhausen.
Lectures, 'Sg), '91. Del. Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90),author
Aid . . Aids t o the Devout Study of of many commentaries on books
Criticism, '92. of the OT, etc.
Founders. Founders 04 OZd Testament or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre-
Criticism, 94. ceding. author of:
.
lntr. 1s. Introduction to the Book o f Par. . WTlag das Paradies? ('81).
Isaiah ('95). Heb. Lang. The Hebrew Language viewed
xx ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
in the &ht o f Assyrian Re- HE. Histwin Ecclesiastica.
search, '83. P[rap.]E fv.] Preparatio Evangeliclt.
Prol. Prolegomena eines neuen heby.- .
Chron. Chronicon.
aram. Wb'rterbuchszumA T, SV . . . English version (where authorised
'86. and revised agree).
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handw'zerb'rterbuck, . . Heinrich Ewald (1803-75) :
'96.
D H M Ep. Denk. D. H. Miiller, Epigraphische Denk-
5W.
Lehrb. . L e h & d z der hebraischen
Sprache, '44; (S), '70.
mazer aus Arabien, '89.
Die Propheten in ihren ursprungZichen Form.
Gesch. . Geschichte des Volkes (srael;
(3) i.-vii., '64-'68 ; E T (2) 5
Die Grundgesetze der ursemi- vols. (pre-Christian period),
tischen Poesie, 2 Bde., '96. '69-230.
Di. . . . Dillmann, August (1823-94), .
Dichter Die Dichter d',Alten Bunds
in KGH: Genesis, 3rd ed. of --,.f
,766 (3)
Knobel, '75; (4), '82 ; '92 (ET Proph. . Die Propheten, '40f;; '67 @),
by Stevenson, '97) ; Exodus und f ; : E T '76 f:
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel, Expos. . . Exposhy, 5th ier.: ' 9 5 8
'80; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, '97; Exp[os].T[imes] Exjository Times, '89-'90#.
Numb., Deut., Josh., 2nd ed. of
Knobel,'86;Isaiah, (51, 'go; (edd.
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Die-
f: and$: .
FFP . .. Fauna
following (verse, or verses, etc.).
and Flora of Palestine.
See Tristram.

Did. . . stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, '98).

Didad;. See APOCRYPHA, 31, I.
Field, Hex. . F. Field, Or2eenis Hexafllorum qua
supersuntiive Veterinz Interpre-
Dozy, Suppl. . Supple'ment nux Dictionnaires tunt Grecorum in totum Vetus
Arabes, '798. Testamentum Fragmenta ('75).
Dr. . . .
HT.
. Driver, S. R.:
A Treatise on the Use o f the
F[r.]HG . . Fragmenta Historicorurn Gram-
Y u m , ed. Muller, 5 vols., '41-'72.
- . I
Tenses in Hebrew, '74; (2)' F1. and Hanb. F. A. Fliicltiger and D. Hanbury,
'81 ; (3), '92. Pharm. Pharmacographia.
TBS . Notes on the Hebrew Text of
the Books of Samuel, '90.
Floigl, GA
,
. Floigl, Geschichte des seinitischen
Altertunis im Tabellen, '82.
Introd. . An Introduction t o the Litera- Founders . . Founders o f OM Testament Criti-
ture of the Old Testament, cism. See Cheyne.
Par. Ps. .
(I), '91; @), '97.
Parallel Psalter, '98.
Fr. . . . 0. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com-
mentaries on boolts of the Apo-
Deut. . Deuteronomy in -The Inter- crypha in KHG.
national Critical Commen- Frl. . . . Sigismund Frankel, Die aramai-
tary, '95. schen Rremdw'zerb'vter im Arabi-
Joel and Amos in the Cambridge Bible,'97. schen. '86.
Lev. SBOT SBOT (Eng.), Leviticus, as- Frankenb. . W. Franlienberg, Die Spriiche in
sisted by H. A. White, '98. KH. '08.
' Hebrew Authority' in AuthorityandArcheology,
Sacred and Profane, ed.
Frazer . . J. G. Frizer :
Totemism ('87).
David G. Hogarth, London, Golden Bough ('90); (2) in prep.
'99. Pausanias's Description of
Is.. . Isazah, His Lzye and Times,in Greec2 (translation a i d
' Men of the Bible,' (2), '93. notes, 6 vols., ,'y8).
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Crttzci Fund. . . J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
Sacri. scher u.jidischer Geschichte,'96.
Du. . . . Bernhard Duhm: @ . . . Greek Version, see above, p. xv.$,
.
Propk. Die Theologie der Propheten and TEXT A N D VERSIONS.
a h Grundlagefirdie innere GA . . . Geschichte d. Alterthums (see
En~icklungsgeschichteder Meyer, F!oigl).
. .
. .
israeZztischen Religion, '75. Gk'. Geschichte Apyptens (see Meyer).
Is.
. .
Ps.
Das Buch Jesaia in HK, '92.
Die Psalmen erklart, in KHC,
GBA . . Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assyriens
(see Wincltler, Hommel).
'99. GASm. . . George Adam Smith. See Smith.
E . . . Old Hebrew historical document. GAT . . Renss, Geschichte des Alten Testa-
. . .
.
Ez Later additions to E. See HIS- ments, '81 ; P),'90
TORICAL LITERATURE. Gei. Urschr. . A; Geiger, Urschrzft und Ueber-
EB(g) . . Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th ed., , setzungen der Bibel in ihrer Ab-
'75-'88. ' hangigkeit von der inneren Ent-
Ebers, Aeg. BM Georg Ebers ('37-'98), Aegypten u. wicklung des Judenthums, '57.
EinL . .
die Bucher Mose's, i., '68.
Einkitung (Introduction). See
Ges.
Thes.
. .. F. H. W. Gesenius (1786-1842):
Thesaurus Philolop'cus Criti-
Cornill, etc. cus Ling. Hebr. et Chald.
Eng. Hist. Rev. The English Historical Review, Veteris Testamenti,135-'42.
Ent[st]. . . '86f.
Die Entstehung des Judenthums.
Granzm. . Hebraische Gramnzatzk, '13 ;
(I), by E. Kautzsch, '96;
See Ed. Meyer. ET '08.
ET
Eth.
. . .
. .
English translatibn.
Ethiopic.
Lex. . . HebrBisches u. chalilaisches
Handwb'rterbuch, '12 ; (11)
Eus. . . Eusebius of Cesarea (2nd half of
3rd to 1st half of 4th cent. A.D.) :
(Muhlau u.Volck), '90; (B)
(Buhl, with Socin and Zim-
Onom. or O S Onomasticon; ' On the Names mern), '95 ; (la) (Buhl), '99.
of Places in Holy Scripture.' Ges.-Bu. . . Gesenius Buhl. See'above, Ges.
 ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xxi
Gesck. . . Geschichte (History). .
Holz. EinL H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den
GGA , . . Gdttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, Hexateuch ('93), Genesis in the
KNC ('98).
GGN . .
'24s
Gb'ttingische Gelehrte Nachrichten, Hommel .
AHT .. Fritz Hommel:
Die altisraeZitische Ueberliefer-
'45 8
GI . . ..
Gi[nsb]. .
Geschzcht. (srael's. See Winckler.
Ginsburg, Massoretico-critical Edi-
ung; ET, Ancient He6jew
Yradition, '97.
f i o n of the Hebrew Bibl'e, '94, In- GBA . Geschichte Babyloniens u. As-
troduction, '9 7. syriens, '85f.
GJV . . Geschichte des judischen Volkes. Hor. He&. .
Lightfoot, Nore Hebraice, 1684.
See Schurer. HP . . . . Holmes and Parsons, Yetus Testa-
Glaser . . Eduard Glaser : mentum Grecum cum variis

Gr.
Skizze
. . .
Skizze der Gesch. u. Geogr.
Arabiens, 'go.
K. Grimm (1807-91). Maccabees
HPN . . Zectioni6us, I 798-1 827.
G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew
Proper Names, '96.
Gra. . . .
('53) and Wisdom('60) in K G N .
Heinrich Gratz :
HPSm. . , Henry Preserved Smith.
Samuel in International Critical Coninzentary.
Gesch. Geschichte derJuden, i.-x., '74 HS . . . Die Heilige Schrzyt. See Kautzsch.
8 ; ET i.-v., 'g~-'gz. HWB . . Riehni's Handwijrier6uch des 6i62i-
Ps. . . Kritischer Commentar zu den schett Alterthunis, 2 vols., '84;
. .
Psalmen, '82J @), '93-'94. See also Delitzsch
Gr. Ven. Versio Veneta. See TEXT. (Friedr.).
GVI . . Gesch. des Volkes lsrael. See
IJG . . . Israeliz'ische u.judische Geschichte.
Ewald, Stade, etc.
See Wellhausen.
Intr[od]. . . Introduction.
H . . 'The Law of Holiness' (Lev. 17-
26).:. See LEVITICUS. Intr. Is. . . Introduction to Isaiah.
Cheyne.
See
HA or Hebr.
Arch.
Hebrazschc Archiiologie. See Ben-
zinger, Nowack. It. . . . Itala. See TEXT AND VERSIONS.
Hal. . Joseph HalCvy. The inscriptions
in Rapport sur une Mission Ar-
It. Anton. , Itineraium Antornini, Fortia d'Ur-
ban, '45.
chiohgipue dans le Yimen ('72) Old Hebrew historical document.
are cited : Hal. 535, etc.
Mil. . MiZanges d'Epigraphie et
d' Archiol'ogie Simitipues,'74.
J z -
/ [ o u ~ n .A
. * Later additions to J.
] [ m ] Journal o f the American Orientat
O[r.] qm.1 Socie&, '5 I f.
Hamburger Hamburger, KealencycZopudie f i r M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Tar-
Bi6el uvid Talmud, i. '70, (2) '92; Jastrow, Dzct.
[REI gumim, the Tal'mud Babli, etc.,
ii. '83, suppl. '86, 1913, '97.
Harper, ABL . R. F. Harper, Assyrzan andBa6y-
lonian Letters bel'onging to the
fiourn.] As. .
and Midrashinz, '86f.
Journal A s i a t i p e , '53 8.; 7th
ser.,'73; 8thser.,'83; 9thser.,'93.
K[!(uyunjik] collection of the
British Museum, '93f. jBL . . Journal' of BibZicaZ Literature and
HC. . . HamLCommentar zum Neuen
Exegesis, '90 f.; formerly ('82-
'88) calledJournal' o f the So&&
Testament, bearbeitet von H. J. of Biblical Lit. and Exeg,
Holtzmaun, R. A. Lipsius, P. W.
Schmiedel, H. v. Soden, '8g-'g1. JBW . . Jahrbucher der bibl. Wissenschap
Heb.
Hebraica
.
.
.. Hebrew.
Continued as AJSL (pn.). jDT . . ('49_'65).
Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie,
Heid. . . Reste arabischen Heidentums. See
J E . . .
'56-'78.
The ' Prophetical ' narrative of the
Wellhausen.
Herst. . . Kosters, Het HersteZ van Ism32 in
Jensen, Kosm. .
Hexateuch, composed of J and E.
P. Jensen, Die Kosmol'ogie der
het Perzische Z'ijdvak,'93; Germ. Babylonie?-, '90.
transl. Die WiederhersteZlung
Jer. . . Jerome, or Jeremiah.
.
Ist*aels, '95
Jon. . . Jonathan. See Targum.
Herzog, RE
Het Herstel .. See PRE.
See Herst. Jos. * . Flavius Josephus (b. 37 A.D.), Anti-
Hex. . Hexateuch (see Kuenen, Holzinger, puitates Judaice, De Bello
Judaico, Vita, contra Apionem

. ..
etc.).
Hexap. . See Field.
J[ourn.] PhiZ. . (ed. Niese, 3 vols., '87-'94).
Journal of Phil'ol'ogy, i. (Nos. I and
HG. Historical Geography of the Hob
2, '68), ii. (Nos. 3 and 4, '69), etc.
Hierob. . . Land. See Smith, G. A.
See Bochart. /PT . . fahrbucher furprotestantische i'%leo-
. . Zogie, '75-'92.
.. ..
Hilgf. A. Hilgenfeld, NT scholar (EinL,
etc.), and ed. since ' < 8 of 2 WT. Jewish Quarter4 Review,'%8-'%9f.
Hist. . . See Schiirer, Ewald, Kittel, etc. ;giS Journal o f Roval Asiatic Societv
(vols. 1-20, '34 8.;
_ I <

new ser.,
Hist. Proph. J. F. M'Curdy, Histmy, Prophecy,
Mon. vols. I-24,'65-'92; currentseries,
and the Monuments: i. To the
Downfall of Samaria ('94); ii.
To the Fall of Nineveh ('96). /SBL . . '938).
SeeJBL.
Hi[tz]. . . F. Hitzig (1807-75), inKGH: Pre-
diger ('47), Hohelied ('55), Die
Kd T . . Diement.
Keil'imchriftenu. d. Al'te Testa-
See Schrader.
kleinen Propheten ('38; (3)) '63),
Jeremias('41; (4),'66). AlsoDze
Kau. .
Gram.
.. E. Kautzsch:
Granimatik des Biblischen-
Psalmmen ('35-'36; @), '63-'65). Aramiiischen, '84.
n.. . . Handkommentar zum Alten Testa-
ment, ed. Nowack, '92 fi
HS . . Die heil'ige Schrzyt des Al'ten
Testaments, '94.
xxii ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS,AND.BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Apokr. . Diegraphen
Apokryphen u. Pseudepi-
des alten Testa-
Godsd. . De Godsdienst v a n Israel, '69-'70;
Eng. transl., 3 vols., !.73:'75.
ments, '98 f; De Profeten en der Profeetie onder Israel, '75;
KB. . Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek,
Sammlzcngvon ass. u.bab. Texten Ges. A6h. . m; '77.
Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur
in Umschrzyt u. Uebersetzung, 5 bibl. Wissenschaj, German
vols. ( I , 2, 3 a, 6,4, 5), '89-'96. by Budde, '94.
Edited by Schrader, in collabora-
tion with L. Abel, C. Bezold, L : . . de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris
Testantetiti Canonicorum, Pars
P. Jensen, F. E. Peiser, and Prior Grece, '83.
H. Winckler.
. .. Lag. . . Paul de Lagarde ('27-'g1) :
Ke. K. F. Keil (d. '88).
Hag. . Hagiogra$ha Chaldaice, '73.
Kenn. B. Kennicott (1718-83), Vetus
Testantentunt Hebraicum cum Syr. . . Libri Veteris Testamenti Apo-
cryphi Syl-iace, 6 I.
variis kctionibw, 2 vols., 1776-
.
Ges. A6h. GesamnzelteAbha ndlungen,'66.
KG . .
80.
Kirchengeschichte. Mitt. .. Mitteibnzen, i.-iv., '84-'89.
KGF .Keilinschrz3en u. Geschichtsforsch- Sym.
Prov. , . Symnzicta, ii., '80.
Proverbien, '63.
ung. See Schrader.
KGH .
h7urzgefasstes exegetisches Hand-
buch. See Di., Hitz., Knob., 01.
U6ers.
or BN
Uebersichl uber die inz Ara-
maischen, Arabischen, u n d
KGK .
Kurqefasster Konzmentar zu den Hebraischen ubliche Bildung
der Nomina, '89.
hezligen Schriften Alten u. Neuen
Testaments sowie zu den Apo- ' Beitr. . Beitrage z. baktrischen Lexiko-
gt-aphie, '68.
kryphen, ed. H. Strack and
0. ZOcltler, '87f. ProPh. . Prophetre Chaldaice,'72.
KHC .Kurzer Hand-commentar zum Sem.
Arm. St.. Semitica, '78J
Armenische Studien.
. . .
Alten Testament, ed. Marti, ' 9 7 8
Or. . . Orientalia, i., '79.
Ki.
Gesch.
Rudolf Kittel :
Geschichte der Hebriier, 2 vols., Lane . . E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English
Lexicon, '63 f.
'88, '92; Eng. transl., His-
tory of the Hebrews, '95- L [and] B . W. M. Thomson, The L a n d a n d
the Book, '59; new ed. '94.
Ch, SB 0 T
'96.
The Bookof Chronicles. Critical LBR . . Later Biblical Researches. See
Edition'of the Hebrew text, Robinson.
'95 (translated by Bacon). Levy, NE? WB 3. Levy, Neuhebriiisches u. chal-
Kim. . . R. David Isimhi, circa 1200 A . D .,
the famous Jewish scholar and Chala', Lex.
daisches Wb'rterbuch, '76-'89.
Chaldaisches Wb'rterbuchCber
die Targunzim, '67f.
lexicographer, by whose exegesis
the AV is mainly guided. Lehrgeb. . .. See KOnig.
Kinrs]. . . Kinship a n d Marriage in Ea+ Leps. Denkm. R. Lepsius, Denkniakr aus Aegyp-
ten u. Aethiopien, '49-'60.
Kl. Proph. . Arabia. See W. R. Smith.
Kleine Propheten (Minor Prophets). Lightf. . . John Lightfoot (1602-75), Hare
Hebraice (1684).
Klo[st]. . .
See Wellhausen, Nonack, etc.
Aug. Klostermann, Die Biicher
Samuelisundder Kb'nige ('87) in
Joseph E. Lightfoot ('28-'89);
\commentaries on Galatians
KGK. ((4), '74); Philippians ((31,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis '73) ; CoZosstans a n d Phile-
GVI. mon ('75).
zur h'estauration unter Esra
und Nehemia, '96. . .
Lips. I $ Lipsins, Die Apokry~%endposlel-
KnCob]. . . Aug. Knobel (1807-63) in K G H : geschichten U. Apostellegenden,
'83-'90.
Exodus undleviticus, (2) by Dill-
mann, '80; Der Prophcet Jesaia,
LOW . . . J. LGw, Aramiiische P3anzcnna-
men, '81.
KO. . . .
'43, (3), '61. See Dillmann.
F. E. KOnig, Historisch-Ir-/(ritisches Luc.
LXX or 6'
.. See L.
Septuagint. See above, p. xv f.,
Lehrgebaude der Hebraischen
Sprache, 3 vols., '81-'97. and TEXT AND VERSIONS.
KOh.
Kr. . .. .. Aug. Kohler.
Kre (lit. ' to be read '), a marginal
Maimonides . Moses Maimonides ( I 131-1204).
Exegete, author of Mishneh
reading which the Masoretes Torah, hKijrZ Nebijkhim, etc.
intended to,supplant that in the Mand. . . Mandaean. See ARAMAIC, J IO.
text (KPthib),; see below. Marq. Fund. . J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
Kt. . . . Ke'thib (lit. 'written '), a reading scher u.jiidischer Geschichte, '96.
in the MT; see above. Marti . . K. Marti:
Kue.
Ond
. . .
Abr. Kuenen (1828-91) :
Historisch-critisch Onder+ek
Gram. . Kurzgfasste Grammatik a',
biblisch-Aramiiischen
naar het ontstaan en ' d e Sprache, '96.
verzameling v a n de Boeken Geschichte der Israelztischen Rel@ion@), '97 (a
des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols., revision of A. Kayser, Die
'61-'65; (2), '85-'89; Germ. YZeol. des A T ) .
transl., Historisch-kritische
Binleitung in die Biicher Masp.
Jes. .. .. Das BuchJesaia, in K H C , '99.
G. Maspero:
des Alten Testaments, '87- D a w n o f Civilisation, Egypt
'92; vol. i., The Hexateuch, and Chaldea (@),'$2).
translated by Philip Wick- Les premiZres Melees des
steed, '86. PeupZes; ' ET by McClure.
 ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xxiii
The Struggle of the 1Vations about the end of the seventh
-Egypt,Syyia,and Assyria. century A.D. See TEXT.
Histoire Anczenne des Peuples
de I'Orient ('998.).
Murray . . A New English Dictionary on
Historical Principles, ed. J. A.
MBBA . . Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka- I€. Murray, '88 fi; also H.
denzie. Bradley, '97f.
MDPV . :Mittheilunpen u n d Akchrichten des
Deut'schen Palastina- Vereins,
Muss-Am. . W. Muss-Arnolt, A Concise Diction-
ary of the Assyrian Language,
Merx . . '95$
A. Merx, Archiv J wissenschaft- MVG
'94-'99
. :. 'Mittheilungen der Vorderasiaf-
(A-MAG) .
Ziche Erforschung a'. A T ('69). ischen Gesellschaft, '978.
MeyGA . -.
*
Ed. Meyer :
Geschichte des Alterthums ;
1.
Xab.
. . . note.
. . Nabatzan. See ARAMAIC, 5 4.
i., Gesch. d. Orients dis zur NB . . . Nontinalbildung, Barth; see Ba.
Be.@indungdes Perserreicks
('84) ; ii., Gesch. des Abend-
Nestle, Eig. . Dienachisraelitischen Eigennamen
ihrer reZ&ionsgeschicht-
Zandes his a u f die Per- lichen Bedeutung, '76.
Entstreh]. .
serkriege ('93).
Die Bnlstehung des juden-
Marg.
Neub. Giogr.
.. Marginalien u. Materialien, '93.
A Neubauer, Ghographie du Z b l -
thums, ?96. mud, '68.
Meyer . . H.' A. W. Meyer (1800-73),
founder of the series Kritisch-
NHB . . Natural History of the Bible. See
Tristram.
exegetischer Komntentar uder das
Neue TesLament.
NHWB . . Neu-hebr. u. chaldiEisches Wb'rter-
MGWJ . Monatsschyzyt f u r Gesch. u. Wiss.
des judenfhums, ' 5 I 8.
no. . .. .. b u d . See Levy.
number.
MH. . Mishnic Hebrew, the language of
the Mishna, Tosephta, Mid-
NO[ld].
Unters. . Th. Noldelce:
Untersuchungen z. Kritik a'.
Alteten Testaments, '69.
rashim, and considerable parts of Alttestamentliche Litteratur, '68.
MI. . . the Talmud.
Mesha Inscription, commonly
Now. . W. Nowaclc :
HCe6r.l Afrch.1 Lehrduch d. Hebriiischen
known as the 'Moabite Stone.' ArchZoZogie,' 94.
See MESHA. Kl. Proph. Die Kleinen Propheten (in
Midr, . . Midrash. See CHRONICLES, § 6 (2). HKC), '97:
Mish. . . Mishna, the standard collection NT . . . New Testament, Neues Testament.
(completed, according to tradi-
Ol[sb]. . . Justus Olshausen :
tion, byR. Judah the Holy, about
ZOO A.D.) of sixty-three treatises Ps. . .
Lehrd. ,
Die Psalmen, 3 3 .
Lehrduch der' hebr. Sfirache,
(representing the Jewish tradi-
tional or unwritten law as devel- '61 [incomplete].
oped by the second century OLZ (or Or. L Z ) Orienialistische Litteratur-Zei-
A.D.), arranged in six groups or tung, ed. Peiser, '98J
SEders thus : -i. Z2rd'%n ( I I Ond. . . Historisch-critisck Onderzoek. See
tractates), ii. M8'2d (12)' iii. Kuenen.
AEshfni (7), iv. N.X&n IO),^. Onk., Onq. . Onkelos, Onqelos. , See Targ.
KodZshrm ( I I), vi. TohiivJth ( I 2). Onom. . . See OS.
OPS. . . Orgin'of thc Psalter. See Cheyne.
p 6 d Z fLr?i, iv. 8
AhGth, IV.g
MikwZ'Gth, vi..?
Ma'Ed KLtLn, 11. 11 os.. . . Onomast'ica Sacra, containing the
'hikhin, v. 5 NZzir, iii. 4 ' name-lists ' of Eusebius and
BLhZ RathrZ, iv. 3 NBdZrim iii. 3 Jerome (Lagarde, (S), '87; the
Bib2 KammZ, iv. I NBgl'im' vi. 3 pagination of (I),printed on the
BHhZ ME@?, iv. z NiddL, 4.7 margin of (2) is followed).
BBkh6r6th, v. 4 OhZlGth, vi. z
BBSkhGth i. I OrlZ, i. IO OT . . . Old Testament.
BE 8, ii. 7 ',
Bikkfi~mi 11
PZrH, vi. 4
PG'Z, i. z
OTJC . . Old Testament in the jewish
ChagigZ k ' r z PEsZchim, ii. Church. See W. R. Smith.
Challl, i. g
. .. ...
R5sh I-la;sh)s?EmL, Priestly Writer. See HIST.LIT.
Chullin v. 3 ii. 8 P . .
DBmPi 'i 3 Sanhedrin,,jv. 4 Pz Secondary Priestly Writers.
'Ediiygth, iv. 7 ShabhZth, 11. I PaL F. Buhl, Geopaphie des aZten Pal-
'Eriibin ii z ShBba'Gth iv. 6 Zstina, '96. See also Baedeker
Gittin, ki.'6. ShBhCith f 5
Hariyath, iv. IO Shiikahm), i.4 and Reland.
G l i m VI. I S6cZ, iii. 5 Palm. . . Palmyrene. See ARAMAIC, 5 4.
KBritL5th v. 7
KBthiihGt6, iii. z
Sukkl, ii. 6
Ta'inith, ii. 9 Pal. Syr. . . Palestinian Syriae or Christian
Palestinian. See ARAMAIC, 4.
Kiddfishin, iii. 7
Kil'Pyim, i. 4
Kinnim v. 11
'
TZmid, v. 9.
TEhul Yam, vi. IO
TEmiirH, v. 6
PAOS . . Proceedings of American Oriental
Society, '51ff. (printed annually
Ma'Bs&ShEmi, i. 8 TErih6th i 6
Ma'Bser6th, i. 7 Ph6r6thT'vi.5 at end of Y A O S ) .
Makhshirin, vi. 8.
Makkath, iv. 5
Uksin, VI. 12
YZddyim vi. 11
Par. . . W o Zag das Paradies? See
Delitzsch.
M?SgillZ ii. IO
Mi'ilZ, d. 8
YiibLmath, iii. I
Pat. Pa2. . . Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, '95.
MEnHchGtb, V. z
Middoth, v. IO
Y6mZ ii. 5
ZLbid, vi. g
ZBbHchim, v. I
PE . . -
, Pr&aratio Evanaelica. See Euse-
bh.
MT. . . Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of
the O T substantially as it was in
.
P E E Q [ u . St.] Palestine Exploration
[founded '651 Quarter& Staie-
Fund
the early part of the second ~~zent, '69ff.
century A.D. (temp. Mishna). PEEMCem.] . Palestine Exploration Fund Me-
I t remained unvocalised until moirs, 3 vols., '81-'83.
xxiv ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Per.-Chip. , Perrot and Chipiez : toscher . . Ausfihrliches Lexikon d. Griech-
Histoire de PArt . d a m l'anti- ischen u. Rb'mischen Myhologie
quit;. &gypte - Assyrie -
Perse - Asie Mineuere - ?P . . . ('848:).
Records of the Pasf, being English
Gr& - &trurie - Rome: translations of the Ancient Monu-
'81.fi ments of Egypt and Western
ET : Ancient Egypt, '83; Asia, ed. S. Birch, vols. i.-xii.
Chaldea a n d Assvria. %A: ( ' 7 3 4 1 ) . New series [RP('4]ed.
Phwzicia and Cjprus, '8;; A. H. Sayce, vols. i.-vi., '88-'92.
Sardinia, Judea, etc., '90; See ASSYRIA, 8 35.
Primitive Greece' '94. PS or Rel. Sem. Religion of the Semites. See W.
Pers.
Pesh.
.. ..
Persian.
Peshitta, the Syriac Vulgate (2nd- IV . . .
R. Smith.
Revised Version (NT, '80; OT,
3rd cent.). Yetus lestamentum
Syriace, ed. S. Lee, '23, OT and
NT, '24.
PWB . . '84; Apocrypha; '95).
G.B. Winer(1789-1858),BibZisdes
Realwiirterbuch, '20; (a), 2 vols.,
W. E. Barnes, An Apparatus Cri- '47 f:
ticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta
Version, '97.
iys. . . Ryssel; cp. Dilimann, Bertheau.

Ph., Phcen.
..
Phcenician.
ReaLEncyklopopiidie f i r protestan-
;sad. . . R. Sa'adya (Szadya; Ar. Sa'id),
the tenth century Jewish gram-
PRE ,
tische 7heologie u. Kirche, ed. marian and lexicographer (b.
J. J. Herzog, 22 vols., '54-'68; 892) ; Explanationsof the hapax-
(2), ed. J. J. Herzog, G. L. legomena in the OT, etc.
Plitt, Alb. Hauck, 18 vols., '77- jab. . . Saboan, less fittingly called
'88: (3). ed. Alb. Hauck. vol. Himyaritic; the name given to
i.-k. [A-Haul, '96'99. ' a class of S. Arabian inscrip-
Preuss.Jahrbb. Preussische Jahrbucher, '728. tions.
Prim. Cult. . E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture,
'71; (9'91.
6 6 . Denkm. . Sabaische Denkmakr, edd. Muller
and Mordtmann.
Proph. Is. . The Proflhecies of Isaiah. See jam. . . Samaritan.
CheynL SBA W . . Sitzungsberichte der Berlinischen
ProL . . Prolegomena. See Wellhausen. Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Prot. KZ : , Protestantische Kirchenzeitunr fur SBE . . The Sacred Books of the East,
das Evangelische Ueutschland translated by vari6us scholars
(vo1s.i.-xliii,,' 54-'96); continued and edited by the Rt. Hon. F.
as Prot. Monatshefte ('978.). Max hliiller, 50 vols. 1 8 7 9 8
PSBA . . Proceedings of the Society of Bibli- SBOT(Eng.) [Otherwise known as the Po&-
chrome Bible] The Sacred Books
cal Archeology, '788.
PS Thes.
Pun. . ..
Payne Smith, 1Yzesaurus Syriacus.
Punic.
of the Old Testament, a new Eng.
transl., with Explanatory Notes
and Pictorial Illustrations ;pre-
R .
RJE .
.
..
.. Redactor(s)
Redactor or Editor. jaredby eminent biblical scholars
of Europe and of America, and
RD .
Rp . .
., Priestly of JE.
Deuteronomistic Editor(s).
Redactor(s).
edited, with the assistance of
Horace Howard Furness, by Paul
I-5R . . H. C. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Haup4 '97.8
lnscrifitions o f Western Asia. SBOT (Heb.1 . Hauot. The Sacred Booksofthe Old
i.-v. (;61-'84: iv. (2), '91). Tisiament ;a critical &ition of
Rab. . , Rabbinical. the Hebrew text, printed in
Rashi . . i.e. Rabbenu Shelomoh Yishalri
(1040-1 ' o s ) , the celebrated
colours, with notes, prepared by
eminentbiblicalscholarsofEurope
and America, under the editorial
Rec. Trav. . Jewish commentator.
Recueil de travaux relatifs 2 la
philol. et Ci I'Archiol. egypt. et sch?b'pf: .
direction of Paul Haupt, '938.
Gunkel, Schiipfung und Chaos in
assyr. '70 8. Urzeit u. Endzeit, '95.
RE' . . Revue des &tudesjuives, i., '80; ii. Schr. . E. Schrader; editor of KB
Rel. Pal. . . and iii., '81 ; and so on.
Reland, Palmtina ex Monumentis KGF
[q..] :
Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-
forschung, '78.
Rev.
Rev. Sim.
. .. veteribus illustrata, 2 vols., 1714.
Revue.
Revue simitique, '938.
KAT L D ' . Keilinschrzj5ten u. d. Alte
Testament, '72; @), '83.
Ri. Sa. . . Die Bucher Richter u. Samuel.
See Budde.
COT Eng. transl. of KAT(2) by
0. C. Whitehouse, The
Rob. . . Edward Robinson : Cuneiform Inscriptions and
BR . BibZical Researches in Pales- the Old Testament, 2 vols.,
'
tine. Mt. Sinai. and Arabia '85, '88 (the pagination of
P e t A a , ajournal oftravels the German is retained in
in the year 1838 (i.-iii., '41 the margin of the Eng. ed.).
= BH2),i.-ii., '56). Schiir. E. Schiirer :
LBR or BR iv. Later Biblical Researches in Pales- GJY' Geschichte des jun'ischen Volkes
or BR(2)iii. tine and the adjncent Regions, a i m Zeitalter Yesu Christi ;
jounzal of travels in the year i. Einleitnng u. Politische Ge-
1852 ('56). schichte, '90; ii. Die Inneren
Physacal Geography of the Ho& ZustLnde Palastinas u. des
Land, '65. Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter
 ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xxv
Jesu Christi, '86; new ed. vol.
ii. Die Inneren Zustande, '98,
SymCm] . . Symmachus, author of a Greek
version of the Old Testament
vol. iii. Das Judenthum in der (circa zoo A.D.). See TEXT.
Zerstreuung u. die jiidische Lite- Syr. . . . Syriac. See ARAMAIC, 0 I I f:
ratur, '98.
Hist. . ET of above ('go 8 ) . Vols. I f: Tad. Peat. . TabuZa Peutingeriana,Desjardins,
(i.e, Div. i. vols. I f:)= vol. I '68.
of German; vols. 3-5 ( i . e , , Div. Talm. Bab. Jer. Talmud, Babylonian or Jerusalem,
ii. vols. 1-3) = vol. z of German consisting of the text of the
[ = vols. ii., iii of (3)]. Mishna broken up into small
Selden . e J. Selden, de l u r e naturali et sections, each followed by the dis-
cursive comment called GCmLra.
gentiumjuxta disciplinam Ebre-
orum, 7 blts., 1665. See LAW LITERATURE.
de Diis Syris, 1617. T[ar]g. . . Targum. See T E X T .
Sem. .. .. Semitic. /er. . . The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru-
Sin. Sinaitic; see ARAMAIC, § 4. shalmi.
.
Smend, Listen Smend, Die Listen der Bucher
Essra u. Nehemiah, '81.
Jon. . Targum Jonathan, the name borne
by the Babylonian Targum to
Smith the Prophets.
GASm. . George Adam Smith : Onk.. . Targum Onltelos, the Babylonian
HG . The Historical Geopaphy of Targum to the Pentateuch
the Holy Land, especiazly in (towards end of second century
relatioiz to the History of A. D.) .
Israel and of l e Early $-/on. .
The Targ. to the Pentateuch,
known by the name of Jonathan.
Church, '94 (additions to (4),
'96). TBS . . Der Text der Bucher SamueZis:
see Wellhausen; or Notes o n the
WRS. William Robertson Smith ('46-'94 :
OTjC * The OZd Testament in the yewish Hehi-ew Text of the Books of
Samuel: see Driver.
Church,'81;(z),revisedandmuch
enlarged, '92; (Germ. transl. by temp.
T[extus] R[e-
. . tempore (in the time [ofl).
The 'received text' of the NT.
Rothstein, '94).
ProPh. .The Pmphets o f IsraeZ and their
Th[e].
ceptus]
. .
See TEXT.
Thenius, die Bucher Samuelis in
pZace in Histoiy, to the close o f
KGH! '42; (z), '64; (31, Lohr, '98.
the eighth century B.c., '82; (z),
with introduction and addi- Theod. . . Theodotiou (end of second cen-
tury), author of a Greek version
tional notes by T. K. Cheyne,
of the Old Testament (' rather a
Kin. . '95.
Kinship and Marriage in Early
A?*abia,'85.
revision of the LXX than a new
translation '). See TEXT.
R[el.]S[em.]Lectures on the ReZigion o f the TkeoL Studizn . StudiZn, published in connection
Semites: 1st ser., The Funda- with Th. T (see DEUTERONOMY,
mental Institutions, 0 332).
and revised edition (RS()9 94;
Germ. transl. by Stube, '99.
'% YV Thes. See Gesenius.
R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syria-
[The MS notes of the later Burnett cus, , 6 8 8
Lectures-on Priesthood, Divina- Tk.T . . Theolop'sch Tijdschrzyt, ' 6 7 8
tion and Prophecy, and Semitic Ti. or Tisch. . Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum
Polytheism and Cosmogony - Grcece, editio octava critica
remain unpublished, ,but are maior, '69-'72.
occasionally cited by the editors TLZ . . TheoZogische Literaturzeitung,
'76 8
in the Encyclopedia Bidlica as
' Burnett Lects. MS']. Toseohta .. ..
See L AW LITERATURE.
SP . . .A. P. Stanley, Sinai and PaZestine
in connection with their histovy,
Treg: S. P. Tregelles, The Greek New
Testament; editedj-om ancient
authorities, '5 7-'72.
Spencer . '56, last ed. '96. ~

. De Legibus Hebr~orumRituaZibus Tristram

RFP
... H. B. Tristram :
. The Fauna and FZwa of PaZestine,
(7. VOlS. 1727).
ss . . . Siegfried and Stade, Nebraisches
NHB
'89.
. The Natural History of the Bible,
Wirterbuch zum Alten Testa-
(81, '89.
St., Sta. . . B.
mente, '53.
Stade: TSBA . . Transactionsof Soc. Bib.Archeol.,
GYI. Gesch. a'. VoZkes IsraeZ, '81- vols. i.-ix., ' 7 2 8
'88.. T u b . Z. f: TkeoL Tubingen Zeitschrzyt f: Theologie,
Abh. . . Ausgmahlte Akadencische Re- '348

St. Kr. . .
den u. Abhandlungen, '99.
Studien und Kritiken, '7.88.
Untersuch. . Untersuchungen. See Noldeke,
Stad. m. m. . Stadiasmus magni maris (Mar- Urgesch. . .
Wincltler.
Die biblische UrgeAckichte. See
cianus) .
. Studia
Stud. Bibl. Biblica, Essays in BibZicaZ
Archeolofl and Criticism and v. . . .
Budde.
verse.

sw. . . . H.kindred suvects, 4 vols., '85-'91.

B. Swete, The Old Testament
in Greek acco~dingto the Septua-
Var. Apoc. , The Apocrypha ( A V ) edited with
various renderings, etc., by C. J.
Ball.
gint; '87-'94;
(11, '95-'99.
(21, Var. Bib. . The OZdandNew Testaments(AV)
s WA w . . Sitzungsberichte d. Wiener Aha- edited with various rendehngi,
demie d. Wissenschaj2en. etc., by T. K. Cheyne, S. R.
xxvi ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Driver (OT), and R. L. Clarke, Wi. Hugo Winckler :
A. Goodwin, W. Sanday (NT) Unters. . Untersuchungenz. AZtoriental-
[otherwise known as the Queen's ischen Gesrhichte, '89.
printers' BibZe]. AZt[test]. AZttestanientliche Untersuch-
Vet. Lat. . Versio Vetus Latina; the old-Latin Unt. ungen, '92.
version (made from the Greek); GBA . Gesrhichte BabyZoniens u. As-
later superseded by the Vulgate. syriens, '92.
See TEXT AND VERSIONS. AOF or AF AltorientaZische Forschunfen,
vg. * . Vulgate, Jerome's Latin Bible :
Or from Heb., N T a revision
1st ser. i.-vi., '93-'97; 2 n d
ser. ( A F @ ) i.,
) '98J
of Vet. Lat. (end of 4th and be-
ginning of 5th cent.). See TEXT.
Gl . . Geschichte Israeb zn einzel-
darsteZZungen, i. '95.
Sayg. . Die Keilschrifttexte Sargom,
We., Wellh
De Gent.
. Julius Wellhausen.
De Gentibuset FamiZiisJua'ais KB5. .
'84.
Die' Thontafiln von Tell-el-
qua in I Chr. 2 4 nume- Amarna (ET Metcalf).
TBS
rantur Dissertatio ('70).
Der TextderBucher Sanruelis
Willr. . . J. G. Willtinson, Manners and
Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
('71). '37-'4! ; (2) by Birch, 3 vols., '78.
Phar. u. Die Pharisaer u. d.SadducZer; Winer G. B. Winer:
Sadd eine Untersuchung zur in- RWB' Bibl. Realwzrterbuch ; see
neren jiidischen Geschicht R WB.
Gesch. . ('74).
GeschichteIsraeZs,vol. i. ('78).
Gram. . Grammatik des neutestament-
Zicken Sprachidioms(@,neu
ProL 2nd ed. of Gesch., entitled bearheitet von Paul Wilh.
PmZegomena zur Gesch. Is- Schmiedel, '94f; ET of
rads, '83; ET '85; 4th 6th ed., W. F. Moulton, '70.

IJG . . Germ. ed. '95.

lsmelitische u. Judische Ge-
WMM
Wr. .
.. .. See As. u. Eur.
W. Wright :
schichte, '94; (3), '97; an Comp. Lectures o n the Comparative
amplification of Adriss a'er Gram. Gramniar of the Semitic
Gesch. Israels u. Juda's in Languages, '90.
'Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten,' Ar. Gram. A Grammar o f the Arabic
'84. The Abriss was sub- Languace, translated f i o m
stantially a reproduction of the Germaiz of Casparz and
'Israel' in EB(9) ('81; re- editea', with numerous addi-
published in ET of F'rol. tions and corrections by W.
r85] and separately as Wright; 2 vols., '74-'75 ;
Sketch of Hist. of'Israe1 and ( 8 ) revised by W. Robertson
Judah, (3), '91). Smith and M. J. de Goeje,
[Ar.]Heia'. Reste Arabischen Heidentzims vol. i. '96, vol. ii. '98.
('in 'Skizzenu.Vorarbeiten') WRS . . William Robertson Smith. See
('87; (a), '97). Smith.
Kl. Proph. Die KZeinen Profiheten uber- WZKM . . Wiener Zeitschrift fiir d. Kunde
setzt, ?nit ~ o L n('92; (31, des Morgenlandes, 8 7 8
Yzikiit . . The well-known Arabian geo-
CH . . '98).
Die Composition des Hexa- '
teuchs und der historischen
graphical writer ( I 179-1229).
Kitab Moyam eZ-Bulddn edited
Bucher des Alten Testaments by F. Wiistenfeld (Jacut's Geo-
('85; Zweiter Druck, mit graphides WZrterbuch,'66-'70).
NachtrBgen, '89; originally
published in J D T 21 392 fl, 2 . . . Zeitschrift (Journal).
['76], 22 407 ['77], and in ZA . . . Zeitschrzyt fur Assyuiologie u. ver-
Weber . . Bleek, EinL (4),'78).
System der Altsynagogakn PaMsti-
nischen TheoZogie; or Die Lehren
2'4' . . .
wandte Gebie@,' 8 6 3 .
Zeitschrzj? fur Agyptische Sprache
u. AZterthunzskunde, '63f.
des Talinud, '80 (edited by Franz ZATW . . Zeitschrifl f u r die A1ttestamentZick.e
Delitzsch and Georg Schneder- Wissensrkaft, ' 8I f.
mann) ; Judische TheoZogie ZDMG . . Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-
a u f Grund des Talmud und Zzndischen GeseZZschaft, '46f.
vemandter Schriften, '97 (ed. ZDPV . . Zeitschrzyt des Deutschen PaZastina-
Wetstein . . Schnedermann).
J. J. Wetstein, Novunz Testamen-
tum Gracum. etc.. 2 vols. folio :
I ,
ZKF . .
vereins, '78f
Zeitschrij? fur Z(ei2schrijforschung
und verwandte Gebiete, '84 j,
1751-1752. continued as ZA.
Wetz. . Wetzstein, Ausgewahlte griechis&
und lateinische lnschriften, ge-
ZKM
ZKW
. .
. .
See W Z K M .
Zeitschrift fur KirchZiche Wisseiz-
sanimelt a u f Keisen in den schaft u. kirchliches Leben (ed.
T?*achonen una' u m das Hau- Luthardt), i.-ix., '80-'89f.
rdn&irge,'63 ; Reisebericht uber ZLT . . Zeitschriftf ~ ydiegesammte luther-
Haurdn und Trachonen, '60. ische TheoZogie und Kirche, '40-
WF. . . Wellhausen-Furness, The book of
PsaZms ('98) in SBOT (Eng.). ZTK . .
'78.
Zeitschrift fur Theologie und
W H [W & H] . Westcott and Hort, The Ivew Tes- Kirche, '9 I f.
tament in the Original Greek, ZWT . . Zeitschrift f u r wissenschaftziche
'81. TheoZogie (ed. Hilgenfeld), '58f.
 CONTRIBUTORS T O VOLUME I
Arranged according to the aphabetical order of the signatures appended to their articles.
Joint authorshz? is where possible irtdicated thus: A . B. $$ 1-5 ; c. D. $I 6-10.
A. A. B. BEVAN, ANTHONY ASHLEY, Lord K.M. MARTI, KARL, Professor of Old Testa-
Almoner’s Professor of Arabic, Cam- ment Exegesis and the Hebrew Lan-
bridge. guage, Berne.
A. E. S. SHIPLEY, A. E., M.A., F.Z.S., Fellow, Lu. G. GAUTIER, LUCIEN. Professor of Old
Tutor, and Lecturer at Christ’s College, Testament Exegesis and History,
Cambridge. Lausanne.
A. J. JULICHER, ADOLF, Professor of Church L.W.K. KING, LEONARD WILLIAM, M.A., F.S.A.,
History and New Testament Exegesis, Assistant to the Keeper of Egyptian
Marburg. and Assyrian Antiquities, British
A. K. KAMPHAUSEN, ADOLF, Professor of Old Museu m .
Testament Exegesis, Bonn. M.A. C. CANNEY, MAURICE A., M.A. (Oxon.),
A. R. S.K. KENNEDY, ARCHIBALD, R. S., M.A., St. Peter’s Rectory, SaEron Hill, Lon-
D.D., Professor of Hebrew and don, E.C.
Semitic Languages, Edinburgh. M*J. (JrJ JASTROW, Jun., MORRIS, Ph.D., Pro-
c. c. CREIGHTON, C., M.D., 34 Great Ormund fessor of Semitic Languages in the
Street, London. University of Pennsylvania.
C. F. B. BURNEY, Rev, C. F., M.A., Lecturer in M.R. J. JAMES, MONTAGUE RHODES, Litt.D., .
Hebrew, and Fellow of St. John’s Fellow and Dean of King’s College,
College, Oxford. Cambridge.
C. H. W.J. JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A., Queen’s N. M. M‘LEAN, N ORMAN, M.A., Lecturer in
College, Cambridge. Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ’s College,
C. J. B. BALL, Rev. C. J., M.A., Chaplain to Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Cams
the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s College, Cambridge.
Inn, London. N. S. SCHMIDT, NATHANAEL, Professor of
C. P.T. TIELE, C. P., Professor of Comparative Semitic Languages and Literatures,
History and Philosophy of Religion, Cornell University, Ithaca, New
Leyden. York.
E. M. MEYER,EDUARD, Professor of Ancient 0. c. w. WHITEHOUSE, Rev. OWEN C., M.A.,
History, Halle. Principal and Professor of Biblical
F.B. BROWN, Rev. FRANCIS, D.D., Daven- Exegesis and Theology in the Countess
port Professor of Hebrew and the of Huntingdon’s College, Cheshunt,
cognate Languages in the Union Herts.
Theological Seminary, New York. P.w.s. SCHMIEDEL, PAUL w., Professor of
G.A. S. SMITH, Rev. GEORGE ADAM, D.D., New Testament Exegesis, Zurich.
LL.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old R. H.C. CHARLES, Rev. R. H., M.A., D.D.,
Testament Exegesis, Free Church Professor of Biblical Greek in Trinity
College, Glasgow. College, Dublin ; 17 Bradmore Road,
G. A. Si. SIMCOX, G. A., M.A., Queen’s College, Oxford.
Oxford. R.W.R. ROGERS, Rev. ROBERT W., Ph.D.,
G.B. G. GRAY, G. BUCHANAN, M.A., Lecturer D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Drew
in Hebrew and Old Testament The- Theological Seminary, Madison, New
ology, Mansfield College, Oxford. Jersey.
G.F.M. MOORE, Rev. GEORGE F., D.D., Pro- S. A. C. COOK, STANLEY A., M.A. (Cantab.),
fessor of Hebrew in Andover Theo- Ferndale, Rathcoole Avenue, Hornsey,
logical Seminary, Andover, Mass. London, N.
H. G. GUTHE, HERMANN,a.0. Professor of S.R. I). DRIVER. Rev. SAMUEL ROUES, D.D.,
Old Testament Exegesis, Leipsic. Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon
H. v. S. SODEN, B ARON HERMANN VON, Profes- of Christ Church, Oxford.
sor of New Testament Exegesis, Berlin. T.G. P. PINCHES, THEOPHILUS G., M.R.A.S.,
H. W.H. HOGG, HOPE W., MA., 4 Winchester Egyptian and Assyrian Department,
Road, Oxford. British Museum.
H. 2. ZIMMERN, HEINRICH, a.0. Professor of T.K.C. CHEYNE, Rev. T. K., M.A., D.D., Oriel
Assyriology, Leipsic. Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
I. A. ABRAHAMS, ISRAEL, London, Editor of Scripture at Oxford, Canon of Ro-
the Jewish Qza?te?& Review. chester.
I. B. BENZINGER, Dr. IMMANUEL, Berlin, T.N. NOLDEKE,THEODOR, Professor of Se-
J. A. R. ROBINSON, Rev. J. ARMITAGE, D.D., mitic Languages, Strassburg.
Canon of Westminster. ‘ . W.D.
P DAVIES, T. W., Ph.D., Professor of Old
J. M. MASSIE, .JOHN,M.A., Yates Professor of Testament Literature, North Wales
New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield Baptist College, Bangor; Lecturer in
College, Oxford ; formerly scholar of Semitic Languages,
- - University College.
-
St. John’s College, Cambridge. Bangor.
I<. B. BUDDE, K ARL , Professor of Old Testa- W.B. BOUSSET,W.. a.0. Professor of New
ment Exegesis, Strassburg. Testament Exegesis, Gottingen.
xxvii
xxviii CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME I
W.E. A. ADDIS,Rev. W. E., M.A., Lecturer in W. M. M. MULLER, W. MAX, Professor of Old
Old Testament Criticism, Manchester Testament Literature, Reformed Epis-
College, Oxford. copal Church Seminary, Philadelphia.
W.E.B. BENNETT, Rev. W. H., M.A., Professor W. R. RIDGEWAY, WILLIAM, Professor of
of Biblical Languages and Literature, Archaeology, Cambridge.
Hackney College, London, and Pro- W. R. S. SMITH, The late W. ROBEILTSON, Pro-
fessor of Old Testament Exegesis, New fessor of Arabic, Cambridge.
College, London. w. s. SANDAY, Rev. WILLIAM, D.D., LL.D.,
W.H.K. KOSrERS, The late W. H., Professor of Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity,
Old Testament Exegesis, Leyden. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
W.J. W. WOODHOUSE, W. J., M.A., Lecturer in W.T. T.-D. THISELTON-DYER, Sir WILLIAM TUR-
Classical Philology, University College NER, C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., Director
of North Wales, Bangor. Royal Gardens, Kew.

MAPS I N VOLUME I
SYRIA, ASSYRIA, AND BABYLONIA . . between cob. 352 and 353
PLAN OF BABYLON . " 414 and417
DISTRICT OF DAMASCUS . 987f;
 PRACTICAL H I N T S T O T H E READER
Further Explanations.-The labour that has been bestowed on even minor matters in the
preparation of this Encyclo$rtdia has seemed to be warranted by the hope that it may be
found useful as a students’ handbook. Its value from this point of view will be facilitated by
attention to the following points :-
1. Classes of Articles, - Thefollowing notes will give a general idea of what the reader may
expect to find and where to look for it:-
i. Pro#er Names. -Every proper name in the Old and the New Testament canons and the
OT Apocrypha (Authorised Version or Revised Version, text or margin) is represented by an
article-heading in Clarendon type, the substantive article being usually given under the name as
found in the AV text. , Adoraim, on the same line as ADORA (col. 71), and AduZlamite, three
lines below ADULLAM (col. 73), are examples of space-saving contrivances.
ii. Books. - Every book in the O T and the N T canons and the OT Apocrypha is discussed
in a special article-eg. Acts, Chronicles, Deuteronomy. The ‘Song of Solomon’ is dealt with
under the title CANTICLFS,and the last book in the N T under APOCALYPSE.
iii. General Articles. - With the view, amongst other things, of securing the greatest pos-
sible brevity, many matters have been treated in general articles, the minor headings being dealt
with concisely with the help of cross-references. Such general articles are: ABI AND AHI,
names in AGRICULTURE, APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, APOCRYPHA, ARMY, BAKEMEATS, BREAD,
CANON, CATTLE,CHRONOLOGY, CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, COLOURS, CONDUITS, CUTTINGS OF THE
FLESH, DISPERSION, DIVINATION, DRESS.
iv. Otker S u ~ e c t s-
. The following are examples of important headings :- ADAM AND EVE,
ANGELS, ANTICHRIST, BLESSINGS AND CURSINGS, CHRISTIAN, NAME OF, CIRCUMCISION, COM-
MUNITY OF GOODS, COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, CREATION, DELUGE, DEMONS, DRAGON.
v. Things. - The Encyclo#adia Biblica is professedly a dictionaryzt Lhings, not words, and
a great effort has been made to adhere rigidly to this principle. Even wzre-at first sight it
seems to have been neglected, it will generally be found that this is not really the case. The
only way to tell the English reader what has to be told about (e.g.) CHAIN is to distinguish the
various things that are called, or should have been called, ‘chain’ in the English Version, and
refer him to the articles where they are dealt with.
vi. Mere Cross-references (see above, 1,i. ; and below, 2).
2. Nethod of Cross-References.- A very great deal of care has been bestowed on the
cross-references, because only by the& systematic use could the necessary matter be adequately
dealt with within the limits of one volume. They have made possible a conciseness that is not
attained at the expense of incompleteness, repetition of the same matter under different headings
being reduced to a minimum. For this reason the articles have been prepared, not in alphabetical
order, but simultaneously in all parts of the alphabet, and have been worked up together con-
stantly and kept up to date. The student may be assured, therefore, that the cross-references
have not been inserted at random; they have always been verified. If‘ any be found to be
unwarranted (no such is known), it must be because it has been found necessary, after the
reference was made, to remove something from the article referred to to another article. The
removed matter will no doubt be represented by a cross-reference (cp, e.g., >*
The method of reference employed is as follows:-
i. Idenlz&tion of Article. ( a ) Long Names. -To save space long headings have been
curtailed in citations -e.g., APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE is cited as APOCALYPTIC.
(6) Synonymous Articles.-Persons of the same name or places of the same name are
ranged as I , 2, 3, etc., under a common heading and cited accordingly. In other cases (and
even in the‘ former case when, as in ADNAH in col. 67, one English spelling represents different
xiv PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER
Hebrew spellings (the articles usually have separate headings, in which case they are cited as
.
I.,
.. ...
n., in., etc., although they are not so marked. Usually geographical articles precede bio-
graphical, and persons precede books. Thus SAMUEL i., z is the second person called Samuel;
SAMUEL ii. is the article SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. If a wrong number should be found the reason
is not that it was not verified, but that the article referred to is one of a very small number in
which the original order of the articles h a d -t o be changed and the cross-reference was not
detected. Thus in the article ALUSHthe reference to BEKED ii., I , ought to be to BEKEDi., I.
ii. Indication of PZace in Article Cited. - Articles of any length are divided iuto nulnbered
sections (90 I , 2, etc.) indicated by insets containing a descriptive word or phrase. As con-
venience of reference is the great aim, the descriptive phrases are limited to, at most, three or
four words, and the sections are numbered consecutively. 1.ogical subordination of sections,
therefore, cannot appear. Divisions larger than sections are sometimes indicated in the text hy
I., II., etc., and subdivisions of sections by letters and numbers ( a , b, c, a, p, 7,i., ii., iii.).
References like (BENJAMIN, 5 9, ii. p) are freely used. Most of the large articles have prefixed
to them a table of contents.
iii. X a n n e r of Citation. - Thecommonest method is (see DAVID, 5 I I , (c) ii:). ‘EZRA (q.v.,
ii. 5 9) means the article EZRA-NEIIEMIAH, BOOK OF, 0 9. Sometimes, however, the capitals or
the 4.v. may be dispensed with. CHAIN printed in small capitals in the middle of an article
would mean that there is an article on that term, but that it hardly merits 4.v. from the present
point of view. In articles (generally on RV names) that are mere cross-references q.v. is generally
omitted ; so, e g . , in ABADIAS in col. 3.
3. Typographical Devices. i. Size of Type. - ( a ) Letters -Two sizes of type are used,
and considerable care has been devoted to the distribution of the small-type passages. Usually
the general meaning of an article can be caught by reading simply the large-type parts. The
small-type passages generally contain such things as proofs of statements, objections, more techni-
cal details. In these passages, and in footnotes and parenthesis, abbreviations (see below, 8),
which are avoided as much’ as possible elsewhere, are purposely used. (b) Numbers. -Two
sizes of Arabic numerals are used. (Note that the smallest 6 and 8 are a different shape from
the next larger 6 and 8 ) . In giving references, when only the volume is given, it i/s usually
cited by a Roman number. Pages are cited by Arabic numbers except where (as is often the
case) pages of a preface are marked with Roman numbers. When numbers of two ranks are
required, two sizes of Arabic numbers (5 5) are used irrespectively of whether the reference be to
book and chapter, volume and page, or section and line. If three ranks are needed, Roman
numbers are prefixed (v. 5 5 ) .
ii. Italics. - Italic type is much used in citing foreign words. In geographical articles, as a
rule, the printing of a modern place-name in italics indicates that the writer of the article identifies
it with the place under discussion. For the significance of the different kinds of type in the map
of Assyria see the explanations at the foot of the map. On the two kinds of Greek type see
below, 4 ii. ( b ) .
iii. SmaZl Capitals. -Small Roman capitals are used in two ways : ( I ) in giving the equiva-
lent in RV for the name in AV, or vice versa, and ( 2 ) in giving a cross-reference (see above, 2 iii.).
On the use of small italic capitals see below, 4 ii. (6).
iv. Symbols. - ( a ) Index Fzgzwes. - In ‘almost always 6 clear,’ ‘6 ’ indicates footnote 6. In
Introd.(@,’‘(6)’ means sixth edition. In ‘ Dz’ ‘ 2 ’ means a later development of D (see below, ).
(6) Asterisk. - B* means the original scribe of codex B. *Canhomeans that the consonants
are known but the vowels are hypothetical. v. 5* means v. 5 (partly).
(c) Dagger.- A dagger t is used to indicate that all the passages where a word occurs are
cited. The context must decide whether the English word or the original is meant.
(d)Szgn of Equality. -‘AALAR, I Esd. 5 36 AV = Ezra 2 59 IMMER,i.,’ means that the two
verses quoted are recensions of the same original, and that what. is called Aalar in the one is
called Immer in the other, as will be explained in the first of the articles entitled I MMER .
( e ) Sign of ParaZleZisnz. - 11 is the adjective corresponding to the verb =. Thus ‘ Aalar of
I Esd. 5 36 AV appears as Immer in 11 Ezra 2 59.’
(f)Other devices. -’99 means 1899. I Ch. 6 81 [66] means that verse 81 in the English
version is the translation of that numbered 66 in Hebrew texts. /, is used to indicate the ‘root ’
of a word.
v. Punctuation. -No commas are used between citations, thus : 2 K. 6 ZI 25 Is. 21 7.
Commas are omitted and semicolons or colons inserted whe’never ambiguity seems thus to be
avoided-e.g., the father Achbor [ I ] is called ‘Father of Baal-hanan [ I ] king of Edom,’ and the
son Baal-hanan [ I ] is called ‘ben Achbor [ I ] ; one of the kings of Edom.’
4. Text-Critical Apparafus.-As all sound investigation must be based, not on the ancient
 PRACTICAL HINTS TO T B E READER xv
texts as they lie before the student, but on what he believes to be the nearest approach he can make
to their original reading, the soundness of every text is weighed, and if need be, discussed before
it is used in the Encyclo$edza Biblica.
i. Traditionad Orzginal Text.-In quoting the traditional Hebrew text the editions of Baer
and of Ginsburg have been relied on as a rule; similarly in the case of the New Testament, the
texts of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort (see below, ).
ii. Evideizce of Versions. - The Vulgate (ed. Heyse-Tischendorff) and the Peshitta (ed. Lee
and London Polyglott) and the minor Greek versions (Field, Hexa$Za : Hatch-Redpath, Con-
cordance) have been quoted quite freely ; the testimony of the Septuagint has been attended to on
every point.
‘
In exceptional cases Holmes and Parsons’ has been consulted ; ordinarily Swete’s manual
edition (including the variants) and Lagarde’s Pars Prior have been considered sufficient. In
general (for the main exception see next paragraph) only variations of some positive interest or im-
portance have been referred to. Almost invariably a quotation from the LXX is followed by sym-
bols indicating the documents cited (thus VLOL [BAL]). This does not necessarily imply that in
some other MS or MSS a different reading is found; it is simply a guarantee that Lagarde and
Swete’s digest of readings have both been consulted. The formula [BAL] standing alone means
that the editors found no variant in Lagarde or Swete to report. In the parts, therefore, where
Swete cites K or other MSS as well as BA, BAL includes them unless the context indicates other-
wise; BAL might even be used where €3 was lacking. When BAL stands alone the meaning is
everywhere the same ; it is a summary report of agreement in Lagarde and Swete.
Proper names have been felt to demand special treatment; the aim has been to give under
each name the readings of Lagarde and‘all the variants of BRA as cited in Swete. The com-
monest, or a common form for each witness is given at the head of the article, and this is followed
at once or in the course of the article by such variants as there are. Where all the passages con-
taining a given name are cited in the article, the apparatus of Greek readings (as in Swete and
Lagarde) may be considered absolutely complete. In other cases, completeness, though aimed at,
has not been found possible.
The distinction between declinable and indeclinable forms has generally been observed ; but
different cases of the same declinable form have not as a rule (never in the case of common nouns)
been taken note of. Where part of one name has been joined in the LXX to the preceding or suc-
ceeding name, the intruding letters have usually been given in square brackets, though in some very
obvious cases they may have been ignored.
When MSS differ only in some giving L and others EL that is indicated concisely thus : ‘apaa
[B], ap a [AL],’ becomes ‘ a p [ ~ ] t [BAL].’ a Similarly, -T., -77. becomes -[TIT.
A great deal of pains has been bestowed on the readings, and every effort has been made to
secure the highest attainable accuracy. In this connection the editors desire to acknowledge their
very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A., editor of the Conzordance to the
Septuagint, who has placed his unrivalled experience in this department at their disposal by con-
trolling the proofs from the beginning with special reference to the LXX readings. H e has also
verified the biblical references.
Unfortunately, misprints and other inaccuracies -inaccuracies sometimes appearing for the
first time after the last proof reading - cannot be avoided. Corrections of errors, however minute,
addressed to the publishers, will always be gratefully received.
Some typographical details require to be explained : -
(a) In giving proper names initial capitals, breathings, and accents are dispensed with ; they
were unknown in the oldest MSS (see Swete, I p. xiii 2 ) .
( b ) The Greek readings at the head of an article are given in uncials, and the Vulgate read-
ings in small italic capitals ; elsewhere ordinary type is used.
(c) The first Greek reading is given in full; all others are abbreviated as much as possible.
Letters suppressed at the beginning of a word are represented by a dash, letters at the end by a
period. In every case the abbreviated form is to be completed by reference to the Greek form
immediately preceding, whether that is given in full or not. Thus, e.g., ‘ apdaarrcip, p. . . . TT+,
-TTELV, pcXua.’l means ‘at!kXuawELp, peXuarrcp, peXuawav, /&Xuaww.’ That is to say, the
abbreviated form repeats a letter (or if necessary more) of the form preceding. Two exceptions
are sometimes made. The dash sometimes represents the whob of the preceding form-e.g., in
cases like apia, -s,- and one letter has sometimes been simply substituted for another : e.g., v for
p in ctp, -v. These exceptions can hardly lead to ambiguity.
(d) The following are the symbols most commonly quoted from Swete’s digest with their
meaning :-
1 This is a misprint in the art. ABEL-SHITTIM. 6 pehua.’ should be B~hua’, without the period.
xvi PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER
* = original scribe. D = testimony of the Grabe-Owen collation of D before
1 =his own corrections. D was partly destroyed (see Swete, I p. xxiv).
a, b, 0 = other correctors. Dsil = readings inferred from the collation (D)e silentio.
ab = first corrector confirmed by second. N0.a = a corrector of N belonging to the 7th cent. (Sw.,
a? b7 = a orb. z p. viii ; cp I , p. xxi).
a? b = b, perhaps also a. Bedit = e g . , on Sirach 461, p. 471.
*Wid) = prob. a. Nc.b. = see Sw., 2 p. viii.
avid = a, if it be a 6onafjde correction at all. l4c.c. = e.g., Sir. 1.07, p. 663,

( e ) The following are the MSS most commonly cited : -

8 Sinaiticus (see Swete, I p. xx). F Cod. Ambrosianus (Swete, I p. xxvi).
A Alexandrinus (Swete, p. xxii). 87 Cod. Chisianus (Swete, 3 xii).
‘BVaticanus (Swete, I p. xvii). Syr. Cod. Syro. Hexaplaris Ambrosianus (3 xiii).
C Cod. Ephrzemi (Swete, z p. xiii). V Cod. Venetus (= 23, Parsons ; Swete, 3 p. xiv).
D Cod. Cottonianus Geneseos (Swete, I p. xxiii). Q. Cod. Marchalianus (Swete, 3 p. vii).
E Cod. Bodleianus Geneseos (Swete, I p. xxvi). r Cod. rescriptus Cryptoferratensis (Swete, 3 p. ix$).

5. Proper Name Articles. - Proper name articles usually begin thus. The name is followed
by a parenthesis giving ( I ) the original; (2) where necessary, the number of the section in the
general article NAMES where the name in question is discussed or cited; (3) a note on the ety-
mology or meaning of the (personal) name with citation of, similar names ; (4) the readings of
the versions (see above, 4 ii.) .
6. Geographical Articles, - The interpretation of place-names is discussed in the article
NAMES. The maps that are issued with Part I. are the district of Damascus, the environs of
‘
Babylon, and Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia’ (be,tween cols. and ). The last-mentioned
is mainly designed to illustrate the non-Palestinian geography of the Old Testament. It is made
use of to show the position of places outside of Palestine mentioned in Part I. which happen to
fall within its bounds.
In all maps biblical names are assigned to sites only when the article discussing the question
regards the identification as extremely probable (the degree of probability must be learned from the
article).
The following geographical terms are used in the senses indicated : -
Der, deir, ‘ monastery.’ Khirbet-(W.),‘ruins of -.’
H a j ( j ) , ‘pilgrimage to Mecca.’ Nahr (N.),‘ river.’
$Wd (J.), ‘mountain.’ TeZZ,‘ mound’ (often containing ruins).
Kefr, .Kafr, ‘ village.‘ W Z d i (W.), ‘ valley,’ ‘ torrent-course.‘
Ziihin, ‘ caravanserai.’ WeZi, web, ‘ Mohammedan saint,‘ ‘ saint’s tomb.’
7. Transliteration, etc. - Whilst the EncycZo&zdia BibZica is meant for the student, other
readers have constantly been kept in view. Hence the frequent translation of Hebrew and other
words, and the transliteration of words in Semitic languages. I n certain cases transliteration also
saves space. No effort has been made at uniformity for its own sake. Intelligibility has been
thought sufficient. When pronunciation is indicated -e.g., BEhCm6th, LeviZthBn -what is meant
is that the resulting form is the nearest that we can come to the original as represented by the
traditional Hebrew, so long as we adhere to the English spelling.
I n the case of proper names that have become in some degree naturalised in an incorrect form,
that form has been preserved : e.g., Shalmaneser, Tiglath-pileser. Where there is an alternative,
naturally the closer to the original is selected : therefore Nebuchadrezzar (with r as in Ezek., etc.),
Nazirite. Where there is no naturalised form an exact transliteration of the original has been
given -e g . , Asur-rEs-isi -and the component parts of Assyrian names are thus separated by
hyphens, and begin with a capital when they are divine names.
I n the case of modern (Arabic) place-names the spelling of the author whose description has
been most used has generally been retained, except when it would have been misleading to the
student. The diacritical inarks have been checked or added after verification in some Arabic
source or list.
On the Assyrian alphabet see BABYLONIA, 4 6, and on the Egyptian, EGYPT, 0 12. One
point remains to be explained, after which it will suffice to set forth the schemes of transliteration
in tabular form. The Hebrew h (n) represents philologically the Arabic h and h, which are
absolutely distinct sounds. The Hebrew spoken language very likely marked the distinction.
As the written language, however, ignores it, n is always transliterated h. The Assyrian guttural
transliterated with an h, on the other hand, oftenest represents the) Arabic h, and is therefore
always transliterated h (in Mnss.-Am. Dict., x. for x),
never h. There is no h in transliterated
Assyrian; for the written language did not distinguish the Arabic h from the Arabic h ‘ g or’,
representing them all indifferently by ’, which accordingly does not, in transliterated Assyrian,
mean simply 8 but 8 or ; I or h or Y or g. Hence e g . , Nabii-nahid is simply one interpretation
 PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER xvii
of NabB-na'id. Egyptian, lastly, requires not only h, h, and h, like Arabic, but also a fourth
symbol h (see EGYPT, $ ).
TRANSLITERATION OF HEBREW (AND ARABIC) CONSONANTS

3 5 %
f k(s) i,
u r
s '
?
w
u"
, sh, H
& t h
& th (t) h
3 f
-
Extra Arabic Consonants : b,th, t ; &, dh, d ; &,d ; b,z.
VOWELS.
' long ' ' short ' very short mere glide
Heb. B G i G C aeiou . gZi,or&eo E o r ' or a

Ar. Ziii a (e) i (e) u (0)

Ar. diphthongs: ai, ay, ei, ey, E ; aw, au, G .

8. Abbreviations, Symbols, and Biographical Notes, -The following pages explain the
abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see above 3 i. ( a ) ) of the EncycZojedia.
The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and for the most part it takes no account of well-established
abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly obvious. The bibliographical notes will be not
unwelcome to the student.
The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Jos., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezr., Neh., Est., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles., C(an)t.,
Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag., Zech., Mal. ;
I Esd., 4 Esd. (Le. 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith, Wisd., Ecclus., Baruch, cap. 6 (i.e.. Epistle of
Jeremy), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 3 4 , Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses,
1-4Macc. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thes., Tim., Tit., Philem.,
Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3Jn., Jude, Apoc. [or Rev.]. An explanation of some of the symbols (A, X, B,
etc.), now generally used to denote certain Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found
above, at p. vx. It may be added that the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work
to which they are attached ; thus OTJC(2)= The Oh' Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition
(exceptions RP(2), A O R 2 ): see below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes ;
for those under the line see below under Dz, et:.
When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
It is suggested that the Eltcyclojedia Bi&licaitself be cited as E B i . It wilk be observed that
all the larger articles can be referred to by the numbered sections ; or any passage can readily be
cited by column and paragraph or line. . The columns will be numbered continuously to the end of
the work.
 ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
A
AALAR (ahhap [BI), I Esd. 536f A V = E z r a 2 5 ~ , that of Joshua. The ‘priestly’ writer mentions only
I MMER, i. ; cp also CHERUB,a. one blot in the character of Aaron : viz., that in some
way, which cannot be clearly ascertained in the present
AARON (IlGK, $ 7; seealsobelow, $4, end; state of the text, he rebelled against Yahwk in the wilder-
[BAL], ap. [A] ; A A R O N ). In the post-exilic parts of the ness of Zin, when told to ‘ speak to the rock ’ and bring
O T (including Ezra, iYeh., Ch., and for our present pur- forth water (Nu. 2012). In penalty he dies, outside
pose some of the Psalms) Aaron is the ancestor of all Canaan, at Mount Hor, on the borders of Edom
lawful priests,l and himself the first and typical high- (v. 223).
This view is founded upon the priestly As we ascend to the exilic and pre-exilic literature,
1. In p. document
priest. in the Hexateuch, according to Aaron is still a prominent figure ; but he is no longer
which Aaron, the elder brother of Moses, took a promi- 2. In earlier either the high-priest or the ancestor of
nent part, as Moses’ prophet or interpreter, in the negotia- writers. all legitimate priests. Ezekiel traces the
tions with Pharaoh, and was ultimately, together with his origin of the priests at Jerusalem no farther
sons, consecrated by Moses to the priesthood. The rank back than to ZADOK (4.v. I , 3), in Solomon’s time.
and influence which are assigned to him are manifestly Dt. 1 0 6 (which mentions Aaron’s death, not at Hor but
not equal to those of Moses, who stood to Pharaoh( at Moserah, and the fact that Eleazar succeeded him in
as a god (Ex. 7 I). He does, indeed, perform miracles the priesthood) is generally and rightly regaxded as a n
before Pharaoh-he ’ changes his rod into a serpent interpolation. In Mic. 6 4 (time of Manasseh?) Aaron is
which swallows up the rods, similarly transformed, of mentioned between Moses and Miriam as instrumental
the Egyptian sorcerers; and with the same rod he in the redemption of Israel. In the Elo-
changes the waters of Egypt into blood, and brings the 3. In E, histic document of the Hexateuch (E) he
plagues of frogs and lice-but the order to execute the is mentioned as the brother of Miriam the prophetess
marvel is in each case communicated to him through (Ex. 1520 ; for other references to him see Ex. 1712
Moses (Ex. 7f:). It is Moses, not Aaron, who disables 241g1or4, Nu. 1 2 1 ) ; but it is Joshua, not Aaron, who
the sorcerers by boils (Ex. 9 8 J ) , and causes the final is the minister of Moses in sacred things, and keeps
destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea (141918). guard over the tent of meeting (Ex. 3 3 1 r ) , and ‘young
Through his consecration by Moses, Aaron became men of the children of Israel’ offer sacrifice, while the
‘the priest ’ (so usually) or, as he is elsewhere called, solemn act of sprinkling the blood of the covenant
‘ the anointed priest ’ (Lev. 4 3 516 6 15) or ‘ the high- is reserved for Moses (Ex. 2456). Aaron, however,
priest’ (Lev. 2110 Nu. 352528). His sons, representing seems to have counted in the mind of E as the
the common priests, act under him (Nu. 34). As high- ancestor of the priests at ’ the hill of Phinehas ’ (Josh.
priest he has splendid vestments, different from those of 2433) and perhaps of those at Bethel. At all events,
his sons (Ex. 2 8 ) ; he alone is anointed (Ex. 297)’; he the author of a section added in a later edition of E
alone, once a year, ‘can enter the holy of holies (Lev. 16). speaks of Aaron as yielding to the people while Moses
He is the great representative of the tribe of Levi ; and is absent on Mount Horeb, and taking the lead in the
his rod, unlike the rods taken to represent the other tribes, worship of Yahwe under the form of a golden calf. The
buds miraculously, and is laid up for ever by the ark narrator, influenced by prophetic teaching, really means
(Nu. 176J [ z I ~ ] ) . Within this tribe, however, it is only to attack the worship carried on at the great sanctuary
the direct descendants of Aaron who may approach the of Bethel, and looks back to the destruction of Samaria
altar, so that Korah the Levite, when he claims the by the Assyrians in 721 as Yahwk’s ‘ visitation ’ of the
power of the priesthood, is consumed by fire from idolatrous worship maintained in N. Israel (Ex. 32 ; see
Yahwe (Nu. 1 6 3 5 ) . Aaron occasionally receives the especially z. 34).
law directly from Yahwe (Nu. 18). Even his civil It is extremely probable that Aaron’s name was absent
authority is great, for he, with Moses, numbers the altogether from the earliest document of the Hexateuch
people (Nu. 1 3 IT), and it is against him as well as against ( J ) in its original form. In it Aaron I
Moses that the rebellion of the Israelites is directed 4‘ In J’ appears only to disappear. For example,
(E X . 1 6 2 Nu. 1 4 2 5 2 6 163). This authority would have according to our present text, Pharaoh sends for Mose’s
been greater but for the exceptional position of Moses, and Aaron that they may entreat Yahwe to remove
for in the priestly portions of Joshua the name of the plague of frogs ; but in the course of the narrative
Eleazar (4.v. I ), the next high-priest, is placed before Aaron is ignored, and the plague is withdrawn simply at
1 In I Ch. 12 27 if M T is correct, Aaron (AV AARONITES) ‘the word of Moses’ (Ex. 88- 15 n [4-11 a]). Apparently,
is almost a colleche term for priests said by the Chronicler therefore, the name of Aaron has been introduced here
to have joined David a t Hebron. In 2717t RV rightly reads and there into J by the editor who united it to E (cp
‘ Aaron.’ E XODUS, $ 3 n. ). If that is so we may perhaps agree
2 On passages in P which seem to conflict with this, see the
circumspect and conclusive note of Di. on Lev. S 12. with Oort that the legend of Aaron belonged originally
1 I 2
 AARONITES ABARIM
to the 'house of Joseph,' which regarded Aaron as zaeohea P H I , zHBaeaea [Al), a,, chamberlain of
the ancestor of the priests of Bethel, and that single Ahasuerus (Est. 1r o t ) . See ESTHER, 11. 5 3.
members of this clan succeeded, in spite of Ezekiel, in
obtaining recognition as priests at Jerusalem. So,
ABANA, RV Abanah (nTqi;, z K. 5121. Ict.,
doubtfully, Stade ( G V Z i. 583), who points out that no fi:nK [ICr.]; ABAN& [BLI, apB. [ ( p superscr.) Bb7J
strict proof of this hypothesis can be offered. ANAB. [Ba7"g.], N&~B.[A]; -1; A B A N A ) , one of the
As to the derivation of ' Aaron,' Redslob's,ingenious
conjecture that it is but a more flowing pronunciation
' rivers '(nhx) of Damascus. The name, which occurs
of hi 'ärön, ' the ark,' is worth considering only if we nowhere else, should probably be read A MANA (AV mg.)
can regard Aaron as the mythical ancestor of the priests or AMANAH (RV mg. ; see further A MANA , 2 ) ; in this
of Jerusalem (6722 hä 'ärÖn=Ond Aharön). So Land, form, as meaning ' constant,' it would be equally suitable
De Gids, Nov. 1871, p. 271. to a river and to a mountain, though it was first of all
See P RIESTS; and cp, besides the works of We., St., and given to the mountain range of Antilibrrnus, from which,
Ki., Oort's essay ' D a Aaronieden' in ThT xviii. 289-335 ['8q]. near Zebedäni, the Nahr Baradä (' the cold ') descends to
W. E. A. refresh with its sparkling waters the city and the gardens
AARONITES, RV ' [the house of] Aaron ' (fl& ; of Damascus.l The romantically situated 'Ai7~Fijeh
(TT-Y~)a , little to the S. of SSk Wädy Baradä (the
TO &&PUN [BI, T W N a. CAI, TUN Y I U N A. [ L i ;
,cia{? ah>;r*t; D E STZRPE A A R O N ) , I Ch. 1227. ancient Abila), appears from its name to have been
regarded as the chief source of the Baradä. It is not,
See A ARON , note I. certainly, the most distant one ; but it does, at any rate,
ABACUC (asacuc),4Esd. 140f. See H ABAKKUK . 'supply that stream with twice as much water as it
contains before it is thus augmented ' (Baed. Pal: 336).
ABADDON (fi"?K, but in Prov. 27 20 Kr. \Ti!, by Close to it are the remains of a small temple, which
contraction or misreading, though the full form is'also was presumably dedicated to the river-god. The clear
cited by Gi., for Kt. 3 X I K ; 2 anwh[€]lA [BRA], waters of the Nahr Baradä have a charm which is
but Job3112 T T W T W N TUN M ~ P U N [BRA], ... wanting to the Jordan through the greater part of its
AEPWN [Kc."] ; Rev. 9 11, A B ~ A A u N [RA, etc.]. course. This explains Naaman's question in z K. 5 12,
A B A ~ A . [B etc.1, ABBAAA. [some curss.1 etc.; j J t 3 ? ; as far as the Amana is concerned. It is the fate of the
PERDZTIO, but Rev. 911 ABADDON), RV Job 266,. Prov. Baradä to disappear in the swamps called the Meadow
1511 2720; RV mg. Job282231rz, Ps. 8811[I.], else- Lakes, about 18 m. to the E. of Damascus, on the verge
where EV D ESTRUCTION ; in Rev. 911 Abaddon is of the desert. See P HARPAR . T. K. C.
stated to be the Hebrew equivalent of A P O L L Y ~(anoh-
AYWN [KAI). Etymoiogicallyitmeans '(placeof) destruc-
N ABARIM, THE (n'l~~T; ~ B a p e [BAL],
i~ -IN
[BL], and phrases with d p u v [BAL], see below ; Jos.
tion.' We find it parallel to Sheol in Job 266 28 22 ; Prov. a ~ a p s i c ) literally
, ' Those-on - the-other - side ' -i.e . ,
15 II 2720 (see readings above). In these cases RV makes of the Jordan-is employed by the latest documents of
it a proper name, either Abaddon or Destruction, as the Pentateuch (P and R) in the phrase, Mt. or Mts.
being parallel to the proper names Sheol or Death. of the Abarim, to describe the edge of the great
In Ps. 88 T I [E] ' Destruction ' is parallel to ' the grave ' ; Moabite plateau overlooking the Jordan valley, of which
in Job3112 the same term (in RV) is equivalent to Mt. NEBOwas the most prominent headland :-Nii.2712
' utter ruin. ' Thus Abaddon occurs only in the Wisdom- 70 O p o ~70 ;v r+ Ir6pau [RA], r. & ..
. w. [roü lop8&vov]
Literature. There is nothing in the usage to indicate Dt. 3249 (P [KI) r. 0. r. aßapsiu [BLI, ...
SL)L [Al,
this Mt. of the A b a r h , Mt. Nebo' ; Nu. 3347 f: (PCR] in
that in O T it denotes any place or state different
from Sheol ( q . ~ . )though
, by its obvious etymology it Israel's itinerary hetween the Moab plateau and the plains of
Shittim), ' Mts. of the Abarim' (ri Op? aßapeip, i>p&~wv a.
emphasises the darker aspects of the state after death. [BAL]). In Nu.3344 we find Ije-ha-abarim (AV
An almost identical word (125)is used in Esth. 95 IJE-ARARIM), 'heaps of the Abarim' (to distinguish it
(constr. I!?? ; 8 6) for ' destruction ' in its ordinary sense from the Ijim of Judah, Josh. 1529 ; see I IM , I ), on the
as a common noun. In later Hebrew p i x is used extreme SE. of Moab. Since the employment of the
for 'perdition' and 'hell' (Jastrow, Did. s.v.), and name thus confined to Moab occurs only in late docu-
is explained in Targ. on Job266 as ~ 1 1 2 n q~, house ments, it is probably due to the fact that at the time
of perdition-i.e., hell. The Syriac equivalent word these were written the Jews were settled only over
(LJ L?')has the meaning ' destruction,' and is used to against Moab. Josephus, too, uses the word in the
translate ' K . same limited application (Ant.iv. 848, Q T ~ r$ 6 p a TW
Aßupec), and Eusebius (0S(2)2164,'Aßapdp) so quotes
Rev. 9 11mentions a king or angel of the abyss, whose it as employed in his own day. But there are traces
name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon in the OT of that wider application to the whole trans-
('A~oXXdov,Destroyer), the -on being supposed to be a Jordanic range which the very general meaning of
personal ending in Hebrew, as it is in Greek. This is, Abarim justifies us in supposing to have been its original
of course, poetic personification (cp Rev. 6 8 20 14). and application. In Jer.2220 (RV), Abarim (AV 'the
may be paralleled in the O T (Job 28 22 ; cp Ps. 49 14 passages ' ; e B A N Q , dividing the word in two, ~b d p u v
[rj]), and in Rabbinical writers (Schöttgen, Hora HeOr.
~ $ 9Buhdoqr) is ranged wkh Lebanon and Bashan-
Apoc. ix. I I , and PRE (3) s.v . ). The identification with that is to say, is probably used as covering both Gilead
the ASMODEUSof the Book of Tobit is a'mistake.
and Moab;-and in the corrupt text of Ez. 3911,
Apollyon has become familiar to the world at large
the valley of the passengers,' as AV 'gives it (siniilarly
through the PiZg7+2's Progress, but Abaddon may be
RV), most probably should rather be ' a valley of [Mt.]
s d d not to exist outside of the Apocalypse. w. H . B.
Abarim ' (DYI~ for n ~ $ y; so Hi., Co., Siegfr., Bu.).
If so, .that extends the name to Bashan. Thus the
plural noun Abarim would denote the E. range in its
ABAGTHA (KQ;>t';, etymology doubtful, but see entire extent-being, in fact, practically equivalent to
B IGVAI , BAGOAS ; according to Marq. [Fzlnd. 711 the the preposition i>y (originally a singular noun from the
corresponding Gr. is A B A T A ~ [BKA],
~ which [reading 1 Rev. William Wright, formerly of Damascus, states that
upa{ara] he regards as presupposing K I i I i K , cp 'the river whose water is most prized is called the Abanias, .
BISTHA; the fifth name in the ;ist as it stands IS doubtless the Abana'(Leisu7-e Houv, 1874, p. 284 ; so Expositoy,
Oct. 1896 p. 204). Is the name due to a confusion with Nahr
1 Kö. Heb. .Tpnz&e, ii. 479 y, gives parallel contractions ; cp Bzniäs (cLrtainly not the ancient Amana)? No Abanias is men-
BDB. tioned in Porter's Five Years in Damascus or in Burton and
2 On the several forms see Ba. N B $ 194 n. 2, 5 224 b. Drake's Unexplored Syria.
3 4
 ABBA ABEL-BETH-MAACHAH
same root). There is no instance of the name earlier place. H e had forty sons and thirty grandsons, ‘ that
than Jeremiah. ’Targ. Nu. 27 12 Dt. 3249 gives ~ i rode
i ~ on three-score and ten ass colts ’ - i . e . , was head, of
‘Nlqll. a large and wealthy family (cp Judg. 5 I O ), Judg. 12 ~ 3 1 5 f
As seen from W. Palestine this range forms a con- (haßöwp [AL], ZI. 15 -w [A]) ; on Ew.’s conjecture that
tinuous mountain-wall, at a pretty constant level, which his name should be restored in I S. 1211, see BEDAN,I.
is broken only by the valley-mouths of the Yarmük, 2. b. Shashak, a Benjamite (I Ch. 8 2 3 t aßaSwv [BI).
3. b. Jeiel the father of Gibeon; 1Ch.830 (aßahwv [BI)=
Zerkä or Jabbok, and Arnon. Across the gulf of the I Ch. Y 36 (uaßaöwv [BI, uaß6wv [Al).
Jordan valley it rises with great impressiveness, and 4. b. Micah, a courtier of King Josiah ( z Ch. 34 20, aßSoSop
constitutes the eastern horizon (cp Stanley, S P ; [BI), elsewhere called ACHBOR (p.~.2). 5. See BEDAN,2.
GASm, H G 53, 519,548). The hardly varying edge
masks a considerable difference of level behind. On ABEDNEGO (U! W J or RtjJ Til, 5 8 6 ; a
the whole the level is maintained from the foot of corruption of 1 D ‘f3y, ’ ‘ servant ’ of Nebo,’ which
Hermon to the S. end of the Dead Sea at a height of from Dccurs in an Assyrio-Aramaic inscription, COT2 126 ;
2000 to 3000 feet above the ocean. The basis through- a B A s N A r w [BA 871 ; ; ABDENAGO), the
out is limestone. N. of the Yarmük this is deeply court name given to Azariah [IO], the friend of Daniel
covered by volcanic deposits, and there are extinct craters (Dan. 17, etc.). On name see also NERGAL.
NE. of the Lake of Galilee. Between the Yarmiik
and the Wädy Hesbän, at the N. end of the Dead Sea, ABEL (32?, $
.. 6 ; aBeA [ADL]; AEEL), Gen.4~
run transverse ridges, cut by deep‘wädies, and well
wooded as far S. as the Zerkä. S. of Wädy Hesbän
eAbel.There are three phases in Jewish beliefs respecting
The second and the third may be mentioned first.
rolls the breezy treeless plateau of Moab, indented in The catastrophe of the Exile shifted the mental horizon,
its western edge by short wädies rising quickly to the and made a right view of the story of Abel impossible.
plateau level, with the headlands that are more properly Abel was therefore at first (as it would seem from P)
the Mts. of Abärim between them ; and cut right through neglected. Afterwards, however, he was restored to
to the desert by the great trenches of the wädies, Zerkä, more than his old position by devout though uncritical
M ä h , and Möjlb or Arnon. For details see AsriDoTH- students of Scripture, who saw in him the type of the
P ISGAH , BAMOTII-BAAL, BETH-PEOR, MOAB, NEBO, highest saintliness, that sealed by a martyr’s death (cp
PISGAH, ZOPHIM, etc., with authorities quoted there. Kohler, 3QR Y. 413 rg3]). The same view appears in
On Nu. 3347 see W ANDERINGS , $ 11. G. A. S. partsoftheNT(Mt. 2335=Lk. 1151; Heb. 1 1 4 ; 1224;
ABBA ( ~ B B A[Ti. WH], i.e. K?K, Ab, ‘father,’ in I John 3r2). God bore witness, we are told (Heb. 114),
that Abel was righteous-i.e., a possessor of true faith,
the ‘emphatic state’), an Aram. title of God used by -and it was by faith that Abel offered ahelova (Cobet
Jesus and his contemporaries, and retained by Greek- conjectures $ölova) Buoiav. Hence Magee assumes that
speaking Christian Jews. See Mk. 1436 Rom. 815 Gal. Abel had received a revelation of the Atonement (Atone-
46f ; where in each case 6 TUT?^^ is subjoined. ment and Sacr@ce, i. 50-53). The original narrator (J),
ABDA (KT;1y, J 51, frequent in Phcen. and Aram. however, would certainly wish us to regard Abraham as
On the form cp Renan, R E J v . 165f.[‘Sz], and see the first believer ; the story of Cain and Ahel is an early
NAMES,3%37, 51). Israelitish legend retained by J as having a profitable
I. Father of Adoniram (I K. 46 ; aßaw [Al ; +a [BI ; s8pnp tendency. On this earliest phase of belief, see CAIN, $ 4$
[“I! Levite in list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see
15 [I1 a), Neh. 11 17 (aßöac [Nc.a.mg.
ii. B 56,
EZRA,
~ w p ~ ß I ~ * l , [BI,
wßqß
Meaning qf the name.-?+e
(Hebel) to mean ‘ a breath
Massorites understood Abel
vanity’ (cp Ps. 39 6 [7I): but
the true meaning, both of Aiel and of the collateral form Jabal,
?w. [ A ] , aßSLac [L1)=1Ch.916, OBADIAH, g (T.v.). Innst be something concrete, and a right view of the story
favours the meaning ‘shepherd,’ or, more generally, ‘herdman.’.
ABDEEL ($e??y, $ 21, ‘servant of God’), father This is supported by the existence of a group of Semitic words,
some of which denote doniesticated animals, while others are the
of Shelemiah, Jer. 3626t. (Not in @.) corresponding words for their herdmen. Cp, e.g., Ass. ibiZu,
ABDI (’Til?,
$ 52, abbr. for ‘servant of YahwB’?
‘ ram, camel, ass ’ (but some explain ‘wild sheep’ : see Muss-
Arn. s.v.). Aram. hu66äZä ‘herdman’ (used widely ; see PS,
cp Palm. T i Y , and see O BADIAH ; ABAIA [LI). .
s.v.) Ar.’&i ‘camels ’ ab6Zi, Lbamel-herd.’ The attempt of
I. Father of Kish, a Levite under Hezekiah, mentioned Lend-mant (¿es on&es, i. 1 6 r ) and, more definitely, Sayce
(Hi66ert Le&. 186; 236, z49), to find in the name a trace
in the genealogy of ETHAN [P.v.], I Ch. 644 [29] z Ch. of a nature-myth, Ahel (=Bah. ahlu, ‘ son ’) being originally ‘ the
2912 : ,a/3G[e]~[BAL]. only son Tammuz, who was a shepherd like Jabal and Ahel
2. One of the b’ne ELAM[P.v. ii. I], in list of (Sayce), and whom Lenormant regards as, like Ahel in early
theology a kind of type of Christ, is adventurous. The name
those with foreign wives (see E ZRA , i. $ 5 end), Ezra1026 ‘ s o n ’ is insufficient as a title of Tammuz (AbuZ-nup3ti); and
(apö[e]ta[BKA], - ~ [ L ] ) = IEsd. 927 (RVOABDIUS, AV there is nothing said of a mourning for Abel’s death. The
om., waßö[e]ios [BA]). title of ‘shepherd’ applied to Tammuz in 4 R 21 I is explained
by the following word ‘lord’ (see Jeremias, Izdu6ar Nititrod,
ABDIAS (ABDIAS), 4 Esd.,l3gf. See OBADIAH, I. 50). I n the Sestanzent of AbruLain (ed. James) Ahel plays
the part of Judge of the nether world, like the Jama (Yima) of
ABDIEL (5@’??Y, $5 21, 37, ‘servant of God’ : the Aryans. T. K. C.

A B A ~ H A [BI; - A i ~ h[AL]), in genealogy of GAD.

I Ch. 5 1st.
ABEL (!’>e,
$$ 89-100) occurs, apparently in
the sense of meadow,’ in the place-names dealt with in
the following six articles. As a place-name it is to be
ABDON (@Y; & B A ~ N [AL], see also below),
one of the four Levitical cities within the tribe struck out of I S. 6186, where for M T 8!’1733
(so also Pesh.) (BBAreads Bws ( E . TOG [LI) XfBou TOG
79 hK
of Asher; Josh. 2130 I Ch. 674(59)f. The site has
not been identified, but Gu6rin has suggested that of peydhou, with which the Targ. Jon. agrees (so also
‘Aodeh, I O m. N. from ‘Akka (Acre). The same city is RV). Ew., We., and others further change the points
referred to in Josh. 1928, where fl? (AV $ HEBRON; so as to read : ‘ and a witness is the great stone.’ Dr.
RV E BRON ) is a graphical error for 1739, Abdon, which, suggests as an alternative : ‘and still the great stone,
whereon’-etc. On Abel in 2 S. 2018, see ABEL-
in fact, some MSS. read (Josh. 21 30, Saßßwv [BI ; I Ch. BETH-MAACHAH. G. A. S.
674[59], aßapav [BI, om. [LI ; Josh. 1928. ehßwv [BI,
U X P a v [ALII. -
ABEL BETH MAACHAH, - RV Abel - Beth -
ABDON(li?lY, $77;dim. OfEBED; &AWN [BAL]). Maacah ( z S. 20 14 : n!pQ n’i? 8 $ i & to Abel
I. b. Hillel, one of the six minor judges (see and Beth-maacah,’ RV ‘Lnto Abel and to Beth-
JUDGES, 5 ). After judging Israel eight years, maac(h)ah’ [many strike ont the conjunction, but the
he was buried at Pirathon in Ephraim, his native places may have been different; cp 2s.2015 1,.
5 6
 ABEL-CHERAMIM ABEL-SHITTIM
2 K. 1529 BAL], €IC ABEA KAI eic B A i e M A X A [BI, ?tymological play on the name (v. 11). After this,
.. B H e M A X A [Alp K. ABHAA K. BAleMAKKCd [LI). loseph and his brethren carried the embalmed body of
lacob to Maclipelah for burial, and then returned to
Cp 2S.2015, n!ggg n's n $ i $ ~E, V 'in Abel of Beth-
maac(h)ah,' FV Aßeh qvBatBpaxa[BI, EV A. a*B96'paXa [Al, EV q Egypt (v. 13J J and P). The words 'which is beyond'
A. K . BaiepakKo [LI ; I K. 15 20, 'D-'l 535, ASsApa0 [BI, Aßeh lordan' (n. I O & ) , however, cannot be accurate : the
OUKOU (sic) Maaxa [A], Aßdpaaxa [LI : z K. 1529, ' IS'l SSN,
wiginal text of J must, it would seem, have been altered,
Aßsh K . q v Oapaaxa [BI, K a ß d K . T. Bsppaaxa [A], Aßeh K . 7 .
>wing to a misreading or an editorial misunderstanding.
The circuitous route round the north end of the Dead
Barepaaxa [LI; z S.2018 (on which see A RAM, 5), 525,
E V ABEL, (q) Aßeh [6is BAL]. Sea has no obvious motive : had it really been meant,
something more would have been said about it (cp
This place, mentioned, although in now mutilated
Nu. 1425). For p i , ' the Jordan,' J must have written
form [Al-bi-il, by Tiglath-pileser 111. (cp Schr. C O T
on z K. 152g), is the present Abil-called also ÄbiZ eZ- ither 1hc. (less probably iim)-i.e., the most easterly
Kam4 ( ' of the wheat ') to distinguish it from Äbiles-Suk arm of the Nile (a frontier of Canaan, according to
(see ABILENE)-a small village inhabited by Christians on Jqsh. 133)-or imn, 'the stream'-Le., the Wüdy e(-
the Nahr Bareighit, on a hill 1074 ft. above the sea, Artsh, the usual SW. boundary of Canaan (cp Gen.
overlooking the Jordan valley, almost directly opposite 1518, where J calls this Wädy, not the hi but the
to Büniäs, and on the main road thence to Sidon and of Egypt-i. e . , ' the stream on the border of Egypt '
the coast. It is a strong site, with a spring and a (Kautzsch-Socin),'on which see EGYPT, RIVER OF).
(probably artificial) mound; below is a broad level The meaning of the narrative is this. At the first
of good soil, whence the modern name. See'YäkÜt Canaanite village (the first after the border had been
1 5 6 ; Rob. LBR 372 f: (who argnes against TbeZ eZ- crossed) the ' great company ' (a.9) halted, while
Hawü, a site 8 m. farther north) ; PEP Mem. i. 85 107; Joseph and his fellow-Hebrews mourned in their awn
Merrill, East .f the Jordan, 309, 315. In 2 Ch. 164, way (cp v. 3 b ) in the very place where wedding and
we have, instead of the Abel-beth-maacah of the funeral ceremonies are stili performed in the Syrian
parallel passage ( I K. 15zo), A BEL - MAIM ( D i n i ? villages ~ ,(Wetz.). The repetition of ' which is beyond
A@Xprv [A], -pav [BI, -puerp [LI ; cp Jos. Ant. viii. Jordan ' must be due to the editor.
124, AßeXuvq), or ' .4bel of Waters,' a name suitable I t is remarkable that Jer. (OS S5 IS) though he does not
for so well-watered a neighbourhood. On Judith 4473 question the reading 'beyond Jordan,' Identifies Area Atuth
with Bethagla-Le., BETH-HOGLAH (q.v.), which is certainly
where Pech. reads Abelmeholah, and K apparently Abel- on the west bank of the Jordan. Dillm. is more consistently
maim, see B ELMEN (cp also BEBAI). On the ancient conservative, and, followed by Sayce (Crii. and Mon. 2 7 ~ ? ) ,
history of the piace see A RAM , 5 5. G. A. S. finds in the trans-Jordanic Abel-Mizraim a testimony to the
Egyptian empire in Palestine in the pre-Mosaic age, proved by
ABEL-CHERAMIM (Pi?!? +$, ' meadow of vine- the Amarna tablets. The exegetical difficulties of this view,
however, are insuperable.
Yards,' § 103 ; EBEAXAPMEIN [BI ; ABEA AMTKAU- As to the name Abel-mizraim it is not improbable that
NUN [AL] : Judg. 1 1 3 3 t RV), the limit of Jephthah's its original meaning was 'meadow of Mu+' (in Pi.
pursuit and slaughter of the Ammonites. Ens. and Jer. Arabia, see M IZRAIM ), but that before J's time it had
(OS(2)225 5 96 io,"AßeX &pr&Xwv,AbeZ uinearum) iden- come to be understood as meaning 'meadow [on the
tify it with a village of their day, named "AßeX, 7 R. border] of Egypt.' Cp Wi. AZtor. fiorsch. 34, and
m. from Philadelphia. This Abel may be any of the see EGYPT, RIVER OF. T. K. C.
many fertile levels among the rolling hills around
'Amman, on which the remains of vineyards and of ABEI+-SHITTIM (üt-q;! $26, 100, L e . , 'the

terraces are not infrequent. G. A. S . meadow of the acacias' ; Saniar. omits the article ; ABEA-

ABEL-MAIM (Pin h?, C A T T E I M [LI, B .. TTIMCAI~ -TTEIN [F], BsAca [BI;

z Ch. 164f), see ABEL- a B E L - p r r M , Num. 3349), or, more briefly, Shittim
BETH-MAACHAH. (O'Vi??, 'the acacias, C A T T E I N [BA], -M [LI ; but
ABEL-MEHOLAH (3vnP $aq, L e . , 'dancing Nu. 251 CATTEIM [TI, -N [LI ; Josh. 2 1 E K CATTEI [A],
E ~ A T T E I N[Fl, 31 E K A T T E I N [ F l ; Mit. 6 5 1 . C~X O~I - ~
n ~ a d o w ;' E B E A M A ~ A A , A B ~ M E O Y A A , EBAAMAO. NUN [BAQ] (for C X I N W N ?cp Sus. 54). in the Arabah
[BI ; A B E ? M A O ~ A ( A ) , BACEhMEO.[A] ; ABEAMEOYA(A), or Jordan basin at the foot of Mount Peor and opposite
-MAWAA [LI ; ABELME(H)ULA ; Jos. Ant. viii. 137, Jericho. In the time of Jos. (Ant. iv. 81, v. 11)a town
ABEAA), the home of Elisha the prophet ( I K. i916), named Abila ('APO.$), rich in palm trees, occupied such
and probably also of Adriel b. Barzillai ' the Meholathite' a site at a distance of 60 stadia (75R. m.) from the
(I S. 18 19 ; z S. 21 8), is mentioned in conjunction with river. Cp BJ iv. 7 6 , where it is described as near the
Bethshean as defining the province of one of Solomon's Dead Sea, and Jer. (Comm. on Joel), who locates it
officers (I K. 4 12). Gideon pursued the Midianites ' as 6 R. m. from Livias. This seems to point to the
far as Beth-shittah towards Zererah as far as the bor- neiglibourhood of Khirbet eZ-ZCefrein, where the Wädy
der '-lit. ' lip,' probably the high bank which marks the Kefrein enters the Jordan valley, and there are ruins,
edge of the Jordan valley proper-' of Abel-meholab, by including those of a fortress. It was at Abila, according
Tabbath ' (Judg. 7 22). According to Eus. and Jer. ( O S to Jos., that Moses delivered the exhortations of Dt.
9711 22735), Abelmaula (or 'AßeXpaeXai) lay in the The palm trees have disappeared, but there is an
Ghör, I O R. m. to the south of Scythopolis (Bethshean), acacia grove at no great distance (Tristram, Conder).
and was still an inhabited village in their time, with the According to RPMv. 50, this is the Aubd or Abel ' men-
name Bethaula, BqOpaeM (though they mention also tioned among the places conquered by 'Thotmes 111.
an Abelmea, 'Apehped). This points to a locality at or In Joel 3 [ 4 ] 18 p ~ a oshould perhaps be treated as a
near the place where the W. MÜZih, coming down common noun and translated ' acacias ' (so RV mg., and
from 'Ain Mälih, joins the Jordan valley. Marti in H S ; cp TWY uxoivwv [BKAQ]). At all events
ABEL-MIZRAIM ( a w n 52y [see below], UENBOC the reference is not to Abel-shittim across the Jordan.
Some (We., Now.) think the name has been preserved
b i l r y l n o y [BAL] ; so'-Pesh. Vg.), Gen. 5011f (J), in the Wüdy es-Sant (see ELAH, VALLEY O F ), but
otherwise (v. IO$ ) called G OREN HA - ATAD (Y??;! 173. ; the latter does not require the watering of which Joel
A A ~ N I ATAA [B"ALl, A. TAA [B" A. ATAT [D]) speaks ; and he intends, rather, some dry gorge nearer
or 'the threshing-floor of the thorn-shrub' (EV .01 Jerusalem, perhaps (like Ez. 471-12) some part of the
ATAD.' see B RAMBLE , I), and said to be situated Kedron valley, Wüdy erz-När (cp Dr. ad ZOG.; GASm.
'beyond Jordan ' (cp 71. io J). It was there that Joseph HG 511 ; also, for acacias on W. of Dead Sea, Tristr.
made a second mourning for his father, whence the Land of Zsr. 280, 298).
7 8
 ABEZ ABI
ABEZ, RVEbez (Y23 ; peBec [BI. h e ~ [Al, e -MIC genitive relation is excluded ; inferentially it is equally
[LI ; ABES; Josh. 1 9 z 0 + ) , ~one of the sixteen cities of so in the former. (2) The use of ab with a noun
Issachar. The site is unknown, but the name is denoting a quality is a pure Arabism,l which should not
evidently connected with that of the judge IBZAN( q . ~ . ) be lightly admitted, while such an interpretation as
of Bethlehem-;.&, the northern Bethlehem. This ‘ father of Yah’ for Abijah is unlikely. (3) A woman’s
Bethlehem, it is true, is Zebulunite, while Ebez is name like brother of graciousness ’ (Ahinoam) is incon-
assigned to Issachar ; but the places must have been ~ e i v a b l e . ~In favour of taking the names compounded
very close to each other, and the frontiers doubtless with a terni of relationship as sentences Gray urges that,
varied. Conder’s identification with EZBeidä, z m. from though ab, ah, ‘um,etc., all denote a male relative, the
Beit Lahm, might suit as to position, but ‘the white proper names compounded with them are used in-
village’ can have nothing to do with the old name. differently of men and women; while, on the other
W. R. S. hand, nouns with 6en (sou) prefixed are used exclusively
of men, the corresponding names of women having 6uth
ABI (’35, so Targ. Jon. ; abbrev. of A E I ~ A H ; (daughter) for ben. H e infers, therefore, that, while in
&Boy [BA], -e [L] ; Jos. ’Aßla ; A H ) , daughter of Zecha- the case of names in de72 and 6 a t h the element denoting
riah, wife of King Ahaz, and mother of King Hezekiah kindred refers to the hearer of the name, in the case of
( z K. l S ~ l ) . In the parallel passage (zCh. 291) the a6 etc. it does not.
name is given as ABIJAH (??Y, aßßa [B : see Swete], Assuming that these compound names are sen-
a,5ßaOuO [A], aßra [LI ; 4)[sic] ; Abin), but the tences, are there grounds for determining which of the
probability is perhaps in favour of the contracted form 2. mich part two elements is subject and which is
in K. ( S o Gray, HPN 24.) is predicate predicate? ( I ) In cases like Abijah,
~

Ahiiah, only the first part can he

ABI, Names with. There has been much discussion regarded as indefinite and therefore as predicate. W e
as to the interpretation of the names compounded must, therefore, render ‘ YahwB is father,’ etc. The
with ubi, a& and some other words denoting relation- same principle would apply to Joab, Joah (if these are
ship1 (cp AMMI-,HAMU-,DOD-). Without assuming really compounds). Quite generally, therefore, when-
that this discussion is in all points closed (cp N AMES , ever one element is a proper name it must be subject.*
§ 44), the writer thinks it best to state the theory which But ( 2 ) a divine proper name may give place to h(d) or
he has himself long held, adopting certain points (with. some divine title-e.g., Lord. Hence Abiel, Abimelech,
acknowledgment) from Gray’s very lucid and thorough will be best explained on the analogy of Abijah-Le.,
exposition, and then to consider the religious and ‘ God is father,’ ‘ the divine king is father.’ Last?y ( 3 )
archzeological aspects of the subject. the divine name or title may give place to an epithet,
The question whether these names are sentences has such as rum, ‘lofty.’ Here the syntax is at first sight
long been answered by some critics in the affirmative, open to doubt. The usages of the terms of relation-
1. Ai.e the and the arguments of Gray (HPiV 75-86) ship in the cases just considered would suggest that
put the student in possession of all the -7’aam in Abi-ram is subject; but the fact that rum
s e ~ ? points
~ ~to beurged.
~ ~ s He also ably criticises nowhere occurs by itself designating Yahwb seems to
the alternative view (viz., that the two the writer to show that it must be predicate. Abram,
elements in Abimelech, Ammiel, etc., are related as therefore, means, not ‘the exalted one is father,’ but
construct and genitive). It is usual to refer on this ‘the (divine) father is exalted.’ Cp A DONIRAM ,
side to such Phoenician names as lh-mu, in which the JEHORAM.
term of relation is always fem. in names of women and The question whether the connective 2, which occurs
masc. in those of men. But this is decisive only for in most of the forms, is the suffix of the first pers. sing.,
Phcenician names, and even in their case only for names or an old ending, has been variously
in ’nu and nnu (‘ brother’ and a sister ’). Compounds 3. Connective answered. Should Abinoam, Ahinoam
with ab ,(’ father ’) are used indifferently of men and be rendered ‘ my father (or my brother) is graciousness ’
women in Phoenician, just as they are in Hebrew. In (so Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. SPY.§ 277 e ) , or ,the
the latter case, therefore, at least, the term of relation (divine) father, or brother, is graciousness ’ i’ Gray
cannot refer to the bearer of the name-i.e., cannot be in well expounds the reasons for holding the latter view.
the construct state. No doubt in Ps. 1 1 0 4 Melchizedek Thus, there are certain forms in which * does not occur-
(which suffers, along with other compound names con- e.$, Abram, Abgalom, beside Abiram, AbiSalom. We
s
taining a connective i [see below, 31, from the same also find Abiel beside Eliab. Lastly, the analogy of
ambiguity as names containing a term of kinship) is vpn>- (Jeremiah), in-pin. (Hezekiah), etc., favours the
understood as a construct relation, ‘ king of righteous- theory that the names before us contain utterances
ness,’ and the phrase irn *iu-as we should certainlyread respecting the relation of a deity to all the members of
in Is. 9 5 [ 6 ] for i y $ 32-obviously
~ means for the writer the tribe or clan which worships him. T o some this
’ glorious father ’ ( i .e . , glorious ruler of the family of may appear a slight argument ; but to the writer it has
Israel; cp Is. 2221). It would seem, therefore, that long been an influential consideration. An argument
in the post-exilic age some names of this type were so on the opposite side offered by Boscawen and Hommel
understood. But we must remember that in later times will he considered later (see 5).
the original sense of a formation may be forgotten. It is not easy at first to appreciate, or even to under-
Gray’s main objections to taking ubi etc. as originally stand, the conception which underlies compound names
constructs are as follows : ( I ) The theory will not 4. Religious of this class. The representation of a
account for names like Eliab, Joah, etc. Eliab clearly conception. god as the father of a tribe or clan may
stands to Ahiel as Elijah to Joel ; in the latter case the be less repulsive to us than the representa-
1 On some possible hut by no means clear instances of Zm,
tion of him as a hrother or as some other kinsman.
‘mother,’ in compound names, see Gray, HPN 64 n. 2. Even a prophet does not object to the expression ‘ sons
2 The interpretation of i t ? as ‘everlasting one’ stands or of the living God ’ (Hos. 1 IO [2 I] :see the commentators) ;
falls with the interpretation of, e.g., Ahinoam as ‘father of but any one can see that to substitute some other relation
graciousness and of Abituh as ‘father of goodness.‘ Though
defended b; reference to such names by Guthe (Zuhunfis6iZd 1 Rare in ancient Arabic (see N A ME S 0 45).
/es. 41 [‘851), it is now generally rejected in favour of 2 Even if in modern Ar. a6u is so’used of a woman (see
perpepal father (of his people),’ or ‘father (i.e. producer) of NAMES $ 45 third note).
booty. But neither of these explanations gives a satisfactory 3 T d s asskmes that the connective i is not pronominal (see
parallel to ‘prince of peace.’ We must read ?in y j ~ . ‘Prince below 6 3).
of peace’ suggests a reminiscence of AhSalom, which the writer 4 Tke same principle will apply to othercompoundscontaining
prohablyinterpreted ‘father of peace,’ ie., peaceful(orprosperous) instead of a term of kinship, a title, e g . , as in MELCHIZEDE;
ruler. (q.v.), ADONIJAH, etc., or a concrete noun, as in URIAH.
9 IO
 ABIA ABIATHAR
for sonship would in such a context be inipossible. ' r a A ] a B i ~ hyiüc TOY a p A B W 3 A i ü y P I , MICABUN
Names in Abi-, Amnii-, etc., are, in fact, of primitive 3 A ~ U B C ~ ~ ~[Al, ~ A [CT A h C l A 6 l H C 0 CApAiBAe!
origin, and must be explained in connection with :LI), z S. 2331,. the name of one of David's thirty,
primitive ideas of the kinship of gods and men (see ihould in all probability be ' Abibaal a man of Beth-
WRS Lect. 2). Names like Ahijah, Ahinoam, irabah ' (so Bu., and partly Klo. and Ki. ), the ai (>Y)
etc., imply a time when the god was regarded as brother.
The question then arises, May we take ' brother' in a n A6i-aZ6on being a relic of Baal ($i), and the final
wide sense as kinsman? or did such formations descend jyllable bon a corruption of Beth (nii). W L , it ,is
from a remote age when society was polyandrous? .rue, agrees with I Ch. 1132 ('n2my. ~ N * ? K; aPqh d
Strabo (164) wrote of a polyandrous society in Arabia yapapateeL[BI, a. o yapapEe [HI, a. d uapapEeeel [AI,
Felix that ' all are brothers of all,' and Robertson Smith x . 0 apapaec [LI) in supporting the name ABIEL(see
(Kin. 167J) was of opinion that far back in the social Dr. TBS 283) ; but we know that early names of
development of Hebrew life lay a form of fraternal persons contained the name 6aaZ as a title of Yahwe
polyandry. Now, supposing that the Hebrews when where later writers would have preferred to see e l (see
in this stage conceived themselves to be related to a BEELIADA). T. K. C.
m d e deity, it is difficult to see under what other form
ABIASAPH ( ~ ~ 44 : ~ I ' i father
the (divine) $
than brotherhood such relationship could be conceived.
Of course, if names expressing this conception were gathers ' or ' removes ' or [if the EC be nat original, see
retained in later ages, they would receive a vaguer and below] ' adds ' [cp the popular etymologies of JOSEPH],
more satisfactory meaning, such as 'YahwB is a kins- unless it be supposed that P and the Chronicler adopted
man,' or protector.' 1 m ancient name indeed [Gray, HPN 2441, but under-
Lastly, to supplement the Hebraistic arguments in § 3, stood it in the sense 'father of Asaph ' 204 n.] ;
we must brieflv consider the argument in favour of the ~ B i ~ c a[BI, p -CA@ [FL]), Ex.624 [PI9 one of the
' My father is peace ' for three sons of Korah, i.e. eponym of one of the three
divisions of the Korahite guild of Levites, see ASAPH,
*' ~= tribal?
~~~~~~p ' My father
ness' for Abinoam, etc.,
is based
gracious-
on
3. In I Ch. 623 [SI ( a p d a p [BI, -aus@ [AL], m/
early Babylonian and S. Arabian [sic],A d i a s ~ p h )637
, [22] ( U ~ L U U [BA],
U~ -UUU$ [Ba.
names. Boscawen (Migration of Abraham, Victoria
Institute, Jan. 1886) long ago pointed out a series of
LI, g-); Adiasuph), 919(aßraoa@[BAL], -1,
primitive Babylonian names such as IluSu-ah& ' his Asaph) the name occurs also, without consonantal N a s
god is his father,' IlnSu-ibniSu, ' his god made him,' EBIASAPH, l~ ;?!
(Samar. text omits N in Ex. 624), which
which, in complete correspondence with the Babylonian name ought to be read for that of ASAPHalso in I Ch.
penitential psalms, indicate a sense of the relation of a 26 I (ley ; apcaua@ap[BI. UUU$ [AL], WQ., Asa$h). '
protective god not merely to a clan but to a person; ABIATHAR (YQTiK, 44, Le., 'the (divine) father
and Hommel, in the interest of a too fascinating historical
theory, has more recently given similar lists ( A H T is pre-eminent' ; cp ITHREAM ; ABiAeap [BkAL] ;
7 1 8 ) , to which he has added a catalogue of S. Arabian in ICh.1816, A B i € A e € p [H"];ABiAeApOC, JOS. [Ant.
names (i6. 8 3 , 8 5 J ) compounded with iZi, a6i, where vi. 146]), the son of Ahimelech and descendant of Eli ;
these elements appear to mean ' my God,' ' my father,' the priestly guild or clan to which he belonged seems to
etc. The present writer, however, must confess that, have claimed to trace back its origin through Phinehas
though aware of the names collected by Boscawen, he and Eliezer to Moses, who, in the early tradition (Ex.
has long been of opinion that the course of the develop- 337, E), guards the sanctuary of Yahwe and delivers
his oracles. I t was Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, who
ment of Israelitish thought and society is entirely adverse
to the view that the relation of the deity described by- officiated as chief priest in the sanctuary of Nob when
ubi, a+, etc., was primarily to the individual. This is a David came thither, fleeing from the jealous fury of
Saul. Having no other bread at hand, Ahimelech gave
question of historical method-on which no compromise
the fugitives the holy loav,es from the sanctuary. One
is possible-and not of Assyriology. W e cannot argue
that because the Babylonians, even in remote ages, bore of the royal couriers, however (see I S. 21 7 [SI, with Dr.'s
names which imply a tendency to individualistic religion, note), saw the act, and betrayed Ahimelech to Saul,
who forthwith put the priests to death. No less than
the Israelites also-who, as far as our evidence goes, were
eighty-five (according to MT) fell .by Doeg's hands,
much less advanced in all kinds of culture than the early
Babylonians-had a similar tendency, and gave expres- and of the whole number Abiathar alone escaped.
sion to it in their names. It is, therefore, wise to use I t may be inferred from I S. 2215 that David
these Babylonian and S. Arabian names, not as snggest- had before this contracted friendship and alliance with
ing a theory to be followed in interpreting Israelitish the house of Eli, and we can readily believe that,
names, but as monuments of early attainments of just as Samuel marked out Saul as the destined leader
Semitic races which foreshadow those of the choicest of Israel, so the priests at Nob, noting the tendency
part of the Jewish people at a much more recent period. of the king to melancholy madness, and his inability
The value of these names for explaining the formation to cope with the difficulties of his position, selected
of Hebrew proper names may be comparatively slight ; David as the future king and gave a religious
but they suggest the idea that it was only the want of sanction to his prospective claims (cp DAVID, 3).
the higher spiritual prophecy (as known in Israel), as a Certain it is that the massacre of the priests at Nob told
teaching and purifying agent, and of somewhat different strongly in David's favour. The odium of sacrilegious
historical circumstances, which prevented the Baby- slaughter clung to Saul, while David won the prestige of
lonians from rivalling the attainments in spiritual close friendship with a great priestly house. Henceforth
religion of the later Jewish church. T. K. C. David was the patron of Abiathar, and Abiathar was
bound fast to the interests of David-' Abide thou with
ABIA (il:?K), RV Abijah. ,For I Ch. 3 IO Mt. 1 7 me,' said the warrior to the priest, ' for he that seeketh
see A BI J AH , I ; for Lk. is?, ibid., 6. my life seeketh thy life' (I S. 2223). Moreover,
ABIAH, an English variant of ABIJAH (4.v.) in AV Abiathar carried the ephod or sacred image into the
of I Sam. 82 I Ch. 2 2 4 628[13] 78, corrected in RV camp of David: it was in the presence of this image
to the more usual form, except in I Ch. 224628[13]. that the lot was cast and answers were obtained from
Yahwb : nor docs it need much imagination to under-
ABIALBON, the Arbathite ('??-IIT fl~?Y"?K, 5 4, stand the strength infused into David's band by the
1 Cp Barton 'Kinship of gods and men among the ancient confidence' that they enjoyed supernatural direction in
Semites,'/BL xv. 1683, especially 1 7 9 8 ('96). 1 See DAVID, B 3 n.
I1 I2
 ABIB ABIGAIL
their perplexities. Abiathar was faithful to David ABIDA, and (AV in Gen.) Abidah ( Y Y ’ X , 5 44,
through every change of fortune. It was with the ‘ the (divine) father knoweth ’ ? cp Eliada, Beeliada;
sanction of the sacred oracle that David settled at Jehoiada; aB[eliAa [BAL]. ~ B i p a[AD], bBia [E],
Hebron and became king of Judah ( z S. 21-3), and it was A B I A A ~[LI ; A s I D A ) , one of the five ‘ sons ’ of Midian,
Abiathar who carried the ark, that palladium of Israel, and grandson of Abraham by Keturah (Gen.254
which David used to consecrate Jerusalem, the capital of I Ch. 133d‘). Unexplained, as yet, except that the same
his united kingdom ( I K. 226). Abiathar maintained his , also zny,~,
name occurs in Sab. inscriptions ( ~ T ~ Z Ncp
sacerdotal dignity amidst the splendour of the new Hal. 192,202, etc.).
court, though later (we do not know when) others were
added to the list of the royal chaplains-viz., Zadok, of ABIDAN (IT??,44, ‘the (divine) father is judge’;
whose origin we have no certain information, and Ira, cp Daniel; &B[E]IAAN [BAL]; ABIDAN), chief of
from the Manassite clan of Jair,l-while David’s sons Benjamin in the time of Moses (Nu.111 222 76065.
also officiated as priests (z S. 817J 2026). Zadok i0zqJi). On the age of the name see Gray, HPN
and Abiathar both continued faithful to their master 202, 244. Possibly P had a consciousness that -dun
during Absalom’s revolt, and by means of their SOUS was archaic (cp D AN , I), and therefore suitable in
conveyed secret intelligence to the king after he had left the name of a tribal chief at the time of the Exodus.
the city. T o infer with Homniel ( A H S 298-301)from such a
When David was near his end, Abiathar along with name as Abidan that P s record is itself ancient, is critic-
Joab supported the claim of Adonijah to the throne, ally unjustifiable. P also gives the names SHAPHAT and
and consequently incurred the enmity of Solomon, the SHIPHTAN, which are scarcely archaic.
younger but successful aspirant. Solomon spared Abi-
ABIEL ($&’iK, $0 4, 44, ‘God is father’ (of the
athar’s life, remembering how long and how faithfully
he, had served David. But he was banished from the clan?) ; aB[e]i~A[BAL] ; A B I E L ) .
I. Father of Ner and Kish ( I S . 91, also 14 SI?,
court to Anathoth, his native place, and Zadok, who
had chosen the winning side, became chief priest in his - ~ [BI)
p ; see ABNER.
2. One of David’s thirty mighty men ( I Ch. 1132) ;
stead. To the men of the time, or even long after the
time at which it happened, such a proceeding needed no see ABIALBON.
explanation. It was quite in order that the king should ABIEZER, AV Abi-ezer (V???, 44, ‘ the (divine)
place or displace the priests at the royal sanctuary. But father is help,’ cp Ahiezer; ~Biezsp[BAL]: Judg.
in a later age the writer of I S. 227-36,2 who lived after 634 efc.).
the publication of D, did not think it so light a matter I . The clan from which Gideon sprang belonged to
that the house of Eli should be deprived, at a monarch’s the Gileadite branch of the tribe of Manasseh. In
arbitrary bidding, of the priesthood which they had Gideon’s time its seat was at Ophrah (Judg. 624), an
held by immemorial right. Therefore, he attributes the unidentified site, but apparently on the west side of
forfeiture to the guilt of Eli’s sons. A ‘ man of God, ‘ Jordan. It is probable that the first settlements of the
he says, had told Eli himself of the punishment waiting Manassites lay to the west of that river, but the date at
for his descendants, and had announced Yahwe‘s purpose which their conquests were extended to the eastward is
to substitute another priestly line which was to officiate not known (Josh. 172 t e l a [BI, axielep [A], apierep
before God‘s ‘ anointed ’-Le., in the royal presence. A [LI ; Judg. 61124). I n Nu. 2630 the name Abiezer
late gloss inserted in I K. 227 calls attention to the fulfil- appears, not as‘in the parallel I Ch.718, but in a n
ment of this prediction. abbreviated form as I EZER ( l y e , AV J EEZER , axie{ep
A special point which has occasioned some difficulty
remains to be noticed. In z S. 817 [MT @BAL and [BAL]), and the gentilic as I EZERITE ( V ~ < K , AV
Vg.], and I Ch. 1816 [ia. and Pesh.; MT, however, JEEZERITE, 0 aXie{eipei [BI, +pi [AL]). In I Ch.
reading ,ABIMELECH], instead of Abiathar b. Ahimelech 7 18 Abiezer finds a place in the Manassite genealogy as
it is Ahimelech b. Abiathar that is, mentioned as priest son of Hammolecheth the sister of Machir b. Manasseh.
along with Zadok. In I Ch.24631 as well, M T has The patronymic ABI-EZRITE AV, ABIEZRITERV (’35
this reading, in v. 6 also @BAL Pesh.-except that @A* ’?m), occurs in Judg. 61124 ( T U T ~ ~TOU
S eoöpei [BI ; r.
reads viol ; in v. 3 these versions all read ‘Ahimelech of apie~pi,m, T . ~ { p r[A]; r.(~.) e.Qer [LI) and (perhaps
the sons of Ithamar,’ while in v. 31 M T @BAI. Vg. omit as a gloss, see Moore, ad Zoc.) 832 ( a p i e d p ~[BI, ~ i f s
the phrase ‘ b. Abiathar, and Pesh. the whoIe passage. a/3ie+x [A], W U T ~ ~a.S [LI).
It is reasonable to suppose that this confusiou is due to 2. Of Anathoth, one of David‘s heroes (z S. 23 27,
an early corruption of the text, and that in z S. 817 apeie{ep [BI ; I Ch. 1128 2712?), see DAVID, 11 ( a ) i.
we should read with the Pesh. ’ Abiathar b. Ahimelech ’
(so The. ad Zoc. ; Baudissin, AT Priesterthwn, 195 ; ABIGAIL (usually ??’?K, but !Yj11K in I S. 25 18
Dr. ad Zoc. ). The Chronicler, however, must have had
z S. 8 17 before him in its present corrupt form. In
Kt., and ?.-’ in I S. 2532, z S. 33 Kt., and [so RV
ABIGAL] in 17 2s ; and, perhaps with 1 and 1 transposed,
Mk. 226, by a similar confusion, David is said to have
gone into the house of God and received the shew- $!??Y in I S. 25336 ; possibly we should point $2’3K, 5
bread ‘ when Abiathar was high-priest.’ In reporting
our Lord‘s words the evangelist has confused Abiathar 45; so oftenest -a \,t sometimes B‘-“1
i; cp
with Ahimelech, a mistake into which he was led by the BDB Lex. s.v. ; a ß [ s ] i y ~ i[BAL],
~ but in 1 s.253
constant association of David‘s name with that of Aßipaia [A]; meaning uncertain ; ‘Abi’ is a divine
Abiathar. Suggestions made to evade thedifficulty-e.g., title (see NAMES, 44, and cp XP477, 8 5 ) .
that father and son each bore the same double name, or I. Wife of N ABAL (4.v.).and, after his death, of
that Abiathar officiated during his father’s Iifetime and David ( I S. 25). Her tactful speech against the causeless
in his father’s stead-are interesting when we remember sheddingofblood( IS. 25 22-31)isnoteworthyforthehistory
the great names which have supported them, but are of Israelitish morality. Like Ahinoam, she accompanied
manifestlybaseless (see ZADOK,I ). See Bu. K i S a 195J David to Gath and Ziklag, and was taken captive by the
W. E. A. Amalekites, but was recovered by David ( I S. 273 30 518).
ABIB (a’??, i . e . , ‘ [month of] young ears ofbarley ’). While at Hebron she bore David a son (see DANIEL, 4).
2. A sister of David, who married Jether or Ithra,
See MONTH, 2, 5.
and became the mother of Amasa, z S. 1725 (see above),
1 See, however, I R A , 3, where a Judahite origin is suggested. I Ch. 2 16l 17. I n M T of the former passage, her father
2 The section in its present form is from the school of thq
Deuteronomist. But the expression ‘walk before my anointed 1 B omits Abigail in v. 16, and BA read &SeA$$ for &3eA+ai
proves conclusively that there is an older substratum. of L.
13 14
 ABIGAL ABILENE
is called Nahash (an error also found in @BA, and ‘ walked in all the sins of his father ;’ and, since the first
clearly produced by the proximity of that name in v. 27 ; of these notices is very possibly due to an interpolator,
6’. gives the correct reading, ‘Jesse,’ teaoar), and her we may confine,our attention to the second. Why
husband is called ‘ the Israelite’ (so M T ; rapaqhErT?p then 4oes tlie epitomist take this unfavourable view of
Abijah? As Stade points out, he must have read in
[BI, Llm)), which, however, seems to he a corrup- the Annals of the kings of Judah statements respecting
tion from ‘ the Jezreelite’ (re{paqhinp [LI, de iesrneli this king which, if judged by the standard of his
[ed. Rom.], de NiesreZi [cod. Amiat.]), just as ‘ Ahinoam later day, involved impiety, such as that Abijah,
the Jezreelitess’ ( I S. 273) becomes in B axeiuaap $ unlike his son Asa, tolerated foreign worships. It is
iUpU$,€iTlS. It is true, in I Ch. Z.C. Jether is called surprising to find that the Chronicler ( 2 Ch. 13) draws
’ the Ishmaelite ’ ( r a p u ~ h ( ~ ) r [BA],
~ q s isnzuhelites), but a highly edifying portrait of Abijah, whom he repre-
this is plainly a conjectural emendation of ‘ the Israelite’ sents as delivering a n earnest address to Jeroboam’s
(1, indeed has rapa. ; Pesh. om.). In 2 S. 17 25 the same army (for ‘ there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam ’)
emendation appears in bA(iopa.). David‘s sister was on the sin of rebelfion and schism, and as gaining a
not likely to marry an Ishmaelite. Heyse wonders great victory over the Israelites, because he and his
to what town Jerome’s reading can refer. We can easily people ‘relied on Yahwb the God of their fathers.’
answer the question. It was the Jezreel situated in Judah This, however, is a late Midrash, and has no historical
(Josh. 1556), from which not only David‘s brother-in-law value. The Chronicler (or his authority) wished to
but also his first wife Ahinoam probably came (so Marq. emphasize the value of the true ritual, and did this by
Fund. 2 4 ; see J EZREEL , i. 2). T. K. C .
introducing an artificial episode into an empty reign.
ABIGAL (!)??:), z S. 1725 RVT. See ABIGAIL, 2. Cp Bennett, Chron. 3 2 6 3 (Pesh. always Jos.La);
aßras : in I K. 1431 1 5 1 8 , M T has five times the
ABIHAIL (hJ9?K, 45, ‘the (divine) father is
corrupt reading LI;?? ABIJAM,~ aßrou2 [BA], -LU [LI.)
strength,’ cp Sab. 59nlK and the S. Arabian woman’s
2. A son of Jeroboam I., king of Israel, who died in
name, Ili-hail [Hommel, ANT 3201 ; written $;IiX
his father’s lifetime.3 The account of his illness is given
[Gi. Ba.] in 2 and 4 ; Hommel [in the Ebers Festschrift,
29 ; cp ABT 3201 compares the same name [with ’31
in I K. 141-18 ( M T aA),
and in another recension in
in S. Arabian inscriptions from Ghazzat (Gaza) ; but
GBLimmediately after the narrative of Jeroboam’s
return from Egypt on the death of Solomon (3 K. 12 24 g 3
h l 9 X is supported by 6 ; aB[e]i~bih [/AL], [Swete], 131-13 [LI). If we accept the former version as
Nu&/,
AEIHAIEL, AEIXAIL). original, we are bound to bring it down to the age which
I. Father of Z URIEL (Nu. 3359, apiXaial [F]). was under the influence of Dt., for the prophecy in I K.
2. Wife of Abishur the Jerahmeelite ( I Ch. 229T 147-16is in tone and phraseology closely akin to similar
$ n q ~[Gi. Ba.] ; aßerxara l [BI, ußry. [A], a ß q h [LI). predictions in 16 1-4,21 20-24, 2 I(. 9 7-10, the Deutero-
3. A Gadite (I Ch. 51&, aß[e]cxara [BA], aPqh nomistic affinities of which are unmistakable. Nor is it
[LI). possible to simplify the narrative without violence. The
4. Daughter of Eliab, David’s brother, and wife of @BL version, on the other hand, can, without arbitrari-
Rehoboam ( 2 Ch. 1118?, $n*riu [Gi. Ba.], @aiav[BI, a@. ness, be brought into a simple and very natural form.
[Bab. ”id.], aßiaiah [A], TOG rra~pbs a h 3 [L, who Jeroboam is not yet king. His wife, not being queen,
reads I I N n~ ( S h 1 n ~ 4 ) . has no occasion to disguise herself, and Ahijah simply
5. Father of Esther, whose name however is given predicts the death of the sick child, without any refer-
as Aminadab by 65 (Esth. 215 92gf, ap[e]rvaSap ence to sins of Jeroboani which required this punish-
[BKALB], and -6au [NI). ment. The writers who supplemented and expanded
the older narrative were men of Judah; the original
ABIHU (K9;19?K, § 44, ‘my father is h e ’ ; aBioyA story, however, is presumably Israelitish. (See Kue.
[BAL], i.e. ABIXUD,’ aBicoyp [A in Ex. 6231, ABIU). E i d . 25; St. GVZ i. 350 n. ; Wi. ATUnters. 1 2 3 )
See N ADAB AND ABIHU. Cp J EROBOAM , I.
ABIHUD (Vn’?K. 8 45, ‘the (divine) father is 3 A Benjamite I Ch. 7 8 t (AV AßIAH ; +JUS [BI, -ou [Al).
4: Wife of HeZion, I Ch. 2 24t (EV ABIAH).
glory,’ a name probably appearing in contracted form 5. Son of the prophet Samuel, I S. 82 (AV A BIAH ; aßqm
in EHKJD [p.v. i. and ii.], cp Ammihud. Ishhod, as Ch. 628 [131t (EV A ).
also Vil ’1N [.‘ai bud], an almost certain correction of [“i? I BIAH
The eighthof the twenty-four courses of P RIESTS &.U.)-
that to which Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, belonged,
7y 9% [EV ‘ everlasting father ‘1 in Is. 9 5, which, how- I Ch. 24 I O (AV A BI J AH ); Lk.1st (AV AßrA).
ever; is to be treated as an Arabic Kunyn, ‘father of 7. Mother of King Hezekiah 2 Ch 29 I. See Ani.
glory’ [Che. ‘Isaiah,’ in S B O T ] ; a ~ i o y A[BAL];
~ 8. Priest in Zerubbabel’s band (see E ZRA, ii. $ 66), Neh. 124
(aßtas [LI, 17 [Bom. v u . ] ) ; perhaps=No. 6.
je-/ ; Aarm), a Benjamite (I Ch. 83f). 9. Priestly signatory to the covenant(see E ZRA , i. $7), Neh. 10
7 [XI. T. K. C.-W. E. A.
ABIJAH (?;?”>Y, T i K , 44, ‘ Yahwb is father’ ;
on names ending in a:, qnl, see NAMES, § 24; aB[e]ia ABIJAM (q?Y), I K. 143.1. See ABIJAH, I.

[BAL,]). ABILENE ( A B ~ I A H N H [BA; W. and H.1, aBih.

I. Son of Rehoboam by a ‘daughter of Absalom’ [Ha ; Ti.]), given in Lk. 3 I as the tetrarchy of Lysanias,
(see M AACAH , 3), and for three years king of Judah at the time when Christ’s ministry began, was a territory
(somewhere about goo B.c. ; see CHRONOLOGY, § round Abila ( ~ B l h a )a, town of some importance in
32). The writer of the ‘epitome’ in Kings (see Dr. Antilibanus, and known to both Josephus and Ptolemy
Introd. 178) only tells us (I K. 151-57) that he con- as Abila of Lysanias (“A. $ Auaaulou), to distinguish
tinned his father’s war against Israel, and that he it from others of the same name, especially Abila of the
1 A mere scribal errnr, A for A ; so invariably in the case of DECAPOLIS(g.n.). The Antonine and Peutinger
Abigail. Itineraries place it 1 8 R. m. from Damascus on the way
2 Yet BA have aßLov (Le. i n q ~ 5) times.for Abijam. See to Heliopolis or Baaibek, which agrees with that portion
ABIJAH I end. of the gorge of the Abana in which the present village,
3 I n &WAL this name is regularly’ substituted for Abihu of
M T exc. Ex. 623 [Al. See ABIHW. Slik Wädy Baradä, lies. Not only are there remains of
4 According to Klo. I K. 15sf: should run thus, ‘ Because a large temple on the precipitous heights to the E. of
David had done that which was right . . . all the days of his this village, with ancient aqueducts and a Roman road,
life.’ From ‘all the days of his life’ to ‘Abijam (so read in
accordance with thecorrection in v.7) and Jerohoam’ is probahly 1 It is defended, however, by Jactrow, JBL xiii. 114 (‘94).
a late gloss from the margin. The notice respecting the war
between Abijah and Rehoboam seems to he derived from z Ch. 2 i.e. in’??, see ABIHU.
13 2, where alone it is in point. 3 Josephns calls this son ’ O ß k s ( A r t . viii. 11).

1.5 16
 ABIMAEL ’ ABINER
tombs and other ruins on both sides of the river, but >ther, a prophecy which was signally fulfilled. After
inscriptions have been discovered, one of which records i. short time (three years, v. z z ) , the Shechemites rose
the making of the road by ‘ a freedman of Lysanias the tgainst Abimelech. Of the way in which this came
tetrarch,’ and another its repair ‘ at the expense of the %bout, and of Abimelechs vengeance, the chapter
Abilenians.’ Moreover, a Moslem legend places on the :ontains two accounts. According to the first of these
temple height the tonib of Abel or Nehi Habil, doubtless :vv. 23-25, 42-45), an.evi1 spirit from Yahwk sows discord
a confused memory of the ancient name of Abila, which setween the Shechemites and Abimelech, who takes the
probably meant ‘ meadow ’ (cp ABEL, ABEL-BETH- 5ty by a stratagem and totally destroys it. According
M AACHAH ). The place was in fact, still called A b i l es- to the other account (vv.26-41), the insurrection is
SUk by Arabic geographers (Yäküt, 1 5 7 ; Marä$, 1 4). Fomented by a certain Gaal b. Obed (see GAAL, § I),
The site is, therefore, certain (cp. Rob. LBR 4783 and who shrewdly appeals to the pride of the old Shechemite
Porter, Five Years in Damascus, i. 261 f18where there aristocracy against the Israelite half-breed, Abime1ech.l
is a plan of the gorge). On the political relations of Abimelech, apprised of the situation by Zebul, his
Abilene, see LYSANIAC. G . A. S. Lieutenant in‘the city, marches against it ; G a d , at the
head of the Shechemites, goes out to meet him, but is
ABIMAEL (i????, ‘God is a father,’ cp Sah. beaten and driven back into the city, from which he,
name lnfiyD2K, ‘ a father is ‘Attar’ [inf&], Hal. with his partizans, is expelled by Zebul (on this episode,
MLZ.; ZDMG, xxxvii. 18 r831, and see J ERAHMEEL , I n. cp GAAL). Abimelech, carrying the war against other
I ; A B I M ~ H A [AL] ; B om. or wanting), a descendant of places2 which had taken part in the revolt, destroys
J OKTAN (Gen. 1028 ; ABIMEAEHA [E]; I Ch. l z z f , Migdal-Shechem (vv. 46-49, sequel of vv. 42-45). While
-MBEI)\ [LI). Tribal connection uncertain, but see leading the assault upon Thebez he is mortally hurt
Glaser, Skizze, ii. 426. by a mill-stone which a woman throws from the wall.
To save himself from the disgrace of dying by a
ABIMELECH (q2nP?K; AB[E]IMEAEX [BAL], -AGK woman’s hand, he calls on his armour-bearer to
[B” Judg.9~81,L e . , most probably, ‘Melech (Milk), the despatch him (vv. 50-55 ; cp I S. 314).
divine king, is father.’ Abimilki and Qimilki occur as Many recent scholars gather from the story of
names of princes of Arvad in the Annals of ASurhänipal Abimelech that Israel was already feeling its way
(ZCh’ii. 172 f.); the former name, which is evidently towards a stronger and more stable form of govern-
Canaanitisb, also belongs to the Egyptian governor of ment. Jerubbaal, it is said, was really king at Ophrah,
Tyre in the Amarna tablets. as appears from Judg. 9 2 ; his son Abimelech reigned
I. A Philistine, king of GERAR (see below), Gen. not only over the Canaanites of Shechem, but over
261 7-1116, who, according to a folk-story in J, took Israelites .also (v. 55). A short-lived Manassite
Rebekah to be Isaac‘s sister, and reproved Isaac for kingdom thus preceded the Benjamite kingdom of
having caused this mistake, and so very nearly brought Saul (We., St., Ki. ). This theory rests, however, on
guilt upon the Philistines. The same tradition is very insecure foundations. That Jerubhaal’s power
preserved in E (Gen. 20), hut without the anachronistic descended, if Abinielechs representation is true, to his
reference to the Philistines. The persons concerned are seventy sbns (9z), not to one chosen successor among
Ahimelech, king of Gerar, Abraham, and Sarah. T h e them, does not prove that he was king, but rather the
details are here much fuller, and the differences from J’s opposite. Abimelech was king of Shechem, to whose
narrative are striking. There is reason, however, to Canaanite people the city-kingdom was a familiar form
think that the narrative of E in its original form made of government; that he ruled in that name over
no mention of Gerar. In this case the principality of Israelite towns or clans is not intimated in the narrative,
Abimelech was described by E simply as being ‘ between and is by no means a necessary inference from the fact
Kadesh and Shur’ (omitting the following words). In that he had Israelites at his back in his effort to
J’s account (Gen. 26) thete are traces of a confusion suppress the revolt of the Canaanite cities (955). Cp
between two Gerars, the more southerly of which (the GIDEON. G . F. M.
trne seat of Abimelech’s principality) wa3 probably in 3. I Ch. 1816. A scribe’s error for AHIMELECH.
the N. Arabian land of Musri (for particulars on this See ARIATHAR (end).
region see M IZRAIM , § 2 [b]). J’s account also refers
to disputes between the herdsmen ofAbimelech and those ABINADAB (2’l$kJ ‘my father apportions,’ see
~

of Isaac about wells, which were terminated by a covenant N AMES , 44, 46, or ‘the father ( i . e . , god of the clan)
between Isaac and Abimelech at Beersheba (Gen. 26 17 is munificent,’ cp Jehonadab ; AM[E]INAAAB [BKA],
19-33). The Elohistic form of this tradition passes lightly ABIN. [LI).
over the disputes, and lays the chief stress on the deference I. David‘s second brother, son of Jesse; 1S.168
shown to Abraham by Abimelech when the oaths of 1713, also I c h . 213 (Upw. [LI). See D AVID , 8 I ( a ) .
friendship were exchanged. The scene of the treaty is, 2. Son of Saul, slain upon Mt. Gilboa, according to
as in J, Beersheba (Gen. 21 22-32 a). On Ps. 34, title, I S. 312. The name Abinadab, however, is not
see ACHISH. T. K. C. given in the list in I S. 1449. There may have been a
2. Son of Jerubbaal (Gideon). His history, as mistake ; Jesse’s second son was named Abinadab. So
related in Judg. 9, is of very great value for the light Marq. Fund. 25 (rwvaöaß [BI-i.e., J ONADAB [q.v. 3]),
which it throws on the relations between the Israelites I Ch. 833 939 ; also I Ch. 102 (apepuaöaß [B b.vid.],
and the older population of the land in this early aprv. [LI).
period. His mother was a Shechemite, and after his 3. Of Kirjath-jearini, in whose house the ark is said
father’s death he succeeded, through his mother’s to have been kept for twenty years ( I S.715 25.
kinsmen, in persuading the Canaanite inhabitants of 63f: I Ch. 1 3 7 ) . See A RK , 3 5.
Shechem to submit to his rule rather than to that bf the 4. I K. 411, see BEN-ABINADAB.
seventy sons of Jerubbaal. With silver from the temple- ABINER (l?’?:),
I S. i 4 5 o f , AV mg. See ABNER.
treasure of BAAL-BERITH (4.71.) he hired a band of
bravos and slaughtered his brothers, -Jotham, the 1 Judg. 9 28 : ‘Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that
youngest, alone escaping,-and was acclaimed king by we should be subject t o him? Were not the son of Jerubbaal,
the people of Shechem and Beth-millo, at the sacred and Zebul his lieutenant subjects of Hamor (the blue blood of
Shechem)? Why shoulh w e be subject to him? For other
tree near Shechem. From a safe height on Mt. interpretations and emendations of this much-vexed verse, see
Gerizim, Jotham cried in the ears of the assembly his Moore, Judges, 157.
fable of the trees who went about to make them a king 2 On the statement (Judg. 9 z z ) that ‘ Abimelech ruled over
Israel three years ’ see Moore judges 253.
(see JOTHAM,I ), and predicted that the partners in the 3 Judg. 8 2 2 3 & considered’ under IDE EON. Cp also Moore,
crime against Jerubbaal’s house would destroy each /u?ges, ZZQ f:
2 I7 18
 ABINOAM ABNER
ABINOAM (D$l’??, § 45, ‘the (divine) father is ,p[~]raoue [BAL] = I Esd. 82, ABISUM [AV], ;.e.,
pleasantness,’ cp Ahinoam. Elnaam ; aB[~]iNEEM rpiuoup [z43, 2481, RV ABISUE(ctperuai [BI, aßiuoua~
A], upiuoue [LI). Called ABISEI in 4 Esd. l z t (Abiss&
[BAL], I A B I N . [A in Judg. 4 121 ; A B Z N O ~ W ) ,father of
Barak (Judg. 46 IZ 5 I I.?). ed. Bensly], Abisuei [cod. Amb.]).
ABIRAM ( D T I N-:, § 44-i.e., ABISRUR (%’2h&44. ‘the (divine) father is
T . ‘the Father is the
as) a wall’? cp Sab. l l V i N , Assyr. Abudzini; &B[e]i-
High One,’ cp ABI, NAMES WITH, 0 2 ; ABCIPUN
20yp [BA], ABIAC. [LI; ABISUR), b. Shammai the’
[BA], A B H ~ .[LI ; p-1 ; ABZRON). another form of [erahmeelite ( I Ch. 228f.i.). Derenbourg ( R N , 1880,
Abu-ram, whlch (Abu-rämu) is a well-attested Baby- 3. 58) gives 1 1 8 ~as~ a Himyaritic divine title (Hal.
lonian and Assyrian name (it occurs, e.$. , in a contract- r48, 5). But the second part of Abi-shur may be a
tablet of the time of Abil-sin, 2324-2300 B.c.. and in :orruption of ind ; cp AHISHAHAR.
the Assyrian eponym-canon under B.C. 677).l The ABISUM, RV Abisue (ABICOYM [z43 etc.]), I Esd.
second element in the name (-ram) is a divine title (cp 3 z? =Ezr. 7 5 , ABISHUA, 2.
‘Pupas 6 ü$lUTOS &Os, Hesych. ), biit is also used, in the
plur., of all heavenly beings (Job 21 22). Para1171 ABITAL (5- ’IN,
, -: § 45, ‘my father is dew’? cp

Hebrew names are Ahi-ram, Adoni-ram, Jeho-ram, H AMUTAL ; but should not tliese names be Abitub
Malchi-ram (see also ABRAM). Abiramu is the name [It?J?], Hamuiub [cp AHITUB]? A name com-
of a petty Babylonian lcing under A&-nqir-pal, and
Malik-ram-mu that of a king of Edom in the time of
pounded with 5D seems very improbable. 5
and 3
might be confounded in Palmyrene characters; ABITAL) ;
Sennacherib (COTi. 95, 281). wife of David, mother of Shephatiah ; z S. 34, I Ch.
I. A fellow conspirator of D ATHAN ( q . ~ . ) ,Nu. 1 6
33? (ABEITAA, T H C CAB. [BI ; &BIT. [Al; -TA&
( u ~ u p w v[A once], apip. [F twice]) ; Dt. 1 1 6 Ps. 10617 -TAM [LI). In z Ch.362, d B reads AßEi‘ruh for
and (AV ARIRON) Ecclus. 4 5 18, 4 Macc. 217 i. ( u ß ~ p o v H AMUTAL , the name of Jehoahaz’s mother. T. K. C.
[Val).
2. Eldest son of Hie1 the Bethelite, who died when ABITUB (3D’JK : perhaps properly, as in versions,
his father laid the foundation of Jericho anew ; I K. ABITOB, ‘the (divine) father is good,’ see NAMES, §
1634T ( A B I R A M ; L om. verse), cp Josh.626 &VAL. 45 ; cp k a m . I D ’ X ; ABITU& [BAL] ; ABITOB), b.
See HIEL. T. K. C. Shaharaim ( I Ch. 811T).
ABIRON ( D V I K ) , Ecclus. 4 5 181. AV. See ABIRAM, I . ABIUD ( A B I O Y A [BA], -OYT [K”], ;.e., Abihud, or
Abihu), son of Zernbbabel, and ancestor of Joseph,
ABISEI (ABISSEZetc.), 4Esd. 1z?. See ABISHUA,2. husband of Mary (Mt. 113), see GENEALOGIES OF J E S U S ,
ABISHAG (@?e, 45, meaning obscure ; 2 c.
[BI, aBic&r [A], -CAK [LI; -1 ; ABISAG) the ABNER (l>ig, § 44, but in I S. 1450 Y J ’ i K ;
Shunammite, David‘s concubine ( I K. 11-4). afterwards A B E N N H P [BAL], -ENH. [A five times], ’ & B & I N H ~LA
sought in marriage ( 2 1 3 8 ) by ADONIJAH, I . twice] ; ABNER. Lag. Uebers. 75, holds that Abner=
ABISHAI (’pi?, 45, written ’ @ ~ z in 2s. 73, ]?[$I= ‘son of Ner.’ This is suggested by the d
1010 and always [five times] in Ch., where moreover form ‘ Abenner ’ ; but cp a p ? = ‘ P ~ ~ E Kqq
K ~=,
A omits final I ; meaning doubtful, cp JESSE, AMASA, Bouofi,3a. ‘ Abner’ or ‘ Abiner’ might mean ‘ my
and for Lag.’s view see ABNER ; & B ~ i c[BK & ; A once], (divine) father is (as) a lamp’). Captain of thc
~ i -&EI [A three times], ~ B E C C A[L, also seven
~ B i c [A], host under Saul and under Ishbaal. As a late but
times B, and three times A], -Bicc. [A, I Ch. 2 4 well-informed writer states, he was Saul’s first cousin
&CAI [A! zS. 3301. &MECCA [L, z S . 2OG]), the brother ( I S. 1450, cp 91), Ner the father of Abner and Kish
of Joab, IS mentioned immediately after the ‘ first three’ the father of Saul being both sons1 of Abiel. The
and at the head of ‘ the thirty ’ in the list of David’s fortunes of Saul and Abner were as necessarily linked
worthies ( 2S. 23 18f: ; I Ch. 11 .of. ; reading ‘ thirty ’ together as those of David and Joab. but tradition
for ‘ three ’ with SBOT etc., after Pesh. ). H e was one has been even less kind to Abner than to his master.
of David‘s close associates during his outlawry, and was Of his warlike exploits we hear nothing, though there
his companion in the visit to Saul’s camp on the hill was ‘sore war against the PhiIistines all the days
of Hachilah ( I S. 266). H e was faithful to him in of Saul’ (I S. 14521, and tradition loved to extol the
Absalom’s rebellion ( z S. l 6 9 ) , commanded a third prowess of individual heroes. Even at the battle of
part of the army ( z S. 1 8 z ) , saved David‘s life when Gilboa there is no mention of Abner, though it was a
it was threatened by a Philistine ( z S.21 r6 I T ) , and, part of his duty, according to David, or at least an early
according to the Chronicler ( I Ch. 181~), slew 18,000 narrator, to guard the sacred person of the king ( I S.
Edomites in the Valley of Salt (but see J OAB , I ). 2615). All that we hear of him in Saul’s reign is that
ABISHALOM (d’p??), I K. 1 5 2 IO?. See he sat next to the king at table (IS . 2025), that, accord-
ing to one tradition, he introduced David to the presence
ABSALOM, I. of Saul ( I S. 1757), and that he accompanied the king
ABISHUA (~$935,44, forviewoiLag. see ABNER ; in his pursuit of David ( I S. 2 6 5 8 ) . It was natural
the (divine) father is opulence ’ ? cp MALCHISHUA, that upon Saul‘s death he should take up the cause of
and Abi-&’a, Wi. G I 130 n. 3. See also Hom. A H 7 Ishbaal (D AVID , § 6). It suffices to mention here some
liii. 108 n. zog n. I , ZDMG xlix. 525 [‘gs]). personal incidents of that unhappy time. That Abner
I. A son of BELA (Y.v. ii. z), I Ch. 8 4 (aperuupas3 slew his pursuer Asahel (one of Joab’s brothers) was,
[BI, CLPIUOUE [AL] ; %a~,.=.l; ABISUE).
2. b. Phinehas, b. Eleazar, b. Aaron ( I Ch. 64f. 15
doubtless, not his fault but his misfortune. But his
motive in passing over from Ishbaal to David was a
shameful one. Ishbaal may indeed have been wrong in
~ o J ] , 50 [35], aß[~]~uou[BA], apiouö, -tuoua [LI; Ezra75, interpreting Abner’s conduct to Rizpah, Saul’s concu-
1 See Hommel, P S B A xvi. 212 [‘g41: Schr. C O T ii. 187. bine, as an act of treason (cp zS. 1621 I K. 222) ;
2 &rman and Maspero connect this name with Ab-sha, but to give up the cause of the Benjamite kingdom on
the Egyptian form of the name of the Asiatic chief repre-
sented on a famous wall-painting at Beni-Hasan. But sub. this account, and transfer his allegiance to David, was
sidiary evidence is wanting. Sec J O S E P H I 5 IO, and cp WMM,
As. I. Eur. 36 n. 2. Hommel ( A N T ;3)> connects Ab-sha or 1 In I S.1451 read ’3 for -12 with Jos. Ant. vi. 6 6,
Ebshu‘a with Ahishua. followed by Dr.! Bu., Klo. The text of I Ch.833=939 should
3 This presupposes Z$‘&lt$ a name for which there is no doubtless run And Ner begat Abner, and Kish begat San1
parallel in the OT, cp S AMSON, SHIMSHAI. (see Kau. note in HS).
‘9 20
 ABOMINATION ABOMINATION O F DESOLATION
ignoble. The result was not what he had expected- ieing more peculiar than Matthew's Barbs (neut.),
the highest place under a grateful king. He had just j to be preferred. Both reports agree in inserting
left David with the view of procuring a popular assembly he parenthetic appeal to the trained intelligence of
for the recognition of David as king of all Israel, when he reader, which, being both natural and in accordance
Joab enticed him back, and treacherously assassinated vith usage in an apocalyptic context, it would be un-
him beside the gate of Hebron (see SIRAH,W ELL OF), easonable to set aside as an 'ecclesiastical note'
partly perhaps from jealousy, partly in revenge for the Alford). There is an exact parallel to the clause in
äeath of Asahel ( z S: 330). 2ev. 1318 (cp 17g), ' Here is wisdom : let him that hath
Abuer's death was regarded by David as a national inderstanding count the number of the beast,' and a
calamity. ' Know ye not,' he said, ' that a prince and mrallel of sense in Rev. 27 139 : ' He that hath an ear
a great man is fallen this day in Israel?' H e ordered or, if any man have an ear), let him hear,' i.e., let him
a public mourning for Abner, and himself sang an elegy inderstand (as Is. 33 19) ; the best commentary on which
over his grave, a fragment of which is preserved ( z S. s a terzina in D a t e (Znf: 961-63), ' 0 voi, che avete
331-39); see POETICAL L ITERATURE , 9 4, iii. (h). The 'l: intelletti Sani,' etc. In fact, the whole section is a
Chronicler gives Abuer a son named JAASIEL (4.71.2). ~uur?jp~ov, not of the class in which Jesus delighted
T. K. C. Mt. 1311), nor expressed in his highly original style,
ABOMINATION, a word occurring over a hundred and is easily separable from its context. It is probably
times in the O T as a rendering of four1 somewhat 'apart from some editorial changes) the work of a Jewish
technical expressions (sometimes paraphrased ' abomin- writer, and was inserted to adapt the discourse, which
able thing,' etc. ). had been handed down (itself not unaltered) by tradition,
I. h q (piggzil) occurs four times in exilic and post- to the wants of the next generation.
exilic writings ,(&. 414 ['LI 1~31, Lev. 718plaupu ; 197 Some light is thrown upon it by the ' little apocalypse'
dBurov ; Is. 654f [ o h ? py.' 'broth,' XwpLOv ... in 2 Thess. 2 1-12, which evidently presupposes an
zschatological tradition (see ANTICHRIST). It is there
p ~ p o X u p p h; Kt. 'EI pia, ' scraps']) as a technical term zxplained how the rrupouufaof Christ must be preceded
.for sacrificial flesh become stale ( K ~ P U SEwhov or ßhß$bu Dy a great apostasy and by the manifestation of the
in Ez. [BAQ]), which it was unlawful to eat. See ' man of sin,' whose ~apouuluis ' with lying signs and
SACRIFICE. In the last passage W R S regarded piggzil wonders,' and who 'opposeth and exalteth himself
as carrion, or flesh so killed as to retain the blood in it against all that is called God or that is worshipped, so
(RSP)343 n. 3). that he sitteth in the sanctuary (vah)of God, setting
2. yo@ (&@e<), also confined to exilic and post-exilic
himself forth as God,' but whom ' the Lord Jesus will
writings (Ez. 8 TO Lev. 7 21 1110-42 Isa. 66 ; day with the breath of his mouth.' The resemblance
ßö&~y,uu [BA]), is a term for what is taboo. See between the two Apocalypses is strong, apd we can
C LEAN AND UNCLEAN. hardly avoid identifying the ' abomination of desolation '
3. (Si+&, variously rendered ßö&~ypa, döwXov, in Mt. and Mk. with the ' man of sin ' in z Thess. That
etc.), a much commoner word, of the same form as ( I ) , the one stands and the other sits in the sanctuary con-
and from the same root as (z), occurring once in the stitutes but a slight difference. In both cases a statue
present text of Hos. 910, is freely used (over twenty is obviously meant. The claimant of divinity would not,
times), chiefly from the Exile onwards, as a contemptuous of course, be tied to one place, and it was believed that
designation oftenest of images of deities or of foreign by spells a portion of the divine life could be com-
deities themselves. See below, ABOMINATION O F municated to idols, so that the idol of the false god was
DESOLATION and IDOL, zf: the false god himself. In both cases, too, there is a
4. q i n (tO'Z6üh; ßöCXuypa),a word of uncertain ety- striking resemblance to the Bvpla of Rev. 13, the second
mology frequently occurring from Dt. onwards (esp. in of whom, indeed, is said to be represented by an
Ezek.), is by far the commonest of these terms. I t image which can speak, trickery coming to the help of
designates what gives offence,to God (Dt. 1231) or man superstition (Rev. 13 IS). In fact, the ' abomination ' or
(Pr. 2 9 ~ 7 ) ,especially thz violation of established custom. ' the man of sin ' is but a humanised form of the original
The former usage is the more common ; it applies to of these BqpLa-viz., the apocalyptic dragon, who in his
such' things as rejected cults in general, Dt. 1231 (see turn is but the Hebraised version of the mythical dragon
IDOL, 3 zf.), child-sacrifice (Jer. 3235), ancestral worship Tiämat, which was destroyed by the Babylonian light
(Ez. 43 a), images (Dt. 27 IS), imperfect sacrificial god (see CREATION, 5 2). W e can now recover the
victims (Dt. 171),sexual irregularities (Ezek. 2211),false meaning of r i j s .!ppq@uews. The ' abomination ' which
weights and measures (Dt. 25 16),etc. The latter usage, thrusts itself into the 'holy place' has for its nature
however, is not rare' (esp. in Prov.). Thus J tells us ' desolation '-Le., finds its pleasure in undoing the
eating with foreigners (Gen. 433z), shepherds (46 34), divine work of a holy Creat0r.l
Hebrew sacrifices (Ex. 8-26 [zz]), were an abomination But why this particular title for the expected opponent
to the Egyptians (see EGYPT, 19,31). of God? I t was derived from the first of the great
apocalypses. In Dan. 927 1131 1211, according to the
ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION, THE (TO exegetical tradition in @, mention is made (combining
BAehyrMdr T H C ~ P H M ~ C E ~ an C )enigmatical
. expres- the details of the several passages) of an apostasy, of an
sion in the apocalyptic section (Mt.2415-28) of the ' abomination of desolation' (or ' of desolations ') in the
discourseof Christrespecting Hisnbpoycia(Mt. 241s= sanctuary, of a time of unparalleled tribulation, of resur-
Mk. 1314). The passage containing the phrase runs rection, and of glory. That the original writer meant
thus in Mt.-' When therefore ye see the abomination of ' abomination ' to be taken in the sense described above,
desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, and the appended qualification to be rendered ' desolat-
standing ( & ~ r b s ) in the holy place (let him that readeth ing' or 'of desolation,' cannot indeed be said. yip@
understand), then let them that are in J u d z a flee unto as used in Daniel means ' image sf a false god ' (cp I K.
the mountains.' The reference to 'Daniel, however, 1 1 5 ; z K.23r3), and the most natural rendering of
which is wanting in Mk., is clearly an addition of nnai and (if the text be correct) npidp or opti'n is ' appal-
Mt. (cp Mt. 223 414, etc.), and Mark's 6urqKbra (masc.),
1 It is also used in 15.134 for dgi?, the word rendered
1 It is no objection that in Lk. 21 20 the ;,O$~OULLF
is referred
to the hemming in of Jerusalem by Roman armies ; cp Jos. Ant.
'stank' inzSi106(AV). x. 11 7, where the passages in Dan. are explained of the desola-
2 But in Is. Z.C. Duhm and Cheyne read ; so aka tion by the Romans. The true meaning must he decided hy
Sam. and some MSS. at Lev.Izr. In L e v . 1 1 1 0 3 we may Matthew and Mark, where nothing is said of injuries from
invaders. The memory of the experiences of 70 A.D. suggested
point Y?$, and in Ez.810 read (with @, Co.). to Luke a new interpretation of the traditional phrase.
21 22
 ABRAHAM ABRAHAM
ling.’ The phrase appears to be an intentional alteration (see Ez. 3 3 ~ 4 )that ~ Abraham was reverenced by the
of o p t $pa ( B a a i shamem), ‘ heaven’s lord.‘ That this Jews as their greatest ancestor ; cp Is. 41 8f: 51 1 2 63 16
was a current title of Zens may be inferred from the Neh. 97f: 2 Ch. 207 306 Ps. 479 [IO] 1056942 Ecclus.
Syriac of z Macc. 62, where the temple at Jerusalem is 4419 1 M a c c . 2 5 ~ 1 2 ~ 1Mt.1139 Lk.362430199 Jn.
called by the emissary of Antiochus ‘ the temple of &‘el 8395356 Aets7z1326 Rom. 411216 Heb. 6131117 Jas.
shemin’ (see Nestle, ZA T W iv. 248 [‘84] ; cp his 221, cp Gal. 37-9. But to give time for this general
A[anl;p.inaZien U. Muten’alien, 35 f; ; G. Hoffniann, reverence to have arisen, we cannot help supposing
Ueb. ein. phön. Znschr. 1889, p. 29 ; Bevan, Daniel, that the name and, in some form, the story of Abraham
193). The author of Daniel (whose meaning is correctly were current in pertain circles considerably earlier.
given b y M T ) contemptuously says, ‘Call it not “heaven’s Local traditions respecting him doubtless existed before
lord,” but “an appallingabomination ” ’ ; and the object the glory of the southern kingdom departed, and these
to which he refers is an image of Olympian Zeus, which, traditions form the basis of the composite n i F n or ‘ family
together with a small ßwpbs, the agents of Antiochus set history’ of Abraham ( P for a special reason substitutes
up on the great altar (Buotaur7.;lpLov) of burnt offerings. Terah) contained in Gen. 1127-2518. That these tradi-
The statement in I Macc. 159 is not destructive of this tions are legends, and not historical reoords of the times
theory, for altars and idols necessarily went together, which the ‘ family history ’ appears to describe, is certain
and the phrase of the Greek translator of the Hebrew (see H ISTORICAL LITERATURE). But that in their
original in U. 54 (PGihvypa 8 p ~ p h m w s; cp r b Pö&u~pa, present setting they are much more than legends needs
67) might be used equally well of both or of either.2 to he not less firmly held. They have been purified both
All this, however, had been forgotten when the apoca- by abridgment and by expansion ; and, since the fusion
lyptic section in Mt. 24 and Mk. 13 was written. of the original and of the added elements is by no means
Another (a highly plausible) interpretation of the complete, it is not impossible to study the one from the
little evangelical apocalypse is given by Spitta ( D i e Ofen- point of view of prehistoric research, and the other from
durung Johannis, 493-497), who thinks that it was that of the history of religion. Let us, then, briefly con-
written in apprehension of the erection of a statue of sider these two questions : ( I ) What did the Abraham
Caligula in the temple (see Schür. Hist. ii.). This narratives of Genesis mean to their first editors and
implies that r b ßSPh. 77)s &pvp. means the statue of a readers ? and ( 2 )may any of them be regarded as contain-
historical king who claimed to be the supreme God, ing a historical element?
which, considering the nature of the context, is im- I. The first question can be readily answered.
probable, and is not supported by the use of the Abraham to J and E is not so much a historical per-
Hebrew phrase in Daniel. It is, no doubt, highly sonage as an ideal type of character.
probable that apocalyptic writers regarded the mad 2. Stosr of
This theory alone will account for the
Caligula as a precursor of the expected embodiment of and E. ‘ dreamy, grand, and solemn ’ impres-
the principle of ‘ lawlessness ‘ ( b o p l a , 2 Thess. 2 7) ; but, sion which this patriarch makes upon us. The frame-
without putting some violence on their inherited eschato- work of the narrative may be derived from myths and
logical phrases, they could not have said that he was legends, but the spirit comes from the ideals stored up
8p$pwats or kvopla in person. For, after all, a Roman in the minds of the narrators. A school of writers (for
emperor could not be a purely destructive or lawless J and E are not merely individuals) devoted them-
agent. Spitta’s view, however, is preferable to that selves to elaborating a typical example of that unworldly
of Weiss, who, appealing to Lk. 21 20, understands goodness which was rooted in faith and fervently
the abomination’ to be the Roman armies ; and to preached by the prophets. That typical example was
that of Bleek and Alford, who explain it of the desecra- Abraham, who might, with a better right than the old
tion of the holy place by the Zelots (Jos. BJ iv. 36.8). Babylonian king, Hammuräbi, have called himself the
For the criticism and exegesis of the difficult passages, prophet of the heaven-god, and indeed is actually recog-
Dan. 927 1131, see the commentary of Bevan and the nised by the Pharaoh (Gen. 207 E) as a prophet .of
translation and critical notes in Kau. HS; cp also Van Elohim. The ‘ dreaminess ’ which has been noticed in
Lennep’s treatise on the seventy year-weeks of Daniel him is caused by his mental attitude. The Moham-
(Utrecht, 1888),where it is proposed, on amply suffici$nt medans appropriately call him ‘ the first Moslem.‘
grounds, to change the impossible 1’-3: 5 ~ :(927) into H e goes through life listening for the true tOrn, which
ii?-5p;, ‘ and instead thereof.’ The greatest problem is is not shut up in formal precepts, biit revealed from
how to explain or rather correct npbp n q @ ; in yqp$- time to time to the conscience ; and this leaning upon
God’s word is declared to be in Yahwe‘s sight a proof
nnvp (1131)) for on’@ we should perhaps read on@?, or of genuine righteousness (156 J). The PirqZ Ahoth
delete ’D as a gloss from 9 27. There is a similar problem (c. 5 ; cp Ber. rabba, par. 56) reckons ten trials of
in 813. T. K. C . Abraham’s faith, in all of which he stood firm ’ ; -but
A B R A U M (nT?$, § 4 4 ; A B ~ A A M [BAL]; this simply marks the intense Jewish reverence for the
The name has no meaning in ‘father of the faithful.’ The word no., ‘ (he) tried,’
once A B ~ A M [A]).
Hebrew, and seems to be another form occurs only once in the narratives (Gen. 221), but from
1. Name, of ABRAM ( q . ~ . )due
, probably to a the first the faith of Abraham was tried like gold in the
misunderstanding of an early orthography.3 In J and fire. Hemarriesawoman whois ‘barren’(ll3ol811f.
P, however, the latter is represented as the original both J ; 152f: JE). H e leaves his home at the divine
name, which was changed at a critical point in the bidding to seek an unknown land (121 J). As the
patriarch‘s life into Abraham (Gen. 175, P, where the climax, he is commanded to offer up the child of
etymology is a mere word-play ; on J’s narrative, see promise as a sacrifice (221-13 E). It is characteristic
Fripp, Gen. 53). It is only from the time of Ezekiel of the pre-exilic age that this privileged life presents no
1 See Kö. EinL 482. reverses of fortune (contrast Job). But prosperity does
2 Ges., Beriholdt, Grätz, and othersexplain the ‘abomination ’ no moral harm to Abraham. He retains a pure and
of a statue of Zeus : Hitz., Hilgenfeld Bleek Kue of an altar. disinterested philanthropy, which would even, .if possible,
The insertion of the didactic story of’Nehuihadre&ar’s golden ’have saved wicked Sodom (18226-33u, a late Yahwistic
image slightly confirms the former view.
3 Hommel maintains that in the Minzan (S. Arabian) passage).* Once, indeed, he appears as trusting in an
alphabet represents a (ä) or, in sonie cases, i. The same arm of flesh, and defeating mighty kings (Gen. 141-17) ;
peculiarity (3 for ü) characterises the Moahite, the Hebrew, and 1 This is the earliest mention of Abraham outside the Hexa-
the Samalite script. O ~ T I I N ,therefore, was originallYpronounced teuch ; for Is. 29 22 Jer. 3326 Mic.720 belong to passages inserted
Ahräm (Hommel D m grajhische n im Minäischen 22-24). after the Exile.
WMM (As. I. &Y. 309 n. 3) finds an Egyptian proper name See We. CN(2)2 7 3 ; Documents ofthe Hex. i. 26; Fripp,
B-‘-r&-ru-m+g = Baal-ram. Gen. 48-50.
23 24
 ABRAHAM ABRAHAM
but this unique narrative, so flattering to the pride of story of the imperilled wife has at least as good (or as'
the later Jews, is Zvidently a fragment of a post-exilic bad) a claim to be connected with Isaac (26 1-11). There
midrash on the life of Abraham.' It even contains a remain-(a) the migration from HarrEn or from Or
specimen of the mystic reckoning called ' gematria,' Kasdim; (6) the close affinity between Abraham and
the number 318 in 1 4 1 4 being suggested by the name Sarah, Abraham and Hagar (and Keturah), Abraham
of Abraham's servant Eliezer,% of which it is the and L o t ; (c) the abode and burial of Abraham near
numerical equivalent, just as it is stated in the Haggada Hebron ; and, underlying all these, ( d ) the existence
that Abraham served God from his third year, because Df an ancestor of the people of Israel bearing the name
2py in nynv i d r 3,rtv (2218) is equivalent to 172 (he was of Abraham or Abram. Let us first briefly consider (6)
175 when he offered up Isaac, according to the Midrash and ( d ) .
Tanchuma), and as the ' number of the beast ' in Rev. i. Existknce of Abraham and connection with
1318 is 666 (or 616). , I Hebyon.-The tradition, as it stands, is doubtless
The narratives of P differ, it is true, in some respects inadmissible. So much may be conceded to that
from those of J and E. This writer, who is a lover of destructive criticism which, denying that the old rever-
3. Story of p. gradual, orderly progress, even in the ence for the story of Abraham has any justification,
history of revelation, represents the would throw that story aside as an outworn and useless
migration into Canaan-as having been planned, without myth. But the view taken by the patient reconstructive
any express divine command, by Terah (Gen. 1 1 3 1 ) ~ criticism of our day is that, not only religiously, but even,
and admits . n o theophany before that in Abraham's in a qualified sense, historically also, the narratives of
ninety-ninth year (17 I): He introduces, also, some Abraham have a claim on our attention. The religious
important modifications into the character of the patri- value is for all; the historical or quasi-historical for
arch. The friendly intimacy between Yahwk and students only. In the present connection it is enough
Abraham has disappeared; when Yahwi: at length to say (but see further HISTORICAL L ITERATURE) that,
manifests himself, Abraham falls upon his face (17 3 17). since Abraham may be a genuine personal name, it
A legal element, too, finds its way into his righteousness, cannot be unreasonable to hold that there is a kernel of
the rite of circumcision having been undergone, accord- tradition in the narratives. Hebrew legend may have
ing to P, by Abraham and all the males of his honse- told of an ancient hero (in the Greek sense of the word)
hold. Still, it may be said of P as truly as of his prede- bearing this name and connected special$ with Hebron.
cessors that he regards Abraham as the greatest of men, This supposed hero (whose real existence is as doubtful
and exhibits him as the pattern for Israelitish piety. as that of other heroes) cannot originally have been
With this object in view,, he has no scruple in dealing grouped with Jacob or Israel, for the name Abraham
very freely. with the traditional material. Since all has a different linguistic colonring from the two latter.
things are best at their beginnings, he asserts that the It was natural, however, that when H EBRON (g.~.)
ancestor of Israel was all, and more than all, that his became Israelitish the southern hero Abraham should
own sober imagination can devise. Later writers be grouped with the northern hero Jacob-Israel, and
attempted to supply his deficiencies. Even in the O T that the spirits of both heroes should be regarded as
we have a strange reference in Is. 29 22 (post-exilic) to having a special connection with their people, and even
dangers incurred by Abraham, which agrees with the as entitled to a kind of national cultus (cp IDOLATRY),
hints dropped in the Book .of Jubilees (c. 11), and which, though discouraged by the highest religious
points the way to the well-known legend of the furnace teachers, has left traces of itself both in early and in
of Nimrod. Not less did the enigmatical war-chronicle late books, and is characteristically Semitic2 The cultus
in Gen. 14 stimulate later writers. Nicolaus 'of was no doubt performed at Machpelah. on the posses-
Damascus, the court historian of Herod the Great, sion of which P lays such great stress (6.23) ; but that
related (Jos. Ant. i. 72 ; cp Justin, 362) that Abraham the traditional hero was actually buried there cannot
came with an army out of Chaldza and reigned in be affirmed. Even among the Arabs there is hardly one
Damascus, after which he settled in Canaan; he adds well-authenticated case of a tribe which possessed a
that there still exists a village called 'Appltpou o k ~ p t s really ancient tradition as to the place where the tribal
(see HOBAH). The only Biblical trace of such a story is ancestor was interred.s
in Gen. 15 2, where, however, ' Damascus ' appears to be ii. Relation of Abraham to Sarah, Hagar, Lot.-
a gloss (see ELIEZER, I ). It is bold in Ew. (Hist.i. 312) With regard to ( a ) it should be noted that, though an
to assume on such a basis that Damascus was a assertion of relationship may be literally correct, it may
traditional link i; the chain of the Hebrew migration. also merely mean that two particular tribes or peoples
More probably these stories were invented by the Jews have been politically connected. If, with Robertson
of Damascus (who were a numerous body) to glorify Smith, we may regard Sarah as a feminine corresponding
the national ancestor. The Moslems took up the to Israel, we may take the marriage between Abraham
tradition with avidity (see Ew. Z.C.), and still point to and Sarah (or rather Sarai) to symbolise the political
the village of Berza, or Berzat el Halil ( ' the marriage- fusion between a southern Israelitish tribe and non-
tent of Abraham'), one hour N. from Damascus, where Israelitish clans to the south of Hebron (see, however,
the marriage of the patriarch furnishes the occasion of S ARAH , i. 5 2). The relationship between Abraham and
an annual festival (Wetz. ZDMG xxii. 105 r681). Hagar may also have a political meaning, for the close
2. What historical element (if any) do these narratives intercourse, and at times political union, between Egypt
contain? The Abraham traditions are twofold. Some and Palestine'and parts of Arabia is well attested. The
4. Historical belong exclusively to the great patri- story of the separation between Abraham and Lot may
arch ; others are also attached to one 1 It is unnecessary to discuss here P s account of the origin of
gernel. or another of' his successors. The circumcision (see CIRCUMC'ISION, 5 4). or the story ofthe defeat of
latter we can disregard : the foundation of the sanc- the
.~~~ fonr
..~kinzs in Gen. 14 (seeabove. 8 2). or the birth and subse-
quem offer& Up bf Isaac (see ISAAC $$ IJ).
~ ~~~~~

tuaries of Shechem and Bethel has a better tra-

2 See I S. 2513 (' I saw Elohim '), Is. 63 17 Jer. 31 13, cp Lk.
ditional'connection with Jacob (Gen. 33 18-20 28 11-m), 16 2 2 Jn. 856, and cp Che. f n f r .I s . 352J For parallel Arabian
and that of Beersheba with Isaac (2624f.), while the beliefs. see Goldziher, Rm!.de Z'hist. des Yel. 1884,p. 3 3 6 J ,
and fir the later Jewish belief in. the prayers of t h e fathers
1 Much confusion has been caused by the uncritical use of sea z Macc.1512 E. and Talmudic references in Castelli, Zi
_ I ,

cuneilbrm research (see Che. Fornn'ers, 237 $). That the Messin, 184 f:
writer of Gen. 141-11 had access, directlyor indirectly, to Baby- 3 WRS Kin. 18.
lonian sources for some of his statements is denied by none. 4 We assnme provisionally that Hagar is correctly regarded,
But this does not make him a historian. See Kue. Hex. from the point ofview of the original tradition, as an Egyptian.
143,324;We. CHP) 26 ; E. Mey. GA i. 1 65 s and cp CHEDOR- See. however, HAGAR, and especially MIZRAIM, $ 2 (b), BEEK-
LAOMER MELCHIZEDEK 0 4. LAHAI-ROI 8 2.
2 So, iong ago, Hitzig: following Bey. rab6a, par. 43. 5 On the hetails of the story, cp WRS Kin. 1 4 5

25 26
 ABRAHAM ABRECH
be but a foreshadowing of the separation between Israel of heaven and hell that he may learn (like Jonah) to
and Moab and Ammon ; but, if Lot is to be explained have pity on sinners (see APOCRYPHA, 5 11). For the
by Lotan (the eponym of an Edomitish clan, Gen. 36 archaeological aspects of the life of the patriarch see
zo-zg), the asserted relationship between Abraham and Tomkins, Studies on the Times of Abraltam (’78;
Lot accords with the theory of the original non-Israelitish second ed. ’97). The best critical literature is cited
character of Abraham. by Ki. gist. i. ; add to his list Hal. RE/ xv. 1 6 1 3
iii. Connection with &?urnin or &,--As to ( a ) , even (’87); Rev. slm. i. 18(’93); Renan, Hist. dupeupZe
if we reject the theory of the migration of a clan called d‘ZsraeZ, i. (1887); and reviews of Renan by Reinach,
after Abraham from HarrHn or Ur Kasdim, it does RElxv. 3028; and by WRS, Eng. Hist. Rev. iii. 1283
not a t once follow that the tradition is altogether (‘88). Renan’s statements that the Abraham of Genesis
unhistorical. Not only Abraham, ‘but the wives of is the type of a n Arab sheikh, and that the ancient
Isaac and Jacob also, are declared to have come from Hebrews, represented by Abraham, worshipped a ‘ patri-
Harran. This cannot be a baseless tradition. Critics, archal, just, and universal God,’ from whom the worship
it is true, are divided as to its historical value, nor of Yahwh was a falling away, are fantastically erroneous.
can we discuss the matter here. But there is, at For N o l d . ’ ~view that Abraham and Sarah are divine
any rate, a s Stade admits, nothing a priori improb- names, see bis essay on the patriarchs in Zm neuen
able in the view that certain Hebrew clans came Reich, 1871, p. 5088, and on the other side Baethg.
from the neighbourhood of HarrHn to Palestine. The Beitr. z. sem. ReL-gexh. 1 5 4 3 See also EDOM(5 2 ;
fluctuation of the tradition between HarrHn and Ur supposed divine character of Abraham) and HOBAH
Ibsdim need not detain us (see special articles). Both (his connection with Damascus). T. K. C.
HarrHn and Urn were seats of the worship of the moon- ABRAHAM’S BOSOM (Lk. l6zz.F). See HADES.
god under different names, and we can well believe that
at some unknown period the moon-worship of Harran ABRAM (Dl?&, § 44, Gen. 112 7 - 1 7 5 a I Ch.
affected th’e Hebrew clans (cp S ARAH, i. § 2, M ILCAH , I). 127 Neh. 9 7 T ; ~ B P A M [BADL], but -PAN [A twice in
For what critic of to-day can venture to assume that it Gen.], -PAAM [A once in Gen. ; B in Ch. and By vid.
was repugnance to this worship, and in general to idolatry K L in Neh. ; y;$; ABRAM), i.e. probably, in the mind
(cp Josh. 2 4 z $ ) , l that prompted the Hebrew clans to of thepriestlywriter (Gen. 1 7 3 ) , ‘high father’ (patriarch),
leave their early homes? Surely this asserted religious to which the name Sarai, if taken as another form of
movement is a specimen of that antedating of religious SARAH [ q . ~ . ] ,would be a suitable companion. If,.
conditions which is characteristic of the O T narrators, however, the name A BRAM be a genuine traditional
and was copied from them by Mohammed. First, the one, it will be related to A BIRAM [q.~.], as ABNER
insight of Isaiah is ascribed to Moses ; then, as if this [q.w.] is to A BINER , and be explained similarly (cp
were not wonderful enough, it is transferred to Abraham. A BRAHAM , I).
But how recent is the evidence for either statement, and
how inconsistent is the spiritual theism ascribed to ABRECR (Yl;&), Gen. 4143T, ‘Then he made
Abraham with sound views of historical development ! him ride in the chariot next in rank to his own, and
Instead therefore of speaking of ‘ that life of faith which they cried before him Abrech. So he set him over
historically began with Abraham ’ (H. S. Holland, Lux all Egypt’ (Kau. NS). The passage occurs in E’s (or
Mundi, 41),should we not rather say ’that life of faith E,’s) version of the appointment of Joseph to be
which, though germinally present from the earliest grand-vizier, and the strange word Abrech greatly
times, first found clear and undoubted expression in the puzzled the ancient interpreters. @AEL gives K U ~
writings of the prophets and in the recast legends of ~K.;IPUEEY ...~.;Ipuf; the Targums ta\n$ N?!, while
Abraham ’ ? Pesh., omitting paraphrases b o )3) [cp 45 8
Hommel’s ambitious attempt to prove the strictly
Pesh.], and Vg. clamante precone ut omnes coyam. eo
historical character of the Abraham narratives from the
genu ffecterent. Jerome himself, however (Quest. in
Arabian personal names of the dynasty of Hammurgbi
Gen.), remarks, ‘ Mihi videtur non tam przeco sive
is, critically regarded, a failure. The existence in
adgeniculatio . . . intelligenda, quam illud qnod
early Semitic, antiquity of personal names expressing
lofty ideas of the divine nature in its relation to man
Hebrzei tradunt, dicentes “patreni tenerum,” ...
significante Scriptura quod juxta prudentiam’ quidem
has long been known, though it is only in recent years
pater omnium fuerit, sed juxta zetatem tenerrimus
that such names have been discovered so far back in the
adolescens et puer.’ So, in fact, the Midrash (Bey.
stream of history. But hitherto scholars have with good
rabbn, par. 90) and the two later Targums (as an
reason abstained from inferring the extreme antiquity of
Hebrew narratives in which similar names occurred, appendage to ‘ father of the king ’) expressly interpret,
and in Baa. Rathra, 4a we even find this justified by
because the age of these narratives had necessarily to be
first of all determined by the ordinary critical methods, the combination of 11 and rex. In JubiZees 40 7 (Charles)
and the existence of such a phrase as ‘ i n the days of the form is Abirer, ;.e. Abirel ( God is a mighty one,’
Amraphel ’ (Hammurabbi?) proves only that the writer or, being an imaginary form, ‘ mighty one of God ’).
The different views of modern sGiolars can only be
may have been acquainted with documents in which
events of this period were referred to, not that his own glanced at here. Luther is content with Lnndesvnter,
narrative is strictly historical. EV with ‘bow the knee.’ RV mg. adopts the view
For the later Haggadic stories concerning Abraham that the original word was ‘similar in sound to the
Hebrew word meaning to kneel ’ (so Benfey, Brugsch,
see Beer, Leben Abrahams nach Aufassung der jiid.
Sage, 1859; Hamburger, RE fey Bib. u. Talm.F“ Chabas). The Mas. vocalisation, however, is guess-
(s. v. ‘ Abraham ’ ) ; also Griinbaum, Neue Beitr. zur
work, and the Hiphil of 172 occurs only once again
sem. Sagenkunde, 1893, pp. 89,-131 (Jewish and (Gen. 2411),and then in the sense of ‘ t o cause (the
Mohammedan legends) ; and, especially, a late apocry- camels) to kneel down.’ If we look at the context, we
phal book called The Testament of Abraham ( T e x t s shall find reason to doubt whether any outward display
and Studies, Cambridge, 1892),which presents perhaps of reverence at all (prostration would be more natural
the finest imaginable glorification of the character of the than kneeling) can be meant by Abrech. An official
patriarch. All that he needs is to see the retributions title is what the context most favours, not, however,
such a title as ‘chief of the wise men’ (ap-rex-u) ; but
1 The words, ‘and worshipped other gods,’belongLO R. But
the sense of the earlier narrators is correctly given (cp. Gen. rather ‘ great lord,’ or some other equivalent to ‘ grand-
31 1953 354.). And of course, Israel’s point ofreligious departure 1 Harkavy, JAs., mars-avril 1870, pp. 161-165. Le Page
must, considering’primitive circumstances, have been in some Renouf‘s explanation (PSBA xi. 5 fi [’88]), ‘thy command is
sense polytheistic (cp Reinach, REJ xv. 311 (‘871 ; Boscawen, our desire’ (ab(-rc)-rek),i e . , ‘ w e are at.thy service,’ is much less
T h Migration of Abran:, zo A). suitable to the context.
27 28
 ABRONAH ABSALOM
vizier.' No such title including the letters b-r-k is h u e d disgrace. H e had his way. The king kissed
quoted from the pure Egyptian vocabulary; but may iim and restored him to full favour.
it not be really a loan-word? This might account Four years followed ( 2 S. 157, L. Pesh. and Jos.; M T
for the fact that Abrech is passed over in 6. I t Vg. have ' forty ') during which Absalom prepared
is well known that from the fifteenth century onwards men's minds for coming events. H e let his hair grow
there was close intercourse between the Egyptians and snormously long ( z S. 1426), in token, as Robertson
the Semitic peoples, and that many technical words Smith thinks (RSP)484). of the sacredness of his person,
were borrowed from the latter. This being the case, it though the ordinary view that it was merely a proof
appears reasonable to connect Abrech with the Ass.-Bab. 3f vanity possesses the recommendation of simplicity.
adarakku (fem. abaruRKatu), which is applied to one of He rode in a chariot with horses (then scarcely
the five highest dignitaries in the empire.l Schrader, known in Israel) and was accompanied by a guard
who once opposed this view ( C O T i. 139). now thinks of fifty men. H e made every suitor's cause his own,
that the Amarna discoveries (1888) have made it and lamented aloud that his power did not match
much more probsble ; and Briinnow has expressed the his desire to help (23.151-6). At last he fired the
opinion that 'the Assyrian a-ba-rak-ku seem undoubtedly train which had been so long and so carefully laid.
to be the prototype of Abrech'2 ( F a t e letter). In On pretence of a sacrificial feast, he withdrew to
spite of Dillmann's peremptory denial (1892), it has Hebron, accompanied by 200 men, doubtless needy
become very difficult to think otherwise. We might, dependents, who followed him in ignorance of his
indeed, correct the word out Of existence ; but Ball's text plan. Here, at the old capital of Judah, amidst a
(SBOT)is hardly an improvement except in the substi- people who were still unreconciled to their absorption
i the Sam. text (cp 6 Pesh.) for
tution of the ~ 1 P ; of in a larger state, he raised the standard of revolt.
>~l,yv,which is justified by the context, and had already Ahithophel, a man of southern Judah, he made his
been made by Geiger (Urschr. 463). . T. K. c. principal counsellor ; Amasa, Absalom's cousin, also
from Judah, took command of the troops (cp GESHUR,
ABRONAH, AV Ebronah (@l3Y), one of the stages
in the wandering in the wilderness (Nu. 3334f:+, P ; 2). Bnt an appeal was also made to the centrifugal
forces always at work in the N. tribes, for, as he set out
ceBpw~& [B], EB. [AFL]). See W A N D E R I N G S , 12,
for Hebron, the rebel prince sent men through the land
14. On aPpwua [AB] in Judith 224, see ARBONAI. of Israel. At the sound of the trumpet these were to
ABSALOM (&$p, 5 45, or-less correctly, as proclaim the accomplished fact, ' Absalom has been
made king in Hebron. '
Nold. thinks-as in I K. 15210 O\!J&lY, ABISHALOM, David, once the darling of the nation, was compelled
ABESSALOM; probably ' the [divine] father is peace,'
to fly from the capital. Absalom as quickly entered
cp Yahw8-shalom Judg. 624, a title of YahwB, but it, and gave that public sign of. his accession to the
not Ps.1207; & & E c c & ~ ~[BA, M and in 2S.33, throne which the crafty Ahithophel recommended.
and I Ch., also L], -EcA. [A, zS.18151, -ECA. [ L ; The number of his counsellors was now increased by
but in I K. 228 C O A O M ~ N T O C , where also &, the addition of Hushai, ' David's friend' (on the epithet
SALOMONEM] ; )a&=); ABECAUM [Al?2S. 181s ; see H USHAI ), whose flattery he failed to see through.
Jos. ABECCAAUMOC and &YAAUMOC ; ABSALOM) was In reality Hnshai only pretended to join the rebels. His
David's third son, his mother being Maacah, daughter of object was twofold-to frustrate the counsel of Ahitho-
Talmai, king of GESHUR( p . v . 2). Born at Hebron, he phel, and to betray Absalom's plans to the priests, Zadok
grew up at Jerusalem, the idol of his father, and popular and Abiathar. These trusty friends of David were to
from his manly beauty and his winning manners. His communicate with a maid, and she was to impart her
tragic history is faithfully recorded by an ancient and knowledge to two sons of the priests, who waited to
well-informed writer in 2 S. 13-18. bear it to the king. This counterplot attained its end.
We first hear of him in connection with the outrage Ahithophel, who knew how deceptive was the popular
on his sister Tamar by her half-brother Amnon, whom enthusiasm, wished Absalom to ' strike David before
David, out of weak-minded affection for his first- there was time for second thoughts' (WRS). But
born ( 2 S. 1321, BBAL), omitted to chastise. Absalom Hushai persuaded the pretender to wait, and so David,
soothed his sister, and silently bode his time. Then, who was informed of all that happened at Jerusalem,
after two years, he lured Amnon with the other princes safely crossed the Jordan and established himself at
to a feast of sheep-shearing on Absalom's estate at Mahanaim, once Ishbaal's capital.
Baal-hazor (see HAZOR,2 ) , a n d at a concerted sign his Thence, in three divisions, David's army sallied forth,
servants slew Amnon during the banquet. The next and in the neighbouring forest (see E PHRAIM , ,WOOD
three years Absalom passed in exile in Geshur (q.3. 2). OF) the rebel troops were routed. In the flight
till Joab, knowing that the king pined for the fugitive, Absalom's head (hair?; Heb. W N ~ ,cp 2 S. 1426) was
contrived by the help of a ' wise woman ' from Tekoa to caught in the branches of a terebinth tree, and his mule
bring him back. The form of the parable ( 2 S. 145-7) left him hanging between heaven and earth. ' Not for a
may belong to the ' wise woman,' but the ideas which thousand shekels' would the soldier who saw him hanging
it suggested came from Joab. Why was the king so have taken his life. How could he venture to disregard
willing to mitigate the custom of blood-vengeance for a the king's charge to watch over the young man Ab-
stranger, and so hard towards his own son? W e die, salom? If he had treacherously attempted Absalom's
and are like water spilt on the ground ; but God spares life, would not the king have found it out, and would
the life of him whose thoughts are bent on the restora- not Joab himself have stood aloof? But Joab, who felt
tion of the banished (2s.1414 with Ewald's ernenda- his courage called in question (2s.1814, @ B A L ; see
tion). The king gave way to this gentle pressure, and Bu. SBOT), with an emphatic denial of the statement,
allowed his son to come back to Jerusalem, but refused plunged three javelins into Absalom's body. The
to see him for two whole years. Nor would Joab take corpse of the ill-fated prince was flung into a pit, and
any further step, till the impetuous prince set his barley the soldiers cast stones upon it, that the restless spirit
field on fire, ana, when Joab came in person to might trouble them no m0re.l Meantime the old king
complain, declared that death was better than con- was waiting at the gate of Mahanaim. The pathetic
' Friedr. Del., He&. in the light of Assyrian Research
(1883), p 2s f: : cp Par. 225 : Ass. NWB 12. This brilliant
story of his broken-hearted grief at hearing the news of
his dearly loved son's death is enshrined in all memories.
suggestion was temporarily adopted by the present writer Such was the close of the sad tragedy which opened
(Acud. 12th Apr. 1884), who has, since the Amarna discoveries, with the barbarous outrage upon Tamar. .Just eleven
returned to it. years had passed since that event, so that if Absalom
2 So also Sayce (Acad 7th May 1892 : Crit. Mon. 214 A),
but with ai: interpretation which needs fuller evidence. 1 See Tylor's Prim. Cub'. ii. 29.

29 30
 ABUBUS ACELDAMA
was about twenty when he took up his sister’s cause, quently met with in the title h g u l Kingi(Ri)Uri(Ki),
he must have died a little over thirty. Apparently which is rendered in Semitic by say (mitzl) .fum&i u
his three sons died before him (251427 1818). On (nzlitu) AKkudi. This title, which implied dominion
his ‘daughter,’ see TAMAR, 3, and MAACAH, 3, 4. over the whole of Babylonia, was borne from the earliest
The notice respecting Absalom’s monument in 2 S1818 times by the Babylonian kings, and was adopted by
is not very clear, perhaps owing to some confusion in those kings of Assyria who conquered Babylon (cp BABY-
the text of VV. 17-19 (so Klo.). It is evidently paren- LONIA, § I ). The Akkad referred to in Gen. 1010has
thetical, and reminds the reader that,Absalom had a been identified by some with the ancient city of Agad2
suitable monument (erected, according to Klo. ’s read- which was situated in northern Babylonia and attained
ing, by David) in the King’s Vale (see S HAVEH , i., a position of supremacy over therest of the country under
MELCHIZEDEK, § 3). The building close to Jerusalem, Sargon I. about 3800 B.C. This identification, however,
now known as Absalom’s tomb, is of very late origin, as is entirely hypothetical, and is based only on the super-
its Ionic pillars prove. W. E. A. ficial resemblance of the names. L. W. K.
2. Father of Mattathias (I Macc. 1170; ’4Jldhopos [AV],
Jlahpo66s. [PI). ZGckler proposes to read Jonathan’ for ACCARON ( A K K ~ P ~[A*]),
N I Macc. 108gJyAV=
‘Mattathias here; or else to read Mattathias in ~Macc. RV E KRON (q.v.).
13 II also.
3. Father of Jonathan ( I Macc. 13 II : ’AJl&pos [AVKI), ACCHO, RV ACCO (by),Judg. 1 3 1 and (see UMMAH)
probably the same as (2). Josh. 19 30’f ; see PTOLEMAIS.
4. An ambassador to Lysias ; z Macc. 1117 (Apsuuahwp [A],
~*.sucahalA [sic VI). Possibly also to be identified with (z). ACCOS ( A K X W C [A], A K K W C [K], I A K K . [VI ; same
as HAKKOZ [q. ZJ.]),grandfather of Eupolemus ; I Macc.
ABUBUS (aBoyBoc LAW]; la-, CP HUBBAH,
817Jy. ,
I Ch. 734 Kr. ; AZOSUS), father of Ptolemy, captain of
the plaip of Jericho, and son-in-law to Simon the ACCOZ ( ~ K B ~ [B]), c I Esd. 538T AV=Ezra261
Maccabee ( I Macc. l61115T). RV, H AKKOZ , I.
ABYSS, THE (H ~ ~ y c c o cthe ) , term substituted jn ACCUSER (KaTRrup [Ti., W & H following A],
RV of N T for the ‘deep’ and the ‘bottomless pit’ of Ka-rhyopoc [BK, etc.]. The form of ‘wprd found in
AV; see Lk.831; Rom.107; Rev.913 II 1 1 7 the best texts is simply a Hebraised form [7ra’Qp] of the
1 7 8 201 3 t . In the second of these passages, by common word KaTkropoc. For Rabbinic usage see
. an inexact use of the term, ‘ the abyss’ is equivalent e.g. Buxt. Lex. ), Rev. 121of. See S ATAN , 6 (3) 7.
to Sheol ; ‘over the sea’ in Dt. 3013 is taken to mean
’ over the world-encircling ocean into which the “ rivers ” ACELDAMA AV ; RV Akeldama ( ~ x E A A ~ M A x ~
[Tisch. A, etc.], ACHELDEMACH [96 lat.], AKE. [B fol-
of the underworld (Ps. 184 [SI, 5y53 h) discharge lowed by W & HI, - A a l ~ [D], . ACELDEMACH [d]),
themselves to ‘‘ the place where all flesh wanders ” (i.e . , the name according to Actslrg of a field bought
Sheol ; Enuch 176).’ Elsewhere it means the deeply- by Judas Iscariot for some unknown purpose. The vet.
placed abode of the ‘ dragon’ or devil, of the ‘ beast ’ Lat. of Mt. 278 applies the name (not, a s in the Gk.
his helper, and of the 8aipbvia.-whether this abode be MSS., merely in translation, but in the original) also
taken to be the ‘ deep (tZh8m)that coucheth beneath ’ to a field bought by the priests of Jerusalem to bury
(Gen. 49 25 RV), or the ‘ waste place ’ with ‘ no firmament strangers in.
above and no foundation of earth beneath,‘ by which MS. evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of some
the fire-filled chasm was thought to be bordered (Emci3 such form as Akeldamach that the RV is quite unjusti-
18 IZ ; cp 21 27). The former view is in accordance 1. The name. fied in rejecting it, especially when it
with O T usage, the tJh5m of M T and the tlpuuuos of corrects the c into k. Acts119 states
@ being the flood or ocean which once enfolded that in the language of the dwellers a t Jerusalem this
the earth, but is now shut up in subterranean store- name meant ‘the field of blood’ (xyplov ai’paros).
chambers (Ps. 337) ; and it is favoured by the use of 1 ~ \pn
1 (&i$ZZ dJmdkh), however, is obvlously ‘the field
BdXauua in Rev. 131 as synonymous with B ~ U O U O S . of thy blood, ’ an impossible expression. Klostermann
But the latter is more probably right in the Apocalypse, has therefore argued with great acuteness (ProdZeme i7n
which agrees with Enoch in asserting the existence of a ApusteZtexte, 1-8 [‘83]) that ini (DMKh) is one word-
lake of fire, destined for the final punishment of the viz., the well-known Aram, root ‘ to sleep.’ All we have
devil and his helpers. This fiery lake is not in either to do, then, is to understand it of the sleep of death, a
book technically called ‘ the abyss ’ ; in EnoclzlO 13 the usage known in Syr., and ‘field of sleep‘ will mean
Greek has r b xdos roc m p 6 s , and in 21 7 GiaKo+ ETXW cemetery, which, a s Mt. tells us, was what the priests
6 rbros hws r?js~ ~ P ~ G U O U . The angelic overseer of this meant to make of the potter’s field. Klostermann’s
region is Uriel, who is described in EnochBOz (Gizeh argument is very strong-it is certainly natural to
Gk. ) as 6 d i d roc K ~ U ~ OKaiU roG raprdpou. ‘ Tartarus ’ suppose that the name originated in some fact known
occurs also in JOb4123, 6 ,in the phrase rbv rdpTapov to the people at large, as the transformation of a
6 s ! ~ ~ G U O [BRA],
U which, being used in connection with potter’s field into a burying place would be-and his
Leviathan, is doubtless to be taken of the subterranean view was adopted by Wendt (MeyerV)ad Zuc. ). But we
abode of YahwB‘s enemy, the dragon (see D RAGON , have no instance of a noun -piso used, and ch, x, may
4 3 ) . Cp raprapduas, used of the fallen angels, = K (cp iwqx [Lk. 326, BK, etc.]=-ai*; Zapax, Sirach
2 Pet. 24. T. IC. C.
=NTD, Sira). Hence, whatever may have been the real
ACACIA (nyp), Ex. 255 etc., RV. See SHITTAH origin of the name-we can never know-its form was
TREE. probably N Q ~sp? (Dalm. Gram. 161 and 105 n. I re-
ACATAN (AKATAN [BA]), I Esd. 838Jy AV=Ezr. spectively), ’ the field of blood ’ (soD a h . 161n. 6 ; Am.
812, HAKKATAN. Mey. Iesu Muttevspache, 49 n. I). On the questions
ACCABA ( ~ K K A B[B]), ~ I Esd. 530 RV=Ezra246, who bought the field and why it was called Aceldama
HAGAB. see also A C T S , 14. Cp J UDAS , 9.
ACCAD (738; apxah [AL], ax. [DEI; s ) ; Tradition which goes as far back as to the fourth
A C H A D ) is one of the four cities mentioned in Gen. ~.
centurv has daced Aceldama on a level overhanging the
- Y

2. Traditional Valley of the Son of Hinnom on the

1010 as forming the beginning of the kingdom of NE. slope of the Hill of Evil Counsel,
Nimrod in the land of Shinar or Babylonia. I n the site. -a tradition which rests Drecariouslv
cuneiform inscriptions the name of Akkad is most fre-
on Jer. 18J, where the situation of the pottlr’s house ih
1 If a Hebrew original could have been supposed for 2 Macc.
pcuuaha might have represented a transliteration of part of a Jeremiah’s day is thought to be indicated. Potter’s
participle of n\w (ot ?rfp$e6Tssfollows). 1 On this form see Dalm. (Gmm. 304 n. z), Kau. (Gram. 8).

3’ 32
 ACHAIA ACHIACHARUS
material is still dug out in the neighbourhood. The I , X A [BF
~ and (except Josh. 7 1, A X A N ) L], A X A N [A ; but
traditional Aceldama was used to bury Christian pilgrims nxapin Josh.724 1Ch.27l);'thesonofCarmib.Zabdib.
in at least from 570 (Anton. phc. Itin. 26): especially Zerah h. Judah, who unlawfully took possession of some
during the Crusades, but, according to Maundrell, who 3f the ' devoted' spoil of Jericho (see BAN). His breach
says it was then called Campo Santo, even as late as Jf a taboo had involved the whole host in guilt (RRS('4
1697. A charnel house into which the bodies were let 162).and the community had to free itself of responsi-
down from above has stood here from very early times. bility by destroying,no$ only Achan but also his whole
The best history and description of the site (with plans) family (Josh. 7). This is quite in accordance with
is that by Schick, PEFQ, 1892, pp. 2838 primitive notions (RS(')421), although our present text
G . A. S.-H. W. H. IS due to later insertions in v. 24f: With the variety
ACHAIA ( A X ~ ~[Ti.WH]).
A It is a fact of some in the form of the name is to be connected the word-
interest that both at the begmnmg and a t the end of their play in Josh. 7 25. Cp CARMI, I.
history the word Achzan' was k e d as the general de- ACHAZ ( A X A Z [Ti], A X A C [WH], Mt.lg), RV
signation of the inhabitants of Greece proper. During A HAZ (4,s.I ) .
the classical period Achaia denoted only the narrow strip ACHBOR (7\37y, 3 68, i.e., MOUSE [g.v.] ; cp Ph.
of coastland and the adjoining mountain stretching along
the S. shore of the Corinthian gulf from the river 7237, Kl13Y, P723Y ; bxoBwp [BAL]).
I. Father of Baal-hanau [I] king of Edom (Gen. 3638,
Sythas (mod. Trikalitikos) 20 m. west of Corinth, to the xopwp [A"D]; 39; I Ch.149, i2?y [Sa. Ginsb.], axwpwp
river Larisus near Cape Araxus (mod. Kalogria). In the
time of Paul, Achaia signified the Roman province-i.e., [B], x. [L]) ; also s. 50 in eBA: See EDOM, 4.
2. b. Micah ; a courtier of King Josiah ( 2 K. 221214 ;
the whole country south of Macedonia and Illyricum, in-
cluding some of the adjacent islands. The name Achaia Jer. 2622, M T and Theod. in Q mg. [BAR om.] ; Jer.
was given to it in consequence of the part played by the 3612, U K X O @ p [BH*], -87)[R"], U K O p W p [Q]) ; in 2 Ch.
Achzan League in the last spasmodic effort which 3420 named ABDON [p.v.,4](upGoGop [B], apGwu [AL]).
occasioned the sack of Corinth and the downfall of Greek ACRIACHARUS (axiaxapoc [BA] ; see further
independence, 146 B.C. (Paus. vii. 1610). Whether the below).
formation of the'province dates from that year, or not, is I. The prosperous nephew of Tobit (see TOBIT).
of no consequence to the student of the Bible. It was in H e was cup-bearer, signet-keeper, steward, and overseer
27 B.C. that Augustus definitely settled the boundaries of of accounts to Esarhaddon at Nineveh (Tob. 1z1f ). ,
Achaia, assigning to it Thessaly, Btolia, Acarnania, and In 1880 George Hoffmann pointed out the identity
part of Epirus (Strabo, p. 840). The Achaia of Paul is, of the Achiacharus of Tob. 1z.J 1118 141ot with
therefore, practically synonymous with the modern Ahi1:iir (on the name see below), a legendary sage and
kingdom of Greece, but a little more extensive towards vezir of Sennacherib, who is the hero of a romance found
the north-west. The combination ' Macedonia and in certain Syriac and Arabic MSS. According to this
Achaia ' embraces the whole of European Greece, as in romance, he 'almost lost his life through the base
Acts1921, GrehNw T+U MUKEGOU~UV K d 'Axalau (see treachery of his sister's sou (cp Pesh. in Tob. 1118),
also Rom. 15 26 I Thess. 1 7 3 ). From 27 B. c. Achaia Nadan ( =Aman of Tob. 1410-cp [d~ol7)6ev]asap [B],
naturallyranked as asenatorid province-i. e . , its governor uasap (K);see AMAN-and probably= Nabal [or Laban
was an ex-prztor, with the title proconsul (Strabo, Z.C.). or other form] of Tob. 1118 ; see N ASBAS ), whom he
In 15 A.D., however, owing to their financial embarrass- had adopted. Restored to favour, he gave sundry
ments, hoth Achaia and Macedonia were taken charge proofs of his marvellous wisdom, especially in connec-
of by Tiberius ; and it was not until 44 A. D. that Claudius tion with a mission to a foreign king. Assemanni had
restored them to the Senate (Tac. Ann. i. 7 6 ; Suet. already observed (Bib. Or. 3, pt. 1286 a) that in the
Claud. 25). The writer of ActslSrz is thus quite correct Arabic story ' d e Hicaro eadem fere narrantur quae
in speaking of Gallio in 53 or 54 A.D. as du8dTuTos- de Bsopo Phryge ' ; chaps. 23-32 of the legendary L$e
i. e., proconsul. The fiasco of Nero's proclamation made of ESOP (Maximus Planudes) in fact tell of %sop and
all Greece free, but this state of things lasted only a his kinsman Ennos a quite similar story. There can
short time. With this exception, a proconsular governor be little doubt that the story is oriental in origin ; but
was stationed in Corinth, the capital of Achaia, until it has been argued by Meissner (see below) that the
the time of Justinian. &sop romance has preserved in some respects a more
In the N T we hear of only three towns of Achaia- original form. The Greek recension, however, that
ATHENS, CORINTH, and C ENCHREA ;-but the Saluta- must be assumed as the basis of certain Roumanian
tions of the two Corinthian Epistles (esp. 2 Cor. 11 i u and Slavonic versions still surviving, was probably an
6x3 q 'Axalp) imply other Christian communities in independent version now lost, made from the Syriac.
the province. In-1 Cor. 16 15 the ' house of Stephanas ' Allusions to an eastern sage UXU?KU~OS are found
is called the 'first-fruits of Achaia' (daapx+T ? ~'Axalas).
S elsewhere (e.g., Strabo, p. 762); and traces of his story
In this place, for 'Achaia' we should expect ' Corinth' ; seem to have made their way into the Talmud (ZDMG
for, according to Actsl734, Dionysius the Areopagite 481948 ['94]). The mutual relations of these various
and other Athenians must have been the first-fruits of recensions are still ,obscure ; but there seems little
teaching in the province of Achaia. In Rom. 16 5, where, reason to question that the allusions in Tobit are to
according to the Text. Rec., Epaenetus is spoken of as an already well-known story. M. R. James (Guardian,
the d?rapx+ T+S 'Axalas, the best texts read 'Aulas [Ti. Feb. 2, 1898,pp. 1633)suggests parallels to the same
W & H , following BAN, etc.]. The charity of Achajan story in the NT.
converts is praised in 2Cor. 92 Rom. 1526; but the Of the allusions, that in 11 18 is wanting in the It.; those in
reference may be merely to the church at Corinth (cp 11 18 and 14 I O are absent from the ' Cbaldee ' and Heb. texts ;
while the Vg. omits all save that in 11 18(Ackior)-perhaps tlie
z Cor. 8 IO). W. J. W. allusions were felt to have little to do with the story of Tobit.
ACHAICUS (AXATKOC [Ti.WH]), a member of the Greek variants of the name are a p x a p o s [ N in c. 1, - m a %
Corinthian church, who, along with Stephanas and For- once in w a l , aXE[L]K. [& in 14 101, aXcc,cap-[N* in 11 18, a p a -
tunatus, had carried to Paul at Ephesus news of the X a p o s N C . ~ ] , cp It. Achicurms, and in 1410 Ackicuv. The
Corinthians which had gladdened and refreshed him equivalent Hebrew would be i p i u , and Meissner has pointed
( I Cor. 1617f.). H e is enumerated as one of the out that Pesb. has -a{ for '$2 in I Ch. 65. The name
Seventy (Lk. 101)in Chron. Pasc. (Bonn ed. i. 402). remains obscure however. Pesh. has pdlh. ; ' Chald.' H-2,
ACHAN (122, Josh. 7), called Achar ( P V , i . c . , 1713~Hi
; ])lfi,q *nN; Vg. Ackior, and Pesh. in lzrf. h a u l .
trouhled '-, cp OCRAN,IT;$) in I Ch. 27 and (ACHAR 1 'Ausziige aus syrischen Akten persischen MBrtyrer,' in
[ed. Bensly]) in 4 Esd. 737 IO^] RV. 6 ' s readings are -4bkundZ.f. d. Xunde d. MorKenZandes, 7, no. 3, p. 182.
3 33 34
 ACHIAS 'ACHSAH
I n the romance the forms are JbLp ; $h
[cod. Sach.1; till he could escape. The author of the title of Ps. 34
accepted this story, but by mistake (thinking of Gen.
;(sur1 [cod. in Brit. Mus.]. 20 z ) wrote ' Abimelech ' for ' Achish ' (aß[,e]~p&x
Published texts-(r) Semitic : Arabic, A. Salhani, Co?dtes 'BHAR], axe~p.[U], Achimelech; Pesh. quite different).
ara6es; 2-20 (Beyrouth 1890) ; Ar. and Neo-Syr., M. Lidzbarski,
from cod. Sachau 339,'in Eyc&nzungshflte zur Z A Hefte 4-5, 1 T. K. C.
Teil, with Germ. transl. ; English transl. of Syriac(compared with ACIIITOB (AXEITWB [BI), I Esd.82=4 Esd. 11t
Ar. and Neo.-Syr ) E. J. Dillon, Contenzj. Rev. March '98, p. AV = Ezra 7 2 , AHITUB, 2.
369-386; cp also ;ekons of the Arabian Nights-eg., Sir R. F.
Burton, A-fLaylah wa Laylah, supplemental volumes, 6 3-38 .
Bthiopic (precepts), C . H. Cornill, Das Buch der wieiseu P h i d
ACHMETHA (Hcpnv),Ezra 6 zj., the capital of
Media ; see ECBATANA.
sojhen, 19-21,40.44. (2) Slavonic : Germ. transl. V. JagiC
Byzant. Zeitsch. 1111-126. ( ) Armenian, printed at Constantit ACHOR (lb& AXUP [BAL]), a valley on the
nople, in 1708, 1731, and 1862.Q (4) TheStovyofA/ii&ar Cony. N. boundary of Judah (Josh. i57), which, as we may
beare, Harris, and Lewis, Camb. 1Sg8 (Gk. text ; Armen., C y . infer from Josh. 7 ( E ~ C K U X[BAL])W~ combined with
and Arab. texts and transl.; Slav. and Eth. transl.) appeared
as these sheets were being passed for press. Hos. 215 [17], led up from Jericho into the highlands of
Discussions : Bruno Meissner, ZDMG 48 171.r97 [>g4] ; Jagi6 Judah. 1ii Is. 65 IO it represents the E. portion of Canaan
(op. cit. ,107-111); Ernst Kuhn (i6. 127.130); Lidzbarski (L.c. on this side the Jordan, To an Israelite its name natur-
3 f.) ; Bickell, A thenawm, zznd Nov. 1890,p. 700, and 24th
Jan. 1891, p. 123; cp also 20th Nov. 1897, p. 711, and 27th ally suggested gloomy thonghts. Hosea promises that
Nov., p. 750; J. R. Harris in S t o y , ofAhiRar (see above), pp.
.. in the future, when Israel has repented, the evil omen
vii. -1xxxviii. shall be nullified, and a much later prophetic writer
2. 'King of Media' (Tob.1415 [N*];It. Achicar)=N~sv- (Is. Z.C.) that the valley of Achor shall become a
CHADNEZZAR (i6. [B])=AHASUERUS (i6. [Al). See TOBIT,
BOOK OF. resting-place of flocks. Early legend connected the
ACHIAS (ACHIAS), 4Esd. 1zT. See AHIJAI-I,I. name with the sin of Achan the ' troubler ' of Israel
(Josh. 724-26+, J E ) . Many (e.g. Grove, very positively,
ACHIM ( A X G I M [BKHI, - N, AXIN, - H N [A etc.1, in Smiths DB) have identified the valley with the
&XiM [Hb etC.1, Cp AXEiM=P&'i%, AHIAM, I c h . Wädy el-Kelt, which leads down through a stupendous
1135 [BHA], a n d = p , JACHIN, Gen. 4610 [A*vid.], I Ch.
chasm in the mountains to the plain of the Jordan, and
2417[16] [BI), a name in the ancestry of Joseph (Mt. 114).
See GENEALOGIES OF JESUS, § z c. is, to unromantic observers, dark and dismal. This
wädy, however, is scarcely lifeless enough to he Achor,
ACHIOR (&X[E]IWP [BHA], § 44), in the romance for its slender torrent-stream rarely dries up. It is
of JUDITH (q.v.), 'captain of all the sons of Ammon.' also scarcely broad enough; it would never have
Having dared to warn Holofernes of the danger of occurred to the most ecstatic seer that flocks could
attacking the Israelites, he was handed over to them to lie down in the Wädy el-Kelt. Some other valley
share their fate on the expected triumph of the Assyrian must be intended. According to the OS(217z5 8934)
arms (6 5 8 ) . He was hospitablyreceived, and ultimately the valley was to the M. of Jericho, and its old name
became a Jewish proselyte-no doubt to the great still clung to it. This cannot be reconciled with the
edification of Jewish readers of the story. statement in Josh. Z.C. respecting the N. boundary of
I n some versions of Tobit his name takes the place of that of
ACHIACHARUS (p.v.)-an error due to the similarity of and w Judah.
in Svriac. ACHSAH (np?p, § 71,'anklet' ; ACXA [BI, AXCA
[AL]), according to Josh. 1516-19, and ( A Z A [BI,
ACXA [Bab "SA]) Judg. 112-15 (CP I Ch. 249 ; AV
ACHISH ( h K , a r x o y c [BA], AKX. [LI), a Philis- Achsa, o5.a [LI), a daughter of Caleb, who offered
tine, son of Maoch ( I S. 272) or Maachah ( I I<. 239f: ; her in marriage to the conqueror of Kirjath-sepher. She
ArXic [A]); a king of Gath, with whom David and was won by his younger brother Othniel. At her peti-
his band took refuge from the persecution of Saul (see tion, because her home was to be in the dry southland
DAVID, 5). H e is described as a credulous man (Negeb), Caleb bestowed upon her certain coveted waters
whom David found it easy to deceive, representing that called the Upper and the Lower Golath (see below).
his raids against Bedouin tribes were really directed The simple grace of the narrative holds us spell-hound ;
against the Judahites and their allies, and taking care but we must not, with Kittel (Hist. 1299), pronounce
not to leave any of his captives alive to reveal the truth the story historical on this account. That some clans
to Achish. At Ziklag, which had been assigned to should have been named after individuals is not incon-
him as his place of residence, David lived as a freebooter ceivable; but it is most improbable that we have any
in vassalage to Achish for a year and four months true traditions respecting the fortunes of such possible
(@ only four months). The confidence, however, with individuals, and it would be throwing away the lessons
which his suzerain regarded him was not shared by of experience to admit the lifelikeness of a narrative as
the Philistine lords, who prevailed upon Achish to an argument for its historicity. According to analogy,
dismiss David from his army when starting to meet Achsah must represent a Kenizzite clan, allied in the
Saul at Gilboa. See I S. 271-282 291-11, a connected first instance to the Calebites of Hebron, but also, very
passage of date prior to 800 ( S B O T ) . In another passage closely, to the clan settled at Debir and called Othniel ;
( I K.2393) where the execution of Shimei [ I ] is ac- and the story arose in order to justify the claim of the
counted for by his having gone to Gath in search of Achsah clan to the possession of certain springs which
some runaway slaves, it is said that the fugitives went lay much nearer to Hebron than to Debir (so Prof.
to Achish. No doubt the same king is meant (son of G. F. Moore, on Judg. 1). That the cause is amply
Maacah, v. 39), though the reference to Achish has the sufficient, can hardly be denied (cp the Beersheba and
appearance of being a later ornamental insertion made Rehoboth stories in Genesis). It only remains to discover
in oblivion of chronology. the right springs. W e know where to look, having
T o a very much later writer (see I S.2110-15 [II-161) identified Debir with the highest degree of probability.
the account in 1S.27-29 seemed to reflect on David's And our search is rewarded. In all other parts of the
patriotism. H e therefore devised an entertaining and district the water supply is from cisterns ; no streams or
unobjectionable story, in the style of the Midrash, springs occur. But about seven miles (Conder) N. of
which he hoped would supplant the no longer intelligible e-@herqeh (the true Debir), and near Van de Velde's
historical tradition. According to him, David went site for Debir (Kh. ed-DiZbeh), are beautiful springs
alone, and was compelled to feign madness for safety (worthy of being Achsah's prize), which feed a stream
1 According to information received from Mr. F. C. Cony.
that runs for three or four miles. and does not dry up.'
beare, there are two Armenian recensions, the earlier of which The springs, which are fourteen, are in three groups,
appears to be in some respects more primitive than the Syriac. 1 PEFiMeem.3302; see also GASm. Fiisf. Geog. 279 (cp
There is also, probably, a Georgian version. p. 78), who speaks of only two springs.
35 36
 ACHSHAPH ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
and the two which are nearest t o the head of the name may perhaps linger in ' A i n el Iiezbeh, between
valley may be presumed to be the Upper and Lower Yarmiik (Jarmuth) and Shuweikeh (Socoh), but to the
Golath. The identification is certainly a valuable one. E. of both ( S o GASm., after PEFMem. 336). Conder's
See, further, G OLATH -M AIM . , . identification of Cozeba with the ruin of Kuweiziba, 24
m. NE. of Halhiil towards. Hebron (PEFA4em. 3313)
ACHSHAPR (I@?&, i . e . 'sorcery' ; azei@ [B],
is therefore superfluous. Buhl wisely doubts the pro-
axca@ [A], A X ~ C .[L]), one of the unknown sites posal t o identify it with KuSs2be SE. of Tell el-Hesy
in the book of Joshua. I t lay, according t o P , on the
( P a l 192).
border of the Asherite territory (Josh. 19% ; KEU$ [B]). 2. A Canaanite town, g ni. t o the north of Accho,
Its king (if the same Achsbaph is meant) joined the like which city it was: claimed but not conquered by the
northern confederation under Jabin, king of Hazor (11I ;
tribe of Asher, Josh. 19eg (exo{o@ [B], aX{ei$ [A1],
axr$ [AI, [Fl: [@nXea] xaua@ [ L ] ) ; and u{a$ [A"], axarc@ [LJ), J u d g 131T (auXa{er [BL],
shared the defeat of his allies (1220). Rob. (BK,455)
-XEV&L [A]). Sennacherib mentions Akzibi and .Akku
connects it with the modern Kesgf, a village near the together in the Taylor inscription (RPP)688). Achzib
bead of the river Lirgny where there are some ruins of (Aram. Achdid) is the Ecdippa, h3rmra, of O S , 9 5 1 3
uncertain date ; this identification would suit Josh. 11I, 22477, the BK617r7rwY [BlI1341, E K ~ E ~ B O U (Ant.
S V. 1 2 2 ,
but not 1925. Maspero, on the other hand, followed where it is said to have been also called dpxg) of Jos.,
by WMM (As. u. Eur. 154, cp 173), identifies the modern ez-Zib. T. K. C.
Achshaph with the ARsap of the name-hst of Tbotmes
111. ( R P P ) , 5 4 6 ) . In this part of ?he list, however, ACLPIEA ( a x e i ~ a[B]), I Esd.531T AV=Ezra:!ss,
there are names of localities in the regibn of Jezreel, HAKUPHA.
which is outside the land of Asher. Flinders Petrie ACITHO ( A K r e a [A]), Judith81f. . RV, A HITUB
(Hist. OfEg. 2326) connects Aksap with 'Asrifeh, g m. ZJ.I 4).
(4.
SSW. of Jeba, which is hazardous. At any rate there ACRA( a ~ p a[AFVI), r Macc. 133 etc., AV ' strong-
were probably several places noted anciently for their hold,' RV ' citadel. See J ERUSALEM .
sorcerers and therefore called Acbshaph. T h e form K E ~ $
(see above) has suggestedamost improbable identification ACRABBIM (O'?l?p), Josh. 1 5 3 f . RV AKRABBIM.
with Haifa ( P E F Mem. 1165). T h e statement of Eus. * ACRE ( W Y , zsyroc in Is.; for gi in I Sam. c p
in OS, 218 5 4 8 (aKuu$)is geographically impossible. We. Dr. ad loc.), Is. 5 IO, I S. 1 4 1 4 AV mg. RV. T h e
ACHZIB (3'D&; probably winter-torrent '). Heb. word seems to denote the amount of land which a
span or Y OKE [q.v:] of oxen could plough in the course
I. A town of Judah in the Shephdah, mentioned with
of a day (cp below) ; perhaps, like the Egyptian dpoupa,
Ke'ilah and Mareshah, Jos. 1 5 4 4 (ame{ei K . KE{@ [B],
it ultimately became a fixed quantity (cp Now. Arch. 1
a x p [A], axJziP [L]), also Mic. 114f. where aRAQ, 2
0.
)
. Even at the present day the fellshin of Palestine
losing the intended paronomasia, renders ' the houses
measure by the faddrin (= Syr. paddcinri yoke' ; cp
of Achzib ' O ~ O U ~S T U ~ O U S T. h e name becomes C HEZIB
Z D P V 4 7 g ) ; cp also Lat. jugum, jugerum. T h e term
(I,!;;Samar. text, Chazbab; xaupi [AEL]) in Gen. 385t', is not restricted, to arable land, being applied in Is. 2.6.
where the legend presupposes that Chezib is the centre to a vineyard. Winckler, however (AOF, 2nd ser., 2
of the clan of Shelah ; and since in I Ch. 422f ' the go), derives Temed from Bab. samridu (=.Ya&iilu) to
men of Cozeba' (tal?; XW{T@U[AL]; but uwX$a weigh, properly to measure off (which is at any rate
[B], cp uwXa=Socoh) are said to belong to the same barely possible), and attempts to show that semed in
clan, we may safely recognise C OZEBA (so RV ; AV Is. can denote only a liquid measure (which is by no
C HOZEBA ) a s another form of the same name. T h e means obvious). See WEIGHTS AND M EASURES .

Apart from scanty notices supplied by the N T epistles, book, instead of satisfying himself with such extra-
this book is our only source for the history of Christianity ordinarily meagre notes as we have in 1821-23 20 1-3 or
during its first thirty or thirty-five years. T h e question 165-8. Even were be following a n old journal, he
of its trustworthiness is, therefore, of fundamental im- could never have'passed over so many important matters
portance.' in silence simply because they were not to be found in
The sections in which, as an eye-witness, the writer his notes. Further, be contradicts the Epistle to the
gives his narrative in the first person plural (16 10-17 20 Galatians so categorically (see G ALATIANS , EPISTLE TO,
1. The , W e , 5-15 21 1-18 27 1-28 16) may be implicitly 5 $ , and C OUNCIL OF J ERUSALEM ) that, if we assume
sections accepted. But it may be regarded a s his identity with the eye-witness who writes in the first
or Journey equally certain that they are not by the person, we are compelled (see below, § 6 ) to adopt one of
same writer as the other parts of the t.wo courses. W e must either make Galatians non-Pauline
accord. book. In the sections named, the book or pronounce the writer of Acts as a whole t o be a
shows acquaintance with the stages of travel of almost ' tendency ' writer of the most marked character- hardly
every separate day, and with other very unimportant less so than a post-apostolic author who should have
details ( 2 0 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 6 2811, etc.) ; outside these limits simply invented the ' w e ' sections. T o suppose that
it has no knowledge even of such an important fact a s the ' we' sections were invented, however, is just a s
that of Paul's conflicts with his opponents in Galatia and inadmissible as to question the genuineness of Galatians.
Corinth, and mentions only three of the twelve adventures If the sections had been invented, they would not
catalogued so minutelyin zCor. 1124f. cp 23 (Acts1419 have been so different from the rest of the book. W e
1622 23J: ). Even had the writer of the book as a whole must therefore conclude that the sections in question
(assuming him to have been a companion of Paul) been come from a document written by an eye-witness, the
separated from the apostle- remaining behind, e.g., in so-called ' we' source, and that this was used by a later
Macedonia during the interval between 1617 and 205- writer, the compiler of the whole book.
he would surely afterwards have gathered the needful I t is upon this assumption of a distinct authorship for
details from eye-witnesses and embodied them in his 1 On title see below, 5 3 n.
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
the ‘ we ’ sections that we are best able to pass a compara- author, who relates hardly anything of James and John,
tively favourable judgment on the compiler’s deviations and of nine of the apostles mentions nothing but the
from historical facts in other parts.of the book. But names1 Neither is the hook a history of Peter and
there is one charge from which he cannot be freed, viz., Paul, for it tells also of John, of both the Jameses, of
that he has followed the method of retaining the ‘ w e ’ the deacons, of Stephen, Philip, Apollos, and others.
withopt change. In the case of so capable a writer, Nor is it a history of the spread of the gospel from
in whom hardly a trace can be detected, either in Jerusalem to R o m e ; for the founding of the Roman
vocabulary or in style, of the use of documents, this fact church is not described but presupposed (2815). and all
is not to be explained by lack of skill, such as is some- that has any interest for the writer is the arrival there
times met with in the Medizeval chroniclers. The of Paul (1921 2311). It is often supposed that the aim
inference is inevitable that he wished-what has actually of the book is expressly formulated in 18, and that
happened- that the whole book should he regarded as the purpose of the author was to set forth the spread of
the work of a n eye-witness. An analogous case is t o Christianity from Jerusalem, through Samaria, and to
be found in the ‘ I ’ taken over from the Memoirs of the ends of the. earth. This is much too indefinite t o
Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 727-834 91-15 ; Neh. 11-75 account either for the difference in scale of the various
1231136-31 ; also in Tob. 13-36, and in Prutevungelizlm narratives, sometimes so minutely detailed and some-
Jucobi, 183).Just a s Ezra10 and Neh. 8, a s well a s times so very vague, or for their marked divergences
the sections just mentioned, must be held to rest on from actual history.
those Memoirs, although modified and with the ‘ I ’ I t is, therefore, no prejudice on the part of critics,
dropped out, so in Acts we may assume much other but the nature of the book itself, that leads us to ascribe
matter to have been drawn from the source from which tendency to the writer. Only ( I ) we must not, with the
the ’ we ’ sections are derived. Any attempt, however, Tiibingen School, consider it ‘ conciliatory.’ According
to assign to this source whole sections of the book not to that view, Acts was a n attempt from the Pauline side,
having the ‘ we,’ and to use the conclusion so gained a s by means of concessions, to bring Judaism t o a recogni-
a proof of the trustworthiness of everything thns assumed tion of Gentile Christianity. A reconciliation of the
to belong to it, must he postponed until this trustworthi- two was thns to be effected in face of the danger that
ness has been investigated by the means otherwise a t OIIF threatened both, from Gnosticism on the one side and
command. from state persecution on the other. This cannot have
In this investigation we begin with certain obvious been the purpose. Acts is much too harsh towards non-
inaccuracies-first of all with those which cannot be Christian Jews, for whom Christian Jews continued to
2. Inaccuracies traced to the influence of any tendency. retain a certain sympathy (223 757-53 1 8 5 3 rz-17 1913-16
Let us take the manifestation of Christ 21 27-36 23 1 2 - 1 5 , etc. ) ; besides, most of the details which
uninfluenced
by tendency. to Paul near Damascus. According to it gives have no relation to any such purpose. T h e
229 his companions see the light from main point on which the supposed reconciliation turns,
heaven but do not, hear the Goice of Jesus ; according the Apostolic Decree ( 1 5 ~ 8 $ ) , is to be explained other-
to 9 7 they hear the voice but see no one and do not fall wise (see COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM, § I O). ( 2 )On the
down ; according to 2612-18 they fall down indeed with other hand, the book is not a mere apology for Paul.
Paul, but it is he alone who sees the heavenly light, If it were, much of its contents would be unsuitable (e.g.,
and hears the voice. This last account, moreover, the enumeration of the conditions required in a n apostle
represents him as having received a t the time a n ex- [lxf.],which were not fulfilled in Paul); it does not
planation of what had occurred ; acbording to 2214 $, even give such a view of the personality of Paul as the
he did not receive the explanation until afterwards, facts known to us from the epistles demand (see below,
through Ananias. §§ 7, 14). There remains only ( 3 ) one other possible
Further inconsistencies of statement are to he found when we view of the author’s tendency. His aim is to justify the
compare the explanation of the departure from Jerusalem in Gentile Christianity of himself and his time, already on
9 26-30 with that in 22 17-ZI ; the account in 1044 (&) with that
in 1115 ( + & d a r ) ; the explanation of the offering in 21 20-26 the way to Catholicism, and he seeks to do this by
.
with that In 24 17f the accounts in 21 31-34 22 23-29 23 27 with
28 17, according to‘4hich Paul was, in Jerusalem, a prisoner of
means of a n account of the origin of Christianity. ’ T h e
apostles, including Paul, are the historical foundation
the Jews and not as yet of the Romans ; the occasion of the of Christianity, and 432 a, where we are told that all
appeal to Czsar in 259.11 with that in 28 18f: The liberation
of Paul and Silas from prison at Philippi (1623-40) is not only a Christians were of one heart and soul, may be regarded
very startling miracle (with resemblances to what we read in as forming a motto for the book.
Euripides, Bacchce, 436-441, 502f., 606-628 [cp Nonnus, Diony- A whole series of demonstrable inaccuracies becomes
siaca 45262.2851, and as regards Acts1635-39, in Lucian
T o z a h , 27-33), hut is scarcely reconcilable with I Thess. 2 2: 4. Inaccuracies comprehensible when viewed as result-
where the language of the apostle hardly suggests that his resulting frons ing from this tendency. Paul never
‘boldness in God’ was in any measure due to an occurrence of this tendency. comes into conflict with the original
this kind.
apostles or their followers as he does
So much for inaccuracies that cannot be attributed t o in G a 1 . 4 1 7 5 7 1 0 1 ~ zCor.lO14f.
~ 1113-15 18-23.
any tendency on the part of the writer. There are The one misunderstanding (Actsl5) that arises is cleared
others- and these of much greater importance- which away by the original apostles ; the attempt to enforce the cir-
can only be so explained. Before discussing these, let us cumcision of Titus (Gal. 2 3-5)-nay, the whole personality of
ascertain clearly what the tendency of the writer is. Titus-is just as carefully passed over in silence as are the dis-
pute with Peter a t Antioch (Gal. 211-21 ; see COUNCIL O F
Every historian who is not simply an annalist must JERUSALEM 5 3),an+ the Jndaising plots to impose on the
have ‘tendency’ in the wider sense of that word. Galatians aAd Corinthians another Gospel, that of circumcision
3. Tendency His trustworthiness is not necessarily (Gal. 1 8 6 6 12 A), and another Christ (zCor. 114 3 ) . Apart
of the book. affected thereby : indeed, it has actually
~~~~ ~

1 It is not to be inferred from the absence of the article from

been urged by one of the apologists for the title in good MSS (rpa&bs aromohov [BD]) that the author
Acts,l a s an argument for the trustworthiness of the book, meant to say that it was with the acts of only some of the apostles
that it was designed to be put in a s a document a t the that he proposed to deal ; for it would he very strange that he
trial of Paul, and was written entirely with this view-a should admit such an incompleteness in the very title of his
work. The article before i ~ o u d A w vis omitted because rpPb&~s
position that cannot, however, be made good. Now, it is without it ; and that is so simply because such is the usual
is clear that the book does not profess to be a history of practice at the beginning of hooks (cp Mt. 1I Acts 1I and see
the first extension of Christianity, or of the Church in the Winer (8) 4 194 IO). Since therefore no form of the’ title can
he assigdeh to the author of the book we conclude that the title
apostolic age : it covers really only a small portion must date from the time when the book was first united with
of this field. I t is equally certain that the title qxi&bs others in one collection-its‘first occurrence is in the last third of
{7T(;v?)drrou~bhwvdoes not express the purpose of its the second century (Mur. Fragm. Tert. Clem.Al.). The simple
mpPd&~cq [HI, common since Origen, is meaningless as an original
1 Aherle, Tiib. TlzeoL QuartaZschr. 1863, pp. 84.134. title, and intelligible only as an abbreviation.
39 40
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
from the Gentiles who seldom show hostility to Paul (145 confined himself to matter preserved by tradition, merely
16 16-23 19 23-41), it is (notwithstanding the end of z Cor. 11 26)
only at the hands of non-Christian Jews that Paul meets with making- a selection a n d putting it into shape.
difficulties (13 45 18 6 1 9 g 28 24) or persecutions (9 23f: zg 13 5 0
. 3 19 21 27-36 23 12-21 24 1-9 25 2-9 24).
14 z 5 19 17 5-8 13 18 I Z ~ 20
For further illustrations of the operation of this tendency in the
5 $ ~ ~~cllition
The -author has two &tendencies in
~ to ~the religious
~ -
~ theological
y
writer of Acts see SIMON and BARJESUS.
I. There is first thepoZiticaZ tendency, the desire to
On the other hand, Paul brings forward nothing say as little as possible unfavourahle t o the Roman civil
whatever in which the original apostles h a d not led the power.
way : far from going beyond them at all, he appears In the Third Gospel we already find Pilate declaring that he
to be entirely dependent on them. finds no fault in Jesus, and he has this judgment confirmed by
His journeys to Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia ( G a l . l r 7 a r ) are Herod, who in the other gospels is not mentioned at all in con-
passed over in silence, and thus it is made out that not he but nection with the examination of Jesus. Pilate declares thrice
Peter gains the first Gentile convert, for Cornelius, in opposi- over that he will release Jesus, and he is prevailed upon
tion to 10zza 35, where he is a semi-proselyte is represented in to pass adverse sentence only by the insistence of the Jews
10 2845 11 I 18 15 7 as a pure Gentile. (Historically, however, (Lk. 23 1-25). In Acts (which has even been regarded by some
after Peter had, in face of the doubts of the primitive church, so as an apology for Christianity intended to be laid before
completely, and as a question of general principle, justified the Gentiles ; see above 5 3 n.), the first converts of Peter and Pan1
reception of Cornelius into the Christian community without are Roman officers (10 I 137), while it is the Roman authorities
his being subjected to the requirements of the Mosaic law, who definitely declare Paul to be no political criminal as the
as is related in 11 1-18, the question that led to the Council of Jews would have it (18 14f: 19 37 23 29 25 IS$ 26 31f:) ; it is by
Jerusalem could never again have sprung up.) them also that he is protected (in more than one instance at
Again, whenever Paul comes into a strange city, he seeks (as any rate) from conspiracies (18 72-17 1931 21 31-36 231022-33
we should expect him to do) to establish relations first of all with 25 2-4).
the synagogue, since, through the proselytes who might he When this political tendency is recognised, the con-
looked for there, he could obtain access to the Gentiles: our
view agrees also with Rom. 10 18-21. According to Acts, how- clusion of the book becomes intelligible. Otherwise
ever, in almost every place where Paul betakes himself with it is a riddle. Even if the author meant to a d d still
his message to the Gentiles as distinct from the Jews, he has a T p h o s Xbyos (third treatise)-which is pure con-
to purchase anew the right to do so, by first of all preaching
to the Jews and being rejected by them(131445f: 154-6198f: jecture-he could not suitably have ended the ~ E ~ T E ~ S
261724-28). The only exceptions to this rule are Bercea (17 Wyos (second treatise) otherwise than with the death of
IO-rz), Paphos, Lystra, and Athens (13 6147 17 ijrtwhere the Pan1 : that he did not survive Paul is even less likely
narrative passes at once to a quite singnlar incident-and towns than that he .was otherwise interrupted at this point of
so summarily dealt with as Derbe and Perga (14 21 25) along
with Iconium, where Gentiles are brought to Chridtianity his work. When we take account of this political ten-
through the sermon in the synagogue (14 I). In 28 17-28 in dency, however, ' none forbidding him ' ( ~ K W X ~ T W Sis)
order to make the right to preach to the Gentiles dependent really a skilfully devised conclusion. T h e very last
on the rejection of the gospel by ihe Jews, the very existence
of the Christian church, already, according to 25 15, to be found word thus says something favourable t o the Roman
in Rome, is ignored. Such a dependence of Paul's life-work authorities, and, in order not to efface this impression,
-his mission to the Gentiles--on the deportment of the Jews, the writer leaves the death of Paul unmentioned.
and that too in every individual city, is quite irreconcilable 2. Secondly, h e h a s in his niotle of narration an
with Gal. 116 2 7 ~ 5 and, with the motives which the author him-
self indicates in Acts 1347 28 &,as well as with 9 15 26 17f: esthetic as well as a political tendency : h e aims at
After the appearance of Jesus himself to Paul near Damascus deinp praghic.
the apostle has yet further to be introduced to his work b; 'l'hicendis prumotcd veryspecially hy the 'wc,' and thcdetnils,
human agency (in the first instance by Ananias [9 6 10-19 22 IO otherwiw purpusclesi, appr~lrriatedfrom tlic Journey Record ;
14-16], and subsequently [1125] by BARNABAS [ q . ~ . ]a, member but it is also served by m w l i in chaps. 1-12 that, without having
of the original church), and this happens after the church of any claim to be regarded as historical, contributes to the en-
Antioch-the first Gentile Christian Church, and Paul's first livening of the picture of the primitive Christian community
important congregation-had already been founded by Cbris- (see below, 8 13); also by the speeches (see 8 14), and par-
tians from Jerusalem (11 20-24). (Both of these statements are ticularly by the miracle-narratives, which in almost every
contradicted by Gal. 1 1 6 ; the latter of them also by the case where they are not derived from the 'we' document (see
order in which Syria and Cilicia are taken in Gal. 1 zr.) $ 8) are characterised by touches of remarkable vigonr (1 9-11
Moreover, at the C OUNCIL OF J ERUSALEM (4.1.56) Paul has only 21-1343 3 1-11 5 1-11 12 15f:17-25 6886f: 1339f: 9 3-19 33-42
to give in a report and to accept the decisions of the primitive 101.2~12 3-11 13 11 1438-1316 23-3419 ITA).
church. T h e total influence of all these tendencies not having
T h e tendency we have pointed out throws light also
o n the parallel (which is tolerably close, especially where
-
been so meat as t o lead the author whollv to disregard
the matter supplied t o him by tradition.
miracles are concerned) between the acts a n d experiences 6. Total effect it has often been supposed possible to
of Peter a n d of Paul. of these affirm that h e had no such tendencies
Both begin by healing a man lame from birth (3 2-10=148-10), tendencies on a t all. The inaccuracies of the book
and go on to the cure of another sick man (933f:=288); they the history.
heal many men at once, both directly (5 r6=289) and mediately are in this case explained simply b y
(5 15=1g IZ), besides doing signs and wonders generally (243 the assumption that the writer was not in pos-
512=14315rz 1911); both bring adeadperson tolife ( 9 3 6 . 4 2 ~ session of full information, a n d that, in a n a h e yet
209-12); both perform a miracle of judgment (5 1-1o=136-11);
both, by the laying-on of hands confer the gift'of the Holy still unhiassed way, h e first represented to himself the
' Ghost (8 14-17=19 1-7), and in dding so also impart the gift of conditions of the apostolic age, a n d afterwards described
tongues (1044-46=196); both have a vision corresponding with them, as if they had been similar t o those of his own,
one experienced by another man ( 1 0 1 - ~ = 9 3 - 1 6 ) ; both are when the conflict of tendencies in the primitive Christian
miraculously delivered from prison (5 18f: 1 2 3-rr=1623-34);
both are scourged (5 40=M 2.3) : both decline divine honours Church had already been brought to a n end. Certain
in almost identical words (10 25f:=14 11.~8, cp 256). it is that i n his unquestioning reverence for the apostles,
T h e life of Paul included many more incidents of this it was impossible for him to conceive t h e idea of their
kind than that of Peter ; but from what we have already having ever been at variance with one another. O n
observed we can understand how the author's pish not the other hand, it cannot possibly b e denied that he
t o allow Peter to fall behind Paul must have influenced must at the same time have either passed over accounts
the narrative. Still, h e has by no means wholly sacrificed that were very well known t o him or completely changed
history to his imagination ; had this been so, h e would them. It is hard to understand how any one can airily
certainly have brought his narrative into much closer say that to this writer, a Paulinist, the Pauline epistles
agreement with his own ideals. H e has not, for ex- remained unknown. Paradoxical a s it sounds, it is
ample, introduced in the case of Peter, as in that of certainly the fact that such a lack of acquaintance would
Paul, a stoning (141g), o r threats against life ( 9 z 3 f . b e more easily explicable had h e been a companion of
2 9 1 4 5), or a n exorcism (1616.18). And in like manner Paul (a supposition which, however, it is impossible to
the omission of many of the items enumerated in z Cor. accept; see above, § I) than it is o n the assumption
1123-27 12 12 may be explained, at least in part, b y the that h e lived i n post-apostolic times. I t is conceivable,
supposition that h e had no definite knowledge about though not probable, that Paul might sometimes have
them. He has, it would seem, a t least in the main, been nnahle tocommunicate his epistles to his companions
41 42
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
hefore sending them off. But a companion of Paul been certain that it was not composed by any of those
would a t least he familiar with the events which are who appear among the companions of Paul in the
recorded in the epistles-events with which the represen- 9. Its sections where the narrative ‘ w e ’ does
tation in Acts is inconsistent. If we ark not prepared not occur. But this means of solution is
to declare the whole mass of the Pauline epistles to out of the question. And if the source
be spurious, and their statements about the events to came into the hands of the author of Acts as (let us
which they allude unhistorical, there is n o way of say) an anonymous document, or if, in the interest of
acquitting the writer of Acts from the charge of having greater vividness, he used the ‘ we ’ without regard to
moulded history under the influence of ‘ tendency.’ the person originally meant, he may also a t the same
Only this tendency must be understood as being simply time have spoken of the writer of the Journey Record
a consistent adherence to the view of the history that he in the third person, even when he was otherwise
had before he studied his sonrces. following the document. Yet 205 is a strong indica-
T h e tendencies of the author once established in tion that by the ‘ w e ’ he does not wish us to
regard to points where his historical inaccuracy admits
I
understand any one at least of the seven mentioned in
7. Possible of definite proof from a trustworthy the immediately preceding verse. Thus the text at all
furtherinflu- source, one may perhaps found on events gives nowhere any ground for thinking .of
them presumptions in regard to matters Timothy, who, moreover, is mentioned in 1714f. 185
ences of
tendency. that admit of no such control. Did in the third person. If we are to regard the record as
Paul circumcise Timothv f 16 2 ) ? Since coming from SiZus, the author of Acts must have used
Timothy’s mother is called a Jewess, >Ad Yau1 held it-without the ‘we,’ and, in a very fragmentary way
the principle laid down in I Cor. 920, it is impossible indeed, for long periods during which, according to his
t o deny categorically that he did. Nevertheless, it own statement (1540 16rg252g 17410 185), Silas was
remains in the highest degree improbable, especially with Paul. This, though not .quite impossible, is very
after Paul had, just before (Gal. 23-5), so triumphantly unlikely. Moreover, Silas is never again mentioned in
and as a question of principle, opposed the circum- Acts after 185 ; neither, from the same period-that of
cision of Titus. T h e difficulty of the case is not much Paul’s first stay in Corinth ( z C o r . l ~ g ) - i s he again
relieved even by the supposition that the circumcision mentioned in the Pauline Epistles ; and in I Pet. 5 12,
happened before the Council Df Jerusalem, and only on he appears by the side of Peter. Whoever attributes
account of the Jews of that place (163) and therefore, the Journey Record to Titzls must in like manner
notwithstanding the statement of the same verse, not assume that much of it has been either not used at all
with a view to the missionary journeys. Again, did or used without the ‘we.’ For Titus was with Pa.d
Paul take a Nazirite vow? W e leave 1818 out of a t the time of the Council of Jerusalem (Gal. 21), and
account, since the text does not enable us clearly t o continued to he his companion a t least during the latter
decide whether that assertion concerns Paul or Aquila, part of the three.years’ stay at Ephesus, as also during
and since a Nazirite could shave his head only in the subsequent stay in Macedonia (zCor. 2 13 7 6 8 16J z3
Jerusalem. I n 21 20-26, however, Paul is represented as 12 18 ’). Besides, the writer of Acts would use a work
having taken such a vow, not only without waiting for of Titus somewhat unwillingly, for he completely sup-
the minimum period of thirty days required by tradi- presses his name (see above § k2). Still, if so valuable
tionallaw (2127 241 11, cp Jos. BJii. 15 T [I 3131 ; Num. a writing by Titus had been really available, the author
613-21 ; see N AZIRITE ), hut also, and above all, with of Acts would scarcely have completely neglected it.
the expressly avowed purpose of proving that the report If it is thus just possible that Titus wrote the
of his having exempted the Jewish Christians of the Journey Record, it is perhaps still more conceivable
Diaspora from obligation to the ceremonial law was that it was written by Luke. In this way we shoula
not true, and that he himself constantly observed that best he able to explain how, ever since the time of the
law (cp 28 17). This would, for Paul, have been simply Muratorian Fragment and Irenaeus ( A h . Huer. iii. 1 4 I ) ,
an untruth, and that, too, on a point of his religious the entire book of Acts as well as the Third Gospel came
conviction that was fundamental (Gal. 49-11 ; Rom. 104, to be ascribed to him. I t is true that, in the Pauline
etc. ). Just as questionable, morally, would it have been Epistles, the first mention of Luke is in Col. 414 ; Phil.
had he really described himself, especially before a court 2 4 ; zTini.4rr-in other words, not before Paul’s
of justice (236, cp 2421 265-8 2820), simply as a imprisonment and the closing years of his life. Never-
Pharisee, asserted that he was accused only on account theless, he may have been one of Paul’s companions at
of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and a n earlier period, if we are allowed to suppose that he
held his peace about his Christianity. occupied a subordinate position. T h e most suspicious
I n view of the tendencies that have heen pointed out, fact is that, whilst Luke (see L UKE ), if we may trust
there is. unhaaoilv. , some room for the susoicion that Col. 411 14, was, like Titus (Gal. 23), uncircumcised, the
*. A I

