ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE VOLUME II ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA A CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE LITERARY POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY THE ARCHAEOLOGY GEOGRAPHY AND NATURAL HISTORY OF THE BIBLE EDITED BY The Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D. ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AT OXFORD AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE CANON OF ROCHESTER AND J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D. FORMERLY ASSISTANT EDITOR OF THE 4 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ’ VOLUME II E to K Neto fforfe THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON : ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 1901 Copyright, 1901, By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. KEY TO SIGNATURES IN VOLUME II Arranged according to the alphabetical order possible indicated thus ; of the first initial. A. 15 . §§ 1-5 ; c. D. Joint authorship is where >$ 6-10. A. B B A. B. D. A. E. S. A. J. A. R. S. K. C. C. C. H. T. C. H. W. J. C. P. T. C. R. C. E. A. A. E. K. E. P. G. F. B. G. A. D. G. A. S. G. B. G. G. F. M. G. H. B. H. G. H. v. S. H. W. H. Bruce, the late Rev. A. B. , D. D. p Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. Davidson, Rev. A. B. , D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, United Free Church New College, Edinburgh. Shipley, A. E., M.A., F.Z.S., Fellow, Tutor, and Lecturer at Christ’s College, Cambridge. Julicher, Gustav Adolf, Professor of Church History and New Testament Exegesis, Marburg. Kennedy, Rev. Archibald R. S., M.A. , D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Edinburgh. Creighton, C., M.D., 34 Great Ormond Street, London. Toy, C. H. , M.A., Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University. Johns, Rev. C. H. W. , M.A., Assistant Chaplain, Queens' College, Cam- bridge. Tiele, C. P. , D. D. , Professor of the Science of Religion, Leyden. Conder, Col. Claude Reignier, R.E., LL.D. Abbott, Rev. E. A., D. D., Wellside, Well Walk, Hampstead, London. Kautzsch, E., Professor of Old Testa- ment Exegesis, Halle. Gould, Rev. E. P. , D.D., Philadelphia. Brown, Rev. Francis, D.D., Daven- port Professor of Hebrew and the cognate Languages in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. Deissmann, G. Adolf, D. D. , Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Heidelberg. Smith, Rev. George Adam, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, United Free Church College, Glasgow. Gray, Rev. G. Buchanan, M.A. , Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. Moore, Rev. George F., D. D., President and Professor of Hebrew in Andover Theological Seminary, And- 1 over, Mass. Box, Rev. G. H., M.A. (Oxon.), London. Guthe, Hermann, a.o. Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Leipsic. Soden, Baron Hermann von, Profes- sor of New Testament Exegesis, Berlin. Hogg, Hope W. , M. A. , Lecturer in Hebrew and Arabic in Owens College, Manchester ; \ Winchester Road, ( Oxford. I. A. I. B. J. A. R. J. W. K. B. K. M. Lu. G. M. A. C. M. G. M. J. (Jr.) M. R. J. N. M. N. S. O. C. 0. c. w. P. V. P. w. s. R. H. C. S. A. C. S. R. D. T. G. P. Abrahams, Israel, London, Editor o& the Jewish Quarterly Review. Benzinger, Dr. Immanuel, Lecturer in Old Testament Theology, Berlin. Robinson, Rev. J. Armitage, D.D., Canon of Westminster. Wellhausen, Julius, Professor of Semitic Philology, Gottingen. Budde, Karl, Professor of Old Testa- ment Exegesis and the Hebrew Language, Marburg. Marti, Karl, Professor of Old Testa- ment Exegesis and the Hebrew Lan- guage, Berne. Gautier, Lucien, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and History, Geneva. Canney, Maurice A., M.A. (Oxon.), St. Peter's Rectory, Saffron Hill, London, E.C. Gaster, Dr. M. , 37 Maida Vale, London, W. Jastrow (Jun.), Morris, Ph.D., Pro- fessor of Semitic Languages in the University of Pennsylvania. James, Montague Rhodes, Litt.D., Fellow and Dean of King's College, Cambridge. M'Lean, Norman, M.A. , Lecturer in Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ's College, Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Caius College, Cambridge. Schmidt, Nathanael, Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Cone, Rev. Professor Orello, D.D. , St. Lawrence University. Whitehouse, Rev. Owen C. , M.A., Principal and Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Theology in the Countess of Huntingdon’s College, Cheshunt, Herts. Volz, Herr Repetant Paul, Tubingen. Sciimiedel, Paul W., Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Zurich. Charles, Rev. R. H. , M.A., D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek in Trinity College, Dublin ; 17 Bradmore Road, Oxford. Cook, Stanley A., M.A., Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge ; Fern dale, Rathcoole Avenue, Hornsey, London, N. Driver, Rev. Samuel Rolles, D.D. , Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Pinches, Theophilus G., M.R.A.S., formerly of the Egyptian and Assyrian Department in the British Museum. KEY TO SIGNATURES IN VOLUME II T. K C. Cheyne, Rev. T. K., M.A., D.D., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford, Canon of Ro- chester. T. N. Noldeke, Theodor, Professor of Semitic Langu.i ges , Strassburg. W. E. A. Addis, Rev. W. E., M.A. , Lecturer in Old Testament Criticism, Manchester College, Oxford. W. H. B. Bennett, Rev. W. H., M.A., Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature, Hackney College, London, and Pro- fessor of Old Testament Exegesis, New College, London. Kosters, The late W. H., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Leyden. Woodhouse, W. J., M.A., F.R.G.S., Lecturer in Ancient History and Political Philosophy, St. Andrews. W. M. M. Muller, W. Max, Professor of Old Testament Literature, Reformed Epis- copal Church Seminary, Philadelphia. W. R. S. Smith, The late W. Robertson, Pro- fessor of Arabic, Cambridge. W. T. T.-D. Thiselton-Dyer, Sir William Tur- ner, C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., Director Royal Gardens, Kevv. W. H. K. W. J. W. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME II Arranged according to alphabetical order of surnames. Abbott, E. A. E. A. A. Abrahams, I. I. A. Addis, W. E. W. E. A. Bennett, W. H. W. H. E. Benzinger, I. I. B. Box, G. H. G. H. B. Brown, F. F. B. Bruce, A. B. A. B. B. Budde, K. K. B. Canney, M. a. M. A. C. Charles, R. H. E. H. C. Chf.yne, T. K. T. K. C. CONDER, C. R. C. E. C. Cone, O. 0. C. Cook, S. A. S. A. C. Creighton, C. C. C. Davidson, A. B. A. B. D. Deissmann, G. A. G. A. D. Driver, S. R. S. E. D. G aster, M. M. G. Gautier, Lu. Lu. G. Gould, E. P. E. P. G. Gray, G. B. G. B. G. Guthe, H. H. G. Hogg, H. W. H. W. H. James, M. R. M. E. J. Jastrow (Jun.), M. M. J. (Jr.) Johns, C. H. W. C. H. W. J. Julicher, G. A. A. J. Kautzsch, E. E. K. Kennedy, A. R. s. A. E. S. K. Kosters, W. H, W. H. K. M'Lean, N. N. M. Marti, K. K. M. Moore, G. F, G. F. M. Muller, W. M. W. M. M. Noldeke, T. T. N. Pinches, T. G. T. G. P. Robinson, J. A. J. A. E. Schmidt, N. N. S. Schmiedel, P. W. P. W. S. Shipley, A. E. A. E. S. Smith, G. A, G. A. S. Smith, W, R. W. E. S. Soden, H. V. H. v. S. Thiselton-Dyer.W. T. W. T. T.-D. Tiele, C. P. C. P. T. Toy, C. h. C. H. T. Volz, P, P. V. Wei.lhausen, J. J. W. Whitehouse, O. C. 0. C. W. Woodhouse, W. J. W. J. W. ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS A PA’ Crit. Bib. Ohnefalsch- Richter SMA \V F. Spiegel, Die alt-persischen Kei linsch riften , 1862, < 2 ) '8i. Cheyne, Criticci Biblica (in preparation). M. H. Ohnefalsch- Richter, Kypros , die Bibe l, und Homer, 1893. Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaflen, Munich. MAPS IN VOLUME II ASIA MINOR Asia Minor between cols. 1592 and 1593 EGYPT Egypt Proper , , 1240 and 1241 Valley of Nile \ Nile and Euphrates l , , 1208 and 1209 Geology of Egypt and Sinai J Egypt and Sinai in Pluvial Period ,, 1205 and 1206 EXODUS The Exodus ... col. 1437/ Goshen .... col. 1759/ GEOGRAPHY, HEBREW (i) in the time of the Judges-\ (2) in the 10th century b.c. 1 V (3) in the 8th century b.c. j between cols. 1696 and 1697 (4) in the 5th century b.c. J Strabo's Map of the World col. 1691 /. JERUSALEM Contours and Walls ... between cols. 2420 and 2421 Site of Jerusalem ........ col. 2410 PALESTINE Northern : Galilee and Esdraelon between cols. 1632 and 1633 Central : Mount Ephraim , . 1312 and 1313 Southern : Judah and Judaea , , 2620 and 2621 Eastern : Gilead and Ammon ...... , , 1728 and 1729 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA E EAGLE. The eagle of EV, the Great Vulture of RV n, ff- (*ieb ; aer6s), is identified by Tristram with Gyps fulvus, the Griffon, not a true Eagle but a member of the family Vulturidae. Griffons are still very common in Palestine, which is about the centre of their area of distribution, whence they spread across Asia, around the Mediterranean area and through Northern Africa. 1 They are noble birds of large size, and form conspicuous objects in the landscape as towards evening they perch on tbe peaks of rocks or cliffs (Job 39 28 29), or when soaring. The comparison of invaders to a swooping vulture is often employed in the OT (cp Dt. 28 49 Job 926 Hab. 18 Jer. 4840 etc.). They are carrion feeders and sight their food from afar. Their head and neck are bald, a fact whicb did not escape the notice of the prophet Micah ( ML 1 16 ). They nest in colonies, some of which contain a hundred pairs of birds. They are said to be remarkably long-lived, probably attaining a century or more (allusions in Ps. 103 s and perhaps [see <§>] in Is. 40 31). The Himyarites had an idol nasr which was in the form of 0 Vulture (cp ZDMG 29 600), and the same worship among the Arabs is attested by the Syriac Doctrine ofAddai (Phillips, 24). 2 The Gr. aeTos may he applied to vultures, and the Romans seem to have classed the eagle among the family Vulturidce (see Pliny, HN 10 3 13 23). Is there any connection between aero? and 13 (see Bird, § 1) ? Possibly the bird found on the Assyrian sculptures (see the illustrations in Vigouroux, s.y. * aigle ’) and on the Persian (Xen. Cyr. vii. 1 4) and Roman (Plin. HN 13 23) standards is meant to represent not the true eagle but a vulture. In Christian art the Egyptian phoenix appears as an eagle and becomes a symbol of the resurrection (see Wiede- mann, Ret. of Anc. Egyptians , 193). In the fifth century a.d. the eagle hecame an emblem of John the evangelist (see Diet, of Chr. Antiqq.y s.v. ‘Evangelists’). a. E. S. — S. A. C. EAGLE, GIER. See Gier Eagle. EANES (m&nhc [BA]), 1 Esd. 921 = Ezra 10 21 Maaseiah, ii. , 11. EARNEST (appaBgon). the warrant or security for the performance of a promise or for the ratification of an engagement, is used thrice in NT (2 Cor. I22 5 s Eph. 1 13 f), but always in a figurative sense of the gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the apostles and Christians generally, as a pledge that they should obtain far greater blessings in the future. See Pledge. EARRING. For Judg. 824 Prov. 25 12 etc. (qtj, ntzem) and Ezek. 16 12 etc. (Suy, 'dgtl) see Ring, § 2, and for Prov. l.c. cp Basket. For Is. 3 20 etc. (tyn 1 ?, Idhat) see Amulets, Ring, § 2, and Magic, § 3 (3). The tip of the ear (sI 13 FI, tenukh ) was specially protected by sacred rites (see SBOT on Is. 66 17). EARTH AND WORLD. The conception of * universe ' is usually expressed in OT by ‘ heaven and 1 For hieroglyphic picture of vulture see Egypt, § 9, n. 12. 2 Cp the Syriac name u.TIE'I (‘ “nsr" gave’), and see We. Held. 20 (Heid.fi) 23), and WRS Kin. 209, Ret. Scm.fi) 226, Ti. 3 ; ZDMG 40 186 [’86]. 38 1145 earth’ (e.g., Gen. li 2 i 14 19), though there is a still more complete expression : ‘ heaven above, earth beneath, and the water under the earth' (Ex. 20 4, cp Gen. 4925). So in Assyrian elati u tapldli ‘things above and things below,’ or (Creation -tablet, i .if) ‘the heaven above, the earth beneath,' to which ]. 3 adds ‘the ocean.' There is also (Is. 4424 ; cp 457) a general term ‘everything’ (irdvra), corresponding to Assyr. kullatu, giniru. ‘ Earth ’ of EV represents three Hebrew words. ( 1 ) (’dres), properly the eartb, including Shfiol ; hence 1 .pkg either the visible surface of our earth (Gen. 26 , ‘p fb , and often) or the nether world (e.g . , Ex. 15 12 Is. 14 x 2 294 ). (2) hdtn (adamah), [i.Jthesoil which is tilled, Gen. 2 s 3 17 etc., [ii.] the ground, Gen. 1 25 620 etc. (3) id v ( 'aphar), properly earth as a material (Gen. 27), then the earth (Is. 219), tben dust (Gen. 314), then the nether world (Job 17 16 Ps. 3O9 [10] etc. ). renders (but not universally) all three words by 7 77. Whilst the A V uses * world ' as a synonym for * earth ’ both in OT and in NT, it is only in NT (see below, § 3) that it occurs in the sense of * universe. ' t , . , The reason is that Jewish writers had adopted ‘ a much more convenient term than ‘ heaven and earth to express an expanded conception of the * universe. * First, however, let us note the Heb. words rendered * world. ' 1. *iSn, titled, Ps. 17 x4 49 2 [1]. If the text is correct, we have here a singularly interesting transition from ‘ lifetime ' to ‘ the world of living men ' ; for the primary sense of heled (if the word exists at all) is * life-time ’ (Ps. 39 6 [5], 89 48 [47], Job 11 17 and emended text of 10 20). 1 Unfortunately heled in Ps. 17 14 is certainly corrupt. * From men of the world whose portion is in life ' is an expression both obscure in itself and unsuitable to the context. In Is. 38 11 heled is read only by critical con- jecture ; the text has hedel , which means neither ‘ world ' nor any- thing else : there is no such word. 2 The true reading is doubtless tebeL ‘ world,' and so too we should read in Ps. 49 2 [1]. Hymn- writers do not generally select the rarest and most doubtful words. There is but one pure Hebrew word for ‘ world ' (see 3). =• hedel, is. 38 11, on the assumption that ‘cessation’ (the supposed meaning) is equivalent to ‘ fleeting world.' Many critics, with some MSS, including Cod. Bab., read iSn, titled. See, however, no. 1. 3 . Sdr, tebel, ‘mother-earth’? — a word of primitive mytho- logical origin (Gunkel, Hommel), hence never occurring with the article. Once it is used in antithesis to midbar , * desert ' (Is. 1417); but generally it is quite synonymous with 'ires, ‘earth.’ Thus in 1 S. 2 s(RV) — 1 In Job 11 17 it is an improvement to read "pSn 'D’ t ‘ the days of thy lifetime (shall he brighter than noontide),’ and in 10 20 nSri) ‘Are not the days of my lifetime few?’ but we should most probably read -j kan and ‘thy fleeting days.’ (Che. Exp. Times, 10 381 [’99]). 2 Cp Ps. 39 5 [4], where EV has ‘ how frail I am,’ but where the Hebrew has, not ‘ frail, ’ but ‘ ceasing ’ (Dr. Parallel Psalter). Sin, hddel, too, is probably not a real word. 1146 BARTH and WORLD For the pillars of the earth are Yahwe’s, And he hath set the world upon them ; And Prov. 8 26 (RV), While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 1 In Job 37 12 RV we have the strange expression ‘ the habitable world* (AV ’the world in the earth’); and in Prov. 831 RV * his habitable earth ' (AV ‘ the hahitable part of his earth ’). The phrases are the same, and are due to corruption of the text. 2 © impartially renders both piK and *73/1 sometimes by yrj sometimes hy if o\.Kovp.ivy\. 4. nViy, 'bldm, a difficult word, meaning (1) antiquity, (2) indefinite length of time. The etymology is doubt- ful. Most connect it with Q^y, * to hide ’ ; but probably □ * -dm is 1 noun-ending (so Barth). Compare Ass. ullu, * remote,' in the phrase ultu ulld ’ from of old ’ ; ullanu 'far-off time,’ i.e., ’past time' (Del. Ass. HWB 64 f). For a less probable view, see Lag. Uebers. 115. Twice rendered ‘world’ in AV : Ps. 73 12, ’Behold these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world,' RV (better) ’and being alway at ease’ (□‘tfy ’i^fch) ; Eccles. 3n (so also RV), ’Also he hath set the world in their heart’ (65 B , i/ [AL]) the phrase has a wider reference, including all the Bedouin (Moore), and in Joh 1 3 (rwv a’ ijAi'ou avaroMov [BN A]), 1 K. 430 [5io](7ravTwvapxaiwvav0pwfrwi/[BAL])itseems to include the Edomites, for the Edomites of Teman were re- nowned for their wisdom. Cp Mahol. T. K. C. EAST GATE (PPJJ»iJ TJJ0), Neh. 329. See Jeru- salem. EASTER (to TTACX&)' Acts 124 AV. See Pass- over, and cp Feasts. EASTWIND (D'ljvm-I), Ex. 10 13. See Winds, Earth (Four Quarters), and Geography, § 1. EBAL (bl'V ; plausibly connected with Bel by Wi. GI 1 120 n. 2 ; Gray, Acad. 20th June 1896; (“aiBhA [BADEL] ; cp Ebal, Mount). 1. One of the sons of Shobal h. Seir the Horite ; Gen. 8623 1 Ch. 1 40 (yao/SrjA [A], ou/SaA [L]). 2. A son of Joktan 1 Ch. I22 (where eleven MSS [Kenn.] and Pesh. read ; om. B, ycfuav [A], tj/ 3 tjA [L], Jos. A?it. i. 64 rjjSaAo? ; HEBAL ). In Gen. 10 28 the name appears as Obal (?3iy, Sam. ^3'V, om. ADE ; evaA [MSS ; see HP], yejSaA [Compl. , MSS], yat/SaA [L] ; EBAL). Hal^vy connects with the local name ' A bil in Yemen {Mil. 86). Cp Glaser, Skizze , 2426. The name may he a miswritten form of SkD’SR, which follows (Che.). EBAL, MOUNT (%'!) VJ ; opoc hmBaA [BAFL] ; Jos. Ant. v. 1 19 hBhAoc [v. i thBhAoc] > Ant • iv - 844 BoyAlH i mo. VS hebal). Possibly Ebal should be Ebel ; -bel may be a divine name, ‘ . . of Bel.' The dedication of a mountain to Bel in primitive times would not be surprising. Cp Ebal (above), Harbel (Num. 34 n, see Riblah). There is of course no connection between Ebal (1, above) ben Seir and Mount Ebal. Ebal is a mountain 3077 ft. above the sea-level, which, with Gerizim (on the south), incloses the fertile valley in which Shechem lies. Both the mountains and the city were doubtless sacred from remote antiquity. There is an indication of this, so far as regards Ebal, in the direction respecting the solemn curse to be deposited there, ready to fall on the disobedient ( Dt. 11 29 cp 27 t 3“ 26 ) * and respecting the placing of the great stones inscribed with the (Deuteronomic) Law and the erection of an altar to Yahw£ on the same mountain (Dt.274-8). The latter passage is specially important. As Kuenen (Hex. 128) and Driver (Dt. 295) have pointed out, there was an injunction respecting a national sacrifice on Mt. Ebal 1 in the older work (JE) upon which the late Deuteronomic writer builds. The view that any disparagement to Ebal was intended by Dt. 11 29 is therefore in itself improbable, nor can it be said that the mountain is even now sterile to the degree which a popular prejudice demands. Maundrell in 1697 ohserved that ‘ neither of the mountains has much to hoast of as to their (its) pleasantness.’ Corn grows on the southern slopes, and there are traces of a thorough system of irrigation in ancient times. 2 Mt. Ebal is 228 ft. higher than Mt. Gerizim, and commands a more extensive view, which is fully descrihed hy G. A. Smith ( HG 1 19- 123). Its position was thoroughly hut not unnaturally misunderstood by Eus. and Jer. On this and other points, see Gerizim. In the Pap. Anast. {Travels of an Egyptian in Syria x Palestine, etc.), Chabas and Goodwin render (i. 216) ‘ Where is the mountain of Ikama? who can master it ? ' (RPi 1 ) 2 1 1 1). This should rather he, ‘ Where is the mountain of Sakam(k) or Shechem?' — i.e., either Ebal or Gerizim {As. u. Eur. 394). In the fourteenth century B.c. the latter names do not seem to have heen widely known. T. K. C. EBED ("QIA i.e. , servant [of God], § 50; ,\BeA [AL]). x. Father of Gaal (Judg. 626-41, iw/StjA [B] v. 31 a/3eA [A], 35 rr|3$, 1 the stone of help,' a Bcn- ezep [BAL]). 1. The site of the battle in which the Philistines slew the sons of Eli and took the ark (1 S. 4i 5i, afiepvefcp [A]; in 5i, -vvrjp [B]). The battle seems to have been followed by the destruction of Shiloh (cp Jer. 7 12 14), and the subjugation of central Canaan by the invaders. This Eben-ezer was near Aphek, which lay in the northern part of the plain of Sharon. x.. The stone which Samuel set up between the Benjamite Mizpah and Shen in commemoration of his victory over the Philistines (1 S. 712). This is quite a different part of the country from that in which ( 1 ) lay, and the two Eben-ezers cannot be made one without inventing a new Aphek. See Aphek, 3 (c). On the other hand there is no reason why more than one sacred stone should not have borne so appropriate a name as ' the stone of help ’ ; 3 the story of 1 S. 7 comes from «■ document of no historical value, and is probably an setiological legend giving an innocent explanation of what was really a rude stone idol. W. r. s. EBER pni>, eBep [BADEL]). 1. That Eber is not an actual personage, but an ethnological abstraction, is shown elsewhere (see Hebrew Language, § 1). He is in fact the eponym of all the Hebrew peoples 1 The Samaritan reading ‘on Mt. Gerizim,' adopted hy Kenpicott, is obviously a sectarian alteration of the text. 2 See Early Travels in Pal., ed. Wright, 433 ; Conder Tentwork, 1 67 ; Roh. JBR 396; Grove-Wilson, Smith’s DB( 2) 1 828. 3 Cp Abnil,‘ stone of El,' 210, n. 1. IISI 1152 EBEZ ECBATANA ‘all the sons of Eber’ (Gen. 10 21 ; efiop [E]). Genea- logically he is the father of Peleg and Joktan, and the grandson of Arpachshad ( i. e. , the Hebrew peoples came from Chaldcea ; see Arphaxad), Gen. 10 24/ 1 Ch. 1 18 f. 24/. ; cp Gen. 11 13-16. The name is properly a geographical term=min *uy. Eber han-nahar — i.e. , ' the farther (?) bank of the river ’ — which appears in Ass. in the form ebir ndri (first indicated by Wi. GI I223, 11. 1 ; cp Hommel, AHT 196, 255, 326), 1 and, Hommel thinks, was originally applied by the Canaanites to the region on the W. bank of the Lower and the Middle Euphrates, including Uru (or Ur) and Borsippa. The designation Eberites or Hebrews would naturally still adhere to those tribes which came westwards into Canaan. According to this scholar, the name ‘ Eber ' is also used once in the OT (viz., in Nu. 2422-24; efipatovs [BAFL], e/3 ep [F a me ]) of Palestine and Syria with the exception of Ashur or S. Judah (see Asshurim). His arguments are, however, not very solid. It is not certain that ebir ndri in the inscription really denotes Palestine ; Hommel shifts his ground in the course of his book (see AHT 196, 326) ; and after all it is not a Canaanitish inscription that he gives us. It is even more questionable whether Hommel can claim 1 K. 424 [54] as proving an early Israelitish use of 'Eber han-nahar as an expression for Palestine. This passage, together with 1 K. 421 [5 1], seems to belong to a late idealistic editor, who lived at a time when ’ Eber han-nahar A bar nahra), or, in old Persian, Arbaya, was the constant phrase for the region between the Euphrates and Gaza (see Ccelesyria, § i). Hommel's restoration of Nu. l.c. may be sought in his book ( AHT 245./C). He is not wrong in supposing that the text needs emendation ; but in deference to an archaeological theory he has unfortunately neglected the most important recent suggestion — viz., that of D. H. Muller (see Balaam, §6) — which makes Nu. 2423F an oracle on the kingdom of Sam’al (NE. of the gulf of Antioch). Starting from this, it will be plain that Assyria and Eber must be referred to in the little poem as the enemies of the N. Syrian kingdom. 2 The sense of Eber has to be obtained from the context. It may mean either the region beyond the Euphrates, or that on this side the river, near Aleppo (Ass. Halvan). In defence of the rival theory (that of Hommel) it is urged that the phrase 'Ibr-naharan (pnj nay) in 1 Minsean inscription means ‘ the region E. and N. of ’Asur, practically therefore the trans- Jordanic country and Syria’ (Glaser). Winckler, how- ever {A OF 1 3,2,7/. ; G/I174, n. *, and 192), thinks that the Minaean 'Eber han-nahar was the land of Musri (see Mizraim, § 2 b), which received a second name from the stream that formed its frontier, whilst Marquart ( Fund . 75) is of opinion that 'Ibr-naharan can only be the Persian province, *Abar nahra (see above). 2. b. Elpaal, in a genealogy of Benjamin (§ 9 ii. / 3 ), one of the founders of Ono and Lod and its dependencies, 1 Ch. 812 (w/ 3?}5 [BA], a /3 ep [L]). 3. A priest, the head of Amok, temp. Joiakim (Ezra ii., §6 i, it), Neh. 12 2 o(a/ 3 e« [tt c - an, S- inf - L], om. B«‘A). 