The Journey the author has not held himself bound writer of the Journey Record not only uses Jewish
Record : a, its fo appropriate the ‘ we’ source in its specifications of date (Acts1613 206$ 27g), and goes
integrity. This is indeed made ante- t o the synagogue or the Jewish place of prayer (1616),
cedentlv, I
Drobable bv the fact that he but also includes himself (16 13) among those who taught
has already in the Third Gospel passed over much that there (’Iou8aior, 1620, must not he pressed, as it may
lay before him in his sources, and that the sections rest on an error on the part of the speakers; cp
of the Journey Record actually adopted supply for 1637). W e must thus, perhaps, abandon all attempt t o
the most part only superficial notices of the stages ascribe the Journey Record t o any known companion
passed, or miracle stories. Add just in proportion to of Paul.
the freedom of the latter from legendary embellishments Other sources for Acts, in addition to that just
(16r6-18 209-12 283-g), and to their credibility even in mentioned, have long been conjectured: e.g. a
the eyes of those who wholly reject the supernatural lo. Other Barnabas source for chap. 1 3 3 Here the
(although, of course, the narrators thought them naming over again of Barnabas and Saul,
miraculous), must be our regret a t every instance in
Sources. and the omission of John Mark (131),
which the Journey Record has been set aside, or even in notwithstanding 1225, are indeed remarkable, as are also
which its words (as has been conjectured to be some-
1 Add to this that, if 2 Tim. 4 IO is to he taken as accurately
times the case; see above, § I ) are not reproduced preserving an incident in Paul’s imprisonment at Cresarea, it
exactly. could hardly have heen Titus that accompanied Paul to Rome
This free treatment of the Journey Record increases (Acts 21 28). The notices in the epistle to Titus are too un-
trustworthy to serve as a foundation for historical combinations.
the difficulty of ascertaining who was its author. 2 It is just as incorrect to suppose that he is named in Acts
H a d the record been adopted intact, we should have 18 7 as it is to identify him with Silas.
43 44
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
the circumstance that, apart from 1 1 3 0 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 2 2 5 , it
is precisely in these two chapters that Barnabas is often
lis life. A ieason for thisattempt
(132 7 1 4 14 ; contrast 1 3 4 3 46 50 1420) mentioned before s found (21 2 8 3 ) in the alleged introduction of a Gentile within
Paul, and that it is only here ( 1 4 4 14) that Paul (with :he sacred precincts of the temple, a proceeding which no one
Barnahas) is called an ‘ apostle ’ (see A POSTLE ). would guess to be simultaneous with the presentation of an
Of primary importance would be the establishment of 2ffering. Since, moreover, for a Nazirite vow at least thirty
days are necessary (see above, 5 7), it has been proposed to
sources for chaps. 1-12. detach 21 206.26, and to refer the seven days of 21 27 to the
Many traces o i distinct sources can be detected. In addition duration of the feast of Pentecost which Paul, according to 20 16,
to what is said under G IF T S , SPIKITUAL, and under COMMUNITVwas to spend in Jerusalem: 21 19 zoa 27 8would then also,
O F Goons $5 1-4 two themes had been long recognised along with 20 16 and 2 1 1-18, belong to the Journey Record.
as runnini through the speech of Stephen : viz. refutation W e come-now to the question how far this distribu-
of the idea that the blessing of God depended on the tion of the matter among various sources affects the
possession of the temple (7 48-50), and censure of the national
rebellion of the people against the divine will (751-53). The 12. Eearingof credibility of the book. I t is indeed
stoning of Stephen, moreover, is narrated twice (758a and .sa), these theories true that, in the case last mentioned,
in a very confusing way, and his burial does not follow till 8 2, the archaeological mistake of assigning
-
after the mention of the great persecution and the flight of all
the Christians except the apostles(8 16c). In 8 the persecution
is resumed, hut, as in 8 I U , only Saul is though?of as persecutor.
on trust- only seven days for the Nazirite
worthiness.
rites would become more compre-
The mention of Saul seems thus throughout (7 586 8 ra 3) to be hensible if we recognised a variety of sources; yet
a later insertion into a source in which he was not originally even so we should have to admit that there is a n
named. Resides, 8 ~ 6 cseems also to be an interpolation into
the account of the last hours of Stephen. I n as far as this error, and that the editor had been guilty of the over-
interpolation speaks of the dispersion of the Christians it is con- sight of incautiously bringing the two accounts together.
tinned in 1119,while 8 4 may easily be an ingenious ’transition And he, as well as the source from which 21206-26 is
of some editor leading up t o the story of. Philip. 1119 is perhaps taken, would still remain open to the reproach
further followed by the statement (1122) that the church at
Jerusalem elected a delegate. This representation of the right of having, under the influence of a tendency of the kind
of the church to elect delegates, which is found also in 6 5, seems described above (§ 6), ascribed to Paul a repudiation of
to he more primitive than that in 8 14, according to which such his principles of freedom from the law. It cannot be
an election was made by the apostles. Further in 8 15-17 the
apostles are raised to a rank unknown to the ’earliest times. too strongly insisted that in as far a s Acts, viewed
For, that Christians did not receive the Holy Ghost by baptism, as a homogeneous work, has to be regarded as a
hut only through subsequent laying-on of hands, and those the tendency writing, it is impossible t o free it wholly of
hands of the apostles, is disproved by Gal. 3 2 4 6 and even by this character by distributing the matter among the
the presupposition underlying Acts 19 2 J ,altho;gh the same
notion reappears shortly afterwards (19 6). In like manner, various sources : the most that can be done is in cases of
finally, the words ‘except the apostles’ (81) may have been excessive misrepresentation to put this in a softer light.
subsequently inaerted, to preserve the dignity of the apostles I n general, however, the editor has dealt with his sources
and the continuity of their rule in Jerudem. In 1130 the
friendly gifts destined for distrihution during the famine come in so masterful a manner that an unlucky hit in the
into the hands of the presbyters, not, as 6 1-6would have led us selection and arrangement of the pieces has but rarely
to expect, into those of the deacons. t o be noted. I t has been a practice among some of
Observations such as the preceding have of late been the scholars enumerated above to claim absolute trust-
ll. Theories as expanded into comprehensive theories worthiness for the whole of an assumed source which
assigning the whole book t o one source they suppose themselves to have made out, irre-
to Sources. or to several sources, with additions
spectively of the nature of some of the contents,
by one editor or by several editors. as soon as they have found it trustworthy in some
So R. Weiss. EinL in dus NT (1886.7rd ed. ‘07).8 40. and Ad.- particulars. Such an abuse of discrimination of sources
gesclz., 1893 (vol. 9, pts. 3 and >,of’&hhardt”&d Harnack’s
T e z f e u. Unlers.): Sorof, Entsiehung der Ap.-gesch. (1890) ; in the interest of apologetics is not only illegitimate :
Ban Manen, Paulus, I : de hundeelingen der Aposteelen (1890); it speedily revenges itself. These very critics for the
Feine, Eine norkawnische UelerZiefemng des Lucas, 1891 most part find themselves compelled to attribute
(only on chaps. 1-12). Spitta Ap.-gesc/z., 1891. Clemen, C/ironoL t o their secondary sources and their editors an extra-
der Paulin. Br. 1$3 and’ (for chaps. 1-5)’in St. Kr., 1895,
pp. 297-357; Joh. Weiss, SI. Kr., 1893, pp. 480-540, ‘Das ordinary amount of ignorance and awkwardness. In par-
Judenchristenthum in derAp.-gesch.’, etc., and 1895,pp. 252-269, ticular, all theories according to which a single assumed
‘ Die Chronol. der Paulin. Rr.’ : Gercke inHermes, 1894, pp. 373- source (of which the we’ sections form part) is taken
392 (only on the first chapters) ; Jiingst, Die QueZZen der A$.-
gesch., 1895; Hilgenfeld, Z W T , 1895, pp. 65-115, 186-217, 384- as a basis for the whole of Acts must from the outset
4479 481-517 ; 18962 PP. 24-79? 1 7 7 - 2 6 351-386, 517-558- be looked upon with distrust. There is nothing t o
No satisfactory conclusion has as yet been reached suggest that any diary-writing companion of !Paul also
along these lines; but the agreement that has been wrote on the beginnings of the church at Jerusalem,
arrived at upon a good many points warrants the hope and, even if there were, any assumption that his in-
that at least some conclusions will ultimately gain general formation on such a subject would be as trustworthy as
recognition. It is certainly undeniable that this kind his assertions founded on his own experience, would be
of work has sharpened the wits of the critics, and rendered quite unwarranted.
visible certain inequalities of representation, joints and T h e results then with reference to the trustworthiness
seams, even in places where they are not so conspicuous of. Acts, as far as its facts are concerned, are these.
as in 7 58-8 4. Apart from the ‘ we ’ sections no state-
13. Trust-of ment merits immediate acceptance on
worthiness
Thus the tumult in Thessalonica is told in 1 7 8 for a second
time after 175 in a disturbing way that leaves it impossible to the mere ground of its presence in the
say who it was that the Jews were trying (175) to drag before narrative. book. All that contradicts the Pauline
the people, or why it was that Jason (17 5J), whose part in the
affair does not become clear till 17 7 was brought before the epistles must be absolutely given up, unless we are to
&
authorities. It is probable that 13 originally followed im- regard these as spurious. Positive proofs of the trust-
mediately on 1349. Similarly, the account of the wholesale worthiness of Acts must be tested with the greatest
miracles of the original apostles (5 I Z U 1 5 3 ) is interrupted by
the interpolation of a fragment (5 126-14) which is itself not caution.
homogeneous. The least that could be done here would he to Ramsay thinks he has discovered such proofs in the
arrange as follows: 5 r z a 15 16 14 126 13. But that the text accuracy with which geographical names and con-
should have become so greatly disarranged by transposition is temporary conditions are reproduced in the journeys
much less likely thap the supposition of several successive inter-
polations. On 1824-28 15 1-34, see APOLLOS,and COUNCIL O F of Paul (Church, 1894, 1-168; St. PuuZ, 1895).
J ERUSALEM , S I 4 5. In the latter passage (15 1-34) the attempt Some of the most important of these points will b e
has been made, hy separation of sources, to solve questions to considered elsewhere (G ALATIA , §§ 9-13, 2.). Of the
which otherwise only tendency-criticism seemed to provide an
answer. Simjlarlyin the case of 21 206-26. After the presbyters other detailed instances many will be found to break
have just praised God for the success of Paul‘s mission to the down on closer examination.
Gentiles (21 ..a) the proposal that he should put it in evidence For example Ramsay goes so far as to say (St. P a d chap11
how strictly legal he is in hisviewsfollows with but little fitness. 4) : Aqnila, ;man of Pontus, settled in Rome, beds a Lati;
45 46
 ACTS O F THE APOSTLES
name. and must therefore have belonged to the province and not which the supposed hearers were using (cp. further THEUDAS,
to non)-RomanPontus. This is a good example of Luke’s principle and J UDAS of GALILEE).
tp &,e the Roman provincial divisions fur purposes of classifica- The speeches of Paul in Acts embody a theology quite
tion. As if a Jew from non-Roman Pontus, settled in Rome, different from that of his epistles.
could not have assumed a subsidiary Roman name, as countless A thought like Acts 1728 is nowhere to be found in the
other Jews are known to have done! And as if Luke would epistles. Paul derives idolatry, not, as in Acts 17 2 9 3 , from excus-
not have found it necessary to call him IlovmIc6s even if he were able ignorance but from deliberate and criminal rejection of God
from no”-Roman Pontus I (Rom. 118.32): Only in Acts 13 3 8 3 l e 3 1 2028, do some really
But it is not necessary to go thus into details which Pauline principles begin to make themselves heard. The most
might be adduced as proving the author’s accurate characteristically Pauline utterances come in fact, from Peter
(15 7-11), or even James (15 1 9 . see COUN)CILO F J ERUSALEM
acquaintance with localities and conditions. For B 8). The speeches of Paul, ekpecially that in 13 16-41, are SA
Ramsay attributes the same accuracy of local knowledge like those of Peter in idea, construction, and mode of expression,
also to one of the revisers of the text, assigned by him to that the one might easily be taken for the other. For example
the second century A.D., whose work is now preserved Paul’s speech in lS38f: resembles Peter’s in 1043. Or c i
3 17 1 3 3 (Peter) with. 13 27f: (Paul) ; 2 25-31with 13 35-37 ; or
t o us in D, and also to the author of one source of the 6 Skaror for ‘Christ’ in 3 14 with 22 14, but also with Stephen’s
Acta PauS e t ThecZe (0 3 ) , assigned byhim to the second in 752, For the speeches of Paul, especially 1316-41, show
half of the first century, whose work, however, he affinities also with that of Stephen : see 13 17-19 2 2 as compared
with 7 2 6f: 36 4 5 3 In like manner, the apologetic discourses of
declares to be pure romance (Church,2 5 6 4). If so, Paul in his own defence betray clearly an unhistorical origin
surely any person acquainted with Asia Minor could, (see § 7).
even without knowing very much about the experiences I n short, almost the only element that is historically
of Paul, have been fairly accurate about matters of important is the Christology of the speeches of Peter.
geography, provided he did not pick up his information This, however, is iniportant in the highest degree. Jesus
so late in the second century as to betray himself by his is there called ?rats BeoD-that is to say, according to
language, as according t o Ramsay ( 23 6 4 [end] 5 [end] 425, not ‘ son,’ but ‘ servant ’ of God ( 3 13 26),-holy and
7 5 9 8 3-6 ; St. P a d , see Index under ‘ Bezan Text ’) righteous ( 3 1 4 427 2 2 7 ) ; he was not constituted Lord
the above mentioned reviser, whose work lies at the and Messiah before his resurrection ( 2 3 6 ) ; his death
foundation of D, has done. I n point of fact, Weiz- was not a divine arrangement for the salvation of men,
sacker (Ap. ZeitaZter. 2 3 9 3 , 2nd ed. 230 f: ; ET but a calamity the guilt of which rested on the Jews
1 2 7 4 3 ) thinks that in Acts 13f: the account of the (313-15 530), even if it was (according to 2 2 3 428) fore-
route followed does come from an authentic source, ordained of%od ; on earth he was anointed by God ( 427)
but yet that the contents of the narrative are almost with holy spirit and with strength, and he went about
legendary. doing good and performing cures, but, according t o
Such, for example, are the incidents at Paphos in Cyprus, 1 0 3 8 , only upon denioniacs ; his qualification for this is
136-12 (see BARJESUS) . also 13 14 4 6 3 14 13,spoken of above in the same passage traced to the fact that God was
($ 4). the speech in 13’16-41 (see below, 8 14) ; the healing of a
lame’man 148-10, recorded after the model of 31-11; the with him. God performed miracles through him (222).
paying of hivine honours to Barnabas and Paul, 14 11-13, after A representation of Jesus so simple, and in such exact
the manner of the heathen fables (Philemon and Buucis, in agreement with the impression left by the most genuine
adjacent Phrygia see Ov. Met 8621 626f:); and the institu-
tion of the presbbterial organissttion, 14zq.. In the first main passages of the first three gospels, is nowhere else to
division of the hoox (1-12), great improbab~lityattaches to the b e found in the whole NT. I t is hardly possible not
publicity with which the Christian community comes to the to believe that this Christology of the speeches of Peter
front, to the sympathy that it meets with even among the
masses, although not joined by them (247 421 5 13) and to the must have come from a primitive source. It is, never-
assertion that only the Sadducees had anything agjinst it, and theless, a fact sufficiently surprising that it has been
they only on account of the doctrine of the resurrection (4 I$), transmitted to us by a writer who in’ other places works
while the Pharisees had given up all the enmity they had dis-
played against Jesus, adopting a slightly expectant attitude. so freely with his sources. At the same time, however,
See further, BARNABAS, BARSABAS. GIFTS, COMMUNITY O F the Didachd or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
Go& PHILIP, PETER, CORNELIUS, CHRISTIAN, and also for especially Sf., also bears evidence that in the second
the journeys of Paul to Jerusalem, and the attempted rearrahge- century, in spite of Paul, and of the Epistles to the
ment of them, COUNCIL OF J ERUSALEM , 5 I.
Hebrews, to the Colossians, and to the Ephesians, and
But, after every deduction has been made, Acts
of the Gospel of John, a n , equally simple Christology
certainly contains many data that are correct, as, for
still reappeared a t least in many Christian circles. T h a t
example, especially in the matter of proper names such as
the writer of Acts also respected it may be conjectured
Jason (175), Titius Justus, Crispus, Sosthenes ( 1 8 7 3 171, from the fact that he has not put into the mouth even
or in little touches such as the title ?roXi.rdpXai ( 1 7 6 ) ,
of Paul any utterances that go beyond it ( 1 3 2 3 2214).
which is verified by inscriptions for Thessalonica, as is
I t has already been repeatedly assumed in the pre-
the title of ?rp&os ( 2 8 7 ) for Malta, and probably the
ceding sections that the writer of Acts is identical with
name of sergius Paulus as proconsul for Cyprus ( 1 3 7 ) .
15. Author- the writer of the Third Gospel. T h e
Only, unfortunately, we do not possess the means of
similarity of language, style, and idea,
recognising such data as these with certainty, where ship. constantly leads back to this conclusion.
confirmation from other sources is wanting.
Differences of spirit between the two writings are so
With regard to the speeches, it is beyond doubt that
difficult t o find that their existence a t any time can be
the author constructed them in each case according to
held only on the assumption of a subsequent revision of
14. Trust- his own conception of the situation. In the Gospel, with a view to their removal, by the author
worthiness doing so he simply followed the acknow- of Acts. T h e most important divergence between
of speeches. ledged practice of ancient historians. the two books is that according to Acts 1 3 (cp 1 3 3 1 ) the
(Thucydides Ti. 22 I ] expresses himself dis-
ascension of Jesus did not occur till forty days after
tinctly on this point; the others adopt the custom
his resurrection, while according to Lk. 24 13 29 33 36 50$,
tacitly without any one’s seeing in it anything morally
as also the Epistle of Barnabas (159) and probably even
questionable. ) This is clearly apparent at the very out-
Jn. 20 17, it was on the very evening of the resurrection.
set, in Acts 116-22.
It is not Peter who needs to recount these events to the According to the original view, as indicated by the
primitive Church already familiar with them :2 it is the author absence of any special separate mention of the ascension,
of Acts who feels called on to tell his readers of them. And it in I Cor.154-12; Rom. 8 3 4 : Heb. 1 3 1012 122 ; Eph.
was only for the readers of the book that there could have been 120 25J49f: ; I Pet. 31922, and perhaps even also in
any need of the note that the Aramaic expression Aceldama
belonged to the Jerusalem dialect, for that was the very dialect Acts 232-35 (see 08v 2 3 3 ) the resurrection and the ascen-
1 Such passages as Mk. 10 17f: 3 21 13 32 6 5 ; Lk. 11 29-32 ;
1 A detailed discussion by De Witt Burton will be found in the Mt. 16 5-12 11~ f 1:2 31f: as contrasted with those in the same
Amev. Joum. of Theol 1898, pp. 598-632. gospels which already present secondary reproductions of the
2 Unless the passage‘be indeed a legendary development of same facts-viz., M t. 1 9 1 6 3 12 23 ( ; & r a v w : see below, $ 1 7 L)
Mt. 273.10. 2436135812401415-21; Lk.721; Mk.32830.
47 48
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
sion were the same act, and all appearances of the risen person of Timothy as apostolic vicar, set over the
Jesus were thought of as being made from heaven. presbytery ( I Tim. 51 19). T h e date of Acts must,
Whether thisfollows also from ' goeth before' ( ~ p o d yin~ ~ ) accordingly, be set down as somewhere between 105
Mk.167andinMt. 287, maybedoubted. I n a n y c a s e t h e and 130, or, if the gospel of Luke already presupposes
forty days indicate a significant development of the idea, acquaintance with all the writings of Josephus, between
already at work in the Third Gospel, that before his 110 and 130 A . D .
ascension Jesus must have continued on earth to T h e conclusions reached in the foregoing sections
maintain intercourse with his disciples, in order that he would have t o be withdrawn, however, and the author
might instruct them as to matters which he had not 17. Elass's of Acts regarded a s an eye-witness, if the
been able to take up before his death. A develop- views recently put forth by Blass should
ment of this kind in the story of the ascension required Theory. prove to be correct. According to Blass,
time. Even the repetition of the list of apostles in 113 the markedly divergent readings of D, and those of
'from Lk. 6 14-16 marks Acts as a new work. I t is, the same character found in some other authorities,2
accordingly, very rash to suppose that Lk. 11-4 applies all came from the author's rough draft of the book
to Acts also, or t o draw conclusions from this. (which he calls p), while the ordinary text, a, found in
As the book is dedicated to Theophilus, Blass thinks (Neue B, K, A, C , &, comes from the fair copy of this
kirchliche Zeiisch., ~895,pp. 720-725) that the latter must, intended for Theophilus, which the author (being a poor
according to the custom that prevailed in antiquity, have been
named in the title (that the title r p d & ~ s r&v &lr?raurdAwv is not man) made with his own hand. In doing so he
original, see above, 5 3 n.). The same custom, too he argues, changed his original-without special tendency or
would require the author to mention his own namzin the title. motive- and, still more, abridged it a s only authors do
Accordingly as, since the end of the second century the anthor
has been believed to be Luke (see abbve, $ g), Blass )thinks he is in copying their own work. And here, as we have
justified in restoring the title thus-AovK2 ' A U ~ L O X &lrpbs OS intirhated, Blass says, the author can be no other than
Oso'g~hovhdyos Gedrepos. But this pure conjecture cannot over- the eye-witness who can give his narrative in the first
throw the proof that the book does not come from a companion person with ' we.' To pronounce upon this certainly
of Pad. On the contrary, had the title really run thus, it
must have been regarded as a fiction. We should have had to interesting hypothesis is, however, not nearly so simple
suppose that the author, not content with suggesting (by retain- a matter a s Blass allows himself to suppose.
ing the 'we' of his source [see $ I]) that he had been a com- ( u ) Blass himself says that D and the additions or
panion of Pan1 on his missionary journeys, desired to make this
claim expressly in the title. marginal readingsin Syr. hl. in many cases already exhibit
a combination of a and p, and that- as is witnessed by
The date of composition of Acts thus falls a t least
some time later than that of the Third Gospel. T h e
15 5 18 19, etc., where both sources coincide this -
occurred even in the archetype itself from which both
16. Date. latter is now, on account of its accurate (directly or indirectly) are derived.
allusions to actual incidents in the destruc- But there are many cases where Blass ought to have expressly
tion of Jernsalem ( L k . 1943f. 2120), almost universally recognised this combination, where, instead of doing so, he
set down to a date later than 70 A. D ., and on some simply deletes something in j3 without giving further explana-
other grounds, which, however, it must be said, are tion. For example, ; ~ Q a p j 3 0at~ the end of 3 I I comes from a
alongside of ol 66 B a p j 3 $ & ~ ~;un)uav
~ 3 before .liurea^
;v in j
less definite, even considerably later (see GOSPELS). but Blass does not recognise the LOapj3oL a; incorporated I;'
Similarly, for Acts, the dying out of all recollection of &3 ( i k , by the process of combination just mentioned), though
the actual conditions of apostolic times-in particular, it is supported by the best witnesses for this text. Similarly,
murniuauw &vi 7bv ~ d p 'I?uoQv t ~ v 17) coming
X p ~ u ~ d(11
the ignorance as t o the gift of tongues (see G IFTS , from a, is an expression parallel to armfduaurv ; r r * & ~ after
SPIRITUAL) and the approaches to hierarchical ideas TOG pi 6 0 0 v a ~aCrois ?rv&pa &pov in j3 a t the end of the'verse.
(11720 814-17 1528 2028)-points only in a general way +, %lass wrongly questions the well-supported mureduauw
ET' aurw.
to a late period. Hence the surest datum is the author's
H e 'points out other corruptions also in the witnesses
acquaintance with the writings of J0sephus.l For an
instance see THEUDAS. Josephus completed his Jewish to p.
For example, in cod. 137 and Syr.hl. after 'Apiu7&pxou
War shortly before 79 A.D., his Antiquities in 93 or 94, MaKe8dvos (27 z), instead of O E U U ~ O V ~ K the
& S ,words Bema-
thework Against Apion after that, and his Autobiography AOVLK&V 66 ' A p i u m p x o s K a i %roQu8os, which can originally
somewhat after 100. As to the inferior limit, Marcion have taken their place in the margin only as a reminiscence of
204 and not as avariant. H e does well to put allsuch things on
about 140 A.D. had the Third Gospel, but not Acts, one side when trying to reconstruct an old recension j3 as
in his collection: but we are not aware whether he distinct from a.
rejected it or whether it was wholly unknown to him.
1 S t X r . 1894, pp. 86-119: Acta A$ostolomm, editio philo-
As for the Apostolic Fathers, I Clem. 181, if it have logica, Giitt., 1895 ; and Acta A$astolorum secundumfomxa?n
any literary connection with Acts 1322, can just as easily . . Ronzannin Leipzig, 1896. The theory oh Blass finds a
supporter in joh. Belser Beitr. zur Erklnr. a! A$.-gesch. auf
be the earlier as the later ; and as regards the rest of
Grund der Lesarten de; Cod. D u. seiner Genossen (Freiburg
their writings, apart from Polycarp 1 2 ( = A c t s 2 q ) , im Breisgau, 1897) ;it is argued against by Bernhard Weiss, Dev
dating from about 150 A.D., we can find traces only of Codex D in der A$.-gesch., 1897, vol. 17 part I of Gebh.
the'speech of Stephen; in the Epistle of Bdrnabas ( I 6 2 and Harnack's Texte u. Unfersuchungen (well worthy of
94f: 5 1 1 48 143=Acts 750 51 52 40-43), which in 164 attention, though not comprehensive enough). On Ramsay, see
above B 13.
speaks of Hadrian's projected building, about 130 A.D., 2 The additions and marginal readings of the Harklensian
of a heathen temple in place of the Jewish temple as version (syr.hl.) ; the Fleurypalimpsest (ed. Sam. Berger, 1889).
i m n ~ i n e n t . ~In Justin, about 152 A.D. (not 137: see an Old Latin text of Acts 11-136and 2816-31, inserted in a M S
of the Vg. from Perpiguan (also edited by Berger : Un ancien
h a d . 1896, No. 1239, p. 98), the points of contact are texte latin des actes des ajdtres, 1895, reprinted from IVotices et
more marked. If Acts 2018.35 has many ideas in extraits des manuswits de Za bibZiofh?pe tiationale, Paris,
common with those of the Pastoral Epistles, the in- tome 35, I partie); Cyprian, and Augustine, and in a secondary
discriminate use of rPeuPP6nPoi and d ~ l u ~ o r (20 o r 17 28) degree the composite texts E, 137, Gigas Lihrorum (ed. Bels-
heim, 7879), Sahid., Irenzus, etc.
shows that the author has not yet reached the stage in 3 In his second book Blass no longer calls j3 the rough draft
the development of church government which character- of Luke himself, but says : ' Actorum primum exemplar postquam
izes the First Epistle to Timothy, the latest of the Rome confectum est vel mansit ibidem vel Christianis Romanis
ab auctore ad descrihendum commodatum est; altera autem
Pastoral Epistles, which wishes to see the bishop,
conceived of as a sole ruler and represented in the
forma orientis ah initio fuit nhi Theophilum illum vixisse ...
puto'(pp. vii.J). Insupport ofthis, heappeals especially(p. xi.) to
the more detailed description in a of the journey on the coast of
1 The evidence fo: this has of late been brought together with Crete(ActsZT), which wouldbe more interesting in the Eastthan
very great completeness by Krenkel (yose$hus irnd Lacm, in Rome and on the other hand to the greater precision in &3
18 4): see also the Fortni htZy Rev. 22 485-509 ['771. with regard to the journey by sea to Malta and to Italy, which
8 The reference cannot f e to the (historically very doubtful) would he interesting to people a t Rome. This seems, how-
. rebuilding of the Jewish temple (about rzo-125?). The K a i after ever, to he no improvement on his earlier view, since (to mention
a h o i must he deleted, according to the best MSS and indeed no other reason) the dedication to Theophilus is to be found
as the connection demands. also in B.
4 ' 49 50
 ACTS O F THE APOSTLES
(a) Further, before putting forward this alleged ( d ) On the other hand, it is proved that the Greek
recension as the original draft of Luke the eye-witness, text of D rests partly on retranszation from the L a t i n .
he ought t o haveestablished it from the witnesses on Of the many passages adduced in support of this by Rendel
objective principles; but there is often no indication Harris, indeed (Codex Beze in Texts and Studies, ed. Robinson
ii. 1, ISgr), the present writer holds only nine to be really valid
of his having done so. proofs. But it is surely worthy of remark that three of these
From the very witnesses in which he gets his readings for f3- (326 532 182) are not even mentioned by Blass in his list of
readings often indeed found in only one of them-he omits a variants-where so much that is less imoortant is to be found-
great many additions and readings which, judged Ly the criteria but simply p;L\s.cd uvcr :i> et v i t i o w et eniLmc/ufu&ri/in; while
mentioned above under (u),show no signs ofa secondary character of t w o otlier5, oiie (146) is mcritionud onlyin the ftrst ed., and
but stand on exactly the same footing with those which he tlicoiher(l5a6)only in tIw sccoiid ; Ilnrrii's hypothcsi\i<mciely
adopts. It is very misleading when in St. Kr. (where he deals mentioned by Blass and not taken into further account. This
with only a selection of instances) it is made t o appear (p. 117) would from his poin; of view have been excusable if the Latinisms
as if there were strictly only four passages (227 8 3 9 9 4 272) in D had been merely such as even an author writing in Greek
which from their attestation should belong to 6, hut are open to might himself have employed and in point of fact has employed.
the suspicion of having been interpolated, and value is attached in, for example, 179 (in a Lnd j3 hap@dvsw r b kavdv=sutis
to the fact that D and the Fleury palimpsest are free of them. accipere). I t is to this category that the only instances from
For although Blass, in his second edition, admits such additions D discussed by Blass belong : i r ~ 8 6 w e = s ikjonentes for
as &rdu.raho~ after 08v (541) r i v p d q r i v before K a l &%hd$avro ~aij3ahdvrEs(18 IZ), &ai for o h a v (1935), and, especially,
(65) ri) iyiw after rrvedparl (610), which these two authorities ~ ~ + a h G = ~ afor
j unt p h q (1612). But these last two Blass him-
agde &I supporting, he still, in spite of the attestation of the self does not venture to attribute to Luke. Thus we are led,
same documents rejects the addition 6v Kopiv8w before bvravrdv according to his own view, to the much more serious result that
( ~ S I I ) ,and the ieading Arb 705 'AKliha instead'of &e&v (187). there are Latinisms in D which cannot have proceeded from the
Moreover, in spite of weighty testimony, Blass rejects, for author of Acts. The same holds good of all Harris's nine
example, the Hebraism Ivr~h6yyoviesK a ; before phau+qpoirvres passages referred to above. In 1329 2121, we find an e b i v
in 1345, which even Tischendorf (in a) accepts (in his second meaninglessly added to an expression in which T& or rods occurs,
edition he substitutes on the authority of the Latin of the Gigas because the original expression had been rendered into Latin by
a reading, bvnrauudpwor, for which there is no support in a sentence with sunt (in like manner 538-0nly, the sant is now
Greek MSS); on the single testimony of Augustine he adds wanting in the Latin text) ; in 3 26 18 I, the infinitive preceded
before K a i npqvjs in 118 the words ' e t colZum si6i uZZiguvit'; on by the article has its subject in the nominative instead of the
that of the Fleurypalimpsest alone he deletes 912. In these accusative, because the constructioii had been changed in the
last two cases, as well as in many others, it is difficult to repress Latin by the employment of a subordinate clause ; in 15 26 we
a suspicion that Blass allowed his decision to be influenced by have rraprr8s86Kamv instead of aapa6s8wxdurv, because the
his hypothesis. The credibility of the author and the possibility participle had been rendered by p i trudidemmt; 146 has
of making him out to have been Luke would have been called uvviddvras K a i Kar6~uyov=inteZlexermntet fuKerunt;l 5 32 has
in question had he not intended to convey, in agreement with rrv&p,a 8v (instead of i;)=sjiritus ~ U P M Z . Lastly, 19 zq directly
Mt. 275, that Judas had hanged himself, with the additional concerns one of the readings of p. According to Blass this runs:
implication that the rope had broken, and had he recorded in K a i UuvsxV'O 8 h $ ~ rdhrs, instead of Kai &&"q 6 ndhrs 6 s
9 1 2 a vision of so remarkable a character that even Blass finds m y ~ d u ~ w?sos a). But this is found only in the Gigas--a
it too marvellous. This last, therefore, he questions even in a. secondary authority-and in Pesh., which according to Blass is
That it might also have struck the scribe of the Palimpsest or one to a still less extent an authority for j3. D, in this case the sole
of his predecessors as too marvellous, and that Augustine or one authority (in the proper sense of the .word) for 8, has : r a l
of his predecessors could have hit upon the reconciliation he- uuwexJ8q &q 3 rrdhir aluxdvqr. As Harris has pointed out this
tween Mt. and Acts adopted by Blass is not taken into cou- aiuxduqs can only be a retranslation from the Latin text 2 D :
sideration. It is, however, a reconciliation that cannot be et repzeta est iota civitas confusione(n2). This is a correct
maintained. for assuredlv Luke would not have left out the most rendering of the Greek of a as above. But coi&sio is also used
for aiuxXdq-compare, for example, Lk. 1 4 g -and confundi
(often) for aluxliveu8aL. aiuxduqs, however, could io the present
instance have been employed in retranslation only if the verb
described. Enough has been said to show what caution requires was repleta est (&A$dq). uvvsxli8q, therefore, can only have
to he exercised with respect to the establishme7t of Blass's 5 come in later, from another copy, to take the place of ZrrA$utlq.
text! quite apart from any judgment as to the manner of its One sees how precarious a proceeding it is to seek for the most
onein.
~ original form of Acts in a MS the text of which has passed
(c) T h e very greatest difficulties present themselves through such vicissitudes. If Harris has in any instances
when it is attempted to establish (3 in a really objective proved retranslation from the Latin, the other instances also,
though in themselves incapable of proof, gain in probability.
way. In many cases, more than two readings present We mention only <pa5 for ip6 (322)) $v for $9 (325) and the
themselves-so many sometimes that Blass in his first additions ralbefore rrpoUKaprCp~V(813),aErlav(421), q i a v ( 4 34).
edition silently gives np the attempt to settle p ; though aGds (752)) as also K a i &6Acvue qpduueiv 7b &a &ov
(lz), the last four again being like 1929 readings of j3. g f a c t ,
in the second edition, as he (here) prints only ,B, he it becomes a possibility that even such passages as reveal no
has been compelled to determine its text throughout. error in retranslation were nevertheless originally Latin, and
Take, for example, 1418 or 10 11. Cases such as these are the the suspicion falls naturally in the first instance upon the
first indication we meet with that we have to deal not with two additions in 8.
6ut with sever~lfor?nsof the text, and thus that Blass's hypo- (e) Otherpassages in @ w e cannot accept as original,
thesis is false because insufficient. But, more particularly, there for the reason that they arephinly derivedfrom a fusion
is an entire group of MSS-HLP-which on Blass's own ad-
mission contains if not so many various readings, readings of two texts.
quite as indepeident in character as those in j3 : erg., 16 6 the Is it possible that Luke can actually have written : (16 39)
6ccA86vres etc., which has found its way into the TR, and rapexbhsuav aGroGs &%Ah&ivsirdvrss 4yvoijuapcv r i K a B ' Gp&,
plays so important a part in the criticism of the epistle to the 67' &T& &spes SiKaCoL. K a i ;taya dwss aapeKbheuav a6robr
Galatians (see GALATIA,5 9 : also below, under VI). In its A ~ ~ Y O V T&K
ES ~ d h s w sradws &Alare, K.T.A. ? Cod. 137 and
divergent readings E comes still closer thau H L P to D ; in D the interpolation in Syr.hl. prove conclusively the inadmissibil-
and E the substance is often the same and only the expression ity of this repetition, by omitting ( K a i ) bfayaydwes IrapsxcL4suav
different. Blass conjectures, therefore, 6 a t in the text fromwhich airrobs h6yowes. The probability is rather that Irapsrbheuav
E was copied additions from j3 had once been inserted in Greek stood, in the one MS with indirect speech, and in the other
and Latin, and that the Greek had afterwards faded ; they had with direct (so also, for example, in 21 36 direct varies with in-
therefore to he restored by translating back from the Latin. In direct narration in the MSS) ; in this case ;.$he& had reference
point of fact, this would explain very well why the addition of orjginally to the city, like b@AOarc, and not, as now, to the
D in 147 ( K a ? 2rrvrj8q Bhov r b rh$30s) becomes in E K a i ;&~h$u- prison. In 20 18 the addition in j3-6pdue Bwov air.rGv-wholly
UETO rriua rrohvirhrj@ara,and would apply equally well to some tautological as it is after As 6; rrapsy&omo rrpbs a+&, is
ten other examples pointed oiit by Blass. But such readings as certainly not to be attributed to the author : it is a variant of
the r o J r w v hexHdwwv of E in 1 2 3 after the first K a i ; or the As Sd K.T.A. which was at first noted in the margin and after-
subj. K a i buubiurv in E instead of the ind. bnqhhbuuou~oy i p
( A r b nbuqs dub'svsias) in D's addition after 5 15; or BfaAOdvrEs besides three others whkh he does notice (233 41 47) four of
6;- 6r +s uhar<s in E instead of BKoduavws 66 in 521-such theseseveu(222 3 p ~ i rbvresinstead
s of airroi; 224 8 ~a&oO
' after
readings $0 not admit of this explanation : thev are simply Muas; 243 oG ~ L K P &after q p e i a , and r i v xccprUv before ~ i v
instances of the same kind of freedom as that with which a brrour6Awv) are unsusceptible of explanation by means of his
changes j3 (or j3 changes a). The same freedom may have hypothesis.
manifested itself in other cases where Blass's hypothesis about
E would in itself be considered adequate enough ; the hypothesis
1 As another instance we may add 6iapp$$awes . .
. lcai
b[eEmjSquav (1414)=consciderunt et exiliemnt. So also 5 z r J
therefore demands fuller investigation1 before it can be accepted 7 4 13 29 1617 34 20 IO. Moreover 8s (for 6) Aah+uas (425) is due
(see further below, under e). to retranslation of p i [locutus esfl ; similarly 3 II 412 11I
And the As of 1125 (<f+8eCv bva<qr&v avrbv K a l os auvmxwv
1 In Acts 2, which we have specially examined with this view, IrapeKbr\€mv6h8eiv) can hardly he explained otherwise than as
we find that Blasq omits no fewer than seven readings of E derived from the parallel Latin text : c u m (inueniss&lt
which on his principles ought to have been noted as variants; dejrecada[nltrr venire).
51 52
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
wards crept into the text of DA Vg. Gigas hut in E on the (191)the intention of making a journey to Jerusalem just after
other hand, with skilful avoidance of tautolo& was chinged to he had returned from th& city, without even the slightest
bpoOvpa86v. The case is similar with the addition in 5 21 (found reference to what had been said immediately before. For it is
only in D)--iy+‘&res ri) vpot-an addition which, moreover, not possible to agree with Blass in regarding the journey of 191
comes in very awkwardly after Irapaysvdpsvos 62 b B xt~pcirs.ai as identical with that which had been intended by Paul accord-
at d v a h d especially as, instead of UvvsKbheuav, 8
goes on to
say K a t m & A ~ u & p ~ v o r . Here even P,!ass asks whether perhaps
ing to the addition of @ in 1821 (found also in TR). $his last
was actually carried out (1822, see COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM
Irapaywdpevos may have been wanting in p . 5 I). And even if it had not been, the inspiration whicg
hindered it must have been mentioned in 1821, and not in 19 I
Yet,,it may be said that, in this and in the similar after he had already got back to Phrygia from Czsarea, whicg
cases here passed over, the hypothesis of Blass is simply is only a few miles from Jerusalem. Cp further BARJESUS, § T 6.
deprived of one of the arguments on which its demon- (9) Over against these ,instances, the list of which
stration rests, while there appear to be enough of could be greatly increased, there are a f e w rare cases
them left. in which /3 might rea@ be held to be the originaL
(f)Decisive, however, against this appearance, is the The additions Kar@quav robs &rrA paepoBs K a i before rpo+Oov
fact that precise& the most characteristic of the variations (12 I O ), $ 6 8 Zva6piprov before 161r and in 271, A r b &pas 1r6p1rrqs
&os S&mp after 199, K a L peivavrss i v Tpoyrhio after ZQov
of text between a und p bear witness against BZuss’stheo?. (20 15) SL’6 p f p C v S w a r h r e before KanjhOopav (27 j ) do not seem
This confutation of his hypothesis follows inevitably from to be ’inventions. And yet Blasq not only opposed a t least in
the hypothesis itself. his first edition, tbe quite similar addition of KaL’M6pa after
I I i r a p a (21 I) in-D, Sah., and Gigas, inasmuch as it could have
Just in proportion to the clearness and pointedness of @ and been introduced from 275, but also refused to accept the
the weakness of a in these respects is the improbability of the s e p e n t i autenz die which we find in d (215) instead of &e
author’s having with his own handlobscured and perverted the 68 l.ydve~otp2s l..$apriuab r A s $pipas (the Greek text of. D is
sense. And here in the meantime we can leave altogether out wanting here). On the other hand, in 2116 the text of a is not
of.account the question whether or not he was also the eye- materially inferior to that of p , to which Blass attaches a very
witness. In any case, after writing in his draft of 24 27 that it high value ; for the imperf. Bvcpaivopcv of 21 15 does not mean
was on account of his wife Drusilla that Felix left Paul bound, “we went and arrived at Jerusalem” (this follows in 21r7), but
he would not have said in his fair copy simply that it was on “we took the road for Jerusalem,” and thus even according to
account of the Jews-even if, as Blass thinks, both statements a, Mnason may very well be thought of as)living ih a village
were correct. If in his draft he had stated that Paul had between Cresarea and Jerusalem, as is expressly stated in p .
proclaimed the apostolic decree, not only in the later course The author-in this instance the author of the ‘we’ source-
(164), but also a t the outset, of his new missionary journey has here quite naturally taken for granted that the journey from
(1541),he would not in his fair copy have omitted to state this Caesarea to Jerusalem cannot well be made in a single day.
in the first and therefore more important of the places. I n
this instance even Elass considers an interpolation in @ as con- ( h ) After what has been said, it is clear that there
ceivable in 1541,hut chiefly because the expression seems to him is not the sZightest necessityfor assuming the buZk of the
to he somewhat obscure. In 22293, although the officer is in remaining variations in /3s which are indecisive, to be
fear because a Roman citizen has been bound, Paul is not
released, according to a , till the following day, not-as in p, original.
immediately (aapaxpcpa). Blass himself says (St. KY. 108) ; They consist partly of what are simply changes in the con-
‘one cannpt but be astonished at the carelessness of the abridg- struction, or periphrases without changing the sense (for both
ment i n a. All the mor; readily might it have occurred to him see for example 16 ~ g f i ) partly
, of a somewhat more vivid way of
that it was the writer of p that perceived and corrected the expressing the situation which, however, in the cases we have in
defects ofa. In his EditiojhiZoZop-ia Blass wishes 4l.ra6piov view-much more than seventy-could have been derived by a
without ahy authority either deleted or changed to 4 ImC a. simplecopyist from the adjoining context. Compare, for example
This would be justifiable only if it were perfectly certain tgat the very well-devised addition TOGS hoiroirs bu$mArudpavos afte;
the narrative, even in a, is all of one piece and absolutely to the ;lo in 1030.
point. But such critics as Spitta Clemen and Jiingst have (i) But do not these changes-materially so unim-
assigned 2229 and 2230 to two se,‘,ate so&ces. If it is only
the addition b 82 ~ J p ~ oESossv s Tax+ &p+qv after 142 in the portant, but in form so considerable-at least prove that
draft that enables us to understand how it was that in spite of both forms of the text, no matter which is the earlier,
the disturbance (or, according to p , persecution) mentioned in emanate from the author of the book itself? They do
142, Paul and Rarnabas remained in Iconium, why does the
author omit the words in his fair copy? More accurately con- not.
sidered they are to be regarded a s an interpolation designed to After having seen that precisely in the most significant pas-
do awty with the contradiction, an interpolation dhich carried sages of the hook (see above e andf) this does not hold, one
withit thefiirtherchangeofduxiuBqSQ(144)intolqv8dl.u iup&ov must further remember that ’in HLP, and also in E, equally
and, in 145a,the interpolation of itemin and s e a d o . ?t IS not important variations are met with (see ahove, c). These like
in D, however, that this interpolation occurs, but only in Syr.hl., those in j3,resemble the variation by which one gospel & dis-
which elsewhere also smoothes away the evidences of the work tinguished from another. Here, accordingly, transcribers have
of various hands in D-as for example, in 1914 by the introduc- allowed themselves liberties which are usually regarded as per-
tion of p i before &‘os P p v , in 186 by the omission of SQ after missible only to the authors of independent works. However
Bvrr7auuopdvov, and in 142 by omitting the last two words in surprising this may seem to us, the fact cannot he denied. When
the q$e tautolog&al expres?ion oi B ~ X L U U V C ~ ~~OL~j vO’ ILo u S a i o v in Mk. 321, for ~ T &.$Qu;.nl
L (a reading which is a stumbling-
K a L O L apxovms rqs m v a y o y q s . If, as Blass supposes, it were block to many theologians even of the present day) D substi-
necessary to hold that Syr.hl. has preserved the original, whom tutes ~ T h.$6rarai
L airrojs, ‘ that he has evaded them,’ or at least
could we possibly imagine, for example, to have added the words ‘that he has stirred them up,’-is not the liberty taken with the
$9 uvuayoyrjs, or omitted the words itemnz and secundo? text just as bold as Mt.’s in the exactly corresponding place
But, moreover, in 142-5 the changes mentioned above would 1223 (i.e., just before the reference to a league with Beelzei
not have been at all necessary unless first 142 had been wrongly bub), when he changes it to l.&%ravro? But this freedom
interpolated between 14 I and 143. Even though it may perhaps of treatment is by no means without analogies elsewhere in the
be a fragment from another source, 142 has its immediate con- literature of the time. The text of Plato in the Flinders-Petrie
tinuation in 144. Here even Ramsay supposes a ‘corruption’ : papyri (CunninEhanz .Wewzoirs of 2he Academy of Du6Zin
only it is 143 which he takes for a gloss. Thus we come again 1891) shows similarly pronounced deviations from the ordinar;
upon one of the many cases in which Blass holds p to be the text-deviations which, according to Usener(Nachr. d.GeseZlsch.
original simply because it never occurs to him to bring the unity der Wiss. zu GcW., 1892, p F 25-50,181-215), are to be attributed
of Acts into question. Similarly, for example, he drops from @, to the copyists of the papyri, perhaps as early as within 120 years
and also even from a, the Bmb of 1914,which is irreconcilable after Plato’s death. In the papyrus text of Hyperides, Against
with the bp+dpv of1916 on the sole authority of D, without PkiZippides (CZassicaL Zexts from Pajyvi in Brit. Mus., ed.
recognising that the omikon in D may have Jxen a late Kenyon, iagr), Blass himself discovers ‘very often ...inter-
expedient for removing the contradiction just as much as the d160 polation and arbitrary emendation,’ and in the third Demo-
for lmri in Gigas. If the author in his draft had already written sthenes letter published in the same collection, ‘extensive
after’IouSaias in 151, the words r&v T E T L U T W K ~ T W V Arb T$ variation’(/ahr6.f; class. PhiZoZ., 1892, p. 42, and 1 8 9 4 , ~447).
.
alpQucws ri)v B a p i u a i o v , and in 15 5 had referred to this (hy a I n order more easily to comprehend the possibility of
simple oi Se?, why is it that in the clean copy his first use of the changes in the text on the part of a transcriber, it
expression is in 155, so as almost inevitably to suggest the thought
thata piece derived from anotheQonrce begins a t this point? (see may be allowable t o conjecture that h e may have been
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, 0 4). If, according to the rough accustomed to hear the book recited or even himself t o
draft (not only in 166J, hut also in lTr5 191203), the journeys recite it (with variations of the kind exemplified), on the
of Paul were determined by inspiration, why in his clean copy
does theauthorleave this out in the last three of these passages? basis of a perusal of it, but without its being committed
Here too we can see the inapplicabilityof another of Blass’sasser- t o memory. Such recital was by no means impossible
tions,’ vi; that nowhere in a or @ is the narrative changed so as in the second century.
to become more interesting or more marvellous. Further the ( k ) T h e question whether D shows in tJie gospeZs the
author of this three-fold mention of divine inspiration ’has
fallen into an oversight-that, namely, of attributing to Paul sume variations as in Acts may be left out of account.
53 54
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
It would he important only if it could he answered in the v 168? The insertion of ‘ we in 1128 would not be
of ~ a ~ & u a in’
6’. affirmative for Mt., Mk., and Jn. For, that in these cases bolder than the other infelicitous changes in p . It ought to he
also the rough draft should have gone into circulation as noted that Syr.hl. is not implicated in this insertion ; and the
c well as the clean copy is really very improbable. But the text of D is by no means in order for it has &#qwithout telling
independent variations are too few to warrant an affirmative what it was that Agabus did say’(in the sense of BhdAhs~),while
answer. If the same he the case with the Third Gospel, then, in the whole of the NT it is direct speech, or, as in four isolated
according to Blass’s hypothesis, we must assume that the draft of exceptions in the case of Paul, at least indirect speech, that is
it was not copied ; but if they are sufficientlynumerous, as Blass connected with+qpi. In Acts 1128 the indirect speech depends
has recently declared (Hemzathena, 21, 1895, pp. 121-143 ; and rather on uqpaiuov.
22, 1896, pp. 291-‘373; EvangeZium secundum Lucanz . .. ( n ) A very dangerous support to the theory of Blass
secundum formam que videtur Rontanam, 1897 ; PhiZoZogy has been contributed by Nest1e.l
of fhe Gos#eZs,1898), there is nothing to hinder our applying to
them the judgment applied tC) those in Acts, however that In his view @apJvam in D (Irenaeus has agp’avmtis), instead
judgment may go. of Ijpvljuau8s in 314, comes from a confusion of 133 (Job 35 16
Neither is it decisive of the question that p i s frequently 1510) and 153 in the Semitic source of Acts 1-12 (similarly,
before him, Harris, p. 187, but otherwise pp. 1625), and in like
not fuller but briefer than a (e.g., 2626 7 4 ) . manner ~ 6 u p sinstead
, of ha& in 247, from confusion of O$ and
(I) Very important, on the other hand, is Blass’s
assertion that the uniformity of expression i n a a n d j3 is oy (or in Aramaic Nl$g and Np). In itself considered, all evi-
dence for the existence of a source (now pretty generally con-
a very strong proof’ that both recensions come from
the hand of the author. But it is sufficiently met by
jectured ; see above $8 lox) for Acts 1-12 cannot be otherwise
than welcome; hut) in the form thus suggested the evidence
Blass’s own index. points rather to the conclusion (which Nestle leaves also open)
According to this there occur in the divergent ‘passages of j3 that some person other than the author himself had, in tran-
(which are by no Aeans of great compass) 64 words never else- scribing, adopted another translation of the Semitic text.
where met with in Acts or the Third Gospel. If we deduct from ( 0 ) No happier is an attempt of Conybeare to provide
these, besides 5 proper names, the g vouched for only by the
Catin text (although Blass himself has not succeeded in giving a new prop for Blass’s theory.
them a Greek form that suggests the authorship of Luke), there H e points ont in the American]oum. of PhiZoZogy (172
still remain 50 (not 44, as is stated in Blass’s Ediiio philolopica, [r896], pp. 135.171) the most interesting fact that the Greek
p. 334). After deduction of 4 numbers, and the expressions commentary of Chrysostom, and, to an even greater extent, the
LUTLOV and urparoms6&pX?r, for which no other word could many extracts from it in an Armenian Catena on Acts. follow
possibly have been chosen, the number stands at 44. So also in or at least presuppose a series of p readings to he found partly
his second edition (see the enumeration in his Evang. sec. Luc. in D (and other witnesses for the j3 text), partly only in
p. xxvii.), although, from the somewhat different form of text Syr.hl. or in cod. 137, He thinks he can thus prove that
adopted, the words that appear to be peculiar to p are not quite originally all the j3 readings were united in a single cod.,
the same. in the copying of which they were partly removed to secure
( m ) In support of Blass’s highly important assertion greater agreement with the prevailing text. But the number
of j3 readings used by Chrysostom is insignificantly small
that the eye-witness Luke alone could have given his work when compared with those of which he shows no trace; and
i n 60th the forms which w e have in a ana! p, the most of such as do not appear in D Conybeare has adduced only
that can be adduced- out of all that has been remarked five. Chrysostom accordingly furnishes no stronger support
on in the course of the section-are the passages referred for Conybeare’s thesis than any other witness for j3 would, for
each of them shares some of its readings with D and some with
to under (9).But of the ‘seven steps’ in Jerusalem, Luke, other witnesses for 8. But to explain this there is no need of
according to Blass’s own view, gained his knowledge Conyheare’s assumption that all p readings are from one hand :
not from personal observation, but only from the written it would he explained equally well by supposing them due to
the lahours of successive copyists (or editors). Conybeare
(or oral) testimony of an eye-witness. however, goes much further and asserts that Luke himself is th:
All the same he takes the liberty, according to Blass, of leaving author of all these j3 reahings. He ventures to rest this
the note out in writing his fair copy. This being so the omission assertion on a single passage-a very small foundation for such
of the five other details, even if with Blass one carries this back a structure. Moreover, it would have been just as easy for
to the author of the hook, does not prove that they had formed another as for Luke to add ‘ so natural a phrase ’ as, according to
part of his own experience; he may equally well have obtained Conybeare, m v r q v i r a t is in 1925.
them from a written source. Four of them (1611 2015 2715) Blass’s theory, then, it would seem, is so inadequately
belong, in point of fact, to the ‘we’ source. It is not at all
easy to see why a transcriber might not have ventured to omit proved that it cannot be held to have subverted any of
them, with so much else, as of inferior interest. We may there- 18, Estimate of the conclusions regarding Acts in
fore thankfully accept them, as well as other data in p which Blass,s theory. preceding sections of this article. It
have been shown or may ultimately appear to he more original
than a, as contributions to our historical knowledge ; but they has the merit, however, of having
do not prove more than this-that in such cases p has drawn called attention in a very emphatic way to the imz
-more faithfully from a true source than a has. There remains portance of p. I t has also raised new problems for the
accordihgly, in favour of the eyewitness as author of Acts, onl; science of textual criticism-not to speak of the many
1128, where D (along with, essentially, the Perpignan Latin
text, and Augustine), instead of dvawhr 66, has ?p 62 1rohU7 valuable contributions it has itself made to that science
dyahhlauw uuvsurpapp&wv 6h Ijp& &#q, and then qpaivwu and to the interpretation of the Book of Acts.
instead of hmjpavev. Thismight possihlyhe from the ‘we’ source- T h e value of Acts as a devout and edifying work,
hut the inference is not that it can only have been by an eye!
witness that the ‘ we’ in a was set aside. Or why is it that ‘we ’ cannot be inmaired bv criticism. Indeed. the book
is set aside by L in 1617, by N* (and differently by ABCH) in is helped by criticism, which leads
21 IO, by H in 28 76, by P and Vg. in 27 I (rods m p l rbv IIaGhov 19. Religious not only beyond a mere blind faith in
or eunr, for $pas)),hy H L P in 207 2 1 8 a 281 1613 hy C3 alsi value of Acts. its contents, but also beyond the un-
in 28 I , by D also in 1813( ~ B ~ K for
c L ~ v o p i < o ~ a v ) ?knd why, on
the other hand, in 2719 does it stand only in H L P Pesh.? In historical assumption that one is entitled to impose
all of these cases (except 27 I , see below) Blass has the same on the author the demands of strict historical accuracy
reading in j3 as in a. (In 16 13, he has it is true, in p the &%re‘ and objectivity. Its very ideal, in apostolic times un-
mentioned above, but he likewise obtkns in a also [by the con-
jecture Lv6pi<ov & mpovwx~e2vail a reading in the third person.) happily not reached, according to which the company
H e thus acknowledges that it is copyists not the eye-witness of believers were of one heart and one mind (4 32),
that allowed themselves to remove the ‘;e,’ or to introduce it: shows that the author knew where the true worth of
Only in 1128 does Blass assume that it was Luke himself who Christianity was to be found. T h e early Christians
changed into the third person in a thy‘ we’ which he had written
in j3. So also it is only in one place, and even that only in hit pray everywhere with and for one another ; they ac-
second edition, that Blass regards the third person in place of ‘we company the apostles and take pathetic farewells of
as a reading of 8-namely, in 205 (on the authority of D), for in t h e m ; they distribute their possessions and have all
271 it is only through a change of the whole of the first part of
the verse, rendering $pas impossible that the third person is things in common. Particularly beautiful figures are
introduced. At all events, it is impokihle that 1130 as well as those of Stephen, Cornelius, Lydia, and the jailer a t
1128 can he derived from the ‘we’ source (see COUNCIL OF Philippi. T h e jailer knows that most important question
JERUSALEM 5 I). Even the ‘we ’ of 1128 may possibly have
been the idertion of a transcriber who knew (with Ens. H E of religion, ‘ W h a t must I do to be saved?’ (1630), and
iii. 46, Jer. De Vir. fZZ. 7, and the Prologue [earlier than Jerome] Peter also ( b i z ) , as well as Paul, expresses the con-
to the Third Gospel in codd. Corbeiensis, Colbertinns, Amiatinns viction that Christianity alone has a satisfactory answer
Fuldensis, Aureus, etc.) that Luke was understood to have been to give. T h e writer. of Acts is able to rise above all
native of Antioch. Or has Blase himself not recognised that
Ireniens also (iii. 14 I), or one of Irenaens’s predecessors has per- 1 Exposifor, Sept. 1895, pp. 235.239; Sf.Kr., 1896, pp.
mitted himselfon hisown responsibility to say nus v e n i d s instead 102-104.
55
 ACUA ADAM AND EVE
narrowness of sympathy (10 15 34f: 15 I O ) ; and the con- Kt. is to be preferred ; see Di.’s note is mentioned once,
ception of God in 1728, which cannot be attributed to if not twice. In Josh. 316 it is the name of the place
Paul, is really much more apt, and is more closely beside or near which the descending waters of the Jordan
in accord with the results of philosophically purified ‘ stood and rose up in one heap ’ ; here it is followed by
thought, than that apostle’s, still hampered as it was by the words (which may possibly be a gloss) ‘ the city that
Jewish modes of thinking. Lastly, sayings such as we is beside Zarethan.’ An echo of this name may very
find in 2 4 16 4 20 20 24 1 4 22 21 r3f. are of the deepest plausibly be found in Tell ed-Ddmieh and Yisr ed-
that can be said about the inner Christian life. Ddmieh, names of a hill and bridge at the confluence of
As Lightfoot remarks, the literature which has gathered the Jabhok (Zerkd) with the Jordan, some 16 m.,in a
round Acts is too large to catalogue profitably. To his own direct line above the ford opposite Jericho. Indeed it
list (Smith’s DBZ) may be added Holtzmann’s is’possible that for 025 (Adam) we should read n p ? ~
20. Literature. comm. in the Hand-comm. zumNT(1889,znd
ed. 1892). In thecriticismofthe hook the most (AdZmSh), the ;I having dropped out owing to the
important landmarks are as follows : Schneckenhurger (Zweck circumstance that the following word begins with (so
derA$.-gesch. 1841), whilst maintaining its absolute trustworthi-
ness credited’ it with tendency to vindicate Paul against Kampffmeyer, ZDPY16 14). In this, case the resem-
J u d k e r s . Baur (PauZus, 1845) and Zeller (A#.-gesch., 1854) blance of the ancient and the modern name will be
regarded its tendency as ‘reconciling ’(unionisiisch)in its scope, closer. The same spot seems to be referred to in I K.
and its contents as untrustworthy. Bruno Bauer (Aj.-gcsch.,
1850), whilst holding the same view as to its tendency, went 7 46, where, for ‘ in the thickness of the ground ’ (AV
much further as regarded its contents, taking them to he free mg.), we should probably read, ‘ a t the crossing of
and often even purposeless invention. Overbeck, in his revised Adamah,’3 the name of sowe definite locality, not
4th edition of D e Wette’s Handbuch (1870), propounded a a description of the soil, being plainly required by the
modification of the tendency theory substantially identical with
that which has been set forth in the present article. Pfleiderer context (so G. F. Moore and Clermont-Ganneau). This
(Punlinismus, 1873,znd ed. 1890 ; Urchristenfhum,1887), Weiz- gives us a definition of the site of Adam or Adamah. I-t
sacker (A). Zeitulter, 1886, and ed. 1892. E T , 1894-95), and was at aford of the Jordan betweensuccoth and Zarethan.
Julicher(EinZ. in dus N T , 1894) urge, oftenkithjustice, that the Putting all the evidence together, we may hold that the
author wrote in simple faith, and has much that is trustworthy.
The most thorough-going apologist shaveheen Mich. Baumgarten Succoth of I K. 746 was E. of the Jordan on or near
(Ap.-gesck., 1852, 2nd ed. 1859), Karl Schmidt ( A j . -gesch. i. the Jabbok ; while Zarethan was W . of the river, in the
1882), and Nlisge? (Camm., 1882). The most promising new valley opposite Succoth. Beside Zaretlian, at the ‘ cross-
phase of the criticism of the hook is that which has for its task a ing’ or ford, was a town called Adam or Adamah (cp
separation of the sources (see above, 5 11). In this connection
mention must be made of a very remarkable return to tendency- SUCCOTH, 2 ; ZARETHAN, § I ).
criticism in a Marburg University Program of Johannes Weiss The second mention of a place of this name is in
(which appeared after the present article was in type) entitled Hos. 6 7 where, for h’dddm (RV ‘like Adam,’ RV mg.
Ueber die Absicht u. den Ziterar. Char. d e r Ap..gesch. (1897).
Weiss re ards Acts as ‘an apology for the Christian religion ‘like men’ ; Ss dv9pw?ros [BAQ]), we must at any
(against tge accusation of the Jews) addressed to pagans, showing rate read d’dddm-i.e., ‘ at Adam’-to suit ‘there ’ in the
how it has come about thFt Christianity has taken over from next clause, and to correspond to the localisation of
Judaism its world-mission. P. w. s.
Israel’s sin in v. 8 (so in the main We.). ‘There’ the
ACUA, RV Acud (a~oyA[BA]), I Esd. 5 30f=Ezra Israelites ‘ were traitors to Yahwe’ and ’broke his
245, AKKUB,4. covenant.’ Of course there may be a doubt which of the
places called Adam or Adamah is meant, and it may
ACUB (a~oy@[B]), IEsd. 531t=Ezra251, BAKBUK. even be surmised that the letters n l N (ADM) are in-
ACUD, see above, ACUA. ~ o r r e c t .The
~ fact, however, that the ford of Ddmieh is on
ADADAH (?lYl?y),Josh. 15&, probably (We., Di. ) the direct route (so we must believe) to the place called
a corrupt reading for 7Ill-11 ‘Ar‘drah-ie., Aroer Gilead in v. 8, suggests that the ‘ city Adam ’ of Josh. 3 16
is intended. The confluence of two important streams
(1YlV); see AROER, 3. may well have been marked by a sanctuary.
(A6a8a [AL] ; apouvh [Bl, implying $yriy ;cp payou. [I S. 30
28, @LIJ ADAM AND EVE.6 The use of Adam and Eve as
; aha
ADAH (il? ? [ADEL], ADA).
proper names within the Reformed Churches symbolises
a theory of the Paradise story which
I. Wife of Lamech (Gen. 41g-23+, aBBa [L]). See 1. IS distinctively modern and western.
CAINITES;~ 9. antipathJT
-,,----- to ‘The Reformers, always hostile to
2. Daughter of Elon the Hittite, and wife of Esau a1lagUL-y.
allegory, and in this matter especially
(Gen. 362 4 IO 12 16 [R?]) ; called Basemath in Gen. 2634 influenced by the AGguitinian anthropology, adhereh
[PI. See BASHEMATH, I. strictly to the literal interpretation, which has continued
ADAIAFI (il>?y,§ 35, once Sill?g [No. 81 ; ‘Yahwk to be generally identified with Protestant orthodoxy.’
passes by,’ cp. ADIEL ; aAala [BAL]). This was a necessary reaction against that Hellenistic
I . Grandfather of king Josiah, P K. 221 (sServa [Bl; r d d a ,
allegorising. which transmuted everything that seemed
low or trivial in the early narratives into some spiritual or
, .., the name of Josiah‘s mother ; 05‘~ov [Ll).
[A], i.e. 2yl’.
theological truth. The reaction had begun no doubt in
2. I Ch. 641 [261 see IDDOiii. 2.
3. b. Shimei, in ’genealog; of B ENJ AMIN ($ g ii. p), I Ch. 8 21 pre-reformation days. Bonaventura, for instance, says
(apta [AI,ahara [AI). that ‘under the rind of the letter a deep and mystic
A. A nriest in list of inhabitants of Terusalem (see EZRA. ii. 1 The ~ $ 6 6a uq5oSpGs of @B may he safely neglected, though
6
5 [bl 15 [TI a) T Ch. 9 12 (uaSLas [&)=Neh. l i r z (BN* om., if u+oSpGs (wtich is wanting in A) be correct, it testifies to the
asatad ‘[L]). Tb:s name should perhaps be read instead of antiquity of the inferior reading (n),NC. Symm., according
TEDAIAH (6.v. i. II in Neh. 12 6 or 7 .
_ I - - ~ - t o Field’s restoration from the Syr. Hex., gives &ab asow;
5 and 6.” Two members of the h e B ANI [Y.v. 21 in list of
~~~

@L l a b aSapq (interpolated)’ Vg. ab u76e pure vocatul;

those with foreign wives (E ZRA i. $3 5 end) Ezra 10 a9 (aSa [B], Adum. Bennett in SBOT(crit. Aotes) regards the name ‘Adam
aSaras [AL])=I Esd. 930, Je&us &Sards [BAI, a6aras &I), and the description of it as ‘the city,’ as suspicious. But ‘Adam’
and Ezra1039 (a8siap [Nl, -dabas [ALl)=r Esd. 934 (assacas should perhaps rather he ‘Adamah ’ and ‘ the city,’ etc. looks
[Ll, om. [BA EV]). .
7. h.,Joiarib, in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see
like a gloss. The text on the whole’is correct.
nniN;I m y m . The II 2 Ch. 4 11 has nnwn q?.
EZRA, 11. $ 5 [a], $ 15 [I] a),Neh. 115 (6ahea [Bl, axaia [AI).
8. The father of Maaseiah [4l, z Ch. 23 I (?;I’ly, a&a [BI, 3 ilmN n m n>
4 Moore, Y J L i 3 77-79 [(g4], cp Yudges, 212 [‘g5] ; Clermont-
asera [Babl, a h o u (pen.) [Ll). Ganneau PEF Qu. St Jan. 1896,p. 80.
5 One k g h t c o n j e c t u h y read Dumah-Le the Ednma of the
ADALIA (PC$?E), son of Haman, Est. 9 8 t (gapca O S (255 74’ 119 22, cp Guhrin, Sam. 2 r4f) Ghich is described
[B], Bapsh [HA], -EA [L]). See ESTHER,5s 3. 7. as a villagd ahout 12 R. m. E. from Neapdlis (Nablus), and is
the modern Daumeh (see Rob. BR 4 zgzJ). This is ohviously
ADAM (D?& to which Rt. prefixes 1,Kr. [so bL n not the ‘city’ intended in Josh. 3 16. It is also not very likely
to be meant by Hosea.
Symm. Targ. Pesh. Vg., and many MSS and editions] ; 6 On the names see below, 8 3.

57 58
 ADAM AND EVE ADAM AND EVE
meaning is hidden,’ but states also that ‘he who 2y the favourite typical view already referred to. (g)
despises the Ietter of sacred Scripture will never rise to [n z Cor. 113 there is a mere casual illustration.
its spiritual meanings.’ Still the completion of the (iii.) Other N T writers. (h) In Lk. 338 Adam is the
movement (within certain limits) was reserved for the last human link in the genealogy of the Saviour. The
great exegetesof the Reformation-Luther,Melanchthon, wangelist suggests a contrast between the first and the
and Calvin. Thus Luther explicitly says-‘ It were second Adam (see Lk. 3) ; but, scholasticism apart, what
better to read mere poetic fables than attach one’s self to he really values is, not the historical character of Adam,
the so-called spiritual and living sense to the exclusion but the universal Saviourship of Jesus. (i) John844
of the literal ; ’ and again, ‘ W e should stay by the dry contains a reference to Satan which presupposes the
clear words, except where the Scripture itself, by the reality of the temptation and fall of the first man, but
absurdity of the simple meaning, compels us to under- is simply and solely dogmatic, and belongs to the
stand some sayings figuratively ‘ (quoted by Diestel, peculiar dualism of the Fourth Gospel. ( R ) In I Tim.
Gesch. des A T i n der C ~ Y .Kiyche). This predilection 212-14 the social doctrine of the subordination of women
for a grammatical and historical interpretation was is ujjarently inferred from the story of the first woman’s
closely connected with the revival of classical studies, temptation.
but had its primary justification in the endorsement The conclusion to which these phenomena point could
which the NT appeared to give to the historical accuracy be fully confirmed by a similar examination of (iv.)
of the story of Paradise. It is the correctness of the dpfcrypha passages-even, the references in 4 Esd.,
historical acceptation of that story which criticism denies, which imply so much brooding over the Paradise
and before proceeding to consider the results of criticism story, being in close connection with the typical theory
(see CREATION, I and PARADISE), Protestant students of the early narratives, and the whole system of thought
may ask whether Jesus Christ and the NT writers really being quite as much based o n the imaginative book of
attached importance to the story of Eden as a piece of Enoch as on the sober narrative in Gen.2-3. As
history. Our conclusion will of course have a direct a final proof that a historical character could not be
bearing on the interpretation of the other early assigned to the latter in the early Christian age, it is
narratives. enough to refer to the Book of Jubilees (first cent.
Let us turn to (i.) passages spoken or written from a A . D . , but before 70), which, at any rate in its view of
purelylewish point of view. ( u ) In Mk. 106-8 (Mt. 19 the biblical narratives, represents the mental attitude
2. NTviews. 4-6) we have a combined quotation from of the times. Here the biblical stories are freely
Gcn. 1 2 7 224. Jesus passes over the facts intermixed with legendary and interpretative matter (see
of the Paradise story altogether, and fastens attention Charles’s translation).
on the statement that man was from the beginning We conclude, therefore, that the N T writers, whether
differentiated sexually, and that, by divine ordinance (so purely Jewish or touched by Greek influences, regard
no doubt Jesus interprets Gen. 224), the marriage union traditional facts chiefly from a didactic point of view,
was to be complete. His silence about the facts may no as furnishing either plausible evidence for theories
doubt be explained by the circumstances ; elsewhere derived from other sources or at any rate homiletical
Jesus appears to many to accept the historical character illustrations.
of the deluge story (Mt. 2437-39 ; Lk. 172627). But The literal and historical acceptation of the story
one must be cautious ; the reference to the deluge story in Gen. 246-4, which strong church authority still con-
presupposes the typical character of the early narratives, siders ‘nearer to the truth than any
a theory which is inconsistent with a strictly historical 3. Names
,Adam, and otherinterpretationas yet propounded,’I
point of view. (6) In Rev. 27 22 214, a literalistic view ,n.._ , may be supposed to be required by the
of the tree of life is presupposed. But these passages five‘ phenomenj-of the narrative itself. I s
are undeniably based, not so much on Gen. 2, as on the this the case? First, are the proper names Adam and
apocalyptic description in Enoch 24f: (6) In Rev. Eve found in the original story of Eden ? The facts are
129202 we have a description of SATAN (p.n. 5 6) as these.
‘ the ancient serpent,’ alluding to Gen. 3 I ; it is also ( a ) Adam (0;s ; asap), as a quasi proper name for the
said that he will ‘ deceive ’ the world as he deceived the first man (cp ENOSH), belongs with certainty only to
first man. It is certain, however, that the writer also Pz (Gen. 53-5),awho has used it just before generically,
draws from a well of popular belief, enriched from a in the sense of ‘ m a n ’ or ’men’ (Gen. 51 dvBp6awv
wider Oriental source, to which he gives as implicit a [AL]), followed by 7i)v A6ap Cia.] (cp 1 2 6 2 7 ) . The
belief as to the biblical statement. Yahwist (J) habitually uses the term n y ? , ‘ the man.
Passing to (ii.) the PuuZine writings, we find ( d ) and
Once, however, if the text be ~ o r r e c twe
, ~ find p?$ (EdEm)
( e ) in Rom. 5 14 and I Cor. 1522 45 references to detail:
in the story of Adam ; but the reference is made in used generically for ‘ man ’ or ‘ men ’ (-2206)~ and once in
a didactic interest. Paul accepts (as also probably lieu of a proper name subsequently to the birth of Cain
does Luke) the Alexandrian idea of the typical character and Abel (425),if we should not rather refer 4 2 5 5 to
of the early narratives, and of the double creation an editor. The conclusion is obvious. It is a true
of a heavenly and an earthly Adam. The latter doc. insight which is expressed in. the quaint old couplet in
trine, which the Alexandrian theology founded or Exeter Cathedral,
the two separate accounts of creation in Gen. 1 ant Primns Adam sic pressit Adam, salvet Deus ilium,
Is qui venit Adam quaerere factus Adam.
2, Paul professes to base on the language of Gen.27.
There are also other anthropological ideas which ht Adam ’ can be used only in one of two senses ( I ) man-
supports by reference to the fall of Adam. His rea kind, (2)the first man (apart from all historical refer-
interest is in these ideas, not in’ the story of Paradise. ence), and to compare a supposed proper name Adam 4
He did not deduce them from the Eden story, ant 1 Bp. John Wordsworth, The &a ReZigion (Bampton
only resorts to that narrative as containing materia Lectures for 1881), p. 138. So Bp. H. Browne in the Speakccr’s
Conzrtr. and Dr. Leathes in Smith‘s Dh’iz).
which may, by the methods of Christian Gnosis, bt 2 I n Gen.21g-z3381f:m4, RV has rightly ‘the man
made to furnish arguments for his ideas. (f)11 (=D?KJ)for 6 AV ‘Adam’; soinDt.328 ‘childrenofmen for
Phil. 26 we have probably a contrast between the firs! ‘sons of Adam’: so E V mg. in Job3133 ‘after the manner of
Adam who thought equality with God an dpaaypb! men’ for ‘as [like] Adam’ (€‘3 otherwise 125). I n B A L the
(an object of grasping) and the second Adam who, article is omitted in Gen. 2 196 zoa 23 3 IZ[L]20 4 I 25 Dt. 32 8
I Ch. 1 I ( 6 B also in the last two passages). ,
thinking far otherwise, humbled himself even to the
3 In 2 ZOA 3 17 21 read P w $ ‘for the man’ (TQ ASap [AEL])
death of the cross, and thereby actually reached equalit]
with God (Hilgenfeld). Here the story of Eden is onlj with Schr Dillm and Kau. FfS.
4 The Sesent &iter can see no probability in the view of
illustrative of an idea, though the illustration is suggestec Hommel (PSBA, 7th March 1393,pp. 2qqJ)that Adamin Gen
.59 60
 ADAM AND EVE ADAMAH
to that of the Babylonian divine hero Adapa (Sayce, rationalism of the last century, has the merit of
Crit. andMon. 94), or, stranger still, to the Egyptian having forcibly. recalled attention ‘ t o the fact that the
Atum (Lef6bure, TSBA 91) are specimens of equal narrative of Genesis, even if we do not, take it literally,
audacity. The word ‘id&m is of course earlier than must be regarded as presenting a view of the beginnings
any developed creation-myth (sit venia veido). though of the history of the human race (iVathmasslicher
it implies (cp Ass. admu, ‘ child ’-i.e., ‘ one made ’ by Anfang der Il.renschengeschiJte, 1786).
God),l the existence of the central element of all such What, then, is the Eden story to be called? It is a
mythic stories (see CREATION, §$ 2 o J ) . problem which there is a growing disposition to solve
( b ) We must now proceed to consider the name Eve by adopting, in one form or another, what is called the
(Hawwah mc ; Gen. 320 AV mg. CHAVAH. RV mg. ntythicd theory. The story cannot indeed be called a
H AVVAH , Ji.7 [AL], Aq. Aua, Symm. Z W O ~ ~ V O S,
else- myth in the strict sense of the word, unless we are pre-
where EUU [BAL] ; l a,., ; H E V A ) . This undoubtedly pared to place it on one line with the myths of
heathenism, produced by the unconscious play of plastic
occurs as a proper name (320 4 I ) ; but it is most probable
fancy, giving shape to the impressions of natural
that 3 2 0 formed no part of the original story, and that in
phenomena on primitive observers. Such a course is
41 the name Eve is a later insertion.2 Can its meaning
to be deprecated. The story of Gen.246-3 has been
be recovered? According to 320 Eve was so called
too much affected by conscious art and reflection to be
‘because she was the mother of all living ’ (m). This
combined with truly popular myths. Hermann Schultz
suggests the meaning ‘ a living being,’ or, less probably, has coined the expression ‘ revelation-myth ’ ; but this is
because an abstract conception, ‘ life ’ ( @AEL Z ~ 7 j ) . ~It cumbrous, and may suggest to some an entirely
is also possible, no doubt, to compare I S. 1818 (Kau. erroneous view of the pre-Deuteronomic conception of
H S ) and render ’ mother of every kindred,’ * in which revelation (cp Smend, A T Rel-gesch. 86, 292). The
case Eve ( n m ) will mean ‘ kinship,’ or more strictly truth is that the story of Eden cannot be described by a’
‘ mother-kinship,’ the primitive type of marriage being single phrase. The mythic elements which it contains
supposed to be based on mother-kinship (cp Gen. 3 20). have been moralised far enough for practical needs, but
It is best, however, to adhere to the first explanation, not so far as to rob it of its primeval colouring. The
if we qualify this with the admission that Hawwah may parallel story in the Zoroastrian Scripture called Vendi-
possibly be a Hebraised form of a name in a non- dad (Fargard ii. ) is dry and pale by comparison. In
Hebraic story. its union of primitive concreteness with a nascent sense
Next, did the writer of the Eden story understand of spiritual realities our Eden story stands alone.
it histo&cuZ&? There are at least three points which There is therefore no reason for shutting our eyes to
*. The must be(regarded as decisive against this the plain results of historical cr

Narratives’ z:z I ) The nafvetd of the descrip-

The same writer (J), in Nu. 2228,
ascribes the speaking of Balaam‘s ass to a special
when, as was the case when the late George Smith
made his great discoveries (see his Chnldean Genesis),
Babylonian myths are adduced as proofs of the his-
divine interference ; but the speaking serpent and the toricity of Gen. 1-11, that they may truly be called
enchanted trees in G e n . 2 3 appear as if altogether 61Gwpa GGpa. It is not the mythic basis, but the infused
natural. Why? Because the author has no fear of ideaZism. of the Eden story, that constitutes its abiding
being misunderstood. H e knows, and his readers know, interest for religious men ; and it was owing to a sense
that he is not dealing with the everyday world, but of this, quite as much as to a desire to harmonise Greek
with a world in which the natural and the supernatural philosophy with Scripture, that the allegoric spiritualism
are one. ( 2 )The idealism of the narratives. The writer of Alexandria found so much favour in Greek Christen-
chiefly values certain ideas which the narrative is so dom. From the point of view of the pre-critical period
arranged as to suggest. ‘ ( 3 ) The total disregard of this system could not but commend itself to earnest and
the contents of these stories in the subsequent narratives devout thinkers. Who, said Philo, could take the
of the Yahwist. To these most critics will add (4) the story of the creation of Eve, or of the trees of life and
licence which the Yahwist appears to have taken of knowledge literally? The ideas, however, which the sage
adding certain features to the primitive story, e.g. at derives from the stories are Greek, not early Jewish.
any rate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It For instance, his interpretation of the creation of Eve is
is not safe to add ( 5 ) the poetical form. of the story in plainly suggested by a Platonic myth. The longing for
Gen.246-3 (Briggs), for all that seems probable is reunion which love implants in the divided halves of the
that this story is ultimately based to some extent on original dual man is the source of sensual pleasure
lost poetical traditions. (symbolised by the serpent), which in turn is the begin-
It is equally certain, however, that the writer of our ning of all transgression. Eve represents the sensuous
Eden story did not explain it aZZegoricuZ&. Reverence or perceptive part of man’s nature, Adam the reason.
for tradition must have assured him that the kernel of it The serpent therefore does not venture to attack Adam
at any rate was trustworthy. After parifying the directly. I t is sense which yields to pleasure, and in
traditional story by the criticism of his religious sense, turn enslaves the reason and destroys its immortal virtue.
he must have supposed it to give an adequate impression These ideas are not precisely those which advocates of a
of what actually took place once upon a time. Kant, mystical interpretation would put forward to-day. There
among his other services in refutation of the nnhistorical is an equal danger, however, of arbitrariness in modern
5 1-5 is altered from Adon ?.e. Yahu or Ea. We have no right
allegorising, even though it be partly veiled by reverence
.
to take our critical startink-point in a list given to us only in P for exegetical tradition. It is only by applying critical
apart from this, the theory that the lists of the patriarchs i i methods to the story, and distinguishing the different
Gen. 4 and 5 are derived as they stand, from Babylodian lists is elements of which it is composed, that we can do justice
scarcely tenable (see C A ~ T E $8 S 43).
1 T o the proposal of Wi. ’@OF 344, following Stucken) to the ideas which the later editor or editors may have
to connect O l K with Ar. adamaP’” dhP” ‘skin,’ Del.’s note sought to convey.
On Gen. 2 7 (Gen.W 77) will suggest’a probade answer. For a discussion of ‘Biblical Mythus’ see Schultz, O T TheoZ.,
2 Cp Bu. UTesch 141 zmf:. St. Z A T W 1894, pp. 2663. c. 2 and cp Smend A T Ret.-gesch. 113, 1 1 q - 1 2 ~ ; WRS
3 NGld. however twit6 We. [iee now Heii.(S) 1541 and St.), R.Sh 19,446. On t i e Avesta parallels, see Darmesteter, Le
thinks that fi;! properly meant ‘serpent’ (Aram. W!), ZDMG Zendavesta, tome 3 , pp. 5 7 8 , and Kohut, ‘The Zendavesta and
Gen. 1-11,,/QR [‘go], ~23-229. On apocryphal romance of
42487. The Midrash (Rex ra6. par. 21,on Gen. 3 20) actually Adam and Eve, see below, APOCRVPHA, $ TO. T. K. C.1
compares the same Aram. word, explaining the name thus,
‘She was given to Adam to glorify his life, hut she connselled ADAMAH (ng’ll). I , One of the ‘ fenced cities ’ of
him like a serpent.’ This bardly favours NGld.’s suggestion.
4 WRS Kin. 177. But note that and *& are
Naphtali (Josh. 1936t apMaie PI, &haM[€ll CALI).
1 The above article is written on the lines and sametimes in
standing Hebrew phrases (see BDB Lex.). the words of WRS.
61 62
 ADAMANT ADASA
Apart from its being mentioned along with Chinnereth ( s . n upbpts), ‘ a kind of sand with which hard stones
and Ramah and Hazor we have no clue to its site (cp are polished.‘ The u,ucpl~qsXlSos of d (Job 417 [IS]
Di. ad loc. ). Cp ADAMI. [BKC] ; -70s h. [A] ; = i s onin of M T = ‘ a close seal ’ of
2 , see A DAM , i. EV, n. 15) is the same as the up6pts of Dioscorides,
ADAMANT (7V?.$, adamas; see below, 5 4). In by which he meant corundum in mass. Hesychius
plainly means cotundum in grains -i.e. emery. The
modern English poetry and rhetorical prose-for the latter, called Naxium by thh Romans (Pliny, HNxxxvi.
1. Modern yord is now not otherwise used- adamant 7 IO) from the island of Naxos, where it is still produced
corundum. IS simply a term for ‘the embodiment of in great quantities, was much used by the Greek gem-
surpassing hardness.’ In the EV of O T engravers of the fourth century B.C. Indeed corundum
it can be retained only if understood in the sense in
and emery were the only means of cutting gems known
which it is employed by Theophrastus-Le., in the to them up to that time. For Theophrastus ( L a p . 44).
sense of corundum (see 1 2 ) . This is crystallised
writing in 313 B.c., speaks of it alone as used by the
alumina (A&OJ, an excessively tough and difficultly engravers. H e identifies it with the stone from which
frangible mineral ; transparent or translucent ; vitreous, whetstones were made, and says that the best came
but pearly to metallic on basal face. Emery is a com- from Armenia. Both corundum and emery are found
pact, crystalline, granular variety-grey to indigo-blue. in many places in Asia Minor, as well as in several of
In a purer state corundum occurs in transparent crystals the Greek islands.
of various tints of colour-red (Ruby), blue (Sapphire), EV renders shdmir by adamant only in Ezek. 3 9 and
green (Oriental Emerald), yellow (Oriental Topaz),
purple (Oriental Amethyst), colourless (White Sapphire) _ - -Ter. 171, it less
Zech. 710. In the remaining- passage,
4. The versions. happily renders it diamond. The
-little .inferior to the diamond in brilliancy, though
word adamant occurs also in Ecclus.
they do not disperse rays of light to the same extent. 1 6 16 AV; but RV, following GBNA,omits the passage.
The term d8Qas, which is not known to Homer, was Vg. and Pesh. have been already dealt with (5 3). E6 in
applied by .the Greeks to that substance which from Ezek. 3 9 (SLB m u d s [BAQI) and Zech. 7 12 (b?rsrbYj [BNAQTj
2. adamas of time to time was the hardest known. In represents another reading, while in the case of Jer. 17 I it omits
the Greeks. Hesiod it means hardened iron or steel, the whole passage [BANQ] (though the verses appear in the
and the adamantine bonds by which Compl. Polygl. and, following Orig. and Theod., on the mg.
Prometheus was fastened to a peak of the Caucasus of Q, where i ? is rendered
~@ by [ ~ V U X L bsapavrivy).
] Wid
(Bsch. P Y 6 , 64) must have been of this material, for Zech. 7 IZ cp 4Macc. 16 13. Strangely 0 renders 7:: by &%pas
the manufacture of which the tribes near the Caucasus, in Am. 7, E V PLUMBLINE. In the Targum ~ > D Iis identified
such as the Colchians and the Chalybes, were famous. with (see FLINT), although the Talm. regards it as a
worm, abont which extraordinary legends are told (see reff. in
The d8dpus of Theophrastus, however, though it is not Buxt. Lex. or Levy (NH W-E s . v . ) , ~and Paul Cassel in a
included in his list of twelve stones used for engraving monograph (‘56) tried to show that -)*nu was an excessively
on, nor mentioned as employed in the art of engraving fine, dust-like substance. W. R .
-was (I) a stone and ( 2 ) probably the white sapphire ADAMI. See below, ADAMI-NEKEB.
(a corundum). This is probable from the fact that a ADAMI-NEKEB, as RV, or more correctly, ADAMI-
particular kind of carbuncle (&vBpat) found near Miletus H ANNEKEB (I?$? ‘PJY), i.e. the pass Adami, on the
and described as hexagonal ( y o v t 6 8 ~ s6v 3 m p KC^ 78 frontier of Naphtali, Josh. 1933f’; cp Vg. A d a & qzm est
$dywva) was compared to it. For noble corundums N e d . AV makes two names, ‘ ADAMI,NEKEB.’ So
(sapphires, rubies, oriental topaz, and oriental emerald) 6 ,A ~ M E KAI N A B W K [Bl,.or A ~ M A I K A I NAKEB
are, as a matter of fact, found as hexagonal prisms. [A]; L, however, AAEMMH ANNEKB. The Jer.
It is most unlikely that Theophrastus meant the true Talm. (Meg. 1T) also divides the expression, Adami
diamond (see D IAMOND , 5 I ), though Pliny (NHxxxvii. being represented as Ddmin, and Hannekeb as
415) confuses with this his adamas, which-being Caidatah. Neub. ( L a G d o ~ . du T a l m . 222) and
hexagonal (whereas the diamond would be rather de- GASm. (ZIG 396) identify Adami with DHmieh, 5 ni.
scribed as octohedral, or a double pyramid)-was, like W. of Tiberias, the site which the PE Survey proposes
that of Theophrastns, the white sapphire. As, however, for the ‘fenced city’ Adamah of n. 36 (Mem.1384).
Manilius (1st cent. A. D .) knows the real diamond- This, however, seems much too far S. when we con-
he says ‘sic adamas, punctum lapidis, pretiosior aura sider that the ‘ tree of Bezaanim ’ (see BEZAANBNNIM)
est’ (Astronom. iv. 926)-it is quite possible that was close to Kedesh, while J ABNEEL (4.n. n. z) appears
Jerome (in theVg. ) meant by adamas the actual diamond; to have been a north Galilzan fortress. These are the
though in that case he was almost certainly wrong (see two localities between which Adami-nekeb is mentioned
DIAMOND, I). in Josh. 1933. It is probable that the name Nl:bu in
In the three places whereVg. uses adamas, adaman- the Karnak list of Thotines 111. 547) means
tinus. it is to render the Hebrew shimir. a word which the pass Adami. T. K. C.
3. Shamir of oT may mean either ‘ sharp-pointed or ADAR, RV, more correctly, ADDAR (778 ; [€IC]
‘tenacious.’ I n each passage the
=corundum’ reference is not to a brilliant gem but capah& [B], ~AAapa[AL]), an unknown site men-
to something extremely hard : ‘ harder than flinc (Ezek. tioned after H EZRON (p.v. ) as one of the points on the
3 9 ) ; parallel to ‘ a pen of iron’ (Jer. 171) ; similarly
southern frontier of Jud,& (Josh. 153f’).
Zech.71~. In the Pesh. shimir appears in the Syr. ADAR (71g [ham.], Ezra61sf’; 775 [Heb.]),
form Sammiri. Although the Arabic forms simzir*c* Esth. 3 7 15 8 TZ 9 1-19 ; I Macc. 743 49 ; 2 Macc. 15 36).
and Sammzirsfsare identified by the native lexicographers See MONTH, 5s 3, 5.
with ’ a l m i s , ‘diamond,’ the Syriac Sammiri is used ADASA (AAACA [AKV]), the scene of the victory of
not only of d8dpus as the ‘ hardest stone’-employed Judas the Maccabee over Nicanor (I Macc. 740 45), lay,
in cutting others (Bar Bahltil, Lex. col. 39 1. 14, col. as is implied in the narrative, not very far from Beth-
863 2. I ), or in similes, for something hard (Isaac of horon. Josephus (Ant. xii. 105) makes its distance from
Antioch, ed. G. Bickell, 2 62, Z. gg)-but also definitely Beth-horon 30 stadia, and Jer. and Eus. call it a village
as=u,u$pts or uplpts, (Duval-Berthelot, near Gophna (OS, 93 3 220 6). Gophna being obviously
L a Chimie a u moyen &eo 2 9, 1. 5). There is some the modern /+a between Jerusalem and Shechem, it
probability, therefore, in Bochart’s suggested connection is reasonable to identify Adasa with the ruin ‘Adaseh,
of i>n@ with u,uLI;pts (whence the English emery), which on a bare shapeless down, 8 m. S. of that ,place (PEP
meant both corundum itself and granulated corundum, 1 Cp Leopold Lijw ‘ Graphische Requisiten n. Erzeugnisse
bei den Juden’ (‘70),’pp.581.83, in Eeitr. z. 3Zd. Alterthunzs-
emery. Diosc. (v. 166) says :--‘u,u~pts is a stone kunde, B.! 1 of the Leipzig Institut zur Forderung d. israel.
with which gem-engravers polish gems,’ and Hesychius Literatur.
63 ’ 64
 ADBEEL ADMAH
Mem. 3 106). The remark of Eus. that Adasa belonged 3. Ancestor of AZMXVETH,
q.v., ii. 4 (I Ch. Zfzst 0 8 ~ v A
to Judah, at which Jer. expresses so much surprise, [BAL]).
4. S ~ ~ A D U E L .
rests on a confusion between a8aua, the bAreading
of HADASHAH (4.v.)in Josh. 1537, and the place of ADIN (l’yt, 57, perhaps shortened from l’TY)il’,
like name in the passage before us. ‘ Yahwi: is pleasant,’ cp J EHOADDAN , E U E N I ; aA[s]i N
[BA], aAAsi [L], ADIX).
ADBEEL ($8218, N ~ B A B H A[AEL in Gen., A in The b’ne Adin, a family in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA, ii.
Ch.]; - A A I H A [D in Gen., B in Ch.]; aB IHA [L in $ 9); Ezra2 15 ( a b [B] ass. [A], E&L [L])=Neh. 7 z o ( ~ 6 [ ~ ] 1 v
Ch.]; ~ B A ~ H A o[Jos. t
c Ant. i. 12 4]; cp Sab. 3% ; see
Ges. -Ru. S.W. ), one of the twelve sons of Ishmael
[BA])=I Esd. 5 14 ( a 8 d o u or -ias [B] asrwou [A], RV ADINU).
A band of fifty males of this family c a i e up with Ezra ; Ezra8 6
= T Esd. S 32 (ADANaprua8aj3 [Ll i e Adin and Ebed, the name
(Gen. 25 13 ; I Ch. 1zgt). Doubtless the Arabian tribe of their head). The family was ’rLp’;esented among the signa-
Idibi’il, mentioned by Tiglath-pileser 111. (KB2zo 1. 56) tories to the covenant, Neh. 10 16[17l ($[el~u [BRA], d e w [LI).
See E ZRA : i. $ 7.
with Terna, Sheba, and Ephah, but distinct from the
Idibi’ilu named in inscriptions of the same king, who ADINA (N?’?g, ‘blissful,’ cp under ADIN; ~ A [ E ] I N A
was a &-ipu--i.e., not ‘warden of the marches ’ but [BAL] ; A D I N A ) , a Reubenite chieftain in David’s service
‘governor’ (of the N. Arabian land of MuSri. See ( I Ch. l l 4 2 f ) . See D AVID , 5 T I a, ii.
MIZRAIM 11. [b]). Cp Wi. AZtm FOYSC~. 25. For a ADINO, ‘the Eznite,’ is appended unexpectedly in
slightly different view, see ISHMAEL, 5 4 ( 3 ) . EVof z S. 238 to the description of David’s principal hero.
ADDAN (128, § 57, connected with the divine name The readings of @ are : a8crvou o a u o u a m s [B], asarw o -vaos
[AI, with the doublet (OUTOF) euwauaro q v poF+araw aurou [iu B,
Addu ; see HADAD,A DONIRAM ), the name, or part of
though not in A] from I Ch. 11II (BUAL] where A* has currare
the name, of an unidentified town or district in Baby- . ... @L however, gives the single reAdering [of a different
lonia, mentioned in the great post-exilic list (see E Z R A , text], ovros k r s x o u p a q w 6LaUKEUIp a u m u .
ii. 9) ; Ezra259 ( H A A N .[BAL])=Neh. 761, ADDON A comparison of W. r8 shows that what is required to
( H P W N [BRA], H A A N [L])=1Esd.536, where 1% is make sense is ‘ brandished his spear,’ i n . p f v j y , and
represented by -ah?, -aZan of AV CHARAATHALAR,these words are actually given in I Ch. 11I I in lieu of
RV C HARAATHALAN (. .. aXav [B], [AS] aXap [A],
... L ~ U [L]).
V Cp C HERUB , ii.
, words out of which M T (reading 7xyn) and
i ~ ~ iy~ ~ni ythe
its followers including EV vainly attempt to extract sense.
ADDAR (133), Josh. 153f RV, AV A DAR (p...). Modern critics (except 1‘30.)correct M T in accordance
ADDAR (TI@), I Ch. 83t. See ARD. with 1Ch.
Klo.’s correction, ‘He is our pride, he is our terrible one’
ADDER. The details are given under SERPENT (§ I , (after which he ventures to render 5y ‘because of’)=?J:lg NIil
nos. 2, 4, 5 , 6,7). The Hebrew
I . l w i ~ y ,‘ak?z?b (Ps. 1403 [4]+),
names are :
generally believed
?>.?e Nil, words which are supposed to be a quotation from a
warlike song referring to this hero is too ingenious. The words
to be a kind of adder. See S ERPENT , 5 I (4). might, it is true, be viewed as a hiisplaced marginal quotation
2. in5, pethen (Ps. 584 [5] 91 13, AV mg. ‘asp,’ like relative to Dauid; but then we should still have to supply some
verb as a predicate to complete the account of David‘s warrior.
AV elsewhere), also believed to be some species of adder See ISHEAAL ; JASHOBEAM.
or viper. See SmPEwr, $ I (5).
3. ~ J Y ~ ssiph‘annt
, (Pr.2332 ; mg. like text elsewhere, ADINU(AAINOY [A]),.r:Esd.514 R V ; AV, RVmg.
ADIN.
AV ‘ cockatrice,’ RV ‘basilisk,’ ~~pCiu7r)s; also
Is. 118 59 5 EV mg. ), likewise some kind of viper. See ADINUS, RV IADINUS(iaA[e]l~oc[SA]), I Esd.
SERPENT, I (7). 9 48 = Neh. 8 7, JAMIN.
4. y ~ x sepha
, (Is. 1429 EV mg.). See SERPENT, § I, ADITHAIM (Wn’?$; on form of name see NAMES,
no. 6. 1 0 7 ; a r s e e a l ~[L] ; BA om., but in o. 34 A has
5. [hf, J&hi@Cnn(Gen. 49171., AV mg. ‘arrow- A A i a e a s i M and B has lhoyewe for ‘Tappuah’), an
snake,’ RV mg. ‘ horned snake’), the cerastes. See unknown site in the Shephelah of Ju’dah, apparently
S ERPENT , z ( 2 ) . somewhere in its NE. portion (Josh. 15361.).
ADDI. I. The sons of Addi in I Esd. 931 (a88erv ADLAI ($-$!; aAai P A ] ; AAAI [L]; R D L I ;
[B], a88L [A], &a [L]) appear to take the place of I Ch. 27 zgf), see S HAPHAT , 5.
the b’ne Pahath Moab of EzralOgo; but the name
probably represents A DNA ( q - . ~ . no. , I), the first in the ADMAH (ilple, ~ A A M[BAL])~ and Zeboim
group. In bL the missing name is restored, but (Hos. 1 1 8 EV, Gen. 1019 AV, Dt. 2923 [zz] AV), or, as
withont bL’s usual ’;)youpdvou (see PAHATH-MOAB). in Gen. 142 8 EV and everywhere RV except in Hos.,
2. .Twenty-fourth in the ascending genealogical series, which Zeboiim (Hos. 118 Kt. p i g , probably= n y i g [see
begins with Joseph, Mary’s husband, in Lk. 3 23-38 (a68sL
below]; Gen.1019 Kt. y i y ; 1423 Dt.2923 [ z z ] all
[Ti. WH following BUAI). See GENEALOGIES OF J.ESUS, g 3.
Kt. n ’ f i ~; Kr. everywhere n;lis ; csBwelM [BAL] ;
ADD0 ( A A A [A], ~ etc. ), I Esd. 61. See IDDO,iii. 3.
Samar. text om. both names in Gkn. 1019; ua8apa [E] in
ADDON (fi78),Neh. 761=Ezra 259, ADDAN. Gen. 142),arementioned together in passagesof thepenla-
ADZUS. I . The sons of Addus, one of the groups teuch and in Hos. 11 8. In Gen. 142 8 they are stated to
added in I Esd. 534 [RA] ( a M o u s , see Swete; perhaps have had kings of their own(see S1IINAB)whojoined in the
corresponding to ATrrX [L]) to the ‘ sons of the servants revolt of certain southern peoples against Chedorlaomer
of Solomon’ (see LEVITES) in the great post-exilic list, king of Elam ; in Dt. 2923 [ Z Z ] (uepweiv [AF]) to have
Ezra2=Neh. 7= I Esd. 5 ; see E ZRA , ii. § 8. / shared the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Gen.
2 . I Esd. 538. RV JADDVS. See BARZILLAI, 3. 1019 (ue/3wtp [A]) they are mentioned in the definition
of the boundaries of Canaan proper-i. e . , the land W.
ADER (7?y), I Ch. 8 Is?, RV EDER ( q . ~ .ii., I ). of the Jordan. Except in Hos. 1 1 8 the names Adrnah
ADIDA ( A A I A A [A]), I Macc.1238 1313. See and Zeboim are always preceded by those of Sodom and
HADID. Gomorrah. Of the Pentateuch passages all except
Gen. 10 19 are certainly post-exilic, and it is very possible
ADIEL ($HI?$, 5 38, ‘ God passes by’?-cp Adaiah).
that Kautzsch and Socin are right in regarding the
I. One of the Simeonite chieftains who dispossessed
mention of Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim in Gen. 1019
the Meunini (see RV), I Ch. 436” (e8ir)X [A], a8aqX [L], as interpolated. In this case’ we have no right to
perhaps awuaX [B]). See G EDOR , 2, and H AM , ii. ; and assume it as certain that Admah and Zeboim were
Cp AIIALEIC, § 4. among the cities which an early Hebrew tradition stated
2. A priest in the genealogy of Maasai ( I Ch. 9 I z t a8ivA
[UAL]). to have been destroyed by brimstone and, fire out of
5 65 66
 ADMATHA ADONIJAH
heaven. Hos. 1 1 8 (imitated perhaps in Is. 15g1) only xmatioii is entirely anomalous. In similar compounds
implies that Admah and Zeboim had suffered some Adoni with proper name) the second eIeinent is
terrible destruction. As to the mode of their destruc- egularly the name of k god, never of a place (there
tion and as to their locality no information is given. It .re, in fact, no Hebrew or Canaanite proper names of
is, in fact, not at all likely that the least famous of the jersons in the O T thus compounded with the name of
' cities of the plain ' should have been selected by Hosea . locality) ; nor is 'ndcin used of the sovereign of a city
as representatives ; Anios (411)and Isaiah ( 1 9 I O ) )r country. In Jos. 101 8 , which, in spite of radical
mention only Sodom and Gomorrah. It is possible lifferences, is based on a source closely akin to that of
that there was once some distinct legend respecting the udg. 1, if not identical with it, the head of the native
destruction of Admah and Zeboim. Possibly, too, Lings who first made front against the Israelite invasion
Zeboim was not a town, but the name of the district in ,f the S. is Adoni-zedelc, king of Jerusalem (see ADONI-
which Admah was situated. Against this we niust not .EDEC);and it is to Jerusalem that Adoni-bezelc is
appeal to Gen. 142, since the names of the kings there aken (? by his own servants) to die (Judg. 1 7 ) . Hence
given are probably unhistorical. Nor can one help con- he conjecture offered under ADONI-ZEDEC appears very
jecturing that (if, as Rodiger, in Ges. Thes. suggests, )robable. See also BEZEK. G. F. M.
nyi? =o'yi;c) Hosea alludes to a story which accounted ADQNIJAH (?$75, z S . 3 4 ; r K . 1 5 7 1 8 2 2 8 ; 1Ch.
for the dreary character of tKe Valley of Zeboim (now 12; Neh. 1016[17], elsewhere Sill$?&;' YahwB is lord,'
the Widy eZ-fCeZt; see ZEBOIM, I ) , analogous to that i 36 ; cp Phmn. h r ~ n i~
nw, ~ 1;1 ~aAwn[s]lac P A ] ,
connected with the valley of ACHOR. Such stories of
overthrown villages are not uncommon. See SODOM IPNlb. [GI!.
I. David s fourth son (in I Ch. 32 a6ws[e]ra [BA; ,so
AND G OMORRAH . T. K. C. ilso in z K. 2 2181, opvias [L]). Nothing is known of his
ADMATHA (K?Q7&), one of the ' seven princes ' nother, Haggith. Like Absalom, he was born at Hebron
(cp Ezra714) at the court of Ahasuerus (Est.114f; z S. 3 4 ; op&X [B], -vias [A]) ; like him he was conspic-
[BAK, L om.]). According to Marquart, however, these IOUS by his graceful presence, while like all David's sons
seven names have arisen from an original three (cp the le never felt the constraint of his father's authority.
Ab;
three satraps, Dan. 61 f.)of which C ARSHENA (g.v.)is ;alom's death left him heir to the throne, and ' all Israel,
one, Shethar and Tarshish are corrupt variations of the is he said himself, ' expected that he would become king '
second (see SHETHAR), and Meres and Marsena corrup- I K. 215). He therefore, in the manifest failure of
tions of the third (see M ARSENA ). Admatha (or rather .he old king's faculties, thought it time to assume a
minx) would then be the father of Haman, and for ienii-royal state, like Absalom before him ( I K. 1s).
->Inn (cp note to MEMUCAN) should be substituted q i ~ i l 3n his side were the old and tried servants of David-
(the designation applied to Haman). See, further, Fund. loab, the commander of the forces, Abiathar, who repre-
6 8 3 Cp ESTHER, ij 3. sented the old priestlyfamily of Eli, and hadbeenthe com-
ADMIN ( ~ A M ~ I N [BK]), a link, in the genealogy pinion of David's wanderings-followed hy the people
of Joseph, between Amminadab and Arni (Aram), 3s a whole (see I K. 215). The ' new men,' however,
in Lk. 333 RV mg. and W & H. See GENEALOGIES Benaiah, captain of the body-guard, and Zaclok, a priest
OF J ESUS , § 3. 3f origin comparatively obscure, looked with evil eyes
ADMINISTRATION. See GOVERNMENT. m his pretensions, and with the powerful aid of the
prophet Nathan espoused the cause of the son of
a N A . I . (K!TJl [Ginsb. g.v.1, il!lv [Sa.]. ) One of Bathsheba. The chance of each party, unless David's
the b'iie P AHATH - MOAB in the list of those with foreign 3eath was to be followed by civil war, lay in a sudden
wives (see E ZRA , i. 5 5 end), Ezra10 30 (ai6aive [B], €6. stroke which woulcl put their claimant in possession and
[Bap], ,S,e [A], aiavaqre [L combining with next name, overawe his opponents.
which in I Esd. 9 3 1 (L) is ur8ia], &vex' sh [N= T h e story is graphically told, though perhaps with
Adnaffollowing name, CHELAL])=1 Esd. 9 31 (&a a secret sympathy with Adonijah. Nor can we doubt
[L]), ADDI, I . With this name should be compared that, like the other narratives of the same writer, it is
Hadauna, a Jewish name of the fifth century B.c., in the main trustworthy. Adonijah made the first
mentioned by Hilprecht as found at Nippur (cp Hazitu move. He invited all the royal princes save Solomon,
= ilp). together with Job and Abiathar and 'all the men of
2. (N?:p[Ginsb. Bii.]), priest temp. Joiakim ( s e e E z ~ii.~ ,Is6 6, Judah,' to a sacrificial feast at a well-known sacred
II), Neh. 1 2 15 ( a b v a s [NC.a mg. om. [BN*Al, &as [Ll). stone (see ZOHELETH) close to Jerusalem ( I I<. 1g $ ).
They had left the weak old king, however, exposed to the
ADNAH ( n n y ; E A N A ~ C[BA], -NAC [Ll). a cap- machinations of their enemies, while the fortress w a in
tain in Jehoshaphat's army ( z Ch. 1714). the hands of Benaiah and his trained soldiers. Nathan
ADNAH (R!7y [Ginsb. Be.], other readings nly, was quick to seize the opportunity. By the help of
nJly; €ANA [BAKL], Ednns). A Manassite, who Bathsheba, and with a presentation of facts which may
deserted from Saul to David ( I Ch. 1220 [.I]). See or may not have been perfectly accurate,l he obtained
D AVID , ij 11n iii. from David an order for the immediate enthronement
of Solomon. Adonijah's banquet was disturbed by
ADQNAI ('$75). See N AMES , ijij 119, 109 n.
news that Solomon reigned by his father's will, and
ADQNI-BEZEH (319 in v. 7 with ma+&$; was protected by Benaiah and the foreign guard. The
A A C ~ N I B ~ X K[BAL1 Judg. 14-7; d has AAWNIBBZEK company broke up in dismay, and Adonijah sought an
also in Josh. 10 I 3 where M T has Adoni-zedeli ; a third asylum at the horns of the altar. The clemency
B K Procop. dcodd.]
variation is ~ A ~ N I Z ~ B [Jos. ; the of Solomon, however, spared his life, and but for an
change may be accidental or harmonistic), a Canaanite ill-timed revival of his ambitious dreams he might have
king whom Judah and Simeon, invading southern Pales- remained in a happy obscurity. The cause of his ruin
tine, encountered and defeated at Bezeli. Adoni-bezek was a petition to be allowed to marry Abishag, for
fled, but was overtaken, made prisoner, and mutilated. which he obtained the support of Bathsheba. Appar-
H e was afterwards carried to Jerusalem, where he died ently the queen-mother did not detect his secret political
(Judg. 14-7). The name Adoni-bezek is commonly 1 The question is whether the promise of Solomon asserted
interpreted 'Lord of (the city) Bezek' ; but such a by Nathan in I IC. 124 is a clever fiction of Nathan, or not, and
whether the description of the doings of Adonijah is, or is not,
@ closes this verse thus, K a ? 6 a u ~ ~ h o m 'AS'apa
ov [BRA; exaggerated. ' The former point is the more important of the
p su ras XI], ie., 'and the remnant of Admah.' This ma3 two. We. (CH 261 n.) and Ki. (Hist. ii. 180J) take different
possiby be correct (see Duhm Jes. 105 Ch. Zntr. 17s. 91). sides. We.'s reply is, of course, to us the less palatable one ;
Moab may be figuratively calle6 Admah, 2ust a5 Jerusalem ir but we must consider Semitic craftiness, and the improbability
figuratively called Sodom (Is. 1 IO). of a merely private promise of Solomon. See T K. 1 1 2 13.
67 68
 ADONIKAM ADONI-ZEDEC
motive; indeed Abishag had only nominally been uith the winter, and live again with the early spring.
David's concubine. Solomon, however, regarded the Legend, however, explained the death of the god as
proposal as virtually, if not'expressly, a claim to the 2. Legend an event of far-off times. Adonis, it said,
throne, and Adonijah perished by Solomon's sentence and cult. was killed whilst hunting the boar in Leb-
and Benaiah's sword. anon, and accordingly in the heat of summer
Compare the narrative of Stade ( G I i. bk. v. c. 2), was solemnised the great mourning festival (cp WRS
with the somewhat different treatment of the matter ReL Sern.P) ~ I I ) ,at which his corpse was exhibited
by Kittel (Hid. ii. c. 4). W. E. A. resting upon a bed of flowers-the quickly fading
2. A signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA , i. $ 7), Neh. 10 16 Adonis-garden. Far up in Lebanon, near the fountain
[17] (e8avm [BN (though the names are otherwise divided)], Df 'A'Ga, death suddenly overtook him ; whereupon
aavaa [A], a8wvras [L]). I n the great post-exilic list, Ezra2= the spring became red with his blood. By 'Aflp was
Neh. ? = I Esd. 5 (see E ZRA , ii. $ 9), and in the list (Ezra8) of
those who came with Ezra, the name appears (vu. 13 18 14 13 an ancient temple of the goddess Aphrodite (so Luc.
respectively) perhaps more correctly (so Gray, H E " 137, n. 2 ) Dea Syr. 9 ; Eus. Vit. Const. 3 55, Sozom. HE 25),
as ADONIKAM (q.v.). of which the ruins still remain ; probably it contained
3. A Levite, temp. Jehoshaphat ; 2 Ch. 17 8 (a8wvbav [BA], the grave of the god. This legend, and the cult con-
-via IL1).
4. .'S& ARAUNAH. nected with it, must be very ancient. Indeed, in a
5. See ARNAN. source as early as the papyrus Anast. I., mention ik
ADONIHAM (bj$lk$; ' t h e Lord is risen up,' cp made of the goddess of the ' mysterious ' city of Byblus.
AHIKAM; &hU.N[€]lK&M[BAL]). In its origin it was distinct from the Babylonian legend
The b'ne Adonikam, a family In the great post-exilic list of the loves of Istar and Tammuz, though at an early
(see E ZRA , ii. $8 g, 8c); Ezra 2 13 (a8ovwav [Bl)=Neh. 7 18 date both this legend and the Egyptian story of Osiris
( a s a m p [Bl, a8rvwap [N])?: Esd. 5 14 ; represented in Ezra's were combined with it (Plut. de Zs. 15, Lnc. Dea Syr. 7;
caravan (see E ZRA 1. 5 2 ii. 5 15 ( I ) 4, Ezra8 13 (a8avsmap cp Apollodor. ii. 1,3, 7, etc.). The cult spread through
[B])=I Esd. 839 ( a h w r a ~ & [B]); and probably among the
signatories to the covenant (see E ZRA, i. 8 7), Neh. 10 16 [IT] ; all the Phcenician colonies, especially to Cyprus, whence
see A DONI J AH , 2. in the seventh century it was imported into Greece.
ADONIRAM (b7:3.%, 9 40, 'the Lord is high'; Adonis, however, is not to be taken as the true name
&hWN[E]lpdr~[BAL] ; ADONIRAM). chief receiver of of the god ; every god can he called 'Adon,' lord, just
tribute under David ( z S. 2O~4), Solomon ( I K. 4 6 ; as every goddess is entitled to be called Rabbath, ' the
514 [A]), and Rehoboam, on whose deposition he was lady.' At Byblus (see GEBAL, i.) the favourite of the
stoned to death by the Israelites ( I K. 1218 ; z Ch. 10 18f goddess of Byblus was invoked as the ' lord ' par exceL
qi?,HADORAM, u8wpup [A]). bnce, and thns it was that the Greeks came to call him
I n z S. 20 24 (Le<dpav [L]) and I K. 12 18 (apap [BI ; Aduram), Adonis. What his real name was we do not know ;
it is incorrectly (cp We. Dr. TBS) written ADORAM(@). for the name Tammuz, which he also bears, is Baby-
Hilprecht (PEPQa. St., Jan. '98, p. 55), indeed, attempts to
lonian, and it is doubtful whether it ever became
explain the form by connecting it with Addnrlmu ('Addu is naturalised in Phcenicia.
high'), a Jewish name on a tablet from Nippur; notice, ho"; Possibly his name survives, unsuspected, among the many
ever, that I is not expressed and that @ B A L reads 'Adoniram. divine names. Orperhaps therecollection ofhis sad fate mayhave
hindered the formation of proper names derived from his ; nor is it
ADONIS only in the phrase D'?p$$ 'YPJ(a double impossible that in the worship he never received a real name at
plnr.), Is. 1710RVmg. 'plantings of Adonis" (EV has all.1 For in point of fact Philo, who never mentions Adonis, says
'pleasant plants '). In justification of of a certain E l i h (p,~y)=ih&u.~os,that, he lived with a woman
*' OT reference' the rendering see Che. Is. 14 1108, named Berut in Byhlus that he was slain by wild beasts and
was afterwards deitiFd, a h that 'his children brought him'liba-
Kittel in Di. To Ewald (Proph. 2 116, Lehrd. d. tions and offerings. This seems to be the euhemeristic version
hedr. Spy. 718, n. 3) and still more to Lag. (Semiticn, of the Adonis legend. Now in 'Ahedat in the neighhourhood of
131, Ueders. 205, n.) is due this important correction Byhlus, where doubtless the village Saarna lay, there has been
found a n altar A h 06 avig ;$dory Zaapvaig dqr6y (Renan,
of the rendering. Clermont -Ganneau should also
be consulted (&tudes darchkool. orientale 1, 1880, pp.
234) and although suet attributes are of frequent occurrence in
Syr;a Renan is probably right in recognising in this 'highest
26$), also WRS Eng. Hist. Rev., 1887, p. 3 0 7 ; but god' ;he Elifln of Philo and Adonis. Moreover, according to
cp We. Ar. Hpid.l1) 7 n. Na'aman (=pleasant, Philo (ii. lo), the god 'A;podqpos ' A y p 6 ~ 9 ,'the farmer,' whose
gracious) was doubtless a title of the ' L o r d ' (Adon, brother is called 'Ayp6s, 'field' ( i e . , ??$).)a and who 'had a
whence AdSrnis), and Adonis-worship seems to have sacrosanct image and a temple carried ahout Phcenicia on
wheels,' was honoured in Byhlus 2s BcGv 6 P ~ Y L U T O S . He also
penetrated under this title into Syria and Palestine, as recurs in the Greek inscriptions. I n Byhlus a temple was
wegather from the O T name NAAMAN rq.v.1, from the erected under Augustus Ail (Renan, 223 ; cp 232 Be@
names NumHna and NHmilna in S. Palestine in pre- Art ... )and the same god bad a temple deep in the recesses
of the mountains near Karat Fakra to the SE. of Byhlus
Israelitish times (Thotmes III.), and from the Nahr
Nn'min (N. of Carmel), which seems to be the Belus
(CIG 4525 ... d~ 7 t h 705 MqLurov BroO d~o8oprjBq). T h e
Phcenician name represented by ' A y p o i ~ p a sis unknown. See
of theancients. That Adonis-worship flourished in Pales- TAMMUZ. T. K. C. $ I-E. M. 5.2'.
tine when Isaiah wrote can easily be believed. The ADONI-ZEDEC, or rather -Zedek, as RV (p?>y-'ll&
N. Israelites were at this time specially open to Syrian 'Sedek is lord,' cp MELCHIZEDEK, though to later
influences. They forgot ' Yahwk because he seemed readers the name very probably meant ' lord of right-
unable to protect them. So Isaiah indignantly exclaims, eousness' ; & ) , w ~ l B ~[BAL]
z e ~ ; ADONISEDEC), a king
' Therefore, though thou plantest (little gardens with) of Jerusalem at the time of the Israelitish invasion. See
shoots of Adonis, and stockest them with scions (dedi- Josh. 1018, where he leads a confederation of five
cated) to a foreign god . ..the harvest shall vanish kings of S. Canaan. According to Josh. 10, Joshua
in a day of sickness and desperate pain.' The phrase came from Gilgal to the relief of the Gibeonites threatened
shoots of Adonis ' points to the so-called ' gardens of by the coalition ; surprised and completely routed the
Adonis,' baskets containing earth sown with various army of the Amorite kings near Gibeon ; captured the
plants, which quickly sprang up and as quickly five kings in the cave of Makkedah ; put them to death
withered. In reality they were symbols of the life and and impaled their bodies; then, turning back, razed
death of Adonis ; but Isaiah takes the withering as an Lachish, Eglon, and Hebron, with many other cities in
image of the withered hopes of Israel. On these the region. This story stands in a narrative of the
'gardens' see Frazer, GoZu'en Bough 1 284f.; WRS 1 The inscription from the district of Hippo Diarrhytus ( C I L
R e l Sern.(2)414 ; Ohnefalsch Richter, Kypros 1323; viii. l r z i r ) sacerdos Adoni (sic) proves nothing as to the
and cp Che. 'Isaiah,' in SBOT (Eng.), 146. cultus-name of the god ; Adonis has here, as among the Greeks,
Adonis was one of those local gods who live with become a proper name.
2 From the time of Scaliger it has been assumed that this
and in nature, who suffer in summer's drought, die name arose from a corruption or misunderstanding of >?@ (see
1 Q5+$reuvpadmurov [BNAQI']. SHADDAI). This is possible, hut very far from certain.
69 70
 ADOPTION ADRIA
conquest of all Palestine by Joshua in two great 2entred at Sippar was .%ma5 the Sun-god. That this
canipnigns (Josh. lOf: ) which cannot be historical. A was the case is abundantly proved by references through-
much more credible account is to be found, though in 3ut the historical and religious texts of the Babylonians
an abridged form, in Judg. 1(see J OSHUA , 5 8 ; J UDGES , and Assyrians, and the remains of the great temple of
§ 3 ) . Here Adoni-bezek is the king who opposes the the sun-god exist in the mounds of Abu-Habhah at the
first resistance to the advance of the tribes of Judah present day. Some scholars, therefore, would see in
land Sinieon against the Canaanites of the S. It is Adrammelech a subsidiary name or title of the Sun-god
therefore in Budde's opinion ( % A T W 7 148 ['87]) not himself. Others, however, do not accept this view.
improbable that the d reading ' Adoni- bezek,,%king They strike at its chief support by repudiating the
of Jerusalem' in Josh. 1013 is correct, especially as identification of o')~E)Dwith Sippar, suggesting that it is
Judg. 1 7 may be understood as saying that his own to he identified with Snbnvn'in, a city mentioned in the
followers carried Adoni-bezek to Jerusalem, and so as Babylonian Chronicle. No satisfactory explanation of
implying that that city was his capital. The objection the name, therefore, has yet been offered. But cp
to this view is that the second element in Adoni-bezek NISROCH. L. W. K.
ought to be a god, and we know of no god named 2. A son of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, who,
Bezelt. Hence it is very possible that Adoni-bezek according to 2 I<. 1 9 3 7 (a6pepehex [A]) and Is. 37,38
in Josh. 10 [BBAL] is a scribe's error, and that the (a6papeAex [BKlAOQ], av6pap. [#*I), in conjunction
original narrative of Judg. 1 had not Adoni-bezek, king with his brother S HAREZEK (q.w . ) , slew his father while he
of some nameless city, but Adoni-zedek, king of was worshipping in the temple of Nisroch at Nineveh,
Jerusalem (see A DONI - BEZEK ). W. R. s.--G. F. M. and therice escaped into Armenia. In the Babylonian
ADOPTION (y10fjeCl&),Ro. 8 15 23 94 Gal. 45 Eph. Chronicle mention is made of this revolt, in which Sen-
15JT. See FAMILY. iiacherib met his death ; but the only trace of the name
ADORA (see below) or Adoraim (P378: on form Adrammelech hitherto found is in Abydenus under the
form Adramelus, and in Polyhistor under that of Ardu-
of name see N AMES , 5 107 : ~ A w p [HI, ~ l -M [A and musanus. Scheil however thinks that ADRMLK and
Jos. Ant. viii. 10 I], -PAM [L] ; ADUIU,II), mentioned Adramelus are corruptions of A&r-MU-NI-IK (or
with Mareshah, Ziph, and Lachish among the cities -GAL), the idiographic reading of the name pronounced
fortified by Rehoboam ( z Ch. 119t). The sites of all Ah-Sum-uSabSi. This is the name of a son of Sen-
these places having been securely fixed, there can be no
nacherib for whom his father erected a house amidst
hindrance to identifying Adoraim with the modern Dum,
the gardens of Nineveh. For analogies cp the royal
which is 5 ni. W. by S. from Hebron, and is described
name Sammughes = SamaS-Mu-GI-NA. The Ardumu-
by Robinson (2215) as 'one of the largest (villages)
sanus of Polyhistor may be a c o r r u e n of the phonetic
in the district.' The site is well adapted for a town,,
form given above, just as ZaouGodXtvos is SamaS-Bum-
being ' o n the gradual eastern slope of a cultivated
uliin, the phonetic reading of k W I d - M U - G I - N A . (See
hill, with olive groves and fields of grain all round'
Scheil, Z A 12 I ; Rev. bib., April 1897.) Cp Es.4~-
(cp PEP Mcm. 3 304). Under the new Egyptian
HADDON, NISROCFI.
empire an Adoraim is perhaps mentioned twice (WMM.
As. u. E w . 167,174) : but it is not clear that Rehoboam's ADRAMYTTIUM ( A A P A M ~ T I O N or ATP. ; the ad-
city is intended. At any rate, Adoraim is doubtless jective, which alone occurs in the N T , is, as in some
the Adora or Dora of Josephus (Ant. xiii. 1 5 4 and else- cursive MSS of Acts, AAPAMYTHNOC or ATP.; neither
where a6wpa, aswpeos, 6.; C. Ap. 9 Gwpa), and theADon.4 inscriptions nor coins give the form -TTHNOC of Tisch.
of I Macr. lSzo(a6wpa [AKV]). In thelatter, Adora is a following KB3 ; W & H -YNTH. after AB"). A seaport
point on the route by which Tryphon entered J u d z a ; of Mysia, which gave, and still gives, its name. to the
in the former, it is usually coupled as an Idumaean city, gulf, a great triangular indentation along the S. foot
with Marissa (Mareshah), the fate of which it shared, of Mt. Ida, whence it was called also the ' Idaean.'
being captured by John Hyrcanus and compelled to Adramyteum, in the E. recess of the gulf, was always
accept circumcision and the Jewish law (Jos. Ant. xiii. important. It would profit by the trade in timber from
91 ; BJ i. 26). 'r. K . c. Ida. There were also copper mines in the neighbourhood,
and iron mines at Andeira not far to the NW. Strabo
ADORAM (n$ly), 2 s. 2024 ; I K . lzlst. See (p. 606) describes it accurately as a colony of Athens,
A DONIRAM . a city with a harbour and roadstead ' ; but its importance
ADRAMMELECH (&?lK, & A ~ & M B A B x [BLI, goes back to a much earlier epoch if, as Olshausen asserts
-AEK [AI ; JOS. - A q o c , ~ N A P O M A X O C ) . (Rhein. Mus. f: Phil. '53,p. 322 ; cp Hazar-maveth),
I. A Babylonian deity. According to 2 I<. 17 31, the name points to foundation by the Phceuicians. Of
after ' the king of Assyria,' L e . , Sargon (see SARGON), necessity Adramyteum was intimately connected with
had transplanted the Sepharvites into Samaria, they the road system of NW. Asia. The coast road from
there continued to worship) Adrammelech and ANAM- Ephesus and the inland road from Pergamus converged
M E L E C H (q.v.), the gods of'Sepharvaim. This passage to Adrgmyteum, whence they diverged, on the one hand,
presents two difficulties. In the first place, according across 'the Mysian peninsula to Cyzicus on the sea of
to the biblical account the worship of Adrammelech Marmora, and, on the other, to Assos, Troas, and the
was accompanied with the sacrifice of children by Hellespont. Consequently, it became an assize town, or
fire : ' they burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech head of a conwentusjuvidicus. Adramytian coasters such
and Anammelech. ' \Throughout the cuneiform inscrip- as that in which Paul performed the first stage of his
tions, however, there is no allusion to human sacri- journey~toRome (Acts27 z t ) must have been familiar
fice, and in the sculptures and reliefs no representa- visitok'to Cresarea and the Syrian harbours. Adramyti
tion of the rite has been discovered. The second (Bdvemid), which preserves the old name, is 5 ni. from
difficulty concerns the explanation of the name Adram- the sea. Thus, Kiepert is perhaps right in putting the
melech and its identification with some known divinity ancient town on an eminence by the sea, 8 m. SW.
of Babylonia. The name was originally explained as of the modern Adramyti (2.d. GesclZsch.f. Erdk., 1889,
Adnr-mnZih, Adar the prince,' Adar being regarded zgzf. ). Nevertheless, Edremid is heir to the importance
as the phonetic rendering of the name of the god Niizib. of Adramyteum. Silver mines are now worked in the
This identifiration, however, was unsupported by any hills behind the town. W. J. W.
evidence, and has now been abandoned. A clue to the ADRIA ( B N TU A A ~ I A ,Acts2727 [BKA], A D H A S ;
solution of the problem, however, is afforded by the ' stony sea,' Wiclif), the division of the Mediterranean
statement that Adrammelech was a god of Sepharvaim, which lies between Sicily and Malta on the W. and
a city that is generally identified with Sippar (cp Crete on the E. So the name is applied by Paus. v. 253
SEPHARVAIM). The god whose worship was especially (speaking of the straits of Messina), h~ 706 'AGplou Kal
71 72
 ADRIEL AGABUS
c?$BTQOU mAXdyous 6 Kah&rai Tupuqv6v. Cp id. viii. 543; tine Survey has led many recent writers to adopt the
Procopius considers Malta as lying on the boundary identification of Adullam with 'Id-el-mE, proposed in
( B V i. 14 : I'abhy T E Kal M A i q ~rpouhu~ov, at ~ 6 ~ 18716 by M. Clermont-Ganneau. This is the name of
'A6praTiKbv Kai Tvpmvi~bvd h a y o s Giopi(ouurv). Ptolemy a steep hill on which are ' ruins of indeterminate date,'
distinguishes between the Adriatic sea and the Adriatic with an ancient well at the foot, and, near the top, on
guy. Acts reproduces the language of the sailors. both sides, caves of moderate size. The site is in the
For this extended application of the name cp Straho, east of the Shephelah, about 3 m. SE. of Soco, and
who, writing about rg A. D., says that the Ionian Sea is 8 from Mareshah; and, though it is much more from
'part of what is now called Adrias' (p. 123). This Bethlehem, ' the journey would be nothing for the light-
implies that the ancient use of the word had been more footed mountaineers who surrounded David ' (Clermont-
limited. In mediaeval times the name was still more Ganneau, PEFQ 177 r75]). The identification, how-
widely extended, being practically= ' Levant,' as opposed ever, is only conjectural. The caves are unimportant ( I )
to 'IEgean' (cp Ram. P a u l 298. See MYRA). The because the M T (cp Jos. Ant. vi. 123) speaks of a single
question is connected with the identification of the cave, and (2) because with We., Ki., Bu., and Kau.
island upon which Paul was cast (Acts28 I ) after fourteen we should correct nlyc, ' cave,' in I S. 221 2 S. 2313
days' drifting in Adria (see MELITA). We may com- I Ch. 1115, into m:n, 'stronghold' ; cp I S. 2Z4$
pare the shipwreck of Josephus ' i n the middle of the 2 S.2314. Nor does the position of 'Id-el-m8 exactly
Adria' (KaTh. pCuov rbv 'AGptav) : he was picked up by agree with that assigned to Adullam in the Ona-
a ship sailing from Cyrene to Puteoli ( Vit. 3). mastion. On the very slight resemblance of the name
W. J. W. to Adullam no reliance can be placed. Other sites are
ADRIEL ($8$719,not ' God's flock,' bur either (a) quite possible. Cp G4Sm. H G 229 f. See M ICAH ,
miswritten for $&'l!y, 'God is helper' [cp forms of § 2 a, n. T. K. C .
name in 6 ,2 S. 218 below] ; or ( a ) the Aram. form' ADULTERY. See MARRIAGE, 3 4.
of Heb. $&?TY. T h e former view is adopted in ADUMMIM, The Ascent of ( Drp?kj&p ; Josh.
N AMES , § 28 ; the latter by Nestle, ZDPY15257; cp 1 5 7 AAAAMEIN [Bl, AAOMMI [AI, &A&MMEIN [L];
BARZILLAI; see also HPN 266 n. I , 309 n. 8). Son 1817 A l e A M E l N [B], BAWMI [AI, EAWMEIM [L];
ADOMMIM), a point marking the frontier between Judah
of B AKZILLAI (p.v., n. 4)the Meholathite, to whom Saul
married his daughter MERAB(4.v.) ; I S. 1819 (om. B ; and Benjamin. The sharp rise near the middle of the
- road from Jericho to Jerusalem appears to he intended ;
i q X (usnally=iupa+) [A], ~Sprqh[L]), 2s. 21 8 (uepai [B], the name (connected with oln, ' r e d ' ) was pel-haps
EUGP [A], 6 . t ~[L]). ~ suggested by the ruddy hue of the chalk rocks in that
ADUEL (AAOYHA [BW, NAYH [AI ; \lot /I8 the neighhonrhood, to which appears to be due the name
great grandfather of Tobit (Toh. 1I). No doubt another
J of the khPn el-Ahmar ( ' the red '), the traditional ' inn '
of the Good Samaritan, and that of Talan'afed-Dam
form of A DIEL ( p . ~).. ( ' the hill of blood '), NE. of the khan. With the
ADULLAM cn'lTx8OAOAAAM [BAL], OAOAAM CB, latter spot the ascent of Adummim has been plausibly
2 Ch. ; Bavid, Mi.; A, I S.], oAoAAa [A, Josh. 15351,
identified (PERMem. 3 172).
&A&A&M [L i6.1; ODOLLAM, variants ADU(L)LAM, ADVERSARY. The yord so translated in I S. 16f.
ODOLAM,' ODiILLAM; gentilic +t&lZ, Adullamite,
(371p a , RV 'rival,' ANTIZHAOC [L],l cp Lev. 1818
[BAL]) is the technical term for a fellow-wife, answer- .i'
OhOhhAM[f]lTHC LADELI, -MHTHC, O~OAAAMITHC ing to Ass. Tirrifu, Ar. &wrat"'~, Syr. 'artha ('arra).
[E]), a town in the Shephelah (Josh. 153335), with All these forms are dialectal variations of a single
a changeful history. For a considerable time it seems Old-Semitic word. Similarly, in Lev. 1818 the words
to have remained Canaanitish. W e still have a legend ' to vex her' are better rendered by RV ' to he a rival
in Gen. 38 I$ ( J ) which describes the fusion of Judahite t o hey.' The words that follow may he rendered, in-
clans with a Canaanitish clan whose centre was Adullam. terpreting the metaphor, ' marrying the second sister, in
This fusion had apparently not been accomplished in addition to the first, in the lifetime of the latter.'
David's time, for Adullam was still outside the ' land of The sense of the metaphor is given by the Arabic Zitakgna
Judah ' when David took refuge there ( I S. 221 ; cp D . darrataka. See Dr. TBS, ad Zoc. and especially Lag.'s
5). We cannot therefore accept the editorial statement kIiftheiCunp.en 1 1 q J (GGN, 1882, no. 13). W. R. S.
in Josh. 12 15 (cp D . 7) that Joshua ' smote' the king of ADVOCATE (ITA~AKAHTOC), I Jn. 2 I , see PARA-
Adnllam. The Chronicler speaks of Rehoboam as CLETE.
having fortified Adullam (2Ch. 117). H e names the AEDIAS ( & H A ~ I & c [B]), I Esd. 9~7=Ezra1026,RV
place in conjunction with Soco (Shuweikeh), which ELIJAH, 3.
. harmonises geographically with Micah's combination of E N E A S (AINEAC [BHA]), a paralytic at Lydda
it (Mic. 115, if the text be correct) with Mareshah healed by Peter (Acts933t). The form of the name,
(Mer8sh). It is included in the list of cities which are &ni.as, not as in Homer B n e a s , is noteworthy. It is
stated to have been occupied by the Jews in the time of met with in Thucydides, Xenophon, and Pindar.
Nehemiah or Zeruhbahel (Neh. 1130 ; so t-4C.a 'ng. inf. I, ;
BHA om. ) ; but the list in Neh. 1125-36 appears to be XNON ( A I N W N [Ti.WH]), Jn. 3&. See SALIM.
an archzological fiction of the Chronicler. Judas the XSORA ( ~ l c w [RA], p ~ etc.), Judith44t RV=AV
Maccahee, at any rate, in a raid into ' Idumaea,' occupied ESORA(4. D . ).
Adullam and kept the sabbath the& (2Macc. 1238). AFFINITY. See FAMILY, KINSHIP.
The chief interest of Adullam, however, lies in its con- AGABA, RV A CCABA (AKKABA rB1), . _. I Esd. 530=
nection with D AVID ( p . ~ . ,§ 3). Here, not in some Ezra246, HAGAB.
enormous cave (such as that fixed upon by tradition at AGABUS (&r&Boc[Ti. WH]; 3 6 8 ) , one of the
Khareitfin),2hut in the ' stronghold' of the town, David ' prophets ' who came from Jerusalem to Antioch at the
on two occasions found a safe retreat ( I S. 22 T ; 2 S. 5 17 ; tcmebf the dispersion from jerusalem ' upon the tribula-
Cp 2313). tion that rose about Stephen ' (Acts 1119, cp 8.4). He
Where was Adullam? The authority of the Pales- predicted a great famine over all the world, ' which came
1 The word is found both with d a n d with z on Aramaic seals ; to pass in the days of Claudius' (Acts 11 27 28). The
e.g.,i r y i i n (CZS 2 no. 124)l y t i i y i ? , ' Horus is a help ' (2.77). reference, doubtless, is to the great dearth which visited
2 The Maghare; Khareitun enters history, not with David J u d e a and the surrounding districts-especially Jerusa-
but with an ascetic named Chariton, who, after having bee;
taken by robbers on the way to Jerusalem, founded one of his lem-between 44 and 48 A . D . (Jos. Axt. xx. 2 6 ; 52 ;
two lauras here, and died in the cave about 410 A.D. 1 The text of BA differs.
73 74
 AGAG AGRICULTURE
Eus. HE ii. 113). For other famines in the reign of agate, which is a variegated chalcedony (translucent
Claudius, see Suet. Claud. 18 ; Tac. Ann. xii. 43. quartz) with layers or spots of jasper, was known to
The next mention of Agabus is in Acts 21 1.3,where Israel, see P RECIOUS STONES.
it is said that he ' came down from Judzea' to Csesarea AGEE (KJV, aroa [AI; a c a [ B l ; HAA[L]; JOS.
when Paul was there, and, taking Paul's girdle, bound HAOY [gen.]; A G E ) , father of S HAMMAH (q.v., 3) ;
his own feet and hands with it to symbolise the captivity 2 S. 231~. His name should doubtless be cor-
of the apostle. As this reference looks like a first
mention of Agabus, those who ascribe the whole of rected to Ela N$K (so Marq. F m d . 17); and $ in
Acts to one writer regard it as an indication that the the older character were very similar. H e is mentioned
second half of the book was written first. By others again in I I<. 4 18. See ELAH,6.
the passage is naturally regarded as one of the indications AGGABA (arraBa [Bab"'g.A]), I Esd. 52gf RV=
that the author of Acts did not himself write the ' we' Ezra 24$ HAGABAH.
passages, but adopted them from an earlier source. AGGZUS, AV Aggeus (Aggei [ed. Bensly]), I Esd.
On the other hand, Overbeck and Van Manen tegard 6173, 4 Esd. l 4 o f . See HAGGAI.
vv. 10-14as an interpolation, and suppose that the AGIA (aria [BA]), I Esd. 534T RV=Ezra 257,
' w e ' was introduced by the last redactor. Jungst HATTIL.
thinks that the prophecy cannot originally have been
ascribed to Agabus, but must have been assigned to one AGRICULTURE.-Agriculture is here considered
of Philip's prophesying daughters, or these would not ( I ) as conditioned by the land (§ I), (2,)as conditioned
by the people (§§ 2-10), ( 3 ) as a factor in the life of the
have been mentioned. At all events, it is to be noted
people (§§ 11-15) ; a concluding paragraph (I 16) will
that ' from Judsea' (21 I O ) does not harmonise with 21 8,
for. Csesarea belonged to Judzea. contain some notes on historical points.
Agabus is included in the lists of the 'seventy disciples of our I. The great variety of the conditions in the different
Lord' hy pseudo-Dorotheus and pseudo-Hippolytus and is natural divisions of Palestine fDt. 1 7 ) must be kept in
commemorated in the great Greek Menaea (Apr. 8), albng with 1. Conditioned m i d l The various local prod&,
Rufus, Herodion, and Asyncritus. natural and industrial, of these dis-
AGAG (225, 225, cp Ass. ugagu, ' b e powerful, by land. tricts. so often alluded to bv the
vehement, angry' ; ZgQi, the spirits friendly to man, Old Testament writers, the most important of which
Maspero, Dawn ofCtv. 634 ;, arar [BAL],), a king of the are wheat and barley, olive and vine and fig, will be de-
Amalekites, so celebrated in early tradition that the scribed in special articles (q4.v.). On the seasons see
Yahwist makes Balaam say, by an obvious anachronism, R AIN , DEW. W e simply note here-First, the long
of the future Israelitish kingdom, ' His king shall be dry season (Apr.-Oct. ), including all the harvests, the
higher than Agag' (Nu. 247 ; [BAL], following dates of which vary slightly in the different districts
Samar. text). Saul, after his successful campaign against (cp FEASTS, I O ) : the w p in spring, when rain
the Amalekites, exempted Agag from the general doom of seemed miraculous (I S. 1216f.) and the steady W.
devotion to the deity by slaughter, and brought him to wind every evening made it possible to winnow with
Gilgal, where Samuel hewed him in pieces before YahwB ease, barley beginning in April, wheat about a fort-
-i.e., at the great sanctuary where festal sacrifices night later; the y ~ )summer , fruits and vegetables,
were offered ( I S. 158f. .of. 3zf: ). Making allowance in summer ; olives in autumn ; the y ~ s a ,vines, from
for the endeavour of the narrator to harmonise an old August onwards. Second, the wet season (0ct.-Apr. ),
tradition with later ideas (see S AUL , 3), and throwing the earlier part of which saw the preparation of the soil
ourselves back into the barbarous period which begins by the early rain (ai\., aiio) for the winter crops, to be
to pass away under David, we cannot doubt that the brought to maturity by the succeeding showers, especially
slaughter of Agag was a eucharistic sacrifice (see those in March-April ( ~ i p h ) ,before which was the
S ACRIFICE ), akin to that of the nuki'n (lit. 'victim time for sowing the summer crops.
rent in pieces'), which was in use among the Arabs With such stable conditions, all that seems to be
after a successful fray, and which might be a human needed is a fair amount of intelligent industry ; and the
sacrifice ( W R S RSP) 491, cp 363 ; We. Ar. Heid. lack of this, rather than any great change of climate, is
112 [ 871). probably the cause of the retrogression of modern
AGAGITE ('??tf ; for Greek readings see below), The productivity, however, was not uniform (cp parable
a member of the family of Agag ; a title applied ana- of sower), and there seems to be a somewhat periodic
chronistically to Haman (Esth. 3 I I O 83 5 ) . Haman, as diminution in the amount of rainfall. Agriculture is
an Amalekite, is opposed to Mordecai, the descendant also exposed to pests ; the easterly wind 03-p drought,
of Kish (Esth. 25). Xeither description is to be taken M ILDEW, and LOCUSTS (qq.7~.: see also ANT, 4).
literally (see E STHER , 0 I , end). The meaning is 11. W e consider now, more in detail, agriculture as
that there is an internecine struggle between the Jews dependent on the energy, skill, and general condition
and their enemies, like that between Saul and Agag of 2. Sources of of the cnhabitants. Our account must
old. Similarly, Haman is called a 'Macedonian' in information. naturally be f r a g m e n t a r ~ . ~The minute
the Greek parts of Esther; 126 (patcdova [La]; but prescriptions of the Mishna must of
pouyaros [BXALP] ; AV Agagite ; RV B UGEAN ) 1610 course be used with cau&on. * W e begin with-
I. Technical details of agricultural procedure. (For
(EV Macedonian ; pamGwu [BKALP] ; but Pouyatos
the most part we shall deal only with the raising of grain
[La]), and the name has made its way back into crops. For other departments see VINES, G ARDEN ,
924 ( p a d m u [BKALB])-; cp ESTHER, IO. Elsewhere
CATTLE, etc. ) Incidentally the biblical records de-
the 62 reading is Pouyatos [BKALaB] (only in 31 8 5 scribe many agricultural processes, and mention by name
[Wa "E.]), perhaps a corruption of rwyalos (in Nil. 247, some of the implements used. Of these implements,
the same version has Twy for Ayay). however, they give no description ; and the only speci-
AGAR (&rap[BA]). I. The sons of Agar, Bar. 3 mens found, up to the present time, are of sickles (see
23 RV ; AV Agarenes. See HAGAR, 2, n. below, $7). ,
2. Gal. 424f., RV HAGAR( g . ~ . ,end). For Egypt however we have fuller sources-many pictures
AGATE (1513,IS. 5412, IACDIC [BKAQ]; %7>, of processes dnd impleAents, and some actual specimens. And
1 See PAEESTINE for details on Geology (8 3), Physical
Ez. 2716 [sa.Ginsb.1, xopxop [BQ], K O ~ X O ~ Y[A]. C
divisions ($ 4&), Hydrography ($ 13), Climate and Vegetation
etc. ; jl@, ~ X ~ T H[BAL])
C occurs four times in AV, 143).
twice for Heb. Kadkod, RV 'rubies' and twice ($2 See however Fraas, Aus dem Orient 199.
8 There is no Hebrew word corresponding to our term famr.
for shZ6i. On the identification of these stones, Tilling the soil is n ~ y nTjy;
~ a husbandman is ~ D N etc.
, ; field
see C HALCEDONY . On the question whether the is nib.
75 76
 AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE
since modern Egypt and modern Palestine are very similar modern Egypt. A modern Syrian hoe may be seen in
these ancient Egyptian remains may he used to illustrate ancien;
Palestine. Further, since modern implements and methods PEPQ, 1891,pp. 110-115 ; as also mattock, spade, etc.
are, in Egypt, very like those of antiquity the same is probably The harrow does not seem to have been used by the
true of Palestine. Hence it is reasonable io hold that, in Pales- ancient Egyptians, although their modern representatives
tine also, modern may he taken to illustrate ancient. use a weighted plank or a toothed roller. In modern
Our main side-lig-hts,' therefore, are modern Palestine
and ancient Egypt ; and they are best used in this order, Palestine a bush of thorns is sometimes used. The
writer of Job 39 IO, however, seems to have known of
subordinated always to the actual data of the O T itself. some implement drawn by beasts following the labourer ;
W e shall take the processes in natural order. but this throws little light on general usage.
Sometimes land had to be cleared#of wood or shrub The plough, although it is probably, strictly speaking,
( N ~ Josh.
J 17 18), or of stone ($PO), chiefly in vineyards. an inferior substitute for the spade, is in common
For loosening or otherwise moving the practice a very important implement, and merits more
3' 'repar- soil many words are used, such as detailed treatment.
in' 19, din, n5B3 pm, p y , i i y i ; nrd, ish, of
Of the Israelitish plough we know only that it had, at
which the first group denotes ploughing, the second, least sometimes, an iron share that needed sharpening
breaking np the soil (nmx) or the clods ( n i m x Joel ( d s s , I S. 1320, editorial comment in corrupt text).
117) with the mattock or hoe, while the third as clearly
That the Syrian plough was light we have the testimony
means levelling off the surface with something serving of Theophrastus. The modern Syrian plough, which is
for a harrow. Of the names of the instruments we have light enough to be carried by the ploughman on his
n d l n n or ndqnn, nK, i y y n , of which the first pair probably shoulder, and is simpler than the usual ancient Egyptian2
representsthe plough( N T ffpwpov); the last, asort of mat- plough (fig. 3) in having only one handle and therefore
tock ; while nN must remain undetermined, ploughshare
or hoe. It is clear, therefore, that we have at least three
processes-ploughing, hoeing, and harrowing. We
cannot be sure that there was of old in different parts
of the country any more uniformity than there is now.
It is not likely that the shallow soil would ever be much
more deeply ploughed
than now, when a depth
of 5-6 inches is consid-
ered sufficient. Perhaps
ploughing wzould some-
times (as now), after
Sufficient rain, be dis-
pensed with.3 Hoeing
would probably take the
place of ploughing in
FIG. %-a. Babylonian Plough (from cylinder seal, circ. 2000
steep places (Is. 7 2 5 ) , as B.c., belonging to Dr. Hays Ward). b. Syrian Plough and
now in stony ground.4 Goad (after PEFQ, 1891).
I n modern Jndea there I. es-sikha ipj3.3 9. eF-Far'a, sker'.
is no ploughing 6efore 2. rd-dakar, dheky, 3i.q. TO. s+cZye/z (Post).
sowing except where 3. el-kabzisa, kribasa. IT. en-nir.
manure is used. In 4. el-buruk, burk, ii13. 12. is6alrin (Post).

Galilee, on the other 5. es-sawrijir (Schum.), n*i*a. 13. jmzir.

6. el-wusla, wasl, $19.3 14. missris or wzimris.
FIG. I.-Egyptian H o e (Bn't. hand, there is One 7. [email protected] (Post), 3-iap. 15. na@aza.
MZS.). For picture of hoe in ploughing, and in Some 8. &aZa$a(Post). 16. 'aba, sa66gt.
use see fig. 3, and cp EGYPT, districts more than one.
§ 34, n. When ground has been not needing two men to manage it, may safely be taken
left unsown with grain and is overgrown with weed, to illustrate that used by the Israelites. There is no more
this is ploughed in. uniformity in its construction than in any other mattex
Turning now to the implements used for these relating to agriculture, and it would seem to be at its
simplest in' Southern Palestine. The woodcut (fig. 2)
-purposes,
- and beginning - with the less important, we
*. Implements
for
-
note that the Egyptian hoe6 (fig. I ), of
prepar- r h importance in ancient Egypt as to
illustrates its general form. It is of wood, often oak. The
stalieon to which the pointed metal sheath that serves for
. .~.
1ng SOU.
e the natural svmbol of agriculture, as
the goad is in modern has no
ashareis thrust, passesup through ahole in the pole, to end
in a cross handle piece. The pole is of two pieces, joined
representative in mGdern Syria; but neitber has it in end to end. The yohe ( i y , naia, more rarely sin, niaio
1 Babylonia, as well as Egypt, no doubt presented points of
ky7 ; ruuy6v, {uuybs) is repeatedly mentioned in the OT.
contact with Palestine; but in the department of agriculture our It varied in weight according to circumstances (I K.
direct knowledge of Babylonia is very slight. See RPP) 3 9 4 8 , 124). It is now made as light as possible, often of
and Meissner, Beitr. z. alt6a6. Privatreckt. willow. Two pegs, joined below by thongs or by hair
2 See partial list of Talmudic names in Hamburger and
Ugolinus, and now also a very full collection in Vogelstein's string, form a collar for each of the oxen, and two
work (see below, 5 17). smaller pegs in the middle keep in position the ring
3 In Egypt two ploughs seem generally to have been used or other arrangement for attaching the plough pole.
the one behind the other; perhaps thexecond turned up th; Repairs are attended to once a year by a travelling
soil between the furrows made by the first (cp however next
note). On the other hand at least in later time;, the Egy&ians 1 The simplest plough would be made of one piece of a tree,
sometimes used a lighter Glough drawn by men or boys. bent while growing. See Verg. Gears. 1169, and illustration in
4 If we could regard the Eg;ptian agricultural pictures as Graevius, The$. Autiy. Ronz. 11, p. 1674.
representations of actual scenes we should have to conclude that 2 The ancient Egyptian plough, which underwent little
in Egypt the hoe was used sometimes before (so always [?] in modification in the course of millenniums, was all of wood,
the Old Empire), sometimes after, or both before and after the although, perhaps, the share was of a wood (harder?) different
plough, to break up the great clods of earth. The depicting of from the rest of the plough and may sometimes have been
'the various operations side by side, however, is very likely a mere sheathed in metal (Wllkinso;). Of the Assyrian plough we
convention designed to represent in one view all kinds of field know from an embossed relief found near Masul, that it (some-
work. So Prof. W, Max Miiller in a private communication to times) had a hoard for turning over the earth,'and just in front
the present writer. of it a drill that let the seed down, to be covered by the soil
5 The illustration (fig. I) needs only the explanation that as it turned over.
the twisted cord adjusts the acuteness of the angle of the two 3 Where two forms of the Arabic name are given, the first is
other parts. from Schumacher, and the second fiom Post (op. cit. below, 8 17).
8 Cp Wetzstein's note on Judg. 331 (Z.C. heiow, 5 17). The Hebrew names are from Vogelstein (op. cit. below, $4 17).
77 78
 AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE
expert. The ploughman holds in his left hand a yards (Is. 55 ; Ecclus. 2 8 z 8 ) , where hedges (nmim Is..
goad (inesrds = i o h , i r m l n i f h q ) some eight or nine feet 5 5) were also in use ; and there was sometimes a border,
in length, having at one end a metal point, and at the e.g., of nnD> (see FITCHES. z) (Is. 2825). Between
other a metal blade to clean the shape. grain-fields, however, the commonest practice was to
The team (ins, @ED-yos) would, as now, oftenest set up stones to mark the line of partition (jqx Hos.
consist of oxen (Am. 612), but sometimes of cows (Job 5 I O ) ; on the strong sentiment that prevailed as to the
unrighteousness of tampering with these,
see below (§I12,14).
Whether the various words used for
sowing the seed were technical terms we
6. sowing. cannot tell. y i i is a word
of general significance. In
Is. 2825 three words are used in one
verse : r a n and $ 1 1 9 of scattering nsp (see
FITCHES, I ) and cummin with the hand ;

1 14, Heb. text), and perhaps sometimes of asses (Is. is, whether the land has been already ploughed or not,
3024 ; Dt. 2210). Even camels and mules may now to plough in the seed.2 This protects it from ants and
be seen occasionally. In Armenia many pairs of oxen from dryness due to intermission of the early rain.4
draw one plough, the driver sitting on the yoke ; but As to protection from man and beast, see H UT.
this is hardly the meaning of I K. 19 19. T o reap is ~ s p . Two names of implements have
The furrows were called Din, ~ J Y D Q(n*jya). They beenpreserved (dain, onlyin Dt. [l69 ; 2326t] : ha, only
are now sometimes very carefully drawn (cp qyixa, in Jer. [5016 ; AV mg. scythe5] and Joel
"'
Ps. 1293), and are some nine to ten inches apart. [3 (4)13] ; GpC~auov); but whether they
Irrigation (mi?, npda ; see G A RDE N ) must have been refer to the same thing or to varieties, we do not
6. Irriga- :ne of the processes used by Israel3 Pales- know. Perhaps the commonest method was to pull
tine, indeed,differedfromEgypt(Dt. l l ~ o f . , up by the root (see fig. s), a practice confined in
on which see EGYPT, § 34, n.) in having ancient Egypt to certain crops, but still followed
a copious supply of rain and in having natural springs both in Egypt and in Palestine. The use of sickles in
(Deut. 8 7 ) i Canaan invery
hence many early times
d i s t r i c t s, is, however,
especially in proved by the
valley^,^ would f i n d i n g of
bear crops sickle flints at
without being Tell - el - Hesy
watered arti- in the earliest
ficially. But and all suc-
later practice ceeding layers,
shows that while the use
even these of iron sickles
would yield by the Jews in
better harvests at least pre-
if they had FIG. +-Rams trampling in the seed. From the mus$uba of Ti. After Baedeker.
artificial irri- times is oroved
gation, and there may have been districts under culti- by the finding of the specimen represented in fig. 7.
vation which wereentirely dependent on it. It would not By putting together different allusions,' we can follow
be safe to assign an early date to the elaborate methods the various steps. The reaper (Trip) filled his hand
and regulations ,of Mishna times ; and it is difficult to
determine whether by the streams, that were so highly
prized (Dt. 8 7 ; Nu. 246, Cant. 415),~and without which
a garden could not live (Is. 130), artificial canals are
meant, and whether, e.$., the bucket ( $ 7 , Is. 4015:
Num. 247) was used in irrigation. The Mishna has
regulations concerning manurins ( SJT), and there may
be a reference to it in such passages as Ps. 83 10[I.]
( a n i & ]OS) or Is. 25 1 0 (Kthib). I n N T times, at least,
manure was used for trees (Lk. J38 ; Pdhw K ~ T ~ L U ) ,
as now for figs, olives, etc. ; it' was worked in at the
last yearly ploughing, which was after the first winter
rain. For grain crops the use of manure is exceptional FIG. 5.-Pulling up grain. After Erman.
(e.g., at Hebron). remains show that in the hilly
country tevrnciizg (nvpia ni571a, Cant. 5 13 ?) was used 1 In Am. 9 13 yiin $yjais used of the process of sowing.
2 I t is not unlikely that niyw is to be dropped, with We. Che.
even more than now, especially for vine cultivation : and Do. (against Di.), as = ;niy&.
but the wider terraces are still used for grain, the 3 According to Strabo this was done also in Babylon (cp
clearing of the soil being called nakb. above, col. 78 n. 2) and iiancient Egypt the seed was sometimes,
Fences (713) were employed, perhaps only in vine- especially in'the b l d Empire trodden in by sheep (Erman
Life in Ancient Egypt,ET 4.9; not goats), in the time o!
1 Vogelstein argues from Keliin, 9 6 that this is the name of
Herodotus by swine.
4 On the stages and accidents of growth cp Vogelstein, S IO.
the metal head.
2 Cp, however, Del. on Ps. 129 3 Ges.-Buhl sud voc. etc. For "?P!P,
. . which AV mg. thrice renders 'scythe,' E V has,
3 See now the account in Vogelsiein, 8 4. more Correctly, PRWNING-H001CS (q.V.).
4 Cp RS IQJ 106. 6 The method of setting the sickle flints is shown by the
5 The prophets delight to speak of the copious supplies of specimens found by Dr. Petrie in Egypt (IZZuhun, etc. pl. 7
water that will refresh even the most unlikelyplaces in the ideal no. 27 ; see above, fig. 6).
future (see Cheyne on Is. 30 25). 7 E.g., Ruth223; Ps.1297; Is.175: Joh2424: Jer.9zz[211.
79 80
 AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE
(q?) with ears ( n h d ) of the standing corn (mp), and (Is. 2827) it wasusual to heat out cummin and nrp(see
with his arm (piii) reaped them (lip). The stalks (nip) FITCHES, I ) with rods (mn and a>d respectively). The '

were, in Egypt, and still are, in Palestine, cut pretty other processes were probably more common in later
high np (Anderlind; knee high). They must some- times. For these was needed a thueshing-/oor tlXws,
times have been cut, tiXwr), for which was selected some spot freely exposed
whether at this or at to the wind, often a well-known place ( 2 S. 2416);~
a later stage, very Beating the floor hard for use may be alluded to in
near the ear (ddi Jer. 5133 (Heb. Text ; n y m ) . Sometimes the wheat
nkhd Job 2424). heads may have been struck off the straws by the sickle
The armfuls (my) onto the threshing-floor (Job 24 24), as Tristram
would fall (Jer. describes (East. C u t . 125); but usually the bundles
922 [zI]) in a heap would be first piled in a heap ( d q s ) on the floor, and
(,nu) behind the then from this a convenient quantity ( a d i n ) from time
reaper, to be ga- to time spread over the floor.
thered by the imyn The threshing then seems to have been done in two
F IG. 6.-Sickle with cutting edce of q D N D 3 in his bosom ways : either (6) by driving cnttZe round the floor on the
flints found a t Illahun. After Pkrie. (jlsna) and tied. loosely scattered stalks till their hoofs gradually trampled
(&n) into sheaves ( d n ) out the grain ( ~ 2 )for , which purpose oxen were
(&K) and set in heaps ( o ~ s ) . ~ used (Hos. l O r r ) , 5 or (c) by special impZements.B
In Egypt the sheaf consisted of two bundles, with The instruments mentioned, which were drawn usually
their heads in opposite directions. In modern Syria fre- by oxen, are ( a ) Y W I ~ , y?n8 (?), (pin) nin;' ( 8 ) n h y
quently the sheaves a.re,not tied at all. It has been with lain1" (wheel) prefixed (Is. 2827), and perhaps
alone (Am. 213Jr; see, however, We. ad Zoc.). These
two sets of expressions probably correspond pretty
closely to two instruments still in use in Palestine, and
a description of them and their use will be the nearest
we can come to an account of their ancient representa-
tives.
a. The Syrian nflrag (ilia) is a wooden drag11 (see
fig. IO) with a rough under-surface, which when drawn
over the stalks chops them up. The illustration
needs few explanations. The roughness is produced by
the skilful insertion in holes, a cubic inch in size, of
blocks of basalt (ni.a'e Is. 41 15) which protrude (when
FIG. 7.--Iron sickle found at Tell el Hesi. After PEFQ. new) some inch and a half. The sledge is weighted by
heavy stones, or by the weight of the driver, who, when
supposed2 that already in Amos's time the bundles tired, lies down and even sleeps, or sits on a three-
ii: ~ p )may sometimes have been heaped into a heavy legged stool.

n n

8.-Sickling and bundling. After Lepsius.

load on a cart ( 2 5 1 ~Am. 213) ; but the reference m?*y p. The .Fci(nz of Northern Syria, called in Egypt by
very well be to the threshing wain.3 In Egypt they 1 ' Barn-floor,' 2 K. 6 27 AV.
were conveyed in baskets or bags, by men or on donkeys, 2 But in I K. 22 r o ~ y i gis probably dittography for pii8.
to the threshing-floor. 3 So written without dagesh by Baer.
Threshing was called am, pp?, liii~, 5 e k ,nna ; of 4 I t is not hear how the hdrses of Is. 28 28 are supposed to
which the first describes beating with a rod, the second be used. Du. proposes to read iwia) as a verb.
5 I n Egypt in later times oxen were so used, three in a line,
8. Threshing. is indefinite (to break up fine), and the with their heads hound together a t the horns hy a beam (see
third is literally to'trample. ( a ) The fip. 9). or in the ancient empire, donkeys, ten in a line; so in
first of these evidently represents the most primitive modern Syria, the line being called a baran.
6 Just as several rods are used together in method (a), so
practice, still followed sometimes- in both Palestine 1
there could he dudicates of karan (6). or of imdement (c), or
and Egypt. Naturally, gleaners (&n) and apparently mixtures of (6) and'(c) used simultanebdy, as n o b in Hmrlin.
others in certain' circumstances-e.g., Gideon in time 7 'Threshing-wain ' Job 41 30 [zzl RV.
of danger-beat out the grain ; and in much later times 8 Clearly some kiid of sharp instrument of iron ( z
I Ch. 20 ?t),E V 'harrow,' Hoffm. ( Z A T W 2 6 6 ) 'pick.
12 31=s.

. . . __________,I__I__I
_l..l. .~~~ ~~~~~

(see Excurs. I.) is an entirely distinct word meaning

&ile i'Q$ the existence in modern Egyptian Arabic of a word 6wkdn as
hay. the name of a thorny plant. See B RIER , I.
2 E.5, by Wellhausen. 10 7 3 1 alone=(threshing)
~ wheel, Prov. 2026 RV
 AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE
I
the name of the unused .:rad (see fig. I I ), and known to The process of winnowing ( a i l ) is often mentioned.
the Romans as pZosteZZunz Poenicunz, has in place of sharp Two names of instruments are preserved, the in113 (EV
stones revolving metal discs, which, when pressed down ' f a n ' ) in Is. ( 3 0 q ) a n d Jer. (157), and
by the weight of the driver seated in a rude arm-chair, *' the n n i (EV ' shovel ' ) in Is. alone (30
effectually cut up the straw 24).' They seem to refer to different things : perhaps to

FIG. 9.-Carrying from harvest-field, and threshing. After Rosellini.

The work is done sometimes by horses, but most the implements still called by similar names in Palestine
commonly, as of old, by oxen, either singly or (oftener) -the fork and the shovel. 'Ihe products are grain
in pairs, sometimes muzzled, contrary to ancient Egyptian (in), choppedstraw(p),and chaff(yi2, w v g , iqy, dxupov).
usage and Hebrew maxim.1 The first is heaped up in round heaps (rimy Ru. 3 7 ;
The modern floor is a circle some fifty feet in diameter, Cant. 73, Heb. Text). The second is kept for 'pro-
vender (Is. 1 1 7 ) . The third is blown away . by. the
wind (Ps. 14).
In modern Syria the mi&& (see fig. given in Wetzstein,
ofl. cit. below: (i 17)is a wooden fork almost 6 ft. in
length, with some at least of
its five or six prongs separate-
ly inserted, so that they are
easily repaired. The prongs
are bound tngether by fresh
hide, which on shrinking forms
a tight band. The radt is a
FIG. Io.--Syrian threshing-sledge. After Benzinger. kind of wooden shovel (see
fig. in Wetzstein, Z.C.), with
with the heap (hadis)in the centre, from which a supply a handle 4 ft. long. It is
((ur&) is from time to time spread all round in ring used chiefly for piling the
form, some two feet deep and seven or eight feet broad. grain, but also for winnowing
When one (arka has been thoroughly threshed-to leguminous plants and certain
insure which, it is from time to time stirred up with the parts of the darts that have
had to be re-threshed. The
winnowers stand to the E. of
the 'amma heap, and (sonie-
times first with a two-pronged F ~12.-winnowing.
~ .
fork called sha'Q2 and then), After Erman.
with the mi&&, either toss
the daris against the wind or straight up, or simply
let it fall from the inverted fork, according to the
strength of the evening W: breeze. While the chaff
is blown away some I O to 15
ft. or more, the straw ( t i d i z )
falls at a shorter distance,
and is preserved for fodder ;
the heavy grain, unbruised
ears, and joints of stems, fall
almost where they were, ready
FIG. 11.-Modern Egyptian threshing-machine (n8rua. for sifting.
After Wilkinson. Strange to say, in the case
of sifting it is the names of
handle of the winnowing instrument, or even with a the implement that are best
special two-pronged fork (deihnl, GiKdXa)-the mixed 10. sifting, etc. preserved.
mass (dnris)of grain (&add), chopped straw (tidnp), and The sieve is
chaff etc. (<nyy&), is formed into a heap ( ' a m m a ) , to FIG. 13.-Sifting. called Ke'bhdmh ( > ~ 2 n Am.
After ,~
Lepsius. 99f) and ntiphah (am, Is.
make room for a new <nr+a. 3028). In the former case
probably the good grain, in the latter probably the
1 The Mishna seems to assume the practice in Kelim 16 7 refuse, passes through. In modem Syria there are
)5w olonn--i.e., 1 ~ 52 ~ .I t is doubtful whether the preceding
phrase 172 5~ n>7$aarefers to a practice, reported by some 1 @ omits these words ; but m & v occurs repeatedly in the NT.
travellerd, of banhaging the eyes of the oxen in threshing. 2 Fleischer denies any philological connection between Ar.
Philological considerations would give the preference to ruht and nni regarding the former as a Persian word, borrowed
Naimonides's explanation : 'SacculusjelZiceus i+z p e w coZZipnt in the sense df fooL
stercwj'umenfi ne pereat triticum dum triturutur.' 3 n u t ts A L K ~ ~ s .

. 83 84
 AGBICULTURE AGRICULTURE
two main kinds of sieve used on the threshing-floor. LOWreligious sanctions became attached to traditional
They are made of a hoop of wood with a mesh-work .gricultural practices.
of .strips of camel-hide put on fresh, and become Already in the Book of the Covenant a fallow year
tight in drying. The coarser meshed kirbdl is like the Ex. 2311), once in seven, is prescribed for the sake of
kebhEruh of Amos. When the winnowed heap is sifted he poor and the beast, and a day of rest (v. IZ), once
with it, the grains of wheat pass through, while the n seven, for the sake of the cattle and the slave ; while
unbruised ears etc. remain in the sieve,l and are flung he principle is laid down that for damage done to a
back into the tur& to be re-threshed. The finer meshed teighbour's field reparation must be made (Ex. 2 2 5 5
ghirbdl is like the of Is. 3028 ; all dust, bruised 4f.l). In the Deuteronomic Code, if there is already
grains, etc. pass through, but none of the good wheat. he precept against sowing in a vineyard two kinds of
When the grain has been finally separated, it is eed (229), or ploughing with an ox and an ass together
heaped with the rubt in hemispherical piles (sobbn), 22 IO), and the requirement of a tithe (14 z z ) , there are
which probably represent the '&r&ma (noiy) of the ,till such maxims as the sacredness of property (19 14,
metaphor in Cant. 7 3 (Heb. ). By this Boaz slept (Ru. andmarlcs;=Prov. 2228=231on [cp Job2421, and, in
37), as do the -owners still, while (as a further pre- he form of a curse, Dt. 27 17) on the one hand, and,
caution) private marks are made on the surface, and a )n the other, generous regard for the needs of o!hers
scarecrow is set up. 2325 [26], plucking ears ; 2419, sheaf; 20, olive ;
Storage.-In Jer., Dt., Joel, Ps., z Ch., there are !12324[23], grapes), even of beasts (254, muzzle), with
names of places for keeping stores of grain ;2 but we do t provision against abuse of the privilege (2325 Ed],
not know anything about them.3 In the dark days of io sickle ; 23 24 [ z s ] , no vessel) ; while an effort is
Gedaliah corn and other stores were hidden in the ground nade to moderate the damage done to agriculture
(Jer. 41 8) ; dry cisterns hewn out of the rock are still so ,y war (207, exemption from conscription ; 20 19 f:,
used. For a representation of an ancient cistern see ,reserve trees). In the Priest& Code there is still,
ZDPV 8, opp. p. 69. The mouth is just wide enough n the remarkable collection preceding the last chapter
to admit a man's body, and can be carefully covered if Leviticus, a further development of the provision
over. Grain will keep in these cisterns for years. o r the poor at harvest time (199, corners=2322),
2. Next falls to be considered the dependence of xith a repetition of the charitable maxims (19gf:) ; but
agriculture on the general condition of the people, a here is on the whole an eniphasising of such prescrip-
dependence that is very obvious from the present state .ions as non-mixture of seeds (19 ~ g ) ,defilement of seed
of agriculture in Palestine. 1 1 3 7 f . ) , uncircumcision of fruit-trees ( 1 9 ~ 3 - 2 5 ) , strict
In the days of Israel's greatness, when agriculture :alculation of dates of agricultural year (23 16); while
was the chief occupation of the people, the population, :he Jubile year makes its appearance. Here we are
ll. General whatever may have been its numerical Lppreciably nearer the details of such discussions as
conalitions. strength, was certainly enough to bring hose in Zern'inz etc. Of course, the question how far
the country, even in places that are now nch maxims made themselves felt in actual practice, or
quite barren, into a state of cultivation. The land 3ven as a moral directive force, is not answered by
would be full of husbandmen tilling their fields by day, pointing out their existence in literary form.
and returning to their villages at night. Yet, down to 111. W e pass now to the consideration of agriculture
the end of the monarchy, the old nomadic life still had its as a factor in the life of the people.
admirers (Jer. 35), who, like the Bedouin of to-day, That agriculture was an important element in popular
would despise the settled tiller of the soil. At the Life is very evident. Land was measured by yokes
other extreme also, in such a society as is described, 13. common ( I S. 14 14 ; Is. 5 IO) and valued by the
e.g., by Amos and Isaiah, there was an aristocracy that amount of seed it needed (Lev. 27 16).
had little immediate connection with the land it owned. ' life' Time was measured by harvests (Judith
Slave labour would doubtless, as elsewhere, be a weak 2q1), and places were identified by the crops growing
point in the agricultural system, tending to lower its on them ( z S. 2311, lentils; I Ch. 1113. barley). Tilling
status (Zech. 1 3 5 ; Ecclus. 7 I5 [16]) ; though this would the soil was proverbially the source of wealth (Pr. 12 11
not preclude the existence, at some period or other, of 28 19) ; implements not needed for other purposes would
honourable offices such as those attributed by the as a matter of course be turned to agricultural use
Chronicler to the age of David ( I Ch. 27 25-31). After (Is. 24)-and so on. That work in the fields was not
making allowance for homiletic colonring, we are bound confined to slaves and people of no culture is evident,
to suppose that agricultural enterprise must have suffered not only from the existence of such narratives as that
grievously from a sense of insecurity in regard to the of Joseph's dream, but also from what is told of Saul
claims of property, and from the accumulation of debts, ( I S. 115 ) , and Elisha ( I K. 191g), and Amos (714)
with their attendant horrors. Civil disturbances (such before they appeared on, the stage of history. On the
as those abounding in the later years of Hosea) and other hand, the narrator of the story of Ruth seems
foreign wars would, in later times, take the place of to represent neither Boaz himself nor his deputy as
exposure to the inroads of nomadic tribes. The burden doing more than overseeing and encouraging the
of taxation and forced labour ( I S. 8 12) would, a s now labourers (Ru. 25) ; and in the time of the writer of
in many eastern lands, foster the feelings that find ex- Zech.135 ( R V ) a tiller of the soil seemed to be most
pression in the narrative of the great schism ( I K. 124) naturally a purchased slave, while the ideal of the writer
and in some of the accounts of the rise of the kingdom of Is. 61 5 is that ploughmen and vine-dressers should be
(on the 'king's mowings,' Am.71, see MOWINGSand aliens. .
GOVERNMENT, 20). - At all times, however, even the rich owner entered
The existence of an effort to ameliorate evils of the naturally into the spirit of the agricultural life. If it
kind to which allusion has just been made, and of a was perhaps only in the earlier times that he actually
consciousness of their inconsistency with ploughed or even followed the oxen, he would at all
12. Laws. the true national life, is attested by the
times be present on the cheerful harvest field and visit
inclusion in the Pentateuchal codes of a considerable his vineyard tb see the work of the labourers (Mt. 208),
number of dicta on a.gricultnra1matters, in which we see his sons included (Mt. 21z8), and give directions about
1 For i h y ' i s most likely stones.
the work (Lk. 137), when he would listen respectfully
to the counsel of his men (Lk. 1 3 8 3 ) . It was not
isa?t$ mF?, nii$x, niil,gp, n y , n i q n , NT b d r j K q . derogatory, in the mind of the Chronicler, to kingly
3 In Egypt corn was stored' in buildings with a flat roof dignity to interest one's self in agriculture (zCh. 2610),~
reached by an outside stair. There were two openings, or sets
of openings, near the top, for pouring in the grain, and near the 1 The text of z S. 23 13 is very doubtful. cp Dr. ad Zoc.
bottom, for withdrawing it (see model in Brit. Mus.). 2 The meaning of Eccles. 5 g [ 8 ] is obscdre.

85 86
 AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE
and a proverb-writer points out the superiority of the authority. In the public consciousness, however, there
quiet prosperity of the husbandman to an insecure lived on much of the old Canaanitish popular belief, in
diadem (Prov. 2723-27). which the B2'divz hold the place here assigned to
Not unnaturally it is the life of harvest-time that has Yahwb, so that, e.g., the fertile spot is the Baal's plot of
been most fully preserved to us. We can see the men, land, who waters it from unseen sources, underground or
especially the younger men (Ru. 29), cutting the in the heavens (see B AAL , 5 .)-a mode of expression
grain, the young children1 going out to their fathers that lived on into Mishna times, although its original
( z IC 4x8) in the field, the jealousies that might spring meaning had been long forgotten.
up between the reapers (Gen. 37 7), and the dangers that The influence on Hebrew literature was very deep.
young men and maidens might be exposed to (Ru. 29 The most cursory reader must have observed how much
perh. Hos. 9 I$ ), the simple fare of the reapers (Ru. 2 14), 15. Literature. the modes of expression reflect the
and the unrestrained joviality of the evening meal (Ru. .,
aericultural life. Prouhetic descriD-
3 7 ) after the hot day's work ( 2 K. 4 ~ g ) the
, poor women tions of an ideal future abound in scenes conceived in
and girls gleaning behind the reapers and usually finding agricultural imagery.2 Great joy is likened to the joy
more than they seem sometimes to find nowadays, of harvest (Is. l69f. ) ; what is evanescent is like chaff
beating out the grain (Ru. 217) in the evening and that is burned up or blown away ; something unexpected
carrying it away in a mantle to the older ones at home is like cold (Pr. 25 q),or rain (Pr. 26 I), in barvest-and
(Ru. 3 IS), not only the labourers but also the owners so on. Lack of space prevents proof in detail of how,
sleeping by the corn heaps at night (Ru. 3 7 ) , so that on the one hand, figures and modes of speech are drawn
the villages would, as now in Palestine and Egypt, be from all the operations and natural phenomena of agri-
largely emptied of inhabitants. The Egyptian monu- culture, while, on the other hand, every conceivable
ments could be drawn on for further illustrations. subject is didactically or artistically illustrated by ideas
Such a mode of life had naturally a profound effect and expressions from the same source. It is a natural
__
on the popular sentiment, the religions conscience, and,
I

14. Sentiment. in time, the literary thought of the

carrying forward in the N T of this mode of thought, to
find Jesus publishing his epoch-making doctrines of the
Deoule : and. to comdete our survey of 4 kingdom' so largely through the help of the same
the subject, a fiw words must be skid here on t6ese imagery. No doubt the commonest general expression
matters. is ' kingdom ' ; but even this often becomes a vineyard,
That the agricultural mode of life was regarded as or a field, or a tree, or a seed ; and it is extended by
originating in the earliest ages is evident from Gen. 3 sowing etc. I t is unnecessary to pursue the subject
and 4 ; 2 but it was sometimes regarded as a curse farther. The whole mode of thought has passed oyer
(317f:), or at least as inferior to pastoral life (43f.), into historical Christianity, and thus into all the
while at other times nomadic life was a curse (412), languages of the world.
instead of being a natural stage (420). These two We shall now in closing give some
sides are perhaps reflected in the glowing descriptions 16'
fragmentary notes towards a historical
in which certain writers delight--e.g., Dt. 3328 : a tilled outline of the subject.
land of corn and wine and oil (Dt. 87-9), a pasture land The traditional account of the mode of life of the
flowing with milk and honey (Ezek. 206). This land, ancestors of Israel in the earliest times introduces agri-
which is lovingly contrasted with other lands (Ezek. cultural activity only as an exceptional incident. Agri-
206 15), was felt to be a gift of Yahwk to his culture must be rudimentary in the case of a nomadic
people, and specially under his watchful care (Dt. people. That Canaan, on the other hand, was for the
111 2 ) . The agricultural life was, therefore, also of his most part well under c ~ l t i v a t i o n when
,~ the Israelites
appointment .(Gen. 323 ; Ecclus. 715 [16]), and indeed settled in the highlands, there can be no doubt. The
lay as the basis of his Torah. From him the husband- Egyptian Mohar found a garden at J ~ p p aand , ~ of the
man received the principles of his practice (Is. 28?6), agricultural produce claimed by Thotmes 111. at the
as also, he depended absolutely on Yahw&for the bringing hands of the Rutennu5 some at least mnst have been
into operation of the natural forces (Dt. 1114) without grown in Palestine. Israel doubtless learned from the
which all his labour would be in vain (v. 17). This, how- Canaanite not only the art of war (Judg. 32), but also
ever, was only a ground of special security (Dt. 11I,), for the more peaceful arts of tilling the soil, which, as the
no other god could give such blessings as rain (Jer. 1 4 m ) , narratives of Judges and Samuel prove, were practised
and Yahwb did give them (Jer. 524). If they were not with success, while it is even stated that Solomon sent
forthcoming, therefore, it was because Yahwb had with- to Hiram yearly 20,000 Kor of wheat and 20,000
held them (Am. 47), and this was because of his people's Bath of oil ( I K. 511 [ ~ 5 ]Var. Bible). Later, Ezekiel
sins (Jer. 525), which also brought more special curses (27 17 ; see Cornill) tells us how Judah bartered wheat
(Dt. 2838-40). The recognition of Yahwb had, therefore, with Tyre,6 as well as honey, oil, balm, and 330 (see
a prominent place in connection with the stages of PANNAG) ; which illustrates the tradition in I K. 2034
agricultural industry (see FEASTS, 4), the success of (see COT) that there were bazaars (see T RADE ;
which was felt to depend on the nation's rendering him S TRANGER, z ) for Israelitish merchants in Damascus,
in general loyal obedience (Dt. 113-17) ; the land itself and for those of Damascus in Samaria. It is strange,
was YahwFs ; the people were but tenants (Lev. 25 23) ; but true, that in the very period to which this last notice
and the moving of the ancient landmarks, though not refers, there arose a popular reaction against the precious
unknown, was a great wrong (Job 24 2). Some of the legacies of Canaanitish civilisation (see RECHABITES).
moral aspects of agricultural life have been already The Assyrian conquest of Samaria naturally checked
sufficiently touched on. It is probable that many of the for a time the cultivation of the soil ( 2 K. 17 25, lions),
maxims referred to were widely observed, being congruent the colonists introduced by Sargon and ASnr-bgni-pal
with the better spirit of the people. Thus Amos records being imperfectly adapted to their new home. In Judaea
it as an outrage on the ordinary sentiments of common under Gedaliah the Jews ' gathered wine and summer
charity, that even the refuse of the wheat should be sold 1 Even of the English version which sometimes hides suce
for gain (Am. 86). Other maxims, again, can be little metaphors as, e.$. , 'ploughin; evil '-translated 'deviseth,
traced in practice. Prov. 6 14.
2 Am. 9 1 3 3 ; Hos. 146Jt: L7f.I ; Mic. 44 ; Jer. 31 1 2 ; Zech.
In this description of Hebrew ideas we have taken no 8 12 ; Mal. 3 IT.
note of the differences between earlier and later times. 8 The implements found at Tell-el-Hesy appear to carry us
Deuteronomy and the prophets have been the main back to the earliest days.
4 Cp R P 1st ser. 2 1x3.
1 Several children may sometimes now be seen weighting and 5 Zbid. 23 and cp' Brugsch, Egyjt under the Pharaohs ('gr),
driving the threshing-sledge. p. 167.
2 Cp also Gen. 128Jt:and WRS RSM 307. 6 Cp a similar relation in the time of Herod (Acts12 20).

87 88
 AGRIPPA AHAB ,

fruits very much ' (Jer. 40 I,), and had stores of wheat, seem to get nearer to the facts of history than in chaps,
barley, oil, and honey, carefully hidden in the ground 17-19, 21 ; at the same time we must remember that
(Jer. 41 8). In Is. 41 15 mention is for the first time even here we have to deal, not with extracts from the
explicitly made of a threshing instrument with teeth royal annals, but with popular traditions which are
(ni8g.s) ; but whether this was of recent introduction it is liable to exaggeration, especially at the hands of well-
impossible to determine. On the fall of the Babylonian meaning interpolators.' The story of Ahab in his
power the old relations with Tyre were doubtless renewed relation to Elijah has been considered elsewhere (see
(Ezra37,; cp Is. 23 1518). The imperial tribute, however, ELIJAH, 5 18). We can hardly deny that the writer
IS regarded as heavierthan the agricultural resourcesof the exalts the prophet to the disadvantage of the king. Ahab
country could then well bear (Neh. 5 3f. ). This tribute was not an irreligious man, but his interests
2.
may have been partly in money (54), but also apparently policy. were mainly secular. He wished to see
to a considerable extent in produce (Neh. 937, ~ H I ~ R ) . Israel free and prosperous, and he did not
In Joel, of course, there is a description of agricultural believe that the road to political salvation and physical
distress, but in such a way as to imply that agriculture ease lay through the isolation of his people from all
was in geileral receiving full attention. In Eccles. ( 2 sf. ) foreign nations. The most pressing danger to Israel
there is acquaintance, as in other things, so in agri- seemed to him to lie in its being slowly but surely
culture, with several artificial contrivances. To go into Aramaised, which would involve the depression and per-
the detailed accounts of the Mishna is beyond the haps the ultimate extinction of its national peculiarities.
present purpose. Both under Baasha and under Omri, districts of Israelitish
For complete bibliographies see the larger Cyclopaedias, territory had been annexed to the kingdom of Damas-
Biblical and Cl+sical. Of special treatises may he mentioned cus, and it seemed to Ahab to be his life's u-ork to guide
that in vol. 29 of the Th6.r. of Ugolinus;
17. Literature. ofspecial articles, on agriculture in general, himself, not by the requirements of Yahwb's prophets,
in Mod. Palestine Anderlind, Z D P Y 9 13; but by those of political prudence. Hence he not only
Klein, i6. 3 roo-115 6 81-101 hut 8specially 457-84. Post maintained a firm hold on Moab, bnt also made himself
PZFQ, 1 8 ~ 1p., 1 1 0 3; on thk plough, Schumacher, Z b P V l i
157-166 ; on sickles, F. C. J. Spurrell in Archozolog. Journ. 49 indispensable as an ally to the king of Judah, if he did
no. 193, 1892, p. 5 4 3 and Plate I., fig. I ; on threshing sledge: not even become, in a qualified sense, his suzerain (see
Wetzstein, Z. Zthuolo&?, 1873, p. 2 7 0 8 ; on w i n m w ~ n ~ , JEHOSHAPHAT, I ) . Besides this, he formed a close
Wetzstein in Del. 1sa.P) 7ogf: ; on the sieve, Wetzstein, Z D P V alliance with Ethbaal, king of Tyre (Jos. Ant. viii. 131),
14 13 ; on place in OT literature, 0. Ungewitter, Die land
wirthschaftlichen Bilder u. Mefaphern i. a'. poet. Buch. d. whose daughter Jezebel (Baalizebel?) he married. The
A T (Konigsbg 1885) ; on later usage, Hermann Vogelstein object of this alliance was doubtless the improvement of
Die Lattdwirt&haft in Palnstina z u r Zeit deer Mischna 1: Israel's commerce. The drawback of it was that it
(Berlin, 18y4), a dissertation that did not reach the writer 'till
this article had been written. H. W. H. required on Ahab's part an official recognition of the
Tyrian Baal2 (commonly known as Melkart), which
AGRIPPA (arpirrrra), Acts25f.f See HERODIAN was the more offensive because the contrast between the
FAMILY, 7. cultus even of the Canaanitish Baalim and that of the
AGUR (7928; so Pesh.; $+I; but @ and Vg., God of Israel was becoming stronger and stronger, owing
to the prophetic reaction against the earlier fusion of wor-
translating, ( ~ ~ B H ~ H [BAN] T I ; Cozgyeganfis), b.
Jakeh, an author of moral verses (Prov. 301). His ships. Ahab himself had no thought of apostatising
name is variously explained as ' hireling ' of wisdom from YahwB, nor did he destroy the altars of Yahwk
(Bar Bahlul) and ' collector ' of words of Torah (Midr. and slay his prophets. Indeed, four hundred prophets
Shemoth R.,par.. 6). Such theories assume that Solomon of Yahwe are said to have prophesied before him when
is the author of the verses, which (see P ROVERBS ) is he set out on his fatal journey to Ramath Gilead. His
impossible. All the description given of him in the children, too, receive the significant names of Athaliah,
heading is ' the author of wise poems ' (read, not N@, Ahaziah, and Jehoram.
We can understand Ahab's point of view. But for
but \@e?, with Griitz, Cheyne, Bickell). Very possibly its moral dangers, we might call it thoroughly justiii-
the name is a pseudonym. The poet who ' takes up able. It was of urgent importance to recover the
his parable' in v. 5 expresses sentiments very different lost Israelitish territory and to secure the kingdom of
from those of Agur ; he seeks to counteract the bold Israel against foreign invasion. If Israel were absorbed
and scarcely Israelitish sentiments of his predecessor. by Damascus, what would become of the worship of
See Ew., Sabnt. Schviften 2 5 0 3 ; Che., 306 and Solomon Yahwti? T o this question Elijah would have given the
1 4 9 3 , Jewish Xal. Lzye Lect. V.. Smeud A T XeL-gesch.
479f: ; and, with cautio:, Dillon, .hfitics 2 the OT 131 fi answer which AMOS (q.v.,5 18)gave after him : 'Perish
2 6 9 3 Cp also P ROVERBS ; ITHIEL ii.; L EMUEL. T. K. c. Israel, rather than that the commandments of YahwB
AHAB (l@&, 5 65,l 'father's brother,' cp Ahiam should be dishonoured. ' Jezebel's judicial murder of
NabothandAhab's tame acquiescence showed Elijahwhat
and the Assyr. woman's name, Ahat-ab&, and see Wi.
ZA., 1898,Heft I ; also l M f i [for 2 N n N ] oh an inscrip- might be expected from the continued combination of
two heterogeneous religions. It was for the murder of
tion from Safa [lourn. As. 1881,19 4631). I. (Axuap Naboth that Elijah threatened king Abab with death,3
[BAL], -uup [A once] ; Achnd I. Assyr. A/I?ndBzr.) Son
of Omri, and Icing of Israel (875-853? B . C . Cp 1 We must begin, however, with an analysis of the narratives.
C HRONOLOGY , 5 32, and table in 5 37). The im- Van Doorninck (7%.T , 1895, pp. 576-584) has made it highly
portance of this king's reign is shown by the large probable that the narrative of the siege of Samaria and the battle
of Aphek in I K. 20 has received many interpolations tending to
1, Sources. space devoted to it in the Book of Kings. make the deliverance of the Israelites more wonderful, in addition
T o obtain a just idea of his character, to those already pointed out by We. (CH 2 8 5 J ) , and Kue.
however, is not easy, the Israelitish traditions being ( B i d $ 25, n. io).
2 Of Baalath, the female counterpart of Baal the Hebrew
derived from two very different sources, in one of tradition makes n o mention. It'is an interpolLtor who has
which the main interest was the glorification of, the introduced into 1K. 18 rg the words 'and the prophets of the
prophcts, while the other was coloured by patriotic feel- Ashera, 400,' which are wanting in the M T of 71. 2 2 though
ngs, and showed a strong partiality for the brave and supplied in BS1. [@I, omits 400 in w. 221 (cp WRk, RSP)
189; We. CfI 281; Klo. Sa. K8. 367; Ki. in Kau. HS). Of
bold king. To the former belong I K. 17-19 and 21 ; to course. Baalath mav have had her cultus bv the side of Baal.
the latter, chaps. 20 and 22.2 Both groups of narratives hut ndt in such a Gay as to strike Israelitkh observers. - N o ;
are very old ; but the former is more difficult than the could either Baalath or Astarte.(Jezehel's father had been
priest of Astarte, Jos. c. A/. 118) have been called ' the Asherah
latter to understand historically. In chaps. 20 and 22 we by a contemporary writer.
1 Cp Noldeke, 'Verwandtschaftsnamen als Personennamen ' 3 Note that I K. 21 2o6-26-in which ( I ) the whole house of
in Klein*keiten zzw sevtitischen Onoinntologie ( W Z K M 6 307- Ahah is threatened and (2) the punishment is connected with
316 [1921). Ahab's religious pobcy-forms no part of the old narrative (see
2 See KINGS, $ 8 , and cp Ki. Gesch. 2 184-186[ET. 2 214-z16]. Ki. in Kau. I f S ) .
89 00
 AHAB AHAB
and it was probably for this, or for other unrecorded Ahab took advantage of the blow dealt to the power
moral offences of Ahab and the partizans of Baal, that 3f Damascus at Karkar to shake off the suzerainty of
the uncourtly prophet Micaiah ' never prophesied good Benhadad: so far, at least, it seems reasonable to
concerning Ahab, but evil ' ( I K. 228). follow Wellhausen. But it is not likely that, consider-
To what precise period of Ahab's reign his encounters ing the threatening attitude of Assyria, Benhadad
with Elijah belong, we are not told. Nor is it at all would have thought it prudent to fritter away his
certain to which years the events recorded in I K. 20 are to strength on those ' furious attacks ' on Israel to which
be referred. To the popular traditions further reference Wellhausen refers ; it is not likely, in short, that the
is made elsewhere (see ISRAEL, HISTORY OF, 5 29). siege of Samaria and the battle of Aphek are to
Suffice it to say here that they show us Ahab's better be placed after 854 B.c. It may be asked, if they
side ; we can understand from them that to such a king are not placed thus, where are we to find room for
3. Mesha much could be forgiven. Our remaining them ? In I IC. 20 23-34, Ahab is represented as gaining
Inscription, space will be devoted to the two inscrip- the mastery over Benhadad, who has to make most
tions relative to episodes in the life of humiliating concessions to him. After such a success,
Ahab. The earliest record comes from M OAB (q.n.). how can we account for Ahab's enforced presence at
King Mesha informs us in his famous inscription ( I 8 ) Karkar as vassal of Benhadad? The answer is that
that Moab had been made tributary to Israel by Omri, tradition selects its facts, and that the facts which
and that this subjection had continued ' during Omri's it selects it idealises as an artist would idealise them.
days and half of his son's days, forty years,: after which We may admit that Ahab, in his obstinate and patriotic
took place the great revolt of M0ab.l How this state- resistance to Damascus, was not unvisited by gleams
ment is to be reconciled with that in z K. 1I 3 4 need not of good fortune; but the fact, which tradition itself
be here considered. It is, at any rate, clear that the loss of records, that he was once actually besieged in his
the large Moabitish tribute, and of the contingent which capital, cannot have stood alone. Of Ahabs other
Moab would have to furnish to Israelitish armies, must misfortunes in war tradition is silent ; but we can easily
4. Bhalma- have been felt by Ahab severely. The imagine that the power which was too strong for Omri
second mention of this king occurs in was at last able to force his son to send a large con-
neser II,,p the Monolith Inscription of SHALMA- tingent to the army which was to meet Shalmaneser at
Inscription. NE SER 11. (4.v.). In the list there Karkar.
given of the allied kings of Syria whose forces were That the siege of Samaria, at any rate, was before
defeated by Shalmanescr at the battle of Kar1:ar (near 854 B.C. is rendered probable by the criticism given
the river Orontes) in 854 B.C. occurs the name of elsewhere (see JEHORAM,I , z ) of the narrative in
Ababbu Sir'lai, which, as most scholars are now agreed, z I(. 7. In particular, the kings of the Hittites and of
can only mean Ahab of Israel (or, as Hommel thinks, AIzqxi, who are referred to in n. 6, are just those with
of Jezreel). Two important questions arise out of this whom Benhadad would have to deal before 854 B.C.,

'' ( I ) Did Ahab join Bir'idri

why was ~ ~ e ~ I~. ) ~of dDamascus a d of his
while Shalmaneser was still occupied at a distance.
The above solution of the historical problem is that
gG:i : own accord, jealousies being neutral-
ised by dread of a common foe?
or was he a vassal of Bir'idri, bound to accept the
of Winckler, which unites elements of Wellhausen's
view and of that of Kittel.
The last-named critic deserves credit for aningenious explana-
foreign policy of his suzerain and to support it with tion (Gescli.2232) of the magnanimity attributed to Ahab in
I K. 20 31-34. It will be remembered that, according to Kittel,
(or at any rate through) his warriors on the field of Ahab sent forces to Karkar of his own accord, not as a vassal of
battle? The former alternative is adopted by Kitte14 Benhadad. This enables him to suggest that the king of Israel
and M'Curdy ; the latter by Wellhausen and Winckler. may have spared his rival's life in order to enlist him in a
coalition against Assyria, the idea of which (according to this
T o discuss this here at length is impossible. The hypothesis) was Ahah's. It must he confessed, however, that
remarks of Wellhausen will seem to most students very this view ascribes more foresight to Ahab than, according to
cogent. ' If feelings of hostility existed at all between AMOS ( q . ~ . ,$5), was possessed by the Israelites even at a later
Ahab and Benhahad, then Ahab could not do otherwise day, and it was certainly unknown to the compiler of our
traditions, who makes no mention of the battle of Karkar.
than congratulate himself that in the person of Shalma- W e may regard it, then, as highly probable that the
neser 11. there had arisen against Benhadad an enemy battle of Icarkar was fought at some time in the ' three (?)
who would be able to keep him effectually in check. years without war between Syria and Israel ' mentioned
That Shalmaneser might prove dangerous to himself in I K. 22 I.
probably diil not at that time occur to him ; but if it The numbers of the force assigned by Shalmaneser
had, he would still have chosen the remote in preference in his inscription to Ahab (2000 chariots, 10,ooo men),
to the immediately threatening evil. For it was the
political existence of Israel that was at stake in the
7. Ahab,s aimy. as compared with those assigned to
other deserve attention. It
struggle with Damascus.' Cp B EN - HADAD , z. is possible, no doubt, a s Winckler suggests, that
It does not follow, however, that we must give Well- contingents from Judah and Moab were reckoned
hausen's answer to the second question, which is ( z ) Are among the warriors of Ahab. This does not, however,
6. Relative the events related in I K. 20 22, with greatly diminish the significance of the numbers. After
the exception of the contest for Ramath all, the men of Judah were southern Israelites. Even
date of
Barqrar and Gilead, to be placed before or after the if Moabitish warriors were untrustworthy against a foe
I K. 20 22. battle nf Karkar (854 B . C . ) ? It is, no such as Benhadad, there is no reason to doubt that the
doubt, highly plausible to suppose that men of Judah would sooner see Israel free from Benhadad
1 For a somewhat different view, see C HRON O L OG Y , $ ng, n. I. than swallowed up by its deadly foe. Ahab was
2 Against Kamph.'s view, that Ahab is mentioned by a mis-
take of the Assyrian scribe instead of Joram, cp Schr. K G F 370.
*. His death. certainly no contemptible antagonist in
respect to the number of warriors he
3 The form Sir'lai may' he illustrated by the vocalisation
9 N?VN Asarel, I Ch. 4 16, which Lag. (Ue6ers. 132) thinks may could bring into the field. He himself, like David
represent the original pronunciation rather than $X.$,!'
(2s.183), was 'worth ten thousand,' and the dread
with which he inspired the Syrians is strikingly shown
4 Ki., however after adopting this view of the course of events
in his narrative, ;urns round, and with some hesitation indicates in the account of his last campaign. We read that
his preference for the view of Kamph. (Chronologiie der h b v . 1 ZJG 50 ; 2nd and 3rd ed. p. 71.
KSn. So), held also formerly by We., according to which the As- 2 Bir'idri (Benhadad) has 1200 chariots, 1200 horsemen,
syrian scribe confounds Ahah with his son Jehoram (Hist. 2 273). 20,wo men (Schrader, C O T 1186).
On the whole question cp Schr. K G F 356-37'. 3 That Jehoshaphat's military support of Ahab was not
5 Hist.P) 61. So the conservative critic K6hler (Bi6Z. Gesct'z. altogether voluntary is surmised by We. and positively asserted
3379). On the other side, see M'Curdy, Hist. Projli. Mon. by Wi. That it only hegan a t the expedition to Ramath
12773. Gilead is too hastily supposed by Ki. (Gesct'z.2 232 [ET, 2 2721).
OT 92
 AHARAH AHASUERUS
Benhadad charged the captains of his chariots to ‘ fight [L] ; Dan. 9 I auouqxw [Theod I hut &p.$w [8 i e the L X X ;
neither with small nor great, save only with the king also Syr. mg.? ; in Esther uuuu,bu [ a text of &; which see
below] but apTa.$s .$ow [p text of &Sand @BNA] -$e.$. [B*vid.
of Israel,’ and that when they thought they had found
him they ‘surrounded him (a) to fight against him’
once], &ap.$epephs PA* once], apTap&p$qs [A thric;].
In Ezra 4 6, where he is a king of Persia whose
( I K.2231f:). It was not, however, by a device of reign fell between that of Koresh (Cyrus) and that
human craft that the great warrior was to die. A chance of ArtahSasta (Artaxerxes Longimanus), he can hardly
shot from a bow pierced Ahab‘s armour. The grievous be any other than the king called Z<hshayirshd in the
wound prompted the wish to withdraw ; but for the Persian inscriptions (Persep., Elvend, Van), w , ~ * w n in
king in his disguise (v.30) withdrawal was impossible, an Aramaic inscription [481 B .c.] from Egypt (CIS
for the battle became hot and the warriors pressed on ii. 1IZZ), and EQ&s by the Greeks (cp above, readings
from behind. The dying king stood the whole day of Dan. 91). This name, which to Semites presented
through, upright and armed as he was, in his chariot. difficulties of pronunciation, was distorted likewise
At sunset he died, and when the news spread ‘ The king by the Babylonians in a variety of ways. As Prof.
is dead’ ( z K. 2237, a), the whole Israelitish army Bezold has informed the writer of the present article,
melted away. In Micaiah’s language, it became ‘ scat- we find on Babylonian tablets not only such forms as
tered abroad, as sheep that had no shepherd ’ (2K. 22 17). Khishiarshu, Akhshiyarshu Akknshiarshi, A kkishaushu
~ ~

The dead body of the king was carried to Samaria and but also Akhshiyawarshu, Akhshuwarshi, and Akhshi-
buried there.l warshu, with the substitution of w fory, as in runpmu.l
A brief reference is made in I I(. 2239 to Ahab‘s In other oases also the O T uses to represent the
luxury, which confirms the reading of @* in Jer. 2215 :
‘ Art thou a true king because th& viest with Ahab ? ’ Persian khsh, at the beginning of words. The inser-
(6v A p a P [A], EV axat [BKQ], K E L ~ ~ P[Q W “E.],, M T
tion of 6 before the final sh rendered the pronunciation
I ~ N I ) , an indignant protest addressed by Jeremiah to
easier to the Hebrews ; but whether the vowel was
Jehoiachin (so Cornill in SBOT, who enters into the contained in the original form of the Hebrew texts we
text-critical points more thoroughly than Giesebrecht). cannot determine.2
2. (Ax@ [BKAQ], perhaps the most correct form ;
The Ahasuerns of the Book of Esther is a king of
see NAMES, 5 65. In Jer. 2922 2;: is clearly a scribe’s Persia and Media ( 1 3 18f.), whose kingdom extends
from India to Ethiopia and consists of 127 satrapies
error : Eastern MSS have a Kr 2y:. ) Son of Kolaiah (1I 89 930). He has his capital at Shushan in Elam.
and fellow-exile of Jehoiachin (Jer. 29 21 f.). He and H e is fond of splendour and display, entertaining
another exile (Zedekiah) fed the fanaticism of the Jews his nobles and princes for 180 days, and afterwards
with false hopes of a speedy return. They were
denounced by Jeremiah, who predicted for them a the people of his capital for seven six) days
violent death at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar. W e (13-8). He keeps an extensive harem (2314 f.), his
learn more about them from the writer (probably the wives being chosen from among all the ‘fair young
editor of the Book of Jeremiah) who inserted vv. 226- virgins’ of the empire (22-4 12-14). As a ruler he
is arbitrary and unscrupulous (3 E - ~ I , and $asrim). All
3x2. It was in his time, perhaps, a matter of notoriety
that Ahab and Kolaiah had suffered the cruel punish- this agrees well enough with what is related of Xerxes
ment of being burned alive (cp Saulmugina’s fate, IiPW by classical authors, according to whom he was an
effeminate and extravagant, cruel and capricious despot
177). Therefore, he makes Jeremiah refer to this, and (see ESTHER, 5 I ) . This is the prince, son of Darius
at the same time accuse the false prophets of having
led a profligate life, in accordance with the idea Hystaspis (VishtHspa), whom the author of Esther
seems to have had in mind. There has been an attempt
which underlies Gen. 38 24 ; Lev. 20 14 21 9. Cp Cornill,
Jeremiah (SBOT , Heb. text). to show, from the chronological data which he gives, that
T. K. C.
he knew the history of Xerxes accurately. H e tells us
AHARAH (fllnp [Ski]), or Ahrah (n?& [Ginsb.]), that Esther was raised to the throne in the tenth month
third son of BENJAMIN (0 g ii. /3), I Ch. 84‘. See of the seventh year of Ahasuerus (216 J ) , after having
AHIRAM. spent twelve months in the ‘house of the women’
AHARHEL ( h l n 8 ; aAsh@oy ~ H X A B [RA], ( 2 12). The command to assemble all the ’ fair young
APMHA aAeA@oy ~ H X A B[L] ; AHAXEIIZL), a name virgins ’. in his palace ( 2 1-4) must, therefore, have been
in an obscure part of the genealogy of J UDAH ( I Ch. 48f). promulgated in his sixth year. But, in what is usually
reckoned as the sixth year of his reign-viz. 480 B.C.-
AHASAI, or rather as RV, AHZAI(’!pH: in some he was still in Greece. He could not, therefore, issue a
MSS and edd. ; a shortened form of Ahaziah : decree from Shushan till the following year. This can
om. BA, aaaxloy [KS.amSinr.1, ZAKXIOY [L]), a priest- be regarded as the sixth of his reign only by not counting
lyname in a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see E ZRA, ii. the year of his accession, and taking 484 as the first of
§§ 5 [a]. 15 [ria), Neh. l l q f = l C h . 91.f JAHZERAII his reign. It is not impossible that the Persians may
(a???; iehsioy P I , iszpioy [A], szspa [L]), which have taken over from the Babylonians the practice (see
is probably a corruption of Jahzeiah (see J AHAZIAH ). CHRONOLOGY, 5 9 ) of reckoning the whole of the year,
in the course of which a change of ruler occurred, to
AHASBAI (’2DnF), 2 S. 2334. See ELIPHELET, 2. the late king ; but it is not known as a fact. In this
AHASUERUS (flilldn3; in Kt. of Esth. 101,the uncertainty we shall do well to suppose that the author
edd., following the Palestinian reading, have W9VflK). of Esther has arbitrarily assumed his chronological data,
I . An Ahasuerus is mentioned in LMT in Ezra 4 6 and and that his occasional coincidences with history are
Dan. 9 I ; and in Esther he is one ofthe leading drumatis accidental merely.
#ersona?. 2. For the Ahasuerus who is called the father of
In MT of Esther he is mentioned in 113 91: 15*J* 19 2 I* IZ* Darius the Mede in Dan. 9 I , see D ARIUS , I.
1621f 3 1 6 3 1 z %6 2 7 5 * 8 1 7 * ~ ~ o * : r z 9 2 * 2 0 ~ 0 * ~ ~ T
~ h*e~ . ~ 3. Tohias heard, (Tob. 1415f) of the destruction of
readings of B are : Ezra46, aubqpou [BI, auuouq. [AI, auuuq.
Nineveh by ‘ Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus ’ ( S O RV,
1 In 22 38, the words ‘They washed his chariot in the pool of AV ASSUERUS : a u u ~ p o s[B], auuu. [Wa], auou. [A],
Samaria and the dogs licked his blood,’ etc., are an interpolation but ‘Achiacharus, king of Media’ [K”], cp ACHIA-
intended to explain how the dogs could lick Ahah’s blood (which
must have heen dried up in the long journey from Ramah) and CHARUS, 2). See TOBIT, B OOK OF.
so fulfil the prediction of 2119. But this was to happen at C. P. T.-W. H. K.
Jezreel, not at Samaria (We. CH 360). 1 Cp Strassmaier, Actes du vi+ conp2s des orientaZistes,
2 The asterisk.,(*) indicate that @BAL omits the proper name, sect. sbm. 18 f: for a form corresponding to w v v n N (Ahsha-
which is sometimes inserted by uc.a mz. The double-daggers(1) warsh?) found on Babylonian contract tablets.
indicate that the editions following the Palestinian reading omit 2 See further Eevan Daniel 149 where AhdyarH or
the second 1. Ahsayad is proposed as ;he original JeAish form.
93 94
 AHAVA AHAZ
AHAVA (NiG?), a place (Ezra815; E Y ~ I M[B], One man, Isaiah ben Anioz, had kept his head cool
sysl [AL]) or, as in the parallel I Esd. 841 (T HERAS ; amid this excitement. He assured Ahaz on the
om. B ; Bepav, accus. [A] ; [L]) and Ezra 82131 2. Isaiah,s authority of the God of prophecy that
(Ooys [BI, aoys [B*A ; in v. 31 SUP. ras.1, Aaoyae the attempt of Rezin and Pekah would
advice. be abortive and that Damascus and
[L])= I Esd. 8 50 ( ' for the young men,' T O ~ S veavtmois
[BAL], L e . , apparently nqnx for in^ 121) 861 (Theras, Samaria themselves would almost immediately become
&p&[BA], eel&[L]),ariver, nearwhichEzraassembled a prey to the Assyrian soldiery (Is. 7 4-9 168 1-4 17
his caravan before its departure for Jerusalem. The 1-11). H e hade Ahaz be wary and preserve his composure

site and the river remain unidentified. W e know that (ILI~$.~ in$;l)-to take no rash step, but quietly perform
both were in the Euphrates basin, and that CASIPHIA his regal duties, trusting in YahwB. When the
(4.v.; cp. Jos. Ant. xi. 5 2 ; see Be-Rys, Ezra, ad Zuc.) news came that Ahaz had hurriedly offered himself as
was not very far off. The form Theras (see above) a humble vassal to Assyria in return for protection
seems to have arisen from in( K ) for NinK, which is the from Rezin, Isaiah changed his tone. H e declared
reading of some MSS for in^ in Ezra8. that Judah itself, having despised the one means of
AHA2 (rilK, a shortened form of TEHOAHAZ, the safety (faith in YahwB and obedience to his commands),
I T T
could not escape punishment at the hands of the
Jaubazi of the inscriptions : see KB 220). I. (axaz Assyrians. Under a variety of figures he described the
Sgz:Em- [BKAQI'L], see also below, § 4
end, Jos. 'Axd{?p, ACKAZ [Vg. and
Mt. 1 9 AV1. ) Son of Totham and
havoc which those dreaded warriors would produce in
Judah-a description to which a much later writer has
added some touches of his own (vv. 21-25 ; see SBOT).
eleventh king of Judah (733?-;21,cp CHRONOLOGY, Was Ahaz right or wrong in seeking the protection
3 4 3 and table in 37). He was young, perhaps of Assyria ? Stade has remarked that ' he acted as any
only twenty years of age ( 2 K. 16 z ) , when he ascended 3. Ahaz,s policy. other king would have acted in his
the throne, and appears already to have struck keen position.'l On the other hand,
observers such as Isaiah bya want of manliness which was Robertson Smith thought that ' the advice of Isaiah
quite consistent with tyranny (Is. 3 12,). The event displayed no less political sagacity than elevation of
seems to have been regarded by Rezin (or rather Rezon) faith.' ' If Ahaz had not called in the aid of Tiglath-
of Damascus as favourable to his plan for uniting Syria pileser, his own interests would soon have compelled
and Palestine in a league against Assyria. Pekah, who the Assyrian to strike at Damascus; and so, if the
had just become king of Israel by rebellion and Judaean king had had faith to accept the prophet's
assassination, was only too glad to place himself at the assurance that the immediate danger could not prove
disposal of Rezin, who alone could defend him from fatal, he would have reaped all the advantages of the
Tiglath-pileser's wrath at the murder of an Assyrian Assyrian alliance without finding himself in the perilous
vassal. Rezin and Pekah, therefore, marched southward, position of a vassal to the robber empire. As yet the
-being safe for the moment from an Assyrian invasion schemes of Assyria hardly reached as far as Southern
-with the object of forcing Judah to join their league Palestine.' There is some force in this. The sending
( 2 K. 165 ; Is. 81-9 ; cp I SAIAH , i. 11). They could of tribute to Assyria was justifiable only as a last
feel no confidence, however, in any promise which they resource. T o take such a step prematurely would
might extort from Ahaz. For Ahaz, who, unlike Rezin, show a disregard of the interests of the poorer class,
had no personal motive for closing his eyes to the which would suffer from Assyrian exactions severely.
truth, was conscious of the danger of provoking Assyria. It is doubtful, however, whether the plans of Assyria
Let us, then, said Rezin and Pekah, place a creature were as narrowly limited as is supposed. Tiglath-pileser
of our own, who can be trusted to serve us, on the did not, even after receiving the petition of Ahaz, attack
throne of Judah (Is. 76). Their nominee is called den- Damascus instantly. First of all he invaded Philistia and
Tadel (see TABEEL, I), whom the language ascribed to
Northern Arabia.
the allies hardly allows us to identify with R e z h 2 H e W e shall have occasion to refer again to the important
was probably one of Rezin's courtiers, and thus (what a chapter of Isaiah which describes the great encuunter
disgrace to Judah!) a mere Syrian governor with the between the Icing and the prophet (see I SAIAH , i. 2 b).
title of king. The attempt to take Jerusalem was a Suffice it to say that we misunderstand Isaiah if
failure. The fortress proved too strong to he taken by we connect his threat of captivity in chap. 7 J too closely
storm, and to have prolonged the siege, in view of the with the foreign policy of Ahaz. It was not the foreign
provocation given to Assyria and the terrible pronipt- policy but the moral weakness of Ahaz and his nobles
ness of Assyrian vengeance, would have been imprudent. which had in the first instance drawn forth this threat
Ahaz, too, in his alarm (which was fully shared by the from Isaiah (Is. 58-16). Nor can we venture to doubt
citizen^),^ had already made this vengeance doubly that, if Ahaz had satisfied the moral standards of Isaiah,
certain by sending an embassy to Tiglath-pileser with this would have had some effect on the prophet's picture
the message, ' I am thy slave and thy son : come up and of the future. ' Visions ' and ' tidings ' of men of God
deliver me' ( 2 K. 167 ; this verse should be read ini- such as Isaiah are not merely political forecasts : they
mediately after v. 5).4 are adjusted to the moral and mental state both of
1 In z Ch. 28 I ,some MSS of @ and Pesh. read 'twenty. him who speaks and of those who hear.
five' for 'twenty. This is more natural in view of the age It is not to Isaiah or to a disciple of Isaiah, but to
assigned to Hezekiah at his accession. The)' five' may, however,
have crept in from 27 I 29 I. @ B A L reads 'twenty.' the royal annalist, that we owe the notice that the
2 Wi. A T Untersud. 73-75 ; cp, however, I SRAEL , HIST.OF , tribute of Ahaz was derived from
B 32. 4' Consequences*the treasury of the palace and of
8 See Is. 7 2 86. The latter passage is partly corrupt; but
it is clear at least, that the people of Judah are reproved fo: the temple, and that Ahaz did not spare even the sacred
distrustin; Yahwe's power to save his people, and 'desponding furniture ( z K . 1 6 8 1 7 ) ~ It would be interesting to
because of ' Rezin and hen-Remaliah.' The 'waters of Shiloah' know whether he sent the brazen oxen on which the
are a symbol of Yahwb (cp Ps. 46 4 ; Is. 33 21). See Che. brazen ' sea' had hitherto rested (they were copies of
' Isaiah' (SBOT). The interpretation of Pg, which paraphrases
'"5 bib? (AV and RV, ungrammatically, 'rejoice in ') by Babylonian sacred objects, and properly symbolised
polihed3aL & a v p a c n h b is certainly wrong though supported Marduk) to Tiglath-pileser, or whether he melted them
by some eminent names (Ges., Ew., Kne., Si.), for it is opposed offered up his son (PgL and Symm. say 'his sons,' with
to Is. 7 2 8 12. Even were the supposition that there was a z Ch. 28 q) is correct, we may perhaps assign the fearful act to
large party in the capital favourable to Rezin and Pekah more this
....~n&d.
plausible than it is it would still be unwise tb base the sup- 1 Evr-is95.
position on a passag; so strangely expressed and of such question- 2 W R S P T O @ .265
~ ; cp Kittel Ffist. 2 346 (near foot).
able accuracy as Is. 8 6. 3 On the text of z K. 16 17, wdich is corrupt, see St. ZATW
4 If the statement of the compiler in z K . 183 that Ahaz 6 163.
95 96
 AHAZIAH AHIEZER
down for himself. It is more important, however, to action would have seemed quite natural (cp 2 K. 5
notice that this time, apparently, the tribute for Assyria 878’).
was provided without any increase in the taxation. 2. Son of Jehoram (or Joram) and Ahab’s daughter
Isaiah, we may suppose, would have approved of this. Athaliah, king of Judah (843-8421B.C. Cp C HRONO -
Isaiah’s forecasts were verified, not, indeed, to such LOGY, 28 and table in § 37). H e was only twenty-
an extent.as much modern speculation about the prophetic two when he ascended the throne,%and only one event
books demands, but as far as his own generation required. in his brief reign has been recorded-the part which
Damascus fell in 732 ; Samaria had a breathing time he took with Jehoram king of Israel in a campaign
till 722 ; and, according to Sennacherib, there was a against Hazael of Damascus. The kings of Israel
partial captivity of Judah in the next reign. It was after and Judah laid siege to Ramah in Gilead (the
the first of these events that Ahaz first came in contact place before which Ahab lost his life in battle)
with an Assyrian king. In 734 the name of Jauhazi of which was still held by the Aramaeans. Jehoram
Judah occurs among the names of the kings who had withdrew wounded. Ahaziah also went to his home,
paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser ; but we have no reason but afterwards visited his sick kinsman at Jezreel.
to suppose that he paid it in person. It was in 732, During this visit J EHU (q.v.) revolted, and the two
after the fall of Damascus, that he paid homage in person kings (equally obnoxious to Jehu) went forth in their
to his suzerain. On this occasion he ‘ saw the altar that chariots to meet him. Ahaziah saw his uncle Jehoram
was at Damascus’ ( 2 K. ~ S I O )and,
, on aesthetic grounds, pierced by an arrow, and took to flight. As he fled
liked it better than the bronze altar which had hitherto in the direction of BETH-HAGGAN (q.v.; 2 K. 927, e )
been used at Jerusalem for burnt offerings. It was Jehu dashed after him with the cry, ‘Him too. At
probably an Assyrian altar, for the Assyrians on the ascent of Gur by Ibleani, on the road to Jerusalem,
principle introduced their own cultus into conquered he too was struck by an arrow. Thereupon he turned
cities. So Ahaz sent a model of the altar to the chief his horse northwest, and reached Megiddo, but died
priest Uriah (cp Is. S z ) , who at once made an altar there of his wound. H e was buried in the royal
upon the pattern, and transferred the old altar to a new cemetery at Jerusalem. The conflicting account in
position. This was, doubtless, against the will of Isaiah, 2 Ch. 229, from whatever late source derived, is of
who in his earliest extant prophecy so strongly denounces no historical value
the love of foreign fashions. Possibly at the same (Other readings-z K. 8 29 9 21 oxo&L [Bl ; z K. 14 13 Lwaxas
time Ahaz borrowed the sun-dial (if EV rightly para- aa<ta [A], L om. . I Ch. 3 IT o&ta [Bl, o&as [A].), In 2 Ch.
!4?:~ he is called ’Jehoahaz, and in 226 Azariah. See
phrases the expression, ‘ the steps of Ahaz’ ; see, how- JEHOAHAZ, 3. W. E. A.
ever, D IAL ). Nor is it likely that Ahaz paused here.l
A suggestive allusion to the addiction of Ahaz to foreign
ARBAN ()$?s,
§ 45, meaning obscure, for form
worship is traceable in 2 K. 23 12 ; but there is a textual cp Eshban, ‘ brother of an intelligent one’ [BDB], or
difficulty in the passage (see Kaniphausen’s note in Kau. less improbably ‘ brother has given heed,’ so Gray, H P N
HS).2 83, n. 2 , who suggests the vocalisation IJnS), a Jerah-
The reign of Ahaz was inglorious, but on the whole meelite family name, I Ch. 2 2 9 t ( A X A B A P [B], oza [A],
peaceful. It was a severe blow to the commerce of N&AAB [L, cp vv. 28301, AHOBaAN).
Judah when Rezin, on the accession of Ahaz, attacked AHER (ln& ; aep [B], aop [A], om. [L Pesh.] ;
and captured Elath (on the Arabian Gulf), and restored a very doubtful Benjaniite name ( I Ch. 7 I.?).
AIfmz),
it to its former possessors, the Edomites ; but at the See HUSHIM,z ; D AN , § g ; B EN J AMIN , g ii. a.
close of Ahaz’s reign Isaiah was able to contrast the Be. (in Zoc.) explains the name as meaning ‘the other one,’
peace enjoyed by ‘ the poor of YahwB‘s people’ with and conjectures it to be a euphemism for Dan the express
the chastisement inflicted by Assyria on the restless mention of the name of this tribe seeming in mbre than one
instance to have heen deliberately avoided. (See however DAN:
Philistines. 8 9.) On the other hand @BAL. reads ‘ his son ’ for ‘ the sons of
Other readings of B are : axas [B often, AI? vel forte a? once, (ill for 3 1 3 , and the name is entirely wanting in @L and Pesh.,
A once, Q a once], -xaa< [A twice], axap [A, 2, Ch. 151. In Jer. the former (and perhaps originally also the latter) connecting
22 15 @WQ‘Ahaz’ takes the place of the true reading ‘ Ahab’ Hnshim (reuuow6, &&)with what goes before (see IRI). See
of B A (see A HAB T [end]). also A HARAH .
2 (xaa< [AI. ;{a< [Ll) a descendant of Saul. I Ch. 831f:
(<a; [Bl)=9 I (om. EV M? @BA ; but correctly idserted by @L AH1 (’&, 52, probably abbrev. from AHIJAH).
Pesh.), 942 taxa<[B]). See B E NJ AMIN, I 9 ii. j3. I. I n genealogy of GAD, I Ch. 5 1st (Vg. wron-ly trans-
T. K. C.-W. E. A. lates fyalyes quoque; Pesh. and 4BLoni. ; @BA comzines with
the ireceding name Buz-[<aplou~ap [Bl, axr(gou{) [AI).
AHAZIAH ($il:!ll& V!R& ‘ h e whom Yahwb sup- 2. In genealogy of ASHER( 8 4 n.), I Ch. 7 34t. a**,attach-
ports’; oxoz[a]lac [BAL] ; for other readings see ing part of the following name (see KOHGAH),produces
AXL(owpa) [A], or AxL(owm) [Bl ; hut BL has ?fly.
end of no. 2). I. Son of Ahab and Jezebel,
and king of Israel (853-8511B.C. Cp CHRONOLOGY, AHI, NAMES WITH. See ABI, NAMES WITH.
28 and table in 37). A poor successor to AHIAH, frequently in AV and once (Neh. 1026 [ z s ] )
the heroic Ahab. Once more Israel mu‘st have been inconsistently in RV. See A HIJAH , rf. 4.
dependent on Damascus, while Moab (see AHAB, z ) AHIAM ( P e ’ F 8 , § 65, for which we should probably
continued to enjoy its recovered independence. T h e
single political action reported of him is his offer to point P@n& ‘ mother’s brother’ [cp AHAB], analogous
JEHOSHAPHAT (g.v., I) to join in a trading ex- to the Sab. pr.n. 1ilDKRnK, ‘ sister of his mother ’ ; cp
pedition to Ophir (I K. 2250). The close of his life HPiV64,n. z ) , one ofDavid‘sheroes, 2s. 2333 (AMNAN
is described in a prophetic legend of very late origin [BA], om. [L])=I Ch. 1135’t ( ~ X E I M [MI, & X I A M
(see E LIJAH , § 3). He fell through the lattice of an [AL]). See D AVID , 1 11 n i.
upper room in his palace in Samaria, and though he
lingered on a sick-bed for some time, did not recover.
AHIAN (13ng, 65, ‘relative, cousin,’ cp 1Lf;
The story ( 2 K. 12- 17) is a painful one, and was used by IAAIM [B], A B I N [A], AEIM [L]; A H I N ) , a Manassitc
name ( I Ch. 7 1st). See SHEMIDA.
Jesus to point the contrast between the unchastened
zeal of his disciples and the true evangelical spirit (Lk. 9 AHIEZER (ITy’@, § 44, ‘ the [divine] brother is
54-56). The one probably historical element is the help,’ cp Abiezer, Eliezer ; A lszsp [BAFL]).
consultation by Ahaziah of the oracle of Baal-zebub of I. h. Ammishaddai chief of t i e Danites, temp. Moses [PI
Ekron. To most of Ahaziah‘s contemporaries his (Nu. 112 2 25 EXL. [F]’; 7 66 71 10 25)t.
2. One of David’s archers ( I Ch. 12 3t). See D AV ID , 5 I I a iii.
1 Schr. C O T 1249 25 .
Wi GBA 234.
2 For O%j! read Ol.$$ I
cp the KrE. n’DliNI for nVmK1.
3 The heading of Is. 14 28-32 is probably correct. See Che.
1 Smend, A T ReZ.-gesch. 157.
2 So 2 K. 826. I n z Ch. 22 z his age is given as forty-two
(@BA 2 0 ) ; but this is clearly miswritten for twenty-two (so @L;
Zntr. Is. So$ ;but cp Duhm ad Zoc. cp 21 5 20).
7 97 98
 AHIHUD AHINOAM
AHIHUD (l‘Iil’n8,‘ the [divine]
brother is praise,’ AHIMAAZ (ypn’n4, § 45, meaning uncertain, cp
cp A BIHUD ; ~ X I U B [A], - u p [BFL], AUIHUD), an MAu ; ax[s]i~naac[BAL]).
Asherite selected to assist Joshua and Eleazer in the I. b. Zadok ; z S. 1527 (axeipaias [B]), 36 ( a ~ ~ p u u -
division of Canaan (Nu. 3427 Pf). uuios [A”; uzoras. A“’“]); 17172o(uxeipas[B]), ISrg-zq,
tnd, according to the Chronicler, eleventh in descent
AHIHUD (l?’& ; I A X E I X ~ A[BI, -XIX&[AI;, O Y a rom Aaron in the line of Eleazar, I Ch. 6 Sf., and 53
[L]; AHIUD), in genealogy of BENJAMIN (§ 9 11. p), uxeiuupa [B]). Along with his father and brother he
I C ~ 87f.
. Cp UZZA, I. .emained faithful to David during the revolt of Absalom,
AHIJAH (;ISn& ‘YahwBis brother’ [Le., protector]; tnd brought important information from Jerusalem to
cp Abijah and the Babylonian name A-hi-ia-a ; Jastrow, :he king as to the enemy’s plans ; he was also the first
JBG 1894, p. 105 ; ax[elia [BAL]). :ourier, to reach the king after the battle in which Absalom
I. b. Ahitnb,, priest at Shiloh, bore the epbod, temp. Saul ; xas killed. Most probably identical with
15.143 (Jos. Exlap, ’Axias AV AHIAH). In 4Esd. Izt he 2. One of Solomon’s prefects (see G OVERNMENT , § 18,
appears as ACHIAS(Achias fed. Benslyl) between Ahitub and
Amariah of Ezra 7 zf: or I Ch. 6 7. md), governor of Naphtali ; 1.K. 415. Cp AHILUD, 2.
2. I n genealogy of ~ E H J A M I N (8 g ii. p), one of those who were 3. Father of Ahinoam ( I ), Saul’s wife ; I S. 145of
‘carried captive’ (I Ch.87; AV AHIAH),whose name should :UX[E]LYUUS [B]).
perhaps be read in v. 4 for A HOAH (Mng ; a o a [L], Ahoe; but
AHIMAN 45 ; ACHIMAN, AHIMAN). ‘Ahi,’
a x m [B], )J.y/ ; A om.); see further AHOHITE. as usual, is a divine title, and ‘ m a n ’ may be the
3. The Pelonite. a corruption of Ahithophel the Gilonite, the name of a deity (Mbni ; see FORTUNE.).
name of his son &ne of David‘s heroes) being omitted ( I Ch.
1136 ; see ELIAM, I ; A HITHOPHEL ). I. One of the sonsof the A NAK (g.v. ; cp also S HESHAI,
4. b. Sbisha (SHAVSHA), and brother of ELIHOREPH (q.v.) ; T ALMAI ) ; ,Nu. 1322 (ax[e]ipav [BFL], U X L K U ~[A]) ;
one of Solomon’ssecretaries of state (I K. 4 3 ; AV AHIAH). See Josh. 15 14 ( u ~ [ e ] i p[BAL])
u ; Judg. 1IO (axwaav [B],
B EN - HESED 8 3.
5. A Levhe who owes his existence to a demonstrable text- ax[e]ipav [Bab.’’’g. L], TOY a ~ ~ p u [A]).
ap
corruption ( I k h . 26 20 ; read with BAL, b&eA+oi ak-iuv, ‘and 2. One of the ‘porters for the camps of the Levites’ ; I Ch. 9 17
the Levites their brethren’). (aLpap [B],-Y [AL] ; Ahitnanz, Cod. Am. Aditnun [il Neh.1119
6 . According to AV (which with @L prefixes ‘and’), the fifth i. ,5 5,
om. everywhere]) in list of those with foreign w i v e s ( E z ~ ~
son of JERAHMEEL (g.v., I), I Ch. 225. But @ B A gives cor- end)=Ezra IO24 (where he is called URI)=I Esd. 925 (EV
rectly d8~hg0pahoir, <.e., 5.7: (so Ki.). We. (De Gent. 15) om.). The name in I Ch. is probably corrupt. See URI, 3.
AHIMELECH (p$gVIR, .
-: ‘the [ ivine] king is brother,’
prefers lTl, ‘his brothers.’ ( L aXLap.)
7. An Issacharite, father of King Baasha (I K. 15 27 33, etc.).
8. Signatory to the covenant ; Neb. 10 26 P25I (apa [Bl ; ala
see ABIMELECH
ax[e]ipehex [BAL]).
and cp Phcen. 1f
Dn,Ass. AbimiZkKi;
[ p i d . A], a8e~as[Ll ; ECHAIA). See E ZRA, i. 8 7. I. Father of Abiathar, erroneously described in z S.
9. A Shilonite; the prophet who foretold to JERO- 8 17 as son. of Abiathar, also in four places in I Ch., in
BOAM (g.v., I) the disruption of Solomon’s kingdom the first of which, moreover, the name in M T is
( I K. 1129, etc.; ax[e]ias [BA twice]). In z Ch. l o r 5 ABIMELECH ; see ABIATHAR (last paragraph). For a
(Xia A” but not in I/ I K.l215), and in the story of his conjecture that Jehoshaphat, David’s vizier, and Baana,
meeting with Jeroboam’s wife (I K. 144a-18), the name Solomon’s prefect, were also sons of this Ahimelech, see
appears in the form wnc (AhiyyZihu), on which see AIIILUD, I and 2.
ABIJAH (beginning). @ A reads apLpeAcx in I S. 21 x u 22 g and apLp. in I S 21 16 2 ;
B has a p a ~ p ~ h einvariably
x except in r S . Z l r a , and Ps.52
AHIKAM (€lffnE, 5 44, ‘the [divine] brother riseth title,% ap‘p. ; and in I S. 30 7 ,and the five corrupt passages,
axmp. ; Vg. Achimelech, but m I Ch., though not in z S. 8 77,
up,’ cp Adonilcam and Phcen. D P l K ; AX[E]IK&M Ahim. The Vg. and @U read Ahimelech also in Ps. 34, title ;
[BKAQL] ;, XEIKAM [K” once]: Jos. A X I K A M O C , I K , , see ACHISH (end).
A H I C A M ) , like hls father S HAPHAN (4.v.) a courtier of 2. A Hittite companion of David in the time of his outlawly,
Josiah. He appears to have belonged to the party I S. 26 6 t ( u x [ e ] ~ p d q
[BaLl, ap[eI~p.[BAI).
favourable to religious reforms. Hence he was included AHIMOTH (nb’y, 45, ah€lMwe [Bl, 0 x 1 ~ .
in the royal deputation to Huldah ( z K. 2 2 1 2 1 4 , ~ [A], aMlw8 [L]), a name in the genealogy of Kohath
zCh. 3420; cp H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ) , a n d w a s f o r e i n othedefence
stin (I Ch. 625 [IO]). If the reading of M T and Versions.is
of Jeremiah on a critical occasion (Jer. 26 24). He was correct, -moth should be a divine name or title. Barton
the father of GEDALIAH [q. v., I] ( 2 K.25 22 Jer. 39 14 compares the cosmogonic MWT in Philo of Byblus ; but
405). this is too doubtful (see C REATION , 7), and though
a.c-6 . K , 5 45). I. Father of Jehoshaphat,
AHILUD (795’ f,l _: Q:?, death,’ in Ps. 49 14 [15] and elsewhere is personi-
David‘s ’recorder’ or vizier (z S. 816 ; axeta [B], fied, a name like ‘ Death is (our)brother ’ or ’ protector,’
axipehex [A], axivaap [L], Jos. ”AXihos; 2OZ4, is improbable. Possibly Ahinioth should he Ahimahath
a~[e]iXou0[BA], aXi0ahaa [L] ; I K. 43, axeihias [BK], (see v. 35 [zo], cp z Ch. 2912) ; see MAHATH, I.
axipa [A]; aXi0ahap [L]; 1Ch.1815, axeia [BK], AHINADAB (22l’ng, 44 ; ‘ the [divine] brother
axihous [AL]). The name does not mean ‘child‘s apportions,’ but cp further ABINADAB ;. AXEINAAB
brother ’ (BDB with a ? ) , nor is it connected with the Ar.
tribal name Lauclhan (Hommel? see Ex$. Times 8 [B], A I N ~ A A B [A], A X I N A A A B [L]; AHINADAB), Solo-
mon’s prefect over the district of Mahanaim beyond
283 r97]). It is difficult not to suggest that + n N = Jordan ( I IC 4 I++). See G OVERNMENT , 18 (end).
ih=~5[n]~,a=Ahimelech (cp above z S. 816 [A], and
below [z], I K. 412 [B]). For his vizier David would AHINOAM (Llpj+?t4,§ 45, ‘ the [divine] brother is
naturally choose some _one from a family well known to pleasantness,’ ~ X [ E ] I N ~[BAL]
~ M ; JOS. ~ X I N A
; AcHr-
him. One son of Ahimelech (Abiathar) was a priest of N O A M ) . I. Daughter of Ahimaaz and wife of Saul,
David ; another might well have been his vizier. See I Sam. 145o-t’(ax[e]ivoop [BA]).
JEHOSIIAPHAT, z ; AHIMELECH, I. 2. Of Jezreel in Judah (see ABIGAIL, 2) whom David
2. Father of Baana, one of Solomon’s prefects or married during his outlawry. Like Abigail, she was
governors of departments, I K. 412(axeipax [B], e h o d carried off by the Amalekiteswhen they plundered Zilrlag.
[A], uxiap [L]). The governor of Naphtali (v.15) is At Hebron she bore to David his eldest son, Amnon,
called Ahimaaz-no doubt the son of Zadok who bore 1S.2543 (axeivaav [B]); 273; 305 ( a ~ ~ i v o o[B], p
this name. Probably therefore this Ahilud is the same 1 A better pointing would be p
as no. I. Solomon provided well for the families of his . .n a ; the present vocalisa-
father’sfriends-Zadok,Ahimelech, Hushai, and Nathan tion, p n N , is based on a popular etymology; ID’pN, frater
(cp AHIMAAZ, I, z ; BAANA, z ; AZARIAH, 6). meus quis? (Jer. in OS(? 1521, etc.).
2 Other readings here, apap. [a]; Achinzelech; Pesh. quite
T. K. C. different.
99 I00
 AH10 AHLAB
[A,
UXCPUU~ up. sup. ras. AI]), cp v. 18 ; 2 Sam. 22unerring insight (zS.1512 1623). His son ELIAM
( U X C P O O ~[BA]), 32 (uxe~voop [B]) ; I Ch. ZIT. ( P . V . , I ) was, like Uriah, a member of David‘s body-
guard ( 2 S. 2334 ; cp D AVID , § 11 a i), and since Bath-
AH10 (\’?&, $9 24, 43, possibly, if M T is correct, sheba, the wife of Uriah, is described as the daughter
‘brother of Yahwb,’ or ‘Yahwb is brother.’ The of Eliam (2s.113). it has been conjectured that Ahi-
analogy of other names ending in d seems against this thophel was her grandfather, and that indignation at
view ; Jastrow, IBL, 1894, p. 101). David’s conduct to Bathsheba led Ahithophel to cast in
I. h.Abinadah,brotherofUzzAH(q.~.,1),~S.63~;/~1Ch.l37
his lot with Absalom’s rebellion. This, however, is a
has ‘his hrethren,’and We. reads l’”, ‘his brother’; see Dr. mere possibility, and ambition would be a sufficient
(in each case, however, @ B A L has 02 b8aA4oi ai)roi), is., l‘il!, motive for Ahithophel‘s treason to David, just as the
in 2 S.). slight involved in Absalom’s preference of Hushai’s
2. In genealogy of B EN J AMIN (5 g ii. p) one of the sons of
Beriah, who put to flight the inhabitants of d a t h , I Ch. S 14 (&A- counsel to his own was certainly one chief cause of his
@F a h & , ‘his brother ’ [B], oi bS.A$oi a&, ‘his brethren ’ [A], o l final withdrawal’ from Absalom. At first, indeed, he
b. ahrcb, ‘their brethren [L] : Be. and Kau. l’n,N ; We. l’;? had full possession of the ear of the pretender. It
[De Gent. f. 291. Ki. an3nNc). was by his advice that Absalom took public possession
3. In genealoLy of BENJAMIN (5 g ii. p), son of Jehiel, the of his father’s concubines, and so pledged himself to
‘father’of Giheon : I Ch. 8 21 bScAmbp a&ro6 . IB1,.. -Qoi
, ah. .
IAl.
. 0; a claim to the throne, from which there was no retreat
AS. d . [L])=9 37t’(BA om.-ah.roG).‘ (2s.1 6 2 0 8 ) . Ahithophel was also eager in his own
AHIRA (Y?’ny ; ax[e]lps [BAFL] ; up.-/; person to take another bold and decisive step. H e
AHIRA). A Naphtalite family-name reported in P wished to pursue David with 12,000men and cut the
(Nu. 1 1 5 229 77883 1027t). The old interpretation my old king down in the first confusion and entanglement
brother is evil’ must be abandoned. Either y is mis- of his flight towards the Jordan (2s. 171-4). This
written for (see the Palmyrene characters), in which plan was defeated by Hushai, whereupon Ahithophel,
case u-e get the good Heb. name Ahiram,l or we have seeing that all hope was gone, went to Giloh and
here a half-Egyptian name meaning Ra’ (or Re‘-ie., strangled himself.
the Egyptian sun-god) is brother or protector’ (so Che. In I Ch. 1136 ‘Ahithophel the Gilonite’ has been corrupted
Zsa. 2144). The latter view is quite possible (cp the into ‘Ahijah the Pelonite,’ $7?> Vn5 for 352n h m ; cp
Egyptian name Pet-baal). The Canaanites, who were Klo. Sam.,’& Zoc. (a,y[e]ra[BANL]), and see GILOH, end.
W. E. A.
strong in the territory of Naphtali, were very receptive
of foreign religious influences.2 Cp ASHUR, H UR , AHITOB (&XEITL,JB [B], etc.), I Esd. 82 RV, 4Esd.
H ARNEPHER . The reading of Pesh. (uniformly Ahida‘) 11t RV. See below, AHITUB, 2 .
is no doubt either merely a natural variant, or a copyist’s AHITUB ( 2 W n e or 2..lDcF[ I S. 1 4 3 229201, 45;
substitution of a more normal for a rarer form; cp cp Abi-tZbu KB 5, no. 1114, &x[s]l-rwB [BAL]).
ABIDA. T. K. C. I. A member of the family in which the priest-
hood, first at Shiloh, then at Nob, appears for some
AHIRAM (a??$ § 44, CP Jehoram ; &X[Ellp&N generations to have been hereditary. He was grandson
[AL], I A X . [B], & X I A N [F]; AHIRAM). I. In the of Eli, son of Phinehas, and elder brother of Ichabod
genealogy of BENJAMIN ($ 9 i . ) ; Nu.2638 (where ( I S. 143 ; cp 419-21). His son, Ahijah, is mentionedas
we have also the geutilic Ahiramite ; V J ? ! ~ ; u ~ e ~ p a v i priest in I S. 143 ; another son, Ahimelech, appears
.
[L], [a. P E L [B], uXLpui [A], - C U P E L [F])=Gen. 4621, as priest in I S.229 11 12 20. It is unnecessary with
where ‘Ahiram, Shephupham’ ought no doubt to Thenius and Bertheau to identify Ahimelech with
be read for ‘ Ehi and Rosh, Muppim’ (oaravni~n~ for Ahijah; but that Ahitub, the father of Ahimelech, is
n’mvNii’nN), cp ROSH. In the similar list in I Ch. 8 identical with Ahitub, the father of Ahijah, is clear from
we find in v. I A HARAH [q.v.]( m n N ) , and in that in I K . 2 2 7 , which implies that Abiathar, the son of
I Ch. 7 6 3 in v. 12, A HER [q.71.] (inu), cp H USHIM , 2 ; Ahimelech ( I S. 222o), was of the house of Eli.
DAN, § 9. Nothing further is directly told of Ahitub; but, if
2. Perhaps we should read Ahiram also for AIiIRA Wellhausen’s suggestion that the destruction of Shiloh
(4.71.) in Nu. 15, etc. (Jer. 7 1 2 ) took place after the battle of Aphek ( I S.4)
AHISAMACH (?jQp’nk$‘the [divine] brother sus- be accepted, the transference of the priestly centre
from Shiloh to Nob (1s.229-11), will have taken place
tains’ ; &XIC&MAK[B],-M&X [AFL] ; JOS. IC&M&XOC, under him.
ICAX&.MOC), a Danlte ; Ex. 316 ( A X I C A M A X [B]) 3534 The description of Ahituh as father of Zadok (z S. 8 17=1 Ch.
3823 [PI. See D A N , fi g n. 18 16 I Ch. 68 [5 341 53 [38]) is due to an intentional early cor-
rnptibn of the text in Samuel which originally ran ‘Ahiathar,
AHISRARAR (lnPn5, 35, 44, ‘the [divine] the son of Ahimelech, the son df Ahituh, and Zadok were priests’
brother is dawning light,’ cp Abner, Shehariah; A X E N - (for the argument see We. TBS 176J).
z and 3. Father of a (later) Zadok, mentioned in I Ch. 6 I I ~ :
C A A A ~[Bl, A X I C A A [A],~ ACCAIZIP [L]), in genealogy [ 5 37 61, and in pedigree of Ezra (see E ZRA , i. 5 I ) Ezra 7 z=
of B EN J AMIN (I 9 ii. u ) , I Ch. 7 IO?. See J EDIAEL , 1. I Esd. S z= 2 Esd. 1T (in the last two passages AV ACHITOB
RV AHITOB);and a priest, father of bleraioth and grandfathe;
AHISHAR (Y&I$, 3 44), Solomon’s comptroller of Zadok, in the list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (E . ZR A. , ii. BF, 5 161,
of the palace ( I I<. 46f). The name, however, is 15 [cl a), I Ch. 9 ~ r = N e h .11I T (azwj3wx [El, a ~ 0 j 3 w[Nl,
~ a~~wi3
suspicious. [A]). These references however, are probably due to inten-
tional or accidental am&fication of the original genealogy, and
@E gives the double rendering, axct $v O L O V and ~ ~ ~~AOL S~ Kdo not refer to any actual person. Ryle apparently takes
d o k . , and perhaps e v e n 3 third rendering &a@ v b vu+ ;?;L another view ; see his notes on Enal r-5 a i d Neh. 1111.
+ T a q G s ; diaK should he which @L has, and may
be the true @ reading. But M T (@A aximp) has yet to he
accounted for. For i$n$?- we should probably r e a d >?’I.
A CITHO , Achitoj., so ’
4. Ancestor of udith Judith 8 It RV, $V following @A axdii
’ also It., Syr. ; om. B. G . B. G .

Zahud, who has just been mentioned, is described as not merely

AHLAB (2$nK, L e . , ‘fat,’ ‘fruitful‘ ; A&),&@ [BAL],
a priest but the officer (placed) over the palace ’ (so Klo.). See Le., &&A&@ [Clermont Ganneau points out the place-
ZABUD,I. T. K. C. name MahLleb, N. of Tyre (Rev. Crit. 1897,p. SO^)]),
AHITHOPHEL (%$~$ny, 3 45, meaning uncertain ; a Canaanite town claimed by Asher (Judg. 1 3 1 ) , and
referred to probably in Josh. 1929, at the end of which
& ~ [ e l i T o @ ~[BAL],
h -hoc, Jos.), a Gilonite (see verse there appears to have been originally a list of
GILOH), a counsellor of David niuch esteemed for his names including (by a correction of the text) Ahlab and
1 Axetpe in 3 K. 2 46 h [B] answers to Adoniram (cp I K. 4 6) Achzib.1 See H ELBAH .
of MT.
a On names of foreign deities in Israelite names, see under 1 Josh. 19 29 ends thus, ?!J+’DN 5ang which AV renders
ELIDAD, and NAMES, 55 42, 81, 83. ‘at the sea from the coast to Achzib,’ and RV ‘at the sea by the
IO1 I02
 AHLAI AI
Many (E.z.,Neubaner, Grove, Fiirst) identify either Ahlab or [A]), Gen. 3641, and (eX[~]apupas[BA], fXipapa [L]),
Helbah with the Gus Halab (x$n dqs 'fat clods') of the I Ch. 152+. See EDOM, 5 4.
Talmuds-the Giscala of Josephus. B i t this place ( e l j i s h ) ,
which is nientioued with Meron (Meirbn), and Biri ( K e f % AHUMAI ('pjnk$tl § 6 5 ; a X E i M e i [BA"], a x i ~ a i
Bir'inz), must have lain on Naphtalite ground. 'The statement
in Talm. Menachofh 85 6 that Gush Halab belonged to Asher is
a mere guess, su&ested'hy the blesskg of Asher in Dt. 33 24.
[Aa sup. ras. et in mg.], ~ X ~ M A[L],
N -1 ; Ahzlinai
For a sounder view see HELBAH. [cod. am. Ahimni]), the eponym of a clan of Judah
'5 :
' AHLAI( nK, acc. toOlsh. [Heb. GY.61o]=utinnm.
( I Ch. 4z-t). Should we read Ahiman ( L ) ?
AHUZAM, RV correctly Ahuzz&n ( DtnE, perh.
Del., PJ-ob210, compares Bab. interj. -name A&hZpz'n,
_ I possession ' ; for pr. names in a m see N AMES , § 77),
-
' 0 that I at last.' More probably the name is a cor-
one of the sons of Ashhur 'father of Tekoa' ; I Ch.
ruption of h 9 n X , or the like).
46f (wxaia [B], ~ X ~ Z A M oza [L]).
[AI,
I. Son, or (an inference from n. 34 which comes from a later
hand) daughter of Sheshan b. Isha, a Jerahmeelite ; I Ch. 2 31 AHUZZATH (n?JM, ' possession ' ; O X o z a e [AEL],
(axa' [ B ] ,aa8ac [AI, ouAae~[L]). See JERAHMEEL, I.
2. Father (or mother?) of ZABAD 6.u.); 1Ch.1141t (axam -Z&X [D];O C H O Z A T H ) , the 'friend' (a, wrongly,
[B], axca [Nl,OAL [AI, u a p a a h ~[L], Le., a combination of part vup$aywy6s) of Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 26z6f).
of L a p p a or Iapara with aaAr). T. K. C. ' Friend ' =minister ; cp I Ch. 2733, and see HusH.41.
AHOAH (qinv), I Ch. 8 4 t . See AHIJAH, 2, BEN- The name with the title b vup$ayoybs a&oG is introduced also
in CWDL in the similar narrative of Gen.2122-34. For t h e
J A M I N , § 9 ii. p. termination -ath thereare parallels in Basemath(fem.),Gen. 2634;
Mahalath (fern.), Gen. 28 9 : Goliath (the Philistine), I S. 17 4 ;
AHOHITE, THE ('nh??, ;.e., a man of the family Genubath, I K. 1120 ; cp names in -afh in Aram. inscriptions
of Ahoah or A HIJAH ? g.v., 2). The designation ( I ) (Cook, Gloss. Aranr. Inscr. under n). Cp Dr. HTW 236, n. 2.
of Zalinon ( 2 S . 2 3 ~ 8 + ,aweimp [B], CAW. [A], a m x i AHZAI ('!n&), Neh. 11 1 3 t RV, AV AHASAI(g.v.).
[L] ; JL.35 a J t ~ t ) = [see ~ ~ 21 ( I Ch.
I ~ZALMON,
AI ( I ) ('pp, always thus with def. article, i.e., 'the
1129: auaxwusi [h"], ax. [BKl], final x being con-
founded with u ; a x w p [Aa sup. ras. seq. ras.], C Z K U O ~ stone heap' ; ral [BAL, etc.] ; written Hai in Gen.
128 133tAV ; arrai [BAL]). The name appears also
[L! ; L.)- TS))' in various other forms.
Also ( 2 ) of Dodai, or of Eleazar b. Dodai (as in AIJA, or rather Ayya (Wy; om. BK*A, arw [Nc.a mg. int],
I Ch. 27 and in 2 S. and I Ch. 11 respectively ; see yar [Ll, Neh. I l 3 1 t ) ; AVYAH, RV mg.(?p [Ba Gil, not 4 p
DODAI, E LEAZAR, 3 ) , one of David's heroes (see as in most edd., AV GAZA [q.o., 21, RV AZZAH; yarav [B], ya3r/s
E LEAZAR, 3 ) in the list I Ch.274 ( F K X W X [B], awOi (genit.)[Al, a h a [L]; aza; h u ;r Ch.728); AIATH, orrather
[A], a x w x i [ L ] ) = ~ C h . l l r z (apxwuei [B], a x . [K:,
a x w x i [A], uibs AwGai T ~ T ~ ~ G & X @ O dU ~ 0 3[L])= Ayyath (np: ayyai [BNAQI, Is. 10 z8t).
zS. 239 (that is, if with AV we treat +nnN-p as= As to the site of Ai, we learn from Josh. 72 (in clause
'mu> of the parallel passages, and do not [with Marq. b yvu [AFL] ; in v . 3 yai sup. ras. [BPI) that it was
Fund. 16 $1 correct the whole expression everywhere situated ' beside Beth-aven, on the east of Bethel,' and,
into ,on$>nz ' the Bethlehemite' [cp u. 241, the corrup- from the account of Joshua's stratagem, that i t lay on
tion in the Heb. text of Sam. being accounted for by the the S. side of a steep valley (Josh. C c ~ r ) ,while from
half-effacement of the letters, which the scribe lead in the description in Gen.128, it appears that there was
the false light of v . 28). d evidently omits, since the a ' mountain ' or flat ridge with a wide view between
forms UOUUEL [B], Gou&i [Bbvid.L], uwua [A] must be Ai and Bethel. That there was a close connection
corruptions for q?, Dod(a)i. between the two places appears also from the expression
AHOLAH, RV correctly Ohlilah ( 3 3~,,K 5
I ; ooha [B
'the men of Bethel and Ai' (Ezra228 ; ala [BA]).
With the position thus suggested, Isaiah's graphic
indecl. and decl., and, except v. 44, Q : but B, not Ba picture of an Assyrian invasion from the north (IS. 10
-Ah. v. 41, ohha [A and in v. 44 Q]), a symbolical 28 8 ; ayyai [BKC.a.C.bAQ]; ayyf [N"]=GEBA in
name equivalent to Oholibah (see AHOLIBAH), given v. 28) entirely agrees. Where, then, shall we place Ai
by Ezekiel to Samaria (234f. 644f). on the map? Scarcely at et-Tell (Sir C. W. Wilson,
AHOLIAB, RV correctly Ohliliab (>&OF ; EAIAB PEFQ. 1869. 123-6, and Smith's DBP))-there
[BAFL]), the associate of BEZALEEL ( q.v.)in the work are no signs that et-Tell was ever the site of a city-
of the tabernacle in P (Ex. 316 3534 36 I z 38 23 [@ but at some other spot in the neighbourhood of DZr
37~1tl). See D AN , § 8 n., and cp H IRAM , 2. Diwrin (a village twenty minutes SE. of et-Tell).
Robinson, with some hesitation, fixed on a low hill,
AHOLIBAH, RV correctly Ohlilibah ( ?Q9)2&
Le., just S.of this place, where there are still foundations
'she in whom are tents'-alluding to the worship at of large hewn stones, and on the W., ancient reser-
the high places ; cp Ezek. 1618 ; ooAiBa [BQr], oh. voirs, mostly dug out of the rock. The spot (called
[A, n. zz Q, ZJ. 36 B]), a symbolical name, equivalent to Khirbet fln+rin) is ' a n hour distant from Bethel,
Oholah (see AHOLAH), given by Ezekiel to Jerusalem having near by, on the N., the deep MGdy el-MatyHh,
(234 112 2 36 44t). and towards the SW. other smaller wHdys, in which
AHOLIBAMAH, RV correctly Ohlilibamah the ambuscade of the Israelites might easily have been
concealed' (BR2313). To Tristram in 1863, this con-
(39t'$?&$j61,i. e . , 'tent of the high place,' cp Phcen. jecture ' carried with it the weight of evidence,' particu-
f ? D h C I h 1, no. 50, and see H IRAM , 2. larly because it would be difficult to assign a site to
I. Wife of Esau (dipepu [ADE] ; &papa [L] ; Abraham's camp between Beitin and Tell el-Hajar
aXi,Bapvu [Jos. ; cod. Laur. oh.]) ; Gem 362 (ohrparpu (et-Tell), and because Robinson's site affords such
p a 18 ( E X L ~ E [A
[E]), 5 14 ( ~ X ~ p e LA], ~ Z once], ~Aipsppa ample space for the military evolutions described in
and ~hrpapa[D]), 25+ ( o h p a [E], eXrpepa0 [L ; before Josh. 8, over which, however, some uncertainty is
thrown by the variations of d in vn. 11-13. Both
Buya~vp]). See BASHEMATH, I ; ANAH,3 (end).
2. An Edomite chief (eX[~]ipapas [DYid.L], &pepas GuCrin and the P E F Survey corroborate this view,
region of Achzib ' hut in the margin 'at the sea f r o m m o which, if not proved, is at any rate probable.
Achzih.' 64, hdwever,, points the way to a corfection ?f the As to the history of Ai : it was a royal Canaanitish
text ($ 8dAauua rai a m <Aep mi,,q o @ [Bl, 7 8. IC. a. TOG city, and was the second city conquered by Joshua,
qyoiviuparos fx&p [AI, 7 . 8. K. curat a. 7. u. aXa&J [L]). who destroyed it and doomed it to be ' a mound for
This implies the reading x$nn, which is not improbably a ever' (ohyb). By Isaiah's time, however, it had
corruption of 3 h N . ?>'!??, whichshould rather he Y?Jel,was been rebuilt (Is. 1oz8), and after the Exile it was re-
an attempt to make sense with xhg. 1 See Gray. H P N 62, 279, n. IO.

103 104
 AIAH AIN
occupied by Benjamites ; Ezra228 (uta [BA])=Neh. Its name ought probably to he pointed f i $ ~(I%%),
732 (aheta [BS], at [A])=I Esd.521 (bBA and E\7 md etymologically connected with i i s N or n h , ' oak '
om. ; ya [L]). In the time of Eusebius ( O S 181, 76, )r ' terebinth' (see T EREBINTH, § I ), indicating a sacred
A-yyat) it was once more deserted ; but its situation was ;pot. Cp ALLON,2 . T. K. C.
still pointed out. Its name was prophetic of its history.
Or had it some other name before its destruction by AIJELETH-SHAHAR, UPON, KV ' set t o Aijeleth
Joshua ? lash-Shahar (7n&i n$z&, [brdp] rijs civ~th-/lp$ews
2. (y ; without article ; Tat [Q] ; Symm. 1irx6s) an rijr 2wOrv?js [BRA] ; Aq. [bdp] rijs .+hhdqjourijs dpeptvijs),
Ammonite city. if the text in Jer. 49 3+ is correct (@W* Ps. 22, title. If we consider the tendency of the phrase,
omits ; Rothstein in Kau. HS and Co. in S B O T , c Upon ALAMOTH (9.z ),'to get corrupted, it seemshighly

after Graf, read ' A r 12). T. K. C. probable that ' Aijeleth ' should rather be read ' Alamoth '
( K and y confounded), while Shahar should perhaps rather
AIAH, more strictly Ayyah (nl&, 'falcon'). I.
An Edomite tribal name individualised, Gen. 3624 TT . ' a newsong.' (The article prefixed to Shahar
be tjin i*d,
may be in the interests of an exegetical theory.) The
(AV AJAH ; h i e [AD], N. [E ; N precedes], A I A I [L])= latter corruption has very probably taken place in Ps.
1Ch.l4o(&ie [B], [AL]). The tribe seems tohave
broken off from that of Zibeon, and to have been less 57 9 (see Che. Ps.PI). A ' new song ' would be a song
important than that of ANAH(9.v.). T o identify this upon a new model.
insignificant Aiah with the ' goodly land ' in which Se- AIN (1:p). I . If M T may be followed, this is the
nuhyt the Egyptian exile found a home, according to name of a city in the Negeb of Judah (Josh. 1532)
the old story (so Maspero, RPP) 2 17 23 ; PSBA 18 assigned to Simeon (197 ; cp I Ch. 432). According
106 ['96]) is unsafe. On the Iaa (Maspero, Aia) of the to Josh. 21 16 it was one of the priests' cities ; but the
story of Se-nuhyt, see WMM As. u. Eur. 47. parallel list in I Ch. 6 j g [44] probably correctly substitutes
2. Father of Saul's concubine Rizpah (zS . 37, LUX ASHAN (9.v.)which is mentioned in Josh. 197 [MT
vel forte tau [B"], to8 vel forte toh [BPI,l o x [A], Ztpa [L], @BAL] alongside of Ain as a distinct place. The name
Zlparor [Jos.] ; 21 8 3 , Am [BA], Aaata [L]). T o draw being thus removed from this list, Ain always appears
a critical inference (with Mez, Der Bibel des 10s. 3 5 5 ), in close conjunction with Rimmon, and Miihlau ( H W BP)
from L's ZtPa in 3 7 seems unwise. W e must not assume S.W. ' Ain ') suggests that the two places may have lain
that Ziba is tbe original reading rather than Aiah. N so close together that in course of time they joined.
and I could very easily be confounded, and from Zta Hence he would account for the EN-RIMMON (pl]'y ;
to Zips was but a step. The name of one of Rizpah's
sons was Mephibosheth (Meribaal), and the son of
om. BRA ; K . E V pepptov [&Pa mg. inf,] ; K. EV p ~ p p w v[L])
of Neh. 1129. But if weconsider the phenomenaof d (see
Jonathan, whose steward was Ziha, was also called
Mephibosheth (Meribaal). The question as to the source below), and the erroneous summation (if M T be adhered
or sources of the passages in which RizPAH (9.v.)is to) in Josh. 1532, it becomes evident that Bennett's
thorough revision of the readings in his Joshua ( S B O T )
referred to, remains therefore where it was.
is critically justified (cp ASHAN),and that the real name
AIATH (nlv),Is. 1028j'. See Ai, I. is E N-RIMMON ( q .).~
AIJA (Ky),Neh. 1131. See AI, I. How, indeed, could a place dedicated to the god
Rimm6n (RammBn) have been without a sacred
AIJALON, or (Josh. 101219 42 ; z Ch. 28 &, all AV) fountain ?
less correctly AJALON ( ] h B from $8 'hart' ; AIAWN Josh. 1532, K a t spwpw0 [B], K a L peppwu [A], K a c aLv KaLpfppwv
[Ll ;Josh. 197, a i " K . pfppwB [AI, a i v K. prppwv [Ll, but spsppwv
[BAL]). [B] ; Josh. 21 16, a r a [B] which favours itjy 'ASHAN' (4.77.), aiv
I . A town in the ShephElah, assigned to Dan in [A], v a a v [L], which harmonise with MT. I n I Ch. 432 ( K .
Josh.1942 (appwv [B], caahwv [A], EX. [ L ; but with pcppwv [BJ K . 7" [sic]Ps sup. ras. LA.?] followed by - p p w [AI ;
K . evpcpfiw: [L]) we should also, with Ki., read En-rimmon.
tahwv v.43 for Elon]), and named as a Danite Levitical
city in 2124 [PI (iahwu [A])= I Ch. 669 [ j 4 ] (corrected 2. (];$:I, the article being included ; (Cri)rvyds
text, see Ball adloc. in Ellicott's Bible; ~ y h u p[B], [BAL] ; Vg. (contra)fontem Daphnim; Tg. Onk. as
~ h w v[A]). It is the modern Y d 8 , situated on a ridge M T ; for the rest see below. ) A place mentioned in
on the south side of the broad level valley of Aijalon, Nu. 3411 to define the situation of one of the points on
well known from Joshua's poetical speech (Josh. 10 12 ; the ideal eastern frontier of Canaan : ' t o Harbel on the
aihwp [L]), and now called MeV' (the meadow of) Zbn east side of Ain' is the phrase. Though both AV
'U?nnr. It is about 5 m. from Lower Beth-horon, and and RV sanction this view of l'yn, it is more natural to
14 from Jerusalem. In the time of the Judges it render ' t h e fountain,' and to find here a reference to
was still in the hands of the Amorites (Judg. 1 3 5 ; some noted spring. Jerome thought of the spring
apparently misread al ~ P K O L [BAL], and translated a which rose in the famous grove of Daphne, near Antioch ;
second time pupctu6v [B], which, however, stands for in this he followed the Targums of Ps. Jon. and Jerus.
HERES in L), but was afterwards occupied by which render '(the) Kiblah' (a>?%) by ' Daphne,' and
Benjamites, I Ch. 8 ' 3 (athap [B], u8up [A], ahwu 'the fountain' (p) by 'AiniithB. Robinson2 and
[L]) ; cp. zCh. 1110. The Chronicler states that
Conder prefer the fountain which is the source of the
Rehoboam fortified it ( z Ch. 11IO, ah8wu [B], atahwu
Orontes. Both these views rest on the assumption that
[AL]), and that Ahab lost it to the Philistines (zCh.
Riblah on the Orontes has just been referred to, which
2818, arhw [B]), on whose territory it bordered. In
is a pure mistake (see RIBLAH). The fountain must at
I S.1431, the occurrence of the word is doubtful. For
any rate be not too far N. of the Lake of Gennesaret
' t o Aijalon' Klost. and Budde ( S B O T ) read 'until
which is mentioned at the end of the verse. Most
night. ' bBAL omits altogether. Some fresh references
probably it is the source of the Nahr HBgbZny, one of
to Aijalon are derived from Egyptian sources. For the streams which unite to form the Jordan (see RIBLAH).
instance, Shishak (Sheshonl: I. ) mentions Aiyurun-i.e.,
From this fountain to the 'east shoulder' of the Lake
Aijalon-among the conquered cities of Judah in his of Gennesaret a straight line of water runs forming the
Karnak list, and there is an earlier mention still in the
clearest of boundaries. If, however, we place Baal-gad
Amaxna tablets, where Aialuna appears as one of the
at BHnigs, we shall then, of course, identify ' the fountain '
first cities wrested from the Egyptian governors. A
vivid sketch of the battle-scenes of the valley ol 1 Except of course in Josh. 21 16 (see above). I n Zech. 141ot
Aijalon will he found in GASm. H G 210-13. the first half of the name is omitted (see EN-RIMMON).
2 See BE 4534. Rob.'s view (p. 393) on the Daphnis of Vg.
2. (Judg. 1212 ; Athwp [B], -h[~]tp'[AL,]), a locality (connecting it with the spring at Difneh, near Tell el.I$'ady)
in Zebulun, the burial-place of ELON(p.v., ii. IJ). seems erroneous.
10; 106
 AIRUS ALAMMELECH
with that which springs from the famous and romantic pith the pass of es-Sa&, leading up towards Hebron
cavern at the southern base of the Hermon mountains. ,ut of the W. el-Fikreh on the road from Petra.
It should be added that it is not impossible to alter the Robinson (BIZP)2 180f.) describes this pass as being ' as
pointing and read i$ ' (eastward) of IJON,'Ijon being steep as a man can readily climb.' ' T h e rock is in
mentioned elsewhere as on the N. frontier of the land :enera1 porous and rough, but yet in many spots smooth
of Israel. But then why did the writer introduce it and dangerous for animals. In such places a path has
merely incidentally? T. K. C. been hewn in the rock in former days ; the slant of the
rock being sometimes levelled, and sometimes overcome
AIRUS (iaipoc [A]), I Esd. 531 AV=Ezra247 by steps cut in it. The vestiges of this road are more
R EAIAH , 3. frequent near the top. The appearance is that of a
Gen. 36241. AV=RVAIAH (q-.~., I ).
AJAH (il:&), very ancient pass ' (BRW 229;). Robinson, however,
identifies this Nakb es-Safa wlth Zephath or Hormah,
AJALON (?$e),
Josh. 1012 AV=RV AIJALON, I. and not with Akrabbim (see also H ALAK , Mouwr).
AKAN (Qq), Gen. 3627+= I Ch. 1 4 2 AV J AKAN . Scorpions are of frequent occurrence throughout this
neighbourhood.
AKATAN ( ~ K A T ~ [BA]),
N I Esd. 8381. RV=Ezra
8 1 2 HAICKATAN. AKUD ( A K O ~ A [B]), I Esd. 5 30 RV=Ezra245
AKKUB,4.
AKELDAMA ( ~ K E A A A M A X [B]), Acts11gT RV, AV ALABASTER ( ~ A ~ B ~ c T ~[accus. o N Ti W H ] Mk.
ACELDAMA. 143, also with art., T H N A. [W & H after BK'],
AKKOS ( A K B ~ C [B]), I Esd. 538'f RV=Ezra261 TON a. [Ti. after K*A], T O a. [TR after G, etc. ; also F
HAKKOZ, I. in Lk. 7371 ; "P o aha. [B], TO ,aha. [AI 2 K.2113
AKKUB (3Spy, posthumous,' but the name seems [for n&r ' dish, ' cup 'I) was found in large quantities in
Mesopotamia, and from it are made the huge bulls which
corrupt,; ~ K O [BA], ~ B ~ K K .[I,]). I. b. Elioenai, six
are to be seen in the British Museum and in the Louvre.
generations removed from Zerubbabel : I Ch. 324 ( i w o u v
The alabaster of the ancients was a stalagmitic carbonate
[B], U K K O U , ~[A],
~ U K O U Y [L]).
2. The B'ne Akkub a group of doorkeepers in the great post-
of lime hence called by mineralogists ' Oriental alabaster'
exilic list (see E ZRA, (i. $ 9); Ezra242 (aKoup [BAI, am. [LI)= to distinguish it from the modern alabaster, which is the
Neh. 745 ( a m u [B] - u p 1 [NA], -up [L])=I Esd. 528 (DACOBI : su@hate of lime. See S.V. ALABASTER. In
RV D ACUBI ; Sam& [A], haroupamu [B]). Akkub is a porter Greek the word ~ ~ ~ ~ U UorT dhdpau~por
O E is frequently
in the list of inhabitants of Ternsalem (see E ZRA, ii. 5 5 [SI, $ 15 used of vases or vessels made to hold unguents, as
[I] a),I Ch. 9 17 (amup [Bi)=Neh. 1119 (aKpup [LI), cp Ezra
1024,= I Esd. 925 (where, however, the name IS omitted between these were generally fashioned out of this material,
Shallum and Telem). H e is mentioned also in Neh. 1 2 25 ( a m u p which was thought by many (cp e . $ , P1. HN xiii. 3)
w . a mg. 5w.1; om. BE(*A). to preserve the aroma of the ointment : Theocritus (Zd.
3. An expounder of the Law (see EZRA, ii. I 13 Ul; cp i. 1 5 114) is able to speak of ' golden alabasters.' Many
$ ,: ii. 88 16 [5], 15 [ I ] c). Neh. 87 ( U K O U ~[Ll, om. BAN)= alabaster vases have been found in Egypt, and the
I hsd. 948 (EV, J ACUBUS ; L Q K O U ~ O S[AI, mpuoupoos [Bl). specialised sense given to nn'z in the Egyptian Greek
4. The B'ne Akkuh, a family of N ETHINIM (T.v.) in the great
post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. 8 9), Ezra245 ( a r a p d [B])=Neh. version of Kings (see above) is natural enough.
748(a~ov8[A],-aua[N]; om. BwithMT,EV)=r Esd. 530(aKoU8 The town of Alabastron, near the famous quarries of
[BA] ; AV A C U A ; RV AKUD). Hat-nub1 (cp Erman, Anc. E$. 470, n. 3), was well
AKRABATTINE, RV ; AV incorrectly A RABATTINE known for the manufacture of such articles (in fact it
I Macc. 53+, Jos. Ant. xii. 81 ; ~ K P ~ B ~ T T H N H ; seems to have derived its name from the material).2
[HA]
- ~ T T A N H [Wa V] ; ACRABATTENE [Cod. Am.] ;
Many of these go back to nearly 4000 B.C. and often
b&,cp Judith 7 18, below), adistrict where Judas the show fine workmanship. Similar articles have been
found in Assyria dating from the time of Sargon (8th
Maccabee fought against the Edomites, situated ' in cent. B.c.).
Idnnxea' [KV Jos.] or ' in Judzea' [A]. The district in- Such a vessel was the ' alabaster cruse ' which was
tended is no doubt that to the SE. of Judzea, in Idumzea emptied upon Jesus's head by the woman at the house
(see A KRABBIM ). There is no sufficient ground for the of Simon the Leper at Bethany (Mt. 267=Mk. 143
opinion of Ewald that the Edomites had settled as far N.
Lk. 7 37t). The expression ' brake' in Mark does not
as another Akrabatta, a toparchy or district in Central refer, it would seem; to the breaking of a seal or of the
Palestine, to the N. of J u d m (Akmbatta, arcpape~a, neck of the vessel ; the object was to prevent profana-
etc. [Jos. BY iii. 3 5 11 PI. HN v. 14 iv. 93 91 ; aKpappEiv tion of the vessel by subsequent use for any commoner
[Ens. OSP) 214 61]), apparently represented by the purpose (cp Comm., ad Zoc. ).
modern 'Akra6eh, 8 m. SE. of N&bliis. (The reading
2v 'IouSulq in I Macc. must therefore be rejected. ) See ALAMETH (Il&), I Ch. 7 8 AV, RV ALEMETH.
Schiir. Hist. 1220 n. 2 , 3 158. ALAMMELECH, RV ALLAMMELECH (S\?& [sa.],
Doubtless, however, we should identify with 'Alcabeh
the EKREBEL ("yp&h [BK], E K P E ~ V[A] ~ ; b-), '$3 [Gi.], q?& [v.d. Hooght] ; ~ X E L ~ L E ~[B],
EK
near Chusi, on the brook Mochmur (Judith718+), the e h p d f [L
~ ; om. A]), a place in Asher on the border of
names being almost the same in the Syr. (=Talm. Zebulun (Josh. 1926T), the name of which is possibly
nmpy). I T. K. C.
echoed in that of the W d d y eGmeZek, which drains the
plain of the Buttauf (Asochis), and joins the Nahr el-
AKRABBIM, Ascent of, so always in R V ; also Mukarta' (Kishon). So Di., Buhl. The pointing of
Nu. 344 in AV, which has in Judg. 136 ' going up ty the Heb. is peculiar: $v& is usually explained as if
Akrabbim,' in Josh. 153+ ing. ' . . . to ACRABBIM, ~ > n$+
p ' sacred tree of Melech' ; but n c,an hardly have
text MAALEH-ACRABBIM (D'?>?y 8$'g, i.e., ' ascent Of been assimilated to n, nor is this the best reading.
Scorpions,' [rrpoc]a~aBhcic~ AKPABEIN [BAL] ; a- Possibly the real name was 750 5~ ($!), El Melech;
census scorpionum), mentioned in Josh. 153 (AKPABBGIM
cp El Paran. The authors of the points may have
[SUP. ras. APYid.], E K ~ ~ B E[L])~ Nas one of the localities wished to avoid confusion with the personal name
marking the southern frontier of Judah.
It must have been one of the passes leading up from Elimelech. Or the name might be a corruption of
Elammsk (see ALMUG TREES), if Solomon was able to
the southern continuation of the GhBr into the waste
mountain country to the west. Knobel identifies it naturalise this tree. T. K. C.
1 Near Tell el-'AmZrna (see PSBA1674 ['94n.
1 Cp BAKBUK. 2 The reverse supposition is sometimes held, viz. that the
m a v m for a m q s avafiamws in Judg. 136 [AL ; Lag. points material is derived from the place-name. The ultimate origin of
Zn' Bvw]. the word is unknown.
107 108
 ALAMOTH ALCIMUS
ALAMQTH, UPON (rl\fh+lJ), a technical musical held aloof) ; but he wanted Alcimns and his friends to
phrase of uncertain meaning ; cp MCJSIC, 6. ielp him in crippling the Hasmonean party of political
(a)Ps.46 title [I] ( 6 d p TSY K~U$&W [BNRT]=niD>+p; om. ndependence.
There would be a special reason for Alcimus being active
A ; Aq. 1.dvsavt.onjTwu=niin)\y ; Symm. h B p 7iuv a l o u h ) ; against the Hasmoneans if he was shrewd enough to foresee
@).I Ch.1520 (&l ahakpw0 [E], . a+. . [ K ] . . a h ~ p [AI,
. mepi :what we now know) that their ultimate goal must be the high
pfiesthood. (On the other hand the ‘calumny’ [u. 271 put into
TSY K ~ V + L O V [L] ; two anonymous Gk. versions have -ki.rib
his mouth by the author of 2 Macc. [14 261 that Judas had already
bvapaOp9v [n)syal and B r i TSY alwviwu [n&~]). I n two other been made high priest seems historically impossible ; it belongs
passages, (c) Ps. 9 title [I] (G&p T . K P . [BNAR] ; Aq. veavdmpos, to the distorted story of 2 Macc., see next note.)
Symm. r s p l ~ o 3Oavtou=n)&y, Th., Quint. Sa+ B K ~ ~Sext. S , Bacchides (g.n.)was the agent selected for the task.l
vsavrrc6qr); (4in Ps.4514 [IS] (6;s ~ 0 2 s a&as [NART], i.e., ap- At first the presence of Alcimus was a great help ; his
parently nio\y [E] ; om. Aq. ;Oava&a, Symm. fis 7 b 6 l $ U e K & ) it
legitimacy was a sonrce of strength.
appeals in the corrupt form nx!-$g, which Tg. takes to he nm\p This would have special weight if his predecessor Menelaus
‘youth ’ (?). is really to he regarded, with 2 Macc. (84+42g) as a ‘ Benjamite
Thus we find it three times forming part of a heading and with Wellhausen (IJG zoo, n. I, 2nd ed. 235, n. I) as d e
of the Tobiada: (see, however, Lucius, Der Essenismus 77, and
of a psalm (for nra-59 in d should be restored as nin5y-\y cp ISRAEL $ 69). If we could trust the Talmud there would be
from its present position to the heading of Ps. 49, on the a special pbint in his favour in his connection with Jose b. Joezer,
analogy of Ps. 46). Of the two half-translations of AV leader of the Sanhedrin (his uncle, Bey. RabZa, ch. 65 ; his father,
and RVrespectively (‘upon Alamoth,’ ‘set to Alamoth’), Bab. Baihra, 133 a).
the former presupposes that the phrase denotes the The mass of the people se6m to have followed the
particular instrumental accompaniment ; th&latter, that Assideans in accepting Alcimus ( I Macc. 7 13 ‘ first ’ ;
Alamoth is the name of a tune. Most moderns explain cp We. Phar. u. Sad. 84, n. 2) ; but the severity of the
‘ for sopranos,’ ‘&l?imBth having the constant meaning measures taken by the representatives of Demetrkq2
‘ maidens.’ Whether soprano voices would be suitable sixty men (perhaps those that had been till now much
for Ps.46, the musical reader may judge. Gratz and implicated with the Hasmonean party) being slain in
Wellhausen snppose a reference to some Elunzite one day ( I Macc.716), in face of solemn pledges of
instrument. There is, however, a more probable peaceable intentions, entirely changed the situation.
solution. See PSALMS, and cp MUTH-LABBEN, Fear and dread fell on all the people ( I Macc. 718).
MAHALATH, NEHILOTH, and AIJELETH-SHAHAR. After some further severities Bacchides considered his
task accomplished and returned to Antioch. The late
ALCIMUS ( ~ A K I M O C[AK], occasional forms -IN. severities, however, had turned the heart of the people
-EIM. -XI. [A], -ICM. [K]; in several cursive MSS of I again to Judas, who was trying to strengthen his position
and z Macc. and in Jos. Ant. xii. 9 7 with add. [ K A ~or ( I Macc. 7 ~ 4 and
) ~ AlcYmus judged it prudent to with-
o K.] I[W]AK[B]IMOC ; in Ant.xx. lo3, and one cursive draw .( 25). He had of course no difficulty in bringing
at I Macc. 7 9 simply I [ W ] ~ K [ ~ ] I M O C: i . e . , P’P’=Elia- further incriminating charges against Judas (idid. and
kim or Jehoialtim, for which he adopted the like-sound- Ant. xii. 103). This time N ICANOR (4.v.) was entrusted
ing Greek name by which he is known ; cp NAMES, § 8 6 ) , with the task of restoring Alcimus. During the various
a priest ‘ of the race of Aaron’ (Ant.xx. lo3, admitted exciting incidents of the next interval,-the diplomacy,
by the inimical2 writer of I Macc. : ‘of the seed of battles, and death of Nicanor,-we hear nothing of
Aaron,’ 7 14), i . e . , a Zadokite, though not of the family Alcimus ( I Macc. 7 26-50).
of Onias (‘not of this house,’ Ant. ~ ~ 1 0 ~ ) . Of course in the rejoicings over Nicanor‘s day and the recovery
Ant. xii. 97, indeed equates ‘another house (&;povolrov) with of the Maccabean party he had no part ’ erhaps he was ahsent.
‘not of the stock of the high priests [at all]’ ( O V K 6um 6 s TCV (It is at this point, indeed, that Ant.’&.106 makes Alcimus
dp L E P ~ W V y e v c i k ) ; hut the source here followed by Jos. is on die ‘ 5 hut this belongs to the story there followed of Judas’s suc-
otter grounds apparently inferior and we may conclude that ceeding to the high-priesthood, on whichsee MACCABEES, i. $ 4
Alcimus was really more eligible 5 io the high priest’s officethan and cp below.)
his enemies the house of Hasmon, who were ordinary priests. When Bacchides came a second time ( I Macc. 9 I ) to
When, therefore, the victorious king of Syria, carry through what Nicanor had been unable to accom-
D EMETRIUS I. ( q . ~ . I, ) determined ( I Macc. 7 9 ) to plish, Judas failed to find adequate support and fell
support his claim to the high priest’s office (v. 5) with (160 B. c. ), and the Maccabean party were without a
force, Alcimus was accepted, not only by the Hellenising leader. Alcimus was once more installed, and probably
party but also (n.13) largely by the legitimist party, the accepted by all except the Maccabeans, who ere long
Assideans (q...) . chose Jonathan as successor to his brother.
The treaty (I Macc. 659) of Lysias (and the youthful Antio- How far the Hellenistic tendencies of Alcimns carried
chus V. Eupator) in 162 B.C. which satisfied the aims of the him we do not know. At his death (159 B. Cfi)he seems
Assideans and made it unnecissary for them further to identify to have been engaged on some changes in the temple
themselves with the ‘friends of Judas’ (I Macc. 926 : cp 28) had
heen immediately followed if we may trust Ant. xii. 9 7 b; the enclosure, the nature and even the object of which we
execution of the now ‘ imiossible’ high priest MENELAGS (g.v.) do not know with any certainty.
(1 Macc., our most important source, not hairing mentioned According to Josephus he had ‘ formed the intention of pulling
Menelaus at all, sayshothing of what took place between his down the wall of the temple’ @OUA~OBUTLKa0ahs;v rb r e i p s TOG
tenure of office and the effective appointment [ Z u q u a v a h & T. dyLou, Ani. xii. 106 beg.). I Macc. states (954) that it was the
IspooVuqv, 7 9 ; cp 2 Macc. 14 73 ~ a ~ a u + a ~of ] Alcimus ’by wall of the inner court of the temple (6.r. 6 s air+ TSVi y i w v
Demetrius). According to thesame passage in Jos. which 6 s & w d p a s ) that he commanded (1.r&a&v) to pull down,
states also that a young Onias, son of Onias III., madebis way adds that he pulled down the works (rd Ep a) of the prophets,
to Egypt on the death of his father (on which however see and then appends the peculiar statement thathe began the pulling
ONIAS ; ~ S R A E L , 69), Alcimus became (;y&:o) high $est -~
on @.&)the death of Menelans, the officebeing indeed bestowed 1 So I Macc. 7s ’ on the distorted account in 2 Macc., where
(~&JKw) on him by the king (Antiochus V. according to the 1412 has to do dbty for both T Macc. 7 8 and 726, see Kosters,
present context). According to 2 Macc. 143, too, Alcimns had Th.Tl2533535, and on the displacement of Bacchides to
heen at some timehigh priesthefore his appointment by Demetrius. 2 Macc. 8 30, ib. 5043 (cp the place of Bkcchides in Jos. BJi. 12).
We know really nothing cettain about the events of this short 2 How far these transactions are to be attributed directly to
interval. We first reach firm ground with the intervention of Alcimus (so apparently I Macc. 7 14 8 23) and how far they
Demetrius. were due to Bacchides (so apparently Ant.ki.lOz ; cp I Macc.
Dernetrius did not mean to resume the hopeless policy 719) we cannot say.
3 His uncle being according to Ber. Ra6Za and Ba6a Bathra
of his uncle Epiphanes (or the Assicleans would have (Xcc.), of the numhbr.
4 On the motive of the author of zMacc. in representing
1 y&ous pav 703 ’Aapiuvop. 2 See I, Macc. 7,9. Nicanor as untrue to his master ( z Macc. 1428-35) and thus
f K 703 u d p p a m s ’Aaphv. 4 77s o w a s raurqs. bringing Alcimus again on the scene (21.26)see Kosters, p. 535.
5Although we cannot of course trust zMacc.147 ‘mine 5 ‘And when he was dead the people bestowed the high;
ancestral glory’ (+ r p a y o v ~ r ; )66Pav).
~ According to’s Macc. priesthood on Judas, who, hearing of the power of the Romans,
Alcimus’s fault was his voluntary Hellenising ( ~ K O U U ~ O S143
, ; etc. ( = I Macc.8).
contrast ‘by compulsion,’ Kard &iywu, .152). Cp Kosters, 6 Josephus assigns him variously three years (Ant.xx. 10 3) or
Th.TlZ538 V781. four years (2.xii. 106) of office.
109 I10
 ALCOVE ALEXANDER
down. It seems rash to assume that this confused account is in ii. (end), ELAM,.ii, I . Robinson’s identification (LBR)
its original form. If the last clause is not an interpolation (and with the modern ‘Alm2, I m. NE. from ‘Andfu
there is cursive MS authority for its omission, see H & P), and
even perhaps if it is, should we not perhaps read ‘to pull’ for (Anathoth), is generally accepted.
‘he pulled’ ( K a 8 s A a w for K a O d s v ) ?
The much discussed question what the wall (T&XOS) referred ALEXANDER ( A A & A N A ~ O C [AKV], ‘helper of
to was we have really not the means of determining. Its identi- men’). I. Alexander I l I . , king of Macedon (336-
ficatio; with a low harrier in the Herodian temple beyond which 323 B .c.), surnamed the Great. The victories of
Gentiles must not pass the sbreg (171~) described in Afiddoth Alexander powerfully impressed the Jewish imagination ;
2 3 is at the best precarious 1 (see the remarks of Schiirer, G3V 1
176, n. 5 and the discussions there referred to). yet the only biblical passages in which he is mentioned
T h e somewhat sudden death of Alcimus ( I Macc. by name are I Macc. 11-8 62. The writer of Daniel
955f: ; cp however, Ant. xii. 106, auxvZLs +&as) was (166 or 164 B .c.) recalls a ‘mighty king’ ruling ‘with
naturally treated by his enemies as a sign of divine dis- great dominion,’ whose kingdom is ’ broken ’ after his
pleasure. The moderation (such as it is) of the writer of death (Dan.11 3 J ) . In the vision of chap. 7, it is the
I Macc. was not at all to the taste of the later rabbis
fourth of a series of ‘beasts’ ; it is ‘dreadful and
(sez the stories in Hamburger, RE 428J, Derenbourg, terrible,‘ and ‘devoured and brake in pieces, and
Hist. PnZ. 5 2 , n. 2). That on the whole, however, stampcd’ the rest. Naturally, it was the destructive
Alcimus did not interfere much with ritual and practice side of Alexander’s work that impressed the imagina-
is plain, or at least probable, from this last act being all tion; the fall of Tyre and Gam would bring that
that is mentioned against him, and even in this case aspect into prominence. His Palestinian conquests
we do not know his motive (cp Grirnm a d Zoc., and are thought to be alluded to in Zech. 91-8 (see
We. 216,Z~Gi“J262). Still, if he has been rather severely ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF) ; and in Is. 25$, the fate of
judged, even for the evidence supplied by the opposite Tyre may be contrasted tacitly with that of Jerusalem
party, Wellhausen (Z.C.) seems to go to the other (see I SAIAH , ii. 3 13). It is during the seven
extreme. months’ siege of Tyre that Jewish history comes into
The historical importance of this, perhaps in himself connection with Alexander (333-332 B. c. ). The tradi-
somewhat insignificant character (who figures all the tion is given by Jos. Ant. xi. 8 3 3 (cp Yoma, 6ga).
more strikingly on the scene that we cannot find very The Jews refused compliance with Alexander’s requisitions.
After the two months’ siege of Gaza he advanced on Jerusalem :
clear traces of any immediate predecessor or successor z), hut Jaddua (Jaddus), the high priest (cp Neh. 12 11 zz), warned
lies in the fact that his tenure of office formed a turning- by a dream how to avert his anger, met tLe conqueror at Scopus.
point in the development of Jewish parties3 The Alexander worshipped the Name on the high priest’s mitre, and
entering Jerusalem sacrificed in the Temple, heard Daniel’s
Assideans refused to follow the Hasmoneans. Two prophecies relating to himself, and gave the Jews autonomy, not
generations later, the meaning of this became more only in Jerusalem but also in Babylon.
apparent (see ASSIDEANS, PHARISEES, ESSENES). As to all this other writers preserve absolute silence,
The primary source is I Macc. 7-9. Cp Jos. Ant. xii. 9 7-11 z, and the story in Josephus seems inconsistent with the
XX. 103, and on the relation of these see MACCABEES FIRST i.
$ 9 ; on the relative value of z Macc. 1 4 see the e1abora;earticd o$ statement in Arr. iii. 1,that in seven days from Gaza Alex-
Kosters, ‘De polemiek van het tweede hoek der Makkahetn ander was at Pelusium in Egypt. Yet Just. xi. losays that
Th.T124gI-552 [‘78], especially as cited above ; on parties W;. ‘many kings wearing fillets met him’ ; and Curt. iv. 517,
Phar. u. Sad. D v., 7 6 8 Lucius Lc.; on later Jewish s e n t h u t
concerning Alcimus Hamburger R E 1 4 2 8 f . on 11)~etc. that he visited some who refused to submit. Jewish
Scburer G/V 6, n.’s, and Grltz’in X G W J ii76, pp. 38;-397. soldiers were certainly in his armies, even on his most
on festi;al of 23rd Marchesvau in Meg. Taan:, Derenbourg, 2.c.: distant expeditions ; and in Alexandria, founded im-
and Gratz, Gesch. 314)5 6 4 8 H. W. H. mediately after the supposed visit, the Jewish element
ALCOVE (3$2),Nu. 25 8 t RV nig., AV TENT (g...). was large. The privileges conferred on the Jews are
ALEMA ( E N &A&MOIC [AI, -AEM. [K”], - ~ [ E ] I M . a feature of subsequent history. It is possible that
AlexaJlder derived from the Jews much valuable in-
8 c . a c.h W.) VI, Syr. ~ lin ~ ~ ,i m i sa )place
, men- formation about the interior of Asia (Mahaffy, Greek
tioned along with Bosora, Carnaim, etc. ( I Macc. 526). Life, chap. 20). Whether true or false, the episode strikes
Being in Gilead it cannot be, as some say, the Beer- a true note in Alexander’s character. Nevertheless,
elim spoken of in Is. 1 5 8 as belonging to Moah, and it raises suspicion to find the story appropriated by the
the Beer of Nu. 21 16 (see BOSOR). It has been placed Samaritans. Still more, to remember the visit to
by Merrill at Alma, S. of Edrei, and by Schumacher Gordium before the battle of Issus, and that to the
at Kefr el-MB, E. of Lake of Galilee ; hut it is probably oracle of Ammon before the Persian expedition.
‘ZZmd, I O m. SW. of the LejB, and of BuSr el-Hariri, which Finally, the king’s action at Babylon is a curious
is probably Bosor. (Cp Buhl Topog. des N . Ostjordan- parallel (Arr. iii. 16). He there rebuilt the shrines
Znndes 13 ; We. Z3G 212 [3rd ed. 2571 n.) G . A. s. destroyed by Xerxes, especially that of Belus-rd r e
ALEMETH or ALLEMETH (ngq; so everywhere ilhha Kal r@B$hy Kat?&&&or PfyyoOvro EBvmv.
The Jerusalem episode must be characterised as an
[BaGi], except I Ch. 7 8 ‘in pause’ n?3>$,
ALAMETH, attempt to secure Jerusalem a place in the cycle of
rsMs& [B], E)\ME&M [A]; ordinary edd. have Alexander-legends, on the model of the visit to the
npby, whence RV A L L E m m in 1 Ch. 660 [45]= Egyptian Ammon. (Cp H. Bois, Rev. de thdo.
etphiZ., Lausanne, 1891 ; Henrichsen, St. K r . , 1871).
Josh. 21 18, where the form is ALMON, ]ln$y, raM&h& W.J. W.
[Bl, AAMUN [A], EAM. [L] ; usually rbhsME0 [BA], 2. Alexander Balas, a man of low origin, who passed
&),&~w!j[L]), a Levitical town in Benjamin ( I Ch. 660 himself off as the son of Alexander Epiphanes (cp I Macc.
[45], r&hHM€0 [A]), the name of which appears in 101, ’A. 6 TOO ’ A v r i 6 ~ 60 ’Eai?av+s
~ [AKV], see MAC-
[Bl, raheM. [A], &ha@ [L])=
1Ch.836 ( c b h a i ~ a 0 CABEES, FIRST BOOK OF, § 2 ) ; AXPfav8os [A] in ZI. 58.
9 4 2 t (rbMEhe0 [B], &As@[I-]) as that of a descendant, His real name was Balas (so Strabo [p. 7511, rbv Bdhav
or family of BKNJAMIX ( 5 9, ii. p). See also ZALMON, ’AX&av8pov ; Jos. [Ant.xiii. 481, on the other hand, ’A. 6
1 The seventeenth of the thirty-five festivals prescrihed in Bdhar ~ E $ , U L E P O S ) , which may possibly be connected with
MegiZZath Taanith-viz. on ~ 3 r dMarchesvan-has by some, e.g., &yx, ’ Lord.’ The additional name ‘ Alexander ’ seems
Gratz, been brought into connection with the sbregand Alcimus. to have been given him by Attalus 11. of Pergamuni, who
This is however contested, e.<., by Derenbourg, Hist. Pal. 60f: was one of the first to support him against DEMETRIUS.
(see text of M e , . Taan., ib. 4 4 2 8 ) .
2 Josephus, ignoring his previous irreconcilable statement in I n rivalry with the latter Balas exerted himself to secure
xii. 106, already quoted above, expressly says (Ant.xx. 10) that an alliance with J ONATHAN ( I Macc. 101 fl), and by
on the death of Alcimus the office of high priest was vacant for conferring upon him the title of ‘high priest of the
seven yeavs.
3 Cp We. Phar. u. Sad. $ v. ; Lucius Der Essenisnzzis, etc. nation and friend of ’the king,’ was successful (a.20).
75& [%I], with Schiirer’s review (TLZ[‘811, especially col. 494). After a varying career he was compelled to flee to Arabia,
111 I12
 ALEXANDRIA ALEXANDRIA
where he was killed at Ab= after a reign of five years, mariners’ guild (CZL1447). Even under the Lagids
150-145B.C. (I Macc. 11 13-18). For classical references Alexandria contained a large colony of Italians engaged
see Dict. CZuss. Biog., s.w.; Schiirer, GJV1178, n. 10: and in the trade with the West (cp Ep‘ph. Bpigr. 1600 602).
for the history of the time see ISRAEL, 76, MKC- For the importance of Egypt to Rome see Momnis.
CABEES, i. 5. Prow. of Rom. Emp. 2 252 ET.
3. Son of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned together with his Alexandria was not organised as a 7rbh~s-i.e.~it pos-
brother R U F U S [ p . ~ . (Mk.
] 1521). sessed neither deliberative assemblv nor senate (\,B o u M \ . -
4. A’member of the family of the high priest in Acts46 111

probably to be identified with the third son of Annas, called 2. Its constitu- but from the first was merely a ‘ royal
Eleasar by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 2 2). See ANNAS. residence of the satrap king, never a
5. Uf Ephesus, a Jew, who was ‘brought forth’ (rrpoej3ij3auav foundation of Grzeco-Macedonians
[Text. Rec.1) from the multitude, or ‘brought down ’ ( K a r c p .
with city privileges in a foreign land ’ (Mahaffy, Emp.
ID etc.1) or (more probably) ‘ instructed ’ (.vve/3. [BNA], cp ofPtoZ. 76). The burgess body was Greek (primarily
RS mg.) by the Jews and unsuccessfully attempted their
defence in the theatre bn the occasion of the tumult excited Macedonian),-standing alongside of the native Egyptian
by Demetrius the silversmith (Actsl933). There is nu con- and the foreign elements not reckoned Hellenic, in
clusive reason’either for or aeainst identifving him with : somewhat the same way as the English in India along-
6. The coppersmith (6 X ~ K E U I S ) w h d is-described (zTim.
4 14) as having done Paul ‘much evil’ (at his trial?). side of the natives (Momm. Prov. of Ronz. Emp. 2262
7. Mentioned with HVMENWUS (4.u.) as having ‘ made ship- ET). Chief among the non-Hellenes were the Jews,
wreck concerning the faith’ (I Tim. 1IS$), and as having been, occupying two out of the five wards, apparently here
in consequence, delivered by the apostle unto Satan. Whether
or not he is to be identified with no. 6 above we cannut tell. not on the Ghetto system, but on the basis of original
I n some texts of the Apocryphal Acts of P&Z and Thecla settlement ; they were naturally attracted by the com-
he aonears with Demas and Hermogenes as a hvnocritird mercial advantages of the city, and were also deliber-
comiahon of Paul; in others i t is ‘Xlexander the’syriarch’ ately settled there by the fopnder (Jos. c. A p . 24, BY
who is mentioned. See Lipsius, Ajokr. Aj. Gesch. ii. 1462 466.
ii. 187). Josephus asserts that the Alexandrian Jews
ALEXANDRIA (ahcfa~Ap[c]ia[VA], 3 Mace. 3: ; had equal rights with the Macedonians and other
gentilic a h c f a ~ h p c y [BHA],
c Acts69 l824f). The site Greeks. This, though technically an exaggeration, was
of the city was chosen by Alexander the Great during his probably practically true, seeing that such rights can
1. The it^. passage from Memphis down the only have been privileges enjoyed by the Greeks over
Canobic (Canopic), or most westerly, the natives: but it is doubtful whether the Jews were
branch of the Nile, on his way to the Oracle of Ammon free from the poll-tax. Of all the non-Hellenes, the Jews
(331 B.C.). alone were allowed to form a community within that of
Holm remarks that i t was a novelty to call a city after its the city, with a certain amount of self-government.
founder, this particular form of name having previously been ‘ The Jews,’ says Strabo (quoted by Jos. Ant. xiv. 7 z),
made only from names of deities ( e g . , Apollunia) ; i t indicates ‘have in Alexandria a national head of their own
Alexander’s desire for divine honours a claim supported by the ( & ? v d p x ~ s ) ,who presides over the people and decides
priests of Ammon (Holm W. Hist. ’3 384 ET). T h e city was
laid out by Deinocrates uAder the king’s supervision, 12 m. W. processes and disposes of contracts as if he ruled an
of the Nile and thus its harbours were not choked by the Nile independent community’ (3s&v T O ~ ~ T ~tlpxwv U S a h -
mud, wbici is carried east by the current. TEAOOS). Josephus traces their legal position to Alex-
It lay on the neck of land, z ni. broad, interposed ander ; but it was apparently Ptolemy I. who settled
between the Mareotis lagoon and the sea. A mile dis- them in Egypt in large numbers (Jos. Ant. xii. 1 ; App.
tant, parallel with the coast, lay the island of Pharos, Syy. 50). The general result was that ‘in acknow-
connected with the city by a dam (which served also as ledged independence, in repute, culture, and wealth,
an aqueduct to supply the island), seven stades in the body of Alexandrian Jews was, even before the
length (hence called the Heptastadium), pierced with destruction of Jerusalem, the first in the world’ (Momm.
two openings. Two harbours were thus created, both op. cit. 2267 ET). Cp DISPERSION, 7, 1 5 8 §s
protected by projections from the mainland. Of the development of the city, and especially of the
The western harbour was called that of Eunostus, after a foundation of the institutions which gave it its place in
king of Soli, son-in-law of Ptolemy I. (but see Mahaffy, Greek 3. Letters. !he history of literature and science, little
Lrye 163 for another suggestion). T h e eastern harbour was
then th: more important, although i t is not so to-day. I t s is known. The famous Museum was
entrance was marked by the huge lighthouse (built on the island probably founded by Ptolemy I., aided by the advice of
b y the Cnidian Sostratus) which gave its name (p/iaros) to all Demetrius of PhalEruni, who migrated to Egypt on his
similar structures. Opposite to.it ran out the point of Luchias. expulsion from Athens (307 B. c. ).
Bordering on the great (eastern) harbour was the The name (MovuEiov) points to an Attic origin. No detailed de-
palace-quarter (Brucheium), the abode of the Mace- scription can here begiven. Besides, the materialsareveryscanty.
I t was a royal foundation, with a common hall, porticoes, and
donians. The western division of the city, occupied gardens, for the exclusive use of literary and scientific workers
previously by the village Rhacbtis, continued to be the dependent on royal bounty, under the presidency of a priest who
Egyptian quarter. The Jewish colony was in the east was the king’s nominee: i t was the ‘first example of a per-
of the city. manent institution fur the cultivation of pure science founded by
agovernment’ (Holm o j . cif. 4317 ET). I t was not a teaching
Lake Mareotis was connected with the sea by a establishment or traidng-place for youth, hut a home of research
canal, and as it communicated also with the Nile, the adequately endowed. Attached to it was the Library, with mure
periodical flood prevented the accuniulation of silt and than 50o,ooo volumes (Jos. Ant. xii. 2 I ).
the formatiomof morass. T o this, and to the constant The Museum and the Library combined were essenti-
Etesian winds, Strabo traces the salubrity of the site ally a centre of learning, not of creative power. In their
(p. 793). The lake was the haven for the products of artificial atmosphere exact science and literary cri icism
upper Egypt coming directly from SyEnB, as well as for flourished with brilliant results : but literature decayed-
those of India and the East, brought by way of ArsinoB perhaps the uninspiring environment of the city had no
on the Red Sea and the royal canal to the Nile, or through slight effect upon its art. and poetry (Mahaffy, Greek
Berenice or Myos Hormos, lower down the coast. Lye 165).
Hence the commerce of the lake was more valuable The Museum served as a model for subsequent foundations-
e.g that of the emperor Claudius .--both Jews and Christians
than that of the outer ports, whose exports largely a t :later time had similar centres & learning in the city. The
exceeded their imports (Str., p. 793). Alexandria became fate of the library is uucertain ; i t is doubtful whether it was
the great port of transshipment for eastern commodities, accidentally burnt along with the arsenal in 48 B.C. (Cses. BC
while Egypt, under the Ptolemies, also took the place 3 111). The words of Dio 43 38-&re Bhha r e K a t rb vr&piov,
res r c dVO&jKaS mi r o u~L o v rai rGv pip~wv,--rr~siu.rmvsi mi
of the Black Sea coast as a grain-producing country. bpLmov, &s $ a m , y s v o ~ ~ v v o v , - ~ a v 0 j v a ~ , - p e r h arefer
p s only tu
Most of her grain went to Italy (cp Acts 2 7 6 28 II ; Jos. stores of books for sale (Mahaffy, Etnp. of Ptof. 4j4).
BJvii. 21 : Suet. Tit. 5). Near Ostia was a sanctuary Ptoleniy 11. established a supplementary library in
modelled on the Alexandrian temple of Sarspis, with a the Sarapieion, in the quarter RhacBtis. In science,
8 113 114
 ALEXANDRIA ALMON-DIBLATHAIM
especially, Alexandria maintained a sort of primacy Lrea or on ground now absorbed by the sea ; but the site of no
throughout the imperial period, and residence in the inciknt building is known;except that of the Caesareum which
vas near the sea. The Sema or Soma in which Aleikler’s
Museum was the hall-mark of learning (cp Acts 1824, )ody was deposited may perhaps be reGesented by the mosque
and a @ L ~ ~ U O @ O Sd ~ Mouus~ou,
b in Halicarnassus, BUZZ. )f.Nebi DaninZ. t i e most sacred localitv in Alexandria. The
de Cow. HeZZ. 4405. Alexandrian physicians, in par- ast person kno6n to have seen the bod? was the emperor Sep-
.imius Severus (Dio, 70 13).
ticular, were regarded as the best in the empire; cp
oi <v ’E@Jcrp,d ~ TOO b Mouusiou i ~ ~ p [Wood,
oi @/zesus, The general result is that, owing to subsidence, the
Appendix, Inscriptions from Tombs, etc., 7, Z. 61). -emains of Ptolemaic Alexandria are now below water
In Roman times Alexandria was the second city in .evel, and that nothing is to be hoped for from the
the empire. ;ite (Egypt. E x p l Fund Repwt, 1894-5). See, also,
- . and the first commercial citv in the world
(Strabo, p.798 ; p6yiuTov < , u d p i o v T ? ~ S DISPERSION, 7.
4.
oi~ouy.!v~s). At the end of the Ptole- Literatzwe.-Strabo, pp. 791.799 ; Herondas, Mim. 1 28 A;
Kiepert, Z u r Topogr. des aZteu Alex. (Berl. 1872); Weniger,
maic period she numbered upwards of 300,000 free pas Alex. Museum (Berl. 1875) ; Pauly-Wissowa’s Kealencyc.
inhabitants, and in imperial times still more (Diod. Alexandreia’ (Puchstein), and ‘Alexandrinische Litteratiir?
17 5:). Monimsen (09.cit. 2 262 E T ) develops the coni- :Knaack). W. J. R.
parison between her and Antioch-both ‘ monarchical ALGUM ( b’r?.v+&), 2 Ch. 2 8 9 IO$ f See ALMUG:
creations out of nothing ’ (Paus. viii. 333).
The latter excelled in beauty of site and in the magnificence of ALIAH (YI$ Kt. ), Gen. 3640= I Ch. 1 5 1 ALVAH.
her imperial buildings ; the former in her suitability for world-
trade. In the character of their population and their attitude ALIAN (I>.’ y), I Ch.l40=Gen. 3623f ALVAN.
towards their respective national religions, the similarity between
the two cities is close. The Alexandrian mob, like that of ALIEN (’922,Job 1915 Ps. 69 8 ; 123 13, Is. 615 ;
Antioch, was capricious and turbulent ; the smallest spark 74, Ex. 183, RV ‘sojourner,’ Dt. 1 4 2 1 + , RV ‘foreigner ’).
kindled a conflagration to he quenched only with blood (Diod. See STRANGER.
184, Dio 39 57).
Polybins (34 14) says that a personal visit to the city filled ALLAMMELECH ($&g [v. d. Hooght], et,.),
him with disgust a t the demoralisation produced by the constant
presence of masses of mercenaries necessary for keeping under Josh. 1926T RV=AV ALAMMELECH.
control the mongrel mob the degenerate descendants of the
Greeks ; compared with these two, the native Egyptian element ALLAR (d-&.p [B]), I Esd. 536f RV=Ezra 259
struck himas ‘aciiteandeducated.’ Csesardrawsa similar picture IMMER, 2 ; Cp a k 0 CHERUB, 2.
( B C 3 110). A vivid illustration is found in the bloody scenes
which heralded the accession of Ptolemy V. (Pol. 15 30-33). A ALLEGORY ( AAAH ropoyM€N h [Ti. WHI) Gal. I
point of similarity with the Antiochians was the fondness of the 424$. See PARABLES, I, 3, 5.
Alexandrians for giving nicknames (cp Paus. V. 21 1 2 : ai vox
KCI~ &n,yhprov ~b & ~ h &sL I C ~ $ U . E L S T O ‘AAe&v8peSulv
~ ~ T L Y . Id. ALLELUIA ( A A A H A O Y ~ A [Ti.], - [ A [WH]), Rev.
i: 9 r ’ Sen. ad Helv. 19 6 : ‘ Loquax et in contumelias praefec- 191 3f: 6 t . See H ALLELUJ AH.
t o r d ingeniosa provincia . . . etiam pericnlosi sales placent’).
T h e Ptolemies had each a nickname, and even Yespasian, for his
tax on salt fish, was called the ‘sardine-dealer’ (Suet. Yes$. rg :
ALLEMETH (llQ$Jl; ,but BL. Gi. n&$), I Ch. 660
[45] RV= AV ALEMETH.
K V ~ ~ L O U ~ K T As ~ Jregards
F). the status of the highly composite
populafion, the Roman emperors mostly retained the old state ALLOM, RV Allon (&),AWN [B]), I Esd. 5 34=
of things. The Alexandrians continued to stand quite apart
from the rest of the country in character and in privileges (cp Neh. 759 AMON,3.
Philo, in F l a k 10; CIG 4957). so much so that the Alex-
a n d r i a ~franchise
~ was a necessary preliminary to the acquire-
ALLON (fib&),
Josh. 1933 AV. As a proper name
ment of Roman citizenship(Pliny, Ep. ad Tr. 6 [22] : ‘Admonitus this rightly disappears from RV. See BEZAANANNIM
sum a aeritioribus debuisse me ante ei Alexandrinam civitatem (Greek readings at end).
inpetra;e, deiude Romanam, quouiam esset &gyptius.’-Jos. c.
A$. 24). The Egyptians of the Nomes were unable to gain
Roman citizenship, like other provincials, by enlistment in the
ALLON (fib&
; cp Elon and see AIJALON,2 ; AMWN
legions. [E], AAAWN [A], CHA. [L]), a Simeonite (1 Ch. 437f).
The greatness of Alexandria has led some to speak
of its founder as though he were endowed with more ALLON - BACHUTH, RV Allon- Bacuth ($78
5. Its succe8s. than human foreknowledge, and had nm, L e . , ‘ the oak of weeping,’ see also BOCHIM ;
foreseen the future of the city as a B&),&~oc neNeoyc [BAL]) ; the spot ‘below Bethel’
centre of Hellenism and queen of the Levant. Others where Deborah, Rebekah‘s nurse, was buried (Gen. 35
regard the city as merely a Greek emporium, a second 8 t E). According to another tradition (cp D EBORAH ,
and more successful Naucrgtis, owing to accident its I ), however, it seems to have been a palin tree (Judg.
rise to the position of a cosmopolitan capital. 4 5 ) ; or rather, perhaps, a Z n could be used of a
Neverthel;ss, it must have been- evident to Alexander that, palm tree, just as the cognate words eZ (in Elparan)
after the destruction of Tyre ‘the great trading area of the and e b t h are undoubtedly used. In I S. 103 it
Levant was for the moment wilhout focus’ (Hogarth, Phirip and
AZex. 188), and the site actually selected was the only one seems to be called ‘ the terebinth [?] (Tis!,
Gpuor [BAL])
possible on the Egyptian coast (though Mahaffy, EM$.ofPtoZ. of Tabor,’ where ‘Tabor’ (Oupwp [BA], T ~ BKXEKT?~P
E
12,.~ ? l l s this in question). Egypt further, offered peculiar
facilities for that amalgamation of ’Greeks and Macedonians
[L]) may be a bad reading for ‘ Deborah’ (Thenius).
which he desired, and, owing to its support of his secret belief T. K. C.
in his divinity, it had a special place in his affections. The
success of Naucratis undoubtedly exerted an influence in the (5’12),Is. 125 RV mg., EV ‘ tin.’ See
ALLOY ,

way of directing attentioii to the W. of the Delta ; and it is not M .

ETALS
ALMODAD (lyD)&,
without reason that Cleomenes, a native of Naucratis, created
financial governor of Egypt, is called one of the architects of or rather as in (BALand Vg.
Alexandria (Justinl34). Nor should we fail to take account lTD>k$ Elmodad, ;.e., ‘ God loves’ ; a Sabaean name
of the fact that the island of Pharos was the traditional landing-
place of Odysseus (Hom. Od.4355). This influence is dis- [ZDn;(G 3713 181; €AMwAAA [AL]), one of the de-
tinctly asserted in the story of the dream which directed the scendants of JOUTAN(4.n.); Gen. 1026 (EAMWAAM
king to the site opposiic Pharos (Plnt. Alex. 26).
In fine, considering Alexander’s economic designs and [E], [EAMWAAA [L])=I Ch. 1 z o t . See Glaser,
achievements in the far East, and the success of his SRizze 280, 425, and cp Mudadi on a primitive
eastern colonies, we cannot venture to deny that he Bab. contract-tablet (Hommel, AHT 113).
consciously created a centre for a new mixed race, with ALMON (fiD$g), Josh. 21 I@= 1 Ch. 6 60 [45]
a definite dream of the possibilities afterwards realised. ALEMETH (4.v.).
Much has been hoped from systematic exploration.
The modern town stands mainly 011 the silt gathered on either ALMON-DIBLATHAIM (ap;i$;?-?~$g ; on form
side of the Heptastadium, which has thus con- of name see NAMES, § 107 ; rehmuru A E B A A ~ A I M
6. Sites not verted the island of Pharos into a peninsula.
recoverable. All the great monuments of the Ptolemaic age [BAL]), a station of the Israelites between Dibon-gad
seem to have stood within the present inhabited and the mountains of Abarim, Nu. 3346 and (r,AalB-
175 116
 ALMOND ALMS
A A ~ A I N[A]) ZJ. 4 7 t ; apparently the same as BETH- the Greek 6Xqpoadvv. The Greek word, which is
DIBLATHAIM (fZ.V.). exceedingly rare in classical authors, means pi@, and
ALMOND, ALMOND TREE, ALMOND BLOSSOM intheGreekoftheNT(Lk.1141 1233 Acts3zf.10936
10431) signifies also a special result of pity-viz., relief
(Y?C.$,l K A P Y O N [ADL] Gen. 4311, Num. 1 7 8 [z;] given in money or kind to the poor. In biblical
~ + p o ! a [ B ] ; AMyrhAhON [BKAC], Eccles. 125; as an Hebrew there is no corresponding word, and it is not
adjective K A P Y ~ N H N [BQ and practically HA], Jer. even quite certain that the technical and restricted use
1II? ; ‘ made like almond blossoms,’ EKTETY- ~ Y ~ in 6. No doubt in
of the word ~ X E ~ I L O Uoccurs
l l l o M f N O I KApylCKOYC [BAFLl, Ex. 25333 ; KApy- such passages as Ecclus.7ro and Tob. 47 128-11, the
UTA [BAL] 371gf.t). The Hebrew root means to author or translator has almsgiving qhiefly or even
‘ wake ’ or ‘ watch ’ ; and the tree is said to be so named exclusively in view. Still ao& 2hqpoadv7v does not
because it is the first to awake from the sleep of winter.2 in itself mean more than Ton ?by, ‘ to do that which is
The etymology is alluded to in Jer. 1T I f. merciful or kindly.‘ On the other hand, the N T use of
The almond is referred to in the story of Jacob, who ‘ t o give 2h~qpoubvas,’etc., is quite decisive for the
(Gen. 4311, J ) instructs his sons to take with them into specialised sense of the word.
Egypt a present of the fruits of Palestine including The close connection between religion and deeds of
almonds. The verisimilitude of this detail cannot be
questioned. It was natural for a Hebrew to presume
mercy - frequently
- __
- appears in ancient religion. The
2. OT estimate. Bedouin Arabs, maintaiging therein
that Palestinian almonds would be prized in Egypt, a primeval usage, regard the wav-
nor need we trouble ourselves as to the exact date of farer as ’ the guest b f AllZh,’ to-whom hospitality ’is
the acclimatisation of the almond tree on the banks of due (Doughty, Ar. Des. 12~8). The sacrificial meal
the Nile.3 ’ often included an act of charity to the poor. Thus
The original native country of the almond (Prunus the poor were allowed to take handfuls from the meal-
AmyfduZus, Stokes) was W. Asia; from which it has offering made to the Arab god, al’0l:aisir (WRS KeL
gradually spread, in the main probably by human Senz.P) 223), and the same use of sacrifice was familiar
intervention, throughout the Mediterranean region. to the Greeks (see, e.g., Xen. Anab. v. 39). Indeed
Almonds are still an important article of commerce in the general law of sacrificial feasts was open-handed
the Persian Gulf, nor is there anything improbable in hospitality in which the poor shared. The OT,
their being exported from Syria into Egypt in early or however, carries this beneficent tendency farther than
even in more recent times. No ancient writer, accord- any other ancient religion. It made systematic pro-
ing to Celsius (Hierob. 1298), mentions them as grown vision for the poor, and institutions of this kind can be
in Egypt. traced throughout the religious history of Israel, from
The ’cups made like almond blossoms’ on the the eighth century onwards. Indeed it is significant
branches of the golden candlestick, consisting each of that in the O T scarcely a trace of beggars and begging
‘ a h o p ’ or knob ‘and a flower’ (Ex. 2533f. 3719f.) in the strict sense is to be found (see, however, I S.236
represented, says Dillm. (ud Zoc.), ‘not the corolla Ps. 10910):. In the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (see
but the calyx of the almond flower.’ Some have E XODUS, 11. § 3), Ex. 23 .of., the Hebrew landowner is
proposed to translate n ’ y ~‘ awakened ~ ’ i. e . , fully directed to leave his land fallow each seventh year ’ that
opened (as opposed to closed buds); but this .is the poor of thy people may eat.’ The merciful spirit
certainly untenable. In Jer. 1I T an almond staff seen of the Deuteronomist is conspicuous in the stress he
by the prophet becomes, from the associations of its lays on the care for the poor. Every third year the
name, a symbol of YahwB‘s watchfulness. The most owner was to bring forth a tenth from his granaries and
interesting reference is in the difficult passage Eccles. bestow it exclusively on the poor, including the Levites
125. There are three clauses in the verse, and in (Dt. 14 z 8 J ) . According to a custom still preserved in
eaEh unfortunately there is some obscurity. It is the Palestine, every Israelite was free to pick and eat grapes
first, rendered by AV, ‘ The almond tree shall flourish, from his neighbour’s vineyard, or to pluck ears from
[RV blossom],’ which now concerns us. As regards the cornfield, as he passed along (Dt.23243 [ z s f . ] ) .
this, it has been doubted, ( I ) whether ipv by itself can Out of consideration for the poor, the owner must
mean the almond tyee ; ( 2 ) whether the pinkish-white not, in a grasping spirit, glean to the uttermost his
blossoms are a likely metaphor (according to the ordinary cornfield, vineyard, or oliveyard (Dt. 2419-22). The
view) for an old man’s white hairs ; and ( 3 ) what is the earliest part of the Priestly Code, viz., the ‘Law of
meaning of the verb ( y w ) . The consonants of the Holiness ’ (see LEVITICUS), reflects the same precept
(Lev. 19gf. 2822) ; besides this, in Deuteronomy and
Heb. text support the meaning ‘he will reject the generally in the later writers of the OT, private and
almond,’ L e . , will be unable to eat it, though a delicacy ; voluntary almsgiving is especially commended. On the
but the vowel-points and all the ancient versions have whole it may be said that the prophets plead the rights
the same rendering as EV. This seems on the whole of the poor as their advocates, while in Deuteronomy
more probable. Though Jer. 111 is not sufficient to and in post-exilic literature, the needy Israelite is com-
prove that i p v can mean the tree, the equivalent form mended to the charity of his brethren. See, among
in Syriac, Fegdci, appears to have this sense. The passages too numerous to quote, Is.587 ( a very late
metaphor is possible if we remember that the flowers passage) Prov.1421 1917 Ps.1129 Job 291zf. One
come out as a pale flash on the dark leafless branches ; reference to almsgiving-viz. Dan. 427 [ ~ 4 ] - deserves
if the metaphor is to be pressed closer, the flowers are, special notice. Probably the force of the Aramaic
as Koch describes them, ‘ white or of a pale red.’
( 2 ) See HAZEL. N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
words is ‘ redeem ’ or ‘ make good thine iniquities ...
by showing mercy to the poor,’ and if this interpretation
ALMS. The English word is derived’throngh the of p!$ be correct, we have here a clear implication of
A.S. form ‘ elmzesse ’ from the eccl. Lat. the later Jewish doctrine that alms had a redemptive or
1. eleemosynu, which again is borrowed from atoning power.
1 Syriac has the same word in the form .;“gd&t the Arabic In the O T Apocrypha and in Rabbinical literature
for almond is lauz=Hebrew &(see HAZEL). almsgiving assumes a new and excessive prominence.
2 Lag. Ue6em. 45, Cp Plin. 1B 25 (quoted by Celsius) : ‘Ex 3. Apocrypha So much was this the case that npis,
iis quae hieme aquila exoriente concipiunt, floret prima omnium
amygdala mense Januario ; Martio vero pomum maturat.’ andRabbin. which in the older writings means
3 Cp Maspero Dawn OfCi7l. 27. ‘ righteousness ’ in general, came to
literature’ be used for almsgiving in particular,
4 Prof. Chey& informs us that the wild almond, now rare
was noticed in a glade of Hermon by Robertson Smith, wh:
found its blossoms distinctly white. Tristram speaks of many and this use of the word has been naturalised in the
wild almond trees on Mt. Carmel (NHB 332). Arab. :udu@atU”r‘ alms for God ’ ({Cor. Sur. 9 104, etc. ;
117 118
 ALMUG OR ALGUM TREES ALOES
Doughty, AY. Des. 1446), and the Syr. zed@etha (Pesh. terraces’) for the temple and the palace, as well as
Lk. 1141, etc.). harps and psalteries;’ In 2 Ch. 2 8 [7], these trees
The following citations furnish examples of the propitiatory ippear along with cedars and firs among the products
virtue ascribed t o alms in later Judaism: ‘Shut u merLy >f Lebanon, with which Solomon asks Hiram to furnish
(;hs7p00Jv7v, perh. ‘alms’) in thy treasuries, and it sha5 deliver
thee from all afiliction’ (Ecclus. 29 1 2 ) ; ‘Mercy’ (or ‘alms’) iim ; but there is no mention of them in the parallel
‘ delivereth from death ’ (Toh. 4 IO) ; ‘Through alms a man lassage in Kings1
partakes of eternal life ’ (Rosh hashshanah 3) ; ‘ H e who says I The very various opinions that have been held as to
give this piece of money as alms, that I or my sons may inhirit
eternal life, is a perfectly righteous man’ (Pesacbin, 5 ; Re& .he identity of the tree are enumerated by Celsius
from Weber, AZtsynag. Theol. 276 f.); ‘Almsdeeds are more ,Hierob. 1 1 7 1 8 ) .
meritorious than all sacrifices ’ (San. 49 6) ; ‘As sin-offering makes Three v y he mentioned : (I) The Jewish traditional rendering
atonement for Israel, so alms for the Gentiles ’ (Lca6a Bath. IO 6 ; s ‘coral ; but this is obviously unsuitable, unless we may
Reff. from Levv..,NHWB. S.V. n. ‘ I - a d-’ .
I
inderstand by ‘coral-wood: simply a red wood. (2) &mhi
Alms were systematically collected in the synagogue .akes it to be ‘brad-wood, the 6ukhunz of the Arabs, a red
iye-wood found in India. (3) Most .ioderns, following Celsius
of the Diaspora for poor Jews in Palestine (this custom :see his reasons, o j . cit. 1179 #), believe it to he ‘ sandalwood
is mentioned by Jerome as existing in his time), and ?robably of the redder sort (Pferocarjus Santdininxs, Linn.j
also every week for the poor of the synagogue itself. which is still used in India for purposes similar to those recorded
in Chronicles. The ancient versions yield no light ; but see
Officers were appointed to make the collection, and below.2
boxes for the reception of alms also were placed in the The evidence appears to point to some valuable
synagogues (Vitring. Syn. Vet. iii. 1 1 3 ) . In Mk. 1 2 4 1 6 , Oriental wood brought (like lign aloes and cassia) into
however, the reference is not to alms-chests but to one of
the Eastern ,Mediterranean by the ancient commerce
thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes, placed in the court of
3f the Red Sea. If we may assume it to be a red
the women to receive contributions towards the expenses
wood adapted for carving, it may well be either ( I )
of the temple worship (Schiir. GJYZ209).
brad-wood ( a name of uncertain origin ; the French
Jesus, then, did not ileed to awaken zeal for alms-
$raise, a glowing coal, has been suggested; it was
giving among his countrymen : it was there already ;
*. NT. and there was apparently more occasion for
transferred to the S . American country)= CesuQinia
Sappun, Linn., a tree of India and the Malay Isles,
it, since in the Nr we meet with persons who
ipparently the ba@am of the Arabs; or it may be
were, in consequence of bodily infirmity, beggars by
[ z ) red sandalwood, Pterucarpus SantuZinus, Linn. ,
profession (Mk. 1 0 4 6 Lk. 18 35 Jn. 9 f., and note the
i n inodorous dye-wood, still surviving a+ a colouring
technical term T ~ O U U ~ T V ~ )He
. purified it from the matter in p h a r m a ~ y a, ~native of Southern India, where
ostentation which often corrupted it (Mt. 62-4) ; he ac-
it is much valued for temple pillars. Possibly both
centuated the feeling of compassion, without which it is species may be included under the expression.
worthless (Lk. 1033) ; above all, he taught that the dis-
position which gives alms by mechanical rule and
[bin 2 Ch. 2 8 9 IO$ gives &Xu mliatuu, which agrees
with the Chronicler’s statement that the algum-wood
bargains with God for compensation here or hereafter
came from Lebanon. Cheyne, therefore, proposes to
should yield to that impulse of the new heart which sees identify ‘ almug ’ (the form attested by the earlier record,
the supreme reurard in likeness to a heavenly Father that in Kings) with Z a m m i k u , the name of one of the
(Mt. 545). We cannot wonder then that, in the infant trees used by Sennacherib in building his palaces. The
church at Jerusalem, without compulsion or rigid com- tree seems from its name to have been of Elamite
munistic system (see Acts 5 4 ) , there was an ideal origin ; but so useful a tree may have been planted in
charity which made ‘ all things common ’ (Acts 4 32),
and prompted rich men like Barnabas to sell their Hermon and Lebanon. For i >. ~ ..k rin~ I K. 10 11, it is
property for the sake of the needy (Acts 4 3 6 5 ) . No possible to read i - ? ~ p . Less probably we may suppose
doubt the expectation that Christ’s second coming was with Hommel that this hard and rare wood was “ a pro-
at hand stimulated this uncalculating generosity ; but duct of the trade of Ophir.’ See E x p . T . 9 4 7 0 8
low esteem of worldly goods and love of the brethren 525 ( ’ 9 8 ) , and Cp ALAMMELECH.] N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
were the mainsprings of this new development. It is
also significant that the first election of Christian ALNATHAN (EANAeAN [A]), I Esd. 844, RV
ELNATHAN, 2.
officers was made to secure a due distribution of alms.
The Gentile churches, moreover, were bound to the ALOES and (once) Lign Aloes4 (P$7l; Nnm. 246
mother church at Jerusalem by the offerings which they CKHNAI [BAL], EV ‘lign aloes’; Pr: 7 1 7 TON O I K O N
made for the poor in that city (Rom. 1526f. I Cor. 16 1-3 MOY [BKA]; or nli?? Ps. 458 [g],
z Cor. 9 I f. .4cts 24 17). Of course almsgiving found 1. Substance.
other channels. The author of the.epistle to the Hebrews CTAKTH [Aq. ahwe], Cant. 4 1 4 ahwe
assumes that it is a necessary feature of the Christian [BAI, AAOH [K] (Aq. AAOH, SYm. O y M l A M A ) , Jn.
1939” AAOH [BKA]),5the modern eagZe-wood, a precious
life, and speaks of it as a sacrifice of thanksgiving
which continues after the Jewish altar has been done wood exported from SE. Asia, which yields a fragrant
away with. From very early days each church had its odour when burnt. It is entirely distinct from ( I ) the
lists of poor ( I Tim. 5 9 ) and its common fund (Ignat. comnion bitter ‘ aloe ’ used in medicine, to which alone
A d Polyc. 4) ; and whereas in heathen clubs ’charity the name was given by classical writers ; ( 2 ) the plant
was an accident, in Christian associations it was of the 1 The Chronicler has probably mistaken an imported article
essence (Hatch, Organ. f Ear& Christ. Chzrrch 36). of merchandise for a native product of Phoeuicia.
2 Jerome renders thyina-i.e., ‘ citron wood ’ (CaZZitrisquad-
Cp COMMUNITY OF GOODS, especially 5. W. E. A. rivaZvis, Vent.)-an Algerian tree inordinately valued by the
Romans for tahles, not likely to have been known in biblical
ALMUG or ALGUM TREES (D9q$K, T T E ~ E K H T A times or to biblical people.
3 It was the ‘ sanders used in medieval cookery for colouring
[EA], ~ r r [L],
, I K. 1011 Jt;D’?&$, ITEYKINA sauces.
[BAL], zCh.28 [7] 91oJ [rr. A ~ E ~ E K H T AL, . 0. 1 0 ; 4 I.e., lignum M 6 7 5 a hybrid phrase; vide Skeat, Efym.
anah., L, 0. I.]+) yielded a precious wood, which was Did, S.V.
5 [The critical student will not fail to observe that three of the
brought to Solomon, along with gold and gems, four O T passages in which ~ 9 5 7 . y or nr5n.y occurs belong to
from O P H I R ( q . ~;. cp S OLOMON) by the ships books or parts of hooks which eminent critics have regarded as
of Hiram, and was used to make ‘pillars’ (1YDt3, post-exilic, and may be reminded here that the occurrence of
L T O U T ~ ~ ~ ~ [BAL],
~ U T U RV mg. ‘ a railing,’ I K. rare plant-names is one of the phenomena which have to be
considered in fixing the period of such documents. H e will
1012= z Ch. 911 nl?bt3, dvupciuetr [B.XL], EV also notice that the readinz of the fourth passage has on good
grounds been amended. See the close of this article.-E~.]
1 The two forms, thou, h differently rendered by 6 and 6 This latter is described, among ancient writers, hy Pliny
other versions, are ohvious?y variants of the same word. The (HN274)%andDioscorides (322)) and its hitterness alluded t o by
etymology is unknown. Juvenal(0 181 ; plus aloes quam nzelLis habet ’).
1 r9 120
 ALOES ALPHZUS
commonly known as the American aloe (Agave ameri- is found in the centre of the tree, and the search for it
cana), celebrated for the long period which elapses IS laborious. The account of Dioscorides (see above,
before its flowering. The biblical wood most probably 5 I ) is accurate. The exterior, which cannot of course
corresponds to that described by Dioscorides (121) be the bark, is veined with a darker colour.
under the name dydhhoxov (cp Ges. Ths. n h + ) - ' a As regards the importation of this substance into W.
wood imported from India and Arabia, resembling Asia no difficulty arises when we remember the nn-
thyine wood (Rev. ~ S I Z )compact,
, aromatic, in taste doubted fact of a trade carried on by China with India
astringent and rather bitter, with a skin-like and and Arabia in early times, of which Ceylon was probably
somewhat variegated bark.' He speaks of its medicinal a chief depot. See on this subject Fliickiger and
use-sweetening the breath and improving the internal Hanbury, Pharmacogaphia, 2nd ed., p. 520 5 A
condition of the body-and adds that it is burned instead difficulty, however, appears when we consider Balaani's
of frankincense (cp Ar. kzitar and see I NCENSE). words (Num. 245/') :-
The Hebrew name &N or and the Greek ' How good are thy tents, 0 Jacob,
dydXXoxov2 are almost certainly, and the Greek ( i X 6 ~ Thy dwelling-places, 0 Israel I
As valleys stretched forth,
and English aloe not improbably, derived As gardens beside a river
2' Name* from the same Sanskrit word aguru = eagle- As iign aloes1 which Yadwe has planted,
wood (see especially Yule's Hobson-Jobson, art. ' Eagle- As cedars beside waters.'
wood '). The wood may, indeed, have been imported by the
This appears in Pal: as agum or u&u in Mahratti as ugam Phcenicians, and thus be mentioned side by side with
or agara; probably another form is the Malayillam agiZ, whence myrrh, cassia, cinnamon, etc., the spices of Arabia and
Portng. aguila, Fr. Bois d'aigle, and Eng. eagle-wood. ' T h e India; but how could a Palestinian writer use, as a
Malays h l l it Kava (wood) -gahru, evidently the same name
though which way the etymology flowed it is difficult to say' suggestive simile for the expansion of Israel, the growth
(Yule, L.C.). [Hommel, Ex$. T.9525, compares aigaliuhu of a tree which ex hypothesi was never seen in Palestine,
(var. akarhu?)in Am. Tab.] but only far away in SE. Asia? The diffjculty is
It is, however, possible that Gr. dX67, Syr. 'aZwai pointed out by Dillmann, who remarks, 'Perhaps the
(or 'elwai), Pers. alwa3 have an entirely separate original reading was n!y (palms, Ex. 1527 ; Gen. 146)'
origin: the Syriac word oftener means the bitter The word suggested, however, seems generally to mean
medicinal aloes (so in the majority of references quoted ' terebinths' ; Prof. Cheyne points out the parallel
in PS TXes., s. n. ), and the Persian word is so explained by in Is. 61 3.B Pijtacia Terebinths, though often only a
the lexicographer^.^ In that case we have an instance of bush, may be a tree of from twenty to forty feet.
what is not uncommon in language, viz., that two things N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
have arrived at the same name from different starting-
points. ALOTR (n\$ According to I K. 416 Solomon
The ' aloes ' and ' lign aloes' of the Bible are thus had a prefect, Baanah, ' in Asher and in Aloth' ( E N TH
identified with the product of some tree of the genus M A ~ A A [Bl, . . . raAa&A [L] omitting ' Asher ' ;
3. Source. + p u i l a ~ i a , the chief home of which is EN acHp K h l EN M A A A ~ T [A]). It is better, as in
in SE. Asia. According to Arab writers RV and Kau. HS, to read ' i n Asher and Bealoth.'
there were many different varieties of the agh5Zzij;i or See BAALA~H-BEER. Klostermann, recognising that a
'zid found in different parts of India and Ceylon, differing more northerly place is desirable, suggests the emenda-
from one another in value according to the greater or tion ' Zebulun ' (notice '.Naphtali,' v. 15, and ' Issachar,'
less compactness of the wood, though all had the u. 17).
property of yielding a fragrant vapour if burned when ALPHA AND OMEGA (TO &.A+& K ~ T
IO w
dry.5 They speak of its use in perfuming clothes and [Ti. W H ] Rev. I S 216 and [ T O h in B] 2213). For
persons,. thus illustrating Ps. 458 [g] and Cant. 414; similar use of first and last letters of the alphabet in
and there are parallels to the usage mentioned in Rabbinic writings see Schottgen, HOYE Bebraice 110865
Pr. 7 17.
It would seem that the kind of eagle-wood most likely to be ALPHABET. See W RITING .
introduced into Europe in classical times was that yielded by a ALPREUS ( ~ A + a l o c [Ti. W H ] ; Heb. [Aram.]
tree generally distributed through the Malayan region, which in
early Eastern commerce would therefore naturally be associated
with cassia. This is Aguilariu muZaccensis, which is figured
%$n [9&7], either a contraction from n$)n or a
by Rumphius under the name of Garo, and has from ancient ge&Zicizlm from the place-name Heleph ; on account
times been esteemed by the Chinese. To this day 'it is the of the n W & H write ' A ~ + R ~ o s ) .
most important product of the forests of S. Tenasserim and the I. Father of Levj the publican, named only in Mark
Mergui Archipelago. Another eagle-wood is .obtained in NE.
India from AguiZuvia Agallocha; but it is less likely that this (Mk. 214=Lk. 527=Mt. 9 9 [where Matthew is usually
should have formed an article of commerce in biblical times. identified with Levi]).
Other kinds were obtained from the East in the Middle Ages : 2. Father of the second James in the lists of apostles
what the early Arab travellers have to say about them may (Mt. 103 Mk. 318 Lk. 615, Acts 1 1 3 ; see APOSTLE,
he seen in Dymock Pharmacograp/iia 1ndica;S 278 220.
They were similar but'no doubt inferior products derived from I ), not to be identified with Clopas and so made a
different trees, and are probably to be regarded as comparatively brother of Joseph the father of Jesus. See CLOPAS,5 3.
modern substitutes. There is no reason for identifying (I) and ( 2 ) . The
Eagle-wood consists of diseased wood, infiltrated Itala, it is true, and apparently also the more important
with odoriferous oil and resin. It occurs in irregular of the MSS known to Origen, as well as D, read
pieces varying in colour from grey to dark brown. It 'I~Kw@ v of Aeue~vin Mk. 214; but if this had
instead
1.h later Greek also called .$vAaMq. been the original reading, it would be impossible to
2 This latter passed into Arabic as ughriZi2jZ or ughiZ&hi;
but Arahwriters usually call it uZ--'zZd' the wood'parexceilence, account for the subsequent substitution for James of a
or al-'zid al-Hindf, 'the Indian wood.' quite unknown Levi. The reading ' I ~ K Warose ~OP
3 These three are evidently forms of the same word : hut here simply because, at a very early date, a copyist knew
aeain it is difficult to sav which wav the etvmolom flowed. of no son of Alphaens but James, and therefore
-4 On the other hand, in the scngle in;tance%entioned by
Dozy (SilppZ.) of the occurrence of the same word (aZwiy) in took Aeueiv for an error which he was bound to
Arabic-viz., in a poem quoted by AI-Makkari (ffist. and Lit. correct. If the AlphEus of Mk. 214 were to be
ofAra6s in Spain-ed. Dozy etc;2 776 I. ;+it seems to have identified with the Alpbzens of the lists of apostles, on
the same. meanin; as the biblical word. Describing the pride
of certain people, the poet says, with allusion to the old Arab the assumption that Levi and the second James were
custom of liehtine fires in Drominent daces near their dwellines brothers, then we should expect to find these two
to attract wander& to hos&able entettainment ' and they thrcw
on the fire of hospitality, from pride, their h w i y and their 1 Instead of:?!'D C W A F reads Dh$i, 'tents'; hut this is
KiBZ ' (the latter also is said to be a species of agaiiochunz). obviously unsuitable. C p its rendering in Pr. 717 (rbu 6; dK6V
5 See the Arabic references disciissed a t length in Celsius, POW).
Hierodot. 113j-171. 2 But see SBOT,Heb. on Is. Z.C., and cp CEDAR.
I21 122
 ALTANEUS ALTAR
brothers forming a pair in the lists just as Peter and lestroy the sanctity 01 the altar. Originally, it can
Andrew do, or John and the first James. This objection carcely be doubted, the idea was that changing the
to the identification, however, is valid only on the orm of the sacred stone would drive the deity from his
assumption that Levi under the name of Matthew was .bode (cp I DOLATRY, 4) ; but such ideas had passed
admitted into the number of the twelve. tway when the compiler wrote, and iron tools continued
The Syrian writer Amrus in the 14th cent. makes Alphaus o be forbidden in deference to ancient custom no longer
accompany Nathanael (identified with Bartholomew) on his mderstood. Further, the altar here prescribed was to
journeyings through Nisibis, Mesopotamia, and the rest of
Western Asia(Lipsius, A j o c r . Aj.-@xh. ii. 261s). P. w. S. lave no steps. In this way the person of the sacrificer
ALTANEUS (AATAN NAIOC [A]), RV MALTAN- vas to be saved from exposure, an object secured by
NEUS, I Esd. 933f=Ezra1033 M ATTENAI , 2.
he priestly legislator in a very different way-viz., by
naking ‘ linen breeches,’ or drawers, part of the priestly
ALTAR.l The Heb. QTQmeans literally ‘ a place tttire. Altars so constructed might be erected all over
of slaughter or sacrifice’ (cp Ar. M u ~ l 6 a &and , ~ Syr. [srael : see H IGH P LACE, zf. On the recognition of
&fudhbe&z). The Gk. and Lat. terms, he altar as a sanctuary for homicides see WRS ReL
1. Names. pwpbs (cp pouvbs), uru (cp cielpw), nlture Sem. 183f:, and cp ASYLUM.
(cp nZhs), on the other hand, describe the form of the Very different was the altar erected in the fore-
altar as a raised structure without reference to its :ourt of Solomon’s temple at Jerusalem. The first
purpose. Occasionally (23 times) d uses the Gk. Book of Icings (945) makes direct men-
word pwpbs; as a rule, however, naio is rendered ” tion of the fact that Solomon built an
by BuuLauTrjpLov. The translation thus effected is close temp1e* altar on which he offered sacrifice three
and exact ; but Buuraunjprov is unknown in classical .imes a year. So, too, in 864, reference is made to the
literature, being apparently confined to biblical, J e ~ i s h , ~ altar which ‘ stood before Yahw&’-i. e., in front 01 the
and ecclesiasticalwriters. In the N T pwpL6s occurs only .emple proper-and it is described as the ‘ brazen altar ’
on’ce (ActslTq), and there the writer is speaking of an [nsm n>m). Thus the material itself offers a striking
altar used for heathen worship. Elsewhere BuurauTrjptov :ontrast to the altars of earth and stone which had been
is always employed. in use previously. Like the rest of the temple and its
We have, then, in the Hebrew word an accurate Furniture, it was the work of a Phcenician artist,
definition of the altar : it is a place of sacrifice. Why Huram-Abi ( 2 Ch. 213, perhaps rightly ; see, however,
2. Primitive an altar should be required in order that H IRAM , 2). Unfortunately, the account of the altar,
the victim may be slain in a manner ac- which we should expect before I K. 723, is wanting.
idea. ceptable to the deity, and advantageous to The text of the passage has been mutilated because a later
the worshipper, is not so obvious as we might at first be aditor, misinterpreting T K. 8 4 (itself a very late insertion),
inclined to think. We might deem it a sufficient explana- supposed that the furniture of the tabernacle, including, of
:ourse, the brazen altar, had been moved by Solomon into his
tion to say that the altar served ends of obvious con- temple, so that no further altar of this kind was needed. The
venience. The flesh of the victim being placed on araised excision of the passage describing Solomon’s brazen altar must
platform specially appropriated to this object, the sacri- have been effected in comparatively modern times, for the
fice was separated from contact with common things Chronicler shows that he hnd it before him in the text of the
Books o f Kings which he used (see St. in ZATWB 157 [‘831).
and from contamination, while a means was provided The Chronicler ( z Ch. 4 I ) gives its dimensions. It
for performing the rite with due solemnity and in full was 20 cubits long and broad by I O cubits high. Now,
sight of those who desired to associate themselves with these are precisely the measurements of the altar in
the sacred offering. There is evidence, however, that Ezekiel’s temple (EL4 3 1 3 s ) . The prophet really
in primitive times the altar possessed a much deeper constructs his ideal temple of the future from his re-
significance than this. (The development of this collections of the old temple in which he may very well
primitive idea is traced elsewhere. See I DOLATRY, § z ; have served as’a priest. W e shall, therefore, not go far
SACRIFICE ; MASSEBAH. ) wrong if, with most modern archzologists, we take
T o the Arabs any stone might become for the nonce Ezekiel’s description as applicable to Solomon’saltar. On
an altar, and evidently their Hebrew kinsfolk followed that supposition, although the altar was 20 cubits broad
3. Usage. originally the same ancient way. Thus, and long at the base, the altar-hearth1 was only IZ cubits
after the victory of Michmasb, when Saul by 12. The altar consisted of three platforms or ledges,
was told that his hungry warriors were devouring the the higher being in each case two ells narrows than the
flesh meat which they had taken as booty, without lower ledge. At the base was a gutter (EV ‘ t h e
reserving the blood as an offering to Yahwh, he com- bottom,’ RV nig. ’the hollow,’ Ez. 4313) one ell
manded his people to roll a great stone towards him,
and on this natural altar the blood, the mysterious seat
broad ( p a , ~ b h w p a ~ , o i h w p aI, C ~ K X in a),
~ ~ U intended
of the soul, was poured out, so that all was in order apparently for the reception of the sacrificial blood : and
there was a similar guttcr at the top round the altar-
( I S . 1432-35). It is to be observed that here there is no
5. Rorns of hearth- At the four corners on the top
question of burning. In Gideon’s sacrifice, of which we
have an account in Judg. 6 1 1 3 , the offering of cooked altar, etc. were four projections called ’ horns.’
Possibly they represent, as Stade has
flesh and unleavened cakes is indeed consumed by fire
miraculously kindled ; but the altar on which the gifts suggested, the beginning of an attempt to carve the
are placed is simply a rock, and the broth of the altar stone into the form of an ox, which symbolised the
cooked flesh is poured out upon it or at its base. power of YahwA2 (Nu. 2322 248). Be that as it may,
According to Ex.2024-26, on the other hand-a down to the latest times the horns of the altar were
passage which, whatever be its date (see EXODUS, ii. § 3), regarded as specially sacred, so that in the consecration
may represent an ancient usage-the altar is to be ol of priests (Ex.29 12) and in the ritual of the sin offering
(Lev. 4 7 8 ) the blood was sprinkled upon them. It
earth--a material used in early times by other nations-
e.r., Carthaginians. Romans, and Greeks (for reference: has been inferred from Ps. 11827 that at one time the
see Di., ud Loc. )-or, if of stone, then of unhewn stone, horns were used also for fastening the victim ; but the
the reason given being that an iron instrument would meaning of the words is exceedingly obscure, and no
conclusion of any value can be deduced from them.
1 On references to Greek altars see U NKNOWN Goo anc
A BOMINATION ii. The ascent to the altar was made by a flight of steps
2 The Arabi; NTadbah does not mean ‘altar.’ I t has acquirec 1 The word for hearth or place for burning, which should
that meaning throuih tianslations of the Bible. It is also use( probably be written 5 ~ (see 7 A ~ RIEL , z), occurs not only in Is.
in the sense of ‘trench’ (on which see WRS R d S m z . f Z > 241
’ 2 9 1 8 , but also on the stone of Mesha (Z T Z r7,L).
n. I ; cp the remarks on &6g/ab, o j . cit. 34OfI 198~28): ‘ 2 Robertson Smith, however, regards the ‘horns of the altar’
3 Prof. Moore has pointed out that it occurs not only as i! as a modern substitute for the actual horns of sacrificial victims,
sometimes stated, in Philo, but also in Eupoledus, E#.Arist. such as the heads of oxen which are common symbols on Greek
Jos., and other Jewish authors. altars (XS436).
123 124
 ALTAR ALTAR
on the E. side, and it is plain that an arrangement of 3elow this ledge there was a brazen grating (so RV,
this kind was absolutely necessary, when we consider the
great height of the structure.
\V ‘grate,’ 2f4) or NETWORK (q.n.)-nul nt&
luni, which may have been a device to support the ledge
12,n

On the whole matter we must remember that Solomon ind admit the passage of the blood poured out at the base
had no strict rule to follow : he simply desired, with the help )f the altar. There were four brazen rings at the corners
6. Ahaz,s of Phcenician art, to consult for the splendour )f this network, and into them the staves for carrying
of the royal worship. W e need not, therefore, he altar were inserted. These staves, like the altar
altar. wonder that one pf his successors, Ahaz tself, were of acacia wood, overlaid with brass. So,
( z K. 16 r o f l ) , with the co-operation of Uriah the priest, 00, the altar utensils-viz., nil.! or pans for clearing
constructed a new altar after the pattern of one that way ashes, nvy; or shovels, nijqp basons or saucers
he had seen at Damascus, and made it the chief place of
or catching the blood and sprinkling, nihin fleshhooks
sacrifice.
Solomon’s altar was placed, as has been already or forks, nimn or fire-pans for removing coals, etc.-
implied, in front-it., on the E. side-of the temple vere all of brass. Perpetual fire was to burn on this
7. Site. proper. Can we identify the exact site? Not tltar (Lev. 6123).
perhaps with anything like certainty ; but it is ( p ) Ezekiel, as we have seen, mentions an altar
worth while to mention the theory advocated by Willis, xithin the ‘holy place,’ which he also calls ‘ the table
and more recently by Nowack. The Kubbet e + - + a l p , Lo. p,s ,table., which stands before YahwB.’ The
or dome of the rock, which stands on the temple area, ‘.priestly writer’ calls it ‘the table’
covers a great rock pierced by a channel which passes [Ex. 2523 3710). ‘ the table of the face or presence’
into a sink beneath, and is connected with a water- (Nu. 47, 0’18 on$, cp R ITUAL, 5 z), because it stood
pipe. The rock has been an object of the highest before Yah& (Ezek. 41 z z ) , ‘ the pure table ’ (Lev. 246).
veneration to Christians, and (especially) to Moslems. It In z Ch. 29 18 it is spoken of as ’ the table of shewbread,’
has been supposed that the rock stood on the threshing- n a p ? pjd-lit., the table on which rows (of loaves)
floor of Araunah the Jebusite (on the name see - :.
A RAUNAH ), that it was there David saw the angel were laid-to describe the purpose for which it was
( z S. 24168) and erected his altar, and that Solomon
intended. It was of acacia wood overlaid with gold,
( z Ch. 3 1 8 )afterwards included the ground within the
2nd was z cubits long, I cubit broad, 14 high. It
was surrounded by a golden rim or moulding ( i l , Ex.
temple site. Solomon would naturally build his altar
on the spot already chosen by his father and hallowed 2511; see C ROWN ), and at the bottom there was a
by the apparition ; nor is it incredible, when we consider border or ledge (nl?pF;l, Ex. 2525, EV ’ border ’), with a
how tenaciously Orientals, under changed modesof belief, golden rim of its own. Where the feet of the table
cling to the old sacred places, that David and Solomon joined the ledge, golden rings were placed for the
built their altars on the rock now covered by the Kubbet insertion of staves. The table was furnished with deep
es-+ahra. The story of the apparition to David would, on plates (niip?, Ex. 2529, EV ‘ dishes ’), ‘ spoons’ or
this hypothesis, find a parallel in the apparition to Gideon saucers (nisn) for the incense (Lev. 247), ‘flagons’
(Judg. 6 1 r 8 ) , and in that to Manoah (Judg. 1319). (nigp, Ex. 2529 [see FLAG.ON]) for the wine, ‘bowls’
The perforation, the water, and the sink would be
explained as means for carrying off blood and offal (so EV, ni”?? 2529) for pouring the wine in libations.
from-the altar. It is true, as Dean Stanley has pointed (y) The altar of incense (nlbp y n q n , Ex. 301,
out, that the rugged form of the rock would make it n& . nz?n),
unsuitable for a threshing-floor ; hut that is no reason
or
. also called ‘ the golden altar’ (Ex. 3938),
why the rock should not have stood ‘ by the threshing-
ll. p’s incense belongs only to the secondary sections
of the Priestly Code. Ezekiel knows of
floor’ and been the place where the ingel appeared.
Cp ARAUNAH. no altar within the temple proper save
Within the temple proper, and in front of the DeEir or the altar of the shewbread, and originaily <-thegolden
innermost shrine, stood another altar, mentioned in altar’ was only another name for this table. The
The text, which is corrupt, Priestly Code, in its original form, speaks of the brazen
8. Altar of I K. 620f: altar as ‘the altar’ ; and, whilst in Ex. 30 T O the high priest
shewbread. should be emended thus, with the help of
on the day of atonement is to place blood on the horns
: )‘ he made an altar of cedar
@A ( K B ~ ~ o u
in front of the Debir.’ From Ez. 41 22 we learn that it of the altar of incense, in Lev. 16, where the solemn
was 3 cubits high by z cubits broad, and that the altar ritual of that great day is minutely prescribed, nothing
had ‘corners’ which took the place of the horns of is said of an altar of incense. The mention of the
the brazen altar. Ezekiel speaks of it also as a ‘ table.’ altar in the books of Chronicles and Maccabees (as
Upon it, from ancient times ( I S. 21 [6]7), the shewbread also in the interpolated passage I K. 7 4 8 ) is due simply
was placed before Yahwk, to be afterwards consumed by to the influence of these novellae in the ‘Priestly
the priests. Code.’
We assume here that the T ABERNACLE (q...), as This altar was to be made of acacia wood ; it was to
described by the priestly writer,’ is an ideal structure. be 2 cubits high, I cubit broad and long ; the flat
9. p,s brazen Said to have been made at Sinai, it was in
surface on the top (33, Ez.4313, AV ‘higher place,’
reality an imaginary modification of the RV ‘base ’), and the sides and horns, were overlaid with
altar. temple, suitable (so it was supposed) to the gold. It had a golden moulding round it (T), and
circumstances of the time when the Israelites wandered beneath this at the four corners were golden rings for
in the wilderness. the staves, which also were overlaid with gold.
( a ) The altar, called simply ‘the altar’ (Ex. 271 3018 In the reign of Darius a new altar of burnt offering
407 32, etc.), # t h e altar of burnt offering’ (Ex. 3028 was built, probably on the old site (cp Hagg. 215),
~ ~~

319, etc.), or ‘the brazen altar’ (Ex. 3830 3939), stood 12. Post-exilic. but, in accordance with the law in
in the outer court, and was square, 5 cubits broad Ex. 2025, of unhewn stone ( I Macc.
and long, by 3 high. Instead of being wholly of 4443):. It was desecrated, and, according to Josephus
brass, it was a hollow framework of acacia planks over- (Ant.xn. 5 4 ) , removed by Antiochus Epiphanes. A
laid with brass. It was thus small and portable. It new altar, also of unhewn stone, was built by Judas
had four ‘ horns’ ; midway between top and bottom Maccabaeus. Within the temple proper were the table
ran a projecting ledge (so RV, AV ‘ compass’ ; for the shewbread and the golden altar of incense
x b i j ; 275), intended, perhaps, as a place for the priest! (I Macc. 121 449f:) ; but the latter, as far as it was
to stand upon when they ministered, though the meaning distinct from the table, seems to have been introduced
of the word and the purpose intended are disputed. late, for Hecataeus (Jos. c. Ap. 122) mentions only the
125 126
 AL-TASCHITH AMALEK
candlestick and one altar (or table) as the furniture of Am'ad as ' people of eternity.' bL's ah$ma8 may point
the holy place. to 5 y & ~ (ELPAAL) for which bBin I Ch. 811 gives'
In Herods temple the altar of burnt offering in the zX$au8. This may be correct. T. K. C.
court of the priests was still of unhewn stones. The AMADATHA, RV Amadathus ( a ~ a h a e o y[e]).
13. Herod's Mishna (Middoth 31) states that it was Esth. 16 IO, etc. See HAMMEDATHA.
32 cubits square at the base, and gradually
temple. narrowed to 24 cubits at the top ; but the AMAL ; a ~ a EBA-1,
a AA&M [L]), in genealogy
dimensions are differently given by Josephus (Rlv. 56), of ASHER( 5 4 ii.), I Ch. 735f.
and, before him, by Hecataeus (Miiller, Fm57n. 2394). AMALEK (p$Qg,AMAAHK [BAL], but-HX 1 S . 1 5 2 5
The priests approached it by an ascent of unhewn
stone. There was a pipe to receive the blood, which [A] ; gentilic, Amalekite, 9p$&)$ ~ M A A H K [BAL],
w-as afterwards carried by a subterranean passage into but also - K [ ~ ] I T H C [BAL]), a tribe with
the Jordan, and there was a cavity beneath the altar for Seat' which the ancient Israelites, at several periods
the drink offerings. On the N. side were brazen rings of their history, were engaged in warfare. According
for securing the victims. A red thread marked the to two passages, each of which confirms the other,
place for sprinkling the blood. The altar of incense there appears to have been a time when Amalekites
stood within the holy place, between the golden candle- dwelt even in Central Palestine: in the Song of
stick and the table of shewbread. Deborah we read of 'Ephraim whose root is in
As we have seen (I I), the word Buu&aurrjpw is fre- Amalek ' (Judg. 5 14 ; BAL,however, Ee K O L X ~ S L )and,
quently used in the N T for the Jewish altars ; and the Pirathon in Ephraim (the modern Fe$er'at3,about 6 m.
14, NT. Apocalypse speaks of the ' golden altar ' (8 3 , and WSW. of NEbfiNis) was situated ' o n the mountains
' altar ' in the same sensepnssirn), because the of the Amalekite,' or ' of the Amalekites ' (Judg. 12 15,
writer pictures the worship of heaven under forms drawn XUVUK [AL]). Of these northern Amalekites nothing
from the old temple worship. In apassage which is unique, further is known. According to several passages of the
the author of Hebrews (1310)speaks of a Christian OT, the home of Amalek was in the desert of the
altar. The altar is, of course, not material but spiritual ; Sinaitic peninsula. the modern Tih, S. and SW. of
it is the cross 011 which Christ offered himself, and the Judzea. It is scarcely safe to conclude from Nu. 1.329
author is following the same line of thought when he 1425 43 45 that they once had settlements also in
exhorts believers ' to do good and communicate, since southern Judaea ; still less can we build any such theory
with such sacrifices God is well pleased.' upon Gen. 147, although. the geographical allusions in
For the origin of altars see I DOLAT RY, $ 2 ; SACRIF~CE;
H IGH this chapter have more authority than the legendary
PLACE, 0 3 , and WRS ReL Sent. ; for the Hebrew altars in 2. Exodus. narrative itself. When the Israelites
later times Benzinger's and Nowack's He6. Arch. (both works came out of Egypt. into the desert of
'94). See also Stade, 'Text d. Berichtes iib. Salomos Bauten
\ ( Z AT W 3 1 2 9 8 ) , Smend's Ezekiel ('So), Cornill's critical text Sinai, they had an encounter with the Amalekites at
of Ezekiel ('86), and the comm. of Bertholet in KHC. For an Rephidim (Ex. 178-16), which is not very far from
account of the older literature on the arch=ology of Ezekiel's Mount Sinai (Nu. 33 IS). It was natural enough that
temple see Bottcher, Pmbeiz A TZicher SchniterkZcZvtmg, 1833.
W. E. A. the nomads, who lived on the scanty products of this
region, should do their utmost to expel the intruders,
AL - TASCHITH, RV A1 - Tashheth (iIn@I-i& ; nor can we wonder at the mortal hatred with which
BBNAq., Symm., MH hla@3€lpHc; Symm. Ps. 751, the Israelites thenceforth regarded Amalek. That the
r r e p i b@eapclac). It is usual to supply i y or 5~ narrative, in spite of its legendary features, has a
before the phrase (Ps. 57-59 75f, headings [v. I]), and historical foundation cannot be doubted. The story
to explain ' T o the tune of " Destroy not " ' (cp Is. 65 8 ; of an encounter in the desert of Paran-Le., the TZh
so WRS O T / C ( s ) 209). If, however, the view of the itself (Nu. 14~5434s)-is probably nothing more than
musical notes in the headings taken in PSALMS is a less accurate version of the same struggle, which, it
correct, there can be no doubt that the phrase is corrupt, is true, can hardly have been limited to a single skirmish.
and that we should read with Gratz n'!'pqg-5y, ' on the Whether the account of the Deuteronomist (Dt. 25 17-19)
Sheminith' (see SHEMINITH). was derived from any other source besides Ex. 1 7 8 8
is not quite clear, although he mentions one addition21
ALUSH (d?! ; Sam. W h ; alhoyc [ A F L ] . - A ~ I M ~ circumstance, namely ' the cutting off of those who were
[B] ; ALUS),a desert station of the Israelites between wounded (?) '-the term o b h was perhaps suggested
Dophkah and Rephidim (Nu. 3313f.T [P]). Not by &-iin Ex. 17 13. The verbal repetition of the curse
identified with certainty ; but see Di. on Ex. 17 I. The is worthy of note. In IS.152. there is an obvious
Ar. (ed. Lag.) reads d w a t h a n a i n , 'the two idols,' allusion to the passage in Exodus.
probably because the translator understood by Alush The mention of the Amalekites in Judg. 3 1 3 is perhaps
the heathen temple at Elusa (see BERED, i. I, and due only to an ancient dittography ( p h y i ]my, a reading
cp. W R S Kin. zg3f.). See W ANDERINGS, $ I14. which, at all events, must have been known to the
12,
AEVAH (il'i\Y, rwAa [ADEL] = ilh?? ALYA), author of the Maccabean Psalm 83-see v. 7 [ E ] ) ; but
Gen. 3 6 4 0 ~ 1Ch. 151+, Z<Y. (EV A LIAH after K f . it may be questioned whether Bndde is justified in con-
il!))l; BA4as above ; aXoua [L]), one of the ' dukes ' (?) sidering the reference to the Amalekites in connection
of EDOM (q.v., 4). Cp ALVAN. with the Midianites (Judg. 6 3 33 7 12)as 'a mere gloss ; it
is in fact by no means improbable that besides the
ALVAN (ll\y; r W h W N [Al, -WM [DEI, -AM CL] Midianites various other nomadic tribes made inroads
transposing 5 and >), Gen. 3 6 2 3 I~ Ch. l40f ALIAN upon the Israelite peasantry at the period in question.
():)y, but in many MSS 1)$; so ~ A O Y A N [L], but The account of the wars of Saul against the Amalekites
(I S.15) is unfortunately not altogether trustworthy.
Even in its original form it must have con-
3' and tained many exaggerations ; and it has
David* been subjected to considerable revision.
[L]), an unid&fied point i n t h e border i f Asher {Josh.
1926"). fBB presupposes Ammiel. There are several The high figures which appear in the narrative have no
other place-names compounded with ny. See Gray, historical value. The same may be said of the vast extent
HPN 4 8 3 , who rightly declines the explanation of attributed to the Amalekite territory in a passage imitated
from Gen. 25 18 ( I S. 15 6). We may with some certainty,
1 'SB points to a reading O\W, Elim. Perhaps the writer,
however, conclude that the very first king of Israel
wishing to fill up the interval between the wilderness of Sin and
Rephidim (cp Ex. 171), repeated Elim, the name of an earlier inflicted severe losses upon the wild nomads (cp SAUL,
station. See ELIM. $ 3). In this connection we read of King Agag (the only
127 12s
 AMALEK AMALER
Amalekite proper name known to us, it may be noticed he OT, or else deliberate fictions, and therefore have
in passing), to whom the words of Balaam in Nu.247 o historical value. At the present day this opinion
refer. The description of the death of Agag, obscure eems to be generally accepted.
as it is, has a very antique colouring, and reminds us One branch of the Amalekites, it is true, appears to
of Judg. 818.~1. Popular tradition has strangely ave lasted somewhat longer than the rest. When Saul
interwoven the fate of the jmalekites with that of Saul. 6. Kenites. attacked the Amalekites he ordered the
According to one story, which does not agree with the Kenites to separate themselves from the
narrative in I S. 31, Saul was slain by an Amalekite, loomed people, on the ground that they had shown
who forthwith carried the news to David, but instead of .indness to Israel at the time of the exodus ( I S. 156).
being rewarded was put to death. Even in the book of The Kenites must therefore have belonged to Amalek, or
Esther, composed many centuries later, reference is made nust, at least, have stood in close connection with them
to the enmity between Saul and Agag, as the Rabbins cp Judg. 116 as in SBOT). Thus we find that the oracle
long ago observed : the righteous Mordecai is descended if Balaam (Nu. 2 4 2 . 8 ) mentions this people, under the
from the one, and the wicked Haman from the Lame of Kain (v. 2 2 , EV nig. ), immediately after Amalek.
other. rheir friendly relations with Israel are, moreover,
' At the moment when Saul fell on Mount Gilboa, the ,hewn by the fact that, according to Judg. 116, the father-
Amalekites, as it happened, were signally defeated by n-law of Moses was a Kenite (elsewhere a Midianite),
David. An ancient and well-informed narrator tells us md also by the fact that his descendants entered
how David, an exile a t the court of the king of Gath, Zalestine in company with the tribe of Judah. Hence
while professing to be very differently occupied (see he Kenites are reckoned as a part of Judah ( I S. 3029,
ACHISH,D AVID, ,s), was in reality carrying on a :p I Ch. 255) ; .but according to the more accurate view
war of extermination against the aboriginal tribes, in hey were a distinct people, though they dwelt in the
particular the Amalekites ( I S. 27 8). On one occasion iouth of Judza, and were recognised as kinsmen by
the Amalekites profited by his absence to seize his 3avid ( I S. 2710). From I Ch. 255, it would appear that
residence, Ziklag, and carried off all its inhabitants. he Rechabites, with whom the nomadic life had become
He pursued them, however, made a sudden attack with t religious institution, were included among the Kenites
a band of only 600 men, rescued the whole of the spoil, Jer. 35 z K. 101523). In another district, the
and slew them all, with the exception of 400 who yeat plain of S. Galilee, we meet with IHeber the Kenite
escaped on their camels ( I S. 30). Even the details of Judg. 4 f: ). For W. Max Muller is mistaken when he
this narrative may, for the most part, be regarded as lerives the name from a city called Kin ( A s . 21. Bur.
historical ; it is obvious that the struggles here described r74) ; the Song of Deborah reckons Jael, the wife of
were not wars on a large scale but mere raids such as Heber, among ' women in the tent ' (Judg. 5 zq), which
are usual in the desert. ihows that the people in question are nomads.
In after times Amalek does not come into prominence. kccordingly we have no right to regard these Icenitcs
The words of Balaam, which describe it as 'the first- 2s wholly distinct from those in the South. The
*, Later times. born of nations' ( L e . , primeval nation?), sracle of Balaam mentions Kenites in the rocky hiIls of
and at the same time foretell its over- the South, foretelling that they will be carried away
throw, are spoken rather from the point of view of the 2aptive by the Assyrians. Gen. I519 includes the
age in which Balaam is placed than from the point of Kenites among the ten nations whose land God will
view of the real author, who seems to have lived about give to Israel.
the eighth century B. c. (cp B ALAAM). According to the This people must therefore have been a nomadic
remarkable notice contained in I Ch. 4 4 2 8 , 500 men of tribe, which, at least in part, belonged to Anialek, in
the tribe of Simeon, under leaders whose names are part was absorbed into Israel, and in part, it may be,
specified,exterminated the last remnant of the Amalekites maintained a separate existence for some time longer.
in the mountain country of Seir and settled down in their It is not impossible that the Bedouin tribe, <cain,
place. Hence it would appear that the last Amalekites which dwelt in the desert of Sinai and the neighbouring
dwelt in the mountains of Edom. With this it agrees districts about six centuries after Christ, may be con-
that Gen. 36, the substance of which must be at all nected with the Kenites (&tin) of the OT, as the
e;ents pre-exilic, represents Amalek as the son of Esau's present writer, following Ewald, has stated (op. cit. ).
first-born, Eliphaz, by a concubine-ie., as an Edomite At the present time, some further arguments might be
tribe of inferior rank : see Gen. 36 TZ (of which I Ch. 136 brought forward in favour of this hypothesis, which,
is an incorrect version), and compare ZI. 16. The con- however, is still very far from being absolutely proved.
cubine in question is Timna, according to v. 22 ( = I c h . On the other hand, there are many objections to the
1 3 9 ) , a sister of Lotan of Seir, and according to the theory that Cain, the fratricide, is a representative of the
second list in 'u. 40 j? (where Amalek is omitted), an Bedouin tribe of the Kenites, as well as to
Edoinite tribe or settlement. Thus the remnants of Cain* other hypotheses of Stade (ZATW14250-318
Anialek are, to some extent, reckoned as members of ['94]), great as is the acuteness with'which they are
the Edomite race. supported. A few points alone can be here referred to.
The mention of Amalek among the contemporaneous Cain, the brother of Abel the shepherd, is expressly
enemies of Israel, by a psalmist of the Maccabean described as a Izusdund?~tnn. After his evil deed he
6. Late miters. period (1's. 83 7 [E]), is merely an becomes ' a wanderer and a fugitive '-;.e., an outlawed,
example of the poetical licence homeless criminal. This is something quite different
whereby an ancient name is applied to a modern from a nomad, who regularly goes to and fro within the
people, just as, e.f., Greek writers of the sixth century same pastures in the ' desert.' That the Kenites, from
A. D. call Goths ' Scythians.' As far as we can judge, among whom Moses fetched a wife, and who have a
the Amalekites were never a very important tribe; at good name almost everywhere in the OT, were a tribe
their first appearance in history they are threatened of smiths1 (and therefore of pariahs), has no evidence
with total destruction, and it would seem that neither in its favour, nor can we find any indication that the
Egyptian nor Assyrian records allude to their existence. later Arabian tribe of Kain (Bal-pain) was of such a
Ancient Arabic authors, indeed, describe them as a character. In the Ar. &in, which, it is true, also
mighty nation which dwelt in Arabia, Egypt, and other means smith, craftsman,' several words appear to be
countries, and lasted down into post-Christian times. combined. Besides, blood-vengeance, which is first
The present writer, however, thinks that in his short mentioned in the story of Cain, is by no means a
essay On the Amalekites ' (Gottingen, 1864), he ha:
succeeded in proving that these and other similai 1 Similarly Sayce, Races of O T rrE. 'They formed a n
important guild in an age when the art of metallurgy WST
statements are either fancies suggested by passages ir confined to a few.' See however Doughty, AT. Des. lzEo-z82.
' 9 129 130
 AMAM AMASAI
peculiarity of nomad tribes ; it prevailed also among the the lists in Neh. with I Ch. 24 makes it plausible to identify
Amariah’ with the priestly house of ‘ Immer (v. 14) whose
ancient Israelites, who of course were agriculturists institution is ascribed to David’s time (see I MMER 2).
(see also C AIN, 3 4 3 ) . TH. N. I n the following (nos. 5-S), the unhistorical h u r e of the
context strongly suggests that the name is introduced merely to
AMAM (nQe; CHN [Bl; AMAM [ALI), an un- give an air of antiquity to this priestly family.
identified site in the Negeb of Judah (Josh. 1 5 z 6 t ) . 5. Chief priest, temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 1911 t y l n K ; 50s.
AMAN. I. (AMAN [A], AAAM NAAAB [N!) apauras).
Ward of Tobit’s nephew Achiacharus (Sennacherib s 6. A Levite, temp. Hezekiah, 2 Ch. 31 15 (t?:VX ; papras
vezir, Tob. lm), who basely ill-used his benefactor, [BAI aw. [LI).
7. b n e of the b’ne Hebron, a Kohathite Levite (apa8La [Bl) ;
but came to grief himself while his victim escaped I Ch. 23 19 ; in 24 23 rn;mx (apapms [AI).
(Tob. 1410); called Nadan in romance of Ahikar (see
8. Amariah occurs twice in the genealogy of the high priests,
A CHIACHARUS), and no doubt, therefore, the same as (a) as son of Meraioth. I Ch. 6 7 [5 331 (apapas [A] : JOS.
NASBAS ( V U U ~ U [BA],
S ~ a p [N]
d ; nabnth [Vg.], Apo+a;os)=65z [37] ( u h ~ & c ~[B,
a Le., MA misread AIAI), and
(b) as a son of Azariah, 0 I T [5 371 (apapias [AL]), cp Ezra
nabnl [It.]), the C$d8eX$os (EV ‘brother’s son’) of 7 3 (uapapera [&A] afiapiou [L]):I Esd. 8 2 (apaplhou [B]
Achiacharus (Tob. 1 1 1 8 f ) , probably to be rendered, apapwu [AL] EV AMARIASas in 4 E s d . 1 ~ Anzeria [ed.
Bensley]), prdbably the same’,s 5 above (cp Be.). See further
in accordance with the romance, ‘siste+s son’ (cp HIGH PRIEST and note the suspicious recurrence of the
accompanying table). See ACHIACHARUS. sequence Amariah, Ahituh, and Zadok (cp We. ProL(4)222).
Tobiel See MERAIAH.
AMARIAS ( ~ ~ h p l o[A]),
y I Esd. 82=Ezra73
Tdbit Adael AMARIAH(q.v., 4).
Achiacharus (Toh. 121,6) sikter AMABA (H@3p ; rather, perhaps, ?&$ Ammishai,
Nasdas (Tob. 1118) cp AMECCAEI [B in 2 S. 19, BA in c. 20, A in c. 171,
i.e., Nadan (romance) -€CAI [A], -ECC& [L always ; A occasionally], and other
prob. =Aman (Toh. 1410). variants, see below ; cp ABISI-IAI,AMASAI. The form
2. (epav [BNAL]) ‘Rest of Esther’lO7, etc. See HAMAN. Amasa rests on a false etymology [from kny=ony] ; cp
AMANA (?QQk$ ‘ firm, constant ’ ; g B N A translates AMASHSAI ; so Marq. Fund. 24).
I . Son of Abigail, the sister of Zeruiah and David
‘from the top of Amana’ 8r-b dpijs P ~ U T E W P ; ; b
1 ( I Ch. 216f: z S. 1 7 2 5 ap6uot.r [B], -UUUEL [A]). His
Amnnn). I . The name of a mountain, in Cant. 4 8 , father w a s Jether a Jezreelite-not an ‘ Israelite ’ or an
where ‘ the top of Amana ’ is introduced parallel to ‘ the ‘ Ishmaelite’ (see A BIGAIL, 2). H e was among those
top of Senir and Hermon. ’ that fell away from David to ABSALOM( p . v . ) , who
‘With me from Lebanon, 0 bride, with me from Lebanon come : entrusted him with the command of his forces ( z S.
From the symmit of Amana, from the summit of Senir and 1725). In spite of this, David thought it prudent to
Hermon.
In the preceding distich reference is made to Lebanon. conciliate Amasa by a promise of the same position in
Evidently the poet means some part of the range of his own army, J OAB ( p . v . ) having earned the king’s dis-
pleasure ( z S. 1913 [r4] apcucai [A]). On the renewal
Antilibanus, probably the Jebel ez-Zebedgni, below
which is the beautiful village of Zebedgni and the source of revolt under Sheba (z S. ~ O I ) ,in which according to
of the Nahr Baradii (the Web. A RANA, p.v.). In in- one view he was implicated, Amasa was entrusted with
mustering the men of Judah ( v . 4). Joab soon took
scriptions of Tiglath-pileser 111. and Sennacherib the
his revenge upon his rival. Amasa having failed to
mountain ranges Libnana and Ammanana are coupled
(Del. Par. 103f.’). appear at the appointed time, David commissioned
2. Considering how well the form Amana is attested,
Abishai ( 2 S. 206) 1 to go with his men in pursuit of the
rebels, and Joab naturally joined the party. The cousins
it becomes a question whether in 2 K. 512 we should
not adopt the Kr. in preference to the Kt., and read met at Gibeon, and while Joab was pretending to give
‘ Amana ’ (so AV mg. ) or AMANAH (so RV mg. ) as the Amasa a friendly salute, he gave him a deadly blow
( z S. 208-10). The narrator is not interested enough in
old Hebrew name of the Nahr Baradk (see A BANA).
Many MSS with the two Soncino and the Brescia editions the unfortunate man to tell us whether he ever received
have this reading in the text in Kings; Targ. and Pesh., with an honourable burial (v. 12 a ~ e u u a e[B ~ once], upwar.
the Complut. ed. of @ and the Syro-Hex. text, also presuppose it. [A once]). See S HERA , ii. I (end).
’r. K. c. His death is referred to in r K. 25 a p u u a r a tBI - m a [Ll
AMANAH (TQFF Kr.), 2 K. 51z-f. RV=AV appsua [A] and v. 32 (apsuuu [EL; A omits]). ’(The 6 ok
apsruaj3 in I Ch. 217 [B] may come from the following Hebrew
A MANA, 2. word.)
2. (dpau[c]ias [BAL]), an Ephramite, temp. Ahaz ( 2 Ch.
AMARIAH (il3703 [and .I;I:lDK, see nos. 5 , 6, 71 28 zzt). T. K. C.
aYahwk hath spoken ’ [see N AMES, 331 or ‘ promised.’ AMASAI (9bnq,perhaps rather to be read ’@@y,
Less probably ‘man of Yahwit’ on analogy of Palm.
n. pr. x w m n N ‘man of the sun,’ see Baethg. Beitr. Ammishai [so We. ZJGP) 24, n. z ] , cp ~ ~ 3 .
89 n. ;’AM&P[E]IA [BAL]), a name occurring frequently, in I Ch. 62535 ABISHAI; AMACAI [BAL]. -CE [HI).
but with the exception of (I) only in post-exilic I. A name in the genealogy of Kohath ( I Ch. 625 [IO],
literature. upeuuei [B], -paut [A], -uu [L] ; I Ch. 6 35 [zo], apaOerou
I. b. Hezekiah, an ancestor of Zephaniah (Zeph. 1I , P I ? -pas [AI).
apop[e]tou [BA], appopeou [H*], -prou rHC.bvid.1, apa- z. Chief of David’s ‘thirty,’ I Ch. 1218 [ ~ g ]; see
pLou [@c “id. Q]). The readings with ‘ o ’ as the second D AVID , 5 11 n iii., to whom the Chronicler ascribes an
vowel suggest the pronunciation ‘ Amori ’ ZAmorite. obviously not very ancient poetic speech.
Another ancestor is called ’ Cushi ‘-;.e., the Cushite. H e has been variously identified with Amasa (c.g., by Ew.)
and with Abishai, who is called Abshai in I Ch. 11 20. Ki.
2.In list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see EZRA, ii. even corrects t o ‘Abishai’ (SBUT ad Zoc.). Neither Amasa
$5 5 [GI D I5 [I] a),Neh. 11 4 (uapap[el~a[BAI, a+. [XI, -LOU tL1) nor Abishai, however occupied the kank of chief of the thirty,
= I Ch. 04, IMRI,abbreviated form p!y,app[e]i [BA], ;BPL[Ll). according to the list; in 2 S. 23 and I Ch. 11. The matter is
3. Oiie of the b‘ne B ANI in list of those with foreign wives of no great moment, since the connection in which Amasai is
mentioned in I Ch. 12 does not permit us to use the passage
(E ZRA i $, 5 end), Ezra 1042 (PapLa [BNI apapras [AL]). for historical purposes. The Chronicler‘s conception of Saul’s
4. A
p k s t in Zernbbabel’s band (EARA,ii. 5 6 G), Neh. 122 fugitive son-in-law is dominated by the later view of David BS
[ a hpoa~phwI [KI, w. [5C.a1, a < a p w [Ll),
( [ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ l a p ~ a p[El, .
cp v. 13 (&papa [N*]) and in list of signatories to the covenant 1 Most critics change Abishai here and in w. 7 to ‘ Joab’ (the
(see E ZRA , i. 5 7), Neh. 103 [41 (apapras [L]). A comparison of reading of Pesh.), but perhaps mistakenly. See Bu. SBOT,
ad lac.
1 For another suggested compound of .m[~l see M ERIBBAAL. 2 See Dr., or Bn., for restoration of the text.

131 132
 AMASHAI AMBER
the ‘anointed’ of Yahive and the founder of the one legitimate of any messenger. so e g . , of a priest (c Mal. 27) a prophet
dynasty (We. ProZ.i’4 180). (1s. 42 19 ; oi KUPAOY;~~)or (as frequently? an angel: Marah+,
3. A priest, temp. David ( I Ch. 1524). accordingly, often apprdximates to the idea of ‘ambassador :
cp the emissaries sent to Edom, Sihon king of the Amorites, and
4. Ancestor of Mahath, a Kohathite Levite, temp. Ammon (Nu. 20r421a1 rprpauppers,Judg. 1112; E V ‘messengers’).
Hezekiah ; probably a family name ; cp no. I ( z Ch. 3. J i i - (7,s)in Is. 18 z ( 6 p ~ p a[BNAQP and Th., hut Aq. npsu-
29 12 : paur [BA], U ~ E U U [L]).
L p d q s , Sym. lur’durohos, ‘ hostages,’ cp I Macc. 1I O 6 7 9 53, etc.]),
5. See below, AMASHAI. Is. 57 RV (.4V ‘ messengers ’ ; lrp&+us), Jer. 49 14 Pr. 13 17
25 I3 PEV in the last, messenger, d y y d ~ s and ) Oh. 1I (mp~opj,
AMASHAI, or rather, as in RV, Amashsai ()Di$Og, a confusion with i l p S 9 or 7 k ) . T h e denom. vh. l’B!m, ‘ t o
where b implies a reading ’DDy based on a false deriva- feign one’s self an ambassador,’ found in M T of Jos. 9 (cp EV)
tion from DDY ; perhaps really to be read Ammishai, see should he read 7 3 ~ x 7 , ‘take provision’ (so RV mg. after most
AMASAI), a priestly name in the post-exilic list of in- versions : cp Bennett SBOI;ad ZOC.).~
habitants of Jerusalem (see E ZRA, ii. § 15 u), Neh. 1113 In the Apocryphi ‘ambassador’ represents rp&3us, rpeu-
p[e]unjs in I Macc. 9 70 119 14 21 ( ~ ~ E U ~ ~ B U I [NV]) C 0 (rpeu-
~ E P O4
(AMAC[€]lA [BK], - C A I [LIP - M E C b l [A])=I cG.912 p ’ p p o ~ s[VI) 15 77 z Macc. 1134 (in I Macc. 13 14 21 AV has
where the name is M AASAI , AV MAASIAI (’Wgp messengers ’), and dyyehos in Judith 3 I AV (RV liere and E V
[sa. Gi.], some authorities ‘yn[Gi.] ; MAACAIA [B], elsewhere ‘messenge;’). I n NT the word occurs in z Cor. 5 20
Eph. 6 zo (wpeupedw), Philem. 9 RV mg. (rrpsupd~qs).
[Ll, MACAI 1-41; a. in Neb. -=A). A distinction between messengers and diplomatic
AMASIAH (ilLD@, 29, ‘ YahwA bears,’ cp AMOS ; agents naturally presupposes an acquaintance with
state-craft hardly possible in Israel before the monarchy,
MACAIAC [Bl, - A I I A C [A], AMACIAC [L]), one of
Jehoshaphat’s captains (2 Ch. 17 16f). and even in David’s time emissaries from one court to
another were liable to be abused, although the punish-
AMATHEIS ( E M A e e l C [B]), I Esd. 929 AV=Ezra ment inflicted upon the offenders may suggest that
1 0 2 8 ATHLAI. ambassadorial rights were beginning to be recognised
AMATHIS ( A M A ~ E I T I N [A]), I Macc. 1 2 z 5 t AV, (see z S. 1018). The first use of sir, apparently the
RV HAMATH(y...) . only approach to a specific word for ‘ambassador,’
AMAZIAH (Sn:Ut3+!, and in nos. 2-4, VYf33, 129, naturally belongs to the time when Israel had been
‘Yahwk is mighty,’ cp AMOZ;AMECC[E]IAC [BAL], forced into diplomatic relations with Egypt and Assyria
- 8 C I . [ALI, -MAC[€]l. [BAQI, - M h C C I . [L]). (of whose frequent intercommunication at a much earlier
I. b. Joash ; father of Uzziah and king of Judah circu period the Amarna tablets tell us so much). From the
796-790B.C. (see CHRONOLOGY, $135, 37) 2 I<. 141-20 nature of the case sir is presumably a loan-word.2
2 Ch. 25. Two points in his favour are mentioned in The employment of the term w i Z f : , ’ interpreter,’ is the
Kings-viz., that he punished his father’s murderers more interesting since Aramaic was the language of
and that he reconquered the Edomites who had revolted diplomacy for Assyrians and Hebrews ; cp Is. 36 11, and
(see EDOM,§ 8 ; J OKTHEEL, 2). Whether he was See ARAMAIC L ANGUAGE , 5 2. See POST, RABSHAKEH.
to any extent successful against that restless and war- S. A. C .
like people has indeed been doubted, but on grounds AMBER (5p@ ; in pause [Ez. 82, where, however,
which will not bear examination. Co. regards it as a gloss] &r;‘g).
Am. 1I I ~ :is in fact more than probably a later insertion Cp Egyp. hsmn ‘electrum’? or ‘bronze‘; see E GYPT, $ 361
(see Ahlos, $ 9),’so that ’the inference, drawn from this passage last note, also Lig. ffebers. 221 ; but cp Ernian, ZUil!G 46
by Stade (in 37) and Kittel, that Amos knew of no great calamity 115 [1gz1, and also Ebers, i6. 31 454; against
befalling Edom in recent times, falls to the ground.
1. Hashmal the usual explanation of ’n see Ranig Lehrgeb.
Amaziah‘s unfortunate challenge to Joash king of =amber. 1 99: Fr. Del. in Ba.-Del. E.&hiel xii.
Israel (who treated him, according to the narrative, ‘ as identifies the Egyptian word quoted, and also
a good-natured giant might treat a dwarf,’ 2 K. 1 4 6 3 ) Heb. $adn, with Ass. ZJmani which he defines in Ass. NIC’B
ended seriously enough, in the strengthening of the old as a costly brilliant metal (?). ’So Hommel, Die Seszit. YaZker
supremacy of northern over southern Israel (see I SRAEL, 1450.
J 31). It is quite possible that the Edomites took The Heb. hashmnl occurs thrice (or twice ; see above)
~ , is rendered by the EV ‘ amber.’ GBAQ
in E ~ e k . and
advantage of the weakness of Judah to recover in some
degree their independence; but of this Re have no has ~ X E K T P O V ,Vg. eZectrum, a rendering which most
information. scholars ( e . 8 , Smend) have adopted, supposing, from
The Chronicler assures ns ( z Ch. 25 14) that, onfhis return from the context, that some metallic substance is meant, and
the sanguinary battle in the ‘valley of salt’ (cp 2 K. 147), understanding +XEKTPOV to mean here a certain alloy of
Amaziah adopted the worship ofthe Edomitish deities, forgetting gold and silver (Egyptologists have given the same
that such an act would be possible only if the Edomites were meaning to the apparently related Egyptian word).
either the masters or the allies of the people of Judah.
This interpretation, however, rests upon a mistake as
Like his father, Arnaziah died a violent death ; possibly, to the ancient use of the term ~ X C K T P O V(see also EGYPT,
as Wellhausen, Stade, and Kittel suppose, the con- 136, last note).
spiracy against him was not unconnected with the It is true the name is sometimes used of a metallic substance.
disgrace which he had brought on his country. The Thus to cite the earliest case Sophocles (Amig. 1036-38)makes
Chronicler’s treatment of Amaziahs reign is of special Creo; speak of electrum fromkardis (rbv nppbs Zdpsewv +Aerrpou)
significance for the Chronicler’s period (see Bennett, and Indian gold ( K ~ LT ~ V’ I V ~ L Kxpuu6v)
~Y doubtless meaning by
the former what the Greeks commonly tilled pale. gold ( A W K ~ S
C h o n . 413-417,and cp Kue. EinZ. 51, u. 4). xpuu’ds), anatural alloy of gold and silver (one part silver to three
Sources. The account given in Kings is of composite origin. or four parts of gold) found native in great abundance in Lydia.
z K. 148-14 comes from a somewhat unfriendly source, which That electrum, however was not a term commonly applied
may be of N. Israelitish origin. The rest of ch. 14 belongs to t o such an alloy seems ’indicated by the pains which Strabo
the Denteronomistic compiler, who lays stress on Amaziah’s takes to explain the term as used in metallurgy of the residuum
better side, and who at the close of his story probably makes (Kd%aDma)left after the first smekine of cold ore (circa 140. He
use of the royal annals.
2. Priest of Bethel temp. Amos (Am. 71012). See AMOS,I I. 1 y*s, ‘ambassador,’ appears in @ in four other places in Is.,
3. A Simeonite ( I kh. 434 apau[slca [BA], - u u ~ o u[Ll). riz. 138 (for i x ‘ a pang’) 212 Pi.? ’ ~ for y $ 7 ~ 301
4. A Merarite, temp. David (I Ch. 645 [30] apuuaa (?)[Bl,
-ama [Ll, ~ Q E U U L [AI).
Q ‘r. IC. c. (between 0’72~ and rima) and 63 9 (for 7: compare Du., ad Zoc.,
Che. Intu. Isa. 350).
AMBASSADOR, the EV rendering of the following 2 The connection with Ar. jlr, ‘to go’ (Ges.-Bn.), does not
three Hebrew words :- commend itself. It may perhaps be compared with Ass. siwaizc
I. MZZQ (rsn) in z Cb. 32 31 (nppaupdqs), more properly ‘inter- ‘stick’or ‘sceptre’(seeDe1. Ass. HWB s o )-theofficial derive;
preter’ (as EV in Gen. 42 zq [ ~ p w. v s u ~ ~ins l Is.
, 43 27.~[RV mg. his name from the emblem of office,’okginally the courier’s
stick (?).
ambassador hpxo;~es BRNAQT, but &.’ Sym. ;pp&sI, and 3 1 4 27, ‘and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber ’
in Job 33 2; [ @ W A have Bava~q$6pot]). ‘ I saw as the colonr of amber’; S a ‘as the appearance df
2. h’aZZk7z ($&) in z Ch. 3521 Is. 30433 7 Ez. 17 15 (43 brightness as the colour of amber.’
to send ; cp BDB Lex., ad Zoc.; EAOS OS), a word used indefinitely 4 For a rendering ipts in Ezek. 1 4 see Field, HexapZa.

133
 AMBER AMEN
himself usually employs the expression 'pale gold ' when he ~y actual analysis that this amber is the Baltic variety
alludes to the native alloy. Sophocles, too (i.c.), shows that Schliemann's Tiryns, 1886, App. p. 372).
he is employing the word in an unusual and extended way, by
appending the qualifying phrase 'from Sardis. It was, doubtless, from the German tribes along one
Usually the word has quite another meaning. if the highways which were in constant use in historic
I n Homer s.g. where the word occurs thrice and is signifi- .imes that the ancient supplies of Baltic amber were
cantly applikd td an article trafficked in by Phmnicians the ibtained. We know that down to the time of Herodotus
trader who captured Eumieus is described (OIL15 460) as hiving about 430 B.C.) the Greeks had not as yet opened up
a golden necklace ( a d 6' $A&~OLULY &pro) strung with pieces
of electrum (similarly in Od. 18 296, $A&TPOLWW 2sp(~&uov). The my line of communication with the amber coasts from
use of the term in the plural in these passages forbids us by .be side of the Euxine.
any possibility taking it as meaning the gold and silver alloy. Herodotus visited Olhia, and though he has given a preJty
'ull account of those regions, mentioning a trade-route leading
If, then, by electrum the versions do not mean nietallic owards the East, and though we kuow from his own words
electrum they must mean amber. There are, however, '3 115) that the amber trade was a subject which had excited
two kinds of amber, and it remains to consider which is lis attention he expresses the commonly received opinion that
meant. The one, usually a dark red (rarely of a light t was ohtaiked at the mouth of the Eridanus [Pol.
colour), is found in the south of Europe (Catania, Neither does Baltic amber seem to have reached
Reggio) and in the Lebanon; the other, usually of a 2reece in his time by any Russian-Balltan route (5 9).
yellow or golden colour, but occasionally darker in Down to the time of Theophrastus (315 B . C . ) it was
hue, has from ancient times been met with in great sntirely through northern Italy that the Greeks got
iheir supply of it.l .The lake-dwellings of Switzerland
abundance on the shores of the Baltic (whence our
chief modern supply is derived), and also occurs on the m d the valley'of the Po have yielded abundance of
coasts of the North Sea. As the Phenician had red beads of Baltic amber, and similar beads are well known
amber thus at his very door, he may early have learned in the tombs of central Italy. We need have little
to employ it for purposes of art and ornament, just as hesitation, therefore, in believing the statement of Pliny
he learned his art of dyeing with purple from having [NHxxxvii. 3 44) that it was brought by the Germans into
the murex in abundance by his shores. Moreover, red Pannonia and thence reached the Veneti, who dwelt
amber is, as stated above, also to be found in Sicily, i t the head of the Adriatic.3 As the main lines of
and may have been procmed thence. As increased 2omnierce change but little through the ages, it was
demand called for an increased supply, traders, sailing probably by this route that the ambcr beads reached
round the coast of the Bgean in quest of new fishing Mycenae and Tiryns in the bronze age. and articles of
grounds for the purple-fish, would naturally search the same kind niay even have reached Palestine. The
keenly for fresh supplies of the precious substance, for bead found at Lachish, however, has been proved, since
the ancients prized amber far beyond its modern value. this article was in print, to be not Baltic amber, but,
like that found at Tell-Zakariya (PEFQ, April 1899,
Its power of attracting light substances, and the fact that
when warmed it emitted a faint perfume, invested it for them p. IO^), a resin, and no trace of amber has yet been
with an element of mystery. How far they actually ascribed found in Mesopotamia (Per.-Chip., Art. ChnZd. 2 362).
to it certain medicinal properties, as is still the case in the East Nevertheless it is possible that even the yellow variety
with ambergris-an animal substance that has lent its name may have reached Palestine in the sixth century B.c.,
(adopted by us from the Arabs) to amber-it is impossible to
say. As these two substances which have really nothing in and the view of the ancient versions that the Hebrew
common save the power to e d t a kind of perfume, have been &shrnaZ indicates this substance may be correct.
called by the same name, the fact that ambergris is prized as W. R .
an aphrodisiac may perhaps indicate that there was some
belief that amber (electrum) possessed some similar potency.
This is actually stated by Pliny (Nh'xxxvii. 3 11), who tells
AMEN (Ink$; 4
in @ usually ~ C V O L T O ; in
~ work of
us that in his own time the peasant women in the regions north Chronicler b p j u , and so in N T very often),6an ~ d j . ~
of the Po wore amher necklaces, chiefly as an ornament, but 1. In OT. sjgnifying stability, used only as an interjec-
also for medical reasons, and goes on to enumerate a number tion expressive of assent of one kind or
of ailments for which it was regarded as a specific, either taken
as a potion or applied externally. That its property of attrac- another.8 Three stages may be distinguished : ( I )
tion (whence our modern word electricity) was early known to ZnitinZAmen, referring back to words of another speaker :
the Greeks is proved by the notice of Thales. probably the earliest usage, occurring even in common
But how would red amber naturally give a name to speech ( I I<.1 36 Jer. 28 6 115, the only certainly pre-exilic
a metallic electrum? To the eye of the Greek the Amens).lo ( 2 )Detached Amen, the complementary sen-
essential, difference between pure gold tence being suppressed (Dt. 27 15-26 Neh. 5 13 ; double in
2. Perhaps
yellow amber. and the alloy (to which we have in 1 They appear to have confused with it a stone called +y
Endish
" confined the name electrum) yo6prov or h'gurins; as so often occurs they mistook the reglon
being the pale colour of the latter ( A ~ U Kx~p uS d s ) , an; whence the article was transmitted to them for the actual place
name which he would apply to it to differentiate it from of roduction (Theophr. De La). 16).
BPliny's statement is confirmed by a remark of Herodotus
pure gold would naturally be one which would indicate (1196) from which it appears that the only knowledge then
this paleness. The reddish amber of the South would obtainable respecting central Europe came by way of the Venet!,
n3t furnish such a name, having no resemblance in hue a fact which shows that the Greeks knew of a line of communi-
to metallic electrum. But the yellow Baltic amber,
varying as it does in shade from almost white to a
bright golden, would give a fairly accurate description
of the alloy, whose hue varies with the proportion of have a?&, it srhould- p
its component parts. Similarly when, in the second
passage quoted above from the Odyssey, a necklace of and perhaps Targ. Jon. GBNAQr[ a A ~ B w o v ]he) vocalised other-

gold set with pieces of amber is likened to the sun wise, perhaps ]$ (as in Is. 25 I , where indeed the Gk. Vss. [hut
(fi6Xiov as), the golden (Baltic) amber answers to the Sym. not, as usual, dprjv, but & ~ ~ a r ] and Vg. read amen).
description far better than the red. W e may assume, BBKAQ read it also, in a corrupt text, in Jer. 15 I I and in Jer.
3 19. EV has amen always ' RV even in Jer. 11 5. It occurs
then, that from remote ages supplies of Baltic (yellow) in six places in @ Apocr. (fir Judg. 1320 cp Eth. Pesh.). Vg.
amber as well as of red amber were available. adds Tob. 9 12 13 23 and z Esd. [Neh.] 13 31 ; in Ecclus. 50 zg It
Nor is this a mere hypothesis. It has been removed is robahly late.
from the realm of probability into that of established Eight (eleven) times, &A$& once.
6 There is much variety of text. T R has it in some 119 places,
fact, by the finding of amber in the tombs discovered of which RV rejects 19 (see below, 5 2 ) .
at Mycenae by D. Schliemann in 1876, and of beads 7 See however Earth NB $5 s c and 71.
of the same material in his more recent excavations o: three kinhs see kLebzc'oth 36a (mid.).
8 F
at Tiryns. As the red amber and the Baltic amber 9 It seems most likely that in Jer. 3 rg CB read T B as '$*'N=
differ essentially in chemical composition, Dr. Helm, '? 7'7' i??.
a n eminent chemist of Dantzig, has been able to prove 10 Q has it also in Jer. 3 19 15 I I (Is..25 I is not pre-exilic).
I35 136
 AMEN AMMI
Nu. 5 22 and in Neh. 86 = I Esd. 9 47). Amen must have Venice, 1550, I fol. 846-856. On the whole subject see H. W.
beeninliturgical use in the time of the Chronicler ( I Ch. 16 Hogg 'Amen notes on its Significance and Use in Biblical and
Post-diblical t:mes,' /QR 0 1-23 r96] and in connection there-
36=Ps. 10648). Later, but very similar, are Judithl3no ,vith Nestle, 'The Last Word in the 'Bible,' Ezpository Times
Tob. 9 12 (Vg. ), and Tob. 8 8. With the fact that none of January 1897, p. 1903 To the ahove must now be added
these relates to temple service may be compared, e.g., Dalman, Die WorteJesu 185-7('98). H. W. H.
/er. Berach. 14 c. The Chronicler, however, appends AMETHYST (np>?Kj A M E ~ Y C T O C [BAF], -coc
Amen (Z.C.) to extracts from Pss. 105 and 96.l ( 3 ) An
apparentPnaZ Amen, there being no change of speaker ;
frequent from N T Epp. onwards, but in O T only ( a )
:LI, amethystus, + 1 \ e). The amethyst is avariety
>f quartz (SO,) or rock-crystal (see CRYSTAL) of a clear
in subscription to first three (four)divisions of Psalter and purple or bluish violet colour (from, iron peroxide or
3 and 4 Macc. ; and (6) at end of prayer, Neh. 1331 and manganese), often marked by zigzag or undulating lines
Tob. 1318 (both only in Vg. ). In Tob. 14 r 5 (BRA) we (the colour being disposed in clouds). The Greek name
have almost a fourth stage : (4) a simple subscrzptionaZ [Rev. 21 20 ; cp Ex. 28 19= 39 IZ [36 19 in @I), which was
Amen, like that, e.g., of the T R of Lk., without, strictly adopted into Latin, implies an ancient belief that the
speaking, any preceding doxology. wearer of an amethyst could drink wine freely without
Just as d translates, as we have seen, by y i v o ~ r o fear of intoxication. The source of the belief is found
in the Law, the Prophets, and even the Psalter, but has in Theophrastus (Lap. 31), who is the earliest Greek
2. In NT. dp+v in the Chronicler and A p ~ c r y p h a , ~ writer to mention the stone, which he calls rb upL6'uuov.
so in N T Lk. often avoids (omits or trans- It is a simple case of sympathetic magic, for Theophrastus
lates) Amen, and so even Mt. and to a less extent Mk. jays (Lap. 31) r b 8.4 dpi"et)uuov olvwrbv .ri xpdp : it is
Stage ( I ) is represented by only Rev. 7 II 194 2220 ; wine-coloured, hence its amuletic potency against the
( z ) by Rev. 514 and the usage testified to by I Cor. effects of wine. Greek engravers, accordingly, not in-
1416 ; ( 3 )by usage of Epistles (fifteen doxologies, mostly frequently cut Bacchanalian subjects on this stone.
well-attested ; nineteen blessings, mostly ill-attested). Hence the point of several epigrams in the Anthologiu
There is no real instance of (4). Graca (e.g.,ix. 752, on the ring of Cleopatra, adorned
The Amens of the Gospels (fifty-two in Synopt., with MethB, Drunkenness; and ix. 748, on a gem
twenty-five in Jn.) are a peculiar class, declared by engraved with a figure of Bacchus). It seems also to
Delitzsch 7 unparalleled in Hebrew literature : initial have been believed that the amethyst caused those who
Amens like group ( I ), but lacking the backward refer- wore it to dream, or to have propitious dreams (cp the
ence. The sayings that they introduce are only some- extract from Burhln in Lag. Mz'tth. 123'5). Hence
times at all related to what now precedes them. T h e the engraved a&Zamri of the 'Breastplate of P (Ex.
double dp+v (twenty-five times) of the Fourth Gospel, 2819=39 12 ; explained by Kimchi as the dream-stone ;
whichoccursevenin Jn. 1338( =Mk. 143o,etc.),Delitzsch nosnu from nin ' t o dream') has been commonly
tried ( L c . ) to explain as=Aram. amen amdna ( = a m e n identified with the amethyst (thus apparently a),
so
amer'nn=dp+lv hdyw), which sounded like dp+lv dp+v ; much engraved by the Greeks. Cp PRECIOUS STONES.
but Dalman argues strongly against this.s For a Del., on the other hand (He& Lung. 36 n.), derives the name
suggestion of a different kind see GOSPELS, 0 50 n.1° from A&Za?nnzi,an Armenian people and district often mentioned
in Babylonian and Assyrian texts, supporting the suggestion by
The key to Rev. 3 14 ( 6 dp+v), ' the faithful and true referring to Sennacherib's repeated mention of Armenia and its
witness,' is doubtless the traditional Massoretic pointing neighbonrhood 'as a rich mine of certain precious stones.
of Is. 6516 (at least as old as Sym.) with possibly a Bondi considers it an Egyptian loan-word (ekhname),while Di.
reminiscence of the practice of Jesus and of z Cor. 120. connects it with n+, the mallow, and adopts the explanation
Here, again, bp$v is neut., and the meaning is not quite 'green malachite.' W. R.
so clear ; but probably dp$v has about the same mean- AMI (+)?$),Ezra257?=Neh. 359 AMON( g . ~ . ,3).
ing as in I Cor. 1 4 16.
The liturgical use of Amen, vouched for in apostolic times by AMINADAB (AMINAAAB [Ti. WH]), Mt.14 and
this last passage, is attested, as regards the Eucharist, by Justin (AAMEIN [WH], mg. ~ A A M ) Lk.333t' AV=RV
Martyr for the second century (ApoL i. 65 A MMINADAB (q.v., I ) .
3. Elsewhere. b rraphv hubs ;n+qt)psi hiyyov 'A&) and'
e.g., by Jerome two centuries later (preiace :t AMITTAI ('nqy,§ 52, from llg& ' truth,' perhaps a
Bk. ii. of Conz. in Ep. ad Gal., 'ad similitudinem . . . tonitrui theophorous compound ; A M A @ [ ~ ] I [BAL]), father of
amen reboat '), while the introduction of Amen in the baptismal
service is probably later. Post-hihlical Judaism greatly de- the prophet Jonah (z K. 1425 Jonah1 I?).
veloped the theory of the use of Amen.11 H e who pronounced
it was greater than he who blessed. It opened the gates of AMMAEL The Hill of (at38 ny?ij; o BOYNOC
heaven.12 It must not be uttered in a slovenly or careless way AMMAN P I , - MA [AI, EMMA@ [Ll, OMMATON or AMM.
nor yet prolonged toomnch.13 The synagogue still uses it 14 and [Jos. Ant. vii. 1 3 ] ) , an unknown hill 'that lieth before
Mohammedans are in the hahit of adding it after reciting the Giah ' (?), where Joab and Abishai stayed their pursuit
first Sura of the Koran.
For references t o older literature see, e.K., Vigouroux, Bi6. after Abner ( z S. 224t). From a comparison of ww. 2 4
Dict., S.V. :for references to passages in Talm. see, eg-., Kohut's and 25 it is probable that we should restore the name
A n d , s.U.; for usage of temple doxology also in w. 25 for ' one hill,' AV ' an hill' (nnN n y n ) .
4. Literature. Gratz MGWJ, 1872, pp. 481,-96, and S o h . (SBOT) Sam. ad Zoc. following We.'s suggestion that
PsaZ&n 61 f: 91 $; for Rabbinic treat-
ment, e.g., Jebuda Khalas, &fer ha-IMzisEr, Pereg. 4 (ed. the two hills are ;he same. Oherwise Klo., who in v. 25 con-
Mantua, 42) ; Yosef Caro, Beth Yos2f (Orach-Haj'i7n)ed. jectures pn1.q (niy~),the ascent of Adummim.
In v. 24 Sym. (uhn-q, gully) Theod. (iSpayoy6s) and Vg.
1 Gratz accordingly argues that our Psalms are a synagogue (agueductus) give the word a meaning which it hears only in
arrangement. post-hihlical Heb.; moreover, since the word ~ D has
N no article
prefixed, it cannot be an appellative here.
2 This is hardly trne of N.
3 Except Judith 13 20. AMMI (Hos. 21, and, in Lo-ammi, 223[zs]). See
4 W & H give in square brackets, also a final 'Amen.' L O -R UHAMAH .
5 All except 2 'Pet. 3 18.
e Also Rev. 1 7 (after vu;; neither doxology [?I nor benedic- AMMI, Names with. The element 'nmmi (9pP)or,
tion). Rev. 118 I Jn. 521 2 Jn. 13 are excluded in RV. Cp at the end of words, ' a m (e$)has been interpreted in
.7QR 9 8, n. 2.
7 ' Talm. Stud. ix. i p p AEL')Y' in ZLTh., 1856, pp. 422.4. 1. Initial three different ways-viz. , as meaning (I )
8 All in sayings of Jesus. The five finals (Mt. 6 13 2820 Lk. [my] people, or ( 2 ) [my] kinsman or uncle,
24 ~2 Tn. 21 2': Mk. 16 20) are wantine in the best MSS. ammi- = or else as being ( 3 ) the proper name of a
=
%
9 Dalm. Gram. 193 (cp 71 77 >, 228 146).
10 See now also Dalman as cited helow, B 4.
paternal
11 See Skdu'oth as above and. many other places. For an g o ~ olong as this group of names1 was
example of 'Amen' in conversation see A b d a Zara 65 a. regarded by itself in the light of Hebrew philology alone,
12 Shab6ath 1196 mid. ofp.
13 Ber. 47a. . 1 The exact limits of the group are uncertain ; for in the case
14 Authon>edDai@Prayer-Book, N. M. Adler, 1891. of several names that have been included in it, i t is open to doubt
I37 , 138
 AMMI AMMIHUR
the interpretation of ‘ammi or ‘am by ’ people ’ seemed m e ? Or may we in some cases prefer the sense
the most obvious, and was most generally adopted for ‘people,’ ‘kinsfolk,’ on the grounds put forward in
all names alike. The result was not quite satisfactory ; HPN 59 (cp 215)) The question is sometimes compli-
for the people of God ’ or ‘ my people is God ’ (‘ammieb) :ated by the uncertainty of the form in MT. It must
was, to say the least, an improbable meaning for the also be remembered that Rehoboam (RBhab’am)was the
name of an individual. In the light of comparative ;on of an Amnionitish mother, and that the eponym of the
philology and newly recovered parallel names in other 4mmonites is called Ben-ammi (see A MMON, § I ) ; also
languages, it became clear that ‘ people ’ was not the real that some have conjectured that Jeroboam was of foreign
meaning of the element in at least some of the names. srigin. Cp IBI~EAM, ITHREAM, J ASHOHEAM, JEKA-
Names containing ‘anrmi are common in the S. Arabian MEAM,JEROBOAM, J OKNEAM, etc. (see col. 138, n. I ) .
inscriptions. hut in Arabic lanzm signifies not fpeople,’ hut As to the history of the names. Actual usage proves
‘ paternal u h e ’ ; the latter therefore is the most reasonable l.. Ristoryof that, like compounds with a6i and &i,
interpretation of the elemlnt in Arabic words.1 A closely
similar interpretation is also thoroughly justifiable in Hebrew Semitic compounds with ‘nmmi ( =kins-
names ;for the sense ‘uncle,’ or perhaps rather the widermeaning names. man\ are of a verv‘ancient origin.
‘kinsman,’ is secured for *amin Hebrew by a comparison of the Y

We find a t least two names (Ammi-satana Ammi-zadnga) of

parallel phrases y n l 3 ~ 5~ ON> and yny 5~ ‘ ~ ;jcp the use of the type among the kings of Babylon helongkg to the Hammu-
Ass. a m m i for ‘relatives’ ia Am. Ta.6.45 12 : KB 5 106. Such rXbi dynasty (circa taooo B.C ) and not improbably a thiid in the
an interpretation of ‘anznzi in Semitic nam& generally is further name Hammurabi itself. 1 “khe non-Babvlonian character of
supported by the fact that names of this type are found side by these n-es has gained general acceptanc; in spite of Jensen’s
side in the same languages with names identical in form contain- c iticism (ZA 10 3 4 2 8 1‘951) ; according to Winckler (GI 1 3 0 )
ing another element (see ABI, N AMES WITH) denoting a kinsman ; t i e y are of Canaanitish, according to Sayce (RPW3 103) and
thus, e.g. in Hebrew we have the series Anmi-el A6i-el Hi-el Hommel ( A H T g 8 3 ) , of Arabian origin.
(=&Lei) ; Ammi-nadab, A&’-nadab, A6i-nadab ; and,’ in S.
Arabian (following CIS 4, e.g., nos. 73 I O 20 I 69 5 5 I), ‘Am- Names of the type are certainly common in the early
karib, A h k a r i b , AkhB-karib, Dad-karib.2 S. Arabian inscriptions; and Hommel goes so far
The interpretation of ‘ammi by ‘uncle’ (or ‘kinsman’) as to assert that the biblical names beginning with
in the S. Arabian names and in several at least of the ammi are, like those of the kings of the Hammurabi
Hebrew instances ( Ammiel, Amminadab, Eliam, Ammi- dynasty, of Arabian origin, and were introduced among
shaddai (?), Ammihud, Ammizabad, Ben-ammi) is now the Hebrews at the time when they had close intercourse
generally adopted; and this much at least may be with the Arabs in Sinai (ZDMG495z5, n. I r95]).
regarded as well established,-that names in Ammi However this may be, it is clear not only that these
originated from the same circle of ideas as names in names are of ancient origin, but also that at a still com-
Abi, Ahi. paratively early period they fell into disuse among the
On certain ambiguities common to all these classes see ABI Hebrews, and also, according to Hommel ( A N T 86),
ii. (viz. on their syntactical interpretation $ 18 ‘ on the humag among the S . Arabians. The only question with
or divine, 8 4, and on the general or speciai charaGer of the refer-
ence, 8 5). regard to the Hebrew instances is whether one or two
With regard to the present group in particular a of them (especially AMMI-SHADDAI, q...) are late-i.e.,
further question has arisen, viz., whether Ammi be not post-exilic-artificial formations. Hommel has recently
2. Not = divine the proper name of a deity, and whether,
defended the genuine antiquity of ‘Ammi-shaddai on the
proper name. in consequence, we ought not to m u m e ground of its virtual equivalence to Ammi-satana (see
the worship of this deity where such ahoye) ; but, even granting his premises, his conclusion
names a r e found. The facts which have raised this does not necessarily follow, and, -as a matter of fact,
question are these :- the equivalence is questionable ; for ( I ) the translitera-
( I ) Compounds with ‘amzmi are parallel not only to compounds tion of Amnii-satana is uncertain : some-e.f., Sayce
with a&, n4i, but also to compounds with divine proper names. (PSBA, Nov. ‘97, p. 292)-transliterate Ammiditana ;
thus in Hebrew we have Ammiel, Joel ; Eliam, Elvah: A m m t and ( z ) , if it be correct, the word is quite as possihly a
nadab, Ytkanadab (cp Moabite Cktmashnadab), REhaVain 3rd sing. pf. (so Winclder, Z.C.) as=‘our mountain.’
(Rehoboam), and Rshabyah. ( 2 ) The chief god of the Katabiin
(or walud ‘awzm-a S. Arabian people) was called ‘Amm, and Cp S HADDAI, 5 2.
Emu was a name given to the god Nergal by the Shuhites on The most recent discussions of these names (together with
the W. of the Euphrates; cp also the name AMMON ( p . ~ . 5, I). references to the literature, which is considerahle) will be found
These facts, however, are insufficient to warrant us in in Gray H F ’ N 4 1 - 6 0 q 8 f : 245 2 5 3 8 323 Expositor, Sept. 1897,
separating names in ‘ammi, at least so far as their origin
qy190,’and Hommel, A H T 48 8 3 3 IO^$ G . R. G.
is concerned, from names in Abi, Ahi. Still, it is clear AMMIDIOI, AV Ammidoi (AMMIAIOI [e]),I Esd.
that ‘nmmji), originally an appellative, applicable and 520. See CHADIASAI.
applied by different clans or peoples to different gods, AMMIEL (5&%p, 3 46, ‘ E l is my [?I
kinsman,’ cp
became in certain cases the proper name of a deity; ELIAMand AMAT),and see AMMI, § I x , .AM[E]IHh
and, where this usage can be independently proved to rBAL1).
have been current, it is reasonable to interpret ‘am in I_I . D&e‘spy’(Nu.1312 [PI).
such cases as the proper name of a deity (cp the parallel 2. Father of Machir, 2 S. 9 4 (apayp [Bl, - p p 7 h [L]), 5, 17 27

case of Baal) ; but we are scarcely justified in inferring (ay&[AI).

oorkeeper (I Ch. 26 5).
from the mere existence of names in ‘ammi among a 4. Father of Bathsheba rCh.35 (+a [L]), called in 2s.
certain people that the proper name of their deity was 11 3 ELIAM,2 . See AHITLOPEEL.
‘Anzm; in particular it is very hazardous to conclude AMMIHUD (TiV?$, ‘ my [?I kinsman is glory,’ § 46,
that the Hebrews worshipped a distinct deity ‘Amm. I , cp also AHIHUD;EMIOYA [BA], AM.
see AMMI,§
The compound personal and local names in ‘am (final)
present some considerable difficulties, which require ELI).
Father of Talmai. king of Geshnr: 25.1327 Kr.. Kt.
I. I - I. I

3. Pinal ,am.further consideration. Is the sense ‘ kins- i)nyD AMMIHUK (4.v.).

man’ for ‘am always the most natural Father of Elishama ( I ) temp. Moses ’ Nu. 1 IO 2 18 7 4 8 5 3
2.
1Ozzt [PI (cpcau8 [FL], uti.
[AF in 1IO, &d F i n 7 4 8 1 0 ~ ~ 1 ) ;
whether the text is sound, sometimes even in its consonants. I Ch. 7 26 (Awoued tB], -ova [AI).
The apparent cases of initial ‘ammi are the following six :- 3. Father of Shemuel (z), temp. Joshua; Nu.3420 [PI
Ammiel, Ammihud Ammihur, Amminadab Amniishaddai (u.~pmuS[B], cp. [BabAFLl).
Ammizahad and thd place-name Amad : thosl of final *amt h i 4 Father of Pedahel temp. Joshua; Nu.3428 [PI @cum-
following s b e n :-Aniam, Eliam, Ithream Jashobeam, Jeka- p[ejLouS [BI, apcou8 [AF’L]).
meam Jerohoam Rehoboam and the five Glace-names Jibleani, 5. Father of Uthai, one of the b’ne Perez; r C h . 9 4
Jokd&m, Jokmlam, Jokneam, Jorkeam. Cp also Ben-ammi. (uapprov [B], aprov6‘ [AL]). The name is not found in the I[
See J EROBOAM . also AMASAAMASAI AMASHAI. Neh. 114. See ATHAIAH.
Glaser roduces evidencd from th; Minzsan inscriptions to AMMIHUR (79nWq), father of Talmai, king of
show that ‘ammi ’ as a term for God was long in use though
at a distance fro; Palestine : see Hommel, ZDMG49 ;26 (‘9j). Geshur (2 S. 13 37 Kt. ; Kr. [acc. to Gi. also Kt. in some
Cp, however, Gray’s remark, NPN 53. 1 Cp HPN 56, and see H AM [i.). But cp references in Muss-
2 But cp DOD,N AMES WITH, where a different view is taken. Arnolt, Ass. Dict. 320, S.V. r a m m u .
739 140
 AMMINADAB AMMON
texts] ; etc., AMMIHUD , ]). Kr. may be a
[ q . ~ .I 'Appudv, b vlbs 700 yCvouspou. Thereceived Hebrewtext,
miscorrection, since a compound of i i n would be not however, appears to regard the name of the father of
unlikely for a native of the S.Palestinian Geshur (see the Ammonites as Ben-ammi ( ' son of my kinsman '),
GXSHUI~, 2). Cp perhaps the Nab. and Sin. rirn ; and and it should be noted in this connection that @BAL (not
see H UH . Vg. ) of w. 37 inserts an etymology for Moab, viz. ' from
AMMINADAB (SYJ#, § 46, ' m y kinsman my father.' The Yahwist's etymologies are, as they
apportions,' or ' the [divine] kinsman is munificent ' ; stand, examples of popular paronomasia. They may
point the way, however, to more probable explanations,
AM[EIINAAAB [BAL]). and we may safely regard both ab 'father' and ' a m
I. Father of Ehsheba, Aaron's wife, and of Nahshon 'head ' of
Judah [see ELISHEBA] (Ex.6 23, aprva8ap [AI ;Nu. 1 7 , -6ap [F]' ( ' uncle,' ' kinsman ') as divine names:
2 3 7 TZ 77 10 14 [PI aj3ivaSaj3 [Flt). The names of father and sod Gesenius long ago compared the compound proper names
have been introduced into the eenealoev of David (Ruth 4 IO f: Ammiel, Amminadab 1 and J. Derenbourg in 1880 suggested
I Ch. 2 10' also Mt. 14 Lk. 3 3 3 where-AV A M I N A ~ A B :he
[on (REI 1 123) that Admi may he a name of the local divinity
variations)Aminadam, Adan, sed Tisch.] ; cp We. De Gent. 17). of the Ammonites, comparing the Ammonitish royal name
2. A Levite, temp. David ( I Ch. 1 5 IO$). Amminadab (Del. Par. zg4), which on the analogy of Kammug-
3. b. Kohath, I Ch. Gzz[71 (iuuaap [AI, ie., IZHAR, the M T nadah=Chemosh-nadab, should contain a divine name. A
readinc in the II a. 18). See IZHAR (.
I).,, ELISHEBA. comparison with the parallel names shows however that Ammi
4. See ABIHAIL,3.' if a divine name at all, was clearly known as such over a m u d
wider area than the narrow territoryof Ammon (cp NAMES, $46;2
AMMINADIB, an imaginary name in Cant. 6 12 AV, AIVIMI, ii. $ 2).
=2*?!'py, a reading supported by 48 (AM[E]INAAAB According to Judg. 1113 2 2 , the land ' from Arnon unto
[BHA]), and the St. Petersburg Heh. MS (Strack) and Jabbok and from the wilderness unto Jordan,' was
other codices. T o be consistent, however, AV should 2. Land originally occupied by the Ammonites, who
have recognised the existence of a proper name also in were dispossessed by the Amorites under
7 I [ z ] ( M T bath-ncidib ; EV ' prince's daughter ' ; 0. and
People. Sihon, some time before the Israelitish iu-
vasa@ [BK]), and rendered ' 0 daughter of Nadih,' or vasion. This evidence, however, is of doubt-
with 48-4 (0. apivasap) of Amminadib.' The drumatis ful value, since the section Judg. 11 12-29 is of uncertain
persane of the pastoral poem or drama will then receive origin, and may be no longer in its original form (see
the addition of the father of the heroine (so Gratz). It Bu. Comm. 8 1 ; and cp Bu. Xi. Sa. 125 ; Ki. Gesch. 2
has been shown elsewhere, however (see CANTICLES, 80). At any rate, all that Nu. 2124 (cp Judg. 1121J)
§ 6 J ) , that the supposed drama or pastoral poem and affirms is that the Israelites conquered the land of
its plot are non-existent ; we are not in want of an the Amorites ' from Arnon unto Jabhok, (that is) unto
'Amminadib.' I n 71[2], the rendering of EV, ' 0 (the land of) the Ammonites,' and,as the same verse
prince's daughter,' is sufficient, and ~(nadib)i i at the continues, ' the border of the Ammonites was Jazer '
end of 6 12 probably means ' prince,' as in 7 I [.I. That (so Ew., Di., Nold. reading i l y ~with @B*FL instead
' u m n i and n d i b in 6 12 are separate words is expressly of iy)-i.e., the frontier town of the Amorites towards
stated in the Massora, and most of our MSS follow
this rule (so, too, Rashi and Ihn Ezra). On the right Ammon was Jazer (see 71.32). According to this state-
reading and translation of 6 126,and the right position ment, the Ammonites occupied the east of the district
of S I I J , see CANTICLES, 0 16. T. K. C.
now called Bell+, a view which accords excellently
with the easterly position of the ancient capital city
AMMISIADDAI ('Sv'Fy, §§ 42,46, A M [ € l l C b b A i Rabbah or Rabbath-Amnion, and is no doubt accurate
[BAF], - A € [L]), father of Ahiezer ( I ), temp. Moses for the period to which JE belongs.
[PI; Nu. 112 225 (CAM. [A]), 76671 1025 ( MI . [AI)?. Little is known of the social condition of this people ;
The name seems to be a genuine old Semitic per- but there is nothing to suggest a high degree of civilisa-
sonal name (cp, perhaps, Ammi-satana at Babylon, tion. There wereno doubt other 'cities' besides Rabbah
2161-2148 B .c.), and may mean ' T h e divine kinsman (Judg. 1133 z S.1231) ; hut they were too insignificant to
is my Lord.' Cp SHADDAI, z b (end); AMMI, I . be mentioned by name. Although the district of
T. K. C. Rabbah (see R ABBAH) was exceptionally well irrigated,
ANMIZABAD ('?qi'?3y ; see AMMI,0 I), apparently the total area of tillage between the Israelite frontier
and the arid steppes to the east was narrow. Some of
son and lieutenant of B ENAIAH, I (I Ch. 276) ; but the
passage is obscure and certainly corrupt (Ab1 Bazae the Ammonitish clans must have ranged over these
steppes as nomads. Their population, too, must have
PI, A M I ~ A Z . [A], AM~INAZABAA [L, pointing to the been comparatively small. According to all analogies
reading Aminadab], * ~ t ) See . ~DAVID, 0 11 c. they would enter from time to time into loose and
AMMON, AMMON1TE.S. The people are called shifting alliances with the neighbouring tribes ; so that
' Children of Ammon ' (]\DEI 9 $ ) or ' Ammonites ' their fighting strength would be subject to great and
('!/DEI, etc. ) ; only twice is the tribe referred sudden fluctuations.
Name* to as ' Ammon ' ( I S. 11 11 [biit see 61,Ps. The real history of the Ammonites does not begin
8 3 7 ) . For 2 Ch. 201 see MEUNIM [ c ) , and for 2 Ch. 268, till the time of Saul, though we have
3. one very interesting and probable trad-
ib. (6)n.
@BAL appwvbut appav in Gen. 19 38 [ADE], Nu. 21 24 [B once tion from the legendary period of the Judges (see below
A F twice] ; Deut. 2 19 37 [Ba?bAl 3 11 [BaybAFLl 16 [BAFL] on Jephthah).
appws Zeph. 2 8 [K"]. The Ethnic appav[~]~~qs, or apa. [A We do indeed hear in a passage that sounds like history
in 2 S. 11 I $ 23 37, I K. 14 211 ; and a @ p m v [ e l ~Ezra 9 I (Gen. 14 5), of a people,'called Zuzim, whom Cheaorlaomer 'smote
Neh.210, but appomnp [Ll Neh. Lc. and in 131. The in Ham' (@?)-a name which is most probably corrupt (see
Ammoiiite persons mentioned in OT are Baalis Hanun,
Naamah (z), Nahasli, Shimeath, Shobi, Tohiah, and Zelek ; H AM ii ) but'which some regard as another form of Ammon :
and in Apocr. Achior and Timotheus. and ft is iempting to identify the Zuzim with the Zamzummim
whom, according to Deut. 2 zo$, the Ammouites in early time;
In the cuneiform inscriptions the land of Ammon is dispossessed. But what we hear of the Zamzummim has a
called Bit-Animgn (shortened into Amman), on the family likeness to the legends of other aboriginal races which
analogy of Blt-Humri (Omri)=Samaria, as if Ammon were expelled by more powerful invaders, and the author of
Dt.1-440 (Dg) did not write till after 597 R.C. (Kue. Hex.
were a person. The ancestor of the tribe, however, is 270). In his time there were various influences at work to
not said, in the Hebrew Genesis, to he Ammon, as the hinder the accurate writing of history, and it is even doubtful
ancestor of the Moahites is styled Moab, but Ben-ammi whether we can safelv . accept- what he tells us of the early
(myla; Gen. 1938 [J]). The name of the reputed 1 Cp also Nestle Eig. go 187 (n.).
ancestor is indeed given in Gen. 1938 (BAL ; with which 2 For further e;idence n: favour of a Semitic god Ammu,
Vg. agrees) as Ammon; e~udhe-~evr b Bvopa a h o 0 Ammi see Hommel's review of Meissner's ' Beitr. zum altbab.
Priva&echt,' ZDMG 49522 8 ['gs]; but cp Jensen's criticism
1 See Barnes, The Peshitla Text of ChronicZes, ( Z A 10 3423 r951).
141 142
 AMMON AMMON
relations between the Israelites on the one hand and the inhumanity, .which probably from their own point of
Moahites and the Ammonites on the other (Dt.29 1937). view was. but justifiable revenge. The Chronicler,
All we can say is that the story in Gen. 19 36-38 (J) proves an
early Israelitish sense of kinship (combined however with moral indeed, relates victories over the Ammonites won by
repugnance) to the Moabites and Ammonites, so that it is not in Jehoshaphat and Jotham ( z Ch. 20 275, cp 268) ; but
itself incredible that the Israelites should have ,refrained from these, according to Robertson Smith ( O T I C ( ? r46),
attacking these two peoples. True, in Jos. 13 25 (P)we are told are Midrash. From Jer. 491, we may infer that after
that ‘half the land of the Ammonites’ was assigned to the tribe
of Gad; hut the district intended here may be the Amoritish the deportation of the trans-Jordanic Israelites in 734
kingdom of Sihon, and so pre-suppose the view of history given the Ammonites occupied the land of Gad ; and, even if
in Judg. 1113-22(see above, 2). Jer. 49 be post-exilic, the fact is too probable to be
Dt. 2 3 4 [ 3 ] affirms that the Ammonites and Moabites doubted. It is this outrage upon ‘ Yahwh’s people’
hired Balaam to curse Israel, and did not supply Israel which seems to be alluded to in Zeph. 23-11 Jer. 926 [~5]
with provisions, as a punishment for which they are to 2521. Once again the vindictiveness of the Ammonites
be excluded from the Israelitish community to the tenth was manifested when, in the reign of Jehoiakim, they
generation. made incursions into Judah as the auxiliaries of
The spirit and purport of this passage, however, is at variance Nebuchadrezzar ( z K. 242). This is probably referred
with that of Dt.217, and the narrative of Balaam in Nu. to in Ezek. 21 2 8 5 [25f.]. Later, however, the general
22-25 (mainly JE) speaks only of the Moahites. For several
reasons it is very probahle that Dt. 23 1-8 12-91 (see B ALAAM, fear of the Babylonian rule seems to have altered the
5 7) is a record, not of the pre-exilic, hut of the post-exilic policy of the Ammonites, for Jer. 27 3 brings before us the
period when ‘the problem as to who should and who should not king of Ammon entering into a league against Babylon
he admitted into the community was a burning question’ (Ku.
Hex. 265). At any rate the view which this passage presents with Zedekiah and other princes. It is to this act of
of the Ammonites cannot he accepted. rebellion that Ezekiel refers (2118-32 [13 81) when he
It is of more historical interest that in Nu. 22 we anticipates the punishment of the Ammonites, while in
have a combination of two distinct traditions (E and J ) 25 1-7 he threatens the same people with destruction for
respecting the origin of Balaam, one of which represents their malicious demeanour at the captivity of the Jews.
him as an Ammonite (see B ALAAM, $ I ). Did the Ammonites withdraw in time from the anti-
The settlement of Israelitish tribes in Gilead and Babylonian league? It is a very probable conjecture,
Bashan (see MANASSEH)could not but excite the and, strange as it may seem, Jewish fugitives are said to
animosity of the neighbouring peoples. No doubt have sought refuge with Baalis, king of Ammon, who
there was a chronic border-warfare sometimes develop- instigated them basely to assassinate the noble
ing into more serious hostilities, sometimes mitigated GEDALIAH,I (Jer. 4014).
by truce, alliances, or the subjection of one or other of In later times we find an Ammonite among the chief
the combatants. In Judg. 106-127 we have an account opponents
.. of Nehemiah, and at the same time con-
of the deliverance of the Israelites of Gilead from 6. Persian nected by marriage with distinguished
Ammonitish oppressors by a recalled outlaw named and Greek. Jews (Neh. 618 1 3 4 ; cp TOBIJAH, p).,
Jephthah. The traditional stories have been much Other Ammonitish women had married
edited (see JUDGES, 17) and tell us naturally more into Jewish families (Ezra9 ~ J ) - i . e . , according to
about Jephthah (who was one of the actors in a most Kosters, into families which had remained on Jewish
4. Saul and moving tragedy) than about the Am- soil and not been touched by the reforming spirit of
David, monites. W e are upon safer ground Ezra (see E ZRA , ii. § 12). This would be all the easier
in the story of Saul. The victory of this if we are right in inferring from Jos. 1824 ( w .12-23
heroic chieftain over the Ammonitish king Nahash, who, belong to P) that in post-eziZic times there was in
encouraged by the weakness of cis-Jordanic Israel, had Benjamin a place called ‘Village of the Ammonites ‘
besieged Jabesh-gilead, and displayed his deep contempt (C HEPHAR-H AAMMONAI). It is to this period of mixed
for his foes, is doubtless historical ( I S. 11). It is also marriages that we should not improbably refer the com-
thoroughly credible that David, when out of favour with position of Dt. 231-3 (see above), in which passage are
Saul, received friendly treatment from Nahash (so we mentioned the same three peoples as in Ezra9z2
must interpret z S. 102). Equally intelligible is it that Nearly three hundred years later the Ammonites
a change ensued in the relations between David and the (Timotheus) are among the enemies defeated by Judas
Ammonitish court when the former had taken up the Maccabaeus ( I Macc. 56-18) ; they are also mentioned in
work, interrupted by the death of Saul, of liberating a psalm assigned by some to the same critical period
and u i t i n g the Israelitish tribes. Only we must not, (Ps. 8 3 ~ ) . ~Up to this time, then, Ezekiel’s threat
it would seem, place the war with the Ammonites too (Ezek. 25) against the Ammonites as well as against
late. The gross insult offered by Hanun, the son of the Moabites and (virtually) the Edomites that they
Nahash, to the ambassadors of David implies that the should be dispossessed by the ‘sons of the East!
power of the latter had not yet been so consolidated as ( i .e . , the Arabian nomads) had not been fulfilled so
to wipe out the recollection of the days of Israel’s far as the- Ammonites are concerned. Their fate,
humiliation. The insult was bitterly avenged. Animon however, cannot have been very long delayed. In the
and its allies were defeated, and the power of the former fifth century B . C . we already find ‘Arabians’ among
w’as, for the time, broken (see z S . the enemies of Nehemiah (Neh. 2 19 4 7 [ I ] ) , and we can
I t is noteworthy that Shobi son of Nahash of Rahbath- hardly doubt that by degrees the Ammonites, like the
ammon, was friendly to David’during Absalom’; revolt ( 2 S. 17 Moabites before them, had to amalgamate with the
q),that ZELEK, an Ammonite, was among David’s ‘thirty’ land-hungry intruders.
(2 S. 23 37), and that Solomon had an Ammonitish ~ ~ ~ ~ ( N A A M A H
I t is true, Justin Martyr, who died 166 A.D., states (cp TqjJz.
2 ) whom one account (see Klostermann) makes the grand:
119) that the Ammonites were still numerous in his time ; hut
daughter of Nahash and who became the mother of Rehohoam Josephus (Ant. i: 115) once says precisely the same thing of the
(I K. 1421 ; the detils in I K. 111-8 are untrustworthy). See Moabites, though elsewhere he speaks of the Moabites and
N AHASH , 3. Gileadites as Arabians (Aiet. xiii. 9 I), which agrees with the
It is probable that the Ammonites recovered their statement of Origen (in J O ~ ~ L I1I L1) that the term Ammonites
independence after Solomon’s death. Later, like the had become merged in that of Ara?. This makes it probable
5. Assyrian kings of N. Israel, they became tribu- that the omission of ‘Ammonites in I Esd. 869 (=EzrnO I )
was not accidental hut deliberate.
taries of the Assyrians ; this is expressly The close connection of Animon with Moab, and, in
Age. mentioned by Shalmaneser II., Tiglath- __
pileser III., Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon (Schr. K G P 1 See however BETH-HORON, 4.
and C O T ) . So far as our oldest evidence goes, they 2 Prdf. Ryle (&a andiVeh. 1r5)thinks that ‘the mention of
caused no serious trouble again to the Israelites till the the Ammonite, Moahite and Egyptian together, suggests the
time of Jeroboani II., when, as Amos tells us (Am. 1 1 3 ) , influence of Deut. 23 3.; [48].’ Guthe (SBOT)assigns the
enumeration of the peoples to the Chronicler.
they made incursions into Gilead, and displayed great 3 Cp also A CHIOR .

I43 I44
 AMMONITES AMORITES
a le55 degree, with Israel, and the fact that the Moabites Ch. 314 (apvwv [B*A*, see Swete]), z Ch. 3320-25.
spokeadialect of Hebrew(see H EBREW , ifter a reign of ‘two years‘ (circa 638 B.C. ; see
*’ Language* :HRONOLOGY, § 36) he was assassinated by certain of
6) renders it almost certain that the
Ammonites also spoke the ‘ language of Canaan.’ This is courtiers (see Kittel, Hist.2378). The event pro-
view is confirmed by Ammonitish proper names’, e&., .uced a profound sensation. Amon, though disliked
Hanun, z S . 101 (p‘treated graciously’) ; Nahash, ~yreligious reformers, was a favourite with the people,
I S . 111 (dni ‘ serpent’) ; Naamah, I K. 1421 ( m y ] tho avenged his death. If his name is derived from
’ pleasant ’ ) ; and the royal names Amniinadab (see he Egyptian (Theban) sun-god, it is an interesting
above, I ) , Puduilu=Abdeel (Jer. 3654, and Ba’sa= )roof of the fluctuations of political party (Egyptian and
Baasha (Schr. C O T 1127). Baethgen’s argn- issyrian) in the reign of Manasseh (cp I SRAEL, 36).
nient (in his Beitriipel for the oolvtheism of the 2. ( q ~ p p q p[AL]) less certainly the name of a governor of
* ,
0 ,
;aniana under Ahah; I K.22zd (Zfpqp [Bl Appwv [AI)=
8. Religion. Annnonites is based partly on Judg. 1 0 6 , Ch. 1825 (Epqp [B]). @ pleads strongly agdnst the correct-
partly on the analogy of Moabitish ess of the form Amon. Semer or Semmer, indeed, can
religion. The- only extant Ammonitish proper name, ardly be correct but Emer or Emmer is the @ form for the
mmer of M T in j e r . 20 I and elskwhere (see IMME~?), and out
however, which can be held to be compounded with
f this form both Amon and Semer (@) can easily have arisen
a divine name other than that of the supreme God,
is Baalis (see BAALIS). At any rate Milcom was s misreadings. See Sta. Z A T W 5 173-175 [‘85l.
3. ( a p w [L].) The b‘ne Amon (:o MT), a group of
as much the great national god of Animon as Solomon’s servants ’ (see NETHIN~M) in the great post-exilic
Chemosh was of Moab (see M OLOCH); the strange hst (see EZRA, ii. 8 9); Neh.759 (qpap pBNAI)=Ezra257
slip by which Jephthah is made to speak of Chemosh LMI cp @ L everywhere; q p a [BA])=r Esd.534 ALLOM,
as the god of Ammon suggests that Ammon’ has been IV ALLON(ahhou [Bl, ash. [A], Le., A h and AA for M).
substituted by an editor for ‘ Koab’ in the passage T. IC. C.
(Judg. 1112-28) in which it occurs. In 2 S. 1230 where AMORITES ($7& collective, and always with
Milcom (4.71.)should be read instead of maZrZZm irticle, except Nu. 2129 Ezek. 1645; AMOPPAIOI [BAL]).
‘their king,’ reference seems to be made to a huge
Other @ readings are :-appo ~ E O L[Is. 179 N], ~ p aioL~ [Dt.
p
statue of Milcom in the capital city. The statement . 4 F, 2 K. 21 11 A, I Ch. 174 Lf, apoppw [Judg. 108 $1, Q ~ O ~ K
that Solomon became a worshipper of Milcom in Gen. 14 r? AI, apop[sl~ [Ezra 9 I BAI, appopaios
. . [I IC. 7 14 AI,
his old age rests on no good authority (see S OLOMO N). 47720rife~
When we pass to later times, it is tempting to infer with In the List of Peoples ‘ the Amorite ’ appears among
We. (ZIGPJ 156, n. I) from the name of Nehemiah’s ions ‘ begotten ’ by Canaan (Geu. 10 16 J = I Ch. 114).
Ammonitish enemy that the worship of Yahwh had The term is used : (1) of a pre-Israelitish people living E. of
he Jordan, Nu. 21 13 21 25 Josh. 24 8 (all E ) also Josh. 2 IO 9 I O
begun to attract the Ammonites. The dissolution of the JE) D t . 1 4 3289 Jndg.10811 I K.419 (&BLom.), Ps.13511
old national bonds may have favoured the growth of a l36ig and elsewhere. (2) of a people on the W. of Jordan
monotheistic tendency. T.K.C. (w.H.B.) losh. i0 5J: 24 12 15 r8’(all E) also Josh. 7 7 (JE) 5 I 10 Iz(hoti
D), Judg, 134-36 6 I O ; I K.h 2 6 , z K.21 11, I S! 7 14, 2 S. 21 z ;
AMMONITES (P$Mg), 2 Ch. 201, RVW. MEUNIM ,3)ofasouthern people Dt. 17-44, cp Gen. 14 7 ;(4)of the ancient
?opulation of Canaan’in general, Gen. 15 16 (J or R), 48 22 (E),
(4.
El. [cl).
I
4m. 2 9 3 , and Is. lTg(Lag. WRS Che. following @BNAQr)with
AMMONITESS (n’f&), I K. 142131 zCh. 1213 :heHivites.
See AMMON.
2 4 26. The Amorites are mentioned also in the lists of
Zanaanitish peoples subjugated by the Israelites (Gen.
AMNON ( f i ~ pin~ 2, ~ . 1 3 2 0 I!>$?+$
.~ L e . , ‘safe’?, 1521 Ex. 3 8 and elsewhere). The list5 commonly
by some regarded as a diminutive used in a con- include the Canaanites, Girgashites, Hittites, Hivites,
temptuous sense [cp Dr. TBS, ad loc. Wr. Ar. G m l r ~ . ( ~ ) Jebusites, and Perizzites, and once, in Gen. 15 19-21)
I. $269; Ges. Neb. Gram. [ET ’981 250, n. I ] ; We. the Kenites, Kenizzites,’ I<ndmonites, and Rephaini,
[ZYGPJ24, n. 21 explains as VlYpV, ‘ my mother is the lor which reference must be made to the separate
serpent,’ see N U N ; AMNWN [BAL], AMMWN [A, a s . articles. On the variation in the order of these enumer- I

131-6 10.3). ations, which are obviously ‘ rhetorical rather than

I . David’s eldest son (see D AVID $ 11 iii. d) slain by geographical or historical,’ cp Dr. Deuf. 9 6 3
Absalom in revenge for his outrage 0; Tamar (2 S. 5 z 13 18 j
The passage in Amos (296) is remaxkable, because
I Ch. 3 It).
2 . I n genealogy of J UDAH (I Ch. 4zot). Amorite is used, precisely as by the Elohist (E), as a
general term for the primitive population of Canaan, and
AMOK ($7DV,‘ deep, inscrutable ’), post-exilic priestly because the Amorites, as an extinct race, are invested
family; Neh. 12720 (om. BK*A; AMOYK [L and, in with a half-mythical character (like the Anakim).
,w. 7, Rc.a mg. sup. in ?l. 2o H C . ~ mg. inf. AMOY]). See Wellhausen ( C H 341 f:) regards the designation
E ZRA , a, § 66, § 11. ‘ Amorites ’ as substantially synonymous with that of
AMOMUM (AMOMON [Ti. W H following WAC]), Canaanites, though not quite so comprehensive.
an unidentified aromatic substance, mentioned on14 According to this view, the Canaanites, in the time of
in RV mg., Rev. 1813 (RV Spice, AV om. wit1 the biblical narrators, are still living in the land (if.,
BKC; Wyclif, however, gives ‘ aniome ’). The classica in the cities of the plain which were not occupied by the
‘ amomurn ’ ( =‘blameless ’ ?) was a shrub of Easterr Israelites). The Amorites, on the other hand, are
origin ( ‘ Assyriuni vulgo nascetur amomurn,’ Verg. thought of as the old inhabitants of the hill-country E.
EcZ.425), from which were made oil for funeral rite: and W. of the Jordan, now inhabited by the Israelites.
and unguents for the hair. As, however, it is usec Thus the Amorites belonged exclusively to the past ;
also of any odour pure and sweet (Salm. nd S o h they had their day and ceased to be (Gen. 15). This
284),its,identification is uncertain. It may possibly bt explains how it is that, although under ordinary peace-
the vine Cissus vit<qerzn (Linn.), a native of Armenia ful circumstances the Canaanites are spoken of as the
The modern term is applied to a genus of aromatic old inhabitants of the land, whenever mention is made
plants (N.O. Zingibraceze),including the cardamon anc of war and conquest, the Amorites at once take their
seeds of Paradise. place (Gen. 4 8 2.). So Moses’ adversaries, Sihon and
AMON ()be), Jer. 4625 RV. See NO-AMON.
Og, are Icings of the ‘ Amorites ’ ; and, similarly, it is
with the twelve Icings of the Amorites that Joshua has to
AMON (floe,(Dv,§ 67 ; ‘firm’? ‘workmaster’? bu deal W . of the Jordan. Winckler however (GI15 2 3 )
disputes the synonymity of the terms ‘ Canaanites ’
see below). I. (upwr [BA], -wv [L] ; \eo().) Fairl: and ‘Amorites’ on the ground that, as the Amarna
well attested as the name of the son of king Manasseh letters show, the coast-land as far N. as Sidon or
himself also king of Judah ; z K. 21 18-26 (uppuv [A]) even farther, was called Kinabi ( = Canaan), and that
10 145 146
 AMOS AMOS
the Aniorite population had its seat in the interior. H e on the twofold ground ( I ) that the interest of Amos is
explains the distinction in the nomenclatures from the absorbed by (northern) Israel, and ( z ) that Telcoa lies too
different local origin of the two writers (an Ephraimite high for sycomores to be grown there. As to the firkt
and a Judahite respectively). On the extra-biblical point, Amos, though deeply interested in Israel, is not,
facts, and on the inferences to be drawn, see CANAAN, like the native Israelitish prophet Hosea, a sympathetic
§$ 3-9 and cp PHCENICIA. observer of the life and manners of the north. The
inner impulse from above sending him to Israel is
AMOS (DlD?, 3 56, ‘ borne [by God]’ ; cp AMA- psychologically accounted for by the vastly greater
SIAH, Ar. ‘Omeis, Phcen. DD.VlfWH; AMWC [BAQ]).
importance of Israel as compared with Judah in religion,
’’ Amos is the earliest of the prophets of in politics, and, wd may add, in literature. As to
’=?phetic whose discourses and predictions we the second, Amos may very well have possessed a
actlvltl’* ‘possess written records with an ac- plantation of sycomores in some low-lying district in
companying statement of their authorship. Of the the Shephelah or in the Jordan valley (see SYCOMORE).
external facts of his life we should know little but for W e may accept it, then, as a fact, that Amos was a
the narrative digression in 7 10-17, which interrupts the Judahite, and sprang from a place famous in the time
series of prophetic visions on the fall of Israel. From of David for the quick wits of its inhabitants ( z S. 142).
a statement there assigned to Amaziah, ‘the land is 3. Preparation. T h e situation, too, of Tekoa, was
not able to bear all his words,’ we may reasonably \ well fitted to develop the future pro-
infer that Amos’s ministry in the northern kingdom had phet’s capacities. From the extensive view which- his
lasted for some time, when it was brought to an abrupt own hill commanded, he would gain, at any rate, a
close by an act worthy of the heroic Elijah. Amos, it sense of natural grandeur, though we must not infer
appears, came forward at length in a place where from this that he was capable as a Tekoite of writing
success was more difficult than anywhere else, and Am. 4 1 3 and the parallel passages.l Not far off,
uttered a prophecy to this effect-‘Jeroboam shall die he would meet with the caravans of the Dedanites
by the sword, and Israel shall be carried away from its (Is. 2113) and other Arabian peoples, and would
land.’ It was in Bethel, the seat of the royal temple imbibe from them a longing to see other men and
corresponding to that of Jerusalem in the south, and manners. Possibly, too, such an idiom as n2pn >?w ny
probably at some great festival, that Amos said this;
and the priesthood, faithful to its royal head, took the (410) may be explained from Arabian influence (so
alarm. Not so much because the prophet had threatened We. ).2 Whatever the social position of Amos may have
the reigning dynasty (for he had not done so in the been, he was not tied to the soil, and may, before
interests of any upstart noble) as because he had begun his journey to Samaria, have wandered, either on
to weaken the moral courage of the Israelitish people business or from curiosity, far away from home, and
(Jer. 3 8 4 ) . With the half-contemptuous speech, ‘ Carry have seen and heard much of which his neighbonrs were
thy prophecies to those in the neighbouring country ignorant. T o suppose this is not to deny that even
who may think them worth paying for,’ Amaziah, the the stayer at home had oppoi-tunities of hearing news,3
head priest of Bethel, by the royal authority, bade but to try to understand the alertness of Amos’s
Amos fly from the land of Israel. Amos would not intellect, the width of his knowledge, and the striking
retire without a parting testimony. These are his culture and refinement of his style. At any rate, it is
significant words: ‘ N o prophet, no member of a plain that he studied thoroughly, on the spot, the con-
guild of prophets, am 1 ’ ; that is, I am no ecstatic dition of life and thought in the northern kingdom, and
enthusiast, like the prophets of Bethel, whose pro- we must regret that we have no further contemporary
phesying is a trade, and whose oracles are mere traditions respecting him, than that contained in 7 10-17.
heathenish divination (cp Mic. 311). ‘ But a sheep- One very singular tradition, indeed, we have, which
breeder am I , ’ I he continues, ‘ a n d one who tends appears to be a very late distortion of his story. It is
sycomore figs ’ (see SHEEP, SYCOMORE) : that is, I am the story ( I K. 13) of the man of God from Judah, who
above the sordid temptation to take fees. ‘Yahwb went to Bethel in the reign of Jeroboam I. and threatened
took me from following the flock; Yahwb said unto the altar there with destrnction by an earthquake 4 (cp
me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.’ That is, Am. 3 1 4 7 9 9 1 ) . Though this teaches us much con-
My prophesying has an immediate practical object cerning a late’view of prophecy, however, it affords no
which concerns the whole nation, and it is due to a fresh glimpse of Amos.
moral impulse which has come straight from Israel’s A post-exilic editor says (Am. 11)that Amos pro-
God. Then, in answer to the command, Prophesy phesied during the contemporary reigns of Uzziah of
not against Israel, Amos repeats his message with a 4. Notes of Judah, and Jeroboam 11. of Israel. Of
startling personal application (cp Is. 22 17 IS ). Uzziah there is no express mention in
date. the book ; but the description of the care-
Such was Amos-a strange phenomenon to the head
priest of Bethel, as representing an entirely new type of less ease of Jerusalem in 61a accords with the circum-
2. prophecy. Whence then did this prophet stances of his reign ; to Jeroboam 11. the prophet refers
come? Was he a native of Israel or a in 7 9 , and his biographer in 710f. The heading also
‘ sojourner ’ from Judah? The heading of the book (on states that the prophecy as a whole was delivered ( & e . ,
the origin of which see below, 4) at first sight appears to in its original form) ‘two years before the earthquake.’
be decisive in favour of the latter view. Budde has Unfortunately, our only other authority for this earth-
made it probablea that we should render ‘ Amos, who quake5 in Uzziah‘s reign is about as late as this note
had been among the sheep-breeders, ( a man) of Telcoa.’ (Zech. 1 4 4 ) . It is no doubt plausible to defend its his-
In anycase. Amos is represented asa Tekoite. Now, there torical character by referring to 4 11 ( ‘ I wrought an over-
is no trace in ancient or in modern nomenclature of more throw among you ’), and by our prophet’s vivid idea of
than one TEKOA ( q . ~ . ) . That Amos belonged to the earthquakes as one of Gods means of punishment (88 ; cp
southern kingdom has, nevertheless, been d o ~ b t e d , ~ Is. 2 19 21). Am. 88, however, is certainly an interpola-
tion, and it is not impossible that the rather too precise
1 Read ~ $ 3with Oort, We. ( ~ B A Q ,aLr6hor); cp 1I . Mesha
is also called l j i j (2 K. 34). The word refers to a breed of 1 G. A. Smith (HG 315) has given eloquent expression to
this view. I n Twelve Prophets, however, he admits the late
stunted sheep valued for their fine wool (see SHEEP). origin of the passages.
2 Kohut Skmitic Studies 20 168 2 On the intellectual opportunities of Tekoa see Stickel
3 According to Oort, Amos was an Israelite who cultivated (Hid 269-276). who makes Tob to have been written in this
sycamores in his own country, but after his expulsion dwelt district. ‘ . ’ ’
among the shepherds of Tekoa (Tlz. T 2 5 121 etc. [’91]). Gratz 3 Robertson Ear& ReZi...mz of Israel 510.
(and so formerly Oort), following Kim&, ;upposes a second 4 Klo. Sam.’ u. K/n. 349 and cp KINGS, 5 8 note.
Tekoa in the north. 6 Jos. (Ant.ix. 104) give; a long fabulous stdry about it.
I47 148
 AMOS AMOS
statement in 11 is merely an exegetical inference from 30 clear idea of the geography of the region ' beyond
7 3 6 (cp 7 8 82). which seemed to the editor to imply Damascus ' ; but every one knows what he means when
that Israel's punishment had been twice postponed, and i e warns his hearers that YahwA ' will raise up against
that each postponement meant a year's grace (so G. :hem a nation ' ( 6 14 ; cp Is. 526, where read ?ih), and
Hoffmann; cp CHRONOLOGY, § 3). It is remarkable 1 will carry them into captivity beyond Damascus ' (5 27).

that. the author of the heading, if he had access to 3n the whole, we may probably date the original pro-
tradition, did not rather refer to the solar eclipse pro- phecies of Amos between 765 and 750 8.c.l
phesied in 8 9 (in its present form). This seems to be There are only two passages which may be regarded
the eclipse which an Assyrian list of eponyms assigns 3s inconsistent with this date. as referring to later
to the month Sivan 763 8.c.I It is less important (u)In 1 5 it is preudicted that
that, according to the same list, pestilences ravaged 6* Objections :yEtspeople of Aram shall go into
Assyria in 765 (the year of a campaign in the l a n d ' t o 766-760 caotivitv unto Kir.' which was ful-
I , ~~I ~

of Hadrach, near Damascus and Hamath) and filled, according to z K. 1 6 9 , on the capture of Damascus
in 759. Pestilence in the land of Israel is indeed by Tiglath-Pileser 111. in 732. The prediction, how-
mentioned in Am. 4 IO ; but it is described as ' after the ever, was not meant to be taken so literally. ' Unto
nianner of Egypt.' The Egyptian Delta was of course Kir' is evidently suggested by the tradition ( 9 7 ) that
not the only source of pestilences : the Assyrian plague the Aramaeans came from K i r ; the prophet cannot
5. Circum- may have germinated elsewhere. Still, it mean to lay stress upon such points as the locality of a
remains true that the period indicated by captivity ; otherwise, why does he describe the scene of
stances. these last dates sufficiently accords with Israel's captivity so vaguely? The ' fulfilment ' in
hints dropped in the Book of Amos. For example, the z K.169 is obviously due to interpolation ; the later
Israelites, according to Amos, have no apprehension view of prophecy differed from that held by the great
of a speedy attack from Assyria. The circumstances of prophets themselves. ( b )The other passage is 62, which,
the period just mentioned enable us fully to account for as emended by Geiger4 (to make sense), reads thus,
this. Shalmaneser 111. (783-773) had too much trouble ' Pass ye to Calneh, and look ; and go thence to Great
with theland Of UrarfU(SeeARARAT,§ 2,ASSYRIA, 9 32), Hamath, and go down to Philistian Gath; are ye
and his successor ASur-d&n 111. (772-755) had too better than these kingdoms, or is your region greater
many revolts at home to put down, to be dangerous to than theirs?' These places, says the writer, have
the kingdom of Israel. Assyria being thus occupied, already succumbed to the common enemy : how can
it was easy for Jeroboam 11. to recover from Damascus Israel hope to escape? Calneh (not the Calneh
(repeatedly humiliated of late by Assyria) the districts of Gen. 1010, but the N. Syrian city Knllani) was
which Hazael had taken from Israel. Hence, when conquered by Tiglath-pileser 111. in 738, Hamath by
Amos wrote, the extent of the Israelitish dominion was Sargon in 720, and Gath by the same king in 711 ;
' from the point where the Hamathite territory begins and the passage breaks the connection between 6 I and 3,
(nkr N j & n ) to the torrent of the Argbah,' a definition and is not in the rhythm which is so closely adhered
which is presumably equivalent to that in z K. 14 25, which to in 61 3-7. The verse must, therefore, be a later
gives ' the sea of the ArHbah ' - L e . , the Dead Sea. The insertion, by a scribe or editor who had read Is. 109
prophet's hearers delighted to sun themselves in this (Calno = Calneh), and is properly a marginal gloss on
new prosperity, and boasted of the capture of LODEBAR the words, ' Woe to them that are at ease in Zion ' ( 6 I).
and K ARNAIM in Gilead as a great military feat (see Observe that Great Hamath (H. Kabba) contrasts with
LODEBAR,and We. on Am. 613). True, melancholy the simple Hamath of v. 14.
thoughts of the past would sometimes intrude-thoughts A strict analysis is indispensable, both for a sound
of the recent terrible earthquake, of the famines and view of the origin of this book, and for a due compre-
pestilences, of the friends and neighbours lost in battle, 7. Analysis hension of the great prophet himself.
and of the revolting cruelties of the Syrians and their of Book. W e must, therefore, test the common
assertion that the book possesses such a
Ammonitish allies in Gilead ( 1 3 13 46-11). Nor is it
arbitrary to connect the splendour and fulness of true literary unity as Amos, when in retirement, might
Israglitish ritual in the prophet's time with the popular naturally wish to give to his remembered prophecies.
anxiety lest Yahwi: should renew the troubles of the So much, at any rate, is clear, that, as it now stands,
past. On the whole, however, the tone of Israelitish the book has three well-marked divisions. ( I ) Chaps.
society is joyous and optimistic. As in Isaiah's earliest 12-2 16 present a series ,of judgments on the peoples of
discourses, the upper classes appear as self-indulgent Syria and Palestine, each framed on the same plan,
and luxurious, and, as in Isaiah, the women come in and coupling the description of an unpardonable moral
for a share of the blame (41 ; cp Is. 316). Not only fault with the declaration of punishment. The most
the king ( I K. 2239) but also the nobles have houses detailed of the accusations is that brought against
inlaid with ivory (315 cp 64a). Feasting is habitual Israel, which forms a striking culmination of the series.
(64-6), and the new custom of half-reclining on the The vaguest and least impressive is Judah's, which
divana has been introduced at Samaria (3126). The comes next before Israel's, and somewhat spoils its
good old sentiment of brotherliness is dying away; effect. ( 2 )Chaps. 3-6 seem at first sight to contain three
oppression and injustice are rampant (26-8 3 9 end, TO discourses, each introduced by ' Hear ye this word'
4I 5 I I ~ .8 4-6). This indicates that great economic and closing with a prediction of national ruin. Upon
changes are going on (Isaiah makes the same com- a closer examination, however, none of the ' discourses'
plaint, Is.5). Side by side with this we notice a
1 The reason offered for a later date (745-744) by Zeydner
keen interest in the ritual side of religion (44f: 521-23 and Valeton (in Wildehoer EinL 1.0) is insufficient. Any
814 91). Jubilant worshippers sing the praises of the observer who was not blinded by a fanatical religious belief
incomparable ' God of Jeshurun ' ( 5 23 ; cp Deut. 33 26), could see that tlie inactivity of Assyria was only temporary, not
and, as they think of his deliverances in the past, they to mention that the year 765 s a x t h e Assyrians on the northern
border of Palestine. Besides, the events wliich accompanied
even ' desire the battle day of Yahwi:' (5 18). Amos, a the accession of Tiglath-pileser 111. in 745 were of too exciting
stranger, a!one sees below the surface of things. He a nature not to have suggested to Amos a fuller and more precise
does not, indeed, once name A ~ s v r i aand, ~ seems to have threatening than we find in his prophecies.
2 On the former art of this verse see B ETH - EDEN and
1 See Schr. C O T 2 193 ; Sayce, TSBA 3 149 ; Schr. K G F AVEN,3.
3385, and cp CHRONOLOCV $ 24. 3 On B's readings see K IR .
2 In 3 12 render 'that sit :n Samaria in the corner of a couch, 4 Urschrift 96f: Torrey's hesitation to remove 2). z from
and on the cushion of a divan' (for pwn? read 23Vn an ohvious the context which it distorts (JBL,1894, p. 6 2 s ) s e e m very
correction which We. has somehow not made). SeiJQR 10 572. needless.
8 Acco;ding to B E A Q , however, there is once an express 5 Schr.'s view of Calneh (COT 2 1433 ; H W B 1254) seems
mention of Assyria (39, l w u = ? i w N , for ~ W N Ashdod).
, untenable (see CALNEH).
149
 AMOS AMOS
proves to have more than a semblance of unity. The rhis view is confirmed by Obad. 12, where 'in the day
section may be analysed into ten loosely connected if thy brother ' implies the same charge that is brought
passages-31f. 33-8 39-15 41-3 44f: 46-13 51-17l 518-27 tgainst Edom in the words quoted from Am. 111.
61-7 68-14. (3) Chaps. 7-9. This is a series of five rhus, the fault imputed to Tyre is that it co-operated
visions, interrupted, first by a short biographical elucida- with Edom in the time of Israel's distress, by making
tion of the third vision (7 ro-15), and then by a threatening *aids into Israelitish territory and selling captive
address (84-14). and followed by an evidently composite Israelites to their unnatural ' brethren.' Was there
discourse, closing with most unexpected promises of the rver such a time of distress for Israel between the age
regeneration of Judah. 3f David and that of Amos? It is, of course, the
Now, if this summary is correct, it becomes im- history of Judah, not that of N. Israel, that we have
possible to maintain the true literary unity of the book. to search, for the claim to the overlordship of Edom
More than one editor must have been concerned was maintained by the Davidic family. The answer
in its arrangement, and the latest editor has had depends primarily on the results of our criticism of
considerable difficulty in ' s o disposing his material Chronicles. If we can regard the Chronicler as an
as to produce three portions, each one of a reason- only slightly prejudiced recorder of old traditions,
able length. Considering that the book of the Twelve we may believe that the Philistines and Arabians broke
Minor Prophets comes to us from the post-exilic into and plundered Jerusalem ( 2 Ch. 21 16f: ), and
age (see C ANON , $ 3 9 ) , and that the primary object conjecture that Tyrian slave-merchants drew their
of the later editors was not critical accuracy but profit from the circumstances. Further, if, some time
8. Post-exilic edification, we are bound to look out before that, the Edomites revolted from Judah and
insertions : very sharply for post-exilic insertions. defeated King Joram (this, happily, is a fact attested not
, _. Such an insertion we find at the very only in 2 Ch. but also in z K. 8 2 0 - z z ) , it is easily con-
cnap. I 2. ceivable that Edomitish passion vented itself in a great
outset. The opening verse ( 1 2 ) ha's
been often viewed as the text of the following dis- slaughter of fugitive Israelites. Is it worth while, how-
course ; but it seems very ill-adapted for that purpose, ever, to defend the integrity of Am. l and the accuracy
for the object of the discourse is not to exhibit the of the Chronicler by such a lavish use of conjectures ?
connection between Yahwk and a privileged sanctuary, A prophet such as Amos was could not have fastened on
but to show that even Israel (which has so many altars such an offence of the Edomites to the exclusion of the
of YahwB, 28) shall be punished like the other nations. cruel treatment of Edomites by Judahites referred
Nor is the elegiac tone of 126 at all in harmony with to in z K. 1 4 7 (cp 2Ch. 251z), and we ought not to
the cycle of stern declarations which follows. The imagine a case of special barbarity in the ninth century
truth is that l z a is borrowed from Joel 3 [4] 16a, where when there is a well attested one in the sixth. It was,
alone the words suit the context, and 126 has a Close in fact, at the fall of Jerusalem in 586 that the Edomites,
phraseological affinity to Joel and other late writing^.^ who had no such stern moralists as Amos and Isaiah to
It is no argument to the contrary that in 3 8 Yahwk is reprove them, filled up the measure of their revenge, to
said to ' roar ' and that the phrase ' the top of Carmel ' the indignation of Jewish writers, who forgot the cruelties
is used by Amos in 9 3 : the editor had naturally made of their own ancestors. Hence, to explain Am. 111-12
some slight study of the language of Amos. The aright, we must refer to Ezek. 25 12 35 5 Is. 34 Obad.
reason of the insertion will be clear if we compare 10-14 Ps. 1 3 7 7 , together with Joel 3[4]1g ; and, to under-
( a ) 1 g f : with Joel 32-6, (6) 111f:with Joel 319, and stand 1gf:, we must compare (besides the passages just
(c) 913 with Joel 3[4]18. These passages can all be mentioned) the description of the offence of Tyre in
shown to be late insertions, and 1z can he understood Joel 3 ( 4 )2-6 (subsidiary evidence for the late date of
only in connection with them. Am. 111f.is given below).l If it be asked, when
First, as to ( a ) and (6) it will be noticed that 1 9 3 these judgments on Tyre and Edom were inserted, the
differs from 1 6 3 only in the substitution of ' Tyre ' for answer is, during (or much more probably after) the
' Gaza ' and in the addition of the Exile, at a time when some fresh insult on the part of
chap'1gf. 'If. words,' 'gnd remembered not the the Edomites reminded Jewish writers of earlier and
covenant of brethren.' (Even if, with Winckler, we deeper injuries (see I SAIAH , ii. $j14).
correct i s in D. gf: into i?in-z'.e., the N. ilrabian Next as to ( 6 ) . Plainly, Joel 3 ( 4 ) 18a is the original of
MuSri [see MIZRAIM1,-part of the following argument Am. 9 136. The opposite view would be inconsistent with
is still applicable.) It seems incredible that Amos 98-15, the fact that Am. 9 q a is dependent on
should have condescended to repeat himself in this 10. chap. the late passage Lev. 2 6 5 a (see LEVI-
way, and doubtful whether the early Israelitish prophets TICUS). Am. 9 13, however, is not a later insertion in the
knew anything about such an act as is imputed to Tyre section in which it occurs. From 911 (or rather from
in 1 9 . And what can be the meaning of ' the covenant 98). onwards, we are struck by affinities in expression
of brethren' in Amos's mouth? Many critics, indeed, of idea to works of the Babylonian and Persian periods,
have found in the phrase an allusion to the alliance and by corresponding divergences from the style and
between Solomon and Hiram (RV mg. refers to I I<. 51 thought of Amos.2 That v.7 cannot have been the
9 11-14) ; but this was a purely personal connection, and conclusion of the prophecy is certain ; but we have to
lay far back in the past. We might also think of the regard vu.8-15 as a post-exilic substitute for the original
covenant between the kings of Israel and Tyre pre- close. The editor cannot endure the idea of the final
supposed in I IC. l631f: ; but would the Elijah-like destruction of the whole house of Israel, and so he
prophet Amos have been the man to recognise this? makes Amos declare in a strangely softened mood that
Moreover, this was a personal or family covenant, only the 'sinful kingdom' (ie., that of Ephraim) will
whereas the charge against Edom in 111, that he be wiped out, whereas the less guilty Judahites will
'pursued his brother with the sword,' presupposes a
true national covenant resting on kinship (cp Mal. 12). 1 Notice (I) the vague description of the offence of Edom.
Does it consist in the purchase of Israelitish slaves from the Tyrian
slave-merchants? or in the slaughter of Israelitish fugitives? or,
Observe that between Am. 515 and 16 something analogou: more probably, did Edom prove that 'he kept his wrath for
toVV . 7 IO must have fallen out (vv. 8 g are an interpolation). ever' in both these ways? (2) The mention of 'Teman' and
VV.14-17 should correspond t o w . 4-7 IO-I;. ' Bozrah,' which names seem first to occur in Jer. 49 7 13. Cp
h 3 metaphorically, as Joel 1IO; niw:, as Joel 119f:2 22 the threat in 1 1 2 with that in Ohad. 9.
2 For the evidence, which is singularly strong, see Cheyne,
G?; as Joel 112. Cp also 126 as a whole with Jer. 9 [IO] g 23 IC 'Notes on the Prophets,'Exjosifor, Jan. 1897, pp. 44-47. On
2537; Is. 3 3 9 ; Nah. 1 4 (all post-exilic passages except thc p m . 98-15 see also Preuschen, Z A T W 1 5 q - 2 7 ('95); Torrey,
first). See Che. Introd. to WRS'sPr. Zsr. xv.$ [Volz. ha: Notes on Am. 2 7 etc ' J B L 168.172 ('96); Driver, JoeZ and
lately expressed the same view (Die vorexil. Jalzveprofeti~ Anzos I Z O ~ . , who vainiy endeavours to diminish the force of
p. IS/% which Nowack (KZ. Prop/i., adZoc.) does not refute.] the arguments.
15' 152
 AMOS AMOS
suffer the milder doom of dispersion among the nations. I later insertion, which took the place of a passage
Even this will be only for a time. Israel shall return, that had become illegible. The case of Is. 1 0 4 n
the old Davidic kingdom shall be restored, and the seems exactly parallel (see SBOT,ad Zoc. ). Whether
sweet commonplaces of prophetic idylls shall be fulfilled. 3r no Succoth-benoth, the name of a god in 2 K. 1730,
Now, can we not see the reason of the insertion of the Eontains the divine name Saccuth,' we may suppose that
opening verse or prologue ? It was to assure the post- the writer of the inserted passage merely antedates a
exilic readers of Amos that the threats of the prophet worship introduced into Samaria by the Babylonian
had long since been fulfilled, and that restored Zion colonists after 7 2 2 B.c. The awkwardness of the con-
should be safe under the care of its lion-like divine nection need not surprise us (this against Kanig, Synt.
protector. In other words, Amos was to be read .in the J 368 b ) ; the 1 in n n ~ u i is
? simply the !Waw explica-
light of the concluding portion of Joel. The insertion tivunz so often prefixed to glosses. Render, ' That is,
of the epilogue (98-IS), in which we ought to note the ye carried in procession ' ; cp Is. 45 20. See C HIUN AND
reference to Edom (cp Joel 31g), has a similar reason.1 SUCCOTH.
Here, then, are already four certain post-exilic inser- Am. 62, another insertion, has been treated of
tions. The companion passages now to be enumerated already (see J 6 [a]). W e pass on to 8811f. Verse 8
are equally noteworthy. No satisfactory picture of the 14. chaps. ,4b is not at all suitable as a description of
prophet Amos is possible till we have recognised them. the threatened punishment (see We.,
First, Am. 246 is too deficient in concreteness to 513-15 6 2 9 Nowack). The comparison with the
8811f. Nile recurs in an interpolated verse
be the work of Amos, and is, on phraseological

*' chap' 24f: fl:g,sdtltEn If so, the whde of the

Judahalso must be late.
This is every way a gain. In particular, we can now
(95). Passing on, we note that v. 13 speaks of literal
thirst (suggested by the mention of the festivals in
n. I O ) ; but in n. I T the hunger and thirst are meta-
see better how thoroughly Amos was absorbed in his phorical. Verses 9 3 1 3 3 announce a sudden cata-
mission to N. Israel. He cannot perhaps forget Judah ; strophe ; but in n. I I ~ a. lengthened time of misery is
but his native country is only a fragment : the national described. The passage is clearly late, and is parallel to
pulse beats most vigorously in Ephraim (cp Is. 9 8 3 Is. 8 2 0 3 (partly late). The silence of prophecy is
[7,f]). 'The post-exilic editor, however, felt the need spoken of as a sore trial in Ps. 749. Other probable
of a distinct reference to the sin and punishment of late insertions are 3146 513-15 (cp Mic. 7 6 ) , and the
Judah, which he meant to be taken in combination expression i q i 3 in 6 5 (see D AVID , 1 13) ; and 6 9 3 is
with the encouraging statements of 1 2 and 911-15. at any rate misplaced. T o these it is plausible to add
Ib was a different feeling which prompted the insertion the reference to ' those who are at ease in Zion ' in 6 I
13 of 4;3 (with which4 126is connected) (but it may be better to correct y x into ann ; so Che.
12. chaps, JQZ?10 573) ; also 37, which, as Duhm points out, may
58f. 9 5 3 The conception of God
58f: 95Jl: had become deeper and fuller: the be a gloss on n. 8 ; certainly it interrupts a noble
germs long ago deposited by the preaching of Amos passage (v.8 for ~24:read mn?, ..,. with We., or, much better,
a n d Isaiah had, through a widened experience, developed xm;). Tlie last insertion is 98-15 (see J IO).
into the rich theology of 11. Isaiah and the Rook of After these insertions have been removed, may we
Job. Not only by the wonders of history but also by safely suppose that the rest of the book represents what
those of nature was the sole divinity of Yahwh proved, 15. Pre-exilic Amos said in public ? No : the analogy
and an ordinary reader of Amos inserted these doxologies of the prophecies of Isaiah makes such
(as we may call them) to relieve the gloom of the pro- editing. a supposition highly improbable. Let
phetic pictures.3 Another such insertion was made ns be content with knowing that we have a truthful
(according to the text used by 6 )in Hos. 134. record of the prophetic certainties of Amos, even though
We now pass on to Am. 526. The construction and he did not always utter them in public. The manner
rendering of this passage have been much disputed. and the contents of the passages into which the true
13. chaps. 52662. On the assumption that Am. 525-27 Book of Amos falls must be our guide in determining
was all written by Amos, it is the class (whether that of public or of private prophecies)
perhaps easiest (see Driver) to render nnc(mi, ' S o ye to which they severally belong. It is both inherently
.
shall take up . . (Saccuth your king and Kaiwan difficult and contrary to analogy to suppose that 7 2-
your god, which ye made for yourselves),' .n\mr, 216 was ever really uttered ; at any rate, 12-26a 8 is
'and I will carry (you) into exile.'4 But how more adapted to produce an effect on readers than on
unnatural this is! Nowhere else does the prophet hearers. Nor can we possibly imagine that the visions
mention an inclination of the Israelites to the worship in chaps. 7-9 were used by the prophet as texts of spoken
of Assyrian gods, and the carrying of Assyrian gods by addresses ; passages from discourses are no doubt here
Israelites into Assyria is a very strange feature in a and there introduced, but they come from the arranging
threat. Hence the whole verse is more !ban probably hand of the editor of this part.
1 There are similar interoolations in Hosea (ez.. 1 7 110.2 I It is a further question whether the arrangement of
the words ' David'their king ' in 3 5). S& H ~ S E A
1-31 and S 4.
, the different sections may he due to Amos himself. In
"-2 Cp 2 K. 16 15, Deuteronomistic. Critics on the other side
quote Is. 5 24 ; Hos. 2 2 [4] ; Ex. 18 16 : Deut. 50 IO; hut they answering it we must leave sufficient room for the grawth
do not meet the argument from weakness of style, and produce of the book. It is not unreasonable to suppose that on
no parallel for the second part of the description of Judah's sin. his expulsion from Bethel the prophet paid a visit (per-
Moreover, the two Pentateuch passages are not in point. Nor haps a second visit ; cp 6 I ) to Jerusalem, and there
have critics realised the consequences of admitting the post-exilic
oricin of the Droohetic hooks in their mesent form. ' noted' his prophecies ' in (on) a book for a later
"The style'is that of 11. Isaiah and'the later poets (cp Stickel day' (Is. 308), when the judgment upon Israel should
Hiob p. 276), not that of Anins. The strings of participle; have been accomplished.' There, too, he may have
remind us of Is. 40 zzf: : Job 12 17-24;Zech. 12 I ; Dan. 2 2 1 5
Notice also ~ 3 (cp 3 Cheyne, Int. (sa. xxi. qz), ,n&y %l committed his record (enriched with some never-spoken
yyt, iln-3, ~ D J ,nra\r, i h n , d y n mm. 1.n 95 nvam 3'3 prophetic certainties) to the custody of those ' disciples '
violates the usage of Amos (but cp @). The ideas are equally of Yahwh end of his prophets (see Is. 816), who began
late, though they are such as Amos, had he met with them the long succession of students and editors of the re-
would have owned. Inter alia, comp. the third descrip!
tive phrase in 4 1 3 with Ps.1392. It is probable that 58f: ligious literature. In their hands we may suppose that
originally stood after 4 13. Am. 9 5 A, however, presumably the hook assumed by degrees its present form. At any
retains its .original position. rate, a written record of Amos must have become
4 On the text see, besides the commentaries, N. Schmidt,
/BL 1894, p. I 8 ; Torrey, i6. p. 61; WRS and Che quickly known ; for Isaiah, it is clear, steeped himself in
Pro&. 1sv.P) 399 f i ; G. Hoffmann, Z A 7'W 3 112 f: ; Tiel;: the originality of Amos before displaying his own truly
Gesck.. wan ket godsdimst 315. On the construction see Dr.
-in Smith, DBPt 122 (art. AMOS). 1 So Del. Par. 21j 5,hut see SUCCOTH-BENOTH.
153 I54
 AMOS AMOS
original genius. To Hosea, however, such a record .s well as by the pen. That Amos had left Tekoa at
cannot he proved to have been known (see We. on Hos. ntervals before his prophetic call is not only inherently
8 14 4 15 10 5 8 ) : in other words, the circulation of Amos’s sobahle, but also follows from such a passage as 3 7 5 (if
prophecies was, originally at least, confined to Judah. orrect), which Amos could hardly have written unless he
The latest editor of the book, as we have seen, was lad had the most vivid and direct ocular evidence of the
post-exilic. :ffects of a true prophetic impulse even before his own
A special interest attaches to the description of the urn came to receive one. His originality is shown,
visions, together with the historical interludes in chaps. lot only in his prophetic message, but also in his being
7-9, partly because they exhibit the growth of Amos‘s probably) the first to conceive the idea of using the pen
prophetic certainty respecting the fall of Samaria, and n aid of the voice. The tiru-literature of the priests
partly because, like Is. 671-818, and 20 (in their lad already taken a considerable development (Hos.
original form), they appear to come from a partly ~ I Z ); Amos was, it appears, the first prophet who
biographic, partly prophetic, work, written or dictated ollowed the example of the literary priests. The im-
by the prophet himself. ,ortance of this step it was beyond his power to esti-
Some have been surprised to find ‘ a plain country- nate. Within a generation hz expected Israel as a
man’ like Amos possessed of such a refined and yet iation to disappear ; but he thought it worth while to
16. Amos,s vigorous style.‘ They forget that the ;ather disciples who, like himself, could praise Yahwb
differences of culture in the East are still wen in the midst of ruin ; and, after all, who could tell
sty1e* sometimes comparatively trifling, and that )ut Yahwk might have some other secret to reveal to
a man of low rank may express himseli with considerable me of these-to a Hosea or to an Isaiah? See 5 18.
elegance. It is still more in point to remark that the That Amos’s message is a -gloomy one is in accord-
most classic Arabic poems are the work of men who ince with his conception of the divine character. In
had a calling similar to that of Amos, while, even LB. Pessimism. an age like his, the divine purpose
under the new Moslem empire, sons of the desert were could not be one of Deace. though
wont to appear at court and win a rich guerdon by the t required an immense devotion to Yah& to. be aGe
finished style of their improvisations. Such critics have :o declare, seemingly unmoved, that H e purposed the
also forgotten the opportunities of self-culture which, both :omplete destruction of Israel (or, as we should say, o f
at Tekoa and elsewhere, Amos must have enjoyed ; and [srael and Judah). In spite of the universal scepticism
when even G. Banr and Ewald point to certain ‘sole- which meets him (for how, it is said, can Yahwb be con-
cisms in pronunciation and orthography ’ as evidences of :eived of apart from his people?), Amos persists in his
provincialism, it may be replied that the errors in ques- nessage, and even conceives the possibility that legend-.
tion may reasonably he ascribed to late copyists.’ That iry supernatural agencies may be used to make the
Amos delights in images drawn from nature is clearly iestruction more complete ( 9 3 ) . It is not, therefore,
no fault (see, e.g., 29 3 4 5 8 IZ 5 19, and the first, second, >pen to us to account for the confidence of Amos simply
and fourth visions). Only one of them is distinctively >y the advance of the Assyrian power. He does, indeed,
the comparison of a shepherd (312); and Amos is just regard Assyria as the chief destructive agent (6 147 17) ;
as willing to speak of wonders of which he knows only but Assyria, when Amos spoke and wrote, was passing
by hearsay-such as the giant cedar trees (29), and (if through a period of decline ; consequently his conviction
the text be correct) the inundation of the Nile (88)-or must have some other ground which naturally sharpens
of which he has a true Israelitish dread-such as an his eyes for the still present danger from Assyria.
earthquake or a solar eclipse (8 Sf. ), or the mysterious To this it must be added that, according to Amos, it
sea which yields no harvest (6 12 ; cp 67pbyuos), and would be easy for Yahwb, if the agency of Assyria
which somewhere hides the terrible serpent of primitive were not available, to bring some other hostile nation
mythology (93 ; see SERPENT, § 3f.). It is a pity that, from some corner of the earth, just as he ‘brought
for reasons already given, we cannot speak of Amos as up the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Aramaeans
a sympathetic observer of the sky3-t/int is an essential From Kir ’ (97). The real ground of Amos’s prophetic
characteristic of a much later poet (see JOB). As a pessimism is the increasingly unsound religious con-
literary craftsman he ranks high. In 13-2 16 we have a dition of his people. H e may very possibly have ad-
literary prophecy, which, until Amos forgets his art in his mitted that there were fifty or at least ten Israelites
grief at the manifold offences of Israel, is marked by great who lived by the same pure religion as himself ; hut
regularity of structure. So in 46-11 we have the literary he could not conceive of YahwB‘s saying, ‘ I will not
model of an equally symmetrical passage in Isaiah (Is. destroy the land for ten’s sake.’ The righteous must,
98-21 [7-20] 526-30 101-4),and in 5 2 we have a short according to him, suffer with the wicked (910 was in-
but strictly rhythmical elegy. Altogether, the Book of serted to correct this idea), though he might perhaps
17, Degree of Amos forms a literary as well as a pro- have left a door of hope open for those who, like him-
phetic phenomenon. It is true that self and his disciples, had close personal contact with
Originality* ‘ both as a writer and as a speaker he the true God : the nation might perish ; but when this
must have had models ; J and E were, of course, not the had happened, God might have some secret purpose for
only writers of the pre-Amosian period, and Elijah and those who ‘ knew ’ him.
Elisha (of whose doings a faint echo has reached us: Of this vague hope we hear nothing from Amos
were not the only prophetic reformers (Am. 2 .I/: 37). (cp I SAI A H). What the popular religion was, we
There is no occasion, however, to suppose that there were know but too well. Whatever the nobler minds
prophets of precisely Amos’s type before him-prophet: may have believed, ‘the mass of the people,’ as
who had exactly his conception of their duties, anc Robertson Smith well says, ‘still thought of Him as
were also, in a qualified sense, writers. It would he i exclusively concerned w-ith the affairs of Israel,‘ and the
mistake to infer, from Amos’s use of formulae, that hc connection between YahwB and Israel had a non-moral,
was acquainted with earlier written prophecies. Pro natural, basis. Ritual tended to make morality almost
phetic f o r m u k could be transmitted by word of moutl superfluous, and hy its increasing costliness actually
promoted that injustice and inhumanity which Yahwk
1 Against Jerome’s application of Paul’s self-de reciatinj abhorred. There were also immoral superstitions at
language in z Cor.116 to Amos see Lowth, PreZect. 21 &x.Ctwyes which Amos glances less (see 27) than Hosea. To this
ET, 2 9 7 3 ) . 19. Ideadf pernicious system the religion of Amos
2 Take, e.g., pc$: (79) for PQf!. The same form occurs ii
Jer. 33 26, Ps. 105 9, both post-exilic passages. In 5 IT D W ~ :
God, is diametrically opposed. Once, at any
is not a ‘dialect form for ; the scribe wrote w by an error rate, he uses the striking title, ‘ YahwB,
and then corrected it by writing D. Read simply ~ 1 with
2 We. the God of the Hosts’ (527 is admittedly a genuine
3 GASm. (HG 315). passage)-Le., the God of celestial as well as earthly
15; 156
 AMOS AMPHIPOLIS
legions-together with ‘ the Lord Yahwb ’ (perhaps nine- and is not true to the facts of the age of Amos (see
teen times), in antithesis to the nationalistic expression, above, 12). What Amos most vehemently denounces
‘ Yahwk, the God of Israel.’ The Yahw& whom *he is sacrifice. One may perhaps be tempted to suppose
himself worshipped was, in virtue of his perfect moral that he says more than he means, and that he does not
nature, the Sovereign alike of nature and of nations. object to sacrifices altogether, but only to the belief that
Amos had not, indeed, fathomed the depths of this when duly performed they can change the mind of the
conception as had the Second Isaiah and the author Deity. His language, however, seems too strong to be
of Job (Am. 413 and the parallel passages are later thus explained away, especially when we find him ap-
insertions: see above, § 1 2 ) ; but he is already to pealing in support of his statement to the fact that in
all intents and purposes an ethical monotheist, and the olden time, when Yahwb was so near to Israel, no
his conviction of the impending destruction of Israel sacrifices were offered ( 5 2 5 ) . Is there, then, no form
does but intensify his sense of the majesty of the one of worship in which Yahwb delights? None, except
God. He does not, indeed, reject the old belief in the the practice of righteousness-i.e., justice and humanity
connection between Yahwb and Israel altogether (cp (see 521 24). But, alas, the Israelite will not recognise
7 15 ‘ my people Israel ’) : he moralises it.‘’ For some this. Pilgrims who are wholly indifferent to plain
wise object, Yahw&brought Israel out of Egypt (3197), moral duties crowd to the sanctuaries of Bethel and
and entered into a personal moral relation to it ; but his Gilgal, and even to the far-off southern shrine of Beer-
will, at any rate, is not unknown to the other nations, and sheba’ (55 814, cp Hosea415), and parade their devo-
their history is equally under his direction. Once, in- tion to the different local forms of Yahwb in pious
deed, under the stress of moral passion, Amos even oaths, as if the true Yahw& could he pleased with the
places the ‘ sons of Israel ’ on a level with the ‘ sons of offerings or the oaths of such worshippers. How
the Cushites’2; this occurs near the end of his proph,ecy painful will be the awakening from this moral sleep,
(97), and is evidently intended as a final withdrawal of a when the greatest of all realities makes its existence
temporary and conditional privilege. I t is not, how- known, annihilating at one blow the sanctuaries of
ever, on all the nations of the earth, but only on those Israel and their worshioDers ( 9 1 )! Such was the an-
I I \ I

which are in close proximity to Israel, that judgment is nouncement of the shepherd of Tekoa.
pronounced by Amos, as the spokesman of Yahwb ; he 21. Estimate Taken in connection with the ideas on
aims at no theoretic consistency. These nations are to of Amos. which it is based, it seems to justify us
suffer the same doom as Israel at the hand of Assyria, in calling him a surprising phenomenon. That the
because they, like Israel, have violated the unwritten phenomenon can be partly explained there is no doubt.
law of justice and humanity. [Thus we can divine Neither Amos nor his special follower Isaiah is so
Amos’s free attitude towards the lately written ethico- entirely abnormal a product as an unthinking study of
religious priestly laws (see EXODUS, § 3). H e is prob- the works of either might suggest (see PROPHECY).
ably acquainted with such laws ( 28 ; cp Ex. 22 z s f . ) ; but But not the most comprehensive study of the history of
he does not recognise them as of primary authority, for Israel will altogether account for their appearance. And
he nowhere appeals to them.3] And if by many favours, if they neither of them saw the whole truth, and both
including the crowning favour of prcphecy ( 2 1 r ) , Yahwb needed the correction of history and of later prophets
has made himself specially known to the Israelites, it and sages, we may still pay them the reverence which
follows that he will judge Israel more strictly than he belongs to those who first uttered great moral and
will judge the other nations ( 3 I 2). As a faithful friend, religious truths with the power that belongs to God-
Amos assures his people that if they would only ‘ seek ’ possessed men.
the true Yaliwb they would ‘ live ’ ( 5.i:)414 e . , would See references in art. and cp also We. Die kZe?nen Projheten
escape captivity and enjoy prosperity in their own land (for a corrected text), 1892, and his Hist. of Zsr. and3ud. ET,
(cp Hos. S z f : ) . H e has no hope, however, that they 1891, pp. 81-86;W R S Proph. Zs.12)120-143,394-
will do so : the false popular religion is too deeply rooted. 22. Special 401. Dr. art. ‘Amos,’ DBP) (with full hihlio-
helps. graihy) ;’also Joel a d Amos (Cambr. Bible),
Indeed, Am. 5 has been so much interfered with by 1897; Duhm, Die Theol. d. Proph., 1875,pp.
editors that it is doubtful whether vo. 4 14 can be log-125 ; Smend AZt-t-test. ReL-gesch., 1893, pp. 159-188; Wi.
appealed to as authorities on such a point ; o. 14, at all 6,
G I 9 1 8 ; Oort the home of Amos and on the genuineness of
413 589 9 5 6) Th.T 1891,pp. 121-66; G. Hoffmann (on the
events, appears to belong to an inserted section (see text of Amos$, Z A T’K 1883, pp. 87.126; Schmidt, 3BL, 1894
Nowack). pp. 1-15; GASm., Twelve Prophets1 61-210; Nowack, Z<Z. Pr:
I t is not idolatry that Amos complains of. When he [‘q] (thorough and judicious). T. X. C.
says, ironically, ‘ Go to Bethel and transgress ’ (44), he 2. Amos (Apws [NBCD]) .is the best supported reading in
Mt. 1 IO, where, however, King Amon (c.v.) is plainly intended ;
20. Denuncia- means, as he expressly tells us, ‘ Carry so TR and EV. I t is a constant variation in @AB.
out the prescriptions of your wilfully 3. An ancestor of Joseph, Mary’s husband (Lk.3 25 [BKA]).
tions, devised ritual law.’ Nor can we venture On the two lists see GENEALOGIES OF JESUS.
to say that a protest against the ‘ golden calves ’ is im- AMOZ (FnF,§ 57, ‘strong’; ~ M W C[BKAOQI’L],
plied,4 for no prophet is more explicit -than Amos in
mentioning the sins of his people. The two passages ~ M M [A
. in 2 K. 192 20 I Is. 3721 ; A M O S ) , father of
in which a reproof of Israelitish idolatry does appear to ISAIAH, I (IS. 1 I hmOC[€l N]= h M O C H N [K”’id‘]~ 202
occur are certainly interpolations. In 8 14, for ‘ the sin [KAQ om.], 2 Ch. 2622 [BA om.]).
of Samaria ’ we should read ‘ the god of Bethel ’ (cp AMPHIPOLIS ( A M + I ~ O ~ I N [Ti. WHI, ~ O A I N
Gen. 31 13), in parallelism to ‘ thy god (q.$p), 0 Dan,’ [K*]),one of the most important positions in northern
and ‘thy patron (read 3-p with Wi. and see DoD), Greece; it stands on a bend of the river Strymon,
between the lower end of lake Cercinitis and the head of
0 Beersheba,’ and the whole of 5 2 6 is a later. insertion,
the Strymonic gulf, thus commanding the pass leading
I; ‘Thy God (0 Israel)’ is ut into Amos’s mouth by a later from the east into Macedonia (Liv. 45 30). Cqnsequently
editor (4 126. see above $ 12f: it was a station on the Via Barnatin, ‘ the great military
2 Who thdse Cushitis are, is uncertain (see CUSHi. $ 2 h).
Apparently they had recently experienced some calamity. road which ran through Macedonia and connected
3 Here he contrasts with Hosea, who clearly invests the Rome with the Hellespont’ (Cic. De prov. cans. 2
written iarcith which arose in certain priestly circles with primary § 4). Paul, therefore, ‘ passed through ’ Amphipolis
authority (Hos. 8 12). Perhaps, as Duhm suggests, Hosea was
himself a priest. 1 Hal. thinks that a northern Beer-sheha (per aps Beeroth) is
4 So Davidson (Exjositor r887 (I), p. 175). T o say that
Amos does not protest againkt the ‘golden calves is of course
intended ({ZJ1172-77) ; hut if Elijah went 01pilgrimage to
Horeh, which was not even in Palestine, why should not N.
St. G V l l 579; WRS, Projh. c75J
.
not io assert that he thinks them worthv svmhols o! YahwE. Cn
* &
Israelites have gone to a venerated spot in S. Israel? 1:g is
5 The text appears to have ‘been altered by the same editor recisely the right word to use of a sanctuary across the border
who inserted the reference to ‘the two iniquities’ in Hos. 10 IO. PCP 6 2).
I57 158
 AMPLIAS ANAHARATH
on his way from Philippi to Thessalonica (6io8sbuuvnr, ,eoples amulets and ornaments are cloiely connected
Actsl'7 I?). cp We. Heid.(2)165). When the early significince
The site was intimately connected with some of the most )f the protective power of the object is forgotten it
interesting passages in Greek history ; hut it would be a mistake ierves as a simple ad0rnment.l The Syr. equivalent
to imagine that the apostle or his companions either knew or
cared for these things. It is now Nrochori. [Leake, Nouth. iidcZfd is properly ' a holy thing,' and' the same idea is
Gr. 3 18r$] W. J. W. ieen in the occurrence of the root'in the old Yenienite
SZdidis, ' pearls ' ; cp WRS ReL Sem. 453 ; and see
AMPLIAS, or rather as in RV Ampliatus ( A M ~ AI; M AGIC , § 3 (3), cp also R I N G , 0 2.
~ T O C[Ti. WH]), saluted as ' my beloved in the Lord
(Rom. 1 6 8 t ) ; not otherwise known. ..
T h e name was not nnfrequently borne b y slaves. I n the I
AMZI
.
("QK, 52, perhaps abbrev. from Amaziah).
I n the genealogy of E THAN : I Ch. 646 [31] (aficuucca[Bl,
list of the seventy disciples (Pseudo-Dorotheus) Amplias is iaeuuca [A], apaora [L]). See also LEVI.
represented as having been hishop of Odessus or Odyssus (on 2. I n genealogy of Adaiah, 3, the priest (see MALCHIJAH, 3) ;
the Black Sea, near the site of the modern Varna). Neb. 1112 (apau[e]i IB.41, -ULOV [Ll, a p r u u a [N]), omitted, how-
:ver, in the l/ T Ch. 9 12.
AMRAM (P?t$, Q 77, ' in good condition ' ?or, 'the
[divine] kinsman is exalted' ; ~ M B P ~ [BL M ; A in Ex. ANAB (32, &NUB [AL]), a hill-town of Judah,
Nu.], a m p . [AF ; B in Nu.]). losh. 1550 (&NUN [B], &NAB [L]), one of the seats of
I. b. Kohath, head of a Levitical subdivision, and :he Anakim ; Josh. 11 21 ( ~ N a B w e[B]). It is doubt-
father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Ex. 6 1820 ; Nu. 3 19 iess to be connected with ginianahi ( q - y p ) , mentioned
a&pa,u [AF], -ppav [L]; Z6sSf. I Ch. 62 [528]); from in Am. Tab. 237, 26 with Magdali (see M IGDAL -G AD )
him come the Amramites ( m q p ~ Nu. , 327, 6 uppapels md other cities of the land of Gar (SW. Judah). There
[E3 ' [A], -pap' &E [F], - ~ U VELE [L] ; I Ch.
a @ p ~ a / ~ELS is still a place of the name ( ' A n d b ) on the west side
3f the WSdy el-Khalil, about 14 miles to the SW. of
Zb23, apppapi [A]). See LEVI.
2. One of the b'ne B A N I , 2, in list of those with foreign wives Hebron, and 4 or 5 m. W. from Shuweilteh (Rob. BR
(E ZRA i. $ 5 end) Ezra 1034 ( p a p [ c l ~[Bl, apBpap [Nl, apBpa* 2 159 ; so PEMem. 3392f:). See also ANUB.
K a L [AL])=rEsd. 034 OMAERUS R V ISMAEINJS &aqpos [B],
'up. [A], allpap [L]). See EzaA,'ii. § 14d. ANAEL ( A N A H A [BRA], i.e., $MQ H ANANEEL ),
3. I Ch. 1 4 1 (];?E), RV HAMRAN. See HEMDAN. brother of Tobit and father OfACIlrACHARUs (Tob. 1zr).
See also AMAN.
AMRAPHEL ($Q?p&
; [email protected] [ADEL] ; JOS. ANAH ( n N , meaning uncertain, cp Gray, NE'$
'd,uapu ? ~ v s ) , king of Shinar (Gen. 14 I 9.1) =Ham- 110 ; A N A [BADEL]), a Horite clan-name (Gen. 36).
murabi, king of Babylon, who, according to trustworthy 4s the text stands the descent of Anah is represented
cuneiform data, may have flourished about 2250 B.C. n three ways. Anah is
This assumes that Sgim iscorruptedfrom ,>innor (Lindl, I. Daughter of Zibeon (away [L]), in nv. 2 14, ' Hivite'
Sayce) 5~ ' l i o n ; but see CHEDORLAOMER ( Q 4$), in n. 2 being obviously an old error of the text for
and cp Schr. COT 2zggf.; Hommel, BAG 169,A H T ' Horite.'
193; Wi. .4OF 1 4 3 3 ; Bezold, PSBA 1 1 8 8 [88]. 2. Son of Seir and brother of.Zibeon, D. 20 (ULPCW
Targ. Jon. ingeniously, if uncritically, identifies Am- :L]), I Ch. 1 3 8 ( A v a v [L]).
raphe1 with Nimrod, who 'commanded Abram to 3. Son of Zibeon, D. 24 bis (wvav [AD], aivuv [L],
be cast into the furnace.' If the identification with W Y U [E!, w a s [AE]), also I Ch. 140J (Zwvav [B], wvup
Hamniurabi be accepted, we may be reminded that A : n. 41 aval, avav TLl), 25 bis 29.
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar delighted to imitate The first of ihese miy,-however, safely be disregarded.
this founder of Babylonian greatness, both in his 'Daughter of Zibeon' is a variant (based on 2). 24) of
building plans and in his methods of administration ' daughter of Anah' (dependent on DV. 20 25), which has
(see B ABYLONIA , Q 66,and cp Rogers, Outlines of Ear& intruded into the text (so Di., Kau.). As to ( 2 )and (3),
Bab. Hist. 27-30), It may be that some Jewish the differences of statement need not surprise us, for
favourite at the Babylonian court, who had received a the genealogy only symbolises tribal relations. Anah
Babylonian education (Sanabassar or Sheshbazzar for in- was originally a sub-clan of the clan called Zibeon, and
stance-note the Babylonian name), heard Hammurabi both alike were ' sons of Seir '-Le., Horites. A twofold
spoken of, and made historical notes from cuneiform tradition, therefore, could easily arise. The ' mules '
tablets on events which had happened ' in the days o f which, from n. 24 AV, Anah would appear to have
Amraphel,' also that one of these was adopted by later ' found in the wilderness ' are an invention of the Mid-
writers as the basis of a Midrash on Abraham and rash, some Rabbis explaining on: (rapetv [ADE],
Melchizedek. On the other hand, those who identify
c a p [L]) by $plovos, others by $piuv (Be?. mbbn,
N IMROD (q.n.) with Nazi-maradda: (Nazi-marutta:) may
incline to think that the setting of contemporary history par. Ixxxii.). The 'hot springs' of Vg. and RV are
may be derived from an early pre-exilic traditional purely conjectural ; the.word O E ~is evidently corrupt.
source, though the narrative in its present form is un- As Ball points out (SBOT Gen. crit. notes, 93), it
doubtedly the production of post-exilic writers. The may have come in from n. 22 (KIP?).In nn. z 14 and
latter view is the more difficult one, but not therefore 18 (where @*EL omits), Anah is called the father of
to be hastily rejected. Cp Lehmann, Zwei Huupt- Oholibamah, the wife of Esau. See BASHEMATH.
probleme der altovient. Chvonologie (1898)84, and see T. I<. C.
A BRAHAM , Q 4, C HEDORLAOMER (Qs 2, 4 end), H AM ANAHARATH (n>n?e;p € H p U e
dNAX€p€e K.
(i.), M ELCHIZEDEK ( Q z ) , S HAVEH , I. T.K. C. P I . p€N& K. hppbN& [AI, A a N a p s e [L]), a site
on the border of ISSACHAR
(Josh. 191g)f.. The reading
AMULETS is the RV rendering of Zz&d.h, DV&&, seems corrupt (note the conflate readings of QiBA).
Is. 320, a word used elsewhere of any charm (Is. 3 3 , Perhaps we should read nIFmf and identify with
V & fi37, RV 'skiliul enchanter'-not 'eloquent orator' 'Arrdnek, a village on rising ground in the plain of
or ' skilful of speech ' as in AV and AV mg. ), or, more Esdraelon, a little northward of Jenin ( = En-gannim).
specifically, of a charm against serpents (Jer. 8 17 Eccles. So Schenkel's Bib.-Lex. and Riehni's HWBF) (after
1011). In Is.320 some sort of female ornament is Knobel).
meant, most probably earrings (so AV), which seem Knohel's alternative view (adopted from de Saulcy by Conder)
identifies Anaharath with en-NZnra, which is not far from I k d l
to be treated as idolatrous in Gen. 354. Doubtless, as (Chesnlloth) and Sal5ni (Shunem), and is therefore not altogether
WRS suggests ( I Divination and Magic' in 3. Phil uns!iitahle, but somewhat remote from every attested form of the
14122 ['Ss]), the amulet is worn in the ear to prevent ancient name.
an incantation from taking effect. Among early 1 For analogies cp C UTTINGS OF THE FLESH.
'59 I60
 ANAIAH ,ANANIAS
ANAIkH (W;g, 1, 33, YahwB has ’ answered ’ ;
“ deity, .whose worship was carried by the Sepharvites
‘&N&NI:,&(C) [BKAL], thus identifying. the name with into Samaria when, along with the inhabitants,of other
, ,
‘ANANIAH.). Babylonian cities, they were transplanted thither by
I.’ Imlist of Ezra’s supporters (see E ZRA , ii. Ej 13f: ; cp i. 8 8) Sargon. . As in.the case of the kindred deity Adramme-
a t the reading of the law (Neh. 8 4 = 1 Esd. 943 ANANIAS,4). lech (see, however, A DRAMMELECH , I), the worship of
2 . Signatory to the coyenant ; Neh. 1022 [231 (Ala [Bl ; Auata
Anammelech was accompanied by the rite of human
-[Ak*l). See E ZRA , i. B 7. sacrifice ( z K. 1731); The name Anammelech is
ANAK. See A NAKIM. probably to be explained as Anu-mnGk ‘Anu’ is the
ANAKIM RV ; AV, less correctly, ANAKIMS (D’j?!? ; decider or prince ’ (Schr., Del. ), although there is no
and D’j?p!g;! ; in Targg. , generilly rendered ’ KJ>$ evidence that ?Auu enjoyed any special veneration in
Sippara (see S EPHARVAIM ), a city that was especially
,‘giants’,; EN&K[~]IM[BAFL], but - N [ F ” * ’ ~ D 2101;
~.
ENA CAW),
devoted to the worship of h m a 6 the Sun-god.
The Anakim’are mentioned in Dt. 210f: ZT Josh. 11213 I t is very possible, however that the text is corrupt (Hommel
proposes a rather elaborate ;estoration [E+ T. 9 33of:l). It
1412 15 Jer.475 ( G B K A Q ; Heb. reads ‘of their valley’); else- IS also possible (see NISROCH) that Anammelech is merely a
where called ‘sons of Anak’ (p:X, waK [BAL]) Nu. 1323 ( w a x faulty variant of Adrammelech (rather Adarmelech). @L in
[BF])i‘Dt.926 a n d ( M T ‘sonsoftheAnak’)Josh.1514~; Judg. z K. 17 31 has only a8papEhsX.
1 2 0 ; sons of the Anakim,’ Dt. 123) d o ; y ~ y d u ~ w[BAL])
u 92a Anu was the god of Heaven, and with him were
( d o i ’ E v d ~;) the children (‘l.’?) of Anak ’ (MT ‘the Anak ’) Nu. identified a number of gods representing personifications
1 3 2 3 ~28 (wax [B] awaK [A]) Josh.15146. T h e phrases are of powers or localities of the upper region, such as
exactly parallel to “Rephaim’ i n d ‘children of the Rapha’ (see UruF, AnFnrguZ9Anfur, Enfur, Dn’ur, Lukrnu, ERur,
REPITAIM); indeed in Dt. 211 a writer of the Deuteronomic
school ‘interested in history and archaeology’ (Kue.), makes AZuZu, AZuZu-uZum, and EnuruZu. He stood at the
the Al;akim akranch of the Rephaim. head of the Babylonian pantheon, forming one of the
These and other descriptive terms (which are not to supreme triad of Babylonian divinities, in which he was
be mistaken for race-names) are given at any rate to associated with BFZ, the god of Earth and of created
some portions of the pre-Israelitish population of things,’and En, the god of the Abyss and all that is
Palestine, whom, like the Amorites, tradition endowed beneath the earth. See BABYLONIA, § 26. According
with coiossal height (cp Nu. 1333).’ On the inhabitants to G. Hoffmann ( Z A , 1896, p. 258), however, the
of Palestine generally,see C ANAAN . name is $t$n]iy--i.e., Anath-mallr. Cp Astar[t]-
According to Josh. 1 1 2 1 (D2),the Anakim were to be Kemosh and Melk[at]-Astart. Anath (Anta) was the
found in the mountains about‘ Hebron, in the fenced consort of Anu (see A NATH ). L. w. K. ,
cities Debir and Anab, and, in general, in the mountains ANAN (18, 5 0 ; shortened from A NANIAH ).
of Judah and Israel, whence Joshua and Israel drove I. Signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA, i. 7) ; Neh:
them out. Verse 22 also states that a remnant of them 1@26[27] ( ? I U U [B],
~ ? I U ~[K]. -UU [A], Ttvav [L]).
survived in the Philistine cities of Gam, Gath, and 2. Anan (au[v]au [BAL]) in I Esd. 530 = H ANAN , 3 (129
Ashdod (cp Jer. 4 7 5 d ; ot ~ a ~ r l h o euawtp
~ ~ o t [BKAQ], Ezra 2 46.
where MT has ‘the remnant of their’valley’). The
oldest narrator, however, gives the credit of their expul- ANANI (’Q, 5 0 , abbr. from A NANIAH , cp Sab.
sion to Caleb, who drove out from IGrjath-arba the py and Palm. m y ; MANEI [Bl, ANANI [AI, - I A C
three sons of Anak : Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai-i. e., [L]), descendant of ZENUBBABEI, ( I Ch. 3 24).
the three tribes or clans which bore those names (Josh. ANANIAH (V?J!J, B P A om., & N A N I & [Kc.amg.inf.I.
1514). The editor of Judg. 1, quoting this passage, ANI& [L]) in Benjamin, mentioned (v. 3z+) in the list
refers the deed to .the tribe of Judah (v. 10) ; see of villages, Neh. 1120-36 (see EZRA, 2, § 56, 15 (I).),
’ H EBRON . In later times, a too literal interpretation of along with Nob and Ramah (Neh. lip), and possibly
‘ sons,’ and genealogical interest, led to the transforma- represented by the modern Beit-guninu, 3% m.
tion of Anak, and-what is still stranger-of Arba‘ NNW. of Jerusalem.
(‘ four ’) in the place-name Kirjath-arba, into personal ANANIAH (n>>>&§§ 33, 50 ; A N A N I A [BAL]),,
names. Thus Anak (virtually a personal name where ancestor of one of Nehemiah’s builders (Neh. 323).
it has the article) becomes father of SHESHAI,A HIMAN
( I ), and TALMAI ( I ) , and son of Kirjath-arba ; cp Josh. ANANIAS ( A N A N I A C [BAL]), the Gk. form of
2111 (MT,pQ?), 1513f. Judg. 110 (wap [A]). H ANANIAH or A NANIAH .
I. R V ANNIS nig. ANNIAS,a family in the great post.exilic
The proof of this is supplied by @ B A L which in Josh. 1513 list (see E ZRA , ’ii. 5 ), mentioned only in I Esd. 5 16 (auuas
2111 instead of ‘father of Anak’ has p $ ~ p i a o h r v [T&] w a K . [Bl, auvias [AI, om. Lj. The name has probably arisen from a
This no doubt represents the original text which stated that misreading of Hodiah (nyn read ?an) ; cp Neh. 10 17 f:, and
Kirjath-arba, or Hebron, was an important’city (a ‘mother,’ cp see HODIAH, 2. Cp also Meyer, E/ 143,155.
z S. 20 19) of the Anakim. A later scribe, prepared to find a 2. I E ~ ~ . ~ z I = E z ~ ~ I O ~ O 3. H A N A N I ,
genealogical notice and therefore surprised to find the word 3. rEsd.9zg=Ezra1028 HANANIAH, 7.
‘mother’ in apposition to Arba, altered ‘mother’ (08) into A. I E ~ ~ . ~ A ~ = N ~ ~ . ~ ~1.A N A I A H .
‘father’ QI]N). Thus he obtained the statement that Hehron i. IE&. 9 i’s(&LLIF [Bjj=NLhl’37 H ANAN, 4.
was the city of one Arba who -’as the father of ‘(the) Anak.’ 6. A kinsman of Tohit. The archangel Raphael, while in
In Josh. 1 4 15, however, he took a different course. T h e true disguise, claimed to be his son (Tob. 5 12). H e is designited
reading must be that of @BAL which gives (nearly as in the Ananias ‘the great,’ son of Semeus or Semelius (see SHEMAIAH,
parallel passages) r6hrr appe ([Ll apPo [A], apyoP (Bl), p y d - 23) also called ‘the great.’
aohrr ~ i ) ve v a ~ [ e ] aiiq.
~p For thi’s the scribe substituted the i. b. Gideon ancestor of Judith (Judith 8 I om. B).
8. In Song df Three Children, v. 66(a The‘od. Dan. 3 88) ; see
city of Arba, the greatest man among the Anakim.’ T h e con-
sequence was that Sheshai Ahiman, and Talmai (t? three H ANANIAH . I.
Anakites mentioned in Josd. 15 14) became literally sons of 9. Son of Nedebaios (Ant. xx. 5 2 , Nep~Gat6s in
(the) Anak,’ and grandsons of Arba-no coniemptible acquisition some MSS [AE] vetkppatos ; cp N EDABIAH ), high
for genealogists. So virtually Schleusnerl (Thes., s.v. p y ~ p d -
roAis); hut see especially Moore, Judges 2 4 3 Cp also priest, circa 47-59 A.D., under Herod Agrippa II.,
Schwally, Z A TW, 1893, p. 1 3 9 8 T. K . C. king of Chalcis. H e is mentioned in Acts 2 3 2 8 241 as
ANAMIM (D’PN),one of the peoples of Mizraim, the high priest before whom Paul was accused during
the procuratorship of Felix. He flourished in the
Gen. 10 13 = I Ch. 1IT*; unidentified. See GEOGRAPHY,
degenerate days of the priesthood, and, though
§ ’ 5 (2). Josephus says (Ant.xx. 92) that after his retirement
ANAMMELECR (q>M!g, ANHMEAEX [Bl, AMH. he ‘increased in glory every day,’ allusion is made
[A] ; om. L ; a,l-.p.~ ; Anumelech), a Babylonian to him in the Talmud (Pesubirn) in terms of the
greatest contempt. Cp ANNAS(end).
1 Anak, ‘long-necked’ (St. and most), or ‘those with neck-
laces ’ (Klo.) with whicp cp H:b. ‘&8#, ‘a chain for the neck,’ 1 In which case cp Anu(m) 3arru=Anu the king, the usual
Aram. ‘zinad,Ai-. ‘unh neck. title of the god Anu (Muss-Am. Ass. D i d 65).
11 161 162
 ANANIEL ANDRONICUS
I O. Husband . of, S APPHIRA ( q . ~ . ) ,Acts 51. See Jeremiah was born of a priestly family which had
COMMUNITY OF GOODS, 3. property there (Jer. 1I, 2927 327.9, usuvu@w@[A*v. 71
11. A disciple' at Damascus, who was the means 3712). It is once referred to by Isaiah (Isa. lO30), and
of introducing Paul, after his conversion, to the is mentioned in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii.
Christian community there (Acts 9 10-19). g ) , E z r a 2 q = N e h . 7 q = 1 Esd. 518 ( E V U T O U [B]):
ANANIEL ( & N L \ N I H [BXA]
~ ; Heb. [ed. Nenbauer]
The connection of Anathoth with Jeremiah gives a
h n , Hananeel), Tobit's grandfather (Tob. 1I). special interest to its identification. A tradition, not
older than the 15th century, fixes it at Iiariet el-'Enab
ANATH (n$;, ~ ~ [BAL]), a e a divine name, (Robinson's Kirjath-jearim) ; but, as Robinson has
mentioned in connection with Shamgar in Judg. 331 shown, it can only be the village now called 'Anita,
( A E I N A X [B]) and 5 6 t ( K E N & [AI). If SHAMGAR which is situated NE. of Jerusalem, just at the
(q.v.) were an Israelite, and b. Anath ('son of Anath ) distance required by the Onomasticon, and by the
his second name, 'it would be tempting to take ' Auath ' reference in Isa. 1030. ' A n & +is well-placed, but only
in ' ben Anath ' as shortened from Ebed Anath ' servant from a strategical point of view. Eastward and sonth-
of Anath ' (so Baethgen, Beitr. 141 ; but see Noldeke, eastward its inhabitants look down on the Dead Sea and
ZDMG 42479 ['88]). More probably, however, Ben- the Lower Jordan-striking elements in a landscape, no
anath is a Hebraised form of the name of a foreign doubt, but depressing. Jerusalem is quickly accessible
oppressor who succeeded Shamgar (certainly a foreign by the Wgdy SulEm and Scopus, but is not within
name), and in this case Anath must designate a foreign sight. Here the saddest of the prophets presumably
deity. Who then was this deity? Evidently the went his earlier years.
well-known goddess worshipped in very early times in 2. b. BECHER ( p a ) in genealogy of B EN J AMIN [B g, ii.al,
I Ch. 78 (avaOwv [BAL]).
Syria and Palestine (as appears, e.g., from the names
3. Signatory to the covenant (Neh. 10 19 1201). See E ZRA,
mentioned below), and adopted, as the growing i., S- 7.. T. K. C.
evidence of early Babylonian influence on Palestine ANCHOR (ayKypA), Acts27zg. See SHIP.
scarcely permits us to doubt, from the Babylonian
pantheon. An(a)tu was in fact the daughter of the ANDREW ( ~ ~ A p f [Ti. a c W H ] 'manly'), one of
primitive god Anu, whose name is mentioned as that Christ's twelve disciples. Like Philip, he bore a
of a Syrian deity in 2 K. 1731 (see A NAMMELECH , Greek name; but so did many Jews of his time, and
S EPHARVAIM ). Of her character as a war-deity there in Dio Cassius (6832) we meet with another instance
can be no doubt. In ancient Egypt, where her cultus of a Jew called Andrew.
was introduced from Syria, she was frequently coupled Besides the account 'of his call (see P ETER ), and
with the terrible war-goddess Astart, and on an Egyptian his inclusion in the iists of the apostles (see APOSTLE,
stele in the British Museum she appears with a helmet on 0 I ) , nothing is said of Andrew in the Synoptics, except
the head, with ashield and a javelin in theright hand, and that, in Mk. 133, he appears as one of the inner circle
brandishing a battle-axe in the left. She was, therefore, within the twelve, for he is one of the four who question
a fit patron-deity for Shamgar or for Sisera. That the Christ 'privately' about the impending ruin of the
fragmentary Israelitish traditions make no direct refer- temple.
ence to her cultus, need not >e matter for surprise. In the Fourth Gospel the picture is more fully drawn,
The names ANATHOTH, BETH-ANATH, B ETH - ANOTH , and in one respect completes and explains the account
compensate us for this omission. Wellhausen thinks of Andrew's call given in the Synoptics. W e read that
that we have also one mention df Anath in Hos. 148[9], he belonged originally to Bethsaida (Jn. 144). that he
where he renders an emended text ' I am his Anath and was n disciple of the Baptist and heard his witness to
his Asherah ' (in clause 2)-surely an improbable view. Christ, that he and a companion (no doubt John) asked
For a less difficult correction see Che. Exp. Times, the wandering teacher where he dwelt, and went with
April 1898. him to his temporary home. Then, having 'found
%or ArLhzeology see Jensen Kosm. 193 2 7 2 3 ; E. Meyer, the Messiah,' Andrew made his brother, Simon Peter, a
ZDMG 31 717 ['77] ; Tiele, G e h . van den Godsdiemt in die sharer in his joy. We next meet with Andrew,
313._ T. K . c.
oudkeid3etc. Cqq), 2 2 4 ; W M M A s . u. Ezir. . on the E. of the lake of Galilee, at the miraculous
ANATHEMA. bee B AN, § 3. feeding of the multitude, on which occasion it is he that
'ANATHOTH (nin!p, a ~ a e w e[BAL]), a town of tells our Lord ( 6 8 J ) of the lad in the crowd who
Benjamin (cp below, z ) , theoretically included by later has 'five barley loaves and two fishes.' Once more,
writers among the so-called Levitical cities (see when the end is near, he shows in a memorable scene
LEVITES), Josh. 21 18 P ; I Ch. 660[45] (arxwx [B], his special intimacy with the Master. When Greeks
-G)C and aNa8w0 rA1, . . E N M ~ W Ll, ~ . Neh.727
.
approach Philip with the 'desire to see Jesus,' it is to
Naewe [ A ; om. Bl). Andrew first that Philip communicates the request
The form of the ethnic varies in edd. and versions2 (cp also which they together lay before Christ (Jn. 122.).
ANTOTHIJAH). ABIEZER,z, is called > c .h p. , z S. 23 27, AV The rest of the N T , apart from the list of the
the ANETHOTHITE (avwOsmp FBI, avahO. [AI, -WOL [Ll), disciples in Acts1 13, is absolutely silent about Andrew.
'niinlY3, I Ch. 27 12 (AV, ANETOTHITE, 6 ?$ avaOo0 [BAL]), Such other tradition as we have is worthless.
Ensebius (HEiii.) speaks of him as preaching in Scythia, and
and finally 'nhly;?, I Ch. 1128 (AV ANTOTHITE, avaOwO[sl~ we have in Andrew's 'Acts' the story of his martyrdom, at
[BA], -00m)r [Ll). The last-mentioned form is used to designate Patrze in Achaia, on a cross shaped like the letter X. Acts
J EHU , in T Ch. 12 3 (6 avaOwO[el~[BAL], +weel [N]; 4, avaOoOsL of Andrew the Apostle were in circulation among the Gnostics
[N] not in Heh. or @BA). R V in each case ANATHOTHITE. of the second century, hut survived only in varions Catholic
The name appears to be the plural of ANATH, and recensions of much later date. Harnack enumerates ( I ) Acta
A n d r e e et Mutihie (and their mission to the Authropophagi)
may refer to some images of that goddess which once in Greek (edited by Tisch. Act. Aposf. Apocryph.), Syriac
stood there. Under the form Anath the place seems (edited by Wright, Apoc. Acts of the Apostles), Ethiopic, and
to be once referred to in the Talmud (Yoma loa), Coptic (fragmentary). The Latin version survives only in its
where its building is assigned to Ahiman the Anakite. influence on the Anglo-Saxon A7zdrem and Elene by Cyne-
wulf, and in the nfiraculu 6. Andree by Gregory of Tours ;
Tradition said that Abiathar, the priest in David's see Lips. Apokv. A#.-gesck. 1 5 4 3 8 , cpp. 27. ( e ) AcfaPetn'et
time, had 'fields' at Anathoth ( I K. 226) ; and Andvee in Greek (fragments edited by Tisch.) as well as in an
Ethiopic) recension and a Slavonic translation (cp Lips. 15533).
1 Reading in Judg. 5 6 , ' I n the days of Shamgar and Ben (3) Marfvrilcnz Andrere in various Greek recensions (one edited
Anath.' T h e notice in 3 31, which is much later than the song by Tisch.), and in Latin (Harnack, Altckrist. L;t. 1 1 2 7 A', cp
(see Moore) is, of course, valueless. Lips.1564fl). A 'gospel of Andrew' is mentioned in the
2 Ba. and Ginsb., however, read everywhere 'nWp (cp the Decretum Gelasii.
former's note on I Ch. 1128). Exceptionally in Sam.'Z.C. Ginsh. ANDRONICUS (ANAPONIKOC [VA; aNhpOylON]
!'h?Y. z Macc. 438 A*). I. The Deputy of Antiochus Epiphanes
'63 164
 ANEM ANGEL.
in Antioch, who (according to 2Macc.431$), at the 6., ;&wular Eph. 6 12) ‘thrones’ (Bp6voi, Col. 116), and
instigation-of Menelaus, put to death the deposed high dominions”(KvpL61?7.F, ’i6.): cp further Cremer, Lex. NT (3)
priest Onias-a deed for which he was himself slain with
08237, and the Heb. and N T Lexicons, s.vv.
ignominy on the return of the king. See MACCABEES, The earliest O T writings contain no definite or
SECOND, 5 3, end.
2. Deputy of Antiochus at Gerizim (2Macc.523).
See MACCABEES, S ECOND , 5 3 , end.
pre-exilic.
ystematic angelology, but indicate a prevalent belief
-2. in %her superhuman -beings besides
YahwA. These were ( I ) the ’other
3. Andronicus and Junias are named in Rom. 167 as [ads ’ or ‘ gods of the nations,’ who were credited with
kinsmen and fellow-prisoners of Paul, as of note among ea1 existence and activity ; cp, e.g.,Nu. 21 zg Judg. 1124
the apostles, and as having been ‘ in Christ ’ before him. md v. Baudissin, Stud. 155-79. ( 2 ) Closely connected
The expression ‘kinsmen,’ if taken literally, seems to vith these were the ‘sons .of God’-is., members of
imply that they were Jews by birth ; ‘ fellow-prisoners,’ he divine guild. There is but one pre-exilic reference
on the hypothesis that Rom. 163-20 belongs really to o these (Gen. 6 2 4), whence it appears that they were
an Ephesian Epistle, has been conjectured by Weiz- lot subject to YahwB, but might break through the
sacker to allude to an imprisonment which they shared iatural order of his world with impunity. (3)
with Paul in Ephesus, most likely in connection with ittendants on YahwB-in Is. 6 some of these attendants
the great ’ affliction ’ ( 2 Cor. 18-11), which ultimately ire termed Seraphim (see S ERAPHIM ), but others
led to his leaving that city (Acts19~3-201); on the iistinct from these seem to be implied ; cp v. 8. In a
application of the term ‘apostle’ to them see iimilar scene ( I K. 2219-22), those who attend YahwA
APOSTLE, 5 3. The name Andronicus was not un- and form his council are termed collectively ‘ the host
common among Greek slaves; and it has been con- )f heaven.’ Such divine councils are also implied in
jectured that this Andronicus may have been the sen. 322 1 1 7 (both J ) ; cp the plurals in these passages
Jewish freedman of a Greek master. Hith that in Is. 68, and the question in I K. 2220. In
In the lists of ‘the seventy disciples’ which we owe to the mother passage (Jos. 5 14$)-the pre-exilic origin of
Pseudo-Dorothens and the Pseudo-Hippolytus Pndronicus is Hhich, however, has been questioned (Kue. Hex. 248
spoken of as bishop of ‘ Pannonia or of ‘Spain. In the frag- ET)-the host of YahwA appears as disciplined and
ments of the (Gnostic) nglo8oL ‘Iod;vov, he and his wife Drusiana inder a captain. According to some, the ‘ hosts ’ in
figure prominently as hosts of the apostle John a t Ephesus, and
he is represented as having been made by that apostle lrp6e8poc, .he phrase ‘YahwA (God of) hosts’-a phrase current
or president of the church of Smyrna. In the Greek church !n early times-were angels (Che. Proph. Is.(5J 1 IT $ ;
Andronicus s: commemorated, along with Crescens, Silas, and see further NAMES, § 123). The original text of
Epznetus, on 30th July. See Lipsins, dpokr. Ap.-gesch.
(Index, p. 184). Deut. 33 zf. contained no reference to angels (see
Dillm. Comm.; cp also Driver). Another element in
ANEM (bJg),I Ch. 673[58]= Josh. 1921 EN-GANNIMsarly Hebrew folklore worthy of notice in the present
(4.a.). :onnectiou is the belief in the horsemen of the air
ANER (72p),I. (Sam. P V Y ; UUYUY [ADEL]; :2 K. 2 12 617). For a parallel in modern Bedouin
JOS. E N N H ~ O C ,a Hebronite) Gen. 141324T. Perhaps folklore cp Doughty, Ar. De. 1449. ‘ T h e nielaika
a local name ; cp Ne‘ir, a hill near k e b r o n ( Z D M G are seen in the air like horsemen, tilting to and fro.’
12479 [158]). The correctness of the name h e r , how- Angelic horsemen play a considerable part in later
ever, is doubtful. The UUYUY of @ points to iyy, Enan literature-e.g., in Zech., Apoc. ’
( ; . e . , place of a spring), a name which may refer to The most noteworthy features, then, of the pre-exilic
one of the six springs near Hebron-e.g., the deep angelology are the following :-(I)except in Gen. 28 32,
spring of Sarah called ‘Ain Jedideh (Baed.(2) 137), at these beings are never termed ‘ angels.’ ‘ Angel ’ occurs
the E. foot of the hill on which ancient Hebrou lay. frequently in the singular, but only in the phrase
2. (upap [B], e v ~ p[A], UY. [L]) a city in Western ‘angel of YahwA’ (more rarely, ‘of God’), which
Manasseh ( I Ch. 670 [ss])-perhaps a corruption of denotes, not a messenger of, and distinct from, YahwA,
T AANACH (iiyn) ; cp Josh. 21 25. T. K. C. but a manifestat‘ion of YahwA himself in human form
(see THEOPHANIES, 4). Kosters treats even Gen.
ANETHOTHITE, ANETOTHITE. See ANA- 2810-1217 32r[z] 181J 191f: as statements of the
THOTH, I. manifestation of the one God in many forms (cp WRS
ReL Sem. 426f., 2nd etl. 445f.), and concludes that,
ANGEL. The English word ‘ angel ’ is a transcrip-
before the Exile, i,& was used exclusively of appear-
tion of & y y e ? ~ ~@‘s s , ~ translation of Heb. ma2’6kh
ences of YahwA. Against this, Schultz’s reference
The Eiiglish word denotes ( O T T h e o L 2219) to 1S.299 2S.1417 19z7[28] is not
(THh). superhuman
1. Names. primarily beings ; but both quite conclusive. ( 2 ) These attendants on YahwB are
the Hebrew and the Greek terms are quite general, not also messengers to men. Even if the angels of
and, signifying simply messenger, are used indifferently Gen. 28 32 be distinct from God, they bring no
of human or superhuman beings.l Other terms, less message. For such a function there was no need so
ambiguous in this particular respect, also occur. long as YahwB himself appeared to men. ( 3 ) Beside
These are: ‘gods’ (oT~)N, cp Ps.85[6], and see AV, R V these subordinate divine beings that attend YahwB,
mg. ib. 8 2 1 6 977 1381), sons of [the] godcsl’ ( o , n s ~ [ n l932, but have no relations with men, there are other beings
cp Gen. 6 2 4 Job 1 6 2 I 38 7, or 0 . s ~ $33, Ps. 29 I 89 6 171, E V
text), ‘[sons of] the mighty,’ ‘mighty ones’ (0’1’3~, Ps. 78 2 5 , cp (‘other gods,’ ‘sons of the gods’) which are not
iJ. 103 20, nj ,fxs), ‘holy ones ’ ( ~ * d y i Jb.
) , 5 T Ps. 89 5 [6]Zech. subject to YahwB, and do enter into relations with men.
1 4 5 Dan.414[171813), ‘watchers’ ( i ~ y Dan.414[17]).
, ‘host Comparatively few as are the early references to
of heaven (n’sdn ~ 2 3I, K. 22 19 Dt. 17 3), ‘host of the height angels or kindred beliefs (cp DEMONS, 5 I), they are
(uj>n N ~ S Is., 24 21)) or ‘host of Yahwk’ (n)n. N ~ S ,Josh. 5 14, 3. Later. yet such as to justify us in attributing a
cp use of N ~ Lin ; Ps.103~11482 Neh.96, aud ‘God’s camp,’
comparatively rich folk-lore on these matters
n& n3nn, Gen.322[31). In the case of Ps.6817 [IS] (&a to the early Hebrews ; but it is not until the exilic and
i ~ p j )we owe the AV rendering ‘thousands of angels’ to old
post-exilic periods that angels come into prominence
Heb. tradition (Tirg. Saad. and Abulw.), which treated the
difficult ~ l t gas a synonym of i,& (cp Del., ad Zoc.). RV theologically. They do so then in consequence of the
i maturing belief, on the one hand, in the transcendence
‘thousands upon thousands ’ is equally hazardous : cp Dan. 7 IO.
In the N T also we find other terms in use : ‘ spirits ’ (rrvedpara, of Yahwb, on the other, in his supremacy. The develop-
Heh. 114), ‘principalities’ ( k p p i , Rom. 8 38), ‘powers’ (Svvdpc~s ment of angelology at this time must also have been
favoured by the contact of the Jews with the Persians ;
1 Karppe ( / o r m . As. ser. ix., 9 128) reads 75n, a derivative and some details of the later doctrine may be due to
of 757 as if ‘the walker’=‘the messenger ’ or Yahwk marching the same influence-e.g., the naming of angels, although
(Is. $3)r, SBOT)as opposed to Yahwk mdunted on the cherub
(Ps. 18 I O [II]). the great majority of the names themselves (as in
165 166
 ANGEL ANGEL
Enoch 6 69) are quite clearly Hebraic, though of a late references to the ‘seven spirits of God’ (Rev. 45 cp
type (cp H P N , p. 210). 8 2 ) , and to Michael (Jude9 Rev. 127) and Gabriel (Lk.
drith the growing sense of YahwB‘s transcendence, 1 x 9 ) ; probably also in the use of several terms together,
belief in his self-manifestation in human form ceased ; in certain passages (e& , thrones, dominions, principali-
and thus the phrase ‘angel of YahwP,’ set free from ties, powers, Col. 116), and perhaps in the term ‘elect
its old meaning, now came to denote one of the beings angels ’ ( I Tim. 5 2 ~ ) .
intermediate between YahwP and men. At first it was The doctrine of YahwB‘s supremacy involved either
apparently the title of a particular angel (Zech. 1rxf: ), but an absolute denial of the existence of other super-
subsequently it became a quite general term (note the pl. human beings or their subordination to him. To the
Ps. 10320, cp 347[S] and N‘Y passim). It is now by latter method of accommodation post-exilic angelology
angels, and no longer directly, that Yahwi: communicates owes some striking features. Thus, the patron angels
with men-even prophets. The experience of Ezekiel of nations (clearly referred to in Dan. 101320 121,
marks the transition-YahwP speaks to him, sometimes probablyalso in Is. 2 4 2 1 8 Joel 3[4]rr Pss. 82 5810; see
directly (442), sometimes through another (403). With Che. Book of PsnhznsP) 229 8 and comm.) are merely
Zechariah the change is complete. H e never sees the ancient ‘ gods of the nations ‘-for which, in this
Yahwi: ; he receives all divine instructions through angels connection, cp especially Dt. 419 2925 f: 338 @-trans-
(contrast Am. 7f.). Daniel receives the explanation of formed to suit the. new doctrine. Again, the ‘sons of
his visions in the same way; and in N T , warnings or the Elohim ’-formerly independent of YahwP, whose
other communications of the divine will are given by laws they broke with impunity-now become identified
angels (Mt. 1 2 0 213, Lli. 119, ActslO330). The angels with the angels (cp Ps. 29 I with 10320, and b ’ s transla-
thus become the intermediaries of YahwB‘s revelation ; tion of Gen. 62 [not L] Job16 etc., cp also Lk. 2036) ;
but they are also the instruments of his aid (Ps. 9111 as such they constitute his council and do his bidding
Dan. 328, and frequently ; cp later, z Macc. 116 3 Macc. (Job 1 6 21 ; cp Zech. 1113).Similarly, the host of
GrS, Susan. 4 2 8 [in LXX, but not in Theod.], Bel heaven, which in the later years of the monarchy had been
and Drag. 34-39 ; cp Acts 82639J Tobit, passi?n, Acts favourite objects of worship (cp, e.g., Zeph. 1 5 Jer. 82
12 7 8 , and especially Heb. 114), or punishment ( Ps. Dt. 4 rg), and therefore rivals of YahwP, now again
78493555 Enoch533 611 6.211 631 Apoc. Rar.2123 become subject to him and do him homage (Neh. 9 6) ; he
Rev. 6 J , also in @ Job2015 3323 4011 [v. 6 in Heb. is as supreme over them as over men (Is. 45 12, cp 40 26) ;
and EV] and see further below, 5 5). Especially he is equally supreme over all gods (e..$, cp Ps. 964).
prominent in the apocalyptic literature is the cognate On the other hand, the difficulty with which Yahwe‘s
b-lief in the intercession of angels with God, in behalf claim to universal worship against all others was
of the righteous, or against the unrighteous : see, e.g., 5. Supremacy established-is also reHected in the new
Enoch 910 152 406 (where the function is specially incomplete. angelology. YahwB‘s supremacy over
referred to Gabriel, 4069 ; yet cp also Tob. 121zr; where the ‘gods,’ or the ‘host of heaven,‘
Raphael intercedes) 993r6 1041 Rev. 83f. Cp also in was won and maintained only by force (Job 252 cp
O T , Zech. 1 1 2 Job 51 3323 Eccles.56[5], and perhaps 2122 Is. 2421 3445 ; cp 271-for the passages in Job
in NT, Mt. 1810, unless this be a case of angelic see Davidson’s, for those in Isaiah, Cheyne’s Cumnz.).
guardianship. This incomplete assimilation of the ‘ other gods ’ etc.
In other respects also, the later angelology shows the to beings wholly subservient to YahwP, combined with
influence of the growing sense of YahwB‘s transcendence : a growing dislike to attribute evil or disorder directly
4. Supremacy the angels, exalted far above men by to him, led to the differentiation of angels as beneficent
or maleficent (see DEMONS, § 5, SATAN, 5 3 ) ; but the
of yahwB, the functions just mentioned, are them-
selves abased before God (lob 418). O T nowhere lays stress on the moral character of
The awful exaltation of even angels above-men, is angels, or knows anything of their ‘fall.’ Conse-
prominent in Daniel (Dan. 816-18 10165). The connt- quently, angels were divided not into good and bad,
less number of the angels is emphasised (Job 3323, Dan. 7 but into those who worked wholly, and those who worked
Io, and later, Enoch 401 718 Mt. 2653 Heb. 1222 Apoc. only partly, in obedience to God. This latter division
Bar. 4810 5111 591r), and they are divided into ranks. still seems to hold its own in N T alongside of the former ;
Even in Zech. the angel of YahwP is a ‘ kind of grand and, for this reason, in passages such as Rom. 838
vizier receiving the report of (less exalted) angels’ I Cor. 15245, the question ‘Are the angels referred to
(Smend). This conception of ranks becomes, later, good or bad 7 ’ is probably ont of place (cp Everling).
more detailed] (see Dan. 1013 121 Tob. 1215, and For several centuries after the Exile the belief in
Enoch--e.g., chap. 40), and creates in Gk. the term angels did not gain equal prevalence in all circles : thus
Cipxdyy~Aos(see Charles, Book ofEnoch, p. 67 ; I Thes. 6. Schools P never mentions them (on Gen. 1 2 6 21 see
416 Jude 9 ) ; it may be traced farther, in NT, in the Dillm. ) ; the Priestly Chronicler does so but
Of rarely-save when quoting directly from his
1 [The influence of non-Jewish upon Jewish beliefs can here sources-and Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and
scarcely he denied. These are the facts of the case : I n Daniel
(1013) we hear of a class of ‘chief princes two of whom Maccabees, are marked more by the absence than by
(GABRIEL and MICHAEL, 11) are named (chais. 10-12. cp also the presence of such references ; ‘Angel’ does not
R APHAEL and URIEL). In Tob. (12 15) the numher of &e ‘holy occur in the Hebrew of Ecclus. 4821. Still later the
angels who present the prayers of the saints, and g o in before
the glory of the Holy One,’ is given as seven (if the text is differences become conspicuous ; the Sadducees were
correct). I n Enoch the number of the chief angels varies credited with complete scepticism (Acts23S) ; the
between, three, four, six, and seven (see chaps. 20 40 2 78 I 89 I ESSENES ( p . v . , § 3) attached an exaggerated importance
902131, and other passages). Manifestly this highest class of to the doctrine; the popular Pharisaic party and all
angels was suggested by the Zoroastrian Amesha Spentas
or Amshaspands (‘immortal holy ones’), who (like the counsel. the N T writers share, in general, the popular beliefs.
lors of the king of Persia Ezra 7 14) are seven. and this seems to Yet in John angels are alluded to only in 2012 151
he confirmed b y the refirence to the archaniels in the Book of (a passage based on an O T narrative), 1229 (a saying of
Tobit, which also mentions the Zend name of the chief demon
(see AskIoDEus). I n referring to this Iranian belief, however, we the populace), and the intrusive verse.54; the epistles
must not forget the possibility that i t is to some extent contain no mention of them (cp the comparative
historically connected with Babylonian spirit-lore. T h e cultus infrequency of references in John to demons (p.v., 6 ) .
of the seven planets is no doubt primeval in Babylonia, and Several features of N T angelology have been already
may have spread thence to the Iranian peoples. To explain
the beliefin the archangels solely from Babylonian sources would incidentally discussed ; they are common to both Jewish
he plausible only if the Zoroastrian Gathas, which are pervaded 7. and Christian writings. Scarcely less
b y the belief in the Amshaspands, were not earlier than the
time of Philo. For this hold theory see Darmesteter L e and NT. inHuentia.1 over the writers of the N T
than the O T were the apocalypses then
Zenu‘uwstu 3 56 (‘93), etc. : hut contrast the same wrher’s
earlier theory in S B E (Z~ndanesin,i. Introd.).-~.l~c.] already extant-especially Enoch. It is in Enoch we
167 168
 ANGEL ANKLETS
first see elaborated a doctrine of the ‘fall’ of angels. 387 Is. 344, and, in general, the double meaning
The fall is regarded as the punishment for the intercourse attaching to the phrase ‘host of heaven’); and the
mentioned in Gen. 62-4, and for an improper revelation transition from Ps. 1044 to a fixed belief in elemental
of ‘the secret things of the world’ (cp in N T Jude 6 angels is easy. . See P ERSIA.
2 Pet. 24). Through their fall they become inferior The literature of the subject is large ; all the Old and New
to men, who therefore judge them (En. 144-7 152 ; cp Testament Theologies contain discussions. on the OT Piepen.
bring’s ThPoZ. de I’anl-ien Tesi. ;E88 (ET
I Cor. 63 Heh. 2). Enoch should be especially com- 10. Literature. New York, ’93) and Smend’sA T ReL-geich:
pared with Revelation. (‘93) are specially helpful. The chief mono-
The influence of the O T may be clearly seen in the graphs for the OT are by Kosters (‘De Mal’ach Yahwk’ and
N T angelophanies, which seem modelled on those of ‘ Het ontstaan en de ontwikkeling der Angelologie onder h a 6 1
Th.T.9 367-415 [’751. 10 34-69 113-141 [‘76]; for the Pauline
the early OT narratives,-only that now, under the Doctrine, by Everling ( D i e PauliniscLe Angeldogie und
influence of the later development, the angel is quite DAmonologie [‘SEI). On the vocabulary of the subject see M.
distinct from God (Acts103f: is not an exception). Schwab Vocadnlaire de I’nngHoZogie d‘ajds manuscrits
hdheux) (Paris, ’97). The question of foreign influence is dis-
These angelophanies abound in the nativity and re- cussed by Kohut (Ueber d. fud. An@oZogie u. UnnonoIogik k
surrection narratives and in Acts (519 826-40 103-7 30-32 ikrer AbhAng&keit uom Parsismus); for further literature on
127-11 2723), but are conspicuous by their absence from this point see Che. OPs 282. See further the valuable discus-
the narratives of the life of Christ-the badly attested sions of Montefiore (Hibb. Lect. viii., esp. p. 4298), and Cheyne
(OPE312-327, 334-337), and cp Lueken, MichaeZ (‘98).
passage Lk. 2243 being unique, except so far as Mt. G . B. G .
411 =Mk. 113 (contrast Lk. 4 4 3 ) may be considered ANGLE (Is. 198Hab. 1 IS). See H OOK , 3, F IS H , 1 3.
parallel.
Jesus accepts the popular belief in the existence of ANIAM (n$’Jv, surely not ‘ mourning of the people ’
angels, but never (even in Mt.1810 or 2653) counte-
8. Jesus. nances the belief that they influence life in
[Ges.], but miswritten [see aB] for o g h ~ ,see ELIAM;
differently Gray, HPN 44 n. I , who would omit ,, and
the present-perhaps in the parable of the
derive from or1 ; A A I A A E I M P I , A N I A M [AI, E N . [Ll),
wheat and the tares (Mt. 1324-30 37-40) he directly in genealogy of MANASSEH ( I Ch. 7 1st). T. K . c.
discountenances it. All he says of them has reference
to themselves alone, or to their relations to men after ANIM (n’??, AICAM [El, A N E I M [AI, -IB LLI),
life. Thus, at the second coming they will accompany Josh. 1550+, a hill town of Judah, mentioned after
the Son of Man (Mt. 1627 and parallels ; Jn. 151), and
will then separate the good from the evil (t.g.,Mt. 1 341 ;
Eshtenioa (a name equally distorted in an).
Perhaps
the modern el-Ghuwein, which lies to the south of
cp Lk. 16.2). They do not marry (Mt. 2230, and el-Khalil (Hebron) between es-SemE‘ and Tell ‘Ar5d.
parallels) ; their knowledge is limited (Mt. 2436=Mk.
lS32); and they rejoice over repentant sinners (Lk. ANISE ( b N H B o N LTi. WH], Mt. 2323j‘) or DILL(RV
1 5 ~ 0 cpLk.128f.,withwhichcontrastMt.l032f.,
; and mg.) is the plant A n e f h u m gmz~eolens.~The correct
cp earlier, Job 3323). In particular, Jesus breaks away rendering is ‘dill,’z and the plant is distinct from
from the prevailing tendency to make angels the inter- PimpimZZa Anisztm, which is the modern ‘ anise.’ The
mediaries of revelation : he himself becomes the sole biblical plant is described (Fluckiger and Hanbury’s
revealer (Mt. 1 1 2 7 Jn. 1 7 6 ; cp 1 4 6 8 ) , he will himself Phar~nacog~aphia P) 327 f.), as ‘ an erect, glaucous
always be with his disciples (Mt. 2820), and will instruct annual plant, with finely striated stems, usually one foot
them directly (Lk. 21 I S ) , or through the Spirit whom to one foot and a half in height, pinnate leaves with
he sends (Jn. 1526 141726). Thus this part of the setaceous linear segments, and yellow flowers. It is
doctrine of angels was doomed to give way to the indigenous to the Mediterranean region, Southern Russia,
Christian doctrines of the abiding presence of Christ and the Caucasian provinces, but is found as a corn-
and of the Holy Spirit. It still survives, however, in field weed in many other countries, and is frequently
Revelation (11 171 219 ; cp also in the contemporary cultivated in gardens.’
Jewish Apoc. Bar. 553, ‘ T h e angel Ramid who pre- It is mentioned in Mt. 2323, along with mint
sides over true visions ’) ; also in Acts ( I O 3 3 27231) and cumniin,4 as being subjected by the scribes and
-yet here alongside of the new belief (10 13-16). Paul Pharisees to tithe. This practice accords with the
already shows the influence of the teaching of general principle stated. at the commencement of the
9. Jesus-he claims to receive his gospel direct Mishnic tract on ‘ tithes ’ (‘ Whatsoever is food, and is
from him (Gal. 11215 f:: cp Acts93-6)-but still shares private possession, and has its increase out of the earth,
(Gal. 319) the common belief (Acts 753 Heb. 22 Jos. is subject to tithe’-a rule based on the precept of
A n t . xv. 53 ; cp Dt. 332a) in the past instrumentality Deut. 1422, ‘ Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of
of angels in revelation, perhaps also in the present thy seed, that which conieth forth of the field year by
possibility of the same (Gal. 1 8 ; cp? 414). With him, too, year’), and the liability of dill in particular to tithe is,
angels still play a large part in human-life ; his own in the Talmud, specially mentioned (see the references
practice and practical exhortations are governed by in Celsius, Hierobot. 1497). N . M.-W. T. T.-D.
this belief ( I Cor. 49 63 1110).An emphatic warning, ANKLETS and ANKLE-CHAINS. These have
however, is uttered against a practice (which was ever been favourite ornaments among Orientals. Proh-
springing up in some quarters) of worshipping angels ably the oldest specimens are some in gold and
(Col. 218 cp Rev. 1910). In the same epistle the silver which have been found in Egypt, where they
creation of angels is asserted (116)-a point to which, appear to have been worn by men as well as women.
as might be expected, no reference had been made in The chains obliged the wearers to take short and
OT, where they are once mentioned as being present at tripping steps. T o enhance the effect, bells were (at
thc creation of the world, Job387 (in Jewish literature,
1 The Syriac and the Arabic versions correctly render by the
cp Jub. 2 z Apoc. Bar. 21 6). The question whether word shZbheiid, shidiit-a name for this plant which is probably
Paul associated angels with cosmical forces turns on derived from Persian (see Low, 373).
the interpretation of ~b U T O L X E ? ~ 700 K~U/.LOU, Gal. 43 2 This though supplanted by ‘anise’ in all the English
Col. 2 8 2 0 (see, on the one hand, Lightfoot, in Zoc., on versjons ’from Wyclif onwards, is the yord used in the A.S.
version ‘myntan and diZe and cymmyn.
the other, Everling, as cited below, and cp ELEMENTS). 3 Vkgil gives it a place in the flower-garden (Ecl. 248), and
Such an association would, at least, have accorded with Pliny in the vegetable-garden (HNxix. 8 52). Cp t h e Greek re&
the tendency of the time : note the angels of binds, in Liddell and Scott.
4 In the parallel passage in Lk. (1142) dill,is not mentioned-
sun, fire, and water, etc. (Rev.71 1917 1418 16 cp ‘mint and rue and every herb ( n h hkxavou).
Heb. 1 7 and Jn. 54, and, somewhat earlier, Enoch 5 Cp Ar. hal/idZ, and Gk. mpaa$dpiov and neprmshls, the
60 11 8 61 IO). The tendency began much earlier ; in latter of which is @‘s rendering of t h e Heb. D&!!l (in the plur.
the O T angels and stars are closely associated (cp Job or dual) ‘breeches.’
169 170
 ANNA ANOINTING
any rate, in later times) attached to the chain-a practice n. 11 49-52,he became also an involuntary prophet as to
which is alluded to in terms of disapproval in *the.K a h n rhat the death of Jesus meant.l With regard to his
( S u r .243~). Ornaments of this nature are referred to haracter in general, the accounts accessible to us give
in Is. 3 18. o details.
They are here called D’D?&1 RV ‘ anklets,’ AV ‘ tinkling orna- The most important personality in the group would
ments’ (@ ; p r A 6 ~ c a ) a, word from which comes the denominative ppear to have been old ANNAS. This seems to be
verb in ZI. 16(nl~3yno;l.hi> ‘they q a k e a tinkling with their ufficiently implied in the fact that four of his sonsa
feet,’ @ ral<oumaL). Similar is Is.3zot, R V ‘ankle nd a son-in-law successively held the high- priestly
chains,’ AV ‘ornaments of the legs,’ B uncertain (cp Targ. ,ffice-whether we assume that Annas expressly wrought
E(,\>, q * w ) ; c p ;nys.u, Nu. 31 50, R V as above, AV ‘chains,’ B 3r this end, or whether it was simply because those in
XALSWV. I n spite of Its apparently obvious connection with i y x lower sought by this means to win him over to theni-
‘to walk,’ my3 is applied also to ornaments worn on the arms : elves. Only on the assumption that he was, in truth,
see BRACELET, 5.
he real manager of affairs, can we account for it that,
ANNA [BHA]), the Greek form of the name ccording to Jn. 1813-24, he gave a private hearing in
H ANNAH . he case of Jesus, as also that Lk. (Lk. 32) names him
I. Wife of Tobit (Tob. 1 9 8 ) . .s colleague with. Caiaphas, and (Acts 46) enumerates
2. Daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher (Lk. iim in the first place, along with Caiaphas and two
236-38). Like Simeon, she represents the class of ,f his high-priestly sons, as holding high-priestly rank.
those who ’ waited for the consolation of Israel,’ and, Ither instances, however, of a similar co-ordination of
like him, she is said to have had the gift of prophecy. mst high priests are not unknown; for example, in
Being constantly in the temple, and prepared for the he case of Jonathan, son of Annas (BY ii. 125f:), of
honour by fastings and prayers, she was enabled to Inanias son of Nedebaios (Ant.xx. 9 2-9; see A NANIAS ,
meet the child Jesus and his parents, when, like )), and of the younger Ananos and Jesus son of Gamaliel,
Simeon, she burst into a prophetic song of praise. ,oth of whom were high priests for some time during
She is also, it would seem, a prototype of the he years 62-65, and had the conduct of affairs in their
‘ widows indeed ’ (see W IDOW ) of the early Christian lands during the first period of the Jewish wars. .
community (I Tim. 5 59) : hence the particularity with The Annas (Ananos) just mentioned, son of Annas,
which the circumstances of her widowhood are described. ippointed in 62 A. D. by Agrippa II., availed himself of
T h e name Anna or Anne became common among Christians h e confusion following on the death of Festus to procure
from the tradition that the niother of the Virgin Mary was so
called. .he death of his enemies by tumultuary sentence. Among
.he victims of his tyranny was, it would seem, James,
ANNAAS (c&N&&c [A]), I Esd. 523 AV=Ezra235 .he brother of the Lord. The passage relating to it in
SENAAH. [osephus (2O91), however, may perhaps be a Christian
nterpolation (see J AMES , 3, end). In any case, the
ANNAS (&NNAC [A]), I Esd. 932 RV [Heb. )?Q, ting himself, even before the arrival of the new pro-
§ 501 = Ez. 10 31 HARIM. :mator, put an end to Annas’s reign of terror by
leposing him from the high-priesthood after a tenure of
ANNAS and CAIAPRAS (ANNAC [Ti. W H ] ; Khi- .hree months. H. v. S.
&@&c[Ti. WH]). In 6 A.D. Quirinius, who on the de-
position of Archelaus became governor of Syria, followed ANNIS, (ANNEIC [B]). I Esd. 516 RV, RVmg.
the custom of the Herodian family and appointed a new Bnnias, AV ANANIAS( q.n., I).
high priest. His choice fell on a certain Ananos (so in
Josephus) or Annas (so in N T ) , son of Sethi (Jos. Z d i ) ANNUUS (ANNOYNON [A], om. BL), I Esd. 848, a
who continued to hold the office until the change of name not in Ezra 8 rg-in Ezra’s caravan (see E ZRA , i.
government in 15 A . D . Valerius Gratus, who succeeded $ 2 , ii. § 15 ( I ) d)-supposed by some to be a corruption
Quirinius, gave the post in succession to three men, none 3f ‘ with him’ (InK) in Ezra, which may itself be a mis-
of whom, however, held it for more than a year. The read sign of the accusative (so
second of the three was a son of Annas, called ANOINTING. In the OT two distinct Hebrew terms,
Eleazar by Josephus (Ant.xviii. 22). Atlast, in 18 A.D., frequently occurring, are translated in EV by ‘ anoint,’
Valerius found in Joseph, called Caiaphas, one who was
strong enough to hold the office till 36 A.D. Then
Vitellius (35-39 A.D.) once more, in 36 and 37,
*’ while a third ( p ~ is )incorrectly so under-
Terms* stood in Ps. 2 6 by Targ. and Syni. and
also by Ewald (cp We. Heid.(’) 118). ( u ) $ 1 ~( S U A )
appointed, one after the other, two sons of Annas is always (Dt. 2840 Ruth 3 3 2 S. 1220 142 2Ch. 2815
named Jonathan and Theophilus (Ant.xviii. 435 3). Ezek. 169 Dan. l o 3 Mic. 615) used of the application of
Jonathan still held a prominent position in 50-52 (BJ unguents to the human body as a matter of toilet, and
ii. 125f.), a point of which We have good proof in the hence Ex.3032 means that .the holy anointing oil
fact that Felix caused him to be assassinated (BJii. 13 : shall not be used for ordinary toilet purposes. (6) n&
Ant. xx. 8 s ) . As in Acts 46, Annas, Caiaphas, Jonathar (nzishu&)and its derivatives.3 In this case we have to
(so D ; the other MSS have Joannes, E V J OHN ), ant distinguish between the primary physical, and a secondary
A LEXANDER are assigned high-priestly rank, and the firs1 and metaphorical use. In its physical sense n t h is used
three can be identified from Josephus, JONATHAN being i ( I ) rarely, probably with the retention of the original
son, and CAIAPHAS, according to Jn. 1813,a son-in-law meaning of the root, of rubbing an unguent or other
of Annas, we seem to have good reason for conjecturinl substance on an object,--e.g., oil on shields (Is. 21 5
Alexander to be the Graecised name of Eleazar the sor 1 I t has heen suggested that the reference to his prophesying
of Annas. may have arisen out of a popular etymology of Caiaphas, cp Ar.
CAIAPHAS, then, was the acting high priest at thc &ri’if=soothsayer (‘qui movit vestigia e t indicia rerum, physio-
time of the trial of Jesus. His long term of office show! gnomus,’Freyt.) .cp Nestle ZWTh. 40 149,and seeDalm. Gram.
rz7, n. 4. Blass’thinks thHt Nestle has upset the etymology
that in his relations with the Romans he must havi
from ~(3-3 ‘stone’ and K?;? ‘oppression,’ by showing that the
been obsequious and adroit. Mk. and Lk. do no
name in Aramaic is written with p not 3.
mention him in their account of the passion; but ii 2 The fourth, Matthias, was ippointed to the office f0r.a
Jn. 1149 1813 f: 2428 and Mt. 26357, we read that hi short time, between 41 and 44. by Agrippa; perhaps Annas dld
presided over the proceedings of the Synedrium; hi not live to see this, and certainly he did not survive to see the
priesthood held by his fifth son, Ananos 11. (in 62 A.D.).
therefore it was who rent his clothes. According tc 3 On these, as well as on several matters referred to in the
course of this article, Weinel’s study ‘nwn und seine Derivate’
1 Cp D!g a fetter(?) in Pr.722, the pr. name 3pJp (sei ( Z A TW 15 1-82 [‘gE])should he consulted. Unfortunately, i t
ACHSAH) and the Ar. ‘i&s a chain connecting the head ani appeared too late to be used in the preparation of the present
forefoot of a came!-the n s u h method of hobbling the animal. article.
171 172
 ANOINTING ANOINTING
2 S. l z r ) , paint on a ceiling, Jer. 2214 (here translated 916 2 K. 2330 Ecclus. 46r3), and so frequently of the
in EV by ' painted '),-and probably we should interpret Hebre\yJjhgs to whom the term ' Messiah of Yahwk'
the word similarly in the recurring phrase (e.g., in Ex. belonged pre-eminently, if not exclusively, in the days
29 2 ) ' wafers unleavened anointed with oil ' ; ( 2 ) of the 3f the monarchy and even later (Lam. 420) ; for the
application of unguents to persons or things as a religious anointing of a Syrian king (by a Hebrew prophet) see
r i t e ; for details see below (I z),
3 but obsetve that, I K. 1915, and cp the general reference in Judg. 9815,
with the possible1 exception of Am.66, nciio i s never and Am. Ta6. 376 ' Manahbi(r)ia, king of Egypt, .. .
used in the sense of $ 1 ~ . In its metaphorical sense zstablished my father . . . over the kingdom, and
is used of the divine appointment or selection of a poured oil on his head.' ( 6 ) The prophet. How far it
man for a particular purpose--vir., for the kingship was usual to anoint a prophet we cannot say ; but we
( r S . 1 0 1 1517 2S.127 z K . 9 3 6 1 2 PS.457[8] 8920[21] have one allusion (in a narrative of the 9th br 8th
2 Ch. 227 ; cp below, § 5). For the relation of the term cent.) to such an anointing which cannot be reasonably
n'dn to the usages under discussion see MESSIAH, § I. explained away ; if ' anoint' in I K. 19 1.58 16a be literal,
' Anoint' in Ps. 92 IO [I.] corresponds to Heb. h2 in it would be unnatural to consider it id w.166 (as in
Ps. 235 it corresponds to ; ' anointing' in the prob- Is. 61 I) metaphorical ; cp Ecclus. 488. (c) T h e priest.
ably corrupt passage Is. 1027 corresponds to (@BR*Q References to the anointing of priests, as part of the
rite of consecration, are numerous in P. W e have to
om. ) and ' anointed ones ' in Zech. 4 14 (AV but RV '
distinguish, however, between those passages which refer
' sons of oil ' ; @ B R A 0 uioi 74s mbrqros) to i;?p'n XI. to the anointing of the high priest (Aaron) alone, and
I n N T the EV also confuses two sharply distinguished those which refer to the anointing of the priests in general
terms. xpiw, which in the LXX, as in classical Greek, (for the former cp Ex. 297 Lev. 812 620[13], and, outside
may be used in a physical sense, is in the N T used ez- P, Ps. 1332 Ecclus. 4515; for the latter, Ex.3030
clzlsiwely (Lli. 4 18 [cp Is. 61 I] Acts 427 1 0 38 2 Cor. 1 2 1 ) 4013-15). It seems probable that passages of the
of God in a metaphorical sense; for we can hardly latter class are secondary (cp We. C N 141f: ; Di. on
regard the quotation from Ps. 457 [SI in Heb. 1g as an Lev. 810-12 ; Nowack, Arch. 2 124). In this case the
exception. The derivatives xplupca ( I Jn. 22027) and anointing of the high priest may be inferred to have
xpiurbs are used similarly ; but the compounds 2yxplw been an earlier custom than that of anointing all
(Rev.318 also Tob.68[9]118) and h x p I w (Jn.9611) priests. This would acconnt for the origin of the term
retain the original physical sense. n*don r>In, ' the Bnointed priest' applied to the high
Thus the N T use of xpio resembles the meta- priest (Lev. 43516 622[15]; cp Nu. 3525 Lev.2lrorz
phorical use of niLin. The other N T term, dhel+w, is 2 Macc. 1IO, and perhaps Dan. 9z5J), and for its subse-
always used of the application of unguents to the body, quent disappearance when all priests were anointed (cp
whether (like the Heb. 7 3 which ~ it frequently represents, n m h n ~ q n Nu.x 3 3). W e may infer from Zech. 414 that
e.g., Ruth 33 Micah 615, cp also 2 K. 4 z @BAL) for the&tom of anointing the high priest was at least as
toilet purposes (Mt. 617 Lk. 73846 Jn. 11z ) , or medicin- ancient as the close of the sixth century ; but we have
ally (Mk. 613 Ja. 5r4), or as a tribute of respect to no earlier evidence. On the other hand, the contrast
the dead (Mk. 161 cp Jn. 1 2 3 ~ ) . ~ between a priest and ' YahwB's anointed ( I S. 235-a '
From the foregoing analysis of the terms, it will Deuteronomic passage), and the different terms in
be clear that 'anointing' was practised by the which the Chronicler ( I Ch. 2922) and the earlier
Hebrews both for secular and for sacred historian ( I K. 235) refer to Zadolr's appointment, are
2.
purposes. The unguent used was olive oil, worthy of attention. Cp further (for some differences of
with or without the addition of aromatic spices; for view) Baudissin, Die Gesch. des AT Priesterthu?izs 25~. f.
details see OIL. Anointing formed among the Hebrews, 48J. 140253.
asamong manyotherpeoples (cp, e.g., P1. NNxiii. L6), Lifeless objects also were anointed. ( a ) Gen. 2818
a regular part of a full toilet, being in particular
3113 3514 are, as far as O T is concerned, isolated
associated with washing (Ruth 33 Ezek. 169 Sus. 17) ; 4. Lifeless references to the anointing of sacredpillars
the omission of it was a sign of mourning, the (see MASSEBAH) ; but the custom was well-
resumption of the practice a sign that mourning was known in antiquity (cp Di. on Gen. 2818 ;
o v e r ( z S . 1 4 ~Dan.l03[cp Mt.6171 zS.12zo.Judithl03 W R S ReL Sem.P) 232). , (6) The tabernacle and its
cp Is. 61 3 Eccl. 9 8) ; and hence ' to anoint ' is a suitable appurtenances. P contains directions or statements
figure for ' t o make glad' (Ps. 235 cp 457[8]). The about anointing ' the tent of meeting ' and all its furniture
head and face appear to have been most usually anointed (which is mentioned in detail, Ex.3026), or 'the
(Ps. 10415 Judith 1610 Mt. 617 Lk. 738 cp Ps. 235 1415 tabernacle and all that is therein' (Ex. 409 Lev. 810
Eccles. 98), and the anointing of the feet to have been a Nu. 7 I ) , as part of the rite of consecration. Special
special luxury (Lk. 746 Jn. U3). The medicinal use of reference is made to the anointing of the altar (Nu.
unguents is referred to not only in Ja. 514' Mk. 613, 710 84 88). In Dan. 924 we find an allusion to the
but also in Is. 1 6 Llr. 1034. On anointing the dead anointing of ' the most holy ' (probably= the altar) in
see EMBALMING. the reconsecration after the pollution of the temple by
Leaving the significance of anointing as a religious Antiochus Epiphanes.
rite to a final section, we will here simply classify the
_ I
N T contains no reference to anointing as a religious
3. Religious persons or objects which we& so
rite, unless, indeed, we ought to infer from Mk. 613
rite: anointing anointed ; and first the persons. (f) Ja. 5 14 that magical -and so far religious -pro-
The Riq. In the OT, especially in perties were attributed to the oil used in anointing
Of persons' the earlier writinps. there are numerous
Y
the sick (as distinct from the wounded, Lk. 1034) ;
references to the anointing of kings (cp, e.g., I S. 16 3 IZ but before the close of the second century A.D. it had
1 Possible, hut hardly probable (cp Ges.-Bu., S.V. n&). The come to form part of the ceremony of baptism. See
feast described in the context is sacrificial : see v. 4 and cp Smith and Cheetham, Dict. of Christ. Antip., S . ~ U D .
WRS ReZ. Senz.P) 241, 258, 430 n. 4, and note that the word
used in v. 6 for bowl ( ~ 1 1 ~is) elsewhere exclusively used in ' Chrism,' ' Unction' ; Mayor's Comnt. on James
connection with sacrifice. cp Driver (ad roc.) who however, (on 514).
takes the passage as a deicription of effeminate iuxnr;. Anointing occurs repeatedly as a metaphorical term
2 The text, however, is very questionable. Many(e.g. Cheyne, to express a religious idea. As we have seen ( I ) the
Psalms P),'Baethgen), following @BW*RT Sym. Jer., point '?5? 5. Metaphors. Heb. term (ntjn) is sometimes an3 the
instead of ?h,and translate 'my old age' or 'my wasting N r term ( x p i w ) always used meta-
strength' instead of ' I am anointed.' In PsaBrs(2) Che. phorically with God as subject. The metaphor may
reads VliQ=?Xk?. have originated in, as it was certainly subsequently
3 In Mk.1 4 8 t 'anoint' is pupi<w (see M Y RRH , 2). used to express, the idea of God pouring out his spirit
I73 I74
 AN08 ANT
on a man (or peopIe) for a particular purpose-e.g., on of storing grain-seeds beneath the ground in time
Saul to smite the Amalekites ( I S. 1517), on Jehu to of harvest.1
smite the house of Ahab ( 2 K. 96f:), on the Servant ' Thus B l i a n tells us that so great is the industry of ants that,
' to preach good tidings ' (Is. 61 I ) . Thus, after Yahwk when there is moonlight they work by night as well as by day.
It was noticed how carefully their work was organised ; they
has anointed Saul ( I S.lOl), the spirit of Yahwb comes were described as marching like a n army, the oldest acting
mightily upon him (n.6), cp I S. 1613 ; and the con- as generals ; when they reached the cornfield the older ants
nection between the outpouring of the spirit and ascended the stalks and threw down the graids to the others
who stood around the foot. Each took its part in carryink
anointing is clear in Is. 611 (Lk. 418) 2Cor. 121, and away the food to their subterranean homes, which were care-
especially in Acts1038. Similarly, ' the anointing from fully constructed with several chambers, and protected above hy
the holy one' ( I Jn. 22027) is the illumination of the walls of earth to keep out the rain. The seeds were divided
Holy Spirit, which teaches those that receive it con- into two, sometimes into four, segments, and in other cases
peeled, to prevent their sprouting ; if wetted by rain, they were
cerning all things. Hence, the term ' anointed ' could brought out and carefully dried in the sun. The ant showed
suitably be applied to Israel as a people-e.g., Hab. 3 13 ; a weather-knowledge far surpassing man's. It was in all respects
see fnrther MESSIAH, § 3. In Ps. 457 8920, the a R O ~ L T L K ~<&v,
V and is so classed by Aristotle along with the
crane and the'bee.
whole phrase ' to anoint with oil ' is used with God as The same observations are repeated in later times by
subject; in these cases either the whole phrase is a Arabic and Jewish writers.
metaphor, or mriSn(z has acquired a quasi-causative T h e Mohammedans seem to have associated the ant with
sense. Solomon : the 27th chapter of the Koran is styled ' t h e ant,
On the relation of the various terms and customs because it mentions that Solomon, on his march, once entered
to one another there have been different views, some 'the valley of ants ' whereupon an ant said, ' 0 ants, enter
into your habitatiohs, lest Splomon and his army tread you
6 . Primitive of which must be briefly referred to. underfoot and perceive i t not. It was a custom with the Arabs,
significance. Some (e.g., Kamphausen in the article says Eochart, to place an ant in the hand of a newborn child,
' Salbe ' in H WB P)) derive the religious with a prayer that he might grow u p wise and sagacious.
from the toilet use, seeing in the rite of anointing The only two passages in the OT which mention the
both the means of setting apart to God some person or ant obviously refer to some species of Harvesting Ant
thing as clean and sweet-smelling, and also the symbol 2. Species. -probably either to Aphmognster (for-
of such a condition. But ( I ) it may be questioned merly called Attn) bnrbnra, or to A .
whether the sharp distinction of terms relative to stmctor, or to Pheidole megacephaln, which are to this
day found in Syria, and, indeed, all round the Mediter-
the two uses (cp § I ) he not against this view ; ( 2 ) ranean basin.
there is no positive evidence that the Hebrews in-
Numerous other species of ant have been described in
terpreted the rite in this way, unless we so regard the Palestine ; hut, as far as is known, they resemble in their habits
custom of mixing sweet -smelling substances in the the ants of temperate and colder climates, and d o not lay up any
anointing oil-a custom which cannot be traced before store of provisions against the winter : it is possible that, like
P ; and ( 3 ) the metaphorical use cannot be satisfactorily the latter, they pass the cold season in a torpor or winter sleep.
explained in this way. Reasons have been given in the The harvesting ants all belong to the genus
preceding section for thinking that the,religions rite of ADhznoaaster. or are closelv allied to it. Their habits
I

anointing men was at any rate understood at an e y l y 3. Harvesting were well known to the ancients and
period to symbolise the outpouring of the divine spirit ; to medizval writers. These observers,
hut it is possible that this symbolism is not original, generalisiiig on insufficient data, as-
even in the case of persons. It certainly does not sumed that all ants stored Lip food for winter con-
explain the anointing of things-particularly the pillar sumption. When, however, the centre of learning
at Bethel. This custom Robertson Smith (ReL Sem.P) shifting farther N. from the shores of the Mediterranean,
233 3 7 9 8 , especially 313 8 ,cp SACRIFICE) seeks the leaders of science were found in central and northern
to explain as a sacrifice, the oil being a substitute Europe, the position of things was reversed.
for the animal fat which was smeared (smearing, it is Naturalists, noticing that the ants whose habits
to be remembered, being the original sense of n ~ j o ) they observed did not store grain and seeds, arrived
by the Arabs on similar pillars, and played a consider- at the conclusion that no ants did, and attempted to
able part in many other forms of sacrifice. Fat being, explain the accounts of the earlier writers by pointing
according to ancient thought, one of the great seats out that they had probably mistaken for seeds the
of life, was peculiarly fitted for the food of the gods pupa3 which, when anything disturbs the ants' nest, are
(hen'ce the anointing of the pillar), and also for imparting at once seized and borne to a place of safety. The
living virtue to the persons to whom it might be applied consensus of opinion, accordingly, until about a quarter of
(hence the anointing of thing's or other persons). In a centuryago, was that ants never lay up stores of food.
this case the view that anointing symbolised the impart- The investigations of Moggridge and Lespks, hom-
ing of the divine spirit, is a refinement of the idea in ever, showed that, although this opinion is probably
which the custom may he presumed to have originated correct as far as ants in more northern climates are
(cp C OVENANT , § 5 end,). The-anointing of the temple concerned, many of the ants in the countries bordering on
and sacred furniture will then be a survival similar to the Mediterranean store up seeds collected from different
that of sprinkling them with blood. G. B. G. plants. Not only do they collect seeds that have fallen,
. ANOS ( A N W C [BA; om. L]), ~ E s d934, but they also frequently tear the fruit or seed-pod off the
. apparently plant's and bear them to the for?nicnri?m or nest.
VANIAHof EzralO36.
They will, moreover, travel considerable distances to
ANT ( n i p ! , l ~ ~ p[BHA]~ ~ f;j%rnzicn,Pr. 663Oz5t). obtain their food, marching in two nearly continuous
1. Name and Classical writers often refer to the parallel lines, the length of the column sometimes
allusions. industry, forethought, and ingenuity measuring 24 yards or more. The two lines are moving
of the ant, and especially
-~ to its habit in contrary directions-the one toiling laden with spoils
1 T h e etymology of this word is very doubtful. It has been towards the nest, the other hurrying back with empty
proposed to derive it ( I ) from a doubtful Heb. verb 5 ~ (cp 1 srn) mouths to the harvest ground.
' t o cut,'referring either to the shape of the ant's body (='in-
sect '), or to its habit of cutting seeds from the corn-ears, or to the The nests both of A . dnrbnm and of A . stmctor are
incision it is supposed to make in the seeds themselves to prevent simply excavations in the ground-long cylindrical pas-
their sprouting (though this last was hardly known to the ancient 4. Nests : sages or ronnded hollows, the floors of which
Hebrews); (2) from Ar. namaZa 'to creep' or ' t o ascend by are to some extent smoothed and cemented.
creeping' ; (3) from asupposed root akin to Heb. 0 ~ 3' ,t o make a
slight sound'. The connection with Ar. namaZu is certain ; storing*In these hollows, about the size of a billiard
hut possibly the meaning of the verb may he derived from the 1 See the list of passages quoted in Bochart, Hier.-among
noun. A kindred word is Ar. anmuL 'finger-tip' (Lag. Ue6ers. them Hor. Suf.i. 1 3 3 ; Virg. B n . 4402 ; Plin. iVf9 1130 ; Blian,
21). The Syr. equivalent is J ' z ~ h & ; t a ( ' keen-scented'?); AI. 2 25 4 4 3 6.43. A brief account of the Jewish notices by Rev.
has the same word as Heh.--nnnria. A. LOwy in PSBA 3 6 8 [1880-81].
I75 176
 ANTELOPE ANTICHRIST
ball, the seeds are stored. In one nest Moggridge 3 Thess. 21-12 and certain passages in the Apocalypse
counted seeds from twelve different species of plant, and chap. 13).
he enumerates eighteen distinct botanical families con- The first period of the history of the discussion em-
taining plants which furnish ants with seeds. A. structor >races the Greek and Latin ecclesiastical writers down
is-frequently found in the neighbourhood of towns or :o the beginning of the Middle Ages. Within this
villages, and even in the streets ; A. barbarn, usually in ocriod the tradition is unusually stable. The Antichrist
the country. ,s taken to be a manifestation which is to be made at
The ants' nests are entered by one or two holes, the end of time-& definite personality, as to whose
whose presence is usually indicated by small heaps of srigin, career, and end, perfectly definite and tradition-
refuse, partly coinposed of the earth excavated from the zlly fixed views are set forth, which rest but partially
nest, and partly built up of the husks and other useless 3n the NT. This exegetical tradition, the importance
matter, which is carefully removed from the seeds before 3f which is greatly undervalued by recent commentafors
the latter are stored up. All this refuse is scrupulously such as Bornemann, is, for reasons which will afterwards
removed from the nest, which is kept very clean. The xppear, of the utmost value. T o say that the n a i k
ants do not allow the seeds to sprout; possibly by dogmatic belief of the church-fathers in ' the truth of
making an incision in them. this eschatological phantasy down to its least detail'
The amount of seed collected and stored in the was absolute does not in any way disprove the correct-
granaries is very considerable and may cause serious ness of their exegesis.
loss to the agriculturist ; from one nest an amount of Of the two methods that came into vogue during the
seed estimated at I Ib. in-weight was taken, and there Middle Ages-the ecclesiastico-political method with
must be many hundreds of nests to the acre. The seed polemical purpose (since Joachim of Floris, afterwards
stores of the ants of Palestine are sufficiently important in chief favour with Protestant scholars, especially in
to be mentioned in the Mishna, which records the rules the form hostile to papal claims) and the universal-
adopted as to their ownership. historical (perhaps, since Nicolas de Lyra)-neither
The industry of the harvesting ants, and the amount advanced the question in the least.
of work they accomplish, justify their being held up as The beginnings of a truly scientific manner of looking
examples of untiring energy. They begin work early in at these as well as at other eschatological traditions
the morning and keep at it far into the night, working 2. Modern. were made by certain Spanish and French
as hard in the dark as in the sunlight. Meer Ilasan Jesuits, who threw themselves into the
Ali in his History of fhe MussuZmmnns describes how polemic against Protestant attacks with great learning
eight or twelve very small harvesting ants will find it and acumen. Their first step was to revert to the
difficult to move a grain of wheat, and yet they maiiage tradition of the church fathers, which they embodied in
to transport such grains over a distance of 1000 yards extensive wor1cs.l Thus the futurist method was
to their nest. Their great sagacity is shown in restored to its ascendency.
numerous ways-the complexity of the organisation This method maintained its ground, until quite recently,
of their colonies (involvinv the differentiation of among all scientific interpreters of the apologetic school. There
individuals to perform different duties), their powers of is one point, however, in which the exegesis 6f the moderns-as,
for example, Hofman (Schryfbezueis)and Luthardt (Die Lchre
communicating one with another, and their slave- won de7z letzten Di%g-e?z)and almost the whole body of English
making propensities. Their habit of laying-up food writers on the subject-falls far below that of t h e , church
for the future, and even (in some South-American fathers: the concrete eschatological figures are more or less
species) of actually cultivating certain fungi for food, spiritualised. Thus Antichrist becomes an impersonal general
tendency; the ' temble' (9 Thess. 24) is interpreted as meaning
places them with the bees and wasps, as regards intelli- Christendom ; and the K ~ T + W V , as law and order.
gence, second only to man in the animal kingdom. It is in the work of Ludovicus Alcasar ( Vestigniio
The ants belong to the order Hymenoptera (which arcani sensus in ApocaZ. , Antwerp, 1614)that we find the
includes bees, wasps, and saw-flies), and to the family earliest indications of a thoroughly scientific, historical,
Formicidze. N. M.-A. E. S. and critical handling of this question. The labours and
ANTELOPE (\N? t%, Dt. 145 ; Nil7 ii', IS. 51 20 ; the method of the Jesuit scholars, however, were after-
opyf [4aBAL in Dt. ; and Aq. Sym. Theod. in Is.]; wards made available for the Protestant Church by Hugo
Grotius (Annotntiones, Paris, 1644),who in the treatment
CEYTAION [6BNAQ" ink.]), an unclean animal mentioned
along with the pygarg and chamois. The above is the of Antichrist may be regarded as the founder of the
rendering of RV and is much preferable to AV WILD OX, ' historical ' or ' preterist ' method. He interpreted,
2 Thess. 21-12,point by point, as referring to the
WILD BULL (which is based upon Targ. Gr. Ven., and
is accepted by Kim.), although wild oxen and wild occurrences of the reign of Caligula. In this method
bulls were common enough throughout Palestine and he was followed by Wetstein, Hamniond, Clericus, and
Mesopotamia (see CATTLE, 4). The allusion in Is. Harduin ; and, since Kern (Tiib. Z. f: TheoL, 1833,i. ),
(Z.C.) to the capture of the animal by means of a net the preterist interpretation of the Antichrist has become
wholly agrees with what is known of the manner fn almost universal, but as referring to Nero redivivus (so
which antelopes, gazelles, etc. were usually captured. F. C. Baur, Theol. J&wbb., 1855 ; Holtzmann, in BL ;
The species here intended may be the AntiZop Hilgenfeld, Z W T , 1862, 1866; Hausrath; and many
Zeucoyx (or oryx, cp a), or the A. bubnZis. Against others, including Renan, L'Antdchi-ist, 1876). Follow-
ing an example partly given by Klopper, howevQ,
the former proposal the objection has been raised that
the oryx is called in the modern vernacular of N. Africa Spitta (Zum Gesch. u. Litt. des Urdaristenthums
yabmur, which= Heb. iinv ' fallow-deer ' (see R OE ) ; 1098) has again sought the explanation of the predic-
but it is not uncommon for the same name to be given tions regarding Antichrist in the circumstances of the
to members of different species by different peop1es.l reign of Caligula.
On OX-ANTELOPE see U NICORN (beg.). s. A. C. Abandoning this (on the whole, mistaken) line, a few
scholars have sought an interpretation of Antichrist in a
ANTHOTHIJAH (;I$l;Y) I Ch. 824f RV, AV Jewish tradition dating farther back than
(q.~.).
ANTOTHIJAH the Christian era and not resting on any
ANTICHRIST ( A N T I X P I C T O C \Ti. WH]). Histoiy historical events.
Among these scholsrs may be named Reiche, De Wette Lune-
1. History : of the Puestion. Researches into mann, a n d Rorneirmin (in their respective commentari;s) and
Early Period.- the meaning of ' Antichrist' have Kahler (in PXER). Ewald's observations in 3 a h ~ bf; . 6ibZ.
always started from the exegesis of lViss., 1851,.p. 250, and 1860, p. 241, are of special interest:
1 For other examples see U N I C O R N , note. 1 Malvenda's De A n t i c h k f o (Lyons 1647) being perhaps the
2 Cp. Liicke EinL in d. Oflen6. /oh. 351 & ; Bornemann, fullest. The commentaries of Ribeird (Salamanca. 1591) and
'Die Thessaloi~icherbriefein Meyer's FInndbuch 4 0 0 8 Blasius Viegas (Ebora, 1601) were specially influential.
19 777 178
 ANTIGHRIST ANTICHRIST
for the first time h e combined 2 Thess. 2 with Mt. 2 4 1 5 8 and lerusalem is the Antichrist. If this be so, we are
Rev. 1 1 3 8 and thus the problem ceased to he one of exegesis ;upplied with the following additional elements in the
merely. T h e best work in this direction has been that of
Schneckenhurger (see Biihmen’s survey of his writings inJahr6. .radition : (I) a great drought that comes over the
J: deutsche irheol., 1859)~who endeavoured systematically (as Norld in the last times (in Rev. through the two
the only true method) to ascertain the kindred Jewish tradition Nitnesses) ; (2) the two witnesses, their slaughter by
that lay a t the basis of the N T passages. (Preliminary researches
in the same sense had been contributed by Corrodi, ICrif. Gesch. .he Antichrist, and their resurrection ; ( 3 ) a previous
des Chilimnrus 1781J? : Bertholdt, ChriStol. Jzrd., 1811, $ 16; rssemblage of many nations in the neighbourhood of
and Gfriirer, Jah~hzmdert des Heils 2256 3 4 0 5 3 436.) lerusalem. The dim ancl fragmentary character of the
Schneckenburgeralso brought Mt. 24 Rev. 11 and Jn. 543 Into Nhole narrative, however, is striking. In another place
the field of his survey, and his view may be said on the whole to
have stood the test of time.1 111 the Apocalypse we find another parallel to the figure
Still more recently Bousset (Der Antichrist in der 3f the Antichrist-in Rev. 13116: The beast that ‘ had

l7eberLieferun.g des Judenthums, des NT. u. der AZfen two horns like unto a lamb’ (RV) is designated by the
Kirche, 1895), following up the suggestions of Gunkel’s author of Revelation himself as a False Prophet. When
Schb@ng 71. Chaos (1895),and the method then for the it is spoken of as coming up from the land’ (not
first time securely laid down, has sought to supplement ‘earth’ as in EV), we may reasonably understand
these investigations in two directions : ( I ) by a com- Palestine to be meant. This false prophet also does
prehensive induction based on all the eschatological his work by means of signs and wonders. Here we
portions of the N T that belong to the same circle of meet with a new and rather perplexing consideration : the
ideas, and the careful exclusion of all that do not sealing on their foreheads and hands of those whom he
so 6elong ; and ( 2 ) by an attempt at a comprehensive has led astray, and the buying and selling of them that
and complete pr6sentation of the tradition (which comes is thus made possible. To the same great group of
before us in the N T only in a fragmentary way) as it traditions a part of the eschatological discourse in the
is to be met with in the Jewish sources, and, still more, Synoptic Gospels (especially in Mt.) also appears to
in the later Christian exegetical and apocalyptic tradition. belong. Older theories of the PGChuypa r e s d p p h u e w s
This tradition is in great measure quite independent of of Mt. 2415 having broken down, and Spitta’s explana-
the N T , and in all probability dates, as far as its sources tion of it as referring to Caligula being beset with
are concerned, from pre-Christian times.2 difficulties (indeed, an apocalypse which arose only in
T h e N T T?-arlition. T h e name dvrixpimos occurs 40-41A.D. could surely not have found its way among
in thc N T only in the Johannine Epistles ( I Jn. 218 2 2 : utterances of the Lord ’ which were already becoming
43 : z Jn. 7), and thus in all probability its fixed), we seem compelled to fall back on an older
’*‘ NT* formation belongs to the late N T period.
For an answer to the question who or what is
tradition, and to explain the strange phrase of the Anti-
christ of 2 Thess. 2 4 sitting in the Temple (on these
meant by the name, it is best to start from the well- points cp ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION).In this case
known (probably Pauline) passage in z Thess. 2 1-72, we arrive at new elements in the tradition : the subsequent
where we read that before the end of all things the man flight of those who have believed, the shortening of the
of sin, or, rather, of lawlessness (6 Bvt’pwrros ~ i j dvopias),
s days (Mt. 24zz), and the picture of the end of the world
the lawless one (6 Bvopos), the son of perdition (6 ui6s rijs and of the final judgment (Mt. 24 2.98,). Here. again
drwheias), must be revealed. This ‘man of sin,’ it is the fragmentary brevity of the tradition IS surprising.
clear, is to make his appearance as a false Messiah-an If we now survey these eschatological fragments as a
observation which, from the outset, precludes us from whole, two conjectures immediately force themselves on
referring the expression to any foreign potentate such as 5. Results. us : ( I ) that all these eschatological
Caligula3 or Nero. H e is sent to ‘ them that are phantasies were not dnilependently con-
perishing ’ (namely the Jews), because they received ceived by the various authors from whom we derive
not the love of the truth (the true M e ~ s i a h ) . ~H e does t h e m ; l that, on the contrary, the authors are mostly
not employ any outward force, but accomplishes his reproducing a tradition which already lay before them ;
work by means of false signs and lying wonders (cp the and ( 2 ) that it is a single consistent tradition that
tradition of the Church fathers, as continued by De underlies all these (partly coincident, partly com-
Wette, Ewald, Schneckenburger, B. Weiss, Lunemann, plementary) fragments. If the second conjecture
Bornemann). H e will make his appearance in Jeru- be true, we may venture to think that the tradition
salem. In this account of the Antichrist the specially in question has not been lost beyond all possibility of
perplexing assertions are that he is to seat himself recovery. In point of fact, our very first glance at later
in the temple of God and that he is to declare himself Christian apocalyptic literature satisfies us that this
to be God. This last act, at any rate, does not belong literature rests upon a tradition which is but partially
to the r&e of a false Messiah, It is also doubtful dependent on the NT.
The Tradition of the Early Church regnrding Antichrist.
who or what ought to be understood by 6 KUT&WY, Sources.2 The tradition becomes taneihle as soon a s we have a
r b K U T P X ~ V , the power that-.stands in the way of Christian IiteratnTe copious enough. T h e
the manifestation of Antichrist. If once a reference in 6. Early Church influence of this tradition is already visible
the passage to a Jewish ,false Messiah be accepted, the tradition. in the Teachiag of the Twelm Apostles
(chap. 16). 1ren;eus (Adv. haer. 525-3o)also
mystery of iniquity (lawlessness : ~b p u r . res dvoplas) presents himself in this connection. Special importance, how-
will most probably mean the cruelty which the Jews ever among the earlier witnesses attaches to Hippolytus’s
as a whole had begun to show towards the Christians & T ~ & L ~ L Sr e p i r& &vrr)(plu.rou the) Cannen Apologeticu?Jzof
Commodian, Lactantius s Ius;. Div. 715 8 (Commodian and
(same authorities as above). At this point we obtain Lactantius have a place of their own in the tradition), and the
a clear light upon Rev. 11. The perplexing fact Commentary on the Apocafipse of Victorinus. A further group
that there the beast rises out of the deep and makes of writings ascribed to a n ecclesiastical writer of very great
its appearance in Jerusalem (a view of the passage that influence Ephraim Syrus must be mentioned. Under his name
are current three Homilids on the Antichrist : (I) One in Syriac
appears certain--not only from 11 8, but also from the (De Lamy, 3 1878,-all of it genuine with the exception of a few
connection of 1112 with 113-as against the other inter- chapters)’ (2) one in Greek (Assemani 2222-30 3134-143),
pretations referring it to Rome) is explained by z Thess. perhaps ienuine ; and ( 3 ) one in Latin (Casiari, ut sup. 2 0 8 3 ) .
T h e historical event from which all thepe prophecies start is the
2. The beast that rises out of the deep and appears in _ _ _ ____ _ _ -
1 See the detailed argument for the impossibility of this in
1 This applies also to the first part of the Apocafipfische Gunkel Sch@? u. Chaos.
Studim of R. Wciss. 1860. 2 See‘ Malvenda, De Antichrirto (1647): Ehert, ‘On Com-
~ 2 AttempFs in th$ dgection had already been made by modian’s “Carmen Apologeticum”’ in Ahh. d. hiin. Sachs. Gcs.
Bertboldt and Schneckenhurger. d. Wissensch. 5 3 8 7 8 ; Caspari, B n k f e und Ahhandlunge%
3 z Thess. 2 4 does not a t all fit in with Spitta’s interpretation (‘go) 2083 4 ~ 9 8 and, for the later period, Zezschwitz, Vom
of the passage as referring to Caligula’s proposal t o s e t up a Yii7lzischen Kaiserthwnz deutscher Nation, 1877 ; Gutschmid,
statue of himself in Terusalem. KZei?ze Schriften5505 8: W. Meyer, Ladus de Antichrisfo,
4 Cp Jn.543. - 1880.
J79 180
 ANTICHRIST ANTICHRIST
beginning of the great barbarian migrations, the invasion of of Rev. 11. At the preaching of the witnesses a considerable
the eastward regions of the Roman Empire b y the Huns (Gog company of Israel are converted and he5in the opposition to the
and Magog). Allied in character to the foregoing are Antichrist (perhaps Rom. 9 20 is to he interpreted in this con-
Cyril’s Catecltesis (xv), the pseudo. Johannine Apocalypse nection). T h e q4,ono who are sealed in Rev. 7 5 f. certainly
(Tisch. Ajoc. apocu.), and the Commentary on the Apocalypse have their explanation here. The faithful now betake theni-
by Andrew of Czsarea. Dependent on Ephraim’s Greek selves to the wilderness or to the mountains (Mt. 21 r 6 3 ) ; but
homily are the aepi &js uuv~ehsiar705 K ~ U ~ E I (ed.
O V Lagarde) of the days of Antichrist’s reign of terror shall he shortened. T h e
the pseudo- Hippolytus, and the Dioptru of Philip Solitarius years shall become months the months days the days hours
(3 1 0 3; Migne, P. Gr. 127). This whole mass of tradition is [Mt. 2422). Then the A n d h r i s t will send his Lrmies in pursuit
exceedingly valuable onaccount of its archaic oriental cfiaracter. Df the faithful who have fled into the wilderness ; hut there they
Of the older church fathers, Jerome also ( A d AZgmiam Qnzst. shall he delivered by the angels of God or by the Messiah
xi. ; In D a n d e w z vii. and xi.) and Theodoret (Ha&. fub. (Rev. 1 2 13&), and the army of the Antichrist destroyed (cp the
523), hut not Augustine, and, of the later, John Damascenns mysterious angelic battle outside the city, in Rev. 14 1 4 8 , and,
($K&CLS 427) claim special attention. in connection with this the appearance of the lamb with the
As, in the uniform view of these apocalyptic interpreters the 144,cd in Rev.151 3). The Antichrist is
advent of the Antichrist is after the downfall of Rome, one &ght 10. Defeat Of finally slain, according to authorities, by the
reckon almost with certainty on finding evidence of the currency Antichrist. Messiah, with the breath of hismouth (Is. 11 4
of the tradition about the time of that downfall. Such evidence 2 Thess. 2 +the same statement is found in
weactually possess in theprimary document which was the com- late Jewish sources, such as Targ. Jon. on Is. 11 4 and others).
mon source of both the so-called Apocalypses of Daniel, the Greek Perhaps an older tradition may be traced in the view that
(ea. Klostermann, Analectu), and the Armenian (ch. Kalemlciar, the archangel Michael is to be the conqueror of the Antichrist
WienerZ. G 1z7J ; cp Zahn, FuuschunpenB 1 1 9 8 ) . Again, (Dan. 12 I Rev. 12 6, Ass. Mus. IO). Now is seen a mighty
a t the time of the Mohammedan conquests a new rallying-point sign in heaven (Mt. 24 3o)-the sign of the Son of Man-
was given for this eschatological tradition, as we see in the apoca- interpreted by later writers (cp already Did.166,. q p s i o v
lypse of the pseudo-Methodius (7th century, OuthodoxagraphaP), ;KTW(~UCOF ;v 06pav@)as referring to the Cross, hut originally, we
Basel, 1569), closely connect6d with which is the later Apocalypse may be sure, betokening the Divine Judge of the world (Bousset,
of Peter now extant in Syriac Arabic and Ethiopic redactions 154). Then follows the coming of the Divine Messiah to judg-
(Bratke,’ ZWT, 1892), and Also a ieries of late Byzantine ment, amid mighty convulsions of nature (Mt. 24 29 f: Rev.
(Vassiliev, Anecdota GrrPco-Byzantina I, Moscow, 1893), 6 1 2 8 ) . From the four corners of heaven desolating storms
and late Jewish apocalypses Uellinek, Bet-ha-Midrash; cp burst upon earth and cleanse it (Rev. 7 ~ f . ) , and before the
Bousset, 6 4 3 1 7 3 3 ) . This body of tradition reached the west divine advent descends a tempest of fire, which burns the earth
throngh a compilation (De Antichristo) by the monk Adso down to its depths, and dries up the sea and the rivers
(Migne, P.Lut. 101 12913)based on the hook of Methodius (Rev. 21 I).
and on a Sibylline book, w d c h last is to he found also (in a At the very first glance it is plain that, in this tradition, we
redacted form) in the works of Beda (Migne, 90 1183) and dates are dealing not with an artificial exegetical mosaic of the various
perhaps from the fourth centnry. Lastly, a n isolated and very passages of the New Testament (and the Old)
archaistic source is to he found also in the Apocalypse of 11. Coherence which here come into account, hut with a n
Zephaniah (Stern, Z A , 1885). of tradition. original body of tradition organically and
inherently consistent : and ’that the separate
Subjoined is a brief summary of this eschatological fragments of this tradition in the N T become
7. He intelligible only when they are brought into their organic place
letteth., tradition as it occnrs, almost unifornily, in the scheme of the tradition a s a whole, so that their essential
in the sources that have been uamed.l consistency becomes manifest.
In the first place the universally prevalent conviction is that
the KUT+JV ( z The&. 2 7) is the Roman empire. This, we may Origin of the Tmrlition.-Naturally’we turn, in the
he sure, was the view of Paul also : if he expected a Jewish
false Messiah then the one power left which could ‘hinder’ was first instance, to the eschatological ideas of the OT.
the Roman impire (cp on this point 4 E s d . 4 r 8 ) . The Schneckenburger will have it that the
political d e played by this idea in the history of Christianity 12. OT
eschatology. idea of the Antichrist comes from the
may he seen in Tertullian (ApuL 32, ud Scup. 2) and Lactantius
(1st. diu. 7 25). Of equally universal prevalence is the prophecies concerning Gag and Magog
conception of Antichrist, not a s a Roman or in Ezek. (383). That in.every form of the tradition
8. Antichrist. foreig!i ruler, hut as a false Messiah, who is the prophecy concerning Gog and Magog occui-s in
to arise among the Jews themselves in close connection with the story of the Antichrist is
Jerusalem. Almost uriiversally (with the exceptions to be after-
wards mentioned) it is predicted that he is to estahlish himself indeed true to the extent that they are made to appear,
in the temple and lay claim to Messianic (and so far, divine) sometimes after (Rev. 2O7J ), and sometimes before,
honours. (Sometimes, as in Ascens.Jes. 46, Vict: in Apoc. 13 13, the time of his rule. Positive identification of Gag
and in the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter, we read that he will
set u his statue in the temple-doubtless a reminiscence of with Antichrist, however, does not occur till the seventh
the 6aIigula episode.) After the destruction of Jerusalem, century, and even then only in Jewish sources. Many of
accordingly, the expectation that the AntiChrist will rebuild the details of the traditions can be traced, as has been
the temple in Jerusalem becomes universal. H e will show
special favour to the Jews, will receive circumcision himself, and already said, to Jewish haggada. In this particular
will compel others to do so. H e will arise from the tribe of point Dan. 7 I I J is approximated to most nearly ; but
Dan (q.v., 0 g ; Jewish haggada is a t the root of this [cp Testa?*. even here there is a marked difference, and the
Dun 5f: : also the omission of Dan in Rev. 7 5 8 ,a s to which originality of the view outlined above is c6nspicuous.
see hen. v. 30 z,perhapsalsoeven I Ch. G61[46](seeSBOT)69 t541
7 121 ; see Schneckenhurger-Bohmer, 412). If, hearing all this in In Daniel the disturber is a foreign power ; but here
mind, we oncemore turn to 2 Thess. 2 g j ? Jn. 5 43 Rev. 11 3 8 it the seducer, who personates God or simulates the
immediately becomes plain that any ‘historical’ or preterkt Messiah, rises up from miid the people of God.
interpretation of the Antichrist is out of the question. On the
basis of a haggadic view of Dan. 11 43 78 there came into ‘Thus there has been an important development since
the tradition this further element that ;he Antichrist a t Daniel. Perhaps, as was suggested in conversation to
his first appearing, is to conquer the’kiogs of Egypt, Ethidpia the present writer by Prof. Smend, the historical occasion
and Libya. Another invariable element of the tradition unde; for this advance was supplied by the experiences of Israel
consideration is the enumeration of the miracles to he wrought
by the Antichrist, particularly celestial signs (Rev. 1 3 I I ~ : ) and
, under the Maccabees and the Herods. In any case, we
miracles of healing (although that of raising the dead is beyond 13. Belial. must note a parallel in Jewish Apocalyptic.
his reach). Hereupon the Antichrist will achieve the dominion That ideas allied to those in our tradition
of the whole world, and gather round himself to his capital all
peoplesandvast armies(4 Esd. 13 13 Apoc. Bar. 40 Rev. 11 98). were active among the Jews about the time of Christ is
Next, a great drought and famine will come upon shown by 4 Esd. 5 13 (56 ; regnabit quem non sperant),
9. Conflict. the whole earth (differentlyand less clearly put in A,@. Bar. 36-40, SL?yZZ.3 6 3 3 ( 2 1 6 7 3 ) , Test. D a n 5 ,
Rev. 11 6), and in these straits the Antichrist will Ass. Mos. 8 3 , and the (probably Jewish) nucleus of Asc.
order his servants (spoken of also as demons) to mark men with
his mark (according to the Latin Homilyof the pseudo-Ephraim, 3es. (323-413). Now, in this tradition, the constantly
a serpent mark), so that only those who hear it shall be permitted recurring name of the great enemy of the last times-a
to buy bread (Rev. 13 16f:). Against the Antichrist come name already known to the apostle Paul ( 2 Cor. 6 15)-
forward the two witnesses (almost unanimously taken to be
Elijah and Enoch), who disclose his real character, so that is Belial (Beliar). But, according to many passages
many tnrn away from him (otherwise, and very obscure, what of the Testaments, Belial is a spirit of the air, ruler of
we read in Rev. 11 3 3 : ) . I t is noteworthy that in many sources the evil spirits. Accord{ng to Test. Don 5 , the Messiah
there is no mention df the resurrection of the two witnesses- will fight against him in the last days. The supporters
doubtless an incident introduced for the first time by the author
of Belial are the children of Dan. In Sib. 363 3
1 F o r the references in detail see Bousset, Der Antichrist,
(probably dating from the time of Cleopatra), Belial is
Gott. 1895. already presented in an aspect closely resembling that
181 I . 182
 . ANTICHRIST ANTIOCH
of Antichrist (still more so in the Ascensio, which, how- htichrist-legena see Conybeare, A c a h , 26th October 1895 ;
ever, has unquestionably undergone Christian revision). nd on a singular Mohammedan tradition see LVDDA a t end.
W. B.
In the Ascensio the angel Sammael interchanges parts
with Belial, and Sammacl figures also in later Jewish ANTILIBANUS (ANTIAIBANOC [BA], om. K),
tradition as the enemy of the last times (on the origin udith 1 7 . See L EBANON .
of Belial, and on the various developments of meaning, ANTIMONY (TlB), Is. 5411 RV mg., EV 'fair
see BELIAL). Suggestions of the same idea occur in :olours.' See P RINT.
Lk.1018 Jn. 1 2 3 1 (Col. 2 r j ) . Here we would seem to
have an aspect of the tradition that, in point of time and ANTIOCH ( A N T ~ ~ X[Ti. E ~WH]):
~ I. in Pisidia;
contents, comes a great deal nearer that of Antichrist nore correctly, ' Antioch towards Pisidia ' ('Avrr6x~ia
(zCor. 615: 'and what concord hath Christ with i r p b o IIiuiGIg), to distinguish it from the Antioch on
Beliar?'), which is not of historical but of purely .he Meander (the form ' Pisidian Antioch,' ' A V T L ~ X E I U
eschatological origin : the idea of a rebellion of an i IIiurGia [Ti. WH], Acts 1374, arose to distinguish it
angelic power against God at the end of time. Perhaps kom the more famous Antioch of Syria). It was
14. Dragon. it is out of this figure-behind which in -eally a Phrygian city ; but in N T times it was of course
turn stands the wilder figure of the dragon ncluded within the Roman province Galatia. Strabo
rising in rebellion against God in the last times, which :p. 577) accurately describes it a 3 lying on a hill,' on
Gunkcl conjectures to have its origin in the Babylonian :he south side of the range now called Sultan Dagh, in
creation-myth (see C REATION , zf.)-that,under the ex- Phrygia Parorea; but it was not until 1833 that
periences of the Maccabean period, the humanised figure 4rundell found its ruins at Ynlobatch. The town was
of a pseudo-Messiah came into existence. In this way bunded about 300 B.C. by the Seleucid kings, and the
we can explain also the superhuman traits in the picture, :ransportation of 2000 Jewish families to the fortresses
such as his declaring himself to be God (zThess. 2 4 ) , >f Lydia and Phrygia, as recorded by Josephus (Ant.
and his sitting in the temple of God (cp the myth of the uii. 3), must in part refer to Antioch. By Augustus it was
storming of heaven by the dragon in Rev. 1 2 1 3 ) . nade a Roman colony (6 B.C. ) ; hence its coins bear the
These Conjectures find further confirmation in the fact egend Czsarea. Antioch was adopted as the centre of
that, in later tradition, the ghostly-demonic element in nilitary and civil administration in Southern Galatia,
the portrayal of Antichrist comes again more con- md from it radiated the roads to the colonies designed
spicuously to the front, and the Antichrist is even :o check the unruly highlanders of Pisidia and Isauria.
represented as a dragon who rebels against God (cp 4s an element in the pacification of this district, the
the writings of Ephraim Syrus, and Apoc. Zeph.). privileges of the Jews were confirmed by the Emperors,
Points of Contact with other Truditions. -One md Paul found a large Jewish colony in the city. The
legend that comes into relation with that of Antichrist Romanisation of this part of Galatia was in especially
in many ways is that of Nero redivivus. ictive progress during the reipn of Claudius, 41-54". D.
15. Nero Not that the figure of Antichrist had its
redivivus. 4t the time of Paul's visit, therefore, Antioch was at
beginning in the story of Nero. Originally the height of its importance. Besides its relations with
both legends had currency side 6y side. It w s only Apamea (on the W. ) and with Iconium, Lystra, and east-
after Nero's return at the head of the Parthians (at first 3rn Asia Minor, it must have had a commercial connection
conceived of in a purely human way-cp the nucleus of with the Pamphylian seaports, among them Attalia and
Rev. 17) had become indefinitely delayed, and after men Perga ; and Pan1 must have reached Antioch by following
had begun to expect the returning Nero only as a spirit this southern trade-route, which probably ran through
from the under-world, that they gradually transferred Adada ( / C a m Buvlo, BuvZo being the modern pro-
to him some traits belonging to the Antichrist2 (cp nunciation of the apostle's name). There was a large
Sib.3 6 1 3 , where, in like manner, Belial is interpreted body of Jewish proselytes in Antioch, many of them
to mean one of the Czsars ; see APOCALYPTIC, 95). women of position through whom the Jews were able to
Such .an amalgamation of the two figures is already influence the magistrates against the apostles (Acts
met with in Rev. 13 and 17 (in their present form). 13jo). The magistrates had summary jurisdiction over
The old form of Antichrist, however, retains such disturbers of the public peace, such as the apostles
vitality that in the end (Rev. 13113 )it appears as a were alleged to be (cp ZI. 44? rr&a fi ~ 6 x 1 saur?fxBq;
second beast, servant of the first and on the same scene. and D. 45, 166vras robs 8xhous) ; but the 'casting of
A similar and (as far as its occasion is concerned) still them ont of the borders ' of the colony could not imply
more manifest doubling of Antichrist is seen in Com- permanent banishment-at any rate in the case of Paul,
modian's Curmen Apologeticurn, in Lactantius (as who was a Roman citizen. Accordingly we find the
above), in Martin (see Sulpicius Severus, Dial. 214). latter returning to Antioch from Derbe (Acts 1421) and
and in the piphiov KA~jp(~vros (Lagarde, Reliqr. juris perhaps revisiting the city at least twice (Acts 1 6 6 1823,.
eccl. 8 0 8 ) . There is a complete fusion in the Ascensio see G ALATIA ). If the trade of Antioch was concentrated
Jesain, and in the commentary on the Apocalypse in the hands of the Jews, we can the more easily uncler-
of Victorinus. This complicated figure of Nero redivivus stand Paul's first success here in Asia Minor : the new
took special hold on the Sibylline literature of the second teaching did not conflict with any commercial interests of
century,s and here again, in the delineation of this, we the gentile inhabitants, as it did at Ephesus and Philippi,
meet once more with the old features of the dragon while at the same time the Jewish proselytising had
myth. A fusion between the Antichrist tradition and prepared the people for its reception. It is also not
the Simon Magus legend has alrcady been observed by without significance that on the death of king Amyntas,
Schneckenburger, and traced in a variety of points by some seventy years before Paul's visit, the ancient
the present writer. The same tradition comes into worship of ' Men' (M+v 'AoKaios, ' A ~ K U ~Strabo, OS
fusion with the later Alexander legend and the old German ~ s had been abolished, so that there was
' A u K ? ~coins)
saga of the end of the world (Muspilli, Edda). probably no gentile hierarchy in existence to oppose the
On this and other connected suhiects see %onset. Jhr Anti- apostles. Hence the effect of their preaching was more
marked here than in any other case, except Corinth
(Acts 1 3 4 4 4 8 f . ) . All the more strange is the sub-
Weltsabhafh, Welt sequent unimportance of the South Galatian churches.
gesicF in' ihrer christlichmittelalterlichen Gesammtentwicke- 2. In Syria ( I and z Macc. AV ANTIOCHIA). This
lung, ZWT, 1895 and 1895. On the Armenian form of the great city, the third metropolis of the Roman world,
1. city. the Queen of the East (+ ~ a h i jAthen. 175 ;
1 Eisenmenger, Entdechtes / d e n t u r n 2 709 ; cp Asc. Jes. 7 9.
2 This has been already remarked by Schneckenburger. oricntis apex pulchcr), and the residence of
3 Cp Zahn, ' Apocal. Studien in 2.5 kiychl. Le& u. Wiss. the imperial Legate of Syria, survives in An;rikieh,
183 184
 ANTIOCH ANTIOCHUS
a town of only 6000 inhabitants. It is situated at .race from the 'Gate of St. Paul' to the modern town
the point of junction of the ranges of LibZnus and :Jos. Ant. xvi. 53). Thus all the forms of the civilised
'Taurus, on a fine site hard by the left bank of the ife of the Empire found in Antioch some representative.
Orontes, just where the river turns westwards to run [n its agora, said Libanius, the customs of the world
between Mt. Pieria on the N. and Mt. Casium on the night be studied. In no city was pleasure more earnestly
S., to the sea 16 m. distant. A little higher up the mrsued. Daphnici mores were proverbial ; the Orontes
river Antigonia had been built in 307 B. c. by Antigonus ; +vas synonymous with superstition and depravity (Juv.
but seven years later Seleucus Nicator transferred its Sat. 362). Yet it would be of value to discover to what
inhabitants to his new city of Antioch. sxtent the lower and middle orders of the population
Strabo's meagre account (p. 750) is the foundation @erereally affected by the luxury and abandon of which
of our topographical knowledge of the city. Like the we hear so much; that is after all but one side of the
district in which it lay, Antioch was a T E T ~ ~ ~ U anS , i t y ' s life, and there is a temptation to exaggerate it.
agglomeration of four parts. There was little real intellectual life ; epigram and light
The first contained the population of Antigonia; the second prose were the most flourishing forms of literature.
the hulk of the citizens. The third part was the creation of Cicero (Pro Arch. 3, 0 4 ) is exaggerating with his
Seleucus Callinicus(z46-226 B.c.), and the fourth on Mt. Silpius
of Antiochus Epiphanes. Each part had its dwn wall. hut it; ' eruditissimis hominibus liberalissimisque studiis ad-
addition, the whole vast area, larger than that of Roke, was Rnenti.' Antioch is far less celebrated than Alexandria
surrounded by huge walls running over the mountains and in the literature of the first and second centuries A.D.
across the ravines. From NicLtor's time dates the well-known
statue 'the Fortune' (TljXv) of Antioch, a work of the Sicyonian This intellectual attitude is a fact of some importance,
Eutychides, a pupil of Lysippus (Paus. vi. 2 7). T h e memory in its relation to the first Christian teaching.
of it is preserved on the coins, and in a small marble statuette The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements
in the Vatican. The goddess, a graceful gentle figure, rests
negligently on a rock; while the river, a vigorous youth, seems admirably ~-adapted Antioch for the areat part she plaved
I _

to swim on1 from under her feet. 3. . in the early history of ChrisGaAty.
Christianity The city was the cradle of the church.
Seleucus Nicator also embellished D APHNE ( A d $ q
[VA]), 5 m. distant from Antioch, but reckoned a There, as elsewhere, Judaism prepared the ground for
suburb. It was a spot musical with fountains; its the seed of the word (cp Chrys. Nom.xxv.). ' Nicolas,
groves, crowded with temples, halls, and baths, were a proselyte of Antioch,' one of the first deacons (Acts 65),
the seat of a cult of Apollo and Artemis. was only one of a ' vast multitude of Greeks ' who in
Among its artistic treasures was a staiue of Apollo MusagZtes that city were attracted to the Jewish doctrine and
by the Athenian Bryaxis. The precincts of Daphni: were ritual (Jos. BJvii. 3 3 ; cp Acts 1119-21). The ancient and
endowed with the right of asylum and naturally became the honourable status of the Jews in Antioch gave to the
haunt of villany-of runaway slaves debtors and cut-throats
(Tac. A m . 360; Tiberius in 22 A . D . Lttempteh to regulate this infant church a firm and confident organisation. Very
abuse in several cities) : if we may trust the story of Onia? in early the city became a centre on a level with Jerusalem in
? Macc. 4 3,3, Daphne ' flung away the one rare chance of shelter- importance (Acts 1122 26-30 13I). The cosmopolitanism
ing virtue. The site is now called BSt e l Me', the 'house of
Water.' I t retains no traces of its former magnificence. of its inhabitants inevitably reacted upon the Christians
From this suburb, which Roman wealth, Greek art, in the way of familiarising them with universalist ideas,
and Oriental licentiousness conspired to make unique and Antioch consequently became the centre of mis-
even in the East, Antioch took its distinguishing name sionary labour. It was Paul's starting-point on his
-$ P d ACi.$vg. In itself the title bore no reference to first journey with Barnabas (Acts 131-3), and thither he
the pleasure pursuits of the suburb-as though insinu- always returned with his report of work done (Acts 1 4 26f.
ating that there the true life of the city was to be found : 1530 1822). I t was at the instance of the church at
it was a genuine official title. Antioch that the council of Jerusalem sent the circular
Accordingly we find it on coins (cp 'AVTLOXLWV TGV ;& letter to the gentile Christians (Acts 1523 Gal. 24-14),
IiahhLp6n ; r i v av Mvysovip; r s v a p b s TG Zhpp,); Hence and, according to Acts 1126 (on which see C HRISTIAN ,
Pliny ( N N5 21 [IS]) writes ' Antiochia Epidaphnes. Tacitus beginning, and 2 [end]), it was in Antioch that I the
(Aniz. 2 83) transliterates the Greek, and calls the suburb itself
' Epidaphna.' disciples were called Christians first '-undoubtedly as a
Holm has summed up in a striking sentence the nickname. W e know that the people of Antioch were
historical position of Antioch under the Seleucid kings. noted for their scurrilous wit (Philost. Et. 316 Zos. 311
i. Character. Although close to the sea (&vdaXous 441 Procop. B1'28). W. J.. W.
adBVpep6v Strabo, p. 751),it was yet ANTIOCHIA ( A N T I O X [ E ] ~ A[AKV]), I and 2 Macc.
no seaport; on the borders of the desert, it was yet AV, RV ANTIOCH, 2.
something more than a centre for the caravan trade
between the East and the West. T h e city reflected the ANTIOCHIANS (ANTIOXEIC EVA]), 2 Macc. 419
character of the kingdom of which it was the capital, a (-xlac [A]), and in AV also v. 9 (-XON [VI), where
RV has ' citizens of Antioch.' See ANTIOCH2, § 2 n.
kingdom which itself also was neither a genuine naval
nor a genuine land power. Antioch was a Greek city, ANTIOCHIS (aN~lox[s]lc [VA]), concubine of
just as the Seleucid kingdom was an attempt to impose Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (2 Macc. 430).
upon the Orient the political ideas and forms of Hellas.
Yet, in the capital as in the kingdom at large, there was ANTIOCHUS (ANTIOXOC C A W ; ANTIUXOC CK*
no true Hellenism; the commingling of Oriental and once, V' once, A once]). I. Antiochus III., surnamed
Western elements resulted in the perpetuation of the the Great, was the son of Seleucus Callinicus, and
worst features of both races, and the moral worthlessness ascended the Syrian throne at the age of fifteen, on the
of the Syrian found in the brilliance and artistic tem- death of his brother Seleucus Ceraunus. H e is the
perament of the Greek merely the means of concealing earliest of the great SELEUCIDB (p.v.) mentioned in
the crudities of his own life. The characteristic the Apocrypha, but Antiochus 11. Theos and Antiochus
failing of the Greek also was exhibited on a great scale. I. Soter (his grandfather and great-grandfather re-
A third element, and that the one most important spectively) are alluded to in Dan. 11 (see D ANIEL , § 6).
for biblical history, was provided by the Jews. The His reign (223-178B.c.) embraced a series of wars
colony was in fact coeval with the city, for it dated from against revolted provinces and neighbouring kingdoms,
the time of Seleucus Nicator, who gave the Jews the same wars in the prosecution of whioh his disasters and
privileges as he gave the Greeks (Jos. Ant. xii. 3 1).1 For successes were equally great. The events of his life are
this connection with the Syrian kings see I Macc. 1142f. briefly alluded to in Dan. 11 103-notably his expedition
Herod completed the marble-paved street which we can in Asia Minor in 197B.C. (cp v. 18)which, after varying
fortune, ended,in a crushing defeat at the hands of
1 According to z Macc. 4 9 (cp also v. 19) Jason conferred on
the people of Jerusalem the status of citizens of Antioch Scipio Africanus near Magnesia in 190R . C . (cp v. 18).
(ANTIOCHIANS) on which see Th.T 12 544 ('78). This was one of the exploits of the Romans which
185 186
 ANTIOCHUS ANTIPATRIS
Judas the Maccabee is said to have heard of (I Macc. in Arabian (see I MALCUE ). He was brought forward by
8 1-8). rryphon, a former follower of Balas, and set up as king
The account in its present form is not free from inaccuracies. n opposition to Demetrius Nicator (see D EMETRIUS ,
Thus, the writer states that Antiochus, the 'great king of Asia,' E ) who was rapidly becoming unpopular (I Macc.
had with him 120elephants (v. 6, incep. awnov7 [ ~ * l ) but
: accord-
ing to Livy (37 39) there were only fifty-four. ' I t is not ,139 54 : 145 B.c.). On his coronation he received the
unlikely that in the popular tradition the original number was ,urnames ' Epiphanes ' and ' Dionysus.' Henceforth
exaggerated' (Camhr. Bible, ad roc.). Cp MACCABEES, FIRST, le became a mere tool in the hands of Tryphon, who
10.
iltimately found an opportunity of slaying him (I Macc.
One of the conditions of the humiliating peace imposed 1331). See further TRYPHON, SELEUCIDX
in 188 B.C. was that twenty hostages, including a son of 5. Antiochus VII. SidEtes (Zcdrjmp),--i. e . , man of Side
the king (cp I Macc. 110 and below, z ) , should be sent n Pamphyh-called also Ebu+js (Jos. Ant. xiii. 8 2 ) ,
to reside in Rome. Antiochus the Great was killed in vas the son of Demetrius I. and younger brother of
a n attempt to plunder the temple at Elymais (187B . C . ), Jemetrius 11. Nicator. The capture of his brother by
and was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV. Philopator. .he Parthians gave SidEtes the opportunity of asserting
See SELEUCIDX. lis claim to the Syrian'throne in opposition to the
2. Autiochus IV. Epiphanes ('Em+auli.s ' the illus- inpopular TRYPHON. T o win over the Jews he wrote,
trious ' [cp I Macc. 1IO where A -ELS], called in mockery ?om Rhodes, to Simon ' the chief priest and governor,'
'Encpavrjs ' the madcap'), youngest son of no. I. On and by advantageous concessions, remission of royal
his place as hostage (see above, I ) being taken by his rlebts, and the formal permissioli to coin money, attained
nephew DEMETRIUS, he returned to the East, and-his lis end ( I Macc. 1 5 13 ; U P T L W X O S [K' v. I]). Tryphon
elder brother, Seleucus IV., having meanwhile been was besieged at Dor (v. 25), and ultimately forced to
murdered-seized the Syrian throne (175 B.C. ), and soon Nee to Orthosia (v. 37). The situation immediately
became famous for his conquests in Cmle-Syria, 2hanged. Antiochus felt his position secure, and sent
Palestine, and Egypt (cp I Macc. 11 6 8 z Macc. 5 I 3, Athenobius to Simon demanding Joppa, Gazara, the
and see Dan. 11~13).During his Egyptian campaign citadel of Jerusalem, and the arrears of tribute ( 2 8 8 ) .
he twice took Jerusalem ( I Macc. 1 2 0 8 z Macc. 5 1.8). The refusal of these demands brought about war, and
In spite of the presence of a strong favourable Hellenistic CENDEBEUS was dispatched against the Jews ( 1 5 3 8 3 ) .
party (see J ASON , M ENELAUS ), Antiochus appears to Sidetes appears no more in I Macc. : but in the time of
have seen that he could never hope to subdue Judaea John Hyrcanus (see MACCABEES, i. 7) he came and
until he had rooted out the peculiar Jewish religion (see besieged Jerusalem (133 8. c. ), and five years later met
I SRAEL, 5 693 ). He accordingly promulgated a decree his death whilst fighting the Parthians under Phraortes
enjoining uniformity of worship throughout his dominions 11. (Arsaces VII., 128 B.C.). See SELEUCIDZ.
( I Macc. 141$), and even went so far as to endeavour 6. Father of NUMENIUS (I Macc. 1216 14 22).
to force upon the Jews the worship of heathen deities
(see ABOMINATION, ii. ). His persecuting policy was ANTIPAS (~NT[E]ITTL\C [Ti. WH], abbrev. from
$ V T ~ T U T ~ O S , see Jos. Ant. xiv. 1 3 ; cp Cleopas from
responsible for the rise of the ASSIDEANS, and stirred up
the successful resistance of the Maccabees. His end K h e b ~ a ~ p o s ) .I. See H ERODIAN F AMILY, 2.
2. T h e 'faithful witiiess' of Pergamum named in Rev. 213.
(164 B.C.) is variously described. According to I According to the Acta Sanctallcnz (Apr. 11)he was bishop of
Macc. 61-16 he was visiting arich and celebrated temple Pergamum, and suffered death (by the 'brazen hull ') under
in Persia (see ELYMAIS), when tidings of the ill-success Domitian.
of his troops in Judaea, and remorse for his sacrilege at ANTIPATER (ANTIITATPOC [AKV]), son of Jason
Jerusalem, caused his death-according to Polybius [3], an ambassador sent by the Jews to the Lacedae-
(31 2 ) at Tabae in Persia.l The usually accepted monians ( I Macc. 1216 1422). See SPARTA. For the
reference to his end in 2 Macc. 110-17is not very prob- Autipater from whom Antipatris (see below) was named
able, see MACCABEES. S ECOND , 7. H e is doubtless see H ERODIAN FAMILY, I.
alluded to in Ps. 75 4f:, and there are numerous references ANTIPATRIS ( L\NTI'TT&.TPIC[Ti. WH]) was founded
tohislifeandcharacterinD~~~~~(p.v.,§§~, 6,8,IO, 18). by Herod the Great on ' the finest plain ' of his kingdom
T h e post-Talmudic tract Meg-iZlafkAntiochus is a legendary
account, in Aramaic, of the persecutions in his reign. cp Schu. 1. Allusions. -Le., Sharon-in memory of his father
G ~ Y 123 I (see MACCABEES, SECOND, I 11). See SE&CIDI@. Antipater (Jos. BJ i. 21 g), but also, as the
3. Antiochus V. Eupator (Ebrrcl~wp),the young son history of the town abundantly proves, for strategical
of Antiocbus IV. Epiphanes (see 2, above), was left reasons. The other details given by Josephus are, that
under the care of LYSIAS, whilst the father conducted it lay ' close to the mountains ' (BJi. 4 7 ) on the plain
his wars in Persia ( I Macc. 33zf:). On the death of of Kaphar Saba ( K a ~ u p u a p B )fertile . and well-watered,
Epiphanes (164 B. c. ) Lysias obtained the regency, that a river encompassed the city, and a grove of very
ousting his rival P HILIP , 5, and set up Epiphanes' son as fine trees (Ant.xvi. 5 2). In another passage, probably
king, giving him at the same time the surname EupXtor from a different source, Josephus identifies it with
(I Macc. 6 14 x)-' on account of the virtues of his Kaphar Saba (XupapJcapiii) VOV ' A V T L T U TK~
and tells how, to resist Antiochus on his march against
~ A~ESZ T U L ) ,
father' (Appian). Together they entered JudEa (see
ISRAEL, 5 75 beg. ) and, encamping at Beth-Zacharias,be- the Arabians (citzu 85 B.c.), Alexander Jannaeus made
sieged Bethsura (see BETH-ZUR). The Maccabzans were a deep ditch and a wall, which however Antiochus
defeated and the famous ELEAZAR ( p ,v . , 7)was killed (I destroyed, extending thence, a distance of 150 (?)
Macc. 6 ~ 8 8 ) The ~ war was brought to an abrupt close, stadia, to the sea at Joppa (ib. xiii.151). During
however, by the news that Philip had occupied Antioch, Roman times Antipatris was a station at or near the
and a hasty peace was concluded restoring to the Jews junction of the military roads from Lydda and from
the privileges they had enjoyed previous to the persecu- Jerusalem respectively to Caesarea, where the latter
tions of Antiochus Epiphanes (cp I SRAEL , Z.C.). In the road issued from the hills. Thus Paul was brought
following year (162 B. C. ) the king and his guardian were by night from Jerusalem to Antipatris and thence, part
put away by D EMETRIUS [ p . v . , I] (I Macc. 7 1 8 z of his escort returning, to Caesarea (Acts2331). The
Macc. 1413). See SELEUCIOB. return of so much of Paul's escort is explained by the
4. Antiochus VI.; surnamed THEOS (e&), son oi fact that, Antipatris being according to the Talmud
Alexander Balas, spent his early youth as a ward 01 ( TuZm. Bub., Gittin, 76u) on the limits of Jewish soil,
all danger of an attack by the threatened Jewish ambush
1 His father Antiochus 111. the Great died whilst engaged (Acts 23 16 2 0 3 )was now past. There, in 66 A. D.,
in this sanie diktrict upon a similar errand: Tradition may have Cestius Gallus halted on his way to Lydda (BJii. 191),
confused the son with the father.
2 2 Macc. 1321 ascribes their illmccess t o treachery (see and to this point, on his subsequent retreat from
RHODOCUS). Jerusalem, he was pursued by the Jews (ib. 9). There,
187 188
 ANTONIA APHARSACHITES
too, in the same year, Vespasian halted on his. march 'Arapjvq,oneofthe tendistricts of N. Syria under Rome(Pto1.
from Czesarea to Lydda (id. iv. 8 I). Geog-r.v. 15 ~ g ) ,took its name from 'Amripem, a fortified town
(named after Seleucus Nicator's Persian wife), built on a hill
Antipatris is not marked in the Tad. Peut. The some six or more miles east of the Orontes, half-way between
Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.) gives it as I O R.m. from Eniesa and Antioch, and now represented by important ruins
,2. Site. Lydda and 26 from Czesarea ; the Ztin. Ant. under the village that occupies the site of the old citadel, now
called Kal'atelMud$. See Strabo, p. 752; Ritter, Era'kunde
as 28 from Czesarea; and Eus. and Jer. in 17, Abth. ii. 1075.86'; E. Sachau, Reise in Syrien 1c. Mesopot.
the Onom. as 6 S. from Galgulis (in all probability the 71-82 (photographs and map) ; also reff. in Boettg. Lex. ]os.
present Jiljfiliyeh). Schiirer (Hist. 3 130) and others, APE (b'@J, b'@\!ip;l l l e H K O l [BAL]; simia, I K.
following Rob. (BR413gf.), identify it with the present
Kefr SBbB, 23 R.m. (as the crow flies) from Czsarea. 1 0 ~ 2 MQwv
, T O ~ ~ I J T &[BL],
V cp w. r r ; z Ch. 9 ~ 1 f ) . An
animal mentioned among the rarities brought from Ophir
But, as Kefr SBba is no less than 17 R.m. from Lydda
and 2 R.m. N. from Jiljuliyeh ; as, besides, it has no by Solomon's fleet. The Heb. ?@h, ' ape,' is evidently
a loan-word,l and is usually connected with knpi,2 the
ancient remains, nor any such wealth of water or en-
compassing river as Josephus describes, it is more Sanscr. name of the ape ; thus the home of the animal,
though not necessarily the situation of Ophir, will be
probable that Antipatris lay farther S . on the upper
waters of the 'Aujeh, which are about 29 R.m. from indicated. It is mentioned in each case, in M T (the
phenomena of d are here very peculiar), in connection
Czesarea, 4 S. of JiljUliyeh, and about 11 N. of Lydda,
in a district which better suits the data of Josephus. with the peacocks (if the common theory is correct)
Here Dr. Sandreczky and Sir C. W . Wilson (PEF imported by Solomon from OPHIR. Perhaps ' monkey'
Qz.St., 1874, p. 192f.) have suggested the site of would be a more correct modern English rendering than
K n l ' n f Rlis eZ-'Ain, at the very copious sources of
' ape,' which suggests the tailless yuadrumana, while
the 'Aujeh. which they identify with the crusading the animals of this order represented on the Assyrian
castle of Mirabel (el-Mirr being a neighbouring place- and Egyptian inscriptions have tails. Just so, K?@L
name). They point out, too, that the valley of the would have been a better Greek rendering than ~ O ~ K O L
'Aujeh would be a more natural line for the great ditch (the LXX word), if Aristotle is correct in making the
? T ~ Q ? ) K O Ltailless. Four Binds of monkeys are repre-
of Alexander Jannzeus than a line from Kefr SBbH to
the sea. Although Neubauer (G&. du TaZm. S o & ) sented on the Assyrian monuments. Those on the black
thinks that the Talmud distinguishes between Kefr SabB obelisk of Shalmaneser 11. seem to belong to an Indian
and Antipatris, this is doubtful, for, while their names species; they appear in company with the Indian
are given separately, both are defined as border towns elephant and the Bactrian camel (Houghton, ' On the
-between Samaria, a heathen country, and Judaea. Mammalia of the Assyrian Sculptures,' TSBA 5 31gf.
These are all the data for the question of position. [77]). Monkeys (gad) and baboons were much in
Without excavation on the sites named, and the dis- request in Egypt. Queen Ha'tSepsut ( ' Hatasu,' 18th
covery of the rest of the Roman road-probably the dynasty) received them among other rarities from
road by which Paul was brought-traced by Eli Smith the (African) land of Punt; see the picture of the
in 1843 from Gophna to the plain, but lost at the edge native ambassadors leading specimens of the C ~ m o -
cep/nZus Z<amndryns and the Cynocephahs Baduinus. 3
of the hills (BibZiofh. Snc.l478&), it is impossible for us
to be certain where exactly Antipatris stood. We cannot HalCvy, however (REI2163J ), would identify Solomon's
expect to find many ruins on the site. Unlike other o?ip and o';y (see P EACOCKS ) with the tuku and
Herodim sites, it is not stated to have been embellished kukupi mentioned in the Amarna tablets in the requests
by great buildings ; and the town did not afterwards of the Asiatic princes-i. e . , different sorts of vessels full
develop. Buhl (Pal. 199)favours Ras el-'Ain. of aromatic oil, et^.^ Plutarch (de Zs. et Osir. 81) gives
In 333 the Bordeaux Pilgrim calls it a mutatio, or change- an account of the sixteen ingredients of the Egyptian
house, not a ci7itas like Lydda (the next 'change' he mentions KU^$L. N. M.-A. E. S .
-Betthar, IO R.m. towards Caesarea-is perhaps the present
et-Tireh, PEF Mem. 2 166). I n 404 the P w e p . S.P a u k calls APELLES ( & ~ E ) , ) ,pH i .c WH], contracted from
it' 'bemirutum oppidulum.' In 451 it had a bishop (Acts of the 'Aaohh66wpos) is saluted in Rom. 1610, where he is
46o),
Coun. of Chalcea'on: cp Descy. Parochie JerusaZeeiz, c i ~ c a
called 'the approved ( B ~ K L ~ o in
s ) Christ,' an expression
and in 744 it still contained Christians. With their disappear-
ance before the Arabs the Greek ecclesiastical name would which seems to suggest that he had shown constancy
vanish and has not be& recovered (hut see the curious state- as a confessor in time of trial. Nothing further is
ment i f a native in PEF Mem. 2 134 that the name of Kefr known of him. Weizsiicker suggests that his Christian
SXbC is Antifatrfis). The Crusaders wrdngly identified Antipatris
with 'Arsfif, the ancient Apollonia. G. A. S. activity may have been chiefly within the household of
Aristobulus also mentioned in w. IO (Apost. Age 1399).
ANTQNIA, see JERUSALEM.
In the list of the 'seventy apostles' which we owe to Pseudo-
ANTQTHIJAH,or rather RV ANTHOTHIJAH( ?l:n h?y, Dorothens, Apelles is represented as bishop of Heraclea ; that
of Pseudo-Hippolytus mentions Smyrna. According to the
52Qfisy [Gi.], f?Rh?Y [sa.];probably a feminine S?r6pwpa of Peter and Paul bythe Pseudo-SymeonMetaphrastes,
adjective formed from ANATHOTH [p. v.]).! in genealogy he was consecrated bishop of Smyrna by Peter.
of BENJAMIN (q.v., § 9 ii. ,B), I Ch.824f (ANweble APHAEREMA AIPEMA [KVl]), I Macc. I1 34
[ANbewel As AI K b l A e € l N [@BA13bNAeweb[L]). RV, AV APHEKEMA.
ANTQTHITE ('nhp), I Ch. 11 28 AV. See APHARSACHITES (R)2pyipj [sa.] ; ' p 4 [Gi.] ;
ANATHOTH, I. a@apcbxaioi [BA], but - C L \ K K A I O I [B] in Ezra56 ;
ANUB (3932; ENNWNt[Bl> ~-NwB[AA]~ aNwB[L]; -pbceaXAlol [L] ; see also next article), a word used
,PNOB), a Judahite, descendant of Coz (RV Hakkoz) (Ezra56 6 6 t ) apparently as the title of certain officers
( I Ch. 48). Probably to be identified with A NAB (We.). under Darius. Another form is APHARSATHCHITZS; see
Ezra 49, where the word is misunderstood (see E ZRA, ii.
ANUS ( A N N A C [B]), I Esd. 9 48 AV = Neh. 87
H A N A N , 4. 1 If it belongs to the original text : see E BONY, 2 d.
c K+TOF, and Eng. ape.
2 Whence also ~ + p o or
ANVIL (bpg), Is. 41 7 t . . See METAL WORK.
APAME (ARAMH PA], -UH. [?I; b
Qs!; APEAfE),
daughter of Bartacus and concubine of Darius (I Esd.
429).
APAMEA (Jer. Talm. ZCiL 93zc K'DDK, but oftener
WDBDK), mentioned in the Vg. text of Judith3r4, my hrother, good oil, two vessels hukupu' (so Hal., not in Wi.).
apparently as a district ('pertransiens ...
omnem Duh or tuk (pl. tu&) is the ordinary ideogram for 'vessel,
receptacle.'
Apaiiieam ') in the line of march of Holofernes. 6 The Assyriological notices are mostly due to Prof. Cheyne.
189 190
 APHARSATHCHITES APHEK
§ I O ) and treated as the name of a tribe settled in somewhere in. the north of the Sharon Plain, they had. a
Palestine by ASNAPPER. Its etymology is still very great military post from which they could direct their
uncertain. See G. Hoffmann, Z A 254 f.; Marquart, armies either against Samaria or against the Philistines
Fund. 64 ; and Andreas in Marti, Bi61 - a ~ a m Gram.,
. (z I(. 1217 [IS]).
Glossary, p. 53". (6)As regards the Aphek of Samuel : it is clear that
APHARSATHCHITES, The (KJ!?D??5 [Sa.] ; a point in the northern part of the Sharon Plain, on
the road to Megiddo and the plain of Esdraelon, is
~ ~ $ ~ ~P i$. ] ;! f @bpec€hXbioi P I p a@bpcbO. appropriate to I S. 29 I. The mustering-place of the
[A]. ~ @ A ~ A c T A ) ([L]),
. Ezra4gf. See APHARSACII- Philistines cannot have been in the heart of the Hebrew
ITES. territory, least of all at such a place as el-Fal$Ci' on Mt.
APHARSITES (K!Q-@j [Sa.Gi.1; A @ ~ A C A I O [B], I
Gilboa (in the rear of Saul's army !) where it is absurdly
placed by Conder and Armstrong. It is argued that
a@apc.[AI ; @ a p a c e a l o ! [LI),mentioned in Ezra4gt the Philistines were at Shunem ( I S. 284) before they
as a tribe settled in Palestine by ASNAPPER. Various reached Aphek ; but to argue thus is to forget that I S.
attempts at identification have been made (Persians,by 283-25, the story of Saul and the witch of Endor, is
Rawlinson, Pu@. Corn. ad lac., but see KA T(2)376 ; a distinct narrative, by a different hand, and that 291
Pausua, a Median tribe, by Del. Pur. 327); but the originally followed directly on 28 I$
word is best regarded as a scribe's error, related (some (c) Finally, the attack on central Israel which issued
think) to W ~ D Y I N (EV A PHARSACHITES , Ezra56 66), in the battle of Eben-ezer and the destruction of Shiloh
or, more probably, miswritten for ~;??p, ' scribes.' The ( I S. 4) would naturally he taken to have been made
, T ARPELITES) was
last letter of M T I ~ D ( M T N , ~ ~ T Dsee from the same Aphek, were it not that commentators have
attached by dittography to the next word (Marquart, assumed that the position of Eben-ezer, and therefore
Fund. 64). of Aphek, is fixed somewhere near Mizpah by I S. 7 12.
APHEK (?Be &&K [BAL]). It is not easy to It is certainly safer, however, to distinguish the battle-
determine how many places of this name are mentioned field of Eben-ezer in I s.41 from the stone Eben-ezer
in the OT. Only one of them has been satisfactorily set up by Samuel many years later, than to assume the
identified. existence of two Apheks fitted to be the starting-point
I. In Josh. 134 (ra+m [B], CZ+EKU [A], - K K . [L])
of a Philistine campaign (cp EBEN-EZER). And here
Aphelc appears as the limit of the Sidonian country, also it is to be observed that chaps. 4 and 7 are derived
apparently as its northern limit towards the Giblites or from distinct documents, and that 'the historical value
Byblians. This Aphek, therefore, is commonly identified of the second is very insecure.
with Aphaca (now A&), famous for its sanctuary of From what has been said it will appear without further
Astarte, which lies at the source of the river of Byblus, argument that it is illegitimate to seek an Aphek in the
the Adonis or (as it is now called) Nahr Ibrahim ; cp region, between Mt. Tabor and the Sea of Galilee,. to
Lucian, D e n Syria 6-8. which Eus. and Jer. give the name of Saran, or to place
2. The Apheli assigned in Josh. 1930 to the tribe of the Aphelc of Kings at the caravan-station of F71: in the
Asher is mentioned in Judg. 1 3 1 (where the name mountains to the E. of the Sea of Galilee. This may
is written j m ~ APEIK,
, U+EK [AL], Y U E L [B]) as one
be the Apheca near Hippus or Hippe of O S 91 24 and
219 72 ; but is not a biblical site. W. R. S.
of the towns which the Canaanites were able to maintain The existence of an Aphek in Sharon is put beyond
against the invaders. Here also some suppose that doubt by the following additional evidence. First, in
Aphaca is meant ; but it is difficult to believe that Asher the lists of Thotmes 111. (c. 1600 B . C . ) nos. 60-76
ever attempted to extend so far north, and, as it appears
from Josh. 1 7 1 1that ~ Asher bad a theoretical claim to form a group by themselves ; 62 is Joppa, 64 Lydda, 65
Ono. Then come 66 Apultn, 67 Sulta, 68 Yhm. At
part of the plain of Sharon S. of Mt. Carmel as far at this last place, Thotmes had to decide which of three
least as Dor, it is probable that Aphelc in Sharon (no. roads he should take over Carmel. Yhm must therefore
3) is meant. have lain near the most southerly road-that is, somewhat
3. In Josh. 1218 ( O @ K [B]) we read, in the list of the
south of the mouth of the WZdy 'Abn NBr-and may
kings smitten by Joshua, ' the king of Aphek, one ; the he the present Yemma by the high road along the edge
king of Lasharon, one' ; but it is better to emend the of the Samarian Hills. Suka is doubtless the present
verse with the aid of bB ('O+&Kr7js ' A p h ~ and
) read ' the Shuweilseh, 2 m. farther S. Apukn therefore lay
king of ilphek in the (plain of) Sharon, one' (see Di. between it and Ono. Maspero, it is true, identified
on the passage). This Aphek in Sharon, as Wellhausen Sulia and Apul:n with the Judean Shocoh and Apheka
bas pointed out, is the city (a)from which the Syrians of Josh. 1 5 4 8 53 ; but W. Max Muller (As. zc. Eur. 161)
of Damascus made repeated attacks on Samaria, I K. has shown that the list contains nothing S. of Ajalon.
202630 ( U + E K U [BA], - K K . [L]), z IC.1317,' and ( 6 The n of Apnl$n may he the common termination of
and c) from which the Philistines assembled their forces place-names p-. Max Muller says it may also be
for war with Israel before the battles of Gilboa ( I S. read as i. Secondly, in the autumn of 66 A . D . Cestius
29 I ) and of Eben-ezer ( I S. 4 I ; Jos. C Z ~ + ~ KorU U $ E K U ) . Gallus, advancing on Jerusalem from Cesarea, reached
( a ) As regards the Aphek of Kings : that it lay in a Antipatris, and ' sent before ' a party to drive the Jews
lowland plain is clear from I K. 2023, and that the plain ont of ' the tower of Aphelc ' (IIfip;pyos 'A@EKoD).After
is that of Sharon follows from 2 K. 1322 bL,where we taking the tower he marched on Lydda (Jos. B.7 ii. 19 I).
find the addition (undoubtedly genuine) ' and Hazael This agrees with the data of Thotmes 111. and places
took the Philistine from his hand from the Western sea Aphelc between the River 'Aujeh and Lydda. Here
to Aphek.' Aphek therefore lay on the verge of Philistia there is now no place-name which affords any help in
-i.e., in Sharon-and we must understand that, both the case, unless it be that of the village Fejjeh-ie.,
in Benhadad's time and in the time of Hazael, the Syrians originally, Feggeh-about g m. NE. of Joppa (which,
avoided the difficulties of a direct attack on the central however, does not lie quite near enough to the E. limit
mountain-land of Canaan by striking into the maritime of the plain to suit Lucian's text of 2 K. 1 3 ~ 2 )and, it
plain south of Carmel and so securing the mastery of ought not to be overlooked that in a list of medirzval
the fertile coast-land without having to besiege Samaria. Arab place-names quoted by Rohricht (ZDPV, 1896)
Their route would, in fact, be the present great road from there occur both Sair Fuka and Falsin. Again, in a
Damascus to Ramleh through M e g i d d ~ . ~At Aphek, fragment of Esarhaddon (681-668 B.c.) a city Apku is
1 On this passage see ASHEK§ 3. described as 30 ' kasbu-kakliar ' from Raphia on the
2 See We. C H 254; cp Hist.: ET, 39 [but cp GASm. HG 350
a01 7 9 Egyptian frontier. Schrader (ZfA TP)204), who translates
' 3<CC'pthe route of Al-NHbulusi, ed. Tuch. Icasbu-kak$ar by ' double leagues,' takes Apku to lie on
191 192
 APHEKA APOCALYPSE
the E. ,of the lake of Gennesaret ( L e . , the present Fik) APOCALPPSE, THE (B OOK OF REVELATION).
and the .4phek of I I<. 2026, etc. This, however, seems According to the best Buthorities (KCA [in subscription]
less likely to give the distance from Raphia of a place so 28, 82, 93, 95 ; Ti. WH), the title runs
situated than of an Aphek on the plain of Sharon. The Name’ UTOKUXU\LLS Iwa[v]uou. Later MSS add rou
‘Aujeh, it may be remarked, is 70 m. from Raphia. and BcoXoyou ( Q and many cursives), or T O U
It ought not to be overlooked that the particularis- in NT* aroufoXou, or m u a r . K a i cuayyehrurou
ing of one Aphek as ‘in Sharon’ (Josh. 12 18, see ( P vg. cod., Syr. ).
above, 3) implies the existence of other Apheks in the In almost all MSS the Apocalypse now holds the
land. G. A. S. last place in the ET. The stichonietry of Cod. Claro-
montanus (D, Paul) arranges as follows : Evang. Paul..
APHEKA (52894, A@AKA [ALI, @AKOYA P I ) , an Cath. Apoc. Act. (see Greg. PYUL3 136; cp also
unidentified city in the mountain-land of Judah (Josh. what is said about the Evangeliaria, 175 and 368). 111
1553.k). the Syriac version of the Apocalypse which has been
APHEREMA, RV APH%RI~:MA (a@aips~a [K], edited by Gwynn, the book was preceded by the Fourth
a@ep. [VA] p;9)), I Macc.1134, probably a Gospel. The hiatus in Cod. D was perhaps originally
Grzecised form of the city-name E P H R A I M ( q . ~ .ii., ). occupied by the Apocalypse and Johanuine Epistles
(Bonsset, T L Z , 1892), thus giving the order Evang.,
APHERRA (a@eppa [BA]), a group of children of
Solomon’s servants (see N ETHINIM ) in the great post- Apoc., Epp. Joh., Acts. All this perhaps indicates that
exilic list (EZRA, ii. $ 9, § S c ) , one of eight inserted in the Apocalypse and the other Johannine writings were
I Esd. 534 (om. L) after Pochereth-hazzebaim of 11 Ezra
originally handed down together. I n point of fact,
2 5 7 = Neh. 7 59.
Tertullian actually speaks of an ‘ instrumentum
Johannis,’ which consisted of Apoc. and I Jn. (Resurr.
APHIAH (nr&; A@EK [BLJ -+ax CA”1, - @ I X [A’?l)s 38, 39 ; Pud. 19 ; Fugu 9 ; Prascr. 33). Cp Ronsch,
I S. 9 I+,according to MT, one of Saul’s ancestors ; Das neuc Test. TertuZl. 528.
but ’ son of Aphiah, a Benjaniite,’ should probably he The Boob seems to be presupposed in two places in
‘ of Giheah of Benjamin ’ (in’ 12 [nlyz-ia). So virtually the Ignatian epistles. (a)A d Ejh. 1 5 3 : i‘va G ~ E aV h ;
Wellhausen ; but he did not notice that Aphiah (cp @ 2. External vaol (KA read Xaol in Rev. 21 3) Kal adrbr
and note that K = Y , e.g., in Reba Nu. 3 1 8 ) is a corrup- iv i p i v BEbs. ( 6 ) Ad Philad. 6 I : o i h ~
tion of Gibeah. This was reserved for Marquart (Fund. canonicity.: 8,uol ur?jXal E ~ U L VKal T ~ + O L V C K P & J &$’ OTS
evidence
15). T. K. C . y&ypar.rai p6vov dvbpara d v e p i r w v (cp
APHIH (p’??), Judg. 131f. See APHEK,2. Rev. 3 1.5, in the.epistle to the church of Philadelphia].
Andrew of Caesarea, moreover, mentions Papias, amongst
APHRAH, HOUSE OF, RV Beth-le-Aphrah (n’p others, as bearing witness to the Apocalypse (radrg
n-&’, 01KOY K A T A r s h w T b [BXQ]), Mic. 1 IO+, the rpopaprupodvrwv ~ i )d&briurov), and on Rev. 12 7
name of a town not identified with any certainty. The adduces (32 40 f., ed. Sylb. ) two observations taken
determination of the site of Beth-le-Aphrah cannot be verbatim from Papias. That Eusebi& does not mention
separated from the larger qiiestion of the text of the the testimony of Papias is doubtless to be accounted
whole passage, Mic. 110-15, which cannot be discussed for by the historian’s unfriendly attitude towards thebook.
here (see Taylor, M T .f Mic. ;Ryssel, Unterszich. on Irenzeus appeals in support of the traditional number
the Book of Mic. 26 8 ; We. KZ. Proph. ; Wi. A T 666 to ‘ elders ’ who had actually seen John. ( I n all
Unters. 185 5 . A O F l 103). S o much, however, is probability we could reduce this testimony of the elders
plain-the vocalisation cannot be trusted, especially to that of Papias alone : Harnack, Chrun. der aZtchristZ.
in view of the paronomasia (‘ house of dust ’ RV mg. ), Lit.1 3 3 3 j . ) . W e find a writer so early as Justin
and even the consonants were differently read by Qi. asserting the book to be apostolical (Dial. 81 : rap’
The older writers (e.g.,Winer, so now also Nowack) $p?v dv?ip TLS LJ 6vopa ’Iwdvvqs ETS TGV drou76Xwv
identified Aphrah with OPHRAH( 2 . v . ); cp Pesh. ’ the XpraroD 8v &OK. ) and canonical (AjuZ. 1 28 : SSPK T&J
houses of Ophrah.’ But the context seems to demand ~ p ~ r i uuyypappdrwv
~ h v patltiv Gtvautle). This early
some place farther W. and S. Winckler, with his rather recognition of the Apocalypse as a canonical writing
too ingenious emendation ‘ Bethel’ (reading igt~-svfor need not surprise us : the book itself puts forward a
i ~ msys
y AOF, Z.C.),seeks to avoid this ohjection by claim to this character ( 1 1 8 8 2218).
reading ’ Gilgal ’ for the historically impossible Gath,’ In the second half of the second century we find the
and (with We.) ‘Belcaim’ (see B OCHIM ) for the very Apocalypse widely recognised.
questionable 6lEkd (in) I t is generally current (a)in Asia Minor, alike among Mon-
in 1I O U . Hitz. ( K G H , ad Zuc. ),
tmists, anti-Montanists (Apollonius ; Euseb. HE v. 1814). and
followed by Miihlau in H W B P), suggests a ‘Af7.E that mediating writers (Melito of Sardis ; i6. iv. 26 z ) ;
el 6uZdsq su6 vuc.) mentions as ‘acastle
YRl$iit ( M u ~ a m 3. 2nd and (I?) in Gaul, both with Irenaus (Adv. Hav.
in Palestine near Jerusalem.’ Ges. -Bu. suggests doubt- Cent. ii. 22 3 & iii. 1I 3 4 xi. I v. 301 3) and in the
writing of the church of LugdOnum and Vienna
fully Betqpubra (Eleutheropolis, Beit /ibrin), which, (in E u s . HE v.158). (c) In Africa as already mentioned
however, represents an Aram. ~ yn qi (Nestle in ZDPV Tertullian knows of an instrumentunr j o ~ a n n i sto which botd
the Apocalypse and I Jn. belong; the Acts of Pevpetuu a i d
1224J). Perhaps the name of the WZdy el-Ghafr FeZicitas shows acquaintance with it (cp cc. 4 and Pi). (d) In
running E. not far S. of Mirash may be an. echo of Egypt the /udicium Pein’ seems to know the book (Hilgenf.
Micah’s Aphrah. So GASm. ( TzueZve Prujh. 1384), iVov. Test. extr. Can. Rereptwa 101): (e) for Antioch, BLhop
Theophilus (Elis. H E iv. 241) is our witness Lo the same effect ;
Che. (JQR, July 1898). The 5 in ;ngy$ seems to be a and (f)for Rome, the Muratorian Canon. (s) Clement of Alex-
scribe’s error (as if ‘ in the dust ’). andria cites the Apocalypse (Ped. 2 108 119 ; Sfvom. G 106)
Origen is unaware of any reason for doubting its apostolic origir;
APHSES (Y.?t?;?), I Ch. 24& AV, RV HAPPIZZEZ. (in/os. Hont. 6 ; cp Eus. H E vi. 259).
APIS (9n; o arrlc [BKAQ] The situation changes, however, in the third century.
; Egyptian @a@), the bl As early as in the second century Marcion had refused
a Q‘
phls (see EGYPT,§ 14). Though the name of this famous to recognise the book (Tert. Adu. Marc. 4 s),
deity does not occur in EV, he is mentioned once in O T 4* 8rd and the so-called sect of the Alogi attribntcd
(Jer. 46 15a). @ alone has preserved the true division cent’ both the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel
of the words : for rpp, AV ’ are swept away ’ (similarly to Cerinthus (Epiph. Her. 51, Philastr. Har. 60-
RV Pesh. Vg. ), we must read !q D;, ‘ hath fled Apis ’ Hippolytus ; cp Iren. iii. 119)-probably on account of
~

their own hostility to Montanism (after Irenaeus ; Th.

(P+uyev b “Arris). Cp Konig, Syntax 210, n. I.
Zahn, Kanuns-gesch. 1 2 3 9 8 , Bousset, Kumm. 16f.).
For an analogous correction see Giesebrecht and Cornill This o p osition by the Alogi was continued by the Roman
ad luc. and cp C ALF , G OLDEN , 2. presbyter &ius, who, in hi5 dispute with the Montanist Proclus,
13 193 19b
 APOCALYPSE APOCALYPSE
also attributed the work to Cerinthus(Eus. H E iii. 282). From De Virg. 1 4 , De Spiri'fu 3 m), Rufinus (Exp. in Syn16. 37) ;
the refutation of &ius by Hippolytiis (Kfqbdhata Karb I'aiou, ,n Novatus, Commodian, Arnobius, and others see Lardner,
Assem. BibZ. Or. iii. 1 1 5 ; fragments in Gwynn, Herrnath. 6 7redibility of the Gospel Hisfory.
397.418 ; cp also the writing catalogued in the inscription on the Augustine (in Evang.-/oh. 1 3 3 6 , Epist. 118, Civ.
throne --3nBp TOO car& ' I w d v q v fhsyyshiov Kai &onaA<+ews) we
learn that Caius directly took up and continued the criticism of Dei 20 7 ) insists on the identity of the author of the
the Alogi. 2ospel with the writer of the Apocalypse.
The criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H E T h e book was acknowledged a t the synods of Hippo (393) and
lartbage (397). As early as the end of the third century it was
vii. 25) was more moderate and more effective. He :ommented on by Victorinus bishop of Pettau (06. 303 A.u.).
does not hold Cerinthus to have been the author of the He was followed by the Donatist Ticonius (before 380).
Apocalypse, but conjectures that it must have been the An exceptional position was taken up by Jerome, who,
work of some other John than the son of Zebedee, inder eastern influence, relegated the Apocalypse to the
arguing from a comparison between the Apocalypse on jecond class of s c r i p t n r ~eccZesiastice ( i n Ps. q g ) ,
the one hand and the Gospel and Epistles on the other IS also afterwards by Philastrius, if it be indeed the case
as to style, language, and contents. The criticism of that the book was not mentioned in the Canon of his
Dionysius was afterwards taken up by Eusebius, who De heyesibus 8 7 3
was the first to provide a firm basis for the conjecture of At a later date the capitulum Aquisgranense (Coup. 3ur.
Dionysius as to a second John by a reference to what . Walter, ii. 177Jr cap. 20), adopting the decision of
S e ~ n z . ed.
the Synod of Laodicea, removed it from the Canon.
Papias says of ' both ' Johns ( H E iii. 39) and inclines to At the Reformation the view of Jerome was revived
class the Apocalypse with the spurious books, uoOor ( H E by Erasmus in his Annotutiones. Luther's well-known
iii. 2 5 4 ) . 9 . Since Re- adverse judgment, pronounced in his
Henceforward the view of Dionysius and Eusehius formation. preface of 1522, rests more on a religious
became the prevailing one in the Eastern Church. than on a scientific foundation. Sub-
The book was recognised, indeed, by Methodius of Tyre
(Synzpos.1 5 G 5 8 4 3 ) and Pamphilus (Apol., ed. de la Rue sequently he gradually modified his view in a sense more
4 25 331, but on the other band unrecognised favourable to the book. In his translation, however, he
6. Eastern by Cyril (Catech. 4 33-36), Greg. of Nae. (Cavm. indicated his unfavourable opinion so far at all events
Church. 3 9 , the Synod of Laodicea (Can. 64, see Zahn that he relegated James, Jude, Hebrews, and the Apoca-
op. f i t . 2 197 j?), the ApostulicaZ Constifur
tions (Can. 85 [84] Zahn 2 1 9 1 8 ) the Iambics of Seleucus lypse to the end of the N T without pagination. The
(Zahn, 2 217). The'Apocaiypse is ndt mentioned by Theodore last edition of the N T in this form appeared in 1689.
of Mopsuestia, or by Chrysostom (cp the rpo6'ewp;a of the Carlstadt (LiZJeZlus de canonicis scr@tu?is, 1520),
Synopsis of Chrysostom, Zahn, 2 210). or by Theodoret. In the
Stichonzetry of Nicephorus manipulated in Jerusalem (circa falling baclc on the criticism of Eusehius, classed the
850 ; Zahn, 2 288 296J) it figures among the Antile omena ; Apocalypse among the seven Antilegoinena. The
in the list of the sixty canonical books it is not found, ttough it opposition to its reception lasted down to the following
is again introduced into the Synopsis of Athanasius. century, and disappeared only after the introduction of
The unfavourable judgment of the Syrian church re- John Gerhards cunningly devised distinction between
garding it is very noteworthy. canonical and deutero-canonical writings (Loc. tfzeol. i.
The Doctrine of Adu'ai which, in the form in which we now
have it, dates from about 400 A.D., recognises, as authoritative cap. 9, 241). In the reformed churches the opposition
scriptore, aothing beyond the four gospels (Diates- disappeared much earlier-from the time of Calvin,
6. Syrian saron), the Pauline Epistles, and Acts. From indeed.
Church. the Peshicta it is wholly absent. Whether Ephraim I n the eighteenth century the question was again revived by
recognises the Apocalypse as canonical is, to say Abauzit (Discours Aist. sur lajoc. (in CEuvres diverses, tom. i.,
the least, doubtful. T h e Greek works that passunder his name, 1770); Hermann Oeder (Christlich freie Unt.=rsuch. 96. d.
being of uncertain authenticity, cannot here be taken into account, sownannfe Oflen6. /oh., published by Semler, Halle, 1769),
and thus the evidznce that he did appears to rest mainlyon a single &erring to the view of Cams of Rome attributed the book to
passage (Opera, Assem. 2 232, cp Rev. 51-3).1 In any case Cerintbus. H e was followed by Semle; (Freie Uniersuch. des
the noteworthy fact remains that Ephraim cites the Apocalyps: Canons 7772 and in many controversial writings) and by Corrodi
but little and develops his apocalyptical ideas on lines supplied (Gesch. 'des bkiliasnrus, 1781). The best defeice was that of
by other kritings. Besides, the Syrian Church did not look upon Hartwig (Apologie der Apok., 1780.83). Cp also the successive
the book with favour? Jacob of Edessa (06. 708) cites it editions of J. D. Michaelis, 13inZ. in die gJttZichen Schriiften
(Ephraemi opera, ed. Assem. 1 192)~and Bar Salib (ob. I I ~ I ) , from 1750 onwards.
ci); but Bar-Hebreus
*thus
4.
bishop of Mabug (Mabba h), comments on it (Gwynn, lxxxvii
1286) holds it to be the work of
or of the 'other John (Assem. BibL Or. 3 IS), and
Our sources for the text are the following :-
A. Greek MSS'-(i) Uncials. I t exists in NAC (39-5 14 7 y - 1 7
Ebed Jeiu' (06. 1318) omits it from his list of canonical scriptures. 8 5-916 10 10.11 3 16 13-182 19 5-22 21 being absent) also in P
In an Armenian Canon also, by Mechitar of Aivirank (mgo), Porfirianus Chiovensis szc. 9 Act. bath. Paul.
the Apocalypse is reckoned among the Antilegomena. 10. Text :l Apoc. (16 12-17I 19 12-20 2 22 6-21being absent),
Though the opposition to the Apocalypse was thus the material. and Q (in Tischendorf, B), Vaticanus 2066
persi&nt in the Syrian Church, it gradu- szc. 8 (Apoc. only). (2) Cursives. Of these
7. some seventy are more or less collated. Their readings can be
ally died away in the other Eastern prov- learned from the editions and collations of Mill-Kuster (1710),
East. ;11".F ee
1-1. Bengel ( 1 7 3 4 3 ) , Wetstein (r751-2), Matthzi (1782-88, tom. x.),
T h e bookis acknowledged by Athanasius Didymus Cyr.Alex., Alter (1786.87) Birch (Vnrie Lectt. in Ajok., 18oo), Scholz
Nilus Isidore of Pelusium (Egypt),a 'Gregory 'of Nyssa, ('30-36), Scri;ener (Codex Auziensis 1859 ; Adversaria
Epipdanius of Salamis and Johannes Damascenus. Andrew, Critica, 'g;.), Tregelles ( ' y - ~ z ) , Tischenddrf (ed. octava major),
archbishop of Czsarea in Cappadocia, wrote his commentary on Alford (New Test. vol. iv. ed. 2, 1885), Simcox (3. PhiZ. 22
it in the first half of the fifth century. H e was not, however, 285.83.
followed in this until the ninth century, when Aretha4, his suc- B. Versions.-(r) Latin.-A good deal is now known about
cessor in office, also undertook the task. these. T h e oldest stage is'represented by h (Floriacensis), the
Latin translation used by Primasius (Haussleiter, Fursc7t~mngen
In the Western Church, on the other hand, the sur Gesch. des Kanons iv.); the intermediate, by the Gigas
Apocalypse was accepted unanimously from the first. Holmensis (ed. Belsheim '79). T h e best material for the
8. West. Hippolytus (see above) defended and com- Vulgate is brought together in Lachmann (Nov. Test.) and
mented on it in a no longer extant work, Tischendorf. (2) Syriac.-A valuable Syriac rendering
(probably the Philoxeniana) has recently been edited by Gwynn
and makes copious quotations from it in his Com- (op. cii.).2 TheSyriac MSS hitherto known(see Gwynn, x i v . 8 )
mentary on Daniel and in his De A n t i c h i s t o . represent the text of Thomas of Harkel. (3) Importance also
Similarly, it is recognised by Lactantius (fnstit. 2 z 7 IO, attaches to the still comparatively unexplored Coptic (see
epit. 42 ; cp 7 15 j?), Hilary (De Tvin. G 20 43), Ambrose Goussen Stud. Theol. i.) and Armenian versions.
C. Ch&h Fathers.- There are copious citations in Origen,
1 Gwgnn (The Apocabpse of St. Jokn in a Syriac Version,
Dublin-London 1897, p. ciii) cites also D e Lamy, H y m n . 1 66
Hippolytus (especially in the De Antichrist0 and in the com-
__
-a passage w k c h the present writer finds himself unable to t See F. Delitzsch HandschnytZiche F u n & 1861 ; B. Weiss
accept a s proof. 'Die Joh.-Apok.' 'in Tex2e. u. Untersncjz. 7 1 ('91); W:
2 Thomas of Harkel, it is true, included it in his translation, Bousset, 'Text-kritische Studlen' in Texte u. Untersuch. 11 4
as probably also (according to the latest researches of Gwynn) ('94) ; Gwynn, The d p o c a b j s e in a Syriac version, 1897 ; on
did Philoxenus of Mabng (Mabbagh). which see T. K. Abbot, ' Syriac version of Apocalypse,' Herin.
3 See Liicke, Versuch einer zwZZst&d'gen EinZeitung in die athena, 1897, pp. 27-35.
Oflendarzmn~/ohdnnis(21, Bonn, 1852. 2 See last note.

195 196
 APOCALYPSE APOCALYPSE
nirntary on Daniel; see the new edition by Bonwetsch and and declared the whole tradition regarding the presence
Achelis), and Cyprian. The text used by Andrew of Cresarea of John the Apostle (and Evangelist) in Asia Minor to
and Arethas in their commentaries has not as yet been fully
established. The text of the lost commentary of Ticonius can have been due to a confusion between his name and that
best he made out from the excerpt from the commentary on the of the presbyter.
Pseudo-Augustinian Homilies. So Vogel, D e r Evangelist Johannes 1801-4 ; Liitzelberger,
In the attempt to classify this material, it is best to Die Kirchliche Tradition #bey den A>osteZ johanrzes, 1840 ;
begin with the class which shows the latest text-namely, Keim, Gesch. j e s u von Nazam, 1867 1161J ; Scholten, Dcr
A$. johannes in KZeinasien, 1872 ; deiffenbach, Das Pajias-
ll. C,assifi.ca-( I ) the Arethas class, so named because fragment, 1874 ; Thoma, Dar johannism., 1882 ; and others.
a text of this order was used by Arethas Against Scholten cp Hilgenfeld, ZWT, 1876-77, also Zahn,
tion. for his Commentary (hence a150 many St. hi: 1866,p. 6 4 9 8 ; Actajoannis clv., Steitz, St.Kr., 1868,
p. 5098.:, Herzog, R E 117 8 8
cursives of this class are, strictly speaking, MSS of
Arethas-Commentaries). T o this class belong Q and The question is difficult. The first remark to be made
about forty of the more or less known cursiv&. The upon it is that the assumption that there were two Johns
15. only in Asia Minor-the apostle and the presbyter
~

material being so defective, separate groups within the

class can hardly be distinguished. -finds only slepder support in ancient
Tentatively and under great reservation a few may here be One John tradition. Whatever the interpretation we
suggested. (i.) 9, 13, z , 93 are somewhat closely connected in Asia may put on the important testimony of
(cp TLZ 1894, p. 658)’ &.)z 8 (14) 140 151 29, 50,97 (the last Minor’ Papias preserved by Eusebius ( H E iii.
three veiy intimately ’related) ’ 94 .’ (iii.’) 6 ’TI 71 (47) ; (iv.) 391&), it is at least certain that Papias speaks not of
lastly, Q, 14, 92 show near affiAitie;. T h e &odp xoimed by (v.)
7 16, 39,45,69 represents the transition-stage between this class two Johns in Asia Minor-the apostle and the presbyter
(i)and the next class ( z ) . -but of one John, whom we are to look for as a near
The second class, which we can detach from the rest neighbour of Papias in space and time. Of a second
as having arisen out of a later redaction, is ( 2 ) the so- John the second century and the first half of the third
called ‘ Andrew’ class-the class to which the text used know nothing ; he is unknown to IrenEus and to those
by Andrew (see above, 5 I O C) in his conimentary who disputed the claims of the Fourth Gospel, to the
belonged. It falls into several clearly distinguishable Alogi and to Caius, to Tertullian, to Clement, and to
subordinate groups. Origen. Not till the time of Dionysius of Alexandria is
(i.) The group consisting of 35, 68, 87, 121 stands almost reached do we find any indication of the sort (Eus. H E
entirely apart, presenting as it does many points of contact vii. 2516). Even Dionysius alleges no other evidence
with the Arethas group, but often showing a very peculiar text.
The following three groups on the other hand are very closely than that in his day two graves of ’ John ’ were shown.
akin : (ii.) I, 12 36, 81, rsi(often with a very a k h a i c Latinising T h e inference he draws from this-that there must have been
substratum) ; di.) 28, 73, 79, 80, 991 10,17, .3p 49, [721, 91,
two Johns-is by no means a stringent one. It would not he less
reasonable to suppose that in his day the precise burial-place of
96, [IS+], 161. Cod. P admits of being ranked wit this class as
a whole, but cannot be associated with any of the subordinate John was no longer known or that the two pmjjl*am represented
groups in particular. two distinct holy ‘places ,‘of John (so Jer. de vir. ill. 9 : duiure
nzemovire; Zahn, A c t a j o . clv). For this supposition, Eusebius
Of all the known cursives there are only ( 3 ) four-[z6], has supplied a plausible basis by combining the statement of
38, 51, 95-which it has hitherto been found impossible Papias about two Johns with the traditions ‘mentioned by
to classify ; they show an ancient text. Dionysius about two graves of John a t Ephesus.
It is as vet difficult to detect the ‘ Western text’ If the assuniption that there were two Johns in Asia
12. ,WesFn (see T EXT) in the Apocalypse ; but
this will gradually become practic-
__
Minor Droves to be a baseless hypothesis-and its base-
16. viz., the lessness is shown by the fact, among other
Text. able as in recent years new sources Presbyter. things, that the ‘John’ of Asia Minor is
have become accessible. so often spoken of without distinauishina
Witnesses to it, though only in part, are the uncial N (with a phrase of any kind-thequestion which next ar&s is & i
very erratic and only partially ancient text), the text of Primasius to whether this John was the apostle or the presbyter.
(identical, according to Haussleiter’s investigations, with Cy-
prian’s text, and thus old African), the fragments of h, the Gigas At this point the important testimony of Papias turns the
Holmensis g, Ticonius (containing a later development of the scale in favour of the presbyter. For his contemporary
text), and the Syriac version edited by Gwynn and designated Z and the authority whom he quotes is-next to Aristion
(the latcr version known a s S shows a text almost everywhere -the ‘ presbyter ’ John (Eus. Z3E iii. 39 4) ; and Aristion
correct& in accordance with the Arethas class, though in many
places also it contains a text older than 2). T o the same cate- and John are doubtless also to be identified with the
gory belong also, in part, the group I, 12, 36,81,15z (cp Gwynn, r p e u p h p o i whom, according to Eus. HE iii. 393, Papias
cxli.) and, finally, the Armenian version, which, unfortunately, could still directly interrogate. The evidence of z Jn.
is not yet sufficiently known (note the coincidence of I, 12, 36,
etc. with arm. ; cp Bousset, IConznr. 178). A further point and 3 Jn., claiming as they do to be written by the
worthy of notice is the close affinity of K, 8 (S), and Origen : one rpeupdmpor, points in the same direction. Moreover,
might almost venture to constitute NZOr. a distinct group in the as has already been pointed out ( 5 14), the Apocalypse
Western Class (Bousset, 181 ; Gwynn, I v x ) . apparently does not profess to have been written by the
Distinctly the best text is that presented~by ACVg. apostle. On the other side, it is true, we already find
The Vulgate furnishes us with good means of con- Justin ( D i d 81 ; see above, $j z) asserting the apostolic
13, Result. trolling the text of AC, especially where authorship. It is, however, noticeable that I r e n ~ n s -
the two differ or where C is wanting. for whom the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse
AVg., therefore, where C is wanting, often constitutes a are all by one and the same author-speaks of John
stronger testimony than that of all the other witnesses as an apostle only in indefinite expressions similar to
together. those in Gal. 119, but elsewhere invariably designates
‘ I John am he that heard and saw these things ’ him as ‘disciple’ (fiaOqmjs); see Bousset, 09.cit. 41J
(228 RV ; cp 1 4 9). Are we to identify this John with the Further, Irenaxs, who calls Papias a disciple of John,
14.Professed apostle, the son of Zebedee? Within also speaks of Polycarp as his fellow disciple (Eus.
the book itself 2114 might fairly he HEiii. 391). If we refuse to suppose that IrenZns
author. urged against this identification. The had already confounded the presbyter with the apostle,
first to submit the question to thorough discussion was then the great teacher of Polycarp was also, according
Dionysius of Alexandria (see above, (i 4); in the result to I r e n ~ u s ,the ‘ presbyter’ John ; for Papias was a
he attributed the book to another John. This theory disciple of the presbyter. In the Muratorisln canon,
of a second John, adopted also by Eusebius (HE further, John is called simply ‘ discipulus,’ whereas
iii. 39 Iz), was revived in the present century (Bleelc, Andrew is ‘apostolus.’ The testimony also of Poly-
Ewald, de Wette, Liicke, Neander, Dusterdieck, crates in the letter to Victor (ap. Eus. HEv. 2 4 2 8 : )
etc. ), the John of the Apocalypse being usually in this claims particular attention in this connection. Here,
case identified with the ‘Presbyter’ of Ens. HE in a passage where everything turns upon the exact
iii. 39 13 Criticism advanced another step, however, titles of the persons named, Polycrates designates
I97 198
 APOCALYPSE APOCALYPSE
as the uroixek of Asia Minor ( I ) the apostle Philip Apart from the works already named mention must be
and his daughters ; ( 2 ) John who lay on the bosom made of those of Cassiodorus (CowrjZexi&s in apoca@$sin
ed. Scipio Maffey, Florence, 17211). Beda (06. 735 ; enplanatiu
of the Lord, pdprus Kal G[GCLUKU.XOS, who was buried rpucalypsis in Bihliotiz. Patr. Cologne, vol. v.), and Ambrosius
in Ephesus, 6s iyev@‘q k p e h 7 6 ~Crahov req5o- Lnsbertus (c. 770: in Apoca&psitlr libiln‘x BibZ. P a t r Col. 9
P ~ K ;~ ( S3 ) the bishops Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris, ,). Dependent in turn on Ansbertus ard’Alcuin (Miihe, PAL
:at.100) and g a y m o f. Halberstadt [8431 (Migne, 117), while
Papirius, Melito. Polycrates thus designates, plainly Nalafried Strabo’s Glossa ordinaria (Migne Pat. Lat. 114)
with intention, the author of the Fourth Gospel also lepends on Haymo. To the same class df interpretations
as teacher and witness, not as apostle. Indeed, the ,elong the performances of Anselm of Laon (Migne, 162),
traditions relating to the Fourth Gospel become much 3runo of Aste (Migne, 165), Rupert of Ueutz (Migne, 189),
Xichard of St. Victor (Migne, 196), Albertus Magnns (Opera,
more intelligible if we are able to assume that the ,yons, 16jr, tom. 12), a commentary, probably in reality of
witness (Jn. 1935, P K E ~ V O S oiGev) is not the Galilaean Naldensian origin, which is found, in two recensions, among
apostle, the son of Zebedee, but another John, a he works of Thomas Aquinas (Opera, Parma, 1869 ; tom. 23
~ 4 5 ~8@2 ) Hugh of St. Caro (1263 ; Postilla), Dionysius
Jerusalemite (Bousset, Komm. 43f.). It may also be -arthusius (r)4th cent.). Thus the single commentary of
remarked that the statement of the Fourth Gospel- l’iconius continued to dominate the whole interpretation of the
that the beloved disciple was ‘known unto the high 4pocalypse until far down in the Middle Ages.
priest’ (1815)-harmonises well with the account of The next interpreter of the Apocalypse to attain wide
Polycrates, ‘ who became priest ’ (6s iepehs tyev7j6’q ; nfluence was Joachim of Floris (soon after 1195 :
cp further, H . Delff, St. Kr., 1891, and Harnack, Expositio . ..
a66atis Ioachim in Apoc. ,
Chronol. 1456j’.). 19’ Joachim* Venice, 1527). With him the fantastic
The inference from all this would seem to be that the futurist (chiliastic) interpretation began to gain the
(one) John of Asia Minor, who was the presbyter, was upper hand. over the formerly prevalent spiritualising
one who had seen Jesus indeed, hut not one of the view. H e was at the same time the originator of a
number of the apostles. The John of the Apocalypse ‘recapitulation theory,’ which he carried out into the
(cp the superscription of the Epistles) is thus the minutest details. As ‘the Age of the Spirit,’ associated
presbyter. with a mendicant order that was to appear, occupied a
Whether the Apocalypse was really written by him is 3entral place in the prophecies of Joachim, he naturally
another question. In order to understand how the became the prophet of the ‘ opposition ’ Franciscans,
Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel could tnd his works were accepted by them as sacred. It
17. Real
authorship.l both be attributed to the same disciple was in these circles accordingly that his immediate
of the Lord, it is necessary to remove followers in the interpretation of the Apocalypse arose
them both a little distance away from him. John 1 Peter Johannes Olivae, Ubertino de Casale, Sera-
is only the eye-witness, not the author of the Fourth phinus de Fermo, Annius Viterbiensis, Petrus Galatinus) :
Gospel: so, in like manner, in the Apocalypse we but his influence spread very widely in the course of
may have here and there a passage that can be traced succeeding centuries, and a continuous chain of many
to him, but the book as a whole is not from his pen. Links connects the name of Joachim with that of
Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse all come from the same Cocceius, who, in virtue of his Co&ationes de apoc. S.
school. They show also at various points linguistic 70annis (Leyden, 1605), is usually taken as the typical
affinities (Bousset, Konzm. zozj?). They had, moreover, representative of the modern ‘ recapitulation theory.’
at first the same history : they were, it would seem, the Among the precursors of the Reformation the anti-
favourite writings of Montanism, and were all three Roman and anti-papal interpretation began to gain
alike rejected by the opponents of Montanism, the 20. Reforma- ground, although the only methodical
Alogi. exposition of this view that can lie
tion. named is the commentary (by Johu
The earliest Greek fathers who in any measure
attempted to interpret the Apocalypse were Irenzus, Purvey ?), emanating from Wycliffite 1 circles and
Hippolytus, and Methodius : written in 1390, which was afterwards published by
Irenaeus, in A d z Mer. 5 . Hippolytus in Comm. on Daniel Luther (Conznzentarius in Apoc. ante centum annos
in Ir68e&s m p i 708 Ivrc,&cmv, in e i t a n t fragments of thd editus, 1530).
KEcpdhaLa KQT~ rah and in a no longer
The founder of a consistently elaborated unfversal-
18. Interprets- extant commentary ’on the book itself;
tion : Greek Methodius in .Sym#. 1 5 6 8 4 8 Of historical interpretation was Nicolaus de Lyra (1129,
and Latin, continuous commentaries originating in the in the PostiZs, which have been often
Greek Church we possess only those of 21.historical printed). H e is followed by certain
Andrew (5th cent., ed. Sylburg) and of Arethas (yth cent., ed.
Cramer). ,. . Catholic interureters. and. in method
The oldest Latin commentary, which contains mnch at least., bv
, Luther. who. in his ure-
interesting and ancient material (for example, the face of 1534 (Walch., 11) gives, in the space of a
interpretation of various passazes ,referring to Nero), is few pages, a clever but fantastic interpretation of the
that of Victorinus of Pettau (oh. 303). W e possess it entire book, in which, as might be expected, the anti-
only in Jerome’s redaction. Haussleiter is about to papal interest holds a central place. Luther’s view
edit it in its original form. An exceedingly powerful continued to dominate the interpretation of the Apoca-
influence was exercised also by the commentary of lypse within the Lutheran church.
Ticonius. It prevailed from the time of Lucas Osiander (Bih2iovunt
This work is, unfortunately no longer extant and has to be sacror?~in,pars 3) down to that of Jo. Gerhard (Annof. in
reconstructed, as far as the i a t e r i a l s allow, from the pseudo- Apoc. joh., Jena, 1643) and Abr. Calovius (Bi6Zia Nm. Test.
Augustinian Hortzili~in Apoc. (Migne, Pat. Lat. 35), the ZIlirsti:, tom. 2 Frankfort, 1672-a learned work with valu-
commentary of Primasius (ob. 586 ed. princ. Basel, 1544) able introductory material and persistent polemic against Hugo
and (mainly) the great compilations’of Beatus, written in 776 Grotius; f o r -a list of the commentaries dependent on Luther
(in Apocnlypsi?n, ed. Florez, 1770).3 see Bousset, K;?mm. 94). None of the works mentioned was
of any value for the real interpretation of the book: the
In his commentary, written before 380 A. D., wholly Apocalypse and its interpretatiou, so far a s the Lutheran Church
from the Donatistic point of view, Ticonius consistently in Germany is concerned, became merely the arena for anti-
carries out the spiritualistic interpretation. In his Catholic polemics.
explanation of the millennium passage (20 I j?)he was Within this period the number of works produced in
afterwards followed by Augustine (Rousset, Komm. 65). Germany and Switzerland on this subject without
Down to the Middle Ages the exegesis of the book dependence on the dominant Lutheran view was very
continued to follow that of Ticonius, if his Donatistic small.
tendency be left out of account. Among them the Diljyens a t p e ewdita enarraiio I i h i
Apoc. ]oh., 1547, of Theodor Bibliander is worthy of notice ;
in it we can discern in the treatment of chaps. 1 2 and 13 the
~

1 Cp Wycliffe’s own interpretation of Rev. 20 in the D i a l o p s

in Neander, K G 6228.
199 200
 APOCALYPSE APOCALYPSE
beginnings of an interpretation looking to contemporary con- :ZnazrguraZ disr., Strassburg, 1786) and by Eichhorn
ditions. Bullinger (Predigfen, 1557) and Junius (Apoc. /oh. :Commenturius, 1791). Even those shreds of the
Illustrata, 1591)have a good deal in common with Bibliander.
nterpretation that looks to universal history, which had
Wildest and most fantastic of all are the English itill persisted in showing themselves in Alcazar’s work,
commentaries of this period. *Yerenow stripped away, and thus a provisional resting-
Among them may be named Napier of Merchiston the place was reached.
inventor of logarithms ( A Plain Discovely ofthe whole Re&Zaa-
tion of Saint john, 1593), Thomas Brightman (A$oca/y$sis This stage is see11 in the works of Bleek (TheoL Zfschr. 2
dpoca@pseos, Frankfort, r6og), Joseph Mede (Claois apoca- Berlin, 1820, Vorlesungen z2lerdieAjok. puhli-hed by Hossbaci
b j f i c a 1627) and Sir Isaac Newton (Olservations upon the in r862), Ewald (Comm. 1828, Die johnnn. Schriffe,z 2 1862)
f+ophbcies 2 Daniel and the ApocaIyPse %St. j o h n , 173~- De Wette (Kuree ErkZrirung, r848-54-62),Lucke (Ver&& cine;
vollsfrindigen Eideifuiig in die O f m b a w n g , 1832, 2nd ed.
dependent upon Mede).
r852), Volkmar (‘62), and also, for the most part, Diisterdieck
The history of a strictly scientific interpretation of Y59-87).
the Apocalypse, on the other hand, must be held to In all these works the interpretation from contem-
22. Scientific. begin with the learned commentaries of porary history is consistently carried out. All set forth
French and Spanish Catholic theo- from the decisive observation that inchap. 11 the preserva-
logians. They meet the Protestant polemic with con- tion of the temple is predicted, and all, accordingly, date
spicuous and indeed often astounding erudition, and, the book from before 70 A.D. Further, they all rightly
going back to the point of view of the earlier Church recognise that the main drift of the Apocalypse is
fathers, lay the foundations of a cautious and for the directed against Rome ; all, too (except Diisterdieck),
most part purely eschatological interpretation. recognise Nero Redivivus in the wounded head. In
In this connection the works of Frauciscus Ribeira (1578) particular, since the discovery, independently arrived at
Blasius Viegas (1601? cp also Bellarminus, De Sumnzo Pontzyci
lib. tert. De Antichristo), Benedictus Pereyra (r606?), and Cor- by Fritzsche, Benary, and Reuss, that the number 666
nelius a Lapide (1626) are well worthy of mention. is intended for pi1 lop, the reference to Nero has become
Conspicuous above them all is the Vesesdigatio arcani the rocher de Bronce of all exegesis of the Apocalypse.
sensus in ApocaZypsi of Ludovicus ab Alcazar. That In passing, mention may he made of some works which,
writer was the first to carry out consistently the idea that although following obsolete exegetical methods, are not without
a scientific value : Hengstenberg(‘49-’51-’61),Ehrard (‘53), Elliot
the Apocalypse in its earlier part is directed against ( N o m Apoca&pticm, 1851 ; univ. -hist.), Auherlen (‘54-’74),
Judaism, and in its second against Paganism, so that in Christian (%I), Luthardt (‘61), Alford (New Testament 4 2 )
chaps. 12 f. we read of the first persecution of the Kliefoth (‘74) Beck (Erhl. von Ofin6. i.-xii. ; eschato1.j and
Kiibel (in St;ack-Zockler’s HK. 1888 : this takes a mediatine
Christians in the Roman Empire, and in ch. 19 of the
final conversion of that Empire. He thus presents us
course between the standpoint; of contemporary history
eschatology). See also Zahn, ‘Apokalyptische Studien, in
,a?a
with the first serious attempt to arrive at a historical ZZflVL, 1885-86.
and psychological understanding of the book. T h e interpretation of the Apocalypse entered on a
The idea worked out by .4lcazar had already been expressed new phase1 as soon as doubts arose regardinn the unitv
by Hentenius in the preface to his edition of Arethas(Ecrnlzenii I

24. Question of the work and the method of literary

-

Coi/rrrzenfn~.,ed. Moreiius et Hentenius 2), and by Salmeron

(Opera 12 Cologne 1614 ‘In sacram Jo. Apoc. prxludia’). criticism to be applied. The conjecture,
Of unity*
It oug& tdhe added’here b a t the explanation of the wounded which had been hazarded more than once,2
head as referring to Nero Redivivus is found (for the first time that the Apocalypse was really a composite work was
since Victorinus)in the commentary of the Jesuit Juan Mariana.
It was from the Jesuits that Protestant science first learned how again taken UD indeoendentlv, > (I)
Y L A , , Daniel Volter. at
bv
to work this field. 25. Redaction the suggestion of Weizsaclcer, whose
Grotius (Annot. ad KT, Paris, 1664),who is so often hypothesis. pupil he was. The particular hypo-
spoken of as the founder of scientific exegesis, is, in his thesis Dut forth bv Volterz as to the
remarks on .the Apocalypse at any rate, entirely depend- composition of the Apocalypse may for convenience
ent on Alcazar, whose interpretation, indeed, he has not be called the redaction hypothesis ( Uederarheitungs-
improved by the details assuming references to universal Hypothese).
He assumed in his first sketch, which he has not substantially
history and contemporary events which he has introduced modified, a fundamental text (Gmndschrz~t)consisting (apart
into it. from single verses) of 11-4 4-6 71-8 Sf: 141-7 18 191-41414-20
Grotius in turn was followed by Hammond (cp the Latin 195-10,dating from the sixties, and an appendix 101-llrg17,
editions of Clericus tom. 1 Amsterdam 1698 and Clericus’s dating from 68-70 A . D . This underwent three (or rather four)
notes to Hammond)’ BossuA (1688) and’ Her&s (1684). In redactions, of which the latest was in 140 A.D.-01, at all events,
Holland and Germkny the fantastic school of interpretation later than 130.
continued to flourish for some time longer( prominent repre- The work of Volter is based on a few happy observa-
sentatives being, in Holland, Vitringa, with his profoundly
learned ~ V ~ K ~ L U& LT CO K ~ ~ I ~ $ ~ L (1705
OS ; dependent on Mede) tions. For example, he saw that 1414-20 really forms the
and his many followers, and in Germany, Bengel, with hi; close of an apocalypse, recognised the divergence between
commentary (1740-46.58) and sixty practical discourses on the 71-8 and 79-17, the true character of 101-1113,-and so
Apocalypse. Much greater sobriety is shown by Joh. Marck forth. Nevertheless, broadly, Volter’s performance
in his In Apoc. Comm. 1699, with its copious exegetical material
and valuable introduction; also by a group OF eschatological gave the student an impression of excessive arbitrariness,
interpreters in which are included Eleonora Peters (1696), and was rejected on almost every hand.
Antonius Driessen (1717)~and Joachim Lange (Apokalyptisches Against the first edition see Harnack, TLZ, 1882, Dec.;
Licht I/. Recht, 1730). Hilgenfeld ZWT 1882’ Warfield Presl. Rev. 1884, p. 228;
In the eighteenth century, although Aubert de Verse against thlsecond Ldition: Julicher, k G A , 1886, pp. 25-38; Zabn,
ZKWL, 1886.
(La cZef de I‘n~ocnlv~se.
1 , -, followed the lines laid
. 1702)
,1

down by Grotius, Hammond, and Bos- T h e question was next taken up from an entirely
23. Since
18th century. suet, the interpretation founded on different side ( 2 )by E. Vischer ( ‘ Die Offenb. Joh. eine
allusions to contemoorarv events mined judische Schrift in christlicher Bearbeitnng,’ in Texte u.
L ,

the ascendency, and in a very narrow form. i t this Unters.. 1886. 2nd ed. 1895); the result has been a
period it took for the most part the very unfortunate lively and fruitful discussion. Vischer believed himself
course of endeavouring to treat the whole of the Apoca- to have discovered that the ruling chapters ( I l J ) of
lypse, after the analogy of Mt. 24, as a prophecy of the the Apocalypse can be understood only on the as-
destruction of Jerusalem. 1 In connection with what follows see Holtzmann, JPT, 1891;
In this category must he placed the expositions of Ahauzit Raldensperger, Z.,i? Theol. u. Kirche, 1894 ; A. Meyer, Theol.
(Essai sur tapoc., 1733), Harduin (1747), Wetstein (LileZZus ad liundschau, 1897, Hefre 2-3.
crisin atpue infevjrefationemNTed. Semler, 1766), Harenherg 2 Grotius, Hammond, Vogel (Comm. vii. De Apoc. joh. 1811-
(1759), Hartwig (cp 5 g), and, finally, Ziillig (1835). 1816). Bleek (Bed. UeoL Ztschr. 2 z4of:; he abandoned his
On the other hand, we find much that IS rightly said view in Beifr. z. Evang.-K?ifik,1846, p. 81; S f . Kr. 1855, p.
in Semler’s noies to Wetstein in Corrodi’s Gesch. des 2208).
3 Die Entsteh. de7 Apok., 1882, 2nd ed. 1885; Th. T, 1891,
Chiliasmus. And a return was made to the sounder pp. 2 5 9 8 6 0 8 3 ; Prot. KZ, 1886, p. 32f: ; Das Probleem der
general principles of Alcazar by Herrenschneider Apoc., 1893.
20 I 202
 APOCALYPSE APOCALYPSE
sumption of a Jewish origin. As he nevertheless con- A thoroughly elaborated ‘ sources ’ theory is that of
tinued to be convinced of the essential unity of the jpitta (OJenb./oh., 1884). In diametrical opposition
book, he inferred that in the form in which we now 29. Spitta. to WeizsSicker, he claims to see, in the
have it it is a Christian redaction of a Yewish writing. thrice repeated series of seven, three
T o the Christian redactor, besides isolated expressions, iources.
he attributed the following passages : 1-35 9-14 7 9-17 12 TI These are (a)the seal source or Christian primitive Apoca-
ypse U (U-Urapokalypse) written soon after 60 A . D . (practic-
1 3 9 3 141-51213 153 1615 1714 199-10736 204-6 2156-8 dly, apart from the specific)ally Christian interpolations of the
226-21. .edactor, chaps. 1-6 and 7 9-17 8 I 19 g IO 22 8-21) : (b) the trumpet
Vischer’s able treatise found wide acceptance. Among those ,ource JW, a Jewish writing (J=Jiidisch) of the relgn of Lbligula
who signified their acceptance of his main thesis were lselin 71.8 8 9 101-7 1115 12 13 141.11 lGr3-20 1911-20201-15 211-8);
(Theol. 2.aus de? Schzeeitz, 1887 ; ‘ Apocalyptische Studien ’) ; c) the vials source JN, from the time of Pompey (containing,
a n anonymous writer in ZATPV, 1886, pp. 167-71 ; Overheck in rpproximately, the remainder of the hook).
TLZ, 1887, p. 28 f:; Mhbgoz m Rev. de thbZ. et phi[.
1887, p. 161 ; Kriiger in GGA, 1887, pp. 26-35. Simcox in Ex- These three have been worked together into a collected
positoov, 1887, p. 4251: On the other hand, Vilter (Die Ofenb. rvhole by a Christian redactor. (The additions assigned
/oh. &ne zc~sp’nn,V.?ad. Apoh., 1886), Beyschlag (Si.Kr. :o him by Spitta are of .about the same extent as those
?888), and Hilgenfeld (ZWT, 1890) declared themselves against
It. ssigned to him by Vischer. )
Athough it must be cordially acknowledged that to The sources theory was next carried to the utmost
Vischer belongs the honour of having first raised the 3y P. Schmidt ( A n m e r k u n g e n W e r die Comp. der Ofen6.
question in its entirety, it must be said that he was m., 1891).
Erbes (Die Oflen6. /oh., 189.1) in his separation of the literary
not successful in his attempt to solve it. H e has iources agrees in the main with 0. Holtzmann, but also main-
neither proved the Jewish character of chap. 11f: nor tains with Volter (whose hypothesis he simplifies) the thoroughly
justified his fundamental thesis regarding the unity of Christian character of the whole book. Bruston (Le%orignes
de I’apoca&pse, 1888) pursues a path of his own. Mhkgoz
the book. We shall be doing him no injustice if we [AnnaZes de 6ibZiog~.fh!oZ. 1 [‘SEI pp. 41-45) assumed two
classify him among those who uphold the ‘ redaction ’ Jewish apocalypses and a Christian redactor.
hypothesis. The unity of the book is defended by certain scholars :
The earliest exponent of the ‘ sources ’ hypothesis Not only by the critics of Vischer mentioned above, hut also
(Que&%-Hypothese), which has lately come into com- by B. Weiss (EinL, and T e x f e 1c. Unfersucb. 8 1891), Bovon
26. Sources petition with that of redaction, was Wey- (Reoue de fh!oL. etphil., 1887, pp. 329-62), Hirscht (Die Apoc.
IC.ihye neueste Kyifik 1895) and Blom (Th. T, 1883-84). An ex-
hypothesis. land,who wrote almost contemporaneously pectant attitude is takLn by k Holtzmann (EinL, 1892 ; Hand-
with Vischer (Th. T , 1886, pp. 454.470 ; koollzm., 1893).
and Omwerking en CompiZatiehypothesen toegepast op de Finally, altogether new lines of investigation were
Apocal. wan I.,1888). Weyland finds in the Apocalypse opened up by Gunkel in his Schoyf. u. Chaos (‘94). H e
two Jewish sources ( K and 2 ) which have been worked 30, Gunkel. controverted sharply, and sometimes per-
over by a Christian redactor. haps not altogether fairly, both the current
N corresponds, roughly, to Volter’s primary document ; 2 to methods of interpreting the Apocalypse (that which
the first and second of V61ter’s redactors (in VBlter’s Appendix looks to contemporary history for a clue, and that
N and 3 are separated). Weyland‘s Christian redactor corre- which adheres to literary critical methods), and pro-
sponds in a geueral way with Vischer’s redactor. In 1894 Rauch posed to substitute for them, or at least to co-ordinate with
(Die Of&&. des/.) signified his adherence to Weyland.
them, a history of apocalyptic tradition. He insisted
Against both the hypotheses we have just described with emphasis upon the thesis that the (one) Apocalyp-
serious and far-reaching objections present themselves. tist was not himself the creator of his own representa-
2,. Objections. Against the ‘ sources ’ hypothesis must tions ; that his prophecies were only links in a long
be urged, in substance, the linguistic chain of tradition. In his investigation of this apo-
unity of the book (see below, 5 34); against the redaction calyptic tradition he greatly enlarged the scope of the
theory it has to be observed ( a ) that the fundamental usual question ‘ Jewish or Christian ? ’ by his endeav-
document made out by Volter and his followers (see ours to prove for chap. 12 a Babylonian origin, and
above, Q 25) has no special character of its own, inasmuch in other places also (see below, 5 40) to trace Babylonian
as all the really living and concrete passages occurring influences in the book. Even if we grant that Gunkel
within it are attributed to the redactor ; ( b ) that the has often overshot the mark,-as, for example, when
disappearance of every trace of these numerous later he refuses to recognise Nero in the beast and its number
redactions is remarkable. -it is undeniable that his book marks the beginning
From such considerations the necessity for a third of a new epoch in the interpretation of the Apocalypse.
way became apparent. This third way was first Stimulated by Gunkel, and accepting some of his
28. Fragment pointed out by WeizsSicker in his Apo- results, Bousset (Der Antichrist in der LJeberZiefe~ung
sfoZic Age. .He rightly discerned in the 31. Bousset. des /udenthums, des neuen Testaments,
hypothesis. Apocalyptist’s thrice repeated number
und der neuen K i d z e , 1895) proceeded
of seven the fixed plan of an author who wrote the to illustrate Gunkel’s method by applying it to a definite
Apocalypse as a whole, and gave to his work the concrete example, investigating the entire tradition
character of a literary unity. Into this literary regarding Antichrist, and endeavouring to show that
unity certain interpolations intrude with disturbing in this instance a stream of essentially uniform tradition
effect (71-89-17 111-13 12.1-1112-17 13 17). Thus Weiz- can be traced from New Testament times right through
sacker arrived at his fragment hypothesis. According the Middle Ages and beyond them. In his view the
to hiin the Apocalypse is a literary unity proceeding Apocalypse can be shown to be dependent in a series
from a single author, into which, however, apocalyptic of passages, particularly in chap. 11, on this already
fragments of various date have been introduced by the ancient tradition regarding Antichrist.
author himself. In the opinion of the present writer This view has been controverted by Erhes (Tbeoloflisclrc
these are the lines along which the true solution of the Arbeifen ars dew rheinischen wissenschafttlicen Prediger-
problem is to be sought. All later investigators in this vereingmandf, Neue Folge, 1, Freihurg, i. B., 1897), who as
against it, argues for the contemporary-history method in’ its
field have followed one or other of the three hypotheses most perverse form.
just enumerated. Finally, in the Kritisch-exegetische Kommentur (‘96),
Oscar Holtzrnann (GVZ2 658-664) assumes a Jewish ground- Bousset has sought to bring to a focus the result of the
work into which again a still older source (13 146-r3) has been
worked in a Christian revision. Pfleiderer (Uychristenfhum, labours of previous workers. In his method of inter-
1887,pp. 318-56)steers a n eclectic couise ; Sabatier (Les origines pretation he follows Weizsacker (fragment hyRothesis),
Ziff!vaires de Papoca@jse, 1887) and Schoen (L’origne de and therefore gives a continuous commentary, describing
I’apoc. 1887) re resent a combination of Weizsacker and Vischer the character of each particular fragment in its own
(regarding the ipocalypse a s the work of a Christian author who
has embodied Jewish fragments in his book). place. In his exegesis he has given special attention to
203 204
 APOCALYPSE APOCALYPSE
the indications of Gunkel, and to the result of his own ing to the readings of N, which are wrongly given in the printed
researches on the subject of Antichrist. editions). T h e instrumental dative is extremely rare in the
T o sum up the result of the labours of the last fifteen Apocalypse ; its place is often taken by the construction with
Hebraistic dv, or even (but rarely) with 6'6 and the accusative
Years w o n the ADOCalVDSe.
~ ,- It seems to be settled that (4 TI 12 TI 13 14). The vocative israrely used (twice only : K ~ P E ,
32.
Results. the Apocalypse can no longer be regarded
as a literarv. unitv. Against such a view
1117; o C p a v i , 18 20). After a neuter plural the predicate is
usually also plural (1 19 8 I I 15 4 16 20 [lS 141 20 12 21 4). The
. < -
Apocalyptist except in a very few cases construes b KaBrjpsvos
criticism finds irresistible considerations. &dwith theBccusative, rbv Kad$pavov &with the accusative
Among these is the incongruity between 7 1-8 and 7 9-17, as 705 KU%&VOU Bzri with the genitive, r i ~ a B q p i v ohlri with th;
also that between 7 1-8and 6 I Z the ~ two explanations of the dative ; he writes dri 76 p i ~ w r o v hut , &1 r i v p&mov (excep-
144,000 in 7 18 and 14 1 8 , the {Aterruption of the connection tion in 14g), and d& 7ilv K e + b j v invariably (except in 1 2 1 .
caused by 10-11 13, the peculiar new beginning made in 12 I, the
singidar character of c h a p 12, the douhl'ette presented by chaps.
H e construes either ;ai
Blri G
+ y$s or ais e v +(14 16 dzri .;rv y+{
s BaAduuqs or els r;lv d&Aauuav. H e invariibly construe;
13 and 17, the fact that in 1414-20 a last judgment is depicted ypd+v, iurdvai b i with accusative (14 I yeyp. d& r i v p c r i z r w v
whilst that involved in 13does not arrive till 19 1 1 8 ; the ohservai and 105 tu.rdvaa dlri T ~ yljs T are no exceptions but only con-
tion that in chap. 17 two representations of the beast and his firmations of other rules). Noteworthy; also, is the constant
associates are given alongside each other (see below, $45) ;and vacillation in tense between present and future, and, in descrip-
the isolated character of chaps. 17 and 18, 21 9-22 5. tions between present and aorist. The Apocalyptist uses the
Further, the chapters do not represent the same religious infidtive almostinvariahly in the aorist. Exceptions occur in the
level. Chap. 7 r-8 (cp 20 7-g), with its particularistic character, case of ~ A & E L v , of which he apparently never makes a n aorist.
is out of harmony both with chaps. 1-3 and with 7 9-17 ; in 11r f : also in 116 13 13 (?). On the other hand, following the rule that i;
the preseivation of the temple is expected, whilst in 21 22 the customary elsewhere, he construes ~ ~ A A c almost Lv always with the
new Jerusalem is to have none. present infinitive. The copula is often wanting, particularly in
Moreover, different parts of the hook require different dates : relative sentences (14 2 13 5 13 9 11 20 IO). A change in the use
chap. 111-2 must have been written hefore 70 A.D., chap. 17 prob- of subjunctive and indicative is made only after Zua (8lrws does
ably when Vespasian had already been emperor for some time ; not occur a t all), hut here also a certain regularity prevails. A
whilst the writing, as a whole cannot, a t the earliest, have been quite extraordinary use of Zva occurs in 12 14 and 14 13 (cp Jn.
finished before the time of D o h i a n . 8 56 9 z 1115). I n its use of particles the book displays an
This result holds good notwithstanding Gunkel's oppressive monotony : K a i is predominant everywhere ; only in
warning against the overhasty efforts of criticism. That the epistles to the seven churches is the style somewhat
livelier.
a variety of sources and older traditions have been T h e arrangement of the words is markedly Hebraistic. I n
worked over in the Apocalypse will not be denied even choice of words it is remarkably so. The following characteristic
by the student who holds that it is no longer possible phrases and turns of expression may be noted :--h6yos TOG Os05
ai p a p m p i a 'Iquoi ; b KJPLOS b e& b I ~ ~ V T O K ~ ~;' OTVOS T W ~ 705
to reconstruct the sources. BupoS 7 6 s b p y j s . <iv €is TOQS a l i v a s 7Gv a l i v w v ; hipvq TOG
It may seem doubtful whether a general character, m p b s K a i Beiou I+uha1 yhiuuuaL h a o i &vq ; fliphop $s <W<S ;
date, and aim can be assigned to the Apocalypse; ppyra! + y a i &para1 mcup11.6s ; q u a l ~ ~ r i r w; 9v i;v K a i j j v
33. Relative for, as has been seen, the work &not a KaL b rp~opsvos ; hahsiv and ~ K o h o u ~ a Lpu ~ r ;d ovopa avrw ;
p m i racm ; ~ A ~ B L ; V S~OSG A O ~(in a pregnant sense), p a p p p t p ,
unity of literary unity. Still, if there be good p a p ~ u p s t v; GWWJCLV ; VLK& ; u+&reiv ; U K ~ V O J Y; ~ P F L Vr a s
Bvroha's. Compare, further the enumerations in 6 15 1118 13 16
structure. ground for the critical conclusion indicated
above, that the Apocalyptist is himself 19 5 18 20 12 (the formula ; L K ~ & K U ~pcydhor) ; the beatitudes
( p a ~ b p r o s; 1 3 14 13 16 15 19 g 206 22 7 14) : the doxologies (1 6
an independent writer who has simply intioduced various 4 I I 5 g rzf: 7 12 15 3 19 T 6) ; the formula: introduced with $ 8 ~
fragments into his corpts u$ocu@p~icum (Weizsacker, (13 10 18 14 1217 9) ; @&v$ i p i p u ( b p y $ , & p a etc.; 6 17 1118 14 7
Schon, Sabatier, Bousset), a relative unity has already 15 18 I O 19 7).
been proved for the Apocalypse. This conclusion is The general style of the Apocalypse is monotonously
confirmed, step by step, when the details of the book diffuse : article and preposition are almost always
are examined. repeated when there are more substantives than one, as
The relative unity is shown ( I ) in the artificial also is the governing word before the governed. Whole
structure of the whole. clauses are gone back upon and repeated in the
Four separate times do groups of seven occur (epistles, seals negative : Hebrew parallelism is not uncommon.
trumpets, vials) ; within these groups the prevailing distributio; We are now at last able to form a tolerably clear
is into 4+3. The delineations of judgment and its horrors are conception of the personality, the time, the circum-
regularly followed by pictures of joy and heavenly bliss ; cp
7 ll,14-19 14 1-5 15 1-4 19 1-10. Everywhere artificial con- 35. Date. stances, and the literary aims of the apo-
nections are employed in order to hind the separate parts calyptist who planned the Apocalypse, as a
together into one whole : cp, for example, 1 2 0 and 4 I, 5 4 and whole, in the form in which we now have it.
1 4 105-7 II 1113; also 192 14689-11 1 6 5 - 1 2 8 ; also 18 19
78212. ( u ) The Apocalyptist writes at a time in which violent
( 2 ) Further, the relative unity is shown clearly in persecutions have already broken out-indeed they are
the uniformitv of the language throuchout. beginning to become, so to say, epidemic.
T h e FoI&ing are"the more important Of the seven churches, four-Ephesus, Pergamum, Smyrna
34. Of language facts.1 Throughout the entire hook are Philadelphia-are passing through such times of trial. Th;
martyrs already form a distinct class in the general body of
and style. found (a) strongly marked grammatical believers. They are destined €0 have part in the first resur-
irregularities -anacolutha and impossible
constructions (e.g., 1sf: 12 7), and confusionspf case, especially rection-before the tliousand-years reign begins ( 2 0 4 8 cp
7 9 8 ) . The seer beholds them under the altar ( 6 9 8 ) . All
with following participles(1410218 [see the reading of NIzo31z through the book this time of struggle is kept in mind (131
5rrf: 6 I 7 4 9 8 8 9 9 14 10 8 11 114612 14 16 12 1748 18 Izf: 1 4 g$ 15 18 16 6 17 6 18 20-24).
(6) The Apocalyptist predicts a still mightier and
more strenuous struggle.
In this struggle the predestinated number of martyrs is to he
fulfilled ( 6 9 8 ) . Philadelphia is to be pres&ved in this last
great tribulation (3 IO ; cp the peydhq Bhl$rs of 7 14). This
lOZ'l4gf:).' ' time is not far off: the martyrs who have already suffered are
6) The cortstrtrctio ad senmm is special1 frequent (e.g.,
4 1 7 f : 5 6 1 z x 7 4 9 3 8 1 3 11415 13x4 143 1931116 19414);
hidden endure only a little longer (6 11). Therefore, ' Blessed
are they that die in the Lord from henceforth' (Am' d l p n ; 14 13).
sometimes involving a plural predicate after a neuter plural (6) This struggle turns, and will in the future turn,
subject (324 4589 514-920 1121318 154 1614 18323 2124). upon the worship of the beast. That this beast is
Less clearly attested is the simple ungrammatical confusion of
.
gender (9 7 14 19 19 20 2 1 14 22 2 see the MSS.). in one sense or another the Roman Empire, or con-
(a) Various other systematil peculiarities of idiom. For nected with it, is admitted on all hands. It is important,
example, lrpouxuvsiv governs the dative when the object is however, to consider the grounds on which the Apocalypse
Be& (4 I O 7 II 1116 19 4 22 g, cp 14 7) or G p r i m v (13 4), whilst, on
the other hand, we have T ~ O U K . ~b !3qpiov, .;I" &ha, 13[4]81215 'opposes Rome. Rome's horrible deed is not, as might
149 TI [19 201 204 (in 16 2 also we should read 7ilv e E K 6 V a accord- perhaps be guessed, the destruction of Jerusalem, nor
yet-in the first instance, at least-the Neronian per-
1 A justification of these results in detail will be found in the secution, but the worship of the beast-ie., CBsar
Author's Commentary on this book (Introd. pp. 183.208). In
some cases, where the reading adopted is less strongly attested, worship (cp 1 3 1 4 g f . 1 5 2 8 1 6 5 8 101'7619118 20
the citations are in brackets. 4-6 ; cp Mommsen, Ram. Gesch. 5 520 n.).-What the
205 206
 APOCALYPSE APOCALYPSE
book predicts is the great conflict about to break out all God is master of the spirits of the prophets
over the world between Christianity on the one hand and (226 cp 1717 1910). Hence the author directly claims
the Roman Empire (with the Roman state religion, the for his work the rank of a sacred book. It is intended
worship of the emperors) on the other (cp ANTICHRIST, from the first to be publicly read (13) ; those who hear
s 71.
( d ) This great battle will begin with the return of
it and obey what is written therein are blessed ( 1 3
227), and whosoever adds to or takes away from it falls
Nero Redivivus. under the most grievous curse ( 2 2 1 S J ) . The frequent
In common with the rest of the men of his day the mention of the prophets along with the saints (it.,
Apocalyptist shares the popular expectation of the coming ;gain Christians in general)-see1118 166 1820 24-is a proof,
of that emperor. Nero is: (13 3 12 74) the head that was wounded
to death and afterwards healed. H e is only ' a s it were' (As) not, as many critics have supposed, of the Jewish, but of
slain, like the lamb (5 6). For as the latter continues to live on the Christian, origin of the related passages. The Apoca-
in heaven, so does Nero prolong a shadowy existence in hell. lypse in this respect was the forerunner of Montanism,
Out of the abyss (17B) he will again return, and as Roman
Emperor demand adoration. Then will be the days of the great and it is no matter for surprise that it w-as specially
future struggle. Hence the name of the beast is 666-i.e., valued in Montanistic circles. It is also noteworthy
l o p 1'11(cp ANTICHRIST, § 15). that the Apocalyptist speaks to his own age and time.
(e\ Thus the date of the Apocalypse admits of being Whilst Daniel is represented as receiving, at the close of
approximately determined. The end of the first century his vision, the command to seal the book for long, here
is already sufficiently indicated by the fact that the in sharp contrast we read (22 I O ) ' Seal not up the words
Apocalyptist expects the return of Nero from hell (Th. of the prophecy.' The Apocalyptist seems to have been
Zahn, 'Apocal. Stud.' in ZZ<WL, 1885, pp. 561-76, a Jewish Christian of universalistic sympathies. For
1886, pp. 337-52 393-405 ; see below, 45). The him the name of Jew is a name of honour (29 39) ; he
following consideration points to the same inference. seems to uphold a certain prerogative for the Jewish
Behind the Apocalyptist in point of time there already people (7 1-8 111-13 20 7J ). He shows himself intimately
lies a great persecution. He himself is again living in familiar with the language of the OT.
limes of persecution, and is expecting worse to come. Into the apocalyptic unity thus defined, isolated frag-
Inasmuch as the former persecution must be assumed ments have been introduced in a manner which can
to be the Neronian, we are compelled to carry the 3
,. Details still be more or less clearly detected.
Apocalypse down to the later period of Domitian. of criticism. Of these the more important at least must
When we do so the fact that 11T 8 points now be discussed, and some detailed
to a time before the destruction of Jerusalem need account of the more noteworthy results of criticism given.
not cause us any misgiving : doubtless the passage Of recent critics the majority (Vischer, Volter,
comes from an earlier source. On the other side we Weyland, Pfleiderer, 0. Holtzmann, Schmidt) regard
should be able to fix an inferior limit for the date, 38. Chaps. 1-6, the epistles to theseven churches(chaps.
could it be shown that the epistles were already known 1-3) as having been originally separate
to Ignatius (see above, 5 2). The date thus indicated from the rest of the 'book and-as having been prefixed
-the close of the first century-was in point of fact the only after the Apocalypse had in other respects assumed
date at which, it would seem, the general persecutions its present form ; but Spitta has shown good grounds
of the Christians, turning substantially on the rendering for believing that chaps. 1-3 and 4-6 ought not to be
of divine honour to the emperor, first broke out (see separated, and (as against Vischer and others) has
C HRISTIAN , 5 6). The Apocalypse, as we now have it, established for the whole of chaps. 4-6 that Christian
presupposes conditions very similar to those which we character which unquestionably belongs to 5 6 8 Thus
meet in the well-known correspondence between Pliny Spitta takes chaps. 1-6 as a single original document
and Trajan. In this it is not implied that the Apocalypse (Christian primitive apocalypse= U).
could not have been written some ten years or moreearlier. H e seeks to prove this by pointing out that there is a definite
In the conclusion just indicated we find ourselves in close a t the end of 6, and a fresh beginning of a new a ocalypse
in 71 (so also P. Schmidt). But the sixth seal (Griflydoes not
agreement with the best attested tradition as to the date represent the final catastrophe ; it only pictures a great earth-
of the writing of the Apocalypse. quake in the typical apocalyptic manner. In 6 1 5 8 the end is
According to Irenaeus (v. 30 z ; cp v. 20 7), the Apocalypse was still to come, and if, with Spitta, we pass on to 7 17 immedi-
'seen' a t the close of Domitian's reignat Patmos, and therefore, ately after 617, any representation of the end of a$- things has
of course, to say the least, not written earlier (cp Vict. Pettau. completely disappeared from our reconstructed Apocalypse. I n
Coatar. on Apoc. 1011; Eus. HE iii. 1S1-3 ; ]et. De vir. iZZus. any case, it is impossible that one should fail to recognise
9 ; Snlp. Sev. Chron. 231). A different tradition is met with, it a n interpolated fragment in the short passage (69-11) relating
is true-perhaps in Tertullian, who (De prescr. Her. 36) to the lifth seal. We have a n exact parallel to it in 4 Esd.
mentions the martyrdom of John (by boiling oil-a death from 435 (cp also Bthiop. Enoch 47). And the tradition of 4
which he was miraculously delivered), and his subsequent banish- Esd. must be regarded as the original one. I t speaks quite
ment, in connection with the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul generally o f a predestined number of the righteous which has
(but see, on the other hand, Scorpiuce 15). It is certain that a t to be fulfilled before the coming of the end, whilst in the
all events Jerome (Adv.jovin. 1 2 6 [2 161) understood Tertullian Apocalypse the conception is applied to the predestined number
a s assigning this martyrdom and. banishment of John to the of the martyrs-a modification which can be explained very
reign of Nero (cp Eus. Dem. Ermnc. 3 ; the superscription of easily from his general position (see above, 0 35).
the Syriac translation of the Apocalypse edited by Ludovicus Spitta's view that 7 1-8 constitutes a fresh beginning,
de Dien; the Gnostic Acts of /ohn; Theophylact [who gives which has nothing to do with the preceding chapters,
the date as thirty-two years after the Ascension ; cp the notes
of some of the Greek cnrsives o f the Fourth Gospel : thirty years 39. Chap. 71-s. is certainly correct ; but neither has
after the Ascension, under Domitian (!); Erbes, 481). Finally, the passage anything to do with that
Epiphanins (Her.5 1 rz 33) will have it that the hook was written which follows it ($9-17) ; as to this practically all critics
under Claudius. The same statement occurs in the Commentary are agreed. These facts, however, will not justify us in
of Apringius (upon whom see Bousset, GGN, 1895, p. 2 ) ) whence
it found its way into that of Beatus (ed. Florez, 33). attributing 79-17 to the redactor (as do Volter, Vischer,
The Apocalypse is distinguished from the apocalyptic Pfleiderer and Schmidt), nor yet in carrying out a system
literature of Tudaism from the time of the book of of deletions in chap. 7 (as do Erbes, Weyl., Raucli) until
Daniel onwards by the high pro- the two disparate sections have been brought into
36' phetic consciousnesswhichit displays. harmony. Our proper course is to recognise (cp also
Of AyocalYPtist' The Auocalvutist as he stands at
I ,I
Spitta) in 7 1-8 an interpolated fragment-probably
one of the turning-points of the world's history looks Jewish.
with n clear eye into the future and feels himself to be a The sudden mention of the four winds, which are held by the
prophet. H e is a Christian of an especial type. For angels and are nowhere in the succeedin- narrative let loose,
points to this conclusion, a s also does th: introduction of the
the prophets are servants of God in a peculiar sense 144,000 Israelites of the twelve tribes-a number which in 14 18
(1I 107 1118 226 [cp 1531) : they are the fellow-servants is interpreted in a sense inconsistent with the original intention.
of the angels ( 2 2 9 ) ; other Christians are so only in Bousset has hazarded the conjecture that here we
so far as they follow the revelation of the prophets have a fragment of tfie Antichrist legend.
=37 208
 APOCALYPSE APOCALYPSE
The next passage which presents special difficulties is What historical occurrence is intended by the flight
1 1 ~ ~ 3 Here
. all critics are agreed in recognising a ,f the woman in 12 13-17 is not quite clear. Usually the
40.Chap. fragment interpolated between the sixth 42. Chap. flight is taken as referring to circumstances
trumpet and the seventh (cp 911 and
111-13.
1114). Further, almost all critics agree
1213-17. connected with the destruction of Jerusalem
-either to the destruction and (in a sense)
in regarding chap. 10 as an introductory chapter :he deliverance of Judaism, or, better, to the flight of
connected with this ,fragment. On closer examination ;he primitive Christian Church.
it is found, moreover, that 11 1-13 really consists of two Erhes, who seeks to explain ch. 13 as referring to the Caligula
smaller fragments: ( a ) 111 J , a prediction of the 3eriod (see below) interprets the flight and deliverance of the
woman in conneckon with the first persecution of Christians
preservation of the temple, written before the destruc- %tJerusalem strangely taking V . 17 the remnant of her seed
tion of Jerusalem, and presenting points of contact with who hold thd testimony of Jesus ' a; pointing to the Jews (I) a t
Lk. 2124; ( b ) the prophecy relating to the beast and the time of the Caligula persecdion. Spitta actually takes the
persecution of the woman as representing a n occurrence in
the two witnesses (113.13). This latter piece is of heaven. ' The remnant of the seed of the woman ' represents
an extremely fragmentary and enigmatical character. he thinks, the actual Israel as contrasted with the ideal prei
Certain matters are introduced without any preparation : existent Jerusalem (Israel ?). 0;h:rs (Vischer) interpret the
the two witnesses, the heast from the abyss, the war of the remnant as meaning belieyers a s distinguished from the Messiah.
heast with the witnesses, the peoples and tribes rejoicing over Chap. 13 also contains two passages of a peculiar
the death of these last. All these are digkcin meindru which character-those describing the first beast and the
point to some larger connection.
In this passage, too, Bousset has sought to show that 43. Chap. 13 : second. 0 Holtzmann, Spitta, and
we have a fragment from the Antichrist legend. the first beast. Erbes were agreed in recognising here
In accordance with Jewish and primitive Christian anticipation a Tewish JHoltzm., Sp. ) or a Christian
the Antichrist is destined to appear as a God-defying ruler in (Erb.) source daiing from the time of Caligula.
Jerusalem, to lead the people astray and tyrannise over them, and Independently of each other, they all (as had already
to gather together a great army from all nations. Against him
will arise the two prophets Elijah and Enoch, and Israelites been done by Th. Zahn) accepted the number 616
to a definite number (71.81) will he converted. A great famine which is given in some MSS (C. 11 Ticonius),
and drought will come. Then Antichrist will put to death the instead of 666, and interpreted it as meaning l'dibr
two witnesses, and the end will draw near. It is evident that Kaiuap. The beast demanding worship, who>e image
here we have a coherent tradition, of which some fragments are
preserved in chap. 11. ( E ~ K ~ vis) repeatedly spoken of, is, on this view,
Chap. 12 is the most difficult in the book. It the half-mad tyrant Caius Caligula, who in 39 A . D .
also falls into two sections, 121-rz and 1213-17. and ordered his procurator, Petronius, to set up his statue in
41.chap. betrays itself as a foreign intrusion both by the temple at Jerusalem. Parallels to this prophecy
its unfamiliar character and by its strange belonging to the same date were found in Mt. 24
'121-10.
and bizarre representations. ( ' abomination of desolation ') and in 2 Thess. 2. The
A. Dietrich (Ahraxas) was the first who sought to trace in the ' wound' (7rh~yd) of the beast was interpreted by Spitta
chapter an adaptation of the myth of the birth of Apollo : h e as meaning the sickness which befel Caligula towards
held the pregnant fugitive woman to he Let0 the dragon was
the Python, the child (who in the original l&d himself slew the beginning of his reign. These conjectures are by
the Python, Michael being a later introduction) was Apollo. no means impossible ; but if they are accepted,
The water which in the Greek myth figured a s a protecting certain important particulars in the chapter must be
power has here become auxiliary to the dragon. deleted-in particular, references to the wounded head
Recently Gunkel, in his Schi~fun~zl. Chaos, has
of the beast. This and the number 666 ( l ~ p) p show
directed special attention to this chapter, and shown
distinctly that (in its present form) the chapter was
that an adequate understanding of it could be arrived
intended to be understood of the return of Nero
at neither on the assumption of a Christian nor on that
of a Jewish origin (Vischer, Weyland, Spitta)-that on Redivivus. Whether an older source dating from'Cali-
either hypothesis there remains an intractable residuum, -aula's time has here been worked over remains doubtful.
As compared with this interpretation, the view which takes
bearing a mythological character. Here, accordingly, as the wounded head to be Julius Caesar (Gunkel, Bruston) has
elsewhere in the Apocalypse (cp the seven angels, stars, little to he said for it-since the number 666 in that case remains
candlesticks, torches [EV ' lamps 'I, eyes, pp. 294-302 ; unexplained ; nor can we reasonably interpret the death-wound
to mean the interregnum of Galha-Otho-Vitellius, or refer the
the twenty-four elders, 302-8 ; Armageddon, 263-66, number to the Roman empire(Aa&voc, Dlisterdieck ; o a n i p p ,
and p. 325 n. z ; the number 34, pp. 2 6 6 - 7 0 ; also Ewald).
chaps. 13 and 17, 379,3f), he found elements taken from Still greater has been the perplexity of interpreters
Babylonian mythology, and in particular the myth of over the second beast. All attempts to make it out to
the birth of the sun-god Marduk and of the persecution 44. The be some definite personality have hitherto
of Marduk by the dragon Tiimat. The difficulty second been unsuccessful. Bousset (Comnz. ad Zoc. )
in this construction of Gunkel's is that down to the beast. upholds the view that it is in reality a niodifi-
present date it has been impossible to find in the Baby- cation of the older conception of Antichrist,
lonian mythology any trace of the myth~of the birth who is here represented as serving the first beast, the
and persecution of the youthful sun-god. Bousset Roman emperor, and perhaps is to be interpreted as
(Apok. 41of:), however, has called attention to parallels signifying the Roman provincial priesthood, the active
with one chapter in Egyptian mythology (the myth of agency in promoting the worship of the emperor.
the birth of Horus). The objection usually urged against referring the pass-
In the result, there seems much probability in the age to Nero- that the beast whose number is 666
supposition that chap. 12 embodies a myth of the birth of cannot mean Nero the m a n ; that it must mean the
the sun-god and the persecution of the young child by Roman empire-is not valid. T o the Apocalyptist Nero
the dragon, the deity of winter and of night. The Apoca- Redivivus is at the same time the incarnation of all that
lyptist has changed the sun-god, however, into the rais is dreadful in the Roman empire. The number of the
'IquoOs XpiuTbs, the persecutor into the devil, and the beast is the number of a man : cp 1711, ' and the beast
deliverance of the child into the resurrection (observe ... is himself also an eighth' KC^ at& dySobs ~ U T L Y ) .
the inconcinnity of this adaptation). In this treatment Chap. 17 is intimatelyconnected with chap. 13,and this
of the material laid to his hand, he was not able duplicate treatment of the same subjects is in itself proof
to give full significance to the flight of the woman, 45. Chap.17. sufficient that the Apocalyptist had before
which is so prominent a feature in the original myth. him older prophecies, which he has worked
This is accordingly only briefly touched on in 1 2 6 ; but over more than once. In this chapter also the reference
it receives copious and special treatment in the second to the returning Nero is clear. Since Eichhorn, how-
half of the chapter (m. 13-17). Hence the incongruity ever, it has further been recognised on all hands (cp De
between 1 2 1 8 and 12 1 3 3 which Weizsacker pointed Wette, Bleek, Liicke),and with justice, that the kings with
out. whom the beast returns for the destruction of Rome are
14 209 210
 APOCALYPSE APOCALYPSE
the Parthians, whose satraps might already be regarded ichweia, 1887, as above, 25). The representation of
as independent kings (Mommsen, R d h . Kuisergesch. he gathering of the kings at Armageddon (Har-
5521). Thus our present chapter also comes into a dagedon) in this passage is noteworthy ; it is not very
larger historical connection. As early as the year 69 ntelligible, as we read of no mountain of Megiddo, but
A.D. a pseudo-Nero had raised commotions in Asia lnly of a plain (but see ARMAGEDDON). It recalls the
Minor and Greece (Tac. Hist. 28f. ; Dio Cassius, 6 4 9 ; acient accounts of battles of the gods upon the moun-
Zonaras, 1115) ; in the reign of Titus a second pseudo- ains (Gunkel, SchapJ 2 6 3 8 389 n. 2 ) .
Nero showed himself on the Euphrates (Zonaras, 1118) Chap. 1 4 14-20 also appears to be an ancient fragment.
and was acknowledged by the Parthian King ArtabZnus t thus early sets forth a final judgment by the Son of
(Mommsen, 5521). About 88 A.D. a third pseudo-Nero vlan. The passage, however, is so very fragmentary
again made his appearance, also among the Parthians, hat it is hardly possible for us to make out what its
and threatened the Koman empire (Suet. Nero, 50 ; Tac. riginal character may have been (cp the expression
His;. 1 2 ) . In this form we find the same expectation without the city' in 1420). Bousset has sought to
also in the fourth Sibylline book, written shortly after :xplain it by reference to the Antichrist legend.
79 A.D. (SibyZZ. 4 1 1 9 8 I 3 7 8 ) , and in theoldest portion Fragments of older date seem to have been in-
of the fifth book, written about 74 A.D. ( 5 1 4 3 8 ; roduced into the account of the chaining of the
in the last passage it is associated with a denunciation of Iragon, the millennium, the irruption of Gog and
Babylon and a prophecy of the rebuilding of Jerusalem Vlagog (201-10; cp 2 0 9 , ?rapcpLpoX+ TGV dyhv, T&S
(Rev. 1821) ; cp Zahn's exhaustive researches (as above, jyam&vVv and a t h i o p . E n d 56, SibyZZ. 3 319-
35): By both time and place our chapter (perhaps 122). The description of the binding and loosing of
associated with the threatening utterance against Rome Satan recalls the Persian legend of the chaining of the
and the prophecy of a new Jerusalem) belongs to the iragon Azi Dahak on Mt. Demavend. Finally, a
same circle of expectations and prediFtions. It was :ontinuous piece-perhaps of Jewish origin (see 21 24 26
doubtless written in Asia Minor ; but the exact date is !2z)-lies before us in the description of the new
disputed. lerdsalem, 219-225.
According to 17 IO the Apocalyptist represents himself as We onght to compare Tob. 13 1 6 8 Ps. Salom. 112 3 x SihjdZ.
writing under the sixth emperor, five having died and a seventh 5 247-85, 414-33 and the Hebrew A>ocu@jypse ~ ~ E / Y ' Jedited
U;,
having y& to come, to be succeeded by the eighth who is to be ,y M. Buttendieser, 65-67. In this last-named Jewish source
one of the seven (Nero). I n reckoning, it is pos&hle to begin ilso we find the new Terusalem cominp down from heaven.
either with Julius Caesar or with Augnstus, to count or not to T o summarise <he results of &e foregoing analysis :
count the interregnum of Galba-Otho-Vitellius, and finally to With the conclusion of the epistles to the seven churches
ask whether the passage was really written under the sixth 47. Summargr. (chaps. 1-3)the Apocalypse, properly so
emperor, and not, rather as a vuticiniunz ex event# under the
seventh or eighth. Th;s interpreters have taken) the sixth called, begins. Here the first six seals
emperor to be now Nero (so all who hold the Apocalypse to have wcceed one another uninterruptedly, till the interpolated
been written before 70 A.D. ; also Vulter), now Vespasian, and, iagment in 7r-8 is reached. As a pendant to this
conformably, take the chapter to have been written now under Fragment, with its distinctly Jewish character, the Apoca-
the last-named emperor, now under Titus (the seventh ; Wey-
land) or Domitian, who is then taken, on rationalising lines, as Lyptistproleptically introduces in 7 9-17 a picture of the
Nero Redivivus (Erbes). blessedness of believers from every nation who have
The parallels cited above appear to render the reign 3ome out of the great tribulation. Now follow the
of Vespasian the most probable date. The writer- seventh seal and, arising out of this, the seven trumpets
probably a Christian-expected after Vespasian a short (chaps. 8-11). Between the sixth and the seventhtrumpet,
reign for his snccessor also. The tradition was that the passage 10 1-1113 has been interpolated. In chap. 10
seven Roman emperors were destined to reign. There- the Apocalyptist indicates to some extent what the ' dis-
after Nero was to come back with the Parthians, and, position' of the remainder of the book is to be (cp 10 11).
in alliance with these, to take vengeance on Rome, the It is to be observed that in chaps. 9 8 , in addition to the
bloody persecutor of the Christians ( 1 7 6 ; 'with the distribution under seven trumpets, the Apocalyptist has
blood of the saints ' ; the words 'with the blood of the attempted a second under three woes. The first woe
martyrs of Jesus ' appear to be a gloss). The denuncia- answers to the fifth trumpet ; the second, the mention
tion of Rome (chap. 18) connects itself very well with this of which might have been expected after the sixth
prophecy (see Si6yZZ. 5). trumpet, does not come up until 1114, after the great
It is further to be noted that chap. 17 has already, in interpolation has been reached. The third great woe
the form in which we now have it, undergone redaction. (which is not expressly named by the Apocalyptist)
On the one hand, Nero is simply the eighth ruler who was one is doubtless indicated in 1212. I t is hardly likely that
of the seven; on the other, he is the beast who comes u p from we have here a redaction from an older source.
the abyss. On the one hand, h e wages war along with the Before, then, he comes to the culmination of his
Parthians against Rome. on the other, he wages war along with prophecy, in chap. 13, the Apocalyptist casts his glance
the kings of the earth agknst the lamb. I n this redacted form
(1781z-r4 or 12 ; cp, also Volter) Nero is designated as the
dread spectre o the time of the end who comes back from hell.
baclrwards in chap. 12. Borrowing the imagery of an
ancient sun-myth, he depicts the birth, persecution, and
Now, we find the same expectation in chap. 13, where Nero is rescue of the Saviour, and afterwards the persecution of
plainly represented as dead (As iu+aypbsv, ' as though it had
been smitten unto death') and as counterpart (Wiederspiel) of the Church. In chap. 13 he goes on to foretell the coming
the lamb that bad been slain and is to come again. This mode final struggle, the last great and decisive battle between
of representing Nero probably comes from the latest redactor. the faithful ones and the beast who demands adoration.
Parallels to it can be found in the later porlioos of the fifth book For him the supreme crisis of this struggle still lies in
of the Sibyllines ( 3 3 3 215-26), and in the eighth book (1.215).
the future, when Nero Redivivus is to appear. In the
'The'legeiid of Nero Redivivus first arose towards the bright picture which he prophetically introduces at 1 4 5
end of the century, a full generation after Nero's death, by way of contrast to chap. 13, he adapts and modifies
when he could no longer well be supposed to be still 7 1-8. 146-13 is intended to effect the transition to what
alive among the Parthians (cp Zahn, as above). Its follows. 14 14-20 is a smaller interpolated fragment.
reception into the Apocalypse supplies one of the The great finale remains. The Apocalyptist still had
elements for determining the date of the book. to work in the prophecies contained in chap. 17f: ;
Chap. 16128 (the sixth and seventh vials) also must by way of introduction to these, chap. 15f: are given.
have originally belonged to chap. 17. In this passage the Then follows, after an intermediate passage (19 1-10),
46. various angelpoursout hisvial upon theEuphrates, the picture of the final judgment ( 1 9 ~ 1 - 2 1 8 ); after
fragments. ,'!hat the way may be made ready for the which we have a new fragment, 219-225, followed by
ings from the east' (cp 9 1 3 8 , with its the close.
reference to the angels hound and loosed a t the Literuture.-The literature of the subject has been indicated
Euphrates; on which, see Iselin in T h d . Z. am der in the course of the article. W. B.
zrr 212
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
CONTENTS
Introductory ($5 1-4). Ascension of Isaiah ($0 42-47). Testaments of xii. Patriarchs ($5 68-76).
Apocalypse of Baruch ($0 5-17). Jubilees ($5 48-58). Psalms of Solomon ($0 77-85).
Enoch; Ethiopic (5s 18-32), Slavonic ($0 33-41). Assumption of Moses ($9 59-67). Sibylline Oracles ($5 86-98).
-
See APOCRVPHAfor references to the following. less imDortant aDocalyDses.
._
Abraham (APOCRYPHA, § I). -Elias (Am HA $ 21 no. TO). Paul (APOCRVPHA, $ 13).
Adam(ih. $ 10); Esdras (ih. , nb. 13); Zephaniah (i6. 0 21, no. I).
Bartholomew (26. $ IO ( I ) E). Moses (2. nos. I [a],no. z, and $ 21, no. 12 ; also below, $ 49).
INTRODUCTORV : The objects and nature of apocalypticeligious and intellectual life, the second problem pressed
literature (55 1-4). tself irresistibly on the notice of religious thinkers, and
I. APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH 1.-A composite work derived
nade it impossible for any conception of the divine rule
from at least five authors, written mainly in
1. SyROpSiS Palestine, if not in Jerusalem, by Pharisees md righteousness which did not render adequate satis-
of Article. Circ. A.D. 50-50. Preserved only in Syriac action to the claims of the righteous individual to gain
($5 5-17). icceptance. Thus, in order to justify the righteousness
11. Ethiopic BOOKO F ENocH.-written originally in Hebrew
or Aramaic by at least five Assidean authors (200.64 B.c.) inif God, there was postulated not only the resurrection
Palestine. Part I. c h a m 1-36 earlier than 170 B.C. Part 11.
if the righteous nation but also the resurrection of the
chaps. 83-00, 166-161 E.;. Part 111. chaps. 61-104, 134.95 B.C.
ighteous individual. Apocalyptic literature, therefore,
Part 1V. (the Similitudes) chaps 37-10, 94-64 B.C. Part V. (the
Book of Celestial Physics) chaps. T2-7S, 82, 79. Part VI. ;trove to show that, in respect alike of the nation and
(Fragments of a lost Apocalypse of Noah) (51 18-32).2 ,f the individual, the righteousness of God would be
111. Slavonic BOOK OF ENOCH, THEBO BOOK OFTHESECRETSidly vindicated ; and, in order to justify its contention,
OF EN0cH.-written bv an Alexandrian Tew. mainlv from Dre-
t sketched in outline the history of the world and of
existing materials, ab& A . D . 1-50. I h e & i c in-characier ;
~

preserved only in Slavonic ($0 33-41). nankmd, the origin of evil and its course, and the
IV. ASCENSIONO F I SAIAH. - A composite work, written inal consummation of all things; and thus, in fact,
originally in Greek, partly by Jewish, partly by Christian t presented a Semitic philosophy of religion (cp
Latin (80 42-47).
- -
authors. A.D. 1-100. Preserved in EtbioDic and Dartiah in
ZHRONOLOGY OF OT, § I). The righteous as a
V. BOOK OF JUulLEEs.-written originally in Hebrew by a iation should yet possess the earth either in an eternal
Palestinian Jew a Pharisee of the Pharisees, probably 40-10 B.C.
3r in a temporary Messianic kingdom, and the destiny
Preserved in Ethiopic and partially in Hebrew, Syriac, Greek,
Latin, and Slavonic (0s 48-58). 3f the righteous individual should finally be determined
VI. A SSUMPTION OF MOSES.-Written in Palestine, inHebrew,according to his works. For, though he might perish
7-30 A . D ., by a Pharisee. Preserved only in Latin (55 59-67).
untimely amid the world's disorders, he would not fail
VII. TESTAMENTS OF THE XII. PATRIARCHS.-A comDosite
to attain through the resurrection the recompense that
work written originally in Hebrew by two Jewish aLthors
was his due in the Messianic kingdom, or in heaven
representing respectively the legalistic and the apocalyptic sides
itself. The conceptions as to the duration and character
of Pharisaism 130 B.c.-IO A.D., and interpolated by a succession
of Christian driters from the close of the 1st century down to
of the risen life vary with each writer.
the 4th century A.D. Preserved in Greek, Armenian, and
Slavonic versions ($9 68-76). The writings that are treated of in the rest of this article,
VIII. P SALMS OF SoLoMoN.-Written originally in Hebrew, however, deal not only with the Messianic expectations
possibly in Jerusalem, by two or more Pharisees, 70-40 B.C. but also with the exposition and application of the Law
(SS 77-85). to the numberless circumstances of life. As Schiirer
IX. S IBYLLINE ORAcLEs.-Written in Greek hexameters hy
has rightly observed, the two subjects with which Jewish
Jewjsh and Christian authors mainly by the latter-the earliest
thought and enthusiasm were concerned were the Law
portions belonging to the znd'century B.c., the latest not earliei
than the 3rd century A.D. ($8 86-98). and the Messianic kingdom. These were, in fact, parallel
INTRODUCTORY.-The object of apocalyptic literature developments of Pharisaism. As we have the fornier-
in general was to solve the difficulties connected wit? its legalistic side-represented in the Book of /ubilees,
2. Problem. a belief in God's righteousness and thf so we have the latter-its apocalyptic and mystical side
suffering condition of his servants or -set forth in the Book of Enoch. The Testaments of
earth. The righteousness of God postulated the the Twelue Patriarchs give expression to both sides of
temporal prosperity of the righteous, and this postulatt Pharisaism ; but this book, as we shall see in the
was accepted and enforced by the Law. But while thf sequel, is really a composite work and springs from
continuous exposition of the Law in the post-exilic authors of different schools. The rest of the books here
period conknied the people in their monotheistic faitk discussed belong mainly to the apocalyptic side of
and intensified their hostility to heathenism, theii Pharisaism.
expectations of material well-being, which likewise tht It is a characteristic of apocalyptic as distinguished
Law had fostered, were repeatedly falsified, and z from prophecy that the former trusts to the written, the
grave contradiction thus emerged between the olc 3. Method. latter to the spoken, word. This is due
prophetic ideals and the actual experience of the nation largely to the fact that the prophet
between the promises of God and the bondage and per. addresses himself chiefly to the present and its concerns,
secution which the people had daily to endure at thc and that, when he fixes his gaze on the future, his
hands of their pagan oppressors. T h e difficulties arising prophecy springs naturally from the circumstances of
from this conflict between promise and experience migh the present. The apocalyptic writer, on the other
be shortly resolved into two, which deal respectivel! hand, almost wholly despairs of the present ; his main
with the position ( I ) of the righteous as a community interests are supramundane. He entertains no hope of
and ( 2 ) of the righteous man as an individual. arousing his contemporaries to faith and duty by direct
The OT prophets had concerned themselves chiefl! and personal appeals. His pessimism and want of faith
with the former, and pointed in the main to the restora in the present thus naturally lead him to pseudonymous
tion (or 'resurrection') of Israel as a nation, and tc authorship, and so he approaches his countrymen with
Israel's ultimate possessisn of the earth as a reward o a writing which purports to be the work of some
righteousness. Later, with the growing claims of t h i great figure in their history, such as Enoch, Moses,
individual, and the acknowledgment of these in tb Daniel, or Baruch. The standpoint thus assumed is as
skilfully preserved as the historical knowledge and
1 On other Apocalypses of Baruch. see below, APOCRYPHA
$ 20. conditions of the pseudonymous author admit, and the
2 On chaps. 71 SO$, see $ 3 0 3 future of Israel is ' foretold ' in a form enigmatical indeed
213 214
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
but generally intelligible. All precision ceases, however, DT agree in all cases but one with the Massoretic text against
when we come to the real author’s own time: his 1. (ii.) Hehrew idioms survive in the Syriac text. ’l’hus
:here arc many iustaiices of the familiar Hehrew idiom of the
predictions, thenceforward, are mere products of the infinitive absolute combined with the finite verb, and many
religious imagination, and vary with each writer. In breaches of Syriac grammar in the Syriac text are probably to be
nearly every case, we should add, these books claim to , ?xplained
,... as survivals of Hebrew order and Hehrew syntax.
m.)Unintelligible expressions in the Syriac can he explained
be supernatural revelations given to the men by whose jnd the text restored bv retranslation into Hebrew. Thus.
names they are designated. among many others the passages 2 1 9 II 12, 24 2 and
It will not be amiss here to notice the gross mis- 82 7 can be restored’by retranslation into’Gre!ek and thence
apprehension under which Jost, Graetz, and other into Hebrew. The Syriac in these verses is the stock rendering
of SumroBoBac and this in turn of p ;.but 3 7 ~also=&aros
4. Historical Jewish writers laboured when they pro- & a r , and this’ is the meaning required in the! above passages,
nounced this literature to be destitute where the Greek translator erroneously adopted the commoner
of value for the history of Jewish rendering. (iv.) Many jarononiasire discover themselves on
retranslation into Hebrew. See Charles, Apoc. Oar. 44’53.
religion. T o such statements it i s ’ a sufficient answer
that from zoo B. c. to 70 A. D. the religious and political The final editor of this work assumes for literary
ideals that really shaped the history of Judaism found Dumoses the nerson of Baruch. the son of Neriah.
their expression in this literature. It is not in the 8. Contents. The scene is laid in the neighbourhood
discussions and logomachies of the Rabbinical schools of Jerusalem; the supposed time is the
that we are to look for the influences and aims that period immediately preceding and subsequent to the
called forth some of the noblest patriotism and self- capture of the city by the Chaldzans. Baruch, who
sacrifice the world has ever witnessed, and educated the begins by declaring that the word of the Lord came
nation for the destinies that waited it in the first century to him in .the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah,l speaks
of our era, but in the apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic throughout in the first person. If we elrclude the letter
books which, beginning with Daniel, had a large share to the tribes in the captivity (chaps. 78-87), the work
in preparing the most religious and ardent minds of naturally divides itself into seven sections, separated from
Galilee and J u d z a either to pass over iuto Christianity, one another in all but one instance ( L e . after 35) by
or else to hurl themselves in fruitless efforts against the fasts which are, save at the end of the first section, of
invincible might of Rome, and thereby all but annihilate seven days’ duration. The omission of a fast after chap.
their country and name. Still it is true that the work of 35 may hqve been due either to an original oversight of
the scribes and the exposition of the schools had opened the final editor or to the carelessness of a copyist.
the way for this new religious and literary development. That the text requires the insertion o f such a fast is to be con-
cluded on the following grounds :-According to the scheme of
The eschatological element, moreover, which later the final editor events proceed in each section in a certain
attained its full growth in such pseudepigraphical order (see Charles, Apoc. BUY.9, 36, 61). Thus first we
writings as Daniel, Enoch, Noah, etc., had already find a fast, then generally a prayer, then a divine message or
disclosure, and fiually an aniiouncement of this to an individual
strongly asserted itself in later prophets such as Is. or to the people. Thus in the fifth section 21-34 we have a
24-27, Joel, Zech. 12-14. Not only the heginnings, seven-days’ fast (21 I), a prayer (21 4-26), 2 revelition (22-30),
therefore, but also a well-defined and developed type of and an address to the people (21 24). Then another seven-days’
fa.it should ensue at the beginning of the sixth section (36.46).
this literature had already established itself in the OT. With theexception of this omission events follow in this section
Its further developments were moulded, as we have as in the others.
pointed out above, by the necessities of the thought and These sections are very unequal in length-1-56
by the historical exigencies of the time. 57-8 9-124 125.20 21-35 36-46 47-77-a fact that,
Cp Smend‘s introductory essay on Jewish apocalyptic, Z A T W though it does not in itself make against unity of
5222.250 (‘85) ; Schiirer, Kist. 5 44 8 ; Hilgenfeld, Die jiid.
A$oka&b!ydtiki% ihrergeschichtZicltenBn‘ntwickelwtg,1857 (Einl.). authorship, confirms the grounds afterwards to be
I. THE APOCALYPSE O F BAKuCH.-The Apocalypse adduced for regarding the work as composite.
of Baruch was for the first time made known to the I. The first section (1.56) opens with God’s revelation to

5. The Syriac modern world through a Latin version Baruch regarding the coming destruction of Jerusalem. But a
time of prosperity should return.
of Ceriani in 1866 (Moa S a w . i. 2. According to the next section (5 7-9 I ), Baruch fasts until
Baruch. the evening, and the Chaldaeans encompass Jerusalem next day.
273-98). This version was made from
a Syriac MS of the sixth century, the text of which was I n a vision Baruch sees the sacred vessels removed from the
temple by angels and hidden in the earth till the last times.
also in due course published by the same scholar, in The angels next overthrow the walls, the enemy are admitted
ordinary type in 1871, and in a photo-lithographic and the people carried away captive to Babylon.
facsimile in 1883. An examination of the Syriac version 3.. In the third section (9 2-124), Baruch fasts seven days, and
receives a divine command to tell Jeremiah to go to Babylon;
6. A transla- makes it clear that this version is a but Baruch himself is to remain a t Jerusalem to receive God‘s
tion from translation from the Greek. It occasion- revelations regarding the future. Baruch bewails Jerusnlem
ally transliterates Greek words, and and the lot of the survivors. ‘ Would that thou hadst ears, 0
Greek. the text is at times explicable only earth, and that thou hadst a heart, 0 dust, that ye might go and
announce in Sheol and say to the dead : “Blessed are ye more
on the supposition that the wrong alternatives of two than we who live.”’
possible meanings of certain Greek words have been 4. ,In the fourth section (12 5-20), Baruch fasts for seven days
followed by the translator. Even before Ceriani’s and IS told hv God that he will be oreserved till the end of timd
publication, however, we had some knowledge of the in order to bear testimony against‘ the nations that oppressed
Zion. When 13aruch complains of the prosperity of the wicked
Apocalypse of Baruch ; for chaps. 78-86, which contain and the calamities of the righteous God answers that the future
Baruch’s Epistle to the nine tribes and a half that were world is made on account of t h e riihteous-that the blessings of
in captivity. had already appeared in Syriac and Latin, life are to he reckoned not by its length but by its quality and
its end. Baruch is hidden not to publish this revelation (20 3).
in the London and the Paris Polyglots, in Syriac alone in 5. In the fifth section (21 1-35), Baruch fasts as usual seven
Lagarde’s Li6. Vet. Test. Apoc. Syr. 1861, in Latin days. He deplores the bitterness of life, nnd supplicates god to
done in Fabricius’s Cod. Pseudep. Vd. T e s t . , and in bring about the promised end. God reminds him of his ignor-
English in Whistou’s Authentic Records. Ceriani’s Latin ance, and declares that the end, though close at hand, cannot
arrive till the predestined number of men be fulfilled, and again,
version was republished in Fritzsche’s Lib. Apoc. Vet. in answer to Baruch’s question respecting the nature and the
Test. (’71) in a slightly emended form; but, as the duratioii of the judgment of the ungodly, describes the coming
Syriac text was still inaccessible. Fritzsche’s emendations time of tribulation, which will be divided into twelve parts. At
its close the Messiah will he revealed. Baruch summons a
are only guesses more or less fortunate-generally less. meeting of the elders in the valley of Kedron, and announces to
W e have just remarked that the Syriac version is them t h e future glory of Zion.
7. The a translation from the Greek. We shall 6. The sixth section (3G-46)shonldhegin with the missing fast
of seven davs. Shortlv ~.after. he has a vision of a cedar and a vine
original now enumerate the reasons from which
Hebrew. it appears that the Greek was in turn 1 W e may observe here that Jeconiab reigned only three
translated from a Hebrew original. months, and was carried captive to Babylon eleven years before
(i.) The quotations from, or unconscious reproductions of, the the fall of Jerusalem.
2x5 216
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
whichsymholise the Roman powerand the triumphofthe Messiah. and the two Visions 36-40 ( =A2) and 55-74] ( = A 3
When Uaruch askswho shall share 111 the future blessedness, God already mentioned. All these different elements were
answers : ‘ T o thosewho have believed there will be the hlessed-
ness that was spoken of aforetiine. Baruch then (44.47) calls combined by the final editor, to whom we owe also
together his first-born son and seven of the elders, tells them of 42-6 26 2 8 4 4 322-4and possibly some other additions.
his approaching end, and exhorts them to keep the law, for ‘a Jewish religious thought busied itself, as already
wise man will not he wanting to Israel, nor a son of the law to
the race of Jacob.’ observed, mainly with two subjects, the Messianic hope
7. After a fast of seven days Baruch in the seventh section ll. Critical and the Law ; and in proportion as the
(47-77) prays for Israel. The r e h a t i o n s that ensue tell of the
coming tribulation. Ijaruch hew:.ils the evil effects of Adam’s criteria. one became more prominent the other
fell into the background. Now, the
fall. I n answer to his request, he is instructed as to the nature
of the resurrection bodies. Then, in a new vision (53-74), he sees chapters written before 70 A. D . arc mainly Messianic.
a cloud ascending from the sea and covering the whole earth. Cliap? 27-30 I (A,) and 36-40 ( A 3 take account of the Lam
There was lightning about its summit, and soon it began only indirectly, whereas in those written after that date the whole
to discharge first black waters and then clear, and again hlack thought and hopes of the writers centre in the Law as their present
waters and then clear, and so on till there k i d been six black mainstay and their source of future bliss. I n chaps. 53-74 (As)
waters and six clear. At last it rained black waters, darker again, the Messianic hope and the Law are equally emphasized:
than had been all that were before. Thereupon, the lightning This writing marks the fusiou of early Rabbinism and tt,c
on the summit of the cloud flashed forth and healed the earth popular Messianic expectation. (See Charles, o j . cit.)
where the last waters had fallen, and twelve streams came up In the sections B, and B,, on the other hand, written
from the sea and hecame subject to that lightning. In
the fullowing chapters the vision is interpreted. The cloud is after the fall of Jerusalem, we have two distinct outlooks
the world, and the twelve successive discharges of black waters as to the future. In B, the writer is still hopeful as to
and clear waters symbolise six evil periods and six good periods the future of Jerusalem.
of the world’s history. The eleventh period symbolised by the It is delivered into the hands of its enemies indeed, but only
hlack waters, pointed to the supposed presenttribulation of Jeru- for a time (4 I 69). The consolation of Zion should yet be
salem. The rest of the interpretation follows in the future tense. accomplished (44 7 61 I 4), and the ten tribes brought hack from
The twelfth clear waters point to the renewed prosperity of Israel their captivity (78 7 84 I O ) . Moreover the retribution of the
aud the rebuilding of Jerusalem. T h e last hlack waters that Gentiles was close a t hand (82 2-g), and’in due time would arrive
were to flow pointed to troubles, earthquakes, and wars over the judgment, in which God’s justice and truth should exact
the whole earth. Such as survived these were to fall by the their mighty due (859).
hands of the Messiah. These blackest of all the waters were
to be followed by clear waters, which spmholized the blessedness In B,, on the other hand (and if possible still more in
of the Messianic times. This Messianic period should form the B,=chap. 85),the writer is full of irremediable despair
boundary line between corruption and incorruption. ‘ That time as to the earthly fortunes of Zion and its people in this
is the consummation of that which is corruptible, and the begin-
ning of that which is incorruptible.’ Baruch thanks God for world (106-11).
the revelation vouchsafed. H e is then informed of his coming de- Destruction awaits this world of corruption (21 19 31 5). The
parture from the earth, hut is hidden first to go and instruct the righteous have nought to look for save the new world (44 12). the
neonle. He admonishes them to be faithful (chan. i7). and at world that dies not (51 s), the world of incorruption (85 5). Only
the& request sends two epistles o n e to their b;eth;en &Babylon in the world to come will every man he recompensed in the
(‘the two and a half tribes’) and the other to the tribes (‘nine resurrection according to his works ( 5 0 J ) when the wicked
and a half’) beyond the Euphrates. The latter is given in shall go into torment and the righteous shall’be made like unto
chaps. 78-67. I t is probable that the lost letter to the two tribes the angels.
and a half is identical with, or is the source of, the Greek Baruch In the sections written before the fall of Jerusalem,
3 9-429. See Charles, Apoc. Bar. 65-67. the Messianic element, which was wanting in B,, B,,
From the discoverv of the ADOCalVDSe of Baruch in
I , I
and B,, is predominant. The three Apocalypses 27-30

’’
theory
1866 till 1891, it was regarded by scholars
Kabisch’s as the work of one author. In the latter
Of year, Kabisch, in an article entitled ‘ Die
(A,) 36-40 (A,) 53-74 (A,) have many features in
common-such as an optimistic outlook as to Israel’s
earthly prosperity, the earthly rule of the Messiah till the
sources. Quellen der Apocalypse Baruchs ’ ( J P T , close of this world, and the material blessings of his
1891, pp. 66- IO^), showed beyond the possibility of kingdom. There are, however, good grounds for regard-
question that the work was composite and derived from ing them as of different authorship. The Messianic reign
at least three or four authors. is to close with the final judgment. On the Escha-
Thus be distinguishes 1-24 I, 30 2-34, 41-52, and 75-67 as the tology of the book see, further, ESCHATOLOGY, § 78.
groundwork written after 70 A.D., since these chapters imply All the elements of this book are distinctly Jewish.
the destruction of the temple. H e further observes that these Its authors, as already observed, were Pharisees, full of
parts are marked by a despair which no longer looked for peace
and happiness in this world, but fixed its regards on the world 12. Author- confidence in the future glories of their
of incorruption. In the other pieces of the book there is a nation, either in this world or in the nest,
strong faith in Israel‘s ultimate triumph heie, and a n optimkrn ship. notwithstanding their present humilia-
which looks for the consummation of Messianic bliss in this
life ; and, as Kahiscb rightly remarks, the temple is still standing. tions. They entertain the most lofty conceptions as to
These other sections, however, are the work not of one writer the divine election and the absolute pre-eminence of
but of three, being constituted a s follows : a short Apoc. 24 3- their race.
29, the Vine and Cedar Vision 3G-40, and the Cloud T’isiou I t was on Israel’s account that not only the present world
53-74 : 30 I :32 2-4, 35 are due to the final editor. (14 19) but also the coming world (15 7) was created. Israel is
This theory is certainly in the right direction. It is God’s chosen people whose like is not on earth ( 4 S 2 0 ) ; the
perpetual felicity of Israel lay in the fact that they had not
open, however, to unanswerable objections. There is mingled with the nations (4623). The one law which they had
Present no unity in the so-called groundwork. received from the one God (48 24) could help and justify them
When submitted to a detailed criticism, it (51 3); for so far as they kept its ordinances they could not fall
writer,s exhibits a mass of conflicting conceptions (48 z z ) : their works would save them (14 1 2 51 763 3). I n due
results. and statements. The results of such a time also all nations should serve Israel; but such of themas had
injured Israel should be given to the sword (726). The carnal
criticism may be stated briefly as follows (for the details sensiious nature of the Messiah and his kingdom (29-3039 --40
see Charles, Ajoc. Bur. 53-67). 1-26 31-35 41-52 75- 72-74) is essentially Pharisaic. There was to he a gelera1
resurrection (42 8 I 2 ) ; hut apparently only Israel should De
87 were written after the fall of Jerusalem, and were saved (51 4).
derived from three or possibly four authors, B,, B,, B,,
and possibly S. 1 I t is possible to determine approximately the earlier limit
B1=1-91 43-447 45f: 77-82 84 8 6 3 , written by a Pharisee of the composition of Ag by means of what we might call t1:e
who expected Terusalem to he rebuilt and the dispersion to he Enochic canon. This is : No ear&jewis/l book which ertoi;
hrotighi hack from exile. Enoch couldhave deen written after 5 0 A . D . , and the attrilr:-
R2=9-12 13-25 302-35 4 1 3 448.15 47-52 7 5 3 63, also by tion of Enoch’s words a n d achievements in a fewish r u n ~ h7 0
a Pharisee who looked for no national restoration, hut only for other O T heroes is a sign that it w a s written after the P a d i ~ t a
the recompense of the righteous in heaven. #yeaching of Christianity. This hostility to F.noch from EO
B3=65, written by a Jew in exile. A.D. onwards (cp Enoch) is to he traced to Euoch’s acceptan&
S.=106-124, possibly by a Sadducee, hut perhaps to be as- among the Christians as a Messianic prophet. For the grounds
signed to €31. and illustrations of this canon see Charles, Ajoc. Bm..
21-22, IOI. Now, in 59 5-11 of this Apocalypse many of Inoch‘s
-The rest of the book was written before the fall of functions and revelations are assigned to Moses. Hence A3
Jerusalem. It consists of an Apocalypse 27-301 (=A,) was written after 53 A.D.
217 218
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
The affinities of Apoc. Bar. with 4 Esdras are so strik- V T , or possibly, in one or two of the instances, of both
ing and so many that Ewald ascribed the two books to the In a common source.
13. Affinity same author. Though this view has not With Mt. 1 6 2 6 ‘ F o r what shall a man he profited if he
Esd. been accepted in later criticism, it will ;hall gain the whde world and forfeit his soul? or what ;hall a
with nan give in exchange for his soul?’ ‘cp A ). Bar. 51 15, ‘ F o r
not be amiss to draw attention to these what then have men lost their life, or for ,what have those who
affinities. ( I ) The main features of the two books are were on the earth exchanged their soul? Also with I Cor. 1 5
similar. They have one and the same object-to de- ‘9, ‘ If in thislife only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all
men most miserable ’ cp Apoc. Bar. 21 13. ‘ For if there were
plore Israel‘s present calamities and awaken hope in the
coming glories, temporal or spiritual, of their race.
..
this life only. noihing could he more bitter than this. Also
with I Cor. 1635, ‘How are the dead raised and with what
I n both the speaker is a notable figure of the time of the manner of body do they come?’,cp 492 ‘ I n what shape will
Babylonian captivity. In both there is a sevenfold division of those live who live in that day 7 Cp also Lk 1 4 2 with A#.
the work,. and an interval (as a rule, of seven days) between each Bar. 54 ID, Jas. 12 with 52 6, and Rev. 4 6 with 51 2.
two divisions ; and, whereas in the one Ezra devotes forty days As the Apocalypse of Baruch was written between
to the restoration of the scriptures, in the other Baruch is
50 and 100 A.D. it furnishes us with the historical setting
hidden to spend forty days in admonishing Israel before his de-
parture from the earth.
(2) They have many doctrinal peculiarities in common.
’”’ and background of many of the N T prob-
lems, and thereby enables us to estimate
According to both, man is saved hyhis works (4 Esd. 7 77 8 33 the contributions made in this respect by Christian
9 7 A#. Ba7: 2 2 1 4 12 etc.) ; the world was created in behalf of thought. Thus, whereas, from 4 9 2 - 5 1 , we see that the
Is;ael(4 Esd. 6 55 7 T I 9 13, A/. Bar. 1 4 19 15 7 etc.); man came
not into the world of his own will (4 Esd. 8 5, ‘A#. Bar. 1 4 II 48
Pauline doctrine of the resurrection in cor. 1535-50 was
15); a predetermined number of men must be attained before not an innovation but a developed and more spiritual
the elid (4 Esd. 436J, A$. Bar. 2 3 4 5 ) ’ God will visit his exposition of ideas already current in Judaism, it is clear,
creation (4 Esd. 5 56 G 189 2, A$. Bar. 20 2 i 4 4) ; Adam’s sin was on the other hand, from the teaching of this book on
the cause of physical death (4 Esd. 3 7 A$. Bar. 23 4). the souls
of the good are kept safe in treasuries ;ill the resurrecdon (4 Esd. Works and Justification, Forgiveness and Original Sin
4 35-37 7 32 80 95, A$. Bar. 30 2). and Freewill (see Charles, op. cit. pp. 80-85), what a
This list might have been indefinitely added to. crying need there was for the Pauline dialectic, and
-
On the other hand, there are clear uoiuts of divergence. what an immense gulf lay herein between Christian and
Rabbinic teaching. No ancient book is so valuable in
14.Divergence In Esdras the Messianic reign is limited
to 400 years (7 2Sf: ), whereas in Baruch attesting the Jewish doctrine of that period.
from Esd. this oeriod is auite indeterminate. Bibliogra$hy.-In addition to the works already mentioned,
Again, in the former ( 7 2 9 ) the Messiah is to die, and
the reader may consult Langen, De A$oc. Bar. ~ 0 7 7 1 7 ~(‘67)
. i
Ew. GGA (’67) ~706-17, 1720; Hist. of Israel, 857.61,
the Messianic reign is to close with the death of all Drummond, Thd Jewish Messiah (‘77) rr7-132 ; Kneucker
living things ; whereas in the latter, according to 30, the Das Buch Bar. (‘79), 190-198; Di. $seudep.’ in PA‘EIA)):
Messiah is to return in glory to heaven ,at the dose of 1 2 356-358 ; Deane, Pseudep. (‘91), 130.162.
his reign, and, according to 73 J , this reign is to be Ii. THE BOOK OF ENOCH.-BY the exegesis of later
eternal, though it is to belong partly to this world and times, the statement that Enoch walked with God (Gen.
partly to the next. 5 2 4 ; see ENOCI-I) was taken to mean
18. Jewish that he enjoyed superhuman privileges of
Again, in Esdras the writer urges that God’s people should be
punished by God’s own hands and not by the hands of their view of intercourse with God, and in this inter-
enemies (5 29 J ) for these have overthrown the altar and Enoch. course received revelations as to the nature
destroyed the teAple and made the holy place a desolation (10
ZIJ). In Earnch it’is described at length how the holy vessels of the heavens and the earth, the present lot and the
were removed by angels and the walls of Jerusalem demolished destinies of men and angels. It was natural, there-
by the same agency before the enemy drew nigh (6-8). fore, that an apocalyptic literature should seek the
On the question of original sin likewise these two hooks are
a t variance. Whilst in Esdras the entire stream of physical and shelter and authority of his name in ages when such
ethical death is traced to Adam (3.7 2 1 3 4 3 0 7 48) and the guilt literature became current. In the Book of Enoch pre-
of his descendants minimised a t the cost of thek first parent served in Ethiopic we have large fragments of this
(yet see 85~61),Baruch derives physical death indeed from literature proceeding from a variety of Jewish writers
Adam’s transgression (17 3 23 4 54 15), hut as t o ethical death de-
clares that “each man is the Adam of his own soul” (54 19 ; yet in Palestine; and in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch
see 48 42). preserved in Slavonic we have further portions of it,
i t will be clear from the facts set forth above that written originally by Hellenistic Jews in Egypt. To
the relations of these two apocalypses constitute a com- the latter book we shall return.
15. Real plex problem. If we attempt to deal with The Book of Enoch as translated into Ethiopic
relation. this problem on the supposition that each belongs to the last two centuries B.C. All the writers of
book is derived from a single author, no the N T were familiar with it and were
solution is possible; and the barrenness of criticism ‘E3;~~~ki~~ ~ ~ influenced dby it in thought
It is quoted as a genuine
~ i ~
hitherto in this direction is due to this supposition of their
unity. When, however, we come perforce to recognise fortunes’ production in the Epistle of Jude ( 1 4 3 ) and
their composite nature, we enter at the same time on as Scripture in that of Barnabas (E?. 4 3 165): ‘ T h e
the road that leads to the desired goal. For a pro- authors of the Secrets of Enoclz, JubiZees, Test. x i i . Patr.,
visional study of the relations between the various con- A~oG . and 4 Esd. laid it under contribution. With
Bar.
stituents of this apocalypse and 4 Esdras, the reader the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of
can consult Charles, Apoc. Bar. 67-76. T h e results of a canonical book ; but towards the close of the third and
this study tend to show that, whilst some of the con- the beginning of the fourth centuries it began to be dis-
stituents of 4 Esdras are older than the latest of Baruch, credited, and finally it fell under the ban of the Church.
other constituents of Baruch are decidedly older than The latest references to it are to be found in Syncellus
the remaining ones of 4 Esdras. and Cedrenus, who have preserved large fragments of
The points of contact between this apocalypse and the Greek version. The book was then lost sight
the I\rT are many; but they are for the most part of till 1773, when two MSS of the Ethiopic version
16. Relation insufficient to establish a relation of de- were discovered by Bruce. From one of these MSS
to NT. pendence on either side. The thoughts Lawrence made the first modern translation of Enoch
and expressions in questions are explicable in 1821.
from pre-existing literature or as commonplaces of the Enoch,. was originally written in Heb. or Aram..
time. not in Greek. On this question the
Such, among many others, are Mt. 3 16, A$. Bar. 22 I , &It. 26 20’ chief Apocalyptic scholars are practi-
24,A$. Bar. 106, Lk. 2128, A$. Bar. 237, Rom. 818, A$. cally agreed.
Bar. 15 8. In the case of chaps. 1-32 this view is established beyond the
The following passages are of a different nature reach of controversy’ for in 109 19 1 8 8 212 28 I 29 I 31 I of the
and postulate the dependence of our apocalypse on the Greek version we find that the translator transliterated Heb. or
219
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
17-71 72-82 83-90 91-108).
Aram. words that were unintelligible to him. The same view These bookswereoriginally
as to the remaining chapters has been amply proved in the ,eparate treatises ; in later tiines they were collected
younz. As. ('67) 352.395 by Halevy who regards the entire
work as derived from a Hebrew or&inal. See also Charles md edited, but were much mutilated in the course of
Book ofEnoch, 21-22,325. Recently some Dutch and Germa; .edaction and incorporation into a single work. In
scholars have argued for an Aram. original on the ground that rddition to this Enoch literature, the final editor of the
three Aram. forms have been preserved in the Gizeh Greek frag- )ook made use of a lost apocalypse, the Book of Noah
ment-viz. $ O U K a in 1s8, pauSo,Bapa in 2s I, and pa@&,pa in 29 I.
The first is, it is true, an Aram. form of 793 and the two latter mentioned in Jubilees 1013 21 IO), from which he drew
of 1?7n. This argument, however, is inconclusive. We find amwa i-11 (?) 17-19 3 9 1 ~ 0 .413-8 43J 5 4 7 5 5 2 591: 65-
in 2 K. 14 96 [ BA*l as a transliteration of Fin, and Awa in Neh. i925 106 f: Another fragment of the Book of Noah
2 14 [BX] as a transliteration of I;?; and thereareother instances ]as been embodied in the Book of Jubilees (see below,
of the same peculiarity in Q5. Hence the presence of such i 57).
Ammaisms in a text is not sufficient in itself to establish an We have already remarked that in the five books into
Aram. original. vhich the whole work is divided we have the writings
The Heb. original was translated into Greek, and 25. Criticism. of five different authors. Before we
from Greek into Ethionic and Latin. Of the Greek proceed to give some of the grounds
21. Versione version chaps. 6 -9 4 84-1014 158-161 or this statement, we shall give in merest outline the
have come down to us through Syncel- iifferent constituents found in the work by the chief
--Greek. lus(circ. 800 A.D.),and8942-49 through ;cholars who have studied the subject.
a Vatican MS. : but the most important fragment of Liicke in his B i d . (see above, 8 23) regards the book as con-
this version-the Gizeh Greek fragment-was discovered ;isting of two parts. The first part embraces 1-3G 72-105,
written at the beginning of the Maccabean revolt, or, according
only a few years ago by the Mission Arch6ologique o his later view, in the reign of John Hyrcanus: the second
Franpise at Cairo, and published in 1892. :onsists of the Similitudes (36-71) and was written in the early
M. Lod's critical edition of this fragment, accompanied by a lays of Herod the Great. In ;he latter, however, there are
translation, appeared almost simultaneously, and next year it was iome interpolations. Hofmann (J. Chr. K.) ascribes the entire
edited by t h e present writer with an exhaustive comparison of work to a Christian author of the second century. I n this view
the Greek and Ethiopic verkons of 1-32, as an Appendix to his l e was followed later by Weisse and Philippi. Hofinann
work on Enoch. The other Greek fragments will be found in jeserves mention in this connection on the ground of his having
the same work. The Gizeh fragment was edited also'by Dill- 3een the first to give the correct interpretation of the seventy
mann (SBAW ['92], li.-liii. 1039-1054, 1079.1092). The kag- shepherds in 69f: Ew. in his A6handZ. (see above 5 23) gives
meuts of the Greek Enoch with a critical apparatus are to be the following scheme :--Rook I. (37-71) circa 144 B.; ; Book 11.
published in the 2nd edition of vol. iii. of Swete's Cambridge :1-1G 81 7-4 84 91-105) circa 135 B.c.; Book 111. (20-86 72-90
LXX. .
LOGS) circa 128 B.C. 108 later. Book IV. the Book of Noah
The Latin version is wholly lost-with the exception 6 3-8S 1-3 9 7 10 1-3 ;I 226 17-19 54 7-55 2 Gdr-IO 24 25 64-69 16),
omewhat later than the preceding. Kiistlin in his essay (see
of 19, which is found in a treatise of the Pseudo-Cyprian ibove, $ q),a contribution of great worth, arrives at the follow-
22. Latin. entitled A d h'ouatinnz~m (see Zalin's irig analysis : the gronndwork (1-16.21.36 72-105) circa IIO B.C. :
Gesch. d.NTZicheiz ZCanons, 2 797-801)~and the Similitudes (37-71 and 17-19) before 64 B.C. ; Noachic
Fragments (547-55 2 60 85-69 25, possibly also 20 829-zolotif:).
1061-18,which owes its discovery to Mr. James, in 108 is an Essene addition. Hilgenfeld (up. cit.) regards the
an eighth-century MS in the British Museum. This groundwork, consisting of 1-10 20-38 72-105, as written before
fragment is critically edited in Charles's Book of Enoch, 38 B.C . and the remaining chapters as coming from the hand
of a zhristian Gnostic after the time of Saturninus. The
372-37j,James, Apocypha Anecdota, 146-150. interesting study of Tideman (Thy'. [1875] 261-296), and the
The Ethiopic version alone preserves the entire text, works of Lipsius Schiirer, Drummond, enumerated above (F 23),
and that in a more ancient and trustworthy form than and Schodde (The Book of Bnoch, 1882) can only be mentioned
23. Ethiopic. the other versions. It has fewer here. As Dillmann changed his mind three times, and in each
instance for the better, it will be enough to give his final
additions, fewer omissions, and fewer analysis. The gronndwork (1-3G 72-105) in the time of John
and less serious corruptions. Hyrcaiius ; the Similitudes and 17-19, 'before 64 B.C. ; the
I. The Ethjojic MSS-The Ethiopic MSS are compara- Noachic fragments (6 3-8 S 1-3 9 7 10 I II 20 39 I 2a 54 7-55 2 GO
tively many. I'here are about twenty scattered throughout the 65-89 25 1OCJ) ; 10s from a later hand.
libraries of Europe' half of them are found in the British W e shall now proceed to discuss this question
Museum. The best bf all the known MSS is undoubtedly that 26. Results. die' c!y, and endeavour to carry the
designated Orient. 4S5 in the British Museum.
11. Editions of the i?thiopic Text.-Only two editions have criticism of the book one further stage
appeared-that of Lawrence in 1838 from one ]\IS and that of towards finality.
Dillmann in 1851 from five MSS. Unhappily,' these. MSS Disregarding the interpolations from the Book of Noah
were late and corrupt. The present writer hopes to issue a
text based on the incomparably better MSS now accessible to already mentioned as well as the closing chapter, we find
scholars. Such a text is actuallypresupposed in his Translation that all critics are agreed in ascribing the Similitudes
and Commentary of 1893. (37-70)to an authorship different from the rest. The
I1 I. Translafions an% Commenfaries.-Translations accom- remaining chapters (1-36 72-104)have been regarded by
panied by Commentaries have been issued by Lawrence ('21)
Hoffmann ('33-'38), Dillmann ('53), Schodde ('52), and Charle; all critics except Ewald and Lipsius as proceeding from
('93). Of Dillmann's and Scbodde's Translations the reader one and the same author ; but these scholars, while differ-
will find a short review in Charles (6-9). ing from each other, have not persuaded any one but
IV. CriticaZlnguiries.-Some account of thele will be found themselves as to the justness of their respective analyses.
in Schiirer, Hist. 70-73. and in Charles's Book of Bnoch, 9-21
309-311. Of the many works on this book the following deserve In their contention, however, as to the conipositeness of
special mention here. Lucke EinL in %. Oxens. des /oh.W these chapters they were undoubtedly right. This
('j ~ ;)E w. A6ha?i%Z.wh. d. &h. Buches ffenokh Entstehung, question has been gone into at length in Charles's Book
Sznn und 2nsam;nenseizung ('55). Kostlin ' Ueh. die
Entsieh. d. B. Henoch' (TheoZ. 3ahd.' 1856, pl 240-279 870- of Bnoch, 55 J ! 187-189, 220 J ? 260-263, where
$86): Hilgenfeld, Die jiid. APokaryPfik ('57x 91-784; Geb; grounds are given for believing that sections 1-36, 72-82,
ardt, 'Die 70 Hirten des Buches Henoch nnd ihre Deutungen 83-90, and 91-1-04 are writings distinct as to author-
'(Merx's Archivl: wissenschaftz. Erfoorschung des A T , 1872
vol. ii. Heft 2 163-246): Drummond, The Jewish Messiah ('87): ship, system of thought, and date. We must now
17-73: Lipsius in Smith and Wace's Dirt. of Chor. B i o p . ('So), proceed to sketch briefly the various independent writings
2 124.128 ; Schiirer, f f i s f . 5 54-73 ; Lawlor, Joum. PhiZ. vol. contained in the entire work, assigning to each its most
xxv. pp. 164-225['97].
probable date.
The Book of Enoch is a fragmentary survival of an
Part I., consisting of chaps. 1-36 (for the Noachic
entire literature that once circulated under his name.
interpolations, see 24),was written at latest befoi-e
To'this fact the plurality of books as-
24,
positeness. signed to Enoch from the first may in
some sense noint : as. for instance. the I~
27*EtF.ps* 170 R.C., and mainly from the prophetic
standpoint of such chapters as Is. 65.
This is, undoubtedly, the oldest part of
expression ' books' in 10412; Test. x i i . Putr. Jud. 18 ;
the book, being anterior to 72-82, 83-90, 91-104,as it is
Origen, c. CeZricnz, 554, and elsewhere. Of this literature
used by the writers of these sections.
five distinct fragments have been preserved in the five As S3-90 was written not later than 161 R.c., 1-8F must be
books into which the Book of Enoch is divided (1-36 some years earlier, and, as there is no allusion to the massacres
22 1 222
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
of Antiochus Epiphanes, the above date, 170, is the latest have been later t h a n 95 B . C . , as the merely pa3sing
reasonable limit for its composition. reference to persecution in 10315 could hardly be inter-
T h i s book-ie., 1-36- is t h e oldest piece of Jewish preted of Jannaeus after his savage massacres of t h e
literature that teaches t h e general resurrection of Israel, Pharisees i n 95 B.C., which w o n for him t h e title, ' t h e
describes Sheol according to t h e conception t h a t prevails slayer of t h e pious.'
i n t h e N T a s opposed to that of t h e OT, o r represents This section was originally, like 83-90, an independent writing.
t i e h e n n a as a final place of punishment (cp ESCHATO- I n adapting it to its present environment, the redactor of the
LOGY, 63). ?'he problem of the a u t h o r is t o justify entire work broke up its original arrangement. In order to
recover this we must read it in the following order :-92 91 1 - 1 0
t h e ways of G o d t o men. 93 I-TO 91 12-19 94-104. On a variety of grounds (see Charles
The righteous will not suffer always (11). Sin is the cause of Book dI&noch, 260-263)) we must attribute this work to quit:
this suffering and the sin of man is due to the lust of the angels another author than that of either of the preceding sections.
- the Watcders (969 10 108). Hence the Watchers, their
companions and their children will he destroyed (104-10 12). In passing from 8 3 - 9 0 t o 91-104 we enter o n a world
Their d e s t r k o n will form theprklude to the first world-judgment, of new conceptions ( c p ESCHATOLOGY, 6 4 J ) . In
of which the Deluge will form the completion (101-3). Sin still all previous apocalyptic writings t h e resurrection a n d
prevailed after the Deluge: however, through the influence of the t h e final j u d g m e n t h a v e been the prelude to an ever-
evil spirits that went forth from the slaughtered Children of the
Watchers and the daughters of men (161). These act with lasting Messianic kingdom ; whereas i n t h e present
impunity till the final judgment. I n the meantime character writing these great events are relegated t o t h e close
finds its recompense in some measiire immediately after death of t h e Messianic kingdom, a n d n o t till then d o t h e
(22). I n the last judgment the Watchers, the demons, and all righteous enter on their reward.- T h i s kingdom is
classes of Israelites with one exception, will receive their final
award (19 !Xr3). This judgment is preceded by a general temporary (91 12-15) ; there is no Messiah ; the right-
resurrection of Israel (2'2). The wicked are cast into Gehenna eous with God's h e l p vindicate their j u s t cause a n d
(27 2 ) ; the earth is cleansed from sin (10 2 0 . 2 ~ ); the Messianic destroy their oppressors. O n t h e close of t h e kingdom
kingdom is established, with Jerusalem as a centre (25 5) ; and
God abides with men (253). 'I'he Gentiles are converted (1021). follow t h e final j u d g m e n t (9115) a n d t h e risen spiritual
The righteous eat of the tree of life (254-6) and thereby enjoy life of blessedness i n a new heaven (9110 9 2 3 ) . In
patriarchal lives (59). As to what befalls the righteous after the this view of t h e future t h e centre of interest h a s
second death there is no hint in this fragmentary section.
obviously passed from t h e material world t o t h e
P a r t II., consisting of 83-90, was written between spiritual, and t h e Messianic kingdom is n o longer
166 a n d 161 B .c., mainly from the s a m e
28;:-zy' standpoint as Daniel. On a variety of
grounds, w e are obliged to discriminate
t h e goal of t h e hopes of t h c righteous. T h e i r faith finds
its satisfaction only in a blessed immortality i n heaven
itself. T h i s immortality is an immortality of the soul
this section from t h e preceding. only (1 03 3-4). As for t h e wicked, they will descend
I t will be enough to mention that, whereas in this there
is a Messiah in the preceding there was none' in this the into t h e p a i n of S h e d a n d a b i d e t h e r e everlastingly
life of the r;ghteous is apparently unending, i i the other it ( 9 8 3 1 0 1 0 4 7 8 ) . Here ( 1 0 3 7 ) She61 a p p e a r s as Hell
was finite; in this the scene of the kingdom is the New for possibly the first time.
Jerusalem set up by God himself, in the other it was Jerusalem P a r t I V . T h e Similitudes, consisting of
and the entire earth unchanged though purified. Finally, the
picture in 83-90 is developed and spiritual, whilst that in 1-30 was 30' Simi1itudes;37-70, were written between 94 a n d 7 9
nai've, primitive, and sensuous. chaps*37-70' B. C., or between 70 a n d 64 B. c.
T h e d a t e assigned above is n o t difficult t o fix. 'The kings and the mighty,' so often denounced, are the
The Hasidim (see ASSIDEANS) symholised hy the lambs that later Maccabean princes and their Sadducean supporters : the
are bori to the white sheep (906): are already an organised party later Maccabean princes, for the blood of the righteous was
in the Maccahean revolt. The lambs that become homed are not shed (as the writer complains, 47124) before 95 B.C .
the Maccahean Eimily, and the great horn who in still warring not the Herods, for the Sadducees were not allies of the Herods'
while the author of the section is writing is Judas the Maccahee and Rome was not as yet known to the writer as one of th:
(909), who died in 161 8.c. great world-powers. This last fact necessitates an earlier-date
Chapters 83-90 recount t w o visions : 8 3 3 , dealing with than 64 B .c., when Rome interposed authoritatively in the affairs
of Judaea.
t h e first world-judgment ; 85-90, dealing with the entire
I n his a t t e m p t t o solve the problem of the suffering of
history of t h e world till t h e final judgment. In the
t h e righteous, t h e a u t h o r of t h e Similitudes h a s n o
second vision t h e a u t h o r considers t h e question of Israel's
interest save for t h e m o r a l a n d spiritual world. H i s
unmerited suffering.
Israel has indeed sinned ; but the punishment immeasurably view, t o o , i s strongly apocalyptic, a n d follows closely
transcends its guilt. These undue severities, the author shows i n t h e w a k e of Daniel.
have not come from the hand of God ; they are the doinp o'f The origin of sin is traced one stage farther hack than in 1-38.
the seventy shepherds into whose care Gcd committed Israel .The first authors of sin were the Satails (407). T h e Watchers
(8959). These shepherds or angels have proved faithless to fell through becoming subject to these and leading mankind
their trust ; but not with impunity. An account has been taken astray (546). Thouch the Watchers were forthwith confined in
of all their deeds (8961-64), and for them and for their victims a deep abyss, sin still flourishes in the world and sinners deny
there is laid up a due recompense (9033). Moreover, when the the name of the Lord of Spirits (36z)and of his Anointed (48 IO),
outlook is darkest, a league of the righteous is organised and the kings and the mightyoppress the childrenof God (8211).
in Israel (906). In it there will arise a family from which Suddenly there will appear the Head of Days, and with him
will come forth the deliverer of Israel, Judas the Maccahee the Son of Man (462 3 4 48z), to execute judgment upon all alike.
(9qg-16). Every effort of the Gehtiles to destroy him will prove To this end there will be a resurrection of all Israel (511
vain, and God's appeararice in person to judge will he the signal 615), and all judgment will he committed to the Son of Man
for their destruction. The apostates will he cast into Gehenna, 419 6927) who will judge all according to their deeds (41 I).
and the wicked angels into an abyss of fire (9020-25). God &in and wiong-doing will he banished from the earth (49z), and
himself will set up the New Jeriisalem (9028 29) ; the surviving heaven and earth be transformed (454 5), and the righteous
Gentilei will be converted and serve Israel (9030); the righteous will have their mansions in Paradise (39 6 41 2). The Elect One
dead will he raised to take part in the kingdom; and final!y will dwell among them (454); they will be clad in garments of
the Messiah will appear among them (9037). The Messianic life(02'5 IG), become angels in heaven (614), and continue to
kingdom lasts on earth for ever, and its members enjoy ever- grow in knowledge and righteousness (65 5).
lasting blessedness. It will be observed t h a t t h e Messianic doctrine in this
It will be observed t h a t this is the earliest a p p e a r a n c e section is unique, n o t only as regards t h e other sections
of the Messiah i n non-canonical literature (see M ESSIAH , of E n o c h but also i n Jewish literature a s a whole (see,
5 ; ESCHATOLOGY, 6 0 ) . He has, however, n o rdle further, ESCHATOLOGY, 6 6 ) .
t o play : h e has n o t as yet vindicated for himself a place The Messiah exists from the beginning ( 4 6 2 ) ; he sits on
in the apocalyptic doctrine of the last things. the throne of God (453 473), 2nd possesses nniversal dominion
P a r t I I I . , consisting of 91-104, was written between (626); and all judgment is committed unto him (6927). If we
134 a n d 95 R.C. 'The well-defined opposition of the turn to the other sections we find that in 1-36 and 91.104 there is
no Messiah at all; whilst in 53-90 the Messiah is evidently
Pharisees a n d t h e Sadducees depicted in human, and has no real rBle to play in the doctrine of the last
29' Chaps'
this section c a n n o t have been earlier than things.
91-104* t h e breach between John H y r c a n u s a n d I f t h e reader will t u r n to t h e list of Noachic interpola-
t h e Pharisees (see I SRAEL , $ 7 8 ; S CRIBES , 18) ; hence tions (see above, 2 4 ) h e will find t h a t m a n y of t h e m
not earlier t h a n 134 B.C. O n t h e other h a n d , it c a n n o t are to be found i n this section.
223 224
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
They have as a rule been drawn from a n already existing This new fragment of the Enochic literature has only
Apocalypse of Noah, and adapted by an editor to their present recently come to light through certain MSS, some of
contexts in Enoch. This he does by borrowing from the Simili-
tudes characteristic terms such as ‘ Lord of Spirits,’ ‘ Head of which were found in Russia and some in Servia.
Days,’ ‘ Sou of Man,’ tn which, however, either through ignor- Although the very knowledge of such a book was lost for
ance or of set intention, he generally gives a new connotation. probably twelve hundred years, the book was much used
Chapter 71 does not belongtothe Similitudes. I t shows by both Christians and heretics in the early centuries.
the same misuse of characteristic phrases as the interpola- Citations appear from it though without acknowledg-
ment, in the Book cf Adam bnd Eve, Apoc. Moses and Pan2
tions just referred to (see Charles, Bookof Enoch, 183J). (400-500 A.D.), Si6yline Oracles, Asc. Zsa. and E$. of Bar.
Part V., the Book of Celestial Physics, consists of (70.90 A.D.). I t is quoted hy name in the apocalyptic portions
31. Celestial 72-78 8 2 79. This, like the preceding of the Test. of the rii. Patr. (circa I A.D.). I t was referred to
Physics (chaps.sections, is a work of independent by Orig. and probably by Clem. Alex and was used by Iren.
Some phrases of the N T may be derive2 from it.
72-78, 82, ,9). authorship. There are no means of There are five Slavonic MSS : in two of them the complete
determining its date. text is found, while the remaining three supply ouiy a shortened
It has suffered from both disarrangements and interpolations and incomplete redaction. For the edition
at the hands of the editor of the whole work. In the first place 34. The .lished by the present writer the two best o?%
80 f: is a manifest intrusion written from a standpoint quit: Slavonic above MSS (A and I() were translated and put a t
different from that of the rest. I n the next place 82 does not MSS. the service of the editor by Mr. Morfill. The
stand in its original position. T h e opening word; of 79 in fact editor had at his disposalalso Mr. Morfill’s transla-
pTesuppose 82 as already read. We have found a similar disloca- tion of Prof. Sokolov’s text, which is founded on these and other
tion of the text in Part -111. MSS. In 1896 Prof. Bonwetsch published his Das Slauische
Henoch6uch in which he wives a German translation of the MSS
Part VI., the Noachian and other interpolations. A and B sidi bv side,. m
~ _s e d e d bv a short introduction.
These have been enumerated above (I24). ( a )The main part of the ‘ Slavonic
36’ Enoch’ was written in Greek.
-The influence of Enoch on Jewish literature (to exclude
32. Influence for the moment the N T ) is seen in This is clear from such statements as ( I ) 30 73, ‘And I gave
him a name (i.e Adam) from the four substances : the East, the
/udi/ees (written about the beginning of West, the Norti;, and the South.’ Adam’s name is thus derived
of Enoch. the Christian era), in the Slavonic Enoch
from the initial letters of the Greek names of the four quarters-
( 1 - 5 0 A. D . ) , Test. rii. Putr., dpoc. Bur., and in 4 Esdras. &varoA$, ~ ~ U L S~ ~, K T O S.p:qp,Bpia.
, This derivation was first
In Jewish apocalyptic before 40 A. D . Enoch was elaborated in Greek : it IS mpossible in the Semitic languages.
(2) The writer follows the chronology of @. (3) In 504 he
the chief figure next to Daniel ; but his acceptance by reproduces the 0 text of Dt. 32 35 against the Hebrew. (4) H e
the Christians as a Messianic prophet led to his,rejec- constantly uses Ecclesiasticus, whxh was current chiefly in
tion by the Jews. See note on 1 IO. Egypt.
I n patristic literature, Enoch is twice cited as Scripture (a) Certain portions were based on Hebrew originals.
in Ep. Barn. ( 4 3 165). It is also quoted with approval, Such a hypothesis is necessary to account for the quota-
though not always by name, by Justin Martyr, Iren. and tions from it or references to it which appear in the
Athenag., Tert., Clem. Alex., Orig., Anatolius. Thence- Test. xii. Putr. The fact that the latter work was
forward it is mentioned with disapproval by Hilary, written in Hebrew obliges us to conclude that its author
Chrys., Jer., August., and finally condemned in explicit drew upon Hebrew originals in quotations and references.
terms in the Const. Ap. 6 16. 36. Place. The book was written in Egypt.
Far more important than its influence on Jewish litera- This is deducible from the following facts :+I) The variety of
ture, was its influence on N T diction ( u )and doctrine ( b ) . speculations which it holds in common with Philo and other
Hellenistic writers : thus souls were created before the foundation
(a) We shall here draw attention on19 to the indubitable of the world, 23 5 (cp Philo, De Somno, 1 2 2 ; Wisd. 8 1920.
instances. Ennch is quoted directly in Jude 14J Phrases, Again, man bad seven natures, 30 g (cp Philo, De Mundi Op. 401.
clauses, or thoughts derived from it, or of closest kin with it, ( 2 ) The whole Messianic teaching of the O T does not find a
are fonndiu Jude413f:; Rev.27 3 r o 4 6 G 1 0 9 1 1 4 ~ 0 2 0 1 3 ; single echo in the work of this Hellenised Israelite of E ypt
Rom.838 9 5 ; Eph.121; Heb.11;; Acts314; J n . 5 ~ 2 2 7 ; although he shows familiarity with most of its books. (3)$sucd
Lk. 9 35 1 6 9 23 35 ; Mt. 19 28 25 41 26 24. monstrous creatures as appear in chap. 12 are natural products of
(a) The doctrines in Enoch that had a share in mould- the Egyptian imagination. (4) The syncretistic character of
the creation narrative in 2 5 5 betrays Egyptian elements.
ing the analogous N T doctrines, or formed a neces- Materials originally derived from this hook are discoverable in
sary link in the development of doctrine from the OT to Joel and Cedrenus (1050-1200 A.D.), though in these authors the
the NT, are those concerning the Messianic kingdom and 37. Relation materials are assigned to other names. Two
passages of the Book of A d a m and Ewe (see
the Messiah, Shed and the resurrection, and demonology, $0 other APOCRYPHA, 5 IO) in 1 6 and 8 are all but
on which reference must be made to the separate articles works. Again quotations from 2 9 4 3 and 312 of our hook.
on these heads and to ESCHATOLOGY. W e here content in the Apoc. Moses, 19 (ed. Tisch.
r866), we have a further development of 142-4 of our text, just
ourselves with remwking, as regards the doctrine of the
Messiah, that four titles, afterwards reproduced in the
as in Apoc. PauL 64 o6r& durw 6 Irap&Sauos, &@a
.
666pov . dv Q Brawwradsro ~b rrveijpa rb lryrov is a Christian
..
New Testament, are first applied to the personal Messiah adaptation of 8 ‘And in the midst (of Paradise is) the Free of
in the Similitudes. These titles are ‘Christ’ or ‘the life-on which 2 o d rests when he comes into Paradise. T h e
section on the derivation of Adam’s name in the anonymous De
Anointed One,’ ‘ the Righteous One,’ ‘ the Elect One,’ Monti6us Sina et Sion, 4, is to be traced ultimately to 30 13, and
and the Son of Man.’ ‘The first title, found repeatedly Augustine’s speculation, De Civ. xxii. 30 5, on the eighth eternal
in earlier writings but always in reference to actual con- day to 33 2.
, temporary kings or priests, is now for the first time (48 IO Still earlier we find almost a verbal reproduction of 50 5-51 I in
the Sibylline Oracles 2 75. In Irenreus, Contra HEY. v. 283,
52 4) applied to the ideal Messianic king that is to come. the Jewish speculatioh of 33 IJ: is reproduced, and possibly in
It is here associated with supernatural attributes. The Origen (see Lommatzsch ed. vol. xxi. 55). However this may
second and the third of these titles, found first in Enoch, be, there is no donbt as to th’e direct reference to 24-30 33 8 in the
have passed over into the NT-the former occurring in De Princip. i. 3 2 : ‘ Nam et in eo libello ... quem Hermas
convxipsit, ita refertnr : Primo omnium crede, ,quia unus est
Acts 314 75. 2214, the latter in Lk. 935 2335. The last Deus, qui esse fecit omnia .. . sed et in Enoch hhro his similia
title, that of ‘ the Son of Man,’ is historically the source describuntur. There are good grounds for believing that in a
of the New Testament designation. ’To the latter it still earlier period (50.100 A.u.) the writers of Asc. Zsa. 816
and of Apoc. Bar. 4 3 were acquainted with 19 I and 31 z of this
contributes some of its most characteristic contents (see book respectively. I n E*. Barn. 15 5-8 and probably in 18 I
Chnrles, Book of Enoch, 312-317). the thought and diction are dependent on 32 2-53 and 30 15.
111. THE BOOK OF THE SECRETS OF ENocH.-This In the N T the similarity of matter and language is
book has, as far as is yet known, been preserved only in sufficiently great to establish a close connection if not a
33. Secrets Slavonic. For the sake of convenience literary dependence.
we shall call it ‘ the Slavonic Enoch,’ With Mt. 55, ‘ Blessedar:thepeacemakers,’cp 62 11 ‘Blessed
of fortunes.
its Enoch : in contradistinction to the older book, .
is he who establishes peace with Mt. 5 34 35 37, ‘ &ear not a t
all ’ etc. cp 49 I ‘ I will not)swear by a single oath, neither by
which for the same reason we shall hehen,’nor by’earth, nor by any other creature which God
designate ‘ the Ethiopic Enoch. ’ made. . ..
If there is no truth in men, let them swear by a word,
16 225 226
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
yea, yea, or nay nay.’ Again, with Mt. 7 20 and 25 34 cp 42 14 md the chalkadri ? (12 ; cp COCKATRICE) and the eastern and
and 9 I ; with Jk 1 4 2 cp GI z ; with Eph. 4 25 cp 4 2 ; ~; with western gates of the sun (Wlti),and ‘ an aimed host serving the
Rev. 9 I and 10 5f: cp 42 I and 05 7. Still earlier we find this Lord with cymbals and organs’ (17).
hook not onlyuied but quoted by name in the Test. Dun 5 I n 18 he IS taken up to the fifth heaven, where he sees the
where the statement TGV rrveupdswv rrhdvrs ’ &v4yvwv y i p d Watchers who had rebelled ; their brethren were already
I

, ¶ l p h w ’ E v i ~703 G ~ ~ a i o&&u , b d p p v 6pGv WTLV b B a ~ a i ris zonfined in torment in the second heaven. Then he passes to
draw; from 183, ‘These are the Grigori (Le. ’Typq opol) who the sixth heaven (19), where are the angels who regulate all the
with their prince Satanail rejecte3 the holy Lord. dnally, the powers of nature and the courses of the stars, and write down
references to Enoch in Test. Najh. 4, Test. Sim.5, Test. Benj’. the deeds o f men. Finally, he is raised to the seventh heaven
g, are adaptations of 34 2-3. ‘20 f:), where he sees God sitting on his throne, aiid the
The question as to the date has, to a large extent, been heavenly hosts in their ten orders on the steps of the throne,
and the Seraphim singing the trisagiou. H e falls down and
38. Date. determined already. The portions which worships (22). At God’s command, Michael takes from him his
have a Hebrew background are a t latest earthly robe, anoints him with the holy oil, and clothes him
pre-Christian. with the raiment of God’s glory. Thus Enoch becomes like one
of the glorious ones. Under the instruction of Vretil(chap. 23), he
This follows from the fact of their quotation in the Test. xi?. writes 366 books, in thirty days and thirty nights, about things
Putr. Turning to the rest of the book, we find that the fer- in heaven and earth, and about the souls of men created from
minus a quo is determined by the .fact that it frequently uses eternity, and their future dwelling-places.
Eccbs. (cp 43 zf: 47 5 52 8 61 z 4, etc. ; see the writer’s edition In 24-26 God makes known to Enoch how he created the
of the Slavonic Enoch). The Ethiopic Enoch, further, is con- invisible out of the visible ; how he commanded Adoil (possibly
tinually presupposed to be in the background. Its phraseology a corruption of Uriel, regarded as=light of God), and Arkhas
and conceptions are reproduced (7 4f: 33 4 gf: 35 2 , etc.). At (possibly from y7.q or Arani. NpN’earth), to come forth and
times its views are put forward in a developed form (8 I 5f: 40 13
64 5 ) and occasionally divergent conceptions are enunciated burst asunder ; and so the light on high and the world below
(16 7’1.8 4). .Finally, explanations are claimed to have been given were produced. And God divided the light and the darkness
by this writer which, as a matter of fact, are to be found not in (27), and made the seven heavens, and caused the waters
his writings but in the Eth. En. (see 40 5f: 8 3 ) . It is possible under the heaven to be gathered into one place, and made the
that the Book of Wisdom also was used by our author ; see 65 4. earth from the waters (28). Such were the creations of the first
day. And on the second day God created the heavenly hosts
Since, therefore, Ecclus., the 23th. Enoch, and Wisdom (291-3). And one of the archangels (Satanail) rebelled, and
(7) were used by this author, his work cannot have been God cast him down (.294f:) from the heights. On the third
earlier than 30 B.C. day (30 I 2 ) God caused the earth to produce trees and herbs
and planted Paradise. On the fourth (303-6), he ordered grea;
The terminus ad quem must be set down as earlier lights to be in the various circles of the heavens-Saturn,
than 70 A.D. For ( I ) the temple is still standing. (2) Venus Mars the Sun Jupiter Mercury the Moon. On the
This book was known and used by the writers of E$. fifth (;00-18): he creaied the hsh of the’sea, and the fowl of
Barn. and A x . Zsa., and probably by some of the heaven and every thing that moveth 011 the earth and on
the sixih he made mail from seven substances, and ialled him
writers of the NT. We may with reasonable certainty, Adam, and showed him the two ways. While Adam was in
therefore, assign the composition of the book in Creek to Paradise he could see the angels in heaven (31); but Satan
the period 50 A.D. The author is thus a contemporary envied him and deceived Eve. And God established the
eighth day (33 1.2)) at the beginning of which time should be no
of Philo, with whom, accordingly, we find that he holds more. The corruption of the earth and the deluge are then
many speculations in common, Much of the book, how- foretold and the preservation of Noah (35). God bids Enoch
ever, goes back to a Hebrew background of an earlier return 6 the earth for thirty days and teach his sons during
date. that time (36-38). Enoch admonishes and instructs his sons,
tells them what he has seen, and gives utterance to nine
The author was thus an orthodox Hellenistic Jew who beatitudes (39-42). H e ‘impresses on them the incomparahl$
lived in Egypt.
-.- He believed in the value of sacrifices dignity of goodness-‘none is greater than he who fears God
(426 591 662)-though he is careful (43). They are not to revile the person of man, but to present
39. to enforce enlightened views with their offerings ; yet they must not value these unduly, but con-
sider the heart from which they spring (44-40). Enoch gives his
regard to them (453f. 6l4f.)-in<he law ( 5 2 8 f . ) , and hooks to his sons (47) ; instructs them not to swear (49) ; and bids
in a blessed immortality (502 6568f.), in’which the them in meekness accomplish the number of their days and
righteous will wear ‘ the raiment of Gods glory’ ( 2 2 8 ) . be open-handed to those in need (50f:). Again he enuniiates
seven beatitudes and the woes with which they are contrasted
In questions affecting the origin of the earth, of sin, and (52). The departed saints, he says, do not intercede for the
of death, he allows himself the most unrestricted freedom living (53). At the close of the appointed time (55-59) Enoch
and borrows from every quarter. Thus Platonic (30 16), again addresses his sons. H e declares that n o soul shall
perish till the final judgment, and that the souls of beasts will
Egyptian ( 2 5 ~ )and~ Zend (584-6) elements are in- then bring charges against the men who ill-treated them.
corporated in his system. The result is highly Further instruction follows, as to sacrifice and man’s duty to
syncretistic. the needy, and warning against contempt and lying (00-03).
T h e people assemble in Achuzan to take leave of Enoch, who
The book opens with a short account of Enoch as ‘a very addresses them on various topics and exhorts them to faithful-
wise man’ whom ‘ God loved and received so that he should see ness. H e is then carried up to the highest heaven. His sons
the heavenly abodes, the kingdoms of the build an altar in Achuzan and hold high festival, rejoicing and
40. Contents. wise, great, and never-changing God.’ In praising God (64-68).
chap. 1 two angels appear to Enoch and bid
him make ready to ascend with them into heaven. I n chap. 2 he The value of the book, in elucidating contemporary
admonishes his sorts and directs them not to seek for him till he 41.Value. and subsequent religious thought, may
is brought hack to them. Thereupon (3-G) he is carried up be exemplified by the fresh evidence it
through the air into the first heaven, where he beholds a great contributes on the following beliefs :-
sea and the elders the rulers of the orders of the stars and the
treisuries of the show and ice and clouds and dew ’and the I. The miZZennium.-This Jewish conception is first
angels who guard them. Thence the angels bear him to the found in 322-332. From this its origin is clear. The
second heaven (7), where he sees the angels who had rebelled account in Genesis of the first week of creation came in
against God, imprisoned and suffering torments. These angels
ask Enoch to intercede for them. Next, he ascends to the pre-Christian times to be regarded not only as a history
third heaven (S), where is Paradise, with all manner of beautiful of the past, but also as a sketch of the future of the
fruits and ‘ the tree of life on which God rests when he comes world. Thus, as the world was created in six days, its
into the garden,’ and the four streams of honey milk oil and history was to last 6000 years ; for 1000 years with God
wine, that water the garden, and go down to h e P&-ad:se of
Eden between corruptibility and incorruptibility. The angels are as one day (Ps. 904 ; Jub. 430 ; 2 Pet. 3 8 ) ; and as
infor; Enoch that ‘this place is prepared as an eternal inherit- God rested on the seventh day, so at the close of 6000
ance ’ for those ‘ who turn their eyes from unrighteousness and years there should be a rest of 1000 years-Le., the
accnmplish a righteous judgment, and give bread to the huhpry
.
and clothe the naked, and raise the fallen . . and walk with: millennium.
2. The sewn heuvens.-The detailed account of the
out blame before the face of the Lord.’ Enoch is then taken to
the northern region of this heaven (lo), and shown ‘a very seven heavens in this book has served to explain
terrible place ’ of ‘ savage darkness and impenetrable gloom difficulttes in the NT conceptions of the heavens, and
with ‘fire on all sides cold and ice.’ H e is told that ‘thfs
place is prepared as i n etekal inheritance’ for those ‘who has shown beyond the reach of controversy that the
commit evil deeds on earth, sodomy, witchcraft’ . who
oppress the poor who are guilty of ‘stealing, lying, envy evjl
.. sevenfold division of the heavens was believed by Paul,
by the author of Hebrews, and probably by the author
thoughts, fornicition, murder,’ who ‘worship gods without iife.
Thence Enoch is conducted to the fourth heaven, where he is of Revelation. On the Secrets of Enoch see also
shown the courses of the sun and moon (ll), and the phcenixes, ESCHATOLOGY,$75.
227 228
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
IV. THE ASCENSION OFISAIAH.-This apocryph #hen the book had assumed this shape, another editor
-~
has come down to us in its entirety onlv in the Ethiopic
42.Ascens. Isa.; version. It is a composite work, as we
nserted 134a 3 13-5I 15 f: 112-22 41. This will do as a
xovisional hypothesis, but it is not final; and Gebhardt,
shall see ; and two, if not three, of jchiirer, and Deane are wrong in saying that it is
its fortunes, its constituents existed indeuendentlv Dorne out by external testimony, averring that in the
before their incorporation in the present work. Of 3reek work there is no trace of the sections 313-5
these the oldest is undoubtedly 21 312 and 516-14, 11 n - 2 2 . By a minute examination of the Greek certain
which contains an account of the martyrdom of Isaiah phrases which imply the author’s acquaintance with
(cp I SAIAH , i. § I , end). From this section, which is of 3 13 17 48 11 19 are discoverable (see Charles, op. cit. ).
Jewish authorship, seem to have been derived such state- Thus the final editing was completed before the
ments as : ‘ they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, :omposition of the Greek legend. Further, since 313
.... .
they went about in sheepskins . . being des- is found in one of the Latin fragments published by
titute ... wandering in deserts and mountains ’ (Heb. Mai, this section (;.e., 313-51) was already present
11 37f. ; Cp 210-125 I 6). before the Latin version was made. Too much stress
The next probable reference is in Justin Martyr (c. T&h. must not be laid on the fact that 112-22 is represented
120),,where he says : ‘ye sawed (Isaiah) in twain with a wooden in the Latin version by only a few lines; for it is
saw. So we find it in 5 I. In Tertul. (De patientia, 14) the
reference is unmistakable, while in Origen the book or its characteristic of this version to abridge the text it is
matter is discussed : it is there called & ~ K ~ U + O V H u a h , or rendering.
simply A T ~ K ~ + O(E&
U ad Afnkanwn 9’ A d Matt. 1357 The following is an outline of the contents of the
2337’ Zn Jesainm horn2 15). The hrlt reference to the
secoLd part (6-11)is in Epiph. ( H a w . 40 and G7 3) where we book.
are told that certain heretics made use of this wori, which he In the twenty-sixth year of his reign Hezekiah summnns
calls rb 6vaPanKbv ‘Huabu, to support their opinions. Jerome Manasseh in order to entrust to him certain writings touching
speaks of an Ascensio Zsaice, and in the list of the Canon the future (11-6). Isaiah foretells to Heze-
edited by Montfaucou and others it is called ‘Huatou Spams. 46. Contents. kiah his martyrdom a t the hands of Mauasseh
(1 7-73). On the death of Hezekiah, Manasseh
The various constituents of the book were written abandons the service of God for that of Satan ; and thus, owing
orieinallv in Greek. Thus. in 4 1021 6 8 d is to the evils perpetrated in Jerusalem, Isaiah and other prophets
followed where it differs from- the withdraw into the wilderness (2). Thereupon Balkira, a
43* Language’ Hebrew. Of the Greek the g-reater Samaritan, accuses Isaiah and the prophets of prophesying
u evil things against the king and the people. As Berial has
part has come down to us iu a MS found in the National gained possession of the king’s heart, the king sends and seizes
Library in Paris, and edited by Gebhardt in Hilgenfeld‘s Isaiah (3 1-12). There is a sudden break in the narrative
Zeitschrift (1878)-though it is not the original work, here (the conclusion of the martyrdom of Isaiah follows in
5 2.14) to explain the reason of Berial‘s anger-viz Isaiah‘s
but a free recast and rearrangement of it (see below). vision Hnd the revelation i s which he laid hare the f&e rule
Translations from the Greek were made into Latin, and destruction of Sammael, as well as the corning redemption
Ethiopic, and Slavonic. Of the Latin version, 6-11 hy Christ. In fact, we have the history of the Christian Church
summarised briefly from the coming of Christ to the Neronic
44. versions. were extant in the sixteenth century persecution and the last judgment (313-51). In this short
and were printed at Venice in 1522, apocalypse we have the account of an eye-witness of the condition
but had long been lost to view when Gieseler re-edited of the early Church, 50-80 A . D . Church organisation is still
them in 1832. Two other fragments, 214-313 and in its infancy; the rulers are called presbyters and pastors;
bishops are nowhere mentioned. There are disputes about the
71-19, were discovered and published in 1828 by Mai, second advent : prophecy has not yet disappeared ; the vice and
though that editor was not aware that they belonged greed of the Christian teachers are uns aringly dealt with.
to this apocryph. Happily, as remarked above, the The writer feels that the end is at hand. 8 n 5 2-14 see above.
With 6 begins the vision which Isaiah kaw in the
entire work has been preserved in Ethiopic, and on the
whole faithfully, as we can infer from the Greek and
.
twentieth year of the reign of Hezekiah he discloses it to the
king and to Josah his son. In this visidn Isaiah is conducted
the Latin fraEments.
- by an angel through the firmament and the six lower heavens
The qourccs of it- corruptions arc often immediatcly recognis- and is shown the chief wonders in each (TJ). Next he is raised
ahk by rctraii4itiun iuro Greek. 1Lus in [I3 5 the lZthiopic= to the seventh heaven, where he sees all the righteous from
‘qui ae :id ta dvertit,’ the Latin:; ‘ praxipicnc.’ ’I’he original Adam downwards. H e is then told of the coming advent of
of both is &rp&rwu, as we find in the Greek; hut the Ethiopic the Beloved into the world, and of his crucifixion and resurrection.
translator has followed an inappropriate meaning. That followed Finally, he sees the Beloved in the form of an angel, and
by the Latin translator is admissible ; but the context requires likewise the Holy Spirit in the same form, and ‘the Great
the ordinary sense of & L T P & ~ W = ‘permitting.’ Glory ’-i.e. God-worshipped by the Beloved and the Spirit
(9). I n 10, )Isaiah hears God commissioning b is Son to descend
The Ethiopic version was first edited by Laurence in into the world, and thereupon follows an account of this descent.
1819 from one MS, and afterwards in 1877 by Dillmann I n the concluding chapter are revealed the birth of Jesus and
from three MSS. T o the latter edition are appended the history of his life on earth down to his crucifixion and
resurrection and ascension through the seven heavens to his
the Latin fragments. Next year, as we have already seat at the right hand of God.
noticed,’ Gebhardt edited the Greek text. Although The Martyrdom of Isaiah proper (21-312 5 2-14), which
a free recast of our apocryph, it is very valuable for is of Jewish authorship, was written some time in the
critical purposes, and in many respecg confirms the 4
,. Date. first century of our era ; the Vision (6-11)
critical acumen of Dillmann. Still there is need of probably about its close ; and the apocalyptic
a work which will give a text emended and corrected section (313-51)circa 50-80 A.D.
with the help of this Greek MS as well as of ’the For additional bibliography on this book see Schiirer, Hisf.
Slavonic version and will deal more exhaustively with the 5 145-146: Charles, The Ascension of rsaioiz.
different elements from which the apocryph is composed. V. TIiE BOOK OF JUBILEES.-The Book of Jubilees,
This need Charles has tried to meet in his forthcoming which is really a haggadic commentary on Genesis, is.
work, The Ascension of lsaiah. 48. Book of important as being the chief monument
Ewald was the first to recognise the composite (practically the sole monument) of legal
structure of this book, finding in it the works of three Jubilees. istic Pharisaism belonging to the century
45. Composite- distinct authors. Subsequent criticisms, its valu;. immediately preceding the Christian era.
however, have only in part confirmed Just as we have the other side of Pharisaism, its
ness’ his analysis, and the best work as yet apocalyptic and mystical side, represented in the Book
done in this direction is that of Dillmann. Dillmann’s of’Enoch, so here we have its natural complement in
hypothesis is as follows :-There were originally two the hard and inexorable legalism to whose yoke, accord-
independent works : one, an account of the martyrdom ing to the author, creation was subject from the beginning
of Is’aiah (21-31252-14), of Jewish origin; the other, and must be subject for evermore.
the vision of Isaiah (6-11 I 23-40), of Christian author- Jubilees is not only indispensable to students of the
ship. These two works were next combined into one N T and of the history of the Pharisaic movement : it
volume by a Christian, who supplied them with a is likewise of first-class importance as a witness to the
prologue and an epilogue (1I$ 46-13 11 42f: ). Finally, readings of the Hebrew text of Genesis about the
229 230
 APOCALYPTIC,LITERATURE
beginning of the Christian era. In this respect it mended the text in many passages; but as he was not aware
hat it had been corrected in conformity both with Q and
comes next in worth to @ and the Samaritan text, and with the Vg and as further he had only a late representative'
presents us with much earlier readings than are to be !f the Ethic& version befoie him, his work is defective and
found in the Syr. or Lat. versions, or in Targ. Onk. ar from final. A critically revised text of these fragments is
In the matter of determining the respective values of Ziven in Charles's edition of the Ethiopic text.
The Ethiopic MSS of which there are four, belong respect-
the Samaritan, 6 ,and Massoretic chronologies its .vely to the National Library in Paris (A), the British Museum
evidence will be practically of decisive weight. (B), the University Library in Tiibingen (C),
This hook has been variously named at different 64. Text Of and to M. d'Abhadie (D). B is by far the
stages of its career. Its original name seems to have Jubilees. most valuable ; next in value comes A ; C and
D are late and very corrupt. I n addition to
49. Name. been 'Jubilees,' and not the 'Book of these MSS, however, there is a vast wealth of materials for
Jubilees.' So we find it in the Syriac the criticism and reconstruction of the text in the Mas. and
fragment, and likewise in Epiphanius, where it is desig- Sam. Texts and in the Gr., Syr., Aram and Lat. ,versions of
Genesis; i; the fragments of the Grllk Syriac, and.Latin
nated rb 'Iwp?ha?a or oi ' I w p q A d o r . versions of Jubilees mentioned above ; an: in abundant other
I t is also called $ her+ r&urs in Epiphanius, S y n c e l k , documents of a less directly serviceable nature. (a) The
and others-a title pointing back to ~ ~ n-wN>l.1 1 .This name Eihiojic T e z t has been edited twice-first by Di. in 1859 from
was given to it not because of its smaller bulk-for it is greater two MSS (C, D), and next, by the present writer from A, E, C,
than that ofthecanonicalGenesis-hut on the groundofitsinferior D.l Though Di. made no use of the critical materials just
authority. Other variations of this title are M L K ~ O Y & E Uand
LS enumerated in the formation of his text, and it was, accord-
r h ham& r s v d m w s . In the Abyssinian Church it is named ingly, in no sense a critical edition, it was a great boon to
the ' Book of the Division,' from the first words of the inscription scholars at the time. @) Three traitskiions have ap-
a t the beginning. and we find still other designations. Thus, peared: the first by Di. in 1850 from one MS (i.e C)' the
in the decree of 'Gelasius; according to Rijnsch's emeidation second by Schodde (BibL Sacra, 1885) from Di.'s 'bditibn of
we find ' Liber de filiabus Ad= hoc est Leptogenesis. Thi; the text' and the third by the present writer ( / Q I z , 1894,
name as Ceriani observed, wa; given to the book because it 1895)fro& the text published in 1895 referred to above.
condins the names of all the Patriarchs' wives and assigns
them a prominent r81e in the course of events-a view that is Jubilees cannot have been written later than 70 A . D . :
confirmed by the Syriac fragment. Again, it seems to be for the temple is throughout supposed to he standing.
identified by Syncellus with 'the so-called Life of Adam'- As the hook repeatedly uses Enoch (1-36
6 heyipsvos p l o p 'Asap ;-for he cites as from that book three "* Date' 72-104),it cannot have been written much
passages that occur in Jubilees. This Lzye of Adam may have
been identical with a part of Jubilees, or a later enlargement of before 60 B.C. Though there is some evidence that
a portion of it. Jubilees is once described as the 'Testament would place it nearer the earlier than the later date,
of Moses,' and once as the ' Apocalypse of Moses,' but only by we shall leave the date undefined for the present.
very late writers. The author was a Palestinian Jew and
Such being the origin of Jubilees and the conditions "' Author* a Pharisee.
under which it was produced, it was naturally written Frankel's view (TG.Wj, 1856, pp. 311-316,380-400)that it was
60. Language, in the sacred language of Palestine. written by a Hellenistic Jew belonging to Egyp; is rendered un-
Of this we have direct testimony in Ter. tenable by the fact that it was written originally in Hebrew. Nor
Ep. 78, ad Fubiolum, mansione 18, where he ciiscu&es can the writer have be& a Samaritan as Beer supposes (DasBuch
derJuh., 1856 ; Noch ein Wort #&A. Buch derjuh., 1857); for,
a Hebrew word for which he could cite no authority whereas the text agrees in turn with M T @ Syr. Vg., with
save that of this hook. The entire cast and the idiom Onkelos, and even with the Ar. against all thires;, it never, strange
of the book confirm the statement of Jerome. to say, agrees thus with the Samaritan. This evidence is con-
We have further testimony to the same effect in the title of clusive in itself; but we might further observe that, in speaking
the Syriac fragment, in which the present hook is designated of the four places most favoured of God in all the earth, the
'The Hebrew Book called Jubilees.' I t is fiirther impossible author ennmerates Eden, Sinai, Zion and the mountain in the
to deal with the textual corruptions nnlesswe deal with them on East, but not Gerizim. Again, that he is not a Sadducee is proved
this presupposition. In the case of many of these it is only by the fact that be believes iu angels and in the immortality
necessary to retranslate them into Hebrew in order to discover of the soul. Nor, finally, was he an Essene ; for, though some
the original misconception or misreading of the Greek translator. characteristics (a highly-developed angelology, the doctrine of
Some interesting transliterations of Hebrew words, moreover, the immortality of the soul without the resurrection of the body,
still survive in the text. the exaggerated reverence for the Sabbath and the number
Finally, fragments of the Hebrew original have come down seven) would seem to argue an Essene origin, such an origin
to us embedded in the Midrashim I n these at times an entire
is absolutely precluded by the enforcement of animal sacrifice
sentence survives, preserving not only the words, hut even and the absolute silence as to the washings and purifications
their original order, as we can infer &om the evidence of the that were of such importance among the Essenes. Thus, though
versions. in some legal questions of less moment (Beer, Das Biich 4ey
1~6.) the author's views are at variance with traditional Pharisa-
There were probably four versions of Jubilees- ism, in all essentials he is emphatically aPharisee of the Pharisees.
Greek, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Latin. The first two were That Palestine was the home of the author is deducible
61. Versions. made from the original Hebrew. Of in the first instance from the language in which he
the Greek only some fragments have wrote. A Hellenistic Jew would not have written in
come down to us in Epiphanius and through such Hebrew. Again (not to press other details), the duty
annalists as Syncellus and Cedrenns. Of the Syriuc of absolute separation from the heathen, which is re-
only a small fragment, containing the names of the peatedly enforced, would have been impossible of fulfil-
Patriarchs' wives and a few other facts, survives. ment for any Jew outside Palestine.
The Ethiopic and the Latin versions were made from There are several lacunae in the hook ; but as far as
the Greek version, not from the original text. The 67. Integ~ity.evidence is forthcoming, these seem to
62. Ethiopic. former survives almost in its entirety, be slight. It appears, on the other
and from an exhaustive comparison of hand, to be free from interpolations.
the best attainable text with all existing materials we A curious phenomenon, however, presents itself in chap. 7.
find that it is most accurate and trustworthy. It is, Verses 20-39 seem to be an extract from the Book or Apocalypse of
indeed, as a rule, servilely literal. Noah, beginning in an indirect form with 7,. 20 and changing
I t has, of course suffered from the corruptions naturally into the direct with v. 26,whence to the end Noah admonishes
his sons in the first person. These verses are similar to the
incidental to transmission through MSS ; but it is singularly free Noachic interpolations in the Book of Enoch (see above, $ 24).
from the glosses and corrections of unscrupulous scribes, though
the temptation to bring it into accord with the Ethiopic ver- The contents of Jubilees may he briefly described as
sion of Genesis must have been great. Only in about a dozen
instances did the temptation prove too great, with the result
-., commentarv on the biblical text, from the
a hacrcradic
' 68. contents creatioh of the world to the 'institution
that changes were introduced into the text in subservience to
that version. and character. of the Passover, in the spirit, and from
Of the Latin version (made, as we have seen, from the ooint of view. of later Tudaism. Its
63. Latin. the Greek) more than a fourth has been aim is to prove the everlasting validity of <helaw. *The
preserved. work assumes the form of a revelation to Moses, made on
First published in 1861 by Ceriani (Mon. sacm et jroJ Mt. Sinai by the ' angel of the presence ' in the first year
tom. I fasc. I, pp. 15-62) it was next edited with great
learning' by Ronsch in r87+'(Ilas Buch de? ,7216. unt. Be$lg. 1 The Eih. Yen-. o
f ihe Heh Book of Jubilees ed. from four
.
d. reoidirfen Textes deer . . Zat. Fragnrente). Ronsch MSS. R. H. Charles, M.A., 1895. Clar. Press,'Oxford.
23 1 232
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
of the Exodus. The author thereby seeks to secure a MS that contains the Latin version of Jubilees-
divine sanction for the additions he makes to the biblical vhich originally belonged to the monastery of Bobbio.
narrative. Among these the most important novelty Beforq this discovery, however, we were, from various
is his chronological system. Gources, in some degree acquainted with the contents of
I n this systemThe basis of reckoning is the jubilee period of .he book.
forty-nine years. This jubilee period is subdivided into seven Thus, the account of the strife between the archangel Michael
year-weeks of seven years each. Hence, in order to date any bnd Satan about the body of Moses was &awn as we know
event exactly, the author determines it as occurring on a certain Origen, De Pnncip. 3 2 I), from the apocryphal 'hook entitled
day of a certain month of a certain year in a certain year-week :heA scensioMosis-i.e., ba'Aq$rs Mwvu&ws. Many other writers
of a certain jubilee period. Fifty of these jubilee periods are .estify to the existence of this apocryph. Besides the reference
assumed as the interval between the creation and the entrance ilready noticed in Origen there are other references or
of the Israelites into Canaan. His year strangely consists of :itations in Clem. Alex. (Sirom. 123 153 6 15 132); in Origen
fifty-twoweeks(i.e 364 days), and, inopposition tothePharisaism 'In/osuam Romil. 2 I ) Didymus Alex. (Zn e$. /ud. enarrat!
of his time he cla&s that the year should be regulated by the &.Gallandi, Biblioth. >air. G 307)~in Evodius, Apollinaris, the
movement; of the sun without reference to those of the moon. >tichometries, and in the Acta Synodi NicrPnrr, 2 18. This last
The dates assigned to the various events, though presenting reference must he given in full as the passage quoted is found in
many difficulties, favour in the main the Samaritan chronology. Ceriani's fragment,-M&Mwvb r p o $ $ m p MwuuGs ;&&ai ~ o C p i o u ,
Another object of the author is to carry the Jewish ;E ylypyparra~I v ,¶l,¶Aw 'AvaAij$ews Mwuu&ws, T auraheua'pLevoc
cultns back into the patriarchal or even pre-Adamite Iquovv u h v Navi rczi*abdey6prvoqrpbe ahrtwg$q. mi rrpodeb-
rar$ p~ b Oebp r p b xarapoA<s r6upou &ai pe 6 s &a%rjagsa h 5
period. ~raucryv. The words quoted are thus rendered in the Latin
Thus we are given to understand that the angels observed the fragment (114) : Itaque excogitavit et invenit me, qui ah initio
rite of circumcision ; while, as regards the great annual festivals, orhis terrarum pratparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illius.
the Feast of Weeks was observed by Noah and Abram, the Feast The rest of the quotations are in the main from the part of this
of Tabernacles was first celebrated by Ahram about the time of book which is lost.
the birth of Isaac, and the Day of Atonement was established
by Jacob in memory of the loss of Joseph. Again, the law Of the derivation of our Latin text from the Greek
regarding the purification of women after childbirth (Lev. 12) is there can be no question. Thus Greek words are trans-
traced to the fact that Adam was created in the first week and 60. Latin literated ; as chedrio from K E B P ~ W 117,
Eve in the second ; to this is due the command ' Seven days for heremus from:p$pos3 11. clibsisfrom O X $ l s
a man-child and two weeks for a maid-child. based on 37, and acrobistin from d ~ p o + ~ ~83.
Certain variations from the prescribed ritual are observable in
relatioc to the festivals. Thus, the injunction of fasting on the
Greek. Again, we are not infrequently obliged hto
Day of Atonement and the exclusion of the uncircumcised from adopt not the Latin text but the Greek it presupposes,
the Passover are omitted; while in the case of the Feast of
Tabernacles there is no reference to the custom of drawing water which has been misrendered by the translator. Thus
from the pool of Siloam and pouring it ont upon the ,altar. ' a b oriente usque ad occidentem,' which means ' from
Though in the last instance the author agrees with the Sadducees, the east to the west,' is derived from d@' ~ M O dvaT6h-
U
I t must he admitted that the practice was a Pharisaic innovation
and that the Sadducees had the law on their side. XOVTOS pQXx GuopQvou, which means also ' from sunrise
to sunset '-the meaning required by our context. For
Another notable characteristic of the work is the in-
similar instances see 11IT 18.' Finally, retranslation into
creased rigonr of many of the Levitical ordinances.
Thus, the man who eats blood is to be utterly destroyed, and Greek makes it evident that in the case of some cor-
the father who gives his daughter, or the brother who gives his ruptions in the Latin the error arose through the con-
sister, in marriage to a heathen is to he stoned t o death and the fusion of different though similar forms of words : cp
woman to he burned. Death is to he the universd penalty 2 7 3 4 5 6 1116. In 4 I we have the Greek article rendered
for breaking the Sabbath. and the Sabbath is broken by buying
or selling, by lighting a fiie by drawing water, by talking of an by hic. ,
intended journey, or by lying with one's wife. The derivation of our text from a Semitic original was
Another no less interesting characteristic is the care stoutly denied by Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, and others.
either to leave unrecorded or to palliate the faults of the 61. Hebrew This position, howeier, can no longer be
o r i ~ ~ a l persevered
. in. A Semitic original must
Patriarchs as well as to multiply their virtues.
Thus, from the first they were scrupulous observers of the ritual now be conceded. It remains a matter
and ceremonial law before its authoritative promulgation on of debate whether the balance of evidence is in favour
Sinai. There is no mention made of Ahram's deceit at the court of an Aramaic or of a Hebrew source. Rosenthal
of Pharaoh; Jacob's answer to Isaac's question 'Art thou my
very son Esau? ' is cleared from verbal falsehood by representing decides for the latter ; Schmidt - Merx, Colani, and
him as answering I am thy son. This quibble is found likewise Carrihe for the former. Notwithstanding all that has
in the Talmud, and may therefore have been a stock interpretation been advanced by these three scholars, however, in
of Jewish exegesis. Again whereas in Genesis Levi IS cursed support of their contention, the evidence points decidedly
for his share in the destrdction of Shechem, in Jubilees he is
highly honoured for the same action and his posterity elected to in the direction of a Hebrew original.
an everlasting priesthood. W e find the same view taken by Rosenthal restores three or four passages by means of retrans-
Philo (De E6rieiate, 23). lation into Hebrew. In Charles's Assum$tion ofMosrs (1897)
Akin to the aim just described is the attempt to the necessity of such an hypothesis is shown alike in the Hebrew
character of the Latin version and in the possibility of removing
justify from the standpoint of a later age the severities most of its corruptions by means of retranslation into Hebrew.
practised by Israel in their conquest of Canaan. Thus in 6 3 6 we must follow the Hebrew presupposed by the
It is a Jewish prototype of Ronsseau's Social Contract. Thus Latin . next in G 4 there i s a play upon words possible only In the
it is represented that in the presence of an angel Noah divided .
Hehriw a i & there are Hebrew phrases and constructions
reproduced i n l h 2 4 7 33 12 G I 102. Finally, it is only through
the earth by lot ambngst his three sons, and h&md'them and
their successors by the most sacred oaths to observe the arrange- retranslation into Hebrew that we can understand the text or
ment. Destruction was invoked on the head of him who trans- get rid of its corruptions in 49 5 5 109 10 16 12 7.
gressed it. According to the sequel, Canaan seized upon Shem's Schurer has already pointed out ( H i s t . 3 82) that the
inheritance ; and thus our author justifies the extermination of Latin version we possess is in reality a ' Testament of
his descendants by Israel.
Moses,' although quoted in the Acts of
As has alreadybeenpointedout, though the immortality 62' name the Council of Nicaea as the ' A v d X ~ @ s
of the soul is taught, there is no resurrection of the body.
In the restored theocracy that is foreshadowed there may
Test* Moses' MwuuQws, and has conjectured that
'these designations were the titles of two separate
be a Messiah. See, further, ESCHATOLOGY, 72. divisions of one and the same work, the first of which
For the literature of this hook see Rijnsch, Das BucR der/&.
422.439; Schurer in Zoc. ; Charles, The Book of/uliZees. has been preserved, whereas the quotations in the Fathers
almost all belong to the second.' The piesent writer's
VI. THE ASSUMPTION OF MosEs.-of this book,
which from the twelfth century was regarded as lost, a studies tend in some degree to support this conjecture.
59. Assumpt. large fragment was rediscovered by Thus in the Latin version (115 and 10 14) Moses speaks of his
death as an ordinary one and the same fact undoubtedly was
Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library in stated in 10 12 before it wa; interpolated by the editor who joined
Mas, : its
Milan and published by him in 1861 the 'Testament' and the 'Ayunption of Moses' into one look.
__
fortunes. (Moiz. tom. i. fasc. i. pp. 55-64). This
fragment was part of an old Latin version;' and is
-1
Thus in 10 12 the text is : ernnt enim a morte-receptione-
m(ea) usque ad adventnm Illius tempora CCL.' Schmidt-Merx
omit ' morte,' and Hilgenfeld omits receptione,' these critics
written on a palimpsest of the sixth century-the same failing to see that 'receptione' was introduced by the final
233 234
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
editor into the text of the 'Testament' which recounted nothing >y the archangel Michael (101-2)and God himself
of Masks' Assumption, in order to prepare, the reader for 103.7) : (3) the author's ideal of duty as regards pre-
the mqin subject of the added work, the Assumption of
Moses. jaration for the Messianic kingdom is that depicted in
Schiirer apparently assumes that both the ' Testament' 3-ie. , absolute obedience to the law andnon-resistance.
and the 'Assumption' were from one and the same The faithful Israelite was quietly to do his duty and
author ; but the facts stated above are against this sup- %waitGod's will. The writer, accordingly, glorifies the
position. The Latin fragment is the A r a O ~ qMuuuE'ws Ad ideals cherished and pursued by the Hasid and
mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus. It is Early Pharisaic party, which the Pharisaism of the
there said to consist of 1100 lines. Of these about half first century B.C. had begun to disown in favour of a
have survived. Some writers have sought to identify more active r6le in the life of the nation. See 5 81.
this ' Testament' with the Book of Jubilees. This is God would in his own good time interpose in person
impossible. Since 4300 lines are assigned to Genesis [ 10) ; at all events, he would avenge the death of
in Nicephorus' Stichometry, this ' Testament of Moses ' his servants ( 9 7 ) . Our author pours the most scathing
would have above 5000 or 6000 if it were the invective on his religious and political opponents, the
Book of Jubilees, for the latter is much longer than Sadducees, whom in 7 he describes in terms that
Genesis. frequently recall the anti-Sadducean Pss. of Solomon.
About one-half of the original Testament has been (Through some inexplicable misapprehension, Schurer
preserved by our Latin Versi0n.l It is possible that the and others have regarded this chapter as a description
latter half dealt with certain revelations about of the Pharisees.) The author, therefore, was a
63' Lost creation made by Moses, and that it closed Pharisee, and a Pharisee who was the antithesis of the
portion' with his disappearance in a cloud, so that his Zealot exactly in those respects in which Pharisaism
death was hid from human sight. differed from Zealotism. His book was designed as a
protection against the growing secularisation of the
We make this conjecture on the ground of the following
statement in an old Catena on the Pentateuch (Fabric. Cod. Pharisaic party through its adoption of political ideals
Pseud V.T.ii. 121-122). 'E? quidem in apocrypbo mysticoque and popular Messianic beliefs. To guard against the
codice legere, ubi de creutrs rebus subtilius u,-itur, nubein possible suggestion of an Essene author, we may remark
lucidum, quo tempore mortuus est Moses, locum sepulchri com- that such a derivation is absolutely precluded by the
plexam oculos circumstantium perstrinxisse ita, ut nullus neque
morientem legislatorem neque locum videre potuerit, ubi cadaver recognition of animal sacrifices, by the declaration of
conderetur.' On the 'bright cloud' see also Jos. Ant. iv. the speedy coming of the Messianic or Theocratic
8 49. kingdom, and by the strong sense of national life, unity,
On the question of the date of the Assumption of and triumph. See Charles's The Assumption of Moses,
Moses the opinions of critics oscillate between the pp. 51-54 ; and cp ESCHATOLOGY, § 73.
64. Date. death of Herod the Great and the death of
The following is ah outline of the contents of Ass. Moses
Bar-Cochba. The later date is impossible. 11.9: Introduction. 10-17 Moses tells Joshua that he is
Ewald, Wieseler, Drummond, Dillmann, and Schiirer about to die, and commits certain books of prophecies to his
assign it to the first decade after Herod's death; safe keeping. I n 2f: the subsequent history
Hilgenfeld assigns it to 44-45 A . D . ; Merx to 54-64 66. Contents. of Israel down to the captivity is briefly but
clearly outlined. I n their captivity the
A . D . , and so also Fritzsche ; Baldensperger to 50-70 tribes remember that all that had befallen them had already been
A .D . On various grounds all these determinations are foretold by Moses. In 4 owing to the prayers of one who is
unsatisfactory. The real date appears to lie between over them (Daniel) God &ill take pity on them and raise up a
king (Cyrus) who $ill restore some fragments of their tribes to
4 B . C . and 30 A. D . It cannot be later than 30 A.D. their own land. These will mourn because of their inability
'Towards the close of chap. 6 it is stated that the sons of to sacrifice to the God of their fathers. Judgment (5 I ) will
Herod should reign for a shorterperiod (dreviora tempom) overtake their oppressors (the Seleucid kings). Yet they them-
than their father-a statement that could have been selves (the Sadducees and the Hasids) will he divided as to
what is true and the altar and temple will he defiled by men
made only while they were still living, since it is true of who are noipriests (as Menelaus, who was a Benjamite), but
Archelaus alone ; for Antipas reigned forty-three years, slaves born of slaves (5 2-4) (the paganising high-priests who
Philip thirty-seven, and Herod himself only thirty-four. were nominees of the Seleucidae), and many of them (the Sad-
ducean priesthood and aristocracy), moreover will be respecters
The book must, therefore, have been written at the of persons and unjust, and their country &ill he filled with
latest less than thirty-four years after Herods death unrighteousness (5 5-6). Then (8 1-5) a fresh vengeance will
( 4 B.c. )-Le., earlier, at all events, than 30 A. D. T h e alight upon them, in which the king of kings (Antiochus) will
crucify those who confess to their circumcision, and force them
limits may, however, be defined more closely ; for the pre- to bear on their slioulders impure idols, and to blaspheme
diction that Herods sons should rule for shorter periods the word. A man of the tribe of Levi (91-7), whose name
than their father, may owe its origin to the general is Tax0 (i.e., Eleazar [ z Mac. 6191; for, as Burkitt has dis-
expectation that the sons of such a wicked king could covered, Tax0 is a mistake for Taxoc=7atmwr=i))DIn uhich by
not long preserve their authority, but still more to the gemetria=i)y\X) will say to his seven sons : 'Let us fast three
days, and on th; fourth let us go into a cave which is in the
actual deposition of Archelaus in 6 A. D. -an event that field and die, rather than transgress the commands of the God
would naturally be construed by our author in the of our fathers. In 6 1-7 we are told of the assumption of royal
light of a divine judgment and suggest ro him the power hy.the Maccabees, and of Herod as their successor who
1s to reinn for thirty-four years. He will beget sons who will
prediction that appears in the text as to the impending reign a p h i s successors, but for shorter periods. Tden follows
fate of Philip and Antipas. Hence the earliest limit 'of (68J) the capture of Jerusalem by a king or: the west (Varus).
composition is 7 A . D. Soon after, Judzea becomes a Roman province. The author
next launches out into a scathing denunciation or the Sadducees,
As for the author, he was not a Sadducee; for of whose injustice, greed, and gluttony we have an account in 7.
according to chap. 10 he looks forward to the estahlish- Thereupon (10 1-10) the times are fulfilled, and God appears to
65. Author. ment of the Messianic kingdom by God in judge the enemies of Israel (IO). Moses is then represented ZLS
person. Nor is it possible, with Wieseler exhorting Joshua to guard these words and this book (10 1.1).
When Joshua deplores his inability tolead Israel (ll), Moses b d s
and Schurer, to regard him as a Zealot ; for ( I ) there him not to deureciate himself and not to clemair of the future of
is not a single incentive held forth to encourage men his people (12j. Here the fragment ends.
to take arms in behalf of the theocracy; (2) the Ceriani, Mon. Sucr. vol. i. fasc. I (1861); Hilgenfeld,
Messias Jud~orum (1869), 435-468 cp Prol. 70-76 and
actual advent of the kingdom is brought about, Clem. Ronz. 1Fpist.Z (ri76) 107-135: Vojkmar
not by any action of the righteous in Israel, but 67.Biblio- Mose ProjhetieundHinrnre~uhrt(1867) ; Schmidi
and Merx (Archiv f: wiss. Brfarschng des
1 I t is to be remarked that we have in this Latin Fragment a
g.raphy. A T s I. ii. 111.152 1868); Fritzsche, Lihri
clear instance of dislocation of the text. The perception of thir ApOc. YT (1871), '700-730 ; cp Prdl. 32-36 ; Drummond, The
fact removes some of the main difficulties in the way of inter. JewishMessiah(1877), 74-84 ; Baldensperger, Ilns Selbstbewusst-
pretation. In order to recover the original order, we have s e b Jesu (1888), 23-31, 114-118 ; Deane, Psendejigr. (1891)~
to restore 8f: to their original position, before 6. For the 95-130; Schiirer, Hist. 573-83; Charles, The Ass. of MOS.
grounds of this restoration of the text, see the present writer'z (1897). For complete bibliography,
- . see the two works last
edition of the hook. mentioned.
235 236
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
VII. THE TESTAMENTS O F THE XII. PATRIARCHS.- the adjoining books in these lists have their full titles
The earliest referente to this book by name is in given. This supposition receives further support from
68. Test. xii. Origen in his,Hum. ine/osuam,156 (Ed. the initial words of the Testaments themselves. In the
Patr. ; its Lommatzsch 11143) : ‘ in aliquo quodam case of seven of the Testaments the contents are simply
lihello qui appellatur testamentum duo- described as the h6yoi of the Patriarchs, which they
fortunes. decim patriarcharnm, quamvis non habea- spake or ordained ( haX&v, elaeiv, or 6iarfBEuBat)before
tur in canone, talem tamen quendam sensum invenimns, they died. I t is only in the case of the remaining five
quod per singulos peccantes singuli Satanae intelligi that each is described as a 6ra8TjK7) which the patriarch
debeant ’ (cp Reuben 3). It is possible, indeed, that in spake, enjoined, or ordained (haheiv, G ~ T E ? ~ QvdhXeuBai,
,
the preceding century the ideas of Fragment 17 in 6rariBeuBar). It is probable, therefore, that the original
Stieren’s edition of Irenzeus (1836-837) are derived title of the entire book was ‘ The Twelve Patriarchs.’
from this book-@ Gv 6 Xprurbs T ~ O E T U ~Kai B ~ In the next place, it is noteworthy that in each of the
B T E ~ v ~ uKBa l~ QYEVV+BT* 8v pi.v ylLp r @‘Iwa+@ ~ p o e ~ u - Testaments three elements are distinguishable. ( I ) In
r68q- BK ai. TOO h e u l Kal TOO ’Iotaa ~b K a T $ udpKa, JS 70. Contents. each instance the patriarch gives a brief
paurheds Kai lape3s dyevvip4q. 6rb 66 T O O Zupehv dv T@ or detailed account of his life, in which
vu@ <?r~yvC;ruBq ... 6ib 66 roO BeviapLiv, TOO IIatXou, his particular virtues or vices are vigorously emphnsised.
EIS T d v r a T ~ UK ~ U ~ O KYT ~ U X O E L S t‘6o&rBq. This con- The biblical notices of his life are expanded and en-
junction of Simeon and Levi is found in Sim. 7 ; Lev. riched after the manner of haggadic Midrash. In a
2 8 ; Dan 5 ; Gad 8 ; Jos. 19 ; Benj. 11. Since, how- few instances their place is taken by materials that
ever, it is now demonstrable that the Christian elements conflict directly with the biblical narrative. ( 2 ) The
in the Testaments are due to interpolation, it is not patriarch next proceeds to press upon his children a
possible at the present stage of criticism to determine series of exhortations based upon and naturally sug-
the relative chronology of these elements and the gested by the virtues or the vices conspicuous in his
writings of Irenzus. own career ; they are to imitate the one and to shun
The passages in Tertullian Adv. Marc. 51, Scorpiuce 13 the other. ( 3 ) Finally, the patriarch gives utterance to
which most critics from Grabe onwards have regarded as based certain predictions which bear upon the future of his
on Benj. 11 are due, as Schiirer has already recognised, simply
to the pat&c interpretation of Gen. 4927. This eleventh chap. descendants, and the evils of overthrow and captivity
of Benj., which contains the striking account of Paul is not which they will entail upon themselves by their sins and
found in the Armenian version and is for the most part &anting apostasies, and their breach with the tribes of Levi and
in the Greek MS R. On theke and on other grounds we may
safely regard it as one of the latest of the Christian interpola- Judah. These predictions are generally ( a ) of purely
tions. Jewish authorship ; but many are ( b ) distinctively
There is possibly an allusion to this book in the con- Christian.
temptuous words of Jerome, -4dw. Vip’Zanf.6. The T o account for the difficulties which confront us in
Testaments are next mentioned in the Stichometry of this work, Grabe (Sjz’ciZeg. 1117141,1rzg-r44
Nicephorus, in the Synapsis Athanasii as well as in the 335-374) ,was the first to suggest that the
71. book was written b y a Jew and subse-
anonymous list of books edited by Montfaucon, Petra,
and others. In these lists the book is simply called ’ positeness* quently interpolated by a Christian. This
IIarprdpXai. After this date the Testaments are lost to hypothesis was for the time so successfully combated
knowledge till their reappearance in the thirteenth by Corrodi (Kn’t. Gesch. des ChiZiasmus, 2107-110) that
century, when Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, most subsequent writers, such as Nitzsch, Liicke, Ritschl,
translated them from Greek into Latin. The MS Vorstman, Hilgenfeld, Dillmann, and Sinker, have
from which the translation was made is the tenth practically ignored the question of the integrity of the
century Cambridge MS of this book (Sinker). This book and confined themselves mainly to the discussion
Latin version was the parent of almost all the European of the religious and national affinities of the author.
versions. Nitzsch (De Test. xii. Patriarch. Zibro V T pseud., Witten-
berg, ,810) describes the author as a Jewish Christian of Alex-
The work consists, as its present title indicates, of andria who had imbibed many of the Essene doctrines that were
the dying commands of the twelve sons of Jacob to their then current. Ritschl (Entsteh. d e r aWathoZ. Kirche. 1. Aufl.
children. Each Testament deals with a fresh 322 8) assigns the bhok to a Gentile Christian appealing
69. and special side of the ethical life, with some principally to Benj. 11 (a chapter really due to Chdstian inter-
polation : see 5 68). Ritschl’s view was vigorously assailed by
virtue or vice which finds apt illustration in the life of Kayser (‘Die Test. d. Zwdf PaZr.’ in Reuss and Cunitz’s Beitr.
the particular patriarch. Thus, according to the titles zu 2en theol Wissenschaften [1851] ro7-140) who on several
in Sinker’s text, Simeon deals with the vi’ce of envy, grounds derives the hook from Ebiohitic circfes, reviving on a
large scale Grabe’s theory of interpolation in order to arrive at
Zebulun with compassion and mercy, Dan with anger this result. Kayser’s treatise was in turn examined by Vorstman
and lying, Gad with hatred, Joseph with chastity, and (De Test. xii. Patriarcharum ongine et pmtio, 1857), who,
Benjamin with a pure mind. These titles are appro- after a detailed criticism of Kayser’s arguments, concluded that
priate; but in manuscripts 0 and R dl mention of the Testaments present no trace of Ehionism, but were the work
of a Gentile Christian. Hardly had Vorstinan thus vindicated
the virtues and vices is omitted; in P they are the view of Ritschl when a second edition of this scholar‘s
generally wanting, and when they are given they differ work [see above) appeared, in which his former contention
in all but two instances from Sinker’s text, while in the (pp. 172-177) was abandoned as impossible, and the theory of a
Nazarene authorship was advocated. Ritschl’s first view: how-
Armenian version they are wanting in Simeon, Issachar, ever, has received the continued support of Hilgenfeld (ZWT
Zebulun, and Benjamin ; for ‘ concerning chastity ’ in [1858], 3 9 5 8 [1871J 3?2,fJ, whilst Langen (Das Judexfhum in
the title of the Test. Joseph we have ‘ concerning envy’ ; PaZ. zur Zezt Chnstr, ~40-157)and Sinker (The Test. xii. Patr.
[r869], 76-34. art. ‘Test. xii. Patr.’ in Smith‘s Dictionary of
they differ in the case of Levi, Gad, and Asher ; only Chnktian B&ru#hy, 4865-874) hold fast t o the theory of a
in the case of Judah do they give a divided support Jewish Christian authorship.
to the Cambridge MS, which Sinker follows. We may, If there were no other methods of determining the
therefore, regard the title of each Testament as origin- questions of authorship and date than those pursued by
ally consisting of the word Aia&jKq, followed by the Nitzsch and his successors, finality or even progress
name of the patriarch to whom it was attributed. in such matters would be a sheer impossibility. To
It is possible, moreover, that the title was originally still Schnapp (Die Test. der xii. Pair. untersurht, Halle,
shorter-Le., as we find it in the Oxford MS, merely the 1884),however, is due the credit of lifting the criticism
name of the patriarch. The fact that in the Sticho- of this book out of the arena of fruitless Iogomachies by
metry of Nicephorus and in the Synopsis Athanasii, returning to Grabe’s hypothesis of Christian interpolation
as well as in the anonymous list of books edited by of an originally Jewish work. Schnapp’s theory is that
Montfaucon, Petra, and others, this book as a whole in its original form the book consisted ,of biographical
is designated simply IIurpidpXar points in the same details respecting each of the patriarchs and of exhorta-
direction ; and this evidence is the more‘ weighty since tions suggested by these details. Thus the work com-
237 238
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
prised only two of the three elements mentioned in the Grst of all the style of the Hebrew is not earlier, as Dr.
preceding section (S 70). Subsequently, however, the ?euhauer idforms us, than the 7th or the 8th century A.D. In
he next place, even if it were eqly, it, can lay no claim to being
book was worked over by a Jewish writer, who inserted, he original of the Greek ‘Testament. All that could he urged
generally towards the end of each Testament, sections j that the two texts possess some material in common. Their
dealing with the future fortunes of the tribes and other .im and their spirit are as antagonistic aspossible. This Hebrew
rTaphtali, in fact is a strong polemic against Joseph whereas in
matter of an apocalyptic nature. Finally, at a later he Greek Test.’ xii. Patr. as well as in Jubilee;, Joseph is
period still, the book thus enlarged was revised by a iniversally extolled for his goodness and virtue, and the various
Christian, who in some passages merely modified the tatriarchs are punished in proportion as they are hostile to
text by slight changes, but in others made large inter- loseph. By the name of Joseph in this polemical treatise we
r e probably to understand the ten tribes and their successors
polations. Thus we have three writers. concerned in he Samaritans. Though this treatise was probably com-
the Testaments : the original Jewish author, the Jewish iosed long after the Christian era, it is based on old materials,
interpolator, and the Christian interpolator. It is not ,ome of which are common to it and the Greek Test. Naph. ; and
hus Gaster is probably right in observing that in chap. B the
difficult to prove that in the main this theory is true. ext must he corrupt where the ship that comes sailing by is said
Thus in the Testament of Joseph we have two partially o he p c u ~ b vTapLxwv, Z K T ~ S v a u ~ i Kh ~ I LK U ~ F P V < T O U . The p e u ~ b u
conflicting accounts derived from different authors-Le., l-lOa, -apixov-‘full of salt fish’-cannot he correct. It,was probably
and 106-18. As early as 1869 indeed Sinker suggested a com- iue to a corrupt dittography of n\p ,?i as n>n u h , for in
posite authorship as the sol;tion of ’certain difficulties in the
narrative. but he made no attempt to verify this hypothesis and he Hehrew ‘Testament’ the text runs n* 253 n35r;r ;19’1x mm
so it was Eeserved for Schnapp to establish beyond questiok the v w u h i n h KYI.
dual origin of this Testament and the orher Testaments. The Subjoined are some of the arguments for a Hebrew
same compositeness is observable on a snaller scale in Benj. 2,
where 26 conflicts with 2n and with every other reference to xiginal.
the same subject in the rest of the Testaments. Again, in (I) Hebrew constructions and expressions are frequent. Thus,
Levi 2 &s 82 eaocpaivopecev ... 6 ;v rij KapSip pou we have a
large addition which conflicts with the words before and after.
v v r h d v r d v 6 p o (Reub. 3)= ;n1n3 13; &a; Z&hg.$aro (6)=
3 ln3; n a v r a s aCrov‘r Uud. 1)=&, pap& (ib.)=large-i.e.,
Levi Sf: ijh0opav elr B&jh is open to the same criticism. Again, 133 : pi0 (9) transliteration of n3 : lromiv per’ ahir K ~ ~ U L V
in Dan 5, in adjoining sentences, Levi is commended as the Uoseph. 12)=0y p1~)m ~ y etc., ( 2 ) Paronomasire, which are
guide and stay of Israel and denounced as the leader in Israel’s lost in the Greek hut can be restored by retranslation into
apostasy. It is needless to multiply such instances further. Hebrew, are frequent. Thus in Sim. 2 $ p r j n p pow ;K&& pe
T h e presence of additions to the list from a Jewish interpolator Z u p e 3 v a ~ T $KOUUE
L K I ~ P L O Sn i s d O j u . ~ aS+=
~s *nv nx 7nx uipnr
is unquestionahle.1 nn5a? i~,,ynw3 3 Iiyav. In L e v i l l BKdhsus r b Bvopa a h o O
It is, however, no less certain that all the Christian Tqpuap. OTL ev 7 yij i p i u v ~ P O L K O LJipev=nwij r o w n ~ x i p n ’
passages have been inserted in the text not, as Schnapp 1331~3)33*a p 7 3 -1; Z K ~ ~ C U Wa h b v Mepap; 6 GUTL nrKpia
supposed, by a single Christian interpolator, but by a p o v = * i i n ~ l i‘iin
l inv nK wpnr ; ,:IwXaShS ...
2TdxBq ;v
succession of such interpolators. Aiy+my. Zv80&0s y i p C q v = -IN 7333 ’1 n3 71513 1 3 s Tn Zah. 1
;yh d p c ZaBouAhv, S6rm I y a s t , rois yoveriui p o u = i ~ l l in ]hi
The grounds fo: this conclusion will he found in Conyheare’s 31~. In Naph. 1 I v n a v a i p y i a Znoique ‘ P a X $ h .. .
6th TOOTO
valuahle article On the Jewish authorship of the Twelve
Patiiarchs ’ (/QR [‘g3], 375-398). By collating the Armenian ;KWVN + a A & = h a i ~~n;,x125 .. .hi a h % . In the
version with the Greek text of Sinker, this scholar has shown closing words of this same chapter we have two parononiasiae on
that most of the Christian passages in the latter are not to he the name Bilhah. &EKS + BdMav, h i y w v ‘ K ~ L V ~ U T O U pau
~ ~ S
found in the former. Thus when the Greek MS used in 6 Buydrqp‘ aS8Ss ydp T q 0 e ; u a 8umuSa Bqhd<av=n&rnN i$
making the Armenian version was written, the process of 2 3 9 5 3532.. . ‘3 Vnhn3 +q3-&. In Issach. i. S r i rbv piu&v
Christian interpolation had advanced only a short way in the 2rhrj0qv ’ I u d x a p = i J w w * ’ n ~ ~ 1p3]~ 2 . T h e Hebraisms given in
direction’in which later it pro ressed so far. In the Armenian no. T might occur it is true, in an Hellenistic Greek original ;
version we have thus a striging confirmation of the critical hut it is otherwisd with regard to the ‘linguistic’ phenomena
sagacity of the scholars who saw in the Testaments a Jewish just dealt with. These undoubtedly postulate a -Hebrew
work interpolated later from Christian sources. With the fresh original. (3) A third and final argument enforces the same
materials at our disposal, there is a splendid opportunity for postulate. There axe certain assages obscure or unintelligible
a critical edition of the text, and a scientific edition of the in the Greek, which become cgar on r&anslation into Hebrew.
work in which the various elements will he duly discriminated Thus in Zab. 4 &Aov daOieiv is unintelligible Greek. This is
their dates as far as possible determined, and their hearing 0; the text of C and 0. R and P correct the text, the former
history elucidated. giving IK6Oauav ~ U ~ ~ S and L V , the latter ijp$avro ZuOifrv, both of
We have now arrived at a stage when we are in a which yield an excellent sense. They are, however, merely
position to consider the question of the original language late emendations, and we must therefore start from the best
attested text Zpahov &BbLv = 5 3 x 5 p v , = ‘they served up
of the Testaments. Apart from Grab;, food.’ I t is possible, indeed, that the ;den of R is right, and
72’ Language’ no notable critic has advocated a that invp is corru t for 13v*. Hence ‘they sat down to eat.
Hebrew or Aramaic original. This is only what might In Gad 4 it is ocvions from the contrast instituted between
be expected, since nearly all the students of this book bAryogux;a and paKpoBupia that we must take the former no;
in its natural meaning as ‘faintheartedness ’ hut as ‘ impatience.
believed in its integrity and Christian authorship. Hence we have here a mistranslation of n i l 1 x 3 Exactly the
However, now that by means of external and internal same contrast appears in Prov. 25 15, and the sa!!, false render-
evidence we have come to see that the book was origin- ing in @. Again, in Gad 7, I$a&rar a h & & r a K o k mUSb
ally Jewish, the question as to its original language meah ‘ H e taketh them (?.e;! riches) away from the wicked,
or ‘when [men] are wicked. Thus ;u aaKois seems due to
can no longer be evaded. On two grounds the present confusing pyvyn and pyvy3, and should be Zv K U K O ~
writer is inclined to advocate a-Hebrew original. Space Before leaving the question of a Hebrew original it
does not suffice for dealing with the first here. Let it will be well to notice some of the arguments advanced
merely be observed that fragments have been found in by Mr. Sinker in favour of the original being Greek.
the Testaments which are not explicable on the assump- (I) H e urges that the very title ai SLaB+aL K . T . ~ .is against the
tion of a date later than 100 B.C. This and other hypothesis o f a Hebrew original. But it is probable that the title
kindred questions will be dealt with at length in the was merely ol @‘,naTpLdp.pXaL: sees 69, end. (2) H e a:gues that
present writer’s forthcoming edition of the Testaments, such paronomasiz as B0essiv vou0maiv (Benj. 4) ; avab,aeuis,
b+aipsurs (Judah 23) ; ;v rd&, dmmw ; and T ~ ~ L SaTa& ,
The second reason for supposing a Semitic origin is to (Nap. 2 3) imply a Greek original. As regards the first pair,
be found in the language. Dr. Gaster (‘ The Hebrew they are late interpolations since the passage in which they
text of one of the ’Test. xii. Patr.’ PSBA, Dec. 1893, occur is wanting in the A&nian version and in 0 R. As
regards the second pair, P reads Ivaipeure in both cases, R
Feb. 1894) gives some evidence which points in this omits B$aipsurs, and the Armenian version omits Iuaipeuis. It 1
direction. is probable, therefore, that there was no paronomasia in the
In the article just referred to indeed he publishes what he early Greek version. There is no weight attaching to the other
claims to he the ‘actual Heb;ey tex; of the Testament oi paronomasiae cited. (3) Again, Mr. Sinker speaks of the use
Naphtali’ entitled ,$nm nRI1P In this text,’ he writes, we of certain philosophical .terms as favouring a Greek original.
have undoubtedly the priginal version of the Testament, free But these are found also in 6. (4) Again, the use of @ in
from any interpolation. H e adds : ‘The Greek counterpart oi Judah 24 which he presses in favour of a Greek original is
the Hebrew makes no sense and has no meaning at all : while no longe; a valid argument, since we find from the Armedan
the Hebrew is rounded off and complete, and perfectly clear. version that the passage in which it occurs is a Christian
I t is not necessary to traverse these statements at any length interpolation.
1 Most of Schnapp’s conclusions have been accepted b) W e may, therefore, reasonably conclude that the
Schiirer (Hist. 5 114.1~4). groundwork of the Testaments was originally written
279 240
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
in Hebrew. The additions of the Jewish interpola- It is obvious, therefore, that the book never attained
tor were, as far as I have examined them, in the L large circulation. On the other hand, as Ryle and
same language. Christian interpolations were intro- lames point out, ' where it was read' it was 'read with
duced at the close of the first century of the Christian .espect' ; for ' i t is the solitary instance of an O T
era, and some probably as late as the third or t h e ~ o o kwhich, from being merely civ'nheybpevov, became
fourth. ET~K~u@ov.' As belonging to the former it appears in
The earliest versions were the Greek, the Syriac and the .he first two lists above mentioned ; as an d ~ 6 ~ p u @ O v
Armenian. Of the Syriac version only a fragmen; survives t is enrolled in the ' Sixty Books.'
73. versions. preserved in the British Museum (Cat. o) It is notable in the next place that, whereas these
Syriac MSS Cod. 861so). Of the Anneniun
version six MSS, varying in date from 1220 to 1656, are in xalms are designated in the first two lists as qahpol
Venice (in the Library of the Mechitarists of San Lazzaro). 78. Extent. ~ a $S$ l (Fabricius $Sal) Z O X O ~ G U T Oand
S
one, of 1388, in Vienna; another, of the fourteenth century: *ahpoi Kal $sal (varia kctio-$)l Zoho-
in the library of Lord de la Zouche : and a ninth, in the pos-
session of the British and Foreign Bible Society. An edition UGYTOE~ udxoc, , p i , in the next two they are described
of the Armenian version by the Mechitarist Fathers is soon simply as $ahpol ZOAO~GVTOS, with the addition of 64 in
to issue from the press. No trace has as yet been discovered of the case of A. The book, therefore, circulated as early
a L a t i n version anterior to that of Grosseteste in the thirteenth
century. This version and the later European versions are of 1s the fifth century in two forms : one consisting simply
no critical worth. There is also a n old Slaoonic version 3f the eighteen 'Psalms of Solomon,' the other of
published by Tichonrawow in the Denkin. der alt~wss.Apocri. these together with certain Odes. The first form is the
Lit St. Petersburg 1863. older. The second probably originated in an attempt
iAur1 of these d S S have already been made known to the
public: the Cambridge MS of the tenth century, and the to supplement a defective edition of the first by certain
Oxford MS of the fourteenth, through Sinker's odes or songs, partly of Jewish, partly of Christian,
74. The edition of the Greek text. the Vatican MS authorship, that were current under Solomon's name.
Greek MSS. of the thirteenth and t i e Patmps MS of For if we accept the number of U T ~ X O Iassigned to the
the sixteenth through the Appendix he pub-
lished in 1879. These four M S S are designated by their editor psalms in the MSS (i.c., IOOO), we must regard the
respectively as C 0 R P, and this notation has been followed present psalms as deficient to the extent of 300. On
in the present article. the other hand, as the Stichometry of Nicephorus assigns
It has already been observed that the process of 2100 U T ~ X O Cto the psalms and the odes combined, the
Christian interpolation probably extended from the odes themselves must have been about the same length
75. Date. close of the first century A.D. to the fourth. as the psalms. Of the odes only five have been
As regards the apocalyptic sections (see preserved. These are edited in an appendix to the
ESCHATOLOGY, 61), which are due to a Jewish inter- edition of Ryle and James.
polator, we have no means at present of determining TJn to the ~ . .~MSS
~ ~five
nrewnt. ~~ ~ ~~of_.this
~ ~~, _ book have been found :
~~~~