4. AV Heber (RV Eber), in a genealogy of Gad, i Ch. 6 13 (w/ 3 tj 5 [B], uo/ 3 . [A]). 5. AV Heber (RV Eber), b. Shashak, a Benjamite, 1 Ch. 822 (w/ 35 tj [B], w/ 3>]5 [A], afiep [L]). T. K. C. EBEZ (f^K), Josh. 1920 RV, AV Abez. EBIASAPH (S)D£$), 1 Ch - 623 [8], etc. See Abi- ASAPH. EBONY (Kt. D’Omn ; Kr. ; true vocalisation uncertain ; Egypt, heben [Lieblein, AZ, 1886, p. 13], 1 T+a 1,00 6B6NOC (not in 0, but in Symm. Ezek. 1. it. use. 27 lS ^ hf.benum; a. loan-word). The word occurs in MT only once (Ezek. 27 15) I but there are traces of it in perhaps four other passages (see below, § 2). From 1 K. 10 22 we may almost certainly learn that Solomon imported ebony 1 Cp also Wi. Mu$rt, Meluhha., Ma'tn, pp. 51 ff. [’98]. 2 See Che. Exp. T. 8 520 (Aug. '97), and 10 309 (June ’99). H53 as well as ivory, and from 1 Ch. 292 that he was be- lieved to have used it in the decoration of the temple. If our emendation of Is. 2 16 b is right (below, §2e), ebony was especially used at Jerusalem in the construc- tion of thrones, for Isaiah appears to threaten destruc- tion to * thrones of ebony.’ Possibly Solomon’s famous throne (1 K. 10 18) was made of ivory inlaid with ebony. The passage that needs no emendation (below, § 2 a) occurs in Ezekiel's grand description of Tyrian commerce. Ebony, as well as ivory, was brought to Tyre by De- danite,or possibly Rhodian, merchants (see Dodanim). The uses to which ebony was put by the Egyptians are well known. It was employed both for sacred and for secular purposes ; shrines, palettes, and many objects of furniture were made of it. From the time of Ti (tomb at Sakkara) to that of Ptolemy Philadelphus it finds frequent mention in the Egyptian records (Naville, Deir el-Bahari, 1 24 ['94]). The Babylonians and Assyrians too knew this wood, if Jensen ( KB 337) is right in supposing that it is meant by the term usu, which is applied to a precious kind of wood, derived by the patesi, or priest-king, Gudea, from Meluhha, or NW. Arabia. There seems no reason to doubt, notwithstanding Sir Joseph Hooker’s hesitation, that the ‘ ebony ' of Ezek. is the heartwood of Diospyros Ebenupi, a large tree of S. India and Ceylon, which has been exported from early times. It was no doubt one of the articles of Phoenician commerce through the Red Sea, like so many other products mentioned in OT. We will now examine the biblical passages in which reference is perhaps made to ebony. (a) Ezek. 27 15 was understood in very different ways by the ancients, ©'s oSopTas eAe^aimpous indeed supports 'n f p; but rots eia-ayofievoLs implies some word beginning 2. Biblical with b> and Pesh. reads the whole phrase nmp evidence. n3ia*?l ‘horns of oil and frankincense.' Still the ordinary text and the ordinary rendering are probably correct ; Smend, Cornill, and Bertholet are, on this point, agreed. ( b ) The present text of 1 K. 10 22 cannot he correct, ©bl only gives (as its rendering of MT’s □”am CSlpI D'anj^) Kal \iOv (a7reA. [L]) — i.e., it read the first word DUaN* This is probably older than the reading substituted for it in ©a ; but although the Chronicler may have read Dnb’ \]?K for D’anjb [see (c)], MT is probably nearer the true text. Only, following Ezek. 27 15, we should restore EUarn jb, ‘ivory and ebony ’ (see Gesenius and Rodiger, Thes.). It is not very probable, however, that □"arn D'Sh“5 is correct, ingenious as the explana- tions given of these words elsewhere (Ape) certainly are. Q^an has probably arisen out of a dittographed Q’jarn (it is remarkable that in Ezek. 27 15 Tg. actually reads Q^iri instead of MT's □Uain)* □’flip may in like manner have arisen out of an early scribe’s correction of the text ; he probably wrote nuap- If so » we should read the whole phrase □ua.TI mnpl fpal 3»"I7, ‘gold and silver, and horns of ivory and ebony.’ ( c ) In 1 Ch. 292 Drib \J3K, * onyx - stones, ' which does not come in very naturally in the list of David's building materials, should rather be D’jam )b. Perhaps 2 Ch. 9 21 originally made the ships of Tarshish bring □ nC' ’JaNi not D’anJG’- See Che. Exp. T. 10 240 (Feb. '99). (hv un( * er ^ sun?' In other words, ( 56 / 8 12), a man of righteous life (8 13), thoughtful, and " P y* human life is without result. In this dwelling by preference on the serious side of life ( 7 1-6). it is like the whole order of things, which goes on in an He believes in God, and in a moral rule of God, who eternal round, accomplishing nothing. All things recur, ‘judges ' the righteous and the wicked. No doubt this and there is nothing new under the sun (lx-xx). Then, rule is incomprehensible and full of what seem moral in chap. 1 /, he gives an account of the experiments anomalies. It appears arbitrary (226) : under it all which led to this conclusion. He inquired into ‘ all things happen alike to all, to the godly and to the that is done under the sun,' — by which he means not ungodly (9 1-3): the race is not to the swift nor the merely the whole variety of human activity, but also all battle to the strong ( 9 n) : there be righteous men the events that happen to man in his life, — and he found unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the that all was without result. He found, too, that the wicked, and the contrary (814). Nevertheless, the knowledge gained during the enquiry was equally result- Preacher will not abandon the general idea of such a less : * In much wisdom is much grief’ ( 1 12-18). Then moral rule (812 /), though he laments that the delay he tried pleasure, — not as a sensualist, for his wisdom and uncertainty of God’s ‘judgment’ encourages men remained with him (23-9), but as an experimental in their wickedness (8n), and increases the evil and philosopher, — and he found pleasure equally barren of madness which are in their hearts (93) ; for, though God result : * 1 said of laughter, It is mad, and of mirth, made man upright, man has sought out many inven- What doeth it? ’ (22). Wisdom, indeed, carries a certain tions (729). Such anomalies in Providence, however, advantage with it ; but it is no permanent gain to a man, always drive the Preacher back to his practical counsel : ■for as the fool dieth, so dieth the wise man. ’ There- ‘Wherefore I commend mirth; for a man hath no fore, there being no profit or permanent gain in life, better thing under the sun than to eat and drink and howsoever it be lived, the practical conclusion is, Let to be merry' (815). yourself enjoy good (224). Man is speculatively unable to comprehend the world Such is the author’s meaning when he says that all ( 3 n 724 817), and practically helpless to obviate its is ‘vanity.’ It is not, as we are apt to suppose, that evils ; he is bound within an iron system which is un- the world is unsatisfying and that the human soul craves alterable. From a modern point of view it might be something higher than the world can give. All is asked, Does the Preacher acknowledge the possibility of vanity because man is confined by a fixed determination a progress of the individual mind within the bounds of of everything on all sides of him by God. All the the system which fetters him, of a culture or discipline events of human life are in the hand of God : man has within the limitations imposed on him by God ? He no power over them more than he has over the wind does so in a certain sense. The evil of life, man’s (88). There is a time to be bom, and a time to die ; ignorance of what is to befall him, teaches him to fear a time to weep, and a time to laugh ; a time to love 1 God ( 3 14) ; and in his survey of the work that is done and a time to hate. All is ‘ in the hand of God ; whether 1 under the sun he acquires ‘ wisdom,’ or, to. use a common it be love or hatred man knoweth it not — all is before phrase, ‘culture.’ But the ‘vanity,’ the resultlessness them ’ ( 3 1-9 9 i). It is absurd to suppose that this means . of life, lies here : in that a man can neither that there is a proper or suitable time for everything ; * retain these gains nor transmit them, and, it means that there is a time fixed by God for every- after all, life is without profit. (1) Man cannot retain thing, a time, not when things should be done, but his gains, for death surprises him : the wise man dieth when they must be done. Even the injustice in the even as the fool, and there is no remembrance of either judgment seat and the oppressions against which men of them for ever (2 16 ; cp 217-23) ; in the grave there are helpless are ordinations of God. There may be a is no work, no knowledge, no wisdom ( 9 10) : the dead time for judging them — there is a time for everything ; know not anything, neither have they any more a — but their object in God’s hand is to bring home to reward ( 9 s). The Preacher strikes here the saddest man a true idea of what he is — that he is nothing note of his feeling. It is obvious that his complaint and that God is all. Their object is to prove men and that life has no ‘ profit ’ because man cannot retain its teach them to fear God, and that they may learn that gains is a complaint that man cannot retain himself — they are but beasts ; for one event happeneth to them * What shall it profit a man if he gain the world and and to the beasts: all go to one place, all are of the lose himself?’ The Preacher’s cry is for continuity of dust, and all turn to dust again ( 3 16-20) — ‘Who knoweth the individual life, that he may still carry with him the the spirit of man whether it goeth upward, and the gains which his spirit has accumulated. He appears spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the to be aware that immortality of the individual spirit is p , earth?’ (321 RV). Obviously nothing believed in by some ; but either the ground-tone of his • is left to man but to take what joy out own mind is too sombre for him to accept the idea, or P P n y* of life is possible, for that is his portion the evidence for it seems insufficient (319-21 9 1-6). (224 3 1222 5 18-20 815 97-10 II Even over this His book is unintelligible if this belief formed part of his man has no power : it also is in the determination creed. Hence he has been called a ‘ sceptic. ' The word of God (713/). Power to enjoy life is the gift of is relative. All the OT saints, if they lived now, might God (224/ 3 13 519) ; and, though it may generally be be called sceptics. The belief in immortality was not assumed that he desires men to have this enjoyment until very late times an assured doctrine of the OT (cp (97), there are instances where he denies them the gift Eschatology, § 33). We observe it in the process (226 62-8). The Preacher is, of course, no sensualist. of arising, as the necessary issue of two things — the The ‘good,’ enjoyment of which he recommends, consists living fellowship of man with God here, of which it is the of the simple pleasures of life : eating and drinking, the continuance ; and the anomalies of providence, of which consolations and supports of wedlock, the pleasure to it is the reconciliation. The Preacher is unable to reach be derived from activity in work or in business (97-10 11 it on either line . 2 (2) Further, life is without result 1-6910). How could the pleasures recommended be those of riot and excess when they are ‘the gift of God,' 1 Probably we should render a difficult phiase thus with the ‘ portion ' he has given to man in the life which he D ' ll 'gf ^ se of the word . irit ' in the 0 T is obscure. (,) It spends as a shadow? It is just in these enjoyments that means the ‘ breath,' the visible sign, of life. (2) It is what we man comes nearest to God: he meets God in them, feels call the ‘piinciple of life.' Life and the continuance of life 1158 1157 ECCLESIASTES ECCLESIASTES because the wise man cannot transmit the fruits of his labour or of his wisdom : the man that cometh after him may be a fool. The idea of an advance of the race through the accumulated gains contributed to it by individuals does not occur to the Preacher. The tide of personal life flows too strong in his heart to permit him to acquiesce in his own absorption into the race, even if the race had a great destiny before it. Of this, moreover, he sees no evidence. To his mind, in the mood in which we find him, mankind has neither a pro- gress nor a goal. The analogy of nature oppresses him. Its monotonous daily round of sunrise and sunset, of veering winds and rushing streams, produces no result. The history of mankind is the same — one generation goeth and another generation cometh. The universe has no goal; God has no purpose, and mankind no destiny. This general scope of the Preacher's logic (howsoever his heart recoils from it) defines the sense in which he speaks of God’s ’judgment.’ He hardly has the idea of a general judgment, such as that of the 1 day of the Lord ’ of the prophets, when God brings in his perfect kingdom and bestows eternal blessedness on his people. The Preacher’s ’ individualism,' common to him with all the writers of the Wisdom, makes this unlikely. Neither could he have spoken of the universe as i continuous flux without a point of attainment if he had thought of it as moving towards this great goal. The ‘ judgment ’ is to him merely part of the moral government of God, which he maintains, howsoever imperfectly he is able to perceive it. We have seen already that besides his theoretical and his practical philosophy the Preacher had a regula- _ p . - - tive principle of conduct, which he called V j * wisdom. Much of the book is devoted to showing the advantage of this prin- ciple. It teaches a man how to bear himself before God. Even in religion a man ought to be calm and meditative, and to restrain over -impulsiveness (5 1-7 7 16/ ). So in regard to rulers : even if despotic and evil, a wise man will not act hastily, seeing that power is on the side of the ruler ; nor will he rashly enter into plots or conspiracies. Discretion is the better part of valour. He who digs a pit may fall into it. Skill is hetter than force. If you have trees to fell, grind your axe rather than 'put to more strength' (81-9 IO1-11). And be not surprised if you are oppressed and plun- dered. Society, or at least government, is an organised oppression : those who oppress you are oppressed by those above them, and these again by their superiors, and so on to the top of the pyramid (58). Wisdom, how- ever, perceives the ‘ vanity ’ of all this : for example, he that loveth money will not be satisfied with money, and he that increaseth his substance increaseth those who eat it (5 10-69). Wisdom, on the contrary, is as good as an inheritance, or better than that ; for it preserves the life of him who has it (7 12) ; it supplements the defects of righteousness, and avoids * the falsehood of extremes ’ (7 15-22) ; it is stronger than ten rulers in a city (7 19) ; and preserves men both from sentimental dreaming over the good old days and from over -anxious fore- casting how their business ventures will turn out (11 1-6). There is much, however, that wisdom is not equal to even in human things (724), and no wisdom can find out the 'work of God’ (817). Moreover, the wisdom of the poor man is neglected or forgotten (9 13-16), and a little folly is stronger than much wisdom, even as a dead fly will cause a pot of ointment to stink (10 x). are the effect of a divine influence ; the cessation of life is the withdrawal of this influence. The ‘ spirit ’ in this sense is nothing but an effect. All questions where this * spirit ' goes when * taken away ' by God are irrelevant. It goes nowhere : the taking away’ of it is merely the cessation of the divine influence of which it is the effect. (3) It is the immaterial subject (not substance) in man, which lives. The boundary lines between (2) and (3) are confused. The passage 3 21 seems to incline to (3), though without firmness (5 19), whilst 12 7 prob- ably goes back to (2), being on a line with Ps. IO429./I Job 34 14. Cp, further, Eschatology, § 19^/C, and Spirit. II 59 Occasionally the author uses the term ’ wisdom ’ in the sense of comprehension of the universe or work of God. For this man is altogether incompetent (cp Job 28)- The above analysis shows the Preacher's main ideas. The Preacher himself is more difficult to explain. The _ difference between him and earlier writers e m n. Wisdom * lies in his tone. To catch this truly would be to find the key to his book. The existence of the book is evidence of dissatisfaction, of a sense of want. The Preacher is driven to acknowledge that man is ’ like a beast with lower pleasures ' : he could not have added ’ with lower pains. ’ His book all through is a cry of pain — just that he has no portion but lower pleasures. His conclusions are in a way positivist; but his whole book is a protest against his conclusions — not against the truth of them, but against the fact that they should be true. Job flung himself against the moral iniquities of Providence ; to the Preacher the 4 crookedness’ of things is universal. Job raged; the Preacher only moans and moralises. Job is an untamed eagle, dashing himself against the bars of his cage ; the Preacher looks out with a lustreless eye on the glorious heavens, where, if he were free, he might soar. He knows it cannot be, and he ventures also to murmur some advice to men : Enjoy good ; do not think (520). His admonitions to himself and others are quite sincere, not ironical ; they are the human soul's efforts to anaesthetise itself — dull narcotics numbing pain. The Preacher’s mood may be a complex thing : partly temperament, partly «. mode of religion, and partly due to the wretched conditions of human life in his time. It was an evil time. Judges were corrupt, rulers despotic and debauched, the people oppressed ; 10. A product of and society " “ d,simegrated ' J“ “ ot T- • -n unnecessary to have recourse to Greek re igi philosophy to explain the Preacher's ideas and feelings (cp Hellenism, § 6, and see below, § 13). The practical ' wisdom ’ which he recommends may have a certain resemblance to the ' unperturbed- ness,' the ‘mean,’ and the ‘nothing too much’ of the philosophers; but both it and all other things in the Preacher are a natural development of the native Hebrew Wisdom. There is nothing in Ecclesiastes which is not already in Job and the older Wisdom. Indeed, one may say that the OT religion was bound to produce, at some time and in some cases, a phenomenon like the Preacher. The OT religion consists of two things: first, ideas about God; and, secondly, a living faith towards him and sense of fellowship with him. Without the latter the former brings little comfort to the human mind, even though certain fundamental beliefs — such as the personality of God and the moral being of man — be still retained. For, first, the fundamental principle of Hebrew religion that God is in all things that happen, whilst in times of prosperity and well-being it gave unspeakable joy to the pious mind, with a vivid sense of its fellowship in life with God, when the times were evil and articles of a creed had taken the place of an emotional piety, gave rise to a sense of impotency in the mind. Man felt environed 011 all sides by a fixed order which he could do nothing to ameliorate. God became «. mere transcendent force outside of human life, pressing upon it and limiting it on every side. The different feeling which the same conception of God produced in the pious mind and in the reflective mind, respectively, will appear if Ps. 139 be compared with Ecclesiastes. It would be false to say that ’ God ’ to the Preacher was nothing more than what the ‘ world ’ or ’ nature,’ or that which is outside a man, is to many minds now. His faith in a personal God is never shaken ; atheism or materialism is not conceivable in an ancient Oriental mind. At the same time, his faith is no more suffused with the life- colours of an emotional confidence, and he could not have said with the Psalmist, ‘ Nevertheless I am con- tinually with thee’ (Ps. 7323), nor with Job, ‘I know 1160 ECCLESIASTES ECCLESIASTES that my Redeemer liveth, and that I shall see God ’ {I925). Secondly, it was from ’piety,' the sense of fellowship with God, not from reflection, that all the great religious hopes in regard to man’s future arose. They were projections, corollaries, of an emotional personal religion — such as the hope of immortality, the faith in a reign of righteousness, and the incoming of a kingdom of God upon the earth. When piety declined, and reflection took its place, these hopes of the future could not sustain themselves. They survived in the com- munity, whose life was perennial ; but the ’ individual- ism ' of the Preacher felt them slipping from its grasp. The date of Ecclesiastes cannot be determined with certainty. It is later than Malachi, for the priest called 11 Date * n ' messenger of the Lord ’ (Mai. 27) is simply named ’the messenger’ in 56. It is probably earlier than Ecclesiasticus (circa 200), for, though many of the coincidences usually cited have little relevancy, Ecclus. IS 6 seems certainly a reminiscence of Eccles. 3 14, and Ecclus. 4224 of Eccles. 7 14. The book may belong to the oppressive times of the later Persian rule, or it may be a product of the Greek period. Perhaps the language would rather suggest the later date (see next §). In the beginning of the book the experiments on life are represented as being made by Solomon ; but this transparent disguise is speedily abandoned. Solomon is merely the ideal of one who has unbounded wisdom and unlimited resources with which to experiment on human life — a man whose verdict of ’vanity,’ therefore, is infallible. In the Epilogue the Preacher is merely one of the wise (12 9). The state of society amid which the author lived has no resemblance to the state of society in the times of Solomon. There was corruption in the judgment seat (3 16), cruel oppression from which there was no redress (4r ff), and a hierarchy of official plunderers one above another (58), with a system of espionage which made the most private speech dangerous (IO20). The author had witnessed revolutionary changes in society and strange reversals of fortune — slaves riding on horses and princes walking on foot (IO4-7). Such a time might be the late Persian period. It could not well be the early Greek period when the Jews enjoyed the beneficent rule of the early Ptolemies. It might, however, be the more advanced Greek period, when Palestine became the stake played for by Antioch and Alexandria, a time when the people suffered severe hardships, and when the upper classes, especially the religious leaders, were deeply demoralised and self-seek- ing. On the other hand, the book must be earlier than the uprising of the national spirit in the time of the Maccabees. Gratz indeed places the book in the time of Herod (8 B.c.) ; but the date is part of his theory of the book, which has no probability. The most probable date perhaps is the latter part of the third century b.c. (cp, however, Che. Jew . Rel. Life , ch. v.). Both the language and the modes of religious thought in Ecclesiastes suggest that it is one of the latest books 12 Lanpim * n canon - The language has the 6* 1 S Q - peculiarities of such late books as Chronicles- Ezra -Nehemiah, and Esther. Indeed, it belongs to a much more degraded stage of Hebrew than either of those books exhibits ; and in the forms of words, in the new senses in which older words are used, and in the many new words employed, it has many similarities to the Targums and Syriac, especially to the Mishna (circa 200 A. d. ). The characteristic forms of Hebrew syntax, such as the vav conversme have almost disappeared ; constructions of classical Hebrew have given place to those of Aramaic ; and in general the language has lost its old condensed character, and become analytic, with a multitude of new particles. Details may be seen in Driver’s Introd ., and in the commentaries of Delitzsch, Nowack, or Wrigbt. The ideas and the mode of religious thought in the 13 Ideas k°°k also bear witness to the lateness of its date. In the Preacher the religious spirit of Israel is seen to be completely exhausted. It can no 1161 more, as in Job and Ps. 49 and 73, use the problems of life in order to rise to lofty intuitions of its relation to God. It sinks back defeated, able only to offer a few practical rules for ordinary life. The idea of Tyler, who is followed by Plumptre, that the book is a blend of the Stoic and Epicurean philosophies, seems extra- ordinarily superficial, and is supported mainly by what appears misinterpretation of its language. The passage 3 iff., ‘ there is a time to be born ’ (etc.), does not inculcate tbe doctrine of living ‘conformably to nature,’ or teach that there is a fit time for doing everything : it teacbes that there is a necessary time, for the time of everything has been determined by God. Even the most astute opportunist would have difficulty in securing that he should be born and should die at the fitting time. Again, the passages 1 9 3 15 and many others certainly teacb that there is nothing ‘ new ’ under the sun, no progress in nature or history, that things recur ; but they teach nothing about recurrent ‘cycles.’ Determinism is, of course, a prevailing idea in the book. That, however, is just the funda- mental idea of the Wisdom, or indeed of the Hebrew mind — that God is the causality in all things — with the inevitable develop- ment which time gave it. At first sight the phrase * to do good ' in the sense of ‘ to see good,’ to enjoy life (3 12), has a startling resemblance to the Gk. *5 npaTreiv ; but, after all, the senses of the two phrases are somewhat different, and there is no reason to suppose the Hebrew expression to be an imitation ; though not occurring elsewhere, its opposite, ‘to do badly’ (i.e., be sad), is used in early literature (2 S. 12 18, and perhaps Eccles. 5r [4r7 (5 r)]), and possibly the phrase itself may be ancient. (H. Zirkel, Unters. ilb. den Prediger, 1792, was the first to dis- cover Graecisms in Ecclesiastes.) There have been attempts to identify the ’ old and foolish king’ (4r3 ff) and the city the siege of which was raised by 'the poor wise man’ (Qiiff.), and to verify the possible historical reference in the passage (10 4-7) about slaves on horseback and princes walking on foot, and in such passages as 8ro, with a view to fixing the date of the book more accurately ; but nothing has resulted beyond conjectures more or less plausible. The ingenious theory of Bickell that the apparent want of connection in many parts of Ecclesiastes is the , . .. result of an accident which befell the . n egn y. at some ear iy time, an d threw the sheets into confusion, has little probability: 1 the want of connection complained of disappears in many cases before a more careful study of the author's line of thought. In a book such as Ecclesiastes, however, — the line of thought and (particularly) the tone of which diverge so greatly from the other OT writings — it was to be expected that there would be some interpola- tions : qualifications which the reader or scribe felt constrained to add to the author’s somewhat strong statements. The probability that 1 1 9^ is an addition rests not so much on the idea expressed as on its unnaturalness in the context ; for the view of some that the passage means that God ’ will bring into judgment ’ any one who neglects to enjoy the natural pleasures of life is too absurd. There is less objection to 317 (perhaps the last word of the verse should be read sam, 'hath appointed’). 81012/. also are in some way corrupt. So, certainly, 12 1, 'Remember thy creator.’ The words disturb the connection between 11 10 and the rest of 12 1. The reading suggested by Gratz, 'Re- member thy fountain ’ ( =thy wife, Prov. 5 15-19)1 strikes a lower note than is heard anywhere in the book, and is to be rejected. The Epilogue falls into two parts, 12g-i2 and 12 13/ ; and it is questionable whether either part (especially the second) is original. 2 On the one hand, the book reaches its natural conclusion in 128, where the burden of it is restated : ‘All is Vanity’ ; and, secondly, whilst in the rest of the book the author speaks in the first person, in w. 9-12 he is spoken about. On the other hand, though the verses contain some peculiar expressions, their general style agrees with that of the rest of the book, and it is quite possible that the author, dropping 1 The theory of dislocation was first proposed by J. G. van der Palm in his Ecclesiastes philologice et critice illustratus , Leyden, 1784. The theory and arrangement of Bickell is repro- duced in Dillon, Sceptics of the OT, ’95. 2 On interpolations in Eccles., see also Canon, § 55, col. 67^ n. 4. 1x62 ECCLESIASTES ECCLESIASTICUS his literary disguise of Solomon, might have added some account of himself in his actual character. The picture is certainly not just that which would have suggested itself to a mere reader of the book : it implies a fuller acquaintance with the author than could be got from his work. In w. 13 f the whole matter is said to be : * Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man. ’ The last words may mean, This absorbs or should absorb man : all bis powers should be directed toward this ; or they may mean. This exhausts man : his powers reach no further — e.g. , to understand the ' work of God 1 (Job 28). Verse 14, which says that God * will bring every work into judgment,’ attaches itself better to the first sense. The ' judgment ' also seems a larger and more general one than that seen in God’s ordinary moral rule of the world. Possibly, therefore, w. 13 f come from the same hand as 11 96. If the verses be an addition, they are still comparatively early, for they are referred to in the disputes of the Jewish teachers - ... over the canonicity of the book. 15 . canonicity. Ecdesiastes is not quoted in the NT, and even in the second century A. D. its right to a place in the collection of sacred books was a subject of controversy in the Jewish schools. The exact state of the dispute appears to be this : Practically the book had long been combined with the other 4 sacred writings ’ ; but voices which expressed doubt of the propriety of this combination continued to be heard. That this is the state of the case appears from the facts ( 1 ) that Ecclesiastes must be included in the twenty-four books of 4 Esdras, and in the twenty-two of Josephus, toward the end of the first century A. D. ; and (2) that in the time of Herod the Great and of Gamaliel it is quoted as ‘scripture’ (Bab. Bathra , 4 a, Skabb. 30 b), whilst the objections to it continued to be heard 100- 120 a.d. (Yad. 3 s). The school of Hillel held that it ‘defiled the hands ' (was canonical) ; that of Shammai rejected it. The former opinion finally prevailed. See Canon, § 55. In addition to general works such as Driver’s Introd. and Kue.’s Ond. ( 2 ) iii. may be named the comms. of Ew. Dichter des Alt. Bundes ; Hitzig, Ex eg. Hand ., 16. Literature. '47, P 2 ), by Now. ’83 ; Ginsburg, Cohe- leth, ’61 ; Gratz, Koheleth, 1871 ; Del. Hoheslied u. Koheleth, 1875 (translated) ; Plumptre, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher (Cambridge Bible), 1881 ; Renan, L' Eccllsiaste, 1882 ; Wright, The Book 0/ Cohcleth , 1883 ; Volck, Kurzgef. Komm. (Strack u. Zockler), 1880 ; Sam. Cox, in Ex. Bib., 1890. Helps of a more general kind : N5ld. Die A T Lit., 1868 ; Bloch, U r sprung, etc., des Bitches Koh., 1872; Tyler, Ecclesiastes, 1874 [l 2 ) ’99]; Taylor, Dirge of Koheleth, 1874 ; Engelhard, ‘Ueber den Epilog des Koh.’o*. Kr., 1875; Kleinert, ‘Sind in B. Koh. ausserheb. Einfliisse anzuerkennen ? ’ St. Kr., 1883; Bickell, Der Prediger, 1884 ; SchifFer, Das B. Koh. nach der Auffassung der Weisen des Talmud, etc., 1884; Bradley, Led. on Eccles., 1885 ; Pfleiderer, Die Philos, des Heraklit, 1886 ; A. Palm, DieQohelet Literatur, 1886 ; Che. Job and Solomon, 1887; Jew. Pel. Life, Lect. vi. 1898; S. Euringer, Der Masorahtext des Koh., 1890 ; Wildeboer (in KHC ’98). On the Gr. text, Di. SBA IV, 1892 ; E. Klostermann, De Lib. Colt. Vers. Alex. 1892 ; Tyler, Koh. 1899. A. B. D. [Gra. MGWJ, 1885, pp. a defence of the reign of Herod as the date of Ecclesiastes, with special reference to the Talmudic passages cited in C. H. H. Wright's Ecclesiastes ; Kuenen, ‘The tendency, integrity, and age of Ecclesiastes,' Ond.P) §§ 104, 105 (’93 ; Germ, transl. Einl., '93): note especially the discussion of proposed dates later than 200 b.c. ; Haupt, ‘The Book of Ecclesiastes,’ Oriental Studies (Or. Club of Philadelphia, ’94), pp. 242-278, holds that the contents have been deliberately disarranged, and that many glosses have in- truded into the text ; he gives a translation of the final section as restored by himself. K3. Einl. ('93), 432 ff., and LeimdSrfer ( Das heil. Schrift- werk Kohclet, '92) ably plead for a date in the reign of Alex- ander Jannzeus. Siegfried (in H K. '93) also thinks tbat Eccles. is full of con- tradictions, indicating _ the work of at least five writers. A redactor attempted, with little success, to bring order out of chaos. He gave the superscription (1 1) and a concluding word (12 8); 129.19 is due to three epilogists. The date of the original book is placed soon after 200 b.c. The glossators may have gone on till nearly 100 b.c. ; allusions to the Essenes (see, e.g., 0 2 b) also point to this period. The kernel of the work may bave been known to Ben-Sira (after 170 B.c.). Che. Jew. Pel. Life (’98), 183-208, favours Gratz’s hypo- thesis, and while admitting that the date of Ecclesiastes needs further examination, he finds no period which so fully illus 1163 trates the book as that of Herod the Great. He admits great disarrangement and interpolations. It may be added that the text of Eccles. is in a bad state. There are still gleanings to be had in some of the most difficult passages, which may considerably affect the criticism of the book (see Critica Biblica, and cp Koheleth). Bickell s emendations have hardly been appreciated enough. He has further done good service, not only by his suggestive rearrange- ment, but also by his attention to the poetical passages, e.g., no one has made so clear to the eye the most probahle meaning of 11 ickz and 12 1 a (cp Che. Jew. Pel. Life, 192). Wi.’s essay on ‘ Date and Author of Koheleth ’ (AOE( 2 ) 143- 159) gives a general sanction to Siegfried’s analysis, and as- cribes the kernel to Alcimus [q.v.]. The ‘old and foolish king ’ is Antiochus Epiphanes. The statement on p. 146 that the author must have been either one of the kings of the Herodian house or else one of the heretical high priests before the Hasmoneean dynasty is a valuable recognition of the period within which, as more and more critics tbink, the date of tbe original book must be placed. — t. k. c.] ECCLESIASTICUS Title, etc. (§ 1 f) Text, etc. (§§ 3-6). Date (§§ 7-9). Fortunes (§ 10). Structure (§ 11 f.) Sources (§§ 13-15). Form and Contents (§ 16 f.) Religious teaching (§§ 18-22). Ethical (§ 23). Greek thought (§ 24). Literature (§ 26). Ecclesiasticus (abbrev. Ecclus. ) is the usual Latin and English name of one of the deuterocanonical books of the OT(see Apocrypha, §§ 2 8 ). It is not probable that the author himself gave his book a title ; later it is _... referred to under various names. In the 1. litie. 'p a i mu d i t j s cited simply by the name of the author, as ‘ Ben-Sira ’ (kyo p), or by the formula ‘the sages say’ (though this last may point not im- mediately to our book, but to material from which it drew). Jerome (Pres/, in Libr. Sal.) declares that he had seen a Hebrew copy entitled ‘Parabolae’ (d'W’d). and this designation, natural and appropriate, is employed also by Saadia. 1 In the LXX the book is called ’ Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach’ (2 ola I rjerov uloD 2[e]ipdx [NAC] ; B incorrectly 2. 2. ; but in the subscription B agrees with NA. The title of the Prologue in C is npdXoyos 2tpax)- This form (found also in the Syriac Versions and in sotne MSS of the Vet. Lat.) was the one generally used by the Greek writers, as is expressly stated by Rufinus ( Vers . Or. Horn, in Nu. xviii. 3). The title 2 ota occurs also in other combinations: in the honorary name ‘ All-virtuous Wisdom ’ (17 iravaperos 2o0t a) given to the book in patristic writings (J er - Prcef. in Lib. Sal.), as also to Proverbs (Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 57 ; Clem. Alex. i. 1085 ; Eus. HE iv. 22) and to Wisd. of Sol. 2 .(Epip>h. iii. 244); and in the more general designations ‘ Wisdom ’ (O rig. In Matt. 13 4) and ‘ Wisdom of Solomon ’ (Cypr. Test. iii. 20). With regard to the term noun applied in the Talmud to the work of Ben-Sira it is uncertain whether it is used as a title ; but it appears to have been employed as a descriptive term. Possibly it was an old Jewish designation, which was adopted by the Greek Christians as a title ; in the case of the Book of Proverbs Hege- sippus (in Eus. HE 422) refers the term to unwritten Jewish traditions. On the Talmudic use cp Blau (in REJ 35 21), who cites Jer. Sota, 24c : ‘ after the death of R. Eliezer the HDD fin '0 was buried (1333).’ It seems probable that the expression 'p 'o includes Ben-Sira. Whilst the Greeks thus named the work from the nature of its material, the Latins preferred a title descrip- tive of its relation to the Church services. The term tKKXricriaaTiKds is used by the Greeks of the kclvCsv of the Church (Clem. Alex. Str. 6 125), and generally of what was in accord with the Church. Adopted by the Latins, the term was employed by them in a like general way ( pacem ecclesiasticam , Tert. De Pudicit. 22), and came to be used especially of books which, though not canonical, were regarded as edifying and proper to be read in the churches (Ruf. Comm, in Symb., § 38, Vers. Orig. 1 The Oxford editors of the Hebrew Fragments (see below, § 4) refer (Preface, ix, n. 4) to a statement of Saadia (Sadyah) (n?jn "iSDi ed - Harkavy, p. 151, l. n f), that Ben-Sira wrote a Book of Instruction (^qiq -iqq). This expression, however seems to be rather a description than a title. 2 Probably given first to Proverbs, and then to all tbe supposed Solomonic wisdom-books. 1164 ECCLESIASTICUS ECCLESIASTICUS in Num. 18 3 ; Ath. Ep. Fest . , sub fine). So high was the esteem in which our book was held that it was termed ' Ecclesiasticus,’ the 1 liber ecclesiasticus ’ par ex- cellence (Cypr. Test. 2i 3i ; Aug. De Doct. Chr. 213). The name of the author is given variously. The Hebrew text has, in 50 27, ‘Shim'on b. Yeshua' b. Eliezer b. Sira* (so also Saadia, •’iSan'o. I 5j)» and in 51 30 the same formula, and also ‘Shim'on b. Y., called 2. Author, b. Sira' ; ©B 5O27 ojcrous v. cretpax ( ‘bound,’ which occurs in lists of priests (Ex. 6 24 1 Ch. 3 17). This is possible (Krauss cites ex- amples of similar abridgments); but the testimony of the primary Vss. is against it ; and the Ar. Vs. (as Edersheim points out), which commonly follows Syr., has * Jesu' b. Sirach.’ The Gk. form, with final x (or x), is best explained as intended to show that the foreign word is indeclinable (see Dalm. Gram. 161, n. 6); cp oxeAfio/iax = ND") (ACELDAMA, § i). The genealogies in 50 27 51 30 have only the authority of tradition — they are not from the hand of the author. He is described in 50 27 in the Greek and Latin Vss. as a ‘Jerusalemite,’ a statement in itself not improbable — it is in keeping with the detailed description of the high-priestly ritual in 50 ; but since it is not found in the H. and S. it cannot be regarded as certain. One Gk. MS calls him a ‘ priest ’ ; but this is merely a scribal error. Instead of iepo). In A there is predominant agreement with the Syriac ; in B (except in chaps. 50 f.) the agreements with the Greek against the Syriac are more numerous ; in chap. 51, after v. 12 is inserted a hymn which is not found in the Vss. 1 The MSS {assigned by Cowley and Neubauer, and by Schechter, provisionally, to the nth cent.), with the exception of a few passages, are very carelessly written, abounding in errors, not all of which are corrected. The scribes appear to have been not very well acquainted with Hebrew ; they sometimes make several futile attempts at the correction of particular words or expressions. In the glossed portion the annotator seems to have been a man whose ver- nacular was Persian ; at 35 20 he notes in Persian the omission of a verse ; at 40 22, where the margin gives a saying ascribed in the B. Talmud ( Sank . ico£) to Ben-Sira, he remarks that this was probably not in the original copy [of Ben-Sira] ; and at the point where the glosses cease (45 8) he explains that this MS reached thus far. This last remark appears to mean that the MS which he was copying ended here ; and in that case it is probable that the remainder (through chap. 51) belongs to another MS. With the supposition that the copyist or annotator lived where Arabic was spoken accords the fact that several Arabisms occur in the MS : p*?n in the sense of ‘ create,' 31 13 (doublet), 31 33 (doublet), 38 1 39 25 40 1 ; perhaps njn as = ‘ honour,' 38 1 ; in 43 8^ yyTO — u*j*+ ‘ presenting one's self,' is an explanation or correction of the word in the text, Hi. of pity as=‘ shine,’ 43 9 (marg.) ; perhaps in 42 n* a scribe understood as Arabic (‘ lattice '). The MS has evidently not only suffered from the ordinary carelessness of copyists, but also passed through the hands of an ignorant Arabic-speaking man who freely inserted terms of his Arabic vocabulary. If we omit Arabisms and other scribal faults, the diction of the text is that of 1 man who, while his vernacular is that of an incipient late-Hebrew, similar to that of Kohð (Eccles. ), is familiar with the greater part of the Hebrew OT, and freely quotes or imitates its language. 2 According to Bacher {JQR, 189 7) and Schechter {op. cit. 28) the text exhibits post-Talmudical mosaic ( paitanic ) features, that is to say, a number of ready-made expressions and phrases borrowed from the OT. This, however, seems to be too strong a state- ment — the language of Ben-Sira rarely produces the impression of being artificial or lacking in spontaneity. Nor can it be said to contain midrashic elements (so Schechter, op. cit., 29 ff. ), if by ‘midrash' is meant the 1 style of the Talmud. As examples of mosaic work Bacher cites 45 11 (cp Is. 54 12) 46 9 (cp Dt. 23 29) 39 27 (cp Job 9 5) 47 20 (cp Gen. 49 4) 44 21 (cp Ps. 728) 48 2 (cp Lev. 26 26), etc. ; Schechter, 4 28 (cp Ex. 14 14) 14 23 (cp Judg. 5 28) 35 15 (cp Lam. 1 2) 49 16 (cp Is. 44 13), etc. These are cases of adoption and adaptation ; but they hardly deserve to be called mosaic work. Schechter’s instances of midrash are not convincing. The confession of intellectual or religious limitations in 3 18-24 is not necessarily an adaptation of Ps. 131 1 (in which the reference is political)^— it may be based on Job 423 ; puns (6 17^ a, 22 1) are common in OT : 15 9 (cp Ps. 38 1) and 47 22c (cp Ps. 145 20) are ‘commonplace’ inferences; in 16 7 the allusion (Gen. 61-4) is not to the ‘ sons of the Elohim ’ but to the ‘ Nephllim ' (cp Ezek. 32 27) ; the lesson derived in 38 5 from Ex. 15 24 is very simple — there are many such interpretations in l Fisa. 0/ Sol., and so different from that in Camb. MS A : the text is abridged by the omission of 6 20-27 29'34 36/ 735 6c-i6 17-19 22 ; (ii.) a leaf of, apparently, a fourth MS (C^v.), containing 36 24-38 1 : it is thus parallel to most of the second Brit. Mus. fragment (of MS B)and the upper part of the following Camb. leaf (of B). It gives in its text some of the glosses on the margin of the Camb. B and has one verse (37 3) punctuated and accentuated. Both Levi’s fragments are published (with facsimile of the new MS [11.]) in REJ 40 1-30 [antedated Jan. -Mar. 1900]. c. Lastly, E. N. Adler discovered the two leaves of MS A missing between A 2 v and A3r— viz., 7 29-I2 1 (8 2 showing Kr. an £ vt' several w. being supplied with vowels and accents) : published (with facsimile) in JQK 12 466-480 (Ap. 1900).) r or detailed descriptions of MS B see Cowley and Neu- bauer Smend, L6vi (below, §26 « i.) ; for description of MSS A u an< nVc’o^ C ^ ec ^ ter Baylor (below, § 26 a ii.). [For the other MbS see preceding note.] 2 Schechter, in 1 his Ben Sira , 13^, gives a long list of paral- lelisms, some of which, however, are common expressions tamihar to every educated Jew. In the prologue Ben-Sira is said to have been a diligent student of the Scriptures. 1167 of the legend possibly alluded to in the obscure statement in 44 16; the borrowing, in 4015c, of the expressions of Ps. 8930 is not remarkable; that Samuel was a Nazirite (4613c) 1S & natural inference from 1 S. 1 1 1 — there is no need of the formal Rabbinical rule nit? m'TJ — and the simile in 47 2 (cp Ps. 89 20 Lev. 4 8) is equally natural for a man interested in the temple- ritual ; text and translation of 47 10c are doubtful (the couplet is lacking in S.), and the comparison with the Talmudic legend (of David awaking at midnight, Ber. 3 b) is precarious ; 49 1 may be based on Cant. 1 3 (so Schechter), or, what is equally probable, it may come from the same literary tendency that produced the simile in Canticles. The passages above cited may be taken to show the beginning of the mode of thought that later produced the Talmudic midrash. In this sense only can we adopt Schechter’s conclusion : ‘ if he thought like a Rabbi he wrote like a Paitan.’ 1 Over and above these characteristics of the Hebrew MSS the question has been raised whether the text is . substantially the original Hebrew or 6. Relation on |y a translation, and both views are to Original. stre nuously maintained by competent critics. Those who regard it as a translation refer it either (i.) to a Persian or (ii. ) to a Syriac source. i. The opinion that it is the rendering of a Persian version (which itself is held to have been derived from the Syriac and the Greek) is based partly on the presence of Persian glosses, partly on the supposition that certain doubtful or incorrect expressions result from the misunderstanding of Persian words ; the hypothesis is that the Syriac version used was revised from the Greek, and this revised text was rendered from Persian into Hebrew by an unintelligent Persian Jew who knew neither Syriac nor Greek. This theory is incompatible with the known facts : the agreements (often literal) and the disagreements of the Hebrew with the primary Versions make it practically inconceivable that it could have arisen in the way described. The alleged explan- ations of obscure Hebrew expressions as misunder- standings of Persian terms must be regarded as accidental coincidences, or, possibly, as in some cases due to a Persian-speaking scribe. So far as the theory supposes a Syriac-Greek basis for the Persian version it falls in with the other view that the Hebrew is a translation of the Syriac, on which see below. The argument for a Persian origin of the Hebrew is made by D. S. Margoliouth in his essay The origin of the ‘ original Hebrew ’ of Ecclesiasticus (1899). His points are not convincing. The Persian glosses merely show the hand of a Persian copyist or annotator, who was a critic, as appears from his remark on the addition at 40 22 (see above, § 4). The absurd or impossible Hebrew words cited by Margoliouth are scribal errors, and may be got rid of by emendation {e.g. 40 26c 16 436 17c- 22 42 14 41 12 4734611); cp Smend and Kautzsch. Prof. Margoliouth does not distinguish between author and copyist ; the latter may have used Arabic words (4398^4). The most striking case of apparent rendering from Persian is in 43 13, where G has ‘ snow 1 (Pers. 1 -irf) and H 2 ‘lightning’ (Pers. ^) — obviously, says Margoliouth, H misunderstood the Persian ; but the force of this argument is practically destroyed by Margoliouth’s remark that s a colophon (probably by an editor) ; and 51 is an appended prayer and exhortation. In the body of the work new starting- points are indicated at 16 24 [22] 24 1 and 39 12, and there are further paragraphal divisions (marked by the address ' my son ’) at 2i 3 17 4 1 6 18 23 32, etc. , besides the sub- divisions obvious in the subject matter (see the headings in the Greek Version). Beyond this paragraphal and sectional arrangement it seems impossible to dis- cover any plan in the book. 1 It consists, like Proverbs, of a mass of observations on life, put together in the interests not of logical order but of edification. A curious arrangement of material is found in most ... t .. Greek MSS (in all hitherto examined 12. Dislocation. Qn ^ point ^ xccpt No 2+8 of Holmes and Parsons) : the section 33 16-3 6 11 is placed after 30 24. 