their date with any exactness. Some of them are the bu;Lf-ihese the Angsbnrg MS has long been lost, though we
oldest portions in the book, and were probably written possess a record of its readings in de la Cerda's
in the second century B.C. ; but some of them are very 79. Text. edition, which was based upon it. The second
codex is that of Vienna (=V). This MS was
much later, since they contain citations from the Ethiopic collated by Haupt for Hilgenfeld's two editions (ZWTh. tr8681,
and the Slavonic Enoch. As far as the present writer 133.168 and Messias /ud~orat77z, 1869, pp. xi-xviii 1-33); but
has examined them, he is inclined to regard them as all the collation has been recently shown to be most inaccurate. The
springing from a Hebrew original. The date, therefore, next edition is that of Geiger, Der f'salt. Salomo's herauxg. 21.
evkl. (1871), based on the same critical materials as Hilgenfeld's.
of these interpolations may possibly extend from the Though agreeing with Hilgenfeld as to the date and situation,
second century B.C. to 30 A.D. I t may be added, Geiger maintains, in opposition to him, the Hebrew original.
partly on the evidence of the Armenian version and Fritzsche's edition was published in the same year (Libri ajoc.
V T grrece, 569-89); and that of Pick in 1883 (Pres& Rcu.
partly from the context, that it is clear that in Levi 15, 775-813). The third codex is the Copenhagen one (=H), to
Judith23, and Dan5, there are no references to the which attention was first called hy Graux in the Rev. Cvit.
Roman destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. The (1877) 291-293. The Moscow ( = M ) and Paris (=P) MSS
groundwork may have been written about the beginning were discovered and collated hy Gebhardt. All these authorities
have been used in the edition of Ryle and James ($ahpoi
of the Christian era. W e can hardly suppose it Zoho(*i)v~oc The Psalnzs of the Phnrisees, 1891). I n this
to be based upon Jubilees, for it never mentions edition, em[iient alike for its learning and for,its critical insight
i t ; yet, since it possesses in common with it a vast the reader will find everything worth knowing on the subject.&
For the remaining literature on these psalms we mnst refer the
mass of biographical details as well as the same chrono- student to this work (Zxfrod. 13-21), and to Schiir. (in Zoc.); but
logical system, it is natural to regard both works as we must not forget two of the most fruitful studies that have yet
almost contemporary and as emanating from the same been made-namely, an article by Movers in Herder's Kirclen-
school of thought. Lexicon (i847), and an Appendix to We.'s Die Phar. u. Sudd.
(1874)~which contains the translation with notes.
No attempt has been made to give a systematic
statement of the Christology, since the passages relating The date must be determined by the references to

''' OlogY*
to this subject are derived-not from one
Christ- writer or period, but from a variety of
scribes and times. The value, therefore,
1 Ryle and James make it clear that,in both cases 'we should
read the plural, against the best MSS.
2 Since the above account was written two new editions of
of the Christological portions in this book is slight. the text have appeared. The first is that of Swete (The O T in
VIII. THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON.-very little is Greek, 3 765.787). This editor has made a valuable contribution
to the criticism of the text by means of a hitherto uncollated
77. pss. sol,; known of the early history of these M S (which Gehhardt designates R) belonging to the Vatican.
Only six direct and undoubted According to Gehhardt, however, his collation of this MS is
its fortunes. psalms.
references to them are found in early deficient in point of accuracy. The second edition is that of
0. von Gehhardt ($ahpoi LahopGvrocDie Psalmen Salomonis
literature. zuni ersfen Male 7nit Benutzunf d. A tlos?tandsclrzYh und
Four of these occur in catalogues of canonical and uncanonical d. Cod. Casanatensis, Leipzig, 1895). In the formation of his
books7viz. in the Sy7zoP,is Athnnasii, the Stichometry of text Gebhardt has used the MSS C H J L R. Of these only
Nicephoru;, the ' Sixty Books and the table of contents in the H (the Copenhagen MS) was used by Ryle and James, and
Alexandrian MS. The fifth riference is found in the fifty-ninth H R by Swete. Hence C J I, are here used for the first time.
canon of the Council of Laodicea, which ordains &L 06 Sf; These are respectively the Codd. Iberiticus, Laura-Klostu, and
/&WTLK&$ahpo3c he'yyau6'at. ;v T$ Z ~ ~ h q d0662 a dKav6vLura Casanatensis. The reniaining MSS, M P V, Gebhardt
BLPhia, ~ A A ;(*&"ar b KaVOVrKd + kahaLis ala@' K q s
The sixth belongs to the twelfth century, and consists merevy oi
regards as not deserving consideration. H e gives the following
genealogyofall the MSS. Z represents the archetype :-
a note on this canon. With doubtful references we have here
no concern. z
.._________
1 Mr. Sinker has since discovered two other Greek MSS; k
and these six MSS, with the other versions, he is using as the
foundation of a new Greek Text which, we hope, will see the
light soon.
16 241 242
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
contemporary events; and, as these are many and same school appertains the doctrine taught regarding future
Date. raried, there will be little difficultyin assign- retribution and the Messiah. I n regard to the last, Ryle and
James observe with justice that the Messianic conception in
ing a definite period to the activities of the these pwlms ‘marks the revolution v,hich had passed over
authors. Pharisaic thought since the time, not a century before, when
The book opens with the alarms of war.(l 2 8 I) in the midst Israel’s mission in the world was identified only with the fulfil-
of a period of great material prosperity (1 ; , f8 7); but the . .
ment and dissemination of the law. . The heroic deeds of
Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers had rekindled the ardour
prosperity is only seeming : from their ruler to the vilest of the
people they are altogether sinful (17 2.J). The king, too, be- of the people for a Jewish dynasty and a Jewish kingdom ; and
longs to the family that has usurped the throne of David (17 6-8). the Pharisaic supporters of a theocracy were powerless so long
A righteous judgment however, speedily comes upon them. as their teaching showed no sympathy with this patriotic
A hostile army advanc&against them, led by a ‘mighty striker,’ enthusiasm.’ But as it was hopeless to look for Israel’s re-
who came from the ends of the earth (8 16). The princes of the demption to the helpless and hated later Asmonaeans, so it is
land go forth to meet him with joy, and greet him with the just a t this crisis that the author of these psalms ‘combines
words ‘ Blessed is thy path : come ye, enter in with peace ’ (8 18). the recognition of the failure of the Asmonaan house with the
When) he has established himself within the city he seizes its popular enthusiasm for a Jewish monarchy’ (p. 57). Thus the
strongholds (821). he casts down its fenced walls with the Pharisees ‘appealed to the patriotic feelings of those who had
battering ram (2 IS. Then the Gentiles tread Jerusalem under no power to appreciate the abstract beauty of the old legalism.
By its hope for a “son of David ” it proclaimed the downfall of
foot (‘2 20) ; yea, they pollute even the altar with their presence
(22). Its princes and wise counsellors are put to the sword the Levitical Asmonaan house. By its ideal reign of ‘ I wisdom
and the blood of its inhabitants flows like water (8 23) : its son: and righteousness,” it asserted the fundamental Pharisaic position
and daughters are carried away captive to the West (8 24 17 14) that the law was supreme. Thus ‘the Messianic representation
to serve in bondage (Za), and its princes to grace the triumph of of our seventeenth psalm marks the stage at which Pharisaic
their conqueror (lTr4). But the dragon who has conquered thought passed beyond the narrow limits of its earlier teaching,
Jerusalem (2 29), aimed at lordship of land and sea, and thought and availed itself of the popular aspiration for an earthly
himself to be more than man, at last meets with shameful death kingdom.’ This step, however, ‘entailed upon the theocratic
on the shores of Egypt, and there is none to bury him (‘2 30J). party no policy beyond the exercise of patience till God should
raise up the king, and until then the minute observance of this
There can be little doubt now as to the interpretation law’ (p. 58). Against the attitude adopted by the writers of
of these facts. The family that had usurped the this book the Asszmz$tion of Moses is a protest from beginning
throne of David are the Asmonzans, who, since 105 to end (see above, 5 65).
B.c., had assumed the regal name. The ‘mighty We give below (I 85) some grounds for assuming
striker’ who comes ‘from the ends of the earth’ is that pss. 1-16 and 17-18 are due to different writers.
Pompey. The princes who welcomed his approach As the main interests of the psalms centre in
are Aristobtilus 11. and Hyrcanus, 11. When the 82. Place. Jerusalem, the writer probably lived in that
followers of the latter opened the gates to Pompey, the ritv
-..,.
party of Aristobulus shut themselves up within the I t is < t h e City of the Sanctuary’ (84); in it shall the song
of triumph be sung when God brings hack its children from the
temple, where they were besieged by Pompey and their east and from the west (11 1-3). Though Jerusalem has now
defences battered down with battering-rams. The been trodden under foot by the Gentiles (‘2 z), the Messiah will
massacre that follows, and the carrying away captive to cleanse it from all such pollution (17 25 33), and thither all the
nations of the earth will go up to see the Messiah‘s glory (17 34).
the West of princes and people, agree only with the The psalmist’s indictment of the Sadducean members of the
capture of Jerusalem by Pompey. Finally, the cir- Sanhedrim (4 I), and his account of their vices and ahominations
cumstances attending the death of the conqueror on are best understood as coming from a contemporary inhabitan;
the shores of Egypt recall the death of Pompey in a of Jerusalem. T o the writer of psalms 2, 8, and 17 that city
is the centre of all the world, and the history of other nations
mahner that cannot be misconceived. or world-empires is of moment only in as far as it connects itself
W e conclude, therefore, that the second psalm was with ‘the Holy City.’
written very, soon after the death of Pompey in 48 B. c. I The circumstances connected with these psalms point
and that I , 8, 17 were composed between 63 and 48, undoubtedly to a Hebrew original-i. e . , their composi-
as they presuppose Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem but 83. Language. tion, circa 70-40 B.C., by a Pharisee
show no knowledge of his death. Psalms 5,7, 9 , 13, residing in Ternsaleni :-and. notwith-
- _ I

and 15 seem,to allude to the same sequence of event.s as standing Hilgenfeld‘s strong advocacy of ’ a Greek
I , 8, and 17, and therefore to belong to the same period. original, all modern scholars admit that the psalms
In 4 and 12, on the other hand, ‘ t h e sinners’ are were composed in Hebrew.
denounced ; but as yet no visitation by the Gentiles is This fact was first established by Geiger in opposition to
Hilgenfeld‘s view. I t has further been substantiated by Ryle
spoken of, nor any interposition of the Gentiles in Jewish and James with a fulness and insight that cannot fail to win
affairs foretold. Hence these psalms are probably conviction (Introd. pp. 77-87). As for the Greek
anterior to 64 B.C. Psalms 3, 4, 11, 14, and 16 betray 84. Greek translation, we may provisionally accept the date
no distinctly historical colouring ; but there is nothing version. assigned by the editors just named, who, by a
hypothetical train of reasoning, show that it ‘is
in them which requires us to assume different authorship not later than the middle of the first century A.D.’
and date from those of the other psalms. W e may, W e will now sketch in a few words some of the teaching
therefore, with Ryle and James, safely assign 70-40 B. c. of these psalms regarding the Messiah and the resurrec-
as the limits within which the psalms were written. 8.5.Eschatology. tion. First, in regard to the Messiah,
It may he added that Movers, Del. and Keim have identified the writer of psalm 17 returns to
the invader of Palestine with Herod ; but this is impossible on
many grounds ; and just as many difficulties are against Ew.’s the conception of the prophets and describes him as
identification of this personage with Antiochus Epiphanes. I n ‘ the son of David ’ (1723). He calls him also ‘ the
fact, all modern critics support the view advocated above. Anointed One’ (v.36, cp 1868)-a title that had been
The authors were clearly Pharisees. Thus they divide applied a few years before to the ideal Messianic king
their countrymen into ‘righteous’ (8irtaioi; 238J 33-5 7 3 in association with supernatural attributes (Enoch 48 IO
81. Author- 14 49 etc. ) and ‘ sinners ’ (&p.ap.rwhol ; 52 4). Here, however, the Messiah is a man and nothing
238 313 49 1356710), ‘saints’ (Butoi; more,
ship. 3 IO 47 8 4 0 etc.) and ‘ transgressors’ H e is to be raised up by God himself (17 23: cp 18 6). H e is
( ~ a p d v o p o r 411
; 132127 121-41727), ofwhom theformer to destroy the supremacy of the Gentiles (the Romans) and
were the Pharisees and the latter the Sadducees. They drive them forth from the borders of Israel (17 25 27 31). The
‘prmd sinners’ (the Sadducees) will be expelled from the
assail the ‘sinners’for having usurped the throne of David heritage of God which they had unlawfully seized (vv. 2 6 3 41
(1758) and laid violent hands on the high-priesthood 51). The Messiah will purge Jerusalem from all impurity and
(176). This assault on the Asmonaean house evidently make it his capital (vu. 33.35) ; he will bring hack to Palestine
the dispersed tribes (zw. 28 34 5 0 ) . the Gentiles will become
emanates from a Pharisee. tributary and he converted to the’faith of Israel (71.. ~ I J34).
The authors further denounce the priests for polluting the H e shall himself be free from sin (v. 41), and all his people will
.holy things by their uncleanness and their neglect of the true he holy (u. 36). Further, he will not conquer by force of arms
observances (‘2 3 5 8 13 26) and likewise for outdoing the heathen (v. 37), but will smite the earth with the word of mouth
in their abominations (1 i89). Their attitude, moreover, to the (v. 39). Finally, his,rule is temporary (u. 42): H e shall
law, their conception of the theocracy, their ideal of the bearing not faint all his days. Only the surviving righteous share in
of a righteous man in the case of Gentile oppression, all alike his kingdom (!7 so); the departed righteous are not raised t o
mark them out as belonging to the Pharisaic school. T o the participate in it.
243 244
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
As these hopes of the Messiah are confined to time being,-they offered to the missionary spirit of
pss. 17 3 ,and as not even the remotest hint of such Hellenistic Judaism a form of literature which would
hopes can be discovered in the preceeding sixteen readily admit the disguised expression of its highest
psalms, it appears necessary to assume for them a beliefs, and at the same time procure for them a
difference of authorship. hearing in Gentile circles, It is not unlikely, too, that
In these, we should observe, there is not a hint that redress the prolonged search of Roman officials for Sibylline
for present evils is to be looked for from the Messiah. In eyery oracles in the East may have further stimulated the
instance the Psalmist expresses his faith that wrong will be set inventive faculties of the Alexandrian Jews, and led to
right either by God's present judgments, by which his righteous-
ness 'is or shall be justified (2 36 4 9 8 7 9 3), or hy his final the composition of many of the verses in our present
judgment of the world, when the righteous shall rise to eternal collection. In this method of propaganda the Christians
life (3 16 14 a), .and hell and destruction and darkness shall he proved themselves later to be apt pupils of the Jews.
the heritage of transgressors (146 15 14). This final judgment
is spoken of as a 'visitation' of God upon the righteous and So common, indeed, had become in early Christian
the wicked (3 14-1615 14J); it is likewise called in respect of times the invention of such oracles that Celsus
the righteous 'the day of mercy for the righteous' (146 186) (Orig. contr. Cels. 561) terms Christians Z~puXhrmal,
whereas in respect of the wicked it is named 'the day of t h i
judgment of the Lord' (15 73). believers in sibyls, or sibyl-mongers.
This charge of Celsns was not unmerited; for with
Since there is in pss. 1-16 only a resurrection of the the exception of a citation about the tower of Babel
righteous, Shed was conceived as the perpetual abode made by Alexander Polyhistor, 80-40 B.C. (see Eus.
of the wicked, 16 2 . Into Shed, thus conceived as hell, C h o n . 123), and found likewise in Josephus (Ant. 143),
the wicked enter immediately on death (162 compared it is to Christian writers that we are indebted, not only
with 1 4 6 15 11): The intermediate abode of the for all other references, but also for the preservation of
righteous is probably to be regarded as the I treasuries ' the entire collection that has come down to us.
to which we find the first reference in Eth. En. 100 5. Hermas (Vis. 2 4) mentions the Sibyl hut not her verses ; but
See also ESCHATOLOGY, § 67. quotations are frequent in Clement Aiex. and Lactantius. A
IX. THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES. - The Sibylline collection of the Patristic quotations from the Sibyllines will he
literature belongs to a class of productions highly found in Struve (Fyagmenta li6roninz Silyllinortmz qurr apud
Lactantizrin reperiuntur: 1817), in Vervorst (De Caffninibus
86, Propa- characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism. Si6ylZi+tis ajud snnctos Patyes discepfatio, Paris, ~844)~
' These,' as Schiirer aptly remarks, were in BesanGon (De Z'emjnploi que res P2res de L'&Lise ont fait des
gandist Jewish works under a heathen mask.'
Literature. oracles si6yllins: Montauban, 1851), and in Alexandre (2
However divergent the outward form 254.3'7).
assumed, they all exhibited one characteristic in common : .The Sibylline Oracles, as we now have them, are a
they addressed themselves to heathen readers, under chaotic medlev. Thev consist of twelve books-there
cloak of some name that was influential in the heathen 89. Surviving were originally fourteen-of various
world, and in the form most naturalto their alleged origin. authorship, date, and religions con-
collection. ceDtion. This arrancement. which is
Indirectly or directly, their aim was the propagation of
Judaism among the Gentiles. Whilst the works ascribed due to a n unknown editor of &e sixth century
to Hecatzeus and Aristeas belong to the former category (Alexandre), does not in itself determine identity of
(indirect propaganda), the Sibyllines are distinctly of authorship, or of tirne,or of religious belief ; for many of
the latter. the books are merely arbitrary groupings of unrelated
The Sibyl was regarded in the ancient world as an fragments. As the editor, moreover, was guided by
inspired prophetess. She belonged to no prophetic caprice as often as by any discernible principle of
87. sibgls. order or priestly caste, but held a position editing, it is not strange that the same passage fre-
free and uncontrolled as a superhumanly quently recurs in different contexts.
gifted organ of the will and counsels of the gods. The first printed edition of these Oracles was published at
Basel, in 1545, from an Augshurg (now a Munich) MS, and
The number of such Sibyls is variously stated at different consisted of eight books. A metrical Latin
times. Heraclitus in Plutarch (De Pythia orac. G), Aristo- 90. Editions. translation of these books by Sebastian
phanes (Pax logs) and Plato (Phadr. 22), speak of only one. Castallo appeared In the followlng year,
Tacitus (An;. G I Z is
~ doubtful whether there were more than and a n emended Greek text from the same scholar in 1555.
one. Pausanias (Descr. G r m . 10 12) mentions four, while Varro The most valuable of the early editions is that of Opsopeus
(in Lactantius Div. Instit. 16) specifies ten. For further in- (i.e., Koch), Paris, 1599, in which fresh M S evidence is brought
formation on this subject the reader should consult Alexandre to hear upon the text. These were followed by that of Gal-
.
Orac. Si6yl. (1st ed.) 1856 2 I-TOT Maass, de Si6ylinmi~ laus, Amsterdam, 1689; hut his work is of no critical worth.
Imlicibus (1879). and (he art;. on the h j e c t in Smith's Diet. of These eight Sibylline books were likewise reprinted in Gallandi's
GY. and Rom. Biog..) and the Enzy. Brit.(9). Riliiotheca Yett. Pat?. (Venice 1788). Book 14 was first
edited by Mai in 1817 from a Milan MS and Books 11-14
Written accounts of the oracles delivered by the from two Vatican MSS in 1828 by the same scholar. Books Y
Sibyls obtained in Greece and Asia Minor only a and 10 have not been recovered. All these editions have been
Sibylline private circulation. Still though ihey superseded by the first edition of Alexandre's Oracula Sifiyllina
were not preserved hy tlie State or (z vols. Paris, r841-1856), and his second edition of 1869, in
Oracles. uubliclv consulted, we must not under- which the valuahle excursuses of the first are omitted ; and by
= < the edition of Friedlieb (Leipzig, 1852). The latter has a useful
rate their importance in the life and thought ofthe Eastern introduction, and is accompanied by a translation into German
classical world. In Rome, however, they acquired hexameters ; hut the text is untrustworthy.
quite a unique position. It is not necessary to treat By far the best text that has yet appeared is that of
here of the very ancient collection of these oracles, said Rzach, Omczda SibyZZinn (Vienna, 1891). For the
to have been purchased by Icing Tarquin, or to record formation of this text fourteen MSS have been used;
the frequent occasions on which they were consulted by the text has been further emended by an exhaustive
the.state before their destruction in the fire that con- collation of quotations in the Fathers. Our citations
sumed the Capitol in B.C. 83. (AFxandre [2198] has will be made from this text.
traced sixty such occasions.) Their place was soon For further literature on the subject see Alexandre's work
(1st ed. 2 71-82 2nd ed. 418-419)' Scdurer (Hist. 5 288-292).
afterwards taken (75 B .c.) by a collection, amounting English readers'will find the subjict well treated in the work
in all to about 1000 verses, made in Greece, Asia of Schurer just mentioned; Edinb. Rev. (July 1877,pp. 31-67);
Minor, Africa, and Italy, by order of the Senate. and Deane (Pseudepigr. 18gr, pp. 276-344).
(After being revised under Augustus, it seems finally to The relation of the Jewish and the Christian Sibyllines
have been burnt by the order of Stilicho in 404 A. D. ) to the ancient heathen ones it is practically impossible
Inasmuch as such oracles enjoyed high authority and 91 to to determine. I . They assumed, of
a wide circulation in the East,-inasmuch, likewise, as heathen i;ibgl. course, the outward form of the older
they were anonymous in origin, free from authoritative Oracles, being written in Homeric
revision, and capable of modification or enlargement at hexameter verse ; but they transgress every rule of pro-
pleasure by those in whose hands they were for the sody. Short syllables are lengthened through the in-
245 246
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
fluence of the accent, or even without it, owing to the tn the kingdoms of the world and on the Jews (196.212). Next
exigencies of the verse ; and long syllables are likewise he Sibyl takes as her theme the praise of the Jewish nation:
heir virtues, and the salient points in their history from their
shortened. leparture from Egypt down to Cyrns (218-294). The
For peculiarities of metre and syntax, see Alexandre, econd group (b) is mainly concerned with judgments against
Excarsus, 7. I t must be acknowledged, however, that many 3ahylon, Egypt, Go.- and Magog, Libya ( ~ 9 5 - 3 3 3 )and
~ likewise
of these disappear in the better text of Kzach. Of acrostic rgainst individual cizes (341-366). Then follows the promise of
verses, which, according to Dionys. Hal. (462) and Cicero (De Messianic prosperity and peace (367-380), and this group closes
Diu. 2 54), was the form of the most ancient Sihyllines, only one with oracles regarding Antiochns Epiphanes and his successors,
specimen is still preserved-viz., in 8 217-250, the initials of which md various countries, towns, and islands (381-488). In 419-432
are IHZOYZ XPEIZTOZ OEOY YIOZ PDTHP ZTAYPOZ. we have the celebrated diatribe against Homer. The third
It should be observed, further, that without the last word1 the croup (c) openswith oracles against Phcenicia, Crete, Thrace Gog
initials of the title compose the word IXOYX-' a fish '-a frequent and Magog and the Hellenes (489-572). Then Israel is prksed
symbol of the Christian faith on early monuments. ;or its worship of the true God (573-600). Thereupou ensues a
2. As regards the matter, it is more than probable second prophecy of judgment and a call to conversion, and an
account of the evils that were to befa11 the ungodly (601-651).
that the later Sibyls used much of the older material rben the Sibyl foretells the coming of the Messianic king who
lying ready to hand. would take vengeance on his adversaries ; next comes a d e k l e d
Thus, in 3 414-418 (the passage ahout Helen) 'the Erinnys from xcount of the period of Messianic prosperity (652-731), and,
Sparta,' is from a heathen source; so likiwise the punning Knally the signs that are to herald the end of all things (796-808).
couplet in 4 gg-roo, which frequently recurs : The &by1 declares that she is neither the Erythrxan Sibyl nor
rai Bdpov dppop Zratrav 6 ,' rjr6veuur ~ a h v ' + yet the Cumxan (809-818).
A<Aop s' 04x &L S<hap, 86gha 61 r d w a T& Aljhov. 3. Though it is obvious from the above epitome that
Another notahle instance is 8 361 where a line from an ancient 397-818 is not a single and homogeneous composition but
Delphic oracle is given verbatim. ' See Herod. 147. rather an aggregate of sepirate oracles, we are safe
W e must turn from such questions to discuss the [with Schiirer) in regarding the three groups as derived
various elements of which the work is composed. in the main from one author, and as dating from the
92;zzg:te as we have already observed,
r , e d t h Jewish and Christian, and the
latter largely preponderate. Owing,
same period, the reign of the seventh Ptolemy, which is
referred to in all three groups (192-193, 316-318, 608-610).
Ptolemy VII. Physcon reigned first in conjunction with
however, to the character of the work, it is not always his brother Ptolemy VI. Philometor (170-164 B.c.). H e was
possible to distinguish between the two. It is therefore then banished,. hut recovered the throne in 145 and reigned as
50le king till 117 B.C. That the composition dates from the
only on some of the smaller portions that we can arrive at latter period is clear (520-572) from the prophecy of the com-
anycertainty. Much is of a neutral character, and, as far plete subjugation of all Hellas. As Hilgenfeld, Schurer, and
therefore as internal evidence goes, may equally well Drnmmond point out this cannot have heen written before the
fall of Corinth (146' B.c.). The doom of Corinth is actually
have proceeded from either class of writers. There i s a referred to (487) and possibly that of Carthage (492-503).
great lack of external evidence. W e shall now deal Verses 388-400, hhich deal with the Seleucid kings, were
with the various elements of the work in their chrono- written (according to Hilgenfeld's interpretation) about 140 B.C.
logical order as far as that is possible. Our space does Therefore, since the author represents the Messianic kingdom as
beginning during the reign of Ptolemy Physcon, we may safely
not admit of an analysis of all the books ; we shall, take 97-818 to have been written in the second half of the second
however, give a short survey of the more important. centu BC. The Procemium with which we have already
The first and oldest part is 397-829 a and probably the dealt Tee'ahove 5 93), most piobably formed the introduction
to these verses, and Schiirer adduces external evidence from
Promnium. The latter is not found in our MSS; it Lactantins (iv. 6 5) to that effect.
93. Pro- istal~enfromthe Ad A2lto~czimofTheopbilus Before proceeding to discuss 31-96, we should add that
aemium, (180 A.D.). It consists of two fragments, Friedlieb and others reject 819-828 as a later addition, as these
of thirty-five and forty-nine lines respec- verses are at variance with 809-811.
tively. Rzach (pp. 232-238) and Alexandre link them With regard, however, to 31-92 all previous critics
together by another short fragment of three lines. On seem to have gone wrong in connecting 63-92 with the
very inadequate grounds the latter editor assigns them 95. 31-92. preceding verses. In 63-92 the end of all
to Christian authorship ; but they contain nothing of things is to come during the sway of Rome
an essentially Christian cast (on their over the world (75-80). In 1-62, on the other hand,
94' 397-829' contents, see ESCHATOLOGY, § 5 8 ) . only the partial judgments that are to take effect on
With regard to 3'97-829 opinions are conflicting. the coming of the Messianic king in 49J are re-
Bleek regards verses 97-807-with the exception of 3350- connted. The Sibyl then promises in 6rf: to enumerate
380, a later Christian interpolation-as the work of the cities that are to suffer ; but here the account breaks
an Alexandrian Jew, 170-160 B.C. ; Hilgenfeld thinks off, and not a word more is said in 63-92 in fulfilment
that the whole of 97-817 was written about 140 B . C . ; of her promise. Hence these two sections are of
EwaId brings down the date to 124 B.c. Alexandre different authorship. 63 - 92 is certainly late and
assigns 397-294, 489-828, to 168,but 295-488 to the age Christian. On 3 1-62, see also ESCHATOLOGY, § 68.
of the Antonines. The strongest evidence in favour of In 63-74 we have a reproduction of the myth concerning
Alesandre's view is to be found in the difficulty of inter- Nero, according to which Beliar was to return in the form
preting adequately such passages as 3464-473 as applying of that emperor and work many mighty signs. This
to the civil war and the dissensions of Marius and Sulla idea recurs in 2 167-170 (a distinctly Christian product),
(Friedlieb, p. 33). and in the Asc. Isa. 3 13-5 I (cp ANTICHRIST, 15).
397-818 falls naturally into three groups: (a)97-294; (6) As regards 3 1-62, it may be derived from one author,
295-488 ; (c) 489-818.3 The first (a)opens abruptly with the and v . 52 may refer to the triumvirate of Antony,
building and the destruction of Babel (97-104). Then the earth Octavius, and Lepidus. In that case this section was
is peopled and its rule is divided between Cronos Titan and
Japetos (ro6-110). In the strife that subsequentlyaiose beiween written before 31 B. C.
the Cronides and the Titans these races were destroyed and Book 4 is, with Friedlieb, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Alexandre, and
there arose in succession the great kingdoms of the earth-ihose Schiirer, to he regarded as of Jewish authorship, and was
of Egypt, Persia, Media, Ethiopia, Assyria, Macedonia, again written about 80 A . D . or somewhat later. This
of Egypt, and of Rome (118.161). This closes the retrospect of 96. Book 4. date is determined by two allusions : the de-
the Sibyl; now begins her prophecy (162.166). First she struction of Jerusalem (70 A . D .) in rrg-127, and
predicts the rise of the Jewish (under Solomon) the Maceddnian the eruption of Vesuvins (79 A . D .) in 130-136. The latter was
and the Roman kingdoms ; during the reign ok the seventh kin; to be the immediate precursor of the vengeance that was to be
of Egypt, of Hellenic race, the people of God will again become wreaked on Rome by Nero, returning with many myriads from
powerful (167-195). Then are recounted the judgments of God the East (137-139). There are no qrounds for assigning this
hook, with Ew. and Hilgenfeld, to Essene authorship ; for, with
1 A Latin rendering with the last seven verses omitted is the exception of the reference to ablutions in 163-165, there is
given in Augustine's De Ciw. I 8 23. no mention of anything characteristic of the Essenes, and the
2 Where Friedlieb and Alexandre give 828, Rzach gives 829 words in ouestion are most naturallv taken as referring to
verses. proselyte baptism (Schiirer). The teaLhing enforced in 176192
3 I n the detailed analysis that follows, certain verses un- shows that the author cannot have been a Jew of Alexandria,
important for the present purpose, are (for the sake of brdvity) hut probably belonged to Palestine; for the eschatology is
left unaccounted for. very naive. From the bones and ashes of men's bodies God
very-naxve.
247 248
 APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE APOCRYPHA
will fashion anew the bodies in which they will rise to judgment. e7s Sh TLS I'&.rac a h s &a' ai8ipos $ 0 ~ 0Ilojp,
~
The judoment will then proceed according to their deeds. The d aahdpas $ThoUev ;ai & h u hyAaoK&pTov
wicked Gill again die, but the righteous live again on earth. 'E@p+w 6 ~ dpruros,
' 8s tjiA~dvTOTC ur+v
This recalls Enoch 1-36. +ovquas $<uare K a A l j Kal X ~ A S U Lkyyvois.
V
,Book 5 professes to be the work of an Egyptian Sibyl, the Book 6 is the work of a' Gnostic (?) Christian. Jesus, the
sister of ISIS(v. 53). It is mainly Jewish ; hut there may be natural son of Joseph, is united with Christ at baptism. The
Christian elements. There is a marked absence 98. Books 6-8 hookdescribescertain incidentsat thebaptism
97. Book 6. of ideas characteristicof Judaismor Christianity somewhat after themanner of the apocryphal
and also of internal connection. Friedlie6 11-14 I$ gospels. Book 7 is of like authorship
attributes the book to an Egyptian Jew in the time of Hadrian; and is not earlier than the third (see above,
Alexandre to a Christian Jew of Alexandria in the age of the K. 91 I) century A.D. Book 8, in which the famous acrostic
Autonines. The first fifty-one lines are in effect a chronological occdrs, is of Christian origin but of divided authorship. 1-429
oracle ending with Hadrian. As the rest of the hook deals belongs to the second century; 430-501 to the third. As to
with Egyptian affairs, it is probably of different authorship and Books 1f: and 11-14, there is a great Xariety of opinion.
date, and we may, with Ewald, Hilgenfeld, and Schiirer, accept Alexandre assigns the former to a Christian author of the third
80 A . D . as an approximate date for 52-531. Some passages are century, and the latter to an Alexandrian Jew of ahout the
decidedly Jewish : m. 260-285 (announcement of woes upon the year 267. Friedlieb places 1 sat the close of the second century ;
idolatrous Gentiles. but of blessing on Israel), w. 397-413(the 11-14 he ascribes to Jewish writers of the second and the third
destruction of the timple in Jerusalem) w. 414-433,492-511 (the
building of a new temple ih Egypt w h h is to take the place of
centuries A.D. respectively : 12 s to Christian writers of the
third century.
that already destroyed at Leontopolis) ; there are others also. Some of these judgments are simply hypotheses ; there is still
The one passage that seems to be certainly Christian is 256-259: room for indefinite study on these questions. R . H. C.

APOCRYPHA
CONTENTS
I. THE APOCRYPHA PROPER ($5 3-8).
I. Narrative ($ 4s). 11. (a) Prophetical (5 6).
(a) Historical (8 4). (8) Apocalyptic ( 5 7).
(6) Legendary (5 5). 111. Didactic (5 8).
11. OTHER APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE ($5 9-31).
A. OLD TESTAMENT (I$10-25). B. N EW TESTAMENT (J$ 26-31).
I. Legendary ($8 10-18). Gospels (8 26s).
11. Apocalyptic (B$ 19-23).
111. Poetical ($ 24).
IV. Didactic ( 5 25).
Bibliography ($ 32).
It is proposed in the present article to give, in the in a magical book of Moses edited from a Leyden papyrus of the
first place, a general survey of the very miscellaneous third or fourth century by Leeman and by Dieterich (Ahaxas,
log). The book may be as old as the first century A . D . Its
1. Aim of collection of hooks known as ' the Apo- title is Moiiuios is b ,Gj3Aos & & K ~ U + O S &rcmAowp&q 6y86q 9
crypha ' (details being reserved for special &yUia, ' A Holy and gecret Book of Moses, called the Eighth, or
article. articles), and then to proceed to an the Holy.' For the earliest use of the word in Irralampartenz,on
the other hand, we have to turn probably to Cyril of Alexandria
enumeration and classification of the larger literature (34.8 A.D.). and for a more frequent and clear employment of the
which lies beyond the limits of that collection. Fuller adjective ib a disparaging sense to Jerome, whose constant use of
treatment of the subdivision ' Apocalyptic,' however, it is probably responsible for odr employment of it at the present
will hereserved for a special article (seeabove, APOCALYP- day as the equivalent of 'non-canonical.'
mc), where will he found an account of the following Finally the name Apocrypha has come to be
nine works :-Apoc. of Baruch, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, applied, and is now applied, by the reformed com-
Slavonic Book of Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah, Jubilees, munions to a particular collection of writings. While
Assumption of Moses, Test. xii. Patr., Psalms of some of these are genuine and authentic treatises,
Solomon, Sibylline Oracles. The later Christian litera- others legendary histories, and the rest apocryphal in
ture will be excluded, only those writings being con- the disparaging sense of hearing names to which they
sidered which contain portions assignable, at latest, to have no right, all come under the definition proposed
the early years of the second century. above, for each of them has at one time or another been
The name Apocrypha (nom. pl. nent. of Gk. adj. treated as canonica1.l
~ I V ~ K ~ I J @ Ohidden)
S, is used to denote a large body of
2. Name. Jewish and Christian literature, consisting I. The Apocrypha Proper.
of writings which either their authors or their 3. Apocrypha This collection of books nlay he
admirers have sought to include among canonical scrip- proper : classified in several ways. We might
tures, but which have ultimately failed to secure such a classification. classify them critically thus :-
position in the estimation of the Church at large. I. Additions to canonicaC 5ooks:-
This special usage of the word is derived from the I Esdras (interpolated form of Ezra) : see below, $ 4, ii.
practice common among sects, religious or philosophic, Additions to Esther : see below, I 5, I.
Additions to Daniel : see below, I 5, 2.
of embodying their special tenets or formulae in books Prayer of Manasses : see below, 5 6, 3.
withheld from public use, and communicated to an inner 2. Pseudepigraphical writinzs :-
circle of believers. Such books, generally bearing the 4 Esdras : see below, $3 7.
Wisdom of Solomon : see below, $ 8 , 2.
name of some patriarch, prophet, or apostle, were called Baruch : see below, $ 6, I.
by their possessors apocryphal, the designation imply- Epistle of Jeremy : see below, f 6, 2.
ing that they were hidden from the outer world, and 3. Legendary o r Hafgadic writings :-
even from the ordinary members of the sect itself; in Tobit : see below, 3 5, 3.
Judith : see below, $ 5, 4.
such cases the epithet apocryphal was used in a laud- 4. Genuine and authentic treatises :-
atory sense. Since, however, the hooks were forgeries, Ecclesiasticus : see below 4 8, I.
the epithet gradually came to take colour from that fact, I, 2 Maccabees : see helo;: 5 4, i.
and in process of time it was employed to indicate otber Probably the most natnral and convenient division
writings that had been forged. In the common parlance
1 I t does not seem necessary to devote space here to comment-
bf to-day, it denotes any story or document which is false ing upon the use of the word Deutero-canonical as applied to
or spurious. these hooks by the Church of Rome ; for it is exiressly said by
One of the earliest instances-and certainly a typical instance the authorities of that Church that no distinction of authority is
-of the use of the word apocryphal in its laudatory sense, occurs implied in the term.
249 250
 APOCRYPHA APOCRYPHA
will be one depending upon the kind of literature which 11. ( a ) PROPHETICAL. I. Bamch.-Greek. A
each book represents, as thus :- pseudepigraphical book ( i . e . one written under a false
I. Narrative : (a)Historical ; (h) Legendary (or Haggadic). 6. Prophetical, name),ascribed to Baruch son of Neriah,
11. (a)Prophetical ; or (6) Apocalyptic. amanuensis of Jeremiah. It consists of
111. Didactic.
I. ( a ) HISTORICAL. i. The Books of Mucca6ees. two parts : ( I ) 1-38, which may date from the times of
I Maccabees. -An important and generally trustworthy the Persian supremacy, possibly has a Hebrew original,
4. Historical. history, extant in Greek. It was and certainly shows close affinities with Dan. 9 ; ( 2 )
translated from a Hebrew original, 39-59 (end), originally written in Greek, probably after
which survived as late as the time of Jerome. On 70 A.D. ; chap. 5 is modelled on the 11th Psalm of
this and the following see MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. Solomon. Edited most fully by Kneucker. Appended
z iWacca6ees.-Extant in Greek ; an abridgment of a to this book is-
work in five books by Jason of Cyrene (see 223). Prefixed 2. The Epistle of/eremy (Baruch 6 in our Apocrypha).
to it are two letters, from the Jews of Jerusalem to -Greek, also pseudepigraphic, purporting to be a letter
the Jews of Egypt, commonly held to be spurious (see, of Jeremiah addressed to the Jews at Babylon, inveighing
however, MACCABEES, S ECOND, $ 7). against the worship of idols.
3 Maccabees.-Greek. A fragmentary history of an 3. The Prayer of Manasses.-Greek. This is attri-
attempted massacre of the Jews under Ptolemy Philo- buted to Manasseh, king of Judah, when in prison. It
pator, and of their miraculous deliverance. This book is very likely an extract from a legendary history of
and the following are not included by the Roman Church Manasseh, of which other portions appear to be quoted
in its Canon, and do not appear in theVg. though found (in connection with the prayer) in the Apostolical Con-
in 6. stitutions (222); or possibly it was written with a view
4 iWaccabees.-Greek. A philosophical discourse, to insertion into the text of z Chron. 3;3. It is not in
illustrating the triumph of Reason over Matter, by the the Roman canon, -but is appended thereto.
story of the martyrdom of Eleazar, and of the 'Seven (6) APOCALYPTIC. -Of this large and important
Maccabees ' and their mother. The work was tradition- 7. Apocalyptic. class of writiags only one specimen
ally attributed to Josephus. An edition of the Syriac is contained in our Apocrypha,
version with kindred documents, prepared by the late namely :-
Prof. Bensly, has been printed under the supervision 4 Esdras.l-Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Ar-
of W. E. Barnes. menian. The original Greek is lost. Only chaps. 3-14
ii. I Esdms.l-Greek. A recasting of the canonical appear in any Version save the Latin; chaps. If. 15J are
Ezra, to which is added the legendary tale of the Dis- later accretions, probably of two different dates, 1J being
pute of the Three Courtiers (known to Josephus). This perhaps of second century, and 15J of third century;
book appears in Vg. as an appendix to the N T ; but no 3-14 are a Jewish apocalypse, probably written about
authority is attributed to it by the Church of Rome. 97 A.D. ; If: are Christian, 15f. most likely Jewish.
See ESDRAS, BOOKS OF, First and Second. Rejected by the Roman Church, it is printed as an
(6) LEGENDARY. I. Additions t o Esther.-Greek. appendix to the Vg. See E SDRAS , BOOKS OB and
They consist of a number of letters, prayers, visions, APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, $5 13-15.
and the like, which are found inter- 111. DIDACTIC. I. Wisdom of Jesus the Son of
5. Sirach, commonly caZZed ~cclesiasticus.-Greelc, avowedly
calated into the canonical book of
Esther in 6. See E STHER, 8 IO. 8. Didactic. translated from the Hebrew of which a
2. Additions to Daniel.-Greek. These are three in considerable portion has lately been re-
number :- covered. A genuine authentic treatise, in parts of
(i.) The Story of Susanna, prefixed to the book. high literary excellence. The author was a Palesthiin
(ii. ) The Song of the Three Children, inserted in ch. 3. Jew of the second century B.C. See ECCLESIAS-
(iii. ) The Story of Bel and the Dragon, following ch. 12 TICUS.
2. Wisdom of Solomon.-Greek. Written under the
and attributed to Habakkuk.
They are found both in the d Version and in that name of Solomon, perhaps by Philo (according to an
of Theodotion. What is said to be the Hebrew original early tradition), certainly by a Jew of Alexandria in the
of part of the Song of the Three Children has been first century. It is of great merit in parts ; but the tone
recently found by Dr. M. Gaster in the Chronicle of deteriorates towards the end. The book seems, more-
Jerahmeel, and printed by him in TSBA, 1894. Cp over, to be incomplete. See W ISDOM, BOOK OB.
D ANIEL, 5.
3. Tobit.-Greek and ' Chaldee.' A romantic narra- 11. Other Apocryphal Literature.
tive of the period of the Captivity, written not later than Our survey'of the remaining literature is a much
the first century A . D . at latest, and perhaps in Egypt. more difficult matter. The idea of classifying the books
The book has a literary connection with the story of upon chronological principles must be
Ahikar (see A CHIACHARUS). The date cannot at 9. Other set aside at once as impracticable; the
literature.
present be considered at all certain. The ' Chaldee' data are in a majority of cases far too
or Aramaic version (on the name see A RAMAIC, $ 4, vague. The simplest division that can be made is
end), published by Dr. Neubauer in 1878, is probably between those books which have to do with the O T and
not the earliest form of the book. Of the Greek there are those which associate themselves with the New. Within
three recensions, and there are three old Latin recen- those the classificationwill be made, as in the case of the
sions besides Jerome's Vg. version. There are also apocrypha already described, according to kinds of
two Hebrew texts, one derived from 6,and the literature represented ; writings which unite more than
other from the Aramaic. Dr. Gaster has printed some one element will be arranged according to their most
fresh Hebrew texts of the story in TSBA, 1896. See prominent feature. In the case of the O T literature,
TOBIT. slightly modifying our previous classification, we can
I 4. Juditlz.-Greek. A romance which, in its present include all the documents we possess under the following
form, may date from the first century B.C. It tells the headings :-i. Legendary or Haggadic Narratives. ii.
story of the deliverance of the city Bethulia from the Prophetical and Apocalyptic books. iii. Poetical. iv.
Assyrians under Holofernes, through the bravery of Didactic.
Judith, a Hebrew widow. No miraculous element
appears in the story. See JUDITH. . 1 Called 2 Esdras in EV but oftener, as here, 4 Esdras-Le-.,
4th after 1 s t Esdras, the 'Heb. Ezra, and Nehemiah. It is
1 So called in EV and @ (e.&+.SwFte [Bl). 1: @ A (subscr:) called 3 Esd. when Ezra-Neb. are counted one book, as in @.
it is called 6 iapsds ; in Lag.'s Luc. it is E@pas B , and in Vg. it In an Arniens MS chaps. If: 3-14 15f. are called 3rd, qth, and
is 3 Esdras. 5th Esd. respectively.
251 252
 APOCRYPHA APOCRYPHA
A. OLD TESTAMENT (§§ 10-25). rision narrated in Gen. 15 : edited by N. Bonwetsch in
I. LEGENDARY OR H AGGADIC NARRATIVES ($5 IO-
Sfudien sur Geschichte d. Theologie u. Kirche, 1897.
I. Testament (or. Apoca&&, or 5. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs-A hook
' O f ~ ~ c FJnitence)
~ d o f A d a m : Book ofthe CbnJict :omhining the three elements of legendary, apocalyptic
of A d a m andEve.-Extant partially in
tnd didactic matter in twelve sections, each of which
Greek, Latin, Sypiac, Arahic, Ethiopic [and Coptic] Cives the last dying speech of one of the sons of Jacob ;
These versions represent v+riously developed forms see APOCALYPTIC, 68-76.
or fragments of a Jewish romance dealing with the 6. Life (or Confession) of Aseneth. -A Jewish legend
life of Adam and Eve after the Fall, and with their if early date; Christianized. Extant in Greek and
death and burial. W e no longer possess the romance 12. Aseneth. Syriac (and Latin). It is connected
t in its original form. with the Test. xii. Patr., and narrates
:he circumstances attending the marriage of Aseneth
The remains of it must be sought in the following documents :-
(a) Greek ApocaZypse o f Muses, more properly A L ~ W U LmSp l with Joseph. There is much beauty in the story. The
*A&+ K a l Egas. Edited by Tischendorf (Apocalypss Apocry- Latin version was, according to the present writer's
pha, 1866) and, in a fragmentary text, from the best MS, by belief, made by or for Grosseteste, at the same time
Ceriani (Munumenta sacra et profanu, 5 21). It is principally IS that of the Testaments. '
concerned with the death of Adam and Eve, and includes an
important narrative of the Fall. It is essentially Jewish. The Greek and Latin are edited by P. Batiffol, Studia
( p ) Latin Vita Ada et E v e : extant in many MSS, printed Patristica 1889. The Syriac will be found in Land, Anecd.
by Wilh. Meyer in Ahh. d.M a x h . Akad., Philos-philol. Syr., and bppenheim, Fahula Joseph; et Asenathe, 1886. See
K1. 14 1878. It covers the same ground as (a) and introduces Hort's article in Dict. Chr. B i o p
elemetkwhich occur in (7)and (8). 7. Testament of Job. -A Midrash on Job, containing
(y) Arabic and Ethiopic Book of Adam and Eve or Consict a mythical story of his life, Christianized to a very
of Adattz andEve. A long romance, Christianized throughout, limited extent. It is ascribed to his brother
dealing with the sufferings and temptations of Adam and Eve
after t h e Fall. The history is continued to the birth of Christ, 13' Job' Ngpds (Nahor). Job's wife is called Sitis.
and has close affinities with the Cave of Treasures (ed. Bezold ; Elihu is represented as inspired by Satan. The story
SchatzhahZe). I t is derived.in large part from the lost Jewish is worth reading.
romance. First translated by Dillmann (DmChristZ. Adam6uch It exists in Greek and seems to be quoted in the Apoc. Paul.
des Morgeniandes, 1853) : Ethiopic text by Trnmpp in Abh. d. Printed from a Vatican MS by Mai (Script. Vet. Nm. Coll.
M&ch. Akad. 15, 1879-81: English Version by S. C. Malan , 180) ; a French translation in Migne's Dict. des Apocryphes;
(Book o f Adant a n d Xve, 1882). See too the article 'Adam, edited last from two MSS by M. R. James, Apocrypha Anec-
Books of,' by Hort, in Dict. Christ. Biugr. duta, ii. 7897.
(6) Greek, Syriac, and Arabic fragments o f the Testament
of Adam. Prophetic and apocalyptic in character ; some are 8. Testument of Solomon. -Greek. Practically a
extracts from the old romance in its original form : others are magical hook, though interspersed with large haggadic
Christianized. Edited by Renan in Joum. As. (1853,pp. 427- It is mainly Jewish, though
471); the Greek by M. R. James (Apocrypha Anecdota : T e x t s 14. Solomon, Christian
sections. touches have been introduced.
and Studies, ii. 3 138).
(T) Coptic. A leaf from a Moses-Adam apocalypse, gnosticized. It narrates the circumstances under
Edited by, Scbinidt and Harnack in Sitzungshr. d. k. pr. which Solomon attained power over the world of spirits,
AKad. d. Wiss., r891, p. 1045: I t is now recognised by
Harnack tobe part of the late Coptic ApocalypeofBar~hoio?new. details his interviews with the demons, arid ends with
an account of his fall and loss of power.
2. Book of 3ubiZeesees,LittZe Genesis (Leptogenesis), EJ., first by F. F. Fleck in Wissenschaftl. Xeise; reprinted
Apoca&pse (or Testament) of Moses. - A ' haggadic in ,Migne's Cedrenus, vol. ii. as an appendix to Psellus's
commentary upon Genesis.' The hook is in the form writings. A German translahon by Bornemann in Illgen's
of a revelation made to Moses on Mount Sinai by the 2.A Kirchmcesch., 1843.
angel of the Presence. Hence it has been called the 9. Contrudictio SaZomonis.-A work under this name
A$oca@pse of Moses. The' narrative communicated hy is condemned in the ' ' Gelasian Decree de recipienrlis
"

the angel begins with the Creation, and extends to the et non recipiendis liidris. It was in all likelihood an
giving of the law, bnd the whole time is reckoned ip account of Solomon's contest in wisdom with Hiram,
periods of Jubilees : hence the name Book of 3udiZees. and was the groundwork of the romance still extant
The events narrated in Genesis are for the most part in many forms and under many names-e.g., Dialogue
sketched slightly with the addition of details of a legend- of Solomon and Saturn (Anglo-Saxon), Solomon and
ary character : hence the name Lepto,onesis, ' a detailed Kitovras ( i . e . Kentauros, Slavonic), Solomon and Mar-
treatment of Genesis' (see,however, E S C H A T O L O G Y , ~ ~ ~ ) .colph (Latin, etc. ). Josephnsmentions the Hiram-legend.
These details include the names of the wives of the See on all these books J. M. Kemble's Introduction to the
Anglo-Saxon DiaZogue dfSoiolnon and Saturn, Blfric Society,
patriarchs, the wars of Jacob and Esan, the last words of 1843, and compare A CHIACHARUS.
Abraham and Isaac. Much of the legendary element IO. Ascension of Zsaiah. -Partlyhaggadic, but chiefly
in Test. rii. Putr. (see below) is derived from this book : important as an apocalypse-under which heading it
see APOCALYPTIC, §$ 48-58. will be treated. See APOCALYPTIC, 55 42-47,
3. Testaments ofthe Three Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, 11. Pseudo-Philo's Libel untiyziitatunz RidZicarzim.
and Jacob).-Referred to in the Apost. T o n s t . (616). -Latin, from Greek, and that from Hebrew. Printed
ll. Patri- Books under these names, combining the 15. Pseudo- thrice in the 16th century (in 1527, in
archs. legendary, apocalyptic, and didactic ele-
ments Christianized, are found in Greek,
1550, and in 1599), this book had
practically escaped the knowledge of all
Slavonic, and Roumanian (Testament [or Apocalypse] modern scholars (except Cardinal Pitra) until Mr.
of Abraham), and in Arabic and Ethiopic (Testaments Leopold Cobn reintroduced it to the world in an article
A b m h a m , Isaac, and lacob). They narrate the circum- in the Jewish Quar2erly Review, 1898. It is a haggadic
stances attending the deaths of the three patriarchs. summary'of Bible history from Adam to the death of
Their early date is maintained by the present writer Saul, full of most interesting visions, -prophecies,
(one is quoted hy Origen), but is not universally allowed.
I - and
legends.
Dr. Kohler (JQR,1895) assigns an Essene origin to the The Latin version the only form in which the book is
Test. of Abraham. known, very much iesembles the version of 4 Esd. Four
fragments published by the present writer (Prayer of Moses,
Edited by M. R. James ('Test. of Abraham': Texts alta Vision of Kenaz, Lament of Seila, and Song of David=Apoc.
Stua'ies, 2 z ) and by Dr. Gaster (' Roumanian version of Apoc. Anecd. i.) tnrn out to be extracts from this work of Pseudo-
of Abraham,' PSBA, 1887). The Greek version is printed from Philo. It is aDoarentlv ore-Christian and merits careful studv.
one MS by Vassiliev (Anecdota Grreco-Byzantina, 1893). 12. Book 2/ash&-A haggadic commentary updn
4. ApocaZypse of Abruham. -Slavwnic, from Greek. the Hexateuch, containing ancient elements, hut pre-
An interesting Jewish hook with Christian insertions. 16. Jasher. served in a medizval form. There is
The first part is haggadic, and gives the story of Abra- a French translation by Drach in Migne's
. ham's conversion : the second is an expansion of the Dict. des dpocqphes, vol. ii.
253 254
 APOCRYPHA APOCRYPHA
13. Book of Noah. -Haggadic and apocalyptic frag- noon, the history of the Tower of Babel, the Vine
ments of this work are incorporated in the Book of Enoch; Christian), and the offering of the prayers of men to
I,. Noah. there is also a Hebrew Midrash under this ;od by Michael: (c) An Ethiopic Apocu&pse ufBarzich,
name printed by Jellinek in Bet-ha-Mid- )reserved in a British Museum MS (118 ia Dill:
rasch, 3 155, partly based on the Book of lubihes. See nann's Catalugue) is apparently the production, in part
Ronsch and Charles, and cp. APOCALYPTIC, 24, 57. it least, of an Abyssinian Christian. This, or another,,
14. Book of Lmnech.-The title ' Lamech ' occurs in s mentioned in Wright's Caz'alugxe (No. 27, 6, etc.).
Greek lists of apocryphal' books. A story of Lamech 4. quotation from Baruch not found in any existing
18. Lost Books. which is found separately in Slavonic 2ook of his, is in the Altercatiu Siinonis et Theuphili
may or may not be identical with Text eu. Unters. 13), and a larger one in some MSS
this. There can be little doubt that the old bsok ,f Cypriani's Testimonia,329. It is noticed by Dr. J.
treated (as the Slavonic one does) of the accidental Rendel Harris in The Rest of the Words of Baruch, p. IO.
slaying of Cain by Lamech. 7. ReZiqua verborunz Baruchi (The rest of the words
15. Book of Og.--In the Gelasian Decree a book is zf Baruch), or Paralipomma 3erentie.- Greek a n d
mentioned as ' T h e Book of Og the giant, whom the Ethiopic. There is hardly anything really apocalyptic
heretics feign to have fought with a dragon after the in this book, which is a Christian appendix to the
Flood.' It was, according to the present writer's Apocalypse of Baruch, haggadic in character. It
belief, identical with a hook IIpuypur~luTGY I'rydvwv narrates the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchad-
or Thatise of z'he Giants, which is mentioned in a list rezzar, the miraculous rescue of Ebed-melech, and the
of Manichzan apocrypha by Timotheus of Con- martyrdom of Jeremiah.
stantinople (Fabricius, Cod. apoc. N T 1139). It Printed first in Ethiopic by Di. (Chrestonzathia E t l z i o j h ) ,
in Greek by Ceriani (Mon. SICY. et pro$), and lastly in Greek
was no doubt a Jewish haggada, containing, to judge by Dr. J. Rendel Harris (Rest of fhs Words of Baruch 1889).
from the title, some stirring incidents. Possibly Harris regards it as an eirenicon addressed by the ch;rch of
it may have given a Jewish form of the ancient Dragon- Jerusalem to the synagogne after the Bar-Cochba rebellion. I t
myth of Babylonia, on which see. Gunkel (SchCpJ ). wasoftenprinted invariously ahridgedformsin the GreekMencea.
16. Penitence of Jannes and [email protected] 8. A short Prophecy of Jeremiah is uniformly attached
also in the Gelasian Decree, and pqhaps, like the to the Epistle of Jeremiah in Ethiopic MSS of the
Penitentin Cypriani,a confession of the wiclced magical Old Testament. It consists of only a few lines, and is
arts of the two Egyptian wizards. See an article by written to justify the quotation from 'Jeremy the
Iselin in Hilgenfeld's ZWT, 1894. There is a fragment prophet ' in Mf. 279. It is addressed to Pashur. Jerome
(in Latin and Anglo-Saxon) apparently belonging to had seen a Hebrew volume in which a similar passage
this book in the Cotton MS Tib. B.V. ; but it has not occurred. Dillmann printed it in his Chrestomathia
yet been printed. Bthiopica, 1866 (p. viii n. 2).
17. Esz'her.-0rigen on Romans (9 2 : p. 646)has the 9. Ascension of Zsaiah. -See APOCALYPTIC, §§ 42-47.
following passage, which clearly refers to a romance IO. Apoca@pse of EZias, and
about Esther : ' W e have found it written in a certain I I. Apucabpse of Zephaniah.
book of an apocryphal nature (secretiore) that there is The first of.these was supposed to be the source of
an angel of grace who takes his name from grace. 'For Paul's quotation in I Cor. 29, ' Eye hath not seen,' etc.
he is called Ananehel ( 5 I Anahel), which being inter- The second is quoted by Clement of
21. Elias, They both s6rvive in
preted means the grace of God. Now in this writing Zephaniah,etc. Alexandria.
it was said that this angel was sent by the Lord to two dialects of Coptic. Fragments of
Esther to give her grace in the sight of the king.' I O and 11 were published by Bouriant in the fWdnzozres
There are, besides, many haggadic histories-e.g., de la Missimz archPuloba~p~ bu Caire. Stern translated
of David, Jonah, the Captivity, and (see Rev. S h . them into German in Z A , 1886. The whole, with
1898)the Rechabites-in Syriac, Carshunic, Arabic, and additional fragments, has been edited by Steindorff in
Ethiopic, which are still unpublished ; they are to be Harnack and Gebhardt's Texte u. Untersuch. The
found in MS at Paris and elsewhere. Apocalypse of Elias is fairly complete : the editor assigns
See 7otenberg's Cat. des MSS Syfikgues and Cat. des only one leaf to the Apocalypse of Zephaniah and a large
MSS Ethiopipes de Za BidZioth2q%e Nationab, and WriGht's fragment to an- unknown Apocalypse. It is the present
Catalogues of Ethiopic and of Syriac MSS in the British writer's belief that this last is from an Apocalypse
Museum. Much Slavonic apocryphal literature also remains of Zephaniah. Both are seemingly Christianized forms
unknown to critics, though most of it has been printed. See
Kozak's list of Slavonic apocryphal literature in IPTxviii., and of Jewish books, containing sections descriptive of
Bonwetsch in Harnack's Altchrzitl. Lit. 902-917. heaven and hell, and prophecies of Antichrist, and his
11. APOCALYPTIC. I. Book of Enoch; and 2. conflict with Tabitha and the two witnesses. There
19. Apocaiyptic
: Secrets of Enoch. -See APOCA- is an Apocalypse of Elias in Hebrew and one was
L Y P T I C , ~18-32
~ and
33-41respec- printed in Jellinek's Bet-ha-Midrasch and edited in
Enoch, tivelv. 1897 by Buttenwieser. A passage from a Gnostic
3. Sibylline Oracles. -Greek hexameter verse, in four- Vision of Elias is quoted by Epiphanius ( H e r . 26 13).
teenbooks of various dates. See APOCALYPTIC, §§ 86-98. 12. A Revelation o f Moses, containing a visit to the
4. Assumption of Moses.-Quoted in the epistle of unseen world, has been translated from Hebrew by
Jude, as well as by later Christian writers; extant in Dr. Gaster (JRAS, 1893).
Latin, incomplete. See APOCALYPTIC, $5 59-67. 13. A n Apoca@pse o f Esdras, extant in Syriac,
5. Apocalypse of Baruch. -A long and important edited by Baethgen from a late MS, and published
apocalypse, closely resembling 4 Esdras in style and etc.- with a translation in Z A T . W ( 6 1 g g -
22. 210 T'861),is by some thought to be
20, Baruch, thought. See APOCALYPTIC, §§ 5-
Jeremiah, etc. 17,and also below under Loroaster an old Jewish apocaiypse'which was remodelled in
(0 23, no. 15). Mohammedan times. There is an Ethiopic Apoc. of
6. Other Apoca@pses of Baruch ( a ) , (a), (c).-As far Esd. in the British Museum (see Wright's CataZogue).
as is known at present (a-) is contained i n only a single 14. The same remark applies to a Persian History of
Greek MS (Brit. Mus. Add. 10,073): edited by M. R. Daniel edited and translated by Zotenberg in Merx's
James, Apocr. Anecd. ii., with a translation of the Archihiv (1386), which in its present form is certainly
Slavonic version by W. R. Morfill : Bonwetsch also medizval. The Armenian, the Coptic, and the Greek
has published a German translation of the Slavonic. Visions of Daniel,' which are printed respectively by
The Greek text has two Christian passages. In
1 It may be noticed in this connection that in @A of
the main it may very well be Jewish and of early date. Theodotion's Daniel the whole book is divided into twelve
It contains revelations about the course of the sun and Visions (6pLuas).
255 256
 APOCRYPHA APOCRYPHA
Kalemkiar, by Woide, by Klostermann, and by lypse, and Icabisch on the apocalypses of Esdras and of
Vassiliev (Aizecdota Greco-Byzantini, 1893), are also Baruch) than the probabilities of the case will warrant.
very late, but contain ancient elements. See on these
books W. Bousset’s recent work, Der Antichrist, and B. fVEw TESTAMZNT (§I26-31).
compare ANTICHRIST. It is thought by Zahn that Under this head only a few of the most prominent
Hippolytus commented upon the apocryphal Apocalypse N T apocrypha can be mentioned ; much of the
of Daniel as well as on the canonical Apocalypse (For- literature is excluded by its late date.
schungez, 5 120). I. GOSPELS.~I. GospeZ according to the Hebrews.-
15. Books of Zoroarter.-Zoroaster, as we learn from The relation of this book to the canonical Gospel of
the Clementines (Kecogn. 129 ; Hom. 9 4 ) . was identified 26. Gospels, Matthew cannot be discussed here (see
__ - .
as. LOSE
with Ham. son of Noah : and mvstical fragmentav GOSPELS). The facts known about
Apocalypses. prophecies; most likely o i Jewish origin, -1
the book are that it was in Aramaic, that
. UI I U D ” .
were currentunder both names. Clement Jerome translated it into Greek and into
of Alexandria quotes a prophecy of Ham (Strom. 6642); Latin, and that in his time it was in use among the
and there are oracles of Zoroaster in Greek verse (with ’ Nazarenes ’ of Syria. Jerome’s versions have periihed ;
commentaries by Gemistius Pletho and Michael Psellus) but he repeatedly quotes from the Latin one. The frag-
printed, e.g., in Opsopceus’s SillyZZina, 1607. Zoroaster ments preserved hy him, by Origen and Eusebius, and by
was also identified by Eastern scholars with Baruch. Codex Tischendorf 111. of ninth century (566 in Gregory)
Solomon of Bassora in the Book of the Bee cites a number about twenty-two. They will be found in
prophecy of his concerning the Star of the Epiphany (ed. Hilgenfeld‘s N T extra Canonem receptzim, 4, in the
Budge, circa 37). The prophecy is, of course, Christian. monographs of Nicholson, and Handmann ( T e z t e u.
16. Books of Seth.-The Sethians possessed writings <7irters.), in Westcott’s Introd. to the Study 6 the
called Books of Seth and others under the name of the GospeZs, and in Zahn’s Gesch. des NTZicherz Kanons,
AZZogeneis (dhhoyevcis), a term which meant the sons 22, etc. The fragments quoted contain additions both
of Seth. Hippolytus (I+/ Her. ) quotes much from a to the narrative and to the sayings of Jesus. Some
Sethian hook. Pseudepigrapha of this kind, however, to of the sayings differ only in form from similar sayings
which might be aclded the prophecies of Parchor (Clem. in the canonical gospels ; others are independent. The
Alex.), theGospel of Eve (Epiphanius), and. Justin the account of the baptism is distinctly Ebionitic. The
Gnostic’s Book of Baruch (Hippolytus, ReJ Her. 5). longest continuous passage describes the appearance
are hardly to be reckoned among apocryphal literature, of Jesus to James the Just after the resurrection.
since there seems to have been in them little or no 2. GospeZ o f fhe Bdionites or Gospd of the Twelve.,
attempt at verisimilitude of attribution. Epiphnnius is the only writer who has preserved us any
17. Prayer of Joseph.-Quoted by Origen and Pro- fragments of this gospel (adz.ZYer. 30), and from these
copius (in Genesim). It represented Jacob as an in- it is plain that the book was a ‘ tendency-writing ’ put
carnation of a pre-existent angel Israel ; in the fragments into the mouths of the Twelve Apostles (who describe
we possess, Jacob is the speaker. The book extended their call, using the first person), and related to the
to 1100U d X O l , being of about the same’length as the Greek Matthew. It was naturally strongly Ebionitic,
Wisdom of Solomon. and it began with the baptism.
18. BZdad and Medad.--A prophecy attributed to 3. GospeZ according to the Egyptians. -Probably the
these two‘elders (for whom see Nu. 11)is quoted in the earliest Gnostic gospel. A passage is quoted by Clement
Shepherd of Herinas (Vis.2 3 4 ) . It consisted of 400 of Alexandria, who tells us that one Julius Cassianus,
udxoi (about twice the length of the Song of Solomon). a Docetic teacher, used the same words; they also
111. POETICAL. I. Psalms o f SoZomoz. -Greek, appear in the so-called second epistle of Clement (of
from Hebrew (lost). A collection of Rome). The passage quoted is Encratite in its bearing.
24* eighteen (or nineteen) Psalms. See 4. GospeZ accordiiq t o Peter.-Of this book we have
APOCALYPTIC, 3s 77-85. knowledge from the following sources :-(I)A fragment
2. Additions to the Psalteter.-(a) Ps. 151, on David’s of a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch ( A D . 190-
victory over Goliath, is appended to the @ Version 203)~addressed to the church of Rhossus, condemning
of the Psalter. It is a very simple composition, of the gospel (after perusal) as Docetic (Ens. H E 612).
some merit. (6) Three apocryphal psalms in Syriac, ( 2 ) A statement by Origen (Zn Matth. tom. 17 IO) that
edited by W. Wright (PSBA, 1887, p. 257), viz. a the hook represented the brethren of Jesns as sons of
prayer of Hezekiah, a psalm on the Return, and two Joseph by a former marriage. (3) A long and im-
thanksgivings by David on his victory over the lion and portant fragment, containing an account of the Passion
the ‘wolf.’ They are probably Jewish, and of con- and Resurrection, found by the French Archaeological
siderable antiquity. Mission in a tomb at Akhmim in 1885, published first
3. A Lamentation of Jars W i f e , inserted in the in their Mdvzoires (1892). and repeatedly since then.
d text of Job 2, is closely connected with the Among German editions must be mentioned those of
Testament of Job. Harnack, of Schubert, and of Zahn ; among English
IV. DIDACTIC.-The three main members of this ones, those of Robinson and of Swete. The literature is
25. Didactic. class, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, very considerable. The conclusions upon which critics
and the Epistle of Jeremy, have been seem agreed at this moment are : that the fragment is
already noticed (I 8, 2 ; 6, I ; and 6, 2 respectively). Docetic and anti-Jewish, though saturated with allusions
The Tesfaments of ;Ue TweZve Patriarchs (see APOCA- to the Old Testament ; and that it shows a knowledge
L w r I c , 0s 68-76) have a large didactic element. Be- of all four canonical gospels. Its use by Justin Martyr is
sides these there is little to note, save perhaps certain held probable by most, but denied by Swete (p. xxxivf. ).
MagicaZ Books of dl/(ses. -Extant in Greek papyri 5. The FayCm gospelfragment. -Contained in a tiny
found in Egypt ; they have been printed by Leemans fragment of papyrus among the Rainer papyri at
and Dieterich (in Adraxas). They are not purely Vienna ; discovered by Bickell. It gives the words of
Jewish; Jewish names are employed, but there is a Christ to Peter at the Last Supper in a form which
large Orphic element. The story of Achiacharus (see diverges largely by omissions from any in the canonical
A CHIACHAKUS) also ought to he mentioned in this place. gospels. Hort contended for the view that it was
Besides the many extant books and titles, there a fragment of a patristic homily and merely a loose
were probably others of which we know nothing; quotation. Ed. Harnack, Texte u. C‘rzters. 5 4 , etc.
yet it is the belief of the present writer that many 6. The Login.-This is the name given by the first
ypses at least have been postulated by editors, Grenfell and Hunt, to the contents of a
recent criticism (q., Spitta on the Johannine Apoca- 1 On these see also GOSPELS (index).
17 257 258
 APOCRYPHA APOCRYPHA
single leaf of a papyrus book found by them a t Oxy- iddresses delivered by James the Just in the Temple.
rhynchus. It contains a small number of sayings of See Lightfoot, Galatians, 330, 367.
Jesus which in part agree with sayings contained in the r . Acts of Paul and Thecia.-Greek, Syriac, etc.
canonical gospels and in part differ from them. Harnack Tertullian tells us that this romance was composed in
believes them to be extracted from the Gospel according honour of Paul by a presbyter of Asia, who afterwards
to the Egyptians ;but it is as yet not possible to express confessed the forgery (De Baptismo, 17) ; and Jerome,
a final opinion on their character. quoting Tertullian (probably from the Greek text of the
7. GospeZ of Matthias.-Probably identical with the same treatise), adds the detail that the exposure took
Tmdifions of Matthias, from which we have quota- place in the presence of John. In the present writer's
tions. It was most likely a Basilidian work, for the opinion, this may be a false reading : ' apud Iconium '
Basilidians professed to regard Matthias as their special may have been corrupted into ' apud Johannem.' Un-
authority among the apostles. See Zahn, Gesch. d. doubtedly the romance is the earliest of the kind which
N T Kanons, ii. 2 751. we possess. It details the adventures and trials of a
8. F6rva Maplas (the Descent of Mary), quoted by virgin, Thecla of Iconium, who was converted by Paul.
Epiphanius (fie,-.2 6 1 ~ ) ,was a Gnostic anti- Jewish Ed. Lipsius (Acta Petri et PauZi). Professor Ramsay
romance representing Zacharias as having been killed contends for the historical accuracy of much of the local
by the Jews because he had seen the God of the Jews detail. It is now clear that this episode formed part
in the temple in the form of an ass. of the Acts of PauZ which has just been -discovered
9. Zacharias, the father of John Bapiist.-A. Berendts by Carl Schmidt in a fragmentary form in Coptic. Until
in Studien ZUY Zacharias-apokryjhen n. Zach.-legende the text is published, however, little can be said.
gives a translation of a Slavonic legend of Zacharias The Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Thomas, Andrew, and
which may be taken from an early book, subsequently Philip have all survived in part. They may be referred
incorporated into the Book oflames. to some time in the second century. The author of all
Almost every one of the apostles had a gospel fathered of them, save the first and last, was most likely one
upon him by one early sect or another, if we may judge Leucius. The Passions and Acts of the remaining
from the list of books condemned in the so-called apostles are all later.
Gelasian Decree, and from other patristic allusions. 111. EPISTLES. I. The Abgarus Letters.-A letter
Of a gospel of Philip we have fragments, descriptive from Abgar Uchama, king of Edessa, to our Lord,
of the progress of the soul ,through the next world, 29. Epistles, begging him to visit Edessa and take
showing it to have been a Gnostic composition ; it was up his abode there, and an answer
probably very much like the Pistis Sophia ( a long from our Lord, promising to send an apostle to Abgarus,
Gnostic treatise in Coptic), in which Philip plays a are given by Eusebius ( H E 113), who translates them
prominent d e . The Questions of Mary (Great and from Syriac, and derives them from the archives of
Little) was the title of two Gnostic books of the most Edessa. They are very early, and are intimately con-
revolting type, quoted by Epiphanius ( H e r . 268). nected with the legend of the apostolate of Addai or
A Coptic papyrus volume recently acquired by Berlin ThaddEus at Edessa. A fragment of a fourth-century
contains texts as yet unpublished of two Gnostic books papyrus text of the letters (which are very short) is in
connected with the names of the Virgin and John, and the Bodleian. They are found also in Syriac.
also a portion of some early Acts of Peter. 2. Epistle of P a u l to the Laodiceam-Latin. It
For the most part, however, these heretical pseudepi- was founded upon Col. 416, and is a short cento of
grapha,where we know anything of their contents,must be Pauline phrases. An Epistle to the Laodiceans is
27. E*ttant assigned to a period later than that con- mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. See Lightfoot's
templated by our present scope. Of extant Colossians, 347 3 9and Zahn, Gesch. d, N T (Can. ii. 2
Gospels. apocryphal gospels twomust bementioned. 566 ; also COLOSSIANS A N D E PHESIANS, 14.
I. Book of lames, commonly called Protevangelium 3. ,Epistle of P a u l to the Alexandrines. -Also
(this name being due to Guillaume Postel, who first mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, and nowhere else.
noticed the book, in the sixteenth century).-Extant in Zahn (Z.C. 58) has printed, from the Bobbio Sacrament-
Greek, Syriac, Coptic, etc. A narrative extending from ary and Lectionary, a lesson purporting to be taken
the Conception of the Virgin to the death of Zacharias. from the Epistle to the Colossians, which he assigns to
The James meant is perhaps James the Just. In the Epistle to the Alexandrines, or to some similar
one place, where Joseph is speaking, the narrative Pauline apocryph.
suddenly adopts the first person. Origen, and perhaps 4. 7Zird EpistZe of PauZ fo the Corinthians (and
Justin, knew the book. A Hebrew original has been letter from Co~inth to Paul).-Armenian and Latin
postulated for it. It is undoubtedly very ancient, and (and Coptic). These are now known to have formed
may possibly fall within the first century. From it we part of the Acta Pauli.
ultimately derive the traditional names of the Virgin's There are but few other spurious epistles, and these
parents, Joachim and Anne. .The work has been edited are all of a distinctly later character.
by Tischendorf (Evangelia Apocypha). IV. APOCALYPSES. I. Apocalypse of Peter.-Greek.
2. Acts of Pilate, often called the Gospel of Nico- Quoted by Clement of Alexandria and by the heathen
demus.-Greek, Latin, Coptic, etc. In two parts : 30. Apoca- antagonist of Macarius Magnes (who is
( I ) an account of the Passion and Resurrection ; ( 2 ) a possibly Porphyry), and mentioned in
narrative of the Descent into Hell. Part I. may be lypses. the Mnratorian Canon. We have now R
alluded to by Justin Martyr, who more than once considerable fragment of it, which was discovered in the
appeals to Acts of Christ's Passion. It is possible, same MS as was the excerpt from the Gospel of Peter
however, that he may be referring to another apocryphal (see § 26 no. 4). This contains the end of a prophecy of
document which exists in many forms-the Anaplzora Jesus about the last times, and a vision of the state of
PiLati or official Report of Pilate to Tiberius. In any the blessed, followed by a much longer description of
case, the Acta Pilati (Part I.) in some form probably the torments of various classes of sinners. It was
date from early in the second century. Edited by probably written rather early in the second century,
Tischendorf (2. c. ) ; see also Lipsius, Die Pilatusakten, and has had an enormous influence on later Christian
and Schubert on the Gospel of Peter. visions of heaven and hell. Dieterich, in his Nekyia,
11. Acrs. I . AscentsofJames ( ' A v a ~ a 6 ~ o ~ ' I a ~ 6 ~ has
o u )pointed
, out the strong influence which the Orphic
only mentioned by Epiphanius ( H e r . 80).-An Ebionite literature has had on the writer. A trace of the influence
28. Acts. and anti-Pauline book of which we most of this apocalypse on Latin documents has been recently
likely have an abstract in the end of the pointed out by Harnack in the Pseudo-Cyprianic tract
first book of the Clementine Recognitions. It contained De Laude Martyrii, and earlier by Robinson in the
259 260
 APOLLONIA APOLLOS
Pcission of St. Per$etua, and there is a possible trace in Ztin. Ant. we learn that it was 30 R. m. from Amphi-
the earlier tract De Aleatoribus. The Arabic and the polis, and 37 from Thessalonica. Leake places it to
Ethiopic IZeveZation of Peter or Books of CZeemenl (see an the S. of the lake, at the modern village Polina; and
article by Bratke in Hilgenfelds Za'tschr., 1893)seem not this is probably right, though others are inclined to look
to contain the old book embedded in them ; but as yet for it more to the W. at the post-station of Klisali,
they are not very well known. Ed. Dieterich, Harnack, which is seven hours from Thessalonica. Apollonia
James. was at any rate on the main road between Amphipolis
2. Prophecyof Hystaspes.-Lost. There are quotations and Thessalonica by the Aulon, or pass of Arethusa.
from it in the Preaching qf Paul (quoted by Clem. Alex. ), Paul and Silas, therefore, ' passed through ' the town
in Justin Martyr (A$ol. l z o 44), and in Lactantius (Diu. on their way to Thessalonica (Actsl7x).t w. J,.w.
Inst. 7 15 18). In every case it is coupled with the Sibylline APOLLONIUS (AITOAA~NIOC [VA] ; APOL-
Oracles, with which it is clearly to be associated, as a
Christian forgery in pagan form. Ammianus Marcellinus LONIUS ; L C L ) Q d Q 1 9 / ) .
(236)calls Hystaspes a verywise king, father of Darius,' I. (Son)of THRASEAS the governor of Ccele-
[q.v.] ;
Lactantius, ' a very ancient king of the Medes, who has Syria and Phcenicia who, according to z Macc. (35-44).
handed down to posterity a most wonderful dream induced Seleucus 1V. to plunder the rich temple treasury
as interpreted by a prophesying boy (sub interpreta- of Jerusalem (see HELIODOKUS).H e may possibly be
tione vaticinantis pueri). ' The same author represents the same as-
Hystaspes as saying that the Roman name was to be 2. The governor of Ccelesyria under Alexander

wiped out, and, further, that in the 'last days the Balas, who came to the help of Alexander's rival,
righteous would cry to God and God would hear them. Demetrius 11. (Nikiitor), who made him chief of the
Justin says that he prophesied the destruction of all army. This is more explicable if, as in Polyb.xxxi.
things by fire, and the quotation in Clement makes 21 z , Apollonius was the foster-brother (udv.rpo@os) of
him declare that the kings of the earth should hate and Demetrius I. He was besieged at Joppa, and was
persecute the Son of God-the Christ-and his followers. entirely defeated by Jonathan near Azotus (Xshdod) in
It is this last passage which fixes the book as Christian 147R.C. ( I Macc. 10693,). Jos. (Ant.xiii. 43) calls him
rather than Jewish. Aa6s (or rather Tals, Niese)-Le., one of the Dai (the
V. D IDACTIC. I. Teaching ofthe ApostZes (DidachB). classical Dahae) on the E. of the Caspian Sea-and
-Greek. The literature of this manual of ethics and erroneously represents him as fighting on the side of
church discipline is enbrmous, and the Alexander Balas.
31. history of its various forms cannot be 3. General of Samaria, one of the officers of
attempted here. It was discovered by Philotheos Antiochus Epiphanes, beaten and slain by Judas
Bryennios in a MS of 1056 at Constantinople, and the Maccabee, 166 B. c. ( I Macc. 3 1 0 3 ) . He is prob-
printed first in the year 1883. It consists of two distinct ably the chief tax-commissioner (Bpxwv @opoXoylas),
parts : the first an ethical manual which may be founded who previously (168-167B.C. ) had been sent to hellenise
on a Je'wish document, and reappears in the Epistle of Jerusalem, and by taking advantage of the sabbath had
Barnabas ; the second relating to church matters, con- routed the Jews and occupied a fort there ( I Macc. 1 2 9 3
taining disciplinary rules and 1iturgicalformuZe. Opin- z Macc. 5 2 4 8 ) . He may perhaps be identified with-
ions as to its date differ widely. Harnack would assign 4. The son of Menestheus sent by Antiochus Epiphanes to
congratulate Ptolemy VI. Philometor on his accession ( S L T&
~
it in its present form (which is probably not primitive) to rpwroKhrjuaa : 2 Macc. 4 21).
130-160. It forms the groundwork of the 7th Book of 5. Son of GENNEUS(6 TOG revvaiov); a Syrian general under
the Apostolic Constitutions. Antiochus V. EupZtor (2 Macc. 1 2 2).
2. Preaching of Peter. - Apparently an orthodox APOLLOPHANES (AITOAAO@ANHC P A ] ; Syr. has
second-century book, of which Heracleon and Clem. -&Q), Apollonius?), a Syrian slain by the men
Alex. have preserved important fragments containing of Judas the Maccabee ( z Macc. 1037).
warnings against Judaism and polytheism, and words [Ti. WH]), according to
of Jesus to the apostles. Another set of fragments, APOLLOS (AITOAAW
I Cor., our most important source, was a missionary
which there is no sufficient reason for repudiating, and teacher who continued Paul's work
contains a lament of Peter for his denial, and various 1. In
in Corinth after the first visit of the latter
ethical maxims. There are strong similarities between (36), and was afterwards his companion in Ephesus,
the first set of fragments and the A$oZogy of Aristides. though not perhaps at the time the Epistle was being
Dobschutz (in a monograph in Terte u. Unters.) rejects written (see ?jv in 1612). Shortly before the writing of
the second set. The relation of the book ( a ) to a the First Epistle four parties had arisen in Corinth
supposed Preaching of Paul, the existence of which is (110-12)) one of which claimed to be 'of Paul,' and
veryd8ubtfu1, and(6)to the Pseudo-Clementhe literature, another ' of Apollos ' ; it argues, thererore, delicacy of
is by no means clear. A Syriac Preaching of Si~nun feeling in Apollos that he did not comply with Paul's
Cep'zas, published by Cureton, has none of the matter invitation to revisit Corinth again. The invitation
appearing in the quotations from the Greek book. itself, on the other hand, makes it plain that there
For the books noticed above and the
32. Bibliography.
- _ .later documents not named (Lhich are
were no very fundamental differences between the two
many) the student must consult :- men, least of all as to doctrine. Yet neither is it con-
J. A. Fabricius, Codex )Pseude&. Vet. Test. Hambura, ceivable that the party-division turned npon nothing
17;3 and 1723; Codex Apocvyp/iFmT i6. 1719 1743 (ed. 2 ) ;
0. F. Fritzsche Li6ri V.T. pseude@&&&i sezech; A. Hilgen- more than the personal attachment of their individual
feld. Messias '7udmom?72: E. Schiirer. G W : Strack and converts to the two men respectively. On that snp-
Ziickler, Apok&hen d. A T ; Wace add Salmon, Speaker's position there would be nothing so blameworthy about
Comm. Apoc~ypha;J. C . Thilo Codex Apoc~yphusNovi it ; and it would be impossible to explain the existence,
Testa&nti; Tischendorf, Evawz.' Ajocr. (ed. z , 1876) ; Acta
Ap. Apocr. ; Apoc. Apocr. ; Lipsins Die Apokr. ApostrL alongside of them, of the party of Christ, and still more
geschichten,u.ApostelZegenden;Migne bict. des A &
,&;. James; of that of Peter. Our earliest anthority for Peter's ever
Apocryprta Anecdota i. ii. ' Vassiliev 'Anecdota Grmo-Byzan- having been in Corinth at all is Dionysius, bishop of
tina; Lipsius and M.' BonAet, Acta ~posfolorumAjocr. i. ii. Corinth about 170 (Eus. HE ii. 2!58), who, contrary to
Editions of individual writings have been specified under their
proper headings. M. R . J. all the known facts of history, will have it that Peter
1 By contraction, or rather abbreviation, like Zr)& from
APOLLONIA ( A I T O A A ~ N I A [Ti. WH]). A town Zqv66Wpos 'Afidvas from 'Apivavspos, and so on (cp NAMES,
on the Egnatian Road, in that part of Macedonia which $3 86, end).' The fuller form is more probably 'ArohA\jvros than
had the name Mygdonia and lay betwecn the rivers 'ArohMSopos, of which the usual contractions were 'Awohhdc,
Strymon and Axius. It was near Lake Bolbe (Betschirk 'ArshhBs, or 'ArfAA+. The reading 'Awohhrjv~osis actually
given by D in Acts 18 24. By analogy the accentuation 'Anoh-
GJ'I): but its exact site is not yet known. From the h&s ought to be preferred to the currently adopted 'ArrohA&.
261 262
 APOLLOS APOSTLE
came both to Corinth and to Italy simultaneously with ised a Christian hook, not however reading it himself hut getting
Paul. Thus the formation of an Apollos party, as dis- t read to him by some other person is too far-fetched to he
xought into requisition here. To the kuggestiou (referred to by
tinguished from the party of Paul, can have been due Blass Acta Aposfoloorum, ed. jhiZo2. 1895, ad Zoc.) that
only to the individuality and manner of teaching of \pol<os may have heen orally instructed by a man whose know-
Apollos. Paul finds it necessary to defend himself edge of Chridanity in its turn was limited to the contents of a
3ook from which the baptismal command was absent, it has to
against the charge that ' wisdom' is absent from his )e replied that the sn position is irreconcilable with the IKPL@~
teaching. His answer (117-34) is that in substance )f Acts 17 25.1 Wriglt himself however, contributes nothing
' wisdom ' is really contained in the simple preaching of iew to the solution of the q u e h o n except the emendation of
i A 6 . h into b m A i A a ~(so D), the verb being then taken as mean-
the Cross, hut that in form he offers it only to Christians Lug ' to repeat by rote ' or a t least ' to glibly recite. Even if such
of mature growth, and (this not being the Corinthians' L meaning could he established for the word, it would not nearly
case) that he has purposely kept it in the background suffice to remove the difficulties of the passage. Lastly Balden-
in his dealings with them. The teachers who offered' jperger (DerProZogdes 4 Evangeliums, 1868, pp. 93-95)is con-
strained to take refuge in the view that what Apollos taught
' wisdom,' and thus excelled Paul in the eyes of many of i ~ p ~ j 3 consisted
& only of Messianic matters as enumerated in
the Corinthians, however, were assuredly not the Judaisers such passages as Heb. 61J; that the editor of the source of
among whom the parties of Christ and of Peter found Acts here employed says T& m 1m u 'IquoC only from a point of
view of his own, meaning all tge while not the historical Jesus
their supporters. Apollos, therefore, must he meant. but simply the Messiah in the larger sense, in whose coming the
Panl actually says that on the foundation laid by him- discides of Tohn also believed. If this be so. he could not
self in Ccrinth, besides the gold, silver, and precious possibly havd expressed his meaning in a less appropriate and
stones, wood, hay, and stubble have been built (312). more misleading way.
But the energy with which he pronounces his judgment ". the' onlv other N T Dassaze in which A D O ~ ~ O S
Tit. 3 12. A -

in 119f: 29 2 5 can be explained only by the fact that the is named, cannot he used as a historical source; and
3. Other there is no ground for the conjecture that
adherents of Apollos overvalued their teacher and
subordinated substance to form. what constituted the difference between
points' Apollos and Panl lay in the value attached
With this agrees the notice in Acts 1824-28 (our
secondary source; see AcTs),~that Apollos was an by the former to the administration of baptism with his
2. In Acts. eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures, own hands ( I Cor. 113-17), and that thereby he gave an
and an Alexandrian Jew. W e mayac- impulse to the practice of baptism for the dead ( I Cor.
cordingly assume that the distinguishing quality in 1529). Paul, indeed, regards the church of Corinth,
Apollos' teaching of 'wisdom' showed itself in an although he has personally baptized hardly any of its
allegorising interpretation of the OT, such as we see in members, as wholly his own ( I Cor. 41s and often).
Philo or in the Epistle of Barnabas. But the fact that On the other hand, the hypothesis put forward by
he was a Christian and taught the doctrine of Jesus Luther (as having already been suggested somewhere)
' exactly' ( ~ K ~ L P: G1 s8 ~ 5 ~ contradicts
6 ) the statements that Apollos wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews is, at all
(on the one hand) that he knew only the baptism of events, preferable to any other that ventures to con-
John (1825c)and (on the other) that he had to be in- descend on a name.
I n the lists of 'the Seventy' (Lk. 10 I), dating from the fifth
structed more perfectly in Christianity by Priscilla and and sixth centuries, Apollos is enumerated, and has the diocese
Aquila (18& c). Whilst, therefore, it is possiblefor us of Caesarea assigned to him (Chron. Pasc. Bonn ed., i. 442,
to regard 1 8 2 4 q a 6 as derived from a written source ii. 126). P. w. s.
which the compiler had before him, 1825c266c would APOLLYON ( A I K I A A ~ ~ N [Ti. WH], Rev. 911.
seem to be later accretions. The effect of these last See ABADDON.
expressions (even if they are traditional) is to represent APOSTLE ( AITOCTOAOC, ' a messenger ') was the
Apollos as subordinate to Paul ; for, according to title conferred by Jesus on the twelve disciples whom
19 1-7, the rest of the disciples of John must receive the 1. ,Th: he sent forth, on a certain occasion, to
gift of the Holy Ghost for the first time at the hands of Twelve. preach and heal the sick. In the earliest
Paul. As to the rest, the fact that in 1 9 1 - 3 mention is Gospel tradition the disciples appear to be
made of these as of something new goes to show that spoken of as apostles only in reference to this special
originally in 1825 there was no reference to a disciple mission (Mk.314 [KB]=Lk.613, cp Mt. 1 0 2 ; and Mk.
of John. Further, Acts 1828 is not easily reconcilable 6 30 = Lk. 9 I O ) ; but the name soon became a customary
with what is said in I Cor. 36 : that the mission of designation, and is so employed in Lk. (17 5 24 I O ) and
Apollos was directed to the same persons as that of Paul, Acts ( 1 2 , etc.). The number twelve was symbolical,
and that the church of Corinth consisted almost entirely corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel ; and when
of Gentile Christians ( I Cor. 722 compared with 718). Judas fell from his ' apostolate ' (Acts 1 2 5 ) the number
In that case Acts 18z6a may he attributed to the same was restored by the election of M a t t h i a ~ . ~It is used
author to whom 1828 (and 1825c 266 c ?) must be ascribed. in this symbolical and representative sense in Rev,. 21 14.
Of the most recent attempts to deny the existence of the con- Lists o f f h e TweZve.--In the four lists (Mt. 10 z Mk. 3 16 Lk.
tradictions indicated above none can he pronounced successful. 6 14 Acts 1 13) the names fall into three groups of four names,
Blass(Ex,@.Titmu, 7, 1895-96, pp. :41fl, 564, and PhiZoolbgYof the the first name in each group being constant, while the order of
Gos/)eZs, 1898, p. 30X) supposes Apollos to have derived his the rest changes. Thus :-
knowledge of Christianity from a book where, as in the second I. Mk. Peter James John Andrew.
canonical gospel, the baptismal precept was wanting. Arthur Mt. Lk. Peter Andrew James John.
Wright (Ex,@.Titnes, 9, 1897-98, pp. 8-12, 437J) replies, with Acts Peter John James Andrew.
reason (as it seems tn us), that such use of a hook could not have
been intended by the word K a n ) X & O a r . I t is only of b<oJew 11. Mk. Lk. Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas.
that Rlass has heen able to show that in some few cases it is Mt. Philip Bartholomew Thomas Matthew.
practicnlly equivalent to ' learning by reading (see the examples, Acts Philip Thomas Bartholomew Matthew.
in Stephanus, Thes. I., Paris, 1831, p. 1268 A and E. They are 111. Mk. Mt. James Thaddaeus Simon the Judas
not, however, all of them quite certain. Nor is Jn. 1234 a case of Alphaens Cananaean Iscariot.
in point ; the meaning is ' Our teachers have read in the law Lk. (Acts) James SimonZelotes Judas of Judas
and have told us hy word of mouth that the Christ abideth fo; of Alphaeus James Iscariot.
ever '). No single instance can be adduced in which K a q x a i s - MarYs order of the first group recurs in Mk. 133. I t puts first
B a L denotes acquisition of knowledge without intervention of a the three who were selected as witnesses of the raising of Jairus's
teacher. In particular, in Rom.217f: the meaning is, 'thou
.
bearest the name of a Jew and . . provest the things that
differ, being instructed out of the law' [by frequenting the
daughter (Mk.53 ), of the Transfiguration ( 9 ~ )and ~ of the
Agony (14 33). Tbeir importance is further marked by surnames
given by Jesus, Peter (=Cephas) and Boanerges. Mt. and Lk.
synagogue, or the instruction of the scribes] ; and even in those
cases where IKOJEW has practically the sense of 'read,' the 1 Rlass now (Phi.?.ofGospeZs) expressly rejects the idea.
underlying idea is always that the book is read not by the 2 ba6u~d.o~ a stronger word than B ydos, properly denotes
'hearer' himself hut by sonie other person as for example a not a mere me6senger hut rather the deregate of the person who
slave, so that the primary sense of the word' has never entirdly sends him. It seems)to have heen used among the Jews of the
disappeared. In the case of Apollos, howeier, the idea that he fourth century A.D., of persons sent on a mission of responsibility,
especially for the collection of moneys for religious purposes.
1 The reference to Acts 18 24-28 occurs in 0 11. 3 On this subject, see MATTHIAS, I.

263 264
 APOSTLE APPEAL
drop the Aramaic surname Boanerges, and class the’ brothers xercised exclusively by the apostles : as the laying on
together (‘Peter and Andrew his lirother’). In Acts the order m
f hands, to convey the Pentecostal gift to the bap-
is accounted for by the prominence of Peter and John in the
opening chapters. This seems to have had a reflex action on ized, and the appointment of local officers in the
the writer’s mind, for in Lk. 8 51 9 28 we have Peter and John hurch. In the earliest stage, too, the contributions of
and James’ though where Peter is not mentioned we have iealthy believers are laid ‘ at the apostles’ feet ’ ; though
‘James and John,’ 954.
t a later time it is ‘ the presbyters ’ who receive the offer-
The original signification of the term (delegate or ngs made for ‘the brethren in Judaea’ (Acts434J 1130).
missionary) is recalled by its application to Barnabas The authority implied in their commission is nowhere
and Saul (Actsl441.+),who had been selected xmally defined; but on two important occasions we
2.
under the direct guidance of the Spirit from re permitted to observe the niethod of its exercise.
among the prophets and teachers of the church of rhus, in the appointment of the Seven the apostles call
Antioch and sent forth on a missionary enterprise. In the whole body of believers to elect, and thereupon
Paul in his epistles defends his claim to he an apostle hemselves appoint the chosen persons to their work by
in the highest sense, as one directly commissioned by . solemn ordination. Again, when the question of the
God ; and in this connection he emphasises his personal lbligation of Gentile believers to observe the Mosaic
acquaintance with the risen Christ (Gal. 1I z Cor. 115 itual arises in Antioch, it is referred to ‘ t h e apostles
1Cor. 9 I : ‘ Am I not an apostle, have I not seen Jesus .nd elders ’ in Jerusalem (see C OUNCIL, ii. ), and a letter
our Lord?’). As ‘apostle of the Gentiles’ (Roni. j written in their joint names ( ‘ the apostles and elder
1113) he received full recognition from the chief apostles rethren ’). This letter is couched in terms of authori-
in Jerusalem (Gal. 2 7-9). ative advice rather than of direct command ; and the
The stress laid by Paul on his own apostolate, as ‘ not tuthority which it implies, with regard to the distant
a whit behind’ that of the Twelve, was probably a :ommunities whose interests are involved, is moral
3, Others. main factor in the subsequent restriction of ather than formal.
the title to the original apostles and himself. In the churches of Paul’s foundation we find that
In the NT, however, it is certainly applied to Barnabas, tpostle acting with a consciousness of the fullest
as we have seen, and almost certainly to Silvanus tuthority, in appointing presbyters, conveying the gift
(I Thess. 2 6 ) , Andronicus, and Junias (Rom. 167)-
)f the Spirit, and settling all kinds of controverted
apart from its more limited reference in the case of the pestions (Acts1423 196 I Cor. 7 17). His relation to
‘ apostles of the churches ’ ( 2Cor. 8 23) and Epaphro- he Twelve is marked by a firm sense of independence
ditus (Phil. 225 ‘ your apostle ’). Moreover. we see it ogether with an earnest desire for concerted action.
claimed in the church of Ephesus by certain persons to :n the case of Timothy at Ephesus and of Titus in
whom it is clcnied only after they have been tested and ,rete we see him delegating for a time during his own
‘ found false ’ (Rev. 22). ibsence his apostolic authority.
Rules for deciding the validity of such claims are given in the
early manual called 7Ye Teaching of the Apostles. This book, For the relation of the apostolate to other forms of
which shows ns a primitive type of Church life existing in he Christian ministry, see C HURCH , 3 12.
the locality in which it was written ronfirms the view suggested Bishop Lightfoot’s note ‘ on the name and office of an Apostle’
by the N T of the extension of thk iitle of apostle beyond the (Comm. on Gal. 5th ed. 92-101)had even before
limits of the Twelve and Paul. Apostles are here spoken of as Literature. the recovery of the Teachihg, d&troyed the
teachers essentially itinerant ; ranking above the prophets who fiction of the limitation of the term in the first
may or may not be settled in one place, and in no specified Lge. It needs now to he supplemented by Harnack‘s important
relation to the bishops and deacons who are responsible for the hscussion, Lehrc der Agostel, 93-118. The whole suhject
ordinary local administration of the community. Even as the ias been freshly and vigorously treated by Hort in Ecclesia
first apostles were sent forth ‘without purse or scrip ’ so these ,passi.z). J. A. R.
‘according to the ordinance of the gos el,’ move frdm place t i
place, and are not to remain in a settleichurch more than two APOTHECARY (Dp7 Ex. 302535, nz? Eccl. 101).
days, nor to receive money or more than a day’s rations. These The Heh. word means ‘ perfumer.’ See C ONFECTION,
wandering missionaries are referred to by Eusebius as ‘holding PERFUME. b ’ s term is pupe$6s, the medical or magical
the first rank of the succession of the apostles ’ ( H E 3 37 5 IO ;
he avoids the actual designation ‘apostle,’ perhaps in deference ispects (see @appuKia, - K e u w , -KOV in a)
of whose
to later usage); and the strict regulations in the Teachz’?zcprove :rade may be seen in Ecclus. 388, where his skill in
that there was danger lest the frequency of their visits should :ompounding the medicines (v. 4 @ C L ~ ~ U Kmedicamenta)
U,
become burdensome to settled churches.
I t is interesting to observe that the tradition of the application that the Lord created out of the earth is referred to.
of the title to missionaries survives at the present day in the In Neh. 38 is mentioned a guild of perfumers, one of
East. Among the Greeks the word for a missionary is kpar6- the ‘ sons’ or members of which was Hananiah (the
urahas, and the delegates of the Archbihop of Canterbury’s
mission to the Nestorians are regularly called apostles by the idiom is effaced in RV, and misrepresented in AV,
Syrians of Urmi. which gives ‘son of one of the apothecaries ’).
Having thus clearly established the wider use of the APPAIM ( P ! W AIM P I ; A@@. [AI; U&IM
term ‘ apostle,’ we must return and consider the unique- :L]), a Jerahmeelite (I Ch. asof:).
4. Apostolate. ness of the position occupied by the
Twelve and Paul, to whom p a r exce2- APPARITION (~ANTACMA), Mt. 1426 RV. See
Zence the title belongs. The distinction of their office DIVINATION, 3 (3),SOUL.
which first comes under notice is that they were witnesses APPEAL. On inferior and superior courts, or what
of the Resurrection. This is emphasised at the election might be called courts of review or of appellate juris-
of the new apostle in Acts 1.I$ ‘ Of the men which diction in the Hebrew commonwealth, see G OVERN-
have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus M E N T , §§ 19, 31, and LAW A N D JUSTICE, § 16. AS
went in and out among us, one of these must with regards Roman criminal procedure,-the appeal of Paul
us be a witness of his resurrection.‘ Their personal to Cesar is best understood from the narrative of
discipleship to Jesus, however, and the special training Festus to Agrippa (Acts25r4-zr). Accused by his
which he had bestowed upon them, had fitted them compatriots in certain questions of their own super-
to be not only the preachers of faith and repentance stition,’ and asked whether he was willing to go to
to the multitudes, but also the authoritative instructor: Jerusalem and there be judged, he had ‘appealed’ ( e m -
of the ‘ brethren ’ (cp Acts 242 ‘ the apostles’ doctrine ’). K U ~ ~ U U ~ ~ VtoO be
U ) reserved for the hearing (Gib+wurv.
Their commission was derived directly from Christ, cognitionem) of Caesar. The apostle as a Roman
even as his was from the Father (Jn. 2021, and CI citizen was well within his rights when he invoked the
rClem.45: ‘Christ then is from God, and tht authority of the emperor and thereby virtually declined
apostles from Christ ’). In performing cures they la] the jurisdiction alike of the Jewish courts and of the
stress upon the fact that they are his representa Roman procurator ; and his reasons for .choosing to do
tives; their acts are in fact his (cp especially Act! so are not far to seek.-Under the republican pro-
316 934). Certain functions are in the first instanci cedure every Roman citizen had the right ofprovocatio
265 266
 APPHIA APPLE
adpopulurn. From the time of Augustus the populus I. With regard to the first of these-the apricot
ceased to exercise sovereign criminal jurisdiction ; the (Prunus Armeniaca, L. )-it is to be remarked that it is
.emperor himself took cognisance of criminal cases as a not mentioned by Theophrastus, and does not appear to
court of first instance, having co-ordinate jurisdiction have been known to the Greeks or the Romans before the
with the senate. -The questio procedure continued as commencement of the Christian era (De C. OY&.(~)171).
before to be the ordinary mode of trial. Its original home was E. Asia (probably China), whence it
gradually spread westward to Armenia Gjhov ’ A P ~ ~ Y L ~ K ~ V ,
APPHIA (arr&,ia [Ti. WH], etc., APPIA, etc. Cp maZuni armemucum) ; hut Tristram is certainly wrong in
especially Lightf. Col. and Philem. 372 s),
probably saying (Nut. Hist. 335) that it is native there.
the wife of Philemon (Philem. 2), The present abundance of the‘ apricot in Palestine is
APPHUS (CA&,&,OYC [A] ; can@. [VI),1 Mace* almost certainly post-biblical.
2. The apple-Pyrus Malus, L.-is found without
25. See JONATHAN, 1 8 , MACCABEES, $ 5 .
doubt in a wild state in Northern Asia Minor, especially
APPII FORUM, RV ‘ Market of Appius ’ ( ann ioy about Trebizond, and occasionally forms small woods.
&,opoy [Ti. W H ] ; modern Foro Apyio), a well-known I t extends eastwards to Transcaucasia, and apparently to
halting-place on the Viu AHiu, where Paul was met Persia (cp Boissier, FZ.Orient. 2656). Sir Joseph Hooker says
by brethren from Rome (Acts 28 15). The distance from that it is ‘apparently wild’ in NW. Himalaya and W. Thihet
but that everywhere else in India it is cultivated (PI. Brit. Ind:
Rome is given in the Ztin. Anton. (107) as 43 R. m. 2373). De CandoIle(0nk. 180) thinks the apple was indigenous
(and so perhaps It. Hiei:--e.g., Migne, PL. 8 7 9 4 , and cultivated in Europe in prehistoric times ; but Boissier (L.c.)
but in other edd. [611$] as 37). restricts its natural occurrence to Macedonia and Eubcea.
For inscription on x ~ i i milestone
i found near Foro Appio In any case the original apple clearly required a cool
see CIL x. pt. i. 686. The road leahing to A pi; Forum fro; climate. Under cultivation. there have been obtained
the south through the district of the Pontine d a s h e s was often
abandoned in favour of a journey by boat (cp Horace, Sat. i. varieties which will tolerate and even ‘require a warmer
5 1-26, where Appii Forum is described (2. 4) as being ‘ Differtum one ; but these are notoriously modern inventions, and
nautis, caoponibus atque malignis: See also THREE TAVERNS. it is absurd to take account of them in considering the
APPLE (DIbn; Pr. 2511 Cant. 2 3 j 78[g] 8 5 Joel ancient history of the fruit. In truth the original apple
112+, see also FRUIT, 5 I Z ) , by some understood as a -and the apple of biblical times was presumably some-
1, Name. generic name including various fruits, and what similar-cannot have been very attractive : it was
by others supposed to mean not the apple in fact a ‘ crab ’ only about an inch in diameter.
but the quince, citron, or apricot. The origin of the Sir Joseph Hooker says (from his own knowledge)
Hebrew name is not quite certain ; but there seems no ‘Palestine is too hot for apples.‘ With this agrees
sufficient reason for rejecting the ,accepted derivation Tristram’s account :
from nB1, to breathe ; the name thus alludes to the ‘Thou h the apple is cultivated with success in the higher
parts of febanon, out of the boundaries of the Holy Land, yet
perfume of the fruit. nim in posVbiblica1 Hebrew, i t barely exists in the country itself. There are, indeed, a few
and the corresponding word tuffih in Arabic, ordin- trees in the gardens of Jaffa; but they do not thrive, and have
arily denote the ‘ apple’ ; and this rendering is, so far, a wretched, woolly fruit. Perhaps there may be some at
‘Askalan. What English and American writers have called
supported by the ancient versions-Greek, Syriac, the “apple,” however, is really the quince. The climate is far
Arabic, Latin, and the Targum. It must be admitted, too hot for our apple tree ’ (NHB 3343).
however, that all the words used-pSjhov, @azz5nL3 As there is no evidence of the apple ever having been
iiin, tuf%, malum (s. pornurn)-are capable, with or found native in Syria, those who render tappziah ‘ apple ’
without the addition of an epithet, of being applied have to show ( I ) that it was introduced from without
to other fruits ; pSjXov, indeed, originally meant ‘ large (Pontus), and (2) that it became established when
tree,’ or fruit in general, and only gradually became introduced. Both propositions are improbable. What
confined to the apple; * cp the very wide use of is said above qf the introduction of a few modern sorts
pumum, puma in Latin. Still, an examination of the into Syrian gardens is true ; but it is impossible to infer
biblical passages where nim occurs seems to show from this fact that the biblical tuppziag was the apple.
that some particular fruit is intended ; and the question T h e strongest argument for the apple is that tu@& is
must be answered by considering ( I ) which kind of fruit used in modern Arabic for this fruit ; but, as we have
possesses in the highest .degree the qualities of beauty of seen above, the word may have wider significance, and
colour and form, of fragrance, and of efficacy in over- it is exceedingly prohable that in such passages as
coming the feeling of sickness ; and ( 2 ) which fruit-tree those quoted by Robertson Smith in an article ( / o w n .
was most likely, under the conditions of climate and of Phid. 65 f ) which, though short, appeared to him
botanical history, to he found abundant in Palestine (prematurely?) to be almost decisive, it is really the
during biblical times. [Though all the six occurrences quince that is meant. Even if ‘apple’ be the usual
of nign are possibly, not to say certainly, post-exilic, modern meaning of tuff& it is far from uncommon in
the antiquity of the cultivation of the tree (or class of botanical history for a name to pass from one to another
trees?) in Palestine is proved by the place-names of two plants so nearly allied as the quince and the apple.
Tappuah and Beth-Tappuah.] [J. Ne2 ( P a l Explored, ’82,p. 1 8 6 ) differs widely
The following identifications have been proposed :- from Prof. G. Post of Beyrout (Hastings, DB,‘ Apple ‘ ),
I I ) anricot (Tristram. FFP 204): ( 2 )auule (esueciallv
\ , 1 who argues that the apple as grown in Palestine and
‘ WRS, J. PhiZ.’ i’36;f:) 1’(3) ’ c h o n dr
2’ :$Elfi- orange (Del. Comm. on Prov. ) ; (4) quince
(Houghton, PSBA 1242-48 [1889-90]).
Syria to-day alone fulfils all the conditions of the tappzmh.
Post remarks, ‘almost all the apples of Syria and Palestine
are sweet (Cant. 2 3). T o European and American palates they
seem insipid. But they have the delicious aroma of the better
1 It seems doubtful whether there was, as postulated by LBw
(Arum. Pflanzennamen, 156) and Houghton (PSBA 1247
kinds. . .. Sick persons almost invariably ask the doctor if
they may have an apple; and if he objects they urge their case
[188g-go]), any word nan to swell, even in Rabbinic Hebrew. with the lea that they only want it to smell.’ This being so,
It is at all events unknown to biblical Hebrew, to Syriac, and to it is neeJess to conjecture that ‘such an epicure as Solomon
Arabic. See, further, Lag. Uebers. 111, 1 2 9 ; and F. Hommel, wonld have had many of the choicest kinds,’ for, according to
AzLfsZtze u. Abhartdl. TOT, and in ZDMG 44546 (‘go). Post, the ordinary and (to us) disappointing Syrian apple can
2 This must be a loan-word in Arabic (Frankel, Arum. still, without poetic idealisation, he referred to in the language
Frenidw. qo), probably from Aramaic, though no trace of it of Canticles. But was Caiiticles written for Syria?]
has yet been found in Syriac.
3 Lag. is inclined to derive this, the Aramaic equivalent of 3. No citrus (orange or citron) will do.
njDjq, from the Armenian word for apple (hntsor) and thus prove The citron has its home in the sub-Himalayan tract of N.
that the fruit came to Semite lands from Armenia (Ue6ers. ZZ. cc.) *
but Hommel shows the probability of the word being genuinel; 1 Thus the best American apples succeed in Great Britain
Semite, connecting it with an Arabic root &anwa (Aufsatee I. only under glass.
AbhandZ. 107). 2 Similarly, in the Deccan four sorts of apples are now found ;
4 Hehn and Stallybrass, WanderiltgsofPZants and Animals, but ? h e x are all introduced, two from England and two from
499. Persia.
267 268
 APRONS AR, AR OF MOAB
India. Thence it spread W. through Mesopotamia and Media. APRONS. For nilki, the (fig-leaf) coverings of
hence its current botanical name, C i t m s mddica, L.l I t is Gen. 3 7 (AV mg. ‘ things to gird about,’ RV “g. ‘ girdles ’ ;
first mentioned by Theophrastus ( ~ p+ov b r b p + ~ b v q ~b
a s p w r r i v ; Hist. iv. 42); but he says that it is not eaten ( O ~ K BBALT T ~ ~ I Z C ~ M A T Asee
) , G IRDLE , 2. For nngpp
;d36rar). I t was probably, therefore, not much developed by (Ruth315 AV ”E.) see MANTLE, § 2, no. 3. T h e
cultivation.
The Romans did not know the citron. Their citron vi,ucKivBia [Ti. W H ] of Acts 19 I Z ~(used for healing
wood was the wood of Callitris padrivalvis, Vent., purposes) are the semicincfia or aprons worn by servants
from N. Africa. The true citron was probably not and artisans.
introduced into Italy till the third or fourth century A. D. AQUILA (AKYAAC [Ti. WH]) is the Latin name by
[The claims of the citron (to be the ta@ua&) are so which alone we know one of the Jewish companions of
exceedipgly slight that its introduction into Palestine Paul. A Jew, native of Pontus, he had removed to
is chiefly interesting in conuecrion with the Feast of Rome and there carried on his calling as tent-maker ;
Tabernacles, at which, in the time of Jos., it was carried probably it was also in Rome that he married his wife
by the Jews ( a custom which is continued to the present Prisca or Priscilla, whose name is always associated with
day : see ‘The Citron of Commerce,’ Kew BuZZetin, his-most commonly indeed placed before it. The
June 1894). It was introduced at any rate during the banishment of the. Jews from Rome by Claudius (circa
period of their relations with Media and Persia, and we A . D . 49) led t o the settlement of Aquila and his wife in
find it depicted upon Jewish coins (see Stade, G V Z 2 , Corinth (ActslSa). Here, presumably, their acquaint-
facing p. 406). ~
ance with Paul began and they were converted to
The statement of Jos. ( A d . xiii. 135) is that according to the Christianity. It was with them that the apostle, also a
law of the Feast of Tabernacles branches bf the palm and citron
tree (Qdpwous ri)v $OLV;KOY aa; mrplov) were to be borne hyevery tent-maker, lodged on his first visit to Corinth. (After-
one : elsewhere (i6. iii. 104) he specifies the myrtle, the willow, wards, looking back upon his relations with them at this
and houghs of palm-tree and of pome-citron &ljAos 6 s m p w h s ) . time [Rom. 1631 he applies to them the words : ’ fellow-
The Talmudic law particularly ordained that the fruit should
he held in the left hand, and the branches(or 2515) in the right.8 workers in Christ Jesus, who, for my life, laid down
The priestly law, on the other hand, has not the precision which their own necks ; unto whom not only I give thanks,
the translators and exegetes of a later age gave to it. I n Lev. but also all the churches of the Gentiles. ’) From Corinth
23 3 9 8 (H) among the requirements for the feast of ingathering, Aquila and Priscilla accompanied Paul to Ephesus (Acts
stands the ‘fruit of eoodlv trees.’ or (better) ‘coodlv tree-fruit’
(?in yy q g ; cp @:BAL, iap&v’$dAov &pko;), wkch Targ., 1 8 r 6 ) , and here they’remained behind while he went on
Pesh., and ancient Jewish tradition identified with the orange to Jerusalem. At this time Apollos (q.v.) arrived in
or citron.4 This identification is open to question, and the Ephesus, and the zealous pair undertook to ’ expound
expression may he connected preferably with the ‘fair honghs’ unto him the way of God more perfectly’ (v.26). Writ-
mentioned in the account of the Feast of Tabernacles, 2 Maw. ing to the Corinthian Church after his return to Ephesus,
10 6 3 (xha‘lovr &p,pahs ; ~ailzosvirides; Pesh. om.). Nor is
the citron specifically mentioned in the somewhat fuller and Irs: Paul encloses the message : ‘ Aquila and Prisca salute
vague list inNeh. 815 (the Pesh. apparentlyrenders ‘palm-trees you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their
by ‘citrons’), although commentators found an allusion to I t in house ’ ( I Cor. 1 6 19). W h j t is meant by this church is
the p w yy, the fat or oily tree (AV ‘pine,’ RV ‘ wild-olive’).] not quite clear ; but the expression shows that they must
The orange was unknown to the Greeks and Romans. have held a somewhat prominent and perhaps official
It was introduced into Mediterranean countries by the position in the Ephesian community. That Ephesus
Arabs about the ninth century. continued (or was supposed to have continued) to be
4. Whereas the development of the modern apple is their home long after Paul left it is shown by the saluta-
most probably to be attributed to the northern races, the tion addressed to them in z ’Iim. 4 19. That they are
quince (Pyrus Cydonia, L. = Cydonia Vulgai-is, Pers. ) saluted in Rom. 1 6 3 shows (on the assumption that Rom.
is a fruit characteristic of the Mediterranean basin and 163-zo is an integral part of the epistle in which it now
requires a warm temperate climate. A native of W. occurs ; see R OMANS ) that at some period they must
Asia, it extended to the Taurus, and thence spread have returned to Rome for at least a season ; but the
through all Mediterranean countries. The best sort occurrence of their names here is one of the facts that
came from Crete ; hence pL?jhov K U B ~ Y L O Yand Malum are held to make it probable that the salutations of Rom.
cotoneum, and the various Enropean names (Codogno, 163-20 really belong to an Ephesian epistle.
Ital.; Coing, Fr.; and Quince, Engl.). Hehn (Xc. 185) Ecclesiastical tradition has little to say qf either Aquila or
says : ‘The golden apples of the Hesperides and of Priscilla ; in some late forms of the legend of Luke, Aquila and
Atalanta were idealised quinces ...
Its colour, like Priscus are represented as having been the disciples and lifelong
companions of that evangelist and as having had his Gospel
that of the pomegranate, made a lively impression.’ entrusted to them by him. Tgey are enumerated in the lists of
This would well accord with the reference in Prov. 25 11 ; the ‘Seventy’ (Lk.10) dating from the fifth or s ~ x t hcentury,
whilst thewell-known aroma of the quince (much stronger Priscas,being s o m e t h i s read for Prisca. See Lipsius, d&h.
Ap.-.psch. i. 2 0 3 8 399 ii. 2 367.
than that of the apple) would explain Cant. 2578[y]. It
is true that the taste of the fruit, unsweetened, is harsh AR, AR OF MOAB, is mentioned in the two ancient
and bitter, and there is hence some difficulty in re- songs which celebrate Israel’s passage across Moab :-
conciling our theory with Cant. 23 ; but something Nu. 2 1 15. ‘ the slope of the valley that stretches to the
must be there allowed for the idealisation of the picture, seat’ or site of Ar ’ (iy, ~p [BAL]) ; z.28, a ‘fire hath
and iindoubtedly the fruit could be prepared in such a devoured Ar of Moab ($a i p ; Mwup [L]; Pus M.
way as to have a delicious taste. Moreover the whole [BA],--Le., ‘n i y ; so Sam. and some Heb. MSS) and
classical history of the fruit is saturated with erotic consumed the high places of Arnon.’ This ‘Ar Moab is
suggestion, and this falls in with the repeated mention of usually taken to be the same as the ‘Ir Moab, ’ city of
it in Canticles. N.M.-W. T.T.-D. Moab’ ( x > ni + y ; ~ 6 x Mwap
1 ~ [BAL]), ‘which is on
1 Sir Joseph D. Hooker (FZ.Brit. fnd. 1514) gives its range the border of Arnon at the utmost part of the border ’
as Garwhal to Sikkim. (Nu. 2236), where Rarak met Balaam when he came to
2 IiinN, from Pers. t%runj. For the various traditions con-
nected with it cp Levy s . ~ . See L ~ w 46.
, Moab from the E. ; and indeed i y in those ancient songs
3 The Daphnephorii as depicted by Leighton is a familiar may be the primitive spelling of 7.y. It is also the ‘Ar
and popular illustration of this cnstom. Moab of Is. 151 (6 N w a p e i ~ r s[BKAQI’]). there parallel
4 Rashi referred to the annual beauty of the tree, and the to Kir Moab, another chief fortress of the country, the
Talmud supposed that iTn=TT,n-i.e., Glop-an allusion to the
fact that the citron grows beside all waters (cp Field, HrXapla, present Kerak. It may also be ‘the city (1.y) in the
ad Zoc.). See De Candolle (0rig.P)143.f), who quotes Risso midst of the valley’-ie.. of Arnon (Deut.236 Josh.
toshow that the citron was not recognised by the translators of@. 13 y 16 and z S . 24 5). In harmony with these passages,
If is really a genuine (and ancient) Semitic word (cp above, it is called the ‘border of Moab’ in Deut. 218 (@AFL
B 1 n. 3) it is tempting to read it here instead of i i n . Apovp) ; but in zz.9 (Apoqp [A” FL]) and zg
5’D: dandolle, 189, says : ‘Avant I’kpoque de la guerre de
Troie. (Apoqp [BFL] ; ApoqA [A]) of the same chapter it seems
269 270
 BRA ARABIA
to mean a district rather than a town, and in this con- given in Is. 157 as the southern boundary of Moab.
nection it is interesting that @* renders ‘Ar Mond in This may be the long WBdy el-HBsy (or Hessi, PEF
Is. 15 by Moabitis. Our present knowledge of the topo- Map) which Doughty (AY.Des. 126)describes as dividing
graphy of Moab does not enable us to identify the site of the uplands of Moab and Edom, and running into the
‘Ar, the city. S., end of the Dead Sea ; by some thought to be also
We may he sure it was not the modern Rabba (so the PEF the Brook ZEKED. I t is doubtful, however, whether the
map), the Areopolis which in the fourth century of our era was Israelite kingdom could ever have been described as
the capital of Moab. Others have suggested the Mehatet el-Haj
on the left hank of the Arnon opposite Aroer (see Burckhardt, extending S. of the Arnon. Hoffmann ( Z A T W 3
S v r . 374). 115 [‘83]) suggests that the Brook of the Arabah
More probably (cp NU. 2236) it lay at the E. end of may have lain at the N. end of the Dead Sea. 03’s
one or other of the Arnon valleys. rendering, TOO xeipdppou TGV Guupiutjz, [BAQ], is no help.
There Langer (Xeiscberichf,xvi.) has proposed Lejiin (Legio?) It is to be noted that N. Israel under Jeroboam 11. in
described by Doughty ( A r a b . Dese+fa 120) as a ‘ four-square, the time of Amos is stated in z K. 1 4 2 5 to have extended
limestone-huilt, walled towu in ruin;, the walls and corner
towers of dry block-building, at the midst of every wall a gate.’ from the entering in of Hamath unto the Sea of the
G. A. S. Arabah.’ The difficulty is increased by the uncertainty
ARA (K?: ; apa [BA] -ai [L]), in a genealogy of as to whether Amos means to include Judah. G. A. s.
ASHER(q.v., i. 4),I Ch. 738f. Perhaps KlK should he ARABATTINE ( A K ~ A B A T T H N H [AK]), I Macc.
pronounced K?k$ (Ura) for 87l:l>K (Uriah). See ULLA. 53T AV, RV A KRABATTINE.
ARAB (326,MPEM [B], ~ p e B[AL]), a site in the ARABIA, ARABIANS (27v ; gentilic $772 and in
hill-country of Judah (Josh. 1852). If DUMAH (9..., 4) Neh. $319, pl. Db?7g, also once P’K’J79,and once
is ed-D5meh, there may possibly be an echo of Arab Kt. D’!379 ; .apaB[e]ra decl. and indecl. [BKAL, etc.],
in er-Radiyeh, the name of a site, with ruins, in the
mountains of Judah, S. of Hebron (PEFiMenz.3311 -Bicca CBKAI, &pay (-aBoc) [B.VAL etc.1, &paBk]i
[BRA]).
360). The name ‘Am6‘ ( 3 1 ~ )seems originally to have
ARABAH (il;?PG, H [BAL], often translated meant nothing more than ‘ desert’ : hence a people of
by y rrpoc (EIC, erri, KAT&) AYCMAC, solnetimes by 1. Earlier the desert.’ So Isaiah1 uses the word,
Kae’ ( n p o c ) E C I T ~ ~[BAL]),
~ N as a common noun, OT usage. 2 n the forest in the desert ( ‘ i m d ; but
from a root probably meaning ‘ dry‘ (cp A RABIA, I ), bu?rkpus) ye halt for the night ’ (Is.
is used as a parallel (Is. 35 I 6, etc. ) to 1;7p, ‘ desert- 21 13). More usual in Hebrew is t h e fem. form ‘ i m i b d h
steppe,’ and to illy Y7.8, ’ parched ground,’ with much ( e g . , Job245 396), a word employed as a proper name
the same force. As a proper name, with the article, it to denote the desolate valley, in which the Dead Sea is
is generally confined to the great depression of the Dead situated, reaching to the north-eastern extremity of the
Sea valley, ‘ the ‘Ariibah.’ So correctly in RV ; in AV Red Sea (see ARABAH, i.). In the O T the term ‘Ayah,
it is more usually translated ‘ plain ’ (9. v . , 6 ) or ‘ wilder- as the name of a particular nation and country, is confined
ness’ (but in Josh. 1818 “&rabah,’ @BAL BaiOapapa, see to comparatively late writings ; it must therefore appear
BETH-ARABAH). Along with the hill-country, ,theslopes, highly improbable that the Homeric ’Epeppoi (Od. 484)
the Shephelah, and the Negeb, it is reckoned as one of are to be identified with the Arabs. The lists in Genesis,
the great parallel divisions of the land (Dt. 1 7 Josh. which specify various Arabian tribes, do not mention
1116 128), and it is clear that the name was applied not the name-a very significant indication of their antiquity.
only to the depression from the Lake of Galilee (Dt. The word being certainly an appellative (‘ desert ’) in
3 17 ; cp A RBATTIS ) to Jericho ( z K. 254) and the Dead Is. 21 13(withEV cp Hab. 1 8 6, a),
Zeph. 33 the heading
Sea (which was called the Sea of the ‘Arabah : Dt. 449, m ~ ~a t p ‘,Oracle concerning the Arabs,’ cannot be in
etc., Josh. 316, etc.), but also to the rest of the same accordance with the author’s real meaning.2 No certain
great hollow as far as the Gulf of ‘Akahah (Dt. 1I ) . instance of the use of ‘A7-nd as a proper name occurs
Different parts of the ArHbah were called ‘Arb6th before the time of Jeremiah. He speaks of ‘all the
(construct plur. of ‘Ariibah) ; cp Josh. 510 Jer. 395, etc., kings of ‘ A r a b’ ( ~ i + yI\& nN1, Jer. .2524). The words
EV ‘ plains of Jericho ’ ; Nu. 22 I 263, etc., ‘ plains of which follow in MT, aiy3 >I\nSI-nNi, are of course a
Moab.’ See too AKBATTIS. dittography; in order to make sense the scribes pro-
To-day the name EG‘Araba is confined to the south of the line nounced my: ‘ the mixed people,’ a form which really
of cliffs that crosses the valley obliquely a few miles south of the occurs in w. 20, as well as in Ez. 305 and I I(. 1015
southern end of the Dead Sea; and all N. of this is known as
EZ-GhW, ‘the depression ’ (Rob. BR 2 490). (where @ reads 73ya for 3iya). The Greek text of Jer.
The singular geological formation of the ‘ArHbah is 25 24 ( K . T ~ V T U S7.U U ~ ~ L K T O U S [BKQJ4 it may he noticed,
indicated under PALESTINE (§ 3). Here it is sufficient to does not presuppose a repetition, and moreover (followed
explain how such a name was applied to the valley even by Co.) omits the word ‘ kings,’ necessary though it is
N. of the Dead Sea. In spite bf the enormous possible to the sense. The phrase, ‘ like a ‘Aridi in the desert ’
fertility of the Jordan valley under proper irrigation, the (Jer. 3 2 , K O P ~ V V [BKA] ; Aq. spa+ [Q mx,]), may be
vast stretches of jungle, marl, saline soil, and parched explained to mean either ‘ like an Arab’ or ‘ like a
hillsides out of reach of the streams, along with the Nomad ’-the word has not yet acquired a strictly ethno-
sparseness of cultivation in most ages (owing to the great graphical signification. The same thing applies to a
heat, unhealthy climate, and wild beasts), fully justify passage dating from the end of the Babylonian Exile,
the name ‘ArZbah. In the N T also the valley is called ‘ No ‘Ari’dishallpitch his tent there, nor shall shepherds
a wilderness (G k p ~ p yMk. 14). cause their flocks to lie down there’ (Is. 1320,”Apapes
s.
For the ‘ArCibah of the Dead Sea, see Rob. BR i. and ii.
Hull PEFMenz., Geology ’ and for the part N. of the Dead
[BKAW.]). InEz. 2721, however, A r a b ( 3 3 ; A p a p [ e ] ~ a
[BAQ], with the note ~ u r r e p a[Qmg,]), appears a s the
Sea, ’Stanley, SP 7 ; Conder: Tent Work in Pal. 14 ; GASm.
HG 22J. G. A . S.
name of a people, coupled with Kedar. a desert tribe very
ARABAR, BROOK OF THE, AV River of the frequentlymentionedat that period (see I SHMAEL, § 4[2]).
I Isaiah‘s authorship, it is true, has heen disputed (see I SAIAH ,
Wilderness (”7Xg 5n.l). is in Am. 6 14 the southern $9).
limit of the land of Israel in opposition to the northern 2 (IB omits i t . but Aq. Symm. Theod. all have it.
Pass lof Hamath. The name occurs nowhere else; 3, Giesehr., dowever, while agreeing as to the dittography
which follows, denies that ‘and all the kings of ‘Aruh‘ are the
but by some has been taken as another form of words of Jeremiah ; the closing words of the verse (‘who dwell
Brook of the ‘ArBbim (o*mqg ; EV B ROOK OF THE in the wilderness’) aloiie are genuine ; they give the locality of
W I L L O W S [AVmg. BROOK OF THE ARABIANS]- those ‘who have the comers of their hair polled ’ (7,. 23). Cp.
926 [q]‘all that have, etc., who dwell in the wilderness.’
rather of the POpzlZz~us ez$hmtica: Z D P Y 2 209), 4 cw has K . a. r. u. a6roir.
27 1 272
 ARABIA ARABIA
It would seem that the name of the Arabs came into ‘ Arab ’ in the writings of a contemporary of Herodotus,
use among the Hebrews at a time when the old names 3, Later OT Nehemiah, who suflered much from the
Ishmael, Midian, etc., were disappearing from ordinary enmity of an Arab (Neh. 219 6 I 6 ) and
speech. This change may be connected with the fact writers. enumerates ’ the Arabs’ as such in the
that. during the period in question various tribes list of his opponents (Neh. 4 7, [I]). The Arab in question
were advancing from the S. into the northern deserts bears a name which, according to the Massoretic vocal-
and dispossessing the former inhabitants, who, in all isation, is to be pronounced GESHEM (9.n. ) or Gashmti,
probability, were closely akin to the Hebrews. Such and appears in the Greek text as l??acip [BHA], I’Luup
shiftings of the population have occurred repeatedly [L] ; the correct form is probably Gushami, a well-
in the course of ages. However unproductive the known Arabic’name. It is very likely that at that time
districts to the E. and to the S. of Palestine may the great migration of the Nabataeans had already
appear to us, they are nevertheless, from the point of happened (see EDOM, § 9, NABATBANS).The Chronicler
view of the Nomads, decidedly preferable to many parts too refers to ‘ the Arabians.’ They brought tribute, he
of Arabia proper, tells us, to the pious King Jehoshaphat (z Ch. 17 11). He
From the ninth century B. c. and onwards, the name relates, also, how God punished the wicked Joram by
2. Other of the Arabs occurs in the Assyrian inscrip- means of the Philistines and ‘the Arabians who were
sources. tlons, where it presents a variety of forms beside the Ethiopians’ ( z Ch. 21 16, cp 221), and how
(Aradi. Arudu. Aribi, etc., the adjective he succoured the pious Uzziah in the war against ’ the
being Arbaya). Arabians that dwelt in G UR - BAAL ’ [q.c.v.] and other
The name Urdi (KB284J ), however, can scarcely be, nations ( z Ch. 267)-all this is written from the point
as Delitzsch (Z.C.) supposes, another form of the same of view of the author’s own time (circa zoo B.c.), and
word and the equivalent of the Arab ‘ Urb (which appears has no claim to be regarded ?s historical.
to be quite late) and of the Heb. xlv,. The Arabs By the beginning of theMaccabean period the kingdom
mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions were probably of the N A B A T B A N S [ q . ~ . ]had long been firmly estab-
all, or for the most part, natives of the Syrian desert, lished. At that time various other Arabian tribes were
though we have no reason to assume that the name was also to be found in the great Syrian desert, and from
applied to them exclusively as distinguished from the among these certain families and persons rose to great
inhabitants of Arabia proper. power during the decline of the Selencid Empire. In
The inscriptions of the Persian King Darius (e.g., several Syrian towns we find Arabian sovereigns, and at
BehistEn, I , IS) mention Arubdya among the subject Palmyra, at least, there was an Arabian aristocracy;
lands, always placing it after Babylonia and Athuru elsewhere also Arabian chieftains occasionally played
(i.e., Assyria. Mesopotamia proper, and possibly an important partain the politics of that period. I Macc.
northern Syria) and before Egypt; here also the several times mentions NabatEans and other Arabs
word must refer to the great deserts of Syria-perhaps (52539935 111739 1231; cp zMacc.58 1210J).
also to those of Mesopotamia and the Sinaitic penin- The apostle Paul, after his conversion, retired into
sula. Bschylus (Pers. 316), the first extant Greek Arabia (Gal. 117)-probably some desert tract in the
writer in whose works the name occurs, speaks of a 4. NT. Nabatzan kingdom. When he speaks of
distinguished Arab in the army of Xerxes, and the Arabia he of course includes the Sinaitic
contemporary authority whom Herodotus follows in his peninsula (Gal. 425). Similarly, ‘Arabs ’ (Arabian Jews
account of the Persian army makes mention of Arabs on or proselytes) in Acts211 probably means natives of the
the same occasion (Herod. 769). While the notions Nabatcean kingdom (see N A B A T B A N S ) or of the Roman
of 2Eschylus, however, about the geographical position of province of Arabia which covered almost the whole extent
the Arabs, are altogether fantastic-he represents them as of that kingdom. The province was constituted by A.
dwelling near the Caucasus (Prom. 4zz)-Herodotus Cornelius Palma, governor of Syria (circa 105 A . D . ) .
shows himself much better informed. He applies the term At what period certain tribes began to call themselves
Arabia to the whole peninsula (cp Herod. 211 3107-113 Arabs, and at what period the name was adopted by the
439),; but, as might have been expected, he refers in whole nation, cannot be determined.
5. Native
particular to those Arabs who inhabited the country Arabian usage. Thedistinguishedscholar, D. H. Miiller,l
between Syria and Egypt (21230 3 4 7 8 88091, etc.). has maintained that the name ‘Arab’
It is also to be remarked that, in accordance with a was unknown to the natives of Arabia till Mohammed
peculiar classification, he gives the name of Arabia to introduced it as a national designation. This view, how-
that part of Egypt which lies to the E. of the Nile valley ever, is scarcely tenable. The present writer does not
(28, etc.). Xenophon(Ana6. vii. 825)speaksofagovernor happen to have made any notes on the occurrence of
set by the Persian king over ‘ Phcenicia and Arabia,’ by the name in the pre-Islamic poetry ; but the yerse in
which is meant the S. of Syria, including Palestine and Tabari, i. 10365, which datcs frow the beginning of the
the neighbouring desert-a separate governor being set seventh century, is a snfficient proof of its occurrence-
over ‘ Syria and Assyria.’ Similarly in the C y r o p d i a the poet, who can have known nothing of Mohammed,
he doubtless always means by Arabia the desert lands speaks of 3000 Arabs as opposed to 2000 foreigners.
which were to some extent dependencies of the Persian The events there described happened in the neighbour-
Empire, not the peninsula itself; we must remember, hood of the low-er Euphrates-that is to say, in a district
further, that Xenophon had no definite ideas about where Arabs, Aramzans, and Persians frequently came
these countries, through which he had not himself into contact with one another, and where, for that very
travelled. The name Arabia is used, in particular, reason, a special term to denote the Arabian nationality
for the desert of Mesopotamia (Anad. i. 51); it can and language was absolutely required. When we take
haraly be an accident that this very district is called into account the freqnent communication between the
‘Arabby Syriac writers from the third century after Christ Arabs of this district and those of the distant W. and
and onwards. Whilst, however, the term is regularly S., and the great uniformity of the Arabian nation, it
applied to that part of the desert which remained under must appear highly probable that the name‘had long
Roman dominion till the Mohammedan conquest, the been generally used in Arabia itself.
eastern portion, which belonged to Persia, is more
1 Neue Freie Presse 1894, 30th April.
commonly known as W t h ‘Arabdy2 (or B8 ‘ArbEy8 in 2 H e would not la; great stress on the words ~ U Y Z ‘ara-
the Arabioised form)--i. e . , ‘ land of the Arabs.’ Traces dZydtin, ‘villages of Arabian women,’ or kuran ‘&triydtin,
of this usage are found in late Greek authors also. ‘Arabian villages,’ in a verse ascribed to the old poet Imra’d-
A strictly ethnographical sense belongs to the word kais (about 550 A . D .) 392 (Ablwardt) the fragment being very
6bscure and the text dot quite to be tr&ted. Nor could he affirm
the genuineness of the verses ascribed to old poets in Afdniix. 10
1 See Del. Par. 295 3 0 4 8 ; and cp Schr. KGF, ~ m f i second last line, x. 149 2 where the word ‘Arab occurs.
18 273 271
 ARAD ARAM
Hassiin and other poets contemporary with Mohammed make connection of D AVID (q.v., I , note on ' Bethlehem' ;
use of the word 'Auub and its plural A ' r d as a term known to cp also A RDATH) with S. Judah throws a new light
every one (see the DiwSn of Hasszn, ed. Tunis 10 I 17 4 103 13,
A$ni xii. 15628). I t is also very likely that in the common on the interest of narrators in the fortunes of Arnd and
phrase no ' A1.2b is to be found there,' the word ' A d means ZEPHATH.
simply) 'an Arab' and hence 'any human being.' Still more 2. (opqp [Bl ; apwS [AI) in a genealogy of B EN J AMIN (q.v., 5 9,
conclusive is the fact that the verb 'nvabu or a'ra6a which ii. p ) I Ch. 8 15. T. K. C .
occurs in one of the oldest poets signifies 'to explain,' properly
'to speak in Arabic' (ie., 'distinctly'); hence this name for the ARADUS (apahoc [AAKV]), I Macc. 15231.. See
language must have been current long before the Prophet. ARVAD.
That Arab was already employed to denote the country and its
inhabitants is shown, further, by the words ' A i b , 'horses, or ARAH (Illy [so in pause, cp Baer ad Ez. !is],§ 70,
camels, of pure native breed,' and nrdrib, 'possessor, or con- 'wayfarer ?).
noiseur, of such horses,' both of which terms were commonly T. b. Ulla, in genealogy of ASHER (P.w., § 4). T Ch. 139t j o p q
used in the early days of Islam. [BAI): @BI. omits Ulla and Arah, and ascribes the remaininx
The plural form A 'rib, ' Bedouins,' is presumably de- names in TJ.39 to Ithran (21.38):
rived from the primitive sense ' desert.' In the Koran 2. I n the great post-exilic hst (see E ZRA , ii. § 9, I 8c); Ezra

the A 'ri6 are several times distinguished from the in- 2 5 (qpa IBI apes [AI q m [ L I ) = N & . 7 10(qpa P A ] , -P 1x1, qLpa
[L])= I Esd. 5 IO AR& (apes [BA], qLpa [LI). . His son Shechan-
habitants of the towns. When we find that a poem, iah 161 was the father-in-law of the Ammonite Tobiah,. 4. (Neh.
composed shortly before Islam, mentions ' the nomadic .
6rS;pac [BKA], qipa [L])
'
and thesettledA'rHb,' thelatter classmust be understood
to consist of the inhabitants of small oases, who retained, ARAM (n?s; @BAL A ~ A M , cypia, 0 cypoc, 01
on the whole, the customs of the Bedouins, and differed cypol ; on AramEeans see below, 7).
widely from the people of the towns. Since, however, The EV commonly translates ' Syria' or ' Syrians ' (cp how-
the Bedouins always formed the great bulk of the natives ever Hos. 12 12 RV ' Aram'), but occasionally (viz., Gem 10 2
2s
?2 21 Nu. 237 I Ch. 117 2 23 7 34) retains the Hebrew form
of irabia, it is not strange that, from the earliest days Aram' (on Mt. 13f: AV, and Lk. 3 33 AV see RAM, I, ARNI).
of Islam, the name Am6 was frequently used specially The gentilic 'n?!,
on the other hand, is always translated
of them. So in the great Sabzan inscription of ,Abraha, 'Syrian' (except Dt.265,RVmg. 'Aramean'; 3;mc I Ch. 7 14
the Abyssinian prince of Yemen, in 543 A. D., the name
xiy (or, with the postpositive article, ply) seems to signify E V ' Aramitess'). Wp3q is rendered by 'Syrian language'(1s.
the Nomads2 T. N.
3611 z K . 1 8 2 6 E V Dan.24 RV) or'Syrian tongue' (Ezra47
AV), ' Syriac ' (Dan. 2 4,4V), a n d by ' Aramaic ' (Dan. 2 4 Ezra
ARAD (-I?.'; apaA [BAL]; A R A D ; for gentilic 47 both RVmg.).
Aradite, see below). I. A South Canaanitish town, Arain appears in Gen. 1022 (Apapwv [A]) as one of
the sons of Shem. This in itself does not prove anything
with a king or chieftain of its own, conquered by the
Israelites, Josh. 1214 (a[r]paO [B], a& [AL], xzxao). ~.
Name. as to the nationality and language of the
The reference to the ' king of Arad ' in Nu. 21 I , and people in question, for the classification
the abrupt notice in Nu. 3340, are useless for historical adopted in the chapter is based, to a large extent, on
purposes, the former all but certainly, and the latter geographical and political considerations. But there is
certainly, having been inserted by a later editor (see no reason to doubt that Aram here stands for the whole,
Moore on Judg. 117, Di. on Nu. 3340). This removes or at least for a portion, of those ' Semitic ' tribes whose
one of the chief difficulties connected with the notices of language is called Aramaic ' in the O T (Ezra4 7 Dan. 2 4)
Arad (cp HORMAH,ZwHATIi). -4nother difficulty and is placed in the mouth of Laban the Aramzan,
arises from the reference in Judg. 116 to ' the wilderness according to the ancientgloss inGen. 31 47. In later times
of Judah which is in the Negeb of Arad ' (ie., in that the name was still known, though often supplanted by
part of the Negeb to which Arad belonged). The ex- ' Syrian,' which the Greeks employed, from a very early
pressions appear to Prof. Moore to be self-contradictory, period, as the equivalent of the native A r a m and its
the Wilderness of Judah and the Negeb being distinct derivatives. A r a m may perhaps be the source of the
regions (Judges, 32). He points ont as an additional Homeric 'Epeppol (Od. 484).
ground for scepticism that differs from M T in It has long been known that Aramaic was used as
reading iiim instead of 3 . ~ 3 . It ~ would be unsafe,
the official language in the western half of the Achz-
however, to assert that in usage the term 'wilderness menian empire. From z K. 1826 ( = I s . 3611) we might
gf Judah' cannot have included the Negeb S. of Arad have concluded that this language occupied a similar
-e.g., the W i d y eZ-fWi@ (see SALT, CITY OF ; JUDAII) position under the Assyrian rule : moreover, if Friedr.
-and, as to 6 ' s reading, we may certainly disregard Delitzsch be right (Pur. z58), an Assyrian and an
it, chiefly on the ground (suggested by Prof. Moore Aramaic ' secretary' are mentioned together in a cunei-
himself) that there is no steep pass (lyra, Kard@uLs) form inscription. The recent excavations at Zenjirli
in the neighbourhood of Arad. have proved that in that district, to the extreme N. of
The site was found by Robinson at TeZZ ' A r i d , which Syria, Aramaic served as a written language as early as
is a round isolated hill 17 m. SE. of Hebron, and the the eighth century B.c., although the population was
details given by Eus. and Jer. ( O S 21455 8720 8 8 2 ) not purely Aramaean. On the other hand, the Aramaic
are quite consistent with this identification. There are inscriptions of TEma, to the N. of Medina, bear witness
indeed no relics here of the ancient city, and only to the existence of an Aramaean colony in the NW. of
scanty remains of ancient bridges; but this does not Arabia about 500 B. C . That Mesopotamia proper (i.e . ,
prevent Gukrin from pronouncing Robinson's view ' ex- the country bounded by the Euphrates, the Tigris, the
tremely probable, not to say certain ' (ludde, 3 185). N. mountain-range, and the desert-hence exclusive of
The city of Arad, it may be noticed in conclusion, Babylonia) was inhabited by Aramaeans appears from
existed long after the ' age of Joshua,' for Shishab in- the OT. Moreover, an inscription of Tiglath-pileser I.,
cludes it in his list of conquered cities in Palestine who is placed about 1220 B.c., mentions an AramBan
(WMM, A s . u. BUY.168). 'Aradite,' therefore, may tribe in this district, in the neighbonrhood of HarrBn
(Schr. KB 133). A similar statement is found in an
well be restored in 2s. 2325a (see HARODITE). The
inscription three centuries later (ibid. 1165). Hence the
Diwrin of ffussnn ibn Thribii, gr, 1. 9=Aghirin.?, 14126. Greeks, from the time of Alexander onwards, called
See Ed. Glaser, Zwei InschrzQ'k iiber den Dainm6ncclr
r*onMririb, 33, etc.
t
this country Zupia pAu7 rGv ?rorapGv, or, more shortly,
3 CIST$V 2pqpov &p08um ;v ri) v 6 r w 'IaJSa, 4&TLY ~ara- 4 Mw~o?ro~apia(see Arrian, passim). On the lower
Pa'ueos 'ApaS [B]; 8 . r. S. 'Iodka r . . ~2". r i v 6 r w &i ~ a ~ a -Tigris and Euphrates, near the confines of Susiana,-that
Pboswr ' A p S [AL]. ;v rQv 6 r w is a duplicate >ende;iiq,
and to is to say, in much the same region that was afterwards
be rejected. So far, van Doorhick, Bu., and Ki. (Hist.lz68) known as ' the land of the Aramaeans ' ( B t h Aramiyt?,
are right. It is premature. however, to assume that 711-y~ is the
original reading; it is really a conjectural correction of a false in Persian Sziristin), and contained the royal cities,-
reading (due to repetition) 137n3. there were nomadic (?) Aramzeans according to an in-
275 276
 ARAM ARAM
scription of Tiglath-pileser 111. (745-727B.C.), and a,n Mas&, in Arabic Uirmds), which flowed by Nisibis
inscription of Sennacherib (705-681 B.c. ). (See Del. ([pseudo-IDionysius of Tel-Mahr&,ed. Chabot, 71 8, and
1.6. 238, Schr. KAT 116, KB 285). The name occurs Thomas of MargL, ed. Budge, 346 19); this is, however,
also in a few other Assyrian inscriptions ; but, owing to by no means certain. Other theories respecting the
the imperfection of the writing, it may sometimes be names in Gen. 1 0 2 3 might be mentioned ; but they are
doubted whether the word is really OlN, 'Aram,' and all open to question.
not some such form as My, 017, or Din. It is remark- A second list, in Gen. 2221, represents Aram as a son
able that the cuneiform inscriptions, at least according of Icemuel, son of Nahor and brother of Uz, Kesed
to the opinion of Del. and Schr., never give the (EV Chesed ; the eponym of the Chaldeans), Bethuel,
name of ' Aramaeans ' to the Aramaic-speaking popu- and others. -Bethue1 is called an ' Aramaean ' in Geu.
lations W. of the Euphrates, whereas in the O T this 2520 28 5, as is also his son Laban in Gen. 2520 31 ZOZ.+.
is the Aramzan country pur exceZ1ence (cp ARAM- The passages in question belong, it is true, to different
NAHARAIM, MESOPOTAMIA, 5 I). sources ; but they may have been harmoriised 'by the
Though at several periods the whole, or the greater redactor. All these statements seem to point to the
part, of the Aramaean nation has been subject to a district of HarrLn ( H A R A Np, . v . ) , where, as Hebrew
single foreign power, the Aramaeans tradition affirms with remarkable distinctness, the patri-
2.
have never formed an independent archs (Abraham, Jacob), and the patriarchs' wives
political unity; in fact, so far as we know, there has (Rebecca, Leah, Rachel), either were born or sojourned
never existed a state comprehending the Aramaeans of for a long time. Here,. in remote antiquity, Hebrew
the main part of Syria or of Mesopotamia proper, to the tribes and Aramzan tribes (represented by Nahor)
exclusion of other races. From a very early time, how- probably dwelt side by side.l Hence it is said in Dt.
ever, the population of these countries must have been 26 5 ' a nomad Aramaean was my father.' In one of
predominantly Aramaean, as is shown by the fact that the sources of Genesis the country of Laban is called
all the other nationalities were gradually eliminated, so ' Aram of the two rivers,' which seems to mean, as
that, even before the Christian era, the various dialects has long been held, the Aramaean land between the
of the.Aramaic (or, as the Greeks say, Syrian) language Euphrates and the Tigris, or between the Euphrates
prevailed almost exclusively in the cultivated lands which and the Chaboras (Kiepert, Lehr6. d. nlt. Geogr. 154).
lie between the Mediterranean and the ,Mountains of What is meant by Paddan ArLm, however, the name
Armenia and Kuidistan. Aramaic was used by the given to the dwelling-place of Laban and his kinsmen
neighbouring Arabs as the language of writing ; it also in the other source (see PADAN), is not clear. In Ai-
took possession of the land of Israel (see 15 , end). It Syrian (?) and Aramaic Puddan signifies ' yoke,' and by
is indeed very unlikely that, as early as the time of a change of meaning, found also in other languages, it
Solomon, there was an important Aramzan element in comes to denote a certain area of land, and finally
Palestine, as W. Max Xltiller supposes ( A s . u. Ezw. ' corn-land,' but not a ' plain,' as is sometimes assumed
171) ; the ending ri in many names of Palestinian cities by those who wrongly take the phrase ' field of Aram '
in the list drawn up by the Egyptian king SoZen15 is (Hos. l213[1z]) to be a translation of ' Paddan Aram.'
probably nothing more than the Hebrew ending ,a; ex- This latter can scarcely be the name of a country. I t
pressing motion towards-the so-called f l d Zocuh. Even may denote a ZocuZi& situated in the land of Arani. W e
in some books composed before the Exile, however, the might, therefore, be tempted to identify Paddan Aram
influence of the language spoken by the neighbouring with a place near g a m a % called PaddZnri (see Wright,
Aramaeans is occasionally perceptible. This influence Cut. Syr. II/ISS. 1127a; Georg Hoffman, Ojusc.
became very much greater after the Exile (when those Nestor. 129,1. ZI), in Gr. $a8aviL (Sozom.633), and io
Israelites who remained, or founded settlements in Ar. F u d d ~ nin
, the neighbourhood of which TeZZFaddEz
Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee, were at first feeble in is situated (see Yxkiit s.u.). It is, however, a somewhat
numbers) and little by little the Aramaic tongue spread suspicious consideration that several of the passages
over the whole country. Though the language of such which have been cited mention the patriarchs in con-
parts of the OT as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and several of nection with the place. Hence the name may be due to
the Psalms is Hebrew in form, its spirit is almost entirely a mere localisation of the biblical story on the part of the
Aramaic. The compiler of Ezra inserted into his book early Christians. According to the narrative of Balaam,
an extract from an ilramaic work composed, it would ' Pethor ' is in Aram (Nu. 32 5 237 ; see PETHOI2). If
seem, about 300 B .c.; and half of the Book of Daniel Schr. (KAT 1 5 5 8 KB 1133) be right in identifying
(which was written in 167 or 166 B.C.) is in Aramaic. it with the city of Pitru, mentioned in Assyrian inscrip-
Moreover, a dialect of this language was spoken by tions, and situated on the river Sagur (SZjLjur)-that is to
Christ and the apostles, and in it the discourses reported say, not far from Mambij (Hierapolis)-the statement
in the Gospels were originally delivered. Nor did the that Pethor is on the Euphrates itself cannot be quite
Latin language (under the Roman rule) cver threaten correct. Such an inaccuracy, however, would not be
to supplant the prevalent Aramaic. Greek, it is true, surprising.
gained some footing in Syria, and, since it was the What historical foundation there may be for the
vehicle of intercourse and literary culture, exercised a acconnt of the subjugation of Israel by Cushan
great influence on the native dialects. It was the con- Rishathaim (g...), 'king of Aram of the Two Rivers'
quests of the Moslems, however, that suddenly brought (Judg. 38-10), is uncertain.
to an end the ascendency of Aramaic after it had lasted Of all the Aramaean states, by far the most important
for more than 1000 years. The Arabic language was from the point of view of the Israelites, during the
diffused with surprising rapidity, and at the present 4.Damascus. kingly period, was Damascus, the in-
day there are only a few outlying districts in which habitants of which, from the time of
Aramaic dialects are spoken. David (g.v., 5 88) onward, were often at war with their
What group of tribes the author of Gen. 1 0 2 3 includes Israelite neighbours; but there must also have been
under the name of Aram, we are unable to say precisely. much peaceable intercourse between the two nations.
Of the 'sons of Aram' enumerated there is In most cases where the O T speaks of Aram the
3. In reference is to Damascus (even though the latter name
Pentateuch. unfortunately none that can be identified
with tolerable certainty (see G EOGRAPHY, be not expressly mentioned), the small Aramaean states
5 24). The position of ' U z , ' although it occurs of the neighbourhood being sometimes included. That
several times in the OT, is unknown. It must, however, 1 On this point see ISRAEL .$ I.
have been situated not far from Palestine. ' Mash ' 2 It is not necessary to shppose with W. Max Mfiller (Z.C.
is usually supposed to be the country of the Mdutov dpos 252, 2.55)that the Dual nuharainz is a mistake for the plural
nJh&Hm. On this subject, however, cp A RAM - NAHARAIM ,
(Strabo, 506, etc.), the source of the river Mash5 (n'hur M ESOPOTAMIA, B I .
277 278
 ARAM ARAMAIC LANGUAGE
this mode of speaking was actually current in early 408). These Aramaeans, who were so closely connected
times is proved by such passages as Am. 1 5 9 Is. 7 z 4f: 8. with the Israelites, probably played an important part
Cp DAMASCUS. in the diffusion of the Aramaic language over Palestine.
Not far from Damascus lay the Aramaean districts of Another state, also described as Aranirean. was that
Maacah ( q. v . , z ) and Geshur (q.v.,I ) . That Maacah Of ZOBAH (q...) (2s. 1068 ; cp I Ch. 106 Ps. 60 [title]),
5, Maacah, was Aramaean is not expressly stated- 6. Zobah. which seems to have been for a while of
except in I Ch. 196, where the text is very greater consequence. In it was situated the
Geshur,
Rehob. doubtful ; but it seems to be indicated by city of BEROTHAI ( 2 S. 1 0 8). no doubt identical with
Gen. 22 24. where Maacah is represented as B EROTHAH ( q . ~ . which
), in Ez. 47r6 is placed between
a son, or daughter, of Nahor by a concubine. Moreover, Hamath and Damascus. With this it agrees that;
in I Ch. 7 16 Machir, the chief representative of the tribe according to the statements of the historical books,
of Manasseh beyond the Jordan, is the husband of Zobah had relations with Hamath 011 the one side, and
Maacah, and in v. 14 of the same chapter he is a son of with Damascus on the other. Its site must, therefore.
Manasseh by an AGamaean concnhine-whence we may be approximately in the neighhourhood of Emesa ; and
infer that the Israelite tribe which had penetrated we may hope that archzeological researches will throw
farthest to the NE. became mingled with the further light-upon the subject.l
Aramaeans of Maacah. That the Maacathites were not The statement about Saul's wars with ' the kings of
included in Israel, though they dwelt among the Zobah' ( I S. 1447) is open to grave suspicion ; it is, in
Israelites, is stated in Josh. 1313. Their geographical fact, doubtful whether the warlike operations of Saul
sjtuation is to some extent determined by the fact that ever extended so far (see SAUL, § 3 ) . A little later,
Abel, though regarded as an ancient Israelite city ( z S. however, we find Zobah and Damascus assisting the
20 IS), is sometimes called Abel-b&th-Maac%h,' Abel in Ammonites in their war against David (see D AVID ,
the land of Maacah ' ( z S. 2 0 1 4 , ~etc.), in order to dis- 86). At length Hadad'ezer, king of Zobah, even
tinguish it from other places bearing the name Abel. brought to his help Aramzans from beyond the
In accordance with the statements in I K. 1520 z I<. Euphrates, hut was utterly defeated, together with the
1529 (to which must he added 2s. 2018, a passage king of the Ammonites, and David carried off a rich
preserved in d hut mutilated in MT), this Abel is now booty. Upon this the king of Hamath, who had been
generally admitted to be identical with the northern at war with the king of Zobah. sent an embassy to the
Abil, near HCmin, on one of the brooks which unite to Judaean king, expressing great satisfaction (z S. 8 IO).
compose the Jordan (see A BEL-B ETH-M AACAH). That According to 2 S. 2336, one of David's heroes (among
this region, on the slopes of Hermon, was the home of whom were several non-Israelites) came from Zobah ;
the Maacathites appears from Dt. 3 14 Josh. 12 5 13T T 13, in I Ch. 1138, however, the reading is quite different (see
where they are mentioned together with the Geshurites, Z OBAH). A servant of the above-mentioned Hadad'ezer,
another foreign people who continued to dwell among named Rezon, fled from his master, became the chief of
the Israelites (Josh. 13 13), and belonged to Aram ( 2 S. a hand of robbers, and after David's death founded a
1 5 8 ; cp also I Ch. 223, where the text, it must be kingdom at Damascus ( I K. 1 1 2 3 ; see D AMASCUS ,
admitted. is obscure and seems to he corrupt). Not far § 3). It is not easy to extract a satisfactory sense from
off was the territory of Rehob or Beth liehob, which the passage which describes the capture of ' Hamath of
included the city of Dan (Judg. 18 28), often mentioned Zobah' by Solomon ( z Ch. 8 3 ) , and there is reason to
as the northern limit of Israel, the Fodern Tell el-l:iidi, suspect the integrity of the text. After the time of
a few miles eaLt of the aforesaid Abil. In Josh. 1928 Solomon we find no mention of Zobah in the OT ; but
Rehob, it is true, is reckoned as belonging to the Assyrian monuments bear witness to the existence of
Israelite tribe of Asher ; but, according to z S. 106, its this city in the seventh century ~.c.-if, as seems likely,
inhabitants were Aramaeans. Thus it appears fairly the same place he meant.
certain that several Aramzean tribes were settled near, In the account of the wars of David against the
or within, the borders of the northern tribes of Israel Ammonites and their allies, these latter are classed
(Naphtali, Asher, and Eastern Manasseh). Inthese parts 7. , ~ a ~ s e a ntogether
s., under the nameof ' Aramzans'
the Aramaean population seems to have extended, with ( z S.1 0 8 F 1 4 8 ) ; but this is perhaps
scarcely any interruption, as far as Damascus. The nothing more than a,classification n potiori. It is of
Aramaeans of Maacah and Rehob fought on the side of more importance to notice that the army of Nebuchad-
the Ammonites against David ( z S. 106= I Ch. 196). rezzar is called by a contemporary 'the army of the
David married a daughter of the king of the Geshurites,3 Chaldeans and of the Aramaeans ' (Jer. 35 11). That the
and she became the mother of Absalom. It is remark- great mass of the Babylonian army was composed of
able that she bore the name of Maacah ( 2 S. 3 3 = I Ch. Aramaeans might have been naturally inferred, even
32), which, as we have seen, occurs often in con- if we had not this explicit statement on the subject.
nection with Geshur ; and the same name was given by Cp Noldeke, ' Die Namen der Aram. Nation u. Sprache,' in
Absalom to his d a ~ g h t e rafterwards
,~ the mother of two ZDMG 25 1132. ; Aump~orBup~osZvpor in Ffewnes, 5 4 4 3 8 ;
and the section on the Aramaic dialects in Art. 'Semitic
kings of Jndah ( I K. 1521013 z C h . 1 1 ~ 0 8 ) . After he I.angnages,' EBW, published se arately in German, Die Sent.
hnd murdered his brother Amnon, Absalom took refuge Sprnchen Leipsic 1887, p. 2 7 2 and ed., ,899.
with his grandfather the king of Geshur, and remained 2. An hrsherite (I Ch. 7 34t ; (&lapav [Bl, apap [ALI). See
also RAM, I, and ARNI. T. N.
there for a considerable time (zS.1338 142332). The
king of Geshur must, therefore, have been to some extent ARAMAIC LANGUAGE.2 Aramaic is nearly re-
independent of David. Of all these Aramaean tribes lated to Hebrzeo-Phcenician : there is. nevertheless.
we hear nothing more in later times ; but one of them 1. Geogaphical a sharp line of demarcation. Of its
has left a trace in ' the Maacathite' (see M AACAH , I ) , extent. original home nothing certain is
an appellation borne by the father of Jaazaniah, a con- known. In the O T ' Aram' auDears I I

temporary of Jeremiah the prophet (z K. 25 23 = Jer. at an early period as a designation of certain districts in
1 Instead of nIyn D ~ N ,the 'Aram;eans of Maacah,' the Syria (see ARAM,3 I ) and in Mesopotamia. The
prallel passage z S. 106 has nIyn 'the king of Maacah,' language of the Aramaeans gradually spread far and
for which @B reads j3auLhL 'AFahljK. Here the word 'ApahGK wide. It occupied all Syria-both those regions which
is certainly due to a mistake ( 6 A L have paaxa); but p a m h h had been in the possession of non-Semitic peoples, and
[BAL] supports the Massoretic reading Tin. 1 It would appear that the Assyrian inscriptions sometimes
2 In this verse we should no doubt read n2yn n q with mention this place as Subutu or Subiti (see Del. Par. 2 7 9 8 :
Ew. Wellh and others. Schrader, KGF 122, KAT 182 8) ; but they have not enabled
8 See, hoGever, G ESHUR , 2, where the view is proposed that us to fix the site.
David's wife was from the Southern Geshur. 2 Revised and adapted by the author from art. 'Semitic
4 On this see, however, M AACAH , ii. Languages ' (Aramaic section) in EZW 21.
279 280
 ARA.MAIC ANGUAGE
those which were most likely inhabited by Canaanite words to be imported into Hebrew at a comparatively
tribes. Last of all, Palestine became Aramaised (~2. 2 ) . This influence of Aramaic on
Towards the E. this language was spoken on the Biblical early
3.Aramaic. Hebrew date.
steadily grew, and shows itself so
Euphrates, and throughout the districts of the Tigris strongly in the language of Ecclesiastes, for
S. and W. of the Armenian and Kurdish mountains ; example, as almost to compel the infezence that Aramaic
the province in which the capitals of the Arsacides and was the writer’s mother-tongue, and Hebrew one subse-
the Sasanians were situated was called ‘ the country of quently acquired, without complete mastery.
the Aramaeans.’ In Babylonia and Assyria a large, or Certain portions of the O T (Ezra48-618 7 1 2 - 2 6 Dan.
perhaps the larger, portion of the population were most 24-8 28 ; also the ancient gloss in Jer. 10 11) are written
probably Aramaeans, even a t a very early date, whilst in Aramaic. The free and arbitrary interchange between
Assyrian was the language of the government. Aramaic and Hebrew, between the current popular
Some short Aramaic inscriptions of the Assyrian speech and the old sacred and learned language, is
period, principally on weights, have long been known. peculiarly characteristic in Daniel (167 or 166 B.C. ) ;
2. Earlier T o these have recently been added longer see D A N IE L , ii. 1 I I J Isolated passages in Ezra
history. ones from the most northern part of Syria perhaps belong to the Persian period, but have certainly
(Zenjirli, about 37’ N. ). In these, as in the been remodelled by a later writer.‘ Still in Ezra we
weight inscriptions, the language differs markedly from find a few antique forms which do not occur in Daniel.
later Aramaic, especially by its close approximation to The Aramaic pieces contained in the O T have the
Hebrew-Canaanite or, perhaps, to Assyrian ; hut ‘great advantage of being furnished with vowels and
Aramaic it undoubtedly is. It is to be hoped that more other orthographical signs. These were not inserted
of these inscriptions, important alike for their language until long after the composition of the hooks (they
and for their contents, may yet be disc0vered.l are sometimes at variance with the text itself) ; but
In the Persian period Aramaic was the official language Aramaic was still a living language when the punctna-
of the provinces W. of the Euphrates ; and this explains tion came into use, and the lapse of time was not
the fact that some inscriptions of Cilicia and many coins so very great. The tradition ran less risk of corruption,
which were struck by governors and vassal princes in therefore, than’in the case of Hebrew. Its general
Asia Minor (of which the stamp was in some cases correctness is further attested by the innumerable
the work of skilled Greek artists) bear Aramaic in- points of resemblance between this language and
scriptions, whilst those of other coins are Greek. This, Syriac, with which we are accurately acquainted. The
of course, does not prove that Aramaic was ever spoken Aramaic of the OT exhibits various antique characteristics
in Asia Minor, and as far north as Sinope and the which afterwards disappeared-for example, the forma-
Hellespont. In Egypt Aramaic inscriptions have tion of the passive by means of internal vowel-change,
been found of the Persian period, one bearing the date and of the causativewith ha instead of witha- phenomena
of the fourth year of Xerxes (482 B. c. ) ; we have also which have been falsely explained as Hebraisms.
official documents on papyrus, unfortunately in a very Biblical Aramaic agrees in all essential respects with
tattered condition for the most part, which prove that the language used in the many inscriptions of Palmyra
the Persians preferred using this convenient language to 4. Nabat~ean, etc. (beginning soon before the Christian
mastering the difficulties of the Egyptian systems of era and extending to about the end of
writing. It is further possible that at that time there the third century), and on the Nabataean coins and
were many Aramaeans in Egypt, just as there were many stone monuments (concluding about the year IOO A . D . ) . ’
Phcenicians, Greeks, and Jews. Aramaic was the language of Palmyra, the aristocracy
This preference for Aramaic, however, probably of which were largely of Arabian extraction. In the
originated under the Assyrian Empire, in which a very northern portion of the Nabataean kingdom (not far
large proportion of the population spoke Aramaic : in from Damascus) there was probably a large Aramaic
it this language would naturally occupy a more important population ; but Arabic was spoken farther south. At
position than it did under the Persians. Thus we under- that time, however, Aramaic was highly esteemed as a
stand why it was taken for granted that a great Assyrian cultivated language, for which reason the Arabs in
officer could speak Aramaic ( 2 K. 1826=1~.3611),and question made use of it, as their own language was not
why the dignitaries of Judah appear to have learned the reduced to writing, just as in those ages Greek inscrip-
language (ibid.) : namely, in order to communicate with tions were set up in many districts where no one spoke
the Assyrians. The short dominion of the Chaldeans Greek. The great inscriptions cease with the over-
probably strengthened this preponderance of Aramaic. throw of the Nabataean kingdom by Trajan (105A . D . ) ;
A few ancient Aramaic inscriptions have been dis- hut, down to a later period, the Arabian nomads in those
covered far within the limits of Arabia, in the palm countries, especially in the Sinaitic peninsula, often
oasis of Teima (in the north of the Hijaz) ; the oldest scratched their names on the rocks, adding some bene-
and by far the most important of these was perhaps dictory formula in Aramaic. These inscriptions
made somewhat before the Persian period? W e may having now been deciphered with completeness and
presume that Aramaic was introduced into the district certainty, there is no longer room for discussion of
by a mercantile colony, which settled in the ancient seat their Israelitic origin, or of any similar fantastic theories
of commerce; and, in consequence, Aramaic may concerning them. That several centuries afterwards
have remained for some time the literary language of the name of ‘ Nabataean’ was used by the Arabs as
the neighbouring Arabs. Those Aramaic monuments, synonymous with ‘Aramaean’ was probably due to
which we may with more or less certainty ascribe to the the gradual spread of Aramaic over a great part of.
Persian period, exhibit a language which is almost what had once been the country of the Nabataeans. In
absolutely uniform. The Egyptian monuments bear any case, Aramaic then exercised an immense influence.
marks of Hebrew, or (better) Phoenician, influence. This is proved by the place which it occupies in the
Intercourse with Aramaeans’ caused some Aramaic strange Pahlavf writing, various branches of which date
from the time of the Parthian empire. Biblical Aramaic,
1 Cp Ausgra6urzgen in Sendschirli Sachau KtnigZ. Mas. zu
BerZifz,MitiJieiC.aus den OY. SaininZ.’ 1893 : &o n. H. Muller as also the language of the Palmyrene and the Nabatzean
aZtsem. Inschys. 7). Senrlschirli Vienna 1893. Halevy, Rev: inscriptions, may he described as an older form of
Sent. Paris, 1894, and on the l&guage,’N81d.’ZDMG 4799’ Western Aramaic. The opinion that the Palestinian Jews
D. H: Muller, ‘Die Baninschrift des Barrekub,’ Z K M W I O Wi.’; brought their Aramaic dialect directly from Babylon-
in MVG, 1896; Halevy, Rev. Sern. 1897; G. Hoffmann, Z A
1897, 3 1 7 8 Two old Aram. inscriptions from Nerah (ne,: whence the incorrect name ’ Chaldee ’ -is untenable.
Aleppo) have since heen brought to light : cp Hoffmann, i J . m 7 8
2 See the Pal;eographical Society’s Orienial Series, plate 1 The decree which is said to have been sent hy Artaxerxes
Ixiii., and CIS 2 no. 122. (Ezra 7 12-26) is in its present form a comparatively late pro-
3 See czs 2, ;os. 113-121. duction (cp EZRA, ii. $ IO).
281 282
 ARAMAIC LANGUAGE
By the time of Christ Aramaic had long been the kom the fact that those who spoke it were of Jewish
current popular speech of the Jews in Palestine, and xigin.
5. NT. the use, spoken and written, of Hebrew Finally, the Samaritans, among the inhabitants of
(in a greatly modified form) was confined to Palestine, translated their sacred book, the Penta-
scholars. Christ p d the apostles spoke Aramaic, and 8; samaritan teuch, into their own dialect : see TEXT,
the original preaching of Christianity, the E h q y t h t o v , dialect. 48. The critical study of this trans-
was in the same language. And this, too, not in lation proves that the language which
the dialect current in Jerusalem, which roughly coin- ies at its base was verimuch the same as-that of the
cided with the literary language of the period, but in ieighbouring Jews. Perhaps, indeed, the Samaritans
that of Galilee, which, it would seem, had developed may have carried the softening of the gutturals a little
more rapidly, or, as is now often but erroneously said, [arther than the Jews of Galilee. Their absurd attempt
had become corrupted. Unfortunately, it is impossible to embellish the language of the translation by arbitrarily
for us to know the Galilean dialect of that period with introducing forms borrowed from the Hebrew original
accuracy. The attempts made in our days toreduce has given rise to the false notion that Samaritan is a
the words of Jesus from Greek to their original language mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. The introduction of
have, therefore, failed. Hebrew and even of Arabic words and forms was
In general, few of the sources from which we derive practised in Samaria on a still larger scale by copyists
o w knowledge of the Palestinian dialect of that period who lived after Aramaic had become extinct. The later
6. Tarffums,can be implicitly trusted. In the syn- works written in the Samaritan dialect are, from a
agogues it was necessary that the reading Linguistic point of view, as worthless as the compositions
of the O T should be followed by an oral ‘targam ’-a of Samaritans in Hebrew : the writers, who spoke Arabic,
translation, or rather a paraphrase into Aramaic, the mdeavonred to write in a language with which they were
language of the people-which was at a later period but half acquainted. ,
fixed in writing ; but the officially sanctioned form of AlltheseWesteriiAramaicdialects,including that of the
the Targum to the Pentateuch (the so-called Targum oldest inscriptions, have this characteristic among others
of Onkelos) and of that to the prophets (the so-called 9. Western in common, that they form the third person
Jonathan) was not finally settled till the fourth or fifth singular masculine and the third person
century, and not in Palestine but in Babylonia. The dialects. plural masculine and feminine in the im-
redactors of the Targum preserved, on the whole, the perfect by prefixing?, as do the other Semitic langnages.
older Palestinian dialect ; yet that of Babylon, which And in these dialects the termination d (the so-called
differed considerably from the former, exercised a rfnius em$nphaticus) still retained the meaning of a definite
vitiating influence. The punctuation, which was added article down to a tolerably late period.
later (first in Babylonia) is not so trustworthy as that of As early as the seventh century the conquests of the
the Aramaic passages in the OT. The manuscripts Moslems greatly circumscribed the domain of Aramaic,
which have the Babylonian superlinear punctuation and a few centuries later it was almost completely
may, nevertheless, be relied upon to a great extent. supplanted in the W. by Arabic. For the Christians of
‘The language of Onkelos and Jonathan differs but little those countries, who, like every one else, spoke Arabic,
from biblical Aramaic. The language spoken some the Palestinian dialect was no longer of importance.
time afterwards by the Palestinian Jews, especially in They adopted as their ecclesiastical language the dialect
Galilee, is exhibited in a series of rabbinical works- of the other Aramcean Christians, the Syriac (Edessan ;
the so-called Jerusalem Targums, a few Midrashic works, see I I 8). The only localities where a W. Aramaic
and the Jerusalem Talmud. Of the Jerusalem Targums, dialect still survives are a few villages in Anti-Libanus.l
at least that to the Pentateuch contains remains that go The popular Aramaic dialect of Babylonia, from the
back to a very early date, and, to a considerable extent, fourth to the sixth century of our era, is exhibited in the
presents a much moreancient aspect than that of Onkelos, Eabylonian Babylonian Talmud, in which, however,
which has been heavily revised throughout; but andMandEoan. as in the Jerusalem Talmud, there is
the language, as we now have it, belongs to the a constant mingling of Aramaic and
later time. The Targums to the Hagiographa are, in Hebrew passages. To a somewhat-later period, and
part, very late indeed. All these books, of which the probably to a somewhat different district of Babylonia,
Midrashtm and the Talmud contain much Hebrew as belong the writings of the Mandaeans, a strange sect,
well as Aramaic, have been handed clown without care, half Christian and half heathen, who, from a linguistic
and require to be used with great caution for linguistic point of view, possess the peculiar advantage of having
purposes. Moreover, the influence of the older language remained almost entirely free from the influence of
and orthography has, in part, obscured the characteristics Hebrew, which is so perceptible in theAramaic writings of
of these popular dialects : for example, various gutturals Jews as well as in those of Christians. Theorthographyof
we still written, although they are no longer pronounced. the Mandzeans comes nearer than that of the Talmud
The adaptation of the spelling to the real pronunciation to the real pronunciation, and in it the softening of the
is carried furthest in the Jerusalem Talmud, but not in gztturals is most clearly seen. In other respects there is
a consistent manner. All these books are without a close resemblance between Mandaean and the language
vowel-points ; but the frequent use of vowel-letters of the Babylonian Talmud. The forms of the imperfect
in the later Jewish works renders this defect less notice- which we have enumerated above take in these dialects
able (cp T EXT, § 64). n or Z. In Babylonia, as in Syria, the language of the
Not only the Jews but also the Christians of Palestine Arabic conquerors rapidly drove out that of the country.
retained their native dialect for some time as an ecclesi- Thelatter has long beenextinct-unless,whichispossible.
., astical and literary language. W e possess a few surviving Mandaeans still speak among themselves
Palestinian. translations of great portions of the Bible a more modern form of their dialect.
(especially of the Gospels) and fragments At Edessa, in the W. of Mesopotamia, the native
of other works in this dialect by the Palestinian Christians dialect had already been used for some time as a literary
dating from about the fifth century, partly accompanied ll. Syriac language, and had been reduced to rule
by a punctuation which was not added till some time or Edessan rhrough the influence of the schools (as
later. This dialect, the native country of which was IS p r o v d by the fixity of the grammar and
apparently not Galilee, but Judcea, closely resembles Aramaic. the orthography) even before Christianity
that of the Palestinian Jews, as was to be expected
1 On this subject we have now very valuable information
1 This in opposition to Dalman’s Granzm. d.jud. j u l . Arum. in a series of articles by M. Pnrisot ( J o n m . As., 1898); more-
(Leipsic, 94)-a book highly to be commended for the fulness over it is hoped that Professors Prym and Socin will soon be
and accuracy of its facts, but less so for its theories. able to furnish more ample details.
283 284
 . ARAMAIC LANGUAGE ARAM-NAHARAIM
acquired power in the country, in the second century. At selves scientifically in the history of the first cgnturies of
an earlyperiod the Old and the NewTestaments were here Christianity should b a r n some Syriac. The task is not
translated, with the help of Jewish tradition (see T EXT, very difficult for those who know Hebrew.
J 59). This version (the so-called Peshftta or Peshito) be- In somedistricts of northern Mesopotamia, of the M6sul
came the Bible of Aramaean Christendom, and Edessa territorv.
,. of Kurdistan. and on Lake Urmia, Aramaic
became its capital. Thus the Aramaean Christians of the 13. Neo-Syriac dialects are spoken by Christians and
neighbouring countries, even those who were subjects of dialects. occasionally by Jews. Among these
the Persian empire, adopted the Edessan dialect as the that of Urmia has become the most
language of the church, of literature, and of cultivated important, since American missionaries have formed a
intercourse. Since the ancient name of the inhabitants, new literary language of it. Moreover, the Roman
' Aramaeans,' just like that of "Ehhvvcs, had acquired in Propaganda has printed books in two of the Neo-Syriac
the minds of Jews and Christians the unpleasant signifi- dialects.
cation of ' heathens,' it was generally avoided, and in On the Aramaic dialects in general see Nljldeke 'Die Namen
its place the Greek terms ' Syrians ' and Syriac ' were d. h a m . Nation u. Sprache, ;i ZDMG a i r 1 3 J? ('71);
Wright Comp. G7-anz772. Sen& 14 J? . Kau.
used. 'Syriac,' however, was also the name given by 14. Literature. Gramnn;. d.BiU.-Aram. 6 s The Akamaic
the Jews and the Christians of Palestine to their own inscriptions from Assyria Babylonia, Asia
language, and ' Syrians' was applied by both Greeks Minor, and Egypt are found in the second pdrt of the CZS (the
Sinaitic and Palmyrene inscriptions have not yet appeared).
and Persians to the Aramaeans of Babylonia. It is, there- For the Nabatzan the most important publication is Euting's
fore, incorrect to employ the word 'Syriac' as mean- Nabataische Inschrifteu Berlin 188.. Othersare to be found in
ing the language of Edessa alone; but, since it was various journals. Of thkse the'mos; considerahle is the great
the most important of these dialects, it has the best inscription of Petra first edited by De Vogiib, /.As., 1896,
8 3 0 4 8 Many Sinditic are contained in Euting's Sinaitfsche
claim to this generally received appellation. It has, as Inschr. ('g~), and of the Palmyrene the (comparatively small)
we have said, a form very definitely fixed ; and in it the collection in D e Vogue's La Syrie Centrak (1868-77) is the most
above-mentioned forms of the imperfect take an n. As convenient for use. Many others are to be found scattered
through journals devoted to Oriental subjects, the most important
in the Babylonian dialects, the termination d has become being the great Fiscal Inscription in Palmyrene and Greek: see
so completely a part of the substantive to which it is ZDMG 42370 8 ('88) where the literature is cited. A few
added that it has wholly lost the meaning of the definite Palmyrene inscriptions: annotated, are appended to Bevan's
article ; whereby the clearness of the language is 'per- Comnnzentary o n DanieL
The most complete Syriac grammar is Nljldeke's S'rischs
ceptibly impaired. The influence exercised by Greek is Granznzatik (Leipsic, '80 : 2nd ed., '98). Duval's (Paris, 'Si) is
very apparent in Syriac. useful for cornoarison with the other Aramaic dialects. and
From the third to the seventh century an extensive
literature was produced in this language,- - consisting -
12. Its history. chiefly, but not entirely, of ecclesiastical '92)may be highly recommended. Articles on the Nabatzan, the
works. In the development of this Palmyrene and the Christian-Palestinian dialects by Niildeke
are to be fdund in the ZDMG 1 7 7 0 3 8 19637j: 2 4 8 5 3 r63, '65,
literature the Syrians of the Persian empire took an '701. Of Syriac dictionaries, Castell's for a long time was the
eager part. In the Eastern Roman empire Syriac was, only one of general utility. Recently three have appeared,
after Greek, by far the most important language : and Payne Smith's great Thesaurus (unfortunately not yet finished),
under the Persian kings it virtually occupied a more Brockelmann's and Brun's. Of glossaries to the Aramaic in-
scriptions, we must now add to Ledrain's Dici. des l W 7 m
prominent position as an organ of culture than the propres Pa'almnyrdniens ('87) the glossary of Stanley A. Cook
Persian language itself. The conquests of the Arabs (Cambridge, '98) and Lidzbarski's Handbud der nordseuzi-
totally changed this state of things. Meanwhile, even tischen Ejipajhik ('98).
For the various dialects used in early Jewish literature, includ-
in Edessa, a considerable difference had arisen between i n r the Hebrew Darts of it. we have. besides the old Huxtorf
the written language and the popular speech, in (B>sel 1639) J k o b Levi's Neuh& U. Chald. Wirieub.
which the process of modification was still going on. (LeipAc, 187689). and the shorter one of J. Dalman (part I ,
About the year 700 it became a matter of absolute Leipsic, '97). Levy had previously edited a ChaZd. Worter6.
Zber die TargntnBt (Leipsic, '67).
necessity to systematise the grammar of the language On the biblical Aramaic there are, besides the grammar of
and to introduce some means of clearly expressing Kautzsch ('84), the little books of Strack (2nd ed., Leipsic, '97)
the vowels. The chief object aimed at was that the and of Marti (Leinsic. '06). For the Tarnum dialects there
is no grammar'thit &e<s ;he requirements i f modern science.
text of the Syriac Bible should be recited in a correct Nor is there yet an adequate grammar of the Aramaic dialect
manner. It happened, however, that the eastern pronun- of the Babylonian Talmud, although the little tract of S. I).
ciation differed in manyrespects from that of t h e w . The Luzzatto Eienzentigralrtmaticaii di Caldeo bihZico e deldialetto
local dialects had, to some extent, exercised an influence Talmnud;co EubiZonese (Padua, '65), is a very useful work. For
fhe Palestine Jewish dialects see Dalman's Grammar (Leipsic
over the pronunciation of the literary tongue : and, on 94) ; for the Samaritan, the grammar of Uhlemann (Leipsic, '37j
the other hand, the political separation between Rome and Petermann (Berlin, '73). Neither of these, naturally, repre-
and Persia, and yet more the ecclesiastical schism-since sents the results of modern scholarship. For the Mandaic, see
that of Niildeke (Halle, '79, for the Neo-Syriac that of the same
the Syrians of the E. were mostly Nestorians, those of author (Leipsic, '68), and especially the most valuable grammar
the W. Monophysites and Catholics--had prodnced of A. T. Maclean (Cambridge, '95). T. N.'
divergences between the traditions of the various schools.
Starting, therefore, from a common source, two dis- ARAMAIC VERSIONS. See TEXT, sgf., 64.
tinct systems of punctuation were formed, of which the ARAMEAN (%lk$), Dt. 2 6 5 RVmK., and Aramitess
western is the more convenient, but the eastern the
more exact, and generally more in accordance with the (n'pV), I Ch. 714 EV. See A RAM (beginning).
ancient pronunciation : it has, for example, ri in place
of the western 6, and 6 in many cases where the western
ARAM-MAACAH (?l!pQ n?k$),I Ch. 196 RV.
See MAACAH,I.
Syrians pronounce zi. In later times the two systems
have been intermingled in various ways. ARAM-NAHARAIM (a???! P?-$). EV preserves
Arabic everywhere put' a speedy end to the pre- the form Aram-naharaim only in Ps. 60 (title: perorrorapiau
dominance of Aramaic-a predominance which had ovpias [BUT], p. rvpiav [Rl) and in Dt. 23 5 [+I R V w . ; else-
lasted for more than a thousand years-and soon began where the phrase is invariably rendered
1. OT expression. MESOPOTAMIA, even in Judg. 3ro (so
to drive Syriac out of use. Nevertheless, up to the B wplas r r o q G w ) where M T has
present day Syriac has remained in use for literary and simply Aram (niN ; o v p i a s [A ; L om. altogethe;]). The other,&
ecclesiastical purposes, and may perhaps be even spoken forms are : Judg. 38, rrompiuv uvpias [B], uvpias p e r o r o r a p t a s
in some monasteries and schools ; but it has long been ?rorapQv [AL] ; I Ch. 196 ovpias psrorrorapias [BUAL].
a dead language. When Syriac became extinct in Edessa Apart from Judg. 38, where its genuineness is more
and its peighbourhood is not known with certainty. It than doubtful (see CIJSHAN-RISHATHAIM), and the
is very desirable that theologians who interest them- confused editorial data of I Ch. 196 and P s . 6 0 ~(title in
285 286
 ARAM-NAHARAIM ARARAT
EV), which are, of course, too late to be anything but ing into the Persian Gulf could be called-' the waters ' or
antiquarian lore,l the phrase Aram-nahar(a)im occurs ' the great water system ' 'of Naharin ' (As. LL. Eur. 253-
in M T only twice-once in J , defining the position of 2 5 5 ) . In its stricter (narrower) application it probably,
the ' city of Nahor ' (or perhaps rather ' of HarrLn' ; see at one time, included or formed part of Hanigalbat
N AHOR ), Gen. 24 TO, and once in D, defining the position (Uani-rabbat); On the history of this whole district
of PETHOR on the west bank of the Euphrates (Dt. see MESOPOTAM~A. H. Vi. H.
23 5 [4]). Whilst the two towns in question are Aramaean ARAM-ZOBAH (7?lY WY). See ' A RAM , 6,
cities known in later as well as in earlier periods of
history, the stories connected with them in the passages DAVID, 9v and ZOBAH.
citecl are legends. of prehistorical times, whose interpre-
tation is necessarily more or less conjectural (see N AHOR ,
ARAN (]?e, perhaps ' mountain goat'-cp EPHER-
but Nold. and Di. question this ; & p p & ~[BAL]), a
B ALAAM ). We have no other evidence for the actual ' s o n ' of Dishan the Horite; Gen. 3628 (p[Sam.] ;
currency of a compound geographical expression Aram- &PAM [AE])=r Ch. 142 ( & P A N [L]). C. Niebuhr
nahar(a)im. Indeed, Aram is properly a race-name (influenced by the preceding name Uz) prefers the
rather than the name of a district : apart from the reading Aram, which is supportecl by some Heb. MSS,
passages cited, there does not appear to be any un- Targ. Jon., bA Vg. and Onk. (cp Gesch. 1.9). The
ambiguous case of its use, whether alone or in combina- MT is, however, probablycorrect (cp OR EN,^ I Ch. 225),
tion, as a geographical expression. Naharim, or Naharin though if Oren is the right pronunciation of ] i K in I Ch.
(see below; z),on the other hand, is well known as an 225, it is probably correct also in I Ch. 142, and vice
ancient name for Northern Syria and the country stretch- versa (see We. Degent. 39).
ing eastwards from it. Aram-Naharaim, or (better)
Aram-Naharim, might then be, like Aram-Zobah, etc., ARARAT (Dll'lffr; &P&P&T [BAL]). I. Ararat is
properly the name of a people rather than of a territory
-unless, indeed, Aram be perhaps a simple gloss ex-
plaining Nahar(a)im (cp the converse case of Yahwh-
elohim in Gen. 2). That Nahar(a)im is a dun1 ( ' the
two rivers ' ) is extremely doubtful (cp Moore on Judg. 38)
-the word, as already hinted, should probably be pro- two passages -referred to & e parallel ;' they relate
nounced Naharim (see $$ 2). - that the two sons of Sennacherib (Sin-ahi-irba), after
The term Mi%soPo.rhhiiA( q a . 0 I ) is explained by the Greek having slain their father, 'escaped into the land of
geographers as meaning ' betwee; the rivers ' ; hut they need not Ararat' (so RV). A collateral confirmation of this
have been right in assuming thit the rivers referred to were two. report is given by an inscription of Esar-haddon (ABur-
I t seems not improbable that the Greek name is really connected
with the ancient name.4 ab-iddina) which states that on the news of the murder
The form Naharin (the spelling varies : on this pro- of his father he quiclily collected the forces (with which
nunciationsee WMM,As. u . Eur. 251,252 n. 3 C - h can, he was probably carrying on a campaign in Cappadocia
2. The name of course, also be read -e^n.-WMM]) is or Cilicia), marched against Nineveh, and defeated the
attested by the Egyptian records of the army of the murderers at Hanirabbat (Hanigalmit?
Nahar=. New Empire, when this name seems to Schrader). This district lies in the neighbourhood .of
take the place of the earlier phrase Upper Rnrenu (i6. MelitEne, just where, at a later time, the Romans
249). W. M. Miiller regards the form as plural 5 entered Armenia ( i . e . ,Ararat). In Jer. Z.C. the prophetic
(252) ; but it may also be a locative like Ephraim, etc. writer summons the kingdoms (or, as G B N , the kings) of
(see N AMES , 107). Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz to fight against Babylon.
In Assyrian or Babylonian inscriptions the name has This too agrees with the representations of the inscrip-
not yet been met with (see § 3 ) ; but in the Amarna tions, which constantly distinguish between the land of
letters it occurs repeatedly as iudtzi Nahriinn or Narima, Mannu and U r a r p or Ararat. Mannn (which lay to
from which we learn the valuable fact that in Phcenicia the S. or SE. of Lake UrdmYa) was generally subject
(Gebal) and Palestine (Jerusalem) the form with m was to the Assyrians, but at least once was conquered from
usual. them by ArgiStis son of Menual (see Tiele, B A G 208,
Naharin (Nabrima) was, as the meaning of the name 215). See further MINNI,ASHICENAZ.
( ' river-land ' ) would suggest, a, term of physical rather The name Urarti appears in the Assyrian texts from
3. Extent. than of political geography. It need not, the ninth century onwards. It appears to be inter-
therefore, have been used with a very 2. *ssyrian changeable with Nairi ( i . e . , the streams),
great definiteness (cp the ancient names I I a p a ~ o ~ a p i a , texts, etc. the old Semitic name of the country,
Polyb. v. 69 ; and the mod. Riviera) ; and the inscrip- which it bore, for example, under Tiglath-
tions, in fact, bear this out. pileser I. (circa 1108 B.C.) and, as appears from the
It seems to have extended from the valley of the notices in the Egyptian inscriptions of the eighteenth
Orontes, across the Euphrrites, somewhat indefinitely dynasty, at a much earlier date (circa 1400 B .c.). The
eastwards ( A s . u. Eur. 249). Explanations, based on kings, who are called by the Assyrians Urartians, never
the view that aim is dual, like those of Dillmann (the apply this name to themselves. Sarduris I., the first
territory between the Chaboras and the Euphrates), of king whose inscriptions, written in Assyrian (circa 8 3 0
Schrader in ZCA Tf') (between the middle Euphrates and B .c.), have come down to us, calls himself king of
the Balib), and of Halevy in Rev. Skm. July 1894 (the Naki, a title which the Assyrians naturally did not
neighbourhood of Damascus, watered by the so-called grant him, because they themselves laid claim to his
Abana and the Pharpar) seem less satisfactory. In country. His successors, who use their own language,
its widest application, the whole water-system drain- call their land Biaina, out of which the later name Van
1 The passages in which-'the phrase has been inserted are has arisen, a name which must at that time have been
obviouslv borrowed from z S. transferred from the district where the kings resided to
the whole kingdom.
Next, as to the extent of the kingdom of Urartu or
not be a translation of the Aramaean expression ha NaYri. The greater part of the later Armenia was,
'district of rivers,' a natural rendering (cp the Syriac Beth sometimes at any rate, included within its limits; for
'ArbSyZ for Xenophon's ' A p a P ~ a )of Naharim (' riverland ') Vannic inscriptions have been found even in Malatiyah,
afterwards-by an easy misunderstanding (of which there ar; near Palu on the Upper Euphrates, and as far away as
examples)-due to the two like-sounding words 6eth-supposed the Russian province Erivan. It would appear that
to mean 6efween rivers.
6 If the suggestion made in the preceding footnote he adopted, originally NaYri denoted a more southerly region, where
rrorapirv implied in Mesopotamia will he plural. 1 On Ornan see A RAUNAH . 2 3 R. 15, col. i.17.
287 288
 ARARAT ARAUNAH
the Tigris and the Euphrates rise, whilst Ararat proper .he ark. ‘Of its two conical peaks, one is crowned
(Urarti) lay to the N., in the plain of the Araxes ; but that Nith perpetual snow, and rises 17,000 ft. above the sea-
between the eleventh century and the ninth, the Urarrians evel; the other is 4000 ft. lower. That the Hebrew
(whom their language shows to have been a non-Semitic miter thought of these mountains is in the highest
people) conquered the more southerly region, and estah- jegree improbable (see Di. Gemsis, 131). Another
lished there the chief seat of their dominion-a conquest radition identified Ararat with the land of Cardu (so
which they were enabled to make by the great decline Pesh., Targ. )+e., the ancient Korduene or Karduchia
of ilssyria at that time. Afterwards, both names, Nak-i m the left bank of the Upper Tigris, and the mountain
and Urartu, were used for the whole country. The 3f the ark with the Jebel Jacli, SW. of Lake Van,
Assyrian king Sargon broke the power of Urartu for a “hich has become the traditional site with the Moslems.
long time ; but his successors did not succeed in their In the Table of Nations (Gen. 10) the name of
endeavours to destroy it, and so it is not unnatural that Ararat does not occur ; hut Ashkenaz, Riphath (or
Assyriologists have sometimes defended the pre-exilic Diphath), and Togarmah (see special articles) probably
origin of the long prophecy against Babylon at the end of denote districts of W. and NW. Armenia.
the Book of Jereniiah,ron this ground among others, that For the geography of Urartu cp especially Sayce,
the kingdoms of Ararat and Minni are still well known ‘Cuneiform Inscr. of Van,’ JRAS xiv. pt. ii. 388 8 ,
to the Israelites, and considered to be formidable where, however, the Armenians, who entered the country
p0wers.l Kuenen, however (Ond. 1’‘( 2 242 = B i d . 2 from the W., and are related to the Aryan races of
2 3 2 J ) , has sufficiently shown that these arguments are Asia Minor, are regarded as Iranians. It is against
not conclusive. Proper names like Ararat and Minni this view that, shortly after the first mention of the
simply prove the literary and antiquarian research of the name Urartu by ASur-nBsir-pal, names of an Aryan
author, and the phenomena of the prophecy as a whole sound occur in an inscription of his son Shalmaneser 11.
appear to both the present writers to presuppose a period (Artasari and Data). C. 1’. T.-W. H. K.
later than that of Jeremiah. (See J EREMIAH , ii.). ARARATH, AVm% 4 Esd. 1345 ; RV A RZARETH.
2. Ararat is mentioned also in the post-exilic version
of the Deluge-story. The statement runs thus : And ARARITE (’1?83), 2 S. 23336 RV ; AV HARAR-
.
the ark rested . . upon the mountains of ITE, 3.
3* Deluge-Ararat’ (Gen. 8 4 RV ; Samar. text oiln). ARATHES (apaf3Hc [VA]), I Macc. 1622 RV, AV
story’ This is precisely parallel to the statement of
the cognate Babylonian story (see D ELUGE, I ) : ‘ The
ARIARATHES (p...) .
mountain of the land of Nisir stopped the ship,’ or, as the ARAUNAH (n2135, so Kr. everywhere in z S. 24,
following lines give it, ’ The mountain Nisir stopped the but Rt. i1371K;I ‘u. 16, ;1937K ’u. 18, ;131’lW v‘u. zz-
ship. ’ That Nisir (protection ? deliverance ?) is properly 24),or O RNAN (];YE in Ch.), a Jebnsite, whose threshing-
the name of a mountain or mountain range seems to he floor, consecrated by the presence of the angel of YahwB,
clear from Ah-&sir-pal’s inscription (see KB 1 7 7 ) , and David purchased as a site for an altar (cp MOKIAH).
Ararat too, in the intention of the Hebrew writer, will The story is told in two forms, which agree in essentials.
he the name of a mountain or mountQiu range. The On I Ch. 2120 see note to Kittel’s translation in SBOT
situation of NiSir is clear from the inscription just ( z S. 2 4 1 6 3 I Ch. 21 15 8 z Ch. 31, opva [BAL] ; cp
referred to. It was in Media, E. of the Lower ZBb, opova Jos. Ant. vii. 3 3 , oporra i6. 134). The real name,
and S. of the Caspian Sea. There lies Elburz, the however, was not Araunah, which is thoroughly un-
Hara berezaiti, or Hara haraiti bares, thus named by Hebraic, and presumably un-Canaanitish. The critics
the N. Iranians after their mythic sky-mountain. Now, have in this case not been critical enough. Even Budde
it is remarkable that Nicolaus Damascenus (in Jos. ( S B O T , Heb. ed., note on z S . 2416) admits, rather
Ant. i. 36, cp also OS(‘) 20948) names the mountain of doubtfully, the form Arannah. Klost. prefers Q’s
the ark Baris, and places it ’ above Minyas ‘-i. e . , Minni form Orna, which, however, is no better than the Ornan
(Mannu). BAris (dares= high) appears to be a fragment of the Chronicler. One has a right to require a definitely
of the Iranian uaine of Elburz, which this writer took Hebrew name, and such a name for this Jebusite M T
for the whole name.2 It may be conjectured that this actually gives us in z S . 24 ~B-viz., ?*EN= n931~ Adonijah
was the mountain which the Hebrew writer, in accord- (cp Opvta[s] [AL]=Adonijah in z S. 3 4 , and in BL of
ance with the Babylonian tradition, had in view. If I Ch. 32, and in 1 K. If.). It is proposed, therefore,
so, he gave it the name which it bore in his own time, to correct ‘Araunah’ into ‘Adonijah ’ throughout, except
Hara haraiti, shortening it into Ararat, not perhaps in v. 23 (on which see below) ; cp ‘Adonibezek,’ mis-
without confusing it involuntarily with the land of written in Judg. 1 for ‘ADONIZEDEC’ (4.v.).
Urarti, which latter name may have had a different The critics have been very near making this correction.
origin. They have rightly rejected the pretty romance based on
It was natural enough that the most widely spread the phrase ‘ Araunah the king’ in z S. 2423 (MT), from
tradition accepted the identity of the. A-rarat of the which Ewald (Hist. 3163) inferred that Araunah was
Hebrew Deluge-story with the kingdom of Ararat spoken the old dethroned king of Jebus. They have also
of above. There (i.e., in the plain of the Arases) a rejected the makeshift rendering of RV, ‘All this, 0
lofty mountain rises, worthy, so it may have appeared, king, doth Araunah give unto the king,’ because a
to he the scene of such a great event as the stranding of subject speaking to his sovereign was bound to call
1 Sayce, Crit. Man. 485f: Prof. Sayce is uncertain whether himself humbly ‘ the king’s servant ’ (cp I S. 26 19 I K.
eremiah ‘has made use of some earlier prophecy of which 1 2 6 ) . As Wellhausen first saw, the sense required is, ‘All
&. . was the burden, or whether ‘the prophecy belongs to
ineveh
a time when Babylon had already taken the place of Nineveh
this doth the servant of my lord the king give unto the
but when in other respects the political condition of W. Asia king.’ This means correcting 31n.y into VTN, and pre-
still rem$n;d what it was in the closing days of the Assyrian fixing my-a capital correctidn which only needs to be
Empire. In any case the prophecy must he earlier than the supplemented by the emendation of 2117~elsewhere into
age of the secopd Isaiah, to which modern criticism has so 2’11~(see above).
often referred it. This was printed in 1894, five years after the
appearance of vol. ii. of the most authoritative summary of An additional argument has thus been gained for the
‘ modern criticism,’ Kuenen’s OnderzaekP), and two years after substitution of ‘ Adonijah ’ for ‘ Araunah. ’ The cor-
that of the German translation. Prof. Tiele who, in 1886 rection is certain, and it is of the highest interest. The
( S A G 480), from an incomplete view of the critkal arguments Israelite king and his Jebusite subject worship the same
maintained Jer. 5 0 3 to have been written before Cyrus among
the exiles in Babylon, now accepts Kuenen’s main conclusions god-the god of the land of Canaan. Adonijah too
as expressed in the work referred to. was not an ex-king, but simply a member of the Jehusite
2 Whether Luhar, the name of the mountain of the ark in
Jupilees, chaps. 5 and 10, has any connection with Baris, it is
community, which continued to exist even after the
unimportant to decide. conquest of Jerusalem. BL( z S. 66’0psd, Heb. fij~)
19 289 290
 ARBA ARCHES
apparently identified the place with the threshing-floor anabaseis of the hill-country,' ' the entrance into Judaea.'
a t Perez-Uzzah (see NACHUN). T. K. C. Upon it there stand two Gilgals, one near Shechem,
and one 5 m. N. of Gophna, which Ewald (Hist. Eng.
ARBA (9378 ; A p r O B [B], apBo [A] -BE [L]), ' the ed. 5 323) takes to be the Galgala of the narrative (but
greatest man among the Analrim' (Josh. 1415). See
see GILGAL). On this route Masaloth might be MeselIeh
A NAK , and H EBRON , I. or Meithaliin, respectively 5 and 8 m. S. of Jenin, each
ARBAH (9378)Gen. 3527 AV. See H EBRON , I. of them a natural point at which to resist an invader.
A greater difficulty is presented by 6v 'ApPShors. The
ARBATHITE ('&QJ~)--i.e., a man of Beth-arZbah
plural form evidently signifies a considerable district.
(2 S. 23 3 1 I Ch. 1132). See ABI-ALBON. Now, Eusebius (OSPJ' A p p ~ h dnotes ) the name as extant
ARBATTIS AV, or rather Arbatta RV (EN in his day, on Esdraelon, 9 R. m. from Lejjiin, while
the entrances from Esdraelon on Meselkh and Meithaliin
~ ~ B A K T O I C[-4nKc.a1; -BANOIC W I j -BATN. [V*l, are 9%R. m. from Lejjfin. It is therefore possible that
-TAN. [Val; Vg. in Arbatis; the Syriac gives the
thc name 'Ap/i?~Xd covered in earlier days the whole of
strange form Arddat, +,ril), I Macc. 5 2 3 . t Simon
this district. The suggestion is, however, far from being
the Maccabee, after his successes in Galilee against the capable of proof. The chief points in its favour are
Gentiles, brought back to Judrea 'those [Jews] that the straight road from the N., which was regarded as
were of (reading 6~ for dv) Galilee and in Arbatta.' a natural line of invasion, and the existence along the
A district rather than a town is obviously to be under- road of a Jiljiiliyeh, a Meselieh, and a Meithalfin.
stood. Ewald (Hist. 5 3 1 4 ) thinks of the plain called Fourth : There is some MS authority for reading
el-Batiha on the NE. shore of the Sea of Galilee (cp yahaas instead of yahyaha; . . and if the march of
the Syriac form) ; more probably the Arabah or
Araboth (ni22y)of Jordan is intended. See ARABAH,I. '+. Bacchides be conceived as having been
In Gilead through Gilead, the Arbela of I Macc.
92 may be the 'ApPr;hd (mod. Irbid) which Eusebius
ARBELA ( E N , apBHAolc. [ANV]), I Macc. 92. ( O S 214 73) vaguely defines as a certain village beyond
Bacchides and Alcimus, in their second expedition into
Judzea, ' went forth'by the way that leadeth to Galgala Jordan on the confines of Pella. This Irbid, however,
(yaXaa8 [codd. 64, g3]), and pitched their tents before lies very far E. and not in a direct line from the N.
Masaloth (RV Mesaloth ; peuuahwB [A], parua. [NV]), Even from Damascus, it would be a roundabout way
which is in Arbela.' There are four alternative ex- for the Syrian troops marching with speed on Jerusalem.
planations (but see CHISLOTH-TABOR). (We can hardly compare the advance of Antiochus 111.
First: Josephus (Ant. xii. 111) seems to have read upon Ptolemy IV. [Polyb. 5 61, in the conrse of which
for ' Galgala,' ' Galilee,' which Wellhausen (Z/G (3) 261, Antiochus, after taking Tabor and Bethshean, crossed
1. In Galilee ? n. 2, where he quotes the parallel case, Jordan ,and overran Gilead from Arb& to Rabbath-
Jos. xii. 23 BBres I'aher)laias) adopts, ammon).
and, without explaining Masaloth, takes Arbela to be Of these four alternatives the first and third seem the
the well-laown spot at the head of the cliffs overhanging most probable. The difficulties of all, horn-ever, are so
the western border of the plain of Hattin, the modern great that most historians (e.$. Schurer and Stade) shirk
Irbid. The interchangeableness of the two forms discussion of the line of march, and bring Bacchides
Arbed and Arbel is proved by the Arab geographers. without delay to the walls of Jerusalem. G. A. s.
NBsir-i-Khusrau, 1047 A. D ., calls it Irbil; YZlFfit in ARBITE, THE ('$T&g), z S . 2 3 3 5 , probably an
1235 A.D., and others, call it Irbid. The limestone error for Archite. See P AARAI . .
caverns near.Irbid were the haunts of bandits, who ARBONAI ( A B ~ U N AP A ] , XEBPUN [SI;44
were only with difficulty dispossessed by Herod the ' Jabbok' [Syr.] ; mzmbre). In Judith 224 it is stated
Great; the methods he employed are graphically that Nebuchadrezzar ' went through Mesopotamia, and
described by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 15 4 BY i. 16 z f ). destroyed all the high cities that were upon the river
Robinson, who, with most moderns, accepts this identi- ( X d p a p p o r ) Arbonai till ye come to the sea.' Various
fication, conjectures that Mesaloth ' which is in Arbela ' commentators, following Grotius, have taken the Cha-
represents the Heb. nibpp in the sense of steps, storeys, bdras to be meant. There is much plausibility, however,
terraces, and describes the fortress on the face of the in the suggestion of Movers that the proper name may
almost perpendicular cliff (3 289). With more reason have arisen out of a failure to understand the original,
Tuch (Quest. de 2?Zav. /os. L i d d . Hist. ), followed by which he conjectures to have been 7ili;l 7 2 ~ 3I (the cities
Wellhausen (Z.C.), proposes to read Meua8wB (cp H P which were) beyond the river,' m y having been taken
93, Mauua8wB) as if for ni,l,sp 'strongholds.' The for a proper name and supplied with a Greek ending.
objections to this identification are that Josephus is the ARCHANGEL (apXarrehoc [Ti. WH]), Jude 9. See
only authority for the reading I'ahrhalav, and that, by A NGEL , 4.
all we can learn from him, the task of reducing Arbela ARCHELAUS (apx~haoc[Ti.WH], Mt. Zzzf-), son
would have cost Bacchides more time than in the of Herod the Great by Malthakk, and elder brother of
circumstances he was likely to be willing to spend. Herod Antipas. By his father's will he was macle rnler
The direction through Galilee by Arbela would, how- over Jndzea and Samaria, and his visit to Augustus for
ever, be a natural one for the Syrians to take. the confirmation of this inheritance doubtless suggested
Second; As natural a line of march for the Syrian army a point in the parable Lk. 1 9 1 2 8 Upon his coins he
lay~-alonE the coast down to the mouth of the valley of bears the family name of Herod and is called 'Eth-
2. Aijalon? Aijalon, and up that valley or one of the narch,' for ' king ' he never was, in spite of his assump-
By parallel defiles farther S. On this line tions (cp Jos. Ant. xvii. 45). He may, however, have
there was a I'ah-&a, the present JiljUliyeh, a little more been popdaal-ly called ' king. ' (Cp Jos. Ant. xviii. 4 3,
than 13 m. NE. of Joppa, on a site so important that and the use of pauAe6ei in Mt. 222. See further
the main road might well be described as d&hv T+JV EIE HERODIANFAMILY, 3. )
I'akyaha. There is, however, no trace along it of a ARCHER. See W AR , W EAPONS .
MaruahhO or an"AppTha.
T h i r d ; If Bacchides wished to avoid the road by ARCHES is the rendering in the EV of Il\D$&, ete.,
the coast and up Aijalon, which had proved so fatal to in Ez. 40 r 6 8 The word 0 5 3 . y or 05.y occurs in M T
Nicanor, he may have talcen the road only in this chapter ; but @BAL transliterates a A a p
3*In 'amaria? from Esdraelon S. through Samaria, also where MT has o h , 05y. Whatever explanation
which Holofernes is represented in Judith as taking- be adopted of the variation of form, the meaning is
the road which this book (4 7) expressly calls ' The 1 KP OSOV a s y?v yahaas [cod. 641,o. rqv ELF yaAaaa8 [cod. 931.
291 292
 ARCHEVITES AREOPAGUS, AREOPAGITE
doubtless the same throughout-viz., ' porch.' See ARD (??a, Gen. 46zr Nu. a640Jy cp A RDON, A KOD),
PORCH, P ALACE , TEMPLE. perhaps a better form than ADDAR (im) of 11 I Ch. 83t.
That the principle of the arch early became ltnowu IGen. [ADL; B lacking; Jos. c b p o h o c ] ;
to Israel is a probable inference from the shape of their Nu. A A A ~[Bl, ~ A e [AFLI;
p I apsA [A],
I Ch. A A ~ [B],
TOMBS. ~ A A P[L]) in genealogy of B ENJAMIN (p.. ., § 9; ii. p ) ;
ARCHEVITES (Kt. 'll31w. cp Kau. Gram. d. bibL variously designated son of Benjamin (Gen. MT), son of
Aram. 5 6 1 6 ; Kr. NY?'& ; d Swete, apxoyol ; Bela (Nu. and I Ch. ), son of Gera b. Bela (Gen. [ADL ;
ApXOyCl [Bl ;, AXyAlOl,[A] ; ~ p x [L]), . mentioned in B lacking]). Gentilic ARDITE( S~IE ; dBA om., b ABepi
Ezra49f a s atribesettledin PalestinebyAsNApPER(p.v. ). :L q.v I).
The word is not to be regarded as meaning inhabitants of ARDATH, RV Ardat, the name of a field mentioned
Erech (Ryssel, Ryle), or as equivalent to & ~ X O Y T E S (Jen- mly in 4 Esd. 9 26 as the scene of a vision of Esdras.
sen, TLZ, 1895, n. z o ) , but rather asmiswrittenfor (.)., The Eth. and Syr. read Arjhad, which Fritzsche and Hilgf.
& , * ( ~ ) > 3'who
, are Cuthams ' (see z K. 17 24 ' from Follow. The Lat. Vss. vary :-ardath [Vg.], adar [S"], ardad
:AI, etc. ; cp Bensly ad loc. Supported by the description in
Babylon and from Cuthah,' etc.). So Marq. Fund. .
71. 24 ('a field . . where no house is builded') Volkmar would
Emend to A d a , 'desert' (more correctly A&a). Similarly
64f: Rendel Harris, who, however, connects Arha with Kirjath-arb?
ARCHI ('??&R), Josh. 162 AV, RV ARCHITES. [Resf of Wordsof Baruch, Camh. 1889), in which case the 'oak
in 14 I will be Abraham's oak of Hebron. On the other hand,
ARCHIPPUS ( ~ p x l m m o c[Ti. WH]) is included as we should then expect rather the usual name Hehron or at
a ' fellot-soldier ' of Paul and Timothy in the address least, the fuller form, Kirjath-Arba. If Ardat is inddd t i be
of the epistle to Phclemon (Philem. z), and in that to the iought for in this district (in 3 1 Esdras is in Babylon) we might
Colossians ( 417) he received this massage : ' Take heed follow T. llec. more closely and identify it with the well-known
Arad, which also was situated in a desert. See ARAD,I .
to the ministry ( ~ L U K O V ~ U Ywhich
) thou hast received in
the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Most probably he had ARDITES (".7$R), Nu. 2640. See ARD.
recently become the minister (more than ' deacon ' in
the narrower sense) of the church at Colossze, perhaps ARDON (Jh7K; O ~ N A[BA], ABAWM [Ll), b.
in succession to Epaphras, who was now with the Azubah, a Calebite ( I Ch. 2 IS?). See A ZUBAH , I.

apostle. In Ap. Const. ( 7 4 6 ) he is said to have been ARELI ('?K7& ; Gen. 4616; A P I H A I C [4,A ~ O H -
apostolically ordained bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia.
h a c [AI, ATTHAEIC [ L I ; Gen. IC., also TW & P I H A
ARCHITES, AV ARCHI ('p?H$ ; TOY A ~ X [L];
I [BFL], om. A ; see A RIEL ), b. Gad. In Nu. 26176
dB* combine the word with the following Ataroth, the name is used also collectively with the art.
~a~upwOec,[B], ApXl ATAp(& [A]), a clan meritioned in (EV 'the Arelites' ; o a p i ~ A [ ~ ][BFL]),
l with con-
the difficult phrase IlIWy Q l K i I $923 (Josh. 162) in sciousness that 'son of Gad'=Gadite clan. Doubt-
the delimitation of the southern frontier of Joseph. less v. 176 should be corrected to ' Of Ariel (5g&), the
Probably we should reverse the order of the last two family of the Arielites (h:~),' and it is possible that
words and read ' the border of Ataroth-of-the-Archites. ' the names should rather be Uriel, Urielites (see N AMES,
Indeed, we might plausibly go a step further and change § 35). T. K . C.
m u a to v u a (or qiua), 'Addarites' (or 'Ardites').
See A TAROTH, 2. That the name Archi lingers in that AREOPAGUS, AREOPAGITE (Acts 1719 en1 T O N
of the village 'Ain 'AFik, 5 m. WSW. of Beitin ap[e]io~m A r o N [Ti. WH] EV 'unto [theIAreopagus' ;
1. The hill. v. 22, AV ' Mars'.Hill,' RV Areopagus' ;
b PEFMem. 37), is at best a hazardous hypothesis (cp
tth, and Buhl Pal 170J). The home of the clan
of Archites to which HUSHAIand, according to d ( z S.
hence the title Areopagite, Acts17 34+,
bpsOTTArEITHC [Ti.], -rl. [WH]). Difficulty is
2311 ' n ~6,'Apovxaios [BA], 6 Apap [L]; and ?i. 35 caused by the fact that the name signifies both a
hill and a court. The hill is that formless mass
yq, [TOU Oupar] o e p x ~[B],
~ 6 Apaxmcs [A], 6 A$up~r of rock which lies towards the NW. below the Acro-
[L]): S HAMMAH [q.v., 3 and 41 and P AARAI, two of polis, separated from it by a depression now largely
David s heroes, belonged, may have been farther S. filled with earth (Herod. 8 52 ; Luc. Pisc. 42). The
ARCHITECTURE. See CONDUITS AND RESER- NE. corner of the hill is a precipice, to the top of
VOIRS, FORTRESS, H OUSE , PALACE, T EMPLE, TOMB. which we ascend by means of sixteen ruined steps, cut
ARCHIVES, See HISTORICAL LITERATURE, § 5. in the rock at the SE. angle. At the head of the stair
are the remains of an altar. The deep chasm at the
ARCTURUS, AVs rendering of @ (Job 99) and foot of the precipice was connected with the worship
qu (Job3832) ; RV BEAR. Most probably, howeve;, of the Semnai (Eumenides or Furies). .'The whole
wy in Job99 has arisen from dittography of any which place was sacred to the most awful associations.
precedes, for 5.~1follows without 1. The whole verse Mythology had here lent to the majesty of the law a
seems to be an unmetrical interpolation (see Biclrell) ; 2. The c o u ~ . most solemn background.' As a Court,
Duhm. agrees as to wy, and goes so far as to excise m. the Areopagus was, before the develop-
8-10 (so also Beer). Observe that Am. 58, which is ment of the democratic spirit, the supreme authority in
certainly (see AMOS, § 12) an interpolation, and very Athens. Its powers were of two kinds, definite and
possibly alludes to Job99 (as Am. 413;aIso interpolated, indefinite. The definite powers were :-(I)a limited
may allude to Job98), does not include wy among the criminal jurisdiction ; ( z ) the supreme direction of
constellations. We have, therefore, only to explain the religious worship especially of the cultus of the Eumen-
d'y ( d y ? ) of Job3832. That the Pleiades are meant is ides. The indefinite powers were :- a general super-
not urkkely (see S TARS, 5 3 (a);cp Tg. (3832) $y N n x vision or guardianship ( I ) of all magistrates and law
uanim, ' the hen with her chickens'). Cheyne, however, courts ; ( z ) of the laws ; ( 3 ) of the education of the
prefers ' the Lion with his sons' (on Job3831, etc.' JBL, young ; and (4) of public morals-in addition to which
1898, 103 8).Epping's list of 'stations' for Venus there was ( 5 ) the competence to assume in political and
and Mars, obtained from Selencidean tablets, gives as national emergencies a dictatorial authority. '
the tenth ' the fourth son behind the king ' ( p Leonis). During the earlier history of the city the court held its
.The ' king' is Regulus ( a Leonis) ; he is preceded by sittings, for the trial of blood-guiltiness, upon the hill
As ar2 Lion's head ' (e Leonis). itself. For the hill was the Hill of the Arae, the Curses
(2umpov [BRA]; kiyiitha [Pesh.]; nrchcrunz [Vg. 991, ves.
or Imprecations-' the place for the solemn irrevocable
p e m m 13. 58 321. In 9 9 @, Pesh., presuppose the order $03: oath, the natural court for the trial of terrible offences
wy, an*>) Cp MAZZAROTH, ORION, PLEIADES. of blood-shedding that might not be tried under a roof.'
C. F. B.-T. K. C. Moreover, to the early city, the Areopagus was the
293 294
 AREOPAGUS, AREOPAGITE ARETAS
place without the gates, a place to condemn the criminal, Areopagites (iv ,duy TOG 'Apeiou rdyou, cp Cic. ad
to erect a monument for the ontcast tyrant, to bury the Att. i. 145 ; FoniZZes d'Epidnure, 168, " Apetos rdyos
stranger (Robert, A m Kydathen, 101). It was during XAyous <7rotfjuuTo), he made his defence. Much of what
the earlier and the later periods of Athenian history that fell from his lips may be presumed to have awakened
the Court of the Areopagus (4 PK T O ? 'Apeiou miyou an echo in the breasts of his audience (on the speech see
pouhfj) enjoyed its powers to the full. In the interval HELLENISM,9) ; but the mention of the resurrection
Ephialtes, aided perhaps by Themistocles (Arist. ConsL. of the body seemed to remove the case altogether out of
Ath. 25 ; 462 B.C.), abolished most of its indefinite the domain of the serious and practical. The court
functions, and thus deprived it of its strongest influence ; refused to continue the examination, and Paul was
it became merely a ' criminal court of narrpw competence.' contemptuously dismissed (&xheda<ovu. 32 J ). Curtius,
Thenceforth, as in Aristotle's time, it dealt only with Prrdus in Athen, modifies his view. ' For another view,
cases of wilful homicide, of poisoning, and of arson see Rams. Paul 243f: See also Findlay, Ann. Brit.
(Const. -4th. 57), while the superintendence of religion Sch. 178f. W. J. W.
\\-as in the hands of the King Archon. As indictments ARES (apse [BA]), I Esd. 510=Ezra25, A RAH, 2.
for impiety (ivSei&ts buepeias) came, in their preliminary
stages, before the latter, cases which once would have ['i.
ARETAS ( a p f ~ ~ c WH]), an ancient name
gone before the Areopagus were now tried before the (strictly H%rYth&; nnTi in inscriptions : e.8. , Eutiiig
popular jury-courts. It was in this way, therefore, that Nn6. Znschr. No. 16) of Nabatzan princes, mentioned
Socrates, accused like Paul of not worshipping the gods in the story of Jason the high priest (in the. time oi
of the city and of introducing new divinities,l was tried. Antiochns Epiphanes), 2 Macc. 5 8 ( A ~ E T U S[VAI).
As the regular place of business of the Icing Archon The Ardtas of this passage is called #king of the
was the Stoa Basileios-the associations of which were, Arabians'; he was hostile to J ASON (P.v.). Another
in later days, exclusively religious-it was within that Aretas was master of Damascus in the time of Paul-
portico that the charge of impiety was broiight against three years after the apostle's conversion. His ' ethnarch'
the philosopher. It is probable, however, that the sought (see below) to apprehend Paul, who, however,
Areopagus also always met within the Stoa (Dem. in made good his escape (2 Cor. 113zJ). The story of
Arisfog. 776) when ritual did not demand a midnight- the Nabataeans has been told elsewhere (see D AMASCUS,
sitting on the open rock-in other words, in all cases 12, NABATBANS). It is certain that about 85 B.C.
other than those of murder. When, with the advent of they had possession of Damascus ; but it should be
the Romans, the Areopagus reappeared, after its long added that the autonomy of Damascus in 70-69 B.c. is
eclipse, as once more the supreme authority of the city established by numismatic evidence. The first collision
(cp Cic. Ep. nd Pam. xiii. 1 5 ; Nat. Dew. 2 74), with the Romans was in 64-62 B.C., when the
and the specific control of religion fell again within its Nabatzan king, Aretas I I I . , intervened in the struggles
competence, it would naturally continue to meet there. between Hyrcanus and Aristobiilus. Damascus uow
There it was, therefore, and before that body, that came under Roman sovereignty. During the following
Paul was summoned. T o speak of him as 'perhaps decennia the Nabatzean kingdom became involved in
standing on the very stone where had once the wars occasioned by the Parthinns-with varying bnt
3. stood the ugly Greek who was answering the for the most part ill success. The king a150 had various
very same charge ' (Farrar, St. PnuZ, 390) is to sacrifice disputes with his neighbour Herod the Great. Aretas
historical truth to sentiment. W e mixst relinquish the IV. ( 9 ~ . c . - 4 0 A D . ) had tact and skill enough to
fond idea that Athens has the interesting distinction of keep terms with Augustus; his daughter became wife
being the one city of the world where we can tread in of Herod Antipas (10s. Ant. xviii. 5 1 ) , but was set
the very footsteps of the apostle. The view now aside in favour of Herodias. Disputes on frontier
generally taken errs in a double manner. It maintains, questions furnished the aggrieved father with pretexts
first, that the proceedings were in no sense legal or for war. Vitellius was ordered by Tiberins to
magisterial ; and secondly, that they were upon the hill. avenge the defeat inflicted by Aretas upon Herod ;
The marginal rendering (AV v. 22) is no doubt right in but the death of the Emperor put an end to the scheme
representing that it was before the court that Paul was (cp C HRONOLOGY, 9 28). At this time, according to
brought. Can we believe that a crowd of idlers, 2 Cor. 1132, Damascus must again have fallen into
parodying the judicial procedure of the court, could the hands of Aretas ; Damascene coins of Tiberins do
have been allowed to defile the neighbourhood of ' that not occur later than 33-34 A.D. A tempting con-
temple of the awful goddesses whose presence was jecture is that it was Caligula that sought at this price,
specially supposed to overshadow this solemn spot, and after his accession,l to buy over Aretas, against whom
the dread of whose name was sufficient to prevent Nero, Tiberins had so recently ordered war; yet, in our
stained as he was with the guilt of matricide, from complete ignorance of this chapter of history, we are not
setting foot within the famous city' (Suet. Ner. 31; Dio precluded from supposing that Tiberius himself in 34
Cas. 43 1 4 ) ? Such a view requires better support A . D. had already taken occasion to present Aretas with
than is given by the bare assertion that ' the Athenians the city as a peace-offering (cp C HRONOLOGY, § 78).
were far less in earnest about their religion than in A violent capture of the city by Aretas is not to be
the days of Socrates, and if this was meant for trial c thought of: such a deed would have called for exem-
it could only have been by way of conscious parody' plary punishment at the hands of the Romans. Equally
(Farrar, op. cit. 390, n. 3). Nor can an appeal to improbable is the view of Marquardt (Niim. Staatsver-
Acts 927 prove that < ~ r X a p Q e v o t(Acts 1719, AV 'took') waltunf, 1405) and Mommsen (Riim. Gesch. 5476)
is here not used in the sense of ' arrest.' that Ilamascns had remained subject to the king of
The view advocated by Curtius (Stadt~csch. ?ionAthen, Arabia continuously from the beginning of the Roman
262f.) is correct. Paul was taken not to the,keopagus period till 106 A. D . For ( I )in Pompey's time Damascus
hill,-a place not adapted either for hearing or for belonged to the Decapolis (Plin. H N v. 1874; Ptol.
speaking, upon an occasion such as this,-but to the v. 75 22 ; cp D ECAPOLIS, § 2 ) ; ( 2 ) in the reign of
Stoa Basileios ( t d r b u "Apetov miyou ; cp Acts 921 Tiberius it was the Roman governor that gave the
16 19, etc. ) for a preliminary examination (civdKpturs). authoritative decision on a question of frontier between
There it was to be decided whether the new teaching Damascus and Sidon (Tac. Ann. xvii. 6 3 ) ; ( 3 ) we have
would justify a prosecution for the introduction of a imperial coins of Damascus with figures of Augustus,
new religion. Standing in the midst of the assembled Tiberius, and Nero ; (4) in Domitian's time there was
a cohort raised in Damascus, the Cohors Flavia (CZL
1 Cp Xen. Mein. 1 I with Acts 1718. Yet there is probably
no conscious reference on the part of the Christian writer to the 1 So also Gutschmid (EXCIIISUS
in Euting's Nu6. Inschr. 85)
'trial of Socrates, though the contrary has been asserted. and Schiirer (GJV 1618,ET2 357x).
295 296
 AREUS ARIEL
2 870 ; 5 194, 652J.,) ; ( 5 ) Damascus was not included in )r may he a gloss upon the 'Gileadites'' (see below). St.
the Roman province formed out of the Nabatzan ZATW6 160) for 'Arieh' would read 1.F; nil!, and suggests
kingdom in 1 0 6 A. D.' .hat ' Argob and Havvoth Jair ' were originally glosses belonging
What it was that induced Aretas's 'ethnarch' in .o v. 29. On that theory, the origin of the difficult n N (prefixed
Damascus to persecute Paul, it is impossible to say. :o both names) beconies clear.
Perhaps he regarded Paul as a turbulent and dangerous The M T leaves it obscure whether the ' fifty men of
Jew ; perhaps he wished to propitiate the other Jews in *
[he sons of Gileadites' were fellow-conspirators with
Damascus, who were many and powerful (Jos. BJ Pekah (so BEL,which reads tlu6pes) or whether they
ii. 20 2 ; vii. 8 SO powerful that the synagogues had were slain along with the king ( s o 6"Bv6pas, Vg. viros).
been able to hand over to the young man ' Saul and BBA(not L) presents a different reading, fifty of the
his helpers such Jews as accepted the Gospel. The four hundred,' which, if correct, must refer to some
subsequent years, down to the absorption of the body-guard. This may be a trace of the true text, and
kingdom by the Romans, offer no incident of special Klostermann accordingly restores ' he (Peltah) smote
interest. It is, however, significant that in 67 A. D., in .
him . . with his (Pekahiah's) 400 warriors, and with
the Jewish war, Malchus 11. (Malku) contributed him (Pekah) were fifty men of the Gileadites. ' P EKAH
auxiliary troops to the army of Vespasian (Jos. BY vii. [p.a.] was possibly a Gileadite.
4s). Shortly before this, Damascus must have been
retaken from the Nabataeans by Nero, for imperial coins ARIARATHES, RVARATHES ( a p a ec~WA], ap lap.
of Damascus are again met with from 62-63 onwards. [K]),one ofthe sovereigns enumerated in I Macc. 15 22.
Consult Schurer, G J V 1610f:, where further litera- Ariarathes VI., Philopator, king of Cappadocia (163-
1 3 0 B.C.), is obviously intended. See CAPPADOCIA.
ture is referred to ; and cp DAMASCUS, § 12 ; NABA-
TBANS. H. S.
V.
ARIDAI ('1'1.R : apcaioc [BAL] APCFOC [K] ;
AREUS ( a p ~ [AKV,
c but cp Swete ; Jos. apsioc]) b i t cp A RISAI), son of Haman (Esth. 99). See ESTHER,
I Macc. 1220 AV. See SPARTA. § 3 (end).
AROOB. I. a territory in Bashan, always in the ARIDATHA (K??'lF ; capB&xa [BKAL], but cp
phrase 52n (Dt. 3 4 1 3 f: L l > K i l ) , ' district' or Gr. readings of P ORATHA). son of HAMAN(q.v.),Esth.
'circuit' of Argob (rreplxwpo~ aproB! [BAL]; 98. See E STHER, 5 3 (end).
once APBOK [B']). It was taken by Israel In the war
with Og, and contained sixty cities with walls and gates ARIEH (ill?&?),
2 K . 1 5 2 5 : see A RGOB, 2.
(Dt. 34f.). We are ignorant of its precise situation. ARIEL (k'&'?!,
but $875 in S . ; a p i ~ A[BAL]).
In Dt. 3 4 it seems equivalent to ' t h e kingdom of Og I. A personal name. So (i.) Gen.4616 Nu.2617, b ;
in Bashan' (cp I K . 413 where 6 is corrupt); but M T ?!ylg (see ARELI [EV], where b ' s readings are
in v. 1 3 it stands in apposition to 'all Bashan.' The given), the eponym of a family of G AD ( 4 . v . ) in P ;
term ' district,' literally meaning ' line ' of Argob, (ii.) Ezra 8 16 ( = I Esd.843, EV I DUEL , mg. ARIEL ;
which seems to imply very definite limits, has led d o u ~ h o [BA]),
s head of family, temp. Ezra (see E ZRA , i.
many (Targums, Porter, Henderson, and the Pal. Surv. $ 2 , ii. $ 1 5 ( I ) d ) ; and (iii.) z S.2320 [ B L ; A omits]
Maps) to identify it with the present Le& the low, = I Ch. 11 22 [BKAL]. a Moabite whose two sons were
rough plateau of congealed lava, whose sharp edge dis- slain by David's warrior, Benaiah. So RV,4 Kau. H S ,
tinctly marks it off from the surrounding plain. For Ew. We. Dr. Some more striking action, however, is
this, however, there is no other evidence ; nor does the O T required in such a context, and it is best to adopt some
narrative carry the conquest of Israel so far to the NE. form of Klostermann's emended reading, which makes
The one certainty is that Argob lay in Bashan. The Benaiah the slayer of two young lions (so Bu. in SBOT).
addition in Dt. 3 14 that it ran up to the border of Geshur Marquart, however, suggests that for Ariel in 2 S. we
and Maachah is indefinite, and the text of the rest of should read Uriel (cp U RIAH , I [zS.2325]), and the
this verse, which identifies Argob with the conquest of author of N AMES ( 5 35) makes a similar suggestion for
Jair, is corrupt. The Havvoth-Jair were tent villages Ariel, 2, and for ARELI (4.71. ).
and lay in Gilead ; the cities of Argob were fortified and 2. A prophetic name for Jerusalem, Is. 29.f: 7 (6),5
lay in Bashan. The only places with names (whether probably to be read Uriel (hyy)in zro. I, za, 7,and
in Greek or in modern times) of any similarity are the
'Pdyapa (so PayaPau I K. 4 13 [L]) of Jos. Ant. xiii. 155, Arial ( $ ~ l y = h ~in) v. 26. Uriel (or Uruel?) would
a fortress E. of Jordan, whose site is unknown (cp be a modification of Urusalem (c!wn~; Am. Tab.
Reland, PaZ. ZOI), and the modern Rajib (Rujeb) and Urusalim ; see J ERUSALEM ), and mean originally,
WHdy Rajib (RujEb),which, however, lie in Gilead. The Gods enclosure or settlement (cp J ERUEL ). Arial
name Argob may be derived from Heb. regeb, a cZod (see (cp Ar. irut''", hearth) means altar-hearth,6 as it prob-
€%EL). Besides authorities named, see Eus. OS; Wetz. ably does in Mesha's inscription hi^ lZ. 12,17J ). The
Reiseber. uber Hawan, etc. 83 ; GASm. HG 551 3.; prophecy containing it was written during Sennacherib's
Dr. ad Deut. 34-5. On archaeological remains, see invasion (see I SAIAH , ii. 20) ; it aimed at dissipating
BASHAN, 3. G. A. S. the false confidence of the people in the security of
Jerusalem. The proper name of the city was UruSaleln
2. Argob and Arieh ( " : ~ ~ ~ inh$r ~ ny), two names (which afterwards became Jerusalem). Isaiah alters
mentioned in connection with Pekahs conspiracy against this into Uriel (Uruel?) in order to make a paronomasia.
Pekahiah ( 2 K. 1525). but whether of officers on the side In a year or two the city against which David had
of the king, who shared his fate (hisgibhCrrim,accdrding encamped will be besieged by a greater than David,
to Targ. Jon.), or of conspirators along with Pekah, it and so great will be the slaughter in its streets that its
is difficult to say, owing to the corrupt state of the text. 1 Argob and Gilead lie close together.
Argob (apyop [BAL] aol-6) is not suitable for a personal o?iy$i
cp2Kau. H S33213, fusion of 1 y h
, crit.a note. m n and c ~ i y $ i a - p ( @I.);
s~
name. I t is a well-known place-name (see above, I), and Arieh
( a p [ e ] ~[BL],
a apm[A], &/I) has the article ;refixed (as if ' the M T omits 'sons' in both places and @ B A N in Ch.
3
4 RV the two (sons of) Ariel ' : .iV ' two lion-like men.
lion '). The Vg. (' percussit eum juxta Argob et juxta Arie '> 5 I n v. 7 C5 has a doublet :
. rspovuaAnnp
. .. [BZr both times, and
accordingly treats the names-we think correctly-as names oj ~

places2 (cp Tisch.), in which case they are doubtless glosses. AQ second time], CiiA [NAQ* first time], L A G O L y ' a p q h [Q mg.
Argob may have easily arisen from'the preceding p i N (BAL om.) first time] Ehp [N second time].
6 Thesimeword probablv occurs withthis meaning in Ezekiel's

In Jos. 1415 @ E gives Apyop for yiy.1~.See Kirjath-arba.

2 Not to be connected with apra (Eus. &Sa 258 IO), or rather
arilna (Jer. i6. 146 26) ; see ARUMAH.
297
 ARIMATHZEA ARK OF THE COVENANT
name will become no longer Uriel, but (by a slight ARK OF THE COVENANT or Sacred Ark (ihy ;
modification) Arial-i. e. , altar-hearth. The reading CIBWTOC [BAL]; ARCA).
Uriel seems to have been known to the author of There is nothing more significani than the changes in
319 : 'says YahwB, who has a fire ( i ~ in ) Zion and he tifles of sacred objects. W e must, therefore, be
a furnace in Jerusalem.' The other explanations of Names : careful to place these titles in their chrono-
this prophetic name are ( I ) lion, or lioness, of God logical order. According toSeyring( Z 4 T W
.' Ark of
(Ew., Di., Che., Isa. '1) ; ( 2 )hearth of God (Del., Konig, God, etc. 11116 1'911) the oldest name of the ark (or
Kittel) ; ( 3 ) altar-hearth (Stade, Duhm, Che.; SBOT). sacred chest) is ' the ark of Yahwb the God
Of these, the third is probably the easiest ; but none of )f Hosts (SEbZ'dth)who is enthroned upon the cherubim.'
them quite accounts for the selection of the new name rhis title is reached by an analysis of the designations of
for David's city, nor for the expression 'and will he ark in ( a ) z S. 6 2 and (6) I S. 44 (both passages
become to me like (an) Ariel ( v . 26). T. K . C. Ielong to early documents). The titles given in (a)are
ARIMATHXA (aplMA8alA [Ti. WH]), Mt. 2757, ark of God ' (hd-eZihihim),and ' called by the name of
etc. See RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM. l'ahwb SebL'6th that is enthroned upon the cherubim.'
:n (6) the title is ' ark of the b ' d h of Yahwl: SebZ'6th who
ARIOCH (71'7s ; ~ P I W X[BADEL 87, -XHC s enthroned upon the cherubim.' Recombining the
[87 in Dan. 214f:I). Probably a Hebraised form of an ;upposed oldest elements in these titles, Seyring obtains
old Babylonian name (see CHEDORLAOMER, 3 ) used, he title mentioned above. This usually careful scholar,
( I ) possibly with archzological accuracy, in Gen. 14 I 9 iowever, has overlooked, in dealing with ( 6 ) , 6 ' s reading
of an ally of an ancient king of Elam ; ( 2 )by a literary n the preceding verse-viz., the arlc of our God ' ( T ~ V
fiction, of Nebuchadrezzar's captain of the guard (Dan. CtPUTbV 706 8EoO 3,ULwV [B], 7. K. 75s 6 L a 8 4 K v S 7 0 0 8. Q.
214f. 24J) ; and ( 3 ) of a king of Elam (so the Syriac) :A], r. K . 7. 6. K U ~ ~ Or.U 8. 3.[L]), which is self-evidently
in alliance with Nebuchadrezzar (Judith 1 6 , aptam [K"]. nore correct than the Deuteronomic formula of MT,
Cp Bezold, BaJyZ. Assyr. Lit. 53. tnd, taken together with a. 6 ( ' ark of Yahwe '), justifies
ARISAI ('D'?F; POU@LOV [BXL], - $ ~ V O V [A], IS in assuming that the equally simple title 'ark of
Yahwb ' stood originally in a. 4a and v. 5 , and ' ark of
unless we regard this as an intruder and identify Arisai
with the succeeding name Apoaios ; see ARIDAI),son of Sod' (cp m.I I 17 19-22) in v. 46. Nor has Seyring
Harnan (Es. 99). See ESTHER, § 3 (end). noticed that after ' ark of God ' in ( a ) the relative clause
which follows is superfluous, and presumably a later
ARISTARCHUS ( A ~ I C T A ~ X O[Ti. C WH]), a Thes- insertion. It must be added that it remains most
salonian (Acts204 27 z ) , one of Paul's.companions in improbable that the divine name YahwB SEbZ'6th is
travel (Acts19zg), was amongthosewhoaccompanied him Ader than the Assyrian period, to which indeed Amos
from Europe on his last recorded visit to Jerusalem (Acts who undoubtedly uses it belongs ; at any rate the theory
204), and also on his voyage to Rome, having joined him that this name represents Yahwb as the God of Israel's
at Czsarea (Acts27 2 ) . As the apostle's ' fellow-prisoner' hosts, and has any special connection with the ark, has
( C T U V ~ C W ~ A U T O She
) unites with him in saluting the insuperable diffi~nlties.~Thus, so far as (a)and ( a ) are
Colossians (Col. 410). Cp C OLOSSIANS, IO$ He concerned, the popular names for the ark were very
joins in the salutation to Philemon (Philem. 24), but in short -viz., ' ark of Yahwb,' ' ark of God,' and ' ark of
this passage is designated simply as ' fellow-worker,' our God,'-and from the context of the former passage
Epaphras alone being called ' fellow-prisoner.' From we find that there was a still shorter name, ' the arlc'
this it has been inferred, with much probability, that the ( 2S. 64), which occurs thrice in old parts of Samuel,
companions of Paul relieved one another in voluntarily and five times (or seven, including Josh. 3 1 4 17 ; see
sharing his captivity. Kau. H S ) in the Hexateuch. The title 'ark of God'
I n tKe lists o? the 'seventy disciples' given by the Pseudo- ( p & ~ n pi^, or twice o.n.5~(h) occurs often in old
Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus (not earlier than the fifth
cent.), Aristarchus is bishop of Apamea in Syria. Pseudo- parts of Samuel, and also in Chronicles. In a solemn
1)orotheus also has it that along with Pudens and Trophimus speech of David in I Ch. 1512 14 we find the sonorons
he was beheaded in Rome at the same time as Paul. phrase ' the ark of Yahwb,the God of Israel,' which re-
ARISTOBULUS ( ~ p l c ~ o & o y A[VA;o c Ti. WH]. a minds us of the phrase used by the Philistines in I S. 5
Greek name adopted by Romans and Jews, and borne 7f: 1 1 . ~ Side by side with 'the ark of Elohiin' we
by several members of the Maccabean and Herodian naturally find the phrase 'the ark of Yahwb.' It
families). occurs first in the composite work JE, and may reason-
I. The teacher (6i6daKaXos) of Ptolemy(no. I ) , towhom ably be ascribed in the first instance to J , though in some
J'ndas (the Maccabee) sent letters ( 2 Macc. 1IO). He is passages it may have been inserted by the editor, either
the well-known Jewish- Hellenistic philosopher of that as an altogether new addition, or in lieu of the phrase
name, who resided at the court of PtolemyVI. Philo- ' the ark of God,' which was probably used in E. Once
metor (180-145 B .c.). He w&s of priestly descent (&A (Josh. 3 13) we find this remarkable addition ' the Lord
TOO TGV XpiorGv kpdwv yhvous, v . I O ; cp Lev. 43 of the whole earth,' which, apart from vv. II 13, occurs
@?.), and was the author of (among other writings) only,in late writings, and, as Seyring points out, is
certain works on the Pentateuch, fragments of which are
preserved in Clement of Alexandria and in Eusebius. 1 Cp Ass. e m , ergnu (erinnu), 'box,' 'receptacle' (DELUGE,
$ IO).
See Schur. G J V 2 760$, Ew. GVI 4 355, and Kue. 2 The same renderings are given for ,?I! Noah's ark, but
Godsa. z 433$
not fm a?,. the 'ark' in the bulrushes.
2. ' They of the household of Aristobulus ' are saluted
in Rom. 1610. It is not implied that Arktohillus him- 3 This rendering implies that D$, 'name,' occurs twice in M T
self was a Christian. The name was a common one by pure accident. Otherwise we should have to suppose that
the name by which the ark was called was 'the name of Yahwk
in the dynasty of Herod. The list of the' 'seventy Sgbs'oth ' etc.
disciples ' given by the Pseudo-Dorotheus names Aris-
tobulus as bishop of Britain.
4 SmeAd's arguments (ReL-psch. 185 x),weakly met by
Marti (Gesch. dev Isr. X e L 14o), appear conclusive, only he
should have fortifikd himself by Assyrian parallels. Thus, A i m
ARIUS ( a p ~ c[AKV; d is not certain, see Swete], is said to rule kiHSat ilini 'the mass, or entire multitude, of the
Macc. 1 2 2o RV ; see SPARTA.
ARI(IS), I Gods,' Neb0 to he the overseer kiSat gam2 u irsitim 'of the
mass (multitude) of heaven and earth.' Amos and his school
ARK. See D ELUGE, IO. represent Yahwi: as the lord of all supernatural beings in the
universe, in opposition to all rival deities. See, however, NAMES,
1 Isaiah's authorship is doubted (Che. Intv. Zsu. 204) I t is 5 123.
unlikely that Isaiah exnlained Uriel 'God's fire' : the parono- 5 On these points see further Budde's crit. note in S R O T :
masia in ZI. 21) would then disappear Moreover V K in the Couard Z A T W 1 2 71 ['92], n. ; We: TBS 167 (especially as
sense of fire seems to he late. Cp 3032J ; 33 17 (late). to the right rendering of I Ch. 136).
299 300
 ARKOFTHECOVENANT
presumably due to a post-exilic writer whose idea of E, in their original form, related how Yahwb or El6him.
Yahwb differed from that of JE. The phrase ' the ark at Sinai or at Horeb, directed an ark to be made as a
4. Traditional substitute for his personal presence as

__
of Yahwb' passed from J E into the terminology of the
historical books in general (including Chronicles). origin of leader of his people. These passages
A new title for the ark seems to have been coined by .' JL'
were omitted bv the editor, who pre-
the author of the original Deuteronomy (Deut. l O S ) , and ferred the muck more suitable account
2. Ark of adapted from him by writers and editors [so he must have deemed it) given in P (see below, 5 13),
who shared his religious point of view, and but has preserved the tradition of J and E that, both
b,rith. even (strange to say) by the Chronicler, who, in the wilderness and on the entrance into Canaan,
in general, stands so completely under the influence of the ark led the van of the host. In referring to this J
the Priestly Code. This phrase is ' the ark of the d'rith ' quotes two poetic formulze (Nu. 1035 36), which he says
(usually rendered ' covenant ' ; see below), either simply were spoken by Moses at the beginning and the end of
(Josh. 3-6) or in various combinations, such as ' ark of a day's march, but which more probably arose at a later
the d'rith of Yahwb,' 'ark of the d'rith of Elohim,' and time.' Whether J and E agreed with Deuteronomy in
'ark of the d'rithofAd6nai.' TheDeuteronomisticeditors stating that the tw>otables of stone ' were placed in the
have freely introduced the term d'rith into the titles ark is a matter which can be only conjecturally decided.
of the ark in the older sources which they edited. The There is, however, a very strong probability that they did
work of the editor clearly betrays itself in such phrases not. E's story, at any rate, is much more forcible if
as ny?+? pi$$ (Josh. 3 1 4 ) ~ +-n'?? pi?? (Josh. 3 1 7 ) , we suppose no renewal of the shattered tables (Ex. 3 2 1 g ) ,
where the editor has forgotten to make the omission of and we cannot Gelieve J to have differed on this im-
the article, necessitated by the introduction of a de- portant point from E. Historical considerations (see
pendent genitive. below, 5 I O ) confirm this conclusion. In particular, the
And now as to the correct meaning of the phrase ark was not, in the succeeding narratives of J and E, a
'n'ija pi^, It is rendered by fi K i P w d s 75s 6ta- symbol of the revealed law, but the focus of divine
R ~ K ~ sby, Vg. arca fmderip and a r m testamenti (Nu. powers. Twice, we are told, the Israelites omitted to
1 4 + + ) , and by EV 'ark of the covenant.' That b'rith take the ark with them and were defeated (Nu. 1 4 4 4
cannot, however, in this phrase mean ' covenant ' in our Josh. 7 4 ) , and on the latter occasion Joshua prostrated
sense of the word is clear from I K. 821 ( = z Ch. 6111, himself before the and remonstrated with YahwB,
where we are told that ' the b'rith of Yahwb ' was ' IU the God of Israel. The crowning proof of the potency
the ark.' The phrase is parallel to that in Ex. 25 16 21, of the ark was given when the Israelites crossed the
' intothearkthoushalt put thetestimony' (nlpp nK), which Jordan (according to one of the traditions, at harvest
time), and captured Jericho (Josh. 3J 6). The Deuter-
(see below) is a technical term for the ' two tables' of onomic editor has made the former part of the narrative
the Decalogue. Hence Kau. HS rightly rejects the difficult to restore to its original form (which was a com-
obscure if not misleading phrase 'ark of the covenant,' bination of J and E ) ; but it is probable that J and E
and substitutes ' ark with the law (of YahwB),' which is already described the priests (not, 'the priests, tlie
at any rate, by common admission, the best approxi- Levites ') as bearers of the ark. In the latter part it is
mate rendering (cp C O V E N A N T , (I I). not very difficult to recover a simpler, more naturni,
The latest phase in the historical development of the and presumably earlier account, in which no express
names of the ark is marked by the title which occurs mention is made of the ark, and nothing is said of the
3. Brk of eleven times in the Priestly Code and also falling down of the w-alls of Jericho (on the narrative
in Josh. 416 (introduced into J E by the see J OSHUA, ii. 5 7),3 Thus far, then, the most genuine
esdath. editor?), meaning ' a r k of the publicly
tradition is clear and intelligible.
delivered ordinance ' (eBAL ;I KCPWT~S 7 5 s ~ ~ u R ? ~ K 700
Ts [' The invention of portable sanctuaries, and especially
~ a p ~ u p i oVg.
u , nrca testimonii, EV, ark of the testimony). of portable idols, may possibly go back to the nomadic
The meaning given above is confirmed by Ex. 31 18 (E?) Semites and to a time when the gods were still tribal
3 2 1 5 (E),3 4 2 9 (P), where we hear of ' t h e two tables of
rather than local ; but the probabilities are all against
the n y Probably this new title appeared to the such a view. There is less trace of such an institution
priestly writer clearer and more definite than that in Arabia than in any other part of the Semitic world,
introduced by Deuteronomy. It did not, however, and nowhere else is the principle so strongly marked
displace the older phrases, which reappear not only in that a tribe that changes its seats changes its gods.
Chronicles but also in the Greek Apocrypha, and ( K . Even the ark of Yahw&is not carried back by Hebrew
75s GLUR?~KTS) in the N T (see below, 5 1 5 ) . tradition to patriarchal times ; the patriarchs do worship
On looking back, we see that the names and titles of only where they have afixed altar. It is, therefore, more
the ark fall into three classes. W e have, first, the names likely that portable symbols of the godhead first arose
' ark of YahwB,' ' ark of God,' ' ark of our God,' which among the settled Semites and in connection with the
indicate that the ark contained an objeccwhich in some religion of the army in war. In this connection the idea
way symbolised and represented Israel's God ; and next, of a portable god involves no great breach with the con-
the names, ' ark of the law,' 'ark of the ordinance,' ception that each deity has a local home, for when the
which suggest that the object contained in the ark was campaign is over the god returns to his temple. When
inscribed with laws; and lastly, attached to the older thenotion of portable gods wasonce established, however,
names, titles such as those in Josh. 3(11) 13 2 S . 6 2 , which its application could easily be extended and would serve
indicate a desire to correct the materialistic interpreta- to smooth away the difficulty of establishing new perma-
tion which might seem to convert the ark into an idol. nent sanctuaries in conquered regions or colonies over
A critical study of the texts is the necessary commentary the sea. A Greek colony always carried its gods with
on these deductions from names. The following it, and it is probable that this was often done by the
sections aim at bringing together the chief notices of Phoenician colonists also. Even in Israel we find that
the ark, indicating the sources from which they are the sanctuary of Yahwb at Dan was constituted by
derived, and then, at fitting points, giving the reader setting up the image from Micah's sanctuary (Judg. 18
some idea of the results which follow from a critical 3o), just as David gave a religious character to his new
treatment of these notices. capital by transferring the ark to it.']
W e turn first of all to the documents called J and E But by what critical process can we bring simplicity
(as far as we can separate the one from the other) in the 1 Delitzsch, however, defends the Mosaic authorship, Z K W
Hexateuch. It is more than probable that both J and 3 225-235 ['Sz].
2 So MT and ; &WAF omit the ark (of).'
1See the analysis of Ex. 32f: in Exouus, ii. g 3, and cp 3 We, C H 123. Ki. Hist. 12821:
Bacon, ExorZaq 143, 146; We. C H 95 ; Di. Ex. u. Leu. 345. 4 From WRS, kzwnetf Lecfares, 2nd series, Lect. I. (MS).
301 302
 A R K O F THECOVENANT
into the episode of the capture and restoration of the vas in the house of one Obed-edom of Gath, and that
sacred ark by the Philistines ( I S. 4 1-7 I ) ?
'' Capture Some facts are admitted. That at the
and end of the period of the Judges the ark
David fetched it thence with much jubilation to Zion.
How came the ark to be there? That David of his own
tccord entrusted such a sacred object to a Philistine is
recovery' rested at the Ephraimitish sanctuary of iighly improbable ; hut how if Obed-edom was not a
Shiloh is a trustworthy Statement, guaranteed by I S. Philistine sojourning in Judah but a foe residing in his
43f. (chap. 3 we must regretfully pass over, as coming iative town of Gath? How if the ark had never left
from a different hand and later writer ; see S A M U E L , Philistine territory, though it had been shifted from
ii.). It must, also, he a fact that the Philistines Dagon's temple to a private house? How if David
had defeated the Israelites near Eben-ezer (I SRAEL , icted as Assyrian kings acted in similar circumstances,
11). Tradition doubtless added that the leaders of ind reconquered the precious object which was to him
Israel attributed their misfortune to the absence of the n some sense the dwelling of his God? This is
ark from the host, and that they therefore fetched the ;he hypothesis of Kosters, who held not only, with
sacred chest from Shiloh. The immediate consequences Kittel and Budde, that z S. 21 15-22 is properly the con-
are graphically described. On the arrival of the ark iinnation of the narrative in z S. 517-25, but also that
the Israelites were in a state of wild delight ; and the the sequel of the story of the battle in Gath ( z S. 2120)
Philistines who heard the shoutings were proportionately was once the notice that David fetched the ark from
alarmed, for ' who (said they) can deliver us from these the house of Obed-edom in Gath and deposited it for a
great gods? ' (e"ZChm). Nevertheless, with the courage time at Baa1.l After this, according to Kosters, came
of despair, the Philistines renewed the fight with complete originally the story of the capture of Jerusalem (an event
success, and were even able to carry off the arlc in which this critic places after the hostilities referred to in
triumph. Then begins a series of wonderful incidents z S. 5 1 7 3 ) , and of the bringing up of the arlc to Zion.
from which it is difficult to extract a kernel of early The editor to whom the present form of z S. 61-12 is
tradition. Stade thinks (GVZ 1zozf: ) that in chaps. due appears to have had a religious rather than a his-,
5 and 6 he can find the remnants of two distinct accounts ; torical motive. The facts as stated in the original
but the recognition of this would only diminish the narrative might suggest to some readers that YahwB
number of diHicult features in the narrative. It would needed the interference of David to deliver him from
ohviously not provide an intelligible statement of facts. captivity : in other words, that David was stronger than
Of the difficult details referred to there is only one which his God. The editor shrank from inventing an entirely
it is necessary to criticise here. It is a statement which new narrative, but, to counteract that idea, put the
the study of the Assyrian monuments seems to make central facts in the traditional story in an entirely new
historically impossible. The Philistines, we are told, setting.
under the pressure of pestilence, returned the ' gods ' This hypothesis, the present writer has long felt,
which they had captured from Israel. Ancient nations is absolutely required to clear up an important historical
did not act thus in such circumstances. For example, episode.2 Without it the central facts of tradition, in-
we know that the image of the goddess NanZ (see cluding David's almost ecstatic joy ( 2 S . 6 14), are hope-
NaNiE.4) was taken from Erech by an Elamite king, lessly obscure. A glance at z S. 6 I J will convince the
and detained in Elani for 1635 years. Did any calamity reader that there is nothing arbitrary in the view pro-
ever suggest to the Elamites the idea that NanZ was posed. That w. 2 - m ~cannot have been the original
chastising them for the insult to her image? No. sequel of ZJ. I must be clear. Unless ZI. I is simply niis-
Ahbanipal, king of Assyria, had to devote all his placed, it must have been followed by a record of some
energies to the task of crushing the Elamites before he martial exploit of David. T o the present writer it seems
could restore the image to its ancient home (cp A ~ R - probable (see D AVID , 7) that the exploit consisted in
BANI-PAL, 8). Similar stories of reconquered idols a great victory near Gath (cp z S. 212of:), which so
are told in connection with the names of A5urbSnipal's weakened the Philistines that they offered to restore the
grandfather Sennacherib (cp ASSYRIA,§ 20) and the old ark on condition of David's making with them a treaty
Babylonian king Agu-lralc-rime. of peace, and that David himself fetched the ark from
The fragmentary document which we have thus far Obed-edom's house. It will be remembered that when
studied closes with the statement that the ark was placed David defeated the Philistines at Baal-perazim he had
in the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim, and that 'taken away the images' ( z S. 521) which, by their
Abinadab's son was consecrated to keep it. It is to an presence, should have ensured a Philistine victory. It
entirely different (and probably earlier) sources that seems probable that when the Philistines restored the
we owe the narrative of the bringing of the ark to Zion. ark David gave back the captured 'imnges.' Clever-
We learn here that at the time when David bethought ness was a characteristic of this king. It was all-ini-
himself of the ark, it rested at a place called Baal in portant to him not to wage an internecine warfare with
Judah ( 2 S. 6 2 ; see Driver nd.Zoc. ). During the whole the Philistines, and he therefore ' contented himself with
of Saul's reign and during David's seven-years' reign in a peace honourable for both parties ' (IGtmphansen).
Hebron, it had lain forgotten in a provincial town. The original story may have referred to this restoration
Neither Saul nor David had thought of taking it into of the images captured at Baal-perazim, and this com-
battle; nor, so far as our evidence goes, had it been pound name may have suggested the mention of ' Baal '
visited by the people. What, then, had been the effect and Perez-uzzah' in z S.6 as it now stands. In a
of the repeated attestations which the divine judgments certain sense, indeed, the ark was recovered from Baal-
had given to its supernatural power ? Let us see whether perazim.
the narrative in z S. 6 (which appears to be older than Our next notice of the ark is in z S. 7, a passage full
that in I S. 41-71), when critically treated, suggests any of varied interest, though in its present form not older
way out of our manifold difficulties. It is permissible, than the sixth century. It tells us (and no doubt the
and indeed necess,uy, to disregard so much of chap. 6 1 The reason why David deposited the ark at Baal was, accord-
as relates to the death of Uzzah (a passage which in its ing to Kosters that he had not yet conquered Jehus or Jerusalem.
difficulty resembles parts of the story in I S. 53, and Those who hdld another view as to the time of the conquest of
the growth of which can he accounted for), and to fix Jebus will give a different reason. David had indeed conquered
Jebus, hut had not yet adapted it by fresh buildings to serve the
our attention on the simpler narrative in ZJV.10-15, the purpose of a capital. See DAVID, 5 IO. '
kernel of which is that, early in David's reign, the ark 2 Since the above was written, Winckler has made another
attempt to produce an intelligible view of the history of the ark
1 Tiele, BAG d3,f 305J 3 9 2 8 , referred to by Kosters, TAT (GI 7 0 8 ) . It is difficult to see that there is any solid ground
2'7 364 r931. for his very revolutionary hypothesis; but at any rate, he
2 The reference in z S. 6 3 to the house of Abinadab seems to perceives a problem which escaped the eariier writers before
be an editorial insertion (see Kosters, op. cit. 368). Kosters.
303 304
 ARK O F THE COVENANT
statement is historical) that David wished to build a 3estruction of the temple of Shiloh. Giesebrecht and
cedar-house for the ark. but was forbidden bv an oracle. qouard have pointed to the invasion of Judah by Shishak
6. Permanent We can understand, therefore, that for :SeSon!, I. ), king of Egypt, about 928, as the occasion
a time (as 2 S. 11 II suggests) the ark 3f this (see I I<. 1426). The objection is that Shishalc's
abode' was still carried with the army as-an xmpaign, as the bas-reliefs at Karnak appear to pr0ve.l
insurance against defeat.l The captiire of it by the was against Israel as well as Judah, and that, Egypt
Philistines, however, had already given a blow to the being too weak at that time to think of permanent con-
primitive, fetishistic conception of the ark, and an pests, the expedition must have been simply due to
occasion arose when David, it would seem, was inwardly vainglory and to greed. If Shishak took away from
moved to express a far higher view. It was probably a Palestine anything in the nature of an idol, it must have
turning-point in Israel's, as well as in David's, religious been the ' golden calves ' of Jeroboam, and not the out-
development. The circumstances were these. David was wardly unattractive wooden chest in the sanctuary of the
fleeing from Jerusalem before Absalom. Zadok wished temple of Rehoboam. Besides, Rehoboam and his priests
to carry the a ark of God' with David and his body- would never have allowed the capture of the ark to
guard. The king, however, protested, and commanded become known : they would certainly, ill the interests of
Zadok to carry it back, 'that it may be seated in its the temple, have substituted a new chest, for which
place' ( z S. 1525, 63.). He was conscious (if v. 26 pious fiction the supposed discoveries of Babylonian kings
may be followed) that YahwB might have cause to be mentioned by Tiele (BAG 461) may perhaps furnish a
displeased with him, and would rather suffer his punish- parallel. ( 2 ) The ark may have been carried away with
ment meekly than seem, by having the ark with him, to the temple treasures in 785, by Joash, king of Isracl
demand the interposition of Yahw8 as a natural right. ( z I<. 1414), who would hardly have omitted to reclaim
Henceforth, therefore, the symbol of Yahw&'spresence the long-lost treasure of the Ephraimitish sanctuary at
should no more ' leave its place ' : Yahw8 would direct Shiloh. The objection to this is that the ark had long
Israel's affairs, both in peace and in war, from Zion. ceased to be the special possession of a tribe, and that
Early in Solomon's reign the greatest of all Israel's events had proved that Joash could well dispense with
sanctuaries was erected. Much as the original passage the ark, while to have carried it away would have been
of Solomon's biography has been edited (see Kau. HS an offence against the great hero of united Israel-David.
and cp a),it is beyond question that this king trans- ( 3 ) The ark (which was probably renewed by the priests,
ported the ark from its temporary abode to the sanctuary when decayed from age) may have retained its place till
of his temple. There-so both he and David hoped.- the great catastrophe in 586, and previously to this may
it was to serve as a national centre, and complete the have lost much of its ancient prestige owing to the
iinification of Israel. The hope was, however, dis- growing sense of the inconsistency of identifying such an
appointed ; nor do even the writers of Judah spend a object as the ark with the great God YahwB, and
word on the ark, or give a hint as to the feelings of the perhaps also to discourses of the prophets against a
people towards it. superstitious reverence for the ark which have been lost,
Our next news of the ark is indirect, and comes from or even suppressed by editors. This view-which is in

7.Disappear-
an exilic or post-exilic passaze of the Book of Jeremiah
(316): The passage runs thus : ' In
those days no more shall one say, ' ' The
the main that adopted in 4 Esd. 1022, and implied by
the legend in 2 Macc. 25 (cp below, IS), that Jeremiahi!
hid the tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense
ark of the 6'rith of YahwB," neither in a cave-is by no means an improbable one. The
shall it come into one's mind, neither 'shall one think only obvious objection to it can easily be met. The
npon it, nor miss it, neither shall it be made again.' assertion in Dent. '104.3: that the ark was simply the
The full import of the words may be doubtful ; but at repository of two inscribed tables of stone need not
least one thing is clear-the ark, on the possession of imply that D, like P, is an archzologist, and that the
which the weal or woe of Israel had once seemed to object which is thus wrongly described no longer existed.
depend, had passed away. This is too patent from It is more natural to suppose that, like the other fetishes
later writings to be denied. Ezra 1 and I Mace. 4 do to which this writer is so vehemently opposed, the sacred
not mention the ark among the sacred vessels. Josephus stones which (as we shall see) were the objects venerated
(BJv. 55) declares that the Holy of Holies contained of old in the ark still held their place, concealed from
nothing at all. Lastly, Tacitus, relating the entrance view but secure. The Deuteronomist, speaking in the
of Pompey into the temple, uses the emphatic words, name of Moses, could not help assuming the sanctity of
' Inde vulgatnm nullas intus deum effigies ; vacuam the ark and its contents. In the interests of piety,
sedem et inania arcana' (Hist. 59). How the ark however, he transformed (as far as words could do it) the
disappeared will be considered presently (see next §). nature of the objects in the ark. That venerable coffer
Suiffice it to add here that the sZpher t$r& or ' Book of was not, he meant to say, in any sense the dwelling of the
the Law ' succeeded to the undivided reverence of true deity. whom no temple could hold ( I I<. 827) : it simply
Israelites, and is still, with its embroidered mantle and contained a perfect written embodiment of the funda-
ornaments, the most sacred object in every synagogue. mental demands of Israel's righteous God.
When, then, and how did this holy thing, which, ac- This leads us to consider the origin and affinities of
cording to Jer. 3 16, was by many so painfnlly missed, pass the ark. For the ark of the Deuteronomist (and of P ) ,
We have accounted for one 9. Real with its two inscribed tables, no parallel has
8. Its fate. ont of sight?
strange gap in our historical notices respect- nature, been found. Prof. Sayce indeed refers. to
ing the ark : how shall we explain the still longer and Mr. Rassani's discovery of a coffer with two
stranger lacuna which extends from (say) 960 to 586 inscribed alabaster tablets in a little temple at BalawBt,
R .c.? Why is it that neither the historians nor the near M@ul ; 3 but the coffer (which was not placed in
prophets of this period (so far as we possess their works) the sanctuary) also was of alabaster, and with its con-
refer to the fortunes of the ark or to the popular rever- tents corresponds to the chests containing sacred books
ence for it in their own time? Three answers seem which were among the regular appurtenances of Egyptian
possible. ( I ) Soon after 960 the ark may have been (and probably of Syrian) temples, but were not meant to
captnred by an enemy-a calamity which was deliberately be carried. For the ark known to the earliest Hebrew
suppressed by the historians, jiist as they suppressed the traditions, however, there are many monumental
1 We must not refer here to I IC. 226, which states according 1 St. G V I 1353j:' WMM As. u. E w . 166-169.
to MT, that Abiathar used to 'bear the ark befor: David- 2 In the Talmud {Hwajojh, ria) it is Josiah who hides the
Le., in his campaigns. The right reading is, not fils,' ark,' hut ark and other sacred objects, including the pot of manna (see
TigR, ' ephod ' ; cp I S. 23 6 9. Cp the same mistake in I S. 14 18, below 5 15).
MT. (So first Thenius.) 3 S&e, Hibbert Lectwes, 65 ; cp Pinches, TSBA 7 83.

20 305 306
 ARK OFTHECOVENANT
parallels. In Egypt, for instance (from which Renan idol. It was not merely one of a class of objects, each
too hastily derives the Israelite ark), no festal pro- of which contained a portion of the magical virtue of
cession could be sculptured or painted without them.l the deity whom it represented : 1 it was the only object
The arks, with their images, were placed on boats, with which Yahwk was so closely connected that the ark
which were ornamented at the ends with heads of (for reverence forbade mention of the stones) and YahwB
the divinities within ; the king himself, being divine, were practically synonymous terms. It was, therefore, too
also had his ark-boat. Such an ark-boat, too, is sacred to be moved for a slight reason. Worshippers
referred to in the strange story of the daughter of the would rather make a procession round or before the ark
king of Bahtan,2 where an image of the god Honsu is (cp z S. 6 14) than bear it in procession themselves. The
said to have been transported to Syria, to deliver a reverence implied in the story in a S. 661: may represent
princess from the spirit that oppressed her. These the feeling of an age later than Davicl's ; but circumstances
shrine-boats must originally have had their parallels in had long been leading up to that extreme exaggeration.
Babylonia : the constant expression for the sacred arks The higher the conception of Yahwk became, the greater
in the cuneiform texts is d i p p i "-i. e. , ' ships. ' Within the was the awfulness which encompassed the ark,2 until (it
best-known historical periods, however, it was in simple appears probable) by a natural reaction the nobler
arks or coffers that the images of the gods were borne Israelites rejected the fetishistic conception of the ark
in procession at the Babylonian (and Assyrian) festivals. and its contents altogether, Thus we get one great
Thus it appears that two things were essential in a distinction between the arlc of the Israelites and other
sacred arlc-that it should be of a size and a material sacred arks : it was not subservient to idolatry. The
which woold permit it to he carried, and that it should only occasions on which it left its resting-place were
contain a representation or mystic symbol of a deity. times of war. Then, indeed, it was carried with the host
The ark known to David and Solomon doubtless com- into the fray, just as the Philistine images were carried
plied with these conditions. It was a simple wooden into battle by the Philistines ( z S. 5zr)-not to speak of
box, such as the ancestors of the Israelites had used in Arabian and Carthaginian parallels. It was not specially
their nomadic state for their few v a l ~ a b l e swithout
,~ either a ' warlike palladium,' however, except for the periods
the coating of gold or the cherubim with which the when war rather than peace was the normal state
reverence of a later writer provided it. As to its of the people and we have found even David, at a
Contents. contents, the inscribed tables of stone,' great crisis in his life, deciding to put his trust in his
which we should never have expected God without the presence of the ark.
to find in the Holy of Holies, were but a substitute of The notices of later writers are valuable mainly for
the imagination for some mystic symbol 0;representation the religious history of the period of their authors. They
of YahwB. Of what did that symbol consist? We are, 12. Later show us how, near the close of the pre-exilic
of course, bound to do what we can to minimise the (and afterwards in the post-exilic) age, pious
fiction or error of the Deuteronomist ; but we must not notices. men imagined to themselves the nature and
deviate from the paths of historical analogy. These circumstances of the ark. It is, therefore, unsafe to
dnties are reconciled by the supposition that the ark infer with Berthean, from z Ch. 353, that the ark was re-
contained two sacred stones (or This view, no movecl from the sanctuary by Manasseh ; unsafe, also,
doubt, implies a survival of fetishism; but there nre to infer, with the old Cambridge scholar Spencer, from
traces enough of fetishism (on which see I DOLATRY, § 4) P s description of the ark, that it was designeclly macle
elsewhere in Hebrew antiquity to justify it. The stones like the arks of Egypt, in order that the Israelites
(of stone) must have been ancient in the extreme. They might miss no splendour or elegance which had charmed
(or it) originally had no association with Yahwk ; they their eyes at Zoan. That Manasseh, with his syncret-
represented the stage when mysterious personality and istic liberality, would have removed the ark is altogether
power were attached to lifeless matter. Being portable, improbable. Spencer's theory, on the other hand,
however, they were different from the sacred stones may contain an element of truth, and is, at any rate,
of Bethel, Beth-shemesh, Shechem, and En-rogel, more plausible than the view developed out of P s acconnt
and are most naturally viewed as specimens of those by Riehm.5 It is probable that the priestly legislator
baetyls, animated stones, which, according to Sancho- (Pz),,inhis description of the ark, did, unconsciously
niathon, were formed by the heaven-god, and were and in no servile manner, take suggestions from the
presumably meteorites. They may have belonged sacred chests of Babylonia and Egypt, which he had
originally to the tribe afterwards called Ephraim; and seen or heard of. The simple chest of which J and E
when the several tribes united in worshipping Yahwk, had doubtless spoken was unworthy (he thought) to
the God of Moses, the Ephraimitish ark with its contents be in any sense the symbol of the 'Lord of the whole
may have been adopted as the chief sacred symbol of earth.' Not such an ark could Moses have ordered
Yahwk. Theearliest narrators(see above, 3, end) viewed to be made, for Yahwk was all-wise and must have
the arlc (which was virtually one with what it contained) ' filled ' the artificers of the ark and the tabernacle with
as a substitute for the immediate presence of Yahwk, the a divine spirit in wisdom and understanding' (Ex.
sin of the ' Golden Calf' at Sinai having proved the 35 31). We must not, however, overlook the
Israelites to be unripe for such an immense privilege. references to the ark in writings of the Deuteronomic
The primitive Israelites, however, who knew nothing of school. We are told (Dt. 108) that Yahwk ' separated
the story referred to, must have regarded it, not as a the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the d'&h of YahwB,'
substitute, but as the reality itself. and in Dt. 319 (cp 25f: ) we find a special title given to
The portableness of the Israelitish ark did not, it is ' the priests the sons of Levi,' which is derived from this
true, lead to its being carried about in processions. The function (cpJosh. 3 3). For other Deuteronomicreferences
11,Treatment. reason is that, to the Israelite, the object to the ark, see Dt. 31251: Josh. 833 I K. 315 619 8921.
within the ark was much more than an
1 Cp Ma4pero, FPPJ 3 43, n. z.
1 See the procession of the arks of Amen Re' Mtit and Honsu 2 Cp I S. 6 2 0 , And the men of Beth-slynesh said, Who is
(the Thehan triad) in the second court of the teAple df Ra&[e]ses able to stand before Yahwk, this hob God?
111. at Medinet HShti (Wilkinson Anc. EgyPtirrns 3 289) 3 See WRS, ReL Ser?z.PJ 37.
and Plate V. in Naville's FestivaZHhZ ofOsorhon, 2 (Gp p. 18): 4 Kautzsch and Kraetzschmar (see 'Literature ') hardly seem
2 Maspero RPPJ 3 40.45. to hit the mark. We cannot lay any stress on the titles in I S.
3 Del. As;. N W B S.V. el+& On the processional arks in 4 4 2 S. B z on grounds stated already (above 5 I).
Babylonia, see Tiele, Z A 2 17gfl; C. J. Ball, PSBA 144. 5 R i e h d thinks (HWBPJ, art. ' Bundesladk ') that the ark was
4 Cp Doughty A r . Des. 1227. constructed in such a way as to show the diametrical opposition
Cp Vatke, d e ReZ. des A T 321 ; St. GT/lr457f: ; Benzinger, between the religion of revelation and the religion of nature
N e b . Arch. 370. There were and still are two sacred stones, worshi , the presence of Yahwk (symholised by the cherubim on
a black and a white, built into the wall of the Ka'ba a t Mecca the ark? being conditional on Israel's performance of its covenant-
(WRS, Kik 297f.). duties.
307 308
 ARK O F TBE COVENANT ARMAGEDDON
W e now return to the much more important notices tradition variously said) by Jeremiah or Josiah, shall
in the Priestly Code and in Chronicles. A fnll descrip. suddenly reappear in the sanctuary in the latter days.
tion of the ark is given in Ex. 2510-22 See besides Spencer De Zegihs HeLru!orurn (1685), Seyring
13. p's 371-9. It was made of acacia wood. :on t i e names of the a:k) Z A T W 1 1 rr4-124 ['91]; Couard (on
the reiigious and national import of the ark),
This statement is possiblv based on tradi- 16. Literature. Z A T W 1 2 ['92]; Kautzsch (on the title
tion which is particnlar as to the maierials of sacred Yahw2 Seha'oth) ih..G['86] 17-22 ; Kosters
objects. The shittah-tree grows not only in Arabia, TkT,27361-378 ['93] ; Di. on Ex. 25: Nowack?s and Benzin&;
Meb. Arch. ; Winclcler, G I 1 ['gs], 70-77 ; Kraetzschmar, Die
but also in parts of Palestine : the ark, therefore, could ~undes?,ovsteZZun~, r896 pp. zoE-zzo; BLhr, Syiidolik, 1482, etc.
be renewed if necessary. It was oblong-two cubits ,on other sacred arks) ; &impson, ' Ark-shrines of Japan,' TSBA
and a half in length, one and a half in breadth and in j 550-554. T. K. C.
height. Gold was overlaid on it within and without, ARKITE ('p7v3--i.e., the 'Arkite, man of 'Arl:a ;
and on the lid, which had a projecting golden rim (a), ~ p o y ~ + l [ADFL,
oc Jos. Ant. i. 62 ; cp Sam. 'pl>y]), a
was a plate of pure gold (+; see M ERCY- SEAT), Canaanite (Phoeniciai\) tribe, Gen. 10 17 = I Ch. 1 1 5 (om.
sustaining two golden cherubim (see C HERUB , i . ) , or B, A P A K E ~ [L]) i see G I + X A P I I Y5, 16, I . Ar$a (cp
Z P K V , Jos. Lc.) is mentioned among the cities taken
winged figures, whose wings extended over the ark.
From these cherubim YahwA promised to communicate by Tiglath-piker 111. (cp ZiATr2) 104, 254J), and,
with Moses, and reveal his will for Israel. According at a much earlier period, in the Amarna tablets (e.04,
to Ex. 3026, the arlc was to be anointed along with the 78, 12, Zr@tn; once [ I Z ~ , 221 ZY&t; the Ar&niu
tabernacle and the rest of its furniture. When made, of Thotmes 111. seems to be a collateral form).l The
it was brought, we are told, to Moses (3935), and Lofty teZZ commanding the remains of the ancient city
placed by him in the tabernacle, screened by the veil was discovered by Shaw in 1722. At its S. foot flows
( i e . , in the Holy of Holies ; see 26335). In Lev. 162 the Nahr 'Arka in a deep rocky bed, towards the sea,
the sanctity of the arlc is emphasised by the command two hours distant. To the E. of the teZZ is the village
that Aaron ( ; . e . , the High Priest) shall enter the Holy of 'Arkn, about 12 m. N. of Tripolis. It was an
of Holies only once a year. In Nu. 331 the chajge of important place in the Roman period, when, through
the ark is committed to the Kohathites, and in 45 it is being the birthplace of Alexander Severus, it was called
commanded that when the tabernacle is moved Aaron Caesarea Libani. It was famous for the worship of
and his sons (i.e . , the priests) shall carefully cover up the Astarte. See Smiths Did. Class. Geob-. S.Z. -4rca;
ark with the veil, before the Kohathites take it up, in Schu. G3V 1498 n.
order that the latter may neither see (71.20) nor touch ARMAGEDDON, RV HAR-MAGEDON (&pMArsh-
(71. 15) the holy things. In 789 (RV) the Voice ( L e . , of A W N [TI<], Ap MAr€hWN P H I , ApMArshWN [Ti.
YahwB) speaks to Moses from the ' Mercy-Seat.' The cod. Am. He~vzagedon; cp
gloss in Judg. 20 2 7 3 -a gloss added under the influerice 1. Howunder- Treg.] ;
EPMAKEAW N, vers. Memph. ), thename
of P,-states that the ark was at Bethel in the days of of the last great battlefield (Rev. 16 16).
Phinehas, and the editors, who follow P,, doubtless Between the sixth vial and the seventh is
understood that the ark was always in the tabernacle inserted a visim (Rev. 1 6 13J 7 6 ) which has no connection
till the battle of Aphek (cp T ABERNACLE). with the context, being apparently the sequel of the vision
The Chronicler adds scarcely any fresh incidents to the of the three angels in Rev. 146-11. The three angels
account of theark, andedits theearliernarrativesinSamue1 proclaim the coming judgment upon the world-power
14. Ch~onicler,and Kings on the assumption that the and the way to escape it ; the three demoniacal spirits
regulations of the Priestly Code were ob- (from the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet)
etc. served throughout the history. In I Ch. seek to counteract this by ' gathering the kings of the
15 xf: he makes David say, ' None ought to carry the ark whole world for the war of the great day of God the
of God but the Levites,' and they carry it accordingly ; Almighty.' The junction of forces is made at ' the
and at first sight it appears as if the Philistine Obed- place which is called in Hebrew Har-Magedon. '
edom became a Levite (vv.18 21 24) ; see however OBED- Two questions have to be asked : ( I ) What did the
EDOM, 2 . A profound sense of the sanctity of the ark writer understand by Har-Magedon (if this is the correct
is shown in I Ch. 282, where the ark or the Mercy- reading)? and ( 2 )What was the meaning of the term
seat ' is called ' the footstool of God,' and in z Ch. 8 r I , in the source, whether written or oral, from which he
where Solomon refuses to let Pharaoh's daughter dwell drew? It is in the highest degree probable that the
in the palace of David, ' because the pfaces (?) are holy, writer himself interpreted the phrase, 'the mountains of
whereunto the ark of Yahwe hath come.' In 353, Megiddo ' (cp Apyap~fiv= Mount Gerizim, Eupolemus
Josiah commands the Levites to ' put the holy ark in up. Eus. PE 9 17). Both from its natural advantages
the Temple' : 'it shall not be a burden on your and from its history the PZain of Megiddo (Zech. 1211)
shoulders.' would have been the more obvious scene of such a great
The only direct references to the ark ih the Psalms gathering; but the writer could plausibly justify the
me in Ps. 1328 (cp zCh. 641), where it is styled substitution of ' mountains ' for ' plain ' by the much-
!;q ]he, 'ark of thy strength' ; and in Ps. 7861, studied apocalyptic descriptions of Ez. 38821 392417,
where God is said to have delivered his 'strength' where the hordes of Gog are said to meet their end
( i . e . , the ark) into captivity. An indirect .reference has 'upon the mountains of Israel.' Megiddo itself is, of
often been supposed in Pss. 24 47 and 68 ; but this in- course, a hill-town, though close to the great Plain of
volves the untenable assumption of their pre-exilic origin. which it commands the southern entrance : there is
The ark is only twice mentioned in the NT. It and nothing incorrect, therefore, in the phrase ' the
its contents are described in Heb. 94 as in P,, except mountain-district of Megiddo. ' Har-Magedon is no
15. NT. !hat the pot of manna (see above, 5 8, note) doubt half-Hebrew ; but it would be strange if readers
IS said to have been in (instead of beside) the of Jewish Greek could not interpret it (cp terms like
ark. In Rev. 1119, after the seventh angel has sounded, Nay+ in a). See APOCALYPSE, 46.
' the temple of God in heaven ' is opened, and the ' ark If, however, we hold it to be probable that the small
of God's covenant' is seen within. The words ' i n apocalypse (see Spitta, Ofenb. 568) to which 16 16 belongs
heaven' (6 2u TO o~?puvG)are however probably an 2. Original is a translation of a Hebrew original, and
certain, at any rate, that the writer built
editorial insertion (Spitta). It is the earthly (not the meaning. to a considerable extent on traditional
heavenly) temple that is referred to, and the meaning
of the statement is that the ark which was hidden (so 1 Cp the ethnic lrkanalai on the monolith of Shalmaneser
;I. (292. KB1172). So Hornme$ Gesclt. 609, Ed. Meyer
1 This seclusion is in harmony with the transcendentalism of Glossen 'z. d. Thontaf. von el-Am., Bzyjtiaca ((97), p. 69 ;
the later conception of the divine nature. cp WMM, As. a+. EUY.247.
309 310
 ARME NIA ARMY
semi-mythic stories eschatologically interpreted, it the text and reads o*d& ' for the shields.' The neck
becomes a question whether his interpretation of the sf the Shulamite is compared to the tower of David
name of the great battlefield as meaning ' mountains of xdorned with small metal plates-i.e., perhaps to the
Megiddo' is correct. The restoration of the original ' house of the forest of Lebanon ' in which were sus-
text offered by a writer in Z A T W 7 170 ['87], pended the shields and targets of gold. Fancifully the
i T ? n 15 ('will gather them unto his fruitful mountain '- poet represents these shields as suspended on the outside
i.e., the monntain-land of Israel), does not give a (cp Ezek. 2711). Budde and Siegfried agree in placing
definite locality, which seems. to be required in this the ' tower ' at Jerusalem.
context. Nor are the attempted numerical explaua-
tions quoted by Spitta ( O f i n b . 402) more probable. ARMY (K?Y, $n, 7l;yqp). The main army of
Gunkel, therefore, thinks (Sc/ziip/': 266) that ' Harma- Israel, like that of all primitive nations, and, in the last
gedon' must be a name of mythic origin, connected 1. General resort, of all nations, consisted of the
in some way with the fortunes of the dragon who is whole able-bodied adult male population.
levy. In Nu. 11-3 (P), twenty is fixed as the
the lineal heir of the Babylonian dragon Tigmat, the
personification of chaos and all evil (cp C REATION, age at which a man became a soldier ; but it is not
§ I). On p. 389 of the same work Zimmerii com- probable that any such regulation was rigidly observed
municates a conjecture of Jensen that puys8wv is in practice. This general levy constituted the fighting
identical with piyu8wv in the divine name 'Teuyuya8wv, force of Israel in the wilderness, at the time of the
the husband of 'EpauxiyaX ( =Bab. Ereskigal), the settlement and under the 'Judges,' and remained its chief
Babylonian goddess of the underworld. See Rhein. militaryresonrce throughout its national history. Under
Mus.4 9 4 9 , where iii a magic formula given by Kuhnert the ' Judges,'~thearmies mentioned are, for the most
from Greek papyri we read, B ~ o i s~ 0 o v f o i s'Teuepiya8wv part, the levy of the tribes or clans immediately con-
~ a lK O ~ P ; P ? ~n[epu+6vg IEpeuXiyah K.T.X. (see also cerned. On special occasions, however, such as the w r
HADAD-RIMMON). The same two (doubtless Baby- against Sisera, and Saul's relief of Jabesh-gilead, all the
lonian) names occur on a leacl tablet from Alexandria, fighting men of Israel were summoned, and their
Rhein. itfus. 18 563, where the former is given as obedience to the summons was represented as a para-
'Teuepp~ya8wv. It would be natural that the spot where mount religious duty.
TiHmat was defeated (and was again to be defeated) by The armies obtained from such levies varied greatly
Mardulc should be called by a name which included that in number and efficiency; a clan, or even a tribe,
of a god of the underworld. T. K. C.
whose immediate interests were threatened, would
readily take the field in its full strength. An appeal
ARMENIA (322$),a IC. 1 9 3 7 Is.37381. AV, RV for a general levy of Israel would scarcely ever be more
A RARAT . than partially responded to ; Deborah (Judg. 5) com-
ARMLET ('fg.13, EMITAOKION [BAFL]), so RV for plains of the absence of Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and
A V T A B L E T in Ex. 35zz ( n € p i A & i o N ? [BAFL]), Nu.
Asher ; the national leaders sought to prevent such dere-
lictions from duty by the most solemn appeals to
31 50. It may be doubted, however,' whether the word
religious sanctions-Deborah curses Meroz (Judg. 5 q ) ,
does not mean an ornament for the neck (so RVmg.
N ECKLACE ) -perhaps a necklace consisting of a number and Saul, when a spirit (or impnlse) from God came
of little spheres, cp Ar. Ku?neut"'~,a little ball. See upon him, threatened to cut in pieces the oxen of all
O RNAMENTS. recreants ( I S . 116).
When armies were required these national or tribal
ARMONI ('$Dy& ' Palatinus ' ? ; E ~ M W N O E I [B], levies were called together by messenger (o,?&p? 1;s
-NIEI [A], & X I [L]), a son of Saul sacrificed by David I S. 117), sound of trumpet(i9d Judg. 6 34), or erection of
to the vengeance of the Gibeoiiites ( a S. 2 1 8f). See standard, or other signal (02 Jer. 46, see E NSIGN ) ;
R IZPAH. Neither he nor Mephibosheth [I], the two
sons of Rizpah, is mentioned elsewhere. when the emergency w a over they dispersed to their
homes. They were well suited to carry on or repel
ARMOUR, ARMS (d?Z), I S . 1754. See BREAST- border forays, but could not maintain prolonged war-
IVATE, I , H ELMET , GREAVES, SHIELD; and cp W AR , fare, especially at any distance from their own territory,
and W EAPONS. or even oppose adequate resistance to any formidable
invasion. These levies were composed entirely of
ARMOUR-BEARER (&? KVI, which happens to infantry (h? I S. 410 154) ; the Israelite territory, in
occur only with a suffix, 1'73 '3, Judg. 9 5 4 , etc., or in the early times, was chiefly hill-country, where cavalry
constr. st., +? Kp3, 2 S.2 3 3 7 I Ch. 11 39). force could neither be formed nor used. The first
Abimelech, Sail, Joab, all had armour-bearers ; Goliath's Israelite who is mentioned as possessing horses is
squire is called a shield-bearer ( I S. 17 7). On the age Absalom, a S. 151 (cp H ORSE , 3).
of armour-bearers, cp WRS, OTIC(') 431 ; Che. A i d s Such armies were very loosely organised. As Well-
to Crit. 77 n. Is. 5211, mil? *\?v5v1 (EV ' Ye that hausen ( H I 436 ['85]) points out, ' what there was of
2. Gommand. permanent official authority lay in the
bear the vessels of the Lord') is taken by most com-
hands of the elders and heads of houses ;
mentators (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Cheyne formerly) to in time of war they commanded each his own howehold
mean 'armour-bearers of YahwB'; but this is im-
force.' So Abraham leads the expedition to rescue Lot
probable (see Di. ad Zoc.).
(Gen. 14), and Jair conquers the ' tent villages of Jair '
ARMOURY. In Neh. 319?@zg,'weapons, arming,' (Nu. 3 2 4 1 ) . Similarly, P describes the ' princes ' of the
(65,4 uuvdmouua), and in Jer.5025 'l'$W, 'treasure, tribes as also their captains in war (Nu. 1f: ). Deborah
store,' are probably contractions for 3W7l i19& ' house (Judg. 514f:) speaks of the princes and leaders of Is-
of weapons,' and 7YlK;I il'& 'house of treasure' sachar and other tribes (see G OVERNMENT , § 21). In
practice, however, the hereditary heads of tribes and
respectively. In Cant. 44 'thy neck is like the tower clans were often set aside on account of the ability and
of David builded for an armoury ' n\&n? is difficnlt. self-assertion of other leaders. Indeed, these hereditary
Vg. renders it cum propugnac/dz's, while @ merely heads of houses play a very small part in the actual
transliterates ( B a h ~ i $ 0[BK]. -X@i. [4]), and OSP) 202, history, possibly because history emphasises what is
84 has B a X ~ i w B - & r d X ~ q i) ;$?Ad. T h e meaning exceptional. The 'judges,' whose main function was
' armoury' has no philological basis (see Del. ad Zoc.), to head the Israelite armies in special emergencies, were
and yet it is the only meaning which suits the context. men called by a kind of divine inspiration. Gideon
Cheyne (Ezp. Times, June '98) supposes corruption of and Saul are not the heads of their tribes or even clans :
31 1 3x2
 , ARMY ARMY
Gideon's family was 'poor in Manasseh and he was :ontinuation of David's companions in exile, was formed,
the least in his father's house' (Judg. F I ~ ) ,and Saul's md its captain is mentioned as one of the great officers
family is described in almost identical terms ( I S. if state ( Z S . 818 2923 2323, n $ i + y 5 ~ )i??? o.+'iFTp
921). In the absence of any other widely recognised x;-d$). Now, however, the bodyguard had come to
authority, the priests of the great sanctuaries, 'and mnsist of foreign mercenaries, ' Cherethites and Pele-
especially of the ark, sometimes assumed the command thites,' probably Philistines (see CI-IERrrHITEs,CAPH-
of armies, when called by ambition or the sense of TOR). In z S . 15 18 we find 600 Philistines from Gath
duty ( D ~ B O R A , house of ELI [q...], S AMUEL
[ gH. ~ . ] the in David's army; 6 : s /LCZX~TUI,however (in a
[ g . ~ . ] ) . When the tribes were partly merged in the doublet), suggests a reading gi6bdrim, or ' mighty
kingdoms, and tlie clans and families were in a measure men,' for giuinz, or ' Gittites.' If the latter is the
superseded by the towns and village communities, the correct reading, the Gittites may have .been either
levy would naturally follow the new order (Amos 53). part of the bodyguard, or else an independent band of
Probably under the kings the levies did not always mercenaries (see D AVID, II(L~)). The Cherethites and
assemble by clans, but men were collected by the royal Peletliites are not mentioned after the death of David ;
officials from the various districts (cp G OVERNMENT, but the bodyguard of foreign mercenaries must have
9 20). In any case, the organisation of the levies was remained a permanent institution. I K. 1427 speaks
subordinated to that of the standing army, and they of the captains of the guard, literally ' runners' ( ~ t
were divided into ' thousands,' 'hundreds,' 'fifties,' and
' tens,' institutions which are said by an ancient tradi- o>e>?), that kept the palace gates (cp z I<. 1025).
tion, Ex. 1825 ( J E ) , to have originated with Moses. z K. 114 speaks of *thecenturions of the Carites and of
A second important element of the military strength the guards' (ny;,,s_! v$nim? >?e),where the Carites
of Israel, as of all nations at a similar stage of develop- are possibly identical with the Cherethites. If the
3. Bands. ment, lay in the persbnal following of
men who made war their occupation.
reading in z S. 238 is correct, and if ,e>$ in &$g wdi
(AV ' chief among the captains' ; RV ' chief of the
These ' bands ' (in?, also used of a division of an army) captains ') is rightly explained as referring to the third
may be roughly 'likened to the vassals of feudal occupant of a chariot (Tprr(ir1/s [BAL], Ex. 147 1 5 4 ,
chiefs, the free companies ' of the middle ages, and etc.), it may indicate the use of chariots by David,
even to the banditti in unsettled districts. As in the though it is probably used in its later sense of ' captain '
case of England and Scotland, the ' bands ' flourished (see C HARIOT , § IO).
specially on the frontiers ; the territory of lsrael had With the very doubtful exception of these shalishim,'
a frontier very long in proportion to its area. Such we have no reference to Israelite chariots and cavalry
' bands ' could take the field mnch sooner than a clan- before the end of David's reign.
levy, and would be better disciplined and much more According to E V of z S. 8 4, he reserved horses for a hundred
expert in warfare. More than once they rendered chariots out of the spoil taken from Hadad'ezer ben Rehob, king
signal service to the nation. The ' vain fellows ' whom of Zobah; @BAL translates 'reserved for himself a hundred
that captain of banditti, Jephthah, gathered round him chariots.' Reuss and Kautzsch translate 'a hundred chariot
horses. No reference is made to the use of these chnriots or
(o*p~>OY+$, Judg. 1 1 3 ) were the kernel of the army horses in war : moreover, the passage probably belongs to the
which defeated Ammon, and David's following was one last editor of Samuel.
chief instrument in the restoration of Israel after Gilboa. Solomon, however, established a force of 1400
I S. 22-30 gives us a detailed account of the formation, chariots and IZ,OOO horsemen ( I K.1 0 ~ 6 ) and
, accord-
character, and career of such a body (see D AVID , § 4). ingly we find mentioned among his officers 'captains
It was a self-constituted frontier-guard, living on the of his chariots and of his horsemen' (~$223iq '19, I K.
plunder of the neighbouring tribes and by levying 922). Occasional references occur in the later history
blackmail on their fellow-countrymen, whom they to Israelite chariots and horsemen ( 2 K. 82113 7). Prob-
claimed to protect. The warlike services rendered by ably the armies of Israel and Judah were modelled on
the ' bands ' were accompanied by serious drawbacks. the army of Solomon till the end of these monarchies ;
They added to the danger of civil war ; they embittered but their main reliance would be on the infantry. To-
the relations with neighbouring tribes : and they were wards the close of the Jewish monarchy a quasi-religious
capable, like David, of taking service with foreigners feeling against the use of chariots and cavalry seems to
even against their own countrymen. W e do not hear have arisen, and Dt. 17 16 forbids the king to multiply
of them after David's time ; they would scarcely be horses (cp. Dt. 201 Is. 31 r). The references to the
tolerated by powerful kings, hut were sure to reappear houghing of horses by Joshua (Josh. 1 1 6 9 ) and David
in unsettled times. ( z S. 84) are probably due to a Deuteronomic redactor.
As the main function of a king was that of permanent Nothing is said about paying soldiers. In earlier
commander-in-chief, a monarchy implied some sort of times the Israelites who formed the national levy would
4. Army. standing army and permanent military find their own weapons and pro-
organisation. In time of peace the king 5* Maintenance' visions, the latter being often obtained
kept a bodyguard as the main support of his authority, from the enemy by plunder or from friends by gift
and this bodyguard formed the nucleus of the army in or exaction. Probably throughout the history the
war (cp G OVERNMENT, IS). We find Saul ' choosing ' general levy was mostly provided for in this way;
3000 men ( I S. 132) and sending the rest of the people though, as the royal government became more powerful
to their tents. He did not keep these chosen men as and more completely organised, it may have done
a permanent army, for in I S. 242 he chooses another something towards feeding and arming these levies
3000 when he wishes to pursue David. Probably he (see G OVERNMENT, § 20).
did his best throughout his reign to keep by him a The bodyguard and the rest of the standing army,
picked force, which was virtually a standing army. H e including the charioteers and cavalry, stood on a
had a permanent commander-in-chief, Abner (iR?yiii different footing. They were maintained by the govern-
I S. 1450), and his personal following must have in- ment ( I K. 427), chariot cities being assigned as a pro-
cluded other permanent military officers (cp G OVERN- vision for the chariots and cavalry. They were probably
MENT, § 21). David's band of followers during his paid ; certainly the foreigners in the bodyguard did not
exile served as the kernel of a much more complete and serve for nothing. The plunder taken from enemies
extensive military organisation. The office of com- would be an important part of the remuneration of the
mander-in-chief remained a permanent institution, and soldiers, and a principle of division between the actual
'lt
the captains of the host (h;l zS.244) also appear combatants and the reserve is laid down in I S. 3024.
as permanent officers. A bodyguard, practically a The rnles as to exemption from military service in
313 314
 ARMY ARNAN
Dt. 20 are probably an ideal based on traditional public cipline, but were divided into adverse factions (BJ
opinion. V. 6 I).
No reliance can be placed on the numbers which are The armies of the other states of Syria did not differ
given for Israelite armies. At the same time, the two essentially from those of Israel. From the first, however,
kingdoms seem to have been populous in prosperous 9. Foreign they made use of chariots and cavalry,
times, and a general levy of able-bodied adults may armies. and throughout the history, except
sometimes have attained very large dimensions. diiring the reign of Solomon, the Syrians
Under powerful kings the Israelite armies were were superior to the Israelites in these arms (Josh. 114
strengthened by rhe auxiliary forces of subject allies 1 7 1 6 Judg.11947 1S.135 z S . 8 4 1 I i . 2 0 1 ~ 52 2 3 1 ,
--e.g., Edom ( 2 K. 3 ) . Doubtless such assistance was etc. ). On the other hand, the great military empires
sometimes purchased, after the manner of the narrative of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon possessed a much more
in z Ch. 2 5 . extensive and effective military organisation. They
The details as to the Levites in the account of the had corps of chariots, light-armed and heavy-armed
deposition of Athaliah in z Ch. 23 (cp z I<. 11) were cavalry and infantry, together with archers and slingers
6. Levitical probably suggested by the institutions of and engineers. Their armies inclnded large forces of
the Chronicler's own time (circa 300 B. c. ). mercenaries and tributaries. For military purposes
guard. These details seem to show that the these great empires stood to the Syrian kingdoms in
Levitical guard of the Temple was then in existence. about the same relation as that of a first-class European
As this guard is not provided for in the Priestly Code, power to the smaller Asiatic states.
it was probably formed after the time of Ezra. Possibly It is not necessary to notice the Persian army, and
the T ~ O U T $ T ~ / TOOS kpoD [VA] in z Macc. 3 4 may have of the armies of the Ptolemies and Seleucides we need
been the captain of this guard. If so, however, it is say only that they were modelled on the Macedonian
difficult to suppose that the present text is correct in armies of Philip and Alexander, with some moclifica-
ascribing him to the tri6e of Benjamin (see, however, tions due to Oriental influences. For example, they
B ENJAMIN , 7 end). The captain of this guard, under employed elephants ( I Macc. 1 1 7 , etc. ).
the title of U T ~ U T ~ ~ S isS ,mentioned by Josephus in his The Roman army is incidentally alluded to in the
account of the time of Claudius Czesar (Ant.xx. 6 2 ) , NT. The legion (Mt. 26 53 MIL 5 9 15 Lu. 8 30) varied
and of the destruction of the Temple (BY vi. 5 3 ) . and lo. Roman considerably at different times in numbers
in Lk. 2 2 4 5 2 and Acts 41 52426. Probably the officers, and in constitution; during the early
3rr~pkrai,who assisted in the arrest of Jesus (Jn. 1 8 3 , cp empire it was a composite force, consisting
7 3 2 4 5 ) belonged to this body. of about 6000 legionary infantry, together with cavalry,
In the post-exilic period. under the suzerainty of the light-armed auxiliaries, and military engines. The
Persians, and of the Greek kings of Egypt and Syria, legionary infantry, or legion proper, were divided into
7. Post-exilic. the Jews could scarcely be said to have ten cohorts. The ' band' (um+t) which took Jesus
an army. The Book of Nehemiah (Mt. 2727 Mk. 1 5 1 6 Jn. 1 8 3 1 2 ) was probably a cohort
clearly shows that they had to trust to their own energy (so RV'W) iormiug the Roman garrison in Jerusalem.
and courage for protection against hostile neighbours ; The same cohort is mentioned in Acts 2 1 3 1 . In Acts
but they fought as a city militia rather than as a peasant 101 we read of the Italian band, and in 271 of the
levy. Augustan ' band.' The Italian ' band ' may have been
The revolt of the Maccabees made JudEa a military an independent cohort of Italian volunteers (Schur. G3V
power. The long wars not only habituated the bulk of 1386). The ' Augustan band ' (umlp?pZe/3pau~?s)may
the people to arms, but also produced a standing have been part of the Sebasteae---i.e., Samaritan-
army, which soon included many foreign merceu- auxiliaries, who, according to Josephus (Ant. xx. 87),
aries. Jewish soldiers also received pay ( I Macc. 14-32), farmed a large part of the Roman garrison of Palestine.
probably, however, only picked bands that formed the The name might be, and doubtless was, understood as
standing army and ranked with the other mercenaries. ' Augustan ' as well as ' Sebastene ' (the title ' Augustan '
Josephus (B3i. 25) tells us that Hyrcanus I. (135.107 was borne by some of 'the Roman legions). See further,
B.C.) was the first Jew who maintained foreign mercen- CORNELIUS, § I. The officers of the legion were the
aries ( , $ E Y O T ~ O @ ~ ? V ) . Alexander Jannieus (106-79 B. c. ) tribunes and centurions. Six tribunes were attached to
employed Pisidian and Cilician mercenaries, and at one a legion and were associated in command. We fre-
time was at the head of a mercenary army of 1000 horse quently find a tribune holding independent command of
and 8000 foot, in addition to 10,ooo Jews. These a cohort or larger force : the ' chief captain ' (Jn. 1812
mercenaries are styled 'Greeks' (BJi. 4 3 5 , cp 54). Acts 21-25), XAlupXos, commanding the cohort at Jeru-
As the Jews had long been subjects of the Greek kings salem was a tribune. Each cohort contained ten centuries
of Egypt and Syria, their armies would be equipped and or bodies nominally consisting of a hundred men ; these
disciplined after the Greek fashion. were commanded by centurions. As the independent
When the East fell under the supremacy of Rome, cohorts were organised on the model of the legions, it is
the Herods, as clients of Rome, formed their armies on probable that the cohorts, tribunes, and centurions of the
8. Roman the Roman model. Indeed, Herod the N T belonged to the auxiliary forces. Mommsen says of
Great was at times in command of Roman the Roman garrison in Palestine that it consisted, as
Period. forces, and Jewish and mercenary cohorts ' elsewhere in provinces of the second rank, of a
(um?puc) are spoken of as fighting side by side with moderate number of cavalry and infantry divisions,
the Romans (BJi. 1 5 6 162). Herods army consisted in this case of Samaritans and Syrian Greelcs-
largely of mercenaries drawn chiefly from the Teutonic subsequently one ala and,five cohorts or about 3000
subjects and neighbonrs of the empire-Thracians, men. The province, therefore, did not receive a
Germans, and Gauls (BJ i. 3 3 9 ) . legionary garrison. A small force under a Roman
The insurgent armies in the Jewish war were very commandant occupied the citadel at Jerusalem. During
heterogeneous. The national government appointed the time of the Passover this was reinforced by stationing
military commanders for the various districts, among a stronger division of Roman soldiers in one of the
whom was Josephus. He tells us that he orgaiiised an temple buildings (PYOZ. Rom. Em$. , ET, 2 186).
army of 100,ooo on the Roman model, including 4500 W. H. B.
mercenaries, a bodyguard of 600, bnt only 250 horse- ARNA ( A R N A ) b. Ozias, in the genealogy of Ezra
men : a typical Hebrew army in its constitution. The (4Esd. lz), a p p a r e n t l y = Z ~ R ~in~ ~I/ ~
Ezra
H 74.
garrison of Jerusalem is said to have consisted of 23,400
men, including Idumzans and bands of Zealots. They ARNAN (1278 ; o p ~ a [ B A ] ,APNUN [L]). Accord-
seem to have possessed some organisation and dis- ing to M T of I Ch. 3 2 1 , the ' sons of Arnan' occur in the
375 3'6
 ARNI ARPHAXAD
genealogy of Zerubbabel. 6, Vg. and Syr., however, ARPHAXAD, RV better Arpachshad ('If$;QlK i
make Arnan the son of Rephaiah. The name might ~ p C $ ~ f &[BAL];
h -AHC uos.]), the third ' s o n ' of
mean 'noisy' ; but , p . 4 elsewhere, as a personal Shem, Gen. 1022 24 ; cp Gen. 1110-13 (all P), I Ch. 117J
name, being corrupt (see ARAUNAH), and the names of (6.omits these two) 24. The name has been much
the other descendants of Hananiah (see RV) being com- discussed.
pounded with -ish, it seems plausible to correct to ~11.4 Bochart and many after him ( e g . Franz Del., Kautzsch in
(Adonijah), which may have been abbreviated '331.4 HWB, and N d d . ZUMG 36, 182 [18z] Nezrsyr. GY. 20)
identify it with the Arrapachitis of Ptol. (vi. iz), a region on the
(whence, by corruption, 3 3 1 or ~ p). T. K. C. Upper Zab, NE. from Nineveh. On this theory, however, -shad
'ARNI ( A P N E I [Ti.WH after KBLXI']), Lk.333 RV, (1d)remains unaccounted for, as we can hardly, with Lag. (Sy;mtz.
is the reading to be prefcrred to .4V ARAM. See 154), have recourse to thd Armenian .Fat. Jos. on the other
hand, long ago identified Arphasad with the Childzans (Aizt.
RAM,I. i. 64), and Ges., Ew., Schr. ( C O T 197), Sayce (Crit. M o n .
ARNON (]\>?K), Nu. 21 13 ; see MOAB. 147), adopting this view, regard the l t ~ * > gasy ~compounded of
an assumed noun r p , 'boundary' (Ar. , )
t
a
f
.
' and le?=
AROD (Thy, apohsi [B*l, ApoAb[s]l [BabAF19
O~?,??, ' Chaldaea.'
&opah [L]), Nu. 26 17 = Gen. 4616, Arodi ('1\?4,
A p O H A l C [A], A y A p l c [o], Two things at least are certain ; we cannot dispense
o p p o b g ~ c .[L]), for which
gentihc form EV in Nu. Z.C. has Arodite. A name in with Babylonia in this context, and in Gen. 1110$
genealogy of G AD @ . v . ) . Cp ARELI. Arpachshad is represented as the source of the Terahite
family to which Abraham belonged. The latter part of
AROER (l&hg, $lX ; in Judg. 1126 l\V?U ; ;.e., the name i w > g i must,
~ therefore, be iiv-i.e., Chaldaea.
' bushes of dwarf juniper' [Lag Semit. 1301 ; A ~ O H It ~ is equally clear, however, that the Assyrian province of
[BAL] ; gentilic Aroerite, ''?ilx, see HOTHAM,2). A r b a a (which may, or may not, be the Arrapachitis of
I. A city ' o n the edge of the torrcnt-valley of Ptol. ) would be very appropriately introduced after
Arnon,' see MOAB. (Dt. 236 etc.; cp OS('') 21231 Asshur, and that, apart from the last syllable (-shad),
8 6 2 8 , QT' d+pprios roc dpour, in vertice nzontis) ; the Arpachshad has received from the e,arlier critics no ex-
descriptions agree with the position of the ruins of planation that is even plausible, except that of Bochart
*ArZ'ir,on the edge of the precipitous N. bank of the and Noldeke.
ravine of the Arnon (Burclthardt, Syria, 372 ; Tristram, Putting these facts tagether, the present writer
Moab, 129-131). The spot is about 1 1 m. from the suggested (Expos. Feb. 1897, pp. 1 4 5 8 ) the following
mouth of that river. Aroer marked the S. limit of the theory. Arpachshad, or at least W ~ D ~ Nis, really not
Reubenite territory and of the Israelitish possessions one word but two words-Arpach ( q m ~ and ) Chesed
eastward of the Jordan, Nu. 3234 Dt. 236 312 448 Josh. (ip:). The former is the Heb. name of the Assyrian
122 ( a p v w v [B]) 13916 z S. 245 (apoqh [B]) z K. province of Arbaha or (If3 2 88 5 ) Arabba, which,
1033 ; cp Judg. 1126 (rarqp, [A], om. L) ; I Ch. 58. according tolvinckler, isnotilrrapachitis, but adistrict N.
In Jer. 48 19 (post-exilic) and in the inscription of Mesha of the Tigris, S. of the Median Mountains, and W. of
(1.26, iyiy) it appears as Moabitish. The Moabites had
E1am.l The latter is Chaldaea (see CHESED). Gen.
in fact possessed it before the Israelites, in succession to 1022, therefore, upon this theory, originally ran, ' The
the Amorites (cp Nu. 2126). That Aroer on the Arnon sons of Shem ; Elam and Asshur and Arpach-Chesed
is meant in 2 S . 245 is now generally admitted (see Dr. and Lud and Aram. ' Verse 24,as E. Meyer and Dillmann
TBS zSg J ) . The expression ' the cities of Aroer ' in agree, is an editorial interpolation (cp 11108). The
Is. 172 is geographically difficult ; there is no doubt a form Arpachshad in 11108will be due to the editor.
corruption of the text (see 65 and cp SBOT). who misunderstood - 1 ~ 3 3 in~ 1022,
~ ~ 1 and it will not be
2. A place E. of Rabbath-Ammon, Josh. 1 3 2 5 (apapa
too bold to restore w - i . e . , Chesed. The alternative
[B], -pwqp [A]) Jud. 1133Jr ; not identified. Jer. ( O S - ) is to suppose the original reading to have been ngi.4
965) says it was on a mountain zo R. m. N. from lw>-i.e., Arpab Chesed, which the scribe, through an
Jerusalem. error of the ear, changed into Arpach Chesed (351.4
3. A place in the far south of Jndah, I S. 3028
lW3).
(mentioned after Jattir), and probably Josh. 1522 Hommel, however (Acad. 17th Oct. 1896 ; J4HT
(mentioned after Dimonah). Identified by Rob. with 212, 2g4-298),prefers to explain the word as Ur-pa-
the ruins of 'Ar'Zra, 3 hrs. ESE. from Beersheba. keshad, an ' Egyptian variant ' for the Heb. Ur-kasdim,
(The payouqh of GL in I S. is peflhaps from apouqk : pn being taken as the Egyptian article; he compares
see ADADAH. ) T. K . C.
the old (?) Egyptian-Hebrew name Putiel, and the
AROM (APOM [BA]),.r Esd. 516. See HASHUM. Semitic-Egyptian pa-bn'-ra =hn-banZ ( W M M , As. zl.
ARPACHSHAD (Tv?D?$), Gen. 1022 RV ; see Bur. 309). If only we had sure evidence that there was
below, A RPHAXAD, I. an Egyptian' mania in early Palestine similar to the
ARPAD, AV twice (in Is.)'Arphad ('lF78, A ~ C $ A A Semitic mania of the Egyptians of the Middle Empire,
and could also think that P had access to records of ex-
[i3AL], A R P K I D , Ass. Arpaddu), 2 K. 1834 (ap@ah[B],
treme antiquity, fairly accurately preserved, this explana-
-@UT [A], 1913 (-@a0[B]), Is. 1 0 9 (not in a),
3619 and tion would at once become plausible. A comprehensive
3713(-+5'[BKAD(Q)]), Ja.4923 (-@U0[A],a@aS[H"]). study of the names in P, however, does not compel us,
Of these passages Is. 1 0 9 IS the most important, because
indeed it scarcely permits us, to make the second of
we can unhesitatingly fix its date and authorship. Isaiah,
these assumptions. PUTIEL (4.71.)is distinctly an
writing in 711 B.c., makes the Assyrian king refer to
artificial name, and if Arpachshad should really be read
the recent capture of Hamath and Arpad (reckoned by
Ur-pa-keshad we should on this analogy he inclined to
the Assyrians to Hatti-land) as a warning to Jerusalem.
regard it as artificial too. In itself a reference to
Arpad had been frequently captured by the early Assyrian
Ur-kasdim would no doubt be admissible, since this
kings, but was finally subjugated and Assyrianised by
place or district is referred to by P (1131) as well as by
Tiglath-pileser 111. in 740. From this time it takes its
place among the Eponym cities. Its importance prob- Jz It is chiefly the presence of g (p) in i m g i ~that
1 Prof. Jensen informs the writer that he has independently
ably lay in its command of a Euphrates ford, though it formed the same opinion as to the origin of Arpachhhad, hut
was not on that river. We find that a city Nibiru ( ' the that he prefers to identify Arpach with Arrapachitis=mod.
ford ') was reckoned to belong to the governor of Arpad. Albak. This view has occurred to the writer also.
Arpad is now TeZl-Evfid, 13 m. from Aleppo to NW. 2 The transition from h(in Arbaba) to 3 in p > , y has not then
C. H. W. J. to be accounted for. On the former theory, the Priestly Writer,
who was not indebted either to a cuneiform record or to a
1 'Aroer' is an Arahising 'broken plural' of 'ay'ciq 'dwarf Rabylonian informant, received the name in a slightly incorrect
juniper,' a plant which abounds in rocky localities (see HEATH). form, the final having been softened in pronunciation to ch.
3x7 318
 ARROW ARVAD
prevents us from reading Ur-Casdim (written 'im 1 ~ in
) :reed, which alike prohibit the supposition that he can
Gcn. l 0 z z between k s h u r and Lud. lave been the benevolent patron of Nehemiah and Ezra.
2. The name given in Judith i. to the king of Media who was Nhich of the remaining two is meant is still disputed
formerly identified with Deioces the founder of Echatana, or with imong scholars.
Phraortes'his son. The name, however, has been borrowed to As in Ezra46f: the name follows immediately on that of
give an air of antiquity to the narrative, and, as in the cases of \hasuerus, and no more precise designation is added, it is
HOLOFERNES, and others in this hook, stands for some more iatural enough to think of Artaxerxes I. If however as seeins
modern personage, pruhahly'Mithridates. See J U DITH , ii. xobable (see E ZRA ii. 5 IO), Ezra did no; come to'palestine
T. K. C. ill after Nehemiah: and if it be true, as we read in Ezra 7 7.
ARROW, see WEAPONS, D IVINATION, z ( I ). s hat the date of Ezra's arrival was in the seventh year of
lrtaxerxes while the established date of Nehemiah's arrival
A R R O W S N A K E in Gen. 4917 AVmX.=fijVDV, s the t w h e t h year of Artaxerxes, then Ezra's expedition
nust have been under Artaxerxes Mnemon, and so more
Icerastes,'ErKaeHMENOC [@B*DFL] (see S ERPENT, $1, han half a century after Nehemiah's mission. This however
no. I O ) , and in Is. 3415RV=TkQ ( E X I N O C [aBNAQr]), s not at all prohable, and it seems preferable to a s k m e tha;
he date assigned to Ezra's arrival (in the seventh year of
AV GREAT O W L (PA, z ) ; see SERPENT, § I, no. 8. 4rtaxerxes) is an invention that had been suggested by the
ARSACES ( ~ P C ~ K H[AK,C -uiK. ( K once) VI), 'king .ransposition of the two expeditions.
of Persia and Media,' by whom Demetrius NicZtor We have thus good reason for assuming, with Knenen,
(DEMOTRIUS [z]) was defeated and made a prisoner Ryssel, Ryle, and others, that by Artaxerxes we ought
(I Macc. 14.J 1522). See PERSIA. :hroughout to understand Artaxerxes I., Longimanus,
t surname which is doubtless to be taken in the same
ARSARETH, RV ARZARETH (so Lat. arzarelh, also sense as the expression in the inscription of Darius
arznren, arzar; AVmg, ARARATH)--i.C q n &y>e (Cp INal$ i Rustem, inscr. a, 4, Z. 43 f.) to the effect that
Dt.2927 [zS] Jer. 2226)-' the other land,' 1 the region, a the spear of the Persian reaches far. He is described
journey of one year and a half beyond the Euphrates, is having been a good-hearted but weak sovereign,
where the exiled tribes were supposed to be settled ruled by his wives and favourites,-an account which
(4 Esd. 1 3 4 5 ; cp v.40). This belief in the 'Lost harmonises with what we learn from Nehemiah.
Tribes ' is found already in Jos. (Ant.xi. 5 2 ) . C. P. T.-W. H. K.

] ) ,6 6
ARSIPHURITH ( a p c [ ~ ] ~ ~ o y p s ~ e [ BIAEsd. ARTEMAS ( A ~ T E M ~[Ti.
C WH], most probably a
RV :.~see T ORAH . c Varro, De L i q .
contraction from a p ~ e ~ l b w p ;o see
Lat. 8 9 (I ZI), and cp APOLLOS, I n.), a com-
ARTAXERXES (~y@$nn?g, ~ z r a 4 7 aor
, K?@-, panion or messenger of Paul, mentioned once in the
~ ~ , 71'711 8 1 Neh.21 514136,
E z r a 4 7 6 , o r K ~Ezra48 Pastoral Epistles (Tit. 3 12: ' When I shall send Artemas
Baer's text ; ACapeAeA [E] ; a p e a c a c e a [AI; hp- unto thee ... give diligence to come unto me ').
c a p c b e a [Kxcb ( ~ W z e );]A P T A ~ E P ~ H[KC.~'-];
C Artax- In the lists of the 'seventy disciples' which we owe to Pseudo-
erxes). The following variants occur :- Dorotheus and Pseudo- Hippolytus he appears as bishop of

BaOa
e
Ezra47ads (a uapOa [Bl, apmuauoa [AI), 1 1 (apuapOa [B],
ap I Oa [AI), 6 74 aurapea [Bl), 7 I (apOaueuBa [Bl), 7 IT (auuap-
[Bl), 12 (auapOaOa [BA]), 21 (apuapOaOa [e]),
S I (apOauBa
Lystra.
ARTEMIS ( ~ P T E M I C[Ti. WH]), Acts192427J 34 j :
RVW; EV D IANA .
[Bl), Neh. 2 I (apuat?fpOa [B], apuapuat'a [N*cbl, apra&phs
[NC.~]), 5 14 (apuwaOa [el, uapuaOa [K], apOauauOaL [A]), 136 ARTILLERY (h), I S. 2040 AV ; AVmg. ' instru-
(apuouaOa [BK]). ments,' RV WEAPONS ( q . ~ . ) .
Artaxerxes is the name given to the king of Persia, ARTS and MANUFACTURES. See T RADE A N D
who, we are told (Neh.21 514 1 3 6 ) , gave per- COMMERCE, and HANDICRAFTS.
mission to Nehemiah his cupbearer to rebuild the ARUBQTH (ill33$--i.e. as in RV Arubboth ; EN
walls of Jerusalem, and to this end made him governor
(peha ; cp Assyr. beZ-pn&iti, town governor, and pihatu, a p a B w e [AI, ... B H ~B H B.. . [L]; .. . 0,
province, satrapy). The same name is borne by the B H P . . . [B]), I K. 41of, the seat of the third of
king who permitted Ezra and his band to return to Solomon's twelve prefects (see BEN-HESED). The third
Palestine, and, along with his ministers and princes, is one of the districts omitted by Jos. (Ant. viii. 2 3 ,
lavished tokens of favour on thereturning exiles (Ezra7 j ). ed Niese). See B EN-H ESED. Cp Schick, I WBdy
The statement in Ezra47-2j that earlier efforts of the 'Arrab, the Aruboth of Scripture,' lUEF Qu. St. Oct.
Jews to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem ceased at this 1898, pp. 7,388
king's command is unhistorical (see E ZRA , ii. p I O ), ARUMAH (YIpllK?, Kr. YIpll?, with prep. 1 ;
and the account in Ezra 711-26 of the favour shown a p ~ ~ a [ B h] p, i ~ + [ A L a n dos(2)225,z], RUMA [Vg.]),
by him to the temple and its ministers is probably the place where Abimelech dwelt before his capture of
exaggerated (see E ZRA , i. 9 z ) . It is certainly in- Shechem-obviouslynot very far from that town (Judg.
correct to name him along with Cyrus and Darius 941). Perhaps it is represented by the modern e2-
as having promoted the bnirding of the temple (Ezra614), 'ornzah, 6 m. SSE. from Shechem, where there are ruins
for this had already been completed in the reign of still (Van de Velde, Reisen, 2 268). Otherwise the
Darius. place is'quite unknown.
The name, which is certainly identical with the For mlpp (v.31 ; ~ Y K ~ U @ ~ [ Bb+,pwr[AL]),
] , U ~ T ~ AV
Persian Artnkhshatra ('the true, or legitimate, kingdom,' ' privily,' RV ' craftily,' RVW. ' in Tormah ' (so Jos.
an expression taken from the teaching of the Avesta ; I(imhi, who took it to be the name of a town), it is
Assyr. ArtakLztsu, Snsian Zrtnkshnzsa, -forms more best to read yq, ' in Arumah. ' Eus. wrongly identifies
closely approximating the Hebrew), was pronounced by
it u-ith Poupd near Diospolis = Lydda (cp RUMAH).
the Greeks Artaxerxes (so in I Esd. B ; but Aprap(Epf?/s
AaBnn sometimes). The king intended is beyond ARVAD (7!78 [sa.], TIly [Gi.]), whence the gentilic
doubt one or another of the three Persian rulers who Arvadite ( 3 ? ~ ~Gen. ~ ) 10
. 18 = I Ch. 116T (so @B*QL
bore that name. The attempts to identify him with everywhere apaAioc, but Apouaba I Ch. 116 [L];
Cambyses, or with Pseudo-Smerdis, or with Xerxes, Egypt. 'Ama@t[z~], etc. ; Assyr. usually Arvz[u]adn;
on the false assnmption that Artakhshatra was not a A ~ A A C I C , for apFaAoc, I Macc. 1 5 2 3 ; Targ. Jer.
name but a title, were abandoned long ago. The only 't$?'??p?&--i.e., of Antaradus ;-Jos. Ant. i. 62 apoy-
question is, Which of the three? Aaioc, etc.; mod. R u w i d , etc.), a town referred to by
The third in the list, Artaxerxes Ochns, is excluded, Ezekiel (27811) in his elegy on Tyre as one of some
both by chronology and by the known character of thirty cities and countries that had contributed to its
that energetic despot and zealot for the Mazdean 1 i1,mnz would mean rather dec&fully' ;.but the form is
1 Less probably n-,N p,
land of Arat-ie., Ararat (Volkmar). anomalous-it would be easier to read "p?p$.

3'9 320
 ARZA ASAHEL
splendour and dignity-men of Arvad, he says, r o w d reduce the kingdom of Judah to vassalage, for Ramah
its ships (v. 8) and manned its walls (v.rr)-and likewise was only 4 In. from Jerusalem. The diversion cansed
mentioned ("Apa&x, the only Syrian place named) in the by the AramEan invasion removed this danger. Asa .
list of iiineteen places in I Macc. 1523 (see MACCABEES, summoned 'all Judah' to the task of pulling down
FIRST, 9). Arvad was the most northerly of the great the fortifications executed by Baasha at Ramah, and
Phcenician cities, ancestress, with Sidon and Tyre, of with the material fortified Geba and Mizpah, the one a
Tripoli, which lies some thirty miles farther south. little to the NE., the other to 'the SW., of Ramah. It
Built on an island (.&z&gadal tidmti, KB 1 108, Z. 8 6 ~ 3 about
, is quite another writer who tells us that Asa did that
half a mile long from N. to S., and a little over a quarter of a which was right in the eyes of Yahwil, like David his
mile hroad 1 ing slightly less than two miles from the mainland,
it dared tb Tesist Thotmes 111. when apparently most of the father ' ( I K. 15 11). T o the Deuteronomistic compiler
other Phcenician cities yielded without force (see his Annals in matters affecting the cultus were more important than
Brugsch Hist. of EgyPt (a) ET 13763) ; and Tiglath-pileser I. was political morality ; a later writer, the Chronicler, has
tells ho; he embarked in slhps of Arvad and sailed on the Great
Sea. I t was still independent in the ninth century I I . ~ . , and a much more complete justification (if it were but trust-
in the time of Sargon it and Tyre and Gebal were the really worthy) for his religious eulogy of Asa. The details of
important Phanician centres. Cp also A~R-BANI-PAL, 5 4, I K. 1512-24 are dealt with elsewhere (see BAASHA,
end. B ENHADAD , § z ( I ), etc.).
In the days of Ezekiel it was subordinate to T y r e ; Three other points alone, in the compiler's own state:
but in the Persian age it regained its ancient importance, ments. need to be referred to. The name of Asa's
and in the time of Alexander exercised control over
quite an extensive district on the mainland.
mother is given (v. IO) as ' Maacah (eBL ava), and she
is called the daughter of Abishalom,' whilst in v. z
I n the first half of the second millennium B.C. there must have Maacaki is the name of the mother of Abijah. Most
been more equality between the Arvadites of the mainland and
those on the island, if W. Max Muller is right in believing that probably ' Abishalom ' in v. IO is a mistake for ' Uriel '
the Egyptian name corresponds to a plural form nhp& The (see z Ch. 132) : but it is not altogether <mpossibleto
ruins of the gigantic wall that once surrounded the island on hold with Wellhausen that Abijah and Asa were brothers
three sides (see Pietschm as below, and esp. Renan, PI. ii.1:) (cp MAACAI-I, ii. 4).
prove that the Arvaditey knew other things besides rowing. The second point is that in his old age, according to
Eus. (Chron. Annen. ed. Aucher, 2 172f.)records that Ar(a)dus
was founded in 761 B.C. and Strabo (xvi. 2 1 3 3 ) states although the compiler, Asa bad a disease in his feet ( I K. 1523).
only with a 6 s +auw,l' that it was founded by fugkves fi-om The Chronicler accepts this (doubtless traditional) state-
Sidon. We cannot, of course, assign to the eighth centuv the ment, but gives it a new colour, partly by changing the
real founding ofAradus or even-what Dillmann(on Gen. 10 18) date of the war between Asa and Baasha (on which see
seems to suggest-the founding ofthe insular townas distinguished
from asettlement on the mainland (cp the later Antaradus, mod. C HRONICLES, 8, and WRS, 197), partly by
Tartas [see Targ. above]). The words of A5ur-ua:ir-pal quoted the remark (cp M EDICINE ) that ' h e sought not to
above (cp RPP) 8172) preclude this. The Egyptian inscrip- Yahwb, but to the physicians' ( z Ch. 1612). Whether
tions show that in the second millennium B.C. Aradus was one
of the most important Phcenician cities (see PHCENICIA). the assumption that there was a class of physicians who
Litcvature :-Straho (I.c.) : Pietschmann, Gesch. d.Ph&. 36- treated diseases from a non-religious point of view is
4 0 ; WMM, As. u. E7w. 186.L, C O T 1 87&; Renan, Miss. justifiable may be questioned.
de P h h . 1 9 - 4 2 ; G. J. Chester, Sum. West. Pal., Special The third point is a tantalising mention ( I K. 1523)
PapPrs, 75-78 ; see further reff. in Vigouroux : a map of island
in Admiralty Charts No. 2765, or W. Allen, The Dead Sea, of 'all Asa's warlike deeds (in!"!-$?).' Is this, as
i., end. H. W. H. Klostermann supposes, an allusion to the victory over
ARZA (KY18 ; W C A [Bl- A ~ C ACAI, ACA [Ll), Icing that Ciishite king, who, according to z Ch. 149-15,
Baasha's prefect of the palace at Tirzah, and doubtless invaded Judah with a huge force, and came as far as
Zimri's accomplice in the assassination of the king ( I K. Mareshah (see ZERAH,s ) ? Or does not the compiler
l69+), see ZIMRI. The form of the name appears to be make the most of the achievements to which Asa, it is
somewhat uncertain probable, could legitimately lay claim (cp I K. 1523),
not always with much benefit to his reputation?
ARZARETH (ARZARETH), 4 Esd. 1345, RV ; AV 2. Father of B ERECHIAH , z ; I Ch. 916 (Ouua[B]) ;
ARSARETH.
omitted in I( Neh. 1117. T. K. C.
ASA ( K @ t 51 ACA [BAL],2 perhaps short for V P g
ASADIAS (ACAAIOY [BI c b A a i o y [AI, sedei), an
-i. e . , ' YahwB healeth ' ;-cp h a m . and Ar. 'mi,a to ancestor of Baruch (Bar. 1I ) ; cp. H ASADIAH.
heal,' Ass. ZsC, ' a physician,' a title applied to the god
Ea [Del. Ass. H WB] ; the name may express a pious wish ASAEL (Tob. 11, ACIHA [BKA] ; Itala, Asihel;
that Yahwil would heal-ie., restore prosperity to-his Eth. 'Az'hiZ; Heb. versions hby, $bK), a name
people : cp Hos. 7 I 113). occurring in the genealogy in Tob. 1I. The genedogy
I. Son of Abiiah and third king of Tudah (first half is omitted by the Arani. version, but given in a very
4
of 9th cent. B . C . ; see CHRONOLOGY,3 2 ) . Of Asa's regular form in the Heb. (ed. Neubauer), Itala, and K.
long reign but one event is handed down to- us on the The Greek texts, however, mark off Asiel (sic)from the
best anthority ( I K. 1516-22), and it speaks in favour of other names by saying 6~ TOG u?r.4ppa.ros'Aurdh, a dis-
the royal annals that they have not bnried such an action tinction preserved in Vg. ' ex tribu et civitate Nephthali,'
of the reigning king in oblivion. The subject of the though the word 'AGL~X is omitted. They are, therefore,
narrative is nothing less than the purchase by Asa of help probably right also in their orthography, since, according
from the king of Damascus against Judah's northern to Gen. 4624 Nu. 2648 [XF], etc., BGL+ is a Saphtalite
brethren. All the silver and gold that was still to be clan (see JAHZEEL). If this is so the name is &!n:.
found in the royal treasury, Asa, we are told, sent to
Benhadad, king of Aram, to bribe him to transfer his ASAHEL (h@, $ 3 1 ; acatih [BHA] ; ACC . [Id,
but I Ch. 1126 as in B] : auagXos Jos.), youngest (? z S.
covenant of friendship from Israel to Judah. Thus it was
to Jodnh that the first Aramzean invasion of Israel was 2 18) son of Zeruiah David's sister, and brother of Joab
clue, and we can believe the statement of the Chronicler and Abishai. H e was renowned for his lightness of foot
that Asn's conduct did not pass without prophetic rebuke (ib. ). As in the case of his unfortunate cousin, almost all
( z Ch. 167-10 ; on the details no stress can be laid). we know of him is the story ( z S. 219-25) of his death
The situation of Asa was, it is true, difficult. By at the reluctant hands of A BNER (q.v.). ' There lacked
pushing his frontier to Ramah, Baasha threatened to of David's servants but nineteen men and Asahel ' (v.30):
such is the statement of David's loss in the battle of
1 I t has been :upposed (e.g. Ges. Thzs.) that the name Arvad Gibeon. With this special mention agrees the fact that
means ' Refuge. his name stands first in the list of the 'thirty' heroes
2 Mr. Burkitt argues that Aua+, Asaph, 'was once the render-
ing of the LXX' for Asa, as m p n is ~ for N ~ * DSira (CaiizbriZge in 2 S. 23 and I Ch. 11 (but cp AMASAI). It is true,
University Aeportci; March 1897,p. 699J). Cp. ASAPH,4. another account is given in the new version of the list of
21 321 322
 ASAHIAH ’ ASCENT O F THE CORNER
heroes in I Ch. 27 (TI.7), where we find Asahel com- where T R and EV have Asa. See G ENEALOGIES OF
mander of a division of David’s army. The incom- J ESUS, z b.
patibility of this statement with his death before David ASARA (&cap&
[BA]), I Esd. 531 RV ; AV A ZARA.
became king of Israel was obvious. The present text,
accordingly, adds ’ and Zebadiah his son after him,’ for ASARAMEL, a name occurring in the inscription set
which has ‘ son KUL ol d&hq5oI,’ to which 6L adds up in houour of Sinion the ;\iIaccabee (I Macc. 1428).
dwiuw a6roD. The writing begins as follows :-’ On the 18th day of Elul
2. An itinerating Levitical teacher temp. Jehoshaphat, z Ch. in the 172nd year, this is the third year of Simon, the
178 (Iau[e]~qh[BAI, hunqh [L]). high priest EY uapaph (so @*, whence AV S ARAMEL,
3. An overseer of chambers in the temple temp. Hezekiah
(z Ch; 31 r3t); EY auapapeh [KV], nsarnrnel [Vg.]) in a great congrega-
A. Father or ancestor of T O N A T H A N -r121. temp. Ezra;
~
tion’-etc. It has long been recogiiised that this ex-
EzkalOrj ( a q A [Bl, uaq. [N*], NpAas in I ) = I Esd. 91qt, A ZAEL pression is a transliteration of some Hebrew word which
(a<aqAou). stood in the original, as is the case with the difficult
ASAHIAH (?lip?), z K. 2212 14, RV ASAIAH, 2. snrbeth sadanai el in the title of this book (see MACCA-
BEGS, FIRST,§ I ). By some it is taken to represent
ASAIAH (ilypg, § 31, ‘YahwB hath made’ ; A C A I ~ a place-e.g., it might be a corruption of Jerusalem
[BAL]). (Caste1lio)-or to represent the Heb. sa oy 1x0, ‘ the
T. One of the Simeonite chieftains who dispossessed the
Meunim [see RV], I CE. 434.41 (Aura [Bl). court of the people of God’--i.e., the great court’oi the
2. ‘ King’s servant’ to Josiah, z K. 22 12,AV ASARIAH (Iaua~ temple (Iceil ; cp Ew. Ges~h.(~) 4438)-or &n iy+ the
[A] ACapbpLas [L]), 14 (auaias [BAI arapias [L]) = z Ch. 3420
(IC&. [B] Iou~as[L]). court of Millo (Grotius), or \N ny i y d , ‘ the gate of the
3. A MLrarite family, I Ch. 630 [IS] (Auapa [Bl), 156 (Amah people of God.’ It is better, however, to see in this
auaras [Aa]) TI (auams [A]). expression an honorific title. From I Macc. 1342
[”j: A Shiloiiit; family, I Ch. 95 (Aua [Bl), probably same as
(3). but cp MAASEIAEI, ii. 18 (Neh. 115).
we see that contracts were dated from the first year of
Simon ‘the great high priest, and captain and leader
ASANA ( A C C A N ~ [ B~] E ) , s d5. 3 1 = E z r a 2 5 0 , A s ~ ~ ~ of
. the Jews’ (cp the titles given him in 7447 and 1 5 1 ) .
ASAPH (??e an abbreviated name, § 50, aca+ and it seems natural that in an inscription written in
honour of Simon we should find more than the simple
[BAL]).
I . The father of Joah, the recorder, z K. 1818 title ‘high priest.’ (Cp the Pesh. \ J & X b b !ah
(LWUU+UT [BA], t w a uios ~ ua&v [L]), 37 ( U U + U Y [B])= ‘leader Lor ‘(greatone”] in Israel’). Hence Asaraniel
Is. 36 3 22 ; but @ suggests the reading ‘ Shaphan ’ or is taken by many (Wernsdorf, Scholz, Grimm, Zockler,
‘ Shaphat. ’ etc.) to represent SN OY la, ‘ prince of the people of
z. The keeper of the royal ‘paradise’ or forest God.’ The great difficulty would then lie in the
(probably in Palestine), Neh. 28 (UUU+UT [L], a6baros presence of the preposition Bv. This, however, may
[Jos.1). have been inserted by a copyist who supposed that the
3. The eponym of the Asaphite guild of singers, word was the name of a place not of a pers0n.l
Ezra241 310 Neh. 7 4 4 ll17(0nly K“.“Lin @ ) z z ( a u a p Possibly EY is an integral part of the word, and we
[BX]) I Ch. 25 IJ, and elsewhere, who is represented by should read \yay i?I ’ the
, sprout (cp Is. 11 I ) of the
the Chronicler, as a seer ( 2 Ch. 29 30) and as a contem- people of God,’ or, better, S ~ O YTSj, ‘protector of the
porary of David and Solomon, and chief of the singers
of his time, Neh. 1246 I Ch. 151719 (Am+‘ [R]) 1 6 5 people of God ’ (cp D. 476).
(Auuaq5[?]) zCh. 5 1 2 , e t c 2 On the later equation of ASAREEL, or, better, RV Asarel (\&$Ye, 9 67 ; cp
Asaph with the Ar. Lokmsn and Gk. ESOP, cp Story
of A,!Z~&Y, lxxvii. J Complicated as the history of h W K , and see AHAB, 4, n. 5 : I C ~ P A H A [;B],
these guilds is, we are able to see from Ezra241 that ec. [A] A C S ~ H .[L which adds K U ~L W U X E C ~ ] ) ‘, son of
at one time the terms b’ne Asaph’ and ‘singers’ (the unknown) Jehaleleel ( I Ch. 416) and ‘brother’ of
were identical, and that the singers were kept distinct Z IPH (q.v.,z), Ziphnh and Tiria.
from the Levites. The guilds of the b’ne Asaph and
b’ne Korah were the two hereditary choirs that
ASARELAW: ( ;I K :’- 5..
W K_: [BSi. Ginsb.], 73 ; cp
superintended the musical services of the temple. They k E ’ K ; E ~ A H A [El3 IBCIHA [AI, A C ~ I ~ H A I&]),
A a
‘son of Asaph’ I Ch. 252; called Jesarelah, EV
do not seem to have been very prominent before the
JEsHSRELAH ( n h q ; ; LuEpqlh [B], iuppe?)ha[A]) in v. 14.
Exile. More important, however, was the triple division.
This comprised the three great names of Asaph, Heman, ASBACAPIIATH (acBaKA+Ae [B] ; in Pesh. the
and Ethan (or Jeduthun), which were reckoned to the
three Levitical houses of Gershom, Kohath, and Merari name is h u b ( ) ,I Escl. 569 RV’”g., AV (1611)
( I Ch. 6 ; see PSALMS). A still older attempt to incor- Asbasareth, RV Asbasareth (acBacapae [A]), the
porate the name among the Levites may, according name answering in I Esd. 569 @iBA to the Esarhaddon
to WRS, 204, n. I , be seen perhaps in the of 11 Ezra42 (which is reproduced by @“, axop8av).
occurrence of the name ABIASAPH( q - . ~ . ) , the eponym The right reading is au@@a@,which represents i a m ~ ,
of the Asaphite guild, as a Icorahite. Of the threefold This is. evidently an alternative to the reading T ~ D ofK
division of singers a clear example may be seen in Neh. Ezra 4r0, and it suggests that the writer of the gloss in
1224 where Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua, the chiefs Ezra493 (see ‘ Ezra’ in SBOT) found, not p n i m , but
of the Levites, are appointed to praise. Similarly, in ~QIDN, in his text of Ezra4z. So Marq. (Fund. 59) ;
Neh. 11 17 three singers are mentioned-Mattaniah, but, in connection with the difficult theory that the name
Abda, and Bakbukiah. Mattaniah and Abda are originally given in Ezra 4 z was ] ~ D = N I ~ D ,Sargon ;
descendants of Asaph and Jeduthun. ‘ Balrbulriah ’ see ASNAPPER.
we should correct to ‘ Buklriah,’ a son of Heman. ASGALON ( ~ C K A ~ ~ NI )Macc.
, 1086, etc., RV
Thus, each of the three great guilds finds its repre- ASHKELON( q . ~ . ) .
sentative. See ETHAZI, 2 , HEMAN, JEDUTHUN.
The name Asaph occurs in the titles of certain Psalms ASCENT OF THE CORNER (?;sa n$y; ANh
(see PSALMS).
4. The best supported reading in Mt. 1 7 (UUU$J 1 T,he prefixed ;v is explained by Schiirer (GVI 1 197,n. 17)
[Ti. WH], cp RV’”g.; on this reading see ASA, footnote) as a corruption of ueysv (]&DJ, which corresponds to the Gr.
u q x v q y 6 s . Renan’s suggestion (Hist. dfsr. ix. cap. 1 a d s n . )
1 In z Ch. 34 15 @ A has sua+ for ad. that ev auapasd is a corruption of some mislt, may he mentioned ;
a In I Ch. 201 Q R reads ApLa<a+ap, which corresponds very in his view the expression is similar to those which Arabian
nearly to I Ch. 9 19 (@ Ap~auw#). In z Ch. 29 13 @ B reads Aua. authors often add to the names of persons.
323 324
 ASEAS ASHDOD, AZOTUS
MBCON THC KAMT~HC [B]; LXNABACWC T H C K. +s@&, acyB~p[e]i[BAFI, -COYBHPI [L]), in a gene-
[HA]; THC A. T. r w l u i a c [LI) Neb. 331 RV. See r l o g y o f B ~ ~ j A(q.v.,§gii.[P]),Gen.
~~N 4621=Nu. 2636
J ERUSALEM. ACYBHP [BAFI, -coyB [L1)=1 Ch. 8 1 (CAB& [BI) ;
rpparently represented by J EDIAEL in I Ch. 76-11 (?A 6).
ASEAS (ACAIAC [BA]), IEsd. 932 = Ezra 1031, ?robably the name is a corruption of ISHBAAL (q.v.).
5.
ISSHIAW,
ASHCHENAZ (123vK), Jer. 5127 A V ; RV ASH-
ASEBEBIA; RV Asebebigs (ACBBH Biac PA]), LENAZ, 4.V.
I Esd. 847=Ezra818, S HEREBIAH, 4.".
ASHDOD, AZOTUS (f\%#, strength, strongly-
ASEBIA (ACEBIAN I Esd: 847 AV, RV ounrled' or perhaps < man [men] of Dod, Dudu' ; cp
Asebias = Ezra 8 19, H ASHABIAH , 7. ~SHHURB , ENE - BERAK ? ; AZWTOC [BAKQI'L], hence
ASENATH ( n q $; ACENNEe LADE], -EN€. [El), ts name in Apocr., N T , etc. ), gentilic Ashdodite, AV
ACCENEe [I-], daughter of Potipherh, priest of On ; Ashdothite ? ? ~ Y ? K , Josh. 133 (AZOT(B)IOC [BAL] ;
wife of Joseph (Gen. 41 4550 46zof). A genuine ?I. fem. ni,?yJy; Neh. 1323 in Kr. nhZ$g ; AZWTIAC
Egyptian name. See JOSEPH 1, 5 4 ; and on the apo- :BAL], -1Aac [HI), a famous Philistine city some 2-3
cryphal ' Life of Aseneth,' APOCRYPHA, 5 12. m. from the Mediterranean coast, about half-way
between Gaza and Joppa. I t was one of the five
ASER, RV ASHER ( a c ~ p[BA]), Tob. 12. See confederated towns of the Philistines, and stood far
HAZOR,I . above the others in importance-a pre-eminence due
ASERER, RV S ERAR ( c ~ p a p[BA]), I Esd. 53z= doubtless to its commanding position on the great
Ezra 253, %ERA, 2. military road between Syria and Egypt, at the spot
where a branch of it leads off to Ekron and Ramleh.
ASH (QH,~ I T Y C ) , better RV Fir-Tree, seems to It survives in the modern EsdzZd, a miserable little
be named (Is. 44 14) as a tree used by makers of idols. village on a woody and beautiful height, to the W. of
If drez is genuine (see below) we may reasonably hold which, at an hour's distance, are still found the
it to be the Assyrian irin-cedar or fir. traces of a harbour now called Minet el-Kal'a.l
' Fir ' is supported by the versions (ni~uc,pinus) and by the J E assigns Ashdod to Judah (Josh.1546$, ao$wO,
Rabbis (reff. in Ces. Thes.); Tristram's suggestion Pinus u m E 8 w O [B], U U & J ~[A, in v. 47 om.], E G ~ J [L])
C ~ ; but
kaZe$epemrs, Mill, the Aleppo Pine (Nh'B, 335), is a&ractive.
That Heb. brm = Lat. ornus is improbable; p cannot he this statement clearly needs modification in view of
Frazinus o~nus,L., the Manna Ash a native of S. Euro e Josh. 133 (D2; cp 1122,aueh8w [B], a8wO [A], a q 6 w O
not found farther E. than W. Asia Minor. Celsius ( H i e d % [F], aae88w8 [ L ] ) , which is supported by the fact that
1 1 8 5 3 ) held j , ~to be the urrin of Abulfa<l, and the 'thorny Israel seems never to have subdued the Philistine strong-
tree' that he meant it is not difficult to make out. Rhus oxy- hold ( 2 Ch. 266 is doubtful). In Samuel's time the ark
cnistha (leaves and drupes somewhat like Sol;6us Aucupariu) was removed thither from Eben-ezer, and placed in the
is called 'ern, 'crin (fllustr. de l a p o r e de IEgy$ie, 205) and
that the little tree grows in Arabia, though not yet proved,'is by temple of Dagon ( I S . 5.f. ), whose cult was more particu-
no means improbable. X h n s Corinria, which also might he larly associated with Ashdod (cp I Macc. 1083 I 1 ?).2
thought of, resembles Sor6us Azm@eriumore closely. Ashdod is denounced by Amos with other Phihstine
The reading, however, is uncertain. 1 1 occurs ~ only towns for the infamous slave-raids upon Judah, and the
in this passage, and a Mass. note calls attention to the same prophet alludes to it again in terms which show
' small 1,' which seems to point to a reading 178 ' cedar.' that in the middle of the eighth century it was a place
Perhaps a better emendation would be 'in ( ' God '). of no little repute (39 [I1 Egypt], bB*reads ' Assyria,'
So Klo. and Che. (SBOT,Heb. 138), following @. The against which cp We.; Now. ; Aq., Sym., Theod. read
word d r u s is wanting in nearly all the best MSS (BMAQr) bf Ashdod). Although nnmentioned in the annals of
C3, and in others appears as a Hexaplaric addition with an Tiglath-pileser's campaign against Philistia and Phcenicia
asterisk. The' text of the whole verse as it appears in @B and
other MSS is simply--ko+w &Aov IK r o 3 Gpupoir 6 B+~TWUEV b (cp Wi. G VX 1223) it probably suffered at his hands.
xdprop K a i &T& ; ~ $ K U V(the
E V Peshitta is even shorter, 'the wood On the other hand, we are fortunately well-informed
that was cut down from the thicket, that by rain was nurtured '). of its fate some years later in the siege alluded to
Between LO$W and @Aov Origen inserted in the Hexaplaric
text this addition from Aq. and Theod. 2awd ~6'Gpous, K U ~ in Is. 201 (711 B . c . ) . ~ As a commemorative record
giapcv i Lo 6~av;v K a i 6p0v Kai aKaprippo&v a+rt; and similarly relates (cp KATP) 398 J , h'B 265J), Azuri (cp Heb.
added r g v i f t e r b Kdpror ; see Field's Zfe.ru$lu {n loc.). my, Azzur), king of Asdudu, had been superseded4
N. M. -W. T. T. -D.
by his brother Ahi-miti (cp Ahimoth, Mahath), who
ASHAN (Ivy; ACAN PAL], ACENNA[A]AIIh c b ~ ~ b turn was overthrown by the anti-Assyrian party (the
in
[L]), an unidentified site in the lowland of Jndah, Ua-at-ti) in favour of Yamani (or Yavani = the
apparently in its most southern part (Josh. 1542, Ionian?). Ashdod was besieged, not by Sargon, but,
[B], ACENNA [A], -CANN. [L]), assigned in Josh. 197 as the M T more correctly states, by his general
(+cay [A]) to Simeon, and named among the priests' or T ARTAN [4.u.]. This siege, a s Is. 206 suggests,
cities in I Ch. 6 59 [44] =Josh. 21 16 (where for MT p, EV involved the surrounding peoples, and ultimately
AIN, [A], NAEIN [L], we should probably read resulted in the flight of Yavani to the land of Musri,
i j y , Ashan ; cp bB ACA ; so Bennett in SBOT). Ashan which belongs to Miluhha, the district lying in N.
may perhaps be the same as the BOR-ASIIAN [Y.V.], or Arabia, bordering on Edom (see MIZRAIM,§ 26).
CHOR-ASHAN (RV C OR-A SHAN) of I S. 3030, the site 01 The same tablet records the destruction of ($r)Cimtu
some well or reservoir. .4sdua'inz?nn, which, according to Schrader, is ' Gath of
ASHARELAH (?>V$v$,Ba. Ginsb.), I Ch. 252
1 In early Christian times 'A<WTOFl~apahms and 'A<WTOS
peu6 eios are kept distinct. Josephus sometimes speaksof Ash-
R v , A\r &iSAREI,AII. dad &nd similady of Jabneh, Jarnnia) as an inland town (ATzf.
xiv. 44, BJ i. 7 7) at other times as a coast town (Ayzi. xiii. 15 4).
ASRBEA (@#&, 5 42,for \yX%? ; ECOBA [BA], There may have'been a harbour here in the time of Sargon ; cp
above.
~ c g p [L]).
, ~ The 'house of Ashbea' included ' tht 2 Hence it has been con'ectured that Dagan-takala in the
(Judahite) families of the house of those that wroughi Amarna tablets ( K B5215f.5 belonged to Ashdod.
fine linen ' ( I Ch. 4 21) ; or Beth Ashbea may be the name 3 For the date, etc., cp Ch. Iiitr. 1 2 0 5 ; Wi. AZt. Unt.
of their dwelling-place. Nothing fxther is known 0. 14'2.6
4 H e had sought to ally himself with the surrounding kings
this weaving guild. against Assyria. Another inscription relates that the men of
Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab had sent presents to Pir'Ei,
ASHBEL (52q
' R 5 43 ; MBHA [ADL] ; ACABHAOC king of M q r i , for a like purpose (cp KB 2 64f; and note).
5 These Qa-at-ti of A$idod seem to have been closely related
uos.] ; Sam. hb"),gentilic Ashbelite, Nu. 263r to Mu2ri (cp also Wi., Mnyri, etc." in MYG, 1898, 126f.).
325 326
 ASHDOTH-PISGAH ASHER
the Ashdodites’ (cp ‘ Gath of the Philistines,’ Am. 6 2 , As(s)aru,which occupied W. Galilee in the time of Seti
and for a wider use of Ashdod see below). Others I. and Ramses 11. (WMM,As. u.Ezw. 236-9)? Did that
(Del. Pur. 2 8 9 5 , Wi. Che.) read as two names, and ancient people to some extent throw in their lot with
explain the latter as 0;s i i q ~ ~ - i . e . , the port of Ashdod the invaders from the wilderness (cp H ARNEPHER ), or is
(cp note I , below). Asher in the O T simply a geographical name for some
Ashdod soon regained its power, and in the following Israelites who settled in a district already long known
century the ‘ great city of Syria ’ (Herod2 157) was be- as Asher? Hommel ( A H T 228, 237) thinks that
sieged by Psaninietichus for twenty-nine years, an the Asherites were one of several Israelitish tribes
allusion to which is seen in Jer. 25 20 (less probably also which, before the time of Moses, had encamped in
Zeph. 24 : see Z EPHANIAH, ii. ). Further evidence of its the district between Egypt and Judah (cp SHIHOR-
independence may be seen in the mention of Abi-millci, LIBNATH) and that they are the Habiri referred to in
king of Ashdod, temp. Esarhaddon (KAT(‘’)35512). the Amarna letters as having burst into Palestine from
The Ashdodites were allied with the Arabians and the the south. jastrow, on the other hand, inclines to
Ammonites against the Jews of Jerusalem (Neh. 47 [ I ]), identify the Habiri with the Asherite clan Heber (see
.and Nehemiah, denouncing the foreign marriages, below, 5 4) and to connect the Asherite clan Malchiel
mentions the women of Ashdod (also of Ammon and with the followers of Milkili, the writer of several of the
Moab), whose offspring speak a degraded dialect called Amarna letters, while G. A. Barton suggests that the
n ’ ? i ~ d(Neh.
~ 1323f:, U ~ W T L U T [ E ] L[BKAL]) : cp the allu- sons of Abd-akta (b’nE Ebed ASera), of whom we hear
sion in Zech. 96. The use of Ashdod in these passages so much in the letters of Rib-Addi of Gebal, may have
become an important constituent part of the OT tribe
is peculiar, and, if genuine, suggests that the name
Ashdod comprised also the surrounding district (cp of A4sher,so that it inherited their name in abbreviated
form. That the O T Asherites were at all events not
Schrader’s explanation of usdudiminu above).‘
2. Earlier very closely bound to Israel is proved by
Ashdod and its neighbourhood was ravaged by Judas
( I Macc. 568, cp 415), and in 147 B.C. his brother
references.our earliest historical notice of the tribe,
Jonathan defeated Apollonius there and bnrnt the temple according to which it took no interest in
the rising against Sisera : ‘ Asher sat still at the shore
of Dagon ( I Macc. 1077 8 , cp 1 1 4 ) . john Hyrcanns
burnt the towers in the surrounding fields after defeating of the sea, and abode by his creeks’ (Judg. 517).’
Cendebzeus ( I Macc. 16 IO). In the time of Alexander Moreover, that they were somewhat mixed up with older
Jannaeus it belonged to Judaea (jos. Ant. xiii. 154) ; but inhabitants appears clearly enough in judg. 132. Whilst,
it was separated from it under Ptolemy (Jos. BJ i. 77). therefore, the fertility ascribed in the ‘Blessings of
In the N T it is mentioned only once, in connection with Jacob and Moses’ to the district where Asher dwelt,
Philip’s return from Gaza to Caesarea (Acts840). See although it at once suggests the popular etymology (see
Schiir. G VZ 267 f:, Wi. G VZ 1223f: ; and cp PHILIS- above), is known to have been really characteristic
of the part of Galilee in question (see reK in Dr. on
TINES. S. A. C.
Dt. 3324, and cp BIRZAITH), we can hardly say how far
ASHDOTH-PISGAH (?l@p? niV&) is uniformly the distinctness from the Phcxnicians of the coast,
translated, in RV, ‘the slopes (murg. or springs) of apparently implied in ZJ. 25 of the later Blessing, was an
Pisgah’ (Dt. 317 449 [here also AV] Josh. 123 [no actual fact. On the other hand, the writer of the
marg. note] 1320 ; for b ’ s readings see PISGAH). In account of ISHBAAL (9.a,I ) seems to have thought
like manner, the Heb. niiijli, rendered ’ springs ’ in Josh. Asher worth mentioning as included in the Benjamite
10 40 12 S, is in RV ‘ slopes.’ The declivities or shoulders claim (see A SHURITES, G ESHUR , I ). It is not surpris-
of a mountain plateau, where it sinks sharply into the ing in view of the prevailing vagueness, that the ‘ Bless-
plain, are meant. The word is perhaps derived from ing of Jacob’ speaks of ZEBULUN in almost the same
TON, in the sense of pouring out ’; a the explanation words that the Song of Deborah had applied to Asher,
usually given is that the AshEdoth are the line on the and that the ‘ Blessing of Moses ’ then associates IS-
mountain-side where springs break forth. See PISGAH. SACHAR with Zebulun. Definite boundary there can
hardly have been, whilst the distribution of the popula-
ASHER ( Y e ? ; L L C H ~[BAL], LLC H [AAXNu.i72], tion must have changed somewhat from age to age. We
iacHB [B, Josh. 17103 ; Jos. ACHPOC ; gentilic ’19s need not wonder that the account of Asher’s territory
1. Name and Asherite), the eponymous head of the 3. Boundaries. which the priestly compiler has given
tribe of the same name. Unimportant us in josh.1924-3r (in which some
origin. for the historv of Israel-it is traced scholars have found traces of JE) is unusually vague.
by the Yahwist to Zilpah, Leih’s maid (Gen. ~ O I Z ~ : ) , Not many of the places can be identified with certainty.
-this tribe, perhaps more than the other Zilpah and A LAMMELECH (Wsdy el - Melek) J IPHTHAH - E L (JefZt),
Bilhah tribes (see I SRAEL, 5), raises questions diffi- C ABUL (Kabtil) K ANAH (Kina) have) probably been identified
and possibly ilso Ehron (Le., ABDON,i.) and HAM&N
cult to answer. Is the popular etymology (Gen. 3013, (Umm el ‘Amod). U MMAH should probably be read &ho.
probably also alluded to in the ‘ Blessings ’ ) correct, SHIHOR-LIBNATH (T.v.) may perhaps be the Nahr ez-Zar&t.
or does the name not rather point to some deity- MISHALand HOSAH(y9.w.) are probably to be recognised in
in which case it is natural to connect it with the root Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions.
i d x (lid,), ‘ t o be propitious,’ whence the name of the That Accho or Achzib or Sidon was ever included in
Assyrian God In what relation does Asher a n Israelitish tribe Asher, is a purely ideal conception,
stand to a once somewhat important state called Aseru, and the same is clearly true (Judg. 131f: ) of other cities
in the list. For indications of an Aramzean element in
1 So in I Macc. 1434 Ga:ara (in reality 17 m. to NE.) is the population (z S. 106) see A RAM , 5 .
‘ upon the borders of Azotus . cp also (doubtfully) z Ch. 211 6. The tribe to the S. of Asher was Manasseh. In
2 Delitzsch compares the Ass. iJd% pl. i~*d&i, the ‘ base ’ of
an thing (Prol. 46 ; cp Dr. Fn Deuf.3’17). Josh. 1711 we have a Yahwistic passage which is
YTiele long ago wrote Asher like Gad is a god of good commonly interpreted as declaring that Dor lay within
fortune, the consort of ksherah’ (VergeZ&. Gesch. iian de ,the limits of territory ideally assigned to Asher, although
Egypt. en Mesopotanz. Godsdiensten 1872, p. 5p), and both it really belonged to Manasseh. This interpretation
parts of this statement may still be difended. So Che. Pvojh.
Is.(1) 1 103 (on Is.178). Cp Del. Ass. NWE 148. G..A. gives support to the hypothesis that Shihor - Lihnath
Barton ( J B L 15 174 [‘96])suggests a connection with the divine (Josh. 1926) is to be taken as the southern boundary of
name implied in the name Abd-agirta referred to towards the Asher, and to be identified with the river Zarkg, which
end of S r (see ASHERAH8 3). Jensen (Hittiter u.’Amzenier)
offers proof that the n a d e of the cnnsort or the goddess ASratu enters the sea almost midway between Dor and Czesarea.
was Hadad or Ramman the storm-pod. Had he also the title If Asher really moved northwards from an earlier home
Agir? Lastly G. H. Skipwith (/QR11 241 [‘gg])even suggests
a connection between and Osiris (the father of Horiis ; cp 1 On the statement in Jndq. 635 723, that Asher took part in
H ARNEFHER). the conflict with Midian, sedhloore, ad roc.
327 328
 ASHER ASHERAH
in S. Palestine (see ahove, 5 I), traces or at least :heory that RV’s reading is correct ; it is in fact that of
memorials of it may have long survived (see SHIHOR- most scholars, including Dillmann and Kautzsch. The
LIBNATH). This would make it not quite so difficult to *endering seems, however, to need revision. Consider-
understand the account of P, even if it is a fact that he ing that MICHMETHATH ( T . v . ) stands in 1 7 7 in close
really brings Asher farther S. than Carmel (Josh. 1926). proximity to Asher (without any connecting and), and
The linguistic eculiarities of the verse Josh.1711 support the that it would be natural to distinguish this Asher from
suggestion of DiBrnann (ad Zoc.) that all that follows the word the better known one (with which indeed Kerr in
Asher‘ except ‘the three heights’ belongs really to v. 12, taking
the place there of the words ‘ those cities’ (cp Judg. 127) ;1 hut we PBFQu St., 1877,p. 45,actually confounds it) by add-
do not know what ‘ the three heights ’ are (though they certainly ing the name of the district in which it was (cp ‘ Kedesh-
might include ‘ the heights of Dor ‘ cp Josh. 11 z 1 2 23). There Naphtali’), it seems probable that Michmethath is the
is, however, little historical importake in the question whether
Dor is represented as belonging to Asher, since, as a matter of name of a district, and that we should render (against
fact, it and the cities mentioned with it remained in the posses- the accents and Targ., but in accordance with G A L ) ,
sion of the Canaanites or Phcenicians. ‘ And the border of Manasseh was from Asher of (the)
On the other three sides the territory of Asher is even Michmethath,’ the starting-point alone being mentioned
less defined. According to Josh. 1927, it was conter- in the opening clause, as in 152 (so Reland, J. Schwarz,
minous with Zebulun on the E., while according to Conder). The description in 177 will then exactly
v. 34 it stood in the same relation to Naphtali. It is correspond to that in 166 in so far as Michmethath is
difficult to bring it into relation with Issachar. In the first point mentioned on the border between
general, Asher must be regarded as the north-western- Ephraim and Manasseh. ‘ Asher of the Michmethath ’
most district connected with Israel. and as stretching might be some place in the N. of the district called ‘ the
indefinitely W. and N. and losing itself gradually Michmethath.’ If this district is the plain of eZ-Makhna,
amongst the Phoenicians of the coast. two ruined places at once suggest themselves, now called
(i.) P s genealogy of Asher (given twice : Nu. 2644, the upper and the lower Makhna respectively (GuQin,
probably the more original, =Gen. 46 17), which is re- Sam. 1459J). Here, however, no villages preserve
4. Genealogies. produced in almost identical form by any traces of the ancient name. Eus. and Jer. ( O S
the Chronicler ( I Ch. 7 3 0 f . ) , is very 22829 9328) suggest another identification. They refer
simple, consisting probably of (primarily) the three to a village called Asher, 15 R. m. from Neapolis on
clans, the Imnites (perhaps really Jamin ; so B B A L in the road to Scythopolis, a description which points to
Nu. and perhaps in I Ch.), Ishvites (doubtful), and Tyii:ir, I R. m. NE. of Thebez, where the 15th R.
Beri’ites. milestone has actually been discovered (SejournB, Rev.
With the last mentioned are associated as secondary clans the
Heberites (known as a Kenite name)2 and the Malchielites Dz’dZ., 1895,p. 617J). TeyZjsir is now a mud hamlet ;
(known as a personal name in the Amarna letters from S. but it succeeds a place of some importance. Rock-cut
Palestine) as ‘sons,’ and Serah (perhaps a n Aram. namc; root sepulchres abound (&&in, Sam. 1108). It is not
not found in Hebrew) as sister. There is no earlier mention probable, however, that Eus. and Jer. had a clear or
however, of any of these names in connection with Asher:
though the first and third are well known in the central high- correct view of the boundary line, and the transition
lands of Palestine. from Asher to Tqii:ir is not an easy one. (’The latter
(ii.) To this simple genealogy the Chronicler appends ( I Ch. name seems to be the plur. of taz~sir,inf. z conj. of
731 6-39) a remarkable list of one Malchielite and over thirty
Heberites-remarkable because the names are not of the dis- ya:ara. So Kanipffmeyer, ZDPV 16 2 . ) T. K. c.
tinctive type that abounds in the Chronicler. The list if we
remove certain textual corruptions,3 looks as if it were’meant ASHERAH,,plur. Asherim, the RV transliteration of
to be schematic e g . , 3 sons and 3 x 3 grandsons followed hy
some seventeen in the fourth fifth and sixth genektions); but
the Heb. 3354’ (pl.P$ldy ; in three late passages
we cannot reach a text tha; insGires confidence. I t must he 1,The ilhvy), a word which AV, following 48
remembered, however, that many of the names may well be
foreign. Harnepher has been referred to above. The affinities Ashera (ahcoc [BAFL]) and Vg. (Zucus),renders
of some of the names are worthy of note : note, e g . , the remark- post. grove,groves. That this translation is mistaken
able groups Heber, Ithran, Jether; so also Beria, Shelesh= has long been iiniversally recognised. RV
Shilsha of v. 37 (Shalisha? cp BE), Shual. avoids the error by not translating the word at all ; hut,
Lk.236 speaks of a certain Anna as being of the by consistently treating the word as a proper noun, it
tribe of Asher (but see GENEALOGIES, i. 8). gives occasion to more serious misunderstanding.
2. Tob. 1 2 RV, AV ASER. See H AZOR , I. The Zsh2rd was a wooden post or mast, which stood
H. W. H. at Canaanite places of worship (Ex. 3413 Jude. 6 2 5 and
ASHER (l&$;. & C H ~[BAL]), a town on the frequently), and, down to the seventh century, also, by
southern border of Manasseh, mentioned in Josh. the altars of YahwB, not only on the high places, or at
1 7 7 (RV) in the following terms :--‘And the border of Samaria ( z K. 136) and Bethel (z K. 23 IS), but also in the
Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethath which is temple in Jerusalem ( 2K. 236). The ashera is frequently
before [ L e . , E. or] Shcchem.’ After this we are told named in conjunction with the upright stone or stele
that ’ the border went along to the right 6and [ L e . , to ( m a g i h i ,(zammdn; see MASSEBAH and IDOLATRY, 4).
the S.], unto the inhabitants [ L e . , the district] of En- The pole or post might be of considerable size (cp Judg.
6 2 5 f . ) ; it was perhaps sometimes carved ( I K. 1513):’
tappuah.’ These statements must be taken in connec-
tion with the description of the N. border of Ephraim or draped ( z K. 237), but the draping especially 1s
in 166, where the names which correspond to Asher doubtful. The shape of an ashera is unknown. Many
and Michmethath are Michmethath and Taanath- Cypriote and Phoenician gems and seals representing an
Shiloh, and Taanath-Shiloh is stated to be E. of Mich- act of adoration show two (more rarely three) posts,
methath. On the assumption that En-tappuah is SW. generally of about the height of a man, of extremely
of Shechem (see T APPUAH, z), Asher must lie some- variable forms, which are supposed by many archeo-
where to the E. of Shechem, between Michmethath and logists to he the asheras (and magedas) of the O T
Taanath-shiloh. Thus far we have proceeded on the (see P H ~ N I C I A ) .This is not improbable, though
direct evidence is thus far lacking ; but in view of the
1 ‘Dor ’ in Judg.131 @BAL is no objection for it does not fit
the context, and is probably simply an insehoii based on the 1 ‘ A shocking thing (Jewish tradition,phaZhs) as an ashera’ ;
passage in Joshua. on z K. 21 7 see below.
2 Note that for Jehnhhah (I Ch. 734) @B reads I(. opap-i.e., 2‘ SCC l,ijard, CrCZte de Mffhlva, 1847.L; Ohnefnlsrli-Richter
Hobab? K y p ~ o ir89:3, wherc n g e n t many of these picccs nre c~llcctcd:
3 Ahi in z). 34 should certainly be ‘his brother.’ Probably Similnr’tigurci are fooiid on Assyrian reliefs, and on Carth:igiiii:in
Hotham (7,. 32) is a miswritten Helem (cp z). 35), in which case cipPi. We may compare the Egyptian dedu column (at Busiris),
‘sister’ (dhbthrim) in v. 32 may he a duplicate of Hotham. the Indian sacrificial post (Oldenherg, ReZigion des Veda, y),
Ulla (v. 3g), as it ought to resume some name already mentioned the so-called ‘ totem-posts’ of the N. American Indians, etc.
may he a corruption of Shnal, which we should perhaps restor; See in general Lippert, Kulturgeschichte, 2 3768, and Jevons,
for Shua in v. 32. Iutr. Hist. R d 134f:
329 330
 ASHERAH ASHES
great variety of types, and the age and origin of the .hat in the OT the supposed goddess Ashera owes her
figures in question, it can hardly be confidently inferred :xistence only to this confusion. In the Amarna corre-
that the asheras of the Old Canaanites and Israelites jpondence, however, there is frequent mention of a
were of similar forms. The representations do not give Zanaanite who bears the name Abd-aSratum, equivalent
any support to the theory that the ashera was a phallic to Heb. ‘Ebed-dshird, sometimes with the divine deter-
emblem. minative,-i.e., Servant of (the divine) Ashera. This
It is the common opinion that the ashera was origin- has not unnaturally been regarded as conclusiye evidence
-
allv a living tree ISifi2
> ,
on Dt. 121. Aboda zura.. fol. dc.
2. Not a tree. a.6.; cp Di. on Dt. 1621)~for which
.< that a goddess Ashera was worshipped in Palestine in
the fifteenth century B. c.l The determinative might
the Dole or mast was a conventional here signify no more than that the ashua post was
substitute.l This is antecedently not very probable. esteemed divine-a fetish, or a cultus-god-as no one
’The sacred tree had in Hebrew a specific name of its doubts that it was in O T times ; cp Phcenician names
own (U,iZE, i h , or, with a different and perhaps such as ‘Ehed-stisim, Servant of (the sacred) horses
artificial pronunciation, aZ& aZZ?n), which would natur- (CZS i. 46, 49, 53, 933, etc.) ; or ‘Ebed-hekal, Ger-
ally have attached to the artificial representative also ; hekal (G. Hoffmann), which might in Assyrian writing
nor is it easy to explain, upon this hypothesis, how the have the same determinative ; further, Assyr. 8%zr7u,
ashera came to be set up beneath the living tree ( z K. ‘ temple, sanctuary,’ in pl. sometimes ‘ deities ’ (Del.
1 7 I O). The only passage in the O T which can be cited H W B 718). The name of the ‘goddess Afmtum,’
in support of the theory is Dt. 1621 : ‘Thou shalt not however, occurs in other cuneiform texts, where this
plant thee an asherah of any kind of tree (RV) beside explanation seems not to be admissible: viz., on a
the altar of Yahwk thy God,’ or, more grammatically, hzmatite cylinder published by Sayce (ZA6 161) ; in
‘ an ashera -any kind of tree ’ ( yy 5~ max). As, how- an astronomical work copied in the year 138 B.c.,
ever, in the seventh century the ashera wbs certainly not published by Strassmaier ( Z A 6 241, Z. 9 8 ) ; and in a
ordinarily a tree, this epexegesis would be very strange. hymn published by Reisner (Sumer.-ba6yZon. Hymnen,
In the context, whether the words in question be g2)-in the last in connection. with a god Amurru,
original or a gloss, we expect, not a restriction of the which suggests that the worship may have been intro-
prohibition such as this rendering in effect gives us, hut duced from the West. See Jensen, ‘ Die Gotter Amzw-
a sweeping extension of it. We must, therefore, trans- m ( U ) und Afralu,’ ZA 11302-305.
late, ‘ an ashera-any wooden object.’% The word ushe9.a occurs also in an enigmatical
It does not appear from the O T that the asheras Phcenician inscription from Ma‘SLib, which records a
belonged exclusively to the worship of any one deity. dedication ‘ to the Astarte in the ashera of El-hammon ’
The ushem at Ophrah (Jndg. 6 25) was sacred to Baal ; the (G. Hoffmann) ;,where it is at least clear that ashera
prohibitions of the law (Dt. 1621.J) are sufficient proof cannot be the name of a deity. The most natural
that they were erected to Yahwk; nor is there any interpretation in the context would he ‘ i n the sacred
reason to think that those at Bethel, Samaria, and Jeru- precincts.’ In an inscription from Citium in which the
salem were dedicated to any other god. The assertion, word was formerly read (Schroeder, ZDMG 35424,
still often macle, that in the religion of Canaan the ’ mother Ashera’ ; contra, St. ZA T W 1344J ; cp
ma@as were sacred to male, the asheras to female E. Mey. in Roscher. 2870), the reading and interpreta-
deities, is supported by no proof whatever. tion are insecme (see C I S i. no. 13). Cp P H ~ N I C I A .
From certain passages in the O T (especially Judg. 3 7 The etymology and the meaning of the word are
I IC. 1819 z IC. 2 3 4 ) , 4 it has been thought that there was obscure. The most plausible hypothesis perhaps is that
3. A goddess ? also a Canaanite goddess Ashera, whose 4. Et,ology. & h i ~ i moriginally denoted only thesipz-
symbol or idol was the ashera post. posts set up to mark the site or the
Since in the places cited the names of Baal and Aihera boundaries of the holy place (G. Hoffmann, Lc. 26).
are coupled precisely as those of Baal and Astarte are The use of the word in the Maestib inscription for the
elsewhere (Judg. 213 106 I S. 74 [ d B A L ~h dhug sacred precincts would then be readily explained, and
Aa~apw6’] 1210 70% ~ X U E U L V ] ) , many scholars also the Assyrian afirtu plur. a f r d t i (efrgti), defined
have inferred, further, that Ashera was only another in the syllabaries as meaning ‘ high place, oracle, sanc-
name or form of the great Semitic goddess, Astarte tuary.’ In any case, ZshZrE is a nomen unitatis, and its
(Theodoret, Qzest. 55 in iv. Reg., Selden, Spencer, gender has no other than a grammatical significance.
etc. ) ; whilst others attempt in various ways to distinguish Forsome further questions connected withthe prophetic
them-e.g., Astarte, a pure celestial deity, Ashera, an opposition to the use of asheras in the worship of Yahwb
impure ‘ telluric ’ divinity (Movers) ; or the former a and the prohibition in the laws, see I DOLATRY , § 8.
goddess of the Northern Canaanites, the latter of the The older literature is cited under ASHTORETH [ q . ~ ) . ] For
.
recent discussion see We. C H 281f: note ; St. GVL 1 4 5 8 8 , cp
Southern (Tiele, Sayce). Conservative scholars such as
Hengstenberg, Eachmann, and Baethgen, however, have
.
2 A TW 1345 4 2 9 3 3 6 3185 G. Hoffmann U6er eini e
phin. [nschr$ten, 26 3 ;WkS, ReZ. Se7n.(4 i 8 7 3 On t f e
contended that in the passages in question the symbol other side Schr. Z A 3 364. Reference may be made also to
of Astarte is merely put by metonymy for the name of .
Baethgen,’Beitr. 2 1 8 3 and to Collins, PSBA 11z g r 9 who
endeavours to show that ;he mhwa was a phallic emblem :acred
the goddess ; and many recent critics see in these to Baal. G . F. M.
places only a confusion (on the part of late writers) of the
sacred post with the goddess Astartc6 A critical ASHES (lQ& of uncertain derivation) is used in
examination of the passages makes it highly probable various figures of speech typifying humiliation, frailty,
nothingness, etc. : e.g., to sit in, or be covered with,
1 See Ohnefalsch-Richter, (iypros, etc., PI. Ixxxiv. 3 and 7 ashes (Job28, cp Ez. 2730 Lam. 316), to eat ashes (Ps.
where in precisely similar relations to the scene a carved pos;
(supposed nsher-a) takes the place of a cypress tree. lO29), to follow after ashes (Is. 4420, Che. a d loc., cp
2 yy is not only a tree, but also a stake (Dt. 2122 and often). Hos. 121). T o throw ashes on the head ( z S. 1319 Is.
Thai the trees depicted on P h e n . coins, etc., were called asheras 613), or to wear ashes and sackcloth (Dan. 9 3 Esth.
(Pietschmann, Phdnisier, 1r3) is merely inferred from the OT. 41 Jonah36, cp Mt. 1121 Lk. 10r3), was a common way
3 The condemnation is based not on the fact that the presence
of these symbols presumes the korship of other gods but on the
of showing one’s grief; see M OURNING C USTOMS , § I.
principle that Israel shall not worship Yahwb as the)Canaanites The combination dust and ashes’ (is%!
p p ; cp also
worship their gods (Dt. 12 z 3 ) . DUST)is found in Gen. 1827 Job 42 6 (cp Ecclus. 109)-
4 In 2 K. 21 7 ‘ the image of the askera ’ the word image is a
g1o4s ; cp v. 3 i n d z Ch.337. On I K. li13 and z K. 237 see
note the striking assonance is? nnn s:1 Is. 61 3, ’ in-
above. I n I K. 1819 the 400 prophets of Ashera are in&po. stead of ashes a coronal ’ ; cp Ewald’s ‘Schmuck statt
lated (We. Klo Dr.).
5 We. d. Hdkmann E. Mey St.. WRS andothers. 1 Schr. Z A 3 364, and many. The name is once written
6 This‘ confusion is )found in’: still greiter measure in the with the common ideogram for the goddess IStar (Br. Mus. 33
versions. obv. 1.3).
331 332
 ASHHUR ASHPENM
Schmutz.' 'Proverbs of ashes' (Job 1312) is a sym- is represented on a wall of the Ramesseum at Thebes ;
bolisin of empty trifling sayings. the inhabitants are depicted in the sculptures with Hittite
To denote the a ashes ' of sacrificial victims the above features.
word is found only in Nu. 1 9 g J , where the ashes of the Ashkelon is not enumerated among the towns of
burnt heifer are represented as endowed with the power Judah in Josh. 15, and apparently in Judg. 118 also we
of rendering clean or unclean the person who came into ought, with @, to read a negative ; cp Josh. 133. It was
contact with them (cp Heb. 913). The usual term is Philistine in the days of Samson (Judg. 141g), Samuel
deSen, prop. ' fatness,' which comes to be used of the (I S . 6 17), David ( 2 S. 1zo), Amos (Am. 18), Zephaniah
ashes of the victims mixed with fat. From Lev. 116 (247), and Jeremiah (Jer. 2520 475 7 ) , a n d in the Greek
(P) it would seem that these were placed on the east age (Zech. 95). It was taken by Sennacherib (Schrader,
side of the altar, and afterwards removed to a place KAT 165f.,,Z:kaluna), who deposed its king Sidlsa
'outside the camp' (ib.412,cp 61oJ [ 3 J ] P).2 in favour of Sarludari, son of Rukibti, 701 B.C. In
I t is noteworthy that occurs only twice outside P : viz., the time of A h b a n i p a l it had a Iring Mitinti.
Jer. 31 40 and I K. 13 3 5 (the latter in a passage which is a late The fish-goddess, Derketo (see ATARGATIS), had a
addition to the book; see K INGS, 5 5, n. I). n'! 'ashes temple to the east of the city on a tank, of which,
(RV mg. 'soot'; cp Ges.-Bu.) of the furnace,' Ex.9810 (Q between eZ-Afejddand 'As&aZin,some traces still remain.
alfhihq) is quite obscure; see F URNA CE. Z+O&F, a ' s usual After the conquest of Alexander the Great, Ashkelon
rendering of W F (cp also in N T Z.C. above), is found again in z became, like the other Philistine cities, thoroughly
Macc. 13 5 , in connection with the tower full of ashes at Berea (2) Hellenic ; but, more prudent than they, it twice opened
wherein Menelaus met his death. T@pa (of which the verb its gates to Jonathan the Maccabee ( I Macc. 7086 1160),
&+pow, ' t o turn to ashes,' is used in 2 Pet. 2 6 of Sodom and
Gomorrah) is found only in Tab. ti r6 8 2, ' ashes of perfume ' (or and again to Alexander Jannaeus. It was the birth-
' infense,'RV)and Wisd. 2 3, 'our body shall be turned to ashes. place of Herod the Great, who gave it various buildings
(Jos. B3 i. 21 11) ; and was afterwards the residence of
ASHHUR'(s0 RV) ; AVASHUR(WI@&, 181,origin-
his sister Salome (Jos. BJ ii. 63). It is said to have
ally 'man of Horus' [on this class of names see been ' burnt to the ground' by the Jews in their revolt
also ELIDAD] ; in I Ch. 2 2 4 , acxw [B], achwh [A], against Rome (Jos. BJ ii. MI),but then to have
accwp [L]; in 4 5 capa P I , acxoyp [AI! acowp repulsed the enemy twice (d.iii. 2 1 2 ) . In Roman times
[L], ASHUI?, ASSUR), mentioned apart from the more it was a centre of Hellenic scholarship ; and under the
important branches of HezroIi-Jerahmeel, Ram, and Arabs, who called it the ' Bride ' and the ' Summit of
Chelubai (Caleh)-as a posthumous child ( I Ch. 224 45), Syria,' was a frequent object of struggle. It was taken
father of Tekoa (see J UDAH). by the Christians in 1154; retaken by Saladin in 1187;
ASHINA (K)19@c ; a c [ ~ ] i ~ [RA],
a e aceNae [L]). dismantled and then rebuilt by Richard in 1192 (cp
a Hamathite deity (2K. 17301.). On the true form of Vinsauf, Ztin. Ricard. 5 4 fi ) ; and finally demolished
the name (cp a)
and its meaning, see HAMATH. in 1270. There are considerable ruins, which have
ASHKELQN (fl?R@e, deriv. unknown, ACKAAWN been described by Guerin (Id.2153-171), and, best
and most recently, by Guthe ( Z D P V 2164 8 , with
[BHAL] : ethnic '$7@&, -[E]ITHC, Ashkelonite, plan ; cp PBF Mem. 3 237 - 247). The neighbourhood
Josh. 133 RV, AV E SHKALONITE) ; mod. 'Askakin is well watered and exceedingly fertile, the AscnZonza
[with initial O]), one of the five cities of the Philistines, cepa, scallion (shallot) or onion of Ascalon, being among
the only one (it is generally held) just on the sea coast its characteristic products. See, further, P HILISTINES ,
(cp Jer.477), lies 12 m. N. from Gaza. The site is a and, for Rabbinical references, Hildesheimer, Beitr.
rocky amphitheatre, with traces of an old dock, filled zzir Geofr. P n h t i n a s , I j? G. A . S .
with Herodian and Crusading ruins. It has no natural
strength ; its military value seems to be due to its com-
ASHKENAZ
CENEZ).
(T??e@ ; A C X A N ~ Z [BADEL] ; ns-
The people of Ashkenaz are mentioned i n
mand of the sen, though the harbour was small and Gen. 103 and ( A C X E N E Z[A]) in /I I Ch. 1 6 in connection
difficult of access. with Gomer ;. in Jer. 51271 ( ~ C X A N ~ Z ~orO C-C*IOC
Under the Egyptian rule Ashlcelon was a fortress ; [BHA], &cK&. [Q]) after Minni. There is no occasion
letters from its governor Jitia appear in the Amarna to connect their name with the proper name Askanios in
correspondence (Am. Tab. 2 1 1 J ) , and Abd-biba of Hom. ZZ. 2862 13793, nor with the Ascanian tribes in
Jerusalem complains that the territories of Aslsaluna Phrygia and Bithynia, and infer that the original home of
and Gazri have joined in the alliance against him (ib. Ashkenaz was in Phrygia (Lenormant, E. Meyer, Di.).
180, 14). Ashkelon seems to have revolted from Rather Ashltenaz must have been one of the migratory
Rameses 11. (WMM, A s . u. Bur. 222 ; cp EGYPT, peoples which in the time of Esar-haddon burst upon
5 8 ) , and from Meneptah (see E G Y P T , § 60, n.) ; but it the northern provinces of Asia Minor, and upon Armenia.
was reconquered by them.5 The storming of the city One branch of this great migration appears to have
1 I n I K.20 38 41 it is almost certain that with RV we should reached Lake Urumiyeh ; for in the revolt which Esar-
point 19: instead of 126 (AV ashes)andrender 'head-band'; see haddon chastised ( I R 45, col. 2, 27fi), the Mannai,
TURBAN. who lived to the SW. of that lake, sought the help
2 Hence the denominative ]$?I 'to clear away the fatashes' of ISpakai ' of the land of ASgnza,' a nam; (originally
.
Nu. 4 13 Ex.27 3 see ALTAR 8 13.
3 Askalon and kkron are &fused in @ more than once ; e.g.,
perhaps ASgunza) which the scepticism of Dillmann
need not hinder us from identifying with Ashkenaz, and
I s. 5 I". from considering as that of a horde from the north, of
4 [With regard to the site of Ashkelon proper, it is possible to
hold that, like other Philistine cities, it lay a little inland. Indo-Germanic origin, which settled on the south of
Antoninus Martyr (ch. 33, ed. Gildemeister, q),indeed, in t h i Lake Urumiyeh. (See Schr. C O T 2 293 ; Wi. GBA
sixth century A.D., expressly distinguishes it from the sea-side 269 ; AF 648i491 ; similarly Friedr. Del., Sayce,
town, and in 536 A.D. a synodical letter was signed, both by the
Bishop of Ascalon and by the Bishop of Maiumas Ascalon. Ac- Knudtzon. ) T. K. C.
cording to Clermont Ganneau (see Keo. archdd. 27 368), the ASHNAH (p1$M, A C N ~[AL]), the name of two
inland town was on the site represented by the modern villages,
ff~W7ZdllZChand ebMe$i?eZ (see Gu&in,37id. 2 129 ; C1. Ganneau unidentified sites in the lowland of Judah ; one apparently
Arch. Res. in Pal. 2190). In a Greek translation of a 10s; in the more north-easterly portion (Josh. 1533 A C C A
Syriac text ( ublished by Raabe) Ascalon appears to be described
as bearing t i e name of ?ra;\aLa-i.e., ~ & r a (dove)-in allusion [B]), the other much farther south (1543, I A N A [B],
to the sacred doves of Astarte, and as being ahout 2 m. from the ACENNA [AI, -CANN. [LIT).
sea. The Ar. name @amdmeh means dove. There are how-
ever, two other theories respecting eZ-MejdeZ, one of whkh pos- ASH-PAN ("RD), I K. 7 50 AVmg.; see CENSER, 2.
sesses much plausihility (see MIGDAL-GAD).]
5 Ascalon (Askalni) is one of the places in Palestine which ASHPENAZ (T2+t&, A B I E C A P I [a871,
[TU] A ~ @ ~ -
Meneptah, on the Israel-stele, claims to have captured. NEZ [Theod. BA]), chief of the eunuchs under Nebuchad-
333 334
 ASHRIEL ASHTORETH
rezzar (Dan. 13). The current explanations are un- ( O S 2 )20961 8 4 5 26898 a 108 17) record the existence in
tenable,l and the cause is obvious. The name is 2. The os their day in Batanea of two places called
corrupt, and has been brought into a delusive resem- Astaroth-Karnaim, 'which lay 9 R. m.
blance to Ashkenaz. An earlier form of the name, sites' apart, between Adara (Edrei) and Abila'
equally corrupt, and brought into an equally delusive of the Decapolis; one of them, 'the city of Og,'
resemblance to an ancient Hebrew name, is Abiezri (say) 6 R. m. from Edrei, the other ' a very large town
( * y y $ >;~see ABIEZER,I ) ; this is the form adopted by 6. of Arabia [in which] they show the house of Job ' ; and
What is the original name concealed in these two in the Peregrinatio of S. Silva of Aquitaine (4th cent. )
apparently dissimilar forms ? @ enables us to discover Carneas is mentioned as the place where she saw Job's
it by its reading, evidently more nearly accurate than house. Now, at the present day there is a TeZl 'Ashtarah
that of M T in Dan. 1I I - K U ? E ~ ~ BA.avi$h V 'APteur3pPi r$ on the Bashan plateau, on the W. of H a u r h , 21 m. E.
d v a 6 e r ~ t l C v rc~i p ~ i e u v o d ~&rl ..
q ~ ri)v Aaurrjh. . The of the Lake of Galilee (long. 36" E., lat. 32' 50' N.),
M T indeed, in wv. 1116, represents Daniel as coin- 1900 ft. above the sea; and 2 m. N. lies El-Merkez,
inunicating with a third person called Melzar, or ' the where the tombs of Job and his wife are shown, and
Flelzar ' ; but a comparison of vv.3 7-10 18 shows that there was the ancient Christian monastery of Job, while
this representation must be incorrect. It was the ' prince I ni. farther N.,at Sheikh Sa'd, is a basalt monolith,
of the eunuchs' that Daniel must have addressed in with Egyptian figures, known as Job's stone (see Erman,
v.11 ; a slight transposition and a change of one point ZDPV15 205-211). In this neighbourhood, then, must
are indispensable (see MELZAR). W e have now, there- have lain one of the Ashtaroths of the OS. It does
fore, four forms to compare; ( a ) 'ily'3~, ( a ) 115v.4, not suit the datum of the latter-'between Adara
(c) d n n , and ( d ) ~ ~ ( W (Pesh. I J ~ in w. 1 1 ) . Of these, and Abila'; but this may be one of the not infrequent
( a ) , ( c ) , and ( d ) ,virtually agree as to the last two letters inaccuracies of the OS. From this Ashtaroth Eusebius
(if in a we neglect the final *, which is not recognised in places the other 9 R. m. distant. Now, 6 R. m. S.,
Syro-Hex. or by Ephrem). These letters are 7s. Next, near the W. el-EhrEr (the upper YarrnBk), lies Tell el-
( a ) ,(a), (c),and(d)agreeas to thepresence ofalabial; the Ash'ari, which some (like van Kasteren) take as the
firsttwo arefor amute, theothersforaliquid. Also(6)and second A ~ h t a r o t h . ~This, Buhl (&ox. 249) prefers to
( c ) attest a $ or a 3, and (a)and (d)a >, which might be a find 8 R. m. S. of Tell 'Ashtarah in Muzeirib, the great
fragment of a 5, while ( 6 j and (d)present us with a v , of station on the <$aj road, with a lake and an island with
whichtheyin(a)lookslikeafragment. Next, (a),($),and ruins of pre-Mohammedan fortifications. A market has
( c )attestan a or a ;I, andlastly, (a),( c ) ,and ( d )agreeas to been here since the Middle Ages, and the place must
1. The almost inevitable conclusion is that the name have been important in ancient times. Moreover, it
of the chief eunuch was i r ~ v $ xcommonly , pronounced suits another datum of the OS. in lying about 6 R. m.
Belshazzar. This is not the only occasion on which the from Edrei.
name BalSarezer ( = Belshazzar) has suffered in trans- Much more difficult is the question of identifying
mission (see BILSHAN, SAKEZER). T. K. c. any of these sites, or the two Ashtaroths of the OS.,
3. OT sites. with the corresponding names of OT.
ASHRIEL (5&9yq&), I Ch. 7 14 AV, RV ASRIEL.
Names in this part of Palestine have
always been in a state of drift. That Tell 'Ashtarah
is the 'Ashteroth I<arnaim of Gen. 145 or the 'Ashtaroth
ASHTAROTH ([email protected]., Ashtoreth in her of other texts has in its favour, besides its name, the
different representations ;-ACTAPW~ [BAL], -TA,-w. existence of a sanctuary, even though this has been
[Bb Josh. 9101, & c & , p e [A ~ Josh. 1.3311 ; the adjective transferred in Christian times to Job. On the other
is Ashterathite, ' ~ > o ac~apwB[di ~ ~ ~ P, A ] , BecT. hand, Muzbirib must have been of too great import-
[.."], EcBApWBi [L], I Ch. 1144), Ashteroth-Karnaim ance not to be set down to some great place-name
of the O T ; and its accessibi',ity from Edrei suits the
(a!!?p ill@%; A C T A p W e KApNAlN [A], -T€P. KAIN.
association, frequent in the OT, of the latter with Ash-
[I<])-i. e . , ' Ashtaroth of the two horns ' ?--' Ashtaroth toreth. As to the Karnaim of I Macc. 526 (which, of
of (=near) Karnaim'?) in Gen. 1 4 ~ and , ~ Be-esh- course, is the same as the Karnaim of Am. 6 13), it cannot
t e r a h (pl?v&y& ?l?n& nQ,
.. . . . L e . , or 'house of have been Muzeirib, as Buhl contends, for in such a case
Astarte' ; BOCO~AN[B]~ -pp&[LIPB EE - the lake would certainly have been mentioned in con-
'. References' eapb [A]) in Josh. 21 27, but Ilh@p nection with the assault of Judas upon it (a lake is
mentioned near Caspis or CASPHON [q. v.] which Judas
simply in Dt. 1 4 Josh. 910124131231, where it appears,
alonE with Edrei, as a chief city of OK,kina of Bashan ; took previously) ; and in 2 Macc. 1221Karnion is said
to be difficult to get at 6td r$v r d v r w u ~ L j vr6rrwv
I _

and yn 1 Ch. 656 ( ~ C t i p w e[B] PAM?? [A"]) as a

Levitical city. Then, in Am. 613 (Gratz s restored u r ~ v 6 n / ~ a . This does not suit Muzeirib, or Tell
reading) we have Karnaim as the name of a city E. 'Ashtarah, or Sheikh Sa'd. Furrer, therefore, has sug-
of the Jordan taken by Israel, and in I and 2 Macc. gested for Karnion k-n?n or GrZn, the AgrEna of the
Karnaim or Karnion as a city in Gilead with a temple Romans, in the inaccessible Le$. Till the various
of ATAXGATIS [q.v.] attached to it. The lists of sites have been dug into and the ancient hame of
Thotmes 111. (circa 1650 B.c.) contain a n 'A-s-ti-ra-tu Muzeirib is recovered, however, we must be content to
(RPP)545 ; WMM, As. 21. Bur. 162,313 ; cp Ashtarti, know that there was an 'Ashteroth Karnaim near TeZZ
Bezold and Budge, TeZZ t?Z-Amarna Tabl. in Brit. Mu. 'Ashtarah, and that possibly there was a second site
43,64). Whether these names represent one place or of the same name in the same region in Or times.
On the whole subject see especially ZDPVxiii. xiv. and X Y . ,
two places is, on the biblical data, uncertain. Schumacher, Across theJordan (203-*IO), and Buhl Siud. zur
It is significant, however, that Eusebius and Jerome Tofrogr. des N.OsfiordanZandes, 13 8, Pal. 248)-250; also
Moore 3B.L 16 1 5 5 8 and for an Egyptological explanation of
the n a k e ' Ashtoreth df the'two horns,' WMM, As. u. Etw. 373.
1 For example, Halevy compares Pers. asjanj, 'hospitium ' G. A. S .
( / A s . , 188 4, 2 ~ 8 2 3 : ;) Nestle too explains ' hospes ' from the
Armenian (Mayg. 38). Frd. .Del. and Schr. offer no explanation. ASHTORETH (nfneg),a goddess of the Canaanites
2 If we adopt the form yy3nr a slight difference in the summa- 1 Sa6 AUT. Hapuasy. 2 Su6 Kapvasip.
tion will be the result. 8 So Schnmacher. The double peak of the southern summit
3 Here it is described as the abode of the Rephaim a t the time of TelZeG'Ash'arz; formed by the depression running p m N.
of the invasion of Chedorlaomer. Or were there two neighbour- to S. would make the appellation of Karnaim or double-
ing cities? Kuenen, Buhl, and SiegfrSt. read 'Ashtaroth and horndd " extremely appropriate' (Across lords;, 208). I n a
Karnaim,'claiming @'-as on their side. Probably, however the Talmuhic discussion as to the constructions for the Feast of
rwht @ reading is A u ~ a p w OKapvaru [AL] (see Nestle, Ma&.). Booths it is said that Ashteroth Karnaim was situated between
i$ooroore explains 'the Astarte of the two-peaked mountain ; see two mountains which gave much shade (Succa, z a ; cp Neub.
especially G. F. Moore, / B L 156H. ['gj']), and cp col. 336, n. 3. Gkog. 246). Many regard this statement as purely imaginative.
335 336
 ASHTORETH ASHTORETH
and Phcenicians. The Massoretic vowel-pointing, which Nineveh; the IStar of Agadk from the IStar of Urku
is followed by EV, gives the word the vowels ‘see ASSYRIA, 9 , BABYLONIA, 5 26). The inscription
Name’ of dlisheth, ‘ scandalous thing ’ (cp Molech if Eshmunazar shows that more than one ‘Ashtart had
for Melek) ; the true pronunciation, as we know from t temple in Sidon ; and we know many others. Whether
the Gr. ’ A u ~ d p r q(so even e B A L ; alongside of aurapwQ hose differences are only the consequence of natural
[BAL]) and from Augustine,l was “Ashtart.’ In the %vergence in the worship of the primitive Semitic deity,
O T the name in the plural (the ‘AshtcZrith)is coupled n the immense tract of time and space, or, as is alto-
with the Baals, in the general sense, ‘the heathen :ether more probable, in great part due to the identifi-
gods and goddesses,’ a usage with which the Assyrian :ation of originally unconnected local numinn with
ihlini z ~ - i & w c Z h is compared. Solomon is said tq have 4starte, the result is the same: there were many
built on the Mt. of Olives ( I K. 115, cp 33) for the 4startes who were distinguished from one another by
Phcenician ‘Ashtart a high place, which was destroyed :haracter, attributes, and cultus-a class of goddesses
more than three centuries later by Josiah (z K. 23 13). -ather than a single goddess of the name. *
Of the character of this goddess and her religion we Astarte was often the tutelary divinity of a city, its

2.Character.
learn nothing directlyfrom the OT. Her name does
not occur either in the prophets or in
historical texts in any other connections
’ proprietress’
.~ (da‘alut) ; and then, of course, its pro-
tectress and champion, a warlike god-
4. Character. dess. On the other hand, she was a
than those cited above ; it is nowhere intimated that the Zoddess of fertility and reproduction, as appears strili-
licentious characteristics of the worship at the high places ingly in the myth of the descent of IStar. These two
were derived from the cnltus of Astarte. The weeping Zharacters might be attributed to different Astartes,
for Tamniuz (Ez. 814), which Cyril of Alexandria and IS among the Assyrians (cp the Aphrodites) ; but
Jerome identify with the Phcenician mourning for Adonis they might also coexist in one and the same goddess,
(so @Q.mg.), was more probably a direct importation of and this is doubtless the older conception.
the Babylonian ~ 1 1 l t . ~This is doubtless true also of the The figures from Babylonia and Susiana, as well as
worship of the ‘ Queen of Heaven’ (Jer. 7 18 [@BRA9 from Phcenicia and Cyprus, which are believed to repre-
r g arparr$ TOO odpavoD], 4417 $), whatever the name sent Astartes, express by rude exaggeration of sexuality
may mean (see Q UE EN OF H EAVEN ). The law which the attributes of the goddess of generation.3 That
forbids women to wear men’s garments, or men women’s the cultns-images of Astarte were of similar types is not
(Dt. 2 2 5 ) , may be aimed at obscene rites suchas obtained probable. At Paphos she was worshipped in a conical
in the worship of many deities in Syria and Asia Minor, stone, and many representations show the evolution
but need not refer specifically to the cult of Astarte. From this of a partially iconic idol.
Many inscriptions from the mother- country and In the astro-theology of the Babylonians the planet
its colonies, as well as the testimony of Greek and Latin Venus was the star of IStar. I t is a common but ill-
3. varying writers, prove the prominent place which founded opinion that in Palestine Astarte was a moon
the worship of Astarte had among the goddess. The name of the city, Ashteroth Karnaini, is
forms. Phcenicians ; Egyptian documents place often alleged in support of this theory. Even if the
the “Ashtart of the Hittite conntry’ by the side of the translation, ‘ the horned Astarte,’ be right, however, it is
‘Sutech of Heta,’ the principal male divinity; the a very doubtful assumption that the horns represented
Philistines deposited Saul‘s armour as a trophy in the the crescent moon-it is quite as natural to think of the
temple of ‘Ashtart ( I S. 3110 BBAL TO a u ~ a p ~ [ e ] i o v ) ,horns of a cow or a sheep, or of an image of the goddess
perhaps the famous temple at Ashlielon of which made after an Egyptian type (see E GYPT. § 13);4-and
Herodotus writes (I105) ; the stele of Mesha, king of it is a still more unwarranted assumption that Astarte
Moab (9th cent. B. c.),tells how he devoted his prisoners was elsewhere in Palestine represented in the same way.
to Ashtar-Chemosh ; a city in Bashan often mentioned It would be a much more logical inference that the horns
in the OT bears the name Ashtaroth (cp also Ashteroth were the distinctive attribute of this particular Astarte.
Icarnaim, Gen. 145, and Beeshterah, Josh. 2127 ; see The other testimony to the lunar character of Astarte is
ASHTAROTH).‘Ashtart was worshipped in Babylonia neither of an age nor of a nature to justify much confidence
and Assyria under the name IStar (considerable frag- (De den Syr. 4 ; Herodian, v. 64). The point to be in-
ments of her myth have been preserved) ; in Southern sisted on is that the widely accepted theory that Astarte
Arabia as ‘Athtar (masc. ) ; in Abyssinia as ‘Astar ; was primarily a moon goddess, by the side of the sun
in Syria as ‘Atar or ‘Athar (in proper names : cp ATAR- god, Baal, has as little foundation in the one case as in
GATIS [q. n.] = DeycEtoj. The Arabs are the only Semitic the other.
people among whom we do not find this deity; and In Dt. 7 13 ‘ the ‘ashthith of the flocks ’ are parallel
even here it is possible that al-LHt and al-‘Uzza were to the ‘ offspring of the herds,’ from which it has been
originally only titles of Astarte. The normal phonetic ingeniously argued that among the nomadic Semites
changes in the word show that the worship of Astarte Astarte was a sheep-goddess (WRS, ReZ. Sem.(2J310, and
did not spread from one of these peoples to the others, 4 6 9 8 ) ; but this also seems hazardous.
but was common to them before their separation. Of the cultus of Astarte we know comparatively little.
The fem. ending is peculiar to the Palestinian branch Religions prostitution (Hdt. 1199 .. ; Strabo xvi. 120;
of the race, and, as has been observed, in Southern 5. c,ltus.-Ep. Jerem. &f: [Bar. 6 4 ~ J ;] De dea Syr.
Arabia ‘Athtar w-as a god, not a goddess. 6, etc.) was not confined to the temples
Unlike Baal, Astarte is a proper name; but under of Astarte, nor t o the worship of female divinities.
this name niany diverse divinities were worshipped. Nu. 25 1-5 connects it with Baal-peor ; Am. 27 Dt. 2318
The IStar of Arbela was recognised by the Assyrians (IT), etc., show that in Israel similar practices infected
themselves as a goddess different from the IStar of even the worship of YahwA. There is no doubt, how-
ever, that the cnltus of Astarte was saturated with these
1 Quest. 26 in / z c S , Estart Astart. Confirmatory evidence abominations.
is given by the Egyptian transkiption.
2 Jndg. 2 13 106 I S. 7 3 (@BAL T& G A q ) 4 1210 (@BAL TO?F 1 In the period from which most of our monumental evidence
~ ~ A U F C T Lall
V ) ;belonging to the later elohistic(E2) or deuteronomic comes still another cause must be recognised : syncretism with
school. the Eiyptian religions (see EGVPT, # 16).
3 The identification of Tammuz with Adonis is found also in 2 This use predominates in Hebrew, which has, indeed, no
Melito (Cureton, SpiciZ. 25). The connection of the myths is other word for ‘roddess’ .: but,. as has been remarked above, it
unquestioned. See TAMMUZ. is foiind io Assyzan also.
4 It is, of course, not to be inferred that the Philistines wor- 3 Heuzey, Rmi. ArcJdoZ. xxxix. 1880, p. 18; Obnefalsch-
shipped Astarte before they invaded Palestine. The temple was Richter. Kvbros. etc. On the oridn of this tone see. however.
I. I

, a n old Canaanite sanctuary. S. Rei&ch;LRek .4rchPol. 3 sir. 56, 1895,p. 367.s

5 Halevy’s discovery is confirmed by the recent publication of 4 Cp the representation of Baalat of Byblos, C I S 1 I, PI. I.
the Axum inscriptions. 5 On Ashteroth Karnaim seeJEL 16 1 5 5 8

32 337 338
 ASHUR ASIARCH
The origin and the meaning of the name are obscure ; The whole question of the sense in which geographical
but this is hardly a sufficient reason for supposing that terms are used by the writer of Acts centres round Acts
the most universally worshipped of Semitic divinities was 166, where the apostles are forbidden to preach in Asia
of non-Semitic extraction (see Hanpt, ZDMG 34 (KwhuO6vrEs ... hah?juar r b u h6yov bu r6 'Auip
758): The relation between Astarte and Rphrodite is [Ti. WH]). Those interpreters (e.g., Con. and Hows.
an interesting and important question, npon which we 1324) who take the preceding words (6r?jXOov 6P r+lv
cannot touch here. @puyiau m i raha+v x h p a v [Ti. WH]) to express the
Literature.-Selden, De Dis Syris, syn. ii. ch. 2 ; Movers opening up of new ground by missionary enterprise
Phu?ziziey, 1 559-650 ; Scholz, G~tzendie7tstund Zauberwese; N. of Antioch in Pisidia are compelled to restrict
6ei den alien Hebriern, 259-301 ; Baudissin, art. 'Astarte und
Aschera'in PREP)2147-161 (where the lit. in fullmayhefound)' the prohibition of preaching in Asia to the coast land-
Baethgen, Beitr. zur setitit. ReL-gesch., 1888; E. Meyer, art! in other words, to take Phrygia, Galatin, and Asia in
' Astarte' in Roscher's Lex. dergrirch. u. Rii7iz. Myth. 642.655, their popular noli-Roman sense-for all Phrygia N. of
in part corrected by his art. ' Baal,' i6. 2 8 6 7 8 ; Barton, Ash-
toreth and her Inlluence in the OT,'/BL 10 7 3 8 ; 'The Semitic Antioch belonged to Asia in its Roman or administrative
Ishtar-cult,' Ifdraica, 9 133-165 10 1-74. See also Driver's very sense. Yet we must ask if the simple 6rijhOov (AV
comprehensive article in Hastings, DB. G. F. M. ' gone throughout ') can be taken to imply preachii7g.l
ASHUR (Tin@&), I Ch. 2 2 4 AV, RV A S HH U R .
If, however, the apostles did not preach in their passage
through the district called here Q @puyia K U ~I'aAar~ti+l
ASHURITES, THE ('?lyF:, T O N Bacslpsl [B], xdpa, there appears to be no necessity for giving a
eacoyp [A], szpi [L ; ' Jezreel' follows]), arementioned popuhnr meaning to the geographical terms here used,
in 2 Sam.29P among various clans subject to the unless in the interests of what Ramsay calls the N.
authority of Ishbaal. Pesh. Vg. read * ~ c h g , the Galatian theory (see GALIITIA, ss 7-30, especially
Geshurites, which is accepted by some (see GIISHUR), §$j 9-16). On this view, then, the words indicate such
while others (Kamph. Ki. Klo. Gr.) follow the Targ. parts of Galatic Phrygia a s had not been traversed at
( T U N 173x7 Sy, cp as) and read *?@$: (cp Judg. 1 3 2 ) the time of receivihg the prohibition (or, more probably,
that part of Phrygia which belonged to the province
-i. e . , 'the Asherites,' whose land lay to the W. of Jordan
above Jezreel, which is mentioned next, the enumeration Asia), together with Old or North Galatia. In favour
proceeding from N. to S. of this is the fact that the part. KWAUOCVTES must be
prior in time to, i.e. contain the ground of, the action
ASHVATH (Fipjq(; bcslf.3[RA], -COY& [L]), in a denoted by di+jhOov,--' they traversed ... decnuse they
genealogy of ASHER( q . ~ .$j, 4 ii.), I Ch. 733.b. had been forbidden.' If, in face of the difficulties of
ASIA ( H & C I A [Ti. WH]). Great uncertainty prevailed the N. Galatian view, we fall back upon the S. Galatian
during the apostolic period as to the usage of the names theory, the district 4 @puyfa ~ a l?aXa.rrti+ll xhpa must
of the districts of Asia Minor. 'The boundaries of several be regarded as partly identical with that called r+u
of the districts had long been uncertain-those between l?aharrx+lu x h p a v K U ~@puylav in Acts 18 23 (which can
Mysia and Phrygia were proverbially so (Strabo, 564). hardly be other than that of the S. Galatian churches) ;
'This confusion arose from the fact that the names and also it must already have been traversed wholly OF
denoted ethnological rather than political divisions, and in part before the prohibition to preach in Asia (Rams.
bdonged to diverse epochs. They are like geological Expos. May 1895, p. 392 ; Church, 5 ed. p. 75).
strata, which are clear enough when seen in section but Ramsay consequently attempts to interpret the words
impossible to disentangle when represented on a single FrijAOou KWXUOE~VTES as = GtijhOov K d &wXdOvuav
plane. A further complication arose when the Romans ( B L ~ A O ~ Y T &whbQquav),
ES or on purely subjective grounds
imposed npon the country the provincial system. The adopts, with Lightfoot, the reading 6ceXObvr~s6P from
official nomenclature was applied without any account inferior MSS (St. Paul('), p 195). It seems better to
being taken of the older history or of ethnical facts or take GrFjXBov 6P as resumptive and as summing up the
popular usage. In the case of Lycia, Bithynia, or previous verses, with an ellipse-' so then they traversed
Pamphylia there was no distinction of any moment .
. . (neglecting Asia) having been forbidden' : in
between the old and the new usage ; but in the case of which case, here, as elsewhere throughout the narrative
Galatia and Asia the difficulty of distinguishing the of Paul's journeyings, the word Asia is used in its
precise sense of the names is very great. technical, Roman, sense.
The province of Asia was formed in 133-130B.c. when This sense is clearly the best in the following passages :-
Attalus 111. of Pergamus left his kingdom by will to during Paul's residence in Ephesus 'all they which dwelt in
Asia heard the word of the Lord jesus' (Acts19ro; see also
Rome ; the name Asia had early come into use because w. 22, 26J). The deputies escort the apostle from Corinth as
there was no other single term to denote the Bgean far as Asia (Acts204); other instances in the same chap. are
coast lands. The area of the province was subsequently vu. 16 (Ephesus was virtually capital of the province) and 18.
I n 272 K ~ T 7%. C ~ 'Adav ~ d w o u s[Ti. WH], there is nothing
increased, first by the addition of Phrygia (I16 B.c:. ) ; to forbid our taking the word in its Roman sense. Similarly
we are, therefore, confronted by the difficulty of in the Epistles, the technical sense is required--c.r., Rom:
distinguishing whether, in any given case, the word Asia 165, Eprenetus the first-fruits of Asia (RV) ; I Cor. 16 19, the
is restricted to the coast or extended to the entire churches of Asia; 2 Cor.18, (probably) alluding to the riot
a t Ephesus, or to dangerous illness there; 2 Tim.lr5. The
province-in other words, whether it includes Phrygia Roman province is meant also in T Pet.1 I , where the enumera-
or not. tion Pontus, Galatia Cappadocia Asia Bithynia (=Bithynia-
I n Acts29, Asia indicates the towns of the highly civilised Pontus) sums up all 'Asia Minor h t h i n ' the Taurus. Finally,
coast land for the enumeration is popular and Greek in style, in Rev. 14, the seven churches of Asia are those ktablished in
as is p r o d d by the mention of Phrygia alongside Asia : accord- the chief towns of the Roman province. I n I Macc. 86
ing to the Roman mode of speaking, Phrygia was included in ' Antiochus, the great king of Asia,' the word is used in a wide;
Asia, with the exception of that small part round Antioch sense=Asia Minor, with Syria (so also 1113, 'the diadem of
(Phrygia Galatica) which fell to the province Galatia. Such Asia'; 1239 1332 zMacc. 3 3 : cp Jos.Ant.xii.331347). 1:
names as Phrygia Mysia, or Lydia were to a Roman without z Esd. 1546, 'Asia, that art partaker in the beauty of Babylon,
any political sighcance, being merely geographical terms the sense is still wider=Persian empire (16 I ; cp Herod. i. 96
denoting parts of the province of Asia, used o n occasion to 177 : Jos. Ant. xi. 8 3). W. J. W.
specify exactly the region referred to by the speaker (Cic.
# ~ o , F l a c .xxvii. 8 65 ; Asia vestra constat ex Phrygia, Mysia,
Carla, Lydia). Such use can be paralleled from the NT. I n ASIARCR ( 0 1 b c l a p ~ [Ti.
~ l WH], AV 'the chief
Acts167 ~ a .;lv ~ Muuiav
d [Ti. WH] is used to define rigidly of Asia' ; RV ' chief officers of Asia'). An officer
the point reached by the apostles when warned from Bithynia.
I n ActsGg, a decision is more difficult. The Jews who 'dis- 1 See Acts1541,8ojpXero, but with da~m-q ~ { W V added; 164,
puted with Stephen were probably those educated in the schools S ~ m o p & o v ~ obut
, with aaps8i8ouav added. d n the other hand
of Smyrna or I'ergamns ; but we cannot on a priori grounds we have 1314, 6LahQdvrer hab ~ $ 5II6py)s-no preaching on the
decide that some of them did not belong t o Phrygia. Here road : and 17 I, S ~ o 8 w u a v ~7%"
e s 'Apgirroh~vK ~ I L*v 'Arohhoviav
therefore, Asia may or may not he used in its Roman sense: [Ti. WHI, where also there was no attempt at evangelisation so
90 also in Acts 21 q = 2 4 18. far a s we can tell. (but see Rams. Expos. May 1895, p. 38;J)
339 340
 ASIBIAS ASNAPPER
heard 01 only once in the NT-viz., in the account of 2. A scribe, 4 Esd. 1424 (ASIHEL).
the riot made by ' Demetrius and the craftsmen' at 3. Tob. 1I RV, AV ASAEL (q.0.).
Ephesus (Acts 1931). The annual assembly of civic ASIPHA ( A C ~ I ~ [A]),
A I Esd. 5 zg=Ezra 2 43.
deputies (Koivbu 'Aulas), over which he presided, was HASUPHA.
combined, in Asia, as in other provinces, with an
annual festival in honour of the reigning emperor and ASHELON (]\$$&), Judg. 118 AV, RV ASHKELON.
the imperial system. ASMODEUS, RV Asmodaus ( ~ C M O A A Y C [RIP-AAI-
Soon after the victory of Actium, in fact as early as zg B.C. oc [HA], -+eo? [K]),called ' the evil demon' (Tob. 38,
Augustus had allowed temples to himself and Roma to b;
dedicated in Pergamus the dejllre capital of Asia as well as in 17). Consldering (I)the close connection of the story of
Nicomedeia and Anc;ra, the capitals respectivel; of Bithynia Tobit with Media, ( 2 )the affinity of the seven archangels
and Galatia (Tac. Ann. iv. 374). This blending of a religious in Tob. 12 15 to the seven Mazdean Ameshaypentas, and
with an administrative institution became a leading idea of the (3) the impossibility of deriving Asmodeus or Asmodai
imperial policy; but, as regards the pomp of the festivals and
the civic rivalries excited, the institution nowhere developed as (or the later Hebrew fcrms, on which see below) from
it did in Asia. Naturally, the conduct of the games and festival i@g, ' to destroy,' we are obliged to look for an arch-
in honour of the emperor fell to the president of the provincial
Diet. demon of similar name and attributes in Mazdean
demonology. The AsmodEus of Tobit has two attri-
As the Asiarch bore most of the expense, though
butes : he is lustful (like a satyr), and has the power
some was borne by voluntary subscription or apportioned
to the several towns, this politico-religious office was
to slay those who oppose his will ('rob. 3 8 615 ,eBA).
Now, it is true that there is no demon in Mazdeism of
open only to the wealthy-the prosperity of Tralles,
similar name who has exactly those characteristics ; but
for example, was shown by its continuous series of
one of the seven arch-demons who are opposed to the
Asiarchs l-and the title was retained after the expiration
seven Mazdean archangels is called Aeshma, and is
of the year of office. T o find Paul counting friends
the impersonation of anger (the primary meaning) and
among the Asiarchs-ie., among those who then held
rapine. So constantly is he mentioned in the Avesta
or who previously had held the office-throws, therefore,
beside Angra Mainyu or Ahriman (with his weapon ' the
a valuable side-light upon the attitude adopted towards
wounding. spear ') that we could not wonder if he be-
Christianity by the upper classes of the provincials : it
came naturalised in the spirit-world of the Jews in the
was an Asiarch, Philip, who at Smyrna resisted the cry
Persian period. Once adopted, he would naturally
of the mob to 'let loose a lion on Polycarp' (Eus.
assume a somewhat different form ; his attributes would
flE415, 5 27). be. modified by the sovereign will of the popular iniagina-
It would be a mistake, then, to imagine that the
tion. This was actually the course of history, as
Asiarch, as such, had any connection with the Ephesian modern critics hold. By the time the Book of Tobit
worship of Artemis. was written Aeshma had already a well-defined r6L,
I n fact Ephesus, like Miletus, was expressly rejected by
Tiherins as a claimant for the honour of an imperial temple, and, though vindictive as ever, had exchanged the
probably because of the risk of Cesar's worship being over- field of battle for less noble haunts. The Asmodai of
shadowed by the local cult (Tac. Ann. iv. 55 6). It would Tobit is, in fact, the counterpart of LILITH (p...) , and
naturally however, have the right to put forward a candidate
for the Asiarcbate. We hear of similar officers in other pro- in still later times divided with her the dominion of
vinces--e.g., a Galatarch, a Bithyniarch, a Syriarch, and a the shidim or demons. Asmodai, or, as his name is
Lyciarch. The last at any rate is clearly originally a political written in Targ. and Talmud, *N-I:BK or *-mm,was as
officer-the head of the League (Straho, 665). dangerous to women as Lilith was to men, though we
There was thus, at first, but one Asiarch in office at also find him represented in a less odious character
a time in all Asia-the president of the Diet at Ephesus ; as a potent, wise, and sometimes even jocular elf (see
but as temples dedicated to Caesar multiplied in the Gittim, 68a, in Wunsche's Der ba6. Talnz. 2180-183).
province,2 and each of them became the centre of an The second part of the name Ashmodai is of uncertain
annual festival, the chief priests at such temples per- origin. Most connect it with the Zend dadva, ' demon ' ;
formed the functions discharged at the festival at but, though the combination AbhmG dadv6 is not im-
Ephesus by the Asiarch, and finally the presidency of possible, it 'is nowhere found in the texts. Kohut's
the festival even at Ephesus was taken from the chair- explanations (Jzid. AngeZoZogie and Arzch, s.v.) are pre-
man of the Diet and given to the chief priest. The carious.
Diet and its civil functions thus fell into the background, Cp Zendavesta and Pahlavi Texts in SBE; Spiegel, Eritn.
and the name Asiarch came to mean the priestly AlLevthumshnde, 2 131 J: ; Griinbaum, ZDAfG 31 204, etc.;
provider of a popular festival in connection with the Kohut'sJGd. AngeZoZogzk, 72, etc. T. K. C.
worship of a dead or reigning emperor. With the ASNAH (7@&, 'thornbush' ; A C E N ~[BA] ; - N N A
growing importance of this worship the religious influence [I-] ; menu). The B n e Asnah, a family of NETHINIM
of the priestly Asiarchs extended ; and as the worship of in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. 5 9), Ezra250
the emperor became the outward sign of. loyalty to the = I Esd. 531, ASANA(auuava [B], aua. [A])=:Neh.752
empire, it was through the provincial chief-priesthoods CSL (EV, following BKA, om.).
that the old and the new faith came into contact.
Hence Julian writes to the Galatarch as the proper ASNAPPER, RV O SNAPPAR , better Ashappar
medium for his anti-Christian propaganda. (See (V!D#; N A ~ A P [AI3 ACENN. P I , C ~ ~ M A N A C -
Momms. Provinces, 1 3 4 4 fol. ET, Rams. CZass. Rev. CAPHC [L],ASENAPHAR), Ezra4gf: T o the great and
3174. A different view in a long article by Brandis noble KsZnappar ' is ascribed the transplanting, of
in Pauly's R. Em. new ed. s.v.). W. J. W. several nations into Samaria from beyond the Euphrates.
The two epithets naturally suggest that an Assyrian king
ASIBIAS ( A C ~ B E I A C [BJ ACIBIAC [AI, M E ~ X I A C is referred to, and, as Bosanquet in G. Smith's Hist.
[L]), in the fist of those with foreign wives (see E ZRA,
of Asszrhan@aZ, 364 ['71],suggested, the king can only
i. 5 5, end), I Esd. 9~6=EzralOz5( C ~ B I A [K],A. [A],
B om.). See MALCHIJAH, 5. Asibias is probably a be the conqueror of Susa-Ah-bBni-pal ( ~ Q ~ Dfrom K
~ Q , ( ~ , ) O K = ~ ~ , - I ~ - ~This
D K ) .view
~ is confirmea by the
Grecised form of HASHABIAH.
discovery (due to Marq. Fund. 59) of a various reading
ASIEL ($&I&:, § 31 ; ACIHA [BAL]). I. A name for ~ ~ J Dwhich N underlies the impossible ASBACAPHATH
in the genealogy of SIMEON( I Ch. 435). ( 4 . v . ) of I Esd. 569, viz. i a i ~ ~ The . two readings
supplement each other, and are explained by a common
i TLVES atrijs elucv ot rcpwdoiOY7es r a d T+Y iaapxlav,
1 ~ abel original ~ S J I I D N ,which is clearly Ahr-bHni-pal. This
oas 'AudpXas K ~ O B U W(Strabo 649). great king's name must have stood both in Ezra42
2 Already in 26 A.D. for example, a temple was erected in
Smyrna to Tiberius, jkntly with his mother Livia, and the 1 An explanation in the form which Gelzer gave to it (AZ75fi
Senate(Tac. Ann. iv. 1 5 4 563). [1751), now widely Lccepted. Cp, however, Halevy, REJix. 1%
341 342
 ASOM ASSAPHIOTH
( ’ Esarhaddon ’ being an ignorant scribe’s alteration) 2 24 (@ Flr~aTUVEv)1 4 6 Dan. 5 21 (@ owaypwv) Hos. 8 9 (@ om.)
and in the source from which the statement in Ezra 4 2 Gen. 16 1zt KV (‘5 C L ~ ~ O I K;O there
S) was perhaps originally a
reference to the wild ass dso in I S. 24 14 [IS] 26 20, where M T
is derived (perhaps z K. 17 24, which at present merely now reads I ~ ~ ~ = F I . [E
q .A~ . ] . (c) For ‘young ass’ Is.306
refers to ‘ the king of Assyria’). See further, A ~ R - (@ ovos), 24 (@ @xs), EV ‘foal’ Gen. 4911 32 16, EV ‘colt’
BANI-PAL. Zech.Sgand(6 oms) J o b l l r z , EV ‘asscolt’Jndg.1041214.
ASQM (ACOM [BA]), I Esd. 9 33 = Ezra 10 33, A comparison of the passages in which iian and linK
HASHUM. respectively occur shows that the former was more
ASP (in& pethen; ACTTIC [BAL]) in Dt. 3233 Job used for carrying burdens and for agriculture, the
latter for riding. Hence some have thought that finr
A C ] ~AV, in Ps. 554 9113 denotes a superior breed and not simply ‘ she-ass ’ ; but
201416 ( A ~ ~ K ~ N , [ B K Is.118
AV’”g. ( B ~ C I A I C K O [BNART]),
~ and in Rom. 313p ; this opinion is now given up. We must conclude that
probably some species of viper (cp ADDER, z ) , see SER- she-asses were preferred for riding. As the name li,:n
PENT, I, n. 5.
shows, the Eastern ass is generally reddish in colour ;
ASPALATRUV (acnahaeoc [BRA]; dalsamum) is white asses are rarer, and, therefore, used by the rich and
associated with cinnamon and other perfumes in the distinguished. This explains the reference in Judg. 5 1 0 . ~
Praiseof Wisdom (Ecclus. 24 15). Theophrastus (Hisi.9 7) The i y (young ass, colt, foal; in Ar. specifically wild
mentions it along with varipus spices, etc., used in making ass; see Hommel, Siugefhiere, 1 2 7 8) was used variously
unguents, and in Pliny (HN2224) it is ‘ r a d i x unguentis for carrying burdens (Is. 306), for agriculture (w.24),
expetite.’ Fraas, the most recent writer on classical and for riding on (Zech. 99). On Judg. 1 0 4 1214, see
botany (SjinopsisPlantarum F b r e C h s s i c e , 49), refers it JAIR. On the place of the ass and on its employment
conjecturally to Genista acanthoclada, D.C., a native of ainoiig the Jews see generally Jos. c. Ap.2 7.
Greece and the Grecian archipelago ; but the most that The ass has been from the most ancient times a
can safely be said is that it seems to have been a prickly domesticated animal, and probably, in Egypt at any
shrub, probably leguminous, with a scented wood or rate, preceded the horse as a servant of man. It is
root. The ante-Linnzan commentaries devoted much even questioned whether the wild stock from which it
attention to it, but with no more definite result. I t was derived survives at the present day, some aitthorities
has evidently been lost sight of since classical times, holding that the flocks of wild asses met with in various
and supplanted by other perfumes. W. T. T.-D.
parts of Asia and Africa are but the descendants of
ASPATHA (Nq@$L$, @acra[BXc~a]~ @lard,[R”’id.], those which have escaped from the domesticated state.
@a. [A], @aca [L], one of the ten sons of HAMAN The domestic ass, Eyuus asinus, is believed to be
( 4 . v . ) Est. 97. Pott and Benfey explain the name as descended from the wild ass of Africa, E. asinus, of
the Pers. aspadata, ab equo sacro datus ’ (cp Be. -Rys. ) ; which there are two varieties, &&anus and Somaliczu;
but the M T reading is too insufficiently supported. and the strong disinclination to ford even narrow streams
ASPRAR, TEE POOL ( A ~ K K O C ’ ac@ap[HV; Jos.]. which these animals show, and their delight in rolling
A. a c @ ~ A [ A;l lucus Asphar [Vg.]), in the wilderness in the dust, are regarded as indications that their origin
of Tekoa, is mentioned in connection with the struggle is from some desert-dwelling animal. In former times
of Jonathan and Simon the Maccabees with Bacchides this species seems to have extended into Arabia.
( IMacc. 933 ; cp Jos. Ant. xiii. 12 ) . The Be’& Asphar In the East the ass plays a large part in the life of
is probably the modern BW-Selhzid, a considerable the people, and has received a corresponding amount
reservoir in the wilderness, 6 m. WSW. of Engedi, of care at their hands. Much trouble is taken in breed-
and near the junction of several ancient roads (described ing and rearing the young. Darwin distinguishes four
by Rob. BR 2 2.2) ; the hills around still bear the name different breeds in Syria: ‘first, a light and graceful
S a f r s , an equivalent of Asphar. A less probable identifi- animal (with an agreeable gait),used by ladies : secondly,
cation is that with the ruins and cistern, ez-ZayerEneh an Arab breed reserved exclusively for the saddle;
to the S. of Tekoa (Buhl, Pal. 158). G . A. S. thirdly, a stouter animal used for ploughing and various
purposes ; aiid lastly, the large Damascns breed, with
ASPRARASUS (ac@ap&coc [BA]), I Esd. 58= .
. . peculiarly long body and ears. ’
Ezra22, MIZPAR. The wild asses which roam in small herds over a considerable
ASRIEL (5K9ibK, 5 67,GCPIHA [BAL] ; the patro- part of Asia are sometimes regarded as helonging to one species
the Eqsw hemionus; sometimes to three the E. hem$&
nymic is Asrielite, 9$K$&R, -h[e]i [BAFI, csp. [L]). found in Syria the E. o m p r the Onager of bersia Belnchistan
and parts of dorthern India: and the E. hemionds of the h i g i
a Gileadite family, descended from Manasseh through table-lands of Tibet. Sven Hedin describes the last-named a s
Machir, Josh. 172 ( i e z e i ~ A[B], epi. [A]). Nu. 2631 resembling a mule. Living a t such high altitudes it has un-
(copi. [Ll). In I Ch. 714-19 ( ~ C e p e i [Bl, ~ h AV ASH- usually large nostrils. These are artificially produced by the
RIEL ; see MANASSEH), a very different Manassite gene- Persians, who slit the nostrils of their tame asses when about to
use them for transport purposes in mountainous districts. The
alogy, the name is probably dittography of the syllables Syrian species or subspecies rarely enters the N. of Palestine
immediately following ( $ ~ v / N: -cp also text of aB);
read, at the present time. Wild asses congregate in herds, each with
a leader, and are said to migrate towards the south at the ap-
‘ The sons of Manasseh whom his concubine the Ara-
mitess bare’ (cp Gen. 4620 a). The name may be old,
proach of winter. They are so fleet that only the swiftest horses
can keep pace with them, a fact recorded both by Xenophon
though it comes to us from late writers. and by Layard ; and they are so suspicious that it is difficult
to approach within rifle-shot of them. They are eaten by the
ASS (11DQ2fem. \rnk$
; O N O C [BAL] ; asinus, Arabs and the Persians. *N. M.-A. E. S.
asina), Wild Ass (RlQ or l i l p = C h a l d . ovos ASSABIAS (act,Bi~c[I.]), RV S ABIAS, I Esd. 19
aypros ; onager), and Young Ass (YU, ~ w h o [BAL]).
s = Z Ch: 359, H ASHABIAH , 6.
The following are the passages: (a)for ‘ass’ Gen. 1216 223 ASSALIMOTH (accahlMw8 [really -AC caA. A]),
49 T I 14 (@ ~b Kat&), Ex. 13 13 Nu. 22 28 Dt. 22 IO Judg. 5 IO
(urro<uyrov [AL]) 15 15 z K. 6 25 Is. 21 7 Zech. 9 g (@ ulro<uyrav) I Esd. 836 AV=Ezra81o, SHELOMITH, 4.
Mt. 21 z Lk. 13 15 etc.; (h) for ‘wild ass’ Job6 5 11 12 (@ OVDF ASSANIAS, RV Assamias (ACCL\M~L\C[B]), I Esd.
epqpi?s)*245 (@ OYOL) 39 5 Ps. 10411 (@ ovaypoL) Is. 32 14 Jer.
854=Ezra824, H ASHABIAH, 7.
1 The usual rendering of i s ? or lh in @. ASSAPHIOTH (acca@Eiwe [B]), I Esd. 533 RV
2 Root inn, ‘ t o be red.’ On the form cp Lag. Ue&-m. 11, = Ezra255, HASSOPHERETH.
Bartb, NB 192.
3 The Ar. verb ‘utuna= ‘contract0 brevique gressu incessit ’ ; 1 Cp Plutarch‘s statement that the Egyptians execrate the
but this may he denominative. pnN has of course no connection ass Scd rb lrub‘bv ysyovbaL ~ b uTu+Gva, m i bvJSq r;lv x p o l v
with asinus: see Lag. A m . St. 817. (quoted by Bocgart).
4 I a g . derives l i l y from’arada, ‘he threw a stone far,’ re- 2 niin: ni3h5, not strictly white, but white spotted with red,
ferring to the effect of the animal’s trampling hoofs (Uebers. as the same word means in Arabic, where it is specially applied
38J). ~ 1 seems9 to be connected with the notion of swift flight. to the she-ass.
343 344
 ASSASSINS ASSHURIM
ASSASSINS, the RV rendering, of C I K A ~ I O I [Ti. where it is used of a ‘band ’ of evil doers ( o d v o ~ o s EV. ,
WH], sicurii-i.e., daggermen : Acts 2138 (AV ‘assembly’; Che. emends to nmn, JQR, July 1898),is a
murderers). They are so called from the sica or small technical term for some public religious convocation im-
curved sword, resembling the Persian acingces (Jos. posing restraints on the individual (EV, SOLEMN A -
Ant. xx. STO),which they carried under their cloaks. SEMBLY) ; cp 2 I<. 1020 (in honour of Baal, k p [ e ] a
Though used generally without any political meaning :BA], Oepamia [L]), Joel114 2 1 5 (’y i ~ i pparallel to
(cp Schiir. GVZ 1480, note), the term sicurii came to 31s i m p , Oepaa[e]ia=n?~p~), Am. 521 (parallel to in,
be employed to denote the baser and more fanatical suvdyuprs), and Is. 1 1 3 (’yi p,read ’yi ois, and see
associates of the zealots, whose policy it was to eliminate ,
Jastrow, Amer. J. TheoL ’98,p. 336 ; v7uTeia K . dypia?).
their antagonists by assassjnation. See ZEALOT. Technically, ‘i:ir&his used almost wholly in post-
ASSEMBLY (!)a?) is frequently used, especially in Exilic writings (@ invariably 2$’d&ov, finale, close ; cp 6 ’ s
title Ps. 28 [29]), of ( u ) the assembling upon the seventh
post-exilic literature, to denote the theocratic tonvocation
of 1srael;the gathering of the people in their religious day of unleavened cakes, Dt. 1 6 8 l (RVrllS.C LOSING
capacity. It thus becomes synonymous with ~ K K ~ V U ~ FESTIVAL) ; (a) the eighth or supernumerary day-in
U
(so generally @ ; in Nu. 204 6 IO 12 auvaywy?j, so 1,k. 4 ecclesiastical language the octave-of the Feast of
13 14). which in the N T is used of the Christian church, Booths, Lev. 2 3 3 6 Nu. 2 9 3 5 (RVmg. as above) Keh.
in contrast to the Jewish @ h d of the Mosaic dispensa- 818 ; similarly the eighth day at the close of Solomon’s
tion. See C HURCH , § I. Closely allied in meaning dedicatory festival (2Ch. 7 9 ) , and (c) the Feast of
and usage is n ! ~ (from iy, ’ to appoint ’: a company Weeks, Jos. Ant. iii. 1 0 6 (auapOa) and in the Mishna.
2. i p i ~m6‘d
, (Nu. 1 6 z ) ; ’ o * m q ,famous in the congre-
assembled together by appointment), employed to de-
note the national body politic, Mosaic Israel encamped gation, RV, preferably ‘called to the assembly’ ; @
in the desert (cp Kue. Einl. 15, n. 12). Both, e.f., Bouh?) ; cp also Ps. 748 RVmg. (EV synagogues, @
include the @r (cp for ‘y Ex. 1219, for ‘ p Nu. 1 5 1 5 ; t0p.4). The locution ieio Sgk, ‘ tent of congregation
see STRANGER AND S O J OURNER ), but are sometimes (RV meeting) ’ (@ U K ~ V . )pap.rvplou),
~ occurs frequently in
interchanged (cp Nu. l 6 4 6 f : [171of.] 20). The dis- €‘,also Ex. 3 3 7 Nu. 124 Dt. 31 14 (E),Nu. 11 16 (5) ; and
tinction between the two, which was doubtless always outside Hex. in I S. 2 2 2 6 ; but BBom. ) I K.8 4 (6~b
observed, is clearly seen, e.g., in Lev. 4 13 f. ( I if the U K ? ~ V W ~706
U ,uup.ruplou) (see ICINGS,5 5). C p also
whole conpegution of Israel shall sin, and the thing be CONGREGATION, M OUNT OF ; S YNAGOGUE ; and see
hid from the eyes of the assemb& ... when the sin TABERNACLE.
therein is known then the assembly shall offer’ . .. ), i$D is properly an appoinled time or #race (like n!~ from
where the & Z h d is composed of the judicial representa- iy); cpGen. 1814 (@ K a r p d s ) , etc., Lam. 2 6 ( 6 aopnj), etc.; hence
tives, the picked members of the nly (cp also Dt. 23 ~ f . used of a sacred season or set feast (Hos. 9 5 @ r a 6 y v p r s etc.)
where certain classes of the people -2. e., the ‘&i- probably also one set by the moon’s appeArance (cp Gin. 1 I;
E6 K a r p 6 s ) . I n designating feasts it is employed in a much wider
may not enter into the kghiil). See SYNEDRIUM. sense than Jn (see FEASTS 0 6 D ANCE 0 3). I t is used not
Apart from their occurrence in the more secular only of the year of Releask (D;. 31 IO ‘h K a r p k ) and of the
meaning of I multitude, number, swarm,’ both $np and Passover (Hos. 1 2 g [IO] @ kopvj),Z hot also of the S’abbath, New
Year, and Day of Atonement (cp Lev. 23 @ a o p n j ) .
;ny occur but rarely in pre-Deuteronomic literature.
$ 7 ,(~ I ) EV ‘assembly’ : cp Ex. 1 6 3 Lev. 4 1 3 3 and Jer. 2617
3. ~ ! ? nmi@%’; , IS. 113‘n dip, the calling ofassemblies
( u u v a y w y j ) bo9 ( - y w y a b ) Ez. 2324 (gxhos), etc. (2) EV ‘congre- (6 ;)ydppa peydX7) : cp Is. 415 (678 ~ ~ p p l ~ d ~ hThe y).
gation’: T K. 81465 123(see K1~~~,§5)EzralO8(ofthegfiZiiJZ)
Pr. 5 14Mi. 2 5. (3 AV ‘ congregation,’ RV ‘assembly’ : Nu. locution d$p x p , ‘holy convocation’ (6KXVT$, or
15152 lG47 [ 1 7 n ] D t . 2 3 1 3 ,3130 o s h . 8 3 5 ; Judg.215 (see M K X V T O S hyla), only in P (Ex. 1 2 1 6 Lev. 2 3 2 3 Nu. 28
IIDGES, g 13) Job 3028 Ps. 895 [6] 1 0 4 3 ~ . The collocatiori 18 25 f: 29 I 7 I Z ~ ) .
‘day of assembly’ Dt. 910 1 0 4 (@ om.) 1816 refers to the day
on which the Law was given upon Sinai. Fbr its more secular 4. iio, sJd, Jer. 6 1 1(a uuvaywy?j)1617 (@ ouvh8prov) ;
meaning cp Gen. 35 T I (P)2 Ez. 17 17 (@ Bxhos EV ‘ company ’) ; Ps. 8 9 7 [8] 1 1 1 1 , RV ‘council,’@ /30uXd; also in Ez.
Gen. 2839 484 (P)a Nu. 224 (E) 2 AV ‘multitude ’ RV ‘com- 139, AVmg. RV ’council,’ RVmg. ‘secret,’ 6 rratdeia.
pany’ (in Ez. 1640 2346, @ 6x&, RV ‘ assembl;’). Cp also
I S. 1747 : the assembly of Israel present at the fight between
See COUNCIL, 3.
David and Goliath ( E ? see S AMUEL, $ 4). The earliest occur- 5. niepp -!y?, la‘iB&upp6th, Eccl. 1211 (@ ?rap&TGV
rence is probably Gen. 496 (@ u d r a m r s ) the &hnZ of Simeon O U V ~ E ~ ~ T - W masters
V), of assemblies, a reference to the
and Levi (parallel to 11~). Closely related is ne??‘assembly,’ convocations of the wise men (cp Ph. n 9 D N p, ‘member
Neh. 5 7 . cp Dt. 3342 (AV ‘ congreption’) and I S. 1920 (after of an assembly ’ ) ; RVmg, ‘ collectors of sentences ’ ;
@ ; cp ShOT ad loc. The passage IS Midrkhic). The verb (6
c $ 6 K K A q u i a { e c Y , FKKA.) is equally rare in pre-exilic literature ; cp Tyler, ‘editors of collections’ ; Haupt, ‘verses of a col-
Jer. 2G9 Dt.410 311228 also I K. SI/: 1221 (see KINGS, $3 5) lection’ ; Che. ‘framers of collections‘-ie., ‘N *$yp .._.(Jew.
Judg. 201 (see JUDGES B 13) Ex. 321 (E) ( U V V C U T ~ U ~ 1646 C) Rd. Life, 182).
(rrapappoh4) and z S. 2O:4 ( E ? cp under SHEBA).
6. ~ K K X ~ U(cp ~ U above) Mt.1618 1817 Acts19323941
”241 ‘ congregation ’ (dusually uuvaymy$ E V Ex. 1618 Nu.
Heb. 1223 ; see C HURCH.
2011 etc. EV ‘assembly,’ Ps. 2216 1171 Pr>514;.but R V
‘congregation,’ Lev. 8 4 Nu. 89 1 02 s 162 208 Ps. 8614. In 7. uuvaywy?j (cp above) Ja. 22 AV, RVmg.; RV
pre-exilic literature cp Nu. 2011(R?); Jer. 018 (@ r o i p v r a ) and S YNAGOGUE (4.71.).
Hos. 7 12 (@ BAiJrsws) (in both corrupt?) I K. 85 1220 (cp above) ASSHUR. See ASSYFIA.
Judg. 20 I 21 I O 13 16 (cp above). I n a wholly secular sense cp
Judg. 148 swarm (of bees), Ps. 6830 [SI] multitude (of Sulls)! ASSHUR, CITY OF. Pee TELASSAR.
‘ Assembly ’ also represents the following :- ASSHURIM ( P l l B k A C O Y P I M [AI ; ACC%YPIEIM
I. a % ~ n, 2 q
i~sdrrih,i y v t h , apart from Jer. 92 [I]
[D L] ; h c c o y p l H h [ E ] ) ,the first born of D EDAN (Gen.
253). The nameis enigmatical. Hommel(AHTz3gf:)
1 \np (to call)=Ar. &iZa (to speak); cp Syr. &haZ to call,
thinks that we should read Ashurim, not Asshurim,
collect; kalZiimZ brawler. The change from ‘calling’ to
‘assembling is easy ;cp use of Heb. pyx,. The relation between and that Ashur is the fuller and older form of SHUR.
$ n p (?ssembly) and Ar. &Zla?s analogous to that between TiD, InaMinzaninscription(Glaser, 1155;cpWi.AOF28f:
council, etc., and Syr. sewndha, talk, conversation (in Gen. 496 and see ZDMG, 1895,p. 527) Egypt, Ashur and ‘Ibr
they are parallel). ‘ p finds an interesting parallel in Sab. n$np NaharEn are grouped together (see E BER). The same
inny the assembly of ‘Athtar (Ashtoreth). On the usage of territory, extending from the ‘ River of Egypt ’ (?) to the
@ZJZiZ see Holzinger Z A T W 9 rogf: [‘Sgl.
2 In these pasag& d bas auvaywyl. country between Beersheba and Hebron, may perhaps
3 From isy, to press, restrain; cp i s y ~ ‘detained’(1 S. 21 7 Jer. be meant in Gen. 25 13, where the gloss ‘ in the direction
36 5) ;perh. ’y a taboo, te?n,husdaiisunr ;cp WRS, Sem. 456,who 1 The only pre-exilic occurrence of ‘y in a technical sense ; but
‘
notes the proverbial 2 V p l?s$ one under a taboo and one free.’ note that according to St. G V I 1 6 5 8 , vu. 1-45-8 +re doublets ;
Cp Ass. q r u , to bind, enclose; uprtu, magical spell, constella- cp Nowack, A m i . 2 154 note.
tion (Muss-Arnolt). 2 We., however (KZ. PYO&C)), reads - p i y ~ and
, Now. &ry
345 346
 ASSIDEANS ASSYRIA
of y v (~' I Ashur ") ' was misunderstood by the authors of I. (In Ex. aupsip [BF], 'augp IAL] : in I Ch. apsua, amppsi,
ausip [Bl auap [AI a q p amp IL] ; Asir). eponym of one
the vowel-points. The reference intended was, according of the f a h i e s or &visions of the Korahite guild pf'Levites;
to Hommel, to Ashur in S. Palestine; he proposes to Ex. 624 [PI. Cp I Ch. 6-22 f: 37 [7 f: 201 and for the inter-
read Ashur, not Asshur, also in Nu. 2422 24. The latter pretation of these discrepant genealogies seGKonAH.
2. SoiiofJeconiah(~Ch.317: a u a p [ B A L ] ) . SoAV,following
view, at any rate, is very improbable (see B ALAAM, 5 6). a Jewish view that Assir and Shealtiel are the names of two
C p also GESHUR,2. different sons of Jehoiachin (Sanheduin, 37 a : Midrash Vayilzra,
ASXIDEANS, RV ' Hasidzans,' RVmS ' that is
Chasidim' ( A C ~ A A ~ [AKV]), O~ is a transcription of the '
par. x. ; Midr. Shir La-Shirim on 86; so Himchi); but the
best texts (Ba., Ginsb.) make Jeconiah-Assir' the name of
one man. Kau. HS and SBOT rightly restore the article
Hebrew hnsidim, pious ones (AV, generally, ,saints). before Assir (the preceding word ends in 3). Render, therefore,
It is often used of faithful Israelites in the Psalms ' Jeconiah the captive' (so RV). Cp SHEALTIEL.
(17 times in plur., 5 times in sing.), and sometimes un-
questionably of the so-called Assideans ( e & , 116 15 ASSOS, or ASSUS (accoc [Ti. . WFI]), Acts
149 I 5 9). In I Macc. the name appears as the designa- 2 0 1 3 , ~a town and seaport in the Roman province of
tion of a society of men zealous for the law ( I Macc. Asia ; now Behram Kulessi. Strabo, who ranks Assus
24z-according to the correct text as given by Fritzsche), and Adramyteum together as ' cities of note,' pithily
and closely connected with the scribes ( I Macc. 7 I Z ~ :). describes the former as lying in a lofty sitnation, with
It is plain from these passages that this society splendid fortifications, and communicating with its
of 'pious ones,' who held fast to the law under the harbours by means of a long flight of steps (610, 614).
guidance of the scribes in opposition to the ' godless' So strong was the position that it gave rise to a pun by
Hellenking party, was properly a religious, not a the musician Stratonicus, who applied to it the line
political, organisation. For a time they joined the EUUOV te', & KEY eaooov d ~ h e p o v nelpae' Iqai.
revolt against the Seleucids. The direct identification of 'Come anigh, that anon thou mayest enter the toils of
the Assideans with the Maccabee party in z Macc. 146, death' (Hom. ZZ. vi. 143). The joke lay in reading
however, is one of the many false statements of that "Aooov to'= ' Come to Assus.' The town was always
book, and directly contradictory to the trustworthy singularly Greek in character. L e a k observes that its
narrative of x Macc. 7, which shows that they were ruins give ' perhaps the most perfect idea of a: Greek city
strictly a religions party., who scrupled to oppose the that anywhere exists.' The material is granite, which
legitimate high priest, even when he was on the Greek partly accounts for their immunity from spoliation. One
side, and withdrew from the war of freedom as soon of the most interesting parts is the Via Sacra, or Street
as the attempt to interfere with the exercise of the of Tombs, extending to a great diStance to the NW.
Jewish religion was given up. W e are not to suppose from the gate of the city. It is bordered by granite
that the Assidean society first arose in the time of the coffins, some of them of great size. In Roman times,
Maccabees. 'The need of protesting against heathen owing to its supposed pow-er of accelerating the decay
culture was donbtless felt earlier in the Greek period. of corpses (Pl. H N 298 3627), the stone of Assns
The I former @asidim,' as a Jewish tradition (Nedarinz, received thename sarco$hugus. Paul must have'entered
I O a) assures us, were ascetic legalists. Under the the city by the Street of Tombs on his last journey to
Asmonean rule the Assideans developed into the better Jerusalem (Acts 2013 14). The apostle had landed at
known party of the Pharisees, and assymed new relations Troas and walked or rode the 20 m. thence to Assns in
to the ruling dynasty. It appears, from the PsaZteter of time to join his companions, who had meanwhile sailed
So,/onzon, which represents the views of the Pharisees, round Cape Lectum.
that the party continued to affect the title of 'pious A good account of Assos is given in Fellows, Asia Miltor,
ones ' ( ~ U L O L ) , but less frequently than that of ' righteous 52; Murray's H a n d h k of A. ,I<. 6 4 : for its inscriptions see
ones' (6iKaioi). Indeed, the third Jewish party of the Rejoy.? of the American Expedition, 1882. W. J. W.
Asmonean period had already appropriated the former
name, if we may adopt Schurer's derivation of ESSENE ASSUERUS ( a c y ~ p o c[B] etc.) Tob. 141d AV,
( P . v . ) . See We. Ph. 21. Sadd. ('74), p. 7 6 3 , whose (q.v., no. 3).
RV AHASUERUS
results W R S adopted, and cp Schur. Hist. E T 1212 ;
Che. OPs, 56 (on the use of 'Assideans'), and other ASSUR (I) (l%'&) Ezra42 Ps. 838 AV, 4 Esd.
passages (index under thasidtm). W. R. S.-T. K. C. 2 8 EV (Assur [ed. Benslg]) Judith 2 14 etc. AV, RV
ASSIR (19?K, ' prisoner ; but perhaps rather 19D& ASSHUR; elsewhere RV ASSYRIA (y.~.).
=Osiris ; cp HuR). 2. (acoyp [BA]), I Esd. 531=Ezra251, H ARHUR .