3 Tbe light order is given in the Pesh., the Latin, the Armenian, and the G MS No. 248 (which is followed by Complut., as this last is followed in EV). The cause of the derangement was prob- ably the displacement of rolls of the G MS from which most existing MSS are derived, 3 or possibly of the Heb. MS from which the Gk. translation was made. Similar instances of dis- placement are mentioned by Fritzsche (Comm. 170) and Edersheim (Comm. i54).4 The PeSh. was made from an inde- pendent Heb. MS, which had tbe right order. The Latin may have been made from a G MS earlier than that from which our present G texts are derived ; it may have been corrected after the Heb. ; it may come from a corrected G text like that of No. 248. As to the author's sources nothing very precise can be said. Whilst his own experience and observation „ probably furnished a great part of his * s * material, it is possible that he drew also from books or from unpublished discourses of sages. There are not a few resemblances between him and Proverbs ; but the most of these are best explained as independent treatment of common material. The same thing is true of the points of contact between Ecclesiasticus and Ecclesiastes. 5 If our author quotes those two books, he apparently treats them as wisdom-books having no more authority than he himself claims. There was, no doubt, much that might be considered common property, which different moralists would use each in his own way : the maxim, for example, that the be- ginning (or root, or completion, or crown) of wisdom is the fear of God must have been an axiom in the teach- ing of the Palestinian sages. A comparison between Ecclus. 24 and Prov. 8 shows how differently the two books treat the same general conception. The traditional account, which represents the book as composed by one man, seems on the whole to be supported by the character of the contents. There are, indeed, differences of tone, as in various paragraphs on _ . women (25 and 26), and on the happiness m and miseryoflife (39 i6-3s and 40i-n), and in general there is a contrast between the geniality of some passages and the cynicism of others, and between the conceptions of wisdom, on the one hand as a universal divine influence, and on the other as common- sense shrewdness. The diversities, however, do not go beyond the bounds of a single experience, and in the book as a whole there is an evident unity of tone — the attitude toward God, life, wisdom, the Torah, is the same throughout. 6 The authenticity of chap. 51 has 1 For proposed plans see Eichhorn (Eittl.), Ew. (Gesck. 4300), Fritzsche (Eittl. in his Comm.), Deane (Expos. 1883), Edersheim (Introd. in bis Comm.), and cp remarks of Herbst in his Eittl. 2 Or, according to tbe verse-numbering in Swete's Sept., the two sections 30 25-33 13# and 33 1 3^-36 1 6 a have changed places. 3 This, Fiitzsche’s suggestion, is now generally accepted. See Deane, Expos. 1883, and Swete, Sept. vol. ii. p. vii. _ 1 Tisch. retains the Greek order ; Swete gives the Latin. 5 The comparison between Ecclus. and Proverbs is made most fully by Seligmann (JVeiskeit d. Jes. Sir.), and that between Ecclus. and Eccles. by Wright (Koheleth). See also Montefiore, in JQR 2 430 J/., and Toy, ‘ Provetbs '(in Internat. Crit. Com.). The difference between Ben-Sira and Pirke Aboth in form and style indicates an earlier date for the former. 6 On tbe enigmatical Eleazar ben-Irai, a possible double of Ben-Sira, see above, § 2 (n. 2). 1173 ECCLESIASTICUS been questioned ; but the case has not been made out. There seems to be nothing out of keeping with the rest of the book, and, as to the insertion of a prayer, we may compare the one (very different in tone from this) in Wisd. Sol. (9). There is, indeed, a striking resemblance between Ecclus. 51 13-30 and Wisd. Sol. 7 1-14; but if there be imitation here, it is not clear that it is on the part of the passage in Ecclesiasticus. The psalm (an imitation of Ps. 136) which is found in the Hebrew after v. 12, and does not appear in the Vss., may be doubtful. Schechter suggests that it was omitted in the Greek because the mention of the Zadokite priestly line was considered to be inappropriate under the Maccabees. This consideration, however, would not apply at all to tbe Syriac Vs., and the omission of a single couplet would have sufficed in the Greek. How far the author’s work has been added to by scribes and editors is a more difficult question. It _ . . . is clear that the Hebrew and the versions 15. integrity. ^ ave su ff ere( j j n the process of trans- mission (see above, § 4). In various passages one or another of the texts shows additions or omissions ; each case must be treated by itself. In general, as between a Greek conception in one text and a Jewish in another, the preference is to be given to the latter ; though it is obvious that this rule must be applied carefully, so as not to prejudge the question of a Greek influence on the author. When the final text obtainable by MS. evidence has been reached, there will still remain the question whether this gives the author's thought accurately, or has itself been coloured by editors. By some the Greek translator is supposed to have made additions to his text in the interests of Jewish Alexandrian philosophy ; others see evidence of Christian interpolation. The evidence for those conclusions is not distinct. Alexandrian passages need not be additions of tbe translator, and of the cases cited by Edersheim (Comm. 23), 1 3 f. and 24 31 are not non-Jewish, whilst to call 28 2 (‘ forgive and thou shalt be forgiven ’)a Christian addition on internal grounds is to prejudge the question. The evidence is stronger in tbe case of 4327 (*7Dn Kin, T ° ir ° LV eo-Tiy auros) and 44 16 (Enocb is called niK jtjn, viro&eiyfta fieravolas [evvo cay]), both omitted by Pesb. Tbe first expression is Hellenising, and may be an addition by tbe author, or by a Hebrew scribe, or it may have been made first in and thence transferred to H ; the second, something like a parallel to which is found in Pbilo (De preem. et poen ., Mangey, 24,10/., where ‘Enoch' is explained to be true man- hood, based on hope in God), may be Jewish (see Siegfried, Drummond, Bois), or may be a Hellenising expression of the author, or an allegorising remark by a scribe. (The expressions 1 was found perfect ’ and ‘ knowledge ' appear to be scribal addi- tions.) After the omission of all probable additions, however, there remains enough to fix the author's relation to Greek thought (see below, § 24). The book is arranged in short discourses or para- graphs, each of which consists in general of distichs or _ . tetrastichs ; the lines are mostly ternary 1 * ™ (with three ictus) or quaternary, though 0 ' in this respect there is considerable variety. The parallelism is less antithetic and looser, and the discourse more flowing than in Proverbs. Bickell [Zt.f. kath. Theol. 1882) regards 51 1-20 (in the Heb. ) as forming an alphabetic psalm. 1 The attempt to discover metre in the work (Bickell, Margoliouth) must be pronounced unsuccessful. 2 An irregular strophic arrangement results from the author’s method of dividing his material by subjects (cp Prov. 1-9 22-29). 3 Ecclesiasticus belongs to the category of Wisdom- literature (Hokma), which, in contrast with the prophetic, priestly, and legal points of view (for all of which the _ nation Israel is the centre), gives a uni- 17. Contents. versa j moral-religious criticism of life. The history of the genesis and development of the Hokma demands a separate treatment. (See Wisdom Litera- ture. ) The nationalistic tone of a few passages in 1 Bickell worked with his translation into Hebrew from the Greek ; Taylor (in Schechter and Taylor's Ben Sira ) goes over the lately discovered Hebrew text, and discusses the initial letters of the couplets, in support of Bickell. The acrostic form is in itself not improbable (Prov. ends with an alphabetic poem), but it is not yet clearly made out. 2 On metre in OT Heb. see the works of Ley, Bickell, Briggs, Gunkel, D. H. Muller, and the art. of Grimme in ZDMG,bO 4. 3 For an attempt to make out a regular division into groups of 50 or 100 couplets see Schlatter (below, § 26 a, i.). 1174 ECCLESIASTICUS Ecclesiasticus does not affect the general character of the book. The material is so varied and so loosely arranged that a table of contents would take more space than can here be given. It deals with all the ordinary social and religious duties (cp Che. Job and Sol. 190- 193). The style is for the most part bright and vigorous, and not without a gleam of humour. The author shows wide acquaintance with men and things, and bis advice is usually full of good sense. Without claiming for him- self special inspiration, he speaks as an independent teacher of religion and morals, citing no external authority for what he says, but, like the sages in Pro- verbs, assuming its truth and obligation, and making his appeal to reason and conscience. In accordance with tbe tone oftbe later Judaism, Ec- clesiasticus regards God as the lord of the whole world of 4 -* 12 • things and men, the absolute, righteous 18. A. Religious . s the autbor Qf all editions teaching. God. an( f changes of life (chaps . 16 - 18 33/). It has not the full conception of divine fatherhood ; but it gives a description of divine forbearance toward men (18 10-13) which is identical in spirit with that of Ps. 103. Concerning itself with the visible facts of life, Ecclesi- asticus (like Prov. ) takes little account of subordinate 19 Angela supernatural beings. Angels are not ® ’ mentioned in the Hebrew (not in 4826), and in the Greek only in citations from the OT. In 38i4« the intercession that in Job 33a6 is ascribed to a heavenly being is ascribed to a physician. In 4821 (a statement taken from 2 K. 19 35), in which the Gk (followed by Lat. ) bas dyyeXos, the Heb. has nS 2 D> 'plague,' and the Syr. JLa^, ‘ a heavy I blow.' In another passage (17 17), quoted freely from | Dt. 32 8 /. as in <55, 1 the term ‘ruler’ (ijyov/xevov) seems to be substituted for <55 ‘ angel ' (/card dpc 6 /x 6 v ayyfXwv) — here a divine (angelic ?) bead of every nation except Israel, whose guardian is Yahwfe. ' Spirits, ’ good or evil, are nowhere mentioned. 8 Whether there is mention of Satan is doubtful. In 21 27, where <55 has ' Tbe ungodly, when he curses rbv aaravav, curses himself,’ the context (see v. 28) and Syr. favour the sense, ‘adversary,’ or a reading, 'neighbour,' for aaravav (and for 'ungodly' we should probably read ’ fool ' ). Further, the author, if (as Cheyne thinks) he means Satan, seems to identify him with the man’s own evil impulse, a conception foreign to the whole pre-Christian time 3 as well as to the NT. In general, Ecclus. may be said to anticipate Sadduceeism in holding aloof from angels and demons, whose agency in actual life it does not recognise. The central moral -religious idea of the book is wisdom, in the conception of which Ben-Sira is sub- stantially at one with Proverbs. He treats sometimes 20 ‘ Wisdom ’ the human attribute, sometimes the divine. As a quality of man it is theo- retical knowledge of the right and ability to embody it in life. Nothing is said of the origin of this capacity (it is treated as an ultimate fact); but it is identified with the ‘fear of God' (1 14, etc.) — that is, the wise life is directed according to the divine commandments, or, as it may perhaps be put, human wisdom comes from the communion between tbe mind of man and the mind of God. The unity of the divine and the human attributes (implicitly contained in the book) appears to involve the conception that the divine wisdom fills and controls all things, including man’s mind, and thus manifests itself in human thought. 1 MT has for which ©bal reads clearly 1 the right reading. 2 The jri'evju.aTa of 39 28 (Syr. )La* 09, Heb. almost obliter- ated) are ‘ winds 1 (so Fritzsche) ; w. 29 f. give, not the definition of the term ‘ spirits,’ hut a parallel list of natural agencies. 3 Cheyne {Job and Sol. 189, cp 297) and Edersheim {Comm.) refer to a Talmudic passage {Baba Batkra, \ 6 a) which identifies Satan with the jn ‘IS’ » cp also Weber, System der altsyn. Theol. 228 /. The y-| appears to be personified {noirqpov ci'dvfnifia) in © 37 3 ; but H and S are here very different, and the text seems to be corrupt beyond recovery. ri 7S ECCLESIASTICUS As a quality of God, wisdom is almost always personi- fied. It is called eternal (li), universal (246), un- searchable ( 1 6) , the formative creative power in the world (243). yet created (1 4 249) and established in the midst of Yahw&’s people in Jerusalem (24io/*. ). where alone there was obedience to Yah we s law. 1 This nationalistic conception of wisdom (involved, but not explicitly stated, in Proverbs) is noteworthy, but not unexpected : the pious Jews of that time could hardly fail to find the highest expression of the divine wisdom in the guidance of Israel through the Law. Ben-Sira's treatment of divine wisdom is personification (as in Prov. and Wisd. Sol.), not hypostatisation. In one passage (243, ‘I covered the earth as a mist’) there appears to be an approach to this position 2 : wisdom is identified with the creative word, as Wisd. Sol. further identifies it witb the Stoic Logos. Like Wisd. , Sol. , and Philo, bowever, Ben-Sira lacked a historical figure with which to identify his philosophical conception. Greater prominence is given to the Law of Moses in our book than in Proverbs. It is glorified in the per- _ sons of Moses and Aaron (451-22) and 6 aw. §j mon (50i-2i). The author was by no means indifferent to the ritual of sacrifice and song. He dwells with enthusiasm on the details of the high priest’s costly dress, on the offering 3 and the singers; he counsels men to come with full hands to the altar (32[35.] i-n), though he adds a warning against attempt- ing to bribe God with unrighteous gifts (v. 12). His philo- sophical view of life does not prevent his taking joyous part in the outward service of God, which he possibly regarded as being a symbol as well as a prescribed duty. He shows similar friendliness toward the scribes (3824-34 39i-n), who, in contrast with handicraftsmen, devote themselves to the study of the law, the prophets, and paroemiac sayings (a reference to parts of our book of Proverbs?), listen to the discourses of famous men (teachers in the legal schools), travel in foreign lands to find out good and evil among men, open their mouths in prayer, and ask forgiveness for their sins. This, the earliest extant description of the life of a so/er, gives a picture of wide activity, and shows that the law-students of that time did not confine themselves to Palestine. With such scribes, not hagglers over words and letters, but cultivated and liberal students of the earlier literature, our author would naturally find himself in hearty sympathy. As to the term ‘law,' it appears that, when used of the Israelitish code, it may stand for all the Jewish sacred books ; but it is sometimes em- ployed for law in general, as in 35 [32] 24 36 [33] 1-3. The preceding citations show Ben-Sira's warm national feeling. This is expressed most distinctly in chap. 33[36], in which he bemoans the afflicted state of Israel, and prays that, in fulfilment of his promise, God would 22. Aspira- & at ^ er the tribes of Jacob and make the tions. possess its land as in times of old ( cp 4421 47 11 48 10). He looks for no special deliverer (not even in 44-50), and hopes only, in general accordance with the earlier prophets, for national quiet and prosperity. 4 He is so much absorbed in this desire that he does not think of tbe conversion of foreign nations to the worship of Yahw6. We have no right to take him as the representative of the whole nation in this regard , but we may fairly suppose that he expresses a current opinion. 6 1 Wisdom seems not to be exactly identified with the Mosaic wf.h's'Ji ^ Gre ?, k te ** 0f 24 2 3 'S difficult (Taira rrirra in app. with 8 tPAos), and we should perhaps read, with Pesh., ‘ in the book On the other hand, cp Bar. 8 36 4 r, and see notes of h-dershemi ( on Ecclus. 24 23) and Bois (Orig. 200 /.). Ecclus. 24 3-6 is an imitation of Prov. 8 22 Jf., from which E here introduces additional matter. The ‘ mist ’ may be taken 3°^^ n * ^ 6 ’ or .' t H} a y he an independent figure. The sin-offering is not mentioned. In 51 10 H and S show that the reading of © the father of m Y l° r< i ' (cp Ps. 110 1), is erroneous. In the generally peaceful and prosperous life of the third century b.c., the Jews seem for the time to have given up the expectation of a special interposition of God in their behalf. 1176 ECCLESIASTICUS Ben-Sira's scheme of life, like that of Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, of the Law, and of the prophets, is confined to tbe present world. In 1722/ he repeats the senti- ment of Is. 38 18 f He speaks neither of the resurrection of the body 1 nor of the immortality of the soul (14 16 21 io 41 4, etc.). He belonged to tbe conservative priestly party (though probably not himself a priest) which adopted the social but not the religious ideas of Gentile neighbours. He retained the old Hebrew con- ception of ShSol (see Sheol), whilst the progressive portion of the nation (represented later by the book of Daniel) adopted or developed the idea of resurrection. Ben-Sira's ethical scheme is that of the greater part of the OT (if we omit, that is, such passages as Jcr. 31 33 no d Ez. 3626 Ps. 51). Sin is the transgres- , . . sion of the divine law ; righteousness is ideas conformity thereto. The moral life is considered in its external aspect as 1 mass of acts. Nothing is said of the inward life, of disposition of mind, of motives, ideals, aspirations, struggles. Those were, doubtless, not absent from the author’s thought ; but he does not regard them as practi- cally important. What is important is the outcome : men are known by tbeir fruits. Sin is accepted as » fact, which began historically with the first woman (the same, view is given in 1 Tim. 214 in contrast with that of Rom. 5) ; but there is no attempt to explain its psychological origin. Conscience, freedom, and responsibility are assumed (15 11-17 and pass. ). On the other hand (as throughout OT and NT), the absolute control of man by God is everywhere taken for granted, and in one place (3313) distinctly affirmed. The motive for righteous living is the well-being it secures : the good man prospers, tbe bad man suffers, in this life. There is no reference to inward peace, consciousness of rectitude, and com- munion of soul with God. Ben-Sira’s point of view (sometimes called hedonistic or utilitarian) is that of Proverbs and the OT generally. It is determined partly by the old Semitic external conception of life, partly by tbe absence of belief in ethical immortality (cp Wisd. Sol. 2-5). The old nationalism of tbe prophets it rejects in favour of a pronounced individualism ; it does not recog- nise the well-being of humanity as an aim of life. The moral code of the book is that of the OT : it inculcates honesty, truthfulness, purity, sympathy, kindness 2 — all the virtues of tbe civilised society of that time. The limit- ations are either those of the time (national narrowness, 24 3 ; treatment of slaves as chattels, 3324-31) or those of all time (selfish prudence, 12 1-5). Pride is denounced (10 7 12 f ) as in Proverbs, and humility (3 18) and forgive- ness (282) are enjoined. Almsgiving (as in Tob. 49-11 Dan. 427 [24] Mt. 61) is identified with righteousness — a conception that naturally arose when the care of the persecuted poor became the most pressing moral-religious duty ; 4 — but this does not exclude in Ben-Sira the higher idea of righteousness. His treatment of social relations and duties is fuller than that of Proverbs. He lived in the midst of a highly developed civilisation, and is in- terested in all sides of life. He gives directions for the governing of tbe household, the training of wife, children, and servants, dealing with debtors and creditors, deport- ment in society (daily intercourse, feasts), bearing towards rulers and rich men — he recognises many distinctions and classes of men — he is familiar with the temptations of city-life, and praises agriculture. He gives special warnings against sexual licentiousness, against becoming security for other men's debts, against involving one's self in other people's affairs ; in general he counsels an attitude of caution toward men, on the ground of personal 1 The raising of the dead by Elijah (48 5) has nothing to do with the doctrine of resurrection, and 19 19, which speaks of immortality, occurs in a paragraph {v. 18 /) which is found only in No. 248 of ©, and appears to be an interpolation. 2 On its ethical-religious vocabulary see Merguet and Hatch (as below, § 26). The golden rule does not occur. 3 50 25/ (though in H©S) is probably an interpolation. 4 So tbe position assigned to almsgiving by Mohammed was suggested by tbe conditions of the Arabian society of his time. ECCLESIASTICUS comfort (3222 f ). On the same ground, he advises the observance of the social proprieties, such as a decent sbow of mourning for the dead, failure in which brings one into ill repute (38 16 f ). He is friendly to physicians — seems, indeed, to defend them against doubts and objections — and approves of music and the temperate use of wine. See especially chaps. 7 13 18 31/ 38, and Seligmann, Deane, and Cheyne. He is generally acute, sometimes a little cynical, never pessimistic. A real, though not very well defined, Greek influence is to be recognised in the book. The author does not - , . accept the Greek philosophy (his thought 24. Relation . • 1 un- to Greek is in tbe main of the practical unphilo- 39 11 77 , , . , sophic Jewish type); but he is affected by ® ' general Greek culture. In this respect he stands between Proverbs and Wisd. Sol. , but much nearer to the former than to the latter. Palestine was at this time ( c . 180 B.c. ) not without a Greek atmo- sphere, and Ben-Sira had travelled in Greek-speaking countries (cp Che.). The traces of Greek influence are found in certain general conceptions in his book. He does not, it is true, go so far as Wisd. Sol. and Pbilo ; he does not allegorise, as they do, nor make so near an approach to hypostatisation. His conception of human liberty and divine predetermination and his reference to Enoch (44 16), if it be genuine, are probably Jewish. We cannot adduce particular words and phrases in proof of Greek influence, for these may be scribal additions. The expression in 4327, for example (Sd.t tan. t 6 ira.v icrriv clut6s), found in the Heb. and the Gk. , though not in the Syriac, might be regarded as of doubtful genuineness, and in general tbe possibility of editorial modification must be admitted. After we allow for such a possibility, however, there remain broad touches which cannot well be re- garded as spurious, and which have a Greek tone. The most marked is the identification of virtue with knowledge (a point for the full treatment of which see Wisdom Literature). This conception, though not without roots in the older thought, has here been developed under the stimulus of Greek philosophy, witb, however, a marked Jewish colouring. There are, according to Ben-Sira, only two classes in society, wise men and fools. These are often identified with the righteous and the wicked ; but the intellectual basis of men's natures and judgments is constantly insisted on. The divine law is recognised as the rule of action ; but it is not different from the wise man’s thought. Hence the importance attached to instruction, the one thing necessary for men being discipline in the art of right thinking ; and all God’s dealings with men may be viewed as divine train- ing in the perception of moral truth. Similarly, the stress laid on moderation in action (321-24 31 f ) reminds us of the /j. 7 } 5 tv &yav of Kohdeth and of the Greeks. In another direction we have the conception of wisdom in chap. 24 (nearly identical with that of Prov. 8), which contains the Greek ideas of the cosmos and the logos (cp ^K 6 ff/j.r}3 (cp Jer. 15 9). See Che. Exp. T. 10 336 (April 1899). - Giesebrecht, too, doubts Jeremiah's authorship of vv. 6b-ya. n 79 EDER, THE TOWER OF most significant words in w. 58 appear to be corrupt, 1 and the illustrative material derived from Babylonian mythology is inconsistent with the view that the Hebrews (like the Indians) believed in a cloud- dragon which seeks to swallow up the sun and moon. What we have before us, as Gunkel was the first to show fully, is one of tbe current applications of the myth of Tiamat. Tbe text of Job 3 is a matter for critical discussion. See Dillmann and Budde(on the conservative side), and see further Dragon, § 5, Behemoth, §2/1 Most of the NT references (Mt. 2429 Acts 220 Rev. 6128 12) are sufficiently explained as the conventional , NT references P hrase ° lo gy ° f prophetic writers. 6 ‘ * Nor would most persons hesitate to explain the 4 darkness over the wbole earth ' 2 (or ’ land,' Mk. 1533 Mt. 2745) as an addition to plain historical facts involuntarily made by men brought up on the prophetic Scriptures, and liable, too, to the innocent superstitions of the people. When Yahwe was sore displeased with his people, the prophets constantly described universal nature as awestruck, and poets like David had a similar sense of the sympathy of nature when great men died (2 S. I21). It is Lk. , a non- Israelite, who involuntarily rationalises the poetic tra- dition of a. sudden darkness over the earth at the Crucifixion. In Lk. 23 45 f we read (in RV) according to the best form of the Greek text, 4 A darkness came over the whole land [or earth] until the ninth hour, the sun's light failing’ (roO ijXLov itcXeLirovTos). No doubt the evangelist believed that a solar eclipse was the cause of this naively supposed phenomenon, though, according to his own narrative, Jesus died at the Passover season when, there being a full moon, a. solar eclipse was im- possible. Origen indeed (‘Comm, in Matth.,' Opera , ed. Delarue, 392 /. ) rejected the reading now adopted by the Revisers on this very ground, regarding it aB a falsification of the text. Lauth (TSBA, 4245) frankly admits that no ordinary eclipse can be meant, and thinks that the 4 darkness ’ was probably caused by the extinction of the 4 star ’ of the Magi. T. K. c. ED (*T1?, ‘witness’), the name of an altar of the eastern tribes in EV of Josh. 2234 (not in MT or (&). The text being imperfect, and the choice of 0 name partly open, Dillmann would supply Galeed ( q.v ., 2). It is at any rate impossible to identify the ‘Witness Altar’ with Karn Sartabeh, — (1) because this bold bluff is on the western side of the Jordan, and (2) because it is not certain whether any part of the story of the altar belongs to either of the great narrators J and E. See Galeed, 2. EDAR, TOWER OF. See Eder, Tower of. EDDIAS (leAAl&c [A]), 1 Esd. 926 AV = Ezra IO25 AV, Jeziah. EDDINUS (eAA[e]lNoyc [BA]), I Esd. I15 RV, AV Jeduthun. EDEN (pr). A Levite, temp. Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29 12, iwSau [BA], -wa&. [L] ; 31 15, oSo/x [BA], tadav [L]). The right form is probably Jehoaddan (q.v.). T. K. C. EDEN (J*JI?). For Gen. 28, etc. (Garden of Eden) see Paradise. For Amos 1 5 ( 4 House of Eden ' EV) see Beth- eden (so RVn>E.). For Ezek. 27 23 see Can n eh. EDER (Tip, ‘ flock' ; [B], e Ap&, [A], eBep [L]), a city in the S. of Judah, close to Edom (Josh. 15 21) ; probably no more than a village with a ‘ tower of the flock' (see below); cp Nu. 13 19 2 K. 188 2 Ch. 26 10. EDER (AV Edar), THE TOWER OF CnjrVllD, *'■*■> ' tow er of the flock’), a place (perhaps a village) to the S. of Ephrath 3 (see Bethlehem, § 3), ■ beyond ' which Jacob pitched his tent after the death and burial of Rachel (Gen. 35 21). It was so called from a watch- 1 't'TOD is improbable, because there is no genuine root ip 3 ‘to be black’; Dl', because the parallelism requires ‘ sea » 8 See, however, Ephrath. J aa ' Il80 EDER EDOM tower built for the protection of the flocks against robbers (see Eder i. , and cp Cattle, § 6), and according to Jerome (05 101 19) was about 1 R. m. from Bethlehem. The same phrase is rendered in Mie. 4 8 ‘ tower of the flock, ' no actually existing tower being referred to. The description is symbolieal. Either Jerusalem 4 is in siege, standing alone in the land, like one of those solitary towers with folds round them’ (GASm. ; cp Is. 18 ), or, on the analogy of Is. 32 14, we have before us a picture of the desolation of the already captured Jerusalem, which is no longer a city but a hill on whose slopes flocks may lie down. The latter view is preferable, even if, with G. A. Smith, we assign Mic. 48 to Micah as its author (see Che. MicahW [Camb. Bib.], 1882, p. 38 ; cp p. 33 f). Micah has previously said, not ‘Zion shall become like a. tower of the flock, like a besieged city' (cp Is. l.c.), but 'Zion shall be ploughed as a field.’ In © there is a similar variety of rendering. In Gen. 35 16 (the notice is transferred thither from v. 21; see Di.) we have (crrcKeiva.) tou jrupvou yaStp [BDL], . . yajSep [E] ; in Mic. 48 ■tnjpyos noi.fj.vLov [BAQj. EDER Cm, eAep [AL]). 1. Apparently a post-exilic Benjamite sept, mentioned along with Arad and many others ; i Ch. 8 ist (Benjamin, § 9 ii. / 3 ) : AV Ader (“ny ; 018178 [B], Aduma (*•*•■ Edom) 2 of Edom or 8 rece ^ vec ^ permission, in the twelfth „ century B. C. , to pasture their cattle in 1 “ a district on the Egyptian frontier (see WMM As. u. Eur. 135) — precisely what happened in the case of the Israelites according to the tradition contained in the OT. About 1200 B.c. the Sasu of Sa'aira were defeated (ib. 136). Here Sa'aira is, of course, Seir 3 (Heb. Seir) ; but whether the Edomites or some older inhabitants of those mountains are meant is uncertain. In any ease, it is not permissible to infer (with WMM op. cit. 137) that the Edomites took possession of the district in question only a short time before the period of the Israelite kings : the list of Edomite kings (see § 4), with the names of places con- tained in it, bears witness to the contrary. It is true that, according to Gen. 146 3620 Dt. 21222, the mountains of Seir were occupied, before the time of EDOM Name and origin ( Country (§ 5). I i-4>- History (§§ 6-10). Civilisation, etc. (§§ 11-13). Edom (dvik ; eAcom [BAL], iAoym&ia [BNAQr], 1 whence AV Idumea in Is. 34 s/ Ez. 35 15 36 s), and EV 1 Name lDUMJEA in Mk -38 [Ti. WH, iAqyma'rdn in Assyria). 1 CCp WRS / Phil. 9 89 ff.\ Nold. ZD MG 40 168 ff. (’86).] 1183 6. Edom and Israel : earlier times. EDOM At the present day the region of Seir is, for the most part, barren ; but it contains some fruitful valleys, and in the country immediately to the E. of it are to be found districts covered with luxuriant vegetation, as both ancient and modern authorities attest (see Buhl, Edomi- ter, 15/ [ 93]). It is, therefore, hardly necessary to take the prophetic utterance on Edom in Gen. 27 39 ( see Esau, § 2) as anything other than a blessing — which is the most obvious interpretation. Nor is the benediction incon- sistent with the fact (which agrees with the conditions of life to-day in some mountainous districts of Arabia) that the Edomites were largely dependent upon the ebase for their sustenance. According to Gen. 324 368, Esau took up his abode on Mount Seir. Hence it is that in one passage Jacob, when on his journey from Gilead to Shechem, passes southward over the Jabbok, although in reality he had nothing to do in that region and would gladly have avoided Esau; the story, however, requires that the two brothers should meet. See Jabbok, § 2. What were the relations between the Israelites and the Edomites at the time of the Exodus is a matter about which the narratives of the Pentateuch leave us in doubt. According to one story, the Israelites marched straight through the Edomite territory (cp Nu. 3337 f 42/.) ; according to a more detailed account, they avoided it altogether by performing a circuit to the south (cp Wanderings, § 13). It must be re- membered, however, (1) that it is quite uncertain whether at that time the Edomites were already in possession of the country which they afterwards occupied, and (2) that the immigration of the Israelite tribes was probably not a single united movement, but a series of separate undertakings which followed different lines of march (see Israel, § 7). One of the ancient kings of Edom is said to have defeated the Midianites on the Moabite table-land (Gen. 3635 ; see Midian, and cp Bela ii. , 1). Whether the brief mention of Saul’s victory over the Edomites in 1 S. 14 47 is historical we cannot determine : the fact that his chief herdman was Doeg the Edomite (1 S. 21 7 [8] 22 [BA, 6 g n undertaken by Jehoram and monarchy J ehosha P hat against Mesha king of Moab can scarcely be correct in representing a king of Edom as taking part in the expedition (2 K. 3 ). This story, as a whole, doubtless rests on genuine tradition ; but it contains much that is fabulous (cp Jehoram, §3^). The utmost that can be conceded is that the * king of Edom ’ was a prince subject to Judah. Moreover, the statement in 1 K. 22 47 [48] must be taken in connection with another, according to which the Edomites rebelled in the time of Jehoshaphat’s son Joram and set up a king of their own. The attempt to subdue them afresh proved a failure. (The details of the narrative in 2 K. 8 20-22 = 2 Ch. 21 8-10 again present difficulties of interpretation.) The Blessing upon Esau (Gen. 27 29 f ), at least in its present form, probably dates from this period of independence — Esau will serve Jacob [cp Gen. 2523] — -but the following words, presum- ably added somewhat later, state that if he makes an effort he will shake off the yoke. The narratives of Genesis assign the pre-eminence to Jacob, nor do they fail to re- cognise the enmity between the two brothers ; but, at the same time, the character of Esau is treated with respect, and much stress is laid upon the final reconciliation. All this seems to represent the feeling of those who desired to see peace permanently established between the two peoples ; or, possibly, the sentiments here expressed may proceed rather from subjects of the Ephraimite kingdom, to whom the dominion of Judah over Edom appeared a matter of no great importance. On the other hand, the Judahite prophets Joel and Amos — of whom the first is now usually regarded as post-exilic, whilst the second undoubtedly belongs to the period which we are at present considering — threaten the Edomites with a severe chastisement from God on account of their crimes against Israel (Joel 3 [ 4 ] 19 Am. 1 11/ ). The view that the latter passage is not really by Amos (see Amos, § 9) does not commend itself to the present writer ; but, with regard to Am. 9 11-15, which predicts, among other things, that Judah is to dispossess 'the remnant of Edom’ (<® BA Q tCjv dvdpunrujv), it is plain that there is grave cause for doubt. This was the period of the war in which the hostile Moabites burned the bones of a certain king of Edom ' to lime ' (Am. 2 i). There is reason to believe that a great trade in slaves was then carried on by the Edomites : we read of whole troops of exiles being delivered over to Edom by the inhabitants of Gaza and Tyre (see We. on Am. I69). Amaziah king of Judah again subdued Edom and captured the town of Sela — i. e . , * Rock' (see Amaziah, 1, Joktheel, 2). Buhl's denial of the equivalence of Sela and Petra is hardly justified (see Petra). Whether this conquest was maintained — and, if so, by what means — through all the disturbances which soon after- wards arose in Judah we cannot say. In the reign T . of Ahaz, Rezin king of Damascus restored . a er to ^ Edomites (2 K. 166 , where ays 0 we g^Quid read ‘ Edom ' [cm] and ' Edom- ites ' [d’dtik] with < 55 ) : hence we may conclude that till then the men of Judah had been in possession not only of the town in question but also of the country to the N. of it, or at least of some route whereby it could be safely reached, a route which perhaps lay partly outside of the Edomite territory. The statement in 2 Ch. 28 17 seems to be a modified form of the tradition relating to those events. To the same (or possibly to a much earlier) period we may assign the ancient fragment which is found in Ps. 608 -h [10-13] ( = Ps. 1088 -n [10-13]), em- bedded among quite late pieces : here occur the scornful words, ' Over Edom will I cast my shoe' (see Shoes, § 4 [£]), and ' Who will lead me to Edom ? ’ 1 Moreover, 1 In the critical analysis of Ps. 60 the present writer agrees, in the main , with Ew., who assigns w. 1-5 10 (except ‘wilt not 1185 several of the discourses uttered by the prophets against Edom appear to date from about this time, after the nation had recovered its independence — e.g. , the piece which (as Ew. pointed out) is partially reproduced by the post-exilic prophet Obadiah ( q.v . , ii. ), as well as by his predecessor Jeremiah (ch. 497-22). The details of the prophecy, however, are no longer intelligible. Similar utterances are found in Is. 11 14 Jer. 925 25 21 497-22 (cp Jer. 27 3). On the other hand, the author of Deuteronomy emphatically teaches that Israel has no right to the ter- ritory of Edom, and likewise recommends a friendly treatment of the kindred nation (Dt. 2 s -8 237 [8]/!). In the Assyrian inscriptions Kaus-malak king of Edom appears, together with his contemporary, Ahaz king of Judah, as a tributary of Tiglath-pileser III. (745-727 B.C. ); see AT? ii. 21. Similarly, Malik-ram king of Edom (id. 291) paid tribute to Sennacherib (705-681 B. c. ), and Kaus-gabr king of Edom, as well as Manasseh king of Judah, paid tribute to Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.) and to Asur-bani-pal (668-626 B.C. ) : id. 149 and 2 39 C P Del. Par. 295, Schr. KA T ( 2 ) 149 f At the approach of Nebuchadrezzar, the nations bordering on Judah — the Edomites among them — „ sent envoys to Jerusalem to consult and X1 st to g et her (Jer. 273 ). After the destrnc- ... ” tion of their royal city, many Jews sought exilic times. r ^ refuge in Edom (Jer. 40 n) ; but the Edomites, as was natural, hailed with delight the over- throw of the kingdom of Judah (Obad. n-14 Lam. 421 Ps. 1377 ). They seized the opportunity to occupy part of the territory of Judah (Ezek. 363), though perhaps another partial cause for the migration may be suggested (see Nabateans). At a later period we find them in possession of S. Judaea, to which the special name of Idumaea was given ; this term occurs as early as 312 B.C. (Diod. Sic. xix. 98, a. passage based upon the contemporaneous testimony of Hieronymus of Kardia). Hebron, the ancient capital of the tribe of Judah, within an ordinary day's march of Jerusalem, became an Edomite city (1 Macc. 065 Jos. BJ iv. 9 7). 1 We can scarcely doubt that from the time of the Babylonian Exile the Edomites held this territory, which, though for the most part not very fertile, was preferable to their original home. The exilic and the post-exilic prophets and poets of the Israelites, as we might have expected, denounce the Edomites in no measured terms (see Ezek. 25 12-14 35 14 363 Obad. Lam. 421 Is. 34 63 1-6 Ps. 1377 Mai. I2-5). Similar were the sentiments of Jesus Ben -Sira (who wrote about the year 190 b. c. ) ; in 50 26 the Cairo Hebrew fragment (see Ecclesiasticus, § 4) has tjr? 'nu/v ; 2 we must suppose the author to have made use of an antiquated phrase no longer applicable to the Edomites of his own time. The author of the book of Daniel (167 or 166 B.C.) 3 appears, on the contrary, to have been less unfriendly to Edom, as well as to Moab and Ammon, following in this the example of his predecessor, the Deuteronomist (see Dan. II 41). There is, it may be remarked, no ground for the assumption that the Edomites had, during the intervening period, retired from S. Judaea and had afterwards taken possession of it a second time (see Buhl, Edomiter , 77). The list of placesJn Neh. 11 25-36 is, at any rate, not contemporary with Nehemiah, and if authentic in any sense must be borrowed from a pre-exilic source. 4 thou, O God, which,' RV mg.) n /. (EV's numeration) to a psalmist shortly before Nehemiah, and w. 6-9, and the opening of v. 10, to David (warring against the Aramaeans). The Davidic origin of those words is, however, highly questionable. (Cp Psalms.) 1 [On the Edomites in Judah in the early post-exilic period see Mey. Entst. 114 ff.} 2 It has now been proved therefore that Fritzsche and others were fully justified in reading ‘ Seir ' (trrjetp). 3 [See Nold. A T Lit. 223 ('68) ; but cp Daniel ii., § 18.) 4 [Several critics — e.g., Torrey, Francis Brown, and E. Meyer —have lately come to the conclusion that the catalogue in ques- tion is a fiction of the Chronicler.] 1186 EDOM Judas the Maccabee fought against the Edomites on the territory which had formerly belonged to the tribe of Judah (i Macc. 536s). .They are mentioned as enemies in Ps. 837 [6]» which was composed about this time. Cp Judith 7 8 18 of the same period. At length Judah gained the victory over Edom. John Hyrcanus first wrested Adora (q.v. ) and Mareshah „ , {q- v -) out of the hands of the Edomites V VA J° s - Ant ‘ xiii. 9 1, BJ i. 26). About the end of the second century B.c. he compelled the whole Edomite nation, it is said, to adopt the practice of circumcision, and the Jewish Law (Ant. xiii. 9 1 xv. 7 9). Henceforth they were included among the Jews (id., Strabo, 760). Idumaea is several times mentioned as a district belonging to Judaea (e.g. , Jos. BJ iii. 3 s). The conquest, however, did not prove a blessing to the Jews ; for, in consequence of those events, it came about that tbe ill-starred family of Antipas, the dynasty of the Herods, whom we should no doubt regard, in accordance with the common opinion, as of Edomite origin (see Jos. Ant. xiv. IO3, BJ i. 62; cp Mishna, Sota, vii. 8), made themselves masters of Judaea and of all Palestine, and thus were enabled to plunge the Jews into great misfortune. The Edomites also had reason to regret their union with their former rivals. Consider- ing themselves Jews in the fullest sense, the fierce and turbulent inhabitants of Idumaea (Jos. BJ iv. 4i 5 x) eagerly joined in the rebellion against the Romans, and played a prominent part both in the intestine struggles and in the heroic but altogether hopeless resistance to the enemy (ib. iv. 4/ 81 9s/ v. 92 vi. 26 82). Thus Edom was laid waste with fire and sword, and the nation as such ceased to be. Even the fact that the Edomites had at length become Jews was soon completely forgotten by the exponents of Jewish tradition. The frequent denunciations of Edom in the OT caused the name to be remembered only as an object of hatred, and hence the Jews came at an early date to employ it as a term indicating Rome, the most abhorred of all their enemies. And yet many of the Jews, it would seem, must have had Edomite blood in their veins ; for we may reasonably assume not only that the Edomites, after they had adopted Judaism, intermarried largely with their co-religionists, but also that those Edomites who survived the final catastrophe, whether in the con- dition of slaves or otherwise, were regarded as Jews both by themselves and by the outer world (cp Chuza). With respect to the habits and intellectual culture of the Edomites we possess scarcely any information. In ... .. spite of their ferocity, to which the 1 isa ion. Qrp wr i t | I1 g S ^ we n 33 t j ie acC ounts of the closing struggle bear testimony, the Edomites, and especially Teman, appear, strangely enough, to have enjoyed a reputation for great wisdom (Obad. 8 = Jer. 497). It is not without reason that in the Book of Job the sage who occupies the foremost place among Job’s friends is called Eliphaz of Teman, after two of the most important clans of Edom, Eliphaz being the first-born of Esau and Teman the first-born of Eliphaz. Perhaps Job himself also is to be regarded as an Edomite, since his country, the land of Uz (q.v. ; see also Job [Book], § 4), is mentioned in connection with Edom (Lam. 4 21 [@ omits Uz], cp Gen. 3628). At all events, we may conclude that at a tolerably early period some portion at least of this people acquired a certain civilisation, as was the case with the later occupants of the same district, the Nabateans (q. v . ). In all probability this was largely due to the fact that the trade route from Yemen to Palestine and Syria passed through the country in question. Of the ancient religion of the Edomites nothing definite is known. Whatever legends they may have 19 t> r • possessed concerning their ancestors, e lgion. Abraham, Sarah, and Esau, have wholly perished. Josephus (Ant. xv. 79) mentions Koze as an Edomite deity ; the name has been identified with that 1187 EDREI of the Arabian god Kozak sacrificed to in the neighbour- hood of Mecca, after whom the rainbow was called by the Arabs ’the bow of Kozak' (cp WRS, Kin. 296). Nothing more has been ascertained respecting him. Still less do we know about the god who figures in several Edomite proper names under the Assyrian form KauJ, in Kaus-malak and Kaus-gabr, and the Greek form Kos, in Kostobaros (Jos. Ant. xv. 7 9) and some other names, which, however, are not actually stated to be Edomite ; the same god appears in the Nabataean inscriptions at al-Hegr as op in jrUDp. K oavaravos (i.e. , ’ Kos has given ’) whilst in the Sinaitic inscriptions the name is spelt pip, in nyDip (*.*., ’Kos has helped’). Malik, ‘ king,’ in the proper name Malikrani (sec above, § 8), is a general title of Semitic deities. The heatben feast celebrated at Mamre near Hebron, at length sup- pressed by Constantine (see the interesting account in Sozom. HE 24), was perhaps mainly of Edomite origin. It is even possible that on this soil, hallowed by patri- archal legend, there may have survived some rites which had been practised long before in ancient Israel, rites which might well seem heathenish both to the later Jews and to the Christians. From the statement that the practice of circumcision was imposed upon the Edomites by John Hyrcanus (Jos. Ant. xiii. 9 1 ) it might be concluded that there was no such custom among them previously. This, however, is extremely improbable. The OT assumes that all descendants of Abraham were circumcised, and since, in later times at least, this practice was universal among the Arabs, we can hardly believe that the whole Edomite nation had abandoned it in the course of ages. Prob- ably Josephus was here misled by a statement that the Edomites had adopted the religious customs of the Jews, and himself added, with his usual inaccuracy, the special reference to circumcision, which was considered the most important characteristic of Judaism. Or per- haps we are to understand that the Jewish rite of circum- cision shortly after birth was substituted for the rite in use among the kindred peoples, namely circumcision shortly before puberty (cp Circumcision, § 4/), the former alone being recognised as real circumcision by the Jews. How thoroughly the Edomites were at length trans- formed into Jews is shown, for example, by the fact that among the very few names which are mentioned as having been borne by Edomites in those times, that of Jacob (the brother and rival of Esau!) occurs twice (Jos. BJ iv. 96 v. 61 vi. 26 83). We find, moreover, the characteristically Jewish names, Simon (ib. v. 61 vi. 26), John (ib. v. 65). and Phinehas (ib. iv. 42). The language of the ancient Edomites probably resembled that of Israel at least as closely as did the 13. Language. lan S ua S e ° f the Moabites. It is pos- 0 0 sible that the discovery of some in- scription may throw further light on the subject ; at present our information is derived solely from few proper names of persons and places. In the later period of their history the Edomites, like the Jews, doubtless spoke the Aramaic language, which was in common use throughout all Syria. T. N. EDOS (hAoc [B]), i Esd. 9 35 RV, AV Edes. EDREI ('in-w, deriv. uncertain ; cp Arab, midhra , land between desert and cultivated soil ; also Aram, m to sow, as if analogous to ; cp Bedawi name below; eApAeiN [B], - M [A], &Ap P- T*Jf\ cp. ZDMG 29431435. 