A&r, the name of the country .known to us as in AI; auoupp in A ; m p r o r in B"; uovp in Bnb NaPa.bc.3
Assyria, was written in Hebrey %Ie, EV ASSHUR, (and twice in A) ; TOUP in N*.
fully 1.1tyg yy$, in the LXX By the Assyrians themselves the name of their country
I. Names.
or
waswrittenphonetically4t * * v o r * *v <H,
~ C C O Yand ~ a c c y p l o c (@L sometimes
pcoyp) by Josephus and the Greek historians ' A m u p l a , or (combining the two)
{a "4" ,-
*t+f m, the signs

-
in the Greek of the Alexandrian epoch ' A ~ o v p i a ,and
in Aralnaic Jihar, Athzz,-q& in which form the name and being determinatives reSPectivelY for
' land ' and ' place.' Subsequently, the two signs that
survived as that of a diocese of the Nestorian Church.
Other forms occurring once in 63 are :--auaup in E and in A ; formed the word, ( and *v
( =svzLy)v were
auuouprsrp in D, in A, and in L respectively : - p q h in E ; auuupos together and the name was written ky ++'oJ @ zJ 9

1 Nestle, Eirmnamen, 111 ; Che. Projh. 2s.P) 2 144300, and 1In 2013 Vg. translates BpavTEs 6uuov (Ti. WH) by cwm
on Is. 101 in SBOT; see also N AMES , 5 82. sustuZismnt de Asson, taking the word (incorrectly) as the name
2 For literature see, B ABYLONIA, 5 igfi of the city.
 ASSYRIA ASSYRIA
**v, and finally the writing of the name was
abbreviated to'the single horizontal stroke that forms its
Zeph. 2 13 ; Zech. 10 11); references to Assyria as taking part
n the final conversion and reconciliatlon of mankind (Is. 19
L?f f . 27 I?). In some'of these passages, however, Assyria may
._
first syllable, "4"
e, 44 <@. The name = b Y R I A (P.V.).

*+Tf yv &E, Y *+
was also written
It is difficult to define exactly the boundaries of
4ssyria. The extent of the country varied from time
*v ,v*+--v
or <W--i.e., ' land of
the god ASur."1 In fact, it is'probable that the city
3. Position to time according to the additional
and extent. territory acquired in conquest by its
monarchs, and the name itself has at
of A h , from which the land of A55ur was named, .imes suffered from a somewhat vague and general
received its title. from the national god. Other in- tpplication. The classical writers employed it in a
stances are known in which a god has given his name :onventional sense for the whole area watered by the
to the country or city that worshipped him. The rigris and the Euphrates, including northern Baby-
land of Guti that lay to the E. of Assyria beyond onia, whilst its use has even been extended so as to
the Lower Z%b appears to have taken its name from :over the entire tract of country from the coast of the
Guti its national god, whilst the god SuSinak gave his Mediterranean to the mountains of Kurdistan. In a
name to the city of SuSinak or Susa, the principal iefinition of the extent of Assyria proper, however, any
town on the banks of the Eulaeus. The general term rague use of the name may be ignored, for, although
among the Greeks for all subjects of the Assyrian Lt one time the Assyrian empire embraced the greater
empire was 'BuuI;p~ot,which was more usually short- >art of western Asia. the provinces she included in her
ened into Z~$ILOL or I ; $ p o ~ . ~ The abbreviated form -ule were merely foreign states not attached to herself
of the word was, however, gradually confined to the >y any organic connection, but retained by force of
western Aramaic nations, being at last adopted by the trms. I n general terms, therefore, the land of
Aramaeans themselves. These people, on becoming Assyria may be said to have been situated in the upper
Christians, dropped their old name in consequence of portion of the Mesopotamian valley about the middle
the heathen associations it had acquired in their transla- zourse of the river Tigris, and here we may trace
tion of the N T , and styled themselves StirYZyi, zertain natural limits which may be regarded as the
whence the modern term ' Syriac.' The nnabbreviated proper boundaries of the country. The mountain
name was used to designate the district on the banks of :hains of Armenia and Kurdistan form natural barriers
the Tigris, and this form of the word, passing from the 3n the N. and E. On the S. the boundary that
Greeks to the Romans, finally reached the nations of divided Assyria from Babylonia was in a constant
northern Europe. itate of fluctuation ; but the point at which the character
References to Assyria or the Assyrians in the OT of the country changes from the flat alluvial soil of the
are very numerous, though they are in the main con- Babylonian plain into the slightly higher, and more
2. Bi,&al fined to the historical and the prophetic undulating tracts to the N. gives a sufficiently well-
references. books ; the former describing the rela- defined line of demarcation. On the W., Assyria in
tions of Assyria with the later kings of its earliest period did not extend beyond the territory
Israel and Judah, the latter commenting on these watered by the Tigris; but, finding no check to its advance
relations and offering advice. The prophets, in their in that direction, it gradually absorbed the whole of
denunciations and predictions, sometimes rcfcr to the Mesopotamia as far S . as Babylon, until it found a
Assyrians by name ; at other times, though not actually frontier in the waters of the Euphrates.
naming them, they describe them in terms which their The chief feature of the country is the river' T IG RI S
hearers could not possibly mistake. ( q . ~ . which,
), rising in the mountains of Armenia, runs
The principal references may he classified under the following southward and divides Assyria into an
three headings : (a)Geographical use of the name Assyria : to
describe the course of the Tigris in the account of the garden of *' Description' E. and a W. district. That part of
Eden (Gen. 2 r4), and to indicate the region inhabited by the Assyria which is situated on the E. or left bank of the
sons of Ishmael (25 18). (6) References to matters of history : Tigris, though the smaller, has always been much the
the foundation of the Assyrian empire (Gen. 10 TI ), and its
classification among the nations (10 2 2 ) : Menahem's tribute (2 I<. more important. The country on that side of the liver
1 5 1 9 s ) ; thecaptivityofnorthern Israel(1s. 9r[Sz3]; 2K. 1 5 2 9 ; consists of a continuous plain broken up by low detached
I Ch. 5 26) ; the assistance of Ahaz by Tiglath-pileser followed ranges of limestone hills into a series of shallow valleys
by the capture and captivity of Damascus (z K. 16 5-:8 : 2 Ch. through which small streams run. All the main tribu-
28 Z O J ) ; Hoshea's subjection to Shalmaneser ( z I<. 17 3) : his
treachery and punishment (174); the siege and capture of taries, too, that feed the Tigris rise in the Kurdish moun-
Samaria (IT sf: 18q-n), and the colonisation of the country by tains, and flow through this E. division of the country.
foreigners (17 24 f i ): Sennacherib's invasion of Palestine and The E. Kh%b.bBr,the Great or Upper Ziib, the Little or
Hezekiah's payment of tribute, his refusal to submit to further
demands, the escape of Jerusalem from the Assyrian vengeance Lower Z%b,the Adhem, and the Diy%l% join the Tigris on
and Sennacheribs death ( z K. 18 13-1937 ; Is. 3G and 37 ; 2 Ch: its left or E. bank. Being therefore so amply supplied
32 1-23); the trade of Assyria with Tyre (Ezek. 2723); general with water, this portion of the country is very fertile,
references to past captivity or oppression by Assyria (Is. 5 2 4 : and well suited by nature for the rise of important
Jer. 50 7 7 ; Lam. 5 6 ; Ezek. 23 9 3 23) : reference to the punish-
ment that overtook Assyria (Je;. 50 18) : reference to the colo-iza- cities. On the other hand; W. Assyria, which lies
tion of Palestine by Esarhaddon (Ezra42). (c) Prophetic between the Tigris and the Euphrates, is a much drier
criticism and forecasts : evil or raptivity threatened or foretold and more barren region. The fall of the two rivers
as coming from Assyria (Nu. 24 22 ; Hos. 9 3 11 5 ; Is. 7 1 7 3
10 5 23 13 ; Ezek. 23 23 32 2 2 ; Ps.83 8): the futility of depending between the point where they issue fi-om the'spurs of the
on Assyrian h e l p ( H o s . 5 r ~ 7 i r f : Sof: 104.6 191: Jer.218q6); Taurus and the point where they enter the Babylonian
the participation of Israel in Assyrian idolatry (Ezek. 16 28 23 alluvium-a distance of six hundred or seven hundred
5 3 ) ; prophecies of the return from captivity in Assyria (Hos. miles-amounts to about one thousand feet, the Tigris
11IT ; Mic. 7 1 2 : Is. 11 11 16 ; Zech. 10 IO) ; predictions of over-
throw or misfortune for Assyria (Nu. 24 24 : Mic. 5 5 3 : Is. 10 having the shorter coursc. and being, therefore, more
2 4 3 14 25 30 31 '318 ; Ezek. 31 3 8 ; the prophecy of Nahum ; rapid. The country between the rivers consists of a
plain, sloping gently from the NW. to the SE. In
1 Throughout the present article the form ALir is employed
for the name of the god and city, A&r for that of the land. I n its upper part this region is somewhat rugged ; it is in-
the inscriptions the name of thc land is written with the doubled tersected by many streams, which unite to form the
sihilant, an original Assyrian form that is not inconsistent with Belikh and W. Khiibiir. The rivers flowing S. join the
the later Greek and Aramaic renderings of the name (see N61- Euphrates, and the district through which they pass
deke, Z A 1 2 6 8 8 ) . The name of the god, however, is written
in the inscriptions both with the single and doubled sibilant, of is watered sufficiently for purposes of cultivation. In
which the former may he regarded as the more correct on the the SW., however, the supply of water is scanty, and
basis of the Greek and Hebrew transliteration of certain proper the country tends to become a desert, its slightly
names, in which the name AEur occurs (see Jensen, Z A 1 1 8
and Schrader, i6. 2093). undulating surface being broken only by the SinjELr
2 On this see SVRIA. range, a single row of limestone hills. The district
349 350
 ASSYRIA ASSYRIA
S. of these hills is waterless for the greater part were much inferior to those of Babylonia, orangc,
of the year ; the few streams and springs are for the lemon, pomegranate, apricot, mulberry, vine, and fig
most part brackish, while in some places the country were grown successfully. The tamarisk was an ex-
consists of salt deserts, and in others vegetation is ceedingly common shrub ; oleanders and myrtles grew
rendered~impossible by the nitrous character of the in the eastern district ; but, except along the rivers and
soil. It is true that on the edges of this waterless on the mountain slopes, trees were scanty. The trees,
region there are gullies (from one to two miles wide) however, included the silver poplar, the dwarf oak, the
which present a more fertile appearance. These have plane, the sycamore, and the walnut. Vegetables such
been hollowed out by the streams in the rainy season, as beans, peas, cucumbers, onions, and lentils were
and, being submerged when the river rises, have in the grown throughout the country. Though Assyria could
course of time been filled with alluvial soil. At the not compete with Babylonia in fertility, her supply of
present day they are the only spots between the hill- stone and minerals far exceeded that of the southern
country in the north and the Babylonian plain in the country. Dig where you will in the alluvial soil of the
south where permanent cultivation is possible. It has south, you come upon no strata of rock or stone to
been urged that this portion of the country may have reward your efforts. In Assyria limestone, sand-
changed its character since the time of the Assyrian stone, and conglomerate rock were common, whilst
empire, and it is possible that <n certain districts gray alabaster of a soft kind, an excellent material for
extensive irrigation may have considerably increased its sculpture in relief, abounds on the left bank of the
productiveness ; but at best this portion of Assyria is Tigris; hard basaltic rock and various marbles were
fitted rather for the hunter than for the tiller of the soil. also accessible in the mountains of Kurdistan. Iron,
The land to the left of the Tigris is, therefore, much better copper, and lead were to be found in the hill country
suited for sustaining a large population, and it is in not far from Nineveh, while lead and copper were
this district that. the mounds marking the obtained from the region of the upper Tigris in the neigh-
5. Cities. sites of the ancient cities are to be bourhood of the modern town of DiHrbekr. Sulphur,
found. ASur, the earliest city of Assyria, is alum, salt, naphtha, and bitumen were also common ;
indeed situated to the west of the Tigris, near the spot bitumen was extensively employed, in place of mortar
where I(a1'at SherkEt now stands ; but its site is within or cement, in building (cp BITUMEN). Of the
a short distance of the river, and it was the only city of wild animals of Assyria the lion and the wild hull
importance on that side of the stream. Apart from are those most often mentioned in the historical in-
its earliest capital, the chief cities of Assyria were scriptions as affording big game for the Assyrian
Nineveh, Calah, and DBr-5argina. Nineveh, whose kings. Less ambitious sportsmen might content them-
foundation must date from a period not much more selves with the wild boar and the deer, the gazelle, the
recent than that of ASur, was considerably to the N. ibex, and the hare ; while the wild ass, the bear, the fox,
of that city, opposite the modern town of Mosul the jackal, the wild cat, and wild sheep were to be
(iMnw~iZ),on the E. bank of the Tigris, at the point where found. The most common of the birds were the kite
the small stream of the Khosr empties its waters ; its or eagle, the vulture, the bustard, the crane, the .stork,
site is marked by the mounds of Kuyunjilr and Nebi the wild goose, wild duck, teal, tern, partridge (red and
Yknus (cp NINEVEH). Calah, founded by Shalmaneser black), the sand grouse, and the plover. We know
I., corresponds to the modern Nimriid, occupying a from the monuments that fish were common. Of the
position to the S. of Nineveh on the tongue of land domestic animals of the Assyrians the principal were
formed by the junction of th,e Upper Ziib with the camels, horses, mules, asses, oxen, sheep, and goats.
Tigris (cp C A L A H ). Dkr-Sargina, 'the wall of Dogs, resembling the mastiff in appearance, were
Sargon,' was founded by that monarch, who removed eniployed for hunting. From the fact that heavy stone
his court thither ; the site of the city is marked by the weights carved in the form of ducks have been found,
modern village of Khorsabiid, to the NE. of Nineveh it may he assumed that the duck was domesticated.
(cp S ARGON ). It will be seen that there was a tendency The Assyrians belonged to the northern family of
throughout Assyrian history to move the centre of the Semites, and were closely akin to the Phcenicians, the
kingdom northwards, following the course of the Tigris. 7. National Aramaeans, and the Hebrews. Their
Other cities of importance were Arba'il or Irba'il character. robust physical proportions and facial
(Arbela) on the E. of the Upper ZHb; Ingur-BE1 (cor- characteristics are well known from the
responding to the modern Tell - BalawEt), situated monuments, and tally with what we know of their char-
to the SE. of Nineveh; and Tarbis, its site now acter from their own inscriptions and the writings of the
marked by the village of Sherif-KhBn, lying to the Hebrew prophets. Is. 33 19 describes the Assyrians as
NW. of Nineveh. a fierce people '-an epithet that fits a nation whose
From the above brief description of the country, it history is one perpetual warfare. The dividing line be-
may be inferred that Assyria presents considerable tween courage and ferocity is easily overpassed, and in a
6. differences of -climate. E. Assyria was military nation, such as the Assyrians were, it was but
the most favoured region, possessing a natural that there should be customs which to a later
resources' good rainfall during winter and even in age seem barbarous. The practice of impaling the
the spring, and havipg, in virtue of its proximity to the defenders of a captured city was almost universal with
Kurdish mountains and its abundant supply of water, a the Assyrians ; the torturing of)prisoners was common ;
climate cooler and moister than was generally enjoyed and the practiceof beheading the slain,whilst adding insult
to the W. of the Tigris. In this latter region the some- to the vanquished, was adopted as a convenient method
what rigorous climate of the mountainous district in the of computing the enemy's loss,, for it was easier to count
N. presents a strong contrast to the arid character of heads than to count bodies. The difference in character
the waterless steppes in the centre and the S. The between the Assyrians and the milder Babylonians was
frequent descriptions of the extreme fertility of Assyria due partly to the absence of that non-Semitic element
in the classical writers may, therefore, be regarded as in which gave rise to and continued to influence the more
part referring to the rich alluvial plains of Babylonia. ancient civilisation of the latter (see B ABYLONIA, (i 5 ) ;
Not that Assyria was by any means a barren land. She partly, also, to differences of climate and geographical
supplemented her rainfall by extensive artificial irrigation, position. The ferocity and the courage of the
and thus secured for her fields in the hot season a Assyrians are to a great extent absent from the
continual supply of water. Her cereal crops were Babylonian character. .It has been asserted that the
good. Olives were not uncommon, and the citrons of Semites never make great soldiers, yet there have been
Assyria were famous in antiquity. Fruit trees were two prominent exceptions to this generalisation-theAs-
extensively cultivated, and, although the dates of Assyria syrians and the Carthaginians. The former indeed not
351 352
 MAP OF SYRIA, ASSYRIA, AND BABYLONU
INDEX TO NAMES (Ad)
Piwentheses indicdting arficles that refey fo the place-names are in certah cases added to non-bibZica2nama having
no 6ibZi;al cqz&alent. me a&ha.adefim?arrangement ignores pr@xrs :el (fke),L (Je6el,mt. ), Kh. (Xhirdat,
'vain'). L. (lake), Mt., N. (Nahr, 'river'),H. (river).
J.: 'Abdul 'Aziz, Ez Baldeh, B3 Ellip, H4
Abu Habbah, F4 (BABYLONIA, gg 3 14j R. Balicha, D2 Mt. Elvend, I3
Ah-Shahrein, H5 (BABYLONIA, f 3) R:' Balibi, D2 Emessa, C3 (see Hemessa)
Accho, B4 Barzipa, G4 Epiphania, C3
Achmetha, 13 , Bern, H 5 (BABYLONIA, 8 14) Erdjish Dagh, Br
Achzib, H4 Batfin, B3 Erech, G5 (BABYLONIA, $3)
Acre, B4 (DAMASCUS, g 4) Bavian, Fz (BABYLONIA, 8 5 ~ ) Eridu, H 5 (BABYLONIA, f 3)
Aderbawn, Ga, Hz Beersheba, B5' Esdtid, Bs
K. ,Adhem (A'pm?), G3 (ASSYRIA, 5 4) Behisttin, H 3 (BARYLONIA, @IZ 13) R. ElIkUS, 15, H~(A~JR-BANI-PAL, 8 6)
Adiatgne, F2 ('DZSPERSION,$6) Beirtit, B4 (UEROTHAH) R. Euphrates, Dz, F4 (BABYLONIA, $ 14)
'.4dliin, B4 R. Belikh, Dz (ASSYRIA;9 4)
R. Adonis, R3 (ABHEK, I) Beroea, Cz R. Furiit, D2, F4
'Afrin. Cz Berytus, B4
Agadh, F4 (BABYLONIA, $ 3) Biaina, .YI (ARARAT, $ 2 ) Ganibulu? H5 (AHUR-BANI.PAL,8 6)
AgamatLnu, I3 Bir es-Sbd,..B+ GargamiS, Dz
'Ain Kadis, .B5 Birejik; C2'~CA&EMISH, f z) Gauzanitis, Ea
'Ain Tiib,' C2 Birs-Nimrad, G~'(BABYLONIA, $3) Gaza, B5
'&Wkcf, G4 (BABEL, T O W E R OF, $7) Biruti, B4 Gebal, B3
'Akka, B4 (BETH-EMEK) Bit Yskin, H5 and I5 (CHALDEA) Gedrosia, inset map (CARMANIANS)
Akkad, G4,(BAEYLoNIA, f I) Borsippa, G4 (BABYLONIA, g 3) Ghazza, B5
Akku, B4 Botrys, B3 Ghiuk Su, A2
Akzibi, B4 ' Brook of Egypt,' A5 Gimir, B I
Alabia.[Eg. 'Asi], A3 (CYPRUS, f.1)' Byblos, B3, (ASSYRIA,f 31) Gok Su, Cz
Albak, G I Gordaean Mts., Gz
Aleppo, .C2 CaesarEa, .B4 Gozan, Ez (ASSYRIA,$ 32)
Alexandretta, C2 Calah, Fa (ASSY~IA, 0 5) Great Sea: B3, B4
Ani&, C3 R. Calycadnus, AZ(CILICIA, 5 I) Great ZLb, F2
&nEdi, E2 Caphtor, B2 Guzana,
Gubli, B3E z
Amid, E2 Cappadocia, B I
Amida, Ez Carchemish, D2
N.' Amrit, B3 Carmania, inset p a p (CARMANIANS) uabur, E3
J. el-AnSLriya, C3 Mt. Carmel, B4 Hadrach, C3 (&SYRIA, 8 32)
An!%kieh, Cz Carpasia, R3 &dab, Cz
Antarados, B3 (ARVAD) CarrhE, Dz Qalwan, Cz
Antioch, Cz'. Caspian Sea, Ir (ARARAT, 5 3) R. Halys, B I (CAPPADOCIA)
Apamea, 'C3 (mod.. Ruin Kala) R. Chabiiras, E3 HamadEn, I3
ApamEa, Dz (mod, Kal'aieZ-Mu@J) Chalcis, C3 HamBt, C3
Aradus, B3 Chalybtin, C2 Hamath, C3
Ararat, EI Chittim (see Kittim) karan, D2
Arba'ilu; F2 (ASSYRIA, 5) Choaspes, I 4 HarrLn, D2
ArEla, F2 (ASSYRIA, $5) Cilicia, B2 Harran(u), D2
Mt. &gSeUS. BI (CAPPADOCIA) Circesium; E3 el-Has?, C3
W. el-'Arish, .A5 Citium, A3 (CYPRUS, $ I) katarikka, C3
Ark%,c3 CommagGnE, Cz Ijatte, C2 (CANAAN,XO)
Arkite, C3 Ctesiphiin, .G4 HaurLn, C4
Armenia, EI (ARARAT,% 2) Cuth, Cuthah, G4 (BABYLONIA;# 3) Hauran, C4
Ar Moab', B5 H. Cydnus, Bz (CILICIA, $ I) Qawranu, C4
Arpad, .Cz (ASSYRIA,0 32) Cyprus, A3 Qazzatu, B5
Arpadda,' C2 Hebron,' B5 I

'Arrapachitis',, F z {ARPE~AXAD) Damascus, G4 (H)emes(sja,.C~

Ayvad, B3 (ASSYRIA, $ 31) Daphne, C2 HesbZn, Bs
Akdudu, .B5 Di*bekr, E 2 (ASSYRIA,,
~ $ 6) Heshbon, B5
Mguza ?'Gz (AsHKENAZ) R. Dijla, IZ, Qilakku, Bz (CILXC~A,8 2)
Ashdod, B5 R. Dildat,'E2 Hillah, G4 (BABYLONIA, $ 3)
Ashkeloii, B5 Dilmun? I6 Hit, F4
N. .el-'&i;cj Dimashk, C4 H o w , C9
'As$aliin; B5, DlimaSki; ~4 Hulyiin, G3
Askaluna, ' B i Pinaretum.Pr.;Bg R. gusur, Fa (see Khawsar)
Asshir, pi ' R. Diyiilii, G3 {ASSYRIA,$ 4)
AbSUr, F2 (ASSYRIA, f I) Dor, 8 4 Nahr Ibr&him, E3
Assyria. G3 I% Kurigdzu, G+.(ASYRIA; % $8) Ichna, D2
ASui., F3 (A~SYRIA, g I) Diir.$argina, Fa (&SYRIA, g 5j Idaliuni, A3
AtrobatEnC, G2 Du'ru, B4 Imgur-Bel, Fz (ASSYRIA,$ 5 )
R:-Afzam?.'Gg' Irbil, F2 (ASSYRIA,$ 5)
, .Azotus, .B5, Ecbataiia, I3 Isin, G5 (BABYLONIA, $49)
Edessa, Dz (ARAMAIC, f 11) ISSUS, 8 I)
Cp (CILICIA,
Babylon,!G4 Ecli'al, ,A3
Dabylon.ia, G5 Edom; 135 Jebeil, B3
BagdM, G4 (BABEL, TOWER ok, § 7) Elam, H4 (BABYLONIA; $22) Jebel Jiidi, Fz (ARARAT, 5 3)
Bagdfida, G4, Elamtu. Hq Jeriibis, Dz
Bagistara, E13 Mts. of Elburz, I2 (ARARAT) g 3) R. Jihun, CI
Bdzwiit, F2 (ASSYRXA,
$5) Ellasar, G5 JOPP~, B4
 INDEX TO NAMES I N MAP-Confinued W-2)
N. el-Kabir, B3 Na'iri, E I , FI, Gz (ARARAT, $ 2 ) "
Sippar, F4 (B ABYLONIA, $$ 3 54) .
N. el-KaMr, E3 Namri, H3 Sirpurla, Hg BABYLONIA,-^§ 3 48)
Kadesh-barnea, Bg Nqibin. Ez soli, B~.(CILICIA, p I)
KaiyPriyeh (Mazaca), BI' Nebi Yiinus. Fz (ASSYRIA, $ 5) Sophen& D I
KaisHriyeh, R4 Nicephorinm, D3 R. Subnat, &I (AS5YR1.4, 8.27)
Kalah, Fz Niffer, G4 (B ABYLONIA, $ 3) SumeisBt, Dz
Kal'at Dibsa, D3 Nirnriid, Fz (ASSYHIA,$5) SumEr, Hg (RABYLQNIA, s I)
Kal'at el-Mu& C3 Nineveh, Fz (ASUR-BANI-PAL, 5 2) SunIra! B3
Kal'at Sherkkt, F3 (ASSYRIA,p 5) Mt. Niphates, E I Siir, B4
Kaldu, Hg, H6 Nippur, G4 (BABYLONIA, p 3) SUITU; B4
Kalbu, Kalah, Fz Nisibis, Ez (D ISPERSION, 8 6) Susa, . I ~ ( ~ Y R u8s1),
KBnH, B4 Nisin or Isin, G5 (BABYLONIA, $ 49) SuSan,'14 (cynus, 8 6)
Karaja Dagh, Dz Mts. of Nisir. Gz (DELUGE, 2) Susiana (A RAM, $ I)
Kardunid, G4, HS Susiana. 15 (B ABYLONIA, 5 IO)
Karkisiyii, E3 apis, G3 (CVRUS,(I I) $uta, G4
R. Karun, Ig OrnIth6npolis, B4 Syrian Desert, D4
KdSi, I3 (B ABYLONIA , 8 56) R. Orontes, C3 (ASSYRIA,$ 31)
Kebben Maden, 'DI Osrhoene, Dz Tabal, Cr (ASUR-BANI-PAL, p 4)
Keft6, B2 (CAPHTUR,5.4) Palastu, Bg (C ANAAN, 5 17) Tadmur, Dg
Kennisrin', C3 Palmyra, D3 (A RAMAIC L ANGUAGE, $ *) Tantiira, B4
R., Kerkhah, 15, I4 Paltos, B3 TarHbulus, B3
R. KhHbiir, F z (ASSYRIA,p 4) Parthia, inset map Tarbi?, Fz (A SSYRIA, 8 5)
R. KhBbiir, E3 .(ASSYRIA,$ 4) Pedias, Bz (CILICIA,8 I) Tarsus, B2 (CILICIA,8 I )
el-Khalil, Bg Pekod, H4 Tartas, B3
R. Khawsar, 'Khosr,"Fz (A SSYRIA, 8 5 ) Phihstia, Bg (C ANAAN, s 17) L. Tatta, AI (CAPPADOCIA)
KhQrsBbHd, Fz (ASSVRIA,'~ 5) K. Physcus, G3 Taurus, F i , Bz (CAPPADOCIA)
Kirruri, GZ (ASSYRIA,'$ 31) Pitru, Dz Tell 'Ark%,Cg
KiS. G4 (BABYLONIA> $$ 3 47) Pulgldti? H5 Tell .4swad, G4
Kittim, A3 R. Purattu, Dz, F4 Tell-Erfad. Cz
Kizil,Irniak, B I , CI R. Pyramus, Cz (CILICIA,8 I) Tell IbrShim; G4 (B ABYLONIA, 8 3)
Koa, G3 Telloh, Hg (BABVLONIA, p 3)
Korduene, G2 (ARARAT,,$ 3) R. RBdSnu, G3 TerEdGn, 135
Kue, Bz (CILICIA,D 2) Rp!;l;a, D3 Thapsacus, D3 (ASSYRIA,8 16)
Kurnrnuh, D I (ASSYRIA, 8 28) RBs el-'Ah, E z Thebae, inset map (AHuR-BANIOPAL, ff I)
Kurdisth, G2 (ASSYRIA,0 3 ) Rasappa, D3 R. Tigris, FZ. €14 (&SYRIA,8 4)
Kurna, Hg ReS-Eni, E2 Tiphsah, D3
N. KilthL, G4 Rezeph, D 3 R. Tornadotos, G3
Kutii. G3 (B ABYLONIA, $69) Rhesaina, E2 Tracheia, Az (CILICIA,p I)
Kiitii, G4 Ribla, C3 Tripolis, B3 (DA~ASCUS, $4)
s
Kuyunjik, .Fa (ASSYRIA, 5) Riblah. C3 Tubal, C I
Ruha, Dz R. Turnat, G3
el-Edikiyeh, B3 Rp@fa, D3 L.'Tuzla, AI
EagaS, M.5 (BABYLONIA, $3) RuwHd, B3 Tyre, B4 @ = R I A , 0 3%)
Laodicea, B3 Tyros, B4'
Lamaca, A3 esdabaha, C3
Larsa, Gg,(BABYLOSIA,B 3) R. SBgurri, Cz Uduniu, Bg
R.. Leontes, B4 Saidt, B4 R. Ula'a, Is
N. Ligini, B4 R. Sajiir, Cz (CARCHEMISH, 8 2) R. Ulai, Ig
Lower Z b , G3 (&SYRIA,p 4) Salamis, A3 (CYPRUS, $ a) Upe, G3
Lycaonia, Az (CAPPADOCIA) salchad, C4 Upper Z b , Gz (&SYRIA, 8 3
Salchah, C4 Ur, G.5 (BABYLONIA, 5 3)
Malatya, Dr Samaria, B4 Urartu, EI (ARARAT, 8 I)
Nahr Malik, 6 4 Silrnarrah, F3 Urfa; Ruha, Dz
Ma'liila, c 4 (ARAMAIC, 9 ) Samerina, B4 Uruk, G5
Man, FI SamiSsBta, Dz (C APPADOCIA) L. Urumiyah, Urmia, Gz (ARAIIIA~C,
Manda, HZ-(~VRIJS,g 2) Sarafand, E4 . % 13)
Mar'ash, Cz Sarepta, E1 Ur(u)salim; Bg
Marathus, B3 Sariij, Dz
Maridin, Ez R. Sarus, Bz (CILICIA,$ I ) L. Van, FI (&SYRIA,
Mt. Masius, Dz Sebaqtiya, B4
Selamia, G4 W. el-'Arish, AS
Kh. Ma'sub, B4,
Senkereh, Gg (B ABYLONIA, $ 3 ) Warka, Gg (B ABYLONIA, 0 3)
Mazaca, BI (CAPPAD,OCIA)
Media, I3 (BABYLONIA, 8 56) Seeug, Dz WE, B4
Mediterranean, .B3, B4 Shacf el-'Arab, Hg YamutbSI, Hq
MelitEnE, DI(ARARAT, $' I) Shatt el-Hai, H4, Hg (B ABYLONIA, 0 3)
Y w , , B4
Memphis, inset map (A%UR-BANI.PAL.Shap en-Nil, Gg (B ABYLONIA, $ 3)
D 1) Sherif IihHn, Fz (ASSYRIA.$ 3) Zsb (Upper or Greater),. Fz ( A S ' S Y R I ~ ~
Meshech, C I Shinar, G4 8 4)
Mesopotamia, Ea ShirwBn, H3 ZHb (Loww), Fg (ASSVRIA,8 4)
MiE-Turnat, G4 Shoa? G4 Zabatus, Majpr, Fz
Mitani, Dz (+SYRIA, B 28) Shushan, 14 &batus, Minor,. Fa
M6y& Fz (ASSYRIA,p 5) Sidon, B4 (ASSYRIA, $31) Z b u , FXi, Fz ,
Mukayyar, G5 (BAEYLOSIA, 8 14) Sidtinu, B4 Zbu.Supalu, F3
Mugku, CI (AsSYnIA, 8 28) R. Sihun, B2' Mt. Zagros, G3
Musri, Cz (ASSVRIA,$ 28) Simirra, B3 ZenjW Cz (A RAMAIC L ANGUAGE, p ).
Mugri, Bg (ASHUDD) Simyra, B3 Zerghul, H 5
Singaras, E2 Zeu'gma, Cz
Nabataea, C; (ABuR-BANI-PAL, 8 9) Sinjar Range, E z (ASSYRIA, 58 4 16) Zimri, G3 (ASSYRIA,$32)
Naharina, DZ @RAM-NAHARAIM, 8 2fi) Sinzar, C3 ez-Zib, B4
 ABSYRIA ABSYRIA
only displayed the energy of conquest; but also combined gods of the country which they were leaving ; but from
with it a great power of administration by which they or- __
the very first they appear to have somewhat modified
ganised the empire they had acquired. It was, however, the system and to have given a dis-.
9. tinctly national character to the pantheon
the custom of the Greek historians, and afterwards of the
Romans, to paint the Assyrians as a singularly lnxurious they borrowed. This end they achieved by the intro-
and sensual nation. Their monarchs, from the founder 3uction of the worship of ASur, their peculiarly national
of the empire down to the last king who held the throne, god, who was for them the symbol of their separate
were described as given up to pleasure. It is possible Existence. Alur they set above all the Babylonian
that as regards the later empire this tradition contains deities, even 4 n u , Bel, and En taking n subordinate
a substratum of truth, for the growing luxury of Assyria position in the hierarchy. It is true that \\e find Bel
may well have been one of the causes that brougbt mentioned at times as though he were on an equal
about her fall. For the earlier and the middle period of footing with ASur, especially in the double royal title
Assyrian history, however, the statement is proved to be ' Governor of Bel, Representative of ;\Sur,' while
untrue, both by the records of Assyria herself and by the Assyria is sometimes termed ' the land of I W ' and
negative evidence of the Hebrew prophets. These con- Nineveh ' the city of Bel.' These titles, however, were
temporaries of Assyria, who hated her with the bitter not inconsistent with ASur's supremacy. He was ' the
hatred which the oppressed must always feel for their king of all the gods,' and any national success was
oppressors, rarely, if ever, denounce her luxury ; it was regarded as the result of his initiative. It was ASur
her violence and robbery that impressed her victims. In who marked out the kings of Assyria from their birth,
the language of prophecy the nation is pictured as a lion and in due time called them to the throne. It was he
(Nah. 212), and it is not as a centre of vice but as ' the who invested them with power and gave them victory
bloody city' that Nahum foretells the destruction of her over their enemiks, listened to their prayers, and dictated
capital (31). the policy they should pursue. The Assyrian army were
The Assyrians spoke 'a Semitic language, .Ihich they ' the troops of ASur ' ; the national foe was ' ASur's
inherited from the Babylonians-a- language that was enemy' ; and every expeclition is stated to have been
8. Language, more closely allied to Hebrew and undertaken only at his direct command. In fact, the
Aramaic than to Arabic and the other life of the nation was consecrated to his service, and its
etc. dialects of the S. Semitic group. They energies were spent in the attempt to vindicate his
wrote a non-Semitic character, one of the varieties of majesty among the nations that surrounded them. His
the cuneiform writing (see B ABYLONIA, 5 3 ) . Like symbol was the winged circle in which was frequently
their language, this system of writing came to them enclosed a draped male figure wearing a headdress with
from the Babylonians, who had themselves inherited it three horns and with his hand extended ; at other times
from the previous non-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia. he is represented as holding a bow or drawing it to its
The Assyrians, although retaining the Babylonian signs, full extent. The symbol may, perhaps, be explained
made sundry changes in the formation of them, and in as a visible representation that Alur's might had no
some it is possible to trace a steady deve1opment.through- equal, his influence no limit, and his existence no end.
out the whole period covered by the Assyrian inscriptions. This symbol is often to be found on the monuments as
The forms of some of the characters in the inscriptions the accompaniment of royalty, signifying that, the
of almost every Assyrian king display slight variations Assyrian king, as ASur's representative, was under his
from those employed by his predecessors. Indeed, in especial protection ; and we find it not only sculpturecl
some few cases, the forms used at different periods above the king's image but also graven on his seal and
differ more widely from one another than they do from even embroidered on his garment. It is possible that
their Babylonian original. The literature of the we may trace in this exaltation of the god Alur the
Assyrians was borrowed. In a sense they were with- Semitic tendency to monotheism, the complete vindica-
out a literature, for they were not a literary people. tion of which first found expression in the Hebrew
'They were a nation of warriors, not of scholars. prophets. It must not be supposed, however, that the
In this they present the greatest contrast to their new deity stood in any opposition to the older gods.
kindred in the S. Possessed of abundant practical These retainecl the respect and worship of the Assyrians,
energy, they were without the meditative temperament and stood by Alur's side-not so powerful, it is true,,
which fostered the growth of Babylonian literature ; but retaining considerable influence and lending their
and, although displaying courage in battle and devotion aid without prejudice to the advancement of the nation's
to the chase, they lacked the epic spirit in which to tell interests.
the tales of their enterprise. The majority of the his- The spouse of ASur was Belit-that is, ' the Lady'
torical inscriptions which they have left behind them are par ez-celleencc-and she was identified with the goddess
not literature : they are merely lists of conquered cities, IStar (see especially 3 I<. 24, 8 0 ; 53, n. 2, 3 6 j ! ) , and
catalogues of captured spoil, and statistics of the slain. in particular with IStar of Nineveh. Another goddess
Thong11 not original, however, the Assyriins were far who enjoyed especial veneration in Assyria was Iltar of
from being illiterate. They took over, root and branch, Arbela, who became particularly prominent under Sen-
the whole literature of Babylonia, in the copying, the nncherib and his successors, and was generally men-
collection, ancl the arrangement of which they displayed tioned by the+side of her namesake of Nineveh. She
the same energy and vigour with which they prosecuted was especially the goddess of battle, and from ASur-
a campaign. It was natural that the priests and scribes, biini-pal we know the conventional form in which she
whose duty it was to copy and collate, should attempt was presented. This monarch, on the eve of an engage-
compositions of their own ; but they merely reproduced mcnt- with the Elamites, feeling far from confident of his
the matter and the methods of their predecessors. In a own success, appealed for encouragement and guidance
word, the Assyrians made excellent librarians, and it is to IStar of Arbela. The goddess answered the king's
to their powers of organisation that we owe the greater prayer by appearing that night in a vision to a certain
part of our knowledge of Babylonian literature. Since, seer while he slept. On recounting his dream to thc
therefore, the language, the system of writing, and the king, the seer described the appearance of the goddess
literature of the Assyrians were not of their own making, in these words : ' Iltar, who dwells in Arbela, entered.
but merely an inheritance into which they entered, the On the left and the right of her hung quivers ; in her
description of them in greater detail falls more naturally hand she held a bow f and a sharp sword did she draw
under the article BABYLONIA (see 193). for the waging of battle. '
The religion of the Assyrians resembles in the main Besides Alur and IStar, two other gods were held in
that of the Babylonians, from which it was derived. particular respect by the Assyrians-Ninib, the god of
The early colonists from the south carried with them the battle, and Nergal, the god of the chase. Almost all
23 353 351
 ASSYRIA ASSYRIA
the Assyrian Icings, however, had their own pantheons, by attendants, human or divine, becomes monotonous.
to whom they owed especial allegiance. In many cases The work of Sargon presents a greater variety of subject
the names constituting the pantheon occur in the king's and treatment ; but it is in the sculptures of Sennacherib
inscriptions in a set order that does not often vary. .
and Ab--biini-pal that the most varied episodes of
Such were the principal changes which the Assyrians Assyrian life and history are portrayed. It was natural
made in the pantheon of Babylonia, the majority of that battle-scenes should chiefly occupy the sculptor ;
whose gods they inherited, with their functions and yet even here the artist could give his fancy play.
attributes to a great extent unchanged. It is true that Whilst he was bound by convention to depict the vulture
our knowledge of Babylonian religion, like that of devouring the slain, he could carve at the top of his
Babylonian literature, comes to us mainly through slab a sow with her litter trampling through a reed-
Assyrian sources ; but though it passed to them, its origin bed. Armies in camp or on the march, the siege of
and development are closely interwoven with the history cities or battles in the open, the counting of the slain
of the older country. The cosmology of the Assyrians and the treatment of prisoners-all are rendered with
and their conception of the universe were entirely Baby- absolute fidelity. When an army crosses a river and
lonian (see B ABYLONIA, § 25) ; their astfology (id. $ 34). boats for transport are not to be had, the troops are
their science of omens (§ 32), their system of ritual and represented as swimming over with the help of inflated
their ceremonial observances (9 zgf: ) were an inheritance skins'-a custom that survives on the banks of the
from the temples and worships of the south. Tigris to the present day.
Though in language, writing, and literature Assyria so Though the sculptures of Sennacherib and A h - b a n i -
closely resembles Babylonia, in her architecture she pal have much in common, as regards both their matter
10n. Archi- presents a striking contrast. The alluvial and the method of their treatment, each king had his
of the southern country contained no
tecture. plains
stone, and the Babylonian buildings were,
own favonrite subject for portrayal on his monuments.
Sennacherib liked most to perpetuate his building
therefore, mainly composed of brick. The resources of operations ; ASur-bani-pal, his own deeds of valour in
Assyria were not so poor ; the limestone and the alabaster the chase. Sennacherib erected two palaces at Nineveh
with which her land abounded stood her in good stead. -the one at Nebi Y h u s , the other at Kuyunjilc-but
The palace was the most important building among it is only at Kuyunjik that the palace has been thoroughly
the Assyrians, for the principal builders were the kings. explored. On the walls of this latter edifice he caused
It was erected, usually, on an artificial platform of bricks to be carved a series of scenes in which his builders are
or earth ; in which fact we may possibly see a survival of represented at their work. Stone and timber are being
a custom of Babylonia, where such precautions against carried down the Tigris upon rafts ; gangs of slaves are
inundation were necessary. The platform was gener+ly collecting smaller stones in baskets, and piling them up
faced with stone, and was at times built in terraces which to form the terrace on which the palace is to stand;
were connected by steps. The palace itself was com- others are wheeling hand-carts full of tools and ropes for
posed of halls, galleries, and smaller chambers built scaffolding, or ,transporting o n sledges huge blocks of
round open courts, the walls of the former being orna- stone for the colossal statues. The hunting-scenes of
mented with elaborate sculptures in relief. It is'only AHur-bani-pal may be regarded as marking the acme
from their foundations that our knowledge of the Assy-ian of Assyrian art. Background and accessories are for
palaces has been obtained. From these remains a good the most part absent. Thus, grotesque efforts at per-
idea of their extent can be gathered; but there is no spective, common to the most of early art, are avoided,
means of telling the appearance they presented when with the result that the limitations in the methods of
complete. Their upper portion has been totally de- the early artist are not so apparent. The scenes
stroyed : it is a matter of conjecture whether they con- portrayed are always spirited. The figurcs are all
sisted of more than one story. The paving of the open in motion. Whilst the elaboration of detail is not
courts was as a rule composed of brick ; but sometimes carried to an extreme, action is represented with com-
stone slabs, covered with shallow carving in conventional plete success. This series of hunting- scenes contains
patterns, were employed. pieces of great beauty. It is in striking contrast to the
The temple was subordinate to the palace. Our large majority of Assyrian sculptures, which tend to
knowledge of its appearance is based mainly on its excite interest rather than admiration. Still, even the
representation on the monuments, from which it would earlier work has not entirely failed in its purpose-
appear that the Assyrians inherited the Babylonian ornamentation. The stiff arrangement of a battlefield
zi@uvrrrtz (temple-tower), a building in stages which has often a decorative effect ; and the representation of
diminish as they ascend (see B ABYLONIA, $ 16, beg.). a river with the curves and scrolls of its water contrast-
Unmistakable remains of a building of this description ing with the stiff symmetrical line of reeds upon its bank,
were uncovered on the N. side of the mound at Nimriid. is always pleasing. Indeed, from a decorative point of
Another type of building depicted on the monuments view, Assyrian art attained no small success. Traces
has been identified as a shrine or a temple; it was a of colour are still to be found on some of the bas-reliefs,
single-storied structure, with a broad entablature sup- on the hair and beards of figures, on parts of the cloth-
ported by columns or pilasters. ing, on the belts, the sandals, etc. ; but the question
The domestic architecture of the Assyrians has whether the whole stone-work was originally covered
perished. The dwellings of the more wealthy must have 1 A singular detail may be noticed with reference to the
resembled the royal reddence. On the bas-reliefs are representation of these skins. The soldier places the skin
to be found villages which bear a striking resemblance to beneath his belly, and by means of his arms and legs paddles
those of modern Mesopotamia; and, having reg&d to the himself across the water. Even with this assistance be would
need all his breath before his efforts landed him on the opposite
eternal nature of things eastern, we may regard it as not bank. but in the sculptures each soldier is represented as
unlikely that the humbler subjects of Assyria were housed retaiiing in his mouth one of the legs of the inflated skin, into
neither better nor worse than the villagers of to-day. which he continues to blow as into a bagpipe. The inflation
of the skin could be accomplished far more effectually on land
It was to adorn their palaces and temples that the before he started and the last leg of the beast could then be
.~ the sculptured slabs and bas-reliefs
Assyrians employed tied up so that (he swimmer need not trouble himself further
106. Scul~ture.with which their name is peculiarly about his apparatus but devote his entire attention to his
associated. The maioritv of these have stroke. This, no doibt, was what actually happened ; but the
sculptor wishes to indicate that his skins are not solid bodies
come from the palaces of ASur-dZ&-pal: Sargon, Sen- but full of air, and he can find no better way of showing it than
nacherib, and Ah-bHni-pal. The work of the earliest by making his swimmers continue blowing out the skins, though
of these kings is distinguished from that of his successors in the act of crossing. This instance may be taken as typical
of the spirit of primitive art, which, diffident of its own powers
by a certain breadth and grandeur of treatment; but of portrayal, or distrusting the imagination of the beholder, seeks
the constant repetition of his own figure, accompanied to make its meaning clear by means of conventional devices.
355 356
 ASSYRIA ASSYRIA
with paint, or only parts of it picked out in colour, can- gate consist of bronze. bands which at one time
not be decided. strengthened and adorned it. A brief inscription runs
Even more famous than their sculptured slabs are the round them, while the space is filled with designs in
colossal winged lions and human-headed bulls of the delicate relief illustrating the battles and conquests of
Assyrians. They fired the imagination of the Hebrew the king and in general treatment resembling the bas-
prophet Ezekiel, and they impress the beholder of reliefs of stone to which reference has been made.
to-day. These creatures were set on either side of a Iron was used by the Assyrians ; but bronze was the
doorway or entrance, and were intended to be viewed favourite substance of the metal-worker. Specimens of
both froin the front and from the side-a fact that the bronze employed have been analysed. and it has been
explains why they are invariably represented with five ascertained that it consists roughly of one part of tin to,ten
legs. A very curious effect was often produced by parts of copper. W e know from the jewels represented
running inscriptions across the bodies of these beasts on the monuments that ornamental work in silver and in
without regard to any detail of carving or design. ASur- gold was not uncommon, and specimens of inlaid work
nHSir-pal was a great offender in this respect. Not con- and of work in ivory have been found at NimrFid. Many
tent with scarring his colossi in this manner, he ran of the examples we possess, however, betray a strong
inscriptions over his bas-reliefs as well, and displayed a Egyptian influence, apparent in the general method of
lack of imagination by repeating the same short inscrip- treatment and in the occurrence of the scarabzeus, the
tion again and again with but few variations. cartouche, and a few hieroglyphs. Thus they must be
Carving in the round was rarely practised. A stone regarded not as genuine Assyrian productions, but rather
statuette of ASur-,%Sir-pal, a seated stone figure of as the work of Phcenician artists copying Egyptian
Shalmaneser II., and some colossal statues of the god designs. Enamelling of bricks was extensively employed
Neb0 have been found ; but, though the proportions of as a means of decoration. The designs consist some-
the figure are more or less correct, their treatment is times of patterns, and sometimes of scenes in which
exceedingly stiff and formal. Modelling in clay, how- men and animals take part. The colouring is subdued,
ever, was common. A few small clay figures of gods and the general effect is harmonious. The fact that
have been discovered, and we possess clay models of the tones of the colouring are so subdued is regarded
the favourite hounds of Ak-brlni-pal. W7e know, too, by some as a proof that they have fadecl. Some
that the stone bas-reliefs were first of all designed and excellent examples of enamelled architectural orna-
modelled on a smaller scale in clay : the British Museum mentation in terra-cotta have been found at Ninirud.
possesses fragments of these clay designs, as well as the They bear the name of ASur-nrl:ir-pal.
rough drafts on clay tablets which the Assyrian masons Engraving on gems and the rarer stones and marbles
copied when they chiselled the inscriptions. was an art to which the Assyrians especially devoted
In their metal work the Assyrians were very skilful. There have been found a
This we may gather both from the monuments and 12. Seals, etc. themselves.
few gems and seals that are oval in
ll. Metal from the actual examples of the art that shape; but the general form adopted was that of a
work. have come down to us. A good majority cylinder. Those of cylindrical form vary from about
of the originals of the metal trappings, an inch and a‘ half to two inches in length and from
ornaments, etc., that are represented on the monuments about half an inch to an inch in diameter. They were
must have been cast. The metal weights in the form of pierced along the centre so that the wearer could
lions are among the best actual examples of casting suspend them from his person by a cord. The use to
that we possess. In the British Museum, moreover, which they were put was precisely similar to that of the
there is to be seen an ancient mould that was employed signet ring. A Babylonian or an Assyrian, instead of
for casting. It was found near M e ~ u l and,, although signing a document, ran his cylinder over the damp
it must be assigned to a period about two centuries clay tablet on which the .deed he was attesting had
subsequent to the fall of Nineveh, it probably represents been inscribed. No two cylinder seals were preciseIy
the traditional form of that class of matrix, and we alike, and thus this method of signature worked very
shall not be far wrong in supposing that such moulds well. As every wealthy Assyrian carried his own seal-
were extensively employed in the Assyrian foundries of cylinder, it is not surprising that time has spared a good
at least the later empire. The mould in question is many of them. (It may be noticed in passing that the
made of bronze, and is formed in four pieces which fit class of poorer merchants and artisans did not carry
together accurately. Three holes may be observed on cylinders. When they attested a document they did so
the flat upper surface. Into these holes the molten by impressing their thumb-nail on the clay of the tablet.
metal was poured. When the mould was opened after Whether a certain social status brought with it the privi-
its contents had been given time to cool, there would lege of carrying a cylinder, or whether the possession
be seen lying within it three barbed arrow-heads. of one depended solely on the choice or rather on the
It was, however, in the more legitimate art of metal- wealth of its possessor, is a question that has never been
beating that the Assyrians excelled. Much of the em- solved. )
bossed work that adorned their thrones, their weapons, The work on the cylinders is always intaglio, the
and their armour was wrought with the hammer, while engraver aiming at rendering beautiful the seal im-
the dishes and bowls from Nimriid and the shields from pression rather than the seal itself. The subjects repre;
the neighbourhood of Lake Van are covered with sented, which are various, include acts of worship, such
delicate repoussd work, the design on the upper side as the introduction by a priest of a worshipper to his
being finished and defined by means of a graving tool. god, mythological episodes, emblems of gods, animals,
The largest and finest examples of this class of work trees, etc. : the engravings are generally religions or
that have been preserved are the bronze sheathings of symbolical. The official seal of the Assyrian kings
the gates of Shalmaneser II., which were excavated at forms the principal exception to this general rule ; it is
Tell-Balawrlt in 1879 and are now to be seen in the circular and represents a royal personage slaying a lion
British Museum. The bronze gates of nations in with his hands. The character of the work itself varies
antiquity were not cast in solid metal. They would from the rudest scratches to the most polished workman-
have been too heavy to move, and metal was not ob- ship, and it may be regarded as a general rule that the
tained, in sufficient quantities to warrant such an ex- more excellent the workmanship the later the date. The
travagance. The gate was built principally of wood, earlier seals are inscribed by means of the simplest form
on which plates of metal were fastened; the object of drill and graver, and the marks of the tools employed
being to strengthen the gate against an enemy’s assault, for hollowing are not obliterated, the heads of the figures
and especially to protect its wooden interior from de- being represented by mere holes, while the bodies re-
struction by fire. The metal coverings of Shalmaneser’s semble fish-bones; it should be noted, however, that
357 358
 ASSYRIA ASSYRIA
earlv Babvlonian seals of great beautv have been found
I
~tlso lay through Assyria. Nineveh maintained com-
at 'felloh.. nercial relations with the districts around Lake Ura-
I t ' is strange that the Babylonian and the Assyrian, niyah, and with Ecbatha, while to the west he
living in a land of clay, building their houses of brick 'hcenician traders journeyed by the Sinjar range to
13. Pottery. and writing on clay tablets-in fact, with rhapsxcus on the Euphrates, thence south to Tadmor
plastic clay constantly passing through md through Damascus into Phcenicia : a second western
their hands-produced no striking specimens of pottery. :aravan route lay through Harran into upper Syria and
'They employed clay for all their vessels ; but the forms 9sia Minor, while Egypt's trade with Assyria as early as
these assumed do not show great originality, and or- he fifteenth century is attested by the Amarna tablets.
namentation was but niggardly applied. That the The prophet Ezekiel has borne witness to the presence of
Assyrians were glass-blowers is shown by the discovery 9ssyrian merchants at Tyre in his time ; yet it was the
of small glass bottles and bow1s.l iations that traded with Assyria rather than Assyria
The domestic furniture of the Assyrians does not iNith the nations, for the Assyrians were essentially a
demand a detailed-description. All that was made of people who preferred to acqhire their wealth by con-
wood. has perished. Only the metal pest rather than in the market-place. The internal
14. Furniture fittings survive; but these, with the .rade of Assyria is represented by the contract tablets
and em- evidence of the bas-reliefs, point to a fating from the ninth century to the end of the empire,
broidery. high development of art in this direc- that have been found at Kuyunjik. These tablets-
tion. Perhaps the- most sumptuous specimens of As- not nearly so many as those discovered throughout Baby-
syrian furniture that the monuments portray are the lonia ( q . " ~ . §, 19, beg.)-deal with the sale of slaves,
throne in which Sennacherib is seated before Lachish, cattle, and produce, the purchase of land, etc., and bear
the furniture in the 'garden-scene' of Ah-bani-pal (both witness to the internal prosperity of Assyria. They are
in the British Museum), and the chair of state or throne written more carefully than the majority of those of
of Sargon on a slab from Khorsabad in the Louvre. Babylonia ; and the Babylonian device of wrapping the
Of the art of embroidery, also, as practised by the tablet in an envelope of clay on which the contract was
Assyrian ladies, the invaluable evidence of the monu- inscribed in duplicate, with a view to its safer preserva-
ments gives us an idea. The clothes of the sculptured tion, was not often adopted.
figiires are richly covered with needle-work, especially The form of government in Assyria throughout the
on the sleeves and along the bottom of robes and tunics, whole course of her history was that of a military
while the royal robes of AHur-nHFir-pal are embroidered l,. Govern- despotism. The king was supreme. He I

from edge to edge. The general character of the was ASur's representative on earth and
designs, whether consisting of patterns or of figures, merit. under the special protection of the gods.
resembles that of the monuments themselves. Whatever policy he might aaopt was A5ur's policy,
One other subject must be noted in this connection,- and it was the duty of every subject of Assyria to carry
it does not strictly fall under the heading either of art or out his will. The nation therefore existed for the mon-
15. Mechanics. of architecture, though it is closely con- archy, not the monarchy for the nation. The kingship
nected with branches of both,-the rested on the army, on which it relied to quell rebellion
knowledge of mechanics that the Assyrians display. and maintain authority as well as to conquer foreign
T o those who have had any experience in the removal lands. The army was in consequence the greatest
or fixing of Assyrian sculpture, and know the thickness power in the state. Its commander-in-chief, the furtan
of the bas-reliefs and the weight of even the smallest or tartan, held a position next to that of the king him-
slab, the energy and skill required by the Assyrians to self, in whose absence he led the troops and directed
quarry, transport, and fix them in position is little short operations (cp T A R T A N ) . The fa& was an important
of marvellous. Yet all this was accomplished v-ith the lower officer ; the mb-&iJirwas his superior ; and the
aid of only a wedge, a lever, a roller, and a rope. &d-fu@ and mb-Sake' were only second to the tartan
Representations of three of these implements in use are (cp RABSI~AKEH). The titles of many court officers are
to be seen in the building-slabs of Sennacherib. known ; but it is difficult to ascertain their functions.
Among mechanical contrivances may be mentioned the The more important were eligible for the office of the
crane for raising water from the rivers to irrigate the Ziimmu, to which they succeeded in order, each giving his
fields, and the pulley employed for lowering or raising name to the year during which he held office (see 1 19
a bucket in a well. The ingenuity of the Assyrians and CHRONOLOGY, $ 23). In a military state such as
is apparent also in their various engines of war and the Assyria a system of civil administration, it may be said,
elaborate siege-train that accompanied their armies. The had almost disappeared. The governors of the various
battering-rams, the scaling-ladders, the shields and cities in the realm, whose duty it was to maintain order
pent-houses to protect sappers while undermining a and send periodical accounts to the king, were not
wall-not to mention their chariots, weapons, and civilians. In fact, every position of importance in the
defensive armour-all testify to their mechanical skill. empire was filled from the army. Priests and judges
The position of Assyria was favourable for commerce. exercised a certain authority ; but it was small in com-
Occupying part of the most fertile valley of W. Asia, parison with that of similar classes in Babylonia.
she formed the highway between E. It was Assyria that at first attracted
16' Commerce' and W. Of her two great rivers, the 18' the attention of explorers, though within
Euphrates approaches within one hundred miles of the recent years Babylonia has enjoyed a
Mediterranean coast, yet empties its waters into the monopoly of excavation and discovery
Persian Gulf. At the time of the Assyrian empire a
In the year 1820 Rich, the resident of the East India Com-
highway of commerce must have lain from the Phcenician pany at Bagdad, visited Mosul and made a superficial examina-
coast to Damascus and thence along the Euphrates to tion of the mounds of Kuyunjik and Nebi Yiinus. H e obtained
the Indian Ocean. Many important caravan routes some fragments of pottery and a few bricks inscribed in cnnei-
form characters, and he published an account of what he bad
1 They shihe with beautiful prismatic tints. Most glass that seen. I t was not until 1842 that attention was again attracted
has been buried for a considerable period indeed whether of to these mounds. Botta, the French Consul at hla,sul, then
Assyrian, Egyptian Greek, or Roman mHnufact&e, presents began to explore Kuyuniik. His efforts, however did not meet
this iridescent app.zarance. I t is a popular error to suppose with much success, and next year he transferred his attention to
that it possessed these tints from the beginning and that the Khorsabad, 15 m. to the N. of MaTul. There he came across
art by which the colouring was attained has perished with the remains of a large building that subsequently proved to be
those who practised it. The ancients must not he allowed to the palace of Sargon king of Assyria (722.705 R.c.). The
take the credit due to nature. The earth and the atmosphere majority of the scu1pt;res that he and Victor Place excavated
acting on the surface of the glass have liberated the silex on this site are to be found in the Louvre. some however were
and the process of decomposition is attended with the iridesceni obtained for the British Museum by Sir $enry kawlinsod
appearance. I n 1845 Sir Henry Layard explored the mounds at Nimrild
359 360
 ASSYRIA ASSYRIA
and Kuyunjik, undertaking excavations at these places for the 3etermined by means of data supplied by the inscriptions
trustees of the British Museum ; these diggings were continued of the kings in the form of chronological
by Loftus Rassam and others under the direction of Sir 20,period.
Henry R a h n s o n , dho was then kerving as Consul-General and notices or remarks. For exam$e, Sen-
political agent at Bagdad, and they resulted in the discovery of nacherib in his inscription engraved on
the principal remains of Assyrian art that have been recovered. ;he rock at Bavian (see K B 2 116 8 ), in recounting
At Nimriid the palaces of Sur-nLsir-pal (884-860B.c.), Shal-
maneser 11. (860-824R.c.) and Esarhaddon (681-669 B.c.) have lis conquest of Babylon (689 B.c.), adds that RammSn
been unearthed (cp C A ~ H )and , at Kuyunjik (cp N INEVEH ) m d Sala. the gods of the city of Ekallati which
the palace of Sennacherib (705.68~) and that of A h - b i n i - Marduk-nkdin-a$E, king of Aklrad, in the time of
pal (669625). The bas-reliefs, inscripiions, etc., from that palace riglath-pileser, king of Assyria, had carried away
are preserved in the British Museum. At Kuynnjik (1852-54)
the famous library of ASur-bani-pal from which the greater to Babylon, he now recovered and restored to their
part of our knowledge of Babylonian'and Assyrian literature is place after a lapse of 418 years (cp below, 0 28).
derived, was discovered. At Karat Sherkat and a t Sherif Khln According to Sennacherib's computation, therefore,
excavations were successful ; 'important stone inscriptions and
clay cylinders of the early kings were found a t K a r a t SherkLt. Tiglath-pileser I. must have been reigning in the
The years 1878.79 were times of remarkable discoveries. Dur- year 1107 B.C., and from the inscription of Tiglath-
ing this period the 'finds' at Kuyunjik included the great cylinder pileser himself on his cylinders (cp below, § 28, beg. )
of Ah-bLni-pal (q.v.), the most perfect specimen of its kind
extant; at NimrOd a large temple dating from the time of we know that this year is probably not among the first
ASur-nasir-pal was nnearthed, while excavation at Tell-BalawLt five of his reign (cp below, 28). Moreover, Tiglath-
resulted'in the recovery of a second temple of Agur-nisir- al pileser himself tells us that he rebuilt the temple of Anu
and the bronze coverings of the gate of Shalmaneser 11. pcp and RammSn, which sixty years previously had been
supra). Besides the excavators and explorers of Assyria to
whom reference has been made, two others should he mentioned pulled down by ASur-dSn because it had fallen into
-George Smith and E. A. Wallis Budge. George Smith in decay in the course of 641 years since its foundation by
the years 1873, 1874, and 1875.76, undertook three expeditions SamSi-Ramman (cp below, § 25). This notice, there-
to that country, on the last of which he lost his life. The most
recent additions to the collection of cuneiform tablets from fore, proves that ASur-dZn must have been on the throne
Kuyunjik were made by Budge in the years 1888 and 1891. about the years 1170 or 1180 B.C., and further approxi-
Of the Assyrian antiquities which have been recovered, most mately fixes the date of SamSi-Ranimcin as about the year
of the sculptures of Sargon from Khorsahad are in the Louvre ; 1820. The date of one other Assyrian king can
Berlin possesses a stele of Sargon found at Cyprus (cp S ARGON)
and a stele of Esarhaddon ; a few slabs from the palace of ASur- be fixed by means of a reference made to him by one of
nigir-pal have found their way into the museums at Edinburgh his successors. Sennacherib narrates (cp below, § 27)
the Hague, Munich, Ziirich, and Constantinople, and other; that a seal of Tukulti-Ninib I. had been brought from
from Kuyunjik into private galleries ; almost all else is to be
found within the walls of the British Museum. Assyria to Babylon, where after 600 years he found it
There are four main sources of information for the on his conquest of that city. Sennacherib conquered
settlement of Assvrian chronolow- -<
the so-called Babylon twice, once in 702 and again in 689 ; it may
' Eponymlists' (see below), thechrono- be concluded, therefore, that Tukulti-Ninib reigned in
19' chronO1Ogy.logical notices scattered throuphout any case before 1289 B.c., and possibly before 1302
the historical inscriitions (see 20, beg.), the &ea- B.C. We thus have four settled points or pegs on
logies some of the kings give of themselves (see § 20, which to hang the early history of Assyria.
end), and lastly those two most important documents Further assistance in the arrangement of the earliei-
which have been styled the ' Synchronous History ' kings is obtained from genealogies. RammLn-nirari
(I 21, beg.) and the 'Babylonian Chronicle' (8 21, I., for example, styles himself the son of Pudil
end). ( =Pudi-ilu), grandson of BC!l-nirari, great grandson of
The early Babylonians had counted time by great ASur-uballit, all of whom, he stqtes, preceded him on
events, such as the taking of a city, or the construction of the throne of Assyria. Most of the Assyrian kings of
a canal (cp C HRONOLOGY, § 2, beg.). This primitive whom we possess inscriptions at least state the name
system of reckoning, by which a period or date could of their father, while in one instance we know the
be but roughly estimated, gave place among the later relationship between two early kings from a consider-
Babylonians to the fashion of counting time according ably later occupant of the throne, Tiglath-pileser I.,
to the years of the reigning king. informing us that SamSi. RammHn was the son of ISmi-
The Assyrians adopted neither of these methods. Dagan and that each was an early p a h i of Assyria.
They invented a system of their own. They named We thus know to a great extent the order in which
the years after certain officers, each of whom may pos- the kings must be arranged, and in cases where a son
sibly have been termed, a Zimu or linzmu, though the succeeds his father we can assign approximately the
majority of scholars agree in regarding this term as possible limits of their respective rules.
referring not to the officer himself, but to his period A further aid is found in the ' Synchronous History '
of office. These officers or eponyms u'ere appointed
in a general rotation ; each in succession held office for
a year and gave his name to that year-; the office was
Sinchro-
of Assyria and Babylonia. This inscription was an
21. official document drawn- up with the
nous history, aim of giving a brief summary of the
similar to that of the archonate at Athens or the con-
sulate at Rome. Lists of the limnzus have been pre-
'"' relations between Babvlonia and As-
Syria from the earliest times in regard
served from the reign of Ramman-nirari 11. (911-890 to the boundary line dividing the two countries. The
B.c.) down to that of ASur-bani-pal (669-625 B.c.). chief tablet on which this record is inscribed is, un-
Some of them merely state the name of the eponym ; fortunately, broken; but much still remains which renders
others add short accounts of the principal events the document one of the most important sources for
during his term of office. Now, it is obvious that the Babylonian and Assyrian history. From it we ascer-
dates of all the years in this known succession will be tain for considerable periods which kings of Babylonia
known if there be any of them that can be determined and Assyria were contemporaries.
independently. It fortunately happens that there is such Similar information for the period from about 775 to
a year. From the list we know that in the eponymy of 669 B. c. is obtained from the Babylonian Chronicle.
Pur-Sagali in the month of Sivan (May-June) the sun Now, we know the order and the length of the reigns
was eclipsed, and astronomers have calculated that there of a great majority of the Babylonian kings from the
was a total eclipse at Nineveh on the 15th of June 763 Babylonian lists of kings that have been discovered, and
B.C. Hence the year of Pur-Sagali is fixed as 763, and the dates of some can be fixed, like those of the earlier
the dates of the eponyms for the whole period covered Assyrian kings, from subsequent chronological notices
by the lists are determined (see further CHRONOLOGY, (cp B ABYLONIA, 38). The dates and order, there-
g 24, and cp below, 32). fore, of the kings of both Babylonia and Assyria can
For the chronology before this period other sources to some extent be approximately settled independently
must be sought. Approximately it can sometimes be of one another, and each line of kings can be controlled
361 362
 ASSYRIA ASSYRIA
from the other by means of the bridges thrown across betray their Babylonian origin. Their language and
between.the two by the Synchronous History’ and the method of writing, their literature, their religion, and
‘ Hnbylonian Chronicle.’ their science were taken over from their southern neigh-
A further means of control is supplied by the points bours with but little modification, and their very histow
of contact that we can trace between Assyria and Egypt. is so interwoven with that of Babylonia that it is often
Such are the Egyptian campaigns of ASur-bani-pal re- dirficult to treat the two countries separately.
counted on his cylinder inscription and the letter from The period at which the Assyrian offshoot left its.
A?in-uballit to Amenophis IV., recently found at Tell parent stem, though not accurately known, can be set
el-‘Amarna, and now preserved in the Gizeh Museum. 24. Settlement. within certain limits. It must have
These points of contact are not, however, sufficient been at least before 2300 R. c. The
to warrant a separate classification ; and to go to Babylonian emigrants, pushing northwards along the
Egyptian chronology to fetch help for that of Assyria course of the Tigris, formed their first important settle-
would be to embark on an explanation ignoti pep ment on its W. bank some distance to the N. of its
ignotius (cp E GYPT, § 5 5 J , and C HRONOLOGY, 19). point of junction with the Lower ZBb. Here they
Assyrian chronology, therefore, unlike that of early founded a city, and called it A5ur after the name of
Babylonia, may be regarded as tolerably fixed. The their national god,-a city that long continued to be
dates of the later Assyrian kings, v d h the exception the royal capital of the kingdom.
of the successors of A5ur-bSni-pa1, can be settled almost The oldest Assyrian rulers did not bear the title of
to a year, while the dates assigned by various scholars - They bore that of i f f a k k u , a term equivalent to
king.
to the earlier Assyrian kings, though differing, do not 25. Earliest the titlepntesi, assumed by many rulers
differ very widely. The data summarised above, of the old Babylonian cities in the S.
which must form the basis of every system of Assyrian The phrase ‘ i3akku of the god ASur ’ is
chronology, are not elastic beyond a certain point. not to be taken in the sense of ‘priest.’ In all probability
Thus, whilst no two historians agree precisely as to the it implies that the ruler was the representative of his
dates to be assigned to many of these earlier kings, the god-an explanation that is quite in accordance with the
maximum of their disagreement is inconsiderable, and theocratic feeling of the period.
the results arrived at by almost any one of them may The earliest iSSalikus at present known to us are
be considered approximately correct. IBmi-Dagan and his son Samli-Ramman. The latter
With the Semitic races in general and the Baby- built a temple to the gods Anu and Raniman, which,
lonians and Assyrians in particular proper names re- Tiglath-pileser I. tells us, fell into decay; 641 years
i2. Names. tained their original forms with great afterwards ASur-dHn pulled it down, and 60 years later
persistency. Among these two nations, it was rebuilt by Tiglath-pileser himself. This refer-
in fact, many names consist of short sentences, complete ence enables us to fix the date of SamSi-Rammiin at
and perfectly grammatical ; indeed, were it not for the about 1820, and it is usual to assign to Ilmi-Dagan,
determinatives placed before them to show that they are his father, a date some twenty years earlier, ciiza 1840
names ( T for males, fi for females) the difficulty B.C. In addition to his buildings at A h - , Sam%
RammPn restored a temple of Iltar at Nineveh. The
of reading Assyrian texts would be considerably in- names of other illaklius are known, although their dates
creased. cannot be determined.
The following are translations of some of the names Bricks for example have been found a t Kal‘at-SherkBt the
of Assyrian kings the interpretation of which may be site of $le ancient city of AEur, which he& the name bf a
regarded as certain. Where the real Assyrian form second SamSi - RammBn, the son of Igur-kapkapu, and record
that he erected a temple to the national god in t h a t city. An-
of the name differs from the form now in common use other brick from the same place is inscribed with the name of
it is added in brackets :- IriEum, the son of Hallu, commemorating his dedication of a
IEmi-Dagan . ... ‘Dagon hath heard.’ building to the god ASur for the preservation of his own life
SamEi-Ramman . . . ‘ My sun is Rimmon.’ and that of his son.

. .. .
ASur-bCI-niSiBu . ‘ AEur is lord of his people. There are no data for determining the relation of
Puzur-ASur . . ‘Hidden in ASur. Assyria to Babylonia at this period. Whether the early
ASur-nadin-ag . . . ‘ ASur giveth brethren.’
A&-uballit . . . . ‘ASur hath quickened to life. iSSakkus still owed allegiance to their mother country
Bel-nirari.’ . . .
. ‘Bel is my helper. or had already repudiated her claims of control is a
Ramman-nirari . . . ‘ Rimmon is my helper. question that cannot be decided with certainty. It is
Shalmaneser (Sulmanu-aS$idu) ‘ Sulman is,chief. generally supposed, however, that at some period be-
Tukulti-Ninib . . ..
Bel-kudur-uaur . .
My help is Ninib.
‘Bel protect the boundary !
tween 1700 and 1600 B . C . Assyria finally attained her
.
Ninih-pal-EEara . . ‘Niiih is the son of Eiara.’ independence.
AEur-d;in . . . . . ‘Aiur is judge. The oldest Assyrian king whose name is known to
ASur-reE-iXi. .
. . ‘Aiur, raise t p head 1’
Tighth-pileser (Tulculti-pal-ESara) My help ,is the son of
us is BEl-kapkapu. Ramman-nirari III., in an obscure
E*. 26, First kings. passage in one of his inscriptions,
Ab-bel-kala .
ASur-njsir-pal
.. . . ‘ ASur is lord of all.
. . ‘ ASur protecteth the son.’
mentions Bel-kapkapu as one of his
earliest predecessors on the throne of Assyria. This
Aiur-nirari . . . . ‘ASur IS my helper. passage is, however, the only indication we possess of
Sargon (Sarru-kinu) . “l‘he legitimate king.’
Sennacherib (Sin-a@-erba) ‘Sin @e., th:‘ Moon-god) hath
the time at which he ruled. The first Assyrian king of
increased brethren.” ’ whom we have more certain information is A h - b e l -
Esarhaddon (Aim--ab-iddina) ‘ Aiur hath given a brother.’ niliSu. With this king our knowledge of Assyrian
A%-bani-pal . . . ‘ ASur is the creator of a son. circa r480. history becomes more connected, and we can
ASnr-41-ibni
.. . .
Sin-.?ar-iikun
. ‘ ABur is prince of the gods.’
. . ‘Sin hath established the king.’ trace in greater detail thedoingsof thevarious
kings and the relations they maintained with Babylonia.
The beginnings of the Assyrian empire are not, like The source of information that now becomes available
those of Babylonia, lost in remote antiquity. It is far is the ‘Synchronous History’ (see above, 21).
23. HisLory.more recent in its origin. The account From this document we learn that ASur.hel-niSiSu was on
contained in Gen. 10 I I to the effect that friendly terms with Kara-indaS, a king of the third Rabylonian
the Assyrians went forth from the Babylonians and dynasty, with whom he formed a compact and determined the
founded their own cities is supported by all the evidence boundary that should divide their respective kingdoms. These
friendly relations were maintained by Puzur-ASur,
we can gather from the inscriptions. It is true that no czrcn ‘44O. king ofAssyria, who concluded similar treatieswith
actual account of this emigration has yet been found Burna- EuriaS, king of Babylonia. Puzur-AEur was probably
among the archives of either nation ; but every indication succeeded by Abur-nadin-ahe (circa1420). Thisking ismentioned
in a letter of ASur-uhalli: to Amenophis IV., king of Egypt, in
of their origin tends to support the biblical account, which he refers to ASur-nidin-ahE a his father. How long the
.for the Assyrians in all that they have left behind them friendly relations. between Assypia and Babylonia continued we
363 364
 ASSYBIA ASSYRIA
cannot say; hut it was impossible that friction should always he there during Tukulti-Ninib's occupation of the country.
avoided. Assyria was proud of her indcpendence, while Baby- This occupation was not permanent. At the end of
loniacould not hut be jealous of her growing strength. Thus it
was not long before their relations became hostile. It is under seven years the nobles of Babylon revolted, and set
ASur-uhallir that we first find the two nations in Ramman-Sum-usur, or RammHn-Sum-n&ir (the name
circa '4". open conflict. ASur-uballit to cement his friend- may be read in either way), on the throne there as an
ship with Babylonia, had given his daugh'ier Muballitat-Eerila in independent king. Tnkulti-Ninib was not a popular
marriage to a Babylonian king and Kara-bardaS, the offspring
of this union, in time sncceededhis father on the throne. H e was ruler, for he was slain in a revolt by his own nobles,
slain, however, in a revolt, and Nazi-hugaS, a man of unknown who set his son, ASnr-nHsir-pal, upon the throne. W e
origin, was set up in his stead. To avenge the death of his possess an Assyrian copy of a letter written by a Baby-
grandson, Ah-uhallit inraded Babylonia, slew Nazi-hugai, and
set the youngest son of Burna-BuriaS Kurigalzu II., on the lonian king named RammZn-Sum-n%$r to ASur-narara
throne. (SFch is the account given n ; the 'Synchronous His- and A'abfi-daian, kings of Assyria. If, as has been
tory' of Asur-uballic's intervention in Babylonian affairs. I t suggested, the writer of this letter and the king who
may he mentioned, however, that a parallel text contains a
somewhat different version of the affair, with which the account succeeded Tulcnlti-Ninib on the throne of Babylon are
in the ' Synchronous History' has not yet heen satisfactorily identical, we obtain the names of two other Assyrian
reconciled.) Kurigalzu did not long maintain friendship with kings of this period.
Assyria. Soon we find him at war with Abur-uhallit's sou A few years later under Bel-kudur-usur (circa IZIO), we find
and successor, Eel-nirari. Bel-nirari, however, de- the Assyrians and dbylonians again in cbnflict. Bel-kudur-usur,
'3". feated him at the city of Sugagu, ?nd after plunder- lzo5, the Assyrianking, wasslainin thebattle; but Ninib-
ing his camp added to the Assyrian territory half of the pal-ESara retreated with the Assyrian army, and
country from the land of Subaru to Babylonia. Bel-nirari's when the Babylonians followed up their advantage by an
son Pudi-ilu (circa 1360) retained the territory his father had invasion of Assyria he defeated them and drove them from the
acquired, but did not attempt to make further encroachments country. The Bahylonians, however, though repulsed, appear
on the S. H e undertook successful expeditions, however, to have regained a considerahle part of their former territory
against the tribes on the E. and SE. of Assyria. We possess from the Assyrians. The next occupant of the throne was
an inscription on a brick from his palace a t A h , and another A&-dSn, the son of Ninib-pal-Ebara. H e retrieved
inscription of his on a six-sided stone (in the Eritish Museum) the disasters which his father had sustained a t the
records that he erected a temple to SarnaS the Sun-god. His son hands of the Babylonians. H e invaded Babylonia against
RammBn-nirari I., after strengthening the Assyrian Zamama-bum-iddin, captured the cities of Zahan, Irria, and
circa '345. rule in the territory recently acquired by his father, Akarsallu, and returned with rich booty to Assyria. The only
turned his attention to his S. boundary. H e conquered the other fact that we know of this king was that he pulled down
Babylonian king Nazi-niaruttas' in Itnr-IItar-Akarsallu, and the temple of Ramman and AIur which had heen erected by
added considerably to his empire. SamSi-Rammiin, hut had since fallen into decay. His must
have been an energetic reign, to justify the eulogy pronounced
Ramman-nirari was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser on him by his great-grandson Tiglath-pileser I. This monarch
I. He has left us no account of the expeditions he describes him as one 'who wielded a shining sceptre, who ruled
the men of Bel, whose deeds and offerings pleased the great gods,
ci,,ca1330, undertook ; but that he was a great con- and who lived to a good old age. Ashur-dan was succeeded
queror we gather from a reference in the by his son Mutakkil-Nusku (circa 1150)~of whose reign we know
27* Shal- annals of ASur-nBSir-pal. This king re- cilzn IIqo. nothing ,,,He in turn was succeeded by his son
maneSer I., lates that in his reign the Assyrians whom Aiur-res-isi, whomTiglath-pileser calls 'themighty
etc* king who conquered the lands of the foe and overthrew all the
Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, a prince exalted ' ; and from a clay howl of his, hearing an inscription,
who preceded him, had settled in the city of Halzidipba we learn that the peoples of Liillumi and Kuti were among
revolted under Hulai, their governor, and took the royal those he overthrew. H e was victorious against the Babylonians.
The Babylonian king, Nehuchadrezzar I., desiring to extend
Assyrian city of Damdamnsa. These places lay on the the northern limits of his country invaded Assyria and besieged
upper course of the Tigris; and it is evident from a border fortress. Ah--reE-ibi, however summoned his chariots
ASur-nasir-pal's account that Shalmaneser had formed a of war, and on his advance the Bahylohians retreated burning
sort of military outpost at this.spot which shows that he their siege-train. Nehuchadrezzar with fresh chadots and
troops, soon returned ; hut APur-rdiG, after reinforcing his own
must have undertaken successful expeditions against the army, gave him battle and inflicted on him a crushing defeat.
countries to the NW. of Assyria. We may conclude The Babylonian camp was plundered, and forty chariots fell into
that it was in consequence of this extension of his territory the hands of the Assyrians.
along the Tigris that Ghalmaueser transferred his On the death of ASur-reS-iSi the throne passed to his
capital from ASur in the south, which had formed the son Tiglath-pileser I., whose reign marks an
circa 1120.
royal residence of Assyria, to Calah, a city of which he epoch in Assyrian history. He is, moreover,
was the founder, as we learn from ABur-nHgir-pal. This the first Assyrian monarch who has left us a detailed
new capital was situated about eighteen miles S. of 28. Tiglath- record of his achievements. The great
Nineveh (cp CALAI-I). Shalmaneser, however, did not inscription of this king is contained
pileser I. on four octagonal cylinders of clay which
neglect the older capital. He enlarged its royal palace
and restored the great temples.' W e know also that he he buried at the four corners of the temple of RammRn
restored the great temple of 1Sta.r at Nineveh. at ABur to serve as a permanent record of his greatness
On his dcath he was succeeded by his son Tukulti- and of the extent of the Assyrian empire during his reign.
Ninih, who, like his father, busied hiniseif in extending Each of the four cylinders contains the same inscription.
Where one is broken or obscure the text can be made
circa 1290.the NW. limits of his kingdom. At the out from the others1
sources of the Subnat, a river that joins the
Tigris some distance above the modern Di3.r-bekr, he In the course of the introduction with which he prefaces the
account of his expeditions he gives the following description of
caused an image of himself to be hewn in the rock. himself: 'Tiglath-pileser, the mighty king, the king of hosts
He conquered Babylonia, and for seven years governed who has no rival, the king of the four quarters, the king of all
the country by means of tributary princes. Though rulers, the lord of lords, .. . the king of kings, the excellent
we have not recovered any actual inscription of this priest who, at the command of the Sun-god, was entrusted with
the shining sceptre and has ruled all men who are subject to
king, we possess a copy of one made by the orders of Bel, the true shepherd whose name has heen proclaimed unto
Sennacherib, on a clay tablet in the British Museum. the rulers, the exalted governor whose weapons ASur has
The original was inscribed on a seal of lapis-lazuli, and commanded and whose name for the rule of the four quarters he
Sennacherib tells us it had been carried from Assyria to
has proclaimed for ever ... the mighty one, the destroyer who
like the blast of a hurrilane over the hostile land has proved his
Babylon. Six hundred years later, says Sennacherib, power, who by t l y will of BS1 has no rival and has destroyed
on his conquest of that city, he found the seal among the foes of ASur. On the conclusion of this preface the
the treasures of Babylon and brought it back (cp above, inscription goes on to recount the various campaigns in which
'riglath-pileser was engaged during the first five years of his
§ 20). The inscription itself is short, merely contain- reign. H e first advanced against the inhabitants of MuSku
ing the name and titles of Tukulti-Ninib, and calling (the Meshech of the O T . see TUBAL) who had overrun and
down the vengeance of ASur and Ramm3.n on any one conquered the land of Kukmuh which'lay on hoth sides of the
Euphrates to the NW.' of A s s & % . Tiglath-pileser, therefore
who should destroy the record. How or at what period crossed the intervening mountainous region and defeated the6
the seal was brought to Babylon cannot be said with
certainty ; but it is not improbable that it found its way 1 Translation in KB 114-47.
365 366
 ASSYRIA ASSYRIA
five kings with great slaughter. ‘The bodies of their warriors,’ le slew ‘four wild oxen, mighty and terrible in the .desert
he says, ‘in the destructive battle did I cast down like a d the land of MitSni and in-Araziki, which is in front of the
tempest. Their blood I caused to flow over the valleys and and of Hatti,’ ten elephants in the district of Harriln and on
heights of the mountains. Their heads I cut off, and around he h a n k of.the Khahiir, one hundred and t\;enty lions on
their cities I heaped them like Their spoil, their posses- bot, and eight hundred with spears while in, his chariot. H e
sions their property without limit I brought out. Six thousand :aught four elephants alive, and brought them hack, together
men,’the remainder of their arm& who before my weapons had vith the hides and tusks of those he had slain to the city of
fled, clasped my feet ( i . e tendered their submission). I Carrie? Sur. No less energetic was the king in his building
them away and reckonez them as the inhabitants of my land. qerations. The temples of the gods in ASur that were in ruins
Tiglath-pileser thefi attacked the land of !$urnmug, burnt.the le restored ; he repaired the palaces throughout the country
cities, besieged and destroyed the fortress of SeriSe on the hat his predecessors had allowed to fall into decay ; he extended
Tigris, and captured the king. H e defeated the tribes that came lis water-supply by the construction of canals; he accumulated
to the assistance of Kummuh and after receiving the suhniission :onsiderable quantities of grain. As a result of his conquests,
of the neighbouring city orbrarrinaS returned to Assyria with le kept Assyria supplied with horses, cattle, and sheep, and
great booty, part of which he dedicated to the gods ASur and irought back from his campaigns foreign trees and plants, which
iecarne acclimatised.
RammZn. This expedition was followed by one against
the land of Subari (or Subarti), in the course of which he -
The reign of Tidath-uileser was a period of
I _

defeated four thousand warriors of the Hatti (see H I T T I T E S ) ~ I I ~:reat prosperity for Assyria. He pushed his conquests
captured one hundred and twenty charrots. Another campaign inti1 the bounds of his empire extended from below
in the mountainous regions of the ’NW. met with similar the Lower ZZb to Lake Van and the district of the
success, and resulted in the submission of many small states and
cities. Tiglath-pileser now devoted his energies to extending Upper Euphrates, and from the mountains to the E. of
his border in another direction. H e crossed the Lower Zab and Assyria to Syria on the W . , including the region watered
overran the districts of Murattag and Sarada’uS to the S. of by the IChBbUr. He was a good warrior ; yet he did
Assyria. Shortly afterwards however, he returned to the N.,
whence he hrought back dith him the captured images of not neglect the internal administration of his realm.
twenty-five gods, which he set up as trophies in the temples of devoting the spoil of his campaigns to the general
his own land. Tiglath-pileser next extended his conquests still improvement of the country. In fact, the summary he
farther north into the district around the upper course of the gives of his own reign is a just one: ‘ T o the land of
Euphrates. The mountains he passed with great difficulty, and
crossed the Euphrates itself on rafts which his troops constructed ASur I added land; to its people I added people. The
out of the trees that clothed the hill-sides. Here twenty-three zondition of my people I improved : I caused them to
kings of the land of Na’iri, alarmed at his‘approach, assembled dwell in a peaceful habitation.’
their combined forces to give him battle. But,’ writes Tiglath-
pileser, ‘with the violence of my mighty weapons I oppressed The prosperity which Assyria had enjoyed under
them, and the destruction of their numerous host I accomplished Tiglath-pileser does not appear to have long survived
like the onslaught of the Storm-god. The corpses of the$ his death.
warriors I scattered in the plains and on the mountain-heights. At the time of A&u--b5l-kala Tiglath-pileser’s son, relations
After completing the sulijugation of the’ district he restored the between Assyria and Uabyloliia were of a friendly nature.
kings he had captured and in addition to the spoil he had taken Ah-bel-kala at first made treaties with Marduk-Sapik-zer-m;ti,
he received from them Bs tribute twelve thousand horses and two king of Babylon ; and later, when RammBn-aplu-iddina a man
thousand oxen. The Assyrian king now turned his troops of obscure extraction, ascended the throne of Babyldnia he
against the region of the W. Euphrates. H e subdued the further strengthened the connection between the two counkies
district around the city of Carchemish, and even extended his by contracting an alliance with the daughter of the Babylonian
conquests heyond the river, which his army crossed on rafts
buoyed up by inflated skins. The last campaign of which we king. ~am&Ramman, another son of Tiglath-pileser I., also
have a detailed account is that against the land of Musri to the succeeded to the throne, hut whether before or after his brother
N. of Assyria, the inhahitants of which when a t length driven Aiur-bel-kala cannot be determined. The only inscription of
into their chief city of Arini, tendered th& submission. Tiglath- this king that we possess records that he restored the temple of
pileser then marched through the neighhouring country carrying the goddess IHtar in Nineveh.
with him fire and sword, burning the cities he took and digging S&h are the only facts we know concerning the
up their foundations. The royal scrihe, speaking in his master’s immediate successors of Tiglath-pileser I. , and at this
name, concludes his record of these early conquests of Tiglath- point a gap of more than one hundred
pileser with the following summary: ‘ I n all forty-two lands and 29. Gap.
their kings from beyond the Lower Z i b from the border of the year4 occurs in our knowledge of the
distant mountains as far as the farther stde of the Euphrates up ro70-950. history of Assyria. We may surmise
to the land of Hatti and as far as the upper sea of the setting that the period was one of misfortune for the empire.
sun (;.e., Lake Van), from the begiiining of my sovereignty until
my fifth year, has my hand conquCred. One command have I What little can be gathered from the inscriptions con-
caused them to hear : their hostages have I taken ; tribute and cerning these years speaks of disaster.
tax have I imposed upon them.’ Shalmaneser 11. in his monolith-inscription,1 states that he
The cylinder-inscription of Tiglath-piker does not recount recaptured the c i k s of Pethor and Motkinu (beyond the
the later expeditions of his reign. From the Synchronous Euphrates), which had been originally taken by Tiglath-pileser
History,’ however, which deals with his relations with Baby- I., but had meanwhile been lost by Assyria in the time of a king
lonia, we learn that Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, and Marduk- named ASur- ... (the latter half of the name being broken).
nBdin-ah8 king of Babylonia, had ‘ a second time’ set in battle This king may he identified with ASur-erbi and in that case he
array thk& chariots of war that were assembled above the Lower must have met with at least some succe& in the W., for we
ZZb in Arzuhina. ‘ In the second year’ they fought in Akkad, know that at a place on the coast of Phoenicia AEur-erbi cut an
where Tiglath-pileser ‘ captured the cities of Dtir-Kurigalzu image of himself in the rock, near which a t a later time
Sippar of the Sun-god, Sippar of Anunitu, Babylon, Opis, th; Shalmaneser 11. caused his own to be set. The names of two
great cities together with their fortifications: at the same time other kings are known : Erha-RammBn and ASur-nBdin-a&,
he lundered Akarsallu as far as the city of Lubdi and the laid whose reigns must have fallen during this period: They
of {ubi (on the Euphrates to the NW. of Bahylonfin its entirety are mentioned in the so-called ‘hunting inscription‘ of A h - -
up to the city of Rapiku he suhdued.’l The phrase ‘ a second nasir-pal as having erected buildings in the city of ASur, which
time’ is puzzling, for the ‘Synchronous History’ does not relate we& restored by ASur-ni$r-pal.
a previous campaign of Tiglath-pileser against Babylon. Some No direct light is thrown on this dark period by the
scholars therefore suggest that it refers merely to the former ‘ Synchronous History.’ As, however, it is written with
struggle of A h - r S X i Tiglath-pileser’s father with the Baby-
lonian king NebnchadrLzzar I.; but it must be ;ernernbered that a strong Assyrian bias, its silence is an additional tes-
Tiglath-pileser did not meet with unvarying success in his re- timony that during this period Assyria must have suffered
lations with Babylonia, for Sennacherib mentions that during misfortunes.
his reign Ramnian and Sala, the gods of the city of Ekalliiti,
had been carried off by Marduk-nadin-ahe, king of Akkad (cp When we once more take up the thread of Assyria’s
above, 8 20). The question whether th& conquest of EkallZti 30. Predeces- ?tory, our knowledge of the succes-
was before or after Tiglath - pileser’s successful Babylonian sion of her kings is unbroken down to
campaign is still indeed an open one: hut the supposition is sols of A. the time of ASurbBnipal.
plalsible that Marduk-nzdin-ahe’s advance against Assyria was
in the first year of hostilities between the two countries, and Tiglath-pileser 11. heads this succession of rulers : hut of him
that his success was merely temporary, being followed ‘in the we know nothing heyond his name, which occurs in an inscrip-
second year’ by Tiglath-pileser’s extensive conquests in Baby- tion of hisgrandson RammSn-nirari II.,2 who styles
lonia as related in the ‘ Synchronous History.’ 93O. him ‘king ofhosts, king ofhssyria.’ Tiglath-pileser
Tiglath-pileser was a great hunter. H e kept a record of 11. was succeeded by his son ASur-dan 11. Of this king we know
the beasts be slew in the desert. This was inserted in the that he constructedacanal,which, however, in the course of thirty
cylinder-inscription after the account of his campaigns. From years fell into disrepair, and was therefore made good
it we learn that with the help of the gods Ninih and Nergal 9”. by ASur-n&ir-pal. Rammin-nirari 11. who succeeded
his father, has left &hind him only the short ’inscription (just
1 KB 1198.
367
 ASSYRIA ASSYRIA
mehtioned) recording his own name and those of his father and ASur-nH$r-pal fii-mly established the rule of Assyria in
grandfather. H e was an energetic ruler, as is evinced by the the NW. and the N . , while he extended his empire
' Synchronous History,' which records various successes of his
-
aeainst the Babvlonians-first aeainst the Bahvlonian king.
SamaB-niucIainmik, and later agninst his successor, Nabu-Xum-
I.,
eastwards and laid the foundations of Assyria's later
supremacy in the W. on the coast of the Mediterranean.
iAkuii, who had sct himsclf hy force updn tlte thrunc. From 1111.; He was one of Assyria's greatest conquerors ; but his
latter monarch hc captured many citicsand niuih spoil. Ilc <:id rule was one of iron, and his barbarity was exceptional
not however, press his victory. H e concluded a truce with even for his time. He was a great builder. At
the' Babylonian king, either Nabii-gum-igkun or his successor,
and each added the other's daughter to his harem. His Nineveh he restored the royal palace and rebuilt the
890. son, Tukulti-Ninib, succeeded him, and from an inscrip- temple of IStar. The city df Calah, which Shalmaneser
tion of this monarch a t Seheneh-Su we may infer that I. had founded, he rebuilt, peopling it with captives
he undertook successful expeditions to the N. of Assyria, at least.
taken on his expeditions. He connected it with the
Tukulti-Ninib was succeeded by hissonASur-nii$r-pal, Upper ZHb by means of a canal, and erected two temples
884. one of the greatest monarchs Assyria ever pro-
and a huge palace, from which his bas-reliefs, now in
duced. The annals of his reign he inscribed on the British Museum, were obtained (cp above, 5 18).
a slab of stone, which he set up in the temple of Ah-nHsir-pal was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser
31. A;ur- the god Ninib at Calah. In this inscrip- 11. who extended the kingdom of his father beyond Lake
n8sir-pal. tion,l one of the longest historical inscrip- 860. Van and Lake Urilmiyah. He exer-
tions of Assyria, he gives an account of cised a protectorate over Babylonia in
the various campaigns he undertook. 32. Shalmane- the S . , and ,his kingdom included
In the first years of his reign, he tells us, he went against the 8er I1. and Damascus, which he had conquered.
land of Numme a mountainous tract of country to the N. of
Assyria, and suddued the lands and cities in its neighhourhood. 5uccess0r5. During his reign, for the first time in
l h e king then proceeded against the district of Kirruri that lay history, Assyria came into direct contact with Israel :
along the W. shores of Lake U r h i y a h . Turning W. from
Kirrnri, he passed through the land of Kirhi on the Upper he mentions Ahab of Israel as one of the allies of
Tigris, and city after city fell into his hands. H e returned to Benhadad of Damascus (cp S HALWANESER 11. ). His
Assyria with the hooty he had collected, and brought with him later years were troubled by the revolt of his son A b -
Bohu, the son of BubS, the governor of NiStun, a city where he dHnin-pal ; but his younger son, $arnSi-RammHn, put
had met with an obstinate resistance. This wretch he flayed
alive in Arhela, nailing his skin to the city wall. In the same down the rebellion, and on his father's death succeeded
year he again repaired to the region of the Upper Tigris, against to the throne.
the cities at the foot of the mountains of Nipur and Pasatu. On a monolith of SamZi-RammBn 11.. now in the British
He then passed westward to the land of Kummuh quelling a hIusenni, i:, an iiisiriptim in archaictic characicrs nniiiiring
revolt in the city of Siwu on the KhXbUr and sei&; the rebel 8aq, four canip.tigns of this monarch. Ilc rusiorcd oiclcr to
leader Ahiahaba who was brought hack io Nineveh where he tlw kinydurii, wliidi had been thrown into confnaicn by
was flayed. The tribes surrounding the disaffe&ed region the rebellion of his brother and having established his own
tendered their submission. I n the next vear the first act of the authority over the territo& sdjugated by his father, ex-
king \viis to staigip out anotlier rebellion. K c u s was Lroughc to tended it on the E. H e routed the Babylonian king, Marduk-
him thxt tlic city of IIal7idiplia, which Sliitlniancrvr 11. lid halap-ikbi, in spite of the large army the latter had collected,
cul.>iii\rd(scciihove, 5 y7, beg.),'w:is iii a state of revolution, atid comprising drafts from Elam ,and Chaldea in addition to his
had attacked the Assyrian city of Damdamusa. While on his regular troops.
way against the rebels he set np an image of himself at the source
of the river Subnat, beside ima-es of two of his'predecessors SamSi-Ramman 11. was succeeded by his son,
Tiglath-pileser I. and Tukulti-Ninib. H e then defeated th; RammHn-nirari 111.
rebels at the citv of Kinahu. which he caDtured. and nro- Two inscriptions on stone slabs from Calah, an inscription
cecrlud to pun& the rcvolt bith severity, daying' the rehc4 on some statues of the sod Nebo. and an inscriotion on a brick
leiidvr F.fulai. N e x t he nrtacked the city of Tiln and hiirnt it,
mutilating the prisoncrs hy cutling off rlteir car, ani1 liiinds and
putting out their eyes. These wretches, while still alive, he
piled up in a great heap; he made another heap out of the Canon, which adds short notices of the principal events during
heads of the slain while other heads he fastened to trees round each year of his reign.
the city ; the yoGhs and maidens he burnt alive. These details
may suffice to show the brutal practices of this great conqueror. RammHn-nirari 111. undertook expeditions in Media,
Agur-nBsir-pal next proceeded to the city of Tugha which had Parsua, and the region of Lake Urfimiyah on the E.;
heen deserted by the Assyrians in consequence"o! a famine.
After restoring and strengthening its walls, he built a palace for conquered the land of Na'iri on the N. ; and subjugated
himself and brought hack the former inhahitants of the city. all the coastlands on the W., including Tyre, Sidon,
After his return he again undertook a pillaging expedition Israel, Edom, and Philistia. Mar?, king of Damascus
in the mountainous regions of the north. The next two (see B ENHADAD, 5 3),attempted no defence of his capital.
years were mainly taken up with campaigns in Dagara and
Zamua, which were in a state of insurrection, Niir-RammBn H e sent to RammHn-nirari his submission, paying a
the chief of Dagara, leading the revolt. The war was a pro: heavy tribute in silver, gold, copper, and iron, besides
tracted one, and three expeditions were required before order quantities of cloth and furniture. A considerable
was completely restored. These expeditions were followed by
others in the region of Kummuh and in the land of Na'iri. portion of Babylonia also owned the supremacy of
From his residence at Tugha, t h e k g then crossed the Tigris Rammiin-nirari. In his inscription on the statues of
and captured Pitura and certain towns round the city of Nebo, he mentions the name of his wife Sammuramat
Arhaki. AHur-n+ir-pal records at this poinf~ the death of
Ammeha'la, one of his nobles, who was murdered by his (the Assyrian form of the Greek Semiramis). He was
suhordinates. The king's anger, however was appeased by a a great monarch. His energetic rule and extensive
large tribute although according to one adcount, he flayed Eur- conquests recall those of Shalmaneser 11. his grand-
Rammzn, thk chief rehdl and nailed his skin to the wall of Sinabu. father.
One of the most impbrtant campaigns in the reign of A h r -
Of the three kings that follow not much is known.
nXsir-pal was that against the land of Suhi. Although Sadudu
the ruler of that land, obtained help f;om Nabii-aplu-irldina: 782, Shalmaneser 111. succeeded Ramman-nirari, and
king of Babylonia, his capital Soru was taken and he from the Eponym Canon we gather that he
himself escaped only by flight. A second campaign led to the undertook campaigns against Urartu (Armenia), Itu',
subjugation of the whole district and a Considerable extension Damascus, and Hatarika (Hadrach). He was succeeded
of the Assyrian sphere of influence along the Euphrates.
ASur-n+r-pal next crossed the river and carried his arms into by A h - d H n 111. This king made foreign ex-
N. Syria. H e first made his way to Carchemish and received 772' peditions. His was a troubled reign. The
the submission of Sangara, king of the land of Hatti. Pro- most important event recorded in his time was the
ceeding SW. and exacting tribute from the distrkts through
which he passed, he crossed the Orontes and marched S.into eclipse of the sun in 763 (cp above, § 19,end ; AMOS, 5 4 ;
the district of Lebanon. The cities on the coast of the ECLIPSE, 5 I). The same year saw the outbreak of
Mediterranean, includinz Tyre, Sidon, Byhlos, and Armad civil war: the ancient city of ASur had revolted. In
(Arvad), sent presents. In the N. districts he cut down cedars, 761 the rebellion was joined by the city of Arapba, and
which he used on his return in building temples to the gods.,
One more expedition A h - n a s i r - p a l undertook on the N. of in 759 by the city of Gozan. In 758, however, after it
Ansyria, traversing the land of Kunimub and again penetrating had lasted six years, the revolt was brought to an end ;
to the upper reaches of the Tigris. Gozan was captured, and order once more restored.
1 KB1 SO$:, RPP) 2 1 3 4 8 The troubles of Assyria during the reign of ASur-dEn
24 369 370
 ASSYRIA
were aggravated in the years 765 and 759 by visitations Museum and entitledRP (12vols. Lond. re73-81), of whichvols.
I. in. V. vii. ix. and xi. deal with Assyrian and Babylonian
of the plague. On his death h e was succeeded by ASur- inscriptions. These translations have now, of course, been
nirari. Although at the beginning of his reign superseded. In a new series edited by A. H. Sayce (6 vols.
754' this king undertook expeditions against Hadrach Lond. 1888.92) the old methods and plan were not modified.
and Arpad, and later two campaigns against the Zimri, As a collection of all the points in the OT illustrated or explained
by the monuments, Schrader's C O T is still unrivalled.
for the greater part of his reign he was inactive. In For works treating of the religion of the Assyrians see BABY-
746 the city of Calah revolted, and next year a man of L O N I A , $71.
33. Tiglath- unusual energy usurped the throne, and, For the student who would gain a more than superficial know-
pileser III. assuming the name of 'Tiglath-pileser, ledge of Assyriology it is needless to give a list of works as this
has already been done in Bezold's Hub. Ass. Zit. Leipa. 1886 :
extended Assyrian supremacy farther than the literature since 1886 can be ascertained from the bibliographies
and sue- it had ever reached. In the reign of appended to the Z A and to the American Journal of Seinitic
cessors* Tiglath-pileser 111. Assyria came into Languages and Literatures, and from the Or. Bi6liapafhie.
745' close contact with the Hebrews, a con- L. w. I<.
tact that continued under each of his successors until ASTAD (ACTA& [A]), I Esd. 513 R V = Ezra212,
the reign of Esarhaddon. 'The events of their reigns AZGAD.
and the influence they exerted on the history of Israel ASTAROTH (ny$q, Dt. i4; RV ASHTAROTH.
and Judah are described in the separate articles on these
successive kings. ASTARTE. See ASHTORETH.
Tiglath-pileser 111. was succeeded, in 727 by SHAL- ASTATH (acTae [RA] azrl*A [L]), I Esd. 8 3 8 =
MANESER IV. (q.".), and he in 722 by the Ezra 8 12, AZGAD.
727-669,
usurper SANGON (g.v. ), to whom succeeded
in 705 his son S ENNACHERIB (q-.v.), in 680 his grandson
ASTROLOGER (Dan. lzoetc., q@s):
RV E N -
CHANTER; and Is. 4713" (D!@ 128), RV'"g.
ESARI.IADDON (q.n.), and in 669 his great-grandson
'divider of the heavens.' See S TARS, § 5 ; also
ABnr-bani-pal. For the expeditions of the last-
D IVINATION , § 2 ( 5 ) and MAGIC, Q 3 (4).
named monarch in Egypt, Elam, Arabia, etc. see
A ~ R - B A N I - P A LHis
. literary tastes found expression in ASTYAGES (acTyayHc [B~IQ]), according to
the collecting of a great library at Nineveh. The Eponym Theodotion's text of Bel and the Dragon (v.I ) , was the
list and his own inscriptions cover only the first predecessor of Cyrns in the kingdom of Persia. See
part of his reign ; his later years are clouded in Cunus.
uncertainty, and the date of his death is a matter of ASUPPIM and HOUSE O F ASUPPIM ( I Ch. 26 17,
conjecture. The period from his death
34' '"line until the fall of Nineveh is equally ob- n'?&: E I C TO ACA+EIN [AI, E.T. we+. [BI;
and scure. We know the names of two of TOtC A c A + E t M [I,]; v. 15 'N? n'g, OiKoY AcA+eiiu
his sons, ABur-etil-ilsiii and Sin-Sar-iSkun, who both 1
[AI, 0.ECE+)EI N [a],0.ACA+ [L]; && &[Pesh.];
occupied the throne ; but the length of their respective RV in each case ' the storehouse.' In Neh. l225+,A?
reigns and even the order of their succession are matters renders the sameword ' thethresholds' [marg. 'treasuries,
of dispute. It used to be assumed that during this ' assemblies '1 ; i u r@ uuvayay~iv,ue [different
period Assyria was entirely stripped of her power and vocalisation] ; RV ' the storehouses '), a word used by
foreign possessions ; but this view has now been modified the Chronicler t9 describe certain storehouses situated
in consequence of recently discovered contract - tablets at the temple gates (Nch. 1 2 q ) , perhaps specially the
dated from both northern and southern Babylonian cities southern gate ( I Ch. 26 15). See TEMPLE.
according to the regnal years of the last two Assyrian
kings. 'These prove that the Assyrian supremacy in ASUR(acoyp [BA]), I Esd. 5 3 1 RV=EzraZsI, HAR-
HUR.
Babylonia continued for some little time at least. As-
Syria's power, however, was waning. A long career of AhR-BANI-PAL. , Though mentioned by name
conquest had been followed by an age of luxury, and her only once or twice in O T (see A SNAPPER), ASur-bSni-pal
strengthwassapped. The Scythian hordes that hadswept is important to O T literature from his deportation of
across W. Asia had further weakened her. Thus, when troublesome populations to the region of Samaria (see
Nabopolassar, repudiating Assyrian control, allied himself SAMARIA, S AMARITANS, and cp below, 12); also
with Cyaxares. king of Media, and their combined forces from references to his campaigns in Egypt and Arabia in
invaded the country, her resistance met with no success. the prophecies (see I SAIAH, ii. Q 9, and N AHUM, $2). H e
606, Though Nineveh held out for two years, the was one of Assyria's greatest kings, and famous not less
city \vas at last captured and destroyed, and for his devotion to art and literature than for his extensive
Assyria was annexed to the empire of the Medes. conquests. His name, which is best read AHur-bani (or
The most recent, and a t the same time most scientific, work on bani)-apli, means ' A h is the creator of a son. ' He was
Assyrian art and architecture is.Perrot and Chipiez's Hist. de the eldest son of Esarhaddon, and ascended the throne
Z'art duns Z'antiquiti vol. ii. C h n Z e et in 668 B.C. His succession had been secured by his
36. Bibliogrzphy. Assyrie, Paris, 1884. 'Of wads which ap- having been publicly proclaimed king before his father's
peared soon'after the discovery of the re-
mains of Assyrian art, and do not attempt a scientific treatment death, while his brother., $amaS-Sum-ul<in,w-as installed
one of the earliest was Botta and Flandin's Monuments di in Babylon as viceroy or tributary prince.
Ninive, 5 vols., Paris, 1849-50. The two works of Sir Henry From the moment of his accession he was plunged
Layard, Ninmeh and its Remains and Monuments of
Ninmeh, containa good account of his discoveries. I n Assyrian
Discoveries, Lond. 1875, George Smith has described the results 1. Ist
~-
into a uroloneed war in Ewut. for Tarlai (TiRhAKAH).
I,I . L

of his own explorations. Egyptian king of Ethiopia, in the words of

Ah-brZni-pal, ' forgot the might of
For the history of Assyria the principal work is Tiele's Ba6.- campaign. Ah,. IStar. and the meat gods niv
Ass. Gesch. Gotha, 1886-88. Reference may also be made to ' 3 -

Hommel's Gesch. Ba6. u. Ass. Berlin, 1885.88, the Gesch. Bab. lords, and trusted in his own strength' : that is, <e
u. Ass. by Miirdter and Delitzsch Calw and Stiittgart, 1891, raised a large army and descended upon Egypt. The
and' Winckler's Gesch. Bab. u. Ass. Leipz. 1892. Among
English works dealing with the history of Assyria see George' prefects and governors appointed by Esarhaddon fled at
Smith's Assyvia (SPCK, Oxf. 18753, and Prof. G.'Rawlinson's Tarlsa's approach. He captured Thebes, descended thc
Five Great Monarchies of the E a s t e n WorZd, vols. i. and ii. Nile to Memphis where he fixed his capital, and pro-
Lond. 1871. Both these works have been superseded on several claimed himself king of Egypt. On receiving the news
points in consequence of later discoveries.
Assyrian history can be rightly understood only if followed in of this disaster, ASu-bgni-pal determined to recover
the inscriptions themselves. Translations of most of the his- Egypt. During the passage of his army through Syria
torical inscriptions of Assyria are given in S'hrader's Z<Bi. and and along the coast of the Mediterranean, reinforce-
ii. Berlin 1889-90 each of which contains an explanatory map.
A series df popula; English translations of Egyptian and Assyrian ments in men and ships, in addition to the customary
monuments was founded and edited hy Dr. S. Birch of the British tribute, were received from twenty-two subject Icings of
371 372
 ASUR-BANI-PAL A&UR-BANI-PAL
Palestine and Cyprus, among whom ,Manasseh, king of ask for terms. ASur-biini-pal contented himself with
Judah, is mentioned -(dp E SARHADDON ). Tarkii, levying tribute on the city, and with demanding the
hearing of the advance of the Assyrians, sent out his king's daughter and nieces for his harem, together
own forces from Memphis. At Kiirbiiniti, within the with their dowries. After humbling Tyre, it was
Egyptian border, the forces of Tarkfi were utterly no hard matter to obtain the submission of the less
routed, while the king himself abandoned Memphis important princes of the Mediterranean coast. Among
and escaped by boat to Thebes, leaving his capital and these were Yakinlfi, king of the island-city of ARVAD,
the whole of Lower Egypt in the hands of the Assyrians. Mugallu, king of Tabal, and SandaSarmfi, king of
The various governors and petty kings, who had Cilicia (CILICIX, 2).
formerly been tributary to Esarhaddon and had been Gyges (Gugu), king of Lydia, also appears to have
expelled by Tarlsfi, now returned, and joined their heard of the success of the Assyrian;, and to have sent
own forces to those of the Assyrians, upon which the 5, Gyges of in his submission. For some years he
combined armies ascended the Nile in a fleet of boats Lydia, etc. maintained these friendly relations, and
to dislodge Tarl5fi from Thebes. In forty days the to this fact attributed his success over the
journey was accomplished. Tarkc abandoned the city Cimmerians, in proof of which he sent to Nineveh two
without striking a blow, and retreated into Ethiopia, captive Cimmerian chiefs bound hand and foot with.
leaving the whole of Egypt in the hands of the Assyrians. fetters of iron. Towards the end of the reign of ASur-
He did not, however, abandon his designs upon b8ni-pal, however, Gyges severed his connection with
Egypt, and, as his former attempt at open opposition Assyria. and aided Psammetichus (Psanietik) in his
had proved unsuccessful, he now resorted struggle for Egyptian independence (cp EGYPT, § 67).
2. Revolt Perceiving thxt the native RSur-biini-palwas now free to turn his attention to the
suppressed. to stratagem.
Egyptian princes were far from contented eastern borders of his kingdom.
under the military sway of the Assyrians, he opened secret Dur!ng the absence of the Assyrian army in its distant
negotiations with them, Nilifi (NBCHO), Sarruliid&ri,and campaigns the E. frontier of Assyria had been constantly
violated b; the king of Mannai (see MINNI). ASur-bani-pal
Pakruru leading the conspiracy on the Egyptian side. determined to chastise AbHtri. H e marched northwards, and
It was agreed that they should transfer their allegiance foiled an attempt of his opponent to surprise the Assyrians by a
to Tarlsfi, who in return would leave them in undisturbed night attack. AbHtri fled to his capital Izirtu while A h -
blni-pal laid wastk the country. On his death i', a revolt he
possession of their principalities, and that, while he was succeeded by his son Ualli, who bought terms of peace
attacked Egypt from the south, they would raise a revolt from A9nr-bani-pal. .
in the interior. The Assyrian generals, however, sus- The most warlike nation on the E. of Assyria, how-
pecting that some treachery was afoot, intercepted their ever, and indeed her most powerful enemy, was ELAM
messengers, and learnt the full extent of the plot. Nika Urtalcu its king had shown his hostility
6. Elam. (4.3, ).
and Sarruladiiri were hound hand and foot and sent to to Assyria already in the reign of Esarhaddon,
Nineveh, while their fellow-conspirators were slain. The by attempting to stir up a rebellion in Chaldea; and
revolt, thus prematurely hastened, was quelled without although, when his people were suffering from famine,
difficulty. Tarlsn was once more driven from Upper he had received assistance from ASur-biini-palhimself, he
Egypt, and soon afterwards died. now proposed an invasion of Babylonia, hoping thereby
Ah-bani-pal, in restoring the country again to order, appears to cripple the Assyrian power.
to have mitigated his former rigour seeking to conciliate rather Acting on the advice of his general Mardnk-gum-ibni, he
than to suppress the native rulers. Niko was pardoned. H e was formed an alliance with Bel-ikiga king Af Gambulu-a conntry
clothed in costly raiment ; a ring was set upon his finger, and a situated in the lower basin o$ thk Tigris, on the shores of the
fil!et of gold about his head (as an emblem of his restoration) ; and Persian Gulf-and having won over to his side Nahii-Sum-iri3, a
with presents of chariots, horses and mules, he returned to governor in Chaldea, he crossed the Babylonian border. On
Egypt, where he was once more hstalled as governor in SaTs news being brought to AXur-bani-pal that the Elaniites had
while his son Nabii-B&ibauni was appointed governor of Athrihis: advanced ' like a flight of locusts' and were encamped against
Ethiopia, however, could not long keep her eyes from Babylon, he set on foot an expedition, and, marching southwards,
Egypt ; and, although Tarlsil was dead, the ambitions drove Urtaku beyond the frontier.
of his country did not die with him. On the death of Urtaku, shortly afterwards, the throne
2nd was seized by Teumman, who immediately sought to rid
It was not long before Urdamane, his
expedition. successor, marched northwards' and himself of the sons of the former kings, Urtalin and
took Upper Egypt (cp EGYPT, 5 66). He advanced UmmanaldaS I. His intended victims, however, escaped
from Thebes to meet the Assyrian expedition sent with their friends to the court of ASur-biini-pal, where
against him, hut was worsted in the battle, returned they were in kindliness received, and protected. This
to the city, and thence fled farther south to Kipliip. incident caused a renewal of the war between Elam and
The Assyrians marched on Thebes, and the city Assyria. An interesting fact, which throws light on
itself, together with immense booty, fell into their Assyrian prophecy, is related. On theeve of the campaign
hands. They carried back with them to-Assyria two ASur-biini-pal prayed solemnly to the goddess IStar, who
huge obelisks, and thus set the fashion, adopted by to encourage him appeared in a vision to a seer, and
all the later conquerors of Egypt, of perpetuating their promised victory to the Assyrian arms.I Confident of
victory by means of the monuments of the conquered success, ASur-biini-pal set out for Elam, and pressed on
country itself. 'With full hands,' writes ASur-bhi-pal, ' I up to the walls of Susa. Here, on the banks of
safely returned to Nineveh, the city of my rule.' This the Eulzus, there was a decisive battle, in which the
successful expedition, however, had no lasting effect. Elamites were utterlv routed.
Egypt was too far off to remain for any length of time 'The
-..~ l..a.~-
. .. Rlam.' writes Asnr-bani-pal, 'through its extent
h of
~~~ ~~~

the vassal of Assyria. Psammetichus, the son of Nikii, I covered as when a' rnirrhtv
.... ..., .
~
q.t.m
..m
~.annroaches : I cut off the
head of 'feumman, their king, the rega-who had piotted-evilI
obtained the supremacy over the whole country, and Beyond number I slew his warriors; alive in my ha lids I took
permanently shook off the Assyrian yoke. hisfighting men. with their corpses as with thorns and thistles
After his second Egyptian campaign ASur-bXni-pal I filled the v i c i d y of Snsq ; then blood I caused to flow in the
Eulax~s,and I stained its waters like WOO^.'^
directed his forces against Ba'al, king of Tyre, 'who
dwelt in the midst of the sea'-a good ASur-b&ni-paJ divided the land, proclaimed as vassal
4' siege description of the city (see TYRE). Like
kings UmmanigaS and Tammaritu, the two sons of
Of Tyre* his predecessors, Ah-biini-pal failed to
Urtalcu who had cast themselves on his protection, and,
capture a stronghold so favoured by nature. He 1 See the striking passage in the annals (Smith, Hisf. of
erected towers and earthworks, however, and attempted Assurb. 123-126).
to cut off communication from the sea as well as from 2 [; R 3, 43, aswp hinza ?zabdsi. Nabdsu='red-coloured
wool. The adverb nabdsi? 'like red wool,' acc. to Ruben,
the land, and maintained so effectual a blockade that /QR 10 553, is au 'Ass. loan-word in the Song of Deborah,
Ba'al, at last reduced to extremities, sent Yabi-milki to corrupted in our text.]
373 . 374
returning by way of Gambulu, exacted a terrible venge- .ppears, however to have surrendered to Ah-bani-pal who
ance from that land. hrew him into :hains and kept him a prisoner in a iennel
vith his hounds-Ad& his wife and the king of Kedar his ally
W e now approach the greatest crisis in the history of haring the same fate. The othkr division of the Arah(an army:
Ah-bHni-pal. On ascending the throne of Assyria he vhich had joined the forces of SamaH-Sum-ukin shared his defeat
,. Revolt of had appointed his younger brother SamaH- .nd perished in Babylonia. Abiyate', their leader, surrendered
o ASur-bani-pal kissed his foot in token of submission and was
Sum-ukin king of Babylon, without re- .ppointed king 'of Arabia in the place of Uaite'. Nb sooner
Babylon nouncing his own suzerainty. SamaS-
sup.ressed. iowever, had he returned to his country than he associated him:
Sum-ulcin, however, was dissatisfied with elf with the Nahatzans in aseries of joint attacks on the frontier
,f Assyria. Ah-bani-pal, therefore, crossed the Tigris with his
his dependent position, and resolved to revive, if rrmy, and embarked on a difficult march through the Syrian
possible, the relations between Assyria and Babylon. Iesert. The Assyrians, after some minor conflicts in which they
His own resources being insufficient for subjugating vere successful, eventually engaged the main body of the
Assyria, he began to form a coalition of the neighbouring 4rahian army in the mountains of Hukkuruna, to the SE. of
Damascus. The Arabians were defeated, Ahiyate' and Ayamu
nations, all glad of an opportunity to strike a blow at vere taken, and AHiir-bsni-pal set out for Assyria with immense
their powerful neighbour. The Chaldeans and the lumbers of captives and herds of cattle ; on his return camels
AramEan tribes of the coast gave assistance; Um- were distributed throughout Assyria 'like sheep.'
manigaz, king of Elam, threw over his patron AHur- The annals conclude their record of the wars of
b8ni-pal, and joined the revolt ; Arabia, Ethiopia, lo. ClosingASur-hHni-pal with an account of his
and possibly Egypt, sent help. ASur-bHni-pal did not triumphal procession through Nineveh in
lose an instant, but set out with the whole of his force years' celebration of his victories.
to the SE., where he successfully kept his enemies in UmmanaldaX, the Elamite, who had shortly before been
check. captured, Tammaritu and Pa'e, two other captive Elamite
Fortune favoured him by neutralising to some extent the kings, with Uaite', the king of Arabia, were fastened to the
assistance which gama:-Sum-ukin expected to receive from Elam, yoke of the chariot in which he rode. H e then entered the
hic moIt powerful ally. That country was thrown by internal temple of his gods, offering sacrifices and praising them for the
revolution into a state bordering on anarchy, UmmanigaS and triumphs they had vouchsafed him oyer his enemies.
the whole of his family having been slain by Tammaritu, who
in turn was dethroned by IndahigaS, and only saved his life by Ah-bHqi-pal probably reigned till 625 B. c. ; but of his
flight to Assyria. later years the royal records do not speak. It is im-
A%-bstni-pal hastened to attack the allied forces, easily possible to assign with certainty a reason for this
defcated them, and proceeded to besiege the four cities silence. Possibly the kingdom, which h,ad been shaken
-Babylon, Borsippa, Sippara, and Cutha-in which to its foundations by the revolt of SamaS-Sum-ukin
they had sought shelter after their defeat. The during these years, showed signs of its approaching end.
defenders held out stubbornly for some time. When It is certain, at any rate, that the Medes, whom Alnr-
all was over, SamaS-Sum-ukin, to avoid his brother's bstni-pal had earlier in his reign defeated, again showed
vengeance, set fire to his palace and perished in the signs of activity (see P ER S I A ) ; and it is probable that
flames. during his reign the wild hordes of the Scythians
After stamping out the rest of the rebellion and descended from the N. and the NE., slaying and
plundering and carrying all before them. The question
restoring- order throughout Babylonia and Chaldea,
I

whether the empire of Assyria declined only under AHur-

8. Subjugation ASur-bstni-pal directed his forces against
bstni-pal's successors, or had already become disintegrated
of Elam. Elam, where for the next two or three
years he carried on a war with Um- before his death, is one that cannot be answered with
manaldaS II., w l ~ ohad ascended the throne of Elan1 certainty.
after slaying IndabigaB, his predecessor. It is true that Turning from foreign politics to the internal condition
for a short time during this period UmmanaldaS was of Assyria during - the reign of ASur-bstni-pal, we find the
I

driven into the mountains by ASur-bstni-pal, who set policy and country superficially, at least, prosper-
Tammaritu on the throne of Elam in his stead; but, Though the constant wars of
buildings, etc. ous.
ASur-bHni-pal must have been a great
as soon as the Assyrian army had withdrawn, Um-
manaldaS came out from his retirement, gathered his drain on the manhood of'the nation, his almostun-
'forces, and compelled ASur-bHni-pal again to take the varying success resulted in a great accumulation of
field against him. On the appearance of the Assyrian wealth-the spoil of the conquered cities. Not only
army UmmanaldaB retired, allowing ASur-bHni-pal to did his generals carry off the gold and silver, and
capture the cities and lay waste the country on his anything else of value that was portable; not only
march. At length, however, he hazarded a battle. did they drive to Assyria the flocks and herds of the
He met with a signal defeat and was again driven to whole country : the population itself they deported.
take refuge in the mountains, while Susa and its ac- It was the Assyrian policy (see above, 5 I ) to weaken
cumulated riches fell into the hands of the Conquerors. the patriotic feeling of the conquered races in this way,
' By the will of ASur and Eta,; boasts ASur-bani-pal, 'into its and so to lessen the chances of revolt. A secondary
palaces I entered and sat myself down rejoicing. Then opened object of the conquerors, however, had reference to
I their treasure-houses, within which silver and gold, furniture Assyria herself, for huge bands of captives were brought
and goods, were stored, which the former kings of Elam and the
kings who had ruled even to these days had collected and placed back in chains to replenish the labouring populace at
therein, whereon no other foe besides myse!f had set his hands : home. Many of these wretches found their way into the
I brought it forth and as spoil I counted it. He recovered alsc possession of private owners ; but the majority of them
all the treasures with which SamaE-Sum-ukinand his Predecessor: were retained as slaves by the king himself, who, like
had purchased Elamite support. Susa itself was rased to thc
ground ; the royal statues were carried to Assyria ; the grove: his predecessors, sought to gratify his desire for splendour
were cnt down and burnt, and the temples violated. and to perpetuate his name by the erection of huge
After the subjugation of Elam the annals of A'sur- buildings in the capital. The most important of these
bHni-pal relate a series of conflicts with Arabia (Smith, buildings of ASur-bHni-pal was his own palace, which he
9. Arabia. Hist. of Assurlr. 2 5 6 8 ) . This was the built to the north of that of his grandfather Sennacherib
last great war in which this monarch -the remains exist at the present day in the
is known to have engaged. At the beginning of hi: mound of Kuyunjik opposite the modern town of
reign he appears to have had friendly relations with the M6~ul. The walls of its chambers he lined with
Arabian king Uaite' ; but on the revolt of &tmal-Sum. sculptures in relief, representing his own exploits on
ukin the latter joined the coalition against Assyria. the field of battle and in the chase, in which the details
Uaite' himself attacked Palestine, overrunning Edom anc are most carefully and elaborately carved, while the
Moab, and penetrating almost as far N. as Damascus. designs themselves mark the acme of Assyrian
Here, however, he was defeated by the Assyrians. art. Ah-bstni-pal restored the palace of Sennacherib,
Leaving his camp standing, Uaite' fled alone to Nahatza. Ht. strengthened the fortifications of Nineveh, and built
375 376
 ASYLUM ASYNCRITUS
or restored various temples throughout Assyria and ried at the place where the offence was committed, and
Babylonia. f the verdict be murder the elders of the city in whose
It was the custom of the classical historians to erritory the defendant resides are empowered to take
represent Ah--bFmi-pal as of an effeminate and luxurious iim from the asylum and deliver him to‘ the next
disposition, spending his life ‘at Nineveh in idleness and rinsman of the murdered man, as the natural executor
dissipation. The Assyrian records have dissipated this If the sentence.
illusion. Though it is probable that many of his The post-exilic law also (NIL3 5 9 8 , cp Josh. 20-2-6)
campaigns were conducted by his generals,, the king’s tppoints six cities of refuge (&,g >y), and defines the
personal valour in the field and in the hunt is undoubted. 4. In p. crimes in substantially the same way ; but it
His skill as an administrator is testified by his organisa- differs radically from the Deuteronomic legisla-
tion of the immense territory acquired in his victcrious ion in providing ( I )that the manslayer shall be brought
campaigns. His palaces and buildings, even to this ironi his asylum to be tried before the ‘ congregation ’
day, bear witness to his love for art and architecture. i‘idZh)-i. e . , the religious community of the post-exilic
It is for none of these things, however, that his memory Jerusalem (Nu. 35 12 2 4 3 )-and (2) that at the death of
is honoured above that of other kings of Assyria. H e the high priest the manslayer may without peril return
was the first of his nation to make a systematic and to his home and estates (vu.25 28)’ Further, it is ex-
universal study and collection of his country’s literature, plicitly forbidden to compound the crime by talcing a
and it is to the library he collected in his palace that we bloodwite, or to allow the homicide upon payment of a
owe the greater part of our knowledge of Babylonian fine to leave the city of refuge before the death of the
and Assyrian literature and language. L. w. K. high priest.
ASYLUM, a sanctuary, within whose precincts those The cities designated are, E. of the Jordan, Bezer,
who take refuge may not be harmed without sacrilege. Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan (Dt. 441-43
1. General In early times, holy places, as the homes or 5. Cities of Josh. 208) ; W. of the Jordan, Kedesh in
principle. haunts of the gods, extended over every- Galilee, Shechem, and Hebrou ‘(Josh.207).
refuge’ The last three were all venerable sanctuaries,
thing in them the protection of their own
inviolability. Wild animals, and sometimes even older, indeed, than the Israelite invasion, and were
domestic animals which strayed into them, shared this probably chosen not only on account of their location,
protection with debtors, fugitive slaves, and criminals, but also because they were already asyla of established
as well as the victims of unjust pursuit or violence. sanctity. It may be assumed that this was the case
Manslayers sought refuge in them from the sword of also with the cities of refuge E. of the Jordan, of which,
the avenging kinsmen, and the right of asylum had an with the exception, of Ranioth, we know little. Jewish
especial importance among those peoples in which the scholars, with some plausibility, maintain that, besides
primitive law of blood vengeance was most persistently those, all the other Levitical cities, of which there
maiutained.l The right of asylum was possessed by were forty-four, many of them seats of ancient sanctu-
different sanctuaries in various degrees, depending on aries, possessed the right of asylum in a lower degree.3
prescription, the holiness of the place, and other circum- Whether this system was ever actually introduced in its
stances ; it sometimes extended to an entire city, or even whole extent is doubtful. Neither in the brief years
to a mark beyond its walls. Even within the same between Josiah’s reform and the fall of the Judajan
sanctuary it was, of course, a greater sacrilege to drag kingdom nor after the restoration did Judah possess
the suppliant away from the altar or from the image of more than a small part of the territory contemplated by
the god, or to slay him there, than merely to violate the these laws.
sacred precincts. In later times the abuse of these In the Greek period, and later (under Roman rule)
privileges led to legal regulation and restriction (cp, many Hellenistic cities in Syria enjoyed the privileges of
c.g., Tac. Ann. 360.64 4 14).
In Israel the oldest law (Ex. 21 12-14) recoguises the
6. Parallels. asylums.
Not to speak of t h e famous
sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis at
right of asylum, but denies its protection to the Daphne, near Antioch, where t h e Jewish high priest,
2. Early murderer with malice aforethought : ‘ from Onias, is said to have taken refuge ( 2 Macc. 433 8 ,
beside my altar thou shalt take him to die.’ cp Strabo, xvi. 26), the title tluuAos appears on coins of
practice* Doubtless every altar of YAW&(Ex. 2 0 2 4 3 ) Czesarea, Panias, Diocaesarea (Sepphoris) in Galilee,
was an asylum ; but not all were equally venerated, nor Ptolemais (Acco), Dora (Do.), Scythopolis (Beth-shean),
would the village high-place protect the suppliant as Gadara and Abila in the Decapolis, and others. Ac-
securely as the more famous sanctuaries. The only cording to Josephus (Ant. xiii. 23), this character was
historical instances in the OT in which men who fear conferred on Jerusalem by Demetrius I.; but I Macc.
for their lives take refuge at Gods altar are those of 1031 knows nothing of it. Cp. ASHTORETH, ASHERAH.
Adonijah ( I K. 150-53) and Joab ( I I<. 2 28-34 ; on the There is no recent and adequate work ou this subject. The
L a w of AsyZuwz in IsraeZ, by A. P. Bissell (Leipsic, 1882) is a
text cp @ and Klo.). Adonijah was persuaded to leave laboured attempt to prove that the laws must all have originated
the asylum; Joab, by Solonion’s orders, was slain at in the age of Moses. See also S. Ohlenhurg, Die 6iUischen
the very altar. AsyZe in tahzudischem Gewande, 1895 ; and compare Steugel,
art. ‘Asylon in PauZy-Wissowa, XeaZ-encycZ. der class.
When the drastic reforms of Josiah (621 B . c . ) AZfwtumswiss. On the wide diffusion of the fundamental con-
destroyed and desecrated all the old holy places of ception of asyliims, and on its possible origin, see J. G. Frazer’s
3. In Dt. Yahwi: in his kingdom except the temple in article on ‘The Origin of Totemism and Exogamy’ in Ebrf.
Jerusalem, one of the necessary measures of Rev., April 1899. G. P. M.
the reform laws was to provide a substitute for the asyla ASYNCRITUS ( A C y r K p l T O C [Ti. 1, -YNK. [WH])
thus abolished ; since it was obviously impossible that is one of five who, with ‘the brethren that are
manslayers from the remote parts of the land should with them,‘ are saluted in Rom. 1614. They seem to
escape to Jerusalem. Accordingly, six cities of refuge have been Christian heads of households, or perhaps
are appointed-three E. ofthe Jordan (Dt. 441-43j,~three class leaders of some sort.
W. of it (Dt. 19zf:)-with eventual provision for three Asyncritus figures in the list of the ‘seventy disciples’ by the
more, in Philistia, Phcenicia, and Ccele-Syria (Dt. 19 1 In all these particulars there is a striking and instructive
8-10). The distinction between manslaughter and resemblance to the Athenian code of Draco (624 B.c.).
murder is clearly defined and illustrated ; the case is 2 In this provision it is evident that the sojourn in the city
of refuge is regarded as a species of exile, a punishment which
1 So, e g . , in Greece ; whilst in Rome, where blood vengeance was removed hy a general amnesty at the ascension of the new
was early abolished by law, the right of asylum was almost high priest the real sovereign. Accordingly, in the Mishna
exclusively reserved for slaves. and in Jedish jurisprudence generally, residence in the city &
2 These verses are out of place, and probably secondary ; see refuge is called ,&E, ‘exile,’ cp e.g. Makkoth, 3 I.
DEUTERONOhIV, $ 20. 3 See hIaimonides, I h d FazaRa, Hilkoth Roseah, ch. 8.

377 378
 ATAD ATHALIAH
Pseudo-Dorotheus as bishop of ‘Urbania,’ and in that of the Jerusalem to Bethel, 34 m. S. of Bethel, and 6 E. of
Pseudo-Hippolytus as bishop of ‘ Hyrcania’ (doubtless the the upper Beth-horon (see GuBrin, Judke, 3 6 J ;. but
preferable reading). In the great Greek Menrea he is com-
memorated along with Herodion and Agahus on 8th April. on the other side Robinson, 2314). As it is a Ben-
jamite locality, we might plansibly identify ADDAR with
ATAD (?qi$G),.Gen. 5010. See ABEL-MIZRAIM. the Benjamite clan-name A DDAR, A K D [y.~.].
ATAR (&TAP [A]), I Esd. 528 RV=Ezra242, ATER,2. 3. An unknown site ( n i i q , Josh. 167, auTapwB [B])
ATARAH (3;Q, ‘ c r o w n ’ ; [BL], ETGPA between Janoah and Naarah, on the north-eastern frontier
[A]), second wife of Jerahmeel (I Ch. 226). In of the territory of Ephraim.
genealogical phraseology this signifies that the clan 4. A city of Gad (nimy, Nu. 32334, aTapov [ A ] 34,
occupied a new region (cp Caleb’s wife Ephrath: and auTapwO [Flvid.]), mentioned in the inscription of Mesha
see A ZUBAH , CALEB),and presumably, like Caleb, it (1. II, m a y ) as reconquered by him, along with a ‘ land
moved farther N . , in which case we may compare of ‘Ataroth (Z. IO) dwelt in from of old by the men of
Atarah with ATROTH-BETH- JOAB, mentioned along with Gad.’ The name survives as that of a mountain, and
Bethlehem, etc., in I Ch. 2 54. a ruined site ‘Attrirzis, at the top of the Wady Zerka
ATARGATIS, TEMPLE OF (TO &Tepr&TioN[AVl), Ma‘in, IO m. E. of the Dead Sea. (Tristram, Monb,
z Macc. 1226; cp I Macc. 543J In thewalledenclosure 172-276.) The OS (Eus. 21451, au.rupw0 : Jer. 87 17)
of this trans-Jordanic temple the Ammonites and wrongly identify with no. I , presumably confusing Joab
Arabians defeated by Judas the Maccabee, after throw- with Job, whom tradition associates with Ashtaroth-
ing away their arms, took refuge (see ASHTAROTH, § I ) . Karnaim. See ATROTH-SHOPHAN. G . A. S.
It was in 164 B. c., the year after the re-dedication of the ATER (l&, 66 ; ATHP [BA] ; ‘ left-handed ’ ? cp
temple at Jerusalem, which had animated the foes of the Judg. 3 15 Heb., and the Lat. name Scaevola).
church-nation to a deadly persecution ( I Macc. 52).
I. The B’ne Aterof Herekiah(npn’7 l g y ’ ; $ ; a q p n p &ma
Judas had already acted with the severity of the old
Israelitish law of war, dealing with the trans-Jordanic [BNAI), a family in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA, ii. 5 9,
towns and the heathen part of their peoples as Joshua 6 Sc), Ezra216 Q < E ~ TO C<CKC [ L l ) = N e h . 7 ~ 1(aAp TO &La
[Ll=r Esd. 5 15 { a q p & K ~ O U [A& a<Tp e. [BI a<qp TO &ma
had dealt with Jericho ( I Macc. 55 28 : cp Josh. 6 24, J E ) , (L), Aterezias, RV ATER O F h Z E K I A S . A;ER H E ~ C I A H ,
but with the added zeal against idolatry justified by AV A TER HIZKIJAH (?X? YE)!), appears also among the signa-
Dt. 7 5 1Z3. Naturally, this. champion of monotheism, tories to the covenant (see EZRA, i. $7), Neh. 10 17 [IS] (aS?p
l i e his successor Jonathan at Ashdod ( I Macc. 1083), 6 . [BN], a q p E. [AI, a h psah% [Ll).
had no scruple in violating the temple precincts. The 2. The B’ne Ater ( v i d a n j p (BNAI, viol u<<p [L]), afamilyof
unarmed multitude he slew (z Macc..), and the temple- doorkeepers in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA, ii. 8 9)
buildings, with all the objects polluted by idolatry, he (D’?itf? 3$), Ezra242 (3id am. [Al)=Neh. 1 4 5 (viol aqp vEoP
burned ( I Macc. ). aqp [Bl)= I Ed. 5 28, JATAL, RV ATAR (om. B, m a p [AI
Atarggtis (nnyiny ; cp VogiiB, Syr. Cezt. n. 3 ; also &ilp [LI).
myiny ; cp ZDMG [‘p] 6 473 J ) , to whom the temple
belonged, is in The SpenReis Cominentnvy (n. on
I Macc. 526) identified with Astarte. This is a natural ATETA (LTHTA [A]), I Esd. 528 RV=Ezra13p,
error, for Carnaim is no doubt Ashteroth-Karnaim-so HATITA.
called from the addiction of the town to the worship of
various forms of Ashtoreth or Astarte. We know, how- ATMACH (?jQL’, ‘ i n n ’ ? [Ges.]; N O O [B], NOMBE
ever, that these deities were different : for at Ascalon [TR], Pear [A], NarsB [L]), one of the towns of Judah
there were temples of Astarte and of Atarggtis (Derkbto) to which David sent a part of the Amalekite spoil
side by side. All that is true is that the first part of the ( I S. 303ot). According to Wellhausen, Driver, and
name Atarggtis ( i e . , i n y ) is the Aramaic equivalent of Bndde, it is the ETHER ( 4 . v . ) of Josh. 1542 ( i B a K [B],
the Phcenician and Heb. [ n l i n s y without the fem. end- U B E ~[AL]), 197 ( ~ & p [B], pee. [.4], euep [L]) ; these
ing (see P H ~ N I C I ;A but ) the religious significance scholars decline to decide which of the variants is correct,
of this Atar (‘AttLr for ‘Athtar) is profoundly modified though Budde retains i n y ’ i n the text of I S. The POO,
by its union with ‘Athe (usually written m y or my), a voppe, and Payap of certain MSS may, however, point
Palmyrene divinity whose name is well attested, and to a various reading NOB. Guerin visited a place called
occurs in many proper namesi Atarggtis is, in fact, NGdd, near Z<hharas, and W . of the Kh. Kihi (Keilah),
that form of Astarlte] which has absorbed into itself the which, he thinks, may be meant by uoppe (Id&,3349).
characteristics of another deity called ‘Athe (cp Ashtar- That there must have been several places called Nob
Kamosh in the inscription of Mesha). Lucian, in his is generally admitted. Klostermann suggests y ~ANAB ,
De D e n Sym, has left us a minute account of the temple (Josh. 11ZI), a place near Hebron (Hebron follows),
and worship of the Syrian goddess (who was no doubt and the question arises whether Nob itself may not be
Atarggtis) at Hierapolis
. .(Mabug),
- . which illustrates the a shortened form of Angb (see NoB). In Josh. 1121
Jewish hatred of it. gives auupwO=n>jy. out of which both TOCHEN
The connection of this ‘omniootent and all-oroducinn goddess’ [ p . ~ . and
] Iny Athach may perhaps have arisen by the
(Apoleius) with sacred Iife-giGing waters h i s been zcdied by loss of one letter and the transposition and slight
Prof. W. R. Smith (RS(2)772-175). See also Prof. W. Wright
TSBA 6 438f‘ Baethgen Beitr. 68& 256J; Baudissin, art: corruption of other letters. It so happens that there
‘Atargatis,’ in‘kerzog-Plih, PRE vol. i. (who notices the differ- are to-day two ‘AnHbs S. of Hebron called the great and
ent forms under which the goddess was represented); Puchstein, little. These may represent the Anaboth or Grape-
Z A 9 420 ; Roscher, Lex. sa. ‘ Astarte,’ 4 (a). T. IC. c. towns. T. I<. C.
ATAROTR (IlllQ?, ‘crowns’ or ‘wreaths,’ cp Is. 281 ATHAIAH (32Qz, 3 39, meaning obscure : cp Gray,
Zech. 611 14, etc. ; &Tapwe [BAL]). HpN297:aesdB1, -€&I [AI. :E€ [KIDAeApAC8&C [ L ] ;
I. I Ch. 254. See ATROTH-BETH-JOAB. A TKAIAS), in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem
2. Ataroth-Addar (1;. n i i q , Josh. 165, uaTupwO (see E ZRA , ii. § 5 [a], 15 [1]n), Neh.114=1Ch.94+,
X U L E ~ O K[ B ] , UT. K . asap [ A ] , UT. asap [L] ; 1813, AV U THAI (’DIU ; rwe[o]i [BA], oyel [L]), where differ-
Ataroth-Adar, pauTapwOopex [B], UT. assup [A], aT. ent links are given between him and Perez.
essap [L], called also simply ATAROTH, Josh. 162,
XuTupwBei [B, where x is all that is left of m ~ ] ) , ATHALIAH ($V>@,;Il>nq, 39, 5 2 : ‘ YahwB
perhaps the present ‘A@rci on the high road from is great ’ ; cp with Che., Ass. eteZh, ’ great, high,’ also
‘lord,’ used of gods and kings [Del. Ass. H W B , s . v . ] ) .
I The oldest centre of the worshi of ‘Athe is thought by
Hommel (PSBA 1897, p. 81) to have t e e n the E. of Asia Minor, I. (yoOoAta [ B A L ] , but -BOX. [A vid. in 2 K. 1113’).
whence the cult &read to W. Asia Minor and N. Syria. Daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and wife of Jehoram,
379 380
 ATHARIAS ATHENS
king of -Jndah (z-K. 81826 1 1 1 8 1320). The death 'prang from Asia, Syria, or the Eastern Archipelago ;
of AHAZIAH( q . ~ . I, ) deprived Athaliah of her proud 3reece proper was represented exclusively by third- or
position as queen-mother (a???). Having apparently ourth-rate men. Nevertheless, for centuries Athens
no other son whom she could place on the throne, she :ontinued to be regarded as the chief seat of Greek
determined to put to death all the surviving male ?hilosophy ; nor did she renounce her claim as a seniin-
members of the royal family, and to govern in her own try of philosophy to the most important place, even
name. For six years (841-836 B . C . ) she maintained when she had to share that honour with other cities, such
herself on the throne-a singular fact which raises as Alexandria, Rome, Rhodes, and Paul's own'Tarsus.
questions more easily asked than answered. We hear The whole city, indeed, resembled one of our University
of nothing done by her for her adopted country; but towns at an epoch of intellectual stagnation. The so-
whose interest was it to preserve the memory of this? d l e d education of a Roman was incomplete unless
On the story of her deposition and violent death, see some time had been spent in loitering through the groves
JOASH ( I ) . Observe that the massacre of the royal
xiid porticoes of Athens. ' Two schools in particular,
princes by Athaliah, adopted by the Chronicler in 2 Ch. markedly different and decided in their peculiarities,
2210, is inconsistent with the massacre attributed to stood opposed to each other-the school of the Stoics
Jehorani in 2 Ch. 214 and the captivity of all Jehoram's (who insisted almost exclusively on the universal element),
sons but Ahaziah, imagined in 2 Ch. 21 17. and that of the Epicureans, who gave prominence to the
2. I n a genealogy of BENJAMIN [$?g ii. 81, I Ch. 826 (oyoOohca
individual element in man, pursuing happiness by looking
[B], yoeohra [AI, oOvLa [Ll). within. The Stoics regarded inan exclusively as a think-
3. A family in Ezra's caravan (see EZRA, i. 5 2, ii. 5 15 [I] ing being ; the Epicureans, as a creature of feeling'
d) Ezra87 (aeehcr [B] aehra [AI oeovrou [L])=I Esd.833.
J ~ T H O L I A SEV (yoeohto; [BAI, -eov: [I]). (Zeller, The Stoics, E$icu?-eans, a n d Sceptics, 27).
Probably in no other city of the world at that time was
ATHARIAS, RV ATTHARIAS ( A T e A p I A c [BA]), I
Esd. 540= Ezra263, TIRSHATHA (4.v.). it easier to meet ' certain philosophers of the Epicureans
and of the Stoics' (Actsl718). A well-known and
ATHARIM ( D ' y e ) , in the expression 'N? 777, (Nu. curious parallel to the apostle's visit is afforded by the
21 I?) is taken by RV for a place-name ( ' by the way of Life of Apollonius of Tpgna. On his way up from his
Atharim' ; so OAON aeapsiN [B], 0.-EIM [AFL]) ; by ship to the city Apollonius met many philosophers,
AV and RV'W (following Targ. and Syr. ) as equivalent some reading, some perorating, some arguing, all of
to o ' y ? ( ' [the way of] the spies '). That nqnKil should whom greeted him (PhiZo~. Pit. 417). In a word,
have been substituted for o71na is, however, highly im- Athens at the time of Paul's stay, and more notably
probable. Dillmann has suggested that the word may be afterwards, was a city of pedagogues ; and 'le pCdagogue
connected with the Arab. nthnr, 'vestige' or ' footprint,' est le moins convertissable des honimes' (ICenan, Sf.
and proposes to translate 'the caravan path.' The Paul, 199). In the midst of this academic element Paul
expression may be corrupt (see ILxmsIi, 0 3 i.). found himself alone ( I Thess. 3 I). For his inner life at
ATHENOBIUS ( & H N O B I O C [AKV]), friend of An- this time we must look to the Epistles, not to Acts. H e
tiochus VII. Sidetes, and his envoy to Simon the High was more attracted by the eager artisans of Thessalonica
Priest ( I Macc. 15 25-36). and the earnest men of business in Coriiith than by the
versatile and superficial schoolmen of Athens (cp I Thess.
ATHENS !&HNal). W e must repeat the words of
Strabo-uhha yhp CIS?rhijSos 2wrfx-rwv TGV a . d 7% 19): Still, it would be unfair to attribute his fatlure
entirely to the Athenian character ( DEmZdes said that
the crest of Athens should have been a great tongue) :
allowance must be made for the inevitable exaggeration
of the reformer, whether in morals or in politics : his
involved in making Paul's visit to Athens thgoccasiob
for a rksumk of the architectural and artistic treasures of perspective is distorted. Nor is it fair to count it
blame to Athens that she was regarded as ultra-religious,
the city.' What the apostle might have seen we can
U S , 17 22 (this opening conipli-
~ E W L ~ U C , L L O ~ ~ U T + OActs
learn from Pausanias ; what he did see may safely be
ment of the apostle's speech admits of rich illustration).%
reduced to a minimum. ' A Hebrew of the Hebrews,'
who, ' after the most exact sect,' ' lived a Pharisee,' It would be a mistake to see in the altar dedicated to
could at best feel only indifference to the history of the the unknown god (Actsl723) a desire to include in their
heathen, and his spirit could not fail to be 'stirred' Pantheon any and every deity that might possibly be
at the frequent signs of ignorance of God visible on worthy of honour (see U N K N O W N G OD). Worship
every hand in their cities, even though he had been found expression in art, not in the minutize of formalism.
brought up ' at the feet of' a Rabban Gamaliel, whose Athens was, therefore, pre-eminently a city of statues,
liberality of sentiment is, after all, largely problenia- and Renan is right in remarking that the prejudices of
tical. Not one of the associations which are valuable Paul as a Jew blinded him : he took all the statues he
to us crowded into the apostle's mind as he landed saw for ' objects of worship ' (uepdcpu~u,Acts17 23).
W e are not guilty of ' corrupt Hellenism ' in attempting
at PhalEruni or Pirajns. And the, many-sided art of
Athens had no message for a man of his intensity and a true estimate of the apostle's attitude.
whole-hearted devotion to the task of destroying the An explanation of the disappointing eKect of Paul's
paganism in which that art was rooted. teaching must be sought in the position of the Jewish
Much more valuable, and more difficult also, is it to 3. Paul,s colony in Athens, and not solely in exag-
realise the spiritual atmosphere in which Paul found failure. gerated commonplaces on Atheniancharacter
2. himself. The period of Athenian great- and philosophy. The colony was evidently
atmosphere. ness in politics had long been past. not a large one ; there would be little to attract Jews
Athens now onlv a free citv of the thither in preference to Corinth. Paul's work among his
province of Achaia was not even the seat of the governor countrymen in Athens was slight : he ' conversed ' with
(Str. 398). In art and in literature also she was no 0 , 17 17). No trace of any building
them ( 6 i e X i y ~ ~ Acts
longer the schoolmistress of nations ; in every depart- which could have been a synagogue has been found, with
iiient of mental activity the creative faculty was dead. the exception of the marble (Zmcr. At.Rom. Ath. 404)
In the domain of philosophy alone the manipulation of 1 Quotations might be multiplied to illustrate Athenian
loquacity ( A c t s 1 7 x ; cp Thuc. i. 70, vrw~epo?roroi;AI. &f.
the dry bones of logical science continued to give the 1263, ~ i KeXqvaiwv
j ?r6I\a='Gapenian~'; Dernosth. Phil. i.
semblance of life. Here also the spring of Athenian IO, 43: Menand. P7.G e o 7 ~ 9 . ; Plutarchpassiiir).
wisdom had run dry. The masters of the schools 2 Paus. i. 171, &ohs ~ U E ~ O S U LdhhovV d b v : e.8. they
erected a n altar to Mercy ; i. 243 'Aeqvalors aspruwd~epdvT L ij
1 Still more would this remark apply to the only places in the TOGdhhois as Beid <miuaov8$s : Philos. Vit. vi. 2, +choOJ.ras :
OT where Athenians are referred to (2 hlacc. G I 9 15) : on the Ju1. Misop. + L ~ ~ ~ E O LE;l . V u , Hist. v. 17, TOUOOTOY qv
reading (Vg. has Antiochenum in 61) see Grimm, ad iocc. ABqvalois SeLur8arpovlas.
381 382
 ATHLAI ATONEMENT, DAY O F
containing the words a i h ~ $ r 6 h TOG
~ K I J ~ ~ O(Ps.ll8~0);
U The law relating to this day (Lev. 16), which as it
this might have belonged to the entrance of a synagogue. LOW stands connects with the story of Nadab and
The Hellenic belief Illrat; Oavhvros o t h Par’ dvdaraurs 1. Analysis Abihu in Lev. 10 1-7, is not in its present
was not, in Athens, reduced by the powerful solvent of form a homogeneous unity.’ ‘ This is
Judaism. Hence, the moment the apostle uttered the
of law. evident, not only from the duplicate
words ’ raised from the dead’ his audience revolted. rerses 6 and 11, and from peculiarities of the arrange-
Elsewhere his difficulties centred round another point- nent, hut also from the contents of the law.
whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. In Athens, The chapter a s a whole treats of two quite distinct subjects :
riz. (I) the warning of the high priest that he is to enter the
where Jewish thought had no hold, the idea of the resur- l o i y of Holies not at pleasure, but only under certain specified
rection of the body was unfamiliar-least so to the .
,recautions ( 2 ) the ordering of a yearly Day of Atonement, for
vhich an &act ritual is prescribed. I. is contained in vu. 1-4
Stoics, although it would be an anachronism to quote
here the remarkable approach made by such Stoics as i 12 13 348, and-belongs to Ps ; 2. is itself composite. (a)vu.
!9-34a give complete directions for the annual observance of a
Seneca to Christian modes of thought. Little wonder, lay of fasting and humiliation, on which the sanctuary and
then, that Paul‘s work at Athens was a comparative )eople are t o be cleansed by ‘the priest who shall he anointed
failure, and that he felt it to be so (Acts1734 I Cor. cp 8 Iz)-i.e., the high priest of the time ; the atonement is
;upposed by the lawgiver to he carried out in accordance with
23). His visit to the city was a mistake ; and perhaps he ritual (which, originally, immediately preceded it) of Lev. 9,
it was from the first due to accident. In the hurried md with the law of the sin-offering laid down in Nu. 1524. On
departure from Berma (ilctsl7 IO^), there would be xitical grounds this law also must be held to belong to Pz. (6)
little time for making plans or for choosing modes of w. 5 7-10, 14-28, on the other hand, by which the quite peculiar
h a 1 of the Day of Atonement is prescribed, are the work of a
transport, and the apostle’s abode in Athens seems to nuch later hand.
have been largely, if not entirely, due to the necessity Why and when these various portions of the present
he was under of waiting for his companions (Acts .aw were combined into one are questions that will b e
1715J). W. J. W. Aiscussed elsewhere (see LEVITICUS, $ 6 J , and HEXA-
ATHLAI (’?np= ;I$np, $5 39,52,ATHALIAH, 4.v. ), rEUCH) ; the important fact, gained from critical
in list of those with foreign wives (see E ZR A , i. Q 5 , end), analysis, is that the Day of Atonement, as far as its
Ezra1028 ( B a X E r [B], - p [HI, oOaXr [A], B E A E ~ L[L]; ceremonies are described in Lev. 16, is of comparatively
ATXALAI) = I Esd. 9 29 AMATHEIS, RV EMATHEISrecent origin, and the result of a very interesting
( q m B B L s [B], -aOers [A], & X E a [L]). development.
ATIPHA (&T@A [BA]), I Esd. 532 = Ezra254, HA- This conclusion is supported by a variety of con-
TIPHA. siderations. (u) That the pre-exilic worship knew of
ATONE, ATONEMENT (7@, d B ~ I ~ A C K E I;N 2. Stages of no such day as is described in Lev. 16 is
evident, not only from the absence of all
D’l??, d EZIAMMA; N T K&T&hhArH). The, ex- develop- mention of it (an omission which cannot
pression ‘ to atone ’ (is>) generally describes the effect merit. be accidental, the other high days being
of the sacrifices in removing guilt. The pure religious referred to), but also from the fact that consciousness of
idea of atonement, however, as W . R. Smith remarks sin and sense of need of a propitiation, which are the
( O T J C P ) 439) is to be found in the Prophets (and, necessary conditions of such an institution, first became
surely, in Ps. 51 ; see vu. I [ z ] z [!] 7 [8] g].I[ ; also, prominent in the time of Ezekiel (see FEASTS, Q 11).
with 793 in 653 7838 799). There it has no relation to ( b ) The earliest trace of public days of fasting and
sacrificing. and we cannot fail to see the appropriate- humiliation in the exilic period appears in Zech. 7 3 5 8 sg ;
ness of this scholar’s explanation of i?? Kipper as mean- the four yearly fasts there mentioned were com-
ing primarily ‘ to wipe out.’ This is in accordance with memorative of the national calamities at the fall of
Syriac usage; but the only O T passage in which the Jernsalem, and appear to have been still observed in
sense of ‘ wipe out ’ is possible is in Is. 28 18, where the post-exilic times.
reading is much disputed (Houbigant, Lowth, Du. [but Ezekiel, in this as in other respects the forerunner of the
not Di., Che.] read iq priestly law, had enjoined two atonement-days (the first day of
-. instead of ism),
- ’. : and where it is the first nionth and the first of the seventh, 4518.20).2 A
at any rate open to us’to obtain the sense ‘ wiped-out ’ young bullock as a sin-offering was to be brought, and with its
indirectly from the common reading (‘ covered over’ ; cp blood were to be smeared the posts of the house, the four
corners of the altar and the posts of the gate of the inner court
Gen. 6 14). The usual view is that a propitiation is ex- -‘so shall ye maie atmement for the house ; together with
pressed by kippel-metaphorically, as a ‘ covering ’ (cp Ar. this, certain sin-offerings for priest and people are enjoined for
Rnfa-n : in i. stem texit, in ii. exfinnit),as when Jacob, the passover-day (Ezek. 45 22).
fearing Esau’s anger, says, ‘ I will cover his face with a (c) When we turn to the detailed account of the
present ’ (cp Gen. 20 16 Job 9 24). The Hebraistic usage reading of the law in Neh. 8 J , we find mentioned a
of the word is well set forth by Driver, Deut. 425, 439. joyous celebration on the first day of the seventh month,
W . R. Smith‘s note in O T J C ( l )438-440 also deserves and a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles on
attention ; but O T / C ( 2 )381,Gtc., should here be com- the fifteenth, without any reference to a Day of Atone-
pared. ment on the tenth.3 On the twenty-fourth day, on the
In the N T ‘atonement’is given by AV for K U T U X X U ~ + , other hand, a general fast with confession of sin was
Rom. 5 11 ; but RV, with a proper regard to consist- held, by no means in accordance with the ritual of
ency, substitutes ‘ reconciliation ‘ ; cp z Cor. 5 I S J , Lev. 1614-28. This makes it clear that what stood in
‘ the ministry, the word, of reconciliation.’ Elsewhere the Law-book used by Ezra (P2) was not the Levitical
K U T U X X U ~ + occurs in Rom. 5 1 .3 1115 ; cp Col. 1 2 1 ; it ritual (Lev. 1614-28), but only a precept of a yearly fast-
is hardly one of 6 ’ s words, being found only in z Macc. day with sabbatic rest-in other words, the precept laid
520. See further, ATONEMENT, D AY OF, MERCY- down in Lev. 1629-34.
SEAT, R ANSOM , S ACRIFICE ; and cp WRS, P e l The change from the tenth to the twenty-fourth at the first
237, 320, 437, etc. ; also We. CH 335f: celebration is intelligible enough on the assumption that the
fast-day was not a t first so prominent iu the law-book as it
See also Ritschl, Die cheristl. Lehere vO?L d. Rechtfeerfigung afterwards became in Lev. 16 14-28.
IC.d. Vers&nung, ii.; Weiss, BibZ. TheoZ. of N T 1419.452
2202.216. .Dale The Doctrine of the Atonement; Wilson, Even in the still later list of high days in Lev. 2327
Ffdsean & d e s on the Atonement (1899). The semi-popular and Nu.297 we do not find any reference to the
literature is extensive. specific ritual of Lev. 1614-28 ; the tenth day of the
ATONEMENT, DAY OF (n’l???
Pi’ : later, 1 See Bsnzinger’s study, Z A TlV 0 6 5 3 [‘89], and. cp Stade,
7B?;? Pi’ ; in Talmud K?? .KFl’, ‘the great day,’ GVL 2 258, and L EVITICUS I 2.
K;?j’, ‘ the day,’ and K?? HFIY, ’ the great fast ‘ ; cp 2 The text of Ezek. 452; should be emended in accordance
with ‘EBAQ, win2 * v ’ J w ~ .
Acts279, H NHCTElA-as the only fast enjoined by the 3 Cp Reuss, Gesclr. der heiZ. Sc/rr.(z) soof: (Holzinger, H e x .
law). 750, note, differs).
383 384
 ATONEMENT, DAY O F
seventh month is simply marked by fasting, sabbath siderations),l and the .4zazel-ritual is the latest portion
rest, and the usual sin-offerings. The Day of Atone- of it. W e might perhaps suppose that those who con-
ment described in Lev. 16 must have been the result of tinued Ezra’s work were not up to his level ; but when
a long process of development, and the pericope formed we look at Lev. 1629-34a, which is the earliest part of
by Lev. 1 6 5 7-10 14-28 must belong to the very latest the law (cp 9 7 $ ) , we still find in it provisions opposed
portions of P. The precept in Ex. 3010is, of course, a in tendency to the pure religion of the greatest prophets
still later addition to the ritual, enjoining that the blood and psalmists. The procedure with the blood may be
of the sin-offering should also be applied to the altar of irchaeologically explained so as to minimise the shock
incense. which it causes u s ; it may also be spiritualised, so as
It is a significant fact that, as the later title proves io assume a totally new appearance ; but it is, as

Fundamental
(see above,
3.
I ), the Day of Atonement became the
most important in the ecclesiastical
principle, etc, year ; Jewish feeling in the later age
has been stated, out of harmony with that prophetic
religion which is restated in Pss. 40 50 51. It is also
in this part of the law that we find an expression which,
inevitably led to this. Now as to when correctly explained, condenses the unspiritual
the meaning of the law. The terms of Lev. 1 6 permit ~lementsof the law into a nutshell. It is the expression
no uncertainty. The law has reference to the thorough Fadbath Sabbdthin, which may well be more ancient than
purification of the people and sanctuary. The sin- the day to which it is applied. RV renders Lev. 1631
offerings throughout the year have left many unknown thus: ‘ I t is a sabbath of solemn rest unto you, and
or secret’ sins ; and since the people, the land, and, ye shall afflict your souls ; it is a statute for ever.‘
above all, the sanctuary are rendered impure by sin Jastrow (Amer. /ozirn. Theol. 1312 $ [ ‘ 9 8 ] ) has made,
(Lev.1531 Nu.1913-20 Ez.4518 Lev. 1616),there was a it probable that Sabbath and Sa664ihin answer-the
danger that the sacrificial services might lose their latter more exactly2 than the former-to the Baby-
efficacy and even that Yahw&might desert his defiled lonian ceremonial term Sadattum, which means a day
sanctuary. This was the reason for the institution of of propitiation with reference to the dies nefnsti of
the Day of Atonement-that the Israelites might the kings. If so, the terms Saddath and Sadhithin,
annually make a complete atonement for all sin, and which are derived from n 2 ~ to , rest, imply that by the
that the sanctuary might be cleansed (Lev. 1633). The usages on the day to which these terms are applied,
leading idea of the entire Priestly Law found here its rest is given to an angry God.3 The expression ‘ t o
best expression. The Day of Atonement quickened, afflict the soul ’ (‘inn4 zephesh), used in the same verse,
on the one hand, the people’s sense of sin and dread of is not less archaic in spirit, even if much later in use ;
YahwB’s avenging holiness, and, on the other hand, it was adopted by late theologians as a synonym of the
their assurance of reconciliation and of their renewed old word n ? ~ ,‘ t o fast.’ This, too, implies an un-
holiness. This holiness was guaranteed by their re- spiritual doctrine-viz., that by denying the body
ligious system, the efficacy of which, marred by sin, certain generally desired goods the mind of a deity
was again restored by this solemnity of expiation. It is can be influenced by his worshipper.
the key-stone of the whole system, the last consequence T o examine the full force of the ceremonies of the
of the principle, ‘ Ye shall be [ceremonially] holy, for I Day of Atonement, archaeologically viewed, is not our
am holy. ’ purpose. Our purpose is to emphasise their strictly
If we turn to the ritual, we can without difficnlty propitiatory character. That same character belonged,
discover its fundamental ideas. The high priest, after according to the Jewish liturgy, to the ritual of New
bathing, puts on plain white linen garments instead of Year’s Day ( X o S hnS-ia77ah). It was b e l i e ~ e dthrough
,~
his elaborate vestments, for he is to appear as a humble the influence of Babylonian mythology, that the fate of
suppliant before the Holy One whom only the pure may man was decreed on New Year’s Day (the festival of
approach. Of course, before he can make atonement Creation), and that on the Day of Atonement the
for the people he must first do so for himself and for his decree was ‘sealed.’ No wonder that the nine days
‘ house’-ie., for the entire priesthood. On entering which intervened between the first day of the seventh
the Holy of Holies he is to envelop in a cloud of holy month (New Year’s Day) and the tenth (the Day of
incense-smoke the place of God’s personal presence, Atonement) were regarded by the Jews as penitential
lest he die. The ritual of blood-sprinkling, as far as it days. Precisely when this view of New Year’s Day as
is peculiar to this day, is only an elaboration, required the Day of Destiny began to be taken, we know not.
by the extreme closeness of the approach to God, of the Probably it began among the Jews of the Eastern
usual procedure in sacrificial offerings. The conception Dispersion. It gives a new force, however, (I) to the
has been explained by Robertson Smith1 as an inherit- collocation of Yim Ifippzirim and RoShnS-&incih in the
ance from primitive ideas about sacrifice. See SACRI- same month, and (2) to the designation of both days
PICE, $ 2 2 . I. B. (see Lev. 2324) as Sadhithin. T o what extent, if at all,
The Day of Atonement has been called by Delitzsch the ritual of these days is a revival of primitive custom,
the Good Friday of the Law. This can hardly be is obscure. It is quite possible that in primitive times
4. Propitiatory maintained with regard to its earlier Israelitish ritual, at any rate in certain places, approxi-
period. Good Friday was not in- 1 The literary analysis of Lev. 16 is passed over in SBOT
stituted to restore the impaired cere- (Heb. ; 1894); in the article ‘Day of Atonement ’ in Hastings,
monial holiness of the community ; it had from the first D E 1zoo 6 [‘98], the omission has been supplied from Ben-
a reference to the individual and to spiritual religion. zin-er. Driver’s moderating remarks, however, do not affect
th:position taken up by Stade and Renzinger, who are both
It was otherwise with the Yim Kippzirim, even if its fully awake to the incompleteness of merely literary analysis
institutors were not personally opposed to the supple- of ancient laws. The deficiencynoted in SBOT is also to be
menting and counteracting agency of teachers of a observed in the Leviticus in Kantzsch‘s new translation (HS).
nobler religion. W e will not deny that the poetic Cp LEVITICUS.
2 Sabbath, acc. to Jastrow, ‘is the distinctively Hebrew name
prayers composed for the ‘great day’ during the given to a particular 5a66Zfk8n’(0). cit. 349s). Sabbathon=
Dispersion touch the Christian deeply from their extra- Bah. Sabaffum; the terminations correspond (Jastrow, 332).
ordinary spiritual depth and their sense of individual 3 The most common term for ‘propitiation’ was nri;h Zr66z (lit.
religion. These prayers, however, are no evidence ‘rest of the heart ’) ; iint (= Di,, ‘ day’) nzz&Zihbi has the sense of
‘day of propitiation’ (Jastrow, 330).
of the spirit of the original institution. It is not
necessary. to dwell on the hazel-ritual. The ritual
.
4 It occurs in Is. 58 3 5 I O Ps. 35 13 also in Lev. 16 31 23 17 32
Nu. 29 7. That the historical Isaiah ’in disparaging fasts, does
of the Day of Atonement has grown (this can be shown not use the phrase (Is. 113, but cp @’) is significant.
5 See K63 :4f: (Marduk comes at Zagmuk the beginning
by literary analysis as well as by archaeological con- of the year, to destine the fate of my lifd); cp Karppe
on ‘Jewish New Year’ in Rev. S h . , and Jensen, KosmoZ. 84-
1 ReZ. Sem.(9 40f: 86, 238.
25 385 386
 ATONEMENT, DAY O F
‘ mated rather more to Babylonian than was afterwards Tear ; Christ once for all, as therepresentative of his
the case. One could wish this to be true, for it would ,eople, that they might ever after have free access to
then be easier to account for the ceremonies of the 3od. ‘ Once for all’ (P@dau()is to be explained by
Y@z Z<ippziriiiz,so archaic in spirit, and so contrary to > 2 5 , ‘ the high priest enters the holy place every.year
the tendency of Jer. 31 31-34 Ezek. 36 25-27 Mic. 7 19. with blood not his own ’ (Pv aZpun dXXoTplq).
At any rate, the propitiation-days of the post-exilic , The point is not how many times in the day the high priest

Israelites were nobler than those of the Babvlonians. in :ntered the holiest, but that he entered on one day in the year.
3f course, he went in more than once on the ‘ great day’ ; the
6. Comparative as far as they were for the benefit of Mishua says four t i m e s q i ) with the incense; ( 2 ) with the
the whole people, and not merely for Aood of the bullock; (3) with that of the goat ; (4) after the
nobility. that of the rulers. The Babvlonian :veiling burnt-offering, to bring away the censer and the
incense-plate. Lev. 16 13-15 also implies more than one en-
regulations of the ‘ days of appeasement ’ (fuhattum= :ranee.
]in?@) bear upon the conduct of the king ; but, since ’ the There is a reference to the ritual in Heb. 13 TI, where
whole congregation is holy,’ those of the Ytm Kipparim the death of Jesus outside the gate is compared with
necessarily touch the conduct of all faithful Jews and the burning of the remnants of the sin-offering without
even of ’sojourners (Lev. 1629). In this respect the the camp. This, however, as Davidson has shown,l dis-
Jewish religion has a much closer affinity with the loints the ritual, and is really a mere isolated analogy.
Zoroastrian than with the Babylonian or the Assyrian. The treatise Y07nd (cp also Jos. Ant. iii. l o 3 and Ep.
If the provision for giving the uneducated populace
a visible sign of the forgiveness of all its sins and the
removal of their punishment appears to us barbaric and
,.
Barn. ch. 7) throws much fresh light on the details of the
Details in ritual ; we must not, however, suppose
that it is in all respects literally accurate.
unspiritual (see AzAZEL, I)-if, too, the populace was ~ i s h n a . In the Cambridge MS (Palestinian re-
only too likely to misinterpret the comprehensive ex- :ension) it is called Masseketh Kippzirim, which is its
pressions of Lev. 16162130, and to think that all sins :rue title, as the commentary of Maimonides on the
whatever were cancelled by the ritual-we must remember Mishna also proves. J. Derenbourg has attempted a
(as regards Aziizel) the compromising spirit natural to restoration of the oldest recension (see below, 8 ) .
large educational churches, and (as regards the other The minute directions for the purification of the high priest
point) the difficulty in an Eastern language of guarding Teed not detain us. Three confessions of sin (wida‘z~y) form the
nost beautiful part of the ritual ; they are preserved in YamZ
against all possible misinterpretations of phrases. A 3 8 4 2 and 6 z, and have passed with slight changes into the
misinterpretation Et certainly is when a Mishua treatise Jewish liturgy. I n each of these confessions the sacred
declares that- Tetragrammaton (nrn.) occurs; altogether it was pronounced
‘The goat which is dismissed atones for all (other) trans- ten times and as often as the high priest came to the name
gressions, as well the light as the grave, the intentional and the those whb sfood near fell on their faces, while the multitude
unintentional, those foreknown and those not foreknown’ responded : Blessed he the Name, the Name of the glory of
(SheJ(lu‘otl216). his kingdom, for ever and ever.’ The first part of the service
:including the blood-sprinkling) was gone through close to the
The analogy of Lev.4213 etc. Nu. 1524 distinctly Most Holy Place. ?‘he rest was performed close to the
shows that in such propitiatory ordinances it is accidental worshippers, in the eastern part of the court of the priests, north
transgressions ( n x w l ) , not deliberate transgressions 3f the altar where stood two goats and an urn with two lots.
(mi TI), that are referred to ; and in Y t m d 8 9 we read, The high phest drew the lots, and it was held to be a good
xnen if his right hand drew forth the lot ‘for Yahwb. T o the
’ He who says, 1 will sin, the Day atones ; to him the horn of the ‘goat for Azlzel ’ a ‘ tongue ’of scarlet cloth was tied.
Day will bring no atonement.’ The high priest then went to the bullock, over which he had
In N T times the Jews had advanced religiously already confessed the sins of himself and his house and now
confessed those also of ‘the seed of Aaron, thy Loly tribe.’
beyond the contemporaries of Ezra. In the Euistle to
6.iT references. -the Hebrews and in that of Fkirnabas
we meet with a Christian mosis : but
Hearing the censer and the incense, he was seen to disappear
within the sanctuary. There he stood alone; he rested his
censer on a stone called XnV 2 which stood in the place of the
Y

there was, no doubt, also an allegorising gsosis that was ark. Outside the Holy of Holies he uttered a prayer ; it had
Jewish. There must have been both poetic symbolisers to he a short one, lest the people should become anxious.3
(cp Ps. 51 7 [9]) and typologists. What Barnabas says Again the rite of blood-sprinkling is performed in the Holiest,
and then the ‘goat for Yahwe’ is sacrificed. A third time the
( 7 8 ) about the scarlet cloth tied on the neck of the high priest enters the Holiest, .and again there is blood-
‘scapegoat ’ is absurd ; but it is an exquisite allegory sprinkling in all parts of the sanctuary. Forty-three such
that the Epistle to the Hebrews suggests in the words sprinklings have purified the sanctuary. But the people at
large have to receive the visible sign of forgiveness. The ‘ goat
(qeb. 1019-22)- for Azazel’ now becomes prominent. A, nk%z;y or confession
Having therefore boldness to use the entrance into the holy is uttered over the animal‘s head, which is now to he led to the
place with the blood of Jesus-the entrance which he dedicated precipice marked out for the destruction of the goat. Men of
for us-a fresh and living way-through the vail, that is to say rank from Jerusalem accompany it ; cries and curses hasten its
his flesh, and having a great priest over the house of God, le; progress (see AZXZEL,$ ) Meantime the high priest puts on
us approach,’ etc. his ‘golden *vestments’;% ‘then he puts them off again, and a
Christians are, strictly, no priests (Christ is the fourth time (see above) enters the Holiest.
‘great priest ’ ) ; but the rending of the flesh of The evening of the ‘ great day ’ closed with a banquet
Christ, which brought him, the perfect one, near to for the high priest and his friends, and with dancing
God, enables his followers to make a nearer approach in the vineyards for the maidens of Jerusalem. Prob-
to the divine presence than the greatest priests and ably this dance was primitive ; it attached itself to the,
prophets of the age before him could make. The Day of Atonement, as a natural mode of relief to tired
entrance of Christ into the heavenly regions through human nature ( Taanith 4 8). See, further, DANCING,
death is likened to the entrance of the high priest 0 8 ; CANTICLES, 8.
once in the year into the Holy of Holies. Of these The treatise Ycimri (Misltnu by Surenhusius ; Yamci alone
two entrances the same epistle speaks thus (Heb. ed. Strack ; cp Wunsche, Per Jab. Tulm. 1 3403) : J. Deren-
hourg, ‘Essai de restitution de l’anc. redac-
912): 8. Literature. tion de Masskcher Kippourim,’ RE] no. 11
‘ Nor yet through blood of goats and hulls 2 but through his $1-80 (‘83); Maimonides, Hilchofh yam Aak-
own blood, he entered once for all into the hdly place. kz$$urim in Delitzsch Hebrezus 2 4 6 4 3 * Kuenen, Hex. 86,
The Jewish high priest entered the holiest through 312 ; 0o;t TAT 10 I & . 165 (‘76) : Benziiger, Z A T W Q65-88
(:89) ; artigles by Delitzsch in NW’BP), and in 21,-W 1 173-183
the blood of goats and bulls. The goat was the (Eo), reviewed by Kuenen, TAT 17 207-212 (‘83); Spencer, De
offering for the people; the bullock for the high ____.____
priest himself (Lev. l61115). Christ entered through 1 See his instructive essay, Hehrews (‘Ez), 196-202.
his own blood. The high priest went in once in the ~~ 2 Comnionly explained ‘foundation,’ and illustrated by Job
38 6.
3 Such a ‘short prayer’ is given in Jer. l%mzcZ, 96 (Del.
1 So Heb.97, ‘not without blood which he offers for himself GescA. deY$Zd. Poesie, 187s).
and for the trrors ( r i y v o q p l o v ) of the people.’ Cp Ecclus. 50911,,and the verses from the Ahodah in
4
2 So the best MSS (ABND). Del. ]wd. Poesie, 21f:
387 388
 ATROTH AVIM, AVIMS, AVITES
ATTUS ( ~ T T O ~[AL]),
C I Esd. Sng, RV=EzraSz,
HATTUSH, 1.

AUGIA (ayr[~]la
[BAL]), I Esd. 538. Not in /I-Ezra
N&ack‘s,and Benzinger’s Archreologh. - 261=Neh. 763. See B ARZILLAI, 3.
1-3 I. B. ; 4-8 T. K. C. AUGURY (‘one who practises augury,’ RV Lev.
ATROTH (Nu. 3235 AV). See ATROTH-SHOPHAN. 1926 Dt. 18 IO 14 z K. 2 1 6 ; AV ’ observer of times,’
ATROTH-BETH,JOAB (3el’ n’g nhpu--i.e., iJjUf2). See DIVINATION, z (2).
‘crowns of the house of Joab’ ; aTapwe O I K O Y lwaB AUGUSTUS ( a y r o y c T p c [Ti. U’H]), an honorific
[B], a. 0. twBpB [AI, a ~ a p wK. BHeiwaB [L]’), an title bestowed upon Octaviau (27 B.C.), and from him
unknown locality, mentioned in I Ch. 2 5 4 along with handed on to his successors. It is applied to him,
Bethlehem and Netophah, in a Calebite connection ; along with the title of CESAR ( q . ~ . ) in , Lk.21 ‘EV.
its people were sons of Salma b. Hur b. Caleb (see For his reign, in as far as it concerns Jewish history,
J ABEZ). S d m a was the ‘ father ’ ,of Beth-lehem. the see H ERODIAN F AMILY , I , and I S R A E L ; and for the
burial-place of Joabs father Z ERUIAH [ q . ~ . ] . Meyer difficulties raised by Lk. 2 I with regard to the census, see
(Ent. 147) suggests a connection with the valley of C HRONOLOGY, 59J
C HARASHIM. In Acts 2 5 2 1 2 5 the AV ‘Angustus’ for U E ~ U C T T ~ S
ATRO.TH - SHOPHAN, AV ATROTH, S HOPHAN should rather be, as in RV, simply ‘ the emperor,’ or,
as in RVW., ‘the Augustus.’ The reference is to
(Iplw nlTpLc; cw@p PA], -AN [F],, co@ap [Ll, Nero (see C ~ S A R ) .For ‘Augustus’s band,’ or rather
Eus. 21454), a town of Gad (Nu. 3235) ; perhaps one of
the two localities in Moab still called ‘Attarus. See (as in RV) ‘ the Augustan band ’ (Acts 27 I uadpqs
ATAROTH, 4. Z+UT.~~S), see A RMY , § IO.
ATTAI (my, perhaps abbrev. of A THAIAH). AURANUS (aypa N O Y [VA] ; cp A VARAN ), leader
I. Son of the Egyptian Jarha by the daughter of Sheshan the
of the Assassins in Jerusalem in the time of Lysimachus
Jerahmeelite : his soli was Nathan ; I Ch. 2 35j: (e@&‘ [B], ( z Macc. 440).
CSSSL[Ll, LIOB[EIL[AI). See JARHA J ERAHMEEL . AUTEAS ( a y ~ a l a c[BA]), I Esd. 948=Neh. 8 7,
2. One of David‘s warriors; 1’Ch.l21r ( 6 0 0 ~ [BN], cOO[el~
See D , $ a, iii. HOUIAH,2.
[AL]). AV ID 11,
3. Son of Rehoboam; 2 Ch. 11 20 (dO[e]t [BAL]). AUTHORITIES (&oyclal, I Pet. 322). See
ATTALIA (a~~ahoia [-la Ti. WH]). A town on ANGELS, I, 9.
the coast of Pamphylia, founded by Attalus Philadelphus, AVA (Mu),z K. 1 7 2 4 AV ; RV AVVA.
king of Pergamus, for the Syrian and Egyptian trade,
which it shared with Perga. There has been some AVARAN ( a y ~ p a[AKVI),
~ I Macc. 25. See
discussion about the site, as Strabo (p. 667), enumerat- E LEAZAR , 7 ; MACCABEES, I. 3 ; cp AURANUS.
ing from west to east, mentions Olbia, the river Catar- AVEN (I)!$ ; W N [BAQI’] in Hos. 108 Am. 15, but
rhactes, and then AttZUia; from which it would seem HAIOY r r o h o w c [BAQ] in Ezek.3017f). I. In
that Attalia must be the modern Laam. Ptolemy, Ezek. 3017 the reference IS doubtless to the Egyptian
however, is more exact : he puts it west of the Catar- Heliopolis (see ON).
rhactes. Thus, it is equivalent to the modern AdaZiu, 2. In Hos. 1 0 8 (EV ‘ the high places of Aven ’) Targ.
which is still a port with considerable trade. The town Jon. has $en>?,Bethel, which explanation is given by
has a picturesque appearance, being perched on the all ancient and most modern interpreters ; but, in con-
long line of cliffs created by the calcareous deposits of sideration of the well-attested use of :p ( m e n ) in the
the Catarrhactes, which pours over them in torrents to
sense of ‘ false worship,’ ‘ idolatry ’ (see, e.g., Hos. 1212
the sea. The remains are almost entirely Roman.
The apostle Paul passed through the town on his return
[I.]), it is a question ( I ) whether we should not render with
from his ‘first missionary tour’ in the interior (Acts G. A. Smith, ‘ Destroyed are the high places of idolatry,
the sin of Israel,’ and ( 2 ) whether, when we have regard
1425). It is still a bishopric. [See P ERGA , and
to the parallel passage Am. 7 9 , and to the probably not
Ramsay, fIist. Geogy. o f A s i a M n o y , 420.1 w. J. w.
infrequent occurrence of glosses in the M T of the pro-
ATTALUS (ATTAAOC [ANV]). Three kings of phetic writings (see, e.g., Mic. 156), the words n m n IIK
Pergamus bore this name ; but we are here concerned should not be either omitted or printed in a different
with the last two-Attalus II., Philadelphus, 159-138 type as an editorial insertion. The passage, as Well-
B. c., and his nephew Attalus I l I . , PhilomEtor, 138-133 hausen remarks, gains greatly by this omission. Vg.’s
B.C. The Pergamene kings were all allies of Rome, reading, excelsa i d o S , favours the view here taken of
and the last made the Roman people his heir (see A SIA).
In I Macc. 1522 we read that ‘ Lucius, coiisul of the
i!,~ Ibn Ezra paraphrases n3y3 nim ‘ the high places
Romans,’ wrote letters in favour of the Jews to Ptolemy, of the Baals. ’
Attalus, Ariarathes, and others. Attalus 11. is probably 3. In Am. 1 5 Maundrell(1697), Grove, W. A. Wright,
meant ; but, as the date of the letters falls in 139-138 and G. A. Smith (with Hitzig) are inclined, in com-
B. c., it is possible that they were sent to his successor.
pany with 6 ,to identify the ‘plain (or broad valley)
Attalus 111. was the son of Eumenes by Stratonice, the of Aven’ (BIKATH-AVEN ; so AV’”g.) with the great
daughter of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, who was plain between Lebanon and Antilibanus (the so-called
a close ally of the Romans, sharing the fate of Publius &@a‘), in which the famous temple of the Syrian Helio-
Licinius Crassus in the war with the Pergamene pre- polis (Baalbec) was situated. The vocalisation :;1 will
tender Aristonicus, 130 B.C. Josephus (Ant. xiv. 1 0 22) then imply a play on the name.-not On, but Aven.
quotes a Pergamene decree in favour of the Jews about This, however, is a far-fetched supposition. On
the time of Hyrcanus. W. J. W. (=Egyptian An%) represents ihe secular, not the re-
ATTHARATES ( A T T A P ~ T H P I 9 ~ ~ 0 a p [A], a ~ ~ligious,
c
SREMESH,
name of the Egyptian Heliopolis (see BETH-
4). It is very doubtful, moreover, whether
a e b p a c e b c [L]), I Esd. 94g=Neh. 89, TIRSHATHA.
the second Heliopolis (Baalbec) was an Aramaean city
ATTHARIAS (a~eaplac[BA]), I Esd. 640, RV= in the time of Amos, and it is a plausible view of Well-
Ezra 263, TIRSHATHA. hausen that ,:;] ‘false worship,’ has been substituted
ATTIRE. For Ezek. 2315 ( n * \ q , PZiZim) see for the name of some god. Cp Wincliler, A T Unter-
TURBAN ; for Jer. 2 32 ( n ~ i p @ , i f f z i ~ i msee
) GIRDLE ; such. 183, n.
for Prov.7ro (nyj, ~ t hsei”Dmss,
) § 1-(4).
AVENGER (5i+),
N L ~ . 3512. See GOEL.
1 After BL we may assume a separate place-name Ataroth ;
see ATARAH. AVIM, AVIMS, AVITES. See AVVIM.
389 390
 AVITH AYEPHIM
AVITH ( W p , in Ch. Kt. nYY; ~ & ~ A [ I ] M
I AXE. From the rude stone chisels and hatchets
[BADEL]), the city of Hadad I., king of Edom, Gen. (‘Celts’) of palaeolithic man, bronze and iron axe,
3635 I Ch. 1 4 6 (rseeaM [A], eyre [L]). e’s
reading hatchet, tomahawk, and adze were gradually developed.
, of the Hebrew must have been p w ~ Gittaim,
, which is Various early forms of these implements (needed alike
in war and in peace) are found in our museums of
clearly correct. The city of the next king had a name of
similar meaning (Masrekah). See GITTAIM. T. K. c. Egyptian and Babylonian antiquities ; the monuments
also give ample evidence of their existence. See H ANDI -
AVVA, AV AVA (K$ or ”.!r! ; Vg. Avuh) ; 2 K. 1 7 2 4 CRAFTS and WEAPONS.
(ala [BA], &IAN [L]), R V ; also Ivvah, AV I VAH , Of the O T words for ‘axe,’ three at least may be
3 l Y (omitted or only represented. in corrupt form in ; nearly synonymous :
Vg. ava), zK.1 8 3 4 (aya [A]; not in eBL),
1913 I. iB, gunen (secwis) ; Dt. 19 5 (btivq) ; 20 19 (uiSqpos) ;
(oyhoy P I , a y ~ a[AI) om. L ) = I s . 3733 ( o y r a y a I K. 6 7 ( ~ A ~ K u s )Is.
. 10 rg (‘a&) everywhere an implement
[BSOQmg.ls s r r o y r a y a [AI, O Y T ~or OYTA [Q”]). for felling trees or‘hewing large timber for building. The word
In the latter group of passages the punctuation implies is used thrice in the Siloam inscription (0.2 4), in the sense of a
quarryman’s or miner’s pick. On 2 S. 1231 2 K. 6 5 , cp IRON, $ P.
an exegetical mistake (see commentators on Is.) : the 2. O?l& kardam, ’ a $ b , securis(Judg. 948 Ps. 745 T S. 132of:
name throughout should be Avva or Avvah, and it Jer.4622f), perhaps specially used for felling trees; if so, it
used to be thought that the city referred to the same would have a heavier head than thegarzan.
as that from which the king of Assyria brought colonists 3. %V?, kaXi2, n&Kus, sacuris, Ps. 746t ; in Tg. Jer. 46 22
to the ‘cities of Samaria’ ( 2 K. 1724). It is clear, for Heb. O???. RV gives ‘hatchet,’ apparently to suggest a
however (Wi. A T Untersuch. IO.$), that 2 K.172431
have been interpolated by some one who supposed diminutive axe. l5, Sym., Pesh., however, read, not p’nln?
SEPHAKVAIM [ q . w . ] in z K . 1 8 3 4 1 9 1 3 to be the Baby- ‘ its carved work,’ but ?’!?? ‘ its gates.’ The rather iniprobable
lonian city of that itame. It is only in- the speeches of word should perhaps he i’?? ‘knife’ (Che. Ps.(z~),and
Sennacherib‘s envoys that Avva has a right of existence ; in the light of the Tg. we should emend n b J to ni”?$p?
‘Avva or ‘Avvah, however, is surely a corruption of ‘two-edged’ (Herz, Che.P), ‘with two-edged axe’).
‘Aezah (nip), ‘ Gaza.’ Tiglath-pileser, when he con- Somewhat different from these, and probably adze-
quered Gaza in 734 B.c., appears to have introduced shaped, is :
the cultus of ASur (Wi. GBA 228, 333). ‘Where,’ 4. 12Yp 7na‘@, Xdvevpa [BKAQ, reading npSlD71, dscia in
then, ‘are the gods of Sepharvaim and of Gaza?’ ( S o JFr. 103 Is. 44 rnl(urc~dpvw Zimri, AV ‘tongs ’), and by emenda-
Che. Exp. Times, June 1899.) T. K. C. tion of the text in Is.10’3;z (Duhm) and Zech.113 [ z ] ) (see
FOREST). Kimhi understands something lighter than the
AWIM (wg,so R V ; AV AYIM, AVIMS,AVITES @ard&fc, or *axe.‘ In Jcr. 103 ma*aSlid is a tool suitable for
fashioning or carving wood.
[Avvites, RV]). ‘I. According to Dt. 223, the Avvim
inhabited the Philistine coast ‘as far as Gaza’ before Two other words are doubtful.
they were ‘ destroyed ’ by the Caphtorim-i. e., the 5. 32n In Ezek.269, EV ‘axe,’ an insecure rendering. The
Philistines. The same late writer, in whom the anti- text is possibly corrupt (see Co.; 4 s paXaipars [BAQI, r o k
~ T A O L[Qmg.]).
S
quary’s interest is prominent,l states that the Avvim
6. QJp, 2 S. 12 31 (S7roropeJs [A])= I Ch. 20 3, ?l!?p, which
dwelt in villages or settlements (o?eq ; see H AZOR ) ;
Berth. and Kittel conform to Sam. The text, however, perhaps
d and Vg., however, read 09vn3, ‘ the Hivites ’ ( 0 1 euam needs more extensive emendation. Che. reads >iixn n n i y
[B.\FL] ; New&). In Josh. 132-6 (an editorial insertion a marginal correction of the nljn3 (after ow$ which found its
which expands the simple statement of JE in w. I ) we way into the text (Ex$. Times, x. 1899, p. 285). See SAW.
Of the N T names the b&q of Mt.310 Lk.39 is the wood-
find the Avvim again introduced, and described (if man’s axe ; hut Rev. 204 ( m A d < e u B a ~; cp B I K. 5 18) refers
RV is right) as belonging to the S. of Philistia ; prob- to the axe of the headman (?F&Kus).
ably, however, ‘on the south’ belongs to the whole Axes were among the emblems of high rank in Egypt
region defined in wv. 26 3. Here d and Vg. once more and at Mycend (see the axe figured in Erman, Egypt,
read ‘the Hivites.’ Sir G. Grove (in Smith’s DB) 73 ; Schliemann, Mycene, 252). In the O T it is rather
suggests that the Avvim may be identical with the the mace that is the favourite emblem of sovereign
Hivites (cp 6 Vg. above) ; but the latter name is power (see R OD). There is, however, a sarcastic passage
uniformly found in the singular (.inn). The word in Bar. 615 which suggests that the axe could he an
might, to a Hebrew ear, mean, yet probably does not emblem of divinity ; and we may perhaps illustrate it by
mean, ‘ruins’ (cp I IM). Not improbably it is a Frazer’s learned note on Paus. x. 141. The double-
mutilated form of o * q , ‘ Arabians ’ (Che. E@. Times, headed axe is characteristic of so-called Hittite sculptures.
June 1899). The Avvim (so-called) were Bedawin The Labrandean Zeus of Caria also is represented on
who had begun to adopt a settled life. coins as carrying a double-headed axe (hbrus=axe in
2. o$ayn,with def. art., ‘the ruins’ (amw [B], a u a p [AL], Lydian ; Plut. Quest. Grec. 45). There appears on the
Vg. Avim), an unidentified placd,in Benjamin (Josh. 18 23). I t coins of Tenedos a similar axe, which, being generally
is mentioned in immediate connection with Bethel and Parah
and on this account has been conjectured by Knobel to he th; accompanied by a cluster of grapes, may be a symbol
same as Ai. of the worship of Dionysus. Cp also Ohnefalsch-
3. In Josh. 15 29 ‘ S A L reads ‘ Avvim’ for ‘ Iim.’ See IIM (I). Richter, Kypros, 1257.3 Of course, the bow and the
4. The people of A VVA (4.v ) z K. l?31. l5 again 0 ; wacor. sword, not the axe, are the emblems of YahwB, though
[BAL (there is a second render&, arwvsLp in L)] ; Vg. Heuoi.
T. K. C. in Ezek. 92 the supernatural agents of Yahwh carry
mauls (or like weapons). See BATTLE-AXE.
AWL (pr!n, lit. ‘borer’ ; ’OTTHTION [BAFL]).
An instrument for boring, mentioned in the description AYEPHIM (D’pv), the rendering of RVW. in 2 S.
of the ‘law of slavery‘ (Ex. 216 Dt. 1517). It prob- 1614, where the text has, ‘and the king and all the
ably resembled the Egyptian boring instruments de- people that were with him came weary.’ So 6 ,
picted i n Kitto (s.v.), or those more recently discovered PKXEXup6voi [EL], b ~ K X E X U ~ ~[A].
O S The name of
by Bliss at Tell el Hesy (see A Mound of Many Cities, 1 1Z
:p as it stands does not make sense. For proposed emen-
S I ). Such instruments were used by workers in leather dations see Che. (SSOT,Isaiah, Heb.), Duhm, Di.-Ki.
(see Erman, LVe in Ancient Egypt, 45of:). Cp 2 ‘With a terrible crash’ (nyqyy~3) is only a conjectural
SLAVERY. rendering of MT.
3 Perhaps however. the axe was depicted as a survival of the
AWNING (ilD??, cp Gen. 8 1 3 ) ~Ezek. 2 7 7 RV, cor- time, beford the introduction of coined money, when it may
recting the punctnation (Ti3??3,AV ‘ that which covered have been the unit of barter (Ridgeway, Origin of MetaZZic
Currency, etc., 317 A). Perhaps too the ‘tongue’ (pus) of
thee’). Cp DRESS, I (4).
gold in Josh.7zr was in the shape of an axe ; see E&. Times,
1 Cp Kue. Hex. 137119 ; Mey. GA 1217 ($ 179). Nov. 1897, p. 61.
391 392
 AYYAH AZAZEL
some place seems to be required by the context. If the same time, it is difficult to suppose that the Hilkiah
Ayephim be indeed a place-name, the locality it indi- of I Ch. 613 f: (539J ) should be distinguished from
cates remains unidentified. On the other hand, it may the Hilkiah of I Ch. 911 and Ezra71 ((uaperou [B]) ; if
be a corruption, or the place-name may have dropped we identify these, Azariah ( 3 ) was a contemporary of
out. Cp We. in Zoc. ; bLadds rap& rbv ’IopSdv~v. Josiah, not of Hezelciah. ’This name appears also as
G. A. S. Azarias, Azaraias, Aziei, Ezerias, and Ezias.
4. Expounder of law (see EZRA, ii. 5 13J: ; cp i. $ 8 ; ii. 5 16
A W A H ( P u [Bii. Gi.]), I Ch. 7z8+ RVmg.=AV
151 8 15 [rlc.), Neh. 87(om. BNA)=I Esd. 948 (AZARIAS)and
GAZA [q.n., 21. See AI, I. sigkatory to the covenant (see E ZRA, i. $ 7), Neh. 10 z [3] (,tap:,,,,
AZAEL ( A Z ~ H A O Y [BA]), I Esd. 914=EzralO15, [BN C.aA1, (axaptas IN*]). See also Neh. 3 23 ( a c a p r a [BNAI),
ASAHEL,4. 24 (pq@a<a t e l i a [BNAI, 0’l.o~ a<. [Ll). H e is apparently the
E ZRA of d h . 12 I 13.
AZAELUS (AZAHAOC [B]), I Esd. 934=Ezra1041, 5. A Kobathite Levite ( I Ch. 6 36 [zI], a c a p r a [BL], cp 2 Ch.
RV AZAREEL, 5 . 29 12, r3777y). In I Ch. 6 24 [g] his place is taken by U ZZIAH , 2.
6. h. Nathan, supervisor of Solomon’s twelve prefects (I K. 4
AZAL, or rather RV AZEL (!?Ye; iacoh [BKT], 5). Probably he had to see that the contributions of the differ-
~ C A H A[AQ]), the point to which the cleft of the moun- ent departments were punctually furnished. His father was
tain is to reach when Yahwk descends upon the. Mt. most likely the well-known prophet who in z S. 1 2 I is called
simply Nathan (so Ew., We., Klo.). Others ( e g . , Bahr) make
of Olives in battle (Zech. 1 4 5 ) . This place, presumably Azariah Solomon’s nephew ; cp 2 S. 5 14 (@ o p v b l ‘ a [B*L]). See.
situated near Jerusalem, is often identified with the however. ZABUD.
equally obscure BETHEZEL. Kohler, Wright, and 7. A ion of King Jehoshaphat twice enumerated (as Azariah
others (after Vg. Symm.), with less probability, take and Azariahu) in 2 Ch. 21 2, but Amitted in @ [B].
8. A son of Jehoram, king of Judah in 2 Ch. 226 ( o x o f l 6 1 ~ a r
\I.&+ to be an adverbial expression, ‘ very near, hard [BAL]): hut it is clear from z K. 8 29. as well as from 2 Ch. 22 I,
by’ (cp Olsh. 1676; but see also Konig, 3 330 f: [TI), that AHAZIAH[21 is meant. I n z Ch. 2 1 17 he is called JEHO-
Clermont Ganneau thinks of the WBdy YBsiil, a little AHA2 (PV., 3).
valley on the right of the “Ain el-Loz, in the Wiidy
9. King of Judah .
otherwise known as UZZIAH(q.v., I).
IO. One of the ‘ t&ee children,’ companions of Daniel ; other-
en-NBr (PLY@., 1871, p. 101). wise called ABEDNEGO [q.v.] (Dan. 1 6 7 11 19 Song of Three
Children v. 66 [@ Theod. Dan. 3 881 AZARIAS, 7).
AZALIAH (s;l$&$ sccsAioy [AL]), father of 11. A judahite,’son of Ethan, I 6h.28 ( { a p a a [B]; a c a p r a
Shaphan the secretary, z K. 2’23 ( ~ h i o y[B])=zCh.
348 ( C ~ A I APA]).
[“!k A Jerahmeelite I Ch. 2 3 8 3 (acapbpaa [Bl).
13. b. ODED,a proihet of Judah, whose prophecy to King Asa
AZANIAH ( V P G , 32, ‘ Yahwi: weighs,’ cp Jaazan- is recorded in 2 Ch. 15 1-8. T h e prophecy is attributed to Odcd
in v. 8.
ish; AZAN[€]lA PAIS - N I H ) \ [HI, aZAlOy [Id]), a 14. Son of Jeroham ; one of the captains who were associated
Levite signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA, 1. 7), with Jehoiada in deposing Athaliah ( z Ch. 23 I).
Neh. 109 [IO]. 15. Son of Obed; another of the captains associated with
Jehoiada (2 Ch. 23 I : cp I Ch. 2 38A).
AZAPKION (Accadxlwe [B]), I Esd. 533 AV= 16. Son of Hoshaiah ; an opponent of Jeremiah, Jer. 43 z
Ezra255 RV, HASSOPHERETH [q.n.]. (acaxap‘as [N*]). Cp JAAZANIAH I .
17. Leader (see E ZRA, ii. B 82) in the great post-exilic list (2.
AZARA, RV ASARA ( a c a p ~[BA]), a family of
N ETHINIM mentioned after Phinees ( = P[h]aseah) in
-
ii. g), Neh. 7 7 (acapa [BN], < a [Al)=Ezra2 2, S ERAIAH ; see
E ZRA ( a p a m s [BA I, uapaca: &7Ll).
the great post-exilic list (see EZRA, ii. 5 9), I Esd. 531+. 18. In procession at dedication of wall (see EZRA, i. B 13 E),
Unmentioned in 1) Ezra249 Neh. 751. Neh. 12 33 caxapcas [BNI (see Baer), (4).
19. An kphraimite, temp. Ahaz, w?o took part in restoring
AZARAEL (OZEIHA [BA]), Neh. 1236 AV, RV AZA- the captives of Judah, z Ch. 28 IZ (ovaera [B]).
REEL, 4. .-20.. h. JEHALLELEL, a Merarite Levite, 2 Ch. 29 12 ( c a x a p a r
LBAI).
.I

AZARAIAS. I . AV S ARAIAS , I Esd. 81 (azapaioy AZARIAS (AZAPIAC [BAL]), the Greek form of
[B], cap~loy[AL])=Ezra71, S ERAIAH, 7. AZARIAH.
2. AV AZARIAS ( 2 Esd. 1I ) ; see A ZARIAH , 3. I. r E s d . 9 z r = E z r a l O z r UZZIAH,3.
In list of Ezra’s suppohers (I Esd. 943), wanting in (I Neh.
AZAREEL, or rather, as in RV, Azarel (5&7!;, $ 2.
8 4 ; see Be. ad Zoc.
28 ; ‘God helps’ ; s z.p i ~ h
-rAL1,
. cp. AZRIEL). 3. I Esd. 9 48 = Neh. 8 7 AZARIAH ( ).
4. RV AZARAIAS (2 Esd. 1 I) b. Helkias; see A ZARIAH (3).
I. One of David‘s warriors (I Ch. 126 ; o<ps~qh[BN], ehqh 5. The name assumed by the angel R APHAEL [q.v.] when
[A] ; e+ [L]). See D AVID , B T I , a. iii. accompanying Tobit (Tob. 5 12 6 6 13 I 8 9 2).
2. One of the sons of Heman (see LEVI), I Ch. 25 18 (acapra 6. A captain in the army of Judas the Maccahee, I Macc. 5 18
[Bl ; o < q A [Ll ; cp UZZIEL).
3. A Dniiite ‘ prince’ under David ( I Ch.27 2 2 ; a r a p a q h [Bl, 5660 (in ZI. 56 SaxapLas [ANI).
ai
acp‘qh [Ll). See D AVID $ I I c. i. 7. Song of Three Children, 66 (@ Theod. Dan. 3 88) ; see AZA-
4. A priest in list of {nhabjtants of Jerusalem (see EZRA, ii. RIAH (TO).
B 5 [I] $ 15 [ ~ ] , aNeh.
) , 1113 ( e u d p ~ y h[BK]); in the procession AZARU (azapoy [B]), I Esd. 5 15 RV; AV AZIJRAN.
a t the) dedication of the wall (see E ZRA, ii. 5 13g),Neh. 12 36, AZAZ (TI?, OZOYZ [BA] ; but L gives iwazaz--i.e..
AV A ZARAEL (oca+ [BX*Al, ocpcrqh [NC‘ap superscr.]).
5. In list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA, i. $ 5, end), Joazaz) : cp Azaziah, a Reubenite name ( I Ch. 5 8f).
Ezra 10 41 (ecepqh [B], euppqh IN])= I Esd. 9 34 (ESRIL, RV A Z k E L ($.RIL’).I Of the two goats sgt apart for
EZRIL,e<p[e]cA [BA] <up+. [L]), apparently repeated a s the great Day of Atonement (see ATONEMENT, DAY
AZAELGS (?6. acaqh [Ai, -OF [Bl, om. L).
1. Levitical OF), one was chosen by lot for a sin-
AZARIAH (nil!;, ss 28 84 [or ; in nos. I , offering for YahwB, the other for ‘AzB’zel
z , 6 , ~ , 8 , 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 g , z o ;cpBaeron1Ch.2381,‘YahwB practice. (Lev. 168-10). After the sin-offering had
helps ; cp E LEAZAR, AZRIEL ; A Z A P I ~ C[BAL]). been made in behalf of the people, the high priest was
I . b. Zadok ; priest, temp. Solomon, I K. 42 (ulupec to lay both hands upon the head of the goat for ‘AzB’zel,
[B]). See BEN-HUR. and confess over i t . d the sins of the Israelites (cp the
2. Chief priest, temp. Uzziah (2 Ch. 26 17-20). confession of sin in Mishna, Y t m d Sz), laying them on
3. Chief,priest, temp. Hezelciah ( 2 Ch. 31 10-13). its head and sending it out into the wilderness to Azkel
In I Ch. 69-14 (535-39) the name of Azariah is borne by (71. 215). The meaning of this act, which is further
the twelfth, the fourteenth, and the twentieth in descent described in the Targum of pseudo-Jonathan, is clear.
from Aaron in the line of Eleazar (nu. g 11 13 atupra [B]) ; The goat symbolically bears away the sins of the people.
of the fourteenth it is said that he ‘ executed the priest’s Something analogous is found in Lev. 14 4 8 , where, for
office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem’ the purification of the leper, one bird is to be killed, and
( I Ch. 61oJ [536J]). Omissions and transpositions the other, charged with the disease, is to be let loose
allowed for, the three Azariahs in this series may be 1 AV renders ‘scapegoat.‘ For the renderings in @, see col.
held to be identical with nos. I , 2, and 3 above; at 395, note 7.
393 394
 AZBZEL AZBZEL
into the open field. Cp also Zech. 5 5 J , where sin is 'perhaps some particular class of unfriendly demons ;
carried away bodily into the land of Shinar. see Steiner in Schenkel, Bi6. Lex. 5 599, and Bochart).l
The meaning of AzHzel is much disputed; it is, of The truth is that the old derivation of Azgzel
course, a subject closely connected with the inquiry into lrom Jiiy, ' t o be strong' (see Tg. ps.-Jon., Saadia),
2. ~o wo8 the origin of the custom. It is at least I needed to assume a new form in order to commend itself.
certain that, as AzHzel receives one goat The explanation of the name as $! i.y!Z (which was retracted
AzLzel ? while Yahwb receives the other, both must ,y Diestel its author) implies an un-Hebraic mode of formation,
be personal heings. jays Di., and the names of angels compounded with $8
The theory of the Jewish interpreters (Tg. ps.-Jon Rashi, d o n g to the later Jewish theology. The former objectinn is
Kimhi. cp Ibn Ezra's references to current views), tbzt Aznzel iot absolutely decisive ; the name Abirel in IubiZets seems to be
is a &&e in the wilderness, is inadmissible. and equally so are 75 '13s (see ABRECH). Still, there is no necessity to follow
the views of Aq., Symm., Jer., AV, th; it means the goat
itself ( ~ p b y o pLrrrep,y6pevos and & + L ~ ~ E Y O Scaper
, emissarius, 'the Diestel ; the later Jews could form names correctly, and the ex-
scape-goat') and of Merx in Schenkel's Bib. L e x . 1 256, and planation offered above, which with the connected theory, may
others, tha; it is an abstract term = 'complete removal or :him to be virtually a new on;, is not open to LA'S objection.
dismissal' (from Jsiy), a view probably taken by 48.2 Di.'s second objection points the way to the true reason why
modern scholars have often given such far-fetched and improbable
It seems most natural to connect the belief in question [however learnedly justified) etymologies. They felt that a name
with the demonology and angelology which developed formed on the analogy of Michael and Gabriel must be late; but
so largely in the post-exilic age (Enoch6 7 8 I 9 6 10 4 ) . their theory compelled them to suppose that Azizel was early,
and that the name Azlzel in Enoch (like Belial and Beelzebub
One group of interpreters, on this view, take AzHzel as Delitrsch ventures to add) was simply borrowed from the OT.4
a prominent member of the class of se'irim, or demons Thus the light thrown on the name by the Book of Enoch was
of the field and the desert, to whom sacrifices were missed. Nor was suffxient use made of the Mishna treatise
offered in post-exilic times (Lev. 1 7 7 ; see S ATYR, J 2), called Yamri, with its strange but not imaginary details, although
the description comes from a time not very far removed from that
-to whom possibly all the sins of the people with of the later portions of the priestly code. Nor did critics give
their evil effects were symbolically sent every year (so, heed enough to the facts of comparative folklore, which illustrate
with various modifications, Ew. , Di. , Dr. [Ez9os.],Now., certain details in the 1'8mri. ~

Benz.). We need not, however (with the first three The more we study the Priestly Code, the more we
scholars), regard the conception as a primitive one, or are struck by the combination of firmness and laxity
as having been taken over by the religion of Yahwb from which its compilers display. They are firmness itself as
an earlier stage ; and least of all is there any imitation regards the essential principles of the law,3 but very
of the symbolic vengeance taken by the Egyptians on compliant to minor popular superstitions. Nothing,
Set-Typhon3 (see Brugsch, Relig. u. MythoZ. d. aZt. therefore, can be more probable than that the legal
Aef. 710). On the other hand, Cheyne ( ' The Date and authorities to whom the later portions of Lev. 1 6 are due
Origin of the Ritual of 'Azb'zel ' in Z A T W 15 153-156 gave their sanction to a custom which it had perhaps
[ : 9 ; ] ) considers it to have been one of the objects of the been found impossible to root out, on condition of its
ritual ' t o do away with the cultus of se'irim by sub- being regulated and modified by themselves. Assum-
stituting a personal angel for the crowd of impersonal ing this to have been the case, we can explain the
and dangerous se'irim.' His arguments for this very name AzHzel, and even account for the spelling, which
attractive view are ( a ) the form of the name (deliberately has struck many scholars as inconsistent with the ety-
altered from h i y , ' God strengthens ' ; cp w!!~,I Ch. mology $ti 1iy. From the point of view here adopted-
15z1),which seems to be akin to that of the other names viz., that the priestly code is not Mosaic, but a com-
of angels ; and (6) more especially the passages of the bination of diverse elements due to many different persons
Book of Enoch referring to AzHzel as a leader of the in the exilic and the post-exilic periods, and framed in a
evil angels (Gen. 6 I z 4). AzHzel is therefore of literary statesmanlike, compromising spirit-there can be no
not of popnlar origin ; he is due to the same school of doubt that,the view here mentioned is correct. There
speculative students of Scripture to which we owe the is no uncertainty as to the meaning of the name AzHzel,
other names of angels, good and evil, in the later and very little as to the origin and significance of the
literature.' In any case, we must admit that the old rite.
interpreters who identified AzSzel with Satan had T o supplement the account of the present writer's
some plausibility on their side (Orig. t. CeL. 6 305 ; theory given above, it may be said that, like Diestel
Iren. Hmr. 1 1 2 , followed by Spencer, Hengstenberg, 4. Jewishsuper- formerly, he opposes the widely
Kalisch, and Volck). We may at least venture to say received view that AzHzel was a
stitions. KaKosalpwv to whom the sin of the
with Reuss that I the conception of AzHzel lies on the
way which led later to that of the devil.' For Azgzel people and the resulting calamities were sent, and that
is certainly described as in some sense a being hostile the belief goes back to pre-exilic times.
to God. 1. B. The first part of this view was that of Benzinger (Arch. 478)
in 18 4 it is however scarcely tenable. The sultan of thejinn
It is strange that so many modern critics should have to w R o i the)se'irim dropitiated by the Jews in post-exilic time;
failed to comprehend the ritual of the scapegoat, and correspond (see SATYR, $3 z), has no personal name ; he and his
subjects are impersonal. If Aznzel were a demon we should
3. Recent have rejected with much positiveness the hear of him in other parts of Leviticus. Nor is it likely that
only natural explanation of the name even a later legislator would have adopted Azazel as an evil
criticism. AzHzel, so that it has become a kind of demon.
dogma that $!,N~z is not from $N ~ i y but , either a weak-
ened form of $i$i~, meaning < averruncus,' or < porro translator meansby this,however, isbrroa~prrdpsvos(soTheodoret,
Quest. 22 in Lev.). In short, he agrees with Aq., Symm., Jer.
abiens,' or ' amotio ' (Ol., Merx, Stade, Kautzsch-Ges., in deriving the name from ly and $!?. This gives the right in-
Volck),7 or else a broken plural of difficult interpretation terpretation of Lrrorroprraios [BAFL] which answers to ASzel in
1 For extra-biblical parallels, see below, 8 3 ; also Ew. A n t . v . loa. A v e m n c u s in this vi.& of the facts, is not the
1 5 8 ; WRS, Rel. Sem.PJ 4 2 2 [and for an Assyriological explana. equivalent of 48's term' as Ew. (Ant. 363) supposes.
tion of the reference to the wilderness, see R IT UA L, 0 IO]. . 1 Del. is not happy in his explanation 'Defier of God.' He
2 Cp however below note 7. traces the name to Arabic mythology: 'bm is used of a horse
9 This view hhs left trace in Smith, DBP) 1297, hut ha: which successfully resists its rider (ZICW 1 182 r801); hut
received no sanction from Di. or Dr., whose names are mentioned. Kdnig is no more successh-'fortis decedens' is his rendering
Against it see Diestel, Zt.J List. Theol. ('60), pp. 1 5 9 3 . (LeLrge6. 2 a,417).
4 Prof. G. F. Moore suggests a reference to Nachmanides 01: 2 S? Driver (Ex$ositor, 1885,6. p. 215). In Hastings' D B
Lev. 16 8. (art. Azazel') no very definite conclusion is reached; hut
5 The Rabhinic identification of Satan with Sammael as ' chiel reference is duly made to the too generally neglected analogies
of the Satans' (Mid'. R. on Dt. 11 3) may here he chronicled. of other popular religions.
8 Gesch. der Schrifttm des A TW,5 3 Kalisch rightly says that, 'although Azazel and his goat are
7 Some critics refer to B as having a stain on the Levitical legislation, they do not taint the main
abstract formation. Certainly in Le principle of Judaism-Gods absolute sovereignty' (Leviticus,
h i y $ EIS ~ J Lrrorropmjv
Y ; and in v. 2 294).

395 396
 AZ~ZEL AZGAD
Aziizell to the Jewish theologians (including the authors T o resume and to supplement : the usages described
of the scapegoat-ritual) was a fallen angel, evil no doubt, n Yimci are a combination of a primitive sacrifice to the
yet not altogether unfriendly to man, for he was the lemons of untilled or (especially) mountainous country
true Tubal-cain, one of the 'sons of Elijhim ' mentioned with a superstitious custom still widely prevalent, accord-
in Gea. 6 rf: q 2 (see Bmch 6 6 J 8 I and especially ng to which evils of all kinds were sought to be got
10 4-8 13 I ). He was said to have been bound hand .id of by the device of lading them on some animal,
and foot, and placed in ' an opening in the desert which which was thereupon driven away from the community
is in DudZ5l' ; rough and jagged rocks have been laid ike the scapegoat (see Lyall, Furtnightb Review, 1872,
upon him. Now, DudHEl is not 'God's caldron' (Di.), 1. 131 ; Frazer, Gulden Bough, 2 189-793 ; E. F. Knight,
but (Geiger, Charles) a fantastic modification of Hadudo Whem Two Empires Meet, 221 J ) . Such customs,
in Beth Hadudo, where was the crag (pis) down which, 1s Frazer points out, tend to become periodic, like the
according to Y8mi (6 4 ; cp Tg. ps.-Jon. Lev. 1 6 z z ) , .ite of the scapegoat. See, further, ATONEMENT,
the ' goat for AzHzel ' was pushed, which crag Schick DAY OF.
identifies with mod. EZt-hudZdzln, on the edge of a chalk Diestel,' Set-Typhon, Asasel, und Satan' in Z t . 3 kist. TheoZ.
r860, p. 1 5 9 8 : Oort, Th. T 10 150.155 ['76]; Baudissin,
cliff, overhanging a rocky chasm, at the right distance Studd. ZUY sein. ReL-gesch. 1 s 8 o f ' Driver,
from Jerusalem. The coincidence seems too striking to Literature. Expos. 1885 6. pp. ZS4-217: Cheyne; 'ZATW
permit a doubt as to the true character of Aziizel. 15 153 8 ['95]. .and articles by Driver in
It was this personal angel (the later Jews gave a Hastings DB,and by Volck in Herzog, PREP). Cp also Di.
md Kalisch on Leviticus, and Nowack, He6r. Arch. 2 136.
quasi-personality to the angels) that the author of the 5 If: I. 8.;§ 3 3 T. I<. C .
scapegoat-ritual substituted for the crowd of se'irim (or
earth-demons) to whom the people sacrificed ; just as AZAZIAH (s?l:T!Z, J 29, 'Yahwi: is strong,' or
the scapegoat was the substitute for the sacrificial ' strengthens ' ; oz[c]lac [BKAL]).
victim^.^ The need must have been great indeed. In I. A Levite musician, temp. David (see LEVI),I Ch. 15 21.
2. An Ephraimite, temp. David (I Ch. 27 20).
the marriage songs of the Canticles we twice find (it is 3. A Levite, temp. Hezekiah (z Ch. 31 13 ; O<u<as [A]).
probable) the strange appeal, ' I charge you, 0 ye
AZBAZARETH (acBAcap@ [A]), I Esd. 569 AV,
daughters of Jerusalem, by the fairy-hosts and by the RVmg. ASBACAPHATH.
tree-spirits.' In such a poem the name of Yahwi: could
not be lightly used : all the world, however, knew of the AZBUK(i3.llTP ; AZABOY [ K ] , - X [BI, AzBOyX [AI*
supernatural beings who haunted thickets and some- E Z ~ O Y K[L] azaoc), father of N EHEMIAH [z] (Neh. 3
times inhabited trees, and like the iinn to-day, were r6t). Possibly of non-Judzean origin ; cp Mey. Ent.
sometimes friendly to man, sometimes unfriendly. 147 167.
The substitution appears to have produced an effect :
at least, the Chronicler, in the third century, represents
AZEKAPI (?li$Y, AZHKA [BKAQL]), a town in the
lowland of Judah (Josh. 1535, ' I a j i 7 ~ a[B]), not far from
the custom of sacrificing to the se'irim as pre-exilic
tbd supposed scene of David's combat with Godath (I
( 2 Ch. 1115). Certainly, too, we may infer from the
S. 171). This was in the VALE OF ELAH( W. es-Snn?,
details respecting the n h p m ~p;?, ( ' the dismissed goat ') on the upper course of the Sulcereir) near Socoh (Shu-
in Y8md that the popularity of the institution was great. weikeh), which is about 1 2 m. S. from Aijalon and 2 m.
The cries, ' Take (them) away and get out,' 7 reported
S. from Jarmuth. Azekah is mentioned as one of the
by the Gemara on Yimd 6 4, show how intensely the
points to which the pursuit of the five kings by the
lower classes (Babylonians they are disparagingly Israelites extended after the battle of Beth-horon (Josh.
called) believed in the removal of their sins by the goat.
1010). It was fortified by Rehoboam ( 2 Ch. 1 1 9 , ' A ~ C K U
See also Ep. Barn. 7 ; Tertull. adv. fWarc. 3 7 ; adv.
[L]), besieged by Nehuchadrezzar (Jer. 347), and re-
/ud. '14 ; Just. c. Tfyph. 40. That the 'goat for inhabited by Jews in post-exilic times (Neh. 1130).
Aziizel' was really pushed over the precipice ( Y i m d , Perhaps an echo,of the name survives in Bir ez-Zd& N.
e), we have no reason to doubt. It is instructive of Socoh (cp Buhl, PuL 90, n. 9 2 ; and see, on the
to notice, however, that the scribe who inserted the other hand, Seybold, MDPV, 1896, p. 26).
directions in Lev. 1 6 could not bring himself to put
down all that actually happened. What we read is
that Aaron was to confess all the sins of the Israelites
AZEL (5ua),Zech. 145 RV=AV AZAL, g.v,
(there is great emphasis on ' all ' ) over the goat, and to AZEL ($Ye, 5 5 0 ; abbrev. from AZALIAH, q.v.;
send him away in the charge of a certain man into a GCHA [BA], ACAHA [L]), a descendant of Saul, in a
solitary land ?a!(: y ? v.
~ z ~ f . ) . This is explained in genealogy of B ENJAMIN ( z . v . , § 9, ii. [PI), I Ch. 8 37f:
Tg. ps.-Jon., ' and shall send him away by a man (ACCAHA [L1)=943 (GCAHA [W),944 (GCAHA [HI).
prepared from the preceding year, to take him into a AZEM (Dg?), Josh. 1529 AV, RV EZEM.
rocky desert which is Beth-hadwe' (see above). In
compensation for this, it is Leviticus that gives us one (apcei@oypae
AZEPHURITH, KV ARSIPHURITH
detail not preserved in Y8mi. In v. IO it is said that [B]), I Esd. 516=Ezra218, JORAH.
the goat for Azizel is to be presented alive before YahwB; AZETAS ( A Z H T ~ C[BA], om. L), a familyin thegreat
that atoning rites may be performed over him (m?! post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. 0 9, § 8 c ) in I Esd. 515,
1 3 ) ~ ) ; which recalls the direction about the ' living but norin I/ Ezra216zNeh. 72s ; perhaps the name owes
bird' (see I) that forms a parallel to the scapegoat in its presence to some mistake (Mey. Bnt. 155 n.).
the law of cleansing the leper (Lev. 14 6 J ) . AZGAD (XTY, 43--i.e., ' strong is Gad' [cp Azbaal,
CZS 1 118, and see GAD], or, 'fate is hard' (?) ;
1 Another form of the name may have been Uzziel (cp Tg. ps.' azrah [AL]). The B n e Azgad, in the great post-
Jon. on Gen. 6 4 with Enoch 6). The form Azael also is found.
2 I t is not worth while to examine the Jewish inter retationr exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. § 9), Ezra212 (reckoned at
of this strange passage (see Enoch, Tg. ps.-Jon., Jude?. 1222; auya8 [B], uPy. [A], C Z G L C Z[L])=Neh.717
~
3 ZDPY 3 2 1 4 8 ['So]. U ~ ayem8 [A], U U T U ~[K])
(reckoned at 2322 ; C Z G ~ [B],
4 See WRS, Rel. Sem.P)418,422, 468.
= I Esd. 5 1 3 , AV SADAS, RV ASTAD(ap-yac [B, where
6 Cant. 2 7 3 5, nls*h.p niKay?. The change in the pointing
the number of the family is given as 13221, UGTUU [A]).
is very slight : \K should be ?. The usual explanation is very A band of IIO males of them came up with Ezra,
fanciful (see Budde). The sacred trees (especially the locust.
or carob-trees)are still reverenced in Palestine as being possessed. Ezra812 (see E ZRA , ii. § 5 a ; 5 3) ( U G T U ~[B])=I Esd.
6 See WRS, ReZ. Sem.P) 13r-133 : Baldensperger, PERQrr. 838, EV ASTATH, RVmg. Azgad (ama0 [BA]), and
St., July '93, p. 204fi Some of the jinn are believed to bt they were represented among the signatories to the
dangerous to newly married people. Don't play with love, say:
the passage (Cant. 2 7),-for fear of thejintr. covenant (see EZRA, i. § 7), Neh. 1015 [16] ( C Z G ~[B],
U ~

NYI 51M NI1 51B. U G T U ~[K]).

397 398
 AZIA AZZUR
AZIA (ozsioy [B]), I Esd. 531 = AV Ezra.249, I. One of the chiefs of Manasseh-beyond-Jordan, I Ch. 5 24t
U Z Z A , 2. ( s u S p q h [Bl, d p . [AI, 4 p . [Ll).
2 . A Naphtahte, I Ch. 27 1st (supeiqh [Bl :but some Hebrew
AZIEI (4 Esd. 12) in the genealogy of Ezra, see MSS have UZZIEL,,a reading supported by B A L O<LQA).
AZARIAH, 3. 3. Father of Seraiah [2];Jer. 3626t (euppc’lh [BY, eu<. [AI,
e d p . [QI).
AZIEL ()K’Tlf. I Ch. 15 2 0 ) . See JAAZIEL.
AZIZA (KJ’,T!, 5 83 ; ‘strong’ ; ozei EL], -A [BK]. AZRIKAM (Pz’lIY9 E Z P I K ~ MLAW).
g 5, end),
o<i<a [A], in list of those with foreign wives (E ZRA , i. I. Levite, in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem
Ezra 1027’1 Esd. 928, SARDEUS,
RV ZARDEUS
(<epahras [E], (EZRA, ii. g 5 [6], $ 15 [ I ] a),Neh. 1115 ( ~ < c ~ E[Bl,
L e ~ W,
s a ~ p [w”
Sapsalas [AI, O ~ C L[LI). e<plKav [KC.“],w { p ~ [A])=I Ch. 9r4 (euppaucav [R], a<pLKap [L]).
AZMAVETH (nlPl&?,perhaps ‘ Death is strong ’ [cp 2 . A descendant of Zeruhbahel,
supway. [AI, aup. [Ll).
T Ch. 323 (E<pElKaY [B],

Cant. 861, a possible name for a hero [see AHIMOTH, 3. Descendant of Saul in a genealogy of BENJAMIN(g 9, ii. [p]),
and cp Gray, HPN 2311 ; acc. to Kittel the ending I Ch. 538 (c<peiKaL [B”], e<perra [Bab1)=1 Ch. 944 (eu.BpaKau
should be -moth or -7nnmth [SBOT I Ch. 1201 ; om. BA, [el).
4. ‘Ruler of the house’ under Ahaz, 2 Ch.287 (ay8pwcav
A z M w e [Kc.” mg.1, ACM. [L]). A Benjamite place near [Bl, 4.pLKav [AI).
Geba (Neh. mZ9),usually identified with eZ-&zmeh, a
village 4 m. NE. of Jerusalem, between Jeba‘ and AZUBAH (?>Vq, ‘ forsaken ’ ; a z o y ~ a[BAL]).
‘AnBta ( Z D P Y 2 1 5 5 ; PEF Mem. 39). I. Wife of C ALEB [q.v.] in I Ch.218 f: ( y ~ r o u / 3 a
The b’ne Azmaveth occur in the great post-exilic list (see
E ZRA, ii. $ g), Ezra 2 24 (vtoi aupw8 [BI ... a<. [AI ... apw8 [B,A in v. 191, aPoufa [L]). The names in this passage
are as peculiar as the constructions. Kittel ( S B O T )
[L])=Neh. 718 ( b Y B p p q e a u p w e [BN], b. &e’. [AI, V?OL auBpw8
[L]), B ETHAZMAVETH (n.:?!p n’?)=I Esd. 518, R V BETHAS-
renders an emended text thus : ‘And Caleb b. Hezron
MOTH, which is preferable to AV BETHSAMOS (pacmupwv [B],
took Azubah (deserted one) to wife, and begat Jerioth
Ba~Baupw8SappwB [AI). (tent-curtains) ; ‘and these are her sons, Jesher (up-
rightness), Shobab (backsliding), and Ardon.’ As to
AZMAVETH (nlpIp,l see above ; &CMwe [BL], the names of these sons, Jesher may be read Jojashar
AZM. [AI). (YahwB is right), and Shobab Jashub (one who turns
One of David‘s thirty mighty men, S. 23 31 (aupw8 [B*l,
I. 2

upw. [Bb], -as pw8 [A], a<dpwu [L])=I Ch.l133(a<j3wv [BK]),

to God), and Ardon Ornan (a
opva). But i w ? can
hardly be thus used of God (in spite of Dt. 324 Ps.
a native of B AHURIM [g.u.l (‘piill [ I Ch.] and ’ P p l ~ [ z S . lbeing
119137), and Ornan, or (1Ch.321 MT) Arnan, has
both miswritten for ’p?$ [We. Dr.]). Azmaveth, the ‘father‘ of a suspicious aspect. Hence Klostermann (Gesch.
JEZIEL and PELET, z (I Ch. 123 ; aupw8 [K]), two of David’s 115) takes v. 18 to be a record of a shortlived colony
W~IKIOKS may, however, be the place-name; cp above. See of Calebites, founded on the spot where there had
D AVID , T I (a)ii.
2. b. Jehoadah or Jarah ; a descendant of Saul in a genealogy
been a pastoral settlement. H e renders ‘Caleb b.
of B EN J AMIN (B 9, ii. [PI), rCh.536 (uahpw [B1)=942 (ya<ao8 Hezron made the deserted one-the woman of tent-
[BKI). curtains-to bear children, namely, Upright. and Back-
3 b. Adiel, one of David‘s overseers (r Ch.27ng). See slider, and Destruction’ (reading niy’i’ n$3, i$$, and
D AVID , S 11 (c) i.
AZMON (I\@?&?),
an unidentified site, marking the ]me). The colonists began well, but ‘left the paths
western portion of the southern frontier of Judah before of uprightness’ (Pr. 213), and were given up to ‘ destruc-
the point where ‘ i t went out at the brook of Egypt’ tion‘ (=Shei51, Pr. 1511). Wellhausen also (De Gent.
33f.) notices the symbolic character of the names ;
(Josh. 154 Nu. 344 5.1). d has Auepwva [BAL], iv,:, according to him, =iii@*,
Z ~ h p w v a[BA], AueXpwva [AFL]; Targ. has E:?, on . : Jeshurun ; niy’i,-n> (so
which last precarious reading Trumbull bases his he reads) is a tent-dwelling woman ; n!r~q, the desert
identification of Azmon with ‘Ah el-Kaseme in the region inhabited at first by the Calibbites.
W. Kaseme. With Azmon cp Ezem (Dry). 2. Mother of Jehoshaphat, I K.2242 (drue/3a [B])
= z C h . 2031. T. K. C.
AZNOTH-TABOR ( V ~ niq--i.e., I ‘ears, or
Outliers, of Tabor’-§ 99 ; cp UZZEN-SHEERAH), a land- AZUR (7SQ?),Jer. 281 Ezek. 111 AV ; RV better
mark of Naphtali, doubtless near Mt. Tabor, Josh. AZZUR[P.v., 1f.1.
1934 (EN@ OaBwp P I , a z m w e 8. [AI, azwe 0.[L]).
According to Onorn., a@vwO (OSz) 224, 88) lay near
DiocEsarea or Sepphoris ; cp CHISLOTH-TABOR, and
AZURAN, R V AZARU,RVmg. Azuru (qzapoy [B],
-<ovp. [AI om. L) family in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA,
see TABOR. ii. $ g, $ i c ) , in I’Esd. 5 15, but not in 11 Ezra 2 r6=Neh. 7 21 ;
AZOR (azwp [Ti. WH]), Mt. 113 ; see GENEALOGIES, probahlyidentical with A z z u ~2, (Neb. 10 17 [IS]). Note in each
case the occurrence of the preceding names, Adin, Ater, and
ii. § 2. Hezekiah.
AZOTUS ( A Z ~ T O C[AKV}, Jos. Azi.xii. 11 2, EZAC
[ed. Niese], AZAC &ZAP&), the ‘mount’ to which AZZAH, AV G AZA (n.!’,
r A l a N [BIT r A z H c [AI,
Bacchides pursued the Jews in the battle (Apr. 161 B. c.) &Ala[L]), I Ch. 7-28 RV.Many Hebrew MSS here
in which Judas the Maccabee lost his life (I Macc. 9 I 5). read 2 ; ~ (Ayyah; cp aB),
a reading recommended
is unknown. Michaelis has very plausibly conjectured by the context. The place was apparently N. of
that the expression may be due to a mistranslation of Shechem. See G AZA.
the Heb. i n n n i i w (cp A SHDOTH-P ISGAH), meaning
the slopes where the hill country of Judah descends into
the Shephelah. Ewald ( Gesch.(3)4 422, n. 2) compares AZZAN (tip, ‘ gifted with strength‘ ; ozd [BAFL]),
At&r&W. of Bir ez-Zet, a small hill. father of PALTIEL, 2 (Nu. 3426T).
2. The Azotus (atwros [Ti. WH]) of Acts840 I Macc.
415 568 1077 f. 8 4 1 1 4 1434 1610Judith228 is ASHDOD AZZUR (’rl?s) [7.!g in 21, ‘ helped [by God] ‘) ; see
[ q . ~ . ] . Some (including Bnhl, p. 188)also identify with NAMES, § 56, and cp Azuri of ASHDOD.
Ashdod the Azotus of I Macc. 915. I. Father of Hananiah, the prophet, of Gibeon, Jer.2S [63 ch.
AZRIEL (5&’lIy,2 perhaps ’help of God,’ § 29). 351 I (acwp [BKAQ]) ; AV A&.
2 . Father of JAAZANIAH [41, Ezek.111 (&p
~

[Bl, Lacap [AI,

1 On the vocalisation and 63’5 readings cp HAZARMAVETH.a<ovp [Q] a<cp [Qmg.] LE<CP [FL])’ AV AZUR.
2 ’?!p is an Aram. pronunciation (cp 5s1?ly),
and it is note- 2. One’of the sicn&ories to thicovenant (see EZRA. i. 8
Y ,,,:
” 7) I

worthy that here contrarily to its usual practice, @ prefers the N,eh. 1017 (aSovp [B], a& [NAL]) ; AV AZURAN ; perhaps also a
Hebrew vocalisation (cp Kittel, SBOT ad Zoc.). Gibeonite?
399 400
 3AALi BAAL

B
BAAL' (b&'z; d often H Ba& indicating that the of children the goodness of Baal, as Israelite parents
reader is to substitute ~ ~ C X Y N; Hthe substitute has that of Yahw6.
1. Meaning its way into the text in I K. That Baal was primarily a sun-god was for a long
81925, as the corresponding ny2 time almost a dogma among scho1ars.l and is still often
ofname: 2. Not sun- repeated. This doctrine is connected with
local numina. has in the Heb. text of Jer. 324 and
elsewhere ; see Di. MBBA Phil. -hist. theories of the origin of religion which
god* are now almost universally abandoned.
K1. 1881)is a word common to all the Semitic languages,
which primarily signifies owner, pr@rietor, possessor. It The worship of the heavenly bodies is not the beginning
is used, for example, of the owner of a house, a field, of religion. Moreover, there was not, as this theory
cattle, and the like; the freeholders of a city are its assumes, one god Baal, worshipped under different
bi'dim. In a secondary sense ba'ab means husband; forms and names by the Semitic peoples, but a multi-
but it is not used of the relation of a master to his tude of local B a l s , each the inhabitant of his own
slave or of a superior to his inferior ; nor is it synony- place, the protector and benefactor of those who
mous with the Heb. and Phcen. ridin, Syr. m&? Arab. worshipped him there. Even in the astro-theology of
m 6 6 , in the general sense of lord, master. When a the Babylonians the star of BE1 was not the sun : it was the
divine being (ib)is called ba'al it is not as the lord of planet Jupiter. There is no intimation in the OT that
the worshipper, but as the proprietor and inhabitant any of the Canaanite Baals were sun-gods, or that the
of some place or district, or the possessor of some worship of the sun (Shemesh), of which we have ample
distinctive character or attribute, and therefore a comple- evidence, both early and late, was connected with that
ment is always required. Each of the inultitude of local of the Baals ; in z K. 2 3 5 cp II the cults are treated as
Bnnls is distinguished by the name of his own place. distinct.
There was a Baal of Tyre, a Baal of Sidon, a Baal of The &ammdniin (Dqnn), included in the inventory of
Harran, a Baal of Tarsus ; a Baal of the Lebanon, and places of idolatrous worship with rna:@bas and as/zZras
a Bnal of Mt. Hernion ; a Baalat of Byblos,-and so 3. Baal- (Ez. 6 4 6 and elsewhere), have indeed, since
O U . ~ We know that in some cases the Baal of a Rashi, been connected with the late biblical
place had a proper name: the Baal of Tyre was hammon. and Mishnic hammd (nen), 'sun,' and ex-
Melkart; in Southern Arabia Dhii SamSwi was the plained as sun images (RV), sun pillars ; and it has
Baal of BBliir, 'Athtar of Gumdgn, and so on. In further been conjectured that the &amrn&%f7n belonged
other cases the local Baal was distinguished in some spccifically to the cultus of Baal-hanimon, whose name
other way. The god of Shechem was Baal-berith occurs innumerable times in Punic inscription^,^ and is
(perhaps as presiding over an alliance ; but see BAAL- commonly explained ' the glowing Baal '-Le., the Sun.
B E R I T H ) ; Baalzebub (to whom was ascribed control This translation, however, can hardly be right : the
of flies ; cp BAALZEBUB) had a celebrated oracle at article would be expected : according to all analogy,
Ekron ; a /3aXpaprws, K O ~ P U Y O SK+WY (Baal-marlsod), is & a m n i nshould be a genitive. ' The deity which dwells
known from inscriptions found near Beirkt ; a N D iy,~ in the sun-pillars ' would be formally possible ; but with
(sanator?) in Cyprus, and so on. In Baal-gad and the direct connection of Baal-hammon with the sun, one
Baal-zephon the second element seems to be the name of the chief arguments for interpreting &am?ninfmto
of a god (see FORTUNE, BAAL-ZEPHON). On Baal- mean ' sun-pillars ' falls to the ground. In this state of
hanimon and Baal-shamem see below, $ 3f. There is the case we cannot be sure that Baal-hammon was a
nothing in these peculiar forms to shake the general solar deity; and if fresh evidence should prove that
conclusion that Baal is primarily the title of a god as he was, it would be unwarrantable to infer that the Baals
inhabitant or as owner of a place. universally bore the same character.
There were thus innumerable Baals-as many as Another Baal; whose cultus was more widely diffused
there were towns (Jer. 228 1113), sanctuaries, natural than that of Baal-hammon-in later times he rose
objects, or qualities which had a religious significance 4. Baal- above all the local Baals, and perhaps in
for the worshippers. Accordingly, we frequently find shamem. many places supplanted them-was Baal-
.in the OT the plural, Baalim, the Baals, which we shamem, whose name we must interpret,
must interpret not, as many still do,3 of-.the multitude not ' Lord of Heaven,' but ' The god who dwells in the
of idols, or of local differentiations of one god, but of heaven,' to whom the heavens belong5 Philo of Byblos
originally distinct local numina. The Baals of diffeient identifies Baal-shamem ( K ~ P L O So6pasoD) with the Sun
places were doubtless of diverse character ; but in ("HAios ; see Fyagm. Hist. Gr. 3 56531: ) ; Macrobius says
general they were regarded as the authors of the that the god of Heliopolis was at once Jupiter and Sol
fertility of the soil and the increase of the flocks (Hos. (Sat.1 2 3 ) ; a Palmyrene bilingual (Vog., no. 16)seems
25 I,), and were worshipped by agricultural festivals to give " HA L O S for io&, but the reading is not quite
and offerings of the bounty of nature (Hos. 2 8 13). An certain. The Greeks and the Hellenised Syrians identify
interesting survival of this conception is the Talmudic Baal-shamem with Zeus ( e . 5 , Z. ,uiywros repaliu~os),
phrase, field of the baal, place of the baal, and the which is better in accord with the obvions significance
Arab ba'b, for land fertilised, not by rain, but by of the name.6
subterraneous waters (cp ReZ. Senr. (n) 9 7 f i ) . Proper When the Israelites invaded Western Palestine and
names of persons such as Hahnibal (Favour of Baal), 1 See, for example, Creuzer, Sym6. u. MyfF2.W 2 413; Movers,
Hasdrnbal (Help of Baal), Baal-yatan (Baal has given), PltJn. 1 1 6 9 8
Shama':ba'al (Baal hears), compared with similar YahwA 2 It is singular that this interpretation did not suggest itself
names, Hananiah, Azariah, Jonathan, Shemaiah, show to any of the ancient translators. See further, MA$$EBA,$ 6.
3 In Phcenician also El-hammon.
that Phcenician parents acknowledged in the gift 4 In a Palmyrene inscription a hanzmdnd is dedicated to the
sun ;D e Vogii.4, no. 12 a.
1 See WRS ReZ. Sen~(21 9 2 8 5 The name is equivafent to Dho Samzwi in Southern Arabia.
2 Cp in the 6 T Baal-hazor, Baal-meon, Baal-peor, Baal-tamar, Baal-shamem in Dan.lZrr (perverted by Jewish wit to
and the like. Sikkiis H6mEm 'the appalling abomination ') was probably a
3 For example, Baethgen. Romah Jnpite:(see A BOMINATION , ii.).
26 401
 j BAAL BAALE JODAH
passed over from a nomadic to an agricultnral life, they (q$p) likewise occurs ( I Ch. 835 etc.) ;lone as a proper
6. Israel,s learned from the older inhabitants not only name. See N AMES, § 42.
how to plough and sow and reap, but also
Baal. the religious rites which were a part of BAAL (!'ga), I Ch. 433t. See BAALATH-BEER.
Canaanite agriculture-the worship of the Baals who
gave the increase of the land, the festivals of the
$-:-
BAALAH ( ;i ya, $ 9 6 ) . I. See KIRJATH-JEARIM.
2. A city in the Negeb of Judah, Josh. 1529 (@ha
husbandman's year. At first, probably, this worship
of the Baals of the land went side by side with that of [B], Paaha [AL]). In Josh. 193 the name is written
Yahwe, the God of their nomadic fathers. When B ALAH (22; ; Pwha [B], PehPwha [A], Poha [L]), and
Israel came into full possession of Canaan, however, the place is assigned to Simeon. In I Ch. 4 29 it appears
Yahwe himself became the Baal of the land. Names as BILHAH (m+; a P ~ h h a [B], Fahaa [A], Pahaa8
like Jerubaal (Gideon), Eshbaal (son of Saul), Baal- [L]). The reading is uncertain and the site unknown.
jada (son of David), prove that Israelites in whom 3. Mt. Baalah, a landmark on the boundary of
the national spirit was strongest had no scruple in Judah between Shikkeron and Jabneel, Josh. 1511(Bpta
calling Yahwi their Baal. The worship on the high d7ri h ~ p a[B], @os yijr Paha [A"], o. y. yaPahu [A'* "7,
places was worship of Yahwe in name ; its rites were o. r?jsPaahwv [L]). The site is unknown, unless with
those of the old Baal cult. The prophets of the eighth Clermont-Ganneau (Rm.Crit. '97, p. 902) we should
century, especially Hosea, denounced this religion as pure read 181 for 12, and identify the 'river of the Baal'
heathenism. In whose name it is practised is to them with the Nahr Riibin (see J ABNEEL , I ). More than
immaterial : it is not the name but. the character of one river in Palestine, doubtless, was dedicated to Baal.
God that makes the difference between the religion of
Israel and that of the heathen. BAALATH. See KIRJATH-JEARIM.
In the preceding century Elijah had roused the spirit BAALATH-BEER (lg? ll$& Josh. 1 9 8 B & p e ~
of national Yahwism in revolt against the introduction
[B"], B & ~ [Bablb
K BbAh~EpHppbMOe[AIS 'B&&h&
of the worship of the Tyrian Baal (Mell5art)by Ahab, BHppaeMwe [L]) or Baal ( I Ch. 433), also called
and Jehu had stamped out with sanguinary thoroughness
the foreign religion; but this conflict was of a char-
RAMAHof the South (3;; nn?,
Josh. 198) or RAMOTH
acter wholly different from that in which the prophets of of the South ( I S. 3027 papa [BL], -0 [A] V ~ T O U );
the eighth century engaged with the Canaanite Baal- perhaps the same as the Bealoth (nhp?,
paX,~a~vau
religion practised in Yahwb's name. In the seventh [B], paXw0 [AL]) of Josh. 1524 (and I K.416; see
century, with the introduction of Assyrian cults, there was A LOTH ), an unidentified site in the Negeb-probably
a marked recrudescence of the kindred Old Israelite and its most southern part-of Judah. The name implies
Canaanite religions, which provoked the violent measures that it had a well and was a seat of Baal-worship.
of Josiah, but was only temporarily checked by them, as BAAL-BERITH (ll'?? !'g>-i. e., ' the [protecting]
we see from Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Baal of the covenant'),l a forni of the Canaanitish
With the cultus of the Baals in Canaan we are
Baal worshipped at Shechem (Judg. 9 4 ) , called El-
acquainted chiefly through the descriptions which the
6 , Baal cultus. prophets give of the Baalised-sit veniu berith (ll'?? %, ' God of the covenant ') in Judg. 946
ver6o-worship of Yahwe. The places RV.
of worship were on the hill-tops, under the evergreen @ has in Judg. 94 BaahppEprB [B], paah SraB+qs [AI, Baah-
trees; they were marked by ushirus, rnu@as, &am- BF~[FLB]SraB<rqs [L] . In ZI.46 BaiBqp pep63 [Bl. Paah SraB$Kqr
[A], qh SraB. [L]; in's33 Baah [A], / h d & E L e [L], Baah
mEnnirn. Images were not always, perhaps seldom, Siasljmlv [Bl.
present : an image required a shrine or temple. At the The covenant intended was probably that between
altars on the high places, offerings of the fruits of the Shechem and some neighbouring Canaanitish towns,
land and the increase of the flocks were made ; beside which were originally independent, but were at length
them fornication was licensed--nay, consecrated. The brought under Israelitish supremacy (Ew., Kue., We. ).
Baals had their priests (C HEMARIM, 4. v.) and prophets. Of the rival views-viz., ( u ) that the covenant was
At the great contest on Carmel they leap upon the altar, between Baal and his worshippers (Baethgen, Sayce
and cry, and gash themselves with knives 'after their in Smith's DBPI), and (a)that it was between the
manner.' W e may supplement these scanty notices by Canaanitish and the Israelitish inhabitants of Shechem
descriptions of Phoenician worship, especially of the (Be., Ki. )-the former gives an undue extension to
Tyrian Baal, Melkart, and of the Punic ' Kronos,' in a specially Israelitish idea, and the latter misconceives
Greek authors. See, further, H IGH PLACES, IDOLATRY, the relation of the Israelites within Shechem to the
and, with reference to human sacrifices, MOLECH. Canaanites. Gen. 14 13 cannot possibly establish the
Selden, De Dis Syris, 1617; Movers, Die Ph5nizier, i. ;
Munter, ReZigion der Karthager; Oort, Worship .of BaaZim former (Baethgen), nor can the name of Gaal's
in Israel, ti-anslated by Colenso, 1865' father, or the speech of G AAL (q.".) in Jndg. 928, be
Literature. Baudissin, art. ' Baal,'PRE(3); Pietschmann' used to support the theory of an influential Israelitish
Ph5nizier 1889 1 8 2 s ; Baethgen Beitr. 2 element in the population of Shechem. Any Israelites
setnit. Rd-gesch. ; E. Meye;, art." Baal in Roscher,' Lexikon
der Griech. u. Ram Myth. 2 8 6 7 8 w. R. s.-G. F. M. who might 'be dwelling in Shechem would be simply
or protected strangers, and not parties to a covenant.
BAAL (h& ' Lord ' ; cp T$q, I Ch. 835).
The temple of Baal-berith had a treasury from which
I. In a genealogy of R EUBEN ; I Ch. 55 (twqh [B],
the citizens made a contribution to Abimelech (Judg.
paah [A], Paha [L]). 94). It was there that Gaal first came forward as a
2. In a genealogy of BENJAMIN (4.v . , 9, ii. P ) ; I Ch.
leader of the rebellion (927), and within its precinct the
830 ( , ~ U U ~ U K U L , UL, e . paaha K U L ? [B], paah [ K ~ Lv ~ p ] inhabitants of the tower of Shechem (the 'acropolis,'
[A], P a d [ K U L vasap K ~ vqp] L [L])=936 (paah [BA], We. ) found a temporary refuge from Abimelech at the
p a d [L]). It is more probable that MT, followed by close of the revolt (946). The deuteronomic editor
some ancestor of @", dropped Ner (2111[llr]) in I Ch. 8 mistakenly accuses the Israelites of apostatising to Baal-
than that it has been added elsewhere (so SBOT). berith after Gideon's death (Judg. 833 ; see Moore's
The conjecture (We. TBS 31 n.) that Baal and Nadab note). T. K. C.
are to be read together as a compound name is thus
unsupported ; it is also unnecessary, since Melech BAALE JUDAH. See KIRJATH-JEARIM.
1 P u n k temple inscriptions defining the dues of the priests 1 ' Or may no; Baal-berith El-berith, simply mean " God of
for various kinds of sacrifice (so-called Tariffs of Marseilles and the community (cp COVE&.NT B s)? The original story
Carthame) show that both the animals offered and the classes of grohably gave the name of the'god of Shechern' (Prof. N.
sawificz were closely similar to those of the Hebrew laws. chmidt).
403 404
 BAAL-GAD BAAL-PERAZIM
BAAL-GAD (74 $g2, ‘ Lord of Good Fortune’ ; cp B IDKAR ) ; w-hile Baethgen (Beitr. zur Sem. ReL-gesch.
Gudubal = Gud Baal [Hoffniann, Uebw einige phon. 16)compares the Phcenician ~ 1 1 y(CZS 1,no. 308 ; ortlxy,
Znsch’r. 271 ; BbahraA [FL], and through corruption ib. no. 50) and renders ’ husband of Isis ’-a still more
BAh(a)rah(a) [BA]),l ‘in the valley of Lebanon, precarious derivation. See AMMON, 8. w. R. s.
under Mt. Hermon,’ is thrice mentioned in Joshua (1117
127; 135 l’ahyaa [B], yahyah [A], Paehyas [L]) as
BAAL-MEON ()@ $uy3
; 93 96 ; Nu. 3238 Ezek.
259 Ch. 58), otherwise Beth-baal-meon (Josh. 1317),
I
marking the northern limit of Joshua’s conquests. Beth-meon (Jer. 4823), or Beon (ips ; Nu. 323).
Though Sayce and others identify it with Ba‘albek Q’s readings are : in Nu. 32 38, peEhpEwY [BAL] ; in Ezek.
because it is described as in the n y p of Lebanon, it is 25 9 m a v a [B”], m a v o rqyq,s [BabAQ] ; I Ch.5 8, pssh-
much more probably the BAAL-HERMON of I Ch. 523 ga&wv [ B I - p a i v [AI, +ewv [Ll ; in Josh. 13 17,OLKOU p w h p d
(cp also the ‘mount Baal-hermon’ of Judg. 33), now [Bl, OL.pehapwv [AI, OLKOVS pceApo0 [Ll : in Jer. 48 23, OLKOY p a w
known as Biniris; see CBSAREA, 7f:, and D AN , ii. [BAQ], 0.paw0 [N*], 0 . yapwv [W7; inNu. 323pa~av[BFVid.L],
p a p a [AI).
BAAL-HAMON (fin;! k’y2 ; BeeehaMmN [B], The place is assigned in Numbers, Joshua, and
Beehh. [K], Beeh. [A]), a place where, according to Chronicles to the Reubenites. It is twice mentioned,
a marriage,song of no historical authority (Cant. 8 I,), once as Beth-bad-meou and once as Baal-meon, in the
Solomon had a vineyard which he entrusted to keepers. inscription of Mesha (U. 9 30), from which we learn
Some (e.g., Del., Oettli) have identified it with the that it was Moabite before the time of Omri and became
Balamo(n) of Judith83, which seems to have been so again under Mesha. It was Moabite also in the
not far from Dothan. I t is obvious, however, that time of Jeremiah (Jer. 4823), and in that of Ezekiel.
some well-known place is meant, and the references to who names it witli Beth-jeshimoth and Kiriathaim as
N. Israelitish scenery elsewhere in the Song of Songs ‘ the glory of the country’ (Ezek. 259). It is represented
give some weight to Gratz’s conjecture that for ‘ Baal- by the modern MB‘in, in the W. ZerkC Mli‘in on the
hamon ’ we should read ‘ Baal-hermon ’ (Judg. 3 3 I Ch. Moabite plateau, 2861 ft. above sea-level, 5 m. SW.
523). If Socin (Baed.(3)331) is right, Baal-hermon from Madaba. There are extensive ruins (Baed.(3) 177).
and Baal-gad are the same, and are to be sought at It may probably be identified with the Maccabzan
the mod. HC$beiyB (see, however, CBSAREA P HILIPPI) : BEAN [q. v.1. The Onomaslica (OS(*)32 40 10132) quote
on the luxuriant terraces on both sides of the valley the Reubeuite city under the forms paiav, B;ean, mhis
vines and other fruit-trees are still cultivated. Most TOO ‘Apoppalov.
probably, however, ‘ in Baal-hamon ’ is due to a corrupt
repetition of ‘ t o Solomon.’ Bickell is right in omit-
BAAL-PEOR (live 5 ~ 3Beehr&rap
, ~ ~ A F R ~ L ) ,

ting it. T. K. C.
or, rather, the Baal of Peor (so RVmg, Nu. 253 ; see
BAAL, I ), the Moabite god to whose cult Israel yoked
BAAL-RANAN (&f?&Q § 42, ‘Baal has been itself while in Shittim (Nu. IC. JE, Dt.43 Ps.106~9,
gracious ’ ; cp Johanan, Ph. h(lXI, and the well-known thrice in later writings abbreviated to PEOR [p.v., zj).
‘ Hannibal,’ also Ass. Banl&anunu, C O T , 189). The name occurs in Hos. 910 as a pZance-name-an
I. Ben Achbor ; one of the kings of Edom, according to abbreviation, it would seem, for Beth-Baal-Peor (see
Gen. 3 6 3 8 5 (pahaevvwv [A], Pahaevwu [D], Pahaevvwp BETH-PEOR). The nature of the worship of this god
[E], paahevwv [L])=r Ch. 149J (/3aXaevvwp [B], pa- is unknown, although it is not improbable that it was
haevvG [A], PaMevwv [L]). Strangely enough, the a local cult of Chemosh (Gray, HPN 131). For the
name of his city or district is not given. Moreover, old speculations, based mostly upon precarious ety-
the scribe’s error o”11y ( ‘ Hebrews ’) for Dy7Jy ( ‘ mice ’) mologies, see Selden, De Dis Syris. See, further,
in I S. 1411 (see Bu. SBOT) suggests that ’11x3~11 (ben PEOR, and cp Baudissin, Studien, 2232, Baethg. Be&.
Achbor) in ZJ. 385 may be a variant to iiya ]a in v. 32. 14f: 261, and Di. Num. a d loc., Dr. Leut. ad loc.
Now, as Hadad II., an important king, (probably) the BAAL-PERAZIM (tI?q$?&q,89), a place men-
founder of a dynasty, has no father’s name given, it tioned in connection with a battle between David and
seems likely that Baal-hanan is the lost father’s name ; the Philistines in the valley of REPHAIM( q . ~ . )hard ,
and thus the text should run, ‘And Saul died, and by Jerusalem, 2 S. 5 20 (C?rdvo [or, drr’ilvw] Granom2v
Hadad, hen Baal-hanan, reigned in his stead’ (so
Marq. Fund. r o f : ; see, however, BELA pi.]). See
[BAL]) ; I Ch. 14 IT bis (+aah+&B~ue~p ...
GLUKOT~
+apiuiv [BY, + a ~ a a g+aeeLuel . .
. ~LaKo?r+v +apleLv
EDOM, 4, HADAD.
2. A Gederite; according to the Chronicler, super-
...
[K], ~ a a X ’ ~ , a p a m ~ v GLUKOT+ &tpauew [A], @eh-
qjapaurv bis [L]). According to the narrator, the
intendent of olives and sycamores in the Shephelah of name was so called because David had said, ’YahwB
Judah in the time of David ; I Ch. 27 28 (pahavas [B], has broken through my foes before me as at a breaking
&hXava [A], Pahaavav [L]). See D AVID, 11c. through of water,’ Baal-perazim ( i e . , ‘Lord of acts of
BAAL-RAZOR (iiup 5y2, 09 93, 9q, s. 1323. breaking through ’) being regarded as a title of the God
See H AZOR, 2. of Israel. The same event seems to be referred to in
Is. 2821, where the pIace is called Mt. Perazim (Lipos
BAAL-HERMON (VDln h;
§ 93, B b i h e i ~[B”], Bu+?c% [BKAQ]. hs 8pei 6 i a K h r w v [Aq. in Q”g.1, 6v TQ
BAAAEIM [Bab]. Bbbh EPMWN [AL]), I Ch. 523 ; see 6pei TGV GLUKOTG~ [Syni. Theod. in Qng.]). This form
BAAL-GAD, BAAL-HAMON, and, especially, CBSAREA of the name suggests the most complete explana-
PHILIPPI. tion of David’s question, ‘Shall I g o up against the
BAAL1 (’>$?), Hos. 216 E V ; mg. rightly ‘my Philistines?’ (v.19). H e asks whether he shall come
lord ’ AV, RV ’ my master.’ See H OSEA, § 6. upon .the Philistines from the chain of hills which bounds
the valley of Rephaim on the east (in v.20 read, ‘ And
BAALIM (D’>$qg). Judg. 211. See BAAL, I . David came from Baal-perazim,‘ with @ and IClo.) ;
BAALIS (D’)$? ; Beh[e]ica [BKC.aAQI, B E N B C ~ he starts, be it remembered, from Jerusalem (see D AVID,
[H“] Bbbhic [Q”g,], cp Sw. a d loc. ; Jos. Ant. x. 93, 7). On the next occasion he did not ‘ go up ’ (on the
hills), but came upon his foes from the rear (v.19).
§ 164, &AAhlMoc--i.e., &Y> as some Heb. MSS In spite of this narrative, which is written from the later
read), king of the Ammonites, the prime mover in the Israelitish point of view, the name Baal-perazim must
murder of Gedaliah (Jer. 40 [47]r4; cp 4110). The have existed long before David. It is analogous to
name is interesting as an etymological problem. Some RIMMON-PEREZ, which means ‘ Rimmon (RammBn) of
render ‘ Son of exultation,’ on the precarious supposition Perez,’ and belonged properly to some point in the
that in this name and a few others 3 stands for 13 (see chain of hills referred to, which was specially honodred
1 Through confusion of A, a,and 6 in the uncial writing. 1 E-advo cannot=$yn, being preceded in 2). zodby 1. TGY.

405 406
 BAALSAMUS BAAL-ZEPHON .

by Canaanitish Baal- worshippers. David, however, high house' (cp I K. 813, and Schrader's note in C O T ) .
beyond doubt took Baal as synonymous with Yahwk ; rhis is a title such as any god with a fine temple
the name gave him a happy omen, and received a fresh might bear, and was probably not confined to the god
significance from his victory. Whether ' Perazim ' was Df Ekron (in the Pananimu inscription of Zenjirli, I. z z ,
originally a name descriptive of the physical appear- the god Raktibel bears the title n-2$ y ~ ,'lord of the
ance of the hills E. of the valley of Rephaim, or whether house'). The second part of it strongly reminds
it had some accidental origin, cannot he determined. us of E-sagila, the ' high house' of the god Mardnk
T. K. C . (see B ABYLON, 5). ' High house' (zsbtil) would at the
BAALSAMUS ( B ~ ~ A C A M[BA]), O C I Esd. 9 4 3 RV same time refer to the dwelling-place of the gods
=Neh. 84, MAASEIAH,15. on the l y 1 i~n or ' mountain of assembly' in the far
BAAL-SHALISHA, RV Baal-Shalishah, ($?s north1 (see C ONGREGATION, MOUNT OF). There .is
some reason to think that the Phoenicians knew of such
&@, Baiecap[e]ica [BKAvid.(ras uu Am)],B H ~ C A A I - a dwelling-place. The conception is implied in the
c a [L]), in Ephraim, evidently near GILGAL ( z K. 442), divine name Baal-Saphon, 'Lord of the north' (see
doubtless identical with the BefJzsuIisu and Bale- BAAL-ZEPHON), and in the Elegy on the king of Tyre
cAplc& of Jer. and Eus. (OS107112399z), 15 R. m. (Ez. 28 1 2 8 ) ; and the Semitised Philistines also probably
N. of Diospolis (Lydda). These conditions seem to be knew of it. At any rate, the late Hebrew narrator-
met by KJz, Sirisid, which is exactly 13 Eng. m., or or, if we will, an early scribe-may have resented the
about 149 R. m. from Lydda (PEFQ, '76, p. 68). application of such a title as ' Lord of the high house '
Four miles farther on is the village Kh. Kefr. Thilth, (which suggested to him either Solomon's temple
with which Baal-shalisha is now identified by Conder 5:; I K. 8 131 or the heavenly dwelling of Yahwi: [fiy?,
(PEl7M2 285). In illustration of 2 K. IC. the Talmud Dt. 2615 Ps. 6861) to the Ekronite god, and changed
(Sanh.12 u ) states that nowhere dtd the fruits of the it to 'Lord of flies,' Baal-zebub. See BEELZEBUB.
earth ripen so quickly as at Baal-shalisha. See SHA- This explanation throws light on three proper names,-
LISHA, L AND OF, and Cp ZELLAH. JEZEBEL, ZEBUL, and ZEBULON-dS0 on IS. 6315,
BAAL-TAMAR (l@ !)@-Le., ' Baal of the Palm,' 'from thy aZhd (high house) of holiness and glory.'
The same term aibd could be applied to the mansion
5s 96 103:
BaaA eAMap [BAL]), an unidentified locality
of the moon in the sky (Hab. 311, We. ). T. I<. c.
in the neighbourhood of Gibeah, where the Israelites put
themselves in array against the Benjamites (Jndg. 20 33). BAAL-ZEPHON (]\a'$ !Qs),
or, no doubt more
Some think of ' the Palm of Deborah' (Judg. 45), which, accurately, Baal-Zaphon (jibs '2).
however, was too remote (Moore). Eus. (OS 238 75) I. The name of a Phmnician god, formed like Baal-
speaks of a Beth-thaniar near Gibeah. Gad, Baal-Hermon, and meaning ' Baal of the north.'
BAALZEBUB (>a>? 5 ~ 2 C Though
: N Tw [EN TH A us to account not mentioned in OT, it is important as enabling
for certain ancient Israelitish proper names
v. 2, BA vv. 6 16 ; Ala TOY, L 21. 1f.1 Bash ~ y l a N
(ZAPHON, ZEI'HON, ZEPIIONITES, ZIPHION), and a150
[BA], taking Zebub or myla as the name
1, Not of the god ; so Jos. A n t . ix. 21), a god
Fly-god.
for the enigmatical reference to a mountain abode of
the Elchim, situated ' in the recesses of the north ' (Is.
of Ekron, whose oracle was consulted by
14x3; see CONGREGATION, M OUNT OF). The latter
Ahaziah king of Israel in his last illness ( z K.
conception was evidently believed by Ezekiel (28 13f: )
1.J 614+). The name is commonly explained 'lord to be familiar to the Phoenicians, and is clearly con-
of flies. True, there is no Semitic analogy for this ;
nected with the divine name in question, which describes
but Pausanias (viii.267; cp J. G. Frazer's note on v.
and designates ' the Baal whose throne is on the sacred
14 I ) tells us of a Z E d r~6 p u ~ o who
s drove away danger-
mountain of thg gods in the north' (Baethg. Beitr. 23,
ous swarms of flies from Olympia, and Clement' of
261). The Assyrian inscriptions contain several refcr-
Alexandria attests the cultus of the same god in Elis
ences to this god. A text of Esar-haddon speaks of Bad-
([email protected]) ; and we may, if we will, interpret the Sapunu as one of the ' gods of Ebir-nPri ' (see E B E R , I ],
title ' a god who Sends as well as removes a plague of
and more than one mountain-district may have borne
flies ' (so Baudissin), which lifts the god up a little. Let the name of BaaI-Zaphon.2, The chief seat of the god,
us, however, look farther. however, must have been in the centre of Mount
Bezold (CutuZogue, K. 3500) thought that in an
Assyrian inscription of the 12th cent. B.C. he had met Lebanon. Elsewhere {COPPER, 9 3) other texts are
2. Not god with Baal-zabnbi as the name of one of the yeferred to in which Ba'di-Sapuna is described as rich
of Zebub. gods of the Ebir nHri (on which see EBER, n copper, which appears to have been the case with
9: I ), in which case Baal-zebub was a widely Lebanon. Altogether we cannot be wrong in identify-
known divine name, adopted for the god of Ekron. ng Baal-Zaphon with Baal-Lebanon, ' the Baal of
The restoration of the final syllable -6i, however, is ad- Lebanon.' The relation of this national deity of the
mittedly quite uncertain, and the reading Baal-sapuna Phoenicians to the Baal-Zaphon of Goshen reqnires
(see BAAL-ZEPHON, I ) seems much more probab1e.l separate consideration (see 2). On the question whether
Winckler, therefore, suggests that Zebub might be Baal-Zaphon was known under another of his names in
some very ancient name of a locality in Ekronz (no Philistia, and even perhaps among the Israelites, see
longer to be explained etymologically), on the analogy BEEL-ZEBUL, § 2. T. K. C.
of Baal-Sidon, Baal-Hermon, Baal- Lebanon. No 2. /?feAuerq5wv: so most MSS, but many MSS3
such locality, however, is known, and Ekron, not any BEEXUE$WY ; Vg. BeeZse$Jzon (-SL+OZ in Jer. OS; Targ.
locality in Ekron, was the territory of the Baal. It
psq-$q, cp Syr. Bb'el-SEphGn ; Arab. Walton, ' Vaffin,
3. Real nILmeis, therefore, more probable that Baal- the idol,' p f a n u(-&7g72th),a place near the point where
Baal-z6bnl. zebub, 'lord of flies' (which occurs the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, and opposite their
only in a 'very late' narrative, one encampment (Ex. 142 9 Nu. 337). The name is usually
which has a pronounced didactic tendency)," is a understood to point to a national Phcenician god of the
contemptuous uneuphonic Jewish modification of the
1 This is akin to the theoryof Movers, who makes Baal-zehul
true name, which was probably Baal-zebul, ' lord of the ('Lord of the heavenly dwelling') originally a name of Saturn,
a theory which lacks evidence.
1 Wi. GI 1 223,225 ; Hommel, A N T 196, 255. Halevy has 2 Tiglath-pileser III.(KBii. z 6 J ) s eaks fint of the mountains
made a similar mistake (see next note). of Lebanon and then of the land of ga'ali-sapuna as far as the
2 Halevy ( R e v . siln. 123) thought that he had proved this ; mountains of Ammana.
bur in Am. Ta6. 174~.16,to which he refers for an Ekronite 3 E.g. AF 7 I O, perhaps L. This form also seems to be
Zabubu, the right reading is Sapuna. Hexaplaric (see the Boheiric version ; the older Sahidic text
3 Kuenen, Ond. 1 hog (5 25, n. 8 ). has r+ for +).
407 408
 BAANA BABEL, TOWER OF
same nanie ; but the Egyptians who mention a goddess ;halmaneser 11. as the name of an Ammonite king
Ba'altj i)+apuna as worshipped at Memphis connect Del. Par. 294, Schr. KAT(') 196, M'Cnrdy, Hist.
this cultus, very significantly, with that of Sapd(u), a 'ru@.. Mun. 1273]),' b. Ahijah, an Issacharite, became
local god of Western Goshen (see GOSHEN,§ 2). This .ing of Israel in succession to Nadab, whom he
divinity was, therefore, evidently not a Phoenician deity ; onspired against and slew at the Philistine town of
her domain, at any rate, was either in or near the ;ibbethon, afterwards killing all the rest of Jeroboam's
region of Goshen. Consequently, the Baal whom this imily ( I K. 1527 J r ) . The fact that the Philistines
local Ba'alt or Beltis implies was not also the Phcenician (ere able to resume war against Israel leads to the
Baal-Zephon, though whether he had an independent upposition that there had been a military revolution
origin or not, cannot as yet be determined. Like most n which Baasha, one of Nadab's generals, was the
of .the local names ,of Goshen, Baal-Zephon (or rather- eader (cp Ki. Hist. 2254). His reign was marked by
see ( I)-Baal-Zaphon)is clearly Semitk2 lis energetic operations against ASA ( 4 ; ~).. By build-
The honour accorded by the Egyptians to the consort ng Ramah ( I K. 1517) Baasha had endeavoured to
of ' Baal-Zephon ' no doubt proves the importance of that hut off Jerusalem from intercourse with the outer
town of Goshen. It is difficult, however, at present, to vorld, and Asa was saved only by the purchased aid of
determine the situation of the place (see E XODUS, i. 6). 3enhadad ( p . ~ . , 2),who invaded Israel 'unto Naphtali'
The expression ' &fore Baal-Zephon, over against it ' v. 20, cpa). We know bnt little of his ' acts ' or of his
(obscured in Nu. 337Jr ) need not signify eastward of,' might' (in:+ I K. IG5). He was one of the few
which in ordinary Hebrew would be the most natural :ings who died a natural death. H e was buried at
meaning ; it seems rather to indicate here some point rirzah, which was still the royal residence ( I I<. 15zr33),
not yet touched on the NE. (or S. ?). laving been made such by Jeroboam (see T IRZAH).
Such identifications as that with Heroo olis (Forster), 'Ajrod 3aasha was the head of the second dynasty, which
(Niebuhr), etc. had to he given up even gefore the situation of
Goshen and Heroopolis was determined by Naville's excava- vas extirpated at a later time by Zimri, ' in accordance
tions. For the value of more moderu theories (Brugsch -Mount with the word of YahwL! which he spake against Baasha
Casius ; Ehers, on the 'Atska mountain, SW. of Suez': kaville, JY Jehu the prophet' (see J EHU , 2, b. Hanani). The
on Lake TimsSh, near Sheikh en-Nedek), see EXODUS,i. 8 7 3 .
I, T. K. C.-2, W. M. M.
.ate of the house of Baasha b. Ahijah, as also that of
feroboam b. ATebat,is referred to by later writers ; cp
BAANA (W2g2,
- . probably=BAANAH [below]; B&AN& E I<. 21 22 z K. 99. See I SRAEL, § 29, CHROKICLES,
[BWA]). i 8, and, for his date -(about 900 B. c. ), CHRONOLOGY,
I. h. Ahilud (or perhaps better Ahimelech ; see A~ii.i:n,2 ;
AHIIVIELECH, I), Solomon's prefect in the valley of Jezreel;
i 32.
I K. 4 12 ( a q a [El, fiupa,y [Ll). BABEL,3 TOWER OF (Gen. 111-9). The story of
2. h. gushai, prefect in Asher; I K. 4 16 (Oaavas [A],
pavaras [Ll). His father, Hushai, is no doubt the well-known h e tower (hip), when its lacunze have been filled up,
courtier of David (z S. 15 32). Cp AHILUD, 2. 1. OT story. is to this effect. All mankind had still
3. Father of Z ADOK Lq.71.) 31 ; Neh. 3 4 (om. A ; pavaa [Ll). one language, and kept together. On
4. I Esd. 5 8=Neh. 7 7, BAANAN, 3.
me of their nomadic journeys they found a spot which
BAANAB (Qs; cp Nabatzan 13Y1 [CZS2220]; juggested the adoption of,a settled life ; it was the plain
BAANA [BWALI). 3f Shinar. Having no building material, they devised
I. b. Rimmon, a Beerothite, one of the murderers of Isbhaal, ;he plan of baking clay into bricks, and using bitumen
z S. 4 2 3 (pavaia [Ll, and in B paup [uu.5 91, pappa [a.61 ; ror cement. They were the first city-builders. Their
Jos. pavas, j3avaotIa). See RECHAB, I, ISHBAAL, I.
[Bl,
2. Father of one of David's heroes, 2 S. 23 zg ( p e v ~ a p c ~ v ? design, however, was to build, not only a city, but
paavaa' [AI)= I Ch. 11 30 (v!o<a [Btl pava [L]). ilso a stupendously high tower which should be at once
3. ,A leader (see E ZRA, 11. (i 8 8) In the great post-exilic list a. monument of their strength and a centre or rallying-
(ib. 11. D 9). Ezra22 (BQAAELU [B], pauaa [Ll)=Neh. 7 7 = 1 Esd. point that would prevent their ever being dispersed.
5 8, BAANA [4]. Possibly the same as BAANA, 3 (above).
4. Signatory to the covenant (see EZRA, I. § 7); Neh. Uneasy at their newly awakened activity, YahwL! ' came
1027 [z8] (om. L). down ' to take a nearer view of the buildings, and then
BAANI (Baa~[s]i [EA]), I Esd. 934=Ezra 1034, returned (to his lofty mountain abode, Ezek. 2814) to
BANI, 2.
take counsel with the sons of Elohim. This, he said, is
but the beginning of human ambition; nothing will
BAANIAS (BANNAIAC [BA]), I Esd. 926, AV= soon be too hard for man to do. Come, let us go
EzralOzs, UENAIAH, 7. down (together), and bring their speech into. confusion.
BAARA (W!LCl), a 'wife' of S HAHARAIM (,q.u.),in Hence arose the present variety of languages and the
genealogy of B ENJAMIN (§ 9 ii. p ) , I Ch. 8 8 (IBAAAA dispersion of mankind, and hence the name of the well-
[B], Baapa [AI, BaAaa [L]). known city called Babylon.
This na'ive narrative, which is Yahwistic, probably
BAASEIAH (?l:no & >,
doubt a textual error for comes from the same writer as the story of Paradise.
VVYD, see MAASEILH),a Gershonite Levite ; I Ch. Both narratives present the same childlike
640 [251 (MAACAI P I , BAACIA [AI, Bacia [Ll). 2. General curiosity about causes, the same strongly an-
character. thropomorphic and in some sense polytheistic
BUSHA (WgFi4cfl
or W&@, J 51 [cp Ba. on z Ch.
_ _ _ ~
conception of the divine nature (cp 71. 6f: with
1611,Baaca [BAL] ; Jos. Ant. viii. 12 3, BACANHC ;
BAASA. Ba'sa occurs on the monolith inscription of 1 We. (Heid.(ll 62) suggests that N V Y ~may he a contraction
for NV-I)Y-J. Similar contractions are seen in the Phoen. ocvy>
1 Sall. 41, rev. ; cp WMM, As. +,Eur. 315. The reading and Aram. (from the Hanrin) 'nvyz. Sa is possibly a divine
Bdaly (so Goodwin Brugsch, etc.) IS incorrect. name and seems to re& in the 'names Ahishx, Ammi-sha (for
2 What Baal-Zap<onPt any rate the Baal-Zaphon of Goshen) Amasa), etc.; see JERUSHA. I t may also be the same as the
signifies, is disputed. Watch-tower ' (v'nar) it certainly does god i y mentioned in a S. Arab. inscription (Ex$. T. 10329).
not mean. Gesenius (after Forster) compared the Gk. Tu+yv Its identification with a Palm. deity NU is open to question.
(originally a wind god) who wa5 identified by the Greeks wlth 2 Cp the tradition referred to in Jer.419 (BNomits thename).
the Egyptian S2f Z~B)(EGYPT, § 14), on the basis of the later
cbnfnsion with t h l giant Tv+ov&zip. Quite inadmissibly. Nor 3 On the name (!a' ?), see BABYLON, $ I, and below, col.
:an the equation he supported by the unfortunate assertion that 411 n. 4, and (i 6 .
Tep ' was a name of ' Set ' (cp Kenouf, Hibb., Le&. for 1879, 4'According to the non-critical view the survivors of the
p. 114). A much more reasonable explanatlon IS 'master of the Deluge made their wa from the monnta<n on which the ark had
north ' ;.e., 'north point .Baal-Zephon was indeed near the
north'end of the Gulf. Oihers (e.&, Ebers) explain Zaphon as
rested to the land of ghinar (so Sayce, Crit. Mon. 155).
Deluge-story however makes Shem Ham, and apheth them-
The

' the north wind,' this wind being important for the sailors on the selves the progenitors bf the differeit sections o?mankind, and
Red Sea who would make their orisons a t the sanctuary of BAAL- has thus no need of the Tower-story. Even if such a narrative
ZAPHON~ Cp the name Baal-sapuna on Hamathite territory had been introduced into the Deluge-story how could 'Shem,
(Tig.-pil. III.), Hommel, AH'iT, 25s. WMM, As. u. Ezr. Ham, and Japheth' be called 'all the ear;h'(llr)? See We.
315. See also Z APHON. CH 13 ; but cp Stade, ZATW 14 2 7 6 8 t'g41.
409 410
 BABEL, TOWER OF
9 22) ; both, therefore, have in all ages given occasion to the and the father of Cain the city-builder (see CAIN, 5 I).
enemy to blaspheme. Philo (De Confusione 1.ing-llarum) On the other hand, the idea that God grudges man the
thought that, to avoid ‘the most surpassing impiety,’ the
anthropomorphisms must he interpreted allegorically. If we strength which comes from union, and fears human
are not repared to follow him in this, we must once more apply ambition, is obviously one of the ’ beggarly elements’
the myt~ologicalkey (see A D A M A N D EVE, F: 4). of ethnic ‘religion from which Jewish religion had yet to
It is perhaps the second extant chapter in the mythic disengage itself.
chronicle of the first family that we have before us : the W e have seen that there was not improbably an old
passage which originally linked the story of the Tower N. Semitic myth of the interrupted building of a tower
to that of Paradise has been lost (see NEPHILIM). It is 6. OTformnot to account for the dispersion of the
clear, however, that the first men had not gone far from Should such a myth one day
Paradise : they are still on their journeys ‘ in the east ’
Babylonian. be nations.
discovered in Bahy1onia.l it will
when-this ambitious project occurs to them (see GEO- certainly disappoint many persons by not mentioning
G RAPHY , 13). the ‘ confusion of languages,’ nor giving Babylon as the
The narrative may be regarded in two aspects. scene of the events, ( I ) because the Ass. buZZuh means
While explaining how the city of Babylon, with its ‘ fundere,’ not confundere,’ and ( 2 ) because the city of
3. Origin gigantic terrace-temples, came to be built Babylon was regarded as of divine origin, and its name
of diverse (see fj 4), it accounts for the division of Bibil was explained as Bib-ili, ‘ the gate of God,’ or
men into different nations, separated in ‘ of the gods’ (cp BABYLON, § I ). The latter reason is
tongues* abode and speech. Not to be able to decisive also against the theory that the Sibylline story
understand one’s neighbour seemed to the primitive men of the Tower of Babel and the cognate one of AbydEnus
a curse (cp Dt. 2849 Jer. 515). It is not improbable rest on Babylonian authority. That two of the reporters
that there was an ancient N. Semitic myth which ex- of the story give the polytheistic ol 8eoI proves nothing,
plained how this curse arose. It is said that there for the plural was sufficiently suggested by the Hebrew
are many such myths elsewhere,l and some of them narrative (v, 7). The non-biblical features of their
(e.g.,that reported by Livingstone from Lake Ngami, version, though in one point (the object ascribed to the
and that mentioned in the Bengal Census Report for builders) probably an accurate reconstruction of the
1872-to mention only two of the best attested) have earliest myth, are of no authority, being clearly derived
a certain similarity to the Hebrew story. It is credible, from the imaginative Jewish Haggada,“ which is re-
therefore, that the N. Semites ascribed the curse of many sponsible also for the part assigned by later writers
languages to the attempt to erect a tower by which men to Nimrod (Jos. Ant. i. 42 ; cp Dante, ZnJ 31 76-81).
might climb up ‘ above the stars of God’ and ‘ sit on Where was the tower referred to in the Hebrew
the mountain of assembly ’ and ‘ make themselves like 7. of narrative ? Few scholars have declared this
the Most High’2 (Is. 1413f.). problem insoluble ; but almost all have
The old myth, like that which seems to underlie the
tower. missed what seems the most natural answer.
story of SODOM ( q . v . ) , said nothing as to where the Benjamin of Tudela, who travelled about A.D. 1160, supposed
*, Origin of tdwn to which the tower belonged lay.
When, however, through some devastat-
it to be the mound called by the Arabs Birs NimrBd, which, he
says, is made of bricks called uZ-&jur.5 This agrees with the
Midrash (Bey.rabba, par. xxxviii), and is probably implied in the
ing storm, one of the chief temple-towers strange gloss of @ in Is. 109. In the sixteeilth century Balbi
o;CBabylon (see B ABYLONIA, fj 27) fell in remote days and Ralph Fitch, and in the seventeenth John Cartwright, give
descriptions of the ‘ Tower of Babel ’ which are plainly suggested
into disrepair, wandering Aranizean tribes may have by the huge mass of brickwork, 6 or 7 m. W. of Bagdad, known
marked it, and, connecting it with the ‘babel’ of as Tell Nimriid or ‘Akarkfif (see Del. Par. 208 ; Peters, Nippu7*,
foreign tongues in Babylon, may have localised the i. 1883). Pietro della Valle in the eighteenth century preferred
the great mound near Hillah called Bci6iZ, which, however, as
myth at the ruined temple-tower.s BaZbeZ, they would Rassam has shown, represents the famous hanging gardens (see
have exclaimed:“ it was here that God confounded BABYLON, 0s 4 8). In the nineteenth, C. J. Rich and Ker Porter
men’s speech, and the proofs of it are the ruined tower revived the Birs Nimriid theory, and most scholars have followed
and the name of Babel. them,6 largely influenced by Nebuchadrezzar’s Borsippa inscrip
tion. No one has put this view so plausibly as J. P. Peters, in
It is remarkable that the polytheistic element in the an article which appeared since this article was written ( J B L ,
old myth should have been so imperfectly removed. 1896, p. 106). The statements of the king are no doubt well
5. Character Even the writer who adopted and retold adapted to illustrate the disrepair into which (see 5 4) the tower
originally intended must have fallen even though they do not
the story was still far off from the later as Oppert once thought, describe the ‘confusion of tongues.’
of myth. transcendental monotheism. The changes Let us pause upon them for a moment. They tell us that the
which he introduced consisted in omissions rather than temple-tower (zi&Ruwat)of Borsippa had ‘fallen into decay
in insertions. YahwB still has to come down to inquire ; since remote days,’ and indeed that it had never been quite
completed by its original builder. ‘ Rain and storm had thrown
he still has to communicate the result to the inferior down its wall; the kiln-bricks of its covering had split; thq
divine beings, and bring them with him to execute judg- bricks of its chamber were in heaps of rubbish.’ ‘ T o restore it
ment; but, though he needs society, as ruler YahwB says Nehuchadrezzar, ‘the great Lord Marduk impelled m;
mind.’ 7
stands alone: there is no triad of great gods, as in Borsippa, however, is not the place we should natur-
Babylon. It is also worth mentioning that the narrator’s ally go to for the tower. Babylon, and Babylon alone
idea of civilisation is essentially a worthy one. No city (which was always distinguished from Borsippaj must
can be built, according to these early men, without a cover the site. The late Jewish tradition is of no value
religious sanction. Enos, as another myth appears to whatever: it grew up, probably, during the Zxile,
have said, is at once the beginner of forms of worship when Nebuchadrezzar’s restoration of the ‘ temple of the
1 See EB(QJ, art. BABEL, TOWER OF (Sayce), and cp Liiken, 1 The story as it stands is not, asStade ( Z A T W , 1895, p. 157)
Die Traditionen 318-322. and Gnnkel (Sc&#P,: 149) (not of course on the ground of the
2 I n a Babvlokan hvmn we find the eod Bel identified with. supposed discoveiy in TSBA’5 3 0 3 5 , kP 7 i z g s ; cp Sayce,
‘the great mountain whose top reach& to heaven‘ (Jensen, Nib& Lect. 406) have held, Babylonian.
KOSJ7ZOl. 21). 2 Gruppe, Die gmkh. CuIte u. Mythn, 683 ; Z A TW 9 154
3 I n the original myth there was no hyperbole. In the 1’821 ; Sta. Z A T W 15 157 161 t‘g51.
localised myth, however, the description ‘whose top reacheth Carnz. Si6yZI. 3 97 8; Jos. A n f . i. 4 3 ; Syncellus, Chivn.
unto heaven’ seems parallel to a phrase in Dt.128 and to ed. Dindorf, 81 ; Eus. Chron. ed. Schoene, 1 33. Cp Bloch, Die
similar descriptions of Egyptian obelisks (see Brugsci, Egypt Quellen des FI. Josephus, 5 4 f : [‘7g] ; Freudenthal, HeZlenist.
u n d e r t h Pharaohs, 310)and Assyrian and Babylonian temple- Studfen125.
towers (so Tiglath-pileser ; ‘its temple-towers I raised to 4 SeeJubiZees 10 19-26 (Charles, JQR 6 208J).
heaven,’ Del. Ass. HWB 162 ; and Hammn-rzhi ‘(the temple) 6 The Arabic ’afurrzL9*comes through .4ram. from Ass.
whose top is high as heaven he huilt,’KB iii. a, ;zg. ugumr, ‘kiln-bricks’ (often) ; both words are used collectively.
4 A popular etymology would connect Babel with Aram. 6 For Sir H. Rawlinson’s view, which differs from the views
daZ6eI much more easily than with Heh. 6dZaC (see Olshausen mentioned above, see G. Smith‘s ChaIdrean Genesis, edited by
Lehr6. 8 189 a), as Bu. su posed in 1883 (Urges& 387). On! Sa ce 171.
s>T>
kelos on Gen. 11 g gives for the 552 of MT. Y k B S 6 52-55; cp C O T 1 1093
4” 412
 BABI BABYLON
seven lights of heaven and earth' was recent. In the h r i u s Hystaspis were the beginning of its decay.
zi&kurrut of the great temple E-sagila (see B ABYLON, Cerxes is said (Herod. 1183) to have plundered the
§§ 4,_5), represented, according to Hommel, by Tell emple of BElus of the golden statue that Darius had
-4mran. we have the trne tower ,of Babel. Nebu- Lot dared to remove, and Arrian ( 3 3 6 ) states that lie
chadrezzar hims_eIf speaks of this tower in the Borsippa lestrcyed the temple itself on his return from Greece.
inscription. ' E-temen-an-lei,' he says, ' the zikkurrut -le relates also that Alexander wished to restore this
of Babylon, I restored and finished.' An account of .elebrated fane,l but renounced the idea, as it would
this building has been given from a Babylonian tablet Lave taken ten thousand men more than two months
by the late George Smith. He tells us that ( t h e whole o remove the rubbish alone. Be this as it may,
height of this tower above its foundation was 15 gar, or intiochns Soter, in an inscription found at Birs-
300 feet, exactly equal to the breadth of the base ; and, qimriid, mentions having restored the temple E-sagila
as the foundation was most probably raised above the the temple of BElus), showing that some attempt was
level of the ground, it would give a height of over 300 nade, notwithstanding Alexander's abandonment of the
feet above the plain for this grandest of Babylonian ask in despair, to bring order into the chaotic mass of
temples.' What vicissitudes this zikmrrat, or its pre- .uin to which it had apparently been reduced. The
decessor, passed through in early times, who shall say? ,eople of the great city had, in all probability, by
T. K. C. his time almost entirely migrated to Selencia, on the
BABI (BABI [A]), I Esd. 837=Ezra811, BEBAI, I. rigris ; but the temple services were cqntinued as late as
,be third decade B .c., and probably even into the
BABYLON. The word $7; (GBALB A B Y ~ N ) , Zhristian era. The temple was still standing in 127
Biibel, designating the city which, in course of time, 3.c. (reign of the Kharacenian king Hyspasines), and
became the capital of the country known lad a congregation, who worshipped the god Mardulc
Name' as Babylonia, is the Hebrew form of n combination with Anu, this twofold godhead being,
the native BHb-ili (' gate of God,' or ' Gate of the gods '). tpparently, called Anna-BEL A small tablet, dated
The Accadian or Sumerian name, Ka-dingira, is a ' 219th year, Arsaces, king of kings,' records the bor-
translation of the Semitic Babylonian. Of the other -owing by two priests of E-sa-bad (the temple of the
names of the city, Tin-tir, ' Seat of life,' and E or E-ki goddess Gnla at Babylon) of a certain sum of silver
(translated ' house ' or ' hollow ') are among the best ?om the treasnry of the temple of Bel. This date,
known. The existence of these various names is prob- ,vhich is regarded as Arsacidean, shows that certain
ably due to the incorporation, as the city grew, of out- :emples, including the tower of BElus, remained, with
lying villages and districts. Among the places which :heir priesthood and services, as late as the year zg B.C.
seem to have been regarded, in later times, as a part of :Bad. Or. Record, 4 133).
the city, w y be mentioned Su-anna ( a name sometimes Rather more than 50 miles south of BagdHd, on the
apparently interchanged with that of Babylon itself) ; zast bank of the Euphrates, lie the ruins still identified
TE, which, though it had, like Babylon, a pi&tu, or s. Ruins. by tradition as those of Babylon. These
district of its own, is nevertheless described as being remains consist of a series of extensive,
+ within Babylon ' ; and Suppatum and Litamu, ap- irregularly-shaped mounds covering, from north to south,
parently names of plantations ultimately included in the 3. distance of about 5 miles. BBbil, the northmost ruin,
city. has, according to Ainsworth, a square superficies of
The date of the foundation of Babylon is still nn- I Z O , O O O ft., and a height of 64 ft. The next in order
certain. Its association in Gen. 1010 with Erech, is the Mujellibeh, of about the same superficies and a
Akkad, and Calneh implies that according to Hebrew height of 28 ft. After this come two mounds close
tradition it was at least as old as those cities, and conr together, the Isasr or ' palace,' and that called 'Amriin-
firmation of this is to be found in the bilingual Creation- ibn-'Ali to the south of it. These two together have a
story (see C REATION, § 16 d),where it is mentioned as superficies of 104,000ft., and a height of 67 ft., or with
coeval with Erech and Nippiiru, two primeval cities, the the heres, or stone monument, 115 ft. Most of these
latter of which has been proved by the excavations to two mounds is 'enclosed within an irregular triangle
date back to prehistoric times. formed by two lines of ramparts and the river, the area
No detailed history of the rise of the city has yet being about 8 miles ' (Loftus). Other remains, includ-
come to light. Agum or Agu-kale-rime (about 1550 B.C.) ing two parallel lines of rampart, are scattered about,
speaks of the glorious shrines of -Marduk and there are the remains of an embankment on the
2* History* and Zirpanitum, in the temple E-sagila, river side. On the W. bank are the ruins of a palace
which he restored with great splendour. About 892 B.C., said to be that of Neriglissar.
Tukulti-Ninip, king of Assyria, took the city, slaying According to Herodotus (1178-187), the city formed a
the inhabitants, and carrying apast amount of spoil (in- v a t square, 480 stades (552 miles) in circumference.
cluding the property and dues of the great temple
c,-sagila)back with him to Assyria. Sennacherib, how- *. Greek
descril?tions.
Around the city was a large ditch of
running water, and beyond that a great
ever, went farther than his predecessor. He says that, rampart zoo cubits high and 50 broad,
after having spoiled the city at least once, he devoted there being on it room enough for a four-horse chatiot
it to utter destruction. The temples, palaces, and city- to pass, and even to turn, in addition to space sufficient
walls were overthrown. The debris having been cast for chambers facing each other.' The top, therefore,
into the canal Arahtu, that waterway was still further would seem to have resembled a kind of street. The
dammed up, and a flood in consequence ravaged the wall was pierced by a hundred gateways closed with
country. Esarhaddon, when he came to the throne, brazen gates. On reaching the Euphrates, which (Hero-
began the rebuilding of the city, restoring the temples dotns says) divided the city, it was met by walls which
with much splendo%r ; and the work of beautifying them lined the banks of the stream. The streets were arranged
was continued by Sama5-hn-ulcin and Ahr-bani-pal, at right angles. Where those which ran down to the
his sons, the former as king of Babylon, and the latter Euphrates met the river-wall, there were gateways allow-
as his suzerain. Later, Nabopolassar continued the ing access to the river. On each bank of the Euphrates
work; but it was left for his son Nebuchadrezzar to
bring the city to the very height of its glory. Later 1 A confirmation of this occurs in the tablet Bu. 88-5-12, 619,
still, Cyrus held his court at Babylon (Sn-anna), where which is dated in 6th year of Aliksandarris (Alexander), and
vassal kings brought him tribute and paid him homage. refers to IO mana of silver as tithe paid U R U dalakl2 {a P f l i r Z
The siege of the place and the destruction of its walls by 8-sa,rgil(so to be read, according to the Aramaic docket), 'for
the clearing away of the dust (rubbish) of E-sangil (E-sagila)'
1 See Sayce, WiM. Lect., App. ii.; but cp Jensen, KosmoZ. (Oppert in the Cowz$fes Rendw de TAcad. des Znscr. e t BelZes
4928 Leftres, 1898, pp. 414fl.:).
413 414
 Scale: I inch = 4000 yards.
Scale of Miles
0
I
, .
I
I I
2
*
3 4 5 . 6
0 IO00 4600 Yards
Present Riuer Beds ................................. Date Palms ...................................................
Dry Beds........................................................ __-_ Uncultivated and Deser
..-..__--
-.----.-------
~

Ancient Lateral Irrigants, now dry. Cultiuated, Gurdens etc.

& - -

Prominent Mounds and Ruins ............... <&3>3 Swamps, Marshes, and Rice Grounds....L
A
-

THE SITE O F BABYLON

Compiled mainly from surveys by Jones, Selby, Bewsher, and Collingwood, 1845-65,with corrections to 1885
(published by the India Office). Small additions, etc., from Kiepert’s ‘ Ruinenfelder der Umgegerld von Babyloii ’
in Ztschr. d. GeseZZsch.1.Erdkunde zu Bedin.
 BABYLON BABYLON
were *certain fortified buildings, the. royal. palace being (cp BABEL, TOWER OF, - 5 7). After referring to
on one side, and the temple of BElus on the other> The various other shrines and temples, he speaks of Imgur-
latter was a tower in stages, with an exterior winding BE1 .and Nimitti-Bel, the two great ramparts of the
ascent leaaing from stage to stage, and about half-way city, built, or rather, rebuilt, by his father Nabo-
up a resting-place for the visitor. The top was sur- polassar, who, however, had not been able to finish
mounted by a spacious chapel, containing a richly them. ' Nebuchadrezzar goes on to describe what
covered bed and a golden table. None passed the he and his father had done on these defences-the
nigh't there, according to the priests, except a woman of digging and bricking of the moat, the bricking of the
tlie country whom the god had specially chosen. Lower banks of the Euphrates, the improvement of the rond-
clown was another chapel containing a seated statue of way called Aa-ibur-gabfi, the elevation of which Nebu-
Zeus (Bel-Marduk) and a large table, both of solid gold. chadrezzar raised ' from the shining gate to (the roadway
Outside were two altars, one of them of gold ; and it called) IStar-Sal~ipat-tebi-Sa,'and so on. In consequence
was here that the golden statue that was carried away of the raising of this street, the great city gates of the
by Xerxes formerly stood. Herodotus speaks also of the walls Imgur-BE1 and Niiiiitti-Bel had to be made higher.
large reservoir, constructed, he says, by Queen Nitccris, They yere at the same time decorated with lapis-lazuli
and of the embankments and the bridge that she made, and figures of bulls and serpents, provided with doors
the last being a series of piers of stone built in the river, of cedar covered with bronze. Then, to strengthen the
connected by wooden drawbridges which were withdrawn city still further, Nebuchadrezzar built, 4000 cubits be-
at night. Nitiicris caused to be erected, over the most yond Imgnr-Bel, another wall (with doors of cedar
frequented gate of the city, the tomb which she after- covered with bronze), surrounded with a ditch. T o
wards occupied; but this, he says, was removed by make the approach of an enemy to the city still more
Darius, who thought that it was a , p i t y that the gate difficult, he surrounded the district with ' great waters '
should remain unused, and coveted the treasure that she like unto the sea. After this he turned his attention
was supposed to have placed there, which he failed to to the royal palace, a structure which reached from the
find. The houses of the city, according to Herodotus, great wall Imgur-Bel to the canal of the rising sun,
were three and four stories high. He does not mention called Libilbegalla, and from the bank of the Euphrates
the hanging gardens. to the street Aa-ibur-Sabfi. It had been constructed,
CtEsias (ap. Diod. Siculus, 2 7 x ) makes the circuit he says, by his father Nabopolassar ; but its foundations
of the city only 360 stades (41 m. 600 yds.). It lay on had been weakened by a flood and by the raising of the
both sides of the Euphrates, which was crossed by a street. This edifice Nebuchadrezzar placed in good
bridge at its narrowest point. Tlie bridge was similar repair, and adorned with gold, silver, precious stones,
to that described by Herodotus, and measured 5 stades and every token-of magnificence, after rearing it high ' as
(3032 ft. ) in length and 30 ft. in breadth. At each end was the wooded hills.' Other constructions that he made
a royal palace, that on the E. being the more splendid. were a wall 490 cubits long (apparently intended to serve
There was a part called the twofold royal city, which as an additional defence to a part of the outer wall)
. was surrounded by three walls, the outmost having. a called Nimitti-Bel, and, between the two walls, a struc-
circuit of 7 m. The height of the middle wall, which ture of brick, surmounted with a great edifice, destined
,was circular, was 300 ft.; that of its towers, 420 ft. for his royal seat. This palace, which joined that of
The inmost wall, however, was even higher. The his father, was erected in fifteen days. After adorning it
walls of the second enclosure and those of the third with gold, silver, costly woods, .and lapis lazuli, he built
were faced with coloured bricks, enamelled with various two great walls around it, one of them being constructed
designs. Among them were representations of Semi- of stone.
raniis and Ni,nns slaying the, leopard and the lion. There is a substantial agreement between this-descrip-
The two palaces were joined by a tunnel under the tion and the description of the Greek writers. E-sagila,
river as well as by a bridge. Diodorus mentions the 6. Native 'the high-headed temple,' is the temple of
square lake, and describes the temple of BElus, which, and Greek Belus ; the palace Constructed in fifteen
he says, had a statue of Zeus (Bel-Marduk) 40 ft. days is that referred to by Josephus as
high, and statues of Hera and Rhea (probably Zir- accounts. having been built in the same short period
panitum [see SUCCOTH-BENOTH] and the goddess (Ant. x. 11I). Nebuchadrezzar does not refer to the
Damkina). He describes the famous hanging gardens, reservoir mentioned by the Greeks ; but we may recog-
which were square, and measured 400 ft. each way, nise it in the ' great waters, like the mass of the seas,'
rising in terraces, and provided with earth enough to which he carried round the district, and designed for the
accommodate trees of great size. (For other Greek same purpose-namely. defence against hostile attack.
accounts, see ( I ) Arrian, Annb. 7251, and Plut. AZex. The walls, Nimitti-BE1 and Imgur-Bel, are the outer
74 ; ( 2 )Diod. Sic. 27-10, Curt. Ruf. 51 24-35 ; (3)Strab. and inner walls respectively, and the latter may be that
1615; (4),Diod. 19100, 7 and Plnt. DeFetr. 7 ; ( 5 ) which, according to Herodotus (above, § 4), ran along
Philistr. Vzt. ApoZ. 125 ; to which may be added (6) the banks of the river. The hanging gardens are not
BEr6ssus in Jos. Ant. x. 111, C. Ap. 1 1 9 3 ,and Eus. referred to by Nebnchadrezzar, and it is therefore very
Prep. Ew. 9467 c d). doubtful, notwithstanding the statement of CtEsias,
The best native acconnt of the glories of Babylon is whether this king built them. Such erections were not
probably that of the well-known king Nebuchadrezzar uncommon in Assyria, and it is even possible that they
5. (KB 3b z o s ) - a ruler to whom the city were due to the initiative of a king of that country.
rezzar,s have owed much-who, indeed, may be said to In the palace of ASur-bani-pal at Ihyunjik, which was
account. practically rebuilt it. The most im- discovered and excavated by Rassam, was a room the
portant edifice to him was the temple bas-reliefs of which were devoted to scenes illustrating
of Belus ( h a g i l a , later called E-saggil or l?.-sangil), that king's Babylonian war, one of which shows a garden
and with this he begins, speaking first of the shrine of laid out on a slope, and continued above on a strncture
Marduk, the wall of which he covered with massive gold, of vaulted brickwork, an arrangement fairly in accord
lapis-lazuli, and white limestone. He refers to the with the description of the Babylonian hanging gardens
two gates of the temple, and the place of the assembly, given by Diod6rus and Pliny ; and it is noteworthy that
where the oracles were declared, and gives details of the the latter attributes them to a Syrian (Assyrian) king
work done upon them. It was apparently a part of who reigned at Babylon, and built them to gratify a wife
this temple that he calls E-temen-ana-ki, ' the temple whom he loved greatly. This bas-relief was regarded
of the foundation of heaven and earth,' and describes by Sir Henry Rawlinson and George Smith as repre-
as the 'tower of Babylon' (ei&kurnt BubiZi), stating senting the hanging gardens at Babylon, and a neigh-
that he ' raised its head ' in burnt brick and lapis-lazuli bouring sculpture, which shows a series of fortified walls,
27 417 418
 BABYLON BABYLONIA
three or more, as well as a palace, probably represents about 50 or 60 ft. higher. Rassam regaxds -MujeIlibeh
the walls of the city as they were in the time of ASur- as representing the palace begun by Nabopolassar and
bhi-pal and his brother SamaS-Sum-ukin,with \+horn he finished by Nebuchadrezzar in fifteen days. Remains
waged war. The palace has columns supported on the of enamelled tiles of various colours and designs are
backs of lions. found, he says, only on that spot. The Kasr he takes
A few additional details concerning tlie city are to be the remains of the Temple of Belus, though he
given bv some of the manv contract-tablets found on
Y
frankly admits that there are many difficulties in the
The city gates, some of the way of this identification. As the latest opinions,
7. Details from the spot.
canals, and the streets and roadways carefully formed by one who has frequently been on
the . ..
xatxexs. I seem to have been named after the the spot, they will probably be considered to possess
gods. W e read of the gates of Zagaga, a special value.
Ninip, and &mag, and of the canal N%r Banitum. The two queens, Semiramis and NitBcris, to whom
Others of the canals rebeived the names of the cities to so many of the wonders of ancient Babylon are attributed,
which they flowed (e.g., the Borsippa canal, and the old are not mentioned on the native monuments of the
Cuthah canal). The tablets confirm the statement of Babylonians, as far as we are at present acquainted
Q. Curtius that the houses of the city did not fill all with them.l In all probability, the explanation of this
the space enclosed by the walls, the greater part of the difficulty is that they suggested the erection of the
ground being apparently fields, gardens, and plantations works in question, and the reigning ruler (probably their
of date-palms and other trees, sufficient to furnish all husbands) carried. them out. Only careful exploration
the provisions that the city needed in event of siege. of the sites can decide satisfactorily the real nature of
There is no mention, in the native records, of a bridge each ruin-by whom it was built, or rebuilt, or restored
across the Euphrates, such as is described by the -and the changes that it underwent in the course of
Greeks ; but a contract-tablet of the time of Darius ages. The discovery of the wells at Bsbil seems to
seems to refer to a bridge of boats. There is no con- place the nature of that ruin beyond doubt, though
firmation of the statement that there was a tunnel under Oppert (Comptes Rendus, 1898,p. 420) thinks that its
the river. distance from the other remains is too great, in view of
There have been various conjectures as to the the fact that Alexander, when suffering from a mortal
identification of the different ruins on the site of illness, was carried from the castle to the baths and the
*.
Identifica-
tions Babylon.
of ruins. ing
Rich thought that the hang-
gardens were represented by the
hanging gardens (Plut. AZe’ex. ch. 76 ; Arrian, Exp. AZ.
725). Much more may be expected from the German
mound known as BEbil, and this is explorations.
the opinion of Rassam, who found there ‘four ex- There is a thorough article on the history and the
quisitely-built wells of red granite in the S. portion of topography of the city of Babylon in Pauly-W.issowa’s
the mound.’ They are supplied with water from the Xeabnc, der c b s s . AZterthumswiss. ii. (’96). On the
Euphrates, which flows about a mile away, and their Babylon of the N T see PETER, EPISTLES OF, § 7, and
depth is about 140 ft. Originally, he thinks, they were Cp ROME. T. G . P.

The country of Babylonia, called by classical writers of the four quarters,’ and far KiSS‘ati, ‘king of the
B ~ B y h w ~ ltakes
a , its name from that of its principal world,’ were employed to express extensions of the
1. Names. city BABYLON (q.v., § I ). In the O T Babylonian empire beyond the natural limits of the
the city and the country are not sharply country (cp MESOPOTAMIA).
distinguished ; both are frequently included under the The natural features that bound the country of Baby-

. ..
of the Chaldseans’ (see CHALDEA). Among the At the ;resent day Babylonia. in the S. differs con-
Babylonians themselves there was no single uanie for siderably in size and conformation from the ancient
the whole country until the third Babylonian dynasty aspect of the country. The soil carried down by the
(eighteenth to twelfth century B.C.), when the Icassite Tigris and the Euphrates is considerable, and the
designation of a portion of the country as Karduniash alluvium so formed at the head of the Persian Gulf
was extended and adopted in the royal inscriptions as a increases to-day at the rate of about a mile in seventy
general name for the country,-a use of the term that years ; moreover, it is thought by some that the rate
was retained throughout the whole period of the nntion’s of formation was considerably more rapid in ancient
history. The whole of Babylonia could also be expressed times. Thus in the early period of Babylonian his-
by the double title &mer and Akkad, which the Baby- tory the Persian Gulf extended some 120 to 130 miles
lonians adopted from the previous non-semitic in- farther north than it extends at present, the Tigris and
habitants of the land, Akkad designating the northern the Euphrates each entering the sea at a separate mouth.
half of the country and Sum& the southern half. The The country was thus protected on the S. by the sea,
use of the former name was extended in the Neo-Baby- and on the W. by the desert which, rising a few feet
lonian period, and the word in such phrases as ‘ the above the plain of Babylonia, approached within thirty
king of Akkad ’ and ‘ the army of Akkad ‘ was employed 1 On Samniurarnat the wife of RammBn-nirari (or A’ddu-nirari)
to designate the whole country. The terms Ki6rat 5 32. Apparently the only queen who reigned
H I . , see ASSYRIA,
ar&iim, the four quarters, and kiffatu, the vrorld,
1 8 d 8
in her own right was Azaga-Bau or Rau-ellit in whose reign o r e n s
similar to those belonging to the time of dargon of Agaih and
which occur in the royal titles far kihrat ar6a,im, king his son were composed. She belongs to a very early period.
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
miles of the Euphrates ; and it was only from .the N. hgunted the marshes and the plains ; and fish, princi-
and E. sides that it was open to invasion. From the pally barbel and carp, were abundant in the rivers.
mountainous country to the E., across the Tigris, the The language spoken by both the Babylonians and
Kassite and Elamite tribes found it easy to descend the Assyrians is usually referred to as ‘ Assyrian.’ It
upon- the fertire Bkbylonian plain, while after the rise 5, Language, belongs to the northern group of the
of the Assyrian empire the boundary between Assyria Semitic languages, claiming a closer
and Babylonia was constantly in dispute. relationship to Phcenician, Hebrew
The principal cities of the conntry.were situated in (see H EBREW L ANGUAGE ), Syriac, and the other Ara-
two groups : one in the north ; the other in the south, maic dialects (see A RAMAIC L ANGUAGE ), than to the
.3, nearer the sea. The southernmost city was more southern group, which comprises the Sabaean or
Eridu, the modern Abu-Shahrein, situated Himyaritic, the Arabic, and the Ethiopic tongues. But
on the Euphrates not far from the ancient coast-line of while in its nominal and verbal formations it exhibits
the Persian Gulf. To the W. of Abu-Shahrein the the Semitic idea of inflection from roots, and while
mound of Mulsayyar marks the site of the ancient city those roots themselves are found in the other Semitic
of Ur (see UR). Between the Tigris and the Euphrates languages, it has been subjected to a stronger’ foreign
to the NW. of Ur stood Larsam or Larsa, the modern influence and has assimilated, to an extent that is not
Senltereh, and to the W. of Larsam the city of Erech, met with in any other of the Semitic languages, a
the remains of-which are buried under the mounds of considerable body of non-Semitic words and expres-
Warka. T o the E. of Warka, on the E. bank of the sions. The influence exerted by the previous inhabit-
Shaft-el-Hai, the mounds of Telloh represent the city ants of Babylonia upon their Semitic conquerors was
of Sirpurla, or Lagag (as it was known in the later indelible, and throughout their whole literature, especi-
period of its history) ; the two cities, Isin and Maru, ally in their mythological and religious compositions,
the sites of which have not yet been identified with words of non-Semitic origin are constantly met with.
certainty, complete the list of the principal cities in The language possessed the‘ vowel sounds, a,%,e, E, i, i, ut 6,
the S. The N. group of cities consists of Babylon, and the consonantal sounds b, g, d, z, b, t, k, 1, m, n, s, p, 7, k,
situated on the Euphrates, near the modern town of r, S, and t, representing the Hebrew 3, 2, 1, 1, n
Hillah (see BABYLON) ; Borsippa, marked by the mound 6. OW&* @ e . , e), 5,
u, 3, D, 3, D, 5, x, p, ’I, ,I and n.
The existence of the e sound in Assyrian has
of Birs-NimrBd, not far from Babylon, on the SW. ; been questioned, and it is true that the signs containing e
Cuthah, the modern Tell-Ibrahim (see C UTHAH ), to and i are constantly interchanged; but that the e sound
the N. of Babylon ; Sippar, the modern Abu-Habbah ; was used at least for a certain period may be regarded as
the city of KiS, still nearer the metropolis ; and Nippur, practically certain, for not only is i t , reiuired to explain cer-
tain vowel-changes which occur, but it is also vouched for by
the modern Niffer (the southernmost city of the group), the Greek and Hebrew forms of certain Babylonian words, and
to the N. of the Shaft-en-Nil. The site of the city of by the occurrence of some twelve signs in the syllabary, the
AgadB, which was in the northern half of the country, existence of which is more naturally explained by the supposi-
probably not far from Babylon, has not been satis- tion that they contain the vowel e, than by the assumption that
they are merely duplicates for certain other signs which un-
factorily identified. doubtedly contain the vowel i. The pronunciation of the
The present state of the country differs consider- consonants is in the main the same as that of the equivalent
ably from that presented by it in ancient times. All consonants in Hebrew. With regard to the pronunciation of
the consonants 6, g,d, k,p,and t, it is possible that in Assyrian
4. Natural ancient writers describe Babylonia as ex- as in Hebrew and Aramaic, they were pronounced as spirant;
ceedingly fertile and producing enormous when coming between two vowel sounds. in writing however
quantities of grain ; but at the present day no distinction is indicated. I t may be Aoted that’while th;
long neglect of cultivation has rendered the greater part Assyrians made no distinction in their pronunciatio; of k and
k the Babylonians pronounced the latter as that among
of it an arid waste, varied in the neighbourhood of the ;Le later Babylonians, a t least, m appears to f i v e been pro-
rivers by large tracts of marsh land. There are still nounced as u: and that the pronunciation of ;by the .4ssyrians
visible throughout the country embankments and gradually approximated to s. The Seniitic sounds represented
trenches which mark the courses of ancient canals, by by the Hebrew consonants N, ;I, I, n @e., c), 2
and y ( i e . ,
which the former dwellers in the land regulated their and t),are not distinguished in the Assyrian syllabary, as will
abundant water-supply, which was not allowed to swell be apparent from the following examples given in transliteration
the areas covered by the swamps, but was utilised for the equivalent roots in Hebrew or Arabic being added in paren!
the systematic irrigation of the country. The whole theses : a k Z h , ‘to eat’ ( 5 3 ~;)alriku, ‘ t o go’ (757) : edsshu,
land, in fact, was formerly intersected by a network of ‘to be new’ (din);e&m, ‘to cross’ 0 ° C ) ; e d u , ‘to enter’
canals, and to the systematic irrigation of its alluvial (-16) ;aZZdu, ‘to bear ’ (151); and e@w, ‘to suck’(py). That
soil may be traced the secret of Babylonia’s former these sounds were not distinguished is due to the fact that the
fertility. Babylonians did not originate their own system of writing but
borrowed the system they found in use among the ear& in-
The principal products of the country were wheat habitants of the country.
and dates. The former gave an enormous return.
The latter supplied the Babylonians with wine, vinegar, This method of writing has been termed ‘ cuneiform,’
since the wedge (Latin cuneus) forms the basis of the
and a species of flour for baking ; from the sap of the
date tree was obtained palm-sugar ; ropes were made ., writing. written character in the later periods
of its development. Each character
from its fibrous bark, and its wood furnished a light
but tough building material. Wine was also obtained or sign, in faci, consists of a single wedge, or is
from the seed of the sesame plant : and barley, millet, made up of different kinds of wedges in various
and vetches were grown in large quantities. In addition combinations, the wedges of most common occurrence
to the palm, the cypress was common ; poplars, acacias, being the upright wedge 7, the horizontal wedge -, and
and pomegranates grew in the neighbourhood of the
streams ; but the cultivation of the vine, and of oranges, the arrow head <, while the sloping wedges 7, 1,
and
apples, and pears, was artificial. The enormous reeds / occur h several characters. The characters are
which abound in the swamps were used by the Faby- writtenfroinleft toright, and, except in some poeticalcom-
lonians for the construction of huts and light boats, and positions, no space is necessarily left between the words ;
for fencing round the fields. every line, however, with one or two isolated exceptions,
The domestic animals of the Babylonians wLZecamels, ends with a complete word. The following Assyrian
horses, oxen, sheep, goats, and- dogs ; while the lion, signs will serve to’illustrate some of the methods of com-
the wild ox, the wild boar, and the jackal were the bination adopted in the formation of the later char-
principal wild animals found in the country; gazelles
and hares were not uncommon ; a great variety of birds
1 Perhaps = Tell Lob.
421 422
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
of the writing, however, there isno trace of the wedge : Ise for their inscriptions of a character which they had borrowed
xiginally from the Babylonians. Other nations of W. Asia also,
8. Origin. characters consist of straight lines. juch as the Susians and the people dwelling around Lake Van
his is due t o the fact that cuneiform w a s Jorrowed from Babylon the idea of cuneiform writing, in somk
merely a descendant of a system of picture-writing. xses making use of the Babylonian characters, in others modify-
In the case of many of the characters which occur in the most ,ng them to a greater or less extent. The changes introduced
ancient inscriptions it is still possible to recognise the origina! by the Persians when they borrowed the idea of writing by means
pictu:es which underlie them. For example the sign for 'heaven, >fwedges were considerable, for, instead of employing a sign-list
god, 'high,' is a star with eight points, or possibly a circle 3f several hundred characters representing syllables and complete
intersected by four diameters; the sign for 'sun' is a rough words, they confined themselves to thirty-nine, each of which
circle representing the sun's disk ; the sign for ' ox ' is the head represented a single alphabetic value. Of the various systems
of an ox with horns ; the sign for 'grain' is an ear of corn. 3f cuneiform writing, therefore, the Persian was by far the
All the characters, however, did not descend from pictures. simplest. The Achaemenian kings who ruled in Persia at this
Some were formed artificially by combination. Thus the sign period numbered among their subjects the peoples of Susia and
for 'water' when placed within that for 'mouth' gave a new Babylonia these countries having by conquest been added to
sign with the meaning 'to drink' ; the sign for food placed their em&. When, therefore, they set up an inscription
within the sign for 'mouth' gave a sign with the meaning ' t o recording their campaigns or building operations, they added
e a t ' ; the sign for 'wild-ox' wqs formed by placing the sign for by the side of the Persian text Susian and Bahylonian transla:
.
'mountain ' within that for ' ox while other signs wer? fprmed tions inscribed in the cuneifor; characters employed by these
two nations. There are thus engraved on the palaces and rocks
by writing a character twice or tiree times. Moreover, It IS pos-
sible that the artificial formation of characters was customary to of Persia trilingual inscriptions in the old Persian, Susian, and
a considerable extent. According to a theory recently put Babylonian characters and it will be obvious that as soon as
forward by Delitzsch,lcertain strokes and combinations of strokes one of these three chiracters could be read the way would he
to be traced in the oldest forms of many of the characters had a opened for the decipherment of the other two. Of the three
meaning inherent in themselves, and formed the motive on the the Persian, with its comparatively small number of signs, is
basis of which the signs containing them were developed. This (as we have said) the simpleit, and it was therefore natural that
question, however, is one on which it is impossible to form a it was the first to attract the serious attention of scholars.
conclusion until more of the inscriptions of the earliest period, Grotefend, in a paper published in 1802, supplied the key to a
recently discovered, have been published. correct method of decipherment. Taking two short inscriptions
In the later forms which the characters assumed the original in the old Persian character which Niehuhr
lines gave way to wedges from the fact that the scribes employed 11. Grotefend. had copied at Persepolis, he submitted them
ex!ensively soft clay instead of stone as a material on which to to an analysis. The inscriptions he found,
write. A line formed by a single pressure of the style naturally coincided throughout, with the exception of certaii groups of
assumed the form of a wedge, while the increased clearness characters, which, he conjectured, might represent proper names.
and uniformity which resulted secured for the wedge its final On this assumption each inscription contained two proper names,
adoption. In addition to the changes which occurred in the the name of the king who set it up and it might be supposed
forms of the characters, there was a development in their signifi- that of his father. But the name hhicd occurred first in on;
cation. Originally representing complete words or ideas, they inscription was the name which stood second in the other-that
were eraduallv emnloved to exnress the sounds of the words is to say, the three different groups of characters must represent
they ';epresen&d ;;pa& from their meaning; and thus were the names of three monarchs following one another in direct
developed their syllabic values. succession. From the fact that the inscriptions were found in
The Babvlonians adoDted this method of writinz from
9. Principles. t h e non-Semitic race (see below, §§ 4 3 ,
- the ruins of Persepolis it might be concluded that their writers
were Persian kings; and when he applied, by way of experi-
ment, the three names Hystaspes, Darius, and Xerxes, he found
r
71 dl w h o m thev found in uossession of
, that they fitted the characters admirahly. On his further de-
the country, a n d they a d a p t e d the system t o their o w n ciphering the name of Cyrus he obtained correct values for more
idiom. than a quarter of the alphahet.
Of the forty Persian signs of which one is merely a diagonal
T o characters or groups of characters representing Sumerian stroke employed for dividinithe words from one another, Grote-
words they assigned the Semitic words which were equivalent fend's first alphabet included thirty. H e subsequently sug-
to them in meaning ; they also employed the signs phonetically, gested values for thirty-five characters ; hut he did not improve
the syllables they represented consisting either of a vowel and upon his original alphabet. He correctly identified a, z1, d,p ,
a consonant (simple syllables)--e.$., ha, i d sz1-or of a vowel f r, s and I ; his values Kh, dj,and th were practically correct ;
between two consonants (compound syllables)-e.g., mat, K i t , Z d . i n d his ZJ was not far off the correct value 6. About 1822 St.
The system was further complicated by the fact that the majority Martin took up the investigation, working at the decipherment
of signs were polyphonous-that is to say, they had more than for the next ten years, but without much result ;he identified t and
one syllabic value and could be used as ideograms for more than 21, however, and for the vowel i, which had been read as o hx
one word. A sign, therefore, might be used in one of three ways : Grotefend he gave the improved readingy. The characters for $ 7 ~
as a syllable in a word written phonetically, or as an ideogram and 11 w e d identified by Rask in 1826, and Burnouf in hismemoir
for a comdete word. or as one sign in a erouu of two or more published ten years later, identified k, 6, and I, while his reading;
sigr.5 \I Iiich tugethe; furincd an idkgritm a'complefo wsr?. 4 andgh for two other characters were great improvements on the
'l'linr tliia mixed mertrod of ideogr:iphic a i d phonctic writing suggestions of Grotefcnd and St. Martin. I n the same year
\viis ~ f t i . ifmnd
i nmlJignuiic is atte,ted I,y rlie mcthods which tlie Lassen produced his first alphabet improvements on which he
Babylonians took to simplify it. (I) One of these methods con- published in 1839 and 1844,in a few'cases making use of the sug-
sisted in adding to a word what has been termed its destermha- gestions of Jacquet and Beer which had been published soon
tiue, a sign attached to a word to indicate the class of thing to after the appearance of his first alphabet. H e suggested correct
which it refers. Thus a snecial sign was nlaced before male Droner readings for a t least ten characters, and improved readings of
some others. This final alphabet did not contain many incorrect
identifications. The scholar who did most, however, for
the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions was the late Sir
were used before the names of cities mountains rivers tribes Henry Rawlinson. H e first turned his attention to the subject
professions, woods, plants, stones, &ments, ;essels, 'certail: in 1835, when stationed a t Kirmanshah on
animals, the names of the months; stars, etc., while in a few 12. Rawlinson. the western frontier of Persia. At that hme
classes the determinative is placed after,the,word, as in the case he had only heard of Grotefend's discovery ;
of places, birds, fish, etc. A determinative was never pro- he had not seen a copy of his alphabet, and did not even know
nounced :it was designed only as a guide to the reader, indicating on what inscriptions it had been based. Thus he began the
the character of the word it accompanied. (2) Another aid to work of decipherment from the beginning. For his first analysis
the reader consisted in adding to an ideogram what has been he took two short inscriptions similar to those used for the
termed itsphonetic compZememt-that is to say, the final syllable purpose by Grotefend, which yielded him the names of Hys-
of the word for which it is intended. By this means the reader taspes Darius and Xerxes. During the next year he had
is not only assisted in assigning the correct word to the ideogram increaked his hst of names by the correct identification of
but also, in the case of verbs, is enabled to detect with greate; Arsames, Ariamnes, Teispes, Achxmenes, and Persia. It was
ease the stem and tense intended by the writer. Even with this not until the autumn of 1836 that he first had an opportunity of
assistance, the writing, with its list of more than five hundred seeing the works of Grotefend and St. Martin. Then he per-
characters, was necessarily complicated. The use of ideograms ceived that his own alphabet, based as it was on longer in-
was never entirely given u and although in the Neo-Baby- scriptions, was far in advance of the results obtained by them.
lonian period simple syllab?& w&e employed in preference to I n 1837 he copied the greater part of the long inscription a t
compound syllahles, the Assyrians and Babylonians never Behistun, containing the annals of Danus and forwarded a
attamed the further development of an alphabet. translation of the first two paragraphs to'the Royal Asiatic
The decipherment of t h e Assyrian and Babylonian Society; but next summer, while a t Teheran, he heard that
lo. Decipher- inscriptions resulted from the iabours
of scholars who had previously devoted
Bnrnouf's puhlication had meanwhile anticipated many of
his improvements. In the autumn of 1838 he obtained the
merit. published copies of the Persepolitan inscriptions, and with the
themselves to the interpretation of the help of the allied languages of Sanscrit and Zend analysed
cuneiform inscriptions i n old Persian. every word in the inscriptions that had up to that'time been
From the sixth to the fourth century B.C. the Persians made copied. H e then found that Lassen's alphabet confirmed many
of his own conclusions; but he obtained assistance from it in the
1 Die Entstehung des aztesten Schriftsysstems(Leipsic, 1897). case of only one charactqr.

423 424
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
1t will thus be seen that Rawlinson worked out the characters ialaces and temples, while the ' finds ' comprise votive
of the Persian alphabet for himself,independently of his prede- ablets of stone and inscribed alabaster vases, building-
cessors and contemporaries; but if was not on this achievement
that he himself based his title to originalify. He justly claims nscriptions upon cylinders, and thousands of inscribed
that, whereas his predecessors had succeeded only in reading a lay tablets, many of which are of great literary, his-
few proper names and royal titles, he had been the first to present orical, and scientific interest.
to the world a correct grammatical translation of over two As the soil of Babylonia is alluvial, it is entirely
hundred lines of cuneiform writing. This translation was in the
hands of the Royal Asiatic Society and was being prepared for vithout metals, and even without stone, both of which
publication in 1839, when his d u d s in Afghanistan put an end had to be imported from other countries.
to his studies for some years. It was not until 1845 that he This scarcity of stone had a consider-
found leisure to complete the work, in which year he ublished
his memoir containing a complete translation of the whoi Persian tble influence on the character of Babylonian architecture.
text of the Be)listnn inscription.1 The difficulties of transport prohibited its adoption as
Now that he had completed the decipherment of the t building material except to a very small extent, and
old Persian cuneiform inscriptions, Rawlinson turned is excellent clay was obtainable throughout the whole
13. Baby- his attention to the Babylonian cuneiform. )f Babylonia, all the temples and palaces as well as
A comparison of the third column of the xivate dwellings were composed throughout of brick.
lonian. Behistun inscription with the now known The bricks were of two kinds, baked and unbaked.
Persian text occurring in the first column was the The former, though merely dried in the sun, formed a
starting-point of his studies, and in 1851 he published ierviceable building-material, and in some cases entire
the text and translation of the Babylonian part of this mildings are composed of them. The usual practice,
inscription, at the same time demonstrating the fact that iowever, was to build the greater part of the structure
the Babylonian characters were polyphonous. The his- If sun-dried bricks and then to face it with bricks
torical inscriptions on cylinders, slabs, and stelai that hied in the kiln, the thin layer of harder material
had been found in Assyria and Babylonia meanwhile In the surface protecting the whole structure from
afforded ample material for study, and other workers .sin and flood and change of temperature. Buildings
lent their aid in the decipherment. In the years 1849- )f unburnt brick were often strengthened by thick layers
1852 Hincks contributed papers to the Royal Irish )f matting composed of reeds, while the interior struc-
Academy. His most important discovery was the m e of faced walls was in some cases strengthened at
determination of the syllabic nature of Babylonian writ- ntervals by courses of baked brick. The bricks them-
ing. Subsequently Rawlinson, Hincks, Norris, and selves vary considerably in size. Many of them were
Oppert, while devoting themselves to the further interpre- stamped with the name of the king for whose use they
tation of the historical inscriptions, classified the principal were made, which lends considerable aid in settling the
grammatical rules of the language, and so brought the iate and history of many structures. For binding the
work of decipherment to an end. bricks together two kinds of cement were employed, the
The earliest explorers of Babylonia did not undertake me consisting of bitumen, the other of plain clay or
systematic excavation. They devoted themselves to mud, in some cases intermixed with chopped straw.
surveying and describing the ruins that The latter was used the more extensively, bitumen being
14. 3mployed only where there was special need of strength,
were still visible upon the surface. The
most valuable niemoirs on the subject LS at the base of a building where injury from rain was
are those on the site of Babylon compiled by Rich, who to be feared (see BITUMEN). Conduits of baked bricks
from 1808 till 1821 was the Hon. East India Company's were employed for carrying o f f the water from the
resident at Bagdsd. Systematic excavations were larger buildings (see also BRICK, § 4).
first undertaken in Babylonia during the years 1849-55, The principal building with the Babylonians was the
under the direction of Sir Henry Rawlinson assisted by sikkurrntu or temple, consisting of a lofty structure
Loftus and Taylor. 16. Temples. rising in huge stages one above the
In 1854 Rawlitison excavated at Birs Nimrod near the other, composed for the most part of
Euphrates a few miles SW. of Hillah, a mound that marks the site solid brick and ascended by a staircase on the outside ;
of a great zikkurrat erected by Nebuchadrezzar 11. within the
boundaries oi ihe ancient city of Borsippa. Here, in addition the image of the god to whom it was dedicated was
to tracing the plan of the building, he found fine cylinders placed in the shrine at the top. The remains of these
recording Nehnchadrezzar's building operations. He also suc- temple-towers at the present day are covered by huge
cessfully excavated the mounds $asr and BHbil, to the N. of
Hillah, within the site of ancient Babylon ; and during the same mounds of earth and debris, and thus it is difficult to
period excavations were conducted at the mound of Niffer trace their plan and estimate their original dimensions.
to the SE. of Hillah, marking the site of the ancient city of The larger ones, however, have beenexamined at different
Nippur, and in S. Babylonia at the mounds of Warka, the site times. That at Warka, which at the present day rises
of Erech, Senkereh the site of Larsa, and Mukayyar the
site of Ur. While Rawlinson was carrying on these extensive more than a hundred feet above the plain, measures
excavations, the French furnished an expedition which was some two hundred feet square at its base, and consisted
placed under the direction of Fresnel and Oppert and during of at least two stories. The temple at Mukayyar is
the years 1851-54 did valuable service especially in surveying
and describing the site of the ancient dty of Babylon. In r878 built on a platform raised about twenty feet above the
the Trustees of the British Museum again undertook systematic plain; it is in the form of a parallelogram, the sides
excavations, which were continued down to the year 1883 under measuring 198 ft. and 133 ft., and the angles pointing
the direction of their agent H. Rassani. Excavations were to the cardinal points. Only two stories are at present
undertaken in the neighbonrhood of Hillah, at Tell-Ibrahim the
site of the ancient city of Cnthah, and at Abu-Habbah, thisite traceable, of which the lower one is strengthened by
of Sippar, where exceedingly rich finds of tablets and cylinders buttresses. The upper story does not rise from the
were made. The various expeditions of George Smith and E. centre of the lower, but is built rather at one end.
A. Wallis Budge resulted in the recovery of many Babylonian
inscriptions. The French have obtained rich finds of sculptures There are said to have been traces on it, at the beginning
and inscriptions of the early period at Telloh, in consequence of of the century, of the chamber or shrine which may
the exertions of de Sarzec, who, since his appointment as French have originally contained the image of the god. The
vice-consul at Bassorah (Bazra) in 1877, has devoted himself to zikkurrat at Nippur is of a somewhat similar construc-
the thorough excavation of the mounds that mark the site of the
ancient city of Sirpurla. The most recent excavations are those tion. It is built in the form of a parallelogram, on
of the Americans at Niffer, which were begun in 1888; they the NW. edge of a large platform, the four corners
were ably conducted by Haynes, and have only recently been also pointing to the four cardinal points. In this temple
discontinued. three stages have been traced, and it is not probable
With the exception of those at Telloh, the mounds that there were more. In the later Babylonian period the
of Babylonia, unlike those ~ ~ . A S S Y R(q.v., IA IO), do number of stages was increased, as in the temple of BE1
not yield many sculptures or reliefs ; but the excavations or Marduk at Babylonia, and that of Naba at Borsippa,
have,enabled us to trace the history of the brick-built both of which were finally rebuilt with great magnificence
1 SeeJRAS u). by Nebuchadrezzar 11. (see BABYLON, NEBUCHAD-
425 426
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
KEZLAR). Rising on their platforms high above the vhich occur on tablets by themselves, or are preserved
houses of the city and the surrounding plain, these n the ritual texts interspersed with directions for the
ancient temples must have been impressive, though in the wformance of cerern0nies.l It has long been recognised
earlyperiod theywere entirelywithout ornament or colour. hat Babylonian poetical compositions, like those of the
The remains of but few Babylonian palaces have 3ebrews, are written in a rough metre consisting of
been unearthed, that at Telloh being the one belonging Terse and half-verse, the Babylonian scribes frequently
l,. other to the early period that has been most :mphasising the central division of the verse in the coni-
buildings. systematically excavated, while the finest lositions they copied by writing its two halves in separate
example of the later period is the palace of :olumns. More recently it has been pointed out that
Nebuchadrezzar at Babylon with its hanging gardens n many compositions, in addition to this central division,
(see B ABYLON, 5 5 ) . Of the domestic architecture of :ach verse is divided by a definite number of accentcd
the Babylonians not many remains have been recovered. iyllables or rhythmical beats.
The site from which the finest examples of early T h e feet or divisions so fornied do not contain a fixed number
Babylonian art have been ohtained is Telloh, where If syllables but consist of a single word or of not more than two
Ir three sh&t words closely connected with each other such as
18. Art. excavations have afforded evidence of an ,repositions and the substantives to which they are &ached
art so highly developed that its origin words joined by the construct state, etc., the metre in sorn;
must be set back at least 2000 years before the con- :ahlets being indicated by blank spaces left by the scribe. T h e
:ommanest metre is that consisting of four divisions, in which
solidation of the Semitic kingdom of Babylonia (see .he two halves of the verse are each subdivided ; but this, in
helow, 54). Large seated statues, in diorite, of Ur- uany texts, especially in some of the prayers, is interrupted a t
Bau and Gudea, carved in the round, stone slabs and irregular intervals b y a line of only three feet.
plates sculptured in relief, small figures and carvings In many of the legends, moreover, the single verses
in marble, stone, ivory, and bronze, bronze and silver Ire combined both by sense and by rhythm into strophes
vessels, cylinder-seals, and ornaments of various kinds :onsisting of four or two lines each.
attest the skill of these early Sumerian artists, who were The best examples of Assyrian and Babylonian prose
the teachers of the Semites by whom they were eventu- - historical inscriptions belonging. to the
are the longer - I

ally displaced. This class of inscription

21. Historical demands
inscriptions. later periods.
a more detailed treatment.
At a later period the Babylonians ornamented the
interior of their palaces and houses by covering the ADart from its literarv value. it is the
brickwork with plaster, on which they painted ; or they principal source ofAourknowledge of <he history of the
coated the walls with enamelled bricks. The develop- Babylonians and Assyrians themselves, and supple-
ment of sculpture, however, unlike that of Assyria, was ments and supports in many particulars the biblical
hampered by the lack of material in which to work, and narrative of the relations of Israel and Jndah to their
it is not surprising that the carvings that have come more powerful neighbours.
down to us never approach the level attained by the Unlike all other classes of inscriptions, which were
reliefs of the later Assyrian kings. written with a style on tablets made of clay, the
Of the many thousands of Babylonian and Assyrian historical inscriptions assume a variety of forms. The
inscriptions that have been recovered only a small shortest form consists merely of a king's name and
19. Literature. proportion can be classified as literature titles, which are stamped or inscribed on bricks built
in the strict sense of the term. Perhaps into the structure of a temple or palace which he had
the largest section of the inscriptions consists of the erected or restored. In some cases the actual stamps
contract tablets, which throw an interesting light on the that were used for this purpose have been recovered.
social and commercial life of the people, but in no Similar short inscriptions were engraved during the old
single instance can be regarded as of literary va1ue.l Babylonian period on door-sockets of stone. Another
Similarly the many texts of a magical and astrological class of short inscription records the dedication of
nature (see below, 3 3 5 ), tableks containing forecasts temples on their erection or when they have been re-
and omens, tablets prescribing offerings and ceremonies built; these are frequently written on clay cones
to be performed before the gods ( 5 30). can hardly take fashioned in the forlh of pegs or nails, which may very
rank as literature, though their classification and study possibly have had a phallic significance, The cones
is leading to a more accurate knowledge of Babylonian of Gndea and Ur-Bau are those most frequently met
religion and belief; while the great body of letters and with, while clay cones of different shapes were engraved
despatches dealing with both public and private affairs, by Mnl-Babbar, patesi of Isban, Sin-gHSid, Kudur-
written as most of them are in a terse, abbreviated Mabug and other, early Babylonian kings ; cones of
style, are worthy of study from a philological rather bronze, ornamented with the figure of a god clasping the
than a literary standpoint.2 thicker end, have also been found at Telloh. Dedica-
When all these deductions have been made, however, tory inscriptions were also written on circular stones,
there remains a considerable number of texts on the basis perforated through the centre; when these are small
of which the Babylonians and Assyrians may justly lay they are usually described as ' mace-heads' ; but the
claim to the possession of a literature consisting of both use to which the larger ones were put has not been
20. Poetry. poetry and prose. The principal examples ascertained. The ' mace-heads ' of Sargon I., ManiS-
of Babylonian poetry are presented by the tusu, and Nammaghani are good examples of the
legend^,^ the majority of which are written throughout in former class. Small square tablets of diorite, but
metre, by mythological and religious compositions and more commonly larger oblong tablets of limestone
penitential psalms, many of which are composed in inscribed on both sides, were employed for votive in-
Sumerian with interlinear Assyrian translations, and by scriptions; those of Rim-Aku and of his wife, of
the many prayers, hymns, incantations, and litanies uammu-rabi and of Samsu-iluna, are particularly fine
examples of this class of inscription. In the later
1 See Oppert and Menant, Docainents jurzZiques (Paris, Babylonian period, when such a votive inscription of
1877) ; Strassmaier, Dab. Texte (Leipsic, 1899 etc.) ; Meissner, an early Babylonian king was found in the ruins or
Beitr. zlcin altbab. Privatreclzt (Leipsic 1893). and K B 4.
2 See Budge and Bezold, TeZZ eZ-Am&m $ab?ets (London,
ancient archives of a temple, a pious Babylonian would
1892); Bezold, OriLntaZ D@lonmcy (Londan, 1893) ; KB 5 ; frequently have an accurate copy of it made in clay,
Del. Beitr. z. Assyr. 1; and R. E'. Harper, Assyrian and Ba6p
Ionfan Letters (London, 1892, etc.). 1 See IV. R ; Haupt, Akk. undsunz. KeiZsc~rifttexte(Leip-
See George Smith ChaZdean Genes& (London 1880) : sic 1881-2): Zimmern Ba6. Bzlssps. (Leipsic 1885) and .surpu
IV. R ; Haupt, Ba6. 'Nimrodepos (Leipsic, 1884): E. T. (Liipsic, 1896); BrnnAow, Z A 4 3 ; Kniidtzdn, Assyr. Geb. an
Harper, Beitr. z. Assyr. 2 ; Jeremias, Izdubar Nimrod (Leip- den Sonnengott (Leipsic, 1803) ; Tallqvist, MaqZz7 (Leipsic
sic, 1891); Jensen, Kosinofogie (Strassburg, 1890) ; Zimmern in 1895): King, Bab. T a g + and Sorcery (London, 1896); and.
Gunkel's Schd& (Gott., 1895)' and Del. A6h. d. KJnigZ. Craig ReZ. f e x t s (Leipsic 1895-7).
SGchs. G a d s . d. Wiss.. Bd. 17,'~.z ('96). 2 Z:rnrnern, Z A 8 and 10:

427 428
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
which he placed as an offering in one of the temples in vere studied in detail, archaic forms of characters being
Babylon. Several archaic inscriptions have thus been :ollected into lists and traced hack to the pictures from
preserved in Neo-Babylonian copies. The famous stone- vhish they originally sprang. Syllabaries giving the
tablet recording the endowment of the temple of the Sun- ialnes of the characters in Sumerian, and their Assyrian
god at Sippar by Nabii-pal-iddina, which was found in lames and meanings, were compiled. Collections of
a clay coffer with the sculptured portion protected by ;rammatical paradigms for every class of tablet were
clay shields provided for it by Nahopolassar nearly three nade for the use of beginners; examples of verbal
hundred years after it was engraved, is unique. 'ormations were collected and classified ; and explana-
Clay vases and' howls were employed by some of .ory lists of ideographs were made, arranged in some
the Assyrian kings for recording their building opera- nstances according to the forms of the characters with
tions, the inscriptions running in parallel lines round which they began or ended, in others according to
the outside, while vases of alabaster which were pre- the meanings or roots of their Assyrian equivalents.
sented to the temples frequently bore the name and Perhaps the most interesting of the grammatical tablets
titles of the king who dedicated them. Inscriptions on %re the lists of synonymous words, which served the
statues are not frequently met with in the later periods purpose of a modern dictionary.
of Babylonian and Assyrian history, the short inscrip- The most notable scientific achievements of the
tions on the statues of ASur-nLSif-pal, the longer Babylonians were their knowledge of astronomy and
inscription on the seated figure of Shalmaneser II., and 24. Astronomy. their method of reckoning time.
those on the two large figures of the go& Nebo, being These two achievements are to a
the principal examples ; at Telloh, however, long in- great extent connected with each other, for it was owing
scriptions of the nonSemitic kings Gudea and Ur-Bau to their astronomical knowledge ,that the Babylonians
are found engraved on their statues of diorite. Slabs were enabled to form a calendar. From the earliest
of stone, marble,. and alabaster were employed for times, in fact, the Babylonians divided the year into
longer historical inscriptions. These were sometimes months, partly of thirty and partly of twenty-nine days,
treated as tablets and engraved on both sides, as in the and by means of intercalary months they brought their
memorial tablets of RammLn-nirari I. ; but more lunar and their solar year into harmony with each other.
frequently they were intended as monuments, and set Their achievements in astronomy are the more remark-
up in the palaces of the kings who made them ; parts able as their knowledge of mathematics was not extra-
of many are decorated with sculpture, and in some in- ordinary : though we possess tablets containing correct
stances with portraits in relief of the king whose deeds calculations of square and cube roots, most of their
they record. The later Assyrian kings also engraved calculations, even in the later astronomical tablets,
their records on the colossal winged bulls and lions are based principally on addition and subtraction.
that flanked the entrances to their palaces, and by the Herodotus and other ancient writers concur in tracing
side of, and even upon, the bas-reliefs which lined their to Babylonia the origin of the science of astronomy, as
walls. In some places on the borders of Assyria, as in known to the ancient nations of Europe and W. Asia.
the district of Lebanon and at the source of the Tigris, In more recent times some scholars have asserted, with
inscriptions to record the farthest point reached by some less probability, that Indian and Chinese astronomers
military expedition were engraved in the living rock. also obtained their knowledge, in the first instance, from
Clay, however, was the material. most .extensively Babylon. That the Babylonians themselves took astro-
employed, and for the longer historical inscriptions nomical observations from the earliest periods of their

C1a$Fms'
22'
some form of prism or cylinder was
found to offer the greatest amount
of surface in the most compact form ;
history is attested by general tradition ; and, though the
forms this tradition assumed sometimes exhibit extra-
ordinary exaggeration,-as in the calculations referred
the two earliest prisms that have been discovered are to by Pliny, according to one of which the Babylonians
those of Gudea, each of which contains about two possessed records of astronomical calculations for
thousand lines of writing. 490,000 years, and according to another for 720,000
The annals of several of the Assyrian kings also were inscribed years,-there is not sufficient reason for rejecting the
on,clay prisms, good examples of which are the four eight-sided tradition as having no substratum of truth, and it is not
pmms* of Tiglath-pileser I. (see ASSYRIA6 4, the famous
six-sided ' Taylor ' prism2 of Sennacherib ' which contains an improbable that the Babylonians, even before the era
account of his siege of Jerusalem (see S ~ ~ N A C H Ethe R I six-
B) of Sargon I., were watching the stars and laying the
sided prisms3 of ESARHADDON (g.v.), and the fine ien-sided foundations of the science. The first observations
nrisms 4 of Ah'-bini-Dal. naturally belonged rather to the practice of astrology
' Small barrel.cylindk were employed by wnic of tlre Assyrian
kings, including Sargon, Esarhadrlon, A;ur-b>ni-pnl, and Sin- and can hardly he reckoned as scientific, and it is not
gar-igkun, and larger ones, containing accounts of his first three until the later periods of Assyrian and Babylonian
campaigns, by Sennacherih. Barrel -cylinders, however, are history that we meet with tablets containing astronomical
principally associated with the later Babylonian kings. Most
of them contain accounts of the buildine oDerations of NEBU. as opposed to astrological observations.
CHADREZZAR 11. (g.v.) and Nabonidus. -T6e two latest barrel- The Assyrians made their observations from specially
cylinders that have been recovered are those of Cyrns (see constructed observatories, which were not improbably
below, 5 69), describing his taking of Babylon (538 B.c.), and of connected with the temples; the observatory was
Antiochus-Soter (280.260 B.c.), recording his rebuilding of the
temple of E-zida in Borsippa. termed a d i t famarti, or ' house of observation' ; and
Large clay tablets with one, two, or three columns of writing we possess the reports of the astronomers sent from
on each side were employed for long historical inscriptions. these observatories to the king recording successful
Among the best examples are the tablets of Tiglath-pilcser
III., which were found in the SE. palace at Nimrfid the tablet and unsuccessful observations of the moon, the un-
of Enarhaddon inscribed with his genealogy and an'account of successful observation of an expected eclipse, the date
his building operations, the tablet giving an account of A h - of the vernal equinox, etc. The astronomers, as a
bZni-pal's accession to the throne of Assyria and of the installa.
tion of his brother as viceroy of Babylon, knd those recording rnle, sign their names in the reports, and from this
Agur-bZni-pal's conquests in Arabia and Elam, his campaign: source we know that there were important astronomical
in Egypt, and the embassy of Gyges, king of Lydia. schools at A h , Nineveh, and Arb& in the seventh
The Assyrians and Babylonians themselves were and eighth centuries B.C. ; the many fragments of
ardent students of their own literature, compiling cata. tablets containing lists of stars, observations, and
23. Research. logues of their principal literary corn- calendars, which date from the same period, are, how-
positions, and writing explanatorq ever, of an astrological rather than a scientificcharacter.
tablets and commentaries on many of the more difficuli Although we first meet with astronomical inscriptions
texts. Their language itself and their method of writinp on Assyrian tablets, it is probable that the Assyrians
1 Translation in K B l 14-48. 2 Translation in KB28o-113. derived their knowledge originally from Babylonia, and
0 Translation in KB 2 124.140. , 4 Translation in KB 2 152-236 we may see an indication of this origin in a fragment of
429 430
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
an Assyrian commentary referring to an astronomical deities. At the head of the pantheon, from the earliest
inscription which had been brought to Assyria from the period, stood a powerful triad consisting of Anu, the god
ancient city of AgadB. At a later period there were 26. The gods.-of heaven, BEl, the god of the earth,
important schools of astronomy in Babylonia, at Sippar, and Ea, the god of the abyss and of
Borsippa, and Orchoe; but it is from inscriptions hidden knowledge. Next in- order comes a second
obtained from the site of the first of these three cities triad, comprising the two chief light-gods and the god
alone that our knowledge of Babylonian astronomy is of the atmosphere: ;.e., Sin, the Moon-god, gama$ the
principally derived. Excavations undertaken at Abti- Sun-god, and KammSn, the god of storm, thunder and
Habbah, the site of Sippar, resulted in the discovery lightning, clouds and rain. All of these gods had their
of many fragments of astronomical tablets (belonging own cities, which were especially devoted to their
principally to the Seleucid and Arsgcid eras) written worship. Thus the worship of Anu was centred at
in the later cursive Babylonian; and these, though Erech, that of BE1 at Nippur, and that of Ea at Eridu;
in but few instances unbroken, have sufficed to vindi- the oldest seat of the worship of Sin was Ur, though in
cate the scientific character of Babylonian astronomy. Harr2.n also there was an important temple of the
Though the Babylonians may have had no correct Moon-god; and the cities of Larsa and Sippar were
conception of the solar system, they had, at least ill the principal centres of the Sun-god’s worship. The
the later period of their history, arrived at the con- city-god of Babylon was Marduk, whose importance in
clusion that the movements of the heavenly bodies the pantheon increased as that city became the capital
were governed by laws and were amenable to calcula- of the country, until in process of time he came to be
tion; and from the tablets we gather that they both identified with Bel, ‘ the lord ’ par exceZZence. The
observed and calculated the time of the appearance nearness of Borsippa to the capital explains the close
of the new moon, and the periodical occurrence of connection of Nabti, its city-god, with Marduk, whose
lunar and solar eclipses, that they noted the courses of attendant and minister he is represented to have been.
the planets, and that they included in their observations The god Ninib, whose name is read by some as Adar,
certain of the principal constellations and fixed stars. was of solar origin; the fire-god, who plays an
As in all primitive religions, the gods of Babylonia important part in the magical beliefs and ceremonies
were in their origin personifications of the forces of of the Babylonians, was Nusku ; and the god of battle
The various phenomena of was Nergal, the centre of whose worship was at Cuthah.
25. Religion : nature.
its general the world were not regarded as the
result of natural laws. They were ex-
The Babylonian goddesses were in most cases of
minor importance ; they were overshadowed by the
plained as due to the arbitrary action male deities with whom they were connected, and the
of mysterious beings of more than human power. The principal function of each was to become the mother of,
tempest with its thunder and lightning was mysterious other gods. In some cases their very names betray
-it must therefore be the work of a god ; the light of their secondary importance, as in that of Anatu, the
the sun is the gift of the god, to whose unwearying exer- spouse of Anu, and that of Belit, the spouse of Bel.
tion its movements in heaven are due ; heaven itself is The spouse of Ea was Damkina ; Ningal was the lady
a realm as solid as the earth on which men walk ; and of the Moon-god, Ai of SamaS, Sala of RammBn, TaS-
each must be controlled by its own peculiar deity. In mEtu of Nabii, Gula of Ninib, and Laz of Nergal.
fact, Babylonian religion was a worship of nature in all The relationships of the gods to one another are not accurately
its parts, each part the province of a deity, friendly or determined, in some cases contradictory traditions having been
hostile to man, subject to human passions, and, like handed down ; Sin, Sam& and Ninib, however, were regarded
man, endowed with the powers of thought and speech. as the children of Bel, though sama5 also passed as the son of
Many of the gods resembled mankind in having human Sin and Ningal, Marduk was the son of Ea, and Nabn the son
of Marduk.
bodies; some resembled animals; and others were
monsters, partly man and partly beast. They differed On a different plane from the other goddesses stands
from man in the possession of superhuman powers; IBtar, one of the most powerful deities in the pantheon.
but no one deity was all-powerful. The authority, She appears in two distinct characters, under which she
even of the greater gods, was specialised, and beneath assumes different titles, and is credited with different
them were a host of demons endowed with various genealogies. As the goddess of battle she was hailed
qualities, but of more narrowly limited influence. as Anunitu, the daughter of Sin and Ningal, and was
Such is the general character of the Babylonian worshipped at AgadA and at Sippar of Anunitu ; as the
pantheon regarded as a whole; but it was not in the goddess of love she was termed Relit-ilani, the daughter
mass that the Babylonians themselves worshipped their of Anu and Anatu, and the chief seat of her worship
gods, and this fact serves to explain the varying was the temple of E-ana at Erech ; it was here that the
theology presented by the Babylonian religious texts. unchaste rites, referred to by Herodotus as having been
Every city, for example, had its own special god (cp paid to the goddess Mylitta, with whom IBtar is to be
§ 68), who was not only the god of that city but also, identified, were performed. Her name was connected
for its inhabitants, the greatest of the gods ; so too in in legend with Dumuzi or Tammttz, her youthful lover,
the temple of any god a worshipper could address him on whose death, it is related, she descended to the
in terms of the highest praise, and ascribe to him the lower world to recover him.
loftiest attributes, without in any way violating the The conception of the Babylonian deities as actual
canons of his creed, and with no danger of raising the personalities endowed with the bodies and swayed by
jealousy or wrath of other deities. In fact, in the the passions of mankind, and related to one another by
Babylonian system, there was no accurately determined human bonds of kindred, was not inconsistent with the
hierarchy, and the rank and order of the various other and more abstract side of their character which
deities was not strictly defined, but varied at different underlay and was to a great extent the origin of the
periods and in the different cities throughout the land. human attributes with which they were credited. Thus,
The tolerant nature of the Babylonian deities and the the return of Tammtiz and IStar to earth was the
elasticity of their character explain the ease with which mythological conception of the yearly return of spring.
foreign deities were adopted and assimilated by the Moreover, as each force in nature varies in its action at
pantheon, while the origin of this elasticity may be different seasons, so each of its manifestations may be
traced back to the mixture of races from which the connected with a separate deity. The attributes of
Babylonian nation sprang. several gods can thus be traced to a solar origin.
In spite of the varying nature of the Babylonian Whilst SamaS represented the sun in general, special
pantheon, it is still possible to sketch the general manifestations of his power were connected with other
character and attributes of the principal Babylonian deities ; Nergal, the god of war, for example, represents
431 432
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
the sun's destructive heat in summer and at noon-day, him it was a sure sign that his god and goddess were
Ninib the sun on the horizon at sunrise and sunset, and angry and had removed from him their countenance
Marduk, the special friend of man, its temperate heat and protection, and in such a predicament he would
in the morning and in spring. The aspect of the have recourse to the temple of one of the greater gods,
heavens at night also plays a considerable part in the whose influence he would invoke for his restoration to
origin of the gods of Babylonia. Thus each of the the favour of his patron deities. The protection of his
planets was connected with one of the greater gods : the god and goddess were necessary to preserve a man
fixed stars represented lesser deities, and Bel and Ea, from the spiritual dangers that surrounded him, for
though ruling the earth and the abyss, also had astro- he believed that on every side were evil gods, spirits,
logical characters, in virtue of which they divided with demons, and spectres, who were waiting for any oppor-
Anu the control of the sly. tunity he might give them to injure him. Any sickness
The worship of their deitiez by the Babylonians was or misfortune, in fact, he regarded as due to a spell
attended by a complicated system of ritual and ceremony. cast upon him which had its origin in one of several
27. Temples. It formed one of the most important causes. It might he the result of an act of sin or
aspects of the national life, and, as impurity committed by him with or without his own
their temples were the largest of their buildings, so the knowledge ; or it was the work of an evil spirit or
priests were the most powerful class in the community. demon ; or, finally, it was due to the machinations of a
In each city the largest and most important temple was sorcerer or sorceress. Whatever its cause, his only
that devoted to the city-god. Thus the chief temple at hope of recovery lay in recourse to the priests, through
Babylon was E-sagila, the centre of the worship of whom he could approach one of the gods.
Marduli ; the great temple at Borsippa was E-zida, the From the carvings on Babylonian cylinder-seals we
temple of Nabu; the principal temple at Nippur was
E-kur, the centre of Bel's worship ; and E-?pl-hul the
__
know the attitude that the suppliant must assume when
3o Religious ted into the presence of the god. H e
temple of the Moon god at Harran, E-barra the temple is represented as standing with both
of gama: both at Sippar and at Larsa, and E-ana the ~~observances'hands raised before him, or, with one
temple of IStar at Erech, were the principal temples in hand raised, he is being led forward by the priest,
each of these cities. Situated on a lofty platform and who grasps the other. The penitential psalms and
rising stage upon stage, these ziggurats or temple- incantations preserved on tablets from the library of
towers dominated the surrounding houses, and were ASur-bani-pal indicate the general character of the peti-
more imposing than the royal palaces themselves. At tions he must make, consisting of invocations of the deity
the summit of each the image of the god reposed in his addressed, confessions of sin, and prayers for assistance,
shrine, and around its base clustered the temple offices recited partly by the priest and partly by the suppliant
and the dwellings of the priests. T o each temple was himself. Many tablets record the offerings that must
attached a trained and organised priesthood, devoted be made before the gods, comprising oxen, sheep,
exclusively to the worship of its god, and preserving its lambs, birds, fish, bread, dates,'butter, honey, oil, date-
own ritual and body of tradition. The temples were wine, sesame wine, pieces of precious woods, gold,
under the direct patronage of the kings, who prided jewels, and precious stones, plants, herbs, and flowers.
themselves on the rebuilding and restoration of their Many magical rites and ceremonies were performed by
fabrics as much as on the successful issue of their the priests, such as the knotting and unknotting of
campaigns, while the priesthoods were supported by coloured threads, the burning of small images made
regular and appointed offerings in addition to the of a variety of substances, including bronze, clay,
revenues they drew from the lands and property with bitumen, plaster, wood, and honey, to the accompani-
28. Priests. which the temples were endowed. The ment of incantations; the throwing into a bright fire
influence of the priests upon the people of certain substances, such as a fleece, a goat-skin, a
was exerted from many sides, for not only were they piece of wool, certain seeds or a pod of garlic, a special
the god's representatives, whose services were required form of words being recited by the priest as he per-'
for any act of worship or intercession, but they also formed the rite; the dropping of certain substances
regulated and controlled all departments of civil life. into oil and the pouring out of libations. Such cere-
They represented the learned section of the nation, and monies and rites were not regarded as symbolical,
in all probability the scribes belonged entirely to the but were supposed to be sufficient in themselves to
priestly class. They composed and preserved the national secure the suppliant's release from the spell or ban to
records, and although some of the later Assyrian kings which his sufferings or misfortunes were due.
collected libraries in their palaces, this was probably The prediction of future events also plays an important
accomplished only with the co-operation of the priest- part in the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians.
hood and by drawing on the collections of tablets 31. augury. So far from being carried on in secret
preserved in the great temples throughout, the country. and by a few isolated soothsayers, augury
A still more powerful influence was exerted by was practised as a science by a large and organised body
the priests on the common people in connection with of the priesthood under the direct control and patronage
their social life and commercial transactions, inasmuch of the king. This being the case, it is not surprising
as the administration of the law was in their hands. that a considerable portion of the native literature deals
The religious functions discharged by the priesthood with the subject of omens and forecasts. Almost every
were twofold. On the 'one hand, they carried out event of common life was regarded by the pious
the regular sacrifices and services of the temple to Babylonian as perhaps a favourable or unfavourable sign
which they were attached; on the other, they were requiring the interpretation of an expert, and necessitating
always at the service of any one who wished to present a journey to the temple. Those whose duty it was to
an offering or make intercession in his own behalf. furnish the interpretation of such an event did not
In their former capacity they celebrated regular feast- necessarily pretend to second sight or rely on a vision
days in every month as well as the great festivals of or any divine communication ; their answer was based
the year, such as the New Year ; in the latter their on their own knowledge, acquired by special training
ministrations were more personal, and consisted in and study. In the course of time all events and the
introducing the individual suppliant into the presence consequences said to result from them had been written
of the deity and performing for him the necessary rites. down; the tablets on which they were inscribed had
29. Claims Every Babylonian had his own god and been divided into classes according to the subjects of
goddess, to whose worship he dedicated their contents; and many were collected into series.
Of himself. They, in return, were his patrons Thus an important temple would contain a small library
and protectors. When any misfortune happened to dealing with the subject, requiring to be mastered by
28 433 434
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
the novice and always at hand for the consultation of As omens were taken from so many common objects
the augurs themselves. Many of these tablets have been and occurrences, it was natural that dreams and visions
preserved, and it is to them that we owe our knowledge 33. Dreams. should be regarded as indications of
of this important department of Babylonian religion. future prosperity or misfortune, and that
The text of an omen-tablet consists of short sentences, the objects or animals a man might behold in a dream
each of which generally occupies one line of the tablet. had each a different signification. Thus, if he beheld
32. Omen- The construction of the sentence is in- in his dream certain people, or seemed to be fighting
variably the same, and may be rendered with a relation, such as his father or grandfather, the
tablets. by the following formula : ' when (or if) visions had a special meaning, while the fact that the
so and so is' the case, such and such an event will person he fought with was alive or dead at the time was
happen.' There are, therefore, two ways in which we also of importance ; apparitions of spectres and demons
may classify an omen-either by its protasis or its in a house were indicative of the future. In the majority
apodosis. Regarded from the latter point of view, of omens the conditions on which they were based were
all omens may be roughly divided into those that relate chance occurrences and events ; it was, however, possible
to public affairs and those that relate to the fortunes of to obtain information as to the future by artificial
an individual. Thus certain occurrences may be looked means, such as by observing the entrails of victims, by
upon as foretelling the death of the king or the future kindling fire on an altar and noting the direction in
condition of the country, whether there will be a plentiful which the smoke rose, or by observing the flickering of
harvest or a famine, whether there will be war or peace, the flame of a lamp.
and, if war, in what quarter it may be expected. Those With omens it is difficult to say how far the facts on
which relate to private affairs, on the other hand, which the predictions were based were merely - signs
- of
concern themselves with the health, sickness, or death 34. Bstrology. prosperity or misfortune which would
of a man or of his wife or child, or foretell the stability come in any case, and how far they
or destruction of his house. Some few tablets indeed were regarded as in themselves the actual cause of such
relate to special classes, such as those which foretea prosperity or misfortune. In the case of astrological
accidents that may happen to women during pregnancy; forecasts, however, which are closely connected 11ith
but in the majority of omen-texts the apodosis is couched the omens, it seems probable that the latter conception
in general terms and the same phrases regularly recur. preponderated. The astrological phenomena that are
In fact, the events foretold are not very many, and may mentioned were not merely passive indications of the
generally be classed under the headings of death and future, but active forces influencing the lives and fortunes
life, sickness and health, famine and plenty, war and of the individual and the state. The practice of astrology
peace; the predictions are cast in a vague form, and was based principally on observations of the sun and
details, such as the place or manner of a man's death, moon and stars, their relative positions at different
are but rarely specified. In the protasis, on the times, and the various combinations presented by them.
other hand, we find an almost bewildering variety of Another large body of forecasts was based on eclipses
subjects, which admit, however, of a rough classification. of the sun and moon, the results varying with the time
What is perhaps the largest section centres round the of the eclipse, the appearance of the sun and moon
phenomena of human birth, the predictions being based during the eclipse, and the direction in which the shadow
on the manner of delivery and on the appearance of the travels. Forecasts were based also on thc appearance
child; and not only were miscarriages and the births of meteors and shooting stars, on observations of light-
of monstrosities regarded as of peculiar import, but ning, clouds, and rain, on the direction of the wind, on
variations in the appearance qf normal offspring also the various directions in which a cloud may travel, and
formed the basis of prediction. on the colour and shape of clouds and their resemblance
Different parts of the body of a newly-born child are dealt to aniqials, fishes, ships, etc. As in the case of the omen
with independently, and to have grasped correctly the significance tablets, the Babylonians possessed a great body of astro-
of every part must have required a long course of training and logical literature ; observations and for'ecasts in course
study of the tablets. The state of the eyes or the hair the of time were collected, grouped, and classified; and
position and size of the ears, mouth, hands and feet, th)e re-
semblance of the face to that of certain animals, were all carefully large works upon the subject were copied out on con-
considered. The parturition of animals also was made a special secutive tablets for the training and use of the astrologers.
study, the appearance of' the offspring of lions, oxen, horses, Many tablets belonging to these larger works have come
and other animals the colour of their hair and the number and
position of their iirnbs being regarded as significant. Omens down to u s ; there are also preserved in the British
were drawn from the aipearance of the various parts of the body Museum small oblong tablets containing the answers
of an adult, male or female, especially in sickness such as the of astrologers who had been consulted as to the future,
state and colour of the eyes, the ears, and the had, the state of as well as t h k i reports on recent astrological observa-
the heart, the lungs, the buttocks, and other members of the
body, the resemblance of the head to that of a bird or beast the tions and the interpretation to be set on them.
condition of the urine etc. ; with a riew to predictions, stddies Around the figures of their gods the Babylonians wove
were also made of thehctions of a man, such as that of eating,
and certain other of his natural functions. Another large class -
tales and legends, which, originating
- in remote actiqnity,
. .
of omens were drawn from the appearance of animals such as 35. MJTthology. were handed down through countless
the colour of the horns of oxen and the direction in which they generations. being added to and modi-
curve while the actions of certain animals (pigs horses, etc.) fied by the hands through which they passed. They
were iikewise studied. If a man is walking and Ashes to know were collected and arranged during the later periods
the future he must notice the direction in which an animal moves
round him, and he must note if a lion, or a hyena, or a hird of Assyrian and Babylonian history, and it is in these
crosses his path. If he sees a snake a t the entrance of a gate or comparatively recent forms that they are preserved
a t the doors of a temple, or dogs and calves as he is going out in the literature that has come down to us. It is true
of a door, he must visit the augur for an interpretation. T h e
appearance of animals snakes, or scorpions in a man's house, that the tablets containing the legends of Adapa and of
or in a palace or a te:nple, was of significance while the sting the goddess EriSkigal were found at Tell el-Amarna
of a scorpion was a warning of various events,'different results and date from the fifteenth century B.c. ; but nQt one of
following from stings on different toes. The appearance and the tablets containing the other legends is earlier than
flight of birds were exhaustively treated, and a man was wise if
he did not disregard the flappings of a bird's wing and did not the seventh century B.C. The antiquity of the legends
fail to observe the direction in which it flew should it flutter themselves, however, is amply attested by the divergent
round his head. Another class of omens laid stress on the forms which in some cases the same legend assumes, as
locality of certain events : those occurring in cities and streets
received a treatment different from that of occurrences in the related on different tablets belonging to the later Assyrian
fields and open country. Predictions were made from'the state and Babylonian periods, or referred to in the works of
of a house, its walls, etc., and even from the state of the furniture classical writers. An additional interest attaches to two
yhich it,contained. The time of the events or observations was sections of the legendary literature of Babylon from their
in some instances considered important, and in these cases the
month and day were specially noted. close resemblance to the narrative of the early part of
435 436
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
Genesis, relating to the creation and the deluge. had access to sources of information which have not
Whether we are to trace the ultimate origin of both the come down to us. This one date, therefore, gives us a
Babylonian and the Hebrew versions of these legends Fixed point in the early history of the country. In
to the previous non-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia settling the chronology before and after this point we
need not concern us here: The contents of these do not gain much assistance from the list of dynasties
legends and their relation to the Hebrew narratives will preserved from the history of BEr5ssus, who places in
also be more conveniently treated elsewhere (see C REA- the earliest period ten kings who ruled before the flood.
TION, DELUGE, CAINI‘PES, E NOCH, NOAH). The Similarly a tablet from Kuyunjili containing the names
legends of the creation and the epic of Gilgame3 are D f certain kings, who, it states, ruled after the deluge,
certainly the most famous portions of Babylonian myth- is not of assistance, especially as the names it does con-
ology; but they form only a part of the legends and tain are arranged not chronologically but on a linguistic
beliefs that were current in the various cities of Baby- basis. In settling the chronology of this period,
lonia. Even those which have come down to us on the we have, in fact, to fall back upon the internal and
tablets present a great variety of subject and treatment. external evidence of date afforded by the archaic inscrip-
IStar’s descent into Hades is one of the best preserved tions themselves. ( I ) The internal evidence consists
of these legends. It contains a description of the lower principally of the royal genealogies contained by the
world, and records how a t each of the gates that lead inscriptions, from which the relative dates of the kings
thereto the goddess is stripped of a portion of her 30 mentioned can be ascertained. Good examples of
apparel until she enters naked into the realm of Allatu, the use of such evidence are afforded by some of the
and how she is detained there but is eventually brought inscriptions of the kings and patesis of Sirpurla : as,
back to earth to put an end to the troubles of men and for example, by the inscriptions of E-din-gira-nagin, in
animals that had followed the departure of the goddess which he calls himself the son of hliurgal, and of
of love. The Plague-god was a prominent figure in Akurgal, who styles himself the son of Ur-Nina; or
Babylonian mythology, the legends describing in detail that of Entena, in which he is called the son of En-
the ravages he caused among the cities of the land. anna-tuma and the descendant of Ur-Nina, or the gate-
Two other legends may be mentioned briefly : that of socket of En-anna-tuma 11. from which we learn that
the Zfi’s theft of the destiny-tablets, and the legend of Entena was his father ; or the circular stone plate con-
Adapa and the South-wind. In the former, Za is taining an inscription of the wife of Nammaghani, in
recorded to have fled with the tablets to his mountain, which she is referred to as the daughter of .Ur-Bau,
and, although the other gods would not venture against proving that Nammaghani succeeded Ur-Bau through
him, he was eventually captured by SamaS the Sun-god his wife’s title to the throne. ( 2 ) The external evidence
in his net. The legend of Adapa relates how Adapa, afforded by an inscription is obtained partly by a study
the son of Ea, was fishing one day in the sea for his of the general style of the writing, the forms of the
father’s household when the South-wind blew and ducked characters, etc. ; partly by accurately noting its relative
him under ; how in anger he caught the South-wind, position with regard to other inscriptions near which it
and broke her wings ; and how he came to heaven into may happen to be found, the different depths at which
the presence of Anu, who summoned him thither on inscriptions are unearthed in some cases giving a rough
noticing that the South-wind had ceased to blow. In idea of their comparative ages. It must be admitted,
36. Legends. many of the legends animals and birds however, that the evidence to be obtained both from
endowed with thought and speech are palzeography and from systematic excavation is in its
introduced : as in the legend of Etana’s flight to heaven nature extremely uncertain and liable to various inter-
with the eagle, the legend of the Eagle, the Serpent and pretations. Such evidence is of service when lending
the Sun-god, the legend of the Fox, the legend of the its weight to that obtained from other and independent
Horse and the Ox, and the legend of the Calf. Not sources ; but when it is without such support it cannot be
only do gods, heroes, and animals figure in the mythology regarded as indicating more than a general probability.
of Babylonia, but also ancient kings, whose actual For the chronology of the second period we have the
existence is attested by the remains of their bbildings genealogies to be obtained from the historical inscriptions,
and inscriptions, were raised to the level of heroes or 38. Second as well as the chronological notices which
demi-gods in the popular imagination, and their names period. occur in some of them. From the latter
became centres round which in the course of ages legends source, for example, we gather that Burna-
have clustered. The most famous of these is the legend BuriaS lived some 700 years after Hammu-rabi,l that
of the birth of Sargon of AgadB, who is said to have SagaSalti-BuriaSlivedabout 800 years before Nabonidus,2
been of lowly origin ; his father he knew not, and his and that Marduk-nZdin-aE defeated Tiglath-pileser I.
mother set him floating on the Euphrates in a chest of 418 years before Sennacherib conquered Babylon (cp
reeds smeared with bitumen; but Akki the irrigator ASSYRIA, 20). Our principal source of information,
rescued him, and while he was serving a$ gardener to however, lies in the chronological documents of
his benefactor, the goddess IStar loved him. Eventu- the Babylonians themselves. ( I ) One of the most
ally she invested him with the rule of the kingdom. important of these is the ‘ List of Kings,’ a list of the
NarHm-Sin the son of Sargou, Dungi king of Ur, names of the kings of Babylon from about 2400 to
Nebuchadrezzar I., and other ancient kings, figure 625 B. c., in which the kings are divided into dynasties,
in the legendary literature. the length of each ‘reign and the total length of each
The data available for the settlement of Babylonian dynasty being added ; a smaller list of kings contains
chronology vary for each of the three periods (see below,
I_ ~
the names of the kings of the first two dynasties5 (2)
40) into which the history of the From the document known as the ‘ Babylonian Chron-
3,. Chronology :
First period, country may be dividecJ. In the icle’6 we obtain a record of events in Babylonia and
first oeriod a sinde date has been Assyria from the early part of Nabonassar’s reign
fixed for.us by a reference in one of the cylinders of (about 745 B. c.) to 669 B. c., the first year of the reign
Nabonidus, from which we infer that Sargon I. lived of gama:-Sum-ukin, and this information is supplemented
about 3750 B.C. When Nabonidus states2 that 3200 by (3)the ’ Ptolemaic Canon’ (see C HRONOLOGY, § 2 4 3 ) ) ,
years have elapsed since Sargon laid down an inscription which also begins with the reign of Nabonassar. T h e
which he himself found, he is naturally giving only an fragment of a second Babylonian chronicle refers to
approximate estimate of the period during which it had kings of the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh dynasties,
lain buried. There is no reason, however, for doubting while part of a third chronicle supplements the narrative
the general accuracy of the statement; forthe Babylonians
were careful compilers of their records, and Nabonidus
1 See K B 3a 1003. ’ 2 KB 36 104,

437 438
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
of the ' Synchronous History ' for certain portions of the Of Sargon, however, two inscriptions were known ;
third dynasty. Finally, ( 4 ) the ' Synchronous History ' the one on the cylinder in the possession of M. de
(see ASSYRIA, § 21, beg.) itself connects the history of Clerq, the other on a mace-head in the British Museum.
Babylonia with that of Assyria, with certain breaks, Some doubt was thrown on the identification of this
from about 1480 to 810 B.C. king with the Sargon of Nabonidus; for, whilst the
For the third period of the history the succession of name of the latter was written gargina, that of the
the kings is known from the Ptolemaic Canon, which, former was Sargani-gar-ali. Such an abbreviation,
39. Third in addition to the names of the kings, gives however, was not unusual in the names of many of the
the lengths of their respective reigns ; and early kings, and the identity of the two names is now
period. the information so obtained is controlled by put beyond a doubt by the discovery at Nippur of
the many Babylonian contract tablets which have been inscriptions of Sargani-Sar-ali in the same stratum
found dated according to their regnal years. which held bricks stamped with the name of NarHm-Sin.
The history of Babylonia falls naturally into three That the empire over which Sargon ruled was exten-
main periods. The first period comprises the history sive is attested by the legends that at a later period
40. Historical of the country from the earliest times gathered round his name (see above, 36). Hismame
down to the consolidation of its various and that of Nariim-Sin occur in an astrological tablet,l
periods. elements into a single empire ruled by in which expeditions against Phcenicia, Elam, etc., made
Semitic kings with their capital at Babylon. The by these two kings during certain lunar phases and
second period begins with the first dynasty of Babylon, astrological conditions, are recounted ; and, although it
to whose greatest king, Hammiirabi, was principally would be rash to regard such statements as historical
due the consolidation of the Babylonian empire, and on the authority of this tablet alone, they at least bear
extends to the fall of the power of Assyria, whose later witness to the permanent hold which the name of Sargon
kings included Babylonia in their dominions. The had attained in the popular imagination. In a cylinder
third period comprises the history of the Neo-Babylonian of Nabonidus found at Mukayyar ( U r ) the title ' king of
empire. Babylon' is ascribed to both Sargon and NarXm-Sin ;
The length of the first period can only be approxi- but it is probable that the city of AgadB, not Babylon,
mately determined, for it reaches hack into remote formed the centre of their empire, as ' king of Agadi: '
antiquity ; the second period deals with the history of is the title by which Sargon invariably describes himself.
some seventeen hundred years, extending from about The site of this city has not been identified; but it is
2300 to 625 B.C. ; the third period is by far the shortest probably to be sought in Northern Babylonia.
of the three, for it contains the history of an empire Both Sargon and NarHm-Sin were Semites, and the
which lasted for less than a hundred years, from Nabo- extent of their empire shows the progress
42. Semitic
polassar's accession to the throne of Babylon in 625 B.c. which the Semitic invaders were making
to the capture of the city by Cyrus, king of Persia, in kingdoms. towardsthe finalsubjugation ofthe country.
538 B.C. The name of another kin who was probably of Semitic ori&i
During the first period the name of Babylon is not is Uru-mu-uS possibly t o t e read as AluZarHid and from the
fact that his 'inscriptions were found a t Nippu; near those of
known. The country is under the successivedomination Sargon, which they closely resemble in character it may he
of the more ancient cities of the land until the Semitic assumed that he belonged to about the same pkriod.. His
element eventually predominates. During the second name has been found on alabaster vases which he dedi-
cated and placed in the great temple of Bel at Nippnr ; the
period Babylon holds her place as the centre of the vases he states formed part of the spoil captured on a successful
country in spite of the influx of Kassite and Chaldean expedition agdnst Elam and Eara'se to the E. of Babylonia.
tribes and the opposition of Assyria. In the third period Moreover ManiStusu, whose name occurs on a mace-head
the magnificence of Babylon became one of the wonders preserved' in the British Museum, must also be assigned to
about the same period.
of the ancient world. In addition to the empire established by Sargon,
In treating the earliest period of the history of the
there is not lacking evidence of the existence at this
country we are, to a great extent, groping in the dark.
time of other Semitic kings and principalities. The
41.Earliest Our principal sources of information are
inhabitants of Lulubi spoke a Semitic dialect, as is
the archaic inscriptions found on many
period. of the sites of the old Babylonian cities, evinced by the inscription engraved on the face of the
rock at Ser-i-pul, a place on the frontier between
and these have been considerably increased by recent
Kurdistan and Turkey. The inscription accompanies
excavations. In order, then, to understand clearly the and explains a relief representing the goddess Nini
problems they present, it will be necessary to proceed
granting victory over his foes to Anu-btinini, king of
gradually from the points that may be regarded as Lulubi, and from the archaic forms of the characters
definitely fixed into the regions where conjecture still
the work must be assigned to a period not later than
holds her own. As the earliest date that can be
that of Sargon. It is also probable that the inhabitants
regarded as settled is that of Sargon I., it necessarily of Guti, a district to the NE. of Babylonia, were
forms the basis or starting-point from which to re-
Semites; for an archaic inscription of a king of Guti,
construct the history of the period. which was found at Sippar, is written in Semitic
Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, on a clay
Babylonian. This, we may assume, was carried to
cylinder found at Abu-Habbah records the fact that
Sippar as spoil from the land of Guti, though it is also
while restoring the temple of the Sun-god in that city
possible that the stone containing the inscription was
he came upon the foundation-stone of NarXm-Sin, the
a gift of the king of Guti to the temple at Sippar, the
son of Sargon, which for 3200 years no king that went inscription being composed, not in the king's own
before him had seen. As the cylinder of Nabonidus
language, but in the Semitic dialect of Sippar.
was inscribed about the year 550 B . C . , we conclude
Still, whilst a few of the inscriptions of this early
that Nariim-Sin lived about 3750 B . C . , and Sargon his
period are undoubtedly Semitic and may be adduced as
father about 3800 8.C. 43. Sumerian evidence of the first settlements of the
During the French expedition to Mesopotamia (1851- Semites in Babylonia, the majority of
1854) Oppert found in Babylon an alabaster vase iu- rulers. the inscriptions that have come down
scribed in archaic characters with the name of Nargm-Sin,
to us are written in a non-Semitic tongue (to which the
to which was added the title ' king of the four quarters.'
late Sir H. Rawlinson gave the name Accadian), now
The vase, which was lost in the waters of the Tigris on generally known as Sumerian.3 These inscriptions
23rd May 1855, formed the only remains of this king
that were recovered until the American expedition in 1 h7R 3 z i o z f i 2 K B 3 6 84 J .
3 For many years a controversy has raged around the
1888. character, and even the existence, of this language. The
1 KB 11948. theory put forward by Halevy that Sumerian was not a
439 440
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
have been found in the mounds which Qiark the sites have been discovered cannot have been the work of a
of the ancient cities of the land, and were the work of barbarous race, but demand the assumption that at
the previous inhabitants of the country whom the least one thousand years, during which they gradually
invading Semites eventually displaced. One of the attained their high level of civilisation and culture, had
most important of their ancient cities is to-day repre- passed.
sented by the mounds known as Telloh, situated to It will be obvious that, as th8 date of Sargon I. is
the N. of Mukayyar and E. of Warka, on the E. already fixed, the simplest way of answering the question
bank of the Satf-el-15ai. These mounds mark the site and of assigning a date to the earlier kings of Sirpurla
of a city called by the kings and governors who ruled is to determine the relation in which they stood to
there Sirpurla, but known at a later time as LagaS. Sargon I. Until recently it was impossible to come to
The excavations that were begun on this site by De any definite conclusion, though it was generally held
Sarzec in 1877 have resulted in a rich harvest of in- that the archaic forms of characters on the inscriptions
scriptions on statues, cylinders, cones, tablets, bricks, of the kings of Sirpnrla favoured the theory which
etc., from which it is possible to trace the history of assigned to them an early date. The excavations at
the city throughout a long period. Its earlier rulers Nippur, however, have now yielded sufficient data to
called themselves 'kings,' the later ones bearing the justify a more conclusive answer.
title of patesi, which is equivalent to the Assyrian In the same stratum as the inscriptions of Sargon
iSSakku. The word patesi, whilst implying that the and AluSarSid, and not far from them, was found a
ruler is the representative of the national god, indicates fragment of a vase inscribed with the name of Entena,
the possession of a power less supreme than that patesi of &purls, who is said to have presented the vase
attaching to the word lugal (Sen. Sarru), 'king,' and to En-lilla or Bel, the god of Nippur. It would be rash
it has been ingeniously suggested that the change in to conclude from this fact alone that Entena was the
title was in consequence of an actual change in the contemporary of Sargon I., though it may'be held to
fortunes of the city, the rule of the patesis being held indicate that approximately the same date may be
to mark the subjection of their city to another power. assigned to Sargon and the earlier patesis of Sirpurla.
The manner in which the succession of the various Excavations, however, were subsequently extended below
kings and patesis was determined has been already the level at which the records of Sargon had been found,
referred to (see above, § 37) ; the following is a brief and traces of a still more ancient civilisation were
description of their history based on those results. disclosed. An altar with a small enclosure or curb
The oldest king of Sirpurla known to us is in all prohability around it, two immense vases of clay standing at short
Urukagina. After an interval, the length of which is unknown, intervals from each other, probably on an inclined
we find Ur-Nina on the throne ; and, as he plFne leading up to the altar, and a massive building
44,Rulers Of gives t o neither his father nor grandfather
Sirpurla the title of king it is not unreasonable t o with an ancient arch, were the principal architectural
or Lagash. conclude that he ;vas the originator of a new remains discovered. However, there were also found
dynasty, a dynasty that we can trace through inscriptions which, though occurring at a higher
several generations. Ur-NinB was succeeded by his son Akurgal
who bore both the titles, king and patesi, and it was not untd level and mixed with the inscriptions of Sargon, are
the reign of E-dingira-nagin, Akurgal's son and snccessor, that probably to be assigned to a pre-Sargonic period. As
the title patesi appears to have ousted that of king permanently. the majority OF these are broken into small fragments,
I t is during the reign of E-dingira-nagin, however, that we it is not unlikely that' they were intentionally broken
find the first record of any extensive military operations under-
taken by the inhabitants of girpurla. To his reign belongs the and scattered by some subsequent invader of the country.
famous stele of vultures, carved to commemorate his victory Gate-sockets and blocks of diorite, however, were not
over the city the name of which is provisionally read as Ishan. broken, and so were made use of by subsequent kings.
E-dingira-nagin was succeeded by his brother En-anna-tuma I., Thus both Sargon I. and Bur-Sin 11. used for their
whose son Entena and grandson En-anna-tuma 11. con-
tinued the succession. After a second interval comes Ur-Bau own inscriptions the blocks which already bore the
from whom the throne passes through his daughter t o hi; rough inscription of Lugal-kigub-nidudu, one of the
son-in-law Nammaghani. After a third hut shorter interral kings of this early period. The characters in these
there followed Gudea, who conducted a successful campaign
against Elam hut like his predecessors, devoted most of his early inscriptions, especially on the vases of Lugal-
energies to biilding operations. He was succeeded by his son zaggFi, the most powerful of these early kings, bear a
Ur-Ningirsu : and finally there must he placed a second Akurgal, striking resemblance to those employed in the inscriptions
and either before or after him Lukani, whose son Ghalalama of the earliest kings of Sirpurla (Urukagina, Ur-NinSr,
may possibly have succeeded him on the throne.
and E-dingira-nagin), sharing with them certain
The monymental inscriptions of these old kings and peculiarities of form which are not met with elsewhere.
patesis of Sirpurla are, with the exception of one of The conclusion that they date from about the same
Ur-Bau and several of Gudea, coni- period is, therefore, not unwarranted ; and, as this period
45. Their
inscriptions. paratively short, and are generally must be placed before Sargon I., we are justified in
concerned with the erection of build- assigning to Urukagina a date not later than 4000 B . c.
ings and temples in the city, an object to which both To trace in detail the history of the predecessors of
kings and patesis without exception devoted themselves. Sargon I., whose existence was not suspected until the
The thousands of clay tablets, however, which have 4'1.. Before lowest strata beneath the temple of Ekur
been discovered dating from this period, the high point at Nippur had been sifted, is a task that
of development attained in their sculpture and carving Sargon. requires some ingenuity. Our only source
in relief, the elaborate but solid construction of their of information is afforded by the fragmentary inscrip-
temples and palaces, are all evidence of a highly tions themselves; but, as many of these are dupli-
developed civilisation ; and the question at once arises
46. Their date, as to what date must be assigned
for the rise of the kingdom of
cates, it is possible to reconstruct their original
text. The earliest rulers of Eabylonia, such as En-
Hag-sagana, are found in conflict with the city of I G ,
Sirpurla. Additional interest is lent to the way in and spoil from KiS was from time to time placed as an
which this question may be answered by the fact offering in the temple at Nippur. Sometimes I<iS was
that even the earliest inscriptions and carvings that victorious, and then the king of KiS, as in the case of
language but merely a cabalistic method of writing invented Ur-Sulpauddu, made a presentation to the temple at
by the Semitic Babylonians themselves was for years stoutly Nippur in his own behalf. The ultimate superiority of
defended by its adherents. it has now, however, given way
before the results of re& excavations. The thousands of KiS, however, was assured by its alliance with the
archaic tablets found at Telloh and elsewhere are written powerful city of Isban ; for Lugal-zaggisi, son of UkuS,
entirely in Sumerian by a people who both in their inscriptions patesi of Isban, on coming to the throne, extended his
and in their art exhihit no traces of Semitic origin. The exist-
ence of Surneriau as the language of these early inhabitants of sway over the whole of Babylonia. He has left us a
Babylonia is now generally admitted. See also below, 8 77 (end). record of his achievements in a long inscription carved
44 I 442
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
on more than a hundred vases, which he deposited in :ome across itpcriptions we see that the lead in Suiner
Nippur. Though he especially favoured his own city md Akkad has passed into the hands of the kings of Isin.
of Isban, Erech was probably his capital, while Ur, At present we possess inscriptions of four kings of Isin : Ur-
Larsa, and Nippur were important centres. Lugal- Xinib, Libit-Istar, Bur-Sin I., and Isme-Dagan. In the case
of each of them before their chief title ‘king of
zaggisi‘s empire did not long survive him, and the lead 2500’ Isin’ is given sp&ial mention is made of Nippur,
in Babylonian politics passed to the city of Sirpurla. Ur Eridu and Erech as being under their sway. The order in
E-dingira-nagin’s conquest of Isban, however, was not wbkh tbeie cities are mentioned is significant. The fact that
Yippur heads the list proves that U r sank greatly in importance
followed up by his successors on the throne ; and the tfter the days when she held the lead in Sumerand Akkad.
hegemony passed once more to the north, this time to 4 fifth king of Isin, named IHbigirra, is known to us ; the only
Sargon of AgadB, who laid all Babylonia under his :vidence of his existence, however, is the occurrence of his name
and title on a fragment of a clay tablet in the British Museum.
sway, the rulers of Sipurla exchanging the title of r h e rule in Babylonia now passes once more to the city of Ur,
king for that of patesi in consequence of their subjection Nhich regains its old supremacy. IHme-Dagan was the last
to him. Such may be taken as a general sketch of the cing of Isin who retained the title of ‘king of Sumer and
course of Babylonian history up to the time of Sargon I. kkkad,’ and held together the confederation of Babylonian
cities which that name implies ; we find his soil
It is impossible to say to what race or nationality 60. 2nd Dyn. erecting a temple for the life of Gungunu, king
Lugal-zaggisi and the earlier kings belonged, though of Ur. of Ur, as a token of homage. Under Gungunu
we may mention the theory of Hilprecht, who sees in began the second dynasty of Ur, to which the
C z h Z 2400. kings Bur-Sin lI., he-Sin, and GZmil-Sin be-
their successes against the cities of Babylonia the earliest long. The many inscriptions on clay tablets
Semitic invasions of the country; regarding KiS as [hat have been recovered, dated in the reigns of these three
their first military outpost, and Isban, which he is iings,, testify to the great commercial prosperity of Babylonia
probably wrong in identifying with H a r r h , as their at this time. The rise of the city ot Larsa followed
51. Larsa. the second dynasty of Ur. The kings of the
military base. Another patesi of Isban who may be foimer city held U r as a dependency and appear
placed in this early period is Mul-Babbar (in Semitic, to have extended their rule still farther afield, for’they assume
AmEl-$ama4), whose inscription on three clay cones is ilso the title ‘king of Sumer and Akkad.’ The two principal
kings of Larsa were Nfir-KammLn and his son Sin-iddina.
preserved in the British Museum. ci>,ca 2300. Both erected temples in Ur, and the latter founded
After the fall of Sargon’s empire, the first city that a temple to the Sun-god in his capital. Sin-iddina
appears to have gained a considerable supremacy also, after meeting nith success in the field, turned his attention
to the internal improvement of his territory. H e rebuilt on a
48. Ur. throughout Babylonia is Ur. Under Lugal- larger scale the wall of Larsa, and by cutting a canal obtained
kignb-nidudu Ur had already risen to some for that city a constant supply of water.
importance ; but the city had been included in Sargon’s Sin-iddina does not mention the name of the enemy
kingdom, and it was not until nearly a thousand his victory over whom he records. It has been sug-
circa 2800, years after his death that it again recovered gested, however, with great probability,
its position. Only two of her kings at this 52. Elam.
that it was Elam whom he repulsed. This
later period are known to us, Ur-gur and Dungi. In must have been the period of the Elamite invasion
addition to their title ‘ king of Ur,’ both style themselves to which A h - b b i - p a l refers. On taking the city of
kings of Sumer and Akkad, a title implying that many Susa, about 650 B.c., ASur-bEni-pal relates that he
cities throughout both southern and northern Babylonia recovered the image of the goddess Nan%, which the
had tendered their submission and acknowledged allegi- Elamite Kudur-Nanbundi had carried off from Erech
ance to them. The monuments themselves bear witness 1635 years before-Le., about 2285 B.C. Though Sin-
that this title was no empty.boast, but had its founda- iddina repulsed the Elamites, he did not check them
tion in a real supremacy. for long. A few years later we find. them under the
A seal cylinder in the British Museum bears a dedication to leadership of Kudur - Mabug, son of Simti-Silhak,
Ur-Gur, ‘ the mighty hero, king of U r ’ by a ‘patesi of the city of
IHkun-Sin, ,his servant,’ while there ‘is evidence that the later again invading Babylonia. This time they met with
patesis of Sirpurla were subject to Ur, the Louvre possessing a more snccess and obtained a permanent footing in
fragment of a statue dedicated to the goddess Bau by Ghala- the south. Kudur-Mabug was not king of Elam. H e
lama ‘son of Lnkani, patesi of Sirpurla ’ for the life of Dpngi,
‘the ’mighty Iring, king of Ur, king of kumer and Akkad ; an styles himself ‘ prince of the Western land’ : that is to
inscription with a similar purpose of the time of Ur-Ningirsu say, he was ruler of the tract of land lying on the
Gudea’s son and successor, is preserved in the British Museum: W. frontier of Elam. From this position he invaded
That Ur-gur was a great builder is attested by the many the country, and, having established himself as king of
short inscriptions on bricls recovered from the ruins of the
buildings which he either fnunded or restored. From these we S. Babylonia, he erected a temple in Ur to the Moon-
gather that he built the great temple of the Moon-god in Ur, god in gratitude for his success. His son, Rim-ala,
while in Erech he erected a temple to NinZ, the goddess Etar. succeeded him and attempted to consolidate his
On a brick from a tomb discovered by Loftus at Senkereh,
the ancient Larsa, is recorded the fact that Ur-gur built a temple kingdom, restoring and rebuilding Ur and extending
to the Sun-god there, and bricks found a t Nippur record his his influence over Erech, Larsa, and other cities; his
rebuilding of the great temple of E-kur in that city. Excava- usual titles were ‘ exalter of Ur. king of Larsa, king of
tions at the latter place show that this temple was larger than Sumer and Akkad.’ It is a period of much interest for
any ofits redecessors; buildings that had been standing since the
time of 8arZm-Sin he razed to the ground in order to erect his the biblical student (see C HEDORL AOMER).
hu e platform of sun-dried bricks, in the NW. corner of which During the second dynasty of Ur the city of Babylon
he%uilt a huge zikkurratu (temple tower) of at least three stories. had enjoyed a position of independence, with her own
Ur-gur thus appears to have erected or rebuilt temples in most
of the principal cities of Babylonia. in his zeal for religion, 63 Babylon. Fngs and system of government ; but her
however, he did not neglect to stredgthen his own capital, for influencedoes not appear to have extended
we have evidence that he erected, or a t any rate rebuilt, the beyond the limits of the city. It was not until the
city-wall of Ur. His son and successor Dungi ‘king of Ur, reign of Hammu-rabi, the contemporary of Sin-iddina
king of Snmer and Akkad, king of the four quar&rs,‘ carried on
the work of temple-building to which his father bad devoted and Rim-Aku, that she attained the position of im-
himself, and restored the temple of IStar in Erech. An in- portance in Babylonia which she held without inter-
teresting clay tablet in the British Museum contains a copy of ruption for nearly two thousand years. The dynasty to
an old inscription that once stood in a temple a t Cuthah. The
copy was made in the later Babylonian period by a scribe named which Hammu-rabi belongs was called by the native
Bcl-uballit, and the archaic inscription which his care has historians the ‘ Dynasty of Babylon,’ and, as far as we
rescued from oblivion, records the ere&ion by Dungi of a at present know, forms the limit to which
temple to the god Nergal in the city of Cuthah. circa 2400. they traced back the existence, or at any
With Dungi our knowledge of the city of U r and its rate the independence, of their city.
supremacy comes to an end for a time. Whether The dynasty was founded about 2400 B.C. by Sumu-abi who
Dnngi’s successors retained for long their was succeeded by Sumula-iluand Zabum,his son. It is pdssible
49’ Isin* hold over the rest of Babylonia, or speedily that on Zabum‘s death a usurper Immeru attempted to ascend
the throne. but his rule cannot Lave heen’for long, as scribes of
sank into a position of dependence to some other city, contract tAblets do not give him the title of king, and his
we have no means of telling. When we once more name is omitted from the list of kings of Dynasty I., Zabun’s
443 444
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
son Apil-Sin, being stated to have dircctly succeeded his father. Iluma-ilu, Itti-ilu-nibi, Damki-iliSn, IS-ki-bal, and his
Of 'the reign of Apil-Sin's son Sin-muhnllit wc know nothing 56, 2nd D ~ brother~ , su-us-Si, Gul-ki,Sar and his son
hi\ wily claim to rcmcntbraric; beiitg tliar Ivas the fatl~crof
Qammu-rahi. Uru-Azag. Kirgal-dara-ma;, and his grandson A-
dara-lralama, A-kur-ul-ana, Melam-
I t is difficult to determine accurately the position
circa 2090. matati, and Ea-gii.mil. Of this dynasty
occuuied bv Babvlon when Hammu-rabi ascended the
A , ,
we know nothing, though it has been conjectured with
That she was already beginning
54. gammu- throne. some probability that it was during this period that
to extend her sway over the districts in
rabi. her immediate neighbourhood we may
the Kassites first invaded Babylonia. Descending from
the mountainous territory on the borders of Media
conclude from a reference on a cylinder of Nabonidus,
and Elam, they overran the country and took posses-
who states that the temples of the Sun-god and of the
sion of the cities; and at the beginning of the third
goddess Anunitu at Sippar had been falling into decay
dynasty we find them firmly seated on the throne.
'since the time of Zabum' ; the phrase implies that
So far as we know, they were never ejected by force,
Zabum had at any rate rebuilt these temples, and must,
but were absorbed in process of time by the Semitic
therefore, have included Sippar within his sphere of
element of the nation, which gradually recovered its
influence. We may regard it as certain, however, that
predominance.
the authority of the city had not penetrated into southern
There were thirty-six kings of the third dynasty ; but
Babylonia. On Hammu-rabi's accession he first
only the names of the kings at the beginning
- - and of those
devoted himself to the internal improvement of his
57. 3rd Dyn. at the end of the dynasty have been pre-
circa 2285. F t o r y . In the past both Babylon and
served in the Babylonian list of kings. -
ippar had suffered from floods, and the
recurrence of these he sought to diminish by erecting Other soiirces of information, however, now become
available ; the ' Synchronous History ' gives a rCsum6 of
dams and cutting canals. One inscription of his,
written both in Sumerian and in Semitic Babylonian the relations between Babylonia and Assyria, which
during the early part of the third Babylonian dynasty
on clay cylinders in the British Museum, reads as
attained its independence f c p ASSYRIA,§ 25); the
follows :-
Hammu-rabi, the mighty king, king of Babylon, king of the account furnished by the ' Synchronous History ' is
fo& quarters, the-founder of the land, the king whose deeds supplemented by the mutilated text of a somewhat
unto the heart of Samag and Marduk are well-pleasing, am I. similar Babylonian chronicle ; the official correspond-
The summit of the wall of Sippar like a great mountain with ence between Babylonia and Egypt during a small part
earth I raised. With a swamp I surrounded it. The canal of
Sippar to Sippar I dug out and a wall of safety I erected for it. of this period is preserved on some of the tablets
I-jammu-rabi, the founder of the land, the king whose deeds unto found at Tell el-Amarna; and, finally, inscriptions of
the heart of gama3 and Marduk are well-pleasing am I. several of the kings themselves have been recovered, as
Sippar and Babylon in a peaceful habitation I caused 'to dwell well as contract-tablets dated in their reigns.
continuously. Hammu-rahi the darling of $amax, the beloved The first king of the dynasty was Gandig who was succeeded
of Marduk, am I. That Ghich from days of old no king for circa ~ , 2 5 ,b,y Agum-Hi, Gu-ia-gi, Us'.gi, hdu-me-ur, and Uz-
his king had built, for SamaS my lord gloriously have I accom- zi-u-mas. Here the gap occurs in the list of
plished. kings; and it is probably at some point in this gap that we
In addition to his worlrs at Sippar we learn from must place Agum, who is known to us from a long inscription,
a copy of which in Neo-Assyrian characters was reserved in
another inscription that he cut the ' Hammu-rabi canal,' the library of A&-bsni-pal ; from it we learn that ge recovered
on both sides of which he sowed corn-fields. ' H e ciycn 1500, and restored to the temple of E-sagila in Babylon
erected a granary in Babylon, in which he stored grain certain images of Marduk and of the goddess
for use in years.of famine or scarcity. The inscription Zarpanitu, which had been carried off to the land of Hani.
recording the erection of the granary has perished ; but A later place in the same gap must be assigned to
we possess a copy of it in clay, made in the Neo-Baby- Kallimma-Sin (or Kadashman-BBl 7 cp Knudtzon, ZA
lonian period by Rimiit-Gnla, and deposited in Babylon 15 269$), four of whose letters are in the Amarna series;
in the temple E-zida. Hammu-rabi's works of improve- this correspondence serves to indicate the intimate re-
ment, however, were not confined to Sippar and Babylon. lations between Egypt and Babylonia at this period,
As he extended his authority throughout the country, both the Aster and daughter of Kallimma-Sin being
he introduced the same enlightened methods, rebuilding among the princesses of western Asia whom the king of
the temples of the gods in the various cities, conciliating Egypt married. The order of the other kings, whose
the inhabitants, and out of scattered principalities form- names have been recovered and must be placed within
ing asingle and organic kingdom, with its metropolis the same gap in the list of kings, has not yet been
a t Babylon. The principal enemy to Babylonian ascertained.
independence at this period was Elam ; but after a series I t has recently been suggested, for example, that SagaSalti-
Buriag, the son of Kudur-Bel, should be placed hefore Karn-
of campaigns Hammu-rabi signally defeated her, and indd, though a later date is possible : moreover, Kurigalzu
effectually hindered her advances to the S. and W., I the son of Kada5man-garbe, is usually placed after and not
after which he was again at liberty to devote himself to <:fore Kara-indaS, though a suggestion has lately been made to
the material improvement of his people. Hammn-rabi the contrary. According to the 'Synchronous Hlstory ' Kara-
i n d d was a contemporary of the Assyrian king, ASur-b&l-niEiSu,
was not the first king of Babylonia to form a great hetween whom and ASur+ballit at least two kings, Puzur-AEur
empire out of scattered elements. Lugal-zaggisi and and ASur-nZdin-a@, occupied the throne of Assyria ; from the
Sargon I. had already made this achievement, and it same document we know that between Kara-indaS and Kara-
BardaB, the contemporary of ASur-uballit, at least one king,
is not unlikely that their empires considerably exceeded Burna-Burid, occupied the throne of Babylon;. yet on the
that of Hammu-rabi in extent. Hammu-rabi's work, similar Babylonian chronicle Kara-indaS is mentioned as the
however, is distinguished from theirs by its permanence. sou-in-law of AHnr-uballit, and the father of Kara-bard& I t is
Whilst Isban and Agadb soon sank back into compara- possible to reconcile these two accounts only on the supposition
that the Kara-inda5 of the ' Synchronous History' is not to be
tive obscurity, Babylon remained the chief town of the identified with the son-in-law of A5ur-uballir. On this assump-
kingdom throughout the whole course of its history. tion, and at the same time admitting that certain places in the
Hammu-rabi was succeeded by his son Samsu-iluna the other order of succession are not definitely ascertained we are still
kings of the first dynasty being Ehkum Am- able to summarise the chief events of the peAod. Kara-
55. His mi-ditana, Ammi-zaduga and Samsu-ditana, inda5 is the first Habylonian king mentioned in the ' Synchronous
SUCCeSSOrS. who follow one another 'in direct succession.
circa2230. Samsu-iluna continued his father's work of ir-
rigation, and we know from two inscriptions
that he built many temples to the gods. Of his successors,
:-
History,' where he is said to have formed a treaty with G u r -
el-niEiSu, king of Assyria; similar friendly re-
circa 1480. ations with the northern kingdom were probably
maintained by Kurigalzu I. and his father KadaHman-Barbe.
however, we possess few inscriptions, though many contracts, Burna-Buria5 the son of Kurigalzu I., formed a
dated in the reign of each of the kings of this dynasty, have cirza '44O. fresh treaty dith Assyria concerning the frontier
been found which throw an interesting light on the private and between the two kingdoms and built a temple to the Sun-god a t
social sides of Babylonian life a t this period. LLrsa, as we learn from a 6rick that has been recovered from its
ruins. ASur-uballig,who succeeded Ah-nBdin-ayS on the throne
The second dynasty consists of eleven kings- of Assyria, strengthened the ties between hls kingdom and
445 446
 BABYLONIA BABELONIA
Babylonia by marrying his daughter Muballitat .Seriia to a snign cunaiatcd of a sciics of S U C U ~ S L . ~ fur ‘I’iglntli.pikaer, who,
king of Babylonia, who bore the name of Kara-indJ ;and when fier dcfcaiinp hl:irdul;-uilin-a& iii .llck:~d,c.;ipturr.d E:iIi)~lun
hisgrandson Kara-hardaS the son of Kara-indaS, Succeeded .self 2nd o t h y imprtnnt cities in tlic uoiilicrn half ~f the
to the thron; of Bab”y1on ;he relations between the two coun- iilgdoio. Amr.bCl.l.da, I‘iglath-pilcscr’i successor on the
tries were still more coidial. The Kassite troops, however, liruiie of A,syria, Lhaiigcd hi-, father’s policy and formed treaties
nossiblv
r----~-, iealons of Assvrian influence. slew Kara-hardag and set
2~~~~
vitli the Uabyloninii kiiiz 3Inrdu
the nsur;er Nazi-hugaS’on the throne. The death kiiip’s C:,:!tli I~:iiiiiripn-aplu-iddi,i~,,n ii~:ir1 G f ob-
circa I4Oo. of Kara-bardaS led to the invasion of Babylonia by ‘Ioo. scure wigin was l a i d t u t~iethroncoi I ~ : ~ L ) I L I I ,
Ah-uballit, who avenged his grandson by slaying Nazi-hugas, Ind A4ur-bi.l-kala, in purkuancc of his policy, n l l i d I i i r i i \ t !f tu
and putting Kurigalzu- II., a son of Rurna-BnriaS, the former hc ncw king by a marrisigc with his d:iiigIiit I . 01ly fliu
king of Babylon, in his place. Kurigalzu 11. was ambitious to xginningi of rlic nanies borne Ly thc lii$t t1irt.L k i i i g h of iiic
extend the boundary of his kingdom; and with this end in view lyn:isty arc pre,crved i n the 1.iht uf Kiitgs,
he undertook a campaign against Elam, the capital of which he ‘ l h c t i l t h dynasty \vas called the clynnsty of the ‘ Sen-
conquered and sacked, as we learn from an inscription on an and,’ and was a short one, consisting of only three
agate tablet which was found at Nippur. On undertaking
hostilities against Assyria however he was defeated by BEL 59. 5th Dyn. kings, SimmaS-Sibu, Ea-mukin,zEr, and
circa 1380, nirari, and Gas forced ;o accept the terms offered
(sea)’
KaSSu-nHdin-abi. It is not improbable
by the latter with regard to the boundary between that the Chaldean tribes, who are not
the two kingdoms. The next defeat by the Assyrians which the circa 1050. actually mentioned in the inscriptions be-
Babylonians sustained was in the reign of Nazi-niaruttd the son
circa 1340, o i Kurigalzu II., when Ramman-nirari iiflicted a ‘ore the time of AS&-nB$r-pal and Shalmaneser II.,
signal defeat on the Babylonian forces and extended Nere even at this early period making their influence
the Assyrian boundary still farther southward. KadaSman- ‘elt, overrunning southern Babylonia and spreading
Turgu, whose name was also written KadaSman-Bel, the son
of Nazi-maruttag succeeded his father on the throne, and .hemselves throughout the country; and the fact that
was in turn succdeded by his son whose name, occurring m Lt a later time we find them especially connected with
a broken inscription from Nippu; may probahly be restored :he district termed the ‘ Sea-land ’ in S. Babylonia lends
[Kada&nan]-BuriaS. The Baby1on:an List of Kings furnishes
the names of the last kings of the dynasty. Of Is-am-me- ... :olour to the suggestion that the dynasty of the Sea-
land was of Chaldean origin.
-ti we know nothing and of Sagagalti-SuriaS only the fact that
he dedicated an obiect to Bel Fnd placed it in the temple at Of the three kings of the dynasty Ea-mukin-er reigned.hut a
Few months. the other two kings who occupied the throne for
Nippur. SagGalti-SuriaS was succeeded by his son Bib*, and longer periohs are mentioned by pjahii-aplu-iddina in connection
the names of the next three occupants of the throne are Bel- with the fortuAes of the temple of the Sun-god at Sippar. At the
Sum-iddina, KadaSman-Harbe, and Ramman-Sum-iddina. We time of SimmaS-Sihu this temple was in ruins in consequence
do not know the relatiogs between Babylonia and Assyria dur- 3f the troubles and”disturhances in Akkad, the powerful trihes
ing the early part of this period ; hut it is probable that the last 3f the Sutu having reviously invaded the country, laying the
three kings acknowledged the supremacy of Assyria. Tukulti- temple in ruins and greaking up the sculptures. SimmaS-Hihu
Ninib, king of Assyria, to whom RammBn-nirari 111. ascrihed partially restored the structure of the temple, and placed it ;n
the title ‘king of Snmer and Akkad,’ invaded Babylonia, cap- charge of a priest for whose maintenance he appointed re lar
tured Bahylon, and for seven years maintained his hold upon offerings. In the violent death of SimmaS-Si!y, of which w e c a m
the country. On the death of Rammin-Sum-iddina, however, from the fragment of a Babylonian Chronicle, and in the short-
the Bahylonian nobles placed his son Rammzn-Sum-ugur on ness of the reign of Ea-mukin-zer, we may probably see additional
the throne, and proclaiming him king threw off the As- indications of the disturbed state of the country a t this time.
syrian yoke. Subsequently, during the r&gn of KammBn-Sum- Under KdSu-nidin-a$ the general distress was increased by a
ugur, the Assyrians suffered a crushing defeat ; famine, in consequence of which the regular offerings for the
12’0’ their king Bel-kudur-upr, was slain in the battle ; temple of gama: a t Sippar ceased.
and although Kammankum-u$ur, on following up his victory by The first king of the sixth dynasty was E-ulbar-S%kin-Sum
an invasion of Assyria, was repulsed by Ninih-pal-ESara, he and on his accession to the throne E-kur-Sum-uSabSi,the pries;
recovered a considerahle portion of Babylonian territory. Dur- whom SimmaS-Sihu had placed in charge of
ing the reigns of Meli-Si& and of his son, Marduk-pal-iddina,
the Assyrians made no attempt to wipe out the reverse they had
60* 6th Dp the temple at Sippar, complained to the king
(Of Bazi). that the offerings had ceased. On hearing the
sustained. On the accession of Zamama-Hum-iddina, however, circa Io25. state of the temple’s resources E-ulhar-S%kin-
1155, ASur -dLn crossed the frontier and recaptured Sum increased the regular offerings and endowed
several Babylonian cities. Zaniama-Hum-iddina the temple with certain property situated in Babylon. The
reigned only one year, and was succeeded by Bel-Sum-iddina II., sixth dynasty consisted of only three kings, E-ulbar-&kin-Sum
the last king of the Kassite dynasty. Under this king the being succeeded by Ninib-kndurri-ngur a n d Silanim-Sukamuna ;
country suffered attacks from Elam and the discontent and it was termed the dynasty of the House of Bazi, and each of the
misery which followed the defeats susiained by the Babylonians three kings on a fragment of a chronicle is termed a ‘son of Bazi.‘
brought about the fall of the dynasty.
The fourth dynasty is called the dynasty of Pas&; From this point onwards for nearly a hundred years
who its founder was we do not know, though an early there is a gap in our knowledge of Babylonian history.
58. 4th Dyn. place in it must be assigned to Nebuchad- After the dynasty of the House of Bazi an
rezzar I. In one of the two monuments 61. Gap. Elamite occupied the throne for six years ;
that we possess of this king he styles circa ~ ~ but~ his gname . is not known, nor are the
himself ‘the Sun of his land, who makes his people circumstances that attended his accession.
prosperous, the protector of boundaries’; and it is certain H e did not perpetuate his hold upon the country;
that to a great extent he restored the fallen fortunes of 26. 8th Dyn. for on his death the rule again passed
the kingdom. He successfully prosecuted campaigns to native Babylonians, the kings of the
against Elam on the east, he.conquered the Lulubi on (Baby1on)‘ eighth dynasty, which was the second
the north, and even marched victoriously to hear the title ‘ the dynasty of Babylon.’
.
circa 1130. into Syria. Against Assyria, however, he The names of the early kings of the dynasty are not preserved
though Sibir, a Babylonian king whom Ab-nigir-pal mention;
did not meet with similar success. as having destroyed a city which he himself rebuilt, is probably to
On Nebuchadrezzar’s crossing the frontier ASur-reS-iSi he placed in this period. The first king of this dynasty of whose
king of Assyria, marched against him, and Nibuchadrezza; circagIo. reign details are known is Samd-mudammik, who
who was not then prepared to nieet an army of the As- suffered a serious defeat at the hands of Ramman-
svrians. burnt what eneines of war he had with him. in order nirari II., king of Assyria. Against Nahii-Sum-ixkun, his suc-
& faditate his retreit. H e soon returned with ’reinforce- cessor on the throne, RammBn-nirari scored
ments ; but ASur-reS-iSi who had also strengthened his army goo’ another victory, several Babylonian cities falling
defeated him? plundereh his camp, and carried off forty of hi; into his hands, though we subsequently find him on good terms
chariots. A king who reigned early in the dynasty and may with Assyria and allying himself to Nahii-Sum-iSkun, or possibly
possibly have succeeded Nehuchadrezzar is Bel-nadin -aplu his successor, each monarch marrying the other’s daughter.
whose name is known from a ‘boundary stone’ dated in th; circa 880, Nahti-aplu-iddina is the next king who is known
fourth year of his reign. Under Marduk-nzdin-abe Assyria to have ruled in Babylon, and though he aided
and Babylonia were again in conflict. It is probable that this the people of Subi against ASur-rigir-pal, )his relations with
king enjoyed a temporary success against Tiglath -pileser I., Shalmaneser 11. were of a friendly nature. H e is the king who
during which he carried off from the city of restored and endowed so richly the temple of SamaS at Sippar,
circa ‘‘Io. Ekallati the images of the gods Ramman and digging in the ruins of former structures till he found the ancient
Sala which are mentioned by Sennacherih in his inscription on
the rock at Ravian. This campaign is not mentioned in the image of the god. H e restored and redecorated the shrine and
‘Synchronous History,’ though in the beginning of the account with much ceremony established the ritual and offerings for the
of the campaign there mentioned, which ended disastrously for god, placing them under the direction of Nabii-nadin-Sum, the
Bahvlonia. the two kines. it is said. set their chariots in battle
arra; ‘as’econd time’ &e ASSYRIA,5 28). This second cam- 1 The name has also been read Marduk-SXpik-kullat.

447 448
 BABYLONIA BABYLONIA
son of the former priest E Jkur-Sum-uSab$i. Marduklum- According to the Ptolemaic Canon, the next two years
.iddina succeeded his father on the throne; hut his brother were.a period.of interregnum, though the List of Kings
Giy;a 850. hlarduk-b&us8ti headed a revolt against him, and
compelled him t o call in the aid of Shalmaneser assigps the throne to Sennacherib. However this may
of Assyria, who defeated the rebels and restored the land to be, we know that in 703 Mardnk-z%ltir-Sum proclaimed
order. Shalmaneser's son and successor, SamSi-RammBn 11. himself king ; but he had reigned for only one month
was not on the same terms of friendship with Babylonia. Hk when he was murdered by Merodach-baladan,
directed an expedition against that country and plundered many
cities before meeting with serious opposition. Marduk-halatsu- 703' who had escaped from Assyria. Merodach-
812. ikbi, the Babylonian king, had meanwhile Lol- baladan thus once more found himself king in Babylon ;
lected his forces, which included hands from H a m but Sennacherib marched against him, defeated him,
Chaldea, and other districts ; and the two armies met near thk and caused him to seek safety by hiding himself in
city of Dor-Papsukal. Marduk-halatsu-+hi was totally de-
feated : 5 0 9 of his troops were slain ; zwo more were captured ; the Babylonian swamps. After plundering Babylon
and rich booty, including IOO chariots of war, fell into the hands and the neighbouring cities, Sennacherib returned to
of the Assyrians. Ramman-nirari I11 the successor of SamSi- AsSyria,' leaving the kingdom in the charge of
Ramman also subjugated a consideradie portion of Babylonia, 702. BEI-ibni, a young native Babylonian who had
'carrying ;way to Assyria Bau-ab-iddina,the Babylonian king,
together with the treasures of his palace. been brought up at the Assyrian court. On the death
Here the record of the ' Synchronous History ' ceases, of Merodach- baladan, shortly afterwards, a rising
and there follows another gap, of about fifty years, in headed by Suzub, another Chaldean, brought Sen-
our knowledge of the history of the country. nacherib again into the country. Bel-ibni alsov mnst
The next king of Babylon whose name is known have displeased the king; for, after defeating Suzub.
is Nabt?-Sum-iSkun--the first name which occurs after Sennacherib carried BEl-ibni and his nobles to Assyria,
63. Nabo- the break in the List of Kings. His suc- leaving his own son ASur-niidin-Sum upon the
cessor was NabB-nii+-, the Nabonassar 700. throne. Sennacherib next planned an expedition
nassar' of the Ptolemaic Canon; and with this against the Chaldeans whom Merodach-baladan had
747' king our knowledge of the Babylonian settled dt Nagitn, on the Elamite shore of the Persian
succession becomes fuller, as, in addition to the evi- Gulf, whence they were able in safety to foment insur-
dence afforded by the List of Icings, the information rections and plan revolt. Sennacherib, determined to
contained in the Babylonian Chronicle and the Ptolemaic stamp out this disaffection, transported his troops in
Canon becomes available. In the third year of Nabo- :hips across the Persian Gulf. Disembarking at the
nassar's reign, Tiglath-pileser 111. ascended the throne mouth of the Eul~eus,they routed the Chaldeans
of Assyria; and one of his first acts was an invasion and their allies, and returned with much booty and
of Babylonia, during which he overran the northern dis- many captives to the Babylonian coast. Meanwhile
tricts and captured several cities, carrying away many Suzub, who had previously escaped Sennacherib's pur-
of their inhabitants. The distress in the country due to. snit, collected his forces and with the help of Elam
the inroads of the Assyrians was aggravated during captured Babylon and placed himself upon the throne.
this reign by internal dissension : Sippar repudiated He is to be identified with the Nergal-u&ib
Naboriassar's authority, and the revolt was subdued only 694. of the Babylonian Chronicle and the List of
after a siege of the city. Kings. He, however, ruled for only one year. Sen-
The Babylonian Chronicle tells us that after a reign of nacherib, on his return from the Persian Gulf, defeated
fourteen years Nabonassar died in his palace at Babylon, his army and sent him in chains to Nineveh. 'Turning
and was succeeded by his son NBdinu, the his forces against Elam, he plundered a considerable
733' Nadios of the Ptolemaic Canon, who is to be iden- portion of the country, and was stopped in his
tified with NabE-niidin-zEr of the list of kings. The advance into the interior only by the setting in of
eighth dynasty ended with the country in confusion. winter. In his absence a rebel bearing the name
Nabii-niidin-zEr,after a reign of only two years, was slain of Suzub-the MuSEzib-Marduk of the Chronicle
692.
in a revolt by his son NabB-Sum-ukin or Sum-ukin, and the List of Kings-seized the throne of
731' who had hitherto held the position of governor of Babylon. Allying his forces with those of Elam, he
a province. After his accession the dynasty soon came attempted to oppose Sennacherib in the field ; but the
to an end. He had not enjoyed his position for more combined armies were defeated at ualule. Next year
than a month when the kingdom again changed hands Sennacherib returned to Babylonia, captured the city
and Ukin-zh ascended the throne. of Babylon, and deported MuSEzib-Marduk and his
From the fall of the eighth dynasty until the rise of family to Assyria. According to the Babylonian
the Neo-Babvlonian emDire Babvlonia wa; overshadowed 689' Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon, there now
by the power of Assyria, the kings of occurred a second interregnum, though the ,List of
64.
suzerainty. the latter country frequently ruling both Icings credits Sennacherib with the control of Babylonia.
at Nineveh and at Babvlon. Ukin-zEr On Sennacherib's murder in 681 his son Esarhaddon
had reigned only three years when Tiglath,pileser again 681, was proclaimed king of Assyria. He succeeded
invaded Babylonia, took him captive, and ascended the to the rule of Babylonia also, though a son of
throne of Babylon, where he ruled under the name of Merodnch-baladan made an attempt to gain the throne.
Pulu (see T IGLATH-PILESER). On his death, H e came to Babylon and personally superintended the
729' which occurred two years later, he was succeeded restoration of the city, rebuilding the temples and the
in Assyria by Shalmaneser IV., who, according to the walls, and placing new images in the shrines of the
Babylonian Chronicle, also succeeded him on the throne gods. During his reign Babylon enjoyed a season
of Babylon, though in the List of Kings Pulu is succeeded of unusual prosperity, and was free from the internal
by Ululai. The two accounts can be reconciled feuds and dissensions from which she had been suf-
727' by the supposition that Ululai was the name fering.
assumed by Shalmaneser as king of Babylon (see On Esarhaddon's death the throne of Babylon passed
SHALMANESER). Shalmaneser died after a reign of 669. to his son SamaS-Sum-ukin, his elder son, A h -
five years, and, while Sargon held the throne, Mero- biini-pal, having already been installed on the
dach- baladan, a Chaldeau from southern Babylonia, Assyrian throne during his father's lifetime. For some
freed Babylonia for a time from Assyrian control. H e years the two brothers were on friendly terms, and when
sided with UmmanigaS, king of Elam, in his Urtaku and the Elamites, with the aid of some discon-
721. tented Babylonian chiefs, invaded the country, ASnr-
struggle with Assyria; but ten years later was
himself captured by Sargon after being besieged in b'ini-pal assisted his brother in repelling their attack.
the city of Il:bi-BEl (see MERODACH-BAIADAN,During all this time SamaS-Sum-nkin acknowled,-ed the
709' S ARGON ). Sargon then ascended the throne of supremacy of Assyria and acquiesced in his brother's
Babylon, which he held until ,his death in 705. active control of the internal affairs of both kingdoms.
29 449 450
 BA~YLONIA BABYLONIA
At length, however, he wearied of this state of depend- ;tead. It is probable that during the early part of
ence, and seizing an opportunity, organised a general lis reign Nebuchadrezzar consolidated his rule in Syria
rising against Assyria among the neighbouring tribes and on the Mediterranean coast by
and nations who had hitherto owned her supremacy. 56. Nebuchad- yearly expeditions in those regions.
He bought the support of UmmanigaS, king of Elam, TBZZar. After a few years, however, the country
contracted an alliance with Arabia, and at the same (jO4. showed signs of repudiating Babylonian
time enlisted the services of smaller chiefs. Though control. Nebuchadrezzar returned to
one half of the Arabian army was defeated by the .he coast to suppress the rising. For some years things
Assyrians, the other half effected a junction with the .emained quiet ; but soon after the accession of Apries
Elamites. This powerful combination, however, was see EGYPT, 69) to the throne of Egypt the ferment
neutralised by the revolt of Tammaritu, the son of -evived. After a siege of a year and a half Jerusalem
Ummanigag, the king of Elam. In fact, the dissensions :ell (see J ERUSALEM).
in the Elamite camp proved of great service to A h - Tyre, the siege of which also Nebuchadrezzar under-
bZni-pal, who completely crushed the confederation that took, held out for thirteen years, 585-572 (see P ~ a s -
Samal-Sum-ukin had brought against him .(see A ~ R - NICIA). Built on an island, it was practically im-
BANI-PAL, 3 7). Sama&bm-nkin himself was besieged pregnable from the land, while the blockade instituted
in Babylon, and, on the capture of the city, he set fire to by the Babylonians did not prevent the entry of supplies
his palace and perished in the flames. According to the by water. More successful were Nebuchadrezzar's
List of Kings, he was succeeded by Kandalanu, the xmpaigns against Egypt. W e do not possess his
Kineladanos of the Ptolemaic Canon ; but this 3wn account of them ; but an Egyptian inscription
647' king is probably to be identified with Ah-bHni- records that on one of them (undertaken against Apries)
pal himself, who, on this supposition, like Tiglath-pileser he forced his way through the country as far as Syen?.
111. and Shalmaneser IV., ruled Assyria and Babylonia the modern Aswsn, on the borders of Ethiopia: and
under different names. The last years of his reign are it is not improbable that the country was subject to
wrapped in obscurity ; but on his death the throne was Babylonia during the first few years of the reign of
secured by Nabopolassar, who was destined Amasis II., who succeeded Apries on the Egyptian
65. Nabo- to raise the fortunes of his country and to throne (see EGYPT, 5 69). Nebuchadrezzar's hold
POlaSSm. found an empire, which, though it lasted for upon Egypt cannot, however, have been permanent :
625. less than one hundred years, eclipsed by its a fragment of one of his own inscriptions mentions
magnificence any previous period in the his sending an expedition to Egypt in his thirty-seventh
varied history of the nation. Nabopolassar, in fact, year. During his reign the relations between
was the founder of the Neo-Babylonian empire. Babylonia and Media were of a friendly nature, as was
Dnriug the early part of Nahopolassar's reign A h - not 'unnatural from the close alliance that had been
bani-pal's successors on the throne of Assyria did not established between the two kingdoms before the fall
relinquish their hold upon the southern kingdom. They of Nineveh. In a war between Media and Lydia, some
retained their authority for some time over a great part twenty years later, the Babylonians did not take part ;
of the country (see ASSYRIA, § 33f: ). Though we do but, when an eclipse of the sun on the 25th of May in
not possess historical documents relating to this period, the year 585 put an end to a battle between the Lydians
we may conclude that Nabopolassar during a11 these and Medes, Nebuchadrezzar, in conjunction with the
years was strengthening his kingdom and seeking any king of Cilicia, used his influence to reconcile the com-
opportunity of freeing at least a part of it from the batants and bring the war to a close.
Assyrian yoke, and it is not improbable that conflicts While constantly engaged in extending and solidi-
between the Assyrian and Babylonian forces were fying his empire, Nebuchadrezzar did not neglect
constantly occurring. Towards the end of his reign he the internal improvement of his kingdom. He re-
found the opportunity for which he was waiting in the built the cities and temples throughout the country,
invasion of Assyria by the Medes. H e allied himself and in particular devoted himself to the enlargement
with the invaders by marrying Nebuchadrezzar, his of Babylon, completing its walls and rehuilding its
circa 606, eldest son, to the daughter of Cyaxares, and on temples with such magnificence that the city became
the fall of Nineveh had a share in the par- famous throughout the world (see NEBUCHADREZZAR,
tition of the kingdom. While N. Assyria and her B ABYLON). Nebuchadrezzar died after reigning forty-
subject provinces on the N. and NW. fell to the Medes, three years, and was succeeded by his son Amel-Marduk,
S . Assyria and the remaining provinces of the empire mentioned as EVIL-MERODACH (9.71.) in 2 K.
561.
were added to the territory of Babylon. 25 27 8 Of this king we possess no inscription,
Before Nabopolassar could regard these acquisitions though contracts dated in his reign have been found.
of territory as secure, he had first to reckon with the He was assassinated after a reign of two
power of Egypt. Necho II., the son and successor of 67. His years in a revolt led 6y Neriglissar, his
Psammetichus I., soon after his accession to the throne 8uccessors. brother-in-law, who succeeded him upon
had set himself to accomplish the conquest of Syria. In 559. the throne (see N ERGAL - SHAREZER).
608, therefore, 'le had crossed the frontier of Egypt and His inscriptions that have been recovered
begun his march northwards along the Mediterranean are' concerned merely with his building operations. H e
coast. Vainly opposed by JOSIAH(q.v.), he pressed was succeeded by his son Labali-Marduk, who,
forward and subdued the whole tract of country between 556' after reigning nine months, was murdered by
the Mediterranean and the Euphrates. For three years his nobles. Nabu-na'id or Nabonidus, the son of Nabu-
he'retained his hold on Syria, and it was only after the balafsu-ikbi, was placed upon the throne.
fall of Nineveh that Nabopolassar successfully disputed Nabonidus was a ruler more energetic than his im-
his possession of the country. Nabopolassar did not mediate predecessors on the throne. H e devoted himself
himself head the expedition against the Egyptians, for to rebuilding the ancient temples
he was now old ; but he placed the troops under the 68. Nabonidus. throughout the kingdom, and dug in
command of Nebuchadrezzar his son. The two armies 555. their foundations until he found the
met at Carchemish, where a decisive battle took ancient inscriptions of the kings who had
605. first founded or subsequently restored them. In his own
place. Necho was utterly defeated ; thousands
of his troops were slain ; and Nebnchadrezzar pressed inscriptions recording his building operations he re-
after his flying army up to the very borders of Egypt. counts his finding of several such inscriptions, and, as he
While Nebuchadrezzar was still absent on this ex- mentions the number of years that had passed since they
pedition Nabopolassar died. His son, therefore, returned had been buried by their writers, his evidence with regard
to Babylon and was duly installed as king in his to the settlement of Babylonian chronology is invaluable.
45 * 452
 BABYLONIA BACA
Nabonidas, however, in spite of his zeal for rebuilding came very prevalent in Babylonia. Soon after the
the temples of the gods, incurred the hatred of the accession of Darius a certain Nadintu-BE1 put himself
priesthood by his attempt to centralise Babylonian at the head of a revolt, declaring himself to be Nebu-
religion. Although the rise of Babylon to the position chadrezzar, the son of Nabonidus, the last king of
of the principal city of the land had been reflected in Babylon. Darius stamped out the rebellion and exe-
the importance of Mardulc in the Babylonian pantheon, cuted Nadintu-Bd. A few years later he quelled a
the religion of the country had never radically changed second rebellion headed by Arahu, who was captured
its character. It had always remained a body of local and crucified, and during the reign of Xerxes a similar
worships, each deify retaining his own separate centre rising proved equally unsuccessful. These rebellions
of ritual. Nabonidus set himself to centralise all were the last struggles of the national spirit to reassert
these worships in Babylon. He removed the images of itself. They met with no response among the general
the gods from their shrines in the various cities through- body of the people, who were content to serve their
out the country and transported them to the capital. foreign masters. Babylonia, in fact, remained subject
By this act he brought down upon himself the resent- to the Persians until the conquests of Alexander brought
ment of the priests, who formed the most powerful her under Greek control, which she exchanged only for
section of the community, and they, by the support the Parthian supremacy.
they gave to Cyrus on his capture of Babylon, con- ( a ) For the history of Babylonia, see the works by Tiele, Hom-
siderably aided the Persian conquest of the country. mel, Delitzsch, and Winckler cited under ASSYRIA.For the early
period these histories maybe supplemented
Cyrus, who had previously conquered the Medes. im- 71. Bibliography. by reference to the inscriptions which are
prisoning Astyages and sacking Ecbatana, next turned being published in E. de Sarzec’s DJ-
his attention to the conquest of Babylonia. cmvertes en C h l & (r884, etc.), The b’d.Exjed. of the Univ.
ofPennrylvania(1893, etc.), edited by Hilppcht, and Cuneifumz
69. Gyrus. The Babylonian army was commanded Tdxts f r o m BdyZoonian tabZets efc. in t.& British Museum
549. by BSl-Har-uSur (Belshazzar), the son of (1896, etc.). Among English h:stories refeience may he made
Nsbonidus; but it did not offer an to George Smith‘s b’abyloaia (SPCK, 1877)and G. Rawlinson’s
effective opposition to the Persian forces. After Five Great Monarchies of the E m k m WorZd, vols. i. and ii.
(1871). In Schr.’s KB vol. iii., translations of many of the
suffering a defeat at Opis on the Tigris, it was historical inscriptions 0; Babylonia are given, while the same
538’ broken. Cyrus marched on and entered Sippar author’s COT describes the principal points in the O T which
without further fighting, and Nabonidus fled. Babylon are illustrated by the monuments. For other works dealing
with the inscriptions of Babylonia, the bibliographies mentioned
itself was taken two days later, and Nabonidus fell into in the article ASSYRIA (5 34) may he consulted.
the hands of the conqueror (cp CURUS, 1 2). In restor- (6) [On the religion of the Babylonians we have as yet only
ing order to the country, Cyrus adopted the wise policy of one students’ handbook, Jastrow’s XeZie’onofAssyria a n d B d y -
conciliating the conquered. H e restored to their shrines lonia (reviewed by ?. G. Lyon, New World, March, 1899).
Sayce’s Hibdert Lectures (for 1887) on the same subject are
the images of the gods which Nabonidus had removed. less systematic. On the cosmology of Babylonia, Jensen’s
The popularity he acquired by this act is reflected in Kosntologie der BabyZonier is still the most complete authority ;
the inscription on his cylinder recording his taking of hut editions of religious texts must he consulted by the advauced
student.]
the city, which was probably composed at his orders by (c) With regard to books for the study of the language the first
the official scribes of Babylon. Although naturally dictionary to appearwas Norris’s Assy7,ian Dictionary (1868-72),
couched in flattering terms, it bears ample witness to which he did not live to complete. I n his Al#habetixches
the pacific policy of Cyrus, who therein allows himself Verzeichniss deer Assynkchen und Akkadischen CVarfer(1886)
Strassmaier published an immense collection of material, whicd
to be represented as the vindicator and champion of has been used in subsequent dictionaries ; among these may
Mardulc, the principal deity of his conquered foe : be mentioned Delitzsch’s Assyrisches Wdyterbuch (1887, etc. ;
‘ H e @e. Marduk) sought out a righteous prince after his unfinished), the same author’s Assyrisches Handwirter6uch
own heart, whom he might take hy the hand ; Cyrus, king of (‘96), Muss Arnolt’s Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Lan-
AnEan, he called by his name, for empire over the whole world g-uage (1894, etc., in progress), and Meinsner’s Sujjlenzenfe znix
he proclaimed his title. l’he land of Kutii the whole of the Assyviscbn Wd;rterbuch(1898) ; Briinnow’s CZassiyed List of
tribal hordes he forced into suhmission‘at his feet. as for the Cunriform Ideorraphs, 1889 (Indices, 1897), contains a full list
men whom de had delivered into his hands, with \ustice and of ideographs with their values. The best Assyrian grammar
righteousness did he care for them. Marduk the great lord, is Delitzsch’s Assyr. Gram&. (1889. transl. by Kennedy).
the protector of his people, beheld his upright deeds qnd his (d)The existence of the Sumen& langnage, which for long
righteous heart with joy. To his city of Babylon he commanded was disputed , i s now generally acknowledged ; hut a grammar
him to go, he made him take the road to Babylon ;like a friend of the Iangnige has yet to be written ; it should be noted that
and helper he went by his side. His wide-spreading host, the the views on Sumerian which Delitzsch exnressed in his Assv?:
number of which, like the waters of a river, cannot he numbered, Gram. he has since completely changed. A list of the Sume&.u
girt with their weapons advance at his side. Without contest values of the cheiform signs is given by Briinnow in his
and battle he made him enter into Babylon his city. Babylon CZasi$ed List, while Weissbach‘s Die srmPrsiche F r a p (‘98)
he spared from tribulation. Nabonidus, the king thlt did not may he consulted for the history of the controversy.
fear him, he delivered into his hand. All the people of Babylon L. w. I<.
the whole of Snmer and Akkad, princes and governors beneat6
, him b:>wed down they kissed his feet, they rejoiced in his ,BABYLONIANS ($77 ’27 ; yioi BABYAUNOC
kingdom, bright &as their countenance. ’I’o.the lord who [BAQ], Ez. 2 3 1 5 [BA om. BaB.], 17 [-ONOC,B], 23 ; in
through his strength raises the dead to life and from destruction
and misery had spared all, joyfully they paid homage, they Aram. &3, B a B y A ~ ~ l [BAL],
ol Ezra49), in every
reverenced his name.’ Other passages in the cylinder refer case the land, not the city, is referred to : cp especially
to the zeal displayed by Cyrus for Marduk and the other Ez. 2315, ‘ the Babylonians, the land of whose nativity
Babylonian gods.-‘ When into Babylon I entered favourably
with exidtation and shouts of joy in the palace of the prince; is Chaldea.’
I took up a lordly dwelling, Marduk the great lord [inclined]
the great heart of the sons of Babylon to me and daily do I BABYLONISH GARMENT, RV Babylonish Mantle
.
care for his worship. . . And the gods of Sumer and Akkad
which Nabonidus to the anger of the gods had brought int; (lq?vill?,&,
lit. mantle of Shinar,’ so RVmg.),
Babylon, a t the word of Marduk the great lord one and all in Josh. 721. See MANTLE.
their own shrines did I cause to take up the habitation of their
heart’s delight. May all the gods whom 1 have brought into BACA, VALLEY OF (R?$? pF&?, 3 IO^), or Valley
their own cities pray daily before Bel and Nahii for the lengthen- of Weeping (RV, d EN TH KOIAAAI TOY ~ A a y 6 -
ing of my days let them speak the word for my good fortune,
and unto Marduk my lord let them say : ‘‘ May Cyriis the MWNOC [BK*R], E I C THN KOIAAAA T . K. [W’AT] ;
kiiig that feareth thee and Camhyses his son [have prosperity].”’ cp Aq. Vg. Pesh.), mentioned only in Ps. 846 [7]. For
With the capture of Babylon by Cyrus the history the meaning given above cp the Wady of Weeping
of the Babylonians as an independent nation comes to \&)t &\j found by Burckhardt near Sinai. ’rhe name
The countryvever regained her
70. End. an end. is frequently explained ‘ balsam vale ’ (so RV”S) ; but
independence, but remained a province
subject to the powers which succeeded one another cp Cheyne, who reads O-?S (cp d here and at Judg. 25),
in the rule of W. Asia. Under Cambyses, indeed, and suppose5 a play on the name B&%’im. The pl. ow!?
and still more under Darius Hystaspis, discontent be- occurs in 2 Sam. 5 2 2 8 ( = I Ch. 1414f:), apparently
453 454
 BACCHIDES BADGERS' SKINS
as the name of a spot (see R EPHAIM , VALLEY OF) Xonysiac character which the latter presents is not
where there were Baca-trees. David took his stand lative : it is directly due to the northern influence.l
there to wait for YahwB's signal to attack the Philis- The priest of Dionysia (see above) calls himself the priest
tine's1 @ ( 2S. 524) speaks of it as a ' grove,' mean- )f Dusares, and on the coins of Bostra the latter appears
ing an Asherah; there is no mention of trees in @. vith the Dionysian emblem of the wine-press. Figures
On the meaning of Baca trees see M ULBERRY. )f the vine and wine-cup are still found upon the lintels -
n many of the villages in the Hauran. Although the
BACCHIDES(BAKXIAHC~
also B&&lhHC ; BApAKX.
vorship of Yahw& had little in common with that of
[I Macc. 78, A], K A K X . [ib. v. 12,A], BAKXX. [ib. 91,
K * X ] ) , the chief general of D EMETRIUS I. [q.v. ,.I], who
3acchus (nequayunm congruenti8r~s. institutis, Tacit.
was sent to Judaea to enforce the claims of Alcimus to Yist. 55), classical writers, observing the musical and
oyful nature of their ceremonial rites, now and then
the priesthood ( I Macc. 7 8 8). Almost immediately
after the death of NICANOB,he was sent again with ell into the error of making Bacchus a Jewish god
Alcimus, and inflicted a severe defeat on the Maccabaean hat had heen worshipped by the earliest patriarchs (cp
party at Elasa,2 who lost their leader Judas (chap. 9, ?.g.Plut. Synzpos. 146).
For the various mythological forms of Bacchus, see
161 B.c.). Judaea suffered heavily at the hands of
Bacchides ; nor did any real advantage accrue when Ency. Brit.(9)S.V. ' Dionysus' ; and Roscher, S . V .
Jonathan took up the leadership ( 9 3 2 8 ) . The capital BACENOR occurs in an uncertain passage, 2 Macc.
and other important strongholds remained in the hands 1235, AwuiOeos 6P ris r L v TOO / h ~ f i v o p o s[VA]. It is
of Bacchides, who was engaged in fortifying them until loubtful whether it is the name of a captain or the
the death of Alcimus ( 1 5 9 B.c.), when he returned to :ognomen of a company or division in the army of
Demetrius (9 57). At the end of two years the opponents ludas. See DOSITHEUS.
of the Maccabzean party (whose hands had become
strengthened) agreed to betray Jonathan and his fol- BACHRITES, THE ('1230 ; Nu. 2635, @BAL [v. 391
lowers to Bacchides. This piece of treachery was 2m.). See BECHER.
discovered and avenged (958 8). Bacchides set out BADGER, ROCK (p$ Lev. 11.~R V W ; 1:v
against Judzea (158 B.c.) and besieged Beth-basi, but
met with ill success everywhere, until at last he was EONEY.
only too glad to accept Jonathan's overtures of peace BADGERS' SKINS, RV SEALSKINS (we??n%,
(968). The Jewish.captives of the former wars were dnqlh!, ann,h€pMaTayaKIN81Na[lANeINA, Aq.,
restored, and the Maccabees had rest for four or five Sym., Ezek. 1610] [BAL] ; Ex.255 2614 35723 3619
years. [BAL om.] 3934 Nu. 4 6 8 [&ppUTivq 6anrvOivy] 10-12
BACCHURUS (BAKXOYPOC CAKXOYP [Ll, I425 Ez. 161of), are mentioned as the fourth or outer-
ZACCARUS), singer in list of those with foreign wives most covering of the tabernacle (next above the 'rams'
(see EZRA,i. 5 , end), I Esd. 924; but not in 11 Ezra1024 skins dyed red'), and as outer wrappings for the ark
[MT E V 65.K.1, though bLadds Z A K X O Y ~ and different vessels of the tabernacle during journeys.
In Ezekiel's figurative description of YahwB's adorning
BACCHUS (Liber), the equivalent of the Greek of Israel as a beautiful maiden, shoes of this material
Dionysus (so RVmg. AlpNycqc [AV]), is mentioned are included. As to the .meaning of ta&aS there have
in 2 Macc. 67, where it is said that on the occasion been many opinions : five chief views may be indicated.
of the birthday of Antiochus Epiphanes (175- 164) (I) The ancient versions with one consent understood
the unhappy Jews were compelled to attend the feast a colour : 6 Syr. Chald. Vg. render blue ' or ' violet,'
of Bacchus ( A ION yc I & ; RV'"g. ' feast of Dionysia ') Ar. Samar. ' black ' or ' dark.' This view, which has
wearing the ivy-wreath (Kiuu6s), the peculiar emblem been strongly 'maintained by Bochart, rests, however,
of the god. A few years later Nicanor (the general of on no philological ground, and is refuted by the syntax
Jkmetrius) threatened to pull down the temple and of the Hebrew words2 Apart from the versions, all
supphnt it by one dedicated to Bacchus unless Judas Hebrew tradition is in favour of the view that ta&as'
was handed over to him (ib. 1433, Aiavuuos [A]). The is an animal.
worship of Bacchus seems to have been introduced ( 2 ) In the discussion on this animal in the Talmud
first by the Ptolemies, of which family he was the (Shabb. c. 2, fol. 28) the opinion prevails that it is a
patron-god, and according to 3 Macc. 229 several years species of i$u u$n (prob. = ' ferret '), a description which
previously the Jews in Alexandria had been branded w-odd roughly suit the badfer; and the claim of this
by Ptolemy Philopator (222.204) with the sign of the animal has been supported (by Ges. and others) by
ivy; the object of this obviously being forcibly to comparison with late Lat. Taxus or t a r o (Ital. tasso,
identify the unwilling Jews with the detested worship of Fr. taisson) and Germ. Dachs.3 The common badger,
Bacchus. See CUTTINGS OF T H E FLESH, 9 6. His &'des taxus, found throughout Europe and Northern
worship would he specially abhorrent to pions Jews, Asia, reaches its southernmost limits in Palestine, where
since one of the greatest of the Dionysian festivals fell in it is common in the hilly and woody parts of the
the month Elaphebolion (March-April),thus synchronis- country. It is, however, improbable that the reference
ing closely with the passover. In course of time the is to the skins of these animals. They would be diffi-
Hellenisiug Jews and Greek residents were more attracted cult to procure either in Egypt or in the desert, and
by the cult, and when Jerusalem became a Roman there is no evidence of their being used in those regions
colony ( E l i a Capitolina) we find Dionysus with his for such a purpose. J

thyrsus and panther figuring upon the coins as one of

the patron gods.3 1 For the god Dusares (Aovuapqr on Nab. inscr. uiwii)' see
ZDMG 14465,41711,Baethg. &it;. 9 2 3 , WKS, Kins. &?&,,
The worship of Dionysus flourished at Czesarea,
and We. Heid.('4 4 8 8 The name means 'possessor(du) o f n w
a t Damascus, and in the Haursn. H e was the special The latter is often taken t o he equivalent to 'Sarah,' in which
patron of Scythopolis, and from him the town Dionysia case Dusares is equivalent to Abraham-a hazardous theory.
(Soada) received its name. Dionysus, however, soon 2 O'@?p is obviously gen. after n+--i.e., equivalent to DFS,
became identified with the Nabatzean deity Dusares not to n y y , in the phrase for 'rams' skins dyed red.'
(the Baal, the god of heaven, and of wine). The 3 Philological explanations involving roots common to the
Aryan and Semitic languages are, however, notoriously pre-
1 In o. 24 emend ?llJs to 31yD (uuuuerup6s [Ll for w v . carious.
1thc~up6s[BA]) ' whenib heaGit' the sound of a stormy wind 4 How little value attaches to the opinion of the Rabbis may
be gathered from another view, strongly supported in the
in the tops of the Baca trees.' If is in the tempest that Yahwi:
'goes out against the Philistines. Talmud, that the dnn was a kind of unicorn which specially
2 Doubtless an error for ADASA. appeared to Moses for this purpose, and immediately afterwards
8 See Madden, Coins o f t h e J m s , 1881, p. z5zJ disappeared (Bochart, i. 3 30).
455 456
 BAEAN BAHURIM
(3) more scientific etymology is that which com- if .the instruments carried by a shepherd (Zech. 1115).
pares the Ar. tubas or dubas, ‘ a dolphin.’ This would [t is rendered ‘ b a g ’ only in I S. 174049 (AV”lg.
indicate a marine animal,-probably (u)the seal (RV vessel‘) : see SLING. (4) Ti?! TZr5r (\/bind, cp verb in
text), or (6)the porpuise (RV”’g.),or ( c ) the d u p g or 2 I(. 1910 [ I.], n~!,‘and they put in bags’), Job1417
sea-cow. ( a ) has in its favour the adaptability ‘ p a h h d v n o v ) , Pr. 7 2 0 , mp: ‘x, ‘ a bag with holes‘ (Hag.
of sealskins to the purposes referred to, the statement
of Artemidorus (in Strab. 16776) that seals abounded 16). It is rendered ‘ bundle’ in I S. 2529 Gen 4 2 3 5 (of
in the Red Sea, one island there being called vijuor noney) and Cant. 1 1 3 (of myrrh, RV’W ‘ b a g ’ ) . (5)
+WK&J, and the actual use of a sealskin covering in ~ u A X C L ~ T L O VLk., 1233, RV ‘purse’ ; and (6) yXwuo6-
K O ~ (Jn.Y 126 1329, RV”lg. ‘box’). See Box, 3.
antiquity to protect buildings, because it was supposed
that lightning never struck this material (e.g., Pliny, BAG0 (&&yo[A]), I Esd. 840=Ezra814, BIGVAI,3.
HN255, Suet. Oct. 90). One species of seal, M o n n -
BAGOAS (from Pers. 6a,qa, ‘ God’ ; see Ed. Meyer,
chus uZ6iuenter, undoubtedly occurs in the Mediter- Ent. 157 ; cp Bigvai, Bigtha, Abagtha), a eunuch in
ranean, and some authorities are of opinion that the the household of Holofernes ; Judith12118 (B&yw&c
same is true of the common seal, Phocn vitulina. [BAl]; in v. I j B&rwC [A”]).
(6)The poipoise, like the seal, is as a rule a denizen of
the colder waters of the globe ; but Phocena commzrnis, BAG01 (Bay01[A]), I Esd. 514=Ezra22, BIGVAI, 2.
the common porpoise of the British coasts, occasionally BAGPIPE (RVW of nl!\DpKl Dan. 3 5 IO 15 [in v.
enters {he Mediterranean, whilst the Indian porpoise, I O wJbD, Kr. ’am], Gr. CYM+WNI&, EV ‘ dulcimer ’).
Ph. phocmzoider, inhabits the shores of the Indian
Ocean from the Cape of Good Hope to Japan, and m?y The Aramaic word is from aup+wvia, a late Gr. word,
have been captured in the Red Sea. ( c ) The used, curiously enough, by Polybius in his account of
Dugung, being more like the dolphin, has the etymology the festivities in which Antiochus Epiphanes (who is so
in its favour. According to Knobel (Comm. on Ex. 255) frequently alluded to in Daniel) indulged (xxvi.1,O5 xxxi.
this animal (Halico~efndernaculi) ‘ i s found in the 48; see D ANIEL, § 7). For the form of the Arani. cp
Red Sea, attaining a length of 8 to I O or more feet, is liar,, d p + w v o ~ ,‘ agreed,’ in the Fiscal Inscription from
hunted like the whale, and has a skin well adapted for Palmyra, 137 A.D. (col. 3,IZ. ‘445j. See MUSIC, 0 4 (c).
sandals or coverings.’ Friedr. Del. sought to strengthen BAHARUMITE, THE (9plTJg, I Ch. 11 3 3 ; 0
the case for this identification (Prol. to Baer’s Exek. p.
xviJ) by comparison with Ass. ta&.?u,an animal whose
B E E P M ~ I N [B, Hc.a19 o BEIN IN [K”],o BAPCAMI [AI,
skin, according to various Ass. inscriptions, was used
o B & p & ~ & l [L]), evidently a scribe’s error for ‘the
Bahurimite’-ie., ‘ the man of BAIIUKIM’ (’pmq.
to cover the beams of ships in the manner described by
Herodotus (1194). He has since (Prol. 77-79 [‘86]), The same reading should be restored in 2 S. 2331. See
however, abandoned the view that t a g u was the BARHUMITE.
dugong, and supposes it to mean wether.1 The dugong BAHURIM (D’?l!lp and D’lna ; Baoupcw [ A I ; 2 S.
of the Indian Ocean, with the Manatee of the Atlantic, 316 BapaKsC [ B ] , -p [ L ] ; 1 6 5 B o u p a ~ p[ B ] , p p p a p [Ll; 1712
composes the class Sirenia. They are usually found Baoperp [ B l , Bar0);oppov [Ll ; 19 16 B a o u p a p [ B I , ~ o p p a v[LI ;
I K.. 2 8 B a a O o u p ~ ~ [B],
p @aeoupacp [ A L ] , BOKXO~VS[Jos. A d
in the estuaries of large rivers browsing on sea-weed, vii.9 TI), a place in Benjamin (z S. 19 16 [IT]), not included
and they are still actively sought off the coast of in the list of Benjamite towns, which appears prominently
Queensland for the sake of their blubber and hide. in two very interesting narratives-that of the return of
(4)Much less probable is the opinion of Bottcher MICHALto David, and that of the flight of David from
(Neue Aehrenl. 3 2 8 ) that vnn is a form of w ; (he- ~ Absalom. Michal had been given by David‘s angry
goat) with the middle radical hardened; he supposes father-in-law to PALTI (q.v.)or Paltiel of Gallim, and
that goat-skin was manufactured into a kind of morocco
leather. It is natural that ‘rams’ and ‘he-goats’
David in his returning prosperity demanded her back. -
Followed by her weeping husband, Michal went from
should come together as in Gen. 3215 [14] zCh. 1711 ; Gallim to Bahurim. There Abner commanded Paltiel
but apart from this the explanation has little to recom- to return. It may naturally be asked, Why was Bahurim
mend it. selected as the scene of this leave-taking? The answer
(5) The latest and perhaps most probable view is is furnished by the story of David’s flight. It is clear
that put forwaril by Bondi ( d g y p t i a c u , I j?), who from z S. 1 6 I 5 (cp 17 24) that Bahurim lay near the road
makes tthn a loan-word from Egyptian t@, ‘ Egyptian from Jerusalem to the Jordan valley. Abner would have
leather,’ and gives a thorough discussion of views. to take this road on his return to Mahanaim, and would
This meaning is especially suitable to Ez. 1610, but naturally wait at Bahurim until he knew for certain that a
is also appropriate in the other passages. visit to Hebron would he acceptable to the king. Mean-
Of all the explanations those by Ar. dudus or tufzas, time the envoys of David conducted Michal to Hebron.
by Ass. tngu, and by Eg. t&s, most deserve attention. Later it was David’s turn to pass by Bahurim, when
N. M.-A. E. S. he sought the Jordan valley as a fugitive (z S. 1522).
BAEAN (BAIAN [AKV]), I Macc. 5 4 f . R V ; AV At Bahurim he would apparently have made his first
BEAN. halt had not the insults of SHIMEIcompelled him to go
BAG. Several of the Hebrew words are much more farther 2 (z S. 16-14). It was at Bahuriin also that
general in signification than the English ‘ bag.’-(I) D’B Jonathan and Ahimaaz lay hid in a well, when pursued
by the servants of Absalom ( z S. 1718). The spot
Kis(Dt. 2513Pr. 1611 Mi. 611 Is. 466)forholdingmoney, which best answers the topographical conditions is (as
or the weights employed by merchants. In Pr. 1 1 4 Barclay was the first to see) SE. of the village of el-
(@hhdvnov), EV renders P URSE. ( z ) w?n, &irit (cp ‘Zsdw,iyeh (see L AISHAH). Here, to the S. of the old
Rr. fznri?atl”’, bag of skin, etc., and see Frank. 296) Roman road, van Kasteren found in the upper CI.ii.<v
in z K. 5 z j ( O ~ ~ U K O Sof) Naaman’s bag which con- er-Rawd6y a ruin without a name, which he believes to
tained a talent of silver. In Is. 322 it is mentioned be on the site of Bahurim ( Z D P Y ~ ~ I O I # ) . For
in the list of ‘women’s adornments, and signifies a less probable view, fully discussed by van Kasteren,
probably a satchel (so R V ; AV ‘crisping pin’). ( 3 ) see Marti, ZDP V 3 2# T. K. C.
*$p KZi, a word of very general meaning (see VESSEL), 1 Sir G. Grove (Smith’s DB) thinks this may he doubtful.
used of a sack for containing corn (Gen. 4225 tlyyiov) or The rendering of @L, however, in 2 S. 3 7 5 (vioS ufhheLp)suggests
1 Cp Shalmaneser; Monolith inscr. ii. 56, ina cZi6je .Fa that the verse originally closed with D$$, ‘from Gallim.’ That
marah f d A ‘on boats of skins of wethers ; so Wi. for good Palti was with Ishhosheth at Mahanaim seems very improbable.
reasons; pul see references in Muss-Arnolt, Ass. Dict. S.V. 2 The name of the village where he ‘refreshed himself’ (2 S.
‘ gahlu-u. 1614) seems to have dropped out. See AYEPHIM.
457 458
 BAITERUS BAKEMEATS
BAITERUS (BAITHPOC [BA]), I Esd. 517 RV, AV morsel,’ RV ‘ loaf’), I S. 236, must have been round,
METERlJS ; See G IBBAR. ilre a Scottish ‘ bannock’ ; which, from the con’text.
BAJITH, RV BAYITH(nlaD, the temple’ ; text of nust hold good also of the barley-cake (%) of Gideon’s
6 differs), is taken in EV of Is. 162 as the name of a iream (Judg. 7 qf). The nikkzidim (nwp?, possibly
place, the article being neglected (cp AIN, 2). It is iom 122, to prick) may have been thin cakes pricked
perhaps more defensible to render the stichus containing Iver like a modern biscuit, or dotted over with the seeds
the word thus : ‘ They go np to the temple, Dibon (goes if some condiment (see below). They were part of the
up) to the high places to weep’ (so Ges. and formerly >resent which the wife of Jeroboam I. took to the
Che.). The temple referred to might be the Beth- xophet Ahijah ( I I<. 143), and are rendered by EV
bamoth of the inscription of Mesha (Z. 26 ; cp BAMOTH- :racknels, for which the American revisers prefer to
BAAL ). n q and nl, however, are so easily confounded -ead ‘ cakes.’ Still, judging from etymology, we may
(see, e.g., Is. 1032 Kt.) that it is still better to read nnsy :onsider the @nW (&n), the cake which so frequently
li?*i nx, ’ the daughter (=people) of Dibon i s gone up,’ xcurs in the sacrificial ritual, as having been perforated
w t h Duhm and Cheyne (SBOT). [5$n, to pierce) like a modern Passover cake. It was
BAKBAKKAR (qpaza, form strange, probably made of the finest flour (n>b). Mention is made of
corrupt ; B A K A ~ [B], BAKB. [AL] ; Pesh. has !24nl?, mother kind of sacrificial cakes, apparently of foreign
which in vu. 8 12, etc. =Heb. P?7), Jeroham), a Levite xigin, which the women of Jerusalem kneaded and
in list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see E ZRA , ii. 5 5 [d], baked in connecion with the idolatrous worship of the
5 15 [ I ] a ) , I Ch. 915 ; not in I/ Neh. 1116, but perhaps ‘Q UEEN OF HEAVEN’ ( P . v . ) ,Jer.718 4419. @ merely
transposed to ZJ. 17 (where M T and @Nc.al’ig. read transliterates the Heb. word ( 0 ~ 2 ~. a u G v a s[BKAQ] ;
BAKBWKIAH [P.v.], though BBA omits, eL ~OKXELUS).
xaupGvus [R”], xauavas [Q”] in Jer. 441g), and the
BAKBUK (PELZJ 38, 71, ‘pitcher’ ; but see exegetical tradition varies. That these knwu~i?zi,ti?n were
below ; BAKBOYK [AL]). The b’ne Bakbiik, a family some kind of bakemeats is clear from the kneading of
of Nethinim in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. the dough in their preparation (7x8). It is generally
5 9). Ezra251 (~uKouK[L], Pam. [B])=Neh.753 ( ~ U K ~ O U thought that they may have resembled the seZ.%zai
[B], ~ E K O U[&])=I~ Esd. 531f ( U K O U $ [B], ~ K O ~ , U ’[A]; (ueh?jvar),cakes shaped like the full moon, which were
EV, ACUR). l h e name can hardly be Hebrew. It offered in Athens to Artemis, the moon-goddess, at the
may be corrupted from Assyr. Habbakuka, a plant name time of full moon (see especially Kue.’s essay ‘ D e
(see H ABAKKUK ). T. K. C. melecheth des hemels,’ translated in Bu.’s edition of his
BAKBUKIAH (??+?& 5 38, ‘pitcher of Yahwi:’? GesammeZte Abh. 208, and the comm. of Graf and of
[or else= Bakbuk, il? being probably a simple afforma- Giesebrecht i n Zoc. ). A similar custom is said to have
tive (Jastrow, JBL 13 r27)], cp BAKBUK ; BAKB~KIAC
prevailed in the worship of the Arabic goddess AL‘Uzza
[NC,amg.suP. L], BX”A om.), one of the Nethinim ; (We. A Y. Heid.(l) 3 8 J , 2nd ed. 41f.j.
a singer in list of Levite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see With regard to what may be called the pastry of the
E ZRA , ii. 5 [6], 5 15 [I] a, and cp HersteZ, IO^), Hebrews, all that can be said with any degree of certainty
Neh. 1117 (BOKXEIAC /L]; omitted in 11 I Ch. 916 before 3. Pastry. is that a more delicate relish was imparted to
the preparation of certain kinds of bakemeats
ObadiahzAbda of Neh.); and porter in Zerubbabel’s
in three ways. ( I ) The dough was baked in olive oil.
baud (see E ZRA , ii. § 6 6, 5 11, and Hersteel, IIO),
Thus the taste of the manna is said in one passage (Nu.
Neh. 1225. In Neh. 1117, of the three persons named,
Mattaniah is a ‘ son’ of Asaph, and Abda is a ‘ son ’ 118 J E ) to be, like the taste of ‘calces baked with oil’
of Jeduthun. It is plausible, therefore, to take Bak- (RVW,, @)), generally understood of some dainty
bulciah to be the same name as ?:I?; aL)
(cp and identify cooked in’oil (but EV ‘like the taste of fresh oil’). ( 2 )
The dough was prepared by being mixed with oil and
“with BUKKIAH [ q . ~ . ] one
, of the sons of Heman. The
then fired. This mode of preparation was extensively
three great guilds of temple-singers will then be repre-
used in the ritual of P : see, for example, Lev. 2 4 8 ,
sented.
where a distinction is made between cakes ‘mingled
BAKEMEATS. In his dream Pharaohs chief baker
carried on his head ‘ three baskets of white bread’ (n3rsg-see 551 in BDB Le$.) with oil ’ and cakes merely
‘ anointed (n*n@) with oil.’ ( 3 ) In the passage parallel
’’ ( y i f l ’$D, Gen.4016-so RV and most
Baking’ modern scholars ; AV ‘ three white baskets‘ j,
in the uppermost of which were ‘ all manner of bakemeats
to that quoted above ( I ), viz., Ex. 1631 [PI, the taste of
the manna is likened to ‘wafers ( 7 ~ 2for , which sec
for Pharaoh,’ literally, as we read. in the margin of AV, B READ) made with honey.’ From this passage, from
I meat [food] of Pharaoh, the work of a baker ’ (40 17). the prohibition of honey in the ritual (Lev. ~ I I ) ,and
The best commentary on these verses is the representa- from the post-biblical use of the verbal stem i y i ( D B ~ ) ,
tion of the royal bakery on thq tomb of Ramses 111. at we learn that honey (dPauJ)-no doubt both the product
Thebes, which has been reproduced by Wilkinson (Anc. of the bee and the artificial grape-syrup (the modern
,Eg., 1878, 1176), and more recently by Erman (Anc. dibs: see HONEY)-was used in the preparation of certain
Eg. 191). The process of making the ordinary house- kinds of bakemeats. @BAL. in both the passages dis-
hold supply is described under B READ ; here it is pro- cussed (Nu. 11 8 Ex. 1631) renders by JyKpls, which,
posed to bring together the scattered notices in Scripture according to Athenaeus (in Di. on Ex. 1631) denoted ‘ a
regarding other products of the baker’s skill. In this balcemeat made with oil and honey.’ Saadia’s word
connection, it is interesting to note. the remarkable variety here is ka@’ifZc(pastiZZi dzdciayii), a species of confec-
of shapes assumed by the bread and pastry in the repre- tion still made in Syria. Landberg (Prouer6es et Dictons,
sentation referred to. Additional varieties are collected 125) defines it as ‘ a flaky paste (pdtisserie feuiZZefk)
by Erman from other sources and represented on the made with walnut and sugar and, in spring, with cream.’2
same page. How far the Hebrew court bakers ( I S. 8 Some sort of dainty confection is evidently intended by
13) were able to imitate those of Egypt we do not know. the obscure ZlbZbcith (nix?! ; z S. 136 8 1.1. ; EV ‘ cakes ’)
There is certainly no lack of names for different species which Tamar baked for A m n ~ n . If ~ the etymology
of bakemeats in the O T ; but it is now impossible to
2. cakes. identify them (cp B READ). Thus we can 1 For Josh. 95, the only other passage where n*?r?>occiirs
only conjecture, although with a fair amount
(EV ‘mouldy’), see Di. i9z Zoc.
of certainty, that the cake named kikkdr (v?, AV 2 The curious in these matters are referred to Landberg’s hook
1 Cp A KKUB , It is possible, however, that &A omit the
2. for a detailed list of modern Arab confections, 123-128; cp Wet%
name (L has paKpovK), since auov+, etc. may be a duplicate ZDMG 11 517.f.
of HAICUPHA
(q.0.). 8 On the reading in v. g see C OOKING U TENSILS , 8 5 Li.1

459 460
 BAKING BALAAM
from 325 (heart) were more secure, we might conclude while the last two are derived from the narrative of the
that the tit-bit in question was heart-shaped. '
Yahwist.
In Ez.2717 we find among the trade-products of Balaam prepares for his work rather after the fashion
Tyre a substance called pannug (xm)which, according of a sorcerer' than in accordance with the spiritual ideas
to the Targum, was a ' kind of confection ' ; so RVWJ 2. Oracles of Hebrew prophecy. In order to influ-
The meaning is quite uncertain, and probably the text ence Elehim, he directs Balalc to offer
and sacrifices of special solemnity1 (seven
is corrupt (co. would read jiii, wax; see P A N N A G ) .
For the frequently mentioned at$'@$ or grape-cake, see altars, seven oxen, seven rams; cp BEER-SHEBA).
Bamoth-bad, the scene of the sacrifices, was no ordinary
FRUIT, 5 5 ; and for the use of condiments in baking, 'high place,' but (probably) one of those high hills
see FOOD and SPICES. 'A. R. S. K. where huge dolmens still suggest primaeval communing
with God, and, as we learn, it commanded a view of at
BAKING. See B READ, § z ; OVEN.
least ' the utmost part ' of the Israelitish encampment.
BAKING PAN ( n q y , Lev. 2 5 79. See COOKING This was important, for a curse must be uttered in sight
of those upon whorn. it is to fall (cp 2313 u). When
U TENSILS, 7.
Balaam returns to Balak and his princes after meeting
BALAAM (Fl&'a : etymology uncertain ; Winckler's God, he can but break forth into jubilant praise of
BeL'am [GZ 11201 seems improbable ; cp perhaps Ba-lum- Israel. Curse it he cannot. The people has a destiny
me-e (Am. Tab. ) and see IBLEAM,BELA, of its own which parts it from the surrounding nations.
1. Two The Israelite hosts N. of Arnon are the token of a
accounts. NICOLAITANS ; BAAAAM [BAL] ; Joseph.
B & ~ & M o c ) , b. Beor ; a soothsayer or prophet mightier multitude unborn. All individual desire loses
whom BALAK,king of Moab, made anxious by Israel's itself in the sense of Israel's greatness. Happy is
victory over the Amorites, summoned to curse his he who dies in Jeshurun, and, dying, knows that his
enemies. Instead of doing so, Balaam bore himself as people is immortal ! In vain Balak changes the seer's
the prophetic mouthpiece of YahwB, whom he acknow- place of outlook. As Balaam beholds all Israel from
ledged as his God (Nu. 2218), and by the spirit of the top of PISGAH,~ he receives a divine oracle which
Elahim (242) foretold the future glory of Israel. No confirms and transcends the former blessing. God,
wonder that a prophet of Judah, writing probably in says Balaam, is not a man : he does not change his
the dark and idolatrous days of Manasseh, recalled the mind. Nor can trouble touch Israel, for Yahwk himself
history of Balaam, when he would remind his ungrateful reigns in their midst ; and the people (if vie may trust
countrymen of YahwB's ' beneficent deeds ' (Mic. 6 5 ) . the reading3) greet this divine king with exultant shout.
Balaam's character has long been regarded as an enigma, With the strength of a wild-ox, they fling their foes to
and from Bishop Butler's time onwards many subtle' the ground. No magical arts avail in Israel's case : even
solutions have been offered. The enigma, however, is I now all has been decided, and one can but cry ' What
mainly produced by the combination of two traditions has God done ! ' Like a lion, Israel rises up to devour
belonging to different periods, and it is the duty of the the prey.
critic to distinguish, as far as possible, the two traditions Again sacrificialrites are performed, and again Balaam
which, though one in spirit, present a palpable difference has to disappoint the king (see PEOR). The third
in details. 3. Oracles prophecy (J), together with some striking
According to J , Balak, king of Moab, dismayed by and M. ;arallels to the ~ e c o n dhas , ~ characteristic
the number of his new and unwelcome neighbours, eatures of its own. The poet still dwells
called Balaam from the land of the b'ne Ammon2 to on the numbers and prowess of Israel, but adds a
curse Israel. Balaam protested that he could not, for panegyric of its well-watered and fruitful land, and
all the royal treasure, go beyond YahwB's word ; but he surprises us by a definite mention of the kingly power
saddled his ass and set On the road, the angel as distinct from the reign of YahwB. The king of Israel
'of YahwB, invisible to Balaam, but visible to the beast is described as raised even above AGAG (4.71.). Still
he rode, stopped his way with a drawn sword. Yahwk more definite is the fourth prophecy. 'The seer beholds
endowed the ass with speech, and at last opened the in spirit the rise of David, and chaunts the victories
prophet's eyes to the apparition, and, had it not been which are to crush Moab and subdue Edom.
for the fear which held the animal back, Balaam would The basis of the story of Balaam is evidently a patri-
have paid for his rashness with his, life. Still, he re- otic legend, which, as we now have it, presupposes a
comparatively advanced historical period.
ceived permission to go, and was only warned to report
YahwB's oracle faithfully. The Elohist has no *' Origin It is true, the story of the ass, which sees
Of story' the angel invisible to man, and speaks
occasion for these marvels. In his account, Balaam,
who is an Aramzan of PETHOR (9.71. ) on the Euphrates (Nu. 2222-34; cp 2 Pe. 2 r 6 ) , has a highly primitive
{or perhaps rather a N. Arabian of Rehoboth by the flavour.6 Still, this story, though welded with some
river of MuSri), did not yield to Balak's repeated solici- psychological skill into the surrounding narrative, is a
tations till God (El6hhim) appeared in a dream and told decoration derived from folklore, and the narrative as
him to go with the Moabite ambassadors. a whole is designed to accentuate the uselessness of
From this point it is not possible to separate the jealous and rebellious feelings in the Ammonitish and
E and J documents with full confidence. In what Edomitish neighbonrs of Israel. Ammor, and Edom
follows we have four great prophecies concerning Israel's 1 I t is Balak, not Balaam, who sacrifices. ' Balak and Balaam '
in Nu. 232 should evidently be omitted (adin @BAL).
future, besides three short oracles on the destruction of 2 This is certainly E's meaning in Nu. 23 r3a. The second
the Amalekites, the Kenites, and the Assyrians. Prob- part of v. 13, which limits Balaam's range of vision to 'the
ably the first two of the four great prophecies come to utmost part of the people,' must be due to a redactor. Its
us in their present form from the hand of the Elohist,4 object is to harmonise v. 13a [El with 242(J) which tells us
that Balaam is 1zow taking his first complete vie'w of the people
1 The word ' confection ' here used in the RVmx. refers every- of Israel. I n reality, however. v. 136 destroys the progress
where else in E V toperfumes or spices (Ex.,30 35, RV 'perfume' ; which E intended from 2241 to2313. Since a limited view of
I Ch. 9 30, AV ointment,' RV ' confection ; Ecclus. 38 8 ) ;cp the
Israel had not resulted in the utterance of a curse, Balak deemed
' confectionaries ' or perfume-compounders of I S. 8 13. it necessary to try the effect of the wider outlook from Pisgah.
3 Cheyne, hoyever, reads niKDnnl, 'and the glory of the king
2256; read limy for iny with Di. after Sam. Pesh. Vg., is among them.
and some Heb. MSS. For a third view, however, see PETHOR. 4 It is doubtful, however, whether Nu. 2322 23 is not a Yah-
3 Nu. 22 19-zra belongs to E. The reason why Balaam went wistic fragment (see Bacon, Triple Tradition, 228, and cp Di.'s
is not told in the extant portions of J. note). According to Cheyne, nx;an occurs both in o. 2~ d a n d
4 The Elohistic account of the prophecies must however, have in v. 22 6.
made some reference to Moab and must therekore, have con- 5 Cp the Babylonian beast-stories the speaking horse in
tained more than is now given {n chap. 23.' Hom. IZ. 19 404, and the speaking serient in Genesis.
461 462
 BALAAM BALANCE
were older as hations; but Israel alone had secured exilic. Assyria may have been no longer at the height
permanent foothold W. of Jordan, and for a timereduced of its prosperity, but was still a conquering power.1
the oldest nationalities to vassalage. The story of We have passing notices of Balaam’in Josh. 2 4 9 (E2)
Balaam points out that Yahwb had ordained these and in Ut. 2 3 4 f . , cp Neh. 131f. (seeAMMONITE.5,5 3).
privileges of Israel long before. The Moabitish king 7. Allusions In Dt. Lc., as in E, he is an AramEan
and the Ammonitish, Arabian,’ or Arama3an sooth- to Ealaam. from Mesopotamia, hired to curse Israel ;
sayer had striven to turn aside the irreversible decree, but Y A W & turned his curse into a blessing.
and Yahwk had turned the very means they took into the T h e Priestly Writer represents Balaam in a much more
instrument by which he announced the triumphs and unfavonrable light, Nu. 3 1 8 16 Josh. 1322 (cp Nu.
the unique destiny of his people. 256-18). H e is a sorcerer, at whose instigation the
It is much harder to fix the date and origin of the Midianite women seduced the Israelites into sensual
poems. W e can scarcely attribute them withoct reserve idolatry ; and he died in the battle between the Israelites
5. Origin of to J and E, for the points of contact and the Midianites. Jos. (Ant. iv. 6 6 ) dwells at great
between the prophecies (cp especially 2322 length on the corrupting advice of Balaam, given in the
poems’ and 2 4 8 ) suggest that an ancient poem first instance (cp Rev. 214) to Balak, and in Rabbinical
has been expanded and changed in diverse ways. The ~ literature Balaam is the type of false teachers (,?both,
kernel of the poem may go back to the early days of 5 1 9 ; cp Rev. Z.C.) and sorcerers. Cp also z Pet. 215
the kingdom,-even, it may be, to those of Solomon. Jude11. For Arabic parallels to the efficacy of
’The national fortune is painted in glowing colours, and Balaam’s oracles, see Goldziher, A6handZ. ZUT a m b .
the historical references stop short at David, who was P h i l d o p ‘ e , 26 8
the only king to conquer both Moab and Edom. On See Di.’s Comnz. and cp Tholuck ‘Die Gesch. Bileams ’
the other hand, the clear sense of Israel’s separateness l’ermischte Schrifeen, 1 406-432 ; Oo:t, Disjut. de Nu.xxii.’-
xxiv.,. 1860; Kalisch, Bible Studies, p;. I ,
from the nations ( 2 8 9 ) had not arisen, so far as is 8 . Literature. 1877: Kue. 7he;pr ~ y d .18 497.540 [84];
known, before the time of the literary prophets, and van Hoonacker Observations critiques con-
the phraseology does not permit us to place the poems, cernant Bileam ’ Le Musdoon 18h8 ’ Halevy Rev. sdm. 1894
pp. 201-zog ; Schr. C O T 1 7431-145 : h e . C H ;46& ; Kit. Hist:
as we now have them, earlier: 1 202,214, 229 ; Kautzsch, Abriss (sketch of literature appended
The appendix (2420-24), at any rate, is generally to HS), 143 ; Hommel, GBA g ; Che. Ex$. 7’imes, June 1899,
admitted to be comparatively modern (note the exag- PP. 399-402. W. E. A. .
6. ap- geration respecting the Amalekites). The
structnre shows that the oracles are from BALAC (Baha~[Ti. WH]), Rev. 214. See BALAK.
pendix, one hand (cp 2420, end, with v. 24, end).
BALADAN (t&z),
2 K. 2o12 IS. 391. See MERO-
The writer was quite familiar with the Assyrian power, DACH-BALADAN.
and speaks of the deportation of the Kenites by the
Assyrians. H e speaks of the Kenites, rather than more BALAH (ha). Josh. 19 3. See BAALAH, 2.

famous peoples, becanse he considers them to be (like

the Amalekites ; cp I S. 1 5 6 ) within Balaam’s horizon.
BAL- (?$a,B a h [BAL];
~ b.
GALAC), Zippor,
an early king of Moab (Nu. 22-24 Judg. 1125, and else-
He also (if the text of 2 4 2 4 be correct) predicts that where; cp Rev. 214, B ALAC), inseparably connected with
Xssyria in its turn will be destroyed by ships from Balaarn. For the alliteration cp Jabal and Jubal, Bera
CRITTIM ( g . ~ . ) . Was he thinking of the Persian and Birsha, Eldad and Medad, etc. See BALAAM.
empire (AsSyria= Persia, EzraSzz), and its overthrow
by Alexander the Great (cp I Macc. 1I ) ? The theory BALAMO, RV Balamon (BAAAMON [BHA]), Judith
has hcen widely accepted, and much controversy as to 83. See BELMEN.
the limits of prophecyhas grown out of it. It seems BALANCE. ( I ) iMdzZndim (D?J&,-the dual
bolder than the evidence as a whole warrants (see Di.), refers to the two ear-like pendantsz) are scales for
and it has lately been pointed out that ‘they shall
afflict ’ (vp, v. 24) is a misreading which has arisen out weighing money (Jer. 32 I O ), hair (Ez. 5 I , $&VND),
of the loss of an ethnic name in v. 23. Analogy requires etc. ; cp the metaphor of weighing calamity (Job62).
that the last of the three little oracles in m.22-24 should men (Ps.629 [IO], cp Dan. 577),3 and hills (Is.401~).
begin thus : The dust of the balance is a simile for an insignificant
or negligible quantity (Is. 4015). The frequent metaphor
And he saw . .. and began his oracle, and said,
of a just or even balance ( p a ’D,Lev. 1936, cp Job316
Alas who will live (survive) of . . .
And the discoveries of the Tell of Zenjirli enable us to Ez. 45 IO ; p)?$n ’D,Prov. 16 11, RV ‘ scales ’), as opposed
‘restore the missing name, which was, not ‘ Samuel’ to one that is false ( m 7 p ‘n, Prov. 1111, cp 20 23 Am. 8 5
( h w , as many MSS and some editions), but Hos. 127 [8] ; ~ $ ‘n,
1 Mic. ~ I I )is, analogous to the well-
‘ Sham’al.’ Then in v. 24 we may continue : known Heb. and Aram. idiom which expresses honour
And there shall he ships from the direction of Cyprus, and integrity by the simile of ‘ heaviness ’ (cp 122 and
And Assyria shall aflict him (by), and Eher shall nflict him,
And he too (shall come) to destruction.2
(2) For kind, q (Is. 4 6 6 : only here in this sense),
The kingdom of Sham’al in NW. Syria was not so very
see R EED, I , n. Other words are (3)pdLes, D$F, Prov.
far from Balaam’s native place Pethor. (The poet,
at any rate, placed Pethor in Aram.) That it was 16 TI RV, AV ‘weight,’ Is. 4012 (a~aOp6sLBKAQ]), EV
destroyed by Assyrians and peoples from the other side r3]
‘ scales ’ ; cp the verb in Ps. 58 z ; but hardly *&an in
of the Euphrates (=Eber), and plundered by shipmen Job3716, ‘the balancings (&E) of the clouds?’ (see
from Cyprus, was probably within the recollection of the Budde). (4) (u:vy6v, Rev. 65, frequent in d for the
author, who is, therefore, not to be regarded as post- above.
The balances used in Palestine were probably similar
1 See above, $ I , second paragraph. Cp Gen. 3632, and see to those found on Egyptian monuments. One type
BELA(z), MIZRAIM. consists of an upright pole rising from a broad base with
2 The importance of this correction will appear if we corn
the alternative explanation of Hommel ( A H T 245x1, ,WE:;
produces the following most unnatural and unworthy dlstich :
1 Che. Ex$osz%or, 1896, pp. 77-80 (following D. H . Midler,
Die Projlwtez, 12153).
‘Jackals (n:’!) shall come from the north 2 In Ar. ?nizZn with e, whereas z&z (= ]!,k) has g’; see
And wild cats (0’;:) from the coast of Kittim,’ Frankel, 198.
8 Cp Phcen. & &, ‘B. hath weighed out.’
where ‘jackals ’ and ‘wild cats ’ are figurative expressions for
wild invaders, and Kittim is, Hommel says, ‘the familiar term 4 Cp the deprecation of unfair weights ( D m N , lit. ‘ stones ’) in
for the Hittites (var. chittim).’ See ASSHURIM, EBER. Lev. 1935 Prov. 11 I Mic. 611.
463 464
 BALASAMUS BALSAM
cross beams turning upon a pin. An arm on either side turpentine,' which has recently been brought into notice
ended in a hook to which the article to be weighed was as an .alleged remedy for cancer. According to Tris-
attached in bags (cp Wilk. Anc. Eg. 2246, fig. 415, tram (op. cit. 400), the terebinth is not now tapped for
5 d , see BAG, I ). Small ones of a particularly ingenious turpentine in Palestine, ' where the inhabitants seem to
nature, as well as hand-scales, are found (Wilk. 1285 be ignorant of its commercial value.' There is abundant
fig. 95). Above the pole is sometimes placed the evidence of the medicinal use of these resins in antiquity
fignre of a baboon representing Thoth the regulator of (see Mcwers, Phiin. AZt. iii. 1223).
measures. The steelyard (in Egypt) does not seem to (2.) Balanites e~yjtiaca, called zahkZm hy the Arabs (Tris-
have been known until the Roman period. tram, o j . cit. 336), yields an oil 'prepared by the Arabs of
Jericho and sold iu large quantities to the pilgrims as balm of
BALASAMUS (BAAAC&MOC [BA]), I Esd. 9 4 3 = Gilead.' This, however, was the m p u 1 of Greek writers, and
Neh.84.M AASEIAH , 15. clearly, therefore, distinguished by them from Bcihr~apovor
p ~ ~ i q It. is merely a modern substitute.
BALD LOCUST (@\a; ATTAKHC [BAFL]). The (3.) Lastly must be mentioned Lagarde's view that Gr.
UT+& = '72: (!&+). There is great probability in this
sol'dm is apparently a species of edible locust, or a
locust in a particular stage of growth. See further identification of the words, for UT- is employed in several
instances to transliterate s (F) : but evidence is wanting to con-
LOCUST, 2. nect 'lx with the substance cniput, which seems to have been
BALDNESS. See CUTTIXGS,5 I : H AIR. called $ Hebrew (Zidhneh). See further S T O R A X .
BALM ('14f or '13 ; ~ H T I N H[ PIT . AEF] PITHNH W. T. T.-D.-N. M.
[E' once] : cp Ezek. 2717 AV1"g. 'rosin' ; Vg. resina
1. OT s6rI,rf;Gen. 3725 4311,Jer. 822 4611 518, Ezek. BALNUUS (BAANYOC [B], B ~ A N O Y O C[A]), I Esd.
931=Ezral03o. BINNUI,4.
2717), a valuable product of Palestine,
the identification of which has given much trouble. BALSAM appears in RVW., once for P@? bdsdnz
EV's rendering, ' balm,' is an unfortunate inheritance (Cant. 51f, & p a i \ n & ~ & ) ,and twice in rendering the
from Coverdale's Bible (see New Eng. Diet. s.v.). Let 1. Heb. bzssm. phrase O p g n>\7? 'arrgath hn6-
us look first at the Hebrew name : q (p?ri). The Arabic
disem, 'bed of balsam' (Cant. 51362,
d a m or &rw' is identical with it, and since the root +I+&! TOY A P U M ~ T ~ C ) . RV text and AV have
means to ' drip ' or ' bleed,' the product referred to must ' spice, 'bed of spices. The verb (in Aram. d & h )
be resinous, but it need not be aromatic. From the signifies to ' have pleasure,' ' be attracted by desire,'
OT notices we learn that sbi-i (EV ' balm ') was found and in Heb. the nominal forms2 denote enjoyment con-
abundantly in Gilead, that it was in early times exported nected with one particular sense-that of smell. From
thence to Egypt (Gen. 3725), was sufficiently prized to one or other of the Semitic forms comes Gr. pdluafiov.
form an appropriate gift to a lord of that country (Gen. Although duff in^ and bfsem in the above passages may
4311), was applied as a remedy for violent pain have the general sense of spice or p e r f ~ m eit, ~is more
(Jer. ZZ. cc. ), and was among the chief products of Pales- probable that, like da&n and pcihuufiov, they denote the
tine that were brought into theTyrian market (Ez. 27 I?). balsam tree or plant par excelknee. W e now know
Next, we must point out that the modern commerclal that the proper source of Mecca balsam is Balsamuden-
name ' balm of Gilead ' has, like the botanical specific dron Opoba~sanzzrnz(see 5 4 ) ; and a tree of this kind
name Gileadense, no foundation but the hypothesis that seems to be intended in the passages from ancient
the substance so designated is the O T ' :&-i of Gilead' ; writers which are here sunimarised.
and that from the earliest times resins and turpentines (a)Theophrastus ( H i s t . Plant. 96) has a long passage about
have been used in medicine, as stimulants and as anti- the production of balsam. I t is produced he says ' i n the
septics for wounds, arid as counter-irritants for pain. hoilow about Syria (.'v'T+ a;h& ~ i r)r g i
2. Ancient zUpia~). This phrase. Stackhouse explains
'I'he r8ri.i ( E V ' balm') of Jer. 822 4611 is clearly a local References. from Strabo as. meaning Koihe-ZupLa ; but
product in Gilead : its association with nzir (EV circa322 B,C, a t the present day Balsamoa'edron Ojo-
' myrrh ' ) in Gen. 37 25 43 II proves that it was a valuable dalsawzicm does not grow farther N. than
Suikim; i t is essentially a tropical plant. Theophrastus, who
article of commerce. is so minutely accurate in all his other details (note his happy
It has been shown elsewhere (B ALSAM) that the so- expression +dAhov &E ... Bpo~ov wqydvy, 'with leaves like
rue') cannot have meant what Stackhouse supposes. I t is cer-
called 'balsam of Mecca,' produced by the BaZsamo-
2. probably dendron OpobuLsanzum, is most probably tain,'however, that the term CCELE-SYRIA [ q . ~ . ]in the Greek
period had ,a wider application, and Veslingius (O~odalsanzi
not the ' sari of Gilead' but the Hebrew Vindicicz 243) rightly remarks, ' !allem hic intelligendant esse
=mastic. m f r ,whichEVmistalcenly renders 'myrrh' Hierichubtis ... persuademur. The fruit, Theophrastus
(see BALSAM, MYRRH). Sari (EV balm), then, must continues, resembles the terminth (turpentine) in size, shape, and
colour. The 'tear' is gathered from an excision made wit'i
be something else. iron a t the season when the stems and the upper parts are
( I ) Arabic usage is in favour of the rendering of RVmZ. tensest ( r r v i y ~ ) . The odour is very strong ; the twigs also are
Gen. 37 25 etc., MASTIC-i.e., the resin yielded by the very sweet.smelling. No wild balsam is met with anywhere.
mastic tree, Pistucia Lentisczrs. The unmixed juice is sold for twice its weight in silver ; even
the mixed, which is often met with in Greece, is singularly
This tree 'is a native of the Mediterranean shores, and is fragrant.
found in Portugal Morocco and the Canaries' (Fliickiger and (6) Strabo (763) is somewhat less full; but there can he no
Hanbury's Plu.&acop-. 161). According to Tristram (NHB doubt that it IS the Mecca balsam plant which he describes as
362), it is extremely com&on in all the Mediterranean countries, 24 B, c, grown in a rrupd8sruop at Jericho. H e says that it is
especially on the African coasts and in the Greek islands, where shruh-like (BapvGSss) resembling cytisus and ter-
it overruns whole districts for many miles. Tristram states, also, minth, and sweet-smelling. Th; juice is obtained by means of
that it is indigenous in all parts of Palestine, though, according incisions in the bark; it is very much like a viscous milk
to Post (Hastings B D 236a),it is not now to he found E. of the (yhiu,ypo ya'hanrb) and solidifies when stored in little shells
Jordan. T h e ma& of commerce is mainly derived from the (novXdp;a). H e praises its medicinal use, and says that it is
Isle of Scio. Down to the seven eenth century mastic was an proauded nowher; else.
ingredient of many medicines. Anlike most resins, it readily Diodorus Siculus (248) mentions 'a certain hollow' in the
softens with moderate heat, even that of the mouth. neighbourhood of the Dead Sea as the hahitat of the halsam,
As the Arabic word $ a m (or $iw) is used mainly of B, c. and adds that great revenue is derived from this plant,
this tree and its products, we are not rash in concluding because it is met with nowhere else in the world, and is
that a substance of this kind is intended in the biblical of great value to physicians.
Pliny too (H.V 1Uzj) affirms that the balsam plant is confined
passages, though it seems unnecessary to limit 9 3 sari ~ ~~~ ~

to the resin of P. Lentiscus: it may include the resins 1 Curiously enough, Ar. dasinzn has the contrary sense of
of the terebinth (P. Terebinthus) and Akppo pine Zoathing(see Lag. Ueders. 143); hut baRhinz denotes the balsam
(Pinus halepensis; see ASH). ,The former yields ' Chian tree.
2 Heb. does not possess the verb.
1 The Syriac $ar?uA must he a loan-word from Arabic (Lag. 3 See SPICE? Besenz is the word used in I K. 10 z 102;
Miith. 1234). (Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon).
30 , r .
466
 BALSAM BAN
to Judaea. 'In former times it was cultivated only in two fluid of syrupy, consistence, having a very grateful
7o A. D. gardens both of them royal ; one of them was no more
than t w k t y jugerain extent, and the other less. l'he odonr, something like oil of rosemary.' Jewish tradition
emperors Vespasian and Titus had this shrub exhibited at seems to have held that Mecca balsam is what the O T
. .
Rome; . it bears a much stronger resemblance to the vine
[ie., in the stems; here Pliny seems to borrow from 'l'rogus
writers call sdi-i-whence the rendering ' balm ' of AV
and KV (text) ; but the tradition was impugned long
Ponipeius] than to the myrtle. The leaf bears a very close
resemblance to that of [rue11 and it is an evergreen. . At . .
the present day it is cultivated by the fiscal authorities, a'nd the
ago by Bochart ( H i e ~ o zi.. 251), and does not agree
with the use of the Arabic cognate word &ztnmu (mastic ;
plants were never known to be mpre nunierous. They never see BALM, I ). Schweinfiirth holds that the OT name
exceed a couple of cubits in height.
Josephus makes several references to the balsam. H e says for Mecca balsam was not :Jri (EV balm, perhaps
(Ant. viu. F6) that the first routs of balsam (bmj3ahc&ou) were really mastic; see BALM, I ) , nor dtsesenz (see above,
9o A.D. brought to Palestine by the queen of Sheba. To $ I ) , but m d r (see M YRRH ). Certainly mir w-as (like
give an idea of the site of Pompey's camp (at Jericho) Mecca balsam) strongly aromatic and also a Ziiyuid
he says it is where that balsam (broj3bhuapou) which is of ali
unguents (pOpa) the chief grows, and describes how the juice substance (Ex. 3023 Cant. 5 5 13). whilst the O T refer-
( b r 6 s ) is obtained (Ant.xiv. 4 I). Again, when speaking of the ences do not necessarily imply that s&-i-iwas aromatic.
districts arouiid Jericho assigned to Cleopatra, he speaks of the It is not unlikely that both hisem. (§ I ) and m5r mean
preciousness of this plant, which grows there alone (.Ant. XV. 42).
Lastly in a second reference to Pompey, he says that the region Mecca balsam. (Cp Kew BuZleletin for Mar.-Apr. 1896,
of JeAcho bears the balsam tree (Bduapov), wh(ise stems p. 89.) See MYRRH. N. M.--W. T. T.-D.-T.I<..C.
( ~ p Q u a )were cut with sharp stones, upon which the juice 'drops
down like tears ' (01i. 6 6). BALSAM TREES (DlV?? ; RV"'g. 2 S. 5 2 3 I Ch.
'l'rogus, an author of the time of Augustus, is reproduced by 1414 Ps. 846). See'MULBERRY.
Justin (36 3). H e describes the closely shut-in valley in which
Ist cent. A, D, alone the opobalsamum grows ; the name of the BALTHASAR, RV Baltasar ( B A A T A C A ~ [BAQI']),
place is Jericho (Hierichus). 'In that valley Bar. 1I I ~ : See B ELSHAZZAR.
is a wood, notable alike for its fertility and its pleasantness,
being adorned with a palm grove and opobalsamum. The opo- BAMAH (YIP?, Ez. 2029). See H IGH P LACES, $ 5.
balsamum trees have a form like pine trees (piceis), except that
they are less tall (nzagish z ~ i d e s )and , are cultivated after the BAMOTH ( n \ D z ; BAM(&l [RAFL]), a station of
manner of vineyards. 'These at a certain time of the year sweat the Israelites between N AHALIEL (4.v.)and ' the glen
balsam.'
It is remarkable that the Greek and the Roman writers (@A vdav) which is in the field [plateau] of Moab,
[by] the summit of [the] Pisgah, etc.' (Nu. 21 19). Eus.
dwell so constantly on the uniqueness of the balsam-tree
Some of them, at any rate (OS10122) describes it as 'on the Arnon' (like Nahaliel),
3. Balsam in of Jericho.
(e.g., Strabo, Pausanias, Diodorus), were which must be wrong. See BAMOTH-BAAL.
Arabia. not unaware that the plant grew on the BAMOTH-BAAL (?&'a
iliD?-i.e., ' the high places
coasts of Arabia ; and Josephus, in his legendary style, of Baal') lay in the Moabite territory (see Nu. 2241,
actually attributes to importation from Arabia its R V ; CTHAH T O Y [BAFL]), to the north of the
presence in Palestine (Ant.viii. 66). No doubt this is Arnon, and was asslgned to Reuben (Josh. 1317:
substantially correct. Prosper Alpinus (De BaZsamo, B A I M W N BAAA P I , BaMwI3 B. [ALII. The order of
1592) and Veslingius (OfodaZsa'snmiVindicie, 1643) long enumeration in Nu. 21 1 9 6 , where it is called simply
ago investigated the subject. In the time of the former, BAMOTH, leads to the supposition (so Di.) that it must
balsam plants were brought to Cairo from Arabia; have lain somewhere on or near the Jebel 'AttFiriis, on
Alpinus himself (of. cit. 64) apparently possessed a the south side of the Wady ZerkS Ma'in (cp Is. 1 5 2 :
living specimen. The Arabic writer 'Abdallatif ( d . 1231) ' the high places '). Conder (Beth and Mooad, 144)
also speaks of the balsam tree as in Egypt at 'Ain and G. A.Smith ( H G 562), however, find the Bamoth
Shems ('Fountain of the Sun')-Le., in the gardens of in the dolmens immediately north of el-Maslfibiyeh,
Matariya, close to Heliopolis. It was about a cubit near the W2dy Jideid. The Beth Bamotb of the
high, and had two barks ; the outer red and fine, the Moabite stone is perhaps the same place (cp B AJITH) ;
inner green and thick. When the latter was macerated but.this whole region is thickly strewn with the remains
in the mouth, it left an oily taste, and an aromatic of ancient altars and other religious monuments (Conder,
odour. Incisions were made in the barks, and the op cit. 1 4 0 8 ) . The name Bamoth-baa1 is suggested
amount of balsam oil obtained formed a tenth part of also by Nu. 21 28, where the Ij7g nia? $29 (EV ' lords
all the liquid collected.z The last balsam tree cultivated of the high places of kmon'-but see 6 )are mentioned
in Egypt died in 1615 ; but two were alive in 1612. in parallelism with Ar of Moab. G. A. S
This was the only place in Egypt where the balsam
tree would grow. W e can well understand, therefore: BAN, RVmg. BAENAN(B A N [AI, BAENAN [BI), I
that the neighhourhood of Jericho was the only habitat Esd. 537=Ezra260, T OBIJAH, z
of the tree in Palestine.
It would, however, be unreasonable to suppose that BAN (Dan),t o Ban ( W
the needs of the luxurious 'class in Palestine in pre- QB renders by bv&Oepa Bva'Bqpa, bva~~Oepa~~up&vov, and
in a few instances Qrroheid. and other words denoting destruc-
4, probably = Roman times were altogether supplied tion ; QvaOcpa~i<~w and more rarely avarrOdva~
OT mbr EV from Jericho. The precious unguent 1. Terms. once I Esd. Y 4 bv~epoOv ;&hoc?pnisw and in a
derived from the balsam tree, not less few instances &her verb; denoting 'kill' or 'de-
myrrh, than the costly frankincense, was doubt- stroy.' Vg. has anathema, consecratio, etc. ; occido, consnnzo,
consecuo, etc. AV translates curse, ntter@ destroy, acctirsed
less always one of the chief articles brought by Arabian thing, etc. ; RV, devote, utter@ destroy,devoted thing.
caravans. The tree that produces the so-called ' balsam The root e k ' M in Hebrew denotes devoting any-
of Mecca' is the BaZsn?nodendron Opobalsamum. This thing to Yahwk by destroying it : hirein is any person
tree, as Schweinfurth report^,^ ' averages above 15 ft. in or thing thus devoted. The root is found in a similar
height, possesses a yellow papery exfoliating bark, and sense in all the Semitic languages, of sacred things
produces thin, grayish black twigs, from the ends of which men are partly or wholly forbidden to use. It is
which a small quantity of balsam exudes.' ' It is widely especially common in Arabic : e.g., the sacred territory
distributed over the coast territory of Arabia, the adjacent of Mecca and Medina is &nranz,and the harim (harem)
islands, and S. Nubia' ; hut ' the balsam is collected is ground forbidqen to all men other than the master
only in the valleys near Mecca.' It is thus described by and his eunuchs. It may be noted that the exclusive
Dymock (Phurtnacop. Znd. 1317) : ' Balsam of Mecca, use of the root in the strong. sense of devoting by
when freshly imported into Bombay, is a greenish turbid destroying is characteristic of Hebrew (and of the dialect
1 Rutre in old editions : hut Mayhoff prefers tu6un'(fu6eri). spoken by the Moabites ; see 1s 3$), and that in other
2 See 'Abdallayif, ed. De Sacy, 88 (Budge, The Nile, r8r). languages hrm bears a meaning more nearly approaching
3 We quote from a rimmi of his researches in Phaum.
Jouun. April 1894, p. 897. N ~ F(unclean), tjjp (consecrated).
467 468
 BAN BANI
(a).,Idols are herem in themselves. In Dt. 725 the
Israelites are ordered to burn all heathen idols and not
-_-
that a Semitic DeoDle besieging a citv , vowed to make it
'4. Origin and h!rem to, their god in order to secure his
2. Law of to bring them into their houses. The idols parallels. aid. Moreover, the idea of hErem-
$6rem. are herem, and make those who keep them as the use of the root in allied ~. ~ ~~~ ~

herem. (6) Public herern. The Israelites languages shows-was kindred to that of sanctity and
or their rulers are ordered to treat as h5rem in certain uncleanness. Like these, it was contagious (cp C LEAN,
circumstances, guilty citizens or obnoxious enemies. In §§ 2 , 14) : the possessor of hhem became hhem (Dt. 7 2 6
Ex. 22 19 [zo] (tloolc of the Covenant, E) any one sacri- Josh. 618 ; Achan). O T legislation, as we have seen,
ficing to any deity other than Yahwb is to be made converts the bribe to a venal deity into a legitimate
herem. So in substance Dt.136-11, though the term penalty. The various degrees of severity are not im-
hErem does not occur till V. 16. In Dt. 1313-19[12-18] portant in relation to the principle.
any idolatrous Israelite city is to be made herem : all Herem has something in common with taboos,
living things are to be killed and ' all its spoil' is to be especially in its fatal effect on its possessor-e.g., in
burnt. S o far, in (a)as in (a), the herem is something New Zealand tabooed food is fatal to any one who eats
abominable in itself and distasteful to God. Its de- it (Frazer, GoZden Bough, vol. ii. ' Taboos ') ;-but it is
struction is a religious duty, and an acceptable service not so closely allied to taboos as the idea of uncleanness
to YahwB. Similarly, in Dt. 2016-18 all Canaanite cities ( N m ; WRS, ReZ. Sem.12) 450 8). The Arab (zarim
are to be made herem, that they may not seduce Israel often assimilates to herem : e.g., clothes used at the
to idolatry. In Dt. 2010-14, if any distant city refuses circuit of the Ka'aba are (zarim, and may not be worn
to surrender when summoned, all the males are to be or sold. Cp also the Roman ceremony of dewotio, by
slain, and all other persons and things may be taken as which an enemy was devoted to destruction as an
spoil. The term 'herem' is not used in that paragraph, offering to the infernal gods (Preller, RCm. iWyth. 124,
and is perhaps not applicable to it. (c) W e gather 466). The instance of Kirrha and the Amphictyonic
from certain passages that individuals might devote council, in which the cultivation of land laid under a
some possession to destruction as a kind of service to curse was made the pretext for a holy war, may also be
Yahwb, and that also is called herem (see VOW). In a compared with the case of Jericho. W. H. B.
section of P concerning vows, Lev. 27, two verses (28f:)
deal with this individual herem. Other vows may be BANAIAS (BAN&I&C [BA]), I Esd. 935=Ezral043,
BENAIAH, IO.
redeemed ; but individual (like public) herem must be
destroyed-it may not be sold or redeemed : it is most BAND. I. In the sense of a troop or company of
holy (Kiu'esh 4i;nZshim) unto Yahwb. Among the objects men, soldiers, etc. (see ARMY, 3).
which an individual may make herem, men are specially The rendering of 'iigappim, O'?!F (prop. wings, cp Bab.
mentioned : they must be put to death. It is startling ugapPu), Ez. 1 2 14, etc. ; gZd@d, Tl?, K. 1124 AV 2 I<. 1321,
I
to find such a provision in,one.of the latest strata of the
etc. ;kuyz'Z, $!(prop. force), I S. 1026 AV Ezra822 ; ma&iineh,
Pentateuch. Possibly only criminals could be made
herem ; or the text may be fragmentary. Cp Dillmann a!?'?, Gen. 327[81 AV (prop. camp), see M A H A N A I;M aiid r&,
and Kalisch on Lev. 27 28 29. ~ i d i ,I Ch. 1223 AV Job 117 ; by bands,' Pr. 3027, represents
In Josh. 624 we have a provision that metal hhem a participle ygn, &?!, 'dividing (itself).' In this sense the
(obviously because indestructible) is to be pnt into the yommon Gr. word is r r r a i p a (cp Mt. 2127 Mk. 1516, etc.),
cohort ' (so RVmz., Acts 10 I).
treasury of the sanctuary. By an extension of this 2. In the sense of a ribbon.
principle, Nu. I8 14 ( P ) and Ez. 4429 ordain that hErem
So @ M h , >en, Ex. 288, RV 'cunningly woven band'; AV
shall be the property of the priests.
Herem is met with in Hebrew literature in all periods. ' curious girdle.
3. Finally, to denote anything that connects or
The sweeping statements that all Canaanite cities E. encloses, the following words (also rendered ' bonds,'
3. Practice. and W. of the Jordan were made herem etc. ) are employed.
are late generalisations ; but Nu. 21 z
(JE) and Judg. 117 (J), though otherwise discrepant, 'Eszir, llDK, Judg. 1514, cp Aram. 7 D $ , Dan. 415 23 [IZ 201 ;
agree that the city on whose site Hormah was built &ebheZ, sn
;, Ps. 11961 (RV CORDS, q.v.), and esp. Zech. 117 14,
was made herem. Other instances of hPrem are Jabesh- where ' Bands ' (mg. 'binders ' or 'union') is the name of one of
gilead (Judg. 21 IO J ) , Jericho (rebuilding forbidden the prophets staves; /iar&dbth, tIi,lyln,' Is. 586 and Ps.734
under supernatural penalty, Josh. 6 26 J ) , the Amale- (RVmg. ' pangs,' doubtful) ; ma+%, @D, Lev. 26 13 Ez. 3427,
kites (1S.l5), and the children of Ham at Gedor R V bars ' (AGRICULTURE, 5 4) ; mas&', lDiD, Job 39 j Ps. 2 3,
( ICh.441). Similar cases-in regard to which, however,
mraWhbth, ni+, Job3831t, of the 'bands' of Orion; see
the term herem is not used-are Gibeah and Benjamin STARS, 5 3 6; 'dbhath, n i g Job 39 IO, elsewhere (in plur.)
(Judg. 20) and Saul's attempt to execute Jonathan ( I S. rendered 'cords, 'ropes, etc.
1424-46). On the Moabite stone (Z. 1 6 J ) Mesha' says
that he made the whole Israelite populace of Nebo BANI (92, 3s 5 , 5 2 ; cp Palm. and Nab. 'J2;
herem to Ashtarchemosh. The prophets speak of probably shortened from BENAIAH,' Yah hath built
Israel or Yahwk making herem of enemies (Is. 34 2 u p ' ; cp Gen. 303 Dt. 259 Rnth411, and see Haupt,
etc. ) or of enemies' property (Mic. 413), or, conversely, Proc. Am. Or. SOL. Ap. 22 cg2]; B A N [ ~ ] I [BKAL],
of the heathen (Jer. 259), or Yahwb (Is. 4328), making -AI [L], -&I& [BI,], - A l h C [KAL], BAAN[€]I, LBHAI)
herem of Israel. In the later literature the root (zrm is a frequently occurring name (chiefly post-exilic), aiid
often only means exterminate ( 2 Ch. 2023). The old in some cases it is difficult to separate the persons
meaning, however, was not quite forgotten, and in bearing i t ; there is often confusion between it, the
Ezra 108, if any Jew failed to obey Ezra's summons parallel names BUNNIand BINNLJI [qq.v.], and the noun
to Jerusalem, his property was to be made herem and
he himself excommunicated. In post-biblical Hebrew
B'ne (.a). See Mey. Entsteh. 142.
I. A Gadite one of David's 'thirty'; 2 S. 23 96 (ulbs yahaaS8sb
herem came to mean excommunication as well as pro- [B], ut. ya&'[A], ut. ayq,m [L])=I Ch.1138, on which see
perty set apart for the priests and the temple (Levy and HAGRI. Cp DAVID,5 11 (ii.).
2. A family of B n e Bani occurs in the great post-exilic list
Jastrow's Dictionaries, S.V. ; S. Mandl, Der Bann, (see E ZRA, ii. 88 9 8 c), E u a 2 I O (Pavou [Bl, -ut [AI) = Neh. 7 15
'98, pp. 24-51) See, further, EXCOMMUNICATION. (Pavou' [BNA], a o u [L]) AV BINNUI(q.u.)=r Esd. 5 IZ ; and
The character of hsrem, the diffusion of the root in a various members of it are enumerated in Ezra 10 29 ( P ~ Y O U C[Bw])
L
similar sense throughout Semitic languages, and its use = I Esd. 9 30 (pave' [BA]) E V MANEand among those who had
in the Hebrew sense by the Moabites, show that it was married foreign wives (see E ZRA , i. g! 5) in Ezra 10 34-42 : viz.,
an ancient Semitic institution belonging to Israel in in v. 34 (AYFL[BN], &vaieL [L])=I Esd. 9 34 AV MAANI,RV
common with its kinsmen. Stade (Gesch. 1490) holds BAANI,and in v. 38 ( o t 'viol pavoui [BNA]. povva, Kai uioi
469 470
 BANIQ BAPTISM
P o v v e ~[L]=MT 'U?? '??I, E V B ANI and B I N N U I ) = I E S ~ . ~ ~ ~
s strikingly illustrated by the regulations prescribed for
(EV BAXNUS, ELIALI;~ a v v o u s ,ESLaAeis [Bl, P., EhLahsL [AI, :he latter in the DidachC, to be noticed presently ; but,
j3evva: KaL U L O Lpovve~[L]). It is plausible, however, to correct the ceremonial baptisms of Judaism, though they lie
Bani into BINNUIor perhaps Bigvai in v. 34 (cp 2 14). The behind Christian baptism and exert an influence on its
family is also referred to on important occasions in Neh. 3 17 history, are not its immediate antecedent. The Jewish
and 10 13 (POVOULQ[Ll?) and as in Ezra's caravan (see E ZRA, i.
8 2, ii. $ 15 ( I ) d), T Esd. 636, AV B A N ~ DRV , BANIAS(Pavmas baptisms were the outcome of the Jewish distinction
[B], -vaLaq [Ll -VL ar- [A])=Ezra8 IO (uiQv [2ahapou6', Bl, ul. between clean and unclean-a distinction which was
[XaALpwO,, Ll, ~ ~ Q V L[~AhcrppovO'.,
S A*f"l) where Bani should be done away by Christianity (cp W ASHINGS). Christian
restored in MT (see Be. ad Zoc.).
3. One of the expounders of the Law (Neh. 6 7 ; see E ZRA ii. baptism is a purification, not from ceremonial, but
~ 3 : cp 3 i. 0 8, ii. 0 16 [ 5 ] 15 [I] c) who officiated at the ion- from moral impurity. The historical link is found
stitution of the 'congregation' (94J; see E Z R A , ii. $ 12, s in the baptism of John in the river Jordan. John
13 [AI). I n 9 4 (Bani Kadmiel ; @BRKAL,u;& Ka8pqh) the name adapted the familiar ceremony of baptism to a
is repeated, probably by an error (90' Ryssel); Gratz, aiter moral purpose : his was ' a baptism of repentance for
Pesh., reads Binnui for the.secS&'Bani. In 95 @ B R A has the remission of sins,' a purification of the nation
simply ~ a S p q h . Cp also Ezra 2 40 (' and Kadmiel of the children
of Hodaviah')=Neh. 743 with I Esd. 526 (KaSpqhov K Q L pavvou from that moral uncleanness of which ceremonial un-
[A]). I n Neh. 1122, UZZI(5) h. Bani @ o v a [ N q , p o v v a [Ll) is cleanness was properly typical. It was by means of
called overseer of the Levites at Jerusalem. this developmen? of its true significance that baptism
4. Signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA , i. 5 7), Neh. 10 14 [IS] was rescued from mere formalism, and prepared to *
,,,@ii&~[Ll: viol Paw [BNAl ; cp BUNNI,I). become the initiatory rite of the new Christian society.
5. A Merarite ; I Ch. 6 31 [46]. As Jesus' work took up John's, and as he him-
6. A Judahite ; I Ch. 9 4 Kr. (@BAL omit).
self had chosen to be baptized by John, it was natural
BANID, RV Banias ( B A N E I A C [B]), ie., BANI (q.71. that his first preaching of repentance should be coupled,
2 [end]). like John's, with a baptism. It is significant, how-
BANISHMENT. On various forms of temporary or ever, that he did not perform the rite himself: only
permanent exclusion from the community as a con- his disciples did so (Jn. 41J). Christian baptism
sequence of crime or ceremonial disqualification, see was not yet instituted; and when it came it was to
BAN, § 3 ; CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, § 15 f.; SYNA- add a spiritual element which John's baptism lacked.
GOGUE ; EXCOMMUNICATION. Meanwhile Jesus was indicating by his own action, and
I
I n a S.1414 allusion-is made t o Absalom in the nsord n??
by his defence of the action of his disciples, that the
(EV 'banished'), elsewhere usually rendered 'outcast' ('out- frequent Pharisaic baptisms-the ceremonial washing
casts' or 'dispersed of Israel'); see DISPERSION, s I. The of the hands, and the ' baptisms ' of vessels and dishes
nature of the punishment threatened in Ezra7 26t ()uiv) KVW. (Mli. 74)-had no permanent claim on the conscience ;
'rooting out' (rrarSsia [BA] ~ ~ Q L S E ~ E [L]) L V was already ob- and certain of his words are direcily e-plained by one
scure to the editor of I Esd.'(8 24 : mpopia [BA], && [Ll).
Ezra108 ('separated [57331,from the congregation of the captiv. of the Evangelists as repealing altoge:.her the ceremonial
ity ') may give an explanation of the phrase. distinction of clean and unclean, and as ' cleansing all
BANK. For sil&th, il$yD9 in 2 S. 20 15 z 1L.1 9 3 2 meats ' (141~.719). Only when the whole purport of
Is. 3733 AV (elsewhere EV always M OUNT) and ~ d p a E Jewish baptisms was annulled was the way clear for the
in Llc. 1943 (AV T RENCH, RVW. P ALISADE) see F OR- institution of the Christian rite, one of the essential
TIFICATION.
principles of which was that it shonld be performed once
for all, with no possibility of repetition.
BANK ( T ~ A ~ E Z ALk.
~ B Z I T H C , M t . 2 5 2 7 RV).
, 1 9 2 3 EV), BANKER (TPA-
See T RADE AND COM-
. On the day of Pentecost Peter answers the inquiries
of the multitude in words which, whilst they recall the
MERCE. baptism of John, indicate the fuller significance of
BANNAIA ( B A N N A I O Y C [A]), I Esd. 933 AV= Christian baptism : ' Repent ye, and be baptized, each
. E z r a l 0 3 3 , ZABAD,5 . one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
BANNAS BAN NO^ [BA]), I Esd. 6 2 6 RV=Ezra Spirit ' (Acts238). About three thousand were there-
2 4 0 ~B ANI , 3. upon added by baptism to the original band of believers.
BANNEAS ( B A N N A I A C [BA]), I Esd. 926 RV=Ezra It is expressly stated that at Samaria, as the result
1025, BENAIAH, 7. of Philip's' preaching, both men and women were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ' ; but the gift
BANNER (DJ,$Jy9 nR). See ENSIGNS, $ I, a,6, c. of the Holy Spirit did not follow until the arrival of Peter
BANNUS (BANNOYC [BA]), I Esd. 934=Ezra1038, and John from Jerusalem (812-17). The eunuch after
B ANI, 2. Philip's instructions asks for baptism ; and 'they go
BANQUET, Banqueting House. See MEALS. down both together into the water ' ( 8 36 38). Saul is
baptized by Ananias at Damascus (9 16). When Peter
BANUAS (B A N NOY [BA]), I Esd. 5 26, apparently a preached to Cornelius and his friends ' the Holy Spirit
misprint for Bannas (so RV). See BANI (3). fell on all that heard the word ' ; whereupon the apostle
BAPTISM ( B P ~ T I C M A , B A I T T I Z ~ I N ) . Among ' commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus
the permanent witnesses to the birth of Christianity Christ ':,(1044f.). Special stress is laid on this incident
1. Origin. o,ut of Judaism is the primary institu- as the first occasion of the baptism of Gentiles as such
tion of the Christian Church, the rite of (1045 11118). It was justified by the apostle on the
baptism. With the Jews the bathing of the whole body ground of the, previous gift of the Holy Spirit, which
in pure cold water-if possible, in a running stream- was the baptism promised by Christ in contradistinction
was a recognised means of restoration from a state of to John's baptism ( 1 1 1 6 8 ) .
ceremonial uncleanness. Passages like Num. 19 I I J , Baptism was thus recognised as the door of admission
31 19, also Is. 116 Zech. 13I, and especially Ezek. into the Christian Chiwh for Jews and Gentiles alike ;
36 2 4 8 , may be compared. The pouring of water on the and certain disciples of the Baptist whom Paul found nt
hands-a symbolic representation, perhaps, of baptism Ephesus were baptized afresh ' in the n a v e of the Lord
in a running stream-was a Pharisaic precaution in- Jesus ' (19 5). Of Lydia, the purple seller of Thyatira,
sisted on before every meal (cp Mk. 7 3 Lk. 1138). The found by Paul at Philippi. we read that she 'was bap-
Gentile, whose whole life had been ceremonially un- tized, and her household' (1615) ; and of the Philippian
clean, was required to submit to baptism among other gaoler, that he was baptized, ' he and all his straight-
conditions of his reception as a Jewish proselyte (Schurer, way,'-Le., in the middle of the night (1633). At
Gesch. ('4 256gj? ; 3rd ed. 3 129). See PROSELYTE, 5 5. Corinth a few of the earliest converts were baptized by
The connection between Jewish and Christian baptism P a d himself-crispus, Gains, and the household of
471 472
 BAPTISM BAPTISM
Stephanas ;-hut the apostle's language shows that this 8 37) ; and the forniula Jesus is Lord ' appears soon to
was'quite exceptional ( I Cor. 114-17). In I Cor. 1529 have become a stereotyped confession of Christian faith
Paul mentions a custom; apparently prevailing in (cp Ro. 109 I Cor. 1 2 3 Phil. 211) ; moreover the 'ques-
Corinth, of vicarious baptism ixi- behalf of the dead. tion and answer ' (Pmpch~pa)connected with baptism
H e neither commends nor rebukes it, and it 'would in I Pet. 321 would appear to represent only the central
seem to have soon died out.' section of the later creed.
The earliest notice of the method of baptism is On the other hand, we have in Mt. 2819 the full
perhaps that which is found in the Didacht?, and, as we formula, ' in the name of the Father and of the. Son and
2. Method. have already said, it illustrates the recog- of the Holy Ghost.' W e have no synoptic parallel at
nition of a connection between the Jewish this point ; and thus, from a documentary point of view,
and, the Christian baptisms. The Didacht?, here as we must regard this evidence as posterior to that of
elsewhere, is strongly anti-Judaic in its tone, and at the Paul's Epistlesand of Acts.
same time shows the influence of Jewish practices upon The apparent contradiction was felt by Cyprian, who
the community which it represents. The Mishna draws suggested (E$. 7 3 1 7 J ) that in baptizing Jews the
six distinctions in the kinds of wafer available for apostles may have been contented with the one name
i.arions purificatory purposes (Mi&oE'~th 1r-8, qnoted of the Lord Jesus Christ, as they already believed in the
by Schiirer, 2403f.), and in certain cases it insists Father ; whilst in baptizing Gentiles they used the full
upon the full stream of running water, in which the formula, which was given (as he points out) with the
whole body can be immersed. The DidachC (chap. 7 ) command to 'make disciples of. all the nations' or
recognises ' living water '-;.e., the running streani- ' Gentiles.' This explanation, however, breaks down
* other water,' ' cold,' and ' warm' ; and finally allows. in face of Acts 1045-48, the opening of the door to.the
a triple pouring, where a suficiency of any water for Gentiles.
immersion cannot be h a d ; but, though it indicates a Three explanations deserve consideration-: ( I ) that
preference in the order here given, it admits the validity in Acts we have merely a compendious statement-;.e.,
of baptism under any of these conditions. that as a matter of fact all the persons there spoken of
It is sometimes urged that, because p a d ( w means were baptized in the thr'eefold name, though for brevity's
' to dip,' Christian baptism must originally have been sake they are simply said to have been baptized in the
by immersion. In the NT, however, as in classical single name; ( 2 ) that Matthew does indeed report
writers, the usual word for ' to dip ' is p d r 7 . w (Lk. 1624 exactly the words uttered by Jesus, but -that those
Jn. 1326). ~ U T T ~ { Chad L ~ a wider usage, and could words were not regarded as prescribing an actualformula
be used even of a mere cerenionial handwashing, to be used on every occasion, and that the spirit of them

t
as we see from Lk. 1138, ' he marvelled that he had not was fulfilled by ba ism in the name of the Lord Jesus ;
first washed ( < @ d u O ~ )before dinner. ' Already the ( 3 ) that Matth es not here report the ipsissima
partial ablution would seem to have been regarded as verba of Jesus, b ransfers to him the familiar language
symbolical of the whole. It is difficult to suppose that of the Church of evangelist's own time and .locality.
the 3000 converts on the day of Pentecost could all have The first of the xplanations cannot be regarded as
been baptized by immersion. Such a method is indeed satisfactory in the absence of any historical evidence of
presupposcd as the ideal, at any rate, in Paul's words the employment of the threefold formula in the earliest
about death, burial, and resurrection in baptism (Rom. times. A decision between the second and the third
6 3 5 ) ; but pouring water on the head was in any case would involve an inquiry into the usage of the evangelist
symbolical of immersion, and tantamount to it for ritual in other parts of his Gospel, and belongs to the dis-
purposes. cussion of the synoptic problem ; but in favour of the.
( a ) Zn the Name, not ' into the name.' Although d s third it may be-stated that the language of the First
is the preposition most frequently wed, we find Bv in Gospel, where it does not exactly reproduce an earlier
Acts '238 1 0 4 8 ; and theinterchangeability document, shows traces of modifications of a later kind.
3. of the two prepositions in late Greek It has been argued that when. Paul (ActslYzf.), in
may be plentifully illustrated from the NT. Moreover, answer to the statement of the Ephesian disciples of the
the expressiou is a Hebraism; cp Qv 6v6pun K U ~ ~ O I J Baptist, ' W e have not so much as heard if there be a
Mt. 2 1 9 (=Ps. 11826 og$) ; so in the baptismal formula Holy Spirit' (el rrveijpa tlyibv &nv), said, ' Unto what,
(
of Mt. 28 19 the Syr. ,version has ?& (Lat. in nomine). then, were ye baptized? ' he presupposed the use of the
longer formula which 'expressly named the Holy Spirit.
(6) Zn the nnine of JPSUS Ckrist, or of the L o i d Yesus. The statement can hardly mean, however, that they had
The former expression is used in Acts 238 1 0 4 8 ; the never even heard of a Holy Spirit, for disciples of the
latter in Acts 8 16 19 5 ; cp also Acts 22 16, ' Arise and Baptist could scarcely so speak (Mk. 1 8 ) : it mist refer to
be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his the special gift of the Holy Spirit which Christians were
name.' From these passages, and from Paul's words to receive. Accordingly, Panl's question simply implies
in I Cor. 1 1 3 ( ' Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye that Christian baptism could scarcely have been given
baptized in the name of Paul? '), it is natural to conclude without some instruction as to this gift which was to
that baptism was administered in the earli follow it. In any case, it would be exceedingly strange
the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that ' of the that at this point Lk. should not have referred to the
This view is confirmed by the fact that the e threefold formula, had it been in use, instead of simply
of the. baptismal confession appear to have been single saying, 'When they heard it, they were baptized in
-not triple, as was the later creed. When Philip's Ithe name of the Lord Jesus ' (Acts 195).
baptism of the eunuch appeared to have been abruptly The threefold formula is attested by the DidacJzC
narrated, the confession was inserted in the simple form, (chap. 7),both in express words and by the mention of
' I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ' (Acts the alternative practice of triple effusion; but, as the
DidachC shows elsewhere its dependence on Matthew,
1 Tertullian (Res. 48 c. Marc. 5 IO) assumes that the custom
was current in Paul's time, hut is wrongly cited as attesting it for this is not independent evidence.
his own day. Chrysostom (adroc.) says that Marcionites prac- Justin Martyr (chap. 153), in describing baptism to
tised it : and Epiphanius (Hay. 2s 6) had heard of a tradition heathen readers, gives the full formula in a paraphrastic
that the Corinthians had done the same. This is very weak form (ApoL 1 6 ~ )'in, the name of God, Father of the
evidence for a second-century custom, and it is most probable
that if the practice was found it was due to the passage in Paul's Universe and Ruler, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
Epistle, and cannot be regarded as independent testimony to and of the Holy Spirit.' Such a paraphrase was neces-
the existence of the custom among primitive Christians. sary to make the meaning clear to those for whom h e
The difiiculties in which.Copmentatora.whoreject the obvious
meaning of the words find themselves involved may he seen at wrote.
length in Stanley's Corinfhialrs (ad Zoc.). We find the full formula again in Tertullian some
473 474
 BAPTISM BARABBAS
forty years later (De Bapt. 13, Adv. &ax. 26) ; and Ps. 6010 10810l)of water w-ith the word' (2u P f i p a ~ ~ ) .
when the First Gospel was widely known it was certain rhis last expression finds its interpretation in the &jpu,
to prevail. Exceptions are found which perhaps point )r formula of faith, to which we have already referred-
to an old practice dying out. Cyprian (Ep. 7 3 ) and the which, whether as the confession in the mouth of the
Apostolic Canons (n. 50) combat the shorter formula, mptized or as the baptismal formula on the lips of the
thereby attesting its use in certain quarters. The ordin- baptizer, transformed the process of ablution into the
ance of Can. Apost. 50 runs-' If any bishop or pres- rite of Christian baptism. With this passage we may
byter fulfil not three baptisms of one initiation ( ~ p h ,ompare Tit. 3 5 , ' He saved us through the washing of
~ U T T ~ U ~ U pias
TU pufimws), but one baptism which is regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit ' (ai&A O I J T ~ O ~
given (as) into'the death of the Lord, let him be T U X L U ~ E Y E U L U S K U ~ U U K U C U ~ U CTWUS. dy.).
deposed.' This was the formula of the followers of This last passage reminds us of the teaching of Jn. 3.
Eunomius (Socr. 524), ' for they baptize not into the The relation of that chapter to the sacrament of baptism
Trinity, but into the death of Christ' (for other refer- is exactly parallel to that of chap 6 to the sacrament of
ences see Usener, Relig. Uiztersuch., 1889, 1184); they, the eucharist (see E UCHARIST ). W e are secure in
accordingly, used single immersion only. saying that the evangelist's interpretation of the signifi-
No statement is found in the N T as to the age at cance of baptism must have followed the line of Jesus'
which baptism might be administered. Circumcision, conversation with Nicodemus as there related. That
which Paul regards as fulfilled in Christian a Gentile, or even a Jew who had been neglectful of
** Age' baptism (see below, § s), enrolled the Jewish the Rabbinical discipline of ablutions, should need to
boy in the covenant of his fathers on the eighth day begin entirely anew in the religious life, to be 'born
after birth, so that there could be no doubt that young again of water and the Spirit,' as a condition of entry
children were truly members of the holy people. Thus, into ' the kingdom of God,' would seem natural. The
if children had been excluded from baptism when marvel and the stumbling-block was that this should be
whole families were won to Christianity, we should required of those who, like this ' teacher of Israel,' had
almost certainly have had some record of the protest been strictest in their ceremonial purity ; ' Marvel not
which would have been raised against what must have that I said'unto z'hee; y e must be born again.'
seemed so inconsistent a limitation to the membership Jn., then, recognises, with Paul, the universal character
of the new ' Israel of God. ' It seems reasonable to snp- of the initial rite ; whilst at the same time the narrative
pose. therefore, that where ' households ' are spoken of teaches the radical nature of the change in the individual
as being baptized (Acts1615 31-33 I Cor. l r 6 ) , there must soul. J. A. R.
have been, at least in some cases, instances of the
baptism of hfants. That Paul could speak of the BAPTISMS (BAITTICMOI), Mk. 7 4 , etc., RVmg,,
children of a believing husband, or of a believing wife,
EV W ASHINGS (a,..).
as ' holy' is an indication in the same direction. BARABBAS ( B A ~ A B B A C[Ti. WH], $ 4 8 ) , the name
Paul, as we might expect, sees in baptism the means of the prisoner whom, in accordance with a Passover
by which the individual is admitted to his place in the custom, Pilate released at the demand of the Jews while
one body, of which he thus becomes a condemning Jesus to death (so Mt. 2715-26 Mk. 156-15
5. Inter- Lk. 2317-25 Jn. 1 S 3 g f : ) .
member ; For as the body is one and
pretation' hath many members, but all the members, More precisely than Mt., who simply calls him a
many though they he, are one body, so also is the 'notable' (d~Luqpou)prisoner, and Jn., who calls him
Christ ; for indeed by one Spirit (QY &vi TYE~&LUTL) we 1. Story. trobber, Mk. describes him as lying
all were baptized into one body-whether Jews or Gen- bound with them that had made insurrec-
tiles, whether bondmen or free ' ( I Cor.12 I Z ~ ). : Bap- tion ( p e d TGU UTUULUUTGYB E B E ~ ~ Y O Smen
) , who in the
tism was thus the fundamental witness of Christian insurrection had committed murder.' As Mk. has not
unity (Eph. 45, one baptism') ; and in both the previously referred to these insurgents, it seems all the
passages here referred to it is emphasised as such in more probable that he is borrowing verbatim from
view of the variety of spiritual gifts. A parable of another source, although about this particular insurrec-
Christian baptism might be found in the cloud and the tion we are in as complete ignorance as about the
sea through which all the Israelites had alike passed ; Galileans mentioned in Lk. 13 I. Lk. (23 IS), whofollows
' they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in Mk., adds that the insurrection had occurred in Jeru-
the sea ' ( I Cor. 10 2). salem, but says nothing about any fellow-prisoners with
In Rom. 61 8 Paul regards baptism as effecting a Barabbas, and thus leaves the impression that Barabbas
union with the death of Christ : ' we were baptized into personally had committed murder. Mk. is entitled to
his death.' It was a kind of burial of the former self, the preference, not only on this point but also when he
with a view to a resurrection and a new life. The same represents the Jews as having demanded the release of
conception recurs in Col. ZII-J, where it is immediately a prisoner on their own initiative, as against the less
preceded by the thought that'it corresponds in a certain probable view that Pilate offered them this of his own
way to the circumcision of the old covenant. It is ' the accord.
putting off '-totally, not merely partially and symbolic-
ally-of the whole ' body of the flesh ' ; and so it is the
fulfilment of the old rite : it is ' the circumcision of the
Christ.
In Gal. 326J Paul further speaks of baptism as involv!
ing a kind of identification with the person of Christ, so
that the divine sonship becomes ours in him ; ' For ye
are all sons of God, through faith (or ' t h e faith') in
Christ Jesus ; for as many of you as were baptized into
Christ put on (or ' clothed yourselves with ') Christ.' The
old distinctions, he again reminds us, thus disappeared Those who find some difficulty in accepting the
-Jew and Greek, bond-man and free, male and female narrative as it stands may perhaps find themselves
-' for ye all are one [man] in Christ Jesus ' ( d s 6ud Cv better able to explain its origin on the lines 'indicated
xp.'I.). by W. Brandt, by whom every detail has been discussed
Eph. 626 speaks of Christ as cleansing the Church with great care (Evangelische Geschichtr, 1893. pp.
by the 'washing ( X O U T ~ ~ = V 'washing,' probably 94-105). Brandt takes the kernel of the story to be
not laver.' [In @ vq is always hour+^ : Xourp5v is that a certain prisoner who had been arrested in con-
nsny Cant. 42 65 Ecclus. 3425 ; so Aquilarenders y m in nection with some insiirrection, but against whom no
475 476
 BARACHEL BARJESUS
crime or at least' n o grave crime coul'd be proved, was BARAK (372, -'lightning,' § 66, cp Sab. DP12
released on the application of the people, who intervened Palm. Pl2, Pun. Banrcas [the snrname of Hamilcar],
in his behalf because he was the son of a Rabbin (see tnd the Ass. divine names Kamman-bir& and Gihi2-
below, z). 'The incident, even although it was not 5ir& [Del. Ass. H W B 187]), b. Abinoam (Judg. 46-
simultaneous with the condemnation of Jesus, gave 5x2 ; Bapa~ [BL], BAPAX [A]). See DEBORAH.
occasion in Christian circles for the drawing of this
contrast : the son of the rabbin was interceded for and BARBARIAN (BapB~poc).primarily, one who
released, Jesus was condemned. In the course of :peaks in an unintelligible manner : hence a foreigner
transmission by oral tradition the statement of this con- cp 12.2 867), in which sense it is employed by Paul in
t Cor. 1 4 IT Acts 28 2. This usage was not restricted to
trast might gradually, without any conscious departure
from historical truth, have led to the assumption that :he Greeks alone : it is met with among the Romans
the two things occurred at the same time and on the Icp Ovid, Trist. v. 1037), and (according to Herod.
same occasion. Finally, the liberation of a seditious 2 158) among the Egyptians. In agreement with this, the
prisoner-in any case a somewhat surprising occurrence people of Melita, who perhaps spoke some Phcenician
-seemed explicable only on the assumption of some dialect, are called ' barbarians ' (Acts 282 4 ) , and @
standing custom to account for it ; this assumption uses pbppapos to render the iyi5 of Ps. 1141-a people
must presumably have arisen elsewhere than in Palestine. 'of strange tongue' (Targ. v m i 2 The not
The above theory presupposes that papuppas stands uncommon "EhA~pwsK U ~pdppapoc, accordingly, includes
for m e 18, 'son of the father'-Le., here, of the the whoie world : cp Rom. 114 (also Jos. Ant. xi. 7 1)
2. NAme.rabbinical ' master.' (It was not till after-
and the similar ' Barbarian, Scythian,' Col. 311 ; see
wards that Abba began to come into use HELLENISM, 2.
The use of Pa'pSapos became so customary that the term was
as a proper name [of rabbins], explained by Dalman s e d actually In referring to the speaker's or writer's own
[Gram. 1421 as an abbreviation, like ~BN,of 3 9 2 ~: in peo le cp Philo Yit. Mos. 6 5 and Jos. (By, pref $ I) who
q p i e s ; the d e s i g h o n 'upper iarharians ' to his c&nt&nen
the time of Jesus it was a title of honour [Mt. 2391.) beyond the Euphrates3 At a later date the word gets the
Jerome indeed, in his commentary on Mt. 27 16-18 says that meaning ' cruel ' 'savage,' etc. (cp Cic. Fmtei. 1021, ' immanis
in the GAspel of the Hebrews ( p o d s r d i t z i r j z c x t n He6rceos) ac barhara conskudo'), in which sense it recurs in z Macc. 221
Barahbas is explained as ' son of their teacher ' (Jflizls mupktri 425 152 and in the Q of Ez.2136 [31] (for M T Q$i, 'brutish').
eomm), where e o ~ z q napparently implies an etymology similar
to that found -in a scholion of a Venice MS in W H App. 196-
viz. that j3apapj32u (only another form for papaPj32u ; see Winer BARBER (2i3, Ph. 253, Ass. gallabu), Ez. SI.?
Gr&z.(d) 5 5, n. 70) means 'son of our teacher.' In that c a d See BEARD.
we mnst (with Syr. hr.) write j3appa@au, taking the second
element as being 'teacher,' and assume that I;aP&iw was explained BARCHUS (Bapxoye [A], I Esd. 532 R y = E z r a
as = N;??, 'our teacher,' or $322, 'their teacher.' The mean- 253, BARKOS.
ing, however, is not essentially changed by this, as?:] (as also
$37) is, like "?e, a title of honour for a great teacher.
BARHUMITE, THE (9n?lra, zS. 2331 : o Bap-
The most remarkable fact in connection with the
AIAMEITHC P I , o B A P A I ~ M . [Mail, o BAPUM. [AI8
0 ~ B E N N I [L]). See BAHARUMITE.
name of Barabbas is that Origen knew MSS, and did
not absolutely reject them, in which Mt. 2716f: read BARIAH (n9?$,MAPEI [B], B ~ p i a[AL]), a de-
' Jesus ' ('I~moGv) before ' Barabbas '- a reading still scendant of Zerubbabel ( I Ch. 3 2.)
extant in some cursives, as well as in the Armen. vers., BARJESUS, the Jewish sorcerer and false prophet
in Syr. sin., and partly also in Syr. hr. Whether the in the train of the proconsul Sergius Panlus at Paphos,
Gospel of the Hebrews, referred to by Jerome, also had in Cyprus, who (Hcts136-rz) withstood the preaching of
this reading is uncertain (see WH). In this reading Paul, and was punished with temporary blindness.
' Barabbas ' would be only an addition made for the At the outset, the names present great difficulties.
sake of distinction, as in Simon Bar-jona, but not yet In 136 his name (6vopa) is expressly said to have been
with the full force of a proper name. Barjesus (BaprTaoDs), and such a compound
Some support for it might perhaps he found in the fact that Names* (son of a father named Jesus) can quite
the first mention.of the name in Mk. is preceded by6 heyy6pfuos.
The meaning would then be ' H e who, for distinction's sake easily have been a proper name (cp Barabbas, Barnabas,
(though it was .not his proper name) was called Barabbas.' Bartholomew). In v. 8, however, he is abruptly called
Only, in that case, in Mt. the heyy6;euou (here without the ' Elymas the sorcerer, for so is his name by interpreta-
article) since it is followed on the reading at ?resent in question
by 'I&iiu BapaPpiw, wohd simply mean whose name wai tion (Ehupas b pbyos, o i h s yZlp ,i&%ppgv~6wat rb
Jesus Barabbas'. and it may be so in Mk. also. In any case bvopa a u ~ o i ? ) . A translation has relevance only when
it is remarkable t i a t in all the MSS in question Barahbas should it is a translation into the language of the readers : in
have the name 'Iquoirs exclusively in Mt. and there only in two any other case it would be incumbent on the author to
verses, while 7/21. 20 and 26 simply give rbw Bapapp&, ~ b 82 u
'Iquoiru as an antithesis. Thus we may be tolerably certain that state what foreign language he is translating into.
the name Jesus as given to Barabbas has arisen merely from (u) This being assumed, we must take it that 'the
mistake. sorcerer' (6 pbyos) is the translation. Elymas (Ehupus),
A fairly obvious explanation would be the conjecture in that case, would be the word translated. Accord-
of Tregelles. that a very early transcriber had 'per ingly, the name has been identified with the Arabic
incuriam ' repeated the last two4etters of hp?v and that ' d i m , which occurs in the Koran (7106 IO^] 2633 and
these were at a later date taken for the familiar abbrevia- 36 [34 and 371) as an adjective following the noun sibhir
tion of the name of Jesus. If this theory be adopted we which denotes a sorcerer, and has thus been taken to
must assume further that a later copyist inserted also in mean ' wise,' ' able.' Less appropriate is the derivation
v, 16 the name 'IguoOv, which he had found in v. 17 ; from Aram. ! !si or n*$y, meaning 'strong.' Equate
but it is specially interesting to observe that in the
pciyos, however, etymologically, with Ehupas as we
Latin translation of Origen the word Jesus stands in
v. 17 but not in v. 16 also. Cp Zahn, Gesch. des N T 1 Del. (Ass. HWB) explains Ass. dar6aru 'jackal.'
2 Akin to this are the expressions oi ;.$(I Cor. 51zJ)and
1<mzons, 2 697-700. P. w. s.
Z9vq (like the Heb. 094, see GENTILES, 5 I) to denote those
BARACHEL(5&???, 'Godblesses,'§ 28; Bapaxi~A outside the Christian world. Cp the Talm. use of n\r?!.
[BKA]), the father of Job's friend Elihu (Job3226). 3 Similarly, the Jews frequently .employed f N l D l N , Syr:
BARACHIAH ( Q:;, 9?l>?>?), Zech. 117. the am<cip-i.e., 'Aramaean,' in the sens&of ' barbarian,'-and so
the Syr. translations of the NT, undertheir influence retain the
reading of AV ed. 1611,and some other old editions. term to translate ' E A A ~ V , ~ ~ , ieuisoi -etc. 111 process'of time it
See B ERECHIAH (4). was felt that a word which was ;sed in the N T to designate
'heathen ' could hardlv he borne by q Christian people, and
BARACHIAS, RV Barachiah (Bapaxiac [Ti. the old name was modified into drcimciyci; cp. NO. ZDnlG
WH]), Mt(2935. See ZACHARIAS. 25 113, Wright, Coq3. Gram. 15.
477 478
 BARJESUS , BARJESUS
m a y , it still has to b e explained how Bxrjesus came y. Klostermann's proposed etymology, .fa?-atus,rests upon a
suddenly to b e called by t h e o t h e r nanie, Elymas. rery weak foundation, as no such word as p i , (YiSwBn) caiibe
shown toexist(thepr0pername aid., ISHVAH, inGen.4R17hasno
'The only way i n which a plausible explanation could be mportance in this connection), and the root a i 1 or N)Wwhich is
reached would be if E l y m a s ( i n t h e sense indicated) ised i? Syrjac frequently for &os tuos bpahis, as also for
could be t a k e n as a title or cognomen assumed by Bar- m y - opo-, &o-, in rompounds,.,i; nev& used for Zroorpas.l
jesus-a foreign tongue being used t o heighten' still Besibes, as we have said, the codex has not Barjesuda?z but
Barjesubam. Above all, however, Klostermann's hypothesis
further t h e prestige which he sought t o acquire by it. .eniains untenable as long as one is unprepared to accept the
It is n o t as a title, however, t h a t t h e a u t h o r employs it. 'urther assumption that b p6yos after EAvpas (or "Eroipor) in
On t h e contrary, h e gives t h e word without t h e definite 7. 8 is a mere gloss to he deleted ; for b piyos necessarily leads
o the assumption dealt with under (a). This had no doubt
article, a n d expressly a d d s t h a t the word which h e i s ilready been perceived by the scribe of H, who wrote b pgyas
translating w a s t h e a c t u a l n a m e (bvopa) of the bearer. the great) for b p&yos, and so also by Lucifer, if the cditio
(a) It w a s quite s o u n d m e t h o d , therefore, to t a k e nrinceps (of Tilius) is right in attributing the reading m a p u s
13arjesus for t h e n a m e translated, and E l y m a s for t h e o him (the only MS of Lucifer at present known has n i a p s ) .
[f Lucifer really wrote nuignas, this increases the suspicion
translation. hat the other variants in Lucifer are i n like manner arbitrary
Even Pesh., in v. 8, for Ehvpas b p6yas arbitrarily has 'this iiid unauthorised alterations of the text.
sorcerer Barshuma [so Pesh. reads for Bapquous in v. 6 ; see (6) In o r d e r t o m a k e o u t Elymas to be a translation
below, (c)], whose name, being interpreted, means Elymas.' if the n a m e of the sorcerer, stress h a s been laid o n the
Klostermann (Pro6bme b i z Aposteliexre, 1883, pp. 21-33), how-
ever, is able to support this view only on three assumptions, *emarkable Peshitta rendering B a r s h u m a for Bapquous.
each one of which is bolder than the other. We must read, h e Already, in the seventeenth century, we find Castell (Lex.
.
holds not Ehupas hut "Erorpos secoudly we must read, not
Uap&oSs, hut Bbpquouau, or, 'to be ex& the Latiu Bar-
He,5tngZ. S.V. o>V) and Lightfoot (Hor. He6r. ad loc.) iuter-
preting Bapquous as filius z r u h e r i s , and deriving Elymas
jesrchaar; and, in the third place, the ]$: 1s so transcribed From the Arabic 'a&za=doZwit (&). Over and above the
easons to the contrary that have already been urged under
(whether we derive it etymologically from the root n,d, or, with 6) however it has to be observed (see above) that a trans-
more probability, from the root id, which underlies V:, presto adon into Arabic would explain nothing to the readers : it
est) means 'son of preparedness' or 'son of fitness,' and thus, would itself require to be explained. A somewhat
by the same Hebraism as we find in the name Barnahas (q.v.), different turn is given to the matter by Payne Smith (The$.
paratus, Zro~par. Syr. 598). Barshuma was in the first indance given in v. 8
a. As to the first of these assumptions it has to be noted 3s a rendering of Elymas, and only later introduced by copyists
that the reading " E ~ o r p o sis met with only in Lucifer of Calaris also into v. 6 in substitution for Barjesus in the erroneous
(06. 371) and even there not as Hetcemus but as Etcemus; D belief that it was the man's proper name. But the Peshitta in
has Erdrpas, which, indeed, we cannot explain, but which Its arbitrary change of text in v. 8 (see above (6), ad init.j says
from its ending, is clearly intended to be taken as a prope; precisely the opposite -that Barshuma was the proper name,
name ; paratus is found only in Lucifer, one Vg. MS, and two a n d Elymas the translkon. I t must, therefore, from the outset
Latiu MSS, in which in many places is found the markedly have held Barshuma to be a reproduction of the proper name
divergent text of Acts which Blass takes to be Luke's earliest Barjesus. Thus Barshuma probably means merely 'son of the
draft (see ACTS, $ 17) name ; and the name' is most easily to he accounted for as a
8. Next, as regards the second assumption. Bapquouav is substitute for 'Jesus' from the feeling of reverence which we
found only in n ; Barjcsua?u, only in the Latin translation of have already heard expressing itself in Beda [see above (h) B] a
D ; Barjesuban or rather, according to the one MS known to revereuce similar to that shown by the Jews when they d i d
us, Bnt-jesrcham, only in Lucifer. The corrector of D has re- 'the name' instead of ' Y a h d . '
stored Bap~quovv,which, as accusative, fits his reading bv6pan. ( d ) Van M a n e n , contrariwise (Pnulus 1, Leyden,
v $ gvopa, but, in spite of :< &pa, is found also
~ a h o l i p ~ ofor 1890, pp. 98 f: 147),holds E l y m a s to b e t h e proper
in AHLP and the Greek margin of the Philoxenian ; N, Vg., n a m e , a n d interprets Barjesus i n t h e H e b r e w sense as
Copt., Armen., and the Philoaenian version as well as ' aonaulli' mcaning I s o n of Jesus '--i. e . , e follower of Jesus. '
known to Jerome read Bapquou-that is to say, the simple
Hebrew form without a Greek termination. On this Jerome I n this he assumes that the primary document here made
(on the Hebrew names in Acts; Opera ed. Vallarsi 399) use of by the author of Acts did not refer to the man as a
remarks ' nonnnlli Barjesu corrnpte leg"; ' himself dedlaring Jew or as a sorcerer, or as a false prophet; that it simply
the rig& reading to be Barieu or Berieu, >or which, by very contkned the information that at Paphos Paul came into
daring etymologisinq from the Hebrew, he obtains the meanings opposition with one of the older and very conservative disciples
maleficiunr or maleficus, or in malo. Perhaps, however even of Jesus, and got the better of him with Sergius Paulus. l h i s
Jerome's akrsion to Bapquou rests upon the very o6vious hypothesis admittedly departs so widely from the trxt of Acts
dogmatic 'consideration put forward by Beda in the eighth that it is impossible to control it thereby.
century, 'non convenit hominem flagitiosum et magum filium ( e ) D a l m a n ( G m m . 129, n. I [ ' 9 4 ] ) proposes a
Jesu, id est, salvatoris, appellari quem e contrario Paulos (v. purely Greek explanation.
IO) filium diaholi nuncupat.' The form Barjeu in Jerome can 'EhupLs (so accented) he regards as cmtractsd from 'Ehupaios
readily be accounted for as merely a clerical error for Barjesu (on these contractions see NAnlIss, 6: 86 adfi71.). In 6 [except
or as arising out of the Greek abbreviation IHY which is me: fhe Apocrypha] and N T indeed, the Elamites are always
with in the oldest MSS along with the more frequently occurring Ehap, 'Ehapirar ; hut with the Greeks the forms are as in-
IY for 'Iquoir. The explanation in the case of the readings variably 'Ehupal's, 'EAupa2oL; su in Tobit 2 I O Judith 16 ;
preferred by Klostermann is much less easy. On this account I Macc. 6 I has 'Ehdpai.
in spite of their weak attestation, one might he inclined t; Philologically this derivation i s t h e simplest of a l l ;
regard them as the true ones ; hut all the authorities for the read-
ing paratus have the word, not in v. 8 instead of Ehupas, hut as b u t it contributes nothing towards t h e solution of t h e
an interpolation after Bapquous in v. 6, 'quod interpretatur riddle.
paratus.' This addition is met with elsewhere only in E, in T h e failure of all t h e a t t e m p t s enumerated above
the form 6 pf0B"ppquderaLEhupas-rendered in the Latin of this renders inevitable t h e suggestion t h a t here t h e author of
M S : guod interpretatur Elymas. I t is evident that in neither
case have we more than a late attempt to obviate the impression Acts h a s a m a l g a m a t e d t w o sources, o n e
that Elymas, first introduced in v. 8, was the name of another 2.
of which called t h e n i a n Barjesus while
person. Blass, on the other hand, regards the added words as sources9 t h e other called him Elymas. Even
part of Luke's earliest draft. H e sees, however, that Luke
could not have written at the same time in v. 8 'for thus is his K l o s t e r m a n n , i n order t o explain t h e peculiar distribu-
name interpreted ' (odrws yip pe0sppque6crat r b 6uopa ahoir); tion of t h e n a m e s i n vu. 6 8, seeks t h e aid of this
and, accordingly, he rejects these words from Luke's earliest hypothesis in addition t o t h e hypotheses already referred
draft. For this he has not a single authority ; and how can he t o [above (a), beg.]. T h e addition, O ~ W y S i p p&p-
explain Luke's having after all, introduced the words into his
second transcript, lea:ing out those in v. 6 instead? Are we p~vederac~6 bvopa a b ~ o C(for so is his n a m e translated),
really to believe that with hisown hands Luke changed his good however, would i n a n y case b e a very unskilful way of
a,id thoroughly intelligible first text into a positively misleading a m a l g a m a t i n g t h e t w o sources unless 6 pdyos (sorcerer),
after-text? Cp ACTS, 5 17 (f).If, however, the addition Lquod
btPrprefafurparatus'a t the end of ZI. 6 is to be regarded as a as sugggested above, be deleted a s a gloss. Still, it
late interpolation, Lucifer also, who has it, lies open to suspicion : o n c e i t IS agreed t o assume t w o sources, a further a n d
his form Etcemus in ZI. 8 may be not taken from an authoritative larger question arises : t h e question, namely, whether t h e
source, but a mere conjectural adaptation to allow of the word's addition itself b e substantially right- that is to say,
being rendered paratus aud itself regarded as a rendering of Bap-
quous. What etymology he was following when he preferred whether t h e o n e n a m e be really a translation of t h e other.
(or perhaps conjecturally intrcduced) the form Barjesuban is Nay, m o r e : it is even conceivable t h a t the two names d o
a matter of indifference. In ancient times, as the Onomartica not d e n o t e t h e s a m e person ; t h a t accounts relating to
Sacra abundantly show, people made out Hebrew etymologies
in a most reckless way. 1 So Nestle, in private letter to the present writer.
479 480
 BARJESUS BARJESUS
two different persons haQe been transferred t0.a 'single told of Barjesus in Acts ,136-12exactly what is told in
'person. 'This inference is suggested also by the epithets the romance about Simon (that is, Paul), and of Paul
applied : for, though it is not. altogether inconceivable exactlywhat is told in the romance about Peter. Hence
that a ' sorcerer',(&os) should be a "false prophet" the belief that in 136-12 we can discover the same pur-
(~eu8oapoq%$~?s), the two ideas are widely different. pose on the part of the author as we discover in 8 18-24.
. Of. the critics mentioned in ACTS, $ 1 1 who discuss our H e was acquainted with the unfriendly allegation about
present passage with reference to the disthction of sources, Paul, did not believe it, and wished to set forth another
only Spitta and B. Weiss regard 136-12 as all of one piece.
Clemen'and Hilgenfeld are convinced of the opposite, but mak; view. In the two passages, however, the method is
n o definite suggestions as to separation of the portions ; Sorof not the same. ' I n 818-24 it is shown that Paul could
and Jiingst derive v. 6 J from a written source, vu. 8-12from not possibly have been the infamous sorcerer, inasmuch
the pen of the redactor or from oral tradition. Ji.ngst further
attributes to the redactor the word pLyov in u. 6. Yet not even as Simon the sorcerer was a Samaritan and was quelled
so,are all the difficulties cleared up. by Peter indeed, but before the conversion of Paul. In
How far the narrative as a whole is to be accepted as 136-12, on the other hand, it is shown that it was Paul
historical becomes a serious question as soon as it has himself who victoriously met a sorcerer of this kind.
3. Credibility been traced to more than one source ; One of the reasons for this divergence is seen in the
of Narrative. but its credibility has been doubted desire, already noted, to establish a close parallelism
even by Spitta, R. Weiss, and others, between Paul and Peter. It is believed possible also' to
who defend its unity. . As regards the miracle in explain on the same lines why in Acts 136-12 the scene
particular, one is not only surprised by its suddenness, is laid in Cyprus, with a Jew in the entourage of a high
but is also at a loss to see its moral justification. On Roman officer as one of the dramatis persona T o
the other hand, a misunderstanding would account for Cyprus, according to Josephus (Ant.xx. 'i2, 141-143),
it readily enough. A sorcerer, a false prophet-nay, belonged the Jewish sorcerer Simon, who, at the instance
any Jew (Acts2827)-is. in the judgment of the Christian, of Felix of Judaea, procurator ( L e . , highest Roman
spiritually blind, and this is what Paul and Barnabas officer), had induced Drusilla to quit her husband, King
proved of Barjesus in their disputation with him. In Azizus of Emesa, and marry Felix. The purpose of the
being handed down by tradition this thought could narrator would have been sufficiently served had he
easily undergo such a change as would lead to the been able to say that the sorcerer in question-Simon, *
representation that physical blindness had been brought to wit-under whose name the Judaisers imputed to
'on as & apunishment- by the words of Paul. On the Paul so much that was shameful, had been met and
other hand, one would expect the blindness, if it is to vanquished by Paul himself. That, however, was im-
be regarded as merited, to be permanent, or, at least, possible; the tale had already been related of Peter.
would expect to be told of some reason for its subse- Accordingly (so it is supposed) the narrator found it
quent removal, as, for example, that the sorcerer had necessary to give another name to the sorcerer worsted
'ceased to withstand'Pau1 and Barnabas, or even had by Paul.
become a convert to Christianity. It is very noticeable (c) His choice of the names Barjesns and Elymas is
that the narrator shows but little interest in the subse- still unaccounted for. There is, therefore, a motive for
quent history of the man. The conversion of the pro- our attributing a historical character to a certain other
consul (not his existence ; see ACTS, § 13 adfln.) also sorcerer, Barjesus (or Elymas), as well as to a Samaritan
is doubtful to many. sorcerer named Simon. Although it is not easy to
All the more does it now become incumbent to believe that Peter met the Samaritan Simon, there is no
4. Tendency. enquire whether the narrative reveals reason for assuming that Paul did not meet Barjesus.
in any measure the tendencies dis- Indeed, it can easily be conceded that in Acts 136-12,
cerned elsewhere in Acts. just as, in Acts 89-24, the author was not consciously
);( In the first place, and generally, it is clear that giving a false complexion to what he had heard. He
it'has a place in the parallelism between Peter and Paul believed himself able to offer a material correction. H e
(Xcrs, 4), in respect alike of the miracle of chastise- assumed, that is to say, that what the Judaisers were in
ment, the confutation of a sorcerer, and the conversion the habit of relating of Simon the sorcerer, while really
of a high Roman officer (cp Acts61-IO 818-24 101-48). intending Paul and his opposition to the ' true ' Gospel,
It is also in harmony with that other tendency of Acts, rested in actual fact upon a mistaken identification with
to represent the Roman authority as friendly, and the this Barjesus (or Elymas), and that the latter was van-
Jews as hostile to Christianity (ACTS, 5 (I) ; 4 f d 3 quished not by Peter but by Paul. It is less easy to
suppose that Cyprus was given by tradition as the scene
init. ; compare very specially the Jewish exorcists in
close rel,ation to sorcery, Acts19 13-16). of the occurrence. Even without any 'tradition, the
( d ) A conjecture of wider scope1 connects itself with name could be suggested by Josephus's mention of the
what is said of Simon Magus (see SIMON M A G U S ). native place of the Jewish sorcerer, and the name of
If Paul was the person originally intended in the story Paphos would naturally present itself from the fact that
of Simon. then in Acts 89-24 we find attributed to the Roman proconsul had his residence there.
,him the one deed which used to be flung in his teeth ( d ) The hypothesis has received developments to a
by his Judaistic adversaries-that, by his great col- point where we have to depend on less clear indications.
lections made in Macedonia and Achaia, he had sought If the accusations in Acts against Simon and Barjesus
to, purchase at the hands of the original apostles that had originally been brought against Paul, what is said
recognition of his equality with them which they had so of the intimate relations of Barjesus with Sergius Paulus
.persistently withheld. The romance of Simon Magus, would belong to 'the same class. Now, in Acts 2426, it
however, of which we still possess large portions (see is said that Felix often sent for Paul and communed
S IMON M A G U S ), had for its main contents something with him. It is assumed that the Judaisers had gone
different, viz., that the sorcerer had spread his false so far as to allege that Paul had purchased the friendli-
doctrines everywhere and supported them by miracles, ness of Felix with money; or even, perhaps, to insinuate
but in one city after another was vanquished in dispute that he had been negotiator between Drusilla and Felix.
and excelled in miracle by Peter. Thus, apart from It is to meet those accusations (so it is assumed) that
the repetition of the occurrence in many cities, we are the writer of Acts alludes to bribery by Paul as merely
1 See for example, Hilgenfeld, Z W T 1868, pp. 365.67. D e
a hope on the part of Felix, and informs us that Paul
Wette-Overbeck on Acts 136-12. Lipsins, QueZlen der &xi- had stirred Felix's conscience by a solemn ' reasoning '
schenPeZrussage 1872, pp. 28, 32 'alsoJP7; 1876, p. 573: Holtz- with him about.his sinful marriage (2425f: ).
ma'nn,'ZWT, 18i5, p. 437 ; and vkry specially Krenke1,Josefihws ( e ) There are two more explicit indications that what
16. Lukus 180-190 ['gr]. Lipsius afterwards withdrew his
earlier view; see Afiokyjh. A$. -gesch. ii. 1 ('87), p. 52 ; cp. we now read about Barjesus was originally told of Paul.
51,. n. 2. 'EXBpbs, ' enemy,' the epithet applied by Paul to Bar-
31 481 482
 BAR-JONA BARNABAS
jems (13IO), is, with or without the substantive &vOpwnos, mentioned in Ez. (49) as ingredients to be used in
the standing designation for Simon (that is, Paul) in bread-making-wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and
the pseudo-Clenientine Homilies and Recognitions. spelt (cp B READ). It may be inferred from a variety of
The name, ’ enemy of righteousness,’ fits Paul and his passages, such as Ru. 2 1 7 Jn. 6913, that barley was, even
doctrine of the abrogation of the Mosaic law through iuring the times when it was cultivated along with wheat,
Christ (Rom. 104) all the more because his Judaistic the staple food of the poorer class (cp FOOD). Such a
opponents in Corinth came forward as servants of reference as that in I K. 428 ( 6 8) shows us bow largely it
righteousness,’ that is, men of strict observance of the was used to feed horses and catt1e.l It may also be
law (2Cor. 111 5 ) . In that case, the temporary blind- Tathered from the part played by the barley-cake in the
ing of Barjesus will represent what befel Paul at his dream of the Midianite, overheard by Gideon (Jndg.
conversion ; even the expressions pX&rwv (without 7 r3), where it stands as a type of the Israelite peasant
sight) and x ~ i p a y w y o D v ~(leading
~s by the hand) in army, that as in other countries, so in Palestine, the
98f. have their parallels in 1311. Here, then, unless cultivation of barley preceded that of wheat, and was the
the whole hypothesis under consideration be rejected, earliest stage in the transition from a nomadic to an agri-
we may say, with rea3onable probability, that the cultural life.2 (Cp Pi. NNxbiii. 72, ’ antiquissimum in
blindness of Paul at his conversion (whether historical cibis hordeum.’) This is, on the whole, more probable
or not is immaterial) was originally represented by the than the view of Jos. (Ant.v. 64). which has been very
Judaisers as a divine visitation for his hostility to the generally accepted, that barley-cake represented the
‘ true’ (that is, the legal) gospel, and that it was simply fee.Zkness of Gideon’s three hundred, and we are entitled
passed on by the author of Acts to Barjesus the Jew. to conclude that there was a time when barley was the
Whatever else be the result of what has been said in staple food of all classes among the Israelites. The
the present section, one thing at least is clear: it is fact referred to in Ex. 9 3 1 J , that in Egypt barley
impossible to reach a definite conclusion unless the ripens some time earlier than wheat, is supported by
tendency of the author is taken into account. the testimony of Pliny (HNxviii. 106) as well as of
According to the nepplo6oi Bapvd/?a-a legendary work modern writers (see references in Di. ad Znc.).
composed by a Cyprian abont 488-Barjesus opposed the In the single case in which the use of barley is pre-
work’of Barnabas when, along with Mark scribed in an offering under the ritual law (see J EALOUSY,
6. Later
(Acts1539), Barnabas visited Cyprus for z),it is somewhat difficult to
2. Ritual. ORDEAL OF,
legends. a second time. H e withstood him in determine the reason. Some (.g., Bahr,
various ways at his entrance into the cities where he S y m M i k , 2 445) have regarded it as expressive of the
desired to preach, and at last stirred up the Jews to sordid nature of the alleged offence and the humilia-
burn him at the stake at Salamis. (Cp Lipsius, Apokr. tion of the accused3 (a wife suspected of adultery).
Ap.-gesch. ii. 2, pp. 283-286 278 297.) P. w. s. A reason which has recently found more acceptance
BAR-JONA, RV BarLJonah, the patronymic of is that in the case of a simple appeal to God for
Simon Peter (Mt. I 6 171. B A ~ [Ti. WH]). See a judicial decision a less valuable offering was suffcient
PETER. than was requisite when a suppliant besought God for
Iova is a Gr. contraction of ~ w b v q s(cp Jn. 1 4 2 Xlpov Q ulbs the bestowal or continuance of his divine grace4 (Di.
’Iwa‘vvau [Ti.], 2. b vi. ’ I w l v o u [WHl; 21 16 2. ’IwBuvou [Ti.], 2. on Nu. 511,etc.). The prohibition to mingle oil or
’Ioa‘vou [WH] ; Elzev. etc. present ~ B v a ;see Var. Bib.), which frankincense with the offering will, of course, receive a
corresponds to an Aram. N J ~ ) ,12 ; cp B. Talm. HuZZ. 133 a,
Dalm. Jiiu’-PaZ. Aram. 142 n. g, and see JOANNA. similar explanation.
Two-rowed barley (Hordeum distichon), which may
BARKOS (D$l$, § 82, B e p ~ w c[L]). The B n e be presumed to be the feral form, is a n&ve of W.
Bad&, a family of NETHINIMin the great post-exilic It may hiwe been cultivated by
list (see E ZRA , ii. 9), Ezra253 ( B ~ P K O Y C [B], - K O C 3*Variety’ &%ic races ; but it is not represented
[A])=Neh. 755 ( ~ a p ~ o [BKA],
ye 1, o m . ) = ~ E s d 532,
. on Egyptian monuments. The kind most frequently
’CHARCuS, RV BARCHUS (Baxoyc [B], B A ~ X O Y G[A]). cultivated in antiquity was six-rowed barley (Hordeum
The NETHINIM (4.v.) were mainly of foreign origin, hexustichon). This occurs on the most ancient Egyptian
and the name Barkos seems to be Aramaic and to monuments and on the coins of Metapontuin six cen-
signify ‘son of the God Kos or Kaus.’ The name of turies B . C . It was no doubt derived by cultivation from
this god occurs in many theophorous proper names the two-rowed kind (cp De Candolle, Orig.((9 294-297,
among the Northern Semites ; we have Kaus-mal& and authorities quoted there).
as king of Edom on an Assyrian inscription (Schr. The word ‘gerah’ (Ex.3013) ‘is defined by Rabbinical
KA TP) 150), Kosnathau (VmDip) in Euting’s Nubat. writers as equal to sixteen barley-corns ’ ; hut see W E IGHT S AND
Zmcr. n. 12 I. I , and a variety of Semitic names on MEASURES. N. M. -W. T. T. -D.
Greek inscriptions from Egypt containing the same BARN (?Ql@), Hag. 2 9 ; see A GRICULTURE, 5 IO.
element (Rm-ArchloZ., Feb. 1870, p. 109 8).Cp Also for Job 3912 (123) and (AV BARNFLOOR) 2 K. 6 27.
also the Edomite Kostobafosl (Jos. Am!. xv. 79).
Names designating the worshipper as son of his god are RV correctly ‘threshing floor.’
common in Aramaic-e.g., the biblical BENHADAD BARNABAS ( B A P N A B ~ C p3. W H ] ; §48), othe&se
[probably], the Palmyrene m i 2 , ‘ son of Kebo’ (cp JOSEPH (or JOSES).
B ARNABAS , 5 I ), wnwm 3 1 2 , ‘sons of the son of the According to the author of Acts (436), the name Barnabas
Sun-god,’ the Syrian Bar-ba‘Pmin, ‘son of the lord (=vibc mpaKh?jvsos) is derived from the Aram. 1s (son) and
of heaven,’ BarlZhZ, ‘son of God,’ etc. w. R. s. the same root as the Heb. N’?;, ~rpo++jrjnlr- the
1. Name. duty of rapa’rhqurs (‘address, exhortation’), ac-
BARLEY (fi$$s n’ii)’i,2 KPleH, KpleAl [BAL], cording to I Cor. 14 3, and also according to Acts
Ex. 931 Lev.2716 Dt. 88 Judg. 713, etc.) was m 153rJ’, being one of the duties of the vrppo+?jqs. When more
Vblical times one of the most character-
1. use istic products of Palestine (Dt. 88), re- 1 So in the Physiologus (Land, Anecd. Syr. 4 2 4 3 , cited hy
* garded as one of the necessaries of life
L6w, 277) barley is called the food of cattle as apposed to wheat
the food of man.
(Joellrr). It comes second in the series of grains 2 Cp, especially, the parallel cited by Budde (ZDPPlX93)

1 [tcouro,Sapor may perhaps be a scribal error for tmqo,Sapos- passage.

__
from Radloff’s Aus Silirien., 1 z m . CD also Moore on the
~

?.e., lXDliJ-which finds a striking parallel in the name Kaug- 3 I t is noteworthy that barley formed part of the price paid by
gabri, an Edomite king mentioned on an inscription of Esar- Hosea to redeem his adulterous wife (Hos. 3 z) ; hut this may be
haddon (cp Schr. Z.C.).] a mere coincidence.
The less common singular form is used for the growing 4 See, especially the full discussion by Nowack (Arch. 2
crop. The name which Hebrew has in common with Aramaic 1498) who agrees h t h Dillmann’s view, and points out that the
but not with ArLbic, is derived from a root meaning ‘ t o b; offerink in question is neither a sin-offering nor a guilt-offering
rough ’ or ‘ bristling.’ in the ritualistic sense.
483 484
 BARNABAS BARNABAS
closely examined, however, this etymology is not without its Acts 1516-19). Even if this be accepted as a historical
difficulties. It combines words from two different languages, xplanation-land we have no means of controlling it), it
and moreover fails to account for the form -va,Ba. Klostermann
(Pvob1. im AliosteZtext.. 1884, __
_. UP. 8-14)seeks
.. to derive the mean-
ing napbKh?pLs from the Aram. XI!? 1?,fiZius quietis, but finds
:annot be said to have been the chief one (see above,
i z ) ; as to which Acts (see ACTS, 4, 6 ) is scrupulously
in it no further reference than to thesatisfaction which Barnabas ,ilent. In virtueof the intermediate position, -as between
caused to the apostles by becoming a convert to Christianity. ’auline and Jewish Christianity,-which was held, as
Ualman’s etymology (Gram. a‘. jiid.-paLast. Aramiiisch, 1894, ve have seen, by Barnabas, he is admirably fitted for a
p. 142), which makes IrapdrchquLs a rendering of EQiI?, this last iiediating role in Acts. ’ Although a native of Cyprus,
being an abbreviation (not elsewhere met with) of a proper name le is regarded as a member of ’the church of Jerusalem
i1’13iIl or ]Qn! (‘I,???),
takes us very f u from the form to be 4363 ; on the sale of his estate, see C OMMUNITY OF
explained. Deissmann comes nearer the sound when (Bibeb >OODS, 9s I , 5) ; it is he who negotiates Paul’s admis-
studien, 175-778 [‘g51; Neua BzGeZsiudien, 15-17 [‘97]) he ;ion to that church (927) ; it is on that church’s conimis-
compares the Earnebo (13113of a Palmyrene inscription of the
year 114 A.D. (see De Vogue La Sy& Cenfvnb no. 73) and ion that he inspects the church which had been founded
the Semitic BapmPoSs (son ofkeho) on a North Syrian inicrip- 3y dispersed Christians at Antioch in Syria (1122-24);
tion of the third or fourth century A . D . ~ In Is. 46 I, as also t is he who fetches Paul to Antioch from Tarsus and
in Na,BovXo8ououop, Na,Bov<ap8av, Neb0 is transliterated into ntroduces him to his field of work ( 1 1 2 5 J ) , and he
Greek with a instead of e, and the termination -as may possibly
have been substituted for - o w with the view of disguising the ilso is the apostle’s travelling companion when the
name of the heathen divinity. (For examples of such a custom, :ollection for the poor Christians there is being brought
see Winer, G r a m a‘. NTZichen Sprachidiomns (8) 0 5 27a.) On .o Jerusalem (1130 1225) ; as in this case, so also in
this theory the rendering lra b h ~ u c sis merely A piece of popular
etymology: Nestle (Pkilolsacv., 1Sg6, p. r g x ) is inclined to .he so-called first missionary journey, undertaken along
take the Syr. q ~ x which
, signifies VapaKahaiv, as the starting- with Paul through Cyprus and the south of Asia
point of the etymological interpretation ; but ‘he refrains from Minor, his name is placed first, at least till 1 3 7 , and
explaining more minutely the structure of the form. then again in 1414 and even 151225. .All this is
If Joseph really did first receive the surname of not easy to reconcile with Paul’s well-known inde-
Barnabas from the apostles, this seems to have been on pendence as shown in his letters ; but the journey in
account. of his distinction as a speaker. In this re- Acts1130 1225 must also on other grounds be pro-
spect, however, the author of Acts (1315 16 14 12) invari- nounced’ unhistorical (see C OUNCIL OF J E F ~ S A L E M ,
ably subordinates him at least to Paul. Many Jews, 5 I ), and the rest of what is related in Acts11 is in-
with a view to their dealings with Greeks and Romans, consistent with the order rijs Zuplas Kal rijs Iiihr~lar
assumed in addition to their Jewish name a Greek (or in Gal. 121, as is the rest of what we read in Acts 9
Latin) or at least Greek-sounding surname (e.$., Acts with Gal. 115-20 (cp ACTS, 5 4, and, for the doubt-
1 2 3 1225 131gCol. 411, and’Iavva?os=y); and it may fulness of the contents of Acts 1 3 3 , and the probability
at least be asked whether this cannot perhaps have of a Barnabas source there, 13 and I O ). But,
been the case with Barnabas also (see NAMES, §§ 48, 84). although the object of the narrative in Acts is incon-
According to the Epistle to the Galatians (our sistent with history in as far as it seeks to suggest
primary source),Barnabas was a companion of Paul in that the missionary activity of Paul among the Gentiles
his missionary jojrneys for at least was no departure from the views of the primitive
2. church,-that on the contrary it was authorised and
some time before the council of
in Galatians. Jerusalem. In the council he joined even set on foot by it,-we may without hesitation accept
Paul in supporting- the immunity of Gentile Christians as historical (see ACTS, 4 ) not only the co-operation
from the Mosaic Law (Gal. 2 1 9), which makes it all of Barnabas with Paul shortly before and at the Council
the more surprising that he afterwards retreated from at Jerusalem, which is vouched for by the Epistle to
the position he had taken long before, that a Jewish the Galatians, but also the part which he took in the
Christian was at liberty to eat at the same table first missionary journey (Acts 13$), and even perhaps
with a brother Gentile freed from the law (Gal. 2 13). in Paul’s introduction to Jerusalem (of course accord-
As in the case of Peter, so also in that of Barnabas, ing to Gal. 1 1 8 3 ) at his first visit to that city three
the reproach of hypocrisy hurled at both by Paul years after his conversion. We may also accept in all
on this account may safely be toned down into probability the second journey of Barnabas to Cyprus
one of inconsistency (see C OUNCIL OF J ERUSALEM, in company with Mark (Acts1539). From this point
0 3). In point of fact, Barnabas had shaken off the his name disappears from the NT.
Mosaic law ; but he had never thought out all the Our later notices of him are of little value. Accord-
bearings of the step so fully as to be able to vindicate ing to Clem. Al. (Styom. ii. 20, § 116 ; cp Eus. H E
it when the venerable and sacred duty of observing the 4. Later i’. 1 4), he was one of the Seventy of Lk. 10 I ;
whole law was so authoritatively pressed upon him. notices. in the frankly anti-Pauline CZem. Homilies
From this date it was, of course, no longer possible for (i.g-16), which datefrom theend of the second
him to work along with Paul on the same lines ; and or the beginning of the third century-or rather, in the
thus the dispute at Antioch more than sufficiently ex- sources from which these Homilies were dravn-he was
plains why the two separated. The mention of Bar- a personal disciple of Jesus, Palestinian by origin, but
nabas in I Cor. 9 6 only proves that at that time also Alexandrian by residence, a strict adherent of the law ;
he was a prominent missionary, and that he held according to Nom. i. 8, ii. 4, Clement meets him in
to the Pauline principle of supporting himself by his Alexandria, but in Clem. Recos (1 7 ) the meeting was
own labour ; it is no evidence that he was personally in Rome. According to this presumably earlier (but
known to the Corinthians, or that he had again become none the less unhistorical) representation, he pro-
one of the companions of Paul. claimed the gospel in Rome even during the lifetime of
In the Acts of the Apostles the separation of Barnabas Jesus, and therefore before Peter. In Nom. 1 7 this
from Paul is explained as due not to a difference on a statement is made only of some person who is left
3. In Acts. matter of principle, but to a personal unnamed, and later means were found for the com-
question ; Barnabas wished to take John plete suppression 01 any such tradition, so full of
Mark-a near relation of his, according to Col. 4 To-as danger to the authority of Peter and his alleged
companion on a second journey planned by Paul and successors. From the fifth century onwards its place
himself; but Paul objected, because on a previous was taken by the statement that Barnabas was founder
occasion (Acts1313) Mark had left them in the lurch and bishop of the Church of Milan-a statement, how-
ever, accompanied by the clause, ‘ after he had been the
1 I n Die Wovte 3 32 (‘98) Dalman comes over to Deiss- first to preach the gospel in Rome.’ It was upon this
mann’s view, which islalso abl; defended by G. B. Gray Exp.
Times, Feb. 1899, p. 232f: Cp also Arnold Maye;, fesu allegation that the archbishops of Milan afterwards
Mutierspyache, 4 7 3 (‘96). based their claims to metropolitan authority over the
485 486
 BARODIS BARSABAS
whole of Northern and part of Central Italy. In the Sabbath.' Dalman (Gram. d. jgd. -pahist. Ayamiisch,
interests of Roman supremacy (which had originally 1894, p. 143)instances analogies to show that 'mw or
been helped by it), the allegation was violently disputed vnci
_ : _ could by contraction become N?W, though N @ 1~
by Roman theologians of the eighteenth century. is what we should more naturally expect in such a case.
In complete independence of the Roman and
Milanese tradition, there arose, after 431 A. D ., the I. Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus ('IOGUTOS [Ti.
legend that Barnabas had been the missionary to his WH]), was nominated, though not chosen, for the
native island of Cyprus, and had suffered niartyrdom at 2. Joseph. vacancy in the apostolate caused by the
Salamis, where he was buried. On this plea the death of Judas. The account of the election
Cyprian church, between 485 and 488 A. D., obtained in Acts 115-26 could not be held to be historical if we
from the Emperor Zen0 its independence of the Patri- regarded the number twelve for the original apostolate
archate of L4ntioch. The implied assumption is that as having been fixed, and invested with special dignity.
Barnabas was an apostle in the full sense of the word. only after the controversy as to Paul's equality in privi-
Ecclesiastical writers often substitute him for Barsabbas lege with the apostles of Jerusalem. But even were we
(Acts 123 ; cp BARSABAS, z), perhaps on account of to set aside the reference to the 666wa in I Cor. 1 5 5 , as
the name Joseph, common to both (the Sahidic and being unparalleled elsewhere in the Pauline writings, we
Philoxenian versions have, on the other hand, Joses in should still be at a loss to explain why Paul never
both cases, and there are isolated authorities for vigorously protested against an innovation--if inno-
Barnabas alone), but perhaps in order to bring him vation it was--so arbitrary and so derogatory to his
nearer the apostolic circle. This object is effected in own position. Occasion enough for doing so presented
a more pronounced way by CZeem. Recog. (160), which itself in Gal. 2 and z Cor. 10-13. W e must, accordingly,
identify him with Matthias (Acts 7 26). There is an ascribe to Jesus himself the choice of twelve of his
isolated notice in the (Gnostic) Actus Petri VemelZenses disciples who stood in peculiarly close relations to their
to the effect that Barnabas was sent along with Timothy Master. But in that case it was very natural that these
to Macedonia before Paul's journey to Spain. Cp. should seek to keep up their number-that'of the twelve
Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. ii. 2, pp. 270-320 (especially tribes of Israel.
310),260, 373. Whether the election was in Jerusalem is more open
Tertullian's claim of the authorship of the Epistle to to question. On the arrest of Jesus all the disciples,
the Hebrews for Barnabas is quite inadmissible. It is according to h4k. 1 4 5 0 Mt. 2656, had taken to flight,
5. Alleged dificult to attribute to a born Levite and that they should have returned to Jerusalem so soon
(Acts 436) such grave errors about the is not likely. The view of Lk. and Jn., according to
authorship. temple (or tabernacle) as occur in Heb. which they are present in Jerusalem on the day of the
9 3 f: 7 27 ; or to any member of the primitive church of resurrection of Jesus (and remain there), cannot be
Jerusalem any such declaration as that in Heb. 2 3 , that reconciled with what we are told by Mk. and Mt. ; the
he had first received the gospel at second hand through explanation is .that the third and fourth evangelists
hearers of Jesus. Nor is such an origin consistent with found the statement of the first and second incredible.
the thoroughly Alexandrian character of the Epistle. According to this last, Jesus, in, Jerusalem, through the
Even, however, if we must refrain from basing any women, sends the disciples, who are also in Jerusalem,
argument on the statements about Barnabas in Acts to Galilee, in order that he may there show himself to
436, we are still confronted by a decisive fact : the man them. The kernel of historical fact, however, is not as
who at a critical moment was so much subject to the 1.k. and Jn. have it, but the reverse : namely, that the
Mosaic law (Gal. 213)~could not have spoken of its apostles were not in Jerusalem at all, but in Galilee, and
abolition and even of its carnal character, as the writer thus in Galilee received the manifestations of their risen
of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks in 712 18 16. Lord. It may even be questioned whether they were
Doubtless the Epistle to the Hebrews was attributed again in Jerusalem and able to come forward publicly
to Barnabas because it was supposed that tlie X6yor and unopposed so early as at the following Pentecost
T $ S rrapaKh4uews of Heb. 1322 could only have come (see GIFTS, SPIRITUAL).
from the uibs aapaKh?jucws of Acts 436. In a still higher degree must the discourse of Peter
That Barnabas should have written the anonymous in Acts 116-22 be regarded as entirely the work of the
epistle which since the time of Clement of Alexandria author (see ACTS, 5 14).
has borne his name, and on that account bas been Instead of 'Iwu.;l$ in Actslzg, there is some (though
included among the writings of the ' apostolic fathers,' inferior) authority for 'Iwurjs, a reading due perhaps to
is still more inconceivable than his authorship of the a conjecture that the ' brethren of Jesus ' named in Mk.
Epistle to the Hebrews. It goes far beyond Paul in 6 3 wereof the number of the Twelve ; the same con-
its assertion of freedom from the law. As to its date, jecture, if in Acts123 the reading ' I w m j 9 be retained,
see under ACTS (S 16). -_ P. w. s. appears to find support in the fact that in Mt. 13 55 the
brother of Jesus in question is called, not as in Mk. 6 3
BARODIS ( B A ~ U A B I C [BA]), a group of children of ' I w u ~buts , according to the best MSS 'Iwu+$. The
Solomon's servants (see NIITHINIM) in the great post- assumption, however, is quite inadmissible (see CLOPAS,
exilic list (E ZRA , ii. §§ 9 8 c , 15 I a ) , one of the eight
inserted in I Esd. 534(om. 6") after Pochereth-hazzebaim §§ 4s 5).
According to Papias (Eus. HE iii. 3 9 g ) , Justus
of 11 Ezra 257 = Neh. 7 59. Barsabas drank deadly poison with impunity. From
BARREL (73 yApla [BAL] ; I I<. 1712 1416 1833). the fifth century onwards he is named as one of the
See COOKING UTENSILS, $ 2 ; POTTERY. seventy of Lk. 101 ; in the list of these preserved in
Chron. Pusch. (Bonn ed. i. 400) he is identified with
BARRICADE ($&V),I S. 1720 RVmS See C AMP , Thaddaeus = Lebbreus : in that of Pseudo-Dorotheus
5 1. (ib. ii. 128),with Jesus Justus (Col. ~ I I ) to
, whom the
BARSABAS or BARSABBAS (§§ 48, 72). The see of Eleutheropolis is assigned. In the Passio Pauli
etymology is doubtful. Bapuapas has been derived (attributed to Linus, but really dating from the 5th or
from i s (' son ') and N?W or N?D ( ' Sheba,' 6th cent.) ' Barnabas et Justus,' in another redaction
1. Name. ' Barnabas Justus,' and in a third 6 Bapcrapas 'IOGUTOS,
-which, however, as far as we know, is are enumerated among servants of Nero who, converted
always the name of a country, never of a person), from by Paul, are cast into prison and condemned to death
'18 and NXS ( =' warrior' ; cp Nu. 31 53), or from i s by the emperor, but afterwards released after an appear-
and N?? (' old man's son,'). Bapuappas ([Ti. WH] the ance of the risen Paul to the latter. The identification
better attested form of the name) suggests ' child of the of this Justus with the biblical Barsabas seems to have
487 488
 BARTACUS BARTIMZEUS
been made at a comparatively late date. See Lipsius; J Mt.2029-34 two blind men were healed. It might
Apokv. ilp.-psch. i. 201-3, 24 ; ii. 1 94-96, 1-50,161, Nerhaps be suggested that each of the two evangelists,
281f: r at least Mt., was thinking of some occurrence other
2. Another Barsabeas called Judas appears in Acts ian that recorded by Mk. ; but, as against this, the very
1522-34, along with Silns, as a prominent member of the lose coincidence with the text of Mk. shows clearly that
3. Judas. early church in Jerusalem, and as a r p o - loth are dealing with the story which is associated in
$+r?s-that is to say, as a man endowed dk. with the name of Bartimzus.
with the gift of r r a p d r h p s (see BARNABAS, I ) . The As regards this pardcular class of miracle, our judgment on
mission ascribed to him-that of conveying the decree rhich must depend on our doctrine of miracles in general, so
iuch at least may he remarked that in speaking to the disciples
of the council of Jerusalem-cannot, of course, be more f John(Mt.115=Lk.722) of i i s giving sight to the blind, and
historical than the decree itself (see COUNCIL OF JERU- ther similar wonders, Jesus meant to be understood in a
SALEM, § IO). P. w. s. piritual, not in a physical, sense. Otherwise the closing words,
and to the poor the gospel is preached,' would have no forcq ;
Dr no propf of supernatural physical power is involved in this
BARTACUS ( B A ~ T A K O Y PA]. BAZAKOY [I.], rowning instance. I t is plain however, that the evangelisfs
EEZACZS [Vg.]), father of Apame, a concubine of Darius inderstood his words in a phy&al sense. For in Mt. there.is
( I Esd. 429). His title or epithet 700 0aupau.roO is ecorded, before the account of the message to John, not only
obscure. Jos. (Ant. si. 35) gives it as T O O Ocpaulou, he healing of a leper (81-4) and of a lame man (91-8), as in Lk.,
but also the bringing to life of Jairus's daughter (918-26), which
which may possibly be for paOeumu=old Pers. lnathifta ,k. records after that message (Lk.840-56), the healing of a
(simply 'colonel'), and, at any rate, is hardly a mis- :w+& (Ygzf.), which Mk. does not record at all and which Lk.
understanding of the TOO Oaupau702 in I Esd. (RV ' the elates, like the raising of Jairus' daughter, after the message to
illustrious B.'), which is not a very natural epithet. lohn (1114), and, above all, the healing of two blind men(9 27-31),
vhich does not appear in the parallel narratives. I t thus appears
The form given by Josephb, PapelaKou (cp Syr. hat, in the first gospel, instances of all five classes of miracle
e d j j bj),seems nearest to the original name, xe recorded as having occurred before Jesus a peals to them (if
r e may disregard the consideration that in $tt.9pf: KW+& is
which was probably ArtabEzak. Out of this 'Bartacus' ised in the sense of dumb ' while Jesus in the message to John
may have arisen in this way : the MS had ~ U { U K O U , ises it in the sense of dead. Lk., on the other hand, in whose
and over the first four letters was written apra-a iarrative the message to John is preceded only by the raising of
he widow's son at Nain (711-17), in addition to the healing of a
correction which the scribe misunderstood (so Marq. eper and a lame man (512-26) relates in 727 that Jesus wrought
P / d . 65). ipon many persons in the presence oi the disciples of John the
niracles to which he was immediately afterwards to appeal.
BARTHOLOMEW ( B a p 8 o h o M A i o c [Ti. WH]) is 3f these miracles we have no indication in the other evangelists.
enumerated in Mt. l o 3 Mk. 318 Lk.614 Acts1 13 (see r h e conclusion is that the words 'to the poor the gospel is
1. In NT. APOSTLE, § I ) as one of the twelve apostles >reached ' cannot have been the addition of the evangelists or of
my of their predecessors. The words destroy the hysical-
of Jesus. The second portion of the name iupernatural interpretation which rhe evangelists see{ to put
re resents the 01' proper name vocalised by M T as ipon the preceding clauses. They are the authentic words of
p!g (BoXpa; for the variants see TALMAI). In resus himself, and they prove that he did not claim to be a
iealer of the physically blind.
Josephus (Aaf. xx. 1I 5) the name Tholomaios ( B o b Some of the critics who argue that the evangelists
paios) occurs as borne by a robber-chief. It is not lave misapprehended Jesus's words do not deny the
S )B
necessary to derive from Ptolemy ( W T O ~ ~ ~ U ~; Othe iistoricity of the story of Bartimzeus. They point
instead of T is against this, though the second o for E >ut that, in Mk.'s narrative at least, Bartimzus,
1
presents no difficulty (Winer,(R) 5 20 d). Bartholo- 'casting away his garment, sprang up and came to
mew may have been either a genuine proper name like lesus ' (and thus cannot have been completely blind) ;
Barnabas, Barjesus, etc., or a mere addition to the real ~ l s othat the event helps to render intelligible the
proper name of the bearer, given for the sake of dis- popular enthusiasm at the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem
tinction, like Simon Bar-jona (cp BARARBAS, § 2) ; on immediately afterwards. They account for the divergence
the latter supposition we do not know the true name of of Lk. by pointing out that for the story of Zacchzeus
Bartholomew. It is the merest conjecture that identifies a great concourse of people befoove the entry of Jesus into
him with Nathanael [see N ATHANAEL). If we neglect Jericho is required, and that the evangelist (erroneously)
this conjecture the N T has nothing further to tell us believed this to have been due to the healing of the
about Bartholomew. blind m a n ; Mt.'s divergence they account for by
Ecclesiastical tradition makes him a missionary to the most
widely separated countries, and attributes to him a variety of supposing that he had fused together the story of
martyrdoms. The oldest writer from whom we have Bartimaeus and that of the blind man, recorded in Mk.
2. PO&- an account of him is Eusebius ( H E v. 103) who 822-26, which he had previously passed over. Finally,
biblical. represents him as having preached in India (i; those they appeal to the express mention of the name of the
days a very wide geographical expression, including,
for example, Arabia Felix), and as having left behind him there person healed-a rare thing in the gospels-as guaran-
the Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew ;but Lipsius (Apolrr. teeing a genuine reminiscence.
Aj.-gesclt. ii. 2 54-108. cp Erginz-heft. 130f 189-191), from the This last argument would, of course, lose its validity
closely related charaiter of the tradition gegarding him and
Matthew, assigns an earlier date to a tradition that the shores of 2. Name. should the name prove to be no real name
the Black Sea were the scene of the labours of both, although but merely a description.
this tradition is found only in authors later than Eusehius. According to Payne Smith's Thes. S ~ Y 588, . 1461-2, the
According to other accounts he preached the Gospel among Syrian lexicographers Bar 'Ali (circa 885 A.D.) and Elins of Anbar
the Copts, or (with Thomas) in Armenia, or (with Philip) in (circa 92.) interpret Timaeus as meaning blind (sanzyri). similarly
Phrygia, and, after the death of Philip, in Lycaonia. In the Onont. Sacr., ed. Lag.(l) 11635 ; Baprrpalos, v d r u b A 6 ~ ;
lists of the apostles his name is always coupled with, that of and Jerome (2.66 IO) even gives the corrected form ' Barsemla
Philip,-a fact which makes it all the more remarkable that in filius caecus' and adds: 'quod et ipsurn conrupte quidam
this group of legends he is expressly designated as one of the Bartimaeum legunt. The reading Barsemia, however has no
' seventy ' disciples of Lk. 10I . On the other hand, the Parthian support except in Barhehrzeus (06. 1,286 A.D.), who founh in two
legend which gives Mesopotamia and Persia as the field of Greek MSS ',Samya bar Samya ;1 and the interpretation
his labours, identifies him with Nathanael. A heretical Gospe2
of BarLltoZoszew is mentioned by Jerome in his preface to Mt. 1 The reading is suspicious for the veryreason that it depends
P.w. s. on that of the Syriac translation, which could not render o vibs
Tipaiou Bapsipabs otherwise than by the awkward and meaning-
BARTIMEUS (BAPTIMA~OC [Ti. W H ] ; on the less rep'etition of 1s. I t accordingly left 1, ui6s untranslated, thus
accent see below, § 2, end), the name of the blind making Timaeus the blind man's own name, and designating
beggar whom (according to Mk. 1046-5') him 'p'p 'I?'p! (so in Syr. sin. and nearly so in Syr. hr. ; cp
Jesus healed as he was leaving Jericho Land Anec. 4 141 : 'Fn7e ?acwyr)). This might he held to
for Jerusalem. The parallel narratives of Mt. and 1,k. indicite that the combination o uibs T'paiov Bapripdos cannot
show various discrepancies in points of detail. According he due to the evangelist who habitually introduces the Greek
translation of an Aramaik expression by 6 durcv (3177 T I 34) or
to IL. 1835-43 the healing happened as Jesus was enter- b: ~ S T W pdeppqvrn6pevov (541 152234). Thus 1, uibs Tcfiaiov is
ing, not when he was leav,ing, Jericho, and according the marginal note of some very ancient reader.
489 490
 BARUCR BARUCH, BOOK OF
‘blind’ cannot he est+lished. Hitzig, who upholds it, has vith having induced Jeremiah to dissuade his country-
only inferred an Aramaic >no,‘to he blind,’ as being the inter- nen from seeking a refuge in Egypt (433). The
mediate step between the Syr. semi and the Arabic ‘ a z i y a
of this meaning (in Merx’s Archiv, 1 1 0 7 6 , and k i i t i k $a&’- lisciple appears to have been similar in character to his
rrischer Bnkfi, 1870, p. 9 6 ) ; but the inference is not sound. naster. In the language of syong emotion he com-
It would appear, then, that the ancient interpretation ‘blind ’ dained of the troubles which had come upon him, and
was hit upon simply because TU@& stood near. Neubauer )f the wandering life which he was forced to lead.
(Stud. Bib. 1 57j, without expressing any view as to the
etymology, gives NG‘e 12 as the original form. This rests, Seeliest thou great things for thyself’ (i.e . , the leader-
however only on the writing of the name in some MSS of the ;hip of a new and better Israel) ? : ‘ Seelc them not ’ was
Vet. La;. with th instead of t , and the termination - e m instend of he answer ; for still worse troubles are in prospect ;
-eus,-to which, however, the unanimous testimony of the Greek )ut Baruch‘s own life will be spared (451-5 ; cp 121-5).
MSS is surely to he preferred (only D has Bap‘rquas). Thus the We may be thankful for this brief record of Baruch‘s
most likely rendering of the name would he ’8pp - ‘son of
- . - 18, nner life, Its genuineness has been too hastilydoubtccl:’
the unclean.’ .he date given in 45 I is, of course, too early to suit the
Accepting this interpretation, Volkmar still regarded the name
as only a description of the actor in the story. Uncleannesq, :ontents, and must be interpolated ; but the prophecy
hP
.. . armed. is the characteristic of the Gentile world : what
Mk~&ns to say is not~thatan individual man but that the
-
tself is altogether in character with Teremiah.
No other trustworthy facts respecting Baruch have reached us
whole Gentile world,’is freed from spiritual hlindniss by Jesus- [n the M i d r a s h Shiv ha-Shirinz (on Cant. 5 j) and in Megilla
that is, hy the preaching of his gospel (Marcz~su. h Sym@e r6E, he is said to have been the teacher of Ezra ; and the Midrash
4.22, 502-6, 675! 711f. ;Jesus Nazarrsus, 2665). But in thk xdds that Ezra did not go up to Jerusalem directly after the
sight of Christianity, Judaism, as well as heathenism is blind, :dict of Cyrus, because he did not like to miss the instructionsof
and Volkmar finds Judaism too, represented, in the dlind man his teacher. This is obvlonsly an attempt to prove the unbroken
whose healing is described’in an earlier chapter (Mk. 8 22-26 ; transmission of the oral tradition. An equally great and
see Marcus, 338x, 403-11 ; 3esas 1Vaznrenzrs, 243-5). The equally groundless honour was conferred on Baruch when
text, however, supplies not the slightest indication or hint that Bunsen represented him as the ‘great unnamed’ prophet who
in the one place the Jews, in the other the Gentiles, are intended ; :omposed Is. 40-1,G. That various apocryphal writings claimed
in fact as Bartimzus uses the words ‘son of David’ and Baruch as their author is not surprising : Ezra and Baruch, the
‘ RabbGni,’ Volkmar finds himself constrained to pronounce him two great scribes, were marked out for such distinctions. See
not a Gentile in the full sense of the word but a proselyte- A POCRYPHA. S 2 0 : APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, 5 . s &,
.. and
thereby, however, destroying his own posikon which is that B ARUCH BooL of. ’
the two healings taken tosether express the delkerance hy the 2. In fist of Judahite inhabitants o f Jerusalem (see E ZRA , ii.
gospel of the whole of humanity from spiritual blindness. 8 56 5 15 [ I ] a). Neh. 114. Not mentloned in (1 I Ch. 9 2 8
W e are shut up, then, to the conclusion that Bartimaeus 3.’b. Zabbai(drZaccai),In list of wall-builders(seeNEHEMIAH,
is a proper name like Barnabas, Barjesus, and the like, 13EZRAii. $$16 [I] 15 4; Neh.320.
1: Prieshv si&natory’ to the covenant (see EZRA, i. 5 7) : Neh.
and it is a matter of indifference whether the second
element be the appellative ’ ~ p p ‘unclean,’ or the
personal name 9n.a (Levy, Neuhehr. Worterh. 2 154),l BARUCH,Book of, a short book which in the LXX is
or the place name N‘DD (ib. 166), or the second part of placed immediately after Jeremiah, and is reckoned by
the Syriac place-name ’Q’F n y (Ther. Syr. 486, 1462), the Roman Catholic Church as one of the so-called
and whether any or all of the last three forms admit deutero-canonical writings.
of being traced to a Jcwish-Aramaic root D*D,‘ to close Its contents may be summarised as follows :-
(Chap. 11-2.) The book is said to have been written
up’ (Syr. om). 1. Contents. by Baruch the son of Neriah at Babylon
Bartimaeus remains a proper name, also, if the second part of in the fifth year, at the time when Jeru-
it be supposed to he the Greek name Ti+acos (found e.g in
Plato). Origen seems to have had this derivation in his &nd salem was burned by the Chaldeans.
when hecalled Bartimaeusb+nprjF d&vuf~*os. Such a blending, (Chap..l;-l4.) Baruch reads his book in the presence
,however, of Aramaic and Greek is unlikely. On the other of Jeconiah (z.e., Jehoiachin), the son of Jehoialcim, king
hand, it is not impossible that the Greek word may have had
influence on the accent. With a Semitic derivation this would of Judah, and in the presence of the other Jewish exiles
naturally be Eapripaios, as in MadaBaios, Zaqaios, and so forth. who dwell at Babylon by the river Sud ( ZotG [?I).
After
But just as, on the analogy of the very common Greek termina- mourning and fasting, they send money to Jerusalem to
tion -avds, the accepted pronunciation of Urbanus and Silvanus the priest Jehoiakim ( ’ I w u K .the
~ ~son
) , of Hilkiah, com-
was Ohppavds and BLhouauXs (Rom. 169 z Cor. 119), a!though in
Latin the accent lay on the penultimate, so concelvably the manding him to offer sacrifices in behalf of Nubuchodo-
name under consideration may have been accented Baprlpatos, nosor (Nehuchadrezzar) Icing of Babylon and his son
even without supposing it to be etymologically derived from the Belshazzar, in order that Israel may find mercy. At
Greek.
For the philology see, especially Nestle, Murg. u. Mat., 1893, the same time, the Jewish exiles send the following book,
which is to be read publicly on feast days in the Temple.
pp. 8 y p , and for the subject in ieneral, Keim, Gesch. Jes. voo1z
Naz. 3 51-54(ET 5 61-64). P. w. s. (Chaps. 115-38.) This section is a confession of sin,
put into the mouth of Israel and accompanied by prayers
BARUCH (77-12, ‘blessed [of God]’ ; B ~ p o y x that God will at length pardon his people whom he
[BS14Q] ; Bbpoyxoc [Jos.]), son of Neriah and brother has so justly punished. Special stress is laid upon the
of SE~ZAIAH (9.. ., 4), one of Jeremiah’s most faithful sin which the people committed in refusing to serve the
friends in the upper class of the citizens of Jerusalem king of Babylon, notwithstanding the solemn injunctions
(cp JOS. Ant. x. 91, Zg E?r~a+~p.ouqb68pa O ~ K ~ U S ) . of the prophets.
W e hear of Baruch first in 604 B.C. as the scribe who (Chaps. 39-5 9. ) Now follows a discourse addressed
committed to writing the prophecies delivered by his to the Israelites dispersed among the Gentiles. It begins
master up to that date, and then in 603 B.C. (?) as by showing that the calamities of the people are due
the fearless reader of those prophecies before the to their having forsaken God, the only source of wisdom,
people, the princes, and the king (Jer. 36). After the and then proceeds to console them with promises of
roll from which he read had been burned, Baruch restoration-Jerusalem will he gloriously re-established
wrote down the substance of the former roll afresh for ever and ever, and the oppressors of Israel are to
-a fact not without significance for the cr be humbled to the dust.
of the Book of J EREMIAH ( q . ~ . ) . In 587 B . c . , it was It will be seen that the book is very far from present-
to Baruch that Jeremiah when in prison committed ing the appearance of an organic unity. After the
the deeds of the land which he purchased from his heading of chap. 1, ‘ These are the words
cousin Hanamel at Anathoth (321z), and after the fall 2. Integrity* of the book which Baruch wrote,’ etc.,
of Jerusalem it was this faithful scribe who was charged we might expect the book itself to follow immediately ;
1 This personal name ’n‘m, however, is not certainly made
but, instead of this, we have a long account of the effect
out, for, according to Dalman(ThooL Lit.-Glatt, ‘893, p. 2 5 7 6 , produced upon the people by the reading of the hook.
and AYU?IC. u. netche6r. UGrfer6uch, 1898,,p. 162)) in the sole Nor are we clearly informed whether ‘ the book’ sent
proof-textcited, the reading in the first editlon is *)yw, which he
explains from jiyDw. 1 Schwally, ZATW8217.

491 492
 BARUCH, BOOK O F BARZILLAI
by the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem (114), which they the Syro-Hexaplar text of Baruch there are three notes
cite at full length in the following section (115-38), by a scribe stating that certain words in 117 and 23
is or is not identical with ‘ the book ‘ written by Baruch. are ‘not found in the Hebrew’ (cp APOCRYPHA, § 6
Moreover, the historical situation described in the (1)).
narrative (13-13) does not agree very well with the sub- As to the question of historical credibility, it is.obvious
sequent portion, since the narrative assumes the con- that if, with the majority of critics, we ascribe the book
tinued existence of the temple, whereas 226 implies Q.Historical to the Roman period, its value as a record
its destruction. Finally, the discourse which occupies value. of facts is reduced to nothing. Whether,
all the latter half of the book begins quite abruptly and for example, thestatements about Baruch‘s
stands in no definite relation to what precedes : it pre- residence in Babylon, the river 2068, and the priest
supposes, indeed, the dispersion of Israel ; but to Baruch Jehoiakim are based upon any really ancient tradition
and to the special circumstances of the B a b y h i a n it is impossible for us to decide. The author of the
captivity there is no allusion. first half borrows largely from Jeremiah and from Daniel ;
To these general considerations may be added several in the second half we find many reminiscences of Job
difficulties of detail. The date given in 1 2 is so ob- and of the latter part of Isaiah; and it may be that
scurely worded that several modern commentators (e.f., sources now lost also were employed. It is par-
Ewald and Rneucker) have felt obliged to emend the ticularly important to observe that the closing passage
text. Even if the omission of the month be explained, (436-5 9) bears a striking resemblance to one of the pieces
we still have to decide whether ‘ the fifth year ’ means in the so-called ‘ Psalms of Solomon ’ (Ps. I 1-see the
the fifth year of Jeconiah’s captivity or the fifth year edition of Ryle and James, pp. 1xxii.-lxxiv.), which prob-
after the burning of Jerusalem ; and to both views there ably date from about the middle of the first century B. c.
are serious objections. Chap. 1 8 disturbs the sense, Since there is every reason to believe that the Psalms
and if it be genuine must originally have stood in some of Solomon were originally composed in Hebrew (cp
other place. APOCALYPTIC, 83), the close verbal agreement seems
Though the Book of Baruch never formed part of the to indicate that the author of this part of Baruch
Hebrew Canon (for which reason Jerome excluded it used the Psalms of Solomon .in their present Greek
3. Origin. from his Latin translation of the Bible), it form.
was regarded as authentic by many of the The most important of the MSS containing the Greek text
Christian fathers, from the second century onwards. ofBaruchare B, A,,a?d the Marchalianus (Q). I n N this hook is
Sometimes, owing to the place which it occupies in the missing. Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha
LXX, it is cited as a part of Jeremiah. Even in quite 6. Texts and (Librinpocryphiveteris testamentignzce, 1871)
comm. does not accurately represent the B text of
remnt times, it has been maintained by Roman Catholic Baruch ; but trustworthy iuforniation about this
theologians that the book is a translation of a genuine hlS may be obtained from Swete’s Sejtuugint iii., in the pre-
work of the well-known Baruch, the friend and paration of which the photographic reproduction of B was used.
secretary of the prophet Jeremiah. All competent The ancient versions are-(i) the old Latin, contained in the
editions of the Vg.; ( 2 ) another Latin version, first published a t
critics, however, have long ago concluded that it dates Rome in 1688 by Joseph Maria a Caro Tommasi ; (3) the Old
from a very much later period, ’and belongs to the Syriac, edited by Paul de Lagarde in his Libri veteris t ~ s t u -
large class of Jewish books which were put forth menti npocryPhi syriuce 186r from a MS jn the British
Museum, Add. 17,105 ; (45 the iyro-Hexaplar-z.e., the Syriac
under false names. Its origin and history remain, how- translation of Origen’s Hexaplaric text-contained in the Codex
ever, in some respects obscure. That 115-38 and 39- Ambrosianus, which was reproduced in photo-lithography by
5 9 are by different authors is generally acknowledged : Ceriani in 1874 ’ (5) the Ethiopic-a much abridged form of the
text-ed. by Diilmann (Berlin 1894)in the 5th vol. of his Vetus
both in substance and in style there is a marked con- T’estunzentuirrWthiopicunz ;(6) the Armenian, of which the best
trast, the language of the former section being simple edition is contained in the Armenian Bible published a t Venice
and full of Hebraisms, while that of the latter is highly in 1805. (7) the Coptic edited by Brugsch in 22 x.-xii.
rhetorical. The dates of the various parts, however, and Of dodern commeAtaries the most valuable are those of
the question whether the whole or any part was originally Fritzsche (in Kurzgef: Handb., 1851), Reusch (ErkZZrzmg des
Bzrclrs Baruch, 18531, Ewald (Propheten des aZfen Bundes,C4
written in Hebrew are matters about which critics differ. iii. r867-68) Kneucker (Dus Buch B a m h , 1879)~and Gifford
Ewald ascribed the first half (11-58) to a Jew living in (in Wace’s hpocryjhu, ~ 8 8 8 ) . The best general account of the
Babylonia or Persia under one of the latter Achaemenian book will be found in Schiirer ( W V ,1886-90, ii. pp. 721-726,
ET). The reader may consult also Bertholdt (Einleitung,
kings, and regarded the rest of the book as having been 1812-19, pt. iv.) Havernick (De Z i h Baruchi coinmentatiu
written soon after the capture of Jerusalem by Ptolemy criticu, 1843). Hitzig (in ZWT 3 262.~73)~ Hilgenfeld (i6id. 5
Soter (320 B. C. ) ; 432 Ewald explained as a reference to 199.203, 22 437’454 23 412-422) Nijldeke ( A TZicke Lit. 1868
the deportation of Jews to Alexandria. Very few critics, p. 214 n.) Reuss (Gesch. d. h h e n Schriften ATs.,P1’18go):
and the &&le on this book in Smith’s DB,(Zl 18 3 an artlcle
however, are now in favour of so early a date. Kneucker valuable chiefly on account of the additions made 8yYrof. Ryle.
thinks that the work, in its original form, was com- I n many MSS and printed editions the apocryphal EjistZe of
posed in the reign of Domitian, and conSisted of only the Jeremiah is appended to Baruch, and it is reckoned in the Vg. as
the sixth chapter of the book. The Book
heading (i.e., 1 T z in part, 3), and the discourse contained 6. Appendices. of Baruch is not to be confounded with the
in 3 9-5 g ; the confession of sin (115-38) was, according ApocaZyjse of Baruch (see APOCALYPTIC
to Kneucker, probably written a little earlier (in any case LITERATURE 5 5 3 ) . The work known as ‘The Rest of the
after the year 73 of our era) as an independent work, words of Ba;uch ’ extant in Greek, Ethiopic, and Armenian,
seems to be a Ch;istian imitation of the Apocalypse of Baruch.
and was subsequently inserted into the Book of Baruch We possess, moreover, a third apocalypse of Baruch extant in
by a scribe, who himself composed 14-14. Schurer, on Greek and in Slavonic, and a fourth extant only in Ethiopic.
the contrary, whilst admitting that the middle of chap. 1 T h e Greek text of the former has been puhlished by James in
his dpocryjhu Anecdotu second series [‘g7] (Textsand Studies,
does not harmonise very well with what precedes and vol. 5 no. I ) where somk information will be found also about
follows, thinks it on the whole probable that.al1 the first the Eihiopic’apocalypse (lii.). A. A. B.
half of the book (11-38) is by the same author, whom
he places soon after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 BARZILLAI ($I-$ ; BEPZEAA[E]I [BKAL]). The
A.D.), the second half being by a different hand but of meaning can scarcely be ’ iron,’ for such a name would
about the same period. With regard to the be without a,parallel. According to Nestle ( Z D P Y
original language, Ewald, Kneucker, and others believe 1 5 2 5 7 ; cp Kampfmeyer, 2’6. 9), the nzme is Aramaic
the whole to be a translation from the Hebrew, whilst (‘ son of -?’) ; but the latter part of it is still
Bertholdt, Havernick, and Noldeke regard the Greek obscure.
a s the ,primitive text. Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, and I. A wealthy Gileadite of RbgElim, who befriended
Schiirer maintain the theory of a primitive Hebrew text David in his flight from Absalom at Mahanaim (z S.
in the case of the first half only. In favour of this 1727). He refused David’s offer to live at the court at
hypothesis, it niay be mentioned that on the margin of Jerusalem, but entrusted to him his son C HIMHAM
493 494
 BASALOTH BASHAN
(q.v. ; 2 S. 1 9 3 2 8 ) ) . David on his death recommended some 1800-2000 ft. above tlie level of the sea, it forms
the sons of Barzillai to Solomon ( I K. 27). a depression between the hilly JaulHn (across the Nahr
er-Rukkiid) on the W., the Zumleh range on the S., and
the Jebel HaurLn and the LejE on the E. :l the S. and
3. A man who married one of the daughters of (2) and changed SE. part of en-Nukra also hears the special name of
his name to Barzillai.1 In post-exilic times the b’ne Barzillai HAURAN(q...) .
were among those deposed from the priesthood because they were Bashan, as defined above, is distinguished geologically
unable to prove their pedigree. In I Esd. 5 38 the original name
of the founder of the family is said to have been JADDUS, AV from the country S. of it. The YarmGk forms a natural
AIIDUS (raSSour [Bl, LOSS. [A]+.a., Jaddua(cp Jos. Ant. xi. 8 4 ; dividing line, on the S. of which the
raSSour) ;-but in the parallel passages he is simply called Bar- 2. limestone comes to the surface, while
zillai ; E z r a 2 6 r a (<up@eA+ [B], <ep@eAhab[A])=Neh. 7 6 3 a on the N. it is covered by volcanic deposits. Jebel
(&<dAab [A]), and so L in I Esd. 5 38 (@fp<rhAa). The same
passage gives AUCIAas the name of his wife. Hauriin, on the SE., is simply a range of extinct vol-
A . A man of Ahel-meholah (not far. therefore. from Gilead). canoes ; volcanic peaks extend from N. to S. in JaulZn,
wh‘ose son ADRIEL(g.v.) also has been thought to bear i n along the edge of the Jordan valley, on the W. ;= and
Aramaic name (z S.21 8).
there are isolated volcanic hills in other parts of the
BASALOTH (Baahwe [A]), I Esd. 531 = Ezra252, country. The Lejii, that strange petrified ocean ’ NW.
BAZUTH, q.v. of the Jebel Hanriin, which measures some 25 m. from
BASCAMA (BACKAM& LAW] ; B,ACKA, Jos. Ant. N. to S. by 19 from E. to W. (see T RACKONITIS ),
xiii. 6), an unknown place, in Gilead, where Jonathan owes its origin entirely to streams of basaltic lava
the Maccabee was put to death by Trypho (I Macr. emitted from the Ghariirat el-Kibliyeh, a now extinct
13 23). Furrer’s identification (ZDPV12 151) with TeZ& volcano at the NW. corner of the Jebel Hauriin. The
Bdzzik on the W.’GoramLye (to the E. of the extreme N. soil both of the slopes of the Jebel HaurZn and of the
of Lake Tiherias) is precarious (see Buhl, PuZ. 241). Nukra is a rich red loam,3 formed by the lava scoria,
Equally unsubstantiated is the identification with BE- which has become disintegrated under atmospheric
ZEK, i. action. The soil thus constituted is celebrated for its
fertility : the best corn grows upon it, and in summer
BASE. For ;11nn, ;113n. nzekl&zih, the word em- time the plain is covered far and wide with waving crops.
ployed to denote the structure upon which each of Solomon’s
lavers rested ( I K. 7 27 f: 30.32 34 J 3 7 3 4 2 3 : 2 IC. 16 17 The country is, however, in general almost entirely
25 13 16 2 Ch. 4 14, pexwvw0 [sing. and pl.] ; Jer. 27 [341 Ig om.
~~
destitute of trees : only on the slopes.of Jebel HanrHn,
RNA, pqywuw0 [Theod.] ; Jer. 53 17 @amw[BUQF]), see LAVER; especially in its central and southern parts, are there
also for p, kBn, Ex.319 etc., RV [AV ‘foot’]. For ~ T V , abundant forests of evergreen oak (cp the allusions to
ydn?kh, EX. 25 31 37 17 R V [AV ‘shaft’], see CANDLESTICK, the ‘ oaks of Bashan ’ in the OT : Is. 2 13 Zech. 11z Ez.
B z , n. 3 ;and for 22, gdh, Ezek. 43 13 RV, see ALTAR, 11. ~. 21 6, also Is. 3 3 9 (64l’aX[~]~Xaia),Nah. 1 4 ) . In ancient
BASEMATH (nD?$),Gen. 3 6 3 RV ; AV BASHE- times, also, it must have supplied rich pastures : the
MATH.
strong and well-nourished herds of Bashan are men-
tioned in Ps. 2213[12] (@ omits) Am.41 Ez.3918 (@
BASEMENT (RJJ), Ez. 418 RV. See G ABBATHA, omits) Dt. 3214 (@ Tadpwv) ; cp also Mic. 7 14.Jer. 5019
PAVEMENT. (aomits). The lofty conical summits of the volcanoes
BASHAN (I@, always in prose [except I CIL fiZ31. forming the HaurLn range (cp Porter, 183, 186, rgo, 227,
and sometimes also in poetry, with the art. : the 250) are no doubt the ‘ mountains with peaks,’ which the
poet of Ps.6816J IS,^] pictures as looking enviously
1. Name, appellative sense of the word, to judge
at the coniparatively unimposing mountain of Zion.
from the Arab. dut/zninnt”n, was probably The principal towns of Bashan mentioned in the OT
‘ fertile, rich and stoneless soil ’ : see Wetzstein, in Del. are the two royal cities of ‘Og (Dt. 1 4 Josh. 124 paua
Hied(*) [App.], 5 5 6 J : @jBAL pauav or 4 p a u a v e k i s ) ,
[B]), ‘ASHTAROTE,now probably either
the name of the broad and fertile tract of country 3’ Towns* Tell ‘Ashterii or Tell ’Ash‘ari, in the middle
on the E. of Jordan, bounded (somewhat roughly) of en-Nuluii, and EDRE‘I,now Der‘iit, on its S. border,
on the S. by the Yarmiik and a line passing through GOLAN(Dt. 443), somewhere in the W . , and SALCHAII
Edre‘i and Salchah (mentioned as border cities in (Dt. IO), how Salchad, a frontier-fortress in a com-
Dt. IO), on the E. by the imposing range of extinct manding position overlooking the desert in the SE.
volcanoes called the Jehel Hauriin, on the W . by
corner of Bashan, S. of Jebel Hauriin. BoSra, between
Geshur and Ma‘acah (see Josh. 125), and on the N. Edre‘i and Salchah, though not mentioned till I Macc.
stretching out towards Hermon (cp Dt. 3322 : see
5 2 6 8 (pouop [AHV*] ; but see BOSOR),also was, no
further, on the limits of Bashan, Guthe, ZDPV, 1890,
donht, an important place : the site is still niarkcd
pp. 231-4). The name (in its Gk. form B a ~ a v a i a , ~ by extensive remains belonging to the Roman age.
and its Arabic form Bat?zanTye?z3)was, however, after-
wards restricted to the southerri portion of the area thus
‘ Threescore fenced cities, with high walls, gates aud
bars,’ forming the kingdom of ‘Og, are likewise men-
defined, other parts of the ancient ‘ Bashan ‘ being dis-
tioned in Dt. 3 4 (cp I K. 4 1 3 ) as situate in the ‘ region
tinguished as TRACHONITIS (q.v.)+e., the remarkahle
of Argoh,’ in Bashan. The position of Argob, and,
pear-shaped volcanic formation in the NE. now called consequently, the positions of those cities as well, are
the LejL-Auranitis (probably the Jebel Hauriin and
uncertain (see A RGOB, I ) ; hut there are remains of
its environs in the SE.), and Ganlanitis (which, how-
many ancient towns and villages in these parts, especi-
ever, may have included parts of Geshur and Ma‘acah, ally in the Lejii, and on the sloping sides of the Jehel
beyond the limits of Bashan proper) in the West. The
Hanriin ; according to Wetzstein, for example (Hnurun,
principal part of the Bashan of the O T must have 42), there are 300 such ancient sites on the E. and S .
been the broad rolling prairie now called by the Be-
slopes of the Jebel Hauriin alohe.
dawin en-Nu+, a word properly denoting the ‘ hollow The dwellings in these deserted localities are of a remarkable
hearth’ dug by the Bedawi in the middle of his tent, character. Some are the habitations of Troglodytes, being
and applied to this great plain because, though it is caverns hollowed out in the mountain-side, and so arranged as
-.
* The adoption of the family name of the wife suggests that 1 Wetzstein, Hanran, 87 n., Hioh, 552 ;. GASm. HG 536f:
See the excellent map of this district uhhshed in the ZDPV,
she was an heiress.
2 See Schiirer GJV 1353. 18 0, Heft 4, chiefly on the hasis of St&el’s survey.
3 Wetzstein, k a u r a n , 83-88, and in the app. to Del. Hio6,P) 8 Schumacher, TheJauZiin, 18-20.
553-558, where it is shown also that the modern “ard el- 3 Wetzstein, HauTan, 40f: Cp the map at the end of the
Bathaniyeh,’ or ‘Land of Bathaniyeh,’ is the name of a born- volume.
paratively small district N. of the Jebel HaurLn and E. of the 4 Porter, E v e Years in Da?nascxs,P) 186. 190,zoo, 202, etc. :
Le& which can never (as was supposed by Porter and others) GASm. Geog. 613f: The mountainous region of JaulZn, W. of
have formed part of either B;rshan or the province of Bwavat’a. the Ru!&id, also is well wooded.
495 496
 BASHAN BASHEMATH
to form.separate chambers ; these are found chiefly on the E.:of IJeen Levitical cities (Josh. 2127, cp I Ch. 656 [TI]) ; the
the Jebel HaurSn. Others are subterranean abodes entered by Former also is named as a city of refuge (Dt. 443 Josh.
shafts invibible froni.above; these are frequent on the W. of the
Zumleh range, and a t Edrei the dwellings thus constructed 208 21 27).
form quite an underground city. Commonly, the dwellings Bashan played no prominent part in the liistory ; and
are built in the ordinary manner above ground; but they it is rarely mentioned in a historical connection. In
are constructed of massive well-hewn blocks of black basalt
-the regular and indeed the only building material used in I K. 4 13 it forms one of Solomon's commissariat dis-
the country-with heavy doors moving on pivots, outside stair- tricts ; and in z K. 1 0 3 3 it is included in the enumera-
cases, g+lleries and roofs all of the same material ;1 of this tion of trans-Jordanic regions which were ' smitten ' by
kind .are, for &ample, t i e houses a t BurZk, on the N. edge Hazael. Its inhabitants may be presumed to have
of the Leja, at Sauwarah, El-Hazm, Deir Nileh, HiyZt Hit,
Bathaniyeh, Shaki Shnhba, E. of it, Kanawlt and Suw;ideh, suffered, like their neighbonrs in Gilead, on other
on the W. slo es'of Jebel Haurln, GalChad, Kureiyeh and occasions during the Syrian wars, and finally to have
Bosra on its $E. slope, and N e j r a , Ezra', Khubab, dSmi, been carried into exile by Tiglath-pileser in 734 ( z K.
and Mismeiyeh, within the Leji itself.2 Many of these cities are
in such a .:ood state of preservation that it is difficult for the 1529). ; but in neither connection are they expressly
traveller to realise that they are uninhabited, and in the Lejl mentioned. Apart from the prehistoric ' threescore
especially, where the ground itself is of the same dark and cities ' of the Argob, settled civilisation appears to have
sombre hue, unrelieved by a touch of green, or a single sign of
life, a feeling of weirdness comes over him as he traverses their begun for the region of Bashan about the time of the
desolate and silent streets. Christian era, when its Semitic inhabitants first .fell
The architecture of the buildings contained in these under Greek and Roman influence. The most im-
cities (comprisingtemples, theatres, aqueducts, churches, portant event in the history of the country, however,
etc.) stamps them as belonging to the Grzeco-Roman was its incorporation by Trajan, in 106 A.D., in his
age, and is such as to show that between the first and newly-founded province of Arabia. Then it was that
the seventh centuries A . D . they were the home of a Roman culture impressed itself visibly upon both the
thriving and wealthy people. May any of these cities surface of the country and the character of its in-
date from a remoter antiquity, and be actually the habitants; and towns, with great public buildings, of
fortified places pointed to with wonder in Dt. 3 4 f : and which the remains, as described above, survive to this
I K. 413? The question was answered in the affirma- day, sprang up in every part of it and continued to
tive b y Porter and by Cyril Graham,' who believed thrive for many centuries.l
that they had really rediscovered the cities ' built and The most important works on the topography of Bashan are,
Wetzstein's Reisebericht &er Hairran und die T?-achonen
occupied some forty centuries ago ' by the giant race of ('60), and Guthe and Fischer's art: in the
the Kephtiim ; hut this view cannot be sustained. The 6. Literature. Z D P V 18~0, Heft 4, pp. 225-302 (containing
best authorities are unanimous in the opinion that, Dr. Stibel sitineraryand map, and numerous
bibliographical references) ; on Southern Basban, or the Nukra,
though in some cases very ancient building materials Schumacher, Z D P V , 1897, pp. 65-226 ; on Western HaurSn also,
niay be preserved in them, the extant remains are not, Scbumacher, Across the Jordan, 20-40, 103-zqz . Porter Five
as a rule, of a date earlier thap the first century, A . D . 5 Years in Damascus; GASm. HG575 8, 6113' Inscriptions
Dt. 3 4 f. and I I<. 413 are sufficient evidence that in (chiefly Greek and Latin) have been published by Wetzstein in
the A6h. of the Berlin Ac. 1863, p. 255-368 ; Waddington, 0).
the seventh century B. C. there were in Bashan strongly cif. Nos. 2071.2548 ; Clermont-Ganneau ReczceiZXArch. O r i e d
fortified places which were popularly supposed to have 11-23; GASm. Crit. Rev., 1892, p. 5 5 2 ; W. Ewing, PEFQ,
belonged to the ancient kingdom of O g ; but none 1895(4papers); C1.721, fasc. 2, Nos. 162-193. s. R . D.
of the existing deserted cities Can be as ancient as this. BASHAN-HAVOTH-JAIR (iyni?q p$. V .; I) occurs
At the same time, it is not improbable that some of in Dt. 314 ( B A C C G M A e A y w e I A G l p [B"], B A C A N A Y w e
the cities built during and after the reign of Herod lasip [BabWid.) (ut vid.) AFL]), where AV renders, 'and
may have stood upon the sites of cities belonging to (J+) called them after his own. name, Bashan-havoth-
a much earlier age, and that in their construction the j a r . ' This version does justice to the present text, but
materials employed in building the more ancient cities certainly does not represent the mind of the original
may in some cases have been utilised and preserved. writer. The awkward (indeed, impossible) expression
As regards the history of Bashan, it is stated in Nu. Bashan-havoth-jair can be accounted for only on the
21 33-35 that the Israelites after their conquest of Sihon, hypothesis that the first element in it (Bashan) is a mis-
4. History. king of Heshbon, turned in the direction placed gloss from the margin. RV seeks to evade the
of Bashan, defeated Og its king, who difficulty by rendering, ' called them, even Bashan, after
came out to meet them as far as his frontier fortress of his own name, H AVVOTH-JAIR.' On the geographical
Edrei, and took possession of his territory. The difficulty which still remains, see HAVVOTH-JAIR.
passage,is in the context of JE ; but it agrees so closely,
in form as well as in substance, with Dt. 3r-3, that BASHEMATH, or, as RV, correctly, BASEMATH
Dillniann and other critics consider this to have been ( n ~ ~ ~ = a p w M A T I N §H 54
? ; B A C e M M A e [AD]).
its original place, supposing it to have been inserted Other readings are : Gen. 2G 34 paueppa9 [AEI BauwfpaB
afterwards into the text of Numbers for the purpose of D i d . paue9ap [L ; elsewhere .@awepa91; 36 3 paufppa0 [Dl ;
[Dl ; 4 pausppae [Dl paue9pae [El ; IO pauueppaO[El;
supplying what seemed to be an omission. 13 paw€. [AI pauuepa0 [DEI ; 17 paufppa9 [AE] [ p a l u ~ p a e
All other notices of the same occurrence in the historical books [Dvid].
are Deuteronomic (or later) : Israel's ancient victories over
' Sihon king of the Amorites and Og the king of Bashan ' being I . Daughter of Ishniael, and wife of Esan, called
two national successes, to which, especially, the writers of the MAHALATH in Gen.2S9 and Hittite ( s y c \ l o y [A];
Deuteronomic school were never weary of referring (Dt. 1 4 Xtxra. [El; XGTTA. [L]) in Gen. 2634 [PI. The
3 1 s 447 296[71 314 Josh.2ro 910 1 2 4 3 13113 r K . 4 1 9 ; names and tribal origin of Esau's three wives are given
see also, later, Nu. 32 33 [R], Neh. 9 22 Ps 135 IT 136 ~ 9 3 )
twice (cp ANAH): by P in Gen. 2634 289, and by R (?)
The territory of Bashan fell to the possession of the
in Gen. 36zf: A wife Basemath, and descent from
half-tribe ofManasseh (Dt. 313 443 Josh. 1329-31[@uava
Ishmael and from Elon the Hittite occur in both
B v. 301). Golan and 'Ashtaroth are stated in P to have
accbunts (see CAINITES,§ 9), but differently assigned ;
1 See more fully Wetzstein Hauran, 4 4 8 : on Edrei, also,
Schumacher, A c ~ o s stheJordLn 1 2 1 8 while the other names have no connection whatever :
2 See for particulars Porter, &zascm, chaps. 10-14; Heber- thus-
Percy, A Visit t o Bashan and Argob, 1895,pp. 40,47, etc. (with P Beeri-Nittite Elon-Hittite Ishmael
photographs). I
3 Damascus,P) 2573, 263 f.; Giant Cities of Bashan, 12 f: I.
J?dith 2.Ba!emath 3. Mahalath
30, etc. ?&I. R (or J) EZon-Hittite Ziheon-Hivite Ishmael
4 Cam6nX.e Essays for 1858, p. 1 6 0 3 I [Horite?] I
5 Wetzstein Hauran, 49, 1033 : Waddington, Inscriptions I. Adah Anah 3. Basemath
Grecques et )Latines etc., in. 1534; and De VoguB, the
principal authority An the architecture of Hauran, Syrie 2. Oholibnmah
Centrate, Archit. Civile et Rdig. 4 (cited in Merrill, East
ofJordan, 63); GASm. HG 624. 1 See, further, GASm. HG 616fl.

32 497 .# 498
 BASILISK BASTARD
(AV BASMATH,RV BASEMATH),daughter of Solomon,
2. I n the N T mention is made of ( a ) u a p y d y , a basket of braid-
I K. 4 15 (MauepaB [A]). work (used especially of fish-baskets), in which Paul escaped
From Damascus (2 Cor. 1133). In Acts 9 25, however the word
BASILISK, RV rendering of Y Q u (Is. 142g), ’?\Ygy is (6) urrupis ( W H prefer u+u 6) the basket in the kiracle of
(Is. 118), for which AV has C OCKATRICE Iq.v.1. , , theqooo(Mt. 15 37 etc.). Botg w&probably larger than(<) the
rd+avos, in the miracle of the 5000 (Mt. 1420 etc.). The last-
BASKETS of vaxious kinds were used by the Hebrews, mentioned was an essentially Jewish article ( q r o ~ ~cojhinus ~m
and were doubtless not unlike those which are often F w n w w p e supellex, Juv. 3 I.+), whose size may perhaps be
found depicted upon Egyptian monuments-large open 3etermined from the use of the word to denote a Bceotiau measwe
Jf about z gallons (vide Corp. Inscr. Gr., 1625,46). T. K. c.
baskets for fruit etc. (cp illustration, Wilk. Anc. E&@. 1
379), which could be borne upon the head (ib. 383, cp BASMATH (my?), I K. 415 AV; see BASHE-
Gen. 40 16f.), baskets to collect earth in the manufacture MATH, 2.
of bricks (on a supposed reference to which in Ps. 81 6 , BASON (Amer. RV B ASIN). That all the words
see B RICK ), or deep wicker ones slung upon a yoke (ib. (one Greek and four Hebrew) denote hollow vessels
380). Especially noteworthy is the large carpenter’s adapted to receive and contain liquids is certain ; but
tool-basket made of rush (a kind common throughout what was the general form, and wherein the peculiarity
W. Asia), a specimen of which is now in the British of each consisted we have no means of determining.
Museum (cp i6. 401). The references to baskets This uncertainty is sufficiently proved by the frequent
present many points of interest ; suffice it to refer to the variations in the EV renderings. ’ On the whole subject,
difficult saying in Prov. 2511, which RV renders, ‘ A see BOWL, C UP , GOBLET, and cp A LTAR, I O;
word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in baskets (AV C OOKING UTENSILS, FOOD, MEALS, 112 ; POTTERY. ’
I pictures ’; KVW. ‘ filigree work ’) of silver,’ where I. ,!;I a,g@n (see BDB Le$. s.v.; Kpan’p [IWA etc.11, a large
the implied notion is that the golden-hued apples look bason (EV) or bowl used in the temple ritual (Ex. 246). In Is.
all the more beautiful in silver baskets. But ( I ) golden, 2224 E V . ‘cup<’(om. BNAQl’, a avw0 [Theod. Qmg.1). On
not golden-hued apples (quinces) must be meant, if the account of its sbape,.it is employex in Cant. 7 2 [3]t as a simile
text be correct ; ‘ gold ’ and ‘ silver ’ must both be talcen in the eulogy of the bride (EV ‘goblet ’); see Cbe. ad Zoc. JQR,
literally. ( 2 ) ’ Baskets ’ is an impossible rendering, and April 1899.
2. 1\53,k y w ( c p M H lb? goblet), for which AV ‘ bason,
‘filigree work,’ though more plausible, is still hypo-
thetical. ( 3 ) :Fitly’ has no sound linguistic basis. RV ‘bowl ’ consistently, occurs only as a vessel used in the
temple. @ found it unintelligible. I Ch. 2817 ((mi. H ,
This is a case IU which no weak emendation, affecting KE++OVPC [A] K++. and KF++WP [L]) Ezra1 IO ( K C + + O U ~ ~ S [BI,
one or two letters, suffices. xer#mvpq [A], K E a ~ o $ p a r[L]=I Esd. 2 13 (Bidhat x p u u 2 ~[BAL]),
Frankenberg has tried such a one ; the sense produced is- and Ezra 8 27t (Ka+ovEqB [B], K U + O U ~ ~[AI, L as in 1I O ) = I
Golden gravings (.nrng) on silver chased work, Esd. 8 57 k p u u h j p a m [BAL]).
(So is) a word spoken to the trustworthy (oqinK-\y, cp @), 3. ?!!I?, mizr+ (a vessel for throwing or tossing a liquid,
;.e., a word spoken to the receptive is as ineffaceable as the +~6Aq).1 With the exception of Am. 6 6 (@BAQ, rbv GLVALU~IL~VOV
chased work referred to. Not very natural, and not a good d u o v , as though ??!?; see MEALS, 5 12 and 2 Ch.4rr), this
parallel to v. 12. utensil is used only in the temple sacrificial ritual. EV renders
By emending the text more boldly (but avoiding yaryingly ‘bason’ ( e g . , Ex. 27338 3 2 K. 12 r3[r41 etc.) or
arbitrary guessing, and following parallels f o h d else- bowl’ (Am. Lc., Zech. 9 15 1420 Nli. 7 13 etc); see ALTAR, 5 9.
where) it is possible to reach this excellent sense l- 4. qp, sa&?, a temple utensil (I K. 7 50 z K. 12 13 t141 Jer.
A necklace of pearls in sockets of wreathen gold, 52 19 [where Aq. (Qmg.) 6s ia Sym. +~&hql; AV ‘howls,’ but
(So is) a word of the wise to him who hears it. RV ‘cups’ [so E V in Zec$. i221), used also in the ritual of
It is really only a slightly different version of the next the Passover (Ex. 1 2 22). The pl. nbp, evidently denoting
proverb : domestic utensils, occurs in 2 S. 17 28 (@BAL h$qrcs);2 but see
A ring of gold and an ornament of fine gold, Klo. ad Loc.
(So is) a word of the wise to a hearing ear. 5. v ~ d used p in Jn. 13 5 of the ‘.bason’ (EV) in which Jesus
Of the other Hebrew words rendered ‘basket,’ dua’(~?q), fene’ washed the feet of the disciples (cp vIrrmw=yn> Gen. 184etc.).
(N?!), and saZ(5;) were used for general purposes, see COOKING, The utensil must have been larger than any of the above.
5 2. Nowack (Arch. 1146) suggests that these were similar in The Pal.-Syr. (Evang. Hierosol.) renders by fl>sm; cp
character to the clay and straw kaw66i of the modern fellahin. Heb. \?$, and see BOWL, 7.
The former may perhaps denote-loosely any pot or jar since we
find it used for cooking in I S. 2 14 (cp BDB s.v.). ’The last- BASSA, RV Bassai ( B A C C ~ I [B]), I Esd. 516=Ezra
named (sal), areed basket(equiva1ent to the Gr. KavoSvLby which
it is rendered] and Lat. canisfmm),zhas been brought into con- 2 1 7 ~BEZAI,q.v.
nection with the reduplicated form nibD\D, Jer. 6 g (EV ‘ grape- BASTAI, RV Basthai (Baceal [BA]), I Esd. 531
gatherers’ baskets’. @ ~ & p ~ a h h o s ) . 3This, however, is doubtful, =Ezra249, BESAI.
and indeed the t e i t is uncertain (cp Pesh.). l<Vtw. renders
‘shoots’; but this is O-$!\! ; cp VINE. For 2?$? (Am. 81 ; BASTARD (?,??2). The mamx$is mentioned along
Zyyos4 [@I), used also of a bird-cage, see CAGE. with the Ammonite and Moabite as excluded from the
~
‘congregation (Dt. 232 [3]). The Heb. word is of
1 @helps alittle: uapXov=OfiD. which should take the place of uncertain derivation, and the EV rendering is based
: but dv 6 p p L ~ ~ = * ! ? ? ,wh;fchmust have come from v. 12. upon the Vss. ( k ?rbpvVs [gab’”g. et sup ras AaL],
ny3onl is a corruption of nix???? (Ex. 28 IT, see OUCHES). BXF om.). More probably the word means one of
3;11 yq>D> evidently conceals the name of some precious stone mixed or alien birth (so Zech. 96, &kkoyevr)s [BKAQ]),
or the like. If so, there is but one possible explanation ; >;1iq and among the Rabbius it was the term applied to
comes from ~ - 1 i y n(just as 2iii m, Gen. 36 39 comes from ~ ~ i ;s arelations between whom marriage was forbidden (cp
see BELA,z), which means pearls strung tigether (see N ECK - Mish. Yebnnz, 4 13). It is presupposed by @ in Nah.
LACE). Lastly, ign probably comes from Tin (string or necklace).
Thus v. I r a corresponds closely to v. i z a ; conse uently v. 1r6 3 1 7 (6 ufi,u,uiKTJs uou [BSAQ]), where M T has TirJn
must correspond to v. 126,where, with Bi. (Prov.$)), we should (EV ’ thy crowned ones ’), and is rather infelicitously
read o3n 111 (see @); n*j>nis based on n3n. ym-+-5y might accepted by Wellhausen who thinks that the refer-
come from i;r~y&, ‘for its purpose,’ hut more probably comes ence is to the mixed population of Nineveh. Ruben
from $‘?v-sY, which is equivalent to i l Y W jlN-5Y (u. 126) is certainly right in conjecturing q w i ~ ‘, thy measuring
Render as above, and cp GOLD.
2’ On the sacred canistrum of early Christian times, see Smith, 1 In some cases where several vessels are named @ appears
Dict. Christ. Ant., S.V. to have transposed p i a : see e.g. Nu. 4 14.
3 The Kdprahhos (also in 2 K. 10 7 for h,and in Dt. 26 z 4 for 2 Apart from the two exceptions mentioned, 48 regularly
N;!?) was a basket with a tapering extremity. thinks of qD ‘threshold,’ and renders 0 6 p a rrp68vpov (in Jer.
IC.,ua$+w@).
4 i y i o s (cp Dt. 23 25 I K. 17 IO M T 3 5 3 ) used of vessels 3 The only kind ofjoreign marriage which D contemplates
of various kinds :cp in N T , Mt. 13)48 25 4 (WH prefer d & )I
In Am. 2.c. Sym., more suitably, has K M O ~(cp
for y~),
OS@ in g.24
a vase-shaped basket ; especially the basket upon the
seems to be found in Dt. 21 10-14. In Dt. 7 7-4 only Canaanitish
peoples are excluded ; but I K. 11I 2 assumes the exclusion of
other nations, and so, in Ezra 9, D’s law is extended to cover all
head of Demeter in ancient statues. foreign neighbours (from MS note of WRS).
499 500
 BAT BATESHEBA
clerks’ (see SCRIBE). For bastardy, in its religious BATH (ns, deriv.
uncertain ; cp BDB. s.v.), Is.
connection, cp COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, $ IO. 5 IO. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

BAT (T?;?!, Zit. ‘night-flier’?l N Y K T E ~ I C; vesaer- BATH-RABBIM (D’un%, ‘ daughter of multi-

tudes,’ [BDB] ; eyraTpoc TTOAAUN [BRA] ; &&z
M i o : 2 Lev. 1119 Dt. 1418 Is. 2 2 0 ; also Bar. 621). multitudinis; Cant. 7 4 [SI?). The eyes of the bride are
The bats form a well-defined and very numerous order likened to the ’pools in Heshbon by the gate of
of mammalia, termed by naturalists the Chiropfevu. Bath-rabbim.’ With true insight, GrSitz in 1871
The position of the name at the end of the list of un- recognised the impossibility of the reading Bath-
clean birds, and immediately before the list of reptiles, rabbim ; he suggested Rabbath-Animon. Certainly
accords with the universal opinion of antiquity that the this is possible; and NW. of Heshbon, in a lateral
bat, in Aristotle’s words, ‘belonged both to birds and valley of the Wady HesbIin, old reservoirs have been
to beasts, and shared the nature of both and of found. We cannot, however, suppose that these reser-
neither’ ; nor is it in any way surprising to find voirs were so famous as to be celebrated in a popular song
them included, apparently, amongst birds, for bats beside Carmel and the Tower of Lebanon. ‘ Heshbon ’
alone amongst mammals have developed the faculty as well as ’ Bath-rabbim ’ must be wrong. Winckler’s
of true ilight, and have become so modified by their suggestion ‘Helbon’ ( A O F 1293 J ) fits in with the
aerial habits that their power of progressing on- the mention of Lebanon, but has no other recommendation.
ground is markedly inferior to that of most birds and Considering that there is deep-seated corruption in the
insects. They show, in fact, a strong aversion to next verse (see H AIR , GALLERY, z ) , we are justified in
being on the ground, and, as a rule, at once try to making an emendation which might otherwise seem too
leave it, -by crawling up some wall or tree from which bold. The most famous pools in Palestine, outside of
they can take their flight. Jerusalem, were no doubt those known as the Pools of
The nature of their food (either insects or fruit) Solomon (see CONDUITS, 3). In the long green vale
makes it necessary for those bats which inhabit tem- of ‘ ArtIis, unusually green among the rocky knolls
perate climates either to migrate at the approach of of Judaea,’ Solomon, according to post-exilic belief,
winter or to spend the cold months in a long winter ‘planted him vineyards, and made him gardens and
sleep, for which purpose they often collect in large
colonies in caves, ruins, or disused buildings. As a
paradises .. and made him pools of water, to water
therefrom the forest where trees were reared ’ (Eccles.
rule the bats of the d l d World choose the latter alter- 24-6). Probably it is this scenery that has suggested
native, and this seems to be the case with many of several descriptiie passages in Canticles (Stanley; Del. ) ;
those found in Palestine. When food again becomes it was worthy to be mentioned beside Carmel and
abundant, they as a rule sleep during the day sus- Lebanon. Read ib\t for p n 3 , and (with Wi.)
pended head downwards by their feet, and leave their
homes only to search for food at the approach of twi- i y l for l y v , and render
light. The majority of the Kats of Palestine (and they Thine eyes are like Solomon’spools
are very numerous) inhabit caves, caverns, tombs, ruins, By the wood of Beth-cerem.
and disused buildings of all kinds, where they can avoid Beth-cerem, ‘ place of a vineyard,’ was probably the
the light, a fact referred to in Is. 2 2 0 J name of some part of the garden-land referred. to in
As many as seventeen distinct species of hats, belonging to Eccles. 2 4 - 6 . See IQR, April 1899. Cp BETH-
four differeut families and eleven different genera, have been HACCEREM. T. IC. C.
described by Canon Tristram. Two or three of these may he BATHSHEBA (V>k$-n%,I daughter of the oath ’ (?),
mentiofied by name. The only representative of the fruit-eating
bats (Megacheiniptera) is Xantharjyia (Cynonycieni)cpgypti- $ 48 ; in I Ch. 35 Y.lV-XI, where the pointing should
ucn, a species which is elsewhere arboreal in its habits, but in be corrected to P!&%ls ; in @BAL, by a strange con-
Palestine is found living in large colonies in caves and tombs.
A further peculiarity of this species i.; that individual specimens fuson, BHPCABEE = Beersheba), wife of Uriah the
from different localities vary markedly in size those from Kurn Hittite, afterwards wife of David and mother of Solo-
in the plain of Acre being much smaller than {hose from the hills mon 2s. 112-1224(BHeCdrBEE[A]) 1 K. If: (BHBCbEEE
near Tyre, which resemble in size the variety found in Cyprus
and Egypt. This species is very commonly found inside the in 1II 1 5 ) . Some think that she was a granddaughter
Pyramids of Egypt and is believed to be the one so often figured of AHITHOPHEL(p.. .).
in Egyptian frescoes. When David first saw Bathsheba, Joab was engaged
The horse-shoe bat RhinoZojhus fenurn-cgtcinun is the in the siege of Rabbath Ammon. The king himself was
commonest hat in Palestine swarming in immense nunibers in
the cavernsalong the Jordadand the Red Sea. It has a wide dis- reposing, after his years of hardship, at Jerusalem. The
tribution, extending from England to Japan and all over Africa. story (which is omitted in Chroilicles) is that, walking
It collects in large colonies (180 have been found together) in one evening on the flat roof of his palace, David saw a
caves and ruins for its winter sleep, and these colonies are
peculiar G they are exclusively of one sex. beautiful woman bathing in the court of a neighbouring
Another British bat very common in the hill country about house. H e asked who she was, and, learning that her
Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and the Sea of Galilee, is the Inngeared husband Uriah was am-aywiththe army, ‘sent messengers
bat, Plecotus atwitus, n s d l y found in caverns. It is always and took her ’ ( z S. 11 4). T o avert the shock which an
very late in leaving its resting-place, not appearing till twilight
has changed to night; but it continues to hunt for she insects on open act of adultery would have caused to the ancient
which it feeds the whole night through. N . M.-A. E. s. Israelitish sense of right, he devised the woful expedient
related in z S. 116-25. First he had Uriah sent to him.
1 According to Schultens, C h r . DiaL 322. ftom the root ostensibly with a message from the camp. He dismissed
yhich ;fppearsin Ar. &ila ‘to be dark’ (of night) and iy him to his house with a portion from the royal table ;
to fly. I t must, however, be said that compountls’are v?ry but Uriah remained with the guard of the palace : he
rare in Hebrew; and the modification of form involved in this
case is improhabte. It might be thought, from the absence of scrupled, if Robertson Smith maybe followed (ReZ.Sem. (9
the word in the cognate languages (in the language.of the Tar- 455, 484), to violate the taboo on sexual intercourse
gums it is simply borrowed from Hebrew), that it is a loan-word applied to warriors in ancient Israel. The next night the
which came in from a nowSemitic source’ hut there is much to
be said for the view that it is connectdd with Aram. ‘urteZ, king plied him with wine ; but still Uriah was obstinate.
‘naked’(from the character of a hat’s wings), assuggested b y Driven desperate, his master sent the brave soldier back
1.5, (see Ges. NWBPlI), or with the root q ~ y ,which in to Joab, bearing a letter ordering his oyn destruction.
Hebrew has the sense of being covered or darkened. Uriah was to be set in the place of danger and then
2 The Peshitta has in Leviticus and Deuteronomy the curious
rendering ‘peacock,‘hut in Is. 220 Bar. 621 employs the proper abandoned to the foe. The cruel and treacherous plan
.
Syriac word for ‘hat ’ the Arabic version has ‘bat ’ in Leviticus was carried out, and, when Bathsheba’s mourning for
and Deuteronomy, bu; (like the Targum) goes astray in a mis- her husband was over, David made her his wife.
taken paraphrase of Is. 2 20. The story of the rebuke of Nathan, of the revival of
3 De Part. AnimaL 4 13. For other references see Bochart,
Ilierozoicon. the king’s better self, and of the sickness and death of
501 502
 BATHSHUA BDELLIUM
'
the child of Bathsheba. is well known. It is a Question, RV, ' a tree in its native soil.' The word RYTK, 'native
T. I

however (see Schwally, ZZ4T W 12 153 8 ; Bu. SBO.7' lorn,' however (from the root m i , ' to arise,' ' spring
8 9 ) , whether, in the original form of the narrative, z S. srth' [Bath, 152 6.1). cannot be applied to a tree,
1 2 1 9 did not follow on 1 1 2 7 , which means treating the vhence Celsius (Hierob. i. 1 9 4 j . ) supposed the phrase
most edifying pzrt of the story as a later amplification o mean dwfip dmxdpios.
(see D AVID, XI). Considering what we know of the As Hi., Gr.. Che., Ba., We., Dr. agree, the right
gradual idealisation of the life of David (which culminates eading is 1 1 ~'cedar.' On the (probably) corrupt
in Chronicles and the titles of the Psalms), this appears vords m y n o (Dr. ' putting forth his strength ') and 3yi
far from impossible. The story @%insin clearness by the Dr. ' spreading'), see Che. PraZmsP).
omission. At any rate, Wellhausen is right in regarding
1210-12 as an interpolation in the narrative of the colloquy BAZLUTH (nhy?, 'stripping'?; BAcAhwe [HA]).
between David and Nathan. It was suggested by an The b'ne BAZLUTH,a family of NETHINIMin the
intelligent reading of the subsequent history. David's ;reat post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. 9 ) Ezra252
evil examplewas imitated in exaggerated form byAmnon ; pauaGwe [B], paGouw0 [L]) = Neh. 754 Bazlith
and Amnon's sin was fruitful in troubles, which cul- pauaw0 [B], ~ahoua0 [L]) = I Esd. 5 3 1 BASALOTH
minated in Absalom's rebellion, and darkened all David's pauaX~p[B], paaxw0 [A], paXouw0 [L]).
remaining years. BDELLIUM (&? ; Gen. 212 aNepaf [AEL] ;
W e meet Bathsheba for the last time, just as David's
end was at hand, in the full glory of a queen-mother. VU. 117 K ~ Y C T A A A O C ' [BAFL]), appears in Gen. 212
Solomon rises to meet her, bows down before her, and 1. BBdh~lahalong with gold and onyx or beryl (see
sets her on a seat at his right hand. She gained her =psiMLov: O NYX) as a characteristic product of the
object, and it is interesting (if Nathan really took the land of Havilah ; whilst in Nu. 1 1 7 its
part assigned to him in 2 S. 12 1-15) to notice that Nathan 'appearance' (so RV, lit. 'eye,' not COLOUR [ p . ~ . , 31,
was one of her chief supporters. W. E. A.
1s AV) is likened to that of manna-a comparison the
xppropriateness of which is obvious if, as is in all prob-
BATHSHUA (YYb-n?,§ 48). I. See BATHSHEHA. ibility the case, the O T 6tYdhZuh is the resinous sub-
2. The words y)d-n3 rendered 'daughter of Shua' in Gen. stance known to the Greeks as pGCXhrou, PCLGEXKOW,
382 12 (cava, omitting ns [ADEL]) are treated in RV of I Ch. 9oXxbw (Dioscor. 1Eo). or /3G&ha
. (Perzpl.
.~ Mar. Eryth.,
2 3 (7.Buy. umas [BabA1: T . 8. auas [B*l ; UOUE [Ll) as a proper 51 3; 39 48J 1.
name, Bath-shua. See SHUA. Peiser identifies n$i, with Bab. didhi, a spice obtained in
Babylonia, and often mentioned in contract-tablets ( Z A TW
BATHZACHARIAS (BeezAXapla [A]), 1 Macc. 17 347 A ) ; this is important in connection with the Edcn-
632 f. See B ETHZACHARIAS. story (see PARADISE). As Glaser has shown (Skieze, 2 3 6 4 3 ) ,
bdellium was distinct from storax (against Hommel, GBA 613
BATTERING RAM (WII [plur.]), Ez. 42 21 22 [VI+. n. I). Bochart identifying Havilah with the Arabian coast
See W AR . 3 posite Baiphn, in the Persian Gulf, naturally explained
as meaning pearl (Hieroz. ii. 6 5). This view, however,
BATTLE AXE. The rendering is not very happy, lacks the support of any ancient version, and, though upheld
as will at once be seen. by several Jewish authorities (cp Lag. Or. 2 44), hqs no so!id
I. YZF, m n ~ j Jer.5120
2~ ( 6 r a m o p d & r s uu'[BNAQF]): or
.
. . - and KPu'uTaXhOs)..Polnt
roundation. The renderinw of Q (dv8Da6
to some kind of precious stone; but, as Di. remarks, 'stone,'
r?l,?, mZjh?f(Prov. 25 IS Pirahov [BN- A] -ravov [X*l). EV's
rendering 'maul introduces an arbitrary distinction. Better, is prefixed to O?V, the word following, and not to ilh. The
'battle hammer,' or 'club ' (cp ?s%). In Ezek: 9 2 \X?p *$? Pesh. 6ZiuZ@ (in both places) seems to be due to a mere
scribe's error : r for d. It cannot be supposed to he a genuine
(rlhvt)should possiblybe corrected into innqp *$a, 'his destroy- Aramaic word.
ingweapon'l (Che.); 'battle axe' (RVW.), 'slaughter weapon' Bdellium is described by Dioscorides (Lc.) as G ~ K P U O W
(EV), 'a weapon of his breaking. -in pieces'
. (Al'mg.) are all diffi-
cult to justify. GPVGDOU
, b d 3 i ~ o O ; the best sort being ' bitter in taste,
2. 'MD Ps. 35 3 R V w . The usual rendering (Del., Ba., etc., 2. Descriptions transparent, gelatinous (TUU~OKOXXGGES,
accepting XT's vocalisation [lip] and Verss.) is ' stop the way' of PGIMLov. lit. ' like bull's hide glue ), oily through-
(a UJVKAFLUOV). This involves a double ellipsis-<shut up [the out and easily softened, unmixed with
way], [going] against my pursuers.' It is improbable, however, chips or dirt, fragrant when burnt as incense, resembling
that .
means 'battle axe' odyaprs may mean the battle axe
used in upper Asia : but t i i s does not justify the inference of
onyx' ; he speaks also of a black sort found in large
critics( Orus., Grot., Kenn., Ew., Dri., We., etc). The text needs lumps, which is exported from India, and of a third
emendation (see JAVELIN, 7). kind, brought from Petra. Pliny ( N H 129) gives
some further details : the best sort grows in Bactriana
BATTLEMEBT. For npyn, ma'a+eh, Dt. 22 8 EV, see (N. Afghanistan), on a ' black' tree ' of the size of an
HOUSE, 0 4. For njls, pittttZoth, z Ch. 26 15 Zeph. 1 16 3 6 RV: olive, with a leaf like the oak and fruit like the wild fig' ;
m and n&d, ~c~nri&otlc(plur.), Is. 5412 SBOT, RV pinnacles
a
(cp dn.i Ps. 84 IZ [Ea.]), see FORTRESS, 5. 133, kdnEflh, in
Dan. 9 27 RV1W is rendered 'battlement. It is better to read
it also grows in Arabia, India, Media, and Babylon,
that of India being softer and more gummy, while that
113, knnno (see Bevan, ad roc.). -. brought through Media is more brittle, crusted, and
BATUS (BATOC), Lk. 1 6 6 AV"'S; RVn'K. BATH. bitter. The author of the Peripl. mar. Erythr. speaks
See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. of it as growing largely in Gedrosia (Beluchistan) and
Barygaza (Gujerat), and as exported westwards from
BAVAI (VJ), Neh. 318, RV Bavvai. See BINNUI the month of the Indns. In the older classical literature
(3). bdellium appears to be mentioned only in Plautus
BAY (Yki?), Zech. 6 3 7. See COLOURS, 17. (Curc. I O I ) , ~in a list of perfumes.
Two of the kinds of bdellium described by Dioscorides
BAYITH (n\Jn), IS. 152 RV ; AV BAJITH. are generally identified by the authorities
3* with the two substances described as follows,
BAY TREE (ll!TF2 Ps.3735), or, more plausibly, as kinds* which are still met with in commerce :-
1 n'nWD, ' destruction,' we know; but y?Q, 'breaking in
1 I n both places ol homoi i e Aq Symm and Th., have
pieces,' is unattested elsewhere. Co. recognises that theclosing
words of Ezek. 9 I are no part of the true text, but represent a
C,
, w A A ' ~ ~ , so vg. JdeLLium. IF.
j b s . AXt. iii.
2 The exact form of these two words is uncertain. Pliny
variant to the equivalent words in 71. 2. (129) has maZdmon, drochon. On the connection of this group
2 e has no rendering of in this passage, since for nijN3 of names with JZdoZak, see Del. Par. 16/, 101. Pott in lYZKM
i j y l it reads 1335 311~3(As v i s ~68pousTOG Acpdvou [BNART]). 79j8!&e reading of this word is uncertain.
Aq. Symm. and Editio Sexta all render in the sense of 'in- 4 Perhaps a ' nail ' or 'hoof.'
digdnous d e ' ; and neither Pesh. nor Targ. supports the 5 ' T u mihi stacte, tu cinnamon, tu rosa,
rendering of AV or that of RV. T u crocinum et casia ' 5 , tu bdellium.'
503 504
 BEACON BEAR
I. Ordinary BdeZZiunz (African).-‘The drug is exported from BEAR, I . (29). The name, common to Heb.,
the whole Somali coast to Mokha, Jidda Aden Makulla the 1. Nime. +ram., Ar., and Eth., is from a root signify-
Persian Gulf, India and even China’ (Fdckickiger 2nd Handury
.Pharmacogr.(2) 14;). Hanbury says he had it sent him fo: ing to move slowly and softly,l and thus
sale in London from China. hut in matters of this kind the iefits the bear, which has a stealthy tread.
immediate port of origin is bften substituted for the ultimate The Heb. word is generally masc., even when the she-bear is
source. uteuded; thus ‘ a bear robbed of her whelps’is always 37
Dymock (Phamzacogr. Inn’. 1 y o ) says : ‘From Berhera
. also comes BdeZliunz.’ Farther on he explains that “ t o a >?>e. On the other hand, the pl. 0 2 3 takes a fem. verb in
certain extent’ it ‘resembles myrrh,’ but thaL it is darker ... tK.224, and the sing. is apparently fem. in Is. 117. d
less oily . . . strongly hitter and has hardly any aroma’ (Z.C. .enders B ~ K O [BAL],
S but in Prov. 17 12 wrongly p+pva [BRA]
310). According to Mohammedan writers (2.6. 312) ‘Good connecting prohably with X:, ‘to be anxious’); Theod. has
bdellium should be ,lean, bright, sticky, soft, sweet -imelling,
yellowish, and bitter. Its botanical source is Balsasa,nodendroiz L ~ K T O S . I n Prov. 25 15 @ has AJKOS[BKA twice], easily ex-
africanzmz (see Kew BUZZ. 1896, p. g1J). ;laked when we remember that the Aram. form of >E!, wolf, is
2. Indian BdelZinm.-Dymock (Z.C. 310) ‘describes this as %h. ’
somewhat reseybling the African drug ;‘hut the colour is lighter, The animal is frequently mentioned in O T (in the
often greenish. Dioscorides, therefore, must have had a very
dirty samplel-a not infrequent experience still. Its source is .ipocr. in Wisd. 1117 Ecclus. 25 17 [HA ; but U ~ K K O Y
Galsamodendron MxknZ,a plant the botanical distribution of (B)] and 473Jr) and once ( R e v . 1 3 ~ )
which-NW. India Beluchistan, and possibly Arabia-exactly A1lusions* in NT. No difficulty arises in con-
agrees with the siatements of the old authors. The only
difficulty is the description of Pliny, which it does not fit very iection with any of the O T passages ; the attacks
well, as it is a small tree; hut Pliny’s statements cannot be 3f the lion and the bear on David’s flock ( I S. 17 34 36),
pressed from the botanical point of view: Lemaire (Flore de ind of the she-bears 2. on the’ children who mocked
Vir&?, 125) calls Dioscorides ‘ hien prkfbrahle B Pline.’ Elisha ( 2K:-~E+).~ accord with the ravenous habits of
As to the third kind of bdellium spoken of by the animar; ‘ a bear robbed of her whelps’ ( z S. 1 7 8
Dioscorides, Dymock (310) conjectures that it was Prov. 1 7 12 Hos. 13 8) or a ranging hear ’ (Prov. 28 15)
’ probably a kind of myrrh. ’ N. M.--W. T. T.-D. is naturally regarded as the most dangerous possible
BEACON (i?hperhaps for \WiI from IYK,see ASH ; abject to encounter ; one of the signs of profound peace
in the Messiahs kingdom is that the cow feeds side by
~ C T O C[BKAOQI’]), or rather, as in EVmg., MAST (cp side with the bear, its natural enemy (Is. 117). The roay-
Is. 3323 Ez. 275), employed in Is. 3017 as a simile of
nakedness and desolation. The reference is to the ing, or rather moaning, of the bear is well expressed by
poles, etc., erected l’n prominent places for signalling the verb a?:! (Is.5911, b B R A Q u ~ ~ v d 3 i r which
)). is ap-
purposes ; cp ENSIGNS (0 2 ) . plied also to the howling of a dog, the cooing of a
turtle-dove, the sighing of a man, and the moaning of
BEALIAH (V<p$,0 35, Yahwe is Lord ’), a Ben- the sea. The stealthiness of a bear’s attack is men-
jamite, one of David‘s warriors, rCh.125 (BAAAIA tioned in Lam. 310. By the likening of the second
[RKI, BAAAIA [AI. B A ~ A I A C [L]). See D AVID, 0 11 (probably the ‘Median) kingdom in Dan. 75 to a bear-
a iii. which was raised up on one side, and three ribs
d

BEALOTH (nq,’?),Josh. 1524. See BSALATH- were in his mouth between his teeth ; and they said thus
unto it, Arise, devour much flesh,’-the extreme de-
BEER.
rti-uctiveness of the Median conquests is probably in-
BEAN, or rather Bsean (KV), The chtldren of (ylol dicated (see further Bevan’s Daiziel, in loc.). In Am.
BAIAN [AKV]; BEAN [vg.]; ,b; BAANOY, Jos. 5 19 ‘ as if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met
Ant. xii. 8 I ), an otherwise unknown tribe or community, him,’ we have, as Bochart remarks, a Hebrew equivalent
who in the pre-Maccabzan period were a ‘snare and to the classical
’ Iocidit in Scyllani cupiens vitare Charybdin.’B
offence ’ to the Jews ‘ in that they lay in wait for them
in the ways.’ Their robber castles or ‘ towers ‘ lay, In the combination of the ‘ feet of a bear ‘ H ith the
apparently, somewhere between Idumasan and Ammon- body of a leopard and the mouth of a lion in Rev. 132,
ite territory. This would suit the Beon of Nu. 323 (see we have an instance of the characteristic re-combination
BAAL-MEON). In one of his warlike expeditions against of elements borrowed from Or apocalyptic. The hyper-
the unfriendly surrounding peoples after the reconsecra- holical treatment of old history in later Jewish literature
tion ‘of the temple, Judas the Maccabee utterly de- is illustrated by the mention in Wisd. 1117 of wild
stroyed the children of Bean and burnt their towers beasts, such as lions and bears, among the plagues sent
(1Macc.54f. ; cp zMacc.1018fi). upon the Egyptians, and by the statement about David
in Ecclns. 473 that he played (Heb. ..
. pnv o + i d
BEANS (kb, KYAMOC [BAL] zS.1728 Ez.49) n*3,i\i, he mocked at ...
’) among lions as among
are twice mentioned as material for food, along with kids, and among bears as among lambs of the flock.’
wheat, barley, and lentils; in the second passage Finally, we notice the interesting reading of @HA in
Ezekiel is instructed to make bread of a mixture of Ecclus. 25 17 :
wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and spelt. The A woman’s wickedness altereth her visage
Hebrew name is found also in post-biblical Hebrew, And darkeneth her face as doth a bear (AS ~ ~ K o s ) .
Jewish Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. Beans are If this reading be correct, the verse will allude to
the seeds of Vicia Faba (Linn.), the cultivated the trisditia or moroseness often attributed to the bear,
plant-not certainly known in the wild state, but which several ancient writers speak of as expressed in
in all probability a domesticated form of Vicin nar- its countenance. On the whole, however, it’ is more
bonensis2-which is a native of the whole Mediterranean probable that bB(supported by the Syr. and Ar. ver-
region and extends eastward to N. India. It was the sions) is right in reading
K ~ U ~ OofS the Greeks, which is mentioned as far back as .~UQKKOV).
And maketh her face dark like sackcloth (As
the Iliad ( ~ l i a p peXuv6~poes.
o~ 1 3 589). Virchow found The Syrian bear, sometimes called UYSWS syriacus, is
the seeds in the excavations at Troy, and the plant was not specifically distinct from the brown bear, Uvsus
cultivated in Switzerland and Italy in the age of bronze. although somewhat lighter in
3. Natural arctos,
colour and smaller than the typical
Beans are, without doubt, one of the earliest articles of history, varieties. It has a wide distribution,
vegetable food among the European races of mankind.
c p FOOD, 5 4, COOKING, 7. N. M.-W. T. T.-D. 1 The other meaninq of the Ar. verb, ‘to have a bristly skin,’
is probably, as Ges. ihinks, secondary, and derived from the
1 Fliickiger and Hanhury say (l.6. 146) that it is regarded noun d d b .
both in London and in India ‘as a very inferior dark sort of 2 I t was a common opinion in antiquity that she-bears were
myrrh.’ fiercer than the males ; thus Pliny (11 49), ‘ Mares in omiu
a On this point see Sir Joseph Hooker in the BoinnicaZ genere fortiores przterquam pantheris et ursis.’
Magazine, 7220. 3 Cp also Is. 24 18 Jer. 48 44.

505 506
 BEARD BECHORATH
being found in several parts of Europe, -formerly all of a god.1 The people of Punt followed the Egyptians in all
over that continent,-and throughout Asia N. of the such customs. Canaanites, Assyrians, and Babylonians,%on the
other hand, wore long hair and plaited beards, and in strong
Himalayas. It is unsociable in its habits, though some- contrast t o these are the monumental representations of the
times male and female are seen together, and the cubs desert nomad with pointed moustache (cp WMM, As. zd. Lur.
accompany their mother. Bears are omnivorous, kill- 140, 296).3
ing and eating other animals ; but they have a vegetable BEAST. For (I) behhih (npO$)and (2) &zyyih
dirt also. They are particularly fond of fruit and (?:p),‘living creature’-including v y and ;1nna, Gen. 8 17 (P),
honey. In cold climates they hibernate during the but more particdarly wild beasts Gen.7 14 (P) 372033 etc.-
winter months, and during the period of hibernation see CATTLE, 5 2 (z). For Ps.G83d[y], ‘wild bea,s t of the reeds’
they subsist on the stored-up fats. The young are [RV], see CROCODILE, DRAGON. For (3) b e ‘ i r ( l ’ Y 9 , ‘beast of
generally born towards the end of this period. They burden,’ see CATTLE, 5 z (3). For (4) Is. 1322 (O’lfc; ‘wild
are now practically extinct in S. Palestine, but are beasts of the islands’ [AV]) see J ACKAL (4), WOLF. For
still to be met with in the Lebanon and Hermon (5) Is.1321 3414 Jer. 5039 (0’;:; ‘wild beasts of the desert’
districts. [EV]), see CAT (end).
2. RV rendering of (Job9g) and @y (Job3832), (6) l’! aiz, ‘wild beasts’ [AV] Ps. 50 I I [121 8013[141is more
AV ARCTUKUS (4.v.). N. M.-A. E. S. scrupulously rendered ‘that which moves (or roams)’ by Dr.,
Rzcthg., We. [SBOl’]. BDB recognises I/rrl ‘to move.
BEARD. The importance attached by the Hebrews ‘Small creatures‘ would also be possible: cp Talm. ~ 1 9 1
to the beard is fully borne out by the many references ‘a worm,’ Ass. zizlinu, an animal like a locust. The probability
to it found in the OT. of such a word in bibl. Heb., however, is not great. The two
passages have to be considered separately. QB gives direrent
Twoworus are thus rendered : (a)]&zliklin, @BNAQrLrrhyov, readings : Ps. 60 &papardrqs(cp79; Is. 6G I I), Ps. 80 &os 2yp:yp~os[B],
used of the heard proper cp 2 S. 10 4f: = I Ch. 19 4 5 Is. 7 20 p w o v i o s 8. [E.] povparas 2. [~c.aATl,povor 2. [R’]. The Targ.
15 2 (= Jer. 48 37) etc., and Also of the chin1 (in Lev. 13 2 9 ~ 5 14
, g (in both passages) finds a reference to the HOOPOE. See further,
of both man and woman). (6) me, sli#hlm (from ”q, ‘ lip ’), BDB s.v and (on the text which is corrupt) Che. Psalnznsl“).
rendered ‘.beard’ in 2s. 1924 [25] is more roperly the mous- NT. %or Rev. h 7 etc.’ 1311 etc. (the two mystical Bqpia)
tache or ‘upper lip’ (so @;BAL p d r a t ; EV Lev. 1345, and AV see APOCALYPSE, $5 40 43.47, ANTICHRIST, 5 4 8 and cp B EHE -
mg. Ez. 24 17 22 Mic. 3 7 where EV ‘lip’). M O T H AND L EVIATHAN , 5 2 ; D RAGON , 8 2. For Rev. 46 (<;a:
the four Iliving creatures’) see CHERUB, 5 3. For Rev.lgr3
The beard was, and still is, in the East, the mark of etC. ( K 7 6 Y q ) Cp CATTLE, 5 2, (Z), (3).
manly dignity. A well-bearded man is looked upon as
honourable, and as one who in his life ‘has never BEATING (with rods), Dt.251-3 etc. See LAW
AND JUSTICE, § 12.
hungered ’ (Doughty, ,4r. Des. 1250). By touching the
beard, or by swearing by it, a man’s good faith was BEAUTIFUL GATE ( H wpaia ~ Y A H[Ti. WH]),
assured (op. cit. 1268)-a fact which may possibly throw Acts 3 IO ; see TEMPLE.
light upon Joab’s treachery towards Amasa (zS. 209). BEBAI (’33, 57 ; Hilprecht has found the lewish
Tocutitoffwilfullywasaninsult (zS.lO4J. cp Is.16), name BibZ on a tablet from Nippur; BHBAI [BA],
and to cut it ceremonially was strictly forbidden ; see BOKXEI [LI).
CUTTINGS OF THE FLESH, 5 3. T o shave it was an I. The h‘ne Bebai, a family in the great post-exilic list (see
oiutward sign of mourning (Is. 152 Jer.415 4837; cp E ZRA, ii. 5 9, 8 Sc), Ezra211 (reckoned a t 623) (papa [B], -par
Ep. Jer. [Bar. 61 31) : see M OURNING CUSTOMS, I.’ [AI)= Neh. 7 16 (reckoned at 628) (pqp[e]~[RNA])= I Esd. 5 13 ;
Although barbers are mentioned only in a late pass- of whom twenty-eight are included in Ezra’s caravan (see
E ZRA, i. B 2, ii. B 15 [I] d)Ezra811 ( p a p a [BA] pupispar [L once])
age (Ez. 5 I , n’?$? : nbi, ‘ to shave,’ on the other hand, is = I Esd.837, BAHI[once] ( B a q p , p+pac. [Bl, papi [A once]
frequent, Gen. 4114[E],zS. 104 Judg. 161722, etc.), they fiaj3qr [L once]) and four in list of those with foreign wives (se;
were doubtless in great request.3 In Egypt the barber E ZR A , i. $ 5 end)EzralOzS (pap[c]~[BNA])=r Esd.929. Itwas
is described as. industriously journeying from place represented among the signatories t o the covenant (see EZRA, i.
to place seeking employment, carrying in an open- 5 7) Neh. 1015 [:61(8+aa [Bal p@-i [L!).
2. An unidentified place mentioned with C H O ~ A I C OLA
and
mouthed bag the tools of his craft-a small short hatchet [qq.vJ Judith154 (pt)pczc [A], @ehparp [N*NC.”l), perhaps a
or recurved knife (cp KP(’)3148). The razor is fre- repetidon of the following name C H O ~ A(B I and Vg. omit : if
quently mentioned in the OT, where it is called ipg, the reading of N” NC.a he considered trustworthy, BELMEN
tu‘4r (Nu. 6 5 87 Is. 720 Ps. 523 [4] ; but ‘ sheath’ or [q.v.], a locality ndt otherwise improbable, may he intended.
‘scabbard’ in I S. 1751 z S . 208 Ez. 214[9]etc.), or n ? ~ , ~ BECHER ( Y X , ‘first-born’ ; 5 61, or cp, perhaps,
m8ruh (Judg. 135 1617 I S. 111); see KNIFE.^ Ass. duhrz~, Ar. bnhr, ‘camel’ [so BDB L e x . ] ) . A
In Egypt, apart from priests (and high officials, Gen. 41 141,
Benjamite clan, Gen. 4621 (xopwp [A], -pop [L], -@oh
the practice of shaving the hair does not seem to have been [D]) and I Ch. 76 8 ( p o ~ o p[A], xopwp [L] ; apeipa
very general (cp EGYPT $ 39). On the other hand the heard [B ZJ. 6 , omitting all mention of Bela] and apaxei,
was regularly shorn a h only the shepherds a n d foreigners apuxap [ia. v. 81). The name is wanting in 11 Nu.
let it grow, apparentiy t o the disgust of the cleanly Egyptians. 2638-41, but it is possible that the name B ECHER (gen-
Hence the negligent Rameses YII. is caricatured in his tomb
a t Thebes wearing an unshorn beard of two or three days’ .:. B ACHRITE, RV Becherite) in the Ephraimite
tilic ”133,
growth. Nevertheless the beard was looked upon as a symbol list, ib. n. 35 (@BAL om.) was originally a marginal
of dignity and on sdemn occasions the want was supplied
by an artificial one. Such beards were made of a piece of addition to the Benjamite clans, which after being
hair tightly plaited and fastened by two straps behind the ear. misplaced has crept into the text (cp BERED,ii.). T o
The king wore a longer beard, square at the bottom; one the clan Becher (gentilic BICHRI Cq.v.1) belonged the
even longer and curled a t the end was the distinguishing mark
rebellious SHEBA[p.v. ii. ( I )], and, if we adopt twovery
probable emendations (see ‘BECHORATH, M ATRI), also
1 Unless ‘chin ’ is the primary meaning of dip?. The word 12;
Saul. A descendant of the latter bears, according to
‘old man,’ is perhaps a derivative lit. ‘gray-beard.’
2 In 2 S. 1824 [25] Meribha‘al i o show his grief leaves his the MT, the cognate name Bocheru (but see B OCHERU).
beard untrimmed. It is possible that the name recurs under the form
3 Herod, according to Jos. (Ant. xvi. 116), was nearly as- MICHRI[ p . ~ . ] . See also B EN J AMIN , § 9.
sassinated by his barber, Trypho. I n M H the barber is 1gD;
cp Shab6.12.
.~ BECHORATH, RV Becorath (nv3$), apparently
4 For m .
. .i,._m (We. TBS 1a6 ?9:hence both names are from the
same root, my, ‘to lay bare.’
. “ I 1 See Erman, Eg. 226 n. 4 ; Wilkinson, 2 333.
2 The sculvtures represent, however, not only eunuchs, but
5 A Phcenician inscription, fifth-fourth century R.c., from also what seem to he people of the lowest rank-peasants,
Larnaka in Cyprus, mentions the n l i i in a list of charges in labourers and slaves-without heard. In the oldest Babylonian
connection with a temnle of Ashtoreth. Unless thev were there sculpturd, on the other hand, the head is completely bare.
to attend to ceremon:al tonsures it is possible that Renan is The ancient custom was perhaps given up through the beard
right in taking them to he physiiians whose business it was to becoming a sign of the military caste (see Perrot and Chipiez,
heal the self-inflicted wounds of the worshippers (cp I K . 1828, Art in Chard.2 137).
and see ClS 186 a ; cp 95). 3 Illustration, Benz. Arch. 100, 109.

507 508
 BECTILETH BED
the son of APHIAH [q.~.],an ancestor of Saul, I S.91 summer, in the absence of a latticed upper chamber, huts
~ B A X ~P II t B q w p A e [A], MAXCIP' [L]: The name of boughs on the flat roof could be used (for a descrip-
IS really to be read as BE'CHER [P.v.] ; it 1s the name of tion of such see Schumacher, Across the /ordun, 89).
Saul's clan. C p Klo. on I S. 9 I and Marq. Fund. 14. The bed itself is called generally ( u ) rnitguh
BECTILETH (BAlKT€lhAl€l [BIB B E K T E h E e and __
(from ilm. ' t o stretch.' CD Khlvn from K X L V W : Gen.
'2. Terms. 482 etc.); ( b ) zxin, rniJk6bh (properly 'place
ITAKTA~AI [A], B A I T O Y ~ I A [K"], B ~ K T l h € e [Kc'"] ; for lying,' Gen.494 etc.) ; and (c) imy1 'eyes
Beth-I(etilath, 'house of slaughter [Syr.]), 'THE ~ I .

P LAIN OF, three days' journey from Nmeveh, near (properly bedstead, Prov. 7 16).
the mountain which is at the left hand of upper (once L ITTER [p.v. (I)], Cant.37 RV) I s used in 2 S.331
a ' (Judith2z1). Grotius has suggested Ptolemy's of a bier. 2pdn is used collectively of the bedding, etc. in 2 S.
1728 (where read pl.). There seems to be no distinction
parraiahh? in Syria (Plol. v. 1516 ; cp the Bactiali of between these three words : d and c occur together in parallelism
the Tub. Pezlt. 21 R. m. from Antioch) ; but this does in Job'l13, a and c similarly in Ps.66 [7]. The variant render-
not agree with the situation as defined in the text. ing 'couch' is employed arbitrarily, for the sake of differentia-
tion, by E V in Joh713(2j&-.g), by AV in Am.312 (wiy), by
The name of the mountain is given as Ange, Agge RV ib. (nun), and by EV in Am. 64 (viy).
by It. Vg. and as L-k-) by the Syr. (so Lag.). Other words rendered 'bed' are (d) y > ~ydglid * (properly
For the latter Walton gives jLb[ 'mountain of 'spread out,' Ps. 636 [7], Job.l'lrg), used also of the bed of
wedlock in Gen. 494 (cp I Ch.51); an extension of meaning
pots,' which suggests that the name may have arisen similar to' that borne by K O ~ W in Heb. 13 4 (but cp Lk. 117 etc.) ;
from reading bin, 'potsherd,' for an original Ndin, or cp Ar. *irs,conj#x. From the same root is derived also (e) yyn
masfri' Is. 23 20 (see helow on z K. 3 IS).
N@! \c, which actually occurs as a place-name. See In AT ~ o i (cp v above), K A ~ Y I ,'(Mk. 730 etc.9, KAW&OV
T EL-H ARSHA. (Lk. 5 19 24, EV ' couch '), and Kp@paros = Lat. p a d 6 a t u s ,
Mk.2 4 etc.). The Book of Judith adds urpo,.mj (13g), which
BED. Oriental beds in the olden time cannot always may perhaps=l?yl).
have been so simple as we are led to suppose that they
For F'l.?!, Cant. 3 9 AVmg., see P ALANQUIN, and for n J > l F
1. General generally are to-day. Both the frame-
conditions. work and the trappings of the bed were 8. 5 13, cp G ARDEN.
sometimes richly ornamented. Of course, To-day the divan, or platform, which goes along the
manners changed and luxury grew. Egypt was perhaps side or end of an Oriental room serves as a rest for the
in advance of other nations; but even in Egypt the bedding. This arrangement may have been
3. Con- known in N. Israel as early as the time of
struction.
priests were wont to use beds of a very simple kind.
If they had any frames at all, they were wicker- Amos (see below 5) ; but, if so, it was con-
work of palm-branches, resembling the @ a f q of the fined to the rich. What we know for certain is that the
modern Egyptian (cp Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. 1135f:, beds were movable ( I S. 19 15 : Saul wishes to have David
brought to him in the bed), and this characterises all
419f:).~ 'The early Israelites were naturally slow in
their material progress. Shepherds, for example, periods (see Lk. 5r3 and cp U T ~ W V U ~ W in Mk. 1415 Acts
sleeping in the open air (cp Gen.3140), would wrap 9 34). Thus (cp helqw, 5 5) they could be used by day
themselves in their simhh or rug (Ex. 2226[25]), and, as seats or couches (Ezek. 2341). In some cases the bed
if need were, used stones for their head-rests (Gen. was fitted with a head (cp Gen. 4731),~ such perhaps as
2811). Tent-dwellers too would be content with that we find represented on Egyptian monuments (cp Wilk.
useful article-the simluh, and this was probably what 09. cit. 1 4 1 6 fig. 191). That Og, king of Bashan,
Sisera was wrapped in when he lay down to sleep" had an iron bedstead, according to Dt. 311, is a state-
(Judg. $13). Those who dwelt in the house were ment of EV which most scholars would question. The
protected from the weather, but knew no luxury. wide application of Semitic words for ' bed' justifies
Great persons had special sleeping-chambers. Ishbaal the rendering ' couch of death'-Le., s a r c ~ p h a g u s . ~
for example, was murdered in such a room (.@n ??a), Basaltic sarcophagi abound in the E. of Jordan, and
a giant could well be enclosed in 'Hiram's tomb,' as
Z s . 4 7 ; c p E x . 8 3 [ 7 ~ 3 ] , z K . 6 1 2 ; a ~ s O l ~ n z ~ . ~ 3 1the
0 ;Bedouins still designate one of them,6 which is said
I K. 11s Ps. 10530 (corr. text), and in the highly to measure twelve feet by six.
civilised period represented by Ecclesiastes it was per- The cloths or rugs spread over a bedstead were
haps the usual arrangement (Eccles. 1020). Considering, called OTJ!~ (Prov. 716), and very possibly the singular
however, howrare special bedrooms are in Eastern houses of this word is to be substituted for the obscure i'q?
now, and also the poor construction of the houses in
ancient Palestine, we can hardly ventnre ta suppose that and 1 2 2 found
~ in I S. 19 13 16 and 2 K. 8 15 respectively
a 'chamber of beds,' (nimn i j ~2,K. 112 z Ch. 2211) (see above, (i 2, on Judith 139). Neither of the latter
was common among the Israelites. Guests, however, words was understood in antiquity,6 and the revisers
enjoyed privacy in the so-called upper-story (QmpGov 1 Cp Ass. erJu, bed, couch,' Aram. ~019, L;r*. 'couch,
in d and N T ) , which was on a part of the flat roof, cradle, bier,' new Heb. D ~ W' ,a bower in the vineyard'; Ges.-
where coolness could be enjoyed (3:z.n n;>z, 2 K. 410 Bu. illustrates by Ai-. ' a d wooden frame.
2 I n 7 4 the word does Aot appear in the best texts (so RV).
Klo. a;!$ I K. 1719 23). And in such rude houses
3 For ?ten,however, '€3 Pesh. Gei. read ?ip ,
'staff'; cp Heb.
as may still be seen in parts of Palestine, and were 1121.
doubtless common in antiquity, the upper chamber would 4 We can hardly say with Driver (Deut. 53) that 'the
necessarily be the sleeping-room of the family, as long as supposed meaning of W!: is little more than conjectural.' The
the weather permitted (see HOUSE, § 2). During the evidence from a comparison of usages is overwhelming. If
EEmunazar can use 2jwn for his death-couch, the Deuteronomic
1 paxcip might point to i'jn; but 2 is not unfrequently read 'writer may of course use bl? for that of Og. Nwly, indeed,
a5 n; cp y>n, Bapadel~[BA], O ~ ~ F U U [Ll, E L 2 S.1121, and 2 1 3 ,
~ a p s t p ,Hos.106 [BAQI'*]. occurs in a Palmyrene bilingual from et-Tayyibeb in this
2 Porphyry calls them by the name 6aZs from the Coptic &ai,
' palm- branch.' Cp pala, T Macc. 1351 (;here the form of the
sense. C p also "8" in z S. 331, and the Syr. use of b-
(n. I above). I t must be remembered too that the Deutero-
Greek is doubtfd) Jn:1'213 and Symm. Cant. 79. nomist assumes an oratorical.sty1e. H e ought not to be required
3 So the modern Arab sleeps, e.g., on the roof of the mosque to use the technical Hebrew term for sarcophagus, r : (Gen.
h
(Doughty); a 3iwzZat7m (&b) is still the chief article of his
wardrobe-an oblong piece of thick woollen stuff, used for an 5026). Cp Scbwally, Z A T W , 1398, p. 127, n. 3 (who would
outer garment hy day and for a coverlet by night. See Dozy, render either ' bed ' or [cp Aram. ~ ~ - 7 g l ').
bier
Dict. des V@temenfsdes Arabes, 39. SO Rohinson. The huge size of the sarcophagiis indicates
4 For the unintelligible ?:!'pP (Jndg.418) read with Che. the importance of the man whose body is placed in it. There
is a vast sarcophagus of a saint near Samarcand.
?&' ; a more technical term than " P P (Gratz) is required. I t should he mentioned, however, that in 2 K. 8 15 whilst
Moore (adroc.) frankly states that the main exegetical tradition GBrepresents the Hebrew word by,Xa@pa,Aq. and Symm. (and
points to a coarse rug or wrap. through them perhaps L) give 7 b urpLpa (137o$.
509 510
 BEDA.D BEE
have shown their perplexity in the former passage- by historical scheme of Judges a t a later time. The Targ. fanci-
fully understands the name as ben-Dan-ie., Samson. , ,
giving three alternative renderings.
Of pillows we hear nothing in OT. In Mk. 438 we .The mention of Sisera in ZJ. 9 entitles us to expect
o v Ezek. 1?18 6 , Barak, which name is actually read by @ (PCL~CGK
4. pillows. have ~ p o u ~ e ~ d h a r(cp [BAL]),
,4V ‘ pillow ’ ; but it was an extemporised Pesh. So We., Dr., Klo., Bu., Moore, H. P. Smith.
z.’A Manassite, I Ch. 7 17 (@Sap [Bl, -6av [ALI) ; perhaps a
pillow ; RV better, ‘ cushion.’ corruption of Abdon (ply). See M A CHIR.
AV-even sometimes RV-does indeed assume the use of
pillows. Thus (a)l ’ ~ k k > (with S U ~ X )is rendered ‘holster’ BEDEIAH (il:-ll, more probably a textual corruption
by AV in I S. 19k3 16 267’11 16 and by A V w . in I K. 1 9 6 ’ for iIWl3, I Ch. S z r f [so Gray, HPLV285, n. 11, who
and ‘pillow’by AV in Gen. 28 11 16. Theword however denote; cites BB and Pesh.], than an abbreviation for i l ’ l l Y
properly ‘the parts about one’s head ’ and is’thus renjered by
RV everywhere (e.g., I 5.1913, ‘a; the head thereof’), and [so Olsh. 277 6, 4, followed by BDB], a Levitical name
once even by AV in I K. 196. The Heb. word finds it.9 exact in the list of those with foreign wives (EZRA,i. 0 5 end)
parallel in the l $ ~ l F (withsuffix), ‘thepartsabout(one’s)feet’ Ezra1035 (Bapaia [E], Bahaia [ALl, MA. [ E ] ;
(RuthYe14). (6) For 1,113 in I s.1913 16, E V has ‘pillow,. ;-.[=~Esd. 934 PELIAS, RV PEDIAS(nsAlac [B],
while RVmg. offers ‘quilt’ or ‘network’ (so Ew., cp a!!?, a naiheiac [AI, Bahaia ,[LI). BY reading B E R A I ~ H
sieve); but see 9 3. (c) The ‘pillows’ of the prophetesses (so ( 4 . v . ) as above, we gain a second name in which
48 ?rpouK€+dharov ; cp Vg. Pesh. Targ.) in Ez. 13 18 20 are purely
iniaginary. nim? appears to mean some kind of magical
creation (4,wl) is referred to by the distinctive esilic
amulet carried bG-the prophetesses ; cp Ass. krrrzi, ‘ to bind,’
and post-exilic term. See C REATION , $$ 30.
kasifu (Del. in Baer, Ezck. xii.J). MEA~CC(\ ; Dt. 1 4 4 Judg. 148 Ps:
It is impossible to separate the subiect of beds from BEE (?I$>?,’
that of cobches or divans. Amos, ai a dweller in the 11812 Pr. 68 [@] Is. 718 Ecclus. 57 [X‘..] 1 1 3 4Macc.
5. Divans. country, directs his scorn against the luxury 1419JT) has for its Hebrew name a word derived
of the rich grandees ’ that sit in Samaria in from a root meaning to lead (or to be led) in order.
the corner of a couch, and on the silken cushions of Thus it means properly a member of a swarm (cp
a bed’ (Am. 312 6, RV). The rendering of RV is exanzen from ex-ugo). Besides the familiar incident of
indefensible : Damascus and damask have no connec- Samson finding a swarm of bees in the lion’s carcase
tion (see D AMASCUS, $$ 6 n.). The passage has (recalling Vergil’s story of Aristaeus and other classical
been cleared up with an approach to certainty by allusions, see below), we have in the O T two references
critical conjecture : it should run thus, ‘that sit in to the angry‘assaults of bees on those who meddle with
Samaria on the carpet (nyx?) of a couch, and on the their hives (Dt.144 Ps. 11812 [ M T ] ; Z cp4Macc.l41g),
and a likening of the Assyrian power to a bee summoned
cushion (>??m) of a divan.’ From another passage, by the sound of a hiss to settle on the land of Israel$
which also car; be restored very nearly to its original (Is. 718). In Prov. 6, at the close of the exhortation
clearness (see D AVID , § 12 n.), we learn that the conches to the sluggard to learn from the ant and her ways,
of the great were richly adorned. The selfish grandees
are described as those ‘ that lie upon conches (or beds,
a has the following addition to the Hebrew text :-
Or go thou to the bee
niao, of ivory,’ Am. 64). Such couches were sent as And learn how diligent she is
tribute by Hezekiah to Nineveh (ZCB 2 97, 1. 36), and the And how noble ( ~ ~ p v is ~ ) work that she doeth ;
r jthk
Amarna Tablets (520 ; cp 27 2028)speak of ‘beds ’ ( i r h ) of Whose labours kings and private men use for health,
And she is desired and honourable in the eyes of all :
ivory, gold, and wood sent to the king of Egypt. So too Though she be weak in strength,
in Esther (16 ; cp I Esd. 36) we read of couches adorned By honouring wisdom she is advanced.
with gold and silver, and covered with rich tapestry and We may compare the words of the son of Sirach (113).
deckings from Egypt (cp Prov. 716). Some of these The bee is little among such as fly,
couches would of course be used as beds. Such, at any But her fruit is the chief of sweet things.
rate, was the gorgeous bed ( ~ h i v vin) the tent of Holo- The common bee of Palestine is Apis fasciata, Latr. ;
phernes. The description of it contains the first mention some authorities regard it as a distinct species, others as a
o f a ‘ canopy’ ( K W V ~ T L O V ,Judith1021 1391619,originally sub-species of the cosmopolitan honey-bee Apis mcZZz$ca.
a fly-net)-one of ,the results of Greek influence ; In favour of the latter view it is stated that when crossed
H ELLENISM, $$ 15. with races of the same species it breeds freely ; but, on
BEDAD (l?? ; Bap&A[BADEL]),thefather of Hadad the other hand, it differs in size and colour from the
I.; king of Edom, Gen. 3635 I Ch. 146 ( B a h p a ~[L]). English bee, being smaller and lighter, and beautifully
The name is seemingly a corruption of Bir-dadda-ie., striped. The colonies are large and very many, Pales-
probably, Bir is Dadda (two names of the storm-god tine being a country well adapted for the needs’ of
best known as RammSLn) : cp with this Bir-zur (’IE~TI, insects which flourish in the sun and feed on flowers.
Panammu inscr. from Zenjirli, I , 3). Waiti, the ‘ king Bees are found wild, making their hives in crevices of
of Arabia’ conquered by‘,ASur-bHui-pal, had for his the rocks and hollow trees, etc. ; and, even at the present
father Bir-dadda (KB 2222f:), a name which answers day, many of the Arabs make a living by collecting wild
to the Assyrian name Bir-rammZn (the eponym for honey and bringing it into the towns for sale. Bee-
848 B.C.). Hommel (Beitr. z. Ass., 1897, p. 270) keeping is much practised in the East (where honey
derives from Be- (Ha)dad-ie., by Hadad ; - cp is largely used in cooking), the hives, according
BAANA,BE-ESHTERAH, T. K. C. to Canon Tristram, being tubular structures 3 or 4 ft.
long, and some 8 in. in diameter, roughly made of
BEDAN (I;? ; BADAN, or [Cod. Am.] BEN.~IAN). sun-dried mud. The ends of the tube are closed with
I. In an address ascribed to Samuel we find Bedan, a tile perforated with a hole for the access of the bees.
mentioned between Jerubbaal and Jephthah as one of Many of the hives are piled up together and covered
the chief deliverers of Israel ( I S. 12 IT MT). No such with boughs for the sake of shade. When the combs
name occurs in the Book of Judges, however, and the
form of the name is suspicious. 1 This fem. word is a norneu unifafis; the collective appears
Ew. supposed that the initial letter had been dropped, and in Srah. as di6r or dab, a swarm of bees, also probably in
that we should read Abdon (I$Y, Judg. 1 2 13). Abdon, how- ernended text of I S . 14 26, ili?, its bees (for d??) ; so @, We.,
ever, is one of the six ‘minor Judges’ introduced into the Dr., Bu., H. P. Smith.
2 C3 has ‘as bees about wax,’ which Bi., Che.W adopt ; but
1 Cp Aaros, $ 5 n. ; Che. E+5ositor, vi. 6, 366, ,JQR 10572, lliicomes from 7391, a rival reading to 31~3 (Che. Ps.P)). In
andon n p , ‘mat,’rug,’‘carpet ‘seelnlr. Is.1260. For 23wn3 cod. N Ecclos. 57 a corrector has added UP &Luvar E K T P L ~ ~ ~ .
3 The ancients believed that it was possible to summon bees
Gratz and Nowack give n?’lJve, ‘on the covering of.’ But by sounds, such as the beating of metal : see Verg. Georg. 46j,
b is non-existent ; in Judg.418 it is corrupt (see above). and the other passages cited by Bochart (Hieroz. 4 IO).
511 512
 BEELIADA BEELZEBUL
are stored with honey the end is removed and the comb .BEELZEBETL, as in RVng. ; EV Beelzebub: a
pulled out with a hook. , It is possible .that this method lame of the ruler of the demons ( A P X W N T U N AAI-
of apiculture is of considerable antiquity-the art was MONIWN), Mt. 1025 122427 Mk. 3 zz Lk. 1115 18Jf.
well known in classical times, and the bee has been, as .EV follows Text. Rec., which has @c~h<epoup (so Pesh.); but
Darwin points out, semi-domesticated from an ex- inal Z is better, attested (Besh<q3ouh [cA .Syr.Hcl.] ; so Ti.
tremely remote period,'-but there is no reference to T r e g ) W H , following B and partly N, read
1. Form everiwhere @EF<+!ou~,which Weiss insists, must
it in the O T or the NT. of name. be original; but this sceptidism as to the h in
The temper of this race of bees is very irritable, and @<EA is paradoxical. The word @sa<e~ouhis in-
they are very revengeful; indeed, it seems that the xplicable and hardly pronounceable and -the famous passage
n Mt. 1025, where the O ~ K O S E ~ T ~isT ~said
: to he insultingly
farther East one travels, the more the bee is to be :alled Eee(l)zebul, implies the speaker's consciousness that
avoided. This eagerness to attack may explain such
passages as Dt. 144 Ps. 11812,which, if they referred
?e? is one element in the title.
The name differs in two respects from the traditional
to the English bee, would seem exaggerated. A few name of the god of Ekron : ( I ) its first part is Aramaic,
years ago some hives of this Eastern race were introduced and (2) its last letter is not 6 but 2.
into the South of England, but proved so aggressive that Still, we cannot doubt that BEelzEbfil is
they had to be destroyed. They are very active on the identical with Ba&l-zEbiib. This heathen god seemed
wing and fly great distances. at one moment to be the rival of Yahw& ( 2 K. 13), and
The passage in Judg. (148),which describes Samson his name naturally rose to Jewish lips when demoniacal
finding ' a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of possession was spoken of, because of the demoniacal
the lion,' reads strangely. It is, however, by no means xigin assumed for heathen oracles. The title occurs
improbable that in the hot dry climate of Palestine the nowhere in Jewish literatnre, and must, therefore, have
body of a lion might dry up quickly, and it is possible lost its popularity after the time of Christ. There were,
that the flesh of the animal might have been removed in fact, so many names of demons that we cannot he
by ants. The skeleton might then form an attractive jurprised that some once popular names passed out of
shelter for a hive. On the other hand, Baron Osten use. If we ask how the name Beel-zebub, or rather
Sackenl has recently drawn attention to the widely- Beel-zebul, came to be popular, the answer is-first, that
spread myth called Bugonia, which is that bees are the title Baa-zebu1 was probably not confined to the god
generated in the bodies of dead animals, more especially of Ekron, but was once known in Palestine pretty widely,
in the carcases of 'oxen. This myth frequently occurs so that a traditional knowledge of it, as well as of the
in ancient and medizval literature,2 and was believed synonymous title BAAL-ZEPHON [ q . ~ . ]can , be presumed
and quoted by distinguished naturalists as late as the among the Jews and their neighbours even apart from
middle of the seventeenth century. Its explanation, z K. 1; and next, that Lk. 9 54 shows that special interest
according to our author, lies in the fact that a true fly was felt by the Jews of the time of Christ in the strange
(EyistuZis tenax, one of the Diptera), which mimics a narrative in which the name Baal-zebub occurs. That
bee so closely as to deceive those who are not entomo- the form Baal-zebiil was generally preferred may be
logists, lays its eggs in decaying meat. This provides presumed from the best accredited Greek text of the
food for the maggots. After the pupa stages emerges Gospels-the knowledge of this form must have come
the mature insect. As it flies away, it would be almost to the Jews by tradition and by intercourse with their
certainly taken for a bee. The theory is ingenious ; but neighbours-but it is probable enough that BEel-zebub
it does not account for the honey in the lion's carcase, also was current, and from Mt. l O z 5 we are obliged to
and at present, although the Eristulis undoubtedly lays assume that some teachers pronounced the name Beel-
its eggs in filth, the evidence that it does so in dead zebud, with the view of interpreting it Reel-dSbaitha=
bodies is somewhat scanty. D ~ K O ~ E U T ~ T 'T lord
~ , of the house '-1 and n being easily
A story parallel to Samson's is to the effect that interchanged.1 (An analogy for this can be found in
recently, when the tomb of Petrarchat Arquawas opened, the Elohist's play upon Zebulun, as if Zebudun, in
it was found that a swarm of bees had made their Gen. 3020.) The interpretation was correct (see B AAL-
honeycomb on the remains of the poet. ZEBUB, § 3), though the 'house' of which Jesus and
The Palestine bee, which is found S. of Mount his contemporaries thought was, not on the mountain
Carmel, differs from the Syrian bee found in Asiatic of God (cp BAAL-ZEPHON, 'lord of the [mansion of
Turkey N. of that district. The latter is of a deeper the] north), but in the ' recesses of the pit' (Is. 1415).
gray. Both races are larger than the Cyprian bee, Though the demons might be allowed to pervade
which is slender and wasp-like. The Egyptian bee the upper world (cp Eph. 22), the place from which
resembles the Syrian in size, but is yellow and of an they proceeded was the 'abyss' (the Abaddou of Rev.
unusually fierce temperament. See also HONEY. 911).
N. M.-A. E. S. As things now stand, therefore, it is best to suppose
, § 42, L e . , 'Baal knows,' or B AAL- ZEBUB [p.~., 31 to be a modification in the direc-
a whom B. deposits ' [for safe custody ; cp Ar. wadu'a, tion of cacophony for religious reasons (cp Gog, Magog)
a deposuit ' ; see Kerber, Ltigeniz. 391 ; the Massoretic which did not hold its ground. Ba%l-zEbiilis probably
vocalisation intentionally disguises the word $p2), one '
the original form, and it meant ' lord of the mansion '-
i.e., to the Jews of N T times, ' lord of the nether world.'
of the sons of D AVID [ q . ~,. 11d] ( I Ch. 147,pahay8ae The reading of the received Greek text is assimilated to
[BX], -hXia& [A], paaXia8a [L]; Ti.'stext ~hra8a).This, the reading of the traditional Hebrew text.
the original form of the name, was later altered by the Over against this view stands that of the old scholar
scrupulous copyists to ELIADA in z S. 5 16 (but ~aaXiha0 Lightfoot (still defended by Am. Meyer, Jesx Mutter-
[L] and -~i,uuOin B's secondary [see D AVID, 11 ( d ) p] sprache, 49), which connects -zebu1 with
list) and I Ch. 38, when Baal had become objectionable
3. Other ex- $?J, ' dung,' ha?, hq, ' dung-making,' in
as a name of God (WRS, OTJCr2) 68). Cp BAAL, i.
new Hebrew : cp $a!, ' to offer to idols.'
5 5.
The idea is that ' lord of flies ' was changed into ' lord
BEELSARUS ( g s e h c a p o c [BA]), I Esd. 5 8 =Ezra of dung,' to show abhorrence of henthenism. Such
22, BILSIiAN.
transformations are, no doubt, in the later Jewish spirit ;
BEELTETHMUS ( BeshTseMoc PI), I Esd. 2 16. 1 Cp @.'s Zapoue for ZABUD[q.n., I].
See REHUM,5. a She'Gl, on this theory, is ironically described as the h.1, the
'palace' or 'mansion' of the demons, as in Ps. 49 15 (according to
1 Bullettino deZZa Societri EntomoZogica ZtaZiana, tom. 25
[bl. one possible view, see PSALMS, SBOT where We. reads !'?!e) of
2 See the references in Bochart, Hieroe. 4 IO. the wicked rich.
33 513 514
 BEER BEER-LAHAIYROI
but this particular one is improbab1e.l ' Lord of flies ' a fresh well has been found, the sheikhs go through the
(could we assume that this was the original meaning) was symbolic form of digging for it with staves, and the poets
itself, as a title, bad enough; nor would the people, who of the clan greet the well with a song.
feared the demons so much, have ventured to speak too Does MT give us the whole of the song? Can
disrespectfully of the archdemon (cp Ashmedai br Midbar be used as a proper name?, Surely not. And,
Asmodeus, which to a Hebrew ear meant the ' destroyer' when we examine the MSS of B, we find some justifi-
-not a disrespectful title) ; lastly, on Lightfoot's cation for the hypothesis of Budde, that the text of the
theory the name ought to be Beel-zebel : it is shown itinerary originally ran, ' And from there to Beer ; and
elsewhere that a late editor detected the new Hebrew from Beer to Nahaliel and from Nahaliel to Bamoth,'
word zeQeZ, 'dung,' in the name I-zebel (J BZEBEL). and that an editor who knew the song of the well, and
Lightfoot's theory, then, must be abandoned, as Baudis- desired to do it honour, inserted it between the first and
sin holds. But Baudissin's own theory (adopted from the second items in the list, with the additional line,
Hitzig) is not really more satisfactory. H e thinks that ' Out of the wilderness a gift ' (see MATTANAH). See
kaa1;zebul is simply a euphonic modification of Baal- Budde, New WorZd, March 1895 ; Preuss. 3ahrbb. ~

zebub, the consonant which closed tfie first syllable 1895,p. 4 9 1 8 ; Franz Del. Z K W , 1882,p. ,4493
being repeated at the close of the second part of the 2. A place to which JOTHAM [I] fled from his brother
word.2 Abimelech, Judg. 921 (puqp [B], papa [A], P ~ p u[L]).
This, however, leaves Baal-zebub unexplained, for In OS (238 73 ; 106 20) it is identified with a village
Baudissin's theory of the name is scarcely admissible. called Bera, 8 m. N. of Eleutheropolis. The context,
See Selden, De Dis Syrz's, 2 6 ; Lightfoot, Hora however, gives us no data for determining the site of
He6raicrt., on Mt. 12 24 Lk. 11r j ; Movers, Die Phonz'zier the ' well ' in question.
('41),1 ZGOJ ; Riehm's article in HWB(2). The latter BEEROTH (4.v.) and even Beersheba have been suggested.
revives an old theory of Storr and Doderlein that bi'el Kh. el-Bireh, W. of 'Ain Shems, is considerably more than
8 m. N. of Beit Jibrin. T. K. C .
d&ibd in Aramaic might mean either ' lord of flies ' or
' a n enemy,' 2xBpbs du6'pwiros (Mt. 1328) = Grdpohos. BEERA (N$@, 'well' ; Baiaiha [B], BEHPA [A],
This is doubtless plausible. W e must at least admit om. L.), b. Zophah, in genealogy of ASHER ( I Ch.
that the common people cannot without instruction have 737).
attached a meaning to -zeBuZ. But how has Beelzebul BEERAH (n?g:, 'well'), a Reubenite prince, son
(half Hebrew, half Aramaic) fixed itself in the Gospel
tradition ? Pesh. too retains Beelzebub. Baudissin's of Baal, carried off by Tiglath-pileser, I Ch. 56 ( BEHA
article in Herzog, PRE(3)(learned and thorough) adopts [B], - H ~ A[A], B ~ p a[L]). He is identified by the
the ordinary view, as far as Baal-zebub is concerned. rabbins with Beeri, the father of the prophet Hosea.
T. I<. C. BEER-ELIM ('iY$K -I&$ [BB. Gi.], 'well of tere-
BEER (7&$, 'well,' Q 101). I. (d$$up [BAFL]). binths' (?) or 'of sacred trees' ; @ p ~ a T p OY A I ~ [ E ] I M
A station of the Israelites, apparently between Heshbon [BXAQT]), a place apparently on the northern border
and the Arnon (Nu. 21 16 [JE]). See N AHALIEL ; of Moab, answering to E GLAIM on the south (Is. 158).
W ANDERING , Q 8 ; and cp, below, B EER-E LIM. The It is generally identified with the BEER of Nu. 21 16.
interest of Beer is not geographical but literary. The Some identify it also with the Alema of I Macc. 526 ;
discovery of the well was commemorated (the narrator but see ALEMA.
gives us to understand) by a song. The song with its
context runs thus, according to MT,-
BEER1 ('?&P,
' belongiiig to the well ' or ' BEER,' 5
76 ; cp above).
And from there to Beer: that is the well whereof YabwL I. A Hittite, the father of J UDITH (i. I), Esau's wife, Gen.
said unto Moses : Assemble the people, and I will give them 2634 (&p LAD], pay! [E],patop [Ll). It is impossible to
water. Then sang Israel this song : reconcile this description with that of Adah in the genealogy in
Spring up, 0 well ; greet ye it with a song. Gen. 362, for which see BASHEMATH, I.
Well, that the princes have du 2. The fatlier of HOSEA, Hos. 1I (6 P E ~ ~ [ B[EAQI).
]L,
The nobles of the people have tored,
With the sceptre-with their staves.
And from illidbar LEV the wilderness] to Mattanah; and from
BEER-LAHAI-ROI ('g? 'n?
la:), a well in the
Mattanah to Nahaliel ; and from Nahaliel t o Bamoth. Negeb, famous in Hebrew tradition as the scene of
Hagar's theophany (Gen. 16 14),and no doubt connected
The historical character of this statement has generally with a sanctuary (St. Z A T W 1349 SI]). Beside this
been assumed. Ewald, however, is on the road to a sacred well was the abode of Isaac (Gen.2462 2511).
very different theory when he remarks that such a well- 1.NZlllle. The name is mentioned only by J ; E, who
song would become a source of joy to the labourers who gives nearlythe same account of the theophany
thenceforward used it (Hist. 2204). H e sees, in fact, (21 8-21), speaks simply of ' a well.' According to RV,
that it is essentially a popular song. Robertson Smith, Beer-lahai-roi means 'well of the living one who sees
too, finely speaks of ' the exquisite song in which the me.'
Hebrew women as they-stand round the fountain, So the Versions (1614 : + p b p 03 Zvhmov [E]%OV [ADL], 24 26
waiting their turn to draw, coax forth the water which
wells up all too slowly for their i m p a t i e n ~ e . ' ~W e
+.
25 I I : bpa'vroc [ADEL] ; Pesh. in all three LAY? Jila
should not expect the origin of such a song to be uL). This rendering, however, is inconsistent with that given
remembered ; nor is there anything in the words to Of El Roi in 1G13, '4 God that seeth'; we should expect, not
suggest the occasion ascribed to it in JE. More prob- 'N? 'fl,but 'xi 'E, and, eyen apart from this, 'g cannot be equiva-
ably it arose in the dry country of the south of Judah, .lent to 58, 'God ' (the phrase 'n 58 is late). Probably, there-
where springs were the most valued possession (cp Judg. fore, we should render with We. (Pr0l.P)3 3 0 ; E T 326) 'living
115 Josh. 15 19 Gen. 26 1 9 8 ) . The ' princes,' ' nobles,' is he who sees me, and explain this by the li-ht of kagar's
words in v. 13, which, as they stand, are unintelli)gible, hut may,
and ' captains' (for ppnnx we read o3ppnn ; cp Judg.
by the correction of O h into mh,l and the insertion of TIN>
59-14) referred to are the sheikhs of the clan. When
between ' n w and 'in# (the resemblance of these thr:e words
1 D*>rbp, the present writer thinks, has no connection with accounts for the omission of one), be interpreted thus : Have I
seen God and remained aliveafter my vision (of God)'?' El Roi
%, 'dung.' I t is pointed in imitation of O'ylpW, 'abomina- (lit. ' God of vision ') will then mean ' the God who is seen ' (cp
tions,' and should really he read D$>;l, 'heaps of stones,' ie., Gen. 22 14).
altars of stone. Cp however, IDOL,S 2 (t). These explanations of 81-Ra'i and Beer-lahai-r6'i
2 Hitzig (IfZ. Pm&. by Steiner ~67)compares@.'s Appamup are too plainly not original. According to analogy,
(Habakkuk) ; Baudissih adds BLb'el-mandel for BLb el-Mandeh. %$ (wrongly vocalised Z;l&ni) ought to be a noun in the
3 'The Poetry of the OT,' Brit. Qzart. Rev. Jan. =aT7; cp
RSP) 135. The expression 'coax forth' was suggested by construct state. Instead of ZaFnz' we should doubtless
Herder. The fountain is credited by primitive races with per-
sonality. 1 Cp on$ in M T of I S. 3 13 : read D& with @BAL.
515 5'6
 BEEROTH.. BEERSHEBA
vocalise ZZhr, ' jaw-bone' ; mi (?) is some animal's name, which has been inserted hy the editor (Bacon, Trg.
not known in the later Hebrew, and perhaps of Arabic Trad. 2073 ; cp Meyer, Z A T W 1 118 ; Dr. Deut.
origin. , Tbe name misread Lahai-roi should; therefore, 120). In Nu. 33313 the same name occurs (shortened
be rendered' ' Antelope's (?) jaw-bone.' into B ENE-J AAKAN, py; ; pavaia [B] ; - Y I K U Y [A] ;
Another explanation is proposed by Hommel ( A H T ,209). - ( t ) a m v [F] ; pavrK. [L]) after Moseroth ; but the list
Adhering to the points as regards the syllable (ai, he compares
the S. Ar. name Luhai-'uthf. He does not account for m'i. of stations in Nu. 33 is of late editorial origin (cp Kue.
Should W be lyl(see R E U )? Samson's Lehi, however, supplies Hex. 98, 102). The spot probably lay somewhere on
a more obvious clue. the edge of tlie ,Arabah. Cp J AKAN, and WANDER-
LPhi, 'jaw-bone,' was a name given to any prominent INGS, § 8.
crag, from a fancied resemblance to a jaw-bone. See BEERSHEBA (a>@787,s 107--i. e., 1 well ofseven,'
LEHI ; and cp Onugnathos ((ivou yvdOos), a promontory
on the coast of Laconia, -and ' Camel's jaw-bone' (an rather than 'seven wells'-see below, 5 3 ; BHPCABEE
Arabic name, uskilt, iv. 3 5 3 9 3 ; cp We. Vakidi,298,
n. z).1
[ADL], 2633 I$.OPKOY [ADEL], it'is iaken'as meail-
According to E, the well was in the 'wilderness of
nig ' well of the oath ').l One of the Simeonite towns
Beersheba (Gen. 2114) ; J, more precisely, states that it in the southern territory of Judah (Josh. 19z), on the
2. Site. was 'on the way to Shur' (167), 'between border of the cultivated land, came to be regarded,
Kadesh and Bered' (v. 14). Jerome knew of
a ' well of Hagar' (OS1013) ; does he mean the tra- for the greater part of history, as the remorest point
of Canaan in that direction; whence the phrase
ditional well in the l4'idy eZ-MuweiZe&? This strangely
'from Dan to Beersheba' ( 2 S. 1 7 ~ 1 ) ,which, after
formed wady is at the foot of mountains of the same
the fall of the N. kingdom, became from 'Geba to
name, and Palmer thinks that there was once a large Beersheba' ( z I<. 23S), or 'from Reersheba to Mt.
city here ( ' perhaps one of the ' ' cities of the south " ').
Ephraim' ( 2 Ch. 194 Pqpuapee [B]), and in the post-
One of the wells has special sanctity, and is connected
exilic period ' from Beersheba to the valley of Hinnom '
by the Bedouin with Hagar. Two caves appear to be
ancient. The smaller, .at the upper end of the wgdy, (Neb. 1127 P E T P ~ [B], ~ ~ EPep..E [A], 30 p ~ ~ p r u p[B],
e~
on the right hand, was apparently a Christian chapel ; pep.. [A]). Yet Beersheba, though the practical, was
not the ideal, border of the Holy Land. This ran
the other, on the.opposite side, seems to have served
along the 'river of Egypt,' the present WBdy el-'Arish,
as the hermitage (Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 2 nearly 60 m. SE. of Beersheba.
354). As to the ' jaw-bone' rock no positive state- An account of the origin of the name and the planting
ment can be ventured. On the geographical state-
of the sacred tamarisk of Beersheba is given in the story
ment in v. 14, see BERED,i. T o thd suggestions there of Abraham (Gen. 21 2 2 3 . E) ; but another story belong-
made it may be added that the ' way to SHUR ' (4.v.)
ing to another document (J) assigns the origin of the
would be one of the regions called by the Assyrians
well and its name to Isaac (Gen. 2626-33). It was the
Mi+ According to the original tradition Hagar scene of more than one theophany in patriarchal times.
seems to have fled, not to,Egypt, but to a N. Arabian
It was an important sanctuary frequented even by N.
district called by a name which was confounded with
Israel in the time of Amos ( 5 5 q5pP;ap TOO 6 p K O U [BAQ]),
Mizraim (Egypt). This, and not Egypt, was really her
Who refers with disapproval to those who swear by the
native country ; this too was the country from which,
life of the divine patron 2 of Beersheba (814). It was
according to E, she took a Wife for her son Ishmael in Beersheba that the two sons of Samuel are said to
(2121). So Wi. AOF 3 0 J See HAGAR,5 I ; ISAAC, have exercised their judgeship ( I S. 8 2 ) , and a day's
§ z ; M IZRAIM, $ z ; MORIAH. T. K. C.
journey thence into the wilderness is placed the incident
BEEROTH (nil&?; B ~ p w e[BKAL]), a city of of the 'juniper' tree in the life of Elijah ( I K. 1 9 3 8
Benjamin. ~ ~ p u a P s[A]).
e Beersheba was the birthplace of the
I n Josh. 18 25, p e q p d a [E], pqOwpofJ [L], n S. 4 n [A omits] ; mother of King, Joash ( 2 K. 121 [z] 2 Ch. 241). In
gentilic Beerothite ('nit$>; pqpwOatoc [BAL], n Sam. 4zJ post-exilic times it was inhabited by men of Judah.
59 ; pvOwb. [EA], ptOaper [L], z Sam. 23 37 ; '??a?,EV BERO- The ruins at.Eeersheba belong apparently to early Christian
days. The Ononzasiicu describe it as a large lace with a
THITE, I Ch. 1139 ; b pspOsi [Bl, 6 pqpw.9 [AI, b pqpoOL [LI). Roman garrison (10332 234100). I n the time OfPJerome the
According to Josh. 9 17 (PELPWV, [B"]: P$wp [Babmg.]), place was of some importance ; later, it became an episcopal see.
it belonged originally to the Gibeonite confederation ; but by the fourteenth century it had become deserted and ruined:
and, according to 2 S. 43, there was at one time a I t is represented by the modern Bir es-Seba', on the
migration of its inhabitants to Gittaim (see ISHBAAL, I ). W. es-Seba', 28 m. SW. from Hebron (Rob. BR 1300
3).Whilst the arable land of Palestine
Men of Beeroth are mentioned in the great post-exilic
list (see E ZRA , ii. 5 9, 5 8 c) ; EzraZzg=Neh. 729 (PTpws 2*::g:fi- virtually comes to an end with Beersheba,
and the country to the south of it is usually
PI! aPllpw6 [LI) = 1 E d . 5 19 (PVPOY [BI-PWE? [AI). barren, there are, for nearly 30 m. S. of Beersheba,
It IS named by Eus. (cp Reland, 618-19), and IS now
represented by the modern EZ Bireh (which still owes ruins of old villages gathered round wells; they
its name to its abundant supply of water), a village of evidently date from Roman times.
about 800 inhabitants, in a poor district, about 9 m. On Josh. 192, ' Beersheba and Sheba,' see SHEMA(i.).
N. from Jerusalem, on the Shechem road. Tradition W R S (ReZ. Sem.(2)181) remarks The sanctuary of
assigns it as the place where Joseph and Mary missed Beersheba DroDerlv consisted of the ' ' Seven Wells
_ _ I
"

Jesus from the company of returning pilgrims (Lk. 3. Derivation. which gave the place its name.' Among
2 43 45). the Arabs a d a c e called ' Seven Wells '
is mentioned by Strabo (16g24). Robertson Smith ha5
BEEROTH OF TEE CHILDREN OF JAAKAN, also given abundant evidence of the sanctity attaching
RV Beeroth Bene-Jaakan ( @ ~ ~ -nh@, ~ > ~ ' wells to the groups of seven wells among the Semites. Even
of the b'ne Ja'iiltan '), a halting-place in the desert, Dt. to-day seven wells or cisterns seem to have the power of
1 O G (BHpwB Y I W N IAKEIM [BAL]), where it is men- undoing witchcraft (2DPV7106). This view is due
tioned before MOSEROTH.% This notice is pi-Deutei-o- to Stade (Gesch. i. 127), who thinks that the postposition
nomic, and belongs to a fragment of E's list of stations of the numeral was Canaanitish ; but, as in the case of
1 So first We. ProL 1.c . cp Moore, Jadges, 347. I t seems a
Icirjath-arba (see H EBRON, i.), the theory is doubtful.
natural inference that Ei-ioi originally referred to an antelope- 'Well of Seven' is not inexplicable ; 'Well of (the) Seven
god (so Ball Genesis SBOT).
2 The SaLar. text'has for this verse : 'And the children of 1 The Hebrew verb ' to swear means literally 'to come under
Israel joprneyed from Moseroth and encamped among the b'ne the influence of seven things.' See WRS, Rel. Sem.eJ 1818.
Ja'?ika. 2 M T gives ' way ' (cultus) : see Aiios, $ no.

517 5'8
 BE-ESHTERAH ’ BEHEMOTI-I
gods ’ is intrinsically a probable meaning. Few persons, of the south land.’l This is the headine of a short fraementarv
it is to be hoped, go to Beersheba looking for seven passage of prophecy and refers to the&scription of k g y p t i t
the end of v. 7 as ‘ Rjhah the quelled one ’ (see RAHAB,ii. $ I).
wells. Gautier affirms that there are now only three, ‘The south-land’ (Negeb) is here, as in Dan.Sg 1 1 5 8 , a
though there may once have been more (Souvenirs de designation of the second of the two empires which endangered
Terre Suinte,W 147 ; but cp his letter in Erp. Times, Palestine -Le Egypt -the other being JZjhbn, ‘the northland’
(Jer. 16 I; Zecz. 2 6 [~&i.e., in a large sense, Babylonia. So
10328 (Apr. ‘99). Trumbull (Erp. Times, 889 [Nov. Del. The heading in v. 6 may be very late.
’961) also states that he saw three wells, but adds that Delitzsch finds Behemath also in (c) Ps. 7322, ‘As for me, I,
at some distance he saw the remains of a fourth and a was senseless and ignorant I was a Behemoth toward thee
fifth. H e admits that there may once have been more (Del., Nowack). This rendkring is correct, if the text is sound
and if the speaker is an individual. If, however, the speake;
than five. Cp also Dr. Ex$. Times, 7567 f: (Sep. is to he understood collectively, we may perhaps render, I was
’96). For descriptions of Beersheba as it is to-day, (like) the beasts toward thee.’ So Bi. ; but the absence of the
see Rob. BR 1204 ; GuBrin, Judde, 2 278 283 ; S6journ6, particle of comparison is a difficulty. If we compare 49 I O 1111
Rev. diblipue, 1895, p. 265.1 G. A. S. (126[7] it becomes plausible to read, with Gratz, niS>F
’TlgQ, ‘ I was devoid of understanding toward thee.’
BE-ESHTERAH (n?T$Vq)in Josh. 2127 ( B O C O ~ A N
Levi%th%n (i&,Zivycithin, ‘wreathed ’-i. e . , ‘gather-
[B], -pp.,[L], Bs&apa [A]), perhaps an abbreviation
for i l J7’3,~ ~ Astarte’
‘house of ~ (cp Ges.,
~ Nestle, ing itself in folds’ ; or perhaps of Bab. origin) is a
2. Of Leviathan. designation of a mythic serpent in
E@. 114, etc.). Homniel, however (Beitr.f:Ass., 1897,
all the passages in which it occurs,
p. 268), explains ‘ by Ashtar’ ; cp the S. Ar. inAyx, ‘ by
Athtar ( L e . , Ashtar).’ Gray ( H P N 127) also is against unless Job 41 I be an exceptiom2 See also LEVIATHAN.
~

I t is found (d) in Job411 (4025) ‘Canst thou draw up3

the supposed abbreviation of a&% into bZ-. See ASH- Leviathan with a hook, (and) press ’down his tongue with a
TAROTH. .
cord ? (e) Job 3 a, ‘ Let those who lay a ban upon the sea 4 curse
it, (thoie) who are appointed to rouse up Leviathan ; v) Is.
BEETLE, RV cRICICET ( h l n; o+ioMAXHcl 27 I ‘ In that day shall Yahwi: punish Leviathan the fugitive
[BAFL] : Lev. l l z z + j . By the word so rendered is serient, and Leviathan the coiled serpent, and he shall slay the
dragon in the sea’. (g)Ps.7414, ‘Thou didst shatter the heads
almost certainly intended a species of locust or grass- of Leviathan, and iavest his [carcase] to be food for the jackals ’ ;5
hopper ; the name is one of four used in the verse to (h) Ps. 104 26,6 ‘There do the dragons move ,along, (there is)
denote ’ winged creeping things that go upon all fours, Leviathan whom thou didst form to be its ruler. To these refer-
which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon ences, two supplied by apocryphal writers may be added : (i)
En. 607-9, cp 24J ; G) 4 Esd. 649-52 ; cp Apoc. Bar. 29 4.
the earth.’ The Hebrew name has passed into Aramaic,
In the present article we shall desert the zoological
post-biblical Hebrew, and Armenian ; in Arabic ~ u ~ u l n
explanation of BiShSm6th and LeviSthSn, leaving the
means ‘ a troop of horses’ or ‘ a troop of locusts’ (cp
field open to another writer to represent the
Joel&), and the connected verb means ‘ to proceed in 3, Both more generally received opinion (see H IPPO-
a long train,’ as do locusts. ‘ Beetle’ is at all events a
mythical
wrong rendering ; for the CoZeopteru have, as a rule, legs
monsters. POTAMUS, C ROCODILE). Strong reason
will have to be shown for not interpreting
ill adapted for ‘ leaping upon the earth,’ and are seldom
these strange forms with some regard to mythology.
or never eaten ; whereas certain kinds of crickets, as of
No one would assert that the author of Job had an
locusts, are fried and eaten by Eastern nations. It is
altogether distinct mythological conception ; but modern
impossible, however, to identify the species (if any)
commentators who disregard the mythic basis of the
referred to. Cp also LOCUST, 2.
descriptions make a serious mistake.
BEGGAR, BEGGING. See ALMS, § 4. It was natural in 1887 to look for illustrations of the
BEHEADING. See L AW AND JUSTICE, 12. Jnb passages, ( d ) and ( e ) , to Egypt,’ though reference
should have been made, not to the fantastic griffins on
BEHEMOTH and LEVIATHAN. two real or sup- certain wall-paintings, but to the idealisation of the
posed animals grouped
-~ together in Job 4015-41, but ordinary monsters of the Nile in the mythic narratives
1. Mention of nowhere else in the canonical books of Re‘ and Osiris. ‘ There are supernatural as well as
(see however below).2 BZhZm6th (nimg) natural hippopotamuses and “crocodiles, and it is a
Behemoth.
is no doubt an intensive plural form, and specimen of these which the poet has given us. The
means ‘ a colossal beast.’ It occurs (a-j in Job4015-24, descriptions are hyperbolical and unpleasing, if referred
probably (a) in Is. 306, but hardly (c) in Ps. 73 22. to the real monsters of the Nile; they are not so if
In (a) the animal so called is described at length. This explained of the ‘ (children of defeat,” with the dragon
description is followed by a sketch of LevilthBn, and most Apopi at their head,8 which the poet, by a fusion
critics have thought, specially on the ground of the ‘hyper-
bolical’ expressions, that the two pictures are later insertions in
the speeches of Yahwh (see Jon). Whether the expressions 1 The alternative explanation ‘Oracle of the beasts of the
are fitly called ‘ hyperholical,’ we shall see presently. Almost south ’-i.e., of the desert which’adjoins the south of Judah-is
all modern critics, whether they separate Job 40 rg-41 from the less natural. Why ‘the south’ instead of ‘ the desert’? And why
main body of the speeches of Yahwi: or not have thought that are serpents called niiqp, ‘beasts’? ni3g would have been
BZhemnth is a Hebraised form of an Egybtian word for the more in place. c p SBOT on Is. 30 6.
hippopotamus (p-eke-mbu, ‘water-ox ’), hut there is no philo- 2 @ renders Levinthan as follows :-in (d)S ~ ~ K O Y (Aq.X C Sym.
logical basis for this opinion.4 I n (6) Is. 306 3 ; niDzg K@p
: AeuraQav) in (e) ~b piyu K ~ T D S (Aq. Sym. AsvruOav, Th. Spd-
is probably to be rendered ‘Oracle of the monster (bChtm6th) KOYTU) ik(.f) T ~ G V p L o v m (Aq. Sym. Th. Aevcdav) [twice], in
(9) T&; S ~ U K ~ V T W(Aq.
V Aev~aQav),in (h)Sp&ov.
1 ’ A ~ p kaccording to the order in G B A F L ; & T T ~ Kis~ men- 3 for M T 7Wpn. The final letter of v. 24 (now be, ‘his
tioned in hevaplaric MSS as a rendering by ‘ BhAos. snout’j and the first letter of v. 25 became effaced. Ewald
2 It will be seen that on one strongly supported theory there (Lehr6. d. He6r. Spr. 791) makes an elaborate attempt to
are parallels to this combination. account for the absence of the interroeative Darticle (7) .-.,in MT.
3 The versions render BZhemath as follows :-in ( a ) 8qp)pia
I _

[LXX], m j v q [Aq. Theod.], in (6) T&Y TETPUT~SUV[LXX], ~ ~ l j v q based on the theory that the Arabic word for crocbdile (iinlsZ!c)
[Aq. Sym. Th.], in (c) ~ r q v h 6 q s[LXX, Sym.]. existed in the Hebrew vocabulary of Job. Similarly Budde ;
4 So independently WMM (EGYPT,$9). The objections are Duhm leaves the point undecided. Against this, see Che. Ex-
as follows :-(I) The final th in Behemoth is unaccounted for positor, July 1897.
(Lepsius). (2) The Egyptians had several names for the hip o 4 Read 0 : for Oi’, with Gunkel, to restore parallelism ; cp Ps.
potamus (e.g., r e r f , ‘ a beast that rolls itself in the mud’)‘ tu; 7413f: 10425f: Is. 271.
the texts nowhere mention j-ehe-?nbu. (3) The form, ’if it 5 Reading O’s?& 5$p hl;]:?la!. Cp Fox.
existed, would be mbu-ehe (P. C. Cook). It is strange that
Jablopski, who died in ‘757, and could know only Coptic, and 6 Reading O’?’?! for the scarcely possible Ilia?$, ‘ships’; and
that imperfectly should he consulted in preference to Birch,
who, after sup bsing himself to have found the old Egyptian correcting ,’& into iL!-b’$\. See Che. Ps.(z)
original of B&math in 6ehha?ita, discovered afterwards that 7 Che. JoJ and Sol. 56, where the first recent critical protest
the name was really kheh (Renonf, EzpoSitov July 1897). Cp was made against the dominant theory. Cp the fantastic forms
R EMPHAN. On an analogous attempt to j u d f y the interpreta- described in Maspero, SlruggLe off& Nations, 84.
tion of Leviathan as a crocodile, see col. 520, n. 3. $3 See Maspero, 03. cit. 159.

5 I9 520
 BEHEMOTH BEHEMOTH
historically most justifiable,l identifies with the monsters mythical. ’ Levisthan the fleeing serpent ’ finds i s
of Babyloni+n origin called elsewhere Rahab and his sxplanation in the carving on a seal representing Mardulc
helpers (Job913). And even in the uncorrected but with a dagger pursuing the dragon which flees before
still more in the corrected text there are expressions and him in the shape of a serpent, and ‘ LeviLth2n the
statements which are hardly explicable except on the :oiled serpent ’ is the mythic phrase for the ocean which
mythological theory.’ How, for example, can the hippo- surrounds the earth.l
potamus and the crocodile be said to be, not merely In (g), Ps. 7414, a psalmist gives a somewhat different
dangerous to approach, but beyond the range of hunters? view of Leviathan. To him the d e s t h i o n of LeviBthLn
There is evidence that even in early times the Egyptians is past. This is, of course, the original view represented
were skilled in attacking and killing them. How, too, in the Babylonian Creation-story (see CREATION, 2).
can the ordinary hippopotamus be called the firstling The passage should most probably be read thus :-
of the ways of God’ (Job40rg), and the ordinary Thou didst shatter the head of Leviathan
crocodile be said to be feared by all that is lofty, and to And gavest up his [carcase] as food for th; jackals.
be king over all the sons of pride (Job 41 34 [ z 6 ] ) ? There is no reference to the unburied corpses of the
The Babylonian elements in BZhEmBth and Levisthsn, Egyptians (Ex. 1 4 30) ; ’ the people inhabiting the wil-
however, are more important than the Egyptian. They derness’ is an impossible rendering of a corrupt text
have been pointed out, though with some exaggeration, (see Fox). W e have here simply an amplification of a
by Gunkel, who also noticed how much the text of the mythic detail in the story of Tiamat (see the Babylonian
accounts of BZhEm6th and Leviathan has suffered in Creation-tablet iv. Z. ~oq)-the same detail which
transmission. It may be hoped that by the light of the explains a fine passage in the latter part of Isaiah
mythological interpretation the corruptions may be (Is. 519).
partly removed. For example, Job 41 9-11 [1-3] may be Taken by itself ( h ) ,Ps. 10426, it must be admitted,
plausibly emended thus (see J Q X , April, 1897) :- gives no confirmation to our mythological interpreta-
Surely thy self-confidence proves itself vain ; tions. LeviLthBn appears as one of the monsters of the
Even divine beings the fear of him lays low. sea, and we are told that Yahwi: himself ‘ formed ’ him as
An angel shudders when he would arouse him.
Who then (among mortals) would dare to mee;him as a foe? its ruler. The writer may know nothing of mythology.
Who ever confronted him and came off safe? He has heard this said, and repeats it.
Under the whole heaven, not one I We now turn to (i)and ( j ) ,the apocryphal passages.
The un-emended form of this passage, it is true, does not The former (Enoch 607-9) runs in Charles’s translation from
the Ethiopic version (155) :-‘And in that day will two monsters
favour a mythological interpretation; but it is very he parted, a female monster named Levinthan, to dwell in the
difficult to give it any plausible meaning, whereas the depths of the ocean over the fountains of the waters. But the
emended text is in perfect harmony with all that we male is called Behemath, who occupies with his breast (?) a
hear of Leviathan elsewhere. One more proof of the waste wilderness named Dendain, on the east of the garden. . ..
And I besought that other angel that he should show me the
helpfulness of tlie new theory may be given. No might of these monsters how they were parted on one day and
passage has puzzled interpreters more than 40 19 8. the one was placed in t i e dypths of the sea and the other in the
The RV renders thus, ‘ H e (only) that made him can mainland of the wilderness.
The latter (4 Esd. 649-52) is as follows :-‘ E t tunc conseruasti
make his sword toapproach (unto him).’ i > i n , however, duo animalia, nomen uni uocasti Behemoth et nomen secund:
should be n ?(Giesebrecht).
~ The real meaning is, ‘that uocasti Leuiathan. E t separasti ea ab alterutro, non enim potent
was made to be ruler of his fellows ’ (’n bdii ? Y i y ) - - i . e . , septima pars ubi erat aqua congregata capere ea. Et dedisti
Behemoth unam partem qua: siccata est tertio die, ut inhabitet in
BChem6th is the king of all land animals. Take this in ea, ubi snnt montes mille ; Leuiathan autem dedisti septimam
connection with Job 4125 [3313 and Ps. 10426, and it partem humidam; et seruasti ea ut fiant in deuorationem quibus
uis et quando uis. (Behemoth becomes uehemoth in cod. M and
would seem that Levisthan was regarded as lord of the Enoch in codd. SA [so AV].)
ocean, and Bdhambth of the dry land. The former It is needless to pause long on the purely Jewish
notion was borrowed from the Babylonians ; the latter elements in these descriptions.2 That Behemoth was
perhaps from the Egyptiam4 created on the fifth day was an inference from Gen. 121 ;
Thus the BBhem6th and Leviathln passages in Job the reference to the ‘ thousand mountains ’ comes from
represent a fusion, from every point of view most a faulty reading in Ps. 5010(where should be 5 ~ )
natural, of Babylonian and Egyptian elements. The
dragon is primarily Babylonian : it is TiLmat ( =Din! ; combined with an absurd interpi etation of nmn> in the
same passage. The chief points to notice are these :
see C RE A TI O N , 5 z j ) . Behamath may be ultimately BShEmBth and Leviiithiin are not two great water-
identified with Tiamat’s consort Kingu. Being ignorant monsters, but have their habitation, the one on the dry
of the mythic monsters in question, the poet naturally land, the other in the deep;3 the DendLin of Enoch
filled up the gaps in his knoxledge from two monsters may possibly be the Babylonian dunninu, which is a
of the Nile which the Egyptians regarded as represent- synonym of ir+n, ‘the earth,’ and is literally the
atives of the evil god Sit.6 firm.’4 According to Gunkel, the female monster
Coming now to (f), Is. 27, we note ihat the writing LeviLthEn is Tiamat, and the male monster BdhEm6th
belongs to a prophetic passage which has a strong is Kingu, Tiiimat’s husband (on whom see Creation-
apocalyptic tinge, and stands at the head of the period tablet iv. ZZ. 119-122). In the Babylonian story these
which produced the apocalypse of Daniel.6 Nowhere monsters met their fate at creation; in Enoch the
perhaps in the OT is the phraseology more distinctly assignment of their respective dwellings is an incident of
1 Hommel (Dw&ah UYS@Y. dey E&t. Kulfur, 1892, p. 40) the judgment at Noah’s flood ; in 4 Ezra again it is a
connects Apopi or Apep with Bah. uZnZh, ‘ storm-flood.’ Apopi detail of creation. It is not safe, however, to dogmatise
is the Tiamat of heaven. His head is split by the conquering too freely on the sources of the apocryphal writers.
Re‘ into two parts ; TiBrnat’s body is so treated by Marduk. Their notions were probably a strange compound, in
2 Reading : ?N 322-53ink, with Budde (improving slightly which there were exegetical inferences side by side with
on Gunkel). The ‘sons of pride’ (if ynw is correct) may he a corrupted statements of Oriental tradition. One of
phrase equivalent to ‘ Rahab’s helpers. If so, mythic monsters these statem,entsappears to have related to the habitation
are referred to.
of Behamath-at least, if we may accept Zimmern’s
3 n n - h i is probably a corruption of nin 5p2\ (Che.).
explanation of DEnddn, which Dillmann and Charles
Leviathan was made to be lord of living creatures (i.e., those of
the ocean-depth, tehmn, just mentioned). 1 Cn the mvtholoPical serpent in one form of the Babylonian
4 Che Exjositor July 7897. Delu2e-story lseeD%u& 6-9).
6 Cp Maspero’s .kru,,l, o f t h e Nations. Plutarch (Dc fs. 2 For details on the d t e Jewish fancies, see Drummond,
et Osir. 56) well knew the connection of the two Nile-monsters Jeivislt Alessiulr, 352-355 ;Weber 3922. Tlreol. 160, 202, 402, 404.
with Typhon or Sit. 3 C. H. Toy Judaism and Cdrist;anity 162.
6 Che. fntv. Is. 15ojC, 155.f. Lyon, JBL, 1895, p. 131, 4 So Zirnme;n, in Schibf; 61 : CD Tense;, KosinoZ. 161. Del.
quoting Smith‘s CkaZa’ean Gems$ ed. Sayce, p. go.
521
 BEKAH BELA
unconvincingly connect with 17 1 3 7 (comparing Dudael, :his situation to MalkL is a tablet which refers not to MalkL but
:o Melkart (Johns, Erpus., Aug. 1898~p. 160).
Enoch 104, which is certainly not a mere ‘ fiction of the It is remarkable that no name is given to the king of
author ’). The view here taken is, of course, quite con- Bela. When we consider the (probable) corruptness
sistent with Charles’s theory (Bar. 53) that the writers 2f other names in the passage, it is reasonable to
of 4 Esd. 630-725 and Bar. 27-30 both used the text of suppose that the name, being uncouth, early dropped
an earlier work which contained the story of the six days m t of the text. T o supply ‘ Bela,’ with Bishop
of Creation. Thi? lost hexahemeron, just as much as Hervey (Smith‘s DBP)),is-unnatural. T. K. C.
4 Esd. 638-64, represents not a homogeneous tradition,
but a medley of,notions derived from different sources, BELA (957).I. (BAAAK [ADEL], -AEK [E in Gen.
Jewish and Oriental. 36 331).
The first Edomite king, son of Beor (or perhaps
On the subject of this article consult Gunkel ScJdj!! 41-69 ; Achbor ; see B AAL-H ANAN [I]), of the city of Dinhabah
Di.’s. Bu.’s. and Du.’s commentaries on Tob : dhe. ‘The Book (Gen. 3 6 3 2 3 = I Ch. 1 4 3 J ) . It is singular that adiviner
of Job ’ et;. Ex$ositur July 7897 anb ‘ T h e Text of Job,’ famous in legend was called ‘ Bil‘Hm (Balaam) son of
J Q X April ’1897. See also D~AGoN)$ 4f R AHAB i. and cp
H I ~ O P O T A MC UROCODILE
S . On th; oscilLtion of kythic and Beor.’ With Noldeke (Untersuch. 87) and Hommel
wmi-mythic stitements between the dragon and the crocodile ( A H T 153)we may venture to identify Bela’ and Bil‘Bm,
as the enemy of the Sun-god, cp Clermont-Ganneau ffurus e t and all the more confidently if Bil‘Bm belonged to a
Said Geurges (extrait de la rev. archkol.), 1877, pp. 6, 25.
T. K. C.
region adjoining Edom (see PETIIOR). Obviously the
temptation which the name presented to an imaginative
BEKAH, RV Beka (VRS), Ex. 3826. See WEIGHTS narrator must have been irresistible. Targ. Jon. and
AND MEASURES. Targ. I Ch. 144 had already suggested the identifica-
tion. The list which contains the name Bela ben-Beor
BEL (53 ; BBXAQ B~Atoc], ‘sa), Ass. WZu, like
$93 (Baal), is a simple appellative meaning ‘lord’ is regarded by Sayce as a piece of an Edomite chronicle.
It comes before us, however, as a thoroughly Hebrew
quite as often as it is a proper name (see PHCXNICIA).document, and is correlated with the history of the b’ne
In the Assyrio-Babylonian pantheon it is borne by two
Israel (Gen. 3631-39 ; probably JE). Certainly it is no
deities (see B ABYLONIA, 26), the younger of whom, sport of the idealistic imagination ; a true interest in the
identified with Marduk (see MERODACH), finds mention
fortunes of a kindred people prompted its preservation.
in writings of the Babylonian and Persian periods (Is. It may be incomplete, or it may have had some IacunE
461 Jer. ROz [??in],5144 (63omits)).‘ filled up ignorantly, not to speak of the undeniable
The extent of the cultus of this god in later times corruptions of the text. Let us take the list as it stands,
appears from the many proper names compounded and see what we can gather from it.
with BE1 in Phcenician, and more especiallyin Palmyrene The list contains eight names (or rather seven, for
inscriptions.2 Jacob of Seriig states that he was the Baal-hanau has come in through a scribe’s error).
god of Edessa ( Z D M G 29 131). Four kings have their fathers’ names given ; six are
BEL AND THE DRAGON. See DANIEL, ii. § 21, distinguished by the name of their city, and one is
and cp I O , 19 described as pf a certain region ( HUSHAM). The names
both of the cities and of the persons (or apparent persons)
BELA (&$, ‘that which is swallowed up’?: cp Jer. are not all correct. D INHABAH , MATRED,and ME-
5144 ; BAAAK [ADL], - A h ~ [ E i nGen. 14z]), one of the ZEHAB are corrupt, and the corruptions efface the im-
five royal cities in the vale of Siddim at the time of portant fact that Bela (whose city was not Dinhabah
the invasion of CHEDORLAOMER (p.~.,§ z), Gen. 142 8, but RehoBoth; cp v. 37) and Mehetabel came from the
where the name receives the geographical explanation, N. Arabian land of MuSri or MuSur (see M IZRAIM,
‘ that is Zoar.’ In fact, in Gen. 1920-23 we hear of a 26). I t will be noted that one of the names occurs
small city near Sodom, the name of which was called twice (in v. 39, ‘ Hadar ’ is certainly a wrong reading) :
ZOAR (q.v.),to commemorate the escape of Lot from it is properly the name of a god-of the Aramaean god
the catastrophe of Sodom and the other ‘ cities of the Hadad. From this name, and from two other items-
plain.’ The writer of the explanation in Gen. 1 4 2 8 ‘ Bela the son of Beor ’ and ‘ Saul of Rehoboth by the
evidently means us to suppose that the original name river ’-Bishop A. C. Herveyinferred (Smith’sDB,?) S.V.
of Zoar was Bela. The author of Gen. 1 9 (J), however, ‘ Bela’) that there had been an AramEan conquest of
does not appear to have known this. In 13 IO the same Edom. The references to Bela and Saul, however, are
writer speaks of Zoar as bearing that name before the not really in point (cp B ALAAM, 5 3), and all that the
catastrophe of Sodom, and a comparison of the phrase- doubly attested HADAD, 3 [i. 21-together with BEDAD
ology of 2530 makes it probable that the etymological -can be held to suggest is that Aramzan influence was
myth in 19 20-22 does not really presuppose a change early felt as far south as Edom.
of name. It is probable that, had the name of Bela More important is the historical notice connected with
been known in the comparatively early period when the name of Hadad, son of Bedad (see also HUSHAM).
Gen. 19 was written, an etymological myth would have I t tells us of the early occupation of what afterwards
grown up to account for it-‘ Therefore that region is became the land of Moab by the Midianites, whom the
called Bela, because the ground opened her mouth and Edomites under Hadad defeated. W e can understand
swallowed it up’ (cp Nu. 1630). this notice in the light of Gideon’s defeat of the same
Such a myth did, as a fact, spring up hut long afterwards plundering hordes, described in Judg. 7. To make the
and not as a fruit of the popular imaginaiion. In the Targun;
of Jonathan the phrase ‘the king of Bela’ (Gem 14 2) is para- two events contemporary, with Kautzsch in Riehm’s
phrased as ‘the king of the city which consumed its inhabitants.’ IIWBP) (art. ‘ Midian ’), seems needless and hazardous.
The same interpretation was given by R. Meir and his con- Our most interesting as well as most certain result,
temporary Joshua h. Karcha (Bacher Die A z d n der Tan-
nuifeff,38), and is repeatedly given & the authority of ‘the however, is the antiquity of regal government among
Hebrews ’ by Jer. (Quest. in Gen. 14 z 19 30. Cumrtt. in Jes. the Edomites ; and, from the fact that there is no trace
15 5) ; it has also naturally enough found a pla:e in the Midrash of dynasties, and from the continual references to the
(Bey. ru66a, par. 42). Hommel ( A X T 195-198)boldly identifies cities of the respective kings, we may probably infer,
Bela with the ancient city of MalkZ which he surmises to have
been in the trans-Jordanic reiion : but his authoritv for givina with Winckler, that the kings were of the type of
Abimelech, or at the most of Saul, and that their rule,
1 The evidence of some proper names, however, may seem to except in time of war, was little felt save by their own
show that Bel was not unknown in Canaan at an earlier date tribe. It is true that this will not apply to Saul of
(see ASHBEL,BILDAD,EBAL,and cp, doubtfully, Balaam and
Reuben). Rehoboth of the River, for this place seems to have
2 Whether the Palm. ~ ~ 3 i s a h y e - f o r m o f ~as
, ~H=o ~f f~m, a n 1 B AAL - HANAN (T.w.) was perhaps really the father of
supposes (Ausziige aus d.Syr. Act. Pers. MZrf., 1880,p. 21, n. Hadad 11. : hen Achbor is a variant to ben Beor which has
qg), is uncertain. attached itself to the wrong name.
523 524
 BELAH BELIAL
been in Muyi, not in Edom ; but we should observe the jecture as to the origin, or at least the nature; of the
variation in the phraseology of the account of Saul. I t word. G. F. Moore (on Judg. 1922) gives a better
is not said that his city was Rehoboth, but that he was rendering of 5 y h 3 1 2 than most commentators, viz.,
‘of Rehoboth.’ We may suppose that he entered by ‘vile scoundrels’ ; this recognises the fact that ’2 sug-
marriage into an Edomite family and then obtained a gests not merely worthlessness or ordinary viciousness,
tribal sovereignty. He was a Musrite ( a native of the but gross wickedness. H e also describes the different
N. Arabian Musri). The name of the last king (Hadar, etymologies of Belial as extremely dubious, and cannot
or rather Hadad) is unaccompanied by the historical find in the Hebrew language any analogy for the word.
notice which we should have expected ; it is, however, In fact the seemingly compound word nn.52 (Job 261) is
followed exceptionally by the name of his wife, of whom imaginary ; it is a corruption of &2n, utter vanity.
we are told that she was a daughter of MATRED,and a But Moore passes over Lagarde’s acute suggestion (in
daughter of ME-ZAHAB. The former name is a corrup- Proph. ChnZd., p. 47, cp Ue6ers. 139),that 5y.52 1x1
tiou of Mieran (Misriin), the latter of Mizrim (Misrim). in Ps. 418[9] (cp 1. 2) suggests an etymology (a popular
Misrim was really a correction of MiSrXn. Mehetabel, one?) from n5yy 3 5 2 , ‘ n o rising up.’ In expos. (‘95a
as well as Bela and Saul, was a Misrite. This is a fact 435-439) the present writer sought to show that Belial
with important historical bearings (see HADAD,i. 2). ) found in the OT in three senses : ( I ) the sub-
( 5 ~ 3 5 2 is
T. K. c. terranean watery abyss, (2)hopeless ruin, (3)great or
2. I n genealogy of B EN J AMIN [8 g (i.)] ( B d e [BAL]) ; Gen. even extreme wickedness. The third meaning is com-
46 21 (RV BELAH, paha [ADLl)=Nu. 26 38 4 0 ; cp I Ch. 7 6 mon ; the first and second are rare, and found only in
Puha~[L ; BA omit] 7 (pahue [Ll, pahe [AI, @ d e s [El ; in w. 6
npsrpa in B takes the place of Bela and B ECHER [T.v.]) and 8 I late passages (see Ps. 1 8 4 [5]=2 S.225, Ps. 418 [9] 101 3
(BeAeAeqh [Bl), and the gentilic Belaite or rather Balite (‘yh), [58 3 5y.52, so read, =deeds of destruction] Nah. 1IT 15
Nu. 26 38 (Bahs[e]~[BAFL]). [21]), but should, if naturalness of development is to
3. b. Azaz, in genealogy of REUBEN ( P u A ~ K[Bl, -A6 [AI, -haa count for anything, be more nearly original than the
[L]), I Ch. 5 8. third. It is only in Ps. 1 8 4 [ 5 ] that Belial is used to
BELAH (Y??), Gen. 4621 AV, RV BELA,ii. 2. denote the abyss,l and it may be objected to the view
BELEMUS (BHAEMOC [BA]), I Esd. 216=Ezra47 that this is the primary meaning that in Asc. Jes. 42,
BISHLAM(4.w.). Berial, like Sammael in 79, appears as an angel of
BELIAL. This is an imperfect reproduction of the the firmament (cp Eph. 22). However, as Bousset has
shown,2 the eschatological tradition of ANTICHRIST
Heb. $$?? (18times in historical books, once in Job, [q.w., 0 13$], one of whose names is Belial, is derived
thrice in Proverbs, thrice in ‘Psalms, twice in the psalm- ultimately from the old Babylonian dragon-myth, and
like passage prefixed to Nahum (111-15 [2 I], see RV]). we know that.the mythic dragon has for his proper
On 2 Cor. 6 15, see below (5 I). sphere the sea, though in some mythic developments
It is generally taken to mean ‘ worthlessness,’ x-hether he appears as a temporary inhabitant of heaven, from
1. usage and moral or material, so that the familiar which at last he and his angels are cast out (Rev. 127-9).
phrase, ‘ sons (or men) of Belial,’ would I t is, therefore, in perfect harmony with the old myth
tradition. mean ‘ good-for-nothing fellows ’ ; RVmg.
to suppose that Belial may have been originally an angel
gives ‘ base fellows. ’ of the abyss, not of the firmament.
So BDB, from >!?, ‘not,’ and $y-*,‘profit’ (?); so, too, W e now come to the origin of the word. Beliyya‘al
RVmg. in 2 S. 23 6 and elsewhere. This rendering, however is seems to be a Hebrew modification of some earlier word,
not supported by the earliest tradition ; for &5 renders ‘ Beli‘al ‘ 3. Origin. planned so as to suggest a popular etymo-
by Ivdpqpu, dvopia, dnoo.ra& (Aq. also gives dwourauia),
and the qualification ‘of Belial’ by du&js, B+pov, h o ~ p 6 s ogy, niy?h,‘ (from which) one comes not
nupdvopos with or without b~ as the case may be. WA up again’ (cp m a t la‘ tZr+t, the Ass. equivalent of a
find also h i rrapav6p.o~ (often$, and (Symm.) A W & T ~ K T O ~ , Sumerian title of the underworld meaning ‘the land
~ Y U W ~ U T ~ T O LThese
. renderings may imply the etymology >!p without return,’ Jensen, K-osmoZ. 218, 2.2). This
>iy, a k p e i u g o (Jer.), and this etymology, though impossible, earlier word was most probably borrowed from the
IS yet more in harmony with biblical usage. Tg. gives Ry&, Babylonian mythology of the underworld. The original
‘oppressors.
Another tradition, however, favours the use of Belial word, which was Hebraised jnst as a6u621, ‘ deluge,’ was
as a proper name. So in @A Jud. 20 13 ( P e h z p ) , Theod., Hebraised (see DELUGE, § 7),may very possibly have
Judg. 1922, and occasionally in Vg. ; so, too, in the been Belik3 which is the name of a goddess of vegeta-
English versions including even RV (on RVmg., see tion, and hence of the underworld, the sister of Du’uzu
above). This came about in the following way. How- or TAMMUZ, from whom she differs in being unable to
ever we account for it, it is a historical fact that in the ascend again to earth (see Descent of IStar, Z. 51 in
interval between the O T and the N T Belial (sometimesin Jeremias, Bad.-ass. VorstelZ. 23 ; and cp Jensen, KosmoZ.
the forms Beliar or Berial) was used as a synonym for 225, 272, 275). There may have been a middle form
the arch-demon Satan ; it is so used in 2Cor. 6 15, where between Belili (which appears to be Sumerian-ie.,
Paul asks, What harmony is there between Christ non-Semitic) and Beliyya‘al which has been lost; cp
(parallel to ‘ light ’) and Beliar (parallel to ‘ darkness ’) ? NEPHILIM,5 2. The Canaanites and Israelites prob-
[Pehiap (BKC) ; cp Jer.’s explanation, cecum lumen, ably took the name (which three times [I S.2525 2s.
as if i i 351,
~ in OS,A 7641. Beliar stands for Satan 167 I K. 21 131 has the article) as a synonym for the
also in Test. xii. Putr. (o€ten ; e.g. Test. Rub. 2, 4, 6 ) , abyss of Sheel. Afterwards it seems to have, become
the Asc. Zsa. (Berial), and Jubilees (ch. 15, ed. Charles). a symbol of insatiable and malignant destructiveness
In the Sib. Oracles (iii. 63 f. iv. 1 3 7 8 ) Nero, under (cp nil?), and hence the phrase sons (son, daughter)
the name of Beliar, is to lead the armies of Antichrist of Belial’; but the older meaning was not forgotten,
(see ANTICHRIST, 15) ; and, according to Bousset, the as we see from Ps. 1 8 4 [5]. The objection of Bau-
phrase 6 tlvb’pwaos r-$s dvoplus ( i d . 4) in 2 Thess. 23 dissin (Herzog,P) S.V. ‘ Belial’), that ‘ streams of
(BK, Tisch., Treg., W H ; d p ~ p for ~ l dvopias
~ ~ has the under-world ’ (Ps. Z.c. ) would be a unique phrase,
also good authority) may be a translation of Belial. is of no moment, for the whole context is in some
W. H. B. important respects unique. It is not a flood from
Both for the sake of exegesis and on account of the the sky that overwhelms the speaker; it is a flood
importance of Jewish semi-mythological modes of from below-Le., the ‘waters of death,’ which are
2. Meanings thought, it is Qeedful to be clear as to
In v. 4[51f: nin, $ y h . ~ I K U and
, nin are parallel. j m
ofword. the course of development of the mean-
ings of Belial, and to form a probable con-
i s the world of the dead (or Its ruler), as 49 15 [16] ; Sy?52and
5 1 should
~ ~have the same meaning.
1 Cp Deane, PsewdejiKp. 22, 168, 249, and Bousset, Der 2 Up. cit. 6 o f 86f gg-lor.
Antichrist. s Che. Erp. ?imes;’8423f: [’971.
525 526
 BELLOWS BELSHAZZAR
a primitive element in Babylokan mythology (see LS called in Baruch1 II f., Balthasar, RV Baltasar
C A ~ I T E S§ ,6). :l%KV)J, or, less correctly, lytK>2 ; B A A T A C A ~
Hommel, while accepting this identification, proposes -@*7Theod.], which is also used as the equivalent of
amodification of the theory. He thinks that the Assyrio- l$K@p)J, Belteshazzar,’ see D ANIEL ii. $5 2 r g ) , was,
Babylonian phrase quoted above fias simply translated
according to the Book of Daniel, a son and successor
5 y , ’ l. ~ by the Canaanites, from whom the name was
>f Nebnchadnezzar, king of Babylon. The length of
borrowed again by the Babylonians as Belili (Ezp. the reign of Belshazzar is not given; but we read
Times, 8 472). This is plausible ; but we should like n Dan. 81 of ‘ the third year’ of his reign. In Dan.
to know how far this theory would lead us. 5 3 0 3 [31$] it is stated that he was slain, and that on
In Ex$. Tiinrs, 9 40ff., Baudissin returns to the subject. H e
still maintains the derivation of BeZiyydnZ from 952 and k**, his death the empire passed into the hands of D a h s
and thinks that some of the occurrences of the word may the Mede. Allreferences to Belshazzar in other authors,
possibly be due to editorial manipulation, and that the word including that in the apocryphal Book of Baruch (111f.),
(explained as ‘worthlessness’=‘ wickedness ’) does not look very appear to have been suggested by the passages in
ancient. H e also quotes a communication of Jensen, which
Cheyne in his answer regards as favourable rather than other- Daniel ; and, since it is now recognised that the Book
wise to the new theory, though Jensen himself expresses his 3f Daniel was composed in the second century B.c.,
agreement with Baudissin. See Ex). Times, ix., x., and also the narrative is open to question.
Che. P d m s , l 2 ) on Ps. 1s 4 [51 (popular etymology from I J ~ , Till quite lately it was the fashion to follow Jos. (Ant.
‘to swallow up.’ y, however, is intrusive, cp Konig, Lelzuged.
ii. 1402). §I,~.H.B.;§Z$;~.K.C. x. 112 ) in identifying the Belshazzar of Daniel with the
last Babylonian king, Napobv6$os, whom Jos. else-
BELLOWS (nFf2, properly ‘ instrument for blow- where calls Nap6vv$os (in a citation from Berossus ;
ing’ ; ~ Y C H T H P ) ,mentioned only in EV of Jer. 6 2 9 1 see c. Ap. 120) ; in Herod. 177 188 this king appears as
in connection with lead-smelting ; see METALS, 5 2. .iapbvyms, and in Abydenus (quoted by Eus. Pr. Ev.
I n Egypt bellows were used as early as the time of Thotmes 9 41) as NupuvvlGo~os. Against the identification of
111. A.leather bag was fitted into a framefromwhich extended
a long pipe to the fire. Two bags were used, upon each of which Belshazzar with Nabonnedus it was urgcd that the
the operator placed a foot ressing them alternately, while he Latter, according to Bhossus, was not even a relation
pulled up each exhausted &?n with a string that he held in his of Nebuchadrezzar, but ‘ a certain Babylonian ’ who
hand (Wilk. Anc. Eg. 231z.K). In one illustration Wilkinson
notes that when the man left the bellows they were raised as if usurped the throne in consequence of a revolution ; nor
full of air, thus implying a knowledge of the valve. T h e earliest was NabonnEdus slain, like the Belshazzar of Daniel,
forerunner of the bellows seems to have been a mere reed or on the overthrow of the Babylonian empire, but is stated
pipe which was used by smiths in the age of Usertesen (2 234, to have been sent to the province of Carmania (the
i1lus;ration 413, fig. 3).
modern KirmEn). These objections were so serious
Whether hand-bellows were used by the Hebrews for
domestic purposes is quite unknown ; for a description that a few writers, in their anxiety to defend the narra-
of a primitive kind still used in Egypt see Wilkinson tive of Daniel, identified Belshazzar with Evil-merodach
( 2 K. 25q7).
(ii. 313).
The discovery of the Babylonian inscriptions has re-
BELLS, in the modern sense of the word, though futed both of the above-mentioned theories, and has at
used as ornaments at the present day in Syria, do not the same time confirmed the opinion that the narrative
seem to have been known to the ancient Hebrews. in Daniel is nnhistorical. An unhistorical narrative, how-
The words so rendered require examination. ever, is not necessarily a pure fiction, and in this case it
I. fioys, pa‘iinzbn (2/=to strike), used of the golden oroa-
appears probable that the author of Daniel made use of a
ments which, alternately with POMEGRANATES [q.~.], were worn traditional story. It is now known that Nabonnedus,
upon the lower part of the Ephod (Ex. 2 8 3 3 ~ 53925J, K ~ S O V B F ;
cp also in the Heh. of Ecclus. 457a and gn, and see Cowley and the Nabii-nB’idof the inscriptions, who reigned from 555
Neubauer ad Zoc.). Their purpose 1s related In Ex. 28 35. to 538 B.C., had a son called BEl-9ar-usur ( L e . , ‘ Bel,
2. n\$ra, mZsiZZ6th (;p o&sn, ‘ cymbals ’), upon which were preserve thou the king’), a name of which Belshazzar is
inscribed the wordc Holy unto Yahwb,’ were worn by the
horses in Zechariah’; prophecy (Zech. 14 20, A V w . ‘bridles ; evidently a corruption. In a celebrated inscription
so @ ~ahcv65and Vg.juenxm). Nabfi-nB’id offers up a prayer in behalf of ‘ Bel-gar-uSur,
In both cases small discs or plates are meant, the the exalted (or, my first-born) son, the sprout of my
nj$so being possibly similar to the O*~~Z?I or crescents body (Zit. heart)’: see Schr. C O T ~ I ~and I , also Z<B
(see N ECKLACE ) of Judg. 816. 36 96f: Moreover, in certain contract-tablets, dating
from the first, third, fifth, seventh, eleventh, and twelfth
BELMEN (RV Belmaim) is mentioned, in connection years of Nabii-nB’id, Bel-Sar-usnr, the son of the king, is
with the defensive measures of the Jews against Holo- expressly named. Several other tablets of the same reign
fernes, in Judith 4 41.. The readings are BEAMAI N [A], speak of a ‘ son of the king ’ ; but whether in all these
B A A [Bl, ~ B e h . [Kl; Syr. UQ~%( Pel- cases BEl-gar-uSur is meant cannot be determined, since
Nabii-nB’id appears to have had at least one other son.2
meholah) ; Vet. Lat. AbeZfnnnz. Belmen would thus
appear to be the same as the Belmain [EV] ( B ~ A B A I M It is, however, generally believed that Bel-Sar-uSur must
be identical with the prince mentioned in an inscription
[BA], aBeA.[X], syr. l-\&, vg. Belma, Vet. of Cyrus, which informs us that in the seventh, ninth,
Lat. A6eZme) of Judith73, which, obviously, is re- tenth, and eleventh years of the reign of Nabn-nB’id,
garded as lying near Dothan, and therefore cannot be g the son of the king’ was at the head of the army in
the Abel-maim of z Ch. 164, nor perhaps the BAAL- Akkad-i. e . , Northern Babylonia. Unfortunately, this
HAMONof Ct. 811. The place meant is probably very important inscription is mutilated, so that we learn
Ibleam (modern Bir Bel‘nmed), a town of strategical nothing of the years twelve to fifteen of Nabii-did, and
importance. In Judith83 this place is probably in- in the account of the sixteenth year only a few words
tended by B ALAMO, RV BALAMON (paXapuv [BHA], are legible. Of the seventeenth and last year of
Syr. CiXah3.S b), and if we might assume that the N a b n - d i d there is a long account ; but it would seem
translator had a correct text and understood it rightly, very doubtful whether ‘ the son of the king ’ is mentioned
we should be justified in restoring pahapuv for Pehpurv
in 44. Certainly none of the readings in 4 4 can be 1 [paprauap QgTh.(AaPmg.) in Dan. 1 7 and in @A Dan. 2 26
accepted as reproducing the original name. T. K . C. 4 5 6 16 thrice 5 I 8 T.]
2 Darius Hystaspis tells us in one of his inscriptions (Spiegel,
BELSHAZZAR, or as, following the Greek form, he AZtjers. KeiZhschr.(2) 1 .3 [‘Br]) that early in his reign a
rebellion was raised a t Babvron bv an imnostor who orofessed
1 C3, however, not inaptly, finds a reference to the ‘bellows of to be ‘ Nabukudrapra, son i f Nab;nita’->.e. Nebuch’adrezzar
the smith’ in Job. 32 19, where D’@!Q nbk, ‘new bottles,’ is son of Nabo-ni’id. This proves, at least, t i a t a t the time i;
question Nabs-na'id was believed to have had a son named
rendered $5. XUAKCIUS(reading O’@V). Nebuchadrezzar. See Che., /e7u. Ref. Life, Lect. i.
527 528
 BELT BENE-BERAK
again.’ In any case, it is implied that Nahii-did, not BEN-ABINADAB (227’38-]$, ‘ son of Abinadab,
Bel-Bar-uSur, was at this time commander of the army 50 AV), the name of one of Solomon’s prefects, I I<.
in Akkad (see TSBA 7 139-176, KB 3 b 128-137, and $11 RV AVmg. (yioy ABINAAAB [AI, XINANAA. [L];
0. E. Hageu, ’ Keilschrifturkunden zur Gesch. des SBis corrupt, but perhaps X ~ I &N&.A&N
N represents the
Konigs Cyrus ’ in the Beitrige-ZZLY Assyr. [ed. Delitzsch lame [Swete reads-xel~ A ~ N ] ); see SOLOMON.
and Haupt] 2 214-225 [‘g4]). We possess, moreover, Klostermann, however, suggests i ~ ~ ? f‘ Abiner
i, ’; iand
another inscription of Cyrns, describing the conquest
of Babylonia at considerable length and expressly men-
1 are easily confounded, and the final >
in JDTN may be
-eally the preposition ( ‘ in ’) prefixed to ‘ all Naphath-
tioning Icing Nabiinl’id, but without any reference to lor,’ or ‘all the height of Dor‘ (EV), words which
a ‘son of the king’ (see IRAS, new series, 1270-97, iefine the extent of the prefecture.
KB 3 b 120-127, and Reitrage eur Assyr. 2 208-215).
Hence there is nothing to prove that BEl-Zar-ugur BENAIAH (.t?I~~7 in Nos. I f. 4 f. 11, and in
played any important part at the close of his father’s Nos. 1-3,6-11 ; ‘Yah hath built up,’ § 31 [see BANI] ;
reign, and it is even possible that be may have died B A N A I ~ C ] [BAL], BANEAC, BENI&C [W” in 1 Ch.
some years earlier. 16 51).
Thus it will be seen that, apart from the similarity I. (wn; but in z S. 2023 I Ch. 1122 m?)b. Jehoiada,
TT:

of name, the historical prince Bel-Sar-ngur bears hut a a ‘valiant man’ (see ISH-HAI, THE SON O F ), onlysecond,
very slight resemblance to the Belshazzar of Daniel. on David‘s roll of honour, to ‘ t h e three.’ He was a
The one is the son of the usurper NabCmB’id ; the other Judahite of K ABZEEL, and commanded the so-called
is the son of Nebuchadrezzar. The one is, at the most, CHERETHITES and PELETHITES (z S. 818 pavur [B],
heir to the throne ; the other”is actually king, for docu- Bavayaras [A], 2023 I Ch. l 8 1 7 ) , and David set him
ments are dated from the year of his accession (Dan. 7 I over his bodyguard (nynvD z S. 2323). H e gave valu-
8 I ). Moreover, if the ordinary rendering of Dan. 5 7 able support to Solomon against AooNIJAH ( I ) , and
1629 be correct, Belshazzar is represented as sole king, after executing the sentence of death on Joab, was
for a man who can of his own authority make any one appointed to the vacant post of general ( I K. 132-38
he pleases ‘ third ruler in the kingdom ’ must clearly be 234 [om. aB] 35 pavalou [BA] 4 4 [om. an]).’Three
supreme in the state. Since, however, the word trans (or at any rate two) special exploits were assigned to
lated ‘ third ruler ’ occurs nowhere else, and is of very him in popular tradition ( z S. 2 3 m J = I Ch. 11z z f :
doubtful meaning, it ,would be unsafe to press this [Kavum Bb]). On the first two see AKIEL,I ; a correction
argument. of the text is indispensable. The other feat consisted
I n order to prove that Bel-gar-usur reigned conjointly with his in his slaying a ‘ MiSrite ’ ( z S. 23 zI)-i.e., a man of
father, it has sometimes been asierted that king Mardok-gar-
usnr, who is mentioned on certain Babylonian tablets, must he MuSr or MuSri (see MIZRAIM,§ z ) . This hero is twice
identical with Bel-Zar-ugur ; but Assyriologists now admit that mentioned in a list of no value in I Ch. 27 (sf: 34). Each
king Marduk-gar-usur reigned befoore NabiiiG’id, and identify time there is an inaccuracy. In o. 5 (RV) Benaiahs
him with Nergal-gar-usur (559-555 B.C. : see TSBA 6 108, and father is described (by an obvious confusion of names)
Tiele’s BAG 476 n. [1886-88]). I t has likewise been urged
that, though B&gar-usur was not a son of Nebuchadrezzar, he as ‘ the priest’ ; in o. 34 ‘ Jehoiada son of Benaiah’
may have been a grandson of Nebuchadrezzar through his’ takes the place of ‘Benaiah son of Jehoiada.’ C p
mother ; but the theory that Nabiina’id married a daughter of J EHOIADA, 2, and see D AVID, 5 11 (c) i.
NeLuchadrezzar rests upon no evidence whatever.
2. One of David‘s thirty, a Pirathonite ; 2 S. 2330 (rnm ; @
It remains, therefore, altogether uncertain how the corruptly TOV E+pab’arov [Bl, om. AL) ; I Ch. 1131 27 14 (n.13).
story in Daniel really originated; but, besides the See PIRATHON.
similarity of the names Belshazzar and BS1-Bar-uSur. 3. A Simeonite chief (I Ch. 436 [om. @Bl).
4. A Levite singer of the second grade one of those who
there is at least one reason for thinking that King Bel- played with psalteries set to A LAMOTH (q.;.), I Ch. 15 18 20 24
shazzar was not invented by the author. Herodotus, (Pavuh [BNAL]) 165.
as has been mentioned, calls the last Babylonian king 5. An overseer in the temple in the time of Nezekiah (2 Ch.
L,abynEtus, representing him as the son of an earlier 31 13).
Labynetus, the famous Nebuchadrezzar. Further, in 6. An ancestor of JAHAZIEL [4] ; 2 Ch. 2014 (om. @).
7-10. I n list of those with foreign wives (see E ZRA, I. 8 5 end),
a Chaldzean legend related by AbLdEnus, the last king viz-7. One of the b‘ne PAROSH (q.v.), EzralOzS (pavaia [ ~ 1 ) =
of Babylon seems to have figured as a son of Nehuchad- I Esd. 926, BAANIAS, RV BANNEAS (PavvaLas [BA]). 8. One
rezzar (see Schr. ‘ Die Sage vom Wahnsinn Nebuchad- of the b’ne PAHATH-MOAB (q.w.), Ezra1030; In II I Esd.931
perhaps NAIDUS (vatsop [Bl vaa. [AI Pavaras, and pa8eias
nezar’s,’ in the JPT, 1881,pp. 618-629). The date [L]). 9. One of the b’ne ANI, Ezri1035, in II I Esd.934
of the historian AbydEnus is indeed doubtful; but he M A B n A I RV M AMDAI (papSab [BI, padab [A], Bavara [L]).
can hardly have borrowed either directly or indirectly IO. One’of .the b’ne NEAO(q.v., m.) (pavat [LJ), Ezra1043
from the Book of Daniel. so that the agreement of these = I Esd. 935 BANAIAS @avac [L]).
11. Father of P ELATIAH (q.v.,4), Ez.111 (inm), v. 13 (9333,
three accounts in wrongly describing the last Babylonian b 705 pavawv).
king as a son of Nebuchadrezzar must he due to their
having followed some popular tradition. ‘See also ASH- BENAMMI (V3y-\$), Gen. 1938. See AMMON, § I.
PENAL, SHAREZER. A. A. B. BENCH ( ~ 7 ? )Ez.
, 276f AV. See SHIP.
BELT (n’T9)J o b l 2 2 1 ~RV, AV ‘strength.’ See BEN-DEKAR, RV Ben-deker (72?.-]3); one of
GIRDLE, 3. Solomon’s prefects, in charge of NW. Judah ( I I<. 49,
BELTESHAZZAR ( 7 ~ N t & & J ~ ) . See DANIEL, ii. yioc p ~ x a c[El, ...-x+B [+I9 y. A A K A ~[A]). The
name is improbable ; nor IS BLs Ben-Rechab any more
5 1.3. probable. It is reasonable to hold that, as in other
BELTIS (13.104 corr. text). See GEBAL. cases, the father of this prefect was an influential officer
BEN (13,§ 64),a Levite, enumerated between Zecha- of the crown. The prefect’s real name has certainly
dropped out. Klostermann suggests that we may re-
riah and Jaaziel ( I Ch. 151st). 6’. renders ‘ ZUX. uibs
store thus : ‘ Elihoreph, son of Shisha the secretary ’
IELTJX);
but no doubt rightly, omits. The name (71. 3). Ben-dekar is not impossibly a corruption of
is wanting in the parallel list in I Ch. 1510. C p Beneberak [ q . ~ . ] .The locality suits.
JAAZIEL.
BENE-BERAK (p?:-’Js), a Danite city, the
1 The passage which Schrader in 1890 translated ‘the wife of modern Zbn Zbr@, about an hour SE. from Joppa
the king had died’ is supposed by Pinches to mean ‘the son of
the king died’ (see Smith’s DE!(“), 1893, article ‘Belshazzar’), (Josh. 1545 : B&NA~B&K&T [Bb BANHBAPAK CALI ;
while Hagen renders ‘he [?.e., Guharu] slew the son of the 1 In the list given at the end of chap. ii. by GBL he is described
king’ (he is careful, however to indicate that the word ‘son’ is
doubtful). I t is therefore ob;ious that no argument can be built as &i T+ airhapxias K& b& T O O ahrvb’alov, i.e., l&J33 of 2 S.
upon the clause in question. 1231, for which, however, @‘.has pu8qSPa.
34 529 530
 BENE J A A W BEN-HESED
Jane et daruch [Vg.] ; ~ & . , d ) .It appears in Ass. murred between 846 and 842) was too long to be
(upon 2n inscription of Sennacherib) as banuiburka (cp lssigned to a single king of Damascus, and ( 2 ) by the
KA T(')172). Jerome mentions a village Burecu, which eading of the name of the opponent of Shalnikneser 11.
was situated near Azotus. The name (properly a clan 1s Dad-'idri, which, again, is supposed to be equivalent
name) may be paraphrased, ' Sons of the storm-god2 o Hadad-ezer. On the first point it is enough to
KammBn or Rimmon' (who was sometimes called .emark (after Wi.) that Tab-rimmon may (Rezon and
RammHn-birlcu ; see B ARAK ), and is thus of interest as Hezion not being identical) have been for a long time a
a survival of the old Canaanitish religion. :ontemporary of Baasha and Asa, so that only about
brty years may have elapsed between BenRadads war
BENE JAAKAN (t?q! 'Jq), Nu. 3331Jf See uith Baasha and his death. On the second point, it
BEEROTH 08 THE CHILDREN OF JAAEAN. may be doubted whether the reading Dad-'idri is
tenable ; the equation IM = RammHn (or Bir) appears
BEN-GEBER (77$-]7),
I K.413 AVmS RV, AV to have been made out (see above) ; and even were it
G EBER, I. stherwise, it could hardly be held that 'idri is 'the
BEN-mDAD (17519, §§ 43,48 ; Y I O C & A s p [BAL1 Aramaic form of eger' in iiy1-m (Sayce, Crit. and Mon.
y. & A s p [A] in 21C.1324; &AbA [A] in 2K.1325; 316), for an y would have made the alteration of 'id7.i
into 718 impossible. 'Zdrz ('idiru),whence ' i d r i
pi&-), or rather Bir-'idri ; @ is at least a witness
(' my .. .'), seems in fact to be derived from 'aduru,
1. Name. to the letter R at the end of the name. ' to be wide, grand ' (111~; cp Heb. i m ) . On the narra-
T h e divine name Bir was confounded by a tive of the death of Benhadad ( z K. 87-15), see HAZAEL.
Hebrew scribe with the Aramaic bar, ' son,' and trans- 2. BENHADAD 11. By this king is here meant, not
lated into Hebrew as Ben (=@ vi&), and DR was the contemporary
-~ of AHAB(often wrongly
- . so designated),
miswritten DD ; hence arose the wrong form Ben-hadad. 3. Beghadad II. but the son of Hazael (posGbly the
The name in Assyrian is (it.) IM-'idri, where the
ideograph IM is most naturally read Rammiin (the
Assyrian thunder-god ; cp E N - RIMMON ), but may of
-- an
grandson of Benhadad I. ). The op-
(probab?y= Dression of Israel, begun by Hazael,
'"' ). has continued by &is Ben-hadad
course be read (and probably was read also) Bir or Bur (2 K. 133). But was his name really Ben-hadad?
(cp the name Bir-dadda, and see BEDAD). The mean- RammHn-nirari 111. (see ASSYRIA, § 32) mentions a
ing is ' Bir is my glory.' See Wi. A TUnters. 6 8 x , king of Damascus named Mari', whom he besieged in
who controverts Schr. and Del. ; but cp Schr. KAT(? his capital, and compelled to pay tribute. This event
zoo, Del. Calwer Bib. Lex.P) 97, and Hilprecht, A5- must have occurred between 806 or 805 and 803.
syriuca, 76-78. Now Benhadad 11. is represented as a contemporary
The name Ben-hadad is used as a general name for of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, who probably reigned
the kings of Damascus in Jer. 4927 ; but as this passage
~~ (see C HRONOLOGY, S 34) from 814-798. It is dlffi-
2. Bellhadad I. occurs in a very late oracle, made up cult to suppose that another king named Mari' came
of borrowed phrases, the use is of no between Hazael and Benhadad. More probably Mari',
historical significance. I n fact, Amos, from whom the and not Benhadad, is the right name of the son of
author of Jer. Lc. borrows the phrase the palaces of Hazael. This king may have sought to compensate
Benhadad,' means most probably by Benhadad (Am. himself for the blow inflicted by Assyria, by exercising
1 4 ) the first king of Damascus who bore that name : he tyranny over Israel. (For a different view of the Ben-
speaks, in the parallel line, of ' the house of Hazael.' hadads see DAMASCUS, 5 7.) T. K. C .
Hazael was certainly a historical person : he was the
successor of Benhadad I. (others say Benhadad 11.). BEN-RAIL (5?fl-@, 'son [man] of might '), one of
Consequently, Beuhadad-in Amos's phrase 'the pal'aces Jehoshaphat's commissionersfor teaching the Law ( z Ch.
of Benhadad '-cannot be a merely typical name, as in 17 7). The name, however, is suspicious. Bertheau
the imitative passage, Jer. 4927. There are two (some, quotes Ben-hesed ( I son of lovingkindness '), I K. 410
however, say three) Benhadads in the Books of Kings, (MT) ; but the reading there is doubtful (see BEN-
just as there are (really) two Hazaels (see H AZAEL). HESED, § 3). aBAL and Pesh. read -'?? for -]? (7021s
I. BEN-HADAD I., son of Tab-rimmon, was the ally ul021s TGV 6uva~&v; but bLadds ~ b ulbv v arh) ; cp Gray,
of ASA [ p . ~ . ,I], king of Judah, against Baasha, king of HPiV 65 n. 2. If the story of Jehoshaphat's commis-
Israel ( I K. 15 183): H e was an energetic king, and sion is only ideal,' we may surmise that the name Ben-
constantly involved in warfare, net only with Ahab of hail is equally unhistorical.
Israel, whom he appears to have besieged in Samaria BEN-RANAN (t;?-]q-i.e. ' son of a gracious one '
( 2 K. 6$), but also with Shalmaneser 11. of Assyria.
In 854, at the head of a Syro-Palestinian league which - a patronymic ; yioc @&NA [Bl, y. A N A N [AI, -NN.
included Israel, he opposed Shalmaneser, not without [L]), a son of SHIMON( q . ~ . ) a, Judahite ( I Ch. 420).
success. For, though Shalmaneser claims to have been BEN-HESED (TPn-\$, 'son of kindness' ; a n im-
victorious at Karkar (near Hamath), he certainly had possible name, see below), the third in the list of
to return to Assyria to prepare for a more decisive Solomon's prefects ( I K. 410, AV son of Hesed';
campaign. Again in 849 and in 848 Shalmaneser,
though nominally victorious, had to return. Convinced
y10CECwe [B1, ...ECA [Alp MAX'S1 YlOC EXW[BHPI
that he had no ordinary opponent, the Assyrian king
PI).
His prefecture included, at any rate, Socoh; but
entered on his next campaign with a much larger force which of the different Socohs ? If we look at the sphere
than before. Bir-'idri, however, had taken his pre- 1. Prefect of of the prefect whose name precedes his
cautions, and again it was only an indecisive victory that in the list, we shall think of one of
was gained by Shalmaneser. On the relations between Hebron? the two southern Socohs mentioned in
Benhadad and Ahab, in which there was apparently a Joshua, either that in the mountains near Hebron, or
change for the advantage of Israel, see AHAB, § 4 3 that in the Shiiphelah, SW. of Jerusalem. If, on the
Benhadad is sometimes referred to, not by name, but other hand, we consider the sphere of the two prefects
as ' t h e king of Syria' ; see I K.22 2 K.5 6 8 8 whose names follow his, a northern Socoh, which is
Some unnecessary trouble has been produced ( I ) by .the possibly referred to in early Egyptian name-lists (see
supposition that the period between ' Benhadads '
1 Del. (CuZ?uer Bi6. Lex.('? 97) conjectures, as the original
assistance to Asa and 'Benhadad's' death (which form of the name of Benhadad II., Bin-Add,u-'idri, which be
1 Pesh. seems to point to the reading ~ i 2 - 5 ~ 'the
2 , lightning
interprets 'the son of Addu (=RammZn) .. . Pinches has, in
fact, found the names Bin (?) -Addu-natan and Bin (?) -Addu-
Baal.' amar, which occur on tablets of King Nabtini'id. See, however,
2 Cp the obscure name Boanerges. Wi. ATUnters. 69, n. I.
531 532
 BEN-HESED BENJAMIN
SOCOH,z ) , will be more suitable. The decision must monument of the sufferings of the later Jews under a
be in favour of one of the two southern places of the i * p & (ja, ' an unkindly (cruel) people' Ps. 43 I.
name, because otherwise the land of Judah will have T. K. C.
had no prefect. Which of the two southern Socohs, BEN-HINNOM (b3Ow]$), Josh. 1581816; EV 'son of
then, is the right one? Probably that in the rich corn-
growing country of the ShEphElah, because t h e prefects HINNOM'( p . ~ . ) .
had to supply provisions for the court. ' T h e whole BEN-HUR, AV 'son of H U R ' [q.v.](lVTQ, 'son of
land of Hepher ' also fell to his lot. There are traces Horus'?; B ~ i w p [ B L lB~E N y i o c wp [AI, O Y P H C CJos.
of this name'in the N. (H EPHER , i. z ; cp Gathhepher, Ant. viii. 2 3]), one of Solomon's prefects ( I K. 48) ;
Hapharaim). But if this prefect is the only southern see SOLOMON. The prefect's own name is omitted;
one, we must expect the land of Hepher to be some probably his father's name also ; for the evidence tends
large district (this, indeed, is implied by "the whole to show that most of the prefects were the sons of
land'). In I (3,418 we hear of a Heber (?a;) who famous men. The name of his city also is wanting.
was the father of Socoh. Plainly this Heber is closely Yet the hill-country of Ephraim was not deficient in
connected with Hebron (as the heros eponymus). 3 and places of importance. Consequently either Hur or
9 are easily confounded 'from a phonetic cause : we Ben-hur must be incorrect. Either ' H u r ' stands in
should, therefore, probably read 12; y2y-52, the whole the place of one of David's and Solomon's heroes,
land of Heber,' or, better, 'of Hebron' (iip?). or Ben-hur is a corruption of the name of the prefect's
city. @A's rendering may seem to protect Ben. But
2. His place of residence is in M T called Arubboth.
nowhere else in b's version of this section is PEY
Arslb in Josh. 1552 (see Klo.) does not help us. @A given instead of ui6s (ui6s is of course an interpolation) ;
2. Residence apaPw0 cut the knot by reading n n i y if the 13 represented by b Ais correct, we must suppose
Analogous phenomena else- that it is a mutilated form of ]a>, ' priest ' (as i o in
at Mareshah for ~

whereniaiN.
suggest that nix should be n'x,
__ ion in v. IO may be of y b ) . In this case, Azariah,
and that it has been misplaced. i N n q (cp P a ~ w p
in 2). 8 [BL], perhaps for 'Beth-horon') could, of son of Zadok the priest (w. z), will be the prefect's
course, be only a mutilated form of a name. T o read name, and his city will be i i n = Beth-horon. Azariah,
' Bethlehem ' would be rpuch too bold, and Baetogabra therefore, stands first in both lists, which is intrinsic-
(mod. Btt Y i b ~ i nwould
) not suit, since the name occurs ally probable. If, however, we follow the P a ~ w pof
@BL, the prefect's city alone has come down to us;
late, and (as Buhl points out, PaL 192)the description
of the battle of Mareshah in z Ch. 149 is opposed to the Patwp may represent Bethhoron. i m may easily have
assumption that there was a town on the site of Baeto- come from p i n Horon (abbrev. from Bethhoron). So,
gabra in early times. It is quite possible, however, in the main, Klostermaun. T. K. C.
that the neighbouring town of Mareshah had a second BENINU (W>?,§79 (3), 'our s o n ' ? ; B E N I A M E I N
name-scarcely Beth-gibb6rim, but perhaps Beth-horim, EBKI, B A N O Y A I A I CAI, -oyia LI), Levite signatory to
' place of caves 'I-that has been corrupted into Arub- the covenant (see E ZRA , i. 7), Neh. 1013 [14].
both. mn-n'a may have been partly mutilated and
partly corrupted in the record into i N n 3 7 , whence n i > i N , BENJAMIN ( t ' D 1 often ~ ]'PI
; but :]p[sic; see Ba.
especially if o'in was written with the mark of abbrevia- note] I S. 9 I Kt.; NAMES, 48, 73 ; B € N I ~ M [ E ] I N
tion ('.in or 'in). The conjecture is geographically or B A I N . [BAL]):
plausible. At the present day Bet-Jibrin is rightly The gentilic is Benjamite, '?'p.;-]z [IS. 9211, '?'Q,?I-iz
described as ' the capital of the ShephElah' ; this is [Judg. 3 151, also '?'n: in z S. 20 T [ I S. 9 I] and I 5.9 4 ; perhaps
set forth more fully elsewhere (see ELEUTHEROPOLIS). also in I S. 4 12 [cp @ ; MT pIZ1;I !pl. ' ' ' 'p uudg. 19 16
Suffice it to remark here that if Bet-Jibrin became t h e I S. 2271 ; L E ~ ~ ] [ E ] L V [ V ] ~ L[B]LE~EV[E]L
OF, [BAL], see I Ch. 27 12 ;
'centre of the district' after the fall of Mareshah, the in I S. 22 7 L E ~ F V Y L [A]; in T S.9 4 @ B has mmip and @L
iapiv; in z S. 20 I @L has apaxa ; in z S. 23 29 @A paavuai;
earlier city cannot have been less important in the time
in Ne. 1234 @L pw+ccv; in Zech. 14 I O @N* pvcapeiv.
of Solomon. If Taanach and Megiddo are mentioned
in the record of the prefectures, surely Mareshah, Though popularly explained as meaning the propitious
under this or some other name, must have been men- or sturdy tribe1--' the son of my right hand2-Ben-
tioned too. Now, Bet-Jibrin is only 20 min. N. of 1. Name. jamin was probably at first a geographi-
Mer'ash (Mareshah). cal name for the people of the southern
W e have spoken of Beth-horim as possibly a n early portion of the highland district called Ephraim (cp the
name of Mareshah. This designation would harmonise expression * y ~ vY ~ Nin the old narrative I S. 9-10 16),
excellentIy with the natural features of the neighbour- just as a district of Gilead (Gad) seems to have been
hood of Mareshah and Baetogabra. The excavation of called Sslfin, ' North' (see ZEPHON; cp also Teman,
the caverns which now fill the district must have begun Temeni, Yemen, and on the other hand esh-Sham).
in ancient times. The Christian and Islamic marks It is not impossible indeed that this district was already
and inscriptions which are sometimes found do not known to the Canaanites as the South' ; but there is
oppose this obvious supposition. See ELEUTHERO-nothing to suggest that it was. Indeed, it is a good
POLIS, 2.
deal more probable that the name means 'south of
W e now turn to consider Ben-hesed's real name. Joseph,' the Hebrews who settled in the highlands of
Ephraim being known as ' the house' or ' sons ' ' of
Klostermann has made it probable that the first two
a. Real name prefects were described as sons of Joseph,' a designation which retained this general sense
Zadok, the priest, and Shisha (Shavsha), till quite a late date. The question is rather whether
ahijah? the secretary, respectively (cp w. zf.). Benjamin, at first a distinct tribe, afterwards became
It is very possible that 1 D n - p should be read i g b q p the southern part of Joseph ( e . $ , by the energy and
success of Saul ; as Winckler supposes), or whether it
'son of the secretary,' and that the prefect was in fact was not rather the southern part of Joseph that, under
the Ahijah mentioned in w. 3. This is slightly favoured the influence of forces immediately to be described,'
by @L's (p)axec, but really rests on internal probability
1 Another interpretation was probably 'son of days-ie., of
(cp BIDKAR). The misreading i ~ o f p is touching, as a old age' (so in Test. xii. Patr. Benj. 1 ;-cp Gen. 4420 'child
of his old age,' .3q?r 15,).
1 Beth-horim 'place of caves,' would naturally come to he 2 In the uncertainty how the present text of Judg. 20 16 arose
explained 'plage of the Horites ' (see ELEUTHEROPOLIS, 5 2) ' (cp Moore, ad loc.), there is perhaps hardly sufficient ground
the Horites were no doubt regarded as giants (gihhar=yiyas @$ for connecting with this etymology the story of the 700 left-
like the Anakim. Hebron is called in Targ. Jon. Gen. 232 ' t h i handed warriors. Cp however also EHUD,and the story of
city of the giants.' the Benjamite deserter; to David, who could use t h e bow and
2 GASm. HG 231. the sling with either hand (I Ch. 12 2).
533 534
 BENJAMIN BENJAMIN
came gradually to he distinguished from the rest of the .esult from the present text of I Ch. 7 15 compared with v. 12
highlanders of Ephraim by the special name of Ben- s perhaps due merely to corruption of the text. (Shnpham and
Hupham may have had no place in the original system of the
jamites, ' men of the south,' the S. part, as being Benjamite list, I Ch. 76-11, an$ being perhaps supplied on the
the smaller (cp I S. 9 ZI), receiving the distinguishing e
nargin [see below g ii. a] may by some confusion, have made
epithet. :heir way into thkiextalso in Manasseh, u. 15 [cp Be. ad Zoc.].)
What connection with Moab is intended in T Ch. 8 8 the present
It is not difficult to conjecture how this would zondition of the text makes it impossible to divine (the clause
naturally come about. The plateau of Benjamin, if it is, nay be a gloss; see below, § 9 ii. B). Cp P AHATH -M OAB .
2. Land. as we have seen, historically connected with Nor perhaps can we venture to interpret historically the sugges-
tion of the Chronicler with regard to a later transference of clans
Joseph, is hardly divided physically from From Benjamin back to Ephraim (see BERIAH, 2, 3). Clan
Judah. Indeed, although no mean country ( ~ E Y ~ T U T O S names common to Benjamin and other tribes are not rare.
86 6 K X q p O S OfiTOS B V 6lh T 4 Y T?jS YqP &pETl!lV 10s. Ant. The memory of the derivative or at least secondary
i. 5 zz), it differs materially in its physical features from character of Benjamin still lived in the earlier days of
the northern part of Ephraim, being sterner and less 4. Age. the monarchy, as we see from z S . 19 20 [ZI]
fruitful-in fact, more Judean. Moreover, valleys, (cp also 20 I with 20 21) and (apparently) from
running down to the Jordan (Suwenit, Kelt) and to the Judg. 1Z Z , and
~ seems to be reflected in the patriarchal
sea (Merj ibn ' Omer), exposed it to attack from the E. story (JE) which tells how, last of all, Benjamin was
(Moab)and from the W. (Philistines), while aline of strong born in Canaan.2 That the differentiation of Benjamin
Canaanite fortress-cities (Gibeon, etc. ) constituted an was relatively ancient, however, we should be prepared
additional source of danger to its highland peasants. to believe from the fact of the other branches of Joseph
That these southerners had a certain traditional fierce- being called not brothers but sons.3 The reference in
ness1 (Blessing of Jacob) was, accordingly, only a the Song of Deborah is too obscure (not to speak of its
natural result of their position and history. We cannot perplexing connection in some way with Hos. 58) to t a
be surprised, then, that they won the right to a special of much use as positive evidence ; while the story of
name and place. Ehud, if it is perhaps hardly necessary, with Winckler
It is thus hardly necessary to assume, with Stade (Gesch. 1 138), to regard the single explicit reference to
( Z A T W 1 3 4 8 r81]), some specific attempt or series Benjamin as an interpolation (see below, 5 s), may
of attempts to overcome by force the Canaanites of the perhaps reflect the conditions of an age when no very
cities (Jericho, Ai), perhaps under the leadership of the clear line was drawn between Benjamin and the rest
clan of Joshua, in order to account for the origin of a of Joseph (Judg. 3 q)-the men of the south and the
separate tribe : the general situation might be sufficient. men of the more northern highlands. At all events,
Mixture of race may, however, have helped to by the time of David Benjamin was, owing to the energy
differentiate the tribe, although - at least the Canaanite of Saul, a distinct political element to be reckoned
3. Population. elements took a very long time to with, althoughwe must not forget that, e.g., in the story
become thoroughly amalgamated, as of the first appearance of Jeroboam, the 'house of
we see fromthe story of Gibeon Gosh. 9 ; SL GVZ 161). Joseph' is an administrative unit ( I K. 11z S ) . ~
and still more from the hints about BEEROTH (q.v., i. ),3 The peculiar condition of the legends relating to
which appears to have retained its distinctively Canaan- this tribe provokes an attempt to explain it. This
ite population at least till the time of Saul : indeed, 5. Legends. must take account of two inconsistent
even the radical policy of the latter seems to have been tendencies-a tendency in favour of the
only partly successful (see I SHBAAL, I ). If the name tribe (Judg. 3 15 I S. 4 12 I K. 3 4 9 z ) , and a tendency
CHEPHAR-HAAMMONAI (4.". ) indicates the presence of against it (Judg. 19-21). When we bear in mind the
immigrants from across the Jordan we must look for the central position of the tribe, and the abundmce and
explanation to much later times (Josh. 18 24 P). The importance of sanctuaries within and near its bounds (see
position of Benjamin on the marches of Joseph, however, below, 0 6), it cannot surprise ns that there were many
doubtless provided opportunities for m i x t u r d s o with traditions of incidents in which the tribe played a part.
other tribes. It is, however, remarkable that some of them havc no
Benjamin is, e.g., explicitly brought by E (Gen. 35 18) into special reference to sanctuaries.
connection with a tribe called B ENONI (q.u.), while the first
appearance of one or both of them is connected in some way (at We can hardly suppose this due to conlending political
least etymologically) with the disappearance of RACHEL(4.v.). interests (those of Epliraim and Judah) leading to a sort of
If Simeon really temporarily settled in this neighhourhood before diplomatic flattery of the boundary tribe with a view to secur-
making his way south (cp ISRAEL, 5 7), it is a t least worthy of ing its adhesion-just as there evidently was rivalry of a less
note that in a Simeonite list we find a clan name, J A M I N 2 (I Ch. peaceable kind (e.< I K. 15 77 22). A. Bernstein, who worked
4 24) and a lace name Bilhah (u. 29 ; see BAALAH,2). Nor out this view in $eat detail in his able, if unequal, essay
is i t impossigle to find suggestions of some connection with Urspmngder Sagen z'on ABrakam, lsaak zt. Jacob, 1871 (see
R EUBEN : a famous landmark on the borders of Benjamin is con- especially 6r), does not take account of the stories unfavourable
nected with his name (thou h the genuineness of the text is per- to Benjamin outside of Genesis; and it'seems clear that
haps not beyond question),fas is also BILHAH (B.v.), the hand- Benjamin was naturally a part of the northern kingdom (I I<.
maid of Rachel. In Bilhan, on the other hand to which the 1221 belongs to a much later date than u. 20). The later
Chronicler in his first genealogy assigns a prominent place history of the tribe, especially after the fall of Samaria (see below
(I Ch. 7 IO), we cannot safely see the remains of a Bilhah clan § 7), would go a long way towards accounting not only for the
(see, BILHAH), for the name may have been taken from the preservation but also for the mixed character of much Benjamin
Horite genealogy, as Jeush was taken from the Edomite (below tradition. If we wish any further explanation, it seems reason-
§ g ii. a). Historical probability is certainly in favour of the idea. able to seek it in a natural interest, friendly or otherwise, in the
that, after Dan failed to establish himself, Benjamin eventually great tribal hero, the mysterious Saul and his house.
spread westwards-although some of the apparent actual traces The interest in the tribe is undeniable.
of this are not to be trusted (see HUSHIM,Gen. 46 23 [Danite; Israel will run any risk rather than that of losing Benjamin
see, however, D AN , 3 81 compared with I Ch. 88 I I [Benjamite] ; (Gen. 42 38 J) ; the narrative delights in detailing the various
AIJALON[I], Josh. 19 42 [Danite] compared with Judg. 1 3 5 signs of special affection on the art of' Joseph,'and even Judah
[house of Joseph] I, Ch. 8 13 [Benjamite ; see BERIAH, 31). The
confused connection with Manasseh, however, that seems to
.i)
offers himself as surety for him PGen. 43 9 or, according to E,
Reuben the first-born offers his two sons (Gen. 42 37). On the
other hand all the tribes led by Joseph reprove and chastise
1 The historical figures belonging to the tribe, too, have a Benjamin, but relent and find a substitute in Jahesh Gilead
certain passionate vehemence (Saul, etc.).
a For a suggestion of a possible original connection between 1 S t however, supposes that the account of Benjamin has been
the metaphor employed in the Blessing and the constellation lost (dekh. 1 138).
Lupus right opposite Taurus (=Joseph), see Zimmern's art. 2 P,however i nores this (Gen. 35 26).
'Der Jakohssegen u. der Tierkreis,' Z A 3 168 ['92]. 3 Noldeke (id :private communication) thinks that a t an early
3 A late editor may be following trustworthy tradition when time Benjamin was a powerful tribe, and that the rise of the
he adds CHEPHIRAH in his list (with which cp Ezra 2 20 25= story of its late origin (as also Judg. 19-21) is to be accounted
Neb.725 29=1 Esd.517 19). for simply as the result of the crippling of its power by David.
4 'Son (13) of Reuben' may be a corruption of 'stone (p) of 4 It has been argued by St. from T K.418 [r9l that it did not
Reuben,' which may he not an alternative name of the stone, but include Benjamin ( Z A T W 1115 n.); hut could we argue from
a n alternative reading for B OHAN ( p a . ) . 48 that it did not include Ephraim?
535 536
 BENJAMIN BENJAMIN
(Jndg. 19-21),-a story that is strangely parallel to Joseph's accus- really gained by this step. In fact, it seems to have
ing Benjamin (falsely), the others interceding, and Judah offering 2ventually gravitated more and more southwards.
to become substitute (Gen. 44 33). What historical substratum
may underlie this Gibeah story we have not the means of Indeed, lying on the border between the two king-
determining. Its late date and its untrustworthiness inits present doms, it was important strategically rather than politic-
form appear in its practically wiping out the tribe that was no; illy; and, although we cannot very well follow the
so very long after able to give its first ruler to a united ' Israel details of the process,l some of its towns seem to have
(see also below, 0 7, end, on post-exilic interest in Benjamin).
Benjamin was in a sense at the centre of the religious been, a t one time or another, and more or less
life of the land. What the religious history of permanently, incorporated in the southern kingdom.
6. R e l i g i o u s A ~ (q.v.,
~ ~ ~I )~ may
~ ~ have been we r h e blow that the northern kingdom received in 722
can only guess; but there were sacred was favourable to this process, and in another sense the
position. masSEbas and trees that bore the names sack of Jerusalem in 586. Thus in Jer. 33 13 ' the land
of DEBORAH (Gen.358 Judg.45) and R ACHEL (Gen. of Benjamin' is included in an enumeration of the
35 16 20 Jer. 31 is) and Ramah, Geba, Gibeah, Mizpeh, various districts of the territory of Judah-viz., the
Gibeon, Gilgal, not only were Canaanitish sanctuaries ShephClah, Megeb, etc.-just as in 2 K. 238 'from
but also continued to be of importance as such in Israel ; Geba to Beersheba,' like from Geba to Rimmon ' in
indeed, Geba, which (or perhaps it was the'neighbouring Zech. 1410, stands for the whole land of Judah, and in
Gibeah) one writer calls ' Gibeah of God ' ( I S. 1 0 5). Jer. 6 I Jeremiah's clansmen are living in Jerusalem ;
was perhaps selected by the Philistines as the site of and so, in the century following the rebuilding of the
their @sib because of its sanctity ( I S. 13 3 and especi- temple, Benjamin is regularly mentioned alongside of
ally 10 5 ; cp S AUL, § 2 n.) as well as because of its Judah, the combination of names appearing often t o
strategic position.3 mean the families that were not taken to Babylon (cp
More important still, perhaps, Bethel itself, the Kosters, Herstel, passim), and the Jews came to
famous royal sanctuary (Am. 7 13), where, according to believe that Rehoboain's kingdom had from the first
the story, Israel encamped after crossing the Jordan consisted formally of these two tribes (cp Ps. 6827 [28]
(see BOCHIM), is said by P to have belonged to Chron. passim, and a late writer in I K. 1221 23).
Benjamin (Josh. 1822). No doubt the Chronicler Hence we need not be surprised at the fulness with
afterwuds ( I Ch. 728) assigns it to Ephraim ; but which Benjamin, as compared with the other Joseph
(though it may well have been a border town with tribes, is treated in the book of Joshua (Di. OS), or
connections on both sides) that is perhaps only at the frequent and copious Benjamin lists in the
because he could not conceive of Benjamin, a tribe Chronicler (see § Sf: ). Only we must remember that
that he regarded as belonging to the southern kingdom, these tribal distinctions were in later times theoretical ;
extending so far north. At all events, there was reason Simon ( 2 Macc. 34). Menelaus, and Lysimachus were
enough for the words used of Benjamin in Dt. 3312 Benjamites ; for the explanation of Mordecai's mythic
(cp Di. ad Zoc. and see below, 8), genealogy (Shimei-Kish-Benjamin) see E STHER,
§ 23
'The beloved of I'ahwb, he dwelleth secure' (a)Although the priestly writer's conception of the
H e (ie., Yahwk) encompasseth him all the hay,
frontier of Benjamin is not even self-consistent, Beth-
And between his shoulders4 doth he dwell.'
It seems, therefore, not unfitting that this tribe, martial
*. Late Arabah, a point in Judah's N.
boundary (Josh. 15 6 ) . being assigned
though it was, should for all time, whatever view we Writers, first (v.61) to Judah and then (1822,
take of the character of Saul, be associated with two of statistics. if
geographic~l. the text is correct; see BETH-
the greatest names in the history of Hebre
and religion, representatives of two of the
religious movements : Jeremiah, who was a native of a
s
::
l
g ghdf ARABAH,I ) to Benjamin, it can be
identified roughly.
From the Jordan near Jericho he makes it pass up to
Benjamite town, and Paul, who at least believed that he Beth-aven and Bethel (Beifin) where it turns S. to Ataroth-
was sprung from the same tribe (Rom. 11I Phil. 35 ; addar (possibly '&cirri) and thince W. to Beth-horon the nether
cp Test. xii. Patr., Benj. ch. 11). (Beit'Ur), returning by Kirjath-jearim and Nephtoah (&$E),
Saul's career ended in gloom ; yet his work was not circling round the south of Jerusalem through the vale of
Hinuom and the plateau of Rephaim, and by the spring of
entirely undone. It was, therefore, a matter of course Rogel and finally returning by En-shemesh (&%d-eZ-'Aza&yeA)
7. Later that the men of Benjamin (especially the and t i e valley of Acbor to the Jordan at Beth-hdglah CAin-, or
history. Bichrites. see below, 3 9 ii. p ) , even more Kasr-f3ajZa)).
than the rest of the house of Joseph, should What led P to fix on this line, the southern stretch of
dislike being subordinated to the newly-risen house of which he repeats with greater fulness in the delineation
Judah (S HIMEI , I), and should embrace any good oppor- of Judah (Josh.l55-10), we cannot say; nor can we'
tunity to assert their claim (S HEBA, ii. I), and that, say why he makes the boundary run south of Jeru-
along with the rest of the house of Joseph, they should salem.3 The 'Blessing of Moses' has indeed been
throw in their lot with JEROBOAM ( I ). Wehave, accord- taken to imply (Dt. 3312 ; see above, 6) that in the
ingly, no reason to question the accuracy of the state- latter part of the eighth century Jerusalem was held to
ment in I I<. 1220 : ' there was none that followed the lie inside the boundary of Benjamin ; but ' b y him ' in
house of David, but the tribe of Judah only,'5 (cp Ps. the first line is probably due to a clerical error, and
80 z [3] and Hos. 58 with We.'s note, and see I SRAEL, line 3 is quite indistinct : nothing points specially to
5 28 ; Jericho is regarded as north Israelite in I I<. Jerusalem. Stade ( G VZ 1162) proposes Gibeon ; per-
1527 l6158). However, as Jeroboam was not a haps Winckler would suggest Gibeah ; Oort, however
Benjaniite, and the capitals of the northern kingdom ( ThT, 1896, pp. 297-300), pleads vigorously for Bethel,
were always in the northern parts of Joseph (cp and nothing could be more appropriate in a poem so
Z ARETHAN II.), Benjamin does not appear to have markedly north-Israelitish. It is plain enough, on the
other hand, that Jerusalem is assigned to Benjamin by
1 On the stone of Bohan or Reuben see above (4 3). P (though he avoids giving the name of the town, speak-
2 Baal-tamar also was probably a sahed place. On the special
im ortance of Gilgal in early times see C I R C U M C I S I0~2.N 1 See the account in GASm. NG. ch. 12.
BWi. has even tried to show t i a t Gibeah was heiieved by '2 On the other tribes mentioned in this verse see ZEBULUN,
some to have been the seat of Israel's famous shrine, the 'ark' ; N APHTALI .
but he takes no account of the discussion of Kosters (ThT 8 According to the Talmud the Holy of Holies and some
' 27261-378 r931; CP. A RK , B 5). other parts of the temple stood on Henjamite soil(SanherZr. 54);
Note the Arabic metaphor, WRS, Kin. 46 (foot). but the site of the altar, though within Benjamin, was a
5 We cannot argue from 2 Sam.241 g for ' Judah' here piece of land that ran into Benjamite territory from Judah
means, not, as the Chronicler(r Ch. 21 6)oddly supposed, a tribe (Yonza, 12).
but the southern kingdom (the Chronicler thinks it necessar; 4 Unless Jerusalem may be thought to be implied in the
t o try to explain-see the attempts of @#BAL to understand mention of Benjamin before Joseph (Dr. Dt. 389). But on the
him-why Benjamin and Levi were not numbered). order of the tribes cp Di.
537 538
 BENJAMIN BEN-ON1
ing simply of ' the Jebusite ') ; and, if &e do not know to I r = I r i the last-mentioned son of Bela. Marquart,l to whom
precisely why he does so, we can at least see that he the detection of this analogy is due, suggests that n q ~shouldi
has a purpose of some kind, for in Judg. 1 2 1 it is quite be read n ~ x~ l z .If some form of this theory be adopted it will
he only natural to look for a name (or names) assigned to the
clear that the editor has for the same reason twice last-mentioned son of Jediael (the remaining branch of Benjamin)
substituted ' Benjamin' for the original ' Judah,' which and to find it in Hushim the son of Aher (v. 12). This will be
we find in the otherwise identical Josh.1563. W e still more plausible if we may adopt the rest of Marquart's
theory, that Aher in^ is a miswritten innK-i.e., Abihiir-and
must conclude that, whatever conceptions prevailed in that Ahishahar, ?nq*nN, is a corruption of the same name (7n.nN).
later times, in the days when tribal names were really If Uzzi and Uzziel in v. 7 are a doublet 'five' in the same verse
in harmony with geographical facts of one kind or is not original. Perhaps Ehud etc., 'in v. IO are brothers of
another, Jerusalem was counted to Judah. Bilhan, the interveiing words being a parenthesis.2 Whilst v.
12 is thus required to give symmetry to the genealogy, it may
(6) Many late lists of Benjamite towns have been nevertheless be in a sense an appendix.
'preserved. I. The only early one is the rhetorical (8) Chap. 8 has in parts the appearance of being constructed
enumeration of twelve places on the path of the in a very schematic form (though efforts to detect a general
Assyrian invader (Is. 10 28-32). scheme have not been markedly successful), and this seems to
warrant the conviction that the present obscurity is due to
Of the six names in it which are not mentioned in any of the textual corruption. For remedying that some help can be had
other lists, two are those of towns the sites of which are known from the versions ; but it is not sufficient. Certain suggested
with certainty : MICHMASH (MZ&Z&) and G EBIM (EZ-JfJ). emendations (see an article by the present writer inJQR 11102-
2. P s list (Josh. 1821-28) comprises an eastern and a 114 ['@I) so greatly reduce the disorder that now prevails that
western group-viz., a group of twelve (to which he there seems to be reason to believe that the genealogy was at
one time markedly regular in structure, and that considerable
adds in 21 r8 two others) and a group of fourteen towns. boldness in attempts to restore it is warranted. I t has always
Of these twenty-eight the following sixteen may be regarded seemed diffichlt to explain how the historically important Benja-
as identified, some with certainty, others with a high degree mite clans-the clan of Saul and Sheba (viz., Becher), and that
of probability : J ERICHO , B ETH -H OGLAH , Z EMARAIM , BETHEL, of Shimei (viz., Gera)-are so subordinated in this extraordinarily
PARAH, ~ E B A , GIBEON,RAMAH,BEEKOTH MIZPEH CHE- copious list (they appear to be omitted altogether in Nu. 26.
PHIRAH the J EBUSITE,' GIBEATH, K I R I A ~ HANA;HOTH,
, see, however BECHER). I t is probable that the snbordinatio;
A L M O N ' (A~LEMETH
~~ ). is dne to coirnption of the text. When emended in the way
3. Neh. 1131-35 contains a list of some sixteen towns already referred to, I Ch. 8 1-76 is reduced to P's three triplets
with the additional statement that Gera was the father of [E]HUD
alleged to be settled by Benjamites. The list, which (9.v.) and Shua[l], or rather, as Marquart acutely suggests,
may be incompletely preserved, is more and more SHIMEI(9.v. ; cp Q B [april-uapar). What f?llows is obscure-
assigned, by scholars of various schools, to the time the reconstruction proposed in JQI?, Z.C. is in parts not much
of the Chronicler (see Torrey, Comp. and Hist. Value more than a guess-but it seems extreieiy probable that the
names in vv. 7-27. beyond P's three triplets, were originally
of Ezra-Neh. 42J ; Mey. Entsteh. 107, 189); at all attributed to Gera through Ahishahar (once corrupted into
events, it cannot be early. .
Shaharaim see above [al)and Hushim (v. 12 being an intrusive
Of the eleven new names (unless the Aija of v. 31 be the repetition & a later p&t of the list). Then m. 30-38 gave the
Avvim of Josh. 1823) not in the Joshua lists, four may be re- eenealow of the Bichrites (for i i 3 i r r 9331, 'and his firstborn,'
garded as identified beyoud dispute: HADID,NEBALLAT, LOD &ad yy& ~J-J, 'and the sons of-&e Eichrite'), v. 326 being
(see LYDDA), ONO. perhaps a marginal gloss due to some bewildered reader of vu.
4. In the list Neh. 7 = Ez. 2 = I Esd. 5 (see E ZRA , ii. 30-32 (in their new position after the intrusion of v. 2 8 3 from
chap. 9). Marquart suggests that these nine verses originally
5 9), vv. 25-37 20-34, and 176-22 respectively, seem to followed the mention of the sons of Bela. For fuller details and
enumerate places (apparently places where members other suggestions the reader is referred to the article already
of Ezra's ' congregation ' were resident), mostly within cited.3 I t is difficult to avoid the conviction that some recon-
struction is necessary.
old Benjamite rather than old Judahite territory.
In this list, excluding- N EBO (iv.) as being probably merely a (iii.) In Neh.117J: and 1Ch.97-9 we have two
transposition of N OB , we have still five other new names, of versions of a list of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem,
which, however, some seem to be spurious, a d only N ETOPHAH the original of which it is quite impossible to restore.
and BETH-AZMAVETH (see A Z W A ~ E T[i.])
identified with any certainty. f
H an he regarded as

Other places perhaps in Benjamite territory are BAAL-

The names are grouped in the form of genealogies of a few
persons. for which among other reasons, Meyer pronounces
the list' an inveniiou of the Chronicler (Entstclz., 189).
HAZOR ( 2 S. 1323) and N OHAH (see Moore, Judges, 443). Kosters however suggests that the genealogical form is not
I Esd. also adds a CHADIASand AMMIDOI (CHADI-
originaf(Fferstel$ and that the authority was a list of Jerusalem
Benjamites living 'in Jerusalem before the arrival of Ezra.
ASAI).
(iv.) On the list of Benjamite warriors in I Ch. 123-7.
Lists of Benjamite clan or personal names (sometimes,
see DAVID, 9 11 ( a ) iii. On relations of Benjamin to
9, Genes- of course, including place names) are many.
other tribes, see, further, RACHEL, BILHAH, JOSEPH.
logical. They have mostly, however, suffered much 2. A Benjamite b. Bilhan I Ch. 7 r o t (see No. I, $ 9, ii. a).
at one stage or another in transmission. 3. A Levite, of h e b'ne Hkrim, in the list of those with foreign
(i.) P's two (Gen. 46=Nu. 26) are;as usual, different wives, Ezra1032 (see E ZRA, i. $ 5, end).
versions of the same list. 4. A Levite, in the list of wall-builders, Neh.323 (see N EHE -
MIAH $ 1 3 E ZRA ii. B$16 [ I ] 15 d), perhaps thesame as No. 3.
They probably contain two- triplets (a) BELA-BECHER- 5. i n the )proceskon at the hedication of the wall (E ZRA i.
Ashhel, and (6) GERA-Naaman-Ahiram ; and a third triplet, $ 13 E), Neh. 1234 & L Q ~ F L Y [Ll); on which see Kosters, heiiet
not quite so certain, (c),Sliuphan~Hupham-Ard.
UersteZ, 59. H. W. E.
(ii.) The Chronicler's two ( I Cb. 7 and I Ch. 8) are
more difficult to understand, but are Constructed more BENJAMIN, GATE OF (l??:>S ?g@),Jer. 202 3713
or less on the same scheme. 387 Zech. 1410. See JERUSALEM.
(a)In I Ch. 7 6 8 (sons of the first tripletl-of which, how-
ever, Ashhel, ' Man of Baal ' becomes Jediael, ' Intimate of E l ')2 BEN0 (ba)is taken as a proper name in I Ch. 24z6$
we have what is of all thllists pei-haps the most symmetrical. by EV, in v. 26 by Q (yioi BONN^ [AI, BONNHA yioc
Certain peculiarities(such as apparent doublets) make it plausible AYTOY [L], B om. ; in v . 27 has yioi A ~ T O Y ,
to suppose that the symmetry was once even greater. Abijab 6" yloc ay.) and by Jer. and Targ. That the list
a name that occurs elsewhere in the Chronicler's genealogiek
only in priestly families,3should perhaps be read 'the father of' of the sons of Levi is in a most unsatisfactory state
(cp ' fatber of Bethlehem,' I Ch. 4 4). I n that way the two places is evident from a comparison with Ex. 6 1 7 8 I Ch.
Anathoth and Alemeth would be assigned to the last-mentioned 617[2]& 29J: [14] and 2321 f. The M T is most
son of Becher, just as in v. 12 Shnppim and Huppim are ascribed
obscure, and, according to Kittel, vv. 20-31 are one of
1 Verse m a in a sense represents the third triplet, and 126 the latest additions ; one rendering is to take v. 26f:
has names connected in chap. 8 with the second. as follows :-' Of Jaaziah, his (Merari's) son, (even) the
2 Cp $K,n$, I Ch. 21 3 2 = \ y 7 ~ 1 2 S.23 8 (Marquart in aprivate sons of Merari through Jaaziah his son,' etc.
communication). We can hardly argue from the AshbLl or
Ashbal of the Peshitta that the change of Ashbel to Jediael is BEN-ON1 ('#K)q ; yioc OAYNHC MOY [ADEL],
due to an accident ; for in the Peshitta I Ch. 7 6 simply substi-
tutes the corrupt Genesis list (46z1)of nine names (with its ' E h i 1 I n a private communication to the present writer.
and Kosh Muppim' for 'Ahiram Sbuppim') for the Chronicler's a So Marquart. On foreign names in this list see above, $ 3.
list of three sons. 3 See now also Marquart's important article on the same
3 On the supposed Abijah, wife of Hezron, see CALEB, ii. subject (JQR xii.).
539 540
 BEN-ZOHETH BERED
rightly interpreting the mind of the writer), the first BEqpBal; Vet. Lat. has Berelhiim. Josephus (Ant. xii.
name of B ENJAMIN (I 3), given to her new-born child 102) has B$JilBw. or, in some MSS, Bqp{qb’. Ewald
by the dying Rachel (Gen. 35 18). Ben-oni must, how- thinks of the modern Bir ez-Zeit, I$ m. NW. from
ever, have been an early tribal name. W e find the Jufna, or of Beeroth (mod. el Bireh).
clan-names ONAMand ONAN (both in Judah, the 2. RV Bercea, Bdpara [A], -pevo. [VI), the scene of
former also Horite) ; also a Benjamite city ON0 ; nor the death of MENELAUS,the modern Aleppo (2 Macc.
can the existence of an ancient city called BETH-AVEN 134).
(Beth-on?) be denied. T o assume, however, with Prof. 3. Bdpora [Ti. W H ] (some MSS PJpp.), now Yewia,
PuL r g r J ) , first that Beth-el was
Sayce (Putn~upz;arch. or Kuru Veyria, in Lower Macedonia, at the foot of
also called Beth-on, and next that the names Beth-on Mt. Bermios, 5 m above the left hank of the Haliac-
and Ben-oni imply that the name of the, god worshipped mon ( Vistritxu). It has a splendid view over the
at Luz was On, and next that this divine name was plains of the Haliacmon and the Axius; plane-trees
derived from On=Heliopolis in Egypt, is purely and abundant streams make it one of the most desirable
arbitrary. Cp BETH-AVEN, AVEN (3). T. K . c. towns of the district. Yet it did not lie on the main
road ; which perhaps accounts for its being chosen as
BEN-ZOHETH (nnit-p, etym. doubtful, probably
a place of refuge for Paul and Silas in their midnight
corrupt). ZOHETH and Ben-Zoheth ’ are mentioned in escape from Thessalonica (Acts 17 IO).
I Ch. 420 (utal {wuP [E], ui. [A], ul. {wB [L]), A curious parallel is found in Cicero’s speech against Piso.
among the sons of Ishi of JUDAH. p b l e to face the chorus of complaint at Thessalonica Piso
fled to the out-of-the-way town of Bercca’ (inoppidzmz dkuium
BEON (iy?), Num. 323. See BAAL-MEON. Bemum. In Pis. 36).
BEOR (l\U+, possibly niiswritten for ACHBOR ; see In the apostolic age Bercea contained a colony of
BAAL-HANAN [ I ] ; B ~ w [BAL p ; W H in 2 Pet. 2151). Jews, and a synagogue (Adts 17 IO). They were of a
I. Father of the Edoniite king BELA [ii. I], Gen. 3632
‘ nobler ’ spirit (cdyev4awpoc) than those of Thessalonica
-possibly because they did not belong to the purely
( B a i w p [L])=I Ch. 1 4 3 ( B A I U ~ [A], CETTC$UP, ;.e., mercantile class. Not only were many of the Jews them-
ZlPPOr &I). selves converted, but also not a few of the Greeks, both
2. Father of BALAAM (Nu. 225, etc., Parwp [A],
except in Dt. 234’[5] Josh. 1322 Mi. 65 ; in Josh. 249 men and women (rljv EhhqvlGov yuvarKljv rljv edax7-
[@A omits]$ called BOSORin z Pet. 215 AV (pouop pdvwv K U ~dvGpljv O ~ Kdhiyor, Acts 17 12 : the language
[Ti. following AKCC] ;Vg. Bosor ; cp the confiate reading seems to indicate that the apostle was here dealing
Pewopuop [K”]), RV BEOR ( m e w p WH]). In Nu. 2422 with an audience at a higher social level than elsewhere).
eBAFL reads TQ PEwp (Pacwp [A]) for Heb. ip). Paul’s stay here seems to have been of some duration
(several months, Rams. PuuZ, 234), partly in order to
BERA (YlJ scarcely, ‘with evil,’ cp BIRSHA ; these, allow him to watch over the converts of Thessalonica,
like other names in Gen. 14, may be mutilated and only so m. distant ; he may have been still at Bercea
corrupted forms; BaAAa [ADL], B a p a [El, B a h a c when he made those two vain attempts to revisit them to
[Jos. Ant. i. 9]), kingof Sodom, who joined the league which I Thess. 2 18 alludes, and Timothy may have been
against Chedorlaomer (Gen. 14 2). See CHEDOR- sent to them from Bercea, and not from Athens, on the
LAOMER,$ 2 , end. occasion mentioned in I Thess. 3 2. The apostle was at
BERACHAH, RV Beracah (?I???, ‘ blessing ’ ; length obliged to quit the town, as the ‘ Jews of Thessa-
lonica’ heard of his work and resorted to their usual
B ~ p x e i a[BKl Bapaxia [ALI), ite, one of
David‘s warriors ( I Ch. 123). Sez zl:!Tg 11 [u] iii.
tactics of inciting to riot (uahedoures rohs iixhous, Acts
71 13). Silas and Timothy were left in Macedonia ; but
BERACHA3I (RV Beracah), VALLEY OF (pQL( Paul was escorted by certain of the converts to the sea
n!??, KOIAAC EYAOYIAC [B4LI), the Scene of the .and as far as Athens (Acts 1 7 1 4 8 ) . This hurried de-
great thanksgiving of Jehoshaphat and his people parture(edOCws,D. 14)mayhave been bytheroad toDium.
( 2 Ch.2026; in 26u b afiXjX3v r;js dhoyias [BA], 9
The omission of the harbour is noticeable. In other cases the
name of the harbour is given : so in Acts 1425 16 T I 1518. The
KOA&S r j j s efih. [L]). The geographical knowledge of omission, however, affords no proof that the journey to Athens
the narrator was evidently good ; but that, of course, was performed by land-a view which derives some colour from
does not make his narrative any more historical (see the AV ‘to go as it were to the sea’ (RV ‘as far as to the sea ’).
JEHOSHAPHAr). At no great distance from Te@u Possibly one of his escort was that Sopater, son of
there is a broad open wsdy, on the west side of which Pyrrhus, a Bercean, who is mentioned in Acts 204 as ac-
are extensive ruins named Bereikat. Just opposite the companying Paul from Corinth to Macedonia. The
ruins the w%dyitself is called the WEdy BereikGt (Rob. Sosipater of Rom. 1621 is probably another person. W e
LBR, 275). From the form Bereiktit we gather that read in Acts205 that the escort from Corinth preceded
the true ancient pronunciation was probably BerEchSth, Paul to Troas : this may have been partly due to his
‘ reservoirs.’ . T. K. C . making a detour in order to revisit Berea. w. J. w.
BERACHIAH (9;12?’Js), I Ch. 624 [39], RV BERE- BERECHIAH (32?23,in Nos. 4f: .1;12?31, § 28,
CHIAH, 5. Yahwi: blesses’ = Jeberechiah, BApAX[€]lA [BHA],
6
BERAIAH (?l:K?q, 31, ‘ Yahwi: creates ’ ; B a p a i b -XlAC [L]).
I . Son of Zerubbabel, I Ch. 3 20 ( P a p a p a [Ll, -Lac [BI).
[LJ, B s p l r a ’ KAI B. [B.4]). I. A Benjanlite, assigned 2. One of the Levites that dwelt in the villages of the
to the b n e SHIMEI ( 8 ) ; I Ch. 821. The name is prob- Netophathites, I Ch. 9 16 (-XEL [Bl - p a s [AI, ap. [Ll) not
ably post-exilic, ‘ creation ’ being one of the great exilic included in jl Neh. 11. Probably thk same as the doorkeeper for
and post-exilic religious doctrines. the Ark I Ch. 15 23.
3. F a h e r of Meshullam in list of wall-builders(see NEHEMIAH,
2. See BEDEIAH.
$ 13,
i E ZRA, ii., $8 16[1l, r g d ) , Neh. 3 4 (;YLas [MA], om. B),
BEREA, I. An unknown locality in the neighbour- 30 @a X e i a [BN] j3apLa [A]); cp 6 18.
hood of Jerusalem, where Bacchides encamped before 4. $ather of ’the prophet Zechariah, Zech. 1I 7 @ n p a X i a p
the battle in which the Jews were defeated and Judas [BKAQ]). Omitted in the 11 Ezra5 I. On the question of his
the Maccabee was slain (Apr. 161 B.c.). The camp of identity with the BARACHIAS (AV), or B ARACHIAH (RV) of Mt.
Judas was at Elasa, Eleasa, or Alasa, also unknown, 23 35, see ZACHARIAS, 9.
5. Father of Asaph, a singer, I Ch. 6 24 [39] (AV BERACHIAH),
but probably Kh. ZI‘usE between the two Beth-horons 15 17 ( - p a [Ll).
on the main road from Sharon to Jerusalem ( I Macc. 6. b. Meshillemoth ; one of the chief men of the b h e Ephraim,
94 f:). The best reading seems to be Bepea [AMV] ; temp. Ahaz, 2Ch. 25 IZ ( Z a x a p c a s [Bl, B a p a x c a s [A]).
but there is MS authority also for Beqp-{aB and BERED (77; ; Bap~b[AD] ; pa^ [L] ; BARAD
1 That is n y y , ; cp I Ch.7 30. [Vg.]). A place in S. Palestine, or perhaps rather
541 542
 BERED BEROTHAI
N. Arabia, between which and Kadesh lay BEER- stated that the Benjamite clan Bwiah was adopted into
LAHAI-ROI [p.v.] (Gen. 1 6 14). Three identifications Ephraim in recognition of the service it had rendered
deserve mention. ( I ) T h e Targunis represent to the imperilled territory. So Bertheau ; cp Bennett,
it by the same word as that given for Shur in v. 7-Onk. C h o n . 89. Cp also E PHRAIM. . .
by N v n Hagra, and Jer. Targ. by RY$~J H&lCi:a. The 4. A Gershonite (Levite) family, I Ch. 23 IO^: (BcpLa [BL] ;
om. A in 2). IO). S. A. C.
former word, however (cp Ar. &ir, ‘ a wall, enclosure ’),
seems to be meant for a translation of the name Shur, BERITES, THE (P’lzg), appear, through a cor-
not for an identification of the place. The second ruption of the text, in zS.2014 (MT), where Kloster-
name is clearly the Elusa of Ptol., which is now mann, Kittel, Budde, and (with some hesitation)
probably Kh. 1ChaLa;a in the Wady ‘Asliij, about Driver, read tl’??JO, ‘ the Bichrites (see BICHRI).
IZ m. from Beersheba on the way to Kuhaibeh or The consonants +i>x are, in fact, presupposed by the
Rehoboth (see Palmer, I’BFQ, 1871,p. 3 5 ; Gukrin, strange rendering of 4BBA ( K U ~T ~ Y T E S Cv) x a p p ~ r; 6‘.
h d d e , 2 269-273). ( z ) Eus. and Jer. ( O S 299 76 K C L ~~ i u a
~ 6 h r s ) . The description of the progress of
145 z ) identify a certain ‘ well of judgment’ with the S HEBA ( p.v. ii.) now first becomes intelligible.
village Berdan in the Gerarite country (in which Beer- BERITH (Wll), Judg. 946 AV, RV El-berith. See
sheba also is placed). This ‘ well of judgment ’ seems BAAL-BERITH.
like a confused reminiscence of Enmishpat-Le., Icadesh
(Gen. 147). Is this Berdan the samespotwhich Jerome BERNICE ( B B P N I K H [Ti. W H ] for’ B E P E N I K H , the
Macedonianform of C $ E ~ EN I K H ), eldest daughter of Herod
( O S 101 3) calls Barad, where, he says, a well.of Agar Agrippa I., and sister of the younger Agrippa(Acts 25 1323
was shown in his day? ( 3 ) If, with Rowlands,
2630)., She was married to her uncle Herod, king of
we find BEER-LAHAI-ROI (4.v.) at ‘Ain Muweileh, Bered Chalcis ; and after his death she lived, not without sus-
may be some place in the Wady esh-Sheraif, on the
picion of incest, with her brother Agrippa. She next
E. side of the Jebel Dalfa‘a (see Palmer’s map). became the wife of Polemon, king of Cilicia. This
T. K. C.
connection being soon dissolved, she returned to her
BERED (sa?), an Ephraimite clan, I Ch. T z o brother, and afterwards became the mistress of Ves-
(B’apah [A], p b a ~[L], om. [B]), apparently called pasian and Titus (Jos. Ant. xix. 51 ; xx. 7zf. ; Tac.
in Nu. 26 35, BISCHER-a well-known Benjamite clan Hist. ii. 81; Suet. Tit. 7) ; cp Sch. GVIi., and see
name. When we consider the close relation between H ERODIAN FAMILY, 9.
the two tribes, the occurrence of Becher in Ephraim BERODACH BALADAN (&2 q>t+iiq, 2 K.
seems not unnatural (cp BERIAH, zf.). See, however,
20 12 EV ; EVmg. MERODACH-BALADAN.
BECHER.
BEROEA ( B ~ p o i a )zMacc.134
, RV, AV B EREA, 2.
BERI (’?2, prob. =’?&q, 1 76, ‘belonging to the BEROTH ( B ~ p m e ? [A]), I Esd. 51g=Ezra2q,
well ’ [or to a place called Be’er] ; the name occurs BEEROTH.
twicein Phcenician ; caBpsi [B], Bapi [AI, B H P E ~ELI)! BEROTHAH (YtQhS),a place mentioned by Ezekiel
an Asherite family-name (I Ch. 7 36).
(4716; aB8Hpa [BQJ W C 8 H p a [A]! BHpWB’A- [Qmg.l)
BERIAH ( Z P W , perhaps p ominent,’ 7; cp the in defining the ideal northern frontier of the Holy Land.
play on the name in I Ch. 7 z w i t h the play on the It is apparently the same as BEROTHAI (T.v.),and
name B ERA [q.v.] in Targ. ps.-Jon. ; &ap[s]ra may he regarded as a lengthened form of BE.rdth=
[BAL]). BGrBth, ‘wells.’ As yet it has n?’i been certainly
I . An Asherite clan individnalised ; Gen. 46 17 Nu. 26 44f: identified. Ewald (Hist. 3 153) connected it with the
II.28f ’ in v. 28 BEPL [L] in v. 29 it is omitted); I Ch. 7 30 well-known Berytus (the Bi’rwtw and Bi’runa of the
[%pLyal $1 w. 31 ;ya [E] gentilic, Beriite, Nu. 2644 (6 Amarna letters, the B i ’ a m h ~of the List of Thotmes 111.
.Bap~a[sl~[Ba:id
. F1, Bapra [B*vidl, -par [AI, PSPSL[L]).
2. -An Ephrainiiie danlname, in a- story of a cattle-
[so W. M. Muller], and the mod. Beirzit) ; bur it seems
lifting raid in I Ch. 721-23 (beginning at ‘ and Ezer and clear that a maritime city would not suit Ezekiel’s
Elead ’ ; v.23 Papyaa [B], -pre [L]) ; cp 8 13. Accord- description. Tomltins would, therefore, place Berothah
ing to the Chronicler, Beriah was a son of Ephraim, in the neighbourhood of the rock-hewn inscriptions
born after his brother had been slain, and he was called in the Widy Brissa, NW. of Baalbec, down which
Beriah because ‘it went evil with his [father’s] house’ wady a stream is marked in the Carte de Liban as
(note the assonance np?-ay??). This notice of the flowing to the Orontes (PEFQ Ap. 1885, p. 108) ;
but his philological argument seems unsound. Fnrrer
conflict with the men of Gath is enigmatical; were ( Z D P V 8 34), Socin 369), and v. Riess
there family reminiscences of the border strifes of the (Bi6. AtZ.) have thought of Bereztin, a village not
early Israelites which were recorded in documents far to the S. of Baalbec; but this is only a plausible
distinct from our canonical books and accessible to the conjecture, and must be judged in connection with
Chronicler ? Furrer’s general theory of the frontier (see H OR, MOUNT ;
We. preserves a sce tical attitude (ProZ.(‘4 214); Bertheau RIBLAH ; ZIDAD). Cp A RAM, 6.
and Kittel, however, &ink that there is h e r l a genuine tradi-
tion, and that, on the destruction of the clans Ezer and Elead BEROTHAI (VniZ ; Klo. would read Vnl>),a town
the Ephraimites of the border districts applied for help to th;
Benjamite clans, Shema and Beriah (I Ch. 8 13). According to belonging to Hadadezer, king of Zobah, z S. 88 (WAL
S. A. Fries, the basis of this story is an early tradition dealing P K TGV PKAEKTGV? r b h ~ w v ,perhaps reading ni?gn from
with a raid made hy Ephraimites into Palestine from the land
of Goshen2 in the wider sense which Hommel and he himself ’I?? ‘ to separate, select ’ [so Klo.]), possib1y”another
give to this term (see GOSHEN). form of B EROTHAH (see, however, Klo. and the article
It would be unsafe to use these unsupported state- T EBAH). In I Ch. 188 (where bAhas the same trans-
ments of the Chronicler as historical material. See lation), which is parallel to zS. 88, for Berothai we
below. find the name CHUN,which must be a corruption,
3. A clan of Benjamin ( 5 9 (ii.) (P)), 1Ch. 8 1 3 either of the first three letters of Berothai ( i . e . , ni3) in
( P E P V [BI, Pap. PI!Papfa L 1 ) 9 16 ( P a P r E l w [BAI), one of the earlier alphabetic stages, or of some other
probably to be identified with No. 2. It appears to be name which the Chronicler found in his copy of the old
narrative.l For asuggested emendation see MEROM, end.
1 Note that in j3cpcya (I Ch. 730 [Bl, and 8 13 [El), j3apyaa
(ICh. 7 23 [Bl) and Bap[~lrya(8 13 [AI 16 [BAI), y=soft y (z.e., 1 The reading $ni>,is probably supported by @ in doth
Ar. ‘ a n ) , which is usually represented’hy a breathing. For y= places, and by the K d h r u a r r (=&hfKri)v of @BAL)of Jos. Ant.
rough y (Le Ar. g) see G AZA ZoAn ZIBEONetc. vii. 53. The latter’s text, however, must have represented a
2 Pesh. &erses the statemgnt of ;he M T ; Icp Barnes, Pesh. conflate reading, for he reads M&XWV(L), which points to il3Q
Text Chron. xi. ‘from Cun.’
543 544
 BEROT,HITE BETAH
BEROTHITE ('n la?), I Ch. 11 39. See BEEROTH. Chronicles as a proper name; see S H O H A M ) is at
- , Dresent .uncertain.
BERYL. The Beryl as a mineral species1 includes, Ges.-Rad. (Thes. s.v.) traces it to a root
1. Description: besides the common beryl, the.aquama: 4. Etymology meaning ' paleness,' a5 if 'the pale ,stone
rine or precious beryl, and the emerald. and versions. while Haupt, connecting it with the Assyrian
s&tnfn.renders 'oearl.' Delitzsch. however.
The similarity between the beryl and the emerald argues that scimtu means a ' da;E-coloured [stoAel' (Ass:
was pointed out by Pliny (3720) ; the only points of H W B 48.8 6; cp Par. 60f: 130f)and Halevy connects Assyr.
distinction are the green colonr of the emerald and the srimtu with Syr. S&mrather than) Heb. Jhm (Rev. Crit.,1881,
somewhat superior hardness of the beryl (7.5 to 8 in P. 479).
the mineralogical scale ; specific gravity from 2.67 to Sh8hum is rendered in the various versions as
follows :-
2.732).
@BAL p ~ p u A A ~ o v in Targ. []>$n*J,
(as Saad. etc.) in Ex. 28 20
If we leave out of account the emerald, the colours of
the beryl range from blue through soft sea-green to a =39 13, reproduced in Ezek. 28 13 (see PRECIOUS STONES) ;
AiOos [ T ~ s ]upapd'y8ou in Ex. 28 g 35 27 39 6 ; A. 6 ,wpduwos"(leek-
pale honey-yellow, and in some cases the stones are green) in Gen. 2 12. A. rdppd~ouin Ex. 35 g ' A. lroofi [BA] OWXOF
entirely colourless. The aquamarine is so named on [L] in I Ch. 29 2 : $v 6wxc (as in Aq. at Ex., Theod. and'symm.
account of its bluish-green colour, ' qui viriditutem at Ex. and Gen., and Vg. [onychiinus, but onyrin Ezek.] except
puvi .maris imituntzlr ' (Pliny, Z. c. ). The beryl crystal- in Job) in Joh2816; Pesh. everywhere (BRW LA) or
lises in six-sided prisms with the crystals often deeply $Z. U 0 . S except in I Ch. 29 z where its text differs ; Aq. in
striated in a longitudinal direction. The great abun- Gen. 2 12 and Vg. in Job 28 16 sardonyx.
dance of aquamarine and other forms of beryl in modern RVmg.'adds as an alternative the rendering BERYL,^
times has very inuch depreciated its value; but it is thus supporting the identification argued for above.
still set in bracelets, necklaces, etc., and used for seals. EV follows throughout the usual Vg. rendering, giving every-
where ' onyx ' (see ONYX), reserving ' beryl' for the Hebrew
That the beryl was known to the ancients there can Tarshish (see TARSHISH, STONEOF). In the N T however
be no doubt. Some of the finest examples of ancient 'beryl ' is naturally the EV rendering of pppuAAov (Rkv. 31 zot):
. 2. Greek Greek and_ Roman gem-engraving are W. R.
names, etc. found executed in beryl (see King's de- BERZELUS (zopzeAAeoc [A]), I Esd. 538 AV=
scription of a huge aquamarine intaglio Ezra 261, BARZILLAI,
2.
over two inches square, Prec. Stones, Gems, and Prec.
iWetuZs, p. 132): the Romans cut it into six-sided prisms BESAI (Q& 52 ; B~cep[L]). The b n e Besai,
(cylindri)and mounted them as ear-drops. It is also a family of NETHINIM in the great post-exilic list (see
clear from the evidence of Pliny (Lc., de&;) that, in E ZRA, ii. g), Ezra249 (pau[e]~ [BA])=Neh. i 5 z
later times, at least, beryl was called by the same name (@p [BA],
i paru. [K])= I Esd. 5 3 1 BASTAI, RV
as now, though apart from d (see below) the name BASTHAI (PauBar [BA], peuuep [L]).
does not appear in any Greek writer till considerably BESODEIAH (Vljb?, ' in the secret of Yah,' 22 ;
after Pliny's time.2 It appears, however, to have been the form, however, is very improbable [see BEZALEEL] ;
called also u,udpayc?os; Theophrastus seems to know read, rather, ;12lDn, Hasadiah), an Israelite, father of
three Binds of smaragdos, which may well be our true Meshullam in the list of wall-builders (see ~ T E H E M I A H ,
emerald, our aquamarine, and our common beryl I J ,E Z R A , ii.
(Lup., 23). In Herodotns, too, smara@ is the 16 [I], 15 d ) , Neh. 3 6 (Bahia [B],
material not only of the gem engraved for the ring of aBheia [NIP Bacwhia [Avidll,Bacihia [L]).
T.K. C.
Polycrates (341), but also of the pillar in the temple of
Heracles at Tyre (244), which cannot have been of true BESOM (NgspD,Is. 14 z3f ; Pesh. j b s s ; Vg.
emerald, as the noble Binds of beryl are never found scopa; ITHAOY B A p A e p O N [mQrI,IT. BABpON [AI),
of large size. a word occurring nowhere else in Hebrew or, in this
The Hebrews must be presumed to have known the sense, in any Semitic dialect.? According to Ta1m.B.
beryl. We may perhaps identify it with the shthlznm Rash ha-shdnd, 26 b., the word, though unknown to
3, Hebrew (o;lV); for P tells us that the ornaments the Rabbis (who called the article n y 3 5 ~ )was
, still in use
name. on the high priest's shoulder (Ex. 28920 among the women (cp Jer. Megiillu, ii. 2). There is not,
=35927) were of shtham, and d renders therefore, any reason to doubt that Vg. and Pesh. are
this updpayc?os. We cannot always trust d's rendering right in understanding something to sweep (away) with
of stone names (see PRECIOUS S TONES) ; but in this (cpthe metaphor in Is. 30 28 [sieve] ; on which see AGRI-
case the identification seems suitable. W e are told that CULTURE, 5 IO). The besoni of death is not unknown
on each sh8hum-stone were inscribed the names of six of to mythology (Otto Henne Am Rhyn, Die Deutsche
the tribes of Israel, for which purpose a natural hexagonal VoZksuge,l2)411 f.); but the figure hardly needs any
cylinder of beryl would be admirably fitted if, as has mythological warrant (Che. ad Zoc. ).
been suggested, the six names were inscribed longi- BESOR (+in, ~ 0 [B~ AL], 0JOS. ~Ant. vi. 146,
tudinally on the six faces. The shthum-stones mounted B A C E ~ O C ) , a wHdy (hi),mentioned in the account of
in ouches of gold were probably therefore beryls pierced David's pursuit of the Amalekites, I S. 3Ogf. 21 (v. 21
or simply mounted at the end with bosses (umdiZici) of peava [B], P q w p [A]). It was probably this wiidy
gold, like the beryl cylinders described by Pliny. that Saul crossed' when he chastised the Amalekites
The importance given to the beryl among the Baby- (IS.15s ; read h p yix;-l, Klo.); and in the two
lonians and the Phcenicians (see above) makes it all the
more probable that the Hebrews would specially value definitions of the Amalekite territory in I S. 157 ( ' and
Saul smote the Amalekites, from Havilah,' etc.), and
it. From Gen. 212 (later stratum of J ?) it would appear
that the sh8hum was known in Judah before the exile,
27 8 ( ' for those were the inhabitants of the land, which
were from old time,' etc.), we should probably read
and believed to abound, with good gold and bdellium, in
'from the torrent Besor even to the torrent [land] of
H AVILAH . The Chronicler brings sh6hum-stones into
Mu+.' See TELEM (i.). According to Guerin (/zm%,
connection with the construction of the pre-exilic temple
(I Cb. 292 ; but the reading may be incorrect, see
2213)~ it is the modern WBdy Ghazza which issum from
the WBdy es-Seba' and empties itself into the sea SW.
E BONY, c), while the writer of Job 2816 classes it with
gold of Ophir and other precious substances. of Gaza. T. I<. C.
The etymology of the word sh8hum (which occurs in BETAH (n@), a city of Hadadezer, king of Zobah,
z S. 88 ( M T ) = I Ch. 188 (MT), TIBHATH. Pesh., how-
1 On the stone called Beryl in E V see I 4 .
2 The chrysoberylus, chrysoprasus, and chrysolithus of ancient 1 Omitted (through oversight?) at Ex. 35 9 29 6 13 Ezek. 28 13.
jewellery appear to some extent at least, to have been names 2 In Arab. the root means 'incline (the head),' in Eth. 'set
applied to differint shades of beryl. in order.
35 545 546
 BETANE BETH-ARABAH
ever, reads Tebah, and this is also favoured in 2 S. IC. Gt2n-t of the list of places conquered by Shishak (As.
by d pupp pa^ [B], -pax [A], ~ U T E ~ U[L],
K where pa r. Eur. 168). If the form Beth-anoth be correct, it may
arises from a corrupt repetition of the preceding letter ie explained as= Beth-anath, 'house of A NATH ' ( q . ~). ;
in this translator's Heb. text). Cp Ew. Hist. 3 153, and 'p ?iiy (Josh. 21 11) and p + and p-@. T o sup-
see TEBAH. )ose a popular etymology ' place of answering' ( L e . , of
BETANE ( B ~ I T ~ N H[Bl, B ~ T [R]!
. BAIT. [AI), one tn echo?), with Kampffmeyer ( Z D P Y 1 6 3 ; cp Is.
of the places to which, according to Judithlg, Nebuchad- 1030, SBOT), is needless.
rezzar sent his summons. T h e BETH-ANOTH (4.v.) But is the form correct? Conder and Kitchener (PEF
of Josh. 1559 appears to be meant. We'cm.3311 351) identify Beth-anoth with Beit 'Aindn,
5 m. N. of Hebron, near the sites of H ALHUL and BETH-
BETEN (\q+.k, 'vale'or ' hollow';-Bt,~~e[A]. CUR (cp BETANE). This appears reasonable, and sug-
Baleo~[B], BETEA [L]), an unidentified site in the zests a doubt whether the ancient name may not have
territory of Asher (Josh. 1923) called B&BeTeN by been ]ryy-n'Z, Beth'enun. It is true that dB favours
Eusebius ( O S 236 41), who places it 8 R. m. to the E. 324, and @ A iiiy, ( > in the first syllable being unex-
of Acco. pressed); but the case of Anem (see EN-GANNIM, z)
BETH (WJ, st. constr. ,of n!a,
see BDB); the shows that the absence of 9 both in M T and in the
most general term for a dwelling; used of a tent in text implied by d is not decisive. A spring is men-
Gen. 27 15 33 17. but generally of houses of clay or stone ; tioned to the west of the ruins of Beit 'Ainfin.
also of temples (cp BAJITH, Beth-Bamoth [MI, Z. 271). T. K. C .
Combinations of Beth with other words are frequent in BETHANY (BHeaNla[TtWH]). I. A small village
Hebrew place-names (see NAMES, $ 96). In Assyrian, first referred to in the Gospels, 15 furlongs to the E. of
compounds with Bit are used as names of countries: Jerusalem on the road to Jericho (Jn. 1118 Lk. 1929. cp
e.g., Bit-Humri= the kingdom of Israel; Bit-Yakin ( L e . , u. I), Fnd commonly identified with the Beth-Hini of
Babylonia, the country of Merodach-Baladan). the Talmud. It is no doubt the mod. el-'Azuriyeh
Among other interesting compounds with Beth are BEESH-
TERAH c?)
Beth-eked Beth-haggan, Beth-lehem, Beth-meon (see (from Lazarus or Lazarium-the I wrongly taken as
BAAL-M&N),
Beth-$or. the article). El2Azariyeh lies on a spur SE. of the
Mt. of Olives (cp M k . l l l Lk.1929). Its fig, olive,
BETHABARA (BHeaBapa [Cz KTb UAII]), Jn. 128 and almond trees give one at first a pleasant impres-
AV, is the place where John baptized, according to the sion ; but a nearer inspection of the few houses is dis-
reading which became widely current through the ad- appointing.
vocacy of Origen, who could find no Bethany across the There are various romantically interesting spots connected
Jordan, but found a Bethabarawith a tradition connecting by old tradition with Lazarus (cp the Itiu. Hieros. ed. Wessel,
it with the Baptist. Origen, however, admitted that the 596, the Bordeaux Pilgrim, and OSP) 108 3 239 IO). The
majority of MSS were against him. See BETHANY, 2. Castle of Lazarus (based on castellsm, the Vg. translation of
the Gr. ~ 6 p q is
) a ruined tower, presumably anterior to the
Origen was followed hy Chrysostom . Epiphanius like Arm. time of the Crusaders, and hard by IS the tomb of Lazarus ; the
i
(Lagarde) has BVb'app6. In t e presen; text of Origkn the form
varies he&een BqOapk, BaO p i , BsOapapa, and BVOapapa (the
latter also in tw.b. syr. hcl. (mg.), aeth. ; see W H 2 74); in OS
house of Simon the Leper also is shown.
2. The Bethany where John baptized (Jn.128, Ti. W H
240 12 108 6 we find BqQaapapa,Betha6ara. after K*BAC*, edd., RV) is distinguished from the
The traditional site of the baptism of Jesus is at the Bethany mentioned above by the designation ' across
MakhLdet Hajla (see BETHARABAH, 2, where, too, it is Jordan' ( ~ C p a uTOG 'Iop.) ; its exact situation is nn-
suggested that we should read Bethabarah in Josh. 1822). known. The reading of T R and of AV is BETHABARA
T h e two monasteries of St. John attest the antiquity of ). ,Another suggestion is that Bethabara ( I house of
(q.7~.
the belief in this site. the ford ) and Bethany .( = wJ$na, ' house of the ship ')
Conder suggests the MakhZPet 'AhBra, NE. of Beisin, partly are one and the same place (see GASm. HG 542. n. 12).
hecause of the nearness of this ford to Galilee and Nazareth, The analogy of some corrupt O T forms (cp K ISHION )
and partly because the river-bed is here more open, and the
banks of the upper valley more retired (PEFQ., 1875, p. 73). suggests, however, that the true reading in the traditional
Another suggestion of the same explorer (&, 1877, p. 185) is source of Jn. 128 would be one combining in the second
philologically weak. part of the name the letters N, B, and R-such a name
As stated elsewhere (BETHANY, 2). the true reading as pqeavappa. W e actually find patv8avappa in dB
in Jn. 1 2 8 was probably pqBavappa-i.e., BETH-NIMRAH, Josh.1327 for the Bethnimrah of the Hebrew text.
now Tell-Nimriiz, NE. of Jericho. Now, the site of BETH-NIMRAH [q.v.] is well known.
BETH-ANATH (llzy W s - i . e . , 'temple of Anath ' ; It is accessible alike from Jerusalem and from the
in Josh. B A l O O a M € [Bl. BalNaeae [AI, B H 8 a N A 6 EL]; region of Jericho (cp Mt. 35), and the perennial stream
of Nahr Nimrin, which flows into the Jordan, would
in Judg. BaleaNhX [B], -&Nee [BAL], B€&N€K [AI).
an ancient Canaanite fortress, with a sanctuary of ANATH supply abundance of water. This theory belongs to
(cp BETH-ANOTH), Josh. 1938. It is mentioned unmis- Sir George Grove ; it has been adopted by Sir C. W.
takably by Thotmes III., Seti I., Rameses II., and Wilson (Smith's DB,W S.D. ' Bethnimrah'), and has
Rameses 111. in the lists of places conquered by these strong claims to favourable consideration. Of course,
kings (see RPP) 552 638 ; Sayce, Pat. Pal. 160, 236, the insertion of the words aCpuv TOO 'IopS. would be a
2 3 9 ; WMM, As. u. Eur. 193, 195, 2 2 0 ) . Accord- consequence of the faulty reading /3y8avra. T. K. C.
ing to Judg. 133. it adjoined Naphtalite territory, but BETH-ARABAH (82TGG i19s
or "72 I-@ ; once,
(like Beth-shemesh) remained Canaanitish down to the Josh. 18 18, by a scribe's error [see 61 simply 8 2 V ? ;
regal period, subject only to the obligation of furnishing Josh. 18 18, BaieapaBa [BAL1 ; 1561 8apaBaaM P I ,
labour for public works. Eus. and Jer. (OS23645 BHBapaBa [AL], BAlebBapa [B18 -&PABA [ALI).
105 20) inappropriately refer to a village called Batanaea, I. One of the six cities in the ' wilderness ' of Judah
Ij K. m. E. from Czsarea, possessing medicinal springs. (Josh. 156r), mentioned also as on the boundary lines of
But the site now most in favour--'AinitAa, in a valley Judah and Benjamin (156 [pateapapa BA ; pyeapapa
6 m. WNW. from Kedesh-is hardly strong enough
1 We may therefore dismiss the interpretation 'place of the
to have been that of such a fortress as Beth-anath wretched one ' (cp the play upon Anathoth, Is. 1030 MT). Beth-
(Buhl, Pal. 232 ; but cp Conder, PEF Mem. 1zm). Hini is generally explained 'place of unripe fruit' (cp N ~ ~ ~ N ,
BETH - ANOTH (ni>q7Vs; B A I ~ ~ N A M[B],
'unripe fruit,' esp. of figs). The Talmud, however, says that
figs ripened better at Beth-Hini than anywhere else (Neub.,
Gk0.q. Talm. 150). If so, these figs may have led to the name
- 8 a N u N [A], BHfjapwe [L]). A town in the hill BETHPHAGE--Le., possibly, 'house ofyoung figs '-but the name
country of Judah (Josh. 1559), towards the eastern border Beth-Hini remains unexplained. Another form of the name
of that region, identified by W. M. Muller with the is Beth-oni (31rt-n-3.
547 518
 BETH-ARAM BETH-BAS1
L] 18 18) ; see also BETH-BASi. The reference in 1822 [ p . ~ . ,21, as related in z K. 1516.
If so, the inter-
must be considered separately (no. 2). The wilderness polator combines two striking events which equally
of Judah in 1561 is the deep depression adjoining the formed part of the divinely threatened judgment upon
Dead Sea, together with the overhanging mountains Israel. See Che. Expos. Nov. 1897,p. 364.
and the barren country beyond, including probably a For a new but difficult theory of Hos. 10 14 see Herz Amer.
district in the neighbourhood of Arad (see SALT, CITY J . Sem. Lung. 14zo7f: Vg81. The versions give &le help
except as to ‘Arbeel’ (@B). @ A preserves a trace of a theory
OF). Beth-arabah may have been the first or principal that the reference is t o the slaying of Zalmunna by Gideon, in
settlement in that desolate corner of the Argbah or which case Ps. 83 II [IZ] would be parallel. ZaAapau [BAQ], it
Jordan valley which forms the N. end of the Dead Sea. is true, does not accord with this theory ; but Syro-Hex. points
Though mentioned twice, if not thrice, with Beth- to y&; caApava is @NARa’s rendering of Zalmunna and
hoglah, it must have been considerably to the S. of bas some authority in Hosea. Vg. gives Sicut vastat;s est
S d m a n a a domo eius p i iudicavit BaaL The. conclusive
that place, for unless, with Knobel, we put it at KaSr exegetical objections to this view need not here be stated. See
.
Hajla (which seems rather to have been Beth-hoglah), also Field‘s Nexujla. T. K. C.
there is no other suitable site for it till we come to
the copious fountain of ‘Ain eZ-Feshkhu, near the
BETHASMOTH (BaleacMwfJ [A]),I Esd. 518 RV.
See AZMAVETH(i.).
NW. corner of the Dead Sea (31”43’ N., 35’ 26’ E,).
The name Beth-arabah ( I the house, or homestead, in BETh-AVEN (]]@-Jl’J, cp. Benj. ‘ben-Oni’), a
the ArFtbah ’) has, therefore, a special significance (cp place to the E. of Bethel near Ai (Josh. 72, P@arv
that of BETH-JESHIMOTH, p.v.). This indication of [A], p$au [L], from which, indeed, it has been pro-
the site was made in writing by Robertson Smith. posed, following bBF, to eliminate the name, but on
Perhaps, however, it is best to suppose that there insufficient grounds’), and to the W. of Michmash
were two settlement: * one near the fountain (viz., (1 S. 135 ; where BalewpwN [B*LI, Balecw. [Bab]
Beth-arabah), the other (see MIDDIN)at the fountain. are obviously wrong ; I s. 1423 BaMwe [B]. THehYN
2. It will be still easier to adopt this identification [or 75 Bavv, Avid], BaiewpwN [L]). The site has
if we may follow bB in reading not ‘Beth-arabah’ not been identified ; a but it must have been the last
but ‘ Beth-abarah ’ in Josh. 1822. The ford (‘Zbdruh) village on the edge of the desert country, for to this
referred to in the name ( I house or place of the ford ’) it gave the name Wilderness of Beth-aven (Josh. 1812
might then be the famous Makhicet Hajla near the j3atBauv [A]; -6’wv [B]; -8aouv [L]). All the data
mouth of the W d d y e -KeZt, the bathing-place of the point to the neighbourhood of Deir Diwcin-either
pilgrims, where traditi
b places the baptism of Jesus
Christ. Such a Beth-abarah would be more naturally
mentioned between Beth-hoglah and Zemaraim than
that village itself, or Kh. gaiycin, immediately to the S.
For the rest see BETHEL, § 4. G. A. S.

a place situated at ‘Ain eZ-FeshKha. The confusion

BETH-AZMAVETH (nlp]p-n*a),Neh, 728 ; see
AZMAVETH(i. ).
of the two names was very easy (note the variant B778-
apa/3a in Jn. 1 2 8 ) . Cp BETH-ABARA. T. K. C. BETH-BAAL-MEON ( p q 5ya n ’z),
:, JOS. 13 17.
See BAAL-MEON.
BETH-ARAM (h?;! ma), Josh.l3qAV, RV BETH- BETH-BARAH (n?s n’3, B A I ~ H P A [BAI, - B ~ p a
HARAM (4.n.).
[L] ; the form of the second part of the name is obscure)
BETH-ARBEL ( h a y n’z
; EK TOY OlKoY lepo- is not to be identified with the Bethabara of Jn. 128
boa^ [B], .. .
TOY I ~ ~ O B O[Q*],
~ M ...
iepoBaah (Reland) ; it occurs only in the story of Gideon (Judg.
72 4 ) , who sends to his fellow-tribesmenin the hill country
[AI. T O Y ispoBaah [Q“]: Synim. TQ O ~ K Y ,TOGUPPE+),
a place cruelly destroyed by ‘ Shalman ’ (Hos. 10 144- ; of Ephraim, bidding them cut off the Midianites’ retreat
\&v, Baer \&E; c ~ A ~ M [BAQ]).
~ N Robertson
Smith in 1881 (EB(9)12296) favoured an identification
by holding against them ‘the waters as far as Beth-
barah, and (also) the Jordan.’ The latter words
(]ii*irm))seem to be a gloss on ‘ the waters ’ (no>).
of Beth-arbel with the trans-Jordanic Arbela (see O S 2 )
By “the waters,: however, are really meant, not the
21472 886); now Zrbid, in which case there might be
Jordan, but the streams emptying themselves into the
a reference either to Shalmaneser 111. or to a Moabite
king Shalamanu mentioned in an inscription (KB 220) Jordan which the Midianites would have to pass. Beth-
b9a.h must have been situated somewhere in the wady
a s a tributary of Tiglath-pileser 111. Schrader (KATP)
formed by one of these streams, and there are points in
440-442)argues ably for identifying Shalman with the
latter king, who very probably made an incursion into the narrative which suggest locating it near the mouth
Israelite territory. The combination of Beth-arbel with of the W d d y FEri‘uh, between which and the Jordan
the trans-Jordanic Arbela (Zrbid), however, is improb- the Midianites would find themqelves in a cuZ-de-sac
able : Shalman should be a more important king, and (Moore).
Beth-arbel (if this compound phrase maybe accepted) a BETH-BAS1 (BEBBacl [AI, BaleBalccel [Kl, -BACC.
more important fortress, than Schrader’s theory sup-
poses. Wellhausen and Nowack think that Shalman
[KVJ -Baci [VI, eD h a [Pesh.], Beth-iressreen [Vet.
Lat.]), a fortified city in the desert (& ~i dp4py), the
may be Shalmaneser 1V.-the first Shalmaneser known ruinous parts ( ~ KaOTp&va)
b of which Jonathan and
to the Israelites. If so, the latter part of Hos. 1 0 14 Simon repaired, when menaced by Bacchides (I Macc.
will be a later insertion. The reference to Beth-arbel,
962 64). The Syriac (see above ; cp Vet. Lat.) reads
however, remains a difficulty. Surely the reading must Beth-yashan (cp JESHANAH). This is probably correct ;
be corrupt.
the corruptions can be easily accounted for. Jos. (Ant.
bBsuggests a correction. Read o y w ~ 2 and, , as
xiii. 1 5 ) calls the place Beth-alaga (i.e., Beth-hoglah),
a consequence, for in$v read or$@. The murder of which is too far from the MS readings, but may b e
Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II., by SHALLUM [q.ZJ., I] a correct identification, though BETH- ARABAH also
is probably referred to (iB, or if@?, points to a fate like suggests itself. G. A. Smith, however, thinks that the
that of Sisera ; cp in?, Judg. 527). A reader of Hosea second 6 in Beth-basi may be correct. ‘ In thz wilder-
justly assumed that Zechariah was not the only person ness of Judea, E. of Tekoa, there is a Wcidy eZ-Bassuh,
who was murdered, and took the massacre of the royal which name as it stands means “marsh,” an impossible
family to be a fulfilment of the stern prophecy in w. 15, 1 We. supposes $en->$ m a n to be a gloss. and 7 1 a~ con-
which ends : ‘in a storm (ipi02, We.) the king of Israel temptuous &stortionof-$N H’lhe manner & HOS. 415: &. (CH
shall be cut off.’ The words ‘mother and children rzj). So Albers, but not Di. or Bennett SBOT.
2 Possibly it was early destroyed. ’Idis, as Muhlau remarks,
were dashed to pieces’ may, however, refer to the would account for the disparaging transformation of the name
cruelty of Menahem to the women of TAPPUAH Bethel into Beth-aven (Kiehm, HWBW 1 213).
549 550
 BETH-BIREI BETHEL
term, and therefore probably an echo of an ancient tion ( p a not ly)forbids us to see in it the IIapd6e~uos
name.’ T. K. C. of Strabo and’Ptolemy, and equally forbids us to regard
BETH-BIREI, RV B e t h - b i i (W13 n’n), I Ch. 431. it with Wetzstein (Del. 702 ; cp Vg. de dumo
See BETH-LEBAOTH. vulzlptutis) as a poetical name of Damascus. The view,
however, adopted bySchrader ( K A 327)and favoured
BETH-CAR (lz-n’3; Baiexop [BLI! BEAX. [AI, by &iBAQr (see above), that Beth-eden is the Bit-adini
[ M B X P I ]K O P P ~ I W N ,Jos. Ant. vi. 22 ; I+?&‘ [Targ.]), a of the inscriptions (see EDEN), is not less inadmissible,
place, presumably in the district of Mizpah, to which for this is too far to the N. of Damascus, and had,
the Israelites pursued the defeated Philistines ( I S. 7 TI in the time of Amos, long been subject to Assyria (Wi.
[Dt.]). The phrase ‘ under Beth-car ’ is remarkable. AT Unters. 183 ; cp Nold. ZDMG 33326 [‘79]). N o
Does it mean under the gates of Beth-car ’ (so We. doubt there were other.places called E DEN (q.40., ii.).
TBS 68)? or does it mean ’ to the foot of the hill on There is equal uncertainty as to the name Bikath-aven
some part of which Beth-car stood ’ ? No such name (see AVEN,3), which corresponds to Beth-eden in the
as Beth-car is mentioned elsewhere ; hence it is at first parallel line. T. K. C.
sight too bold to identify it (as P E F , not disapproved by
GASm. HG 224) with ‘Ain K5rim, the name of a flourish-
BETH-EKED (72u np, EV ‘shearing house’;
RVmg. ‘ house of gathering ’ ) , lwhere Jehu met Aha-
ing village a good way to the S. of Nebi Samwil, and ziahs brethren, is either a place-name or (more probably)
W. of Jerusalem. The name Beth-car, however, is the designation of an isolated house used on certain
self-evidently corrupt, and if we may emend it into
occasions by the shepherds of the district ( 2 K. 10 12 14 ;
‘ Beth-haccerem ’ the identification with ‘Ain K&im BaleaKae [B]; but in 21. 14 8u ‘ri uK?)urj [EWbrng.],
becomes probable (see BETH-HACCEREM). Only 14m.
to the N. of ‘Ain KHrim is DEr YLsin, not improbably ah [AL] ; Pesh. has ‘ and he was overthrowing the
altars that were on the way ’ [40. 121, and in 40.14 m y n r i ,
to be identified with the Jashan or Jeshanah of 40. 12 (see
cp Cod. Vind. of Vet. Lat. Bedhacur).
S HEN ), which need not be the same as the Jeshanah of
z Ch. 13 19. BETHEL (>&?’n, @ I, IO, always one word [Sa.
The alternative is to read ‘Beth-horon ’ $10.) ; 2 and n wcre,, on Gen. 128 Josh. 72). RV wrongly with a hyphen ;
from phonetic causes easily confounded. Under Beth-horon ‘house of God’--i.e., B a l ~ y A l o ~ - ( c pBAI-
would be a very idtelligible expression: hut Beth-* is Site. T O Y A I ~ , BETHULIA); see IDOLATRY, 2,
certainly too far north. The reading Beth-jashan quoted
from Pesh. e) by G. A. Smith ( H G z24), is no &ding at
all, but a cor uption of the text of I S. ? 11, as We. has pointed
MASSEBA ; BaleHA [BADEL] ; hut Gen. 357, Bee.
[D]; gentilic Bethelite, see HIEL). I. A town
out. T. K. C. on the border between Benjamin and Ephraim, W. of
BETH-DAGON (IiIT n’z, 95, Louse of Dagon,’ the wilderness of Beth-aven (Josh. 18 12 ; on 1216, where
BHeharwN [AL]). I. A city of Judah, enumerated @A omits the clause, and &PF has HXa6 for Bethel or
in the third group of ‘lowland‘ towns (Josh. 1541, Makkedah, see TAPPUAH, z),without doubt the present
puaya6i+ [B]). The list is so scattered and irregular Beitin (from Beitil, by the common interchange of I
that nothing can with certainty be inferred from it as to and n), a small village (said to have 400 inhabitants),
the site of Beth-dagon ; but MAKKEDAH ( q . ~ . )which
, with ruins of early Christian and Crusaders’ buildings,
is mentioned in the same verse, must have lain off the about I O m. N. of Jerusalem. It lies on the hack-
mouth of Aijalon (Josh. 10~8). Here we find, 6 m. SE. bone of the central range, a little E. of the watershed,
from Joppa, a Beit-Dejan, and, 14m. farther S . , DLjLjan. and 2890 ft. above the sea. From the village itself
Each of these has been identified with Beth-dagon (see the view is confined to the plateau, which, like most
Rob. RR 3298, Clermont Ganneau, P E F Q , 1874), of the territory of Benjamin, presents a bleak prospect
and one of them (the former, according to Friedr. Del.) of gray rocks and very stony fields, relieved by few
is probably the Bit-daganna mentioned in Sennacherib‘s trees and a struggling cultivation. A few minutes SE.,
prism-inscription (col. 2 Z. 65 ; KB 2 92). It must be however, lies one of the great view-points of Palestine,
remembered, however, that the name occurred in several the Burj-Beitin or Tower of Bethel (probably the .ruin
places through Palestine-Beit Dejan nearly 7 m. E. of of an early Christian monastery), supposed to mark
NibZus (seePEFmap), and, according to Jos. (Ant.xiii. a traditional site of the tent and altar of Abraham
8 I BJi. 2 3), Dagon near Jericho, each on an important ’ to the E. of Bethel’ (Gen. 128), and of Lot’s view
trade route from Philistia to the Jordan Valley. There of the ‘ Circle of Jordan ’ (133-10). Four good springs
may, then; have been more than one Beth-dagon on 2. Traditions. and a great reservoir amply certify the
the borders of Philistia, and it ought not to be over- present village as the site of the city,
looked that neither DLjfin nor Beit Dejan lies in the which ‘ was called Luz at tge first ’ (Gen. 28 19 ; O?K&
ShephElah proper. On the doubtful phrase ‘land of OaoF [ADEL]). The sanctuary, ‘God‘s house,’ the
Dagon’ in Eshmunazar’s inscription, and on the god ‘ place ’ (as it is called in Gen. 28 IT, where it is distinct
Dagon, see D AGON, 8 I. .On DXjEn see especially from the city) which grew famous enough to absorb
C1. Ganneau, Arch. Res. in PuL 1 2 6 8 the city’s name in its own, may have lain either on
z A locality not yet identified (but cp Conder HdJk. to fhe .the site of the ,Burj-Beitin, or on one of the neigh-
.
S i h e 268) on the border of Asher (Josh. 19 27 $L&YFYE~ [B]). bouring slopes, where there is a natural stone circle
3. ‘khe ;emple of Dagon in Ashdod (I Mack 1083, j3908aywv (PEPQ,1881, p. 255); and the curious formation of
[AWa c.bV], j30Saywu [N”]). G. A. S. the rocks in terraces and ramparts has been taken as
BETH-DIBLATHAIM(a:n>p-n*n; cp AS^. duuu, the material suggestion of the ‘flight of steps’ (see
‘ foundation ’ ; but see NAMES, § 107),a town in Moab L ADDER) which Jacob saw in his dream (Gen.
mentioned along with Dibon [ I ] and Neb0 [iii.] (Jer. 2810JT).2 There he raised a pillar, or massebbah,
4822=@ 3 1 2 ~e~n O l K O N AarBhAeaiM [BQI? 8. 0. to YahwB, and afterwards is said (Gen. 351-8) by the
A G B A ~ ~ A I [KA]),
M evidently the same as ALMON-DIB- same narrator, E (it is J who gives the previous story of
LATHAIM, which also occurs in connection with Dibon Abraham’s altar), to have built an altar and called the
(Nu. 3 3 4 6 3 ) . This place (called i n h i m ) , Mehedeba, ‘place’ (not yet ‘city’)‘God of Bethel’ (forwhich6AUEL,
and Ba‘al Me‘on are stated by Mesha on his stele to Pesh., and Vg. read ‘Bethel’). Here Deborah, Rebecca’s
have been fortified by himself (Z. 30). 1’ Cp the Targ. N’ 7 n r p ”’2. ‘place of the gathering
BETH-EDEN, AVmg., EV ‘ house of Eden’ (I793 together of the shepkkrd5. For e@&, however, we should
IT&’; 85 ANAPWN xappa~[BAQr]), an Aramaean perhaps read n8kZdi?tz(D’?$), and omit the next word (in v. 12,
not in U. 14) hd-dzrn (D’plc) as a gloss ; n8kZdim was a less
city or land, with a ruler of its own, but presumably
common word for ‘ shepherds’ than r8‘irn.
allied to Damascus (Am. 15). No satisfactory identifi- 2 Schlatter (ZUY Tojog. 236) infers from Gen. 12 8 Jos. 7 z
cation of this place has been made. The vocalisa- (om. @.A) that the sanctuary lay E. of the town, in Deir Diwin.
551 552
 BETHEL BETHER
foster-mother, died. She was buried Mow the town, the superstitious and immoral nature of its cult, even
beneath an oak called ‘ the oak of weeping ’ (see ALLON- though the object of this was Yahwk himself. They
BACUTH, M ULBERRY ) : trees, it is probable, would not regard it as apostasy from Yahwk (Am. 44, ‘ Come to
be found on the stony plateau above. The next notice Bethel and revolt ’ ; 5 5 [PaBvX Q*Vid], ‘Seek not
of Bethel is in the J E narrative of Joshua’s conquests Bethel, seek Yahwk ’), and its crimes culminate (Am. 7 1 3 )
(Jos. 7 2 Sgrz [om. BAF ; pqt’au L]), in which Bethel is in the silencing of his prophet Amos by its priest Amazixh
not yet the name of a city (so also the Deuteronorhist in [see AMOS, § 20). It shall, therefore, bear the brunt of
Jos. 1 2 9 [res [A] ; in v. 16 ‘ Bethel’ is with GHAa to be the impending doom (Am. 3 14 Hos. 10 15 [OZKOS TOO
~

omitted), but is still distinct from Luz (162 [@A does :upagX BAQ]). In scorn Amos had said ‘ Bethel shall
not distinguish them, reading houra (B in v. I , A in v. 2) become AVEN ’--i.e., vanity, falseness, false worship,
after part’7hl). The later priestly writer, however, idolatry ( 5 5) :-so Hosea calls it Beth-aven (415 58 lo5)
makes them the same (1813, cp 2 2 [pquava [B], pv0qA oftener than he calls it Bethel. The nickname was the
(.4)] ; in Judg. 123 the parenthesis is probably a gloss).‘ readier because of the actual BETH-AVEN (q.v. ), which
In Judg. 45 the prophetess Deborah is said to have sat once stood, and perhaps in the eighth century still stood,
under the palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and in the neighbourhood. After the fall of the northern
Bethel-a statement which the critics who understand kingdom the heathen colonists naturally adopted the
the song of Deborah to imply that she belonged to the cult of the ‘god of the land,’ and Bethel retained its
tribe of Issachar suppose tn have arisen from confusion importance as a religious centre ( z I<. 1728). Isaiah
with the other Deborah (see DEBORAH). There is no and Micah do not mention Bethel ; it is very doubtful if
cogent reason, however, for their inference from the song, Jeremiah does so (Giesebrecht on Jer. 4813). The frontier
and while a palm is an unusual, it is not an impossible, of Judah, however, must have been gradually pushed N.
tree at the altitude of Bethel : there is one at Jerusalem. so as to enclose it, for when Josiah put down the high
In the story of the crime of the Benjamites the priestly places in the cities of Judah’ he destroyed the altar in
writing tells of a national gathering before God at Bethel Bethel and desecrated the site ( z K . 23415). The city
(Judg. 21 2). itself must have been inhabited by Jews, for its families
In the records of the period after the Judges the are reckoned in the great post-exilic list [see E ZRA, ii.
name Luz does not occur ; we may suppose it by this $5 9, 8 6 ; Ezra228 (yadvh [B]) = Neh. 7 3 2 (p&X
3. History. ;me to have been absorbed in that of [BK*])= I Esd. 521 ( ~ E T O X L W[B], p 7 ~[A])].
. It was the

\b
ethel, which was still a sanctuary ( I S.
716 103). The divisi n of the kingdoms brought Bethel
a new opportunity : its ancient sanctity was taken ad-
most northerly site repeopled by Jews (Neh. 11 31 ; PvOqp
*’winf. ; om. BK*A]).l W e hear nothing more of
Bethel till it is described as one of the strong places of
vantage of by Jeroboam for political ends, and he made Judah which Bacchides refortified in 161 B. c. ( I Macc.
it one of the two national shrines which he established 950 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 13), and then it disappears from OT
in North Israel in order that his people might not go history.
over to Jerusalem. In these shrines he set up the golden In Cg A.D. Vespasian garrisoned Bethel before his advance
calves--‘Thy God, 0 Israel, which brought thee up out on Jerusalem (Jos. Bjiv. 9 9) ; and circa 132 Hadrian placed a
post there to intercept Jewish fugitives (Midrash
of the land of Egypt’ ( I K. 1229). A priesthood, not 6. Post- Ekhak. ii. 3 : Neub. Giog. Tulnz. 115). The Bori
Levitical, was established, and a new altar, pilgrimages, biblical. deaux hlgrim (333) gives it as Betthar 12 R: m.
and feasts were ordained ( I I<. 123of:). In the words from Jerusalem. Robinson’s theory (LBR,170),
that Bethel is therefore the Bether of Hadrian’s war, is un-
of Amaziah to Amos, Bethel became a royal and national founded. Euseb. and Jerome call it a village: the latter
temple ( ‘ sanctuary of the king,’ ‘ house of the kingdom,’ adds (under Aggai) that where Jacob dreamed there was
Am. 7 1.3)~ built a church-perha s part of the ruins at Burj-Beitin. The
A later (perhaps post-exilic) narrative records a Crusaders exhibited tEe rock under the Dome of the Rock in
Jerusalem as Jacob‘s Sto?e ;hut the ‘ Cartulary of the Church
prophecy as made by a prophet from Judah, by which of the Holy Sepulchre’ gives Bethel as a casale ceded to that
Jeroboam was judged according to the Deuteronomic church in 1160, and the site of a tower and chapel built hy
standard, and Yahwgs overthrow of Bethel was predicted Hugues d’Ibelin (Key, 378). See Cubrin, Judie, chap. 5s ; P E F
Mem. 2 295 f: 3051: ; Stanley, S P z r 7 ; GASm. HG, chap. rii.
( I I<. 13 ; cp z K. 1029). There was no such feeling of and pp. 2 8 9 y . 298.
guilt or foreboding of doom, however, among the (2) A place to which David sent part of the spoil of
prophets of the northern kingdom, for we find a the Amalekites ( I S. 3027,) : probably the same as
company of them settled in Bethel, and the place BLTHUL,if we are not with 6” (and Budde) to read
visited by Elijah and Elisha (zI<. 22f: 23). paihup-i.e. BETH-ZUR.
~ G. A. S.
For a national sanctuary the position was convenient.
The present village lies about a furlong off the most BETH-EMEK (3gu;l ncJ,ij 99, ‘house in the
*. Important easterly of the three parallel branches valley’), a place on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 1927).
Before Beth-emek some words appear to have dropped out :
into which the great north road here
position. divides, very near its junction with the perhaps the are represented by @‘s Ka; sluehav’usrac [d]
%pia.
(After 6pLa &E continues ua+f)aii3a~Ops, where ua+Bac seems to
road by Michmash to Jericho, and not many miles from he a corruption of yar+tIaiqh [=yac rs+f)aqh],prefixed wrongly
the heads of those two other roads which come up .
to BarOps [ =fa&EpfK]; aua+%a PqOafpfK [A], ua+a P@pCpfK
[L] ; Symm. BLI +u KOrhd8a). The descrlptlon In v. 27f: E not
from the coast by the Beth-horons, and by Goplina, clear ; there would seem to be two descrlptions of the northern
respectively, to meet the north road just mentioned. boundary (if ‘on the left hand,’ v. 28 means ‘northward,’ and
That is to say, the main lines of traffic N. to S. and if the equivalent of rai e l u d . : p a ’is to be inserted before
E. to W. crossed at the gates of Bethel. Like other ‘ northward ’ in v. 27).
ancient sanctuaries, it must have had a market ; its mer- Robinson was struck by the resemblance of the name
cenariness and wealth are implied by Amos (84, etc.). to that of ‘Amka, 69 m. NE. of ‘Akka (Acre) ; but, as
Moreover, Bethel lay upon the natural frontier between he himself points out (BR4 103 IO^), the situation of
the two kingdoms on the plateau ‘between the passes of ‘Amka is too far N. of Jefit (Jiphtah-el?), and, even if
Beth-horon and Michmash (on the Chronicler’s story of this objection be waived, ‘Amka is at m y rate too far
its capture by Abijah of Judah, see A BIJ AH, I ). The N. of Kgbiil (which must be the ancient Cabul).
prophets Hosea and Amos appear in opposition to T. K. C.
Bethel, not on the ground (taken by the later Deutero- BETHER (8€8Hp [BLl, Br*18Hp2 [A]). one of the
nomists) that it was the seat of a schism, but because of additional cities of Judah m Josh. 1559 (cp S B O T ) ,
1
mentioned after Karem (‘Ain KZrim) and Gallim (cp
1 In Judg. 2 I a Bethel ought probably to be read for BOCHIM
GIBBAR). No doubt it is the modern Bittir (7 m. SW.
(ev.).
2 N?3 3&Q n’ar NlX 7$gd>,!p ’?, AV ‘ for it is the king’s 1 On this list see EZRA ii. 55 5 [BI, 15 [I] a.
chapel, and it is the king’s court’; RV ‘for it is the king’s a Pa~f30qp also occurs ’in ’I Ch. 659 [A], as a substitute for
sanctuary, and it is a royal house.’ away IBI-i.e., Juttah.
553 554
 BETHER BETH-HARAM
of Jerusalem), which” stands on the slope of a steep some with Kh. /email, which lies to the east of the well-
projecting hill between the WZdy Bittir and a smaller known DIBON; according to others, it finas its modern
valley. If we ascend higher we shall reach a site representative in Umm ej-Jemd, about five hours S. of
admirably adapted for a fortress, where there are still BoSra.
some ruins connected by popular legend with the Jews.
On the E. side are chambers in the rock and old cisterns. n’a), Neh. 1 2 2 9 R V ; see
Neubauer (Gkog. Tulnz. 103-114,cp 90) and Guerin GILGAL, 6 (5).
( I d . 2387-395) had all but demonstrated that this was BETH -HACCEREM, AV Beth-Haccherem (n’a
the Bether (in*>)or rather Beth-ter (inn.>), within whose
walls Bar Cochba so obstinately resisted the Romans n.73?,§ 103, ‘vineyard place’), is expressly called, not
under Julius Severus (A.D. 134-5). The proof has now a ;own, but a ‘ district ’ (s)@), near Jerusalem, Neh. 3 14
been completed by the discovery of an inscription stating (BHehXAM -8AXXapMA [AI, -8AKAM [VIS -AX-
which divisions of the Roman army were stationed x a p a [L]).
~ From Jer. 61 it appears to have included
there.l It is, therefore, no longer possible to maintain a conspicuous height to the S. of Jerusalem which was
with Gratz (Hist. 2417) that the Beth-ter of Bar Cochba used as a beacon-station (BatBBaXappa [B], BeBB. [K],
was identical with the Bettbar of the itineraries, which BvBa. [QJ B?)ewtap [AI.
was situated between Antipatris or Diospolis and Jerome (in his comment on the latter passage) says that it was
one of the villages which he could see every day with his own eyes
Czesarea (see ANTIPATRIS, 2, end). See GIBBAR. from Bethlehem, that it was called Bethacharma, and that it lay
Only two ancient statements respecting the position of Bether on a mountain. yence, many since Pococke have placed it on
need be here quoted. Eus. (HE 56) describes pfMqpa in the so-called Fureidis or ‘Frank Mountain’ (2487 ft. above the
these terms : rrohi)(vq TLP qv b ~ ~ p o ~ T&V
k q , ‘Iaporroh~gwv cG sea-level), between Bethlehem and Tekoa, and very near the
rr+dSpa rrdppo 6rsu6ma, and the Talm. of Jerus. (Taanifh, latter (so even Giesebrecht). Jerome’s statement we are unable
48), ‘If thou thinkest that Beth-ter [spelt with two n almost t o criticise : but there is now no name near the ‘ Frank Mountain’
always in this section] was near th,e sea, thou art in error: which confirms this theory, and the special fertility which the
truly it was 40 m. away from the sea. T. K. C. name Beth-haccerem implies to have characterised the district
suggests lookingelsewhere. After all, it was rather hasty t o infer
BETHER, The mountains of (7@ *yj?l), Cant. 217 from Jer. 6 I that Beth-haccerem was bound t o be near Tekoa.
EV, following Vg. (Bethm). The word Bether, how- Since we have found reason elsewhere (B ETH-CAR)
ever, all recent critics agree, is not a proper name : it to correct ‘ Beth-car’ in 1,s.711 into Beth-haccerem,

P
qualifies t e preceding words. Putting aside the old,
forced exp anations of the phrase, such as ’ mountains
of ravines’ (@WAC (Ipv Koihopdrov-i.e., n q n 3 * l a ; cp
B ITHRON ), and ‘ mountains of separation’ (between the
and to identify this with the beautiful village of ‘Ain
KHrim, about an hour and a half W. of Jerusalem,
it becomes difficult to resist the conclusion that the hill
referred to by Jeremiah was the 3e6eZ ‘AU,at the foot of
lovers), one might conjecture that ‘ Bether ’ was the which lies the village in question. The fruitful oliv’e-
Syrian plant malobathron, from which a costly oil was groves and vineyards of ‘Ain KHrim are watered from a
procured, used in the toilet of banqueters (Hor. Od. ii. superb fountain, and would justify the name Beth-
7 7 ) , and also in medicine (Plin. NH xxiii. 448). So haccerem. The summit of the Jebel ‘Ali commands a
Symm. (Field, Hex. on Cant. 217), RVms ; Wellh. view of the Mediterranean, the Mount of Olives, and
PYoZ.(~) 399 ; ET 391. Others emend in> into n’nax, part of Jerusalem (Baed.(3)112). Conder mentions that
‘spices,’ in conformity with 814 (so Pesh., Theod., there are still cairns on the ridge above ‘Ain KBrim which
Meier, Gratz). The best solution, however, has yet to may have served as beacons (PERQ, 1881,p. 271).
be mentioned : i n 1 is miswritte; for to-lni$, ‘cypresses’; One is 40 ft. high and 130 ft. in diameter, with a flat
cp 117 (Che. ). ‘ Mountains of cypresses ’ is an appro- top measuring 40 ft. across.
priate term for Lebanon ; cp ‘ mountains of panthers ’ Two more references to Beth-haccerem may be indi-
(48). SeeJQR10571, and cp CANTICLES, 15 n. cated. In the Mishna treatise, Middoth 3 4, it is
stated that the stones for the great altar in the second
BETHESDA (BHBecha [c~d“’~]-i.e., K2DQ Il’g temple came from the valley of Beth-cerem, which Adler
--‘houseof mercy’ ; BHezaea [Ti. WH]), the reading (IQR 8390) identifies with Beth-haccet;em and ‘Ain
of T R in Jn.52, for which the best authorities have IcZrirn ; and among the eleven towns which GnALhas
BETHZATHA or BETHSAIDA. On the topographical (but not MT) in Josh. 1,559 occurs Karem (‘Kapep),
question, see JERUSALEM. which, from the context, can only be ‘Ain ICHrim. Cp
BETHEZEL ($YE;?n’a ; ~ B A OTKOV
Q ;x~6peC~v ab+, TAHCHEMONITE. For another (probable) Beth-carem
see BATH-KABBIM. T. K. C.
’;.e., d?YN, ‘near her’), an unidentified place in the
ShephElah mentioned by Micah (1I,), who foresees the BETH-HAGGAN (]&i nq. domus h o ~ t i[vg.], EV
captivity of its noble ones (y>ry, emended from in:!p, ‘ the garden- honse’ ; better in d as a proper name,
6 ’ s reading [dSbvvs], where M T has mmny : so Che.‘, BaleAN [Bl, BAlATrc*N [APvid.SUP ras], B&leCipwN=
JQR, JuJy ’98). It is scarcely the same as Azel (cp Beth-horon [L]), a place, apparently to the S. ,of Jezreel,
AZAL). on the road to which Ahaziah fled in his chariot when
BETH-GADER (17; n’2 ; BaleralhwN [Bl, he saw Jehoram slain by Jehu ( z K. 927). Jenin, the
first village which one ,travelling southwards would
- r e h a p [AI, BHersAAwp [L]), a town, whose encounter, may very well be Beth-haggZn ( = Beth-hag-
‘ father ’ Hareph was of Calebite origin ( I Ch. 251f) ; gannim, place of gardens‘), i.k., EN-GANNIM ( q . ~ .2). ,
the genealogy seems to represent post-exilic relations. If, however, we hold with Conder that Megiddo, which
On the analogy of the other great divisions Shobal abi Ahaziah reached at last-to die-was Mujedda‘ at the
Icirjath-jearim and Salma abi Bethlehem, Beth-gader foot of Gilboa, a little to the S. of BeisHn, it will become
was perhaps no unimportant place, and we may possibly natural to identify Beth-haggHn with a northern Beit
identify it with GEDOR, I . It
~ is noticeable that the further
Jenn, between Mt. Tabor and the S. end of the Lake
divisions of Hareph are not enumerated, as they are in of Gennesaret (Beit Jenn is, in Arabic nomenclature, a
the cases of Shobal and Salma. favourite name). Against this view of the flight of
BETH-GAMUL ( 5 9 ~ nq,
4 8 place of recompense 0 ? Ahaziah, see GASm. HG 387,n. I. T. K. C.

[ c ~ G a m a l i e L ~ K ~ ~O
PiB
KOI ;N r d r l ~ a A [ B ] , o .rAMwh& BETH-HANAN. See ELON-BETH-HANAN.
[A], 0.-A [Q], 0.-waB [Kc.a], om. K”). In Moab on
the table-land E. of the Jordan (Jer. 48 zi), identified by BETH -HARAM, AV incorrectly BETH-ARAM (n’a
1 CI. Gan. Acad. des imcr Comptes vendus 1894, p. x ? f :
n?;! : oeapraei, or perhaps - & A ~ M[Bl, BHBapaM
2 The position of GEDER, k t h which it miiht otherwise be [AL]), Josh. 1327 (P). For the true form of the name
connected, is unknown. see BETH-HARAN.
555 556
 BETH-HARAN BETH-HORON
BETH-HARAN (177 n’a, probably ‘house of Itnnn;r-hence the dual form preserved by wpwvwl [B ;
HARAN,’B A l e A p A N [Bl, - A p p h [AI, -N [FLI, NU. but p@wpwv AL], Josh. ~ O I O ~ . )near , the head and the
3236 [E]), the correct and original pronunciation of Coot, respect‘ively, of the ascent from the Maritime Plain
the name of the place also called BETH-HARAM (Cp to the plateau.of Benjamin, and represented to-day by
GERSHOMfor GERSHON). The place thus designated Beit ‘or ‘or
eZ-jii&a and Beit et-td?zta (large PEP Surv.
was an ancient Amorite city, fortified by the conquering Map, Sheet xvii. \. The road leaves Beit Sira fin which
1 -

Gadites. .The site is occupied by the modern TeZl er- 2. Beth-horon some see Uzzen-sheerah : see SHERAH),
RZmeh, which stands up in a wiidy of the same name, 840 ft. above sea-level, on the high
road. Dlain of Aiialon : climbs UD the suur of
between HesbLn and the Jordan, at no great distance
from the river. The objection to this raised by Guthe the Benjamite hits in about 50 minutes to th’e lowerBeth-
(ZDPV 23. n. I ) is not decisive. horon, 1240 ft. ; and thence, dropping at first for a
Rameh does indeed imply a form, Beth-harZm8h; but this Little, ascends the ridge, with the gorges of Wady
form is vouched for by the existenceof the Aramaic Beth-ramtha Selmau to the S., and WHdy es-Sant and Wridy el-
(see below). It arose out of BETH-HARAM (a phonetic modifica- ‘Imeish to the N., to the upper Beth-horon, 12 m.
tion of Beth-haran) when the older and correct form of the
name had passed out of use, and so the later form, Beth-haram, from its fellow and 2022 ft. above the sea ; and thence,
came to he misinterpreted. Moreover Tristram’s discovery of still following the ridge, comes out on the Benjamite
a ‘ conspicuous mound ’ called Beit Ha&n (Land ofMoa6,348) plateau about 44 m. farther on, to the N. of el-Jib
has not been verifiedby subsequent travellers 1 though it is still (Gibeon), at a height of about 2300 ft. The h y n or
recognised in Baed.13) (map of Peraea), and the identification
(which stands in Di.’s comm.) is retained by von Riess in BibeL ascent to Beth-horon (Josh. 1010)may be the road
AtZarP), on the assumption that Beit Harran (or Haram) is towards the upper Beth-horon from Gibeon : it does
nearer to the outlet of the wady than Tell er-RSmeh. rise at first from the plateau before descending; the
The really conspicuous mound is surely that of Tell y>jn or descent to the two Beth-horons (Josh. 1011,63.)
er-Rluneh, which is 673 ft. above the sea-level, and is the whole road from the edge of the plateau. More
certainly marks the site of an ancient town of importance probably, the two are the same taken from opposite
(Conder, PEFMem., E. Pal. 1238). Such a town ends. This Beth-horon road is now no longer the high
was the Beth-ramtha of the Talmud (Neubauer, Ge‘og. road from Jerusalem and the watershed to the Maritime
TaZm. 247),the name of which is attested by Josephus, Plain ; but it was used as such from the very earliest

3’
Eusebius, and Jero e.2
.
Herod had a palac here (Jos. Ant. xvii. 10 6 BJ ii. 4 2) ;
Herod Antipas walle it and called it Julias aftdr the wife of
Augustns, at the same time that Herod Philip rebuilt Bethsaida
and gave it the same name after the emperor’s daughter (Jos.
times to at least the sixteenth century of our era, and
indeed forms the most natural, convenient, and least
exposed of all the possible descents from the neighbour-
hood of Jerusalem to the plain of Sharon. The line of
Ant. xviii. 2 I ;BJii. 9 I). Jerome, however, enablesus to correct it bears many marks of its age and long use. Carried
this statement (OS 10377). The older name of the city was Livias ;
the name was changed to Julias when Livia was received into for the most part over the bare rock and rocky debris,
the gens Julia by the emperor’s testament (see Schiirer, Hisf. it has had steps cut upon it in its steeper portions, and
ii. 1142). Eus. (OS 23488) and Theodosius(530 A.D.)also call it has remains of Roman pavement. Standing as they
.
Livias the latter (De Situ Terre Suncfre 65) describes it as do upon mounds, the two Beth-horons command the
12 R. A. from Jericho, near warm springs that were efficacious
against leprosy. T. K. C . most difficult passages of this route and form its double
BETH-HOGLAR, once (Josh. 156) AV Beth-hogla key.
T h e constancy with which the Beth-horons appear in
(iD;a nQ, 104, ‘place of partridge,’ cp HOGLAH),3 history is, therefore, easily explicable (they do not occur,
a Benjamite city on the border of Judah (Jos. 156, 3. MiliearJr however, in either the lists of the conquests
B A l e A r h A A M [B], -ha [L], - 8 A h [A]; 181921, of Thotmes 111. or the Amarna letters).
OAhACCAN and B € B € r A l C d [Bl, B A l e A h A r A [AI, history. According to JE, after Joshua had won
B H e A r h A [L, and A in 211). It is the modern ‘Ain for Israel a footing on the Benjamite plateau and made
(and Isasr) Hajla, a fine spring and ruin situated be- peace with Gibeon, the latter was threatened by the
tween Jericho and the Jordan S. of Gilgal (cp Di. on Canaanites. Joshua defeated them at Gibeon, and
Gen. l r r and Baed.13) 154): Under the form Beth- pursued them all the way down by the Beth-horons
alaga it is, according to Jos. (Ant.xiii. 1 5 ) , the place (Josh. 10 1.3). I n the days of Saul the Philistines must
to which Jonathan fled before Bacchides, I Macc. 963 have held the pass from their camp at Michmash (I S.
(but see BETHBASI). The Onom. erroneously identifies 13 18).2 Solomon fortified Beth-horon the nether, along
Beth-hoglah with Atad (see ABEL-MIZRAIM, end). The with Gezer, on the opposite side of Aijalon (I K. 917
interpretation ‘ Belhagla, locus gyri’ of Jer., according [om, BL, Jos. p ~ r x w p a; in I K. 2353 parOwpw6, A] ;
to WRS (ReL Sem.PI 191, n. I), may rest upon a local 2 Ch. 85 adds Beth-horon the upper [ p a d w p w p , B]).
tradition of a ritual procession around some sacred During his son Rehoboam’s reign’shishak or SoSenk of
object there (cp Ar. &ala, ‘ hobble, hop ‘)-similar Egypt invaded Judah by the Beth-horon passage,
perhaps to the Ar. ceremonial tawdf (for which see We. it would appear, for both Ai-yu-ru-u (Aijalon) and
U e i d ( 2 1 IIO).~ The form survives also in Ma- Bi-ti-b-va-ru-n, (Beth-horon) occur in his lists of the
khHdet Hajla (see BETH-ARABAH, z), a noted bathing- towns he conquered (Nos. 26 and 24 ; see WMM, As.
place for pilgrims at the mouth of the WHdy el-Kelt u. Eur. 166).
(Baed. 169). I n the Syro-Maccabean wars, Seron, a Syrian general,
BETH-HORON ((Tin n’a, also fiin ’2 and (Til ’1, advanced on Judah by Beth-horou ; Judas with a small
and in Ch. pm ’ 2 ; BaiewpwN or Bee. [BAL], force met him on the ascent, defeated him, and pursued
out upon the plain (I Macc. 313-24 [@* v. 16,
site.BsewpCi, Bale-, -8wpw, B H 8 . in JOS. [CP him pteOwpwv] ; Jos. Ant. xii. 7 I ). A few years afterwards,
the modern form Beit ‘Ur], probably ‘the
place of the hollow’ or ‘hollow way’) was the name Nicanor having retired from Jerusalem upon Beth-
qf two neighbouring villages, upper Beth-horon (’n ’1 horon, Judas attacked and slew him, and routed his
)V$q, Josh. 165 ; p7Owpwv [L]) and lower Beth-horon Beth-horon army as far as Gezer ( I Macc. 7 3 9 3 ; Jos. Ant. xii. 105).
(finnn TI ‘1,Josh. 163 ; but in 2 Ch. 85 j l 9 k I and (I Macc. 950was[p7Owpwv. among the places fortified by Bacchides
V*], Jos. Ant. xiii. 1 3 ) . See
1 See e g Schick ZDPVZ IT. cp p. 2. also Judith44 (peOwpw [A]).
2 Jos: giv& the ndme as PqSa&aBa and &BapapQBa ; once
(Ant.xvii. 106) the text gives appaea. Eus. (OS23487) &e- 1 A similar dual (iTf1h) is to be read in 2 S. 1334 with We.,
pap+Ba, with a fragmentary reference to the &UU+LOL.
(OS 25 11 ; 103 r6), ‘ Betharam domus sublimium vel montium Jec, Dr., and Bu. SBOT,following @B’s opwvqv (opawv [Avid],
quae a Syris dicitur Bethrarntha’). u w aLp [L]).
3 The D in Hoglah is nyt supported, and all the evidence points $It was probably by the Beth-horons that the Philistines
t o the reading ‘ Haglah. were routed by Saul (I S. 1314) and ‘from Gibeon south t o
4 For another explanation see EN-EGLAIM. Gezer,’ by David (I S. 5 2s).
5 57 558
 BETH-JESHIMOTH BETHLEHEM
In 66 A.D. a Roman army under Cestius Gallus, ascending by Bae CAI, BHehkBiwe [L]), or, simply, LEBAOTH(Josh.
Beth-horon, had their rear disordered by the Jews, and after a
short and futile siege of Jerusalem retreated pell-mell by the 1532, AaBoc [B], -we [AL]), an unidentified site in
same way. Josephus describes the difficulties of the ground in the Negeb of Judah (Josh. 1532), assigned to Simeon
a manner that leads us to suppose that the Romans in their (Josh. 196). The parallel passage in I Ch. 431 has
haste cannot have kept to the high road by the Beth-horons, hut B ETH- BIRI (wl?n.?), which has probablyarisen from a
were swept down the gorges on either side (Bjii. 19). Perhaps
because of this experience, Titus, in his advance upon Jerusalem corruption of the text. For 'and at Beth-biri and at
two years later, took another road : and Beth-horon is not again Shaaraim' d has K U ~O ~ K O V /3puoupu&pei,u [B], K . o.
mentioned in the military history of Palestine.
In the division of the land among the tribes of Israel,
.
Papoup' u. [A], K . <v pai0papeip K . $v uuupip [L].
the border line between Beniamin and EDhraim ran bv BETHLEHEM (nri>-n+2 ~ 1 1i .r g , etc. ; nn) n'g

4*
the Beth-hbrons (Josh. i 6 3 5 [L n. i, I S. 206, etc. ; B H ~ , ' , ~ c M [L commonly] some codd.
I
BnBwowvl. 18 19
. I A.
f: \ which were counted
-,, B€Bh€€M, Bal8heeM [BAI; JOS. BHBhBEMH and B H e -
to Ephraim (Josh. 21.)2 They remained part of the A ~ M A; gentilic Bethlehemite, 'P3b?-n9& B H 8 -
N. kingdom ; and we do not read of any Jews settled
there in post-exilic times. That is to say, they were held AEBMEITHC, I S . 1618, etc.) meant, to the Hebrew,
'house of bread ' ; N AMES , I O ; on a less obvious
by the Samaritans. Sanballat, one of the chief foes of explanation of H. G. Tomliins, see E LHANAN , I, end.
the Jews in Nehemiah's day, is called ' the H ORONITE ' I. Beth-lehem-judah (npn;'~ Judg. 1 7 7 8 ,etc.),
(Neh. 210, apwv[e]i [BA]. avpwvei [Wid], wpwvrmp [L]
19 1328, om. BHA, wpavr7r)s [Kc.amg.], etc.). Schlatter the modem Beit Lahm, 2350 ft. above sea-level, 5 m.
(ZUYTopog. I(. Gesch. Pal. 4, ' W a r Beth-horon der 1. Site, S. of Jerusalem (Jos., zo stadia, Ant. vii.l24),
Wohnort Sanballat's? ') seeks to prove that Horonite a little off the high road to Hebron, on a spur
means 'from Horonaim,' the town in S . Moab (Is. 155 running E. from the watershed, surrounded by valleys
Jer. 483 5 34, and Moabite stone), partly on the ground among the most fertile of Judzea. The site is without
that Sanballat is associated with Tobiah the Ammonite ; springs (the nearest being one 800 yards SE. of the
but Ammonite may mean ' from CHEPHAR-AMMONI ' town, and others at Artas 14m. away), but receives
( a town of Benjamin, Josh. 1824) ; and Buhl (Geog. 1 6 9 ) water from an aqueduct from the Pools of Solomon
points out that b ' s form of Beth-horon 'Opwveiv (Josh. (C ONDUITS, § 3 ) compassing the SE. end of the spur,
10 IO [B cp z S. 1334) confirms the possibility of &Mini and from many cisterns-of which the greatest are
meanin8 'from Beth-horon.' By 1 6 1 B.C. Beth-horon three in front of the great basilica; there are three
had become a city of Judaea (I Macc. 950 ; Jos. Ant. others from 12 to 21 ft. deep, on the N., called Bi'Sr
xiii. 1 3 , cp 71). Dl'fid. The immediate neighbourhood is very fertile,
According to the Talmud it was the birthplace of many rabbis bearing, besides wheat and barley, groves of olive and
(Neub. G&g. Talm. 154). 'Jerome gives it in the itinerary of S. almond, and vineyards. The wine of Bethlehem
Paula who came to it from Nicopolis (E$. ('Talhami') is among the best of Palestine.
6. Post-biblical S. Pa;L,Hier. Op., ed. Migne, i. 883). There So great fertility must mean that the site was occupied,
references. are the ruins of a mediaeval castle in upper
Beth-horon, but the substructions in both in spite of the want of springs, from the earliest times ;
villages are probably more ancient. The name is given by very 2. OT refer- but the references to it in Judges-as the
few mediaeval travellers (Brocardus, ch. 9 ; Marin. Sanutus, 249) home of the Levite who sojourned in
and not at all, it would appear, by the Arab geographers-nnlesg
the 'UrZmah mentioned by YZktit but not located he the same Micah's house (177 g), and of the young
place. The mediaeval pilgrim's d e n t to Jerusaled by Ramleh woman whom tlie Benjamites maltreated (19 I J r8)-and
and the present line of road. In 1801 Dr. Clarke (?"raw&, pt. in the Book of Ruth are of uncertain date, and into the
ii. vol. i. 628) rediscovered the name.
See Rob. BX 3 59 ; Guerin, j u d . 1338,346 ; Stanley, SP a12 ; clear light of history Bethlehem first emerges with David.1
GASm. HG zro-2x3, 254. G. A. S. It was his home (I S. 206 28, very early), for the waters
BETH-JESHIMOTH, once (Nu. 3349) AV Beth- of which, when it was occupied by the Philistines, he
jesimoth ( n k y q n'2, BHClMOYe [AL]), is assigned expressed so great a longing-probably as a pledge of
his fatherland's enfranchisement-thathis three captains
in Joshua (123hC[E]lMW8 [BAI, AICIM. [Fvid18 BH~- broke the enemy's lines, and drewwater from the cistern
hC[E!iM. [L], 1320 Bai88bC€iNw8 [B]) to the ' in the town's gate ' ( 2 S. 23 1 4 8 , from the same e x l y
Reubenites (cp Nu. 3349, dvd p & ~ o v arurpwB [BFL], source), which tradition has identified with the Bi'Zr
a. ,M. AC., [A]) ; but probably it was, like most of the Dl'fid (but GuBrin, Iud. 11 3 0 8 , following Quaresmius,
neighbouring places, in the possession of the Moabites prefers those in front of the basilica). Other references
during a considerable period of the Hebrew monarchy. to Bethlehem as David's home are I S . 16 I 4 17 12 15 58
We know that it was Moabite in the time of Ezekiel (from later strata). Asahel, brother of Joab, was buried
(Ezek. 259, OiKOV BauipouO [B], O. PeOau. [Bb.(vid)A], in Bethlehem in his father's grave ( z S. 232). Thus,
o. paiOa. [Q"], 0. p a d mu. [Qa]), who speaks of it
Joab, like his leader, was a Bethlehemite. Except for
along with Baal-meon and Kiriathaim a s ' the glory of a statement of z Ch. 1 1 6 (bB** puiflueep), that Reho-
the country.' As pr)ui,uhO it is mentioned by Josephus boam fortified Bethlehem, the town is not mentioned
(Bliv. 7 5) as having been taken by Placidus ; Eus. writes again till Micah, who describes it ( 5 2 ) as still one of the
p~OuipociO (OSP). 266 27) and pr)eaurpoue (233 S I ) ; smallest of the townships of Judah, but illustrious as
Jerome (i6. 103 g), writing Bethsimufh, describes it as a the birthplace of the Messianic king (see M ICAH , ii. z a).
village bearing in his day the name Zsimuth, opposite According to Jer. 41 17. the Jews w-ho in 586 B.C. fled to
Jericho at a distance of I O R. m. 'in meridiana plaga, Egypt rested at Gidroth-chimham (see C HIMHAM ), necr
juxta mare mortuum.' The name and description point Bethlehem. The Bethlehemites carried into captivity
to the modern KhirJet es-Suweimeh. The name Jeshi- by Nebuchadrezzar repeopled their town after the return
moth may be compared with the Jeshimon ' on the face' (Ezra2z1 @p@uXuep [B], PEOhaep [A]; Neh. 726 Bom.,
of which ' the headland of Pisgah looked down ' (Nu. PeOhXEep [K], pacuaheep [A], cp n. 6 ; I Esd. 5 17 paye8-
21 zo).; for probably this Jeshimon ( = ' desolation ') is Xwpwv [B], PaiOhwpwv [A], piRXeep [L]). Bethlehem
not the Jeshimon of Judah, but the barren land off the is the scene of the beautiful story of Ruth, in connection
NE. end of the Dead Sea. With this name Hommel with which it is necessary to note that Moab is clearly
( A N T 197) compares, Yusumfnu, the name of a visible from about Bethlehem: thus, Ruth in her
Palestinian district mentioned by an early Assyrian king. adopted home must often have had her own fatherland
Cp GASm. HG 564, n. +I. in sight. In the lists of the M T of Joshua (P) Beth-
BETH-LE-APHRAH (ill& Wg), Mic. 1IO+ RV, lehem is not given ; but it is added with ten. others in
AV A PHRAH, H OUSE OF. the dBAL text of 1559 (Kai'eq5puOa awr) EUTL BarOheep) :
BETH-LEBAOTH (niK$ nq,
IS 93, 104,--i.e., 6 ' s reading must be genuine, since the group which it
'abode of lions,'-Josh. 196, Baeapwe [B], Baleah- 1 If it does so even then : see DAVID, $ I a. '
559 560
 BETHLEHEM BETH-MERH
includes is too important to have been omitted from the Under the chancel is the Grotto of the Nativity, called
original. also the Milk-Grotto and the Grotto of our Lady;
The name Ephrathah or Ephrath of this passage is ‘ mghiiret el halib ’ and ’ nighiiret-es-Seiyide.’ We have
assigned to Bethlehem also in Mic. 6 2 [I] (the reading seen the precariousness of the tradition which sanctions
3. Ephrath. n-m or ilnim is not certain ; but the refer- it : it is only probable that Jesus was born in a cave, and
ence to Bethlehem is clear), in Ru. 411., there is nothing to prove that this was the cave, for the
virtually in Ru. 1 2 (L om.) in I S . 1 7 1 2 ( B om.),l and site lay desolate for three centnries.
probably also in Ps. 1326. Apart from Micah, the Among recent works, consult Tobler’s monograph Bethlehem
documents in which Ephrath[ah] occurs are probably in.PaLZstina, and Palmer ‘Das jetzige Bethlehim,’ ZDPY
17 8 9 8 , with map and nade-lists.
so late that we might reasonably suppose that Bethlehem
was the earlier name of the town. On the other hand, 2. Bethlehem of Zebulun (Josh. 19 15, BaLBpav [B]),
these documents are probably based on very early now Beit La&, 7 m. NW. of Nazareth, ‘ a miserable
material: Micah (if Mic. 6 2 is his work) takes the village among oak woods ’ (GuCrin, GaZz’Lle, 1303 ; Rob.
name as well known. It is possible to argue from BR 3113). In the Talmud it receives the designation
I Ch. 21950 4 4 (pa~OAa8ev [B], paLOhep [A]), that
n ~ s perhaps
, a corruption for i l ~ s ~‘ of
, Nazareth ’
Ephrathrah] was the name of the whole district in (Neubauer, Ghg. Talm. 189J ) The combination, of
which Bethlehem lay. two names so famous in the Gospel history is remark-
Bethlehem is not mentioned by Josephus after Solo- able. Most scholars take this Bethlehem to have been
mon’s time, nor in the Books of Maccabees; which the home and burial-place of the judge Ibzan (Judg.
proves how insignificant it continued to be. As the 128 IO). Josephus and Jewish tradition assign him to
place commanded the fertile wadies and water-supply Bethlehem Judah (Ant.v. 713). G . A. S.
around it,-the Philistines had deemed it important BETHLOMON (BAI~AUMUN [A]), I Esd. 517=
enough to occupy-this silence is very remarkable. Ezra221, BETHLEHEM, 2.
*’ Bethlehem reappears in Mt. 2 Lk. 2 as the
birthplace of Jesus, distinguished still as
BETH - MAACHAH
ABEL-BETH-MAACHAH.
(n!gtp’;l j, 2 S. 20 14. See
B~p9help~7?js’Iou8aias (Mt. 21 5, cp 6 8 161,
‘the city of David’ (Lk. 2 4 15 cp Jn. 742). Lk. de- BETH-MARCABOTH (nig?m;! n q , I96--i.e.,
scribes the new-born child as having been laid in a ‘the house of chariots’) and HAZAR-SUSAH(lra
manger (KABDL,“ omit the definite article of TR), ilpSb,-i.e., ‘ station of horses ’) are mentioned together
‘ because there was no room for them in the Khan ’ ; in Josh. 195J ( P ) in the list of Simeonite towns.
they had retired then ‘ t o a stall or cave where there
The @ readings are : for Beth-marcaboth ; in Josh. 195 Bar%-
was room for the mother and a crib for the babe.’ p a x ~ p @[B] -8appa Xau@% [A] Bv%apaA aapB [L] ; in I Ch.
It is significant that Bethlehem appears to have been 4 31, where’the Hegrew article’is omitre%, @aL%papsrpo% [XI,
chosen, along with the sites of the crucifixion and the -pXap KCLL EV papmj3wS [L], -8’. pappj3o0 [AI. For Hazar-susah ;
resurrection, for special treatment by the Emperor in Josh. 19 5 uapuouuew [B] uuepuouurp [AI A [ u a l p u o v u ~ v[Ll ;
in I Ch. 431, Hazar-susim e[:e below] vp~uv&opap [SI, ijpiuus
Hadrian. As he set up there an image of Jupiter and :os bphp [Babl, v p ~ u v e o u ~[A],
p auepuovui [Ll.
an image of Venus, so he devastated Bethlehem and The names seem to indicate posts of war-horses and
planted upon it a grove sacred to Adonis (Jer. Epist. ad chariots, such as Solomon is said to have established
Paul., 583). This proves that even before 132 A. D . ( I K. 9191026). The two places may possibly be
Bethlehem was the scene of Christian pilgrimage and identical respectively with M ADMANNAH and SANSAN-
worship, as the birthplace of Jesus. (The Talmud also NAH, ‘cities’ in the Negeb towards Edom. The
admits that from Bethlehem the Messiah must come : latter are the older names ; for Madmannah, at least,
Berachoth, jn.j About I jo A. D. Justin Martyr ( D i a l appears in I Ch. 249 (which belongs to the list of pre-
c. Tryph. 70 78) describes the scene of the birth as in a exilic settlements of the Calebites), whilst it is impossible
cave near the village. This tradition may be correct : to assign a very early date to I Ch. 431, where Beth-
there were many ancient cave-stables in Palestine marcaboth and HAZAK-SUSIM ( o n a ?TI!) are mentioned
(Conder, Tent IVorlZ, chap. lo), and caves are still used as Simeonite towns ‘ before the reign of David. ’ That
!as stables. In 315 A . D . the site of Bethlehem was the two places actually were regular stations for horses
still ‘ a wild wood’ (Cyr. Jerus. Catech. 1220). Con- and chariots may be taken for granted ; but it may be
stantine cleared it and built a basilica. Soon after, in questioned whether they were so before post-exilic times,
Jerome’s time, a cave in the rock near the basilica was when the Persians ,established post-stations on the route
venerated as the stable, and in a neighbouring grotto from the Sh6phdah into Egypt (by Gaza to Pelusium).l
Jerome himself prepared his translation of the Bible. On this view Sansannah may very well be the modern
From that day to this the tradition has been constant. Simsim, a village in an olive-grove on the road from
The centre of interest in modern Bethlehem is, there- Eleutheropolis to Gaza (99 m. NE. from the latter
fore, the large basilica S. Maria a Przsepio, surrounded town), and Madniannah may be conjectured to be the
and fortified by the Latin, the Greek, and the Armenian modern Kitin Yzinus, 14 m. SW. from Gam .(so
monazteries. Although the architecture is mixed and of GuCrin, /ud. 2230). Khan Yzinus has always been
many periods, the bulk of the church is that built by an important station. It may be noted that in the time
Constantine. Cp De VogiiB, &Zises de Za Palestine, of Micah (113) Lachish (about 8 m. from Simsini) also
46 8 was a chariot city. Cp MARCABOTH. W. R. S.
Eutychius (circa 937! quoted by Gueriii 2 161)asserts indeed
that the church is a buildinn of Tustinian.’who Dulled ddwn Coni
siantiiir’s 21s too sniiiil nnd &e2 a grander cd;lice. I’roiopiu,,
BETH-MEON (till? nQ),Jer. 4823. See BAAL-
howevcr, in his / ) e 1EdiXc. /u.vtin., whilst recording that ihis
MEON.
emperor linilt the wnlln of llerhlehern (Ss), does not mention any BETH-MERHAK, AV l a place that was afar off,’
basilica there of his construction as had there been one he must RVmg. ‘the Far House,’ (pi;np;! nrg, E N O I K Y
have done. Probably Justinian dnly added to Con:tantine’s
church and the building is, therefore, the most ancient church T@ M A K ~ A N [BAL], procud a domo). Beth-merhal;
in P a l e h e and one of the most ancient in the world. The fine is either the proper name (so Ges.PJ,BDBdoubtfully),-
mosaics are from the court of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in which case the name is Beth-hammerhgk, like Beth-
(circa 1169 A.D.), and the rafters by Philip of Burgundy (in 1482).
haccerem,-or a description (Ew., The., Ke., Kau. H S ,
1 In the lntter two passages Ephrathite means, of course, ‘of ‘ the last house ’) of the place outside Jerusalem where
Epbrath[ah] ’=Bethlehem. I t is interesting that in PEFQ Jan. David waited with his attendantsuntil the people and the
1898 Schick attempts to prove that Ramathaim-zophid the
tow; of Samyel ‘an Ephrathite ’ was in the neighbourhobd of body-guard had passed, z S. 1517 (on the text, which
Bethlehem. Ephrathite’ in I S.’l I probably means Ephraimite is doubtful, see Dr. HPSm. and Klo. ad Zoc.).
(cp Jndg. 12 5 where for ’ndl @B has Et#tpa%ciqsbut ZK 1 I t is evident that chariots went down to Egypt by this way
row E+puip): at least as earlyas the eighth cent. B.C. Cp Gen. 465 Mic. 113.
36 561 ,562
 BETH-MILL0 BETH-REHOB
BETH-MILLO p\bp n’p), ~ u d g . ’Rvmg.;
~ see In extensive view of the lower valley of the Jordan.
JERUSALEM. ’eor, however, the spot at which Baal of Peor was
vorshipped (which can hardly have been far from
BETH-NIMRAH (3??32n’2, perhaps I place of pure 3eth-peor), would seem (Nu.261-3) to have been more
water‘ ; cp Ar. namir, Ass. namri, ‘transparent’ ; but ,eadily accessible from the plain of Shittim (the Gh6r-
see N IMRIM and N AMES, 5 104; Nu. 3236 N A M ~ A M :s-Seisebiin) than ‘Ain el-Minyeh would be ; Nu. 2328
[BF], A M B ~ A N [A], [N]AM. [L]; Josh. 1327 B A l N e b N - :ompared with v . 14 makes it probable also that it was
aBp&[B], B H e b N A M p A [ L ] , 6 H e A M N h [AI), or Nimrah ess distant from Pisgah ; whilst, as we have seen, what-
(Nu. 323 N A M B ~ A P I , -MP. P I , A M B ~ A M [AI, MAM- :ver other indications we possess point to a site N. of
Bpa~ [?I), one of the Amorite cities which were after- he Nebo-Pisgah ridge (the modern Nebs, RZs Si’aghah),
wards built’ by Gad (Nu. 3236), is the p $ v a p ~ ~ i s ather than to one S. of it. Until, therefore, it has
and Bethamnan’s of Eusebius and Jerome (OS242 43 ; zb. 3een shown that there is no eminence in the neighbour-
102 I ), a village still extant in their day, about 5 R. m. iood of the Wady Hesbsn commanding the prospect
N. from Livias (B ETH -H ARAN , g . v . ) , the i-inn’3 and mplied in Nu.2328 and 242 (cp 2 5 r ) , it is here that
7131 n q of the Talmud (cp Del. ad Zoc. ), the modern ,he ancient Beth-peor must be sought. Travellers will
Nimrin, a well-watered oasis on the brink of the Jordan 3erhaps explore this region with the view of ascertaining
valley some 134 miles E. of Jordan (cp Baed. PaZ.r3) 162). nhether there is such a height. Cp PEOR. s. R. D.
Beth-nimrah is nowhere mentioned under this name in BETHPHAGE ( B H e @ A r H [Ti. WH], BETrfPTSAGE),
OT outside of Numbers and Joshua, but it is identified a locality near the Mt. of Olives, on a small hlll on the
by many modern critics with the waters of N IMRIM (4.27. ), road from Jerusalem to Jericho. It is mentioned
and, as stated elsewhere (B ETHANY, z), Beth-nimrah together with BETHANY [ p . ~ . , I], and probably lay to
may be the original of the variants Bethany, Bethabara, the E. of it (Mt.211 Mk.111 Lk.1929). Origen in
in Jn. 128. Mt. (vol. xvi. chap.17) describes it as a place of priests’
BETHORON (Judith44), RV BETH-HORON (q.27.). (cp OS(2)18875). According to various passages of
the Talmud, Beth-phagb was the name of the district
BETH-PALET, or (Neh. 1126) BETH-PHELET, RV extending from the base of Olivet to the walls of
always Bethpelet (D$@-W& ‘house of escape’), a n Jerusalem, and, according to the Talm. Bab. (Men. xi. 2,
unknown Calebite town (cp PELET[I], I Ch. 247), on the 78 a), Beth-phag&was one of the limits of the Sabbatic
Edomite border of Judah, Josh. 1627 ( ~ & I @ A A & A [B], zone around Jerusalem (cp G EZER ), whence C1. Ganneau
BAle@+e [AI, BHe@eh.[L]), mentioned in the list would identify it with Kefr e;-‘riir (see PEFQ 1878,
of Judahite villages (see E ZRA , ii. 5 5 [b], 5 15 [I].) ; p. 60 ; but see BETH-ZUR).
Neh. 1126 (BHB@AAT [KC.amg.]9 B H B @ A h A T [L], om. The current explanation of the name is a little more
BK”A). For the gentilic Paltite (.c)h?), corruptly plausible than that of BETHANY (4.v.). B?$+uyq (the
PELONITE (I), see PALTITE. 9 1 ~ 3n q of Talm.) would naturally m e p ‘place of
young figs’ ; cp JLI in Cant. 213 with Delitzsch’s note.
BETH-PAZZEZ (y?Q-nQ), a n unknown point on This, however, may be no more than a popular ety-
the border of Issachar, Josh. 1921 ( B H ~ C A @ H C [B], mology. Nestle (PhiZ. Sac. 1896 ; cp 2 W T , etc. xl..
B A I ~ @ A C H E [4, B H e @ A C C H C [L]). Compare the 148) is convinced that the narrative of the barren fig-
equally obscure name HAPPIZZEZ. tree, which in Mt.2117-19 Mk. 1112-14 is localised in
BETH-PEOR (T\L(p n’a, OIKOC@orwp[BAFL]), a Bethany, has arisen out of this faulty popular explanation
of Beth-phagb. It has often been remarked that there
placenamedinDt.3~9446326Josh. 1320. In Josh.13~0
is a startling peculiarity in this narrative as compared
( B a i e q o r w p [BLJ B€e. [AI) it is enumerated among
the cities of Reuben ; in Dt. 329 446 the ravine (W)) in with the other evangelical traditions. See also A.
front of (5913) it is mentioned as the place where Israel Meyer, Jesu Mzittersprache, 166.
was encamped when the Deuteronomy discourses were The mediaeval Bethphagi: was discovered by Guillemot
delivered ; and in Dt. 346 the same ravine is mentioned and Clermont-Ganneau in 1877 between the Mount of
a s the place of Moses‘ burial. The exact site is un- Olives and Bethany. In his account of this discovery
certain; but it seems clear that it cannot have been the latter scholar offers the suggestion that the ‘Village
very far from the Pisgah ridge. Eusebius states (OS(2) of the Mount of Olives ’ (Key+ e;- Tzi~),which admittedly
23378) that BE@+oyopwas near Mount Qoyop (cp ‘ the stands on the site of some important ancient village,
top, or head, of Peor,’ iiy?? 9gi, Nu. 2328), opposite may be the Bethphage of the Gospels and of the Talmud.
This view would clear up the Talmudic statement
to Jericho, 6 m. above Livias ( L e . , Tell er-Rsmeh ; see respecting the Sabbatic zone already mentioned. See
B ETH- HARAN) ; and ( O S 2 ) 21347) that Mount Qoywp PEFQ 1878, pp. 51-61.
was opposite to Jericho, on the side of the road leading
up from Livias to Heshbon,.a part of it being 7 m. from BETH-PHELET (D>Cn*i)), Neh. 1126 AV. See
the latter place (1151-2). If we may judge from themap BETH-PALET.
in the Szrrvey of E. PuZesd., the ascent from Livias to BETH-RAPHA (K@?-n’i)), in an obscure genealogy
Heshbon would be made naturally either along the of Chelub (=Caleb), I Ch. 412 ( B A B p a i a N [B], -pe@a
WZdy HesbZn (cp Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 525$ ;
Tristram, Moab, 346)or along the more circuitous road [A], B H B p a @ A N [L]). No place of this name is
known ; Rapha appears to be a clan-name, unconnected
N. of this, said by Tristram (p. 343) to be the one of course with ‘Rephaim.’ RAPHA [2] appears to
ordinarily used. The statements of Eusebius, if correct,
occur as a name in BENJAMIN ( 5 g, ii. p).
would thus point to a site near one of these two ,

roads, some four or five miles N. of Nebs. The BETH-REHOB (ail? n’a, powB [BAL]), a n
‘head of Peor’ (Nu.2328) might be an eminence in Aramaean town and district, which with ZOBAHand
the same locality. The opinion that this was the site M AACAH sent men to the help of Ammon against
is supported by the mention, in Josh. 1320, of Beth- David ( z S. 106, ib. 8, REHOB[ p o ~ B A] , ; BAlepAAB
peor next to the ‘slopes (nitri~)of Pisgah.’-i.e., in [L in b ~ t h ] ) . ~See ARAM, 5, 6. It IS stated in Judg.
all probability, the declivities on the S. side of the 9 means a jaw or cheek, and from Dt.
1 In the Talmud, ~ 2 also
Wsdy ‘Ayiin MiisH. The ‘ravine in front of Beth- 183 we learn that the cheeks (Syr. has N P ~ )belonged to the
poor’ might thus be the WZdy HesbBn. CondeI portion of the priests (cp Reland, 653). Hence, on the supposi-
(PEFQ 1882, p. 8 5 3 ; Heth a n d M ~ a b , ( 146 ~) J ) tion that Beth-phage meant ‘place of cheeks,’ it was presumed
suggests a site farther to the S.-e.g., on the crest of a that there was a school of priests here.
2 A reference to a similar defeat at the hands of Saul in I S.
hill above ‘Ain el-Minyeh, 8 m. SW. of Nebs., com- 1447, Jcp @ pacfkwp [Bl, - p o w p ~ [I.],pfewP [AI). is open to
manding (see Nu.2328 ; and 242 compared with 25 I ) suspicion ; see SAUL, $ 3, and cp Wi. G V l 1 1421:
563 564
 BETHSAIDA BETH-SHEAN
1828 that Laish-Dan was in 'the valley that lieth by ( E t . 59), though these towns lay on the same side ;
Beth-rehob' ( O L K O S pacta [B], 0. powp [L], 0. TUP [A]). and, secondly, Jesus would not seek again the territories
Beth-rehob is doubtless the REHOBof Nu. 1321, which, of Herod Antipas so soon after leaving them for those
according to P, was the most northern point reached of Philip, but would most probably return to what
by the spies1 ( p a / ? [B], pow0 [F]). A connection Lk. tells us he had just chosen as his headquarters.
with the Asherite REHOB(i. 2, 3 ) is improbable (though We may be certain, then, that the Bethsaida of Mk. S45
not impossible, see A RAM , 8 5 ) . a is still Bethsaida Julias.
The exact site of Beth-rehob is uncertain. It can Nor need we seek for another in the 'Bethsaida of
hardly be the Jebel Hiinin, finely situated above the Galilee' to which the Fourth Gospel (144 [45] 1221) says
great plain of 'Hiileh to the W. of Biiniiis, and re- 3. John 144 that Andrew, Peter, and Philip belonged.
markable for the remains, partly ancient, of a fortress In the time of the Great War (66-70 A.D.)
(so Rob. BR 4 3 7 o J ) . Others have thought of (;inl'at ["l 1221* the name Galilee appears to have been
B u y u , about I hour N. of D a n ; hut may not the extended round the Lake-Josephus calls Judas of
site of the town Beth-rehob he placed quite as reason- Gamala the Galilean (Ant.xviii. 16)-and at even an
ably at BBniiis itself (see CBSAREA,§ 7f:) ? earlier date the jurisdiction of the ruler of Galilee may
BETHSAIDA (BHBCAlhA [Ti.], BHBCAIAA W H 1 ; have comprised part of the E. coast (cp BJxx. 4).
Besides, a town which lay so immediately on the Jordan
Syr. ]+. ; place of fishing or hunting). Josephus might easily be reckoned to Galilee. In any case,
1. Julias. tells us (Ant.xviii. 21) that the Tetrarch by 84 A.D. the E. coast was definitely attached to the
Philip raised a village ( ~ 6 ~Bethsaida
7) on province, and Ptolemy (v. IS), writing about 140,
the Lake of Gennesareth to the rank of a city, and called places Julias ' i n Galilee.' That being so, it is signi-
it Julias, after Julia the daughter of Augustus. Else- ficant that it is only the Fourth Gospel that speaks
where he describes Julias as in the Lower Gaulonitis of ' Bethsaida of Galilee.' There is, therefore (as held
(BJii. 9 I ) , close to the Jordan ( Vit. 72),near where the by Wilson, Recov. of / e m s . ; Thomson, Land andBook,
latter runs into the lake (BJiii. lo7). Pliny (v. 15) and ed. 1877. 372 8 ; Holtzmann, /PT,1878, pp. 383f:;
Jerome (Comm. Mt. 16 13) also. place it E. of Jordan. Furrer, ZDPV 2 66 8 ; Socin and Benzinger in Baed.
In conformity with these data, the site has been fixed on ed. 1891,p. 256 ; GASm. HG 4573; Buhl, Pal. 2413)
the fertile and very grassy plain El-Buteiha, in the NE. no reason compelling us to the theory of a second or
corner of the lake, either at et-Tell, a mound with western Bethsaida. It is interesting that the disciple
many ruins, close to the Jordan where the latter issues of Jesus called Philip should come from Philip's Julias.
from the hills, or at Mas'adiyeh, by the mouth of the Early Christian tradition and the medieval works of travel
river (to which Thomson [Land and Book, ed. 1877, agree in showing no trace of more than one Bethsaida. The
3601 heard the name Bethsaida attached by Bedouin). site shown for it, however is uncertain, and may have varied
from age to age. Eusebins and Jerome define it only a s
Fish abound on either side of the Jordan's mouth and on the Lake (OS). Epiphanius (Huer. ii. 51 73) merely says
(presumably) in the river itself. There can be little i t was not far from Capernaum. Willihald's data (722 A.D.),
doubt that this was the ' city called Bethsaida ' (Lk. 910; which place it on his journey between Capernaum and Chorazin.
suit the E. bank of the Jordan (in spite of what Robinson says)
els rbrrov Epqpoa ~ 6 X e w Ks U X O U ~ L C U pq0.
~ S is not found in even if Chorazin (q.u.) he KerBzeh, but Gergesa (Khersa) may
WaBL, etc., which reads els a6hiv KaXovpkqv a$.; be meant.
so Ti. W H , etc.) to which Jesus withdrew, as being In ,all probability Bethsaida remained locally distinct
in Philip's jurisdiction, when he heard of John's murder from Julias after the erection of the latter by Philip.
by Antipas (cp Mt.1413). Lk. places near it the The custom of Jesus was not to enter such purely Greek
feeding of the five thousand, which Mt. (1414fi) and towns as Julias must have been ; yet, according to Mt.
Mk. ( 6 3 1 8 ) describe as in a desert ( L e . , uninhabited) 1121, he did many 'wonderful works ' in Bethsaida
but grassy place (Mt. 1419 Mk. 639 green grass,' such Jnlias had fourteen villages round about it (Jos. Ant.
as grows in the Bufeiha, in contrast to the paler herb- xx. 84). Schumacher suggests for Bethsaida some ruins
age of the higher and drier parts), to which Jesus pro- on the Lake called el-'Araj, which were joined with
ceeded by boat, followed by multitudes on foot. J. et-Tell (Julias) by a Roman road (ZDPY 9 19).
also describes the scene on the E. shore of the lake G. A. S.
(61), and says 'there was much grass in the place' BETHSAMOS (BaieacMwe [A]), I Esd. 518 AV ;
(w. IO). A site on the Bufeiha suits also the Bethsaida RVmg. AZMAVETH (Y.v., i. ).
of Mk.. 822, for Jesus was already E. of Jordan (w. 13) BETH-SHEAN ( p & V ~ , § go, cp Ba-y-tj-~a-'E-?y,
and went thence to the villages of Caesarea Philippi
(v.27). All interpreters of the Gospels are virtually ;.e., $NwncI, WMM AS. U. E ~ Y153.; . BAleCA[A]N
agreed about this. [BAL]), or Beth-shan (]g-njp,in pause
1. Position. \@'a ; B H ~ C A N[A], Bale. [L]),or Beth-
The question has been raised, whether there was
not a second Bethsaida. After the feeding of the five san (I Macc. 5521240 [p~Oua(A)]f. ), mod. Beisan,
thousand, Jesus, it is said, constrained his 320 ft. below the sea-level, was finely situated on a low
2' Mk' 45' disciples to go before him to the other side table-land above the Jordan valley, at the mouth of
to Bethsaida (Mk. 645, d s ~b aQpav rrpbs a$. ). This the W. Jgliid, which leads gently np from the Jordan
has forced some scholars, one or two much against to Zer'in (Jezreel). The Jordan itself is three miles
their will (Reland, Pal. 6533,Henderson, PaL 156J), off (cp ZARETHAN, I ) ; but Beth-shbiin was unusually
to conclude that there was a Bethsaida to the W. of well supplied with water, being intersected by two
Jordan, either a suburb of Julias, separated from it by streams. Amid the extensive ruins rises the teZ2 of the
the river, or at 'Ain Tiibigha (Rob. LBR 358 f: ), 4 m. ancient fortress, ' a natural mound, artificially strength-
along the coast, where there is a bay containing fish ened by scarping the side' (PEFMem. 2108).
in abundance, and the modern shrine of Sheikh *A& The illustration given in the Memoirs of the Survey Will enable
ej-&zz$dd, 'Aly of the Fishermen, and strong streams the. reader to divine the grandeur of the prospect from this
eminence. ' The eye sweeps from four to ten miles of the plain
(Ewing). But, in the first place, the phrase ' to go to the all round, and follows the road westward to Jezreel, covers the
other side ' does not necessarily imply the passage from thickets of Jordan where the fords lie, and ranges the edge of the
the E. to the W. coast of the lake, for Josephus speaks of eastern hills from Gadara to the Jabbok' (GASm. HG 357).
' sailing over ' (&erreparhOvv) from Tiberias to Taricheze This ' farthest-seeing, farthest-seen fortress ' must
1 The mention of the 'entrance to Hamath' here is possibly have been hard for the Israelites to conquer; yet
a gloss (cp Moore 3un'g 399). till it was in their hands they were ex-
In zS.83 12 ;he king of Zobah is called 'son of Rehob'; 2' HistOq' cluded from one of the main roads between
see HADADEZER. western and eastern Palestine, and from the occupation
3 So Thomson, LandandBook,P)zr8; Buhl, PnL 240; Moore,
Judg. 399. of a coveted portion of the Jordan valley. That Beth-
565 566
 BETH-SHEAN BETHUL
h e a n was included in one of the prefectures of Solomon's 4. A city of Egypt, mentione-d in Jer. 4313, ( $ w u
kingdom is certain ( I I<. 412, 6 O ~ K O S6uu and /3uiuu@ouT rohews [B&AQ]) ' he shall break the obelisks of Beth-
-Le., y ' d '3 [B], 6 OZKOS uuv and peOuuv [A], O ~ O S ,hemeshin the land of Egypt.' It is commonly supposed
uuuv and put&. [L]).1 On the death of Saul, on the e.,r., by Griffith in Hastings' DB) that what is meant is
other hand, we find it in the hands of the Philistines -Ieliopolis, the city of the sun (see ON) ; but n92 is
(I S. 3110, PuiOep [B], 12, -0uup [B], zS.2112, pur0 ;imply dittographed from n i l in nixn.. We should
[B]); and, though Beth-shean may be one of the .cad VDO nnxn, 'pillars of the sun' or obelisks (Wi.
' cities of the Jordan ' (I S. 31 7, corr. text) which the 4T Untei-s. S o $ ; Che. Zntr. Is. 102, n. 2).
Israelites deserted after the battle of Gilboa, it is BETH-SHITTAH (ny&;? nq--i.e., 'place of
equally likely that it was still a Canaanitish city when tcacias') is mentioned in Judg. 722 (BHeCBbTA [B],
captured by the Philistines. We know, at any rate, 3 b C 8 6 T T A [AI, BAleACETTA [L]) as a Point to which
that it retained its Canaanite population for some time .he panic-stricken Midianites fled before Gideon. It
after the Israelite occupation of Palestine (Judg. 127, was on the way toward ZERERAH (see ZARETHAN,
pui87h [B], peouuv [L] ; Josh. 17 XI, K u l ~ o u v [B"b], legin. ), but has not been identified ; probably it was
pateuav [Bamg.], 16 patOatuav [B]). It may possibly well down in the Jordan valley, at the mouth of some
have been as. late as the time of David that this wady where acacias qourished. The identification with
great fortress fell into the hands of the Israelites. Shatta on the north side of the W. JBlkd, 5 m. NW. of
Standing on the road from Damascus to Egypt and Beisan and 6 m. E. of Zer'in (cp Rob., Conder, etc.)
also from Damascus by Shechem to Jerusalem and has little to recommend it : it lies much too near the
Hebron, it had a commercial as well as a military supposed scene of the surprise. More, perhaps, could
importance which would have attracted the notice of be said for BeisBn. Others compare el-Meshetta (see
such a keen-sighted Icing as David. M D P K 1895, pp. 81 8 ; Schnmacher, Z D P K
From the Macedonian period onwards Beth-shean 1564 writes mnsha&z) 14 m. SSE. of Jogbehah. The
bore the strange Greek name Scythopolis (see Judg. 127, whole narrative is, however, composite (see J UDGES, 8),
@ p. 4 h t v ~ K U & ? l V d h t S ; 2 Macc. 1229-31, etc.), and the Heb. construction favours the assumption that
which probably records the fact (or belief) that some Zererah does not belong to the same source as Beth-
of the Scythian invaders of the seventh cent. B.C. (see shittah. In J Midian flees east from Shechem to the
S CYTHIANS) had settled here. In N T times it was one other side of the Jordan, whereas from 71. 24 it appears
of the most important cities of the DECAPOLIS (g.v., § 2). that in E's narrative they turn S. (to Zarethan) through
BETH-SHEMESH (!&@ n'j, § 95$-i. e., 8 temple the Jordan valley, where they are intercepted by the
of the sun '-BalecAMyc [BAL] : gentiliC '@? Ephraimites
@ (cp Moore,
I% ludg. 212).,
d Zv p. [BA]. 6 6~ /3. [L], in I S. 614, 71. 18 purfbupu- BETH-SURA ( H Beecoypa [A]), I Macc. 461;
uetnp [BL], p ~ B 8 a p u u r ~ ~[A],
s EV. Beth-shemite). z Macc. 11 5 RV Bethsuron. See BETH-ZUR.
I. Bethshemesh or IR-SHEMESH ( WDJq 7'7,Josh. 1941, BETH-TAPPUAH (nlbn-np, § 103-i.e., ' place
rrohic CAMBC [AL], rrohsic CAMMAYC [B]), a of tappk&h' ; see APPLE), a town in the hill-country of
Levitical city (Josh. 2116, BEeCAMEC [AIS T H N CAMEC Judah (Josh. 1553, Baieaxoy [Bl, Beeearr@oys [AI,
[L] ; I Ch. 659 [44], B A C ~ M Y C [B]) on the borders of BHeeac$. [L]), having a traditional connection with its
Judah (Josh. 1510, no hi^ H A I O Y [BAL]),but assigned greater neighbonr Hebron (I Ch. 243, see TAPPUAH, I),
to Dan (Josh. 194r), is the modern Am Shems, and very possibly identical with the fortified town called
917feet above sea level, on the south side of the broad TAPHON (4.v.)in I Macc. 950. If the similarity of
and beautiful and still well-cultivated W. e s - S a r ~ , names, the vicinity of Hebron, and the fruitfulness of
opposite Zorah and two m. from it : 'anoble site for the district prove anything, the modern Tej%& is the
a city ; a low plateau at the junction of two fine pl2ns ' ancient Beth-tappuah. The village so named is 39 m.
(Robinson). It is a point in the lowland on the road W . by N. from Hebron, and stands on a high hill, the
from I'hilistia (Ekron) to the hill-country of Judah slopes of which are planted with aged olive-trees;
(I Sam. 6 g 1zb 13 15 19 PeBBu@ur [A], I + Z O PeBuu. [A]), indeed, the whole of the Wkdy Tufk+ abounds in fruit-
and probably was an ancient sanctuary, since the field trees of all kinds. Traces of old buildings remain, and
of Joshua the Beth-shemite was for some time during there are two anccent wells (Rob. LBR 2 428 ; GuBrin,
the Philistine domination the resting-place of the ark. Tu&, 3374). Several ancient sites named Beth have
In truth, it is difficult not to identify it with the gama- lost this prefix. Thus the ;nnj .w> of Nu. 3236 is modern
Bana of the Palestinian lists of Rameses 11. ( R N 627 ) ; Nimrin.
WMM As. u. Eur. 166) and Rameses I I L 2 (RE'(') The notices of Eus. and Jer. (OS 235 17 104 17 ; cp 156~0)
6 39), whose sanctuary may be presumed to be connected are of interest only as showing that there was another place
with the myth of SAMSON ( q . 7 ~ ) . It was at Beth- on the confines of Palestine and Egypt bearing the same name.
Whatever the fruit called tappiisb was (see APPLE), it was as
sliemesh that Amaziah of -Judah was defeated and common in Palestine as quinces and apricots are now.
made prisoner by Jehoash, king of Israel (2 K. 14 11-13,
IT p7Buupue EA4],13 pee. [A], 2 Ch. 2521-23). According
5,.
BETHUEL ($&in:, for K9nD, 'man of El ?-cp
to the Chronicler, it was one of the cities in the lowland Methushael, and see CAINITES, § 7 ; hardly for Ass.
of Judah taken by the Philistines from Ahaz, ' king of d i t i6, 'house of a deity' ; BAeoyHh [ADEL]).
Israel ' (2Ch. 28 18). The place was still shown in I. B. Nahor ; father of Laban and Rebekah (Gen.
the days of Eusebius and Jerome, who give its position 2222f. 2415 [J]). In Gen. 2520285 [PI he is called an
as I O R.m. E. of Eleutheropolis on the road to Nico- ' Araniaean,' as is also his son Laban in 31 2024. See
polis-a statement which suits the identification given A RAM, § 3.
above. There are many traces of ancient buildings. 2. See BETHUL.
2. An unidentified city within the territory of Naph- BETHUL ( h p ) ,a Simeonite town (Josh. 194, Boyha
tali, apparently in its northward portion (Josh. 1938,
Oeuuupus [B], &upour [A], p i h a p s [L]). From Judg. [B], BAOoyh [AL]): called BETHUEL ($wq BaeoyN
133 (pe8uupus [A]) we learn that, along with Bethanath, [B], -oyA [A], - o y ~ A [L]) in I Ch. 430,and corruptly
its population continued to be chiefly Canaanite. CHESIL ($?p?)in11 Josh. 1530 ( Baie~A[E]. xaceip [AI,
3. An unidentified city on the border of Issachar csisih [L]). The form s N i n > may perhaps be classed
(Josh. 1922, parsupus [A], piBuupts [L]), perhaps= (2), with Penuel; for elision of K cp HAMUL. It is
if the latter lay in the extreme south of Naphtali. doubtless the BETHEL (hyn-2, part?+ [AL], p a t h o u p
1 The double mention of Beth-shean probably arises from a -Le., Beth-zur [R]) of I S. 30 27, mentioned along with
corruption of the text.
a The latter was discovered by Sayce at Medinet Habti in 1892. 1 The situation of Beth-zur is less suitable (We., Dr.).

567 568
 BETHULIA BEZAANANNIM
Jattir and other places in the Negeb ; but the site has all Judaea,’ and was still an inhabited village (p$uwpo
not yet been identified. There was probably a Bethel Bethsoro) in the days of Eusebius and Jerome ( O S
near Gaza.’ 104,z7; 326 26). It is represented by Bit S i r (Bz&
BETHULIA ( B e ~ y A o y [BRA],
~ [the preferable S i r ) . and occupies a position of strategic import-
reading ; but BAITOYAOYA [BKJ BAITYAOYA [BKA] ance as commanding the road from Jerusalem to
are also found] ; B E T H U L A [vg.] ; &a b )the , Hebron, 4& m. N. from the latter city. The modern
village has a ruined tower, and ‘ there are hewn stones
centre of the action in the book of Judith (221 [S”] scattered about, as also some fragments of columns,
46 [SI, BAITOYAIA 61o[ 14718): In the shorter
version of the narrative its place is taken by Jeru-
and many foundations of buildings. ...It must have
been a small place ’ (Robinson).
salem, and there is little doubt that Bethulia (properly I f the statements in 2 Macc. 115 (RV BETKSURON)
are reliable
Betylua) represents ’y-n.9, the house of God-viz., there mnst have been asecond Beth-zur in the neighbourbood of
Jerusalem (see JUDITH, ii. ). So already Reuss, who, Jerusalem. Grimm suggests the modern village of Bet-SXbiir
half-an-hour SE from Jerusalem. Schick, with more prohahilit<
however, together with Welte, derived the name from identifies it with the modern Kefr-et-Tzzr’(the Ar. form of Beth-
@$E n.2. Bertholdt’s conjecture vim?,
‘ virgin of znr) on the central height of the Mbint of Olives (PEFQ, Jan.
1895, p. 37, see Camb. Bibk on I Macc. 4 2 9 . See, however,
Yahw&I) may be worth noticing. BETHPHAGE.
According to therepresentations of the book (cp 4673),
Bethutia lay near Jezreel, upon a rock by a valley, BETOLIUS ( B E T O A I ~ [B]), I Esd.521 A V ; RV
commanding the passes to the S. (so Buhl, Pal. 201, Betolion= Ezra 2 28, BETHEL.
n. 627). Various identifications have been suggested. BETOMESTHAM, RV Betomesthaim in Judith
Some have sought for it near the modern Kefr Knd formerly 46, or Betomasthem, RV Betomasthaim in 154
Capharcatia NE. of the plain of Dothan (Hi cp alsd Riehm):
other sug$e&ions are the fortress SBniir (Grovz in Smith‘s DB), (BAITOMA[llCeAlM P I , - A C e € N [KIP BETOMEC~AIM
Kh. Hatiilk el-Mellsh Marta, quoted in ZDPV 12 117) Jenin
(Ew ) Beit Ilfi (Schult$,,and plau doubt (6 and Az being
[A] ; p h ; om. C W Vg. in 46 and @*
Vg. Syr. in 154) lay over against Jezreel in face of the
often ’confounded) Mithiliyeh or (Conder ; Socin, also plain that is near Dothan.’ If ‘ toward ’ ( K U T ~7rp6uw7rov)
inclines to this ;iew, Bad. Pb, 226). More recently, Torrey
(]our%. Anz. Or. Soc. 20 1 6 0 3 1’991) argues ably in favour of can be taken as meaning a eastward of’ the plain of
Shechem. Dothan, we are able to determine its position pretty
So large and important a place as Bethulia-with its nearly ; but the exact site has not been identified.
rulers and elders (61416), its streets and towers ( ~ z z ~ z ) , BETONIM ( D p b a , 5 103-ie., ‘ pistachio nuts,’
and its siege, lasting for four-and-thirty days, by an
immensely superior army (7 20)-cannot reasonably be BOTANEI [Bl, -NIN [A], -NEIM [L]), in Gadite
territory (Josh. 1326), may perhaps be Baganah, 3 m.
identified with any small and insignificant locality. I t
remains to be added that the mention of Jerusalem W. from es-Salt (Ramoth-gilead).
and Bethulia as two distinct places (cp 46 1 5 5 J ) is BETROTHAL. The Heb. verb is * h R ’&a? (65
probably to be assigned to a time when the identity of M N H C T E Y E C ~ A I ) , on which see M ARRIAGE , I.
the ideal Bethnlia with Jerusalem was forgotten. In 2 S. 3 14, RV rightly has ’ betrothed ’ instead of AV
S. A. C. espoused. ’ S o also in Mt. 1 18 Lk. 12 2 5. In Lev. 19 z o t
the verb is qm,and seems to denote marriage by capture
BETHZACHARIAS, AV (by misprint ?) BATH-
rather than marriage by purchase. In Ex. 218J.f. it
ZACHARIAS (BEezaXbpia [AI, BAle. [KV] ; JOS. Beez.,
BHTZ.), the scene of the defeat of Judas the Maccabee is TU,, RV ‘ espouse.’ There is some disorder in the text.
by Lysias, and of the death of his brother Eleazar
( I Macc. 632J). Its position is defined by Josephus
5
BEULAH( ;I 9Y3, ‘married’; OIKOYMENH [BKAQ],
Aq. ECXHMENH, Symm. Theod. C Y N F K I C M E N H ) ,
(Ant. xii. 94) as 70 stadia (N.) from Bethsur ; it is thus the symbolical name (Is. 624) by which Zion may fitly
represented by the modern Beit-Sukdrid (described by be called when her land is ‘ married’ (spzc ; cp BAAL).
Robinson (’4 3283f. and PEP Mem. 335 108). Two primitive and related ideas underlie the expression.
BETHZATHA ( B H ~ z A ~ A ) , the reading adopted by The first is that the people of a land, as well as all
Ti. WH in Jn. 5 n, where T R has BETHESDA. For the other ‘fruits’ (Dt. 284), arise from the fertilising influ-
evidence, see WH. ii. App. 76 : perhaps the purest ence of the lands Baal or divine Husband (cp RS(4
form would be B@j-uarO&, ‘ the place of the olive’ (cp 107 f.); the second, that a people which remains
BEZETH). faithful to the land’s divine Husband is sure of his pro-
tection. The former is merely hinted by means of the
BETH-ZUR ( V X T ’ ~ ,Bsecoyp [AL], § 96, ‘house contrast of the two names ‘ Desolate ’ and ‘ Married ’
of rock,’ or, on the analogy of Beth-el, ‘house of Zur’ (Is.624) ; in Is.541-6, on the other hand, it engrosses
-a divine name, Nestle, Eigennamen,47, n. I ; Hommel the mind of the prophetic writer. It is on the latter,
A H T 319; see ZUR),a city in the hill-country of as the context shows, that the writer of Is. 62 (who is
Judah, mentioned between Halhul and Gedor (Josh. not the author of Is. 54) wishes to concentrate our
1558, @.iOuoup [B]; cp I Ch. 245, where Bethzur- attention. Zion is at present despised (v. 7), and her
ysSuoup [B], prltluoup [ALI-is the ‘ son ’ of Maon), is harvests are plundered by the heathen (v. Sf.) ; but
stated in z Ch. 117 (paiOuoupu [B], T+JY paiOu. [A], when her land is once more ‘married,’ she will be
T$V pah’uoup [L]) to have been fortified by Rehoboam. entitled to the protection of the God of the whole earth.
It was head of a district in Nehemiah’s time (Neh. The sense of the passage has been obscured by an error in the
3 16, p ~ u o p[BR], uoup [A]). Frequently an object vowel points. For ,;S!: ‘thy sons’ (v.5), read ?@h‘he who
of struggle in the Maccabean wars (4 paiOuoodpa, T$ bnildeth thee up’ (cp 5411f: Ps.147~). See Du. Che.
(p. [KV]. $ /3eOa., TUP. [AK], I Macc. 42961 6726314950 (SBOr),and on the other side Di., who gives no paralld, how-
952; 1014 paiOuoupos [Vi]; 116514733),5it was in the ever, for the startling play upon meanings which he assumes.
time of Josephus (Ant. xiii. 5 6 ) ‘ the strongest place in T. K. C.

1 Bethel @7pJshia) a populous village of Gaza with very

BEZAANANNIM (D’JJgY:) occurs in Josh. 1933
ancient and much-rivered temples, is mentioned by Sozomen RVmg.9 ‘ the oak of Bezaanannim,’ where EV has ‘ the
(v. 15 14, p. 202). [MS note of WRS.1 oak in ZAANANNIM,‘ a view of the text now pretty
a For the form Betylua, cp the magical stones Bretylia, which generally abandoned. The ‘oak (or sacred tree)of Bezaa-
derive their name from Beth-el; and on interchange of the
forms Bethn- and Beth- see BETHUL. nannim ’ is a landmark on the W. border of Naphtali,
3 So Jerusalem is rAferred to as ~ 6 p qin Sihyll. 3784-786 following Heleph, and preceding Adanii-nekeb and
(APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE 0 8 6 8 ) . Cp DAUGHTER, 4. Jahneel, and is usually identified with ‘ the oak of Bezaa-
4 Possibly also in I S. 302; (see BETHEL, 2).
6 In zMacc. 13 r g z z G-4 has c, pa&. 115 ,¶sOuoupov [AI, naim ’ (following the points), or of ‘ Bezaanim,’ or ‘ of
parOuoupwv [VI. Bezaanannim (K’rE) in Judg. 411,where RV has ‘the
569 570
 ’ BEBAANANNIM BIDKAR
oak in Zaanannim,’ and has inconsistently omitted to foreign Wives (see E z m , i. 5, end), Ezra 1030 (j+ueAqX [BA],
record the modern view of the text in the margin. d p~uu.[N], p r u u d q h [L]=I Esd. 931, SESTHEL(uEuO~A[BA]).
rzads in Josh. 1933 K U ~pwha Kul ~ E U E ~ L E W[B]. K. T. K. C.
pqhwv Kal Pemvaucp [A], K. whap ueevuve~p[L]; in BEZEK (p];, cp § 100,‘gravel’? cp Syr. ; B E Z ~ K
Judg. 4 11 hws Gpvbs T ~ E O Y E K T O ~ Y T W V[B ; so Theod.], [BAL] ; BEZEC). I. A place at which Saul mustered
npbs SpOv dvanauopdvwv [AL] ; see Field‘s HexapZu. the force he had raised for the relief of Jabesh-gilead ;
The difficulty connected.with the phrase is twofold. I S. 118 (apie&K cv papa [B] ; EY P E ~ [A]~ K; Zuouh ev
(I) In Joshua Lc., this famous tree is placed on the
pupa [L]). Eusebius ( O S 2 )23752) locates two neigh-
border of Naphtali ; but Judges Z.C., read in the light of bouring villages of this name 17 R. m. from Neapolis
J’ldg. 417 524, makes the tree much nearer to the battle- on the road to Scythopolis ; beyond doubt Khirbet Ibzik,
field, which, according to Judg.51gz1, was by the 14 Eng. m. from NTLbulus and nearly opposite the lower
stream Kishon. (z) The name is inexplicable, whether end of Wiidy Yiibis, with which Eshtori Parchi (A.D.
we read nqys2 (Bezaanim ?) or omyr> (Bezaanannim ?). 1322)identified it. See PEFMem. 2231237.
If, however, several times in Judges (see K ADESH), and 2. A place at which Judah and Simeon, in invading
once in Judg.4 (see H AROSHETH ), the name fidip= the S. of Palestine, encountered a3d routed the
lc‘1.2 has been correctly restored, it is plausible to Canaanites under Adoni-bezek ; Judg. 1 4 f. (Pa@%
suppose that the incomprehensible name, pronounced [A] ; om. BY in v. 5 ) . Many scholars, from Eusebius
sometimes Bezaanaim or (better) Bezaanim, sometimes downwards, identify this with No. I ; but this is in-
Bezaanannim, may conceal the same old name, especially admissible.
as in Judg. 411 the words ‘which is by Kedesh’ are Judah and Simeon set out from the neighbonrhood of Gilgal
(Judg. 116f: 2 I) to invade the region in which they afterwards
added. It is extremely probable that both in the settled ; the end of the story of Adoni-bezek conducts him to
far north (see K ADESH, z) and in the territory of Jerusalem, which was probably his own city (Adoni-zedek, king
Issachar there was a place which bore the name of of Jerusalem ’ see ADONI.&EZEK and ADONI-ZEDEC). Ihzik
lies wholly o d of this sphere of action and in a quite differeit
Kadshon (Kidshon) ; the people of either place could direction.
be called Kadshonim (Kidshonim). Nor need we The Bezek of Judg. 1 must be sought much farther
hesitate to emend wiyrz (the form which the best critics south. Conder would find it at Bezkeh, 6 m. SE. of
prefer) to n>$dia, a form which should be restored, Lydda (PEFMem. 336) ; but this view is scarcely
as the present writer has sought to show, in Judg. 5226 probable. In view of the change which the name of the
(see K A D E S H ~ ) .It is easier to suppose that the ‘oak’ king has suffered, it may be questioned whether the
or ‘ sacred tree ’ which forms the subject of this article name of the place has been correctly preserved.
was near the Kidshon (Kedesh) of Issachar than to follow G. F. M.
the Priestly Writer in Joshua, who places it on the border BEZER (75’2,5 106, ‘fortress’ ; Bocop [BAL]), a
of Naphtali. The error o f the latter seems to have
arisen from the statements in Judg. 4 6 9 5 . which place levitical city and city of refuge, Dt. 443 Josh. 208 2136
the mustering of the Israelitish warriors at Kedesh- (om. M T ; Bocwp [L]), I Ch. 678 [63]-the B OZRAH [ I ]
Naphtali. The error of the scribe who wrote ~ q y y z (?&I of
)Jer. 4824 (apouop)-is described in Josh. 208
was facilitated by an inopportune recollection of the as lying in the wilderness on the (Amorite) ‘ Mishor ’ or
form n’Jyi3 KBna‘ anim (Canaanites). Whether he also Tableland, and is usually identified with the modern
thought of the new Heb. nyaz, ‘ ditch, dike, pond ’ (cp @:zir eZ-Besheir (or Beshir), about 2 m. SW. of Dibon,
m p , ‘marsh,’ Job 811 ~ O Z I ) , cannot be determined and about the same distance N. of Aroer. King Mesha
of Moab in his inscription (1.27) says : ‘ I built Bezer,
(cp Neub. Ghg?. TuZm. 225). for ruins had it become.’ With this place some have
An identification of ‘Bezaanim’ with Khirbet Bessfim, E. of identified BOSOR(4.v., 2).
Tabor, on the plateau of the Sea of Galilee, was proposed by
Conder in PEFQ ’77, p: 25 (so T e d Work, 2 732); cp
GASm. HG 396, who considers it ‘well supported.’ But we BEZER (75’2;coBah [B], Bacap [ALI), in genealogy
must first of all be sure of the reading of the name. I t is of ASHER[§ 4 (ii.)], I Ch. 737f.
remarkable that tradition still affirmed that the ‘oak o f . .
which was a fixed element in the story, was ‘by Kedesi:’ BEZETH (BHZE8 [AI, BH8za18 [K], B a 1 0 z ~ [VI, 8
Of course, n 7 - m i t y ~is not required when we read BHpZHeW [JOS. A d . Xii. 102 ; but BHBZHBW, ib.,
~’>a.rpp+N-ly, ‘to the sacred tree of the Kidshonim.’ BHpZH00,xii. 11I ; Schlatter, ZDPY19zz4]), a place
T. K. C.
near Jerusalem where Bacchides encamped, and, having
BEZAI (’Y3, § 52 ; Hilprecht has found the Jewish slain some deserters and prisoners, threw them into ‘ the
name BiSH on a tablet from Nippur [PEFQ, Jan. 1898, great pit ’ which was there ( I Macc. 7 19). The readings
p. 551). The b’ne Bezai, a family in the great post- of @R and Syr. in this passage (b? b [ed. Lag.])
exilic list (see E ZRA, ii., §§ 9, 8c). Ezra217 (Bacoy point to an original Beth-zaith (house of the olive).
P I 3 -cc. [AI, Bacei [LI)=Neh.723 (Becel [BK], Hence it is possible that Bezeth may be the later Bezetha
Baci [A], -CCH [L]=rEid.516 BASSA, RV BASSAI ( I place of olives’), the name given to the N. end of the
(Baccai [BI, -cca [AI, -CCEI [Ll) ; represented among plateau, on the S. part of which lay Jerusalem. See
the signatories to the covenant (see E ZRA , i. J 7). BETHZATHA, JdRUSALEM, OLIVES. MOUNT OF.
Neh.1018[19] (BHCEI [BAI, BH&l [KIP Becei [Ll).
BEZALEEL, RV Bezalel (\&?, $8 22, 29, ‘ in the
shadow of God ’ ; cp BESODEIAH ; P E U E I E ~ [BAL]).
X
The form is improbable. Sil-Bel, ‘ Bel is a shelter,’ the BICBRI (*???, 61 ; Boxopei [BAI, BeAAaAi [I2])
name of a king of Gaza in Sennacherib’s time (KA n Sheba b. Bichri (2S. 20 I 3 ), a gentilic from BECHER
n2) iCq.v.1.
162),even if correctly represented, is not parallel. Read
The plural Bichrites (PW?;?) is postulated
h r h , ‘ God rescues,’ and cp the Phmn. names ’7yzlc$n, by BRAKC^ ~ d v r e hv
s Xappa) in z S. 20 74 in place of
y5ninrz~. The number of the artificial religious names [u.v.]. See SHEBA,
BERITES ii. (I), BENJAMIN, § g, ii. p.
--
of later times has been exaeeerated.
I. b. Uri h. Hnr of the tribe of Jodah, a Calebite (I Ch. 2 20))
BIDKAE (7273; BAAEK [Ll, -I(&
[Bl, - ~ a [BbAl),
p
a skilled workman in gold silver, and brass, who together with B a A a ~ a p[Bamg;], Jehu’s adjutant (L&@), 2 K. 925.
Aholiab executed the wdrk of the tabernacle (Ex. 31 z 35 30 The name is noteworthy, because the chief support of
361 f: 371 3822, all P). H e is mentioned in zCh. 1 s as
having made the brazen altar. the theory that 2 at the heginning of proper names some-
2. One of the b‘ne Pahath-Moab in the list of those with times stands for ‘ son of’ i s that Pesh. here has ~ R Y - ~ ~ & z Y
(hence ‘2 = ~p?,-]?,‘ son of piercing ’- a suitable name for
a warrior ; cp Lanzknecht ; cp Ass. 6indiKiri [Del. ZKF
572
 BIER BINDING AND LOOSING
21721, and see BENDEKER). For other examples, all Benjamin) ? Or does the name, which occurs nowhere
doubtful, see Ges. Thes. col. 349; Konig, Lehrgeb. outside of Genesis (and the equivalent I Ch. 7 13), simply
2248; and against this 01s. Ne6. Gr. 613. Halevy indicate that not only Dan but once also Naphtali tried
(Rech. Bi61. iii., REI, Jan,-June 1885) thinks 3 in all unsuccessfully to settle somewhere in the Highlands of
these words=[3]3~. For this 3= p theory we can hardly Ephraiin before betaking itself to the extreme north ?
cite the one or two cases in Phcenician, probably Or, once more, is this true only of Dan, the inclusion
accidental (CIsi. 1922, 3933). Does C F ' s BU&Kimply of Naphtali being then due simply to its geographical
a reading v w h w i pix, ' €3. chief (ddi) of his (Jehu's) nearness to Dan in its later seat, and to its worthiness
captains ' ? . W. R. S . to stand by the side of the noble Rachel tribes (Judg.
BIER (a&, K ~ I N H ) .2s. 331 ; ( C O P O C ) ~Lk. 714. 5 18)? Again, is the Reuben story (Gen. 35 22 I Ch. 5 I )
to be brought into connection with the other traces of
See DEAD, 5 I. the extension of the house of Joseph (cp Reuben's
BIGTHA (HQag; BUPAZH [BKL21, [oaps] B ~ A interest in the fortunes of Joseph : Gen. 37 22 29 : E.,)
[A]), a chamberlain of Ahasuerus (Esth. 110). Marq. beyond Jordan (M ACHIR ; E PHRAIM , WOOD O F ), or is it
(Fund. 71) finds its Gr. equivalent in fqpaOaOa [A], for to be explained, as Stade (Cesch. 1119)explains it, as a
pa{qOaOa, whence he restores ~ n i 3 (misread 3 Nniiz) =O. memorial of the primitive society that survived E. of the
Pers. bagadZta, 'given by God ' ; cp BAGOAS, and see Jordan when there had been a change in W. Palestine?
ESTHEX, ii. 3. Or are we to give serious consideration to a combination
(G. H. B. Wright) with the story of BOHAN (cp B ILHAH,
BIGTHAN ()Q?3,etymology doubtful ; B a r a e a N 2) the son of Reuben (Josh. 156 18 17), as an indication
[Kc.a mg. sup.] ; BKAL om. ; Jos. B a r a e w o c ) , Esth. 221, that Reubenite elements were once actually to be found
or Bigthana, Esth. 62 (H;iI;J; d as in 221 ; Jos. W. of the Jordan ( ' in that land : ' Gen. 35 22) ? That
raBATAlOC), a chamberlain of Ahasuerus, who, in there really was contact between Benjamin and the
Esth. 12 I, is called GABATHA (-yupuOa [BKALa]). See Bilhah tribe Dan was a matter of course ; Ono and Lod
ESTHER, ii. § 3. ultimately became Benjainite (cp BENJAMIN, 3 ; We.
BIGVAI (VJJ, rather BAGOI, L e . , BAGOAS[4.v.] ; De Gent. 12 n. I). It was Rachel, however, not Bilhah,
that died when, Ben-oni was horn.
B A r O y A [AI, -oyia [L]).
I . A leader (see E ZRA , ii. $ 8 e) in the great post-exilic list (8. 2. In Simeon (I Ch. 429). See BAALAH,2.
ii. 0 g), Ezra 2 2 (pa7ouuL [Bl, payouat [Ll)=Neh. 7 7 (paroe6 H. W. H.
[BN] payou'ac [A])=I Esd. 5 8 , 6 V REELIUS
fiay&c
(@opoAe~ou[BA]
[L]); signatory t o the covenant (see E ZRA , i. $ 7), N e d
BILHAN (I&?, § 77 ; CP BILHAH; 6 t . h ~ ~[BAI). ~
I. A HORITE ( p . ~ . ) ,Gen. 36 27 ( p d u a p [D'" ELI) ; I Ch. 1 4 2
10 16 [IT](payom [Bl, -OCL PA],. pauouc [LI). ( - a w [BLI).
a. Family in great post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. $8 9, Sc),
2. In genealogy of B EN J AMIN (0 g, ii. a ) : I Ch. 7 I O (pahaap
Ezra 2 14 ( p a o y a [B], payoua [Avid], -ouaL [LI)=Neh. 7 19
[Ll).
(j3ama [BNA])=r Esd. 5 74, BAGOI(j3ouac [B], @ayoc [A], -ouaL
BILSHAN (&Q, 5 83 ; perhaps Bab. BeZfm ; but
Family in Ezra's caravan (see E ZRA , i. 5 2, ii. $ 15 [i.] d), more probably we should read Bel-lax, a mutilated form
Ezra 814 (payo [Bl apouaa [AI, yapouca [L])=I Esd. 640
BAGO (pavat [Bl, pa;olA]). Cp H EGAI. of Bel-iar-ezer--i.e., Bab. Bel-Gar-uSur ;-cp dBAL in
I Esd.). A name in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA,
BIKATH-AVEN (\~$7l&'~J),
Am. 1 5 AVmg. See
ii. § 9).borne by one of the ten (Ezra), or eleven (Neh.,
AVEN,3. I Esd. ), persons who accompanied Zerubbabel from
BILDAD (73\3, § 43, BahAaA [BKACI, -hac [AI), Babylon (see E ZRA , ii. 8 e). Ezra22 ( ~ a u $ a p[B],
the Shuhite ('see S HUAH ), one of Job's friends (Job2 II paXauap [A], -hauav [L]) = Neh. 7 7 (pau+av [HI,
andelsewhere). The name either means 'Bel has loved' paauav [A], paXu. [B], L om. ) = I Esd. 5 8 BEELSAKUS
(cp Nold. ZDMG 42 479 r88])! or is a softened form (/?~eXuapou[BA], puhuap [L]). If Bel-gar is correct,
of Bir-dad, which appears to lie at the root of BEDAD may not this be the Sharezer of Zech. 72 (see S HAXEZER,
(so Del. Par. 298). See ELIDAD, and cp DOD. z ) ? This undesigned coincidence (if accepted) may
have important bearings on criticism. T. X. C.
BILEAM (D!$3, J 77), I Ch. 670 [55]. See IBLEAM.
I 2 3,
BILGAH (1
I.
;\
, ' cheerfulness ' 1).
Head of the fifteenth course of priests, I Ch. 24 14 (PEA a
: :
BIMHAL ($TilfXl), in genealogy of ASHER (0 4 [ii.]),
( IMABAHA [BIT &AMAHA [AI, BaaMae [LI).
I Ch. 7 3 3
[AI, -a8 [L]). @ B has fppyp, which must represent Immer txe
head of the sixteenth course. ( y d p a , the name of the h d d of BINDING AND LOOSING (Mt. 16 19 18 18t). T h e
the fourteenth in @B [MT X??;],is merely a transposed form explanation given under MAGIC (5 3 [4]) may account
of Bilgah in a different place in the list.) for the origin of the Jewish phrase 'binding ( ~ D R and)
2. A priest @aAyas [Nc.a'"g.], OCA. [Ll ; om. BRA) in Zerub- loosing' (iTn3) ; but in usage ' to hind ' and ' to loose '
babel's hand (E ZRA, ii. 0 6 a), Neh. 12 5 ;in v. 18(p.aAya [ N u mg.], mean simply ' to forbid' and ' to permit' by an indis-
pehyas [L] ; om. BNA) a 'father's house.' Cp also BILGAI.
putable authority, the words of authoritative prohibition
and permission being considered to be as effectual as he
BILGAI (Behrb[e]i [AL], -Ac[elia [BRI), a priestly spell of an enchanter (cp i ~ Targ.
? Ps.,
585[6]). The
signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA , 1. 6,7),Neh. wise men or rabbis had, in viitue of their ordination, the
108 [g]. No doubt the same as BILGAH. power of deciding disputes relating to the Law. A
BILHAH ( ail
T\ 3 ; [BADEL], but I Ch. 7 13 practice which was permitted by them was said to be
BAAAM [BIB- h a b ~ , [ L ] ) . 'loosed' (inla), and one which was forbidden was
I. The 'mother of the tribes Dan and Naphtali, called ' bound' ('IIDN). Such pronouncements were
according to J ; also represented as the maid of Rachel made by the different schools ; hence it was said, The
(mother of the house of Joseph) and concubine of Jacob school of Shammai binds ; the school of .Hillel looses.'
and his eldest son Reuben. Theoretically, however, they proceeded from the San-
W e have not, unfortunately, the means of determining hedrin, and there is a Talmudic statement that there
how far we are warranted in regarding these relations were three decisions made by the lower ' house of judg-
as representing traditions of fact, and how far they may ment ' to which the upper 'house of judgment ' ( i . e . ,
be imaginative incidents of the story. Was Rilhah, e.g., the heavenly one) gave its supreme sanction (Mass&,
a tribe (Canaanitish? AramEan ?), elements of which 23 6). Probably, therefore, Jesus adopted a current
were taken up into some of the clans of the house of mode of speech when he said to the disciples that what-
Joseph (the first Israel) in the earliest days after their soever they bound or loosed on earth ( L e . , in expound-
arrival in W. Palestine before they crystallized into the ing the new Law) should be bound or loosed in heaven
three well-known branches (Manasseh-Machir, Ephraim, (Mt. 1818). Probably, too, it is a less authentic tradition
573 574
 BINDING AND LOOSING BIRSHA
which makes Jesus give the same promise to Peter FOOD, § 8) ; the Torah divides them into clean and UP
individually (Mt. 16 19). Nowhere is it recorded that clean (Lev. 1113 Dt. 1420 ; see CLEAN and U NCLEAN,
the great Teacher made Peter the president (N??;) of 5 9). Many,contrivances for capturing birds were in
his council of wise men. The words which immediately common use (Ps.913 1247 Prov.117 65 723 Am.35
precede 'Mt. 16 19 6-self-evidently taken by the editor Eccles. 9 12 Jer. 5 27 Hos. 7 12 9 8 Ecclus. 1130). The
from another context-represent Peter, not as an ex- Torah protects them against cruelty (Dt. 226 f.).,
pounder of the new transfigured Law, but as a practical Sometimes the captives were tamed and treated as pets
administrator (cp Is. 2222). It is in favour of the view (Job 41 5 [4Ozg], Bar. 3 17 Ecclus. 27 19 Jas. 3 7 ) . Only
here adopted (viz., that the words on ' binding' and in cases of extreme poverty does the Torah allow birds
' loosing' were addressed to the disciples in general and to be used for sacrifice (see SACRIFICE). Naturally,
not to Peter individually) that in Jn. 2023 the power to common small birds, on account of their abundance,
remit and to retain is granted to the disciples collectively, were of little value ; they were probably so numerous as
not to any one of them individually. Though the use to prove a nuisance (Mt. 1029 31 Lk. 126.J ; cp Land
of Kpareiv in that passage has no exact Hebrew or and Book, 43). To what extent-if any-birds were
Aramaic equivalent, the saying is not a new one, but studied for omens in Israel as in Babylonia (see BABY-
a paraphrase of Mt. 18 18. T. K. C. LONIA , § 32, MAGIC, B ABYLONIAN , § 3 ) it is difficult to
determine (see Lev. 1926 Dt. 1810 2 K. 216 2 Ch. 336
BINEA (ng??,Kq??), in genealogy. of BENJAMIN I K. 433 [513], and cp DIVINATION, § 2, beg., and
(I 9, ii. [PI), I (3.837 (BANA [B], BAAN. [ALl)=943 Schultz, O T TheoL 1 2 5 0 8 ET).
(BAANA [BKLI, BAN. [AI). Allusions to their habits in metaphors, similes, and
BINNUI (9.133, ' a building up ' ; on form cp NAMES, proverbial expressions prove how prominent thev were
3. Literary'in the life and thought of the people ( c p
§ 5). 15, and see Lowth,
I. Family in great post-exilic list (see EZRA, ii. p$ g, 8 c), Neh. and popular AGRICULTURE,
'7 15 (pavovc [BHA], -vaiov [Ll)=Ezra2 IO, BANI [g.v., 21 (pavou allusions. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the
[B], -om [A], v a i a [L])=r Esd. 5 12, BANI (pavaL [BA], -Yam NeJrews. Lect. vii. vol. i. ET 1787). I I ,

r Ll). They were evidently observed with the keenest interest

2. A Levite, temp. Ezra (see E ZRA, i. $ 2 , ii. $ 15 [~ld),Ezra as being links between earth and heaven, and regarded
8 33 (&A epavvuLa [Bl, ULOS &zvaba [ALl)= I Esd. S 63 SABBAN,
RV SABANNUS (uapavuov [BA], 6 ~ b spavaLou [L]), and probably with a certain awe (Job127 2821 3511 Eccles. 1020). I t
Neh. 12 24 (MT 'the son of' ; KaC V ~ O L[BNA], K , ot w . a h o v was noticed how they cared for and protected their young
[L]) ; so Smend, Die Lis& etc. Most probably the same as (Dt.3211 Ex.194 Is. 315 Mt.2337); how and where
3. A Levite in the list of wall-builders (see NEHEMIAH, $ IA, they made their nests (Ps. 10412 17 Ezek. 316)-some-
EZRA, ii. $$ 16 [I], 15 4, Neb. 3 24 (ppvec [BRA], -vai'[Ll) : sig- times (according to a pleasing but very doubtful inter-
natory to the covenant (see E ZRA , 1. 9 7), 109 [IO] (pavaLov pretation) in the very temple itself1 (Ps. 843 [4]); in
[BNAL], 4. [Nc,a]), possibly the same as the Levite Binnui in what sad plight they wandered about when cast out of
Zerubbabel's band (see EZRA, ii. $ 66) 128 @worn [BNA], mi ot the nest (Prov. 278 Is. 162 Ps. lO27[8]); how swiftly
uioi a h o O [L]). In Neh.3.4, BAVAI ('32: B e S a [Bl, &'ep they flew away when scared (Hos.911 Ps. 111); how
IN], j3eve~[AI, f3avaL [Ll) seems a textual error. eagerly they returned to their nest (Hos. 1111) ; how
4. and 5. One of the b'ne Pahath-moab, Ezra1030 (OavovsL
free from care they were (Mt. 626) ; how regularly they
[BN], pavow[slc [4Ll)=1 Esd. 931, BALNUUS (8ahvovr [Bl, -OVOF migrated (Jer. 8 7 Prov. 26 2) ; how voracious they were
[AI, pavom [Ll) and one of the b'ne Bani (Ezra 10 38 ; Bavom
[BNA], ~ O Y V E L[L])=I Esd. 934 E LIALI ; bothin the list of those (Gen. 40 17 Mt. 13 4 Mk. 44 Lk. 8 5) ; how they descended
with foreign wives (see E ZRA, i. $ 5 end). from the clouds in a bevy (Ecclus. 4317), and with what
delight they gathered in a leafy tree (Dan. 49 [I.] Ecclus.
BIRD. References to birds generally are very . frequent
. 279 Mt. 1332 Lk. 1319); how sweetly they warbled
in O T and NT. (Eccles. 124 Wisd. 1718 Cant. 212 [see, however, VINE]
The following terms (translated in EV 'bird ' or ' fowl ') are
used to denote the members of the family Awes collectively : Ps. 104 12) ; how God recognises and protects them (Ps.
qiy, '8jh, Eccles. 10 20 Is. 16 2 Hos. 9 I T ;7\@ 5011 Lk.1224) ; and how they praise and reverence
1. Kinds him (Ps. 148 I O Ezek. 38 2 0 ) . Further, Israel's enemy
referred to. Gen. 7 14 Lev. 146 51 8 : 122 5 p , is often pictured as a rapacious bird that sights its prey
6a'uZ KlinZjh, Prov. 117 ; and [of birds of prey]
afar off and swoops down upon it (Is.4611 Jer. 12g2
D)ip, 'uyit, Gen. 1511 Is. 18 6 46 IT Jer. 1 2 9 Ezek. 39 4 Job 26 7
Dt. 2849 Rev. 19 17 " , I ) . Thus, ' to destroy ' is to give a
(I/ ?llF, 'uyyuh); T ~ T F L V & and T& m.reav&,Mt.8 20 13 32 Lk.9 58 man's flesh to the birds of the air for meat (Gen. 4019
Rom. 1 2 3 Jas. 3 7 ; 78 mqvb, I Cor. 15 39, and [of birds of prey] Dt. 2826 I S. 174446 I K. 1411 164 2124 Ps. 792 Jer.733
Bpvsov,Rev. 18 2 19 17 ZT. 164 197 3420 Ezek.295). A place is desolate when
Birds of the smaller kinds are not so often distinguished its only inhabitants are the birds of the air (Jer. Ezek.
as the larger ; but special reference is made to several 3113 324 Is. 1 8 6 ) , and an utter desolation when even
species, both large and small. Mention seems to be these too have perished (Jer. 425 124 Hos. 43 Zeph. 13).
made, for example, of the BITTERN, Buzzard (see The saying in Mt. 8 2 0 , where Jesus contrasts himself
G LEDE ), Blue Thrush (see S PARROW ), CORMORANT, with the birds which have nests, has not yet been made
C RANE , D OVE, Egyptian Vulture (see G IER E AGLE), perfectly clear (but see SON OF M AN ).
Griffon (see E AGLE), H AWK, H ERON , HOOPOE, Sacred
Ibis (see S WAN ), K ITE , NIGHT H AWK (?), OSPREY, BIRSHA (y&hg, scarcely with [or, in] wickedness ':
OSSIFRAGE, OSTRICH, O WL, Pigeon (see DOVE ), PAR- the name is corrupt ; cp B ERA ), king of Gomorrah who
TRIDGE, PEACOCK, PELICAN, Q UAIL , R AVEN , S T O R K ,
SWALLOW, Tern (see CUCKOW), Black Vulture (see 1 Cp WRS Rei.Se?iz.(2116a, and Che.'s note, PsuZmsP). The
V ULTURE), and the domestic fowl (see COCK), details common view of the meaning is untenable on all gronnds-
and discussions concerning all of which will be found exeaetical. historical, metrical. I . No natural exeEesis can be
in the special articles. S PARROW occurs occasionally in given, if nN, 'thine altars,' has any relation to tGe birds. 2.
The sanctity of the temple proper would certainly have excluded
the EV as a translation of the word (iigr) which denoted the winged visitors; Jos. B j v . 5 6 speaks of pointed spikes on
any small passerine bird. the top of the (Herodian) temple to-prevent birds from sitting
That feathered animals (11: S g ) abounded in Pales- even on the outside. This seems to have been generally over-
looked. 3. The psalm consists of long verses (lines) divided by
tine is clear from the many references to them in OT a ciesura into two unequal parts. 'Thine altars, my King and
2. Use. and N T , and lapse of time has produced my God,' is too much to form the second and shorter portion
of one of these verses. See Che. Psal;m,(~) and cp Baethg. ad
no change in this respect (see PALESTINE). Zoc. who attempts an exegetical compromise.
Naturally the eggs and the birds themselves were used 2 Read thus, 'Do I count my heritage a carcase torn by
for food (Ex. 16:2$ Nu. 1132 Job66 Neh. 518 Ps. 7827 bysenas (pi>! ng???; @ ur<hacov 6 a h p = ' S niyn)? Are
Llr.111~Acts1012 1 1 6 ; see FOWLS, 4, 6, and cp vultures round about it ?'
575 576
 BIRTHDAY BISHOP
joined the league .against C HEDORLAOMER (5 z ) , Gen. BISHOP (errickonoc). The word is of rare occur-
142 (Bapca [.4DEL] ; Ba)&,iac, Jos. Ant. i. 91). 'ence in the NT.l
BIRTHDAY (n+? Pi', ~ M s p rsNEcewc
a LADE]; The elders of the church summoned from Ephesus to Miletus
o receive Paul's farewell ciarge (Acts 20 17), are thus addressed :
r. H. [L], G e n . 4 0 ~ 0 ;r E N s C l a [Ti. WH]. Mt. 146 ' Take heed to yourselves and to the whole
Mk. 621). The only express mention of the celebra- 1. OCCUlTenCe flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath set you
tion of the anniversary of birth in OT or NT,is in con- of name in NT.as overseers ( 6 p k ...
feed (or rule : ~ o ~ g a i w s c w
;&ro ITLUK~TOUS) to
the
) church of God'
nection with kings : Pharaoh's birthday (Gen. ~ O Z O ) , U. 28). I t is not clear from this passage whether the word is
when the ' chief butler' was restored to his office and ised as a definite title, or merely as a description implying that
the ' chief baker' hanged ; Antiochus Epiphanes' birth- ' T L U K O ~ oversight
~, or superintendence was a function of the
xesbyterate. In the address of the Edistle to the Philippians,
day ( z Macc. 6 7) ; and Herod's birthday (Mt. 146 Mk. iowever we have 'bishops and deacons formally mentioned ; it
B z r ) , when Herodias's' dancing was the occasion of s diMc<lt, in view of the later usage of the words, to suppose
the execution of John the Baptist. When it is said .hat this is merely a general description of 'those who rule and
in Job14 that Job's sons ' were wont to go and feast .hose who serve.' In I Tim. 3 18 the bishop and the deacon
ire again brought together. The qualifications of a bishop are
in the house of 'each one upon his day,' 'his day' :numerated : SE; o f v rbv &&KOWW K.r.A., where the article is
denotes a weekly and not an annual feast ; and in Hos. :ommonly regarded as generic, or a t least as not implying that
7 5 'the day of onr king' may refer to the anniversary :here was only one bishop in the Ephesian church. I n Tit. 1 5 8 ,
n connection with the duty of appointing presbyters in the
of his succession quite as well as to a birthday. How- .owns of Crete, a similar description of a bishop's qualifications
ever, this silence on the subject is no warrant for us to :s given ( 6 ~ yi i p ~ b v~ T ~ U K O T O V K . T . A . ) ; but no reference is
conclude that the Israelites did not follow the general nade to deacons. The only other occurrence of the word is in
r Pet. 2 25, where it is applied to Christ himself, 'the shepherd
custom of observing birthdays, especially those of kings md bishop of your souls. It is not necessary to interpret these
(see, for Egypt, RPW 4 77, and for Persia, Herod. 9 110). :itles as metaphors drawn from the Christian ministry.
The curses invoked by Job (31.12) and Jeremiah W e note, then, that the word is found in all cases on
(2014-18)on the days of,their birth imply that under Sreek ground, and it would seem as if those who in the
happier conditions these days would have been re- Palestinian churches were called ' presbyters ' were in
membered in more cheerful fashion. the Greek churches spoken of at first as 'bishops ' and
Doubts have been raised as to whether Herod's yev6uia then indifferently as ' presbyters ' or as ' bishops. ' This
meant his birthday or the anniversary of his accession. view, however, assumes that P ~ U K O T O P was already at
The Mishna (Aboda Zara, 1 3 ) mentions as heathen this time in use as a title of office ; and the assumption
festivals, calends, Saturnalia, Kpur4ueis, kings' days of requires a careful examination. It will be best to begin
-y.evCuia ( K ' D ~ Y nit), and the day of birth and the day of such an examination with what is admittedly the latest
death. It is probable that the last two mean the actual portion of the N T evidence.
days and not the anniversaries ; the Kparljueis would I Tim. 3 1 8 ' If a man seeketh 67riuKomj he desireth
naturally be the anniversaries of accessions and the L good work. The bishop, therefore, must be without
~ ~ - 1 ni-
- i the birthday. So Talm. Jer. Aboda Zara,
1396 takes ' 2 01' as m?$,i n i y (birthday), but Bab. Adoda
Zara, roa understands ' I 01' as anniversary of accession.
r e v h a is used as birthday in late Greek (in classical K.T.X.). The whole conception of the function of an
Greek it is anniversary of death) and never as anni- ZT~UKO'~TOS, as it is here described, suggests that the
versary of accession : thus the sense of birthday seems authority which he wields is independent, not merely
well established. Cp Schurer, H i s t . 2 ~ 6and , the Talm. that of a member of a governing board. T o begin
Lexx. of Levy and Jastrow on N'D'JY; also Gratz, with, $?riuKomj does not give any idea of assessors : it
MG WJ 20 230 ['TI]. See also LORD'S DAY, 2. is distinctly personal. It is a position of independent
W. H. B.
importance and control, such as a man may naturally
BIRTHRIGHT (n$q, Gen. 2 5 3 1 ; . n p w ~ o ~ o ~ i adesire. , Secondly, the epithet ' given to hospitality '
Heb. 1216); see FIRSTBORN, LAW AND JUSTICE, § 14. (@d&uos) suggests a personal responsibility ; the
On the story of Esau and Jacob see ESAU,§ 2. Church's duty of show-ing hospitality to Christians from
'
BIRZAITH (n~~l~, Kr. ), AV Birzavith (nV73,Kt. ; other parts seems naturally to centre in some one person ;
we could scarcely have had ' Presbyters must be given
to hospitality ' ( 6 2 08u T ~ ~ U ~ ~ V T + O U+iXo@uovs
S dum).
'
I n like manner, 'apt to teach ' (bibaKriK6S)would scarcely
' well of the"oiive'tree ') s e e k to suggest a lbcality. be a qualification for a member of the presbyteral body
BISHLAM ; E N E I P H N H [BAI, E N E I P H N H as such ; and the same may be said of the epithets i.;I
PEOYM BEATEEM [L]), Ezra47, for which I Esd. 216 rdpoivos, p+ T X T ~ K T ~ S' ,not passionate or ungoverned in
has BELEMUS(BHAEMOC [BA] or B E ~ ~ C I M O C[Ll), temper.' The control of his own house, again, gives
the name of a Persian officer of unknown origin, who the thought of independent jurisdiction in the case to
joined with others in writing a letter of complaint which it is made a parallel--'how shall he act as
against the Jews. @BA takes the name as descriptive 6 r i p d ? ) r 4 s of the church of God ? '
of the tranquil state of the writers of the letter (& The singular noun with the article may, according to
~ i p 4 u y ) ;but Bishlam is clearly a proper name. It Greek usage, be taken generically; but we must ob-
either means 'in peace,' cp BEZALEEL, BIRSHA. or, serve that ( I ) when the writer passes on to give a similar
more probably, like those names, it is a corruption. list of qualifications for a deacon the plural is used :
The true name may be Babylonian. It may perhaps be ' Deacons in like manner ... Women in like manner
recovered if we start from one or the other of the forms ... Let deacons be husbands of one wife' [&aKduous
presented in the MSS of I Esd., where the proper cjuallrws . .. ~ V U U ~ K cjuari~ws
U S .. . 6idKovoi Qurwuw
names are sometimes more accurately preserved. Ball pias yuvaiKbs du6pes (in the last case the use of the
( Yay. Apocr. ad loc.), adopting ~ ~ X E ~ supposes O S , a singular with the generic article would have avoided an
corruption of Bab. Bel-ibus-Le., ' Bel made.' It awkward phrase)] ; ( z ) in Tit. 17, we have an exact
would seem, however, that the PeeXuipos of bL must parallel: 8 ~ y&p i rbv ~ T ~ U K O T O V K.T.X., where we
be more original, and this form may have arisen from might easily have had BE: yzlp tiriuK6'iTous K.T.X. ; (3)
Bel-Sum-iSkun--i.e., ' Bel made a name ' (Nestle, Murg. the usage of the article in the Pastoral Epistles is a
23, 29). T. K. C. further reason for hesitating to explain it here as gcneric,
for the axticle is very sparingly employed, and thera
1 E V 'the day of the king's birth every month': so 6 5 and
Pesh., Vg. om. ~a&p<va. Grimm suggested that 'every month
is from I Macc. 1 5 9 ; but it is probably genuine (see LORD'S 1 [Analogous t o M H ]ig, superintendent in the synagogue or
DAY,5 2). elsewhere. See Jastrow's Lex.].
37 577 578
 BISHOP ' BISHOP
seems no example at all parallpl to these in any of the ment of the common fund which was devoted to these
three Epistles. and similar purposes. It is probable, therefore, that
The difficulty is to some extent met by insisting on both the title and the functions of the Christian & ~ U K O T O S
the use of ~ T ~ U K O T O Sas a descriptive epithet rather than are directly derived from his heathen counterpart.
as a formal title : ' H e who exercises &LUKOT+', In so The best examination of this theory is that by Loen-
far as his status in the Church is dwelt on, such a man - ,(Gemeindeverfassunz
ing. , -des Urchristenthumns. ,
21 IE 1.
Y I

would be spoken of most naturally as 'one of the 6. Criticism After pointing out the yery general signifi-
elders ' ; but here the subject in hand is the function to cation of the word E'T~CTKOTOS in Greek
be exercised by him individually. That function is of it. literature-a signification which enabled
"
~ T L U K O T ~: in the exercise of it he is B?rfuiKo?ros. The it to be applied to any person in authority for whom
watchful oversight which is regarded as ' a n excellent there was no fixed title already, and so to be used with
work' is not an eminent position, but a responsible great freedom by the LXX as a rendering for various
activity. H e who is 10 exercise it needs to have certain officers mentioned in the Or-he takes up the evidence
special qualifications, W e feel the contrast when we of the inscriptions on which Hatch's theory mainly rests.
come to GraKbvovs rjuadrws, which introduces in an They fall chronologically into two classes. The first
ordinary way the members of a large and subordinate class is pre-Christian: one inscription of the Macedonian
class. period in the island of Thera, which contains a decree
The passage in Acts20 is, a s we have seen, quite ordering certain ~ T ~ U K O T O Cto receive moneys and invest
indeterminate. If BT~UKOTOS can be shown to be a title them ; and two inscriptions of the second century B. c.,
3. (6) Other in use at the time in question, we may in the island of Rhodes, relating to municipal officers
NTwritings. render the words, ' hath set you as not further defined. Those of the second class belong
bishops.' Otherwise we should perhaps to the second and the third century A . D., and are found
render them, ' hath set you for oversight.' The phrase in a district E. of the Jordan. They are ten, and
in the Epistle to the Philippians, if taken quite by itself, refer to municipal officers. In one case the officers are
would, in the light of later history, be naturally rendered charged with some responsibility for the moneys of a
'with the bishops and deacons' (ubv ~ T L C T K ~ T O L SK U l temple. I n this district they seem to have formed a
~ L U K ~ V O L S notwithstanding
), the absence of the definite kind of municipal board, chosen from various tribes
article. If, however, P x l u ~ o ~ obes not yet found as a or divisions of the community. Further, in a Latin
title, a less definite interpretation may be allowed. T h e inscription of the fonrth century certain episcopi regulate
decision between the two views must depend on a prices in the market.
further consideration which shall include the use of the This appears to be the whole of the evidence on which
term G L ~ K O V O Sat this period [see DEACON, 61, and the statement that BT~UKOTOC were the finance-officers of
the use of P ~ U K O T O S outside the N T , in other than clubs and guilds is found to rest. In Loening's opinion
Christian contexts, and in the earliest Christian it points exactly in the opposite direction.
writings. As to the other part of the argument,-viz., that the
In the use of &&Ko?~os, 8?rruiKo?r&vv, in other than Christian &&TKOTOS is, as a matter of fact, a finance-
Christian contexts, a great width of meaning is notice- oficer,-that is no peculiarity of function linking itself
*. Nan- able, due, no doubt, to the original significa-
Christian tion which fitted the words for application
especially to the title. T o the presbyters at Jerusalem
gifts are brought ; and presbyters are warned not to
to any person who exercised an office of exercise their office ' for filthy lucre ' (EV ; U ~ U X ~ O K E ~ G G S ,
usage. superintendence. The commissioners who
I Pet. 5 2 ) : moreover, in Polycarp's letter to the Philip-
superintended Athenian colonies, various other commis- pians (chap. 11)presbyters are charged with duties to-
sioners or inspectors, magistrates who regulated the sale wards the poor and are warned against covetousness.
of provisions, and, apparently, financial officers of a The word B ? ~ ~ U K O T O S in itself suggests a far wider re-
temple or of a guild (Lightf. PltiZ. 95 ; Hatch, O q a n i s a - sponsibility than the mere charge of finance : it implies
tion of E a r @ Christian Churches, 37J:)-all these are superintendence of persons as well as of things.
spoken of as E ~ U K O T O L , or are said PTLUKOTE~V. Nor Loening even goes so far as to suggest that the word
was this the only term which had a similar largeness of PT~UKOTOS was chosen just because it had no fixed
reference : quite parallel is the usage of dm,u&& and associations either in the Jewish or in the Greek world,
duarpeh~r.;ls (Hatch, see above). and was, therefore, free to be used in a community
In the LXX the word ~ T ~ U K O T O Sis equally wide in which stood in contrast to all other communities sur-
the persons and offices which it embraces. Taskmasters, rounding it.
captains or presidents, and commissioners, are in turn In the extreme scarcity of evidence, we may be
so entitled ; and as a synonym in the last of these cases content to say that the theory that the Christian
we find also 8&rarar (Lightf. : see above). 6?rfUKO?rOS derived his title and functions from those of
All this evidence points to the fact that ~ T ~ U K O T O Sand the officers of the Greek guilds or of the Greek munici-
~ L U K O were ~ V words which naturally offered themselves palities has not been established.
as descriptions of any persons charged with responsible W e may say, then, that the N T evidence seems to
oversight, and were the more available in that they had point to the existence in the apostolic age of two classes
no predominant association with any one class of officers ,. General of administration-a class of rulers and
in particular. The words were, as far as possible, concIusions. a class of humbler ministrants who acted
colourless, much as o w words ' preside ' and ' president' under their orders. As far as the first
are to-day. of these has a distinctive official title its members are
Hatch's position, adopted by Harnack, in reference called Elders ; but, since their function was summed
to ~ ~ U K O T OisLasfollows :-Themost important corporate up in the general responsibility of oversight ( ~ T L U K O ~ ~ T ) ) ,
5. Hatch,s function of the earliest Christian communities they could be spoken of as ' overseers ' ( ~ T ~ U K O T O L a) ,
was that of providing for their poor and sick term which was alrcady passing from a mere description
theory. members. They were, in fact, benevolent of function into a definite title. The men of the second
societies, and as such they had parallels a11 around class aided those of the first in the humbler parts of
them in the heathen world, in the countless clubs and their ministration. They were naturally described by
guilds which combined social purposes with certain the general designation of ' servants ' ( B L ~ K O V O ;L ) but
religious practices. The finance officers of these heathen this term too is passing in the apostolic age into a
societies were called IT~UKOTOL. Now, the dnties which recognised title. On the whole, it seems simpler to
the Christian ~ T ~ U K O T O Shad to perform are described as suppose that the latter stage has been reached in Phil. 1I
intimately connected with the care of the poor, with and in the Pastoral Epistles ; but the decision of this
hospitality to travelling brethren, and with the manage- point is not a matter of serious importance.
579 580
 BISHOP BISHOP
In the later history, the second class retains its iust introducing it as a hint beforehand but dwelling on the
designation, which in some localities comes to be a title coot-meaning which was still strongly ?elt in the word, and
contrasting it with 02 v b i in accordance with the OT passage
of considerable dignity. The first class, on the other which is in his mind.
hand, presently undergoes a subdivision : one member
comes to stand out above his fellows, and, whilst all No argument, therefore, can safely be based on the
continue alike to be Elders, the title of 6aiurto?ros, rhetorical use of the word ‘ elders ’ in the opening part
which in itself connotes an individual responsibility and of the letter. No doubt the Elders were elder men;
importance, is not unnaturally appropriated as the and no doubt the revolt came from some of the younger
designation of the one who has come to be the supreme men : this was a part of its heinousness, and the covert
officer of the community. The causes which led to a allusion would be understood by those to whom the
monarchical development are still wrapt in obscurity ; letter was addressed.
but the appropriation of the name ~ ~ J K O T O Sto the The development of the monarchical episcopate lies
chief ruler is not hard to understand. We are fortunate outside the limits of the N T ; but even
8. Clement in possessing a document of the last 9. Later
development. within the Canon we find indications of a
decade of the first century, by which we tendency which the later history enables
of Rome. can, to some extent, test the position us to interpret as moving in this direction.
~

which we have taken up. The Epistle of Clement of W e have noticed that all passages which describe the
Rome to the Corinthians was occasioned by the ejection functions and responsibilities of Elders speak of them
from their office of certain Elders of the church in as a class and in the plural number; whilst, on the
Corinth. As the writer may quite well have had other hand, where the duties of oversight (Paiurtoa?))
personal knowledge of one or more of the apostles, his are pourtrayed, the &T~UKOTOS is spoken of as a single
evidence is of high importance, not only for determining person, charged with responsibility-and this in one
the existing organisation of the church <n Corinth (and place in sharp contrast to the 6 i 6 r t o v o ~ and , in the other
probably in Rome as well) in his time, but also as immediately after Elders have been mentioned in the
indicating the belief that this organisation was instituted plural number. From this we may gather that, in as
by the apostles themselves. far as a member of the ruling class was thought of as
First let us consider the use of the designations in & ~ U K O T O S , it was natural to consider him by himself as
question in the most important passage. exercising an independent control and holding a position
(I 42) ‘The apostles ... appointed their first fruits (cp I Cor. of eminent authority.
lG15), having tested them by the Spirit, to be overseers and As far as terminology, then, is concerned, the way was
senants (6;s B ~ L U K ~ T O U S K a l 6LaK6vour) of them which should
believe.’ The words have clearly become titles and their use prepared
- - for the distinction that presently came into force.
as such is justified-as being not new, hut foritold in Is.616. Episcopos, The word &dartoaos suggests an in-
IC is curious that Scar6vous in this citation is an insertion of
Clement’s, an4 is not found in the LXX. H e is clearly quoting
from memory, and his memory has played him false. ($44) ‘ The
Fpostles foresaw that there would he strife ahout the, title (or
indi.Ezlised. dividual, just as the word ?rpeu,86repos
suggests the member of a ruling class,
or the word G L ~ K O V O Sthe member of a
office’) of oversight (rrepi 703 bv6paros BTLUKOT+). Hence serving class. The class of rnlers, however, did not
they ap ointed the aforesaid and provided for successors t o
them. f t is a sin to turn such, if they have discharged their need two designations, and when the course of develop-
ministry blamelessly out of their B T C U K O ~ ~ ~ ~ .‘ Blessed,’ he goes ment led to a supreme officer it was easy and natural to
on a t once, ‘are the hZ&rs who have gone before,’ and are safe appropriate to him the word Q T ~ U K O T O S , while his inferior
from such treatment. I n $ 4 7 we have the offence described as colleagues were simply termed apeupthepoi.
a revolt ‘against the Elders In $ 54 we read ‘Let the flock of
Christ he a t peace along wiih the appointed Elders’; and in But this consideration does not really give us any
$ 57, ‘ ?o ye who hegau this sedition submit yourselves to the
Elders. -guidance as to the causes of the change from covernment
ll. Change by a body of co-orzinate < ~ l o r t o a o r or
It is plain, then, that the persons whom the apostles
‘appointed as &rlurto?roi,’ and as their successors, are
spoken of also as ‘ the appointed Elders.’ These Elders
.___
foreshadowed apeuphepoi to government by a single
6 a i u r t o a o s with a consultative colleee of

are not to be rashly ejected from their Xwroupyia or inter pares. The apostolic age, however, presents us
t%lUKOT$. with several foreshadowings of the monarchical rule
The difficulty which Clement’s epistle’presents in the which presently became universal. In the church in
matter of these designations belongs to the earlier Jerusalem the position of James, the Lord’s brother,
chapters, before he has come to speak definitely of the was one of real if undefined authority, and, though not
Corinthian disorders : he seems to use the term ’ elders ’ marked by any special title, it closely resembles that
as though he referred not to an office, but only to a of the bishop of the second century. We have the
grade of persons dignified by that name in contrast to statement of Hegesippus that on the death of James his
the young (ol YQOL). cousin Symeon was appointed by general consent to
I n the first of the passages in question (I I ) he. praises their fill his place (Eus. H E iii. 11). Here, then, was a
former orderliness ‘submitting yourselves to your rulers (or monarchical type of government, naturally evolved and
“leaders,” 70;s +y&,ivo~s dpGv), apd paying the due honour to
the elders that were among you : and on the young ye enjoi?ed continuously recognised ; and such an example could
modesty and gravity; and on the women’ certain appropriate not f&, as time went on, to exercise an influence on
duties. Similarly, in g 21 we have, ‘let us reverence our rulers other communities.
(703s r r p o ~ y ~ u p Q v ~GpGv),
us and let us honour our elders, let us
instruct the young ... let us guide our women aright.’ Here In the Greek world the churches of Paul’s foundation
were from the first controlled by the strong hand of
we seem to have a contrast between ‘rulers’and ‘elders’ : and
it has been held (e.g. by Harnack) that the ‘rulers’ are a class their founder. I t is true that he urged them to corporate
of persons whose Luthority came from their possessing the action of their own in the exercise of jurisdiction and
cLarisnza of teaching(cp Heh. 137 24), whilst the Elders are an
undefined grade of senior members of the Church to whom discipline; but he himself commanded them with an
honour is due on account of age and length of discipleship. authority beyond challenge, and his commands were
But the word vdoi, occurring in both passages (not ve$Tepoi, as obeyed. I n certain cases he transferred this his apos-
elsewhere so often), is an important clue, which has not been tolic authority to delegates, such as Timothy and Titus ;
sufficiently attended to. Clement is in fact alluding to a passage
of Isaiah, which he cites with some additions in 9 3 : ‘so,’ he but only, it would seem, for a period, and in order to
says, ‘of old the mean rose up against the hononrahle, the cope with special needs. Still, in doing this, he had
young against the elder (ot U&L Bwi ~ 0 3 swpeupu~6pous)’ Is. 35. given a practical proof of the advantage gained by the
It would he possible to interpret ‘the rulers’ as h e civil
rulers to whom Clement several times applied the term $yo$- presence in a community of one who could rule with
p v o c ($ 37); but on the whole it seems most natural to sup- supreme authority ; and this temporary sway would
pose that at first he is carefully avoiding definite references doubtless help in determining the tendency of subse-
t o the Corinthian. revolt, and only preparing the way for its
$irect rebuke. Thus he speaks in the most general terms of quent development.
the rulers,’ and passes rapidly away from the word ‘ elders, These examples, however, would have been powerless
581 582
 BISHOP BITHIAH
by themselves to produce so great a change, hadthere not )f a like development in other parts of the Church.
12. Bishop been elements in the life of the communities Two passages may be cited which point in the same
which made for the concentration of authority 15. Eastern direction for the eastern side of the Medi-
chait&n. in particular hands. It is often said that
such an element is discoverable in the
Church. terranean. I . In the Didach)(chap. lo$)
the prophets are spoken of as holding a
working of the presbyteral college itself. Any board iositionof special importance in reference to the eucharist:
which meets for the transaction of business must .hey are not bonnd by the prescribed formulie of thanlis-
needs have a president. The hoder of this position :ivings, but may ‘give thanks as they will.’ This
would naturally acquire a large share of the authority mplies that, if present, they naturally take a prominent
of the board itself ; in time he would tend to become a Jart in the service. They may order an a@@’ to be
supreme officer over the whole commnnity. This ield (6pl&v ~ p d m ~ a a;v and ) to them the first fruits are
suggestion is open to two serious criticisms. On the io be given, ‘ for they are your chief-priests’ (chap. 13).
one hand, there is no ground for thinking that in The same document declares, however, that the ministry
parallel cases at that period such a development from : A E ~ T o L J of
~ ~ the
~ u )prophets and teachers was likewise
oligarchical to monarchical rule came about. Presidents 2xercised by the bishops and deacons (chap. 15). It is
of this kind were often elected for a month or for a safe to suppose that if no prophet were present the
year, and in any case did not acquire an independent Eonduct of the service would be in the hands of the
authority. Moreover, the term ‘ presbyteral college ’ permanent local ministry, although in this case there
may be challenged, if it is intended to suggest that the would be no exemption from the duty of using the
practical adiiiinistration of the Church was carried on prescribed formulie.
by means of formal meetings of the Elders as such. 2. The Ignatian Epistles, as is well known, portray
We have no evidence of any kind that they regularly the completed development of the three orders for
met in this way. It is probable that they had special certain Asiatic churches at a comparatively early period.
seats in the assembly of the community ; but that they It is noteworthy that the one bishop is expressly con-
met by themselves for the transaction of business and nected with the one eucharist (for references, see
required a chairman is a hypothesis for which no evi- EUCHARIST). No eucharist is to be held without
dence has yet been given. the bishop, or some person deputed by him to conduct
It is only when we turn our attention away from the it. There is ‘One bishop, one altar, one eucharist’
administration and fix it on the common worship of the (e& P ~ U K O T O S , 8v ewlauT~plov, pla edxapiaria).
13. Rather church, that we begin to get any rays of We may feel confident, then, that in the development
leader in light on this problem. If we knew better of the eucharistic service we have an element-perhaps
the history of the eucharist, it is not un- the most important element-of the development of the
worship. likely that the history of the episcopate monarchical episcopate.
would cease to bk so perplexing.. In the disorders As soon as this monarchical rille had been established
which disgraced the Lord’s Supper in Corinth, and in in a church various sacred parallels which would be
Paul’s regulations for checking them, we hear nothing 16. Final taken as confirmatory of the divine order of
at all of any kind of presidency or leadership. In the stage. the institution, would be observed. The
same church before the end of the century we find bishop and his presbyters might be com-
elders spoken of as the leaders of the eucharistic worship pared with Christ and his apostles. Or again, the three
and as offering the gifts.‘ orders of the Christian Church-bishop, presbyters,
The picture which, fifty years later, Justin draws of and deacons-would find a ready analogy in the high
the eucharist in Rome, shows us a single officer, spoken priest, priests, and Levites of the Jewish ritual. Swch
14. Justin,s of simply as ’ the president ’ (6 rrpoeu~bs parallels would serve to confirm -the validity of the
TOY d&h@Gv), receiving and offering the institution, and would facilitate its adoption in other
account. eucharistic elements, and making the localities.
eucharistic prayer, to which the whole congregation re- Meanwhile, the extraordinary ministry of apostles
sponds with the AMEN (§ 3). Likewise, after the read- and prophets had passed or was rapidly passing away.
ing of the Gospels or the Prophets ‘ the president ’ makes Some of the functions which they had exercised were
an exhortation based upon what has been read. He is, essential in the Church; and these devolved as a heritage
moreover, the depositary of the collection made in upon the permanent ministry. The prestige which had
behalf of the poor, and has a general responsibility for attached to their exercise passed over in the main to
widows aud,orphans, for the sick and needy, for prisoners, the chief officers of the community, who thus came to
and for travelling brethren from other communities be regarded, with a large measure of truth, as the
(Ap. i. 65-67). This president is clearly the bishop, successors of the apostles, wielding apostolic authority
though Justin’6 language does not help us to decide as the rulers of the Church and the defenders of the
whether he was at that time known in Rome by the Christian faith. . J. A . R.
title Prrlu~orros or not. If he was, it by no means
follows that ‘Justin would have said so. H e is writing
BISON (fkh, d&n), Dt. 145-F AVmg.; RV has
for heathen readers, and he avoids technical terms ; or, PYCARG ( p...).
if he finds it convenient to use them, he explains them. BIT (In?), Ps. 329 EV. See BRIDLE, 3
Thus, in speaking of the deacons, he describes them as
‘ those who with us are called BidKovoi’ (ot Kahodpevoi BITHIAH (3;nJ; rshla P I v Bseeia [AI, +&e-
rap’ +$p%G L ~ K O Y O L;) and his usual term for the Gospels goyla [L]), ‘daughter of Pharaoh,’ and wife of Mered
is ‘the memoirs of the apostles,’ t o . which in one ben Ezrah, in the genealogy Of JWDAH ( I Ch. 418). On
place he adds ‘ which are called gospels ’ (a KaheiTai the assumption that ‘ Pharaoh ’ (?)?a) is correctly read,
eLayyihia). We can argue nothing from the absence Bithiah (which might be explained ‘ daughter-Le.,
of the designation ‘ bishop ’ : had he cared to introduce worshipper-of Yahwh’ [Olsh. § 277 61) niiqbt be a
it, he would no doubt have done so by the phrase ‘ h e Hebraised form of an Egyptian name such as Eiint-Anta,
who with us is called ~ T ~ U K O T O S ’(6 Kahodfiwos rap’ ‘ daughter of Anta ’ (‘Anath), to indicate that the bearer
+p?v 6rturoros). But the person is there, if the name of the name had entered the Israelitish community.
is not ; and we see that important collateral functions This, however, does not accord with the view implied
belong to the officer who presides at the eucharistic in the vowels of the name of Bithiah’s husband. Mered
service. H e appears as at once the instructor and the apparently means ‘rebellion,’ and suggests a warning
.almoner of,the whde community. against the wickedness of taking foreign wives (see
It is a long step, however, from Clement to Justin, and EzraSr, and cp z Ch.24q6). It would he inconsistent
it is of some importance to us that we should have evidence with this that Mered‘s wife should bear the honourable
583 584
 BITH R 0N BITHYNIA
name ' daughter of Yahwe ' : we should expect to find eastern frontier is often made to coincide with the Rillaios o r
the old heathen name retained. Perhaps, then, Bithiah with the Parthenios, or even to extend beyond the latter river
in spite of Strabo's statement that the mouth of the Sangarid
is not the right name; d B ' syehra suggests to Kittel marked the boundary (543, .;lv BLBuviav bp& lrpbc ~ a i c
&y3 and dL's q5aRRouia may conceivably be based on &pohak). Inland, it ran out far E. of the river ; hut the line
mn3, which in turn may have sprung from n h , pro- is indeterminate. According to P1it.y ( H N 5 149) the Hieros or
Siberis separated Bithynia from the province GLlatia ; hut the
ducing a description of Mered's non-Jewish wife as ' a boundary fell some 12 m. E. of that stream (Rams. Hist. G p o g ~ .
young Egyptian princess ' (Mered's other wife ' the of A M rgg), whence it ran W. between the Sangarius and its
Jewess' [JEHUDIJAH (p.v.)I is not named). However, tributary, the Tembris.
the corruption is antecedent to 6 , and the whole story The will of Nicomedes III., the last of its kings, left
Bithynia to the Romans in 74 B. c. ; but it was not until
(half-told, half-implied, by the text as it now stands) is
imaginary. The idea of the double marriage of Mered
had not occurred to the original compiler ; the true text
2. History. 2 B. c., when the sultan of Pontus had been
nally expelled from Asia, that Pompeius
conveys no warning against mixed marriages. Four at could mndertake the organisation of the province (cp
least out of the'five names, Mered, Bithiah, Pharaoh, Plin. Ep. ad Tmi. 79). With it was now combined
Jehudijah, and Hodiah, are corrupt; perhaps indeed the whole of the kingdom of Pontus, with the exception
all five are. Mered, or, more strictly, M-R-D, has of those districts towards the E., as well as those in
probably come from M-R-TH, which is an incorrect the interior (Paphlagonia), which were assigned to native
form of R-M-TH-i.e., Ramoth-or rather of Jarmuth dynasts in recognition of their services to Rome (Str.
(see MERED). ' Bithiah ' is not improbably a corruption 541. See Niese in Bermes, 1339, and Rhein Mus. 38