2. An unidentified site, one of the fenced cities of Naphtali (Josh. 19 37 : aaaapei [B], edpaei [A], ad. [L]). Conder suggests Yatir (PEE Mem. 1 203 205). G. A. S. EDUCATION I. Before Ezra (§§ 1-4). II. Ezra to ben-Shetach (§§ 5-12). Synagogue (§ 6). ‘ Scribes ’ and the ‘ Wise 1 „ (8 7 f \ Prov. and Ecclus. (§ 9 fl). Greek influence (§ n). Details 1 (§ 12). III. To end of Jewish state (§§ 13-23)- i. Elementary (§§ 14-20). Teachers, etc. (§§ 15-17). Studies, etc. (§§ 18-20). ii. Scribes' College (§ 21). Education of girls (§ 22). Conclusion (§ 23). Bibliography (§ 24). Systematic education among the Jews may be traced to the influence of Hellenism. The foundation of 1 p . , Alexandria was an event as important for education as for the development and enrichment of Jewish thought. Consequently there are, properly, two periods in the history of Jewish education in biblical times, the first lasting to the end 1 For Hebrew terms sea § 3. 1189 of the Persian rule, the second beginning with the Greek and continuing into the Roman. Within the first period there are two notable breaks, the one caused by the growth of commerce and luxury among the pre-exilic Israelites, the other by the rise of Judaism as a book-religion ; within the second there is but one break, marked by the reported introduction of compulsory education by Simon ben-Shetach (nt3B»). We have so little definite knowledge, however, about the early part of the first period that we may con- veniently group the facts which we can collect under three heads, viz.: (I.) down to the time of Ezra; (II.) from Ezra to Simon ben-Shetach; and (111.) from Simon ben-Shetach to the end of the Jewish State. On oral instruction see below, §§3, 12, 20. I. Before Ezra . — In primitive times education was purely a domestic and family concern (see Family, § 13). 2 Earliest ^ ome was t * ie only school and the , . parents the only teachers. The parental ** * authority and claim to reverence forms part of the earliest legislation (Ex. 20 12, cp also 21 15 17 in the ' Book of the Covenant ’ ) and is reiterated in the later literature (Prov. 1926 20 20 and often). In the purely agricultural stage it must have been a primary object with fathers to train up their children to share the labours of husbandry, or to carry on the skill in useful arts which had become hereditary in certain families. We may be sure, however, that even such instruction was given in a religious spirit. Among the Israelites, as among other early peoples, tradi- tional methods of work were traced to a divine origin (cp Agriculture, § 14). For this idea we may compare the parable of the ploughman, Is. 28 23 ff. (which, whatever be its date, is antique in feeling 1 ), and the evidently primitive stories in Genesis about the rise of civilisation (see Cainites, §3 ff.). The religious sense, however, was no doubt specially cultivated in the minds of the children. The boys would in due time be initiated (-pri) in religious rites (cp Ex. 138 Dt. 49, etc. ; see Catechise, and cp Dedi- cate), and all children would be instructed by the mother in the primary moral, as distinguished from the ritual and institutional, elements in the old religion (e.g . , reverence for elders, and the like). At a later time the mother is expressly mentioned as the giver of moral instruction (see below, § 5) ; this is clearly a survival of a more ancient custom. The 'omen (jdr ; RV ‘nursing father’) or Taidayioybs (tutor) was also no doubt an instructor of the children under his charge 2 (see Nurse). The introduction of commerce with its attendant luxury brought about great social changes by the time 3 Hi her ear ^ iest prophets whose discourses .,® are preserved to us. According to Isaiah CU ure. gj- ave social evils had arisen (WRS Prcpk.P ), 204 ; OTJCffl, 349 f.) ; but we may venture to assume that the high culture of which this prophet is himself an example was not unconnected with the inrushing of new ideas and habits caused by an in- creased knowledge of other peoples (see Writing). A knowledge of books, it is true, is not now, and never has been, essential to culture in the East. ‘ The ideal of instruction is oral teaching , and the worthiest shrine of truths that must not die is the memory and heart of a faithful disciple,' and the term Torah, which ultimately came to be applied to the Written Law, was originally applied to an oral decision (OTJCW 299 ff.). Cp Israel, § 61 ; Law and Justice, § 1 ; Law Litera- ture, Priests. Not much can be said here on the specialised training 1 That the ancient sentiment lingered late may be seen from the fact that several treatises of the Mishna deal with agriculture (cp Vogelstein, Die Landivirtkschaft in Palastina zur Zeit d. Mischna , i. ’94). 2 Cp the later identification iraiBayuiyos wisdom = Torah (Buxtf., 1698), which illustrates Gal. 824 (see Taylor. Pirke AbdtM 2 ), 173). 1190 EDUCATION EDUCATION of certain persons, such as craftsmen, prophets, and priests (see Handicrafts, Prophets, Priests). It is enough to remark that prophets and priests were in a very true sense 'stays' (Is. 3i) of the social structure, not only on account of the awe they inspired but also because of the teaching which they gave to their disciples and hearers. It is well known that in Mishnic Hehrew the characteristic word for hoth ‘ to learn 1 and ‘ to teach ’ is njt'i sanak, to repeat ’ ; whilst ,“ntPD» milnah (prop. 1 repetition ) is instruc- tion ’ (see further below, § 20). It is noticeable that in Bih. Hebrew does not occur in this special sense. The biblical words are latnadh , 1 to learn 1 (Pi. 1 to teach ) ; |3&», Sinnett , ‘to inculcate’ ; min, horah (V nT), ‘to instruct (miD, moreh, 1 teacher ’) ; pan» hebhin (|’3D, mebhzn , ‘ teacher ) ; S’DB'n, hiskil, also meaning ‘to teach.’ In this connexion the following quotation from the final tablet of the Bahylonian epic of Creation (Reverse 1 . 22 f ) is interesting : — Let them stand forth (?) — let the elder enlighten ; Let the wise, the learned, meditate together ! Let the father rehearse (sanA, sunnA = x\w\ make tbe son apprehend ! . Open he the ears of Shepherd and FI ock master (i.e., the king). 1 The publication of the Book of Deuteronomy (621 b.c. ) had far-reaching consequences for popular educa- , _ . . . tion. The public recognition by king 4. Systematic ant j p CO pi e 0 f a written code of law moral , w j 1 | c j 1 was intended to cover the whole instruction. j^ e a c j^ zen both on its religious and secular side’ (C. G. Montefiore, Hibb. Led . 188 ) involved a conception of life which was akin to, and prepared the way for, the later Judaism. Under its influence, some time in the seventh century, an attempt was perhaps made to enforce upon each Israelite ’ the necessity of instilling right religion and morality into his children and household ’ (Che. Jew. Rel. Life , 130 , citing Gen. 18 17-19 which probably belongs to this period). The exhortations in D to instruct children in the sacred history and law (49 6720 11 19) point in the same direction, though the date of these passages may be later than 621 B.c., and the ideal which they set forth was not fully carried out till after the time of Ezra. There were also in the pre-exilic period some anticipa- tions of the ‘ wisdom ’ ideas, first expressed by Isaiah (31 2), which later played so important <1 part in the development of the educational system (see further Che. op. cit. 130/.). II. From Ezra to Simon ben-Shetach (75 B.C. ). — The period which extends from the fall of Jerusalem to the arrival of Ezra was a period of extraordinary activity, both moral and intellectual, in the choicest part of the Jewish people. ‘ The task which now de- volved on the nation was the inventory- ing of the spiritual property of Israel’ (Comill, Proph. Isr. 125). Hence quite naturally there arose a literary class, the Scribes (q.v. ), who were not only students but also teachers of law and sacred literature, and may perhaps be connected with the growth of an institution closely identified at a later time with the educational movement — viz., the Synagogue 2 (q.v.). Henceforth the Jews hecame emphatically ‘ the people of the book.’ The sacred writings became the spell- ing book, the community 5 13 are ac t ua lly called ' teachers ' (□noSp, D nb). were hardly ‘scribes.’ They were ear- nestly religious men, who, feeling that ‘wisdom’ was a practical thing, devoted their energy to instilling it into the minds of the young. The disciples are to them as their own children (Prov. 1 8 2 1 3 1 4 1, and often; cp Ps. 34n[i2j); and the teaching which they impart is called ‘ the words of the wise ' (o'DDn '"0*1, Prov. l6 22i7[cp 2423], Eccles. 917 12 n ; cp the Mishnic D’nDlDj applied to the dicta of scribes of a former age. These sages, no less than the scribes, seem to be regarded as a special guild (Prov. 16 13 14 22 17 2423 Eccles. 12 1 1), though ‘we are left almost entirely in the dark as to the formation and constitution of these societies, the extent and the methods of their investiga- tion ’ (Kautzsch, Outline of Hist, of Lit. of OT 151 ; cp also BDB Lex. , s.v. DDn)- On the other hand, the guild of the * wise ’ was already organised in pre-exilic times (see Che. Job and Solomon , 123, and elsewhere) ; 1 Neh. 77. The same phrase is rendered ‘teachers' in Ezra 8 16 RV. 2 According to the later enactments, as soon as a child could speak (i.e., in his third year) he was to he instructed in the Torah hy his father ( Sukka , 42 a). In the Talmudic period the child did not attend the elementary school hefore his sixth vear (Kethuboth, 50 a \ see further helow, § 18). y 1192 Iigi EDUCATION in the later period their attitude to the Law, though by no means unsympathetic (see Che. Jew. Rel. Life % 138 f )> was hardly that which would characterise the disciples of Ezra. 1 On the whole it is best, perhaps, to suppose that the sdphZrlm and the ’ wise ' formed two distinct but allied classes in the Persian and the early Greek periods, but that by the time of Ben-Sira the distinction had largely disappeared (so We. //GO) 154, n. 1 ; sage and scribe are identified in Ecclus. 38 24 / ; cp 6 33 f. 9 14 f. 14 20 f ). Though distinct, however, the earlier sophtrim cannot have been uninfluenced by the ’ wise ' ; they may even sometimes have adopted their literary style (see Che. OPs. 348), and in any case were saved from the barren literalism which begins to characterise the scribes of the post-Maccabean age. For the victory of the Law which crowned the Maccabean struggle foreshadowed the close of the OT literature. Contrast, from a literary point of view, the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon (written 63 b.c. ?) with the canonical Psalms. Whatever be the true view as to the mutual relation be- tween ’ scribes ' and ’ wise, ' the latter played a great part 9 PedaffOffic * n et * ucat ‘ ona l matters during the period wisdom* unc * er review. Some of the results of Prov their paedagogic experience are enshrined in the Book of Proverbs. These can only be summed up briefly here. The idea of life as a discipline ( musdr , thirty times in Prov.) is fundamental in the book ; 4 God educates men and men educate each other [ (Holtzmann, quoted in Driver^ Introd .( 6 ) 404). The foundation of all instruction is emphasised in the precept ‘The fear ofYahwe is the beginning — or the chief part (RVmg.) — of knowledge (17)'; the instructors of the child are his parents, reverence towards whom is again enforced ( 1 8 4 1-4 0 20 13 1 30 17). The development of the child's character is to be studied (20 11 ), and the educational means employed are to be adjusted accordingly. Among these means the use of the ‘ rod ' is constantly recom- mended (13 24, ‘ he that spareth the rod hateth his son ' ; cp 2313/ 291517); but the correction is not to be too strict (19 is RV), and it is recognised that to an intelligent child a rebuke is of more avail than ‘ a hundred stripes ' ( 17 10). The sovereign remedy, however, for expelling the innate ‘ foolishness ’ of children is the ‘rod’ (22 15). A ‘fool’ who does not prove amenable to this treatment seems to have been considered hope- less by the Jewish teachers [27 22, ‘even if thou pound a fool in the midst of his fellows thou wilt not remove his foolishness from him ’ (crit. emend.); see Che. Jew. Rel. Life , 136]. Cp Fool. The importance of good education is repeatedly emphasised. A well-educated child is a joy to his parents (10 1 2324 ; cp 17 25). In wealthier families (cp Ecclus. 51 28) the child, if he aspired to ’ wisdom,' would pass from the parents to professional teachers (513) — viz., the sages — who would inculcate the higher teaching current in the circles of the ‘ wise ’ (for an account of this see Che. Jew. Rel. Life , 135/.). The other great manual of paedagogic principles is the work of Ben-Sira (200-180 B.C.), who in spite of his 10 Ecclus ^ ate anc * cosmo P°^ tan training seems to have been comparatively uninfluenced by the surrounding Hellenism (for which see below, §11). As is the case in Proverbs (on which his book is modelled) ’ the wisdom of Joshua ben-Sira’ or ’ Ecclesi- astic us ’ is an ethical manual. The same points are insisted upon as in the earlier book, sometimes with added emphasis. Thus, e.g. % the ‘ fear of the Lord ’ is not only ‘the beginning of wisdom ’ (1 14), but also wisdom's fulness (1 16) and crown ( 1 18). Again, the old reverence for parents is enforced with unmistakable vigour (32-9 7 27/I etc.). ‘Wisdom’ is to be sought after diligently (636; ‘If thou seest a man of under- standing, get thee betimes unto him, and let thy foot wear out the steps of his doors.’ Cp 8 8 f. 9 15, etc., and A both 1 4). Though perhaps there are more direct references to organised religion (e.g. , 7 29 : ’ Fear the Lord with all thy soul ; and reverence his priests ,' cp 2423) than in Proverbs, the religious and ethical tone of Ecclesi- asticus is distinctly lower. Of this the unbending 1 On the priestly character of the earliest sopherim see We. Sketch of Hist, of 1 sr. and Jud. ('91), 131. EDUCATION severity recommended towards sons and daughters is an instance (723/ 3O1-13). Among other points that call for mention here are the interesting reference to oral instruction (424^: ‘instruction by the word of the tongue’), and the disparagement of manual labour, as being inconsistent with the pursuit of knowledge, which ‘cometh by opportunity of leisure’ (3824; with 3825, however, ’ how shall he become wise that holdeth the plough ’ ? contrast 7 15). Among the subjects of his dis- course is the etiquette of dining (31 16-21). The im- portant references to the scribes have already been pointed out (§ 8). The Greek period, which commenced with Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian empire (332 B.c.) 11 Greek mar ^ s r * se wholly new educational influenc i n A uence s. The Palestinian Jews were, how- ’ ever, affected by this far less than their brethren abroad, especially those who became citizens of the new Greek city of Alexandria. Still the reflex influence of the Greek- Egyptian capital (not to speak of the Greek towns that began to grow up on Palestinian soil) must, for nearly a century and i half after 332, have been considerable even in Judasa. Slowly but surely Hellenic ideas penetrated to the centre of Judaism till the crisis that precipitated the Maccabean revolt was reached. In the reaction that followed, Hellenism was so far overcome that it ceased to be dangerous to to the root-ideas of Judaism (see Israel, §§ 68 jf.). There is good reason to suppose that during this critical time Greek educational methods found their way to Jerusalem. This may be inferred from the fact that just before the Maccabean rising there was there a gymnasium ephebeutn (1 Macc. 1 14 /. 2 Macc. 4912). Doubtless, too, the education afforded to his children by the notorious Joseph, son . of Tobias (Jos. Ant. xii. 46), was of the Greek type. At a later time Herod also probably attended a school of similar character (see below, § 14). A good instance of the ultimate extent and limitations of Greek influence can be seen in the author of Ecclesiasticus, who wrote when Hellenising influence was at its highest in Judasa. In essentials he is untouched by it. Still his emphasizing of leisure as the condition of wisdom (3824) is distinctly Greek, no less than his comprehensive view of a wise man’s culture (391-5). To the questions as to practical details that suggest themselves only hesitating answers can be given. The 19 P 1 scr ^ s ' doubtless, gave instruction in the det a< iIa Cal s y na £°£^ es • t ^ ie Talmud speaks of the bells which were rung at the beginning of the lessons (Low, Die Lebensalter , 287, 421 ['75], quotes Shabb. 58 b). From Prov. 1 20 f. we might infer that the city -gates or the adjacent city -squares or ' broad places ' on which the streets converged, were the places where the wise men awaited their disciples. Perhaps, however, it was in private houses that instruc- tion, both by scribe and by sage, was most often given (cp Ecclus. 626 quoted above, § 10, and the other re- ferences there given). Regarding the methods employed there is greater uncertainty. Oral instruction (Ecclus. 424^) and, probably, frequent repetition, would be in vogue. The use of acrostic (Ps. 119, etc.) and other mnemonic devices, such as Athbash 1 (cp Jer. 25z6 51 1) and the ’ numerical’ proverbs (Prov. 3O11-31, cp Aboth 5) also may be assigned to this period. 2 That reading was a widespread accomplishment at the beginning of the Maccabean age (167 B. c. ) appears from 1 Macc. 1 57. III. Simon ben- Shetach (75 B.c.) to End of Jewish State (70 A. d. ). — The ideal of education is well ex- 13 Third neriod pressed by J ose P hus - Contrasting 7B r the Israelitish system of culture with that of the Spartans, on the one 1 The reader substitutes for each Hebrew letter in a word a letter from the other half of the alphabet, the letters inter- changed being equidistant from the extremes. Thus in English A and Z, B and Y would interchange. 2 So Kennedy, as cited, § 24. 1194 EDUCATION hand, who educated by custom, not by theoretic in- struction (Zdeaiv iwaldevov, ob \6 704s), and, on the other, with that of the Athenians and the rest of the Greeks, who contented themselves with theoretic instruction, and neglected practice, he says : ’ But our law-giver very care- fully combined the two. For he neither left the practice of morals silent, nor the teaching of law unperformed ’ (c. Ap. 2 16 f quoted by Schiirer). The knowledge and practice of the Law thus set forth was to be the common possession of the whole nation, and the life- work of every Israelite. It began in early youth in the family circle , was carried (as we shall see) a stage further in the school , and continued in the synagogue , to which was also attached (for higher studies) the scribes' college (Beth ham-midrash ; see § 21). 1 We have already seen that the necessity of (orally) instructing the children in the written Law was insisted 14 The u P on comparatively early (see the exhorta- tions in D enumerated above, § 4). This, school ^ ^ ^ ias ^ >een P°i nte d out, would be, as a rule, the duty of the parents. From the great importance attached to the early education of children, however, even in Proverbs (e.g. 226 ) — and this would naturally be enhanced with the elaboration of scribal traditions — it was inevitable that some system of popular elementary education should be organised. When, then, was this effected? According to the Jerusalem Talmud ( KZthubuth , 8n, p. 32 £) it was the work of the famous scribe Simon ben-Shetach, the brother of Queen Alexandra (reigned 78-69 B.C.). Simon’s ordinance runs thus : ‘ That the children shall attend the elementary school' (iDDrt n’ 3 1 ? paSttl Jllpiriffl V«w)« It has heen pointed out (e.g., hy Kennedy, as cited, § 24) that the meaning of the regulation is not free from ambiguity. It ‘may also he interpreted to mean that attendance on schools already existing was henceforth to he compulsory.' In view of the fact that Simon's enactment is the second of three (apparently closely connected) marriage regulations added by him to the statute-book (see the passage in full in Derenbourg, Hist. 108), it is natural to suppose that it refers to attendance at existing schools rather than to the institution of such schools for the first time. The context certainly suggests that a. hitherto neglected or half-performed duty was to be henceforth rigidly enforced. If, as is possible, for the higher (professional) teaching of the scribes, colleges (emon TO ; see below, § 21) had already come into existence, it is hard to suppose that preparatory schools for these had not been organised already, especially when it is remembered that schools of the Greek type had been established in Jerusalem for a long time (see above, §11). It is quite in accordance, also, with the forward movement of the Pharisaic party in the reign of Alexandra that measures should have been taken for extending the scope of these schools, and thus more widely diffusing Pharisaic principles among thepeople (cp Israel, §8o_^). May it not, too, have been designed by means of them to check and counteract the more extreme forms of the surrounding Greek education? There seems, therefore, no good reason for rejecting the tradition respecting Simon’s efforts on behalf of popular education, though Schiirer dismisses the famous scribe's claims with un- usual curtness. ‘ This Simon ben Shetach,' we are told, ‘ is quite a meeting-point for all kinds of myths ’ (G/F23 5 3 = ET 449). The same scholar following the tradition of the Babylonian Talmud ( Baba Bathra 21a) ascribes the complete organisation of the elementary school to Joshua ben-Gamla (Gamaliel), who was high priest about 63-65 a.d. ■ Unfortunately the earliest Hehrew literature dealing with the^e suhjects (the Mishna), though it contains earlier material, was not as a whole compiled and written down till the second century a . d . The quotations from the Mishnic treatise Pirkc Aboth (cited as A both ) are numhered in this article according to Strack s edition of the Hebrew text. 2 Heb. "icon run. beth hassepher = ‘ House of the Book!' For other names see § 17 end. 1195 EDUCATION The passage runs as follows: ‘Truly may it he rememhered to this man’s credit 1 Joshua hen-Gamla is his name. If he had not lived, the Law would have heen forgotten in Israel. For at first, he who had a father was taught the Law hy him, he who had none did not learn the Law. . . . Afterwards it was ordained, that teachers of boys should he appointed in Jeru- salem. . . . But (even this did not suffice, for) he who had a father was sent to school by him, he who had none did not go there. Then it was ordained that teachers should be appointed in every province, and that boys of the age of sixteen or seventeen should be sent to them. But he whose teacher was angry with him ran away, till Joshua hen-Gamla came, and enacted that teachers should be appointed in every province and in every town TJ nnDl nj'ID SdA and children of six or seven years old brought to them.' As the measures of Joshua obviously presuppose that there had been boys’ schools for some time (Schiirer, ibid.) the two traditions are not really inconsistent. It is not unreasonable to suppose that Simon's earlier efforts, especially as regards the provincial schools , had been attended with only partial success, owing to the political and religious troubles of the time. Certainly if Josephus’s statement regarding Herocfs attendance at school {Ant. xv. 10 5) be correct — though doubtless the school in question conformed to the Greek rather than to the Jewish type — we may fairly infer that some- time before 40 B.C. schools had been instituted, at any rate in the larger towns. That they existed in the time of Jesus, ’ though not as a general and established institution, is admitted by Schiirer. It is decidedly curious that the word ‘ school ' should not occur before I the NT, and in the NT only once — viz., of the lecture ! room of a Greek rhetorician at Ephesus (trxoAi), Acts I99). 