of ' Bealiah' (a;)y?, I Ch. 125 [Gi. Ba. 61). Pharaoh 567 ['83]). Amisos, which lay immediately E. of the
should rather be rips, a clan name (cp PIRATHON). Halys (Kizil Irma?), was the most easterly community
of that part of Pontus which was combined with the old
Ha-Jehudijah (RVmg.) and Hodiah are plainly the kingdom of NiconiEdes to form the Roman province.
same name (in v. 19 read in+ ' his wife '). Accepting
This dual origin of the province was recognised in its official
this view, we have two accounts of the family of Mered. title, Pontus et Githynia (so generally in inscriptions, both Lat.
It is not quite certain, however, that the person mis- and Gr. ; cp Appian, Mithr. 121, CZG 3532 3548, CZL 55262).
called Mered is represented as having two wives. T h e reverse order is perhaps upon the whole later, encouraged
by the gradual growth in importance of the western section.
Hodiah may have been deliberately substituted for Either name, apparently might be used to denote the entire
Bealiah, from a dislike to the first element in that name. province (cp Tac. Ann. i 2 2 1 with Dio Cas. 6033 ; CIG 2590,
We are now rid of the only case in the O T of a name BUZZ. HeZZ. 11212). In administration also the two parts
retained a certain degree of formal independence, each having
compounded with Jah (n*)-of such names there are 157 its own metropolis and Diet (conciZiunz).
--being borne by a foreigner (cp Gray, HPN 158). In the distribution of provinces by Augnstus in 27
Next, another mistake has to be noted. It is plain that B. c. Pontus- Bithynia remained senatorial-Le., its
I Ch. 417 as it stands is not right. The remedy is (with 8. Post- governors, who were of PrEtorian rauli,
Berth. and Ritt.) to transpose v. 186 to the middle of bore the title 'proconsul' (Str. 840, Tac.
v. 17. inserting of course i)~! after mni. This gives us, Apostolic*Ann. 1 7 4 1 6 18). The official residence
as the children of Bithiah or Realiah, Miriam (?), was Nicomedeia. Under the ineffective supervision of
Shanimai, and Ishbah tbe father of Eshtemoa. Eshtemoa the Senate the province gradually became disorganised :
also occurs (together with Keilah) in the list of the its finances fell into disorder, and unregulated coZ2ep.a
children of Hodiah (v.19), while Gedor, Soco, and gave birth to turbulence and faction. In order to carry
Zanoah are connected with Mered through Hodiah's out the necessary reforms, the younger Pliny was sent
double, Ha-Jehudijah-animportant notice (SeeMERED). into the province in 112 A.D. His importance arises
It is perhaps sad to have lost what was supposed to be from his official contact with Christianity (E$$. ad Trai.
an early testimony to the presence of an Egyptian ele- 96 and 97. See Hardy, PZiny's Correspondence, 51 f:,
ment at and about Eshtemoa, as contrasted with the Rams. Church, 1963,and cp CHRISTIAN, 0 63).
more purely Jewish character of Gedor, Soco, and In the early period of post-apostolic history Bithynia
Zanoah; but we gain an attestation of the traditional is illustrious ; but it has little connection with the
importance of Jarmuth. It may be added that in apostles themselves. The salutation of I Pet. 1 I, where
Jewish legend Bithiah becomes the foster-mother of Pontus and Bithynia are mentioned separately, bears
Moses ( Vayyikra, R.,par. I). T. K. C. witness to the rapid evangelisation of the province.
BITHRON (filnp?, T H N r r a p a ~ e i ~ o y c[BAL].
a~ Before 1 1 2 A.D. Christianity had made such progress in
Bithynia that pagan ritual was interrnpted and the
8- dJl, BETH-HORON) 1 the groove ' or I cleft *
temples in great part deserted (Pliny, Ep. ad T r a i . 96).
p u r exceZZence situated between the Jordan and Maha- W e get a hint that there, as in Ephesus, trade interests
naim ( 2 S. 229f), and possibly to be identified with were at the bottom of the attack then made upon
the W. ' A j h n , along which, though at a later time, the Christians. The conz'ugio istius superstitionis (xuper-
ran a Roman road from 'AjlEn to Mahanaim (Buhl, s t i z ' i o p a v u immodica), a s Pliny calls the faith, would
PuZ. 121); see EPHRAIM, W OOD OF. For the sense most easily enter the province by way of Amisus, along
of Bithroii cp 6 ' s rendering of ~ 1 3 in Cant.217 (Sf?) the route leading from the Cilician Gates by T y h a and
W Y Koihds in d for pny).
K O L ~ W ~ ~ T (like The reading CEsarea Mazhca in Cappadocia. Ramsay (Church,
Bithron is not certain, and the Vss. give little help,l 225) conjectures from Pliny's letter that its introduction
although Vg. (cp also Aq.'s P ~ B w p w v )suggests that must fall about 65-75 A. D.
there was another Beth-horon E. of Jordan (see HORO- Amisus is now Saiizst2n. Even in Strabo's time it was
NAIM). Thenius's conjecture, B ETH- HARAM, is im- gradually displacing SinBpE (Sinub) as the great harbour on
prohable. the north coast. The route from Czsarea M a z k a northwards
sia Aqua: Saravenae, Euagina, and AmZseia, to Amisus, is even
BITHYNIA (BIeyNla [Ti. WH]), the district round to-day 'the only road practicable for arabas, and must always
the central Sangarius (Sakarz^u)in the NW. corner of have heen a great trade-route' (Rams. Hist. Geogr. of AM,
268).
1. Geonaphy. Asia Minor, extending from the mouth
of the Rhyndacus (Edrenos Chai) east- The interpretation of the word Bithynia in Acts 1 6 7
wards to that of the Sangarius. is connected with the question concerning the Galatian
The boundary between Bithynia and the province of Asia 4. Acts 167. churches (see GALATIA). On the N.
coincided not as might have been expected with the line of the Galatian theory, the object of Paul's vain
Rhvndacis, b;it with that of the range of the hlysian Olympus attempt to enter Bithynia must have been to reach either
(!<eshish Dugh) lying N. of the river (Pliny, H N 5 1 4 2 ) . The
Amisus or Amastris; for a design of preaching in the
1 E3 is unintelligible and, to judge from its similarity to the barbarous interior is improbable. The direct route to
Heb. (cp We. Dr. ad Zoc.), has arisen perhaps from a trans-
literation. Amastris went, it is true, by way of Ancyra in Galatia
585 586
 BITTER HERBS BITUMEN
but on the other hand no such route could have brought web :1 the use of the noun Z l z ? in Ezek. 725 accords well enough
the apostle ‘ over against Mysia ’ (so RV ; KCLTZL T*V nith this derivation.
Yuulav). Further, both in Roman and in ordinary fCz$ptd is equivalent in form to Aram. kup$e”dh&,
usage Amastris, and still more Amisus, was a city of 4r. Runfudh ;2 and that these are the words for ‘hedge-
Pontus, not of Bithynia; and only the word Pontus hog ’ in their respective languages is made clear for Ar.
could have been allowable as a single term to express (e.& ) by Damiri’s account ( g a y a t al-Haiwdn, Biilgk
the dual province to which it belonged (as is clear from ?dition, ii. 219) and for Aram. by the Syr. Physiolo~vs
Str. 541 compared with 543, in speaking of Heraclea). [Lands Anecduta Syriaca. 4 4 ~ f . ) . ~The instances of
T h e expression ‘ to go into Bithynia’ can only be taken iisg, ~ p p in, late Heb. and Aram. prove the same for
to imply W. Bithynia-Le., the district round Nicaea post-biblical Jewish usage (see Lewysohn, ZooZo& a’u
and Nicomedeia, where the wealth and administrative TaZmuds, 100).
machinery of the province were centred. Dorylaion Whilst the philological evidence is thus entirely in
(Eski-shehr), only a few miles S. of the Bithynian favour of the rendering ‘ hedgehog’ or ‘ porcupine,’ it
frontier, was the point to which all the roads from the 2. zoology. must be admitted that, zoologically,
south converged ; Paul and his companions must have there are considerable difficulties. The
been somewhere in this neighbourhood when they were animal is always spoken of in connection with desola-
suddenly diverted westwards (Acts 167). w. J. w. tion, and once in relation to pools of water: and,
BITTER HERBS, BITTERNESS (8’579; ni- whilst both these conditions would be natural in the
K p l ~ e c , ~aalrtuce
’~ agrestes, EX. 1 2 8 Nu. 911 ; m[Kpl&, habitat of the Bittern, they have no particular associa-
arnaritudines, Lam. 3 15 ; in Mishna also in sing. ) are tion with either the Hedgehog or the Porcupine.
twice mentioned along with n\%pas the accompaniment Again, in Is. 3411, the lis? is mentioned among birds ;
of the paschal feast. Probably such herbs-whether and in Zeph. 214 it is prophesied that the Pelican and
separately or mixed-as lettuce (Lactuca ScarioZu, var. the &pptd shall lodge together in the capitals of ruined
sativa), chicory (Cichorium Zntybus), and endive (Cich- Nineveh, while ‘ a voice’ (if the text may be trusted)
orium Endiivia) are meant. Doubtless they originally shall sing in the windows. The answers made by
came into use simply as a relish or salad,2 though the Bochart to these objections-that the Porcupine or
prescription of them in the Law may have to do with the Hedgehog was regarded as an unfriendly, desert-loving
atoning significance of the Passover : their association animal on account of its formidable equipments ; that
with the sufferings of the people in Egypt is probably we can find parallels to the mention of a beast among
a later new (Nowack, HA 2 173). See, further, PASS- birds in such enumerations as Lucian’s large oxen, and
OVER. horses, and eagles, and bears, and lions ‘; and that the
‘ Bitter herbs,’ rather than ‘ bitterness ’ (a,
EV), capitals on which the animal is to sit may be those of
seems to he the proper rendering in Lam.315, where fallen columns-are ingenious, but perhaps scarcely
03Tip answers to &, ‘wormwood,’ in the parallel satisfying. It has been suggested that the translation
c1ai.e. N. M.-W. T. T.-D. ‘bittern’ may be reconciled with the etymology by
considering the fact that this bird has the power of
BITTERN, RV Porcupine (TiBp, E ~ ~ N ericizs;
~ ~ : drawing in its long neck so that its head almost rests
Is. 1423 3411 Zeph. 214f). The identit7 of this animal upon its b r e a ~ t . ~ Still, it, is not easy to set aside the
1. Philology. (Web. &&td) is far from certain : opinions argument derived from the meaning of the word in the
of great variety have been held. cognate languages.
The ancient vers<ons unanimously render ‘ Hedgehog’ (or Bittern, Bufaurus steZZalaris, is found in marshy
‘Porcupine’-the two were scarcely distinguished), and this is andThe reedy places throughout Europe, Asia (including
in general supported by Jewish tradition though Rashi thinks
that in Is.84rr Zeph.214 a bird is ,‘,ant, and D. Kimhi India), and Africa. Canon Tristram records its occur-
interprets ‘Tortoise’4 in all three passages (see their com- rence in the marshes of Hiileh. It is a nocturnal bird
mentaries in ZOCC.). Of modern Bibles Wycliffe’s has in all of considerable size, and is remarkahle for its loud
three places ‘ F h i n , ’ and so Luther (followed as usual by the
Dutch). ‘ Ieel. Tunius and Tremellius in their Latin OT render -~.booming note. Formerly a common bird in suitable
anatapia 7 ducg-eagle’); Coverdale followed by the Great localities in Britain, it is no’w but a winter visitor. It
Bible, bas ‘Otter’ in Is.1423 and ‘Stork’ in 15.3411 Zeph. is grouped with the Herons in the family Ardeide.
2 14, while the Geneva Bible has in Isaiah ‘ Hedgehog’ (1423
mg. or ‘tortoise’), and in Zephaniah ‘Owl’ (mg: or ‘hedge- ( c p also C O R M O R A N T and PELICAN. )
hog’). The French Protestant version seems alone to have For Is. 34 I I (qi~??;RVm& ‘bittern ’) see OWL, 5 z(4)
anticipated AV in the rendering ‘butor’ (mg. ou ‘hiidre’). N. M.-A. E. S.
The Roman Catholic Bibles follow the Vulgate.5
The etymology of the Hebrew word is not, however, BITTERNESS, WATER OF (h’lQg Nu. 518 ’n),
unchtain. RV, AV ‘ bitter water.’ See JEALOUSY, ORDEAL OF.
I t is derived from a verb which in Assyrian means ‘to plot ’
transitively (Sargon, KIB 2 6 6 3 ) and in Arabic (I) ‘to infli& BITUMEN, the proper rendering ( I ) of 7Qn,6as
a blow on the neck of another’ ’ ( 2 ) ‘to have a thick or loose RVmg. recognises ( & c + & A T o ~; bitumen; EV has
neck.‘ The original sense is Gerhaps better seen in Syriac
where the same verb means ‘ t o gather into a heap or hali 1 This evidence seems enough to show that the original sense
(trans. or intrans.): the sense of drawine toaether .~~~
~~D also nndrrlips
_.
_..
...
I
was ‘ t o contract or ‘cause contraction by striking ’ not to
‘cut ; and that those were misled who, like Fuller aAd nearly
~ ~ ~~~

;he Assyrian use (cp ‘ intrigue,’ intricare). The verb occurs

but once in OT Hebrew (in Pie1 form) Is. 38 12-‘ I have rolled all the older scholars, explained the name of the animal from
rCp (or possibly ‘ shortened,’ see Dillmhnn ad Zoc.) like a weaver the latter sense. I n post-biblical Hebrew and W. Aramaic the
my life,’-a simile referring to the treatment of the finished sense of cutting is fairly common ; but this may be explained
partly perhaps from a misinterpretation of ’ i p , ? in Is. 38 12,
1 W L K ~ is,
~ F according to Dioscorides (2 159)~the wild variety of
U$LF (chicory or endive): Pliny (xix. 838) mentions it as the and partly from association with Gr. ~ d r mand its derivatives :
bitterest sort of ladwca (see the reff. in Di. on Ex.128 and cp Syr. Ku$di (N.S. &bti), ‘a piece of flesh’-late Gr.
in Nowack, H A 2 173) : Picks eckioides is probably indnded KO?&LO”.

by both. I t does not of course follow that the meaning of 2 So Bthiopic Kenfez. I t seems more probable that the
O’!pl is identical with that of r r ~ p Q s r . Arabic word is a loan-word from Aramaic, than that lisp is
2 Vegetable food with meat is a dietetic necessity, and would horrowed. FrPnkel however (Aram. Fremdw. xiv.), holds that
naturally be eaten raw until it was discovered that certain kinds the latter is the cas:.
were best cooked. It is a matter for curious inquiry why so 3 Cp, for Syriac the other references cited by P. Smith.
many salad herbs were bitter, at any rate in their feral form. Ku$$dka appears’to he used for the ‘owl’ in KaL w. D i k .
(4“)
Dandelion is a striking example. \>“,I.
1 Cp Brehm’s Tkiede6en (Leipsic ‘79) 6388. ‘When it
3 Also used to render in, Is. 1322, and iirq, Is. 3415. (the Bittern) rests and is a t ease, it holds the body erect in a
4 Which he wrongly supposes to he the meaning of Ar. somewhat forward position and draws in its long neck to such
&nfiLdh. an extent that its head rests upon its neck.’
6 Explanations of these various renderings will he found in 6 Ar. homar. Perhaps with reference to the reddish colour
Fuller‘s MisceZlaneu Sacra, 1 18 ; Bochart’s Hierae. 3 36. occasionally observed ? (Diosc. 199).
587 588
 BIZJOTHJAH BLASPHEMY
slime’) in Gen. 1 1 3 1410 Ex.23T; but also ( 2 ) of towards God or man, things holy or things profan
793, which, like its Aram. cognate, is an 4ss. loan-word (Jer. 33 24 Is. 60 14 I S. 2 17).
(EV P ITCH) in Gen. 6 14f, where its occurrence furnishes ‘ Blaspheme’ (cp the verb ‘to blame,’ Romanic 62as?ma~e,
one of the proofs of the Babylonian origin of the L. blasjhSncrire, and see Murray, s.v.), however, occurs in the
EV as a Gendering also of the following ,words : 712 I K.
Deluge-Story (see DELUGE, § 13). I n the Bab. 211013 AV (RV ‘curse’l RVmg. ‘renounce ; cp Dav. on Job
Deluge-Story six ‘ faus’ of Rupru (-@, ‘ bitumen ’) and 15); 172 zK.19622 EV=Is.3?623 EV, Ezek.2027 EV, Nu.
three of iddu (naphtha : Jensen) are poured upon the 153oRV(AV ‘reproach’), Ps.4416[17]EV; ( W L z m ) 2 p Lev.
outer and inner sides of the ship, respectively. Iddu, 2411 (” De) 2). 16 EV, and the Gk. Bharr+~p& z Macc.1034
‘ naphtha,’ is the word used in the legendary account of (not V) 1214 Mt. 2739 Mk. 328 (followed by ~b &opa TOQ OaoG),
the infancy of Sargon I. (3 R. 458a ; RP(l)5 56) :-‘ she Rev.136, I Pet.414.
placed me in a basket of reeds, with id& my door I n I Macc. 738 ‘blasphemies’ is the rendering of
‘she shut’ ; in the similar story of Moses the words Gvuq5vplaL ; in n. 41 ‘ t o blaspheme’ represent: the
igg, ‘ bitumen,’, and jm,PITCH ( q . ~ . ) ,are combined related verb 6uuq5vpeLv ; the object of the blasphemies
is the temple, It is important to determine the sense of
(E: 2 3 & U ~ ~ U X T O S m u m [Ban b]. but ~ U ~ ~ U X T ~ T L U U UpXau$gp~iv accurately, because the sense of ‘ to blas-
[B AF]). The origin of bitumen, or asphalt, and pheme’ in E V follows this exactly. I n a word, the
naphtha need not delay us long. Together with conception of ‘blasphemy ’ in current English is narrower
petroleum and mineral tax, they form a series of sub- than the conception that we find in this supposed pattern
stances which are the result of certain changes in of English speech, which includes all modes of reviling
organised matter. These substances merge into each or calumniating God or man (see d on z K. 196 [Heb.
other by insensible degrees, and it is impossible to
WIJ] 194 [Heb. ph] and Is. 525 [Heb. yam uncertain
say at what point mineral tar ends and asphalt ,begins.
Naphtha, which is the first of the series is in some places conj.], and cp Acts 1345 186 Jude g with Lk. 521 Jn.
found flawingout of the earth as a clear lidpid, and colourless 1036).
liquid. As such it is a mixture of hydrdcarbons, some of which Among the Hebrews (whose view, it is needless to
are very volatile and evaporate on exposure ; it takes up oxygen
from the air, becomes brown and thick, and in this state it say, profoundly affected our own comiuon law)
is called petroleum. A continuation of the same process of 2. OT senti- blasphemy or the expression of unjust,
evaporation and oxidation gradually transforms the material derogatory opinions regarding God or his
into mineral tar, and still later into solid glassy asphalt. merit. government of the world was made a
Asphaltic deposits are widely diffused throughout capital offence-(Lev. 24 11 ; cp I K. 21 13, and see Jos.
the world, more especially in tropical and sub-tropical Ant. iv. 8 6 ) ; the blasphemer must be ‘ cut off’ from his
regions-for example in the basin of the DEAD SEA people (Lev. 2415 P ; see LAW AND JUSTICE, $ 13).
(q.n., $6). The asphalt of the Dead Sea (which was It was forbidden to use the name of God lightly (o;n
very well known to the ancients) is not at present of
commercial importance ; but the sources of the supply of Dt. 5x1). whether to ask a blessing or to invoke a curse
ancient Babylon, the bitumen springs of Hit (the .Is of (cp Ex. 207, and see BLESSING A ND CURSING, $ I, and
Schultz, O T TheoZ. 2 122 fl [ET]). Whenever Israel
Herod. lqq), are still used. At this very old city on
the Euphrates the shipwrights adhere to the ancient is brought to shame G o d s name is scoffed at by the
heathen (Ps. 7410 18). At a later date it was held to be
fashion of boat- building. , Tamarisk and mulberry
branches form the substratum, which is covered with a mark of profanity even to pronounce the real name of
mats and thickly besmeared with bitumen (cp Ex. 23).2 the God of Israel (see Lev. 2411 and cp NAMES, 109).
Bitumen was much used in architecture (see Gen. 113). Josephus (Ant. iv. 86), and the Rabbis interpret Ex.
2228 as a prohibition of blaspheming ‘ strange gods ’ ;
Unburned brick protected by a plaster of bitumen
but the interpretation, however much in the interests of
proved the most indestructible of materials (see ASSYRIA,
the Jews themselves, implies a misunderstanding of the
6, BABYLONIA, 5 15, and cp Peters, Nippur, 2162).
use of dl6him (see Schultz, 2127). It was on a charge
Bitumen was used in ancient times as a fuel (Verg.
Ed. 8 83), for medicinal purposes (Jos. BJ iv. 8 4 ) 3. NT. of blasphemy-claiming to be the Christ, the
and for embalming (see EMBALMING). Son of God-that Jesus was found worthy of
death (Mk. 1461-64 Mt. 2665 ; cp Jn. 1033), and for
BIZJOTHJAH, RV Biziothiah (Vn\?2), among blasphemons words against ‘the holy place and the
the cities of Judahin the Negeb (Josh. 1528). BBA ( K U ~ law’ Stephen was condemned to be stoned (Acts613
al KGpaL U ~ T & K . ai B T U ~ X E L Sad. [L om.]) enables us to 7 5 6 3 ) . See STEPHEN. By blasphemy against the
restore thus-~v$ip (‘and her villages ’). See We. C H Holy Spirit in Mk. 329, Mt. 1232, was meant originally
132, and Hollenbeig, AZex. Ue6ers. a.‘ B. /os. (’76), 14. a definite offence of the scribes and Pharisees, who had
ascribed Jesus’ cures of demoniacs to a power derived
BIZTHA (K>l$ [sa., Ginsb. for common ’131, from the prince of the demons. This was blasphemy
MAZAN [BK*LB], BAZ. [Kc.=], -zsaJA]). a chamberlain against the divine power which had come upon
of Ahasuerus (Esth. 1IO). If any reliance could be put on Jesus at his baptism (Mlr. 1IO Mt. 316 Lk. 322). I n
the reading of the Vss., one might, with Marq. (Fund. Mt. 1232,however, a later interpretation is given, which
71),compare pafav with 0. Pers. nzazdana-i.e., IiTn, or implies that the disciples of Jesus had thoroughly
pafav, with /#a&vqs, the name of a eunuch of Darius 111. absorbed the idea of the indwelling Spirit. The Holy
BLACK (Dtn,7h4,772, ?@J) and BLACKISH Spirit is put in antithesis to the ‘Son of Man.’ One
(7lb) Job 616 ; see COLOURS,$ 8. BLACKNESS ; for who fails to pierce below the humble exterior of Jesus
Prov. 79 RV and Joel26 Nah. 210, see COLOURS,§ 17; may be forgiven. One who not merely rejects, but
for Job 3 5 i6. 8 n., for Is. 503 ib. 8. openly disparages, that great gift which ‘ the Heavenly
Father will give to those who ask him’ (Lk.1113)
BLAINS (n’y+p%),Ex. 99J.q. See BOIL, 3. cannot be forgiven : the inward impediment in the man
BLASPHEMY (nuy? 2 K. 193 IS. 373 ; n\Yi$J himself is too strong. The idea of the original distinc-
tion was suggested by that in the Law (Num. 1527-31).
Neh. 9 18 26 ; ’5; Ezek. 85 12 ; BAAC@HMIA Tob. 118 A parallel to it will be found in the Mishna (Sanhedr.
I Macc. 26 Mt. 1231 2665). The word lor)-’ He who says that the Law is not from Heaven
The word* so translated is derived from a root has no part in the world to come’ (w>n phy). The
HI) meaning literally to scorn or reject’ (see z S. later interpretation, however, has no parallel, and is a
1214 Ps. 741018 Is. 525). I n Hebrew, therefore, it can
1 This rendering of ?(lzis very doubtful: but it is quite
naturally be used to describe an attitude of hostility
possihle that in passa es like Job 1 5 I I<. 21 TO 13 a later editor
1 Perhaps connected with bamtu, ‘burning. fiery’ (Halevy). substituted 712 for 5\p or yxi. In Ps.103 we may even have
a See the illustration called ‘ A Noachian Boatyard at Hit,’
Peter., iVzippur, 2 162. side by side the correction 712 and the original reading YS!.

589 590
 BLASTING BLUE
product of the Spirit of Christ working in the hearts of )metimes an increased sanction through the cursing
the first disciples. irmulae attached. Thus KE iv. mentions a statute
BLASTING (fiPye; GBAFLaNeMo@Bopia [Dt. :specting the maintenance of boundaries, which is
iforced by a curse on any one who should violate it.
25 2 2 2 Ch. 6 281, ENTTYPICMOC [I K. 8 371 ; GBAQ ’O this category of curses belong those in Dt. 28.
r r y p w c ~ c[Am. 491 ; dBNcbQI’, a@opia, bA a@eo. It is true that a series of blessings is attached to the
@N* a m . [Hag. 2171) is, as we learn from Gen. 41, :ries of cursings. Moses, from his close connection with
a term specially applied to the blighting effect of wind le Deity, had a special power of blessing and cursing.
upon corn. The root in Arabic means blackness ; and .fter him the priests had a similar power, which they
the Heb. word thus describes a blackening (almost xerted in the interests of the faithful community (cp
burning) process which is regarded as due to a severe wind J RIM AND T HUMMIM, § 6). The uplifted hands of the
-a sense which is expressed by the various renderings riest drew down (as it were) a blessing on Israel (cp
of 6. The word is in each passage coupled with fipz,: ,ev. 9 22 Nu. 6 23-27) and a curse on Israel’s enemies.
‘ mildew.’ Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether wind is ,o potent, indeed, were the blessings and the curses ot
in itself sufficient to account for such a blackening. In he reputed founder of Israel that they could be said to
the British Islands wheat when young assumes a yellow e on the two sacred mountains which enclose the
colour from cold, a well-known physiological effect. Sriginal centre of the people-the valley of Shechem-
Under a burning drying wind, it might turn brown, eady to descend, as the case might be, ,with rewards or
but scarcely bZack. Further, it must be noted that in iunishments (Dt. 1129).I
Gen. 41 6 the corn was in ear ; it had made its growth, Within the family it was the father who (according to
but the ears were thin-i. e . , diseased. It seems prob- )rimitive ideas not unconnected with the worship of
able, then, that the effect conceived in the dream was mcestors) had the mystic privilege of determining the
that produced by corn smut,‘ UstiZago Carbo; and that veal or woe of his children (Gen. 9 2 5 8 ) , and more
this is the real meaning of ]im@. ‘ Mildew ’ is the other :specially when his days were manifestly numbered (see
%Au, 2, I SAAC , 5 5, JACOB). Nor does it appear
common disease of corn, Puccinia graminis.
N. M.-W. T. T.-D. hat the early Israelites linuted this power by moral con-
iiderations (see Gen. 27 35). Obviously, however, such
BLASTUS ( BAac~oc[Ti. WH]), the chamberlain
L limitation was a necessary consequence of a pure
(6 8 d 703 KoirGvos, prefeGtzls c u b i c ~ l i )of King Herod
Agrippa I. (Acts 12 2.). nonotheism. The post-exilic writers declare that only
.he offspring of the righteous can be blessed (Ps. 37 26),
BLESSINGS and CURSINGS (773, to bless-a md that the observance of God‘s laws ensures his favour
denominative from T? ;, the knee, with the lower part of without the aid of priests or enchanters. Fear not,
the leg; perhaps ‘ t o cause to make progress,’-and .hen, said the later sages to their pupils, if thine enemy
776,to curse [cp Ass. ardru ( I ) ‘ to curse,’ ardru ( 2 ) ‘ to :uses thee : ‘ the curse causeless shall not come ’ (I’rov.
bind ’1,and their derivatives ?l?JL n?&p, in parallelism, 26 2):
chiefly in poetic and legal sources of JED ‘and later Still, even in post-exilic time we sometimes find a
imitations ; cp Gen. 27 zg Dt. 1126 Josh. 8 34 etc. ). strange half-consciousness that curses had an inherent
LB represents -p-~by s&Aoyeiv, 3113 by &Aoyia (also NT power. I t was worth while to curse a bad man,
words). In Hebrew for ‘ cursing ’ we find also (a)%p Z\\c to ensure his full punishment-such is the idea of Ps.
(prop. tobelittle?)frequently. (6) &, verb and noun, c p nY?t 109-a strange survival of primitive superstition.
n>$ ‘oath of cursing’ Nu. 5 21 (RVmg. ‘adjuration’), rendered In the discourses of Jesus we find blessings and
‘execration,’ Jer.4218 4422, and RV only Jer.2918; its curses. They are, however, simply authoritative declara-
derivative Z2,Kp occurs in Lam. 3 65t. (c) Dlfl, i3’lr7> see BAN. tions of the eternal connection between right-doing and
(d) 22p only in the Balaam stories (Nu. 22 IT 23 8 24 IO) and happiness. wrong-doing and misery (e.g.,in the case of
possibly to be connected wjth 233 (prop. ‘ to pierce ’) rendered in Judas).
Lev. 24 II 16 ‘blaspheme. From the Jewish tradition which Parallels to the Israelitish view of blessings and
explained it to mean ‘pronounce, speak aloud’ arose the deep cursings outside of the Semitic peoples hardly need to be
rooted belief that the divine name was not to be uttered undeI quoted. The objective existence of both, but especially
any circumstance (see NAMES, 0 109 n.)! IDOLATRY, 8 8. (e)
?1p13$,Is. 65 15, E V ‘curse,’ properly ‘oath ’ as in R V w ; see of curses, was strongly felt by the Assyrians and
OATH and cp COVENANT, $3 5.
Babylonians, as the magical texts show. The Arabian
The N T words are (a)bva&pad<w Mk. 1471 (in ‘l3 foI beliefs on the subject axe also very suggestive, as
nyn, nqn>) ; ~ a ~ a v a O e p a [ ~ ~ <Mt.
m , l ,26 74 Rev. 22 3 ; see BAN. Goldziher has pointed out. See MAGIC, z n., and
(h) ~a?-ap&[opat]Rom. 12 14 Jam. 3 g (in 9 for 557, lw), alsc on the ‘ curse-bringing water’ (Nu. 5 1 8 3 ) see J EALOUSY,
KaTa‘pa Gal. 3 10 13 and KaTa‘Bepa (RVW. anythikg accursed WATER OF. T. K. C.
Rev. 22 3 ; cp also ;?rrranipams ‘ under a curse,’ Gal. 3 IO. (c
KaKoAoy6E)v Mt. 15 4 Mk. T IO, RV ‘ speak evil of’ (in ‘l3 for $ 5 ~ )
see OATH.
BLINDNESS (n’?gD, Gen. 1911 2 K. 618 ; fi?$,
In the primitive sense of the word, a blessing or a Dt. 2828 Zech. 124). See EYE, DISEASES, and MEDI-
curse was a spell, pronounced by ‘ holy ’ persons, and CINE.
containing a divine name, or divine names, which drew BLOOD. For blood in law and ritual, see S ACRIFICE ;
down the divine favour or disfavour (i.e., prosperity 01 PASSOVER; CLEAN A N D UNCLEAN, $I$ ; COVENANT, 5 5f: ;
adversity), as the case might require, on certain otheI KINSHIP, $3 13;and Foon, $3 9. For ‘avenger of blood’ (5ch
persons. It was a consequence of the hardness of life a??; Dt. 19% see GOEL. For ‘issue of blood’(pdccs d l p a m s ;
that curses were more frequently in demand than Mk. 525), see DISEASE, MEDICINE.
blessings. Thus (u) the breaking out of hostilitiei BLOOD, Field of (arpoc MMATOC), Mt. 278. See
between states naturally led to the solemn utterance oi ACELUAMA.
formulze of cursing against the enemy. These invoca.
tions would be uttered at the opening of a campaign, anc BLUE (n$ag), Ex. 25 4, etc., a variety of Purple.
especially when the warriors were on the point o See COLOURS, $5 13. 15.
advancing against the foe. Goliath, we are told Blue ’ is employed in E V of Esth. 1 6 to distinguish certain
‘cursed David by his gods’ ( I S. 17 43). The battle kinds of stones. Thus for iiilii we have AV ‘blue marble,’ AVmg.
shout certainly had a religious character ; and, if it dic ~~

1 The blessing and the curse referred to were those attaching

not always devote the enemy to destruction, at any rat( to the fulfilment and the non-fulfilment of the commands of the
it invoked a blessing on the national side. Cp Ps. 68 I- Law. They were ‘laid before’ Israel by Moses and were
and the story of B ALAAM [q.v.].l (a) The laws too hac to be ‘laid’ by them on their arrival in the proksed land,
probably by solemn proclamation on Mounts Gerizim and Ebal
1 Nu. 22 6 shows that Balak, according to the narrator, wa respectively. In Dt. 27 12f. we dave a later writer’s interpreta-
about to fight with the Israelites. tion of this command. See Kue. TAT,1878, pp. 2 9 7 3
591 592
 BOANERGES BOCHIM
‘marble’ RV ‘white marble’: and for n i n b EVmg. ‘stone dural of poavep s). Beza on the other hand (Adnotatioxes
of blue ’colour,’ EV ‘black marble.’ See, however, MARBLE, vrajores, ad Zoc. y25941). t d d to improve on Drusius by suggest-
and cp COLOURS, B 16. ng that a mistake had occurred in a Semitic text: p y i was
For ‘blueness’ in Prov. 20 30t AV (us9 n)lmn, ‘blueness of nisread ~ y i . I t is difficult to see how this could be. A
wound’) RV has, better, ‘stripes that wound. Semitic text containing the name pylq3 would not need to give
m explanation of the name (cp col. 490, n. I). On the other
BOANERGES ( B O A N H ~ ~ W [Ti. Treg. W H follow- hand, a Greek translator could not have given the supposed
ing KABC, etc. ; BOANAP. [A*], T R B O A N E ~ ) , aname zorrect translation if he had misread the word.1
given, according to Mk. 3 1 7 , to ~ James [I] and John ( y ) There remains the possibility that s=l (see e.g. A NAZ
the sons of Zebedee. The reading of K, etc., points to BOAZ). Kautzsch (Z.C.) suggests that pyes may represen;
poavv WESas the accepted analysis of the name, and ’ 4 2 (l’?l), ‘anger’ (cp Dan. 313 and, asused of thunder, the Ar.

the evangelist explains it by ut01 ppovr?js, ‘sons of irtajaza ’r-ra‘dfc) ; and this solution is adopted by Dalman (Z.C.)
who further accounts for the translation ppovnj by comparin;
thunder.’ Each element, however, presents some
difficulty. Job 372, I;>, used of thunders (k,o:a e&$.
I. The difficulty in taking Boane- to be r z , #ne‘, The historical origin of the name not being known
‘sons of,’ is to.account for o a = s h e w ~ . (cp J AMES , i. I ) , we cannot determine the second
Attempts to explain it as a phonetic ‘corruption’ have been Semitic element with certainty. There is no evidence
unsatisfactory. There does not appear to he any Fiistorical that ‘ Boanerges ’ can ever have meant strictly ‘ sons of
foundationafor Bretschneider’s explanation3ofaaas a corrupt pro- thunder.’ On the other hand, what is said in the
nunciation of a provincial (Galilean) a, or for Hugh Broughton’s
statement4 (Works 620) that the Jews pronounced shew& as oa. Gospels of the sons of Zebedee gives a certain appro-
I t is more plaukhle to regard the corruption as textual. priateness to such a title as i n 713, taken in the sense of
1 angry,’ ‘ soon angered’ (or the like).
Since shew&=a is natural enough (cp paq-papar, Josh. 1 Y 45 H. W. H.
[A]), and shewii=o is not unknown (cp e.g. Lcpopoap), oa
might be a conflate reading.6 Dalman (Gram. 122, n. 2)6 BOAR (l’Fn, cyc), Ps. 8013 1141. See SWINE (end).
supposed the transposition of an o which originally stood after
p (see below). H e now prefers to regard either o or a as a BOAZ. I. (rq2hardly, ‘quickness’ [BDB L e x . ] ;
gloss ( W o r t e /ern, 39, n. 4). I n some such way the double
vowel must have arisen : it is strange that the MSS 7 have not Ass. piazzi or 8iazu means a wild boar or the like;
preserved any trace of variation in the first syllable. but see JACHIN A ND BOAZ; Booc [BA], -002 A and
The orthography, therefore, cannot he explained L in Ru. 2 1 5 4 8 I Ch. 211f.) of Bethlehem, kinsman
quite satisfactorily. W e may be reasonably certain, of Naomi and husband of RUTH [ P . v . ] . According to
however, about the signification. the post-exilic genealogy, Ru. 4 1 8 8 (cp I Ch. 2118).
a. This cannot be said of the second element in the he was the son of S ALMON or S ALMAH, and the ancestor
word. The evangelist (or a scholiast) understood pyes of D AVID (I I, n. a ) . See RUTH, BUZITE.
to mean &xwr$, ‘ thunder’ ; but we do not know what 2. The name of one of the two pillars set up before
Semitic word it was supposed to represent, nor can we Solomon‘s temple ( I K. 721= z Ch. 3 17). See J ACHIN
say whether the interpretation was an original hypothesis AND BOAZ.
or a really current belief. I Esd. 8 z = Ezra74, BUIIKI,I.
BOCCAS(BoKK&[BA]),
(a) In the Syriac versions (Pesb. and Sin.) pycs appears as
WIT. That may, however, be nothing more than a translitera- BOCHERU (n$3,§61 : for the ending -u, cp JETHRO
tion. Only in Arabic does ~ 3 mean7 ‘thunder.’ If it occurs in and see GESHEM), a son of Azrikam, Saul’s descendant
the O T at all8 it probably mcans ‘throng. In h a m . it means
‘tumult,’ ‘rushing,’ etc. If PYES is w i i , therefore, it can hardly (I Ch. 8 38 = 9 44). @BNAL, however, punctuated and
..
mean ‘ thunder.’g’ read - doubtless correctly - ‘ Azrikam his firstborn ’
Jerome, indeed, conscious of this, declares (Comnt. ad Dan. ( w p w v 5 m K o s atmil : iija).
17) that the true readine is (emenriatius l e d r r ) denereem (var.
Y~ I ,

danerrenz, danarehenz)-i.e., sons of re‘lm, p y i (cp. Ex. 10 16 @ L makes up the six sons of Azel by enumerating u[alp~a
in
Pseudo-Jon.)-and this readiig he quietly assumes in his L i d . the fifth place, besides acapras in the third.
de nonzm. Hed. under ‘John. That he ignores it in the Comm.
on Mk. however, probably shows that it is a mere hypothetical BOCHIM (avai, § 103, ‘weepers,’ KAAYeMWN
emendition 10 not a variant reading (cp BARTIMBUS,0 2). [BAL]), the name of a place near Gilgal, where the
Apparently: therefore, we must adhere to pyes. b‘ne Israel sacrificed after the visit of the angel of Yahwb
(6) The second letter of pyss, however, might represent not J (Judg. 2 IU P’?a? ; 5a KhAyeMWNEC [ B ] ) , and a h 0
hut y, as in peypa=Nnyi; but w y i is no nearer ppovmj than w j l .
Besides, y h,ecomes y , as a rule only when it is represented in probably of a place in Judah (Mic. 1IO emended text ;
Arabic by g, not by ‘. but al;bough there is in Ar. a word see below). The name of the former place is interpreted
ra&su, the phonetic hquivalent of which in Hebrew would be ‘ Weepers ’ ; but the passage which refers to this (an.18-
vyl, ra’afa (not ra+..ra) agrees most closely with vy’l in sa) is an insertion (see JUDGES, 4 ) based upon I U ,
meaning, and a wyi=ra‘a&z would not as a m l e appear as
where we may expect to find the older and more gener-
“?Le common word for ‘thunder’ in Hebrew and Aramaic ally used name of the place. Here, however, @ com-
would not conflict with this phonetic principle ; the nearest word bining two readings gives 6rrl rbv K X U U O ~ G V KU U ~err1
in Arabic to Hebrew ru‘am IS ra&ama. Drusius (Ad voces NT par0vX (on the corrupt Kal [irl]rbv ~ K O UiupavX, see
Comnz. prior 39 [1616]) therefore and Glassius (PhiZ. Sacra,
[1625]) revived the theory of Jerome that p y ~ sshould be p e p Moore ad Zoc.), and the latter, which suits the con-
regarding the s as merely a Greek termination substituteJfo; text well, is accepted a s correct by most critics (Bu.
a final consonant dropped as e.g in Gehenna. No doubt -ES Ri. Sam. 20 8 ,We., Mey., Kue., Bu., Kitt.).
would be rather stranee t&minhtion for a man’s name’: but
Boanerges is not a mazs name : it is the name of two ’men. W e must therefore correct Rochim in ~a to
Indeed Suidas gives the name as poavspyas (as if the ‘Bethel.’ The explanation of ‘Bochim’ in v. 5a
1 There is no hint of such a name anywhere else in the N T
suggests a doubt as to the correctness of the present
(cp, however, \I Lk.6 14 [D]) ; but too much must not be made of form, which may have been changed to agree with a
that. Glassius pointed out that Boanerges is professedly a name more than half sportive derivation from ‘ to weep.’
shared by two men (more conveniently called ‘the sons of The correct pronunciation must have been BEki’im
Zebedee ’), one of whom met an early death (Acts 12).
2 Cp the strong language of Kautzsch, Gram. d. BidZ.-
(o’K??, p?g)-i.e., ‘Baca-trees‘ (see MULBERRY). These
dram. 9. trees were probably abundant near Bethel, and it is
3 NTLex., S.V.
4 Adopted by Lightf. (Hor. He& ad Zoc.), who instances
possible that the ‘Tree of Weeping’ (ALLONBACuTH)
MoavaGa (Strabo, 764) for N!$p.
grew near them. The play on the name would, at any
5 So (practically) Glassius (d. 1656).
rate, be familiar to the ancient Israelites, and may have
6 So now Arnold Meyer, Jesu Mutfersprache. led to a variety in the pronunciation of the name (cp
7 See below (8). Mareshah, Moresheth).
8 M T has w17 in Ps. 5515 and 7 ~ 1 in 1 643 (cp 1 ~ 1 in
1 21) ~

but in each case it has been questioned whether the text iz 1 Of course a gloss embodying a true tradition may have made
correct. See Che. Ps. (2). its way into a translation of a faulty MS.
9 There is no reason to suppose thqt in the passage cited ,hy 2 J. F . K. Gurlitt had considered this word in his careful
Lightfoot ( M e g Z a h B. zgn, mid.) the word means ‘thunder. discussion in St. Kr. (1829, pp. 715-738).
10 A corruption-of p y i into wyi (see p) would be easy. 3 So now also Arnold Meyer, 3esu Mutterspraclre, 51f.
38 593 594
 BOHAN BOIL
T h e r e is an e a r l y testimony to the form Bochim i n linking of the ‘botch of Egypt.’ The reference in the fourth
im. 4 IO), however, may possibly be to some actual epidemic
Mic. 110, if >j>n-SN 133 ( E V weep not at all’) may be i the history of the northern kingdom. T h e ‘pestilence in th?
e m e n d e d into 133n n q 3 3 (@Q”’g. [IN] p a x a p ) , ‘in lanner of Egypt’ may well be equivalent to the ]>nvor ‘botch
Hochim (HEkii’ini) weep ’ (Elhorst, We., Now., Che., f Dt. 25 27 which should mean some specific disease such as
omitting the intrusive h, ‘ n o t ’ ; c p Che. IQR, July l e ‘emerdds’ (KV ‘ tumours’ ; or plague-boils) of I 5156, with
1898). No locality called Bekaim n e a r Micah’s native rhich it is coupled, certainly means. As the sixth plague is
pecially called one of ‘boils and blains,’ this also may be taken
town is k n o w n t o us. T h i s causes no difficulty. T h e r e 3 stand for some definite boi!-disease of Egypt.
m a y h a v e been m a n y places where Baca-trees grew. We m u s t now consider which of t h e boil diseases of
T h e alternative correction, ‘ I n Acco weep n o t ’ (Reland, Cgypt i s m e a n t b y E&%.’ It is s t a t e d that the boil
Hitzig, etc. ), i s geographically inadmissible. We c a n n o t 2. shshrn accompanied b y blains broke forth u p o n
well s u p p o s e a Philistine city of that name (G. A. Smith), b o t h man a n d beast. T h i s , if nosologically
nor d o e s Micah concern himself with Philistia(cp GILOH). Of Egypt* meant, would exclude b u b o plague, as b e i n g
BOHAN, THE STONE OF (]?3i7K. BMWN [BA]), inknown i n cattle. O n t h e other h a n d , a n t h r a x , which
an u n k n o w n point on t h e h o n n d a r y between J u d a h and night be correctly described a s the boil of cattle, is
BENJAMIN (§ 31, Josh. 156 (BEWN EL]), 1817 ( B ~ A M :qually excluded, inasniuch as in man it i s never
[A], -N [L]). B o h a n is called i n b o t h places t h e son :pidemic, b u t only sporadic. I f we might s u p p o s e
(sometimes sons [eBL in 18 17)) of REUBEN ; possibly, he narrative, or (as t h e critics s a y ) t h e interwoven
iarratives, of t h e plagues to be based on a simpler
however, the s t o n e o r r o c k w a s a well-known l a n d m a r k ,
t h u s designated on account of its supposed resemblance iarrative, or simpler narratives, which would bear to be
to a t h u m b (1.3). reated as matter-of-fact description, w e might expect
hat i n the original narrative the sixth p l a g u e repre-
BOIL, BOIL (Botch)l of Egypt. The Heb. word ;ented t h e p l a g u e proper ( b u b o plague), which i s con-
vnrtj,
,.:, . (lit. ‘an inflammation. f r o m a root f o u n d
%%in > i n e d t o man, whilst the fifth stood for epizootic disease
1. OT names i n Syr. and Ar., m e a n i n g ‘ to b e h o t ’) for n general. 1
reE. the ‘ b o i l ’ i n the sixth plague of E g y p t ,
and the ‘ botch of EgvDt’
Certainly the special association of b u b o plague with
-, i n Dt. 2827. is
L
tncient E g y p t is historically correct, so that t h e word
applied a g a i n t o the ‘ b o i l ’ of Hezekiah and to s o m e
b o t c h ’ i n the AV i s a h a p p y choice ( c p I , n. I ).
diagnostic s i g n t h a t occurred i n o n e or m o r e of t h e
Besides t h e constructive evidence as to the disaster
various contagious a n d mostly parasite skin-affections
vhich is said t o have befallen Sennacherib’s a r m y
included u n d e r t h e c o m m o n n a m e of rips (see
x f o f e Pelusinm (see PESTILENCE, and, on t h e historical
LEPROSY) i n Lev. 13 18J 20 23-the variety called ‘ burn- Joints, HEZEKIAH, I), there is, indeed, no extra-biblical
i n g b o i l ’ 2 (really a pleonasm) b e i n g clean, and t h e Zestimony t o b u b o p l a g u e i n E g y p t earlier t h a n a b o u t
variety of boil which g a v e place t o a white o r bright 300 B.c., and even this testimony has been only indirectly
s p o t being unclean. The reference i s almost certainly ?reserved.
to local o r limited s p o t s of inflammation, although it is Oribasius, who was physician to the Emperor Julian cites a
h a r d l y possible t o give a m o d e r n n a m e to t h e m or to Jassage from Rufus of Ephesus, a physician in the’time of
identifythem. -
rrajan, wherein he describes bubo plague with singular clear-
less ; it is indeed rare as Daremberg remarks to find in ancient
I n Dt. 28 35 and Job 2 7 the same word is applied to a skin- iuthors such positive d a r k s of the identity of k pestilential type.
disease ‘from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head’ ; but Rufus says that the disease was most common, and very mortal,
probably it is so used without any precise nosological intention, in Libya, Egypt, and Syiia. H e adds that Dipscorides and
and merely to express a peculiarly loathsome affliction. Poseidonios had enlarged upon pestilential buboes in writing
It is only t h e boii disease specially associated with upon the pestilence which in their time ravaged Libya-
E g y p t t h a t i s h e r e considered. supposed to have been the same great epidemic, about 127 B.c.,
There occur four other references to diseases specially which is mentioned by Livy, Julius Obsequens and Orosius.
Egyptian but not called M@n. Two of these(Dt. 7 15 and 2860, Rufus further says that the pupils of one Dion;sius, 6 KU 76s
make mention of these pestilential buboes. An ancieiit &,e$
n:?y9 m l p [>)?pl, ‘the evil diseases of Egypt,’ and ‘all loss to the Vatican codex of Oribasius explains that Dionysius
the diseases of Egypt’) are in admonitory passages written in h h the above surname (‘Hunchback’) conies into the bio-
a popular style. In the third (Zech.1418) a plague is to :raphies of Hermippus. This would fix his date prior to
smite the Egyptians if they do not comd up to keep the 280 B.C.
Feast of Booths. I t is the same aflliction that is to befall W h i l s t the botch of E g y p t cannot, u p o n independent
the other peoples who neglect this ordinance, and there is
nothing, as the text now stands,4 to indicate that the writer is testimony, b e traced farther b a c k t h a n 300 B.c., i t i s
highly improbable t h a t i t was first seen then. As
1 Botch is a name commonly and with the definite article Lorinser points out, the endemic inflnences favouring
distinctively, given to plague in ;he Elizabethan and the Stuart plague i n E g y p t , depending u p o n the peculiar alterna-
periods. I n the Edinburgh treatise on plag,ue by Ur. Gilbert tions of wet a n d d r y s o i l (caused by t h e periodic rise
Skene (1568) it occurs in the form of ‘boiche. I n the Vision q
Piers Ploughman the spelling is 6oche, and the meaning specific and fall of the Nile), were t h e r e l o n g before.
or generic(‘ byles and boches and brennyngagues’). The most Pariset (Causes de Zu Peste, etc., Paris, 1837) has argued
probable etymology is Fr. poche, meaning pocket, poke, pock with great cogency that the elaborate pains taken in the best
(cp also It. dozzu, a bubble), and applied in the plural b period of ancient Egypt to preserve the soil from putrefying
$ o d e s , like the Spanish k s bubas, to epidemics of camp kick. animal matters human and other were inspired by the risk of
ness, about A . D . 1528, which seem to have been typhus, bul plague, and m;st have been in high degree effective. It is
may have included bubonic cases, or perhaps cases of truf clear however that any failure of the sanitary code would give
plague. The translators of the AV seem to have meant bJ plag;e its opbortunity the pressure of population and the
‘ botch’ the familiar bubo plague of tb‘eir time. Milton alsc climate or hydrology be& constant, and that such failure may
may use the word in its exact sense of bubo plague, where hc reasonably be assumed at first as an occasional thing and then-
says of the sixth ppgue of Egypt : ‘botches and blains must a1 from the time that the ancient civilisation, with sabitation (en-
his flesh emboss (PL12 180). With the disappearance o forced by religious sanctions) a principal part of it, began to
\ decay under the influence oE Persian, Greek, and Roman con-
plague from Britain after 1666, the word lost its technica
meaning. quests-as permanent.
2 Rather, ‘scar of the boil,’ ]?I?? (v. 23 ; cp RV).
3 [As Rudde points out the expressions in Dt. 2.c. a n
without the negative particle, but ‘it has the second insertion.
borrowed from the Prologud to Job. That section of the boo1 A critical edition should give the text thus : ‘And if the
Egyptian people go not up nor come, upon ;hem will the stroke
appears to be based on a folk-tale; the designation which i
gives to Job’s malady is, therefore, general, not technical. W I come with which Yahwk will strike. ...
The close of the
sentence may early have become effaced. The plague intended
must remember, however, that in Lev. 13 1 8 3 the is th< was, at any rate, not that of the other nations. which was want
forerunner of leprosy, and that in the speeches hf Job th< ofrain.] ’
symptoms of his malady, though poetically expressed, point (a 1 The qualification (‘in general’) is designed. What is said
most scholars admit) to leprosy in its worst form. See LEPROSV. of the ‘murrain’ upon the horses, camels, asses, oxen and
4 [The text is disfigured by two errors due to dittography sheep is expressed in a sense too comprehensive for any :ingle
One is the word ‘not’ before ‘upon them,’ repeated from v. 17 epizootic malady (.E., anthrax is a disease that oxen and sheep
the other is ‘the nations that go not up to keep the Feast o suffer from in common, but not horses,,nor, so far as is known,
Booths,’ repeated from v. 19. @ has simply K& L?iC TO&OUS, asses and camels).
595 596
 BOILS, PLAGUE BOSOR
That the sanitary precautions did utterly break down BOILING PLACES (nl\vlq), Ezek. 4623, E V ;
under Mohammedan conquest, and that bubo plague
did become for fourteen centuries the standing pestilence
and BOILING HOUSES (a+yj~ponq),
Y. 24, RV.
See COOKING, § I.
of Egypt, we know as matter of fact. We know also
that it was from Pelusium that the great' plague of BOLLED ( i . e . , ' swollen,'. see Skeat, Etym. Dict. ;
Justinian's reign (542 A. D.) started-to overrun the RV'"g. ' in flower' ; $974, C T T B P M ~ * T I Z O N [BA4L]:
whole known world. It is probable, further, that Ex. 931T). The Hebrew word occurs only once, but
the pestilence in Lower Egypt 'at the time of the s evidently (see Ges. Thes., Levy, Tuyg. W&.1421,
massacre of Christians in the episcopate' of Cyprian NHWB 1 2 9 6 ) connected with y-?;, ' cup ' ; and the
included bubo plague. The valuable testimony pre- Mishnic usage (Ges. Z.C.) is in favour of its referring to
served by Oribasins as to Egyptian, Libyan, and
the flower-cup (perhaps as a closed bud), rather than
Syrian pestilential buboes, as early as 300 B.c.. has (as d supposed) to the formation of the seed-pods (see,
been already cited. If beyond that date we are left to however, Tristram, IVNB(~) 445).
conjecture, there is still a high probability that the plague
was known in 'Egypt at a much earlier date. BOLSTER (rI&Ty, I S. 1913 267. SeeBED, $4 (u).
This historical bubo plague of Egypt answers best BONDAGE (il$, hoy hela), Ex. 1 1 4 Rom. 8 15,
to the sixth plague. The boil breaks out in the
manner of the plague bubo, which may be etc., and BONDMAN (V;?, Aoyhoc), Dt. 15 15 Rom.
3. Nature
of disease. single or multiple. Its situations are the 6 16, etc. See SLAVERY.
armpits, groins, and the sides of the neck ; BONNET. For ilLQJQ, mig&a"dlt, Ex.2840, etc. (RV
and it consists of one (or of a packet) of the natural
lymphatic or absorbent glands of those regions enlarged
'headtire'), see MITRE, 5 I (I); for @"ZY, Is.%e,
320 (RV 'headtire'), Ezek.4418 (RV 'tire'), see
to the size of a hen's (or even a turkey's) egg, often of T URBAN, 0 z.
a livid colour, hard, tense, painful, and attended with
inflammatory swelling of the skin for some distance BOOK (lgb,
Gen.51 etc. ; BiBAoc, Lk. 3 4 etc.,
around it. Just as in Asiatic cholera and yellow fever BIBAION, Lk.417 etc.). See W RITING, § 3, end;
there are ' explosive ' attacks so suddenly fatal that the HISTORICAL LIT., s$
3, 5, 16 ; C ANON, 1-4,20.
distinctive symptoms have hardly time to develop, so
there may be death from plague without the bubo or BOOK OF LIFE ([H]BIBhoC [THC] Z W H C ) , PhiIiP.
the botch. Still, the latter is the distinctive mark of 4 3 Rev. 35. Cp Ex. 3232 Is.43, and see LAW AND
plagne, the same in all countries and in all periods of JUSTICE, $ 14.
history. BOOT (ON?),Is. 95 [4]t., RVmg. See SHOES, 3.
Other signs of plague were livid or red hzemorrhagic spots of
the skin (called 'the tokens' in English epidemics), large car- BOOTHS (nDp), Lev. 2 3 4 2 3
See T ABERNACLE ,
buncles (especially on the fleshy parts), and blains (niygyz?), , PAVILION, I, SUCCOTH, and cp T ENT, I, and
which were really smaller carbuncular formations or cores with CATTLE, I, 5.
a collection of fluid on their summits. Besides the pain of the
hard and tense buboes there were often delirium gentle or BOOTY (13, etc.), Jer. 4932, etc. See SPOIL.
raving, vomiting, qui/ering of muscles (affect& gait and
speech), and many other symptoms as if from a deadly poison. BOO2 (Bow [Ti. WH], Mt. 1 5 , BOOC [Ti. WH],
About three days was perhaps the average duration of fatal Lk. 332). RV has BOAZ.
cases.
Usually half the attacks were mortal. In'the beginning BOR-ASHAN ($&)-7\a ; BUPACAN [AI, B H ~ C A B B ~
of the epidemic there would be but few recoveries, while [BL] ; Vg. Zacz Asun; Pesh. &ir'a.Gzn), the true MT
4.,Mortality. at the end of it as many as four out of reading (Gi. sa.)
in I S. 3030, where many printed
five might recover. Recovery was most edd. have 1!3'$-713 (AV CHOR-ASHAN, RV COR-
likely when the buboes broke and ran ; sometimes the ASHAN). Probably the same as ASHAN(4.n.).
suppuration, especially in the groin, would continue for
months, the :victims being able to go limping in the BORDER. For IlTlDD, misgereth ( u ) in Ex. 25 25 z?
streets. In the history of plague in London, which is (u~+Livq) 37 1214 (Iom.), in P's description of the 'table
see ALTA;, $ I O ; (a) in I K. 728f: 3rf: 35f; 2 K. 16 17indescriG-
continuous from the Black Death of 1348 to 1666, the tion of the lavbr bases ( & V P & C U ~ Q ; in 728 O V V K X F L U T ~ V : in
great epidemics came at intervals, and, in those for 7 2 9 m'yrh~pa [A]; in 731f: 8 ~ L i q - p[A; om. BL]; E V w .
which we have the statistics, carried off from a fifth to a 'panels'), see LAVER, 5 I ; for q j j , krin@h (KP&U&OV) in Nu.
sixth of the population, including but few of the richer 15 38 (RVmg. 'corner' [of garment]), see F R I N G E S ; for ~ p k u -
mdov, Mt. 9 20 14 36 RV, see FRINGES.
class. With a population of nearly half a million in
1665, the highest mortality from plague was 7165 in BORITH (EORITX),4 Esd. 12. See BUKKI, I.
the week 12th-1gth September. Sometimes for a suc-
cession of years' the deaths from plague kept at a high BORROW (k'K@,
Ex. 322 ; AaNlcacOal, Mt. 642),
annual level, especially during the summer and autumn andLEND (fi!??, Ex. 2224 [ z s ] ; A ~ N I Z B I N634).
,L~.
months. During the whole three centuries of plague See L AW AND JUSTICE, $ 16,TRADE AND COMMERCE.
in London there were few years which did not have
some deaths in the warmer months. From what BOSCATH (ne??), 2 K. 221AV ; RV BOZKATH.
is known of the mediaeval history of plague in Cairo BOSOR (Bocop [Ti.]), zPet.215 AV, RV BEOR
(from Arabic annals ; cp von Kremer in S WA W,Phil. (q.v., 2).
Hist. Class. Bd. xcvi.), and of its modern history (cp
Pruner, KranR. des Orients), it appears to have come, BOSOR (Boccop [ A I , -OCO. [KVTI, - C C W P [val~
a s in London, in terrific outbursts at intervals of years, and in v. 36 -0~0. [A ; cp Is. 346 631,in d]), a town of
Galaaditis, taken by Judas the Maccabee in 164 B.C.
and to have been at a low level or apparently extinct in
(I Macc. 52636), is identified by some with BEZER (p.v.,
the years between.
T h e plagoe season in Egypt; within the period of exact i.) in Moab. Galaaditis, however, was the name of
records has begun as early as September and as late as the country N. of Moab (GASm. HG 549, n. 5), and
Januar;, has reached its height in March and April, and has the campaign in which Judas took Bosor was waged
ended with great regularity almost suddenly about St. John's in the latitude of the YarmCik. If Bosora ( q . ~ . be
)
day (24th June), the height bf the epidemic ck-responding with
the. lowest level of the Nile. There bas been no plague since the present BuSrg, Bosor may be the present Bup-eZ-
~844. The last gmat,epidemic was that of 7835, described hy @arirf, in the SE. corner of the LejS, which the
Kinglake in ' Eothen. c. c. Arabian geographer Wkat in 1225 A.D. (1621)still calk
BOILS, PLAGUE (D>Qg), .Deut.2827 RVmg. See only Busr [sic]. The passage in which it is mentioned
EMERODS. is obscure; YV. 26f. are probably corrupt. (Cp We.
597 598
 BOSORA BOX TREE
Z/G(3) 212, n. I). Herod the Great, in order to keep lso occurs frequently as a wine-skin-Josh. 9 4 13 I S. 16 20, etc.
the Leja in his power (Jos. Ant. xvii. l z ) , fortified a i s a water-skin it is used metaphorically in Ps. 5G8[9l (‘put my
ears into thy bottle’), where there is no reference to the much
village called Bathyra, and this may have been the ater ‘ tear-bottles,’ so called, and where the text is doubted
same as Bosor (cp GASm. N G 618). G. A. S. see 65). The exact sense of Ps.11983, where the poet likens
himself to a ‘bottle (RVw. “wine-skin”) in the smoke,’ is
BOSORA (Boccopa [AI, - 0 ~ 0[XI,
. - O C O P P A [ ~; CP loubtful (see the comm. in Zoc.). (c) i.?,n26heZ, and i?:,ne6heZ,
d I Ch. 1441, I
Macc. 526 ; Jos. BOCOp&[Ant. xn. 83]), ilso frequently of the ordinary wine-skin ( 6 ~ ~ [BAL]),
6s IS.
in Gilead, held by some to be the Bozrah in Moab .O 3, etc. ( d ) ZiR,’66h, has the same signification in Job 32 ‘9,
spoken of in Jer. 4824, must have lain farther N. (see where we read of ‘new bottles ... ready to burst. Budde
BOSOR,ii. ). Hence many (Ewald ; PEF Map ; etc.) ’96) renders ‘skins with new (wine),’ which gives us an OL‘
iarallel to the familiar passage in the N T (Mt. 9 r7=Mk. 2 2 2
more plausibly take it to have been Bostra, the capital =Lk. 53735)-‘ Neither do men piit new wine into old wine-
of the Roman province of Arabia, modern Busy& 22 m. ,kins,‘ etc.-where the ,RV has rightly discarded the mislead-
SE. of Edrei (cp Porter, FiveyearsW, IZ ; Merrill, E. of ng rendering ‘bottles. In judith105 we have the curious
Jordan, 53, 58 ; Rey, Dans Ze Haouran Atlas; Buhl, word L U K O T U T [BA],-RV
~V~ a leathern bottle’ of wine.
PaZ.’z51). See, however, Bathyra under BOSOR,ii. Vessels of earthenware also are mentioned in the O T
%sreceptacles for wine. Such was ( a ) the Jer.
G. A. S.
BOSS (3$, z. Earthenware 19 I IO (QBNAQ, prxbs), made ’ by the
text doubtful), Job1526. See SHIELD.
BOTCH (]T!!$), D t . 2 8 2 7 3 5 A V ; RV BOIL (P.v.,
_-
””__”. potter,
hn+,t,le4 perhaps with a narrow neck
which caused a gurgling sound (Ar.
§ 2J). la@a+aP) when the jar was being emptied. It was
BOTTLE. The statement that ‘what we call dso used to hold honey, I K. 1 4 3 ( U T & ~ V O E [AL ; om.
bottles were unknown to the Hebrews’ (Riehm, B] ; EV C RUSE [q.v., 21). (6) The name h a was also
HCVBIz)),art. ‘ Flasche’) needs qualification. It has ;ken to wine-jars or urn$ziZZe of earthenware, as is
long been known that the Egyptians manufactured :lear from Is. 30 14 (EV ‘ [potters’] vessel ’ ; AVW. ‘bottle
glass from an early period. The Phcenicians and the If potters’), and Lam. 42 (EV ‘pitcher’). In both
Assyrians were well acquainted with glass (see the :hese passages d has tlyyrov. W e have no indication
relative volumes of Perrot and Chipiez, Hist. de ?Art, If the size or even of the shape of the earthen nZbheZ
etc. ), that manufactured by the former being of special ‘see POTTERY ; also C RUSE). A. R. S. K.
repute in antiquity (see GLASS). It is impossible,
therefore, that among the imports from Phcenicia,
BOW (IleR),
Gen. 2 7 3 , Bowstrings (Wl?’)?),
21 12, RV. See WEAPONS.
Ps.
glass bottles should have had no place. They must
always, however, have been a luxury of the rich (cp Job BOWL. The various Hebrew and Greek words will
28 17 [RV]). be dealt with in the articles mentioned below.
The ‘ bottles’ of Scripture fall into two ‘very different I. e..;?,
gE6ia‘, Ex. 2531. See CUP, MEALS, $3 12.
classes : ( I ) leather skins for holding and carrying water,
wine, and other liquids, and (2) earthenware jars for
2. ai?,
pZZah, the bowl or reservoir of a lamp, Zech. 4 2
:Aapm&ov) ; see CANDLESTICK, $ 2 . Used in a simile in Eccles.
the same and other purposes. 126 ( ~ 6vOdp.rov).
b The globe-shaped bowls or capitals of the
For the Hebrews in the nomadic stage of civilisation, twin pillars of JACHIN A N D BOAZ( 7 1:. 7413, r h u r p ~ m d[as
as for the Bedouin of the present day, the skins of :hoogh o h 8 7 see FRINGES] 11 zCh. 41235, AV ‘pommels,’
1. Skins a6 beasts of their flocks supplied the readiest p A a 0 [BAI, Pdue~s[Ll). See P ILL A R .
and most efficient means of storing and 3. l b a , kqhar, I Ch. 28 17,etc., RV. See BASON,2.
kettles. transporting the necessary supply of water
4. Q?, mizr$, Ex. 273. See BASON,3.
in the camp and on the march. This method was
5. ni’?!?, 7nenakk*yaU, Kv’a0os [BAFL], used in temple
found so simple and so satisfactory that it was retained
ritual especially upon the table of shew-bread, Ex. 25 29 37 16
in a more settled state of society, and, indeed, has Nu.4 7 Jer. 52 19 (where AV ‘cups ’).
prevailed throughout the East until the present day. 6. 72, haph, I K. 7 50 ; see BASON,4.
The writers of classical antiquity, from Homer down-
wards, contain many references to this use of the skins 7. SBD, sZjh2, a larger bowl or bason, probably of wood,
Jud. 5 25 6 38 ( A f K d q [BAL] ; in 5 z j A a K . [AL]); cp Pal.-Syr.
of domestic animals. The skins used by the Hebrews
for this purpose, as in modern Syria and Arabia, were u.&m.
8. u~d+?,Bel, 33, a vessel for holding food (in Acts 27 1630 32,
chiefly skins of the goat and of the sheep. When a a boat).
smaller size than ordinary was required, the skin of 9. +idAq, Rev. 58 157, etc. (AV ‘vial’). In OT it represents
a lamb or of a kid sufficed ; for larger quantities there P2!!; see BASON.3 ; MEALS, $ 12, and cp generally BASON,
was the skin of the ox,l and, perhaps, of the camel CUP, GOBLET, POTTERY.
(Herod. 39). Among the Hebrews the pig-skin was, of BOX, synonymous in AV with jar or cruise, not a
course, excluded. case of wood or nietal.1
The method of preparation varied in complexity and
efficiency according as the peasant prepared his own skins (cp I. 7%j a k h ( z K.9 I 3 ; RV and in I S. 10 I, AV ‘ vial ’ ; @:BAL
Doughty, A r . Des. 1227) or employed a professional tanner. +CLK~S). Shape and material are both uncertain.
The head and the lower part of the legs are cut off (such is the 2. For the ‘alabaster box’ (6 b A a ’ @ ~ ~ p ~of
s ) Mk. 143, etc.
method at the present day), and the animal is skinned from the AV (RV ‘alabaster cruse’) see CRUSE, 4, ALABASTER.
neck downwards, somewhat as one removes a tight-fitting glove 3. I n R V w . of Jn. 126’13 29, where EV has BAG; ‘box’ is
care being taken that no incision is made in the skin of th; suggested as an alternative rendering of ~ A C O U U ~ K O ~ Owhich
V,
carcase. When the tanning process is completed (cp Tristram originally and etymologically signified a case in which the mouth-
NHBP) 92, Robinson, BRW 2 440), all other apertures havini pieces (yA9uuaa) of wind instruments were kept. Later it
previously been closed, the neck is fitted with a leather thong, assumed a more general significance and denoted any similarly
by means of which the skin is opened and closed (cp LEATHER). shaped box or case. @BAL employs it to indicate the chest
In the OT we find such skin bottles designated by a (PlE) set up by Josiah in the Temple (2 Ch. 248&), whilst
variety of names. Josephususes it ofthe ‘coffer ‘($15I S. 6 8 8 E V ; see COFFER),
Such are (a) nQn, (zameth (LUK~S[ADL]), the water-skin or small chest, in which the Philistine princes deposited the
(probably of a kid) which Abraham put upon Hagar’s shoulder golden mice. I n the Mishna it is used to signify a case for
(Gen. 21 143t). The Bedouin name is girby-i.e., KWatfrn books ( ~ n p 1 5 in ~Lexx.) and even a coffin (cp the parallel use
(Doughty, op. cit. index). I n Hos.75 (RV ‘heat’)’ and in of ZocuZus); in the latter sense also in Aquila (Gen. 5026, of
Hab. 2 15 (RV ‘venom,’ mg. ‘fury’), the RV more advisehly finds Joseph’s mummy-case; see COFFIN). Thus it would appear
another word of similar sound (npq). (6) lgl, ncidh, like the that the preferable rendering in John (Z.C.) is that of R V m .
sewzily (samiZaf7~) of the modern Bedouin, is the milk-skin of A. R. S. K.
the nomad Jael (Judg. 4 19 ; cp Doughty op. cit. passim). I t BOX TREE, BOX, RVmS ‘ cypress ’ ; once (Fzek.
276; d O ~ K O U S dhur56ers) RV Boxwood (lWeq,
1 According to Lane (Mod. Eg.) an ox-hide holds three or
four times as much as a goat-skin (@%a). 1 For this EV employs ‘chest.’
599 boo
 BOZEZ BRACELETS
KEAPOC Is. 41 19 60 13) is by several modern scholars yet unidentified (Josh. 1 5 3 9 i pau$wO [B], -ueXaO [L],
identified as the ‘sherbin‘ (Ar. and Syr.), a kind of pauXa0 [A]). A certain Adaiah ( I ) of Bozkath was
juniper, =Ass. Surm?nu (see below). RVmg. and SBOT, the grandfather of King Josiah (z K. 221 ; -uoupwB
however, give ‘ cypress ’ ; the sherbin resembles the [BAL]).
cypress in its habit and general appearance (Tristram).
Cp note 4, below.
BOZRAH (il?YB, 3 106 ; Bocoppa [BAD in Gen.
The Hebrew word was formerly explained as derived from the Ch.], Bocop [BKAQF in Is.]).
root i t j (akin
~ to ?& Ar. yasara) ‘ to be straight ’ (Ges. Thes.) Elsewhere @ translates : dv p6uy a h + [BMAQ], Jer. 49 13 ;
and so as denoting a ;all straight &e ; but such different view; bpp$para a+ [BNAQ], v. 22 ; rei+wv a h + [BAQ], Am. 1 12 ;
have recently been put forward as to the affinities and meaning dv BA;+EL [BAQI, Mic. 2 12.
of the root that it is unsafe to form any inference from this
etymology.2 Hoffmann,a indeed, rejecting the traditional vocali- I. A capital of the land of Edom (Am. 1TZ Is. 3 4 6
sation of YjvRn, suggests that it is philologically akin to Assyr. 631 ;l poupa [Q’”g.] ; Jer. 4 9 1 3 zz), also mentioned in
3uri?tdnu(Del. Par. 107)~Aram. la?waind or Lrbind.4 If this Gen. 3 6 3 3 (pouoppa [L], om. E ) = I Ch. 1 4 4 (pouu.
were made out we should be tolerably certain that 11V’Kn is the [L]) as the city of Jobab b. Zerah, king of Edom, and
sher6in or a similar tree ; but the philological step is difficult.
Cheyne (ZS.,SBOT [Heb.] 129) ‘can hardly doubt that the less certainly, though still probably, under the name
obscure 73m in Is. 4020 is a corruption of ]iiv-i.e., sherbin.’ M IBZAR ( q . u . ) in Gen. 3642. All these passages may
~ m seem to he distinct from the sherbin.
If so, l j ~ would be exilic or even post-exilic ; but it is hardly safe to infer
The interesting mention of this tree in Ezek. 276 (RV that Bozrah was not known to the Jews before the
‘box-wood’) is concealed in AV by a false division Exile ; indeed, Gen. 3 6 3 3 may be ultimately derived
of the word in M T ; the second clause most probably from a pre-exilic document. Bozrah is the Busor
means ‘thy deck they have made of ivory inlaid in (Pouop) of OS(2) 2 3 2 5 8 1 0 2 1 8 , described as ‘in the
tZuJZr-wood from Cyprus ’ (see CHITTIM). mountains of Idurnsea.’ It seems to be the modern
It is clear from Is. 6 0 1 3 that iqiz~nwas a familiar tree Ru;eire, in the district of J e b d (Gebalenb), northward
in the forest growth of Lebanon ; i n d this favours the from Petra, and z$ honrs SSW. from Tafileh, called
identification with the box (Buzus Zongij?oZin), which ‘ little Bozrah ’ to distinguish it from the more famous
grows there as a small tree about 2 0 ft. high (Tristram, Bow-ah in the HaurZn. So Buhl, Edumiter, 37 ; cp
Doughty, AY.Des. 1 3 1 38J
NHB, 339). In support of this Rosenmuller (iMineYuZ.
2. (Jer. 4824.) See BEZER, ii. T. K. C.
and But. of BiUe [ET], 301f.) aptly compares Verg.
A n . 10137 (‘ quale per artem inclusum buxo ...
lucet BRACELETS. Bracelets were worn to protect the
ebur’) with Ezek. 2 7 6 . 6 Others (Ges.(13))-Bu.(?)) have exposed parts, of the arm and hand against physical
thought that the latter reference rather points to a p i n e injury, and as amulets against the malign influences
tree, so often used in antiquity for ship-building ; but which were believed to affect the organs of action (WRS,
i r i z-~: nis at least distinct from ~418(fir) and izl~
(pine ?), RrZ. Sem.(2)453). They served also as ornaments.
along with which it is twice mentioned in Is. 4 0 - 6 6 . They were made of gold (Gen. 2422 Nu. 31 50) ; but
The shedin, according to Tristram (Lc.) is Juniperus #he- doubtless, like other ancient peoples, the Hebrews em-
nicen, but in the Survey of W. Palestine h e expressly says of this ployed other less precious materials, as horn and
nun uidi; ndr does it, according to the authorities, grow on enamelled earthenware. Signet rings were sometimes
Lebanon. It seems more probahle that the shedin isJuniperus
oxycedrus, which is known to grow on Lebanon. worn round the wrist (see R ING ). Bracelets were worn
On the whole there seems no sufficient reason for by men and women ; the finer forms were among the
abandoning the tradition that 1,rjiyn is the box. insignia of royalty and the adornments of brides (for
references see below).
N. M.-W. T. T.-D. Five words have to be considered.
BOZEZ (yYi2; Bazsc [B], -e
[L]), and Seneh Of these we may first of all reject two words, (r) n; (Ex.
(?Up;L E N N A A [BL]),
~ two rocky points, one on the 35 zz), and (2) hz (Gen. 38 18 25), which are wrongly rendered
N. the other on the S. side of the Michmash gorge ( I S. bracelet ’ in AV. See HOOK, 2 ; RING, $ I , and cp CORD.
144Jf). See MICHMASH. 3. ?’e$, +&nid(Gen. 2422, etc. Nu. 31 50 Ezek. 1611 2342
BOZKATH, and z I<. 221 AVBOSCATH (IlPYP
; BDB E V ‘bracelets,’ @ +&‘a) : cp Ass. :n7mkiu, to bind on ; the same
Lex. quotes Ar. ba@at*’”, an elevated region covered root appears in the Heh. l”, yoke. Golden,:!?’O weighing
with volcanic stones). One of the towns of the lowland ten shekels were given to Rebekah by Eleazar, who placed them
of Judah mentioned between Lachish and Eglon, but as on d o f h hler hands. So in Ezek. 16 1 1 , the bracelets are
worn on both hands. In Nu. (Z.C.), i‘ns is conjoined with
1 B’s rendering of Is. 4119 is so defective that it is im- a i y r ~ and, the Commentators mostly explain the former a s
possible to tell which Greek word represents 19WFijr; hut in 60 73 a n ornament for the wrist, the latter for the upper part of the
it is K ~ ~ S ~ [BMAQI.
O S Aq. and The. simply transliterate arm. Targ. usually renders ‘B by K r W , chains.’ T h e form
(0aauovp); Sym. has r r l i & x in chap. 41 and r r a l i q in chap. 60 of these bracelets varied, a favourite device being the serpent.
(unless nlipos is ont of its order). Pesh. also is defective in Is. On Egyptian bracelets see Wilk., Anc. Eg. 2 342 ; on Assyrian,
41 19, giving for 17dKn1 1PlF di?? simply ‘goodly cypresses’ Per. and Chip., A r f in Chaldea, 2 357, and see fig. 241.
4. a$, JZ~ci?z,Is. 3 19 (EV ‘ bracelets,’ RVmg. chain.’ Targ.
(zaamuaind), while in Is. 00 13 llldiy? is rendered cypresses.’
Targ. has in both places ] y ~ ? z w ~‘box
, trees’ (SO the Jewish *’-I’
7-7
??@, ‘chains of the bands’). Cp modern Arabic ornament
commentators); Vg. renders 6r~xusin 41 19, b u t j i n r s in 60 13. siw&r(Frank. 56). The root is y i ~ lo , twist. Perhaps a row
2 See especially NO. in ZDMG40723 [ ’ 8 6 ] ; Hommel i6. of spirals made of twisted gold is meant. In the Mishnah 7
46531 [‘gz]: Lag. fibers. 143. Nii. connects all Heb. dekva- is applied to chains round the necks of horses and also to
tives of i v with~ the single root (meaning ‘ t o go’ or ‘step‘) bracelets worn by women.
which appears in Ar. ‘ifhrand Syr. a f b d ; Hommel still main-
5. a?,!’ ‘e?.‘ridiiL. This word occurs in M T in Nu. 31 5 0
tains a second root, akin to ?& Ar. yasara; while Lagarde ex-
(AV ‘chains,’ RV ‘ankle-chains’) and z S. 1I O (EV ‘bracelet’;
plains ‘!.V.Y (Ps. 1 I etc.) by invoking a third Ar. root aJara. B in both places ~ A i & w v ) . Wellhausen’s suggestion to read
3 P. 27 of his tract ‘Weber einige phnnik. Inschriften’ (in
.A&handZ.d. kJn&L. GesclZschaff d. Wiss.zu GJff.vol. 36). Z;!$l, after Is. 320, has been widely accepted; but Nestle
4 Low (387J) holds that the two Syr. words do not mean (Marg. 15) defends M T and supposes that Saul was despoiled
quite the same tree : that the former is Juniperus oxycedrus; by the Amalekite of only one of the several bracelets that h e
the -latter (fem. in form Jurbintii) is the ordinary cypress wore. Budde in S B O T accepts Wellhausen’s correction, but
Czrjressus semjevvirens: but he does not make out a clear (on the basis of Nu. 31 50) regards ~ ~ ’ ? y , fas~ ~also possilde.
case. Boissier (FZora On‘entaZis, 5 705) hap under Cujressus That kings went into battle with various ornaments is well
sewzjewirens-as a locality- ‘ Persia borealis in montanis ibi attested (see C ROWN) ; this is further supported by I K. 22 30.
Ssiinri K n h i audit.’ This looks as if it might be philologically It may be that Saul‘s bracelet contained his signet (King
akin to suman and Jumuaiirii. Antique Gems, 138). As with Saul so with Joash the crow;
5 For o’??$-na read o%hn?. and bracelet are associated as ro;al insignia if [with We.)
6. Accordin’g to Sir Joseph‘Hboker the wood of Buzt-us Zongi- nil.Wy; is read for nnv;, 2 K. 11 12 (WRS, OT/C(? 311, n.).
folia is still prized in Uamascus for making domestic utensils
and inlaid wood. 1 Text doubtful : see TEXT, 5 64, and cp SBOT[Heb.], adloc.
601 602
 BRAMBLE BREAD
giml& however, obtained much the same sense by connecting BREAD. From the earliest ‘times of which we have
niiy with .iy, ‘ornament.’ The Targum on 2 S. 1 IO renders ny record, bread was the principal article of food
by NnmiD, which is usually applied to the phylactery (Dt.
6 8 ) . A phylactery was, however, also worn on the left arm.
‘ 3 is ~ apparently connected with m y s (occurring only in Is.
3 go), into which We.’s emendation reduces ;nyl;~. If the ar-
’’Ey- among the Hebrews, a fact which ex-
plains the use of Pn? both for bread and
for food in general. The primitive
rangement in Is. 3 18-23 is suggested by the natural order of
t h e parts of the body, niyr may be an ornament rather of the ustom of making the ears of wheat and barley more
arm than of the leg. Barth, N B 151, compares Ar. ‘adud,‘ arm,’ datable by the simple process of roasting (*!e,
‘ parched
which removes some of the difficulty presented b j the usual orn’ ; I S. 17 17, etc. ) was still common in historical
derivation from ~ y s to
, step or walk. See, however, ANKLETS.
imes. For the preparation of bread, however; the
1. A.
lars must be crushed or ground so as to admit of
BRAMBLE has in EV three meanings. )eing kneaded into a paste. In early times the flour
‘I.,:!l ’dtdd (++os, rhamnus); Gen. 50 IO$ (EV ATAD vas produced by crushing the ears between two stones
f s in B),Judg. 9 14x, EV ‘brambles,’ and Ps. 58 9 [IO], EV see illustrations of these primitive ‘ corn-grinders ’
thorns.’ It is a genuine Semitic word, found also in W.
Aramaic as’ N ~ D Kor NC)DN, in Syriac as hattril (? hat&), in bund in Palestine in Bliss, Mound ofMnny Cities, 85).
Arabic as afad (ligna rhamni n,‘i Fr.), i < d in Assiiian as L process common in Egypt under the Old Empire and
efidu, etidtu (Ges.-Bu., s.w.). The root with which it appears ater (see Ernian’s Egypt, I~o),and still practised in
to he connected ( ~ D N )has in Arabjc the sense of ‘uttering a he East. The mortar and pestle were a later develop-
rm$i7q, though not loud,z sound ; and the possibility of a
connection with the sense of pricking or tearing like a thorn nent. The preparation of flour by pounding the ears
is apparent. There is general agreement that fidpvos was n a mortar (n$p, Nu. 1 1 8 ) is a familiar scene on
ahout equivalent to the modern botanical genus Rhamnus.
Dioscorides 3 distinguished three sorts (cp Fraas, Syn. Plant. Sgyptian monuments. The flour obtained by these pro-
Flor. Class.); while in modern times Tristram (FFP 264s) :esses must have been of a coarser grain (bx) than that
has enumerated sixteen species of Rhamnea as found in xocured by the use of the handniill (o:gl ; see MILL).
Palestine.
Perhaps the most likely identification for
:!l is with Rhamnus 4 still finer quality than the ordinary np2 was named
paZmtina (Boiss.), which represents in Syria the R . ozeoides of l i b (see FOOD, § 3 [a]).
Greece and S. Europe.
In the earliest times bread was entirely unleavened.
2. Oh, tau&, very frequent; EV usually ‘thorn’ or ‘thistle,’
The requisite quantity of flour or barley-meal, which
AV once (Is.3413) ‘bramble.’ It denotes a plant of the thorn
or perhaps of the thistle kind : see THORN. raried, naturally, according to the size of the household,
3 @&OS, which occurs seven times in @ (in six of these as the #as placed in a shallow wooden basin (
rendering of and five times in NT, is once (Lk. 644) -earthenware, for obvious reasons,
rendered ‘bramble bush,’ elsewhere BUSH ( q . ~ . 5., I [I]). nomads-well mixed with water and kneaded. Salt
N. M.-W. T. T.-D. was no doubt added when procurable (cp Lev. 2 13 a).
BRAN (TA ITITYPA[BAQ]). Th,e ‘burning of bran When the kneading was completed, the dough ( p n ) was
for incense’ (BupGca, 7 . T. ; to Mylitta?) is mentioned ready for the firing. Cakes thus prepared were named
in Bar. 6 (Ep. Jer.) 43[42]+ as one of the incidents in nix?, ‘unleavened cakes,’ and these still form the
the unchaste idolatrous worship of the women of usual bread of the Bedouin. In a more advanced
Babylon. See INCENSE,-§ 8. stage of society, the bread was made in this way only
BRASEN SEA (ndnqo by, 2 K. 25 I3 ; see L AVER ; in cases of emergency (Gen.193), or for purposes of
ritual, as at the Passover. The ordinary bread of the
SEA, BRAZEN.
Hebrews was made lighter by fermentation. A small
BRASEN SERPENT (ndilq;l dn;l), 2 K. 184. See piece of to-day’s ‘ batch’ was laid aside, and when the
5 2.
NEI-IUSHTAN, time for the next baking arrived this piece of leaven
(lk?) was broken down into the water in the ni#$n, the
BRASIER (ne),Jer. 36223 RV. See COAL, J 3. flour was mixed therewith, and the whole thoroughly
kneaded and allowed to stand ’till the whole was
BRASS, or BRASEN, EV’s. rendering of ndn!, leavened. ’
nc&&th (Gen. 422 and often), VVlJ +hUF (Job612+),
The next stage is the process of firing, or rendering
npn?, ne&zi&ih(Lev. 2619, etc.), an;, n e h d (Dan. the dough more digestible by the
2 32 etc.), XAAKOC (Mt. 1 0 g, I Cor. 13 I , Rev. 18 I,), 2. Firing.
kinds of cak;s. application of heat. Three modes of
and XAAKION (Mlr. 7 4 ) . firing are found in the OT, as in the
EV invariably renders thus except in Ezra 8 2, AV (see East at the present day.
COPPER), in 2 S. 22 35 AV, where nvm, ’ne&7&th, is rendered
‘steel,’ and in Jer. 15 12 AV has ‘stee!,’ see I RON 9 2). cp 2 Tim. ( a ) The simplest method is that still in use among
4 14, where XahKeJs is ‘coppersmith. In Gen. 4, RVmg. gives
‘ c o j j e r and so elsewhere’ as a note on ‘brass. In Ezek. 1 7
the Bedouin. A fire of wood, or of wood mixed with
camel‘s dung, is kindled on the sand, or on extempor-
553 nuhi is rightly rendered ‘burnished brass’ (@ ; # a t r ~ p & m ~
X U ~ K ~ STg. ; below), as also is XahKohipavos in Rev. 1 rg 2 18. ised hearthstones. When these have been well heated,
In Ezra 8 27 nwnl is qualified by the epithet m:? (RV ‘bright’), the embers are raked aside, and the flat pieces of
dough laid on the hot stones and covered with the
!-
which we should probably point 2o,rp=>-n itb, ‘glittering’(in ashes jnst removed. After a few minutes, the ashes
Ti. Ezek. 1 7 for %?, ‘polished’). n?b, which follows (EV are again raked aside, the cakes turned, and the ashes
‘fine’), arises out of dittography, and should not be rendered replaced. In a few minutes more the cakes are ready
(Che.). (see Rob. BIZ 2 416f:, Doughty, Arab. Des. 1131 etc.).
That copper is meant is shown by the words, ‘ out of Such ‘ a cake baked on the coals’ was termed n q
whose hills thou mayest dig brass’ (Dt. 8 9 ) ; cp the D ’ ? J ~ (1K. 1 9 6 ; cp Gen. 186 Hos. 78, @PAL, & ~ K ~ I J -
chapter in Holland’s PZiny (1601),headed ‘Mines of
Brass.’ See COPPER and cp EGYPT, $ 3 6 end. $ius, by the Vg. correctly rendered panis su6cinerin’us,
‘ ash cakes ’ ).
1 This the Syriac lexicographers render into Arabic as ‘ausaj,
which means a ‘thorny shrub ’(this is the right meaning of our
( a ) A second mode of firing bread is one much in
word Gram6Ze, see Skeat, s.w.). vogue at the present day among Bedouin and fellahin
2 From t h e a6sence o
f loudness in the sound is derived the alike. A girdle or thin iron plate ( h p n)?p ; Lev. 2 5
sense of P b . mx-properly a ‘ whisper ’ and thence ‘ softness,’ Ezek. 4 3 , BBAL njyavor), slightly convex in shape, is
‘stillness. See also DIVINATION, 8 4, :v.
3 It should be noticed that the A u c t a n b z ad Dioscon’dem laid over a small fire-pit, in which a fire has been
confirms the identification of 1pJ and b+os hy the gloss kindled as before, and on this plate or girdle the cakes
‘Pdpvor ’A+poi (‘ Africans’*..c., probably Carthaginians) are fired. Its Syrian name is s$ (Landberg, Prov. et
’ATa8lv. Did. du Peu$Ze Arade, 14). Cakes baked in this way
603 604
 BREAKFAST BREASTPLATE
seem to have been called, by the .Hebrews n q (I Ch. that the heavy coat of mail worn by Goliath resembled
931). the Egyptian cuirass worn by a royal personage, in
(c) The most usual mode of firing, however, especially which yellow, blue, red, and green metallic scales were
in towns, was no doubt by means of the oven (irm). tastefully arranged in symmetrical rows (Weiss, Kos-
The tunnzZr, then as now, was a large earthenware jar tiimkunde, Abth. 156). Wilkinson has ,described the
Egyptian cuirass, as consisting of about ‘ eleven horizon-
in the bottom of which the fire was placed. As
represented on Egyptian monuments, the cakes yere tal rows of metal plates well secured by bronze pins.’
At ‘ the hollow of the throat a narrower range of plates
fired by being applied to the outside of the jar (Wilkinson
was introduced. The breadth of each plate or scale
2 34 ; Erman, E,qYpt, 191). The usual method at the was little more than an inch, twelve of them sufficing to
present day, however, is to allow the fire to burn down,
and, while the embers are still glowing, to apply the cover the front of the body, and the sleeves, which were
sometimes so short as to extend less than half-way to
cake to the inside of the jar. The dough is first
pressed into flat round cakes (like a Scotch bannock); the elbow, consisted of two rows of similar plates.’
The Assyrian warriors in earlier times wore a heavy
each of these in its turn is made to revolve by a rapid
movement of the hands, till it has expanded to a coat of mail covering the’entire body with the exception
of the arms. Occasionally the coat of mail did not
diameter of about 18 inches, and become as thin as a
sheet of thick paper. It is then laid on a cushion, by reach farther than the knees. In later times the leading
means of which it is applied to the wall of the tannik warriors were protected by jackets made of leather or of
These thin wafer-cakes are called in the O T p’?! (in stout material, on which metal plates were sewn or
rivetted (or they were provided with iron or bronze
Syria, mar&k). The tanner may be, larger, and studs). Broad girdles were used for tying in the long
consist of a pit, wider at the bottom and narrowing coats of mail. Upon a bas-relief, from Xmrild,
towards the top, plastered with clay. The ovens used portrayed in Layard‘s work we see ,an Assyrian chariot
by the bakers of the street in Jerusalem named after in which the bowman is mail-clad even around his neck
them (Jer. 37 21) were probably of this sort. (For and ears. I t is not improbable that Ahab wore a heavy
further details see FURNACE, 5). coat of mail somewhat .,resembling the Assyrian (but
The preparation of the daily supply of bread for shorter), as we know that he took every precaution for
the household was essentially the care of the women- personal protection,
( F n . 186 I S. 2 8 2 4 etc.). In the wealthier households T h e statement tbat he was mortally wounded by an arrow
this duty would devolve on slaves, male and female which pierced ‘between O’?:?? and the coat of mail’ has been
(I S.813). In later times baking became a special variously interpreted. @BAL ;vi p&ov 70; autljpouo~K.T.A.
trade in the cities (Jos. Ant. xv. 9z), and especially in does not yield any satisfactory sense. The use of :?
: in Is. 417
Jerusalem (see above and cp the ‘ oven tower,’ Neh. 311 (5. uljpj3A1&, and the fundamental signification of the root,
3238), where the large influx of pilgrims at the great point to ‘rivets’ as a probable rendering, if it could yield any
festivals would promote the industry. adequate sense in the context. Thenius and other authorities
It is impossible now to identify the various species of follow Luther in holding that what is meant here is an attach-
ment or appendage to the coat of mail. T h e coat of mail
cakes mentioned in the OT. If to those mentioned in protected the breast, whereas the appendage guarded the lower
the course of this article we add i? the? ordinary round portion of the body and the arrow penetrated through the
cake or dannock ( I S. 236), and ni!,
the etymology of interval that separat;d therp (so Riehm, HWB). This appears
to he the only intelligible explanation, and etymology warrants
which points to its being pricked or perforated, like the rendering of the word o ? i ) 2 ~by
n ‘attachments’or ‘append-
the modern passover calces, we have exhausted the ages’(i.e., to the cuirass).
varieties that can be identified with any approach to Respecting the coats of mail or corslets with which
certainty. See further BAKEMEAX,also FOOD, 8s 1-3. Uzziah is said to have provided his troops ( 2 Ch. 26 14)
A. R. S. I<. we have not definite information or any sufficient clue to
BREAKFAST (&PICTON [Ti. WH]), Lk. 1 4 3 8 RVmg. guide us. The corslets (AV ‘ hrigandines’) which
See MEALS, 6 2. Jeremiah ( 4 6 4 ) bids the cavalry of Pharaoh Necho
BREASTPLATE, COAT OF MAIL (liv!@ [ti?$ put on may have consisted of some thick woven
material covered with metal scales ; but here, as in the
I I<. 2 2 3 4 Is. 59171, )19Tqor ]l’?P Jer. 4 6 4 513, Syr. case of Neh. 4 16 [IO], we are left in much uncertainty.
IC$). We find the Fz’qx7n mentioned as part of the For Neh. 416 [IO] a useful hint may he derived from
defensive armour of Goliath and David. That it was Herod. 763, where we learn that the Syrian (or Assyrian)
coinmonly worn by Israelite kings is evident from I K. contingent of Xerxes’ army wore Xlveoc BhP?)Kes, which
2 2 3 4 ( 2 Ch. 1833). In the description of Goliath’s were probably close-fitting sleeveless jackets of coarse
armour in I S. 17 5 (‘ coat-of-,mail’ EV) the addition felt. Probably the ta&ti (K!nP), AV habergeon,’
of the word n$@? to p.1~ gives a valuable clue: RV ‘ coat-of-mail,’ of Ex. 2 8 3 2 (cp 3923, both passages
Goliath’s coat of mail was covered with bronze scales. from P), was a corslet of this character.
This meaning is certified by Dt. 149 (Lev. 11g), where npgbz Etymology here does not help us as the word is from the
denotes the scales of a fish. Moreover, it is derived from a root, Aramaic root a j ; ~ (ethjeuZ ‘to fight’) and therefore means
f i ~ ,that signifies rubbing or peeling off. Ar. kaSL in conj. iv.
ex;resses the peeling off of skin during recovery from disease.1 simply ‘fighting garb.’ Targ. Onk. renders it ] :lg, ‘hreast-
The weight of Goliath’s armour, according to I S. pjate.’ 46 (Ex. 28 28) is based on another text. Knohel is on the
right track when he says in his comment (cited by Di., ad Zoc.) :
17 5, was 5000 shekels, which may be roughly computed We are reminded of the AauoO&pa$ of the Greeks (ZZ. 2529 830).
as about zoo lbs. The close intercourse that there was Egypt excelled in its manufacture.
between Egypt and Philistiaz makes it not improbable In the Greek period (300B.C. and later), the ordinary
1 In Job4126[rS] the word (AT. A?.) is taken by 05, heavy-armed soldiers wore coats of fine iron chain-mail
Vg., and Targum as=fi’?$> and modern comm., including Ew., (BhpaE dhuuc6w76s), a series of links connected into a
have adopted this view. Some colour is given to this inter- continuous chain (Rich).
pretation by n. 15 (Heh.) which describes the scales of Levia- It is significant that d gives this interpretation in
than, which the coat of h a i l of the enemy might be held to I S. 175, and we may conclude from I Macc. 635 that
resemble; but this is too slight as an argument. The during the entire Greek period this was the kind of
immediate context suggests weapons of oflence, and if Q5 is
correct in translating the preceding drr. A E ~ YEP
. by Sdpu we
cuirass usually worn. What form of breastplate was
have a fair presumption that Del. is right in comparing Ar. pictured before Paul’s imagination as a symbol for the
siryat’ln or sirwuttr?c,‘pointed dart’ or ‘arrow,’ with the word righteousness of a Christian warrior (Eph. 614, cp Is.
in this passage (so RV). Duhm follows Hoffm. and reads 5917 and I Macc. 58)-whether a corslet of scale
3qa ‘javelin ’ cp Syr. &dhaitAri. armour (column of Antoninus), or a cuirass of a broad
2 Meyer, &A, 2 2 9 8 , 2388, 298. metal plates across the chest and long flexible hands
605 606
 BREASTPLATE BRICK
(Zaamiim) of steel over the shoulders' (depicted on thing worn upon the feet ; hut the text is probably corrupt (see
the column of Trajan)-can only be conjectured. Levy, X H W B , S.V. wiwa), although Kohut (Aruch CO7ZjhtZ<?lZ,
Excellent woodcuts representing both may be found s.z. w a d argues for its authenticity. I t is not improbable that
in Rich's Did. of Roman and Greek Antipuities. waa is a gloss t o $ 1 1 ~ ;this is indirectly suggested by the
philological evidence and the versions(Bs7 reads o d y two of the
Compare also Warre-Cornish's Concise Dict. of Greek three terms), and is directly supported by quotations in the old
and R o m a n Antiquities. 0 . c. w. Latin fathers. For a discussion of $110 and V ~ D see , further
Jour?$.Phil. 2 6 3 0 7 x ['99].
BREASTPLATE, Priestly (@n; EX. zs4, rrspl- 3. The priestly linen breeches (iyo97p [D~Jto cover,
C T H e l O N [BAL]; elsewhere TO h O r l O N CRAF], TO hide], T ~ ~ L C J K Ehrv&
X ~ ~ feminalia, Pesh. transliterates
A o r s i o N [L], 'oracle'; but twice [Ex.256 ( 7 ) 358 (9)] ~ e p l { w p a )were to be worn along with the holy linen
QBAL has ITOAHPHC where M T ha: @ f l ) or BREAST- coat, the linen girdle, and the linen turbnn by Aaron
PLATE OF JUDGMENT ( a ~ y pp n , EX. 2gr5; on the Day of Atonement as he entered the holy place
A. TUN X P I C B U N [BAL]; often in a), an object within the curtain (Lev.164 [PI). It is probably
worn on the ephod of the High Priest. It seems to by an oversight that they are specially mentioned in
have been a square piece attached by its corners to the Ecclus. 458 along with the long robe and ephod (or
shoulder-straps of the ephod (see EPHOD, 5 3 ) and of zither the kuttineth and me'il: so Heb.) as part of his
like material-probably a species of pocket whose outer ' apparel of honour.' Ordinary priests also wore them
side was adorned with precious stones. The etymology on sacrificial occasions (Ex. 2842 39 28 Lev. 6 IO [3] [all
of the word is uncertain. PI, Ezek. 44 18 [the b'nE Zadok]).
Di. rejects the probable derivation from the root Fasrna, ' t o According to os. (Ant. iii. 71) the p a v a x d q v [Niese] was a
be beautiful,' and would prefer to connect it with iJ", sinus or girdle (S&"opa)a of fine twisted linen. It was the undermost
of the priestly garments and possibly the most primitive, since
' fold' in which something is carried ; cp Ewald, A Ziedh. 390. the older law of Ex. 20 26 (J E [according to Bacon, E]) seems to
On the stones in the breastplate, see P RE CIOUS STONES, and imply that the wearing of the garment was not originally
cp U l l l M A N D THUMMIM,and Nowack, H A 2 rrg. compulsory for priest or layman. The change seems to be due
0. c. w. to a primitive conception of holiness. Clothes which had come
BREECHES, in the proper usage of the word, denotes in contact with a holy plnce or function became taboo (Ar.
the divided garment reaching from the waist to just hayint), and therefore useless in ordinary life. T h e way to
avoid this misfortune was to perform holy ceremonies naked
below the knees, equivalent to the Lat. fetnnina6a Gust as the Bedouins made the sacred circuit of the Kaaba at
and Gr. TTEPICKEAH. as distinguished from h a m Mecca in a nude condition), or in holy vestments borrowed from
(6racca) or ~ ~ & f y p l A ewhichc, reached to the ankles the priests (cp 2 K. 1022). The law of Ex. 2026 is apparently
aimed against the former custom (for which see further WRS,
-the garment ordinarily denoted by the word ' hosen ' RSW 4 5 1 ~ 3 . See DRESS,PRIEST. I. A.-S. A. C.
at the time when the AV was made. The earliest
form of the garment seems to have been simply a loin BRETHREN OF JESUS (Mt. 1 2 47 Mk. 332 Lk. 8 20).
cloth (cp GIRDLE, I ). Generally, however, the long See CLOPAS,3 f.,JAMES, § 3, SIMON, 4.
mantle worn in the East made a special covering for
the legs unnecessary, and even the warriors who are BRICK (n&, derived by Gcs. from ,J135, 'to be
depicted upon the monuments with their short tunics white,' as if bricks were originally made of a whitish
have the leg below the knee wholly bare with the clay; but this is a forced etymology; @
exception of sandals. Noteworthy, on the other hand, 1. Ofthe X h l N e O C ) . 2 The Hebrew word for brick
are the lacings which protect the shins and knees of the Hebrews is not limited to sun-dried bricks. There
follower of Ah-bHni-pal (Per. and Chip., &tin ChaZd. is no douht, however, that the Israelites, like most
ii. pl. x. ) ; see further SHOES. Breeches, in fact, Eastern nations, used this kind almost exclusively ; in
seem to he a distinctively Persian dress (see Herod. 1 7 1 Gen. 1 1 3 burning bricks is mentioned as a foreign
761), and do not appear to have been known among custom, analogous to the use of asphalt (see BITUMEN)
the Israelites-at all events not before the exi1e.l Apart for mortar, and we may safely disregard EV's rendering
from the characteristic priestly 0 ~ 1 3 n(see below, 3 ) , ' brickkiln' in z S. Nah. 314.~ Sun-dried bricks
garments of this nature are mentioned only in Dan. 321 of a very early period have been found in Palestine ;
CEVI. burnt bricks seem to date generally from the Roman
I. h ? p , sarbQZ (Dan.32127+), RV hose^^,'^ sup- period. It will he remembered that the houses of the
ported by a consensus of opinion (Theod., Aq., Sym. mass of the Israelites were made of sun-dried clay (see
Pesh., Hi., Ew., Behrmann, etc.). HOUSE); it was of the same material that their bricks
In this case the word is derived from Gr. r a &papa vapa'pahAa were c o m p o ~ e d . ~
(Lag. Gcr. AJh. 207, FrP. Arm% Lehnw. 481 probibly of Pers. T h e true conntries of brick-makers and brick-builders were
origiii (cp mod. Pers. shalwrir). I n Targ. and Talm., on the Egypt5 and Mesopotamia. I n Egypt, not only all houses, but
ot1;er hand, 'D (originally not connected with the above) denotes also all palaces, many tombs (including several of the smaller
a mantle'; so Jewish exegetes (Aben-Ezra, etc.) and AV pyramids), and some temples, were constructed of Nile-mud
('coats,' mg. 'mantles') in this passage. bricks.
For more than one reason the AV is probably The representations of brick-making which are to be
better. ' Coats ' or ' mantles ' suits the climax in n. 27, found in Egyptian wall- pictures are very instructive.
which describes the powerlessness of the fire over the 2. Brick- They not only show the process with great
Three, better than RV-their bodies were uninjured ; making clearness, but also illustrate most vividly
nor was their hair singed ; their mantles (flowing loose the serfdom of the Israelites on Egyptian
robes, easily inflammable) were unchanged, nor had the ground. The most famous picture, for example, repre-
smell of fire passed on them. sents foreigners-chiefly of a Semitic type-at work,
. - p u g i f , in ]imt+ (or rather p n v j ~ ?[Ra. Gi.]),
2. vhs,
1 W e are reminded of the manner in which the Ar. mizar has
Dan. 3 21, is an exceedingly obscure term for which are evolved from the simple izrir. see G IRDLE I.
offered such diverse renderings as ' hosen ' (AV),. . ' tunics ' 2 Some scholars consider h & r , the &reek term for brick
(FV), 'turbans' (RVmf+). to have been borrowed by the Greeks from the Phenicians i;
Turbans' may be safely dismissed as nnphilological and im- the form Z(e)bintlr. [n>~$, qSs. li6ittu, seems to come from
ZaMnu, ' t o throw down flat ; see L IBNAH, and c p Del. Prol.
probable (see T URBAN ) ; for the rest cp Syr. (a) Persian
tunic (cp RV)(6) breeches, also a kind of legginis (cp AV) : see 931Aee the commentaries of Driver, H. P. Smith and Lijhr on
Payne-Smith Thes. The Jew.-Aram. W * D occurs ~ in only one n S . Z.C., and on the whole pa4sage see DAVID 6 I I c. ii. R y a t
passage indebendent of Dan. 3 21, and apparently denotes some- Jer. 43 g alters the unintelligible 'brickkiln' kt A$ into 'brick-
work.
1 Much later, in the Roman period, Bracce, feminalin, and 4 Altars also Were made of earth ; cp the obscure Is. 653
fascis all found their way into Jud;ea (Briill, Trachien d. (see S A C R I ~ ) On . ' the law in Ex. 20 25 (E?)see A LTAR . 0 3.
rden 87). 5 C p the fact that the Eg. word for brick, d o h f , Coptic .rope,
''2 Ehdently retained in its older sense. T h e modern ' hosen took root in Asia ; cp Arabic tli6 (whence Ethiopic p 6 , Span.
is applied to stockings. adobe).
607 608
 BRICK BRIER
superintended by Egyptian ‘task masters ’ Gmed with tiles were used much more rarely and always on a
sticks. smaller scale. Crude bricks, however, sometimes of
T h e analogy to the labour of Israel as described in Ex. 1 is enormous size and always without straw, uere the
so striking that many writers have ventured to regard the picture common material, especially in the earlier times.
as referring to the circumstances with which that record deals.
The scene, however, represents ‘ brick-making for the great Hence we have brick stamps with, for example, the
magazine in Eastern Thehes’ (Opet, mod. Karnak), and the name of such old kings as Sargon of Agad6 and
explanatory legend states that the labourers are ‘captives Naram-sin.
brought by his majesty (Dhutmose or Thotmes I l l . ) for work
on the temple of Amon’ ; many (not the majority) of the working In Nineveh, sun-dried bricks seem to have been the
men seem to be African captives. building material in general use. On Ezek. 4 I, which
The picture illustrates the whole process of brick- mentions Ezekiel as portraying the siege of Jerusalem
making. on clay-tiles, see Ezek. SBOT (Eng.), p. 9 8 8 .
, We see the labourers hoeing the ground with the wooden W. M. M.
Egyptian hoe (see A GRICULTURE fig.3) carrying the black
earth (Nile-mud deposited ‘at the aAnual inkdation) in baskets1 BRICKKILN (la$D), 2 S. 1 2 3 1 Nah. 3 1 4 and (RV
to a clean (sandy?) place, moistening it with water taken from Brickwork) er. 4 3 9 . See above, § I.
shallow ponds, evidently a t some distance from the Nile, and
kneading it with their feet. The wooden moulding-frame is BRIDE (ilia) Is. 625, Bridegroom (]QQ)Jer. 734.
filled with material of the right consistency, and emptied on the See MARRIAGE.
ground ; then the s uare heaps of mud, placed innows side by
side, are left to d r y 3
These Egyptian bricks were usually twice the size of
our modern ones. Many of them (from dynasty 18 BRIDLE. The various Heb. and Gr. words will be
3. Egyptian onwards) were stamped with the name found dealt with in the articles specified below.
of a king, to show that they belonged I. O b ~ g ma$s6in
, ($VhaKri), Ps. 39 1 t [ z ] EV, EVIw. ‘ muzzle ’
brick. to public buildings ; sometimes the
stamp shows the name of the building, and sometimes
(cp CATTLE, $ 9). Most-inappropriate ; read ?:,; ‘a guard’
(Ps. 1413 ?I;??),with Herz, Che.
in addition to this the name of the officer charged
with the construction of the b ~ i l d i n g . ~ Stamps as 2. nib:n, nze?iJZaih, Zech. 14 2 0 AVw., EV BELLS [p.v., 21.

well as moulds have been preserved to modern ,times, 3. l”, 7flef?q,z K. 19 28 (Xahiuds) ]I Is. 37 29 ( X U ~ L U ~ FProv.
),
and bricks with the name of Rameses II., ‘ the Pharaoh 263 (KE‘uT~ov). EV is no doubt correct. Cp the place-name in
of the oppression ’ (but see EGYPT, fj S S ~ ) are, shown z S . S r , METHEG-AMMAH.
in our museums. We often find chopped straw or reed 4. ID!, resen, Is.3028 (PB doubtful), Job3011 ( p h i u d c ) ,
mixed with the mud to make it more consistent and to Ps. 32 g ( K ~ P ~ S Job
) , 41 13 [5] E V (6’6paC). Perhaps ‘bit ’ would
be a better rendering.
prevent cracking during the drying. According to 5. Xahiu6s Jas. 3 3 RV AV ‘hit’ ; Rev. 14 20 E V (cp Eur.
Ex. 5 18 the pharaoh showed his malice by doubling the Alcesfis, 492) ; cp HORS;, 0 2.
work of the Israelites. Apparently we are to under- BRIER. Six Hebrew words have to be considered.
stand that, instead of furnishing straw .from the royal I. o ~ ~ m ~daykiniiiz
,l (Judg. 8 7 16+), are mentioned
domains and from the magazines of a fifth part of the
other fields, he forced the oppressed strangers to gather along with ‘ thorns of the wilderness ’ as the instruments
the straw from the fields themselves. This, however, with which Gideon ‘ taught,’ or rather ‘ threshed’ (71.7 ;
they could not well accomplish during their scanty cp Moore’s comni. ad Zoc.), the men of Succoth. The
leisure time ; besides, the stalks were used (and are etymology of the Hebrew word being unknown and
still used) as fodder, especially, when not quite dry. its occurrence so rare, it is scarcely worth while to
Nor is it any easier to see how they could get old straw speculate as to the kind of thorn intended.
We may notice that according to Boissier, 3 602 (quoted by
of the previous year (from the refuse heaps of farm- Ascherson in Low, 429), &v&ix is in modern times an Arabic
vards, etc. ?) in quantities sufficient for their ‘ tale of name for Phaccojajjus sco~an‘zsBoiss. The paralleli.;m with
&ricks.’ For the rest, we frequently find not only ‘thorns of the wilderness’ in both’places is enough to rerate the
foreign captives, but also the Egyptian serfs, referred to absurd idea invented by Michaelis and adopted by Gesenius
in Egyptian texts as making bricks under constraint. that i2’!?12 meant threshing-wains.’ T h e method of torture
We now turn to the second brick-building country- alluded to is that of carrting (see Moore).

4. Babylonian,
Mesopotamia. Owing to the scarcity of stone in
EabJonia proper, briik was the only
building material, stone being reserved
2. iv?, D m i ~ occurs

n$v, a
,

word of similar meaning.

eight times in Is. (56 7 2 3 24 25
918 [IT] 1 0 1 7 2 7 4 3 2 1 3 ) , in
~ seven of these along with
i*v$
is a genuine
for the ornamentation of edifices, and the consGuction of Semitic word, and Celsius ‘(2188 cp Frankel, 89)
certain parts, such as the threshold(see B ABYLONIA , $15). pointed out its affinity with Ar. samuy, some kind of
Whilst in Egypt rain is so scarce that buildings of sun- thoriiy plant. The Hebrew word seems a general’ one
dried brick have a certain durability, the climate of for thorny plants, of which there are many kinds in
Babylonia is less favourable. The Babylonians, accord- Palestine (Tristram enumerates sixteen species of Xham-
ingly, made their constructions more solid. They built nee, FFP 263 3).The ancient versions give no
walls of an enormous thickness : for example, the great help towards a nearer determination of the species.
enclosure of Babylon which Nebuchadrezzar erected 3. imD, rirpar (K~VU{U [Sym. KVIS]Is. 5513.t), a
with the clay dug from the ditch of the city (cp wilderness-plant, probably of the nettle kind, as its name
B ABYLON , § 5 ) . Moreover, their nnfavourable climate is apparently connected with qio=qib, ‘ to burn.’
forced the Babylonians, though wood was at least as @3A q Theod. took it to be t h e ‘fleabane’ ; Sym. a:d Vg. the
scarce in their country as in Egypt, to use burnt bricks, ‘nettle ; Pesh. renders pVlLmE, probably ‘savory. Any of
especially for the outer layers of their thick walls. thcse will suit the passage well enough; under the new dis-
This led to a high development of the art of glazing pensation this plant was to give place to the myrtle.
and coloiiring bricks. We find large walls covered with 4. pmp, siridhim, AVm% rebels ‘ (aaporurp$uouuL
elaborate paintings, whilst in Egypt such enamelled [Sym. I T U ~ O ~Th.
, Gdu~oXor]Ezek. 261), is not a plant
1 [Does the phrase ‘his hands were freed from the basket’ name.
(Ps. S16 [7] RV; ‘ ta&-basket,’ De Witt), refer to these baskets? According to the testimony of all the ancient versions, the
Cp Del. ad Zoc.; but l?V? is open to grave suspicion (see Che. word is almost certainly to be read as the participle (0>?13)of
Ps.(?) ad Zoc.).] verb common in Aram., ‘to gainsay falsely’ or ‘idly’ ; and the
2 The Egyptian method of representing objects in perspective 1 0 merely transliterates; in v. 7 Aq. renders Tpaya&vf3ap
is likely to give the impression that the bricks are placed one and Sym. ~ p t p 6 h o v 0(see FIELD, ad loc.).
above another.
3 It has been inferred from this stamp that the government 2 In the other three places where l’ne occurs (Jer. 17 I Ezek.
manufactured bricks for sale. and even that it had a brick- 39 Zech. 712) it is rendered ‘diamond’ or ‘adamant’ (see
monopoly ; but this is very improbable. A DAMANT , $ 3).
39 609 610
 BRIGANDINE BUKKI
followingword, O*X$D, is perhaps a mistake for O’yb (‘despising’) (~senn)np), EX. 284. See EMBROIDERY, § I ;
or some such word so that the clause would read ‘though they T UNIC, § 2.
gainsay and contenk thee ‘(see Co. ad Zoc.). There is no support
anywhere for a word O’?!D, meaning ‘briers.’ BROIDERED WORK (nQR?),Ezek. 1610. See
5. PbD, siZ& (uK~XO$, Ezek. 2824),’ is connected with EMBROIDERY, I.
Jewish Aram. M>$D, Syr. saZwi, Ar. suZZi3 Maud. xn+a BROOCHES (P’gn), Ex. 35 22 RV ; AV ‘ bracelets ’
( L o w , 150), all of which mean a ‘ thorn ’ or ‘ pricking [see H OOK , 21. See also B UCKLE , I.
point.’ BROOK. The Hebrew word usually thus rendered
6. pn, &idek ( d ~ a ~ O a iProv., ~ 1519 [where EV
’ thorns ’1Mic. 7 4t), is by Wellhausen (KZ. Proplz.(3) 149)
isiR>, na&aZ’(Xfipd.Pi)ous;cp in N T Jn. 1 8 r ) , which,
connected with Ar. (zndika, an enclosed garden or like the Ar. wridy, denotes not only the flowing brook
orchard ; he reads in Micah ? I T DD;@;~ p y p o$u (‘ ihr itself (cp ]Q’& $nJ,Am. 524), but also, like the Ar.
Bester ist aus der Dornhecke und ihr Gradester aus dem iflady, the dried-up river bed (cp the term 313K, Jer.
Gestrupp ’), thus producing a good parallelism. On the 1513). Hence Job likens his unstable brethren to
other hand, Low (147), following Celsius (ii. 358), ex- a brook whose supply of water cannot be counted on
plains the word by reference to Ar. &adu&,which, accord- (Job 6 15).
ing to Lane ( s . v . ) , is SoZmum cordaturn. Tristram In Is. 196, lira qkv, y”8rZ m@W, ‘the brooks of defence,’
(FFP, 368) identifies it with SoZanum sanctum, L. means rather ‘streams of Egypt’ ( SO RV). lk:, ye’@, a word
(sometimes called the apple of Sodom : see Bad.(? 152). which bears reseyblance both to the Eg. ‘io(t)m*;‘ river,’ and to
W e may at all events gather from Prov. 15 19 that a the Ass. ia’urr, stream,’ is applied usually to the NILE.
thorny plant capable of forming a hedge is intended. p’??,‘*jh$, in O:? ’r?E,
ZjhikZ mayim, ‘ water-brooks,’ Ps.
For Heb. 68 AV [TpfpOhOlJ, see THISTLE [4]. N. M. 422 [31 Joellzo (.qual, d+dvfw &?&wv), is a poetical word
which, from its radical idea of holding or confining, denotes
BRIGANDINE ()$?D),Jer. 464,RV ‘ coats of mail’ ; roperly a channel (cp Is. 3 7). I t is otherwise rendered ‘stream,
’river ’ ‘waters ’ etc and occurs in various involved figurative
see BREASTPLATE (i.). mean:ngs, in j o b l i : ~ (AV ‘the mighty’), 4018 (AV ‘strong
BRIMSTONE ( L e . , Brenston, ‘burning stone ’; pieces’), 41 15 171 (O’g? ’295, AV ‘scales’).
n’??;, gophrith; eEiov; 3 S U L P H U R ). SI,^, mikhaZ, rendered ‘brook ’ in z S. 1720, is a word of un-
known etymological history (for Fr. Del.’s identification with the
T h e passages are Gen. 19 24 Dt. 29 23 [zzl Job 18 15 Ps. 116 [7] Ass. nzZkaZiu, ‘ a canal,’ cp Dr. ad loc. and ZDMG 40 724). T h e
Is.3033 34gEzek.33zzLk.1729 R e v . 9 1 7 3 1410 1920 2010
word, if not corrupt (We. conjectures some such word as
21 8t). Go$FzrZlh is apparently connected with Pb, bitumen’ +
477) or out of its place, quite unknown.2
(cp the Aram. and Ar. forms with initial h), but surely not of
Bactrian origin, a s Lagarde 4 supposed. For Brook of Egypt (O:?yp hi),
Is. 27 12 RV, see EGYPT,
Almost invariably the passages in which brimstone R IVER O R . For Brook of the Arabah ( ” 2 ~ ; $Am. I> 6 14),
is mentioned relate to divine judgments; there is no RV, see ARABAH, B ROOK OF THE. S. A. C .
direct statement of any use to which sulphur was BROOM (any), I K. 1 9 4 RVmg., AV J UNIPER.
put by the Hebrews. They cannot have known any-
thing of the industrial uses of that mineral, which have BROTH (3??2),
Judg. 6 1 g J Is. 65&. See COOKING,
so largely added to the wealth of the regions where it is 3; SACRIFICE.
most easily obtained (e.g., Sicily). The only objects to BROWN (MI),Gen. 303zf. AV ; see COLOURS, 0 8.
which it was applied by the‘ ancients, according to Plin.
X N 3 5 1 5 , are the making of lamp wicks (eZ&ch%iu), BUCKET (v??, cp Ar. duZw7‘*,Ass. diZdtu), Is. 40 15
the fumigation and cleansing of wool, certain medical ( K ~ S O [BKAQI’])
S ; in Nu. 247 (u7r6ppa [BAFL]), used
remedies, and, lastly, religious purifications (cp Od. 22 figuratively of Israel’s prosperity. See AGRICULTURE,
481483 ; after the slaughter of the suitors). § 5.
It may be conjectured however that sulphur was used in BUCKLE. I. According to some authorities the nu
the so-called TOPHETH (4.1~)of t i e Valley of Hinnom (cp Is.
8033): and one conclusion may safely be drawn from the many (c@pbrlAbc,armiZZas) of Ex. 3522 was a buckle (AV
descriptions in which brimstone is referred to-that the Israelites ‘ bracelets,’ RV ‘ brooches’). See RING.
were not unacquainted with the volcanic phenomena known a s 2. So, too, the iliyltx of 2 S.1 IO. See BRACELET
‘solfatara ’ or those known a s ‘fire-wells’ (as emanations of car-
buretted hydrogen when they take fire are frequently called). (5).
These ‘fire-we1ls”occur in many of t i e districts where mud- 3. 7rbp7r7) ( ~ M a c c1089
. 1158 1444) was a gold
volcanoes appear, in Europe, Asia, and N. America.6 Reminis- buckle, bestowed in one instance as an honourable
cences of phenomena of this kind apparently underlie certain distinction on Jonathan by king Alexander Balas, ‘ a s
parts of the account of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah the use is to give to such as are the kindred of the king
in Gen. 19 and the other passages (see above) where the same
narrative is directly or indirectly alluded to. ( I Macc. 1089).
It is probable that the Hebrews, like the Greeks (see Such buckles or brooches formed the fastenings of the outer
garment on the breast or over the shoulder. They were of
11.14415 Od. 12417) and the. Romans (Plin. NN 35 1 5 ) , l various shapes the commonest being a flat circular ring with a
associated the ozonic smell which often so perceptibly pin passing th;ough the centre (Rawlinson). T h e use of goZden
accompanies lightning discharges with the presence of buckles (like that of the purple robe) was reserved to men of dis-
sulphur. This may help to explain the passages which tinction (see passages cited, and cp Livy, 39 31) ; see CROWN, 5 4.
describe or allude to the overthrow of Sodom and BUCKLER. For )a?,
nzri@z (2S.2231AV), ;7?’$,
Gomorrah as having been brought about by a rain of $inn& (Ps. 352), ?I?@, sZ&raFz (Ps. 914) see SHIELD. For
fire and brimstone from heaven (Job 1815 ? Gen. 19 24 npi, rZma&(I Ch. 1 2 8 ) see SPEAR (so RV).
Ps. 116 Ezek. 3822 Lk. 1729).
BUGEAN (Boyraloc [BKAL”], SUG&US), Est. 126
BROIDERED COAT, RV ‘coat of chequer work’ AV. See AGAGITE.
1 On O’$bP, Ezek. 2 6 see above, 4. BUKKI (’ZJ § 52; abbreviated from W??;
a T h e reading of G in Mic. 7 4 (is ubs & T ~ ~ Y O Vpresupposes
) &OKX[E]I [L] ; see BUKKIAH).
a reading iJ7he (Vollers in Z A TW4 IO). I . baid to have been the fourth in descent from Aaron in the
line of Eleazar : I Ch. G 5 51 [6 31 6 361 (v. 5 Bwe [El, - W ~ [AI
L ;
8 Probably from the same root a s OJw, .funzrs, . and wholly un- .-
connected with 9 ~ 6 5 . 1 $nj isaccordinglysometimes rendered ‘valley’ :cp, e.g., Dt.
4 Beit?. ’74 27 ; Sem. 1 6 4 3 ; Sym. 2 93f: 2 36 2 Ch. 20 16 33 14 in RV.
CD OC Met. 14701 f . 2 The Targ. identifies $ 2 9 ~with the Jordan. No help can be
Lurida s;;p&knt fcecuudo sulfura fonti, obtained from the Versions, unless the GLrAqhJBaab mr~J6ov.rs5of
Incenduntque cavas fumante bitumine venas. O L be correct, in which case n’nir 52*nmay be a corruption of
6 See Sir Archibald Geikie in Emy. Brit.W 10 257.
7 Fulmina, fnlgura quoque sulpuris odorem habent, a c lux some such word a s O’?qpp or O’>:lzp (elsewhere late). See
ipsa eorum sulpurea est. ~ also N. P. Smith, ad Zoc.
611 612
 BUKKIAH BUSH
Y. 51 -KUL [EA]); Ezra7 (BOKK[P]L [ B A ] ) = I E S ~ . B Z BOCCAS
, BURNING AGUE (nu72 ; I KTEPOC [AFL], I K T H P
(BoKKa [BA]). In 4 E s 1 . l ~the name appears as Borith [? B]), Lev. 26 16T ; see DISEASES, 6, MEDICINE.
(Oovitlz).
2. Danite ; one of the chiefs chosen to divide Canaan (BarsLp
[Bl, - X X L [Fl, - K K ~ L[L],
~ BOKKL
[AI), Nu. 3422 [PI.
’I’
BURNT OFFERING ( il W), Lev. 1 3 ; see SACRI-
FICE.
BUKKIAH (VI:?& perhaps connected with the
Syr. verb b, and, if pointed ;1227, signifying BURNT OFFERING, ALTAR OF (n);? nqp),
‘ YahwB has tested,’ §§ 39, 52); one of the sons of Ex. 3028 ; see ALTAR, 5 zf: ; SACRIFICE.
Heman, I Ch. 25413 ( B o J K E I ~ C P I , BOKKIAC, KOKK. BUSH represents in AV three different Hebrew words.
I. m,D, s<dh ( P d ~ o s ,rubus: Ex. 32-4 Dt. 3316 Mk.
[A], BOKXIAC [L], b n s ) . See BAKBUKIAH.
1226 Lk. 644 [EV ‘bramble bush’] 2037 Acts73035T)
BUL (523,perhaps ‘ rain-month,’ from 5139 ; cp in 1. Hebrew denotes a rough thorny bush-which IS
Ph. $3,CZS i. no. 31 ; its identification with the Palm.
terme. the original sense of our ‘bramble’-=
is shown by the use of the same word in
divine name $>‘(in 5137ly,etc. ) is not certain ; &&&A
[BA], BoyA [L]), I K. 638. See MONTH, 2, 5.
later Hebrew, in Aramaic, Arabic, and Assyrian, and
BULL (122, Jer. 5220 ; lB, Gen. 3215[16] ; l\v, confirmed by the rendering of the ancient Versions.
Low (z75), following Forskil (ROY. kg,Ar. cxiii.),
Job21 10 ; 1’3!, Ps. 50 13, and ~ ~ y p oHeb.
c , 9 13). See identifies it with Rubus fruticosus. Some, on the
C ATTLE , 5 2. For the bull in mythological representa- ground that the bramble is not found on Sinai, assume
tions, see CALF, GOLDEN; CATTLE, 14 ; CHERLW, that a kind of acacia is referred to. These Hebrew and
3 7 ; and cp STARS, § 3 a. For the brazen bulls ( z K. Greek words are used in O T and N T respectively only
l617), see SEA, BRAZEN. I t is worth adding that in connection with the theophany to Moses in Horeb
bull-fights are often represented on wall-paintings in (Sinai), except in Lk. 644.l In O T (Ex. 32-4 Dt. 3316),
Egyptian tombs (see P. E. Newberry, E l Bersheh, and in Acts7 3035, ’the term refers to the actual bush ;
pt. i., p. 28, n. I ) . in Mk. 12~6=Lk.2037 (see RV) to the section of
BULLOCK (%), Ex. 2910. See CATTLE, 5 z. Exodus containing the narrative (see below, § z).
2. @, Si;& (xhwpbv, uirgultum, EV ‘plant,’ Gen.
BULL, WILD (Kin), Is. 5120, AV ; RV ANTELOPE 2 5 ; JAd71], aybor, EV ‘shrub,’ Gen. 2115; also Job
k... I. 3047T2) is in Gen. 25 probably used in a general sense
BULRUSH ($$I&), Is.585 (RV ‘rush‘), and BUL- of any wild-growing shrub ; in the other passages the
RUSHES (Kgl),Ex.23 Is. 182 (KVin the latter ‘papy- reference may be more specific. Low (78),who cites
rus ’), both words elsewhere RUSHES (4.n.). the Syriac and Arabic equivalents-s@ri and Eh-
identifies it with A?kmisia jzuz‘aica L, but allows that
BULWARK. For 5VJ, &?(AV occasionally, RV the Arabic word is used by Syriac lexicographers for
usually ‘rampart ’), see FORTRESS, 5 5 ; for 3;?, $in%ah, 2 Ch. various species. See also Wetzstein, Reiseber., 41.
20 15 (RV ‘battlements,’ mg. ‘corner towers’), see B ATTLE. 3. p!$m-, nahdZ6Z<m.($ryds, foramina, AV ‘ bushes,’
MENT and F ORTRESS , 5 5 ; for lis?, mE@d (Eccl.914), and RV I pastures,’ mg. ‘bushes,’ Is. ”1st) is almost
7iSt3, mE@r (Dt. ZOzo), see W AR. certainly connected with the root $13, Ar. nahaZa (see
BUNAH (ilp3 ‘intelligence’: cp in Palm. K313, Barth, N B z r g ) , whose proper sense is that of leading
cattle to the drinking-place. The noun, therefore,
Vog. Syr. Cen., no. 3), a Jerahmeelite ( B & N & I & [B], means ‘ drinking-places ’-like Ar. manhnl or mawrid.
BAANA [AI, AMINA [Ll), 1 Ch. 225. This is better than the more general rendering
BUNDLE (lhy), Gen. 4235 of money; Ct. 113 of ‘pastures.‘ ‘Clefts’ (65,Vg.) rests on a false ety-
myrrh ; I S. 25 29 of life. See BAG (4). mology ; and ‘ bushes ’ (Saad. etc., AV) is seemingly
BUNNI (’!+, ’!$a and ’>13, §§ 5, 79 ; cp BANI). due to conjecture (Ges.. Thes. ).
I. A Levire Neh. 9 4 ((3ovvLas [Ll ; transl. ut6s [BKA]) see
The theophany in the bush (Ex. 32-4) is remarkable.
E ZRA , ii. 5 131J) ; possibly identical with the signatory td the Elsewhere the angel of YahwB’ is a theouhanv in human
I ,

covenant (see E ZRA , i., $ 7), Neh. 10 15 [16] (pax [BNA], poKxer form ; but here apparently (note
or utoi [Ll), whose name, however, is perhaps due to ditto- 2. The
YY . 26 3) the only special appearance
‘graphy of B ANI [n. 41 in v. 14 [ I jl. bush., is that of fire. The nearest parallel
2. Another Levire, one of the overseers of the temple, Neh.
is Judg.1320, where the angel ascends in a flame of
11 15 (BHA om., j3ouua [L], -UL [N-mg. SUP.]); not mentioned in
11 I Ch. 9 14. fire; but the human form of the appearance is there
unmistakable. The story in the form which it assumes
BURDEN ( K k Q , massd-ie., ‘ lifting up ’ ; hence in Exodus appears to have resulted from a fusion of two
either ‘ burden ’ or ‘ utterance’ [‘ to utter ’ is ‘ to lift up widely current beliefs-that fire indicated the divine
the voice ‘1). ‘ Burden ’ in EV, when used of a pro- presence (see T HEOPHANY, 5), and that certain
phetic revelation, should rather be ‘ oracle ’ (as RVmg. trees were the permanent abodes of deities. It seems
z K. 925 etc.). Cp PROPHECY. The term mass8 probable from the character of the reference in Dt.
became a subject of popular derision in the time of 3C16 that there was current a different form of the
Jeremiah, owing to its double meaning (see above), story, according to which the bush was YahwB‘s
so that Jeremiah pronounces a divine prohibition of its permanent dwelling ; for the phraseology ( n o 3 3 3 1 1 ,
use (Jer. 25 3 3 3 ) . It continued, however, to be used in ‘who dwelt in the bush’) indicates the same per-
the headings of prophecy. As to the application of manency of the divine presence as was subsequently
masrri, once only it denotes divine judicial sentence supposed to characterise the temple. Renan, however,
( z I<. 9 25 ; cp Jer. 2336) ; elsewhere there is no such would read 93.0 yw,‘who dwells in Sinai’ (cp v.z),and
limitation of meaning. I n Prov. 301 beyond doubt certainly in Exodus the fiery appearance is clearly re-
N$ should be emended to swh, in 311 to S$Q (see garded as, like other theophanies, temporary. Robert-
AGUR,LEMUEL). son Smith (KeZ. L7em.P) 193J ) cites some parallels from
@BNAQ renders variously A$ppu (in the Minor Prophets non-biblical sources, and argues that ‘ the original seat
regularly), ><pa (Is. 15 I 17 I 22 I and 21 I [Q]), Spapa (Is. 21 I of a conception like the burning bush, which must have
also ib. 151 [AI, 221 [AI, aHd 231 [NAQmg.]), and 6paucs (Is. its physical basis in electrical phenomena, must prob-
19 T 306).
1 occurs also as the proper name of a Rock, I S. 144 (see
BURIAL (n>)lj7), Is. 1420. See DEAD, I. MICHMASH).
a Where 15 (liyoJvn, cdri)(ov) has been led astray by the
BURNING (ne*$’), 2Ch. 2119. See DEAD, 5 I ; likeness of the word to the verb r p v ; but Aq. and Sym. have
LAW AND JUSTICE, 5 12. +UT& (in ZI7. Sym. +UT& Bypa).

613 614
 BUSHEL GADES
ably be sought in the clear dry air of the desert or of region. Probably Buz should be vocalised B6z (fix), to
lofty mountains.’ W e need not rationalise and suppose accord with BBza and the vowels au and w in the Gk.
a bush of the nebk, overgrown with the Loranthus forms (cp Frankel, Vor~tudienzu der S p t . 116).
acacia, which has an abundance of fire-red blossoms z. A Gadite (<apovxap [Bl, Row< [Ll, Axipou< [A ; see A H I ,
I]), I Ch. 5 14t.
(so the botanist traveller Kotschy. in Furrer’s art.
‘Dorn,’ BL213). Cp further Baudissin, Stud. sur BUZI (9183,probably a gentilic ; see Ruz), father of
sem,. Religionsgesch. 2 223 ; Jacob, AZtara6. Parallelen the prophet EZEKIEL (q.n., 8 I ) , Ez. 1 3 [ z ] (BOYZ[E]I
sum A T 7 J N. M . , 8 I ; G. B. G., 8 2. [BAQI, [Qnlg.l).
T W @ ~ ~ ~ I C M ~ ~ N O C

BUSHEL (MOA~OC, modius), a measure of capacity ; o BO~Z[E]ITHC [BWCI,

BUZITE (’r73, o TOY Boyzi
Mt.515 Mk.421 Lk.1133.t See WEIGHTS A N D
[AI; @BKAC adds THC ayc[€li~iAocxwpac), a
M EASURES.
gentilic noun from Buz (q...), applied to E LIHU , the
BUTLER (nR?p), Gen. 40 I 419 ; cp C UPBEARER, fourth speaker in the poem of Job (Job922), who is
and see MEALS, § IT. also said to have been ‘of the family of Ram.’ From
the fact that Ram is the name of a Judahite family, to
BUTTER (ilypn),Gen. 188. See M ILK. which Boaz and David are said to have belonged (Ruth
BUZ ( T E I ) . I. Second son of Nahor, Gen.2221 41g21), and that an Elihu appears in I Ch.2718 as
(BauE [A] -f [L]). As Buz is mentioned in connec- ‘one of the brethren of David,’ Derenbourg (RE116)
tion with Dedan and Tema in Jer. 2523 (Pws [BK2AQ]. conjectures that ‘ Buzite ’ should rather be “ Bozite ’=
-0 [K”], Bwf [QW.]), it must have been an Arabian ‘ Boazite ’ ($?pin). T o complete this theory Elihu ought,
people. Buz and H AZO (B.w.) are connected by Del. it would seem, to be David‘s brother. Unfortunately
(Par. 307 ; Riehm’s HWB(2),124) with the BBza and ‘ Elihu’ in I Ch. 2718 is most probably corrupt, and,
Haza of the annals of Esarhaddon (Budge, Hist. of even if not, ‘brethren’ is a vague and uncertain term
Esarh. 59-61, KB, 2130f.), two districts not to be (see E LIHU , 2). Moreover, dramatic propriety naturally
exactly identified, but evidently in close proximity to N. suggested the description of Elihu as an Aranman Arab.
Arabia. Esarhaddon’s description of the land of BHzii R AM (q.v., 2 ) is probably a fictitious name, like Elihu
is not an inviting one ; it was a desolate, snake-haunted and Barachel. T. K. C.

CAB, RV Kab (a?; KAROL [BAL]), 2 K. 625+, a xa@Xwv, described as bordering on Tyre ; c. dj.117,
dry measure, one-sixth of a seah (see WEIGHTS A N D ~ u ~ o u h w‘va, piece of land in Galilee ’).l For the state-
M EASURES ). So at least Jewish authorities (see Bux- ment of Josephus that in Phcenician the name means
torf, S.W. 12); but in this p?ssage 22 ( I cab ’) is prob- ‘ unpleasing’ ( O ~ K& ~ D ~ u K o Y ) there is no evidence. Yet
ably a scribe’s error for 11 (‘cor’). See DOVE’S the true explanation ought not to be far away. If we
I)UKG, HUSKS. could recover it we should see that the popular wit was
not so poor as Hiller, Ewald, and Thenius supposed
CABBON (1’133,xaBpa [BA], xaBBw [L]), an un- ( h a j = h ? , ‘as nought’). Cheyne (PSBA, 2 1 1 7 7 8
identified city in the lowland of Judah, mentloned [‘99]) would correct ‘land of Cabul’ into ‘land of
between Eglon and Lahmas (Josh. 1540). It is pos- Zebulun’ ; 15121may have been written ’$)>I, and when
sibly the same as the MACHBENA-AV M ACHBENAH the mark of abbreviation had been lost, some learned
V ~ - W V ~[AI, ~ a x p a v a[Ll)-
( t - ? ~ i ” ; P U X ~ ~ [Bl, scribe may have corrected 5\21into 5 i a ~ . The witticism
mentioned among the Calebite towns enumerated in would be like that which explained Beelzebul as ‘lord
I Ch. 249, and may perhaps be represented by the of dung,’ and ’Izebel as ‘what dung’ (see BEELZERUL,
present eZ-KubeiJeh, lying between Kh. ‘Ajliin and JEZEBEL);it would be a new popular etymology of
Kb. el-Lahm, sites that have been proposed for Eglon Zebulun. T h e ‘ twenty cities,’ on this hypothesis, were
and Lahmas. in the lower part of .the Gglil, which, in the time of
CABINS (lli*JiJ),Jer. 37&, A V ; RV CELLS (g.v.). Josephus, and probably also when I K. 911-13 was
edited, extended as far as XapouXwv or Cabul. Of
CABUL ($832; xwBa- [MhCOMEhl [B], xaBwh course the writer does not mean to say that the name
[A], KO. [L]), a town in the territory of Asher (Josh. Zebulon was now given for the first time ; he only offers
19z7), the ~ a p w h w (variants -[VI,
-POX., +ah., a new justification for the name. For a less probable
ya,uaXwv) mentioned by Josephus ( Yit.43, 44, 45) as view ( 5 1 2 ~corrupted from $51 ; cp 5\;, ‘ dung ’), see
a village on the confines of Ptoleniais, 40 stadia from Klostermann. (Cp also Bottg., Topogr. -hist. Lex. zu
Jotapata (modern Jet%), may safely be identified with /osephus, S.W. ’ Chalabon.’) By its own evidence ( ’ unto
themoderiiKidzi2, 236 ft. above sea-level, 9 m. SE. from this day ’) the story, in its present form, is by no means
Acco. It is probably the xapouXwv (but other codd. contemporary with the events with which it deals.
read fupouXwv), which Josephus ( B J 3 3 ) gives as. on The Chronicler, whose views would not allow him to record
the sea coast of Tyre and forming the E. frontier of the cession of a pxrt of the Holy Land to the Gentile, so alters
Lower Galilee. The name was current at the time of the story as to make it appear that it was Hiram who ‘gave the
cities to Solomon’! (zCh.82). The AV translators have
the Crusaders as Cabor or Cabour, a fief presented attempted to reconcile this with the story in Kings by rendering
in 1186 to Count Joscelin by King Baldwin IV., and ‘ gave ‘ ‘ restored ’ (RV ‘had given ’).
it gave its name to a family (Rey, CoZonies Rranpues en
Syrie). CADDIS, RV GADDIS(raAAic [AV], -ei [ K ] ) , sur-
In I.
(I 9 10-13 it is told how Solomon, on the com- name of JOANNAN( I Macc. 22). See M ACCABEES ,
pletion of his buildings in Jerusalem to which Hiram i. 85 I 3.
contributed, gave to the latter ‘ twenty cities in the land CADES, RV KEDESH (KHABC [AK], KCA. [VI,
of Galilee,’ but Hiram was dissatisfied with them and I Macc. 11 6 3 ) . See K EDESH , 3.
‘they were called the land of Cabul unto this day‘
(Heb. ha? V-II, @B.IL 8 p o v for ’ m 9 ; Jos. Ant. viii. 53, 1 A scholiast (Field‘s Hex., 2.c.) interprets \ ~ jby
>S o v A a a r .

615 616
 CADES-BARNE CBSAREA
CADES-BARNE ( KAAHC BAPNH [BRA]), Judith514 Czesarea Judzze caput est,' says Tacitus (Hist.278).
AV ; RV KADESH-BARNEA. L.A Roman It was thoroughly Roman ; the Talmud
(B. MegiZZah, 6a) calls it daughter of
CADMIEL ( K ~ A M I H A O Y [A]), I Esd.526 AV, city* Edom, the mystic name for Rome. T h e
R V KADMIEL. Procurator lived there ; there was a n Italian garrison
Acts 101 ; c p CORNELIUS, I ) ; and in the temple
CXSAR ( ~ a l c a p[Ti. WH]) is used in the N T here were two statues-of Augustus and of 1iome.l
as a title of Angustus (Lk. 21) and Tiberius (i6.31). rhongh there were many Jews (Jos. Ant. xx. 879, B/
T h e latter emperor is, moreover, the ' C e s a r ' of Mt. i. 1 3 7 l44f. iii. 91), the inhabitants were mainly
2 2 1 7 8 Mk. 1 2 1 4 8 Lk. 2 0 ~ (cp ~ 232)
8 and Jn. 1 9 1 2 8 Sentile.
Claudius Czesar is named in Acts1128 (AV, but RV Here, then, very fitly, was poured out upon the
om. Cesar with Ti. WH), and is alluded to in Acts177. 3entiles the gift of the Holy Ghost (ActslO45). There
T h e 'Czesar' of Paul ( A c t s 2 5 8 E 2 6 3 2 2724 2 8 1 9 ) is had been a Christian congregation from
5. NT
Nero, whose ' household ' is mentioned in Phil. 4 zz ( o i the earliest possible time. Philip, one of
.?K 7 9 s I<afaupos oixfas). T h e reference here is hardly references' the seven Deacons, took up his residence
t o members of his family, but, as in the case of there (Acts840; c p 21816). About 41 A.D. there
Stephanas in I Cor. 1615, to the fnmiliu or household Zame t o a Roman centurion CORNELIUS (p...) a divine
slaves. See further APOCALYPSE, 5 4 3 8 , ISRAEL, message to send to Joppa for Peter, who was prepared for
§ I
87-115. this by a vision which taught him that God would make
clean all that the Jewish law had hitherto prohibited as
CZSAREA. I . Czesarea Palzestinze ( ~ a i c a p i a unclean. Peter came to Casarea, made the profound
[Ti. WH], -el& [Jos.] ; in Talm. 'YD'j7, mod. Arab. and decisive acknowledgment that God accepts in every
1. Earlier EZ-Fai;liriyeh), the only real port south of nation him 'that feareth him and worketh righteous-
Carmel, was built by Herod the Great (on ness,' preached Jesus, saw the descent of the Spirit
the name, see 3) in time for it to become upon the little Gentile company, and baptized them
the capital of the Roman province of Judzea, and to (ActslO). This proved the turning-point in the opinion
play the great part in the passage of Christianity west- of the church at Jerusalem (chap. ll), and prepared the
ward from Palestine which is described in Acts. T h e way for the acceptance of the missionary labours of
site was that of a Phcenician (cp Jos. Ant. xiii. 154) Paul, to which from this stage onwards the Book of
settlement with a fortification called the Tower of Acts is devoted.
Straton (ZTpdTwvos IIdpyos)-a Hellenic form of a Cesarea is next mentioned as the scene o f the awful
Phoenician proper name, Astartyaton (Pietschmann, death of Herod Agrippa I. (1219),to whose government
Gesch. der Phin. 81 ; Hildesheimer, Beitx z. Geog. it had been given over: some of its coins bear his
Pulest. 4 8 , where the variant reading i w 5 1 or~ l w~ , superscription (Madden, Coins of fhe Jews, 133, 136).
' Devil's-Tower,' given in Talmud B SheJiith, vi. 1 3 6 , After him it passed again to the Roman procurator
and in Talmud B &legLlZn is explained a s a Jewish of Judzea, and became the chief garrison of the troops
nickname for a town called after a worshipper of under him. Paul arrived a t Cesarea on. his voyage
Astarte). There was, according to Strabo, a landing- from Ephesus (ActslSzz), and there h e was tried with
place (rrphuoppov Zxwv). At the end of the second a fairness and security that were impossible in Jeru-
century B.c., the town was under a 'tyrant,' Zoilus salem (chap. 25). T h e contrast between the two cities,
(Jos. Ant. xiii. 122); but Alexander Jannieus took it for which is so evident in this story, proves how thoroughly
the Jews, along with the other coast towns (i6. 15). Roman and imperial Cesarea was. Besides receiving
These were enfranchised by Pompey and made subject so fair a trial, Paul, during his two years of residence
to the province of Syria (id.xiv. 44). After the Battle in the town, was not threatened by the Jews, as he had
of Actium they were presented t o Herod the Great been in Jerusalem. From the harbour of Cesarea Paul
along with'Samaria and other places by Augustus (id. sailed on his voyage to Italy (97 I ) .
2. Rebuilt by xv. 7 3). Up th this time Herod had The subsequent history of the town in soon told. Contests
confined his building designs to the E. between its Jewish and Gentile inhabitants led to, and were
Herod. among the first incidents of, the great revolt of
side of the Central Range. Now, how- 6. Later the Jews against Rome 6 6 f . A . D . (Jos. A n f .XX.
ever, in alliance with Rome, he came over the watershed, history. 8 7 9 ; SJii. 13 7 1 4 f '18 T vii. 8 7). Vespasian
and out of Samaria built himself a capital which he made the town his %Ladquarters, and was t h e r e
proclaimed emperor in 69. He established there a colony, hut
called after his patron, SebastB. Requiring for this a without the 'jus Italicnm,'under the title Prima Flavin Augusta
seaport that should keep him in touch with Rome, he Caesarea to which, under Alexander Severus, was added Metro-
chose Straton's Tower as the nearest suitable site to polis Prgvincise Syriae Palestinse (Pliny, H N v . 1369: and coins
SebastB. H e laid the lines of a magnificent city, which in De Saulcy, Num. de la T.S. 112 fi pl. vii.). This deter-
mined the rank of Csesarea in the subsequent organisation of
took him twelve years to build (id.xv. 96,; 'ten years,' the Church. Its bishop became the Metropolitan of Sjria :
xvi. 5 I). Eusebius occupied the officefrom 315 to 318. Oiigen had made
Josephus describes the thorough and lavish. archi- it his home. Procopius was born there. When the Arabs came
it was still the headquarters of the commander of the imperial
tecture. troops ; in 638 it was occupied hy 'Ahu 'Obeida. Like all the
I n the usual Greek fashion there were palaces temple; coast towns, it lost under Arab domination the supremacy which
theatre, amphitheatre, and man;arches and altars. There were the Greek masters of Synia, in their necessity for a centre of
also vaults for draining the city-as carefully constructed as the power on the sea, had bestowed upon it. It became a country
buildings above ground. A breakwater zoo ft. wide was formed town, known only for its agricultural produce(Le Strange, Pal.
in 20 fathoms depth by dropping enormous stones. The soutt undeer the nlos/enzs, 474). l h e advent of a western powir with
end was connected by a mole with the shore, and the mouth 01 the Crusaders revived it for a little ; Baldwin 11. took it in 1102,
the harbour looked N., the prevailing winds on this coast being and rebuilt it ; ,the present ruins are mostly of Crusaders'
from the SW. ( i d . x v . 9 6 ; B'i.215-8). lo-day the remains o' masonry. Saladin took it in ~ 1 8 7 Richard, I. in 1191; and St.
the breakwater are 160 yards from shore and the mouth of the Louis added to its fortifications. It was finall demolished hy
harbour measures 180 yards (PEP Me9rz.j. t h e Sultan Bihars in 1265, and since his time gas lain in ruin.
Herod called his citv, like Sebasth, after Augustus, K a d p p s i e (See further on details Keland, Pal. 670fi : Schiirer, Hist.
Zcpaur$, and his harbour Aip?v Zopau76s. When Caesarez 4 8 4 3 ; GASm. HG 1 3 8 3 : ) .
Philippi was built (see below, 0 E), Herod's sea
3. Names. port came to be distinguished from it by the names 2. CEesarea Philippi ( K A I C A ~ [ E ] I A H +ihirrrroy,
Kawdpsra Irapdhios, X. $ 21ri 6'ahCq and ever both in N T [Ti. WH] and Jos.), so called after its
K. 4 lrpbr Z&o@ AL&L (on a coin of Nero, jde Saulcy
Nw-mism. de la Tewe Sainfe, 116), and Caesarea Palaestinae
The name of Straton survived long (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11 4, Strab
,. Site of founder, P HILIP (see HERODIAN FAMILY,
6 ) the tetrarch, son of Herod, to whom
xv., Epiphanius De pond. et mens. 125, Ptol. v. 16). Thc
Philippi. the district was granted in 4 B.c., OCCUI
Talmud calls the city after the harbour, Leminah. pied a site which had been of the utmost religious
Czesarea became the virtual capital of all Palestine. 1 Pbilo, Legat. ad Ca+m, 38, mentions the [email protected].
617 618
 CAGE CAIN
a n d militdy . importance from remote antiquity. Just jlike a decoy partridge in a cage (or basket : @rKUP-
under the S. buttress of Hermon, a t the head of the dXhy [BSA], cp Ar. k i r ~ a Z P * a , fruit-basket). A
Jordan valley, about 1150 ft. above the sea, is a high age (-1210) for lions also is mentioned in Ezek. 199 RV
cliff of limestone ( ' f r o m 100 to 150 ft.,' Robinson, see L ION).
LBR 406) reddened by the water, infused with iron,
that oozes over it from above. A cavern occupies d,:? 3,
uhamj, rendered 'hold' and 'cage' in Rev.182 (RV
denotes rather a prison (so RVw.).
the lower part of the cliff, filled with the debris of its
upper portion, and from this debris there breaks one of
CAIAPHAS (KA~'&AC [Ti.], K A I ~ + A C [WHI,
(~f'c+ac[CDabc]), Mt. 2 6 3 Lk. 32 Jn. 1813, or perhaps
the sources of the Jordan. It is probably the sanctuary hiphas. See ANNASAND CAIAPHAS.
known as BAAL-GAD (4.TJ. ) or Baal-hernion. Close
by is a steep hill, crowned with the ruins of a mediaeval CAIN (I!?? ; [ZAlKbNAEIM [Bl, [ZANw] AKEIM-
castle, I(a1'a.t e?-SubEbeh, and a t its foot the miserable '.e., I!??: DlJ; [A], [ z a ~ o y ]A K E N [L]), a town in
village of BgniBs. Probably here (GASm. H G 480), he hill country of Judah (Josh. 1B57), may possibly be
rather than a t Tell el-I$@i, the site favoured by most he mod. Y a k i z , 3 m. SE. from Hcbron (PEFMem. ii.
authorities, lay the city of Laish that was afterwards 312,371 ; but see GASm. H G 278). C p AMALEK, 6.
D AN (4.v.).
T h e place must have been early occupied by the
CAIN (I!? ; K A ~ N[ADEL], CAIN). In Gen. 4 we
Greeks. both because of its sanctitv. lave accounts of two different Cains, linked together by
,, and because of its
.he editor. T h e proof of this will be briefly indicated
~I

8. Its history strategical position. Polybius (16 18

281) mentions it as the scene of the wlow (§$ 2-4) ; it will be convenient to treat first the
andname. great battle in which Antiochus the more ancient and simpler of the two stories.
I. Cain is the name of the hero who in Gen. 417 is
Great won Palestine from the Ptolemies. The Greeks
displaced the worship of Baal by that of Pan. represented as the founder of the city
The city-
1.builder of of Enochl (H&n&). T h e name evi-
The cave, in which there is still legible an inscription, IIavi
78 Ka\L NQp&s, was called 7 b I I b s ~ a v(Jos. Ant. xv. 103, B/ dently comes from a n early, though not
i. 21 3 iii. 10 7), a name afterwards extended to the whole hill 4178 5g8 a genuine Hebrew, tradition ; another
(Ens. N E 7 17). The village and the country around were
designated by a feminine form of the same adjective, I I a v L L or document (59 8 ) gives it as CAINAN ( q . ~ . ) . Its natural
IIavshr (10s. Ant. xviii. 2 I xv. 10 3 xvii. 8 I , etc. : Pliny, v. 1874). meanings are ' smith,' ' artificer' (Ar. kain, Aram.
I n 20 B.C. Herod, having received the district from #ninny&); 2 for the connection with k d n d h , ' to produce '
Augustus on the death of Zenod6rus, the previous lord (also ' to acquire '), suggested in Gen. 4 1 , is ~ philologi-
of these parts (Ant.xv. 1 0 3 H i . 2 1 3 ) , built a temple to cally difficult. T h e more general sense ' artificer ' suits
Augustus and set in it the emperor's bust. T h e first best for Cain the city-builder, and the more special one
year that it came into his possession, 3-2 B.c., Philip 'smith' for the second part of the compound name
the Tetrarch founded his new town, and called it Tubal-cain. Both these names are attached to heroes
Caesarea after Augustus (Ant.xviii. 2 I B/ ii. 9 I ; coins who a t the outset of the tradition must have possessed
in De Saulcy, Num. de Za T.S. 3 1 3 8 pl. xviii.). So a divine character (see CAINITES, 5 , I O ). .
it came to he known as Philip's Caesarea (Azt.xx. 93), 2. T h e central figure of the narrative in Gen. 4 28-16
or as Caesarea Panias (see the coins). When Philip ajso is called Cain.
2. The nomad of The story has come to US in a somewhat
died the Romans administered the district directly, both
Gen. 426-16. abbreviated form. Its substance is as
before Agrippa I. to whom it was given, and in the follows. Once upon a time Cain and his
interval between him and Agrippa II., who embellished brother Abel sacrificed to YahwS. Cain, being a husband-
it and changed the official designation to Ncpwrrdr in man brought of the fruits of the ground ; Abel, as a shepherd,
honour of Nero ( A n t .xx. 9 4 ) . T h e town's full title was offe;ed the fat parts of some of his first-bornlambs (cp Nu. 18 17).
Both as was usual in ancient religion, looked for a visible sign
' Czsarea Sehasti, Sacred and with Rights of Sanctuary that heir gifts were accepted. What the expected sign was at
under Paneion' (De Saulcy, pl. xviii. 8). Later the the sanctuary to which they resorted, we are not told (cp WRS,
name Caesarea was dropped a n d Paneas survived, the Rcl. Sent.('? 178), and we may pass over later conjectures. At
any rate, we learn that only Abel's sacrifice was accepted (see
Arabs when they came changing it to its present form ABEL[i.]). Now Cain, had be been wise, would have demeaned
of BLnias. A shrine of El-Khidr ( =Elias=St. George) himself humbly towards Ahel for who can say to God What
now occupies the site of the temple t o Augustus. doest thou? (Job 912). Initead of this, he cherishLd evil
thougbts,d as ah oracle erhaps sought by Cain, warned him.
Caesarea Philippi is twice mentioned in the Gospels. 'And Yahwi: said to d z n , Why art thou wroth? and why is
Tesus is said to have come not to the town itself. but to thy countenance fallen? Surely, if thou doest well, thou canst
the parts ( T $ p d p q Mt. 1 6 x 3 ) or villages lift up thy head, and if thou doest not well, thy sin must cause
9. NT it to fall : from irritating words abstain, and thou take heed to
thereof (Mk. 8 2 7 ) . Probably he avoided thyself? And Cain quarrelled with his hrother Abel, and when
references' it as h e avoided other Gentile centres .
they were in the open country . . ; and Cain assaulted his
hrother Abel, and slew him. Then follows a fresh oracle,
(e.g., Tiberias) established by the Herods, hut in the
great saying which h e is said to have uttered in this containing a curse upon Cain, who is condemned, not only to
banishment (cp Horn. II. 2665) but also to a life of restless
heighbourhood, ' Thou art Peter and on this rock will wandering. The curse, howeve;, is mitigated by the promise of
I build my church,' it is possible to see some reference pro!ection against outrage, hy means of a 'sign' which will
by contrast to the heathen worship founded upon that indicate that Cain is under the care of YahwS.
cliff of immemorial sanctity above the source of Tordan. According to the older commentators, with whom
In the Jewish war Ves a s t n resbd his troops in-Cgsarea
(Jos. B/ iii. 9 7) and in cegbration of the close of the war Titus See however col. 623 note 3.
1
and Agrippa If. exhibited shows on a large scale (i6. vii. 2 I). Di.'and Del. \upport ;his etymology by the very doubtful
2
In Christian times Cgsarea Philippi was the seat of a bishop ; and j192 commonly rendered 'his spear' (so @BAL), z Sam.2116,
Eusebius ( H E 6 IS) relates that the woman whom Christ healed where a better reading is iY!'jJ, 'his helmet' (Kau. HS, Bu.,
of an issue of blood (Lk. 8 43) was a native of the town, where a H. P. Smith, after Klo.).
statue commemorated her cure. Castle and town were the sub. 3 Eve exclaims, n!n?-nr Vn-23 i.c. I , have wrought, or
ject of frequent contests hy both sides during the Crusades. produced, a man with the help diYahw&. This can hardly
For further details see Kel. PaL ' Paneas '. Scburer, Ffist.
iii. 132 ; Stanley, SP 391 ; GASm. HG 4 7 3 8 ' G . A. s. be right ; -n$ is too vague, and the variations of the comment-
ators prove their dissatisfaction with the text. On Marti'sview
CAGE. Cages (or rather wicker-baskets, c p Am. see col. 6 2 1 n. 2. Consideringthat x y is one of the words mean-
Sz) for confining birds in are mentioned twice in EV ins ' to crekte' (see CREATION 8 30) be may assume thak Eve,
(see FOWLS, § I O ) : ( I ) in Jer.527 the houses of the in'the pride of her motherhood,iikensherself to her God, and says,
' I have created a man even as YahwS. Targ. Onk. reads for
wicked are as full of (the grains of) deceit as a cage (395;
nN, nKn. This is nearer the truth. nND probably comes from
kiZzib=~Xw@r, AVmg. 'coop,' rayrs [BKAQ]) is full 01 nf$. y5 fell out, and D was confounded with N (cp Judg.
birds ; and ( 2 )in Ecclus. 1130 the heart of a proud man 1415).
4 Che. Ex). T., July 1899: cp Box, ih, June 1599,and Ball
1 Once corruptly BAAL-HAMON (g.v.) (SBOT).
619 620
 CAIN CAINITES
even Delitzsch must be’grouped, this is the same Cain ife, when comtmed with a fixed domicile, seemed to
3. Not 6on as the builder of the first city, and he is he Israelites the ideal one. That the Kenites them-
of ‘Adam., also the first-born son of the first man. ,elves would have sanctioned this portrait of their
This view is critically untenable :ponym is not probable. They presumably represented
C AINITES, J 2),mainly on account of the improbab iim with some of the noble features natural to a hero of
of the course of events which it assumes. ,olw origin. W e cannot, therefore, say with Neubauer
The first man h;ss been, as we know, driven out of Paradise PSBA 1 1 2 8 3 ) that the story of Cain and Abel is a
for transgressing adivine command. According to the traditional ragment of Kenite folk-lore.
view, however, his first-born son Cain is so little im ressed by
the punishment that he murders his own brother. %ore than T o the member of the Yahwist circle who worked up
this, he becomes the direct ancestor of another murderer, who he two (not to say three) Cain stories together we, may
apparently goes unpunished, and who is also (contrary to the rscribe-4 I 24, and the words ‘ o n the east of Eden’
spirit of 218) a polygamist. Now note another point. The n a. 16. T h e addition of the latter words converts Ti>
original dwelling of Cain is not, as we are to suppose was that
of the first man and his wife after their expulsion from Paradise, n the poetical phrase iii YTN, ‘ land of wandering ’-de-
to the east of the garden of Eden (see 324), hut in a cultivated .ked presumably from the old tradition--into a prosaic
and well-peopled land where Yahwi: is worshipped with saai- ?roper name, which is boldly identified by Sayce and
fices, and holds familiar intercourse with men (even with Cain)
-apparently S. Palestine (on 416 see later). Nor is there any Boscawen with the land of the Manda or nomads-ie.,
curse upon the ground which Cain rills ; it is his own self-caused .he mountain ranges of Rurdistan and Luristau. T h e
curse that drives him unwillingly into the land of wandering- ~ i g i n a lnarrator meant presumably the land between
;.e., into the desert. There, however without any explanation, ludah and Edom, where the Kenites lived.
he gives up his unsettled life, and advknces further in civilisation
than before. He builds a ‘city.’ This is not to be explained The above contaifls some fresh points; but Stade’s essay,
by the ingenious remark1 that even nomad tribes in Arabia; Das Kainszeichen, Z A I‘W 142508 151573 [‘g4-’g51=
have central market stations (Ar. Karya lur. knrri) for ‘city 4hademisclte Xeden [‘gg], 228-z73, gives the most complete
is evidently used as a general t e k ; da?n is aS mdch a city- :ritical treatment of the subject. Cp Kontsma, ‘Is1a6l en
builder as Nimrod, and only as such (or, upon Budde’s theory Qain,’ TkT,’76, pp. 82-98. T. K. C.
as the father of a city-builder) could he find a place in th;
Hebrew legend of civilisation. How are these inconsistent CAINAN, or rather, as in I Ch. 1 2 and RV,
statements to be reconciled? Every possible way has been KENAN(12’2; K ~ I N A N[BAL]). I. Thesonof Enosh
tried and has failed. It was high time to apply the key of (Gen. 59-14). That Kenan is a humanised god has
analysis; and no one who has once done this will wish to
retnrn to past theories (see CAINITES,0 2). been shown already (see C AIN , I ) ; Cain and Kenan
It may be assumed, then, that the story of Cain and are forms of one name (cp Lot and Lotan). lip or p-3, it
Abel once had an independent existence, and circulated may be added, is the name of a god in Himyaritic inscrip-
*. Origin of at one of the sanctuaries of Southern
Palestine. It is probably not a borrowed
tions(ZDMG3186; CZS4,no. 20; WRS,Rel.Sem.(2)43).
2. A son of Arphaxad in @ADEL of Gen. 1024 ( K a w a p [A])
story’ Canaanitish myth, but an independent 1113, and therefore in Lk. 3 36, The name is due to an interpola-
tion, made in order to bring out ten members in the genealogy of
Israelitish attempt to explain the strange phenomena of Gen. 1110-26. The real tenth from Noah, however, is Terah,
nomad life-the perpetual wandering in the desert and the father of Abraham. T. K. C.
the cruelly excessive development of the custom (in itself . CAINITES, the name generally given to the
a perfectly legitimate one, according to the Israelites) of descendants of Cain mentioned in Gen. 4 17-24. Tra-
vengeance for bloodshed. As Robertson Smith (follow- 1. Hebrew dition, as Ewald said long ago, is the
ing Wellhausen) rightlyremarks, Cain is the embodiment commencement and the native soil of all
of ’ t h e old Hebrew conception of the lawless nomad Tradition. narrative and of all history, and its circle
life, where only the blood-feud prevents the wanderer in tends continually to expand, as the curiosity of a people
the desert from falling a victim to the first man who awakens to fresh objects, and as foreign traditions are
meets him,‘ and the mark which YahwB sets on Cain’s intermixed with those of home growth. Questions about
person for his protection is ‘ the sha@ or tribal mark (cp the origins of things are especially prone to crowd into
ais), without which the ancient form of blood-feud, as the circle of tradition, and, when the various traditions
the affair of a whole stock, however scattered, and not respecting remote antiquity come to be arranged, it is
of near relatives alone, could hardly have been natural to connect them by a thread of genealogy.
worked’% (cp K INSHIP, §I$, and C UTTINGS, J I ). There is a real, though but half-conscious, sense among
Now we can guess why the nomad of the story is called the arrangers that what is being produced is not history
C i i n ; Cain .is the eponym of the Kenites but a working substitute for it, and so there is the less
6. Source
of name. (who are in fact called ; but cp AMALEK, scruple in taking considerable liberties with the form of
J 6 J ) , whose close alliance with -the the traditions, many of which indeed, being of diverse
Israelites and location in the wilderness of Judah are origin, are inconsistent. T h e Hebrew traditionists, i n
well known. That the Kenites should be so well particular, were evidently filled with a desire to bring
acquainted with a more civilised mode of life, and yet the traditions into harmony with the purest Hebrew
adhere to their nomadic customs, was a surprise to the spirit. I n minor matters they agree with the tradition-
I ~ r a e l i t e sand
, ~ the story of Cain and Abel grew up to ists of other nations : in particular they limit the super-
account for it. Nothing but a curse seemed to explain abundant material for genealogies by the use of round
this inveterate repugnance to city life, and a curse im- numbers, especially ten..
plied guilt ; while the unbridled vindictiveness of the Much progress has been made in the study of Gen. 4
nomads (see GOEL, zf. ) was explicable only by a com- and 5 since Ewald‘s time ; but that profound critic has
passionate command of YahwB, who after all was the the credit of having already noticed
God of the Kenites as well as of the Israelites,. so that 2‘ Gen’417-24’ that the story of Cain and Abel is not
the distinguishing mark of this tribe was also a-sign that as early as the genealogy which follows. This conclu-
its members worshipped YahwB and were under his sion may now be taken as settled : Gen. 4 1-16 and 17-24
protection. Cain, then, represents the nomad tribe best are, generally speaking, derived from separate ti-adi-
known to the Israelites. He is contrasted with Abel tional sources.1 Both sections are indeed Yahwistic :
(;.e. the ‘ herdman’ ; see ABEL [i.]), because the pastoral but the tone and character of their contents is radically
1 Halevy REJ 14 12. different.
2 W. R. Smith, Kinski), z r 5 f ; cp Stade ZATW 14, z g g z The true meaning of Gen. 417-24 was seen first by
[’g4]. Marti (Lit. CentralbL May 22, 189;) finds a prophetic Wellhansen. The section contains relics of an Israel-
reference to this mark in Gen. 4 I, pointing nk, and rendering ‘ I
have acquired a man, a bearer of the sign of YahwS.’ So inde- itish legend which made no reference to,the destruction
pendently Zeydner [ZATW 1 8 1 ~ 0 (‘@)I; 3 but the sign is of the old order of things by a deluge, and traced the
surely not circumcision. See Stade, 0). ci2. 267.
8 Ewald suggested this (Hist. 1271). The theory is most 1 See Wellh. /DT,1876, p. 3 9 9 1 ( = C H IO^) who was
fully worked out by Stade, not, however, without extravagances followed by WRS EB@)art. ‘ Lamech ’ (‘82), and the. EB(9),
(see AMALEIC, 5 7). art. ‘Deluge’ I.771.’ So R’yle, Ea?@Nurmtmds, 79 [‘g~].
621 622
 CAINITES CAINITES
beginnings of the existing civilisations. The legend is ’n Gen. 5 2 2 - 2 4 (P) are traditiona1.l We are told that
paGtly based on nature-niyths, for the Hebrews were Enoch lived 36; ykars (a solar number).2that he ’ walked
not as unmythological as Renan once supposed. Their with God, and (then) disappeared, for God had taken
myths, however, were to a large extent borrowed: nim.’ The number is attested alike by the Hebrew, the
when the Hebrews stepped into the inheritance of Sam. and the LXX text, and even if we lay but little
Canaanitish culture, they could not help adopting in stress on that, the phrases quoted seem unmistakably
part the answers which the Canaanites had given to the primitive, and imply that, in the original form of the
question, ‘ Whence came civilisation?’ story, Enoch was a semi-divine hero who, at the close
The Canaanitish culture-legend is unhappily lost ; but of his earthly days, was taken to the paradise of
the fragments of Philo of Byblus (Muller. FY.Hist. When, too, we consider the clear parallelisin between
GY. 3 566f.), when critically treated, Enoch and Noah, and between Noah and Xisuthrus or
3’ Canaanieish reveal some of the elements of two PHr-napiStim (the hero of the Babylonian Flood-story ;
Culture-legend’ Phoenician culture-legends, in one of see DELUGE, § 2 ) , it becomes reasonable to identify
which the invention of the useful arts and of occupations Enoch with Par-napiStim’s great visitor in Paradise (he
was ascribed to divine beings, whilst in the other it was went there to obtain healing for his leprosy), whose
ascribed to men (Gruppe, Diegriech. C d f e u. Idflythen, name is perhaps most correctly read GilgameS. Gil-
1407f ; cp P H ~ N I C I A ) BErossus,
. too, as far as we games, like Enoch, is a divine being-whether we
can judge from fragmentary reports, appears to have regard him as a hero who becomes a god, or (more
accounted for knowledge of the arts by a series of mani- plausibly) as a god who becomes a hero, is a matter of
festations of a divine being called Oannes, which took indifference-and like Enoch he is associated with the
place in the days of the first seven antediluvian kings of sun.4 As Enoch in the Hebrew tradition is the an-
Babylon (Lenormant, Les Origines, 1588f. ). This sub- cestor of Noah, so (inverting the relation) PHr-nnpiStiin,
stantially agrees with the statements of the tablets that the Babylonian Noah, is the ancestor of GilgameS. The
the bringers of culture were the great gods, such as Ea, latter is said to have crossed the ‘ waters of death ’ 5 to
‘ the lord of wisdom,’ and his more active firstborn son pay a visit to PBr-napiStim in Paradise, and we may
Marduk (Merodach), the creator. A striking confirma- presume that, in the earlier form of the Hebrew narra-
tion of this is supplied by the mythic story translated by tive, his counterpart (whose original name was certainly
Pinches [see C REATION , 16 (c)], where Marduk is not Noah) received the same reward as Enoch for
said to have made, not only the Tigris and the ‘ walking with God.’ Both PBr-napiStim and Enoch are
Euphrates, but also cities and temples. City-building distinguished for their piety, and not only GilgameS but
is in fact everywhere one of the characteristic actions of also Enoch (as we may infer from the emended text of
humanised nature-deities (Osiris, Jemshid, etc. ), and it Ezek.283, and as is expressly stated in the Book of
would be inevitable that the civilised Canaanites should Enoch, which has a substratum of genuine, even if
trace the origin of cities to semi-divine heroes (jl,utBPwv turbid, tradition),Bhas been initiated into secret lore,
ytvos dulipGv, ZZ. 1233), if not to the creator himself. and knows both the past and the future. Lastly, Enoch
Still, though the Canaanitish culture-myth ,is lost, we gave his name to the city of Enoch, which at any rate
may be sure of one point-viz., that it was largely in- implies lordship (cp ‘city of David,’ z S. 5 7 9 ; castle
fluenced by Babylonian myths, the supremacy of Baby- of Sennacherib,’ K B 289 : and see z S. 1228) ; and
lonian culture in Palestine at a remote age being amply perhaps in the primitive myth was even represented as
proved by the Amarna tablets. its builder. So Erech, of which the ideographic name
When, therefore, we find in Bh6ssus2 a list of ten is Unuki or Unuk (;.e. the dwelling), is incidenttlly
antediluvian kings at the head of the mythic history of called in the epic ‘the city of GilgameS,’ GilganieS being
Babylonia, it is not unnatural to suppose a t once its king and (according to an old text) its
4. List of
that the genealogy of the ten patriarchs in builder.7 Why the Hebrew compiler did not adopt
Berossus. Gen. 5, to which the shorter one in Gen. 4 GilgameS as well as Unuk from his Babylonian in-
is so closely allied, is derived from it, and to attempt formant,s we cannot tell. T h e foundation of the
conjectural identifications of the Hebrew and of the Hel- 1 It is plain that there must have been some fairly complete
lenised Babylonian names. This course, which has been account of Enoch in P’s time; indeed the references in Ezek.
adopted by Hommel, the present writer does not think 14 14 28 3 (emended text) imply such a; account iutexilic times.
it prudent to take, ( I ) because we are ignorant of the See E NOCH , 8 I.
2 The Chaldeans at first estimated the duration of the aatro-
phases through which the Berossian list has passed, and nomical revolution of the sun at 365 days afterwards at 3645
(.z) because of the violent hypotheses to which this course days. To this they accommodated their c i h year of 360 days
would often drive us. by means of an intercalated cycle (Lenormant, Les Urigines,
1250). Cp YEAR, 8 5.
By taking the Hebrew names, however, one by one, 3 The Egyptian kings, as sons of Rd, were said (as early as
and using Babylonian clues, it does not seem hopeless the Pyramid Texts) to ascend to heaven, borne by the mystic
5. to reach probable results. C AIN , for in- griffincalled seref(see S ERAPHIM ).
4 We know from another text that Gilgamegwas the vicegerent
stance-the nam-e which meets us first- of the sun-god (Jeremias, o j . cit. 3). H ommel makes GilgameE
means ‘ artificer.’ Can we avoid regarding this as the a form of Gihil the fire-god (GibilgamiE). On the epic of
translation of a title of the divine demiurge, borrowed GilgameE see DELUGE, B a, and Jastrow, ReZigion ofBabylonia
from Babylonia through the medium of the Canaanites ? and Assyriu chap. 23, p. 4 6 7 3 [The present article was
written beford the appearance of Prof. Jastrow’s work.]
6. Enoch, Moreover since E NOCH, the son of Cain, 5 On the ‘waters of death’ in the legend see Maspero, 5 8 5 ;
evidently belongs to the same legend, and Jeremias, 87. The same mythic stream is found in a very
indeed shares with his father the honour of the foundation mythological section of a psalm (Ps.l85[4]), where the ‘floods
of the first city3 (to which his own name is given), we of Death’(nin - 5 2 ~ )are parallel to the ‘floods of Perdition’
( 5 ~ 3 5 1 9 5 1 ; see B ELIAL 6 2). So Che. Ps.(?.
cannot hesitate to regard Enoch too as of divine origin. 6 On both points s e e ’ h o m 8 2. Di. was before his time
This view, indeed, is as good as proved if the statements when in 1853, he admitted thaithe late le-end of Enoch mi-ht
1 R P 6110; Zimmern in Gunkel’s Schd@ 120. Cp these
concdvably have some traditional basis
xxvii).
(sa B%ch HenocApp.
lines (Obv. 37, 39, 40)- 7 See Jeremias o j . cit. 17 and cp the inscription quoted
Lord Merodach [constructed the house] he built the city, from Hilprecht dy Winckler’(A0F 377) and Hommel ( A I K ‘
IZ~),in which occur the words ‘the walls of Erech, the ancient
[He built the city of Niffer] he built E-lcura the temple,
H e built the city Erech, hebuilt E-anna the temple. building of GilgameE.’
8 The theory here advocated is that David’s Bahylonian scribe
2 Fvagm. ix.-xi. in Lenormant, Xssai de Conrm. sur Ulrose, SHAVSHA brought several Babylonian myths and legends to
241-251. Palestine, including that of the hero GilgameH king of Unuk or
3 Or did Enoch not rather build the city himself? So Budde, Erech. He thus opened a fresh period of Bal;ylonian influence
who emends 112 @ ~ 3 ‘after
, his son’s name,’ into i p u , ‘after his on Palestine. Hilprecht’s discoveries give increased probability
own name’ (UvgrscA. 1 2 0 3 3 , thus, making ‘Enoch’ h e subject to the identification of Enoch with Unuk which was already
of the verbs ‘builded ’ and ‘called. proposed by Sayce in 1887 (Hi& Lect. 18sS.
623 624
 CAINITES CAINITES
extremely ancient city of Erech (before 4500 B.C., assumption that the song of Lamecb is ' an exultant boast
Hilprecht), however, was at any rate well worthy of and menace cnlled forth by Lnmech's savage delight at
mention in the Hebrew culture-legend. It is, in the finding himself possessed of the new and effective weapons
present writer's opinion, not improbable that Enoch devised by his son Tubal-cain.' The song must be
once occupied a still more dignified position as hero of interpreted by itself, without preconceived opinions. In
the Israelitish Flood-story (see N OAH , D ELUGE , 17). it the hero declares that not only seven lives (as in the
W e take the next three names together. The last of case of ' Cain '), but seventy-seven, will be required to
them is evidently not a divine title, but a simple hero- avenge the blood of murdered ' Lamech.' This implies
7. Irad, name. This prepares us to expect that that Lamech's story was once told in connection with that
Mehujael, the first and second may be so too. I n of Cain the murderer : in. fact, that Lamech, like Cain,
Methuselah. Rabylonia, if Alorus, the first king in the is the representative of a tribe, and speaks thus fiercely
Berossian list, may be identified with some out of regard for tribal honour, which to him consists
one of the great deities, his successors at any rate are in the strict exaction of vengeance for blood.2 Still, the
only demi-gods or extraordinary men. Moreover, to Lamech who is descended from Enoch ought to have
appreciate the Hebrew culture-legend, it is necessary to some importance in the development of culture; he
remind ourselves that when the city of Enoch had, by cannot be merely a bloodthirsty nomad. It would seem,
divine help, been erected, there was still plenty of work then, that the Lamech of Gen. 418 was originally dis-
for semi-divine meu to do in triumphing over wild beasts tinct from the Lamech of 2 3 5 The latter is, properly,
and barbarians. The hunting exploits of GilgameS the personification of a nomad tribe which named itself
(who was first reduced from being a fire-god to the pro- after the divine hero Lamech, just as Icain (or the
portions of a heroic man, and then restored in the same Kenites) named itself after the divine hero Kain or Cain.
legend to the divine company) have in all probability a What, then, does the divine hero's name mean? Sayce
historical kernel. It is easy to believe, too, that the and Hommel connect it with Lamga (=Ass. nu&pr,
hero called M ETHUSAEL (5iy@np ; as if Mufu-fn-iZi, a artificer '), a non-Semitic title of the moon-god. This is
'the liegeman of God'; MaBouaaXa [AL]; MathusneZ; plausible, though the Assyrian title nagzar is applied
Gen. 4 I&+), or, following the better reading of @A=, also to Ea. A fragment may have been introduced here
Methuselah ( ' the liegeman of far& '), was originally from a fresh culture-legend which took for its starting-
viewed as a king who taught men good laws and point another divine teacher, the ' begetter of gods and
restrained wild animals and wild men. men,' ' whose will created law and justice.'
The origin of the first of these names is obscure. The names of Laniech's two wives are, of course, de-
Jered (so I Ch. 1 2 AV) or J ARED (q.3. for Gr. read- rived from the poem in Gen. 423. Sayce and Hoscawen
ings ; Gen. 515) might indeed he an adaptation of the 9. Lame;h,s would make them feminine lunar deities
Babylonian Arad in Arad-Sin ('servant of Sin, the -one named Darkness, the other Shadow
wives' -but without indicating any similar titles
moon-god'), which would be a possible title of the
hero GilgameS (see tablet ix. of the epic). I RAD (4.v.; of the moon in the tablets. Probably the poet simply
Gen. 418)or rather Erad (cp GADEL rac6a6) is, however, gave the tribal hero's wives the most becoming names
text-critically a better reading, and to connect this with he could think of. ADAH (q ; A6a [AE], 866a [L] ;
the city of Eridu is not free from objections. Probably Ada; Gen. 419-23) may have been known to him
the word is based on a contraction of some Babylonian already as the name of a wife of Esau (Gen. 362. P ;
name. The next name, which is best read, with hut from an older source ; see ADAH,2), and ZILLAIi
Lagarde and Robertson Smith, not M EHU J AEL ( q . ~ . ) (a):, ' shadow ' ; ZeXXa [AEL] ; SeZla ; Gen. 4 19-23)
but Mahalalel, can be well explained by the help of the was a suggestive description of a noble chieftainess,
Berossian hero-names 'Ap$wv, 'ApELihhapos. Mahalal whose presence was like a refreshhg and protecting
is a Hebraised form of the common Babylonian word shade (Is. 322). NAAMAHi n p p 5 67 ; vo~pcz [AE],
a v d , ' man ' (cp E VIL- MERODACH) ; the final syllable,
-,up , [L] ; Noema ; Gen. 4 Z Z ) , too, the daughter
4, is a substitute for some Babylonian divine name.
of Zillah, may derive her name ('gracious') from
selah in M ETHUSELAH (n$@ap, Gen. 521J: 2 5 8 I Ch. her supposed physical and moral charms; another
1 3 f ; paBouaaXa [AL], pa&. [R in I Ch. 1 3 1 ; Mathzi- of Esau's wives bears the equivalent name Basemath
sa&) is doubtless Babylonian; it is reasonable to see (Gen. 363). It is possible, however, that, as she is the
in it a Hebraised form of far&, ' brilliant ' (Jensen) or sister of Tubal-cain, her name may be of mythic origin,4
'gigantic, very stcong' (?I.), which is an epithet of and that she had a r6Ze of her own in the original story.
Gibil the fire-god, and Ninib (?) the god of the eastern TUBAL-CAIN is described in Gen. 4za (emended text)
sun.2 One of the royal names in the Berossian list is as ' the father of all those who work in bronze and iron.'
'Ap[p$~pos, which Friedr. Delitzsch and Hommel explain lo. Tubal-cain. At first sight the name might seem to
Amid ( / / m i l )Sin-i.e., ' liegeman of ,%,'-and, with belonF
" to the heros euonvmus of Tubal
& ,

great probability, identify with Methuselah. The (so LenormanL), which was a people famous for its
moon-god in fact well deserves the title far&, and the ' instruments of bronze ' in the time of Ezekiel (Ezek.
traditional connection of the Hebrews with Haran and 27 13). Tubal, however, was much too far from Pales-
Ur makes some veiled references to the moon-god almost tine to be mentioned here, and TabnZ in the time of ASur-
indispensable in the culture-legend. b8ni-pal seems rather to have been famous for horses
Lamech (& ; X a p q [BAL ; Ti. W H ] ; Lamech; (COT166). Above all, it is difficult to disregard the
Gen. 418-24 825-31 I Ch. 1 3 Lk. 336") must have been general tradition of antiquity that the first worker in
8. Lamech. an important personage in the old Hebrew metal was a divine being (cp Enoch81, where the fallen
culture-legend, for in the earlier of the two angel Azszel teaches this art). Tubal-cain, then, is
genealogies not only his three sons, hut also his two wives probably like xoucrwp (the Phcenician Hephaistos 5 ) , a
and his daughter, are mentioned by name. His own humanised god, and the first part of the name is pre-
name admits of no explanation from the best-known sumably not of Persian but of Babylonian origin.6 It
Semitic languages, nor is it at all necessary that it should 1 Drysdale, Ear& Bible Songs, 159, following Ewald and
be specially appropriate for the barbaric eulogist of blood- Budde.
vengeance who speaks in Gen. 4235 It is a needless 2 Cp St. ZATCV 14298 ['9+]=AkaL Reden 259.
3 H y m n to the doon-god, Sayce, HiBart d c t . 1 6 0 3
So Sayce (Hib. Lect. 185) who infers from Gen. 518 that 4 So WRS ( E B p ) , art. 'Lamech'), comparing 'Naaman,'
Erech (Unuk) received its eahiest culture from Eridu. Gen. originally a divine title. Cp Lenormant, Les Origims, 2 m f :
418 however makes Enoch the father of Irad. 5 See Philo of Bvhlus in Ens. PE i. 100.and see C R E A TI O N .
2'Jensen, k o s m o l 105, 464. So Hommel (e.g. E&. Times 8 7, PLICENICIA. '
8 463), ,who adopts the form Sarrahu (this is found with the 6 We can hardly derive the name from Bil-gi (=Gibil) with
determinative it%, god'). Ball, and it'is the merest coincidence that izi6riZ or t@%l in
625 626
 CAINITES CALAH
should be noticed that -cain in Tubal-cain is wanting 3nos (=&ddm), Seth, Kenan ... Lamech, Jabal,
in @ (BopeX [AEL]). Probably it was added to explain Voah. This would have the advantage of retaining the
why the hero was regarded as the father of smiths. ounder of the pastoral mode of life as the father of the
Tribal is, in fact, ,probably a pale form of the god of oupder of agricnltnre, but seems to involve the excision
the solar fire, Gibil or Nusku; but, of course, he is If Jubal and Tubal. W e might, more naturally
not only a fire-god. Like Gibil and like Hephaistos ierhaps, suppose that Jabal and Jubal were later
(see Roscher, Lex.), he is the heavenly smith (@ fitly idditions from another cycle of legends, and that the
calls him ~ X K E ~ aS term, which in ZZ. 15309 is applied :arliest genealogy began with Cain and ended with
to Hephaistos), and was perhaps once addressed in the I‘ubal, both originally divine beings. W e should then
words of a famous Babylonian hymn :- :et a genealogy of seven. I n any.case we must reject
‘Gibil, renowned hero in the land,-valiant, son of :he common view that 425J is a fragment of a Yahwistic
the Abyss, exalted in the land,-Gibil, thy clear fiame table which traced the genealogy of the Sethite side of
breaking forth,-when it lightens up the darkness,- the first family, and that the Sethites, according to the
assigns to all that bears a name its own destiny ;-the Yahwist, were good, the Cainites bad. There is no
copper and tin, it is thou who dost mix (?) them,-gold valid evidence that the genealogist wished to represent
and silver, it is thou who meltest them.’ any of the Cainites as wicked, or that culture was
W e may well suppose that in the earliest form of the opposed to religion. Cain, the city-builder, was a
Hebrew legend Tubal was the instructor of men in the worthy son of Enos, who was the first to use forms of
art of getting fire. According to Philo of Byblds, fire worship (see ENOS). For there was no more truly
was discovered by three ‘ mortal men’ called Light, religious act, from a primitive point of view, than the
Fire, and Flame, and was produced by rubbing two building of a city. (For the continuation of this subject
pieces of wood together. ‘ This,’ remarks Robertson see SETHITES.)
Smith,2 ‘is the old Arabian way of getting fire, and Buttmann’s MytltoZogus vol. i. (‘28), first led the criticism
indeed appears all over the world in early times, and of the genealogies into the’right track. For recent discussions,
besides Stade’s article already referred to
also in later times in connection with ritual. Probably 13. Literature. and Dillmann’s Gen., see Lenorinant, Les
some ritual usage preserved the memory of the primeval Origines, 1 5 ; Boscawen Ex$. Times, 5
fire-stock in Phoenicia.’ There was no such ritual usage 3 5 1 3 (May ’94); Goldziher, Hei. Myt?z. 3zr’1r3, 127-130, zoo;
among the Israelites, and so the legend of the inven- Bu. Urgesch. 183-247; Ryle, Earl) Narratives of Genesis
78-83. On the Berossian list of ten antediluvian patriarch;
tion of fire disappeared. see Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 5643 ; Del. Par. 149 ; Hommel
Jabal and Jubal have names descriptive of occupations, PSBA 1524y&$6. The last-named scholar holds that hi;
identifikons especially Amilu=Enosh Ummanu=Kainan,
and evidently of Palestinian origin. The former ($Y . -; and Nahnapi&i= Noah, prove that there’is the closest relation
&A [A], -pvX [LT, -118 [E] ; /adel; Gen. between“the ten Hebrew patriarchs and the ten Babylonian
11. Jabal, 420t)is the reputed ancestor of tent-dwelling antediluvian kings. He infers from this that the author of the
Jubal. shepherds. His name describes him, not as so-called priestly code must have written centuries before the
exile. This hasty inference will not captivate a careful student.
a ‘ wanderer ’ (Dillm. very questionably), but as a hercls- That the priestly writer had access to early traditions is a part
man (cp Heb. $219, Phoen. $29, ‘ r a m ’ ) ; it is another of the critical system here advocated. The identifications of
form of the name ABEL (q,TI., end). The latter, Jubal Hommel, however, need very careful criticism (see NOAH).
($213 ; ioupaX [AEL] ; Jnbal; Gen. 421+), is the ‘ father’ T. K. C.
of the guild or class of musicians (cp 5319, Ex. 1913, CAKE. I t is impossible to ascertain precisely the
‘ram’s horn’). That the inventor of the AinnCr and meaning and characteristic feature of certain of the
the ‘#gib should be the younger brother of the first many Heb. words which are rendered ‘ cake ’ in EV,
shepherd, is certainly appropriate. One of the thirty- and it must suffice merely to record the terms in
seven ‘Amu, or Asiatics, represented in the tomb of question.
Hnum-hotep (see MUSIC, fj 8, JOSEPH, I O ) as desir- , (a) @’Wt$, diSri?z, Hos.31 (RV) etc., see FLAGON (3),
ing admission into Egypt, carries a lyre. ( W e must FRUIT, 9 5.
not cjuote the parallel of David, for I Sam. 1614-23 does ’ (6) 7,129, deb&Zrilt, I S. 3012 etc., see F RUIT, § 7.

not recognise him as a shepherd ; see D AV I D , § I a , (c) ?SF, AaZZrik, 2 S. Big etc., see BAKEMEATS, B 2, BREAD,
note). Tubal, however, is less appropriate in this B 3.
company, partly because of his lofty origin, partly be- (4 ?I:, kawwrin, Jer. 7 18 4419,t see BAKEMEATS, 8 2, FRUIT,
cause smiths belong more naturally to agricultural and B 5.
city life. (e) Z;3\, ZeJhi6hrih, 2 S. 1368 Io,* see BAKEMEATS, 0 3.
The three names Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal stand (A (]Qt?) l V ) , Z&d, Nu. 118, see BAKEMEATS, 5 3.
outside the genealogy proper, just as Shem, Ham, and
12. Original Japheth stand outside the genealogy of (g) &Jp, ?mi@,I K.1712etc., and (h) ”??, ‘uggrih,Gen. 186
form oflist. Noah, and Abram, Nahor, and Haran etc., cp BREAD, 0 2.
outside that of.Terah. By this knot in (i) %?, ! G Z (Kt., $ 5 ~kr.), Jndg. 713, see BAKEMEATS,
the genealogical thread the editor indicates that a new 0 2.
and broader development is about to begin (Ewald). p’iJ!, rLiKik, I Ch. 2329 etc., see BAKEMEATS, $ 3,
How is it, then, that the Cainite genealogy as it stands BREAD, 0 3.
contains but six names ? The parallel table in chap. 5 ,
which has virtually all these names, adds three to them
CALAH(h53 ; xaAax [AI, -K [ELI, K A A ~ X[Dl:
at the beginning, and one at the end. Now it is ZJS x ~ A ~[E];
12 K Chab; Ass. Kalbu, Kalah) is
named in Gen. l o l l $ as one of the cities originally
remarkable that the three prefixed names are also given
founded by Nimrod in Assyria. Ah-nZsir-pal, king of
in 4 25 f: It is not improbable (cp 6 )that this
passage in a simpler form-omitting ‘ again,’ ‘ another,’ Assyria, ascribed its high standing, at any rate as a
capital, to Shalmaneser I. (KB 1 ~ 1 6 ZZ. 132-135).
and ‘ instead of A b d , ’ etc., and adding ‘ and Enos begat
Layard, Rassam, and G. Smith proved by their
a son, and called his name Cain ’-once stood before 4 17,
excavations of the mounds of NimrCtd 2 0 m. S. of
and that Noah, who is the sou of Lamech in 5 2 8 $ , once
Nineveh (Kuyunjik) that the city lay in the fork
took the place of Jabal, Jtibal, and Tubal. This would
make the table begin Adam, Seth, Enos, Cain, and between the Tigris on the W. and the Upper Zab on
the E. Protected on two sides by these rivers and on
close Lamech, Noah. W e might also restore it thus,
the N. by hills, fortified by a long N. wall with at least
Persian means ( I ) dross of metal (2) copper or iron. ‘ I regard fifty-eight towers, it was a strong city.
the 6 as resulting from a radical ’w or v, and as changing later The town was an oblong, well supplied with water by a
to$ andf’ (Mr. J. T. Platts). canal led through a covered conduit from the Upper Zsh, and
1 Maspero, Da7m of Civ. 635 (see references). richly planted with orchards and gardens. At the SW. are
a Bzlrnett Lectures, second series (MS). the remains of a platform, built of sun-dried bricks faced with
627 628
 CALAMOLALUS CALEB-EPHRATAH
stone, 600 yards from N. to S., by 400 yards wide and 13 feet as the territory of Judah, is variously described (Josh.
above the level of the Tigris, which once washe2 its western 1513, cp 146 3 D,, etc.). According to Josh. 1513 fi
face. On this platform stood palaces built or restored by the
kings Shalmaneser I ASur-nssir-pal, Shalmaneser 11. Tiglath. (cp Judg. l r o & ) , Caleb invaded from the N., in
pileser III., Sargoiiy Esarhaddon, and ASur-etil-il&rh. At its company with Judah, the region which he subsequently
NW. corner stood the zikkurafu or temple-iower 1674 feet occupied (see AKAIC) ; but in the story of the spies, in
square at the base and still 140 feet high. Next to ’it was the
temple, of Neb0 but in the Sargouid period Ninip was the the oldest version of which Caleb alone maintains the
town-god ( K B 4 ;33, no. I , 1. 16). possibility of a successful invasion of Canaan from the
Of municipal history, apart from the history of the S. and receives Hebron as the reward of his faith’ (see
country, we know little. N UMBERS ), we seem to have a reminiscence of the fact
Calah was faithful to Shalmaneser 11. during his son’s that Caleb made his way into the land from that quarter.
rebellion ( K B 1176, ZZ. 45-50), but revolted from AZur-nirari in I n David‘s time Caleb was still distinct from Judah ( I S.
746 B.C. ( K B 1212). It was clrarlp the court residence under
the above-meationed kings; but in the ofhcial lists it never 30 14 yehpoue [B], xehoup [L] ; for the conjecture that
stands first (cp Eponym lists KB 12088). As a centre of David was a Calebite prince, see D AVID , § 4, u.).
population it evidently was inferior to AHSur, and totally ecli sed On the other hand, in the list of the spies (Nu. 136 P),
by Nineveh. When ASur-ni?ir-pal rebuilt the town and paice and in the commission for the division of the land
finished the great wall, and endowed Calah with its canal, h:
peopled it with captives. (Nu. 3419 P), Caleb b. JEPHUNNBH
Like other great cities of Assyria and Babylonia, 3‘ Pre-exilic’ aDuears as the rezWesentatiue of Tudah, a
Calah probably had its archives which, with the literary chief ( n i s i ) o i A t h a t tribe : 2 *and in the post-exilic
collections of the kings, formed the nucleus of a library. genealogical systems, Caleb and Jerahmeel, ‘sons of
Few tablets have hitherto been found at Nimrnd and it is H EZRON ’ (q.w., ii. [I]), are great-grandsons of the patri-
inferred that Sennacheribremoved the Calah library td Nineveh. archJudah(1 C ~ . ~ ~ [ C H E L U B A I = I CARMI(I)], C~.~I,
Many astrological and omen tablets in the Kuyunjik col- 1 8 8 , 42 [Xahep, A]&), whilst Kenaz becomes a son of
lections were executed at Calah for Nabn-zukiip-kni, ‘principal Caleb (415).
librarian rab-du)-8arrg, 716-684 B.C. For explorations and
identitichon of site cp Layard, Ninmeh and its Remains, G. These representations reflect the fact that, in uniting
Smith‘s Assyrian Discoveries. For further conclusions respect- with Judah, Caleb became the leading branch of that
ing library, see G. Smith, ChaZd. Genesis.PJ c. H. w. J. exceedingly mixed tribe. T h e Chronicler indeed
CALAMOLALUS ( KAA~ML&&AOC [A]), or Calamo- hardly knows any other Judahite stocks than these
calus ( - a ~ a A o c[B]), I Esd.522, represents the ‘ L o d Hezronites.
(see L YDDA ) H A D I D ’of 11 Ezra233=Neh.737. bLhas The seats of the Calebites in pre-exilic times are to
AYAAUN [PI.] a A i A . be learned most fully from I Ch. 2 4 2 3 , where we find
set down as sons and grandsons (branches) of Caleb
CALAMUS (822) occurs in Cant.414 Ezek. 2719,
the well-known cities and towns, Ziph, Mareshah (so
and ‘ sweet calamus ’ in Ex. 3023 Is. 43 24 (RVW. ; but read for M ESHA ), Hebron, Tappuah, Jokdeam (so for
EV ‘ sweet cane ’ in Is. ), for the usual R EED (4.w., I 6). JORKOAM), Maon, Beth-zur ; for Maon and Carmel
CALCOL (53711 ; on the name see MAHOL ; x a A x & A cp also I S. 2 5 2 3 The clan had possessions also in
[A]), a son of Zerah b. J UDAH , I Ch. 26 ( X ~ A K A[B], the Negeb ( I S. 3014).
KAAXAA [L]), clearly the same as the son of Mahol After the Exile their old territory was chiefly in the
, CHALCOL(XAAKAA [Bl, XAAKAA
of I K. 431 [ ~ I I ] AV possession of the Edomites, and the Calebites were
[L]). See MAHOL. 4. Post-exilic. pushed northwards into the old seats
of Judah. This situation is reflected
CALDRON, AV rendering of the following words :- in another stratum of the composite genealogy ( I Ch.
nn$pI S. 2 14 Mi. g3, so RV ; V D Jer. 5 2 1 8 3 (RV 218-24, 50-55, cp ~ g ) ,where Caleb takes Ephrath (the
‘pots’)Ezek.l137Ir,soRV;Ti? 2 Ch.3513, so RV- region about Bethlehem) as a second wife (observe the
for all of which see COOKING, 5 ; and fD?& Job41 20 significant name of the former wife A ZUBAH [ q . ~ . ;] cp
[I.], RV R USHES (q.w., 2). also J ERI O T H ). Through his son Hur the clan falls
into three divisions : Shobal, Salma, and Hareph, the
CALEB (a$(?, 3 66 ; on the meaning see below; fathers of Kirjath-jearim, Bethlehem, and Bethgader.
x a A s B [BAL]; gent. $752,
‘Calebite,’ EV ‘of the T h e further notices of the subdivision of these clans are
house of Caleb,’ I S. 253 I(r. [ K Y N I K O C (BAL)], fragmentary and complex (see BKrH-GADER, J ABEZ ,
see N ABAL ; Kt. reads \3>?
; cp the similar variant in S HOBAL ). It is at all events noteworthy that the
passage concludes with the end of a list of Kenites,
Judg. 115 @BAL, xaAeB KAT&. THN K A ~ A I A NAYTHC). and a connection between these and the Calebites
N6. ZDMG 40 164, n. i. (‘86), finds the sense ‘raging with
canine madness,’ objecting to Robertson Smith‘s identification becomes plausible if C HELUB and R ECHAH in I Ch.
with 2>?, ‘dog’ (see J. Ph. 989; Kin. zoo, 2.9). 411f. are indeed errors for Caleb and Rechab (cp
1. Name. Dog-totems nevertheless were not impossible in Meyer, Entsteh. 1 4 7 ) ~
’
the ancien; Semitic worid (see DOG, 5 4), and a It is not improbable that the names Azbuk, Colhozeh,
connection with >)? was early surmised (see NABAL, n.). We Rephaiah b. Hur (temple-repairers, etc., temp. Nehe-
find the name Kalb2 in Babylonian contract-tablets as late as miah) are of Calebite origin (d.147, 167).
the times of Nebuchadrezzar 11. and Cambyses (KB 4 199 293).
Hommel (AHT 115) makes KaZibu or kaZadu mean ‘priest . .
See further KENAZ also Kuenen ReZ. Isr. 1135 .f 1768,
Gratz, ‘Die Ke1ubait;n oder Kalebiien,’ MGW] 25461:;92, and
Tvhile Sayce (Ear@ Hisf. He6. 265) compares KaZ6as as used in’ especially We. De Genf.; CH 3 3 7 3
Am. Ta6. (..E., 54, 18) for ‘officer, messenger’ (but this is
improbable). The name seems to be primarily tribal. CALEB - EPHRATAH, RV Caleb-Ephrathah (35;
Caleb was a Kenizzite clan which at, or shortly ;IC?!$), is mentioned in I Ch. 224JT as the place where
before, the Israelite invasion of Western Palestine
2. Early established itself in Hebron and the region
Hezron died. Wellhausen and Kittel, after eBAL
(Kat
perk r b dmeaveiv ECTEPWV [ w p w p , A ; -v, L] $h&v
History. south .of it, and in the course of time x a k p EIS e$paBa [L elu?jMe X a X E p ~ p b se$paea]),
coalesced with its northern neighbour, the read: ‘after the death of Hezron, Caleb came unto
tribe of Judah (naturally, not without admixture of Ephrath the wife of Hezron his father ’ (We. De Gent.
blood ; cp. Mhacah, Caleb’s concubine, I Ch. 248). 14). Klostermann ( G e d . 112) thinks it more natural
T h e b’ne K ENAZ , to whom Caleb and O THNIEL belong to read SEGUB(for Caleb).
(Nu. 321z Judg. 113 J), were of Edomite extraction,
and the Calebites were nearly related to the nomadic 1 In P Joshua is named along with Caleb.
2 The name Jephunneh as that of Caleh’s father is not earlier
Jerahmeelites in the south-eastern quarter of the Negeb than D,; on Josh. 146, 13(JE and Dz), see JOSHUA, 5 9.
( I Ch. 29 etc.); see JERAHMEEL. (On the Kenites, see 3 Note also that &v, the Targ. rendering of Kenites, is
below, 4. ) possibly derived from S ALMA. Cp Neub. Ge‘op-. 427, 429.
How Caleb came t o be settled in what was regarded 4 Z.e., ??$ for fi:?F: ABIJAH,(4), thus disappears.
629 630
 'Even after the Exile the Hebrew, like the Arab genealogists,
seem t o have used the marriage of a son with his father's wife
as one device for throw,ing the relations of clans and townships
into eenealoeical form. (WRS Kin. 90. and see We. ProZ.($
! hand, the religion of Israel shows the strongest evidence
Of Canaanite influence' Among the
ull was the symbol of Baal ; the cow, the symbol of
the

z17,E' ET ZG.) _ I

Lstarte ; and these symbols were taken over from the

CALENDAR. See D AY , W EEK, MONTH, Y E A R ; 'hcenicians by the Greeks. Thus the probabilities are
c p also C HRONOLOGY, I 8 hat the Israelites derived the practice from the Canaan-
.es. They changed the significance of the symbols,
CALF (5;8,Ex. 324, etc.; MOCXOC, Rev. 47). See eeing in them a representation of Yahwi and his
CATTLE, 2 a-c. onquering might and strength (Nu. 2322 248). Though
CALF, GOLDEN. Portable images of a bull overlaid n the time of Jeroboam such worship was regarded as
with gold occupied, down to the time of the prophets, .Ilowable, the so-called older decalogue certainly forbids
1. References. a prominent position in the equipment nolten images (see above). The later decalogue, which
of the Israelitish sanctuaries. We nay be regarded as .representative of prophetic times,
hear of them in the great sanctuaries of the northern orbids all idolatrous worship of Yahwb. Hosea rails at
kingdom : in Dan and Bethel, where they are said to he worship of the bull (85 105). The Deuteronomistic
have been set up by Jeroboam ( I K. 1 2 2 8 8 2 K. 1Ozg iarrator, too, in the Book of Kings regards the conduct
Hos. 1 0 5 ) ; in Samaria, the capital of the kingdom )f Jeroboam as an apostasy to idolatry. H e emphatic-
(Hos. 8 5 J ) : and perhaps also in Gilgal (Am. 54f: illy describes bull-worship as ' the sin of Jeroboam,
Hos. 4 15 9 15 1 2 II [I.]) On the other hand, there were vherewith he made Israel to sin ' ( I IC 1416 1526 1626
none in the temple of Jerusalem (which had the brazen 3 I(. 1029 etc.). T o the Apis-worship of Egypt we
serpent: see N EHUSHTAN), and, strange to say, we lave but one reference-in Jer. 4615, where we should
do not find any allusion to such images as existing in xobably read ' W h y hath Apis fled? (why) hath thy
the other sanctuaries of Judah-either in I K. 1421-24, steer not stood firm? ' See APE.
where such reference would have been apposite, or in See Kon. Hauptprubbme, 57 : Baethg. i?ei.fr. 198 f: :
Amos or Hosea. The last named in particular, who Robertson, Ear& Rel. of Zsr. 215-220 ; Farrar, Was
pursued the calf-worship of the northern kingdom with .here a Golden Calf at Dan,'Expos., 1893b,pp. 254-265:
such bitter invectives ( 8 5 J l O 5 ) , would hardly have tnd cp Sayce, Hibbert Lectzcres, 289f. : Jensen, Kosmul.
been silent on the subject had the same worship prevailed 38f. ; C. W. Goodwin, TSBA 2252. I. B.
in Jerusalem also. Though Judah appears to have
participated, more or less, in the cultus a t Bethel, the CALITAS ( K A ~ [ ~ ] I T ~ [ I[B]),
]c I Esd. 9z3=Ezra
worship of such ima.ges seems to have been confined 1023, and I Esd. 948=Neh. 8 7 KELITA.
chiefly to the northern kingdom.
T h e bulls belonged to the class of images called >?!en
('molten images ' ; see IDOL, 9 I e), which might be either CALLISTHENES (KAhhlCeENHC [AV] I a follower
of Nicanor [I], who, according to 2 Macc., was burnt
solid or merely covered with a coating of metal. T o
the latter class the golden bull of Jeroboam (Hos. 132) for firing the temple gates ( 2Macc. 833).
probably belonged (see I DOL, § 4J). Because of the CALNEH (a;)>). 1. ( X A ~ A N N H[ADaLIj rAhANNl
value of the metal it is not probable that the images were [E]). A city included in the earlier kingdom of Nimrod,
of great size. Hence we can understand the choice of Gen.1010 (J). See N IMROD , 1I , SHINAR.
the word 5-19, ' calf' : not the youth but the small size of Rawlinson ( A m . Monurchies, 118) identifies it with Nippur:
supposing that the Talmudic statement, ' Calneh means Nippar
the animal represented is the point to be conveyed-not (/emu, IOU), represents a genuine tradition. The context, bow-
perhaps without-an implication of contempt. ever, shows that it is a pure guess ; ly, is connected with y13-3, a
As for their origin, these images were originally Greek loan-word (u6pdq) meaning 'bride,' and a353 with
foreign to the Yahwb religion. T o the nomads of the &, the old Hebrew for 'bride' (see Levy). Pressel (PEEP))
2, Origin. wilderness, who did not breed cattle, the claims a coiiseiisus of critics for identifying Calneh with
idea of choosing the bull as a n image of Ctesiphon NE. of Babylon, on the left hank of the Tigris (so
divinity could hardly have occurred. On this ground Targ. Jer., Ephr. Syr., Eus.. er.), which Pliny (630) places
in the province of Chalonitis; J'I'his conjecture, too, may be
alone the narrative of the golden calf made by Aaron dismissed.
in the wilderness (Ex.32 J E ) can prove nothing for T h e inscriptions alone should be consulted : and,
the origin, of this form of worship in Mosaic times. since none of the ordinary names of the Babylonian cities
Apart from the impossibility of making such an image resembles Calneh (or Caluo), we are justified in examin-
in the wilderness, the narrative seems rather to be ing the non-Semitic (ideographic) names. Among these
intended as a scathing criticism on the absurdity and we find Kul-unu ('dwelling of offspring'), which, in
sinfnlness of bull-worship as viewed from the prophetic Assyrian times, was pronounced Zir-la-ba or (in an
standpoint. According to the Deuteronomist, Jeroboam inscription of Harnmu-rBbi) Za-ri-lab. The situation
was the originator of bull-wprship; but it is hardly of Zirlaha is uncertain (see Del. Par. 226) : but the
likely that he would have introduced an entirely strange fact that Sargon mentions Zirlaba at the end of a list
image into the sanctuaries of his kingdom. Probably of Bahylonian cities which apparently proceeds from
the older Decalogue (Ex. 3417 ; cp 2 0 ~ 3 )in , speaking south to north (KB 252f:) suggests to Hommel that
of ' molten images ' as distinguished from plain wooden it was not far from Babylon (Die semit. W l k e r , 1234f: ).
images, referred to images of this description, which T o Fried. Del. in 1876 (Chald. Gen. 293) this identifica-
also are intended perhaps by the images of Micah tion appeared certain. It is, indeed, not improbahle,
(Judg. 18). especially if we may point ;I>)? (cp @ as above, and
I t has often been held (e.g. by Renan and Maspero,
\I\?) ; but we should like some fuller evidence that
and doubtfully by Konig) that bull-worship may have
been a n imitation of the worship of Apis a t Memphi: Kul-unu was really remembered as the old name of
or of Mendes at Heliopolis : but the Egyptians wor. Zirlaba.
shipped only living animals, and in any case the 2. T ~ Y T E S , as if o h ) , a N. Syrian city, con-

adoption from Egypt is unlikely. T h e nomad inhabit- quered by the Assyrians (Am:62, on which see AMOS,
ants of Goshen took over from the Egyptians hardl) 9 6 [6]). See CALNO. T. K. C.
anything of their culture and religion. On the othei
CALNO (\$2, X A A ~ N N H [BKAQI']), Is. l o g ? , the
1 The text of I K. 12 30 is obviously corrupt or at leas
imperfect. adds 'and before the other to dethel.' Klo city called CALNEH [z] in Am. 6 2 (on which see
conjectures that the driginal text said nothing of a ca(fin Dan
His restored text, however only accentuates if possible, thi
ancient fame of the sanctuar). See also Fa&, Z.C., $ 2, end.
631
 CALPHI CAMEL
AMOS, § 6 [a]) and FANNEH Ep.v.1-(rather Calneh) in 1730) may have been kept for purposes of trade ;
Ezek. 27 23. hey were put under the charge of an Ishmaelite, who
Q confounds it with CALNEH [I], and connects it with the rom his calling bore the name of ORIL. Other kings
building of the ‘tower,‘ which, since Babylon is mentioned just nay have followed David’s example ; Hezeltiah’s camels
before, can onlymean the tower of Babel (see BABEL); it is not im.
probable that @ identifies Calneh with Borsippa, according vere carried away by Sennacherib (Schr. C O T 2 286).
to the Talmudic tradition that the tower of Babel was at rhat Syrians should have used them ( z K. 8 9 ) is
Borsippa. This is, of course, worthless. b ’ s Hebrew text was iatural ; but in the hilly region of Palestine the camel
corrupt: ~13373was misread Q, ‘fort’; 1 2 1 became ~ 37y, :annot have been a common quadruped. It is true
‘Arabia.’ his animal appears again and again in the patriarchal
Doubtless Calno is Kullani, a place near Arpad, con- ;tory, and there is no difficulty in supposing that Jacob
quered in 738 by Tiglath-pileser 111. (Tiele, Wi., Fried. rcquired camels in Mesopotamia. There is, however,
Del., Che., Kittel). T. K. C. yeat difficulty in the statement (Gen. 12 16) that camels
CALPHI, RV C HALPHI (a name formed from the ormed part of a present given to Abraham by the
3haraoh (see below, 5 3j).
root q h , whereby a child is designated as a sudstitute
T h e camel’s saddle is mentioned only once, Gen. 31 34
for one lost; cp &A@&IOC, and see N AMES , 1 62),
father of Judas [3], I Macc. 1170 (0TOY x&AC$el [AV], :’ma:!12, d .rb udypa.ra, EV ‘ t h e camel’s furniture’),
0 TOY xbC$. [K], o xayeoy [Jos. Ant. xiii. 571 ; in
ind derives its name from its round basket-shaped form.
See L ITTER , S ADDLE .
the Syr. a, & and w).Cp ALPHBUS, T h e flesh of camels was unclean food to the Israelites
CLOPAS, I. (Dt. 1 4 7 Lev. 1 1 4 ) . By the Arabs, o n the other hand,
CALVARY (KPANION, [Ti. WH], Cutvaria), Lk. 23 Eamels were both eaten and sacrificed (WRS I&%. Sem (a)
33T AV, the Vg. rendering (Lat. caZvuna=skull) of 218). N. M.-A. E. S.
~ p a v i o v (RV ‘ T h e skull ). The 11 passages preserve [The assertion that the ancient Egyptians knew the
the Semitic form GOLGOTHA ( 4 . v . ) . camel is unfounded. The aicture of a camel on one of
3. Not known the (Ethiopian) pyramids at Meroe
CAMEL (b$, d KAMHAOC; Gen.1216 241014 (Leps. Denkm. 5 28) and on Greek
in Egypt* terra-cotta fienres--e.z., of a travelling
etc., Ex. 9 3 Judg. 65 I K. 102 I Ch. 2 7 3 0 Ezra267
1. Name. Tob. 92, and elsewhere, including six pro- Arab (not, as has been supposed, Ln Egyptian) in
phetic passages ; Mt. 3 4 Mk. 1 6 etc. ; see Mariette (Aaydus, 2 qo)-and the references in Greek
also D ROMEDARY ). The Hebrew name1 is common papyri,2 prove nothing more than that the animal was
to all the Semitic languages, which proves that the known in Egypt in Roman times. It is surprising
animal was known before the parent stock divided that it never appears earlier-e.g., in representations of
-one of the facts from whicli Hommel and others battles with the nomadic Semites who rode on camels.
have inferred that the original home of the Semitic The Egyptian artists evidently disliked to represent the
race was in Central A s k 2 The name was borrowed animal-not because of its ungainly appearance, for
by the Egyptians; it passed also into Greek and they have rather a fancy for delineating strange
Latin, and most modern languages. T h e origin of creatures, but out of religious antipathy (WMM As.
the word is uncertain; von Kremer (Sem. CuZturent- u. Eur. 142). T h e statement that the camel is
lehnungen, 4) connects it with Ar. j a m a h , ‘ to heap,’ as mentioned in Pap. Anast. i. 2 3 5 is groundless. T h e
meaning the ‘ humped animal ’ ; whilst Lagarde (Ueders. passage contains an exclamation of the Asiatic princes,
49) follows Bochart in his etymology from 5 ~ 2 ,‘ t o awe-struck at the bravery of an Egyptian soldier-
requite,’ the name thus indicating the revengeful temper ’a-6a-ta ha-ma ’d-p(Z)ama-ha-Z)*a ?z-‘-mzr,which seems to
often shown by the animal. mean, ‘ Thou art lost (ip~ 1 ) like God (hyrm) a hero
In the frequent mention of the camel in the historical (1;ln) indeed (Ar.na‘arn).’ Even if this explanation3 be
books of the O T there can be little doubt that CameZus rejected, the idea of Chabas (Voyage, 220) that the
2. Biblical dromedarius is meant (see below, § 6), Asiatics are here calling for ‘camel’s meat’ is most
references. though an Israelite ambassador may ridiculous. T h e other passages appealed to refer not
conceivably have seen a two-humped to the camel (the pretended Ram&) but to a large
camel at Nineveh or B a b y l ~ n . ~W e naturally expect species of monkey (Kay, k y ) , which is said to come
to hear of its use by the Arabian 4 and other nomad from Ethiopia (where there were no camels in 1300
tribes ; and accordingly the Ishmaelites (Gen. 3 7 2 5 [J]), B.c.; see above), and is described as docile-learning
the Midianites (Judg. 65),5 and the Amalekites ( I S. an amusing kind of dance, and carrying its master’s
1 5 3 2 7 9 ) by turns come before us as possessors of walking-stick. See the passages collected by W M M
camels. The mention of them in connection with ( A s . u. Eur. 370),4and the judicious remarks of Wiede-
Job ( J o b l 3 ) , and with the Queen of Sheba (I K. mann, SBA 1 3 3 2 . Even the Egyptian name of the
l O z ) , also needs no comment. David‘s.camels ( I Ch. camel X (or (r)AMOYA (plural X & M A Y ~is~foreign ) (not
1 ?I???, 6ihrcil, like the Ar. dakr (Lane, 1240) and Ass.
from gamuZ [Lagarde. Ueders. 491 but from an original
bahr?d (Del. Ass. H W B ) denotes the ‘young camel ’ Is. GO6 Jer. “gmnd),and does not seem very old. W. M. M.]
223 (RVw.). EV renders less aptly DROMEDAI~’(~.V.). l’he [The difficulty of the narrative in Gen. 1 2 10-20 is very
word D’!!?Vn$ ri&a&&zint (Esth. 8x0 14, AV ‘camels,’ great so long as it is assumed that it correctly represents
RVmg.‘mules’), israther an adj. qualifying ‘swift steeds’ ; so R V *. OT ref. the Hebrew tradition. Supposing, how-
‘swift steeds that were used in the king’s service’ (cp Pers. ever, that the mention of the pharaoh were
KJmhal&, realm ; BDB Lex.). The reading, however, is dis. to Egypt’ due to a misunderstanding, and that the
puted. See HORSE 5 2.
2 See this and okher views summarised in Wright’s Comg early Hebrew tradition knew only of a visit of Abraham
Grarrz. Senz. Laiw. 5 A: 1 Roman period? Even in Persian times orthodox Ethiopians
3 See the bas-rdiefs-on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser 11. were apparently deterred from using the animal by fear of
and this king’s monolith inscr. obv. 28 (KB 1156J:) contracting ceremonial defilement. The more southern tribes
‘dromedaries (udrZti) with two hu&’ ; cp Del. Pur. 96. had no camels. see, e.g., Mariette 240%.div. 12,87. The animal
4 For an account of the numerous references to the camel ir can hardly livi in the regions S. df Meroe.
Arabian literature and of the many names of the camel ir 2 E.$., in Grenfell, Greeh Pajyri (245 etc.), camels appear
Arabic, see Homrnel, SAugeUiere, ~ 3 9 5 frequently in the Fayem after roo A.D. It is, however, signifi-
5 ‘Both they and their cattle were numberless ’ says thc cant that they sometimes hear ’Apa@& Xapo‘ypanx as brand-
narrator. So too the Reuhenites carry away 50,;oo camel: marks (I 1 . 5 0 a). The camels on the roads to the Red Sea
from the Hagrites (I Ch. 521). Precisely so Tiglath-pileser I1 (Petrie, Kojfos, 27, Z. 21,Strabo, etc.) were driven by the desert-
states that he had taken 30 om camels as prey from the Arab tribes,
(cp Hommel, GBA 665), a d Ah-hnni-pal says that he took s( 3 Partly after Erman 22 ’77, 36.
many camels from the Kedarenes that camels were sold ii 4 Add the passage dn hy-apes from the St. Petersburg tale
Assyria for from I$ (silver) shekels to half a shekel (KB 2 225) and De Morgan, Cat. Monzrm. i. 644 (hi-animals from the
On the notice in Jndg. 821 see CRESCENTS. Sodan).
613 634
 CAMEL 1 CAMP
to the land of MuSri (see MIZRAIM, $ 2 [a]), the difficulty ip the average specimen of a camel. He can abstain from food
arising from the mention of camels in Gen. 1216 would md water-the latter more especially-longer than any other
mimal. H e is stupid and patient to excess, submissive and
disappear. T h e difficulty of Ex. 9 3 (J), where a .enacious to a degree, docile and obstinate to a certain extent
murrain is predicted on pharaoh’s cattle including ‘ the rindictive and passionate when roused, not easily excited no:
camels,’ cannot, however, be removed by such a n isnally alarmed, though at times liable to a panic or stampede
-an animal in fact whose characteristics are every hit as
expedient. Here it appears simplest to suppose that 3eculiar as his structural peculiarities.’ Another admirable
the narrator gave a list of those kinds of animals which, :pitome of the character of the camel as a baggage animal is
from a Palestinian point of view, would be liable to the y e n in Kudyard Kipling’s ‘ Oont. A. E. S .
murrain. $If: 6 N . M . - A . E . S . ; $ 3 W.M.M.; s4f:T.K.C.
Two proverbial expressions about the camel occur
in the Gospels (the one in Mt. 1924 Mk. 1025 Lk. 1825, CAMON ( I i D Z ; PAMNWN [Bl, -MMW [AI, KAA-
5. NT reff. the other in Mt. 2324). The reading K W N [L]), an unknown locality in Gilead ; the burial-
Kdpihos (a rope?) for K ~ ~ V ~has O Sbeen place of J AIK (4.v. I ) (Jude. 105). It was doubtless one
suggested for the former. I t is as old as Cyril of 3f the HAVVOTH- J AIR ( q . ~ . ) . Reland (679) rightly
Alexandria and is evidently the conjecture of a non- combines it with the Rapoh which, in 217 B.c.,
Semitic scribe (see Nestle, Ex?. T. 9474). Kdpq?m is Antiochus 111. the Great captured along with Pella and
correct. Analogous proverbs can be quoted-e.g., ‘ In Gefrun (Polyb.v.7012). T o the W. of the place
Media a camel can dance on a bushel ’ (Je6am. 45 u)- identified by Buhl with the ancient Gefriin or E PHRON
Le., all things are possible. T. K. C.] (q.v.,i. z ) in N. Gilead, and I m. S. of the high road
As has been indicated above there are two’ species of camel. from Irbid (Arbela) to the Jordan, lies a village whose
One, the Cunzelus dromedurilrs, is found in SE. Asia ranging name, qumeim, ‘little summit,’ is doubtless a corrup-
from Afghanistan and Bokhara through NW. tion of the ancient Kam6n.
6. Zoology. India, Persia, Arabia, Syria, and Asia Minor, Ens. and Jer. (OS27266 11020) identify Camon with a place
and in N. Africa ; this species reaches its mnst in the ‘great plain’ called Kappwa, Cinrona, situated 6 R. m.
southern point in Somali-land. The second, or Bactrian camel, N. of Legio on the way to Ptolemais. This K a p p w Y a however
C. 6acfrianus lives in the high plateaus of central Asia: Both which is eddently Tell kaimon (see JOICNEAM), is hearly 0;
species are sdd to exist wild hut it is generally thought that the wrong side of the Jordan.
1 the herds found in a state’of nature are descended from
domesticated animals and are not truly feral. This view is CAMP (22nP ; TFAPGMBOAH [BADEFL], Gen.
supported by the recent observations of Sven Hedin. They 32z[3] Ex. 1419 Heb. 1311). A camp is so called from
have been introduced into many parts of both the Old and the
Xew World, and where the climate has proved suitable have 1. Military. the curuing of the tents over their occn-
been very useful as beasts of burden. pants ( J m n ; cp MH n i ~ n ) . The
~ term
Numerous breeds of the C. dromedarizs are found in the (mnn) is applied primarily to an assemblage of tents of
East, and show as great diversities in character and use as do
the various breeds of horse. The breeds many of which are nomads (Gen. 3221[ z z ] , EV ‘ company ’ ; Nu. 1319,
distinguished by a complex system of branding, may be roughly EV ‘ camps ’). Of the early Israelitish nomad camps
divided into two classes : the riding, called in Egypt and Arabia we have no contemporary records‘ ; Doughty (A?. Des.
Ha& and in Indian Sawari, and the baggage animal, called 1 2 2 1 2309) observes that some Bedouin tribes pitch dis-
respectively the GainaZ and Unf. The word dromedary is persedly and without order : others in a circle, to protect
often restricted to the former animal, which often maintains a
pace of 8-10 miles an hour for a long period whereas the the cattle. The latter style is that of the (Ai-.
baggage camel rarely.exceeds 3 miles an hour. diding a camel duwZr), of which we hear in Gen. 25 16 Nu. 31 IO I Ch.
for any lenqth of time usually induces sickness the movement
of the twd legs of each side together producing a most nn- 639 [54] Ezek. 254 (AV ‘castle,’ but in Ezek. ‘palaces,’
pleasant swaying motion. Enormous herds, such as we read of RV ‘ encampment ’).
in the OT are still kept by the natives both of the Siidan and The military camps of a later age are referred to
of NW. Ihdia, and breeding stables exist in many parts of the elsewhere (see W AR ). Suffice it to remarkhere ( I ) that
East. Camels produce hut one young at a time and the period
of gestation is twelve months ; the young are suckled for a year the encampments of the Hebrews were probably round
or ldnqer. The average length of life seems to he considerable rather than square : this was a legacy from their nomad
-from forty to fifty years-and if well treated the camel will state (see above) ; the barricade which surrounded the
continue to work hard until well over thirty.
The power which it undoubtedly possesses of doing without camp was called ’ne. ([I S. 1 7 2 0 2 6 5 , ~AV ‘trench,’
food is to some extent dependent on the hump; when the RV ‘ place of the wagons,’ mg. ‘barricade ’ ; in 1720
animal is underfed or overworked this structure begins to <is-
appear and the condition of the hump is thus an unfailing sign bAand in 265 Aq. and Sym. or Theod. upoyydhwois,
of the state of its health. Similarly the power of doing without Tg. u $ ? ~ ~ - i . e . , x a p d ~ w p a ] - i . e . , a ‘ round ’ line of
water is due to a structural peculiarity of the two first compart- defence, cp sjy, round’).4 Also ( 2 ) that their camps
ments-the rusnen and reficubm-of the complex stomach of
the camel. Each of these chambers has its wall pitted into a have left no impress on names of places, as the Roman
series of crypts or cells which are each guarded by a special cnstru has on English place-names. MAHANEH-DAN
sphincter muscle, and in these crypts a certain amount of water
is stored-perhaps two gallons at most. The fluid can he let [q.“.] owes its name to a misunderstanding. W e do
ont from time to time to mix with the more solid food. Camels find, however, the strange archaising phrases, I the camp
ruminate, and their masticated food passes straight into the of YahwB’ (zCh. 312) and ‘ t h e camp of the Levites’
third division of the stomach. In spite of this provision for
storing water, no opportunity should he lost of watering camels, ( I Ch. 918; cp Nu. 217 P), in connection with the
as it is most inadvisable to trust to this reserve, and they are apt description of the temple services. Is. 291 has been
t? overdrink themselves if kept without water for too long a thought to describe Jerusalem as the camp-i.e., dwell-
time. The stories about travellers saving their lives by opening ing-of David (so BDB) ; but this is far from certain ;
the stomachs of camels when dying of thirst are probably
imaginary ; the camel exhausts its own supply of water, and the prophecy of YahwB‘s encampment against Jerusalem
even if a little he left it is quite undrinkable. Their flesh is is thereby obscured.
eaten at times by natives, who consider the hump a delicacy. This leads us to speak of the camp in the wilderness,
Their dung is used for fuel in the desert.
From the earliest times the hair of the camel has been woven as conceived by P (Nu.1-4). Of course, it must be
into fabrics. The hair from the hum^ and back is torn or shorn hisiorically true that there was a sacred
and \ v u v r n into>Ltxqh, harrh clotli ;‘but a finer, wttcr material 2. In the
wilderness (p). tent in which the ark or chest contain-
is also prepired h 1.n the uiider-wool. l h c milk i i co~rnnmvil ing the sacred objects of the Israelitish
by thc niiiivca, who both drink it and convert it into h,ittcr a i d
cheese. nomads was placed &hen the Israklites halted in their
Although the camel has been domesticated from a very early wanderings (see ARK, 4). This tent, glorified into the
date, and although, without its aid, vast regions of the world so-called Tabernacle (see T ABERNACLE ), forms the
would prove untraversable and consequently it has always been
the servant of man, there is considerable divergence of opinion 1 !?’I z K. 68 ‘(shall he) my camp’ is corrupt; Th. Klo.
as to the real character of the animal. Perhaps the latest
writer, Major Leonard,l may he quoted as one who has had Grztz. Benz. after Pesh. read W??!, ‘ye shall be hid.
sixteen years’ ‘practical observation and experience of camels in 2 On ‘3” in Jer. 37 16 see CELLS.
India, Afghanistan, Egypt, and the Soudan ’ ; he says, ‘ To sum 3 AVnk ‘midst of his carriages.’
4 @iL in 17 20 has Waprppobj ; 26 5 @BAL hap+? and Aq. also
1 The CanzeZ, ifs Uses and Management (‘94). Kapmj.

635 636
 CAMPHIRE CANAAN, CANAANITE
centre of the camp as described by P. T h e case is the modern Kefr KennL, a hamlet almost 34 m. NE. of
analogous to that of Ezekiel's ideal division of the Holy Nazareth,,with a fine spring, and Khirbet KBna or
Land in the future (Ezek. 48), in which his sacerdotal con- KBnat el-Gelil, on a promontory of Gebel KBna oyer the
ceptions find expression. The Tabernacle is the place plain of Bu!fauf, about 8 m. N. of Nazareth, with
of YahwB's presence. This is why it is the central ruins, tombs, cisterns, and a pool.
point, immediately round which the Levites encamp, The data of Antoninus Placentinus, ~ ~ o A . D(Ztin.
. 4), snit Kef?
forming an inner ring of protection for the ordinary Kennu, at which the medizval writers Phocas, John of Wurz-
burg, and Quaresmius lace it ; so also in modern times Guerin,
Hebrew lest by inadvertently drawing near he should De Saulcy Porter ?%stram and Conder. Eusebius and
bring down upon himself the wrath of YahwA (Nu.150-53). Jerome (OS) identi& it with ANAH in Asher (Josh. 10 28); to
The positions of the various tribes are given in Nu. 2 ; on them, therefore, it would not have been at Kefr Kenna, hut may
each side of the tabernacle, but separated from it by the Levites, have been KSnat el-Celil. The data of Theodosius (530 A.D.)
three tribes encamp-a leadipg tribe flanked by two other tribes suit Kanat el-Celil, and so in the Middle Ages do those of
with their 'ensigns' ( n i ~ ) . Thus on the E. is Judah flanked by
Issachar and Zehulun ; on the S. Reuben flanked by Simeon and
.
Saewulf, Brocardus Fetellus Marinus Sanutus and others ad-
here. Robinson, Gho was tde first modern to rkvive the claims
Gad ; on the W. Ephraim flanked by Manasseh and Benjamin ; 3f KSnat el-6eli!, describes the position, details the traditional
and on the N. Oan flanked by Asher and Naphtali. It has evidence, and points out that the name is the equivalent of the
generally been held that the four leading tribes were dis- NT one, while Kenna, with the double n, is not ( B X 3 204-8).
tinguished by the possession of large standards (\;?), whereas He has been followed by Ritter, Renan, Thomson, Stanley, and
the other tribes had only smaller ensigns (nid; but this rests Socin.
perhaps on a misinterpretation of s??,which, as the contexts T h e name KHnat el-deli1 is not above suspicion ; it
and, in part the versions show, means a company; see the may be the creation of an early ecclesiastical tradition,
discussions in3QR I I ('98) 92-101; and cp ENSIGN. just as Robinson himself points out that an attempt has
The foregoing details are to he gathered from what have been been made by the native Christians in the present
generally regarded as parts of the primary narrative of P.
Further'details as to the Levites are given in 3 14-39,which has century to transfer it to Kefr Kenna. On the other
been attributed (e.g. by We. C H 1 7 9 8 ) to secondary strata hand, Josephus resided for a time in a village of Galilee,
of P. According to 'this section the various Levitical divisions called Cana (Vit. 1 6 ) ; if this be the same as his
encamped as follows :-Moses Aaron and his sons (3 38) on the
E. the Kohathites on the S. (3 29) the Gershonites on the W. residence in the plain of Asochis (id. 41), he means
!S ;3), and the Merarites on the N. (3 35) of the tabeynacle.. . KHnat el-Gelil.
The Eastward is manifestly regarded as the superior position ; Conder (PERMein. 1 288) suggests another site for Cana in
the relative importance of the remaining three positions is less 'Ain <&nH, on the road between Reineh and Tabor.
obvious. hut it may be observed that the E. and S. sides are G. A. S .
occupied by the children-of Leah (exclusive of Levi) together
with Gad ; the W. by the children of Rachel, and the N. by the CANAAN, CANAANITE (]Pa?, ':p>?,
XANAAN,
children of the handmaids (exclusive of Gad). X A N A N ~ I O I ) . Coins from Laodicea of the time of
The priestly writers appear to have conceived of the 1. PhcenicianAntiochus IV. and his successors, bear
camp as square, and this is probably another indication the legend ]YIX nx xmu%, ' of Laodicea,
that we have to do with an ideal (not a historical) camp ; usage.l a metropolis in Canaan '-probably the
for there is some reason for believing that the actual Phbenician town whose position is indicated by the
encampments of the Hebrews approximated to the ruins of Umm-el-'AwBmid, S. of Tyre. Well known,
round rather than the square form (cp 5 I ) . Though too, is the statement (wrongly assigned to HecatEus
the other hexateuchal sources furnish few details as to of Miletus) that Phcenicia was formerly called xu6
the camp, the direct statement of Ex. 337 (E) that the (Herodian, mppl pov?jpous M$EWS, 19 ; similarly Steph.
tabernacle was ouLride is quite irreconcilable with P's Byz. Xva oiirws fi +oivIKv &aX&o). In accordance
acconnt that it formed the centre of the camp. T h e with this, Philo of Byblos ( 2 , 27) calls the eponym of
Central position of the tabernacle, the intermediate the Phoenicians ' Chna, who was later called Phoinix'
position of the Levites between the tabernacle and the (dSd+3s x v 6 TO? 7rpp6rou perovopa&vTos rpoIuiKos), and
secular tribes, and the superior position assigned among in Bekker, Anecd. iii. 1181, b xu& (gen. TO? xvti) is
the Levites to the sons of Aaron, are not matters of identified with Agetior (the father of Phoenix), ' whence
history, but the expression, in the form of an idealisation the Phoenicians also are called Ochna' (bl6'ev Kai i,
of the past, of a religious idea. + O L V i K v dxu& M y w a r ) . Here we have the shorter form
T . K . C . , § I ; G.B.G.,§2. Kna' ( y ? ;~ cp Olsh., Leh7-b. d. de,+. Spy., z r g a ) , so
CAMPHIRE (7@ ; ~ y n p o c[BKAC] ; Cant. 114 often met with in the Amarna tablets under the form
[om. B], 413)~the earlier spelling of ' camphor,' should I<inn@i, side by side with the fuller form Kinahni,
'be H ENNA (as in RV)-i.e., Lazosonia a&, Lamk., probably with the article prefixed (y?n?) as in Egyptian
a plant described by Tristram ( N H B 339f.) as still inscriptions (see below, 5 6).
growing on the shores of the Dead Sea at Engedi As a geographical term Canaan shares the indefinite-
(Cmt. 114). According to Boissier (2% Orient. 2 7 4 4 ) , ness that characterises much of the OT, and indeed of
it IS frequently cultivated in Egypt, Arabia Petrza, and 2. OT usage. all ancient, geographical nomenclature.
Persia; and it is probably indigenous to N. Africa, I n its widest sense the term seems to
Arabia, Persia, and W. India (Bentham and Hooker, have been used to denote all of what may be roughly
Gen. PZ.1782). The ' cluster ' of Cant. 114 is that of classed as Southern Syria, from the foot of Mt. Hermon
the flowers. to the lower end of the Dead Sea, including territory
Pesh. and Targ. have the same word as MT, with which both to the E. and to the W. of the Jordan clear to
rrv'lrpop also is identical : and the Syriac lexicographers state
that this means the (kwznri of the Arabs-the plant from which the Mediterranean. Such appears to be the case in the
they obtain the dye for the nails. The Greek references to Book of Joshua (113). More commonly, however, it is
~v'rrposwill be found in Liddell and Scott, S.U. restricted to the lands lying to the W. of the Jordan-
N. M.-W. T. T.-D. that is J u d z a , Phoenicia, and Philistia proper. As
CANA OF GALILEE ( K A N A THC r a h i h a i a c [Ti. Jtidza, however, became more sharply marked off from
W H ] : Pesh. @a;na)appears only in the Fourth Gospel, Phcenicia and Philistia, it is natural that to, Hebrew
as the scene of Christ's first miracle (John 2 I 11 4 4 6 ) , writers Canaan should have come to mean the latter
and of his healing of the nobleman's son lying sick at districts more particularly. So in Is. 2311 the term is
Capernaum (4 46-54), and as the home of Nathanael applied to Phcenicia and perhaps to the entire coast, and
(21 2). T h e only evidence as to its position is that it in Zeph.25 to Philistia. As an ethnic term, Canaanite
lay higher than Capernaum; Jesus went down from is similarly applied to the inhabitants of the W. Jordan
it to the latter ( 2 12). district in general, while at times-as in Nu. 1319-the
Tradition and present opinion are divided between seats of the Canaanites are more specifically limited to
1 %@E, which elsewhere means a cluster of grapes-possibly the sea-coast and the Jordan valley. Corresponding to
of dates in Cant. T 7f: [8f:]. See Budde. 1 This section is by the author of the article PIICENICIA.
637 638
 CANAAN, CANAANITE
the identification of Canaan with Phcenicia, which is also Dwland ' can well be imagined ; and this explanation
in accord with the usage of the term Kina&@ in the if Canaan, though not unanimously accepted, is at any
Amarpa Tablets (5 I O below), the term Canaanite ate provisionally tenab1e.l Certainly it seems to be an
comes to be associated with the mercantile activity of rncient one ; for when it is said that the Canaanite is
Phcenicia, and in consequence appears occasionally- he one who dwells by the sea and along the side of the
as, e.g., in Hos. 128 Is.238- in the general sense ordan (Nu. 13zg)--i.e., in the two 'lowland' districts
of merchant. According to Targ. and many moderns, if Palestine-the very artificiality of the indicated limits
it has this sense likewise in Zech. 1427 ; Wellhausen ,uggests that it was the etymology of the word which
and Nowack would add, emending in accordance with ed the writer to such a view in contradiction to so many
WA,Zech. 117 IT. )ther passages where Canaanites arc spoken of as
T h e indefiniteness and the shifting character of both xcupying mountainous districts also.
the geographical and the ethnical terms point to By the side of the term Canaan, however, there is in
3. Geographical political changes in which were in- he O T another which is used, especially . by
. the Elohist,
volved the people to whom the term 7. Amorites to cover precisely the same population-
inference. Canaanites was originally applied : in OT. namely, < the land of the Amorite.' It
indeed, the indefiniteness is the direct outcome of these is the merit of Steinthal (Z.f: VoZkr-
changes. Analogy warrants us in assuming as the $sychologie, 12 267) and of E. Meyer '( Zk T W 1 122
starting-point a more limited district, and that with the -'SI]) to have definitely demonstrated this important
extension of Canaanitish conquest or settlement the joint. See A MORITES. At the same time, it is to
term became correspondingly enlarged, though it is >e borne in mind that when the coast-land is speci-
not necessary to assume that the correspondence between Scally referred to, the term Amorite is not used, but,
actual settlement or possession and the geographical i s already pointed out, either Canaan for the whole
application of the term Canaan must have been complete. :oast or Canaan for the northern and Philistia for the
T h e predominance of Canaanites in important sections southern. Whether the Yahwist (J) is equally con-
of the W. Jordan lands would have sufficed for imposing sistent, as Meyer claims, in using ' Canaanite' for the
their .name on the whole district. pre-Israelitish population of the W. Jordan lands is
The Egyptian inscriptions come to our aid in enabling >pen to question. The theory cannot be carried through
us to determine where to seek for the origin of the term. without a certain amount of arbitrariness in the distrihu-
4. Egyptian In the accounts of their Asiatic campaigns, tion of the verses belonging to J and E respectively (see
M'Curdy's note, Hist. Pi-oph. Mon. 1406-8).
evidence. which begin about 1800 R . c . , the rulers
of the Nile restrict the name Ka-n-'-n@ Moreover, the cuneiform documents and Egyptian
to the low strip of coast that forms the eastern linii'l inscriptions furnish an explanation for the double
of the Mediterranean ; and, since it is only the northern 8. In-Egyptian. nomencla&re that places the facts in
section of this coast that affords a sufficiency of a somewhat different light. From the
suitable harbours for extensive settlements, it is more Egyptian side it is clear that the term 'Amoritic ' land
particularly to the Phcenician coast-land that the name was limited to the mountain district lying to the east of
is applied. From the Phcenician coast it natura!ly the Phcenician coast-land but extending across the
came to be extended by the Egyptians to the entire Jordan to the Orontes (WMM, As. n. EUY. 217 8).
coast down to the Egyptian frontier, the absence The southern and the eastern boundaries are not sharply
of any decided break in the continuity of the coast defined. T h e former is placed by MUller, on the basis
leading to the extension of the nomenclature, as it led of Egyptian inscriptions, at the entrance of the plain-
in later times to the shifting character of the southern the so-called Be@-between the Lebanon and the
boundary of Phcenicia proper. The name of Philistia Antilibanus, and, whilst the Orontes might seem to
for the southern part of the coast does not occur in the furnish a natural eastern boundary, it would appear
5. History Egyptian inscriptions. It was from the that the early Egyptian conquerors extended the limits
coast, therefore, that the name was ex- still farther to the east. At the time of Thotmes 111.
of Name. tended to include the high lands adjacent the Hittites had not yet made their appearance. Later,
to it ; and it is interesting to note that, whilst the geo- in the days of Rameses HI., when the Hittites form
graphical term never lost its restricted application to the the most serious menace to Egyptian supremacy in
coast strip, the ethnographical term Ka-n-'-ne-nia;- Western Asia, the Orontes becomes a more definite
Le., Canaanites-embraces for the Egyptians, ac&d- boundary of the ' Ainoritic' district, while as the
ing to Muller ( A s . u. Eur. 206 J r ) , the population Hittites encroach upon the territory of the Amorites,
of all of Western Syria, precisely as in biblical sources. the term Hittite begins to displace ' Amorite ' for the
The combination of the Egyptian with the O T notices northern mountain district of Palestine. This process
seems to justify the conclusion that the coast population 9. In early is completed about 1000 B. c. At .that
sent into the interior offshoots which made permanent Assyrian. time, however, the term ' Amoritic ' had
settlements there. In this way both Canaan and the already been extended to the southern
Canaanites acquired the wide significance that has been range of Palestine-not by the Egyptians, but by the
noted, whilst the subsequent tendency towards restricting Babylonians and Assyrians. It is in cuneiform docu-
the name to the sea-coast is an unconscious return to ments of (about) the twelfth centnry that we first
the earlier and more emct nomenclature. come across the term 'land of A-mur-ri' (as the signs
The etymology of the term Canaan bears out these must be read, instead of A-bar-ri, as was formerly
historical and geographical conclusions. In the Eevutian
-,
I
supposed). Nebuchadrezzar I . , king of Babylonia,
6. Etymology;y. inscriptions (cp also above, § I ) the whose date is fixed at ci?-ca 1127, calls himself the
word appears with the article-' 'The
I _
conqueror of the 'land of Xnior' ; and Tiglath-pileser I.
Canaan '-which points to its being a descriptive term ; of Assyria, whose reign coincides in part 'with that of
and, even though we agree with Moore ( P A O S , 1890, Nebuchadrezzar, names the great sea of the Amoritic
pp. Ixvii-lxx) that the testimony is incomplete, the land as the western boundary to his conquests.
use of the stem y12 in Hebrew in the sense of ' t o be Long ere this, however, as the use of the Babylonian
humbled ' suggests the possibility that this stem may, language in the Amarna tablets (circa 1400 B .c.) s h o w ,
in some other Semitic dialect, have been used to convey
1 [So G. A. Smith, HG 5 , whilst RDB and Buhl (PaZ. 42)
the idea of ' low,' even though that may not have been decline a decision. Moore and E. Meyer (GA 176) reject the
the original sense of the stem. If we keep in view the derivation from y ] ~ ,'humilk esse which is the property of the
prefixing of the article to the term, and its original uncritical Augustine (Enavrat. in Ps. 1047). Augustine says
application to a strip of land between the sea and the (Ex&x. E$. ad Rum.) that the peasants near Hippo, when
asked as to their origin, answered in Punic, Clranani, id est,
mountains, no more appropriate designation than ' the Cltananaeos esse.]
639 640
 CANAAN, CANAANITE
Babylonia had come into close contact with the Phce- threatened by the HITTITES (p..) . I n extending their
nician coast and the interior. -4s a matter of fact, one settlements beyond the Orontes they encroached upon
of the earliest rulers in Southern Babylonia of whom we ‘ Amoritic ’ territory. The distinct traces of this west-
have any record, Sargon I., whose date is fixed at 3800 ward movement of the Hittites are to be found in the
B. c., is declared, in a tablet presenting a curious mixture Amarna tablets already mentioned. Indeed, the move-
of ‘ omens ’ and historical tradition, to have penetrated ment forms the key to the political situation of Palestine
beyond the western sea ( L e . , the Mediterranean), and in the fifteenth century B . C . T h e Assyrian conquerors
there are indications that he actually set foot on the accordingly, when proceeding to the West, invariably
island of Cyprus (see Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, began their campaigns by a passage of arms with the
83). Sargon speaks only in a general way of having Hittites. This, talcen together with the waning strength
proceeded to the ‘west’ l a n d ; but the ideographic of the ‘Amorites,’ led to another change in the geo-
designation in the text in question-MARTu-is the graphical nomenclature-the extension of the term
same as that which the later Assyrian rulers employ for Hatti or Hittite to Northern Palestine as far as the
the territory which includes Canaan in the proper sense. Mediterranean, so as to include, therefore, Phmnicia
The same compound ideogram is the ordinary term for proper. For Southern Palestine the older designation
‘ west’ in the legal literature of Babylonia ; and the ‘Amurru’ held its own, and the differentiation thus
suggestion that it is also to be read Amurru-MAR resulting between ‘ Hatti ’ and ‘ Amurru ’ assumed a
being a playful acrologism of Amur and TU, indicat- practical significance which was quite independent of
ing perhaps direction-is plausible. I n any case there the original application of the two terms.
appears to be some close connection between M AR TU It will have become evident from this sketch of the
and the name Amurru.” The text in which Sargon’s early fortunes of Palestine that care must be exercised
western conquests are spoken of is probably of a very in drawing conclusions from geographical
much later date than Sargon himself; but the value of 13. Ethno- nomenclature. The Hittite power does
graphical
the tradition, and at all events of the geographical distinctions. not extend to the sea-coast because of the
nomenclature, is unimpaired by this fact. The Amarna extension of the geographical term, and
In Amarna tablets, which constitute the remains of so the ethnographical application of Amoritic cannot be
tablets. Egyptian archives of the fifteenth determined from the geographical usage.
centurv B. c.. confirm the Preat antiauitv That Amur ’ originally designated a particular tribe,
of the term Amui~u.‘ I n ‘the letters ;b their rLyi1 or possibly a group of tribes, settled chiefly in the Anti-
master written by officers under Egyptiaa suzerainty, 14. Amorites. libanus district, is one of the few
the term is of not infrequent occurrence, and an ex- facts to be deduced from the early
amination of the passages proves that it is applied, just Egyptian monuments. These Amorites of Northern
like the corresponding term in the Egyptian inscrip- Palestine are frequently represented by the Egyptians
tions. to the mountainous district lying immediately to as a blond people with a cast of countenance that marks
the east of the coast-land of ‘ Canaan ’ in the Egyptian them off from what are generally considered to be
sense-Le., of Northern Palestine. T h e eastern limits Semitic traits (see Petrie, RaciaZ TypesJroom the Egyptian
are again not sharply defined. I n the period to urhich Monuments). I t would be hazardous, in the face of
the Amarna tablets belong, the Hittites are beginning our imperfect knowledge, to enter upon further specula-
to extend their settlements beyond the Orontes ; but tions as to their origin. There are good
~ - reasons for
between ‘ Hatti ’ and ‘ Amor ’ land there was a district 15. Hetero- believing that already at a very early
known as NnhaEi, which reached to Damascus. This period the population of Palestine pre-
may, ronghly, be regarded as the eastern frontier geneous sented a mixture of races, and that
population.
of the ‘ Amnrru’ district. T h e agreement between through intermarriage the dividing lines
the Egyptian and the Amarna nomenclature extends to between these races Gecame fainterin the course 07 time,
the term ’ Canaan,’ which, under the form Kinabbi, is until all sharp distinctions were obliterated. Hence the
limited in the Amarna tablets to the northern lowland ’ promiscuous grouping-so characteristic in the Hexa-
or sea-coast. It was quite natural that, from being teuch-of Amorites with Perizzites, Hivites, Hittites,
applied to the interior district of Northern Palestine, the etc., of northern and southern Palestinians, without any
term ‘ Amurru’ should come to he employed for the regard to ethnic distinctions. T h e problem of differentia-
interior of Southern Palestineas well,just as the Egyptians ting between these various groups whom the Hebrews
extended the application of ‘ Canaan ’ to the entire encountered upon settling in Palestine is at present
Palestinian coast. When the Assyrian conquerors in incapable of solution. Future discoveries will prob-
ll. In later the ninth century begin to threaten the ably emphasise still more strongly the heterogeneous
Assyrian. !ebrew kingdoms, they include the character of the tribes. Their unorganised condition
ominion of the latter under the land of 16. Their .made them a comparatively easy prey
‘ Amurru. ’ The term ‘ land of Israel ’ occurs only once absorption. to conquerors and yet difficult to ex-
in Assyrian inscriptions, and even this passage is terminate. The early Babylonian and
not beyond dispute. Again, since the ‘Amurru’ Egyptian conquerors were content with a general
district in the proper sense was the first territory that recognition of their supremacy on the part of the
the earliest Babylonian and Assyrian conquerors set inhabitants. Native Palestinians were retained in con-
foot in after crossing’ the Orontes, it also happens that trol, and all that was demanded was a payment of
the term becomes for them the most general designation tribute from time to time. When, however, the
for the ‘West.’ On the other hand, it must be noted Hebrews permanently settled in Southern Palestine.
that this development in the use of ‘ Amurru ’ is directly about 1200 B.c., the early inhabitants lost much of their
dne to Babylonian influence, and forms part of the political prestige. In the course of time, also, many of
heritage. bequeathed to later times by the period of early the groups were reduced to a state of subjection, varying
Babylonian control over the land lying to the west of in degree, but in all cases, except in the case of the
the Orontes. inhabitants of the coast, sufficiently complete to prevent
At the comparatively late period when Assyria, any renewal of former conditions. With the successful
12. Land of usurping the place formerly held by Baby- establishment of the b’ne Zsuael in the lands to the west
Hittites, lonia, begins her conquests, the ‘ Amoritic’ of the Jordan, the history of the pre-Israelitish inhabit-
Dower in Xorthern Palestine was serionslv ants comes to an end in Southern Palestine, except so
1 For a discussion of the subject and a somewhat different far as the influence of these Canaanitish groups upon
view see Schrader ‘Das land Amurru,’ SBA W Dec. 20 1894. the religious life of the Israelites is involved. T h e
Cp dlso Wi. GZ 1eq5), 51-54. An analogy for thus i n d i h n p Hittites in the north, of course, survive ; but the other
‘westward’ by a refirerice to a land lyini to the west is to be
found in the OT designation ofNege6 for south.‘ groups, including the Amorites, gradually disappear,
642
 CANALS CANDLESTICK
either sinking into a position of utter insignificance or CANDACE (KANAAKH [Ti. WH]), queen of the
amalgamating with the Hebrew tribes(see G OVERNMENT , Ethiopians (AiOihrwu), is incidentally mentioned in Acts
§ 15 f: ; I SRAEL , 8). The frequent injunctions in the 8 27. For the kingdom of Ethiopia which continued to
Hexateuch warning the people against intermarriage maintain its independence against the Roman emperors,
with these conquered gronps are clear indications that see ETHIOPIA. Its queen was often called Candace ;
such intermarriages must have been common. this seems, indeed, to have been regarded as an official
A new element in the ethnographical environment of title, somewhat like ‘ Pharaoh’ (or rather ‘ Ptolemy’?)
Palestine that appears simultaneously with, or shortly in Egypt. The name occurs in hieroglyphics on a
17. Philistines. before, the invasion of the Hebrews is ruined pyramid near ancient Meroe : see Lepsins, Den&
represented by the Philistines, who, mder, v. pl. 47 (pyram. 20 of Begerauieh). There, a
coming (it would appear) from some island or coast-land queen is called Amen-’myt and Z<(e)nt(e)ky.l It is
to the west of Palestine, succeeded as a sturdy seafaring difficult to say which of the two or three queens called
nation in making settlements along the inhospitable Candace was buried in that tomb.
southern coast of Palestine. Their non-Semific character I. Strabo (820 ; see also Dio Cass. 53 29 ; 54 5) speaks of the
has been quite definitely ascertained; but, once in one-eyed virago Candace (T$S p a v ~ h i r q s. . I<av66~qs,i j KUB’
$pis $p& r & v A16~6rov,lv8p~rijr L s yuvil mrqpopBvq ~ b &qmv
u
Palestine, they appear to have exchanged their own T&U b+@ahp@v)who in 22 B.C. attacked Egypt, overpowered the
language for one of the Semitic dialects spoken in the three cohorts of Roman soldiers stationed at the first cataract
land to which they came. It is rather curious that aqd devastated the Thebaid, but wa5 easily defeated by the
these Philistines, who generally lived in hostile relations legate Petronius, and pursued to her northern capital, Napata
which was destroyed. 2 . Pliny (6 35) seems to refer the reign ok
with the Hebrews, and at various times threatened Candace (‘regnare fceminam Candacem’) to the time when
the existence of the Hebrew settlements, were eventu- Nero’s explorers passed through Nubia; his assertion that the
ally the people to give their name to a district name had become somewhat common among the queens of
Merot (‘quod nomen mulris jam annis ad reginas transiit’) is
which they never possessed in its entirety. In usually pushed much too far against the monumental evidence.
the latest Assyrian inscriptions, however, PiZaFtu still T h e Ethiopian officer of Acts 8 cannot well have had
appears in its restricted application to the southern any connection with the Candace of Strabo; but his
coast-land, and it is not until the days of the Roman mistress may not improbably have been the contemporary
conquest that the equation ‘ Palestine = Philistiaf of Nero.
Canaan ’ becomes established. Nero’s explorers reported the southern capital as in ruins, in
On the basis of the Egyptian and the Assyrian inscrip- consequence of internal wars between the Ethiopians ; most
tions and of the OT, the history of Canaan may be likely, the royal residence had already been shifted S . to Wady-
es-Sofraand Soba, where ruined palaces and temples of the latest
18. Historical divided into three periods : ( R ) the style have been found, hut the kingdom appears still to have
pre-Israelitish period, from about 3800 taken its name from the capital Meroe where the kings were, at
periods. B.C. to the definite constitution of the least, buried.
Israelitish confederacy ; (6) the Israelitish supremacy For the condition of the Meroitic kingdom at that
from circa 1100B.C. to ci?za 740 ; (c) decline of this time and the part played by the queens (or rather kings’
supremacy, ending with the absorption of Canaan by mothers), see ETHIOPIA. W. M. M.
Assyria and Babylonia 587 B.C. After the return of
the Hebrews from the so-called Babylonian exile, the
CANDLE (12; AYXNOC), Job 1 8 6 Mt. 515 etc. ; cp
history of the north and south becomes involved in the below, and see LAMP.
various attempts to found a universal empire, under- CANDLESTICK, the EV rendering of ( I ) m%trih
taken in succession by Persia, Macedonia, and Rome. Yl?l>P Ex. 25 31 etc. ( A Y x N ~ A ) ,the well-known candela-
The characteristic note in the history of Canaan brum of the temple, and ( 2 ) Aram. ne&d?Z ,HF@TqJ
down to the period of Persian supremacy is the impossi- (deriv. uncert.), Dan. 5 5 (AAMITAC [Theod.], @wc
19. Disunion. bility of any permanent political union
among the inhabitants. Even the
[e]), to the former of which the present article will con-
fine itself, leaving to the articles L AMP and TEMPLE
Hebrews, united by a common tradition and by religion, further remarks upon the use of lights in temples or
yield to the inevitable tendency towards political division shrines, and of lights (and ‘candlesticks’ or rather
instead of union. This tendency stands in closerelation- ‘ lampstands ’) for secular purposes.
ship to the geographical conditions (see G. A. Sin. There is no critical evidence to support the supposition
Hist. Geogr.). T h e land is split up into coast-land, that the temple candelabrum described by P in Ex. 25 3 1 8
highland, and valleys; in consequence of which, it 37 17 8 existed before the Exile. On
presents climatic extremes sufficient to bring about Not pre- the contrary, an old passage I S. 3 3
equally sharp contrasts in social conditions. The (written, perhaps, at the beginning of
resulting heterogeneous disposition of the population the seventh century B.c. [Bu., SBOT; cp S AMUEL , i.
appears to have rendered united action (except in extreme 0 3 ( R ) ] ) speaks only of a ‘ l a m p ’ (-I?) which seems to
necessity) impossible even among those sections most
have burnt from night-fall until the approach of dawn.
closely united by blood and traditions. [For further
Solomon, it is true, is said to have had ten golden
details regarding these three periods of Canaanitish
history see the articles ISRAEL, 5 6, HITTITES, PHUI-
m%tr~thin his temple, five on either side (IK. 7 4 9 8 ) ;
but they are not mentioned in z K. 25 13-17(in the I( Jer.
NICIA, PHILISTINES, etC.1. M. J., JR.
5 z I 9 their introduction is due to a glossator), nor do we
CANALS (D’lki), Ex. 7 1 9 Nah. 3 8 RVmg. See find any trace of them in the temple described by Ezekiel
EGYPT, 6. The Hebrew word denotes the R Y ~ So r (Ezek. 4 0 j . ), or in. the restoration of temple-treasures
GU~ZUZS of the Nile (ikv). On artificial water-courses in by Cyrus (Ezra 16 f . ) . 3 These facts, as well as internal
evidence, support Stade’s conclusion that the passage in
Palestine see CONDUITS.
I K. is an interpolation ( Z A T W 3 1 6 8 8 p83], GVI
CANANIEAN ( 0 KANANAIOC [Ti. WH], c a n a n m u 1 2 3 ;~ cp Now. H A 2 40 n. 2 , and Benz. ad Zoc. ). T h e
[Vg.], bAArf, [Pesh.]), the designation applied to Simon
the apostle (Mt. l o 4 Mk. 318 RV ; mg. ’ Zealot ’). T h e
word does not mean an inhabitant of Canaan (so AV
C ANAANITE , based upon T R ~ a v a u r r q s )which
, in Gr. the disfiqured fifth sign.
is usually expressed by Xauavaios (x=n) ; nor has it 2 Apart from the instruments used in tending this candlestic!
and the lamm themselves. mention is made only of the ‘ flowers
anything to do with Cana. It is a transliteration of
(n??, Qs in Ki. AapmacY~Ira[in Zech. 42= is, ‘ bowl ’I, in 2 Ch. 4 21
N ; I ~ , the pl. of p p (cp Bib. Heb. .we), which in
hapQfs[i.e., DjFi$?, ‘tongs’]).
Lk. 6 15 Acts 113 is represented by the Gr. equivalent 3 Unmentioned also in 2 Macc. 2 5 and the Apoc. of Baruch
{ ~ A w T ~Z~ EALOT
s, (4.2~). 67 8
643 641
 CANDLESTICK CANDLESTICK
ten candlesticks of the temple of Solomon have probably banel, Rashi, etc., on Ex. Lc.) maintained that the candelabrum
been evolved from the imagination of a later scribe, who stood three ells in height and measured twoells between the outer
lights ; and that it stood upon a tripod (Maimonides ’ cp Crenius
seems to have adopted the number ten to agree with the Opusc. fasc. vi. z z J ) . The seven lamps were provided with pur;
ten ‘ bases’ (niijp) ; cp I I<. 7 39. Obviously it is no olive oil (Ex. 27 zof.), and for the general service were supplied
real objection to our view of the critical value of I K. ‘ tongs’(D:n’&), ‘snuff dishes ’ (nhnP), and various ‘oil vessels ’
7 49 that the Chronicler mentions candlesticks of gold (]e@ ’k,).l The lamps were to be tended daily (Ex. 30 7 5 ) ; but
and silver among David‘s gifts to Solomon in I Ch. 28 15. tradition varied as to how many were kept lit at one time.2 The
That this verse in its present form has suffered ampli- light was never allowed to be extinguished, and tradition relates
that the ap2roaching fall of the temple was prognosticated by the
fication appears from a comparison with 6. sudden occnrence of this mishap (Talm. Yoma, 396)‘ cp the
Tradition held that these ten candlesticks Uos. augments the lament in 4 Esd. 1022 (written after the fall of Jerusalem),
number to IO,OOO ! [Ant.viii. 3 71) either were already present lumen candeebdn’nostri extinctunz est.
along with the Mosaic candelabrum, or were exact copies of it It was forbidden to reproduce the candlesticks exactly (cp
(cp z Ch. 47, O@Q?). Naturally Solomon’s great wealth was Onias and the temple of Leontopolis, Bf vii. 10 3) ; but this law
considered a sufficient explanation of the otherwise curious fact could be evaded by making them with five, six, or even eight arms
that, whereas he employed ten candlesticks, the Mosaic taber- (A6. Zara, 43a).3
nacle and the second temple were content with one. Barnmidbar T h e holy candelabrum is referred to comparatively
Rad6u, 15, adds that the candlestick was one of the five things seldom in subsequent writing^.^ It forms the motive in
taken away and preserved at the destruction of Solomon’stemple.
Zechariah’s vision (Zech. 4, cp Rev. 114).
The candlestick of gold, called also the pure candle- 3. In B. c. 170 Antiochus Epiphanes carried it
stick’ (Lev. 24 11. is described a t leneth bv P in Ex.
~ .,I 0 ,
off along with the golden altar etc. ( I Macc. 121, 3
2. 2 5 3 1 3 ( = 37 1 7 8 ) . I t was placed out- X u ~ u t a TOG $ 6 ~ 7 6 ~[AN], om. V ) ; but a fresh one
side the veil, in front of the table of (tradition relates that it was of inferior material) was
shewbread (see the Vg. addition to Nu. 82). T h e reconstructed by Judas after the purification of the
mantnih comprised the 271(AV shaft),’ ?a,: (branch, temple (164B. c., I Macc. 4 4 9 ) . Jesus the son of Sirach
KUXU~~UKOS). e’?; (AV bowl, RV cup, ~ p a ~ i j pscyphs), , employs the Xljxuos d ~ h d p ~ w e rvl Xuxvlas dylas as a
?in?? (knop, u+acpw.r?jp ; Targ. Pesh. ‘ apple ’),z and simile for beauty in ripe old age (Ecclus. 2617). The
n?? (flowers, K ~ ~ U O [similarly
U Targ. Pesh. Vg. ‘ lily ‘ I ) , same is doubtless the huxvla iepd seen by Pompey (Ant.
xiv. 4 4 ) , which, with its seven hdxuot, was one of the
perhaps collectively ‘ ornamentation. ’ The workman-
three famous objects in the temple of Herod (BJv.55).
ship was @??, ‘beaten-work’ or repousse (so @
Its fate at the’fall of Jerusalem is well known. T h e
~ o p e u ~ ;6but s Nu. 8 4 Ex. 37 14[17] ; Jos., on the
s u ~ e p e 6 in holy candelabrum, or, more probably, a copy of it, was
other hand, has K E X ~ V E U ~ ~ U O‘cast S , ’). From a n upright carried in the triumph of Titus (BJ vii. 5 5), and was
shaft three arms projected on either side. Each branch depicted upon the famous arch which bears his name.
comprised three cups described as nqp+, . . ‘ shaped like
T i Vespasian deposited it in the temple of Peace, and after
[or ornamented with] almonds’ (.!KT€7UTdJpEVOl K U ~ U ~ U K O U S various vicissitudes (see Smith, ’DBP),s.v. ) it was placed
-see A LM O N D ), together with kafic?~aandp&ah. Under in the Christian church a t Jerusalem (533A.D.). All
each pair of branches was a Balt(ir (Ex. 2535), and trace of it has since been lost. Possibly it was destroyed
four sets of Baff5>*and $&ah were to be found ‘ in the or carried off by Chosroes 11. of Persia, when, in 614,he
candlestick’ (np33, i.e., on the shaft, v. 34). These took and pillaged Jerusalem (see Levesque in Vigouroux,
four may have included the three of v. 35, in which DB, S.V. ).
case the fourth was between the base and the lowest Curiously enough, Josephus, in his account of the
pair, or near the summit. Possibly, however, the triumph of Titus, states that the workmanship (i!p’pyov) of
four sets came between the topmost pair of branches the candlestick was not the same as that which had been
and the summit (cp the illustration in RelandDe S$oZiis in the temple.5 As was the case with other objects in
Templi, facing p. 35). The centre shaft in Zechariah’s the triumph, it was probably constructed from the de-
vision was surmounted by a bowl ( 4 2 \e hapr66iov). scriptions of the captives ; besides, such conventional
From Jos. (Ant. iii. 6 7 ) we learn that the candelabrum was cLncllesticks were not unknown at that time.6 T h e
hollow, and comprised m+pia, ~ p i v a with I ; o t u ~ o and
~ griffin-like figures depicted upon the base of the
K p a q p i s i a , seventy ornaments in all.3 It ended in seven
heads ‘ xa~6.AA+ai,’ and was situated obliquely (Ao&s) before candelabrum may be possibly ascribed to the artist ; so
the table of shewbread and thus looked E. and S. a’sversion of far as can be judged, they do not resemble the mythical
Ex. 37 1 7 3 (differingkidely from the present MT) supplies the symbols from Palestine or Assyria. Consequently, in
interesting statement that from the branches ( K ~ A L Z ~ ~ U Kthere OL) endeavouring to gain an idea of the original seven-
proceeded three sprouts (phamoi) on either side ‘Z.$~uov’pwo~
bhA+brp. Rabbinical tradition (cp Talm. Memch. 286, Abar- branched candlestick, one must not adhere too strictly
to the representation upon the Arch of Titus.
1 7>1 (Ex. 25 31 37 17 Nu. 8 4) is difficult. RV renders ‘base ’ ; The language employed to describe the sacred
m%&Zh shows that it must have closely resembled a
so Pesh. (-2 [i.e., j3du~s],h a ) ; but AV finds siipport in @
tree.? Seven-branched trees are frequently met with in
Vg. ( ~ a v M sAastile,
, stipes,and in Ex. 37 17zouectis [used also of sculptures, etc., from the E,8 and, as Robertson Smith
the wii ‘staves’ for carrying the ark]). 71, when used of observes, ‘ in most of the Assyrian examples it is not easy
inanimate objects denotes the ‘flank’ (cp Ex. 40 22 24 Lev. 115 to draw the line between the candelabrum and the sacred
Nu. 3 zg 35 z I<. 16 14). The specific mention of the ‘base
of the candlestick accordingly seems uncertain, unless perhaps tree crowned with a star or crescent moon ’ ( K S P ) 488).
we should read lb, ‘stand,’ ‘base’(cp Ch. G ~ 3 )instead
, of 77’. Siiice it is only natural to look for traces of Assyrian or
On the other hand, the candlestick may have had originally no 1 ,Zech.4 12 mentions also ililP!?i, ‘pipes,’ for conveying the
base (cp above, B 4). oil ( p w $ w ~ l j p ~ s ) .
2 Perhaps apear-shaped ornament :cp Syr. j 3 b and see 2 Cp Ex. 27 .of: 2 Ch. 13 11 and Jos. Ant. iii. 8 3. Rabbinical
BDB, S.V. tradition held that onlv one was lit bv dav. This. it has been
3 It is difficult to see how he obtains this number. Six
su gested, was the lamp upon the cent;al &aft (callid qyyyn 73).
branches each with 3 sets of gdin‘, hafttdr, andpera/z (32 f.), f Thus, cg., in the Feast of Tabernacles (see Succah 5 2).
4 The evidence for the existence of more than one ’in post-
including the shaft with 4 similar sets (u. 34) and the 3
haftta6m (u. 35), amount to 69 (54+12+3). Perhaps to this exilic times rests only upon Jos. BJvi. 83. With Ant. xi?. 5 4
(1 Macc. 121) contrast ib. “ 1.
we must add the figure at the summit of the central shaft
(possibly ornamented in a different manner). The artist in a 5 BJ vii.55 [ed. Niesel. The passage is not free from
Hebrew MS of the first half of the thirteenth century (Brit. obscurity. Noteworthy is the remark that slender arms
Mus., Harley, 5710, fol. 136a), following a different interpreta- ( K ~ W A ~ T K O Lresembling
) the form of a trident were drawn forth.
tion of Ex. 25 33, assigns only one perah and Kaftdr to each (See S 4.)
branch, including the shaft. Each of the seven branches has 6 Cp their use as symbols in Rev. I I Z J 2 18
45.
7 Cp similarly the candelabrum in the temple of the Palatine
3 gebi im,and at the extremity a lamp (l?). Below the Kafltay Apollo (Pliny, 348).
joining the lowest pair of branches the artist has drawn 8 A seven-branched palm upon a coin of the Maccabees ;see
(reckoning downwards) aperu6, a Kufltdr, 2nd age&‘. Madden, Coins oft/reJews, 7 7 , n. 7.
645 646
 CANDLESTICK CANON
Babylonian influence in the second temple, it is not CANE, SWEET (naz),Is. 4324 Jer. 620. See REED,
improbable that the men5rdz was originally a represent- 1 ($1.
ation of the sacred seven-branched tree itself, possibly
indeed the tree of life.' The six arms, instead of CANKERWORM (ph.;
~ p o y x o cor AKplc). ps.
coming up and forming a straight line with the top of 10634 Jer. 511427 Joel14 [twice], 225 Nah. 31516t; in
the central shaft, probably tapered off, the extremities Ps. and Jer. AV has C ATERPILLER . T h e HebrewyeZe&
of each pair being lower than those of the pair above is usually regarded as denoting a young stage in the
it, thus presenting more accurately the outline of a tree. history of the locust; but this seems doubtful. See
Examples of candelabra with the arms thus arranged L OCUST, J 2, u. 6.
are not unknown.2 CANNER (YIJ?), Ezek. 2723,MT, usually taken for the
It is not impossible that the Ethrog and L u h b name of a place in Mesopotamia with which Tyre had
( ' citron' and ' palm-branch' ; cp A PPLE, J 2 131) of commercial dealings, and identified with Calneh (see
the Feast of Tabernacles (wherein candlesticks played Schr. in Riehm's LYWB(~), 1256). Cornill even reads
so iniportant a part) are to be connected also with this ' Calneh ' (nl53), appealing to a single Heb. MS which
sacred seven-branched tree, from which, it has been sug- reads thus, and to variants of @-viz., xaXXau [ne],
gested, the men6rcihhas been evolved. The specific tree X U X K U ~[VI. But the name is really non-existent ;the
represented was one which, for various reasons, was con- words rendered ' and Canneh and Eden ' should rather
sidered the most unique and valuable. The choice may be ' and the sons of Eden.'
have depended more strictly upon the belief that it was Everywhere else we read either of Beth-Eden or of B'ne Eden ;
supposed to represent the tree of temptation in the it is not probable that there is an exception here. The
Paradise myth (so at all events in Christian times ; cp X a v w LBI, or Xavaav [AQl of @, is not zin, hut y n or lyi3,
Didron, ManueZ d'lconograbhie chrdtienne, So). where y or iy,is a relic of py, and 13 a corruption of '33. Most
See Reland, De SfioZiis TTnq5%; H. Opitz, Dispishio
candebhvi . .. siructurn (1708)' Reinach L'Arc de Titus
... de MSS of @ give only two names and the second name is .not
Canneh (as Smith's DBP)),hut a lorruption of B'ne Eden. The
(Paris, 1890) : and Vigouroux, DB: S.V. ' Chdndelier,' with the discovery (for such it seems to be) is due to Mez (Cesch. der
literature there quoted. S. A. C. Stadt Haw& 1892, p. 34). T. K. C.

C A ON
INTRODUCTION : T H E IDEA OF A CANON (5s 1-4).
A. OLD TESTAMENT.
i. C ONTENTS OF OT CANON ($5 5-14). Elias Levitaand 'The Great Synagogue Date ($5 39-42)
Extent and classification (8 5). ($8 18-21). Third canon : Hagiographa ($0 43-59).
Order of books ($$ 7-9). Scientific method ($3 22). Principle observed ($8 43-47).
In Septuagint (5 1 .3) iii. HISTVRV O F CANON ($0 23-59). Date (BS 48-55).
In Josephns, Jerome ($$ 12-14). First canon: the Law ($$ 13-27). RJsuuz~($ 56).
ii. CLOSING OF C A N O N ($5 15-22). Second canon: the Prophets ($0 28-42). Non-Palestinian views (5 5 7 3 )
Early tradition ($115-17). Why,+ canonised with Law ($5 28-35). O T canon in Christian Church(I59).
Traditions, etc. ($5 36-38).
B. NEW TESTAMENT.
Gradual growth ($$6o-64). Versions (8 70). Books temporarily received (0 73).
Evidence of orthodox writers ($5 65-68). General traces of N T (0 71). Result (174).
Evidence of unorthodox writers (5 69). Muratorian canon (0 72).
Bibliography : OT and NT (8 7 5 3 ) .
The word canon is Greek; its application to the T + ~ SMilBelas, K . T ? ~ ST ~ U T ~ E W S
and
) measured by it (cp
Bible belongs to Christian times ; the idea originates in Kauouiuai in Ptolemy's Letter to Flora, circa zoo A . D . ,
1. Greek Judaism. in Holtzmann, p. .IS$), or perhaps underlying it ; or
The Greek (6) K U U ~ U(allied to K ~ U U U , (c) the books taken up into the authoritative catalogue
terms' K ~ U W , ' a reed' ; borrowed from the or into the normal number? The subject is discussed
Semitic ; Heb. ?I$ means a straight rod or pole, a rod with full references to the literature in Holtzmann, pp.
used for measuring, a carpenter's rule; and, by met- 142 8 It is not improbable that the word passed
onymy, a rule, norm, or law ; a still later meaning is through various phases of meaning in course of
that of catalogue or list. time.
As applied to the books of Scripture K U U ~ Uis first met T h e idea involved is clearly fixed ; Oc6rrreuumc ypa$al
with in the second half of the fourth century : thus, pipila (Amphilochius, ob. 395), mowuObTa Be% &ai piphla
U )can. 59 of the
K U V O U L K ~(as opposed to ~ K C L P ~ V L U Tin (Athanasius, ut sup. ) are expressions concurrently used
Council of Laodicea (circa 360 A.D. ), and p. KauoviSCi)- to convey the same meaning. It was, as we saw above,
peva in Athanasius (ep. fest. 39 ; 365 A . D . ) ; K U V ~ Ufor the a loan from Judaism, and within the Christian domain
whole collection is still later. The original originally applied only to the sacred books of the
2. Early signification is still a question. Did the synagogue-the OT. So already in the N T itself ( 2
usage' term mean ( a ) the books constituted into Tim. 3 16). The doctrine of the synagogue was that all
a standard ; or ( 6 ) the books corresponding to the the writings included in its canon had their origin in
standard (i.e. of the faith ; cp KUU& 8~Kh?)uLauTLK6s,K. divine inspiration, and that it was God who spoke in
them (Weber, J 20 I). This canon, with the doctrine
1 Perhaps originally a symbol of the universe-the tree of life attached to it, passed over to the Christian church and
being viewed as distinct in its origin from the sacred mountain of
Eldhim with which in a later myth it was combined. (Cp ~ A C H I N became its sole sacred book,l until new writings of
and BOAZ.) I t is noteworthy that a seven-branched palm is Christian origin came to be added, and the Jewish
represented by the side of an altar on an old Greek vase canon, as the Old Testament, was distinguished from
(Ohnefalsch-Richter, Ky&?s, pl. 155, fig.3). the New.
2 Cp PEF Twmty-one Years' Work in U e No@ Land, 154,
the representation upon an amethyst reproduced in Reland, De The composite expression ' canonical books ' has an
s$oZ., facing p. 35, also ib. facing p. 42. The older form may in analogue in the usage of the synagogue. From the first
time have tended to approach the conventional form represented century A . D . such books are designated
upon the arch of Titus, which agrees with later Jewish tradition.
This form, resembling a trident in its outline, is especiallynoted 3. €Iebrew D:?T~ nF p p p p ( ' that defile the hands ' :
by ?os. as 3 novelty (By vii. 5 5). For illustrations of the latter terms.
Yadayim 3 2 4 53 45 6 ; cp Eduyoth 5 3, and
variety see Martigny, Dict. Ant. C h d i . ('77) 7 7 3 ; the plates in
Calmet's Dictionary ; and one at Tabariyeh (Perrot-Chipiez, Art 1 But see also below, $5 57-59. 2 See below, 8 40.
in Jud. 1 250). 3 See below, 0 53.

647 648
 CANON CANON
Weber, 21 I ). Of this surprising expression still more &D-printed in modern impressions in the order of the
surprising explanations have been offered. Feasts at which they are read in the synagogue : Canticles
Thus (a)Buhl still prefers that drawn from Yuduyim, 4 5 6 , :Passover), Ruth (Pentecost), Lamentations (9th Ab,
according to which the designation was intended to prevent pro- Destruction of Jerusalem), Ecclesiastes (Tabernacles),
fane uses of worn-out synagogue rolls. (6) Weber, Strack, C .
H. H. Wright and Wildeboer adopt that suggested hySha66aU Esther (Purim). Only once (in the Baraythal Bemchoth,
736, 14a. According to this the object was to secure that, a6 576) do we find the three larger poetical books-Psalms,
unclean, the sacred writings should always be kept apart, and Proverbs, and Job-grouped together as n.5riJ n33in3,
thus kept from harm such as might arise, e.g., if they were kept
near consecrated corn, and so exposed to attack from mice. (c) and the three smaller-Cali ricles, Ecclesiastes, Lamenta-
A. Geiger (Hintedassene Schnjzen, 4 1 4 ) actually maintains that tions-as p m p o'zinj. Fhally, Daniel, Ezra, Chronicles
only such rolls as had been written on the skins of unclean beasts close the list.
were intended to he declared unclean. Compass and threefold division of the canon are
All such explanations are disposed of by Yadayim already taken as fully settled in a very old and authori-
34, where there is a special discussion of the question tati;e passage in the tradition of the
whether the unwritten margins and outer coverings of 7.
synagogue, viz. the B u r y t h n Bada
sacred rolls defile the hands. Under none of the above order. Bathra, 146 1 5 a ; but as to the order
explanations could any such question as this possibly of the books within their'seviral divisions the same
arise. The fact that defilement only of the hands is
*. Sanctity. attributed to the sacred writings demands
moreattention than it has hitherto received.
passage gives a decision for the first time. The ex-
planation of this is that in the oldest times the sacred
writings were not copied. into continuous codices. Each
Interpreted in positive terms this can mean only that book had a separate roll to itself.2 Accordingly, in the
contact with them involves a ceremonial washing of the precedin'g Baraytha (Bnba Bathm, 136), we find the
hands, especially as the ruling in the matter occurs in question started whether it be permissible to write the
that Mishna treatise which relates to, and is named from, entire Holy Scriptures, or even the eight prophets, on a
-such hand-washings. The expression would be an single roll. On the strength of some precedent or other
unnatural one if it implied a command that the hands the question is answered in the affirmative; and this
should be washed 6voore touching (so Fiirst, p. 83). As leads up to the further question as to the order in which
-enjoining washing a'ter contact it is quite intelligible. the single books in the second and the third divisions
The Pharisees (under protest from the Sadducees ; cp ought to be written. This plainly shows that there was
Yad. 46) attributed to the sacred writings a sanctity of as yet on the subject no fixed tradition, and therefore too
such a sort that whosoever touched them was not allowed great importance ought not to be attached either to the
to touch aught else, until he had undergone the same Mishnic determination of the question or to the departure
ritual ablution as if he had touched something unc1ean.l from Mishnic usage which we meet with.3 Both, how-
The same precept, according to the stricter view, applied ever, are worthy of attention.
to the prayer ribbands on the t e p h i l l h ( Yad. 3 3 ; see T h e order of the prophets proper, according to our
FRONTLETS, end). T o this defilement of the hands passage, ought to be : Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the
the correlative idea is that of holiness ; both qualities
are attributed together, but only to a very limited number *. Prophets. have
The position of Isaiah seems to ,
twelve.struck even the teachers of the
of writings, namely the canonical (cp Yud. 35). See Gemara as remarkable, and is explained by them in a
also C LEAN, § 3. fanciful way. The Massora gives Isaiah the first place,
A . OLD TESTAMENT. and in this it is followed by the MSS of Spanish origin
I. EXTENT AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE O T CANON.
(as by the printed texts), while the German and French
-The extent of the OT canon, so fax as the synagogue MSS adhere to the Talmudic order. Just because of
6. No.of is concerned, is exactly what we find in our its departure from strict chronology, we are justified in
,books.' Hebrew printed texts and in the Protestant assuming that the Talmudic order rests on old and
translations. The original reckoning of the good tradition. W e may safely venture, therefore, to
synagogue, however, does not regard the books as thirty- make use of it in the attempt to answer the question of
nine. The twelve minor prophets count as one book the origin not only of the individual books but also of
called ' the twelve,' i v y w;w (so already in Baba Bathra, the canon.
146, 15a text), Dodekapropheton; so also Samuel, Kings, For the first books of the Hagiographa, the order
and Chronicles; whilst Ezra and Nehemiah form one given in our printed texts-Psalms, Proverbs, Job-
+
book of Ezra. Thus I I 3 + I = 15 have to be deducted which is that of the German and French
Hagio- MSS, gives place in our passage to this
from our 39, leaving only 24.3 See § 1 1 3
T h e twenty-four canonical books fall into three main order: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs. Sup-
divisions : >an (the law) with five books, I J W ~ I(the posing this to be the original place of the Book of Ruth,
6. Classi- prophets) with eight, and n>3in3(the writ- we might account for its later change of position by
Hagiographa) with eleven. The a desire to group together the five festal rolls. This
F i h e t s consist of four historical books explanation, however, is impossible for the reason that
(Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) and four prophetical the Massora and the Spanish MSS put Chronicles in-
(Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezelciel, and theTwelve Minor). Since stead of Ruth in the first place and before the Psalter.
the Massoretic period (cp Strack, 7439) the first Of course, the same purpose is served by either arrange-
group has borne the name of miwi n ~ 3 ('former 1 ment : each of them prefixes to the (Davidic) Psalter
prophets') to distinguish it from the second, n w x a book which helps to explain it. The Book of Ruth
0';iYnN ( ' latter prophets '). Among the Hagiographa a performs this service inasmuch as it concludes with
distinct group is formed by the five (festal) ' rolls ' - t h n David's genealogical tree and closes with his name : and
the Book of Chronicles does so in a still higher degree,
1 see WRS, Re[. Se?~.(zl161, 452. He well adds that the
high priest on the Day ofAtonement washed his flesh with water, inasmuch as, in addition to the genealogy ( I Ch. 2 9 3 ) ,
not only when he put on the holy garments of the day, hut also it gives an account of David's life, particularly of his
when he put them off (Lev. 1 R 24 ; Yoma, 'i4). elaborate directions for the temple service and temple
2 With this corresponds the Mishnic name of the canon ;m3
music. Thus the claim of the Psalter to the first place
mipa, while the names ?DDil, pi^^ tacitly supplement the idea
of holiness. To these exactly answer the NT expressionsypa$ai 1 Baraytha ( N ~ ~ xis J a Mishna tradition which has not been
+
Bytab, leph y p a p p a m , yea+$, a t ypa+ai.
below and for fuller details cp Strack, 438f:
For other names see taken into the canon of the Mishna. hut comes from the same
period(about 200 A . D .). On the veri important passage referred
3 Hence a very common old name for the collection, still fre- to cp Marx Traditio etc.
quently in use: 'the twenty-four books,' O T ~ D; i y ~ n ~m>b y , ' was an exception ; its five books as a rule consti-
2 The L,w
written also pig^ ~ " 3 . tuted but one roll although the five fifths (]*zmn) were to be
4 Hence the old collective title p-3inji pw3; aim with its met with also seplrately (cp Mecilla, 27a).
Massoretic contraction 'in. 3 Cp the excellent synoptic table in Ryle (Canon o f O T , 281).

649
 CANON CANON
is only confirmed by both variations (that of the Talmud The very various arrangements of the Hebrew canon
and that of the Massora) from the usual 0rder.l On Jvhich have been adopted in the Christian Church can
the other hand, the Massora and the Spanish MSS ll. Ruth and all be traced back to the LXX, with
support the order, Psalms, Job, Proverbs (Job before more or less far-reaching corrections
Proverbs), which therefore must be held to be the older based on the canon of the synagogue.
arrangement, the other being explained by the desire to 4mong all the divergences of the LXX from the syna-
make Solomon come immediately after David. :ague arrangement, there is only one concerning which
The arrangement of the five ' rolls in the order of
" t is worth while considering whether it may not possibly
their feasts is supported only by the German and the represent the original state of things as against the syna-
French MSS. T h e Massora and the Spanish MSS Zogue tradition : Ruth is made to follow Judges, and
have-Ruth, Cant. Eccl. Lam. Esth., whilst Badu Lamentations Jeremiah. If the actual state of the case
Bathru, after transposing Ruth in the manner we have be that these two books ranked originally among the
seen, gives the order-Eccl. Cant. Lam., then intro- prophets, but were afterwards transferred to the Hagio-
duces Daniel, and closes the list with Esther. W e grapha, the historical value of the threefold division of
may venture to infer from this ( I )that the arrangement the canon is very largely impaired. Now, this order
of the Megillath in the order of their feasts in the of the books is supported by the oft-recurring reckoning
ecclesiastical year is late and artificial ; ( 2 )that about of twenty-two books instead of twenty-four (cp above,
the year zoo A.D. they had not even been constituted 5 z ) , a reckoning which can be explained only on the
a definite group ; (3)that the inversion of the order of assnmption that Ruth and Lamentations were not
Daniel and Esther, and the removal of Ruth from the 12. Josephus. counted separately, being regarded
head of the list, were probably designed to effect this, as internal parts of Tudaes and Tere-
the position of Daniel before Esther having thus a claim miah. Our sole Jewisfwitness to this i i Joseph& (c.
to be regarded as the older ; and (4) that the original A$. i. 8 ; c i m z 100 A.D. ). H e gives the total as twenty-
position of the Book of Ruth is quite uncertain, because two, made out as follows: Moses, 5 ; Prophets after
the first place among the rolls may have been assigned Moses, 13 ; hymns to God and precepts for men, 4.
to it by the Massora simply because it had been deposed The last-named category doubtless means the Psalms
from the first place among the Hagiographa. W e may, and the three Solomonic writings. Thus Daniel,
further, regard it as probable that Proverbs was origin- Esther, Ezra, Chronicles, and even Job, are, as his-
ally connected, as in Bada B., with the other Solomonic torical books, reckoned with the prophets, and Ruth
writings. Finally, it may be taken as perfectly certain and Lamentations are not counted at all- that is
that Ezra and Chronicles closed the list3 to say, they are included in Judges and Jeremiah.l
The definition, division, and arrangement of books Here clearly a compromise has been struck be-
as given above, which rests on real tradition, and must tween the threefold division of the synagogue, which
TheLxx. constitute the basis for our subsequent places the prophets in the intermediate position, and
investigations, is violently at variance the division of the Alexandrians, which arranges the
with that of the LXX. It will be sufficient merely to books according to subjects. T h e Alexandrian canon
indicate the differences here, for, as compared with the is obviously in view also in the pointed addition [p1,!3AIa]
canon of the synagogue, that of the LXX represents T& Gwalws mmuTEup.+va,Z by which the books not con-
only a secondary stage in the development. tained in the canon of the synagogue are excluded.
( I ) T h e arrangement of the LXX is apparently in- We may conclude, therefore, that also the reason why
tended to be based on the contents of the books. T h e Ruth and Lamentations are not reckoned as separate
poetical books are, on the whole, regarded as didactic books is that the LXX is followed ; and thus we have
in character, the Prophets proper as mainly predictive, no fresh testimony here. There is a further remark
whilst the Law leads up to the historical books and is to be made. That the seven books just mentioned
closely connected with the Former Prophets. As the should be removed from the prophetic canon,' if they
Prophets are placed at the end, the progress of the once were there, to a place among the Hagiographa3
collection is normal-from the past (historical books) could be explained only by a desire to have the festal
to the present (didactic books) and the future (boobs rolls beside one another. In the oldest tradition, how-
of prophecy). ever, there was no such group of rolls (see above, § 9).
Certain, however, of the miscellaneous collection which forms 13. O r i ~ i n
of The supposed motive, therefore, could
the Hagiographa-those, namely that are historical-are trans- No. 22. not have been operative. On the other
ferred to the first division, where a place is assigned them on hand, the number twenty-two has an
chronological principles. Ruth (cp 1I ) is inserted immediately
after Judges, whilst Chronicles, Ezra, and Esther are appended artificial and external motive, not indicated by Josephus,
at the end. Lamentations, on the other hand, regarded as the but mentioned by all the Church fathers from Origen
work of Jeremiah (cp 2 Ch. 35 25 and the opening words of the downwards : there is thus one book for each letter of
book in @), is transferred to the third division (prophetic hooks)
and appended to Jeremiah : whilst Daniel closes the entire collec- the Hebrew alphabet. This childish fancy is carried to
tion. Lastly, Job regarded as a purely historical hook 4 serves an extreme point when the books are reckoned as twenty-
to effect the transihon from the historical to the didactic &rings. seven (an alternative which is offered by Epiphanius and
Of the prophetical hooks, the Dodecapropheton heads the list Jerome) to do justice to the five final letters also : thebooks
(in a somewhat varying order of the individual hooks), p!e-
sumably on account nf the higher antiquity of the writings which of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra are divided,
open it. the fifth being supplied in Epiphanius by Judges .and
( z ) Samuel and Kings together are divided into four Ruth, in Jerome by Jeremiah and Lamentations. That
books of Kings. Chronicles is divided into two books, this is mere arbitrary trifling is obvious.
as is also (subsequently) Ezra. (3)In varying degrees On the other hand Jerome gives also the number
new writings unknown to the Hebrew canon are inter- twenty-four ~PYoZ.GuLI. cautionslv describing " it as a
polated. 14. Jerome, etc. reckoning accepted by ' nonnulli,'
Ruth and Lamentations thus being
1 Cp also 2 Macc. 2 1 3 3 : Lk. 2444.
2 This is supported by Jerome in ProZ. Gal. (cp the text in 1 For various blunderinc attemnts to out another meaninn
Ry!e, 287 8). Other variations, it is true, occur in the same on the canon of Josephns,-cp Strhc, 428, Ryle, 166. Brig@
author. (see op. tit. below, 75 p 1273) inclines to the opinion that
Q It should be added that the MSS show the Utmost Josephus did not recog& as canonical the Song of Songs and
.
irregularity in their arrangement of the Hagiographa cp Ryle Ecclesiastes. See, on this point below, (j 5 2 8
Excursrs C, 2813, and, for some important details, k. Rahlfsf 2 The word BGc after G ~ c a i o
is~disallowed by Niese as an
' Alter u. Heimat der vaticanischen Bibelhandschrift,' G G d interpolation.
1899 Heft I (Philo1.-hist. Klasse). 3 A thing improbable in itself, as implying a degradation.
4 '?here is, however, considerable vacillation as to its position. See below, 0 43.
For.other variations, which are very numerous, cp Ryle, 213 4 Cp the passages in Ryle, 221, and still more exhaustively
@., and the table appended to 281. in Strack, 435 fi
651 6.52
 CANON CANON
counted among the Hagiogi-apha. A symbolical sense, here called ' the law,' torah, in which perhaps lingers
based on Rev. 4 4 IO, is found for this number also. In the t trace of an older form of tradition) which had been
Prologue to Daniel, however, Jerome adopts 24 as the olzly mrnt (with the temple, one understands). God bids
reckoning : he counts 5, 8, and 11 books to each of the iim take to himself five companions, and in forty days
divisions respectively, though he does not mention the tnd nights he dictates to them ninety-four books (see
total, Support is given to the Bamaythn Baba R. 146, rga tbove, 14). of which seventy are esoteric writings, and
in like manner by the contemporary testimony of Bern- he remaining twenty-four are the canon of the OT. Of
choth 576, which quotes Cant. Eccl. and Lam. as ' writ- his legend no further trace has hitherto been found in
ings,' and by the Targum of Jonathan on the prophets, he remains of Jewish literature ;I but within the Christian
where Ruth and Lam. are wanting. Finally, our oldest Ihurch it shows itself as early as the time of Irenzus,
witness-4th Esdras, probably written under Donlitian iequently recurs in certain of the fathers ( s o Tertullian,
(85-96 A . U . ), and therefore contemporary with Josephus Xem. Al., Orig., Euseb., Jerome, etc. ), and is prevalent
-represents Ezra as writing at the divine command 94 hroughout the scholastic period, although there it is
books (chap. 14)--i.e., after deduction of the 70 esoteric weakened by references to the powers of ordinary human
books, the 24 books of the can0n.l nemory.
The number twenty-two, therefore, certainly comes The period of the humanists and of the reformation
from a Jewish source ; but it is a mere play of fancy. :xtinguished this as well as many other legends ; but
The original place of Ruth and Lamentations, accord- if the old legend disappeared, it was only
ingly, was in the third part of the canon.
11. TRADITION RELATING TO THE CLOSE OF THE
syz:$ue.,
18. ,The to make way for a modern one, not mystic
but rationalistic in character. This latter
obtained credence through Elias Levita
CANON.-Even had there been a binding decision of
._
._ a aualified bodv , bv
, which the number
ob. 1549), who says3 that Ezra and the men of thegreat
caA:i&n. of ~ o o k s(twenty-four) was declared to
be canonical and all other books were
ynagogue ( n h n ~ D I JWN), among other things, had
inited in one volume the twenty-four books (which until
.hen had circulated separately) and had classified them
excluded from the canon, there could hardly have been nto the three divisions above mentioned, determining
any tradition of it. According to the idea of the meau- ilso the order of the Prophets and the Writings
ing and origin of canonicity entertained by the synagogue :differently, it is true, from the Talmudic doctors in
(the sole custodian of tradition), and inherited from it by Baba Bathra). This assertion satisfied the craving of
the Christian Church, canonicity depends on inspiration, the times for a duly constituted body, proceeding in a
and this attribute each of the twenty-four books brought jeliberate manner. Accordingly the statement of Elias
with it into the world quite independently of any ruling, Levita, especially after it had been homologated by J.
and in a manner that unmistakably distinguished it from Buxtorf the elder in his Tiberias ( 1 6 2 o ) , became the
every other writing. T h e growth of the canon was iuthoritative doctrine of the orthodoxy of the seventeenth
represented as being like that of a plant; it began m d eighteenth centuries. T o it were added, as self-
with the appearance of the first inspired book, and :vident, though Levita said nothing of them, the anthori-
closed with the completion of the last. T h e question tative decvee (Hottinger), and the separation of the non-
accordingly was simply this: When was the latest canonical writings (so already Buxtorf, and .after him
canonical book composed? or, if this admits of being Leusden and C a r p ~ o v ) . ~
answered, Who was its human author ? It is vain to seek for the tradition on which Elias
T o this question the tradition of the synagogue actually Levita based his representation. T h e Talmud, which
offers an answer,-in the same Bamaytkn Bada R a t h m says a great deal about 'the men of the great synagogue,'
146 15a in which the.order of the Prophets has not a word to say about this action of theirs with
16' Baba and the Writings is determined. The passage reference to the whole bddy of Scripture. T h e mediaeval
-
Bathra* proceeds thus : ' And who wrote them ? ' Rabbins also touch on the matter but lightly. W e con-
-and names the writers of the several books in exact cludetherefore that, to suit the needs of his time, Levita
chronological sequen'ce. T h e last of them is Ezra. With merely inferred such an action from the existence of the
him, therefore ( L e . , according to traditional chronology, body in
about 444 B.C.), the canon closed.2 The evidence for the very existence of a body of the
One can easily understand that, once Ezra had been kind required, however, is extremely slender. From the
named as the latest author of any biblical book, men middle of the seventeenth century it
did not remain content with the assertion (quite correct, 19. Its true was continually disputed anew. If even
if we admit its premises) which attributed to him the nature, we moderns must admit that there was
closing of the canon merely de facto, without deliberate a body of some kind, the kind of existence that we can
act or purpose. Rather did each succeeding age, accord to it supplies the strongest refutation of the state-
according to its lights, attribute to him (or to his time) ment of Elias Levita. T h e question as to what we are
whatever kind of intervention it conceived to be neces- to understand by ' the men of the great synagogue ' (or
sary in order to secure for the canon a regular and
17. Esdras. orderly closing. The oldest form of Strack gives the originals of the most important passages ; cp
this kind of tradition, so far as known also Fabricius, Codex Pseudejip'ajhus V T 1 (1713), rr!jQfl.,
9(;722) 2893.
to us! goes back earlier by a whole century than the Cp,' however, the elucidation of the passage in Bada B.
tradition of the synagogue. It is to be found in the 146 Ija helow $3 21.
passage of 4 Esdras (chap. 14) that has been referred 2 See' for the attacks directed against it on rationalistic
to already.8 Ezra ( v . 1 8 8 ) prays God to grant him by grounds) in the Protestant as well as in the Catholic church,
his Holy Spirit that he may again write out the books 247.6
3 $,e third preface to MassoreU hammaassoreth (1538, ed.
Ginsburg, 1867, p. 120) ; cp Strack, 416.
1 The numbers differ in the various forms of the text. Besides 4 Cp the passages quoted in Ryle 2 5 1 8 It should he
94 we find 904, 204, 84, 974. All, however, agree in the decisive added that the same step had been taken already in the late
figure 4 ; cp Ryle, 1 5 6 8 285. post-Talmudic tractate A6ofh de R. Nafhan (chap. 1) where it
The real date of Ezra and the promulgation of the law is said of ' the men of the great synagogue ' that they decided on
related in Neh. 8-10 will be considered elsewhere (see CHRON- the reception of Proverbs Canticles and Ecclesiastes, against
OLOGY $3 14 ' NEHEMIAH). The results of the present article objections that had been kged (see'the passages in C. H. H.
would'not b; altered essentially by fixing it e.g in the year Wright IT). We shall see below that an artificial antedating
427 or even 397 instead of 444. In what kollo&, therefore can be klearly demonstrated here,
444 B.C. means s:mply the date of Neh. 8-10. A full discussio; 5 When Levita points out that the order of the Prophets and
of the point and a survey of recent literature will be found in C. the Writings, as fixed there, was different from that in 6a6a B.,
F. Kent, A History of theJewishpeopk during the Babybnian, this only goes to show that the sages of the Mishna still found
Persian, and Greekpemiods, New York, 1899, pp. I g j 8 354. something for them to give decisions about. Elias Levita forgets
3 For what follows cp Ryle, Excursus A, 239 8, where a that these sages found the hooks written on separate rolls, and
very copious literature with fully translated quotations is given. that, therefore, there was not yet any order to fix. Cp above, 0 7.
653 654
 CANON CANON
rather ‘ assembly ’) in the sense in which the expression wholly, and the second in great measure, written by
was originally used, may be regarded as now fully Solomon two centuries before Hezekiah. Here, in fact,
cleared up. By a brilliant application and criticism of it is the miraculous that is deliberately related. The
a11 that tradition had to say and all the work of his meaning is that Solomon had only spoken (cp I K . 5 1.8)
modern predecessors, Icuenen demonstrated that this what is contained in these books, and that zoo years
‘synagogue’ is no other than the great assembly a t later, divine inspiration enabled the men of Hezekiah to
Jerusalem described in Neh. 8-10 : the assembly in write it out, and so make it into canonical books. By
which the whole body of the people, under the presidency exactly the.same operation ’ the men of the great syna-
of Nehemiah and through the signatures of its repre- gogue ’ were enabled to write out what an Amos and a
sentatives, pledged itself to acceptance of the law-book Hosea, a Micah and a Nahum, and so forth had spoken
of Ezra. This assembly, as the latest authority men- in the name of God. There is nothing to surprise us
tioned in the OT, was afterwards, by the tradition of the about such a view as this, if we remember what we have
synagogue, made responsible for all those proceedings already found in connection with 4 Esdras (above, 9 14).
of a religious nature not referred to in the OT, which, I n the present instance, indeed, it is only a portion of
nevertheless, so far as known, dated from a period the O T that comes into question, not the whole mass as
earlier than the tradition laid down in the Talmud. in 4 Esdras ; but, on the other hand, in 4 Esdras it is
Since this last, however, with its most ancient (and only the reproduction of books that had been lost that
almost mythical) authorities, the five ‘ pairs ’ and Anti- is spoken of, whilst here it is their very composition.1
gonus of Socho, does not go back farther than the second That stories such as these should ever have passed
century B. c., there gradually grew out of the assembly, current as real historical tradition resting upon facts is
whose meetings began and closed within the seventh 21. Origrnsurprising enough. Almost more astonish-
month of a single year, a standing institution to which offancy. ing is it that such baseless fancies should
people in that later time, each according to his needs not yet have been abandoned, definitely and
and his chronological theories, attributed a duration for good, by the theology of the Reformed Churches.
extending over centuries. This was made all the easier Whether the tradition is genuine need no longer be
by the chronology of the Talmud bringing the date of asked. The only question is, How was it possible that
the Persian ascendency too low by some 150 years, and the Mishnic doctors, and perhaps those who immedi-
thus bringing the beginning and the end closer together.2 ately preceded them, arrived at such a representation?
T h e activity as regards the canon, then, which Elias This question in some cases already greatly exercised
Levita and his followers ascribe to ‘ the men of the great the exegetes of the Gemara, and even led them to
synagogue, implies for the most part a comparatively attempted corrections; and Rashi (ob. 1105) gives a
late and false conception of the character of that sup- solution of some of the knottiest points which, if we are
posed body. What ancient tradition has to say about to believe Strack,z represents the view of the Baraytha.
it remains well within the limits of time assigned to it by According to this explanation, Ezekiel, Daniel, and
criticism. In Baba B. 146 ~ g n ,‘ the men of the great Esther did not write their own books, because they
synagogue ’ have assigned to them a place immediately lived in exile, and outside the borders of the Holy Land
before Ezra ; they write Ezekiel, the Dodecapropheton, it was impossible for any sacred book to be written.
Daniel, and Esther. When, therefore, Ezra had con- Even, however, if this view had some element of truth
tributed his share (Ezra and Chronicles), forming the in it, it hardly meets the main point. T h e writing of
closing portion of the series of the twenty-four books, each book the scribes, as was natural to their order,
the canon was forthwith complete. I t is evident ( I ) sought to assign to a writer like themselves, a veritable
that here the activity of ‘ the men of the great synagogue ’ s6ph2r (see S CRIBE), and attributed the authorship of any
does not extend below Ezra’s time; and ( 2 ) that it book only to one to whom writing could be assigned on
extends only to four books, not to the whole canon. the authority of a proof text. In the case of books
Therewith the absolute untenableness of Levita’s as- whose reputed authors could not be shown to have
__
sertion becomes apparent. Expedients have been
20. ‘writing, resorted to in vain ; as, for example,
been sfiphZrTm, the authorship was attributed to the
writers of such other books as stood nearest to them in
that Zn3, ‘ t o write,’ means in the point of time.
of books. Baruvtha to ‘ collect,’ or to ‘ transcribe That Moses was a scribe was held to he shown by Dt. 31 9 24
and circulate,’ or both together (cp Marx, 41). ‘ T h e (the Book of Job also was attributed to him on account of its
supposed antiquity), and the same is true of Joshua (Josh. 24 26).
writer’ of the Mishna most certainly means the author of Similar proof was found for Samuel in I S. 1025, and to him
the books-so far as there can be a question of authorship accordingly wns assigned, not only the book that bears his
where, in the last resort, the author is the Holy Spirit. name, but also Judges and Ruth. In the case of David, if the
Of authorship nothing but writing is left. This, accord- words lt$) in z S. 118 were not enough, there was at all events
ingly, is the sense assumed by Gemara and by rabbinical sufficientproof in I Ch. 2 3 8 and especially in 2811; means
were found also for reconciling the tradition that he wrote
exegesis. What we are told concerning ‘ t h e men of the whole Psalter with the tradition (oral or written) which
the great synagogue ’ is not mpre startling than it is to assigned certain psalms to other authors. It was declared that
learn that Hezekiah and his companions wrote Isaiah, he wrote the psalms, hut ’7: $Y of those other writers. Of
Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes,-books of which Solomon all that was said in. I K. 5 12 was that he spoke not
tradition is unanimous in saying that the last two were that he wuote; but no one felt at a n y loss, for in Prov.’ 25 I
the production of a portion of his Book of Proverbs is attri-
1 Ovev de mnnnen der gvoofc Synagoge (Amsterdam, 1876), buted to the men of Hezehiah, king ofJudah. These genuine
translated into German by K. Budde in his edition of Kuenen’s scribes were utilised to the utmost. They had ascribed to them
collected essays (GesatnnreZte Abhandl 1894,p. 16r3). not only all the Solomonic hooks, but also the book of their
2 Kuenen’s proof has in Great Britai;, been accepted (among contemporary Isaiah although Is. 8 I might well have been
others) by Robertson Skith (OT/C(a) 1 6 g J ) , Driver (Zrfroa‘.(l) taken as saying someihing for the prophet himself. Whether in
xxxiii), and (at least inall essentials) by Ryle, t o whoseverycare- this instance some special cause contributed to the result, or
fnl Excrrsus A (239-272) the reader is especially referred. It has whether it was merely that prophet and scribe had at any cost to
indeed found an uncompromising opponent in C. H. H. Wright be kept separate it is impossible to say. For Jeremiah the
(Kohr’efh,5 6 475@), whose arguments however, amount to one prophet in the narrower sense of the word amongst ;hose
little more than this-the necessity (wdch in fact produced who are named Jer. 36 spoke too distinctly to be ignored ; that
the legend) for some corporate body by whom the religious Kings also sho:ld have been attributed to him is at once suffi-
duties of that time could have been discharged. This, however, ciently explained by z K. 24 18, and chap. 25 compared with Jer.
cannot convert what is demonstrably legend into history. What- 52. Next in order as bihlical authors come ‘the men o/ the
ever has to be conceded is granted already by Kuenen (Ges. great synugogue,’ who, as contemporaries of Ezra the scribe fiur
Abh. 1156, 158) ; and writers like Strack (PXEM 18330, foot- excellence (himself also one of their number) but at the same
note*) are skilful enough to reconcile the demand for such
‘organised powers’ between Ezra and Christ with Kuenen’s 1 That the two legends have an intimate connection is bv no
results. The most recent apology for the tfadition is that of S. means improbable. ~

Krauss (‘The Great Synod,’ JQR, Jan. 98, p.. 34737). Of 2 Op. cif. 418, with the quotation there given; cp also
course he does not defend the theory of Elias Levrta. Ryle, 263f:
655 6.56
 CANON CANON
time also as signatories of the act in Neh. 10 I were expressly in dealing with the later stages of the history of the canon
called to this. Why Ezekiel (the scribe if any Scribe there was and with its close, there is no obscurity about its com-
among the prophets) to whom the act’of writiqg is repeatedly
attributed (37 16.8 43 11) should not have heen credited with fnencement. It was -indeed by those
his own hook may perhapk he rightly explained by Rashi. The 23. The men of the meat synagogue.’ to whom
~ I -

twelve ropdets could not have written severally their own orthodoxy assigns the close ofYthe canon, that its founda-
hooks %ecauseall the hooks together form (see 0 6 ) hut one
book (a somewhat different turn is given to this in Rashi), and tions were laid, in the clear daylight of well-authenticated
as the latest of them belonged to the period of the great syna- history. From the twenty-fourth day of the seventh
gogue, and, indeed, according to tradition were actually month of the year 444 B.C. onwards, Israel possessed a
members of that body the assignment of the’authorship to it canon of Sacred Scripture. It was on this day that the
presented no difficult;. Finally Daniel and Esther regarded
as books of the Persian period easily fell to their domain. Ezra, great popular assembly described in Neh. 9f: solemnly
with his account of his o d time, closes the series. Some pledged itself to ‘ the Book of the Law of Yahwh their
explanation is needed of the fact that whilst ‘the genealogies in God ’ ( 9 3 ) , ’ which had been given by the hand of Moses
Chronicles down to himself’ (this is no doubt the easiest
explanation) also are assigned to Ezra no accouht is taken of the servant of God’ ( l O 3 0 ) , and had been brought from
the remainder of that work. The most ’likely reason is that the Babylon to Jerusalem shortly before by Ezra the scribe
main portion of Chronicles was regarded as mere repetition (Ezra 7 6 T I 74 Neh. SI$). In virtue of this resolution
from Samuel and Kings, the origin of which had been already the said law-book at that time became canonical ; but
explained.
only the law-book.
It is not of the slightest importance to consider how Already, indeed, in theeighteenth year of King Josiah,
far this attempted explanation of the origin of the various between 623 and 621 B.c., there had been a solemn act
books is in agreement with the real thought of the of a similar character, when the king and people pledged
Baraytha ; in any case it remains pure theory, the pro- themselves to the law-book that had been found in the
duct of rabbinical inventiveness, not of historical tradi- temple, the ‘ book of the covenant’ ( 2 K. 23). T h e
tion. Apart from a fixed general opinion about certain entire editorial revision of the Books of Kings, and
individual books and about the Pentateuch, the tangible especially the express references to the law-book ( I I(.
outcome of the beliefs of the whole period with which 2 3 2 K. 2325, and above all, 2 K. 146 compared with
we are dealing is that the canon was held to have been Dt. 2416), clearly prove that it had canonical validity
closed in the time of Ezra. The theory upon which during the exilic period, whilst the book of Malachi
this belief proceeded will occupy us later (I 44f:). (cp esp. 2 4 8 35 3 f l zz) shows that also in the post-
As against this congeries of vague guesses and exilic period down to the time of Ezra it continued to
abstract theories, science demands that we should hold this place in Jerusa1em.l T h e critical labours of
22. Scientific examine each book separately, and the present century, however, have conclusively estab-
endeavour, with the evidence supplied lished that this first canonical book contained simply
method. bv itself. and with continual reference what we now have as the kernel of onr Book of Deutero-
to the body of literature as a whole, to ascertain its date nomy.
and to fix its place in the national and religious develop- l h e law canonised in 444 was a very different docu-
ment of the Jews. This is the task of ‘ special introduc- ment. T h e only
tion ’ ; but its results must always have a direct bearing . possible
_ question is whether it was the
24. Its extent. entire Pentateuch as we now have it,
on the history of the canon. This history must give or only the Priestly Writing, the latest
close attention also to all the external testimonies relative and most extensive of ihe sources which g o t o make up
to the formation and to the close of the canon, and, after the Pentateuch. The latter is, so far as we can at
weighing them, must assign to them their due place. present see, the more likely hypothesis. In that case
Above all, it must trace out all general opinions and what happened in 444 B.C. was that the Deuteronomic
theories, such as we have been considering, ascertain Law, which had until then ruled, was superseded by
their scope and meaning, and satisfy itself as to the the new Law of Ezra. A determination of this kind,
period at which they arose, and as to their influence on however, was unworkable in view of the firm place which
the formation of the canon. I n so far as we succeed in the older book that had been built up out of J E and
these endeavours, we shall arrive a t a relatively trust- D had secured for itself in the estimation of the people.
worthy history of the canon. Accordingly, the new law was revised and enlarged by
111. HISTORY OF T HE O T C AN O N .- ( I ) Theprst the fusing together of the Priestly Writing and the earlier
canon :the Law.l-Whatever difficulties we may have work, a process of which our Pentateuch, the canon of
1 W. J. Beecher(see below, 8 75)offersasolemnprotest against
the Law, was the result.
the fundamental proposition of this article (as of all modern This last stage was most probably accomplished in
discussions of the subject)-a triple canon, collected and closed the next generation after that of Ezra, and completed
in three successiveperiods. He denies that there is any evidence
of a time when the Law alone was regarded as canonical or 25. samaritan before 400 B . C . W e have evidence
of a time when the Law and the Prophets stood in authdrity of this in the fact that the schis-
above the Writings. He denies that the other OT writings Torah. matic community of the Samaritans
were originally regarded as less authoritative than the Penta- accepts the entire Pentateuch as sacred. It is true that
tench. He sees in the canon of the OT an aggregate of sacred the solitary historical account we possess (Jos. Ant.
books growing gradually and continually to a definite time
when the part written latest was firrished and the collection was xi. 7 2-8 4 ) places the separation of this community from
deemed complete. Law [or rather, Message], Prophets, and that of Jerusalem as low down as the time of Alexander
Writings are nothing but three different names for the same the Great (about 330 B.C. ) ; but the cause that led to
books--e.g., the prophetic writings. We are not told how
these terms came to be the names of three different parts of
this collection. The fundamental fact that the Law alone was (see below, 8 38) or consider the reason why the Law is wanting
promulgated and made authoritative by Ezra and Nehemiah, in z Macc. 2 13 &e below, 5 27). On the other side, it may be
is obscured by Beecher by the statement that the term book hoped that he will find the difficulty caused by the ,Book of
of Moses’ is applied to an aggregate of sacred writings including Joshua a difficulty greatly exaggerated by himself removed
more than the Pentateuch. His only proof is Ezra B 78, where (in fact)turned into a help) in 5 2 8 3 of this article, &itten two
‘we are told that the returned exiles set u the courses of the years before his paper was published. This is only one of many
priests and Levites “as it is written in tie hook of Moses.” instances. The theory of the triple canon of the OT, based
The Pentateuch cAntains nothing in regard to priestly or on incontestable facts, is not as mechanical as Beecher repre-
Levitical courses. Possibly the reference is to written precepts sents it. I t is able to satisfy every demand for organic growth
now found in I Chronicles.’ Beecher does not translate accu- in the collection of O T writings. Beecher’s paper (a total
rately. The text runs: ‘They set up the priests in (by) their failure, it seems to the present writer, in the main point) may
conrses and the Levites in (by) their divisions. This means do much good in cautioning against too mechanical a concep-
that the priests a7d the Levites are set up ‘as it is written in tion ; but it did not furnish to the present writer any occasion
.
the book of Moses hut it does not necessarily mean that their to alter the views developed in this article.
1 The reasons for saying that the references in Malachi are to
courses and divisiodwere based on the same authority. Beecher
never mentions the fact that the Samaritans accepted only the Dt. and not to Ezra’s law-book cannot be given here (see
Law (see below, 0 z5), nor does he investigate what grain of Now. KZ.Proph. 391 ; hut cp MALACHI).
truth is contained in the same statement as to the Sadducees 2 On this and on the larger critical question cp HEXATEUCH.

657 65%
 CANON CANON
the separation-the expulsion of the high priest’s son, ;anct books. T h e Law is not mentioned in the same
the son-in-law of Sanballat, who founded the community :onnection ; as the sacred canon, it receives a place to
and sanctua,; of the Samaritans-israther, according to tself and has nothing to do with the library. Whether
Neh. 1328, to be referred to the period of Nehemiah ill the contemporaries of this author shared his view
(about 430 B.c.). It has already been mentioned (3 s another matter ; in any case, the possibility of such
19) that Jewish chronology has dropped a whole ceutury % view being held is proof of the original isolation of
and a half, 70 bringing the periods of Nehemiah and .he Law. Moreover, it appears from this passage that
Alexander into immediate juxtaposition ; and this is the ?it the time when it was written, or within the writer’s
explanation of the confusion found in Josephus. W e :ircle, the legend of the closing of the canon by Ezra can
may suppose that before the final separation of the have been prevalent only in the (narrower and historically
Samaritans there elapsed an interval of some decades much more accurate) sense that the canon of the Law re-
which would give ample time for the completion of the zeived its validityas such by Ezra’saction. Thefact, more-
Law.l Th-is does not exclude the possibility that adjust- over, that in the LXX the version of the Law appears to he
ments may have been made at a later date between the distinctivelyan official work, not theresult of private enter-
Samaritan Pentateuch and that of Jerusalem, or that prise, confirms the inference already drawn from the
later interpolations may have found their way into the exclusive attention given to the Law in the period repre-
Samaritan law. T h e compass of the work, however, must sented by Ezra.’ ~

have remained (to speak broadly)2 a fixed quantity, ( 2 ) The secund canon: the Prophets.-The nucleus
otherwise the Samaritans would pot have taken it over.3 for a second canon was laid to the-hand of the scribes
At the same time the Samaritan canon, which con-
28,
E D. of the fifth century in the very fact that the
tained nothing hut the icompletel law, is our oldest
I
canon of the Law had been set apart to a
witness to a period during which the place by itself. It is one of the certain results of the
26. Torah=
entire canon. canon consisted of the Law alone,, science of special introduction that the Priestly Document
canon and Law being. thus coextensive on which Ezra’s reform rested, followed the history of
conceptions. If alongside of the Law there had been Israel, including the division of Canaan, down to the
other sacred writings, it would be inexplicable why end of the Book of Joshua : the portions derived from
these last also did not pass into currency with the it can still be distinguished in our present Book of
Samaritans. There are other witnesses also to the Joshua. T h e same holds good for J E D. We can go
same effect. T h e weightiest lies in the simple fact that further. It may still be matter of dispute, indeed,
the name Torah or Law can mean the entire canon, whether the material for the subsequent hooks (Judges,
and be used as including the Prophets and the Writings. Samuel, Icings) also was derived from J and E ; but so
W e find it so used in the N T (Jn. 1 0 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 5 2 5 much is indisputably certain, that the Deuteronomic re-
I Cor. 14z1),in the passage already cited from 4 Esdras daction embraced these books also, in fact, the whole of
(1420), and, at a later date, in many passages of the the Former Prophets, and that at the end of Kings the
Talmud, the Midrashim, and the Rabbins (cp Strack, narrative itself is from Deuteronomistic hands. As
?39). This would have been impossible if the words even now each of these books is seen to link itself very
canon’ and ‘ law‘ had not originally had the same closely to that which precedes it, it follows that J E D,
connotation, other books afterwards attaining to some ultimately at least, in the form in which the work
27. Maac. share in the sanctity of the Law. T h e was used in the fifth century, included the Law and the
same thing is shown by an often-quoted Former Prophets. That the Law might attain its final
2r3.
and much-abused passage in z Macc. 29. Penta- form as a separate unity, therefore, it was
(21?). There we read that Nehemiah, in establishing not enough that P and J E D should be
a library, brought together the books concerning the
teuch. worked up into a single whole. This
kings and prophets ( T & m p l TGV pauih6wv K a t T ~ o @ ~ T ~ vwhole) must be separated from the history that followed
and the (poems) of David (rh.roo Aaui8) and the letters it. How and when this was elfected we can imagine
of kings concerning consecrated gifts (to the temple : variously. According to the view taken above, what is
6riurohh.s pauiX4wv m p l ciVatkptlTwv). T h e passage most probable is that in 444 the entire Priestly Writ-
occurs in a letter from the Jews of Palestine to their com- ing, including the closing sections relating to the
patriots in Egypt, and is an admitted interpolation in a entrance into Canaan and the partition of the country,
book which is itself thoroughly unhistorical ; it is thus was already in existence and canonized in its full extent.l
in the highest degree untrustworthy (cp M ACCABEES , Not until its subsequent amalgamation with the corre-
S ECOND, 7). As evidence of what could be believed sponding sections of J E D did the hitherto quite insig-
and said at the time of its composition, however, in the nificant historical appendix to the ‘law,’ strictly so
first century B.c., it is unimpeachable. When we called, acquire such a preponderance that the division
find the Former and Latter Prophets and the Psalms was found to be inevitable. It was made at the end
catalogued as forming part of a library, and, alongside of the account of the death of Moses, and thus a portion
of them and on the same level, letters of kings (heathen of the Priestly Writing also (as well as of J E D ) was
kings of course), it is clear that there is no idea of sacro- severed from the body to which it belonged. In any
1 This explains why the Book of Nehemiah closes with the case, however we may reconstruct the details, the great
expulsion of the son-in-law of Sanballat, but says nothing as to fact abides that, after the Law had been separated, there
the setting up of the temple and church of the Samaritans. remained the compact mass of writings
There is no occasion for scepticism as to the entire story in - which afterwards
Josephus (as in Kautzsch, PRE(4, art. ‘ Saniariter,’ 343J). came to be known as ‘the former
2 See below 8 17.
30. prophets,’ a body of literature which
3 Against the completion of the law at this date Duhm Prophets., from the very first could not fail to
(/esaiu 1892, p. vJ)urges objections. He thinks that as late
as the h e of the Chronicler (third century B.c.) the so-called take an exceptional position from the simple fact that it
Priestly Document had not yet been fused with J E and D ; for had once been connected with the sacred canon, and
the intention of the Book of Chronicles is, in his opinion, to must necessarily have been prized by the community as
continue the Priestly Document (which comes down only to the a possession never to be lost.
end of Joshua), not the older work embracing the Book of
Kings, which indeed it sought to supersede. Neither intention Equally certain is it that by far the larger proportion
however, can be attributed to the Chronicler. In fact, he begin; of the ‘latter prophets’ was already in the hands of
with the creation, his method being to write out at full length 31. ‘Latter the scribes of the fifth century. I n these
the genealogies from Adam downwards, taking them from the
work that lay before him (J E D P). Since, however, he is writing books God spoke almost uninterruptedly
a history only of Jerusalem and the temple he passes over all Prophets*’ by the mouth of his prophets-in itself
that does not relate to this. At the s a d time, even if the
Chronicler had used nothing but P, this would not prove more 1 A last trace of some reminiscence of this short period during
than that, after its fusion with the other sources, P continued which the Book of Joshua still belonged to the ‘law’ may be
to be used also separately for a long time. seen in the Apocryphal Book of Joshua of the Samaritans.
659 660
 CANON CANON
reason enough for assigning to them the attribute of evidence of a secondary literary activity.l These pheno-
holiness. If, nevertheless, the books were not reckoned mena are so manifold, and there are traces of periods
to the canon, the explanation is to be sought in the so widely separated, that we must believe not a few
practical character of the first canon : Ezra gave to the generations to have borne a part in bringing the pro-
community in the canon of the Law all that it Iequired. phetical books to their present form. Yet these extensive
It was not new when he gave it ; he only gave over additions and revisions, at least most of them, must of
again what God had once already given through Moses course have taken place before the canonization.
to the people as his one and all. If the people had This obvious conclusion is indeed contradicted by the
remained true to this Law, not only would they have , v u . which tells us that the books
tradition of the svnagoPue.
escaped all the disasters of the past, but also they would 36. Gap in of the prophets were written by ' the men
never have needed new revelations from God through tradition. of the great synagogue,' on which view
'
his prophets. These prophets contributed nothing new ; the canon of the prophets was already
they were sent only to admonish the unfaithful people complete in 444 B.C. Nor does this assertion, the
to observe the Law, and to announce the merited baselessness of which we have already seen, stand alone.
32. Pro- punishment of the impenitent. The Law It is backed by others. Josephus (c. Ap. 1 8 ) says
visional. thus had permanent validity, whilst the expressly that it was down to the time of Artaxerxes,
work of the prophets was transitory; the the successor of Xerxes ( i e . , Artaxerxes I., Longimanus,
Law addressed itself to all generations, the prophets 465-424) that the literary activity of the prophets con-
each only to his own, which had now passed away. tinued. The passage in the Mishna in which the un-
The generations that had sworn obedience anew to the broken chain of tradition is set forth (Pir@ZAd&, 1I )
Law under Ezra, therefore, had no need for the prophets. represents the Law as having been handed down by the
Should similar circumstances recur, i t . might be ex- prophets to the men of the great synagogue; which
pected that God would send prophets anew; but the +gain brings us to the same date, and dispenses with
prevailing feeling was, no doubt, that the time of un- the need of any further testimony.
faithfulness, and consequent19 of the prophetic ministry, It is exactly this chain of tradition, however, that
haa gone for ever. supplies !he interval of time that we need. The passage
The view here set forth is that of the OT itself, pre- goes on to say : Simon the Just was one of the last
eminently that of the Deuteronomistic school, where it survivors of ' the men o f the great synagogue' ; he
is constantly recurring.! Indeed, since;,the Deutero- handed on the tradition to Antigonus of Socho, by
nomic and the Priestly Laws alike, eaoh .in its own whom2 in turn it was transmitted to Jose b. Jo'ezer
way, had assimilated the results of the work of the and Jose b. Johanan, the first of the so-called 'pail-s.'
prophets, this view must be called, from their point of That the chronology of this section leaves much to be
view, the right one. Accordingly it has throughout desired is clear.3 It seems to be as good as certain,
continued to be the view of the synagogue, as can be however, that the fourth of the five pairs lived about
proved from many passages in the Talmud and the 50 B.c., the third about 80 8.c. The same ratio would
It explains at the same bring us to somewhere about 140 or 150 B.C. for the
33, Historical M i d r a ~ h i m . ~
1 books time why it is that the historical books first pair,' whilst the time of Antigonus and Simon
6prophetic., (Joshua-Kings) are called ' prophets.' would fall about 200 B.c., or a little earlier. I n that
They speak just in the manner of the case, Simon the Just would be the high priest Simon 11.
prophets of the unfaithfulness of past generations to the b. Onias who is briefly mentioned by Josephus (Ant.
law, and of the divine means-chiefly the mission of xii. 4 I O ). The cognomen of 'Just,' however, is given
prophets-used to correct this. Both relate in a similar by Josephus (Ant. xii. 25 41)to Simon I. b. Onias, who
way to the past. For the same reason the prophets, lived almost a century earlier, soon after 300. If we
conversely, are called history ; for ' tradition ' in the must consider that he is the Simon who is meant, it
sense of ' history' is what is meant by Nnn$uR (ash- is clear that the alleged chain of tradition is defective
Zeemtn), the Massoretic tcrm for the canon of the in its earlier portion, only a single name having reached
prophets, the n w x (ne"6i'im),as a whole (cp further, us for the whole of the third century. Further, Simon
Strack, 439). the Just is the connecting link with ' t h e great syna-
W e can thus very easily understand how it was that gogue,' and as the assembly that gave rise to this name
the Prophets could not be canonized simultaneously was held in 444, there is again a gap, this time of a
34. Not yet with the Law. T o pledge people to the century, even if we concede that Simon reached a very
canonized. Prophets was not possible, and the obliga- advanced age. The long interval between Simon the
tion to the Law would only have been Just and 444 B.c., however, is not to be held as arising
obscured and weakened by a canonization of the Prophets from a different view about the synagogue ; it is to be
at the same time. The idea of canonicity had first to accounted for by the hiatus (already referred to, $0 19,
be enlarged ; it had to be conceived in a more abstract 25) in the traditional chronology between Nehemiah and
manner, on the basis of a historical interest in the past, Alexander the Great. similar to that which brings 0
Zerub-
before the canonizing of the Prophets-that is to say, 37. activity babel into immediate relation urith the
their being taken in immediate connection with the in interval. time of Ezm4 It is within this vacant
Law-could become p o ~ s i b l e . ~ period that we must place those redac-
Of course a considerable period of time must have tions, the fact of which has been so incontestably proved
been required for this ; and the same result follows from by critical inquiry. The main reason why the synagogue
the established facts of ' higher criticism.' has no recollection of this period, is that during this
36* Of the Prophets properly so called, not time the activity of the scribes (with the history of
edited* only are Joel and Jonah later than the which alone the chronology busies itself from Ezra
completion of the Law, but also the older books, over onwards) had no independent life, but devoted itself
wide areas of their extent, bear more or less independent almost exclusively to the sacred writings of the past,
and left its traces only there, so that whatever it
1 With every reservation let it be noted here that in Mal. 323
the promise is not of a new prophet, but only of the return of
Elijah, and that in Zech. 1 3 2 8 to come forward as a prophet 1 This is true especially of Isaiah, Micah and Zechariah ; but
is to risk one's life. most of the other books show the same ding in some degree.
2 Com are also however (especially) the confession of sin The details belong to the special articles.
which ingeherniah precedes the taking df the covenant (particu- 2 ' By whom' is plural according to the text the reference
larly w. 1 6 3 26 zgf: 34). Fcludingperhaps Simon the Just. Zunz (37 n.) $odd interpret
3 See Weber 18f: 7 8 3 from the successors of Antigonus, mediate or immediate ;
4 Cp the pa&age (2 Macc. 2 13), already spoken of, in which but this is hardly permissible.
such a historical interest appears, but leads only to the foundation 3 See Schiirer GJY 2 z g z s
of a library, not to the canonizing of its contents. . 4 Cp also Jos.' Ant. xi. 6 I, with 'IT and 8 I.

661 662
 CANON . CANON
accomplished was put to the credit of the earlier times. %bout defiling the hands (M. Y>duyim, 46) may lime
This holds good, in the first instance, of the Law, to been a last echo of this1
which considerable additions were still made as late as Lastly, we must endeavour to fix an inferior limit
the third century (see above, 25). Still more for the date at which the Drophetical canon was fixed.
extensive was this activity in the case of the prophetical For the lilerary close of the prophetical
books; it was now that they took their final literary 39. Inferior
limit= Ecclus. collection, we fortunately have an ex-
shape.l The additions naturally corresponded to the ternal testimonv almost three centuries
thoughts and wishes of the age in which they arose ; on older and much more exhaustive than 4 Esdras and
the lines of older models, the elements of hope and of Josephus, namely the hymn to #he great men of the
comfort received a much fuller development, and thus past with which Jesus b. Sira (Ecclesiasticus), in chaps.
the prophets were made of practical interest for a 44-50, concludes his didactiz poem. From Enoch
present time that, contrary to expectation, had turned dow'nwa@s all the righteous are panegyrised, exactly in
out badly.2 the order in which they occur in the Law and the
It is possible that we even possess a proof that the Former Prophets. The kings are treated quite on the
canonization of the prophets did not take place quite Deuteronomistic lines. David, Hezekiah, and Josiah
38. Canoniza- without opposition and dispute, a receive unqualified praise ; Solomon is commended only
tion per~aps thing in itself not improbable. In the half-heartedly, whilst Rehoboam is spoken of as a fool,
Church fathers we meet with the very and Jeroboam as a seducer. Elijah and Elisha find
opposed. definite assertion that the Sadducees their place in the series immediately after these two
had scruples about acknowledging any sacred writings kings, whilst between Hezekiah and Josiah comes Isaiah.%
(especially the Prophets) in addition to the Law.3 It Of him we are told in one and the same seiitence what
cannot be siipposed that there is here any confusion we read in chaps. 36-39 ( =z I<. 15-20), and that under
with the Samaritans, who are expressly named along mighty inspiration he foresaw the far future and ' com-
with them as sharing the same view; a somewhat forted them that mourn in Zion ' (cp 40 I). This proves
easier view is that what is referred to is their rejection that not only chaps. 36-39, but also chaps. 40-66, already
of the oral legal t r a d i t i ~ n . ~Let it be borne in mind, were parts of the Book of Isaiah, and thus that the last
however, that we here have to do with our best Christian essential steps to its final redaction.had been made (cp
authorities on matters Jewish-Origen and Jerome, the Che. Intr. Is. xviii.). Still more significant is it that
former of whom was contemporary with the period after Jeremiah (who is associated with Josiah, as Is,aiah
of the Mishna. That neither the Mishna itself, nor is with Hezekiah) and after Ezekiel, the twelve prophets
yet Josephus, has a word to say on such a dangerous (ot & ~ & K u~po$fj+ar)are mentioned, and disposed of
subject, is intelligible enough. It is, of course, not for collectively in a single panegyric. Here already, that
a moment to be supposed-even though this is suggested is to say, we have the same consolidation as we have
by some of the passages cited-that the Sadducees re- seen (§ 21)in the Mishria (where a single authorship in
jected the prophets, or, in other words, refused to the persons of ' the men of the great synagogue ' has to
recognise them as having been channels of divine be found for the one book of the twelve). W e may be
communications. On the other hand, it is not difficult sure that Jesus b. Sira found the twelve books already
to believe that these conservative guardians of the old copied upon a single roll, and thus in their final form.
priestly tradition should have resisted the addition of By his time the prophetic canon had been closed.3
a second canon to that of the Law, which until then The conclusion of this hymn (chap. 50) answers the
had held an exclusive place. In doing so, they would question as to the date of its author. It is the panegyric
only have been maintaining the position of 444 B .c., on Simon b. Onias who was high priest in Jesus b. Sira's
whilst in this, as in other matters, the Pharisees repre- own day. In this instance, it is certainly not Simon the
sented the popular party of the time. The controversy Just (cp 3 6 ) that is intended, if it were only on account
1 Cp We. Z j G 155 & znd ed. 190 3 ; Montefiore Om+ of the absence of the surname distinctively given in
and Growth of ReZipion (Ki6. Lecf. 1892), 401 & The Josephus and the Mishna. The question is decided for
assertion, frequently repeated in the tradition of the synagogue Simon 11. (circa zoo) by the prologue of the translator,
that it was expressly prohibited to commit to writing tb;
traditional law cannot of course strictly speaking, be main- grandson of the author, who made his version later than
tained (cp Strack, art. * Thalrnud' in PREP) 18 331 &). Still 132 B . C . (see E CCLESIASTICUS, S)." W e therefore
it is, not impossible that there lies at the bottom of it a true
reminiscence. Hardly, indeed, such a one as Strack supposes 1 The arguments for utter rejection of this statement can best
(p. 3333); but rather this: that the addition of all sorts of be read in Winer, HWBP)2 353J The view taken in the text
novella to the canonical Law was definitely put a stop to, and seems to be shared by We. when he writes ( I j G 251 ; 2nd ed.
that, as a reaction against this tendency to add, there arose 286 ; 3rd ed. 297) : 'They (the Pharisees) stood up against the
some time (say) in the course of the second century a certai; Sadducees for the enlargement of the canon.' Another view is
reluctance to write the further developments of the) law-the expressed in EinLPi 514.
HalnkOth-until at last the codification of the Mishna put an end 2 The precedence here given him has no bearing on the place
to this. assigned to his book in the Prophetic canon (cp above, 8).
2 Ryle's conjecture (p. 117) that the gradual admission of the 1 t is the chronological succession of the persons that is being
Prophets to a place in the public reading of the synagogue pre- dealt with.
ceded and led to their canonization, rests unfortunately on an 3 The doubt raised (not for the first time) by BGhme (in
insecure foundation, as we do not know whether the HaphtZrB ,?A TfV 7 280 [)87]) against the genuineness of 49 loa, where
goes back to a sufficiently early date. The first mention of the the XI1 are referred to, was excellently disposed of by NSldeke
public reading of the Prophets is in the N T (Lk. 4 16s ; Acts ( Z A TW8 156 ['88]) by the evidence of the Syriac translation
13 15 27), the next, in a very cursory and obscure form, is in the (which rests immed:ately on the Hebrew), and by showing that
Mishna (MegiZZa,3 4 6), and, v y full and clear, in the Tosephta in v. rob, according to Cod. A and others, the correct reading
(Megilla 4[3] ed. Zuckermazel 225 3).This much may be is the plural rrapska'hsuav (followed by ya'p instead of SE'), and
taken fo; certhn, that therendink of the Proohets came in very ; A w p 6 u a v w , so that 106 refers not to EEekiel hut to the XII.
considerably later than that of the Law. That what led to it Another circumstance ought to be noted. If the praise of
was the destructive search after copies of the Law in the time Ezekiel is completed in v. 8 J it agrees in length and substance
of Antiocbns Epiphanes (I Macc. 157) is pure conjecture. Even exactly with that of Jeremiih in D . 7, with that of Hezekiah
if proved it would be insufficient for Ryle's purpose. For the (apart from Isaiah) in 48 24 3,and finally with that of the XII,
age of the Hapbprath see Zunz, 5 f:, Ryle, 116f: ; and on if v. IO is taken as applying wholly to them. To place Io6
the Hapbtarath in geneial see Schtirer, 2379f: I t is necessary before loa as ZSckler (Die Apokryjhen des A T etc. 1891
to raise a note of warning L s to Gratz, 1 5 6 3 p. 3483) silently does is quite inadmissible. To ill thi; musi
3 See the passages textually quoted in Schiirer 2 342 : Orig. now be added the testimony of the lately discovered Hebrew.
c. CeZs. 149 (ed. Lommatzsch 18 93); Comm. i; M a f f h . 17, The genuineness of 4823 8 is doubted by Duhm (jesaj'a
chap. 85 /r on chap. 22 29 31'f: (ed. Lomm. 4 166 169) ; Jer. 1892,p. vii), but without any reasons being given. On p. xiv:
Comm. in Mafth. 22 31 f: (Vall. 7 I 179) ; contr. Lucz&-ianos he appears to be able to accept the genuineness.
chap. 23 (v. 2 197) ; Philosophumma, 9 zg ; Pseudo-Tert. adv: 4 The arguments by which J. Halevy (&fude SUY la partie
Her. chap. 1. du texte Hdbreu de I'EccZ4siasfiqua rdcenzment dicouverfe,
4 Yet in the last-cited passage there follows immediately: 1897) endeavours to prove that Simon I., the Just is the hero
Prretermitto Pharisees qui additamenta quaedam legis adstru- of chap. 50, have failed to convince the present &iter. Still
endo a Judaeis divisi sunt.' it should be kept in mind that even if Halkvy were right the
663 664
 CANON CANON
conclude-and the conclusion agrees with the course of Law could be effected the way had to be prepared by a
the development traced above-that the prophetic collec- continually rising appreciation of the prophetic literature,
tion already existed as such, pretty much in its present and by an ever-growing conception of its sanctity. To
form, about the year zoo B . c . ~ this result the Maccabean period must unquestionably
Notable reasons for the same conclusion are supplied have contributed much. Such passages as I Macc. 446
bytheBook of Daniel (writtenabout 164 B.C. ). Inthefirst 9 27 1441 and the Song of the Three Children ( v . 14 ; cp
place there is a reason of a positive character : Ps. 749) show not only how far people then felt them-
40*Other in 92 we find Jer. 2511 f.cited as n-??p? selves to be removed from the prophetic times, but
evidence' ( ' in the fHoly] Scriptures '). Of greater also how highly those times were thought of. Still we
weight, however, is a negative reason : the Book of must bear in mind the passage in z Macc. ( 2 13) already
Daniel itself found a place-not among the Prophets;but referred to (I 27),which seems to show that, even in
-among the Writings. Other reasons for this might be the last century B.C., it was still possible to speak of the
conjectured ; but the most probable one still is that Prophets and of profane writings, in the same breath,
at the time of its recognition as canonical the canon as parts of the same library.
of the Prophets had in current opinion been already On the other hand, it can be shown that there was
definitely completed. The time of admission, how- once a time in which the Prophets, but not the Hagio-
ever, must be taken to have been considerably later 42. Prophets grapha, could be spoken of along with
than the date of composition (164 B . c . ) , and so this preceded the Law as included among the sacred
evidence does not go for much. Still less impartant Hagiographam writings. As the name ' the Law ' can
is the further fact, that the work of 'the Chronicler (com- be used to designate the whole tripartite
posed during the first half of the third century) is not canon (see above, 5 26), so also can the doubleAname
included among the Former Prophets. Its special 'the Law and the Prophets.' (Cp, in N T , Mt. 517 7 12
character as a Midrash to already accepted biblical Lk. 16162931 Acts 2823, and, in the tradition of the
books must long have prevented its attaining the dignity synagogue Rush hush-Shunu, 4 6 ; Baba B. 8 14 ; Talm.
of canonization ; but a further circunistance helped to J. MegiLhz, 3 I ; also Baba B. 13 b ) . l It may also be
impede its recognitiqn. The immediate contiguity of the pointed ont that the name ~ u 6 6 6 Z u( ' Tradition') in-
Former Prophets and the Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel cludes the Prophets nnd the Writings (cp the nnmerous
(brought to their final form at an early date) must passages in Znnz, 44 n. u ) , but the synonymous expres-
comparatively soon have come to be regarded as fixed sion Ashhmta (see above, s 33). if we are correctly
and unalterable,$ whilst, on the other hand, to append informed (Strack, 439), the prophets only.
Chronicles to the later prophets was plainly impossible. ( 3 ) The third canon : the Hagiogrupha. Here, -
It remains, then, that the completion of the colZection- again, there is n o possibility of doubt that, at the time
we might almost say also of the canon-of the Prophets & Distinction when the prophetic collection was
took place in course of the third closed, much of what we now find
41. Prophetic century. This, however, does not yet between in our third canon was already in
canon bring us to an altogether unambiguous existence, and yet it did not gain admission i n t i the
subordinate. findingwith reference to their 'canoniza- collection and found no place in the canon of that day.
tion.' It is only niisleading if we allow ourselves, with- At bottom the reason is self-evident ; it was a collection
out qualification, to carry back the idea of ' canonicity,' of prophets that was being made, a collection, that is to
in the fully-developed form which it finally reached, to say, of writings in which God himself spoke, enforcing
the earliest beginnings of the formation of a canon. It the Law by the mouth of his messengers. Such other
was impossible for the Prophets ever to receive a writings as were then extant did not profess to be
canonical value in the same sense in which this was ~[iil* 0~3 ( ' oracle of Yahwb,' EV ' thus saith the Lord'),
given to the Law ; the subordinate character of the Pro- the immediate utterance of the God of Israel. One of
phetic canon remains fixed for all coming time.4 Holi- them, indeed, the earlier nucleus of the Psalter, was in
ness was, and continued to be, a relative conception, use as the hymn-book of the Temple services ; but to
and we do not need to give to the designation D'XD;~ have admitted it into the canon on that account would
in Dan. 92 the same fulness of meaning that it has in the have been very much the same as if now a Christian
Talmud. The gulf between the Law and all the remain- church were to place its hymnal among its symbolical
ing books could be bridged only artificially, and we books. There was necessary, accordingly, a further (cp
know with certainty that the bridging idea-the idea of 5 34) extension of the idea ' Sacred Writings ' or (using
a property common to all holy books, that of ' defiling the word with caution) of the idea of the ' canon,' and
the hands '-was an invention of Pharisaic scholasticism, (so to say) a reduced intensity, before any further books
withstood by the Sadducees even after the destruction could find admission, not of course into either of the
of Jerusalem ( Y u d . 46). Until this bridge had been canons already existing, but into a third, subordinate in
securely constructed there was no idea of 'a canonicity rank to these. It is obvious, further, that again a con-
that included all three portions equally. This is proved siderable period must have elapsed before this extension
by a fact to which we have already referred,-the Saddu- of the idea could make way, and thus render possible
cean recognition of nothing but the Law. Before a the admission of books which, at the time when the
definitive union of the Prophetic canon with that of the prophetic canon was closed, were still unwritten.
Besides the (obvious) condition of a book's having a
date of Ecclesiasticus ought not to be pushed back more than religious character, the only remaining condition de-
fifty or sixty years. The author may be describing in his old 44.End of manded by the test implied in the ex-
age remembrances from his early youth. See Kautzsch in StKr, prophetic panded idea of canon is the condition
18 8, p. rg8f:
The possibility of much later additions to the books admiited period. of date. Those books were accepted
t o this canon is unfortunately by no means excluded, as is which were considered to have been
sufficiently evidenced by the simple fact that even the Pentateuch written during the prophetic period.
continued to he added to long after its canonization (see 5 37). Our earliest witness to this is Josephus. I n the passage already
Thus there is nothing in the natnre of the case to prevent us from referred to above (c. A$. 18) after setting forth his tripartite
attributing the appendices to Zechariah (chaps. 9-14) to the later division of the sacred writinis (5+13+4), he goes on to say :-
Maccabean period, as We. (IJG 228, n. z 3rd ed. a74, n. 2) h r b 62 'Apra&~ov p i x ~r o c rag $+is xp6vov yiyparrTaL p a ~
appears to do (cp Z E CHARIAH ii.) or adhitting the interpo- Zrcama, v.iurwr 6' o i q apoias rj.$iora~rois mpb a h o v 6rh ~ i p+
,
lation of passages in Isaiah (alread$enlarged by the addition of yavBuOaL r;lv ri)v r o$qri)v h ~ p B <
S~a8oxiv. That is to say, the
chaps. 40-66)as is indicated by Duhm's results. In these cases, prophetic period cfoses with Artaxerxes (Ezra and Nehemiah),
however, wearejustified in demanding very conclusiveargumenb. ~~ ~ ~

2 Cp for example, Duhm, a). cit. vi. n. I . 1 Gratz 150f wishes to exclude the Hagiographa in both
3 H&ce also the exclusion of the Book of Ruth. cases. 1;must ceconceded that the evidence for their inclusion
4 As to this cp the very significant passage (MegiZZu, 27") cannot be regarded as being so certain in the case of the 'Law
quoted in Marx, 29, n. 3. and the Prophets' as it is in that of the 'Law' alone.
66s 666
 CANON CANON
and canonicity (even in the case of non-prophetical books) i s vards, as an appendix to the canon. The reason for
guaranteed only by contemporaneousness with the continuous ts original exclusion was no doubt the consciousness that,
series of the prophets. This view is confirmed by the ‘Talmudic
tradition. Tos. Yadayim, 2 13 (p. 683) rules that ‘hooks such as trictly, it was but a Midrash to other canonical books.
Ben Sira [Ecclesiasticus] and all hooks written i $ ~ 1INI”, do The second part of the Chronicler’s work, once canonized,
not defile the hands.’ This TkN) ]N?Q-i.e., ‘from that time ended to take the other along with it ; possibly too the
forward ’-is the standing expression for the cessation of the 3ook of Chronicles may have been helped by the minute-
prophetic period. Corresponding with it is the other phrase y t ~ less with which it goes into the temple service-a feature
(‘until theu’),,denoting this period. Further confirmation o which at a later date, in the Massoretic arrangement
is found in Sun. z8a: ‘Books like Ben Sira and similar hooks see above, S), it was indebted for a first place among
writtenfyom thatti~neonwarrlsmaybereadasonereadsaletter he Hagiographa. From this one certain case, the last,
(cp on this, Buhl, 5 2). The point of time is fixed by a passage
in Seder o h m rabba, 30, as the time of Alexander the Mace- nay be inferred the possibility that other books also,
doniaii : “The rough he-goat (Dan. 8 21) is Alexander the :specially the immediately preceding ones (Ezra, Esther,
Macedonian, who reigned twelve years ; until then the prophets Daniel ; perhaps also Ruth : see above, 9), were only
prophesied by the Holy Spirit ;front that time fonvard incline
thine ear and hearken to the words qfthe wise.’1 If Alexander yadually added, one by one, to the third canon by
the Great here takes the place of Artaxerxes in Josephus, the Ray of appendices. At least, they all of them have the
explanation is simply that, according to the Jewish chronology ippearance of being, as to their contents, appendices to
and conception of history, Haggai and Zechariah, Ezra and :he two halves of the Prophetic canon, whilst the remain-
Malachi all lived at the same time, which is contiguous with that
of Alexander.2 !ng six books form a class by themselves. W e are not,
W e now know, therefore, that it is not ont of mere iowever, in a position to speak with certainty here.
caprice, but in accordance with a settled doctrine, that Conversely, all other writings, so far as not excluded
4 Esd. 14 and Baba Bathra r5a declare all the canonical 3y reason of their language - or some exception taken
books to have been already in existence in Ezra’s time. i7. -
Exclyded to their contents, may safely be supposed
to have been excluded either because,
The time limit was ‘a fixed one ; difference of view was books.
possible only with regard to the person of the author. manifestly and on their own confession,
From this doctrine we deduce the proposition : Into the they did not go back to the Prophetic time, or because
third canon, that of the Hagiographa, were received aZ1 their claim to do so was not ad1nitted.l The first-men-
dooks of a reZipous character of which the date was tioned reason must have been what operated in the case
delieved to so back as f a r as to the Prophetic period, that Df works of so high a standing as I Macc. and Ecclesi-
is, to the time of Ezra and the Great Assemdb. asticus; as instance‘s of the application of the second
The reason for the setting up of such a standara is principle, we may take (in contrast to Daniel) the books
easily intelligible. Down to the time of the Great Df Baruch and Enoch.a
45. Reason Assembly, the Spirit of God had been The attempt to determine the date at which the
operative not only in the Law but also ;anon of the Hagiographa, and with it that of the
of limit. outside of it, namely in the Prophets ; but entire OT, was finally closed, is again
48. Date,
‘from that time onwards’ the Law took the command inferior limit. surrounded with the very greatest diffi-
alone. ‘ Until then’ it was possible to point to the culty. Let lis, to begin with, fix the
presence of the factor which was essential to the pro- fee,-minus ad quem. It is given us in the passages,
duction of sacred writings, but ‘ from that time onwards ’ frequently referred to already, in Josephus (c. A?. 18)
it was not. Hence the conviction that the divine pro- and 4 Esdras (chap. 14), where the entire corpus of the
ductive force had manifested itself even in those cases O T Scriptures, in twenty-two or twenty-four books, is
where the writing did not claim to be an immediate divine set apart from all other writings. As to the extent of
utterance ; but only down to the close of the prophetic the canon, unanimity had been reached by at least
period. The proposition we have just formnlated is somewhere about the year IOO A.D.
sufficient to explain the reception or non-reception of For a superior limit we shall have to begin where our
all the books that we now have to deal with. Job was investigation as to the . prophetic
. canon ended-with
received as, according to general belief, a book of 49. Superior the son of Sirach. In his hymn he com-
venerable antiquity ; Ruth as a narrative relating to the memorates, as the last of the heroes of
limit. Israel, Zerubbabel and Toshua a s well as
period of the judges, and therefore (as was invariably
assumed as matter of course in the case of historical Nehemiah, thereby conclusively showing that he was
narratives) as dating from the same time ; the Psalms as acquainted with the work of the Chronicler (49 TI j? ).
broadly covered by the general idea that they were Moreover, he makes use of passages from the Psalms.
‘ David‘s Psalms’ ; Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes Neither fact proves anything for a third canon; the
as resting on Solomon’s name ; Lamentations as rest- fact that he found his ideal and pattern in the prophets
ing on that of Jeremiah; Daniel as a prophet of the is rather against this ( 2 4 3 3 : #TL 6dauKahlav d ~ s~ p o -
Persian period (which in its whole extent was supposed Gvretav PKXEG). The prologue of his descendant (later
to fall within the prophetic age) overlooked in the earlier than 132 B . c . ) shows still more unmistakably that no
collection. The same consideration held good for definite third canon was then in existence, even although
Esther, regarded as a history book. At the close comes already a certain number of books had begun to attach
the Book of Ezra-separated from the general work of themselves to the Law and the Prophets. Three times
the Chronicler:<-which, in its account of the Great he designates the whole aggregate of the literature which
Assembly, contained the original document on the close had been handed down, to which also his ancestor had
of the Prophetical period and so, as it were, puts the sought to add his quota, as 6 vo’rros Kal oi T ~ O @ $ T U L
46.hppen- colophon to the completed canon. Had Kat Th. x i h a Tb KaT’ adrobs fiKOhOUe~KbTCL;6. V . K. O l
what we now call Chronicles-ie., the first ~ p K .. ~b &ha ~ b ~ pipila p ~ ;t 6. v. K . at Tpo$qTeiar ( o l
dices. part of the Chronicler’s work-been in- rrpo?$Tar [ C ] )K . ~h horrrh. TGV P ~ p h l w v . What is thus
corporated with the canon simultaneously with the designated by three different indeterminate expressions
incorporation of its second part, the Book of Ezra, the cannot have been a definite collection. That of‘ these
two would never have been separated, and even arranged books, in whole or in part, there were already Greek
in an order contrary to the chronological (cp H ISTORICAL translations we can gather from the Prologue ; but we
L ITEKATURE , 0 15). W e may therefore say with all get no help either from this or from the LXX generally.
confidence that Chronicles did not come in till after- 1 ‘Some found their way in others not on grounds of taste-
the taste of the period,’ says’Wellhause~(EinLW 552, 6th ed.
1 ‘The wise’ are the (post-canonical) scribes; cp Weber, 512). No doubt considerations of taste must have had influence
1218 on the decision whether the books in que4on came up to the
2 Cp copious proofs for this point already more than once standard ; hut it was the doctrine that formally decided.
touched on above, in Marx (see below: 5 75), 53, n. 4. a As to Ecclesiasticus note the express testimony of Tosephta
3 Cp CHRONICLES, 5 z and E ZRA , 5 8. and Gemara (above, 8 44).
667 668
 CANON CANON
In I Macc. 7 1 6 f . we find Ps. 792 f. cited with the to about 100 A.D.-within which we are unable to point
formula KUT& T ~ h6yov V Sv ( 4 s hbyous 013s [A]) gypa+e, m t any sure indications of the close of the third canon.
in other w o r d s , p Holy Scripture. In 2 5 g f . Daniel and 52. No decision, Ryle (,p. 1 7 3 8 )thinks it can be made
his three friends are named as patterns in immediate out with a very high degree of prob-
connection with Elijah, David, Caleb, and others ; 1 5 4 2nd cent. .B.D. abilitv that the close took place as
seems to quote Daniel’s prediction (Dan. 927). W e here sarly as the second century B .c., between 106 and 105,
see, somewhere about the close of the second or the the year of the death of John Hyrcanns 11. His one
beginning of the last century B. c . , the Book of Daniel positive reason is that the civil wars and scholastic con-
for the first time coming into evidence as a fully ac- troversies of the last century B . C . must have withdrawn
credited authority-we could not possibly have expected interest from such things and made impossible any
so to find it a t any earlier date. union of schools or any public step that could alter the
Unfortunately these testimonies, such as they are, are status guo. That there ever was a union of schools,
followed by a very wide hiatus. Philo (06. C ~ J Z . 50 however, we have every reason to deny ; the extension
60. Philo. A.D.) is our next resort ; but, great as is of the canon was in all probability only one of the
the extent of his writings (all proceeding internal affairs of the Pharisaic school (cp above, 5 37).
uncompromisingly on the allegorical method of biblical From this it necessarily follows that there is no question
interpretation), they do not yield us much that is satis- about any public step being taken-say a deliberate
factory in our present inquiry.l Nowhere do we find decision, reached once for all, or a decree of any
a witness to a tripartite canon.2 Of the canonical authoritative assembly..
books he nowhere quotes Ezekiel, any of the five W e actually have express information, however, of
Megilloth, Daniel, or Chronicles.3 The blank is a great such a decision at a much later time. I t is obvious
one. Still we may find some compensation in the fact 63. Mishna. that no such thing would have been
that a t least the Book of Ezra is cited with the solemn necessary if a binding decision had al-
formula applicable to a divinely inspired ~ r i t i n g . ~ A ready been long in existence. W e refer at present to
certain conclusion as to the incompleteness of the canon the controversy of which we read in the Mishna ( Yud.
cannot be drawn from this silence regarding many books. 3 5 ; cp Bduyoth, 63).
On the other hand, real importance attaches to the The general proposition there laid down rims as follows :
following piece of negative evidence : Philo, although ‘All holy scriptures (alp? y n l ) 2 defile the hands’ (cp above,
(as an Alexandrian) he must have been acquainted with
5 3) ; next folloys the particular : ‘Canticles and Ecclesiastes
defile the hands. Then we have the Controversy. ‘R. ,Juda
many non-canonical books, and indeed actually betrays said : Canticles indeed defiles the.hands ‘ as regards Eccleslastes
such acquaintance, in no instance uses them in the opinion is divided. R. Jose said : Ecilesiastes does not defile
same way as the canonical. This allows as probable the hands but as regards Canticles opinion is divided. R.
Simon sai$ : Ahout Ecclesiastes the school of Shammai gives
the inference that a definitely closed canon was known the laxer the school of Hillel the severer decision (herecompare
to h i m ; only we are not able to say from any dald the elucidation in Bduyoth, 5 3, that according to the former
supplied by him what was the extent of that canon in [Shammai] Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to
the latter it does).s R. Simon h. ‘Azay said : To me it has been
its third part. 1
handed down from the mouth of the seventy-two elders that on the
Our next witness is the NT. I n Lk. 2444 we have day on which R. Eliezer h ‘Azarya was made supreme head: it was
evidence of the tripartite division, for the psalms ’ prob- decided that (both) Canticles and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.
61.NT. ably stands a pofiori for the whole of the R. ‘Akiha said : God forbid that there should ever have been
difference of opinion in Israel about Canticles, as if it did not
third canon. Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, defile the hands ; for the entire world, from the beginning untll
and Ezra are not referred to a t all. Of course here now, does not outweigh the day in which Canticles was given to
again nothing certain is to be inferred from the silence ; Israel. For indeed (31) all Scriptnres ( n q m 3 ) are holy (ai>),
but, if other considerations came into play, this fact but Canticles is holy of holies ( p a T p UT,$. If people d r e
also ought to be taken into account. On the other divided in opinion it was as to Ecclesiastes alone. R. Jobanan
h. Jehoshua, the ,‘on of R. ‘Akiba’s father-in-law, said : As the
side, the certain reference to Chronicles in Mt. 2 3 3 5 , son of ‘Azay says, people were thus divided in opinion, and it is
Lk. l l $ x 6 is entitled to have weight. The quotation thus that the matter has been decided.’4
of Dan. 7 2 2 in I Cor. 62 also innst be referred to.6 It has been contended that the dispute here was not
There thus remains a space of something like two about the question of canonicity, both books being clearly
centuries-say from the end of the second century B. c. 54. Meaning included in the opening sentences under
the category of holy, and that the word
1 Cp Homemann (Obseruationes ad iZZurtrafionent doctrine of dispute. 132, ‘ t o preserve, lay aside, hide,’ the
de canone VT.ex PhiZone, 1775, copious extracts from which technical expression for ;he treatment with which the
are given in Eichhorn’sEinZ.F) 1~23s). Till the appearance
of Prof. H. E. Ryle’s Philo and the Ho@ Scvipfure (‘95), the books in question were threatened, does not mean ‘ t o
statements of Hornemann had never been verified with sufficient pronounce apocryphal ’ but only something like ‘ to
care ; though, on the other hand, they had not in any point been exclude from public reading.’ Both contentions are
shown to he inaccurate. Prof. Kyle’s results do not, however,
differ much from those of Hornemann. incorrect. The word in question is not used with
2 Apart from De Vit. Coniemn~X.,5 3, probably a work of a reference to Ecclesiasticus or other apocryphal works,
much later time. Cp Lucius, Die Therapeute?~,1879, and simply because no one had ever spoken of canonizing
Schurer’sreview of Conybeare’sPhilo a6out the Contemplafive
Lzj% TLZ 20th July 1895. them, and thus there could not possibly be any question
3 ‘khat Tkh. 7 14 is quoted in the tract De c o n p . guar. emd. about doing away with them or removing them. And
gratia, 8, is asserted by Herzfeld (CVZ 3 96 [18$7]; but cp also that our passage certainly is discussing the. question
Richter’s edition of Philo 1828) and has been taken over from whether the two books are Holy Scripture or not, is
him hy all subsequent wr&ers; iut it is rather @‘s enlarged form
(enlarged perhaps from Ch.) of Gen. 46 20, which varies from Ch.
Ryle (PhiZo, etc., p. 289) finds T Ch. 9 1 3quoted (De P r ~ met. 1 A second argument adduced by Ryle, that obtained by
Poen. 5 13, ii. 420); hut there is very little likeness hetween the reasoning backwards from the position in Josephus, is toned
two passages (see however, the next note). Of the minor down by Buhl (p. 27) to the more moderate view that ‘the third
prophets only Ho:ea, Jonah, and Zechariah are made use of; part ... had already received its canonical completion before
hut this guarantees the entire Dodekapropheton. the Christian era.
4 Unless here (De conj: Li?guamnz, 5 28, 1J) the whole of 2 By this we are certainly, in accordance with 3 2, to under-
rCh.3 he intended, rather than (as is universally assumed) stand the entire canon. On the other hand, the p i i n 3 men-
Ezra8 2 (see in I Ch. 8 22 the one descendant of David men- tioned later 7nay mean merely the Hagiographa.
tioned in Ezra 8 .). Cp the plur. 02 d~pduavssrK.T.A. and i v 8 One easily erceives that in point of fact here also the
pamhcrak @@AoLF. stricter school o?Shammai remained true to its reputation, and
5 By many the expression ’from . .
. to’ there used is
actually,taken to mean ‘from the first hook to the last hook of
no less so the laxer school of Hillel.
4 The tract Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (chap. 1) as we saw
the OT. Then the passage would prove the close of the canon above (F, 18), darries this decision hack, as alsp in’the case d
with the Book of Chronicles, and, in fact its close altogether; Proverbs, to the time of ‘the Great Synagogue.
>ut the expression may refer to the sachege implied in the 5 Cp especially Buhl, 7 f. 26, and Ryle, 187 f. On the
locality of Zechariah’s murder. other hand, Cheyne (OPs, 457) acknowledges that the question is
e CP W e , P. 1 4 3 8 that of canonicity.
669 670
 CANON CANON
made unmistakably evident by the words of R. ‘Akiba. :he question had long been (substantially) a settled one,
In this final stage of the development the question LS is sho*wn by the passages quoted from Josephus and
cannot possibly be whether perhaps, though integral 1Esdras ; settled, however, not by any single decision,
parts of Holy Scripture, they nevertheless do not defile m t only by the gradual clearing up of public opinion.
the hands : it is established that ‘all Holy Scriptures 3 f other books in addition to the twenty-four there -is
defile the hands.’ Then follows the Mishnic decision no question whatever, and as regards those two about
that the boobs of Canticles and Ecclesiastes also belong which alone any difficulty is possible, common opinion
to this class ; after this, the discussion which preceded :ame to be so decidedly in favour of what claimed to
the decision, and the grounds on which it was reached, be the stricter but in reality was the looser opinion,
are given. that the zealot R. ‘Akiba comes forward fanatically on
In this connection the precise fixing of the day on the side of Hillel.
which this decision was arrived at is important-the dtiy W e may now venture to figure to ourselves what was
55. loo A.D. on which at Jamnia (Yabna) R. Gamaliel the probable course of the development, and what the
11. was incidentally deposed from his 56. Result. attitude assumed by various sections of the
place as president of the court of justice, an incident for community towards the decisive questions.
which we have also other early testim0nies.l This It is probable that among the Sdpherim (professional
event certainly falls within the decades that immediately students of Scripture) of the last century R .c., but
followed the destruction of Jerusalem-whether so early without the co-operation of the Sadducean priestly
as 90 A. D . (the usual assumption) is questionable, hut nobility, there was gradually formulated a scholastic
100 A. D . will not in any case be very wide of the mark. doctrine as to which of the many religious writings then
This period, then, saw the settlement of a twofold current1 could establish a just claim to a sacred char-
controversy, which, as regards one half of it at least, acter. W e have already seen by what standard the
had already occupied the schools of Hillel and Shammai writings were judged. As this doctrine gradually took
about a century before. This last point is conceded shape, unanimity was reached on every point except
even by a zealot like R. ‘Akiba; his unrestrained on a dispute with reference to two minor books;
exaggeration as regards Canticles is only a veil to cover in which, as was natural, the victory was ultimately
the weakness of his position.2 W e hear nothing of any gained by the more liberal view. This doctrine of the
decision of the question preceding that of Jamnia. Sepherim, as being the view of those who were the only
That, after the proceedings of that stormy.day, the qualified judges on the special subject, readily gained
question should have been discussed again some decades admission amongst such as were in doubt and sought
later (R. ‘Al:iba 06. r j s ) , need not surprise us. No to inform t h e m ~ e l v e s . ~Thus the learned Philo, though
new decision is arrived at : the question is answered Living in Alexandria, takes very good care not to con-
by a confirmation of that of J a n u k 3 travene the stricter practice : what we know about the
Thus, then, about the year IOO A. D . there was opposition offered to the books of Ecclesiastes, Canticles,
still, as an unsettled controversy, the same question m d Esther, even suggests the possibility (incapable of
as to the canonicity of two books, which as regards one course of proof) that his silence about certain hooks
of them (Ecclesiastes ; see ECCLESIASTES, 3 ) had (cp above, § 50) really arises from a still greater strict-
been a notorious point of difference between the two ness. As a convert to Pharisaism, Josephus professes
great schools of the Pharisees.4 By that time, however, the school doctrine of his teachers with an emphasis all
the greater because his own personal leanings were
1 For brevity’s sake it will he enough to refer to the exceed-
ingly careful history of the activity of the scribes, with copious (perhaps) against such exclusiveness. O n , the other
proofs, given in Schiirer (2 3013). hand, though the doctrine made way, yet the ‘majority
2 The remark has a wider application to rabbinical Judaism of the people betook themselves quite naturally to the
generally and the other Megilloth : cp We. Eid(41 554, 6th ed. mass of apocalyptic and legendary literature, which,
514.
3 The reader is referred to Bphl (28 s),Wildehoer in the century immediately before and after the birth of
(58x) Ryle (1923) and the articles P U R I M and
for tie’ later and less gmply attested disputes about Esther,
NICANOR Jesus, exercised a very great influence, and did much
to prepare the way for Christianity. The formulated
Proverbs, Ezekiel, and Jonah (mentioned in the order of the
deqree of their attestation). It is only in the case of the Book theory possessed obvious advantages, however, and the
ofLEsTrmR(p.~., 0 12) that such disputes can have been really Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem left the
serious. In the case of Ezekiel, there may he a genuine remin- Pharisees in sole possession of the leadership of Israel.
iscence of the embarrassment caused to the scribes by the This is shown most clearly by 4 Esdras. Against his
discrepancies between the Law and Ezek. 40-4S, perhaps also of
the objections raised by the Sadducees on this account. In will, the author of that book is constrained to acknow-
part at least, we must admit the truth of Strack‘s remark ledge the divine authority of the canon with its twenty-
(p. 429). that in many cases the discussions leave one with the four constituent parts. Being, however, a thoroughgoing
impression that the objections were raised merely that they
might be refuted.’ This impression, however, no way impairs partisan of the apocalyptic literature, he outdoes the
that of the real seriousness of the decision of Jamnia. That Pharisees. T o the seventy books3 which they exclude he
the four books mentioned above are not named in Yad. 3 5 attributes a still higher authority, placing them in an
proves in any case that at that time serious objections to them esoteric a s distinguished from an exoteric canon.
weke no longer entertained and as we are here dealing only with
the close of the canon. not kith the individual hooks of which it By the end of the first century the scribes had settled
was composed, this fa’ct must suffice for us. the last of the questions controverted in the schools,
4 This is not inconsistent with the fact (which we learn from and not long after the beginning of the second century
variou5 sources) that Simon b. Shetah (who belonged to the third
of the five ‘pairs ’ in the first half of the first century B.c.) (R. ‘Al5iba 06. 135) to refer to the decision at Jainnia
quotes Eccles.7 12Hs Holy Scripture (for details see Buhl,p.i5J). is decisive. Later, following in ‘Alsiba’s footsteps, the
H e represents the one side of thr case. The subject is one scribes succeeded, not only in obliterating every trace
that helongs to ‘special introduction ; but, in passing, the present
writer may he allowed to express the view that, in the present showing how long its true character still continued to be known,
text of Ecclesiastes, traces are to be clearly found of the is conveyed by the information that R. ‘Akiha himself hurled
assistance which it was found necessary to give, in order to an anathema against those who sang the Song of Songs with
secure for this hook a place in the canon. In 12 10 it is testified wanton voice in houses of public entertainment (Tosephta,
of the preacher (&?) that he was a well-meaning and respectable Saizh. chap. 12 ’ cp WRS OTJCP) 186).
man (of course otherwise unknown). The contradiction to 1I 1 To this peribd and no;to the fourth or the third century R.C.
where he is represented as being ‘the son of David,’ ‘king i; belongs the complaint, expressed in the epilogue of Ecclesiastes
Jerusalem,’ is glaring. These words, as also 1I Z 16, a good deal (Eccles. 1 2 IZ), as to the making of many books.
in 2 4-9 and perhaps also 7 r g n and certainly 1 2 11-14are inter- 2 If, as we have conjectured, the Sadducees were in general
polations, by means of which alone the reception of the hook opposed to, or suspicious of, the recognition of any sacred
into the canon was rendered possible. I t is self-evident that writings besides the Law, there would he an open field
Canticles also became a part of the canon, only by virtue of its for a view like that of the Pharisees, which took a middle course
superscription which ascribes it to Solomon. A valuahle light between Sadducean rigour and the fashionable tendency to the
is thrown on R. ‘Akiba’s assertion that Canticles had never endless multiplication of religious literature.
been disputed, and at the same time a trustwurthy evidence, 3 In round numbers of course.

67 I 672
 CANON CANON
of variations in the text, but also in driving from circu- it succeed in extending its influence over the Hellenists
lation the whole body of extra-canonical 1iteratflre.l bv means of the new Greek translation of Aouila : but
1 .

Christianity, however,. in the vigour of its youth, 59. Partial also the Church itself ultimately surren-
emancipated from the authority of the scribes, continued return to dered. A strange and significant fact !
5i.Chris-'to pursue the old ways. In the rejected Canon. From about 150 A . D . onwards there
tianity. literature it discovered prophecies of the constantly occur patristicstatemeuts on the
appearing of Jesus ; and what the Pharisees extent of the O T canon, which avowedly rest upon Jewish
destroyed in the original language it eagerly. handed authority. This certainly had its advantages; for in
down in translations and revisions to succeeding genera- this way many hooks of merely temporary value were
tions. The N T writers show no scruple in quoting excluded which, if rendered authoritative, could hardly
extra-canonical books as sacred, and we find ascribed have furthered the interests of Christianity. On the
to Jesus some expressions quoted as Holy Writ (Lk. same ground too, the return of the Reformers to the
1 1 4 9 ; Jn. 7 3 8 ) which are not contained in the OT.2 canon of the synagogue is justifiable, especially when,
What is more, examples of this form of Jewish literature as in the case of Luther, the relative importance of the
fused with Christian elements, or worked over from the Apocrypha is duly recognised. On the other hand, it
Christian point of view, have found their way into the must be confessed that even the unanimously accepted
canon of the N T itself-a fact which only lately has canon of the Church is not without books of a similar
begun to receive the attention it deserves3 character (notably Esther and Canticles ; also Ecclesiastes
This independent drift of tendency within the Christian and Daniel), and that thus the distinction between
Church greatly increases the difficulty of estimating the canonical and uncanonical books (if they are judged
58. Alex- so-called ' canon of the Alexandrians.' As by their intrinsic value) is a fluctuating one.2 Besides
andrian IS well known, even the oldest extant this, it is certain that in the excluded books, of which
MSS of the LXX contain, in addition to the we know so many already, and are continually coming
canon* canonical hooks, a greatly varying number through new discoveries to know more, there has come
of.writings which are not recogiiised in the canon of down to us a treasure of unspeakable value for a know-
the synagogue, and indeed in some cases were not even ledge of religious life as it was shortly before and after
originally written in Hebrew. On the other hand, the the time of Jesus, and so for an understanding of the
oldest of these MSS are several centuries later than the origin of Christianity (see A POCRYPHA, A POCALYPTIC ).
Christian era, and are the work of Christian copyists. K. B.
It becomes a question, therefore, which is the earlier :
the freer praxis of the Alexandrian Jews or that of B. N E W TESTAMENT.
primitive Christianity ;+whether the greater compass of T h e problem of the N T canon is to discover by what
the LXX canon of the Alexandrians influenced the view means and at what period a new collection of sacred
of the Christian communities or whether the influence books came to he invested with all the
flowed the other way.5 The probability is that, in fact, 60. Jesus'
dignity which belonged to that of the
the influence worked both ways. What principally con- Words and Synagogue. Jesus had claimed to speak
cerns us here, however, is this. About the middle of Deeds. with an authority in no way inferior to
the first century A. D., when the Greek-speaking Christian that of the O T , and had placed his own utterances
community began to break entirely with Judaism, the side by side with some of its precepts as fulfilling or
narrow Pharisaic doctrine of the canon had certainly even correcting them. T h e remembered words of Jesus
not as yet penetrated into the domain of Hellenistic thus became at once, if the expression may be allowed,
Judaism so deeply as to delete completely, or to exclude the nucleus of a new Christian canon. At first they
from the MSS of the LXX, all the books that Pharisaism circulated orally from hearer to hearer. Then narra-
refused to recognise. The vacillation in individual MSS tives were compiled recording the Sacred Words, and
must at that time have been even greater than it is in the no less Sacred Deeds which had accompanied or
those which have reached u s ; although on this point illustrated them. Some narratives of this kind underlie
definite knowledge is unattainable. It is certain, how- our Gospels, and are referred to in the preface to the
ever, that to some extent precisely those books belong- Third Gospel. In course of time these were superseded
ing to this category which lay nearest to the heart of the by the fuller treatises which bear the
Christian community in its most primitive clays (especi- 61* names of apostles or the chosen com-
ally Enoch and 4 Esdras) have come down to us in no panions of apostles ; and their superior merit, as well as
Greek hlS. The conclusion is that the additions to the the sanction thus given to them, soon left them without
LXX are for the most part older than Christianity. rivals as the authorised records of the Gospel history.
The doctrine of the Pharisees, however, ultimately They were read side by side with hooks of the OT
won the day also in its proper home. Not only did in the public worship of the Church, and were appealed
1 Indeed it was supposed, until the recovery in.1896 of part of to as historical documents by those who wished to show
Ecclesiasticus, that they had actually succeeded in extirpating in detail the correspondence between the facts of
it-so far, that is, as it was not able to hide itself under the the life of Jesus and the Jewish prophecies about the
veil of exegesis in the Haggada, Midrash and Talmud (We.
I3G 252, second ed. 287). Even Ecclesiasticus would he no Messiah. This stage has been definitely reached by the
exception if we could admit the contention of D. S. Margoliouth time of Justin Martyr ; but as yet there is no clear
( T h e Origin of the 'Original Ke6rew' of EccZesiasticus, 1899). proof that a special sanctity or inspiration was predicated
In his opinion the 'Original Hebrew' is a had retranslation of the books themselves. The final step, however,
(from the Syriac version and a Persian translation of the Greek)
made after moo A . D . by an Arabic-speaking Jew [or Christian?] could not long he delayed. T h e sacredness of the
who was taught Hebrew by a Jew with a pronunciation similar Words and Deeds of Jesus which they contained, the
to that of the Christians of Urmi. The reader will probably apostolic authority by which they were recommended,
hesitate to accept this theory; still it cannot be denied that
Margolionth has availed himself with qreat skill of many weak and, above all, their familiar use in the services of the
Doints of the Hebrew text. which in a k case need a thorouzh
investigation.
- Church, gradually raised them to the level of the ancient
Scriptures ; and the process was no doubt accelerated
2 As to this cp Wildehoer, 48 3, who must be held in all
essentials to have the better of the argument as against the by the action of heretical and schismatical bodies,
vigorous polernic of Ryle, 1 5 3 fi claiming one after another to base their tenets upon
3 See, for example, APOCALYPSE.
4 In fact to speak strictly there never was such a canon. 1 There is, however a singular passage in the sixth of the
The Alexaidrine collection ofkoly Books never underwent that Anglican Articles of Rkgion limiting ' Holy Scripture' to ' those
revision in accordance with the Pharisaic conception of ' defil- canonical hooks of the Old and the New Testaments, of whose
ing the hands' which finally fixed the Hebrew canon. authoritywasnever anydoubt in the Church,'which Bishop West-
5 On this point there seems to he some self-contradiction in cott(0n the Canon oftheNT(4),494)cannot undertake to explain.
Ryle, ifwe compare pp. 146, 2083 with 180f: 2 See Cheyne, Founders, 349, and cp preceding note.

22 673 674
 CANON CANON
certain of these -documents or upon others peculiar to ier great possession, and to the importance of insisting
themselves. ipon its integrity, by the attempts made by heretics to
Meanwhile a similar process had been going on in iefrand her of portioiis of it, there is no evidence of
regard to other writings of the apostolic age. These jeliberate efforts on her part to build np the conception
62. Epistles. were for the most part letters, written 3f a new canon in opposition to them; much less of
in many instances to particular chmches, my formal declarations, such as those of later times,
and designed to meet special needs. T h e writers iefining what books should or should not he included
betray no consciousness that their words would come to in it. In the stress of controversy she fell back on the
he regarded as a permanent standard of doctrine or of treasures which she possessed, and realised that in the
action in the Christian Church: they write for an books which she was accustomed to read for the in-
immediate purpose, and just as they would wish to struction of her children she had, on the one hand, the
speak, were they able to he present with those whom full and harmonious expression of all those positive
they address. I n their absence, and still more after truths whose isolation or exaggeration formed the
their death, their letters were cherished and read again groundwork of the several heretical systems, and, on
and again by the churches which had first received them, the other hand, the decisive contradiction of the
and by others who naturally welcomed such precious negations in which their capricious selections had
relics of the apostolic age. For the apostles were the involved those who rejected any part of the common
authorised instructors of the Christian Church. In the heritage.
age which succeeded them, ' the Lord and the apostles' 2. That the sketch given above of the gradual growth
became the natural standard of appeal to which reference of a new canon with its twofold contents, in the ueriod
was to he made in all matters of faith and practice. 65, Evidence anterior to Irenzus, Tertullian, and
For some time ' the tradition of the apostles,' as handed of orthodox Clement, is justified not only by in-
down in the churches of their foundation, was regarded trinsic probability but also by the
as the test of orthodoxy. Oral tradition, however, is writers.
Clement, &. references of early Christian writers
necessarily variable and uncertain. It was natural that, to hooks of the NT, may be seen by
when actual disciples of the apostles were no longer consulting the collections of such references accessible
living, appeal should more and more be made to their in modern treatises upon the canon. Here a brief
written words, and that these should be set side by side outline of the evidence must suffice.
with the Gospels as the primary documents of the In the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians
Christian faith. Here again the same elements as (circa 95) we have two precepts introduced by a com-
before come into play, though probably at a slightly later mand to ' remember the words of our Lord Jesus ' (cp
period-viz., the liturgical use of the epistles, and the Acts 2035): in neither case do they exactly agree
necessity of maintaining them intact against the muti- with the language of our Gospels; they may be the
lations or rejections of heretical sects. result of a fusion due to citation from memory, or they
I n the collection which was thus gradually being may possibly be derived from oral tradition. The
formed by the pressure of various circumstances and epistle is saturated with the phraseology of the Pauline
63. Other with no distinct consciousness of the creation Epistles (Rom., I Cor., Eph. ; less certainly Tim. and
of a canon, a place was found beside the others) and of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but these
books. Gospels and the epistles for two other are not directly cited, and the expressions ' Scripture '
hooks. T h e Apocalypse of John opened with the and ' it is written ' are applied to the O T alone.
salutation of an epistle; and, even apart from this, I n the genuine Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (shorter
its apocalyptic character claimed for it a special and Greek recension, circa IIO A.D., Lightfoot) the only
abiding sacredness ; moreover it contained an express direct citation of words of Jesus ( I Lay hold and
blessing for those who should read and listen to it, and handle me and see that I am not a spirit [6arp6r~ov]
a warning against any who should presume to alter or without body,' Ad Smyrn. 3 ) is possibly derived from
add to it. T h e Acts of the Apostles would find an an apocryphal hook or from an oral tradition. T h e
easy entrance, partly as an authorised account of the language of these Epistles shows traces of acquaintance
deeds of apostles written by one who had contem- with Mt. and Jn. and with several of the Pauline Epistles.
poraneous knowledge of them, and still more as being T h e Epistle of Polycarp (circa IIO A.D., Lightfoot) is
in form the second part of the Third Gospel and properly largely composed of quotations from N T books (especially
inseparable from the earlier hook. Mt., Lk., I and 2 Jn., I Pe., and the Pauline Epistles).
Thus, side by side with the old Jewish canon, and There is but one (somewhat uncertain) instance of the
without in any - it, there had sprung up a
way displacing
~.~ citation of N T words as Scripture.
64. A new new Christian canon. Although &exact T h e Epistle of Barnabas (circa 98 A.D., Lightfoot :
limits were not yet precisely defined, though most scholars place it later) prefixes to the
canon. and local variations of opinion were to saying ' Many called hut few chosen,' the formula ' it
be observed with regard-to the acceptance of par- is written.' If this be cited from Mt. 2214-and a later
ticular books, we find the idea of such a new canon reference makes it not improbable-then we have here
in full play in the writings of great representative the earliest use of this formula in reference to a book of
men of the period from 180 to zoo A.D.-Of Irenzus the NT.
speaking for Asia Minor and Gaul, of Tertullian in N. T h e Teaching of the ApostZes (date uncertain :
Africa, and of Clement in Alexandria. T h e Church is perhaps 1.10-130) introduces a form of the L o r d s Prayer,
by this time fully conscious that she is in possession of which has variants both from Mt. and Lk., by the
written documents of the apostolic age ; documents to words, ' as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, so pray
which reference must be universally made, as to a final y e ' (chap. 8 ; cp chaps. 11. 15). I t clearly presup-
court of appeal, in questions of right faith and right poses a written Gospel, and shows acquaintance with
action. T h e authority of Jesus and his apostles is, in Mt. and Lk. It has embodied an ancient (perhaps
the main, embodied for her in writings which she rends Jewish) manual, ' The Two Ways ' (used also in Ep.
together with the OT in her public services, quotes as Barn. and elsewhere), and also certain early eucharistic
Scripture, and regards as the inzpired revelation of prayers which incorporate the language of Jn.
divine truth. Of the stages by which this result has T h e ApoZogv of Aristides, the Athenian philosopher
been reached the writers referred to have nothing to tell (circa 125-1130 A.D. ), addressed to the emperor Hadrian
us. It was, as we have seen, the issue of- an un- (acc. to Eus. and the title of Arm. vers. ; the title of
conscious growth, natural and for the most part un- the Syr. vers. would place it a few years later, under
challenged, and so leaving no recorded history behind Antoninus Pius), twice refers expressly to writings of the
it. If the Church was awakened to a consciousness of Christians ; in the first instance, after enumerating the
675 676
 CANON CANON
main events of the life of Jesus-including his birth for corroboration of his statements ,to official Acta
' from a Hebrew virgin ' and his ascension-it distinctly PiZati: he may perhaps have been acquainted with a
appeals to t h e written Gospel for corroboration. It, more primitive form of the apocryphal materials still
also embodies language from the Epistle to the Romans. surviving under that designation. There is, however,
T h e Shepherd of Hermas (date uncertain : 110-140) no satisfactory evidence ' that he used any apocryphal
betrays a close acquaintance with many N T books, Gospel (unless perhaps a ' Protevangel ' or Gospel of
though it makes no direct citations either from O T or the Infancy). H e refers directly to the Apocalypse as
from NT. T h e language of our four Gospels (even of written by the apostle John (T?.Yp/i.81), and shows
the Appendix to Mk. ), of the Pauline Epistles including acquaintance with most of the Pauline Epistles.
the Pastoral Epp., of I Pe., Acts, Apoc., and above all From Justin we pass to his pupil Tatian (circa 150-
of Jas., is adopted by the writer ; and even 2 Pe. seems 160 A.D.), who helps to confirm our conclusions as to
to have been used. 68. Tatian. Justin himself by his use of our four
Before we come to the fuller testimonies of Justin Gospels and no other in his Diatessaron.
Martyr and subsequent writers it is necessary to This remarkable book, which for a long period must
,66. Papias. examine the evidence to be derived from have been the only Gospel of many Syrian churches, is
Papias. His date and the interpretation known to us mainly through a Commentary upon it
to be placed on his fragmentary remains have been written by Ephraim, and preserved to us in an Armenian
the subject of much criticism (see esp. Lightfoot, Essays on translation ; and also through an Arabic version of the
Supernatural ReZigion, 142-216). He was the hearer Diatessaron itself-made, however, after the later text
of a t least two personal disciples of Jesus, and his of the Peshitta Syriac had been substituted for Tatian's
great work may be placed circa 130-140. It was own text, which had many interesting variants of an
entitled Aoyiwv KVPLUKGV &Y+SELS, ' Expositions of the early type. T h e two sources of evidence supplement
Oracles of (or 'concerning') 'the Lord.' As 'X6yia is each other, and make it certain that Tatian's Gospels were
a term used in the N T of the O T writings, the title none other than our own. There is some reason for
of the book naturally suggests some kind of com- thinking that Tatian also 'introduced into Syria a col-
mentary on the writings relating to Jesus-ie., on lection of the Pauline Epistles.
written Gospels which held a recognised position of 3. Although Tatian adopted heretical opinions after
sacredness in the Christian Church. It is probable the death of his master, his great work on the Gospels
that similar commentaries on one or more of the Gospels appears to he quite independent of these
had already been composed by Gnostic writers : thus
69. Un-: and was accepted without question by the
orthodox
Basilides is said to have written twenty-four books on Basilides, Syrian Church. It will be well, however, to
'the Gospel' (circa 117-138).Such books are disparaged notice at this point the evidence to he derived
by Papias as wordy and misleading ;. he prefers to fall etc, from other heretical leaders in regard to the
back,on the testimonies of the living disciples of those estimation in which various boolts of the N T were held
who had seen the Lord. He gives accounts, not free by those who were dissatisfied with the teaching of the
from difficulties, of the composition of Gospels by main body of the Church. It will suffice to take three
Matthew and Mark. On the whole, the facts seem to writers of whom we have a considerable amount of
he most readily accounted for if we suppose that information preserved to us. Basilides of Alexandria
Papias in his five books expounded and illustrated by flourished in the reign of Hadrian. His Expositions
traditional stories the four Gospels as we at present on the Gospel, in twenty-four books, have already been
know them. Eusebius further expressly informs us that mentioned. Accepting, with Hort, the account pre-
Papias used I Jn. and I Pe. There can b e little served in the Refutation of Heresies (generally ascribed
doubt that his chiliastic views were based on the to Hippolytus) as representing portions of this work,
Apocalypse. we meet with the striking fact that quotations from the
Justin Martyr (circa ~ p ) ,
when mentioning the N T , introduced with the words ' The Scripture saith,'
words of the institution of the Eucharist, says : ' S o the and ' as it is written,' are found in a heretical writer at
6,. Justin. apostles handed clown in the Memoirs a period at which they cannot with certainty be said to
made by them, which are called Gospels ' be so introduced by any writer within the Church.
(Ap. 166). In describing the Sunday worship, too, he Several passages from the Pauline Epistles are so cited
refers to 'The Memoirs of the Apostles' (A?. 1 6 7 ; see by Basilides. H e also used Mt., Lk., Jn., and appar-
LORD'SD A Y ), and these Memoirs (drropv~povedpa~a) ently I Pe.
are placed on a level with the ' Writings of the Prophets ' Marcion (circa 140) undertook to restore the sim-
as an alternative means of edification in the gatherings plicity of Christianity on the basis of Paul, whom he re-
of the Christian Church. Justin's nse of them, here garded as the only true apostle. H e rejected the O T
and in his DiaZogue with the Jew Trypho, is conditioned and retained of the N T only Lk. in a mutilated form,
by the necessities of his argument. In themselves they and ten Epistles of P a u l ; the Pastoral Epistles and
would have no weight with heathen or Jewish opponents. the Epistle to the Hebrews not being included in his
T h e O T prophecies, however, could be freely appealed canon. There is no indication that he applied any other
to in either case, as the argument rested on their fulfil- standard than that of correspondence with his own
ment rather than on their sacredness. Justin accordingly dogmatic position, in making what must be considered
uses ' T h e Memoirs of the Apostles' as historical the earliest attempt at the conscious definition of a N T
documents- in proof of the fulfilment o f . Messianic canon.
predictions in the recorded events of the life of Jesus. Heracleon (circa 170, or earlier), a disciple of
Twelve times he refers to them directly in the Dialogue Valentinus, wrote a Commentary on Jn., of which con-
-all the instances being in connection with his exposi- siderable fragments are preserved by Origen. His
tion of Ps. 22. I n every case, both here and in the system of interpretation shows that he held the exact
ApoZogy, the reference is fully accounted for by the words of the Evangelist in the highest veneration, as
supposition that these ' Memoirs ' were our four Gospels, instinct with spiritual meaning. H e also commented
the phraseology of each of which can be traced in on Lk., and shows acquaintance with Mt., Heb., and
his writings. Where he most carefully describes the Pauline Epistles including z Tim.
them, after referring to an event recorded only by Lk., Thus the first certain citations of N T writings with
he says that ' they were compiled by Christ's apostles the formula familiarly used of the OT, the first attempt
and those who companied with them.' This exactly at defining a Nr canon, and the first commentary on
agrees with the traditional authorship of our Gospels, a N T book, come to US not from within but from without
as written two by apostles (Mt., Jn.), and two by the Church. These are striking evidences o f , the
followers of apostles (Mk., Lk.). Justin likewise refers authority generally accorded to the N T writings ; in
677 678
 CANON CANON
the words of Irenzms (iii. 27) : ' So strong is the position Rom. Then come four private letters-Philemon and
of our Gospels, that the heretics themselves bear witness .he Pastoral'. epistles. Two other epistles are de-
to them, and each must start from these to prove his ;lared forgeries-viz., those to the Laodiceans and to
own doctrine. ' the Alexandriaus. Then we have Jude, two epistles
4. T h e early history of the Old Latin and the Old 3f John ( I Jn. has been quoted from at an earlier
Syriac versions is wrapt in obscurity; but there is point, so that these may perhaps be 2 and 3 Ju.), and
70. Early reason for believing that the translation of the Wisdom of Solomon, 'written in his honour.'
versions. parts at least of both these versions must Then the 'apocalypses of John and Peter alone we
be placed not much later than the middle receive, which (sing.)some among us will not have
of the second century (see TEXT, 20, 32). The Old read in the church.' T h e Shepherd of Hermas ' ought
Latin version seems to have been made in N. Africa, to be read,' but not reckoned either with the prophets
and to have included, probably before the time of or with the apostles. After a few more lines as to
Tertullian, all the books of the later canon, excepting rejected books, the text being very corrupt, the fragment
Jas., z Pe., and possibly Heb. When the Scillitan suddenly closes. T h e omissions are deserving of notice-
Martyrs (N. Africa, 180 A . D . ) were examined as to nothing is said of I and 2 Peter, James, and Hebreurs--
what was contained in their book-chest, their brief but the omitted epistles were undoubtedly (if we except
recorded reply was ' Books and Epistles of Paul, a just 2 Peter) known at this time in the Roman church. It
man.' Such was their description of the writings which, is difficult, therefore, to draw conclusions from their
doubtless, were used by them in their services. It is omission in a fragment of whose history so little can be
conditioned by the circumstance of its utterance before ascertained and whose text is so obviously corrupt. T h e
heathen judges ; it would be wrong to' conclude from Muratorian canon is fully discussed by Zahn, Hist. qf
it that the Pauline Epistles were placed by them on a the Canon ('90) 2 1 - 4 3 : quite recently Dom Anielli of
different level from the other sacred writings. The Old Monte Cassino has published fragments of it from other
Syriac of the Gospels has till lately been known only MSS (Misc. Cnssin., 1897).
from Cureton's imperfect MS ; but the palimpsest r;. The inclusion (though with an exmession of
recently found at Mt. Sinai enables us to reconstruct
this version for the most part with approximate certainty.
i3. Books variance of opinion) of the Abocalypse of
temporarily Peter in the ' Muratorian Fragment ' leads
A selection of comments by Ephraim on the Acts of the received. us to say something of books which for
Apostles, and his Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, a time claimed a place in the canon, but
preserved in Armenian translations, point to an Old were ultimately excluded.
Syriac version of these books also. T h e older MSS of The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the
the revised Syriac version (the Peshitta) do not contain Homi@, miscalled his ' Second Epistle,' are contained,
z and 3 Jn., z Pe., Jude, and Apoc. after the Apocalypse, in Cod. A (the great Greelc Bible
W e have been concerned hitherto with tracing the of the 5th cent. in the Brit. Mus.). T h e Epistle of
growth of the conception of a N T canon, without Barnabas and the Slzepherd of Hermas hold a similar
71. General considering, except incidentally, the place in the Sinaitic Bible ( K ,4th cent.). The two
traces of NT. range of writings included in i t . T h e latter books are occasionally cited as Scripture in
influence of the main body of the N T patristic writings, and this is the case also with the
literature upon the writers of the period with which we Teaching of the Apostles.
have been dealing cannot be at all fully appreciated Of apocryphal Gospels two deserve special notice.
from our scanty analysis. Their writings must them- T h e Gospel according to tAe Hedrms is known only
selves be studied line by line, if we are to understand by a few fragments, which show that it bore a close
the debt which they owed, as regards both ideas and relation to our First Gospel. Clement of Alexandria
phraseology, to the documents of the apostolic age. and Origen quote from it. although they insist on the
In that age new conceptions had been given to the sole authority of our four Gospels. T h e Gosped accord-
world, and a new terminology had been formed for ing to Peter, a considerable fragment of which was
their expression. The next age reprodnced these ; but published in 1892 from a MS found in Egypt, is'known
it was not itself creative. This is seen, for instance, in to have been used in the church of Rhossns near
the technical terms of even the boldest of the Gnostic Antioch. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch ( I ~ o - z o ~at ),
speculations. Whatever may have been men's conscious first permitted its use, but subsequently disallowed it on
attitude towards the JST writings, it is clear that they the ground of Docetic errors. The extant portion
are dominated by them from the very first. Gradually embodies the language of all our four Gospels, though
they come to recognise them more and more as their it often perverts their statements. There is no trace of
masters ; and then, both within the Church and outside the use of any other Gospel in its composition, though
it, we find them definitely declaring the limits of the certain phrases may possibly be borrowed from some
canon to which they owe this allegiance. earlier apocryphal book. Its composition may with
Marcion's list of sacred books has already been probability be assigned to circa 165. Its testimony to
noticed. The next list of which we have any knowledge is the canon is thus somewhat parallel in date and extent
72, Muratorian unfortunately a fragment, and tel& us to that of Tatian's Diatessaron.
neither its date nor its author's name The Apoca&$se of Peter, of which a fragment was
canon' or locality. It was published in 1740 recovered at the same time, was an early book which
by Lodovico Antonio Muritori, the librarian at Mi&. powerfully influenced subsequent literature of a similar
Hence it is lcnown as the Muratorian canon. It is in lcind--e.g., the Apocalypse of P a d It seems to be
barbarous Latin, in a seventh or eighth century M S ; responsible for much of the medizval conception of
but its original mnst have been Greelc, and it is generally heaven and hell. It presents curious coincidences with
agreed that it was written in the West (perhaps at 2 Peter. It is quoted as Scripture by Clement of
Rome) towards the close of the second century. Light- Alexandria ; and as late as the fifth century it was read
foot conjectured that it was a portion of the 'Verses on Good Friday in certain churches of Palestine.
on all the Scriptures' assigned to Hippolytus. T h e 6. Our inquiry has revealed to ns that towards the
fragment commences with the end of a description of close of the second century, by the time of Irenseus,
Mark ; it goes on to speak of Luke and John, and refers 74. Result. Tertullian, and Clement-writers whose
to the different beginnings of the four books of the testimonies are so abundant that we need
Gospel. After Acts come the Epistles of Paul; the not dwell upon them here-the Church had attained to
seven churches to which he wrote being paralleled with a conscious recognition of a canon of the New Testa-
the seven of the Apocalvpse, and enumerated in the ment. Three classes of hooks have come into view :
following order-Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., Thess., ( I ) the main bulk of the N T books, as to which no
679 680
 CANOPY CANTICLES
doubt at all is expressed by writers within the Church ; choicest of all songs (like ' servant of servants,' Gen.
( 2 ) books whose position in the canon was challenged 9 25-i. e . , ' lowest of servants ' ).
in certain quarters, although they ultimately were The first difficulty arises when we seek to determine
included ; ( 3 ) books which were read in certain churches, precisely the subject of the Song ($§ 2-4); the next,
but were ultimately classed as non-canonical. With when we investigate its poetical form ($§ 5-11), and
regard to books of the second of these classes the later seek to fix its date (§§ 13-15). W e will consider these
history of their reception will be found under the difficulties in order ; but the first cannot be treated
special articles devoted to them, and in the works to Zompletely ($§ IO$ 17) until we have overcome the
which reference is made below. With regard to the j econ d .
third it may suffice to say that the verdict of the Church I. Subject (preliminary). Jewish tradition laid down
has been fully justified by the fact that no serious effort very positively that, both as a whole and in its several
has ever been made to reinstate them. J. A. R. 2. Hist. of In- parts, the Song describes the phases of
Literature of the Su6ject. i. O T Canon.-The terpretation. a spiritual (not merely an earthly)
,5. Biblio- following works dealing with the O T love. The bride was the symbol of
graphy : OT.canon may be mentioned. The authors Israel, the bridegroom that of its divine king; and by
are arranged in alphabetical order. the labours of countless homilists the Song became a
W. J. Beecher, 'The alleged Triple Canon of the OT,' lyric record of the intercourse between the Lord and
3BL 1896 ; C.A. Briggs, General Introduction t o fhe Study of his people from the Exodus (cp Jer. 22) to the Messianic
Holy Scrzpure, 1899 ; Buhl, ICanon n. Text d. A Ts, r89r ; D e
Wette-Schrader, EbZ. in d. A T , 8th ed. 1869; Duhm, Das time. Of those exegetical labours, or rather poetical
Buch Jesain, 1892,Die Entstehungdes A T , 1897 ; Fiirst, Der broodings, we .have a summary in the Midrash ha-
Kanoir des A 2; 1868 ; Graetz, Kohelefh, 1871 ; Holtzmann Shirim (transl. Wiinsche, BibNofh. Rubbin. I f: 6 ) ,
EinL in d.A T ,3rd ed. 1892 ; Koenig, Essaisur lafor-nratiori
du Canonde ?Ancien Testament, 1894; Marx, T~uditio Rabbin- with which the not less fervidly-written Targuni (of
o i u m z??terriina, etc. 1884 ; WRS, OTJCP), 1892 ; Ryle, The post-Talmudic origin) may be compared. This theory
Canon of the .OT 1892 ; Schiirer, GJV ii. 1886 ; Strack, art. was introduced in a modified form into the Christian
' Kanoii des AT ' in Pk'EP) 7 ; Weber, Sysfcnz der altsyn. $al. Church mainly through the influence of Origen, of
TheoZogk, 1880; We. 'Die Sammlung der Scbriften des A T ' in
Bleek EinLW ('78) and EinLP) ('93); Wildeboer, Die Enfsfe- whom Jerome says that, ' while on the other books he
hung'des AT-lichen Kauuns, 1891 (ET ' 9 5 ) ; C.H.H. Wright, surpassed all others, on the Song of Songs he surpassed
The Book of Iiohekth, 1883 ; Zunz, Die goftesdienstlichen himself' (Origen, Op. 311). This theologian treated
Vortrdgc der Juden, 2nd ed. 1832. Moreover, Wildehoer :i
his valuable article ' D e voor-Thalmndiscbe Joodsche Kanon the bride as being either the Church or (an important
(ThcoZo,aische StukiZz, 1897) cites the following books and variation) the soul of the believer. The boldly avowed
articles, written, with the exception of the first, by Roman heterodoxy of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who interpreted
Catholics : T. Mullen, The Canon of the O T , 1893 ; A. Loisy, the Song solely as relating to the Egyptian marriage of
Histoim du Canon de TAT, 1890; Magnier, kfude SUY Za
Solomon, was fruitless. Its condemnation at the second
Canonicife' des Sainfes &?&tures, I. 1892 ; B. Portner, Die
Autoritat dei-deuteyokanonischen Biicherdes A Ts, 7893 ; J. P. council of Coustantinople (553 A. D. ) postponed the
van Kasteren De Joodsche Canon (Stud. op. godsd. metensch. acceptance of the literal interpretation in the Church for
en Zetterh.-gehied, xxviii.), 1895. K. B. a thousand years. The great St. Bernard wrote eighty-
ii. NT Canun.-A brief outline of a subject of the six sermons on Song 1 and 2 alone, and his example
highest importance, which bristles with points of contro- fostered similar mystical studies in the Latin Church.
76. Biblio- versy, has necessarily passed over in Only among Jewish commentators was a natural exegesis
graphy: NT.silence a large portion of the evidence, not wholly unrepresented.2 Ibu Ezra, in particular, is
and needs to be supplemented by a list so thorough in his literal exegesis that it is doubtful
of books in which the various topics are treated in de- whether he is serious when he proceeds to allegorise.
tail and, in some cases, from a different point of view. Though Luther was moving in this direction, no
The following will prove most useful to the modern Christian scholar before Sebastiau Castellio ( 1544)
student :- ventured to maintain the purely secular character of the
Westcott O n the Canon of the NT (7th ed. 1896), a mine poem, and all that mediaeval mysticism could do was
of information on the early Christian writings ; Lightfoot's to exercise its right of selection from the two allegoric
Essays 011 Superitataral Religion (republished r889), specially
importantfor Papiasand other early writers : Salmon's Historical views. The idea that the bride was the Christian soul
the N T (8th ed. r897), a vigorous examination became the favourite : partly because it seemed to pro-
sm ; Sanday's Bampton Lectures on Znsjiration, mote edification, and partly because it commended
a careful and sympathetic account of the present position of
controversy' Weiss's Zntvod. to the NT (1886' ET 1887) itself to the romantic spirit of the young western
a clear e x p h t i o n of the early history ; Zahn's 6esch.h N? nations. Thus, Dante surprises us when (Conwivio, 2
Kauons (1888-92)) together with his Fouschun,<en (in five parts 15, end) he identifies the bride with Heavenly W i ~ d o m . ~
1881-83), by far the most exhaustive treatise that has appeared ; Even in the time of the Reformation we find the
Harnack's examination of vol. i. pt. I of this work in Das NT
uin das Jahr zoo ('Sp), a severe criticism-his own position is evangelical ' Horace of the cloister,' Fray Luis de Leon,
stated positively in his Dopnengesch. (1885 ; 2nd ed. 1888,pp. translating the Song mystically in ' ottava rima '; and
304.328) : Jiilicher's Einl. in das N T ('94). an able statement in our own day Bishop Alexander, though a Hebraist, has
of a position intermediate between Weiss and Harnack. Har-
nack's preface to his Chyonolorie der aZtchr. Litternfur ('97) made an earnest poetic protest in favour of a mystic
is a noteworthy utterance, indicating the abandonment of the and against a dramatic theory (Poems, 1886, pp. 26-51).
Tiibingen positions in regard to the dating of N T documents. Grammatical exegesis, however, destroys the basis of
[Holtzniann may also be mentioned as an eminently fair- the old verse-by-verse allegorical interpretation. The
minded guide, and abundant in literary references (Einl. in das
NTP) 1894). Among older books see Credner Zwr Gesch. only question possible is, whether a general
des k a n o m ('47), and his Gesch. dk N T ICanoAs; edited by 3' Not an allegory of subject may have been intended
Volkmar ('6o), important for the history of the study of the allego'T' by the poet-whether he considered the
canon ; also Hilgenfeld's EinL in das N T , 1875.1 J. A. R.
earthly love that he described to have a true symbolic
$$ 1-59, 753 K. B. ; $0 60-74, 76, .I. A. R. resemblance to the spiritual love.4 The answer is, that
CANOPY (TI??), Is. 45 RV, AV 'defence,' ; see 1 On the Jewish interpreters see S. Salfeld, Das Hohelied
T ENT , $ 4. Sabmo's 6ei d e n ~ u dErklarern
. des Mzttelalfeys ('79) ; on both
the Tewish and the Christian. W. Rieeel. Die Auslemne- des
CANTICLES. W e have before us a book which Hoh>nZied'esin deerjlid. Genze>ndeU. d>r&ikh. KirFhe (i98).
has suggested as many problems as Shakespeare's a See Salfeld, 52; Gratz, Schir ha-Schirim, 1193. and cp
Mathews, Abrahant ZZm Ezra's Comnientary on the Canticles
The name which we give to ('74) Preface.
1. Problems. it,Sonnets.
therefore, should not be a question- 3 bante's Jewish fr;lend Immanuel ben Sh'lomoh identified
begging name. W e will call it in this article neither the bride with the maierial intellect' (Salfeld, \I). The
' Canticles ' nor ' Song of Solomon,' but, following the biblical point of contact is Prov. 8.
4 Bp. Lowth is one of the chief defenders of a secondary and
best interpretation of 1I , 'Song of Songs'- the general allegorical sense. H e appeals not only to 'the most
681 682
 CANTICLES CANTICLES
such a symbolic resemblance is inconsistent with the lone with the Song, which tradition already ascribed to
spirit of Hebraism. It is true that the relation between Solomon? The answer was ready :-Consecrate it by
Yahwl: and his people is described in the prophets by dlegorical interpretation. This course corresponded
the symbolism of wedlock (Hos. 1-3 ; Jer. 22 3 ; Ezek. to the change which had passed upon the national
16 ; Is. 501 545 6). It is true, also, that the phrase to zharacter. The enthusiastic element in Jewish piety
love ( XIN) Yahwi: ' occurs frequently in Deuteronomy was becoming, in adversity, more intense. This element
and (less often) in the Psalter, and that the word T i 7 needed the expression which it found in the Song of
(used in the Song) is applied once by Isaiah (51) to Songs (see Benzchuth 576, where n n m n is ascribed to
YahwB. Still, the notion implied by the prophetic the Megilla of the Song of Songs as well as to the Book
allegory of wedlock, as ,well as by the phrase ' t o of Psalms). It should be added, however, that even
love God,' is not that of free inclination on Israel's after 70 A.D. the natural interpretation found some
part towards the All-beautiful One, but rather of an supporters. At the synod of Jamnia (90 A. D .) R.
obedience which is in the first instance the condition :Al$ibahad still to defend the sacredness of the Song of
of divine protection, though, as favours multiply and Songs (Mishna, Yndayim, 35), and in Sanhedrin,IOI a ,
the essential goodness of the divine commands appears, we find a solemn anathema on those who treat the Shir
it becomes a habit and a passion. In Deuteronomy, ha-Shirim as a secular song ( ~ DID 'T
I). The grounds on
therefore, the love of Yahwl: is prescribed as a duty which this secular character was asserted may be guessed
not invited or presupposed; and even in the Psalter, from the Aduth de R. Natan, chap. I,which states that
where devotional feeling finds the freest expression, ' formerly' some counted the Song ' apocryphal' (im),
there are only three passages in which the phrase quoting in support of this, not 7 1-9,but 7 I I ~ :
' t o love Yahwh' occurs (Ps. 3123 97 IO(?) 145zp), It is about, or soon after, 90 A. D. that we find the first
and in the first of these it occurs in the imperative traces of the allegorical view (see 4 Esdras 5 2 4 26 726,
mood. It is in harmony with this that three other and R. Simeon ben Gamliel's allegorical interpretation
passages (Ps. 5 I I 69 36 119 132) contain the fuller phrase of Song 3 1 1 in Taanith48). Before that time Jewish
' to love YahwB's name,' which appears to mean (see teachers seem to have shrunk from quoting the Song ;
Is. 566) the performance of religious duties with a even Philo neglects it. Nor is any use made of it (or of
certain fervour. Such a conception of the love of KahBleth) in the NT. Eph. 527 alludes perhaps to Ps.
God we find in the Koran (Sur. 329 ; cp 1996). It 45 13, but certainly not to Song 47 ; and the parallelism
was one of the Jewish elements in Mohammed's between Rev. 320 and Song 52-6 (Trench, Seven
teaching, and failed to satisfy later generations of Churches, 225 f: ) is incomplete. This silence on the
Moslems. In Syria and in Egypt, and still more in part of early Jewish and Christian writers shows the
Persia, arose a mystic type of devotion, which sought weakness of the argument from tradition adduced by
by contemplation to lift the veil between man and God. the allegorists.
The mystic love-songs of the Cairo dervishes, and the 11. Pueticadform. Is the Song of Songs a drama or
fine love-poems of the Sufi-poet Hafiz, have been com- a bundle of looselv connected soncrs? The earliest
pared by Orientalists with the Song of Songs ; but it has ahv'ocate of a defini; dramatic theory
5. Poetical
been forgotten that, fervid as the love of God became form: his to^ was the learned Jesuit, Cornelius a
among the later Jews, it never divested itself of the Lapide (t 1637), who, like Ewald,
chastening restraints of legalism, and that, in Persia at Of views' divided the Doem into five acts. Our
least, mystic poetry is one of the fruits of a national own Bishop Lowth takes up a middle position. He
reaction against the aridity of Islam. It is still stranger finds no trace of a regular plot, and only one thing in
that Sir William Jones and Sir Edwin Arnold have which the Song closely resembles the Greek dramatic
compared the Gitagovinda of the admired Indian models-the chorus. He allows, however, that the
poet Jayadeva (14th cent. A. D. ), in which it would Song may be classed with iniperfect dramatic poems,
appear (but may we not suspect an afterthought such as the Eclogues of Virgil and some of the Idylls of
of the poet ?), ' from the few stanzas scattered through Theocritus. The first scholar to adopt the second
the poem where the author speaks in his own person, solution of the problem was Richard Simon; but the
that he means his verses to be taken ' in a mystic sense- first to make it plausible was Herder.' Influenced partly
Krishna symbolising the human soul, the shepherdesses by the disintegrating tendency of the newer criticism,
the allurements of sense, and RBdhH the knowledge but still more by an irresistible impulse to search for
of, or meditation on, divine things. Surely the pan- traces of old popular poetry, he boldly denied the con-
theistic atmosphere in which Jayadeva lived, and the tinuity of the poem, dividing it into about twenty-one
excessive imaginative fervour of the Indian genius, are independent songs (with a fragmentary conversation for
altogether unlike the conditions under which the Song an appendix), threaded like so many pearls on a neck-
of Songs must have been penned. lace. These songs are sometimes very short; but
How came it, then, it nisy be asked, that the Jews brevity, Herder thinks, is the soul of a love-song ; nor
of a later time, in their exegesis of the Song, adopted a is it important to determine the exact number of songs.
4. Origin of theory which is, strictly, contrary to Herder does not deny a certain pleasing appearance of
the spirit of Hebraism? Probably thus. unity, but ascribes this to the collector, who wished to
allegorical We know from the Mishna ( T a a n i t h ,
interpretation. show the gradual growth of true love in its various
48) that, before the destruction of the nzrnnces and stages, till it finds its consummation in
temple, passages from the Song were sung at certain wedlock. In its present form the Song may be talcen
popular yearly festivals. W e know, too, that after the to consist of six ' scenes ' ; but the critic apologises for
great catastrophe all expression of exuberant joy was the term, and insists that the poem was intended to
forbidden. Now, what in those gloomy days was to be be read, and, as it stands, is neither a theatrical piece
ancient :iuthoriry,' liut also to the analogy of I'i. 43 and (more nor a cantata. Herder's ' exquisite little treatise '
snfcly) to y.irs~$cs i n tltc prophets. Sit.:h a pmitinn, howcvrr could not fail to make an impression. It gained the
w:ts tcnalilc only provi;iniinlly. T I I ~ 1:inliop expressly rejects t ~ t l approval of Eichhorn and Goethe ; but, without a more
most poetic form of the allegorical theory for which alone most
Christians have cared-it was defended by Bossuet- that 1 Lieder der Liebe. Die IZtesten und sclzdmfen a m dem
which explains the Song of the lovinq intercourse between Morgenlande (1778). See Herder's Werke by Suphan, Bd. 8,
Christ and the soul. Surely the election of a Gentile Church and cp Haym's Heuder, 2 175,where it is shown that it was really
('dark but comely') might have been foreshadowed a t a less Bishop Percy's ReZigues which opened Herder's eyes to the
exoenditure of Doetrv. Riehtlv. therefore. did T. D. Michaelis element of folk-song in the OT. Herder, however, came to
an& the acute 'Bp. Warbu~ton'criticise~~owth-ffornit-going recognise that this element was somewhat modified in the Bible
further. Lowth answered that without allegory the place of the by a certain inherent and distinctive sanctity.
Song in the canon could not be justified. All his literary taste 2 We have borrowed this and a few other characteristic phrases
could not dissolve his narrow notion of the authority o f the from the EB article 'Canticles' by Robertson Smith for the
canon. pleasure of quoting from such a fine piece of critical exposition.
683 684
 CANTICLES CANTICLES
thorough justification than Eichhorn gave, it could not expect a drama among a Semitic people, we might
permanently subvert the rival theory. Apart from its excuse this divergence as an unfortunate consequence of
eloquent defence of the literal interpretation, its chief the absence of stage directions. I

contribution to biblical study is perhaps this-that it i. First, then, is there any plot ? The dramatists (as
has unintentionally proved the impossibility of recover- we may call the defenders of this theory) answer that
ing the original songs (if songs there were) and of there is. Stickel even discovers two plots, developed
retracing the plan (if plan he had) of the hypothetical by distinct pairs of lovers-the Shulammite (who is a
collector. Goethe appears to ‘have felt this. Tempted vine-dresser) and her ‘ friend ’ (it?), and a shepherd
himself, as he tells us in the IVestostZicher Divan, to and shepherdess of Lebanon (besides the royal suitor,
select and arrange some of ‘ these few leaves,’ he took Solomon). The two latter are introduced in three
warning from the failure of previous efforts, and left the scenes, 17-8 115-2 4 4 7-5T. They know nothing about
poem in its hopeless but lovely confusion. the Shulammite and her ‘ friend. ’ The poet has inter-
A first step in the criticisni of the Song was taken by woven the two movements to amuse the audience and
Ewald in his early commentary (1826). H e did not produce a pleasing contrast between the different fortunes
as yet venture to suppose that the ‘ cantata’ was really of the two pairs of lovers. All very conceivable!
acted on the stage; but from the first he asserted its Double musical themes can be treated in fugues : why
genuinely dramatic character, and in 1839 he repaired not also in Hebrew drama, granting that a regular
his original omission (Die@et, Biicher des A T , Bd. i. ). Hebrew drama ever existed, and that Stickel’s view of
Was this a step backward? Only in appearance. the text is justified? However, all that this critic has
Until the xcessity of disintegration had been convin- shown is that 1 7 f : and 115-77 are out of connection
cingly proved, Ewald was always on principle opposed with the previous verses ; and in the case of the latter
to it. The cleverness and moderation of his critical passage an easy emendation enables us to recognise a
theory, aided by his growing reputation for broad and continuous speech of the bride in 112-21.
deep scholarship, led to a very general adoption of the Most critics, on the other hand, are content with one
dramatic hypothesis, though the names of. De Wette, plot, and approach more or less closely to the dramatic‘
Gesenius, Bleek, and Magnus may be quoted on the scheme of Ewald, according to which the heroine is a
other side. The last-named scholar, however, did not maiden of Shulem or Shunem in Issachar (see SHUNEM),
effect much for his cause. His theory ’involved the who has two lovers, the one at a distance, the other (till
assumption that the editor often displaced part of a he finally disappears) near at hand ; the one poor but
‘song, sacrificing the unity of the original lyrics to an favoured, the other royal but treated with disdain. In
artificial composition of the whole.’ It is only fair to chap. 1 4 J we find the maiden, who makes no secret of
add that in 1850 Bottcher did his best to make the her country origin, in the ‘ chambers ’ of the Iring among
opposite view absurd by introducing into the supposed the ‘ daughters of Jerusalem ’ (the ladies of the palace) ;
Hebrew drama ‘the complexities and stage effects of but in 8 5 she suddenly appears, approaching her
a modern operetta.’ In 1860 Renan observed, with mountain home on the arm of her betrothed. .From
truth, that the dramatic theory had become ‘almost the context it is thought to be clear that the suitor
classic,’ and in 1891 and 1893 it was put forward as whose riches are contemned (87, cp I.$) is King
correct in the Zntruductions of Driver and Konig. Other Solomon, to whom the flattering compliments offered
eminent defenders of this theory are Hitzig (1855), to the maiden in previous chapters must be assigned.
Ginsburg (1857), Kuenen (1865), Delitzsch (1875), How, then, came ‘the Shulammite’ to exchange her
Robertson Smith1 (1876), Kaempf (1877), Kohler free country life for the irksome splendour of the court?
(1878), Stickel (1888), Oettli (1889), Bruston (1891), It is inferred, from Grrf., that she had been surprised
Martineau (1892), and Rothstein (1893). by Solomon’s courtiers (who had often been employed,
By degrees, however, the theory of the separatists no doubt, in similar abductions) on a royal progress in
recovered from the effects of Magnus’s imprudence. N. Israel. She ‘had gone down into the nut-garden
It began to pass into a new phase, and to exercise to look at the green things of the valley,’ when
a stronger attraction. Diestel (art. ‘ Hohes Lied,’ ‘suddenly,’ she says, ‘my desire brought me to the
Schenliel‘s Bib. Lex. iii. r71]) ; Reuss (’79, in La Bible, chariots of my noble people’ (Ewald). I t is some
etc., also Gesch. der Schriften des A T s ( 4 [‘90], 231-239); excuse for Solomon that, if Ewald may be followed,
Stade ( G VZ,2197 [’88]) ; Cornill ( B i d . [‘SI], pp. ‘ the Shulammite’ had not even been betrothed to the
236-240) ; Budde (AVew WovZd, March ‘94, pp. 56-77) ; shepherd when she was carried off. (R. Martineau,
Kautzsch ( H S , ‘94; Lit. of the O T , 1 4 8 - I ~ I ) ,and however, thinks that between the third and the fourth
Siegfried ( HuhesZied, ’98) have done much to show that scene-Le., between the 36-11and 47-16-‘the Shulam-
the view of Herder had not yet been adequately con- mite’ and the shepherd lover have been formally be-
sidered. Among these Budde deserves prominence for trothed. ) Then, how came the girl to be delivered
being the first to utilise adequately the information re- from her royal captor? Renan has offered a very
specting Syrian marriage customs given by Consul Wetz- modern solution of the problem; but it is one which
stein in 1873. has no basis in the text, and may be safely neglected.
Before reviewing this theory ourselves, we shall do Most have supposed (cp 89J ) that the escape of ‘ the
__
well to examine the dramatiohvDothesis more attentivelv.
(a)The forms which it has taken are
Shulammite’ was due, not to any favourable combina-
tion of circumstances, but to the effect produced upon
6.
hypothesis numerous and varied; in dividing the Solomon by her own frank and loyal character; ‘all
poem into acts and scenes critics are by the actors,’ says Ewald, ‘ recognise the restraints of the
no means According to true religion.’ Will this view hold? Is it conceivable
Reuss, this wide divergence is fatal to the hypothuesis. that the luxurious Solomon should have been represented
It seems fairer to admit that if it could be made out ( I ) by any popular poet as releasing one of the ‘maidens
that there is a plot, and (2) that there is any reason to innumerable ’ in his ‘ chambers ’ ? Is it probable that
1 Of this lamented scholar’s later views we have, unfortunately,
such a maiden would have had, in the poet’s fancy, the
no record. liberty implied in the early scenes of the ‘drama,’ or
2 The dramatic schemes of Ew. and Del. are given in full by that she would have met Solomon’sadvancesin that extra-
Dr. Introd. (6) 438-444. Delitzsch finds only two chief characters,
Solomon and the Shulammite. Passages like 2 10-15 and 4 8-15 1 115 has evidently been interpolated from4 I, and the opening
which seem to speak of a shepherd-lover, really refer, he thinks’ word of v. 16 has been put in to match the first word of 2). 15. An
to Solomon, who adopts the circle of ideas and images familia; address of the heroine to her lover is out of place in this context
to his rustic love. Against this ahsurd view, see Oettli, 157. (Bickell).
Martineau on the other hand eliminates the king altogether. 2 Stickel quotes an example of such magnanimity from the
So too Ca;telli who describes h e poem as an idyll in dialogue, life of the Caliph Mahdi (Kremer, CzrZturgesch. des Orz‘etzt,
the chief persohages of which are the Shulammite and her lover. 2 127) ; but can we compare the characters of the two sovereigns?
685 686
 CANTICLES CANTICLE
ordinarily absent manner which Ewald's view of 19-26 all the meetings of the lovers, except the final reunion,
supposes ? Why should the recurring phrase ' daughters n reminiscence or in sleeping or waking imagination
of Jerusalem ' (cp ' daughters of Zion,' 3 11) have such a mly? Can we conceive of a drama in which each
limited reference as the dramatic theory requires ? Then, >f the actors seems almost if not quite uninfluenced by
as to the Shulammite and her abduction. Theory apart, the speeches of the other? Not so did the Yahwist and
what right have we to assume that the intercourse the Elohist and the author of the Prologue of Job
implied in the poem between the girl and her lover manage their dialogues. Less important is the difficulty
was prior to marriage? T o this point we shall have which arises from the changes of scene, a weakness
to return. Can we safely infer from the title that which need not surprise us in primitive plays. W e
Shulem or Shunem was the girl's home? The title must be careful, however, not to attach too much
occurs in a single passage (613 [71]) ; but there is importance to European parallels. Renan, for ex-
no allusion elsewhere to confirm this supposition. ample, goes too far when he refers to the comparatively
Next, how can Ewald base such a romantic story elaborate pastoral play called Li Giezls de Rodin et de
simply on the very obscure passage, 61.f. ? Lastly, Marion, or Li /eus du Bergier et de Za Bergiere,
how do we know that the Solomon of history or composed in 1282 by Adam de la Halle for the diversion
legend plays auy part in the poem? As Castelli, of the c0urt.l It would be more natural, with R.
himself one of the dramatisers, has well pointed Samuel ben Meir (Rashoam), to compare the simple
out, Solomon is mentioned by name only in some pastoretas of the Troubadours ; but even that might be
simile or figurative c0ntrast.l Thus in 1 5 the heroine misleading.
likens herself for comeliness to the curtains of the ii. We have now to ask, further, Have we a right to
pavilions of Solomon (but we should rather read with expect a Semitic drama, however primitive in form?
Brull, We., and Wi., "\e, the name of a nomad 7. No Semitic That Semitic nations are not at all
Arabian tribe ; see S ALMAH, 2). In 3 7 -1 1 Solomon's devoid of general dramatic eapacity
drama. may be granted. In Mohammedan
litter is spoken of jestingly ; and so, in 811, ' to the
costly vineyard of Solomon the heroine prefers her own countries the r i w i ( ' recger ' ) still displays all the
symbolic one, which does not require the anxious super- faculties of an actor, and stirs his hearers to the depths
vision of others.' There is a fourth passage in which, as, he tells the story of 'Antar or the tales of the Arabian
according to an extremely probable correction of the Nights ; and there is an unmistakably strong dramatic
text, Solomon is nained,-68$ : element in Arabic works such as the ' Sessions ' of Hariri.
' Sixty queens had Solomon, and eighty concubines, It cannot have been otherwise with. the Israelites.
and maidens innumerable. One is my dove, my spotless They too must have laughed and wept as they listened
one.' to their story-tellers. At all events, the relics of their
Here again there is a contrast between Solomon's literature contain genuinely dramatic passages : see, for
large harem and the speaker's single incomparable bride. example, the stories of Jacob and Samson (evidently of
Can we, then, be sure that where the phrase 'the traditional origin), of Ruth and Job. Even in the
king' occurs alone, it is not a honorific designation of psalms and prophecies we have pieces like Ps. 2 24
the bridegroom? And this suggests the question, which 7-10 Is. 631-6 28 8-11 Mic. 6 6-8, and the colloquies
Castelli, however, does not raise, whether the term the in the Rook of Job have at least a distant affinity to
Shulammite' is not as purely figurative as 'the king'? the drama of character. Still, there is no evidence
Several writers (e.g., Klostermann) have conjectured that the transition to a drama was ever made by a
that the story of Abishag the Shunammite ( I K. 1 3 J ) Semitic people. We have an Assyrian epic, but no
supplied the plot of the supposed drama ; but consider- Assyrian drama. Least of all can we reasonably
ing the difficulty of making out any plot at all, and the expect to find one in the OT. Theatrical performances
fact that ' the Shulammite' is referred to only in one were not known at Jerusalem before the time of Herod,
passage, we may ask whether it is not more probable and to all good Jews such heathenish practices were
that the term is applied metaphorically, and is equivalent detestable (Jos. Ant. XI,. 8 I ; cp BY i. 21 8). Hence
to ' t h e fairest of women' ( 1 8 59 61)? If we omit the dramatic theory of the Song is plausible only if the
61.f. as misplaced (doubtless a correct view), and read composition of the poem be placed at AZexandria
610 and 13 [71] together, we shall see how natural it (during the Greek period). Why, upon this sup-
was for the poet to seek out some striking variation on position, did not the dramatist write in Greek, as did
the rather hackneyed phrase just mentioned. The Ezekiel, the author of the drama on the Exodus called
passage will run thus : 'E@ryw-pj? In a word, the difficulties of the dramatic
' W h o is she that looketh down as the dawn, fair as theory are insuperable.
the moon, clear as the sun? Turn, turn, thou Shulam- ( 6 ) The Israelites, however, had a still more character-
mite, that we may look upon thee.' istic gift-that of lyric poetry. Singing and dancing
It is usual to assume that the spectators, being formed essential parts of their festivities,
8. popular as they still do among the Bedouins ;
ignorant of the heroine's name, address her with blunt
directness as a girl of Shunem, and that she answers by lyric poetry' and when these festivities were occa-
the modest question, ' W h a t do you see in the simple sioned by some great local or national event, a dramatic
Shularnmite girl? ' It is much more natural to suppose element would naturally infuse itself into the popular
that ' the Shulammite ' (Shunammite) is a term not less songs, and this all the more easily because the custom
complimentary than 'fair as the moon' in ZI. IO, and of alternate song, which is in its nature dramatic,
points back to the Abishag of tradition.2 And should it was very ancient (cp Ex. 1521 I S. 2111). Ewald
be asked why Abishag's name is not mentioned, we may thinks that the Song (which is, according to him, a
venture to express the opinion that when the song was cantata) was originally intended for a festival of the
written there was probably in the Hebrew text of I K. independence of the N. kingdom, and that it was per-
1 3 15, I Sam. etc., not 3 ~ 3 but
3 ~ a ~very different word formed in five days, an act in a day. This view suits
(see S HULAMMITE ). his theory of the ' plot' of the Song ; but it is no
There are many other difficulties of interpretation longer tenable-we have seen that the references to
which might be mentioned. For example, how are we ' Solomon ' are figurative, and that ' the Shulammite ' is
to understand the movements of ' the beloved ' ? Are also a mere eulogistic term.
Why should not we take up again the suggestive
1 Castelli. DdZa h e s i n dibZicn. ~ T T idea of Bossuet and Lowth that the Song was intended
a This view was'proposed by %de in 1887 (GVI 1292) and for use on the seven days of the marriage festival (cp
adopted by Bu. in his excellent essay, New Would, Mar. :89+
.
pp. 62-64 Budde desiderates an OT ans~logy.
in z K. 931 (:
-. Perhaps 'Zimri' 1 Tkthritrefraquis uu noyen age, par Monmerque et Michel,
'see RV) is such. 102-135. (Renan's account differs.)
687 688
 CANTICLES CANTICLES
Gen. 2927 Judg. 1.1.12Tob. 1119)) On such occasions men of the tribe who thus display their agility (Doughty,
there would, of course, be alternate songs by the bride- AY. Des. 2118) ; but in the Syrian wedding festivals
grooni and the bride, and to this Jeremiah refers when, the sword-dancer is the bride. When taken 'in con-
describing the calamities of invasion, he says that God nection with another Syrian custom and with the passage
will ' cause to cease from the cities of Judah and from 3f the Mishna mentioned above, this may be thought a
the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice relic of primitive ' marriage by capture.' (The con-
of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice nected cnstom referred to is this-that when, on the
of the bride' (Jer. 734 2510). There is also an illus- morning after the wedding, the royal seat has been
trative passage in the Mishna (Tuanith,4 8, already re- erected, a crier comes forward declaring that the ' king'
ferred to), and the strangeness of the notice affords the -the bridegroom-has made a campaign against a
best guarantee of its truth. It was customary at the hitherto impregnahle fortress, and calls upon him to say
'Wood Festival' ([uho@hpa)on the 15th of Ab (August) whether he has succeeded or not. The ' king ' answers
and at the close of the Day of Atonement1 for the in the affirmative, and upon this the seven days of
' daughters of Jerusalem ' (cp Song 15, etc. ) to go out rejoicing begin.) However this may be, the sword-
and dance in the vineyards, and whoever had no wife dance at the Syrian weddings has a significanceof its own.
went thither also. (Was it a relic of 'marriage by It not onlydisplays the physical gifts and capacities of the
capture ' 7 Cp Judg. 21 21.) There was also alternate bride, but also symbolises her womanly self-respect, which
singing, and the youths were wont to use the words of keeps all intruders afar off (cp Song89 IO). ' The figure
Song 3 11. See D A N C E , § 6. of the dancer, her dark waving hair, her serious noble
It is from Syria, where so many old customs have bearing, her downcast eyes, her graceful movements,
survived, that we get the fullest confirmation of Bossuet's the quick and secure step of her small naked feet, the
9. Spian idea. Let us turn to Song36-11 (trans- lightning-like flashing of the blade, the skilful movements
lated by the present writer in JQR, of her left band, in which she holds a handkerchief, the
fzi!'$k. July 1899), where the words referred
to so strangely in the Mishna occur.
exact keeping of time,' form a scene which contributes not
a little to make the 'king's week' the happiest in a Syrian
Solomon is here introduced riding in his palanquin peasant's life. The description throws a bright light on
'with the crown with which his mother crowned him Song610 13 71-6 (which forms a connected passage).l
on his wedding-day,' escorted by sixty warriors 'with The opening verse is probably spoken by the chorus of
the hand on the sword.' What this means we can tell neighbours on the approach of the bride with the sword ;
from von Kremer's account of the marriage processions it abounds with respectful compliments suitable to the
in Moslem villages in the Lebanon.2 The procession occasion. V. 13n also belongs to the neighbours, who
goes from the house of the bridegroom to that of the call to the bride to turn that they may see her better.
bride, and in it there is a band of youths armed with Then, to draw out their admiration further, the bride-
long poles, which they keep striking together, and hold groom asks them why they are gazing a s fixedly a t this
in such a way as to form a kind of roof over them. paragon of beauty-this second Shulammite--' at the
The poles were probably in olden times lances: the dance of warlike hosts,' i.e. at the war-dance, or
open country was not secure from bandits (Hos. 69 ; cp nynq? ; hr xopol TGY r a p e p p o h h ;
Ps. 108).3 The ' crown' is, of course, that of the hride- so Budde). It often happens in the Syrian desert, says
groom (cp Is. 6110); ' i n the war with Vespasian,' Wetzstein, that when a woman performs this dance on
says the Mishna ( S o f a ,9 14), ' the crowns of bridegrooms occasion of a victory of one tribe over another, and some
were forbidden.' The Solomon of 3 11, then, is not the young man shows special admiration of the dancer, he
Solomon who made himself a state-litter, but a happier is called upon to fight unarmed, according to certain
though a humbler mortal. I t is, in sooth, a pretty jest rules, with the dancer, and may chance to pay for his
to liken the bridegroom with his nuptial crown and boldness with his life. T o this the question in Song
the sixty ' companions ' (Judg. 1 4 IT) who roof him over 6 136 may allude. Song 7 1-6 (which is in a different
with their poles to the luxurious Solomon in his gorgeous nietre from 610 13) exactly answers to the Syrian wn~f
palanquin nith his martial bodyguard around him ; (i.e . , 'laudatory description') sung during the sword-
and the jest has a wholesome moral. dance by the leader of the chorus. We must not criticise
A much fuller account of the customs of the Syrian it too severely. The tone is that which popular taste
peasants in the month of weddings (March) is given by required and (to judge from the wasf quoted hy Wetz-
W e t z ~ t e i n . ~During the seven days after a wedding, stein) still requires in Syria.
high festivity, with scarcely interrupted singing and On the day after the wedding, when the ' king' has
dancing, prevails. The bridegroom and the bride play announced his ' victory' over the ' fortress,' another
the parts of king and queen (hence the week is called the wmf is sung. This time the attractions of the lady are
'king's week ' ), and receive the homage of their neigh- described with less unreserve, in deference to wifely
hours ;. the crown, however, is at present in Syria (as in dignity. Such a wasf we seem to have in Song 41-7.
Greece) confined to the bride (contrast Song3 11). The Is the bridegroom, then, exempt from laudation? Not
bridegroom has his train of ' companions ' (to borrow the in modern Syria, nor in the Song. True, in Song 36-11,
ancient term, Judg. 1411), and the grander the wedding sung (it would seem) during the procession from the
the more of these there are. The bride too has her bridegroom's house to that of the bride, flattery goes
friends (cp 'daughters of Jerusalem,' Songl5, etc.), the no further than to liken the crowned bridegroom to
maidens of the place, who take an important part in Solomon. The young wife naturally goes further. The
the reception of the bridegroom (cp Ps. 4514 Mt. wasf itself is found in Song 510-16. Prefixed to it is
25 1-13), In the evening of the great day a sword-dance a speech bf the bride describing a weird dream that
is performed. In the Arabian desert it is the young she has had, in which she believes so firmly that
she begs for the help of the ' daughters of Jerusalem'
1 The tenth of Tisri must anciently have had a festive char- in restoring her to her beloved. These are the chief
acter : can it have been a prelude to the joyous Feast of Booths
(Kohler)? songs of this class ; but in Song64-7 we have at least
2 Mittdsysyrien und Damascus ((53), p. 123. a fragment of a laudatory description of the bride, part
3 Wetzstein says that the bridegroom's friends are really of which is an ill-connected quotation from 4 1-3. Wetz-
armed. H e thinks that 'by reason of fear in the night ' (Song
3 8) may allude to the insecurity of the villages. stein assures us that the wmf-passages are the weakest
4 Appendix to Delitzsch's HohesZied (1875) r65-167 170- part of the wedding-songs, and accordingly, he adds,
177 ; cp Wetzstein in Zt. EthnoZo&-k, 18;3, pp. ~$7-294. the waf-portion of the Song of Songs is much inferior
Even among thefeZZcihin of Palestine there seems to he a vestige poetically to the rest. Certainly the most striking part
of the sword-dance. The bride on her camel is conducted to
the house of the bridegroom holding a drawn sword, PERQ, 1 On 6 1.3,
see above, $ IO. Rems despairs of 6 10-13 with-
April 1894, p. 136. out reason.
689 690
 CANTICLES CANTICLES
of the Song of Songs is the passage which contains 7 II- Robertson Smith’s paraphrase of 8 IO^), we should hold
87 (excepting the interpolated verses 83-5l). It is a iat the ‘ chambers ’ of 1 4 are those of ,the crowned
song such as might have been sung on the evening of ridegroom, and that the ‘ peace’ of 8 IO belongs to the
the wedding-day. The opening description is true in haracteristic figure of the ‘ fortress ’ (see above).
idea, though imaginary in its incidents. It is true in Historically, the Song would gain, could it be shown
idea ; for every marriage, according to the poet, should 3 be pre-exilic. What would not one give for the
arise from the free affection of one man and one 13. Date. light likings of ancient Hebrew maidens,
woman. It is imaginary in its details, for the incidents and for a noble popular protest against
are inconsistent with what was allowable in courtship. he doubtful innovations of the unpatriotic Solomon ?
For real songs of courtship such as an Israelite might Lobertson Smith in 1876 held that the Song of Songs
have used, see Ruckert’s gmmisa, bk. iv.). The closing m s just such a protest. ‘ The conservative revolution
eulogy of love as strong as death, inflexible as Shed, If Jeroboam was,’ he remarks, ‘in great measure the
whose flashes are flashes of fire, [whose flame is] a flame vork of the prophets, and must therefore have carried
from heaven ’ a ( 8 6 ) , is noble. vith it the religious and moral convictions of the people.
The poetical form, and therefore also the origin, of i n important element in these convictions, which still
the Song of Songs seems to be no longer doubtful. :!aims our fullest sympathy, is powerfully set forth in
Fully twenty years ago (1878) the present writer rejected he Canticles, and the deletion of the book from the
Ewald‘s interpretation of Song 6 TI$, but still thought it possible,
by omitting interpolations and transposing
:anon ... would leave us without a most necessary
Preser;t cektain misplaced passages, to restore some- :omplemeut to the Judaean view of the conduct of the
Writer’s rela- thing like the original sequence, and to re- en tribes which we get in the historical books.’ The
tion $0 Wetz- cogiiise a loose imperfect plot such as quick- .eference to the harem life of Solomon, however, is con-
stein.L witted hearers and spectators might have
divined. He saw also that the poem was ined to two verses (Song6 8f. ) ; it is rather sportive than
based on popular songs,l and admitted the critical significant: )olemical, and, attractive as the protest-theory is, it is
of the informatiqn furnished by Wetzstein. ‘When we consider, ,pposed to a sound exegesis (see above).
he then wrote that processions and the choral performance of For a pre-exilic date there is no solid argument.
lyric poems wire familiar to the Israelites from Samuel down-
wards it becomes a highly probable conjecture that this custom u ) The title, which is not by the author (note iwt+),
of the’syrian peasants was already in vogue in the times of the 14. Not pre- is of course not more trustworthy than
OT writers. This is confirmed by the remarkable coincidence the headings of the ‘ Solomonic ’ psalms.
between the time when the incidents of the Song are supposed exilic.
to take place (see Song21-13) and the time of the peasants’ (6) The points of contact with Hosea (cp
weddings in Syria (March is the most beautiful time of the Song 213 411 611 with 130s. 146-9) and Prov. 1-9 (cp
Syrian year).’ H e further noticed two or three of the wmJ- Song 41114f. with Prov. 5 3 7 r 7 515-17) prove only that
passages in the Song, and (after Kohler) the implied reference
to the sword-dance in Song 6 I O 13 (v. i ~ f : being misplaced). lifferent poets used similar(conventiona1) images. More-
H e was far, however, from realising the extent to which the wer, recent criticism tends to show that Hos. 142-10and
Hebrew songs were analogous to the traditional Syrian, and Prov. 1-9 are post-exilic. (6)The phrase w?$*@ ‘ (going
thought that a part of the Song related to the happy courtship
of the rnstic lovers; nor did he understand th: reference to Iown) straight,’ used of wine, in Song79 Prov.2331,
Solomon or the meaning of ‘the Shulammite. To Budde IS indecisive, whether Prov. Z.C. is early or late. ( d )The
he owes it that he has adopted a more consistent theory.4 mention of Tirzah beside Jerusalem (Soug64) need not
The book is an anthology of songs used at marriage point to ‘the brief period when that city was the capital
festivals in or near Jerusalem, revised and loosely con- 3f the dynasty of Baasha’ (but see TIRZAII), for (if M T
ll. Result. nected by an editor without regard to is correct) it is the beauty of the site of Tirzah that is
temporal sequence ; in saying which, we referred to-a beauty which could not pass away with
do not deny that the kernel of the work may have been z dynasty. Most probably, however, we should emend
brought from some other part of the country, perhaps the text thus, ‘ Thou art beautiful as the narcissus, comely
in the north. as the lily of the valleys’l (cp 21). If so, Tirzah is
What of the supposed indications of unity? These not mentioned. ( e ) That the references to Solomon
are found -partly- in the phraseoloEy _.( ’ Solomon,’ ’ the prove nothing, we have seen already. It will, therefore,
12. App,arent king,’ ‘ daughters of ’Jerusalem,’ ’ my be absurd to base .an argument on the comparison of
beloved,’ ‘my friend,’ the seeming re-
unity. , frains in 27 35 8 4 : as well as in 217u
the lady in Song 19 with one of Pharaohs mares. If
the bridegroom could be likened to Solomon, the bride
46a ; and in 2176 8146), partly in’ the poetical colour, could be likened to one of Solomon’s finest Egyptian
partly in the feeling or spirit, and of course in the horses, especially if the songs were written while Pales-
circumstances. This agreement between the several tine formed part of the Grzco-Egyptian empire (cp
parts of the poem is not as great as has been supposed. Theocr. Id. 155zf. ). Whether Solomon really obtained
As Bickell observes, ‘ Generatim omnia verbotenus horses from Egypt, is a question which need not be
repetita serius inserta sunt ’ ; in d such repetitions are discussed here (see M IZRAIM , 5 .)2
even more plentiful than in MT. The genuine points For a post-exilic date the main arguments are these :
of phraseological agreement are quite accounted for’by ( a ) The position of the book among the Hagiographa.
the traditional conventions of these love songs. That (6) The beauty of Jerusalem is mentioned late (Ps. 482
the feeling, the poetical colour, and the circumstances (6) The absence of
are the same, harmonises with the assumed origin of 15. Post-exilic. striking
50.” ,Lam. 21s). of thought and ex-
archaisms
the songs. The prominence of the mother (16 34 pression. ( d ) The importance attached to rare exotic
8 2 5 ) is to be explained not (with Ewald, 334) by ‘ the plants and to garden-cultivation points to Babylonian
Shulammite’s’ supposed loss of her father, but as a vestige influence (see G A RD E N ). See Song 412-15, where the
of the matriarchate (Mutterrecht). With regard to Song following plant-names, which are of foreign origin, and
1 4 and Song 810,which, taken together, may seem to very possibly late, deserve attention.
show that the heroine had been placed in a royal palace nrsm (also Ps. 45 g, late, where, as here, it is coupled
but had ‘ compelled her assailant to leave her in peace ’ with i b ; cp Prov. 7 17, and see A LOES). pix? (also
1 These verses are not in the metre of the rest of the passage. Prov. 7 17 Ex. 30 23, both passages late), nh? (h.
the two former come from 2 6 s (cp 3 s), while the last has bee;
suggested by 3 6. 1 M T is hardly defensible. Fair women would not be com-
2 Or ‘a most vehement flame.’ The final 9 9 may be simply pared to cities. Tg. paraphrases ‘as the women of Tiran (iyin),’
an affohative(Sager, Jastrow). pr Tirzah (Neub. Gdogr. du TuZm.,172). Bickell and Bu. omit
3 See E b u d e r s o f O T C r i t . (r803), 350. as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, as weakening the effect of
4 Budde’s attempt (New Wo&, March 1894) to show that ’terrible’ which follows ; but n n - ~‘terrible,’
, is simplyacorrup-
some of the less poetical passages are due to the collector and
reviser of the songs, who now and then misunderstood the texts. tion of n’p.Q# (in the phrase ’Y Il3010, ‘lily of the valleys’). On
cannot here be considered. see ENSIGNS, $ I 6.
69= 692
 CANTICLES CANTICLES
X q . ) , 972 (also’l IZ), and, following Gratz, D W ~ (for the preter. Gratz was the first to recognise the bad state
tautological n’i-,,), new Heb. for ‘ roses.’ 3f the text. Among recent scholars Bickell and Budde
have done most ; Bickell’s chief results have been in-
The fondness of the poet of Canticles for spices led the y c i e n t
scribes into some very strange textual errors-viz., (I) 46, to the zorporated in Budde’s excellent commentary. Perles,
mountains of myrrh ($3.) and the hill of frankincense’ (@a\g), in his AnaZebfen (‘95), has considered about ten
where inn should be p i n , ‘Hermon,’ and n ~ 1 should 5 be
passages, and the present, writer has endeavoured to
(cp BBNA);very probably, also, the correct reading in
correct some of the chief errors (JQR and Ex$. Times
v. 8 is ‘from the hills of the cedars, from the mountains for 1898-99 and Ex$ositor, Feb. 1899, 1458). Among
of the cypresses’ (nwiix w n n D ~ nNi y 3 ~;) (2) 8 14, in the these corrections it may be mentioned that, acccrding
‘mountains ofspices’ (D’i303), ’ V 3 should certainly he O’Wll?, to to Bickell, ’ the Shulammite ’ in 7 I is due to corruption ;
which if We.’s view of yn3 *la, ‘mountains of malobathron’ against this view, however, see Budde, who points out
(We. h-oZ.(3J 409),2 was that of the early scribes, we may add that, since the phrase ‘the Shnlammite’is not tantamount
2 17 where we should read O’Pi? ’il,‘mountains of cypresses’ to a declaration that the bride is a Shulammite damsel,
(see BETHER). and only means ‘one who is as fair as Abishag the
Add iile=new Heb. n i i m 6 11, and perhaps ipb Shulammite,’it is no gain to the adherents of the dramatic
= K ~ ~ T ~ o s114413
, (plur.). Last, not least, we have or idyllic theory to have the correctness of n-&?lrio
the Persian loan-word for plantation or park, IJ~I,?, 4 13 ; assured to them. Contrary to Perles (who on this point
elsewhere only Neh. 2 8 Eccl. 25, though the exact is an adherentof Gratz), Bickell further thinks that 3’7: my
history of the form is doubtful. in 612 (see A M M I N A DIB ) also is not the true reading.
One Greek loan-word3 has been found in P:?K, ‘palanquin,’ H e regards x * i 3 ‘ny nx (nx derived from nrx in n i x m
3>=+0peiou (so B ; but see LITTER). I n the Midrash ’N is ex-
which is corrupt) as a doublet of [ n ] x w [ ~ y n] 3 in 72,
plained by NErq-i.e., +6pvpa. I n Soia 49a it is said that the and renders ‘ my noble kinswoman ’ ; Budde prefers to
use of the bridal litter ( p * i g ~was
) forbidden by the Jewish wait for more light. Perles has pointed the way to a
authorities during the Bar-Cochba war. On the gorgeous better solution by grouping 6 12 and 7 2 with 77. Here,
+opela of the .Syrian ladies under Antiochus Epiphanes, see the present writer thinks, we should read na n m ?
Polybius (ap. Atheu. 5 2). The only doubt can be whether .y‘
is not a gloss. Metrical reasons suggest its excision (Bickell). n ’ p d , ‘loved one, Shunammite damsel,’ and, con-
( e ) Among the distinctly late words are sequently, he makes the same restoration in 6 1 2 and
72--i.e., nTpplsi na. Certainly Bickell is right in re-
310 764 (for Judg. 822-27 is not, as it stands,
ancient ; see Budde) ; d ~5 ,15 Esth. 1 6 ; 35 (phi-.), fusing to have anything to do with the ‘chariots’
of.which MT and therefore also EV speak in 612. The
611 Job 812; v>:, 4r. 6 5 ; n i q , 2 1 Is. 351; whole story of the Shulammite’s having been surprised
o’!rir~, 1 x 0 (iin, Aram. and new Heb. ) ; Snb, ~ p t + p o in the nut-orchard by the king’s retinue (cp Driver,
‘ to glance,’ a’??! ‘ smoke-holes,’ 29 ; z ~ n 112 , ; n;n:p, Zntrod., 442, 446) breaks down, w>hen strict criti-
214 Ezek. 3820 (Aram. ~ n i‘)a step’ ; ip,21315 712 cism is applied to the text. On Cant. 36-11, which
is disfigured by curious corruptions (one of which is the
and perhaps Is. 1 6 8 (for nrniv,, see B O T , ad Zoc. ; famous @E, RV ‘palanquin’), see LITTER.
cp Duval, REJ14277); i?D, ‘winter,’211; niq?, 5211 I
We must now endeavour to estimate the value of the
n???, 5 2 ; pd (plur.), 32 Prov. 78 Eccl. 1245 (cp Gratz, Song. W e shall not be ungrateful ’for the material
49); qm (Piel), 5 3 ; ~ ~ p ( P i e l‘tospring,’28;
), im, ‘ t o l,. Value. which it supplies to students of manners
keep,’ 1 6 81112 ; npo, ‘enclosed,’73. (f) Grammatical and customs and the distribution of plants ;
forms. Note n;y?, 115, etc.; nil?, 1 1 7 ; nay, ‘where,’ but it is much more important that it opens a window
1 7 (cp a?, Dan. 7 2 8 ) ; ,!’a! ‘how9?53,Esth.86. Also into the heart of ordinary Israelites. ( a ) The Song
I for WN, 22 times. np&, 1 7 , like m$w, Jon. 1 7 , and reveals a very pure conception of true love, as springing
it$SI&, E d . 8 17, *& iwu, Dan. 1IO. bf, 1 6 8 12 ; out of a free inclination of one man and one woman,’
and rising into a passionate and indestructible union of
S$, 37 (exactly the Mishna usage). (9)1~2,44, for hearts. If the songs were written (or even if they were
i!~, may perhaps point to the post-exilic period (see only edited, revised, and supplemented) in the early
BO+, Z A T W 11127). Greek period, what a contrast they offer to much that
The preceding list of arguments, though not ex- was current at the luxurious court of the Ptolemies!
haustive, should be sufficient. Linguists, suchasGesenius ( a ) The Song shows also a genuine love of nature.
among Christians and M. Sachs among Jews, long ago ‘ The writer inspires us with his own delicate joys. The
recognised the modern character of the Hebrew. The breath of spring still breathes through his words.
question, however, was a complicated one, and ingenuity Its scents, its fresh moist greenness, the old hopeful
did its best to save an early date, and with it (it spring notes heard in the woods, again are all here.’
appeared) the historical value of the Song. It is time for There is nothing more lovely than the spring of
critical students to look at the facts more frankly. W E Palestine, and this old poet felt it. Where the images
can now show that this anthology of songs is post-exilic, are bizarre, we need not put it down to him. The wasf-
and may conjecture that it is nearly contemporary with songs were, and still are, governed by strict convention
that ‘song of love’ (and of spices), Ps. 45. It is not (cp Wetz. in Del. 174-177). Ovid and Theocritus
easy to find a period more suitable to all the data than are not without some of these strange love images3
one of the early and fortunate reigns of the Ptolemies (6) ‘ Race-psychology ’ also may gather something.
(cp F O U ~ Z ~ ~ Y S , A still later date is suggested by
353). Twice the heroine falls into a perplexing confusion
Winckler (AZfor.Forschungen, 295). between dreamland and reality (Song31-4 52-7). This
Like the other poetical books, the Song of Songs can be paralleled from Arabic love poetry, in whic6 the
suffers from many, often most unfortunate, corruption: dream-form of the beloved receives an objective exist-
16. Text. of the text ; some dislocations of passage: ence, and lovers even give their respective apparitions
have added to the difficulties of the inter. a rendezvous (see &‘amisa, Freytag, 22 ; Lyall, T ~ u n s -
Zatio7zs, I Z ) . ~ ( d ) If the poem is post-exilic, it shows
1 The first mention of roses elsewhere is in Ecclus. (see ROSE) us that there were times and seasons (cp Eccl. 34) of
This would allow us to date the song in 300-250 B.C. There werc
roses in Babylon in Herodotus’s time (Hwod. 1.95). which legalism could not overshadow the joyousness.
2 H e was anticipated by Field (Omg.
the rendering of Sexta as paAa(gi)Op(ou).
ex. 2 4r5), who gives
Dat et malobathror .
H.
1 It reminds us of the fine love-sentiment of the Arabic
, X. M I . “ .-.
A.?.. .
Syria,’ says PI. (HN12 I). ’ 2 W. G. Forbes S e m m m (‘85), p. 147.
3 Another of the supposed Greek words arises from a corrup 3 Cp especially )Song 1g with Theocr. Id.18 30.
tion of the text. See ARMOURY. 4 See ganuisa, 612,and c p j o u m a l Asiatigue, 1838, p. 375,
4 p i N in 7 6, however, is corrnpt. etc.
693 694
 CAP CAPERNAUM
In this and in other respects our notion of the post-exilic !n stimulating sexual impulse (Wetz. in Del. Koh.
period may perhaps need revision. $52) ; and it was in traditional use (especially the fruit)
Is this, then, the whole worth of the Song for us? in the middle ages as a stimulant in senile disorders.2
Being canonical, must it not have some subtle religious [t has been sought, accordingly, to explain 19; as mean-
value which has been overlooked ? ing ‘ fail of effect ’ (so RV text), and this will do as a
The answer is ( I ) that we have no right to assume makeshift : when even the caper fails, nothing is left to
that R. ‘Akiba’s well-known saying about the Song at try. Unfortunately, it is difficult to believe that the
the Synod of Jamnia (see C ANON , p 5 3 ) represents the Heb. verb can have this meaning ; Delitzsch‘s explana-
point of view of those who first admitted this popular tion of it as a case of internal Hiphil (‘ produces failure’
and supposed Solomonic work among the KethEbhim ; i . e . , fails ’ ) is most unlikely.
and ( 2 ) that the mistake of a Jewish Synod cannot be (2) Others have thought of the bursting of the ripe berry and
perpetually endorsed by Christiaii common - sense and the scattering of its seeds as a synonym for death (so KVmg.) ;
scholarship. We have therefore to revise our con- but this is quite untenable (a)because of the fact that the root 175
is nowhere used in a p h y h sense in Hebrew,s (a) because the
ception of the word ‘ canonical’ in its application
.. to the context requires a phrase descriptive of old age rather than of
OT writings. death and (c) because of the botanical impossibility of the inter-
Besides the commentaries of Ew. Hitz. Gratz Del. Stickel, prrtakon, there being no evidence that the fruit of Capparis
Oettli (KHC, ’ga), etc., consult WkS, h. ‘C~nticle~,’ EBM, spinma is dehiscent.
Briill‘s review of Kaempf, jahrh.~5$d. Gesch. z(. Lit. 1877, p. Unless, therefore, we give the Heb. verb the very
1 3 8 s ; 1311,’srev. of Stickel, TLZ, 24th March 1888, his art. in unusual sense of ’ fail ’ we can only say that probably,
New WorZd, March 1894, and his fine commentary, 1898; also
R. Martineau, Amev. Joum. of PhiZoZogy 1892. pp. 307-328; as in the other clauses, the metaphor indicates some
Bickell, Carnzina VT metrice (‘82) ; Siegfried, C., Prea’. u. feature in the old man’s appearance or physical state,
.
FfoizasZied (‘98) Riedel Die Aasleg; des Hohenliedes in der and Moore’s suggestion, to emend m n into some
j2d. Gemeinde &.der chkistZ. Kirche (‘98). T. K. C. derivative of 713 appears a good one.
N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
CAP ( ~ B T C \ C O C[AV] ; according to one view it has
been borrowed in Aramaic under the form WDD Dan. CAPERNAUM is the transliteration of the Text.
321 ; but see BREECHES, z ; T URBAN , 2 ; and cpfoz~m. Rec. K C \ ~ E P N C \ O Y M ; b&t KBDZ, followed by Tisch.,
PhiL 26309f. ), the Greek broad-brimmed (fr. ~ d v - Name. Treg., W H , etc., read K A + A ~ N A O Y M (so
vupi) felt hat which Jason made the Jewish youth Pesh. and Jos. ). The original was, there-
wear ( z Macc. 412 R V ; AV ‘hat ’). It was worn fore, pin3 153, village of Nahum. It is not mentioned
(originally) chiefly by shepherds and hunters, was an before the N T , and this, coupled with the fact that 133
attribute of Hermes,2 and so became the badge of the prevails in the composition only of comparatively late
palcestra. names, is proof of an origin shortly before the tiine of
This assumes that the text is genuine (note that S T O T ~ U U W V Jesus. Whether by Nahum is meant the prophet, we do
in @A precyles). The Syr. reads ]s,.,&aShk!,:cp z S. not know. In Jerome’s time it was another Galilean
town that was associated with him (GASm. TweZve
1 2 31 (Pesh.), where M T has ]z!Q. Did the translator think of
P?*O$/Z. 279).
& i ~ a u r p ? Equally obscure is the origin of the Vg. in Zzq5a-
narihus, though thc infamy and vice of the later gymnasia, the Capernaum became the home of Jesus (Qv OI‘QJ
fact that the ‘Eppara were celebrations of a more or less free ~ U T ~ VMk.21)
, and ‘his own city’ (Mt. 91) after his
~I

and unrestrained character, and the allusion to vicious practices rejection by the townsmen of Nazareth.
in 2 Macc. 64, make itpossi6Ze that a genuine tradition has been 2. Here he preached (Mt. 8 5 Mk. l z r
followed.
93336 Jn. 6 etc.) ; did many wonderful wor& healing
CAPER-BERRY (n$$?S, K A T T ~ A P I C [BKAC]), Peter’s mother-in-law and many others (Mk. 1 3 1 34). a
Eccles. 125f RV. That the HYSSOP ( q . v . ) is the paralytic (Mt. 9 I Mk. 2 T Lk. 5 I S ) , a centurion’s servant
caper-plant ( Capjaris spinosa, L. ) is a favourite theory. (Mt. 8 5 Lk. TI), a man with an unclean spirit (Mlr. 1 2 3
Still more prevalent is the view that the word rendered Lk. 433), and (by a word from Cana) a nobleman’s
I desire’ in AV RVmS of Eccles. 1.c. ( ‘ the almond tree servant (Jn. 446) ; and called the fishermen Peter and
shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and Andrew (Mlr. l16), and Matthew or Levi, who sat to
desire shall fail’) denotes the berry of the ~ a p e r - p l a n t . ~ receive toll (Mt. 9 8 Mk. 214 Lk. 527). In spite of all
The difficulties of translation are as great in the third of this, the body of citizens remained unmoved, and Jesus
these clauses as in the others (ALMOND, GRASSHOPPER). pronounced woe upon the place (Mt.1123 Lk.1015,
The Revisers of O T changed ‘desire’ into ‘ the caper- RV). These passages imply that Capernaum was a
berry,’ but could not determine on a satisfactory verb ; rrbhrs, with a Roman garrison, a synagogue (built by
‘ fail ’ therefore remains, with ‘ Or, burst ’ in the margin. the centurion), and a customs-station ; and that it lay
Thus much at any rate is plain : the noun in this clause down in the basin of the lake (Jn. 212 Lk. 431), and on
must denote some object in the physical world. the lake shore (Mt. 413), and (presumably from the
The rendering ‘the caper-berry ’ (a.Aq. Vg. ) has customs station) on the great high road from Damascus
been adopted by nearly all moderns, among whom G. past the N. end of the lake to the Levant (cp way qf
F. Moore5 deserves special mention because of the the sea quoted in Mt. 415 f: from Is. 9 1[823]). A
fresh light which he has brought from Mishnic and comparison of Jn. 617 with Mt. 1434 would seem also to
Talmudic sources. The rendering ‘ desire ’ (ilbulwalid ; imply that it lay on or near the plain of Gennesaret at
Parchon) is a worthless modern guess. the NW. corner of the lake.
In spite of the agreement of scholars, the clause The name has entirely disappeared, and amid the
remains obscure, mainly from the difficulty of interpret- scattered evidence of writers since the N T and the
ing the predicate 12% ( I ) Plutarch (Symp. 62) speaks 3. Xuggested various groups of ruin which strew the
of the caper being used as a relish to induce appetite identifications, lake shore between Gennesaret and the
for food ; mediceval drabic writers mention its effects mouth of the Jordan, diversity of tradi-
tion and of modern opinion has naturally arisen.
1 Even Herder fell into this error. see Haym Herder 2 87. Two sites divide the authorities-Khirbet el-Minyeh
2 I n middle and low Latin &t&u becodes the h n g e d (several mounds with indistinguishable ruins and an old
shoe of Mercury (Dufresne ed. Favre).
3 That this fruit, and ’not the berry-like bud familiar in Khsn also called Minyeh on the N. corner of Gen-
modern times, is intended appears clearly from the Talmudic nesaret) ; and Tell-Hiim, a heap of black basalt ruins
references (see Low, Pflanz. z64), and the exhaustive discussion 1 I t should, however, he noted that neither Dioscorides (2204)
in Moore’s art. referred to below. nor Pliny (13 127 20 1653) mentions either of these effects.
4 Pesh. has a double rendering : ( I ) the caper, (2) misery- 2 So Tragus (De Stirfi. Hisrt. Conzvz. 1552 3968) writes to
the latter seemingly based on a supposed (hut impossible) the effect that, cooked, and taken with oil ahd vinegpr, it is
abstract use of the fern. of $71; cp Sym. ;Idrrirrovos and Field, used with benefit in cases of palsy, gout, ‘phlegm, spleen,’
Hex. 2403. sciatica, in urinary troubles, and as an emmenagogue. .
5 See his article, fBL 105964 (‘91). 3 Even if it were, the Hiphil would not mean ‘ t o burst.’
695 696
 CAPERNAUM GAPHTOR
with the remains of a white marble edifice and a curious form ' Miniyeh,' which Delitzsch derives from Mineh,
tomb tw-o miles and a half farther west, and two miles harbour). And Quaresmius in 1616.26 (EZucid. Terr.
and a half from the mouth of the Joiddn. Between Snnc. 2568) says that by the site of Capernaum there
these two the evidence is not quite conclusive. was in his time a KhHn called by the Arabs Menieh-i. e.,
For Tell-IJem there is usually quoted the evidence of Minyeh. Ruins have been found both on the plain, by
Josephus, who says that, having been thrown from his Robinson (LBR 348-358) and Merrill ( E . @Jordan,
4. Josephus. +in a skirmish with the Roman forces 301 J ) , who traced a city wall, aiid on the hill hy
in Jordan, he was carried to a village Schumacher ( Z D PV 13 70).
called R E @ U ~ P W ~ W72),
(6i6. P and thence to Taricheae. On the whole, then, the balance of opinion is in favour
Even if this reading were cgrrect, Josephus, with injuries of ' KhHn iMinveh.' So Robinson. Conder. Henderson
so slight as he reports, might as easily have been carried (PaZ. 158$), Keim (Jesus,' Engl. ed.,
the 5 m. to Gennesaret as the two and a half to Tell- 6. Probably 2 3 6 ~ 8 )Stanley
~ (SP 3841, G. A. Sm.
Ham, especially as his desire seems to have been to get h
f$;.: (Hist. Geog. 456J), Ewing (in Hastings,
to Taricheae. It is suspicious, however, that he calls DB). The site suits the biblical data,
the place a village ( K ~ I ~ T and
) , Niese fixes the proper is required by the data of Josephus, and has tradition
reading as KE@CZPUWKAY. The only other evidence in its favour from the seventh century onward.
Josephus gives favours KhHn Minyeh. H e clescribes G. A. S.
(BIiii. 10 8) the plain of Gennesaret as watered by ' a CAPHARSALAMA ( x t , @ ~ p ~ a h t , ~ t ,[KIV : so
most copious fountain: called by the people of the
country Capharnaum. This Robinson believes to be Syr.1, KA@. [Jos.l, @t,pc. W"1, X A P @ A P C A ~ A M A[AI),
the scene of Nicanor's unsuccessful attack upon Judas,
the 'Ain et-Tin, close by Khiin Minyeh; more prob- I Macc. 7 3 1 (cp Jos. Ant. xii. 104). The name is ob-
ably it was the 'Ain ef-Tgbigah, whose waters were viously o h 703, which is met with in the Talmud also.
conveyed in an aqueduct past the site of Khiin Minyeh Most commentators (Michaelis, Grimm, Keil) seek the
into the plain. Tell-Ham, on the other hand, has site somewhere to the S. of Jerusalem, on the ground
neither fountain nor spring. that Nicanor's subsequent movements were first to Jeru-
The Christian and the Jewish traditions are divided. salem and then farther northwards to Beth-horon.
Terome nlaces Cauernaum 2 R. m. from Chorazin. a Ewald and Schiirer, however, prefer to identify it with
datim which, if Chorazin be Kerszeh, the Carva Salim mentioned in a pilgrimage of the year
"5,
and Jewish agrees with Tell-Hem. So do the data of 1065 as near Ramleh and not far from Lydda (Ew. Hist.
traditions. Theodosius (circa530),who, working from 5 321, Schiir. G3V 1169 n. ; cp Le Strange, Pal. under
Magdala round the N. end of the Lake, Mososkms, 4 7 1 3 ). In the time of the crusaders ' Capar-
places Capernaum 2 R. m. on the other side of Hepta- Salem' is again mentioned as a casale of the Knights
pegon, presumably ' A h et-THbigah. Isaac Chilo in 1334 Hospitallers. Mukaddasi's location of it ' in the district
( CarmoLj Ztinkraires, etc., Za Term Sainte des xiii. - of Czesarea on the high road from Ramleh northwards'
xuii. SiPcZes, 260) came to Kefar Nachum from Irbid, agrees with the data in I Maccabees. In that region
and found it in ruins with the tomb of Nahum. In we find at the present day a village Selmeh 3 m. E. of
1561 the 3ichus hu-Tsedihim (i6. 385) mentions Joppa and Khirbet es-Suglimiyeh 6 m. farther N. across
Tanchum with the tombs of Nahum and Rabbi the 'Aujeh. Kh. Deir SellHm, 124 m. W. of Jerusalem
Tanchum (cp 3ichus ha-Adot id. 448). Taking Kefar and I m. S. of the present high road to Joppa, suits the
Nachum and Tanchum as identical, some find in Maccabean, but not the mediaeval data. The same
' Tell-Ham ' a corruption of ' Tanchum.' This is the remark applies to the other Kh. Deir Selliim 4 m. N.
case for Tell-Hum. It really rests on the evidence of Jerusalem. Cp also the important W. SelmHn up
of Jerome and Theodosius (for it is not certain either which runs one of the main roads from the Maritime
that Kefar Nachum and Tanchum were identical or Plain to Jerusalem. G. A. S.
that ' Tell-Hum ' is derived from ' Tanchum ') : and it
is opposed to the evidence of Josephus. Yet in recent CAPHENATHA, RV CHAPHENATHA (XA@€NaeA
times it has received a large increase of support (Dr.
Wilson, Lands of the BidZe, 2139-149; Thomson, Lnnd [AKV], JhL.qLp3[Lag.], but ]?C*&~L~S [waltonl),
and Bk. ed. 1877, 352-356; Sir C. Wilson, Recovery a locality on the E. of Jerusalem, which Jonathan
of JerusnLem, 375-387 ; Gutkin, GaL-iL. 1 2 2 7 J ; Schaff, the Maccabee repaired ( ~ T E U K E ~ U U E ) ,I Macc. 1237T.
ZDPV 1 2 4 8 ; Furrer, id. 2 6 3 8 , and in Schenkel's The reading is uncertain, and the etyniologising
Bi6. Lex. 3495 ; Frei. ZDPV 2115 ; van Kasteren, id. attempts of the older Lightfoot and others (N?)??, ' un-
ll219J: Schiirer's I-(isf. 471 ; Buhl, Pal. 2 2 4 j ) . ripe dates,' Nn9D3, from silversmiths or some treasure
On the other hand, Arculf's description of Capernaum house) are best avoided. Sepp and Furrer ( T L Z , 1896,
(670 A.D.), as being on ' a narrow piece of ground col. 470) identify the place with the Tyropeon valley
between the mountain and the lake,' suits Khiin (see J ERUSALEM ), in which case ~ T ~ U K E ~ U (UP ET ~ U K ~ U U V
Minyeh, but not Tell-HCim. Arculf adds that it lay [VI) will have to be emended.
on the shore non Zongo circuitu from the traditional
spot on Gennesaret where the loaves were blessed. CAPHIRA ( K A @ I ~ A C [A]), I Esd. 51g=Ezra225,
H e did not visit it, but saw from a distance that it CHEPHIRAH.
had no walls. Willibald's data (722 A.D.) suit any
point between Mejdel and Bethsaida, and equally in-
GAPHTOR (7blD3 ; Dt. 223 Am. 97, KATITTA-

definitive are all other references till Isaac Chilo

in 1334 states that the town is now in ruins, but
was formerly inhabited by Minim--i.e., Jews who had
become Christians-all sorcerers (cp Neubauer, Glo,. . .
du TaLm. 221). Many find Minim in Minyeh. In [AE])=I Ch. l'Xz(AVCaphthorim;xa@op.[Aa7]);Dt.
answer to objections to this (Furrer, ZDPV258 8), 223t. (AV Gaphtorims, KATTT~AAOKEC[BAFL]) ; the
another derivation has been suggested through the older land and properly the people whence came the Philistines.
Arabic spelling edmunya, common in Egypt and Spain In Gen.1014 (see be1ow)l and Dt. 223 Caphtorim is a
for 'villa,' ' steading,' ' hamlet,' etc. =Lat. mansio, Gr. synonym for Philistines. Caphtor is now generally
pov$-from which it is said to be derived (Gildemeister, identified with Crete, an important island of which the
ZDPV4194fl). In any case, a place lay here in the mention is perhaps to be expected; see G EOGRAPHY ,
eleventh century called Munyat HishHm (Kazwini's
1 The words 'whence came the Philistines 'in Gen. 10 14 should
Lexicon), and in 1430 El-Munja, a village so large that Collow ' C a p h t k n . ' Probably they are a Lisplaced (incorrect)
the whole lake was called after it. (Tristram gives the gloss from the margin.
697 698
 CAPHTOR CAPPADOCIA
5 rg(7). In Jer. 474iti~expresslycalledan9~ (‘island’?), 3s early as the fourteenth century the name Kefta had
and the Philistines (?) are sometimes called ‘ Cherethites. ’ passed out of general use. As a name for Cilicia it
The Zeus Cretagenes in Gaza may also suggest a con- nas superseded by Hilalclru (see C ILICIA , 2). Hence
nection of the Philistines with Crete. These are Dill- the false tradition, identifying Caphtor with Cappa-
mann’s arguments. Rut ( I ) Crete does not appear to be jocia, could easily arise, just as another incorrect
mentioned in the Assyrian or the Egyptian monuments ; tradition identifying the Cherethites with the Cretans
( 2 )the sense of 95 is not to he limited to ‘ island ’ (BDB, [on the other side see CHERETHITES) arose. See
‘coast, border, region’); and (3) in Jer. I C . 6 B gives WMM, As. a. EUY.337, 390, to whom this (probably)
r o b s KaraXolirous TGY v?)uwv-z’.e., the text which it right explanation of Caphtor is due. That the final
followed was without ‘ Caphtor ’ ; the ‘ islands ’ or r in Caphtor still needs to be accounted for is admitted.
coast-lands ’ might he the Phoenician colonies (WMM). T. K. C.
As for ‘ Cherethites,’ the current explanation, ’ Cretans ’ CAPPADOCIA (K&ITTT&AOKI&[Ti. WH]) Acts 2 9
(so too 6, Pesh.), is very uncertain ; cp
2’ ‘ I Pet. 1I?. Cappadocia, from a similarity of sound,
’nso probably= Pulasati (Pnrasati), which was wrongly identified by the translators of d with
thites’ not is the name of one of the tribes of sea- CAPHTOR (see readings in previous article). It is
Cretans* pirates from the coasts of Asia Minor
allowable, however, to find it in the Gomer (see
which harassed Egypt under Rameses 111. The prob- GEOGRAPHY, § 20, I ) of Gen. 102; certainly the
ability is that ‘n13is a slightly modified form of the name region called Gimir by the Assyrians was in or near
of another such tribe. Now, the tribe which is constantly Cappadocia. A still older name for Cappadocia seems
coupled with the Pu-ra-sa-ti in the Egyptian inscriptions to have been Tabal (see T UBAL) ; the Tabalaeans were
is that of the Ta-lr-ka-ra or Ta-ka-ra-y. I t is reasonable scattered abroad on the invasion of their lands by the
to infer that vny3 is a form of Takaray, which was Gimirrai. The connection of Cappadocia with the
Hebraised,,in two ways : ( I ) by placing the first con- early Hittites can only be mentioned here (see H IT -
sonant third instead of first (.na>, as if=cnt off?), and TITES).
( 2 )by omitting the first syllable (911 ; but see C ARITES). Cappadocia is mentioned twice in the N T : Cappa-
W e look to Egyptology, therefore, for light on this docian Jews listened to Peter’s sermon (ActsZg), and
problem. his first epistle is addressed to Christian residents in
According to Ebers 1 Ca htor is the Egyptian Kaft-ur ‘Great the province ( I Pet. 11). Jews must early have found
Kaft.’ This scholar) hel% that Kaft was the name cdrrent in their way into this part of Asia Minor, which is inter-
E-ypt first of all for the populous Phcenician
3. Caphtor not cd7oni;s in the Delta and then more widely sected by the commercial highways leading to Amisus
Phcenicia. for the Phcenicians ’of Phoenicia and thei; on the Euxine and to Ephesus on the 2Egean.
colonies. Kaft -in would therefore mean Strabo (534) sketches the area included under
‘Great Phcenicia’ (cp Magna Gilecia). This view, however,
though not without plausible justification, is no longer tenahle, the name of Cappadocia. In ‘the earliest times it
as W. M. Muller has fully shown (As. z.Ezlr. 3378). embraced the entire neck of the Anatolian peninsula.
Keft6 is the name of a country which, together with Subsequently it was split up into the two independent
Asi (the AlaSia of Am. Tab.)-;.e., Cyprus-represents monarchies of Cappadocia Proper (3 r p h s r$ Tadpy,
4. But Cilicia. the western quarter of the world in the 3 /.qycCh1)) and Pontus (4 r p h s T $ I I 6 v ~ y K.),
age of Thotmes 111. No doubt it is separated from each other by the broad irregular
Cilicia that is meant ; hence in Lepsius’s DenkmuZeer, elevation of the Tchnmli Bd and A k Dnzh (Strabo,
63, it is mentioned with Mannns (=Mallus, a region of 540; Rams. Hist. Geogr. 315). In the south the
silver mines) as inhabited by the same people. E. Pylae Cilicie and the ridge of Taurus marked the
Meyer (who himself, however, still inclines to identify frontier against Cilicia. Lake Tatta was part of the
Caphtor with Crete) writes thus2 of the land of Kaft western boundary. In the SW. Cappadocia merged
( L e . , Muller’s KeftB) :-# The inhabitants of this land, into the vast level plains of Lycaonia and South
the Kaftti (formerly wrongly read Kefu) carried on a Galatia ; eastwards it extended to the Euphrates. The
sea trade, and possessed a richly-developed decorative frontier varied greatly, however, at different epochs,
art which is closely related to the Mycenaean. Upon especially towards the N. and the E. Cappadocia
the Egyptian monuments they present throughout, in is a cold elevated table-land, intersected by mountains,
contrast with the inhabitants of the Phcenician seaports, deficient in timber, but excellent for grain and grazing
a wholly non-Semitic type .of features, and appear in the (Str. 73, 539). Its chief export seems to have been
inscriptions as a western people outside the pale of the slaves (Hor. Ep.i. 639 : Muncipiis ZocupZes eget e y i s
Semitic world. Rightly, therefore, have Pietschmann, Cu@urlocum rex) ; but they were not of much account
Steindorff, and W. M. Muller rejected the equation (Cic. Post Red. 6 14). Red ochre ( Z v w r t r t i ) ,uAros :
Kaft = + O L P I K ~of) the bilingual decree of Canopus and Str. 540) of good quality was exported: the em-
sought for Kaft in Asia Minor, perhaps in Cilicia.’ porium was Ephesns-not Tarsus, as we might have
Now, when we consider tbat the sea-pirates called expected. Several monarchs of Cappadocia Proper
Purasati and Takaray are stated to have come from the bore the name Ariarathes (cp I Macc. 1522). Its last
‘islands ’ ( i . e . , coast-lands), it is obvious that, if Purasati king, Archelaus, was deposed by Tiherins, who reduced
(at any rate) has been rightly identified in Hebrew litera- the country to the form of a province, in 17 A.D. (Tac.
ture, Caphtor, whence the PEliStim (Philistines) came, Ann. 242 ; Jos. Ant. xvi. 46).
must be a name for some part of the sea-board of Asia I n Imperial times the Cappadocian roads fall into three
groups :-(I) those on the north and (2) those on the south, of
Minor, and we may expect to find its original in the the river Halys in both cases lgading eastwards to the fords of
Egyptian inscriptions. That original must surely be the upper Eupirates ; (3) transverse roads leading northwards
Kefta (or Kaft), which appears to have been Hebraised from the Cilician Gates: one of the chief among these last was
that which afterwards became the pilgrims’ route to the Holy
a s Caphtor. That Caphtorim should be called a son of Land (Rams. op. cit. 255). The capital, Mazaca (MdSaKa from
Mizraim(Gen. 10 14) is not surprising, for Caphtorim here, Mosoch the ancestor of the Cappadocians : Jos. Ant. i. 6 I: Gen.
as well as in Dt. 223, means, not the people of Caphtor 10 z), oc)cupied a central position actually upon the Euphrates
(the coasts of Asia Minor) but the Philistines, who, as trade-route, a t the northern foot o f Mt. Argeus. It was re-
founded hy Claudius, who gave it the name Czsarea about 41
Muller has shown, were subject to Egypt in Shishak‘s A.D. Because of the strength of the new religion iu’it, Julian
time and earlier (cp DAVID, 7). It is indeed doubtful expunged it from the list of cities. By his time the whole
whether either Amos or the Yahwist (J) can be pre- town had been Christianized (wav8qpd X p w r ~ a v l < o v r ~and
s ) its
great temples of Zeus Poliuchus and Apollo Patrous had long
sumed to have known the true meaning of Caphtor, for been destroyed (Sozom. HE 5 4 : Rams. op. cit. 303). This
1 &. u. die BB. Mosis, 130 8.[‘681. So formerly Sayce, is the more remarkable as southern Cappadocia was the strong-
(CmX M0n.P) 136). hold of the worship of Ma (Enyo), whose priest rivalled the
2 In a special communication for the present work. CR king himself in power (Str. 535). At the time of Strabo’s visit
WMM, As. u. Ear. 3 4 7 8 the Hieroduli of the temple numbered over six thousand, and
700
 CAPTAIN CARCHEYISH
almost all the people of Comana were connected directly or m- lective form of nyH, a traveller,’ Judg. 5 6 RVmg., Job
directly with the worship. At Venasa there was a similar 6 18f: RV ; elsewhere (in Gen. 37 25 Is. 21 13), ‘ (travel-
establishment devoted to the worship of Zeus (Str. 537, Rams.
op. cif. 292). It is only in later ecclesiastical history that the ing) company,’ which in Job6 19 represents 32?’>D. See
towns of Cappadocia are celebrated-eg., Nyssa, Nazianzus
Samosata, Tyana. For the Christianity of Cappadocia, sek TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Rams. Ck. in 2 . Entp.(%4 4 3 3 W. J. W. CARBUNCLE is given in RVmg. as rendering n q k e k ,
CAPTAIN. The lavish use of this old English word 793 (aa N B p a f ) , for which EV has ‘emerald.’ Both
in EV is perplexing. W e shall mention the words renderings are uncertain ; for a third, see EMERALD.
which it represents, suggesting in some cases substitutes. Whilst under the head of carbunculns Pliny prob-
E V is by no means consistent : the words referred to are ably includes the ruby, which is simply t h e , red
sometimes rendered differently (cp OFFICER, PRINCE, corundum, and the spinel, we may with safety assume
R ULER ). that neither of these stones can have been in the high-
I. Ba‘aZ, ! Jpin n?lge‘8, properly ‘one who was on the. priest’s breastplate. For, p s t , there is no proof that
watch,’ Jer.3Trgt. the ruby, which is only found in Ceylon and in Burmah,
2. Tz$hLZr, Jer. 61 27, Nah. 3 17 (RV ‘marshal ’). See or the spinel, were known to the Hebrews and their
SCRIBE. neighhours any more than they were to the Greeks till
3. N@d, l’?; I S.1314, prop. the foremost one; hence after the time of Theophrastus ; second&, owing to its
‘prince’ [RV usually] or ‘leader’ [EV I Ch.12 27 13 I]. hardness the ruby has hardly ever been engraved on,
4. NLZsi, Nu.23 etc. (RV ‘prince’; better ‘chief’-&?., and any instances that are known belong to the late
one who is entrusted with authority). In Ezekiel often for the Roman period. On the other hand, Theophrastus
secular head of the Messianic kingdom. Often too in P (e.g., ( t a p . 18) describes his carbuncle (tlvOp&) as a stone
Nu. 116 2 3). red in colour (6pvOpbv p6v r6 xph,uarr, q b s 66 rbv
5. Pk&?h, 359 2 K.18 24 Is. 36 9. Here and here only the +~~LOY rtO6pvov tlvOpaKos Karofidvov TOLE? ~ p o d v ) , a
word means ‘general ’ ; a glossator (see SBOT,Is.) used it in a statement that fits well the carbuncle, and tells us that
wrong sense. Elsewhere it means governor,’ ‘ satrap ’ (see it was engraved for signets (4 Sv Kai 721. u+payi&a
GOVERNOR, I).
6. &@h, ]’?? Jud. 1 1 6 (a ‘decider’-&?., chieftain, RV
yhd+ouutv). The ncphek of the breastplate may
therefore have been a garnet. See, further, PRECIOUS
‘chief,’except Dan. 11 18).
7. End, 22 in late Heb. for 11, e.g., 2 K. 258, ‘captain of
STONES.
2. On the n p g of Ex. 28 17 39 I O Ez. 28 13t (EV ‘carbuncle’)
the guard’ (AVmg. ‘chief marshal ’).
8. 283, dd-, ‘head,’ Nu. 1 4 4 T Ch. 11 42 (RV ‘chief‘) : z Ch. see EMERALD.
1312 RV ‘head ’) ; cp GOVERNMENT, 8 26 n. 3. On the ’??E of Is. 6 4 4 (EV ‘carbuncle’) see
9.h , M*$V Dan. 215: syn. with ‘captain (22 see 7) of
the guard,’ v. 14.
CRYSTAL. W. R.

IO. j d l G , d>\$ z K.9 25 ; see ARMY, $4, CHARIOT, $ IO.

CARCAS (b21? ; BapaBd, CBHL(P)I, BaBaz [.4]),
a chamberlain of Ahasuerus (Esth. 1IO).
11. gar, l@ in ‘captain of the host,’ I K. 1 2 5 ; ‘captain of
thousands, hundreds ’ I S. 22 7. Elsewhere ‘prince ’ even Is. CARCHEMISH (~’g??l, in Jer. and Is. W@?;l;
108 and 31 g (where ;cad ‘captains’). See ARMY, 8 4: GOVERN- Egyptian I.ra-r+z-mai(?)-&z ;early Babylonian [circa
MENT, S 21.
2200 B. c.] Knrkamis;l AssyAan Gargami?, Gargarme?),
12. 13. 14. Three words mistranslated ‘ captain ’ are ’-12, 12,
a city on the Euphrates (Jer. 46 2 ; so also Sargon, ?a
and q’b! in 2 K. 11 4 19,Ezek. 21 zz (AVmg. and RV ‘battering hifad Puratti [see Wi. Sargon, 1721).
rams ’) and Jer. 13 21 respectively. The readings of the versions are : Jer. 46 2 Xappsrs [BNA],
The Greek words are :- Kapxap. [Q] ; 2 Ch. 35 20 AV CXARCNE.??ISH, XapXap. [L], BA
15. kpxqy6s Heb. 2 TO (RV ‘author’), prop. ‘one who takes om.; cp I Esd. 123(zs) AV C X A R C H ~ M Z S x a p r a ~ v s [ BKaXXap.
I,
the lead ’ : cp T Macc. 10 47 Heb. 12 2. [A], Xapxapers [Ll; in Is. 109 wn3722 is represented by +JY
16. urpaTqybs TO; ispoB (Lk.224 52 Acts41 etc.), the com-
mander of the temple Levites ; see ARMY, 8 6. Xipav +v ;xdvw BapvhGvos [BUAQ] [?] ; Chavcamis.
17. gTpamae8dpxpXl)sActs 28 16 (RV after N [AB om.]), bptain The site of Carchemish was fixed by G. Smith, shortly
of the guard,’ a military tribune ; cp Jos. B3 ii. 194. before his death at.Aleppo in 1876, as being at Jeriibis
18. Xthlapxos Jn. 18 72, chiliarch, see ARMY, B IO. 1. Site. on the W. bank of the Euphrates. Such, at
CAPTIVITY, EXILE. These parallel and practi- least, appears to be the most probable form of
cally synonymous expressions ( q w , 3 3 w , n * w , J a i x - the name (G. Smith in his latest diary speaks also of
paXwredetv, -rl&Lv, {w-ypeiv, and hi>, n h , J~nh ‘ to a place called Yaraboloos). Maundrell gave the name
strip, make bare [a country],’ ,U.GTOLKL@V, etc.) occur as JerabolGs (Bohn’s ed. 508) ; Sayce (Hist. Rev., Jan.
together in such phrases as ‘the captives of Egypt 1888, p. 109,n.) adopts JerablQs for Carchemish on
and the exiles of Ethiopia’ (1sinnrh-nrti n’Txn qw-nK ; the authority of Skene, Wilson, and Trowbridge. T h e
Is. 204), ‘into exile, into captivity shall they go’ ( n h ~ form Jergbis is that heard by Sachau (Reire in Syrien,
n!J*9 3 ~ 2 ;Ezek. 1211),‘the children of the captivity 168); and Pococke long ago gave Jerabees as the
which were come out of exile ’ ( h n - m +3wiln~ ’ ~ ;2 8name of a place distinct from Hierapolis ( TruwZs in
Ezra8 35). The captivity and exile incidental to conquest the East, 2 164). Jergbis (variously spelled) is there-
are intended. On what is known as The Captivity or fore adopted by Schrader, Delitzsch, G. Hoffmann, and
Exile p a r exceZLence, see ISRAEL, 5 3 2 z ,and cp Professor W. Wright of Cambridge ; Peters, however
DISPERSION. (Ni$polr, text, map, and index), adopts Jerabus (sic).
JerZbis is the plural form of Jirbns given by YiikGt.2
In Is.5114 3Yk (EV ‘the captive exile’) means, literally,
nothing more than ‘he that is ient down’-(see RVmg.) bkt If Jerablas were correct it would still remain to be
the text is corrupt (see Che. SBOT, ‘Isa.,’ Addenda): In shown historically how Hierapolis (of which it is an
Is. 22 17 -$&a, ‘will carry thee away with a mighty captivity,’ obvious corruption) came to be applied to the ruins of
in AV, ought to be rendered, as in RV, ‘will hurl thee away Carchemish, seven hours away. The Syrian Hierapolis-
violently.’ Mabug (the Turkish Bembi, from Greek BapfiLu7. cp
Ass. Ba-am-du-hi),to which the name JerablGs certainly
CARABASION (K&paBr*C[€]lwN rB.41, L om.) i’f
I Esd. 9 34 seems to stand for the ‘ Vaniah and Meremoth
does belong, was the seat of the worship of the Aramztan
of I] Ezra 1036. 1 Cun. Texts from Bab. Tab., etc. in the British Museum.
Pt. ii. no. I obv. 8 : no. 6 obv. 11.
CARAVAN n??H,l which is properly the fem. col- 2 Nald. Lnd Hoffmann’identifywith the Greek Europos or
Oropos (Syr. form Aghropos). Yiikkot’s words (2 688) are :
1 Strictly, the rendering res- upon the change of nin2-n and ‘ Dair Kinnisri is on the E. bank of th; Euphrates in the region
el-Jezira and DiyZr Mudar opposite Jirbiis (Jirbns is Syrian).
ninly (‘ways,’ cp AV) into nin?k, which is supported by most of From Dair Kinnisri to Mandig the distance is four farsabs, and
moderns. from Dair Kinnisri tosarkog seven farsaip
701 702
 CARCHEMISH CARMEL
goddess ATARGATIS (q.v.). G. Smith's words are (see acquaintance with the western part of Asia Minor.
Del. Pur. 2 6 6 $ ) , ' Grand site[;] vast walls and palace- The name may have meant little more than foreigners.
mounds 8000 feet round [;] many sculptures and mono- (For another view see C APHTOR , 5 2.) F. n.
liths with inscriptions [;] site of Karchemesh.' Some of
the sculptures and inscriptions are now in the British CARMANIANS, RV Carmonians (Carmonii [ed.
Museum. The ruins extend half a mile from N. to Bensly], -mini [A*], -ne [A**]), for which some MSS
S. by a quarter of a mile from W. to E. (Pococke, read Armenii, on the principle of substituting the un-
2.c.). known for the known, a people, mentioned in the ' vision
Carchemish was the northern capital of the Hittite horrible' ( 4 Esd. 153o), who were to go forth 'as the
empire, the Assyrian inat Hatti, clearly a great trade wild boars of the wood' and ' waste a portion of the
centre, and seems to have been a fortress- land of the Assyrians with their teeth' (so RV) ; see
2. SWINE. They are probably the inhabitants of KermBn
city commanding the principal ford of
the Euphrates on the trade route from the Mesopotamian a province on the N. shore of the Persian gulf, lying to
plains into Syria. As the mounds lie between Berejik the W. of Gedrosia. Kerman is now the name of a
and the junction of the SSLjnr with the Euphrates, i t ' is province in the SE. of Persia.
I n lauguage and customs they were akin to the Persians
certain that a strong force at Carchemish could block They were not unknown to ancient classical authors (e.g.,
the route of an Egyptian army into Assyria. About Nearchus, Arrian Ind. 38 ; Strabo, 15 727, the latter of whom
1600 B.C. the army of Thotmes 111. had to meet the gives a very gruesome account of some of their cruelties).
people of I(a-ri-l:a-mai'(?)-5a (WMM, Asien, 263) ; and The events hinted at in the vision probably refer to the
the Egyptian captain Amenemhbe took some of the conquests of the Sassanides, more especially of ShLphr
inhabitants prisoners. Tiglath-pileser I. (circa 1100 or Sapor I. (242-273 A . D . ) , and to their expeditions
B.c.) says that he defeated and plundered people he- against Valerian (258 A. D. ) and other generals. W e
longing to the city of Carchemish, and when the rest may thus see in the wasting of a 'portion of the land
fled and crossed the Euphrates he sent his troops across of the Assyrians' (v. 30) Sapor's expedition towards
on floats of inflated skins and burnt six cities at the the NW. where he overran Syria and destroyed
foot of Mount BiSri (KB132, 2. 4 9 3 ) . It is clear that Antioch. The dragons of Arabia (v. 29 ; cp the ' fiery
his victory did not give command of the ford and that flying serpents ' of Is. 30 6) would then be the Arabian
he did not take the city itself. Ah-ngsir-pal (circa forces of Odenathns and Zenobia, who drove him back
880 B .c.) received from Sangara, king of (mLt Batti) beyond .the Euphrates ; and the retaliation described
the Hittites, in the neighbourhood of Carchemish, tribute, in v. 33 would refer to the repulse of the Palmyrene
the magnitude and variety of which attest the wealth troops, their dislodgment from the hanks of the Orontes,
and prosperity of the land (ICB1106,1. 652.). Shal- and the fall of Zenobia at the hands of Aurelian
maneser 11. about 858 B.C. defeated an alliance of (272 A. D. ).
Sangara with his neighbours and received an enormous See ESDRAS F O U R T H R O O K OF, 8 5 (6). [For the history of
this period cp WRS,'Palmyra,' and NO. 'Persia,' EB(W.1
tribute from him (KB1162, 2. 27 8 ). On the bronze
gates of Balawat a picture of the fortress is twice given CARME (XAPMH [Bh]) I Esd.525, AV=Ezra23g
in relief. Sargon 11. in 717 B.C. actually captured the HARIM,I.
city, took its king Pisiris prisoner, deported its people,
and settled Assyrians in it (Iri3238, A IO, 2 2 ; Wi. 5
CARMEL (5g12 or ?273;1--i.e.,
,. : - 'the garden-land';
Sarg., passim). From this time it was the capital of K A ~ M H ~ O [BAL]).
C I. (Sometimes also h ~ ~ gg ,
a regular province of Assyria, and had its own Saknu Name and OpOC TO K A P M H ~ I O N . ) The' name
or governor, who took his place among the Eponyms Carmel, which is properly a common
(692 B.C.). A strong proof of its commercial import- position. noun meaninc a ulaiitation of choice
- *
ance is afforded by the fact that by far the most common trees (cp Span. carmen), is employed both with and
unit of monetary value in Assyria down to the last was (Josh. 1926 Jer. 4618 Nah. 1 4 ) without the article as the
the mar& of Carchemish. On the battle of Carchemish proper name of a mountain. The reference is to the
in 605 n.c., see EGYPT, § 68 ; I SRAEL , § 40. richly wooded character which Mt. Carnie1 had anciently
See further HITTITES, and cp Maspero, De Carchemis opPidi and possesses still in a large degree (cp ' T h e Black
situ, etc., Strug@ of Natiovzr, 144J; Schr. K G F ('78), p. Forest ').
221 A:; G. Hoffmann AdlzandZ. f: d. Kunde des MorgenZ.
(D. M. G.), vii. no. 3, p.:61; Del. Par. 265.268; Wright, PSRA, It is convenient to distinguish three separate applica-
1880.81, pp. 5 8 3 ; Menant, Kay-Kd'mis,sa position, etc., 1891. tions of the name : ( I ) as denoting the range of hills
C. H. W. J. extending for some 12 or 13 miles from the sea coast
in the NW. to the W. el-Milh in the SE.; ( 2 ) as
CAREAH ( K A P H [BA])
~ z K. 2523 AV, RV KAREAH.
including also the farther prolongation (called er-
CARIA(THN~ a p i a ~ [ K V ] , ~ . - i h b , [ Athesouthern
]), Ruhah) of this range for other 12 or 13 miles in a
part of the Roman province of Asia, mentioned as one south-easterly direction, as far as to the neighbourhood
of the countries to which a Roman note in favour of of Jeniii ; ( 3 ) as designating the promontory or head-
the Jews was sent in 139 B.C. ( I Macc. 1523) ; see M AC - land in which the range ends at its northern extremity,
CABEES, F I R S T , § 9. At that date Caria was autonomous. leaving only a narrow passage between the mountain
Previously the greater portion had been assigned to and the sea. The range and the promontory combine
Rhodes (in 189 B.c.), but after the war with Perseus to form a striking feature in the configuration of Palestine.
(168 B.C., cp I Macc. 85 Pol. 305) it was declared free. The symmetrical arrangement by which the country as
After 129 B.C. Caria was part of the province of Asia a whole falls into longitudinal sections, running north
(Cic. Pro. FZac. 65). Jews were settled in many Cariau and south, distinguished as the littoral zone, the hill-
towns-Cnidus, Halicarnassus, Myndus, Miletus-and country, and the zone of the Gh6r (see PALESTINE,
in the islands off the coast-Cos, Rhodes, etc. § 6 J ) , is broken by Carmel alone, intruding into the
W. J. W. Mediterranean plain, and interrupting the continuity of
the mountain zone so as to form the plain of Jezreel.
CARITES (+?lq), used thrice in RV of the royal Topographically it is thus important ; and, though
body-guard, 2 I<. 1 1 4 19 (AVCAPTAINS ; T O N xopp[s]i Carmel is not often expressly named, the presence of
[BAL], xopsi [A v. 1-91, and 2 S. 20 23 mg. (so Kt., this natural barrier and the adjoining plain had a
Kr. *n?q?, EV CHERETHITES[ q . ~ . ] Xehs0esl
, [B], considerable influence on the course of immigrations
XEpE. [AI, TOY TThlN0IOy [L, see BENAIAH]). Perhaps or invasions from the time of the Philistines and Pharaoh
the Carians, the famous mercenary folk (cp, e.g., Herod. Necho down to that of Bonaparte.
2152), are meant (see Dr. ad b c . , C ARIA , above, and The eastern slope of Carmel falls sharply towards
cp CHERETHITES). Even so, we must not infer a real the plain of Esdraelon; but westward its declivity
703 704
 CARMEL CARMI
towards the Mediterranean is gentle. On this side its Carmel had a widespread reputation for sanctity.
configuration presents a series of divergent buttresses Thotmes 111. has been quoted as a witness. Maspero,
2. Nature. separated by valleys and opening up like 4. Other reE. in fact, thinks that he can recognise
a fan towards the coast. This western the 'holy headland ' (mi) w i ) of Carmel
region, properly, belongs to the massif of Carmel, in the name Ru-Ba-kdS, no. 48 in the Palestinian place-
and Conder says, quite rightly, 'Carmel is best list of Thotmes 111. (RPP)547); but this is uncertahl
described as a triangular block of mountains.' From Pyth. 3 15) asserts that Pythagoras sojourned
Jamblichus (Vi{.
the summit of the main range and, indeed, from on Carmel. Tacitus (Hist.278) speaks of it as a place con-
secrated by the presence of an oracle, beside an altar that
almost every point along the ridge extensive views to was unadorned by any image of the deity. Suetonius (Vesj. 5)
south and north are obtained, and Carmel in turn is relates that Vespasian sacrificed a t this spot, and heard from the
visible and conspicuous from a great variety of distant priests the prophecy of his greatness. Among
points. The range reaches a maximum elevation of 6. Later times. blahommedans the memory of Elijah is in-
dissolubly associated with Carmel, which the
1810 feet a little to the south of the village of 'Esfiyeh. Arabs to this day call Jebel M l r ElyPs, Mount St. Elias, where
Geologically it is cretaceous and nunimulitic limestone, con- they have set up welys and mosques in his honour.
taining fossil ,echinoderms and 'geodes '-i.e., silicious concre- Still greater has its importance been in the Christian
tions known as se&'ariunz or vulgarly as cats' heads, called by world. Many anchorites establishetl themselves there
the ancient pilgrims lqbidesjudnici or Elijah's melons (Lortet,
La Syrie daujourd'hui 172). There are many caves, and some from the earliest times. In 1156 St. Berthold of
volcanic rocks. The f a h a includes the roebuck, the leopard, Calabria founded the order of Carmelites and built
and the wild cat. The flora, which is luxuriant, is wholly their first monastery at the north-western extremity of
wild. The most common trees are the pine, oak, lentisk carob, the range near ' Elijah's grotto.'
olive : traces of modern agriculture are to be found onl; in the
neighbourhood of the villages and of the sea-coast. It was In 1252 the nionastery was visited by St. Louis (Louis IX.)
otherwise in ancient times, as is shown by the very name (above, of France, who is sometimes, but wrongly, represented as its
8 I). At various points in the range ancient wine and oil founder. Dedicated to 'Our Lady of Mount Cai-mel,' it has
presses have been discovered, and traces of Roman roads have had a very chequered history. The Carmelites were often per- .
been pointed out to the present writer by Dr. Schumacher. secuted ;and their house was destroyed or turned into a mosque.
In 1799 it was used as a hospital for the sick and wounded of
There is every ground for believing that formerly
Carmel was covered much more luxuriantly than it is
Napoleon's army. In 1821it was destroyed by 'Abdallah-pasha .
but a Carmelite friar, Giovanni Battista di Frascati succcss~
Hence the comparison in Cant. 75[6] fully undertook to collect funds for its restoration. TAe.present
3* OT :'Tine head is like Carmel '), and the allu- building, 560 feet above the sea-level, is due to his efforts ; by its
side stands a lighthouse. ' Elijah's grotto' forms the crypt of
sion to the 'splendour of Carmel' in Is. 352. Its pro- the church; another grotto near, which formerly belonged to
minence is referred to in Jer.4618, where it is said that the Christians but bas now been taken by the Moslems is
the king of Babylon will come ' like Tabor among the represented as having harboured a school of the prophets) in
Elijah's time, and as having given shelter to the Holy Faniilyon
mountains and like Carmel by the sea.' In conjunc- their return from Egypt.
tion with Sharon, Lebanon, and Bashan, Carmel serves A little way above the monastery, on the crest of the
as a type for a land that has been singularly blessed hill, a large sanatorium (Luftkurhaus) has been built
by G.od (Jer. 5019 Mic. 714). The devastation of Carmel by the German colony in Haif%.
implies the severest chastisement for Israel (Is. 339 Jer. These colonists pursue agriculture on the slopes of Mount
426 Am. 1 2 Nah. 1 4 ) . Its thick woods offered shelter Carmel, and, by their success in vine-culture especially, have
demonstrated the possibility of bringing back to the scene of
to the fugitive, as Amos (93) indicates in an allusion their labours some portion of its ancient prosperity.
that admits of explanation without supposing that the Besides papers in PEFQ, see especially v. Schubert, Reise in
mountain was held to give protection against Yahwe das Morgenland, 3 202-220 ; GuCrin, Palestiize : Sanzarie,
(for the idea cp Ps. 1397-12). The passages which 2 240-"50 260-273. Forrer Wanderungeiz
6 . Literature. durch d& heil. LbndP), 3;7-329 ; Conder,
assign to Elisha an abode on Carmel do not necessarily Tent-Work, 88-95; GASm. HG 337-340;
mean that he was compelled to seek a n asylum there L. Gautier, Souvenirs de Tewe-SaintePJ, 227-248. LU. G .
( z I<. 225 425). In the time of Strabo Carmel was still 2. A town in the hill-country of Judah (Josh. 1555)
a place of refuge for the persecuted (16759). ( ~ e p p e h[BAL]), the scene of incidents in the life of
We cannot say with certainty to which tribe Carmel Saul ( I S . 1512) and David ( I S. 2 5 ~ $ ) . ~The gentilic
belonged. h 1 2 1 , Carmelite (Kappjhior), is applied to David's
The one reference in this connection (Josh.1926) in the
delimitation of Asher is somewhat enigmatical (see ASHER,$ 3), wife A BIGAIL [ q . ~ . ,I] (2s.22 Kap,uThet.rou [A], etc.)
and in any case can relate only to the extreme headland. The and to HEZRO ( I Ch. 1 1 3 7 ) . The town is mentioned
tribes of Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebnlun must all have touched (XeppaXa, CarmeZu) by Eus. and Jer. (OSllO312i276J.)
on Carmel. Doubtless the tribal limits varied from age to age, as situated IO m. from Hebron, and as having a Roman
and there must have been Deriods of Phcenician asceodancv.
' In later times Carma belonged now to Samaria,now
garrison. It is the modern ZCurmzZ, 2887 ft. above
to Galilee, sometimes even to the province of Tyre. the sea-level, about 8 R.m. SE. from Hebron (accord-
In Ahab's time it certainly formed part of the do- ing to Robinson, who thinks Eusebius and Jerome have
minions of that monarch, and it became the scene of exaggerated the distance ; see also Palestine Survey
the memorable contest between Elijah and the prophets map, sheet xxiv.). Robinson speaks of the ruins as
of Baal. ' extensive '; the principal ruin is that of the castle, which
Tradition places the scene and the altar of Yahwe which Elijah he assigns to Herod or the Romans, but Conder to 12th
repaired a t a point called El-'Mohralja('p1aceof burning'), where century A. D . The site is upon the edge of the wilder-
there is Roman Catholicsanctuary 17w feet above the sea-level, ness of Judzza ; Uut to the west the land is broad and
two hours south from' Esfiyeh. Beneath this spot, a t the base o f fertile, not unlike scenes of upland agriculture in Scotland.
the mountain near the Kishon there is a hillock, the so-called
Tell-el-Kassis) ('hill of the prieit,' not 'of the priests '), which is The name Carmel is therefore suitable. There are many
pointed to-but, of course, with no historical certainty-as the remains of vineyard terraces, and a reservoir.
place where the prophets o f Baal were put to death. G . A. S.
There are no data for fixing the scene of I K. 18 in
one locality more than another, and 2121. 41-46 leave us CARMI ('Qp,
§ 70; X&pM[€]I [BAFL]), appar-
as much in the dark as the rest of the narrative. Some ently shortened from Beth-hac-cerem3 or Beth-haccarmi
interpreters take the ' mountain' in 2 K. 19-15 to be [see TAHCHEMONITE], and note in Josh. 1559 the name
Carmel; but it is natural to look for it somewhere Carem ( KAPEM [BAL]).
on the road between Samaria and Ekron. It has also 1 More precisely Maspero places the town o f Rosh Kodshu
been supposed to be intended in Dt. 33 19 ( ' Issachar on.the slope of the)promontory (Struggle of the Natio&, 136 ;
and Zebulun ...shall call the peoples unto the
2-4,7879, p. 55). W. M. Muller (As.u. Eur. 165)~however,
goints out that the grouping of the names proves that Ru-
mountain') ; but what mountain is meant is quite sa-kdg cannot have been far from Carmel.
indeterminate. There may have been more than one 2 Carmcl ought also to be read for Rachal in I S. 30 zg ; so
@BL. See RACHAL.
mountain sanctuary in Zebulnn and Issachar ; and the 3 I n that case it cannot be compared with the Nab. n. pr.
reference may be to these generally ' (Dr. ad Zoc. ). itm.
23 705 706
 CARMONIANS CASTOR AND POLLUX
I. Father of A CHAN 6 . v . ) : Josh. 7 I 18 [B om.] I Ch. 2 7t. In special recommendation. With Khisfin cp Talm. Hasfiya. On
I Ch 4 I Carmi elaewhere called son of Zabdi (or I Cli. 2 6 of Muzeirib see Schumacher, Across .Toidan, 157 .j?There is
Zimri) is mad; son of Judah; hut we should rather read another large lake, el Khab, 16 m. N. of Bluzeirib. G. A. S.
CHELGBAI (cp 29) with We.
2. b. Reuben supposed ancestor of the CarmitES,(aijn), CASSIA represents two Hebrew words. I. m?
Gcn. 40 g Ex. 6 ;4 Nu. 206 I Ch. 5 3t. (Ex. 3024 Ezek. 271gf) appears, along with myrrh,
CARMONIANS (Curmonii [ed. Bensly]), 4 Esd. 15 cinnamon, calamus, and olive oil, as an ingredient of the
30, AV CARMANIANS. holy anointing oil. It is mentioned, along with bright
iron and calamus, among the wares brought into the
CARNAIM (KAPNAIN [AKV]), I Macc. 543 f.; and Tyrian market. The origin of the word is unknown,
Carnion ( K A ~ ION
N [AV]), z Macc. 12 21. See ASH-
nor is it found in any of the cognate languages : some
TAROTH.
have thought that it reappears in the K L T spoken ~ of by
CAROB TREE (TO KEPATION [Ti. WH]), Lk. 1516 Dioscorides (1 12) as one species of cassia.
RVW See HUSKS. @BAFL renders Z p ~ sin Ex. 3024, where Kauuia, &hah6q, and
K ~ U T Oare~ mentioned in other MSS as alternative renderings:
CARPENTER (yu dl?, z Sam. 5x1 ; TEKTWN, Mt. in Ezek. 2719, where @BAQ omits, Aq. has mrapriov, Sym.
U T M T ~ and
, Theod. KaLGSa. Pesh. and l’arg. identify it with the
1355). See HANDICRAFK, 2.
iliy’r,? or ‘ cassia ’ of Ps. 45 8 [g] (see below).
CARPUS (K&pnoc,[Ti. WH]) appears to have been
Paul’s host at Troas ; it was with him that the apostle Scholars are agreed that probably what is intended is
left the cloak and books mentioned in z Tim. 413. He some kind of cassia.
is named in the lists of ‘the seventy disciples of our Celsius (2186) notices the mention in Mish. KiZ. i. $ 8 of
& ; n p ‘white cassia,’ as cultivated in Palestine : hut this,
Lord’ compiled by the Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo- accordinito Low (349), must have been quite a different plant.
Hippolytus (see DISCIPLE, § 3) as bishop of Berma in 2. n i y y Ps, 458[g], the word which passed into
Thrace. Greek as K U U ~ U and ~ thence into other languages,
CARRIAGE. This English word, which has else- is almost certainly a derivative of the root yxp (=Ar.
where in EV, with various special applications as &z&z‘a), to ‘ scrape ’-properly ‘ to reduce to fine dust’
indicated by the context, the obsolete sense of ‘ some- (WRS in 1. Phil. 1671 J ) . A ’powdered fragrant
thing carried,‘ is found in the sense of ‘ vehicle ’ in Lev. bark’ is thus indicated. The word is too general to
,159, RVmg. (see SADDLE), and perhaps in I S.1720 allow of certain identification with any particular species :
2 5 7. AVmk (see CAMP, 5 I, WAR). but probably what is intended is something akin to the
CARSHENA (K!~-II)
in Esth. 1.14 MT, one of the modern ‘cassia bark’ ( L e . , the bark of other kinds of
‘ seven princes ’ at the court of Ahasuerns. @’s equiva- Cinnamoinum than that which yields the true cinnamon).
lent seems to be U ~ K E U U L O [BKC.‘LALFj,
S -uuos [K*],
The use of the Heb. pZuuruZ to denote a substance of
this kind is naturaL2 The word in the singular is found
whence Marq. (Fund. 67) would restore ~ 3 t n i ;) cp 0.
Pers. warkn&z& ‘ wolfish.’ See ADMATHA. as a female name ; see KEZIAH.
FI. and Hanb., Pltamz.P) 519,.say: ‘That cinnamon and
bT-:
CART( ;I X,’) I S.67. See CHARIOT, § 2. cassia were extremely analogous 1s proved by the remark of
Galen, that the finest cassia differs so little from the lowest
CARVING, CARVED WORK. See HANDICRAFTS. quality of cinnamon that the first may,be used for the second,
provlded a double weight of it he used.
CASEMENT (22@5),Prov. 76, RV LATTICE (§ ~ ( 2 ) ) . A very probable source of cassia is Cinnanzomunz inars, B1.
The Phartnacopreik indica says : ‘ May he used as a sohstitutq
CASIPHIA (WgD?). An unknown place, near for Cinnamon, to which it can hardly be reckoned inferior.
AHAVA and Babylon, whence Ezra obtained IDDO (i.), C. inevs occurs in S. India and throughout the Malayan region.
It yielded the ‘cassia hark’ once so largely exported from N.
the chief man there, and his brethren1 the Nethinim, Canara. See C INNAMON. N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
Ezra 817 (MU@EV 700 r 6 m u [L])= I Esd. 845 [47] (see
below). CASTANETS (Dyqy, 2 S. 65t RV. See MUSIC,
The other renderings are based on the connection of N 9 D 3 § 3 (3).
with 189 ‘silver, money,’ Ezra817 (&,T&w TOO T ~ T O U [BAl)= CASTLE. Two buildings are distinguished in AV
I Esd. 8 45 [47], EV ‘the place of the treasury’ ( T + “ T ~ T ( ~[~oiil
) by this title : ( I ) the ‘city [rather, citadel] of David’
ya<o$uA&~ov [BA] T. T. TGY [L],
- K ~ Y ..
. TOGS EY T. T.
in I Ch. 115 (;IpYp) 7 (Ty?), where RV harmonizes
ya<o$Aa(rv [BAL]$ It is perhaps possible that this place was
no town, hut merely a college, or a locality where Levites with z S. 57 by rendering ‘strong hold,’ and ( 2 ) the
were educated (cp Be.-Ry. EZF.ad loc.). barracks (lit. camp) attached to the fort Antonia (Acts
CASLEU (xacs,ky CAWa]) I Macc. 154 AV. See 2134 37 ; r r a p ~ p o h ~ )See
. JERUSALEM, TEMPLE.
CHISLEU. 3. RV also gives the title to the birriltt (a??) of Susa (AV
CASLUHIM (W&D;l, Gen. 10 14 I Ch. 1I.?) See ‘palace’). See PALACE, SHUSHAN ; also FORTRESS, TOWER.
GEOGRAPHY, 15 (4. . 4. The woi-d is also used in AV, quite wrongly, for ”p
firah, which is rather a nomad ‘encampment’ (so RV), Gen.
CASPHOR, in I Macc. 536 AV Casphon ( X & C @ W N 2516 etc. (distinguished from nqsn, ‘villages’). See CAMP, $ I,
[HI; I(&. [VI; X A C @ ~ B[A], but in v. 26 K&C@WP CATTLE, $ I n.
K&I C K A @ [VI, ~ K A C @ [K*]
~ ; Jos. Ant. xii. CASTOR AND POLLUX, RV The Twin Brothers
8 3 , X & C @ O M A K H , etc., where M&KH =thenameMaked), (AIOCKOYPOI [Ti.WH]; so RV”g. ‘Dioscuri’), thesign
a town of Gilead (see under BOSOR),taken by Judas ( ~ a p a u ~ p o of
v ) the Alexandrian ship in which Paul
the Maccahee in his campaign beyond Jordan ( I Macc. sailed from Melita to Puteoli (Acts281r). Castor and
536). It is doubtless the same as the Caspis, RV Pollux, the sons of Zeus and Leda and brothers of
Caspin (see GEPHYRUN), of z Macc. 1213 (KACIT[E]IN Helen, appear in heaven as the constellation GeminL4
[VA], Kmpa [Syr.]), a fortress described as strong and See S TARS, 3 3 They were the tutelary deities of
fenced about with walls and near a lake z stadia broad. sailors, and (it may be interesting to note) were held in
These data suit the present el-Muzeirib, the great especial veneration in the district of Cyrene, near
station on the Hajj road, which is not identified with Alexandria (SchoZ. Pind. Pyth. 5 6). Catullus ( 4 27)
any other O T name (but see ASHTAROTH, 1 z), and
in antiquity must have been a place of importance : its 1 The spelling with ones is correct in Greek and Latin (Lag.
ancient name has not been recovered. Mittheil. 2 357).
The identification of Casphon with Khisfin (see Furrer, in 2 For IlrY’rp Herz’and Che. (Ps.(z))would read plan, ‘are
Riehm’s NWB 18341;) is philologically improbable, and has no shed.’
3 A longer form is biminiyyEh (only in plur.), z Ch.1712 274
(coupled with mi&fdZim ‘towers’).
1 For lmft ‘(to) his brother,’ we must read l’m!, ‘and (to) 4 On their mytholo&al forms see more fully [email protected]., and
his hrethren,’ with Vg. and 11 I Esd. @BAL. , Roscher S.V. ‘Dioskuren.’
707 708
 CAT CATTLE
speaks of a boat dedicated to the same deities, and for CATHUA ( ~ o y [Bl:
a Ka0oya [AI, raAAHA? [LI),
other examples of names of ships see Smiths CZass. a family of N ETHINIM in the great post-exlhc list (see
Dict., 3.n. ‘Insigne.’ It is probable that images of E ZRA , ii. $ 9) I Esd. 530, unmentioned in 11 Ezra247
Castor and Pollux were fixed at the bow of Paul’s ship, Neh. 749, unless the name may be identified with
since it was customary for a ship to carry at the bow G AHAR (VD for TI!?),or perhaps with GIDDEL
a representation of the sign which furnished the name [m.I.
21.
(the insigne), and at the stern a representation of the
tutelary deity (the futela). Herod. (337) makes refer- CATTLE.‘ The nomad origin of the Semites is plain
ence to the Pataikoi (origin doubtful), figures of hideous from the fact that numerous words relating to the life
muscular dwarfs which the Phoenicians stuck up on the 1. Nomadic life. and associations of nomads (e.g., ox,
bows of their galleys (cp P H ~ N I C I Aand , see Perr. sheep, etc.) are common to all the
Chip. P h n . 217 f.,and note the illustration of such a dialects. In the case of the b‘ne Israel, not only
galley, 3. 19). idioms and figures of speech, but also old traditional
names and even direct statements, confirm the view,
CAT. Cats (EV) or rather W ILD CATS (a&oupoL)- which is in itself highly probable. Note, for example,
for the context requires us to take alh. in this sense-
are mentioned in the ‘Epistle of Jeremy’ (Bar. 622) the name RACHEL, ‘the ewe’ (WRS ReZ. Sem.(’4 311),
with bats, swallows, and birds, which alight upon the and the description of Abram as a ’ nomad Aramzean ’
bodies and heads of idols. Wild cats (i*$nF) are recog- (izk Dt. 26 5). A still earlier ancestor, J ABAL (the
nised by the Tg. of Is. 1322 (for n’?C, see J ACKAL ) 3414 name is again significant), is called the ‘father’-Le..
(for o?;~, see J ACKAL [4]), but not of Hos. 9 6 (where founder-of nomadic life (Gen. 4 20 ; cp CAINITES.
‘nn is a faulty reading for ]’!?F, ‘ thistles ’). W e must $11).
It is important at the outset to bear in mind the
not infer from the lateness of these words that it was only difference between nomads ( ‘ tent-dwellers,’ Gen. Z.C.)
at a late date that the Israelites became acquainted with and those who have settled down as agriculturists.
wild cats. They no doubt knew the fezis maniculata Of the constantly recurring struggle between these two
(the original of our own domestic cat), which to-day is classes a vivid picfnre is presented in the narrative of
very common on the E. of Jordan (though it is scarce Zeeb and Zalmunna (Judg. 8), chiefs of the Midianites,
on the W. side), and is found, indeed, throughout a people which, as depicted in the OT, may serve
Africa, Arabia, Syria, and Palestine (Tristrarn). as a good illustration of the nomad class. The dif-
W e need not wonder that no reference is made in the ference between the two classes may not be complete ;
O T to the domestic cat. The Egyptians themselves for traces of nomadic origin will continue to be visible,
had probably tamed the wild cat only to a certain even after the shepherd‘s tower, or the cattle kraal, with
extent ; it accompanies the fowler on his expeditions its nucleus of tents,2 has developed by successive stages
(see woodcuts in Wilk. Anc. E f . 1236f. ). The stories of into the fortified city (i$?p i-y ; see 2 K. 17 9 18 8 and
Herodotus (266) are absurd. Bastit, the goddess of
Bubastus, was ‘ a cat or a tigress ’ (Maspero). cp Benz. HA 125 3). It is equally important to
The rendering ‘ wild cats ’ in Tg. of Is. (see above) remember that the state of civilisation of a settled people
is not adopted by modern translators. All that we is not readily assimilated by those on a lower grade.
can be sure of is that the writers of the descriptions The importance of this in its bearing on the early history
referred to had in view some definite wild animals. of Israel can hardly be exaggeratedS : with the b’ne
Wolves, hyenas, jackals, and wild cats (including Israel the transition from the nomadic to the settled state
‘martens ’) were in their minds ; but it is not easy to was a long process. The compilers and expanders of
distribute them among the various Hebrew terms. the patriarchal legends shrink from representing their
Many commentators, after Bochart (Hieroz. 862),give heroes as pure nomads : they feel that, if so represented,
‘wild cat‘ for Heb. n’;~ (Is. 1321 3414 Jer.5039 Ps. these heroes would be grossly inadequate types of their
far-off descendants. We have, however, evidence that
7414 [text doubted]). Certainly EV’s ‘ wild beasts of the later Israelites had, in the more northern parts of
the desert’ (as if from )!a; is inappropriate ; the ety- their own land, representatives of the old nomadic life
mology assumed also is very doubtful. The ancient in all its simplicity (see RECHARITES).
versions are inconsistent, and the Heb. writers would The words commonly employed in Hebrew- to denote
not have condemned them. See J ACKAL , WOLF. cattle in general are :
T. K. C. I. ,!$a” mi&&(cp a&?, ‘property’), EV,usually ‘cattle’(so
CATECHISE (73R) Prov. 226 AVmg.; EV ‘ train up,’ ?>‘pp ’@?E , ‘nomads,’Gen. 40 32), a termdenoting ‘possession,’
with which cp Lk. 1 4 mg., ‘ the things which thou wast
comprising, therefore, the things which are the
taught ( K a r T X $ b ’ V s ) by word of mouth’ ; Acts 1825 mg. 2. Names for usual and almost peculiar property of nomads.
‘ taught by word of month ( K a r y p p A w s ) in the way cattle. It is used, accordingly, in a much wider seiise
of the Lord.’ That oral instruction is meant by than (EV ‘flock’; hut AV ‘cattle,’ Gen.
K a r v X E i v is undeniable; cp Jos. Vit. 65, ‘when thou 3040 etc.), which denotes the small cattle sheep and goats
or sheep alone (cp I S.25 2). Mifine/i does n k inclube, however:
meetest me,’ K a l ~ d UE ~ rrohh8.
h Ka.n1X+pm, ‘ I will inform servants ; nor, as a rule, horses or asses (but see Ex. 9 3 Job 13).
thee of many things. ’ 2. 3p?F, 6+%@7aah, K ~ Y O F , includes all the larger domestic
The Revisers of the O T seem to have thought that such a
peculiar word as yin-may have had a technical meaning. such as animals : in Neh. 2 12 r4 it means a saddle-animal. It is usually
KCXT$X&V a t length acquired. I n M H a derivative of $n (’ils?) contrasted with man, wild beasts a ,(!: K ~ ~ V O G birds,
), and crawl-
means the ‘gradual introduction of children into religious ing things (cp Ps. 14810). The word is not however free from
vagueness, for it m a y be applied to wild akmals, aLd even (in
practice’ : e.g., ‘Wherein consists the child’s training ($II?), plur. form) to an imaginary animal (see BEHEMOTH, $9 I, 3).
Yoma 82a,with reference to the fasting on the Day of Atone- 3. l’y?; 6e‘ir, KT$VOS (‘cattle’ Nu. 204 Ps. 7848), ‘ heast,’used
ment.. Certainly the word -pn elsewhere always has a technical
meaning. It seems to mean religious initiation or dedication,
whether of a person (so perhaps ?’in Gen. 14 14) or of a building 1 I n the present article will be found what requires to he said
(see D EDICATE ; cp ?)in, Enoch). The first part of Prov. Lc. about large cattle. Small cattle also are included in treating of
IS very obscure and probably corrupt (see Che. Ex$. 7.Sept.
pasturin5, tending, breeding, etc. ; but their species and Hebrew
1899). Oral in;truction there doubtless was in the post-exilic names will he considered under S HEE P and GOAT.
period to which Proverbs seems to belong (see E DUCATION , 5 I ) ; 2 gyp, properly the circular encampment of nomadic tribes :
hut ?in is not one of the technical words of the wise men for cp Gen. 25 16 Ezek. 25 4.
comnlunlcatlng instruction. 3 Hommel ( A N T 208) remarks on the resistance to

CATERPILLER (??a,
Ps.10534, etc. AV, RV
Babylonian civilisation displayed by the nomad Aramapan
tribes mentioned in the Ass. inscriptions of the eighth and the
seventh centuries. Strong historical evidence would have to be
C ANKERWORM , see LOCUST, $ 2 ( 6 ) , and ($QIJ) I K.
shown to justify the conclusion that the Israelite nomads were
837 etc. EV, see LOCUST, $ 2 (9). essentially different from these.
709 710
 CATTLE CATTLE
of beasts of burden (Gen. 45 17 cp 44 3 13) and of cattle generally. clumsy animal with remarkably long horns (generally
The Ar. da‘iruir is used of both the camel and the ass. flattened and angulated). From its size and general
4. ”!Kip, nzZZ&’hhah‘ property’ (cp Ex. 22 7 [61, I O [gl), used appearance the species has been confounded with the
of cattle in Gen. 33 74 and, as including them, in I S. 159. ancient r t ’ i m (see U NICORN ) ; but it belongs to compara-
5. E(’??, nzZd ‘fat cattle,’ I K. 1g (RV fatling, cp p6uxos tively recent times. It has been introduced into several
( T L T W T ~ F ) ;generally used with lilsi or 122.
of the Mediterranean countries -e.g., Egypt, Asia
6. a$, s e i , rendered ‘small cattle’ or ‘cattle’ in Is. 4323 Ezek. Minor, and Italy. E. of the Jordan horned cattle are rare
34 17, is the nnnz. unitatis to 7x2, see SHEEP. (Tristram, Moab, 251), although the best country for
7. D’?is, rEl&$him (pl.), ‘oxen’ ; cp Prov. 14 4 Is. 30 24, etc. them is said to be there (cp Buhl, P a l 60).
To denote the animals of the bovine kind the Cattle-breeding holds a large place upon the Egyptian
Hebrews used : monuments ; their evidence goes to show that the so-called Zebu
(a) lz, d&ir, a generic word, which frequently occurs in
was most common and that several species of it were bred.
The long-horned kihd generally bad their horns bent like a lyre
or, less commonly, in the shape of a crescent. Short-horns
parallelism with INS. It is often used individually (cp lGs-]J,
a single ox or calf: see Gen. la 7), and frequently employed to appear rarely in the Old Empire, but are more frequent in later
define a word more closely-e.g., with 52y Lev. 9 2, 75 Ex. 29 I. times. Another kind was hornless : it is never represented as
ploughing and threshing, and hence may have been regarded
Its usual X O R t . unii. is lid, 96r, used without reference to age or as belonging to a ‘ fancy’ class.
t o gender to denote an ox or cow. It is used of a young A new kind appears in the.New Empire. It has horns some-
calf in EL. 22 30 [zg], Lev. 22 23, and is once collective, Gen. what wide apart, and bears a big hump.
32 5 [61. (J) l?,par, fem. ”22, pcirrili, bull, cow, defined by We have no means of ascertaining any of the ancient
i y x 12 Ex. 29 I and used of a seven-year-old, Judg. G 25. (c) methods of breeding ( a certain kind of which is pro-
q?!!, ‘ZgeZ, fern. 7$:y, ‘egLilz, a calf: used of a three-year-old (Gen. 5. Cattle- hibited by the law in Lev. 1 9 1 9 ) or of
15 g cp Is. 155), and also of a young cow that already gives milk rearing. rendering horned cattle tractable. Theywere
(Is. 721); see H EIFER. (d) 1’78, ’addiv mighty,’used poetically the earliest of domesticated animals. They
of oxen (Is. 347), hut also of horses (Jer. 8 r6, etc.). preceded by a long time the domestication of the sheep.
With regard to the practices of ancient nomadic The bones of one species, the Bosprinrz&!nius or Urus,
pastoral peoples we are but ill-informed. It is probable have been found in the remains of the neolithic Swiss
3. Breeding. that formerly (as now in Arabia) the same lake-dwellings.
clan would not breed more than one kind The pastures were probably free to all comers, since
of domestic animal. There is still a broad distinction in primitive times there was hardly any property in
between the camel-breeding tribesof the upland plainsand land. A pasture is useless without a watering-place (cp
the shepherd tribes of the mountains (WRS R e l Sem. (‘4 Judg. 1 1 5 , where the importance of the possession of
311). The steppes of E. Palestine have always been water is clearly shown ; see Moore, ad Zoc. ), and
more suitable for sheep and goats, and the northern property in water is doubtless older and of more import-
mountains for oxen. E. of the Jordan, however, cattle ance (cp WRS ReL Sem.(2) 104 $). The right to a
were turned loose,l and, becoming wild, acquired a pasture was obtained by digging a well; and, among
name for their ferocity and from their habit of,gathering the Hebrews as among the Arabians, the wayfarer was
in circles round any object that attracted their attention always allowed to water his beasts so long as he did not
(Ps. 22 12 [r3]f:). At the present day shepherds frequent hinder the owners of the water.l See SPRINGS. The
the cool mountain-heights in the summer, and find late district upon which cattle pastured is called n p , lit.
in the autumn an abnndant supply of green leaves and
twigs for their sheep and goats in the cedars round
‘ place for feeding.’ c p ‘yi I IC. 4 23 [v.31) ; >;l! 12
Lebanon and Baalbek. ‘a broad pasture’ (Is. 30’2;) is doubtful ( S B O T ) .
The parts of Palestine which were most suitable for p p ( E V ‘ desert,’ ‘ wilderness ’) denotes properly a
the pasturing of herds-the parts which deserve the pasturing ground where herds are driven, from 1x1 ‘ to
name of a!?;? Y ~ (Nu. N 32 I 4)-were those situated to the drive (herds) ‘ ; cp BDB Lex S . V . in2
E. of Jordan (the modern region of Bell:%) and in the S. Other words to denote the pasturing ground are “2, ?>:
plains of Judah. The enornions tribute paid annually the pastoral ahode @en. rendered ‘pasture,’ or ‘ sheep-cote,‘
by Me&, ‘ the shepherd ’ (-I,??), attests the richness of once ‘stable,’ Ezek. 25 5 EV). Similarly yal couching-place,
the country (cp Nu. Z.C.). Places specialIy mentioned Jer. 506 (lln,, Prov. 24 15 of an abode of men). To denote more
in connection with herds and flocks are Carmel ( I S. narrowly confined areas, we find jE)X nil?? 3 sheep-folds(I S. 24 3
2 5 z ) , Shechem (Gen. 37 m ) , Dothan (Gen. 37 17), Sharon Zeph. 26, etc.), ?:?;I an enclosure (Mi.’2 IZ), niPD (Gen. 3317)
( I Ch. 2 7 2 9 Is. 65 I O ) , Tekoa (Am. 1 I ) , Gedor ( I Ch. ‘booths,’ temporary night-shelters (see below).
4 39), Bethlehem ( I S . 16 1 1 ) , Midian (Nu. 31 32 cp nv. When required to be specially fattened, cattle were
S $ ) , Edom (Is. 3 4 6 ) , and Kedar (Ezek. 2721). withdrawn from the open pastures and kept in a stable
In prehistoric times there were several kinds of oxen, iy2lp. See Am. 6 4 I S. 28 24 Jer. 46 21 Mal. 4 2 (320) ;
all wild : a European bison, Bison bonasus, Linn., still ‘stall,’ lit. a place for tying up ; cp also ”87 (Hab. 3 17)
preserved in the forests of SE. Europe ; the and (Hab. 317 Ps. 509 7870) ‘fold.’
*’ Species’ Urus, Bos primifmius, and Bos Lonfifrons,
now extinct, probabl; belonging to the same -race as
Thepem4arecalled (Ps. 68 13 [14] RV ‘sheepfolds,’ AV
‘pots ’), or o;”Wp (Judg. 5 16 Gen. 49 r4), properly perhaps
our Bos tnzirus or domesticated oxen. Our modern ‘double-pens.‘ Moore (on Judg. Z.C.) and Che. (on Ps. Z.C.)
cattle are derived from the last-named. In Palestine prefer the sense ‘dung-heaps.
at the present day horned cattle are found only where The manger or crib is D?>E) (Is. 1 3 cp Lk. 2 7 1 3 1 5
fresh pastures are easily accessible. In the wilderness @ d i - v ~ ) , whence the denominative ‘ fattened,’
S. of Judah horned cattle of a rather undersized kind
may be seen in great nunibers. Farther to the N. there 1A stricter law is alluded to in Dt. 2 6 28.
is a larger and better bred race, used for tilling. These, 2 Similarly, d;j;?, the common-lands of a city (especially a
as a rule, belong to the same species as our cattle, the Levitical one) in Nu. 35 2 ‘ suhurbs ’ [EV], is perhaps originally
Bos taurus. N. of Esdl-aelon there is a light-coloured ‘place of drikng ’ (BDB) ; cp KVmS ‘ pasture-lands.’ Che.
doubts the sense of driving ’ and proposes a fresh explanation,
and stalwart varietyusually known as the Armenian. In making the word practically syn. with nb , ‘field.‘ Hence the
the valley of the Jordan, especially towards the N., there applied sense ‘reserved land ’-Le., belonging to the community
is a species of Indian buffalo, Bos bubnlis (Ar. ,$imzZs), a or to the sanctuary. SeqJQR, July 1898, p. 566.
3 ”1;: wall, like the Ar. %adiraf*n, denotes the fold. Here
1 Each tribe has its own wasm (see WRS Kin. 212 8) or may he added % I , which may originally have meant a cattle-
special mark (cp perhaps niN Gen. 4 15 Nu. 2 2 and see C AIN , yard ’ : cp BDB,
6 . C UTTINGS 3 6). Wit; this it was custkary to brand
4 >;ly (cp BDB, s.w.) ‘stall’ is used generally for horses, but
the kttle. See: for specimens of such cattle marks, Doughty,
AY. Des. 1125, and cp Drake, Unexplored Syria, 1341f: also for other animals ; cp z Ch. 32 28.
711 712
 CATTLE CATTLE
applied to oxen (Prov. 1517 ; and also birds I K. 423 The status of the shepherd varies according to the
[53]). ‘To eat the ‘ stalled ox ’ (which was looked upon society in which he lives. Among primitive pastoral
as a luxury ; cp Prov. 15 17) is termed a reproach by Amos 7. Status. peoples the sheikh himself, or even his
(Ani. ti +)-himself pnce a herdsman. daughters, tend the flocks (cp Gen.299
Apart from the ordinary herbage (p?;, Nu. 224 x$g), Ex.216-Il. 6423), as is the case at the present day
cattle had special food ( N i S P p ) , which was eiiher in various parts of the Sinaitic peninsula (see Kn. -Di.
chopped straw (pe) or ‘mixed fodder’ ($!?;l cp Job B x . , ad loc. ). The early kings of Israel, owned large
65) made more palatable by the addition of salt, or a flocks, and the post of chief shepherd (cp n??p i@, Gen.
salt herb (y’p? $>a, Is. 3024). 476, also I Ch. 2729 I Pet. 54, &pximlpvv, and magister
r e . ? pecoris, Liv. 1 4 ) was important and full of dignity.
From the references in the OT we are able to gain a
6. Shepherds, fairly clear idea as to the duties and Hence the designation ’ shepherd ’ (nyi) was a noble one
customs. of those who had charge over and was used of the kings of Israel (Jer. 234, cp ny7 ‘ to
etc. cattle. rule’ z S. 52) as well as of those of Assyria, and becomes
the origin of the beautiful N T phrase ‘the good
The usual word to denote such an occupation is ?$l (or
shepherd.’ Perhaps it is inevitable that the adoption
INS ’1, ”IBp ’1; less frequently 1pV 1x1, and 12i (for the last
of a more settled mode of life should be unfavourable to
see SHEEP). By far the greater number of reference? deal
as we should naturally expect, with the tending of sheep and. the repute of the shepherd. T o the Egyptians, for more
goats, and the specific word for a ‘cattle-man’ (122) occurs than one reason, shepherds were an ‘abomination ’ (Gen.
only once (Amos 7 14). 4634: cp ABOMINATION, 4) ; ‘Asiatic ’ ( i e . , barbarian)
and ‘ shepherd’ were to them synonymous terms (see
The shepherd, clad in a simple garment (Jer.4312) EGYPT, 9 31). Similarly in Palestine, as the Jews
like the mod. Ar. bumus, goes forth at the head of his advanced in prosperity, the prestige of the shepherd’s
flock ( m y ; -cp Jn. 1 0 4 ) , all of which know his voice and calling diminished. In Rabbinical times a shepherd was
respond to the name he gives them (G. 2). 3). H e takes precluded from bearing witness, because one who must
with him his shepherds bag (ov& +!a, I S. 1740) or have fed his flocks upon the pastures of others would
wallet (mp?;, ib., EV S CRIP ), staff ($z,n, see esp. Gen. naturally be dishonest (cp Sanh. 25 z , Jos. Ant. xvii. 1 0 7).
3210 [11] ; and cp Q?* n;.@, Ps. 234), and, as a means Besides the use to which cattle were put in ploughing
of defence, a sling ( y ! ~ I S . 1740). H e ‘ gently leads ’ and threshing (see AGRICULTURE.8), they were also
8. Use of used as draught animals (cp I S . 67 8 ) .
his flocks (5021,Is. 4011 Ps. 232) to the best pastures,
Their M I LK (q.v.)formed one of the main
where he makes them lie down by streams (Ps. 232) ; 2 cattle. articles of diet, and their skins were used
though it must be admitted that the reading in
for clothing (see L EATHER , WOOL). Pastoral life
Ps. 2326 is uncertain (see Che. Ps.W). The dangers
from wild beasts3 (.g.,lions, Is. 314 I S. 1734) probably meant usually a diet of milk and game ; and
and nomadic marauders (Job 1 1 4 17) were very real. the use of cattle for food was somewhat restricted (see
No doubt there was the solace of the pastoral ReZ. Sem. P)2963 ). The young animal was, however,
reed4 (see Judg. 516, and cp Job 21 I Z I S. 1618), and preferred and ,considered a special dainty. At the
later writers speak of the sheep-dog (Job 30 I Is. 56 103, present day, it is said, the sheep is eaten only at
see D OG , I ) , . well known to the Assyrians. By festivals, and goat-flesh is not used as food save by the
night the sheptferd had to keep watch in the open very poor. In sacrifices cattle were frequently used,
air (Lk. 28, cp Nah. 318) ; but sometimes a temporary and huge hecatombs are mentioned in connection with
the temple services1 (cp I K. 863 z Ch. 56 7 5 2933 etc.).
shelter was made (Ass. iarbasu= y?? and mu:aZZzi
Cattle, being almost the only property of nomads,
are so explained), whence ‘shepherd‘s tent’ (*pi\+, become, among primitive people, a medium of exchange.
Is. 38 12 ; cp O’Yip nil??!, Cant. 1 8 ) becomes the type When the first coins were made in Greece, this was
of an uncertain dwelling-place.6 In other cases commemorated by stamping the head of an ox upon
towers were built for the shepherds (cp Gen. 3521, and the ingot. Cattle and wealth are, therefore, almost
see z Ch. 26 I O ) ; traces of them are to be found at the synonymous terms.
present day. The ‘ duars’ in the Sinaitic peninsula Cp h h D ‘possession and Ass. suguZlafu‘herd’; ?>?p ‘cattle,’
consist of stone towers put together without mortar, and
bear a striking resemblance to the ‘ Talay5t ’ of the
and n??? ; O’p!’ -E
and Syr. LL,J~
; orig. an animal
for riding (Nestle, ZDMG 33, 707 [‘7g]; peclls and pecunia;
Balearic Isles, and to the beehive-shaped houses of K T ~ Y O Sand pa).
Scotland. They are enclosed by low walls of massive The earliest legislation (Ex. 20-23) was intended for
rough stones, and are occupied by cattle (cp Maspero, a people who, having advanced beyond the pastoral
Dawn of Civ. 3 5 2 3 ; see also Doughty, Ar. Des. 113). 9. Treatment stage, were occupied chiefly in agricul-
The sheepfolds also, as their name implies, were sur: of cattle. ture. The prominence given to the ox,
rounded by walls (cp Jn. 101). the sheep, and the ass is as noticeable
When the shepherd returned to his master the sheep as the absence of al1,reference to the horse and the
were carefully counted by being made to pass under the camel. Remarkable also is the humanity which char-
staff (cp Lev. 2732 Jer. 3313 Ezek. 2037)-a representa- acterises these regulations. Cattle are not to be muzzled
tion of the shepherd ‘ telling his tale ‘ is not infrequent (OD?, cp ob?!) while threshing (Dt.25q)-a law which
on Egyptian monuments. As for wages, it may be
holds good to the present day (cp Dr. ad Zoc.), and
doubted whether the practice described in Gen. 3 0 2 8 8
was in vogue in Egypt, where one sees representa-
was usual : possibly the usual reward was the milk of
tions of an ox and an ass threshing unmuzzled (cp Erm.
the flocks (see I Cor. 97-cp, on the other hand, Zech.
278. 432, and see AGRICULTURE, § 8). According to
1113. which speaks of a money payment). another enactment, oxen were not to work upon the
1 From 553 ‘to pour out’; or, ‘to pour over’ (so Ass.
sabbath (Ex. 23 12). Notwithstanding the strictness of
JaldZu): hence ‘ t o mix.’ Cp Lat.farmgo, and see A NOINTING , the sabbath, it was customary to water the cattle on
8 I. The denominative occurs in Judg. IQzr. that day (Lk. 1315). Other laws respecting cattle-
9 Frd. Del. makes ,>5nj*=>>r-~yj na’dlu(=5;l~)in Ass. being stealing and damages caused by oxen are given in Ex.
a syn. of rabasu ‘to lie down.’ But see Franz Del.’s note. 21284; cp 2’6. 2210[9]8 The law dealing with the
3 Similarlv in Assvria : CD MasDero. Dawn o f Civ. 767 L
4 Cp the hstrat;on frok Ass$ria,‘Maspero Z.C. Tf& shep- case In which a beast entrusted to one’s care has been
herd seated plays upon a reed to the delight of his dog. maimed or torn (Ex. 2210 [ g ] ~ ? ) provides that the pro-
5 At the present day a sheep- en is made of boughs. It is
called Aa+ira (see HAZOR), and tl?e trail of boughs in the sandy 1 m?,properly ‘slaughterer (of cattle),’ is applied to a cook
desert is always a sign of the nomad manzil (encampment) ; cp and strangely to a member of the royal bodyguard. See
Doughty, Ar. Des. 2 zzof; EX&JTIONER,’ and cp OTJCP) 262, n. I.
713 714
 CAUDA CEDAR
duction of the maimed part is to suffice as a guarantee What are now ravines have in many cases originally
of good faith and that no restitution is to be required Jeen subterranean watercourses, which have been un-
(see DEPOSIT). It was, therefore, to the advantage of roofed by.the degradation of the rock. Some of the
the shepherd to be able to produce a leg or a piece of an Syrian caverns are of great size ; Strabo, for example
ear as a proof (cp Am. 3 12). Jacob, however, declares [756), speaks of the opijhara paBbaTopa of Itursea, and
to Lahan that instead of producing ‘that which was mentions one capable of holding 4000 men. Books of
torn of beasts ’ (n?:~) he has made good the loss himself travel, from William of Tyre and Quaresmius onwards,
(Gen. 3139). abound with references to such caves and the local
The early Semites, like other pastoral peoples, paid traditions respecting them (Tavernier, Maundrell, Shaw,
great reverence to cattle, their kinship with whom they Robinson). Those of Palestine are frequently men-
lo. Reverence lqng continued to recognise. This tioned in the Bible as places of refuge and shelter for the
for cattle. gives additional point to Nathan’s terror-stricken (Is. 219 Rev. 6 1 5 - c ~Zech. 145), the out-
parable : the ewe lamb was, to a poor lawed (David), the oppressed and the persecuted (Judg.
man who nourished it, more nearly a daughter than it 6 2 1S.136 1K.18413 19913 Ezek.3327 2Macc.611

could be in later times. No doubt the special veneration Heb. 1138), and the criminal (Jer. 711 Mk. 1117 and I[),
for cattle was connected with the idea that man owes and as places of sepulture (Gen.2311 Jn. 1138).
his food in large measure to them (qp W R S Z.C.). Whether the word Horite means ‘ cave-dwellers’ has
A full treatment of this subject would lead us too far. been questioned ; yet that in many parts of Palestine
Nor can we consider here the Israelitish form of the the earlier inhabitants continued to use caves not only
legend of the ‘ Golden Age ‘ (cp Hesiod, Works and as storehouses but also as dwelling-places cannot be
Days, .os$), and the contrast between J’s description doubted. Of their connection with worship in pre-
of the peace between man and the lower animals (cp Christian times there is little or no direct evidence.
Is. 116f: ) and P’s representations of man as their lord Still, it appears safe to hold ‘ that the oldest Phenician
and master. The worship of the domestic animals is temples were natural or artificial grottoes, and that
another subject which invites attention. The most the sacred as well as the profane monuments of Phce-
ancient evidence for it is supplied by the Babylonian nicia, with their marked preference for monolithic forms,
zodiacal mythology.2 In Egypt, too, the worship of point to the rock-hewn cavern as the original type that
sacred animals takes us back to an incalculable antiquity. dominated the architecture of the region ’ (WIIS ReL
Witness, for example, the bull-worship of Memphis and Sem.(2)197), and it is probable that the Greek peyapov
other cities (see EGYPT,5 14),which has been connected was borrowed from the Phenician niyn (i6. 200). The
with Israelitish idolatry. Notice, too, the worship of association of so many of the Christian sacred sites
the cow Ha‘thor, the ‘ lady of heaven,’ which reminds in Palestine (e.g., Birth of Mary, Annunciation, Meet-
us of the cow-headed Ashtoreth of Sidon. See further ing of Mary and Elizabeth, Birth of the Baptist, Trans-
CALF, GOLDEN ; ASHTORETH ; AZAZEL ; CLEAN, § figuration and Agony of Christ, Repentance of Peter)
A. E. S.-S. A. C. with grottoes is the arbitrary invention of legeud-
CAUDA ( KAYAA [Ti.WH]), Acts27 16. See CLAUDA. mongers. See, further, M AARATH , MEARAH,HERRON
(Machpelah), M AKKEDAH , E TAM , ELEUTHEROPOLIS ;
CAUL (properly a close-fitting cap or net-work), as also A DULLAM (where it is shown that ’ cave’ ought
applied t o a n article of dress, occurs as the E V rendering to be read ‘hold’), and (on the grotto of the Nativity)
of D’DQ? Is. 318 (mg. ‘networks,’ as though=?%’; BETHLEHEM, 4.
d E M ~ T ~ O K I ~ T) . o complete the parallelism of the CEDAR (QY; ~ e A p o c [BAL]), Cedrus Lidani
verse, we shonld read, with Schroeder and others, Loud., bears in Heb. a name which is found also in
P’D’DE”,‘ little snns ’ ; see N ECKLACE, n. Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and is probably derived
In its anatomical sense, ‘caul’ in Hos. 138 ([op?] iilD; from a root signifying ‘ to be firm ’ or ‘ well-rooted,’ of
U U Y K X E L U ~ ~Kapsias)
P apparently refers to the peri- which another derivative might be the D’Qy of Ezek.
cardium. It is used similarly in Ex. 29 13 Lev. 3 4 IO 15 2724. It appears that Aranl. ’ a m i and Ar. ’ a m , like
etc. to render n?$ (lit. ‘excess ’; d hop&), an uncertain ~ 8 6 p 0 0 may
,~ denote not only the cedar, hut also the
expression which has occasioned difficulty from the juniper (/un@enrs .Oq,cea‘ms), and, possibly, pines of
earliest times. It denotes probably ’ the fatty mass a t various sorts4 It may be, then, that I Y K is not to be
the opening of the liver which reaches to the kidneys, strictly confined to Cedms Li6ani;6 but it is highly
and becomes visible upon the removal of the “lesser probable that this tree, which has been associated with
omentum,” or membrane extending from the fissures of Lebanon from early times, is the one usuaZ& intended,6
the liver to the curve of the stomach’ (Dr. Lev. SBOT, and in such a passage as Is. 41 19 the cedar is expressly
E T ) . On the Vss., and various interpretations, cp distinguished from other conifers. O T writers em-
Di.-Rys. on Lev. 3 3 ; 4 and, on the probable reason ploy the cedar as a type of beauty (Nu. 246), majesty
of the choice of this particular part of the body for ( 2 I<. 149), strength (Ps. 295), and loftiness (z K. 1923).
offerings, see LIVER. The wood, which was much more precious than that of
CAVES (il!&?p, d‘cinih; C ~ H A ~ I O;NspeZunca). common trees like the sycamore ( I K. 1027),was largely
The limestone strata of Syria and Palestine readily lend used in the construction of great buildings like the temple
themselves to the formation of caves and ravines. The (see also ALTAR, 1 8) and Solomon’s palace; cedar
springs issuing from limestone rock generally contain 1 Cp 1)” in Job306 I S.14 11. See HOKITE.
2 Best trapslated ‘durable’ ; certainly not (as EV) ‘made of
carbonate of lime, and most of them yield a large cedar-wood. [But the text is in disorder.]
quantity of free carbonic acid upon exposure to the air. 3 On this see the Index to Schneider’s Theojhrastus, S.V.
T o the erosive effect of water charged with this acid, KCSpDF.
combined with the mechanical action of the sand and 4 So in modern times we are told of eZ-’Arz-‘in the mouth of
uneducated Syrians it designates one of the pines, Pinus
stones carried along by the currents, the formation of hale#++ which grows in great numbers on the mountains
caves and ravines in such rocks is chiefly to be ascribed. ( J o u m . Linn. Soc. 15 247).
1 Cp the Egyptian paintings which represent men talking to 5 L6w (57) says, ‘ 121 seems to have denoted both the cedar
cattle, and decking them with fringes. and the]?mipems Oxycedms, L.’ According to the same
a On the ‘Bull’ of the Zodiac, which is the Bab. Gud-an-na authority, Aram. a n d denotes first Pinus cedms, then all
(equivalent to our Taurus, or else to Aldebaran), see Jensen, conifers.
Kosmol. 6 2 3 8 Hooker, however, regards it as ‘an open question whether
3 J. U. Diirst’s Die Rindeyv. Bad. Ass. u. &. (Berlin, ’99) the C. Lidnni is one of those which supplied most of the timber
-a contribution to the history of domestic cattle-appeared employed in building Solomon’s temple’ (Nut. Hist. Rev., 1862
after the present article was in type. p. rq), and there seems to he a general consensus of opinio;
J The old view that yX4ereU was the greater lobe of the lung !ha! the wood used for purification (Lev. 14 Nun.19) was the
has nothing in its favour. juniper.
715 716
 CEDRON CENSER
beams were most highly esteemed for covering interiors reading n(3hn. ’ Cheyne suggests reading n\%ng‘ thelowest
(Cant. 1 1 7 Jer. 2214). The use made of this wood in part (of the pit)’ : cp Ps. 88 7 Lam. 3 55.
the ceremony of cleansing the leper (Lev. 1 4 4 8 ) or
CELOSYRIA (KOIAH c y p l a [BAL]), I Esd. 217,
the person rendered unclean by contact with a dead RV C ~ L E S Y R I A .
body (Nu. 196), seems to be due to the esteem in which
it was held for durability and incorruptibility (see Di. CENCHREA, or rather, RV, CENCHKEB( K E N X P ~ A I
on Lev. 14, Nowack, H A 2239). See C LEAN , 16f. [Ti. WH]). A town and harbour on the Saronic gulf,
Of the existing cedars of Lebanon the first accurate now marked by the village of Kichries. It served as
account was that given by Sir J. D. Hooker in Nut. the eastern port of Corinth, which lay about seven miles
Hist. Rev., 1862, pp. 11-18. The group .which he (Str. 380, says 70 stadia) to the west, just as Lecheum
visited was that in the Kadisha valley, N. of Beirut, was the port for the Italian trade. Strabo calls
near the summit of Lebanon (Dahr el Kodib). H e Cenchree a village ( K ~ , u T ) , which indicates its snb-
found there about 400 trees, disposed in nine groups- ordination to Corinth : it was, in fact, merely a landing-
the trees varying from about 18 inches to upwards, of place for goods and passengers.
About 4 m. to the north at Schcenus(modern KaZamaki), was
50 feet in girth. the G i o h ~ o sor tramway kpon which vessels of small tonnage
Another interesting account is that of Dr. Leo Anderlind, made the passage from the one sea to the other ( ~ ubm v d n a -
who visited them in 1834.1 He speaks of three groups-one at TOY ro8 ’IuOpoG: Str. 335, 369: cp Thuc. 87, Pol. 419, Dio
Baruk, a second 4 m. ESE. of Bsherre, and the third 1st m. N. Cass. 51 5). The idea of substituting for it a canal cut through
of that place. It is the second of these, the same th& Hooker the Isthmus was very ancient. The scheme was entertained in
visited, which he particularly describes. The greatest height turn by Periander, Demetrius Poliorcetes Julius Czesar,Caligula,
of any of the trees, he says, is about 82 ft.; hut the majority are Nero, ard Herodes Atticus. Nero actdally began the work in
between 46 and 72 ft. The oldest of them were the strongest 67 A . D ., . bout the time of Paul’s final visit to Corinth. Ves-
trees he had ever seen. pasian sent him six thousand Jewish prisoners from Galilee
According to Tristram (NHB 344). ‘ a t least nine Jos..Bj iii. 10 IO). Traces of this cutting were to he seen on
distinct localities are now ascertained.’ the line which has been adopted by the modern engineers who
have brought this xp6uov pdya +./rj,wpa to completion (188~-
[According to Dr. Post (Hastings’ D B 2364), it is uncertain 1893).
what tree is meant by ’iirEz2rn in Nu. 246. He remarks that
‘the cedar of Lebanon does not grow in moist places but ‘ seeks Half a mile to the SW. of the Saronic entrance to the
the dry sloping mountain side where nothing but ;he moisture canal are the remains of the Isthmian sanctuaries and
in the clefts of the rocks nourkhes it.’ He concludes therefore Stadium which furnished Pan1 with the imagery of
that ‘unless we suppose that the location of the ’drrizint ii
poetic licence, we must suppose some water-loving tree to he I Cor. 924-27.
intended in this passage.’ It was well to bring forward this The pines from which were cut the victors’ garlands are
difficulty, which is overlooked by Di. The remedy lies close a t mentioned by Strabo (330) and Pausanias (ii. 17). The road to
hand. Usage requires that the ‘cedars’ should be described as Corinth led through groves of pine and cypress and was
the trees which Yahwe planted. We have to read in a 0’11~3 bordered with tombs-among them those of the Cynic Diogenes
‘like cedars’ and in d probably p*3-p~3‘like poplars’ (Che. and the courtezan Lais(Paus. ii. 2 4). Coins (of Antoninus Pius)
E@. T. lo401 d [June ’gg]).J gjve a representation of the harbour of Cenchrez flanked on
N. M.-W. T.T.-D.
either side by a temple and containing a standing brazen
colossus of Poseidon (Pius. ii. 23) and three ships. Coins of
CEDRON ( K E A P W N CAW]), I Macc.153941 Av. Hadrian show the two harbours Lechaeum and Cenchreae as
nymphs turned opposite ways, eich holding a rudder, inscr$ed
See G EDERAH , I. LECH., CENCH.

CEDRON ( TOY K E A ~ O Y[Ti.], TUN KEAPWN [WH] It was from Cenchrez that Paul sailed at the close of
Jn. 18 I, RV KIDRON. his first visit to Achaia (Acts 1813 cp 203). The
voyage between Greece and Asia took a fortnight in
CEILAN, RV KILAN (K[E]lA&N [BA, om. L]). The Cicero’s case (E$. ad Aft. 5 13 6 9) ; but he sailed slowly
sons of Ceilan and Azetas are a family in the great post- (cp Thuc. 33). Phcebe, a deaconess of the church at
exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. § 9, § 8 c) I Esd. 515, not Cenchrere, ‘ carried under the folds of her robe the whole
mentioned in /I Ezra (216) or Neh. (721). future of Christian theology’ (Renan, Sainf P a d , 219),
CEILING, in modern house-architecture, means the for to her, on the eve of her departure to Italy on her
covering of a room which hides the joists of the floor private affairs, Paul entrusted his letter to the church
above, or therafters of the roof. Down to the seventeenth a t Rome (Rom. 16 I z).’ See Frazer, Pausanias, 3 7.f.
century, however, the word was aEplied also to the inner Good map of the Isthmus in Baedeker’s G~eece,ET,
lining of the walls of a room, and in modern shipbuilding 229. W.J. W.
it still denotes the inside planking of a ship’s bottom CENDEBEUS, RV Cendebseus (KENAEBAIOC
(see New Zfzg. Dict. s.v.). The Hebrew words (see C once], AeBa~oc[R“V
[ A W ; but K ~ N A ~ B E O [A
below) rendered ceil,‘ ‘ ceiling,’ in EV are to be taken once], and AalBeoc [K once]), the general left by
in this more extended sense. See further, C HAMBER , Antiochus VII. in command of the sea-coast, who ‘ pro-
H OUSE , TEMPLE. voked the people of Jamnia,’ and also fortified Kidron
I. ]?D. sz&52in, I K . 6 15 ( 8 0 ~ 6;~cp
) n?’!’?D,s$7zfnZh, Jon. 1 5 for the purpose of invading Judza. H e and his army
(the &des’ or ‘ innermost parts ’ of the ship). The verb is used were put to flight, near Modin, by Judas and John,
in rK.69737 Jer.2214Hag.14. the two sons of Simon the Maccabee (I Macc. 1538-
2. In 2 Ch. 3 5 p w i i l ’yy ;fin means ‘he covered’(orpanel1ed) 16 IO). According to Zockler, he is the Cendd of the
[the greater house] ‘with fir. Arabian legends, a N. Ar. prince hostile to the Jews
3. i@i$h, Ezek. 41 16t, a word otherwise unknown. (cp Blau, ZDMG 25 577). Schiirer ( G V I 1, 7, n. 31),
Co. proposes to emend yy q’nb to yy >>fin; see z Ch. 3 5 as however, derives Cendebeus (as also Kav&@ds) from the
above, and cp the qgy of Nu. lT3f: [1638f:; a ‘covering’ of Lycian town K d v s u p a .
the altar]. CENSER, the utensil used for offering INCENSE.
CELLS (i7bn),Jer. 3716 AVmg. RV, AV I n EV it represents I . nlvpp the vessel for offering n;b?
a questionable rendering of a Hebrew word which ‘incense’ with ; Ezek. 8 II 2 Ch. 26 1st (@ Bvpcar< LO”, which
is probably corrupt. The words ‘ and into the cells ’ is found once in NT-Heb. 9 4 [ R V w ‘altar o!incense’]).
are quite unnecessary after ‘ into the dungeon house ’ From the same root is derived ni-mpn, z Ch.3014, ‘altars
( i n n ni>-h), and may be a gloss. See PRISON. [RVmg. vessels] for incense.’ Cp I NCENSE, $ I .
AVmg. R\- (cp O U Y K A E L U ~ ~LQmg.
F 1) is a guess. I n late Heh., 2. ”np (4snatch up ; nvp[slrov) Lev. 101 16 12 Nu. 166 6
Syr., etc. ( d n n n de;otes ‘shop’ (cp 2pyauTljpLa [Aq.] e r !7 zj? EV, but AV alone in Nu. 4 14 (m’p~ov)I K.750 (AVmg.
gastulmz) or ‘tavern. Moreover the form is difficult (BLvan, ash pan’; BuLruq) 2 Ch. 422 (BuIuK~ and rrvp&ov). In these
passages RV gives ‘firepans,’ and both AV and RV in Ex. 27 3
Dan. 30, n. I). @’sxep63 (BAQ, X a . [K], al. x q . ) points to the
1 [Unless it he held that Rom. 16 1-20 is a letter of introduc-
1 Published in the AlZgen. Forsf- u. Jagd-Zeitlmg, at the tion given to Phoebe by Paul for the Church at Ephesus. So
end of 1885 and also in the Z D P V l O 8 9 8 Jiilicher, Einl. in das iVT, 73 (cp COLOSSIANS, $ 4) ; M‘Giffert,
2 ‘ Cabins ‘ in the sense of ‘cell ’ is now quite obsolete. CAY. in A$. Age, 275. Cp, however, ROMANS, 58 4, 10.1
7‘7 718
 CENTURION CHALDEA, CHALDEAN
383 2 K . 25 15 and Jer. 5219 (where AVmg.. ‘censers’). The the word is uncertain. I . It is met with only once in
rendering ‘ snuffdishes’ occurs in Ex.25 38 37 23 Nu. 4 g (see the Bible (Rev. 2 1 x 9 ; X A A K E A ~ N[T~.],.xAAKHAD)N
CANDLESTICK, $ 2). @ generally nup[elrov which recurs in
Ecclus. 50 g (EV ‘censer’). See I NCENSE , 4. [WH] ; others, K A P X H ~ D ) N; calcidonius). In modern
3. h$avw&s (Rev. 8 3 5 ) etymologically ‘frankincense ’ : cp mineralogy chalcedony is a variety of amorphous quartz
?$2$; in I Ch. 9 29 (@ hij3avwr6s :here only, but once in A and ‘ semi-transparent or translucent ; white, gray, blue,
cp 3 Macc. 5 2). green, yellow, or brown ; stalactitic, reniform, or
hotryoidal, and in pseudomorphs or petrifactions ‘ (Ency.
CENTURION (EKATONTAPXHC [Ti.] -oc [WHI),
Brit.P) 16 389). The word chalcedony is usually applied
Mt. 8 5. See ARMY, § IO.
to the white or gray variety, the brown chalcedony being
CEPHAS ( K H @ A C [Ti. WH], Xram. KEY3 ‘ a rock,’ known as the sard (SARDIUS), the red as the carnelian
cp Ass. K@u, and Heb. n’32, Jer. 429 Job 30 6 ; see (see S ARDIUS ). The chalcedony also occurs in stratified
Lag. &ers. 58). See PETER. forms ; .when white layers alternate with black it is
called onyx (see O NYX ). When the white alternate
CERAS ( K H P A C [BA]), I Esd. 5 2 9 . See KEROS.
with others of red or brown colour it is called sardonyx
CETAB, RV K ETAB (KHTAB [BA ; om. L]). T h e (see S ARDONYX ). Pliny, who lived not far from the
b’ne Cetab are a family of NETHINIM in the great time when the Apocalypse took shape, does not speak
post-exilic list (see E ZRA , ii. 9) I Esd. 5 30, not men- of the chalcedony as a distinct stone, but only of
tioned in 11 Ezra (2 46) or Neh. (748). ‘ Calchedonii [or ‘ carched.’] smaragdi ’ as .an inferior
CHABRIS ( x a ~ p s l c[BNA] : in Judith 8 IO x u ~ p e i v kind of emerald, mentioning that the mountain in
[BK], xapperfi [A] ; in 1 0 6 xuppstv [BRA]), son ,of Chalcedon where these stones were gathered was in his
Gothoniel, and one of the rulers of Bethulia. (Judith day known by the name of ‘Smaragdites’l( H N 3772-13).
6 15 8 TO 10 6 . ) Symmachiis, on the other hand (circa 200 A.D.), gives
‘KapX-i$6vrov for i g l ~in Is. 5412 (AV ‘agates,’ RV
CHADIASAI (AV they of Chadias) and AMMIDIOI
(AV A MMIDOI ), two clans in the great post-exilic list (see ‘ rubies ’). This rendering suggests an original 1313
E ZRA , ii. 9, 8 c ) , I Esd. 52011 XAAIACAI [Bl, XAA- (cp the reading x o p x o p [BQ], K O ~ X O P O S [A]) for 1313
‘ACAI[Avid]; A M M I A I O I [B], -hi01 [A] [Lorn.]), where
in Ezek. 2716 (AV ‘agate,’ mg. ‘chrysoprase,’ RV
they occur after the Men of Beeroth ( I Esd. 5 19 =Ezra ‘ rubies ’). See PRECIOUS STONES, RUBIES.
2. Chalcedony (&rkedni) is the usual Pesh. render-
5 25 = Neh. 7 9).The names may be identified (though
not with confidence) with KEDESH [ I ] (Josh. 15 23), or ing of I ~ V ,PJh6 (cixd~ys,aclzates, ‘agate’ of Ex. 2819
perhaps Hadashah (iJ. v. 37) and HUMTAH (2’6. v. 54). 39 12). Notwithstanding the reference in Ezek. 2722 to
the precious stones imported from Sheba we can hardly
CHEREAS ( X A I ~ ~ A [A]), C 2 Macc. 10 3237, AV connect the stone 1 2 ~ with the country called Sheba.
C HEREAS . As Fried. Del. points out (Heb. Lanx. 3 6 ) it is the Ass.
CHAFF (ybetc.). See AGRICULTURE. §§ 9, 1.5. ?uJu-i.e., the shining or precious stone (adnu na&L or
CHAINS is the word used in EV in translating a&%), K U T ’ ~ . $ O X ~ V . This stone occurs among others in
Hebrew terms which signify ( I ) ornaments and insignia, a list of stones enchased in gold for the royal breastplate.
and ( 2 ) means of confinement and punishment. Though On Uelitzsch‘s suggested identification with the diamond
chains were no doubt well known to the early Semites, (?Z. 84&)3 or the topaz (He6. Lung. 3 6 ) cp what is
it is chiefly the latter variety that we find depicted upon said under PRECIOUS S TONES , DIAMOND,TOPAZ.
the monuments ; actual remains, moreover, have been Tradition is in favour of the rendering ‘ agate. ’
Agate so named, according to Theophrastns from the river
found in excavating (Place, Nineve, iii. pl. 70). Chains Achates’ in Sicily is one of the numerous modifkations of form
for confinement consisted of rings around each foot under dhich silic; presents itself, alniost in a state of purity,
joined together by a single link ; the arms were similarly forming 98 per cent of the entire mineral. The silicious particles
treated (see Botta, Monuments de Ninive, i. pl. 82). are not so arranged as to produce the transparency of rock-
crystal, but a semi-pellucid sometimes almost opaque substance,
I . Chains were worn as articles of adornment upon the foot with a resinous or waxy f?acture: and the various shades of
(?Ip see$ANKLErS,
, BRACELET, 5), arm(>:e, see BRACELET, colour arise from minute quantities of iron. The same stone
4), and neck (O’!ll$ 98, see NECKLACE). For chains suchyas sometimes contains parts of different degrees of translucency
and of various shades of colour ; and the endless combination ok
were worn by Joseph and Daniel, as expressive of rank (l’?:, these produces the beautiful and singular internal forms, from
and Bib1.-Aram. fc~*jon),see NECKLACE. T o denote some which, together with the high polish they are capable ofreceiving,
kind ,of architectural ornamentation we find nipn?, I K. 621 agates acquire their value as precious stones. Agates are
(Kr. ’?I; Ezek. 723, doubtful), and ilh$l@,1 I K. 717 aCh. usually found in detached rounded nodules in that variety of
trap rock called amygdaloid or mandelstein, and occasionally in
3 16 (cp 2 Ch. 3 5), see P ILLAR , TEMPLE. Of these Heb. words other rocks. The varieties of the agate are numerous, and are
the former is used in Is. 40 19 (nipnl text doubtful) of the chainsnow, as in the time of Pliny, arranged according to the colour
fastening an idol, the latter den& the chain worn upon the of their ground.
high-priest’s ephod (nilql@, Ex. 2822, nidld, 3915 ; KPOUQE 3. It is not apparent why RVmg. should suggest
[BAFI, KPWUU. [LI; also Ex. 2814 ~ p o u [ u l w r 6 s[BAFLI); see ‘chalcedony’ for d y j y in Ex. 2820 (EV ‘beryl’)..
BREASTPLATE, ii., EPHOD, OUCHES. For chain-armour see See T ARSHISH , STONE OF. W. R.
BREASTPLATE, i.
2. As a means of confinement, ropes or cords were perhaps CHALCOL (XAAXAA [A], XAAKAA [L]), 1 K . 4 3 I
more commonly employed. For chains the general term is 0’$![4] [5 ,I], RV CALCOL.
Nah. 310, etc., or, with closer reference to the material, *i;lI, CHALDEA, CHALDEAN, CHALDEAN (a+?@,
5!>2, ‘fetters of iron’ (Ps. 1498)-both, in parallelism, in Ps. XAAAAIOI [BKAEQL], Ass. KaZdC), is used in Gen. 1128
10518. Other terms are p1’r (COLLAR, 3) and n$m, ‘brass’ 1. The Kaldu. Jer. 245 2512 5010 5124, and often, as
(Lam. 37).2 The use of the latter in the dual (oletm, Judg. an equivalent for Babylonia. The land
1621 2s. 334, etc.) does not necessarily imply the h&ding of of the Kaldh proper lay SE. of Babylonia proper, on
both hands and feet by these bronze fetters. The Greek words the sea coast as it then was. Its true capital was Bit
are 6eup6s (Jude6) m t p d ( 2 Pet. 24) rdSq and ~ A V U L S(in
parallelism, Mk. 54 ik. 8 29) ; the last-Aentioned term is used 1 Cp hisbs upapayBiqs of Esth. 1 6 @ and see M ARBLE .
in Acts 126, where the Roman custom of chaining a prisoner to 2 Theophrastus (Lap. 34) tells us that thq best precious stones
two warders is exemplified. See PRISON. came from Psepho ( 2 ~6 s $E+W ~ a h o u f i d q s &pas). This is
CHALCEDONY. What the ancients understood by probably the same 8s the Psebo of Straho &2) a lake and
island S. of Meroe.(nIod. Tsana or Tana) near the head of the
1 The Aramaic form of this word (fcn5&v) is represented also Blue Nile (see Reclns Gdogr. Univ. 10258 262).
in the new Hebrew n)h&, which became a regular word for 8 The difficulty ofl believing that the Israelites knew and
perhaps even engraved the dianiond is only minimised by Del.,
chain, and meant also a chain for measuring. not removed (see ADAMANT, DIAMOND), though it is not so
2 T h e RV ‘chains’ for D’gn z Ch. 3311 is too bold. See serious in the case of Te6h6lib (mentioned only in P) as in that of
MANASSEH. YakdZ5wz (Ezekiel and P).
779 720
 CHALPHI CHAPITER
Yakin ; its usual name in the Assyrian inscriptions was PLACE, $ 3. y& (I K. 6 5 7 3 Ezek. 41 5 3 3 and NC ( I K. 14.28
mLt Tamtim, the Sea-land. If Delitzsch (Par. 128, 2 Ch. 12 11 Ezek. 4 0 7 8 ) are similarly used of temple-chambers.
etc.) be correct in his derivation of the name from [n the case of two words the suggested rendering, ‘chamber,’ is
the Kassite people, the wider application to Babylonia :ertainly incorrect ; y’!; ( I K. 0 5 AV) means properlya ‘story,’
may have been a legacy from the Kassite dynasty there. 1s in R V (see T EMPLE ), and 3; (Ezek. 16 24 31 39 RVma.
On the other hand, the Kassites (Del. calls them Komaer) ‘vaulted-chamber’), in parallelism with ”e!, refers evidently to
had a language quite distinct from that of the Kaldti, who some mound for illicit worship (EV better ‘eminent place ’).
spoke Semitic. The Kaldfi are carefully distinguished CHAMBERLAIN. In Esth. 1 1 0 r z etc., EV uses
by Sennacherib both from the Arabs and from the ‘chamberlain’ (for D’?P), perhaps as a more English-
Aramzans. Merodach-baladan, the usurper in Babylon sounding title than E UNUCH [ y . ~ . ] . On Jer. 5159
during Sargon’s reign, and the inveterate foe of Assyria (AVn‘g. ‘ chamberlain ’) see S ERAIAH [4].
till Sennacherib hunted him from Babylon to Bit-Yakin Blastus, in Acts 12 20, is a court officer in charge of the king’s
and thence to exile, vias a KaldU. There is no reason bedchamber (6 i& roi) KOir&VOS roi) paurh6w); but in Rom.
to think he had any right in Babylon; on the other 23 O E K O Y ~ ~ ~ O S(AV ‘chamberlain’) is used in a wide sense (RV
?reasurer’); cp Lat. arcarilrs and a gloss of Philox. b &I
hand, nothing shows him to have been more foreign s:7 Gqfiouias T p a d < q p . The ,am, title occurs in inscr:ptions
thau were the Assyrians. In fact, the Chaldeans not [cp Mami. Oxon. 85, ed. 1732, NeiAy o k o v d p g ’Aulas ; see
only furnished an early dynasty of Babylon, but also W. A. Wright in Smith’s DBPJ s.v.).
were incessantly pressing into Babylonia ; and, despite
their repeated defeats by Assyria, they gradually gained
CHAMBERS OF THE SOUTH (\Q’n ’77n), Job 99,
and probably 379 (emended text). See STARS, § 3 e,
the upper hand there. The founder of the New-Baby- E ARTH , FOUR Q UARTERS OF, § 2 (la).
lonian kingdom, Nabopolassar (circa 626 B.C.), was a
Chaldean. and from that time Chaldea meant Babylonia. CHAMELEON. I . RV L AND-CROCODILE (n3, etym.
The use of the term Chaldee, introduced by Jerome uncertain), one of the reptiles mentioned as unclean
to distinguish the language of certain chapters in in Lev. 1130. d ( X ~ M ~ I A C U N[FLIPX ~ M H[RAI) . and
2, ,Chaldee,, Daniel and Ezra (o-?!. pd); Dan. 1 4 ) , Vg. (charnebon) have the same rendering as AV ; the
Arabic version has fzur&zwn, which means probably
etc, is incorrect. The only correct expression a species of land- crocodile. Bochart (Hieroz. 43)
isAramaic (see CHALDEA, 2 ; D ANIEL ,
argues from the Hebrew name, which is the same as
12 ; A RAM , 2 ; A RAMAIC L ANGUAGE , $ I f.).
the word for strength,’ that what is meant is the Arabic
Another peculiar usage must be mentioned. W e find
warad, the largest and most powerful sort of lizard.
‘Chaldeans’ used in Dan. as a name for a caste of
The Talmudic references, on the other hand, seem to
wise men. As Chaldean meant Babylonian in the
point to a smaller animal ; but they are too general to
wider sense of a member of the dominant race in the convey any definite information (Lewysohn, ZooZogie des
times of the New Babylonian Empire, so after the
Talmuds, 223f:). N. M.
Persian conquest it seems to have connoted the Baby-
2. AV MOLE (np2p) in the same verse. See
lonian literati and become a synonym of soothsayer or
astrologer (see D ANIEL , § 11). In this sense it passed L IZARD, 6.
into classical writers. Whether any association of CHAMOIS (lQ1, derivation uncertain, cp Lexr. ;
sound with RaZd, the specific name for magician in K ~ H MAorraphaA Ic [BAFL], Dt. 14 5f), a ‘clean’animal,
Assyrian, helped the change of meaning is difficult to mentioned along with the fallow-deer (h), the roebuck
decide. The modern so-called Chaldees have no racial
(*>X and imn-), the wild goat (\,m),the addax ((V’i), and
claim to the name, and it is very questionable whether
the antelope (jy); see C LEAN , § 8. Many ancient
the traces of alleged Chaldean culture discovered at
Telloh are correctly assigned to this people. interpreter: (6, Vg., Arab., Abulw., Kimhi, etc. )thought
See Delattre, Les ChaHiens, Wi. Linters. Alto?-. Gesch., that what was meant was the giraffe ; but the home of
4 7 3 , and the Histories of Assyria and Babylonia ; also Be&. the giraffe lies far away from Palestine. A more
.sur Assyr. 3 113. C. H. W. J. probable rendering is the NXI or ‘wild goat’ of the
CHALPHI (xaA@sl [VA]), 1Macc.1170 RV, AV Targums, which suits the context better. The chamois
CALPHI. (Kizpicupm tragus) extends from the Pyrenees to the
CHAMBER. Of the structure of the chamber of the Caucasus, but is not known to have ever inhabited
ancient Hebrew house we know but little; it would Palestine, whereas of mountain sheep and goat5 there
naturally depend upon the style of the rest of the build- have been found three kinds. Tristrani and Post think
ing. In modern Syria, floor, wall, and ceiling are that zemer may be the wild sheep (Onis trapelaphus) ;
commonly made of beaten clay (cp y ! Ezek. 1312)~ but, though that sheep lives in Northern Africa, and an
which is often coloured with ochre. Wood, neverthe- allied or identical species occurs in Arabia, it is doubtful
less, is not rare. The C EILING , if of wood and flat, is whether it has lived in Palestine. See GOAT.
N. M.
of curious and complicated joinery; or, if vaulted, is
wrought into many coves and enriched with fretwork in CHAMPION. For I S. 1 7 4 2 3 E V (P!!s;? ~’F)
stucco; the walls ( ~ p are ) adorned with arabesques, see GOLIATH, § 2. For I S. 17 51 EV (iiz!) see W AR
mosaics, and the like, which, set off by the whiteness and cp G IANT , 3.
of the stucco, present a brilliant effect. Enamelled
inscriptions, specimens of the most intri6ate Arabic C H A N A A I ’ - ( X ~ NActs ~ ~ N7) 11 1 3 19 Judith 5 3 etc.
caligraphy, originally intended to keep off harmfuljinns, AV, RV C ANAAN ; and Chanaanite ( X A N A N A I O C )
surround the wglls. On the number and arrangement Judith5 16 AV, RV C ANAANITE .
of chambers, see HOUSE, I. CHANCELLOR (nvq$ga),Ezra488 SeeREHUM, 5.
Of the various Heb. words for ‘chamber’ 127 and & (cp
CHANNUNEUS, RV Chanuneus
) used of rooms in private houses; see B ED, $? I.
S T E ~ + O V are (XANOYNAIOC
ilTp is used particularly of the nuptial chamber ; see T ENT , $ 4. [BAa?]), I Esd. 848=Ezra819, M ERARI , 3.
Other terms are used especially of rooms in a temple or palace. CHAPEL (d?PP),Am. 713 AV, RV S ANCTUARY
il?W? (I Ch. 9 26 Jer. 55 2 4, etc.) or ii?W! (Neh. 3 30 12 44 13 7), (y. w.). Cp BETHEL, 3, n. For I Macc. 147 z Macc.
a room in the temple’occupied by priests and temple-servants, 1 0 2 113 AV see S ANCTUARY .
also a room in the royal palace Jer. 36 12 20 ; and (once) of a
meal-chamber 1 in a Ba7nal (I S.’Qzz AV ‘parlour’); see H I G H . CHAPHENATHA (XA@€N&@a CAW]), I Macc.
1 Or ‘feasting hall.’ For another probable instance see 2 K.
2137 RV, AV CAPHENATHA. ,

10 2 2 &ended text (see VESTRY). W R S R d Sem.M 254 n.

suggests that h&rxq,club-room, is derivedfrom ’5;
but see Lewy, CHAPITER (;.e., capitellum ; ‘ capital’ : so Amer.
Die scmit. Frenidw. inz Gflkch., 94. RV).
721: 722
 CHAPLET CHARIOT
( I ) d$l, rat of the heads of the pillars in P's account of the
tabernacle (Ex. 8638 38 17 19 ; B B A F L Ks+ahis). See TABER-
NACLE.
(2) nln5, Kdthimih (.,A?? 'to surround,' whence l;? 'crown') CHARGER, a somewhat archaic expression denoting
is used (a)of the crowning portion of Solomon's pillars J ACHIN 1 ' platter ' (which, indeed, takes its place in the h e r .
and BOAZ(I IC. 7 76-2O,da&lspa [BAL]; z K. 25 17, XwBap [BAI, 1s. of OT), is employed by the EV to render :-
driespa [Ll; z Ch. 4 12$, - p d [BA], -pw0 [Ll ; Jer. 52 22, ~ E ; U O S ( I ) ?lJ,ViJ, fie lir& (Nu. 7 13 19 and throughout the chapter [PI;
[BKAQ] Ke+ah&s [Qmg.]); see PILLAR : and (6) in the descrip- 5 ~ p u p h i o va in Mt. 2623 Mk.I4zo), the tabernacle offerin5
tion of Sblomon's ' bases ' for the lavers (1 K. 7 31) ; but see LAVER. $"en by the heads of the tribes, elsewhere rendered 'dish.
(3) m y , &heU ( 4 7 5 s 'to overlay '),'also of the crowning see MEALS, 5 9.
portion of Solomon's pillar ( 2 Ch. 3 15, @BAL doubtful). See (2) $3l>~,Zgar@Z; 'chargersof gold. . of silver,' enumerated
P ILLAR. irnong the temple vessels restored by Cyrun (Ezra1 9,om B,1
(4) lh??,kaphtdr (deriv. uncertain) occurs with the same !,ux+s,--i.e., wine-coolers [AL], phialre [Vg.] ; II I Esd. 3 13,
meaning, ifwe are to follow RVand AVlw. (Amos91, TO &xu- raov8[s]~a[BAL]). A>+%Z(wbich is found with slight varia-
T+OV [BQmg.]=n$p, Buu~au.r$pmv [AQ*l=O?IP; Zeph. 2 14 ; .ions in Aram., MH, and Arab.) is taken to be a loan-word from
,he Hellen. Gr. ~dp~ah[h]os 'basket' ; cp BASKET.%
[BRAQF]). But Kajhtarelsewhere has a different
TJ + a T v & p a T a (3) viva6 (Mt.148 1 1 Mk.625 28) the dish upon which was
sense (see CANDLESTICK, $ 2). Read perhaps n1,;in (Che.). xonght the head of John the Bapdst ; Lk. 1139, EV 'platter,'
plong with 'cup.' See MEALS, 5 9. I n Mt.2325 aapo+ls.
CHAPLET, RV for i~$ Prov. 19 (AV e orna-
ment' ; d CTE@ANOC). Wisdom is i chaplet, or wreath, CHARIOT ( ? @ ~ ~ , a??P, 2?7). Of the three
or garland of grace, upon a man's brow. Chaplets or Heb. words denoting ' chariot ' merkdbh is post-exilian
garlands of flowers were common in the second century
B .c., at banquets (Wisd. Sol. 2 8 cp 3 Macc.48) : see '' (1.K.5 6 [426]). It isemployedin Lev. 1 5 9
Names' and Cant. 3 IO for the seat of the chariot or
palanquin (6P?rluaypa [another transl. has ~dBrupa],
MEALS, § 11. For the chaplets of bridegrooms, see
C ROWN . Of similar import are the ~ d p p a ~ of aActs B?ripauis [Vg. Rashi]). In nearly every case rekhe6h is
14 13 (EV ' garlands '), the usual headgear of sacrificers used collectively for a body of chariots. The instances
to Zeus. where it is employed to denote a single chariot (like
Some critics hold that there is a hendiadys in the passage merkddhdh) are comparatively few (Judg. 5 28 2 K.
and that the meaning is rajpovs ~ U T E ~ , L & O U S(garlanded oxen). 9 21 24). Occasionally it designates the chariot-horses
Ornaments resembling crowns were placed on royal animals by and riders (2 S. 1018),or the horses only ( z S. 8 4 ; cp
the Assyrians (cp also Esth. 6 8 and see C ROWN), and on victims
for the altar. ' T h e very doors, the very victims and altars, the Is. 2 1 7 9). On the other hand, merk66hEh expresses
very servants and priests, are crowned' (Teitul. De Cor. x.). the individual chariot, Ass. narknbtu, Ar. ?narka6at"",
Syr. marka6htha-all alike derived from the common
CNARAATHALAR (Xapaaeahap [A]), I Esd. 5 3 6 Semitic root (mkha6h), to mount or ride, and corre-
=Ezra 259=Neh. 761. See CHERUB (ii.).
sponding in meaning to Latin CZLYYZLS and Greek tippa.
CHARACA, RV CHARAX( TON A ~ A K A[VA], a The word in Heb. is frequently employed, not in a
town in Gilead, with a Jewish colony r2 Macc. 1217, see purely military sense, but to denote a state carriage or
ToB), described as 750 stadia from CASPHON(p.71.). travelline convevance. ExamDles of this use mav he
The distance must be exaggerated. About 120 stadia found in" Gen. i 1 4 3 4629 Lev: 15 9 I K. 12 18 a n i Is.
NE. from Muzeirib appear el Hurak and el Hureiyik. 2 7 (?). This word must be kept quite
G. A. S. 2' Waggons'distinct from anoiher term, 'Zgcildh (nhy),
CHARASHIM, THE VALLEY OF, ( a ) I Ch. 414 ' c a r t ' or 'wuggon,' employed in the conveyance of
(RV GE-HARASHIM), called in (6) Neh. 11 35 ' the valley agricultural produce (Am. 213).$ The cart was em-
of craftsmen ' (RV'"p. G E - HAHARASHIM ). In ( a )M T ha:
D'FW tq ; in (6) 'nn -2.l The fundamental rendering
of @ is yv apauerp, which assumes various distorted
forms.z In I Ch. bc. this valley is described as occn-
pied by craftsmen (workers in wood, stone, or metal ;
cp EVmg.), who traced their origin to Kenaz. The
father ' or founder of the family was Joab b. Seraiah.
According to Kittel's analysis, however, the words 'fathet
of the valley of craftsmen, for they were craftsmen,' are
a later addition to an old record (Chron. in SBOT). Ii
so, it becomes easier. to admit that the name ovgin K-:
must he corrupt. The statement of the Talmud (Jer.,
Meg, 1I ) that Lod and Ono were situated in the Ge- FIG. I.-Assyrian Cart (temp. Tiglath-pileser 111.).
Brit. Mus. Nimrfid Gallery, no. 84.
harashim is surely impossible. The ' plain of Ono'
(Neh. 62) is the natural phrase. Most probably 9 2 (ge: ployed in very early times by the Israelites ( I S. 6 7
IS a corrupt fragment of 313 (6'nd), and the name
2 S. 6 3 ) before chariots were introduced among them.
originally meant, not ' valley of craftsmen,' hut ' son: Its form probably approximated to that of the accom-
of sorcerers,'$ L e . , members of a guild of sorcerers. I1 panying figure (fig. I), taken from one of the reliefs
was a spot connected by ancient tradition with Philistinc of Tiglath-pileser 111. Each cart holds three occupants
sorcery (cp Is. 1 6 Mic. 7 13). Conder's identification, and is drawn by two oxen; the wheels have eight
therefore (PEFQ, '78,p. 18) falls to the ground. spokes. A still more primitive kind of cart, employed
T. K. C. by the Asiatic nations, possessed wheels which con-
CHARCHAMIS, I Esd. 1 2 5 AV and CHAR, sisted simply of circular discs, whilst the earliest and
CHEMISH, 2 Ch. 5520 AV. See CARCHEMISH. most primitive form of all consisted in a mere frame-
CHARCOAL ( A N e p A K l A [Ti. WH]), Jn. 1818 215 work with ' a board or seat, placed between two asses
RVW. See COAL, 0 3. to which it was strapped, on which the person sat as
CHARCUS (Eaxoyc [B]), I Esd. 5 3 2 AV=Ezra253 1 The first word in E xpuuo~K.T.A. [B, om. AL], has per-
BAKKOS. haps come in by mistake for &' representing the d u ~ & leal
E ~ O U Lat- the end of the verse ; so H. A. Redpath (in a private
communication).
1 The pointing is exceptional : the ' effect of analogy' (Kbnig 2 But Kap' itself is possibly a Pers. or Sem. loan-word (BDB,
i. 189)7 Differently Olsh. 348. Rather corruption of the text. S.ZL ; cp Fra. Arum. Frenzdw. 7 7 3 ) .
2 In I Ch. 4 14 aysa@&dp lB1, y$s pauerp [AI, +upas [Ll ; ir 3 The poetical use of this word (in the pl.) for war-chariot
Neh. 1135 yij apau[c]rp [ =.a mg. inf. L], om. BN*A. in Ps. 46q [IO] is isolated; indeed, the text is not undisputed
3 In Is. 3 3 pwin='charmers'; cp RVmg.. (see WEAPONS). On Am. 213 see also A GRICULTURE, 9 8.
723 ' 724
 CHARIOT CHARIOT
on an open litter’ (Dr. Samuel Birch). The appended as a fareign innovation corrupting Israel’s allegiance to
illustration (fig. 2), taken from a monument belonging YahwB. This view, constantly reflected in prophecy
to the fourth Egyptian dyn- (Hos. 1 7 144[3] Mic. 5g[10]Zech. 91o),becameembodied
asty, clearly exhibits this in the Deuteronomic legislation (Dt. 17 16), and expressed
earliest ‘mode of conveyance. in song (Ps. 207). When, however, under David, Israel
It should be remembered became an aggressive state and entered into conflict
that in the East camels, with Syrian and Hittite cavalry and chariots in the
asses, and mules are more plains, the stress must have been severely felt by the
convenient and general as Hebrews, and it is not surprising that chariots and
a means of transport, both horsemen were gradually introduced into Israel’s military
for burdens and for human service. This is clear from z S. 84, where, following
beings, than are wheeled is
6 ,we should restore (’for himself’ ; omitted in M T
vehicles; and this was from religious scruples) ; the passage means that David
specially true of ancient reserved 100 chariots and horsemen for his own use.
FIG. 2. -Ancient Egyptian times, His successor, Solomon, is said to have provided Israel
conveyance (4th dyn.)
After Wilkinson. The subject of the present with 1400 war chariots, which were quartered in special
article, however, is mainly cities ( I K. 9 19 1026 ; .see BETH-MARCABOTH). In his
the War-chariot. The striking fact that the ancient reign the purchase of horses and chariots became an
Hebrews for centuries refused to employ organised trade ; they were imported (though Winckler
3. war- so valuable a military aid as the chariot,
introduced.
denies this ; see M IZRAIM, § 2 [u]) from Egypt, at the
chariots in their encounters with the Canaanites
cost of 600 shekels, or about ,&So for each chariot (v.
was due to several co-operating causes. zSJ,). From this time onwards we constantly read of
late. First among these was the nomadic chariots and horsemen both in the northern and in the
origin and character of early Israel. The Canaanites, southern kingdom ( I K. 1 6 9 2234 2 K. 821 137 Is. 27
like the Egyptians, may have borrowed the form of Mic. 59 [Heb.]). In col. ii. 9 1 of Shalmaneser 11,’s
their chariots from their northern neighbours, the great monolith inscription we are startled to find that
Syrians or Hittites. This, however, is by no means Ahab’s contingent of chariots, 2000 in number, largely
certain, for among the Amarna Tablets, we have a exceeded that of any other state in the confederacy that
despatch to the Egyptian monarch from one of his encountered the Assyrian army a t Karkar in 854 B.C.
vassals in Canaan, in which the latter, in anticipation (cp &AB, 3 7). From Is. 3016 311 369 we may infer
of an invasion by the Hittites, requests the aid of chariots (with Kamphausen) that the supply of chariots and
and troops from the king of Egypt1 Not improbably, hokes from Egypt was one of the grounds of alliance
therefore, Egypt may have been the proximate source between that power and Judah.
whence Canaanite civilisation borrowed the chariot. Since Egypt was the land from which the Hebrews
From Josh. 1716 Judg. 43, however, we learn that the obtained their supply of this arm, we tnrn to its monu-
Canaanite war-chariot was plated or studded externally 6. Egyptian ments for illustrative material ; and this we
with iron, a feature which seems to be more probably obtain in abundance from the eighteenth
Hittite than Egyptian.2 A second reason why Israel chariots. dynasty onwards (vol. vi. in Lepsins’
-..
4. Hill country remained destitute of this important Denkrnahr). Before the eighteenth dynasty (1500
adjunct is to be found in the physical B. c. ) chariots and horses were unknown in Egypt, and
unsuitable. configuration of Canaan. During the there is good evidence to show that they were borrowed
earlier period of the Hebrew occupation, the district seized from the North Palestinian race called Rutennu.2
by the sons of Jacob was the central or mountainous The Egyptian chariot usually contained two persons.
region, where chariots and cavalry could not easily Nowack ( H A 1367), however, is wrong in his asser-
operate. Interesting illustrations of this difficulty in tion that this was invariably the case. In Lepsius’
employing chariots may be derived from the inscriptions Denkrnuler (Abth. iii. B1. 157,f.) we have numerous
of Tiglath-pileser I. (circa 1100 B. C. ). In Prism Inscr. illustrations of chariots with three figures. According
col. ii. 70-74 we read : ‘ mighty mountains and difficult to Sir Gardner Wilkinson, however, this was not
country I passed through-so far as it could be traversed, common, except in triumphal processions, ‘ when two
in my chariot ; and that which could not be traversed, of the princes or noble youths accompanied the king in
on foot. By the mountain Aruma, unsuited for the their chariot, bearing the royal sceptre, or the flabella,
advance of my chariots, I left my chariots behind and required a third person to manage the reins.’ On
... ’ (Winclier in KB I ; cp also col. iii. 47-49). the other hand Hittite chariots frequently contained
How difficult the Canaanites found it to make effective three occupants (see below, § 9). Lepsius (DenkrnuZer,
use of them against the Israelites, may be inferred Abth. iii. B1. 160) exhibits figures of Egyptian chariots
from the later experience of the Syrians, who attributed in which the right-hand warrior bears the bow while the
their constant defeats to the fact that the deities of the left carries the shield. Here, as in many other cases,
Hebrews were potent in the mountainous country ( I K. we find the reins tied round the body of one of the
2023) whilst their own operations, which were largely combatants while he is engaged in action. On another
carried on with cavalry and chariots (cp v. 21 and page (Bl. 165)we have a chariot with the solitary royal
Shalmaneser IL’s Obelisk Inscr. 65, Monolith Inscr.
1 In I K. 1028 (2 Ch. 116) the text is very uncertain in the
col. ii. 90), would be successful only in the plains. It
can readily be understood, therefore, how the Hebrew latter part of the verse. In M T of I K. 1028 we read ;”iJD?
race, by clinging to the central mountainous region and l’”? 3JVp ?n?: 7$Q? ’?.lb. I t seems simplest with Kamph.
not venturing too far into the Sheph@lahor low country, (in Kau. HS) to cancel the first n i j D and to render the whole
as well as by dint of sheer bravery and the skilful use of verse ‘And the export of the horses’of Solomon was from Egypt,
and the royal merchants used to fetch a troop for payment.’
bow, sling, and spear, were able, down to the time of This is certainly preferable to the other suggestion, to which Ki.
David, to defv successfullv the armies of Canaan and
A thirdreason was that reli- position and read . ..
in his note on 2 Ch. 116 (Si3OT) refers-&,
N i p ~ 1 p 7inn
n
to make a trans-
>inor‘ the king’s traders
5. Religious Syria.
conservatism. gion-in its tendency, ever conservative getting every time a troop .. .’ This use of the distributive
construction is very forced. Ki. himself finds a reference in
of a nation’s uast-sanctioned the an- ni?[nl to Kue-ie., E. Cilicia. See the noie referred to and
cient custom of warfare. and remrded horses and chariots
Y cp MIZRAIM, 5 z (a).
1 Cited by Zimmern in ZDPV 13 3 4 3 2 Sayce (Races o f U s OT 123J 134) has shown that this
2 See the representation of a chariot of the Rntennu, figured Egyptian name included the Hittites. It is significant that
ih Wilkinson, Am. Ea; 1 230, in which the four-spoked wheel, the Palestinian peoples chiefly associated chariots with the
as well as the body of thi chariot, is evidently plated with Hittites and the Egyptians; 2 K. 7 6 (on which, however, see
metal ; and cp IRON, $ 2 . AHAB,5 6).
725 726
 CHARIOT CHARIOT
occupant, Rameses II., drawing the bow, while the reins and in a slanting position as in the Egyptian examples.
of his two horses are tied around his middle. Indeed, W e notice, in one case depicted in Ah-nasir-pal’s
one of the most striking features in these vivld scenes of obelisk, an attendant on foot bearing a shield, and
combat, is the multiplicity of functions discharged by holding the reins. This meets us again on one of the
the chariot rider. The accompanying figure (fig. 3) monuments of Tiglath-pileser 111.
exhibits an archer in the act of Vivid representations of the chariots of this period
drawing his bow with the right may be found in the reliefs of the Nimrud gallery in
hand. A whip consisting of a the British Museum. One excellent example, reproduced
stick handle with leather thong in the accompanying figure (fig. 5), is borrowed from a

and consisted of a wooden- framework, sometimes hunting-scene in which the monarch ASnr-nBSir-pal is
strengthened and ornamented with metal and leather engaged. Note that we have here, as in many other
binding. The flat bottom was formed of a kind of instances of this period, three horses-a contrast with
network, consisting of interlaced thongs or rope, which Egyptian usage, inwhich the number never exceeded two.
gave it elasticity and mitigated the jolting ’ (Wilkinson). The pole of the chariot is fixed to the base of the ‘ body,’
The occupants of a chariot nearly always stood.. In to the upper part of which is fastened, on the left, a large
rare instances the car was provided with a seat in which heavy shaft attached to rings upon the shoulder-pieces
the royal personage sat. The furniture consisted of a of the central as well as the outer horse on the left side.
bow-case, which was placed in a slanting position The rein on the right-hand steed passes through a ring
pointing forwards, and was often ornamented with the on his shoulder, and is attached to the bit. T h e
figure of a lion. There were also receptacles for arrows use of bits with ancient Egyptian, as well as
and spears, which, as Assyrian, war-horses can admit of no doubt. As in
a general rule, slanted other examples, the two receptacles for arrows cross
backwards (see fig. 4). each other slantwise on the right side of the chariot-
The diameter of the for that was obviously the side on which the archer
wheel was a little over most conveniently stood, thus preserving his right hand
three feet. The felloe
was in six pieces and the and side unencumbered by his companion in the use
tire was fastened to it by of the bow. A battle-axe stands among the arrows in
bands of hide passing one receptacle, whilst an extra bow is inserted among
through long narrow those in the other. We notice in this example, as in
holes. ‘Theyoke,resting
uponasmall well-padded all others portrayed on the monuments of this period,
saddle was’firmly fitted that the axle of the wheel, as in the Egyptian chariot,
into a‘groove of metal : is placed under the hindermost extremity of the body
and the saddle, placed
upon the horse’s withers of the vehicle, in order to ensure more steadiness ; con-
and furnished with girth; sequently part of the weight of the chariot and its occu-
and a hreastband was pants rested on the horses. In another specimen on
surmounted by au’orna- the reliefs of this period we again observe three steeds
mental knob; and in
front of it a small book harnessed to the chariot, while in this case the driver
secured the bearing rein. holds a whip. Near the front of the chariot, between
The other reins passed FIG. 4.-Egyptian chariot with how- the two occupants, rises a pole surmounted by a sym-
through a thong or ring and arrow-cases (Thebes). After
at the side of the saddle. Wilkinson. bolic device, from which hang ornamented tassels. In
and thence over the pro: other examples a spear may be seen in the receptacle
jectingextremity of the yoke and the same thong secured the that slopes backwards. Often the horses are richly
girths.’ Further details may 6e found in Sir Ganlner Wilkinson’s
exhaustive work, from which the above description has been ornamented with crests, sometimes with a neclclace2 or
borrowed. collar. Leather straps pass beneath and in front of
The chariots of the Assyrians were of stohter and the animal. W e find tassels hanging down apparently
more solid construction than those of the Egyptians, from a metal boss on its side. Otherwise the animal
since the former were intended to sustain is unprotected.
7. Assyrian the wear and tear of rough and rugged
chariots: in paths in distant campaigns. Thus we Among the reliefs of Tiglath-pileser 111. we observe
9th cent. often find that the tires and felloes of the a state-chariot with two horses and three occupants.
There is no archer. The king stands on the right and
wheels amounted together to as much as eight or ten the driver on the left. The driver has three reins in each
inches in thickness. In the early part of the ninth century
1 Weiss (in Kostiimkunde under the head of Assyrian chariots)
B.C. we find chariots of this description employed by
describes this as merely ‘ a broad strip of cloth or leather,’ but
ASur-n%Sir-pal. Upon the obelisk of this monarch we find confesses that it is obscure as to its natnre or purpose. The
the archer standing on the right hand and the driver on present writer’s personal inspection of numerous examples in
the left, and these are their respective positions in nearly the Nimrud gallery leads him t o regard it as much more solid
in structure, and as probably intended t o yoke the third steed
all the examples depicted on the Assyrian monuments. to the other two horses. When a third horse ceased to be yoked
We observe, moreover, in all the portrayals belonging to the chariot, at the close of the eighth cent., this large and
to the ninth century and the early part of the eighth, heavy shaft no longer encumbered the Assyrian chanot.
2 Not improbably this contained amulets or charms, like the
that the two receptacles for arrows are placed on the crescents on the camels’ necks in Judg. 8 21. See Whitehouse,
right side, and are disposed crosswise over one another, Primer of Hedrew Antiguities, 5of: and footnote.
727 728
 CHARIOT CHARIOT
hand, a whip in his right. In front stands an attend- In one respect it differed from the Egyptian, viz. in
ant holding the reins. The monarch is shaded by carrying three, not, as a rule, two occupants. This
8. In 8th an umbrella. W e notice two new. points. is important, as it seems to throw light upon Hebrew
The receptacle for arrows stands @$right. usage, to which we shall presently refer. The ordinary
cent. Also the wheels are now much enlarged, weapons of the chariot-fighter were bow and arrows. In
being about 49 feet in diameter, with tire and felloes of the annexed figure (fig. 7) it will be observed that the
two-horsed chariot has among its three riders a shield-
bearer, who apparently occupies the central position.
The driver on the left holds only a single rein in each
hand, though he is driving two steeds, which are held
together by a strong collar and undergirths. Simplicity
and strength combined with lightness are the chief
characteristics of the Hittite chariot.
Among the ancient Hebrews, as among the Assyrians,
I.-
Egyptians, Hittites, and Greeks, the horses were alwavs
Israelitish arrayed side by side, never one behind
chariots : another. Moreover, with the Assyrians
and the Egyptians the chariot usually
‘Shalish” held two uersons. This was the case
perhaps occasionally in Israel ; but various considera-
tions lead to the inference that the chariots as a
rule held three, as among the Hittites, the occupants
being the driver, the bowman, and the shield-bearer.
(In the case of Jehu, he himself handles the bow,
z K. 924. j It is therefore as something peculiar and
exceptional that we find Jehu recalling to Bidkar that
they were riding in pairs1 behind Ahab, as his body-
guard, when the latter was confronted by Elijah near
FIG. 6.-State-chariot of Sennacherih. Brit. Mus. Nimrod
Naboth’s vineyard ( z K. 925). This Hebrew-Hittite
Gallery.
usage may explain the word d.>$ (fdlf; see A RMY ,
considerable thickness. Mr. T. G . Pinches is disposed
to think that the inner rim of the wheel was of metal, § 4) which, in its origin, signified one of the three
and appearances would seem to justify this conclusion. occupants of the royal chariots that accompanied the
It is possible, however, that we have here plating, not king to battle. The word is used during the regal period
solid metal. in the sense of a distinguished attendant of the king who
The state chariot of Sennacherib, which we here repro- accompanied him in his chariot. This is evident from
duce (fig. 6), exhibits wheels at least 44 feet in diameter, z I<. 925 where Bidkar holds this position in relation to
with eight spokes. W e notice the thickness of the Jehu. It is significant that in I K. 922 the f i l i f i m
tire and felloes, and the metal studs or nails on the (o.&d) are placed in close connection with captains of
outer circumference. A large umbrella is fixed in the chariots (I?? *-@), and formed a body-guard commanded
chariot. Here the driver is on the right hand, the by a special officer, ‘chief of the f2iafLnz’ (oyds~in
. . - ddij;
T

king on the left. We also observe 110 receptacle for I Ch. 1111 [zS. 2381. Compare the use of f d f f i n Ex.
arrows, bow, or battle-axe ; from the close of the eighth 1 4 7 154, That the GW held a high position is clearly
century onwards the archers become dissociated from shown in z K. 7 z 17, where he is described as one ‘ onwhose
the chariots ; in the time of ASur-bHni-pal they usually hand the king leans.’ (Probably the term is used here
constitute a separate corps1 as equivalent to o + * ~ wdi. )
In addition to the shdish the king was frequently
accompanied by ‘ runners ’ (o%>), who were prepared
to render assistance when the king dismounted from
the chariot, or to hold the reins (as in the reliefs of the
Assyrian kings to which we have already referred), or
to discharge any other duty in the king’s service, zS.
151 1 K . 1 5 zK.1025 1 1 4 (see A RMY, 4). In the
time of David there was a special body of fifty men
detailed for this special function.
We know that the Persian kings took with them on
their expeditions dppQa[as -four-wheeled carriages
ll. Persian covered with curtains, specially employed
FIG. 7.-Hittite Chariot. After Meyer. for the conveyance of women and children,
chariots. as may be inferred from Herod. 741
Of the Hittite chariot we obtain the clearest con- Xenoph. Cyrop. vi. 4 11. Probably these closelyresembled,
ception from Egyptian portrayals, and a special interest or were identical with, the dX?jpura lv8pbvra dve~vuru-
9. Hittite belongs to it because it is probably to be adapted for sitting or lying down. According to z Ch.
chariots. regarded as the prototype from which the 3 5 2 3 f : Josiah, when mortally wounded, was removed
Egyptian was derived, ancl the Israelite from his war-chariot into a reserve chariot (nldn 231)
vehicle was ultimately, if not proximately, borrowed. which was probably regarded by the Chronicler as par-
1 I n one case however (45), we have a single-horse chariot
taking of this character.
carrying two archers with quivers on their hacks. Moreover In later times chariots were provided with scythes
the large upper shaft to which reference has heen made disi (tlppara Gpe?ravT+bpa, Xenoph. Anab. i. 7 IO Diod. Sic.
appears altogether from the time of Sennacherih onwards. Not 1753). This device does not meet us among the ancient
more than two horses are harnessed to the chariot. Also it
becomes simpler in form, while the wheels become larger. I n Egyptians and Assyrians ; but we know that scythe-
the representation of Ah-hBni-pal’s war against Elam (Nirnrud bearing chariots were employed by the Persians and
gallery 48, 49) we observe that the wheels have as many as
twelve spokes. I n some cases there is only a single occupant. 1 So O’lpy D’?$ should he interpreted (Thenius and others).
I n others there are several occupants, and an umbrella is fixed QBAL makes O q n y the object of the participle.
in the chariot when it conveys a royal personage or some 2 Against the view that scythes are referred to in Nah. 2 3 [4],
nobleman of distinction. S
see I RON , 2.
729 730
 CHARITY, FEASTS O F CHEDOR-LAOMER
later still by the Syrians ( 2Macc. IS 2). It was ,probably (Ez.
1 1 [adnot. Qmg, BapyCMOC] 3 323 1015m22 433;
the Persians who introduced this formidable addition on 315, which is a gloss, see TEL-ABIB). In spite of
to the war-chariot. (Cp Xenophon, Cyrop. vi. 130.) the apparent resemblance of the names (but note the
The diAerent portions of the chariot receive special names in different initial letters), the Chebar cannot be the same
the Heb. of the OT. ‘Wheels,’ 09??iU, are mentioned in Nah. as the H ABOR (inn)-Babylonia never included the
12. parts of 3 z (cp Is. 2s 27 Prov. 20 26). Another name, more region watered by this river-but must be one of the
descriptive, was ‘rollers,’ 0’>!\7 (Is. 5 28 Ezek. Babylonian canals (Bab. ncirciti; cp 522 nnm, Ps. 1371).
chariot’ 1026 2324 26ro). The ‘spokes’ of the wheel This was first pointed out by Noldeke (Schenkel,
were called D’iY$l, while the ‘felloes’ had the name O’?! or BL, 1508 [‘69]). The final proof has been given by
n\q. The wheel revolves by a have (n?$I), round an axle(1;). Hilprecht, who has found mention twice of the (niru)
See W HEEL . All these terms are to he found in the locus clas- Kadaru, a large navigable canal a little to the E. of
sicus,I K.7 3zf: Nippur ‘in the land of the Chaldeans.’l
The pole of the chariot yy was (according to Mish. Ke&z
14 4 24 2) fastened below t i e m:ddle of the axle, passed under the CHEDOR-LAOMER (lt&JJT?, so eastern reading,
base of the ‘body’ of the chariot, and then, curving upwards
ascended to the neck of the horses. T o this, draught-animal; but lf&7?3 western reading [Ginsb. Zntr. to Mass.
were fastened by means of the yoke, assisted by cords or wide wit. ed. 203f.; conversely Strack, Kohut
leather straps. Beyond these broad features it is doubtful 1.
how far we are justified in following the details contained in a Semitic .“dies. 5661 ;, XoAo),AoroMop
treatise of the Mishna composed centuries after the latest OT [AEL] -&Ah. [D], -hay. [ D ] ) ,according toGen. 141was
literature. aking of Elam, whosedominion extended as far as the SE.
That the chariot, a-hich was so closely associated with of Canaan, where five kings, of whom those of Sodom
the uublic functions of Oriental monarchs. both in war and Gomorrah were the chief, served him twelve years.
13. Religious and in peace, entered into the religious In the thirteenth year, however, they rebelled, and in
conceptions. conceptions as an indispensable portion the fourteenth year they were defeated by the Elamite
of the paraphernaliaof divinemonarchy, and his allies. In the sequel of the story (vv. 12-24)
cannot awaken surprise. The chariot, therefore, has its we are told how Abram with his own servants and some
place in ancient Semitic religion. Just as the Hellenic allies pursued the victorious army and rescued not only
religious imagination endowed Helior with horses and the captured kings but also his nephew Lot (see
chariot (as the Homeric Hymn clearly testifies), so A BRAHAM , 5 2). The question whether this narrative
Canaanite religion endowed the Sun-god &mes’with the is trustworthy, and whether the Chedor-homer of the
same royal accessories (cp H ORSE , 5 4). This feature Story and his allies are historical personages, is ruled by
in the cnltus of the Sun the Hebrews blended with the the other, as to the date of the chapter containing it.
worship of YahwB in the precincts of the sanctuary at 2. Its date. That the chapter is quite an isolated $,,e,
Jerusalem, in the days that preceded the Reformation of and formed no part of the writings
Josiah ( 2K. 23 11). The combination of YahwB, the God from which the Hexateuch w& composed, may 6e
of Israel’s armies and of the sky, with thq Sun was not considered as certain. Some scholars, however, (e,g.,
unnatural to the Hebrew mind, as their literature testifies Kittel) assign it to the eighth century B.c., and
both early and late. Cp I K. 81zf. (an old fragment are of opinion that the author had an older writing
of the Book of Jashar restored by We. from @ A in I K. before him; according to others, it is not older than
853); Ps.191-78411 [ I Z ] . ~ YahwB, asLordofhosts, has the fourth century B . c . ~ The former bold that the
chariots among his retinue. These were the chariots antiquity and the authenticity of the story are attested
and horses of deliverance ’ whereon Yahwi: rode forth to by the following facts :-(I) that at least the name of
conquer and terrify Israel’s foes in the days of the the chief king is purely Elamitic ; ( 2 ) that the Rephgim,
Exodus (Hab. 3 8 /T. ) With this graphic touch in the the Zamzummin( = Zuzim), and the Emim really occupied
Prayer of Habakkuk we may compare the fiery chariots in ancient times what afterwards became the dwelling
of 2 I<. 211 617 1 3 1 4 ~as well as a phrase occurring in places of the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites,
the magnificent triumphal ode, Ps. 68 18. 0. c. w. whilst the Horites (Gen. 3620), according to Dt. 2 1 0 3
and 2 0 3 , were the oldest inhabitants of Seir ; ( 3 ) that
CHARITY, FEASTS OF (ai ararrai [Ti. WH]), AMORITES( Y . V . ) , the name of the people established,
Jude12 AV. See EUCHARIST. according to v. 7, in Hazazon-tamar ( = Engedi, 2 Ch.
CHARME ( X A P M H [BA]), I Esd. 525 RV=Ezra23g ~ O Z ) , is the ancient name of the people of Canaan
=Neh. 742, HARIM,I. (Gen. 1516 4822 Am. 29), and that several names
(En-mishpat, Hobah, Shaveh), words, and expressions
CHARMER ( y n > $
Deut. 1811,
I,etc. ; not occurring anywhere else, as well as the exact
33 RVlng,). See M AGIC , 5 3.
D’v?tI,Is. description of the campaign (vu. 5-7), bear the impress
CHARMIS, one of the three rulers of Bethulia : Judith of antiquity and trustworthiness.
615 813 106 ( X A P M E I C [BK]; XAAM. [A] ; in 810 1 0 6 The arguments of those who ascribe the narrative to
XAPM[E]IN [BHA]). a post-exilic Jew, whose aim was to encourage his
contemporaries by the description of Abram’s victory
CHARRAN ( x a p p a ~[Ti. WH]), Acts7z4, RV over the great powers of the East, his unselfishness,
H A R A Ni., piety, and proud magnanimity towards heathen men,
CHASEBA (xacsB+ [BA], om. L), an unknown __
mostly take their starting-point in the second part of the
family of NETHINIM in the great post-exilic list (see chapter.
EZRA, ii., 9), mentioned only in I Esd. 531, between I t is pointed ont that the names of Abram’s allies, Mamre
the Nekoda and Gazzam of 11 Ezra 248 Neh. 7 50J and Eshcol, occur elsewhere (Gen. 13 1 8 23 17 19 25 9 35 27 50 13
Nu. 13 23) as place names ; that Melchizedek (Malkisedek) and
CHAVAH (n$n), Gen. 320 AVmg., EV EVE. See Abram are represented as monotheists : and that the patriarch
pays tithes tn the priest-king, a duty not prescribed a t all in Dt.
A DAM AND E VE , § 3. (see 1422-29 2F IZ x), but characteristic of the post-exilic
sacerdotal law (Nu. l S 2 1 - ~ 8 l
CHEBAR (’773,
xoBap [B.4Q]), the name of a Baby-
The criticism extends also, however, to the first part,
lonian stream, near which Ezekiel had prophetic visions
1 But cp RATTLE~ENT. 1 A tablet published by Dr. Clay in vol. ix. of Hilprecht’s
a The Xakub-el, chariot of El’ (line zz), of the Zenjirli Bn6ylonian Exjea‘ition of the Univ. of Pennsyluania (pl. 50
Panarnmu inscription furnishes an interesting parallel. I t is No. 84, 1. 2). I t should be added that C/ie6ar=great, so tha;
possible, however, that Rakub (cp the Ar. rak&’9‘ ‘a camel nriru iCn6(6 ?)am=Grand Canal.
for riding’) may mean the divine steed (cp the Heb. kihiih, Ps. 2 See, e g . , E. Meyer, GA 1 165.1: (‘34); Kne. Hex. 334 (‘85);
13 I T ; but see C HE R U B , 8 I, begin.). I t is mentioned frequently St. ZAW6323C86); We. CN-iofi(‘(’89). Che. OPs. 42 ~ h j ,
along with the deities Hadad, El, Shemesh, and Reshef. See 570 (‘g~),cp Founders, z37f: ; holzmnger,’EinZ. in d. He;. 425
D. H. Muller’s art. in Contemp. Rev., April 1894. ( 93).
73 1 732
 CHEDOR-LAOMER CHEESE
with which we are here chiefly concerned. It is remarked than those of Chedor-laomer and Arioch ; the former
that there is no evidence of the historicity of the campaign are very possibly corruptions of the names of historical
in question, which is, in fact, as closely as possible con- personages whom we are as yet unable to 'identify.
nected with a view of Abraham which we know to have Nor do we assert that the whole story is the product
been post-exilic (cp ELIEZER, I). Moreover, it is difficult of the inventive faculty of the author. That in very
to resist the impression that the names of the kings of remote times, Babylonian kings extended their sway
Sodom and Gomorrah-viz., Bera' and Birsha' (com- as far as the Mediterranean, is not only told in ancient
pounds conveying the idea of ' evil,' ' badness ')-and traditions (e.g., of Sargon I. ), but has also been proved
the name given in the narrative to the town of Zoar- by the Amarna tablets. From these we learn that as
viz., Bela' = ' perdition ' (see BELA)-perhaps also that late as the fifteenth centnry B.c., when the kings of
of the king of Zeb6'im, which the Samaritan text gives a s Babylon and Assyria had no authority beyond their own
Shem-ebed= ' slave-name '-are, some of them at least, borders and Egypt gave the law to Western Asia,
purely symbolical and therefore fictitious. (See, how- Babylonian was the official and diplomatic language of
ever, in each case, the special article. ) the Western Asiatic nations. Hence it is not impossible,
What is certain is this : Chedor-laomer, = Kudnr- it is even probable, that a similar suzerainty was

.~---
lagamar, is a purely Elamitic name, which is not,
a. L I U U
indeed, found as a royal name on the
cheder- monuments, but is of the same type as
exercised over these nations by the Elamites, who were
more than once masters of Babylonia. Our author,
whether he wrote in the eighth century B . C . , or,
Kuduraanhundi (Kutir-nahhunte in Old which is more probable, in the fourth, may have found
laomera Susian), the name of a king who in the be- this fact in some ancient record, and utilised it both for
ginning of the twenty-third century B.C. conquered the the glorification of the Father of the Faithful and for
whole ; and Kudur-mabuk, the name of another king, encouraging his contemporaries.
who, probably later, was master of a part of Babylonia. So much appears to be all that can be safely stated
Lagamar(u) (Lagamar) occurs as the name of an in the present state of research. Scheil, however, is of
Elamitic deity, not only in 5 R (p. vi., coll. 6 , 3 3 ) , but 6. Further opinion ('96) that the Ku-dur-la-a'g-ga-
also in the Inscriptions of Anzan-5116inalt.~and seems theories. mar (?) whom he finds in a cuneiform
to be the same as Lagamal, the queen of the town of eDistle was the Elamite king - of Larsa who
KiSurre ( 2 R pl. lx. rga= 146). Hence the name cannot was conquered by Hammu-r3bi and Sin-idinnam, and,
be the invention of a Hebrew writer. It can hardly be therefore, cannot have been any other than the son
doubted, either, that Arioch, king of Ellasar, is really no of Kudur-mabuk, who, as king of Larsa (Ur), had
other than Eri-altu ( L e . , servant of the Moon-god), adopted the name of Rim-sin (Eri-aku 7). Pinches has
the well-known king of Larsa, son of Kudur-mabuk.2 discovered a cuneiform tablet in the Brit. Mus. col-
These discoveries have opened a wide field for ingenious lection which has naturally excited great hopes among
combinations. I t has been observed that Kudur-mabuk is conservative critics. It is sadly mutilated ; but it is at
called in one of the inscriptions of his son by the name
Adda-martu, 'Father of the West.' Now, the word Martu least clear that names which may be the prototypes of
being commonly used, at least in later times, to designate Arioch, Tid'al, and possibly Chedorlaomer, were known in
Western Asia, especially Canaan (mat Ahawi, or perhaps Babylonia when the tablet was inscribed. The tablet
better M a t Amuwi, the land of the Amoriies), Adda=Father
has been interpreted to mean conqueror, and this has been taken dates, probably, from the time of the Arsacidae ; but it
as evidence that, in a very remote period, Canaan fell under is tempting to assume that the inscription was copied
Elamite dominion. I t is a pity that we must call attention to from one which was made in the primitive Babylonian
a weak p, int in this theorising. Kudur-mahuk is not the same period. It should be noticed, however, that the form
as Kndur-lagamar, and-Adda-martuseems to he only a synonym
of Adda-~mnrutlala,a title which the same king, as ruler of a of the first name is not Eri-aku but Eri-(DP)[E]-a-ku,
western province of Elam, bears in other inscriptions (see Tiele, and that the third name is not read with full certainty,
B A G 123J). the second part being -mal, which is only conjecturally
The attempts to make ont the two other Eastern made into Zu&-muZ. There is also a second tablet on
kings to be historical personages must be considered
I which two of the names are mentioned again. Pinches
~Accoqding to Jos. HalBvy, reads the one Eri-E-ku (possibly Eri-E-ku-a), and the other
4' ?z;iel is the famous Babylonian king Ku-dur-lah(.?)-gu-mal. In a third inscription the
Hammu-rZbi himself. whose name is ex- name Ku-dur-lab(?)-gu-[mal] appears. The second of
plained in Semitic as Kimta - r p a & ('am= Rimta, the three names is mentioned only in the first tablet
YapheZ= rapaZtu = mapa&); whilst, according to Hommel as Tu-ud-lpl-a, where, since the Babylonian n answers
(GBA 364f. ), he is Hammu-r&bbi'sfather Sin-muballit, to the Hebrew y in sy,n, Pinches and Schrader agree
because Sin is sometimes named Amar and mudaZZiif in recogmising the Tid'al of Gen. 14. But not by a
may conceivably have been condensed into p a l ( p h d ) . single word do these inscriptions confirm the historicity
(See also AMRAPHEL.) With more confidence Shin'ar of the invasion ' in the days of Amraphel. '
is stated to be a Hebraised form of Sumer (see Schr. [The doubts here expressed are fully justified by
KAT). Unfortunately, this is by no means certain. L. W. King's more recent investigations. Both Scheil's
Though Hammur3b1 was king of Babylon, and there- and Pinches' readings of the respective inscriptions are
fore of Akkad, he was not king of Sumer so long incorrect, and ' though Ku-dur-lru-ku-mal ( Kudur-KU-
as Eri-aku was king of Larsa. Not till he had put an Ku-mal) is styled (in Pinches' inscriptions) a king of
end to the Elamite dominion in Babylonia could he be Elam, there is no reason to suppose that he was a
called king of &mer, and then neither Eri-altu nor an contemporary of Hammu-rZbi. H e might have occupied
Elamite king could join with him in the conquest of the throne at any period before the fourth century B. c.]
Canaan. As to Tid'al, king of Goyim, we may read
To the references already given may be added--(;. Rawlinson,
his name Thargal, following @EL ; we, may identify Five Mona~chies,169J, where older works are cited: Tiele,
the Goyim with the people of Gutium; we may even B A G 65J: Hommel, GBA 1 2 3 3 . Schr. KAT2 1 3 5 & =
go so far as prndence permits in theorising on the latest COT 1 1 2 0 8 . o pert Contptes-re&us de racaci des inscr.
g d6c. 1887 ; hnctes, Acts of the Geneva OrientaZ Congress,
discoveries : but all this does not make TIDAL ( 4 . v . ) also his paper read before the Victoria Institute, Jan. 20, 1896 :
'historical. All that we can say is that the writer of Schr. ' Ueher einen altoriental. Herrschernamen' in SBA W,
5. Conclusion. Gen. 14 no more invented the names 1895, no. xli.; Fr. v. Scheil in RecueiZ d e Travaaz (Maspero)
of Amraphel and Tid'al (or Thargal) 1 9 4 8 , 'correspondance de Hammnrabi roi de Bahylone, avec
Sinidinnam, roi de Larsa, oh il est quesiion de Codorlahomor ;
1 F. H. Weissbach 'Anzanische Inschriften ' in Abk. d. cp Hommel, A H T , r7;-180; L. W. King, Lettevsaltd Imcrzp-
$h<t.-hist. C l a w der 2. Sacks. GeseZZsch. d. dissensch. xii., :ions o f ~ a ~ i m z u r c i 6vol.
i , i., 1898. c. P. T.-w. H. K.
Leips., 1891, p. 125 (9 of separate copy).
2 This rather than Rim-sin has been proved by Schr. to be
the corrict reading of the narn; (Sitz.-by. k. Preuss. Ak. PhiL-
CHEESE (I$pG 'u'??, I S. 1718 ; ?lM,S. 1729;
2

hist. CZasse, 24 Oct. 1895, xli.). ?l29$,Job 1010). See M ILK .

733 734
 CHELAL CHEMOSH
CHELAL (?!?), one of the b’ne Paliath-moab in the The original Heb. word appears also in 2 K. 235; where EV
,ives ‘idolatrouspriests,’ and in Hos. 105, where EV has ‘priests.’
list of persons with foreign wives (see E ZRA , i. 5 end), t is also highly probable that in Hos. 4 4 we should read, with
Ezra 1030 (a has joined Chela1 with the preceding leck ‘for my people is like its Ch,emarim’l (6,however ws
name Adna ( n g ) and reads Aidaive XuvX [ B ; with mihey6pwos IfpeUIF, perhaps an error for -OLkp2uui [Schleus~~erl).
B transliterates Xwpapsip ([BA] z K. 2.c. ; hut Iepphis is also
EGULVE B“.b]. EGevex’ HA [K], EGve KUL XaXvh [A], upported, see Field;Hez ad Zoc.) ; it apparently omits in Zeph.;
ALU~UU ~E
XaXpavac [L]). The 11 I Esd. 931 has quite in Hos. it had a different Heb.). Vg. varies between aruspices
2 K.) and a d i h i (Zeph. Hos.); Targ. between ~ ’ 1 ~ 1(23 K.
different names-‘ and of the sons of Addi ; Naathus,
and Moossias, Laccunus,’ etc. (aL,
however, reads EGva
!eph.) and 9 n l n k ‘the ministers thereof’; Pesh. adheres to
+3 43.
K U ~2iGra K U ~XaXapavar). See L ACUNUS .
CHELCIAS, RV HELKIAS,;.e., HILKIAH,4.”. (xEA- As to the meaning, if we appeal to the versions, we
ind only the dim light which an unassisted study of the
K[E]!bC [BAQ cod. 87 Theod.1).
I. r h e father of Susanna (Hist. of Sus., zm). 2, 29, and [om. :ontext can supply. Evidently the term was applied to
cod. 871 63). he priests of Baal, who served at the high places under
2. An ancestor of Baruch (Bar. 1 I). .oyal authority, but were put down by Josiah. But
3. A priest (Bar. 1 7 ) nhat special idea did the word convey? In itself it
CHELLIANS ( X A A A A I C ~ N[Bl, X E A E ~ N P A ] , syr. neant simply priests ‘ ; in Zeph. 14 Keincirim and
b,&,). . In Judith223 mention is made of ‘the Vihdnim are put side by side to express the idea of a
children of Ishmael, which were over against the wilder- jriesthood of many members ; and in Hos. 34 (if the
ness to the S. of the land of the Chellians.’ The com- 7iew proposed above be adopted) we have k e h i r i m used
paratively easier reading Chaldeans, which is attested, jf the priests of N. Israel, when these are spoken of
by @B, Syr. and Vet. Lat., is no doubt rightly con- jbjectively, and then klihFn, when the priests are ad-
sidered by Grimm to be a deliberate rectification of the lressed as an organic unity. But the word Ki(mdrinz
text. See C HELLUS . xobably also conveyed the idez of a worship which
CHELLUH, RV ~ H E L u t i l ,mg. cHELUHU (3?5;, lad Syrian affinities. Certainly it cannot be explained
?om Hebrew ; in3 does not mean ‘ to be black’ (cp
Kt. ; ad??, Igre; ~ ~ A l a c o y[L B : probably through E CLIPSE ), and even if it did, the ’ black-robed ones ’ is a
the influence of ~ A I A C . ZJ.36]), mentioned in the list nost improbable designation for ancient priests. The
of persons with foreign wives (see EZRA, i. 5 , end), word is no doubt of Syrian origin (see the Aram. inscrip-
Ezra1035 (XEAKEIA [BK], xeAia [A]) = I E d . 934. tions in CZS 2 nos. 113 130). The primitive form is kuntr,
EV ENASIBUS (evnu[e]ipos [BA]). whence Aram. kunzrd (never used in an unfavourable
CHELLUS ( ~ ~ A o PyAc] ; xscA. [HI, , a h [Syr.I). sense) and Heb. keinririm are normally formed. Lagarde
(Armen. Stud. 2386) compared Arm. choui-m; but it is
one of the places to which Nebuchadrezzar sent his more obviously reasonable to compare the Assyrian
summons, according to Judith 19. The Halhul of Josh. bummarzi, which is given as a synonym of Zubaru zakzi
15 58 may be meant ; but the reading XEUXOUS suggests -i.e., ‘ a clean vesture’ (Del. Ass. H W B 337 d., cp
rather CHESULLOTH or CI-IISLOTH-T;\BOR, which is
given by Jerome and Eusebius as ChasaZuus or xaueXous
254 6,). The term ,Witzcirim probably described the
Syrian and Israelitish priests in their clean vestments
(OS(2),91 4, etc., 30264). See CHELLIANS. Another
(cp 2 K. 1022, the Baal festival) when ministering to
identification should be mentioned. Chellus is perhaps their God. T o derive it from an Aram. root meaning
the same as the place which in Jos. A n t . xiv. 1 4 is called ‘ to be sad ’ is much less natural.
a A o w a , by Jerome and Eusebius aZZus, ahAouG ( O S 2 ) , Delitzsch compares Ass. kaimiru ‘to throw down’; the
8 5 6 21189), viz. n y r h (Targ. Jer. Gen. 1614; cp term, he thinks, describes the pries6 as those who prostrate
Gen. 201 in Ar., and see BERED),or Elusa. C p We. themselves in worship (Ass. and Heb 41, 42; so Che. HOE.
103, 111). Finally, Robertson Smith;b noting that the word
Heid.P)48, n. I ; WRS, ZCin. 2g3J belongs to a race in which the mass of the people were probably
* CHELOD (XEAWYA [E12 X E C A A I O ~ A ~ [?“I, not circumcised (Hrrod. 2104,cp Jos. Ant. viii. 103, c. A$. 1.
2 2 ) while the priests were (Dio Cassius, 7911 ; Ep. Barnab.
~ ~ A a i o y[KC.a],
A ~ ~ A s o y [AI).
h, ‘Very nlany nations
9 6 ; cp Chwolson, Ssabier, 2 rr4), conjectures that kunwd means
of the sons of Chelod ’ (Judith 1 6 ) assembled themselves ‘the circumcised ’ (Ar. knmara, ‘glans penis ’). T. K. c.
to battle in the plain of Arioch in the days of Nebu-
chadrezzar and Arphaxad (!). What we ought to CHEMOSH @in?, in MZ E Y D;~on name see 4,
understand by Chelod is quite uncertain. end ; X A M C ~ C[BabKAFQL], ~ M W C[B” Judg. 11241,
Vet. Lat. has Chelleirth and Syr. has ‘against the Chaldzeans.’ Charnos), the national god of the Moabites
One very improbable cdnjecture is that xahwv (CALNEH)is
intended ; another, hardly less unlikely, is that the word is the
Hebrew +n (‘weasel ’), and that by the opprobrious designation n:zyl
Moab’s (I K. 1 1 7 , Jer. 48713). Moab is the
people of Chemosh; the Moabites are
his sons and daughters (Nu: 21 29 : cp
of ‘children of the weasel’ are meant the Syrians (Ew. GVI
3 543). the relation of Yahwb to Israel, Judg. 511 Nu. 1 1 2 9
CHELUE (3853,§ 67, probably a variation of Caleb, Judg. 1124 Is. 45 TI, etc. ). A king of Moab in the time
cp below). of Sennacherib was named Chemoshnadab (ZCnmusu-
( I ) A Judahite, doubtless to be identified with C ALEB (S 4); nndnd;“ cp Jehonadab) ; the father of Mesha was
similarly We. (Geut. 20)) who reads ‘Caleb b. Heeron ’ (I Ch. Chernoshmelech ; 5 a gem found near Beirfit is inscribed
411 xahsj3 [BAL], CaZe6 [Vg.] ab [Peih I). His designa- 3nwm5 (cp Heb. a?;,; h n ? ; Phcen. ’n%, $mrn’). The
tion ‘brother of Shuhah’ (nnrw-*nH) is not clear; @BA read stele of Mesha king of Moab, contemporary with Ahab,
‘father of Achsah,’ possibly a correction (Ki. SBOT). Cp the Ahaziah, and Jehoram of Israel (2K. 1 3),in the middle
stillfurther corrupt Pesh. ‘ b r o t h e r o f A h i a h ’ ( L ) ) w=+Q,.,)). of the ninth century B.C. (see M ESHA ), was erected to
(2) Father of EZRI, I Ch. 2726 &opovS [BI, ~ e h o v p [AI, xa- IL]). commemorate the deliverance which Chemosh had
wrought for his people.
CHELUBAI (*$& 0 67, a gentilic [=*&? : see
I S. 25 3 Isre] used instead of the proper name C ALEB ),
1 Continue, O F ]?fig &d$:, ‘and thou shalt stumble, 0
b. Hezron, 1 Ch.29 ( 0 XAAEB [A], o XABEA [B], o priest, in the daytime’; at the close of the verse read, with
X A A U B l [LIP , & [Pesh., a corruption]) ; see Ruben, q’?,n, ‘thy Thummim’ (addressed to the priest).
CALEB,§ 3, CARMI,I. 9 Cp Misbna Middoth 54. A priest who had become unfit
CHELUHI (XEAIA [A]), EzralOsj RV, RVW for service put dn black garments and departed. One who was
approved by the Sanhedrin clothed himself in white, and went
Cheluhu, AV CHELLUH. in, and ministered
CHEMARIM (D’ln?), Zeph. I4 RV z K.23 5 mg. 3 EBM S.V. ‘Priest.’
4 KE 2 90f: ; COT 1281.
Hos. 1 0 5 mg. ; AV Chemarims, Zeph. 14. Rather 5 Others read Chemoshgad.
I<ZmHrirn. 6 Renan, Miss. dr: Ph6n. 35%.

735 736
 CHENAANAH CHEPHIRAH
The inscription tells us that Omri had oppressed Moab for a During the long reign of the theory-not yet univer-
loug time because Chemosh was wroth with his land (1. 4J);
the Israelites had occupied the district of Medeha forty years, - of the nations were
,ally abandoned-that all the gods
bnt Chemosh had now restored it to Moab (ZZ. 7-9); Chemosh 4. Nature of heavenlybodies or meteoricphenomena,
drove out the king of Israel before Moab from Jahaz (U. 18-21); Chemosh. re- Chemosh was by some thought to be the
at the bidding of Chemosh, Mesha fought against Nebo and sun, by others identified with Milcom-
took it (IZ. 14-17); at his command, he made war on Horonaim
and Chemosh restored it to Moab (U. 31-33) ; the inhabitants d Moloch-Saturn : the one ouinion has
captured cities were slaughtered ' a spectacle (1 n.3 for Chemosh is little foundation as the other. In Roman times
and Moab' (ZZ. 113); men, woken, and children were devoted iabbath-moab, as well as the more northern Ar-moab,
to Ashtar-Chemosh (ZZ. r5-17tthe q i(see BAN) ; the spoils of vas called Areopolis, and this name-perhaps originally '
Israelite sanctuaries were carried offand presented to Chemosh mly a GrEcising of Ar (Jerome)-was understood as
(ZZ. 12317J). City of Ares.' Coins of Kabbath-moab in the reigns of
The religion of Moab in the ninth centurywas thus very Seta and Severns (Eckkel, iii. 504 ; cp Mionnet, v. 591,
similar to that of Israel : the historical books of the O T Suppl. viii. 388) exhibit a standing warrior in whom
furnish parallels to almost every line of the inscription. .he type of Mars is to be recognised; but even if we
W e learn from the OT that human sacrifices were Mere sure that the old Moabite god of the city is
offered to Cheniosh, at least in great national emergencies; .epresented, and not the Nabatzean Dusares, we could
the king of Moab, shut up in Kir-hareseth and unable earn nothing about the nature of Cheinosh in O T times
to cut his way out, offered his eldest son upon the wall ; ?om so late and contaminated a source. Confusion of
the effect of this extraordinary sacrifice was a great Yhemosh with Dusares is probably to be assumed in
outburst of Chemosh's fury upon Israel, which compelled .he statements of Jewish writers that the idol of Chemosh
the invaders to return discomfited to their own land ,vas a black stone-the same which is now adored by
( 2 I<. 327). Priests of Cheniosh are mentioned in Jer. Moslems in the Caaba at Mecca.
48 7 ; the language of Mesha, ' Chemosh said to m e ' The etymology of the name Chemosh is quite un-
(ZZ. 14,32), supposes an oracle, or perhaps prophets. mown : a fact which gives good reason to believe that '

The worship of Chemosh as the national god did i e is one of the older Semitic gods.
not exclude the worship of other gods ; Mesha's inscrip- D. Hackmann 'De Chemoscho Moahitarum idolo,' 1730 (in
tion speaks of Ashtar-Chemosh (Z. I;) 3elrich's ColZecjio o ~ u s c u Z o r u ~ ~1768,
z, pp. 17-60), Movers,
2. Other Phonizier 1 3 3 4 8 ; Scholz, Gofzena'ienst
Moabite gods. -that is, most probably, an 'Ashtar 6. Literature. und Zaxdmuesen bpi den alten Hebraern,
(Astarte) who was associated in worship 1 7 6 8 ; Baudissin, in PREP)S.W. ' Kemosch'
with Chemosh,l perhaps at a particular sanctuary. The :with full literature); Baethgen, Beitr. 13-15. G . F. M.
worship of Baal-peor (Nu. 25, cp Hos. 910) was prob- CHENAANAH (nag!?, 73, ' towards Canaan ' (?) ;
ably a local Moabite cult-there is no ground for . ...~. ~

identifying the god with Chemosh. (See BAAL-PEOR. ) XANAAN [BLI).

1. I n genealogyOfBENJAMIN($g(ii.)), ICh. 7 IO(xaVavaY [a]).
[Beth] Baal-meon (Mesha, ZZ. 9 , 3 0 ; OT) was, as the 2. Father of the false prophet Zedekiah, I K. 22 IT ( p a w
name shows, the seat of another local Baal cult. Mount 31, Xavava [A]) 24 ; 2 Ch. 18 10kavaaua [A]) 23.
Nebo may have received its name in the period of CHENANI (U? : cp Chenaniah), Levite officiating
Babylonian supremacy ; but we do not know that the at constitution of congregation' (see E ZRA , ii. $8 12,13
worship of the Babylonian god was perpetuated by the 7.1); Neh.94 (om. B., ylol XANANI [for M T Bani
Moabites. Cp NEBO. Chenani, kFaA], XWNENIAC [L]).
The statement of Eusehius (OS 2-28 6 6 3 , S.V. 'Apwd) that
:he inhabitants of Areopolis in his day called their idol 'Ap~ljh, CHENANIAH (VI4!7 and Yl2733, § 31; [ S ~ I E X O N I A C
because they worshipped Ares,' seems to be the product of a
complex misunderstanding. [BHL] ; cp Chenani), chief of the Levites, who was
In Judg. 1124, in the argument of Jephthah with the over ' the song,' or ' the carrying ' (viz., ' of the ark '-
king of the Ammonites, 'Chemosh thy god' is set text obscure : see Ki. and Be. ad Zoc.) ; I Ch. 1522
3. chemosh over against ' YahwB our god' in such a ( K W N E N I A [BNI, xw. CAI), 27 ( K A I XENENIAC [AI,
outside of way as to imply that Chemosh was the X O N E N . [L]), 2629 (XWNENBIA [BJ X W X E N I A C [AI,
national gQd of Ammon. From many XONENIA [L]).'
passages in the O T we know, however, @HEPHAR-HAAMMONAI, RV Chephar-ammoni
that the national god of the Animonites was Milconi (PJlDY;! l Q - i . e . , ' village of the Ammonite ' ; see
(see MILCOM) while Cheniosh was the god of Moab. BENJAMIN, 3;- Kr. has ?l$DQ; K A ~ A @ A K.
The hypothesis that Chemosh and Milconi arc but two
KE@EIPA K A I MONEI [B; MONEI representsalso'3BUl;
names of the same god (Milcoin originally a title) is
excluded by the contexts in which they appear side by KA@HPAMMIN [AI; K A @ A ~ A M M W N A PI),an un-
identified place in Benjamin, mentioned with O PHNI
side (e.g., I K. 1133). Nor is it sufficient to suppose [ g . ~ ](Josh. 18 24 P). The name is possibly of post-
that Chenzosh in Jndg. 11 24 is merely a slip on the part exilic origin (cp PAHATH-MOAB). See AMMON, § 6,
of the author or a scribe for Milcoin : closer examination and B BTHHORON , 5 4, T OBIJAH , 4.
shows that the whole historical argument applies to
Moab only, not to Amnion. Whatever explanation CHEPHIRAH (32%3 ; in Josh. ?>%p;!; 'the
may be given of this incongruity (see Moore, 374qes, village'? or 'the lion'? K A @ [ E ] I ~ A [BRA], K E @ E I ~ A
283 ; Bu. Richter, So$), the passage cannot be taken [L]), a town of the Hivites, member of the Gibeonite
as evidence that Chemosh was the god of Ammon a s confederation (Josh. 9 17 : X E + E L ~ U[A], K E + . [BF], K E + T ~
well as of the sister people Moab. The statement of [L]), afterwards assigned to Benjamin (Josh. 18 26 :
Suiclas (s.v. X a p d s ) that Chemosh was a god of the xe?,erpa rA], +.
[B]), and mentioned in the great post-
Tyrians and Ammonites is, as the context shows, a exillc hst (see E ZRA , ii. § 9 , Q 8 c.) Ezra 225=Neh. 729
confused reminiscence of I K. 115 7. (Xaq5rpa [A])=I Esd. 519, C APHIRA (or E K mipas [B],
From the name op,d+jAas, the second mythical Babylonian
ruler after the floog (Frat. Ffist. Gr. 2 503) it has been surmised
. .
. K ~ + L ~[A], S KE+TPU [L]), is the modern Kefireh,

that the worship of Cheniosh was of Babylonian origin. the

about 5 m. WSW. from el-Jib (Gibeon).
name of the city Carchemish on the Euphrates has heeh ex- In I Esd. 5 19 P IRA (AV om. R V . mipas [Bl) the second
plained as ' Citadel of Chemosh'; neither of these theories has name after Caphira, is apparently a cdrrnpt repetiLon (cp @B's
any other basis than a fortuitous similarity of sound. form of Caphira). Buhl (Pa2. 169) suggests that Kephirim (EV
' villages ') in Neh. 6 2 may be the same as Kephirah.
Solomon built a high place for Chemosh on the
MOUNT O F OLIVES ( I K. 117 a ), where, according to 1 Lekach To6 on Nu. 21 29. By a strange blunder W. L.
Bevan and Sayce (in Smith's DBP) s.w.) have turned this into a
z K. 2513, it stood until Josiah's reform-more than black stnr.
three hundred years. 2 The forms Kovsma, etc., point to a reading ~ 7 ~ (cp
~ 12 Ch.
3
CP Phmn. ninav& and 'the Astarte in the ashera of 3112J), whilst Iexovms points to >;I?; or rather to ?I'~J',a
ELhamman,' in the Ma'sob inscription. scribe's error for 3 7 3 3 3 1 (cp Ki., Chron., SBOT).
24 737 738
 CHEQUER WORK CHERITH
CHEQUER WORK ()'z@g),Ex.28439 RV. See guards, and Sardinians and Libyans are the flower of
EMBROIDERY, WEAVING ; also TUNIC. the army of Rameses 111.' The Philistines were more
skilled in arms than the Israelites, and doubtless liked
CHERAN (127 ; XAPPAN [ADEL], a Horite clan- fighting better : cp ITTAIthe Gittite, and see A RMY , 5 4.
name (Gen. 3626). See DISHON. It is the opinion of some recent scholars that where
CHEREAS, RV CHZREAS( X ~ I ~ and ~ A xep.
C [A], David's gz'hd1Jri7iz (EV ' mighty men ') seem to be spoken
XEpAlAC [VI), brother Of T I M O T H E U S (q.V.), and com- of as a body, the Cherethites and Pelethites are meant ;
mander of the fortress at Gazara ( z Macc.103~37). see especially I K. 1 8 IO compared with v. 38. This is,
CRERETHITES (D'QTl, ' Q q g , d in Sam. and however, not a necessary inference from the verses cited ;
and conflicts with z S. 2 0 7 (cp151-3 6). More prob-
K. o XEpeeeEI, or [by assimiIation to Pelethites] ably the gi665rvim were the comrades of David in the
o Xeheeeel ; Vg. Cerethi; d in Prophets K ~ H T E C ) ,a
days of his outlawry and the struggle with the Philistines
people in the south of Palestine. I n the days of Saul1
and David a region in the Negeb adjoining Judah and for independence. See D AVID , 9 11. In z S. 2023 for
Caleb bore their name (I S. 30 14 XOXBEL [B] XepqOei [A] ' Cherethites' the Heb. text (Kt.) has Carites
xoppi [L]). From v. 1 6 it appears that the inhabitants In z K. 114 19, where this name again occum, it prob-
of this region were reckoned to the Philistines ; in Zeph. ably means ' Carians.' The Carians were a famous
25 and Ez. 2516 (AV Cherethims), also, Philistines and mercenary folk, and it would not surprise us to find
Cherethites are coupled in such a way as to show that them at Jerusalem in the days of Athaliah (see C ARITES ). ,
they were regarded as one people. Finally, in the That the soldiers of the guard in even later times were
names mentioned in the prophecy against Egypt usually foreigners has been inferred from Zeph. 1 8 3 and
in Ez. 305.l where AV gives, 'the men of the land from Ez. 4 4 6 8 : see WRS OTJCP) 260 ff., but also
that is in league,' we should restore ' the Cherethites ' THRESHOLD. For mercenary. troops . in .post-exilic times
(*nq;.l vp ; so Cornill, Toy). It is to he inferred that see A RMY , 7.
Literaiure.-Dissertations by Joh. Benedict Carpzov (1661),
the Cherethites were a branch of the Philistines ; or, and Hen. Opitz (1672) in Ugol. Tlzes. 2'1423.#., 457 A: ; J. G.
perhaps, that they were one of the tribes which took part Lakemacher Odsescruaiio~~esPlziloIDgicreP. 11. (1727) p II 44
with the Philistines in the invasion of Palestine, and that, Conrad Ikei, Dissertationes Philolog&- Tlreolu~icc.b~7;g),'pp!
111-132; B. Behrend, Die Kreti und Pleti; zhre inhaltrbche
like the latter, they remained behind when the wave Bedeatzdng und Geschichte ('88)-extract from M G W 3 ('87),
receded (see PHILISTINES, 9 2, CAPHTOR, 5 2). The pp. 1-17-153 ; Riietschi, PRE(2)8 z68& G. F. M.
d translators of Zeph. and Ez. interpreted the name by
Cretans; and in this, although they may have been CHERITH (n'??, Xoppae [BAL]; X O P ~ A[Onom.]).
guided only by the sound, they perhaps hit upon the ELIJAH (q.v.) has just informed Ahab of the impending
truth.2 An early connection between Gaza and Crete drought, when we are abruptly told that 'YahwB's word
seems to be indicated by other evidence (see G AZA ). came unto him, saying, Get thee hence' (i.e., pre-
Except in the three passages already cited, the name sumably from Samaria), ' a n d turn to the east (npme)
occurs only in the phrase, 'the Cherethites and Pele- and hide thyself in the torrent-valley of Cherith which
thites ' (??>pa; 3n~d g gen. q5~heBOe~) as the designation is before (&y) Jordan ' ( I K. 17 35). This occurs in
of a corps of troops in the service of David-his body- the first scene of the highly dramatic story of Elijah.
guard ( z S. 8 18 1518 207 23 Kr., I K.1 3 8 44 1 Ch. 1817; In the second he appears in the far north of Palestine
UW,UUTO+L~UKES Jos. A n t . vii. 54, etc.).3 They were -at ZWphath, which hardly snits Robinson's identifi-
commanded by B ENAIAH , I , and remained faithful to cation (BR1558) of ChErith with the Wady el-I(elt
their master in all the crises of his reign (z S. 15 20 (which is rather the Valley of ZEBOIM[q.v ., i.]), at
I K.1). least if these two scenes stood in juxtaposition from the
Only the strongest reasons could warrant our separat- first. Besides this, the two names [CeU and Cherith
ing the Cherethites of David's guard from the people of begin with different palatals and since the expression
the same name spoken of in the same source (I S. 30 14). ' before Jordan ' is most naturally explained ' to the E.
There are no such reasons : mi2n has the regular form of of the Jordan,' it is plausible to hold with Prof. G. A.
a gentile noun ; and, although much ingenuity has been Smith that the scene of Elijah's retreat must be sought
expended on the problem, all attempts to explain the in Gilead ( H G 5 8 0 ) . Let us, then, look across
word as an appellative have failed. The name Pelethite, the Jordan eastward from Samaria (where Elijah may
which is found only coupled with Cherethite in the have had his interview with Ahab). The WSdy 'Ajliin
phrase above cited, also is a gentile noun ; the etymo- and the W2dy RYih have been proposed by Thenius ;
logical explanations are even more far-fetched than in the WHdyel-Yi8bis by Miihlau. But, as C. Niebuhr
the case of the Cherethites. T h e presumption is that (Gesch. 1291) points out, Elijah would certainly go to
the Pelethites also were Philistines ; and this is confirmed some famous holy place. Of the burial-place of Moses
by the passages cited from Zeph. and Ez. ; is (Niebuhr) we know nothing ; but I K. 193 9 suggests
perhaps only a lisping pronunciation of ?n&, to make that the sanctuary was in the far south. I t is true,
it rhyme with *m>. Eus. and Jer. (OS30269 11328) already place Cherith
It need not surprise us that David's guard was com- (Xoppa, Choruth) beyond Jordan. Josephus, however,
posed of foreign mercenaries. The Egyptian kings of makes Elijah depart ' into the southern parts' ( A n t .
the nineteenth dynasty recruited their corps d'liite from viii. 132). What we have to do is to find a name which
the bold sea-rovers who periodically descended on their could, in accordance with analogies, be worn down and
coasts ; Rameses 11. displays great pride in his Sardinian 1 Many other examples in ancient and modern times will occur
E S 66 is obviously misplaced ; this version has been
1 [ I C ~ ~ ~ Tin t o the reader.
conformed t o the Hebrew; hence the insertion Kai TGY uiGv 2 In 2 S. 2023 Kt. '733 is perhaps not a purely graphic
6 5 G r a B ' q s pou. Davidson's view ( ~ p + ~ s = P u t will
) hardly accident ; cp also r S. 3014 L x o p p ~ etc.
,
stand. I n three places @ has A L ~ U C for
S Put. See C HUB , 3 [&y in geographical and topographical expressions means
G EOGRAPHY 5 22.1 commonly East; cp I K. 117 2 K.23 13 Dt. 3249 Gen. 23 19 25
2 LakemaLher, Ewald, Hitzig, Stade, and others. For another IS, etc. Besides the vaguer meaning of &&ore (e.g., Gen. 11312)
view see CAPHTOR. it is sometimes made definite by the addition of a word or of an
3 [The readings vary : thus ~ X B L[L in 2 S. 8 181, XETTEL [B in expression in order 19 denote a particular direction--e.g Josh.
doublet 2 S. 15181, x+ [L 5.1, A om. doublet xope6Qs~[A in 158, the mountain &fore the Valley of Hinnom we&nard
z S. 207 ; L omits and in TJ. 231 ; &is [BL] and x c p q Q ~[AI in (Zech. 14 4), and the Mount of Olives, which is befooye Jerusalem 0%
I Ch. 1817, xoppi [L in I K. 138 441). Variants for Pelethites the East (Ol??) : cp Nu.21 II Josh. 18 14. Lastly, it is used in
are +&TWL [B in 2 S. 8181 w+deB&t [A2.1 -7881 [B in doublet the sense of overlooking. cp Gen. 18 16 19 28 Nu. 23 28 (cp Dr.
z S. 15181 and + a h e r a [Bl - T L ~[NI dah66~[AI in I Ch. 18 17. L on I Sam. 157, Di. on Joih. lT7, and especially Moore, Iudges,
has uniforkly +CAT', but 4 a M c in 2 S. 15 18, +cp& in I Ch. 18 17,
and I ~ A L V Q ~ inO V2 S. 2023 ; see B ENAIAH , I.] 163). In T K.173, c??, 'castward,' should be corrected to
4 Abulwalid, Lakemacher, Ewald, etc. nl!?!, 'towards the desert ' (as 194).]

739 740
 CHERUB CHERUB
corrupted into n'i3. Such a name is nhh?, Rehoboth. obliged to infer from the epithet ' that covereth ' ( ~ 3 , ~ n )
The valley of Rehoboth (the Wady Ruhaibeh) would that ' the place of the cherub in the sanctuary (Ex. 2520)
be fitly described a s pixn &y, ' fronting MiTrim' was also present to the prophet's mind.' Nor is the
(see M IZR A I M ) ; cp Gen. 25 18. The alteration of pygn difficulty confined tothis epithetand to the equally strange
into pivn was made in order^ to suit the next story, in word (nfpp) which Vg. renders 'extentus,' and EV
which ZEPHATH (4.v.) had been already corrupted into ' anointed ' (so Theodot.); the opening phrase mi3-nNI
ZAREPHATH. T. K. C.
whether rendered ' thou wast the cherub' or (pointing n N
differently) with the cherub,' baffles comprehension.
CHERUB, plural form Cherubim (>VI?, P973, It is necessary, therefore, to correct the text of vv. 1 3 3
n'>lss; XEpOyB, XEPOYB[E]IMI -[€]IN [BAL]; ety- 16d ; we shall then arrive'at the following sense :-
1. Late Je.wish mology disputed ; Ps. 1043 may allude 'Thou wast in Eden, the divine garden; of all
to a popular [post-exilic] identification precious stones was thy covering-cornelian, etc. ; and
angelology. of 3973 and 2931,but kerzib being, . .
of gold were thy . worked ; in the day when thou
like yp6$, a loan-word, a Hebrew etymology is in- wast made were they prepared. T o be ..
. had I
admissible). In the composite system of Jewish angel- appointed thee ; thou wast upon the holy, divine moun-
ology the cherubim form one of the ten highest classes tain ; amidst the stones of fire .didst thou walk to and
of angels, while another class is distinguished by the fro.g Then wast thou dishonoured (being cast) out of
synonymous term ' living creatures ' (&uyyGth). These the divine mountain, and the cherub destroyed thee
two classes, together with the '@9zunnimor ' wheels,' are (hurling thee) out of the midst of the stones of fire.'
specially attached to the throne of the divine glory, and The sense now becomes fairly clear. We have here
it is the function of the cherubim to be bearers of the a tradition of Paradise distinct from that in Gen. 2 and
throne on its progresses through the worlds. The 3. Favoured men, it appears, could be admitted to
Jewish liturgy, like the ' T e Deum,' delights to associate the divine garden, which glittered with precious stones
the ' praises of Israel ' (Ps. 22 3 [4]) with those offered to (or, as they are also called, ' stones of fire ' ) like the
God by the different classes of angels, and singles out mythic tree which the hero GilgameT saw in the
for special vention in a portion of the daily morning Babylonian epic,s or like the interior of the temples of
service the 'qhunnim, the &ayy6thr and the &~Z$him. Babylon or T ~ r e or , ~ like the walls and gates and
W e find an approachto this conception inthe Apocalypse, streets of the new Jerusalem in the Apocalypse. But
where the four Ji;a (Rev. 46-8), though-like the twenty- these privileged persons were still liable to the sin of
four ?rpeup67epoL-they are always mentioned apart from pride, and such a sin would be their ruin. This Ezekiel
the angels, and discharge some altogether peculiar applies to the case of the king of Tyre, who reckoned
functions, are yet associated with the angels in the himself the favourite of his god, and secure of admission
utterance of doxologies (Rev. 48511-14191-7). to Paradise.
A similar view is suggested in the 'Similitudes' in The idea of the passage is closely akin to that ex-
Enoch, in one passage of which (61IO$ ) ' the cherubim, pressed in Is. 1413-15. The king of Babylon believes
seraphim, and '5phannim, and all the angels of power ' that by his unique position and passionate devotion to
are combined under the phrase 'the host of God,' and the gods he is assured of entering that glorious cosmic
unite in the ascription of blessedness to the ' Lord of temple of which his splendid terrace-temples are to him
Spirits,' while in another (chap. XI. ) the ' four faces on the symbols. Towards Marduk he is humility itself,
the four sides of the Lord of Spirits ' (a reminiscence of but to the unnamed prophet of YahwA he seems proud
Ezek. 1 6 ) are identified or confounded with the arch- even to madness. From that heaven of which in his
angels. Elsewhere, however, a somewhat different thoughts he is already the inhabitant, the prophet sees
view is presented of the cherubim. They are the sleep- him hurled as a lifeless corpse to an ignoble grave.
less guardians of the ' throne of His glory ' (71 7) ; they This is just what Ezekiel holds out in prospect to the
are the ' fiery cherubim ' (14 II), and together with the king of Tyre, and the destroying agent is the cherub.
seraphim (exceptionally called ' serpents,' Z~~PCLKOVTBS)are How different this idea of the cherub from that of the
closely connected with Paradise, and placed under the apocalyptic @u !
archangel Gabriel (207). From these facts we gather W e have again a different conception of the
that in the last two centuries B . C . there were different cherubim in Ezekiel's vision (Ez. l ) . 5 The prophet
ways of conceiving the cherubim. Some writers had a has not the old unquestioning belief in tradition, and
a. Ezek. 28 13f. r6 stronger sense of the peculiarity of modifies the traditional data so as to produce effective
symbols of religious ideas. Out of the
Isa. 1413-15. the nature of the cherubim than I
3. Ezek.
~

others, and laid stress on such aoints elaborate description it is enough to

as their connection with the divine fire, and with PGadise select a few salient points. Observe then that the one
and its serpent-guardians. Whence did they derive a cherub of the tradition in ch. 28 has now become four
notion so suggestive of mythological comparisons 7 cherubim (cp Rev. 46-8), each of which has four faces,
The most reasonable answer is, From the earlier one looking each way, viz. that of a man, a lion, an ox,
religious writings, supplemented and interpreted by a and an eagle, and human hands on his four sides.
not yet extinct oral tradition. A tale of the serpents by They are' not, however, called cherubim, but 4uyyGth
the sacred tree (once probably shpent-demons) may 1 So Co., following B B A Q , Sym., but in other respects reading
have been orally handed down, but the conception of the v. 14 as ahove.
a According to the ordinary view which makes the Tyrian
fiery cherubim in God's heavenly palace is to be traced prince a cherub the plumage of the cherub of Ezekiel's tradition
to the vision in Ezek. 1, and to the account of the was resplenden; as if with gold and precious stones. But surely
' mountain of God ' in Eden, with its ' stones of fire ' and it was not merely as a griffin, nor as a griffin's fellow, that the
its cherub-guardian, in Ezek. 2813f: 16. These two Tyrian prince was placed (as the prophet dramatically states) in
Paradise, hut as one of the 'sons of Elohim' ; and the covering
passages of Ezekiel form the next stage in our journey. spoken of is a state-dress besprinkled with precious stones+
T h e latter must be treated first, as being evidently a ' Ston;s of fire' means 'flashing stones,' like the Assyrian a6aan
faithful report of a popular tradition. Unfortunately <&ti, stone of fire,' one of the names of a certain precious stone
(Friedr. Del. Par. 118).
the received Hebrew text is faulty, and an intelligible 3 Tablet IX. See Jeremias IzduEar-Nimrod, 30.
exegesis of the Rassage is rarely given. Keil, for 4 For Babylon see Nebuchadrezzar'sinscription, RP(z)3 ~ 0 4 f i ,
instance, admits some reference to Patadise, but feels where he describes the beautification of the temple E-sagila a t
great length. Gold and precious stones are specially mentioned.
1 The differences between the E a of Revelation and those of For the temple of Tyre see Herod. 244 (the twc brilliant pillars).
Ezekiel, both as to their appearance and as to their functions Gold was also lavishly used in the temple of Solomon.
are obvious. But without the latter how could the former ha"; There is a second description in 108-17, but it is theattempt
been imagined7 The traditional Christian view that the apoca- of a later writer to improve upon Ezekiel's account, and to pre-
lyptic {;a symbolise the four %pels can hardly be seriously pare the y a y for 2). 20. . ' 6 14 should he omitted as a very care-
defended. less gloss. See Cornill, and on v. 14cp Davidson.
741 742
 CHERUB CHERUB
(‘living creatures’), until we come to 9 3 , and Ezekiel congregation takes the place of the cherubim. This at
tells us (1020) that he did not ‘know that they were any rate agrees with later beliefs, and may be illustrated
cherubim’ till he heard them called so by God (102). by the direction in Ex.2620 ( P ) that the faces of the
By this he implies that his own description of them cherubim on the ark shall be ‘ towards the mercy-seat ’
differed so widely from that received by tradition that (Rnpp5yereth). The meaning of the priestly theorist (for
without the divine assurance he could not have ventured the description is imaginary, the ark having long ago
to call them cherubim, Sometimes, however, he speaks disappeared) is, that the cherubim are a kind of higher
of them in the singular ( # the living creature,’ 1 ~ 0 . ~ 2; angels who surround the earthly throne of YahwA and
‘ the cherub,’ 9 3 1 0 2 4 , if M T is correct), apparently to contemplate and praise his glory. It is also stated
indicate that, being animated by one ‘spirit,’ the four that their faces are to be ‘one to another,’ and, if
beings formed but one complex phenomenon. The we add to this that they have to guard, not YahwB,
fourfold character of the cherub is caused by the new but the sacramental sign of his favour, we get three
function (relatively to the account in ch.28) which is points in which the cherubim of the priestly writer are
assigned to it ; in fact, it has now become the bearer of closely analogous to the seraphim of the vision of Isaiah
the throne of God (more strictly of the ‘firmament’ (Is. 6).
under the throne 12226). But the whole appearance W e now come to the cherubim in the temple of
was at the moment bathed in luminous splendour, so Solomon. Carved figures of cherubim were prominent
that the seer needed reflection to realise it. W e will 5. Solomon,s in the decoration of the walls and the
therefore not dwell too much on what must be to a doors, and two colossal cherubim stood
large extent peculiar to Ezekiel and artificially symbolic, in the d&iY or ‘adytum,’ where they
and in so far belongs rather to the student of biblical a formed a kind of days, one wing being horizontally

theology. All that it is important to add is that the stretched towards the lateral wall, whilst the other over-
divine manifestation takes place within a storm-cloud, shadowed the ark, a felicitous arrangement resulting in
and that a fire which gives out flashes of lightning burns charming effects ’ (see I K. 6 23-35). Obviously they
brightly between the cherubim ; also that there are are the guards of the sacred ark and its still more sacred
revolving wheels beside the cherubim, animated by the contents. Cp TEMPLE.
same ‘ spirit ’ as the living creatures, and as brilliant as There is no record of any myth which directly
the chrysolith or topaz; and that in his vision of the accounts for the temple-cherubim. But an old tradition
temple Ezekiel again modifies his picture of thc cherubim, said that after the first human pair had
6. Paradise
each cherub having there but two faces, that of a man been driven out of the divine garden,
and that of a lion (4118f.). story* YahwA ‘stationed at the east of the
Another group of passages on the cherubim is found Garden of Eden the cherubim and the blade of the
in the Psalter, viz. Ps. 18 IO f: f. 1 80 I r1
. 99 I , and to whirling sword,’‘Iand the function of these two allied
*,
Some post- the lattey we may join not only Ps. but independent powers was ‘ to guard the way to the
tree of life‘ (Gen. 324). Neither in this case, nor in the
2 2 3 [4] but phrases in I S. 4 4 z S. 6 2
passages’ I Ch. i 3 6 z K. 19 15 ( = I s . 37 16). preceding one, is any account given of the physiognomy
All these passages are post-exi1ic.l In the first we read, of the cherubim. In the height of the niythological
‘ H e bowed the heavens and came down, and thick period no such account was needed.
clouds were under his feet ; he mounted the cherub and W e see therefore that the most primitive Hebrew
flew, he came swooping upon the wings of the wind.’ myth described the cherubim as beings of superhuman
That there is a mythical conception here is obvious, ,. Develop- power and devoid of human sympathies,
but it has grown very pale, and does not express much whose office was to drive away intruders
more than Ps. 10436. The conception agrees with merit. from the abode of God, or of the gods.
that of Ezekiel ; the cherub (only one is mentioned, but Originally this abode was conceived of as a mountain,
this does not exclude the existence of more) is in some or as a garden on the lower slopes of a mountain, and
sense the divine chariot, and has some relation to the as glittering with a many-coloured brightness. But
storm-wind and the storm-clonds. The other psalm- when the range of the supreme god’s power became
passages appear at first sight to give a new conception wider, when from an earth-god he became also a
of the cherubim, who are neither the guards of the heaven-god, the cherub too passed into a new phase ;
g mountain of God,’ nor the chariot of the moving he became the divine chariot. W e have no early
Deity, but the throne on which he is seated. It may authority for this view, but the age which produced the
be questioned, however, whether the phrase ‘ enthroned story of Elijah‘s ascent to heaven in a fiery chariot
upon the cherubim ’ is not simply a condensed expres- ( z I<. 2 r 1 ) may be supposed to have linown of fiery
sion for ‘ seated on the throne which is guarded by the cherubs on which Yahwk rode. At a still later time,
cherubim.’ Both in the Psalter and in the narrative- the cherubim, though still spoken of by certain writers,
books it is the heavenly throne of YahwA which is were no longer indispensable.s The forces of nature
meant, the throne from which (as is implied in Ps. were alike YahwZs guards and his ministers. Mythology
80 I [z] 99 I and z K. 19 15) he rules the universe and became a subject of special learning, and its details
guides the destiny of the nations. That is the only acquired new meanings, and the cherub-myth passed
change which has taken place in the conception of the into an entirely new phase.
cherubim ; they have been definitely transferred to There is much that is obscure about the form of the
heaven, and, strictly speaking, their occupation as primitive Israelitish cherub. It was in the main a land-
bearers of the Deity should have gone, for the ‘ angels ’ animal, but it had wings. That is all that we know,
are sufficient links between God and the world of men though a probable conjecture (see below) may lead us
Or rather there is yet another point in which the cherub further. As to the meaning of the cherubim, they have
idea has been modified ; it is indicated in Ps. 2 2 3 (4) been thought to represent the storm-clouds which some-
where, if the text is correct,2 Yahwk is addressed as times hang around the mountain peaks, sometimes
‘enthroned,’ not upon the cherubim, but ‘upon the rush ‘ o n the wings of the wind,’ sending forth arrow-
praises of Israel.’ The idea is that the cherubim in
heaven have now the great new function of praising 1 Perrot and Chipiez A r t i n 3 u d a 1245.
God, and that in the praiseful services of the temple, 2 The sword is not \he sword of the Eherubim hut that of
Yahw.&; it is the same with which he ‘slew the dragon’ (Is.
where God is certainly in some degree present, the 2711. Marduk. too. has such a sword (see Smith. Chald.
1 In the three passages from S. and I C ~ the
. phrzse 2@’ Ge;. 86 [‘So] aLd theillustration opp. 114):
3 I n Hab.’Ss a very late poe; speaks of YahwS as riding,
D’?!?? has been interpolated (cp A RK, 5 I). not upon a cherub, but upon horses. This is a return to a very
2 ‘see Che. Ps.M, ad hoc., where the text of the deeply old myth (see tablet 4 of the Babylonian Creation epic, p. 52.
corrupt verse :s restored with some confidence. Zimmern’s restoration in Gunkel’s SchciyJ 411).
743 744
 CHERUB CHILMAD
like flashes of lightning. This theory is consistent with which in Joshua (1510) mark the northern frontier of
the language of Ps. l 8 9 J Ez. 1 4 3 24, and the passages the tribe of Judah. It is the modern Ked& 2087 ft.
in Enoch. but hardly explains the symbolism of the above sea-level, on a high ridge immediately to the S.
cherub in its earliest historically known of the Wiidy Ghurab, and about half-way between
Origin’ forms. At any rate, we can affirm posi- Karyat el ‘Enab (Robinson’s Iciriath-jearim) and Eshci‘
tively that the myth is of foreign origin. Lenormant (Eshtaol). (See Rob. BR 230 3154.) In the time of
thought that he had traced it to Babylonia,l on the Eusebius and Jerome, who place it on the border, the one
ground that Kirzibu occurs on a talisman as a synonym in Benjamin and the other in Judah, it was ’ a very large
for Edu, a common term for the divine bull-guardian of village in the confines of Jerusalem’ (OS, XaXauwv,
temples and palaces. This theory however is not con- ChasnZon). Stanley (SP496) fitly compares the name
firmed as regards the derivation of siig (see Z A 1 6 8 3 and situation with that of Chesulloth or CHISLOTH-
[86]). We may indeed admit that Ezekiel probably TABOR (4.V.).
mingled the old Palestinian view of the cherub with the CHESED (17&7, XACAA [DIP XaczhA [AI, XAZAe
analogoiis Babylonian conception of the divine winged [L]), son of Nahor by Milcah (Gen. 2222), the eponym
bulls. But, so far as can be seen at present, the early of a branch of the Chaldzans. See A RAM , § 3,
Hebrew cherub came nearer to the griffin, which was ARPHAXAD.
not divine, but the servant of the Deity, pnd the origin
of which is now assigned to the Hittites of Syria.2 The CHESIL (59D?), Josh. 1530=194, BETHUL.
idea of this mythic form is the combination of parts of CHESNUT (IlD??), Gen. 3037, RV P LANE .
the two strongest animals of air and land-the lion and
the eagle, and a reminiscence of this may perhaps be CHEST. I. I\%, in 2 K. 129 f. [IO $ ] = 2 Ch.
traced in the reference to these animals in Ez. 1TO. It 24 8 j?, used of a box with lid (n)?, see D OOR ) and
was adopted by various nations, but to understand its hole (in) into which money might be dropped ( r h w c -
true significance we must go, not to. Egypt nor to COKOMOC [BAL], 0Hcaypoc [Jos. Ant. ix. 821): The
Greece, but to the Hittites, whose originality in the use same word is used of acoffin (Gen. 5026, see D EAD ,
of animal-forms is well known. The Hittite griffin § I ) , and of the Ark of the Covenant (see A RK , and cp
appears almost always, in contrast to many Babylonian COFFER).
representations, not as a fierce beast of prey, but seated 2. pnii;l w?, Ezek. 2724, EV ‘ chests of rich apparel,’
in calm dignity like an irresistible guardian of holy but though ijj (see T REASURE H OUSE ), like E~uaupbs
things. It is only on later Syrian monuments that the (Mt. 211), might conceivably mean a repository for
Sun-god is represented in a chariot drawn by griffins, costly objects, yet the parallel expression ‘ mantles (not
which agrees with a statement respecting the Indian ‘ wrappings,’ as RV) of blue and broidered work ’ shows
sun-god in Philostratus’s Life of ApaZZonius (348). that ’ 1 must
~ mean ‘garments,’ or the like. 7 and 7
The Egyptians imported this form, probably from Syria are so easily confounded that we need not hesitate to
or Canaan at the beginning of the New Empire, but read 9 ~ (Che.
3 ), rendering ‘ robes of variegated stuff.’ 1
the griffin never acquired among them the religious
significance of the S p h i n ~ . ~The Phcenicians, and See EMBROIDERY, and cp D RESS , 4.
probably the Canaanites, and through them the Is- CHESULLOTH (Wibp?), Josh. 1918. See CHIS-
raelites, evidently attached greater importance to the LOTH-TABOR.
griffin or cherub, and it is said that among the dis-
coveries at Zenjirli in N. Syria(see A RAMAIC L ANGUAGE, CHETTIIM ( X E T T I E I M [AKV]), I Macc. 11 AV,
Q 2 ) is a gcnuine representation of this mythic form as RV CHITTIM. See KITTIM.
described in Ez. 41 18J5 Whether the sculptured quad- CHEZIB (3??),Gen. 3851.. See ACHZIB, I .
ruped with a bearded human head, Assyrian in type,
discovered by M. Clermont-Ganneau in the subterranean
CHIDON (I?’?), I Ch. 139. See N ACHON .
quarries in the north of is rightly called a CHIEF, CHIEFTAIN. The former, like ‘ captain,’
cherub seems very doubtful. is often used in AV as a substantive with a convenient
For a general sketch of the different conceptions of winged vagueness to render various Heb. words (such as
composite animals see B. Teloni, Z A 6124-140 [’gr], and cp a& thy, mi),p p ) which appear to be used in a more or
Furtwingler’s art. i n Roscher, Lex., cited already ; also, for OT less general sense.
criticism, Vatke, Die ReL des A T , 329-334 L‘351. T. K . c. For ‘chiefruler’or ‘chief minister’(zS.SI8 2026 I Ch.52)
CHERUB (149p;xapoyB [BVA]), a town or cp PRIEST and PRINCE ; for ‘chief mar ’ ( T ~ P O T O F ActsPS 7), sed
MELITA; and for ‘chief of Asia,’ (Acts 19 31) see ASIARCH.
district in Babylonia, unless Cherub- Addan- Immer
C HIEFTAIN occurs only in Zech. 9 7 12 5f: RV for ??h, for
should be taken as one name, Ezra259 (xapoyc [B].
which see D UKE .
xepoyB [ALl)==Neh.761 (xepoyB [~a7c.a7Aln ax. [L])
P I , X E ~ O ~ B I A A N[L],
= I Esd. 536 ( X A ~ A A ~ A A A N CHILDREN, SONG OF THE THREE. See
xapa a0aAap [A]), where the former two of these D ANIEL , Q§ I¶? 22.
names are run together (C HARAATHALAR , RV CHAR- CHILEAB (2553,§ 4), son of David (2 S . 33). In
AATHALAN) and the names are regarded as personal
I Ch. 3 I he is called D ANIEL ( p . ~ 4).
.
rather than as local.
CHILIARCH ( ~ ~ A l a p x o[Ti.
c WH]), Rev. 1918
CHESALON ($?S?;
XACAUN [BIB -cAA. CALI), RVmg. See A RMY , IO.
on the N. side of Mount Jearim, one of the places
CMILION (fl’)?;74, X ~ A A A I U N [L]), and
1 See Lenormant, L e s or;gines, 11 1 2 8 ; Schrader, C O T M AHLON ($?pp, MAAAUN [BAL], § 74). ‘ sickness ’
140; Frd. Del. Par. 153; Che. 1s.W 2 297 f: Delitzsch,
and ‘ wasting,’ the names given to the sons of Naomi
however, still holds to a connection between and Ass.
in the narrative of Ruth (Ruth12 K ~ A A I U N [B],
kurabu(?)= kariidzc ‘mighty’ (Ass. HWB, 352). Sayce com-
pares the qnasi-human winged figures represented on Rs- X E A ~ U N [AI ; v. 5 XEAAIUN [Bl, X E A ~ W N [AI;49
Syrian walls as fertilising the ‘tree of life,’ the date-palm (Cn’t. X&XIUN [BJ X A I A W N [AI).
Mon. 102. cp Tylor PSBA 1 2 3 8 3 8 [1889-901).
2 Fnrtwkngler in’Rosche; Lex. Bd. ii. art. Gryps.’ CHILMAD (TP)?, X ~ P M [BAQ]), ~ N Ez. 2723, MT,
3 Rakiib‘el (D: H. Miillerfor perhaps hkab‘el or RakkEh‘el usually supposed to be a place or land not far from
(G. Hoffmann) is one of the gods of the Syrian district of Assyria. If this be correct, it must at any rate be some
Ya’di (Zenjirli inscriptions). G. Hoffmann explains Rekah’el
‘charioteer of El’(ZA, 11[‘961, z j z ) . fairly well-known place or land. But no name re-
4 FurtwSngler, in Roscher, Lex. Bd. ii. (zct sup.) ; cp Ohne- sembling Chilmad occurs anywhere else, and, as two
falsch-Richter, A ~ ~ Y o4 s3 4, 3
6 See Z A 9 420f: L‘g41. 6 Rev. wit., 16 Mai, 1892. 1 Cp Ass. dumcmu, ‘variegated cloth’ (Muss-Amok).
745 746
 CHIMHAM CHISLOTH-TABOR
corruptions of the text have already been found in this CHIBNEROTH ([Gins.] niVp or [sa.] n l 7 p the
verse (C ANNEH , SHEBA, iii.), we may presume a third. 'plu7alis extensivus ' of C HINNERETH ) is the name
Read with T u g . ' a n d Media' (*mi). Less probably applied ( I ) , with the prefix 'sea of,' to the Galilean
Grgtz, 'Babylon and Media' (qar $23) ; Mez and lake in Josh. 123 (XevepEB [BFL], X E Y Y . [A]), (z), with-
Bertholet, 'all Media' ( * T D - ~ ) . 51 should be dis- out this prefix (cp Dt. 3 17), to the same lake in Josh. 112
regarded. It came from h ; the scribe began. to ( K E Y ~ ~ O[B],
B XwepeOBL [A], -eB [FL]), ( 3 ) , in the spelling
write 517 too soon. 7 fell out owing to the 1 which CINNEROTH (AV only), to a district (?) in Naphtali
precedes ; restore 1. T. I<. C . laid waste by Benhadad king of Damascus ( I K. 15 20,
CHIMHAM @;I??, $5 66, 77, or [z S. 194x1 ]???,' X E Y E ~ E [.4L],
B xeS;oaB [B]). See CITY, z (A),n. The
second and third passages need a brief comment. In
or [Jer. 4117 Kt.] i2$D+i.e., if the text is right, I I<. 1520, Ewald (Hist. 2290, n. 6 ) explains ' all Chin-
' blind' [cp -a, CLZCUS fuit, and note Nestle's view neroth ' to mean the W. shore of Lake Merom and the
on the Aramaean origin of BARZILLAI]; X&M&&M Sea of Galilee and of that part of the Jordan which
P I , X A N A A N [AI, A X I M ~ A M [LIP A X I M A N O C ~ Jos. flows between those lakes; Thenius, the basin which
Ant. vii.1114; in Jer. 4117 - X ~ M A &[A], -X&MA [K], extends from Lake Meroin to the upper point of the
- X & M A ~ [AQ"]),
M one of the sons of the Gileadite Sea of Galilee. Such a large extent of meaning,
Barzillai, in whose stead he entered the service of David however, is improbable. Unless we adopt the cor-
(z S. 1937 [#If. X ~ A M[B"] 40 [41]). Most probably rection suggested 'above (C HINNERETH ) it is best to
his real name was Ahinoam ( n v r n ~;) note the 1 in suppose Chinneroth to mean here the shores (or the W.
Jer. 's form, the 7 in z S., the Gr. forms with ax6 and Y , or E. shore alone) of that famous lake. In support of
and the Egyptian form (? see below) with n-ma (Che.). this explanation, the second passage mentioned above
Following Ew. (Hist. 3216), Deans Stanley and Plumptre (Josh. 112 ) may be appealed to.
have supposed that he carried on the family tradition of The text, however, is not quite correct. The rendering 'in
the Arahah south of Chinneroth' (RV) can hardly be defended.
hospitality by erecting at Bethlehem a khan or hospice
The difficulty lies in 2>3,for which it is better with Di. to read
for travellers (see Jer. 41 17, o;?~? nil!, RVmg. ' lodging- 12: (@BAFL C d v a v n ) ; we shall then get the phrase 'in the
place of Chimham'). This ,view, however, is based Arabah over against Chinneroth.' This may be a designation
on the faulty reading nng. This should be corrected of the fertile plain called eZ-Ghxweir, the GENNESARET of the
into nil??, which is the reading of Jos. (see Ant. x. 95), Synoptic Gospels, in which the town of Chinnereth was presnm-
ably situated. Cp GENNESARET, and JUDAH UPON JORDAN.
of Aq., and of the Hexaplar Syriac (see Field), and
has been adopted by Hitzig and Giesebrecht. In the CHIOS (xloc [Ti. WH]: C h i w ) , the beautiful and
text represented by 6 [see Swete] the iin niii2 had fruitful Scio, the central member of the triad of large
become a 3. Gidroth-chimham-ie., ' the hurdles, or islands lyinq off the coast of Asia Minor. It has little
sheep - pens, of Chimham '-seems a probable name connection with biblical history, but the solitary mention
for a locality in a pastoral district. ' Chimham ' (or of it (Acts 20 15) very clearly indicates its geographical
Ahinoam?) is appended to distinguish this Gederoth position. Paul returning from Macedonia, to keep
from other places of the same name. It is just Pentecost at Jerusalem, touched at Mitylene in Lesbos ;
possible that the family of Chimham or Ahinoam 'had next day he was ' over against ' Chios ( K U T ~ Y W ~ U U ~ V
property there. Among the names of the places in Xlou)
~ ~ Y T ~ K ~ U S; probably somewhere about Cape Argen-

Palestine conquered by Seti I. we find Ha(?)-ma-he-mu, num. mod. Asprokavo, which was a place of anchorage
' the city of Kaduru in He(?)-n-mB,' which maypossz26ly (Polyb. 168). On the third day at Samos. The ship
belong to the same place (WMM As. u. Eur. 193, evidently anchored each night and sailed with the early
zoz),-viz., Gidroth-chimham (Sayce, Pat. P a l 157), morning breeze, which prevails generally in the Xgean
or rather Gidroth-ahinoam. T. K. C.-S. A. C. during the summer, blowing from the N. and dying
away in the afternoon. The run from Mitylene to Chios
CHIMNEY (XJ>~),Hos. 133. See COAL, 3, is something over 50 m. Herod's voyage as related in
LATTICE,
Q 2 ( I ). Jos. Ant. xvi. 22, in the reverse direction, illustrates the
CHINNERETH (nWl, in Josh. 1327 X E N E p E e [E], apostle's journey.
XENEpwe CALI; 1935. K € N € p € e [Bl, XBN. [LJ, Strabo describes the town as having a good harbour with
XENEpoe [A]; in Dt., ny?,'from Chinnerefh ; anchorage for eighty ships (645). Paul possibly lay becalmed
in the channel (ahout 7 m. wide) and may not have landed. The
M & X A N A p € e [Bl, hrro MAXENEP. [AFI,, ATTO x. [L]): island was noted for its wines (ktrabo, 645, 657). w. J. w.
the name of one of the 'fenced cities of Naphtali CRISLEU, RV Chislev (l$D?, in Assyr. Kisilivu,
(Josh. 1935). Possibly it is also referred to in I K.
1520, where we should perhaps read ' a n d Abel-beth- cp KAT(2) 386, in Palm. %1, DeVog. Syr. Cent.
maacah, and Chinneroth, and all the land of Naphtali.'2 nos. 24, 75) : Zech. 7 1 xacshsy [ABra], -CIA.
It is of great antiquity, for. it occnrs under the form [Ki7C=bl, -ch. [r*l,paclhs or rac. [M"]) ; Neh. 1I;
R n - n u - m - t u in the list of places conquered by CEXGHAOY [BIB -KEN,!. [B"ViY.l,- X E H A [K*l, x~cshsy
Thotmes III., n. 34 (RPP)5 45 ; WMM As. a. Bur: [KC.* mg.1, XACEHAOY CAI, XACAAEY [L]). AV has
84). It is also given ( I ) , with the prefix 'sea of,' CASLEUin I Macc. 1 5 4 452 (xaueheu [AMC.aV]. -uah.
to the Galilean lake (Nu. 3411 [xevapa BF, +pe8 [%*I, but xacsheoy [A in 4521). See MONTH, § 5 .
AL] Josh. 1327) ; (2) to the same inland ' sea' CHISLON ($)D? ' confidence'? XACAUN [BAFL]),
without that prefix (Dt. 3 17, cp Josh. 112 and see below). the fFther of Elidad (Nu. 3421).
The site of the town can no longer be identified.
Jerome identified it with Tiherias (OS112ag); some rabbins CHISLOTH-TABOR (yia?-ni5q? ; § 99 loins or 1 8

wlth a town a t the S. of the lake called Beth-jerach (probably the ' flanks' of Tabor ; cp Aznoth-tabor, ' ears ' or t peaks
Taricbza of Josephus). Others included Sanbari (the Senna- of Tabor; X b C € h W e A l B P I , -CAhUe BAewp [AI,
bris of JOC. BJiii. 97) under the designation ; a third extended
the application of the name to Reth-shean (Bey. 7aBda -cehhae. eABwp [L]), Josh 1912 or in u. 18 CHESUL-
par. 98, Wunsche). This vagueness sufficiently shows tha;
nothing was known as to thesite of the ancient town. Cp
LOTH (nrbp? ; XhCahwe [El, ax ace^. [ALI), lay
Neubauer, Gdog. TaZnnt., 2 1 4 3 on the border between Zebulun (Josh. 1912) and
On the derivation of Chinnereth, see G ENNESARET . Issachar (v. 18). It is the Xaloth (ZahwB)of Josephus
T. K . C. (Bliii. 3 1 Vit. 44), the ChasaZus or Xuu~Xour of
1 The Kt. reading o;iop, Jer.4117, may safely be disre- Eusebius and Jerome-described by them as a small
garded. village on the plain below Mount Tabor, 8 R. m. from
h i y l u - h nw n i n nu?. ni in MT's nil13 may conceal Dioczesarea or Sepphoris (OS@)91 4 9425 223 59). It is
nul. @, in zCh. 16 14, however,, presupposes +n52 nil?? represented by the modern Zksil, 460 ft. above sea
(76s r r e p r ~ ~ p o u;ssee Ki., SBOT). level, 7 m. SW. from Sepphoris, 54 m. N. from Shunem,
747 748
 CHITHLISH CHOIR
and nearly 3 m. W. from the base of Mount Tabor. iecomes at least intelligible (see Schr. ib., and cp Orelli,
The name has been suggested as an emendation for zd loc. ). The phenomena of 6 ' s text, however, and
MaicahwO or Meuoahwe in I Macc. 9 2 and of Chellus 2. Text. also those of the MT, suggest the inference
in Judithlg (see CHELLUS). The position of the place that there may be a more deeply-seated
on the main road N., in the pass between Tabor and :orruption (see A MOS, § 13). '
the hills of Nazareth, explains its strategical value, as [For the n)30 of Heb. text B B A Q Symm. give &,v U K ~ V $ V -
witnessed in its various appearances in history. ie., nap (cp Acts743), Pesh. abr-s, Aq. uuumaupov'r,
CHITHLISH (&J??,), Josh. 154oRV, AV KITHLISH. rheod. 7iJv gpauw, Vg. t u k m u c u l m ,Tg. (Lag.) n i y D , which
:onfirms MT. For i133 (Heb. text and Tg.), Aq. and Symm.
CHITTIM (t19n?),Is. 231 AV, etc.; Gen. l o 4 have LOQV Theod. apairpwam Vg. imaginem (for @see REM-
KITTIM (4.v.). P H A N ~ The pointing of M T 'seems to he suggested by that of

CHIUN (?I'?) and SICCUTH (nllm), Am. 526 RV, Yip@, ' abomination '= ' idol ; cp %e. For references to recent
:ritics see AMOS, I 13, and cp Che., Ex). Jan. 1897, pp. 42-44.]
'Yea, ye [O house of Israel] have borne Siccuth your R. W. R.
1. Identifi- king, and Chiun your images, the star of CHLOE (XAOH [Ti. WH]), a woman of whom
cation. your god. ' AV, RVmg,differ by rendering nothing is known, save that ' they of Chloe' (01 XAOHC)
n13b, ' the tabernacle (of).' These words were the first to let Paul know at Ephesus of the
have long been a puzzle to scholars. The primary division which had arisen in the Corinthian church
question is, whether they should be considered appella- ( I Cor. 111).
tives or proper nouns. The problem is ancient, as Whether she belonged to Ephesus or to Corinth who the
appears from the phenomena of the versions (see below, members of her household were, whether even &e was a
2). Into the syntactical and exegetical difficulties of Christian or not, are questions on all of which only conjectures
v. 26, taken with its context, we cannot here enter ; our can be offered. I t is possible, hut hardly probable, that
Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus ( I Cor. 16 17f.) may have
object is to consider the explanation of the abave-

-
been servants of Chloe.
mentioned words offered by Schrader (St.Kr. 324 8 CHOBA ( x ~ B A[BAIT xaBa ( R ) , &a
['74],and C O T 2141f.), which, though widely accepted, [Lag.],
fails to satisfy some good critics. According to Schrader's a.3 [Walton]), called in Judith 154f. Chobai
theory nix! is to be pointed'nrpp and p a ? 1 ~ 2 the
, former (xw6a1[BKC,aA], xwBa [K"], in 1 5 5 xwBa [BRA],
representing the divine name Sakkut, the latter Kaiwsn. [Lag.]), is mentioned in connection with the
Oppert had already recognised in Chiun the Babylonian defensive measures of the Jews against Holofernes
KaiwEn, and this identification may be regarded as (Judith 4 4). Reland (p. 721) proposed the Coabis of
almost certain. The word is of frequent occurrence in the Tab. Peut. near Jericho, a site that would agree
Babylonian mythoIogica1 and religious texts as the name with both the Greek and the Syriac of Judith 4 4 ; and
of the planet Saturn. It is of uncertain meaning and in connection with it Conder (PEFMem. 2231)' points
etymology. to the ruin el-Mekhubby and the cave 'Arc$ e l Khzlbdy
Other Semitic peoples have preserved the same name, prob- on the Roman road 3 m. from Tzibris (see THEBEZ) and
ably as loan words, for Saturn is called by the Mandaeans pi3 11 from Beisin.
by the Syrians OL3, and by the Persians Kaizurin (for CHOENIX (XOINlf; in F k .4510 f: 6jBAQ for
\ BATH), a measure of capacity Rev. 6 6 RVmg. (EV
references to the occurrence of the word in Babylonian texts, see
Jensen, Kosino.?. 1 1 1 8 ) . ' measure '). See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
The name Siccuth presents much greater difficulties. CHOIR. The subject of the hereditary choirs, or
Schrader has shown that the name Sak-kut, which is better, guilds of singers is considered elsewhere (see
probably the same as the Siccuth of the text, is used in 1. PSALMS). W e content ourselves here -
a Babylonian list as a name, or an ideographic writing, with the Talmudic statements relative to
for the god Ninib ( 2 R. 5740). Ninib, however, appears the Temple choir in the narrower sense of the word,
to be the god of the planet Kaiwanu or Saturn (see postponing, however, the question of choral psalms.
Jensen, Kosiirol. 1 3 6 8 ; Lotz, Quest. de hist. Sadbati, The Talmud affirms that the choir in the Second
2 7 8 ) . We seem, therefore, to be brought to the con- Temple consisted of not less than twelve adult Levites.
clusion that Saldcuth and Kaiwan are the same (which nine of whom played on the instrument called the
would be still more clear'if it could be shown with Kinuor (lyre?), two on the Nebel (lute?), while the
certainty that SAG-U$ 2 R. 32 no. 3 2. 25, might be read
remaining one heat the sel@m (cymbals). This
Sak-kut, as Oppert and Schrader believe). Not all the number might, however, be exceeded on the occasion
steps in the argument made to connect Salr-kut and of festivals (Mish. Eyach. 23-5). No statement is made
Kaiwan are perfectly clear. Still, indirect confirmation as to the number of the singers whom these musicians
of the correctness of the result has lately come to hand, accompanied, from which Gratz infers that the instru-
the two words having been found together in n mytho- mental and the vocal music were performed by the
logical text. In the surpu texts Sak-kut and Kaiwknu
are invoked together ( 4 R. 5 2 col. 4 1. 9 ; 'cp Zimmern,'
same persons. This seems to illustrate Ps. 92 I [ z ] 3 c4]
(Che. )-
Beit. zur Kenntniss der Bad. R e l , 1896, p. IO 1. 179). Good is it to give thanks to Yahwb
In this text at least the two words Sak-kut and Kaiwan To make melody to the name of thk Most High,
appear together as they do in Amos. T o the sound of the horn and the lute
[Not improbably according to Che., there is a reference to T o the sweetly sounding notes of the iyre.
Saccuth-Kaiwan {n 2 K. 1730 (see SUCCOTH;DENOTH)and Certainly the most important duty of the choir of
another to Kaiwan in a passage of Ezekiel. The ininse of Levites was the service of song. The Talmud also
jealousy' in Ezek. 8 3 5 is pot a possible title; n ~ 3 pseems to
states that boys' voices were called in to modify the
b e a corruption of IN">. The word for 'image' is $?!; it was
deep bass of the men's voices. The choir-boys did not
probably a statue of Kaiwan which Ezekiel saw (in ecstasy)
'northward of the altar gate' in the outer court of the temple, stand on the platform with the Levites. but lower down,
unless indeed 500 (I DOL, B IC .) should rather be D&--i.e., so that their heads were on a level with the feet of the
Zainassu, one of the names for the colossal winged bulls which Levites. They were sons of persons of rank in Jeru-
guarded the entrances of Assyrian and Babylonian palaces and salem ('an9 'i'i~>XI, Talm. Erach. 136). See Gratz,
temples (cp Ezek. 8 3 5 where, however, read N i t g , ' a t the Psnhnen, 6.53 ; Del., 8's. 2 6 3 , 372 ; and cp MUSIC,
entrance ' with Gra. for nh.33). At any rate, we now seem to § j3f:
know thk period to which the interpolation of Arn.526 refers
(see further Che., EZp. Times, 10 142, Dec. '98)]. The duty of the choir is briefly summed up in Neh.
The connection of Siccuth and Chiun with the Baby- 1224 2 Ch. 513. It is nhin)i \kc), ;.e., to raise the
lonian name and the ideographic value for the planet 2. Duty, strain of praise (HallBIa=praise ye) and
Saturn agree well with their juxtaposition in Am. 526, thanksgiving (H6da=give ye thanks). See
and if ' $ K ~ 1 1 3and n3vhx are transposed, the verse HALLEL, CONFESSION, 5 3. The formula of ' thanks-
7-19 75 0
 CHOLA CHRISTIAN, NAME O F
giving which served as a refrain in the later eucharistic CHRISTIAN, NAME OF. W e can readily under-
songs was, ' For he is good, for his loving-kindness is stand that the followers of Jesus confessed to the name
for ever ' ( z Ch. 5 13 7 3 6 Ezra 3 11 Jer. 33 11-the last of their Master whenever occasion arose. On the other
passage has been expanded by a late writer-and cp hand, the time, the place, and the circumstances of the
the psalms beginning Give thanks unto Yahwk'). origin of the name Xprurtav6s as a specific designation
Were there any female singers in the temple choirs? are obscure. According to Acts1126 the matter seems
From Neh. 7 67 Peritz infers that there were ( ' Women a simple one; but, with this passage before us, it is
in the Ancient Hebrew Cult,' JBL 17 148 ['98]). 1, remarkable how seldom the name
Strange t o say, the word 'choirs' occurs hut once and only occurs elsewhere in the records of
in R V w . Mattaniah (if this mg. is right) was {over the early Christianity. In the N T the only other places
choirs' (MT ni??).: . Neh. 128.
..,I
Del. (PsaLren . 26). Rv.. and
I, I , where it is found are Acts 2628 and I Pet. 416. It is
Kau. ( H S ) however, give 'choir' as the rendering of niin certainly not -alluded to in Acts 5 47 ; for ' the name' on
in Neh. 12 ;I where RV has 'companies that gave thanks.' account of which the apostles here suffer dishonour was,
This may be Accepted, but the mg. ' choirs ' in 12 8 is but a con-
fession of the great improbability of MT. Neither niq,? nor as we are expressly told in v.40, the name of Jesus.
nil?? (which Ry. and Kon. prefer) can he naturally defended. This passage, accordingly, belongs to the same category
Read nilin-iy, 'over the thanksgiving ' (Battch., OI., Guth,e). as Mk. 9 3 7 q~--\vhere, besides, the words ' because ye
E V in Neh. 128, therefore, virtually corrects the text. @I. €ai are Christ's' after h d T@ dv6pa71 pou (so Ti.) may be
7 t h &pohoy+mov : @BRA pointed nil;? (&I riuv x.Lpiu,). cp merely the explanatory marginal gloss of some early
Neh. 1117, and see M A TT AN IA H, 2. T. K. C . reader-and Mk. 1313. In Ja. 27 also, the 'honourable
CHOLA ( x ~ A A[B]), Judith154 RV, AV COLA name ' by which the readers are called is not the name
( G V . ).
'Christian,' but the name of Christ himself as their Lord ;
for the expression is to be explained in the same sense
CHOR-ASHAM, RV COR-ASHAN (I~&--I\>), Is.3030. as +m. 9 12 ( the heathen, which are called by my name ' )
See ASHANand BOR-ASHAN. -vu., by reference to 2 S. 1228 ( ' lest . ..
it he called
CHORAZIN (xopazsl N [Ti. WH] Mt. 1121 Lk. 10 13 after my name '). All passages of this class must here be
Eus. OSr2)30377xwp.). In these two passages Jesus left out of account, inasmuch as they do not presuppose
calls woe upon Chorazin and Bethsaida (and immediately the specific name ' Christian.' The name is presupposed,
after on Capernaum) as towns in which his wonderful as far as the N T is concerned, only in Lk. 6 2 2 ( r b duopa
works have produced no effect. From his direct address 6PGV).
to all three, they appear to have lain together within his Outside of the N T , according to the exhaustive re-
sight. Jerome (OS(%) 114 7 Chorozain) places Chorazin searches of Lipsius,l the name does not occnr in either
z R.m. from Capernaum (Euseb. 12 R.m., but this of the epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome; it is
seems a copyist's error). In his commentary on Is. 9 I absent from Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp, the Pseudo-
Jerome describes the town as on the shore of the lake- Clementine Noma'Lit.~, Tatian, and the Cohortatio nd
like Capernaum, Tiberias, and Bethsaida. From this Grecos. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, as also
Robinson ( B R 3 3 5 9 3 ) argues for the site at Tell Ham. the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, have it only in a
But about I m. N. of Tell Hum, in a shallow few passages of later insertion ; so also with the Gnostic
wady running from the Lake into the hills, there are writings. As a word in regular use it makes its earliest
black basalt ruins, including those of a large syna- appearances in the Apologists -Justin, Athenagoras,
gogue, with Corinthian columns, which bear the name Theophilus, Minucins Felix-and in the ' Epistle to
Xernzeh (PEFiWem.1400-2). Now, Willibald (722) Diognetus,' in Ignatius, who uses also the word Xprur-
says that he went from Capernaum to Bethsaida, thence raviu,u6s, in the 'Martyrdom of Polycarp,' in the
to Chorazin, and thence to the sources of the Jordan-a Catholic ~?jpuypu II&rpou, in the letter of the churches of
course which, in spite of what Robinson asserts, suits Lngdanum and l'ienna (Eus. HE 5 I$), in Irenzeus,
Kerazeh as it does not suit either Tell Hiim, or any Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. T o this list
other site on the Lake. Accordingly, most moderns, must be added the passage in the Teaching of We Twelve
since Thomson discovered the site in 1857, agree that ApostZes (124), discovered after the publication of
IGrazeh is Chorazin, and take Jerome's statement as Lipsius's essay
either vague or inaccurate. (Robinson thinks the name Lipsius, it is true, points out allusions to the existence
may have drifted from Tell Ham to KerBzeh.) Jesus of the name ' Christian ' in older writings. As far as
calls Chorazin a city and treats it as comparable with Hermas, however, is concerned, the only valid passage
Tyre and Sidon. The ruins are extensive, and there is Sim. ix. 174.
are traces of a paved road connecting the site with the The phrase is &A r 8 bvdpar' 703 vbG 703 Bao3 Kahe;U8al.
Such expressions as ~b dvopa TOG utoir 705 &OS O o p ~ i v(ix. 13 zf:
great trunk road from Capernaum to Damascus. 14 sf: 16 3) or happL;v6~v(ix. 13 7) or + & ~ E L V(Polycarp, 6 3) do not
The Bab. Talmud (Menu@th 85u) praises the whoat of necessarily presuppose the word Xpcuriavds, and the simple
Chorazin (pyy3 cp Neuhauer Go<. Tulnz. azo). I n the days phrase ~b B v o ~ n+op& (Si?%ix. 13 zf:), or & T X E L V arb r b Svopa,
of. Eusebius and Jerome (33: and 400 A . D .) the place was in or ;vwa TOG bvdparoc (ix. 28 3 5 ; Vis.iii. 19 2 I), in several cases
ruins. Willibald found a Christian Church there. G. A. s. is clearly in juxtaposition to the words r b Svopa 7017ut03 TOG
eeoG or TOG K U ~ ~ O(Sim.
U ix. 13 3, 28 2-6 ; Vis. iii. 5 2).
CFIORBE (xopB& [BA]), I E s d . 5 1 ~ RV=Ezra29
Even I Clem. 143f. cannot with certainly be taken in
ZACCAI. the sense which is so abundantly p!ain in Justin (Apol.
CHOSANEUS (XOCAMAOC [BI, -OMAIOC [AI. 1 4 ) : Xprurtavoi Zuar Karq-ppodpEBa * r b 66 x p q u ~ h v
c ~ ~ ~[Syr.]), i ( s932.~
I Esd. The~ pluEiuBal
~ e 06 G) i ~ a i o v . This play upon words seems,
name follows Simon ( =Shimeon in (I Ezra l o p ) , and besides, to be sufficiently explained by the consideration
hence may represent one of the three names in Ezra that xpqur6s had at that time the same pronunciation
1032 otherwise omitted in I Esd. Possibly in a poor as xptu~6s. Tertullian (Ap.3 ; A d Nat. 1 3 ) , however,
MS only the final 1 of Malluch and the third name expressly says that the Gentiles perperam or corrupte
Shemariah were legible, and out of these the scribe made pronounced it Chvestinni. Xpqunavoi is the reading in
Choshamiah (Ball, Vay. A@c. ). Otherwise the name has all three N T passages of the uncorrected K ; it pre-
ponderates in the inscriptions ; and Justin, according to
arisen from Hashum ( o r ~ c ) ,v. 33 ; but the Syr. L,...
Blass (Hermes, 1895,pp. 465-470),associates this word
still remains a difficulty. with xpqur6s in his Apology (i. 4 46 49 ; ii. 6, where, as he
CHOZEBA, RV COZEBA (;laf3), I Ch. 4zzf. See says, KeXpi+bt ought to be read), just as in his D i d o p e
with Trypho he associates it with Xpletu. Blass con-
ACHZIB, I.
1 ' U e F den Ursprung u. d. Bltesten Gehrauch des Christen-
CHRIST (0 XPICTOC [Ti. WH]), Mt.24. See namens ; Gratnlationsprogramm der theologischen Facultat
MESSIAH, 8 2, end. Jena fiir Hase, 1873, pp. 6-10.
751 752
 CHRISTIAN, NAME OF
jectures from this that the Pagans to whom the insisted npon King Azizus of Emesa and King Polemo of
Apology is addressed had derived the wosds ' anointed, Cilicia being circumcised before being allowed to marry
followers of the anointed,' which were mysterious to his sisters Drusilla and Berenice (Jos. Ant. xx. 7 I 3 [§§
them, by a popular etymology from xpqur6s ; and Justin, 139, 145$1). If, accordingly, the saying attributed to
for simplicity's sake, accepted the derivation without him in Acts 2628 is' authentic, the name ' Christian '
seeking to correct it. must by that time have become so thoroughly established
W e have thus seen that the name was left unused by that its etymological meaning was no longer thought of.
a series of Christian writers at a time when it was already The whole scene. however, is in full accord with the
familiar to the younger Pliny (Epist. 10 tendency of Acts (see ACTS, § 51) to set forth Paul's
2,
early origin. 96 [g7]) in 112 A . D . , to Tacitus ( A n n . innocence, and at the same time the truth of Christianity,
1 5 4 4 ) in 116-117 A . D . , and to Suetouius as accepted by the Roman authorities; and this of course
(Nero, 16) in 120 A.'D. The plain fact is that they did is more effectively done by the mouth of a Jew. An
not need it. For designating their community there lay obvious parallel is the statement of Herod Antipas in
at their command an ample variety of expressions,l such the gospel by the same author (Lk. 236.15) ; but its
as 'brethren,' ' saints,' 'elect,' 'called,' ' that believed,' historicity is open to grave suspicion, 'both in view of
'faithful,' disciples,' 'they that are inChrist,' 'they that what we know of Herod's relations to John the Baptist
are in the Lord,' 'they that are Christ's,' and ['any ... and in view of the fact that the story is absent from the
of the way'?]. It follows that, notwithstanding its other gospels. Even if Paul's meeting with Herod
absence from their writings, the name of Christian may Agrippa 11. is historical, the word Xprurrau6s may very
very well have originated at a comparatively, early time. easily have come into the narrative out of the author's
It can hardly, however, have been current at so early own vocabulary. W e are informed by the same writer
a date as that indicated in Acts 1126. (Acts 24 5 ) with much greater precision that 'sect of the
The famine predicted at that time, according to Acts 1128, Nazarenes' (ai'ppeu~srGu Nalwpaiwu) was the name given
occurred in Palestine between the years 44 and 48. (The belief by the Jews to the Christians, as we learn also fi-om
that it extended over the whole of the habitable world is a mis-
take.) The prediction itself must, of course, have been eat-lier. Tertullian (Ado. ~ddnrc.4 8 ) and Jerome (in Jes. ch. 5 181:
Indeed the expression 'which came to pass in the days of 497 525). It was not till afterwards that the expression
Claudi;s,' may be held to imply that it was made before the was restricted to a particular sect of Christians-a fact
accession of that emperor-that is to say, before 47 A.D. With
this it agrees that the death of Herod Agrippa I. (44 A.D.) is by which Epiphanius allowed himself to be misled. H e
mentioned in the following chapter (12). tellsus ( H e r . 299) that the Jews, in their public prayers,
Some fifteen years later, or more, the claim to be which were offered three times daily in their synagogues,
'of Christ' was made by a single party in Corinth pronounced a solemn curse upon this sect-a curse
( I Cor. 112). which, as we learn from Justin ( D i d . 16 and elsewhere),
Presumably certain personal disciplesof Jesus had first applied and indeed as we see from the nature of the case, applied
this designation to themselves, whilst denying to Paul the right rather to all Christians.2 Its Hebrew name, Birkat-ha-
to be so called, as also his right to the apostleship (2 Cor. 10 7). Minim, shows that the Jews had still another name for
Paul, on the other hand, takes great pains to establish the right
of all believers in Christ to the designation (I Cor. 113 3 23 ; also the Christians-and this name could also be Graxised
7 z z 15 23 Rom. 8 I Gal. 3 29 5 24). into Mrvaioi.
Thus it can hardly have been already a current name. As for the place where the name Christian arose, the
As for Jesus himself, it is permissible to doubt whether apparent Latin termination used to be thought to point to
he used in their present forms such expressions as we 4. Place of a western, indeed (Tac. Ann. 1544) to a
now find in Mk. 93741 1313-that is to say, with the Roman, origin ; but that it was there that
emphasis upon his own name. The theory that he pre- origin. the name first came into use is by no
supposes the currency of the name * Christians ' in Lk. means said by Tacitus, whilst in such a word as
622 is absolutely excluded by the consideration that, Herodian, 'HpyGiaubs (IMk. 3 6 and elsewhere), we have
ac'cording to the same gospel, he does not himself lay evidence that in the Greek-speaking domain this col-
claim to the name of Christ till later (920), and even then loquial Latin formation of personal names (c.g., Czsa-
wishes it to be kept secret, and further that, according to riani), in incorrect imitation of forms like Pompeiani
the same author (Acts 1126), the name Christians ' did (where the i is part of the root), was not unknown.
not arise till a considerable time after his death. The ancient Greek grammarians recognise the termina-
All this makes it more than doubtful whether the tion -subs for derivatives from town and country names,
writer had even here any trustworthy authority for and even designate it specially as the r 6 m s 'Auraubs, as
assigning the occurrence to so early a date. His reason being met with, not in Greece itself, but in Asia
for doing so may have been simply that the founding (Buttmann, A%$. CY. Spmclilehre, 1 1 9 5 4 ; many
of the first Gentile Christian church seemed to be the examples in Lipsius, 13-16). In this matter, therefore,
most likely occasion for its coming into use. Acts1126 is not open to criticism (yet see above, § 2).
The suddenness with which the name, ' Christian ' The time at which the name arose could not with
becomes one of frequent occurrence in the writings of assurance be placed earlier than 79 A.D., even if a certain
3. Used by and the apologists shows that the word first _.- inscription (which hisappeared soon after
with pagans. became necessary for Christians in their 5' its discovery) at Pompeii, on the wall of
dealings with Pagans. In speaking to inscription' a building (at first supposed to have been
the latter, such periphyases as 'those of Christ ' were a Christian meeting-house), had ac&dly contained the
found to be inadequate : a definite name was wanted. letters t r i u s ~ u N ~ .
In fact, it is probable enough that the name came from This reading might very well have been a derivative from the
the heathen themselves in the first instance. With such tolerably frequent proper name Chrestns (see above, 8 I) ; but,
in point of fact the reading is only a conjecture and according
a view of its origin Acts1126 fits in very well. At all t o Kiessling's briginal transcription (which is ;till Lxtaut), the
events, the name did not come from the Jews. These word really was ceristirrr-whatever that may mean.
were still looking for their Messiah. By using a name The architecture of the house shows it to have been
which signified ' those of the Messiah,' they would by an ' inn ' (cnufonn), provided even with a c e h mere-
implication have justified the sect that regarded Jesus tricia, where, accordingly, it is hardly likely that Christian
as such, and so have stultified themselves. Even Herod
1 The best-attested reading ;v bhiyo &e rrei0e~sXpiurravbv
Agrippa II., notwithstanding his Greek training and the TOL$U(IL (unless we are to rea6, with 1'R, ysviu0ar or, with A
indifference towards his ancestral religion which this m;@q or, to conjecture with Hort, &ror0as (instead of p : ~
carried with it, could not have gone so far ; moreover, ,d9&) is perhaps mast easily explained as a Latinism : 'you
he still held by Judaism to the extent at least that he are persuading me somewhat t o act the part of a Christian'
(Christianum agere; so Potwin, Bi6Z. Smr. 1889, p. 56zJ).
1 &h$oi, i;,,,,, ; K ~ ~ K T OK~ A, ~ T O L~, L U T C ~ O V T~~ SU , T Opaeqia;,
~ , 2 This solemn curse is said to have first taken shape at Jabueh
0; bv X p L U T d , 0; 8V7EF & KUpb+, 0 ; TO6 xpLUTO6, 0 ; 6 9 680; 8VTES. in the time of Gamaliel ii. (80-177A.D.).
753 754
meetings would have been held ; in fact, the inscription,
which begins with the words, ' Vina Nervii,' was prob-
ablv an advertisement of wines.1
An answer to our question can, therefore, be hoped
for only from examination of the history of the Christian
6. Early per- persecutions. The character of these
' only by a new senatorial decree. Now, the Christians
could never have obtained such a concession, for their
?lipion did not belong to the class of Dermitted re-
L I

gions. In their case, accordingly, the well-known

ule (Diz.xlvii. 221) did not apply : ( ' permittitur
muioribus stipem menstruam conferre, dum tamen
has been placed in an entirely new
seoutions. light by the proposition of Mommsen
.
emel in mense coeant . . sed) religionis causa coire
on prohibentur, dum tamen per hoc non fiat contra
in 1885 (R6m. Gesch. 5520, n . ) , which has since then enatus consultum, quo illicita collegia arcentur.'
been more fully and elaborately developed by him :hey had, therefore, to hold their meetings simply on
in Sybel's Hist. Ztschr. 64 389-429 [ ' 9 0 ] , and accepted ufferance, and were never for a moment free from the
by C. J. Neumann (Der. rom. Staat a. d. Anl!genz. isk of police interference. Still, they did not expose
Kirche, 116 ['90]) and by Ramsay (chap. 10, § 5) hemselves to persecution or to death merely by holding
-that ' the persecution of the Christians was always inauthorked meetings. For such an offence these
similar to that of robbers.' On this view, every pro- ienalties were much too severe. When a sodanlitas
vincial governor had, without special instructions, the Pf this sort was broken up, unless its object had been
duty of seeking out and bringing to justice Zantrones, n itself criminal, the members were subjected only
sacn'Zc,ps, pZa.$arios (kidnappers), and f u m s (Dig. o a mild punishment. In fact, they were allowed
i. 18 13 xlviii. I ~ A ,and ) , for this end was invested, over o divide among themselves the fnnds of the society,
and above his ordinary judicial attributes, with a very vhich were confiscated in the case of all capital offen-
full power of magisterial coercion, which was not :es. Persecution and capital punishment fell to
limited to definite offences, or to a regular form of he lot of the Christians, therefore, only because their
process, or to any fixed scale of punishments. Only, eligion was regarded as criminal. In the case of
as far as Roman citizens were concerned, banishment Zoinan citizens it implied a violation of the duty to
was forbidden, and the capital penalty was reserved for vorship the gods of the state; in the case of pro-
the judgment of the emperor. iincials who were not citizens, ~ B E ~ as T ~ against
S the
i. Le& Status of Christians. -While actually throw- oca1 gods of the place was in like manner implied.
ing into still further obscurity the date of the origin .n a (legally) very lax sense they were accused of
of the Christian name, this discovery of Mommsen's ,acriZegium,which originally meant only theft of sacred
(above, 5 6 ) sheds much light upon the question of legal >bjects. Over and above this, all Christian subjects
position. The points on which the scholars named, as vere chargeable with the offence of refusing to worship
well as others, are agreed are, briefly, these. Among the .he Emperor, an offence legally construed as majestas,
duties of a Roman citizen a fundamental place was held Jr crimen Zese majestatis-more precisely, as vzajesntati.r
by that of worshipping the ancestral gods. By these in Imperatorum-the majestas popunlz' Konzani not being
the earliest period were meant only those of .the city of .ouched by this class of offences. Thus, either as
Rome ; but subsequently those of Latium were included, iacrilege or as majestas, Christianity could at all times
and finally all those of Italy and Greece, as soon as 38 prosecuted, and-certainly in the case of non-
they had been formally recognised by decree of the :itizens, probably also in that of citizens---by the mere
senate. Non-citizens were forbidden to proselytise to :xercise of arbitrary coercive power. The penalties
strange gods, but not to Torship them, so far as this inder either charge were, approximately, the same.
did not appear to be of danger to the state. The ii. Correspondence of PLiiiy and Trqan.-Thus we
Christian religion, however, was held to be dangerous Tain a new light on the correspondence between Pliny
in this way, as denying the existence of the gods of the ind Trajan (see above, 2). . Let it be premised that
state. The Jewish religion was, strictly, under the 2y the fiazitia (2). as may be gathered from the
same ban ; and, therefore, circumcision was laid under xllusion in the words cibzm pvo77zZiscuum e t innoxiu7n
severe penalties by Hadrian, and, as far as non-Jews : 7 ) , were certainly intended the epuZcThyesten? and the
were concerned, by Antoninus Pius and Septimius :oncubitus Oedipodei, which, as we learn from Justin
Severus also. For themselves, however, the Jews, :ApoZ. 126 212) and other writers of the second century,
apart from the prohibition by Hadrian just mentioned, vere laid to the charge of the Christians. Acts208
possessed religious freedom on the ground of special already appears to be intended to meet the familiar
privileges conceded to them, particularly by Julius Caesar accusation. The story ran that before the beginning of
and Augustus, in accordance with the favoured position these orgies all lights were put out. Pliny's question,
which they had enjoyed, long before the Roman rule, then, whether the mere fact of being Christian (nomen
in Egypt and elsewhere in the East. These privileges ipsum), or whether only the crimes associated therewith
included exemption from military service, which would ought to be punished, is, from what we have seen,
have interfered with their strict observance of the already answered in the first sense, and is so decided
sabbath, and exemption from the obligation to appear by Trajan also. On the other hand, Trajan's injunction,
before the courts on that day. When Caesar, on c o n p i r e n d i non sunt, with which also is to be associated
account of suspected politiqal activity, suppressed his order to disregard anonymous leiters of accusation,
cuncta colnle@a prrzter antiquitus comtituta (Suet. C m . is an important mitigation of the law, as is his other
42), the Jews were expressly exempted. New corpora- direction that a Christian who formally renounces his
tions in the older ( L e . , senatorial) provinces required Christianity by sacrificing to the images of the gods
the sanction of the senate; in the imperial provinces shall be exempt mom punishment. Such a degree of
still under military government that of the emperor favour could, from the nature of the case, never be
himself was doubtless sufficient. It is probable that shown to the robber or to the thief, with whom,
burial societies had a general sanction from the senate. nevertheless, the Christian is classed. Let it be
Apart from these, however, there were many societies noted, also, that Pliny had no difficulty in deciding on
which had never obtained any special concession. his own responsibility the earlier cases that came
They were left alone if they did not appear to be before him (2-4). His reference of the matter to the
dangerous ; but at any moment they could be suppressed emperor was first occasioned by the largeness of the
by the police. In the cases of those which had been number of those who ultimately came to be denonnced,
sanctioned by the senate, suppression was made lawful and by certain leanings, on grounds of policy, towards
1 So Victor Schultze, 2.j:Kiychengesch. 1881. pp. 125-130 clemency (4gf.), to which Trajan gives his sanction by
and also, as regards the text CIL 4679 ('7:). The inscriptio: both of his decisions.
ought not therefore, to be r&ed on, as it IS still relied on by W e must, therefore, no longer hold to the view that
Ramsay (6htwchN chap. 12,s 5, p. 268, and St. Paul, chap. 15,
$ I , ed. 1896, p. 346). in this rescript (which, although originally intended
755 756
 CHRISTIAN, NAME O F
only for Pliny, waS shortly afterwards published, along rery well have been made by them, though innocent,
with the whole correspondence, and taken as a norm inder torture. As regards the ingens nzzrltztudo nothing
by other provincial governors) the persecution of the nore was required than merely some vague suspicions, or
Christians was now for the first time authorised. L few false witnesses, to whom the judges, on account of
Accordingly, we must proceed to investigate such notices he commonly assumed general perversity of the Chris-
as we have of earlier persecutions, and especially to ians (their odium generzs humani), were only too ready
discuss the question whether in these cases the nomen o give credence. There remains, therefore, a possi-
Christianum was known to the authorities and consti- d i t y that the religion of the accused did not come into
tuted the ground of accusation. pestion at all, and that Tacitus and Suetonius have,
iii. CZaudius.-Of Claudius we are informed by Inhistorically, carried back the name Christiani from
Suetonius ( CZaud. 25) that Judaos impukove Chresto .heir own time into that of Nero. Were this not so,,
assidue tumuZtuantes X o m a expulit. It is quite im- .he reader, moreover, would expect to find in Tacitus a
possible, however, to determine whether by Chvestos lame indicating the characteristic attribute of those
(on the form of the name, see above, 5 I ) we are here ienoted by it ; after guosperfEn,itia invisos vu&us one
to understand Jesus, the preaching of whom by would expect not Chvistianos but some such expression
Christians divided the 'Jews in Rome into two parties, is$agitiarios appeZZabat.
or whether Suetonius conceived him to have been Another interpretation of fatedantur is not less pos-
personally present in Rome, or whether we should take sible. It is that at first only .those who had already
him to be a Jewish agitator of whom nothing further is habitually confessed themselves in public to be Christians
known. Actslea is by no means decisive for the first :fatedantur se Christianos esse) were apprehended, a n d
or the second alternative, even if we are to suppose that that only afterwards, on the evidence obtained from these
Aquila and Prisca were already Christians when they in the course of the legal proceedings, a great number
came to Corinth. [ ingens muZtifudo) of those who had not hitherto made
iv. Pomponin Gracina. -Of Pomponia Graxina we m y such public profession shared the same fate. T h e
learn from Tacitus (Ann. 1332) only that in 57 A. D. she Christians were laid hold of because it was hoped that
was accused superstitionis extet-na, and that she was popular belief would readily attribute the incendiarism
acquitted of the charge by her husband, the consular to them. Although, on this supposition also, their re-
A. Plautius, before whom she had been brought for Ligion constituted no ground of accusation, it was recog-
trial. At that time, however, the Jewish and Egyptian nised as distinct from the Jewish ; whereas if the other
religions were regarded as foreign, just as much as interpretationoffatebnnturis adopted the Christians may
the Christian, which has been supposed to be meant in have been regarded simply as Jews : Tacitus ( Hist. 5 5 )
her case (Tac. Ann. 2 85 ; Suet.' Tid. 36). For full ittributes adversus omnes host& odium to the Jews also.
details see Hasenclever, I P T , 1882,pp. 47-64. Clement of Rome further (i. 51-62) tells us only that
v. Neronian Persecution.-The notices we have of the Christians suffered, without informing us why ; and
the Neronian persecution are very obscure. Paul's trial in Rome could throw light upon the question
Tacitus (Ann. 1544) says: 'abolendo rumori (of having before us only if we knew what was its result. Gallio
pjauned the burning of Rome) Nero subdidit reos et quaesi- was not led by the accusation, as cited in Acts1813,
tissimis penis affecit,qi!os per flagitia invisos vulgus Christi-
.
anos appellahat . . primum correpti qui fatebantur deinde to suppose that Paul taught a religion dangerous to the
iudicio eorum multitudo ingens haud p;oinde in criminiincendii state. The representation, too (though not necessarily
quam odio geueris humani coniuncti sudt.' Conj'uncti here the fact), is open to suspicion on account of the tend-
could mean only that the ingens nzuZfitudo was added t o the
prin~umcowepfi(Ramsay,chap.11, 0 3); the reading ronvicfifor ency' observable in Acts (see ACTS, § 51). In a
coniuncti is a conjectural emendation almost universally adopted. word, the little that we really know of the Neronian
At the outset the only thing quite clear is that the period does not enable us to come to a decision on
Christians were from the first accused not as Christians, the question as to the date and origin of the name
but as incendiaries. Otherwise Nero could not have ' Christian.' .
been freed from the suspicion of being the guilty party. Ramsay, however (chap. 11, $S z 6J) considers that ih the
The Christians, however, were innocent (subdidit); and second stage the Neronian persecution ;as permanent otherwise
than in the first stage. As the persecution is mentioLed by Sue-
the ground on which they were condemned, accordingly, tonius along with other measures of police which must have been
was not so much (haud proinde) the evidence that they of a permauent nature, he holds that it must have had the same
had been incendiaries as the odium generis humani. character : in t h e second stage, of conrse the persecution was not
13y this expression there cannot be understood a hatred of on account of incendiarism hut on accodnt of alleged witchcraft
and othersagitia. Tacit&, Ramsay believes, also gives proof
which they were the objects : Roman society, which of this permanence of the persecution under Nero when he says,
alone could be regarded as cherishing it, cannot unde ... nziseratio onk6atur tanquanz non ufiiiiatepnbZica
sed i?c smitiant unius absume>entur; and Sulpicius Severus
possibly have been spoken of as genus humnnum by
(ii. 293) is understood to speak to the same effect-hoc initio in
Tacitus. Still, understood a? cherished by the Christians, Chnitianos smiri cazptptunz : post etiaw datis Zegibus reZie.0
' hatred of the human race' is no less an idea foreign vetahatur paZampue edzctis propositis Christiaaunz esse non
to all legal conceptions, nor could it be supposed to Zicicebat. Immediatelyupou this, however(ll7 12 I ; 3rd ed., pp.
244, zyj), Ramsay explains that the word post refers to other
represent another ground of accusation against them, emperors than Nero, and also concedes that the expressions
over and above that of incendiarism. edictu and kges are 'loosely and inaccurately' employed by
Weizsacker (A). ZcitaZt. 478, 2nd ed. 462 ; ET 2 143) and Sulpicius. Further, the unde in Tacitus traces the miseratio
Ramsay(chap. 11,$$ 2 4) try indeed to make out that this actually to the horrors of the public celebration of the executions and
was hrought as a charge against them by referring to Suetonius Nerols personal participation in them-incidents which were, of
(Nero 16) : apicti sup)Ziciis Chnktiani, genus h O m i n U 7 f l course, not of constant recurrence. The argument based on the
superstitionis no71cp ac maZefice, holding that by nraieficiunr context in Suetonius is too precarious to rest history upon, even
witchcraft and poisoning are meant and that it was precisely apart from the doubtful interpretation of malzficcp.
for these offences against society ;hat the two punishments vi. Titus and Vespasian.-We read in Sulpicius
desfiis ob&i and cruci6us a8gi were threatened and (according Severus (ii. 306-8) that, in a council of war, Titus finally
to Tacitus) inflicted. These same punishments: however were
attached to many other crimes also. Suetonius says ";thing decided on the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
about the conflagration as having occasioned the accusation guo p h i u s Iudaorum e t Christianorum reZigio toZZe-
against the Christians. In other words, he follows an entirely retrw : p $ p k has reZip'ones Zicet confmrias sibi, iisdenz
different account and we are not justified in seeking to explain
Tacitus by referrkg to Suetonius. The two authors agree only tainen (a6) aucton'dus profeectas ; Christianos ex judais
in believing that the occurrence in question was confined exstitisre : radice sziblalr: stirpenz facile pel-ituram.
to Rome. Now, even were we to reject, as a falsification of
The main question, then, in the case of Tacitus, is as history from motives of complaisance, the very different
to what it was that the persons first accused made statement of Josephus, an eye-witness (Bjvi. 43-7), that
confession of (fatedantur). The answer seems to lie to Titus wished the temple to be preserved, and were we
our hand : se incendium 6?cisse. Such a confession may to carry back the words of Sulpicius Severus to Tacitus,
757 758
 CHRISTIAN, NAME OF
whom he elsewhere always follows, we should still be a now a state-fax) from the Jews, accdrding to Suetonius
long way from having proved the account of Severus to Donz. IZ), those.also were taken account of qui vel
be historical. It is in the highest degree improbable 'inprofessi ludaicnm viverent vitnm. (or : /udnicnm
~

that Titus had such erroneous ideas as to the depend- idem similem viverent vitam) vel dissimulata origine
ence of the Christians on the temple, while attribiiting 'ipositn genfi triduta non pependissent. As at that
to them such dangerous qualities and so great a degree ime the lzrdnicus j s c u s acerbissime actus est, it would
of independence as apart from the Jews. Even Momni- )e very remarkable if here we were not intended to
sen (Ronz. Gesch. 5539 ; ETProvince~,2216f.), on whose inderstand both the Jewish Christians regarded as cir-
authority Ramsay relies, detects here traces at least of a xmcised persons and the Gentile Christians regarded
Christian editor. Ramsay, however (chap. 1 2 I$ ), re- 1s proselytes. The Roman officers, we know from
garding the speech as a programme for treatment of Suetonius, in cases where it was necessary, satisfied
Christians, holds it to be ' a historical document of the .hemselves as to the fact of circumcision by inspection.
utmost importance,' and further assumes that the pro- Even though greed may well have been a motive for
gramme was actually carried out by Vespasian. For :onniving at the profession of the Christian religion, it is
this he has not a word of proof to allege apart from the ?lain that the danger to the state presented by the Chris-
statement of Suetonius ( Yap. ~s)-neigue cede cz&sqna?n :ians cannot have been taken very seriously. We
ztnqunm letatzts est el (by the three last words he ire led to the same conclusion by the story (as far
conjecturally fills a hiatus) justis suppliciis illacrimavit as it can be believed) of Hrgesippus (in Eus. H E
etinnz et ingemnit-which, he considers, we are entitled 3 1 9 3 ) that Domitian released the grandchildren 01
to interpret as referring to processes against Christians. Jude, the brother of Jesus, as not being dangerous
Were this the case, it would be natural at least to persons, although they confessed themselves to be not
expect that these should have begun immediately after only descendants of David, but also Christians. It was
the destruction of the temple; but, according to not till the end of his reign that the persecution began.
Ramsay, they did not begin till towards the end of the viii. Nerua.-As far as the accusations under Domi-
reign of Vespasian. As far as the documents are tian had reference to Christians they are covered by the
concerned, this last hypothesis finds still less support regulations of Nerva (Cassius Dio, Ixviii. 1z, after
than that of Vespasian's Christian persecution as a Xiphilinus).
whole. All that can be said for the hypothesis is that Tertullian (Apol. 5 ) and Hegesippus (Eus. HE iii. 20 5)
it is requisite in order that, by the shortness of the per- erroneously attribute the regulations to Domitian himself. T h e
u'sbmpdr+ ;$+e
text of Cassius Dio is : rods r e ~ p ~ v o ~ E ' v o;a m i
secution nnder Vespasian, the silence of Christian writers roirs +c+yovras Kanjyays ...
TOW 61 Q tlhhors o i h ' darprias o h '
X $ P.I I .
respecting them may be explained (see below, § 16). ' I O u 8 a i ' K D G !%OU TCVaS U U V E ..
KaTaC7&8ai C~.FY.
vii. Domitian. -With regard to Domitian, Suetonius The preceding discussion of the Christian persecutions
(Dom. IS) tells us that eight niunths before his death makes it evident that the grounds upon which these
Flavium Cknzentem patrzielevz suum contenzptissinm of were conducted were by no means clearly
.
inertie . . repenteextenztissiinasuspicioizetantuninon in ,.
discussion. set forth, and that (partly on this account,
ipso ejus conszthtu iutei-evzif. Cassius Dio (lsvii. 14 I$ ), but mainly from want of information) we
according to the excerpt of the monk Xiphilinus, adds can hardly venture to suppose the persecutions to have
that at the same time his wife, Flavia Domitilla, was been of so great frequency as we should have expected
banished to the island of Pandataria : 8irQxOq68 d p # o b on the principles laid down by Momnisen and Ramsay.
#ylyKXTpa &OEbTTTos, I$' 3s K U ~U X X O L 8s 721 TOY 'Iou8aiwv In particular, had they been so frequent, the hesitation
!ST ~ [ O K ~ X X O Y T EaoXXoi
S KarE&K(i&pw. Now, Chris- of Pliny-or, at all events, that of Trajan-would be
tian legend, and in particular the Pseudo-Clementine quite inexplicable. Ranisay'sanswer (chap. 10, 5 6 ) ,that
lPeco,nitions and HomiZies, speak of Flavius Clemens Trajan's words-nepue enim in universuin aliiguid quod
as Bishop of Rome, and of his father as, like the quasi certnm formam hadeat constitzii potest-refer to
consular in Suetonius, related to the iniperial family ; Pliny's doubt whether or not the question of age should
the daughter of his sister (also called Flavia Domitilla) be allowed to make a difference in the punishment, is
became involved in a Christian persecution, and was quite inadmissible. Neque miin does not refer to the
banished to I'ontia (the island adjacent to Pandataria). decision upon a matter which was still in question. It
This last statement is all the more important because refers, in commendation, to a judgment which Pliny had
Eusebius (Chron. ann. 2110, 2112Abrah.: H E iii. 1 8 4 ) already taken : actu?n y u e m deduisti . .. secutus es.
takes it from a heathen chronographer, Bruttius or Thus Ramsay's conjectures of some archive which
Brettius, who wrote before 221 A . D . For further Trajan caused to be searched for the decisions of his
details see Lipsius, Chronol. a?. r5m. SischoJ%, 152~161. predecessors upon previous references by other pro-
It is alike natural and difficult to assume that Clement curators must also be rejected. Whatever the principles
and Domitilla represent each only one person, and that of the government, and however strongly they may
person a Christian. The charges in Cassius Dio, taken have led, if rigidly interpreted, to unremitting search
by themselves alone, show either that the question was for and punishment of Christians once these had been
one not of Christians but of Jews, or that Christians at definitely distinguished from Jews, they can have been
that time still remained undistinguished from Jews. carried into practice only in an intermittent way. In
The view that they were Jews can hardly be main- the conditions of privacy in which, as we know, the
tained. Christians carried out the exercises of their religion,
I n the heathen writer Bruttius, Domitilla figures expressly as no direct danger to the state can have manifested
a Christian, and in all later Christian writings Domitian 1s its6lf. In Pergamum Antipas was the only martyr
represented as a violent persecutor of the faith (see, e g . , Melitc
a$. Euseb. H E iv. 269). H e is called by Tertullian (Apol. 5: (Rev. 213). Therefore, Trajan's conquirendi non
portio Nwoizis de cvudelitate: and, though the heathen Juvenai sunt was a mitigation in principle, indeed, but not
( 4 3 7 ~ 3 it is true says something to the same effect, thf necessarily in practice. If only parties could be
Christ:& bases his &usation expressly upon the persecution 01 found to denounce, persecutions could be instituted,
his brethren in the faith.
after Trajan's time, on a much greater scale than
W e are, then, left with the second int&pretation o before under the influence of the stricter-but seldom
the words of Cassius Dio, that they relate to Christians. used--principle of onquirere. Such, according to all
Ramsay's method of evading this (chap. 12, 9 4) is sure13 documents, was in reality the case.
forced-that in Dio's time (211-222 A . D . ) ,it was ' z For the period before Trajan we know of persecutions only
fashion and an affectation among a certain class o under Nero and Domitian. Tertullian, for example, was not
Greek men of letters to ignore the existence of thc aware of aiiy others (ApoZ. 5), aud Melito in his Apology to
Antoninus Pius (up.Ens. H E iv. zG5) expressly says that only
Christians and to pretend to confuse them with the Nero and Domitian ( ~ ~ Y O~ &LV T O Y Nippov ai AopcrLav6s) had
Jews.' Further, in the collection of temple moneq given up the Christians to the slanders of denouncers. T o the
759 760
 CHRISTIAN, NAME OF
same purpose we have the statement of Origen (c. Cels. 38) new attitude of the authorities but one that they have
.
that bhiyoi K a r & KaLpoDs k a i u$66pa sdapi0(*~.ror. . 7 ~ 0 4 -
K a u w ; over against which the mhi, rrh<00s < K ~ E K & V spoken of
been taking for some time. This very fact makes it
by Clemens Romanus (i. G I ) in the reign of Nero, and the ingens mipossible to use this passage as Ranisay does as fixing
TnuZfitudoof Tacitus, must, of course, not he overlooked. the date of the epistle for the transition period during
I n view of such definite statements as these, it is not which punishmeiit of Christians only for Fagitia was
possible to explain the silence of our authors-especially giving place to a system of perLecution for the mere
that of Christian authors-on the persecutions which name. Ramsay (chap. 13,§ I ) argues that this last mode
Ramsay infers to have been instituted under Vespasian of persecution must have been new to the author,
and Titus, as being due only to the shortness of those because at the same time his language constantly pre-
reigns-or rather the shortness of the portions of them supposes the coiitinuance of the old state of things ;
in which persecutions occurred (above, Q 6, vi. end)- but the exhortation in 415 that none should suffer as a
or to the fact that the Christians had no eyes for any- Aagitious person is not in any case out of place, even if
thing except the imminent end of the world (Ramsay, Ragitin had not thitherto been the only ground on which
chap. 12, 2): the punishment of Christians proceedpd ; against such
Ramsay, it 1s true, finds support by assigning I Pet. Ragitia Paul also constantly warns his readers (Gal.
to about the year 80 A . D -that is to say, the reign of 5 19-21 I Cor. 6 g f: 2 Cor. 1220 f: Roni. I ~ I - I ~and ),
8. Date of Titus (chap. 131-3)-0rto 75-79 A . D . , in the that at a time when there was no thought of Christian
reign of Vespasian (Ew$ositor, Oct. 1893, persecution. Further, the hope of being able by ' seemly
Pet. p. 286). He does so, however, on grounds behaviour ' and ' good works ' to convince the secular
the validity of which depends on that of his hypothesis. power of the injustice of persecution ( I Pet. 2 12 3 13 etc.)
He shows with truth that the epistle presupposes accusations is one that Christians can never have wholly abandoned,
on account of the mere aonzen Chriutianunr (415,?), and that it and it found a reasonable justification in the plea of
was composed at the beginning of a persecution (4 12 3 14 17 2 14).
It has also been rightly urged that there is no reason for assign- Pliny (27-10) for mild treatment of those who had been
ing it to the year 1 1 2 o n the mere gronnd that then for the first denounced. W e can understand its persistence most
time a persecution of Christians over the whole O ; K O U ( * & ~ ( 5 5 ) easily on the assumption, as made above, that persecu-
became possible. On the other hand before that date there tion was only then beginning.
had been no persecution which had tduched or threatened the
provinces named in 1 I and gave cause to anticipate its extension The very positions argued for by Mommsen (and
over the whole habitable world. accepted by Ramsay) make it clear that there never
When the contents of this letter are considered, no 9. Conclusion. had been a period during which
one who can be reached by critical considerations Christians, although recognised as a
will unreservedly maintain its genuineness, containing distinct religious society, were punished -for $abdiu
as it does so little that is characteristic of Peter and so merely, and not on account of the ?tonzen. The strength
much that is reminiscent of Paul. of Mommsen's view lies precisely in this: that the
The presence in 1 1 7 of the words Siauriopk and S a ~ i p r o v name, as soon as it was known, also became punish-
which here are superfluous and disturbing, and have thei; able. According to Momnisen,we must also conclude,
appropriate place only in Ja. 1I 3, shows its dependence on
that epistle, which in its turn depends not only on the conversely, that where j a g i t i a alone are punished the
Epistles of Paul but also on that to the Hebrews (1131, cp Ja. nomen is not yet known. Even for the time of Nero
2 25). Dependence on James is shown also in I Pet. 5 5 A, which this argumentation would be conclusive, had he not
is borrowed from Ja.463 In the latter passage the 08" is
logical (0eoG 44 ... &+), and in the former, therefore, in like
manner the bhh~horpof v. 5 should have been followed by some
wanted incendiaries. But if, as Ramsay says, Chris-
tians under Nero were already recognised as distinct
such e.&ression as 'submit yourselves one to another,' if the from Jews, then JRugitia other than fire-raising-as, for
writer had been following a natural and not a borrowed train of example, witchcraft-cannot, even in the second stage
thought.
of the Neronian persecution (on the assumption of there
As for the word dXXo7proe?rfaKoms, the only satis-
having been such a stage at all), have been the sole
factory explanation of its use in I Pet. 4 15, to denote a
ground on which condemnation proceeded. On
criminal of the same class as qiovebs and K ~ ~ T T ~ isS ,
the question as to the date at which Christianity first
that of Hilgenfeld, according to whom what is intended
began to be recognised as a distinct religion we must
is the class of delutoues, who made a trade of denunci-
confess ourselves completely at a loss. Only this much
ation, which was first made criminal by Trajan (Plin.
is certain : that it had come about before the time of
Pazegyr. 341: ). By dhhorpioeaLuKomr Ramsay under- Pliny's governorship. From what has been said above,
stands people who stir up strife between members of
the view of Neumann (and Lipsius) appears the most
the same family, or between servants and masters.
plausible : the view, namely, that the distinction first re-
This accusation could be very easily brought against
ceived recognition under Domitian, and, more precisely,
Christians, as soon as they began to attempt conversions.
in the last year of his reign. T o this Weizsaclcer and
Ranisay's assertiop, however, that Nero gave power
others' object, with good reason, that it is highly iniprob-
to the courts of justice thenceforward to regard
able that Christians should have passed for Jews so long.
such persons as magicians and to punish them as
The simple facts that they did not accept circumcision,
criminals (chap. 151),rests upon no documentary evi-
and frequented, not the synagogues but meeting-places
dence : it proceeds solely upon his own interpretation of
of their own, and moreover often came into conflict
the maZ@ce of Suetonius (above, Q 6, v.). Nor has
with the Jews, made the recognition of a distinction
Ramsay made out (chap. 8, §Q I z,,pp 280J 290) that
inevitable-especially as the Roman authorities, most
I Pet. presupposes search for Christians to have been
notably in matters affecting societies, were wont to
made by the state.
Were this so, the epistle could, of course, have been written take careful cognisance of even the minutest trifles, and
only either before Trajan's decision, co?tpzrirendi non sunt, or of course, in a formal investigation, had means readily
after the re-enactment of conquirere by Marcus Aurelius ; but at their disposal for eliciting every detail. If we had
here again it has to be remarked that, if only there were de- nothing but Suetonius's account of Nero to go upon,
nunciationsenough-and Ramsay himself (chap. 10, $ 2 ) is aware
how readily these could at any time appear among the class of these considerations would certainly be held to be
sellers of sacrificialanimals (Plinyto Trajan, IO), or among people conclusive even for the time of Nero; but we. have
in the position of Demetrius (Acts 10 24-34), or of the masters of Tacitus, who makes us hesitate ; a d what is said about
the damsel with the spirit of divination (1G 16-15)-1 Pet. 3 15 5 8
become intelligibleenough, even after the publication of Trajan's Domitian goes against Weizsacker's conclusion. Chris-
conquirendi non sunt. tian sources give no hope of a decision. Ramsay's citation
W e may still hold, therefore, that I Pet. was written of I Pet. does not hold good ; that of the Apocalypse
in I I2 A. D.
The one new thing we have learned is that, when 1 Eg.,Keim, the only one besides Lipsius (and Carr, Expos.
IPet. touches upon the subject of punishment for the June '98 pp. 456-463)who has cxprofesso taken up the questio;
of the &in of the name of Christian (Aus dent Urchrisfen-
mere name of Christian (416), it is describing not a fhum, 1878, 1171.181).
761 762
 CHRONICLER CHRONICLES, BOOKS O F
is worthless as long as the unity and the date of the Tehemiah. Besides, the identity 01 authorship cannot
book continue to he as questionable as they are ; and ie conclusively demonstrated except by a comparison of
the Pastoral Epistles are too doubtful. Moreover, it is esults drawn from a separate consideration of each book.
not at all certain that they speak of flagitia as the Of the authorship of Chronicles we know only what
ground of persecution, so as to necessitate their being :an be determined hy internal evidence. The colour
assigned to the period of Nero, even if Ranisay’s 3. Date. of the language stamps the hook as one
view is adopted as correct; for 2 Tim. 2 9 does not of the latest in the OT (see § 1 1 ) ; hut
necessarily mean that Paul suffers decause he is regarded t leads to no exact determination of dare. In I Ch.
as a KUKO+yOS-it can just as well mean that he suffers 397, which refers to the time of David, a sum of
the same penalties as those to which a K U K O D ~ ~ O Sis noney is reckoned by durics ( h i t see D RAM ), which
liable, but that the cause of them is in his case his :ertainly implies that the author wrote after that
preaching of the gospel (B Y $)-in other words, his Persian coin had long been current in Judea. The
Christianity. In like manner, it is quite as conceivable in :hief passage appealed to by critics to fix the date,
z Tim. 312 that the nomen is the cause of the sufferings iowever, is I Ch. 3 1 9 3 , where the descendants of
of all Christians as that $ q i t i n are. As for the Third Cerubbahel seen to be reckoned to six generations (so
Gospel and Acts, according to what has been said above Ewnld, Bertheau, etc. ).
(12). they show only that their author, about 100-130 The passage is confused, and E6 reads it so as to give as
A . D . , was acquainted with the name, and knew nothing nany as eleven generations (so Zunz Nold., Knen. 0 29 5 ; cp
KBn. 5 54 36) ; whilst on the other hdid those who plead for an
as to its origin that rendered it impossible for him to :arly date are disposed to assume an interpolation or a corruption
place its date ahout the year 40. All that the If the text or to separate all that follows the iianie of Jesaiah
present discussion can be regarded as contributing n 11. ZI fro;, what precedes(Movers, Keil). It seems impossible,
towards the solution of the question is the conjecture lowever, by any fair treatment of the text to obtain fewer than
;ix generations, and this result agrees with the probability that
that the Pagans, in as far as they knew the true Hattush (v. m),who, on the interpretation which we prefer,
character of Christianity at a time before that which we 3elongs to the fourth generation from Zerubhabel, was a con-
have definitely ascertained, hardly took any cognisance zernporary of Ezra (Ezra 82).
of it-on account of the infrequency with which it came Thus the Chronicler lived at least two generations after
under public notice. P. w. s. Ezra. With this it accords very well that in Nehemiah
five generations of high priests are enumerated from
CHRONICLER (l’>!p), z S. 816 2024, Is. 363, Jeshua (1210f.), and that the last name is that of
RVnlg.; EV RECORDER (p.~.). Jaddua, who, as we know from Josephus, was a
CHRONICLES (P’)?3;? ’l,?:), I K. 1419. See HIS- contemporary of Alexander the Great. That the
TORICAL L ITERATURE , § 13f. Chronicler wrote after the period of the Persian
CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF. In the Hebrew canon supremacy was past has been argued by Ewald (Hist.
Chronicles is a single book, entitled D ’ n p 91??, 1173) and others, from the use of the title King 01
Events of the Times. Persia ( z Ch. 3623).
The full title would he D’D’n ’721 lzD, Book 01Events of The official title of the Achzemenidae was not ‘ King of Persia,’
F t ‘the King, ‘the Great King,’ the ‘King of Kings,’. the
the Times; and this again appears to have been a designation King of the Lands,’ etc. (see RP(l1 1 1 1 1 8 . 5 151 8 Y 6 5 8 : ) ;
commonly applied to special histories in the more and the first of these expressions is that used by Ezra (7 27f; 8 I
1. Name. definite shape-Bvents of the Times of K i r z ~ etc.), Neh. (1 11 2 18), and other Jews writing under the
Duvid, or the like ( I Ch.2724 Esth.102 etc.). Persian rule (Hag. 1I 15 Zech. 7 I Ezra 4 8 I I 5 6f: etc.).
T h e Greek translators divided the long book into two, and
adopted the title IIapahembpsva, Thing-s[often] onzilted [scQ What seems to be certain and important for a right
in the other historical books ; cod. A adds PauLh6ov resjecting estimate of the book is that the author lived a consider-
the kings or 7i)v Baurhe~SvIOU& : see Bacher, Z A TW 153053 able time after Ezra, probably indeed (Nold. Kuen.)
(‘95)l. Jerome, following the sense of the Hebrew title, sug- after 300 B. c., and was entirely under the influence ot
gested the name of Chronicin instead of Paralijoinendn p+inzus
et secundus. Hence the English ChronicZes. the religious institutions of the new theocracy. This .
The hook of Chronicles begins with Adam and ends standpoint determined the nature of his interest in the
abruptly
_ .in the middle of Cyrus’s decree of restoration. early history of his people.
2. Connexion The continuation of the narrative is The true importance of Hebrew history had always
found in the Book of Ezra, which centred in the fact that this petty nation was the people of
withEzra- begins by repeating z Ch. 36 zzf., and
Nehemiah. filling UT) the fragment of the decree of
.
4. Character YahwB, the spiritual God. The tragic
its explmatio;. interest which distinguishes the annals
Cyrus. A closer ex&in&ion of chose parts of Ezra and of Israel from the forqotten history
Nehemiah which are not extracted word for word from of Moab or Damascus, lies wholly in &at long con-
earlier documents or original memoirs, leads to the test which finally vindicated the reality of spiritual things
conclusion that Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah was origin- and the supremacy of YahwB‘s purpose, in the political
ally one work, displaying throughout the peculiarities ruin of the nation which was the faithless depositary 01
of language and thought of a single editor (see 3 ) . these sacred truths. After the fall of Jerusalem it was
Thus the fragmentary close of z Chronicles marks impossible to write the history of Israel’s fortunes other-
the disruption of a previously-existing continuity. In wise than in a spirit of religious pragmatism. Within
the gradual compilation of the canon the necessity for the limits of the religious conception of the plan and
incorporating in the Holy Writings an account of the purpose of the Hebrew history, however, more than one
establishment of the post-exilic theocracy was felt, before point of view might be taken up. The book of Kings
it was thought desirable to supplement Samuel and looks upon the history in the spirit of the prophets-in
Kings by adding a second history of the pre-exilic that spirit which is still echoed by Zechariah ( 1 5 J ) :
period. HenFe Chronicles is the last book of the d Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, could
Hebrew Bible, following the hook of Ezra-Nehemiah, they live for ever? but my words and my statutes, which
which properly is nothing else than its sequel. I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not
Whilst the original unity of this series of histories can overtake your fathers? so that they turned and said, Like
hardly he questioned, it will he more convenient in the as Yahwb of Hosts thought to do unto us . . . so hath he
present article to deal with Chronicles alone, reserving the dealt with us.’ Long before the Chronicler wrote, how-
relation of the several books for the article H ISTORICAL ever, there had been a great change. The new Jerusalem
LITERATURE (g.v., § 145). The author used adifferent of Ezra was organised as a municipality and a church,
class of sources for the history of the pre-exilic and the not as a nation. The centre of religious life was no
post-exilic periods respectively ; and thus the critical longer the living prophetic word, but the ordinances of the
questions affecting Chronicles are for the most part quite Pentateuch and the liturgical service of the sanctuary.
distinct from those which meet us in the book of Ezra- The religious vocation of Israel was no longer national,
763 764
 CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF
but ecclesiastical or municipal, and the historical con- Ch. 3 17-24 and 8 33-40 (cp 9 35-44, and see B E NJA MI N , B 9) are
.rried shows that their purpose is to give the pedigree of post-
tinuity of the nation was vividly realised only within the :ilk iamilies who traced their descent from David and Saul
walls-of Jerusalem and the courts of the temple, in the spectively. I n ch. 2 We. ( D e g m t . ; c p more briefly Prol.W
solemn assembly and stately ceremonial of a feast day. 6 8 [ E T 3.1) has shown that w. 9 25-33 @-5oa, formlng the
These influences naturally operated most strongly on :me1 of the chapter, relate to pre-exilic Judah, whilst w. 10-17
1-24 34-47 506-55 (like the greater part of 4 1-23) have reference
those who were officially attached to the sanctuary. T o the circumstance^ of the post-exilic community ; the chief aim
a Levite, even more than to other Jews, the history of 'ch. 2 is to explain how the Calebites, who before the fall of
Israel meant above all things the history of Jerusalem, :rusalem had their home in the S. of Judah, had in post-exilic
of the temple, and of the temple ordinances. Now mes to find new homes in the more iiortheriv Darts of Tudah
_ I

ee CALEB, S 3 3 ) .
the author of Chronicles betrays on every page his 2. Israel before the schism ( I Ch. 10-2Ch. 11.-From
essentially levitical habit of mind. It even seems le death of Saul ( I Ch. 10) 'the history becomes fuller
possible, from a close attention to his descriptions of nd runs parallel with Samuel and Kings. The limita-
sacred ordinances, to conclude that his special interests ons of the author's interest in past times appear in the
are those of a common Levite rather than of a priest, mission, among other particulars, of David's reign in
and that of all levitical functions he is most partial to Iebron, of the disorders'in his family and the revolt of
those of the singers, a member of whose guild Ewald .bsalom, of the circumstances of Solomon's accession,
conjectures him to have been. nd of many details as to the wisdom and splendour of
T o such a man the older delineation of the history of iat sovereign as well as of his fall into idolatry.
Israel, especially in Samuel and Kings, could not but 3. The Soxtheru ICirzgdom (z Ch. 12-36)-1n the
appear to be deficient in some directions, whilst in other iter history the northern kingdom is quite neglected, and
respects its narrative seemed superfluous or open to olitical affairs in Judah receive attention, not in pro-
misunderstanding, as for example by recording, and ortion to their intrinsic importance, but according as
that without condemnation, things inconsistent with the iey serve to exemplify God's help to the obedient and
pentateuchal law. The history of the ordinances of is chastisement of the iebellious. That the author is
worship holds a very small place in the older record. h a y s unwilling to speak of the misfortunes of good
Jerusalem and the temple have not that central place in tilers, is not to be ascribed with some critics to a
the Book of Kings which they occupied in the minds eliberate suppression of truth, but shows that the book
of the Jewish community in post-exilic times. Large ias throughout composed not in purely historical
sections of the old history are devoted to the religion and iterests, but with a view to inculcate a single practical
politics of the northern kingdom, which are altogether sson.
unintelligible and uiiinteresting when measured by a 11. Additions to ICings. I . The more important
strictly levitical standard ; and in general the whole .dditions which the Chronicler makes to the old
problems and struggles of the earlier period turn on larrative consists of ( a ) statistical lists ( I Ch. 12, see
points which had ceased to be cardinal in the life of the )AVID, 11, iii.) ; ( a ) full details on points connected
new Jerusalem, which was no longer called upon to de- vith the history of the sanctuary (see HISTORICAL
cide between the claims of the Word of Yahwk and the JTERATURE, 0 15) and the great feasts (see FIVSE),
exigencies of political affairs and social customs, and ir the archzology of the Levitical ministry (see
which could not comprehend that men absorbed in ,EVITES), I Ch. 1 3 15 1 6 (these three chapters ex-
deeper spiritual contests had no leisure for such things mnded remarkably from z S. 6) 22-29 z Ch. 29-31
as the niceties of levitical legislation. 55 I-r7 etc. ) ; and (c) narratives of victories and defeats,
Thus there seemed to be room for a new history, )f sins and punishments, of obedience and its reward,
which,should confine itself to matters still interesting to which could be made to point a plain religious lesson in
the theocracy of Zion, keeping Jerusalem and the avour of faithful observance of the Law.
temple in the foreground, and developing the divine See the following passages :--2 Ch. 13 3-2r (Abijah), 14 9-15
pragmatism of the history, with reference, not so much Zerah), 15 I-15 (Asa.and the prophet Azariah), 167-10 (Asa and
to the prophetic word as to the fixed legislation of the Hanani) 19 1
.7(Jehoshaphat and the prophet Jehu) 20 Jehosha-
,hat and hIoa6, etc.), 21 11-17(Jehoram), 25 5-10 12-;6 (Amaziah)
Pentateuch (especially the Priest's Code), so that the 'tC.
whole narrative might be made to teach that Israel's These narratives often include prophetical discourses,
glory lies in the observanceof the divine law and ritual. nculcating the same principle of the theocratic con-
I.' OutZine of Chronicles. The book falls naturally fitions of success and failure, with much uniformity ot
into three parts. I. Introductory reswnzC ( I Ch. 1-9).- :xpression, and in a tone very different from that of the
5. Contents. For, the sake of systematic completeness prophets who appear in Samuel or Kings.
the author begins with Adam, as is the 2. Attention should be directed also to the short
custom with later Oriental writers. He bad nothing, insertions, introduced often into the narratives excerpted
however, to add to the Pentateuch, and the period from From the older historical books, for the purpose of
Moses to David contained little that served his purpose. supplementing them at some point where they appeared
He, therefore, contracts the early history ( ICh. 1-9) into to the author to need explanation or correction.
a series of genealogies,l which were doubtless by no Such are the notes on ri&l I Ch. 15 q a 28d (David) ; z Ch.
means the least interesting part of his work at a time 5 rrb-13a G 13 7 6 8 13-15 (Solomon); 236 &4 13 (middle)13 (from
when every Israelite was concerned to prove the purity 7 % ~19) (deposition of Athaliah); 349 ('the Levites') 12 (from
'and the') 13, etc. ; the reflections in I Ch. 21 6 3 (Joab'scensus);
of his Hebrew descent (see Ezra25962, and cp GENE- 2 Ch. 8 116(Solomon's wife's palace); 12 12 (Rehoboam humbling
ALOGIES, I. § 3). The greatest space is allotted natur- himself); 18 318 (Yahwh delivers Jehoshaphat) ; 2238 46 (cause
ally to the tribes of JUDAHand LEVI (44.7~) (23-423 of Ahaziah's wickedness); 2527a (to 'Yahwk,' cause of plot
against Amaziah); 26 21 (middZe) 23 (middle;consequences of
6 [527-6 661) ; but, except where the author derives his Uzziah's leprosy) ; 27 6 (effects of Jotham's piety) ; 33 23 (char-
-materials from the earlier historical books (as in 1 31-16 acter of Amon).
654-81), his lists are meagre and imperfect, and his data The minor variations of Chfonicles from Samuel and
evidently fragmentary. Akeady, however, the circum. Kings are analogous in principle to the larger additions
stances and interests of the author betray themselves and omissions, so that the whole work has a consistent
for even in these chapters his principal object is evidentlj and well-marked character, presenting the history in
to explain, in a manner consonant with the conception! quite a different perspective fro& that of the old
of his age, the origin of the ecclesiastical institutions o narrative.
the post-exilic community. Here, then, a critical question arises. Is the change
Observe that I Ch. 9 2-17a is excerpted (with merely clerica of perspective wholly due to a different selection of
differences) from Neh. 1131-1ga (on the assage see EZRA, ii. !
5 181, I 15 [I ] a); and that the tage to wvxich the genealogies ii
6. So,,. items from authentic historical tradition ?
May we assume that everything which is
1 See the articles on the several tribes. new in Chronicles has been taken exactly from older
765 766
 CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF
sources, or must we judge that the standpoint of the the Kings (as Ew. We. Kue. with much probability
author has not only governed the selection of facts, but suppose), will nevertheless have been similar in character
also coloured the statement of them? Are all his and tendency (cp below, g, end).
novelties new data, or are some of them inferences of The, iWidrash of the prophet Zddo ( 2 Ch. 1 3z z ) will
his own from the same data as lie before us in other have been either a particular section of the Midi-ash of
books of the O T ? the Book of the Kings, or, more probably, perhaps, a
T o answer these questions we must first inquire what separate work of the same character, which was attributed
were the materials at his command. The Chronicler to Iddo as its author, or in which the prophet Iddo
makes frequent reference to earlier histories which he played a prominent part. For allusions to other
cites by a great variety of names. authorities, see I Ch. 5 1 7 2327 2724 z Ch. 3525.
I. The Book of the Z<ings.-That the names ' Book 3. Conclusion.-All these writings must have been
of the Kings of Israel and Judah,' ' Book of the Kings post-exilic works ; nor is it probable that, except for
of Judah and Israel.' ' Book of the Kings of Israel,' some of his statistical information, the Chronicler had
and ' Affairs of the Kings of Israel ' ( 2 Ch. 33 18, He6. ) access to any sources of early date other than the
refer to a single work is not disputed. Under one or canonical histories of the OT. The style (see below,
other title this book is cited some ten times ( I Ch. 9 I 11) is conclusive evidence that no part of the additional
zCh.1611 2526 277 2826 3318 3527 368, also 2034 matter1 peculiar to Chronicles is an excerpt from any
3232, noted below). pre-exilic writing.
That it is not the canonical Kings is manifest from The general conclusion is that it is very doubtful
what is said of its contents. whether the Chronicler used any historical work not
I t must have been quite an extensive work, for among other accessible to us, with the exception of this lost Book of
things it contained genealogical statistics (I Ch.SI), as well as the Kings. Even his genealogical lists may have been
other particulars, not mentioned in the existing Book of Kings
(see zCh.277 33 18 368); and it incorporated certain older derived from that work ( I Ch. 9 I ) , though for these he
writings of (or about) prophets-in particular the D~,~%~Y.?wz may also have had other materials at command.
( W o r d x , or rather Matters, Le., History) of Jehu ben Hanani 4. Sozdrces of the Canonical Kings.-Now we know
(zCh.2034 where read with RV, 'which is inserted in') and
the Vision bf Isaiah ( z Ch. 32 32). that the two chief sources of the canonical hook of
Now it is noticeable that, where the Chronicler does Kings were entitled Annals [ ' events of the times '1 of
not cite this comprehensive work at the close of a king's the Kings of fsruel and Judah respectively. That the
reign, he generally refers to some special authority lost source of the Chronicles was not independent of
which bears the name of a prophet ( I Ch. 29 29, Samuel, these works appears probable both from the nature
Nathan, and Gad ; 2 Ch. 9 29, Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo ; of the case and from the close and often verbal
1215, Sheinaiah and Iddo ; 1322, Iddo ; 2622, Isaiah). parallelism between many sections of the two biblical
Never, however, are both the Book of the Kings and narratives Whilst the canonical Book of Kings, how-
a special prophetic writing cited for the same reign. It ever, had separate sources for the N. and the S . king-
is therefore highly probable that, in other cases as doms, the source of Chronicles was a history of the two
well as in those of Jehu and Isaiah (see above), the kingdoms combined, and so, no doubt, was a more
writings cited under the names of various prophets were recent work, in great measure extracted from the older
known to the author only as parts of the great Bo.,k of annals. Still it contained also matter not derived from
tile Kings. these works, for it is pretty clear from z I<. 21 17 that
Even z Ch. 33 19 (cp v. IS), where AV departs from the received the Ann& of the Kings of Judnh gave no account of
Hebrew text, hut probably expresses the correct reading 1 seems Manasseh's repentance, which, according bo z Ch. 33 IS/.:,
rather to confirm than to oppose this conclusion (which' is now was narrated in the great Book of the Ziings of ZsraeL
disputed by very few scholars) except in the case of Isaiah's 5. Dependence of CLronicZes on Kings.--It was
history of Uzziah ( z Ch. 2 6 ~ 2 )where
~ the form of the reference.
is different. formerly the opinion of Bertheau, and other scholars (e.,. ,
The references to these DZbBrim will thus not imply Keil), that the parallelisms of Chronicles with Samuel
the existence of historical monographs writteii by the and Kings are suificieiitly explained by the ultimate
prophets with whose names they are connected ; they common sourcc from which both narratives drew.
will merely point to sections of the Book of the Kings, Most critics hold, however, that the Chronicler also
which embraced the history of particular prophets, and drew directly from the canonical Samuel and Icings, as
were hence familiarly cited under their names. he unquestionably did from the Pentateuch. This
2. The Midrash of the Book of the Kings.-Whether opinion is probable in itself, as the earlier books of the
the Book of the Icings is identical with the iWidrash OT cannot have been unknown to the author ; and the
(RV, badly, Cornnzentary) of the Book of the Kings ( 2 Ch. critical analysis of the canonical Book of Kings shows
2427) is not certain. On the one hand, the peculiar that in some of the parallel passages the Chronicler
title would suggest a distinct work ; on the other hand, uses words which .were not taken from the aniials but
it is not apparent why, if (as-its title shows) it was a written by the author of Kings himself. In particular,
comprehensive work, dealing with the kings generally, Chronicles agrees with Kings in those short notes of the
it should be cited for only one reign. The term moral character of individual monarchs which can hardly
' Midrash,' moreover, from $7: t o s e a x h out, investi- be ascribed to a hand earlier than that of the final
author of the latter book (cp e & , z Ch. 2032f: [Asa]
gate,-as applied to Scripture, to discover or develop a with I K. 2243; 24z[Joash], with z K. 123 [ z ] [Jehoash];
thought not apparent on the surface,-denotes a didactic 25r-4 [Amaziah], with 2 K.14zf. 5 $ , etc.). It is of
or homiletic exposition, or an edifying religious story
course possible, as Bertheau (xliv. f:) and Kuenen
(such, for instance, as that of Tobit or Susannah) ; the (5 32 15) suppose, that the author of the chief source of
Midrash here referred to will thus have been a work Chronicles had already incorporated extracts from our
intended to develop the religious lessons deducible from canonical book of Kings ; and in general the connec-
the history of the kings. This, however, is just the tions of the successive historical books which preceded
guiding motive in many of the narratives, peculiar to the present canonical histories are sufficiently complex
Chronicles, for which the author cites as his authority to make it unwise to indulge in positive assertions
the Book of the Kings; the last-named work, therefore, on a matter in which so many pos&bil.itks may be
even if not identical with the Midrash of the Book of
suggested.
1 'The Seers' : so a, RVmg., Bertheau, Kuenen, Ball,
Oettli, Kautzsch. Budde and Kittel read l'?n Lis seers (cp 1 Including the genealogies and statistical matter, which (in
v. IS). Those who follow M T (as Ew. Hist. 1184, Keil) find so far as they are not colourless lists of names) show unniistak-
in v. 19 an unknown prophet Hozai (cp AVlW. RV).' able marks of the Chronicler's hand, and must therefore be
a Though common in Rabbinical literature, it occurs other- regarded as his compilations : see, e.g., the late expressions in
wise in the OT only in z Ch. 13 22. I Ch.230 421 2233 353942 5 r z etc.

767 768
 CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF
In studying Chronicles a sharp distinction o u g h t peachable witness to the religious usages and beliefs
alwavs to be d r a w n between t h e parts excerpted (without of his own t i m e ; it is inconsistent with sound historical
,. Treatment substantial alteration) from thk earlier
of Iources. canonical historical books a n d t h e
principles t o treat his testimony with regard to antiquity
as of equal valne with that of the older a n d m o r e
aarts aeculiar to the Chronicler. The nearly contemporary hi@toricalwritings, where t h e two,
recently published e i i t i o n of Chronicles by Kittel whether directly or by legitimate inference, are at
(SBOT), in which such excerpts are coloured light red, variance.
will materially assist t h e reader in d o i n g this. Another principle traceable i n the Chronicler’s addi-
The question arises, W h a t is t h e historical value of tions is the tendency n o t merely t o lay stress u p o n the
the passages peculiar to Chronicles? After what has doctrine of divine retribution, but also to
8. The
been said, it can hardly be doubtful t h a t , except f o r Chronicler,s represent i t as acting immediately (see
some of his statistical information, his o n e genuine theories. especially below [ e ] ) . To the earlier
ancient source w a s t h e series of the ‘ F o r m e r Prophets,’ prophets t h e retributive justice of G o d is
Samuel and ( m o r e largely) Kings. The MSS of these manifest i n t h e general course of t h e history- -the fall of
books which he employed preserved occasionally a t h e H e b r e w nation is t h e fruit of sin a n d rebellion a g a i n s t
better reading than is found in the existing M T ; b u t YahwB‘s m o r a l conimands-but God’s justice is mingled
where he a d d s to the earlier narrative or d e p a r t s from with long-suffering, a n d the prophets d o n o t s u p p o s e
it, his variations are seldom such as to inspire con- that every sin is punished promptly, and that temporary
fidence. In large measure these variations are d u e to g o o d fortune is always t h e reward of righteousness.
his assumption, the validity of which he never questions, T h e a i m of very m a n y of t h e additions m a d e in
that the religious institutions of his own time m u s t h a v e Chronicles t o t h e old history, is to show t h a t i n Israel
existed in t h e s a m e f o r m in old Israel. retribution followed immediately on g o o d or bad con-
I. High PZaces.-Living in a time when h i g h places duct, especially o n obedience or disobedience t o pro-
were universally regarded as idolatrous, t h e Chronicler phetic warnings.
could n o t imagine that a g o o d k i n g had tolerated them. (a)In I K.2248 we read that Jehoshaphat built Tarshish-
Thus, whereas I K. 1514 2243 state that Asa and Jehoshaphat ships (i.e., great merchant vessels) at Enon-geber for the S.
did not aholish the high places, the Chronicler (zCh.145 176) Arabian gold-trade ; hut the ships were wrecked before starting.
says that they did abolish them. For this the Chronicler seeks a religious reason. As I K.
proceeds to relate that, after the disaster, Ahaziah of lsrael
.
2. Levitical Choirs.- Again, he assumes t h a t the
offered to join Jehoshaphat in a fresh enterprise and the latter
Levitical organisation of his own time, a n d especially declined, the narrative of I K. 2248 is so altered ’in ICh. 2035f:
the three choirs of singers, were established by David. 376 as to represent the king of Israel as having been partner in
Had this really been the case, the silence of the older history the ships that were wrecked; whilst in v. 37a there is an
would he inexplicable. indeed the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah addition stating that Jehoshaphat was warned by a prophet of
shows that, even at thk time of the return from Babylon, the the certain failure of an undertaking in which he was associated
system with which the Chronicler was familiar had not been with the wicked Ahaziah.
elaborated for the ‘singers’ there still form a separate class (6) I n z K. 3 we read of a war with Moah in which Jehosha-
not yet iniorporated with the Levites. phat was associated with the wicked house of Ahah, and came
(a)The narrative in 2 S. 6 of the removal of the ark to Zion offscathless. In Chronicles this war is entirely omitted and in
do& not say a word respecting the presence of Levites upon the its place we have ( z Ch. 20) an expedition of Jehoshaphk alone
occasion. In I Ch. 13 15f: this omission is made good : the against Moab, Ammon, and Edam, in which the Jewish king,
Levites, including the singers, take a prominent part in the having opened the campaign-with the assistance of the Levites
ceremony: the mishap of Uzzah is represented (15x3) as due to -with suitable prayer and praise, has no further task than to
the fact that the ark had not at first been properly carried by snoil the dead of the enemv who have fallen bv one another’s
the Levites, and a psalm composed of parts of three$os&exilic Lands.
@ms. (105 1-15 961-13a 106 I 4 7 3 ) is placed in David’s mouth (c) Kings states simply as a fact that Shishak invaded Judah
(168-36). and carried off the treasures of the temple and palace : the
(b) I n I K.83 the ark is borne by priests (in accordance wit; Chronicler inserts between I K. 1425 and 26 a notice explaining
Et. 319, and all pre-exilic allusions); but in z Ch. 54 ‘ Levites that this was because Rehoboam had forsaken Yahwk, but that,
is substituted for ‘priests,’ to hring the passage into conformity as he and his princes had humbled themselves, they should not
with the later Levitical law. he entirely destroyed (z Ch. 1226.3 ; cp v. 12).
(c) In 2 K . l l Jehoiada’s assistants in the revolution which (d)I n Kings, Asa, who according to I K. 1514 was a good
cost Athaliah her life are the foreign body-guard which we king all his days, had in his old age (u. 23) a disease in his feet.
know to have been ekplbyed in the temple down io the time With the object, apparently, of accounting for this, the Chronicler
of Ezekiel (44 7) ; hut in z Ch. 23 the Carians (see C HERETHITES) explains ( 2 Ch. 167.10 ; cp the addition in v. 126 1) that three
and the foot-guards give place to the Levites in accordance years previously he had shown a distrustful spirit by contracting
with the rule of the second temple, which did Aot allow aliens an alliance with Benhadad (which is mentioned in I K.1517-22,
to approach so near to the holy things. ‘Deliberate altera- without any mark of disapproval on the part of the narrator).
tions’ (Be.) are in consequence introduced throughout the T h e singular dates in 2 Ch. 15 19 16 I (which place Baasha’s
narrative: and a new colouring is imparted to the whole invasion a t a period which according to I K. 1533 168 was ten
occiirrenca years after his own deathj are most naturally explailcd as an
(d)There are other incidental allusions, also, which show that attempt to hring the fault sufficiently near the punishment.
the author is really describing institutions of a date later than (e) Similarly the misfortunes of Jehoash, Aniaziah, and Azariah
the age to which he refers them. Thus (i.) not only do the are explained by sins of which the older history knows nothing
gates mentioned in 1Ch.20 (under David) presuppose the (zCh. 24233 2514-16206 265 16-z0).2 and Pharaoh Necho
existence of a temple, but also the Persian name PARBAR (g.v.) himself is made a prophet that the d;feat and death of Josiah
given to one of them (u. IS), shows that the writer is thinking 4 may be due to his rejectidn of a divine warning (zCh. 35213),
whilst on the other hand, Manasseh, whose character as depicted
the post-exilic temple. (ii.) The allusions in zCh.1311 (in the
speech put into Abijah’s month) to the golden candlestick and in 2 K. 21 1-1823 26 (cp 2 4 3 3 Jer. 154) is without a redeeming
the evening burnt-offering, point also to the usage of the same feature, is represented as a penitent ( z Ch. 33 IZ$ IS$) in order,
age : in the pre-exilic tenide the number of golden candlesticks it would seem, to justify his long reign.3
was not one but ten (I K. 749’ see however CANDLESTICK All this is eniirely i n t h e style of the Jewish ‘ M i d r a s h ’;
$ I), and the evening sacrifice o i the ;re-exilic iemple was not it is not history, b u t ‘ HaggSdidH,’ moralising r o m a n c e c
holocaust but a cereal oblation (nnJD : I K. 18 36 z K. 16 15 a t t a c h i n g t o historical n a m e s and events. The Chronicler
Ezra94).3
In his descriptions of pre-exilic solemnities, as in t h e himself, it will be remembered (see above, 6 [2], gives 5
speeches which he places i n the m o u t h of pre-exilic the-name of ‘ Midrash’ to-two of the sources f r o m which
characters, the Chronicler i s unconsciously a n m i n i - 1 Where the ‘yet’ of RV should he ‘and also’ (viz., as well
as in the alliance with Benhadad).
1 A portion of Robertson Smith’s article in the EB is here 2 z K. 15 5 mentions only the fact that Uzziah became a leper.
omitted; and this and the following section ($8) exhibit the (pre- 3 Cp I Ch. 10 13f: (the cause assigned for Saul’s death), z Cb.
sumably) more matured view expressed by the author in OTJCP) ,12zB(causeofShishak‘s invasion), 21 xod(causeofLihnah‘sre\ olt),
.( 9X
. PP. 140-148 (CP ed. 1, pp. 419-423;. 227 25 206 265 I 22f: (Ahazk troubles attributed to his idolatry),
2 Cp I Ch. 21 28-221(excusing David s sacrifice on Arannah’s 36126. In 2&.244-14 2822/:24$ the older narratives of
threshing-floor and explaining why he could not go to Gibeon). Kings have been not less curiously transformed than in 2 Ch. 23
z Ch. 136-sa (legalising the worship at the high-place of Gibeon ! (see above, 5 7 c ) ; Be., ad Zoc. : Kue.P), 5 30 21, 8 31 2 ; We.
c p I Ch.lB393); 7gf: (I K. 8 6 5 3 , altered to harmonise wit6 ProZ.(Y 193 1 9 8 3 [ET 194, 198f:I. The correspondence
the practice of the post-exilic temple); and the short notices betwee; Hi& and Solomon (2 Ch. 2 3-16: Ep I K. 52.9) has
relating to ritual, especially the functions of the singers, instanced been rewritten by the Chronicler (with reminiscences from other
above (§ 5, end ; cp § 7[21). parts of Kings) in his own style.
25 769 770
 CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF
his materials were derived. There need be no uncer- to lie in the account of the institutions of Levitical
tainty, therefore, as to the nature of his work when it service which is introduced in connection with the trans-
departs from the older narratives of S. and K. ference of the ark to Jerusalem by David. The author
Another peculiarity of the Chronicler is to be found is not concerned to distinguish the gradual steps by
in the incredibly high figures with which he deals.
. - I
which the Levitical organisation attained its full develop-
David (I Ch. 22 14) amasses TOO ooo ment. H e wishes to describe the system in its complete
9. Exaggerations. talents of gold and I,OOO,OOO talent; of form, especially as regards the service of the singers,
silver for the temple (contrast the much and he does this under the reign of David, who was the
more modest estimate of even Solomon’s revenue in I K. 10 14J) ;
the army of Ahijah numbers 400 ooo men, that of Jerohoam father of Hebrew psalmody [cp O T J C ( 2 ) 223 $1 and
800 ooo of whom 500 ooo perish in‘ one day (z Ch. 13 3 17) ; Asa the restorer of the sanctuary of the ark.
ndtcr,’ 580,000 soldikrs, Zerah I ooo ooo (1489), Jehoshaphat The style of the Chronicler has remarkable peculiari-
1,160,000 (17 ~pq).-although ii; 20;~ he complains that he
has ‘ no might,’-Uzziah 307,500 (26 13) ; of the army of Ahaz ties. It is not merely that it presents characteristically
120,ooo are slain in one day, while 200,ooo women and children ll. Style. late linguistic novelties (which are not con-
are taken captive (2868). fined to the vocabulary, but, as Konig’s
Manifestly such figures cannot be historical. The Syntax der hebr. Sprache fully shows, extend to the
past was magnified, as it was also idealised. ’The Syntax), but it has also a number of special mannerisms.
empire of David and his successors was imagined on a Even the reader of a translation can see that this must
scale of unsurpassed power and magnificence ; pre-exilic be the case. Modern words, often with Aramaic aflini-
Judah was’ pictured as already in possession of the in- ties, inelegant syntax, cumbrous and uncouth sentences,
stitutions, and governed-at least in its greater and in strongest possible contrast to the ease and grace of
better men-by the ideas and principles which were the earlier Hebrew historical books,-these are the
in force at a later day. The past was read in the predominant marks of the Chronicler’s style; and so
light of the present, and the history, where necessary, constant are they that there is hardly a sentence, not
re-written accordingly. No doubt in many instances a excerpted from Samuel or Kings, in which they are not
traditional element lies at the basis of the Chronicler’s observable.’ For details we must refer to the Intro-
representation ; but this element has been developed ductions and Commentaries (see e g . , Be. xiv. -xviii. ;
by him, and embellished with fresh details, for the pur- Dr. Introd. 535-540; F. Brown, Hastings’ DB
pose of giving expression to the ideas which he had at 1389-391). It might be thought, by those unacquainted
heart, and of inculcating the lessons which he con- with the Chronicler’s manner, that the speeches in
ceived the history to teach. It is probable that the Chronicles might form as a whole an exception to
new conception of Israel’s past history, and the char- what is here stated, and that they might conceivably
acteristic didactic treatment of it, did not originate with be based on some special sources of older date. But
the Chronicler himself, but had already appeared in this would be a great mistake. The tone and literary
the Book of the Kings of Zsrael and Yudah or the Miidmsh style of the speeches which have parallels in Samuel
of the Book of Kings, which he so frequently cites as and Kings are both very different from those which
his authorities (cp Re. xxxvii.). have been added by the Chronicler. The latter not
A usage, not peculiar to the Chronicler among O T only reflect, almost uniformly, the ideas and point of
writers, which must be carefully taken into account by view of the Chronicler himself, but also exhibit frequently
the historical critic, is that of giving the same literary peculiarities. There can be no reason-
lo. The information
genealogies. that is really statistical in able doubt that they are, one and all, his own cornpo-
the form ,of a narrative. This is the sition.2
principle which underlies many of the O T statements of Be.’s work in the Kuneef: Hdd. (ea. 2 1873) is still a most
genealogical relationships, and which alone explains the helpful commentary ; see*aIso Keil (‘70) ;’ Z8ckler in Lange’s
variations between different accounts of the genealogy Bi6eZwerk (‘74)’ Oettli KgJ Konzm.
12. Bibliography. (‘89); Rawlinson: S.beak&’s C o m n . (‘73);
proceeding from a single ancestor : information as to Ball (learned), Ellicott’s Conmm. (‘83);.
the subdivisions of clans, the intermingling of popula- Bennett (suggestive) Exjos. Bi6. (‘94). On isagogic questions
tions, and the like, is thrown into a genealogical form (structure, sources, &edibility of narrative, etc.), the principal
works are De Wette, ITrit. rrersuch u6er die GZnubw#rcligReit
(see GENEALOGIES, § I). The most striking example of d. Chron.r805 (BeiirZg-e,vol. 1); Keil, AjoZog. Versach. (‘33). and
the application of this principle is the ethnographical Ei92Z.P) (‘73), $8 138.144 ; Movers, K d . Unterss. ziderdie Bi61.
table of Gen. 10 (cp also 2220-24 2 5 1 - 4 13-16, and parts C h o n . (‘34) ; Graf ‘Das Euch der Chron. als Geschichtsquelle,‘
in Die Gesch. Bicker des ATs (‘66), p. 114-247 (see also Be.
of 36) ; but these instances by no means stand alone ; viii.); Ew. Hist. 1169 3;De Wette-Schr. B i d . (‘69). $0
there are many in I Ch. 1-9. 224-233. We. Pr0Z.M 169-228 [ E T 171-2271: Kue. 0nd.P) $5
Thus it is avowedly the ifitention of 2 24 42-45 49-55 4 2-5 11-14 28-32 (viry thorough) ’ Dr. Zntrod.P);16-540; WilFhoer, Letter-
17-23 to indicate the,origin of local populations : in 2 43 Ilehron kmrie, $ 2 5 ‘ Kanig ’EinZ. $ 54. Cp also Bu. Vermutungen
the town, has ‘sons. Several of the names in 2 4 are also thos; zum ‘I hlidra’sh” des)Buches der Kanige’ in Zd TW, 1892, p. 37
of Edomite clans (Wellh. De Genti6us etc. 3 8 5 ) ; these came 3 (speculative) ; Ki. ChronicZes, Critical Edition, etc., with
gradually to be treated as belonging to Judnh, and the con- Notes, SBOT (Hebrew), ’95 ; W. E. Barnes, ‘ Religious Stand-
nection was afterwards exhibited artificially in a genealogical point of the Chronicler,’ Am. Journ. Sent. Lung. and Lit.,
scheme. Caleb and Jerahmzel were not originally Israelite ; Oct. ‘96: ‘Chronicles a Targum,’ Ex. Times, 8316 f: (‘97);
Caleb belonged to the Edomite clan (Gen. 36 11) of the Keniz- aratzcs Criticus to Chronicles in tlie Peshitta Yenion
zites (Jos. 146-14). and clans bearing the name of Caleb and tG)$!ntains a rather surprising number of variants in the
JerahmSI are in ’David’s time (I S. 27 10, cp 30 29 ; note also primary MSS) : F. Brown, art. ‘Chronicles,’ Hastings’ D B
the terms of Jos.1415~) still distinguished from Judah: in (‘98). W. R. S.-% R . D.
course of time, however, they were regarded as an integral part 1 The peculiarities in question may often he observed even
of the tribe and a genealogy was formed ( I Ch. 2 1825) to give in the short sentences which the Chronicler sometimes intro-
expression to the fact.1 duces into a narrative otherwise excerpted without material
A different application of the same principle seems alteration from Samuel or Kings: e g . , I Ch. 21 I (~oy),3 end
(nsv,y), T I end ( S ~ P ) ,zCh. 23(2) 5116-13u 1212 1 8 3 end, 316,
1 So in 7 22 Ephraim is not an individual, but the tribe ; and etc.
in 71. ZI Ezer and Elead are, no doubt, Ephraimite clans. Cp 2 For illustrations see Dr. ‘The Speeches in Chronicles,’
Bennett in Exjos. Bi6. chap. iv. esp. p. 8 7 8 Exjositor, Apr. and Oct. 189;, pp. z4p254, zg4J, 304.307.

772
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY

CHRONOLOGY
CONTENTS.
A. OLD TESTAMENT.
I. DIFFICULTIES ($8 1-15). Assyriology ($5 23-26). Chronology of the several periods
Lack of System (5 IJ). Menander (5 30). ($5 32-57).
Most dates late and hypothetical Caution (0 27). I. Solomon to Jehu (5 32).
($5 3-15). 2. Certain dates : Jehu to fall of
11. SOURCES OF H ELP . 111. RESULTS. Samaria (5 33).
Astrononiy ( 5 16A). EarlieSt certain OT dates (5 28). 3. Chronology of N. Israel ($ 34).
Egypt (5§ 18-22). Approximate earlier dates ($0 29, 31 4. Chronology of Judah (5s 35-37).

B. NEW TESTAMENT.
Introductory ($5 39-42). 4. Year of death ($5 50-56). 2. Earlier period (55 72-75),
I. L I F E OF JESUS ($142-63). 5. Year of birth ($$ 57-62). Confirmation of results (55 76-78).
I. Baptism ($ 43). 6. Conclusions ( 5 63). 3. Closing period (B 7 9 s ) .
2. Length of public ministry ($8 11. LIFE O F P AUL ($5 64-80).
CHURCHES I N PALESTINE (0 81s).
44-46). I. Entry into Europe to imprisnn-
3. Its beginning ($5 47-49). ment at Rome (0% 64-71). OTHERDATES (5 83J)
TABLES.
A. OLD TESTAMENT- 5. Survey : Solomon to Herod (5 38) 8. Paul’s middle period (0 71).
I . OT data as to reigns (5 7) 9. Paul : first period (5 75).
n. Mahler’s theories ($ 17). B. NEW T E S T A M E N T - TO.Paul : last period (5 80).
3. Assyriological dates (5 25). 6. Secular History ( 5 41). 11. Other dates (0 84).
4. Reigns : Solomon t o Jehu (5 32). 7. Life of Jesus (5 63).
BIBLIOGRAPHY ($ 85).

A . OLD TESTAMENT. O T any exception to this rule. Only once had the
The advantages afforded by a fixed and uniform Jews before Christ a national era, and that was for a very
chronological system of defining historical events seem short time. When Simon the Maccabee had obtained
1. No fixed so evident that one might expect to find from the Syrians complete freedom from taxation along
some such method of determining dates with the acknowledgment of the political independence
era’ in use from the very earliest times. of Judea, documents and contracts were dated by years
History, however, shows that a long development of Simon, the High Priest and Prince of the Jews, the
was needed to lead to this simple result. Only in first year of Simon the High Priest ( I Macc.134If.
connection with a universal history did the desire 1427) representing the 170th year of the era of the
for a uniform and comprehensive method of determining Seleucides ( = 143-142 B . c . ) . ~
dates spring up. The impulse towards a real universal On the other hand, since the time when the Jews
history and a general chronology came, not when the fell under the dominion of Syria, they had used the
attempt was made to collect and record all human so-called era of the Seleucidz (pauthela ‘EhX.3vwv,
I Macc. 1II ; pamhela ’Aauupiwv [Assyrian = Syrian],
events, but when men learned to look at them from a
single point of view and to comprehend them in a single Jos. Ant. wiii. 67 ; niip?o ! - ~ D = L ~ Y contmctuum
U amongst
plan. The roots of such a universal history lie in the the Jews, and year dCyazonEyyd amongst the Syrians).
prophets of Israel, who regarded the plan of Yahwi? This era has for its starting-point the defeat of Nicanor,
as realising itself in the experience of the nations of the general of Antigonus, by Seleucus Nicator, and the
the earth as well as in the history of Israel; and its final establishment of the dominion of the Seleucidzs
actual beginnings, strange as it may seem, are to be in Syria and Babyloniain theyear 01. 117, I-Le., 312
found in the Apocalyptic writers, who regarded history B.C. It is used in the Books of the Maccabees, but
as a comprehensive whole (see A POCALYPTIC , § 2). there, it would seem, with this difference, that in the
This mode of regarding history was continued by first book it begins, not, as was usual elsewhere, in
Christianity. It is not strange, therefore, that Chris- the autumn, but in the spring of 312, thus about half
tianity felt the need for a universal chronology and a year earlier.2 This era reached in general as far as
found a. way of meeting that need, thus proving its the Syrian power, and although, usually, where states
own world-embracing significance. This is not the were able to obtain freedom they introduced new eras
place to enter upon the long and involved history of of their own, none was able to maintain itself so long
the adoption of the Christian era, which, after its author, as that of the Seleucidae. It remained in use, indeed,
the Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus of the first half among the Syrians for centuries alongside of the Arabic
of the sixth century, is also called the Dionysian era. era, which counts from the Hegira (hijra, flight of
In order, however, to obtain a fixed starting-point from Mohammed), 16th July, 622 A. D .
which to reckon, we must simply state here that the Real eras are not met with in the OT in earlier times.
year r--i.e., the year of the birth of Christ-is equivalent W e cannot cite as an exception the practice of the Jews
to the year 754 of the era of Varro-ie., the era of the during the Exile, of counting the years since they were
city of Rome,-and to the first year of the 195th carried away from their land (iinih5, Ezek. 3321 and
Olympiad; and, also, that King Herod died in the 401 ; p i n ’ nrh$, z K. 2527 ; also Jer. 5231, and Ezek.
year 750 of the city of Rome, and so in the year 4 B.C. 12, and, without mention of the point from which the
(cp Schiir. GJV 1343-345). reckoning is made, Ezek. 81 201 291 17). In truth,
The same phenomenon of gradual arrival at a satis- they desired nothing more eagerly than to be delivered
factory chronological method is repeated in the narrower from the need of counting in this way. Besides, there
sphere of the national history of the several nations. 1 Whether the numbers 1-5 that are found on silver shekels
W e never find a settled era, a definite date from which and half-shekels with the inscription n a i p n $ o v or p*\oil-
years were counted, at the very beginning or even at refer to another era than this of Simon’s, and, if so, to
an early period of a nation’s history. If anything of some pre-Christian era has not been decided. That Simon
this kind has seemed to appear in early times, it has had coins stamped Kbwever is hardly to he doubted (cp
I Macc. 1 5 6 ; also dchiirer, op(cit. 1 192.6 636.6:).
always turned out to be in the highest degree uncertain, 2 So Schiirer o j . cil. 1 3 3 ; We., however (IJG 1293 208)~
or really to rest on later calculations. Nor is the regards this a s s k p t i o n as unnecessary (cp Y EAR , 5 9).
773 774
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
was along with it a reckoning from the final fall of sources have been worked, they are due, in the main, to
Jerusalem (Ezek. 40 I ) , while Ezek. 1 I (if the text has the latest exilic editors. Then, it must be regarded as
reached us intact) niust rest on still a third mode of proved that the superscriptions of the prophetic books
reckoning.’ It is, moreover, a very unsafe hypothesis containing detailed information concerning the time of
which ventures to retain in the case of the statement of the respective prophets do not come from the prophets
z Ch. 16 I (as a whole’clearly untenable) at least thenum- themselves, bqt are much younger additions, such as the
ber 36 as based on trustworthy tradition, and proposes erudition of later ages delighted in. This appears from
to find therein a trace of a Judaean era, thought to date the inexplicable double date (by kings of Judah and of
from the division of the kingdom (Sharpe, Chronology Israel) found in Hosea and Amos, as well as from the
of the Bible, 29 ; cp Braudes, AhhandZ. 62). Nor, inaccuracy, or tlie crowding, of the data in Is. Jer. and
lastly, are we any more justified in finding any trace Ezek. Nor is the remarkable addition in Amos1 I , ‘two
of a real era counting from the Exodus in the late years before the earthquake,’ any exception to this rule :
passage I K. 61, where the building of Solomon’s the fact that a later event is employed to define the date
temple is assigned to the 480th year after that event. shows that the statement is a subsequent addition, and
This number does not rest on tradition : it has been it is therefore very probable that it rests on the exegesis
reached by calculation based on some hypothesis. No and calculation of the scribes (cp Hoffmann, ZAT1.Y
corroboration can be obtained from the numbers in 3123 p831). Lastly, it is remarkable that the text
the late Priestly Code-if the passages containing them presents no uniformity of reading in the matter of re-
are original even there-numbers which date the events cording dates : nay, that there are even to be found un-
of the journey through the wilderness by years from the filled blanks. Thus in I S. 131 the numbers have been
deliverance out of Egypt (n:?~?y l ~ nh y ; - * > ? nn:\ ; cp omitted from the formula giving the age of Saul and the
Ex. 16 I 19 I Nu. 1I 9 I 3338). Nor can any support, length of his reign, and in 6” the whole verse is
in fact, be found for the notion that the Jubilee period 0mitted.l There are also other places in the LXX where
was turned to chronological purposes. There is not the such chronological data are lacking--e.g., Jer. 47 I
slightest trace of a real carrying out of the regulations [BAR]-and elsewhere in the old versions we come on
concerning it mentioned in Lev. 2 5 9 8 : even the Books considerable variations from the traditional Hebrew text.
of the Maccabees speak only of Sabbatic years, never of All these are marks that indicate a late origin for the
Jubilee years ( I Macc. 6 4 9 53 ; cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 162). chronological numbers and warn us in the most emphatic
I n spite of this lack of a proper era, the OT is way to submit them to a thorough examination.
not without notes and data intended to serve as a As regards the oldest period, with which Genesis
means of fixing events chronologically. deals, the time down to the Exodus, it is known that
2. Miscel- 4. Oldest the numbers supplied by the Samaritan
laneous data. In addition to isolated observations
(none the less important that they are period, and the LXX texts, and even by the Book of
incidental) setting an occurrence in relation to another Jubilees (datingfroni the first century A . D . ) ,
prominent event (cg., to the death of the king, as in Is. differ in many points fronithose of the Massoretic text:
6 1 1428, or to an important expedition, as in Is. 201, The divergence will be made most plain by a comparison
to the building of a city, as in Nu. 1 3 2 2 , or to an showing the sum of the years according to each tradition. I n
Gen. 5 the period from the creation of the world to the beginning
extraordinary natural phenomenon, as in Am. 1 I), we of the flood is, according to the Hebrew text, 1656 years ; accord-
generally find, in the case of any important O T person- .
ing to the Samaritan 1307 and according to @e 2242 I n Gen.
11 ro& the interval krom the h&th of Shem to t i e birth ofAbra-
age, the year of his life or his reign specified ; and in
ham IS according to the Hebrew text, 390 years; according to
the books edited during the Exile the date of the events the Simaritan 1040’ and according to the text of @ R 1270.
narrated begins to he given by years of the.reigning I n this no adcount’is tiken of the variations exhibi;ed hy
king. Besides, there are the various synchronistic data the other MSS of d itself nor is it inquired whether the
often supplied by headings of books (e.g., in the case of tradition represented hy any &e given text is free from internal
inconsistency (cp, e.g. Gen. 11 I O ‘two years after the flood
certain of the prophets), and by the Books of Kings, with Gen. 532 76, and’Gen. 11 10,: further Gen. 124 with Gen).
which have a complete synchronistic record for the time 11 26, 32).
of the coexistence of the two kingdoms of Israel and This state or matters shows, what was indeed probable
Judah. Finally, the evidence of the contemporaneous- to begin with, that there was no fixed tradition concern-
ness of certain events furnished at times by the historical ing the early history of Israel : that, indeed, even at so
narrative itself is of the highest importance. late a time as that of the LXX and the Book of Jubilees,
The weightiest question, howeser, is, to what degree there was no clear idea of how the period in question
of credibility this chronological material can lay claim. should be measured. Thus the numbers of the Hebrew
Before undertaking the examination of this text, since they are not earlier than the Priestly Code,
3. Late question for the several points of the history, go back at the best only to the fifth century B. c., and
origin. we must premise some general considera- do not rest on tradition, but have been reached by the
tions that thrust themselves on our notice. First of all, application of some artificial theory. Since they are
there is the remarkable fact that these chronological useless, therefore, at least for chronology (if indeed one
notes are to be found in greatest abundance in those could ever have hoped to obtain such a thing for those
parts of the historical books that are confessedly to be re- earliest times) it is unnecessary to attempt to discover
garded as the youngest. In the Pentateuch they belong to what the actual theory underlying them is.
the post-exilic Priestly Code or to additions of even later I t will be enough tomention that v. Gutschmid observed that
date ; in the other historical books into which the older 2666-the number of years resulting from the summation of the
Massoretic numbers for the period (Gen. 5 to Ex. 1240) from
the creation of Adam to the Exodus2 is exactly two-thirds of
1 I n that case nothing would meet the requirements of the 4 w o years. These 4000 years be tookto represent a period (of
passage but a reckoning that counted from the reform of Josiah TOO generations of 40 years each) assigned for the duration of
(622). Ofany suchmodeofreckoningweknownothing, anymore the world. In this way he sought to explain the artificial
than we do of a reckoning by Jubilee periods, or of a Babylonian oiigin of the system (cp Nold. Untersnch. zur Krit. des A T
era meeting the requirements of the text (cp Kue. Einl. 2 60 n.
4). Wi. ( A T Uniers. 94-96) therefore alters the text, and reads 1 Q L follows MT, @ A is lacking at this point (see further
E z e k . 1 ~thus, ’ym [read n w h d ’ohm i13w2 wi, or Dr. TES).
w . h , tread n y m $ y r n n a p x wi, which must he under- 2 The number 2666 resultsfrom the addition of 1656, the
stood like 8 I, and give an earlier date than 8 I. I t would be number of years from the creation of the world to the beginning
better, however, to assume the original reading to have been ‘in of the flood (cp Gen. 5) +zgo the sum of the years from the
the fifth year’(cp the following verse)-i.e n,wann ;13v>,-and flood to the birth of AbrahaA (cp Gen. 1 1 1 0 8 ) +75 to the
that from the fact of Jeremiah’s having iiedicted seventy years departure of Abraham from Haran (Gen. 124) +zr5 to the
for the Exile (25 IT, cp 29 IO) while Ezekiel gave only forty (4 6 ) departure of Jacob for Egypt (=qto the birth of Isaac [Gen.
a later writer drew the inference that Ezekiel prophesied thirt; 2151 f60 to the birth of Jacob [Gen.2526], +139 years of
years after Jeremiah, and accordingly inserted as a date in Ezek. Jacdb’s life [Gen. 47928]), +430 years of stay in Egypt
1 I the thirtieth year of the Exile (Duhm). (Ex. 12 40).
77.5 776
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
111). I t is worth while, however, noticing the relation inwhich, s a chronology any longer attainable.’ It is, therefore,
according to Oppert (GGN 1877, pp. 201-223)) the Chaldean tlso useless to seek, by calculation from these numbers,
numbers for the first ages in BEr6ssus and the statements in
Genesis stand to each other. The Chaldeans reckon from the .o ascertain the time of the leadership of Joshua and
beginning of the world to Alexander 215 myriads of years, of .he’ reign of Saul. ‘The furthest we can go is to
which 47 myriads represent the time from the first man to :ondude, from passages like Am. 210 525, that an old
Alexander. Thus they allow for the creation 168,myriads of
years. Now, the 7 days of the biblical account of the creation .radition estimated the journey through the wilderness
give 168 hours. Thus in the creation age a myriad of years is tt forty years. (On the chrono.logy of the Book of
represented in the biblical account by an hour. Again, for the ludges, see J UDGES , 5 15.)
time of the first ten men down to the flood the Chaldeans reckon It is much harder to deal with the chronological
432 owyears,l Genesis 1656. If both nurhers be divided by 72,
we ’,et 6000 and 23 respectively, and 23 years-ie., 8400 days- lates for the period from the building of the temple by
represent 1200 weeks, while 60m years is 5 times 1200 years. 6. Templ~to Solomon to the conquest of Jerusalem
Hence the Chaldeans seem to have reckoned 5 years (ie. 60 Nebuchad- by Nebuchadrezzar. In various im-
months) as a lustrum (sosse) where Genesis has reckoned I week.
1656 years (Genesis)=7zGz3 y e a r s = p x Izw--i.e.,, 86,400- portant instances we now meet with
weeks; +3z,owyears (Chaldean)=86,4w Zustra. This remark- statements concerning the year of the
able relation, which can hardlyrest on pure accident, presupposes reigning king to which the event narrated belongs.
a complicated calculation, and a very late origin for these rhus in regard to events of war we read: ‘ I n thc
numbers. Whatever be the theory underlying the numbers of
Genesis, one thing, therefore, is certain : for a sure chronology fifth year of King Rehoboam Shishak King of Egypt
of the times before the Exodus, the O T numbers, appearing as :ame up against Jerusalem’ (I K. 1425), and ‘ In the
they do for the first time in the youngest sources of the Penta- ninth year of Hosea the king of Assyria took Samaria ’
teuch, afford no security.
( 2I<. 176). So also in regard to home affairs : ‘ In the
The case is no better with the chronology of the three and twentieth year of King Jehoash the priests
interval that extends from the Exodus to the building had not repaired the breaches of the house’ ( 2 K. 1 2 7 ) .
5. Exodus to of the temple of Solomon. W e have Clear as such passages seem to be, we need to know
here, indeed, a check in I I<. 6 I which which year of a given king was called the first-the
Temple. makes the building ,of the temple begin year in the course of which he ascended the throne, or
in the 480th year after the Exodus; but this number the first complete year at the beginning of which he
did not make its appearance till a time when the temple was already seated on the throne. Sound information
of Solomon was no more (cp above, § I ). It bears, on this point is still more indispensable, however, for the
moreover, the clear impress of being artificial; for it understanding of the further data for our period supplied
plainly counts from Moses to David twelve generations by the Books of Kings. These give the sum of the
of forty years each, which w e can easily identify as years of reign of each several king. If, however, for
follows : Moses, Joshua, Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, any interval that can he defined by means of events
Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul, and related, we add together these amounts, the totals for
David. This explanation of the origin of the number the parallel kingdoms of Judah and Israel do not agree.
480 is corroborated by the fact that the five “little” The question becomes very complicated when at each
Judges in Ju. l 0 . a n d 1 2 appear to have been inserted accession the date is regularly defined synchronistically,
into the Deuteronomistic Book of Judges later (on by years of the contemporary ruler of the neighbouring
the object of their insertion, see JtJDGES, § 9). Nor kingdom of Israel or Judah. This synchronism again
can anything certain be obtained from the individual leads to a reckoning of its own. What we have first
numbers, since they are neither quite clear nor free to do is to estimate the value of the various chrono-
from gaps. logical data which form a sort of framework for the
I t remains obscure, e.g., how the numbers relating to the whole history of the period. Then we can determine the
supremacy of the Philistines and the judgeship of Samson (13 I
15 20 and 16 31) are related to each other ; how the twenty years importance and range of the individual dates assigned by
from the arrival of the ark at Rirjath-jearim to the victory of years of accession.
Samuel over the Philistines are to be fitted into Samuel’s The statements concerning the duration of a reign as
history (I S. 7 2) ; and how the ninety-four years of foreign
oppression are to be combined with the data concerning the well a s the synchronism of its beginning form Darts of
I I

length of rule of the individual Judges.9 7. Reigns and the brief reviews which pass judgment
The tradition also presents gaps, however, since it does not synchronisms. on each king from the standpoint of
mention the time during which Joshua was the leader of the the Deuteronomic law (see K INGS.
Israe!ites, and in I S. 13 I the numbers for Saul are entirely
wanting. Finally, @BAL allows Eli in IS.418 only twenty BOOKS O F , 5 18). The two chronological elements,
years instead of the forty of M T : and the frequently recurring however, have a diverse origin ; for the synchronistic
round numbers-such as 40 for Moses, Othniel, Deborah-Barak, notes betray their character as ‘ subjective additions of
Gideon, Eli (@ 20) and David: 80 ( ~ 2 x 4 0 for ) E h u d ; and
20 (= 4;J) for Samson, for Eli (according to @) for Samuel and
the Epitomator.’ It is clear, to begin with, that
(approximately) for Tola (23), and Jaw (22&’go t o set in’ still this noting,of synchronism was not in actual use during
clearer light the unhistorical character of the data. the existence of the two kingdoms : apart from dates
The matter may rest, then, as Noldeke left it at the end of accessions, we find it only once-at the fall of
of his chronology of the period of the Judges (09.cit. 197), Samaria (z K. 18g IO), the point where the system comes
with the verdict that ‘ neither for the several divisions to an end.
of the period of the Judges nor for its whole duration I t would be natural to maintain that the very construction
of the chronological notes ieveals their diverse origin : the
1 Cp KAT?) 419 n. verb 1 5 has
~ in the same sentence one meaning for the words
2 If we reckon together the numbers for this period we get as that precede and another for those that follow. I t is to be
follows :-40 (stay in the wilderness) +40 (Othniel, J;. 3 1r)+80 construed aslinchoative ( = ‘ h e became king’) as well as pro-
(Ehud 330) +40 (Deborah-Barak 5 31) +40 (Gideon, S28) +23 gressive (=‘he reigned’). For instance in 2 I(.1423 ‘ I n the
(Tola,’lOz) + z z (Jair, 103) +6 (Jbpbthab, 127) f 7 (Ihzan, 129) fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of joash, king of Judah,
4-10 (Elon 1211) +8 (Abdon 1214) +zo (Samson 163r) +40
(Eli, I S. 4i8) + z o (Samuel I)S. 72) +40 (David, ;K. 2 11) +4 Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel 15n (=became king,
(Solomon, I K. 6 1)=440 ye&. If we deduct the ‘little’ Judges and also=reigned) forty-one years in Samaria.’ If here and
(Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Ahdon=~o),we shall have a total there (I K. 15 25 16 29 22 52 : 2 K. 3 I 15 13) 1 5 ~ 3 ) is added to
of only 370 years. For Joshua and Saul for whom the numbers lk,this only proves, it would seem, a sense of the irreconcil-
are lacking, there still remain, to comp1e;e the 480 years accord.
ing to the first calculation 40 years according to thg second ability of expressing both the date of accession and the duration
IIO. If, however, we are to insert detween the periods of the of the reign hy the simple verb 15~.The double sense of this
several Tudees the O A Years of foreign omression f = 8 lCushan verb however, is peculiar to such annals and is to be explained b y
Rishathhnu Ju. 381’418 [tiglon 5 r41’&0 [Jabin k3] +7 the 6revity of the style. Exactly so i i t h e list of kings of Tyre
[Midianites’ 611 + 3 [Abimelech ’9221 +18 [Ammoktes 108: given by Josephus (c. A+. 118) from Menander of Ephesus,
+ z o [Phili;tines, cp 131 1520 aAd 1631]), we get j34 & 464 lpauihsvusv is used in both senses at the same time : ‘he
years-according to the first reckoning already 54 years toc became king’ as well as ‘and he reigned.’
many, with nothing left for Joshua and Saul ; according to the
second only sixteen years for these two together, a period fat The decisive proof, however, of the secondary char-
from sifficient for the deeds of both. acter of the synchronistic numbers is reached only when
777 778
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
we compare them with the years of reign. It then exhibition of the data will be the best way to make this
appears that the former has been attained by calculation clear. In the first column we give the date reckoned
from the latter, although the method that has been from an imaginary era of the division of the kingdom,
followed cannot in all points be discerned.l A tabular and in the last the references from the Books of Kings.
TABLE I.-OLD TESTAMENT DATA AS TO R EIGNS : SOLOMON TO FALL OF SAMARIA.
SYNCHRONISMS AND LENGTH OR R EIGNS .

ISRAEL.
_-
JUDAH.
I
I LengthofReign. Length of Reign.
References
-I to the Books
of Kings.
Synchronistic Date.

I- 1- I
1st year of Jeroboam . .. 1st year of Rehoboam
.. 17 years 17 years I I K. 1 4 2 o f :
18th
20th :: Jeroboam.
Jeroboam.
.. ..
zoyears
1st ,, Abijah .
1st ., Asa . . . ..,, 41 ,, I IIIC.159J
~ . 1 5 . ~
1st ,, Nadab . . T year 2nd ;; Asa . . . _.._ I K . 1525
1st ,, Eaasha .
. . .. ,,
.. .. ..
z3years 3rd Asa IIC. 1533
1st .. Ela T vear ,6th ,, Asa .. rK.168
;; .. .. ..
!1
1st zimri . 4 years .7th ,, Asa .. rK.1615
,, 'Omri . ....
1st
1st ,, Ahab
,, Ahab .
.
,ISt
I8th
1st
::,, Asa
Asa
Jehoihaphat
40
..>, 25 ,,
1K.16~3
1K.1629
I K. 2241
$: ,, Ahaziah . 7th ,, ..
Jehoshaphat .. I IC. 2252
1st ,, Jehoram . -8th ,, Jehoshaphat .. zK.31
5th ,, Jehoram . 1st ,, Jehoram . . 21 ,I
,, 3 ,, ~~.a16f:
12th ,, Jehoram . 1st ,, Ahaziah . . I year I year 2 K. 8 z s f :

Sum of Years of reign in Israel . . 98 Sum of Years of reign in Judah . .

__
95 I
istyear ofJehu . .I .. 1st year of Athaliah . .
Jehu. . ..
Jehoahaz.
28years
14 ,,
1st ,,
!qrd ,,
Jehoash
Jehoash
.
. .
.
Jehoash . . .. 17th ,, Jehoash . .
Jehoash
Jeroboam'(I1.):
15
..
I,
::; ,,
1st ,, Amaziah
,, Amaziah
.. .. zK.1412
Jeroboam (11.)
Zechariah
Shallum
Menahem
.
.
.
.
.
.
63 ,,
I year
o ,,
rryears
,,
:8th
;9th
,gth
,,
,,
,,
Azariah
Azariah
Azariah
Azariah
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
52 ,,
..
..
..
..
I zK.15,;
2 IC. 15 8
zK.1513
zK.1517
Rekahiah
Pekac
Pekab
.. .. z
..
..
;oth
,znd
rst
::,, Azariah
Azariah
Jotham .
. .
.
12K.15zq

Pekah
Hoshea ... ... 27 ,,
..
..
1st
zth
,,
,,
,,
Ahaz
Ahaz.
Hezekiah.
.
.
.
.

=(
Hoshea 1st
Hoshea . . g ,, 7th ,, Hezekiah to Fali
of Saniaria
I-
-
258 years a6oyears
____
This table shows that at the end of the 258th year chronistic and the traditional numbers by assuming that
after the division of the kingdom, there had elapsed 258 the latter represent a popular way of counting according
synchronistic years, 241& years of reign in Israel, and to which from the middle of the first to the beginning
260 such years in Judah : and we have thus the singular of the third year was considered three years, as in the
equation 258=241T72=260. The result is even more case of the siege of Samaria ( 2 K. 1810). The excess
singular, however, when we examine separately the parts of the traditional values in the period before Jehu could
before and after the first point of coincidence obtained perhaps be thus explained, but not their defect in the
through a contemporaneous accession in both lines. following period. Nor is it possible by altering the
Before the year of accession of Jehu and Athaliah there individual numbers to bring the synchronisms into
were only 88 years according to the synchronisms for harmony with the years of reign : even were one to alter
98 years of reign in Israel and 95 in Judah : but for the all the synchronistic statements, this would do nothing
second part there are 170 years according to the syn- towards removing the differences between the numbers
chronisms for only 1 4 3 2 ~years of reign in Israel and for Israel and those for Judah. Thus, almost along the
165 in Judah. Whilst thus, in the first period, the whole line, the discrepancy between synchronisms and
number, according to the synchronistic calculation, is years of reign is incurable.
smaller than the sum of the traditional years, in the We must not fail, however, to appreciate a remark-
second period, which is longer by about a half, it ex- abIe agreement. The sum of the synchronistic years is
ceeds the traditional years not inconsiderably. Similar very nearly equal to the sum of the years of reign for
variations for smaller periods can easily be proved by a Judah (258 = 260). The slight difference of two years
glance at the table. Nor can we equalize the syn- can have no weight, and can perhaps be entirely
removed. In the surprising statement of 2 K. 13 IO that
1 It has recently been shown by Benzinger (Corn%. zu den the accession of Jehoash of Israel happened in the. 37th
Kdnigen, 1899, pp. xviii.-xxi.) that the synchronisms start from year of Jehoash of Judah, we may follow v. I and change
two different points and proceed upon two distinct methods of
reckoning, one of which is followed hy preference in the Hebrew 37 to 39 : for, according to that verse, Jehoahaz, who
text and the other in 6L. had acceded in the 23rd year of Jehoash of Judah,
779 780
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
reigned 17years. In this way the sum of the years of last of his reign, and the first year of the new king was
reign in the lines of Israel and Judah, according to the the year at the beginning of which he already wore
synchronisms, would be increased in each case by two the crown,
years-for Jehoahaz would have reigned, according to By giving up the synchronisms we are thrown back
the synchronism, 16 years instead of 14, and Jehoash for the chronology of the monarchy on the sums of the
39 instead of 37-while the traditional numbers would years years of reign of the individual kings.
undergo no alteration. Even without this slight enien- The hope of finding in these numbers
Of reign‘
dation-adopted in the Aldinc edition of the LXX, and trustworthy material for chronology, and
demanded by Thenius, Klosterniann, and Kamphausen thus solving the singular equation -hereby about 242
-it is apparent that it is the sum of the Judean years Israelitish years represent 2150 Judean years, could he
of reign that forms the basis on which the synchronistic realised only on one condition. One might simply sub-
numbers are calculated. In this process, however, tract the 242 Israelitish years from the total for Judah, and
though the individual sums have not been disregarded, regard the exce.ss of 18 ycars as falling after the conquest
it has been impossible, especially in the case of the of Samaria. Nor is there anything in the synchronism
kings of N. Israel, to avoid important variations. to prevent this operation, for that may have started from
Care however has been taken not to alter the synchronism of an incorrect calculation in putting the fall of Hoshea as
e v e n h i I t is \;orthy of note that the following reqnirements late as the reign of Hezeltiah. A clear veto, however, is
are satisfied :-Jerohoam’s reign runs parallel with those of
Rehohoam and Ahijah ( I K. 14 30 15 7) ’ Raasha is king during laid on this procedure on other grounds. If we subtract
khe reign of Asa ( I K. 15 16); Jehoihaphat survives Ahah the superfluous 18 years ( 6 years of Hezekiah and the
and Ahaziah and reigns contem oraneonsly with Jehoram last 12 of Ahaz) from the total for Judah, all that is left of
of Israel (I K’22 2 8 50 ; 2 K.3 7 x 5 ; the deaths of Jehoram of Ahaz’s reign parallel with the Israelitish years of reign
Israel and Ahaziah of Judah fall in the same year (2 K. 9).
Amaziah and Jehoash of Israel reign contemporaneously ( z K.’ is the first 4 years. Therefore Pekah, who was murdered
148fi) : and Pek;th is a contemporary of Jotham and Ahaz ( z K. nine years before the fall of Samaria ( 2 K. 176), must, at
1537 18 5 3 ) . the accession of Ahaz, have been already five years dead,
Although the synchronistic dates have thus not been which is impossible, since, according to 2 IC 1 6 5 8 , this
attained without regard to tradition, they are obviously, king was attacked by him. The expedient of simple
as belonging to the youngest parts of the text, not a subtraction, therefore, fails ; the embarrassing equation
standard for chronology. They apply to the past a remains, about 242 Israelitish years = 260 Judean : nay,
method of dating with which it was quite unacquainted. since no objection can be raised against the contem-
This is true not only of the practice, which could never poraneousness of the deaths of Jehoram of Israel and
be carried out in actual life, of connecting the years of Ahaziah of Judah, 144 Israelitish years= 165 Judean.
one kingdom with reigns of kings in a neighbouring If the totals are thus unequal, very great inequalities
kingdom, but also of the methodical practice, pre- appear, naturally, in the details. Efforts have been
supposed in such a custom, of indicating in an exact made to remove them ; but this has not been achieved
and regular way the years within one and the same in any convincing way.
kingdom, by the years of reign of its king for the time z I<. 15 5 a g . states that during the attack of leprosy from
being. In such texts as we can, with any confidence, yhich his h h i r Azariah suffered in the last years of his life,
assign to pre-exilic times, we find nothing but popular Jotham was over the palace and judged the people of the land.’
chronologies associating an event with Even were we to found 011 this statement the theory that the
8. First years of reign of father and son that ran parallel t o each other
attempts at some other important event contem- were counted twice over in the nunihers 5 2 and 16 assigned to
chronology. porary with it (cp Is. 6 I 1 4 ~ 820~I). their respective reigns, and also to suppose that during all
The few dates according to years of these 16 years the father was still alive, there would still remain
744 Israelitish years=149 Judean.
kings given in the.older history (as, e.g., I I<. 1425 ; z K.
127) may be ignored. They are too isolated, and must
Mistaken attempts of this kind are, moreover, the less
rest (eg., in the writings and portions which treat of the to be taken into consideration that, as will appear ( § 356),
latest pre-exilic times) on subsequent calculation, or be even the lowest total of 144 years for the interval from
due to interpolation (cp also the dates introduced by Jehu to the fall of Samaria is more than 20 years too high.
the Chronicler in deference to the desire felt at a later From all this it results that the individual numbers of
date for exacter definition of time, of which the Books years of reign, as well as the totals, are untrustworthyand
of Kings still knew nothing : z Ch. 1323 151o-rg, and useless for the purposes of a certain chronology, even if
especially 16 1)-though it is perhaps possible that, it be admitted thnt, within certain limits or in some
even without there being a settled system, some pro- points, they may agree with actual fact.
minent events might, occasionally and without set The untrustworthiness of the numbers
purpose, be defined by years of reign. In any case, 11’ Basis Of becomes plainer when the principle ac-
dating by native kings must be regarded as at least cording to which they are formed is
older than the artificial synchronism between Judah and clearly exhibited.
In 1887 E. ICrey (see below 5 85) argued that at least in the
Israel. case of the Israelitish kings ’the several sums &signed to the
Dating by the years of kings was thus never sys- respective. reigns rest in g e k r a l on an artificial fiction. H e
tematicallv used bv the Hebrews so lonr as thev had then thought that the series of kings of Jndah and indeed those
9.Babylinian n&tional kings. The; learnei this
useful method from the Babylonians,
also of the house of Jehu, ‘show no such artifr‘ciality’ ’ hut (acc.
to Bleek-We. EbL(4) 265) he soon observed a playing with
figures also in the items for Judah. To begin with the
method. and then introduced it
~ ~.
~~~~ into their _his-
~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ _ kings of Israel down to Jehoram, we find an arerage reign of 12
~~~~~~

torical works compiled during the exile (cp Wi. A T years. I n the case of Omri and Jehoram this is the exact
nnmher, whilst for Jerohoam, Uaasha, and Ahab we ‘have 22 1
Unterszlch., especially pp. 87-94). Thus the question (i.e. in round numbers z X r z ) , and for the rest-Nadab, Elah
how the Hebrews dealt with the year of a king’s death and’ Ahaziah (the immediate successors of the kings provided
-Le., whether they reckoned the fraction of a year that with the douhle period)--2 years each. This is as if we had 8
kings with 12 years each, making a total of 96-more exactly 98
remained before the beginning of the next year to the years. Moreover, the totals for the first and the last four of
deceased king, or made the first year of the new king these are each almost exactly 48. In the next part of the series
begin at once-disappears. There can be no doubt as We. emphasises we have for the g kings from Jehu to Hoshe;
that the synchronisms, as well as the dates and years a total of 144 ye&, which makes an average of 16 for each.
One might also urge the remarkable fact that, even as Jehu
of reign in general, presuppose the Babylonian method with his z8 years reigned ahout as long as his two successors
(the only satisfactory one), according to which the rest so the 41 years of Jerohoam 11. also exactly equal the sun;
of the year in which any king died was reckoned to the of the reigns of his successors. In the Judean line, on the
other hand a similar role is played by the figures 40 and 80.
1 \lie need take no account of the indeoendent narratives of Thus dow; to the destruction of Samaria in the 6th year of
C HRONICLES (q.71. 8 5); they do not agree even with the Hezekiah, we have Rehohoam+Ahijah 20, Asa 41,Jehoshaphat
traditional years oireign.
2 Whether the account is correct need not here be considered. 1 Strictly, Baasha has exactly 24 assigned him.
781 782
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY '
+Jehoram + Ahaziah + Athaliah
Arariah 81 Jotham+Ahaz+Hezekiah
40, Jehoash 40, Amaziah +
38 years ; and from thls
iate is open, from its position' or lick of coniiection, to
he suspicion of not being original. Kosters accordingly,
point onwdrds till the last date the 37th year of Jehoiachin, we
have Hezekiah+Menasseh+A&on 80, and also Josiahj-Joahaz eaving this datum wholly out of account, Ir,aintained
+Jehoiakim+ Jehoiachin 7 9 i years: If we might stlll, wlth HersteZ, '94) that Ezra made his first appearance in
Kamphausen, be inclined to find in all this only a freak of lerusalem with the Gola (see ISRAEL, J 57) immediately
chance, our suspicion would be raised on comparing the total Lfter Nehemiah's second arrival there, while Artaxerxes
for the kings ut Israel (circ. 240) with the number in I K. 6 I
(480), and still more on observing that 480 is also the total of 1. was still on the throne, and introduced the law tsen.
years from the building of the temple of Solomon to the begin- Jan Hoonacker, on the other hand, accepted the datum
ning of a new epoch-the epoch that opens with the conquest of )f Ezra77f:, but believed that it had reference to
Babylon hy Cyrus and the coniequentpossibility of founding the
second Theocracy and setting about the building of the second Qtaxerxes II., and accordingly set down the date of
temple. (The 36-7 years of Solomon from t h e building of the Ezra's arrival as in the seventh year of that king
temple +260 years, to the fall of Sainaria +r33: years, t o the fall 397 B . c . ) . [Marquart ('Die Organisation der jiid.
of Jerusalem +5o years 0: the Exile, give exactly qto years ) sememde nach dem sogenannten Exil,' Fundamente
There ran hardly, then, be any mistake about the Csv. u. jiid. Gesch., ' 9 6 ) l thinks that the careers of
artificiality of the total as well as of the various Nehemiah and Ezra can fall only a few decades earlier
items. If so, the origin of the present numbers for the .han the reported de?ortation of Jews to Hyrcania
years of reign of the individual kings, on which the mder Artaxerxes III., Ochns. Nehemiah's Artaxerxes
synchronistic notices are founded, must fall in a ,vas, he thinks, Artaxerxes II., Mnemon. He finds no
period later than the victory of Cyrus over Babylon, .race of Ezra's presence in Jerusalem during the
and chronology cannot trust to the correctness of the welve-years' governorship of Nehemiah ; the reference
numbers. to Ezra in Neh. 1236 is an addition of the Chronicler.
For all that, it may be conjectured the numbers in Nehemiah, too, is nowhere mentioned in Ezra (Neh.
individual instances are correct; but which are such 59 102 are interpolated). Internal evidence alone can
12. Result. cases, can be known only in some way ietermine the date of Ezra. Neh. 13 is connected
independent of the numbers. Sometimes, naturally with Ezra 9 1-1044. Ezra's arrival then
indeed, the narrative of Kings or a prophetic writing rollows in the time after Nehemiah's return to Susa;
can decide the point ; but without help from outside we the text of Ezra 7 7 (which belongs to the redactor) has
could not go far. I n itself it cannot be more than ;uffered in transmission ; 368 or 365 was the original
probable that the last kings of Judah appear with the iate reported. Nehemiah's second arrival, at any rate,
correct numbers. These numbers give Hezekiah zg Fell after the promulgation of the Law (Neh.131);
( z K. 181 z ) , Manasseh 55 (211), Amon z (2119).Josiah Marquart proposes to read in Neh. 136 ' a t the end of
31 (221), Jehoahaz (2321)~Jehoiakim 11 (2336), his days' (iw),implying a date between 367 (364) and
Jehoiachin & (248), and Zedekiah 11 years (2418); thus, 359. Cheyne, in a work almost devoid of notes, but
1399 years in all, embodying an estimate of 133 years called 'the provisional summing up of . special re-
from the fall of Saniaria to the conquest of Jerusalem. searches,' differs in some respects in his chronological
Thus, the earliest that the dates according to years of view of the events alike from the scholars just referred
kings can lay claim to consideration is in Jeremiah and to, and from Ed. &?eyer,who is about to be mentioned.
Ezekiel. Here grave mistakes in retrospective calcula- (See his 3ewish ReLifious Lzye after the ExiZee, '98,
tion (for even they rest on that) seem to be excluded by translated, after revision by the author, by H. Stocks
the nearness of the time. Naturally no account can be under the title D a s religiose Leben der Judex nnch denz
taken of the statements of the Book of Daniel, which ExiZ, '99). Like Marquart he doubts the correctness
did not originate till the second century B.C. ; it knows of the text of Neh. 514 ; but he is confident that the
the history of the fall of the kingdom of Judah and of Artaxerxes of Ezra-Nehemiah is Artaxerxes I., and
the exilic period only from tradition, and cannot be that Nehemiah's return to Susa precedes the arrival
acquitted of grave mistakes (see D ANIEL, ii. J 9f.). of Ezra with the Gola. The incapacity of Nehemiah's
For the last period, reaching from the fall of Jerusalem successor (the Tirshatha?) probably stimulated Ezra to
to the beginning of the Christian era, we have in the seek a firman from the king, though the terms of the
Hebrew OT itself but few historical re- supposed firman in Ezra7 cannot be relied upon.
13. From cords. Beyond the introduction of the law
JGl& in the restored community the historical
onwards, narrative does not conduct us. For the
Ezra seems to have failed at the outset of his career,
and it was the news of this failure, according to
Cheyne, that drew Nehemiah a second time from Susa.
short interval preceding it we are referred Klostermann's treatment of the chronology in Herzog
to the statements in the prophets Haggai and Zechariah cannot be here summarised.-ED.]
and in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. These, how- Ed. Meyer's thorough discussion (Entst. '96), how-
ever, show that the Jews had learned in the interval ever, has convinced the present writer that we are not
how to date exactly by years of reign. The writings entitled to call in question the arrival of Ezra before
mentioned give dates by years of the Persian kings. Nehemiah, and consequently that the datum of Ezra
All difficulties in the way of a chronology of this period, 7 7 3 may be right after all. If so, Ezra returned to
however, are not thus removed. The names Darius and Jerusalem with the Gola in 458 B. c . , having it for his
Artaxerxes leave us to choose between the several bearers object to introduce the law there. I n this, however, he
of these names among the Fersian kings. Hence both did not succeed. I t was not until after Nehemiah had
the first and the second of the three Dariuses have been arrived in Jerusalem in 445 B.C. clothed with ample
regarded as the DariHwesh mentioned in the OT, and powers, and had in the same year restored the city walls
even all three Artaxerxes have been brought into con- with his characteristic prudence and energy, that Ezra
nection with the ArtahSasta of Ezr. -Neh. Then, again, was at last able to come forward and introduce the law
the transpositions and actual additions that the Chronicler under Nehemiah's protection (445 B.c.). From this
allows himself to make increase the difficulty of knowing date onwards till 433 B.C. (cp Neh. 136) Nehemiah
the real order of events. I n the case of Darius, continued in Jerusalem. Shortly after 433 B.C.-
indeed, only the first can, after all (in spite of Havet and perhaps in 431 ~ . c . - h e obtained a second furlough.
Imbert), be seriously considered. How long this lasted we do not know ; but its import-
The chief interest, accordingly, lies in deciding as to ance is clear from Neh. 134-31.
the date in Ezra77f: which sets the return of Ezra in The O T offers no further chronological
14. Advent the seventh year of ArtahSasta. It is 16' Later material for determining the dates of the
to be noted that this passage ( 7 1-10) has times' last centuries before Christ.
of Ezra. been revised by the Chronicler (see EZRA
A N D N EHEMIAH, Books of), and in both verses the 1 But the essay was 'completed zgth August 1895' (p. 28).
783 784
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
The apocalypse of Daniel cannot he held to bridge over the is to he made for this eclipse Mahler reckons as’ 430 years
gap between Ezra and the time of the Maccabees with any before the Exodus, since Rabbinic tradition thus explains the
certainty, for it is the peculiarity of these apocalypses to point number 430 assigned in Ex. 1240 to the stay in Egypt, whilst on
to past events only’in a veiled way and it is in fact only what the other hand it makes the 400 years assigned in Gen. 1513
we know otherwise of the compiications detween’ Syria and to the bondage begin with the birth of Isaac. The desired
Egypt and of the doings of Antiochus Epiphanes that makes eclipse Mahler finds on 8th Oct. 1764 B.C. about 430 years
an unherstanding and an estimate of the descripkons in the before the Exodus (1335 B.C . see above). Even more artificial
Book of Daniel possible. Besides, its intimation (9 2 4 8 ) that if possible is the Rahhinic’dxegesis of Gen. 28 TI and 3232 01;
from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar (586) to which Maker relies for the determination of the beginning and
the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (164), we are to reckon a the end of the twenty-years’ stay of Jacob in Haran. The
period of 70 year-weeks-4go years-shows how inaccurate solar eclipse indicated according.to him in Gen. 28 11 (‘because
the chronological knowledge of the writer was, and how much the sun was set ’) must have been, he argues, in the evening, and
need we have to look around for other help. would thus be the eclipse that occurred on the 17th Feh. 1601
B .c., whilst Gen.3232 (‘and the sun rose upon him’) must
Astronomy would furnish the surest means for deter- indicate a morning eclipse, which occurred on 30th May 1581
mining the exact year and day of events, if the OT con- B.C. If we add that for the victory of Joshua a t Gibeon (Josh.
16. Supposed rnirietl iiidubirable :iccouiits of solor or 10 12-14) he has found a solar eclipse calculated to have occurred
on 3rst Jan. 1296 B.c., we have for the earliest period the following
Astronomical luuar cclipscs. Unhappily, howcver, items :-
such accounts are 1;tcl;ing. Onc might MAHLER’SSUPPOSED EARLY DATES.
UitUiC.
be tempted to go so f& as to suppose Abraham’s BErith hen hab-bgthirim (Gen. 15 5 6)1764 B.C.
a solar eclipse to explain the sign on the-sun- Jacob‘s journey to Haran (Gen. 28 IT) .
. 1601 ,,
dial of Ahaz given to Hezekiah by Isaiah (Is. 3 S 8 ) ; Jacob‘s return home (Gen. 32 31 [32]). . . .1581 ,,
Exodus (Ex. 1021) . . . 27th March 1335 ,,
-perhaps- also the ‘standing still of the sun at Gibeon’
~

Rationalistic as this
Joshua’s victory a t Giheon (Josh. 10 12-14) . .1296 ,,
17.. lahler,s (Josh. 1012-14). The attempt to do justice to Is. 38 8 by the assumption of a
system. may seem, Ed. Mahler (see 38 for solar eclipse is at least more interesting. According to this
title of work) has not been content to theory all the requirements of the narrative would be met if a
solar lclipse had occurred ten hours before sunset, since in that
stop here, but has discovered many solar eclipses in- case the index could have traversed over again the ten degrees
timated in the OT : he even finds them in every pro- which owing to the eclipse, it had ‘gone down,’ and thedial would
phetic passage that speaks of a darkening of the sun. In have :gain made its usual indication. Such an eclipse has, more-
this way he has been able to determine astronomically over, been found for 17th June 679 B.c., whence since the sign in
question belongs to Hezekiah’s fourteenth ye;;, his reign must
a whole series of events. Before we can accept these have covered the years 693-664 B.C.
results, however, we must examine more carefully the The further calculations which fix a whole series of dates on
foundation on which they are reared. the ground of misunderstood passages are likewise quite unsatis-
factory. Thus, Amos is made (8gJ) to announce to Jerohoam
For example, Mahler assigns the Exodus to the 27th March 11. the solar eclipse of 5th May 770 B.C. ; Is. 163 and Micah36
1335 B.C. which was a Thursday, because fourteen days before are made to refer to that of the 11th Jan. 68 B c. in the time of
that day there occurred a central solar eclipse. This calculation Hezekiah ; and Joel who is represented as ?iv;ng in the time of
rests on Talmudic d a t a l that assign the darkness mentioned in tb
Manasseh, is made indicate no fewer than three solar eclipses
Ex. 1021 to the 1st of Nisan, and explain that that day, and (z1st Tan. 662. 27th Tune 661. and rxth A n d 6<7 B .c.: CD Toe1
therefore also the 15th of Nisan was a Thursday. In Ex. 10 2 2 2 I O 3‘1 4 4 15): it ib further ’nrged <hat w’e sh&d refer’E>ek.
indeed we read of a darkness df three days ; hut Mahler argue: 30 18 and 328 to the solar eclipses of 19th May 557 and 1st Nov.
that tl;is note of duration really belongs not to II. 22 hut to I/. 23, 556 ; Nah. 1 8 to that of 16th March 581 ;1 Jer. 4 23 28 to that on
and is meant simply to explain how ‘intense and terrifying was 21st Sept. 582 (in the time of Josiah); and Is. 8 2 2 to that on 5th
the impression which the darkness produced on the inhabitants March 702 B.C. (in the time of Ahaz); and, finally, that even the
of Egypt’-‘so that no one dared for three days to leave his fight against Sisera can. accordins - to T- u. 5 20. be with certaintv
house. I t is just as arbitrary to assume in Gen. 15 5 8 an eclipse fixed f& 9th Aug. 1091 B.c.
enabling Abraham to count the stars before sunset, and then to Bv combinine these ‘results’ with the nukbeks of the O T
use the eclipse for fixing the date of the covenant then con- MaAler believes himself justified in p r o d u c w t h e following
cluded (BZrith hen hah-hZthirim). The time a t which search chronological table for the time of the Monarchy :-

TABLE II.-MAHLER’S REMARKABLE CHRONOLOGY : DIVIDED MONARCHY.

K IN GS OF TUDAH. KINGSOF ISRAEL.
945-928 Rehoboam . .-
..
928-925 Ahijam (=Abijah)
17 years 945-924 Jerohoam. . . . .
925-884Asa . . ,
3
41
I,
924-922 Nadab . . . .. ..
.. . ...
91
922-8ggBaasha . .
899-898 E l a h .
Zimri .
I .. ..
g 8 g 2 Omri and Tihni
892-887 } . . .
883-858 Jehoshaphat . , ,, 887-866Ahab . . . . .
.. ......
25
866-864 Ahaziah . . . . .
860(&)-852 Joram
Ahaziah .. 8 1)
year
864-852 Jehorani . . . . .
852
852-845Athaliah
.. . . I
7 years 852-824 J e h u . . . . . .
.. ..
845-805 Joash 40 3, 824-807Jehoahaa . . . . .
805-777 Amaziah 807-792 Joash . . . . .
777-725 Uzziah . . . 29 1 ,
52 I , 792-751 Jerohoam 11 . . .
....
.
739 .
Zechariah 6 months, Shallinn
7z7-726 Pekahiah. . .. .. ...
738-728 Menahem hen Gadi
.
.. .. ..
725-709 Jotham 16 726-706 Pekah hen Remaliah
709-693 Ahaz. 16 ,, ....
693-664 Hezekiah .. .. .. 29 >t 697-688 HosheabenElah . . .
664-610 Manasseh 55
610-609Amon . . . ,I

609-579.rosiah
. ... .
579 Joah?
.. .
.
.
..
2
31 1 9
I,

3 months
579-568 Jehoiakim . 11 years
Jehoiachin
$-557’Zedekiah . .. .. 3 months
X I years

It is only a pity that the imposing edifice thus erected 1 Mahler finds here a reference to the fall of Nineveh. H e
in the name of astronomical science rests on a founda- argues that the battle against the Lydians in which the day
became night (cp Herod. 1103),-a battle which preceded the
tion so unstable-an artificial phantom, dependent on a fall of Nineveh-fell not on 30th Sept. 610 B.C. but on 28th May
Rabbinical exegesis, itself a mere creation of fancy. 585 B.C. Again thk solar eclipse with the announcement of
The OT itself having thus failed to give sufficient which Zephaniai (115) connects an allusion to the expedition
undertaken by Phraortes against Nineveh a t least twenty-five
1 B. Talm. Shaddath, 876, etc. ; see Mahler, BidL Chron. years before its final fall is (acc. to Mahler) one that happened
4 8 on 30th July 607.
78.5 786
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY

foreign nations, which so often come cording to Manetho, 8 (var. 12).

Egyptian contact with Israel, can help us. In ourteen) and take, as our basis for the rest, the nunibers
chronolOgy' so doing we must consider in the first . the monuments, we get the following :-Tnhar+a,
place the Egyptians. It is to Egypt that the narrative 90-664 B.C., Sadatako, 704.690 B.C., and Sadako,
of the origin of the people of Israel points; thither 16-704 B.C. Still, according to the view of Steindorff,
escaped the remnant of the community of Gedaliah ; ) whom we are indebted for these data, Taharka may
and in the interval between these times, as also later, Lve reigned even longer than twenty-six years, perhaps
the fortunes of Palestine were often intertwined with long with Sabatalco. Since, however, Ed. Meyer
those of Egypt. ives sabako 728-716, Sabatako circ. 704, and makes
The Egyptians themselves possessed no continuous 'aharka as early as 704 real master, although not till
era : for the quite unique mention, on a stele from Tanis, 89 official ruler, of Egypt (cp Gesch. ,4eg. 343 &),
'"*' of the 400th year of the king Nubti (accord-
ing to Steindorff probably none other than
11 sure support is already gone. Besides, although
ccording to Meyer (op. cit. 344) the identity of Sabako
fixed era* the god Set of Tanis), is too obscure and pith the Assyrian Sab'i and the Hebrew NjD ( S o ' , or,
uncertain, and would not help us at all even were it lore correctly, Save' or Seweh) in z I<. 17 4 is indubit-
more intelligible. Nor yet does the Sothis-period help ble, Steindorff has grave doubts as to the phonetic
us much. This was a period of 1461 years, at each quivalence of these names, and finds no Egyptian
recurrence of which the first days of the solar year and atum for the battle of Altaku. It is, therefore, very
of the ordinary year of 365 days once again coincided ,ifficult to get from Egyptian chronology any certain
for four years, or, what amounts to the same thing, the ,ght on two O T statements relating to Egypt-viz.,
Dog-star, from whose rising the solar year was reckoned, hat Seunacherib sent messengers to Hezekiah when he
again appeared on the 1st of Thoth. The period was ieard of the expedition of Taharka ( 2K. 1 9 9 ; Is. 379),
never used for chronological purposes.1 Nor have the .nd that Hoshea of Israel had dealings with NiD of
monuments fulfilled the expectation, not unreasonable in Cgypt, and was therefore bound and put into prison by
itself, that by the help of inscriptions giving dates accord- ihalmaneser ( 2K. 174).
ing to two methods it would be possible, by calculation, For the chronology of the O T in still earlier times,
to reach a more exact chronology for Egyptian history. here is. unfortnnatelv.
* . nothing at all to be pained from
The most learned Egyptologists, indeed, can themselves kcording to- I K. 17 40
determine Egyptian chronology only through combina- 22. E&lier Egyptology.
1425 (cp 2Ch. 122), Shishak (Sheshonl!)
tion with data from outside sources. The conquest of times' was a contemuorarv of Solomon. and in
I >
Egypt by Cambyses in the year 525 B.C. furnishes he fifth year of Rehoboam went up against Jerusalem.
their cardinal point. From this event, the years of n spite, however, of the Egyptian nionument at Karnalc
20. Period reign of the kings of the 26th dynasty )caring the list of cities conquered by him, his date
may be fixed with certainty by the help :annot be determined on Egyptological grounds (on
Of certainty* of the data supplied by the monuments, liblical grounds it is usually given as about 930 B.C. ).
Herodotus, and Manetho. What lies before Psamtik I., \s to 'Zerah the Cushite' (2Ch. 1 4 9 & ) , we need not
the first pharaoh of this dynasty, however, is in the :xpect to find any mention of him in Egyptian sources
judgment of Egyptologists more or less uncertain, and Z ERAH).
therefore for other chronological determinations the The clay tablets found at TeZZeZAmama (see ISRAEL,
records of that earlier time are either not to be used ai i 6 ) , indeed, make some important contributions to
all or to be used with the greatest caution. )ur knowledge of the relations of Palestine to Egypt ;
Still, even this short period, from 6 6 6 3 (the accessior mt for the chronology they afford nothing certain.
of Psamtik I. ) to 525 B.c., is a help to us by supplying We must get help from the chronology of Babylonia
points of reference. Through synchronisms of Egyptiar 2efore we can, even approximately, determine the date
and Judean history several events of the time are to 2 2f the correspondence. Then it seems probable that
certain extent fixed. Thus Necho 11. (middle of 61c &men-botep 111. and Amen-hotep IV. reigned in Egypt
B.C. to beginning of 594 B .c.) is admitted to be the ?ither about 1450 B.C. or about 1380 B.c., at which
king who fought the battle at Megiddo that cost Josid time, therefore, Palestine must have stood under the
his life. So mention is made in the O T of Hophr; jceptre of Egypt : the contemporaries of Amen-hotep
(Apries), who reigned 588-569 B.c., and was even dowr 111.-BurnaburiaS I. and Kurigalzu I. of Babylon-axe
to 564 nominally joint ruler with Amasis (see EGYPT, ! assigned by Winckler to 1493-1476 and 1475-1457 B.C.
69). Thus we get fixed points for the contemporarie: respectively, and the contemporary of Amen-hotep IV.
of Necho 11.-Josiah, Jehoahaz, and Jehoiakim ;-an< -BurnaburiaS 11.-to 1456-1422, whilst R. W. Rogers,
for the contemporaries of Hophra-Jeremiah, and thl on the other hand (Outlines of the History of Ear@
Jews in Egypt (Jer. 443o)-although neither for th' BabyZonia, 1895,p. 56), gives 1397-1373 as the probable
battle of Megiddo nor for that of Carchemish can th' date of BurnaburiaS II., and C. Niebuhr ( ChronoZ. der
year be determined from Egyptian data. On the othe Gesch. Is?'., Aeg., Bad. 21. Ass. von 2000-700 B.C.
hand, these Egyptian data are sufficient to prove tha untersucht, 1896) accepts only one BurnaburiaS and
the astronomical edifice of Mahler is quite impossible. places him and his contemporary Amen-hotep IV. in
For the time before Psamtik I. the rulers of th the beginning of the fourteenth century B.C. As in
21. 25th 2jth dynasty may be fixed approximately these tablet inscriptions the name of the Hebrews has
Tanutamon ruled alone only a short time not so far been certainly discovered, so, in the Egyptian
Dynasty* and therefore may fall out of account. T h monuments generally, we cannot find any reminiscence
data for his three predecessors do not agree (cp EGYPT of a stay of Israel in Egypt or of their departure.l
§ 66f.l Theories about the pharaoh of the oppression and the
Tahurku reigned according to the monuments, 26 years ; ai pharaoh of the Exodus remain, therefore, in the highest
cording to M&&ho 18 (var. 20).
&zbuafako'sreign, according to the monuments, was uncertain degree uncertain. Neither Joseph nor Moses is to be
according to Manetho it was 14 (var. 12). found in Egyptian sources : supposed points of contact
1 The confirmation that Mahler (of. cit p. 56 fl.) seeks fc (a seven-years famine, and the narrative of Manstho
1335 R.C. ai the date of the Exodus in the syattement that undc about Osarsiph-Moses in Josephus, c. Ap. 12728 ; on
Menephthah whom he holds to be the pharaoh of the Exodus this cp Ed. Meyer, Gesch. Aeg. 276f.) have proved, on
was celebra&d the beginning of a Sothic period, which ma
have happened in the year 1318 B.c., is certainly weak, sinc
the pharaoh who according to Ex. 14 was drowned could nt 1 On the inscription of Menephthah discovered in 1896, see
have reigned after that for 17 years. See EXODUS. EGYPT, $ 5 8 3 , and EXODUS, §§ I , 3.
787 788
 CHRONOLOGY ’ CHRONOLOGY
nearer examination, untenab1e.l Apart, therefore, from Eponym year of Mannn-ki-ASur-li‘ (Schr. KA TP), 491)
the dates of the rulers of the twenty-fifth and the twenty- the thirteenth of Sargon’s rule in Assyria.l Hence we
sixth dynasties, there is very little to be gained for O T may identify this Epocym year of Mannu-ki-ASur-li’
chronology from Egyptology. On Egyptian Chronology (the thirteenth year of Sargon’s reign in Assyria) likewise
see also EGYPT, 5 41. with the year 709 B.C. ; an$, as the series is uninter-
Assyriology offers much more extensive help. It is rupted, all its dates become known. W e can, then,
much better supplied with chronological material, since
~~
obtain astronomical confirmation of the correctness of
23. Help from it possesses, for a series of 228 years, this combination (and so also of th, trustworthiness of
Assyriology. inscriptions containing careful Zin’s of. the Ptolemaic Canon and the Assyrian - ~ . i mym lists) in
Eponyms, lists, that is, giving the name the way hinted at already. For, if the Epu.:ym year of
of the officer after whom the year was called, and Mannu-ki-ASur-li’ is the year 709 B.c., the Eponym
mentioning single important events falling within the year of Pur-Sagali, to which, as we saw above, there is
year. These brief notes alone are quite enough to give assigned a solar eclipse, must be the year 763 B .c.;
the lists an extraordinary importance. Their value is and astronomers have computed that on the 15th June
further increased, however, by the fact that the office of of that year a solar eclipse occurred that would be
Eponym had to be held in one of his first years, almost total for Nineveh and its neighbourhood. Thus
commonly the second full year of his reign, by each the Assyrian Eponym list may safely be used for chrono-
king. Hence the order of succession of the Assyrian logical purposes.
kings and the length of their ’reign can be determined On the ground of the statements of this list, then,
with ease, especially as names of kings are distinguished we have, for the years 893-666 B.c., fixed points not to
from those of other Eponyms by the addition of the 25, Result. b6 called in question by which to date
royal title and of a line separating them from those that the events of this period in Israel; for
precede them (cp ASSYRIA, 5 198). The monumental the Assyrian inscriptions not only supply direct informa-
character, too, of these documents, exempting them, as tion concerning certain events in Israel’s own history,
it does, from the risk of alteration attaching to notes in but also in other cases fix the date of contemporaneous
books, gives assurance of their trustworthiness. Nor is events which the narrative of the OT presupposes.
the incompleteness of the list supposed by Oppert a Then the Ptolemaic Canon, which from 747 B.C. on-
fact. In regard to the order of succession no doubt is wards accompanies the Assyrian Eponym list, continues
possible. when the Eponym list stops (in 666 B.C.), and conducts
The establishment of this uninterrupted series of 228 us with certainty down to Roman times.
years can be accomplished with absolute certainty (as W e are thus enabled to determine beyond all doubt
24. Method. we shall see below) by the help of an the background of the history of Israel and Judah fsom
eclipse of the sun assigned by the list to 893 downwards, and obtain down to Alexander the
the Eponym year of Pur-Sagali of Gozan.2 In order Great the following valuable dates :-
to be able to determine the eclipse intended, however,
and thus to fix the year astronomically, we have first to TABLE III.-ASSYRIO-BABYLONIAN DATES
bring into consideration the so-called Canon of Ptolemy3 893 B.C. TO ALEXANDER THE GREAT
-next to these Assyrian Eponym lists, perhaps the 890-885 Tuklat-Adar.
most important chronological monument of antiquity. 884-860 Abr-niisir-pal.
This Canon is a list giving the names of the rulers of 859-825 Shalmaneser 11. (Sal-ma-nu-uggir)
Babylon-Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian-from 824-812 SamSi-Ramman.
Nabonassar to Alexander the Great (the Egyptian 811-783 Ramman-nirari (111.).
Ptolemies and the Romans are appended at the end), 782-773 Shalmaneser 111. (Sal-ma-nu-uSSir)
772-755 A b - d a n - i l u (Azurdin 111.)
with the number of years each of them reigned, and the 754-746 Ah-niraru.
eclipses observed by the Babylonians and the Alex- 745-727 Tiglat-pileser 111. (Taklat-habal-iSarra)
andrians-the years being reckoned according to the era 726-722 Shalmaneser 111.
of Nabonassar-Le., from that prince’s accession. The 721-705 Sargon (Arkeaiios 09.705, king of Babylon).
704-681 Sennacherib (Sin-&-irib).
trustworthiness of this document is proved, once for all, 680-668 Esarhaddon (ASarhaddon. AEur-ah-iddiu= Asaridinos
by the astronomical observations it record^,^ from which in Pt. can.).
we learn that the beginning of the era of Nabonassar 667 =first year of the reign ofAEur-bani-pal, who perhaps reigned
falls in the year 747 B . C 6
...__
till -.
. 696
The continuation is supplied by the Ptolemaic Canon
The Canon can be combined with the Assyrian which specifies the rulers of Babylon :-
Eponym lists, and the establishment of the latter with 667-648 Saosduchinos (=Sam&-Sum-ukin).
certainty effected in the following way. On the one 674-626 Kinilanadanos.
625-605 Nabopolassaros (=Nabii-habal-u+ur).
hand, the Ptolemaic Canon assigns to the year 39 of
604-562 Nabokolassaros (= Nabii-kudurri-usur, l!K:1?2+ and
the era of Nabonassar. 709 B.c., the accession of *
Arkeanos (=Sargina on the fragment of the Babylonian Wp3+).
list of kings); and, on the other hand, Assyrian clay 561-560 Illoarudamos (=Avil-Marduk, qylp h$.
tablets identify this year, the first of the rule of Sarrnkin 559-556 Nerigasolasaros (= Nirgal.Sar-uyr).
( L e . , Sargon or Arkeanos) over Babylon with the 555-539 Nabonadios (=Nabn-&’id).
538-530 Kyrus (= KumS, fd$3).
1 Cp also Wiedemann’s review (TLZ, 1894, No. 25, p. 633), of
Laroche’s Questions chronol’oppes (Angers, 1892), where the 52g-522 Kambyses (=Kambuyija).
Exodus is assigned to 1492. The judgment of this competent 521-486 Dareios I. (=DiirayavuS, fdyJ>).
reviewer is that ‘the book is well-meayt, but brings the question 485-465 Xerxes(=KhSayBrSii, W h W i I U ) .
of the Exodus no nearer to a solution.
2 KB,1 2 1 0 3 464-424 Artaxerxes I. (=Artakhzatr$, N C P l $ p l F ) .
8 I t bears the name ‘Ptolemaic Canon’ because it was in-
423-405 Dareios 11.
cluded in his astronomical work by the geographer and mathe- 404-359 Artaxerxes 11.
matician Claudius Ptolemreus, the contemporary of the Emperor
Antoninus Pius (therefore circ. 150 A.D.). 358-338 Ochus.
4 The proof is strengthened by the fragments of a Babylonian
337-336 Arogos (=Arses).
list of kings published by Pinches in PSBA G 193-205 [May, ’841, 335-332 Dareios 111.
Here follows Alexander the Great, who died in 313 B.C.
part of which constitute an exact parallel to the beginning of the
Greek list. and cnmnletelv confirmin= its statements concerning I With regard to this summary it is to be noted that (as is a
the names’and reigis of the rulers. matter of course in any rational dating by years ‘of reign-it
5 More exactly (since the dates are reduced to the common is certainlv the case in the Ptolemaic Canon) the vear con-
Egyptian year) on the first of Thoth (=26th Feb.), not (as
acZdrding to Babylonian official usage might have been ex- 1 From the thirteenth year of his reign down to his death in
pected) on the 1st of Nisan (=zrst March) (cp Hornmel, GBA, the seventeenth (and so, as the Ptolemaic Canon states, for five
488, and see below $ 26). years) Sargon must have reigned over Babylon also.
789 790
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
sidered as the first of any king is the earliest year at the begin- jyrians did not keep their promise he undertook in the third
ning of which he was already really reigning : in the preceding rear of the peace the unfortunate exbedition for the conquest of
year he had hegun to reign on his predecessor's death. Short iamoth-gilead in which he met his death (I K. 22). Thus the
reigns, accordingly, which did not reach the beginning of the leath of Ahah Lould fall ahout the year 851. Schrader on the'
new year had to remain unnoticed, as that of Lahorosoar- ,ther hand, sees in Ahab's taking part in the battle of 'Karkar
chad (Lhbagi-Marduk) in the year 556 which according to L consequence of the conclusion of peace with Aram that
Berassus, lasted 01.; nine Aonths. It is hllowed the battle of Aphek, and finds it thus possible to
26. Beginning further to he noted that the beginning of issign Ahah's death to so early a date as 853. Even if we
of year. the year did not fall in the two lists on the nclined to follow the representation of Schrader (Wellhausen's
same day. The Eponym lists make the s much more attractive) the Assyrian notice of the battle of
year begin on the first of Nisan, the 21st of March, while garkar in 854 estab1ishes)at least one point, that the beginning
the Ptolemaic Canon follows the reckoning of the ordinary ,f Jehu's reign cannot be earlier than 842,and the traditional
Egyptian year of 365 days, the beginning of which, as compared lumbers must he curtailed. On the question just discussed see
with our mode of reckoning falls one day earlier every four also AHAB.
years. Thus, if in the yea; 747, as was indeed already the The year 842 B.C. may, therefore, be assigned as that
case in 748, the beginning of the year fell on the 26th of If the accession of Tehu. In the same year also perished
February, the year 744 would hegin on the 25th. For a period
of a hundred years this difference would amount to twenty-five Jehoram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah,
29. Approxi-
days. Thus the beginning of the year 647 B.C. would fall on
the 1st of February ; and so on. Therefore for the period 747-
323 B.C. the beginning of the year would always fall somewhat
.
mate earlier
L
..
aaxes*
~
king of Judah, whilst Athaliah seized
the reins of government in Jerusalem.
If from this h e . equally imiortant for
near the beginning of ours.
both kingdoms, we try to go back; we-can'determine
If, then, the chronological data of the O T were trust- with approximate certainty the year of the division of
worthy, as soon as one cardinal point where the two series the monarchy. The years of reign of the Israelitish
-that of the O T and that just obtained kings down to the death of Jehoram make up the sum of
27. Care
-came into contact could be established ninety-eight, and those of the kings of Jndah down to
necessary' with certainty, the whole chronology of the the death of Ahaziah the sum of ninety-five ; whilst the
O T would be at once determined, and the insertion of synchronisms of the Books of Kings allow only eighty-
the history of Israel into the firm network of this general eight years. Since the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram
background would become possible. In the uncertainty, of Israel must be curtailed (5 28), if we assume ninety
however, in which the chronological data of the O T axe years as the interval that had elapsed since the partition
involved, this simple method can lead to no satisfactory of the kingdoms this will be too high rather than too
result. All points of coincidence must be separately low an estimate. The death of Solomon may, accord-
attended to ; and, although we may start out from a ingly, be assigned to f 930 B.C. Wellhausen (1JU2~,
fixed point in drawing our line, we must immediately g J ) , indeed, raises an objection against this, on the
see to it that we keep the next point of contact in view. ground of a statement in the inscription of Mesha : but
Unfortunately, in going backwards from the earliest the expression in the doubtful passage is too awkward
ascertainable date to a remoter antiquity such a check and obscure to lead us, on its account, to push back
is not available. the death of Solomon to 950 B.c., or even farther.'
The earliest date available, as being certain beyond In this connection it is not unimportant that the
doubt, for an attempt to set the chronology of the O T statements of Menander of EDhesus in regard to the
28. Earliest on a firm basis is the year 854 B .c., in
I

30. lenander. Tyrian list of kings confirm the

certain OT which Ahab king of Israel was one of
the confederates defeated by Shalman-
.-
assignment of 010 B . C . as the amroxi-
mate date of the de& of Solom&.
dates. eser 11. (859-825) at Karlmr (Schr. According to the careful discussion that Franz Riihl has
KGF, 356-371 and Z<AlT(2),193-200). Since, how- devoted to this statement (see below 5 85 end), preserved to us
ever, the O T contains no reference to the event, it is in three forms (first, in Josephus,'~. A p . 1 8 ; second, in the
Chron. of Euseh., and third, in Theophilnsad AlrtoZ. iii. 100 22))
of no use for the purpose of bringing the history of we may, assuming v. Gutschmid's date of 814 B.C. for the
Israel into connection with general history till we take foundation of Carthage, fix on 969-936 as the period of reign
into consideration also the next certain date, 842 B.c., of EZpwpop or Hiram and on 878-866 B.C. as that of ElfIJ@ahos
or Ethha'al. Now k h a b was son-in-law of Ethha'al (I K. 16 13),
in which year presents were offered to the same Assyrian and since Ethha'ai at his accession in the year 878 B.C. was
king, Shalmaneser II., by Jehu (KATP), zo8-zrr). thirty-six years old be could quite well have had a marriageable
Within these thirteen years (854-842)must fall the death daughter a few ye&s later when Ahab who according to I I<.
of Ahab, the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram, and the 16 29 reigned twenty-two ;ears (about '872-851 B.c.), ascended
the throne. Moreover, Menander mentions a one-year famine
accession of Jehu. Of this period the most that need under Eithobalos, which even Josephns (Ant. viii.13 2) identilies
be assigned to Jehu is the last year, which may have with the three-year famine that, according to IK. 17, fell
been at the same time also the year of Jehoram's death : in the beginning of the rei n of Ahah. Further, Eiromos (969-
936) may he identified w i t t Hiram, the friend of Solomon (cp
for it may be regarded as quite probable that it would I K. 5 18 24 32 9 IO j?), and, whether we adopt the opinion
be immediately after his accession that Jehu would send that Hiram the contemporary of David (2 S. 5 IT),was the same
presents to the Assyrian king to gain his recognition person as tiis friend'of Solomon's, or suppose that the name of
and favour. On the other'hand, the traditional values the better-known contemporary of Solomon has simply been
transferred to the Tyrian king who bad relations with David.
of the reigns require for Ahaziah two years ( I K. 2252), the year t 930 B.C. for the death of Solomon, agrees excellently
and for Jehoram alone twelve years ( 2 K. 31): so there with this Phqnician synchronism.
appears to be no time left for Ahab after 854. The 1 We. translates lines 7-9thus :-' Omri conquered the whole
death of Ahab, however, cannot be assigned to so early land of Medaha, and Israel dwelt there during his days and
a date as 854.l The reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram, half the days of his son forty years, and Kamos recovered it
therefore, must be curtailed by more than one year. in my days. H e thus &rives a t an estimate of at least sixty
years for Omri's and Ahab's combined reigns since only by
The course of events from 854 to the death of Ahab in adding the half of Ahab's r e i p to the part of O m k s reign during
the struggle with the Syrians has, accordingly, been which Moab was tributary IS the total of forty years attained.
ranged in different ways. It is to be noted however tdat ' Israel ' ahich We. (so also Smend
Wellhausen (ZJGP), 71)supposes that in consequence of thf and Socin, Dii Znschr.'des K. &Zeia won M o d , 1886, p . 13)
universal defeat in 854 Ahab ahanboned the relation o supplies as the subject to 'dwelt' ( > ~ y ) , is lacking in the
vassalage to Aram that hdd lasted till then and thus provokec inscription, and that even with this insertion the construction is
a Syrian attack' on Israel. Then, by the kctory a t Aphek ir not beyond criticism. Is it in the undoubted awkwardness of
the second year and the capture of Benhadad he compelled tht the passage, not possible to {ranslate thus-' Omri conquered the
Syrians to conclude peace and to promise io deliver up tht whole land of Medaba and held it in possession as long as he
Gileadite cities they had won from Israel (I K. 20). As thc reigned, and during t i e half of the years of m y reign Lis son,
in all forty years. But yet in my reign Chemosh recovered it.'
In that case there is no ground for ascribing so many as sixty
1 Victor Floigl (GA, 1882, pp. 94-96), indeed, supposes t h a years to the reigns of Omri and Ahab. Nay, the pocsibility is
Ahah fell before Karkar (i.e in 854) and not before Ramoth not excluded, that 2 K. 3 5 is right in making the revolt of Moah
Gilead : but to accomplish tdis he ha; to treat the narratives o follow the death of Ahah, and then the futile expedition of
the Syrian wars (I K. 20 1-3438-43 22 1-37) as quite untrust Jehoram of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah against Moab
worthy. could he taken as marking the end of the forty years.
791 792
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
If it has been difficult to attain sure ground in the formation, and regarding the premonarchic period the
_ _
early period of the divided nionarchv. it is even less
possible to determine anything with
most that can be said is that, according to the
discoveries at Tell-el-Amarna the Hebrews were, about
. 31. Before certainty about the period preceding
the middle of the fifteenth century B.c., not yet settled
the Schism. Solomon's death. If the data of the in Canaau.1
O T concerning the reigns of Solomon and David (40 For the time, therefore, from the partition of the
years each, I K.211 1142) have any value, David must 32. Schism kingdom down to the year 842 B.c.,
have attained to power about the year 1000 B.C. we must be content with the following
Concerning Saul, even I S.131 gives us no real in- to Jehu, estimate :-

TABLE ~~.- E S T I M A TOEF REIGNS : DEATH OF SOLOMON TO ACCESSION OF JEHU.

K I NGS O F ISRAEL. KINGS OF JUDAH.
930 (?)-854 Jerohoam of Israel and his contemporaries Rehohoam and Ahijah in Judah.
Nadab ,,
Ba'asha ,, Asa of Judah certainly Contemporary with Ra'asha.
Elah
Zimri
Omri
::
Ahab " Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, contemporary with Ahab,
Ahab at battlgof Karkar Ahaziah, and Jehoram.
z-842 Ahab's death
Ahaziah, king of Israel
Jehoram Jehoram, king of Judah.
842 Death of J&oram 3 Israel Death of Ahaziah of Judah.

From 842 B.C. onwards, there is no fixed point till is accomplished by Kautzsch in this way : Pekahiah
we come to the eighth century. Then we have one in 736, Pekah 735.730, Hoshea 729-721. Wellhausen
33. Certaiu the eighth year of the Assyrian king has abandoned his former theory that Pekahiah and
dates Tiglath-pileser 111. (745-727)-i.e., 738 Pekah are identical, and makes the latter begin to
B.C. In that year, according to the cunei- reign in zk 735. To Hoshea, the last king of Israel,
842-721' form inscriptions, this king of Assyria he assigns an actual reign of at least ten years, although
received the tribute of Menahem of Israec When-the he assumes that according to 2 K. 174J: he came
OT tells of this ( 2 I(. 15 19 8 )it calls the Assyrian king under the power of Assyria before the fall of Samaria.
P n l : although elsewhere ( 2 K. 1529 1610) it uses the For the Judean line of kings the starting-point is
other name, Tiglath-pileser. Of the identity of the two likewise the year 842 R. c., in which Ahaziah of Judah
names, however, there can be no doubt (KATP) 223 35. Judah met his death at the handof Jehu, and
3,C O T , 1 Z I ~ ) ,and we are not to think of the reference , 842-734.
Athaliah assumed the direction of the
being to a Babylonian king, or an Assyrian rival king, government. On the other hand, we do
or to assume that Tiglath-pileser himself, at an earlier not find, for the next hundred years, a single event
period, twenty years or more before he became king independently determined urith perfect exactness by
over Assyria, while still bearing the name of Pul, made years of the reigning king of Judah. W e must come
an expedition against the land of Israel (so Klo. Sam. down as far as 734 B.C. before we attain certainty.
a. KO. ['87] p. 496). If we add that Ahaz of Judah' We know that at that time Ahaz had already come
procured for himself through a payment of tribute the to power, and we can only suppose (according to
help of Tiglath - pileser against the invading kings, 2 I(. 1 5 3 7 3 ) thFt he had not long before this succeeded
Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus ; that, accord- his father,' during whose lifetime Pekah of Israel and
ingly, the Assyrian king took the field against Philistia Rezin of Damascus were already preparing for war.
and, Damascus in 734 and 733 ; and that in 732, after The presents of King Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser in the
the "eonquest of Damascus, Ahaz also appeared in year 734 B.C. delivered Judah from the danger
Damkscus to do homage to Tiglath - pileser, there that threatened it, and in 732 B.C. in the conquered
remains to be mentioned only the equally certain date Damascus the same king did homage to the victorious
of the beginning of the year 721 R.C. (Hommel, GBA Assyrian, and offered him his thanks (cp 2 K. 16 7 3 and
676) for the conquest of Saniaria, to complete the list Schrader, KATP) 2 5 7 8 ) . It is still difficult, however,
of assured dates between 842 and 721. to allot the intervening time to the several kings of
The attempt to arrange the kings of North Israel Judah ; for the traditional values for the reigns require
during this period is hampered by fewer difficulties in the no less than 143 years from the first year of Athaliah
34. North interval 842-738 than are to be found in to the death of Jotham, whilst between 842 B.C. and

8z:l. that between 738 and 721. If we assume

that Menahem died soon after paying
tribute, we shall still have in the 113 years
734 B.C. there are only 108 years at our dLsposa1.
It is, therefore, necessary to reduce several of the
items by a considerable amount, and it is not to be
reckoned by the traditionary account from the accession wondered at that different methods of adjustment have
of Jehu to the death of Menahem a slight excess, since been employed. The synchronism of events between
for the period 842-738 we need only 104 years. Still, the history of Israel and that of Judah is too inadequate
we can here give an approximate date for the individual to secure unanimity, and the mention (not quite certain)
reigns. The latest results of Kantzsch (in substantial of Azariah of Judah in Assyrian inscriptions for the
agreement with Brandes, Kaniphausen, and Riehm) years 742-740 (cp Schr. KATIY), 2 1 7 8 ) does not make
are the following :'-Jehu 841-815, Jehoahaz 814-798, up the lack. On one point, however, there is agree-
Jehoash 797-783, Jeroboam 11. 782-743 (or before 745), ment: that it is in the cases of Amaziah, Azariah
Zechariah and Shallnm perhaps also in 743, Menaheni (Uzziah), and Jotham that the deductions are to be
742-737 (or i 745 to after 738). For the last made.
period, on the other hand, from the death of Menahem The years 841-856 B .c., for Athaliah are rendered
to the conquest of Samaria, the traditional reckoning tolerably certain by the data concerniug Jehoash, the
gives thirty-one years, whilst from 737 to 721 we have infant son of Ahaziah ( 2 K . 1 1I 8 3). Then we
hardly sixteen. The necessary shortening of the reigns need have no misgivings about giving Jehoash, who
was raised to the throne at so young an age, about
1 We modify them only to the extent of giving as the first forty years. If we take these years fully, we obtain
year of a reign the year at the beginning of which the king was
already in power, and adding in parentheses the figures of We., 1 On early traces of certain elements afterwards forming part
in so far as they are to he found in his 1.G. $3 58J ; ASHER,I I$
of Israel, see I SRAEL , 5 7J : EGYPT,
793 794
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
for the reign of Jehoash 835-796 B . C . The date of the date of the battle, we gather only that it must have
his death may, indeed, be pushed still farther back; been after 610 B. c., since the conqueror, Necho II., did
but in any case his time as determined by these data not begin to reign till that year. There is, therefore,
cannot be far wrong, for he must have been a con- nothing left but to take as our fixed point the conquest
temporary of Jehoahaz the king of Israel (814-798), of Jerusalem in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar
and, according to 2 K. 1218 8 ,also of Hazael of Aram - L e . , 586 B . C . ( 2 K.253 8). For the intervening time
(acc. to Winckler 844-about 804 [?I ). From 795 to we have to take into consideration, besides the death of
734 there are left only 61 years, and in this interval Josiah, the data supplied by Assyriology, which place
room must be found for Amaziah with twenty-nine Sennacherib‘s expedition against Hezelciah in 701 8. c.
years, Azariah with fifty-two, and Jotham with sixteen and imply Manassehs being king of Judah in the years
-no less than ninety-seven years. Even if we allow 681-667(cp Schr. KAT(2),p. 466).
the whole sixteen yea& of Jotham, who, according to For the whole time from the death of Jotham to the
2 K. 15 j, conducted the government during the last conquest of Jerusalem, tradition requires 155 years of
illness of his father, to be merged in the fifty-two years reign, whilst from 734 B .c., when Ahaz was already
of Azariah, we do not escape the necessity of seeking s-ated on the throne of Jerusalem--which year, if not
other ways of shortening the interval. Amaziah’s reign that of his accession, must have been at least the first
is estimated too high at twenty-nine years. The only of his reign-to 586 B .c., we have only 148, or, since
thing that is certain about him is that he was a we may reckon also the year 734 B . c . , 149 years. ’The
contemporary of Jehoash of Israel (797-783; cp 2 K. smallness of the difference of seven years, however,
14 8 3 ) . It is pure hypothesis to assign him nine shows that we have now to do with a better tradition.
years (We.), or nineteen years (Kainph. and Kau.), Where the mistake lies we cannot tell beforehand. All
instead of twenty-nine. The smaller number has the we can say is that it is not to be sought between the
greater probability, since the defeat that he brought on death of Josiah and the fall of Jerusalem, since for this
himself by his wanton challenge of Jehoash of Israel interval twenty-two years are required by tradition, and
best explains the conspiracy against him (2K. 14 ~ g f),. this agrees with our datum that Josiah must have died
and he would therefore hardly survive his conqueror, shortly after 610 B. C.
but much more probably meet his death by assassination Let us see wnether another cardinal point can be
a t Lachish not long after 790 B.C. (cp also St. GVZ, found. In 701 Hezekiah was reigning in Jerusalem.
1559). From the death of Amaziah to 734 reigned When it was that he came to the throne, whether
Azariah and Jotham. T o discover the boundary between before or after the fall of Samaria (721 B.C.), is the
the two, we must bear in mind the Assyrian inscriptions question. In Is. 1428 we have an oracle against Philistia,
already mentjoned, which apparently represent Azariah dated from the year of the death of king Ahaz,-a
as still reigning in the years 742-740,and must keep in chronological note which, like Is. 6 I , may have import-
view that Isaiah, who cannot be thought of as an old ance, if the oracle really belongs to Isaiah. Winckler
man when Sennacherib marched against Jerusalem in and Cheyne [but cp Isaiah, SBOT, Addenda] regard
the year 701, received his prophetic call in the year of it as possible that the oracle may refer to agitation
the death of Uzziah (Isa. 6 I ) . Accordingly, we cannot in Syria and Palestine, in which the Philistines shared,
be far wrong in assigning the death of Azariah and the on the accession of Sargon (721 B .c.), when Hanun,
accession of Jotham as sole ruler to 740 B . C . More king of Gaza, induced them to rebel, in reliance on the
than this cannot be made out with the help of the help of Sib‘e, one of the Egyptian petty kings (cp above
materia% at our disposal up to the present time. on Sabalca, Sabi, So’, Seweh, 21). On this theory
If now the year of the conquest of Samaria (721B .c.) the death of Ahaz wodd have to be set down about
were fixed with certainty according to the year of the the year 720 B.C. As, however, the authenticity of
36. 734-586 king then reigning in Judah, this would the oracle is not certain,-in fact hardly probable (cp
appear the next resting-point after 734 B. c. Duhm, who even conjectures that originally there may
B.C. The data of the OT do not agree, how- have stood, instead of Ahaz, the name of the second
ever, and none of them is to be relied upon. This last Persian king, Arses [=Arogos])-it is not safe to
is true even of the datum in z K. 1813, lately much take it as fixing the death-year of Ahaz. Of greater
favoured by critics, that Sennacherib’s expedition against value is the section relating to the embassy of Merodach-
Palestine in the year 701 B . C . was in the fourteenth Baladan of Babylon to Hezelciah ( 2 K. 20= Is. 39).
year of Hezekiah (so We. / D T [ ‘ 7 5 ]p. 6 3 5 3 ; Kamph. Merodach-Baladan was king of Babylon from 721 to
Die ChronoZ. der Hedr. Konige [‘83]p. 28 ; Guthe, D n s 710. When, later, he attempted to recover his
Zukunftdild des Yes. r85] p. 37, and St. G VI,1606 Jt: ). position, he held Babylon for so short a time that an
In order to maintain the datum, it is not enough to say, embassy to the west would be impossible. Thus,
‘ The people of Judah are more likely to have preserved Merodach-Baladan must have sought relations with
the year of Hezekiah in which- their whole land was laid Hezekiah between 721 and 709. The beginning of the
waste and their capital, Jerusalem, escaped destruction reign of Merodach-Baladan, when in the year 721
only through enduring the direst distress, than to have or 720 he obtained possession of Babylon and held it
preserved the year of Hezekiah in which Samaria fell.’ against Sargon. commends itself as the point of time
The unnsual (cp 2 K. 181 9) prefixing of the numeral most suitable. After the battle of Diir-ilu, which both
before m y (cp Duhm, Yesnja, 235) of itself indicates a parties regarded as a victory for themselves, it must
later origin, and this is confirmed by what we have already have seemed natural to hope that the overthrow of the
found as to these chronological data not belonging to Assyrian kingdom would be possible, if the west joined
the original narrative. The number fourteen is based, in the attack. Moreover, Sargon once describes himself
not upon historical facts, but upon an exegetical inference (Nimriid inscr., 1 8 ) as ‘ the subduer of Judah,’ which
from Is. 385, and a consideration of the twenty-nine seems to mean that, on the suppression of the revolt in
years traditionally assigned to Hezekiah, and must there- Philistia, Hezekiah resumed the payment of the tribute
fore rank simply with the scribe’s note Am. 1 I : ‘ two that had been imposed. In view of this, Winckler seems
years before the earthquake.’ to be justified in placing the appearance of the embassy
Even when we come to the seventh century, the of Merodach-Baladan before Hezelciah in the year 720
expectation that at least the death of Josiah in the battle or 719. Approximately, then, the year 721 may he
of Megiddo would admit of being dated with complete regarded as assured for the year of the death of Ahaz.
accuracy by material from inscriptions is not fulfilled. The first year of Hezekiah‘s reign is thus 720 B.C.
From Egyptian chronology, which does not mention rather than 728 (Kau.), or 714 (We, and others). The
1 This is forcibly urged by Kau. (cp. Kamph. op. cit. 94) and discrepancy of four years, which is all that now remains
has received the assent of Duhm (Lc.) and Cheyne (Z&u. Is. 218). 1 For fuller details see ISAIAH, i. B 6, SARGON.
795 796
 CHRONOLOGY

TABLE V.-TABULAR SURVEY : DEATH OF SOLOMON TO HERODTHE GREAT.

:ertair 'robable
Dates. Dates. ISRAEL. JUDAH.

-
1st year of Jeroboam. 1st year of Rehoboam.

Reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Reigns of Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, part of reign 01
Omri, part of reign of Ahab. Jehoshaphat.
-
854 Ahab at battle of garkar.

Rest of reign of Ahah: reigns of Ahaziah and Rest of reign of Jehoshaphat : reigns of Jehoram
Jehoram. and Ahaziah.
-

842 Death of Jehoram (at the hands of Jehu). Tribute of Death of Abaziah (at the hands of Jehu).
Jehu to Shalmaneser 11.

847 1st year of Jehu (841-815). 1st year of Athaliah (841-836).

835 1st year of Johoash (835-796).
814 1st year of Jehoahaz (814-798).
797 1st year of Jehoash (797-783).
795 1st year of Amaziah (795-790).
789 1st year of Azaiah (789740).
782 1st ear of Jeroboam II. (782-743).
743 Leciariah, Shallum.
742 1st year Menahem (742-737).
739 1st year Jotham (739734).
738 Tribute of Menahem to Tiglath-piloser III.
736 Pekahiah.

735 1st year of Pekah (735-730).

734 Triburc o f Ahnr: to Tiglath-pileser.
733 1st year of Ahaz (733-721).
732 Ahiv does homage to 'l'iglath-pilem at Damascus.
729 1st year of Hoshea (729-727).
721 Fall of Samaria.

720 1st year of Hezekiah (720493). Embassy of Merodach-haladan from Babylon.

701 Sennacherib's army before Jerusalem.
692 1st year of Manasseh (692-639).
638 1st year of Amon (638).
637 1st year of Josiah (637-608).
608 Battle of Megiddo. Jehoahaz, king.
607 1st year of Jehoiakim (607-597).
604 1st year of Nebuchadrezzar (604-562).
597 Jehoiachin king.
596 1st year of iedekiah (596-586).
586 FALL OF JERUSALEM.
- ~

Dates. The more important dates of the succeeding centuries.

561 s t year of Evil-Meroclach (561-560).

Liberator of Jehoiachin from prison.
538 st year of Cyrus (538-530).
521 s t year of Darius I. (521-486).
515 3ompletion of building of second temple.
464 st year of Artaxerxes I. (464-424).
445 st visit of Nehemiah to Jerusalem. Building of city-wall.
.433 ieturn of Nehemiah.
:irc. 43 md visit of Nehemiah to Jerusalem. On the advent of Ezra and the Introduction of the law see above, 0 14.
332 3nd of Persian Power : Alexander the Great.

Beginning of Ptolemaic dominion in Palestine, which continued with short interruptions till 198.
Beginning of the Era of the Seleucidae.
nale<tine
~~~ ~.irnder Svrian
~ ~dominion.
-~ -. ~ I ~ ~ ~