1 The explanation, probably, is that the school (in both its elementary and its higher forms) was so intimately associated with the synagogue that in ordinary speech the two were not distinguished. The term ‘synagogue’ included its schools. 2 Thus it is said (J alkie t Jes., § 257) that the synagogues in Jerusalem had each a Beth Sepker and a Beth Talmud (i.e., the lower and the upper divisions of the school). The statement that Jerusalem was destroyed hecause schools and school children ceased to he there ( Shabbdth , 119), is obviously only a rhetorical way of emphasising the importance attached to the school in the Talmudic period ; as also the similar one : ‘Jerusalem was destroyed hecause the instructors were not respected ’ (ibid.). According to the Jalkiit Jes. ( l.c .) Jerusalem, ahout the same period, possessed 480 schools I There is no doubt that during the period under review either the synagogue proper (which was to be found in every Jewish town and village of any import- ance) or a room within its precincts was used for school purposes (the references ar e BUrakhoth, lya, with Rashi, Taanith , 23^, Kiddushin , 30a). The teacher’s house also was sometimes requisitioned (hence the name N 3 GD JV 3 ‘ teacher’s house ’ — i.e , school : Hamhurger). Special huildings also were huilt as children's schools, hut how early is quite uncertain. According to the Targum (Jerus. i. Gen. 33 17) the patriarch Jacoh erected a college *d) in Succoth ! The classical passage for determining the gradations of the teaching profession is found in the Mishnic 16. Teachers treatise S5 t d 9 (ed. Surenh. 3 308 ; ’ the passage can be seen also in Buxtorf, Lex., ed. Fischer, 378a). It runs as follows: ‘ R. Eliezer the Great says: Since the destruction of the Temple the sages (n'DDH) have hegun to he like the scrihes (rhDd), and the scrihes like the master (of the school, R3Tn), and the master like the uneducated.’ It has heen usual to identify the hazzdn (master) of the school with the hazzdn (minister) of the synagogue (nDJ 3 H |ln = v7rrjpeTTjs ‘minister, 1 Lk. 4 20). Thus Buxtorf (l.c.) renders the second clause of the above ‘et scrihze sicut minister synagogse.’ It has heen pointed out, however, hy the latest writer on the suhject 1 The ‘ schoolmaster 1 OraiSev-nj?, Rom. 2 20) is however men- tioned, as well as the ‘ tutor 1 (n-aifia-ytoyos), and the ‘ teacher ’ (fitfiatrxaAos). 2 ‘Curiously enough in the Latin documents of the Middle Ages the synagogue was also termed Scola (school) 1 ; J. Jacobs Jewish Year Book , ’96, p. 191. So also J. Simon (L' educa- tion chez les Juifs) who, speaking of the synagogue as it existed in France in the early Middle Ages, says : ‘ La synagogue 6tait une 6cole autant qu’un lieu de culte. La prifere n’avait d’ef- ficacitd que si elle 6tait accompagn^e de l’6tude.’ 1196 EDUCATION EDUCATION (Kennedy) that ‘ jin is a word of general application, meaning “ overseer,” “ inspector," or the like ; and its exact significance has to be decided by the context.' 1 The context of the above passage, as also of the other Mishna passage usually cited in this connection ( Skabbdth I3), in the absence of the qualifying word riD 30 n (‘ synagogue ’), requires us to render ‘ overseer ' or ‘ master (of the school).' That the two offices were not identical further appears from tbe fact that, whereas the hazzan of the synagogue occupied a low position in the social scale (he was a kind of sexton, and his duties included such menial offices as tbe whipping of criminals [Makkotk 3 12])^ the hazzan of the school, being a teacher } would share the social prestige attaching to the teaching profession. The three grades of teachers, then, are sage and scribe (who taught in the scribes’ college), and the elementary school teacher officially designated hazzan (the general term is mpu’n “id^d or -idSd alone). From the manner in which the three classes are connected in the above-cited passage Kennedy infers that th z hazzan, no less than the scribe and the sage, belonged to the , powerful guild of the scribes, called in the NT ' doctors j of the law,’ vo/xodidd. 1 12 ; for other passages see Schurer, op. cit. 2357 [ET 4 47 f.]). It must be remembered, however, that writing, being a much more difficult art than reading, would be less widely diffused. 1 The questioning by the child, only in an expanded form, is still a feature of the Passover rite. Cp The Revised Hagada , ed. A. A. Green, 27. 2 It may be inferred from Lk. 2 42 that those who dwelt at a distance from Jerusalem would not take part in the pilgrimages till their twelfth year. 3 In Jn. 7 15 ypafi fiara means {sacred) book learn z«^(especial ly as pursued by the scribes; cp ypafifiarevs) rather than the elements of learning. Cp Acts 2^24. 1198 1197 EDUCATION The ‘ swift writer ’ of the Psalmist (*ynD 1 S 1 D* P fi * 45 i [2]) no doubt belonged to a learned class. In the period of the Mishna also, the ‘writers’ evidently formed a special guild, something like that of the ‘scriveners* of the Middle Ages (cp Shabbdtk I2 where 'the writer* libellarius] ‘with his reed’ [Hotolrtpa = fcaAa/j.05] is mentioned. Such a statement, therefore, as that during the Bar-Kokhba revolt the cry of the school youth in Bethar was : ‘ If the enemy comes against us we will go up against them with these writing styli in order to poke out their eyes * ( Gittin 60 a), must be read critically. Probably the elements of arithmetic also were taught in the elementary school. See Ginsburg in Kitto, Bibl. Cyc., art. ‘ Education,’ and note that a knowledge of the arithmetical method of exegesis called gematria 1 [triaDJ^yewfierpta] is presupposed on the part of his readers by the writer of Rev. 13 17 f. See Numbers. As the name House of the Book implies, the one text-book of the schools was the sacred writings ; and this to a Jew meant — and means — above all else the Pentateuch, which has always enjoyed a. primacy of honour in the Jewish canon. That the rest of the OT also was read and studied is shown (to take an in- stance) by the large use made of the prophetie literature and of the Psalms, for popular purposes, in the pages of the NT. Not improbably instruction in the Law at this period (as later) commenced with Leviticus, acquaintance with which would be important to every Jew when the Temple sacrifices were actually offered. When these had ceased the reason given for beginning with Leviticus was a fanciful one (’Sacrifices are pure, and children are pure [from sins] ; let the pure be occupied with that which is pure ’ Midrash Rabbd). Great care was evidently taken that the texts used — at any rate of the Pentateuch — should be as accurate as possible (cp Mt. 5 18, PXsachim, 112 a \ and note that the LXX conforms to the received Hebrew text in the Pentateuch more strictly than elsewhere). This care would extend, too, to the reading aloud of the Sacred Books, accuracy of pronunciation, etc., being insisted on ; the books themselves were, of course, read (as in the public services) in the original ‘sacred tongue’ (Hebrew), though the language of everyday life in Palestine was already Aramaic, which was employed (in the synagogues) in interpreting the sections of Scripture there read (see Text). Though it is evident from the statements of Jose- phus (Ant. xx. 11 2) that the systematic study of foreign languages formed no part of a Palestinian Jew’s regular education, the fact that, during this period, the popula- tion of Palestine outside Judasa was without exception of a mixed character, consisting of Jews, Syrians, and Greeks intermingled, whilst Jerusalem itself was con- stantly being visited by foreign -speaking Jews and proselytes (cp Acts 2 s jf), who even had their own syna- gogues in the Holy City (Acts 69), makes it practically certain that Greek at least cannot have been altogether unfamiliar to the (Aramaic -speaking) Judasans (cp Hellenism, § 3). For the abounding indications of indirect Greek influence on Jewish life of the NT and earlier period see Schurer, 226f. (ET 329 f). On the question discussed above, his conclusion is, ‘it is probable that a slight acquaintance with Greek was pretty widely diffused, and that the more educated classes used it without difficulty.’ It should be noted that the inscription on the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek (Jn. 19 iqf). According to tradition ( Sank . 17 a) a knowledge of Greek was essential in order to qualify for membership of the sanhedrin. Possibly Hebrew with an admixture of Greek words (cp the language of the Mishna) was still spoken in learned circles. To illustrate the later estimation of Greek two quotations must suffice : ‘ W hat need,’ says Rabbi (i.e., Judah the Holy, Compiler of the Mishna, 2nd cent, a.d.), ‘ has one in Palestine to learn Syriac (i.e., Aramaic, the language of the country)? One should learn either Hebrew or Greek ’ (Sdtd 49 a). ‘ The Torah may be translated only into Greek, because only by Greek can it be adequately rendered ’ (Jems. Megillah 1 8). Both the extent and the limits of Greek influence on 1 The reader substitutes for a word another the sum of the numerical values of whose letters is the same. Thus 666“ Cajsar Nero (jru -iDp)- EDUCATION Palestinian Jewish life can be very well illustrated by the Jewish view of games, gymnastics, etc. (see Hellenism, § 5). It is well known that the erection of a gymnasium in Jerusalem by the Hellenisers in the Maccabean period ealled forth the indignant protest of the striet party (see above, § 11). This continued to be the attitude of legal Judaism, even Josephus de- nouncing the theatre and amphitheatre as un-Jewish (Ant. xv. 81). In time, however, even the most pious modified this rigid puritanism, and tales are actually told of the gymnastic skill of famous Rabbis (e.g. , Simon ben-Gamaliel, Sukka , 58 a). The bath, originally a Greek institution, became entirely naturalized, and was given a Hebrew name ( jttid)- We even find a Talmudic precept enjoining every father to teach his son swimming ( Kiddush in, 29 a). The characteristic method both of teaching and of . , _ learning was constant repetition. Hence 20 . Met 0 sol p r op. to repeat, comes to mean both Stu y, e c. tQ f eac } l an( j t0 i earn ( see above, § 3). The following dictum is ascribed to R. 'Aklba (2nd cent, a.d.): * The teacher should strive to make the lesson agreeable to the pupils by clear reasons, as well as by frequent repetitions , until they thoroughly understand the matter^ and are able to recite it with great fluency ’ ('Jtrubin 54 b). The pupil was to repeat the lesson aloud : * Open thy mouth that the subject of thy study may abide with thee and live ’ (* Erubtn , 54 a). Oral instruction is often referred to in NT — e.g. , in Rom. 2 18; cp Lk. 1 4 (cp Catechise). In Jerome’s time (4th cent. A.D.) Jewish children in Palestine had to learn by heart the alphabet in the regular and the reverse order. He reproaches the Pharisees with always repeating, never reflecting. Jerome notes the remarkable powers of memory thus de- veloped : ‘ In childhood they acquire the complete vocabulary of their language, and learn to recite all the generations from Adam to Zerubbabel with as much accuracy and facility, as if they were simply giving their names ’ (see S. Krauss in JQR 6231 /., where the reff. are given). The ‘ endless genealogies ’ of 1 Tim. 1 4 may be a further illustration (but see Genealogies i., § 4, second note). Repetition with fellow scholars is recom- mended (Ta'anith 7 a). In teaching, mechanical devices for assisting the memory were used (memoria technica : cp Mishna, Shekalim v., and elsewhere, and Buxt. Lex. [ed. Fischer, 677 £], s.v. ppnau). The idiosyncrasy of the pupil was to be considered (Prov. 226 , 'Aboda Zara 19 a). Instruction was to be methodical and given with a high sense of responsibility (Pgsachim 3 a, and Abdth 3 n). Regarding school discipline the later rules are elaborate. Perhaps the following may be mentioned. Partiality on the part of the teacher was to be avoided (Ta'anith 24a). Punctuality is insisted upon (Kethiiboth mb). Punishments were mild, the Rabbinical rules in this respect showing a marked advance on the ideas of Ben-Sira. Thus reliance in the case of older scholars who proved refractory was placed in the chastening effect of the public opinion of class-fellows (Baba. Bathrd 21 a). In the case of young children, when punishment was necessary it was to be administered with a strap (ibid.). The pedagogic ideal of the period was realised in R. Eliezer — a preceptor of R. 'Akiha — who is compared to ‘ a plastered cistern that loseth not a drop’ (Abdth 28 b). That the usual position of the scholar was on the ground, facing the teacher, appears from Acts 22 3 (irapb. robs 7r68as TafjLa\ir}\). Cp Lk. 2 46 10 39, and the saying ascribed to R. Jose: ‘Let thy house be a meeting-place for the wise ; and po^vder thyself in thedustof their feet' (Abdth I4). Benches (^q^q~ subset lia) were a later innovation (Berdkhoth, 28 a). In some cases it would be convenient for teacher or taught to stand (Acts 13 16 Mt. 13 2) ; but this was not the rule. These remarks largely apply to the scribal college. Besides the elementary school there were also colleges for higher training, where those who were to devote 21 Scribes' themselves to l ^ e stu dy of the Law (both Colleges written and oral ) attended (e-nan rrn, ° ' Beth ham-midrash, ‘house of study’; another name is pn '3, Megilla 28 a). These, too, were usually attached (at any rate when the system had been developed) to the synagogues. No doubt they grew out of assemblies in private houses (cp Abdth 1 4 cited above), which probably still continued to be used in some eases for this purpose. In Jerusalem the temple (i.e. , the colonnades or some other space of the 1199 1200 EDUCATION EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH outer court) was often so utilised (Lk. 246 Mt. 21 23 etc. ). Thus the famous scribes and ‘ doctors of the law’ taught, their instruction being chiefly catechetical — a method which has left its impress upon the style of the Mishna. Questions, asked and answered by teacher and disciple alike, counter-questions, parables, debates, allegories, riddles, stories — such were the methods em- ployed. They throw an interesting light on NT forms of teaching. Thus (for instance) the Rabbinic parables, like those of the NT, are commonly introduced by some such formula as ‘ To what is the matter like?' (rf'jtcb). The fuller consideration of these and other points (e.g., the extent of the studies pursued in the Beth Hammidrash) belongs to the article Scribes ( q.v .). What has been said above applies exclusively to boys. For the education of girls no public provision was made. „ , f • From birth to marriage they remained f Girls l0U unc * er mother's care. With their brothers they would learn those simple lessons in morality and religion which a mother knows so well how to instil. Special care would, of course, be given to their training in the domestic arts ; but the higher studies (both sacred and secular) were considered to be outside a woman's sphere. Reading, however, and perhaps writing, were taught to girls, and they were made familiar with the written, but not the oral, Law. Strangely enough, too, they were apparently encouraged to acquire a foreign language, especially Greek (/. Peak ib). That great importance was attached to girls’ education from an early period appears from Ecclus. 7 24 f , 26 10/. , 429/. Above all, the ideal of Jewish womanhood was that of the virtuous (or capable) wife, actively engaged in the management of her household, and in the moral and religious training of her children (Prov. 31 10-29). It must not be supposed that the system of education sketched above was the only one to be found in Palestine Conclusion during the P erio<1 As has alread y Li . conclusion. been pointed out _ there were doubtless Jewish as well as Greek-speaking centres within the Holy Land where schools of the Greek type flourished. Among the Jewish communities abroad, too, which doubtless possessed schools with their synagogues, Greek influence would be especially felt. Still, in all Jewish centres the dominant note was the same. Educa- tion was almost exclusively religious. Its foundation was the text of Scripture, and its highest aim to train up its disciples in the fear of God which is based upon a detailed knowledge of the Law. The noble precept ’ Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it ’ (Prov. 226) is re-echoed, in more prosaic language, in the Talmud : ‘ If we do not keep our children to religion while they are young, we shall certainly not be able to do so in later years ’ ( Ydmd 82 a). The means by which this could be accomplished — as the Jewish teachers were the first to perceive — was a system of definite religious training in the schools. In thus endowing its children with a possession which lived in intellect, conscience, and heart, Judaism en- trenched itself within an impregnable stronghold. For it is undoubtedly the love of sacred study, instilled in school and synagogue, that has saved the Jewish race from extinction. The beautiful saying, attributed to R. J udah the Holy : * The world exists only by the breath of school-children,’ has its justification — at any rate as regards the Jewish world — in the later history of the Jewish people. On the subject generally the following works may be referred to : Oehler, * Padagogik d. AT, 1 in Schmid's Encyclopedic d. gesammten Erziehungs- und Unter- 24. Bibliography, richtswesen , vol. 5 ; Hamburger, REJ, '96 (reprint), vol. 1, art. ‘Erziehung’; 2, * Lehrer,' ‘Lehrhaus,’ ‘Schule,' ‘Schiiler,’ ‘ Unterricht,’ etc. t i mine of information, but mainly for the later period) ; churer, GjVfi), 2305 Jf, ‘Die Schriftgelehrsamkeit ' (ET, Div. ii. vol. 1, § 25), 2419^. ‘Schule und Synagoge' (ET, Div. ii. vol. 2, § 27, where the literature is given); Ginsburg in Kitto's Biol. Cyclop .( 3 ), art. ‘ Education’ (conservative, but useful and interesting) ; to which may now be added A. R. S. Kennedy's art. ‘Education,’ cited above, in Hastings’ DB. Lane's Modern Egyptians, chap. 2 } ‘ Infancy and Early Education,’ contains valuable illustrative matter. The subject is also discussed in Edersheim, Sketches 0/ Jewish Social Life, etc. (chaps. 7 J.), Life and Times of Jesus, etc. 1 225 f., and History of the Jewish Nation (ed. White), 277 f [’06], (Jewish philosophy, art, and science are also fully discussed in this volume); Laurie, Historical Survey of Pre-Christian Education, 69-105 [95] ; L. L6w, Die Lebensalter in d. jlid. Literatur, 130 f. [’75] ; and S. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 343 f. The relevant sections in Benzinger and Nowack (HA), also, should not be overlooked. Of monographs and special treatises the following are the most important : — J. Lewit, Darstellung d. theoretischen u. prakiischen Padagogik in jild. A Iter turn , ’96; E. van Gelder Die Volkschule d. jild. Altertnms, '92 ; J. Simon, L' Education et r instruction des Enfant s chez les Anciens Juifsfi), '81 ; Seidel, Ueber die Pbdagogik d. Pro 7 jerbien, '75 (with which compare Che. Jew. Rel. Life)’, M. Duschak, Schulgesetzgebung und Methodik d. alten Israeli ten, '72. For the Talmudic period (in English) Spiers, The School System of the Talmud I 2 ), ’98, may be mentioned. There are many books on Jewish education of this later period (see Strack, Einl. itt den ThalmudV), 128 titles). Other references have been given in tbe body of the present article. G. H. B. egg (ny*3), Deut. 226 ; see Fowls, § 4, Scorpion. EGLAH (HJ3IJ, ‘ y°ung cow,’ § 68 ; &[-Xa [AL] ; in 2S. ai|-aA [B], -pAC [A] ; in 1 Ch. aAa [B], ep M 1 TAAa [Jos.]). Mother of David's son Ithream (q.v. ), 2S. 35 1 Ch. 33. It is doubtful whether ‘wife of David ' in 2 S. 3 5 is correct or not. ‘ David ’ might be a scribe's error for some other name ; Abigail ( v . 3) is called ‘wife of Nabal' (her first husband). So Well- hausen, Driver, Budde. According to a late exegetical tradition, however (see 'J er - Qucest. Hebr. on 2 S. 3s 623, and Lag. Proph. Chald. p. xviii. ), Eglah was Michal, daughter of Saul, David's first wife. This view is also that of Thenius and Klostermann, and is plausible. To stop short here, however, would be impossible. No early writer would have written Eglah meaning Michal. The most probable explana- tion is suggested by 2 Ch. 11 r8. n^jy is a corruption of Swan, ’Abihail,’ the name given to the mother of Jerimoth (q.v.), or rather Ithream, ben David, in 2 Ch. l.c. We now understand <© B 's reading atya\ (atxaX?) in 2 S. 3 s, and can do justice to the late Jewish tradition respecting Eglah. For almost certainly ‘jtd ( ‘ Michal ’ ) also is a corruption of Wax. * Abihail.’ See Ithream, Michal. t. k. c. EGLAIM probably ’ place of 0 reservoir ’ ? — or a softened form of Q'biV ? on form of name see Names, § 107 — apaAgim [B], -AA[e]iM [NAQ], Gallim), a town of Moab (Is. 15 8), mentioned together with Beer-elim in such a way as to suggest that it lay on the S. frontier. Beer-elim, however, should rather be read ‘ in Elealeh ’ (close to the N. frontier). Eglaim must therefore have been on the S. border, and Eusebius and Jerome identify it with ayaWa/x (Agallim), a village 8 R. m. S. from Areopolis (OS, 228 61 98 10). T. k. c. EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH (fVcfy? rb$) , men- tioned in the RV of the prophecy against Moab, Is. 15s (AamaAic . . TplCTHC [BKAQr]) Jer. 4834 UrreAiAN caAacgia [B], om. N*, a. eic caAica [K c,a ], -Aia [AQ], caAicia [A], caAacia [Q])- The rendering adopted by Graf and others ’ the third Eglath ’ implies that there were three places of this name near together. Whether such a title as ‘ the third Eglath ’ is probable in a poem the reader may judge. Duhm and Marti take the words to be an insertion from Jer. l.c. ; Cheyne, however (see Luhith), supposes n'ttber nSay to be a corruption of □'Siy nSyo» ‘ the ascent of Eglaim [7.2/.],’ cancelling as a dittogram ‘the ascent of Luhith [q.v.]J According to the rendering of AV and of RV m £- ( * an heifer of three years ’ ) the crying of Moab is compared to a thwarted heifer, one which in its third year is on the point of being broken in ; others regard ‘ heifer ’ as a meta- 1201 1202 EGLON phorical description of Zoar (cp Hos. 10 zi) ; but one expects niy'rtfD nSiy, cp Gen. 159. 1 EGLON (\b$), § 77 ; cp Eglah, Eglaim, erAco/w [BAL]), the king of Moab, who oppressed Israel for eighteen years. He was finally killed by the Ben- jamite Ehud [g.v . , i. ( 1 )], who at the head of his tribesmen destroyed all the Moabites W. of Jordan (Judg. 312-30). That Moab was aided by Ammon and Amalek is probably an exaggeration due to D ; cp Bu. Ri.Sa. 99. From the fact that Eglon seized Jericho ( v . 13) it is often assumed (cp e.g . , Jos.) that this was the scene of his assassination. This, however, does not agree with the finale, and since Gilgal lies between Jericho and the fords of Moab, we must assume from vv. 18 f. 26 that his residence was E. of Gilgal, most probably in Moab. See Judges, §§ 6, 16 (beg. ); Seirath. EGLON (Jl'PJT ; ( 55 BAL commonly oXoAXam ; in Josh. 10 36 12 12 1539, epAcoN). a town in the Shgphelah of Judah, mentioned with Lachish and Bozkath (Josh. 15 39 iAe<\A<\Ae<\ [BA]). Debir, its king, joined the league against Joshua which was headed by Adonizedek EGYPT [(?•*'■]. and perished with the other kings (Josh. 10 1-37 \v. 5 oSoMax (A) ; v. 36 BA om.] ; cp 12 12 aiXa^u [B], cy\wv [F], -p. [A]). That Adullam takes its place in @ of Josh. 10 is plainly a mistake, which has led Eusebius and Jerome astray {(AS 253 45 118 21). The name of Eglon survives in that of Kh. 'Ajlan, 1 16 m. NE. of Gaza, and 2 m. N. of Tell el-Hesy (Lachish). On this site, however, ’ there is very little extent of artificial soil, very little pottery, and what there is shows Roman age.’ On the other hand, there is a tell, 3^ m. S. of Tell el-Hesy, the site of which Petrie considers only second in importance to that of Tell el-Hesy, and, though he has not explored it, he pronounces it to be the ancient Eglon. So far as can be seen on the surface, Tell Nejileh (so it is called) is of the same age as Tell el-Hesy, though it may have been ruined earlier {PEFQ, ’90, p. 162). Unluckily, however, it is wholly covered with an Arab cemetery (Flinders Petrie PEFQ , ’90, p. 226). Tell 'Ajlan may represent the ruins of a later town, built after the overthrow of the ancient city ; this is a suggestion which may or may not be confirmed by excavation. T. K. C. e G Y P T . 