4utiochus IV. Epiphanos.

insurrection of Msttathias the pricst, of hlodein (t166).
IKeintrodiiction of regular service in the temple.
Iudas Maccnbaeus (it6--16~)fall\ in battle naainst Baccliides.
Execution of Jonathan (leader of MaccabeG revolt since 160).
limon High-priest and Prince.
3yrcanus I.
4ristobulus I. king.
lannzus.
41exancli-a.
Xyrcanus 11. and Aristobulus 11.1
Paking of Jerusalem by Pompey. Palestine a part of the Roman Province of Syria.
Xyrcanus 11. under Roman sovereignty.
'nvasion of Parthians. Antigonus made king (40-37).
Xerod the Great.

1 On the dates of the Maccabees cp We. IJG(4, 229, n. 2 ; 2nd ed. 263, n. 3 ; 3rd ed. 275, n. 2.

797 798
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
between the sum of the years of reign from the death of Unfortunately, the task is attended with serious diffi;
Ahaz to the conquest of Jerusalem, and the interval 720- culty, the causes of which need to be briefly described.
586 B. c . - i e . , between 139 years of reign and 135 actual 40. Difficulty, ( I ) The first Christians themselves had
years-cannot be removed otherwise than by shortening no interest in chronology, whether with
the reign of one or more of the kings. The account of reference to events concerning them as Christians, or
the closing portion of the line of kings has already been with reference to events of secular history. This was
found to merit our confidence. The shortening must due not only to their separation from the world and
therefore be undertaken somewhere near the beginning their limited horizon, but also, and still more, to their
of the line of kings from Hezelciah to Josiah. The most sense of superiority to the world (Phil. ~ z o ) ,which
obvious course is to reduce the long reign of Manasseh seemed to them already in process of dissolution ( I Cor.
from fifty-fiveyears to fifty-one(We., indeed, assigns him 731), and to their feeling that they had already begun
only forty-five). This, however, may seem arbitrary, and to live in eternity. ( 2 ) The historical traditions of the
it will be simpler as well as less violent to divide the Christians were formed wholly with the purpose of
shortening among all the four reigns. If, that is to say, promoting Christian piety, and were therefore restricted
in the case of the years of reign of the kings from to a small number of events, the choice of which was
Hezekiah to Josiah, tradition included (according to often, as it were, accidental, and the arrangement ac-
popular practice) the year of accession and the year of cording to subject rather than to time. Our chrono-
death, we may reduce the numbers for Hezekiah, logical interest has, accordingly, to be satisfied with
Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah by one each, and assign inferences and combinations which often remain, after
them twenty-eight, fifty-four, one, and thirty respectively. all, very problematical : and the gaps in the traditions
Thus we get the following series :-Hezekiah 720-693 prevent us from constructing anywhere a long chrono-
(28 years), Manasseh 692-639 (54 years), Amon 638 ( I logical sequence. (3) Of at least a part of the traditions
year), Josiah 637-608 (30 years), Jehoahaz 608 (2 year), the historical trustworthiness is subject to such grave
Jehoiakim 607-j97 (11 years), Jehoiachin 597 (a year), doubt that we can venture to use them only with great
and Zedekiah 596-586 (11 years). The control over reserve, if at all. (4) In the N T , apart from some
the date of the death of Josiah from Egyptian history vague notices in the Fourth Gospel, the only writer who
which is to a certain extent possible turns out to be not professedly gives chronological data is the author of the
unfavourable to our results, since Pharaoh Necho 11. Third Gospel and Acts. He gives no account, however,
began to reign in 610 B.C., and, as early as the end of of the means by which he obtained these data. W e are,
606, or the beginning of 605, encountered the crown therefore, unable to check his statements, and can treat
prince Nebuchadrezzar at Carchemish (cp, on the date them only as hypotheses. As far as we know, the old
of this battle which, in Jer. 462, is inaccurately assigned Catholic fathers-IrenEus, Tertullian, Clement of Alex-
to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Winckler, A T Untemxh. andria, Julius Africanus, and Hippolytus-were the first
SI). Hence the year 608 B.C. for the battle of Megiddo to make chronological calculations. Whether they
possesses the greatest probability. That, among the based them on any independent tradition or limited
numerous dates for the last decades of the kingdom themselves to inferences from our Gospels is uncertain ;
of Judah which the O T furnishes, little inaccuracies, the latter is the more probable view. Their data can
such as that in the passage (Jer. 46 z ) just cited, appear, receive only occasional mention here.l (5) It has not
is intelligible on the ground (apart from others, as, e.g., yet been found possible to give exact dates to certain
in the case of Ezek. 3321)of their being the result of of those events of profane history which come into
later calculation. At all events, these variations are not question. (6) Further difficulty is caused by the
to be accounted for, with Hommel ( G B A 755), by the complicated nature of the ancient calendar, and by
supposition that the Jews reckonedtheyears of Nebuchad- the different usages in reckoning time and in beginning
rezzar, as well as those of their own kings, from the day the year. Side by side with the various eras \ \ e have
on which they ascended the throne to the corresponding various methods of reckoning by the years of reigning
day in the following year. The Jews, in adopting the monarchs.
exact Babylonian chronological system, and applying it In the following article the years are designated by
to their own past history, did not mutilate it and render the numbers of our current Dionysian era, on the origin
it futile. of which see Ideler (Hun&. 2 3 6 5 8 ) . By this reckon-
Beyond the points already referred to (5 13f.), the ing the year I B.C. coincides with the year 753 A.U.C.,
chronology of the times after the conquest of Jerusalem and the year I A . D . with the year 754 A.U.C. The
in 586 8.C. presents no difficulties worth years are treated as beginning on 1st Jan., as was the
37. After 686 mentioning, The Canon of Ptolemy case according to the Varronian reckoning in the period
B’c’ supplies an assured framework into under consideration.
which the data that have been preserved can be fitted
without trouble. 1 The facts in detail are to a large extent given by Bratke and
Hilgenfeld in articles on the chronological attempts of Hippo-
The tabular survey on t h e preceding page gathers lytus in ZW?; 1892.
together the dates we have established. 2 An excellent guide through this labyrinth is Ideler’s Hun&.
38* Summary At the end is appended a continuation abridged and in part improved in his Lehrb. (see below, $ 85).
Of The most important tables (of the sun and moon, and of eras)
- the most important dates
indicating are brought together from astronomical works by Gumpach,
down to the last century B.C. K. M. Hiilfsslnittel d. mcknend. Chronol. 1853. See further Bouchet,
H6~4rologieI868 ; E. Muller in Pauly’s Realencyc. d. class.
AZt. s.v. A&a- Matzat Rdin. ChronoL two vols. 1883-84.
Special service ’to N T Chronology has also been rendered by
Clinton, FastiHelZenici, 1830, 2 ed. le51 ; FastiRomnni, 1845-
B. N E W TESTAMENT. 5 0 . and by J. Klein, Fasti Consrlares, Leipsic, 1881. Further
bidliographical notices and many original contributions to the
The chronology of the New Testament is of great subject are to he founh in Schurer GJV, i. (18go), where, in an
{subsidiary) importance for the study of the origins of appendx, is given a table (taken f;om Clinton) of parallel years
by Olympiads, and by the Seleucid, Varronian, and Dionysian
~~ .LTm Christianity. From the order of the eras. The third appendix discusses the months of the Jewish
ail. IY I
chronology : events in the primitive period it will be Calendar, and on p. 630f: a bibliography of the very large
importance. possible to draw conclusions with regard literature of that subject is to be found.-Important for the
chronology of the N T are also Wieseler Chronol. Syn. der vier
to the influenceof one event upon another ; EuangeZien 1843. Chronol. d. a$. Zekalfers 1848 ; and art.
the rapidity of the historical development will enable ‘Zeitrechn&g‘ i i PRE 1866’ Beitr. Z I T dchtigen PVLirdi-
us to measure the power of the original impulse: .
gzlng der Evang. 1869. ’Lewin’ Fasti Smri 1865 Lightfoot
and only when the events have received their place in on ‘The Chronology of bt. Paui‘s Life and Epistles”in Biblical
Essays (posthumous), 2 1 5 8 See also B. W. Bacon, ‘ A New
contemporary history can they be fully understood. Chronology of the Acts,’ Exjositor, Feb. 1898.
799 800
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
41.Parallel TABLE VI.-NT : PARALLEL D ATES lad lived quietly at Nazareth? W e have to consider
Dates. PROM S ECULAR HISTORY. mly two passages. ( I ) J n . 857. If the foolish question,
AUGUSTUS CESAR, 30 ~ . c . - q t hAug. 14 A.D., and Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen
TIRERIIJS, 19th Aug. 14 ~ . ~ . - 1 6 tMarch
h 37 A.D. ihraham ? ' were authentic, it would only give a superior
37 n.c.-4 B.C. H e v o d the Great. imit, plainly put as high as possible on the ground of
2-19 B.c., T&ple begun (Jos. A i d . XV. 11 I ; see Schurer, he general impression from Jesus's appearance. From
1301).
4 13.c.A A.D. Archelaus ethnarch of Judrea Samaria and his no inference as to any definite number could he
Idumea (deposed and banished to Viennd in Gaul).' lrawn, for anlong, the Jews a man began to be elderly
4 ~.c.-39 A.D., Anfzjus, tetrarch of Galilee and Perrea
-
(banished to Lugdunurn). On his relations to Aretas
Gee § 78.
tt fifty years, and the remark would merely have meant,
You are still one of the younger men.' If the question
4 n.c.-34 A . D . , ~ PhiZ@, tetrarch of the north-eastern s not authentic, it either testifies to the impression made
districts. (After his death his tetrarchy was governed iy the account of Jesus in the tradition, that he was in
as part of the province of Syria.) he best years of life (cp Nu. 4 3 39 S24J ), or else the
The territoiy of Archelaus was governed
6-41 A . D . by Roiizan procurators, with their residence in ialf-century, as an age which he had not yet attained, is
Czsarea. Of these the fifth. ntended to form an ironical contrast to the many
z&begiuning of 36 A.D., was Po;ziius Pilate. :enturies from Abraham to the then present time. In
36, Pilate sent to Rome to answer for his conduct.
36 Passover Vitellius in Jerusalem. .he ancient church, Irenzus (ii. 22 5) is the only writer,
37: Vitellius'made war, at the Emperor's command, on .a make use of this passage for chronology ; he remarks
Aretas in retaliation for the latter's war against Antipas. :hat the presbyters in Asia Minor had on the ground of
At the news of the emperor's death hostiliries suspended. t ascribed to Jesus an age of forty to fifty years.
CALIGULA, 16th March 37-qth Jan. 4'.
37, Herod Agrippa I. receives from Caligiila the title of ( 2 )Lk. 323. The text is here not quite certain, and
king with the tetrarchies of Lysanias(see Schurer, 1600- :he sense of the most probable reading is obscure.
604) 'and of Philip : in What does d p ~ b p e u o smean? In the Sin. Syr. it is
40, also that of Antipns; and in
41, also the provinces of Judrea and Samaria, previously miitted from the translation. ) In any case, the presence
governed by procurators. 3f Jud ( ' about ' ) forbids us to use the number as if it were
CLAUDIUS, 24th Jan. 41~13thOct. 54. rxact. It merely tells us that Jesus stood in the begin-
44 Death ofHerodAgrippa1. at Caesarea. The territory
bf Agrippa after his death governed by procurators. ning of adult manhood, and leaves undecided the
Expulsion of Yewsfronz Ronre. question whether he had just entered on his thirtieth year
N ERO , 13th Oct. 54-9th June 68. 3r was already over thirty.
52-56/60,2 Antonius Felix Moreover, whether the number comes from actual
56/6-62 [61?], Porcilrs Festus
62[61?1-64, Albinus historical recollection at all is made uncertain by the
64, 19th July, Gu772ing of Ronze. Fact that, according to Nu. 4 3 39, from thirty to fifty was
66, Outbreak of Jewish war. the canonical age for certain ritual acts. It is significant
GALUA, OrHo, and VITELLIUS,9th June 68-20th Dec. 69. that these two gospels, from Asia Minor, in so many
VEsPnsiAN-Proclaimed Emperor 1st July 69 in Egypt while
engaged in putting down the Jewish insurrection. points similar, give for the age of Jesus in these two
Recognised as Emperor in the East at once throughout passages the two limits of this canonical term of years.
the Empire not until after the death of Vite'llius. Died 2. The Length of the Pu6Zic Ministry of 3e.rus-The
~ 3 r dJune 79.
70, Ilestmction of Jeritsalenz. evidence here points on the whole to one year. The
Trrus, 79-81. e three years ' in the parable of the fig-tree
DOMITIAN, 81-96. 44. (Llr. 1 3 7 ) are either arbitrarily chosen to
93-96, Persecutions of Christians, especially in Rome and Ministry. designate a short period or are to be
Asia Minor.
NEKVA. 06-08. connected with the fact that the fig-tree commonly bears
TRA]Ak,'98:117. fruit in three years (for the opposite view, see Wieseler,
r r r - r r 3 , Correspondence with Pliny, governor of Bithynia, Synupse, 202 f. ). The ' three days ' of Lk. 1332 express
on the subject of the Christians in that province.
HADRIAN, 1r7-r38. by a proverbial number both brief time and fixed limit
Insurrection of the Jews under Bar-kokheda. (for the opposite view, Weizsacker, Untersuchungcn,
Our investigation
u
will treat the urobleins of N T 311). From Mark and Matthew we get no light, he-
chronolom in the following order : the chronolocv of cause of the arrangement of the material by subjects
0, u "2

42. Plan of the life of Jesus ($5 43-63), that of the The plucking of the ears in Mk. 223 may indicate the
life of Paul (5s 64-80), that of the churches time when the grain was ripe : but that must have been
article. in Palestine (I81f.), other dates (0 83J). between the middle of April and the middle of June,
The first and second of these divisions are wholly before which time the harvest in Galilee is not ended.
separate from each other. Thus, if the incident was in the early months of Jesus'
I. CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE O F JESUS.-The ministry, it does not imply a duration of more than one
questions here relate to the year of Jesus' birth (I 5 7 3 ) , year. One year seems to have been the idea of the third
the year of his public appearance (Q 47 8 ), his age at evangelist, who, like all the writers of the second century
his entrance upon his ministry (a
43), the duration of except Irenzus, and like many Fathers of the third
century, may very well have understood literally the
his ministry (Q 4 4 3 ) , and the year of his death (I 50f).
I. The Age of Jeszrs at his Baptism. -It is not quotation from Is. 61 ~ fwhich . he puts (Lk. 4 19) into
the mouth of Jesus.
surorisina that tradition is meagre.
. I - In itself, as a
In any case, a place can be found without difficuky
"13. Baptism niere tale of years, the matter had no
Jesus. interest for the early Christians. That within the limits of one year for the entire contents of
Tesus was a man of mature years was the Synoptical gospels, while to fill out several years
enough : why should they care to inquire how long he the material is rather meagre. The feeling, shared (for
instance) by Beyschlag (Lehen Jeszr, 1 133), that it is
1 Legates in Syria who had occasion to interfere in t-ho a ' violent and unnatural process ' to crowd the whole
eovernment of Palestine were : development into the space of one year, is balanced by
G) perhaps at first 3 B.C.-Z B.c., and certainly}Quin>zius,
the feeling of the men of the second and third centuries.
later 6 A.D.-(at latest) 1 1 A.D.
7 A.D. Census instituted in Judza and Samaria. Even repeated visits to Jerusalem, if the Synoptical
(2) 35-39 A.D., L. Yitellins. gospels really imply them, are, in view of the nearness
a That Felix entered on his office in 52 (or possibly 59) and of Galilee to Jerusalem and of the many feasts (cp the
that Albinus arrived in Palestine at latest in the summer of 62
are directly attested facts. That Festus succeeded Felix in 60 Gospel of John), easily conceivable within one year.
or 56 is only inferred. See below 6 5 3 The early Christian Fathers were not disturbed in their
3 On the day of his birth, for determining which there are no assumption of a single year by the Fourth Gospel with
historical data, hut for which the church, after much vacillation
finally settled on 25th Dec., see Usener, Rel-gexh. Unters: its journeys to the feasts.
vol. i. In the Fourth Gospel, apart from 64, if we accept the
26 801 802
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
most common interpretation of h o. p + (Jn. .. 5 I) as mean- he was right in this short allowance of time for the
45. Fourth tng Pentecost, the feasts group themselves preaching of the Baptist we need not decide; if
into the course of a single year: 213 the ministry of the Baptist really did last longer, it is
Gospel. Passover ; 5 I Pentecost ; 7 z Tabernacles ; easily comprehensible that the previous time should have
1022 Dedication ; 1155 Passover. Irenaeus alone escaped his knowledge. What year, then, does Lk.
(ii. 233) finds three passovers mentioned in the public mean ? Following previous writers on the life of Jesus,
life of Jesus ; and, since he takes the second not from 64 E. Weiss and Beyschlag have taken as the starting-
but from 51, he, as well as Origen (on Jn. 435 point for Lk.'s reckoning the year 12 A.D., in which
tom. 1339). must have had at 64 a different text from any Tiherius was made co-regent with Augustus. There
known to us. The Alogi, also, according to Epiphanius is no proof, however, that such a method of reckoning
(Hrer. 5lzz), found mentioned in Jn. only a passover was ever used. Neither the coins, to which Wieseler
at the beginning and one at the end of the ministry. appealed, nor the great dignity of Tiberius, adduced by
Positive ground for assuming the later interpolation of Schegg,2 which is in any case to be ascribed to flatterers,
64 (which could well have been suggested by the can establish this hypothesis ; and we shall have to take
snhstance of the following conversation) may be found the death of Augustus as the starting-point. Now,
in the designation of the feast there, which is different Mommsen3 has proved that until the time of Nerva
from that in 213 and 1155, a designation combining the reckoning usually employed was by consuls, but
(so to speak) 5 1 and 72. So also the introductory that when for any reason a reckoning by the years of
formula 3 v 6t hycis ('was at hand') is suitable only the emperor's reign was desirable, the years were
in 213 72 1155, where a journey to the feast, which counted from the exact date of the beginning of the
does not here come in question, is to be mentioned. reign.4 Accordingly, Lk. must have reckoned the years
Moreover, the meagreness of the narrative in Jn. of Tiberius as beginning with 19th August, 14 A . D . ~
is much more comprehensible if the writer thought of The fifteenth year ran from 19th August 28 A . D . .
the whole ministry as included between two passovers. to 18th August, 29 A.D. Although we cannot control
H e can hardly have regarded the narrative in chaps. 3-5, the sources from which Llc. derived his information,6
and again that in chaps. 7-11, as sufficient to fill out in it is plain from the table of dates given above that the
each case a whole year. Otherwise, if the saying with notices in Llc. 3 I do not contradict one another, and we
reference to the harvest (Jn. 435) is to be regarded as have no reason to doubt Lk.'s information. We say
anything more than a proverbial phrase (used for this in spite of the fact that in one point he shows
the purpose of the figure which Jesus is employing) himself not perfectly well-versed in Jewish affairs : the
there would be a period of nine months for which no- Roman custom of having two consuls has perhaps led
thing would be told but the conversation with Nicodemus him to misinterpret the fact that in the time of the
and the baptizing worlc of the disciples, and a stay high-priest Caiaphas (from about 18 A.D. to Easter
of six months in Galilee for which we should have 36 A.D.), the latter's father-in-law, Annas, who had
46. One year. nothing but chap. 6. If, on the other been high priest in 6-15 A.D., was the real leader of the
hand, only one year elapsed from the Sanhedrim. Lk. has talcen this to mean that the two
purification of the temple to the destruction of the were high priests at the same time (cp the same error in
'temple of his body,' we should have: 213-51, only Acts46).
fifty days ; 51-72, perhaps 127 days ; 72-1022, perhaps ( 2 )In Jn. 220, forty-six years are said to have elapsed
fifty-eight days ; 1022-121, perhaps 119 days. In from the beginning of the building of the temple to the
- I I

reality,, however, even this year will have to be 48. The temple. beginning of Jesus' ministry and the
shortened somewhat at the beginning ; for the purifica-
tion of the temple, which the Synoptists likewise connect
cleansing- of the temple. If the fortv-
six years are treated as already past, this brings us to
with a passover (but with the last one), cannot have A.D. 28. Everything, however, is here uncertain-the
happened twice, and, while it is incomprehensible at position of the cleansing of the temple at the begin-
the beginning, it cannot be spared at the end of the ning of the ministry, and the authenticity of the
ministry. Whether, then, the baptism of Jesus was conversation, as well as the evangelist's method of
before a passover, or whether the journey to John reckoning (on the supposition that the number comes
in the wilderness may have followed a journey to the from him).7
passover in Jerusalem, it is wholly impossible to decide. ( 3 ) The public appearance of Jesus was con-
In the latter case the complete absence from the
narrative of the baptism of all recollection of such a 1 Beitr. 190-gz.
connection would be singular ; in the former it would 2 Todesjahrdes Konigs Herodes und Todesjahrjew Christi,
be strange that Jesus stayed away from the passover in 1882, pp. 61-63.
3 'Das riimisch-germanische Herrscherjahr ' in Neues Archiv
Jerusalem. On the other hand, since the forty days of der GeyZlschaft fiir altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 1890,
the temptation are surely a round number drawn from PP. 54-65.
O T analogies, they may safely be somewhat reduoed ; 4 The imperial era introduced by Nerva which took as a
basis the tribunician year beginning with ;oth December, the
and the walk with the disciples through the ripe corn- tribunician year in which the emperor ascended the throne
fields in tialilee on the sabbath is then chronologically counting as the first of his reign, did not actually come into
quite possible, even if the baptism was not until common use until the time of Trajan.
..immediately after the passover. 5 The method of reckoning the years of the emperor's
reign (namely beginning with 1st Tishri 766 A.u.c.) represented
3. The Year of the PuJZic Appearunce of Yesus.-( I ) by Gumpach (Z.C. 93) as having been the universal custom
In Llc. 3 1 fi we have, as the last of Llc.'s several according to which he makes the fifteenth ye.ir of Tiherin:
chronological notes (1 5 26 2 I f: ), R begin with 1st Tishri 27 A . D ., no one besides himself has
47. First veiltnred to accept.
notice of the date of the public appear- 6 Keim assunied without any foundation that Lk. had
ap!?LK.
a:,?e: -313. ance of the Baptist. This notice is Josephus (Ant.xvii: 3 3) before him, and that heiupposed the two
clearly the product of careful investiga- revolutions there mentioned as occurring in the procuratorship
tion, and it is extremely unlikely that the evangelist of Pontius Pilate, which began in the twelfth year of Tiberius,
to have been in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of Tiberius,
would have taken so much pains about fixing this date and so hit on the fifteenth year for the Baptist. This is
if he had not supposed himself to be at the same time however, in contradiction with the fact of the large numbe;
fixing the year (for the Christian, the only year of real of single notices in Lk. 3 I, which implies careful investigation ;
and is in itself impossible, since Josephus first mentions the
importance in the history of the world) of at least the Baptist in xviii. 5 2 and has already related the death of Philip,
beginning of the Messiah's ministry, which last, together which happened sollate as the twentieth year of Tiberius.
with the baptism of Jesus, Lk. regarded, as appears 7 Has the evangelist perhaps used Nerva's method of
from the whole tenor of his narrative, as the immediate reckoning? That yields the year 28 A.D. On the different
interpretations of the number, see Sevin, ChronoL jesu(?, 1874,
consequence of the appearance of the Baptist. Whether pp. 11-13,
803 804
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
temDoraneous with the immisonment of the BaDtist That Lk. had worked hack one year from the sixteenth year
49. The Baptist. (Mk.1 1 4 = Mt. 4 IZ ; MI<.6 17J = Mt. If 'l'iberius was the view of Julius Africanus.1 On the other
land Clement of Alexandria took Lk.'s fifteenth year of
143f: ; cp Lk. 3 18-20). Jesus was I.ibe;ius as the year of Jesus' death ; as did probably Tertullian,
baptized shortly before that (Mk. 112f. and parallels), whose statement that Christ was crucified in the consulate of
and the execution of the Baptist happened in the course .he two Gemini (29 A.D.) doubtless rests on Lk. 3 I J ,and was
3erhaps made on purpose to avoid confusion from the later
of Jesus' public ministry (Llc. 7 1 8 3 = Mt. 11zf. ; Mk. nethod of reckoning (cp above $ 47) which would have led
6 19-29 = Mt. 145-12 ; with Mk. 6 14-16 = Lk. 9 7-9 = Mt. iim to the year 28 A.D. The sfaternent in the received text of
14 If. ). rertullian that Jesus revealed himself ' anno xii. Tiberii Czsaris
The execution is related also by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 6 r J ) , :annot he harmonised with Tertullian's other notices, and looks
who does not give the exact date, hut is led to mention the matter ike an ancient correction intended to combine the statement in
in connection with the defeat of Antipas by Aretas (in the :he text that Jesus was crucified in the fifteenth year of Tiberius
summer or autumn of 36 A.D.), which the nation believed to he with the later traditional view of a three-year miuistry.
a judgment of God for the murder of John. Aretas's reasons ( 8 ) .The theory explaining the conduct of Pilate at
for making the war are said to have been two : (I) the divorce :he trial of Jesus by the censure received from Rome
of his danghth hy Antipas in order that the latter might marry
Herodias ; (2) boundary disputes. From this Keim, Holtzmann, 62. Pilate. between 31 and 33 A D . lacks all founda-
Hausrath, Schenkel, and Sevin have inferred that this divorce, tion ; and so does the theory (Sevin, p.
the rebuke of which by John led, according to the Synoptists, 135) that the hostility between Pilate and Herod (Lk.
to John's death, must have been not long before 36 A.D. A 2 3 1 2 ) was possible only after the complaint against
judgment of God, however, may well be delayed for six years,
provided the crime which the people believe to he punished Pilate (as to the date of the complaint, cp Schiirer
by it is not forgotten ; whilst a favourable moment for executing l411), in which Antipas had a share. Hostility between
human vengeance does not always arrive immediately. More- the Roman procurator and Herods heir must have been
over, it appears that boundary disputes were finally needed to
bring about the actual contlict.1 the rule, not the exception.
From this war therefore, we can draw no inferences ahout the ( c ) If, in spite of what has been said above, the
date of the Bapkt's martyrdom. As to the marriage itself,
there is, in the first place, no reason to doubt the synoptical
tradition that the Baptist's courage occasioned his imprison-
ment. The account of Josephus neither excludes the assumption
63. Temple.
fourth Evangelist counted three passovers in the public
life of Jesus (cp above, § 45). and the
period of forty-six years from the be-
that the tetrarch waited for a good pretext belore arresting ginning of the- building of <he temple is to be taken
John nor makes it impossible that his arrest and execution seriously (cp § 48), his chronology also would yield the
should have been separated by a short imprisonment (cp Mk.
6 20 ; Mt. 112). That Herodias's daughter was too old to dance year 30 for the death of Jesus.
a t the feast is shown by A. von Gutschmid (Literarisckzs (d) A . final decision cannot be reached from the
Centra/blaatt, 1874, p. $ 2 2 ) to be wholly undemonstrable and a Jewish Calendar. On the one hand, the Synoptists put
banquet at Machserus I S not inconceivable. That acco;ding to
Josephus, Machserus should have been a t on: time in the 64. Day of the crucifixion on Friday, the 15th Nisan,
possession of Aretas and shortly afterwards in that of Antipas Crucimon. John on Friday, the 14th (Mk. 1542, Lk.
we cannot indeed explain (cp Schurer, 1365) ; hut since Josephd 2854, Mt. 2762, Jn. 19y).2 On the other
finds no difficulty in it, it has no force as an argument. Since, hand, although the astronomical new moons have been
however, we cannot fix the date of the marriage, the whole
matter does not help us much 2 and we can only say that there computed for the possible years with a difference of but
is no sufficient evidence that ;he journey to Rome, on which a few minutes between the computation of Wurms and
Antipas made the acquaintance of his brother's wife, and his that of Oudemans, and the days of the week can be
return to the tetrarchy, soon after which the marriage occurred,
were not between 27 and 30 A.D. 56. Jewish found,3 difficulty is caused by various
Calendar. irregularities in the Jewish calendar-
The history of the Baptist presents, therefore, no system. First, the beginning of the month
insuperable obstacle to the view that the fifteenth year was determined, not by the astronomical new moon, but
of Tiberius = 29 A . D. by the time when the new moon was first visible. which
4. The Year of Jesus' Denth.--Since the crucifixion depends partly on the weather and on the season of the
60. Jesus, death. certainly happened under Pontius year, and is always at least from twenty-four to thirty
Pilate, its earliest possible date is hours later than the astronomical new moon. In order
26 A . D . , the latest 35 A.D. to prevent too great divergence of the calendar, it was
The complete publicity of Jesus' death and its prescribed, however, that no month should in any case
,character as a civil event, its well-understood im- last more than thirty days, and that no years should
portance as the starting-point of-Christianity, its unique contain less than four or more than eight such ' full '
impressiveness, and its connection with the Jewish months. Secondly, the intercalary years create com-
passover, must have made it a chief object of the plication.
awakening chronological interest of the early Christians, A thirteenth month was added to the year whenever on the
and at the same time have given ground for believing 16th Nisan the barley was not yet ripe: hut this was forbidden
that the date could be fixed with reasonable certainty. in the sabbatical years, and two intercalary years in succession
( a ) This suggests that probably the were not allowed. 'I'he only sabbatical year in our period (com-
puted hy the aid of I Macc. 6 49 53, and Jos. Ant. xiv. 16 2 ; cp
51' Lk"s chronological interest of the third 15 I 2 ) was, according to Schurer, 33-34 A.D. ; according to Sevin
method' Evangelist (Lk.3 I f:) was engaged as and others," 34-35 A.D. Any one of the six preceding years
little for the first public appearance of Jesus as for _- .

that of the Baptist : that it was directed towards the identical with the 'acceptable year,' and put the death of Jesus
into that year 29 A.D. Arguments similar to Bratke's are to be
date of the Lord's~death. He preferred, however, not to found in Sadclemente, De 7w&an> era emendatione, 1793,
interrupt his narrative of the Passion by a chronological and in Caspari, ChronoZog'sch-geograjh~scheBinfertung b r das
notice, and therefore worked back from the date of the Lebrn J e w , 1869.
crucifixion to the date of the beginning of Jesus' ministry, 1 So also Schurer, 1 369. Cp. Gelzer, S. /uZius Africanus
znd die byza~zfLzischeChi-onolbgie,1880 1 48.
and so to that of the beginning of the ministry of the 2 On the attempts to reconcile this d&crepancy see the com-
Baptist. This is confirmed by the fact that the date in mentaries and the books there mentioned.
Lk. 31f: is, with the exception of the 'acceptable year 3 Cp Wurms in Bengel's Arch.J d. TheoZ., 1886, vol. ii. ;
Ideler, Haiadb. 1 477-583 ; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse der
of the Lord' in 419, the last date that Lk. gives. If, ~ Beitr. zur n'chtigen Wiirdi'zmng der
Vier Evv. ( ~ 8 4 3 )and
as we have concluded above, Lk. really had a whole Evu. und derevnngeZischm Gesch., 1869 ; Gumpach, Ueberden
year in mind, he must have put the death of Jesus into aff$2d. KaZender 1848. Oudemans, Rau. de ThLoL. 1863;
the next (the sixteenth) year of Tiberius-that is, at the Caspari, Chroito(.~'eogv.'Ein1. 2. d. Leb. Jesu Chvisti, 1869 ;
Schwarz, DepjzH. Kaf. historisch u.astronoinisch untwsucht,
passover of 30 A . D . ~ 1872 ; Zuckermann, Matmialien zur Eiztwickel~~ngdera2~'~d.
Zeitrechn. im Tabztrd, 1882.
1 See the account, with criticism, of Keim's theory and of 4 Cp, besides the ahove-mentioned work of Gumpach, Caspari,
Wieseler's objections to it, in Schiuer, 1368f: 21-25 ; Sevin, 58-61 ; Anger, De t e r i ~ p o r z min Artts Ajosfo-
2 Clemen, C h o n . d e r +ad. Briefe, thinks otherwise, and lorain ratione, 1833, p. 38; Herzfeld, Gesclz. d. Isr. 2 4 5 8 8 : ;
reckons out 33 A.D. ; but hi4 argument is wholly inconclusive. Zuckermann Ueber Sabhathjahrcycbs und JobeZ+enode,
' a A different view is held by Bratke, Stud. ?I. Krit., 1892 Breslau, 18;7; Gratz, Gesclz. d. Jud. iii. 1878, p. 636-639;
who holds that Lk. regarded the fifteenth year of Tiberius a; Rbnsch, in Stud. u. Krd. 1870, p. 36rJ, 1875, p. 589 8;
80j 806
 CHRONOLOGY I CHRONOLOGY
might have been an intercalary year. At the end of 28-29 A.D., tis view cannot have rested on documentary evidence.
however, there was no need of an intercalated month, because 'erhaps Lk. may have drawn his inference from the
the 15th N i s n fell on 16th April 29 A.D., and on 5th April 30
A.D. (so according to Wurms : according to Gauss and Schwarz
act that the Baptist died six months before Jesus.
one day later). At the end of 30-31 there may have been an (ii.) Lk. says (21-5) that Jesus was born at the time
intercalary month for the r5th Nisan would otherwise have vhen a census, ordered by Augustus for the whole
fallen on 26th or k7th March, 37 A.D., but with an intercalary i9. The Census. empire, was being talcen in Judrea and
month on 24th April. In 32 A.D., the 15th Nisan fell on 12th
April; in 33 A D . , on and April. If, however, 33-34 was a Galilee, and that this was while Cyrenius
sabbatical year an extra month would have had to be inter- undoubtedly Publ, Sulpicius Quirinius) was governor
calated at the eiid of 32-33, and then the 15th Nisan would have n Syria.' Such a census, however, was legally im-
fallen on 1st May, 33 A.D., and ZIst April, 34 A.D. ; wherzas if
34-35 was the sabbatical year, the extra month would not have )ossible in the reign of Herod, and a governorship of
been inserted until the end of 33-34., Thus, in 33 A.D. the 15th 2uirinius in Syria before Herod's death is chronologically
Nisan would have remained and Apnl. The Jewish empirically nipossible, since at the time of Herod's death ( 4 B. c. )
determined dates all fell, however, one or two days later than
these astronomical dates. luinctilius Varus (who put down the insurrection follow-
ng that event) was still governor in Syria, whilst his
If we take the days of the week into account, in the lredecessors were Sentins Saturninus (9-6 B. C. ) and
years 29, 32, and 35 A.D., neither the 14th nor the ritius (attested for I O B.C.). Josephus, who relates the
56. Days of 15th Nisan could possibly have fallen on ast years of Herod in much detail, has no knowledge
Friday. On the other hand, if 33-34 If such a census, but says that the census of 7 A.D. was
week' was not a sabbatical year (and so 32-33 .he first, and something altogether novel for the Jews.
not an intercalary year), the 14th Nisan may have been [t may be that Quirinius was governor .of Syria for a
celebrated on Friday, 4th April 33, which would corre- jhort time (3-2B. C. ) as successor to Varus, as he cer-
spond to the view of the Fourth Gospel. This year, :airily was afterwards from 6 A.D. until (at the latest)
however, is excluded if Jesus died on the 15th Nisan, I I A. D. ; but in his first (problematical) governorship a
and it is impossible in either case if, as is more likely, :ensus for Judxa, which had fallen to the share of
33-34 was the sabbatical year, and so 32-33 had 4rchelaus, is likewise impossible. On the other hand,
thirteen m0nths.l There is, therefore, no great prob- :he census in J u d e a under Quirinius in 6-7 A. D., after
ability on the side of 33 A.D. On the other hand, ,he deposition of Archelaus, is well attested (cp Jos. A%?.
the 15th Nisan may have fallen on Friday, 23rd April rvii. 125 xviii. 1 I and 2 I xx. 5 2, E/, xi. 1I , Acts [ = Lk.]
34 A.D. This is hardly possible for the 14th Nisan, as 5 3 7 ) , and may have been in fulfilinent of a general
the astronomical new moon occurred at 6.42 p.m., 7th imperial command intended to be executed as occasion
April, so that the 1st Nisan can have been put at the should arise in the several provinces. This could, how-
latest on 9th April (so Sevin, 144). No other line of ever. have applied only to imperial provinces (including,
evidence, however, points to the year 34, and this reclion- therefore, Judza), not to senatorial provinces : that is, it
ing by the calendar suits just as well the year 30 of Lli. would not be universal. Further, ( I ) even this census
3 1 J , for in that year the astrononlical new moon could not have inclilded the Galileans, who were subjects
occurred at 8.08 p.m.,' 22nd March, so that the 1st 3f Antipas; and ( 2 ) it must have been taken as the
Nisan niay have been put on Friday, 24th March, and basis for a poll and property tax, at the actual, not at
the 15th have fallen on Friday, 7th April.2 the ancestral, home of the subject, for the latter would
5. The Year of Jesus' Birth.-Dionysius Exiguus, have been in most cases hard to determine, and such a
according to the proofs given by Sanclemente ( L c . 4 8 ) procedure was in general impracticable. ( 3 ) Moreover,
and confirmed by Ideler (Handbmh, Mary could not possibly be affected by it, because she
57* Jesus' 2383 J ) , started in his reckoning from was not of the lineage of David (cp G ENEALOGIES, ii.),
Birth ; Dion' the incarnation, and followed the common and in such cases the authorities dealt with the male
methodfor the years of reigning monarchs. representatives of the women.
His view was that Jesus was born on the 25th De- The account in Lk. rests, therefore, on a series of
cember, 754 A.u.c., and so he counted the whole year niistakes, and the most plausible view is that the evange-
754 a.s 1 A.D. The view defended by Noris and Pagi, 60. Lk,,s list, or the tradition which he followed, for
that he assigned the nativity to 25th December 753, and method. somereason combined the birth of Jesus with
ignored the five following days, is wrong. the census under Quirinius, and assigned to
In this reckoning, which gradually came to be the latter a wrong date.z
universally accepted, Dionysius departed from the Perhaps Lk. simply confused Archelaus with his
dating for which Irenzus ( A d z hay. iii. 2 5 ) and Ter- father, for the former was very probably, like Antipas.
tullian ( A h . Jzrd. 8) are the oldest witnesses; which occasionally called Herod. This confusion of the two
dating, based only on the information given in the Herods would have been all the easier if after Herocl
Gospels, put the nativity in 751 A.u.c. = 3 B.C. the Great's death Qiiirinius really was for a while
Dionysius, perhaps because he had no means of fixing governor of Syria. The same confusion may have
the date of the census under Quiriiiius in Lli. 2, or the caused Irenzus and Tertullian to adopt the year 3 B.C.
death of Herod in Mt. 2, seems to have reached his for the birth of Jesus. The imperial census of Lk. is
result by putting the public appearance of Jesus one perhaps a confusion of the census under Quirinius, put
year later than that of John (15th year of Tiberius, Lk. incorrectly into the year 3 B. c., with the remembrance
3 r J ) , and reckoning back thirty years. Since we have of the census of Roman citizens throughout the empire
seen that the thirty years of Lli. 3 I J is a round number, which was actually ordered by Augustus in 6 B.C., for
perhaps drawn from the OT, we are thrown back on the the two events lay only two years apart. Lk., who
narratives of the nativity. (cp 47 above, on the two high priests in Lk. 32)
( u ) Lk. gives two points. ( i . ) He says ( 1 3 6 ) that was none too well informed on Jewish matters, may
Jesus was six months younger than the Baptist, whose have inferred from ' the family of David' that Joseph's
58. The Baptist. conception happened under Herod home was really in Bethlehem, and have supposed this
(15). It- does not, however, follow fact to be the true means of combining the already
that the birth of Jesus fifteen months later was alsc current tradition of the birth in Bethlehem with the
under Herod, and, even if the evangelist thought so, incontestable tradition that Jesus was a Nazarene. If
Wieseler in Stud. u. Kvif. 1895, p. 5 2 7 3 ; Caspari in Stud, 1 See the concliisive investigation by Schiirer, 1 4 3 3 3
u. Kvit. 1877, pp. r8r-rgo; Riess, Gabuvtsjahu C h i s t i , 1880 2 A chronological error is not without analogies in 1.k. The
p. 45f: 229-236 ; and other works mentioned in Schiirer, 1 2 g J case of Thendas (Acts3 3 6 J ) is well known, and the collection
1 See for the year 33 A . D . the exact reckoning in Schegg for the poor in Acts 11283 ,is perhaps confused w!th that of
P. 49f: Acts 21 whilst the cornhaation of the various famines in the
2 So also Gnmpach, HiiLfsm. d. vechnand. CJzronoL 1853 time ofklaudius into one world-wide famine (Acts 1128) is very
P. 94. closely analogous to the case of the census.
807 808
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
these suppositions are admissible, the kernel of truth in llbinus succeeded Festus, and for the events related
the narrative would be that Jesus was born not far from )f Festus’s term of office one year will suffice. The
the end of the Herodian period, and that the Roman )bjection to an earlier date ‘is that it might not leave
rule was set up in his earliest childhood. In both these ‘oom for the events of the life of Paul, and that, ac-
political occurrences an inner connection with the events :ording to Acts2410, at the imprisonment of Paul,
which brought in the Kingdom of,God was doubtless j’elix had already been in office ‘many years’ ( 6 ~
observed in very early times, and the interest in making rohhGv ~ T G Y ) . (That the courtly Josephus casually
the closeness of this connection as clear as possible may nentions PoppEa as Nero’s wife, which she did not
have led to the enrichment of the narrative. lecome till several years later, cannot be adduced as a
( a ) From Mt. we have as chronological evidence the ierious argument in the same direction. )
star and the slaughter of the innocents. Rationalis- By the side of this commonly received date, however,
61. The Star. ing attempts, however, to subject this L much earlier one has been advocated recent1y.I
star to astronomical laws do violence to Thus Kellner proposes Nov. 54 A . D . : Weber and
the idea of the narrator. ‘The star moves in its own free 3. Holtzmann, the summer of 55 ; Blass and Harnack,
paths, appears and disappears, travels and stands still. j6 (Harnack, 55?). Whilst 0. Holtzmann takes his
Even if the evangelist is wrong, and a conjunction or a itart from Tacitus, Harnack starts from the chronology
comet lies at the basis of the story, it is impossible to if Eusebius, the claims of which to our confidence his
determine froni what phenomena astrologers of ‘theEast’ abours have materially enhanced. He shows that there
supposed themselves able to draw such inferences. The s no ground for the common suspicion of the dates
star shines only in the legend, and derives its origin from Tiven by Eusebius for the procuratorships preceding and
Nu. 2417 and the apocalyptical imagery (cp Rev. 121). Ollowing that of Festus.
It has been matched by similar legendary stars at the Eusebius s date for the year preceding the accession of Felix
birth and at the death of many of the great men of the iiffers from that of Tacitus by only one year. Nor is the difference
my greater in the date of his removal. According to Tacitus
heathen world. Pallas fell into disfavour a few days before the fourteenth birth!
As to the murder of the innocents, if it were a lay of Britannicus, which fell in the middle of Feb. 55 A.U.
historical fact, Jesus must be supposed, since the male kccording to Josephus Pallas obtained of Nero an acquittal for
lis brother Felix from Hn accusation made by the Jews after his
62. The children were killed ‘ from two years old and .ecall. Now, as Nero ascended the throne on the 13th Oct.
Innocents.under,‘ to have been not less than a year i4 A.D., the time left under him by these two dates is clearly too
old, even if the murder was just before ,hart for the events narrated hy Josephus. Two solutions are
Herods death: and in that case, since Herod died mssible. Tacitus may he wrong by a year in the age of
Britanuicus ; it may have been his fifteenth birthday, so that it
shortly before the Passover of 4 B . c . , Jesus must have Mas not till 56 that Pallas fell into disfavour ; or else even after
been born at the latest in 5 B.C. Josephus, however, lis fall Pallas may still have had access to the Emperor. Now,
although he narrates with the most scrupulous exactness Eusebius in his Chronicle supports the year 56 as that of the
rccession of Festus, since he assigns it to the second year of
all the horrors of Herods last years, has no knowledge Yero (Oct. 55 to Oct. 56; on the textual certainty of this date
of the murder of the children. On the other hand, he iee Harnack, 236, n. 2). If Felix entered on his office as
gives almost exactly the same story as relating to Moses iccording to Eusebius he did, between Jan. 51 and Jan.’ 52
(Ant.xi. 9 2). ‘according to Tacitus between Jan. 52 and Jan. 53), he could in
.he summer of 56 be described in case of need, if we compare
All the other suspicious circumstances in the narrative :he average length of procuratorships, as having been in ofice
in Mt. 2 cannot be set forth here. In view of the !K rrohhiuv B&Y.
natural tendency of legends to connect important events Any objection, in fact, to this number 56 for the
with one another and to mirror their mutual relations, accession of Festus, supported by Tacitus and Eusebius,
we cannot infer from Mt. more than that Jesus was could come only from the requirements of the life of
probably born shortly before or after the death of Paul. We shall, therefore, leave the question open for
Herod-the same result that we reached from Lk. the present.
The only results which have a very high degree of From the date thus obtained for the relegation of the
probability are the date 30 A.n. for the death of Jesus, prisoner to the tribunal at Rome, let us in the first
63. on- and the period of about one year for the place make our way backwards.
elusions, F g t h of his public ministry. Besides this, If, as we shall see to be probable, Paul carried out
it is also probable that Jesus was born in the plan mentioned in Acts 2 0 16, his arrest must have
the agitated times when death was snatching the sceptre 66. Felix. been a t Pentecost under the procurator
from the hand of Herod the Great, and when with his Felix, who (2427) prolonged the proceedings
successors the Roman rule in J u d z a was coming again for two years until his retirement from office. This
in sight. mention of Felix and the two-years imprisonment in
Caesarea are, indeed, regarded as unhistorical by
TABLE VII.-LIFE OF JESUS, PROBABLE DATES. Straatman (Paulus, 1874),van Manen ( P a u b s , 1, De
circa 4 H.C. ?-Birth of Jesus. handelin.pz der Apostebn, 1890); and especially by
circa 28/29 n.D.-Beginning of public work. Weizsacker (A?. Zeitalter, 1886, pp. 433-461); but
30 A.D.-Death of Jesus. the improbability of certain details, on which they rely,
11. CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF P A U L . - T ~ ~ is not conclusive, and, on the other hand, the rise of
starting - point for Pauline chronology must be the this circumstantial narrative cannot be explained on
journey to Rome, for here we can make the ground that it is a doublet to Acts 25f. That
64.
connection with the dates supplied by
journey oman history. The events immediately Felix should hold over the prisoner for the chance of a
change of sentiment in Jerusalem, and, this change not
to Rome‘ preceding-namely, the arrival of Festus in having come about, should finally leave him in prison
Palestine, the Seginning of the proceedings against in the hope of leaving one popular deed to be remem-
Paul (Acts 251-6), the hearing and the appeal (256-IZ), bered by, agrees with his character and the habit of
and (27 I ) the shipment of the prisoner-probably procurators. That Acts tells nothing about these two
followed one another rapidly; but the actual date of years is much less surprising than its silence about the
65. Festus, the arrival of Festus is matter of dispute year and a half in Corinth and the three years in
(see the literature in Schurer, G J V , I Ephesus. That a provisional imprisonment of two
484J n. 38, to which must now be added 0. Holtzmann, years could be imposed even on a Roman citizen is
N T Zeit,esch., 1895, p. 125 8 248 : Blass, Acta Ap.
1895, p. 21f. ; Harnack, Die Chron. deraltchrist2. Lit. 1 By Kellner (the article ‘Felix’ in Hergenrtither’s KiYcFwz-
1 [‘97]). For the most part the preference is given Ze.%.(z) [Roman Catholic], 1887 ; 2.3 kath Theol. 1888), Weber
(Kritische Gesch. der Exegese des 9. Kap. des Ratnerbyiefs
to the year 60 or 59 A n . , since it was at the latest in 1889, p. 177&), 0. Holtzmann (/.c.), Blass (Z.C.), Harnack (Z.c.$
the summer of 62 (more probably in that of 61) that following such older scholars as Bengel, Siiskind, and Rettig.
809 810
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
shown by the two-years imprisonment in Rome. It Paul wrote z Cor.; at the end of this year or the
is likewise obvious that Paul would not have had his beginning of the next in Corinth, Romans, and the
case transferred to Rome except in dire necessity. letter of introduction for Phoebe to the Christians at
The dry notice in Acts 24 27 is, therefore, without Ephesus (Rom. 161-20). About this time may belong,
doubt trustworthy, and the arrest of Paul is to be put too, the undoubtedly authentic note Tit. 3 12-14 ; in
two years earlier than the arrival of Festus---that is, at which case the Macedonian Nicomedia is meant, and
Pentecost 54 or 58. the plan for the winter was not carried out.
For the events before the arrest in Jerusalem we The stay in Ephesus had lasted, according to Acts19
give the dates in two numbers : one on the assumption 8 1 0 2 2 , over two years and a quarter (Acts2031 speaks
67. philippi that this happened at Pentecost 54 ; the 69. Epheius. of three years), s o that Panl must-have
toJemsalem. other, that it was in 58. The journey to come to Ephesus at Pentecost or in the
Jerusalem from Philippi (Acts 204-21 16), summer of 50/54. From there, after he had already
which is related, with the exception of the episode at sent one letter to Corinth ( I Cor. 5 g ) , he wrote in the
Miletus (2016-38), from the ' we-source,' was begun beginning of 53/57 our I Cor., and later had occasion
after 'the days of unleavened bread,' and there is no to write to Corinth for yet a third time (zCor. 7 3 : the
reason for supposing that Paul did not carry out his letter is perhaps preserved in z Cor. 10-13).l
plan (20 76) of arriving at Jerusalem by Pentecost. The From this long stay in Ephesus, which doubtless
itinerary from the beginning of the Passover is given formed the second great epoch in Paul's missionary
us as follows :-At Philippi (Passover) seven days ; to 70. Corinth. activity in the Greek world, we go back to
Troas five days ; a t Troas seven days ; to Patara eight the first-namely, the first visit to Corinth
days,-in all twenty-seven days. This leaves twenty- (Acts181-18 ; cp I and z Cor.). This appears to have
two days before Pentecost, which was ample for the lasted about two years, since to the one year and a half
journey to Jerusalem except in case of a very exception- of 1811 must be added, in case 1811refers only to the
ally nnfavourable passage from Patara to the coast of time spent in the house of Titius Justus, the previous
Syria. Of these t,wenty-two days twelve were occupied time, in which Paul was trying to work from the synn-
as follows :-At Tyre seven days, to Ptolemais one, to gogne as a base, as well as the later i ~ a v a ltpdppar of
Czsarea one, to Jerusalem two to three; so that ten 1818. How much time lay, however, between the
days remain for the voyage from Patara to Tyre (which departure from Corinth and the arrival at Ephesus in
in ordinary weather required four to five days) and 50/54 we cannot tell, although the very sketchiness of
for the stay at Czsarea, the duration of neither of our only authority (Actsl818-191) makes it easier to
which is stated. From the stops, which in view of believe that the author is drawing here (except for the
the brisk coasting-trade were surely not necessary, words, n. 19, eimhS3v-v. ZT, Bdhovros) from a written
we may infer that satisfactory progress was made by source than that he relies on oral tradition or his own
the travellers. The departure from Philippi, which was imagination. Oral tradition would either have omitted
the conclusion of Paul's missionary career, is, therefore, the journey altogether, or have narrated what happened at
to be put just after the Passover of the year of the arrest. Jerusalem in some detail. All suspicion of ' tendency ' is
For the dates earlier than this point, the chronologist excluded by the brevity and obscurity of the passage.
would be wholly at sea without Acts; and no good - For the journey thus barely mentioned in Acts one year
68. Ephesus reason appears for not trusting the would be ample time. In that case Pan1 would have left
to philippi. information which it gives. On the Corinth in the summer of 49/53, having arrived there in
great iourney which ended at Ternsalem, the summer of 47/51. In the beginning of this period
Paul had started from Ephesus ( I Cor. 168f.; Acts of two years ~ T h e s s .was written. (The genuineness
IS), and journeyed by way of Troas, where he carried of z Thess. must be left undetermined. )
on his work for a short time (Acts201 does not Before the long stay in Corinth falls the Macedonian
mention Troas at all), to Macedonia (zCor. 212 f . 7 5 ) . mission, with the necessary journeys, which, however,
That he stayed there long is not likely ; for, if he had occupied hut one day each (Actsl611-181). For the
done so, the length of his stay would probably have whole journey from Troas to Corinth a few months would
been given as in the case (Acts203)of Greece (Corinth). suffice. It is, therefore, possible that Paul set out after
Moreover, the plans made in Ephesus ( I Cor. 1 6 5 ; the opening of navigation in March of the same year
z Cor. 115f. ) had in view only a short stay in Mace- in the summer of which he arrived for his long stay in
donia, for ( I Cor. 168 cp n. 6 ) Panl expected to leave Corinth.
Ephesus after Pentecost (which fell somewhere between
15th May and 15th June) and to be in Corinth so early
U p to this point the probability of the chronolom -_is
71. Results. very considerable. The results may be
that, even if he should not decide to pass the winter summarised as follows :-
there, his visit should, nevertheless, not be too short.
This would allow at most three months on the way. TABLE VIII. -LIFE O F P AUL : ENTRANCE INTO
Now, he may have waited rather longer in Macedonia, EUROPE TO IhlPRISONMENT AT ROME.
in order to learn the impression made by Titus (the
bearer of z Cor. ) ; but, even so, we cannot reckon more Spring 47/5r.--Departure from Troas, followed by mission
than from four to five months for the whole journey. in filacedonia.
Summer 47/5~-Summer49/53.-Corinth and Acbaia. I Thess.
In Corinth itself he stayed (Acts203) three months, Summer ~,g/53-Siimmer 50/54.-Visit to Jerusalem and An-
and then rcturned to Macedonia, where he surely did tioch ;journey through Asia Minor to Ephesus.
not stay long, since he had been there just three Summer 50/5.+-Pentecost 53/57,-Ephesus.
months earlier. Moreover, he had, no doubt, formed Pentecost s3/y-Passover 54/58.-Journey by way of Troas
and Macedonia to Achaia and return to Philippi.
in Corinth his plan of being in Jerusalem by Pentecost, Passover-Pentecost 5&8.-Journey, with the contribution,
and the additional time which the unexpectedly long from Philippi to Jerusalem.
journey (occasioned by Jewish plots, Acts203, which 54/58-56/6o.-Impr1sonment in Czesarea.
Autumn 56/6o-.Spring 57/61. -Journey to Rome.
made the direct route impossible) must have cost him 5716~-5g/63.-Imprisonmeiit in Rome.
would of itself have forbidden an unnecessarily long stay.
H e probably, therefore, reached Philippi but little before Passing now to the period before 47/51 A.D., we find
the Passover ; and we have for the whole journey from that Acts supplies us with far less trustworthy accounts
Ephesus through Troas, Macedonia, Greece, and back and is wholly without dates ; nor have we
"'
to Macedonia perhdps eight to ten months-namely, any Pauline epistles written in these years.
about the space of time from Pentecost 53/57 to Pass- period' Highlyprobable, nevertheless (jnst because
over 54/58. In the summer1 of 53/57 in Macedonia of the peculiar way in which it is given), although not
1 Or autumn ; see C ORINTHIANS , B 3. 1 See, however, C ORINTHIANS , 0 18.
811 812
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
without editorial additions, is the representation preserved If the last visit of Paul to Jerusalem; Acts21) must have
in Acts1540-168, that Troas was the goal of a zigzag >een brought on the occasion of the earlier stay in Antioch. If
io we can see bow, in consequence of the two periods of
journey from Antioch in Syria through the interior of xhdence in Antioch, he was led to suppose that there had been
Asia Minor. The seeming restlessness (Acts 1664)- wo visits to Jerusalem and so to create a contradiction to Gal.
a t any rate in the latter part of the inland journey-may lj: All this becomes itill more probable if the districts visited
n Acts 13 f: could. be called Galatia hv Paul : a nossibilitv which
imply that the time occupied was comparatively short. :an now b> regarded as proved as is the impos;ibility thkt Paul
In that case, the start from Antioch might fall in the ,hould have called them Cificia (Gal. 121) (see GALATIA).
year 46/50 ; but even that is very problematical. We 3n the other band, it can be seen in Acts 15 13?oft: that at the
are, therefore, thrown back for the chronology wholly :onference the great question Wac. ahout the Syrian Christians.
iot about those whose conversion is related in Acts 1 3 s
f. on Gal. If. Here, however, it is not
,3. Gal. perfectly plain whether the fourteen years If these hypotheses are correct, between the con-
in 2 I include or follow the three years in 118. For the lerence in Jerusalem (Gal. 2 I j? ) and the journey from
former view may be addiiced the change of prepositions rroas to Macedonia (Actsl68-11) lie the missionary
p u d ( ' after') and 616 ( ' in the course of,' RVmg.) ; but journey (Actsl3f.) begun and ended at Antioch, and
this can be explained better thm. An ~ T E L T U ( ' then ' ) the zig-zag tour through Asia Minor (Acts1536-168),
having been introduced in 1 2 1 between the two ~ T ~ L T U the beginning of the original account of which has been,
of 118 and 2 I , aid was used, instead of p e ~ d ,in order 3oubtless, somewhat confused by the insertion of Actsl5.
not to exclude the space of time between the two ZTECTU One year, however, is not enough for these journeys.
of vv. 18 and 21-namely, the fifteen days in Jerusalem. The hindrance hinted at in Acts166 f. may perhaps
(Perhaps, also, in 21 the three years had completely have been connected with the winter season, if the date
elapsed before the first visit, whereas the second visit [March 47/51) which we have ventured to give above
may have been made in the course of the fourteenth for the passage from Troas to Macedonia is correct. In
year. ) On this view seventeen years would have elapsed that case the missionaries would perhaps have passed
from theconversion of Paul to the conference in Jerusalem, the preceding winter in Antioch (Acts1426) ; the
out of which time he had spent three years in Arabia and missionary journey of Acts133 would then fall in the
fourteen in Syria and Cilicia (117 21). The latter period open season before this winter ; and thus the departure
was certainly, the former (at leastfor Damascus)probably, from Antioch related in Acts 131 lp: would have been
occupied in the work of an apostle (Gal. 123 27 f.). two years before the passage from Troas to Europe
After the conference in Jerusalem followed a stay in (that is, in the spring of 45/49), and the conference
Antioch ( 2 11-21). Since 3 I ,f is introduced without any in Jerusalem immediately before-perhaps (if we may
sign of transition, the simplest supposition is that this infer from analogies) at the time of the Passover.
~ p o y p d + w (31 ; RV 'open setting forth') and its The conversion of Paul would fall (Gal. 1 1 8 21)
results (that is, the mission in Galatia) come chrono- fourteen or seventeen years earlier-that is, in the year
logically after, but not too long after, the events 31/35 or 28/32. When Gal. was written is for the
narrated previously. This would agree, also, with the general chronology a matter of indifference.l
most natural interpretation of Gal. 25. -,5. Results. TO the table given above should there-
If we look now at the parallel narrative in Acts, there fore be prefixed :-
is, in the first place, no doubt that in 151-35 we have
,4. Acts. the same events described as in Gal. 2. Jn TABLE ~ ~ . - L IOFFE P AUL : CONVERSION TO
Acts, as in Galatians, Paul and Barnabas ENTRANCE INTO E UROPE.
come with others in their company to Jerusalem, and 31/35 or z8/32.-Conversion of Paul.
return to Antioch after arriving at an understanding with Three-years stay in Arabia and Damascus.
34/38 or 31/35.-First visit to Jerusalem.
the church in Jerusalem. To Antioch come also, in both Eleven- or fourteen-years work in Syria and
cases (although in Acts no mention is made of a visit of Cilicia.
Peter), members of the Jerusalem church, who might in +5/49.-Conference in Jerusalem, mission in Galatia.
Acts also, just as in Galatians, have been said to come One-yearjourney through AsiaMinor toTroas.
from James. In Acts 1127-30 l 2 ~ 4 f . ,however, we find, Three further passages can perhaps serve as proof of
besides, mention of another earlier journey of Paul and the results reached above.2 The first (Actsll 2 8 ) , con-
Barnabas from Antioch to Jerusalem and back again, ,6. Famine. taining the mention of the famine under
after the journey from Damascus to Jerusalem (Acts Claudius, loses, indeed, its significance,
9 26-30 =Gal. 118). Since Gal. 120-2T makes this im- if the visit there mentioned had as its object the agree-
possible as a separate visit to Jerusalem, the two visits ment abcut the mission-fields, not the bringing of a
from Antioch (Acts 111.: and Acts 15) must have been contribution ; but it perhaps explains the mistaken
really one ; and this would explain the further points of combination (Acts1130 121) of this journey (of 45/49
resemblance that on both occasions (in one case after, A . D . ) with the death of James the son of Zebedee, which
in the other before, the journey of the apostles) prophets happened (Actsl21q-23) between 42 and 44. Josephus
come from Jerusalem to Antioch 1 1 2 7 153z), and that tells (Ant.xx. 5 2 and 26 iii. 153) of a famine in Judzea,
both times, although in different ways, a contribution of which can well be put in one of these years, and so
money plays a part (Actsll 281.: Gal. 210). Cp also ' to could have been foreseen in the preceding year (cp
the elders' (Acts1130 152). Now, although this visit Schiirer, 1 474. n. 8). By a singular coincidence there
is in general more accurately described by Actsl5, there was in 49 also, one of the alternative years for the
are many reasons for thinking that it is chronologically journey of Pan1 and Barnabas to Jerusalem, a much
placed more correctly by Acts 1127 8 more widely extended famine (see, for authorities,
T h e insertion by mistake at the end of chap. 1 4 is easy to under- Schiirer, i b . ) . It is possible, then, that the author
stand ; for whilst large parts of chap. 1 3 s and the whole ofchap. knew that the conference was in a famine year, but
15 are certainly the work of the final author of Acts (notice that
the style is the same as in Acts 1-12), at the same time the 'we connqcted it, by mistake with the famine of 44 instead
source' can he detected (as is now more'and more widely held) of that of 49, and that this assisted the confusion
as far hack as 13 I , and we can ascribe to it the return to Antioch which resulted in the creation of an extra visit to
(1426~)as well as the later departure for the journey of 1 G 6 8
(without the intervening narrative), although we can no longer 1 For the different possibilities see the Introductions to the
restore the original connection. Accordingly, since the author N T ; for the latest hypotheses, Clemen, Chronol. d. padin.
had not been able before Acts 13J to give a concrete account of Briefe, 1893.
any Gentile mission, an undated account (perhaps not perfectly 2 We can make nothing of the statement in ActsZ138.
accurate) of a conference in Jerusalem (to which the missionaries Even were its authenticity beyond dispute we have no means
came from Antioch) which treated the subject of Gentile whatever of determining the year of the :edition referred to
missions could be inserted after 13f: better than earlier. The and Wieseler's choice of 56 or 57 A . T X ( C h o n . 79) is devoid c
d
author may have bad some reason to suppose that the contri- any solid foundation. Nor is it possible to infer any date from
bution of money (the fact but not the date of which be had the acconnt in Acts 2 5 3 of Agrippa and Berenice's presence in
learned : it was not mentioned in his source as the occasion Cmarea at the time when Paul's case was desided.
813
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
Jerusalem. The confusion of the two famine years is Rome in the autumn of 56 or 60, and arrived in the
the more pardonable because both fell under Claudius ; 79. closing spring of the subsequent year (Acts
the transformation of the two local famines into one period. 27f.). For the next two years Paul
which affected the whole empire is easily explicable. was kept in easy imprisonment, and to
All this, however, is simply a possibility. If the year this period belong Colossians and Philemon, though
of the conference was 45 A . D . , the two journeys dis- wme assign them to the Czsarean imprisonment.
tinguished by Lk. would fall so close together that we After the lapse of the two years began the trial,
can easily understand their being regarded as distinct, about which we have some information from a note
on the supposition that Lk. knew nothing of the raising to 'Timothy now incorporated in 2 Tim., and from
of a collection and its delivery on the occasion of Paul's Philippians. Of its duration and issue we know
last journey to Jerusalem, but did know of a famine nothing. The prediction that Paul would die without
about the time of the conference and of succour given meeting his friends again (Acts2025-38), the sudden
to the primitive church through Paul. breaking off of Acts, and the utter absence of all trace
The second notice is that of the expulsion of the Jews of any later activity on the part of the apostle, will
from Rome under Claudius, which was (Acts 181J ), always incline one to believe that Paul's presentiment
77, Expulsion before Paul's arrival at Corinth. The was fulfilled, and that his trial ended in a sentence of
year, however, of this edict, which death. If so, the great apostle died in the course of
ofJews. Suetonius ( CZuzd. 2 5 ) also mentions, the year 59 or 63. In either case his martyrdom
is not certain. Wieseler (Chronol. 120.128) conjectures, was before the persecution of Nero, and had no
without conclusive arguments, that it was issued in the connection with it. Nor does any of the older
year of the expulsion of the mathematici (Tac. Ann. xii. narratives conflict with this. When Eusebius in his
5 2 ; Dio Cassius 606)-that is, in 52 A.D.-whilst Orosius Chronicle assigns the death of Peter and Paul to the
(76, 15 ed. Zangemeister, 1882) gives as the date, on fourteenth or thirteenth year of Nero (the number
the authority of Josephus (in the existing text of whose varies in different texts)-Le., 68 or 67 AD.-he is in
writings we find no mention of the matter), the ninth conflict with himself, for he elsewhere sets this event in
year of Claudius=49 A.D.-a date not favourable to the beginning of the persecution of Nero, which beyond
the earlier alternative reached above for theyear of Paul's all question was in the summer of 6 4 ; and more-
arrival in Corinth, the summer of 47/51. Orosius's over, as Harnack insists (Lc. 241 f:), his date lies under
statement, however, cannot be verified. the suspicion of being occasioned by the legendary
Finally, from Acts924 8 and z Cor. 1132 f:, it twenty-five years stay of Peter at Rome, in combination
appears that Paul's first visit to Jerusalem was with the story that the apostles left Jerusalem twelve
78, occasioned by a persecution at a years after the death of Jesus : 304- 12+ 25 make
time when a viceroy' of Aretas, king 67. But neither is the tradition of the con-
con- of the Nabatzans, resided at Damascus. teniporaneous death of the two apostolic leaders by
version' The latest Damascene coins with the any means so well grounded as Harnaclr assumes
head of Tiberius (which form one of the proofs brought (IC.). In Eusebius, the contemporaneousness lies
together by Schiirer, 1615 f. n. 14, to prove, against under the same suspicion as the date. Clem. Rom.
Marquardt and Mommsen, that Damascus was not all chap. 5 gives no hint of it, and the summary introduction
the time under Arabian rule) belong to the year 33-34, of other sufferers in chap. 6 gives us no right, in face of
and it is in itself not probable, though it is possible, the enumeration of the sufferings endured by Peter and
that Damascus was given to Aretas by Tiberius, who Paul during the whole of their apostolic activity, to
died in March 37 A . D . , while under Caligula such apply all that is said in chap. 6, and therefore the death
favours are well known. If Caligula's reign bad of these apostles, to the persecution of Nero. The
already begun, the flight of Paul would have fallen a t testimony of Dionysius (Eus. H E ii. 26 8), Bp$w EIS ~ $ 1 )
least two years later than all but one of the dates assigned 'IraXiav dp6m BiBci.5avrEs EpaprLpquav Karh rbv abrbv
for it above. However, the argument is uncertain. Kacpbv ( ' After both teaching together as far as to Italy,
Nothing known to us makes the possession of Damascus they suffered martyrdom at the same time') is to be
by Aretas in the last years of Tiberius actually impos- taken cum grnno salis. If the two great apostles
sible. If that should be excluded by discoveries of died a violent death for their faith in Rome under Nero,
coins or other new evidence, we should then (the it is easy to see how tradition might lose sight of the
often assailed genuineness of 2 Cor. I l p J being pre- interval of one year or five years, and bring the two
supposed) have to combine the numbers in Gal. 118 martyrdoms together. The rapidity with which in the
2 1 (so that there would be only fourteen years between popular memory Paul receded behind Peter, a pheno-
Paul's conversion and the conference in Jerusalem), menon already noticeable in Clem. Roni. and Ignat.
or to shorten the time estimated for the mission in (ad Rom. 4), admits of a peculiarly simple explanation
Asia Minor and Europe, or else to omit from the if Paul was withdrawn from the scene so much sooner.
life of Paul the two-year imprisonment in Czesarea Whatever testimony can be found in thP literature
under the procurator Feiix. down to Eusebius for the liberation of Paul from his
'At the same time, the coins of Tiberius for the year first imprisonment at Rome has been
33-34 exclude the year 28 as that of Paul's conversion. so. Was collected anew by Spitta (ZurGesch. u.
If we assign the imprisoninent to 54, the data of Gal. 16 liberated ? Lit. des L'tzhrist. 1). In truth, all
must be explained as referring to the total of fourteen that can be taken account of before Eusebius is the
years, so that I'aul's conversion would fall in 31. In apostle's intention intimated in Rom. 15 24 and mentioned
favour of this is its nearness to the death of Jesus. in the Muratorian fragment (except that the apostle's
For I Cor. 1.53 8 does not w-ell permit an interval of plans were so often upset by events), the Pauline
any length between Jesus' death and Paul's arrival at fragments of the Pastoral Epistles (if they ought not
Damascus. Conversely, the same consideration de- also to be brought within the period of missionary
mands that, if we regard 58 as the date of the imprison- activity known to LIS. since otherwise they would present
ment, we should calculate from the statements in Gal. 1.f: the post-captivity labours as a strange repetition of
a period of seventeen years, so that 32 would be the %hat preceded the captivity), and the expression rQppa
year of Paul's conversion. Neither series, accordingly, 773s Gduewr ' boundary of the west ' in Clem. Rom. It
conflicts with what we know of those times ; but it may is only the last that we can take seriously. Since,
readily be asked : Are we warranted in casting discredit however, Ignatius speaks of Rome as Bduis ( ' west,' ad
on the statements of Eusebius? Rom. 2 z ) , and Clement himself has immediately before
How now stands the case with reference to the opposed 8LIuis to dvaroh?j ( ' east ' ), meaning therefore
close of Paul's life? The travellers set out for at least Rome among other places, it is not at all
815 816
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
difficult, especially keeping in view the Pauline metaphor of the ten left after the death of James. The twelfth
of the d y h v (conflict), to suppose that it is this 6du,s, year would be 42 A.D. In that case Ilerod must have
( i e . , Rome) that is indicated as ~ i p p ~ a .If, in spite of sought, immediately after his accession, by his proceed-
this, the hypothesis of the liberation of Paul should be ings against the Christians to secure the confidence of
accepted, we should have to add to our chronological the Jews.
table : 59/63. -Liberation of Paul; July-Aug. 64.-- 4. If the results reached above with reference to what
Martyrdom. The apostle's eventful life would thus we read in Acts15 1 1 2 7 3 and 13f. are right, our next
end with a period completely obscured in the popular information relates to the year 45 or 49, when Peter,
memory, a period the events of which have not left a Paul, and Barnabas gather again at the conference
trace behind. round James, at whose side (Gal. 29) appears John, the
son of Zebedee. Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch ;
TABLE X.-LIFE OF PAUL : LAST PERIOD. Peter leaves Jerusalem again very soon, and lives for a
56/60 (autumn).-Paul set out for Rome. while among the Christians at Antioch (Gal. 2 1 1 3 ) .
57/61 (spring).-Arrival in Rome. 5. In 54/58, when Paul comes to Jerusalem with the
57/61J--Easy imprisonment ; Col. Philem. contribution, James is master of the situation (Acts
59/63.--Death of Paul.
[otherwise] 21 18). This is the last information from the N T about
[59/63.-Liberation of Paul.] the church in Palestine.
[64 July-Aug.-Martyrdom.] 6. According to the received text of Josephus (Ant.xx.
111. CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHURCHES IN PALES- 9 I), James suffered martyrdom in 62-that is, under the
T I N E . - ~ .If the dates so far accepted are correct, the high priest .4nanos (son of the high priest of the same
51. Earliest whole Palestinian development described name known to us from the Gospels)-but before the
by the author of Acts (almost our only arrival in J u d z a of Albinus, the successor of the pro-
events. authority for this period) between the curator Festus. (After Festus's early death Annas had
death of Jcsus and the conversion of Paul, finally been appointed high priest by Agrippa 11.) The passage
culminating in the death of Stephen and the dispersion is not free, however, from the suspicion ofChristian inter-
of the church in Jerusalem, must be crowded into the polation. Hegesippus (Eus. HE ii. 23 11-18) seems to
limits of two years, or possibly even of a single year. have put the death of James somewhat nearer to the
The traditions are, however, very scanty. According destruction of Jerusa1em.l
to I Cor. 151-7 there happened in this space of time the Shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem ( A . D . 70)
appearance of Jesus to Peter and the twelve (as to the the Christians removed to Pella in Perzea. The year is
time and place of which it is not possible to reach a not certain, but was probably 67, when, after the down-
certain conclusion, but with which the return to Jerusalem fall of Cestius, Jewish fanaticism overreached itself.
is most clearly connected), his appearance to the 500 I v . OTHEK DATES I N T H E HISTORY O F PRIMI-
brethren (perhaps to be identified with the occurrence 53. Other TIVE CHRISTIANITY. -Here can be men-
narrated in Acts 2, which in that case was in Jerusalem, dates. tioned .only those few points on which a
stray ray of light happens to fall. I n the
and, if Acts 2 is correct, fifty days after the death of
Jesus), the conversion of him who afterwards became nature of the case, detailed discussions can be given only
head of the church of Jerusalem, James the Lord's in the special articles.
brother (since this beyond doubt happened at the time I. Peter.-That Peter, the last trace of whom we
of the appearance to him mentioned in I Cor. 1571, and found in A. D . 45/49, or somewhat later, at Antioch,
the conversion (by the same means) of many who after- was later a travelling missionary after the manner of
wards became missionaries. The necessity of a repre- Paul, is to be inferred from the allusions to him in
sentation of the Hellenists (Acts 6 1-6) suggests that from I Cor. 112 322 95. I Pet. 5 my., even if the epistle was
the return of the twelve until that time a considerable not written by Peter, iniplies his intimate association
period had elapsed, which is, however, very insufficiently with Paul's former companions Silvaiius and Mark, and
filled out by the narratives in chaps. 3-5. I Pet. 1~ fhis . missionary activity in the provinces of
2. As to the later events, in the narratives in Acts Asia Minor. For this latter there was room at any rate
84-40 9 1-30 931-11 18 1119-24 illustrating the geographical after the imprisonment of Paul in 54/58, and for most of
82, Later extension of Christianity, the author the provinces even before that time : namely, from the
plainly does not mean to assert that the moment when Paul transferred his chief activity to
events. events described followed one another in Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia. In regard to Peter's stay
mutually exclusive periods of time. If the accounts are in Rome, for which I Pet. 5 13 is an argument (it is
historical, the missionary operations of Philip and Peter certainly to be put later than the end of Paul's trial),
were undertaken while Paul was working in Damascus and in regard to the question whether it was in the
and Antioch (including Syria) in 31/35 or 3 4 3 6 8 A. D . persecution after the fire in Rome (July 64) that he
The anonymous beginnings of Christianity in Damascus suffered martyrdom (cp Clem. Rom. 5). see PETER.
and Antioch belong, of course, to the time before Paul The assumption of a contemporaneous martyrdom
took hold in those places. If the recollections lying at the of Paul and Peter finds 110 support in the earliest
basis of Acts 1122-26 are approximately correct, Barnabas documents : see above, § 79.
must have left Jerusalem finally for Antioch not very 2. 1uhn.-As to John's residence in Ephesus and his
long after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem in 34/38 or end, see JOHN.
35/39 A . D ., and Philip may by that time have already 3. Whilst the persecution under Nero was doubtless
removed to Caesarea (Acts 840). in the main limited to Rome, the last years of Domitian,
3. After these events we hear nothing until the death especially in Asia Minor, in consequence of the insistence
of James the son of Zebedee between 41, the year in on the worship of the Emperor, may have been a period
which Herod Agrippa I. began to rule over Judza, and of many conflicts with Christianity.2
44, theyearof hisdeath(Actsl21f:). Iftheaccountin T o this time (say 93-96) many scholars assign Hebrews
Acts is correct, about this same time Peter left Jerusalem and I Peter (while others carry them down to the reign
permanently (Actsl217), and James the Lord's brother of Trajan), as well as the Apocalypse of
84. NT
must have already berome the leader of the church ohn (see the special articles). Not much
writings. ater, perhaps about the end of the first
(Acts12 17). With this agrees excellently the abun-
dantly attested old Christian tradition that the twelve
left Jerusalem twelve years after Jesus' death (see reff. 1 For further discussion, with references to sources and biblio-
in Harnack, Chrunulop'e, 243). It may be in error graphy see Schiirer, 1486f:
2 C G especially Neurnann, Der r&ziFclre Staat 16. die a@-
simply in transferring to the twelve what applied only nreine Kirche. 1840. 1 7 e: Ramsav. The Church in the
to their head, Peter. At all events, Acts tells us nothing
817 818
 CHRYSOLITE CHURCH
century, were written Ephesians, the Third Gospel, and Xpuu6AiBos in 6 is used to translate tars3 in Ex. 2820 3931
kek. 28 13 (cp Ezek. 116 Aq. [BAQ transliterate], Dan. IO6
Acts. Our Gospel of Mark must, apart possibly from ’heod. [see Sw.]). I n Ezek. 28 13 AVnX. has ‘chrysolite,’ but
some later additions, have been written before this; lsewhere E V ‘beryl,‘ which more probably represents 38ham;
there is no need to suppose a much later date than 70. ee BERYL, § 3, TARSNISH, S T ONE ON.
The Fourth Gospel, after which, probably, came the CHRYSOPRASE,CHRYSOPRASUS ( X P Y C O ~ ~ P A -
Johaunine epistles, can well, by reason of its near rela- ;oc), one of the foundations of the wall of the New
tion to Llc. and for other reasons, have been written at erusalem in the Apocalypse (Rev. 21 IO?). In ancient
the same time as, or not long after, the Third Gospel. imes the term was perhaps applied to a shade of B ERYL ;
The first third of the second century best suits the latest :p PRECIOUS S‘rONES.
books of the NT-Matthew, the Pastoral Epistles, and The word does not occur in 6 ;I but AVmg. has ‘ chrysoprase’
James, all of them doubtless products of the Roman or ,373, hau‘hk8dh, in Ezek. 21 16 where AV has ‘agate’ and
church. Jude may have been written somewhat earlier, ZV ‘ruby’ (see CHALCEDONY); and haa ‘chrysoprase’ also for
2 Peter somewhat later. See the Introductions to the pj,niphehh, in Ezek. 28 13, where EV has ‘ emerald’ and R V w .
carbuncle’ (see C ARBUNCLE , EMERALD). In mod. mineralogy
N T and Harnack, ChonoZogie, 246-50,245$, 451-64, he chrysoprase is an agate coloured apple-green by the presence
475-91,651-81. ,f oxide of nickel.

TABLE XI.-SOME OTHER DATES CHUB, RV C U B (293 ; Aq., Syrn., Theod. xo BAA),
(z4PPROXIYATIONS). f correct, is the name of a people (Ezelc. 30511 ; but
31/35 or 32/36#.-Work of Philip and Peter in Palestine.
gBAQ has AiBysc, and Cornill is doubtless right in
34/38 or 35/39&--Barnabas removes to Antioch. .egarding 1113,Cub, as a corruption of xi$, Lud, which
Between 41 and 4q.-Death of James, son of Zebedee; Peter xcurs repeatedly in the plural form LUBIM (4.v.). See
leaves Jerusalem ; James leader. ~ l s oMINGLED PEOPLE.
45/49.-Conference (Gal. 2 g).-Peter soon resides a t Antioch
(Gal. 2 118). CHUN,R V CUN(PI>, I Ch. 1 8 8 ) , an Aramaean city
54/58.-Paul brings contribution to Jerusalem (Acts 21 18). ,dentified by Ges.-Buhl (following ZDP V 8 34) with the
Later.-Peter becomes a travelling missionary.
62 or later?-Death of James. modern Kuna (Rom. Cunne) between Laodicea and
671 Christians remove from Jerusalem to Pella. Hierapolis. The reading Chun is, however, certainly
7o.-Destruction of Jerusalem. iorrupt (cp IG. in S B O T ) . See BEROTHAI,and, for a
Not much after 70.-Our Gospel of Mark written. suggested emendation, MEROM.
93-56 ( ? t H e b . and I Pet. (acc. to many): Apoc.
About end of century.-Kph. Lk Acts Jn. Epp. of Jn. CHURCH ( G K K ~ H . C I A ) . I. Name and Zdeu.-The
First third of znd century.-fude,”Mt., Past.’Epp., Ja., z Pet. word Ecclesia has an important history behind it when
H. V.S.
1. History it first appears in Christian literature. It
B IBLIOGRAPHY . A. Old Testaamnent.-Ideler, Ffand6. der was the regular designation of the as-
arath. u. tech. Chron. 2 vols. 1825.26 and Lchrb. d e r C’hrorc. offord.
1831 ; H. Braodes, Adhmzdlutgen zur sembly of the whole body of citizens in a
85. Gesch. des Orients i?n Alterthnm, 1874 ; free Greek state, ‘called out’ or summoned to the
Schrader, I<eilimchvi/ten u. Geschichtsforschung, 1878 ; B. transaction of public business. It had then been
Neteler, Zusamnzenhang deer A Tlichen Zeitrechnung mit der
Profncesch. Miinster, 1879, pt. ii. 1885, pt. iii. 1886: Hommel, employed by the Greek translators of the OT as a
Adriss derdad.-ass. n. israelit. Gesdz. in TabellenfoomE Leipsic, natural rendering of the Hebrew $np (see ASSEMBLY),
1880. Floigl Gesch. des senzit. Alterthums Leipsic, 1882‘ the whole ‘congregation’ of Israel, regarded in its
SchrLder, Kh TP) 1883 (COT, 188988); d a h l e r , BibLiscd entirety as the people of God. A less technical Greek
Chron. u. Zeitrech&gder Hebr. 1887 ; Lederer, Die Bidlischa
Zeitrechnutig, 1888 ; Winckler, A T Untersuch. 1892; Kautzsch, usage, current in the apostolic age, is illustrated by the
HS 1894 Beilagen, pp. 110-135 (atabular chronological iummary disorderly assemblage in the theatre at Ephesus (Acts
fro; Nlokes to the end of the second century B.C ’ ET by J. 19 3241), where we find also by way of contrast a reference
Taylor) ’ ‘Zeitrechnung’ by Kiehm in his NWB &4 pp. 1800-
1825 ; aAd by Gust. RSsch P R E P ) 17444-484. CAI Niibuhr Die to ’ the lawful assembly’ (v.39, 6v 6 Pvv6py PrtrtA?p~l$).
Chronol. der Gesch. Z s r a h , Aeg. Bab. u. A’ss. vou 2000-7& 21. The Jewish usage is found in Stephen’s speech when
Chr. untersucht, 1896. he speaks of Moses as having been ‘ in the church in
Onparticdaarpui~zfsalso the following:-For the time of the
Judges: Noldeke, Uniersuch. ZUY Krifikdes A T , 173-198. For the wilderness’ (738). Thus the traditions of the word
the Monarchy (besides the histories of Israel): Wellhausen, f Die enabled it to appeal alike to Jews and Gentiles as a
Zeitrechniing des Buchs der Kbnige seit der l’heilung des Relchs fitting designation of the new people of God, the
in the<?T, ,1875, p? 607-640; Krey, ‘Zur Zeitiechnnng des B. Christian society regarded as a corporate whole.
der Konige in ZWT 1877, pp. 404-408 ; W. R. Smith, Pro&
1882, pp. 145-151, 401i404 (2nd ed. 403-406), 413-419 (znd ed. 415’ In this full sense we find it in Tesus’ declaration to
421); Kamph. Uie Chron. der hetry. fCoz+?, 1883, cp ZA C’W, Peter, ‘ I will build my church’ ( O ~ K O ~ O ~ $ UpoG
W rhv
3 ~ g y z o zC831; Klostermann Smn. u. KPn. r871, pp. 493-498 : BxKhgulau : Mt. 1618). Here it is re-
Riihl, ‘Die Tyrische K6nigs)liste des Menander von Ephesus 2. NT usage
as the divine home that is to
in the Rlreila. iMus.,Gr Phil. n.s. 1931, pp. 565-578, and ‘Chron. in Gospels. garded
be bnilded, ‘ the keys ’ of which are to
der Konige von Israel u. Juda,’ in Deutsche 2t.f: Gcschichts.
u‘iss. 1244-76, 171 [‘9jl: Benzinger, ‘Kbn.,’ 1899 (I<HC). be placed in the apostle’s hands : see B INDING AN D
For the ChronoloKy uf the Pe*sia+z times.-Kuenen ‘De LOOSING. It is thus equated with ‘the kingdom of
chron. van bet Perz. tijdvak der Joodsche geschied.’ in h o c .
Anuterdnm Royal Academy Literature Section, 1890, trans. heaven’ which Christ has come to establish, each of
lated into German in Ru.’s ddition of Kue.’s Biblical essays. the designations being derived from the past hisrory of
Gesumnelte Abhandlungen, etc. [‘941, 212-251 : A. van Hoo, the sacred commonwealth. The force of the phrase,
nacker Zorobabel e t le second temple Ltude sur la clrron. de:
s i x p r h e r s chapitres du &re BE&as 1892 and NdhLmit as well as the emphasis given by the position of the
en Pan 2 3 d’Artaxerx2s I.; Esdras en Id 7 dlriaxerx2s I(. pronoun in the original, comes out if for a moment we
(reply to Kue.), 1892 ; Kosters, Nrt /iersteZ wan Israel in he, venture to substitute the word ‘ Israel’ for the word
Perz. tijdvak, 1894 ; Ed. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judex ‘ church ’ (Hort) ; and the thought thus finds a parallel
izims, 1896 : Charles C . Torrey, The Cutlepos~tionand B i s t
VaZue of Ezra-Neh., 1896. in the quotation of Amos 911f: in Acts 1516 f., I will
B. New Testa7?re?zt.-See the literature cited in the course o build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen
the article, especially B 40 (note) and §$ 51-56 (notes). Cp a h down. ’
C. H. Turner in Hastings’ DB.
The only other passage where the word occncs in the
K.M. H.v.S. (9s39-84).
($5 1-38,85) ; Gospels is Mt. 1817, where ‘the church’ is contrasted
CHRYSOLITE (Xpycohieoc), one of the found with the ‘ one or two more ’ whom the erring brother
ations of the wall of the New Jerusalem in the Apocalyps, has refused to hear. We are here again reminded of
(Rev. 21 IO). It is not improbable that in ancient time the whole congregation of Israel from which offenders
the term was applied to a particular shade of BERYI were cut off: the delinquent becomes henceforth as one
(7.n.). See PRECIOUS STONES. In modern usagt who belongs to the ‘nations’ outside, and as a traitor
Chrysolite is the name generally given to the yellow o
yellowish-green varieties of olivine, the transparen 1 Though d A& d rp&mvos represents 07V (BERYL) in Gen.
varieties being known as peridote (cp TOPAZ). 2 12.
819 820
 CHURCH CHURCH .
to the chosen people (&rep 6 2 O v i K b s Kal 6 TeXhvqs). sensibly felt, it was more natural to speak of the local
It is possible indeed that the primary reference in this representative of the eccZesiu under the designation of
place may be to the Jewish ecclesiu; but if so, the ynag@ (cp Jas. 22).
principle remains unchanged for the Christian eccksiu ; The churcheg, then, are the local embodiments of
and i n either case, while some local embodiment of the the Church : the distribution of the one into many is
Church is thought of as the means by which action is 7. Outside purely geographical. The unity remains
taken, the meaning is that the whole weight of the unaffected : there is no other Church than
divine society is to be brought to bear upon the offender. Canon. 'the church of God.' When we pass
While the Christian society is still confined within the outside the canon we find the same conception of the
walls of Jerusalem, ' the church' is the designation of Church both as a living unity and as the divinely pre-
3, In Acts. the whole body of the believers, as con- ordained successor to the ancient Israel. Thus in the
trasted with the other residents in the Shepherd the Church appears .to Ilermas as an aged
city (Acts 511 cp 8 I 3) ; but it is possible that the woman, even as Sion had appeared to Esdras as a
appellation ,is here due to the historian himself, reconnt- barren woman (4 Esd. 938 10 44). She is aged, because
ing the events many years later. When, as the result she was created first of all things, and for her sake the
of Stephen's testimony and death, believers are to be world was made' (Herm. Vis.24). Again, in the
found in all parts of Palestine, they are still summed up ancient homily formerly ascribed to Clement of Rome
in the same single word : ' the church (RV ; not ' the (chap. 14), we read of the pre-existent, spiritual Church,
churches,' AV) throughout the whole of J u d z a and 'created before sun and moon,' and manifested at
Galilee and Samaria had peace, being builded' (Acts 9 31 ; length in the flesh. In the Valentinian system, more-
cp Mt. 1618 as above). The same full sense of the over, EccZesia appears as one of the zons. Cp.
4. In Paul. word is found in Paul's epistles at a time too, Clem.Alex. Protre?t. 8, Strom. iv. 8. The earliest
when Christian communities were estab- use of the term ' the Catholic Church ' (Ignat. Smym.
lished in various cities of Asia Minor and of Greece : 8 : circa 117, Lightf.) emphasises the unity and
apostles, prophets, and teachers are set ' in the church ' universality of the whole in contrast with the individual
by God ( I Cor. 1228) ; 'the church of God' is con- congregations ; not, as in the later technical sense, its
trasted with Jews and Greeks (1032). orthodoxy in contrast with heretical systems : ' Wherever
The Church is thus the new chosen people: it is Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church' ( ~ K E ? 3
' the Israel of God' (cp Gal. 6 16). Jews and Gentiles K a e O h l K 3 8KKh?lUh).
who enter it are merged into unity ; the two are made 11. Orgunisution.-The primitive conception of the
one (Eph. 214 16). It is ' the body of Christ,' and as Church thus regards it ( u ) as essentially one, admitting
such inseparable from him. Christ and the Church 8. Primitive of no plurality except such as is due to
are not two, but one-as it was written of earthly conception. local distribution, and ( a ) as succeeding
marriage, ' they twain shall be one flesh ' (Eph. 5 3 ~ j ) . to the peculiar position of privilege
The main practical anxiety of Paul's life appears to hitherto occupied by the sacred Jewish Commonwealth,
have been the preservation of the scattered communities so that even Paul in writing to Gentiles thinks of it as
of Christians, which had sprung up under his preaching, ' the Israel of God.' In correspondence with the two
in a living unity with the earlier communities of Palestine, parts of this conception it is natural to expect in the
so as to form with them a single whole, the undivided development of its organisation (u)a general unity in
and indivisible representative of Christ in the world. . spite of local and temporary variety, and ( b ) a tendency,
It is noteworthy that Peter never uses the word both at the outset and from time to time afterwards, to
e c c h i a . Yet, in spite of the absence both of this look back to the more prominent features of Jewish
5. In Peter. word and of the Pauline metaphor of religious institutions. Weekly gatherings for liturgical
'the body,' no writer displays such a worship, the recognition of holy seasons and holy books,
wealth of imagery in describing the holy society. Once are examples of elements of religious life which passed
he speaks of it as ' a holy nation ' ( I Pet. 29), twice as over naturally and at once from the Jewish to the
a 'people' (29 I O ), twice as a 'house' (25 417),twice Christian Church ; and these were elements which the
as a ' flock ' ( 5 2 3), twice as a ' priesthood ' (25 9), and experience of the scattered Judaism of the Dispersion
twice again, in a word wholly his own, as a ' brother- had proved and warranted as amongst the strongest
hood' ('Love the brotherhood,' 217 : 'your brotherhood bonds of practical unity.
which is in the world,' 59). Had. the apostles separated immediately after Pente-
Side by side with the full sense of the word eccZesiu cost for the evangelisation of the world, it might easily
we find another and a wholly natural use of it, which 9. Earliest have happened that, while the general
6. Of local seems at first sight to conflict with the con- needs of the societies founded by their
churches, ception of unity which is dominant in the period. labours were, to a large extent, the same
passages we have hitherto examined. The in various districts, the institutions developed to meet
new ' Israel of God,' like its predecessor, was scattered those needs might have presented a most astonish-
over a wide area. Wherever Christians were gathered ing variety. As a matter of fact such a mode of pro-
as such, there was the Church of God. Hence we find cednre on their part was impossible. The direct
such an expression as ' at Antioch, in the church, there command of Christ had indicated Jerusalem as the
were prophets and teachers ' ( K a d r+p oi7uav 2 K K h v r l a v , first scene of their work; but, even apart from this,
the participle throwing emphasis upon the noun, ' i n the very clearness with which from. the first they
what was the church,' Acts1.31); and again, 'the recognised the new society to be the divinely appointed
church of God which is in Corinth' ; and even, ' the issue and climax of the old, must have hindered them
church that is in their house' (Rom. 165). In all these from perceiving at once all that was involved in the
cases the sense of unity may be felt : it is the one complementary truth of its universality. As a matter
Church, thought of as existing in various localities. of fact they clung to the sacred centre of the old
From this, however, it is an easy passage to speak of ' the national life until the development of events gradually
church of the Thessalonians ' ( I Thess. 1I z Thess. 1I) ; forced them into a wider sphere. Hence a periocl of
and even to use the word in the plural, ' the churches years was passed within Jerusalem itself, and in the
of Galatia ' or ' of Asia ' ( I Cor. 16 I 19), ' the churches most intimate relation with the religious institutions of
of God' ( z Thess. 14). The transition is naturally the Jewish people, of whom, at that time, all the
found on Greek ground, where the use of eccZesiu in believers formed an integral part. Accordingly the
the plural would be helped by its common employment new society had time to grow into a consciousness of its
for the ecclesim of Greek cities ; whereas in Palestine, own corporate life within a limited area ; the pressure
where the Jewish connotation of the word was more of practical difficulties led to the experi.ment of institu-
821 822
 CHURCH CHURCH
tions specially designed to meet them ; and, when the itention from the Church in Jerusalem for a while.
earlier limitations began gradually to disappear in 13. The, Some years later, when the apostles had
consequence of Stephen’s wider conceptions and the begun to evangelise other parts of Palestine,
crisis which they brought upon his fellow-believers, and
‘elders. we get another glimpse of it at a time of
the society w-as now scattered like seed over the hreatened famine. Contributions are sent from the
countries, this corporate life had already given signs of an lisciples at Antioch to aid the poorer brethren in
organised growth, and the home church at Jerusalem udzea ; it is not to the apostles, however, that the gifts
had become in some sense a pattern which could not ire brought, but to ‘the elders’ (Actsl130), a class of
fail to influence all subsequent foundations. These first vhich we now hear for the first time in the Christian
years in Jerusalem, then, demand careful study, if the :hnrch. Thus it would seem that the necessity of
development of Christian institutions is to be securely eaving the apostles free for wider work had issued in a
traced. urther development of organisation in Jerusalem ; but
The brotherhood which was formed by the baptism t is only incidentally that we learn that a new step has
of the earliest converts was, at the outset, practically a Ieen taken. W e have no indication in Acts of the
A Jewish guild of Judaism, faithful to the ancient elation of ’ the seven ’ to these ‘ elders. ’
guild. creed and worship, and with no thought Peter’s imprisonment, which immediately follows, is
of a severance from the religious life of .he occasion of a further notice bearing on the practical
the nation. Its distinctive mark was not the neglect of 14. James. government of the church in Jerusalem.
Jewish ordinances, bnt the adherence to new duties and ‘Tell these things to James and to the
privileges of its own. ‘They were continuing stead- xethren,’ says the apostle after his release (1217).
fastly in the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, The position of prominence thus indicated for ‘ t h e
the breaking of bread and the prayers’ (Acts 2 42). brother of the Lord’ prepares us for the leading part
The temple worship was not forsaken ( 3 I ) ; hut it was which he subsequently takes in the conference of the
supplemented ( 2 4 6 ) by the ‘ breaking of bread at home.’ apostles and elders, when a question of vital import-
The first note of this brotherhood was its unity : ‘ they ance has been referred from Antioch to Jerusalem
had one heart and soul’ (432) ; they claimed nothing (1513). Many years later, when Paul arrives on an
that they possessed as their private right, but held all as important errand, his first act is thus described by an
a trust for the good of the whole ; they would even on :ye-witness : ’ On the morrow Paul entered in with us
occasion sell their property and bring the proceeds to unto James, and all thc elders came together’ (2118).
~ the apostles for distribution to the needy (432-35). As It is clear, then, that James had come to occupy a
the numbers increased, these simple and extemporaneous unique position in the church at Jerusalem-a position
methods were found to be inadequate. Thus the gained, it may be, by no formal accession to power,
common tables, at which the poorer dependents re- resulting rather from his relationship to Jesus and
ceived their daily provision, proved an occasion of his well-known sanctity of life ; yet a position clearly
friction between the two elements of Hebrew and Greek- recognised by the apostles, and foreshadowing the
speaking Jews, of which the brotherhood, from the climax of a series of developments in the universally
ll. The ontset, was composed. Organisation was established rule of the monarchical episcopate,
necessitated, if the unity of the body was W e have thus, in the early history of the church in
‘seven” to remain unimpaired ; and seven men were Jerusalem, notices, for the most part merely incidental,
accordingly appointed to ‘ serve tables ’ ( 6 1-6). [On the 15. Summary. of the gradual development of organi-
criticism of these narratives cp COMMUNITY O F GOODS. ] sation in response to the growing
Thus was made the first essay in providing for the necessities of a corporate life. The humblest offices of
discharge of the functions of the whole body through the daily service (5 K U E ~ , U L E ~ ~GV~$U K O V ~ Uby
) which the
representative members. No distinctive title is given bodily needs of the poorer members were supplied, are
by the historian to these seven men. Their office was discharged by the church through seven representatives.
to serve ( 6 r a ~ o v s 5;) in respect of it, therefore, they The guidance of the whole body is found to have
could be’ termed servants ( ~ L ~ K O Y O ;L )but it is probable devolved upon men whose title of ‘ elders ‘ reminds us
that the word ‘ deacon ’ remained for some time a mere of the elders of the Jewish people; and in this case
description of function, rather than a title such as it there is no reason for doubting that the new institution
afterwards became. The naturalness of this institution was directly suggested by the old. These elders are
-the response to a new need which was certain in some the medium by which the church in Jerusalem holds
form or other to recur, wherever the society was planted formal intercourse with the church elsewhere. Lastly,
-is a most important feature of it. There is no r e a o n at the head of all, but acting in close concert with the
to suppose that it was suggested by any Jewish institu- elders, we see James holding an undefined but unmis-
tion. The number of the persons chosen was a natural takable position of authority.
number in a community consisting of Jews; but the We must be careful to avoid a confusion between
institution itself was a purely spontaneous development, this development of administrative organs of the body
designed to meet a necessity which was wholly new. 16. Teachers, and that other form of service, rendered
Thus far we find but two kinds of distinction which to it by those who discharged the various
etc.
in any way mark off individual members of the society functions of evangelisation, exhortation,
12. The from the general mass. The apostles are and instruction (6 GiaKovia TOO ?&you, Acts 6 4 ) . The
the natural leaders : to them all look, both two kinds of service might often meet in the same
for religious teaching and for practical persons : thus, at the outset, the apostles themselves
guidance ; through them discipline on one memorable were, necessarily, at once the instructors and the
occasion is enforced ; it is they who suggest a remedy administrators of the society-at their feet, for example,
for the first difficulty which was occasioned by increas- gifts for the community were laid, as at a later time
ing numbers ; and their hands are laid on the seven they were brought to the elders-and, on the other
men whom, at their bidding, the whole brotherhood hand, we read of ‘ Philip the evangelist, who was one
has selected to serve on its behalf. The seven, on the of the seven‘ (218). Quite apart from these, however,
other hand, are ordained to humble duties ; their we have a mention of ‘prophets,’ of whom Agabus is
function is not to rule, but to serve ; through them the one, as coming from Jerusalem (1127).
society fulfils its common responsibility of providing for The incidental nature of the references to those who
the needs of its poorer members. discharged these functions of administration and instruc-
The dispersion after Stephen’s death distracts our tion prevents us from knowing to what extent the
1 On the fact that they are nowhere styled G L ~ K O V O Lsee
, alsc church in Antioch resembled in its organisation the
C OMMUNITY OF GOODS,$ 5 . ’ church in Jerusalem. We only learn that it contained
823 824
 CHURCH CHURCH
' prophets and teachers ' (13I) : we hear nothing of its be more or less distinctly present in every community,
elders or other officers. When, however, Paul and expressing the activity and life of '-the community itself
Barnabas, going forth from the church in in various forms. In different localities development
lchurches.
,. Antioch, founded communities in various would proceed at different rates of progress ; but in all,
cities of Asia Minor, they appointed, we are the same general needs would have to be met, and inter-
expressly told, elders to administer them (1423). In commnnication would help towards a comparatively
this they probably reproduced an institution already uniform result. The earlier and the more rapidly
known at Antioch, with which both of them had together developing societies would serve as a natural model
been brought into contact in Jerusalem (1130). to the rest.
As Paul travelled farther west, and Christian societies I n speaking thus we do not lose sight of the control-
sprang up in a more purely Greek soil, the Church's ling inspiration of the divine Spirit promised by Jesus
independence of Judaism became continually clearer ; to be the Church's guide. W e rather recognise the
and we might reasonably expect to find elements of presence of a continuous inspiration, developing from
Greek social life exerting an influence upon the develop- within the growth of a living organism, not promulgating
ment of Christian organisation. At the same time a code of rules to be imposed from without upon each
we must bear in mind that Paul himself was a Jew, that community at its foundation.
to the Jews in every place he made his first appeal, The scanty and scattered notices of church organisa-
that his epistles indicate that there was a considerable tion in the N T need, for their interpretation, all the
Jewish element among those to whom he wrote, and light that can be thrown upon them by the
that we have clear evidence that, at first, at any rate, '*. The ,practice of Christian communities, so far as
his organisation of administration was based upon a 'Didache' it can be ascertained from the remains of
Jewish precedent. In his earliest letters to a European their earliest literature. . Here again, however, the
church Paul urges the recognition and esteem of ' those evidence is still sparse and incidental, though of late
who labour among you and preside over you in the years it has been increased, especially by the recovery
Lord, and admonish you,' thus implying a local (1883)of the Teachixg of the Apostles. The date of
administration, though not further defining it ( I Thess. this book is quite uncertain. It is of a composite nature
512); but at the same time he demands absolute and preserves very early documents in a modified form.
obedience to the injunctions which he sends them in There is no agreement among scholars as to the locality
the joint names of himself and Silvanus and Timotheus to which it belongs. It may represent a community
z Thess. 314). lying oiitside the general stream of development and
If we try to draw from the study of Paul's epistles a preserving, even to the middle of the second century, a
picture of a Christian society in a Greek city, we may start primitive condition which had elsewhere, for the most
by observing that the members of it are distinguished part, passed away. This view does not materially lessen
one from another mainly by their spiritual ' gifts ' its value as an illustration of an early stage of Christian
) . these the highest is prophecy, which
( X U ~ ~ L T ~ U T UOf life; but we must be careful not to generalise hastily
is freely and sometimes distractingly exercised, by any from its statements when they lack confirmation from
who possess it, in the ordinary meetings of the society. other quarters.
Other gifts too, such as those of healing, give a certain In the Teaching (chaps. 7 8 ) ,then, we have instruc-
natural pre-eminence to their possessors. Over all we tions relating to BAPTISM ( q . u . , 5 3), fasting, and the
recognise the undefined but overshadowing authority of E UCHARIST (4.v.). The following chapters introduce us
the apostolic founder. Such is the most elementary toppostles and prophets ; they provide tests for their
stage, and we cannot sharply distinguish it from that genuineness, and instroctiom as to the honour to he
which immediately follows. Leading men fall into paid to them. The apostles travel from place to place,
classes, with obvious divisions (not in any sense making but the briefest stay ; the prophets appear to be
stereotyped orders) separating them from the general the most prominent persons in the community in which
mass : apostles, prophets, teachers-clear grades of they reside (see PROPHET). In comparison with them,
spiritual prestige, though by no means marked off as a bishops and deacons seem to hold but a secondary
hierarchy. The teachers are mainly local in the exercise place. The community is charged to appoint fit persons
of their functions ; the prophets are local to some to these offices, and not to despise them ; ' for they too
extent, but moving from church to church, and recog- minister the ministry of the prophets and teachers.'
nised everywhere in virtue of their gift; the apostles There is no mention whatever of presbyters. In all this
are not local, but essentially itinerant, belonging to the we seem to be on the verge of a transition. The ministry
whole Church. of extraordinary gifts is still dominant ; but the abuses
This ministry expresses the more distinctly spiritual to which it is liable are keenly felt : the humbler local
side of the Church's activities. But the community ministry, though despised by comparison, has the future
needs, besides, to be governed ; and discipline must be before it.l
exercised in the case of unworthy members. It must Other illustrations from the early literature will be
have representatives who can formally act on its behalf, found under BISHOP (5 14f.). It must suffice here to
either in dealing with individuals or in carrying on com- 19. End of say in conclusion that, before the close of
munications with sister communities.
Again, there are other functions of the Church's life znd cent. the second century, the long process of
development had issued in a threefold
which call for executive officers. The care of the sick ministry-a bishop, presbyters, and deacons-being at
and the poor was a primary duty ; so, too, was the exer- length generally recognised in all Christian churches.
cise of the Chcrch's hospitality to travelling brethren. In point of time, as well as of method, we have an
These duties involved an administration of the common exact parallel to this development both in the settlement
funds collected for such pnrposes, and generally of of the canon and in the formulation of the Apostolic
corporate property. Servants of the Church were thus Creed. The more abundant literature of the end of the
called for to perform these humble but necessary second century shows us a generally accepted standard
functions, and responsible superintendents to see that of ministry, of canon, and of creed. In each case the
they were duly performed. This class of executive need of definiteness and of general uniformity had
ministers we find in the ' bishops and deacons' ( 6 d - gradually made itself felt, and the Christian con-
CKOTOL K U ~~ L ~ K O Y O whom
L) Paul greets in the opening sciousness, guided and expressed by eminent leaders,
words of his epistle to the Philippians ; and the qualifi- had slowly solved the problems presented to it. In
cations demanded of them in the Pastoral Epistles each case we have evidence of that growth which is the
afford valuable indications of the nature of their service.
All these elements of moral or formal authority would 1 Cp Harnack on 3 Jn., St. KY.15.
825 826
 CHURNING CINNAMON,
prerogative and proof of life in the social as in the of the Assyrians, which has been restored by Halevy
individual organism. J. A. R. (MdZunge.s, ‘74,p. 69), Geiger (Jiid. ZI ll242), and
Lagarde (AlitfhiZ.1211) in Ezek. 2711 ( M T has the
CHURNING (Y’P), Prov. 30 33 ; see MILK. impossible q$*c‘ thine army ’ ; read ‘ the sons of Arvatl
CHUSHAN BISHATHAIM (Dln@l ]d.)3), Judg. and of Helak‘). The same name probably occnrs in
3 8 ; RV CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM. Egyptian inscriptions under the form Ka-ra-ki-Sa,
CHUSI (xoyc [BH],- C E I [A], a u ) , a Iocalitjr men- originally Kilakk(u).l I t follows from Halevy’s res-
tioned in Judith 7 IS to define the position of Elrrebel toration that there was, according to Ezekiel, a Cilician
(see A KRARATTINE). It may possibly be the mod. as well as a Phoenician and a Syrian element in the
[Cuzah, 5 m. W. of ‘Alsrabeh. garrison of Tyre in 586 R. c.
The close physical relation of Cilicia and Syria
CHUZA (xoyza [Ti, W H ] ; Amer. RV prefers explains their political connection during the early
CHUZAS),the house-steward of Herod (Lk. 8 3 ) , 3. Later. Roman Empire. Cilicia was usually under
husband of J OANNA . The name is probably identical the legatus of Syria (Dio C a s . 53 IZ where
with the Nabataean ~ 1 1 1 . The steward may well have Ccele-Syria, Phcenicia, C
been of foreign origin as were the Herods themselves. Kaluapos p p 1 & ; cp Tac. Ann. 278).
See Burkitt. B x p x . Feb. 1899, 118-122. under a separate governor, however, in 57 A.D. (Tac.
Ann. 1333), perhaps as a ternporary measure after the
CIELING. See CEILING.
disturbances of 5 2 A . D . (Ann. 1255). Vespasian is
CILICIA ( K I A ~ K I C \ [Ti. WH]). From southern credited with its reconstruction as a distinct province,
Cappadocia the range of Taurus descends in a SW. in 74 A.D. ; but his action was apparently confined to
1.Physical. direction to the sea, reaching it in a com- the reduction of part of Cilicin Tracheia to the form of
plex of mountains constituting that pro- a province, which was united with that o
jection of coast which divides the bay of Issus Cilicia (Suet. Yes?. 8). In 117-138 A.D. C
(Skandertin) from that of Pamphylia. The Cilicians cluding Tracheia, was certainly an imperial province,
extended partly over the Taurus itself, and partly be- under a prztorian Zegntur Augusti; but in what year
tween it and the sea (Strabo, 6 6 8 ) , thus bordering upon this state of things began is not knowm N o infer-
Pamphylia in the W., and Lycaonia and Cappadocia ence can be drawn from the use of the word ‘pro-
in the N. ; in the E. the lofty range of Amanus separated vince’ ( t a a p x ~ i ain
) the question of Felis (Acts 2334).
them from Syria. The country within these boundaries The connection between Cilicia and Syria is illustrated
falls into two strongly marked sections. in the N T by such passages as Acts162341 Gal. I z r ,
‘Of Cilicia beyond Taurus a part [W.] is called Tracheia where ‘ Syria and Cilicia’ are almost a single term ;
(rugged), and the rest [E.] Pedias (plain). T h e former has a
narrow seaboard, and little or no level country : that part of it and conversely the omission of Cilicia from the super-
which lies under Taurus is equally mountainous, and is thinly scription of I Pet. 1 I , where the enumeration of provinces
inhabited as far as the northern flanks of the range-as far, that sums up all Asia Minor N. of the Taurus, is based
is,,- Isaura and Pisidia. This district hears thename Trachei-
Otis. Cilicia Pedias extends from Soli and Tarsus as far as upon the close connection between the churches in
Issus, and as far N. as the Cappadocians on the N. flank of Cilicia and the chnrch of Antioch in Syria
Taurus. This section consists for the most parr of plains and The presence of Jews in Cilicia must date principally
fertile land’ (Z.C.). from the time when it became part of the Syrian king-
Four considerable streams-Pyramns, Sarus, Cydnus, doni (cp Jos. Ant. sii. 34). It must have been the hill-
and Calycadnus-descend from Taurus to the bay of men of Cilicia Tracheia that served jn the guard of
Issus. For a long time the rude W. district remained Alexander Jannxus (Jos. Ant. xiii. 1 3 5 , BJ i. 43). In
practically outside the pale of civilisation : we are here apostolic times the Jewish settlers were many and
concerned only with the eastern part, Cilicia Pedias or influential (Acts 69).
Campestris. Difficult passes, of which there are only Paul visited his native province soon after his con-
a few, lead through the mountains into the neighbonring version (Acts 9 30 Gal. 121), and possibly founded then
districts. The famous Pylx Cilicix, some 30 miles N. the churches of which we hear in Acts 152341. It is
of Tarsus, gave access to Cappadocia and W. Asia probable that in his ‘second missionary journey’ he
Minor ; in the other direction the Syrian Gates and the followed the usual commercial route across the Taurus
pass of Beihm communicated with Syria ; through to Derbe (Acts 1.541 ; cp Str. 537):
these two passes ran the E. trade route from Ephesus. One article of Cilician export IS interesting to the
The military importance of the Cilician plain thus in- student of the NT. The goats’-hair cloth called
cluded within the angle of the Taurus and Amanus CiZiciunz was exported to be used in tent-making (cp
ranges is finely expressed by Herodian (34). Varro, R.X. 211). Paul was taught this trade, and
Owing to the barriers of Mount Taurus, the geographi- supported himself by means of it in the house of Aquila
cal affinity of Cilicia is with Syria rather than with Asia at Corinth (Acts 1 8 3 and elsewhere; cp Acts 2034).
2. In OT. Minor. It would be only natural. therefore, (See Sterrett, ’ Routes in Cilicia,’ in Arch. Insl. Amel-.
that there should be references to it in O T 36.) W. J. W.
(cp also A ~ R - B A N I - P A§L 4,
, end). Nor are these
wanting. Archaeological criticism indicates three O T CINNAMON (t\D$g; KINN&MWMON[-OC][BHAFL:
names 1 as more or less certainly meaning Cilicia. The Ti. WH] ; Ex. 3023 Pr. 7 17 Cant. 4 14 Rev. 18,13f) hears
first is CAPHTOR ( p . w . , 4). which, however, probably the same name in Hebrew as in Greek and English, and
had a more extended application, and referred to this is almost certainly a word borrowed from the farther
coast-regions of Asia Minor besides Cilicia. Caphtor East.2 Lagarde ( Uebers. 199) maintains that Hebrew
was the first home of the Philistines ; it probably repre- borrowed the name from Greek ; but against this there
sents the Egyptian KeftB. Thesecond is I$u@or Kuah is the statement of Herodotns (3111) that the Greeks
(nip)-;.e., E. Cilicia3-from which Solomon imported learned the word from the Phaenicians.
horses, as we learn from the emended text of I K. lOz8 Kinniinidn is the fragrant inner bark of Cinnanzonzumzeylani-
(see H ORSE, 3, n.). The third is Helak, the Hilakku cuGz Nees that is now called cinnamon. As is correctly stated
by Fliick. and Hanh. (szo), however, ‘none of the cinnamon of
the ancients was obtained from Ceylon,’3 and ‘the early notices
1 Josephus identified with Cilicia the Tarshish of Gen. 104,
Jon. 1 3 ( A n t . i. B I).
of cinnamon as a product of Ceylon are not prior to the
thiiteenth century’ (i6. 468). Accordingly, it is probable that,
2 The land of Muyi also, which adjoined Kue (Wi. Gesch.
as these writers suggest, the cinnamon of the ancients was
O d . u. Ass. 175)~ must have included a part of Cilicia (cp
MIZRAIM5 2 a). 1 W. M. Miiller, As. u. Elm 352.
3 Accoiding to Maspero (Recueil, ~OZIO), Cilicia is the Keti ’
(cp K+F) which is often mentioned with Naharin in the 2 The derivation from ?IC is most unlikely.
Egyptian inscriptions. Is this name connected with Kue? 3 Cp ‘l‘ennent, CeyZon 1575.

827 828
 CINNEROTH CIRCUMCISION
Cassia Zignea, which was obtained, as it is still, from S. China.1 re to do violence to the narrative, can only be inter-
The source of this is Cinnamornunz Cassia, Bl., as has been reted as meaning that in that country the children of
shown by Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer in /Ourn. Linn. SOC.20 1 9 s
The name cinnanzomlfera rrgio, given to the district W. of jrael had been uncircumcised, and therefore objects of
Cape Goardafui, must be taken in a loose sense as referring to ontempt and scorn. It is impossible, however, to
the commerce of the Erythrean Sea. Like lign-aloes cinnamon sgard the narrative in Joshna as strictly historical ; it
was thus brought along the regular trade-route froh E. Asia. ,elongs rather to the category of etymologizing legend,
See A LOES , 5 3.
From whatever source cinnamon was obtained, it seing designed to explain the name and origin of the
anctuary of Gilgal. Possibly Stade is right in his con-
appears thrice in the O T among aromatic spices, and
in Rev. 18 13 among the merchandise of the apocalyptic xture (see above) that the legend arose from the circum-
Babylon. Thus the Jews must have been tolerably tance that in ancient times the young men of Benjamin
fr of certain Benjamite families were circumcised on the
familiar with it. See CASSIA, INCENSE, 1 6.
N. M.-W. T. f . - D .
<ill of the Foreskins at Gilgal. See GILGAL.
Another view of the origin of the rite is given in the
CINNEROTH (niijip),I K . 1520, RV CHINNEROTH. ccount of the circumcision of the son of Moses (Ex. 4
5 8 [J]), for here also the intention manifestly is to
CIRAMA ( K I ~ A M A [A]), I Esd. 520 AV=Ezra226 lescrihe its first introduction among the Israelites ; there
RAMAH.
s no suggestion of any idea that it had been a long-
CIRCLE OF JORDAN (1ll";l l??), Gen.1310. ,tanding Hebrew custom. The general meaning of the
See P LAIN (4). ,tory is that Moses had incurred the anger of YahwB,
md made himself liable to the penalty of death, because
CIRCUIT (129;1),
Neh. 322, RVmg. See P LAIN (4). le was not ' a bridegroom of blood'-ie., because he
CIRCUMCISION (aim, TTEPITOMH), the cutting lad not, before his marriage, submitted himself to this
,ite. Zipporah accordingly takes a flint, circumcises the
away of the foreskin (nhp, A K P O B Y C T ~ A ) . For surgical
;on instead of her husband, and thereby symbolically
1. Adminis- and other details of the operation as nakes the latter a ' bridegroom of blood,' whereby the
tration of practised in later Judaism, reference may math of Yahw&is appeased (see We. ProZ.(*)345).
he made to the Mishna (Shabb. 192 Both narratives notwithstanding, it is necessary to
lite'
Yire die& § 264) and to the literature :arry back the origin of this rite among the Hebrews to
cited at the end of this article. It was performed not 3. earl^ a much earlier date. True, it is no sufficient
only on the (male) children of the Israelites, but also proof of this that P (Gen. 1 7 ) carries it back
.upon all slaves (as being members of the household and origin. to Abraham, and that everywhere in the Law
sharers in its worship), whether born within the house the custom is assumed to be of extreme antiquity. More
or brought in from abroad (Gen. 17 z z 8 ) - a usage which to the point are the facts that Gen. 34 also represents it
plainly points to a great antiquity. In P it is enjoined IS pre-Mosaic, while the use of knives of flint (which was
that all aliens ( o ~ who) desire to join in the Passover Long kept up ; see Ex. 425 Josh. 5 2 8 ) also indicates a
shall be circumcised (Ex. 1248) ; in the Greco-Roman high antiquity. What most of all compels us to this
period it was also the condition for the admission of conclusion, however, is the well-ascertained fact that
proselytes. circumcision was in no way a practice peculiar to the
The age for receiving the rite is fixed by the Law for Israelites. It was common to a number of Semiticpeoples
the eighth day after birth (Lev. n3,cp Gen. 214 [PI, in antiquity: Edom, Ammon, Moab all were circumcised
etc. ) ; even on the sabbath the sacred ordinance had tc (Jer. 9 25 1261) ; of the nations of Palestine the Philistines
be observed (Jn. i z z Shabb. 1 9 2 8 ) , although in case alone were not (cp, for example, Herod. 236 f: 104) ;
of sickness of the child a short delay was permitted the Arabs also practised this rite, which, in the Koran,
(cp ZDJZG 20529 [66]). For the performance of the is taken for granted as a firmly-established custom. Nor
office all adiilt male Israelites were fully qualified ; bul is it less widely diffused among non-Semitic races.l Of
customarily the duty fell to the head of the house (Gen. special interest for us here is its existence among the
17 2 3 8 ) . That in the earlier times it could be performed Egyptians ; for from a very early period we meet with
(of course only in exceptional cases) by women appear2 the view that, within thelands of the ancient civilisations,
from Ex. 425 ; but this was not allowed by later custom. circumcision had its native home in Egypt, from which
According to Josephus (Ant.xx. 2 4 ) it was not unusua it had spread not only to the other peoples of Africa,
to employ the physician; at the present day it is thc but also to the Semites of Asia (so Herod. 236204 Diod.
business of a specially-appointed official, 'the m5hhdZ. Sic. 331 Strabo 17824). It certainly was known in
At the close of the first century B.C. the naming o Egypt from the earliest times (Ebers, Egypt u. d. Bb.
the child accompanied his circumcision (cp Lk. 159 2 21) MOS.3 283), and we have the express testimony of
but there is no indication of any such usage in the O T Herodotus (236) and Philo (2210, ed. Mangey) that
indeed, in the older times, the two things were who111 all Egyptians were circumcised (cp Josh. 5 2 8 , where the
dissociated, the child receiving its name as soon as i same thing is presupposed ; Erman, &ypt, 3 2 J , 539 :
was born (cp, for example, Gen. 213 2 9 3 1 8 3 0 6 8 3! Ebers, op. cit. 278 fl),although, it is true, their testi-
18 38 2 8 3 , etc..). mony has not been allowed to pass wholly unquestioned.
The origin of the rite among the Hebrews is obscure One piece of evidence for the Egyptian origin of the rite
One of the views represented in the O T is that it wa: would be the fact that to the Semites of the Euphrates,
2. Hebrew introduced by Joshna (Josh. 5 2 f ) , who, a who had no direct contact with Egypt, circumcision was
the ' Hill of the Foreskins,' by divine com unknown. In any case, however, it would be illegitimate
legends' mand circumcised the people with knives o to suppose that it was borrowed from Egypt directly by
flint, and thereby rolled away ' the reproach of Egypt, the Hebrews-say, for example, at the time of the sojourn
' wherefore the name of that place was called Gilgal (z.e in Egypt ; for the nomads of the Sinaitic peninsula
' rolling") unto this day.' Verses 4-7 are an interpolatioi appear to have practised it from a very remote period.
designed to bring the narrative into conformity with htm As to the original meaning of the rite equally divergent
view of P that circumcision had merely been in abeyanc views have been held. The explanations offered fall in
during the years of wandering; cp Hollenberg in Si 4. Views of the main into two groups- (I) The
Kr., '74, 493 zr St. in Z A T W 6132 8 ('86). an( meaning. y i t a r y : Herodotus asserts that the
see J OSHUA, j C 7. The 'reproach of Egypt,' unless w avutians had adouted it simulv for the
- , I <

1 Hence in Persian and Arabic it is called Dargini (Chines sake of cleanliness, whilst other ancient writers regard it
wood).
a So E V E V w . Gibeath La-araloth; povvbs TGV ~ K ~ O ~ V V T L G 1 The facts of its present diffusion have been collected most
[RAF]. According t o @BAL in Josh. 243oa the knives c fully by Ploss, Das Kind in Brauch u. Sitte der Y#lkw(Z),1
flint referred to were buried with Joshua in l'imnath-serah. 3 4 2 5 ['szl.
829 830
 CIRCUMCISION. GIRCUMGISION
as a prophylactic against certain forms of disease (Phil. 'unctions. It is fitting then that he should wear the
de Circumcis. 2210, ed. Mangey ; Jos. c. Ap. 2 1 3 ) . mdge of his tribe.
A similar theory is still put forward here and there by Snch a badge has always a ' religious significance,
various nations (cp Ploss, op. cit.), and it was in great since membership of a clan carries with it the right to
favour with the rationalists of last century (see, e g . , participate in the tribal worship (see G OVERNMENT ,
Michaelis, MOS. Recht, 4 186 ; also Saalschutz, Mos. $ 8 ) , and, for early times, to be outside the tribe and
Recht, 1246). Recent anthropologists, such as Ploss, outside its worship meant the same thing. Thus the
give greater prominence to the fact that with many act of circnmcision had, in the earliest times, a sacral
peoples (if not with most) circumcision stands, or origin- meaning. Like all other initiation ceremonies of the
ally stood, closely connected with marriage, and regard kind in the Semitic religions, circumcision had attributed
it as an operation preparatory to the exercise of the to it also the effect of accomplishing a sacramental
marital functions, suggested by the belief that fruitfulness communion, bringing about a union with the godhead.
is thereby promoted (so. already Philo, loc. cit. ; cp To this extent the explanation of circumcision as of the
C UTTINGS OF TI<&FLESH, $ 4). ( 2 ) The religious : It nature of a sacrifice (Ewald) is jnst ; originally circum-
is impossible to decide the question by mere reference cision and sacrifice served the same end.
to the present conditions, or to the explanation which For the old Israelite, in particular, the view just stated
ancient or modern peoples themselves give. On the is confirmed by the identification of the two conceptions
one hand, it is not to be expected that the original mean- ' uncircumcised ' and ' unclean ' ; see
ing of the act should be permanently remembered ; on the *' Z$ly especially, in this connection, Ezek. 31 18
other hand, evidence can be adduced in support of either 3219-32, where in the under-world the
theory. There are broad general considerations, how- uncircumcised have assigned to them a place by them-
ever, which lead inevitably to the conclusion that, in the selves, away from the members of the circumcised people.
last resort, the explanation is to be sought in the sphere The receiving of the tribal mark is a condition of con-
of religion. All the world over, in every uncivilised nubium (Gen. 34). Among the' Israelites also it was
people, whether of ancient or of modern times, practices the marriageable young men who were circumcised
such as this are called into existence, not by medical (Josh. 52 3,see above, 2). In like manner, as
knowledge, but by religious ideas. It is to the belief already noticed, in Ex. 425 circumcision, as a token of
about the gods and to the worship of the gods that all marriageability, is brought into connection with marriage
primitive ethics must be traced. In this there is nothing itself ; cp the expression ' bridegroom of blood.' The
to prevent practices, grown unintelligible through the same narrative also explains the circumcision of young
religious motives having gradually faded into the back- boys as a surrogate for that of men (cp We. ProZ.W
ground, being supplied with other reasons, in this case, 3453 ). This custom-of circumcising boys when quite
sanitary. On the other hand, inasmuch as, to judge by young-may have arisen very early, as soon as the
its wide diffusion, circumcision must have arisen spon- political aspects of the rite fell into the background.
taneously and independently in more places than one, 'When the &e loses political significance, and becomes
there is nothing -to exclude the possibility of diverse purely religious, it is not necessary that it should be
origins. deferred to the age of full manhood ; indeed the natural
The primarily religious nature of circumcision being tendency of pious parents will be to dedicate their child as
granted, we must nevertheless be careful not to carry early as possible to the god who is to be his protector
back to the earlier times the interpretation put upon it through life' (WRS ReZ. Sem.C2) 328). This last
by later Judaism. According to P the rite is a sym- general statement is particularly apposite in the case of
bolical act of purification (in the ritual sense) ; the circumcision.
foreskin represents the unclean. This conception of N o mention of circumcision is made either in the
circumcision is presupposed in the symbolical applica- decalogue or in any other of the old laws. This silence
tions of the expression to be met with in the discourses 7. Later. cannot be explained on the ground merely
of the prophets (see below, 5 7). For the earlier period, that as a firmly established custom the rite
however, we have no evidence of the presence of did not require to be specially enjoined ; rather does it
any such idea, nor is there any analogous conception prove that, for the religion of Yahw& in the pre-exilic
to make its existence probable. The notion so fre- period, circumcision had ceased to possess the great im-
quently brought forward in explanation of the idea,- portance which we are compelled to assume for it in the
that the sexual life, as such, was regarded as sinful,-is old Semitic religion : nor was the same weight assigned to
in truth nowhere to be met with in the OT. The it which it subsequently acquired in Judaism. In par-
ancient conceptions of clean and unclean are all of them ticular the prophets took up towards it the same
of a wholly different nature ; see CLEAN AND U N - attitude as they held towards sacrifice, that is to say,
CLEAN. they looked upon it as of no consequence so far as the
In general, circumcision is to be regarded as a ritual worship of Yahwb was concerned. Such a prophet as

5.*
tribal mark. This view is favoured by several con-
siderations. Not only among the Jews,
but also among the Egyptians and most
Jeremiah, for example, sets himself in the most marked
manner against the high appreciation of circumcision
still prevalent among the masses in his day, when he
badge. other peoples by whom circumcision is places the circumcision of the Israelites exactly on the
practised, the uncircumcised are regarded as unclear- same level with that of the Egyptians, Edomites,
; . e . , as aliens from the tribe and its worship-and as Ammonites, and Moabites, and threatens all alike with
such are looked upon by the circumcised with contempt. the divine judgment as being ' circumcised in uncircum-
Amohg peoples who do not practise circumcision we cision ' or as ' uncircumcised '-that is, as not having
find analogous tribal marks ; filing or removal of teeth, the circumcision of the heart (Jer. 92s [z4]f., cp 4 4 6 IO
special tattooings, in some cases still more drastic muti- Lev. 2641). By this very fact-that they contrast with
lations of the sexual organs (semi-castration and the the circumcision of the flesh that of the heart, the ears,
like). Finally, with most peoples, circumcision used the lips-the prophets gave the first impulse to the
to be performed at the age of puberty. By its means later symbolical interpretation of the rite as an act of
the grown-up youth was formally admitted among the pnrification.
men, received all the rights due to this position, and, This last, as already stated, is dominant in Judaism.
in particular, the permission to marry (hence the fre- In the post-exilic period the rite acquired a quite differ-
quent connection already alluded to between circum- 8. In Judaism. ent position from that which it had
cision and marriage). The full-grown man becomes previously held. As substitutes for
for the first time the fully-invested member of the tribe, the sacrificial worship, no longer possible, the sab-
and, in particular, capable of taking part in its religious bath and circumcision became the cardinal com-
831 832
 CIS CITY
mands of Judaism, and the chief symbols of the religion (u) CitadeZ$.-In Gen. 1 1 4 the builders of Babylon
of YAW&and of membership of the religious common- a y , ‘ Let us make a city and a tower’ ; the nzigdd
wealth. For this reason neither Greek nor Roman 2. various or tower here represents the citadel.
culture was able to suppress this relic of barbarism. Elsewhere it is the ‘ir ( y y ) that is the
Antiochus Epiphanes indeed prohibited circumcision, citadel-e.,q., the ‘ city of David,’ ‘ city of
but with no great effect ( I Macc. 1 4 8 60 246). On the Milcom’l (see RABBATHAMMON); but observe that in
other hand, however, the spread of Grecian culture SO ler. 4841 niqp appears to be used of the lower cities as
wrought among those Jews who had yielded to its Jpposed to the nil313 or citadels.
influence, that they became ashamed of their circum- (6) Gutes.-At the gatesa of the town (see FORTRESS)
cision, as in the exercises and games of the arena it .here were ‘ broad places,’ expressly distinguished froh
exposed them to pagan ridicule ; they accordingly took he ‘street’ in Prov. 712, devoted in turn to judicial
steps by means of a special operation to obliterate the xsiness, traffic, popular assemblies, and gossip. See
signs of it (rroi~iv h a u r o b rhpopuurlav, I Macc. 115, 3K. 71 zCh. 326 Neh. 81 16 Job 297; also Ps. 5511,
BmuaBuBa~, I Cor. 718). In order to remove the Jvhere we might render, ‘Extortion and deceit depart
possibility of this in future the Talmudists and Bar iot from its market-$Zace.’
Cochba ordered that after the ordinary cut had been ( c ) Streets. -Except in Graeco - Roman cities like
made the flesh should also be torn with the thumb nail. 2esarea and SebastB-cities the importance of which
Michaelis, 240s. Recht, $5 184-186; Saalschiitz, Mos. Rrcht, s shown by the continuance of their names in an
1246 ; the commentaries on Gen. 17 ; the handbooks of biblical almost unmodified form-the streets were presumably
archaeology,; Hamburger’s Ency. S.V. ‘Be-
9. Literature. .
schneiduiig Schulrz A T Theol 1 7 4 8 ~
.
Smend, A T keZ.-Gesb 37f Ma& Geschl
as narrow as those in a modern Oriental city. That
the houses before the Greek period were for the most
d. ry. ReZ. 43 163f etc. ; Glassberg,”Die”Beschnl.idung, part poor and perishable is remarked elsewhere (see
Berlin 1896. d n the‘iater customs connected with the rite,
see B<xtorf, Syn. Jud. and Otho, Lex. Ra66. For the practice HOUSE, § I ). Still, the increase of wealth must have
of Judaism, Schiirer, GIYZ 5 6 4 8 3 (8)IZZJ?, etc. On the present had some effect on the architecture (cp Jer. 2214)-at
diffusion of the rite, Ploss, DasKindP), 3 6 0 8 ; on circumcision my rate, in the merchants’ quarters, the existence of
among the Arabs, We. A Y . Heid.PJ,154. I. B. which may be inferred from Zeph. 111 Neh.33rf. Jer.
CIS ( K E I C [Ti. WH]), Acts1321, RV KISH (4.u.). 37 21 (the ‘ bakers’ street ’). Whether the Aramaean
CISAI (~[e]icaioy [BKALaP]), Esth. 112, RV merchants in Yamaria had whole streets (MT of I K.
KISEUS. See KIsIi. 2034) or simply caravanserais (niisn, Klo., for nisin)
CISTERN ( 7 ~ 2f a
, ) , Jer. 913 etc. See CoNDurrs, may be left undecided. On the question whether the
streets were paved it may be said that the soil was so
5 I(1). often rocky that paving would frequently be uncalled
CITHERN (Kleapa [AKV]), I Macc. 454. See for. We have no evidence of paving in Jerusalem
MUSIC, Q 73. before the Roman period (Jos. Ant. xx. 97). Herod
CITIMS (KITIEWN [K”]), I Macc.,85, AV. See the Great is said to have laid an open road in
KITTIM. Antioch with polished stone (Jos. Ant. xvi. 5 3). On
CITRON. See APPLE, z (3). the ‘ street called Straight,’ see DAMASCUS.
CITY ( V Y ; i72Tp, almost confined to poetry and ( d ) Watchmen.-Watchmen, apart from the keepers
of the gates, are mentioned only in two almost identical
place-names ; n7>, frequent in Phcenician, but only passages of Canticles (33 57), a work possibly of the
i, Names. five iimes in O T ; cp also KAKTAH, Greek period; it is, of course, the capital that is
referred to.
KARTAN; rrohic).
A synonym of 1’9 ‘ir=Ass. urn EZu ‘settlement, city’; cp ( e ) Water-sz@$ly. - The excellent water-supply of
C AIN 8 I ; for Heb. kiyyah and Kerefh, cp Aram. @&ha, Ar. ancient Jerusalem is treated elsewhere (see CONDUITS) ;
&a&tU,t. smaller places had to be content with the fountains
The influence of the old Babylonian culture is manifest. which were the original cause of the settlements.
W e note, too, that ‘ir,in virtue of its origin, is an elastic The student will now be able to judge how far the
term including the settlements of those who were once Hebrew and the Greek conception of a city differed.
nomads (see HAZOR,V ILLAGE), and thus we can Pausanias (2nd cent. A.D.) thus presents the Greek
account for the ‘cities (read -71 with eBL, Klo.) of conception (Paus. x.41, Frazer, 1 5 0 3 ) : ‘ I t is twenty
Amalek ’ in I S. 155, and the description in z K. 179, furlongs from Chzeronea to Panopeus, a city of Phocis,
‘in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen if city it can be called that has no government-offices,
(see T OWER ) to the fortified city.’ Dillmann, too, thus no gymnasium, no theatre, no market-place, no water
explains the phrase ‘the wilderness and its cities’ in conducted to a fountain, and where the people live in
Is. 4211,~and some have supposed that the ‘ city’ built hovels, just like highland shanties, perched on the edge
by Cain was but a settlement such as we have just of a ravine. Yef its territory is marked off by boun-
referred to- a most uncritical supposition ! We may daries from that of its neighbours, and it even sends
safely assume that the Israelites acquired the word ‘ir members to the Phocian parliament.’ Jerusalem, a t
in Canaan. There they encountered highly civilised any rate, had its conduits and a substitute for a marliet-
peoples and strongly fortified cities. The Deuteronornist place, nor were large and high houses ( n i 3 ~ i . y )altogether
remarks (Josh. 1113 ; cp Jer. 30 IS) that places which unknown (see H OUSE, § I). The gymnasium spoken of
stood upon d i l l i n z L i e . , on artificially heightened 1 ‘City of the house of Baal’ (zK. 1025) is not a correct
mounds or hills-the Israelitish immigrants did not phrase. For ‘city’ ( i r ) read ‘sanctuary’ (d&r). See J EH U .
burn down, with the single exception of Hazor. Of 2 In E V I K. S 37 z Ch. 6 28 Ruth 3 II -$f is actually
course, mountain cities were still more difficult to take rendered ‘city’ (and in this sense is characteristic of D) but
(See FORTRESS). practically is equivalent to ‘jurisdiction.’ Cp ‘The Sudlime
Porte’ and the Japanese ‘Mikado,’ literally ‘exalted gate.’ So
1 The text, however, is corrupt. For i y y i ‘and its cities’ we in B rr6hrr and adhq are often confused. See GATE.
should read i > y i ‘ and the desert’ (see SBO T ad Zoc.). 3 So R V for n h h ? in Prov. Z.C. ; in Cant. 3 z E V has ‘broad
It was nbt a dweller in the land of Nod (‘wandering ’) who
built (or whose son built) a city and obtained the first place in ways’: cp 1‘99 1YW >hl, 2 Ch. 32 6 ; see Neh. 8 I. &3 always
the Hebrew legend of culture.’ Cain was originally a divine mhareia, except Is. 15 3 (fidpq) because of rrharcia preceding.
being, or semi-divine hero. See CAINITES,5 3. 4 yln. 65 has Irhamia five times, 6869 five or six times, 8ioSos
3 Read n? ! (Vg.);cp De Dien, Cn’fica Sacra (1693), 49. once or twice, ;&&r more than twelve times but most fre-
The $? (see BDB s.v.) or f2Z (fez() on which LACHISH (g.) quently renders, with reference to the etymology: simply &OPY,
was huilt is a good specimen of these hills. TeZZabounds in the ;&repor, or +. pw, Prov. 7 8 Eccl. 1 2 4 5 Cant. 32t; 6
Arabic geographical nomenclatiire of Syria and the Euphrates opa‘ In N T the words are rrharoia and ,%pq (in Lk. 14 21,
Valley. ‘raw;); cp Tohit 1 3 1 8 Ecclus. 97.
27 833 83‘$
 CITY O F MOAB CLEAN AND UNCLEAN
in I Macc. 114 z Macc. 4912 was only a temporary in- I the crystalline ; but the materials are so varying that
novation. : here is clay of several kinds suitable for several nses.
(f) Store-cities. -This phrase means cities in which The term ‘clay ’ is often applied loosely to ‘ loam ’ ; of
grain ( 2 Ch. 3228) or other royal provisions, valuable such, for example, is the clay of Egypt and of Palestine,
for war or for peace, were stored (I K. 9 19 etc. ). It is although a bituminous shale, easily convertible into clay,
implied that such cities were fortified. In Ex. 1 1 1 d is said to occur at the source of the Jordan and near the
gives ~ 6 h e i sdxupds ; cp PITHOM,RAAMSES. Dead Sea ; see BITUMEN.
On citizenship, cp GOVEKNMENT, 4 ; L AW AND JUSTICE, In Palestine, and indeed throughout the E., clay is
5 14 : and DISPEKSLON, 5 15.
- For the cities of the Plain (p??$7;) see ADMAH,
used chiefly ( I ) in building, either retained in its
natural state (for ceilings and floors) or manufac-
etc. ; on the cities of refuge (a)??? y),see ASYLUM, tured into bricks (see B ABYLONIA, § 15,B RICK, C HAM -
s 3. BER , H OUSE ) ; ( 2 )in the manufacture of utensils (see
CITY OF MOAB (>$a S v ) , NU. 2236. See AR POTTERY) ; ( 3 ) in providing a material for documents
OF MOAB.
public and private and a means of safely preserving
them. Very many deeds and other records have been
CITY OF SALT. See SALT, CITY OF. Found in the form of inscribed clay tablets in Assyria
CLASPS (DD!Q), Ex. 266 R V ; AV ‘taches.’ See and Babylonia. ’ The deed or redord was first written
TABERNACLE. on a small tablet, or brick, of clay, with the names of
the principals, witnesses, etc., appended. This tablet
CLAUDA, RV C AUDA ( ~ A a y A a[Ti. with K” 13, was then enclosed in an envelope of clay, on which was
etc.], K ~ Y [WH
A ~ with KCB], Caudu,:Acts 2716), is written, apparently from memory, the contents of the
described as a small island (vqutov) under the lee of document, the names of the witnesses,’ etc. (Peters).
which Paul‘s ship ran for shelter (37roGpupdv~~s)when In Palestine, where, so far as we know, clay tablets were
blown off the Cretan shore. She was driving before an
not customary in the historic Israelitish period, clay,
ENE. wind (v. 14), which caught her between Cape instead of wax, was used for sealing. See, besides, Job
Lithinos (called also Cape Matala) and Lutro harbour 3814 14176, where AV’s ‘sewest up’ should rather be
(see PHCZNIX, 2). Hence Clauda must be the small
island now called Guvdhonisi (I’au8ouijui) or Gozzo,
‘ smearest (clay) over ‘-parallel to ‘ sealed up ’ in v. 17a.
In Egypt jars, mummy-pits, etc., were frequently sealed
lying about 20 m. due S. of Lutro. Ptolemy (iii. 1711)
with clay.
has KhaDGor vijuos 6v 3 7r6his, and remains of a small The Heb. and Gr. words which are rendered ‘clay’ are (I)
town are found on the island. There is some variety lgh bdmer, Gen. 113, etc. ; (2) D’p ti!, used of the mire of
in the ancient appellation (KXau8ia, Stud.nz.m., 328 ; streets, also of brick (Nah. 3 14) and potter’s clay (Is. 41 25) ; (3)
Gaudos, Pomp.Mela, 2114 ; Pliny, HN iv. 12 61). I t the biblical Aram. representative qDq @iisu$h(Dan. 2 33); and (4)
became the seat of a bishop (cp Hier. Syn. p. 14,
q h & , Rom. 9 21: see fnrther POTTERY. t3)p melet, Jer. 439
Nijuos KXaDGos, and Notit. ,%pis. 8 240, etc. ).
W. J. W.
AV(RV ‘mortar’)isuncertain(~v~poB~p:~~~s[BAQI,~ 2 ~ KPV+V
~ 4
[Qw.]). A possible meaning is ‘earth’ (Giesebr.) ; hut it may
CLAUDIA ( ~ A b y A l a[Ti.WH]) unites with Paul at be a corruption for Bkjl ‘secretly’ ; see Ges. Lex.W).
Rome in sending greeting to Timothy at Ephesus ( 2 Tim.
4 21).Nothing further is known concerning her. CLEAN and UNCLEAN, HOLY and PROFANE.
Of the Heb. terms which convey the idea of cleanliness
For the in-enious hut unconvincing argument by which it has
been sought 70 identify her with the Claudia who marries Pndens
1. Meaning or holiness the most prominent is ( I )
in Martial‘s e igram (4 r3), and to prove her the daughter of the
British king h b e r i u s Claudius Cogidubnus, see Alford, NT, o1,y (ciii-~,$ r t j ? ~ , etc.), the original
vol. iii., Prol. to 2 Tim.
of the
meaninr of which is not clear. Smend
~~ ~ ~~ ~~
0 -

CLAUDIUS, the fourth emperor of Rome (41-54). in AT ReZ.-gesch.(l)334 (cp, however, 2nd ed. 150,
was the son of Nero Claudius Drusus and the successor of 2 2 3 , 3 2 5 ) , expresses the common uncertainty of the
Caius Caligula. His advancement to this position came moment. The older view of Ges. (Tries.), defended
chiefly through the energies of Herod Agrippa I., whom now only in a much modified form, is that the root
he rewarded with consular honours and the enlargement means ‘ clear,’ ‘brilliant.’ Baudissin,$ writing in 1878,
of his territories by the addition of Judza, Samaria, and finds the fundamental idea in ‘ separation,’ a view which
certain districts in Lebanon. For the history of the is still widely held.
Jews during his reign, see ISRAEL. Claudius is twice [Baudissin says, ‘ A comparison with din makes it natural
mentioned in the NT. In Acts 1128 the famine fore- to conjecture that meant from the first “ to he separated ”-

told by AGABUSis said to have been in the time of “to he pure ”-i.e., that 12ill? was from the beginning synonymous
Claudius Czsar ( h d I<hau8lou [Ti. W H ] ; AV after with lkl;?; cp 13,“pure,”from 113, “ t o cut‘’ or “cut out.”’ I t
T R , 8. Kh. Kaluapos ; but see CBSAR),and in 18 ~ f . is certain too, that Yahwb‘s holiness and his glory are correlative
ideas (as: in the Avesfa, Ahwa Mazda’s). In Is.63 this is
reference is made to the e-xpulsion of the Jews from very clearly indicated, and in 1). 5 the thought of Yahwb’s
Rome which he was induced to order (as Suet. CZaud. holiness suggests to Isaiah that of his own (moral) uncleanness
25 tells us) on account of their tumults : ‘ Judzos (cp Ps.15 ~ f 2:4 3 3 ) . May there not have been a time when
impuZsore Chresto assidue tnmultuantes Roma expulit. ’ o,p suggested the idea of purity without any moral reference?
Zimmern, followed by Whitehouse (Thinher, July 1892, p. S Z ) ,
The precise dates of both famine and expulsion have
been disputed ; see C HRONOLOGY, § 76f. connects bil,? with Ass. kuddu& (Busspsabizen, 37, n. 2 ;
Bzifr. ZZLY Assyr. 1 IO: ; Vafey, Sohx, Fiirsjrecher, TI, n. 3),
CLAUDIUS LYSIAS ( K A ~ Y A I O CAyciac [Ti.WH], which means ‘bright, ‘pure, or, more precisely (=e?Zmu),
Acts 2326), ’ chief captain ‘ (m.ilitarytribune, or chiliarch) ‘ bright,’ ‘ pure ’ (very frequently), ‘ illustrious ’ ‘ holy ’ (so Sayce,
in a private letter). According to Ahel (in Biudissin, 38), words
in command of the Roman gmrison of Jerusalem in the which originally denoted ‘purity’ are used in Coptic to denote
governorship of Felix (Acts 21 3 1 s ) . the divine or the consecrated. This is quite in accordance with
the spirit of the old Egyptian religions and with that of the old
CLAY is derived mostly from the decomposition of Semitic religions. If, however, this tempting comparison be
felspathic rocks (especially granite and gneiss) and of accepted, we must frankly admit that the original meaning had
become forgotten, or was but obscurely felt, by the O T writers.
1 The Heb. phrase is n\i?pn ’ly; cp Ex. 1IT (AV ‘ treasure Only once is ‘the Holy One’ distinctly parallel to ‘light’ (Is.
cities’), zCh. 8 4 6 (L adds’& +6pov), 17 12 (EV ‘cities of 1017): but the ideas are, a t any rate, implicitly synonymous
in Is. 31 96 33 1 4 3 In usage, as Davidson (Ezeh. xxxix.),
store’). ’l&f is omitted in 2 Ch. 3328 (EV ‘storehouses,’ W ~ A ~ L Sremarks, the term ‘holy‘ expresses, not any particular attribute
[BAL]). In I K. 9 19 (on2 qy) 6.4renders ~ ~ A E T&Y L S UK~YO-
p & ~ apparently
~ ~ , n\i?”p. BL (7,ide 10 23) omit. n133Db in 1 Possibly, however, 2v rrpoSJpo~srepresents 1 3 5 ~ 3and
,
2 Ch. 1 6 4 is corrupt ; see (I I IC. 15 20, and cp CHINNRRETH. is omitted by @BAQ.
2 For the question of the identity of Chrestus, see CHKISTIAN, 3 Studiea zur semit. Rel.-,esch. 2 20 (in his important dis-
NAME OF, 0 6, iii. sertation, ‘Der Eegriff der Heiligkeit im Alten Testament ‘).
835 836
 CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROFANE
but rather the general notion of godhead. In a secondary through. There is to be through the wilderness of Judah
though still early sense it is gpplied to that ‘which belongs a ‘ holy ’ way (Is. 35 8) in which no unclean shall walk.
to the sphere of deity, hhich lies near God‘s presence or has
coma into it (Ex. 3 5 Nu. 16 37f: [I7 z&]), or whicq belongs to So far it seems as if holiness might be explained as a
him, whether as part of himself or as IS property. Davidson relation rather than a quality. The flesh and blood of
also remarks that the root ‘probably expressed some physical the sacrifice are holy because they belong to God ; the
idea though the idea is not now reasonable.’ See also WRS
P+o$h.PI 424, who points out (after Noldeke) that the Arabic pots and bowls have to be holy that they may hold the
evidence for the supposed root-idea of purity will not hold. flesh and blood. So, too, the vessels (the bodies? or
I n RSP) 150 the same scholar finds ‘some prohahili5y’ that the wallets ?) of David’s followers ( I S. 21 5 [GI) have
the original Leaning was ‘separation’ or ‘withdrawal. to be holy that they may receive the shewbread, which
Other less prominent terms are 6anr ( y ~ ) , eakk ($, and <&I~Y
is holy because it is set before God. David (whom all
(iinu),,all of which are rendered indifferently by ‘clean‘ and
pure. (2) Of these the most definitely religious in its applica- the writers who speak of him regard, from their several
tion is fdh8r. No doubt gold may he @hay, i.e., refined points of view, as a model of wisdom and piety) vouches
(Ex. 25 I I Job 28 19) ; so also a turban (Zech. 3 5), vessels (Ex. for the negative holiness of his men, and any accidental
246), etc. ; hut the levitical sense is specially prominent (Lev. 7 19 defilement which he does not know will have had time
Nu. 9 13, etc.) The eyes of God also can be frihbr (Hah. 1 13).
therefore he cannot tolerate wickedness. Similarly innocence i i to wear off : he appears to think that the shewbread will
man : Job 17 g Ps. 51 TZ [TO]. God‘s promises are f&w-i.c., sanctify their ‘ vessels,’ and implies that if they had
perfectly veracious (Ps. 127 [6]). been specially sanctified, as for a holy war or a
(3) eak, also means refined (as oil, Ex. 27 20); incense pilgrimage, they might have eaten the shewbread
(Ex. 30 34), morally pure, ‘upright ’ (Job 8 6 [I1 ?$;I, Prov. 20 IT though they were not priests.
21 8). It is used of a prayer (Job 16 17), of the heart (it has to The ‘ sanctification ’ of persons and things falls under
be made or kept ‘pure’ or ‘clean,’ Ps. 73 13 Prov. 209 [il 7n&,
or the conduct (Ps. 119 9). the same notion. ‘Holiness,’ as Robertson Smith
’ (4) 12, Jar, ‘separated’-;.e., ‘pure’ (cp [ I ] above). Some observed (A’Sz) 4508),is contagious :
2.
Rabhins interpret lz in Ps. 2 12, ‘selected’=-pn3; but it would of holiness. whatever a ‘holy‘ thing or a ‘holy’ person
he easier (though not rhe best solution) to read fi117n3. I n a touches becomes holv. When Eliiah
physical sense bar=spotlessly beautiful (Cant. 6 9 ~ 3 . Spotless casts his mantle over Elisha, the litter has to foliow
purity belongs to God‘s commandments (Ps. 199). I t is used till Elijah releases him; the worshippers of Baal,
of moral purity (Job11 4 Ps. 244 731). whose ordinary dress might ‘profane’ the house, are
The N T terms which have to he noticed are (5) ciyyvis pure ’‘ provided with special vestments froin the stores of the
(=tZk8nr), in a physical sense of modesty or chastity ( z Cor.
11z Tit. 2 5 I Pet. 3 2 ) ; sacred, for ceremonial use (2 Macc. 13 8) ; house of Baal ; otherwise, when they came outside, their
pure-ethically-of men ( z Cor. iT I Phil. 4 s I Tim. 5 zz), of ordinary dress would make whatever it touched ‘ holy to
God (I Jn. 3 3), and of his wisdom (Ja. 3 17). Baal,’ and unavailable to the former owners. The priest
{6) Zytos, worthy of veneration, whether of things connected
withCod(Lk. 1 4 Heh. 9 I 24), orofpersons(e.g., Johnthe Baptist, on the great Day of Atonement (the rule is older than the
.Mk. 621 : Christian disciples, Acts9 13. etc.). Thus the church day) is to take off the holy linen garments and leave
-like Israel (Tit. 2 14, see PECULIAR PEoPm-is called &%a9 them in the holy place, and to wash his flesh in water
&yov (cp Ex. 196, uiip ql). Z y o s stands in the same relation
lest any of the contagion of holiness should cling to
S&roc as 1QF(see LOVINGKINDNESS and cp ASSIDEANS) to p:: him. In a text which, though belonging to the main
(see Thayer, Lex. NT,S.V. Zytos). stock of P, seems to represent a later state of the law,
(..
7 .) &nos corremonds chieflv with 1’DR .~: see ( 6 ) above : (so
. I
the consecration of Aaron and his successors seems to
also in @). I t is used of men (Tit. 1 8 Web. 726), of the consist in their investiture with the (hereditary?) state
Messiah (Acts 2 27 13 35), of Messianic blessings (Acts 13 34
r B 6ma AaviS), and of God (Rev. 15 4 16 5 cp Ut. 32 4 Heb. dress of Ex. 28 ; cp Nu. 2025-28. According to another
7+2). view, which is older than Zech. 4 1 4 , the consecration
(9 iep6s, consecrated to the deity, belonging to God, used of consists in the anointing (cp ANOINTING, 1 3, 6 ) .
the sacred’ writings ( z Tim. 3 15 RV, AV ‘holy’). I n I Cor. The doctrine of the contagion of holiness is at its height
913 .rd IspL means all the sacred ohjects pertaining to the in Ezek. (4624). who provides special kitchens where
worship of God in the temple. For the negatives of these
qualities, see C OMMON, PROFANE.] the priests are to cook the most holy things, and special
Baudissin’s view (above [I])suits many passages : the chambers in which they are to eat them, without
holiness of the KZdiErn and the KJdif&’thl (see bringing them forth into the outer court to sanctify the
I DOLATRY, 8 6), who were certainly found in Israel people (who are eating their own sacrifices). Other-
very early, can have consisted only in their separation: wise, they might become the property of the sanctuary,
either they were dedicated to foreign gods, or perhaps or at least would be subject to the same obligations as
they were set apart at puberty from the households in the priests. For the same reason, it is expressly stated,
which they grew up, according to a custom which ranges they are to leave the holy garments in the holy place,
from the Gold Coast to Tahiti (see Frazer’s GoZden Bough, though all the top of the mountain is most holy. So,
2 2 2 5 3 ) , and never returned to them or entered others. *
too, a little later, the profane sacrificers of Is. 65 5 either
T h e hire of the ‘ harlot ‘ Tyre (Is. 23 18) is to be ‘ holiness threaten to sanctify the poor who approach them, or
unto YahwB,’ not because the reviving trade of Tyre is to claim to be too holy to be approached. In Hag. 2 1 z J
be conducted in a better spirit than before, but because it we find a distinct change. The contagion of uncleanness
is to be taxed at the new Jerusalem (which is presumably is stronger than the contagion of holiness. A garment
to be a staple town of the wool and spice trade) in a in which holy flesh is carried does not sanctify; a
way to absorb all its profits. Again (Zech.14zof:), garment which has touched the dead pollutes (cp
everything in the new Jerusalem after its last great trial EGYPT, 8 19, and see DRESS, 5 8). The stricter view is
is to be so holy, so perfectly the property of God, that still presupposed, at least for the ‘most holy’ things; any
the very horse-bells will bear the same motto as the garment sprinkled with blood has to be washed in the
High Priest’s mitre; the pots in which the sacrificial holy place (Lev. 6 27 [m]) ; otherwise it would sanctify.
flesh is boiled for priests are to be as holy as the bowls For the same reason the earthen pots used in cooking
which hold the sacrificial blood reserved for God ; the are to be broken; brass pots (too valuable to break)
common cooking pots of Jerusalem are to be holy may be used, but only after having been rinsed and
enough for pilgrims to boil their sacrifices in. Jerusalem scoured-obviously to remove the last vestige of .the
(Joel 3 [4] 17) is to be ‘holy’ ; no stranger is to pass 1 Everybody dedicated a new house (Dt. 205) : was it ever a I

custom to dedicate vessels?

1 [See Dr. Di.2G4J : St. G V I 14793 ; i p v e r s Die P h f z . 2 They wish to forsake God’s holy mountain and set up a
1 G 7 9 3 Benzinger ( H A 5 GI) remarks I t n d y safely he temple of their own’ they are rebuked in a way to imply that
affirmed that this form oi Eonsecration t; the deity, and es- no temple exists or i; needed (cp Is. 66 13
and see I SAIAH , ii.,
pecially the violation of nature combined with it, was unknown 0 .).2
to the Israelitish nomads; but also that with so many other 3 Is this the reason why the holy garments are of linen?.
details of Baal-worship, it penetrated into the service of Yahwh, Woollen garments would naturally he sent to the fuller a t long
and there spread to a considerable extent.’] intervals.
837 838
 CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROFANE
holy food. The rank of the priests is determined of Israel in the midst of thee' (Hos. 1 1 9 cited Is. 1 2 6 :
by their right to eat of both the holy and the most ' Rejoice and shout, 0 inhabitant of Zion, for great is
3, Holiness holy, which are often cited as if they were the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee'). Yahw&.
of priests. known, and never described : though we is the God, the Holy One of the prophet (Hab. 112).
are told that the ' sin ' and the ' trespass ' So Jacob (Gen. 3153, cp v. 42 [E]) swears by the fear
offering are most holy and must be eaten in the holy place, of his father Isaac--i.e., the God whom his father
and hence could not be eaten by the households of the feared.
priests. Why these special offerings are specially holy There are other texts, however, in which holiness seems
is discussed elsewhere (see S ACRIFICE). The scribes, to be absolute. The men of Beth-shemesh ( I Sam. 6 2 0 )
to whom we owe this law, are the fathers of those who ask, ' Who can stand before YahwB, this holy god? '
decided that a book was or was not canonical according In Am. 42 Yahwk swears by his holiness. Does that
as it did or did not ' defile the hands.' After touching mean his character? or the reverence due to him?
a really holy book, a man had to wash before touching T h e answer will govern the sense in which his name
common food lest his hands should sanctify it (cp C ANON , is holy in 27. In Is. 516 (authoritative enough by
5 4). In the oldest practice, it would seem, it is the whomsoever written) God's being exalted through
contact with the holy flesh that is the essence of the con- judgment and sanctified through righteousness are
secration of priests : the sacrificer who wishes to institute closely parallel. The song ascribed to the mother of
a priest ' fills his hand. ' As sacrifice and slaughter are Samuel (I S. 2) is an unambiguous echo of the song of
nearly synonymous (as late as Is. 316; ISAIAH, ii., 14), the seraphim (Is. 6 3) -' Holy, holy, holy is Yahwb
we seem to find in one of the stories of the golden calf SgbZeth, the whole earth is full of his glory,'-where
that the share of the Levites in the slaughter of the holiness and glory are clearly parallel. So, too, in
worshippers is virtually their consecration. ' They Jer. 17 12, ' a high throne is the place of our sanctuary,'
have filled your hand for YahwB ' ( i . e . , ' Ye have been and in Ex. 1511, ' W h o is like thee, glorious in holi-
t o d a y appointed priests '), ' for every man was against ness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? '- the holiness,
his son and his brother' (Ex. 3 2 ~ g ) . ~In I K. 1 3 3 3 the praises, the wonders, seem to belong to God's ex-
Jeroboam fills the hand for the priests of the high teriial majesty. Throughout the OT God's worshippers
places : in z Ch. 1 3 9 each candidate brings a bullock rehearse his acts much oftener than his attributes.
and seven rams to fill his hand.3 This seems an echo W e find his 'righteous acts' as early as the song of
of old tradition; for in Ex. 29 (P), Moses takes only Deborah (Judg. 511) ; but not till Jer. 121 do we read,
tzuo rams and a bullock when he fills the hand of Aaron ' righteous art thou, YahwB, when I plead with thee ' ;
and his sons : the blood of the ram of the ' fill offering' where the sense is still half forensic, as in Ex.927 (JE)
is put on the right ear, the right thumb, the right great Ps. 51 4 [6]. In Ps. 117 we have ' The righteous Yahwe
toe, of each priest ; the pieces, which as a rule are burnt, loveth righteousness. ' The parallel between holiness
and one of those which in orainary sacrifices fell to the and glory is reinforced by the contrast between holy
priest as his fee, are both laid with cake on the hand of and profane, for profane certainly seems to mean what
each priest and waved before God (to assert the priest's is cast down to be trodden under foot (Ezek. 28 16, ' Cast
right to the ' wave-breast ' and the ' heave shoulder') thee as profane out of the holy mount ' ; Ps. 89 39 [40],
and then burnt. There seems to be an afterthought ' Thou hast profaned his crown to the ground ' ; cp 44).
(v.26) in which Moses as the officiating priest takes the Israel, again (Dt. 261g), is made high above all people,
wave breast to himself; the priests eat the rest of the that it may be a holy people.
sacrifice (which in ordinary cases the worshipper would The demand that Israel shall be holy is common to
eat) in the holy place. The idea seems to be that just every stage and aspect of the Law. In Ex. 2231 [30]
as the worshipper in the old profession (Dt. 2613!
declares ' I have put away the holy out of my house,
so the sacrificer passes on the dangerous holy food to a
'' OfIsrael. %?h
and Dt.1421, it is the ground on
Israel is to abstain from all meat
not killed by men for human food ; in Dt. 141f. Israel
priest who will take the risk and the privilege of sharing as a holy people is forbidden to make to the dead
the table of God, and bear the iniquity of the people in blood- or hair-offerings, intended, doubtless, to keep up
their holy things. Possibly the Levites in Ex. 3 2 2 6 8 a physical communion with them (cp ESCHATOLOGY).
may point to a t,ime when the priest was not chosen by The spiritual tie between God and his peculiar people
the sacrificer, but handselled his office by laying hands who are his children is not to be impaired by a rite the
on the holy flesh. sense of which was still clear when the book which
The question whether ' holiness' to begin with is Hilkiah found was written, though in Jer. 1 6 6 the rite
nothing more than ' separateness ' bears very directly seems harmless and unmeaning. Again, the tithe of
4. Of God. on the ' holiness' of God. If holiness is the third year is profane if any of it has been ' eaten in
originally a relation rather than a quality, mourning ' or ' given for the dead ' (Dt. 26 14). Are we
if things and persons are holy to God as persons and to think of the mere unluckiness of any thing connected
acts are righteous before him, then God himself is holy with the dead (Hos. 94)? or of some form of worship,
simply as the centre of the circle of sanctity : if all that as in Is. 8 19 ? Consecration for one mode of worship
belongs to the sanctuary is holy, how much more he would be a defilement for another. In Lev.1927 (cp
who dwelleth between the cherubim, who inhabiteth 21 5) we have the law against cuttings for the dead pre-
the praises of Israel (Ps. 2 2 3 [4]) ? H e is the object of ceded by a law against an Arab tonsure, which probably
worship whom his worshippers ' sanctify.' He is the marked consecration to an Arab god. This might go
' Holy One' : ' I am God and not man, the Holy One back to Hezekiah, who, according to Sennacherib (KB
1 If Micah (Judg. 17 5) had begun with the Levite we might 2 94), entertained Arab mercenaries. Gratian adopted
suppose that the filling of his hand consisted in his salary. H e the dress of his Alan guard. If we suspect with
is not Pkely to have given his son a salary; yet he 'filled his Robertson Smith a n invasion of Arab totemism in the
bands.
2 [So Bacon (Trzpe Tradifion of U e ExorZm 137), who re.
marks, ' In the story before us the consecration of the bene Levi 1 Holiness in the same sense is ascribed to other gods ; Esh-
to the priesthood is explained aetiologicallyby their having filled munazar of Zidon on his sarcophagus (circa 400 B.c.) speaks of
their hand with the blood of their brethren. I t is doubtful the holy gods in the same way as do Nehuchadrezzar and the
whether 'they have filled your hand' is the meaning of the Heb. queen-mother in the Book of Daniel.
The expression ' Fill your hands' (if this be the meaning), is 2 [' Here therefore we have a clear case of the re-emergence
admitted, however, by Baudissin (Gesck. des ATPriesferth.Go) into the light of day Af a cult of the most primitive totem type
to he 'very suspicious.' It is always another who fills the new which had been banished for centuries from public religion, but
priest's hands. Perhaps in an interpolation (see Kue. Hex. 247) must have been kept alive in obscure circles of private or local
the phrase may he conceivable.] superstition, and sprang up again on the rising of the nationa!
8 Can we suppose that if anybody was allowed to qualify faith like some noxious weed in the courts of a deserted temple
Jeroboam found the qualification for all comers? (RSh, 357). See the context, and cp Che. fntr. Is. 36831
839 840
 GLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROFANE
time of Ezek. (87-IZ),Lev. 1928 will forbid the tattooing bringing the Worshipper and his holy things into a new
of totem marks. sphere with something worshipped at its centre.
In the Book of the Covenant and in Deuteronomy Obviously ' holy and profane,' ' clean and unclean,' is
the holiness of the covenant people is demanded, so to
6. In the Codes. speak, incidentally, and without ex-
a cross division :. holv
7. Cleanand un- F,
-
, thinns and Dersons are. or mav
as unavailable for common life as
press reference to the holiness of the clean animals. if they were unclean, though, on the
covenant God. If one were to try to find a keynote for other hand, holiness necessarily pre-
the older book it would be 'Justice ' ; for Deuteronomy supposes and includes cleanness. Again, uncleanness
perhaps Loving-kindness, ' &sed, ' the dutiful love of often seems, like holiness, to have something super-
the worshipper to his God, which includes kindness natural about it : unclean animals often seem to be
for God's sake to men (see also LOVINGKINDNESS). ' abominable,' like ' idols ' ; the uncleanness of the dead,
' Holiness ' is certainly the keynote of the oldest stratum and of women at certain times, is as likely to savour
of the Levitical law (see L EVITICUS). of awe as of disgust.
Deuteronomy is clearly a development, as compared In historical times clean and unclean beasts are those
with the Book of the Covenant ; a deeper insight into which are fit or unfit for food rather than for sacri-
ficd (see however below, 5 11); but
the vocation of the chosen people has been gained. Is
the Law of Holiness a development in the same sense,
compared with Deuteronomy? The interval between
'' Quadrupeds* the law of clean and unclean animals
is puzzling.2 The law which limited the eatable
Ezekiel and Jeremiah is shorter than that between quadrupeds to the old order of ruminants (with the
Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant; yet exception of the camel) was valuable incidentally from
Ezekiel is almost as full of the ideas of H ( i e . , the thehygienic point of view. If this was the origin of
Law of Holiness) as Jeremiah of those of D. Has he the law, it must have rested rather on instinct than
inherited a relatively old tradition? Short as H is, on observation ; at most, shepherds and herdsmen
it is full of variations and repetitions. Would not may have noticed what beasts they found feeding in the
an elder or a younger contemporary of Ezekiel, giving pastures of the wilderness, and decided that these were
expression to a new religious movement that had grown as fit for food as their own flocks and herds. All the
out of Josiah's covenant, have imparted more unity to patriarchs have camels, and Rachel (Gen. 3134 [E]) hides
his work? Again, in more than one way H seems to the teraphim in the camel's furniture : in later, perhaps
be older. No reader of Frazer .(see especially Golden more historical, times camels seem to belong to aliens
Bough, 1279 n. 2 ) would think the law which forbids (cp C AMEL, 5 2 3 ) . In the oldest stratum of the story
the reaping of corners later than the law against gleaning of Gideon (Judg. 8 2 5 ) we find the gold rings round the
(Lev. 199f.). Nor is the holiness required of priests necks of the camels of the Midianites ; in the oldest
yet extended to the whole people ; thus if a layman eats stratum of the story of David (I S. 30 17) 400 of the
he is defiled for the day and must wash his clothes ; Amalekites escape on camels. As far as we know, camel-
but for priests the prohibition is absolute. There seems, riders have always killed, eaten, and sacrificed their
too, to be a recognition of other gods (Dt. 24 15f: ) : if a camels, though the meat is inferior to beef and mutton.
man curses his own god he shall bear his iniquity ( i .e . , Possiblythe camel wasunclean becauseit was the domestic
he must not come to the priest of the God of Israel to animal of alien nomads. If so, the rule 'whatever
make atonement for him). Certainly in D the demand divideth the hoof and cheweth the cud shall be clean'
for 'holiness ' is based on the more characteristic de- may have been settled before the question of eating camels
mand for monolatry, whilst in H, though the demand became practical. This question was decided by the ob-
for monolatry is not superfluous-Israel, we are told, servation that the camel does not strictly divide the hoof,
went after the ShEdim (see DEMONS, J 4) in the wilder- or at least rests part of its weight on an undivided pad.
ness (Lev. 17 ?)-it is not fundamental. The giving of T h e express prohibition of eating hares, rock-badgers,
the seed to Moloch is treated as analogous to the moral and swine, as food, is curious. No reason except a
abominations of the nations, for which the land spewed possible connection with totemism has yet been suggested
them ont, rather than to turning away to idols or why the rock-badger was forbidden ; and for the prohi-
making molten gods. It was a profanation of God's bition of the hare we have only guesses-perhaps it is
holy name just because those under his wrath (Ezek. worth while to mention the idea that hares' flesh is
2 0 2 5 J ) regarded it as part of his service. Upon unhealthy. The uncleanness of swine is at its height
the whole, the demand for holiness in H seems to when they are kept in sties and left dirty ; but in O T and
be an intensification of the demand that worshippers N T times they seem to have fed in herds out of doors.
shall sanctify themselves, which we may Suppose the Compared with sheep and goats, they are fond of mud
better priests to have insisted upon as long as there -but so are buffaloes in modern Palestine, which are
were feasts in Israel. In many ways the holiness is not regarded with the same horror as swine. On the
still external : ' ye shall be holy, for I YahwB am holy,' other hand, tribes of herdsmen and shepherds have much
appears (Lev. 2026) as a sanction for the law against more in common with each other than with swineherds,
abominable food (cp 1144f:) ; in 19 z 21 8 the con- and if we are to look for a natural explanation of the
text takes off nothing from the text. These passages abhorrence of swine we may look for it here : the droves
mark the culmination, not the starting point, of a line of swine of the alien were abominable to the flocks and
of teaching. Generally the sanction of the precept is, herds of the Hebrew. As for the actual feeling, whatever
' I am YahwB,' ' I am Yahwe your god,' ' I am YahwB its cause, it is significant that in Harran, traditionally
your god who brought you out of Egypt,' ' I am YahwB the last station of Abraham on his way to Canaan and the
who sanctify you. ' Logically and theologically God's land to which Jacob returned, the land where he won his
holiness is the source of all others : he is holy in himself wives and his wealth, swine were sacrificed once a year
and therefore what he takes for his must be holy too ; and eaten only then. A sacrifice which is, for whatever
but possibly, as Robertson Smith held, holiness may in
1 With regard to sacrifices it is men that are clean or unclean.
the beginning have been regarded as a mysterious When men sacrifice of the flock and the herd, only the clean
virtue inherent in things external to the worshipper-in may eat (when Saul misses David at table the first thought that
trees, in waters, in stones, in the mysterious animal occurs to him is 'he is unclean') : that was the common law till
life of well-wooded and well-watered spots,-each of slaughter without sacrifice was allowed in D in the interest of
the one sanctuary. Of game, on the other hand, of the roebuck
which may have served to suggest a higher power and the hart the clean and the unclean may eat alike-thou h
beyond the phenomena in which it was first recognised. possihly there is a trace of a blood-offering by hunters in t i e
Historically, however, the evidence that holiness is an rule in H (Lev. 17 13) that the blood is to he not simply poured
attribute of the object of worship is neither so early nor out but covered with earth-aprescription which might be either
a survival or a development.
so copious as the evidence that holiness is a relation 2 [Cp Dr. Dt. 164 WRS OTJCP) 366; Now. H A 1 116J1

841 842
 CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROFANE
reason, rare, is also mysterious, awful, and potent.. I1 fours, they might be eaten in all stages of their
Dogs too were sacred in HarrHn ; and both swine and rowth.
dogs seem to figure in the profane sacrifices of Is. 65 The law of aquatic food is clear : ' whatever hath fins
and 66.l See DOG, § 4. nd scales ' is clean ; this limits the dietary to true fishes,
Whatever the reason for the express prohibition of and, among these, excludes eels and shads,-
camels, hares, rock-badgers, and swine, the prohibition '. Fish' popular and common articles of food in Egypt,
is a5 old as any part of the law which we can trace ; keece, and Italy. According to Pliny (HNxxxii. 10 I),
but the list of prohibited animals in Lev. 11z g 8 ( P )has Juma thought fish without scales unfit for funeral
integral relation to the rest of the law ; the weasel, the anquets ; Piankhi Meri-Amen thought well of a king of
mouse, and different kinds of lizards are ' the uncleanest ,ower Egypt who ate no fish; according to Lucian (Dea
with you of swarming things' ; except dry sowing seed, +ra, 5 4 ) , fish in general is forbidden food. The Law
everything that comes into contact with their carcase nows nothing of sacrificial fish. Perhaps the prohibition
is unclean. sf fish was general, and the permission of what had fins
The rule is meant to work: one of these abominations does nd scales an exception: see FIsIi, § 8 8 There is
not defile a whole cistern or fountain ; every earthenware vessel ertainly a tendency to identify what is clean and what is
which they touch is to be broken : other vessels are to be washed
in water and to he unclean until even. the water which washes t for sacrifice. Thus Hosea (93) regards food eaten
the vessels pollutes all meat on which'it falls ; any drink in the put of the land of Israel as unclean, because
polluted vessels is of course unclean. 2. it cannot be purified by acceptable sacrifice
Two questions arise : Why should people wish to eat o the God of Israel ; in Amos 7 17 a foreign land is
weasels, mice, and different kinds of lizards? and why bolluted for the same reason : and in H the fruit of all
are these charged with special uncleanness? The rees is to be uncircumcised the first three years (i.e . ,
traditional answer to the second is that they are in a he fruit is to be picked off as fast as it forms while the
sense domestic vermin which haunt houses and are rees are establishing themselves ?) ; for the fourth year
always getting into whatever is stored there, and so are he whole crop is to be holy to praise Yahwb withal (i.e . ,
worse than vermin out of doors ; but, as most com- o be used for sacrificial feasts). There is no distinction
mentators think that one of the lizards enumerated is tnywhere between clean and unclean herbs ; the first
an iguana or a land crocodile 3 or 4 ft. long (see L IZARD ruits of all are to be offered, though only corn and wine
[I]), the explanation has to bear a heavy strain. If md oil figure in sacrifice. In P (Gen. 129) every herb
Robertson Smith's theory of totemism is established, L3. DiBFerentand tree that yieldeth seed is given for
much will become clear.2 The elders of Israel who wor- meat from the first ; so after the flood is
shipped ' creeping things ' in ' chambers of imagery ' periods' all animal food ;1 as sacrificewas instituted
(Ezek. 8 1 0 8 ) made it necessary to cultivate a special according to P ) for the first time at Sinai, the distinction
religious horror of their low-class totems : they were at ietween clean and unclean animals was still in abeyance.
the same stage as the Harranians, who are said to have The distinction between clean and sacrificial animals
worshipped field-mice. Indications of high-class totems, which is presupposed throughout D is perhaps to be
however, are not wanting ; see LEOPARD, WOLF. :xpl+ed by the transition from the nomadic state. If
There is neither a category nor a list of clean birds : Levi the sacred tribe be a metronymic formed from
of the unclean, as enumerated, most are uneatable- Leah the wild cow, wild animals must have been sacred
9. Birds. either birds of preyor feeders on carrion. mce (see L EAH).
The lapwing is especially forbidden : the only T h e law of clean and unclean meats obtained special
possible reason yet discovered is that it haunts marshy xominence in the Greek period : the first proof of the
places and that its flesh has sometimes a bad smell. -eligious fidelity of Daniel and his companions is their
Nothing is said one way or other of doves or pigeons,- eesolution not to defile themselves with the king's meat ;
which is remarkable, as they do not appear at Solomon's when Antiochus Epiphanes resolved to abolish 'Jewish
table, and, though they are the only birds which, as far particularism ' eating swine's flesh was the test of con-
as we know, were sacrificed, they were used for sacrifices [ormity. If we go back fifty or seventy years, Joseph,
of which the worshipper at least did not eat. In Syria, the enterprising revenue farmer, whom his namesake
at any rate, they were always associated with the worship idealised (Jos. Ant. xii. 4 I O ) as Machiavelli did CEsar
of Astarte, and, wherever that worsliip spread to the Borgia, had clearly no scruple of the kind ; yet even
West, they went with it, and according to Lucian (Dea he, though his kindred in the next generation (ib. 5 I )
S y ~ u ,14, 54) none of the worshippers at Hierapolis were prominent on the heathen side and he himself
ventured to eat or touch them-they were too holy,-and [ell in love with a pagan (ib. 8), was heartily thankful
whoever touched them was 6vay?$r or unclean' for a when his own niece was substituted for her in order to
day, and it was a question whether swine were ' holy' save him from polluting his seed among the heathen. A
or 'abominable.' Probably the question of clean or psalmist (see Ps. l a l ) , who still instinctively draws his
unclean birds was only of secondary importance : it was imagery from a time before the institution or revival of
not easy to keep ducks or geese ; there were no cocks the evening burnt sacrifice, may be an older witness for
(see C O C K ) or hens ; the ' fowls of heaven' generally the view (hardly to he traced in Ezra or Nehemiah) that
appear as feeding on sacrifices or corpses ; the ' fowler ' the law of clean and unclean meats is given to separate
(who appears as early as Hos. 98) probably caught small Israel from the heathen: he appears to be thinking
birds for the rich.3 simply of fellowship at the table, not, like the author of
The prohibition of ' flying swarming things that go on Is. 65, of sacrificial communion. If so, a Maccabean
all fours ' looks as if at first it included locusts, the only editor may have revived a psalm which suited the times.
Insects. fnsects which anybody could wish to eat ; Probably older psalms from 18 onwards lay the stress
if so, subsequent scribes discovered that, rather on cleanness of hands and innocency ; in Is. 6 5
as they leap on their hind legs and do not strictly go on the unclean lips of prophets and people are generally
1 [See WRS ReL Sern.P) 2 9 0 5 Were these sacrificial rites explained as relating to sins of speech, after the analogy
practised by the early Samaritans? Cp Che. Intr. Zs. 367.1 of Zeph. 3 9 13. After the destruction of the temple,
2 [Cp Stade Th. LZG 1896 n. I , col. IO, who remarks
against Nowa;k that ' W. R. Sdith's hypothesis has the special and still more after Palestine ceased to be the centre
merit of explaining why certain animals are sacred, and why of Jewish life, the law of clean and unclean was less
certain kinds of flesh may not he eaten. The theory that these zealously observed, though portions of it prove still
animals were regarded as the property of the Godhead only
throws the question back. For how came people to embrace
such a remarkable theory?' For Nowack's view see his H A 1 Observe that in P's account of the deluge there is no dis-
I1r8.1 tinction between clean and unclean beasts (DELUGE, 8 12 6).
3See FOWL I I . I n I S. 2620 if the t e x t is right, partridge. 2 His son Hyrcanus (Jos. Ant. xii. 49) is the first person we
bunting seem; to he beneath ;he dignity of a king. See know of whom they tell the story of the wise man whose place
PARTRIDG~ at the king's board is piled with bones by envious detractors.
843 344
 GLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROFANE
to be of considerable sanitary value. See FOOD, leprosy in a garment, if it ceases to spread, is sufficiently
s Human uncleanness
108
1 is of two kinds. It may arise
.purged by two washings1 Much of the rite is still
transparent. One of the birds is to be held over an
from external contact, or from something in the man or earthen vessel full of living water into which the blood
14. Human woman who is unclean. The unclean- of the dead bird falls ; the living bird, the cedar, the
ness of death falls under both ; the dead scarlet, and the hyssop are to be dipped in the water and
is unclean and makes others unclean. blood ; the leper who is to be cleansed is to be sprinkled
Diseases like leprosy or issue, natural processes like with both ; and then the living bird is to fly away with
menstruation and probably copulation, cause unclean- the plague of leprosy, as the women with the wind in
ness too. If, as Wellhausen holds ( C H 151 ; but cp their wings (Zech. 59) fly away with the wickedness of
ZJG IO^), Lev. 122 implies Lev. 1519, the law of un- the land of Israel, or as the goat for Azgzel (see AZAZEL)
cleanness after childbearing might be an extension by carries away the sin of the congregation into the wilder-
analogy of the older law of the uncleanness of menstrua- ness. Probably the living bird is dipped in the blood
tion.2 If so, as the Vendidad has much to say respect- and water to establish a kind of blood brotherhood
ing the uncleanness of childbed, we might suspect between it and the leper. If the blood and water were
Persian influence-the rather that there is no hint of it on the leper alone, the release of the living bird might
in the older Hebrew literature, while the ‘ menstruous symbolise that he who was hitherto shut up in Israel
cloth’ appears (Is. 3022) in a passage still generally was now free as the fowls of the air. Living water is,
assigned to the Assyrian period. Cp F AMILY, 11. of course, a natural element of all purifications ; HYSSOP
Perhaps a common element in all cases of unclean- ( g . ~ . ) ,certainly a popular ,means of purification (Ps.
ness not caused by external contact is that the unclean 51 7 [9]), according to Pliny (HNxvi. 76) is good for
in some way is disgusting or alarming. T h e law of the complexion, and according to others is a sapo-
leprosy is not to be explained from the risk of contagion : naceous herb. What are the cedar and the scarlet
ordinary sickness, even pestilence, does not occasion for? Cedar wood is aromatic ; the bright colour of
uncleanness ; the leper is ’ unclean ’ because he is scarlet may betoken strength and splendour. In the
smitten of God, just as the madman in Moslem coun- ancient domestic rites of India ( S B E 30 281) children are
tries is ’holy,’ and epilepsy was the kph vbaos in made to touch gold and g h e , that when they grow up
Greece. In general, persons who are in a state to they may have riches and food. Remote as the analogy
make ordinary people shrink from them, because their is, we may ask, Is the leper, in virtue of the rite, to
neighbourhood is uncomfortable or terrifying, are un- dwell in cedar and be clothed with scarlet? See CEDAR.
clean. The cedar, hyssop, and scarlet appear again i n the
Casual uncleanness, according to P in its final state, mysterious rite of the Red Hcifer whose ashes are used
does not require an offering for its removal. It is 17, Red Heifer, for the water of separation. It had
enough to observe the prescribed term etc. a whole treatise to itself in the
15. of seclusion, generally ‘until the even,’ Mishna, where its qualifications were
tion. and the prescribed washing; if either elaborated to such a point that at last R. Nisin said
be neglected and the unclean negligently or ignorantly that no one since the days of Moses had been able to
intrude among the clean, a sin-offering ’ is necessary. find one fit to be slain. There is an analogous rite in
This is Dillmann’s inference from Lev. 5 2. According D (Dt. 21 13) When the land is defiled’with blood the
to Nu. 5 2 , the unclean is excluded not only from ‘ the ordinary way of putting away bloodguiltiness is to shed
congregation,’ but also from ’ the camp,’--i.e., not only the blood of the shyer. If he cannot be found the
from the temple, but also from, at any rate, walled land is made clean again with the blood of an unyoked
towns. No offering is prescribed for the menstruous heifer killed, either by beheading or by breaking the
woman ; but after childbed and after issues a sin offer- neck (the meaning of the verb ‘di-n$h is not clear), in a
16.
of ing’ is prescribed, whilst the leper has also barren valley with a running stream in it, where the
to bring a ’ trespass ’ offering before he elders of the city nearest the place where the dead man
leper* can come into ’ the congregation,’ though is found wash their hands of bloodguiltiness over the
he is admitted to ‘ the camp’ after the performance of heifer. A barren valley is chosen, according to Dill-
an (older?) rite with two birds, running water, cedar, mann, Ewald, and Keil, in order that the purifying
hyssop, and scarlet. After he comes into the camp he blood maynot be uncovered and lose itsvirtue ; according
must still wait several days before he comes to his to Robertson Smith (Rel. Sem.P)371),to avoid all risk
‘tent.’ Here it is hard to doubt that the law has a of contact with sacrosanct flesh. W e might ask, Would,
sanitary purpose: it imposes a short quarantine to running water in a fertile valley used for such a rite
make sure that the cure is complete, and not improbably pollute the fields of offerings? The goat for Aziizel is
to guard against the hereditary transmission of the dis- sent into the wilderness. If the heifer is’ beheaded, her
ease. The ‘ trespass ’ offering of the leper loolrs like a blood is almost certainly intended to ‘ cover’ the blood
‘ development ’ ; it is necessary to assert expressly that of the slain. If not, are we to think of Saul’s first,
it belongs to the priest (Lev. 1433) ; the leper is anointed muster (I S. 14328)) Do the elders by implication
with the blood and oil of the trespass offering, exactly invoke on themselves the doom of the heifer if their pro-,
as Aaron and his sons (Lev. 822) are anointed with the testation is false? What is the meaning of the obviously
blood of the ram of consecration, whose flesh is boiled popular rite (see COVENANT, 5 5) of dividing victims
for Aaron and his sons to eat, while the ‘ wave breast ’ when acovenantismade (Gen. 1 5 r o Jer.3418$)? The
falls to Moses as the sacrificer’s fee, Possibly the re- rite of the Red Heifer is more general in its intention.
consecration of the leper as one of the holy people by Its principal use is not to do away bloodguiltiness, but
sacrificial blood is older than the theory that he was not to cleanse those who are defiled by contact with the dead.
to eat of the sacrifice. The sin and the burnt-offering Incidentally we learn that it was required for the purifi-
prescribed after all the graver kinds of uncleanness are cation of the vessels of all spoil which will not abide the
to ‘make an atonement,’ which may imply that the fire (Nu. 3123) ; and the Levites on their consecration
uncleanness was a penal infliction, though this is are to be purified by what is probably the same, ‘the
nowhere stated. T h e (older?)rite, which readmits the water of sin ’ (ib. 87). [Aaron and his sons (Ex. 294 and
leper to the camp, is the only one prescribed for the parallels) are washed at their consecration with common
cleansing of a house from the plague of leprosy, whilst
1 Neither of these laws belongs to the main stock of P though
1 [Cp WRS ReL Sem.(? 428, 447J] if they were later developnients, we should expect ’that thd
2 According to surviving folklore, many things will not ‘keep ’ cleansing of a house, at any rate, would have required an offering.
if ma$ or handled by a person in a state of Levitical ‘unclean- In D the dedication of a house has all the look of a survival,
ness. ... and was probably accomplished at one time by sacrifice.
845 8-16
 GLEAN AND WNCLEAN , CLEOPATRA
water.] Both texts are late, and represent the views blood of the covenant ; so the priests are hallowed by the
of antiquaries rather than the claims of legists with blood of the ‘ fill offering’ ; so the blood of the atone-
practical interests to satisfy. The tendency to ascribe ment rehallows the holy place and the altar that has
the whole law to Moses naturally brought with it an been profaned ; so the leper is rehnllowed after his
increasing zeal for the oldest rites that could be recol- uncleanness with blood, and the ashes of a peculiar sin-
lected ; it does not follow that the water of separation offering serve the same end. On the other hand, water
was invented in or after the Exile, because the occasions and fire (except in Is. 6 5 5 ) seem simply to remove ex-
for its application were prescribed then. Possibly, as ternal pollutions, not to renew communion with aholylife.
the Persians removed the uncleanness of the dead by Robertson Smith (Kinship [‘35], ReL Scm.P) [‘++I), ,apd
elaborate ceremonies with gSnztz, the priests thought Wellhausen (Resie A r d . Heid.(zl [‘97]) are the best authorities
for the Semitic world. The subject is best
that in similar cases water hallowed with the ashes of 18. Literature. studied from a comparative point of view, for
a cow would be specially efficacious. The law of a which Frazer’s Golden Bouph (‘go) is indis-
purification on the third and the seventh day (Nu. pensable. The critical treatment of the subject is of recent
1911-13 or 14-16?) loolrs older than the original law of growth and is capable of further development. Cp J. C. Matthes,
‘De begrippen rein en onrein in het OT,’ Th. T. 33 293.318 [’gg].
the Red Heifer, which seems to end at TJ. IO ; in &. 1 7 3 The only earlier work of importance is Spencer’s De L&Jus
we have the rule for its application. flebrrromnz Ritualibus (Camhridge 1727)-see Robertson
The rite itself is as obscure as its history. For one Smith‘s estimate in Eel. Sem.(Y p. vi. G . A. si.
thing, at every stage its ministers must be clean, and CLEMENT ( KAHMHC [Ti.WH]), a Philippian Chris-
they become unclean by their ministry ; the priest .who tian who had taken an active part in building up the
superintends the burning is unclean till the even ; so is church at Philippi, in which he had the co-operation of
he who burns ; he who collects the ashes (though they Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 43). In the allusion to him
must be laid up in a clean place) is unclean ; so is he there is nothing to imply that he was a companion of
who sprinkles or even touches the water, which is the Paul in his journeyings, or to justify his traditional
one means which can make those defiled by contact with identification (in the Western Church) with the Roman
the dead clean. Naturally, we suppose that those who Clement.
were ‘ unclean ’ at the stage of the law implied in our I n the list of the ‘seventy disciples’ compiled by the Pseudo-
Dorotheus he is spoken of as having heen the first of the Gentiles
records were ‘ sanctified’ at an earlier stage. Twice and Greeks to believe in Christ, and as having afterwards become
the heifer (vv. g 17) is called a sin-offering. The ritual hisbop of Sardica. The Pseudo-Hippolytus has Sardinia, for
has interesting analogies with, and differences from, that which, however, we should probably read Sardica.
of other sin-offerings. Like the sin-offering for the CLEOPAS ( K A E O ~ A C [Ti. WH], abbrev. from
priest’s own sin, and that for the sin of the congregation, K A ~ O ~ A T ~ O Caccording
), to Lk. 2418 the name of one
it is to be burnt outside the camp-hide, dung, and all. of the two disciples who accompanied the risen Jesus to
Unlike them it is to be killed, not in the place of the Emmaus. The narrative in question, however, is one
burnt offering, but without the camp. There is another of the latest of those which attached themselves to the
contrast. The blood and fat of all sin-offerings, includ- accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul, who had
ing the sin-offerings for priest and congregation and the spent fifteen days in the society of Peter (Gal. 1 1 3 ) and
bullock offered at the consecration of Aaron, is presented was strongly interested in establishing the fact of the
resurrection, knows nothing of it. B y 8 m ... Emtra
.. .
in the sanctuary ; the blood seems specially used there,
as in the ritual of the Day of Atonement, to rehallow the ... Emt~a ... &a 8 u x a ~ o v of I Cor. 15 5-8 he
altar profaned by sin. The heifer’s blood is not brought unquestionably intends to enumerate exhaustively all the
into the sanctuary ; it is sprinkled towards it seven times. appearances of the risen Lord which were known to
But for this we might suppose that the uncleanness of him; and he had the most urgent occasion to do so,
death was driven away from the camp or the city and for the resurrection of Jesus had been brought in
burnt with the heifer ; but her blood is hallowing-else question at Corinth. The narrative of the third evan-
why is it sprinkled toward the holy place? Are all gelist conveys in a highly concrete form the thought
these rites compromises between the old custom of wor- that it is from Jesus himself we receive the knowledge
shipping outside the city, which maintained itself as that his Passion and Resurrection had been foretold by
late as David (zSam. 1532), and the new custom of Moses and all the prophets (2425-27). In reality,
hallowing the city by a sanctuary ? As late as the As- however, this conviction nust have been gradually
syrian period (Is. 3314, if this be Isaiah’s), the close reached as the result of a prolonged and ever-deepening
neighbourhood of an ever-burning altar made many study of the O T by the whole church. That it is in
uncomfortable.1 For this reason, among others, the the Eucharist that his presence is made known to his
rarer and more solemn sacrifices were still performed church is, in like manner, an experience still reaented
outside. Then perhaps the old rite in the old place in every renewal of the act. Here too, accordingly,
took on a new meaning. Kings were, as a rule, buried the thought, that in the nearness of Christ as experi-
in the city, and it was customary (Jer. 345) to make a enced in the sacrament which commemorates his death
‘burning for them2 In zCh:1614 we read of a very we have our most convincing assurance that he truly
great burning for Asa: the Chronicler, who may be lives, finds concrete expression.
quoting a relatively old authority, thinks of perfumes, After what has been said, it becomes a question
at which Jeremiah does not hint. Were valuables burnt whether Cleopas is a historical person at all, though
in honour of kings? Have the cedar, the hyssop, and there is nothing in the mere name to suggest that he
the scarlet burnt with the heifer any analogy to such burn- is not. There is no sufficient ground, philological or
ings? I s the putting away of the heifer with something other, for regarding him as a veiled representation of
of a royal funeral an almost uhonscious reminiscence the apostle Paul.
of a well-nigh forgotten cultus of sacred animals? Is Several MSS of the Itala and Vg.,as also the Coptic
the red heifer the last trace of a cow goddess (see CALF, and the Armenian, versions, read I i h e 6 ~ a sor Khedrrar
G OLDEN )? There are, of course, many instances of in Jn. 1925 also ; but if this were the original reading,
mortal representations of the Godhead, honoured for a the substitution of the more difficult form Khwnar
time, and then ceremoniously put away. In any case, would be incomprehensible. For the evidence that
the efficacy of the heifer’s ashes seems to lie in the fact different persons are intended in Jn. and in Lk., and
that they reconsecrate rather than purge the unclean. that the confusion of the two is due to later writers,
All Israel were originally hallowed (Ex. 248 J E ) by the see CLOPAS, 5f. P. w. s.
CLEOPATRA ( K A ~ O ~ A T P A[AKV]), I. sister and
1 Have we a trace of the same feeling in Is. 32 191 Is not a
wife of Ptolemy Philometor, Est. 11I .
fenced city on God‘s Holy Hill at once superfluouswhen God
delivers his people, and also in some sense profane 1
2 C p Ahdah Znrah, 1 3 and the Gemara.
1 RV ‘then
.. . . .
AV ‘then. after that
then ...... .. . ... .. . . .
then
after that
then . last of all,’ an+
then last of all.
847 848
 CLEOPHAS GLOPAS
2. Daughter of no. I (I Macc. 1 0 5 7 ) ; see PTOLEMIES. identical with the sister .of the mother of Jesus who has
been referred to immediately before : but it is quite
CLEOPHAS ( K A U ~ A C [TLWH]), Jn. 1925 AVf, improbable that two sisters alive at the same time
AVIW and RV CLOPAS(4.v.). should have borne the same name, at least in a
CLOAK ( CLOKE). plebeian family.
s'Yn, JIZW,
For in Is. 5917 see TUNIC. I n this passage the With a royal house the case is somewhat different. Of the
sons of Herod the Great, two who never attained royal dignity
me% was a military over-garment, and cloak well expresses bore the name of their father: oue by his marriage with the
this. second Mariamme, and one by his marriage with Cleopatra of
For @LTLOV (see especially Mt. 5 4 0 . in Jn. 19 2 5, AV 'robe ' Jerpsalem (Jos. Ant. xvii. 1 3 t l j 1 2 8 4 , 8 562). There was,
RV 'garment '), the outside mantle &aZZiunt, as distinguished besides, his second son by Malthaki: who, however, as far as we
from the XLT& or iunica), representing the Hebrew kactt8neth, know, took the name only as a reiining prince (see Lk. 3 I and
see MANTLE. frequently), whilst before his accession he is in Josephus invari-
Other garments rendered cloak are the Macedonian Xhapjs ably designated by his other name, Antipas. His first son by
or military cloak of z Macc. 1235 RV ('coat' AV) and th; Malthakk, too, whom Josephus always names Archelaus, is
+ ~ A 6 q s ,or travelling cloak of 2 Tim. 4 13. See M A N ~ E . called Herod on coins and in Cassius Dio (5527 ; cp Scbiir. G3V
1375, ET i. 2 39). Thus the name Herod seems already, to some
CLOPAS ( K A ~ ~ A[Ti.WH]).
C This name cannot extent, to have acquired the character of a family name.
be derived from the same Hebrew (Aramaic) word as If +~hirrmovhe the correct reading in Mk. 6 17 (so also in Mt.
AA@AIOC. 143, though not according to the western group), the son of
In the first place, the vocalisation is not the same : Clopas Mariamme just mentioned, who, in point of fact, was the first
husband of Herodias, must have borne the name Philip also, in
would require some such form as '&rJ, while Alphmns pre- addition to that of Herod, while a t the same time this name
1. Name supposes '&! or *&lj (see ALPHAUS). In the Philip, was borne by his brother, who is known to us fro;
Lk. 31 as the tetrarch of NE. Palestine. As we are without
perhaps second place, as regards n, all that is certainly evidence that the former Herod was called Philip, doubtless
~ known
~ middle is that
~ becomes
~ of certain it k (2K .Ch.a t301
the end and in the we must here conclude that Mk. and Mt. have fallen into an
words Neh. 36 [+ame~] error which however, has been avoided by Lk. (3 19).
Gen. 22 24 [ ~ a j 3 e ~Josh.
], 16 6 [cavo~a]).Tnie, it has been con: Aiain, adording to Jos. (Ant.xii.5r xv.31 xix.62), not only
jectured that the same holds good a t the beginning of words Onias I11 (high priest till 174 B.c., died 171 B.c.) and Jesus
(H. Lewy, Die Sem. Frenrdwcyter ina Griech., 1895, pp. 17 27 (Jason) his successor (high priest 176171 B.c.), hut also Onias
51 1 1 0 1x9 137' add conversely, N n D & n as transliteration of (usually known as Menelaus) who came after Jason were sons
Kh$&pa). This ha;dly comes into consideration however, in of the high priest Simon 11.2 2 Macc. ( 3 4 42-j however,
the present case, for a Hebrew (or Aramaic) derivition is never which is here very detailed expressly speaks of Menelans as
probable in the case of a word beginning with two consonants. brother of a Benjamite na&ed Simon, whilst the high priest
I n Greek transliteration of Hebrew names, initial shlwwd is Simon 11. was of the tribe of Levi.
always represented by a full vowel (e.<., $e>@> Zapovtjh) : the
If, accordingly, one is determined to hold by the
opposite instances given by Lewy(irA, 34,45,54,59,69,98,105, identity of Mary of Clopas with the sister o€ the mother
118, 122 5 , 129, 206, 211, 246 f.) are more nr less doubtful,
and relate to words which were susceptible of such a of Jesus, this must be on the assumption not only
modification in the transference as was hardly possible that she and the mother of Jesus were not children of
in the case of biblical proper names. Further, the Syriac the same marriage, hut also that they had neither father
versions of the N T betray no consciousness that both names
are derived from a common Semitic source: with them nor mother in common-that, in fact, each spouse had
the initial letter of 'ah+a?os is always n (or N), of Khwras invari- brought into the new household a daughter by a former
ably p. marriage, named Mary. It is no argument for the
It is not likely that K ~ U T B Sis derived by metathesis identity of the two to allege that we are not at liberty
from ( ' c l u b ' ) ; nor is there the least certainty to find more women mentioned in Jn.1925 than .in
that K ~ U T U Sis a contraction from Khsbaas. Mt.2756 Mk.1540 (161) and Lk. 2 4 ~ 0 for ; ~ John
On purely Greek soil, at any rate, K ~ E O when
- contracted would mentions the mother of Jesus, though she does not
become either K ~ N - (e.g., K ~ W K ~ ~ W especially
S , in Doric) or appear in any of the synoptists. In other words, he
K ~ O V - (as Bsd8opas becomes OOV'GWPOS ; see Meisterhans,
Gramm. d attischen Imchw. 5 19, and cp THEUDAS). At
did not hold himself bound by what they said, though,
the same time, the contraction of Khf6ras into nhorras n u s t he according to all scholars, their narratives lay before him.
admitted to be at least possible, inasmuch as we know of no The only point on which he is distinctly in agreement
Greek word from which the syllable K ~ W -can come. In this with them is as to the presence of Mary Magdalene.
case the original form of the name will be xhedrrarpos. For this If we will have it that he enumerates also the Salom6
reason the accentuation ~h&mns is preferable to ~ h o r r i s
especially as the accent is allowed to retain its original place ii: of Mark (whose identity with the mother of James and
Khdrac.1 John the sons of Zebedee cannot seriously be doubted),
In Jn. 1 9 2 5 , the only place where the name occurs in we can find her only in the sister of the mother of
NT.- Clopas
- is mentioned as somehow related to a Jesus. Mary of Clopas must in that case be distinct
certain Mary. Hegesippus (Eus. HE from the latter, and may possibly be identified with the
Mary Of 'lo- iii. 11 32 ;-6 iv. 22 4) informs us that Mary who in Mt. is called the mother of James and
pas probably Clopas was the brother of Joseph the Joses (or Joseph), in Mk. the mother of James the Less
not =Jesus' Whether this is the and Joses, or, more briefly, Mary [the mother] of Joses
mother's sister. father of Jesus.
CloDas referred to in Tn. 1925 deDends. (so 1 5 4 7 ) or Mary of James (so 1 6 1 and L k . 2 4 1 0 ) . In
- 1 ,
in the first instance, on the answer to the question, who this case, however, not only is it remarkable that the
is intended by the ' Mary of Clopas ' there. As ,there relationship of the apostles, James the Greater and John,
is no ' a n d ' before her name, she would seem to be with Jesus-as children of sisters-is nowhere mentioned
1 [The name is possibly the same as the Palm. ~ ~ 1 (Chabot,
5 3 no. 12). In M H the name 'Cleopatra' usually appears under
the form ~ i ~ 3 [ i h p . l 2 For a somewhat different account of these relations, see ONIAS.

MT. 27 56. MK. 16 I . LK. 2349. 1 L~.24r0. Jx. 19 25.

(At the cross.) (Atthesepulchre.: (At the cross.)

T ~ Y T E Soi y u o u ~ o i Mary Magdalene. Mary the mother
air@. of Jesus.
Kai p v + f s ai Joanna. The sister of the
.l?ahchalas.
. . arb mis mother of Jesus. '
Mary of Clopas. i
Sa1ome. Mary of James. Mary Magdalene.
sonsof Zebedee.

849 850
 CLOPAS CLOPAS
or in any way alluded to ; but also it is almost unthink- Finally, to this is added, not as a necessary but as
able that the fourth evangelist presupposes the presence 1. welcome completion of the hypothesis, the suggestion
of the mother of John when in 1926 he proceeds: .hat of the brethren of Jesus', not only James but
' when Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple &Is0Simon and Judas were among the apostles.
standing by, whom he loved, he saith, etc.' As'far as Both names, in point of fact, occur, at least in Lk. G 15f: Acts
the fourth evangelist is concerned, this scene furnishes I 13 (Simon alone in Mk. 3 18 Mt. 10 3 J ) . With regard to o5es
the fourthofthe 'hrethrenof Jesus,'somehaveconjectored(Sca~ryi
a clear motive for thinking not only of the mother of i n g out the same hypothesis) that it was he who, according to Acts
Jesus as present, but also of the mother of John as 123-26, was nominated (though not chosen) as successor to the
absent. Lk. 24 IO (at the sepulchre) puts in the place of vacant place of Judas Iscariot. It is true that all the better
authorities here read Joseph, not Joses (see BARSABAS); but, on
the mother of John a certain Joanna. If, as he often the other hand this reading being accepted, it can he pointed
does, the fourth evangelist is here taking Lk. rather out that a c c o h n g to the better MSS (at least in Mt. 1355)
than Mt. or Mlr for his guide, it would he impossible oseph, not as in Mk.63 Joses, is the name of the fourth
'brother' of Jesus.
to identify Mary of Clopas with the sister of the mother
of Jesus, whose name on this assumption must be taken This whole identification of the ' brethren of Jesus'
to be Joanna. It is certain, however, that in Lk. this with apostles or aspirants to the apostleship, however,
Joanna is identical with the Joanna who is mentioned is quite untenable. According to Mk. 3 2 1 31 Mt. 1246f:
in 8 3 as the wife of a certain Chuza and not stated to Lk. 819 Jn. 75, the brethren of Jesus disbelieved his
have been related to the mother of Jesus. Thus we Messiahship while he was alive, and in Acts1 14 I Cor.
may take it that it was not she, any more than any of 95 they are distinctly separated from the apostles.
the others, that was intended by the fourth evangelist, Even if we give up the identification with apostles,
and that most probably his reason for mentioning the Mary cannot be the mother of the cousins of Jesus.
sister of the mother of Jesus is that, according to Llc. Had she been so related to Jesus, IMt. and Mk., in seeking
to indicate her with precision, would have named not two
2349. 'all his acquaintance' ( y v w a r o l ) are standing by sons but four ; or rather they would have mentioned no name:
the cross. There is no evidence of any allegorising at all, but simply said 'the mother of the cousins of Jesus.
intention that he could have had in the enumeration of Moreover it is only of Symeon, the second ' bishop ' of Jerusalem,
that HegLsippus says he was son of Clopas and cousin of Jesus.
these four (or three) women. Apart from the mother If Hegesippus had regarded the four 'brethren of Jesus' as his
of Jesus and her sister, therefore, the names of the cousins, he would surely have designated Symeon's predecessor
women seem simply to have been taken over from the also (James the ' brother ' of Jesus) as son of Clopas, and Symeon
himself, by whom in this case the Simon of Mk. ti3 Mt. 13 55
Synoptists. would be meant he would have designated as brother of James.
Who was the mother of James and Joses, with whom, This, however, !s what he does not do : he calls James simply
according to this view, Mary of Clopas would have to he 'the Just ' (b S l K a l o S ) , and says (Eus. H E iii. 32 6) that men ' of
identified? The James in question is often the race of the Lord' (hrirbyivovc 702 ~ v p l o uhad
) presided over the
church(in Palestine) in peace until Symeon the son of Clopas, the
3' 'lopas=
*lphseus ' supposed to be the second James in the list
of the apostles. With this it seems to agree
that Mk. calls him James the Less. Now, this James was
uncle of Jesus, was arraigned and crucified; cp iii. 206.1
Lastly, it is idle to deny the existence of actual
' brethren of Jesus ' : that is distinctly vouched for by the
a son of Alphzens. Thus Alphseus would appear to he T ~ W T ~ T O K O Vof Lk. 2 7- an expression all the weightier
the husband of the Mary mentioned by the Synoptists because it has been already suppressed in Mt. 125.
as present at the cross. From this it is not unusual to If James and Joses, the SOUS of Mary according to
proceed to the further combination that in Jn. Clopas the synoptists, are thus no cousins of Jesus, we could all
. -
is named as the husband of Mary and that he is
identical with Alphseus. Philologically the names are
5.
Conclusion. the more readily bel&ve that they were
really apostles or at least constant com-
distinct (see above, 3 I ) ; but the identification is possible panions (Actslzr) of jesus. Such an assumption, how-
if, according to a not uncommon Jewish custom (Acts ever, is not borne out by a single hint, and at the stage
123 1225 131 9 Col. 4 r r ) , Clopas had two names. A of the discussion we have now reached it has no more
further step is to bring in at this point the statement of interest than the other which makes Clopas identical
Hegesippus that Clopas was a brother of Joseph the with Alphseus and regards him as the husband of Mary.
father of Jesus. Over and above this, many proceed The Mary in question, we are forced to conclude, was
to the assumption-shown above (I z ) to be untenable simply a woman not known otherwise than as the mother
-that his wife Mary was identical with the sister of the of a James and a Joses. Why is it, then, that the fourth
mother of Jesus. evangelist designates her, not by reference to these sons
In this case two brothers would have married two sisters, and
the second James in the list of apostles would be a cousin of of hers, hut by calling her ' of Clopas ' 1 That he here
Jews and that both on the father's and on the mother's side. intends the Cleopas of Lk. 2418 is quite improbable (see
Even: however, if we regard Mary of Clopas as a different CLEOPAS);but neither is it likely that he can have
person from the sister of the mother of Jesus, her son, the meant a man named Clopas who was wholly unknown
second James, as long as he is regarded as the son of Clopas
the uncle of Jesus, remains a cousin of Jesus, whilst, according to his readers. His allusion must rather have been to
to the identification of the sister of the mother of Jesus with the the Clopas whom we know from Hegesippus as the
wife of Zebedee (spoken of above, 5 z ) , this honour would helong brother of Joseph. There is no trace of any allegorising
rather to the first James and John the sons of Zehedee as being
sons of the aunt of Jesus. intention in this : we may take it that the evangelist is
following tradition. I t is possible, therefore, that
The next question that arises is, Who was Joses, Clopas was the husband of Mary, in which case James
the second son of Mary, according to the Synoptists? and Joses are cousins of Jesus, but not to he identified
4. The s o ~ 8In Mk. 63 a Joses is named, along with
with his brothers of the same name, nor yet with the
of Mary p m e s , Judas, and Simon, amongst the apostle James and the Joseph (or Joses) Barsahas of
rethren of Jesus. This has given
Acts 123. It is more probable, however, if the prevailing
=Brothers occasion for crowning the series of com-
Of Jesus? binations which has been already ex- 1 In Eus. H E iii. 20 T Hegesippus speaks of ot brrb yCvous 703
plained, and conipleting it with a hypothesis whereby ~ v p vlovoi
h 'IoGrSa, 708 Karb &pka Aayop&vou a h ; bSsA+o5 ;
and in iv. 22 4 he says that b ;K BeLou airroir 1Jesul Z u p e h 6 708
it becomes possible to deny the existence of literal Khrjra was &YE+& 700 K U ~ ~ O8mhepos.
U Inasmuch as he does
brethren of Jesus, and to affirm the perpetual virginity not regard James as dvs+~bp Z ~ ~ T O S as, has been shown the
of his mother. Once it is admitted that James and words 8eGrepas and As opivou can mean only that he reiards
Joses were sons of Clopas (=Alphaeus) and of Mary his Symeon as ' cousin ' a n 1Jude as ' brother ' of Jesus in a modified
sense. He appears, then, to favour the assumption of the r a p B e v i a
wife, the same seems to hold good of all the ' brethren of Mary at Jesus' birth. All the more remarkable is it that he
of Jesus.' In that case they would be 'brethren of does not yet seem to have drawn the further consequence of
Jesus ' only in the sense in which 'brethren ' (d8~Xq5oi) denying other sons to her. His statement that Clopas was the
uncle of Jesus therefore does not proceed upon any such theory
is used instead of d v e q ~ o l (children of two brothers or as that in fav& of whkh it has (as we have seen) been applied
two sisters) in z S. 209 (cp 1725). and therefore in respect of trustworthiness is open to no suspicion:
851 85"
 CLOTH, CLOTHING COAL
usus lopuendi is to be taken as a guide, that Clopas is passed, on the voyage to Rome. The continuous NW.
designated as the father of Mary. In this case it is (Etesian) winds had made the voyage over the 130 m.
Mary herself who is the cousin of Jesus. In either case between Myra and Cnidus tedious ; and rendered the
it is remarkable that in the synoptists she should be direct course from Cnidus, by the N. side of Crete,
characterised not by her relationship to Jesus, but simply impossible (p+ ~ p o u e & r o s +piis 700 bu&ou).
by mention of her sons; and this on the assumption The wines of Cnidus, especially the kind called Protropos
that it is the uncle of Jesus who is intended, suggests a excelled any produced in Asia(Str. 637). The best claim of thd
city to renown lies in the intellectual activity of its inhabitants
doubt as to whether the mention of Clopas in this con- and their encouragement of art. They possessed at the Lesche
nection is correct. at Delphi, two pictures hy Polygniitus (middle o i fifth century.
The apocryphal Acts of the Apostles following the comhina- Paus. x. 25 ~f;). They bought the Aphrodite of PraxitZles (hi;
tion mentioned above (5 4), for the m i s t part identify Symeon masterpiece, quam ut videwnt wruZtti navigaverunt Cnidzwz;
son of Clopas, the second bishop of Jerusaled Plin. HNxxxvi. 5 4 : the Cnidians especially worshipped Aphro-
6. Later spoken of by Hegesippus, with the apostle dite, Paus. i. 13). I n addition, they had works by Bryaxis and
traditions. Simon the Cananaan (AV the Zealot ’) ; some Scopas. Eudoxus the astronomer, Ctesias the physician and
give him in addition the name of Judas and historian, Agatharchides, and Sostratus the architect who built
some make the name of his father his own proper name als; but the Pharos of Alexandria, all belonged to Cnidus (cp Str. 119,
in the form Cleopas or Cleophas, so that he is identified also h t h 656).
the disciple mentioned in Lk. 24 IS. H e is at the same time For plan and views of the remains see Newton’s Hist. of
enumerated among ‘ the Seventy’ of Lk. 10I (Lipsius, Ajokr. Discoveries at lialicarirassus etc., 1861-63 ; 7i-auels and
Aj.-gesch. ii. 2 142,f). According to the Trrasure-cave(Sckatz- Discoveries in ike ikmnt, 2 1 6
;s W. J. W.
kohh ed. Bezold 1888, p. 267, 5 ; see Thes. Syr. ed. Payne- COACH (Zly), Is. 6620 AVmg. See LITTER.
Smiti, col. 3629), Syriac collection of legends dating from the
sixth century, he was brother not only of Nicodemus(a statement COAL. The coal of O T and N T is undoubtedly char-
made of the apostle Judas also in a Latin list of apostles given coal. A piece of black charcoal was termed DQ? (pefihlim;
in Lipsius, 1 1 9 3 ) ~hut also of Eoseph of Arimathaa. p. w. s.
1. Terms. cp perh. Ass. p8ntu [or pe^mtu”] ‘fire’ ;
CLOTH, CLOTHING. On these and similar words Prov. 26 21 [tpxdpa], Is. 44 IZ, 54 16f
see, generally, DRESS, I.
[liu6’paf ; carbo]) ; pieces in process of combustion,
The words are used with considerable looseness and fre-
quently interchange with others of similar meaning. ‘ Cloth’ ‘live coals,’ ”in!, (ga@Mth, gehuilim.; cp Ar.
(and ‘clothes ’) occasionally render 11; (D RESS, $ 1[I]), and jahima to glow, and perh. Ass.gu&h,a shining precious
+W (MANTLE), also once l??~,z K . 8 15, AV (BED, li 3) ; stone ; dvOpag ; pruze), and often, more precisely,
for uwSwu Mt. 27 59 see L INEA . ‘ Cloth ’ to denote material de (coals offire), Lev. 1612,etc. In this distinction,
or fabric ’is found dnly in Esth. 1 6 , KVmg. For ‘cloths which is not uniformlq observed (cp Is. 44 12 54 16),
of service’ (Ex. 31 30, etc., AV; l:i+g ’?.>?) see DRESS, lies the point of the vivid comparison Prov. 26 21 (RV
li 3 n. For ‘striped cloths’ (Pr. 716 RV, ni3pn) see LINEN. ‘ as coals are to hot embers,’ etc. ).
RV prefers ‘cloths’ in Ezek. 27 20 (112)1 Lk. 24 12 (b8dvt.ov), Of the other words rendered by ‘coal’ in the O T it is sufficient to
where AV has ‘clothes,’ and ‘clothes’ oth‘erwise recurs in Gen. say that 9 8 7 1 n+h (Is. 6 6 ) is rather a ‘hot stone’ (so RVmg. ;
49 15 AV (nro, RV ‘vesture ’), I S. 4 12, E V (i~), Ezek. 27 24; ~ v ~ P u C ) ,the n‘?y? [nllyl, re@hinz, of I K. 1 9 6 ( : U K ~ U + ~ U S
AV (& RV ‘wrappings ’ : see DRESS, S I [ z ] ) . ‘ Clothing
i r A v p [ c ] i q ~heing,
) in like’manner, the hot stones on which Elijah‘s
is used to render the general terms dl2%(Job 247), 1 ~ (il. s
cake was baked (see B READ , $ 2 [ a I ) ; that F@, Yes”+h, identified
22 r6), (Is. 23 18), n@)n (2.59 IT), as well as the specific
by the Rabbins with 122, reseph, and twice rendered ‘coals’
ai??, IS. 3 6 (MANTLE). (Ct. 86 AV, Hab.35 AV, RVmg. ; A V * w ‘burning diseases’),
CLOUD, PILLAR OF (1297 lSDp), E x o d . 1 3 ~ 1 ; is rather ‘flame’ or fire-bolt (cp RV);2 and that l h W , .?‘hay
see P ILLAR OF CLOUD. (Lam. 4 8 ; buj3iAv ; carlones; EV, ‘ their visage is blacker than
acoal’), is properly ‘llackness’ (so the margins; others ‘soot’
CLUB (nQ\n,t6thlih ; c@ypaJob 4129 [ZI] RV, AV .LZ~O]).

‘ dart ’). Read tartah ‘javelin,’ and see WEAPONS. ‘fThe Hebrews doubtless used for fuel as great a
variety of woods as the modern Syrians now use (see
CNIDUS ( K N I A O C [ANV: Ti. WH]), a city on Cape Post in PEFQ, ’91, pp. 1 1 8 8 ) . Several
Crio (anc. ’Triopium) in the extreme SW. of Asia Minor, 2’ are named in Is. 44 14-16. Ps. 1 2 0 4 (RVmg.)
between Cos and Rhodes. It was originally built upon mentions ‘ coals of broom (oni),’ a desert shrub which,
the rocky island (u7juos h$q?,+ OEarpoei6$s. Strabo, 656)
forming the cape, united to the mainland by a causeway, when reduced to charcoal, throws out an intense heat
-thus making two harbours, one on the N. and the (on the text see J UNIPER ). The references to thorns as
other on the S. of the isthmus (cp Mitylene and fuel ( o y . p i p ) are many ; particular mention is made
Myndus). of the buckthorn or perhaps bramble (ma, Ps. 5 8 9 [IO]),
The inhabitants soon spread eastwards over the neighbowing of chaff-chopped straw (tian), the refuse of the
p?rt ?f the peninsula. The moles of the large southern port are threshing-floor (Mt. 3xz),-and of withered herbage
still in existence, as well as much of the ancient city. The
situation of Cnidus was eminently favourahle to its development (Mt. 630 Lk. 1228). At the present time the favourite
as a commercial and naval power ; hut, curiously like Cos in this fuel of the Bedouin is the dung of camels, cows (cp
respect, it played no part as a naval state-probably owing to Ezek. 415),asses, etc., which is carefully collected, and,
the repressive influence of Rhodes.
after being mixed with tibn or chopped straw, is made
The commercial importance of the city was inevitable. into flat cakes, which are dried and stored for the
I t lies upon the maritime highway (cp Thuc. 835, x~ppl winter’s use. W e may assume that this sort of fuel
Tpr6xrov rbs c h ’ Al-yhrou ~ X K ~ ~xpou~ahhobuas
U S was not so much required before the comparative
,$u?,ha@beiv). Very early it had trade with Egypt denudation of the country, though Ezek. 4 12-15 certainly
and shared in the Hellenion at Naucrgtis (Herod. 2178). suggests that it was not altogether unknown.
At least as early as the second century B. C. Cnidus had The charcoal was burned in a brasier (nc, Jer. 36 2 2 3 ;
attracted Jewish settlers, for in I Macc. 1 5 2 3 it appears
in the list of places to which the circular letter of the AV ‘hearth,‘ RV ‘brasier’) or chafing-dish (drc -. 7\33,
.
Roman senate in favour of the Jews ( c i ~ c a139-8 B .c.) 3. The hearth. F h . 126, RV ‘ pan of fire’),-at least
is said to have been addressed. Paul must have passed in the houses of the wealthy. The
the city on his way to CEsarea (Acts 21 I $ ) ; but its ‘fire of coals’ ( ~ ~ O ~ C C atK L which
~ ) Peter warmed
name occurs only in Acts 27 7 ( ~ p a ~ u x h o o O u rKe sU ~p6X1s himself in the high priest’s palace was no doubt a fire
Yeu6peuoi KUT& r+v Kvl6ou) after Myra had been of charcoal ( s o RVmg.) in a brasierj (Jn. 1818 2 1 9 ) .
1 si, ~DJ,, ‘coal’ (=Ar. rayfu”) is to he kept distinct from
1 For vgfl ’1132 Gra. reads YVJ ‘33; hut we should more Z ~ J ? ,‘pavement’ (cp verb in Cant. 3 IO) which corres onds t o
Ar. rasafa, ‘to arrange side by side’ : se‘e Dr. Tenses& 231.
probably emend to D’7’nD ‘J?? ‘with young suhirs’ (cp 2 Sek Dr.’s elaborate note on Dt.3224.
HORSE, MIZRAIM,8 z a end); -32 became 33, and from the 3 For the arrangement of a modern Syrian ‘hearth,’ see
transposition and confusion of letters wony easily arose (Che.). Landberg’s Prruerbes et Dictonr, 7 3 3 , 155 (with illustration).
853 854
 COASTLAND CaLESYRIA
I n the houses of the humbler classes, the hearth ( q i o , key to the difference of usage is supplied by Ar. sni-:am,
only of altar-hearth Lev. 62 [9] ; mod. Ar. mzw&,Kida) ‘ to make a shrill noise’ ; hence snrpzr“9’ is used in
was probably a mere depression in the floor, the smoke Arabic for both the cricket and the cock. The kin-
escaping, as best it could, through the door or the dred Hebrew word also might be widely used : ( I ) for
latticed window (”214, Hos. 13 3, EV ‘ chimney ’). See the cock, ( 2 )for the starling. The second element in
the phrase o:in? im! is seemingly a difficulty. The
LATTICE. Chimneys there were none ; the AV render-
ing, ‘ ere ever the chimneys in Zion were hot ’ in 4 Esd. word is no doubt corrupt. Dyserinck and Gratz would
6 4, is based on a corruption of the Latin text (RV ‘ or read ~ @ g n ncp ; d hvmpprrra.r&v. T o keep nearer to
ever the footstool of Zion was established ’). the Hebrew and to find a more striking phrase, it is
Coal and coals supply a variety of metaphors. Thus better to read o p p and render ‘ the cock who loves to
‘ t o quench one’s coal’ (. n h z S . 1 4 7 ; cp the classical take up a quarrel.’ EV rather uncritically gives GREY-
*. ? Y -

Metaphors. .(lhrupov, and see Dr. ad ZOG.) is a

pathetic figure for depriving a person
HOUND (p.2’. ) : Cp FOWL, § 2.
There is a word in Job 3836 (*ljb)which Vg., the
of the privilege of posterity, otherwise expressed as a two Targs., a i d Delitzsch render cock ’ (AV ‘ heart,‘
putting out of onds candle (rather, ’ lamp ‘)-Prov. RV ‘mind,’ mg. ‘meteor’). As, however, it is evident
1 3 9 etc. T o heap ‘ coals of fire,‘ or glowing charcoal, that some sky-phenomenon is meant, we should almost
011 an enemy’s head must, it would seem, be to adopt certainly read for >i3w, nwp, ‘the bow star,’ to cor-
a mode of revenge calculated to awaken the pains of respond to nnin (so read for njna), ‘the lance star.’
remorse in his breast (Prov. 2 5 2 2 1 (MT). Rom. 1220). The bow star is Sirius, the lance star Antares. See
Again, ’ kindle not the coals of a sinner’-that is, do Che. 3BL, 1898. T. K. C.
not stir up his evil passions-is the sage advice of the
son of Sirach (Ecclus. 810); cp Ecclus. 1132, ‘from a COCKATRICE is an archaic,English word, derived
spark of fire a heap of many coals (dvBpaKtd) is or corrupted from the medizeval Lat. c n l n t r i x [see the
kindled,’ which finds an echo in Ja. 35. A. R. S. K. New Eng. D i d , s.v.], but often confounded with
‘ crocodile ‘ ; the form of the word suggested the fable
COASTLAND (Is. 2 0 6 1 RV ; Is. 1111 2326 2 4 15 that the animal was hatched by a cock from the egg of
59 18 Jer. 25 22 Ezek. 3Y 6 Dan. 1118 Zeph. 2 II ; RVw., in Jer. a viper. For Pr. 2332 AV (EVW. ADDER ; RV’”g.
47 4 ‘sea coast ’) ; a rendering of ’N ( q u o s ; E V usually ‘isle or
‘basilisk‘) and Is. 1 1 8 5 9 5 Jer. 817.pAV (RV ‘basilisk,’
‘ island,’ AVw. occasionally ‘cnuntry ’ or ‘region ’). See ISLE. EVmS ‘or adder‘ ; *>y?s, siph‘finini) see S ERPENT, §
COAT, an inexact rendering : I (7). For Is. 142gj. [pis, ppha‘, EV as before, Vg.
( I ) Of nlks (see T UNIC ) in Gen. 373 EV ( R V w ‘long
reguhs) see SERPENT, 5 I (6). 6 has paaiXiuKos in
garment ’), E;: 284, etc. ; ( 2 ) of S‘YD in I S. 2 19 AV (RV ‘robe’ ;
I s . 5 9 5 (EV VIPER, Heb. ’eph‘eh) and in Ps. 90[91] 13
see T UNIC) ; (3) of s27F in Dan. 311 AV (AVnW ‘mantle’, RV
(EV A DDER, Heb. pethen). Horapollon (1I ) identifies
‘hosen’. see B REECHES ); (4) of xirhv in Mt.540 E V (see
TUNIC)(5) of3Aapdc in 2 Macc. 1235 AV (see MANTLE). For the basilisk with the Egyptian urzus, a golden image of
broidered coat see EMBROIDERV, 5 I. which is the usual ornament of the divine or royal
COAT OF MAIL occurs as a rendering of Ninn, ta&rE head-dress. Probably this was the kind of serpent
meant by 6 ; the ureus, being divine, had of course
(Ex. 28 32 39 23 RV ; AV ‘habergeon ’), ];le, &&d
-(Is. 59 17
extraordinary powers (see SERPENT, 6 I, nos. 6 and 7 ) .
RVmg., E V ‘breastplate’), and 0 ’ ij71@,~I S.175~ E V ;~ ~
According tb kuretiere; the cocatrix (cockatrice) is a kind bf
see BREASTPLATE. basilisk which haunts caverns and pits. The nanie cnlcatrix,
however properly means the ichneumon. Under the form
COCK ( A A ~ K T U ~ ) , Mt.263474 Mk. 1335 143072 Chalcadk, we find it in the Slavonic Secrets ofEnoclt(12 I 15 I),
Lk. 223460 Jn. 1338 1827. On the ‘cock-crowing’ where, however, the writer may he thinking of the crocodile.
( M E K T O ~ Ospoken
@ C OofV ~in )Mk. 1335 information is See CROCODILE. T. K. C.
given elsewhere (see DAY, 4). Mt., Llc., and Jn. COCKLE, EVmg,, better ‘ noisome weeds ’ (”&,
speak of only this cock-crowing. The tradition preserved M%h; BATOC [BKAC]), Job 3140j.. The cognate verb
in Mark, on the other hand (though the text in the MSS means in Hebrew ‘ to stink‘ ; but the primary sense
differs), refers to a second. Thus the cock had of the root, according to Noldelce ( Z D M G 4 0 7 2 7 r86]),
completed its journey to Palestine. Its home was in is the more general one of badness or worthlessness.
India; thence it came to Babylonia2 and Persia. A kindred substantive is O .~ iJ. N ‘~wild
, grapes ’ (Is. 5 z 4).
Homer indeed gives A ~ E K Tas O ~ name of a man ;
C the
but Aristophanes ( A n 438) considers the cock the As occurs only once in Hebrew and is unknown
‘ Persian bird.’ T o the Jews, too, as well as (presum- to the cognate languages, there is no evidence to
ably) to the Egyptians, it was a Persian bird, even justify the identification with a particular plant, such as
though the Targumic and Talmudic word for cock the ‘ cockle ’ of EV ; still, as etymology seems to point
(bin) may have a Babyldnian ~ r i g i n . ~ to some ‘ stinking weed,’ there is something to be said
Not improbably we have in Prov. 3031 a reference to for the suggestion of Sir Joseph Hooker, that perhaps
the impression which it produced not so long after its the reference is to the stinking arums.
introduction into Palestine. The evidence of the Several of the arums are plentiful in Syria--P.g., Arum Dim-
coridis Sihth. A r u m Pulestit~utn,Boiss. a n d species of Helico-
versions 4 in favour of the rendering ‘ cock ’ cannot be phylluk (cp histram, iVHB 439). Thk ancient versions, in
regarded lightly, and there is no proof whatever of the supposing that a thorny plant is intended,l were no doubt guided
sense of ‘ well girt up’ for iw!, or for the application by the parallelism of the verse. The older English Versions use
‘cockle as the rendering of <b<&v~a in Mt. 13. See TARES.
of the term to the greyhound. The Talmudic i v i i also N. M. -W. T. T.-D.
certainly means some bird (a kind of raven).6 The
C(ELESYR1A ( KOIAH , C Y P I A [BAL])-Le., ‘hollow
1 For another view of this passage, involving an emendation Syria,’ first mentioned in I Esdras, where ( K o I X ~ ) ~
of the text, see Che. 3ew. Rel. Lzye, 142, who follows Bickell. Zupia K . @OLYIKVrepresents ?i>$124,the
2 There is said to be a representation of a cock on a cylinder
seal of the reign of Nabu-na’id. Name* Aram. equivalent of the Heb. YJlg 1&l(cp
3 So, at least, Hommel, Hastings’ D B 1214. Ezra 836 Neh. 37).
4 @BNAC (2466) b h d ~ ~ w&rrqrrraT&
p BqAslarc a&#vxor; simi- The name occurs in 1Esd.21724f: q=Ezra41016f: 2 0 ;
larly Aq., Theod., Quinta, Pesh. La]; gaZZus succinctus I Esd. 63 7 27 29= Ezra 5 3 6 6 6 8 ; I Esd. 7 I 867=Ezra 6 13 836.
6 ’ s version of the canonical Ezra regularly renders by rripav
Zum60~ (Vg.). Wildeboer (‘97) speaks inconsistently, but favours (but &pa Ezra 6 6 7 21 25 [BA]) 706 rro.ra&oti : once, however,
the rendering ‘cock,’ if oqno may be altered. For ‘greyhound’
he has nothing to say.
5 See the Dicts. of Levy and Jastrow: Rashi here renders 1 So @RRAP renders O’@Us by dKav0aL in Is. 5 2 4. Pesh.,
‘starling ’ (cp Syr.1la Ar. eurmir). however, ‘carobs’ (see HUSKS).
2 K. is a few times omitted-eg., I Esd. 225 63, etc.

855 , 856
 COFFER COLOSSE
;u&aa 7 . TOT..in Ezra4 20 IBAl. With this we m a v comnare memy after the death of Holofernes (Judith 154).
the >d a v E i r & p l o u , which; with ~b K&W 6 s ‘A&@ Possibly the HOLONof Josh. 1551 may be intended
(Asia hinor, NW. of Taurus) appears in the famous Ga atas
inscription of Uarius I. (BUZZ. Cow. Hell. 13 529 (‘Eg), 14 6,s ; Zockler). @KC.“ identifies the place with K EILAH ;
cp Meyer, Enist. 19~5). The same Aramaic designation is :p Josh. 1544.
found upon a coin of the Persian period ‘Mazdai ...
who is
COLROZEH (nl,’n-h,5 23, as if ‘he seeth all’),
L Jerusalemite of Nehemiah’s time (Neh. 3 15 ; om. BKA,
well-supported view, see A RABIA 9 2). ( P O C V ~ Kand ~ ’Apapia
occur together as one archonship id the epilogue to the Ana6asfs (ohozei [Ll ; 11 5, X A A ~ A[BW, -Aaza [AI, XO. [LI).
(see Marq. 3 9 8 p . 1 That the Minaean pa, i z y is to be 4s misleading a name as Pahath-moab or as Hallohesh.
connected with i z y , av6riya, though affirmed by Hartmann 4 clan of ‘seers ’ a t this period would of course be
( Z A 1181), Meyer (id. 327) and Marq. (0). cit. 74J5, cp E BER, uteresting ; but the name is miswritten for sn;sn (EV
I ) , is strenuously denied h; Glaser (cp MYG, 1897, 3 3 8 ; see
Hommel A H T 3 ~ 4 8 who ) ~ is, however, perhaps too strongly ’ Hallohesh ’), probably under the influence of the name
prejudicdd in favour of an exceedingly remote date for the Hazaiah, which follows in Neh. 115. dnr5n itself is
inscriptions in question. miswritten. See HALLOHESII. T. K. C.
Ccelesyria is, strictly, the designation applied since
the time of the SeleucidLe to the depression between the COLIUS ( K W A ~ O C [A]), I Esd. 923=EEra?Oz3,
2. Extent. two Lebanons, otherwise known as the K ELAIAH (4.71.).
bi&‘ci?zof Lebanon (cp Josh. 1117 1z7),the COLLAR. I. ’ Collars ’ in AV Judg. 8 26 become in
mod. Be&‘ ; cp LEBANON.* In the Grecian period RV ‘ pendants ’ (n19W3). See RING, 2.
the term includes all E. Palestine. Thus, according to
2. ‘ Collar’ is also applied, inappropriately, to the
Josephus (Ant.i. 11 5), the seats of the Ammonites and
Moabites were in it, and among its towns he mentions round hole ( a p ) for the head and neck in a garment.
Scythopolis and Gadara ( 2 .xiii. 1 3 2 J ) . In its widest So in Job3018, ‘ I t bindeth me about as the collar of
sense it included Raphia ( s o Polyb. 580), and stretched my coat’ (EV), and in Ps. 1332 (RVmg.), ‘ t h a t flows
‘ as far as the river Euphratesand Egypt’ (Ant. xiv. 45). down to the collar of his robes ’ (Kay). Collar ’ here
In I Esd. and Maccabees (see below) these are its should be ’ opening. ‘
limits ; and, roughly used, rather in a political than in a In Ps. Z.C., however, it is thought that the border of the
opening rather than the opening itself, must he inteuded. @
geographical sense, it and Phcenicia constitute the more Sym. hive llri T ~ Vd a v - i e . , the lambskin trimming or edging
southerly part of the kingdom of the SeleucidE. At on the neck?pening’(cp Tg., uin,N ‘fringp’). E V , however,
this period the districts referred to appear as one fiscal ventures on skirts (skirt) of his garments . the revisers felt
domain, under the suzerainty of one governor (viz., that even if AV gave an iniprobahle rendering, they had
not&ng better to set in its place. The text can perhaps he
Apollonius [ z Macc. 351 Ptolemy [88] Lysias [lo TI]). corrected (see Che. Ps.PI); it is certainly not right as it stand?
Under the Romans the term was again restricted, and In Job Z.C., Budde and Duhm prefer torender ‘even as my tunic ;
Ccelesyria (with Damascus as its capital; cp Ant. xiii. 152 but this does not make the passage clear. There is reason
to think (Che. Ex#. Times, 10 3826 [May ‘991) that we should
BJi. 48) was officially separated from Phcenicia and
read in w. 18a (aI m A & p e ~ o )and ’92and ’37flN’ in v. 186,
Jud=a(Ant. xii. 4 1 a n d 4 ; Pliny, 5 7). When, therefore,
and render
in 47 and 43 B.C., Herod was in command of Ccele-
By (his) great power he takes hold of my garment, .
Syria, he seems to have possessed no authority over the By the opening of my tunic he grasps me.
southern province. S. A. C.
The word rendered in these two passages ‘collar’ becomes
COFFER (Tale), S . I 681115t. ‘hole’ in EV of Ex. 2 8 3 2 ; the cnntext suggested this. The
‘hole for the head ’ (RV) in the priestly 7za‘iZ (robe) was to
65 has : in 21.8 EU Bepan pepex0av [By], -puex. [Babvid.], w 0. have a ‘binding (lit. lip) round about’; the material cut out
apy05‘[Al, EY 0. pacpya<[L] ; in wv. II 15, T O Bepa ~ p y a p[Bl, TO 0. was to he folded over, and so to make what might fairly he
apyo< [AI, cv 0epaTb p a s p y 4 and TO 0. paepyac [Ll. Aq. Aa‘pvaS
(or #+os); Sym. AapuLcov; Jos. ~ A W U U ~ K O ~ OVg. V . always
called a collar. In later Heb. we find the terms nn,D (opening)
capsella. or T N ~ Xn7i
; ~ (receptacle of the neck).
The foreign-looking but really corrupt word argzz 3: RVmg. gives ‘ collar ’ for a certain instrument of
illustrates the need of a more correct Hebrew text (see punishnient (pi,?, sinck, Jer. 2926, AV ‘stocks,’ RV
TEXT, § 44J). ‘shackles’). The root (like pia) in Aramaic and
We cannot accept the far-fetched etymologies of Lag. Talmudic means to bind, to confine. Kimhi takes it
(&evs. 85) and Klo. (Sam., adloc.). The 7 probably sprang
ant of a ‘final nnu’ 0). which was attached as a correction to
to be a manacle for hands, not a collar. Orelli, on the
an ordinary nnn-thus
’,”
p (cp -av [Bl). In this case the other hand, compares Arab. zinzk (necklace). ’ @Bh.AQ
‘ c o ~ ~ ewas
r ‘ really not distinguished in name from the ark CIS r b v K U T ~ ~ ~ Krepresents
T T ~ l i s ? and can scarcely be
(jk~).Or ev efpaTL(a,cp Lev.246)-i.e., n ? p ? -‘in a correct.
pile may represyt the true text ; but more probably 0dpa=
Oljpb=Bljq ‘box. See Che. Ex#. T. 10521 (Aug. ’99) and on COLLEGE, RV SECOND QUARTER (?lJVn; Vg.
the narrative which contains the word, see Budde (SHO’T), who Secunda), as if the ‘new town ’ of Jerusalem ( 2 K. 2 2 1 4 ~
carefully separates the interpolations. T. K. C.
2 Ch. 34 22 ; Zeph. 1IO). The rendering ‘ college ’ is due
COFFIN (the,copoc), Gen. 5026; also Lk. 714 to Tg. Jon. 2 K. 2214 K 3 D h n9X,
‘ in the house of
AVmP: See D EAD, 5 I. instruction.’ See J ERUSALEM.
COHORT (crrslpa), ActslOi. See ARMY, I O;The text is, however, plainly corrupt. In Zeph. 1IO th:
natural parallel to the ‘fish gate’ is the ‘gate of the old
C ORNELIUS , I. (see Neh. 12 39, where these gates are mentioned together).
COLA, RV CHOLA(xwAa PI,
IW. [AI, K E ~ I A A For aivna-in, therefore, read -~J!iyp‘ from the gate of the
[Kc.a],-om. Vg. Syr. ),--mentioned with BETOMES- old city.’ Similarly in 2 K. and z Ch. Lc. (see H ULDAH ). See
THAM, B EBAI, and Chobai (see c H O B A ) , 3 as places to also HASSENUAH. In z K. 22 14, pausva )BAl, - w v a [ L.],
AVmg. ‘ second part,’ R V w . ‘ Heb. Mishnd. I n 2 Ch. 34 m,,
which orders were sent to follow up the pursuit of the paauavac [B], peuavac [A], pauuwva [L] AVmg. ‘in the school
or ‘in the second part,’ R V w . ‘ Heb. Mkhneh.’ I n Zeph. 1 I:,
1 I t is mentioned in the Behistun Inscription of Darius 6 s 6mmdpas [BNAQI ; AV ‘the second.’
Hystaspis between Babylonia and Assyria. I n another in-
scription of the class however, this position is occupied by COLONNADE (P$&), Ezek. 40 16, RVmS See
Arhsya (cp]owv. R o j . As. SOC.10 280 S471.
2 On the supposed reference to this valley (rich in heathen P ORCH, TEMPLE.
remains) in Am. 1 5 (‘ valley of Aven ’-Le., of Sin), see AVEN,3.
This district is also called M a u m a s (Straho I16 17, ed. Meineke COLONY (KOAWNIA [Ti. WH]), Actsl61z.T See
[‘66]), or M a p m a s (Polyb. 5 45), a name 4hich may be derived PHILIPPI.
from a hypothetical c > ~ p‘depression’;
, cp J n1Vi nnV, tosink.
3 Considerable confusion appears in the treatment of this and COLOSSE, better Colossae ( KOAOCCA~ [Ti. WH,
the preceding names in the Greek Versions. and coins and inscrip.] ; ~ohaccal,later MSS, Byz.
857 858
 COLOSSE COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS
writers, and some mod. edd. : the latter form was It is clear from Philem. 2 2 that Paul looked forward
possibly the native pronunciation l ) , to visiting C01oss;e after his first imprisonment at Rome :
Description* a town on the S. bank of the Lvcus I .Pka whether he effected his purpose is not known
(Churub Su), a tributary of the Maeander, in that part
of the Roman province of Asia which the Greeks
,-,~i&~& (but cp 2 T i m . 420). Among the members
Church. of the Colossian church', besides Epaphras,
called Phrygia. In the neighbourhood of Colossae were Philemon with his wife A P PH I A and slave
Hierapolis and Laodicea (cp Col. 21 4 1 3 IS$). As Onesimus (Philem. z lol),we hear of Archippus, perhaps
those two cities rose in iniportance, Colossae seems son of Epaphras (Philern. 2 Col. 417). With regard to
to have continuously declined (cp Rev. 111 3 1 4 , where the composition of the church, we may say that it con-
the church in Laodicea ranks among the seven great sisted chiefly of Gentiles, in this case the descendants of
churches of Asia). Herodotus (730 ; cp Xen. Anab. Greek settlers and native Phrygians, deeply imbued with
i. 2 6 ) speaks of Colossae as ' a city of great size' : that tendency to mystical fanaticism which was charac-
but in Strabo's time Laodicea is numbered among teristic of the Phrygian race. Very soon, therefore, they
the greatest of the Phrygian cities, r-hilst Colossae, fell away to angel-worship and a misdirected asceticism
although it had some trade, is only a 7rbhrupu (Strabo, (Col. 216-18 21-23). The former heresy is illustrated by
576, 578). In Paul's time Pliny ( H N 541) enumerates the famous vu& cipp~ayyfhr~bs or vabs ~ o ~ ' A p x i 6 ~ p a ~ ? j y o u
It among the ceZe6errima uppida of the district ; but that (church dedicated to Michael), mentioned by Nicetas
is merely historical retrospect. Its geographical position, Ch6uiates as standing at the chasm of the Lycus.
on the great route leading from Ephesus to the Euphrates The tradition is that the archangel opened the chasm
(it was passed, e.g., by Xerxes in his march through and so saved the Christians of Chonas from destruction
Asia Minor, Herod. Lc. ), was important. Hence arises by an inundation. In the fourth century a Council at
the question as to whether the place was ever visited by Laodicea condemned this angel-worship. Theodoret
Paul. also speaks of the existence of the heresy in this region.
On his third journey Paul 'went over all the country of C p A NGEL, 9 .
Galatia and Phrygia in order' (Actsl823), and, 'having The construction of a strong castle at Chanai (mod. Cllanas),
passed through the upper coasts ( ~ civw- h 3 m. S. of Colossae, was perhaps the work of ustinian. During
2. the seventh or eighth century A.D., under t l e ressnre of Arab
connection m p i K b p&pp?~)
came to Ephesus ' (Acts19 I). incursions, the town in the plain was gradualyy deserted and
with it. The natural route would certainly be that
followed by commerce, which would pass
forgotten. Hence Nicetas says that Chonai (his own birthplace)
and Coloss;e were one and the same place (ed. Bonn, 403). The
through Colossae, though travellers might, as Ramsay idea even arose that the Colossians of the epistle were the
Rhodians (cp Rams. Cit. and Bish. 1 214). The Colossians of
suggests (Ch. i n R. Em?. 9 4 ) , take a road to the north- Cedr. 1758 are the Paulicians of the Church of Argaous in
ward, avoiding the Lycus valley entirely. It is, how- Armenia.
ever, open to us to admit that the apostle may have [Authorities : besides Lightfoot, Colossians, see Rams. Cit.
and Bish. vol. i. with map ; id. Church in the Roinaiz E?izpiye,
passed through the town without making any stay. It chap. 19 with map of the Lycus valley.] W. J. W.
seems distinctly to follow from Col. 21 ( 'as many as
have not seen my face in the flesh') that at the date COLOSSIANSz and EPHESIANS,3 Epistles t o the.
of writing Paul was not personally acquainted with the These two epistles are related so closely that they
Colossian church ; but it would be unsafe to argue that cannot without disadvantage be considered separately.
he had not seen the town itself. If he did no missionary Colossians consists of two distinct portions : the one
work there on his third journey through Asia Minor, it is didactic and polemical, the other practical and hor-
impossible to assign his assumed activity at Colossae tatory, the whole being rounded off by
to the second journey on the strength of the expression the superscription (1 I $ ) at the begin-
' gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia'
of ninz, and by commendations of the
(Acts 166) : on that occasion he diverged northwards bearer, greetings and other -messages, and the writer's
from the eastern trade route leading by way of Colossae autograph greeting at the close (47-18).
to Ephesus, and ultimately reached Troas (w. 7 5 ) . In the introduction 1 3 3 7 Paul as his custom is, gives thanks
Further, although ethnologically Colossz ranked as a for the conversion of %os, dhom L e is addressing and expresses
the wish that they may continue to grow in all wisdom.
Phrygian town, politically it belonged to Asia, a province At 71. 13, hy a gentle transition, he passes over into a Christo-
which was altogether barred to missionary effort on the logical discourse setting forth the transcendent glory of the Son
occasion of the second journey (Acts166 ; see ASIA, and how he is head of the universe and of the Church, in whom ali
heaven and the whole earth are reconciled to God (w. 14-20):
P HRY G I A ). io 2171. 21-23 the readers' personal interest in Christ's work of
It would still be possible to argue that Paul established reconciliation is affirmed and in w. 24-29 Paul goes on to say
the Colossian church on an unrecorded visit made from that he has had it comnhted to his special charge to proclaim
the great secret of the iiniversality of salvation, whence it is that
Ephesus during his three years' stay there (cp ActslSIo, he labours and cares sa specially for the interests of his readers.
' so that a11 they which dwelt in Asia heard the word '). I n 2 1-23 the main business of the epistle is entered upon-an
Nevertheless, Col. 1 4 ( ' since we heard of your faith ') earnest warning against false teachers who, holding ont hopes
1 8 2 I are opposed to the idea-of personal effort on his of an illusory perfection, wish to subshute all sorts of Gentile
and Jewish religious observances in the place of 'Christ alone.'
part, especially when contrasted with such passages as With the exhortation (3 1-4) to live their lives in the heavenly
Gal. 1 6 I Cor. 3 1-10, where we have positive claim to manner, and conformably to the new life, the apostle passes to
the foundation of the churches addressed. Nor is it the practical portion of the epistle. Here in the first instance
(5 5-17) the sins of the old man that are to he laid aside and the
allowable to insist that Epaphras and Philemon, who virtnes of the new man that are to be put on are indicated
were certainly Colossians (Col. 4 I,), must necessarily somewhat generally; then (8 18-4 I) the duties of wives and
have been converted by Paul at Colossz itself. The husbands, children and parents, servants and masters are
Colossian church was an indirect product of the apostle's specially described, with (42-6) an urgent call to continual
prayer (including prayer for the success of his own mission) and
activity at Ephesus. T o whom, then, must the actual to wise and discreet employment of speech in their dealings
foundation be ascrihed ? Probably to Epaphras, who with the unconverted.
is called a faithful minister of Christ ' for the Colossians The contents of Ephesians are, on the whole, similar to
( h & p CpLLjv, so AV : better h r & p +pGv, ' on our behalf,' those of Colossians ; but the polemical part and epistolary
RV), and their teacher (Col. 1 7 , cp 412 Ij), although the accessories are given much more briefly
2.
honour has been claimed for Timotheus, on the ground (only a superscription 1I ,f , and in 6 21-24,
that his name is joihed with that of Paul in the Salutation of Eph. a sentence devoted to the bearer of the
(Col. 1 1 ) . epistle, with parting good wishes), whilst all the rest is
1 The name is probably connected with Koloe (lake near
Sardis. Str. 6 4 , the form being grecized to suggest a connection 1 Cp 'Alr+&. ..
y & s ~ K o h o u ~ vCIG ~ 3 4380 k ; and Wave
with K O A O U ~ F . The more educated ethnic was I<ohouuqv6s, Exped 482 ' O v ~ m p o s'A$;? ~ I J V ~ L K '~ . '
the illiterate form ICohauuasJs being perhaps nearer the native a rphs K&auuaar [WH]. lrpos Xohouuaeis [Ti.].
word. See Rams. Cilies and Bishopvics of Phrygia, 1 21%. 3 rpos E$eucous [Ti. WH].

859 860
 COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS
treated with greater amplitude. The doctrinal poi-tion until his arrival, had been practically unheard of there.
extends from 1 3 to 321. Here it cannot be said that any At last the riot stirred up by Demetrius the silversmith,
one has as yet quite succeeded in pointing out any very described in Acts 1923 8 ,exposed his life to such serious
clear and consecutive process of thought, or methodical danger ( 2Cor. 18fJ ) that he was compelled to abandon
elaboration of definite themes. T o find, fo: example, the city for good, and betake himself elsewhere-to
in 13-14 ‘ the operations of divine grace,’ and, more Macedonia, in the first instance (Acts201). ,The events
explicitly, in vv. 3 3 ‘what God the Father,‘ in vv. 7 8 of that period did not prove fatal to the chilrch at
‘what God the Son,’ and in vz. 1 3 3 ‘what God the Ephesns: in Rev. 21-7 it stands at the head of the
Spirit has done,’ is to force the text into moulds of churches in Asia, and it is highly probable that Rom. 16
thought that are foreign to it. Strictly, this part is a fragment of a letter addressed to it by Paul (Aquila
of the epistle is simply a parallel, carried out with and Prisca, ‘u. 3 J , as well as Epznetus, ‘ who is the
unwonted fulness, to the thanksgivings with which Paul first-fruits of Asia unto Christ,’ z. 5 , are among the
is accustomed to introduce all his letters :-an act of saluted). In any case the apostle kept up a lively
praise to God who has wrought for all mankind deliver- interest in this church, and maintained intimate rela-
ance from sin and misery through Christ and his tions with it. The writer of the ‘we-source,‘however, in
gospel, and who has made the Church, of which Christ Acts 20 17-30, describes a most affecting leave-taking
is the head, to be the centre of a new and glorious between Paul and the elders of Ephesus, whom the
world. former had asked to meet him at Miletus i ~ she was on
In 13-14 Paul begins, then, with praise to God who from all his way to Jerusalem, and plaiiily he regards it as having
eternity has graciously chosen his people to salvation ; in 115-23 been final. Of what elements the Ephesian church was
he expresses his special joy that his readers are among those composed we have no means of judging, apart from
who have thus been chosen. 21-10 brings into a strong and
vivid light the absoluteness of the contrast between their former Rom. 16; the probability is that the majority were
and their present state, and the fact that the happy change is converted pagans ; but it is nevertheless certain that the
due to divine grace alone ; further, it is taught that the distinc- Jews in Ephesus were numerous, and we can well
tion between the uncircumcised and the circumcised people of suppose that others of their number besides Aquila and
the promise has been obliterated by the blood of Christ (2 I I 13),
and that, in the new spiritual building, where Christ is the chief Prisca had joined themselves to the company of believers
corner stone, those who were afar off are incorporated as well in Jesus m the risen Messiah. In fact, when Paul, in
as those who were nigh (2 14-22). there are no more strangers Acts20298, in looking forward to the time after his
and foreigners. To proclaim the) full and unimpaired interest
of the Gentiles in the gospel has been the noble function divinely departure, speaks of the appearance of false teachers
assigned to Paul (3 1-12) : his readers must not allow his rezent and ravening wolves in Ephesns, Judaisers may very
tribulations to shake their confidence in any way (3 13f: His weil have been meant. Unfortunately the references
prayer (3 143), closing with a doxology (.of.), is that they
may ever go on growing in faith, in love, and in knowledge, to Ephesus in the Pastoral Epistles ( I Tim. 1 3 2 Tim.
until at last nothing more is wanting in them of all the fulness 11518 412) throw no light on the subsequent history of
of God. Christianity there. All we can be sure of is that the
4 1-16, a t the beginning of the practical section, urges the apostle, after so long a residence, must have become
readers to give practical effect to the union that has thus been
brought about, to walk worthily of the Christian vocation, and acquainted in a very special manner with the peculiarities
each to take his part in the common task according to the measure of the situation.
of his power, so that the whole may ever grow up more fully into Even without any special occasion, perhaps, Paul
Christ. What yet remains of the old man and heathen life
must be sedulously put away(4 17-24);truthfulness, uprightness might very well have written an epistle to the church
and kindliness of speech and act must be cultivated as the tru; 5. Occasion of Colossz at the time he did. Its
bases of social life (425-32) ; of these we have the best examples
in the love of God and Christ (5 13). I n 5 3-21 personal holiness of col. founder had informed him of the orderly
walk and steadfastness in the faith of its
and the walk of believers as wise and pure children of light are
further described. I n 5 22-6 g the duties of members of bouse- members, and doubtless also of their sympathy with
holds in their several places and relations are treated in the himself. I t was natural enough, therefore, that he
same order as in Col. 3 1 8 3 ;and the very elaborate figure of should at least assure them of his gladness over the
the Christian panoply in 6 10-20 with the exhortation to carry
on the warfare aqainst the powers of evil with courage and good beginnings they had made, all the more as a
boldness-a warfaie in which he too would he so glad to join suitable opportunity had offered itself for communicating
them as a free man-forms a fine close. with them. Onesimus (49) was being sent back to
COLOSSE(9.z.) lay not far from the larger cities of his master, Philemon, with a short letter ; Tychicus, a
Laodicea and Hierapolis, with the churches of which member of the Pauline circle, was accompanying him,
3. Church the Colossiaii Christians, it is clear, had and it was almost a matter of course that he should be
of colossse~kept up intimate relations from the first entrusted with letters of introduction to the churches
(Col. 21 41315 f i ) . These churches were whose hospitality he expected to enjoy. The epistle to
not among those which had- been directly founded by the Colossians, however, is more than a mere occasional
Paul; according to 21 (1 23) they had not yet seen writing. The probability is that Paul’s determination
him personally; their founder, according to 412J 1 7 , o write it was formed immediately on receiving the
had been a certain Epaphras. The fact that at the communication from Epaphras as to the condition
time when the epistle is being written Epaphras is with of Christianity in the Lycus valley ; false teachers had
Paul of itself goes far to prove that he stood to him in made their appearance in C o l o s s ~ ,and Epaphras
the relation of a disciple ; in any case Paul recognises himself felt unable, single-handed, to cope with their
the gospel proclaimed by him as the true one and not sophistries. T o deal with these is the writer’s main
requiring correction. When these churches were founded object ; even where he is not expressly polemical, as in
is not said ; but they do not seem to have had a long chaps. 1 and 3, his aim is to establish a correct under-
history; we may venture to fix the date somewhere stanaing of the gospel as against their wisdom, falsely
between the years 55 and 60 A.D. As, according to so called.
4 II J , their founder was a Gentile Christian, we may If the picture of the Colossian false teachers does not
take it that the great majority of the members also present such well-marked features as that of the Galatian
were Gentile Christians, an inference that is enforced by 6 , False false apostles, there is no occasion for sur-
121 27J 213. Thus Paul had a double right to regard teachers. prise, for Paul knew the latter personally,
them as belonging to his missionary field. the others only by hearsay. That the
EPHESUS(4.z.) is the city in which, according to Colossian agitators must have belonged to the same class
Acts19810 (cp 2031), Paul for more than two years- as others that we read of in other places is too much to
*. Of Ephesus. approximately between 55 and 58 A . D . assume. Many of the observations of Paul would apply
(see CHRONOLOGY, 5 68J )-inthe teeth well to Judaisers-as for example the marked emphasis
of great hindrances (see I Cor. 1532), had laboured with with which it is said (2115)that the Colossians are
unwonted success in the cause of the gospel, which, circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands,
861 862
 COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS
and (214) that the handwriting against us has been nailed extefnal testimony to its genuineness is the best possible
to the cross and so cancelled. In particular the exhorta- -ever since a collection of Pauline
7. Genuine-
tion of 2 16, ' Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, ness : vocabu- letters existed at all, Colossians seems
or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath lary, etc. to have been invariably included. In
day,' seems decisive as to the Jewish character of the form, nevertheless, the epistle presents
new teachers ; in this connection the question of 220 (cp many strikhg peculiarities. It contains a large number
28) cannot fail to suggest Gal. 43-9, and one is strongly of words which Paul nowhere else uses-amongst them,
inclined to presume the condition of matters in Colosse especially, long composites such as ?rrBavohoyia (24),
to have been similar to that in Galatia. Only, it is &@amL;~iv (218) ; and on the other hand many of the
commands and precepts of men that are being imposed apostle's most current expressions, such as E n , 616, &pa,
with a 'touch not, taste not, handle not' (2822), it is are absent, and in the structure of the sentences there are
an ' arbitrary religion ' (tBeXoBpquKia)that is being thrust fewer anacoloutha than elsewhere in Paul, as well as a
upon the Colossians (Zz3)-in such terms Paul could greater number of long periods built up of participial
hardly have described a return to compliance with the and relative clauses. These difficulties, however,
injunctions of the OT law. As the ascetic interest apply only to the first half of the epistle, and even here
(223, 'severity towards the body' ; 21823, 'humility') the genuine Pauline element is still more in evidence
has a foremost place with the false teachers, many take than the peculiarities just indicated ; the difficulty and
them to have been Christian Essenes or ascetics of an obscurity of the style, so far as old age or passing ill-
Essene character (cp ESSENES, 5 3 3 ) . But it has-to health may not be regarded as sufficient explanation,
be remembered that ascetic tendencies were very can be accounted for on the ground that Paul had not
widely spread at that time, and that they first came so lively and vivid a realisation of the exact opponents
into Judaism from without. According to 28 with whom he had to do, as in the case of those of
the agitators gave themselves out to be philosophers. Galatia or Corinth. But in substance also the
Paul indeed regards their wisdom as 'vain deceit' Epistle has been held to be un-Pauline. I t
-according to 218 they ' are vainly puffed up by their Ideas* has been held to represent the transition
fleshly mind,' and with deceiving speeches seek to stage between the Paiiline and the Johannine theology
lead their hearers astray-and when he so strikingly -a further development of the Pauline conception of
emphasises that in Christ Christians already possess the the dignity of Christ ( l r 5 $ ) , in the direction of the
' truth ' ( ' all wisdom and spiritual understanding,' all Alexandrian Logos-doctrine, according to which he is
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,' 1 6 9 10 26 3 regarded as the centre of the cosmos, the first-born of
23), and so zealously points out what is the right way to all creation ( l r s ) , no longer as the first-born among
perfection (128 3 14 4 IZ), all that we can infer from this many brethren only (Rom. 8 29). Formulae like that in
is, that the innovators in Colossae came forward with a 29, ' in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,'
claim to be able to lead their followers from faith to it is urged, have a somewhat gnostic ring ; the repre-
knowledge, true wisdom, and a perfect Christianity. sentation of the Church as being the body of Christ (124
In doing so they appealed to visions they had seen ( 2 18) ; 219), further, is said to be post-Pauline, whilst Paul him-
their knowledge of the celestial world entitled them, they self never gave ethical precepts in such detail as we find
contended, formally to set up a worship of angels, by in 3 1 8 8
which, however, Christ was thrust out from his central In answer to all this, it can hardly be denied that
position as the only redeemer (219). Paul supplies no Colossians exhibits a new development of Pauline
details of their speculations as to the powers and functions
of these celestial spirits ; but any such theosophy as this
cannot be called Jewish in any specific sense. How far
'' Christology ; but why should not Paul
Genuinenesshimself have carried it on to this de-
not disproved*velopment in view of new errors, which
a religiously objectionable dualistic view- of the universe demanded new statements of truth? The fact is, that
lay at the bottom of the peculiar doctrines and precepts in some cases, probably, he has simply appropriated
of these men will probably never be known ; but that and applied to Christ formulae (as, say, in 29) which
Paul should raise his voice so earnestly against them the false teachers had employed with reference to their
while taking up an attitude so different towards the mediating beings ; and his theology as a whole never
' Essenising ' weak brethren in Rome (Roni. 14 J ) - became fully rounded and complete in such a sense as
although they do not appear to have attacked him to exclude fresh points of view or new expressions.
personally at all-shows that he, for his part, discerned Unmistakable traces of an undoubtedlylater agecannot
in them a spirit that was foreign to Christianity and be shown in the epistle, while whole sections, such as
hostile to it. As their philosophical tendencies and their chap. 4, can hardly be understood as the work even of
worship of angels do not fit in with the theory that they the most gifted imitator. None of the gnostic systems
were Jews (here Alexandrianism helps us no better than of the second century known to us can be shown to
Essenism), it will doubtless be best to regard these be present in Colossians, whilst the false teachers with
Colossian false teachers as baptised ' mysteriosophists,' whom the epistle makes us acquainted could have made
who sought to bring their ascetic tendencies with them their appearance within the Christian Church in the
into the new religion, and had found means to satisfy year Go A . D . just as easily as in 120.
their polytheistic instincts by the forms of a newly- There seems no cogent reason even for the invention
invented worship of angels. In doing so they prided of a mediating hypothesis-whether that of Ewald, which
themselves on their compliance with all the demands of makes Timothy, joint-writer of Colossians, responsible
the OT, though in detail they of course interpreted for certain un-Pauline expressions, or that of Holtz-
these in an absolutely arbitrary way. It was this method mann, according to which an epistle of Paul was gone
of an aEfected interpretation of the OT, claimed by over in the second century by the author of Ephesians.
them to be a guarantee of wisdom, that gave them With the one hypothesis it is impossible to figure clearly
something of a Judaising appearance : but in so far as to oneself how the work of writing the letter was gone
their ideas had any individuality (as, for example, the about ; and the other it is impossible to accept unless
notion that between man and the extra-mundane God we choose to admit irreconcilable traits in the picture
there is a series of intermediate beings, and that the thing of the false teachers-as, perhaps, that Paul himself
of essential importance is to secure the favour of these wrote only against ' Essenising ' ascetics, whilst the
mediators or to know how to avoid their evil influences) theosophic angelology was due entirely to the inter-
they were of heathen not Jewish origin. polator, who had other opponents in his mind. Even
The Pauline authorship of Colossians has been denied in its most difficult parts, however, the connection in
in various quarters since Mayerhoff (1838),and, in the epistle is not so loose as ever to force upon one
particular, by the 'Mbingen School en masse. The the impression that there must have been interpolation ;
863 864
 COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS
and, as regards certain of the difficulties raised by s certainly the least epistolary in character. One
criticism, it is to be remarked that caution is always 12. Character vainly examines the circumstances of
necessary in dealing with literary productions of a period those to whom it is addressed to find
so obscure. Colossians may be Pauline quite as well of Eph. occasion for its composition. The
as Philippians or I Thessalonians. The number of those :pistle, which has a personal tinge in only a few
who doubt its genuineness does not grow. ,laces, could have been written equally well to almost
Colossians was written in captivity ( 4 3 IO 18), at the my other church; it is more of a sermon than of a
same time as Philemon, probably from Rome (not from etter-a sermon on the greatness of that Gospel \vhich
Date, Caesarea), about 63 A.D. The apostle is s able to bridge over all the old contradictions in
surrounded by friends-Epaphras, Mark, iumanity, and on the grandeur of that one Church of
Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, Jesus Justus. Whether Shrist by which salvation is made sure, and on the
Philippians was written before Colossians and Philemon, xecepts by which the members of this Church ought to
or whether Philippians should be regarded as the apostle's .egulate their lives. One commentator indeed goes so
last writing is difficult to decide, quite apart from the 'ar as to say that in Ephesians 'we have the most
question of a second captivity. The Christological nature and sustained of all the statements of Christian
portion of Philippians ( 2 4 3 ) has much in common loctrine which have come down to us from the hand
with Colossians. if the great apostle.' Other students may perhaps
If Ephesians also is really the work of Paul (see below, :hink Galatians and Corinthians more vivid and power-
§ IS$), it must have been written almost 'contem- hl, Romans richer, Philippians more sympathetic, but
ll. Relation poraneously with Colossians. It is true, :ertainly so far as the thing can be done at all within
Indeed, that in Col. 1 1 , as in Phil. 1 1 , h e compass of one short letter, Paul has laid down in
to Eph' Timothy is named as joint-writer, while Ephesians something like an exhaustive outline of his
he is not mentioned in Ephesians. From this, however, Zospel. Viewed on its anti- Jewish or supra- Jewish
it cannot be argued that the situations were materially side, however, it is much too slightly wrought out.
different, any more than it could be argued that Colos- With regard to the question, to whom Ephesians was
sians and Philemon must be of different date because in addressed, the only thing quite certain is, that if the
the list of those who send greetings in Philem. 23 f: we do 13. To whom epistle was written by Paul it cannot
not find the Jesus Justus named in Col. 4 r 1 , or because, have been addressed to Ephesus. Even
in Philem. 23$, Epaphras is called a fellow-prisoner and addressed. after all has been said by the apologists
Aristarchus a fellow-worker, whilst in Col. 4 103 Aristar- it remains incredible that he should have written to a
chus, as a fellow-prisoner, heads the list of those who send church to which he had devoted three years of his life
greetings, and Epaphras seems to be regarded as one of and to which, even after his final parting, his heart still
the fellow-workers. In Eph. 3 I 13 6 20 also Paul is a yearned so tenderly, in so cold a tone as here,-without
prisoner, yet as much burdened with work as in Col. 1 a word of greeting to anybody, without reference to any
24-29 4 3 f . Tychicus is introduced in Eph. 621f. as of their common memories, in short without a single
bearer of the letter, and as one who will be able to give individrialising note of any kind. Even apart from 1 1 5
further particulars as to the apostle's state, in almost the and 3 2-4 no one could suspect that the apostle is here
same words as in Col. 47f: ; and although there is no speaking to a church with which his acquaintance was
mention of Onesimus in Ephesians, we must hold that so intimate as it was with the Ephesians. If his ac-
both epistles refer to the same mission. quaintance with the Colossians was formed only by
The frequent verbal coincidences between Colossians report, every reader of the present epistle must hold the
and Ephesians even in points in which the phraseology same to be true of this. If the words ' in Ephesus ' in
is a matter of indifference (cp, for example, Eph. 1 r 5 J 1I are to be held to be original, we have hkre no com-
and Col. 1 3 f : g ; Eph. 2 I and Col. 121 2 1 3 ; Eph. 620 position of Paul the prisoner, ,writing in 63 A . D . , but
and Col. 4 3 4), unless we have here a case of deliberate the work of a later hand who has artificially adapted
imitation by a later writer, are intelligible only if we himself to the part of the apostle but who wholly failed
assume the one letter to have been written when Paid's to realise how grossly improbable were the relations
mind was still full of the thoughts and expressions of between Paul and the Ephesians as indicated by him.
the other. Of Colossians the only portions not finding But these decisivewords-& 'E@uq-are critically
a parallel in Ephesians are : the polemical section, open to the gravest suspicion. It is true that from the
27-34 (although indeed 210-14 is again an exception), date of the Muratorian Canon (about 180) onwards
and the greetings in 41o-18n ; of Ephesians, on the they are attested by witnesses innumerable; but an
other hand, the only portions not finding a parallel in older authority-Marcion-about 140, cannot have
Colossians are,: the introduction (13-14), the liturgically- read them where they now stand, since he took the
phrased section (313-21), the exhortation to peaceful co- epistle to be addressed to the Laodiceans; they are
operation (41-16), and the figure of the spiritual armour, absent also from both of the oldest extant MSS. (K and
although in this case also some reminiscences are not B) ; and learned Church fathers, such as Origen in the
wholly wanting in Colossians. third century and Basil in the fourth, agree in their
That the one letter is a pedantic reproduction of the omission. Not till the fifth century do we find the
other cannot be said. If we possessed only one of them words regularly established in the recognised texts.
it could not be called a mere compilation or paraphrase. But it is highly improbable that an original reading gv
The parallel passages to Col. 1,for example, lie scattered 'E+tuy should ever have come to be deleted (let us
up and down Eph. 1-4 (or 5) in a wholly different order, suppose) on critical grounds ; for the exercise of criticism
and there is no trace of any definite method according in this sense was unknown in the second century, and,
to which the one writing has been used for the other. if it had been, its exercise here would not have been
There is no sort of agreement among critics on the ques- content with a mere negative, but would have gone on
tion as to which of the two is the original form ; but the to substitute the reading that was considered to be more
present writer inclines to consider Ephesians the later, appropriate. It is absolutely impossible that the oldest
partly because in Colossians the various details and text should not have contained the name of some place ;
peculiarities are better accounted for by the needs of a a name is rendered quite indispensable by the context
church not yet far advanced ethically, and exposed to ' t o the saints which are . . .'
danger from false teaching, and it would have been rather The only remaining alternative is that we should
contrary to what might have been expected if Paul had suppose the original name to have
first sought to meet these very special needs by means 14' $$$~lic' ycidentally disappeared and that Pv
of a letter of a moie general character. E&uq was conjecturally inserted in
Of all Paul's epistles addressed to churches, Ephesians its place, the determining consideration being that
25 86; 866
 COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS
Paul must surely, once at least in his life, have written a Peculiarities in statement of individual doctrines or
letter to his beloved Ephesians. If Marcion read i v in theological outlook generally, indifference of attitude
A ~ 0 8 t ~ e insteaa
ip 01 <v 'E@Cuy,it was only because he upon controverted points of the Pauline period, and
thought this a preferable conjecture ; what he had in a preference for the ideas of the old Catholicism that
his mind was Col. 416, where an epistle to the Laodi- was beginning to take shape cannot be denied ; but here
ceans is spoken of, which the Colossians also are bidden again, as with Colossians, the case is met if we
obtain a reading of. The letter alluded to must postulate a growth in the apostle himself, under the
have been nearly contemporaneous with that to the influence of new conditions. We fail to find in the
Colossians ; we inay venture to conjecture that the then epistle any direct evidence that the writer is a man
conditions in Laodicea were very similar to those in of the second Christian generation, addressing men
Colossae, so that on the present assumption the corre- who have been born Christians; on the contrary, the
spondences between the two letters become easily readers are addressed as persons who had formerly been
explicable. Tychicus then also will become the bearer heathens.
01 both letters. Only, on the other side again, it is not The main obstacle to the traditional view of the
easy to understand in this case how it is that Paul treats authorship of the epistle is found in 411 2 2 0 35. In
the Colossians with so much greater intimacy and 411, in the enumeration of church
cordiality than he treats their neighbours the Ldodiceans ; 16' Uncertain' officers, the peculiar spiritual gifts to
how, further, he should invite comparisons by bidding which so great prominence is given in I Cor: 12 f.
the churches exchange letters with each other ; and, are almost entirely passed over ; in 220 it is the glory of
lastly, how in spite of the labonr expended in behalf of the Church that she is 'built on the foundation of
the Laodiceans by Epaphras (Col. 413), Paul should not apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief
think it necessary to enclose a greeting from him. corner stone,' and in 3 5 , as if there had never been any
The attitude of Ephesians, with its absence of explicit such thing as a dispute in Jerusalem or in Antioch, the
and detailed reference to the circumstances and stage of present time is spoken of as that in which the Gentiles'
growth of its readers, is, on the assumption of its being equality in privilege has been ' spiritually revealed to
a Pauline letter, intelligible only if its destination excluded his holy apostles and prophets.' In the mouth of the
such individual reference ; in other words, if it was really apostle who has devoted the unremitting efforts of a
not addressed to any one church, but was a circular lifetime to the establishment of this equality of privilege,
intended for a number of Gentile Christian chnrches (in this last expression has a peculiar sound. In a disciple
the present case in Asia Minor, or, more precisely, in of the apostle, on the other hand,-one who has in view
Phrygia)l-which Tychicus on the occasion of his the accomplished fact, the one and indivisible Church
journey to Colosse was to visit, conveying to them at for which all the apostles and prophets are equally
the same time also a direct message from the great sacred authorities-the phrases quoted are natural
apostle of the Gentiles. It is not, after all, beyond enough ; and on the whole the hypothesis that a Pauline
possibility, however, that Ephesians may be the epistle Christian, intimately familiar with the Pauline epistles,
referred to in Col. 4 16 ; for there it is called, not the especially with Colossians, writing about go A . D., has
epistle to Laodicea, but the epistle from Laodicea, by in Ephesians sought to put in a plea for the true catholi-
which expression may have been intended nothing more cism in the meaning of Paul, and in his name, is free
than a copy of Ephesians to be obtained at Laodicea. from any serious difficulty. It is very hard to decide ;
In the original superscription, if this be so, we may sup- perhaps the question ought to be left open as not yet
pose Paul to have named the province or provinces to ripe for settlement, and Ephesians in the meantime used
the churches of which he wished to address himself (cp only with caution when the Pauline system is being
I Pet. 11)~;the epistle would then have an almost construed.
'catholic' character, and, in point of fact, next to Like the Pauline epistles in general, Colossians and
Colossians, I Peter, of all the other N T epistles, is the Ephesians are among the best preserved parts of the NT.
one that comes nearest Ephesians in substance. They have hardly at all been subjected
TextEph.
l,. and of to
The whole preceding discussion (I 13,f) falls to the ' smoothing ' revision ; the majority
ground if, as was done by the Tubingen school and still of the variants (which, it must be said,
15. Genuine- is done by many recent writers, the are very numerous) are clearly mere copyists' errors.
ness. Pauline authorship is denied. 'The ex- At the same time the readings vacillate at several
ternal testimony is the best possible: important points-e.,n, (Eph. 3 9 ) between Korvwvia
from Marcion's time onwards the epistle is included in and O ~ K O V O ~ ~(Col.
L, 218) between a w$ &$aKev and a
all lists of Paul's writings, and from the second century dbpaKEv, (Col. 3 13) between xpru76s and K 6 p m s . Influence
onwards the citations from it are exceptionally frequent. of the text of Ephesians upon Colossians can be some-
On the other hand, in form and style it is removed still times traced-e.z., Col. 3 6, has been supplied from Eph.
fnrther than Colossians from the manner of the earlier 56. The obscurity of many of the sentences may have
epistles of Paul; the number of &nu.$ X~y6peva is helped to protect them from gratuitous change ; in any
astonishingly great ; whilst in Paul the devil is called case the exegete of either epistle has a much harder
Satan, here (Eph. 427 611) he is called GriLpoXos or task than the text-critic.
( 2 2 ) ' prince of the kingdom of the air ' ; the structure H. J. Holtzmann, K d i k der Ejheser 1. KoZosserdn2fE
of the sentences is strikingly lumbering ; substantives ('72), a most careful comparison of the two letters with e a d
other and with those Pauline epistles of
closely allied in meaning are constantly linked together 18. Literature. which the genuineness may he regarded as
by prepositions-especially &-or by the use of the certain. Holtzmann's hypothesis is that in
genitive, an expedient that conduces neither to freedom Colossians we have a genuine epistle of Paul to Colossre, which
nor to clearness of style. At the same time the epistle has been expanded by later interpolations ; the interpolator is
the author of the epistle to the Ephesians,-a Gentile Christian
has a number of characteristically Pauline expressions, of Pauline training, who belonged to the post-aposfolic ape:
including some that do not occur in Colossians, and at Alb. Kliipper, Der Brief an die CoZosser(182), and Der Brief
every step genuinely Pauline turns of thought are as die Ejheser ('g~), a very thorough if somewhat stiff exposi-
recalled. tion : Colossians is held t o he genuine, Ephesians not. H. V.
Soden i n j P T , 1885, pp. 3 2 0 3 4 9 7 8 6 7 2 3 and 1887 1038:
The absence of concrete details in Ephesians has al- 4 3 2 8 substantially accepted l?oltzmarhs hypothesis, aAd in the
ready been noted ; but, if it be true that we have here H C ('91) has given a luminous commentary. H. Oltramare
a circular letter, the standards which we might apply Comnz. sur les &itres de S.Paul aux Colossiens, aux Ejh. e;
Phil., 3 vols. 1891-92, maintains the genuineness of both
to Corinthians or Philippians cease to be applicable. epistles. I n 'the case of Colossians this had already been
argued most brilliantly by J. B. Lightfoot (St. Paul's Ejpisttes to
1 So, long ago, Usher ; and, recently, Lightfoot. the CoZossians and t o PhiZcnio?z, 1875, 8th ed. 1886). J. Mac-
2 In Paul he is called aiso, however, pehlap (*Cor. 6 15) and pherson in Cowznzenfary on Sf. Paul's E*. t o the Ejhesians
'the god of this world' (i6. 4 4). See B E LIA L. ('gz), has sought with a painstaking care, worthy of Lightfoo;
867 868
 COLOURS COLOURS
himself, to vindicate tradition and solve the difficulties of. the nage ; but in this instance the term denotes rather the
epistle. Er. Haupt (dieGefan~enschafts~~.e~c 1899, an entirely aint or pigment used.
new recast of the Krit.-Exeget. KOnzm. of k. A. W. Meyer)
Just as the want of a word to express the idea of
takes, as regards the genuineness, a position similar to that of
the present article, but decides against the Roman ocigin and painting' tends to prove that the art was very little
in favour of Czzsarea. Some new points of view are offered In ultivated, so also the want of a word for coZour (found
Zahn's Einl. i. d. N.T., 1E97, 310.398, hoth on the qnestioll of 1 Syriac gawnd, Arabic Zawn"", Egyptian1 iwn)
introduction and on details of exegesis. The once justly
popular commentaries 06 Ellicott ('55) and Harless (and ed. aturally suggests that colonrs were not much talked
58) on Ephesians are now somewhat out of date. See also bout by the Hebrews. This inference could indeed
the (posthumous) Prole~onzcnato U e E#. to the Romans and be shown to be unwarrantable if we found many names
Ejhexians ('95) by Prof. J. A. Hort ; and T. K. Abhott, Conznz.
on Ejhesians and Colossians ('97). A. J.
for different colours, and could prove
:* Colour sense' archEeologically that many colours
' COLOURS. If in certain branches of art the ancient (ere in use. When, however, we come to examine the
Hebrews fell far behind their contemporaries, they were lebrew colour-terms-and this applies also to those in
1. Artistic not without artistic feeling; if they had 156 among the Greeks and the Romans2-at any rate in
no drama, they were not devoid of dra- )iblical times, we find that very few of them are real
w
feeling. maticinstinct(C ANTICLES, 7 ; POETICAL olour-terms at all, such terms being used as denote
I,ITERATURE, (i 5); and if, through no inherent fault ather a contrast between light and darkness, brightness
of their own, they were unable to attain any degree of md dimness, than what we commonly understand by
competency in the highest form of art, yet they had, as okmr. Still,, if colours are not sharply distinguished
their poetry shows, a very real appreciation of the n the languages of the ancient world it does not follow
sublime and beautiful. The neglect to cultivate this hat the Hebrews and, other primitive races were unable
taste was a necessary consequence of the effort to fulfil o distinguish shades of colour for which their langirage
.the ancient command in Ex. 2O4,-a command which )assessed no distinct terms, or that they were, at least
would of course apply as much to painting as to sculp- vith respect to certain colours, colour-blind.3
ture-and of the monotheism to which they snbse- It is not so much a question of deficiency of colour-sense (as
quently attained. (See Ruskin, Two Paths, 7 f: ; w a s contended some years ago) as of an undeveloped colour-
rocabulary. (See Del. Iris 20 and Benzinger, Arch. under
Perrot'and Chipiez, Hisfoiy of Art in Sardinia, Farhen ; also Grant' Alled, C h n r Sense, chaps. 11 13.) If
Judo%, etc., 1 1 1 1 f: ; and cp A THENS, § I . :olour-blind people arc in common life able to nxe correctly the
A simple style of decoration and the use of some of lames of colours that they do not see so conversely a people
nay be able to discriminate colours f& which their language
the dves and dvcd stuffs thev mav indeed have learned
, I ias not set apart names.4 Besides, it now seems clear that
When, however, :yen the lower animals are sensitive to colour (see Grant Allen,
2. Decoration. at an early date.a 221 ; Clodd, The Story of Cwation, 87 f: ; and cp Drunirnond,
the Dost-exilic writers wish to describe
the decorations of an ideal sanctuary, they are obliged Ascent o f Man, 165 8, Montaigne, Essays [Cotton], 1394 [172]).
to borrow their ideas of ornament from Egypt, Baby- From the use of the terms which the Hebrews did
lonia, Persia, or Greece. (See Wornum, AnuL'ysis of
possess, we are led to conclude That one and the same
5. scarcity word was used to denote several shades
Ornament, 51 $ , and cp ISRAEL, Q 67.) Character-
istic of this style of decoration was a love of costly of real colour of one colour ; the context or object to
display combined with brilliancy of colour (Analysis of ....... which the colour was applied aflording
names' the clue as to the partichar shade in-
o?Yza?nent, 5, and BABYL.ONIA, 18, ASSYRIA, $ I O ,
E GYPT , 5 36). From these countries, then, in which tended. Sometimes, however, in order to distinguish
art was the ally, if not the offspring, of idolatry. came the shade of colour quite unmistakably, the thing
the practice of decorating sculpture in the round with described is compared with another object of which the
bold colours and costly raiment,3 a practice condemnecl colour in question is peculiarly characteristic (cp Eng.
by Ezekiel (2314) as being an insult to Yahwe. That salmon-pink, emerald-green, etc. ).
such cases, however, were exceptional among the It is indeed remarkable how few real colour-terms
Hebrews appears probable from the fact that their occur in the OT. Only three of the natural colours are
language contains no words for ' paint,' ' painting,' distinguished by names, while for blue and yellow dis-
and 'painter' (see P AINT). Nor does this striking tinct ternis are entirely wanting. The deficiency, how-
phenomenon stand alone. It is also noteworthy that ir ever, is made up for by the use of the terms expressing
the original texts no term is found to express that degrees of light or dark ; and in addition to these are
property of light known to us as COZOUY. found artificial colonrs with the name of the object from
When a Hebrew writer wishes to compare one objecl which they were derived like our crimson, cochineal,
with another in respect to its colour he finds it necessarj indigo, etc. Substances, 'too, of which a particular
to use the word 'ayin (!*y ' eye ' ) in the colour was characteristic, may have been used to repre-
3. colour sent the colonr itself (like Eng. orange, etc. ).
vocabulary. sense of appeara77ce. SO in Lev. 13 5: It will be convenient to group and examine the words
the plaque is spoken of as changing 'it!
appearance' (EV, here and in the following examples, 'colour') employed
. . under the following - headings - ; terms ex-
and in Nu. 117 the appearance of nianna is described as bein5 6. Classifi- pressing ( I ) light and degrees of light,
like the appearance (so here RV) of bdellium. The same wox ( 2 ) darkness and degrees of dark, (3)
is used of the appearance of wine (Prov.23 37), of amber (Ez natural colours, (4)variegated surfaces,
1 4 27 8 z), of burnished brass (Ez. 1 7 Dan. 10 6), of a beryl (Ez
116 loa), and of crystal (Ez.122). Certainly the tern ( 5 ) pigments, (6) objects. Finaliy, it wgl be necessary
coZour occurs frequently in the EV ; but in such case: to point out instances in which the EV expresses or
the translation is seldom warranted by the original text implies a reference to colour where no'such reference
In the Apocrypha, on the other hand, a word does oncf 1 Cp inin which means originally 'skin ' 'complexion.'
2 Cp D e Guincey, Auto6iopajhy. note'to chap. on Larton:
occur (XpGpa, Wisd. 15 4 ) with reference to a paintec 'The truth is, colours were as loosely and latitudinarially
distinguished by the Greeks and RPmans as degrees of affinity
1 On the natural stages in the expression of the imagination, and consanguinity are everywhere. See further Smith's Did.
see Shelley's Defence of Poetry, part i. deg. of Ckss. Antiqg., S.S. ' colores,' and Robertson Smith in Nature,
2 Already the poet who sang of the glorious victory ove Dec. 6tb, 1877.
Sisera knew of dyed stuffs (O'y?S 5>@),and seems to assum, 3 Broadly speaking we may say that all people see alike.
that Israel could be expected to provide its enemies with boot: Where, however, as in the case of artists, the colour-sense has
of this kind (Judg. 530). Of what colours, however, this stul been specially trained, colours are seen differently. Colour-
was composed is not stated; nor is it said with what colours th blindness can only he regarded as a disea5e. [Cp Ruskin,
N o d e r n Pail~ters,new ed. in small form ('07), 1 72, B 6.1
needlework (a:??, cp I Ch. 20 n Ez. 17 3) mentioned in the Sam 4 Even the modern Eiiglishnian does not L s> more than ahout
passage was embroidered. See EMBRO~DERY. half a dozen colour-names (red, yellow, green, blue, pipk, gray,
3 For specimens of early Gr. colonred figures see Ohnefalsch brown, white. and black), though he is quite able to distinguish
Richter, Ky/)ros, die Bi6eZ ultd Homer, Tafel-Band, Ixviii. an, many other shades of colour for which the Enrlish dictionary
cp the notes in Text-Band, 917,418. has names, as well as probably others for which'it has none.
869 870
 COLOURS COLOURS
necessarily exists. Except in the case of (5)and (6) it ve meet with the root 717, &id,'zar, which has the
is impossible to arrive at very definite conclusions, the ximary meaning ' to be dirty.' Thus it can be applied
interpretation being based mainly on philological con- .o the turbid water of a brook (Job 6 16), to a sorrowful
siderations. :ountenance (Jer. SZI), to mourning garments ( 1 4 ~ ) ,
( I ) Light and desrees @ light.-The word n:, ?ah, md even to gates of a mourning city (Jer. 142) and to
(from nns, Syr. ?ab, ' t o shine'), used in Cant. 510 to .he heavens (Jer. 4 2 8 I K. 1845). In Is. 603 a derivative
1. Degrees of denote the glow of a healthy complexion :nn?g) from the same root is used of the mourning garb
and translated 'white' in the EV, means >f the heavens (EV ' blackness '). To the same root
light, primarily ghwing or gzistening (cp its ilso probably belong the names Kedar (122 Gen. 25 13)
use in Jer. 4 11, if the text is correct, of a wind [AV md Kidron (1ii-y 2 S. 1523 ; see N AMES , 102).
' dry,' RV ' hot '1, in Is. 184 of heat [EV ' clear '1, and Further, 2 @ ~ &&k, , ' t o be dark,' a word generally
in 324 as an adverb [nin,r EV 'plainly']). @ repre-
used of the darlrness of approaching night (cp Job
sents it in Cant. by ~ ~ I J K a~ Sword , which originally con- 186 Is. 530), is used in Lam. 517 of the eyes becoming
tained a similar idea, as is shown by its use in Mt. 17 z dim, in Ps. 6924 of their becoming blind ; and in Lam.
Mk. 93 and Llr. 929. 4 8 the same term is applied to a dark complexion.
Similarly i h r , @h&, seems to mean literally ' dazzling,'
This root gives us the common word for ' darkness '
though in Judg. 510 it is applied to asses of a light (?en). Both i l p and 2izin are represented in d by U K O T ~ -
colour, perhaps reddish-white (cp Ass, col. 344, n. 2). $%Y, U K O T O ~ U ~ u and
, v u ~ o ~ d { :~ r v :dn also by uKod{av.
What particular shade of colour the word denotes in Finally, to this class belong also apparently +>an,
this passage is doubtful ; but Moore may be right when,
following A. Muller (Das Lied der De6or~zh),he supposes &akh.Zili (Gen. 4912, ~ u p o x o r o i ) and n$s\?n,
it to be ' gray or tawny inclining to red.' bB'srendering, (zukhEZzith (Prov. 2329 aBXA, correctly xeXtol) : both of
peuqpppius, is a mere:guess, intended to connect the word them seem to refer to the duZZ (EV red ' ) appearance of
with n-ins (cp Jer. 20 16 6). A derivative (15.) from the the eyes after excessive drinking (cp the name Hachilah
same root is traditionally found in Ez. 2718 (ins lpS, [n$jn I S. 23 191, and see N AMES, 102).
EV 'white wool' ; but see J AVAN ), and probably also ( 3 ) NatwruZcoZoour-s.-Under this heading are included
the name Z6har (Gen. 4610 i n s ; see N AMES , 66) those Hebrew words which more closelv resemble our
is to be derived from the same root. 9. Natural natural colour-terms. 'fhere are three
The term 323 srEh56h (from 33:, Ar. p h i b a ) , ' glitter- colours: classes: ( u ) white, ( p ) red, (y) green.
It is doubtless true that Drimarilv white
ing like gold,' starts with the same idea. It is used of wnize.
denoted simply purity, green paleness, and
leprous hair in Lev. 1330 32 36, where the EV represents red depth of light ; but the use to which the words are
it by ' yellow,' and in Ezr. 8 27 the Hophal participle of applied shows that the Hebrews attached to them fairly
the same root is applied to ' brass ' (AV ' fine copper,' definite ideas of colour.
RV ' bright brass '). In Lev. 13 3032 @ translates it by ( a ) White is commonly represented by pi, ZrE6hdn.
favBt@v, and in 1336 by (uveh, whereas in Ezra 827
( = I Esd. 857) it would seem to render by UTA@JV Thus it is used of the colour of goats (Gen. 3035 37), of
CBAL1.l To express brilliant,' as contrasted with teeth(49rz),of manna(Ex.l631),ofleproushair(Lev. 133
I O .of: ), of the leprous spot (Lev. 1 3 2 4 38$), of garments
'white,' the N T employs hup?rp6s in Llc.2311 (EV
'gorgeous '), Acts1030 (EV ' bright '), Ja. 22 (%l. 98), and of horses (Zech. 1 8 63 6). Here also, as
'goodly,' RV 'fine'), Rev. 156 (AV 'white,'
'bright '), and Rev. 1 9 8 (AV 'white,' RV 'bright ').
(k: with the shades of dark, different shades of colonr seem
to be.clearly distinguished, as ' milk-white' (Gen. 49 I,),
In Acts1030 Ja. 2 2 Rev. 156 the Vulgate translates the ' coriander-seed white' (Ex. 1631), ' snow-white' (Nu.
word by candidiu. 1 2 IO z K. 527 Ps. 68 14 Is. 1 1 8 ) , and in the N T ' wool-
( 2 ) Darkness and dezrees of dnrk.-To express the white' (Rev. 114), 'bright-white' (Mt. 172 Llc. 929),
idea of darlrness the term in$, S h i r (from in.d, Syr. and harvest-white' (Jn. 435). We even find in Lev.
1339 a compound expression (nil& ni33,,) used to describe
*. Degrees of ?bar, ' to be black ') is employed. It
a shade of white (.4V ' darkish white,' RV ' dull white ').
is used of the dark hair in a leprous
dark. rising (Lev. 133137), of a sunburnt From the same Hebrew root seem to be derived the names
Laban (115 Gen. 2429), Lihni ( 7 3 3 5 Ex. 6 IT), Lihnah (7115
skin or complexion (Job 30 30, t u K 6 r w m r [BK], p e p h d - Josh. 1 0 2 9 ; but see L IBNAH), Lebanah (3135 EE. 245), and
Y W T U L [A] ; Cant. 1 5 ) , and of dark horses (Zech. 62) ; Lebanon (ii135 I K. 520[61), so-called either on account of its
and a diminutive form in-@, S ~ / z a r ~is~ rapplied , in snow-capped peak or from the colour of its stone, as well as the
Cant. 1 6 ( bp e p e X u v ~ p 4 v qto
) dark ringlets. When it is substantives a31'7, L4hEndz 'moon' (Ca. 6 IO), 3315, libhneh,
'white - poplar' (Gen. 30 37), and, possibly, 3335, leb,'z&niilt
desired to express a particularly dark' colour another 'brick' (Ex. 114 ; see, however, BRICK, B I, n.). See NAMES:
substantive is sometimes added, as ' oven-black,' Lam. $5 66, 102.
510 (of skin ; d &P Kh@wos-Pxeht6Bq), ' raven-black,' The corresponding root in Aramaic is i>n,@r, which
Cant. 511 (of hair), and in the N T ' sackcloth-black' in Is. 2922 is used (as a verb) of the face becoming pale
(Rev. 6 12). In the EV E&ir is represented by ' black,' with shame, and in Dan. 7 9 of a snow-white garment.l
and in @ and N T by pLChus. From the same root are Both these words are usually represented in d by ~ ~ I J K ~ S
derived iind, (Lam. 4 8 ; s e e C o n ~ , I ) , andprob- (cp, however, Gen. 3037 where xhwp6r=p5). and, more-
ably ?in*?, 3lhtr (Josh. 133), another name for the Nile over, there occurs in the Apocrypha a word A ~ K W ~ U
which is used of a disease of the eyes (Tob. 2 IO 3 17 6 8 11
(see SHIIIOR).
Another word om; hzim (from orn=onn), applied to 8 13, but in Ecclus. 43 18 X E I J K ~ T ~Heb.
S, 13'5).
sheep whose wool has been scorched by the sun, T o the same class, perhaps, belongs also *in, Gen.
though really meaning simply 'dark,' may be trans- 40 16. In the RV it is translated ' white bread' ; but from
lated ' brown,' as is done by AV in Gen. 30323 35 40. what follows in the context the word would seem to refer,
In d it is rendered by @uc6s and once (v.40) by not to the contents of the baskets, but to the baskets
T O L K I X O S . ~T o express the idea of gloom and sorrow themselves (AV ' white baskets '). Finally, to express
the idea of the hair becoming grayish-white through old
1 The Heb. has n i m q 0:l.t 32sn n t n i >$?a. age, there is the root l-b, ii6A ( I S . 122 Job1510),
For this I Esd. has iaL U K ~ ? d r b XahcoO x p q r ~ o i iUSLA-
povra U K ~ ? 6&a [Bl and K. u. x. bvb x. ,ypqu~& U T ~ ~ ~ ~ O Y T O F
however, appends a query, and Che. denies the existence of
xpvu0.4086 ~ k a 6Jo [Ll. a root 1132 in O T (Exjositor, June 1897, p. 406; 3QR, July
2 There is also a form i ? 3 j kanzvzr (Job35 plur. constr.
18~7,p. 575). Cp E CLIPSE, CHEMARIM.
[@ om.]) which occurs in J i b (AV blackness), and has often Robes of state seem to have been of white a: well as of
purple (see below B IS). Cp Jos. Ant. xvii. 8 3 viii. , 3, xix. 8 z ;
been connected withan Aram. root &, to be black.' BDB, SI ii. 1I ; see Kdim, Gesch.J e w von Nazara, 5 380 [ET6 1041.
871 872
 GOLOURS GOLOURS
whence the derivative a?*@, SZ6hZht, ‘gray hair’ (Gen. enote a parti-coloured appearance
.. of some kind:
4238 442931 Deut. 3225 Hos.79 Prov. 2029) or ‘old 2. Variegated their employment being for the most
age’ (Is. 464). In d it is usually represented correctly part restricted to the description of
surfaces. animals. Of these the term rendered in
by rohrd or r b yijpas.
@) Perhaps the most clearly distinguished of the ,V by ringstraked and applied to goats (ipp‘d&idh,
natural colours, as being the colour of blood, was red, to ;en. 30 35 39 f. 31 8 IO I,), probably has reference to
Red. express which the Hebrews commonly used rhite stripes on an otherwise dark skin ; that translated
the root O i N , ’Zdhanz. That it denoted a speckled ’ (ip;, nZk5dh. Gen. 30 32 f: 35 39 31 8 IO 12) to
brilliant hue is evident from the fact that Isaiah uses ght spots on a dark skin ; and that represented by
the verb nnv,i in the sense of becoming like scarlet grisled’ (+a, bdrcdh) and used of both goats (Gen. 31
(@, see below, 5 14),and the Priestly Code speaks of 3 12) and horses (Zech. 6 3 6 ) to light patches on a dark
skins dyed red (D;??). The adjective ai:, ’ddhim, is kin. The last word would, therefore, probably corre-
applied to blood in z K. 322, to blood-stained apparel pond to our pie6aZd.
in Is. 632 ; and verbal forms, to a blood-besmeared I n Jer.12g(RV)wemeetwfththephrase ‘aspeckled(YE$bird .‘
shield (nmn) in Nah. 24 C3]. and to wine (n1.w’) in Prov. f prey.’ The commentators have sought to justify and explain
2331. That the root, however, was also employed to ;; but it remains improbable.1 A comhination of different
describe other colours of a reddish hue is apparent olours is expressed in Gen. 30 32 f i by Nbc, tdIr3’, probably
from its use as applied to a heifer (Nu. 1 9 2 ) or a horse besprinkled,‘ ‘.flecked’ (cp s)arsus). The same term is used in
(Zech. 1 8 ) , to a reddish-brown mi^, Gen. 2525 I S. Czek. 16 16 of the dyed stuffs of many colours with which other
16 IZ ; cp Lam. 47, Cant. 5 I O , and see G OLIATH, § 2, n. ) ieoples were wont to decorate their shrines.
(5) Pigments.-The Hebrews knew and made use of
skin, as well as to reddish or brownish-yellow lentils
(Gen. 2 5 3 0 ) . ~ The Priestly Code uses also a diminutive --
everal Digments. three of which were derived from
These three dyes were all
form ( D i D i N ) to express merely ‘reddish,’ applying it to 13. p . animals.
the colour of the leprous spot (Lev. 13 1924) or sore igments manufactured bv. the Phcenicians : the
)ne ‘ scarlet ’ or ‘ crimson ’ (whence its Gr. name @orrr-
(Lev. 1 3 4 z J ) . :oDv and Lat. phenicium), from an insect (coccus)
From the same root are derived the names Edom ( O i # Gen. vhich gave its name to a species of oak on which it
25 30), Admah ( J ~ Gen. N 10 rg), and Adummim ( D ~ D ~ Josh. M vas found (Ilex coccifera) ; the other two from a slimy
1 5 7 18 17 ; see NAMES, 5 102) as well as the precious stone
called D!k (see R UBY and P RECIOUS STONES). To 01s
,ecretion found in a special gland of a species of shell-
‘,id,&%, corresponds nuppds (lit. ‘having the colour of fire ’) in
ish called Murex tmnculus and iMurex brandaris.
65 and N T ; and in Mt. 1623 we find the verb wupp+iv 3y infusing the insect (coccus) in boiling water a
used of the sky. Jeautiful red dye was produced, superior in effect and
Other roots, however, besides this are occasionally employed to lurability to cochineal; the other dyes when applied
designate this colour. Thus the root Y Q:, h . & ~ z q , which usually o articles became at first of a whitish colour, but
conveys the idea of ‘ acidity, fermentation,‘ seems to be used in Is. inder the influence of sunlight changed to yellowish
6 3 I to denote a colour ; and the context requires a blood- or
wine-like appearance (cp Eng. sorrel, (I) from SUY=SOUY and Zreenish and finally to purple, the purple being red or
(i)from saurireddish-brown). n’sDK in Zech. 6 7 is also, from due according to the species of shell-fish employed.
the context, possibly t o be read O%gn (Che.); cp Ges.-Buhl, rhese three colours were held in high estimation by the
s a . p N . The root 7 ~ n , 34 a m a r Ito be red,’ is traced by some ancients on accdunt of both their brilliancy and their
in Ps.759,and, with more justice, in JoblGIfi (Pii’al’al form).
costliness. The purple-blue is translated ‘ blue ’ in the
T o this class we may also probably assign $l Srini&,
$’ ‘ reddish-
,
EV, but must have corresponded rather to our vioZet, by
brown’(cp Ar. a&um, ‘a sorrel-horse,’ and Heb. iJ>b)la term
which it is once rendered in the AV (Esth. 1 6 and in the
used in Zecb. 1 8 of a horse. margin 8 15). The Hebrews knew no blue colour with which
to compare it, and hence it is said in Beraclzoih 12 that ‘purple-
(y) The third natural colour term describes, those blue is like the sea, and the sea is like the plants, and the plants
uncertain hues-colours which it has, in alT ages, are like the firmament of heaven ’ (see also ixenaclz. 4, and cp
ll. Green been found difficult to distinguish-that Del. in PREP) iv. 488, Iff.?, 18 J,and the articles PURPLE,
SCARLET, B LUE, CRIMSON).
waver between blue, yellow, and green. ( a ) To designate the first of the dyes mentioned
hues. In Hebrew the adjective employed (from
above, the Hebrews sometimes used simply yhn, t52Z‘,
pi’, ‘ t o be pale,’ cp Assyr. arZ&, a to grow pale’
‘worm,’ just as we speak of crimson
[of the face], arku, ‘yellow,’ and Aram. a”G, ‘tc 14* (fr. Arab. /zirnziz = Sansk: Brinzi) and
be pale’) can be applied to the colour of vegeta- cochineal (really a term denoting the insect Coccus cacti
tion (Job 398 z K. 1926 Is. 3 7 2 7 ) ; and a substan- found in Mexico). Thus it is used in Is. 1 1 8 as the
tive p;, yere$, derived from the same root denotes most natural example of a glaring and indelible dye,
vegetable produce in general. As, moreover, the roo1 and in Lam. 4 5 (where d B Q gives the simple term
idea of the word was originally, like that of xXwp6s KSKKOS, ‘berry’ [A, ~ 6 X r w v ] ,the insect being regarded in
its Greek equivalent, merely paleness or faintness 01 early times as a species of berry) of princely raiment
colour, a derivative (j),?;) can be used to describe a It even occurs as a verbal derivative (oy)i;lg, Nah. 2 3
panic-stricken countenance (Jer. 3 0 6 ) or the fading coloui [4] ; s ) the meaning ’ to be clothed
6 , u r a l ~ o v ~ awith
of decaying vegetation (Deut. 2822 Amos 4 9 Hag. 217). in scarlet’ (see, however, DRESS, 3, n.). More
Further, to express simply ‘ palish,’ a diminutive form often, however, the form ny$n, tcla‘ath., is found
( p i p i , ) can be used of plague spots (Lev. 1349 1 4 with the addition, either before or after it, of the
37) or of the appearance of gold ( P s . 6 8 1 3 ) . ~ On the word ->i, SZnf-a word which has been derived
word pic, &ir+ ( Jyin ‘ to be yellow?’ ; cp N AMES, .T

from the root a?:, SZnZh (cp Assyr. Sinttu, pos-

§ 66) which is applied to gold (Ps. 68 14, etc. ) and seem:
to denote a shade of yelZow, see GOLD. sibly fr. .Fand), supposed to mean ’ to glitter,’ and
(4) Variegated surfnces.-A few words occur which is thought to refer to the brilliant colour derived from
though their precise meaning is uncertain, undoubted11 the y$n. In this form it is mentioned as a costly pos-
session (Ex. 35 23), and as being, therefore, suitable
1 Che., ’IDlN; cp Lam. 4 7 (Ex). T.,Aug. 1899). If
however I S. 16 12 refers not to David’s com lexion to th< but for an offering (Ex. 254 356 Lev. 144 [“n 6495152
colour df his hair, the $ord will then mean ‘reddisi. [”n? Nu. 196 [“n $$I), for the hangings (Ex. 2636
2 Uiiless we point Ol?: (see ESAU, 5 I). 1 65 u m j h a o v haimp (BNQ ; but A q u S v [AI). seems to
3 From this root some derive lQg,/i.Zmrir,‘asphalt,’l@, /iamer be an old word for hyaena (see ZEBOIM). uv$A.=niyD, which
‘clay,’ imn:, yabmlir, ‘roebuck.’ may have been miswritten nyiD, out of which we may deduce
4 Cp ME-JARKON (a doubtful place-name in Josh. 19 46). a false reading I’ts?! (see Siegf.-Sta., S.V. By).
873 874
 COLOURS COLOURS
27663637 3818), for the ephod (Ex. 2856 3928), for the (rop@upoDv K U ~K ~ K K ~ V O Vit) is part of the attire of the
priests' girdle (Ex. 288 39529), for the breastplate (Ex. great harlot, and in 1812 (rop+dpus) is referred to as
2815 39 8 ) , and for the embroidered. pomegranates (Ex. valuable merchandise (cp also v. 16 ~op@upoDv). It is
2833 3924), etc. I n Ecclus. 4511,also, it is used of also worthy of note that one of Paul's converts made
some kind of embroidered work (Gr. K E K X W U ~ ~ VK T~ K K Y; her living by selling this dye (rop@upbTwXis, Acts 16 14).
vet. Lat. fortococco). A thread of this colour-expressed In Cant. 76 the hair of the bride seems to be compared
by S d n i alone-was commonly used in the times of the with purple ( p i R ) , and Greek parallels for this are
Jahvist as a mark (Gen. 382830; Josh. 221, J E ) , and quoted. The comparison, however, can hardly be
the single term is employed in two poetical passages trusted, for l b iniiw i w ~ ni h r is a dittogram of l w ~ i
( 2S. 1 2 4 , where the maidens of Israel are called upon 5 n i x 1.5~ which precedes. Each form of the clause
to lament Saul, who used to clothe them in scarlet; seems to be more correct in one half than the other.
and Ca. 43) as equivalent to the'longer expression. In Read, perhaps, with Cheyne ' The locks of thy head are
the acrostic on the ' Capable Woman ' the same word like Carmel ( b i 2 3 ) ; they are pleasant (nny~)as ifn
is used in the plural (oat, Skninzl) to describe the warm orchard of pomegranates' (see G ALLERY, z). ini in
clothing provided against the cold of winter (Prov. p i m is plainly some word which should follow SDiJJ ;
31 ZI), and in Is. 118 to denote probably scarlet-stuff as probably nryj (written 'nyi, and corrnpted p ; cp
distinguished from the dye itself (y$n). As a substitute H AIR , I ). In the Gr. n52n is commonly represented
for these expressions we find the Chronicler using a by hdrctveos and hudvOtvos,l and pi^ by r0p@up6s in
word $pi?, k a r n d ( z Ch. 2714 314, cp Ex. 3635), both O T and N T (see Rev. 9 17 21 20).
( 6 ) Objects.-The words included under this heading
derived from the Persian (Rirm, 'aworm,' see C RIMSON, denote objects of which a particular shade of colour
and cp above). In @ K b K K i V O S is chosen to represent 16. Object was Characteristic. Thus pa, 6zi: (zCh.
all these expressions, and there can be no doubt that 5rz,,@ pduuivos) was the fine cotton or
where the same word occurs in the N T it. denotes this n a ~ e s . linen manufactured by the Egyptians,
dye (Mt. 2728 Heb. 919 Rev. 1 7 3 4 181216). and called elsewhere (Ex. 26 I Gen. 41 42,. etc. ) v@,St%
Later OT writers knew of another pigment of a
like shade of colour, called y e t ' . f&Er(EV ' vermilion ') (see Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 448, and the
articles EGYPT, 35, COTTON, and L INEN). i i n , &zir,in
-perhaps oxide af lead ,(cp 6 ~ ~ X T Oand S see Riehm, Esth. 1 6 probably means ' white-stuff' (whence * i i n in
H W B 'Mennig'). It was used for painting ceilings Is. 19g), and om? (Pers. Rdrpns) 'white cotton.' Three
(Jer. 22 1 4 , d ~ L X T O Sand
) images (Ezek. 1 3 14, d ypa@is).
( p ) The Purple-blue (nian, ttYkhZZeeth. Assyr. tu-kiZ-tu) morerare words occur in the same verse which have
been thought to denote different species of valuable stone
and Purple-red (imlg, 'mgim&z, Bib. Aram. T ~ N , or plaster : vv,ES, (also in Ca. 515) which has been
15. Purples. Assyr. nrgamannu) dyed stuffs also figure supposed to be identical with v;@,& y i S ( I Ch. 29z),
largely in the decoration of the Taber-
nacle and the priestly robes ; but they can hardly have and to mean 'white marble' or 'alabaster' ; ~ ) i l a ,
been known as earlyas the scarlet (cp CANTICLES, IS), dnha; (@BN u ~ u ~ u ~ G ~BA T ~ u&ay8or)
s , denoting per-
their employment being characteristic of P and later haps 'porphyry' (so BDB; EV 'red marble,' RVmg.
writers. They also can be used for an offering (Ex. 'porphyry'); iz, dnr, meaning possibly 'pearl' or
354 356), as being a valuable possession (Ex. 3523), ' pearl-like stone ' ; d d v u t v o s hl6'os) ; and nvjo (s@ereth
as well as for the curtains (Ex.261 368), for the veil EV 'blackmarble,' RVmg. 'stone of blue colo& '), which
(Ex. 2631 3635). for the hangings (Ex. 2636 2716 3637 has been derived from inD=intsi, and taken to mean
3818), for the priest's ephod (Ex.286 392), for the ' black marble ' (see, however, M ARBLE).
girdle (Ex. 288 3 9 5 q ) , and for the breastplate (Ex. Lastly it remains to-notice a few passages in which
2815 398), etc. A late prophet knows both colours the EV unnecessarily . implies
. a reference .to colour.
as part of the splendour of heathen worship (Jer. 1.09). 17.Ambiguiti~s Thus the colour ' green ' is sometimes
It seems natural also to another late writer to assume used in the EV to represent words
that the Midianitish chiefs would wear robes of purple- ofEV. denoting - not colour but a healthy
red (Judg. 826) ; and Ezekiel tells how the robes of and flourishing condition. Of such words 13y-1, ~n'a'ndn.
purple-blue worn by the Assyrians had struck the im- which means rather ' luxuriant,' is correctly translated
agination of the women of Israel (236), whilst he also in @ by various words expressive of Z~~xu7-iance (Gauds
knows (277) of purple-blue and purple-red from Dt. 122 Is. 5 7 5 ; U ~ U K L O S3 K. 1423 Ca. 116 Ez. 613;
ELISHAH (q.v.). In Ecclus., too, both dyes are men- dhu38ys 4 K. 1.6417 IO z Ch.284 Jer. 36 13 1 7 8 Ez. 276).
tioned (4510) as occupying a prominent place in the Very similar is the use of ns, Zab, ' fresh, moist '(xXwp6s
raiment of Moses, and in 630 ribbons of purple-blue
Gen. 3037 Ez. 1 7 2 4 2047 [213:] ; 3yp6s Judg. 167 8) and
are said to form part of the adornment of Wisdom.
On the defeat of Gorgias dyeil stuffs of both colours mi, rdt5bh 'juicy' (dyp6s Job8 16). Again Y?,K, 'dbhibh,
were taken by Judas Maccabzus among the spoil denotes 'fresh, juicy ears of corn' (Lev. 214), and 2 ~ ,
( I Macc. 423). Of the two purples red seems to Zbh, can be used of ' fresh young plants ' (Job 8 1 2 Cant.
have been preferred. Solomon's ' seat of purple ' (Cant. 6 11); whilst 0'29, p a ~ g i m seems
, to denote tender young
3 TO) is perhaps due to error (see PURPLE); but purple fruits (Ca. 213, see Del. ad Zoc.), and h l z , knrnzel,
robes of office were common. Judas was struck by the (Lev. 2314) applies to 'garden fruit' in general.
fact that the Romans, notwithstanding their power and To this category belong also such compound expressions as
riches, were not clothed in purple ( I Macc. 8 14). When, NW; niKa 'grassy pastures ' (Ps. 23 z ) and n-$ 'rips ' sprouts of
however, Alexander appoints Jonathan high priest, he the field; (Ecclus. 4022). In all these cases the 'term, 'green '
sends him a purple-red robe (10206264 [KV]) ; so like- used in AV, might indeed serve as a paraphrase ; but it'is otbei-
wise Antiochns when he confirms him in the office (1158). wise with the following examples:-In Job 6 6 the word 131
On the other hand, when the treachery of Andronicus translated 'white' (of an egg) is thought by many to mean 'the
is discovered, he is at once deprived of the purple robe juice of purslain' (so RVmg. PP, ,%jpaurv X F V O ~ Fbut see F OWL).
but whichever interpretation be adopted it will be admitted
( 2Macc. 438). Similarly in the N T in Mt. 2728 (xhap+s that the Hebrew word contains no idea of colour. Similarly
K O K K I V ~Mk.
) 1517 (rop@dpa) and Jn. 192 ( i p d n o v y ~ n ,the reading adopted by E V in Is. 272 (AV 'red wine,' RV
rop@upoDv), the red-purple robe is used as a mock 'wine') instead of 1Qfj (RVms. 'a pleasant vineyard'; see
image of majesty; while in Lk. 1619 (rop$6pa) it is SBOT),means really 'foaming wine'(Driver on Dt. 8214) ; and
one of the characteristics of a rich man. In Rev. 174
1 B also gives ia~lvb'rvoc for WE? (Ex.25 5 26 14 35 7 23, etc.),
1 Q3 Gruu& (u. 22) however suggests D!l@ 'double.' So Vg.
Schleusner, Gra., Che. taking it as the equivalent of +?.
875 876
 COMFORTER COMMUNITY O F GOODS
r p in the expression rp-p(Ex. 1019, etc., Wisd. 10 18 B d h a u u a v wen generally customary ; for Peter ( 5 4 ) expressly de-
2puOpdv), meaning ‘reed,’ contains no reference to colour. :lares that Ananias was free to retain in his private
Moreover, in the expressions &?$ (AV ‘black night,’ RV iossession either his.property or the money for which it
‘blackness of night ’) in PI. 79 and V l N ? (AV ‘blackness’) in vas sold. Moreover, although there is no hint of there
Joel 26 Nah. 2 IO the English renderings are purely paraphrastic. ,eing anything to mark out the act of Barnabas ( 4 36f: )
I n the same way the long robe (perhaps white with a blue rom the universal practice assumed in (a)-such as that
border) worn hy Joseph (Gen.37 3) and by Tamar ( 2 S. 13 IS) is he estate was his only one, or was particularly valuable
transformed in the E V into ‘ a coat of many colours.’ I n
PI. 20 30 (nhan AV ‘blueness’) and Ecclus. 2310 (pdAw+ AV -it is thought worthy of special honourable mention.
‘blue mark’)’ihe words mean 1i;erally ‘h,ruise.’ [n 4 3 6 $ , .therefore, it is not assumed, as it is in 4 3 4 3 ,
Literature. - Riehm, HWB Farben, 1436 ; Benzinger, .hat the sale of property was expected of all. (c) In 432,
Arch. 269f: ‘ Farben-namen ; Nowack, HA 263f: ‘ Malerei ’ ; iowever, where we find ‘ said ’ (Eheyw) and not some
Del., Iris, and ‘ Farben’ in PREP); Perrot and Chipiez (W. word implying ‘retained as private property,’ there is
Armstrong), Hist. of Art in Sardinia, Judas, Syria, and
Asia Minor, 1109-370 ; and, since the above was written, an io idea of any sale of property at all. The idea simply
article by G. W. Thatcher in Hastings’ DB. M. A. c. s that the owners placed their property in a general way
i t the disposal of the community at large. There is no
issumption of a common fund.
( d ) A fourth account may possibly be distinguished
COMMENTARY (blip), 2Ch. 1322 RV, AV’”g. in Acts 2 44.
See C HRONICLES, 3 6 [z] ; HISTORICAL L ITERATURE, The statement in 2446-that they had all things common-
by itself alone agrees well enough with the last-mentioned and
§ 14. simplest account of the instttntion (that there
COMMERCE. See T RADE A ND COMMERCE. 2. Possibly a wasnoactualsale), and244a, whichdeclares
COMMON. The negatives of the qualities ‘clean,’ fourth account. that all that believed were together in one
place,l might by itself he taken, like 1 1 5
‘holy’ (see CLEAN, 5 I ) are- 2 I I Cor. 11 20 14 23 to refer merely to the exigencies of social
I . ‘Common,’ a synonym for ‘unclean’ (see CLEAN), con- worship ’ 2 hut ’the cbnnection of the clause with the Statement
stantly in RV for yn, 462 (properly, ‘ that which is open,’ that follbws (that they had all things in common) appears to
Baudissin Studien, 2 23). AV, however, only twice renders 4.2 imply that the entire community lived in common, dwelling in
thus f~ S.’ 21 4J); elsewhere it has ‘ unholy ’ (Lev. 10 IO) or the same house and having common meals.
profane’ (Ezek. 22 26 42 20 44 23 48 15). In N T the RV is This inference, however, may safely be set aside, as
less strict ,with K O L Y ~ S , which is almost indifferehy rendered
‘common ‘ unclean ‘ unholy,’, ‘defiled,’ ‘ polluted.’ So in it may well be doubted whether the collocation in Acts
I Macc. 62, RV (with AV) gives ‘unclean’ for K O L V ~ T . N o 244 has not arisen from the author’s having inadvertently
injury is done to the sense; cp Acts 10 15, ‘what ,God hath combined two heterogeneous ideas without perceiving
cleansed (=pronounced clean) that call not thou common ; w. the possible misleading effect.
II ‘ common and unclean.’ T h k which is ‘ common ’ is free, or a t
any rate is treated as if free, from ceremonial restrictions ; it can A social institution of the nature indicated would scarcely
he used in the common life-the life of the pz ny, the unin- have been practicable in a community of 120 persons (Acts 1 15)
-much less in one of 3000 (241) or more (Z47).. The other
telligent ‘people of the land’ (6 B,+os 08ros 6 p$ YLV&UKWW ibw statements in Acts do not preclude the suppositton that the
v6pov, Jn. 7 49). And those who use what is only treated as if meals, even love-feasts and the observance of the Lord’s Supper
‘common ’ or open, when it has no right to he so treated, become associated with them, were held in different houses at the same
‘ comn~on’-i.~. unclean- themselves. ‘ Common ’ therefoie time. K a i o&ow (AV ‘from house to house,’ AVmg. and RV
becomes a wid: term, dangerously wide from a t r h y religioui ‘ at home ’) in 2 46 (cp 5 42) need not be intended to convey that
oint of view. What an irony in the evangelist’s expression the whole community assembled on one occasion in one house
‘wit! common (EV defiled), that is, unwashed hands’ ! and on another occasiou in another; it may have a distributive
2. Unclean,’ the strict rendering of d c b O a p r o s in NT, of meaning like +car& &ALW (‘in every city ’) in 15 21 (and K a r *
N@, t&n3’, in O T (E4 b ~ d 6 a p ~ o s ) .Both ‘common’ and ‘un- OZKOUS, that is ‘ in every house,’ in 20 20). In Rom. 16 5 1 4 5 we
clean’ can he used (I) of forbidden foods or of animals which find several household churches in the same city; cp also I Cor.
may not be eaten (Acts 10 14 11 8 Rev. 18 2). (2) Of persons who 1 G 19 Col. 4 15. The complaint about the neglect of certain
are not Jews or who do not belong to the Christian community widows in the daily ministration (ActsGI), which the word
(Acts 10 28 Cor. 7 14 z Cor. G 17. cp K O C W ~ O , Mk. 7 15 and rcaeqpsptvij proves to have referred to their sustenance, could
parall+, Hec. 9 13 Rev. 21 27 [ R T knd RV]). not have‘arisen if there had been common meals (although
3. Unholy,’ given in AV of Lev. 1010 (@l) becomes indeed the expression ‘tables’ [rparr&<ais] might seem to point
‘common’ in RV. I n F k . 2226 4220 4423 (same formula) to these). I t could have arisen only if the widows’ share of
AV renders ,482 ‘ profane. The influence of Ed and Vg. may hg provisions was brought to their houses.
suspected ; ihege versions respectively give ,%&Aow, pro$anunz, A misrepresentation of the original idea, similar to
so also in Ezek. 4815,AV profane, Vg.pYofana. ‘Profane’ is that which, as has just been shown, may be present in
best reserved, however, for other Heh. words (see PROFANE).
RV of N T retains ‘unholy’ in I Tim. l g 2 Tim. 3 2 (b6uios), 244, is unquestionably to be found in 5 z J
Heh. lOzg ( K O C V ~ S ) .
3’ Acts ” The writer of this verse held Ananias to have
4. On the peculiar technical term I? ‘;
t o,be polluted,’ see sinned in keeping back part of the money obtained by
HYPOCRISY. selling his estate. The duplicity with which Peter charges
COMMUNITY OF GOODS, in the widest sense oi him does not consist in his having, when questioned,
that expression, is usually considered (on the authority passed off as the whole a part of the money thus obtained.
of ActsZp-47 432.511 61-6)to have been one of the It is onlysapphira (58)who does this. Ananias, accord-
estahlished institutions of the earliest Christian society ing to 5 z f : , has already committed the crime of keeping
a t Jerusalem. This opinion requires strict limitation ; back some of the money before he could be questioned
but that limitation is not to be based, as it has been, by Peter. This cannot possibly be reconciled with
either on the intrinsic improbability of the institution Peter’s declaration in 5 4 , that Ananias had a perfect
itself, or on a vague conjecture that the writer of Act: right to retain the whole. Notwithstanding that plain
has idealised the facts. It arises from an investigation declaration, the author must have had before his mind,
of the sources of his narrative (cp ACTS, 5 11)-a method in writing 5 2 J , the stricter view that it was an absolute
which has to record one of its most assured results in duty to sell all the property and to hand over the whole
connection with the subject of the present article. of the money.
W e have in Acts not one account of the institution The hypothesis that the narratives are based on
hut three. (u) One account comprehensively record! 4. Acts 32- various sources receives material support
1. Three the sale of all lands and houses (xopiov f from the impossibility of discovering any
O ~ K & : Acts 434f:) ; according to 2 4 5 the IT not ‘O- real coherence within the passages them-
accounts sale was of all possessions and goods what. herent. selves.
in Acts* soever (ra K r ~ p r aK a i TkS fimipfeis), z ~ _ _ _ -
Acts 4 33 treats of a subject quite different from the matters
common fund being thus formed, out of which all were 1 This will also be the sense if we accept the reading of WH,
supplied according as any man had need: (6) Accord. which omits f u a w and the following K a i ; they are retained in
ing to another account, the sale of property ( K r q f i a , 61 their marginal rending.
a 6:; i o a h 6 in the N T always refers to place ; AV ‘ into one
Xwplov, 5 3 ) cannot have been universally prescribed, 0 1 place.
877 878
 COMMUNITY O F GOODS CONDUITS AND RESERVOIRS
dealt with in the preceding and the following verses. Nor can would be very remarkable if there were no necessitous persons
4 34 he connected with 432. I t could be connected with it only whose support could be neglected hut widows. The phrase
if the absence of poor persons were the reason (ydp) why all seems to be due to a usage of the author's own (comparatively
property was commou (v. 32) instead of being the result of the late) period in which according to I Tim. 5 3-16 the 'widows
community of goods. Further, according to 4 3 4 5 , the absence had an offihal positibn in the community. It is strange also
of poor is due not to community of goods, but to the sale of all that, although the mention of the names of the seven men
property in land and houses and the establirhment of a conimon appointed to 'serve tables' (SLaKOYEiU rparrica's) points to a
fund:whereas, in 4 36-5 11 again, the sale of any property appears genuine tradition, their function - they are nowhere styled
as a voluntary act of certain individuals. I n like manner 2 42 bL&ouoL-is never referred to afterwards (they are not t o he
is so definitely repeated in 246 that the narrative can hardly he identified with the rrpsuppJ~epo~ of 1130), and that only the
a n independent composition. I t must be a compilation. Even Hellenists had to complain of the neglect of their widows. Just
more marked is the repetition of the first clause of 2 43, ;yivsro as in Acts 15 36-39 a less serious dispute is narrated in place of
82 &q $uxG Q6pos, in the third, +6pos m 9jv p i y a p d d rrdvms. one that had more important issues (see COUNCIL OF J ERUSALEM
But even if this last clause he omitted, with W H (though it is 8 3), so here, a t the bottom ofthe narrative before us, there reall;
difficult to explain how it could have arisen as a variant to the lies, we may conjecture some dissension occasioned by different
first clause), 244, with the reading K a l r r d v ~ a sS i , cannot be con- conceptions of Christiahity entertained by the natives of Pales-
nected with what precedes. The opening, 'but also all that tine and by the Christian Jews who had come in from abroad.
believed (were) together,' implies that others were together as I n any case, the community of goods did not last
well. The omission of the K a i sanctioned by WH is clearly an
attempt to remove the difficulty. long, though the view that it came to an end when the
A n attempt to prove that all these passages have been society was dispersed by the persecution (Acts 81-4) is
compiled by an editor from various sources, could be no more than a conjecture.
based only on an examination of the whole book. Such The subsequent influence of the idealised picture in
proof is not needful to our present purpose. It will be Acts is very noteworthy. In the exhortation to works
sufficient to have shown that the book presents three 6. Subsequent of charity in the EjistZe of Barnabas
diflereut views on the subject of community of goods. influence of (198), and similarly in the Teaching of
If it be asked which of the three is the most likely to I,.- the TweZzJeAApostles(48), the statement
Lluw &Uti&
be the true view, it will be safe to answer that, if any of Acts432 is-repeated as a command :
o.ne is to be preferred, it is that which is 'Say not, " It is private property" ' ( 0 5 dpeis
~ &a &a).
5. Lucian, De morte Peregrini, 13,states that the Christians
most trust- simplest
.. (S I e). An account of any
institution of the kind. clothed with the supported those in need from a common fund ( d m 3 TOO
wortny' glamour of the ideal, is sure to have been KOLVOG), and ridicules the credulity with which they
exaggerated by writers with incomplete information. allowed themselves to be cheated by impostors in so
It is certain, however, that the general idea of com- doing. The influence of the same ideal on the monastic
munity of goods was not strange to the primitive life is obvious. P. w. s.
Christian society. COMPASS. For nklnp, rne&gcih (rEppLy4vra [Q
I t is indicated in such sayings of Jesus as those recorded in mg. ?] BKAQI' om.), RV COMPASSES, Is. 4413,q cp
hlt. G 1 9 3 109 1921-24, and in such information ahout his own H ANDICXAFTS, 2. For 2513, Rark&3h. Ex. 275 3841,
life a s we find in Lk. 83. Besides, we know there was a dis-
tinctly Ehionite tendency which applied a literal ,interpretation AV ' ledge,' see ALTAR, J 9 (a).
t o the blessings pronounced on the poor and hungry (Lk. 6zof:
24J), and saw the path of salvation in giving away all property CONANIAH (s?l:?2\3, Kt., .1V!:?, Br., but accord-
inalms(Lk.G34f: 1141 122133 169). I t is not certain indeed ing to Baer in z Ch. 3113 ?il:;;J ?C HENANIAH,
cp
that this Ebionite tendency was dominant in the period im-
mediately following the death of Jesus. (The passages cited SiT7IP ; § 31; 'God hathstablished,' X W N E N I A C [BL]).
were taken up by the 'Third Evangelist from a document which I. Chief of the temple overseers, temp. Hezekiah, in
it5elf rest5 upon an older written collection of sayings of Jesus.
This is proved by the remodelled words in Lk. G 20-26, which, conjunction with his brother Shimei, according to the
not having any reference to the disposition of the persons Chronicler, z Ch. 31 12 f: (AV C ONONIAH) (XwXevLas
addressed, certainly did not come in their present form from the . , z. 1-21).
[A], - W ~ L E Y [B
lips of Jesus. Besides, what is here recommended is not so 2. A 'chief of the Levites' (Ch.) or 'captain over thousands'
much community of goods as almsgiving.) The epistles of Paul, ( I Esd.), temp. Josiah ; 2 Ch. 359 (Xwveuias [A*],-wxeu. [A?])=
which are our most trustworthy authority, only show that in his I Esd. 1 9 ( q o m a s [BA], pauaras [L] ; E V JECONIAS).
time (20-30 years after the death of Jesus), the community a t
Jerusalem was poor, or, at least, contained a good many poor CONCUBINE (Lh$*%, Gen. 22 24 ; Bibl. Aram.
members, and stood in need of assistance from the Gentile-
Christian churches (& mi)s kyYiaus, I Cor. 1 G I 2 Cor. 8 4 9 I ; ?Y
l J!,Dan. 5 2 ) . See MARRIAGE, § 5 , FAMILY, § 5 a,
h i t TGY rrrwxGu alone, Gal. 2 TO ; eis ~ 0 3 sm w x o i ) ~TGY ,iyLwu,
IZom. 1526). and SLAVERY.
The Gospels prove that many poor people had already CONDUITS AND RESERVOIRS. In a country
attached themselves to Jesus in his lifetime. An active where the rain-supply is small and irregdar, which
care for these, and consequently a more or less organised possesses scarcely more than one perennial stream ( SF?
G L ~ K O V ~ Cmust
Z, be assumed in the original church at iwu; cp Am. 5 24), and is not rich in springs, the preserva-
T ..
Jerusalem. We may well suppose that, in as far as tion of water in cisterns and reservoirs, and the employ-
this ministration took the form of a community of goods, ment of trenches or conduits to convey it to the place
it led, according to the usual lesson taught by other where it was most needed, must have been of paramount
attempts of the kind, to the increase of poverty. It importance. Hence the indispensability of rain and
may, moreover, be conjectured that in the earliest the trust placed in the continuance of its supply
Christian times the institution of community of goods form the basis of some of the best-known and most
increased the tendency to forego the pursuit of wealth, beautiful metaphors in OT.
which, even without that institution, was occasioned, Leaving to the article SPRINGS [ g . ~ . ] what needs to
according to I Thess. 411-18 z Thess. 21f. 36-13. by the be said upon the n a t w a l supply of water, we propose
belief that the end of the world was near at hand and here to notice the artzycial means by which it was
by the unrest to which this belief gave rise. W e may stored and conveyed.
suppose that wealthy members of the community in The ordinary method of preserving water was to dig
Jerusalem allowed their property to become available ( a n mn) or hew ( x n ) out of the living rock a reservoir,
for the use of poor brethren ; and this does not preclude 1. Cisterns. varying in size from a small pit to an
the belief that of their own free will certain persons, such extensive subterranean vault lined with
as Barnabas and Ananias. went further and sold their masonry. Such cisterns go back to pre-Israelite times
belongings for the benefit of the community. ( u t . 611 Neh.925). T o dig them was the work of a
Still, it is certainly not true that communism was benefactor and deserving of special mention (e.g.,z Ch.
prescribed as obligatory. 2610), and the opening ceremony, on one occasion at
The uncertainty of the subject is shown also by Acts 6 1.6. It least, becomes the subject of a song (see BEER).
1.We can here only mention the possible influence of Es- The ordinary Heb. tern] is
senism. See ESSENES, 0 3. I. >!I,Jar (for variant forms cp B D B S.V. ; A&xos [BAL]),
879 880
 CONDUITS AND RESERVOIRS
properly an artificial excavation, and thus distinct from ’IN? the Bir el-Derej (Spring of Steps). The other is much
dedi; a natural well (see SPRINGS). When dry the 6br is a pit longer and full of windings. Starting from a large
(cp Gen. 37 20) which can be used as a prison (Jer. 38 6 Gen. 40 15. reservoir, the Birket el-‘Arr?ttb (now converted into a
etc.; cp n.2 Ex. 1229). In poetical language 6br is applied garden), it leaves the Wsldy of the same name, and
to the pit of the grave (t‘r. 28 17) or to ShGI (Ps. 303 [+I). In
only two cases does 6br occur as part of a place-name : see BOR- after crossing the plateau of Tekii‘ flows into the
ASHAN, SIRAH. middle pool. Conduits connect also the Sealed Spring
Other terms are :- (mod. ‘Ain @Zi(z), identified by a modern tradition
2. PI?:, g&’ (cp Ar. jZ6iyaf”f’‘watering trough’), Is.3014 with the sq~:14 in Cant. 4 12, and the ‘Ain ‘AfHn with
(AV ‘pit ‘ ; in Ezek. 47 r r t E V marish ’ [morass]), and this water-system.
3. D’?g? Jer. 143 z K . 3 i 6 (AV ‘ditch,’ RV ‘trench’), perhaps From the Pools of Solomon the water is led into the
used for purposes of irrigation (cp z K. 25 12 = Jer. 52 76, 39 IO city by two conduits. The higher goes along the N.
after Klo.) ; see AGRICULTURE, $ 5. slope of the valley of Burak, descending near Rachel’s
4. 324, &yZkhZh ( K ~ $ V ? , xohvpp$epa) is used of an artiJSciaZ tomb and rising again. (A syphon was used and
pool, Eccl.26 (with nwy), but elsewhere appears to refer to remnants of the pipes may still be seen.) It then
nafzwal springs. Several pools were found in and around
Jerusalem (cp below, and see JEKUSALELI), also in Gibeon proceeds towards the hill of T a n p r and the W. er-
(zS.213), Hebron(i6. ~ I Z ) , and Samaria ( r K . 2 2 3 8 ) ; for Cant. Rabsbi (see HINNOM, VALLEY OF). It is partly rock-
7 4 [5], see BATH-KABBIM. hewn and partly made of masonry. The lower conduit
5. ?I!?!, mi(zwZh, Is. 2211, AV ‘ditch,’ RV ‘reservoir.’ (still complete) goes with many windings from the
It was of the utmost importance that citadels should lowest pool, E. along the slope of the valley, and then
be well supplied with tanks for collecting the rain-water W. above Art&. One arm of the conduit was con-
(so at Masada and Machzrus, Jos. Am’. xiv. 146, BJ nected (probably under Herod’s government) with the
vii. 6 2, < ~ G o x ~ i o v )A. cistern in the temple is mentioned spring of Ar@s and ran to the Frank mountain. The
in Ecclus. 503 ( d n o 6 o x ~ i o v:) cp below, and see SEA,, main arm passes Bethlehem and Rachel’s tomb on the
B RAZEN. In the towns it seems to have been customary S . , proceeding sometimes above ground in a channel
for every house to possess a cistern (cp 2 K. 18 31 Prov. about I ft. square, and sometimes underground in
5 15). The best example of this is found in Mesha’s stele earthen pipes. It then crosses the Hinnom valley by a
(ZZ. 2 4 J ) ; ‘there was no cistern (11) in the midst of bridge of nine low arches and meets the other conduit
the city in amp, and I said to all the people,. “Make hard by the Birlcet es-SultZn. It finally runs SE. and
ye every man a cistern in the midst of his house.”’ E. along the valley over the causeway, under the BZb
The same king records that he made ]*[& n i l w ~ ado, esSilseleh (Chain-gate), and supplies the ‘ Elkas ’ and
‘the locks or dams of the reservoirs for water ’ ; but the king’s cistern in the Haram.f These conduits were
whether nnmca (the cutting[s] Z. 25) which Mesha made repaired by the Sultan Mohammad ibn Kalaun of
with the help of his Israelite prisoners was a conduit Egypt about 1300 A.D. Their date is unknown. The
which fed these reservoirs is uncertain. The view is upper conduit is more artificial, and probably the older.
not improbable, however, since the art of forming Some refer them to the golden age of Judah, and
channels to convey water was common to all the Semitic tradition (oral and Rabbinical) ascribes them to Solomon.
races and was not due to foreign influence. It has also been pointed out that they exactly resemble
Remains of conduits (aiyp, Mpaywy6s [BAQL], the conduits which were made by the Arabs in Spain.3
q u a d u c t z r s 3 ) , connected as a rule with pools, are to
The well-known Siloam conduit runs from the Virgin’s
2. Conduits. be found in many places in Palestine;
Spring (‘Ain Silti Murynm) to the Pool .of Siloam
4. The (see JERUSALEM). It runs underground in a
they are usually mere trenches running
along the surface of the ground, subterranean channels
siloam circuitous course and is 586 yds. in length‘
being somewhat rarer. Certain of the rock-cut
Conduit. (the direct distance between the two pools is
368 yds.). At its lower eiid it has a height
channels and cisterns in Jerusalem (as well as the
of 16 ft. ; but this gradually decreases to 32 ft., and then
Siloam conduit) may be pre-exilic; in many cases,
to 2% ft. This low part, however, is near the surface,
however, they have been enlarged or repaired to such
and perhaps was originally an open channel. It is a
an extent as to make it extremely difficult to tell to
what period they belong. dangerous conduit to explore, as the water is apt to enter
unexpectedly and fill the passage. In various places
Jerusalem was well supplied with water. Perhaps
false-cuttings and set-backs are found, indicating subse-
the most important of its supplies was that which came
3. pools of from the so-called Pools of Solomon beyond
quent changes in the direction taken by the workmen.
About 19 ft. from the Siloam end, on the right-hand side
Bethlehem (139 m. distant). These pools
(situated close by the /iaZ‘at el-Burak) as one enters, is an artificial niche which contained a
tablet bearing on its lower face an inscrip-
are near ‘AtZn and Art%, and must have been devised 5. siloam tion. This was first observed in 1880,and
for a more important work than that of merely irrigating
gardens (Eccles. 26 Ecclus. 2 4 3 0 $ , see BATH-RABBIM).
Inscription* was brought under the notice of Schick.
The tablet was about ajinches square, and its top only
There are three of them, partly hewn and partly enclosed
one yard above the bottom of the channel. The inscrip-
by masonry. The lowest seems to have been .used at
tion, known as the Siloam inscription, is the oldest
one time as an amphithentre for naval displays.
The pools are fed by two large conduits. The one, 1 In the Jer. Talmnd it is stated, moreover, that a conduit
after cutting through the valley of ‘-45in (Etam) by a led from ‘A@n(Etam) to the temple (Jer. Yoma, iii. fol. 41 ; cp
Lightfoot, Descr$iio TenqZ, chap. 23).
tunnel, runs through the Wady Der el-BenZt, along the 2 Many subterranean passages and structures have been
WZdy el-Bi2r (Valley of Springs), and ultimately enters found under the Haram. Cp Jos. Blvi. 7 3 8 4 84, and Tacitus:
‘ Templum in mobum arcis ... fons perennis aquae, cavati sub
terra montes, et piscinae cisternaeque servandis imbribus ’ (Hisf.
1 As Robinsonremarks (RR14808), the main dependenceof
Jerusalem at the present day,is on
’
its cisterns, and this has 5 12). Many of these were for removing the water and blood of
probably always been the case. the sacrifices,or for flushing the blood-channels (cp Yonza, 56,
f The meaning is not certain : perhaps it is ‘two reservoirs.’ Pesachfm 2 z, Me‘ila, 3 3, Middofh 3 2).
3 The Heb. 2$$’!, f@&h, is used of ditches for irrigating 3 Jos., indeed, speaks of a conduit)whichPilate began to build,
trees (Ezek. 314 d u r s f i a or u6urqpa [RAQI), ofa trench round taking funds for the purpose from the temple treasury and
an altar (I K.1832 35 33 ; in these passages Baaha [L] Bdhaura thereby causing grave disturbances (Jos. Ani. xviii. 32, B3 ii.
94), and in one place gives the length as 403 stadia-a measure
[BA]), and of conduits or aqueducts in the ordinary sense of the which would suit the conduit which leads from the WSdy ArrBb.
word (Job38z5, P ~ U L S[RNA] I s . 7 3 [om. @ B K A O r l 2 K.1817 Is. It is more probable, however, t h a t Pilate simply repaired the
362 zK.2020). existing conduits ; his reign was so often disturbed by Jewish
4 The name ‘Solomon’s Pools’ is based solely upon Eccles. seditions that he could hardly have had time to carry out such
26, and, notwithstanding the statement of Josephus, we have no a n ikmense undertaking. See Schiir. GVI 1410,and cp Eus.’
evidence that the gardens of Solomon were situated in the W. HE ii. 66-7.
Artas (=hortus, garden?); Baed.O ~ z g x 4 More precisely, 1757 ft. (Conder) ; but Warren gives 1708.
881 882
 CONEY CONFESS, CONFESSION
Hebrew inscription extant (cp Dr. TBS xv. f.[facsimile The origin of the Hebrew word is quite uncertain : it has
opposite], W RIT ING, 3 4). 3een derived by Rodiger and others from a root meaning ‘to
1trunsasfollows:-‘(I) [Behold] the piercing through (nl~jn). lide,’ akin to 1”. The rendering ‘coney’(the probable mean-
Now this was the manner of the piercing through. Whilst yet ,ng of the Targumic ~ 1 3 ~is) )due to Jewish tradition ; but the
[the miners were lifting up] (2) the pick (77>j) each towards habits of the rabbit do not suit the references in Ps. 10418 Pr.
j 0 26. Still less is to be said for a’srendering ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ A A L O S -
his fellow and whilst there were yet three cubits to be struck t.e., hedgehog2
through, ;here was heard the voice of each man (3) calling to
his fellow, for there was a fissure1 in the rock on the right The shiphin of O T is known to naturalists under the
hand. ... And on the day of the (4) piercing through, the name of Procavia (Hyrax) syriaca (Schrb.). It is a
hewers (o>m;?)smote each so as to meet his fellow, pick against member of the Hyracoidea, one of the most remarkable
pick; and there flowed (5) the water from the channel ( N X ) ) ~ orders of the Mammalia.
to the pool (n2~1) 1200 cubits ; and a hundred ( 6 ) 3 cpbits was The Syrian hyrax is ahout the size of a small rabbit and has
the height of the rock Over the the head of the hewers. a superficial resemblance to that rodent. I t is of a duil orange-
The difference of level in the bed of the channel is so slight hrown or fawn colour, and has prominent incisor teeth, one pair
that one is led to suppose that the excavators had some kind of in the upper jaw and two in the lower ; the former as in the
test. Shafts were made here and there, probably in order that rodents, grow throughout life, but instead of being chik-shaped
the men might find out their whereabouts. The first shaft is at their tip are pointed, and the teeth are triangular in section.
470 ft. from the Siloam end. After that the passage is straighter.
As in the rodents, there is a wide gap between the incisor and
The conduit is the work of a people whose knowledge the molar teeth. The zoological position of the order is obscure.
of engineering was in its infancy. Its date is uncertain. Cuvier pointed out certain anatomical features which they share
I t may be the one referred to in z K. 2020 ( = z Ch. with the rhinoceros; but this relationship has not been universally
accepted, and at present it is better to regard them as an isolated
3230) ; but the allusion in Is. 86 to the ‘waters of order. Palaeontology has so far thrown no light on the subject.
Shiloah that flow gently ’ suggests that it may have been About fourteen species of hyrax are known, all of them from
in existence in the days of Ahaz5 Africa, Arabia, and Syria. The P. (Nyp-ur)syriucu, like most
More or less parallel with this, but straighter, is a of its congeners, lives in holes in rocky ground ; usually many
animals are found together, and they are very shy and easily
channel, evidently connected with tbe Birket el-HamrZ frightened. When alarmed they utter a shrill cry and hastily
6. other (Red-pool), which lay to the E. of the retreat to their holes. Accordin- to Nasnonow,2 they are easily
~onduits. Siloam pool. I t is older than the Siloam tamed. They eat green leaves,afruit, hay, etc. They are said
to make a nest of grass and fur, and to bring forth from two or
conduit (see Schick, PEFQ, Jan. 1897). three to six-three seems the usual nunlber--young at a time.
T h e conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the The Arabs esteem them as fopd, though Canon Tristram found
fuller’s field ( z I<. 1 8 1 7 ) is identified by Wilson with them ‘ rather dry and insipid. N. Y.- A. E. S.
the aqueduct which seems to have run over the Cotton CONFECTION, CONFECTIONARIES (Ex. 3025 35,
Grotto to the convent of the Sisters of Zion.6 Among AV ; I S. 8 13, EV), old words meaning a composition
other conduits may be noticed the one which connects (confectio),or mixture of drugs or dainties, and those
the Citadel or Castle of David (el-KalB‘a) with the who prepare such mixtures-Le., ‘ apothecaries ’-
Birket MBmillB. I t is possibly referred to in Jos. respectively. RV correctly translates : ‘ a perfume
BJ v. 7 3 , where mention is made of the ‘gate where ( n s i ) after the art of the perfumer (?ai).’ In I S. IC.
water was brought in to the tower of Hippicus’
female perfumers are meant (nine?, pupe\loi, Zmquen-
(the latter is usually identified with the NW. tower of
the citadel). t a ~ i e ) . It is the masc. pl. of the same word (n-np)
For others, less important see the memoirs of the PEF. that. is rendered ‘ apothecaries ’ in EV (RV”‘g. ‘ per-
Many remains of conduits, &ore or less well preserved, have fumers ’) in Neh. 38 ( i w u m p [EN],pwKeeip [A], p ~ p e $ o i
been found in other parts of Palestine. It will he sufficient to [L], pigmentarii).
mention the aqueduct at Jericho across the WZdy el-Kelt (see
os. Ani. xvii. 13 I, Schur. G,’Vl276) ; another on the road from
b amascus to Palmyra, not far from Jerod ; the kanit Fir‘aun
which crosses the Wady Ztda near Der‘n‘t (Edrei); and thl
CONFESS,’CONFESSION. The verb m- in Hiph.
and Hithp. means either to acknowledge aloud in ritual
aqueduct conveying water from ‘Ain epT2higha (Perrot-Chip 1. The term. worship God’s great and glorious attri-
Art i~zJud.1330; Baed(31 291). butes ( = t o praise him) or to make a
(See ‘Die Wasserversorgung der Stadt Jerusalem,’ ZDPV solemn confession of sin.
1 132-176 (1878) ; Benzinger, Ned. Arch. 51 3 230 J f : ; Warren
and Conder, Jerusalem; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Judea; The former meaning is far the commoner in Hiph., the latter
Baed. passim, and the many notes and articles in the PEF in Hithp. (a)For Xy;1 .‘to confess,’ see Ps. 82 5 Prov. 28 13 t ;
publications). S. A. C. (6) for ”?!n:! ‘to praise,’ 2 Ch. 80 2zt (RV making confession ’).
CONEY (]e@, see SHAPHAN ; Xotporpyhhioc For the more usual senses, see (a)Ps. 7 17 [18] 42 6 I Ch. 16 8 34
and elsewhere, (6) Lev. 5 5 1621 2640 Nu. 5 7 Ezra 10 I Neh.
[BAFL] [Th. and many MSS of LXX have harwoc
in Ps. 104181, Lev. 1 1 5 [in eBAF,
unless the order of 1 6 9 2f: Dan. 9 4 20. Note also that the noun nyn, generally
‘thanksgiving,’ has in Josh. 7 rg Ezra 10 11 the sense of ‘ confes-
the verses is accidentally reversed, p d is translated sion (of sin). B renders the verb usually by i&,pahoydv,
Guohrous] Dt. 147 Ps. 10418 Pr. 3026t) should rather ~&~poMyqurs once
, by b p ~ h o y ~; bit never renders the noun by
be ‘rock badger’ (,RV’”g.), the animal having been bpohoyia.
identified with certainty as Hyrax syriacus--called in No doubt there is primitive Semitic symbolism in the
Syriac ([email protected] and in Arabic &a6r7 (Rob. LBR 3387, choice of ”11 to express the religious act of confession ;
Tristram, PPP l J ) . but here, as elsewhere, we painfully feel the uncertainty
1 317, wholly unknown, is translated by Sayce (RPP) 1175)
of the subject (cp Lag. Or. 2 22). The root-meaning
‘excess,’ referring to a set-hack. For the, illegible part in the of the verb is ‘ to throw,’ or perhaps (cp Ar. w a d i and
middle of I. 3 he suggests ‘and on the left. m?, Is. 118) ‘ to extend.’ Some peculiar gesture used
2 twin, like Ass. nzdsu, seems to mean ‘channel,’ ‘water-
course’; cp C O T 2 3 1 1 3 in confession seems to be indicated (cp BDB, s.v. 77.).
3 So most, reading ;1nN ~ [ N I D ; bot the surface of the rock is I n I K. 838 ‘ spreading forth the hands’ is specified ;
here only about 10 ft. above the top of the tunnel whilst towards but this was simply the ordinary gesture in prayer.
the N. it is 170 ft. This reading may represent the average Individual confession of sin must be assumed to have
thickness of the rock. Since, however, at the place of. juncture
(812-18 it. from the back of the Virgin’s fountain) there is a
been common, though references to it are scanty.
differenceof height of just 13 inches, another reading nn.y njjln, 2. Individual Josh. 719 is a passage by itself: Achan
‘a portion’ [of a cubit] has been proposed (cp Sayce, lor, czt.). IS bound to confess, to ‘give glory’
4 It is otherwise idedtified with the one whose remains running confession. thereby to the all-seeing G o d ; but he
W. and E. were discovered during the digging of the founda-
tions for the English church. is not forgiven. Prov. 28 13 (but not Ps. 825, where
~

5 So Stade G V f 1594. pious Israel speaks) extols the benefit of it. I K. 8 3 8

6 Jos. (BJ’v. 42) places the Royal Caverns (Cotton Grotto) virtually refers to it. When God touches the heart or
near the Fuller’s Monument. See Athenreurn, 6th Feh. 1875.
7 The name thufun, which is almost the same word as ,::i is 1 That this and notj>r6ou (as supposed by R6diger) is the
stated by Fresnel (/XAS,1838, p. 514) to have been found by meaning of the Greek word is made certain by the testimony of
him in use among the southern Arabs for thej‘er6ou, an animal Suidas and Hesychius : see also Ducange, S.Z.
somewhat resembling the kyrax. 2 ZooZ. Anz. no. 490, 1895.

883 884
 CONFISCATION OF GOODS CONSECRATE
conscience of the sinner (j>$ p?,6 &@pl K U ~ & S CONGREGATION. For il7y ‘id&, and (less cor-
a h o 6 , but EV ‘ t h e plague of his own heart’), the Fctly) 5:z fi.i?zcit,and 1Yb m%d, see ASSEMBLY.
sinner spreads forth his hands (see I ) towards ‘this ‘Thy congregation ’ Ps. B81o(i1) ItVmg. ‘thy troop’ (cp
house ’ and obtains forgiveness. It has been suggested IS . 23 I T 13, EV ; bdt see LEHI), &presents a corrupt Heb.
that the liturgical formula i q m 5 ‘ to bring to remem- Nord. -p,n should prohably be i?ns. Canaan was a land of
:orn; cp 1s. 30 17. Fully corrected, the line becomes, ‘with thy
brance ‘ (?) in the headings of Pss. 38 and 70f. (viewed iread they were satisfied therein ’ (Che. Ps.(zt).
a s a Single psalm) means that these psalms were to be rrvvaywy< (Acts13 43) is in RV SVNACOGUE (p.~.).
used by a man confessing his sin at the offering of a For Acts738 RVew as in Tyndale, etc. (&KA?pla), see
:HURCH (so in EV).
special sacrifice ; but the view is not very probable.
After the destruction of the temple, the confession of CONGREGATION, MOUNT OF (l!& 73;EP tlper
sin by the high priest for the whole people having
ceased, the duty had to be discharged by each Israelite
>I)+$ [BKAQT]; i n monte teststamenti; 1.A ]ioJ),
for himself in the synagogue. Various formulae came RV’s modification of the unfortunate ‘mount of the
into use, for which see the interesting conspectus in :ongregation ’ of AV, which suggests an impossible
the article ‘ Sundenbekenntniss ’ in Hamburger’s REY, dentification with Zion (Is. 1413.1.). The phrase occurs
Abth. 2. n the boast of the king of Babylon, and describes a
( u ) Of liturgical confession of sin there are three great
mountain whose summit was above the ‘ stars of God ’
examples : Neh. 9 Is. 637-6411rm1 Dan. 9 (psalms like the brightest constellations), and its base in ‘ the recesses
2f the north.’ The best rendering is ‘Mountain of
3, 51 may -also Le compared). Early
confessions. formulae used by the high priest on the the divine) assembly.’
No one would have thonght of Mount Zion, but for the
great fast have been preserved (see
iccidental parallelism of ?pi0 5Zk (AV ‘tabernacle of the
kroNEMEwr, DIAYOF, § 7). See also the short genkral
:ongregation,’ RV ‘tent of meeting’), and the supposed refer-
formula quoted by Weber (&d. TheoL 321). from Talm. :nce t o a passage in Ps.45 z [31 rendered in EV ‘ Mount Zion
Jer. Yoma, end. Such compositions belong to the :on] the sides of the north, the city of the great king.
class called VI!, widdzii. ipin is a perfectly vague expression, and Ps. 48 z [3] is
( p )There were liturgical confessions of another kind under too great a suspicion of corruptness to serve as a
-Thanksgivirg confessions. A sacrifice of niin (con- commentary.‘ It is, in fact, no mountain known in
fession = thanksgiving) is one which is accompanied by terrestrial geography that is meant, but the ‘holy
a loud (because earnest) acknowledgment of God’s mountain of Elohim ‘ (Ezek. 28 13f. ), where there were
gracious guidance (Ps. 10722 ; cp Jer. 3311, post- the flashing’ stones (see C HERUB , 2, n.), and the
exilic). The so-called Hidzi-psalms (105-107)also may cherub, and (so the prophet thought) the king of Tyre
be mentioned here. On the phrase ‘ 3 5 niih!, descriptive [see C HERUB , 5 2). It is not stated that this holy
of a special service of the Levites, cp C HOIRS , 2. mountain was in the north ; but we may presume from
T h e point of contact between confession of sin and Ezek. 1 4 that it was regarded as being there. This is
eucharistic confession is given in I I<. 833. When Eonfirmed by Job 3722 (emended text).
Israel is defeated because of its sins, ‘ if they turn again Out of the north cometh (supernatural) brightness ;2
to thee, and confess thy name, and pray .. ., then On Eloah there is awe-inspiring splendour.
hear thou in heaven, and forgive ’ ; and it is in harmony That the Babylonians believed in a similar northern
with this that two out of the three liturgical prayers mountain can hardly be doubtfnl, in spite of Jensen’s
mentioned above begin with a glowing acknowledgment learned argument (KosmoL 203-209) against comparing
of YahwB‘s goodness. ( T h e prayer in Dan. 9 merely the i$n y? with the 2-barsag-kurkura (‘ Mountain-
recognises the dnty of thanksgiving in a few words
house of the lands ’) of the Prism Inscription of Tiglath-
relative to God’s fidelity to his covenant. )
pileser I. (Del. Par. 118). I t appears that the later
I n the S e w Testament we find both senses of
Or writers supposed the north to be above, and conse-
P[opohoyeiv (to thank, and to confess) ; e.g., Mt. 1125
quently the south below the earth (see Job267. and cp
*. NT. see
In Rom.<l411the verb represents yxun :
36. Is. 4523. Opohoy& and 6pohoyla usually E ARTH, FOUR Q UARTERS O F ). T h e expressions ‘ I
will scale the heavens,‘ and ‘ i n the recesses of the
signify ‘ profess,’ ’ profession ’ ; so, e.g., I Tim. 6 12, AV
north,’ are therefore strictly a c c ~ r a t e . ~
Heb. 3 I , AV, etc.
Confession and repentance are necessarily connected- CONIAH (Sil;??), Jer. 2224. See J EHOIACHIN .
the Baptist’s hearers are baptised, confessing (tfopoXo-
CONONIAH ($?I:?!?),
2 Ch. 31 12 f: AV, RV CON-
yo6pevor) their sins (Mk. 1 5 Mt. 36)-and therefore so
ANIAH.
also are confession and forgiveness. See I Jn. 1 9 and
especially Ja. 5 16, where the ‘healing ’ spoken of has CONSECRATE. For r@g $iddZT, ‘ to separate ’ (Ex.
reference to the sins confessed (moral and physical
J

283), see CLEAN, 0 13 For 1; NhP miZl2‘ ycid, ‘to fill the
troubles connected ; cp Is. 535 I Pet. 224). The &Xh$,o~
hand’ (I Ch. 29 5), whence P$n ~%ilZu‘iitz,EV CONSECRATION
( ‘ one another ’) are Christian disciples.
The ‘ confession ’ of I Tim. 6 12 may be that made at (Ex. 29m), see CLEAN, 0 3. For D’?nP ke&%rim, ‘to devote
Timothy’s ordination ; but that of Heb. 3 I seems to be (Mic. 413), see BAN, 8 I . For l’?? ‘to dedicate (oneself)’
the confession of the divine sonship of Jesus, snch as (Nu. B 12)) whence 1JJn&w, AV C ONSECRATION, RV ‘separa-
was made at baptism (see BAPTISM, 0 3). T. K. C. tion’ (Nu. 67) see NAZIRITE.
T E T C A G W ~ & in Heb. ’7 28 is better rendered ‘perfected ’
CONFISCATION OF GOODS ( j9Dl)3 Chg), Ezra 7 26 py RV (cp AV 210 59). For dvsiaivruev (Heb. IOzo), RV
dedicated,’ see DEDICATE.
(ZHMIA TOY Bioy P A I S ZHMIWCAI . T A YTTAPXONTA
EL])= I Esd. 824 ( A p r y p i W I-PIKH~ ZHMIA P A ] ) . 1 Some (Olsh., Che. Ps.(U,We.) omit fig: ’n?)’ as a gloss.
Cp LAW AN D J USTICE , 12. r E s d . 632 has T& Che. Ps.(zl begins a new stanza with the words 1 ’ ” ~ fi’! ~ ~ -l?
i r ~ d p ~ o va ~h ouD &ai [€is] ~ U U L ~ ‘Lall K ~his goods to
iX+ ‘ Mount Zion-in its recesses is his jewel.’ 133: ‘jewel ’=
be seized for the king,’ for Ezra 611, ‘let his house be
the holy city, as in Ezek. 7 22 (see Smend, ad Zoc.). Those who
made a dunghill ’ (6otherwise). accept neither solution of the problem must adopt the view
For the ‘forfeiture’ threatened in Ezra 10s ( Y > D S j g P ? R , described in OPs, 317, which, however, Baethg. rightly pro-
duaOcparcuO4ucrac ?r&a $ &rap& aCro0 ; I Esd. 94, dvrcpw. nounces not quite satisfactory.
Grjuomar r i i n j [-Grjuerar
~ ~ r i 8rrp&~ov7a,L] &&v * seized t c 2 Read l$l with Che. (Expos. July 1897) and Duhm.
the use of the temple ’) see BAN, $ 3. 3 Hommel (Hastings’ DB 1216) adopts this view, and com-
1 Cp I S. 1026. For yij in v. 37 @ has uuvivqlpa. pares 1YiD ’I?with a Bah. title of the sacred mountain,
2 E. Jacob Z A T W 176 g [‘gjr]. k-sarra, ‘house of assembly.’ Karppe ( / o t i r n . As. g [‘97l,104)
3 Read TidQapriar (W ), not r& napambpara (TR). thinks that the sacred mountain was originally the earth itself.
886
 CONSTELLATIONS COOKING
CONSTELLATIONS (n+pp), IS. 1310 EV. See MILK (4.v.) was kept in skins (Judg.419), but more
S TARS , § 3 (6). usually in bowls, wine in skin bottles (see BOTTLE, I ) ,
CONSUL. A letter of ‘ Lucius, consul of the oil and honey in earthenware jars (see Cause, 2).
Romans ’ (i;na.ros‘Pwpaiwu [AKV]) to King Ptolemy of Olives, grapes, figs, and the other fruits of the soil were
Egypt is giver? in I ’Macc. 15 16-21. See LUCIUS,I , and no doubt kept partly in similar jars, partly in baskets,
M ACCABEES , FIRST, 9. of which several varieties are named in O T and N T (see
CONSULTER WITH FAMILIAR SPIRITS (igb
B ASKET ). Such were the SRZ ($e, Gen. 40 17 etc. ;
~auov^u[ADEL]), a basket of wicker-work; the ;/ne’
iiq Dt. i8II. See DIVINATION. 4 (ii.).
(K!!, Dt. 262; K U ~ T U X X O S[BAFL]; canist?-/mz,cp Verg.
CONVOCATION, HOLY (Wl) KYRP), Ex. 1216.
A%. 8 180) for carrying wheat from the threshing-floor,
See A SSEMBLY , 3. to judge from the passage Dt. 28 5 17 ( ‘ blessed shall be
CONVOY (YI?;l), z S. 19 18 [q], RVmg., E V F ERRY thy basket and thy kneading-trough ’ RV ; d ai drroE+-
B OAT (g. v. ). at m u ) ; and the dzid (m),a basket in which figs were
COOKING AND COOKING UTENSILS. The gathered (Jer. 242 Ps. 816171 RV). T h e preparation of
task of preparing the daily food naturally fell to the bread, always the staple article of diet, required the
1. Kitchens. women of the household, even women of kneading-trough (n-,vr+) of wood, earthenware, or bronze
the highest rank attending, on occasion, according to circumstances, and the oven (iun)-men-
to this part of the household duties ( z S. 138f. ; cp tioned together Ex. 8 3 (7 z8)-for which see B READ , z c.
below). An apartment or apartments specially devoted Coming now to cooking, in the ordinary sense-that
to the preparation of food-in other words, a kitchen- is, the preparation of food by the agency of fire,-
~.
can have been found only in the houses of the wealthy. 3. Preparation we find t h a t the various methods of
~

W e can realise without difficulty the kitchen of the cooking to which reference is made
Hebrew kings and nobles from the life-like picture of of food. may be grouped under two heads.
that of Rameses 111. as figured on his tomb at Thebes T h e food was cooked either (i)by bringing it into
(reproduced in Wilk. Am. Esypt. 23234). I n such immediate contact with the source of heat, whether as
establishments there were cooks, male (o3np : I S. 9 q f : ) in the case of the ash-calces (subcinericizlrpnnis, I IC.
and female (”in?!: I S. 813). In connection with the 196, described under B READ , 5 z a ) or in the rough
great sanctuaries, too, such as Shiloh ( I S. 14.9) and and ready method of roasting on the live embers (see
Bethel, there must have been something of the nature below) or in the more civilised method of roasting by
of a public kitchen, where the worshippers had facilities means of spit or gridiron ; or ( 2 ) by using a suitable
for preparing the sacrificial meals. In his sketch of the liquid as the medium for transmitting the heat required
restored temple a t Jerusalem, Ezekiel makes provision -such as water, milk, oil, or fat (in frying). It would
for such kitchens (both for the priests [46 19 f.] and for seem that the Hebrews originally included these various
the people [ z I - ~ ) ,which are here called ‘ boiling-places’ processes under the general term $d3.
(ni$i,n, ,uayeipeiu [BAQ] : v. 23) and ‘ boiling houses ’ The original signification of this verbal root was evidently ‘to
(RV v. 24 o&In-n*z, OZKOL TDY payeipwv). See be or to become ripe,’ ‘ to ripen ’ applied to grain (Joel 3[4113)
y d fruit (Gen.4010) from which the transition to the idea of
C LEAN , § 2. making (food) eatablk ’-i.e., cooking-was easy (cp post-biblical
I n an ordinary Hebrew household, whose food,
except on great occasions, was exclusively vegetarian,
$,e%, something cooked, a ‘dish ). Hence we find de+ $t$?
‘cooked with fire’ ( 2 Ch.3513) and 0;@2 $$!n ‘cooked with
2, culinary the culinary arrangements ‘were of the (or in) water’ (Ex.129) when it is important that ‘roasted’
simplest kind. Two large jars (12,kndh, and ‘boiled’ shall be )precisely distinguished. In ordinary
arrangements. language, however, $@ was used only in the sense of ‘boil,’
the Sr8pia of Jn. 428 2 6 8 ) of sun-dried
clay had a place in the meanest house, one for fetching while for the various forms of ‘roasting’ indicated under (I)
the daily supply of water from the spring-carried then above ( I S.215 Is.441619) use was made of the word n$s.
as now upon the head or on the shoulder by the women That which was roasted, a roast, was (Is.4416; cp *!?
of the household (Gen. 2 4 q f i ; cp I I<. 1833 [34] : EV roasted or parched corn; see FOOD, 8 I). In the Talmud a
‘ barrel’)-the other for holding the store of wheat or third verb is frequently found alongside of and $!;?-vi.,
barley for the daily bread ( I I<. 17 IZ 14 16 : EV ‘barrel’). p>$, which is applied not only to the cooking of flesh but also to
In both the passages last cited the American revisers the boiling down of fiuit to make preserves (Ma‘as. 4r, h-el.
SS). These three verbs are generally taken to represent the
rightly prefer the rendering ‘jars.’ T o these we must Latin assure, cogaare, and eZizuve respectively, in which case
add some instrument for crushing or grinding the grains p h would signify ‘to boil thoroughly’ (cp on:, in Ezek. 2410,
of the various cereals used as food, in particular wheat RV ‘to boil well ’ and nni i6. v. 5 ) : it is probably equiva-
and barley (see F OOD , I , B READ , § I). The most lent to our ‘stew ’)sincein th: absence of knives and forks (see
primitive method was simply to crush the grains between MEALS) the Orie‘ntal bas to stew his meat till it can be readily
two stones or rather to rub them upon a flat stone by pulled in pieces by the hand.
means of another. Such primitive corn-grinders or When the meat was boiled in a larger quantity of
‘ grain-rubbers ’ (as they were called in Scotland) were water than was necessary for stewing, the rich liquor
found by Mr. Bliss at all stages of his excavations in which resulted was known as p;?, m&@ (Judg. 619J
Tell el-Hesy-the probable site of Lachish--‘ long slabs Is. 654 Isr. [Kt. pip] EV ‘ b r o t h ’ ) , also perhaps as ~~~1~
flat on one side and convex on the other, with rounded (Ezek. 2410, RV ’make thick the broth’). The meat
ends’ (Bliss, A Xound of iVfany Cities, 83, illustr. p. and the broth might be served together or separately
85). They are found also both in ancient and in (the latter by Gideon, Judg. Zoc. cit.). When the meat,
modern Egypt (see illustr. in Erman’s Egypt, 190, for on the other hand, is set on with a smaller quantity of
‘the former; for the latter, Benz. HA 85, Nowaclc, water, to which onions or other pungent vegetables or
H A 1110). The pestle and mortar (see M ORTAR ) re- spices have been added, the result is the favourite
present a later stage in the art of preparing food. Arab stew yahni (fl.), perhaps the p ’ $ t (Ned.7)
The still more effective hand-mill or quern (n;?~)with its and nip?? (A6. Zar. ‘25) of the Mishna. The .‘ savoury
upper and nether millstones-hence the dual form-is . - : - Gen. 27 4 : cp Prov. 23 3) which Rebelcah
meat ’ (omyan,
the last to appear (Ernian, op. cit. 189 ; see also MILL).^ prepared from ‘ two kids of the goats ’ was doubtless a
1 The practice varies in different parts of Syria. In some spicy stew of this kind.
parts the jar when empty is carried on the head ; when filled, A reference to another modern dish, Ai66eh, which has been
on the shoulder (ZDMG 11516).
2 Cp Doughty, AT. Des. 2179: ‘After the water-skins a 1 The Mishnic Heb. >!. ’ is a large metal basket; cp BDB,
pair of mil1,stones is the most necessary husbandry in an Arabian and, for this and other vessels, J. Krengel, Das Huuspyril in
household. derlllishnuh, I Theil, 1899 (see Index).
887 888
 COOKJNG AND COOKIUG UTENSILS
I
called the national dish of Syria has been found by various doubtless of glazed or even unglazed earthenware ( 3 5 ~
scholars in Prov. 27 22 1ZV : ‘ Thodgh thou shouldest bray a fool
in a mortar with a pestle among bruised corn et will not his h n , Lev. 6z6[21] ; see P OTTERY ) ; in those of the
foolishness depart from him.’ This exactly de<zibes the opera-
tion of making ki6belz: the mutton is first pounded to shreds in
wealthier classes, of bronze (n$n! ’\:, Zoc. cit., Ezek.
a wooden or stone mortar; it is then mixed with burglEu2 (see 2411). T h e difference of rank (so to say) between the
FOOD,g I). and the whole boiled and served.1 [But on the-text two materials gives point to Ben Sira’s illustration,
see EA?. Y:viii. r97], 432 ; where n i p l , i ‘bruised corn‘ (?) ;s a What fellowship shall the earthen pot have with the

emended to l ’ p q , ‘his fellows.’] [brazen] kettle?’ (&pa irpbs X@p9~u: Ecclus. 1323).
When an animal of the herd ( i p ) or of the flock I n connection with the temple we read not only of pots
(ids, see, further, F OOD , § IT, and S ACRIFICE ) was and caldrons made of bronze (I K. 7 45 z K. 25 14 Jer.
to be prepared for food it was first slaughtered accord- 5218) but also of such vessels of silver and gold
ing to the prescribed method and the carcase thoroughly (Jer. 52 19).
drained of its blood. For skinning, flint knives (cp n>& i. For boiling meat various vessels were employed
(cp I S. 214). (a) The most frequently mentioned is
Judg. 1929) were used in early times (cp Josh. 5 2 3 , RV
the i*~, sir, pot or caldron. I t was used for cooking
‘ knives of flint ’)-such as those recovered from Tell-el- the ordinary family meal (z K. 4381: Mic. 3 3 Ex. 1 6 3
Hesy (Bliss, op. cit. 194, illustr. 106). Sacrificial
[flesh pots of Egypt]), and for boiling the sacrificial flesh
knives were later known as D & C ~ (Ezra 1 9 ; cp post-
(Zech. 1420). I t served also for a ‘washpot‘ (Ps. 608
biblical ng i !’:) ; a knife for ordinary domestic purposes [IO]). It must have been one of the largest of the cook-
was p i g (Prov. 23z)-h later Hebrew always p g . T h e ing vessels, to judge from the incident recorded in z K.
animal was then cut up, the technical term for which was 4 3 8 3 ( ‘ the great pot ’ for the whole company of the
nn! (Lev. 1 6 12, and often)-a single piece nn] 2-the prophets). ’ (6) The k ~ y 8 (r ~ 3must ) have been a wide,
priests received the portions that were their due and the shallow pot of considerable size, since the same name
remainder was consigned to the pot. The latter, if of is given to the ‘ laver of brass ’ (Ex. 30 18) at which the
copper, had in later times to be scrupulously scoured priests were to wash their hands and feet. I t served as
(pin) and rinsed ( i w , Zebnh. 1 1 4 3 ; cp Mk.74) a chafing-dish (Zech. 126). Wherein the kiyy8r differed
when the cooking was over. from (c) thepdrzir (am) in which the manna was boiled
The prmitive hearth was formed of a couple of (Nu. 118 RV), and (d)the dzid (137, Job 4120[1z]), and
stones by which the pot was supported, room being left (e) the &zlZd+ath (nnis, Mic. 33), we do not know.
beneath for the fuel-wood or dung (see In Job41~o[iz]caldron (AV) is’a mistranslation of jinJN (see
4’ Firing’ COALS, 2). Large pots might be placed RUSH,2). In z S, 139 M T has nlpg, not found elsewhere (EV
on the top of the tnnnzir or baking oven, as at the pan); but the true reading is probably ‘[and she called the]
present day ; such an arrangement was found to have servant’ (m&: so Klo. followed by Ki. and Bu.).
been in use in the ancient Lachish (see Bliss, 09.cit. These various pots, pans, etc., were probably used without a
97). The smaller pots were boiled on a chafing dish lid (in late Heb. W?),although the obscure 1.p: of Nu. 19 15
or pan containing charcoal ( d ii.?, ~ Zech. 126 AV is taken by some to have this signification.
‘hearth of fire,’ RV ‘ p a n of fire’), as in Rameses’ ii. A fork ( h n , h p ) of two or three ( I S.213)
kitchen. I n Lev. 113s there is mention, alongside of prongs was used to lift the meat from the pot, and also
the tannzir or oven, of the kiruim (n-p3, KvOp6?ro&s to stir the contents of the latter (see illustration, Wilkin-
[BF]. Xurpbiro&s [AL] ; EV ‘ range[s] for pots,’ KVmg, son, op. cit. 32).
‘ stew-pan ’). According to the Talmud, it was a port- iii. The spoons (nim) mentioned among the furniture
able cooking-stove, capable of holding two pots (hence of the table of shewbread (Ex. 2529) and elsewhere were
the dual) as distinguished from the kzippZh (a?)>, better more probably shallow bowls. W e find, however, in
m..~ )a,stove which had room for only one pot (Jastrow, the Mishna, real spoons (iiln) made of bone (Shu66.
I

Dict., s.v.). Like the tannzir, it was of baked clay, 8 6, Kel. 17 2) and of glass (KeZ. 30 2). There
and, therefore, easily broken (cp Di. in Zoc. and Now. is also mention of a wooden cooking ladle (yp in?
HA 2280, n.). The kirdh (in the sing.) and the huppdh ‘EZgZh,1 7 ) , which was probably used for removing the
are frequently mentioned together in the Mishna (see scum (a$$, Ezek. 246 11, so AV ; but this word is more
esp. Kelim). For carrying the necessary charcoal a probably ‘ rust ’ as RV) from the contents of thepdyzir
ladle or firepan ( m ~ nwas ) used (Ex. 273 383 ; in Num. or pot (otherwise explained by Levy, s.n. in?).
1 6 6 3 ‘censer’ ; KeL 237) ; for stirring and adjusti’ng While boiling, to judge from the comparative
it, a pair of tongs (D;& Is. 66) ; ~’y; shovels ( p d u or frequency of the OT references, was the favourite
rutrum), for removing the ashes, are mentioned, but 6. Roasting. mode of cooking flesh-meat, there need
only in connection with the great altar (see A LTAR , § 9). be no hesitation in saying that roasting
T h e bellows ( ~ ?;n @uuvr.i)p[BKAQ]) of Jer. 629 was also was practised from the earliest times. I n its most
probably used only by the metal smelters-Tor a descrip- primitive form, roasting, as we have seen, consists in
tion and illustration, see Wilkinson, 09. cit. 2 312. laying the meat directly on the ashes or other source of
T h e ordinary housewife was content to fan the charcoal heat, either kindled on the ground or in a pit specially
with a fan (m;n, KeL 167) of feathers, as pictured in dug (Burckhardt, Notes, etc. 1240, Rob. E R 1‘411, 1118
the representation of Rameses’ kitchen referred to above. 304). The fish of which the disciples partook by the,
lake of Galilee was cooked by being laid on the charcoal
T h e names of various utensils in which food was
actually cooked are differently rendered in EV without
(d$dp~ov d r r ~ ~ d p e v oJn.
v , 21 9).
T h e spit, the d p ~ X 6 sof the Homeric poems, is not
5. Cooking any attempt at consistency : pan, kettle,
mentioned, as it happens, in the O T ; but of its use
pot (in this order is the list given
utensils. caldron,in I S. 2 14). T h e data at our command
there need be no doubt. I n Egypt, Erman tells us,
do not permit of these being accurately distinguished
‘ the favourite national dish, th,e goose, was generally
roasted over live embers ; the spit is very primitive, a
one from another. In the houses of the poor they were
stick stuck through the beak and neck of the bird.
1 For other modern dishes see Lane (Mod. Egyylst. 5 ) and esp.
the elaborate menu of a native dinner in Klunzinger (Upper They roasted fish in the same way, sticking the spit
E u j t , 5gJ); see also, for Syria, Landberg (Proucrbes e t through the tail’ (Egypt, 189, illustr. i6., and Wilk.
Bictons, passim). 235). T h e wooden spit was favoured by the Romans
2 The good piece’ (AV) or ‘portion’ (RV) of flesh which
(cp Verg. Geoqy. 2396, ‘Pinguiaque in verubus torre-
David distributed among the people at the inbringing of the
ark (2 S. G 19 I Ch. 163) is only one of several traditional render- appears to be corrupt, the emendation 1EjW ns, ‘a piece of
ings of the doubtful Heh. word lzvy, the real signification of flesh,’ has been suggested by Cheyne. This easy alteration
which has been lost. See Dr. TBS in Zoc. [Since the word suits the context.]
889 890
 COOKING coos
bimus exta colurnis).’ Later Hebrew legislation-in nliphAh (711, Is. 3028 ; Shabb. 82, Aboth, 515). for
this, no doubt, perpetuating an ancient practice-required sifting the flour, and ( b ) the strainer, mZIanimdrereth,
that the Passover lamb should be roasted on a spit of nl2dn (Shabb. 201, Ab. 615 [especially for wine] ; cp Is.
pomegranate ( P n - b t iiay [Levy, iisg] Pes. 71). The 256, ’Mt. 23 24). An ordinary bowl, however, might be
‘ ordinary spit, being of iron,-so much we may infer perforated so as to serve as a strainer, as we see from
from the demand that a spit purchased from an idolater the pottery of Tell-el-Hesy (Bliss, op. cit. 85). T o
must be cleansed in the fire ( A b . Zara. 512)--u-as not these may be added ( c ) one of the commonest of the
allowed for the above-mentioned purpose ; neither was post-biblical terms for a pot, ”mp; hence a ~ ntgp p
the gridiron ( ~ D N Pes. , 72). The spit, we may sup- came to signify ‘ cooked food ’ (Nednr. 6 I ). For the
pose, rested on andirons* (pduers, vat-@),on which it vessels used for serving food, see M EALS , 3 8.
could be turned by the hand. The importance of oil in the Hebrew kitchen will be
The passage of the treatise Peslihim above referred noticed under OIL (q.71.). In early times the custom,
to speaks further of roasting, or more exactly of 8. condiments. so popnlar among the modern Arabs,
broiling, on a gridiron placed apparently over the of boiling flesh in milk seems to have
mouth of a tannur or baking oven. The gridiron was prevailed among the Hebrews. The oldest legislation
perhaps used to prepare the piece of broiled fish (ixBiros -confirmed by the Deuteronomic-limited this practice
~ T T O F pkpos) of Lk. 2442. Not only flesh and fish but so far as to forbid (for reasons that are still obscure : cp
also eggs, onions, etc., were roasted by the Jews F OOD , 3 13,and see M AGIC , SACRIFICE) the seething of
(Shabb. 1I O ). a kid in its mother’s milk (Ex. 2519 3426 Dt. 1421).
The favourite mode of roasting meat for ordinary household In N T times this prohibition had been extended far
purposes at the present day in Syria is by means of skewers.
The meat is cut into small pieces, which are stuck upon the beyond its original intention.
skewers and roasted over a brazier. Meat thus prepared is Thus we read in the Mishna : ‘ It is forbidden to seethe ($d:)
termed kebrib. any sort of flesh in milk, except the flesh of fish and locusts ; it
With regard to the food-products of the vegetable is also forbidden to set flesh upon the table along with cheese
(with the same exceptions, Khullin, SI). It was still debated
kingdom (see FOOD),many vegetables were of course whether the prohibition applied to fowls and game or only to
., Vegetable eaten raw (dpL6s, in Hebrew ’n, literally cattle sheep and goats (ib. 4). In the course of time however
it hdame pdrt of the Jewish dietary law, that two d h n c t set;
food. ’living,’ a word applied not only to raw of cooking utensils-one for meat alone, and another for dishes
animal flesh [ I S. 215 Lev. 131081, but into the preparation of which milk or butter enters-are required
also to fish [Nedav. 641, to vegetables [ib.], and even in every orthodox Jewish kitchen (see on this law of x$n> y i ~ x
to unmixed wine). They were also cooked by being esp. Wiener, Die ?ad. Speisegesefze,41-120 [‘g51). Extreme
purists have gone the length of using three (ib. 115f.) and even
boiled, alone or mixed with various ingredients-such four such sets. A . n. s. R.
as oil and spices. The Hebrew housewives, we may
be sure, were not behind their modern kinsfolk of the COOS, or rather, as in RV and Macc. 1523 EV,
I

desert, of whom Doughty testifies that ‘ the Arab house- Cos ( K W C ; now Stanchio-Le., EE KW ), the least
TTJV

wives make savoury messes of any grain, seething it and most southerly of the four principal islands off the
and putting thereto only a little salt and sumn’ ( A r . coast of Asia Minor. I t lies at the entrance to a deep
Des.2130). Thus, of the cereals, the obscure ‘n‘risrih bay, on the two projecting promontories of which were
(no>iy, Nu. 1 6 z o f . ) was probably a porridge of barley Cnidus and Halicarnassus. It owed its fertility to its
groats. (see, further, FOOD, § i), whilst Jacob sod for volcanic origin, and its commercial importance to its
himself a dish ( ~ 2 E, V ‘pottage’) of lentils (Gen. position. I t lies on the high road of all maritime traffic
between the Dardanelles and Cyprus : vessels coasting
2529 34) ; the same name is given to the vegetarian dish in either direction must pass within half a mile of the
prepared for the sons of the prophets ( z K. 4 3 8 8 ; capital (also called Cos), which was on the E. extremity
cp Hagg.212). I n N T times, at least, it was known of the island, and had a good anchorage and a port
that the pulses or pod-plants were improved by being sheltered from all winds except those from the SE.
soaked ( M H a$) before being boiled. Various kinds, Lucan (Phni: 8243) thus sketches the usual route of
such as beans and lentils, might be boiled together ships :-
(OvZah, 1 7 ) : they might also, like our French beans, Epkesoiayue relinpuens
be boiled in the pods (nip??). I n the O T we find men- Radit saxa Sanii; spirat de Zitore Coo
Aura &ens : Cnia’on iitdefu$, clm-ampue d i t t p u i i
tion of the ma&Zbath (nq!, T ? ~ ~ U U O V .AV ‘ p a n , ’ RV Sole Rhodon.
‘baking-pan,’ mg. ‘flat piate,’ Lev. 25 621 [I+]. etc.) In precise agreement with this is the account of Paul’s
and the nznr/llheth (npjnm,,EV ‘frying pan,’ Lev. 27 voyage from Macedonia to Palestine (Acts 21 I ) . His
79). The mahZbath certainly (see Ezek. 43). and the ship ran before the wind (EdOdpop$uav.res) from Miletus,
marh!sheth probably, was of iron ; and, although both about 40 m. to the N., down to Cos (i.e . , either the
are used with reference only to the sacrificial cakes (see island or the capital: probably the latter is meant);
BAKEMEATS, B READ ), we may legitimately infer from next day it reached Rhodes.
the fact that the martyrs of 2 Macc. 7 were roasted alive In spite of its geographical advantages Cos remained historic-
on the mjyavov (vv.3 5 ; cp late Heb. word jm) that ally unimportant. Its inhabitants aGparently of deliberate
choice, eschewed foreign relationshibs, and devoted themselves
both may have been used also in the - preparation
. of to the development of internal resources. No colonies were
meat. sent out ; for long the capital was in the west of the island :
To judge from the prepositions employed(sy, ‘on’ and 3, ‘in’), the strategic and commercial importance of its present site was
the ma/zdbath was deeper than the marhisheth. Th&inference is ignored until 366 B.C. When at last the Coans were compelled
confirmed by the tradition which we find in the Mishna, that the to emerge from their seclusion, it was only to echo the voice of
difference between the m&kshsheth and the ma/zribath consisted Rhodes in all matters of foreign policy. The success of this
in the former having a lid (WI?) while the latter had none ; to concentration of energy is indicated by the fact that Cos ranked
with Rhodes, Chios, Samos, and Leshos as one of th@pac&pwv
which another authority adds that the former is deep and its v l j w o ~(Diad. Sic. 581 8 2 ) and hy the existence of the sayin
contents fluid, the latter flat and its contents firm (Mena/z. 5s). ‘He who cannot thrive in Cos will do no better in Egypt.’?
The Itmhribath, in short, was a stewpan, the mar/zPsheU Similar Allied with this material prosperity was the development of
to a Scotch girdle,’ a flat iron plate on which oatcakes are baked. liberal arts. Under the Ptolemies Cos became an important
A striking illustration of Ezek. 4 3 is furnished by Doughty literary centre. With it are connected the names of Theocritus
( A T . Des. 1593), who describes an iron-plated door in the the poet, BCrassus the hisiorian, Apelles the painter, and, at an
castle of HZyil : ‘the plates (in the indigence of their arts) are earlier date (5th cent. B.c.) Hippocrates the physician. Cos
the shield-like iron pans (tannur) upon which the town house- was one of the great centres)of the worship of Zsculapius, and
wives hake their girdle-bread.’ of the caste or medical school of Asclepiad=. Claudius in 53
Other utensils named or implied are ( a ) the sieve, A.D. gave the island the privilege of immunity, mainly for its
medical fame (Tac. Ann. 1261).
1 Some would give this or a similar sense to &ox. See
Jastrow, Did. S.V.
 COPPER COPPER
Among the commercial products of the island were unguents, his is confirmed by what seems to be an assertion of
two kinds of wine, pottery (anzjhorre COE,Pliny, HAr 85 16r), he fact in Dt.89 and Zech. 61 (see below, § 5).
aud silk for Roman ladies (COE p u r j u r e , Hor. Od. iv. 13 13
vestes tenues, Tibull. ii. 3 55). Cos is still an active port. 3n the E. of the Lebanon range copper must have
Strabo (657) notes the fair aspect of the city to one entering theieen abundant in the ' l a n d of NubaSSi' (Am. Tub.),
roads. which Halevy ingeniously identifies with ZOBAH; and in
Interesting is the connection of Cas with the Jews. ater times there were copper mines in Edom at Phainon,
As Mithridates seized 800 talents deposited in the island x Phenon (cp P INON). The Phcenicians early employed
by the Jews of Asia (Jos. Ant. xiv. 7 z ) , there must then xonze for works of art,l and the great mound of Tell
have been a Jewish settlement there engaged in banking. :I-Hesy, believed to be Lachish, proves that the Amorites
I n I Macc. 1523 C8s is mentioned in the list of places who dwelt there had used their opportunities. ' In
to which the circular letter of the Roman senate in .he remains of the Amorite city (perhaps 1500 B .c.)
favour of the Jews (circu 139-8 8. c. ) is said to have been :here are large rough weapons of war, made of copper
addressed. In 86 B . C . Gaius Fannius wrote to the without admixture of t i n ; above this, dating perhaps
Coan authorities enclosing a senutus c o n s u h m to secure ?om 1250 to 800, appear bronze tools, but the bronze
safe convoy for Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem. The yadually becomes scarcer, its place being taken by
island was connected also with Herod the Great (Jos. 4. In Israel. i r o n ' 2 (see I RON). Whatever, therefore,
B/ i. 2111), and with his son Antipas (Boeclch, 2502). be the date of I S. 1 7 5 as a document,
Best authority, Znscriptioizs of Cos, by Paton and Hicks, we may feel quite certain that the Philistine warriors had
1891; an attempt at direct combination of epigraphy and
history. W. J. W.
armour of bronze ; indeed, their ancestors in Asia Minor
doubtless had bronze weapons long before David's
COPPER (n@tI; ; X&AKOC ; cp B R A S S ). T h e com- Goliath, however, uses weapons of attack made
pound of copper and zinc that we call brass appears of iron (the hidGn [?] of bronze can hardly be a javelin ;
1. In Egypt. to have been little known to the ancients ; see GOLIATH).
but we have abundant evidence that The statement in Josh. 6 2 4 (copper or bronze vessels
copper was early know-n, and that it was hardened by Found in Jericho) will be in the main correct ; also that
means of alloys into bronze. Seneferu, a conquering in z S. 8 8, in as far as it relates to the abundance of
pharaoh of the fourth dynasty, worked the Sinaitic bronze in Syria. Whether the serpent of bronze called
copper mines, and M. de Morgan has found some NEHLJSHTAN [ p . ~ . ] was earlier than the temple of
articles of copper in the tomb of Menes (traditionally Solomon may, perhaps, be doubted. At any rate, the
regarded as the first king of Egypt), explored by him in notice in Nu. 219 ( J E ) is as much of an anachronism as
1897. M. AniBlineau appears to have proved that that in Ex. 382-8 (P). The Israelites in the wilderness
copper was known at an even earlier date, and from had no workers in bronze. Nor could David find a
his researches and those of Mr. Quibell at KBm el- competent bronze-worker in all Israel ; the statements
Ahmar we may probably conclude that the Pharaonic respecting Hiram the artificer in I K. 7 13 5 arc no
Egyptians were from the first not ignorant of the use doubt historical." In the later regal period it was, of
of gold and copper (@nt). Themines in the Sinaitic course, quite otherwise (cp Jer. 6 28$ Ezek. 22 18 2 0 ) .
peninsula continued to be the chief source from which From z K. 25 13f. Jer. 52 17 f: we learn that the
the Egyptians drew their copper (see Maspero, Dawn of Babylonians broke the sacred vessels of bronze and
Civ. 355, and cp S I N A I ) ; but in the fifteenth century carried away the metal to Babylon; no doubt
they obtained it also from AlaSia-ie., C Y P R U S(see ~ Rehoboam's shields of 'brass' ( I K. 1427 z Ch. 1210)
Ani. T a b . , 2 5 and 27), where Cesnola has found went there too ; but the chief losses were probably
both copper and bronze Celts in Phcenician remains. repaired. T h e cymbals in the second temple were
'The oldest Babylonian specimens of copper arc those certainly of copper or bronze, as we may infer from
found by M. de Sarzec at Tello (before 2.500 B. c. ) ; at I Ch. 1519 Jos. Ant. vii. 123 (cp I Cor. 131). Gates of
2. In Babylonia, Tell es-Sifr, in the same neighbour- ' brass ' arc mentioned in Ps. 107 16 Is. 45 z (cp Herod.
hood, Mr. Loftus has found even a 1 1 7 9 , and see Mr. Pinches' account of the bronze gates
large copper factory (1500 B.C.). In Babylonian of RalawBt) ;5 mining implenients of ' brass ' in Ecclus.
graves, and also in what Dr. J. P. Peters calls a 48 17 (Heb. Text).
jeweller's shop (at Nippnr). objects made of copper That ' brass ' (bronze) should be used to symbolise
(belonging to rima 1300 R . c . ) have been found. hardness and strength is natural. In time of drought,
Homniel thinks, on philological grounds, that the 5. OT usage. it seemed as if the heavens were bronze,
Semitic Babylonians as metallurgists were pupils of so that no rain could pass through them
the Sumerians, and dates their acquaintance with (Dt. 2823), or as if the earth were bronze, so that it could
copper and iron very early.2 The inscriptions make never be softened again (Lev. 26 19). A sufferer asks if
frequent mention of copper (;Z$UYU) and bronze3 (era, his ' flesh ' ( i . e . , body) is of brass (Job612), as the bones
also @a, and zirudri ; cp Lat. raudus=as i~zfectectn~rz). of Bdhemoth (Job 40 18)and the browofdisobedient Israel
T h e ancient hymn (in Sumerian and Assyrian) to Gibil, (Is. 484) are, by other writers, said to be. To be com-
the fire-god, extols him for his services in the mixing of pared with brass is not, however, the highest distinc-
copper and tin (cp Tubal-cain, and see CAINITES, tion. I t was the third empire in Nebuchadrezear's
§,IO). The Assyrians used bronze axes as late as the vision that was of ' brass' (Dan. 239 cp v.yz). On the
mn:b century. They derived their copper and bronze other band, ' brass ' in the obscure phrase ' mountains
largely from the so-called Na'iri countries ; ultimately, of brass ' (Zech. 6 I ) has no symbolic meaning : ' brass '
therefore, from Armenia ; the copper in the tribute paid (i.e . , copper) is merely mentioned to enable the reader to
to Kanimgn-nirari 111. by Damascus is mentioned identify the mountains (cp NnhaSSi, the ' copperland ' ;
elsewhere ( IRos).4 see § 3 ) .
T h e Canaanites, naturally enough, were well ac- Difficultas the passage is, we need not despair of explaining
quainted with copper. According to Ritter (Erdk. 17 1063 it. The 'mountains -of brass' are parallel to the 'mountains
cited by Knobel), there are still traces of
3' In ancient copper-mines in the Lebanon ;5 sapun, great mountain of copper ; also Sargon, Ann. 23. where
Ba'il-gapuna, ' the great mountain,' is spoken of as containing
1 Flinders Petrie also accepts Winckler's identification of mines (copper?).
Ala& in Am. Tab. with Cyprus (where copper was worked). 1 Perrot and Chipiez, A r t in Phmcicia and Cyprus.
See his argument, S y r i a ana'EEgypt, 44 ('98).
2 Die senzit. Volker. 1 AIO. April 21,~1898.p. 596.
. _
2 Dr. I. H. Gladstone. 'The Metals of Antiu:iitv,'Naiure.

3 Schliemann's discovery of weapons of copper and bronze on

the site of Troy is well known.
4 On the right reading of I K. 7 46. see ADAM, i.
5 The bronze ornaments of rhe palace gates from BalawBt
333, Sad Ba'al (parts i.-iv.) published by SOC.ofBib1. ArchreoZ.
893 894
 COR CORD
(@ T ~ ) Vbpiwwu) in the river-land’ (?&??; cp a&’Is. 44 27)--i.e., vould seem to imply that a fishery was in the case,l and,
those visible from Babylonia-in Zech. 18, and must have been f two of our best critics may be followed, the nobles of
as well known as these to Zechariah’s hearers or readers. The): ierusalem are described in Lam. 47 as ‘ purer than snow,
were no douht the ‘hills out of which thou mayest dig copper whiter than milk, more ruddy than branches of pinixim ’
(Dt. 89)-i.e., Lebanon and Herman (see above, $ 3). which
formed the northern boundary of the Holy Land. It is the L e . , obviously, of coral).2 Another reference to
land of the north’ (the seat of the empire of the Seleucidz?) k?tzinint, of considerable interest, occurs in Ps. 45 14 [13],
that chiefly occupied the thoughts of the speaker1 (68). See &,herewe should no doubt read @*imfor ilnm ; the
Z ECHARIAH, BOOK OF. On Ips? nWn! EzraSz7, cp COLOURS, whole line should perhaps run, ‘ on her neck is a wreath
8 7. T. I<. C. >f pZninim ’ (see Che. Ps.P)nd Zoc. ).
COR (15,perh. Ass. RAru [v. Muss-Arnolt, s.D.], or In the somewhat obscure question as to identification
from J 713 ; see No. ZD’WG 40 734 [‘86]), a measure of >f the substance or substances intended by rum6th and
capacity=an homer ( I O ephahs or baths) ; of wheat 3. Coral-like p&zinim, it ought not to be overlooked
and barley ( I I<. 422 [52] ; EV ‘measure,’ mg. ‘ c o r ’ ; that certain stonesvalued by the ancients
2 Ch. 2 10[9] 27 5 ; RV”’S. ’ cors ’). As a liquid nieasure stones. seem to have been named from their
Ezelc.4514. z K. 6254emended text) speaks of & cor of resemblance to cord. Pliny, before passing from the
carobs (see H USKS ). myx and alabaster group, speaks of a valuable ’ corallite
In I K.5 I I [251 ‘measiires of oil’ is wrong; read is$ ng stone’ found in Asia, of a white hue, somewhat approach-
‘baths of oil,’ after d and /I 2 Ch. 2 9. ~ 6 p 0 s[BAL] a loan-word, ing that of ivory, and in some degree resembling it ( H N
which in d represents both li and l@l,occurs once in N T (Lk. 3613) ; also of corallis, a native of India and Syene,
167 RVmg. ‘cors’: A V l w says ‘about 74 bushels and a pottle’). resembling minium in appearance : and of coralloachates
See WEIGHTS AND M EASURES. or coral-agate, commonly found in Crete, and there
called the ‘ sacred ’ agate, similar to coral, and spotted.
CORAL is EV’s rendering in Job 28 18 Ezek. 27 16 of all over, like the sapphire, with drops of gold (37 54 56).
- which occurs also
JliDHl, a word of unknown oriqin, Cp M ARBLE .
in Prov. 247, where EV treats it as a
1. R ~ ~ a t derivative
unidentified. h of on, meaning ’ too high.’ COR-ASHAN (y&ib), I s. 3030. See B ORASHAN .
Most commentators, however (Hitz., CORBAN ( K O P B ~ N[Ti.], KOPBAN [WH];Mk. 711f’,
Siegfr.-Sta., etc. ), suppose that there is a reference to a transliteration of Heb. I???, an offering ; explained
precious object called r d ’ m 2 - a s if the wise man meant, by Gopov, ‘gift’ (cp Mt. 1 5 5 ; similarly Jos. Ant. iv.
’Wisdom is as much out of the fool’s reach as coral.’ 4 4 : ~ o p p B v ) , a kind of votive offering: an object
Neither explanation is satisfactory. devoted to the deity, and therefore tabooed. Josephus
The word occurs only twice,,and, since the Vss. shed ( L c .) uses the word in speaking of the Nazirites who were
an uncertain light on the meaning, we must be content dedicated to God as a corban, and of the temple treasure,
to make the most of internal evidence.
Ezek. has h a p 0 [BQl, p a p p e [AI, sevicz~m;Job has pe~&popa
which was inviolable (BJii. 9 4 ; ...
T ~ ieppbv
Y fhpaupbv,
Kaheirac 66 KOPPWVBS; cp Mt. 2 7 6 K O ~ ~ ~ V ’B STheo- ).
[BNAC Theod.], 6$qA6. iSym.1, exceZsasa; Prov. has uobia x a l phrastus, among foreign oaths, especially quotes the
&oca bya$ ;u Tu’Aars [BNAI for iywx niD3n $ 1 ~ 5n:nm [Vg.,
exceLsaI.3 corbnn as one belonging to the Jews, which was forbidden
to the Tyrians (cp Jos. c. Ap. 122, 167). I t is easy
T h e context in Job (rAmJth, gAJiS, pinininz) shows to see that by interdicting himself by a vow a man was
that some precious and ornamental substance is intended,
able to refrain from using or giving away any particular
and Dillmann infers from the language that YZmjth
object, and might thus evade any troublesome obligation.
was regarded as less valuable than pinizininz (see below).
Several abuses crept in (cp Ned. 5 6 ) , and, in the passage
According to M T of Ezek. 2716, r&nZh, with ntpheh,
cited (Mk. 7 1 1 cp Mt. 1 5 5 ) , Jesus denounces a system
ar@min, rikmnh, J B s , and Andhk&i%, was brought into which allowed a son, by pronouncing the word ’ corban ’
the Tyrian market by merchants of Syria ; but probably [and thus vowing a thing to God), to relieve himself of
(see Cornill, ad Zoc.) we should read for A r m ( o w ) the duty of helping a parent. Cp comm. on Mt. 155
Ecloni (oiis); as Cornill remarks, Edom was an im- Mk. 7 IT, and especially L. Cappellus on Mt. 1 5 5 ; also
portant stage in the transport of merchandise westward
PREP)5 42.
from S. Arabia and India. This last indication of the
provenance of rinztth makes against the usual rabbinic CORBE ( x o p B ~ [BA]), I Esd.512 AV=Ezra29,
rendering, ‘ coral ’ ; for the red coral of commerce-the ZACCAI.
hard kalcareous skeleton of the colonial Actinozoon, CORD. There is no scarcity of Hebrew terms to
CornZZinm noEiZe, Pal. (rzrbmm, Da Costa), which is denote cord of one kind or another.
widely distributed in the Mediterranean and the iltlantic Among the commonest words are \?! (zebelot+
‘( bind), and
as far as the Cape Verd Islands. and is a considerable
source of wealth in the Mediterranean basin-occurs in
lc; yefher(\/to stretch), both used of cords or ropes for drawing,
hauling (cp z S . 1 7 1 3 EV ‘rope’) 5 of tent-ropes (Is. 3320 Job
its natural state much less frequently S. and E. of Suez. 421)6 and of ship’s tackle : see &HIP, TENT, S 3. Yethev (d
2. In RV“’g. ‘ corals’ (Lam. 4 7 ) , ‘ r e d coral,’ and in Jkdg. veupci), which seems to denote rather ‘gut,’ and its
‘pearls’ (Job2818 Prov. 315 811 2 0 1 5 31 IO) aresuggested derivative lc’g, are used also specially of bowstrings (Ps.112
as renderings alternative to ‘ rubies ’ 21 IZ [13]). Less frequent terms are : p)qn (zzzt (.\/to sew),
2. P B n I n ~(see R U BY , I ) for 0 - p pZninim.
perhaps coral.
Certainly ‘ rubies ’ is not a good render- 1 The text may, however, be corrupt ; is a singular term.
ing. The words, ’ the catching’ (718 ; EV, ;inprobably, We might emend to nxwn~i,:(yisdom) is esteemed ’ (Che.).
‘price’) of wisdom is above that of rubies,’ in Job2818,
2 The common rendering is . ..
more ruddy in body than
peninim’ (cp EV). But ‘in body’ (~sy)appears superfluous
here: whereas if we transpose the preposition, and read ’sya
1 This interpretation is due to Gr2tzUgd. Zt. 1885, pp. 5 4 9 ~ 3 ; insteadof ‘13 oxy, we get a good sense (see above). d does not
it has been overlooked by even the most recent cornmenfators. re rebent either ’yy or oxy. See Bu. and Bickell, ad Lc.
For otherviews, on the whole very improbable ones, see Wright, In P of the Hexateuch it is the Comprehensive term for all
Ze&ana?z, 124 f: ; Now. and GASm. decline to offer any offerings ‘ presented to God, bloody or bloodless ; see also Ezek.
opinion. 20 28 40 43.
2 Bickell : ‘ If thou hold thy peace (QiI2.l) before a fool, thou 4 See Levy, CAaZa’. WoYfeuJ., S.V. Ipp NHWS, s.7~. D$p,
art wise.‘ D$jl [mutilations of the formula, which are equally binding,
3 Targ. Joh28 16 has, for ninKi, n ~ \ ~ i ~ = u a v 8 a p a r of
q Nedavim, 12, as will be explained under Vow, $ 41, and also
Theophr., etc. viz. native realgar, or ruby sulphur (disulphide B AN , $ I , S ACRIFICE, Vow.
of arsenic). I; is uied to a limited extent as a pigment, hut can- 5 For I K. 2031 see TURBAN.
not be intended here (indication however of colour). 6 Job4 21 RV ‘ tent-cord,’ RVw. AV ‘excellency.’ @, how-
4 With Aq., Pesh., some Hed. MSS, aAd virtually @ (bvOp6- ever expresses 1~2’1032 rpq &, ‘Surely when he blows
;ious=niN). Sym. and Theod. support MT. upo; them, they wither.’ This is preferable (so Beer).
895 836
 CORE CORINTH
‘thread’ (Gen. 1423 Judg. 1812 C a n t . 4 3 ; AV ‘fillet,’ RV difficult, the mariners of Asia and Italy found it desirable
‘ line’
. in Jer. 52 21) ; a??? ni@j*h ( d t o encircle, go round), to land their goods a t Corinth, so that the possessors of
Is. 3 24 RV ‘ rope’ (AV rent) ; n-?? ‘n6lzbth (cp Ass. ahttrc, the Isthmus received dues from these as well as from
‘fetter’), Judg. 15 13, etc.; j*n? jdtJziZ, N u . 1 5 38, etc., Judg. whatever was brought from the Peloponnese by land ’
1G g (AV thread, RV string), (for Gen. 3s I8 25 see RING, D I) ; (Str. 378 ; cp Dio Chrys. Or. viii. 5, +~ 6 X i swump &v
and 12, JJcF : see LINE. rp&y Z K E ~ T O ) . In consequence of her rapid commercial
The materials available were strips of skin or hide (cp expansion, the arts also awalcened in Corinth to a new
the legend of the Carthaginian Byrsn), or the intestines life, especially those of metal-work and pottery, heirlooms
of animals, especially the goat or camel (cp m’above), of Phcenician influence (cp Paus. ii. 3 3 ; P1. H N . 343).
flax (Ezek. d o 3 ) , and rushes. It is ropes of rushes that Trade became wholesale. The establishment of the
are meant by uxoivlov and mraprlov, 6 ’ s equivalents for Isthmian games in the sanctuary of Poseidon, near
5xn and Bin respectively. Zxoivlov occurs twice in NT- the bay of Schcenus, in ‘ t h e wooded gorge of the
Jn. 21s ( a scourge of cords), Acts2732 (ropes of a ship). isthmus’ (Pind. ; Str. 380), elevated Corinth into a
The weaving together of two or more ropes for distinct centre of Hellenic life (Str. 378). So from the
greater strength was customary : cp Eccles. 412, ‘ the earliest times the epithet ’ wealthy ’ was especially re-
threefold cord ( d i t ! ? o:ng) is not quickly broken.’ served for Corinth (d@veibs, Hom. 21. 2570; dxpia,
Pind. OL 13 4 ; Thuc. 1 q),and although the rise of
p n j oqn’ ‘green withes’ (EV), ‘which hac1 not been Athens finally destroyed her dreams of naval empire
dried,’ were employed in binding Samson (Judg. 168). she reinained the first mercantile city of Greece.
Greater flexibilky, for the purpose of tying, was thus This prosperity found a rude ending in 146 B. c. when
ensured, and the knots were less liable to slip ancl the the place was pillaged by the Roman consul, Lucins
cord to split. Mummius, and levelled with the ground ; but the re-
From the idea of ‘line, cord,’ etc., is readily obtained the
meaning of ‘measuring-line’ (cp z S. S B Am. 7 17,sin I K.
establishment of the city was inevitable. In 44 B.C.
7 15, )p I K. 7 23, 59no Ezek. 40 3) ;1 hence, further, that of the Julius Czsar founded on the old site the CoZonia Laus
part ‘measured off,’ the ‘lot’ or ‘inheritance’ (cp 5 l n Josh. / u 6 a Couinthus., T h e nucleus of its population consisted
199, pi. in Ps. 186 is]). of freedmen (Paus. ii. 1 2 , Str. 381). Most of the
O n the ‘cords’ (crpwia) worn by the unchaste women of
Babylon (Ear. 6 43), see Fritzsclie ad ~ O C .
names of Corinthian Christians indicate either a Roman
cr a servile origin (e.g., Gaius, Crispus, I Cor. 114 ;
CORE ( ~ 0 [BSA ~ s Ti. W H ) , Ecclus. 45 18 Jude I T
Fortnnatns, Achaicus, I Cor. 1617 ; Tertius, Rom.
AV, RV KORAH(9.v.).
1 6 2 2 ; Quartus, Rom. 1 6 2 3 ; Justns, Acts 187). The
CORIANDER (12; KOPION [BAFL] ; 2 .Ex. 1631 Kew Corinth, by the mere force of geographical causes,
Nu. 1 1 7 t ) is a plant indigenous to the Mediterranean became as of old the most prosperous city of Greece,
area, Corinndma sntivum, L., as all agree. The and the chosen abode of luxury and ‘abysmal profligacy’
Hebrew name, which Lagarde ((;A 57) believes to be (Str. 378 382 ; Athen. 13 573 ; cp the saying, od 7ravrh
of I n d o - h o p e a n origin, seems identical with the yoiS iv8pdr 6s H6piv06v 600’ b rrhofir). It was also the
which the scholiast on Dioscorides ( 3 6 4 ) affirms to be capital of the province, and the seat of the governor
the Punic equivalent of K6piov ; and the identity of the of Achaia (Acts 1812).
ant is thus assured. The manna which is likened to For description, see Paus. ii. if: ; c p Frazer, Paus. 320.38.
2s seed is also said to be ‘ small, small as hoar- Pausanias distinguishes the Roman from the Greek remains ;
frost upon the ground,’ and is elsewhere said to resemble few vestiges are now found of either city though the American
bdellium. These characters suit the so-called seed ai-chzologists have recently made impgrtant discoveries (see
/ H S 1s 333 [‘98] : among other inscriptions one ‘ of uncertain
(really fruit) of the coriander, which is about the size of i a t e , hut as late as the imperial times, ’reading ‘ ~ ~ a y o y $
a peppercorn. N. M.--W. T. T.-D. ‘Eppaiw v ’).
CORINTH ( KOPINFJ~C). The secret of Corinthian Corinth, like Athens and Argos, naturally attracted a
history lies in the close relation of the city to the com- l x g e Jewish population (Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 36 ; cp
merce of the Mediterranean. Even before the develop- Justin, D i d I ). The edict of Claudius, banishing the
ment of trade by sea the wealth of Corinth was inevitable Jews from Rome, must have augmented the number of
owing to its position on the Isthmus, the ‘ bridge of the liebrew families in Corinth (Acts 182 ; cp Suet. CZnud.
sea’ (Pind. (stit. iii. 38, ‘door of the Peloponnese,’ Xen. 2 5 ) ; see A QUILA . As in other cities (e.g., Iconium,
Ages. 2). For navigation and far-reaching commercial Acts 141, Thessalonica, Acts 1 7 4 ) , a considerable
enterprises no city was more favourably placed. Its number of gentiles had been attracted to the Jewish
territory was unsuited for agriculture (Strabo 382) ; the synagogue, and their conversion would be the first-fruits
more distinct, therefore, was the vocation of its inhabit- of Paul’s work. His decisive breach with the Jews,
ants for a seafaring life. The Phoenicians were early and his adoption of the house of the Roman or Latin
attracted by the advantages of the site. There a-emany l i t i u s Justus as his place of instruction (cp Acts 19g),
traces of their presence at Corinth. At the,foot of the enabled Paul to reach the otherwise inaccessible gentile
Acrocorinthus, Mellcarth, the god of Tyre (see Pwm- population (mostly of Italian origin : Acts 188, rohXo1
XICIA), was adored by the Corinthians as the protector rzv KopwOiwv ~ K O L O V T E&S~ U T E U O Y ) . Aquila, on the
of navigation under the name Melicertes (Paus. ii. 1 3 ) . other hand, seems to have enjoyed his greatest success
The armed Aphrodite (Astarte), had a temple on the among the Jews (Acts 18z8), though the Corinthian
summit of the hill (Str. 379, valFiov: Paus. ii. 4 6 $ , church remained predominantly gentile in character.
sharing it wjth the sun-god ; id.ii. 5 I) ; to her in later In conformity with his principle of seeking the centres
times a thousand female votaries paid service with their of comniei-cia1 activity, Paul visited Corinth on his de-
bodies, adopting a custom well known in Syrian worship parture from Athens (Actsl81). For the importance of
(Strabo, 378). this step as regards the development of Paul’s mission-
‘ The juxtaposition of the two Corinthian harbours ary designs, see P AUL . Converts were made chiefly
(Lechzenm on the Corinthian Gulf, ancl Cenchrke, with among the gentiles, of the poorer class (Acts 188 I Cor.
Schcenus, on the Saronic) made it easy to tranship 1 2 6 6 TI l 2 z ) , although some Jews believed (see CRISPUS);
cargoes ; and, as the voyage round Cape Mal& was and some persons of importance (see ERASTUS, GAIUS,
1 Similarly u,yo~viovand urrapdov. perhaps also C HLOE ). The accession of Crispus and
9 T h e Greek name, according to Fluck. and Hanh. ( ~ 9 3 is )~ of Gaius was so important that Paul forsook his rule
d u e t o ‘the offensive odour it exhales when handled, and which and baptized them with his own hand ( I Cor. 114-16).
reminds one of hugs-in Greek, rc6prr.’
3 T h e Punic y a d appears again in Lat. git or gith, which is
H e lays special stress upon his claim to be regarded as
black cummiu, iVigeZZa sativa, L. See FITCH, I. sole founder of the Corinthian church (I Cor. 36 4 IS).
4 This, rather than ‘round,’ seems t o he the meaning of D?D?F This claim is not contradicted by z Cor. 119 ( ‘ who was
(Di. on Exod. 16 74). peached . . . by me and Silvanus and Timothy ’), for
29 897 898
 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLE8 TO THE
z Cor. is addressed to the Christians of Achaia generally anxiety that he took pen in hand to write our First
as well as to the Corinthians, while I Cor. is written Epistle. At the same time he replied to a series of
more especially to the church of Corinth. pestions put to him in a letter which he had received
The apostle spent eighteen months in Corinth on this :perhaps through Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus :
occasion (Acts 1811). On his next recorded visit he I Cor. 16x7) from the church at Corinth. These two
stayed three months (Acts 203). On a supposed inter- things--the tidings which he had heard of disorders in
mediate visit to Corinth and on the correspondence that the church, and certain definite inquiries put to him-
took place, see CORINTIIIANS, $S 9 f.,13. On the xcount satisfactorily for the contents of the First
character of Paul‘s teaching see below, and cp P AUL , Epistle (see below, 1s 14-16). So far all is clear, except
A POLLOS . perhaps as to the exact date at which the epistle was
As to the effect of Paul‘s letters and presence the N T sent, though it may be placed provisionally about
gives no information ; but the letter of Clement, written, Easter of A.D. 55. There is also no doubt as to the
perhaps, about 97 A. I). , shows that the moral tone of general nature of the circumstances under which our
the Corinthian church improved, though the friction Second Epistle was sent. The interval which separated
between parties continued, as indeed we should expect it from the First Epistle cannot have been very long.
from the social conditions obtaining in such a city. It may be assigned to the late autumn (about November)
Hegesippus visited the church about I 39 A. D., and was of the same year.l From some cause or other, it is
favourably impressed by the obedience and liberality of clear, the anxiety of the apostle had increased, and had
its members, and the activity of its bishop Dionysius indeed reached a pitch of great and painful tension.
(Eus. HE iv. 2.) The return of Titus, whom he had sent to Corinth,
T h e two epistles written to the Corinthians are re- relieved him of this, and he warmly expresses his
markable for the variety of their local colouring. The satisfaction. Then he turns to the practical question
illustrations are drawn chiefly from gentile life :-the of the collection which he was organising for the poor
wild-beast fight ( I Cor. 1532) ; the stadium and boxing Christians at Jerusalem. Before the letter is concluded,
match (I Cor. 9 24-27) ; the theatre ( I Cor. 4 g 7 31) ; the however, he comes back (in the text as we have it) to
garland of Isthmian pine, the prize in the games ( I Cor. his opponents and writes again with no little emotion
9.5) ; the idol festivals ( I Cor. 810 l O z o f . ) ; the syssitia, about them. This letter was written on the way to
so common a feature of Greek social life (I Cor. 1027). Corinth, probably from Macedonia, and the apostle is
W. J. W. about to pay to the church a visit which he repeatedly
CORINTHIANS, Epistles t o the.* I t will be un- calls his third ( z Cor. 1214 131).
necessary to repeat here the familiar story of the founding This brief outline, however, evades a number of
1. Relations of the church at Corinth, which is else- difficulties.
with Gorinth. where set in its place in the life of the Considered ouite broadlv and zenerallv. the course of events
apostle (see PAUL). According to the ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~
---
is clear e n o d : hit. whek we at?emnt to’zive them Drecisiun in
I

dits1 difficulties s$ng u; at everyAstep. The

scheme of chronology adopted in this article it would 4. Difficulties quesdons which arise are also exceedingly intri-
fa11 in the years 50-52 A D . (48-jo Harnack, 52-54 in detail. cate, so that to state them satisfactorily is no
Lightfoot, otherwise vou Soden ; see C HRONOLOGY , § easy matter. They have nearly all been brought
out by the research of the last five-and-twenty years ; and we
71). In the spring of the latter year Paul left Corinth. shall perhaps succeed hest in threading our way through them
Aquila and Priscilla accompanied him as far as Ephesus, by taking the several steps-logical if not exactly chronologrical
where they stayed behind while he went on to Jerusalem. -by which they may be supposed to have arisen.
This journey and the visit to the Galatian churches The data which we take over from the First Epistle
(Acts 1823) would take up the whole of the later spring are : ( I ) the existence of an active opposition to Paul
or summer of A.D. 52, and it would not be until the on the part not only of unbelieving Jews but also of
autumn of that year that the apostle returned to certain sections of Juclaising Christians at Corinth ; and
Ephesus. ( z ) the occurrence in the church there of a gross case of
In the meantime events had moved at Corinth. The what we should ,describe as incest ( I Cor. 5 I ). The
Alexandrian Jew Apollos, by this time an instructed maln question which meets us is, how far does the
Christian, had gone thither and his preaching had a Second Epistle deal with these same data, aud how far
great effect. Other teachers were at work there in a have the circumstances altered? Before we can formu-
spirit less friendly to Paul. Factions were formed, and, late an answer to this question, however, it is neccssary
when-Paul wrote his first extant letter to the Corinthians first to decide whether or not we are to interpose a lost
some two years later, had begun to make serious epistle between the two which have come down to us.
mischief. The aDostle was now settled at EDhesus. T h e Second Epistle is full of allusions to a previous
2. Earlier c o ~ which,
- on an average voyage, would not letter, and the older commentators with one consent
respondence. be more than a sail of a week or ten 5. Intermediate assumed that this was the First Epistle.
davs from Corinth.2 News would thus Such an assumption was obvious and
pass easily to and’fro : ana Paul was evidently kept letter. natural ; but, when the language of the
well informed of what passed at Corinth. At least Second Epistle came to be closely examined,- doubts
one earlier letter of his has been lost to us ( I Cor. 5 9 ) , began to arise as to whether that language could really
unless, as some have thought, a fragment of it remains be satisfied by the First Epistle as it has come down
embedded in z Cor. 6 14-7 I (on this view, which should to us.
probably on the whole be rejected, see below, 18). In particular it was asked whether the strong emotion under
The purport of the letter, which the Corinthian Christians which it seemed that this pyvious letter had been written could
somewhat misunderstood, was to warn them against apply to the First Epistle : out of much affliction and anguish
of heart I wrote unto you with many tears’ ( z Cor. 2 4 ) ; and
intercourse with immoral heathen. When we remember again, the severe heart-searchings described in 2 Cor. 77-11 did
the laxity of Corinthian morals we cannot be surprised not seem to agree with the calm practical discussions of the
that other and graver aberrations of this Bind had taken First Epistle.
place among them. The state of things disclosed by Since K1opper (1874)an increasing number of scholars
3. Extant some of the apostle’s visitors at Ephesus, have replied to this decidedly in the negative. Perhaps
Epistles. notably by members of thefumiZia of a lady somewhat too’ decidedly. Although it is perfectly true
called Chloe (I Cor. 111), gave him so much that a great part of the First Epistle is taken up with
calm practical discussions, the whole epistle is not in
1 IIpbs I h p w B l o u s [Ti.WHl.
2 I t took Aristides four days to get from Corinth to Miletus this strain.
(Friedlander, Sitfengesch.2 15); but Cicero and his brother
Quintus were both ahout a fortnight on shipboard (ad Attic. 1 On this reckoning i d d p v m (2 Cor. 9 z ) will mean not ‘a
3 g, 6 8, 9: quoted by Heinrici (after Hug), Das zweite yearago’ hut ‘last year.’ The Macedonian year, like the Jewish,
Sen&chrci6en, etc., 48). began with October. See YEAR.
899 900
 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
Many passages, especially i n the earlier chapters, must have it Corinth and the interpretation thus suggested suits the choice
cost the writer no slight emotion. Such would he (e.g.) the If words (88~mjuasand A S q 0 e k ) better than any other. The
scathing irony of I Cor. 48-13 (the Corinthians already enjoying ,hjection would he that we have to draw largely upon the
the rich abundance of the Messianic reign while the poor apostles magination to explain how a matter like this, which we should
are maltreated like gladiators in the arena); the whole of the lave thought might be settled calmly enough, became the
next section I Cor. 414-21 which ends with a threat that the :atw of such acute tension between the apostle and a large
apostle will Aome to them kith a rod ; and then the section on ;ection of the church.
the incestuous man in which he projects himself in spirit into W e have then three hypotheses, each with some
the president's chair in their assembly and solemnly hands over
the offender to Satan. idvantages and some counterbalancing drawbacks : ( I )
I t is by no means incredible that passages like these would .hat the reference is to the incestuous man-which
stand out io Paul's memory after he had despatched his letter, could greatly simplify the situation so far as the two
and that he should work himself up into a state of great and :pistles are concerned, but could be held only on the
everl feverish anxiety as to the way in which they would he
received. The fact that a considerable fraction of the church issumption of peculiar qualifying circumstances in the
should have made themselves, 2 5 it seems, in somesort accomplices x s e which it is not easy for us to imagine ; ( 2 ) that
with the offending person, might well make the apostle feel that [he reference is to some direct personal insult to Paul-
the moment was extremely critical and that the result might be
nothing less than the break-up of the church. i hypothesis which, by introducing a n intermediate letter,
This leads us to the further question with which that %nablesus to construct one which will suit the allusions
just stated is bound up. Along with the allusions to a somewhat better than the extant First Epistle, but in
6. Xituation previous lcttcr there 'are in the Second 3ur opinion forces 6 rE&~qOek and makes the situation
in Cor. Epistlealso allusions to what was evidently in the Second Epistle a tantalising duplicate of that
a great crisis in the history of the church. in the First, besides (it might seem) inconveniently
W a s this crisis tge same as that u-hich is contemplated xowding events between the two epistles ; ( 3 ) that the
in the First Epistle, or was it wholly distinct? reference is neither to Paul nor to the incestuous man,
The scholars who first maintained the view that there was a bnt to a quarrel between two unknown persons-which
lost letter between the two extant epistles were coutent to satisfies 6 d&KqOdr, but is open to some of the same
acquiesce in the older view that the descriptions of 2 Cor25-11 Jbjcctions as the last, and is not so helpful.
75-16 had reference to a state of thing' growing directly out of
the situation presented in I Cor. 6. There ton there is a single W e shall see below that, in spite of its apparent
offender, who appears to have a hacking in the church, and the ittractiveness, the first of these hypotheses must be
apostle is aware that the position is full of danger: the machina- Ziven up. There is a break between the two epistles :
tions of Satan are not hidden (z Cor. 211). there must have been a t least one intervening communi-
It must be confessed that the situation of I Cor. 5 Eation-and if one, probably two conmiimications-
fits on extremely well to that of z Cor. 25-11, except in
- - ... one uarticular. That is. as the more
7. ramalof recent writers on the epistles (Wciz-
agreement
between Paul and the church at Corinth; and the
ispect of things has changcd not simply once, but
probably twice. The fact of the new situation, and the
sacker, Pfleiderer, KrenBel [Beiti-tige], fact of the intermediate letter, thus seem to be assured ;
ctr2L1:" "
I. 0.
and Schmiedel, Julicher) for the most part but in regard to particulars we have hardly data enough
urge, that the treatment described in to enableus to judge. W e cannot easily bring ourselves
2 Cor. 26, which is accepted as adequate to the occasion
to think that the person directly injured is Paul : at the
by ?'aril, seems inadequate to the very gross offence of same time he appears to be someone closely cQnnected
I Cor. 51. There is also considerable difficulty in with him. Timothy would meet the conditions better
assigning the part of the injured person in z Cor. 7 12 : than any one we can think of ; but neither the injured
' S o although I wrote unto you, [I wrote] not for his cause person nor the aggressor can be identified more precisely.
that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the Along with the question as to an intermediate letter
wrong, but that your earnest care for us might be made goes the further question as to a n unrecorded visit Raid
manifest,' ete. by P a i l to Corinth.
If the offending person of I Cor. 5 was really let off with a
comparatively slight punishment there must have been extenuat- Unlike the letter, this visit is not purely hypothetical. In z
ing circumstances of which we are not told. Such circumstances Cor. 12 14 and 131 the apostle speaks expressly of his approaching
might be that the 'father's wife' was not in the strict sense a visit as the third. This implies that we must
wife hut a concubine (the father being probably a heathen) ; and 9. Unrecorded insert another, not mentioned by the historian,
we might have supposed that the father was dead. In such a visit. somewhere between Acts 1818 and 202-or
case Paul with his strong sympathy for human infirmity, and rather, we may say, somewhere in the three
his readiness to make allowance for a convert brought up in the years spent by Paul at Ephesus. We have seen that his com-
laxity of heathenism, might conceivably have accepted an munications with the church at Corinth were frequent ' we have
expiation short of that which the circumstances would seem at seen also that the voyage was easy. The silence of AAt?(which
first sight to demand. The supposition that the father was de+ dismisses two years in a verse: ~ D I o ) , therefore, is 110 real
would fall through, however, if 'his cause that suffered the wrong obstacle.
(708 B S L K ~ ~ & O F )refcrred to him ; and it does not seem satis- Is the visit to be placed betore or after the First
factory that a sin of this kind should he regarded only in the Epistle?
light of personal injury to another. I t is most tempting to go with the majority of recent critics
Accordingly the tendency among those recent German and place it after. The couspicuous fact about this visit is that
-
writers who have gone into the question more fully than it was a painful one (& A J q : 2 Cor. 2 I). 1 f so, what could
be more natural than to conkect it with the letter which was
8. Other ex- any others, has been to offer a wholly
planations of different explanation of the state of written 'withmany tears?' Both alike, it mi-ht seem ~ h o u l dhe
placed on the line of strained relations wgich led ';p to the
things implied in the Second Epistle. Second Epistle. The unrecorded visit would, in that case, pre-
'Or' 25-11' cede the lost letter. We might imagine, in view of 2 Cor. 10 IO,
. Thev.,. as a rule. take the offence on
which the situation turns in this epistle to be some that Paul had been summoned over to Corinth hastily that
there his malady had come on, that he had broken 'down
personal affront or insult put upon Paul (so IHilgenfeld, physically and been obliged to return, leaving matters to all
Mangold, Weizsiiclcer, Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, J ulicher ; appearance worse than he found them; that he then wrote a
Beyschlag gives the alternative that the insult may have letter to undo the effect of this disaster; that this letter was
strongly worded, and, after it had been sent, caused hiin great
been oKered to Timothy), not in connection with the anxiety; and that it was his relief from this anxiety on the
case of the incestuous man, but rather growing out of coming- of Titus that was the immediate occasion of the
the revolt against his authority as an apostle.. In keep- Second Epistle.
ing with this, most of them would explain TOO (isi~q- discussion Such comhinations are tempting ; hut they lead us on to the
of the next mint which has a direct and oerhaos a
8&70s as a n indirect reference to Paul himself.
I I

crucial hearing upon thgm.

This, however, again seems strained and unnatural, and indeed In I Cor. 7 6 5 the apostle announces his intention of
inconsistent with theexegesisoftheversewhere Paul is mentioned
(u. 12 'your earnest care for us'; T$Y unovrS$v +pOu . ;
I. +&p coming to Corinth by the longer land route tlirou_nh
GPO") in such a way as almost certainly to distil! uish him Macedonia. This, as a matter of fact, is the
from the injured person. Krenkel it seems to us rigftly urges lo. route that he was actually taking at the time
this and would take the passage As referrin.- to some brivate plans. when he wrote the Second Epistle. In the
quarrel between two members of the Corinth?an church (Beitr.
304-307). We know from I Cor. 6 that such quarrels were rife interval, however, he must have changed his mind, not
901 902
 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
once but twice; or, rather, he must have changed it ee above, 5 TO). H e also, after his return, writes the Zusost letter
and afterwards reverted to his original plan. From z tf I Cor. 5 9.
(v.) The household of Chloe bring news of an ominous develop-
Cor. 115J we learn expressly that he had a t one monient nent of the spirit of faction ( I Cor. 111), and a little later
decided to go straight from Ephesus to Corinth, thence jtephanas Fortunatus and Achaicus arrive at Ephesns (I Cor
to Macedonia, and then to return again to Corinth. .GI,), perhaps as beirers of a letter to the apostle from the
Wheu he formed this decision he seems to have been well :hurch at Corinth seeking his advice on various matters.
pleased with the Corinthians and they with him ; his motive in (vi.) Partly in consequence of what he had heard, and partly
that, twice over, both on going and returning, they may have n answer to that letter, Paul writes Firs/ Curinthians in the
the benefit of this presence (2 Cor. 115). He did not carry out ;pring of A . D . 55 taking occasion to correct a wrong impression
this plan because. after it had heen formed, his relations to the lrawn from thelbst letter ( I Cor. 6 93).
Corinthians underwent a chanqe. He tells us that he would (vii.) The epistle thus written has the desired effect, and for
not go to them because, if he hLd gone it must have been 'in be moment all goes well (*Cor. 112-16). The apostle lets the
grief' ( z Cor. 2 I). None the less his cdange of plan was made Zorinthians know his programme of zCor. 1 151: Timothy
one of the accusations against him, and was set down to fickle- arrives at Corinth and now, or at the time of chap. 8, returns
LO Ephesus.
ness of purpose (z Cor. 117). (viii.) Another sharp controversy arises, beginning perhaps in
This being so, however, are we not precluded from jome well-meant hut feeble action on the part of Timothy, and
interposing any visit between the conceiving of the in- soon involving the whole question of the apostle's position and
tention described in z Cor. 115 (the short voyage and Luthority.
(ix.) On hearing of this from Timothy Paul writes a secund
the double visit) and the writing of the Second Epistle ? lost letter, the tone of which is severe and nncompromising. It
It is not only, as Schmiedel argues ( H C 53), that the feelings is sent by Titus, who at the same time has instructions in regard
of the apostle when he made his plan and when he paid the to the collection.
supposed visit were different-in the ,one case satisfaction with (x.) After Titus has gone, Paul becomes moreand more anxious
the Corinthians, in the other case pain-but that a visit of any as to the effect his last letter is likely to have on the Corinthians.
kind is inconsistent with the language used. If Paul had paid He leaves Ephesus, having about this time heen in immiaent
such a visit he would have kept to his intention (not broken peril there. H e stops at Troas. Still no news.
it), and the charge of fickleness must at least have assunled (xi.) Titus at last returns to him in Macedonia and dispels his
another form. fears. The Second Epi.ytle is written and is sent by Titus and
We must therefore, with some reluctance, abandon the two others (z Cor. 8 1822). Its main tenor is thankfulness ; hut
idea of bringing the painful visit and the painful letter the collection is pressed, and the growth of one party (probably
the Christ-party) leads t o some emphatic strictures.
into juxtaposition. T h e only other place for the former (x,ii.) Towards the end of December A . D . 55 Paul reaches
seems to be in the part of Paul's stay at Ephesus Cormth. He stays there three mouths (Acts203), during which
anterior to the First Epistle, and towards the middle or he writes the Epistle to the Romans.
later part of it (i.e . , not far from, and probably before, FIRST EPIsTLE.-We have seen that the occasion of
the lost letter ; I Cor. 69 ; cp Schmiedel, op. cit. 54). the First Epistle was two-fold : ( I ) certain tidings which
T h e supposition that the second visit was only contem- had reached Paul as to various dis-
14' Of orders existing in the church at
plated, not paid, appears to be excluded by z Cor. 132.
Corinth : ( 2 ) certain questions put to
We observe also, in passing, that the history of these
changes of plan goes far to dispose of the arguments in him in an official letter from the chlrrch. Thk dis-
favour of the supposition that there is no lost letter orders were : (i.) a number of factions which raised the
between the two epistles. flag of party spirit and used the names of promitlent
The only way t o make the First Epistle referred to directly in leaders to give colour to their own self-assertiveness.
the Second is to regard certain passages in it as hauntin- the On these more will be said below (I 16). The subject
apostle and causing him trouble as t o its reception. At th:time covers 110-421. (ii.) A bad case of immoral living
when he conceived the plan set down in 2 Cor. 115,however which too much reflected a general laxity in the church
his mind was free from trouble : the Corinthians and he were 0;
the best of terms. This alone would sever the links which have (5 6 ~ z - z o ) . (iii. ) Litigiousness,' which did not scruple
seemed to hind the two letters together. They must be con- to have recourse to heathen law-courts (61-1r). (iv.)
nected closely or not at all. An indecorous freedom in worship, exemplified by the
When Paul wrote I Corinthians Timothy was not with him.
We should infer from Acts1922 that before that date he had disuse of the female headdress (112-16). (v.) Still
been already sent into Macedonia. This worse disorders at the qapE or love-feast, which was
11. Movements agrees perfectly with the turn of phrase in I followed by the eucharist (1117-34). And we may
of Timothy. Cor. 16 T O : ' If TLnoth,y come, see that he be perhaps include under this head (vi. ) the denial by some
with yon without fear. Before the despatch
of the Second Epistle he had rejoined Paul, as he is associated of the resurrection, dealt with in chap. 15.
with him in the opening salutation ( z Cor. 1I). If the suggestion The last three points may have been raised by the
above holds, it was probably he who brought news of the events official letter. This certainly contained questions about
which led up to the second crisis. In any case the dealing with
that crisis at its height was committed not to Timothy but to marriage (answered in ch. 7 ) ; probably also about re-
the stronger hands of Titus. lations to heathen practices, such as the eating of meats
Assuming that there was an intermediate letter offered to idols (ch. 8 continued in 9 1-11I ) ; and possibly
between I and z Cor. it is probable that Titus was the some inquiry as to the relative value of spiritual gifts.
bearer of it ( z Cor. 1218), as he was Chap. 1 1 - 9 is introductory, and ch. 1 6 au epilogue of
12' OfTitus' also the bearer of our Second Epistle personal matter containing instructions as to the collec-
( 2 Cor. 8 6 2 4 ) . tion, and details as to Paul himself and his companions.
A small qroup of scholars, including Hausrath and Schmiedel, The only points that need perhaps to be more
would assign to Titus yet another earlier visit, on the husiness particularly drawn out are the connection of chaps.
of the collection, soon after the writing of the First Epistle: 110-421 and 81.111.
hut the hypothesis is invented to snit the theory that 2 Cor.12
is not an integral part of our Second Epistle and necessitates The first tracks out the spirit of faction to its origin in the
the invention of a number of other purely hGpothetica1 occur- conceit of a worldly-minded wisdom, which is contrasted with
rences (among them a fifth, or third lost letter), nearly all of the simplicity of the Gospel-a simplicity how-
them duplicates of others that are better attested. I t may be 15. 1 cor. ever, which does not exclude the higher disdom
rejected without hesitation. Iro-4z1 and that comes from God (117.2~6). Then, in
8 1-111. 3 1-4 5 , the true position of human teachers is
The sequence of events, as far as we can ascertain it, stated. They are but stewards, whose duty is
seems to have been this :-l not to put forward anything of their own, but only to administer
(i.) While Paul is absent at Jerusalem what is committed to them by God. The Christian has but one
13. SeClUenCe ADoIIo~arrives at Corinth. where he areaches foundation and one judge, namely Christ. 46-21applies these
of events. with success (Acts 1827). ' general truths to the circumstances of the case with biting irony,
(ii.) Paul takes up his ahode at Ephesus which, however, soon changes to affectionate entreaty, and that
in the summer of A.D. 52, remaining there until the summer of again t o sharp admonition.
A'.D. 55. The sequence of the argument in 8 1-11T should not be lost
(iii.) Early in this period Apollos quits Corinth and certain sight of. Inch. 8 is laid down the principle which should guide
Judaising teachers arrive there. The beginnings are laid of conduct in such matters as the eating of meat that might
differenceswhich soon harden into parties. have come from heathen sacrifices. This principle is the suh-
(iv.) About, or somewhat after, the middle of the period Paul ordination of personal impulse t o the good of others. In ch. 9
Davs the church a brief disciulinarv visit. ;v A 6 m ( z Cor. 2 I : Paul points out the working of the principle in his own case ;
it is in deference to it that he waives his right to claim support
1 With the dates given here cp those in CHRONOLOGY, 71. from the Church, in deference to it that he exercises severe self-
903 904
 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
control, like that of rnnners in a race. The history of Israel t 101. The epistle would read continuously if we were to
showed what an utter mistake it was for even the most highly- kip from 6 13 to 7 2 and .the few concluding. words 1311-14
privileged to suppose themselves exempt from the necessity of vould come as well ai the end of chap. 9 as of chap. 13.
such self-control (101-13). The very nature of the Christian We may admit further that the subject matter of the first
Eucharist prescribed care in relation to heathen feasts (10 14-22). tassaqe resembles, though it is not identical with, that of the
This leads to some practical suggestions and advice (1 0 23-11 I). nissing letter referred to in the First Epistle ('not to keep com-
Of the subject matter of the epistle the points which ,any with fornicators' was the keynote of the one, 'not to be
16. Parties. most invite discussion are the nature of inequally yoked with unbelievers' of the other); and the
.ehement polemic of the last four chapters would be not unlike
the parties, and the spiritual gifts. The "hat we should expect to find in the letter which we are led to
latter are dealt with elsewhere (see GIFTS, SPIRITUAL). bosiulate by the Second.
As to the parties, we may remark ( I ) that the names In spite of these favouring considerations, however,
' Paul,' ' Apollos,' ' Cephas,' and ' Christ' represent md in spite of the assent which it has met with from
real titles which the parties at Corinth gave themselves. :ertain critics (Pfleiderer, Hausrath, Krenkel, Schniieclel),
When Paul says in 4 6 'These thing-s brethren, have I trans- his latter hypothesis of the letter of four chapters must,
ferred by a fiction' (to adopt Dr. F'ieid's elegant translation, ve believe, be dismissed.
O t i i ~ wNon'ic.
~ ad (06.) to myself and Apollos for your sakes
the fiction consisted, not in using names which the CorinthiaLs There was but one painful letter (2 Cor. 78, el x a l ;hJrqua
did not use, but in speaking as if he and Apollos had behaved ) p i s & r? ;aruroAlj, cp 24); which is reierred to in these
like party-leaclers, when they had not so behaved. The whole :hapters ( ~ O I O ~ ; ) , and therefore is not to be identified wilh
movement came not from them but from those who invoked their hem ; if it were, then we should have to postulate a previous
names against their will and without their con5ent. iainfnl letter further back. When the apostle wrote his painful
etter, he wrote in order to avoid the necessity of making a visit
( 2 ) The nature of the Pan1 and the Apollos parties n person (1 23); but when he wrote these chapters he was on
is clear : they were no doubt liberal in tendency, giving a he point of paying a visit (12 14 13 I). Again, there are many
free welcome to Gentile converts, and apt to deal too :oincidences of expression which connect the four chapters with
he preceding: 76=101 ( r a m r u 6 r , ofPaul himself); 568 716=
tenderly with the vices which these brought over with !OI f: (Oappeiv not elsewhere in Epp. Paul.); 1 1 5 3 4 822=102
them. From this side would come such premature mrroiOr)urs, oily twice besides) ; ~ a &u+a three times=three
emancipation as that described in 112-16. The followers imes, always in reference to himself: 67=lO4 (&rAa); v6r)pa
of Apollos probably also prided themselves on a kind of hree times= twice, only once besides ; 7 I j =10 5 f: ( h a m $ );
)5=10616 ( h o r p a s , only once besides in Epp. Paid). These
Alexandrian G/zo;i.r, which is by inference condemned in ire samples from the first six verses alone. We cannot use the
chaps. 118-216. The Petrine and the ' Christ' parties :omparison of 12 18 with 8 17f: 22 quite as it is used by Julicher
were, on the other hand, Judaistic, claiming the authority EinL: 65), because the two passages really refer to different
;ccasmns. 824 is proof that the aorists which precede are
of the apostles at Jerusalem. Both disparaged and :pistolary) and describe the circumstances connected with the
attacked Paul. The Christ party, however, seems to ;ending of the present epistle, whereas in 12 18 the aorists are
have gone to the greater lengths. itrict aqrists and point back to a former visit of Titus and his
The Christ pnrty were Jews in the strictest sense, probably :ompanion. The parallelism of expression, however, is so great
Jews of Palestine ( z Cor. 1122). They came with commendatory 1s to suggest strongly that both passages belong to the same
lettersfrom Jerusalem ( z Cor. 3 r). They themselves bore the title :etter. There is a parallelism equally marked between the use
of 'apostle ' in the wider acceptation (2 Cor. 11 13 12 11). They ,f ?rheovcr.ieiv in 1 2 17 f: and in 7 2 (cp 2 11); the word occurs
claimed td have Christ for their Master in a sense in which mly once besides in N T (I Thess. 46).
others had not ( z Cor. 10 7). And in particular they insisted If the one hypothetical intrusioii breaks down, the
that Paul had not the full qualifications of an apostle, as these 3ther should in all probability go with it.
are laid down in Acts 121 f: : he was not an eve-witness of the Not one of the analogous cases to which Schmiedel appeals
really holds good ; for the balance of argument is also against
detaching Rom.lG from the e istle to the Romans (see the
commentary on that epistle by tge present writer and Mr. A. C.
conceived it) as to amount to preaching 'another Jesus' (;Cor. Headlam). The attestation of the N T text is so varied and so
114). Paul takes firm ground in his opposition to them. He early that a displacement of this magnitude could hardly fail to
will not bate one jot of his Gospel (Gin'.) ; he will not allow that leave traces of itself. At least, before it can be assumed, the
he is behind the most apostolic of the apostles (2 Cor. 11j); he major premise that such a displacement is possible needs to Le
had 'seen the Lord' as truly as they had (i.e on the road to more fully established.
D:imascus, andinecstaticvision, I Cor. 9 I 1 5 8 ;'Cor. 12 18); he In the cases which might be quoted from the O T the
had better proof of his apostleship-in his miracles ( 2 Cor.12 IZ), conditions are really different. I t would, however, be
in his insight into Christian truth (2 Cor. 11 6) in his labours
) ~ especially in the success 6f his ministry
(z Cor. 11~ 3 8 : and well if the whole question of the editing and trans-
among the Corinthians themselves (I Cor. 9 rf: z Cor. 3 23). mission of ancient Jewish and Christian books could be
There can be little doubt that Paul's masterly ApoZogzn more systematically investigated. [For a discussion of
carried the day ; the curtain drops for us with the close 614-71 see Class. Rev., 1890, pp. 12, q o J , 317,359 ;
of the Second Epistle ; but the subsequent history of the and the authorities mentioned in the last place.]
controversy shows that the worst part of the crisis was If .the epistle has come clown to 11s in its integrity,
past, and the power of the Judaisers broken. no doubt we must recognise the abruptness of Paul's
SECOND EPISTLE.-The Second Epistle is even more manner of writing or dictation. I n that, however, there
a direct product of the historical situation than the is nothing very paradoxical. Besides the rapid fluctna-
17. Cor. : First. W e may map out the main body tions of feeling, which are so characteristic of this
of the epistle thus : ( I ) an outpouring of
contents. thanks for recent deliverance (13-11); ( 2 ) epistle, we must remember that a letter of this length
could not all be written a t a single sitting. ' It was
explanations in reference to the apostle's change of probably written in the midst of interruptions ( ' the care
plan and the treatment of the offending person by the of all the churches,' 1128). Moreover, its author was
Corinthian church (112-217) ; (3) a deeper ApoLogia one whose mind responded with singular quickness to
for his apostolic position and the distinctive character every gust of passing emotion.
of his Gospel (3-5); (4) more personal explanations A POCRYPHAL ' LETTERS. -In the Armenian version
(6-7,) ; (5) the collection (8f:) ; (6) a warmer defence after 2 Corinthians there stand two short letters, from
against Judaistic attacks (10-13 IO). 19.Apocryphal the Corinthians to Paul and from Paul
The principal literary question affecting the epistle is to the Corinthians (cp APOCRYPHA, 9
as to its integrity. letters, 294), the 'substance of which is briefly
Putting aside mere wanton and extravagant theories, sub- as follows :-The Corinthians inform Paul that a certain
stantial arguments have been urged for maintaining that the
short paragraph of six verses, 6 14-7I, and Simon and Cleobius have come to Corinth teaching that
18. Integrity. the longer section 10-13 or 10 1-13 I O , though the prophets are not to be believed, that the world, in-
the work of Paul wdre not originally part of cluding man, is the work not of God but of angels, that
this epistle, but belonged to orhe: epistles now lost : 6 14-7 I there is no resurrection of the body, that Christ has not
to the missing letter alluded to in I Cor. 5 9, and the VirrkajiteC
Crief (as the Germans call it) to the intermediate letter which we come in the flesh, and that he was not born of Mary.
have seen reason to assume between the two extant epistles. Paul replies asserting the orthodox doctrine on each of
W e may admit at once that there is a real break in these heads.
the Second Epistle at both the places noted. Attention was first called to these apocrypha by Archbishop
The subject changes, and changes abruptly, both at 6 74 and Ussher in 1644. A complete text was published in the Armenian
905 gc6
 CORMORANT CORNELIUS
Bible of Zohrab in 1 8 0 j (incomplete translations earlier); also, there is some reason for doubting whether it has so wide
with a mono-raph by Rinck, in 1823. Just as interest in the an E. range. A more likely bird, in view of its common
subject was geing revived by Theod. Zahn (Gesch. d. Kanons,
1386f: 2 592-611)and Dr. P. Vetter, professor in the Roman occurrence on the coast of Palestine (Tristram, NHB
Catholic Faculty at Tubingen, a Latin version was discovered by z p ) , is the ‘ cormorant, ’ which likewise plunges after
M. Samuel Berger in a tenth-century MS. at Milan, and pub- its prey.
lished by him in conjnnctioii with Prof. A. Carriere ( L a C o v e -
spodance ApocryPhe de Saint Paul et des Corinihiens, Paris Two species of cormorant are described from Palestine:
1891). A second MS. (13th cent.), containing a different bul the PhnZanc~-ocornxcarbo, which frequents both the sea-
probably not altogether independent version, was found a t shore and inland waters, and the pygmy cornlorant, P.
Laon, and published by Prof. Bratke in TLZ,1892,col. 5863 pvg7?zezs, which is found in lakes and rivers. Canon
There is also extant, in Armenian, a commentary on the epistle
by Ephrem Syrus. The texts are most conveniently collected Tristram states that the P.carbo is always to be seen
by Dr. P. Vetter in a Tiibingen programme (Der apocryplze near the mouth of the Jordan, watching for the fish,
dritie Korinihedrief; Vienna, 1894). which seem on entering the Dead Sea to be stupefied by
’The facts at present ascertained in regard to the the saltness of its waters. Cormorants are fish-eaters
apocryphal letters are these :- and extremely voracious. Like the bittern and the
-(I) They were from the first &e. from the 5th cent.) admitted pelican they are looked upon as ,inhabitants of solitary
into the Armenian version as part of the canon. (2) They also
existed in Syriac and were accepted as canonical in the fourth places.
century by Aphraates, Ephrem Syrus, and the SyriacDidascalk. 2. For npq (so Ba. ; Gi. ne?, &a’ ath; Is. 34 II Zeph. 2 14,
[The quotation in Aphraates is recognised by both Harnaclc and AV text), see PELICAN (so AVmg., AV elsewhere, RV every-
Zahn, though questioned (as we think wrongly) by Carriere and where).
Vetter.] (3) The letters were also known and had some small - N: M.- A. E. S.
circulation in the West. CORN. On the cultivation of corn and its use as
The problems which still await solution have reference food, see A GRICULTURE , B READ , FOOD, I , and the
to the question of origin. various cereals (on which see PALESTINE, J 14). On
( I ) Zahn, and now also Vetter think that the greater part of other points, see the articles cited in the references
the letters was in the first instanc; incorporated in the apocryphal given in the following list of expressions :-
Acts of Paul. [Since this was written Zahn’s hypothesis has
been verified through the discovery, by Dr. C. Schmidt, of con- I. 2’?N, ibhibh, the fresh young ears of corn, Lev. 2 14(‘green
siderable portions of the Acts of Paul in Coptic ; cp Nene Heidel- ears of corn,’ RV ‘corn in the ear’) ; see also MONTH.
berger /altrbi2cher, 1897, pp, II~ILL,, and Harnack in TLZ, 2. b’‘??, beZiZ, Job 2 4 6 AV (mg. ‘mingled corn or dredge’),
1897,col. 627.1 In any case it seems probable that they gained
their place in the Syriacversion in connection with the controversy properly ‘fodder’: see CATTLE, 5 5.
against Bardesanes early in the third century. Their composition 3. l?, bar, Gen. 41 35 49,etc. (E),Am. 5 I I R 6 perhaps ‘purified
can hardly be much later thin zoo A.D. ( 2 ) I t is coming to be [cleansed] grain ’ ; cp Ar. luwarz, ‘wheat, grain of wheat,’ and
generally agreed that the main body of the epistles existed first see FOOD,I.
In Greek. Vetter and Zahn now think that the concluding
portion was added in Syriac, and Znhn goes so far as to make 4. 714, garen (’?l:-j?, Is.21 TO, EV ‘corn of my floor’; cp
the Latin versions tianslated not from the Greek hut from the
Syriac. In this he certainly has not proved his case ; hut the age
of these versions needs further investigating.
Besides the general commentaries (which still deserve mention)
5.b’i,
Dt. 1 6 I AV), properly ‘threshing-floor’; see A G R I C V L T$~8.I ~ ,

cp 21. 16.
g-wii, Lev. 2 14 ‘corn beaten out,’ RV ‘bruised corn’ ;

of Bengel, Wetstein, and Meyer (recent editions by Heinrici), 6. ]I!, d<ig-in, Gen. 27 28 37, etc., grain (of cereals), usedwidely,
we have, in English, in The Speaher’s Com- along with ~~~~~ ‘ must’ (see WINE), of the products of Canaan
20. Literature. mentary, that on I Cor. by T. S. Evans (Dt. 33 zC); see FOOD, I I. Its connection with the god DAGON
(primarily exegetical and marked hy fine Lq.v.1 is uncertain.
scholarship) and that on 2 Cnr. by Dr. Joseph Waite (general)
also the cdmkentarieson I Cor. by Dr. T. C. Edwards (exegeticai 7. $?l?, kanne2, z I<. 44z,EV ‘ears of corn’ (cp Lev. 23 14
and theological), and by Bishop Ellicott (grammatical and exe- ‘ears’), preferably ‘fruit ’ or garden-growth’ ; cp CARMEL.
getical). Dean Stanley on both epistles is icturesque and See FOOD, s I.
interesting to the general reader, but has inevitagly fallen behind 8. 112Y,‘ZbhzZr, Josh. 5115, EV ‘old corn,’ RVmg. ‘produce,
the present position of inquiry, and was never exact in scholar- corn.’
ship. In this element the later English editions are strongest :
they are most deficient in historical criticism. The fullest recent 9. ?ply, ‘Zrzmih, Ruth 8 7,EV ‘heap of corn ’ ; see AGRI-
commentary in German on the two epistles is by Heinrici (Berlin, C U L T U R E , 8 gf.
rS8o 1887): well meant and with new illustrations from later IO. ?!j?, &aria, I S.1717,etc., ‘parched corn’ ; see FOOD, $ I.
Greik, hut inclined to p i e s Greek analogies too far. Perhaps
the best on the whole is Schmiedel’s in the H C (‘gr), which is IT. ?Q?,~ a m i AJudg. , 155, etc., ‘standing corn’; see AGRI-
searching and exact but inclined, as we think, to multiply entities CULTURE, $7.
beyond what is necessary. In this respect Jiilicher’s EinL (‘94) niT1, riph8tlz, 2 S. 17 19 Prov. 2722, ‘bruised corn’; cp.
12.
seem to us to be the moit judicious. Godet published a com-
mentary on T Cor. in r8S5 ; and mention should he made of a COOKING, 8 2.
monowaph and commentary on 2 Cor. by Klopper (‘69, ‘74), 13. l$,,&!ber, Gen. 42 I , etc., perhaps ‘broken (corn),’ but
and 2 the discussions of special points in Krenkel’s Beitriige uncertmn. As a denom. y2dn, ‘to sell corn’ (Gen. 426 Am.
(‘go), and of the missing epistle and its identification with parts 8 5 3 etc.).
of zCor. in the fix)ositor(18976 2 3 1 8 2 8 j 3 , rSg8n113JZ). 14.’K ~ K K O F ,Jn. 12 24, ‘a corn (RV grain).’
On the apocryphal letters, besides the literature quoted above,
a summary will he found in Harnack‘s Gesch. d. altchr. Litt. 15. &os, Mk. 4 2 8 etc., a general term like: :1 (above, 6).
137-39, and Zahn’s last words on thesubject in Tkeol. Literatur- 16. ~d m~6prba,cornfields, Mt. 1 2 I Mk. 2 23.
blatt 1894 col. 1 ~ 3 8 The important discussion in Zahn’s 17. LTT&,~XUE, Mt. 12 I Mk. 223, ‘ear ofcorn’; cp Heb. n$kW, Job
Ein6ifuni 1183-249,was too late for notice. w. s. 24 24.
CORMORANT. I. T h e cormorant of EV is the CORNELIUS (KOPNHAIOC [Ti. WH]), one of the
siiZdkh, &j (Lev. 1117 Dt. 1417+),~a word connected centurions of the so-called Italian cohort (Actsl01).
with the common Hebrew verb for ‘ to throw down’ I n the reguIar army composed of Roman citizens dis-
(q-???), and therefore denoting some bird that swoops tinctive names of this sort were not given to the separate
or dives after its prey. eBAL in Lev. 1117 rightly 1. The
cohorts ; only the legions were so designated
‘Italian, (Ramsay, St. chap. 14, 0 I, p. 314).
renders K U T U [ ~ ] ~ ~ K as P , denotes a fish-eating bird
T ~this
which dives and remains under water for some time In ActslO, accordingly, what we have to
Cohort. do with is a cohort of the auxiliary troops
(Arist. ITA 913). In Dt. 1417 the order of @ is different
from that of the MI‘. Vg. has MerguZus, the little Auk, which were raised in the provinces and not formed into
and Targ. and Pesh. have rhdl? nzZni-i.e., extrahens legions.1 As for the meaning of such names : ‘ cohors
Pisces.’ Many writers, following Bochart, believe >$$ Gallorum Macedonica,’ for example, would denote
1 Legions were stationed only in the great provinces that
to be SuZu bnssana, the ‘ gannet or ‘ solan goose ‘ ; but, were governed by the emperor through a lcgntus A u p s t i p r o
although this bird is sometimes alleged to have been seen firetore; the smaller provinces-those administered by an officer
in the reed-marshes of Lower Egypt (Di. on Lev. 11~ g ) , of lower rank (procurator), such as Egypt, or Judaea from 6-4r
A.D., and again from 44A.D. onwards-had only auxiliary troops.
The old provinces, where war n o longer threatened and the
1 n5.1 is restored by Herz in Job28sb: q$$ l?;! ?F;-R’5 administration was in the hands of the senate, had no standing
‘no cormorant darteth upon it.’ c p L ION, OssrFnAGE.] army properly so called.
907 908.
 CORNELIUS CORNELIUS
that the cohort mentioned consisted of Gauls but had (see above) and Ant. xx. 61, 122, it is said only of
distinguished itself in Macedonia. If this interpretation the ah-not of .the cohors-that it was composed of
were applicable, a n Italian cohort would mean one Ccesareans and Sebastenes. At the saine time he does
which had fought in Italy. I n Arrian, however (Acies not use this fact to establish the probability of a cohors
contra AZanos, 0 3,-p. 99), the cohort which in § 13, p. ZtaZica in Czesarea. On the contrary, his conclusion is
102, is called 3 mreipa + 'ITuXLK?~, the Italian cohort, that ' W e are unable to identify with .any certainty
figures siniply as oi'I~ahoi, the Italians, and with this either the cohors Azgusta of Acts 27 I or the umipa
agree all the other mentions (entirely in inscriptions) of ' I T u X L K ?of~ Actsl01.'
a cohors Italics. The special importance of Cornelius in Acts lies in
These are (I) Coh(ors) 1 Itnlica civium Ronzanomnz v o b i z - the representation that his conversion by Peter brought
fnriorzint ; ( 2 ) coh(ors) mil<iariati.e., having 1000instead of 2. Narrative the originzl Christian community of
as usual 500 men) ltaZic(a) volunt(ariorum) p z m cst fit Syria;
(3) mlr. 11. Italica; (4) the epitaph of a subordinate officer irreconcilable Jerusalem, in spite of violent recalci-
found at Carnuntum in Pannonia and first published in the with council of tfance a t first (llaf: ), to the convic-
ArchreoL-ejigr. Milthefl7~n,renaas Oesteweiclr- U n z a m (1895, tion that the Gentiles also, without
p. z18)-0jtio coh(ortis) II Itn/ic(z) c(ivium) R(omanorum Jerusalem. circunicision and without coming under
centuria) F(aus)tini e x wemZ(1ariis) sagit(tariis) exer(citns)
Syriaci. any obligation to observe the law of Moses, were to be
Thus the um?ppa 'ITuXLK.;)of ActslOr really consisted received into the Christian Church if they had faith in
of Italians, probably of Italian volunteers. Christ (1117f.). The historical truth of this representa-
Now, Schiirer-1 has pointed out that according to tion has to be considered,in connection with what we are
Josephus (Ant. xx. 87, 176) the garrison of Ccesarea told elsewhere concerning the Council of Jerusalem (see
about 60 A.D. consisted mostly of Czesareans and C OUNCIL , ii. 4 ; ACTS, 8 4). That council could never
Sebasteni (Sebaste having, from 27 B.C., been the have been necessary, and the Judaising Christians in it
name of Saniaria). As early, however, as 41-44 A.D. could never have stood out for the circumcision of the
(at latest), when Czesarea was not under a Roman Gentiles or their obligation to obscrve the whole Mosaic
procurator but under a grandson of Herod the Great, law (Acts151 5 ) , if they had already come to see and
King Herod Agrippa I. (whose death is recorded in acknowledge in the case of Cornelius that such demands
Acts1220-23, and during whose reign, or shortly before wcre contrary to the divine will. In his controversy
it, the story of Cornelius will have to be placed), the with Peter at Antioch also (Gal. 211-ZI), Paul could
garrison a t Caesarea must, according to Schiirer, have have used no mol-e effective weapon than a simple
been siniilarly composed. For in 44 A . D ., the emperor reference to this event ; but he betrays no knowledge of
Claudius desired to transfer the garrison-which, at that it. No one, it is to be presumed, will attempt to save
time, and according to Josephus (B/ iii. 42, 66) also the credibility of the narrative by the expcdient of
twenty-three years later, in 67 A. D., consisted of an nZn transferring it to some date subseqocnt to the Coiincil
(=Gb--i.e., cavalry detachment of 500 men) of the of Jerusalem. As at that council (we are told) Peter
Czzsareans and Sebasteni and five cohorts- to the himself expressly agreed that the Gentiles should have
province of Pontus, because, after the death of his unimpeded entrance into the Christian Church, that
friend King Agrippa I., they had publicly insulted the circumcision and observance of the law should not be
statues of his daughters ; but there was no change of demanded of them, he did not, at a later date, require
garrison until the time of Vespasian (Jos. Ant. xix. 9 ~f., to be instructed on the matter by a divine .revelation.
§§ 356-366). This led Schiirer to conjecture that a Had the Cornelius incident becn latcr than the Council
cohort of Italians may have come to Czzsarea (there the novelty would have lain simply in Peter's preaching
was in Syria, as shown above, one such at least) under the gospel and administering baptism to Cornelius and
Vespasian, and that the author of Acts, or of the source his household in puop'in persona. This, however, is
from which he drew, may have transferred the circum- precisely what would have been contrary to the principle
stances of his own time to the time of Peter. adopted at the Council as laid down in Gal. 29, which
Ranisay, on the other side adduces the iourth o i the inscrip- settled that he should confine his missionary activity to
tions given above. This ihscription, however, does not say born Jews. (On the importance of this principle, see
more than that in 69 A.D. there was a cohors Itnlica in Syria; C OUNCIL, I 9. )
and, although there may have heen such a cohort there as early
as about 40-45 A.D., it is not said that there was one in Czesarea. As the story of Cornelius must thus be retained, if
I t is especially improbable that that city was so garrisoned in anywhere, in i t s present .place, . before the Council of
the reign of Agrippa I. (41.44 A.D.), for he was a relatively 3. Credibility Jerusalem, its credibi1:ty can be allowed
independent sovereign, not likely to have had Italians in his of narrative only on condition that it is acknow-
service; hut even for the period preceding 41 A.D. Schiirer
argues for a prohability that the garrison of Caesarea was the a9 an incident. ledged not to possess the important
same as it was afterwards and that it was simply taken over by
cessio;. For the rest, Ramsay can only
-~
bearing on questions of principle which
ty that Cornelius may have been teniporarily is claimed for it in Acts. 111-18.
a t Czsarea on some 'detached service. ( a ) T o meet this requirement, it is usually thought
Oscar Holtzmann (NTZiche Zeitpesch. § 11, 2, p. sufficient to say that the occurrence was an ' exceptional
108) thinks that perhaps the enrolment a t some time or case ' (so, for example, Ranisay also, St. Paud4), chap.
other of a considerable number of Italian volunteers 3, p. 44). This may be true in the sense that Peter con-
may have sufficed to secure for such a cohort in verted and baptized no more Gentiles ; but, unless a c t h e
perpetuity the honorary epithet of ' Italics.' All this, same time it is denied that in the case of Cornelius Peter's
however, is mere conjccture. action proceeded on a divine revelation and command, the
Mommsen (Sitzunys6er. d. Ahad. zu BerZiz, 1895, reference to the exceptional character of the case has no
pp. 501-3) seeks to deprive of its force the statement of force. The conditions of missionary activity which God
Josephus on which Schiirer relies. Starting from the had revealed to Peter in the case of Cornelius niust
view that the troops of Agrippa must certainly have been surely, when Paul also began to apply them, have been
drawn from the whole of his kingdom,-that is, from acknowledged by the original Church; and thus the
all Palestine-he maintains that Czesarea and Sebaste controversy resulting in the Council of Jcrusalem could
are singled out for special mention by Josephus merely never have arisen. On this ground alone, then, to
as being the two chief towns in Agrippa's dominions. begin with, Peter's vision at Joppa is unhistorical ; and
H e lays emphasis on the fact that in DJiii. 42, Q 66 aversion from miracles has nothing lo do with its
rejection. The whole account seems to be influenced
1 Z W T ,7875, pp. 413.425; GJVl382-6 (ET i. 248-54; where, by reminiscences of the story of the summoning of
on p. 54, according to Ex$. 1896, ii. 470n. for 'in reference to a Balaam by Balalr (Nu. 225-39) ; see I<renlcel, Yosephus
hater period' should be read 'in reference to a precediiy
period'). In Ex#. 1896, 2469-472, SchLirer replies to liamsay U. LILCaS, 193-9 r94].
i6. rg+201 ; Ramsay replies, 7897, 169-72. (6) I t is further urged (so again Ramsay, St. PauA4J,
% 909 910
 CORNELIUS CORNELIUS
ch. 3 Q I and 16 Q 3 , pp. 42J and 375, and Exp., 1896, ch. 11 the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his
22mf:) that Cornelius according to Acts102 22 35 was a household at the very beginning of Peter’s discourse
semi-proselyte-Le.,gave a general adhesion to Judaism, (v. rg)-adrnits of explanation: 1034-43 may have
without being circumcised or yielding definite obedience been supposed to represent only a comparatively small
to the details of the Mosaic Law; l-but neither does this part of what Peter meant to say. Were it necessary
contention avail. The fact is, as stated in Acts1028 113, to make a choice between ch. 10 and ch. 11, it would
that Cornelius and his house, according to Jewish and be the worst possible course to try to see in the latter
Jewish-Christian ideas, were unclean ; and if, notwith- the source from which the fuller narrative of ch. 10 was
standing this, God had commanded his admission within originally derived by amplification (so Wendt, ZTK,
the pale of the Christian Church, the command had 1891, pp. 230-254, esp. 250-4). That principle-deter-
essentially no less significance than it would have had if mining character which, as we have seen, can in no
he had previously been quite unattached to Judaism. case have attached to the assumed event, is imparted
Ramsay (43) says, it is true, that Peter ‘ laid it down as precisely by the justification which in ch. 11 the event
a condition of reception into the Church that the non- receives before the church of Jerusalem ; and against
Jew must approach by way of the synagogue (1035) this it is of no avail that Wendt chooses to attribute
and become ‘‘ one that fears God.” ’ But Peter does some of the strongest passages, such as 11I and 1118,
not say this until after he has been taught by God in a to the latest redactor of Acts.
vision. Without this instruction it would have been More important than any of the indications hitherto
incumbent on him to exact, as conditions precedent, dealt with is the clue supplied in 1044.47 1115, 17. The
acceptance of circumcision and submission to the entire 1 speaking with tongues’ of Cornelius and his house-
law (1014). As soon as the divine command is re- hold is here placed on a level with that of the apostles
cognised as a historical fact the dispute at the Council of at the first Pentecost after the resurrection, but is not
Terusalem becomes, as already stated, an impossibility. yet (as it is in the other passage) described as a speaking
(6) On one assumption alone, then, will it be possible in the languages of foreign nations : it is undoubtedly
to recognise a kernel of historical truth in the story of meant, as in I Cor. 12 14, to be taken simply as a
Cornelius : the assumption, namely, that he was a full speaking in ecstatic tones (see GIFTS). Certainly this
proselyte,-circumcised, that is tc say, and pledged to representation of the matter does not seem as if it had
observance of the entire Law. Such a supposition, been due to the latest redactor of the book as a whole.
however, is in direct contradiction of the text (10 28 113). In favour of the credibility of the narrative, however,
It would be strange indeed if, in order to make the nothing is gained by all this search for a written source.
narrative credible, one had first to change it in so I t is a great error, widely diffused, to suppose that one
important a point. I t would be necessary to depart may ipsn facto take as historical everything that can
still further from the text if it were desired to put faith be shown to have stood in one of the written sources
in what is said in the pseudo-Clenientinc Homilies of the N T authors. As far as the source was in
(2O,13), according to which Peter did not convert Cor- substance identical with what we now have in the
nelius at Caesarea to Christianity at all, but merely canonical Acts, it is equally exposed to the criticisms
freed him froin a demon’s possession. I t is not in- already offered. There is one assumption which would
trinsically impossible that here we have a fragment of escape the force of that criticism-the assumption,
good tradition preserved from some ancient source (see namely, that Cornelius was a full proselyte (Q 3 c ) ;-
SIMON M A G U S ) ; but, on account of its combination but it cannot possibly by any analysis of sources be
with manifest fancies (see below, Q 6 ) , to trust it would made out to have been the original tradition.
be unsafe. All the more remarkable is the clearness with which
All the more urgent becomes the question whether the tendency of the narrative\may be seen. The
the narrative in Acts is derived from a written source. initiative in missions- to the Gentiles,
4. Sources. Of the scholars enumerated under Acts 5. which historically belongs to Paul, is
( Q 11)the majority assume that it is, and here set down to the credit of Peter (see ACTS, Q 3 f: ).
point out verses in ch. 1 0 , the proper connections of According to the representation given in Acts, it was
which (they say) have been obliterated by the final preceded by the conversion of the Samaritans (85-25),
redactor of the book.2 They further emphasise the who, however, were akin to the Jews, and consequently
point that in the narrative by Peter (115-17) certain not Gentiles (Schiirer, G J Y 2 5 - 7 , E T 3 5 - 7 ) . I t had been
details are not given precisely as in ch. 10. Still, even preceded also by the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch
the most serious of these differences-namely, that in ( 8 26-39) ; but lie had not thereby been made a member
of any Christian church. T h e really difficult problem
1 That this is the meaning of the phrase uc@5pwos [or
$opoljpwosI rbv B&v is shpwn in Schiirer G/V, ET 4 3 1 1 8 ; alsq was this : In what manner ought Jewish Christians to
S B A W 1897 Heft 13 Die Juden im bosporanischen Reich, live together in one and the same church with Gentile
es ecialiy ig;f=zrSf: ’of the volume: see also P.ROSELYTE. Christians, who did not hold by the Mosaic Law? This
1036f:, however, ought not to be reckoned among these: question is brought by Peter, in the case of Cornelius,
no redactor would have introduced such violent abnormalities
into his text. The words from cip&ip~vos(‘beginning’) down to on the basis of a divine revelation, exactly to the
rahchaiar (‘ Galilee’), or, it may be, to ’Iodvxqs (end of v. 37) solution which in reality it was left to Paul to achieve
are absolutely foreign to the Construction, and certainly ough; after hard battle at a much later date (see C OUNCIL ,
to come between i;s (‘who’) and S~rjhBsv(EV ‘went about’)
in v. 38, whether it be that they originally belonged to this $5 4, 7). With a’certain reserve, which bears witness
place, or that they originally stood on the margin as a to right feeling for essential historical truth in spite of
reminiscence by a very early reader from Lk.23 5 or Acts 1 22. all unhistoricity in the narrative, the author attributes
In 1036 the reading of WH (‘[He] sent the word unto ... no more conversions of Gentiles to Peter ; and even the
Lord of all. Y e know the word which’: cp K V w . ) 4 un-
questionably a copyist’s attempt to remove the difficulties of conversion of Cornelius himself is in some measure toned
the construction; hut their marginal reading ( T ~ V hiyov 6v down by the previous Jewish sympathies with which he
d&ursrheu, etc.; ‘The word which’ as in EV) it is as difficult is credited. There is thus a further step left. I t is
to make dependent on the oxlare (ye know) of v. 37 as it is to not till later, in Antioch, that the gospel is preached
construe in apposition to the whole sentence in v. 35. If we
refuse to suppose that hefore v. 36 some such words as ‘you to Gentiles who had not previously stood in any close
also hath he thought worthy to hear’ have fallen out before connection with Judaism, and the new step is taken
~ b vhdyov bv hrQumChev,etc. (the word which [he] sent), it will (as in the case of the Samaritans) in the first instance
be necessary to take rbv h6yov 8v (‘the word which’) down to
S d ’IvuoJ X p ~ u ~ o(‘by i ) Jesus Christ ’), as a marginal explanation by subordinate persons, and not sanctioned by the
of r b y e v 6 p e ~ o v ‘<pa KafS i;hys r<s IouSalar (‘the word which authorities at Jerusalem till after the event ( 1 119-24).
was throughout afl Judrea’), where ‘+a(RV ‘saying’) is wrongly None the less are mission to the Gentiles and the
understood in the sense of ‘worcf’ instead of the Hebraising abolition of the distinction between Jewish Christians
sense of ‘event, occurrence’ as in Lk. 215: and 03~6sZ a ~ v
navrov &pias (‘he is lord of all’) will be R further addition. and Gentile Christians so essentially vindicated in the
911 912
 CORNER COSAM
case of Cornelius that Peter has necessarily to be con- h y a t i d e s ) puts a severe strain on the imagination.
sidered their real initiator as far as Acts is concerned. The student may consult the three critics named.
T h e narrative, accordingly, is incomplete contrast to Gal. !ech. 9 15 ( ’ corners of the altar ’ ) by no means justifies
211-21. In Galatians the historical Peter, on account lither of the above interpretations of n”:. The parallel
of Jewish Christian prejudice not yet fully-overcome, )assage, Ps. 1283, indicates the sort of figure required ;
withdraws from table-fellowship which he had begnn lie text needs emendation. See further Che. Ps.12)
with Gentile Christians, and tkereby exposes himself In Is. 2816 the stone described as a pinnnh-stone
to the sharp censure of Paul (see C OUNCIL , 5 3 ) ; in ymbolises, not the theocracy or the Davidic dynasty,
Acts he has completely overcome those prejudices long lor yet the (Jewish) Messiah, but the revealed relation or
before Paul begins his Christian activity. I t is not r‘ahwb to Israel, which Yahwk was establishing ever
necessary on this account to suppose that the author nore and more by the words of his prophets and the
of Acts freely invented the whole story, including even ,olemn acts of his regal sway. That it should be
the name of Cornelius ; but, considering how niarkcdly zpplied to their divine Messiah by Christians is intelli-
he brings it into the service of his theory, we have little $le ; and, since they read the Psalter as a book with a
prospect of ultimately being able to retain more than iving power of self-adaptation to their own changing
a very small kernel as historical. ieeds, it was natur$ that Christian disciples should find
According to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (20 13 ; .he words of Ps. l T Q z z , which originally referred to the
see above, § 3 c) and Recognitions (1055) Cornelius took lewish people, verified in their Master. In Eph. 220
6. Later the side of Peter as against Paul. When here is no absolute need to interpret d q m y w r d o u other-
haditions. Simon the Sorcerer (i.e . , Paul ; see S IMON ,vise than 1 3 ;~ but in I Pet. 2 6 we seein to require
M AGUS ) had stirred up all Antioch against .he traditional sense ‘ corner-stone ’ (see v. 7).
Peter, Cornelius comes upon a mission from the Em-
peror and arrives at an understanding with the friends CORNET. For Dan. 3 5 3 (p?)and I Ch. 1528, etc.
of Peter, at their request, to set abroad the ruinour :l$i)see MUSIC, I 5a. For 2 S. (is1(PPpg), see Music,
that his imperial commission has reference to the arrest i 3 (3).
of Simon. Thereupon Simon makes his escape to CORONATION. A4NOINTIXG[q. w . , 0 31 was by itself
Judzea. Thus Cornelius here plays the part which in tn efficient mode of investiture with royal functions ( I S.
Acts 2133 2323-33 is assigned to Claudius Lysias. 10 I I K. 1 3 4 ) . l It is only in the case of Joash that
According to the ‘6rr6pvqpa on the Holy Apostles Peter and :oronation is mentioned as accompanying-indeed, it is
Paul,’ attributed to Symeon Metaphrantes, Cornelius I S conse- mentioned as preceding-the anointing (2 K. 1 1 12).
crated by Peter bishop of Ilium; according to the Greek Perhaps z S. 1 IO refers to an older custom of trans-
Menrea (13th Sept.), he is sent by Peter to Skepsis on the
Hellespont (Lipsius, Apokryplz. Ap.-Gesch. ii. 147 and g j ) . [erring to the successor the personal adornments of the
According to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (3 63->2)and Re- dead king; see C ROWN . Perhaps too the anointing
cognitions (3 6 5 3 ) , Zacchaeus was consecrated first bishop of occurred near or on a particular nza@nh or upright
Czsarea by Peter ; in &4j. Corzst. vii. 46 I Zacchaeus is succeeded
by Cornelius. P. w. s. stone, as in the case of Abimelech, for we can hardly
douht that EV’srendering the ‘ pillar that was in Shechem’
CORNER (Z@5), Lev.19927 215: ( I ) of a field: cp (Judg. 96) is correct, though the final letter of nxio3 has
C LEAN , 3 6 ; (2)of the beard : see C UTTINGS OF THE been lost or removed (see Moore, adZoc.). Joash too is
FLESH, § 5 , M OURNING C USTOMS ; ( 3 ) of a garment said to have stood ‘by the pillar as the manner was ‘ ( 2K.
(qn,~ p & c n c A o ~ Nu. ) , 1538 RV”g. : see FRINGES. 1114) ; but here the word for ‘ pillar’ is different (imy),
CORNER, ASCENT OF THE (?I?@;! Neh. nbg), and we should perhaps follow RVmg. and Klostermann
3 31 RV. See J ERUSALEM . in rendering ‘ platform ’ (cp 2 I<. 233 RVmg.).2
After the anointing the people greeted the new king
CORNER GATE (P’?g)i! 7g@), Zech.1410. See with a flourish of trumpets ( I K. 13439 2 I<. 9 13 i ~ w ypn, x
J ERUSALEM . 2 I<. 1114 niiYsn2). I n the case of Jehu and Absaloiii
CORNER-STONE (in Job Z$$ py; hleoc ( z S. 1510) the trumpet sounds were the signal of
accession, though they may have been simply an element
rwNlAlOC; in IF. n?e, A. h K P O r W N l A l O C , and SO in
in the popular expressions of joy ( I S. 11 15 I K. 140).
N T ; in Ps. n9!l K E K ~ ~ ~ W T T I C M E N; AAq.I BTTI-
which included hand-clapping ( 1yzc, ~ 2x3 2 K. 1112 Ps.
r W N l b , Sym. r C d N l A l ? ) , (a) JOb386; (6) Is.2816 T .

I Pet. 2 6 Eph. 220 (without hleoc) ; (c) Ps. 14412.

47 I [z]) and the exclamation ‘ Live the king ’ (~$91 v; ;
In (a) the phrase ‘pinnah-stone,’ EV’s ‘ corner-stone,’ is I S. 1024 z S. 16 16 I K. 1 3 4 39 2 I<. 1112). Sometimes
parallel to p’;??, ‘its foundations’ (or bases), just as in Jer. there was a procession with music ; the new king rode
5126 ‘a Stone for apinnah’(n3Di )X) is parallel to ‘ a stone on the royal mule ( I K. 1 3 3 38) and finally took his
forfoundations’ (nil& ]aF).T’In (h) we find the same con- seat on the throne.
nection between a?:, p i r y h , and the foundation - stone. I t is possible that ‘ to-day’ in Ps. 27 refers not to the birth
but to the coronation of the king. See Baethg., Che. ad loc. The
Clearly, therefore, the traditional rendering ‘corner-stone for latter illustrates from the sculptures representing the coronation
1 2 is
~ unsuitable. Indeed, the word ; I
:? elsewhere only in of the Egyptian queen Hat-shepsut,3 Naville, Tm#e ofDairaZ-
some cases means corner’ (nee Ex.27 2 4 Ezek. 43 20 45 19 Bnhnn’ 111 1899, pp. 1-9). See Weinel’s essay on nwp in
Johl 19 Prov. 7 8). Besides this, the architectural term Ififii Z A 2 - l ~181:)gz [‘98] and Diehl, BrhZ. vorz Ps.xlvii., Giessen,
a
?: in Ps. 118 22 (A. brpoywvra?~~ in I Pet. 2 6 cp Eph. 2 20; but 1894. I. A.
not in Mt.2142 and parallel passages Acts411 pet. 27) evi- CORRUPTION, MOUNT OF (n*n@png), K.
dently means, not ‘corner-stone,’ but “topstone of the battle- 2313, RVmg. ‘mount of destruction.’ See D ESTRUC -
ment,’ and ‘battlement’is RV’s rendering of ”! in z Ch.2615 T I O N , MOUNT OF.
Zeph. 116 36. COS ( KWC [AKV]), I Macc. 15 23. See COOS.
In spite of tradition, therefore, it would seem that
COSAM ( K W C ~ M[Ti. WII]),fifth from Zerubbabel
?a; 121 means, not a corner-stone, but a principal stone in the genealogy of Joseph (Lk. 3 28). See G ENEA -
(cp n’??, Ass. p d n u , ‘front’), one selected for its LOGIES, ii., 3 3.
solidity and beauty to fill an important place in a build- 1 According to Rabbinic views, not all kings were anointed ;
ing, whether in the foundation or in the battlement. but the term ;I)?* n’wa seems the generic designation of a king.
Hence the metaphorical sense of n;?, ‘ principal men,‘ On the association of crowning with anointing see Is. 61 3 (cp
S B O T n d Zoc.).
Is. 1913 (so point), I S. 1438 Judg. 20 2. (c) The third 2 L. Oliphant ( H a ; f , 147) conjectures that the (artificial)
E V passage (Ps.14412) with the word ‘corner’ is ex- footprints in the rocks in different parts of Pdestine (#.E., at
tremely obscure in MT. That Jewish maidens could Hehron and at the Neby Shaib near Hattin) indicate very
be likened either to ‘corner-stones’ (EV, Del.) or to ancient coronation-stones.
3 Hat-Sepsnt, formerly wrongly written Hatasu (see EGYPT,
‘ corner-pillars ’ (Baethg., We. in SBOT, comparing the B 53).
9’3 914
 COSTUS COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM
COSTUS (?ti! ; iplc [BAFL] ; casia), ,EX. 30 24 any‘: prop. ‘heap of stones’; BBRc.aR i y e p 6 v ~ ra&Ov) is
RVmS [in Ezek. 2719 Vg. stacte, EV CAssrA @ KAI irely corrupt., Che., Z A TbV 19 1-6 [‘gg] reads myon[nl, ‘the
TPOXIAC ‘ and drugs? ’1. See C A SS I A , I NCENSE , § 6.
lameless ones. See also Hupf., Baethg.
2. np!+, mi3maCath,z S. 23 23 4.04 [BAI, +uhak< tLl)=
COTTAGE. I. For Is. 18(32D)and 2420 (7ph)see HUT. Ch. 1125 (warp& [BRAL] EVmg. EV guard ’), the hody-
2. In Zeph.26 (EV ‘cottages’ RVma. ‘caves’) the &r. h q . nard of David, at the head of wkcb was BENAIAH( I ) ; cp
nip is probably a dittograph of ili? ‘ dwellings’(Bohme, Z A TW S. 22 14 (RV ‘ council,’ AV ‘ Lidding,’ a p , p v ... ~apayylhh-
7212 : Rothstein in Kau. FfS; and Schwally, Z A T W .QTOS [DALl)and see Dr. ad Zoc.1
3. TiD, sad (doubtless to be connected with Syr. sewcidci ‘talk,’
10 186 [‘go]),under the influence of O ‘ n l p in D. 5 ; or, transposing stawwad ‘ to speak’ ; cp Hommel, ZDMG 46 529, who similarly
the two words we may adopt with We. the reading of B E u m L xplains the Sab. 71Dn as ‘speaker, or place of oracle ’) is used,
ICpdrq v o p j , d t h the meaning ‘Philistia shall become dwellings tot only of a council or meeting (cp Jer. 6 I T 15 17 Ezek. 139,
for,’ etc. tc. ; see ASSEMBLY [+I), but also of its deliheratiqns and their
COTTON1 o r Fine Cloth (RVrng.), or G REEN esult (‘secret,’ ‘counsel’; Am.37 Pr.1113 Ps.833[41, etc.;
p esp. Ps. 55 14 [IS]).
(hangings), E V (DgT2, kanrpas; K A P ~ A C I N A 4. uuppodh~ovin Acts 25 12 is the jnry or hoard of assessors
[BS”AL@] : Esth. 16t). T h e Heb. word, which vho aided the procurators and governors of a province ; cp Jos.
appears also in Arab., Arm., Gr., and Lat., is derived Sjii. 1 G I .
5. uuvW LO” the supreme council, Mt. 5 22 Jn. 11 47 Acts 5 21
from Pers. Kirpds and ultimately frorii Sans. Kar$risa, ‘the :tc. wuv&a’inpl. (Mt. 10 r7=Mk. 139) are the smaller local
cotton plant.’ As a derived word it means, in the rihuuals; cp KPLULS (EV ‘judgement’) Mt.5213, and see
various languages, primarily ‘ muslin,’ the fine cotton ;OVERNMENT, $31 end ; cp SYNEDRIUM.
cloth which came from India, and also such stuffs as are COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM. This council, if not
named ‘calico.’ The nature and home of the cotton he most important occurrence of the apostolic age, is
plant were known to the Greeks as early as Herodotus he one that bears the most official character. The
( 3 106) ; but it was the expedition of Alexander that first nore contradictory the accounts of it which we seem to
mide them familiar with the use of cotton fabrics. )assess in Gal. 2 and Actsl5, the more necessary is it
T h e earliest known occurrence of i c d p ~ a u o=car6asus r .o adopt a careful method for its investigation. T h e
in Greek or Latin is in a line of Cscilius (219- irst question that arises is whether both accounts really
166? R. C. )-‘ carbasina, molochina, anipelina ’-which .elate to the same occurrence. I n order to answer this,
appears to be a transliteration of a line in a Greek t is needful to determine the times of Paul’s journeys
play. Strabo (151,$ 71) and the author of the Pem$l. o Jerusalem after his conversion.
Mavis Enryth?: (chap. 11), Lucan ( 3 q g ) , and Quintus In Gal. 118 21 he protests, very solemnly ( l z o ) , that he
Curtius (89, § 21)used the word in special connection k i t e d Jerusalem for the first time three years after his
with India ; but other references in classical writers 1. Paul’s Journeys conversion, and for the second
show that the word obtained a wider sense, particularly time fourteen years after his first
in the poets. Thus it is used of fine Spanish 1 nen or to Jerusalem in visit (or, less probably, after his
cambric (Pliny19 I , § z), of the awnings of theatres3 Gal. and Acts. conversion). Unless we deny the
(Lucr. 6 IO^), often of sails ( A n .3 357 4 417, etc. ) and of :eminmess of the epistle to the Galatians we cannot
robes of fine material (i6. 8 34 11776, etc. : see these m t give unqualified acceptance to this statement.
and other passages discussed in Yates, Textrinum Paul was endeavouring to show how little he was dependent
Antiquorum, 13388 ). W e cannot, therefore, be certain n his apostleship upon the original apostles. He was, therefore,
,onnd in the interests of truth to mention all the occasions on
as to the material called karpas in the particular case of which he had come into contact with them. Moreover, to pass
Esth. 1 6 , since according to the later usage any light >ver any such occasion would have been highly imprudent ; for
material might be so called; but in view of the un- lis opponents naturally were aware of all of them and would
lave promptly exposed the falsehood to the Galariais.
doubted meaning of the original word in Sans., the
presumption is in favour of cotton-muslin. Karpas Now, the journey mentioned in Acts926 must un-
certainly denotes a material, not a colour (the latter iesitatingly be identified with that in Gal. 118, even
is a Jewish idea, found in Vg.). .hough the narrative of Acts contains not the smallest
Asiatic cotton in ancient times (like most modern cotton) was lint that it was not made until three years after Paul’s
derived from the cotton p r a d Gossypiunz /ierJaremn L.- :onversion, and had been preceded by a sojourn in
.perennial in the tropics, hut dewhere annual-which Lad its 4rabia and a second sojourn in Damascus.
first home in India, but by the time of Alexander had spread to a. It would seem, then, that the second journey re-
Bactriana (De Candolle, Origiza, 3238). The cotton shrz66
(Gossyjiunz arJoreum L.) on the other hand, which, though :orded in Galatians (21) must coincide with the one
little known to the andents’ is described in one pl,ace by Pliny,4 in Acts1130, which, according to Actsl225, did extend
had its first home, accordink tomodern investigatlon, in ‘Upper to Jerusalem.
Guinea, Abyssinia, Sennlr, and Higher Egypt’ (2.325 $).
This, brought down from the Soudsn was probably the earliest The famine during the reign ofClauditis (by which the journey
cotton cultivated in Lower Egypt. ’Prosper Alpinus saw it in was occasioned) occurred in Palestine 2 before 48, at the earliest in
Egypt in the sixteenth century (i6., 327). It was afterwards a+e., as the narrative of Acts appears to imply(l223) at the
displaced by the Indian G. her6aceum. time of the death of Herod Agrippa I.-and, if the conv~rsion of
Paul occurred shortly after the death of Jesus, and this last
For Gen. 41 42 Ex. 25 4, R V w . @W, LZ ; EV F INE LINEN, not much more than a year after the appearance of the Baptist
AVw. SILK [cp Pr. 3122, AV]), see LINEN (7); for Is. 19gt in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (;.e., 28-29 A . D . ; Lk. 3 I), there
RVm. (>iin,/tarui),see LINEN (3). N. ai.-w. T. T. -D. remains the interval of seventeen (or, at least, fourteen). years
demanded by Gal. 118-2 I between Paul’s conversion and the
COUCH (”p), Amos. 3 12. See BED, 0 2. famine, cp CHRONOLOGY, $ 74 8 Thus the account of the
journey in Acts requires correction only in one point : the alms
COULTER (nK
; C K ~ Y O C [BAL]), I S . 1320 3, were sent not before but after the beginning of the famine.
elsewhere rendered ‘ plowshare’ ( APOTPON [BAQ]), Still, since it mentions no object for the journey
Is. 2 4 Joel 310 IO] Mic. 43. See A GRICULTURE , p 3. besides the sending of alms, the narrative of Acts niay
be charged with having passed over in complete silence
COUNCIL. the conference mentioned in Gal. 21-10.
I. D?”f, n&nzrit/idm, Ps. 68 27 [&I (EVmg. their com- ‘Thisis no trifling matter. It is remarkable that a conference
upon the same subject should follow in Actsl5, for a repetition
1 According to I<lostermann’s conjectural emendation of of the discussion within the next few years is not conceivable;
IS. 2 19 ( n i n ~or for ln?), the word ‘cotton’ is itself a observe, too, that no reference is made in Acts15 to an earlier
Hebrew word, though it has come to us through the ArabjC decision. The journey mentioned in Acts 113-at all events,
p@n, cp TUNIC), and apparently it meant ‘linen’ not ‘cotton ; as far as Paul is concerned-may, on other grounds, be con-
l Kahs;ral, hiwsav 82 r o h o uvpaivsc. x&v
xeeop&v? [ m n ~ pBv sidered open to the suspicion of having been detached from
d r b hivov &is Kaho+v, Jos. Ant. iii. 72. Cp LI,NEN. the circumstances recorded in Acts 20 3 2 1 77 (cp I Cor. 16 4
The adjectival form kcirjcisa means ‘cotton stuff.
3 These may possibly have been of calico. 1 The word is used in a concrete sense (‘obedient ones’)
4 xix. 1z ; ‘superior pars &gypti in Arabiam vergens gignit in Is. 11‘4 : cp MI 28, nynwn 1337 51, ‘all Daihon was obedient.’
frnticem quem aliqui gossypion vocant, plures xylon et ideo 2 That it extended over the whole world ( o L K o u ~ C ~ ) is an
lina inde facta xylina.’ Cp Oliver, FZ. Tm$. Africa, 1211. error of Acts.
915 916
 COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM
Rom. 15z5J) and of having been transferred, whether hy an error of method to make that book the basis for an
mistake or pu:posely, to a far too early position in the narrative 2. Gal.211-zI investigation of the present question. I t
(see S IMON MAGUS).
the primary might even seem well to begin by laying
b. In order to avoid recognising the contradiction __ aside Acts altogether and ascertaining
between Gal. 2 and Actsl5, a whole class of writers
I _ _ _ _

passage. the facts from Galatians alone. Thai

have assigned the Council of Jerusalem to the journey
method, however, would prevent certain questions from
recorded in Actsl822. They ignore the objection that
receiving adequate consideration, and no harm need be
on this view Paul in Galatians suppresses important
apprehended in treating both accounts, circumspectly,
facts so'far as to pass over two journeys to Jerusalem
together. It is, however, of unqualified importance to
without mention.
take Gal. 211-21 as the starting-point, because that
c. On the other hand, it is a mistake to suppose
passage alone throws any really clear light upon the
that Acts1822 does not imply a visit to Jerusalem
circumstances.
at all.
Although bvapa's in&U signify the journey up from the shore Peter was no uncompromising Judaiser. Before the
to the town of Cesarea, a man could not possibly be said to go dispute at Antioch recorded in Gal. 211-21 he had
down ( K ~ T & ) from a seaport town to an inland city like Antiocb. 3. The dispute eaten with Gentile Christians. If he
Thus we are hound to supply 'to Jerusaleni ' in v. 22 a-as is done abandoned this practice after the arrival
hy many interpreters even when denying the historical actuality at Antioch. of the followers of James, he could not,
of the journey. 00this last point, however we cannot in fair-
ness appeal to the negative evidence of Galatians. True it is accustomed as he was to adopt the attitude of a loader,
silent as to this journey; but its historical review never reaches have been influenced in the least by the fear of the repre-
the point at which mention of it would have come in. instead sentatives of circumcision-his alleged motive-had he
of continuing such a review, after describing the occuirence at
Antioch (2 11-21) the writer passes on to dogmatic and thence not himself recognised their position as the right one.
to practical questions, entirely losing sight of his original H e must in his inmost heart have still been continuing
purpose, which was to enumerate all his personal encounters to attach some importance to the Mosaic laws relating
with the original apostles. It may indeed be thought rernark-
able that Jerusalem, if intended, islnot rnekoned in Acts 182 2 . to food. Thus, he could not yet have attained to that
but this does not warrant the assumption now to be mentioned.' liberty in principle which belonged to Paul. This free-
d. Some critics have assumed that the Council of Jeru- dom Paul conceivably assumed to be present in Peter, as
salem was really held on this occasion (Acts 1822))and it was in himself; in which case he could attribute Peter's
not earlier-the author, having purposely transposed it antagonism only to hypocrisy. Critics have softened
to an earlier date, would express himself a s briefly and. the charge of hypocrisy into a charge of inconsistency,
obscurely as possible when he came-to the point a t such as is very frequently to be observed at times of
which it really occurred. transition in natures that have no very firm grasp of
This assumption has the advantage of bringing not only the principles.
first (Acts 13 f:) but also the second (16 1-18z z ) missionary Different from Peter's position was that of James.
journey within the first seventeen years after Paul's conversion Whether the ' certain ' ( T L V Q E ) were expressly sent by
thus providing material to fill up a period otherwise inexplicabl;
barren of events. It cannot, however, be urged in its favour him in order to recall Peter to the Law, or whether they
that Barnabas was personally known to the Galatians and the attempted to do this on their own account without his
Corinthians, and that he cannot have been separated from Paul commission ( ' from James,' dm3 ' I U K ~ J ~ OinUN, T Greek
(A:ts 1535-40) until after the second missionary journey during
which the communities in Galatia-;.e., Old Gala& (see does not go necessarily with ' came,' PXBeiv, and it may
GALATIAj a n d in Corinth were established ; for the passages equally well be taken with ' certain,' TrvQs), is immaterial.
Gal. 2 I g 13 I Cor. 9 6 are perfectly intelligible on the assumption Peter, the leader of the apostles, would certainly never
that Barnahas was known to the readers by report alone. have submitted to their commands if they had not had
T h e assumption of such a transposition is entirely behind them the authority of James. Now, the position
wanting in probability. of James as distinct from that of Peter can only have
The motive prompting the writer to transpose the Council of been that a man born a Jew was still under religious
Jerusalem to an earlier date is supposed to have been the desire obligation even as a Christian to observe the whole of
to bring the whole of Paul's missionary work from its beginning
within the scope of the decree of the apostles (Acts1528f:); the Mosaic Law. It cannot be supposed that he upheld
hut, had this really been the writer's intention, he would have this obligation only as convenient for the time, or even
introduced the council not before Acts16 but before Actsl3. merely as a beautiful custom; a motive of the most
What should have hindered him from so dding, if it be assumed
that he allowed himself to make free with his materials in this serious kind must have been actually held out to Peter,
way at all, is not apparent. if he was to submit to be driven to so absolute a renunci-
e. Others actually transpose the journey described in ation of brotherly intercourse with the Gentile Christians.
ActslSf: so as to make it come between the Council of As we are not informed of any answer from Peter to
Jerusalem and the separation of Barnabas from Paul, Paul's reprimand in Gal. 2 14-21, it is commonly (though
and therefore after Acts 15 34. very rashly) assumed that Peter admitted his error.
The+-,strongest reason is the fact that Paul mentionsonly Syria That Paul should record an exculpatory answer from
and Cilicia as his places of residence up to the Council of Jeru- Peter, however, was hardly to be expected, if only for the
salem (Gal. 121). This is hardly conclusive, for, although Paul reason that he must have thought it inconclusive. Still,
was pledged to enumerate all his meetings with the original
apostles, he was not bound to mention all the provinces in which even if Peter was thought to have yielded, the others who
he had resided without meeting them. In any case,'even if the shared his opinion did not yield. Otherwise, why is the
transposition of Acts 13 f: and Acts 15 1-34 be accepted, this scene at Antioch followed so quickly by the entrance of
gives no support to the assumption mentioned under d,since for the Judaising party into the churches founded by Paul
that assumption the writer of Acts has put the two sections
exactly in the wrens order : his supposed purpose, as well as in Galatia and Corinth, in complete contravention of
the motive of historical accuracy, would have led him to put the agreement in Gal. 29, and by the nearly successful
15 1-34 before 131-1428. attempt to induce the Galatians to adopt circumcision
f. I t is only by very bold treatment of the different (Gal. 5 z f : 61zJ 410) and to alienate the Corinthians
sources of Acts, by which the accounts of Paul's journeys from Paulaltogether(zCor. 114121643-551zf: 75-16)?
in Acts11 f: 1 5 38 become merely the result of an How could so important and persistent a movement-
erroneous combination of the writer's authorities, that it had already been encountered by Paul on two separate
Clement (ChronoZ. d. PauZin. BY. 1893) contrives to occasions, both in Galatia and in Corinth (Gal. l g 53
identify Gal. 2 with Acts 21, and Joh. Weiss (St.u. Kr., I Cor. 91 z Cor. 114)-have been carried on if it had
1893,pp. 480-540 ; 1895,pp. 252-269),onthecontrary, been opposed by the first apostles? Whence came the
with Acts 9 and (at the same time) with Acts 151-4 12. letters of recommendation which, according to z Cor. 3 I,
I t is, in fact, quite impossible to deny the identity of the these emissaries brought with them? As they formed
events related in Gal. 2 and in Acts 15. See C HRONO - the ground upon which the suspicion against Paul as
LOGY, $ 74. one who had never known Jesus ( I Cor. 9 I ) proceeded,
I n view, however, of the doubts cast upon Acts, it is what weightier credentials could they have contained
917 918
 COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM
than the statement that their bearers represented im- Were the conferences at Jerusalem public, or were
mediate disciples of Jesus? Would the sceptical
5. public or !hey private? No clear picture of them
Corinthians have been satisfied if the authentication had private dis- IS presented in Acts- perhaps because
come (let us say) from Ephesns, or from some other cussions? the account is compiled from various
town outside Palestine? sources.
How comes it, again, that even at the end of the A general assembly is set before us in Actsl54. We may
second century the pseudo-Clementine homilies (17 19) suppose the private assembly mentioned in 1 5 6 to have been
on another day (though the author says nothing as to this).
represent Peter as reproaching Simon-under whose name Suddenly however in 15 12 ‘all the multitude’ (?raw ~ i ~) { O O S )
Paul is there attacked (see SIMON MAGUS)--for having is present); and it rLappeariin 15 2 2 as responsible for the final
called him a KareyvwupCvos (Gal. 2 11 ; R V ‘ stood con- decision although in 15 23 this is attrihuted to the apostles and
demned ’ ) ? This shows how deep a wound was inflicted elders o;ily. Paul on the other hand, in the words KaT’ X a v ,
‘ privately ’ (Gal. Zh), passes from a public to a private conference
on Judaising Christianity by Paul‘s bold attack on Peter. as also probably in 2 6-for the discussion about the circumcisio;
For this reason, not a word is said in Acts about the of Titus (2 3-5) can most easily he supposed to have occurred in
scene : though it is quite inconceivable that the author a public assembly in which expression was also given to the
position which the‘ original apostles did not themselves finally
had no knowledge of it (see ACTS, § 6). Further, in adopt.
the place in Acts where this scene ought to have been So far there is no inconsistency between Galatians
mentioned there is recorded a similar dispute (Irapotuu- and Acts : both know of meetings of both kinds. T h e
pbs ; Acts 1539) between Paul and Barnabas (see BAR- crucial question, however, is, Was any final decision
NABAS), who, according to Gal. 2 1 3 , had gone over to arrived at in a public assembly?
the side of Peter. This dispute, however, does not turn If the decision was not in Paul’s favour, the claims of truth
on any question of principle. I t was merely a personal and of prudence alike must have led him to mention it. Much,
matter (Acts 15 36-40). T h e conjecture is a tempting one however of what is recorded in Acts-e.g. the speech of Peter
(15 7-rr)Lpoints very clearly to a decision {n Paul’s favour ; and
that this scene, if not an invention, is at least an inter- to pass this over in silence would have been folly.
polation, based on some written source, introduced for The picture presented in Acts, therefore, of a decisive
the purpose of effacing the memory of the more im- public assembly is entirely incorrect.
portant quarrels. The case is similar with what is said, or implied, as
W e are now in a position to investigate the Council to Paul’s attitude towards the original apostles. Accord-
of Terusalem itself. It was occasioned. on the Dart of ing to Acts, he holds quite a subordinate
4. Occasion of Judaistic Christianity, by the appear- 6.
attitude to position. He is allowed to state his
ance of the ‘ false brethren,’ who had the original case, but not to take part in the debate :
the council. made their- wav unauthorised into the
he has simply to submit to the decision.
Pauline and other churches, seeking to spy out and to apostles. According to Galatians, he debates as
suppress the freedom from the Mosaic Law that had with his equals. Indeed, he even refers to the original
there been attained (Gal. 2 4 ) . As this cannot have been apostles ironically as ‘of repute,’ ‘reputed to be
in Jerusalem, we may accept the statement of Acts (15 I , pillars,‘ ‘ t o be somewhat ’ (01 GOKODVTES [urDhoi &ai or
cp 1426) that it was to Antioch they came. Up to that d v a l TL]: 2 2 9 6 ) .
time no such intrusion had occurred, although the
Even if it be granted that the title ‘pillars’ (ot u ~ 0 A o r may
)
circumstances at Antioch cannot have long remained un- have been originally applied to the; by their adherents as a
known to the leaders at Jerusalem. I t is, therefore, not term of honour, the phrase ‘reputed’ ( 0 ; GoKoirvrer) cannot have
improbable that the new and sudden aggressive move- been so used. It is explicitly derogatory. The most that can
ment proceeded from recently converted Pharisees, even be done to soften the force of Paul’s irony is to conjecture that
he did not invent the expression until the incident at Antioch
though the statement to this effect in Acts155 is made had diminished his respect for them.
without reference to 151, and therefore appears to come Paul took Titus as his companion of set purpose.
from another source. Paul was prompted to go to
the council of the apostles by a revelation (Gal. 22).
Probably it came to him not as a bolt from the blue, but
,.
The uncircumcised assistant of his missionary labours
Buestion of would serve as an ‘ object-lesson ’ in
circumcision support of his fundamental principle.
only after the question to be decided by the council had -~ n , _ l _ _ _ An attempt was made to procure his
already stirred his soul to its depths. No less than his 01 IlbUB.
circumcisibn ; but, owing tothe opposi-
entire life-work-that of bringing the heathen to Christi- tion of Paul and Barnahas, it had to be abandoned.
anity without binding them by the Mosaic Law-was This is clearly the meaning of Gal. 2 3-5, and only the most
at stake. According to Acts (152), he and Barnabas violent feats of critical ingenuity can find any other explanation
were deputed to go to Jerusalem by the church at of the passage. One interpretation is that no attempt whatever
was made ( O ~ K4wayKddlq) to procure the circumcision of Titus.
Antioch in consequence of a fruitless discussion there. If so, why the opposition of Paul and Barnabas? Again, the
This motive for the journey is not, of course, absolutely attempt was made, yet not on grounds of principle, but in the
incompatible with the revelation mentioned by Paul : but interest of Paul. to save him from dailv defilement. How did
he avoid defilement from other Gentile-converts, with many of
it is in any case significant that Paul speaks only of the whom he associated daily? Perhaps, on account of the ‘false
revelation and Acts only of the-delegation. What- brethren,’ Paul did, after all, of his own accord, allow Titus to
ever the motive, what is it that Paul can have gone to be circumcised. Did he hope thereby to maintain the truth of
Jerusalem in search of? A tribunal to whose verdict he the gospel (Gal. 2 5 ) that no man need be circumcised? It has
even been proposed to follow the Greek text and the Latin
would voluntarily submit, whatever its tenor? By no version ofD with Irenzeus. Tertullian. and other Western fathers.
means. He had from .a higher authority his gospel of in omitting the negative’(oJ6Q)in Gal. 2 5 (whether to whom,’
freedom from the Law, and cared very little for the ols, also be omitted is of less importance), as if Paul could have
been so blind as to consider compliance at the most critical
original apostles (Gal. 11 6-9 15-17 2 5 3 ) . Or did he moment to be harmless, because only temporary ( r p b s &pav).
expect to find among them assistance Against the ‘ false I t is, on the contrary, prohable that after 2 5, to complete the
brethren’? W e think that he did not ; if he did, his sentence heginning with 2 4, we ought to supply not ‘ we did not
expectation was not justified by the event (see below, give place’ (OJK sl.$apv), as if, had the false brethren not
appeared, Paul would have been prepared to comply, but ‘(on
5s 7, 8). The purpose with which he went to Jerusalem account of the false hrethre:) it was all the more necessary to
was to discover the source from which the ‘false brethren’ offer a strenuous opposition. For at the outset they had de-
drew their support. He intended to take that support manded the circumcision of all Gentile converts even. As this
is expressly stated in Acts 15 I 5, it is the more certain that it is
away from under them, and, in order to do so, it was necessarily presupposed by the negative (oh&? of Gal. 2 3 ; no-
necessary that he should appear in person. ‘ Lest by thing worse occurred and not even Titus was compelled to be
any means I should be running or had run in vain’ circumcised. The wbrst thing that might have occurred would
(Gal. 2 2 : p4irws ELS K E V ~ U rpCxw +j EGpapou) is not an according to 2 a, have been that Paul should have run in vai;
(eis ~ w b Bpapsv)--i.e
u that a decree should have been passed
interrogative ; Paul would never have made the justifi- pfohibitj?g the admiss;& of Gentiles into Christianity without
cation of his work dependent on the judgment of the circumcision.
original apostles. Thus the demand for the circumcision of Titus appears
919 920
 COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM
as a compromise proposed for the first time when the extent of this Korvwvfu was can be learned only by
original proposal for the circumcision of all Gentile con- inference from the incidental facts.
9. Result of A
accord- division of missionary districts was
verts met with insuperable opposition from Paul and
Barnabas. The very circumstantiality of a conference ing to Gal. arranged. The reason why the
that passed through so many aspects is enough to show original apostles desired to carry
that these proposals could not possibly have been made on their work only among the Jews can be gathered
without at least the moral support of the original apostles. with absolute certainty from the situation of affairs
Had the latter been on Paul's side from the first (it has which had been brought about. The separation
been held that they are to be included in the subject of of the missionary districts had beem the result of
'gave place,' E ~ & ~ L E v ) , any attempt of the kind must the conference concerning the circumcision of the
have been instantly frustrated by their authority. Gentile converts. H a d the circumcision of these
It is therefore, useless to construe Gal. 2 4 as a reason suhse- converts been decided on, the original apostles need
quentl; introduced to explain 2 3, as though the circumcision of have felt as little cause to shrink from missions to the
Titus was refused by all parties alike, for the reason that it was Gentiles as a Jew had to shrink from the work of
demanded by the 'false brethren' alone. Considerations of
language also render inadmissible the other interpretation which winning proselytes. As the sequel at Antioch shows,
supplements so as to read 'and indeed on behalf of the'"fa1se what they found intolerable was the idea of that intimate
.
brethren" . . it was said that he ought to he compelled to he daily association with uncircumcised brethren which
circumcised (rjvuy.a'& without 0;~). The importance attached would have become unavoidable if missionary work had
to the memory of the case of Titiis is hest shown in Acts ; his
name is never mentioned at all, those who accompanied Paul been engaged in by them without circumcision of the
to the conference being 'Barnahas and certain others' (rims Gentiles. That was the reason why they abandoned
dhhoi Actsl5z; see ACTS 6 9). It is not going too far this part of the work to Paul and Barnabas. T o look
theretore. to say that the diginal apostles were at the ontsei
undecided in their attitude ; indeed, if we may judge by what for the reason of the separation of missionary districts
occurred soon afterwards at Antioch, this understates the case. in differences of aptitude for winning either Gentiles or
In harmony with this attitude was that which they natural Jews is to misapprehend the causes that were
adopted towards the subsequent mission to the Gentiles. really at work. Such consideration; as those mentioned
*. The apostles Paul's practice of admitting Gentiles may have had some concurrent influence; but how
and the mission as members of the Christian Church could the scene at Antioch have been possible if differ-
to the Gentiles. without circumcision cannot have ob- ence of aptitudes had been the sole or even the chief
tained the sanction of the other cause of the separation? Not a word is there said about
apostles at the outset. Assent was wrung from them Peter's missionary work : the only question is whether
with difficulty. Indeed, they did not give way on any he is prepared to eat at the same table with Gentile
ground of principle; otherwise their behaviour in the converts.
dispute at Antioch would have been impossible. They I t is equally certain that the separation of districts
gave way only because of the divine verdict as shown was intended in an ethnographical, not in a geographical,
...
by the event ( ~ S ~ V T E S Y Y ~ V T E Sr+v Xdprv T+V So8ciudv sense. Had the original apostles undertaken to labour
pot, Gal. 2 7 9 ; cp Acts1541z), to which they submitted for the conversion of the Gentiles as well as for that
perforce, though without recognising its underlying of the Jews in Palestine without insisting upon cir-
justification. Peter and James, therefore, cannot have cumcision, they would immediately there have found
expressed themselves, even approximately, as in Acts themselves face to face with all the difficulties which
157-21 they are said to have spoken. Had what Petet: had caused them to avoid the Gentile countries and
(157J) enjoins in regard to Cornelius really occurred, confine their efforts to the land of their fathers.
there would have been no Council of Jerusalem at a11 The separation had no purpose unless missions to
(A CTS , 9 4). natural Jews were to be assigned to them as their
Peter is further said (15 9) to have declared that God had re- province. Conversely, Paul and Barnabas were, of
moved the difference between Jews and Gentiles by purifying the course, to go only to men of Gentile birth : Jews seek-
hearts of the Gentiles-as though in the eyes ofa Jew the impurity ing salvation whom they met in Gentile countries they
of the Gentiles were impurity of the heart alone. He is, moreover,
represented as sayiog(l5 1I)that his hope ofsalvation was through were bound to turn aw'ay, referring them for guidance
the grace of God alone, whereas at Antioch he maintained that to itinerant Jewish-Christian missionaries. This
the ohservance of the Law was necessary to salvation. Finally might have led to the further consequence that in one
(15 IO), he calls the Law a yoke intolerahle even to the Jews ; yet and the same town there would have arisen two
at Antioch he again submitted himself to it. H e calls it a
tempting of God to put the yoke on the Gentiles also; yet at Christian communities, one of Jews and one of Gentiles.
Antioch he broke with the Gentiles because they did not take Association at meals, as well as at the Lord's Supper,
it on themselves, thus putting moral pressure upon them to would have been impossible between them. This
Judaise' (iovSuZ'<ew: Gal. 2 14). In short the speech of Peter
is so eminently Pauline that Weizsacker 'found it possible to intolerable state of affairs, however, was exactly what
believe that the author of Acts took the speech of Paul against the Pauline churches had long ago contrived to avert ;
Peter in Gal. 2 14-21 as the foundation for its composition. and this success was regarded by Paul as the highest
There is evidence on the other side that the author did to some triumph of the view of Christianity which he advocated.
extent correctly estimate the positions of the speakers-in the
fact that the speech of James is considerably more reserved. The It is very reasonable to ask how he could have had any
reference to Cornelius in 15 14, however, is just as unhistorical as share in an arrangement by which, in the churches he
that in 157f: James cannot possibly have employed the quota- had founded, the wall of separation between Jewish
tion from Amos unless it be maintained that the discussion was
carried on in the language of the hated foreigners; for in the and Gentile Christians, which it had cost so much
.original it is not said that the residue of men and all nations to labour to destroy, was again raised up. T o fall back
I whom Gad's name had been made known should seek the Lord on the view that the separation was intended to be
-it is only said that the Israelites should again attain to political geographical would, however, be wrong. A separation
dominion over Edom and the other nations that had at any time
been under the dominion of God (Le., of Israel).l And James on such a basis the apostles, as has already been
pays his tribute to Paulinism if he implies that the imposition of shown, could not possibly have accepted. It would be
the whole Mosaic Law upon the Gentiles is a burden to them necessary to draw the conclusion that the statement of
from which as being such, they ought to he relieved (15 19). Galatians must be pronounced unhistorical, and the
Furthermore, he did not make the positive proposal of 1520.
See helow, 8 IO. epistle itself non-Pauline, were there really no other
The result of the conference, according to Galatians, way out of the difficulty. Before taking this step,
was a 'fellowship' (Korvwvla) (29). What the precise however, we shall do well to remember that men have
often enough agreed upon a compromise without hav-
1 Itwas the LXX that first read instead of iuy*,pointing ing formed any adequately clear conception of its
o-$$ 'instead of nix, and making OlN n'lNW, etc., subject consequences. The Christian church would speedily
instead of ohject ; and only a few MSS of the LXX have gone have fallen asunder into two separate communities, the
so far as to supply the now lacking ohject, without any support
from the original, by interpolating rbv ~ d p r o v . one of Jewish and the other of Gentile Christians, had
921 922
 COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM
no agreement been reached. Neither of the parties According to Acts, the result of the Council %-as the
was able to abandon its view: each felt itself under decree in 1523-29. . . Nevertheless, as long as the words
a strict religious obligation to maintain its own principles.
I

' imparted nothing to me ' (;pol . ..

There must, therefore, have been the greatest eagerness lo*z;d o66hu ?rpouav&um), in Gal. 2 6 , are
to grasp at any formula that presented itself as a allowed to stand. we shall be Dre-
solution. ' W e to the Jews, you to the Gentiles,' cluded from accepting this finding as a forVal decree.
appeared to be a formula of the kind, and joy in the Whether the words mean ' T h e ~ O K O F V T E Simparted
renewed sense of brotherhood may have blinded men's nothing further to m e ' (so according to 116), or that
eyes to the. impracticability of the proposal. This ' They made no further rejoinder to my c6mmunication '
would happen all the more readily if the formuIa was (so according to 2 2 ) . is immaterial. Their meaning is
so loose that each party could understand it in a made clear by ' contrariwise ' ( T O ~ V U U T ~ O Uin) 2 7 : ' Not
different sense. In the absence of more precise de- only did they say nothing unfavourable to me, but also
finition, the geographical interpretation must have they pledged themselves to fellowship with me.' W e
seemed to Paul as obviously the correct one as the cannot better convince ourselves of the certainty of this
ethnographical interpretation appeared to the other conclusion than by examining the attempts that have
apostles-to Panl, who became not merely to the Gentiles been made to avoid it.
a Gentile, but also to the Jews a Jew, fhat he might by Theologians have done their utmost to maintain that Paul
all means win some, and, in order to save those belong- was justified in using the words ;poi 06Siv Irpowav.'Osv7o, instead
of mentioning the decree of the apostles, because the decree was
ing to his own race, would willingly have been accursed known to the Galatians already, or because he did not want to
from Christ (I Cor. 920f. Rom. 93 ; cp B AN , I ) . I q put a weapon into the hand of his opponents, or because the
the scene at Antioch the misunderstanding revealed itself decree was only temporary-perhaps, not binding at all, but
merely having reference to a custom, the ohject of which has
only too clearly ; hut this does not prove that there was been even discovered to be the protection of the Gentiles against
no misunderstanding at Jerusalem. Even in the aspect trichinosis. In the last of these methods of evading the
under which the matter had to be presented I t the con- interpretation stated abo,ve, all idea of a formal decree having
ference at Jerusalem, the unity sought for was limited. been promulgated is given up ; hut even if the agreement on the
substance of the decision had been only verbal, Paul could not
The right hand of fellowship' (&EL& Kowwvias) which have said, l p o i 06Sdv wpowav8sv.ro.
they held out to each other was at the same time a Apart from this, the dispute at Antioch conclusively
parting handshake. According to their fundamental
I disproves the historicity of the decision, whether in the
principles, the Jewish Christians neither would nor could form of a regular decree or not. I t is clear that any such
have any very intimate communion, any really brotherly arrangement,' had it been come to, would have had the
intercourse, with the Gentile Christians. I t is worthy of effect of rendering it possible for Jewish and Gentile
notice that the support of the poor is represented in Gal. Christians to associate with one another at meals. If
210 less as being the only demand made upon the (as is stated in Actsl64) Panl and Silas continued to
Pauline churches than as being the only bond by which enforce the decree during their next journey, we are
the two halves of Christendom were to he kept together. bound all the more to suppose that it came into force
There is, however, no necessityfor assuming that these at Antioch immediately after its promulgation there.
alms from the Gentile Christians were like temple dues, I n that case, James and his followers had no reason for
or intended to express a position of inferiority as com- taking offence at Peter's eating with Gentile converts.
pared with that of Jewish Christians. In view of the If, then, we are forced to admit that no arrangement
notorious poverty of the church at Jerusalem (see COM- of this nature was made at the Council at all, there are
MUN I TY OF G OODS, 5). it would have been unreason- many who would like to retain the opinion that Paul
able to require reciprocity, and doubtless Panl was glad was substantially in favour of such an arrangement.
to evince his goodwill on such neutral ground. For This. however is a mistake. The four Drohibitions are
the rest, it was quite impossible that the Gentiles should ll. Its prohibi- taken, either from the seven ' Noachic
be treated by the Jews as having equal rights and full precepts' (as they are called in the
citizenship in the kingdom of God. T h e O T promises tions. Talmud), by means of which a modus
applied only to the chosen race and to those who had vivendi is said to have been arrived at between the Jews
been received into it by circumcision. T h e Jewish and the 'sons of Noah' (the Gentiles), or directly from
Christians had made the concession-from their point the original ordinances on which those are based (Lev.
of view a concession of real magnitude-of sanction- l710-l830), which likewise were promulgated, not for
ing the mission to the Gentiles without circumcision ; the Israelites alone, but also for the foreigners in their
but it was not to be supposed that this could be midst. T h e latter source is the more probable, for
granted except on the basis that this class of the Talmud prohibits actual unchastity ; but it cannot
converts was to hold somewhat the same position as be doubted that, had such a prohibition appeared to be
that of the semi-proselytes (ue,Bbpeuot TAU M u ) among at all necessary in Acts 15, the prohibition of murder and
the Jews : they figured only as a 'younger branch in of theft would also have been adopted from the Talmud.
the kingdom of God.' In no' case could the original I n its association with ordinances so far from being
apostles have set the same value on the conversion of common to all mankind, so peculiarly Jewish, as the
these Christians of the second class through the agency prohibition of blood, of the flesh of animals that had
of Paul as on their own missionary activity. I t is died or been strangled, and of the flesh of animals
remarkable that Gal. 286 does not run, on the analogy sacrificed to idols, it is much more likely that the
of 28a, 'unto the apostleship of the Gentiles' ( E I S interdict upon what is here called ~ o p v e l arefers to
~ ~ T O U T O EBuOu).
T L~ ~+Y~ Freedom of construction is, of marriages within the degrees of affinity forbidden in Lev.
course, a characteristic of Paul's style, and thus ' unto 186-18 (cp B ASTARD ). Moreover, as the passage in
the Gentiles' (EIP T & E h q ) also may be explained as Leviticus lies at the foundation of Acts 15, in a general
a case of brachylogy. Still, it is noteworthy that-e.g., way only, it is possible that marriages with Gentiles also
in I Cor. 9 I-he does not base any appeal on the fact may have been included ; these were prohibited by Ex.
that apostleship (&TOUTOX$) had been conceded to him 3416 Dt. 7 3 Ezra92, and would have made it quite im-
by the original apostles. How effective-if open to him possible for a Jewish Christian to enter the house of a
-this appeal would have been against the Judaizers at Gentile who had contracted such a marriage.
Corinth who called his apostleship in question, and set Now, as to Paul's view in regard to eating things sacri-
up those very apostles as the supreme authority ! T h e ficed to idols, we have full and exact information. As a
truth is that he does not appear to have received any general rule ( I Cor. 8 1023-33 Rom. 1414) he allows it :
such recognition. Thus he would seem to have been it is to be avoided only in cases where it might cause
recognised only as a fellow-worker, in the Christian field, offence to a weak Christian who mistakenly thinks that
not as a fully accredited apostle. the Levitical prohibition of it is of perpetual obligation.
923 924
 COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM
Paul does recognise, it is true, one exception, which he 15 5-11 13-33 (for 15 1-412, see above, § I div. f.)
mentions in I Cor. 1014-22,though, curiously, not in all references to Paul and Barnabas (152225) as
the exactly similar case in 810 (cp DEMONS, 5 8) ; but editorial additions, and assumes that in the original
even this passage contains no prohibition of the practice source 155-31 13-33 related only to the conference of the
excepting at a religious ceremony of this kind. In the original apostles among themselves, which is then
decree of Acts, on the contrary, the eating of things called to mind in 21 25. Apart from the extreme bold-
offered to idols is, it need hardly be said, forbidden in ness of this assumption, it is to be remarlied that
all circumstances, just as to partake of blood, or of the this particular source is considered by Weiss himself,
flesh of animals that have died or been strangled, is as well as by all other critics of the sources of Acts, to
forbidden. Here the prohibition turns on the nature be untrustworthy. In particular, the verse in question
of the thing itself (cp dhiumpa, Acts 1 5 20) : the soul (2125) has been actually taken to be an interpolation,
was thought to reside in the blood (Lev. 1711rq), and and in fact is so little necessary to the context that if it
to eat the soul would have been an abomination. Now, were wanting its absence would not be noticed. Read
as Paul does not concur in the decree of the apostles with the context, it causes no difficulty; but the
on the question of eating animals sacrificed to idols, it context itself is not historical (see ACTS, § 7). I n
would not be wise to assume his agreement in regard any conceivable view, therefore, suspicion is thrown
to the prohibition of blood and of the flesh of animals on the verse by a critical examination of the sources.
that had died or been strangled, about which we have In the absence of any confirmation, it certainly does
no expression of opinion by him. As to the question not possess enough of internal probability to justify its
of marriage, he carried on an uncompromising warfare acceptance.
against unchastity of every kind ( I Cor. 5 6 12-20); but In fine, it appears that the Tubingen school is not
unchastity does not appear to have been what was without justification n maintaining that the decree of
intended in the decree of the apostles. Marriages with the apostles is a fiction invented by the author for the
unbelievers, on the contrary, he did, it is true, advise purpose of promoting a union of Jewish and Gentile
against ( I Cor. 739). but in no case on grounds of Christians. Only, in the second century it would have
principle. Otherwise he could not have enjoined that been little calculated to secure this object. T h e as-
a Christian married to an unbelieving spouse should sumption is that these regulations were new at the time
continue the relation if the other consented ; nor could of writing. Now, they contain very stringent restric-
he have declared that the unbelieving spouse was tions upon the freedom of the Gentile Christians in the
sanctified by marriage with a Christian, and that even interests of the Jewish; but the Gentiles were at that
the children of a mixed marriage were holy ( I Cor. time so largely in the majority and so full of the
7 rz-14). The children were not baptised ; if they had consciousness of their title to membership in the Church,
been, their sanctity w-ould have been a consequence of that they would hardly have acquiesced in such re-
their baptism, and not deducible from their connection strictions then. Resides, the regulations contained in
with their parents simply. Accordingly, if Paul dis- the decree of the apostles must, in their essence, have
courages marriages with unbelievers for the future (739), been actually in force at the time of the composition of
his reason cannot have been that they were in themselves Acts (see ACTS, 16), however little they may have
wrong, but only that they were incompatible with the been so in the first century.
deeper spiritual sympathy of true spouses. On these The Epistle of Barnabas (36 46) betrays traces of this in
grounds we are obviously still less entitled to assume the complaint that Christians believed themselves bound to
observe the Mosaic Law and from the middle of the second
that Paul would have pronounced to be wrong all century there is evidence 'of this on all hands (Did. G 3 : Justin,
marriages within the degrees of affinity, down to that Dial. 35 ; Luc. de mort. P e r e p . 16 :EpistZefrom Lugdununzof
with a sister-in-law, forbidden in Lev. 186-18, except in the year 177 in Eus. H E v. 126. Irenaeus adu. H e r . i. 6 2
those case5 which are manifestly contrary to nature, as, [ch. 1,$121) ; kertullian, ApoZ. chap;. 7 9 ; Mi;. Felix, Octau. 30;
CZem. Houz. 7 3,f 8, and Rerog. 4 36 ; Clem. Alex. Ped. iii. 25
e.$. , that given in I Cor. 5 1-8. On no single point, (ii. 8f Strotn. 499, ed. Sylhurg, 62, 98, 2 1 9 ~ 5 ) ;Origen, c.
therefore, does Paul even express substantial agreement Cels. g(24) 30 ; Orac. Sibyll. 2 96).
with the restrictions imposed by the decree of the Possibly the first traces of such a custom or of an
apostles.1 attempt to introduce it are to be found in Rev. 214 20-25,
T h e last attempt to rescue some remnants of credi- where the writer speaks only of meat offered to idols and
bility for Acts connects itself with 2125. Here Paul of 7ropveia.
is acquainted with the decree of the apostles as if it The solution of the question would thus seem to be
were something new. I t is absolutely impossible to that the author of Acts, finding this custom in his own
reconcile this with the representation of Acts 15 ; but day, assumed in simple faith that it must date back to
it is suggested that, if the latter has to be abandoned the time of the apostles, and (by a bold process of
on account of Galatians, it may be possible to retain at combination) represented its establishment as being the
least what j s said in Acts 21. On this view the apostles settlement of the dispute which he knew to have raged
issued the decree simply on their own responsibility, in those early times. His reverence for the apostles
without consulting Paul ; and this version of the matter and the assumption (to him a matter of course) that
was derived by the author from one of his sources. complete harmony had prevailed among them supplied
Unfortunately, the source of this passage (at least, colours for the picture which differs so widely from the
according to all attempts hitherto made to distinguish truth. In any case, the gradual rise of the custom
the sources of Acts) is made out to be the same as itself finds its explanation in the effort to establish a
that of Actsl5z0, or of 1528 3 , or of both those modus vinendi between Jewish and Gentile Christians.'
passages. T o avoid this conspicuous failure in the Only, it was due not to the demands of the strict Jewish
argunient, J. Weiss deletes from the account in Christians of the Council of Jerusalem-men who could
1 Some scholars have upheld the modified view that these not have been satisfied by the observance of so small a
restrictions were at all events customarily observed at the time portion of the Law-but rather to the demands of the
among the Gentile Christian;, many of whom had previously Jewish Christians of the Dispersion, who had on their
been semi-proselytes to Judaism and would therefore have
naturally continued to obey these ordinances as Christians ; own side long ago emancipated themselves from strict
and these would have been followed by the other Gentile con- obedience to the Law, yet could not overcome their
verts. The only church, however, concerning which we have repugnance to certain extreme deviations from it.
any information in this conneciion proves the contrary. In
Corinth Paul had to contend with the very worst modes of In conclusion, we learn from our investigation of the
unchastity, and with practices in regard to things offered to subject that the Council of Terusalem did not possess
idols that went too far even for him ; and mixed marriages were 12. ~ : c p ~ ~ ~ cthelus i o n . which its comparatively
importance
quite usual. It is hardly possible to believe that things conld official character appears to claim for
have been so completely different elsewhere, even if Corinth was _ I

exceptionally bad in these respects. it. It had far less influence upon the history of primitive
925 926
 COUNSELLOR COVENANT
Christianity than the dispute at Antioch, which speedily y for which the 1;r. correctly presents 1SC ‘court’ (of the
undid everything that the Council of Jerusalem had itadel: see AV, RVw.). Finally, ‘court‘ in Am.713 AV,
i used in a different sense, with reference to the royal palace
achieved. The discussion of the question has led to
‘p RV).
elucidations of the h!ghest value for a knowledge of the
position of parties among the early Christians. These A later designation of the temple court is ??vg, ‘dz&-Zh
were not, as the Tiibingen School assumed, only two. 2 Ch. 49, along with is!, and 613f ; afiX+), a word 01
They were at least four-the parties (or, as they should incertain origin common in M H , not to be confused
rather be termed, the ‘ schools ’) of Paul, of Peter, of vith the equally obscure 3211 E V ‘settle,’ RV“,
James, and of the ‘false brethren.’ Thus, even from letter, ‘ledge,’ viz. of the altar (Ezek. 4314-20 451gt).
the earliest period, there were the intermediate positions 111N T aLhd is applied to the sheepfold (Jn. 10 I 16),
between extreme parties, which, according to the ind the temple enclosure (Rev. 1 1 2 ) . Elsewhere (in
Tiibingen School, only arose from compromises in the he Gospels) RV regularly reads ‘court’ for AV
second century. Primitive Christianity presents a palace ’ (..,a, Mt. 26 3 69 Mk. 1454 66) or ‘ hall ’ (Mk.
picture far more rich in detail and in colonr than that [ 5 16 Llr. 22 55), and nowhere recognises (with Meyer,
view supposes. Its critics must be prepared to take ;tc.) the classical usage of abX3, to denote a house or
into account the finest distinctions of shade. milding.
The critical discossioo of the subject was initiated by the T h e ‘ fore-court ’ (Mk. 1 4 68 RVmg., ?rpoaLXiov) is
Tiihingen school : Baur (PauZus, 1845) ; Schwegler (Nach-
n j o s t d k h e ZeitaZter, 1846): Zeller(Ajoski- .he first of the two (or more) courts which the larger
13. Literature. gcsch. 1854). The later phases of the critical mildings contained : see HOUSE..
position are represe;ited by Lipsius (Schen-
kel’s Bi6. Lex. S.V. ‘Apostelconvent, and Hundcom~n.2 z ) ; COUSIN (ANEYIOC ; Col. 410 RV, AV ‘ sister’s
Weizsicker ( J D T , 1873, pp. 191.246, and A). Zeitalt.); ;on ’), in classical Greek a ‘ first cousin ’ or ‘ cousin‘
Pfleiderer (/?‘T, 1883, pp. 75-104,241.262, and PauZinisttzcU); Zenerally ; also ’ nephew,’ ‘ niece.’ I n Nu. 3611 it
Holtzmann (ZiVT, 1882 pp. 436-464 and 1883, pp. 159-165);
Hilgenfeld (ZTVT, in vaAoiis articles, ;he latest in 1899, pp. 138- renders iil ~ 2 .Tobit is called the Lveyids of Raguel
149, with a new edition of the text). Of an apologetical (Tob. 7 2 ; also 9 6 [K]).
character are the contributions of J. Ch. I<. v. Hofmann, Die In Lk. 136 58 the word (myyemfs, u y y y u k ) is quite general :
heil. Schr. NT 1 1 2 2 - 1 4 0 , 2nd ed. 126.145); Carl Schmidt (De RV in N T rightly always ‘kinsman, kinswoman,’ pl. ‘ kins-
a$ostoZorunz decreti s e n f e d i n , 1874, and in PlZE(aJ, S.W. folk.’ I n rEsd.37 442 I Macc.1131 (RV ‘kinsman’) it is a
LApostelkonvent’) ; Zimmer (GalaterJr. u. Aposfeberch. 1882) ; title given by a king to one whom he desired to honour.
Fraiike (Si.ICr. 1890, py. 659-687). Of the ‘ niedising ’ school ;
Keim (Urrhvirt. i. 64-89 [‘781); Grimm (St. KY.1880, pp. 405- COUTHA,RVCU’TNA(Koyea [A],om. BL), afamily
432). Cp M. 14’. Jacobus (PvmGyt. and Re$ Review, 1897. pp. of Nethinim in the great post-exilic l i s t (see E Z R A , ii. 5 8) 1 Esd.
509-528. P. w. s. 5 3 2 !A]-unmentioned in Ezra2;z Neb. ’Ig4-whose name may
COUNSELLOR, EV twice C OUNCILLOR (4, below). possibly be connected with C U T H A H (2 K. 17.24).
Frequent in E V in a general sense, without any official
meaning, or, more specifically, of the king’s personal
COVENANT. The word n’?? (bkrrth) probably
occurred about 285 times in the original OT. Its
adviser or advisers, for which the technical term is 1. Terms. constant rendering in d is 6iaBlj~v(auvO?jKr]
7Qtn ( E V R ECORDE R) ; see G OVERNMENT , 21. Dan. 1 1 6 ; 2v~oXai [B] or ?rpoudypaTa
The following terms come into consideration :- [A], I I<. 1111). AiaE+~vis used in a few instances
I. y)?17, yZ&, as a title, applied to Ahithophel ( 2 % 1512 for a kindred term. Yet it is safe to assume that in
I Ch. 27 33), and Jonathan ( I Ch. 27 32 [I l ? i O l 1’32 V’N). Why the original Hebrew texts of Ecclesiasticus, I Maccabees,
Zechariah [y.v., 51 is styled ‘ wise counsellor’ p i ’ ) in I Ch. Psalter of Solomon, Assumption of Moses, Jubilees,
2614 is hard to say; the text is probahly faulty. rL!j’ may Judith, the Apocalypse of Ezra, and Testaments of the
menu ‘giver of oracles’ (see context) ; similarly in Is. 41 28 Twelve Patriarchs, nvix was used at least seventy
(cp 4426) 2 Ch. 25 r6. It is otherwise used generally ; cp Is. times where our versions - give 6raO4Kv, . .. ( T U Y L ~ T ’ J K ~or
, an
19 11 Pr. 1114 Joh 3 14, etc. @ D N A renders by povXeu+ io equivalent.
Job 3 14 1 2 17 : but more commonly u6ppouhos. 111 2s. 8 18 Aquila and Symmachiis usually, Theodotion frequently,
@BAL incorrectly applies the term udppouhos to EENAIAH (I), rendered the word uuul?ljxq. Both words are found in Wisdom 01
apparently reading yyy for y i q n > ; in @BL’s addition to I K. 2 Solomon and 2 Maccabees. The N T writers, following the Alex-
46 A) on the other hand b udppovhop referring to KaXOVp(HP 93, andrian version, used exclusively 6LaBljKq, and this determined the
<U[K]XOup) v k Nal?au Aay rest iipon old tradition. He can he usaee in earlv Christian literature. The Taraums translated
no other than Zahud (<axovp[L], HP p? < a ~ y o v ph. ) Nathan who
is mentioned in I I<. 45 a5 the ‘king’s iriend’ (so WIT; see
inviriably ~ 3 3 ; ; the Pesh. of the OT gives LX&, hut in
Mal. 24 Zech. 9 II transliterates S L a & j K q , the method adopted
ZABUD, I ). The Aram. equivalent 3?iDy; (pl. with suff.) in also by the Edessene versions of the NT. In Enoch GO6,
Ezra 7 r4f: is used in reference to the seven counsellors of the Ethiopic nra@nZaprobably represents Scaerjrq, originally c”p
Persian king; cp the seven princes of Media and Persia in It is significant that the Assyrio-Babylonian is the
Esth. 113. only cognate language in which the word has been found.
2. K;?lQp defhdherayyri,pl. Dan. 3 2 3, the Pers. &ta-Gava,
Bir~tumeans : ( I ) fetter ; ( 2 ) alliance,
law-giver, hence a judicial authority. 2. Early covenant ; ( 3 ) firmness, solidity. Fetters
3. N;?!>?, haa‘driJerayyd, pl. Dan. 3 24 27 4 36 [331 6 7 [SI, ari of
word ‘b6rIth,, were placed upon the culprit, the
unknown Aram. official title. No doubt a compound of the vanquished enemy, the representative
Pers. Gava (cp ahore) : the first part of the name is perhaps
corrupt. The context plainly shows that the personal attendants of a conquered city or country, to hold him and to
of the king are intended. For z and 3, see Comm. ad Zuc., and signify power over him ; in chains h-eived his own
cp E. Meyer, Enlst. 23. sentence or the decree tonching his home and people
4. j3ouhcunjs,l Mk. 15 43 Lk. 23 50, RV ‘councillor,’ applied
to Joseph of Arimathiea (JosEra, 15). see GOVERNLIENT, $ 31. (Sennacherib, ii. 71 ; 5 R. 2, 109 etc.). A fettered
5. udppauhos, used generally, Rom. 1134 (quoting Is. 40 13). rival might be put under obligations and macle an ally,
ulip@ouhas occurs also in the Apoc., cp Ecclns. 66377f., and and such an enforced subordination might, by n simple
42 21 (where Heb. 1.2~). metaphor, be designated ‘ enchainment. ’ ’This term
COURT (ly!, b y h ~ ) ,‘ a n open enclosure,’ used was then extended to every alliance, even where the
commonly in EV with reference to the TEMPLE [T.W.: parties were in a position to decide upon a mutually
(Ex. 2 7 9 Ezek. 816 and often) also of the court of a binding decree, as in the case of Kara-indaS and
house ( 2 S.17 181, or palace ( I K. 7 8) ; see H O U S E , § 2. ,46ur-bEl-ni3Su, 2 R 65 (I<. 4406). As equals did not
For the ‘court of the guard’ (RV, AV ‘ . . . of the actually lay shackles upon each other, this is evidently
prison ’), xtm i%g,Jer. 322, etc., see J ERUSALEM . a figurative use of the word; and as the thought of
‘Court’ inTii.34 13 EV, 35 7 EVlw., is used indefinitely of ar mutual obligation cannot have been immediately
abode. The I‘IT has the corrupt form 1’SQ (&A< in 311: suggested by the imposition of fetters, it is as clearly
IBNAOrl). 111 z K. 204 the AVw. RV ‘citv’ follows the Kt
secondary. The royal word of judgment or assurance,
particularly when strengthened by an oath, was the
fetter that could not be broken. A ‘fettered’ house
928
 COVENANT COVENANT
was one firmly built, a ' fettered ' place one surrounded Macc.6598; z M a c c . 1 3 ~ 2 3 ) . Thus the word assumed
by solid walls, z R 38, 15-17 (cp dirtu; fortress, the meaning of ' pledge.'. The captains pledged them-
fortified town, from the same root, Shalm. ob. 34, and selves to obey Jehoiada ( z IC. 114), the nobles of
see Del. Ass. H W B , 185). Jerusalem to set their slaves free (Jer. 3 4 8 # ) , Zechariah
From the Amarna correspondence we know that some and other citizens to drive away their wives (EzralO3).
time before the Hebrew invasion a Babylonian dialect (ii. ) Domeslic.-Applied to domestic relations the
3. Primary was written, and undoubtedly also to bsrith was at first simply ' t h e law of the husband'
meaning in some extent spoken, in Palestine. The (Rom. 72). Since a wife was captured, bought, or given
Israelites may therefore have become n ~ m a r r i a g eher
, absolute subjection to a man's authority
Heb. acquainted with this term through the was properly cliaracterised as ' enchainment.' Social
i5morites. In the nomadic state, the priestly oracle by development, however, without introducing the idea of
the casting of lots, the min, probably sufficed. Agri- equality, tended to emphasise the obligations that go with
cultural and city life called for increased civil authority. power. T h e husbands bCrith became a solemn pledge
I t is possible that n.13 in the sense of 'binding given before witnesses (Ez. 16 8 Mal. 2 14). In this sense
ordinance,' ' sentence,' was adopted to supply the need the word could be used also of the wife. In Prov. 217
of a corresponding word to designate the judicial nvii seems to mean ' the promise by her God ' ;
decision of a ruler. the same pledge of faithfulness is alluded to in Ez. 1661
In the Elohistic narratives the denominative >>> occurs with ( ' not for the sake of thy promise '), and possibly also in
the significance 'to appoint ' (I S. 178). The noun was still used 4 Esdr. 25. A father's decision was binding upon
by the author -of Ecclesiasticus to denote the sentence pro- his children. Especially the last paternal decree, the
nounced by a judge (3833). The fact that the dominant idea
attached to the word at all times was that of a binding decree is testament, was irrevocable. Whether it was a dis-
better accounted for by this Babylotiian derivation than by position of property or a dispensation of blessings and
recourse to the Arabic darri 'to sever. It also yields a satis- curses, deemed effectual in antiquity, it was termed a
factory explanation of the early appearance of n.13 in the sense b h i t h (Gal. 3 15 Heb. 9 16f, ; Test. xii. patr. passim),
of 'alliance,' and its occurrence with the signification of 'corn-
munity,' 'nation.' On the other hand, the sometimes-observed and had the nature of a promise.
ceremony of passing between the severed pieces of an animal in (iii. ) ZnternntionaL-Retween nations equal in pourer
makina a solemn nledne niav have been an inheritance from the a favour conferred or promised calls for a gift in return.
nomadic T o perpetuate mutually advantageous relations, pledges
this rite,
the Greek 6 p a a T ~ , L L V E L :V whilst the secondary meaning of n i 3 are exchanged. In this way political alliances may
'to decree' (cp the gloss to Hag. 25), bears witness to thk arise with mutual obligations. T h e best example of
primary and persistent significance of ny,. such a covenant is that between Solomon and Hiram
The classical distinction between G E u O - ; ~ K(diathZkKi,~ (provided the Deuteronomistic note, I IC. 526 [n],can be
will) and U U V ~ ' ? ~ K ?(synth&,
) agreement) was not entirely relied upon). Of this nature were probably also the
lost in Hellenistic Greek. agreements between Hezion and Abijah, Renhadacl and
uvv8ljrrq is exclusively used of a political alliance in I and Asa, and Benhadad and Baasha, referred to in I I<. 1 5 r g
2 Macc. Aquila's preference for u u v 8 4 q cannot he explained
by prejudice ; its use by Symmachus was evidently dictated by [J]. T h e bErith with Assyria, Hos..l2a [I], was originally
considerations of style ; even Theodotion's conservatism did not intended as an alliance of this kind, though Hosea had
prevent him from abandoning at times the uniform rendering of reason to complain that out of such alliances there
the oldest Greek version. I n view of this, the deliberate choice grew only new rights, ;.e., demands (104). Simon's
of Sia8rjxq by the Alexandrian translators can scarcely have
been due to anything else than a consciousness of the funda- league with Rome was of the same character (I Macc.
mentnl meaning of nq3. This likewise applies to the indepen- 14242640 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 7 3 ) . l
dent rendering of the word by 0.p in the Targums. (iv. ) Fictions.--Since the relations of nations were
( i , ) CiviL-In civil life the Hebrews seem t o have thus frequently regulated by a bsrith, it is not strange
employed
- . the. word to denote sentence, decree, ordin- that such a basis should sometimes have been assumed
4. Specialised ance, statute, law, pledge, testament, without sufficient foundation. When the once peaceful
significations. alliance, covenant, community, nation. Arabic neighbours began to push the Edomites out of
A successful leader against the enemy Mount Seir, Obadiah looked upon this as a breach of
was in early Israel designated a judge ( E ~ D W ) ,because covenant on the part of allies (v.7). The simultaneous
the foe was regarded as a transgressor, the victory as attack of several peoples on the Jewish commonwealth
a judgment, and the valorous chief as the natural arbiter described in I Macc. 5 T 8 , seemed to the author of Ps.
in internal feuds (cp GOVERNMEKT, $j17). Even the king 836 to be the result of an alliance against YahwB-i.e.,
was a judge as well as a warrior, I IC. 3 1 6 3 [J], I 5.820 Israel. If Amos196 is in its right place (see A MOS,
[E]. When this unity of the judicial and administrative 0 9 a),Tyre is charged with forgetting the ' covenant of
functions ceased, the old term designating the decision brothers' with some other city or people, probably
of a ruler remained in legal phraseology. A collection Phoenician; kinship is the basis of the assumption.
of judicial decisions (o*awn) was called a bMth-book, Zech. 11ref: probably describes a change in the policy
Ex. 247 [E], the sentence was termed a bCrith (Ecclus. of the reigning pontiff as regards the Gentiles, rather
3833). But it also continued to denote the victor's than actual alliances with neighbouring states, as the
decree affecting the condition of a city that capitulates consequent internal feud suggests. I t is also natural
(e.g., Jabesh, I S. 11I u]), a territory that is ceded (e.g., that reconrse should be had to the same fiction to
Ishbaal's, represented by Abner, z S. 312 ,f 21 [J]), a justify or to condemn present conditions and demands.
rival kingdom that is forced to come to terms (e.g., In the Negeb, tribes of Israelitish and Idnmean extrac-
Benhadad's, I K. 2034 [E]), or a kingdom reduced to a tion assured themselves of their rights, against the
state of dependence (cg.,Zedelciaxs, Ez. 17 13-19) ; and Philistines, to certain wells and oases, by virtue of a
it was applied to the ordinance, statute, law, or con- solemn pledge given by Abimelech of Gerar to their
stitution imposed by a king upon his own people, as heros eponynzus, Isaac (Gen. 2628 [J] 2 1 2 7 8 [E]).
David's ( z S. 53 [J]), p i a h ' s ( z K. 233), Zedekiah's Similarly, the border lines between Aramzan and
(Jer. 34 8 8 ), Antiochus s (Dan. 9 27 : ' he shall impose Israelitish territory in Gilead were regarded as fixed by
severe regulations on the many during one week'). an agreement between Laban and Jacob, securing also
Such a royal declaration was considered inviolable ; a the rights of certain Aramzan enclaves on Israelitish
king would not go beyond his word in severity, nor fail soil (Gen. 1344 111). Certain remarkable facts in the
to fulfil his promise. T h e Jabeshites regarded their history of the Gibeonites (see GIBEON),gave rise to the
lives as safe, if Nahash would solemnly declare his story told in Josh. 96f: 15f: [J] 911 [E]-a story which
willingness to rule over them as his servants. Antiochus shows how unobjectionable snch alliances with the
Eupator is severely censured (Is. 338) for himself natives were considered in earlier times. When pro-
violating the constitutional rights he had granted ( I 1 I Macc. 8 17 2 Macc. 411 are scarcely historical.
30 929 930
 COVENANT COVENANT
phetic teaching had led to a recognition of the baneful 1 5 and Jer. 3418f.), there is no question of an alliance,
influences upon the life of Israel of Canaanitish modes and only one party passed between the pieces (cp Dictys
of thought and worship, the warning took the form of Cretensis, Ephemeris beUi Tyojani, i. 15). Whether
a prohibition of alliances projected into the period pre- this custom was observed also in the conclusion of
vious to the invasion (Dt.72 Jud.2z [Dt.] Ex.2332 treaties, as was the case in Babylonia, if Ephrem was
[E] Ex. 341215 [J]). Gen. 1413, though found in a late correctly informed (Cummeizt. to Gen. 15), is uncertain,
Midrash, may reflect the memory of a long dominant and there seems to be no justification for connecting
Canaanitish majority in Hebron, since, with all the this rite in particular with an agreement between two
glorification of Abram, the three chiefs Mamre, Eshcol, parties, or for supposing n?i> to have, been the name of
and Aner are designated as n’mn .sy>. ‘ holders of the a ceremony of which it was an essential part. In most
pledge. ’ T o legitimatise the Davidic dynasty, Jonathan instances no doubt the oath sufficed. Sometimes the
was represented as having abdicated the throne in favour right hand was given in addition (Ez. 17 18, z Macc. 1322))
of David, while Saul was still alive, on condition of or a handshake took the place of the oath (Ezra1019
remaining next to the king in rank ( I S. 23 17 f. [E]). Prov. 61 1718 2226). I t is possible that during the oath
Such an action on his part was then accounted for by salt was sometimes thrown into the fire to intensify by
the story of a still earlier Yahwk-bQith of friend- the crackling sound the terror-inspiring character of
ship ( I s. 183 [EA), referred to again in I S. 20816 the act, originally to render more audible the voice of
[R]. The friendship itself is sufficient to explain David‘s the deity in the fire, hence the salt-bgrith (Lev. 2 13 [PI
kindness to Jonathan’s family ; but the passage testifies Nu. 1819 [PI 2 Ch. 135). As vows were taken and
to the custom of pledging friendship by an oath and a agreements made at some shrine, the numen dwelling
solemn ceremony. in the sacred stone or structure was the chief witness
(v.) BZi.ith= ‘ nation.’-In Dan. l l n z n*i> 1933 is the (Gen. 3148 [J] 52 [E] Josh. 2427 [E] 2 K. 1 1 4 233), and
title given to Onias 111. This probably means prince a sacrificial meal preceded or followed the act (Gen.
or ruler of the nation. The wlp n w , Dan. 112830, is 2630[J] 3146[J] Ex. 2411 [J] 2 S. 3zo[J]). The sprink-
the holy nation against which Antiochus Epiphanes ling of sacrificial blood upon the worshipper, a survival
directed his attention and his f u r y ; and w l ? n w q i y of the custom of sharing it with the deity, appears to
are the apostates who abandoned the holy dation and have disappeared early from the cult. But it may have
lived like the Gentiles (cp I Macc. 115, also Judith913 continued longest in the case of persons taking a solemn
I Macc. 163). These renegades are called n w ’ywin, pledge, as is suggested by its use in the installation of
Dan. 1132 ; ‘ those that bring condemnation upon the priests (Ex. 2920 [PI Lev. 823 [PI). This would account
nation,’ are responsible for its misfortunes. This for the term bgrith-blood (Ex. 248 [E]). Where an
significance should probably also be given to the word alliance was desired presents were offered by the party
in Ps. 7420 (Hitz., Che.). The n>i> ysn, Mal. 31, taking the initiative (Gen. 2127 [E] : probably the sacri-
may be the angelic representative of the nation. At a ficial animals ; Hos. 122 [I] 6).
somewhat earlier period in some inserted passages in Since a decree, pledge, or compact was thus, as a‘
11. Is. (see I S A I A H , ii. § 16, Che. SBUT) n w seems 6. Divine rule, ratified by some sacred rite at a
already to occur in this sense. T h e context indicates that ,bBrPth., sanctuary, the word n3ii readily assumed
ny n m , Is. 426 498, is meant to designate Israel as an a religisus significance, and was applied to
independent organised community (lit. ‘a commonwealth a solemn declaration of the deity.
of a people ‘).l Until Israel had regained its status of (i.) In J , E , and e a d y Pi-ophets.-In the. earliest
independence it could not rebuild the ruined cities, or Judaean narrative Yahwk gives to Abram a promise
restore the land to its former glory. This meaning that his descendants shall possess Palestine and symboli-
may possibly be traced still further hack; B AAL - BERITH cally invokes upon himself a curse, if he shall fail to
(q.”.), as the Elohist designates the god of Shechem, .
keep it (Gen. 1518 [J] ; cp Gen. 247 [J]). When Moses
may mean ‘god of the community.’ The word used is reluctant to leave the mountain-home of his god and
of the city-kingdom of Shechem in the seventh century pleads for an assurance that Yahwe shall go with him, a
(cp Ass. birtu, J n i x , fortified town) may well have been solemn romise is given him (Ex. 3410 a [J] ; add, with
applied to the ardently desired kingdom of Zion at the @ F L , $). The original context can scarcely have been
end of the sixth. anything else than a declaration that Yahwk will ac-
(vi. ) MetnphuricaL -Metaphorically nq> is used in compapy his servant, probably in ‘ the messenger,’ the
Job311 of the law that Job has imposed upon his eyes nin>1t&. This promise was no doubt also referred to
that they shall not look upon a virgin ; in 40 28 [41 4] of by the Elohist, though the importance of the ark in his
the pledge which Leviathan is not likely to give, that he narrative (cp Nu. 1033f: [E]) renders it probable that
will allow himself to be captured and become a slave ; Yahwb‘s presence was here connected with this palladium.
and in 523 of J o b s agreement with the stones of the field After the subjugation of the Canaanites by the first kings
that they shall not prevent the cultivation of his land. of Israel the question arose as to the justice of this deed.
No important transaction was done in antiquity Israel’s right to the land was then established by the
without religious sanction. The oath and the curse fiction of a promise given to the mythical ancestor. A
5. Religious were extensively used in judicial proceed- religious problem of grave importance was how Yahwh,
sanction. ings, legislative enactments, and political
treaties. Before passing sentence, the
whose home was on Sinai, or Horeb, could manifest
himself at the Palestinian sanctuaries. T h e soliltion
judge pronounced a ciirse or adjuration to arouse the was that he had pledged himself to go with Moses in
conscience and elicit a confession ( I I<. 831 [D] Nu. 5 21. ‘the messenger.’ The story of Elijah’s visit to Horeb
[PI Lev.51 [PI Prov.2924 Mt.2663). A pledge or was probably written early in the eighth century ; in it
promise was made more binding by a curse ( ~ S R Ez. , 17 16 n?i>occurs in the sense of commandment ( I K. 1914).
Deut. 29 IT ].I[ 20 [zI]). To set forth symbolically this This is also the meaning of the term in Dt. 3396 (the
curse, animals were cut into pieces, and the person giving Blessing of Moses), as the parallel l n i c x shows, and in
the pledge passed between the severed parts, signifying Josh. 711 [E]. Hosea uses the word to denote an
his readiness to be thus destroyed himself, if he should injunction of Yahwk upon the beasts of the field not to
fail to keep his promise. I t is to be observed that in the harm Israel (220[18]), and a commandment of YahwB in
only passages where this ceremony is referred to (Gen. general (81 : possibly also 67). I t is noticeable that
this prophet, who through a sad domestic ‘experience
1 Cp P?t$ N?; ‘a wild ass of a man,’ <.e., a wild man, Gen.
learned to apply the figure of a marriage to YahwB’s
16 12. So in the main Duhrn, though his conception of n.13 is relation to Israel, never employs bErith in the sense of
different. Di.. Kraetzschmar (Die Bundesvorsfellung, r69), and
Kosrers explain ‘ a covenant with the people’-<.e., one in or a covenant. The W*NR nq> was probably still simply
through whom my covenant with the people is realised. the law of the husband, and the idea of a covenant with
931 932
 COVENANT , COVENANT
Yahwk had not yet been formed. T h e covenant with ieer intercourse between the holy city and the Jews of
death, the compact with ShGl (Is. 2815 d ) ,appears to he dispersion, possible after the Persian conquest (cp
be an alliance with the powers of the nether world, lech. IO), and the appointment of Sheshbazzar, and
implying mutual stipulations. Men who preached the sfter him of Zerubbabel, as governor, the Second Isaiah's
destruction of Israel and YahwB's independence of the :vangel was brought to Palestine and changed the
people, would not be likely to characterize the existing :omfortless lamentations of the native population (Lam.
relation by a term current in necromancy. 3 ) into songs of redemptive suffering (Is. 42r-4 491-6
(ii. ) Deuferonomist.-Even the transformation of the 504-9 5213-5312), or of future restoration (the Zion
Yahwistic and Elohistic narratives of the Horeb-bgrith, songs in Is. 49-55). I t was felt that by the accession
in the reign of Manasseh, by which the promise given )f a king of the old dynasty, a living witness would
to Moses became a solemnly imposed law (the Decalogue Lppeai of Yahwe's faithfulness to David (Is. 554 a ) , a
of J , Ex. 3415-26, and that of E, Ex.2O1-17), and the 'estorer of the territory once possessed (Is. 554 d Mic.
judicial decisions of the btYrith book, Ex. 2023-2333, be- L E 13 5 I ) , a surety of the promised dispensation of ever-
came divine injunctions, does not contemplate au alliance. asting peace (Is. 54 I O 55 3 ) , and that Zion would thus
I n the law promulgated by Josiah in 621 (not likely to 2ecome again an organised community (oy n*lx), able
be found outside of Dt. 12-26 : but see D EUTERONOMY , .o build up what had fallen into ruins, to attract
0 5 E ) the word does not occur. But this law was .he exiles to their spiritnal home, and to teach the
designated at the outset as a bhith-book ( z I<. 23221). iations the manner in which Yahwb should be worshipped
I t seems to have been intended to take the place of Ex. ,Is. 426 496).
20 23 3 The promise to Abraham is strongly emphasised (v. ) Haggai, Zechariah, etc. -The prophecies of
by the Deuteronomistic writers and enlarged to one given Haggai and Zechariah bear witness to the strength of
to Isaac and Jacob as well (Dt.431 712 816 2 K.1323 :he royalist sentiment at Jerusalem. The hopes of the
[Dt.]; cp also Dt. 1 8 3 5 6101623 7 8 81 etc.). At a fews proved illusory; but in the midst of disappoint-
time when Juclah was in imminent danger of losing its ment the belief in YahwB's promises lived on. ' Malachi'
heritage, faith took refuge in this divine assurance, felt assured that Yahwb would return, and accounted for
manifesting YahwB's love, and justified by the obedience his delay by the sins of the degenerate priestly descend-
of the patriarchs (Dt. 431 1015 Gen. 264 [Dt.]). ants of the faithful and reverent Levi, to whom Yahwe's
One writer of this school declares that Yahwb announced promise (n.12) of life and prosperity Was given (21-9),
on Horeb his bsrith consisting of the ten words (Dt. and of those who, fascinated by foreign women, had
413 52&), and that this b h i t h was written on tablets forgotten the pledge ( n w ) given to the wives of their
of stone (99) and placed in the ark (see A RK , 15, youth (214). T h e author or authors of Is. 56-66 also
3, 9). Another author made the Josianic code the deplored the marriages with aliens and the survival of
basis of a covenant concluded in the fields of Moab forbidden forms of worship, but saw )he remedy in the
(Dt. 29 9 12 14 21 [8 I I etc.] 26 17-19 ; cp the later gloss law : the keeping of YahwFs cominandments (n>m)
291 [2869]). Here the idea of a compact between would render the very eunuch fit for membership in
Yahw& and Israel involving mutual rights and obliga- Israel (564) ; the distinction of Israel lay in that gracious
tions is fully developed. Yahwb pledges himself to arrangement ( n m ) by which YahwB's law, proclaimed
make Israel his own people, distinct from, honoured by men of the spirit and repeated by a mindful people,
above all others; Israel declares that it will make would be its perpetual possession (59 , I ) , .a divine dis-
Yahwb its god and obey his commandments. This pensation involving prosperity as a reward of obedience
conception was subsequently transferred also to the (61 8). The author of Jer. 30$, however, rises to a far
Horeb-bCrith ; cp Judg. 2 1 3 [Dt.]. greater height. I i e looks forward to a new regime
(iii. ) Jeremiah and Ezekiel.-Jeremiah does not seem based solely on YahwB's love, which will take the place
to have participated in this development. H e used of the old and less permanent relation (Jer. 31 31 5 ) .
b h i t h only to designate Josiah's law, which he regarded This work may perhaps be assigned to the time of the
as having been given through Moses at the time when Graeco-Persian war, when the writer confidently looked
Yahwb brought Israel out of Egypt (11zf: 6810 3413). for extraordinary proofs of Yahwe's pardoning grace
I t is evident from the context that n q 2 ma (1110) (see J EREMIAH , ii. 58 7 [iii.] 8 [ii.]).
indicates not the disannulment of a covmant, but the (vi. ) P.-The conception of the b h i t h as a , grdcious
breaking of a law by disobedience, the law still remain- act on the part of God, by which he binds himself to a
ing in force. Ezekiel, on the other hand, not only certain course of action in reference to Israel and the
employs n w in the sense of ' l a w ' (2037 : the fetter of world, implying the bestowal of blessings and the revela-
the law,' 447), but also applies it for the first time t o tion of his will, becomes dominant in the Priestly Code.
the conjugal relation of Yahwb and Israel (1685960). T h e bErith or engagement is here carried back to
Marriage is here basedonmutual pledges: it is a covenant. Abraham and Noah. Beside the Noah-bErith (Gen.
According to Ezekiel's view of history, Yahwb had 9 1-17) there is no room for an Adam-btith ; beside
entered into such an alliance with Israel in Egypt, but the Abrahamic (Gen. 17 ; cp Ex. 224 64), no need of a.
the people had by a long career of unfaithfulness forced Sinaitic. T h e Noah-bhith secures the stability of earth's.
its dissolution (1659). Yet he hopes that in the future conditions and of man's life, and the accompanying law
Yahwb will renew his intimate relations with Israel. of blood is but a beneficent provision for the preservations
There will be no covenant, however (for Israel's pledge of the race: the Abrahamic guarantees to Israel the
cannot be trusted ; 1661), but a gracious dispensation of land of Palestine and a large populatidn, and t h e
Yahwb (le&), everlasting (37a6), and full of prosperity command of circumcision implies only a distinction
(3425), ushered in by the restoration of the Davidic conferred upon this people from which all further favours
rule and the temple-service (3725 26). flow. T h e sign in the sky and the sign in the body are
(iv. ) Exilic times.-How ardently the next generation constant reminders to the deity of these merciful engage-
expected that the fallen tent of David would be raised ments. By the use of '3 pj and '3 pp ( ' establish,'
up again, may be seen in the appendix to Amos ( 9 118 ) occasionally ' maintain ') instead of '2 n i j the nature of
and in the more pregnant form given to the promise the bErith as a gift, a divine institution, is emphasised.
z S. 7 16 [E in 2 S. 235 (nky n w ) . Such hopes may Though the word has thus become a religions terminus
have been awakened by the honour shown to Jehoiachin technicus in this code, it still occurs with the sense
by Ami1 Marduk in 561, and may have attached them- simply of commandment, Ex. 3116 (the law of the
selves to his son SHESHBAZZAR (4.v.). They were sabbath), Lev. 246.(the ordinance of the shew-bread),
naturally encouraged by the sympathetic tone of Deutero- Lev. 213 (the injunction concerning salt), or of promise,
Isaiah's message (Is. 40-48). even though this writer Nu. 25 I=$ (the assurance td Phinehas of an everlasting
himself knows no other Messiah than Cyrus. With the priesthood in his line).
933 934
 COVENANT COVENANT
(vii.) Laler w~iters.-The author of Jer. 50 f. (see is the preacher proclaiming his law (cp Amos 510 Prov.
J EREMIAH , ii. $5 7, 8 [iii.]) refers to the Abrahamic dis- 25 12 etc. ). This is to be inferred already from the suffix
pensation in the spirit of the Priestly Writer (see that -it is G o d s bErith-and it is distinctly stated in 311 ;
vividly expressed passage on the return of the men of i the commandments in respect of which he was to us a
Israel and Judah, Jer. 50s) ; and Jer. 1421 reflects the nediator '-Le., which he was the means of revealing to
same conception. Ps. 8929 105810 10645 1 1 1 5 also is (cp 27). T h e Abraham-bErith is mentioned in 1 2
show the influence of this idea. 3 IO 4 1.f: Enoch 60 6 is a fragment of a lost Apocalypse
On the other hand, in Ps. 25 IO 14 13212, n y , is only ,f N o a h ; it presents the Noah-bsrith as the all-
a synonym of nny, and in 4418 5016 7810 of niin. I n sufficient blessing of the elect.
Ps. 505, n x ky w m mi3, ' those who pledge their troth (i.) GospeZs.-Lk. 172, which refers to C-od's promise
to me by sacrifice,' are graciously told that Yahwii will :o Abraham, would seem to have belonged originally to
not demand excessive offerings,2 and in 78 I O the men of a- Jewish Apocalypse of Zechariah current
the Mosaic period are charged with not being faithful to 7. NT. among the Baptist's disciples. Jesus him-
the pledge given to YahwB. Besides the Abrahamic self does not seem to have used the term in any
dispensation ( I Ch. 161s 2 Ch. 614 Neh. 1s 9 8 3 ~ the )~ iense. The thought of a new dispensation, so attrac-
Chronicler particularly emphasises the engagement made :ive to his disciples, may not have been foreign to his
with David ( z Ch. 13s 217), but also uses bErith of a 3wn mind. If it is not found even where it might
pledge in general ( z Ch. 2910 3432 Neh. 1329). T h e nost naturally be expected, as in &It. 2143, the reason
Prayer of Jeremiah (Jer. 3216.44) is quite after the nay he that his favourite expression, the kingdom of
fashion of the Chronicler ; in 3240 the author has in Sod, was intended to convey a similar idea. His
mind 31 3 3 , but interprets the bdrith vaguely as a promise "ords at the paschal table have evidently undergone
that YahwA will not cease to show mercy to Israel. iuccessive modifications and expansions ; and it is
T h e author of Ecclesiasticus (circn zoo) introduces for iifficult not to trace Pauline influences. At any rate
the first time an Adam-bErith as an everlasting dispensa- ihe declaration, ' This is the new G r a O l j K r ) in my blood '
tion (1712), is led by his biographical interest to mention 11 Cor. 11 25 Lk. 2'220), seems to be an expansion of the
severally the divine promises to Noah (4418),Abraham sarlier, ' T h i s is my blood of the 8 r a O ? j K v ' (Mt.2628
(v. 1 9 J ) , Isaac (v. z z ) , Jacob (v. 2 3 ) , Aaron (457 IS). Mk. 1424). It is not inconceivable that Jesus actually
Phinehas (v.2 3 J ) , and David (v. 25 4711),and employs ;aid YS~Jn i l!ia, meaning thereby ' This is the blood in
the term in the sense of law (2423 45 5). and of covenant which I pledge my loyalty' (cp Ps. 505 Zech. 9 T I ) . But
(14 12, based on Is. 28 15,hut 5iHeunderstood figuratively; the Greek translation suggests an Aram. .vn?p3 1 3 1 ]*in,
cp Wisd. 116). The thought of Ecclus. 45 15 (CY $pLepais in which the last word is likely to be an explanatory
odpauoD, nmo v y 3 ) 25, is further developed in Jer. 3314.26 addition by a later hand, the original utterance being
(wanting in BBKA,hut translated by Theodot.; see simply ' This (is) my blood.'
J EREMIAH , § 11); the divine arrangements as respects (ii.) PnuL -In Gal. 3 1 5 8 Paul compares God's
the house of Levi and the house of David are as inviol- assurance to Abraham with a man's testament (draO?fKv),
able as the divine arrangements in nature, the laws of which cannot lose its validity by any arrangement sub-
day and night, of heaven and earth. Deutero-Zechariah sequent to his death, and in addition seeks a proof of
(Zech. 9-14-after 198 B.C.; see Z ECHARIAH , ii. § 5) :he inferiority of the law in the fact that it was given not
promises deliverance to the Jews of the dispersion on 3irectly by God himself, but through angels and a
the ground of the faithful observance of the sacrificial human agent ( p ~ f ~ h p , as in Assump. Mos. 114 3 12).
used
cult at the sanctuary by which Israel continually pledges In 424 he contrasts the present Jewish common-
its troth to Yahwii ( i n v 018, 'because of thy pledge- wealth ($ vDv 'IEpouuaX?jp), deriving its existence as a
blood' ; 911: cpPs. 50s). Dan. 9 4 ( 1 6 4 ~ . c . ) r e f e r s t o theocracy (6raO?jKv) from the legislation on Sinai with
God's merciful promise to bless his people. The n*i> the heavenly society ($ dvw 'I~pouuah?jp) from which by
n h y , Is. 24s (6. 128 B. C 3 )is most naturallyunderstood in spirit-birth the new theocracy derives its life (cp Heb.
the light of Ecclus. 1712, where the Adam-bsrith also 1222). The new form of government (c?raO?jxq),accord-
involves the revelation of God's laws and judgments. ing to Paul, was possible only through the death of
In I Macc. 250 n3'nn.v n w may he a designation of Jesus abolishing the authority of the Law (hence the
the holy nation, the theocracy, whilst 410 probably change to .?v TG .?p$ a t p a n , 'through my blood,'
refers to the promise to the patriarchs, as 254 does I Cor. 1125), and, as opposed to the maintenance of
to that to Phinehas. I n Ps. Sol. 105, the law social order by enforced obedience to external statutes,
appears as a testimony of the eternal dispensation consisted in a free, love-prompted surrender of life to
established with the Fathers (919). The author of the divine spirit's guidance (zCor. 36). The idea of a
Izlbilzes quotes (616) from Gen. 91zJ and (1519) from special arrangement ( & a O ? j ~ v )still , in the future, by
Gen. 177, but in his independent use of the term shows which all Israel is to be saved (Rom. 1126f.), does not
no trace of the conception prevailing in the Priestly introduce a foreign element into Paul's conception of
Code. H e introduces the Noah-bkith as a pledge the spiritual theocracy (for it implies only deliverance
given by the patriarch (the original seems to have read from sin), but is a concession to particularism, out of
''1 9195 &ry n w nm), 610, which is renewed by the harmony with his general attitude, and due to his
people every year through observance of the feast of patriotic feelings (Rom. 9 8 ) . Paul also uses the word
weeks (617), and the Sinai-bErith as a pledge which as a designation of the OT ( 2 Cor. 3 14).
Moses takes from the people (611); he employs the (iii. ) Other writers. -In the epistle to the Hebrews,
word as a synonym of ' law,' ' statute ' (1IO 15 34 24 11 the Abrahamic dispensation yields to that of Melchizedek.
30 ZI), and possibly uses it also in the sense of ' theocracy' Abraham is introduced only as an example of patient
( 6 3 5 ) , where the feasts of the Jewish communityare con- reliance upon God's promises SI^), and as a repre-
trasted with those of the Gentiles. ' Arbiter testamenti sentative of a priestly order inferior to that of Mel-
illius ( T ~ 8raO?jqs
S a d d p ~ l r i s v s )Assumption
, of Moses chizedelc (74 8 ) ; Jer. 31 31 8 is recognised as a descrip-
[Charles] 1 1 4 , seems to be a translation of inqj n$$n(cp tion of the often promised new constitution (8ia8+q
8 8 8 1016); but it is argued that, as a man's testament
Job 933), and represents Moses, not as a ihird party
( 6 r a O ? j K v ) IS not valid until after his death (916J),
effecting an agreement between God and his people, but
and as consequently the Mosaic constitution possessed
1 Read with Co.., n rlTh. il and insert '2 before n?B. 'Come let
. : I
no validity until a death had taken place (that of the
ns join oursqlves (anew) to YahwS, for a lasting bVfifh cannot sacrificial animal), so the better Christian dispensa-
be forgotten. tion could not be ushered in except by the death of
2 Cheyne however, takes Ps.50 to have been written as
a n expressidn of non-sacrificial religion. Jesus (915 18 8) ; this departure of Jesus is, besides,
3 Following Duhm. But cp I S A IA H, ii., 0 13. regarded as necessary in order that he might be a
935 936
 COVERLET CREATION
priest-as he could not be on earth (713f:)-in the Ziving utterance to loud and trumpet-like sounds both
celestial temple (620 ~ I I ) , and as such bear the when in flight and when at rest are well known.
responsibility for the new arrangement (Eyyuos ~ z z ) , Cranes are migratory birds, spending the summer in N.
~ J 9S1 5
and on God‘s behalf make it operative ( ~ L E U 86 atitudes and the winter as a rule in Central Africa and S. Asia;
>ut some pass the cold season in the plains of S. Judaea. While
1zz4)by sprinkling the blood on men’s consciences, .ravellingthey f l y in great flocks, and a t times come to rest on
thus pledging and devoting them to the new priestly :he borders of some stream or lake. They appear to have fixed
service (1019,cp Ex. 2920 [PI Lev. 823 [PI). The ‘ a r k -0osting-places to which they return a t night in large numhers.
Jeremiah notices the regularity of their seasonal migrations.
of. the law’ (&as$Kv) is mentioned in Heb. 94 (cp N. M.-A. E. S. 1
Rev. 1119). In Eph. 2 12 the one great promise is con-
sidered as renewed by a series of solemn assurances CRATES ( KPATHC [A], W C A C [VI), the name of a
(at 8taB?jKal r?js hrayyehlas). Peter’s contemporaries Former viceroy ‘ i n Cyprus’ (Pal r D v Kuaplwv), who
are represented in Acts325 as ‘sons’-i:e., heirs, who was left in charge of the citadel (of Jerusalem) by
might enter into possession of the promise (srae$Kq) SOSTRATUS in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes:
to Abraham, whilst in 7 8 the word &aO$Kq is used to 2 Macc. 4 29.
designate the ordinance of circumcision.l
T h e most recent inquiry into the historical meaning of din-th CREATION. I . Accounts1 of Creation.-It may be
is Kraetzschmar’s Die BundemorstelZungim AZten Testament regarded as an axiom of modern study that the descrip-
(‘96). See also Valeton, Z A TW12 1-22 224-260 13 245.279 1. critical tions of creation contained in the biblical
[‘?231; Bertholet, Die Stelhng d.IsraeZiten zc. Juden zu d.
liremfen, 46, 8 7 3 176, 214 r961 ; W R S ReZ. SendP), 269 8 standpoint. records, and especially in Gen. 1 1 - 2 4 a , ~
3 1 2 8 4 7 9 3 , Kin. 4 6 8 : ;W. M. Ramsay, ‘Covenant’ in the are permanently valuable only in so far
Expositor, Nov. ‘98, pp. 321-336. N. S. as they express certain religious truths which are still
COVERLET (lz?Q), 2 I<. 815t RV. See BED, 5 3 recognised as such (see below, 5 25). To seek for even
a kernel of historical fact in such cosmogonies is incon-
COVERS (nikp)? EX. 3716, etc. ; see CUP, 6. sistent with a scientific point of view. W e can no
COW (n?~), Is. 117.. See C ATTLE , 5 2. longer state the critical problem thus : How can the
biblical cosmogony he reconciled with the results of
COZ, RV strangely H AKKOZ (VP; K W E [B”b?A], natural science ? The question to be answered is rather
OEKWE [e€ superscr.] [Ba?vid.], K W C [L]) of J UDAH this : From what source have the cosmogonic ideas ex-
( I Ch. 48). The name is probably not connected with pressed in the O T been derived? Are they ideas which
Habkoz. As it occurs nowhere else, perhaps we should belonged to the Hebrews from the first, or were they
read TEKOA (pip?, ~ E K W E ; cp @BA). See HAKKOZ, borrowed by the Hebrews from another people?
TEKOA. This question has passed into a new phase since the
most complete form of the Creation-story of the Baby-
COZBI (’313, ‘deceitful,’ § 79 ; cp Ass. kuzdu, 2. Babylonian lonians has become known to us in its
‘lasciviousncss,’ Haupt, SBOT on Gen. 38 s), daughter cuneiform original. True, the story
of Zur (Nu. 25 15 18), a Midianite, who was slain by epic’ given in the tablets lies before us in a
Phinehas at Shittim (Nu.256-18, P ; xacB[s]l [BAFL], very fragmentarycondition. The exact nnmber of tablets
xocBia [Jos. Ant. iv. ~ I O I Z ] ) . is uncertain. Considerable Zacuna, however, have been
COZEBA, AV CHOZEBA (32f3), I Ch. 4 22.1.. See recently filled up by the discoveryof missing passages, and
ACHZIB, I. there is good hope that further excavations will one day
enable us to complete the entire record. At any rate
CRACKNELS (P’qp), I K.143. See BAKEMEATS, we are now able to arrange all the extant fragments in
5 2. their right order-which was not the case a few years
CRAFTSMEN, VALLEY OF ( WyhQp ’J), Neh. ago-and so to recover at least the main features of the
1135 EV See CHARASHIM. connection of the cuneiform narrative. Only a brief
CRANE (laj$ ; C T p O Y e l a [BKAQ]), Is. 3814 Jer. sketch of the contents can he given here.8
8 7 t RV, AV by an error [see below] ‘swallow.’ In ‘The ‘ Creation-epic’ begins by telling us that in the
Is. 38 14 there is no ‘ or ’ between the first two names in beginning, before heaven and earth were made, there
was only the primaeval ocean-flood. This is personified
MT, and a B N A Q r omits ‘igzw altogether, rendering the as a male and a female being (Apsii and TiBmat).
other word (DJD)correctly X E ~ L (see G ~ S WALLOW , z ) ; Long since when above I the heaven had not been named,
in the second passage where in M T the same two when h e earth beneath I (still) bore no name,
words occur (Jer. 87) the connective particle is again when Apsii the prirnzval -the generator of them
omitted, this time by 6. Hence it has been suggested the originator (?)Ti&at,4 I who brought the; both forth
their waters in one I together mingled
that in neither place should both words occur (Kloster- when fields were (still) unformgd, I reeds (still) nowhere
mann, Duhm, etc., omit i u y in Is. ) ; this receives some seen-
countenance from the fact that the M T order of the
words is reversed in Targ. and Pesh. in Jer. 87. The 1 On conceptions of creation, see helow, 5s 25-29 ; on words,
transposition misled most Jewish authorities as to the see 8 30.
2 It may be observed here that Gen. 2 4a was, originally the
real meaning of the two words respectively, and our superscription not the subscription. Schr., in his reprodultion
translators followed them. That D ~ D(or rather D’D : see of the two n&ratives of the primitive story, rightly restores
SWALLOW, z ) means swallow ’ or ‘ swift’ there can he it as the heading (Studien ZUY Kn’tik der UTesch., 1863, p.
no doubt, and so the words ‘crane’ and ‘swallow’ 172): In that case the priestly narrator can hardly have
continued with Gen. 1I . Restore therefore with Di. (Genesis,
should at least change places (as in RV). 17, 39), ‘This is the birth-story of heaven and earth when
What ‘ig& means is somewhat uncertain : probably E k h i m created them’ $ 0 7 7 5 ~~ a y $ . Then continue, ‘ N OW
Grus communis or cinerea, which is the crane of the earth,’ etc. (v. 2 ) . Then God s a d Let light he; and light
was.’ See Kautzsch‘s translation (Kau: HS).
Palestine. Once it bred in England. The passage in 3 Cp Del. Das Bab. WeZtsclzd>fungsepos (‘97); Jensen,
Isaiah refers to its ‘ chattering’ ; and its powers of KosnzoL 268.300; Zimmern, in Gunkel, Schd>J 401.417; and
Ball, Li‘At f r o m the East 1-21 (‘99). The metrical divisions
1 On the meaning of Sw&jq, see Hatch, Essays on Bi6IicaZ are well marked. The e i; is mainly composed in four-line
Greek, p. 47. stanzas, and in each line tfere is a ciesura.
4 [Ass. Mummu Tzrinlaf. I n line 17 of this first tablet we
2 Lagnrde suggested that it means ‘bird of passage’
meet (most probably) with a god called Mummu. T h e name
(& = G
‘, ‘to turn back, return,’ Uebers. 59). corresponds to the M W W ~ LofF Darnascius (see beloy, 8 15 end),
and is rendered hy Frd. Del. in I. 4 , ‘the roaring. This’ is by
3 ‘The Heh. (q???) properly signifies a shrill penetrating no means certainly right ; for the grounds see Del. 119. Pinches
sound, and is therefore more applicable to the stridulous ,cry of renders, Lady Tilmat (Ex$ Times, 3 166). But Jensen warns
the swift than to the deep, trumpet-like blast of the crane. See us that there is another ?~zu?~znzu. At any rate, the supposed
the rest of Che.’s note in Pro#. Is., ad loc. connection with oiil must he abandoned.]
937 938
 CREATION CREATION
long since, when of the gods I not one had arisen the Babylonian account was specified as a separate
when no name had been named, I no lot [be& determined], creative act or not (a point on which complete cer-
.
U e n were made 1 the gods, [ . . I.
tainty cannot as yet be obtained), Marduk is at any rate
Thus the world of gods came into being. Its harmony, the god of light XUT’ .?fox?jv, and, consequently, his
however, was not long maintained. Tiamat, the mother battle with Tiamat is essentially a battle between light
of the gods, was discontented with things as they were, and darkness. In both accounts the creation of heaven
and from hatred (it would seem) to the newly pro- is effected through the divine creator’s division of the
duced Light, rebelled against the supreme gods, and waters of the primaeval flood, so that the upper waters
drew some of the gods to her side. She also for her form the heaven. In the Babylonian epic this division
own behoof produced monstrous beings to help her in of the waters of the flood is in the closest relation to the
her fight. This falling away of Tiamat called for divine battle with TiZmat ; nor can we doubt that R paralle
vengeance. T o reply to the call, however, required a description once existed in the Hebrew myth of crea-
courage which none of the upper gods possessed, till at tion, though it is but faintly echoed in Gen. 16f: The
last Marduk (Merodach) offered himself, on condition list of the several creative acts runs thus in the two
that, after he had conquered Tiamat, the regal sway accounts :-
over heaven and earth should be his. In a solemn BABYLONIAN. GEN. 1, IN PRESENT O RDER .~
divine assembly this was assured to him. He then I. Heaven. I. Heaven.
equipped himself for the fight, and rode on the war- 2. Heavenlv bodies. 2. Earth.
chariot to meet Tiiimat and her crew. The victory fell 3. Earth. . 3. Plants.
to Marduk, who slew TiBmat, and threw her abettors 4. Plants. 4. Heavenly bodies.
5. Animals. 5. Animals.
into chains. 6. Men. 6. Men.
This is followed by the account of the creation of the There is much, however, to be said for the view that the
world by Marduk: The process is imagined thus. present position of the heavenly bodies after the plants
Marduk cuts in two the carcase of Tiamat (the per- is secondary,2 and that originally the creation of the
sonified ocean-flood), and out of the one part produces heavenly bodies was related clirectly’after that of heaven ;
heaven, out of the other earth.2 the order will then be the same in both accounts.
H e smote her as a ... I into two parts.
one half he took, I he made it h e d i ’ s arch,
Further coincidences can be traced in points of detail :
pushed bars before it, I stationed watchmen Fg., the stress laid, in both accounts of the creation of
not to let out its waters I he gave them’as a charge. the heavenly bodies, on their being destined to serve
Thus the upper waters of TiHmat, held back by bars, for the division of time (see also below, 6). Can we
form heaven, just as in Gen.1 the first step to the doubt that, between accounts which have so many coin-
creation of heaven and earth consists in the separation cidences, there is a real historical connection?
of the upper from the lower waters by the firmament. W e must now inquire how this connection is to
Then follows a detailed description of the making of tl,, he reDresented. There are two ways which are his-
heavenly bodies ( ‘ stations for the great gods ’). 4. Distinctively torically conceivable. Either the
After this most unfortunately come’s a great Zacuna. Hebrew and the Babylonian accounts
Babylonian are independent developments of n
W e can venture, however, to state so much as this-that baclrground. Drimitive Semitic mvth. or the Hebrew
the missing passage must have related the creation of
the dry land, of plants, of animals, and of men. I n is borrowed direcily or indirectly from the Babylonian.
support of this we can appeal ( I ) to separate small Dillmaun proposes the former view in connection with a
fragments, ( 2 ) to the account of BErossus, ( 3 ) to the remark that the Hebrew story cannot have been simply
recapitulation of the separate creative acts of Marduk borrowed from the Babylonians on account of the patent
in a hymn to that god at the close of the epic, and (?) differences between the two narratives. ‘There is no
to the description of the creative activity of Marduk in doubt a common basis ; hut this basis comes from very
a second cuneiform recension of the Creation-story early times, and its data have been developed and
lately discovered (on the various Babylonian Creation- turned to account in different ways by the Israelites and
stories, see also below, § 133). the Babylonians.’ In reply we may concede to Dill-
What then is the relation between this Babylonian mann that the cosmogony in Gen. 1 cannot have been
and the chief biblical cosmogony? W e have no right simply taken over from the Babylonians, and that there
3. Relation to to assume without investigation that are strong a priori reasons for admitting the existence
the Hebrew myth of Creation appears of a common stock of primitive Skmitic myths. Still,
in its original form in Gen. 1I-2qa. The that the Hebrew myth, which is still visible in Gen. 1,
present writer is entirely at one with Hermann Gunkel, was borrowed at a later time from the Babylonians, is
whose work entitled Sc/i@fzng u. Chaos in. Umeit und the only theory which accounts for the phenomena
Enn‘zeit3 (‘95) contains the fullest collection of the before 11s. There are features of the utmost importance
relevant evidence, that this myth has passed through a to the story which cannot be satisfactorily explained
long development within the domain of Hebraism prior except from the Babylonian point of view.
to the composition of Gen. 1 1 . 2 4 ~ .’ Only with a clear At the‘ very outset for instance why from a specifically
perception of this does critical method allow us to com- Hebrew point of view,’should the witers &the tWim be placed
a t the beginning of all thinqs? Or we may put our objection t o
pare the latter document directly with the Babylonian Di.’s theory thus the quesiion to be answered by a cosmogony
Creation-epic. Then, however, our surprise is all the is this, ‘ Hpw did the visible heaven and earth first come into
greater that in spite of the preceding development there is existence? T h e answer given in Gen. 1 is unintelligible in the
mouth of an early Israelite, for it implies a mental icture which
stillin the main points, a far-reaching coincidence between is characteristically Babylonian. As the world s t i t arises anew
the myths. For instance, both stories place water and every year and every day, so, thought the Babylonian, must it
darkness alone at the beginning of things, and personify originally have been produced. During the long winter the
the primzeval flood by the same name (Tiamat = TehGm). Babylonian plain looks like the sea (which in Babylonian is
ti(imtu, tiamat), owing to the heavy rains. Then com’es the
In both the appearance of light forms the beginning of spring, when the god of the vernal sun (Marduk) brings forth
the new order. Whether the production of light in the land anew, and by his potent rays divides the waters of
1 Jensen denies that Tiamat is anywhere in the Creation-epic 1 Most critics, however, reckon eight or seven creative acts.
represented a s a dragon. she is always he thinks a woman. C p Wellh. C H 1 8 7 8 ; Bu. Txesch. 4 g 8 x ; Di. Gen.16,y.
It is, however not robadle that the poiular view df Tiamat a s 2 See Gunkel, SckfijJ 14 ; this unnatural arrangement may
aserpent had’no egect on the poet of the Creation-epic. See be explained by supposing that when the framework of the seven
DRAGON 5 4 8 days was introduced, the plants, for which no special day re-
2 [Pos&bly the head of Tiamat is referred to at a later point of mained, were combined with the earth, and so came to stand
the story by BEr6ssus. See below $j~ 5 . 1 before the stars.’
3 The sub-title of this work which will he referred to again 3 Di. Gen. (‘92), p. 1 1 ; cp his UeJw die Herkunfi der
is ‘Eine reZigiansreschi~htZiic/:aUntersurhnng ii6er Gen. i. u d i urgeschichtl. Sagen (Berlin Acad. 1882)) p. 4 2 7 3 , and Ryle,
Ap.joks xii. Mit Beitragen von Heinrich Zimmern.’ Early Narratives ofGen., I Z ~ .
939 940
 CREATION CREATION
Tiamat which previously, a s it were, formed a whole, and sends lonian epic, and (8) the creation of man in the divine
them partly upward a s clouds, partly downward to the rivers image, and the participation of inferior divine beings in
and canals. So must it have been in the first spring, a t the first
New Year, when, after a tight between Marduk and Tiamat the w0rk.l
the organised world came into being.1 Or (for Marduk is als; Phcenician mythology is an embarrassing combination
the god of the early morning sun), just as the sun crosses and of Babylonian and Egyptian (possibly we should add
conquers the cosmic sea (TiZmat) every morning and out of the
chaos of night causes to appear first the h e w & and then the 7. Phcenician. Jewish2) elements, and is, moreover,
earth so must heaven and earth have arisen for the first time on known to us only from fragments of
the fiist morning of creation. T o imagine a similar origin of the older works cited by Philo of *Byblns and Damascius.3
myth from a Hebrew point of view would be hopeless. T h e
picture requires as its scene an a l l u k d land which Babylonia Still, distorted and discoloured as the myths presented
is, and Palestine or the Syro-Arabian desert is Aot, and it requires to us may be, the main features of them have a very
further a special god of the spring sun or of the early morning primitive appearance. The source of all things is
sun, such as Marduk is and Yahwe is nbt.2
described in the first of Philo’s cosmogonies as a chaos
In short, rightly to understand the Babylonian account turbid and black as Erebns, which was acted upon by a
as, in its origin, a mythic description of one of the most wind (the pi of Gen. 12 [cp below, col. 944, n. 21)
familiar natural phenomena of Babylonia gives the key
to the problem before us. The Israelitish cosmogony which became enamoured of its own elements ( d p p i ) .
must have been borrowed directly or indirectly from the These d p ~ ared the two sides or aspects of the divine
Babylonian (cp also §§ 5 and 11). H. %.
being referred to “the male and female principle, the
The preceding sections contain ( I ) an account of the latter of which in another of the Byhlian cosmogonies
great Babylonian creation epic (§ z ) , ( 2 ) a comparison (Muller, op. cit. iii. 500 3 )is called Baau. We may
5, Mythical of this with the chief Hebrew cosmogony, perhaps compare this Baau with BohE7 in the Hebrew
basis of Gen, and a criticism of Dillmann’s theory (§ phrase f&u wd-65hu (wasteness and wideness = chaos) in
3), and ( 3 ) an explanation of the Baby- Gen. 12. Some would also connect it with the Baby-
1 I-24a. lonian myth and of its pale Jewish copy lonian Bn’u, the ‘great mother.’ True, this goddess
was held to be the consort of Ninib, the god of the rising
(§ 4). Of these 3 and § 4 relate to snbjects on which sun, whereas Baau is the spouse of B u ~ p o s~ o h s i a sand
It is not unbecoming for the present writer to speak.$
That there is more than one Hebrew cosmogony, will be her name is said to mean ‘ night ’ ( =chaos ?). The con-
shown presently; we will begin with that in Gen. 1I-24a. nection of Ba’u with Ninib, however, may perhaps be of
It is a very unfortunate statement of Wellhausen that later origin. The result of the union of the two divine
the only detail in this section derived from mythology is dpXal was the birth of MwT-Z’.~. , according to Hal&vy,8
that of chaos in z. 2, the rest being, he thinks, due to r b Mwr=niahp (cp Prov. 8 2 4 , niohgwa). M w r , we are
reflection and systematic construction. Reflection, no told, was egg-shaped. Here one may detect Egyptian
doubt, is not absent--e.g., the framework of days is influence, for Egyptian mythology knows of a world-egg,
certainly late-bnt the basis of the story is mythical. which emerged out of the watery mass (the god Nun).
Nor can we content ourselves with comparing the data This is confirmed by a reference in the cosmogony of
of Gen. 1 with any single mythology, snch as the Baby- Mochus (in Damascius, 385) to Xouuwp ‘the opener,’
lonian. Circumstanced as the Israelites were, we must whom it is tempting to connect with Ptah, the divine
allow for the possibility of Phcenician, Egyptian, and deminrge of Memphis ; the name of Ptah may have bceii
Persian, as well as Babylonian influences, and we must explained in Phcenician as the ‘ opener (nna),’ viz. of the
not refuse to take a passing glance at cosmogonies of cosmic egg. T o the same cosmogony (Philo gives a
less civilised peoples. For some elements in the Jewish different account) we owe the statement that this Xouuwp
Creation-story are so primitive that we can best under- split the egg in two,yupon which one of the pieces became
stand them from the wide point of view of an anthro- 1 See the Berossian story referred to below (B 15). In the
pologist. epic the creation of man was ascribed to Marduk (but cp Jensen
Kosnr. zgz,f). but it ispossible(seeDel. 03.cit. 110) that M a r d u i
The Babylonian parallelisms may be summed up committed &me part of the creation of the world to the other
briefly (cp above, § 3). The points of contact are- (I) greater divinities. May we thus account for the evolutionar):
6. Parallelisms: the primzval flood (oinn=Ti%mat), language of some parts of Gen. 1 II? ‘Let the earth bring forth
would then mean ‘Let the earth-god (a diyine energy inherent
Babylonian. (2)the primzval light (Marduk was a in the earth) cause the earth to bring forth.
god of light before the luminaries were 2 Considering the late date of the reporter, we cannot exclude
created), (3) the production of heaven by the division of this ossibility.
3 8 p Baudissin, Sfudd. zur sem. ReL-gesch. i. (Essay I.);
the primzval flood, ( 4 ) the appointment of the heavenly Gruppe, Uiegriech. Curie u. MyUen, 1 3 5 1 8
bodies to regulate times and seasons, (5) the order of 4 Muller, Perapt. Hist. Grrpc. 3 565.
the creative acts (the parallelism, however, in the present 5 The two later Targums explain n*n5x n n in Gen. 1z b y
form of Gen. 1 is imperfect), (6) the divine admonitions ] p ! 9 N ? ? l ‘the spirit of love’ (cp Wisd. 1124). T h e love
addressed to men after their creation.5 T o these may ex ressed here however is that called forth by the need of help.
be added (7) creation by a word (see below, § 27), an ! D l Vogii6: Mcflang&, 6 0 5
7 Holzinger (note on Gen. 12) objects to the combination of
idea which was doubtless prominent in the full Baby- Baau and BBhB, that Baau appears a s the mother of the two
1 [The Babylonian New Year’s festival called Zzkmuk, which first men, which will not suit B6hii ; but the Byblian mythologist
has clearly influenced the corresponding Jewish festival, stands is inerror, as WRS(Burnett Lectures[AlSl)haspointed out. ALWV
in close relation to the ccsmogonic myth. For the ‘tablets of is not properly a ‘mortal man,’ and 1rpw6yovos is a late inven-
destiny,’ on which the fates of all living were inscribed on New tion based upon a wrong theory ; here as elsewhere the dualism
Year’s Day, were taken by Marduk from Kingu the captive is artificial. Afwv is identical with the O ~ ? h o ~of o rMochus, the
consort of Tilmat (Tab. iv. I 121). I n its popula; conception, Xp6vopofEudemus-i.e., P>v ’the world’ (see Eccl. 3 11). T h e
Zakmuk was probably a t once the anniversary of creation and connection with Bab. Ba’u ismore doubtful. Cp Jensen KosmoZ.
the day of judgment. So Karppe.] 245 ; Hommel, Diesem. ViUzeer, i. 3 7 9 8 , A H T , 66, GhA, 2j5 ;
2 Cp Jensen KosmoL 307.309. Gunkel Sc@#/ 24-26. Haupt, Bcitr. ztw Assyer. i. 181 ; and see KB, 3a21. Whether
3 T h e gerrn’of what follows ik to be found in the EB art. T o h t (ink) also was from the first a mythic word, is uncertain.
‘Cosmogony,’ 1877. The view of the history of mytholdgical T h e combination of taho and bohil may be artificial ; cp Jabal,
ideas among the Israelites is that which the writer has advocated
in a series of works (some of them are referred to later) and Jubal, Tubal (Geu. 4 20-zz), 2 g V p ?$d (Job 30 3), “pp?
which, with a much fuller array of facts, but with some qu&tion- (Ezek. G 14).
able critical statements, has been put forward lately hy Gunkel 8 MLl. 387 ; W R S in Burnett Lectures agrees.
(‘95). On the general subject of cosmogonies, cp Fr. Lukas Elsewhere X o u u ~ pand his brother are said to have discovered
Gerund6eg~Q7iezu den Kosiuogonieen deer alten VoZker (‘93); the use of iron, like the Hebrew Tubal-Cain, himself probably a
pp. 1-14, on the Babylonian myths and Genesis. divine demiurge (see CAINITES,$ IO). W R S (Burnett Lectures)
4 Perol. ET 298. suggests that he may have invented iron to cut open the cosmic
5 Seethe fragment in Del. WeZfschd2fungsCpos5 4 5 111. T h e egg (cp the arming of Marduk in the Creation-epic, Tab. iv.).
admonitions relate to purity of heart, early mording prayer, and This is clearly correct. Kpdvos in Philo’s theogony makes Bpmq
sacrifice. T h e passage on the creation of man has not yet been and S6pu to fight against O6pauds. Originally however the
found ; hut there is a n allusion to this creative act in the con- weapon of the demiurge was the lightning ; see Jinsen, Ko&oZ.
cluding tablet. 333.
94 = $42
 CREATION CREATION
heaven, and the other earth. Here we have a point of n Gen. 1 2 is at any rate not Iranian ; why should the
contact with the Babylonian and also with the Hebrew %her features in the narrative be? It would no doubt
cosmogony, for the body of Tiamat is, in fact, as >e possible to give the epithet ' Iranian ' to the ascription
Robertson Smith in his Burnett Lectures remarks, ' the ,f ideal perfection to the newly created world in the
matrix or envelope of the dark seething waters of Hebrew cosmogony. But it is by no means necessary
primaeval chaos,' and the separation of the lower from .o do so. Such idealisation would be naturally suggested
the upper waters in Gen. 1 7 is only a less picturesque 3y the thought that the evil now so prominent in the
form of the same mythic statement. These are ' poor world cannot have lain within the purpose of the divine
and beggarly elements,' no doubt : but then Phcenicia xeat0r.I Besides, Jewish thinkers would inevitably be
lacked what Babylonia possessed, a poet who could *epelled by Zoroastrian dualism. The existence of the
select, and to some extent moralise, such parts of the two primaval antagonistic spirits is not indeed alluded
tradition as were best worth preserving. W e shall see to in the rock-cut inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes ;
later (5 28) that Judaea had a writer who in some im- but the best scholars agree that it formed part of the
portant respects excelled even the author of the epic. old Zoroastrian creed; it is indeed expressly recognised
Egyptian mythology, which had perhaps an original in the GBthLs (Yasna xxx.). Ahura Mazda, the 'much-
kinship to the Babylonian cannot be passed over, when knowing Lord,' assisted by the six Anishaspands, is the
8. Egyptian. we consider the close relations which long xeator of all the good things in the world. He is opposed,
existed between Egypt and Canaan. The however, by Angra Mainyu, to whom the material and
common Egyptian belief was that for many ages the moral possession of the world is ascribed. All that we
latent germs of things had slept in the bosom of the can venture to suppose, is a possible indirect influence of
dark flood (personified as Nut or Niiit and Nun). How the high Zoroastrian conception of Ahura Mazda on the
these germs were drawn forth and developed was a story conception of Yahwi: formed by the Babylonian Jews.
told differently in the different nomes or districts. The details of the Jewish Creation-story arose inde-
A t Elephantine, for instance, the derniurge was called u n u m u ; pendently of Persia.
h e was the potter who moulded his creatures out of the mud of Points of contact with more primitive mythologies
the Nile (which was the earthly image of Nun); or, it was also
said, who modelled the world-egg. His counterpart at Memphis, also are numerous. Abundant material will be found in
the artizan god Ptah, gave to the light-god, and to his body, Sir George Grey's Polynesian Mytho-
the artistically perfect form. At Hermopolis it was Thoth who lo. more Zogy, and vol. vi. of Waitz iind Ger-
made the world, speaking it into existence. 'That which flows primitive land's AnUropolofie de7 NaiurvoZher.
mythologies.
from his mputh,'it is said, 'happens and what he speaks, comes
into being. I n the east of the Delta: a more complicated account That drv land and animate life. but not
was given. Earth and sky were originally two lovers lost in the matter, had a beginning, and that, before the' present
primaeval waters, the god lying under the goddess. 'On the day order of things, water held all things in solution, are
of creation a new god Shu, slipped between the two, and seizing
Nnit with both hands: lifted her above his head with outstretched opinions common among primitive races, and one of the
arms.' Thus, among other less striking parallelisms, we have most widely spread mythic symbols is the egg. The
in Egypt, as well as in Babylonia and in Palestine, the primaeval expression in Gen. 12, ' and the breath of Elohim was
flood, the forcible separation of heaven and earth, and creation
by a word, as elements in the conceptions of creation.3 brooding (nanio) over the surface of the waters,' has its
The subject of Iranian parallelisms has been treated best illustration (in the absence of the mythic original
at great length by Lz~garde,~ who argues for the depend- which probably represented the deity as a bird) in the
9. Iranian. ence of the Priestly Writer as regards the common Polynesian representation of Tangaloa, the god
order of the works and days, on a Persian of heaven, and of the atmosphere, as a bird which hovered
system, against which, however, in the very act of over the ocean-waters, till, as it is sometimes said, he
borrowing from it, this writer protests. It is not laid an egg3 (the world-egg). This egg is the world-
probable, however, that the indebtedness of the Jews egg, and we may suppose that 'in the earliest form of
to Persia began so early ; it is not before the latter part the [Hebrew] narrative it may have been said " the bird
of the Persian rule that the direct influence of Persian of ElBhim ; " wind appears to be an interpretation.'4
" "

beliefs (themselves largely influenced by Babylonian) The forcible separation of heaven and earth (Gen. 1 7 IO)
begins to be clearly traceable in-Judaism. If we could is illustrated, not only by the interesting Egyptian myth
venture to identify the A R T ~ E R X E ( qS. v . ) of Ezra with mentioned above (I 8), but also by the delightful Maori
Artaxerxes II., it would beeasier to adopt Lagarde'sview. story told by Sir George Grey, and illustrated by Lang
I n the present stageof critical inquiry, however, this course in a not less delightful essay ( C z d o m and iWyth, 4 5 8 ) .
does not appear to be advisable. Nor is it at all certain The anecdotal character of myths like these adds to
that the Iranian belief in the creation of the world in their charm. It is only in the last stage of a religion
six periods goes back so far as to the time of Artaxerxes that cosmogonies are systematised,-
11. It is referred to only in the late book called Greek endings, each the little passing-bell
Bundehish, and in one or two passages of the Yasna That signifies some faith's about to die,
(192 4 8 ) and the Vispered (7;), which, on philological though the death-struggle may be prolonged, and may
grounds, are regarded as comparatively late. Caland, issue in a higher life.
indeed, has endeavoured to show that in the Yasht of We have thus seen that the Creation-story in Gen. 1I-
the Fravashis (or protective spirits) a poetical reference
1 Gunkel less naturally thinks that in the formula, ' And God
is made to the creative works of Ahura WIazda, in the saw that it was good ' there is a n implied contrast to the evil
order in which these are given in the Bnndehish.6 Hut state called t&zriddh~~(chaos).
what object can we have in tracing the Hebrew accoimt 2 The word qni (Piel) occurs only twice, and both times (as in
to the Iranian, when we have, close at hand, the Syriac) of a bird's brooding. See Dt. 82 11, and Driver's note
Babyloniau story, from which the Iranian is plainly (Dezif. 358, foot), also We. ProL(4) 395 (lD!li Jer.239, should
derived? The reference, or at least allusion, to chaos he 9222 [Gratz]). Hence the Talmudists compared the divine
1 Second series (M.7). spirit to a dove (cp Mt. 316 Mk.110 Lk. 322). The Phce-
2 C p Hommel, Der 6a6. Ursjrungder&~yjpf. KuZiizlv, 1892 nician myth, in the very late form known to us, has lost all
(infer alia, the Egyptian Nun is connected with Bab. Anum, trace of the bird-symbol ; it speaks only of a wind (571).
the god of the heavenly ocean). 3 Waitz-Gerland, AnthvopoZ. 6 241. I n Egypt too, the first
3 See Brugsch. h'd u. Myth. der alien Aegypfer, 2 2 ro7.161 creative act begins with the formation of an e g i ; but it is the
2nd elsewhere ; Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 128 146 ; Meyer, GA 74. egg of the sun and nothinr: is said of a bird which laid the egg
4 Purim, ein Eeitr. zur Gesch. der ReZ. ('87). (see Brugsch, kel. z. Myih. deraZfen Aegyjter i o i f i ) .
5 T h T 23 179-185 ['891. 4 EE art. 'Cosmogony,' 1877. I n 1835 ;he same idea
6 The order is-heaven the waters earth, plants animals occurred to Gunkel (Schij5J E). It is of course not a storm-
mankind. Light the lighi in which k o d dwells. is)itself unt bird that is meant.