2 N ame (§ 1). Description (§§ 2-9). People, Language, etc. (§§ 10*12). Religion (§§ 13-19). Literature (§§ 20*26). CONTENTS. Institutions (§§ 27-32). Trade, etc. (§§ 33 * 35 )* Art (§ 36/A Miscellaneous (§§ 38-40). History (§§ 41-44). MAPS Old Empire (§§ 45*48). Middle Empire (§§ 49*52). New Empire (§§ 53*60). Dynasties 20-25 (§§ 61-66). Dynasties 26-34 (§§ 67-74). 1. Egypt proper (after col. 1240). 3. Course of Nile (after col. 1208, No. 1). 5. Geological (after col. 1208, No. 3) 2. Oases (see Nos. 1 and 4). 4. Nile and Euphrates (ib., No. 2). 6. Egypt and Sinai, pluvial period (col. 1205). The name used by us, after the example of the classic nations, 3 for the country on the banks of the Nile, seems to have been really the designa- 1. am . t j on of the capital M era phis — Ha{t)-ka-ptah , cuneiform JJikubta ( Am . Tab. nos. 53, 37), translated 'HcuaTkt = Egypt — and more primitively that of its 1 See Dietrich in Merx, Archiv, 1 342 Jf. 2 Repertories for Egypt in general are Jolowicz, Biblioth. Aeg. 1858*61, and Prince Ibrahim Hilmy, The Lit. of Egypt and the Sudan , 1886-88. The current literature is given in the Orientalische Bibliographic. For scientific investigations, the following journals must be consulted : Zt. f. Aeg. Sprache u. A Iter turns kunde (Leipsic), Recueil de trav. rel. a la philol. ft arch. Egypt, et Assyr. (here cited as Rec. trav.'), and Re 7>. Egypt. (Paris), and Sphinx (Upsala). In England, scattered contributions, especially in TSBA and PSBA and Archaologia , ] etc. On the monuments of Egypt, the memoirs of the Mission Franqaise au Caire, of the Egypt Exploration Fund (through which also the admirable ‘ Archeological Survey of Egypt ’ has been set on foot), and Prof. Flinders Petrie's Egypt Research Accounts, as also the Catalogue des Monuments et Inscriptions, begun recently by the Egyptian Government (edited by De Morgan), are in progress of publication. Of older works, Lepsius, Denkmaler aus Aeg. u. Aeth. (1849-58, a large and beautiful publication), Roselhni, Monumenti dell' Egitto, etc. (1842-44, faithful), Champollion, Monuments , 610.(1835-45, with Notices Manuscrits as supplement), also the publications of the Museums at London ( Select Papyri , etc., ed. by Birch), Leiden (by Leemans, 1839, foil.), Berlin, Turin (Papyri by Pleyte and Rossi), Bulak (Mariette), are most useful for illustrations and inscriptions ; the Descr. de T Egypt e of Napoleon’s expedition is | in part quite antiquated, and, generally, hardly anything earlier l than Champollion continues to be of use. Philological studies very quickly become antiquated owing to the rapid progress of j the young science. So far, none of the popular books on Egypt | in relation to the Bible can be recommended (this is true of j Brugsch, Steininschrift und Bibehvort , 1891). Ebers, Aeg. u. die BUcher Mosis, 1868 (antiquated), was never completed. An Egyptological counterpart to KA T is promised. Here only a selection from the immense mass of literature can be made, preference often being given to the less highly specialised works, and those written in English or translated into it. 3 AlyujrTOs (Lat. Algyptus') occurs first in Homer, where it denotes, as a feminine noun, the country, as a masculine, the j river Nile. I chief temple (see Noph). 2 On the Semitic name 3 see Mizraim, § 1. Poetical names in the OT are Rahab and ‘ land of Ham ’ (see Rahab, Ham, i. ). The Egyptians themselves called their country Kemetf Coptic khmg or xhmg 8 (Northern Coptic KH mi ) — *’•«?•, ’the black country’ — from its black soil of Nile mud, in contrast with the surrounding deserts, the de'Sret or ’ red country. ' This etymology is given correctly by Plutarch ( De Iside 33, xnMci = fieX&yyetos ; see also 'E pfxoxvfxios, Steph. Byz. , by the side of p,e\dp.- f$w\os). Poetic names were, e.g . , ( P)-to-mere , ’ (the) land of inundation ’ (Steph. Byz. HTtfivpn, equal to AAra), in later time Beket (perhaps 'land of the baket shrub ’). The most common designation was, how- ever, simply 'the two countries,' tout , 6 referring to the division of Egypt into S. and N. country (see below, § 43 )* Egypt situated in the NE. corner of Africa ; but the ancients reckoned it more frequently to Asia than 2 . Land. tC) 'Libya' — i.e. , Africa. It lies between N. f h l at - 3 Z ° 35 r (the Mediterranean) and 24 0 4 2 3 (the first cataract at Asuan). Longitudinally its limits may be given as from Solum, 28° 50' E., to Rhinocolura, the modern el-'Arlsh (see Egypt, River 33 5 ° E. ; but the limits of cultivable ground 1 me mod. Eglaim)***^’ AJlim occurs frec l uent ly to the E. of Jordan (cp 2 First proposed by Brugsch, Geog. Inschriften, 1 7383. For the manifold senseless etymologies from Greek, Semitic, etc., on 6 th L C aSS «^ dictionaries, s.v. Cp also Reinisch, SIVA IV 397 36 47, On the names of Egypt. ^° CCUr ^ in - hier ?f lyphics on, y in names of foreigners, such ^sMa-za^r-a—i.e., Mesrai {Rec. de Trav. 14 62). . Brugsch s Diet. Glog. (1877*80) contains the names of Egypt, its divisions, cities, etc. (to be 1867, is antiq U “t d ed)! th CaUt ‘ 0n ’ h ‘ S Geo e ra / ,hische Ins chriften , 5 Absolutely unconnected with Noab's son Ham ( q.v . 1). 1203 T 20 J. EGYPT EGYPT would rather fix the frontier at about 32 0 32' (the site of ancient Pelusium). It is not correct to include in Egypt the large deserts of stone and sand lying on both sides, or even the N. parts of the Sinaitic peninsula — regions of more than 1,000,000 sq. m. , which are wandered over by only a few foreign nomads. Egypt is, strictly, only the country using Nile water, N. of Syene (Asuan), as it was correctly defined even by Herodotus (2 18). If we reckon only cultivable ground (Nile Valley and Delta), Egypt has an area of not much more than 13,000 square miles. 1 The extent of land really under cultivation changes continu- ally. Under the bad government of the Mamluks in 1797, it was estimated at 5469 sq. m. ; recently, over 11,000 were assumed as cultivable, of which 9460 were really in cultivation. The census of 1887 gave 20,842 sq. kil. (12,943 sq. m.) as arable, of which Upper Egypt (some parts of Nubia even being included) has the smaller half. In antiquity, the amount was certainly not more, probably less. I Nile, is correct (see the accompanying sketch-map : fig. 1) ; but it is an exaggeration to place this process within historic time. 1 As far as our historical know- ledge goes, the country has always been the same ; the yearly deposits have raised the bed of the Nile slightly. (On exaggerations of the fact that the river had formerly a greater volume of water than now, see below, § 7, note. ) The fact that the level, e.g - , of ancient Alexandria is now below that of the sea is to be ascribed to a sinking of the sandy north coast. The Burlus and Menzaleh Lakes are indeed, in part, recent formations, caused by the influx of the sea, although the Edku and Maryut (Mareotis) lakes are old, and ancient inscriptions speak continually of the ‘swamp-lands, 1 n-cuih&iv . Na 0 w (Herod.) Ncoi/t (Ptol.) in the N. Strabo knows the Balfih lakes. The substratum of the Northern Nile valley and the characteristic stone of the tableland of the Libyan (Western) 2 desert is limestone in different formations ; the material of the great pyramids is tertiary nummulitic lime- stone. The valley is shut in by limestone crags, about 300 ft. in height, which sometimes come very near to the river. Above Edfu, the sand- stone formation that pre- vails through Nubia be- gins, forming also the first natural frontier of Egypt, the mountain -bar at Silsfleh. This quartzy stone furnished the excel- lent material used for most of the ancient temples. The first cataract at Aswan is the result of the river being crossed by a bar of red granite, syenite, and other rock, from which the famous obelisks were taken. The Eastern (Arabian) desert is of varying formation, full of mountains which rise in part to a height of over 6000 ft. (The highest point is Jebel Gharib. ) See geological map (no. 3) facing col. 1207/. These mountains furnished the rich material for the finer sculptures of the ancient Egyp- tians — diorite (near Hammii- mat), dark red porphyry (Jebel Dokhiin, 6900 ft.), black granite, alabaster (near Asyut), and basalt. Emeralds (Jebel Zabara) and gold (Wady 'Allkki) also were found there, but few useful metals (there were some iron and insignificant copper mines in Nubia). In antiquity, therefore, metals were imported. Other The surrounding deserts make access to Egypt difficult, and explain its somewhat isolated history. The shape of the country may be likened to that of a fan with a long handle. The handle, Upper Egypt, from Memphis to Syene, is a narrow valley, averaging 12 m. in width (near Thebes, only 2^-4 m.). The view of ancient writers that Egypt north of Memphis, the so-called Delta (from its form, like an 3 Ge 1 inverted Gr. A), was originally a gulf of the 0 Ogy. sea an( j was j n by t b e deposits of the 1 The total area of Belgium is 11,373 square miles, of the Netherlands 12,648, and of Switzerland 151976- See the Statesman s Year-Book. 1 [Cp 1 Report on Boring Operations in the Nile Delta, 1 Proc. Roy. Soc. ’97, p. 32. The Royal Society carried out borings in the Delta to try to get down to the bed rock. At Zakazik they reached 345 feet or 319 feet below sea-level without striking solid rock. At 115 feet there was a noteworthy change. Below that depth was a mass of coarse sand and shingle, with one band of yellow clay at 151 feet ; above 115 feet it was blown sand and alluvial mud. Totally different conditions must have prevailed when these shingle beds were laid down. They are the product of ordinary fluviatile action. The geological age of these shingle beds is not yet determined. The pebbles of which they are composed all belong to the rocks found in situ in the Nile Valley. The coast at the mouths of the Nile appears to be sinking, the coasts in the Gulf of Suez to be rising.] 2 Cp Zittel, Geol. der libyschen Wiiste , ’83. 1206 1205 EGYPT EGYPT minerals, such as salt, alum, natron (this from the Natrun valley S. of Alexandria), come more from the Libyan desert. The Oases (cuJdtrets, Egyptian wah, modern Arabic 4 Oases meanin g unknown) of the Libyan desert are depressions in this barren table- land where the water can come to the surface and create vegetation. See maps after cols. 1240 and 1208. Their present names (from N. to S.) are : (1) Si wah (Oasis of Amon ; perhaps also called sekhet amu, ‘ date-field ’ ; but this is quite doubtful), very .far to the west ; (2) Bahriye, the small oasis; (3) Farafra ( To-ehe , ‘cowland’); (4) Dilkhela (Zeszes) ; | (5) The Great Oasis, now called ‘the exterior oasis,' el- Khar(i)geh (anciently Heb, Hibis, or the Southern Oasis). In ancient times these islands in the desert be- longed politically to Egypt (from Dyn. 18?) ; but their inhabitants were Libyans and became Egyptianised only later. The population of the remote oasis of Amon, however, although it adopted the Egyptian cult of Amon, remained purely Libyan, and has retained to the present day the Libyan (Berber) language. The population of these five oases is, at present, about 58,000. The Fa(i)yum also (see helow, § 50) is really an oasis. On the Wady Tumtlat, see Goshen i.; on the Fa(ijyfim, below, § 50. The climate is extremely hot, but has great changes, especially during the night. The ancient Egyptians 6 Climate P ra ^ e ^ ^at after death, as in life, they * might have the ' cool north wind,’ consider- | ing this the greatest comfort. This wind blows in I summer for six months. On the other hand, at intervals j during the fifty days preceding the summer solstice, there blows a terrible hot wind, now called # am sin (i.e., ‘fifty'), full of sand from the Western desert. At most other times, proximity to the deserts renders the air very dry arid salubrious. The yearly inundation has dangers which explain why so frequently, from the time of Moses onwards, the plague has found a home in Egypt (Am. 4 10). Eye diseases caused by the abundant dust were, and are, very common. The Nile, the only river of Egypt, seems to have its present name (Gk. NeiXos) from the Semitic nahal 6 Nile ,streara '' this designation (*nehel ) 1 being probably due to the Phoenicians. The Egyptians called it Ha pi (w^t, of uncertain ety- mology), 2 in poetry ueru (‘the great one') ; but in the vernacular language it was simply ' the river ' yetor (later — after 2000 B.c. — pronounced ye -or, yo'or), or else 'the great river' ye{t)er-o, ya'r-o , Coptic ei£po. Of the last two expressions the former became in Hebrew in;, whilst the second, according to the N. Egyptian pronunciation ( i<\po), is found in the Assyrian ' Yaru'u , 'Nile.' On the Heb. name Shihor, and on the phrase ‘the river of Egypt,' see Shihor, and Egypt, River of. This river is the second longest in the world 3 (its source now being assumed at 3 0 S. lat. ; for the whole course of the river see map on opposite page), although not so majestic and voluminous (1300 ft. wide at Thebes, 2600 at Asyut) as some shorter rivers. It forms the principal characteristic of Egypt, ' the gift of the Nile' (Herod.). The Egyptians believed that it sprang from four sources at the twelfth gate of the nether-world, at a place described in ch. 146 of the Book of the Dead, and that it came to light at the two whirl- pools of the first cataract, the so-called Kerti and fxuxpi, Herod.). Even in the latest times, when they knew the course of the river beyond Khartum, 4 their theology still held that primitive view. The Nile divides N. of Memphis. Of the seven branches, however, which once formed the Delta (see large map after col. 1240), only two 5 are really 1 The asterisk indicates a conjectural form. 2 Later theology combined it with the Apis (Hapi) hull. He was allowed to drink only from wells, not from the Nile. 3 Perthes, Taschen-A tlas , statistical tables. 4 But hardly the source from the ‘mountain of the moon,' known in Roman times. , 5 \iz., the first and the third, counting from the west — con- 1 tinued, however, in their lower portions, in the channels of the second and the fourth respectively. The latter, the Bolhinitic left, the rest being more or less dried up. A branch (now called Bahr- Yusuf), 1 losing itself in the Libyan desert, forms the oasis of the Fa(i)yum in Middle Egypt. The annual inundation is produced by the spring rains in the Abyssinian highlands and the melting of the — . . mountain snow, which cause an immense . increase of the Eastern or Blue Nile (now SU PP el-Bahr el-Azrak, from its turbid water), whilst the principal stream, the White Nile (cl-Bahr el Abyad.from its clearness), has a more steady volume of water. In Egypt the increase is felt in June ; July brings rapid swelling of the reddening turbid stream ; the slow subsidence of the waters begins in October. During winter, the stagnant water remaining on the fields dries up, and the Nile mud, originally the dust washed from the Abyssinian mountains, settles upon the soil, acting as a valuable fertilizer. Thus in course of innumerable years the sand or stone of the valley has been covered with from 30 to over 40 feet of black soil. This shows, usually, an astonishing fertility : Egypt looks like one great garden (Gen. 13 10) ; but a ‘ small Nile' — i.e., an insufficient inundation — has always brought years of dearth. 2 Even a ‘great Nile,' 3 however, cannot cover the whole valley and reach all fields. Dykes have to be built, and canals dug, in order that the water may be distributed. A good government has to give great care to such public con- structions, the neglect of which will make the desert reconquer vast regions. Higher fields always had to be watered by (primitive) machinery, such as the con- trivance called at present shaduf. (On Dt. 11 10 see below, col. 1225, n. 10.) After all, Egypt had much more regular harvests than Palestine and Syria, where the only irrigation, by rain, very often failed. The abundant inundation of Egypt was proverbial among the Hebrews: cp Am. 88, and, as some think, Is. 59 19 b (SBOT). We repeatedly find Egypt's Asiatic neighbours depending upon its abundance of grain. The Egyptians knew quite well that their country owed its existence entirely to the good god Nile, whom they represented as a fat androgynous blue or green figure. 4 Being nearly (but not completely) rainless, Egypt depends upon the Nile not only for the irrigation of its fields, but also for its drink- ing-water (which is very palatable, and was kept cool, then as now, in porous vessels). The OT prophets know no worse way of threatening Egypt with complete ruin than using the symbolical expression, ’ The Nile will be dried up.' The river was also the chief highway of the country. The flora 5 was poor in species. Ancient Egypt had not such «. cosmopolitan vegetation as the modern. 8 . Flora. ^ orests were quite unknown. Besides fruit- trees — viz., the date-, dom- (now only above Asyut) and argun-palm, fig, sycomore, nabak {Zizyphus Spina Chnsti, the so-called Lotus-tree), and pomegran- ..ivuiua, die Sdiu 10 nave neen artmciai canals m. The Bucolic of Herodotus (2 17) is called Phatnitic— or rather PathmeticOhus Ptol.and Pomp. Mela)—/.*., the Northern Ua-to nthiti ) — by other writers. 1 Not from the biblical Joseph. Such calamities, sometimes in several successive years, are mentioned repeatedly. A legend from the Ptolemaic period inscription at the first cataract, found hy Wilbour, translated hy rugseh, Die Biblischen 7 Jahre der Hungersnot , 1891, and hy Pleyte) reports seven years of famine hefore 3000 b.c. The rnodlf 7 ' ate , r - mark 5 . 9 n the rocks of Nubia, 25 ft. ahove the H " ’ dl ? cult *? ex P‘ ain ' The y cannot well he for .W P !i j°- f th ? 1 former inundations were so much higher, for that would involve our assuming that all ruins now existing were, in antiquity, under water. for ‘ he ffi' <;al i led Ndometers— ^ wells with measures marked from Si^ufy eS “ mateS ° f the rise ~ that of Phila = -mains {W —(wearing water flowers on the head, and offering “ es h water and water flowers). Woen'in J 4 “ Flore P^a 0 nique») [» I E "" alL Aeg - "fli and -tious essays 1207 1208 I. VALLEY OF NILE II. NILE AND EUPHRATES Ftsf index to names see back of imp. ENCVCLME2IA 5IBUCA,190^. MAPS OF (i.) ‘COURSE OF NILE,’ AND (ii.) ‘NILE AND EUPHRATES INDEX TO NAMES Parentheses indicating articles that refer to the place-names are in certain cases added. The alphabetical arrange- ment ignores prefixes : el (’ the'), /. (Jebel, ' mt.’), L. {lake), tell {'mound'), wady (’ valley'). Abu Hamed, i. B4 Abu Simbel, i. A3 (Egypt, § 37) Abydos, i. A2 (Egypt, § 44) AlaSia, ii. A2 (Cyprus, § 1) L. Albert, ii. As Alexandria, i. Ai tell el-'Amarna, i. A2 Amor, ii. A2 (Canaan, § 8) (Anti), i. B 3 (Ethiopia, § 4) Arko (Island), i. A4 Aswan, i. A3 Asyut, i. A2 (Egypt, §§ 3, 6) 'Atbara (river), i. B4 Babil, ii. B2 Bahr el-Ghazal, ii. A5 Bahren I., ii. B3 jebel Barkal, i. A4 el-Behneseh, i. A2 Beni Hasan, i. A2 (Egypt, § 50) Berber, i. B4 Bitter Lakes, i. Ai Blue Nile, ii. A4 Cairo, i. Ai i° Cataract, i. A3 2 0 Cataract, i. A3 3 0 Cataract, i. A 4 4° Cataract, i. A4 5 0 Cataract, i. B4 6° Cataract, i. B4 (Ethiopia, § 4) Dakke, i. A3 Damietta, i. Ai L. Dembaa, ii. A4 Dendera, i. A2 ed-Derr, i. A3 Edfu, i. A2 Ekhmlm, i. A 2 el-Faiyum, i. A2 (Egypt, §§ 6, 50) el-Farafra, ii. A3 Fashoda, ii. A4 Gutu, ii. B2 wady Haifa, i. A3 wady Haminamat, i. B2 el-Hejaz, ii. B3 Heta, ii. A2 (Hittites) Hierasycaminus, i. A3 Ibrlm, i. A3 el-Khartum, i. A4 (Ethiopia, §§ 4, 5 a ) Khor, ii. A2 Kordofan, ii. A4 (Ethiopia, § 5«) Korosko, i. A3 Korti, i. A3 Ko'S, ii. A3 (Egypt, § 50) Kummeh, i. A3 (Egypt, § 50) el-Kurneh (Pyramid), i. A4 Libyans, ii. A2, 3 Lullu, ii. B2 Mallus, ii. A2 Mazav, i. B4, ii. A4 (Ethiopia) Mecca, ii. B3 el-Medina, ii. B3 MMum (Pyramid), i. A2 Memphis, i. A2 Meroe, i. B4 (Ethiopia, § 5^) Mittani, ii. B2 Naharin, ii. B2 (Aram-naharaim) Negroes, ii. A4, 5 Nuri (Pyramid), i. A4 Oases (five), ii. A3 (Egypt, § 4) Pnubs, i. A3 Port Said, i. Ai Punt, i. B3, ii. A3, 4 (Egypt, § 48) Pselchis, i. A3 Rosetta, i. Ax Ruins, i. A4 Ruins, i. A4 Ruins, i. A4 Ruins, i. B4 Ruins, i. B4 Semneh, i. A3 (Egypt, § 50 ; Ethiopia, §4) Sennar, ii. A4 (Ethiopia, § 4) Shaba, ii. B4 J. Silsileh, i. A3 Soleb, i. A3 Somali, ii. B4 (Egypt, § 48) nahr Siibat, ii. A5 Suez, i. A2 Tankassi (Pyramid), i. A4 Thebse, i. A 2 Timsah (L. ), i. Ai Troglodytae, i. B2, 3 (Ethiopia, § 4) L. Victoria, ii. A5 Wawat, i. A3, ii. A3 (Egypt, § 50, Ethiopia, § 2) White Nile, ii. A4 Zahi, ii. A2 EGYPT EGYPT ate 1 — only a few tamarisks (atefV], cp Sc.x), willows, and, especially, various kinds of acacias (fonzet cooNTe > cp nod, Egyptian loan-word; see Shittah) grew. Timber had mostly to be imported from Nubia and Syria. As principal fuel, dung was used, as now. The vine was always cultivated ; but the national beverage was a kind of beer. The chief cereals were barley (yot), most important of all, wheat ( suo ), and the African millet or sorghum, now called dtira (bo dot). Cp Ex. 931/.' flax, barley, wheat, spelt ' (this perhaps for dura?). The principal food-stuffs of the modern inhabitants, legumin- ous plants — viz., lentils (Egyptian ’arson), and beans (Egyptian////), perhaps also peas (Coptic &poo). lupines, and chick-peas — have Semitic names, and were declared | unclean by the priests even in Roman times ; but among the peasants they had already become popular as early as the 14th century B. c. Of vegetables, onions, leeks, and garlic were as much in demand then as now ; there were also radishes, melons, gourds, cucumbers, bamia (Hibiscus esculentus ; resembles American okra), meluhlya ( Corchorus olitori us; ‘ a mucilaginous vegetable [somewhat] resembling spinage ’ ), etc. (Cp the lamenta- tion of the Israelites over the lost delicacies of Egypt, Nu. 11 5. ) Of oily plants, sesame and olives were not very popular, olive oil being mostly imported from Asia. Unguents were taken from several balsam -shrubs, especi- ally the baket ; for cooking and burning, castor oil (see i Gourd) was most commonly in use, as now among the • Chinese. The cultivation of flax was very extensive ; I whether cotton also was grown is quite doubtful. Wild vegetation grew only in the many marshes — the j common reed (see Reed, Flag), the papyrus (see Papyrus), and the beautiful blue or white lotus-flower (j 11 Worshippers were always advised to abstain from fish some time before appearing before the gods to sacrifice. See below (§ 19), on the laws of purity. See Fish, § 8 Jf. 12 1210 EG-YPT tall and lean, with strong bones, small hands, thin ankles, reddish-brown skin (coloured, on their own paintings, in the case of men, dark red, and in the case of women, yi-llow), with long but slightly curled black hair, scanty beard, very slightly prognathous chin, full lips, almond-shaped black eyes, and long (?) skulls. Linguistically, Egyptian is not the bridge between Libyan and Cushitic, as one might expect it to be : it forms, rather, an independent branch. The Libyan- Cushitic and the Egyptian branches both show affinity with Semitic, apart from the strong Semitic influence upon both, an influence which dates partly from pre- historic periods, partly from about 1000 B.C., and partly from Islamic times. 1 Which branch separated itself first from the Proto-Semites (in Arabia?) remains to be shown. (In Egypt, however, no Asiatic immigration can be found in historical times : see § 43. ) Some Egyptian traditions point correctly SE. , not to Nubia (erroneous traditions of Greek time), but to the coasts of the Red Sea — i. e . , Punt (see below, § 48) — and indicate affinity with the Hamitic Trog(l)odytes. On the other neighbours in the South — viz., the Nigritic i Nubians — see Ethiopia, §2 ff. The language 2 was, therefore, by no means « , primitive stammering, or a monosyllabic language 1 11 Laneuaee the Chinese, as was asserted by ® U ® * earlier scholars who derived false con- ceptions from the writing. Egyptian has preserved something of the vocalic flexibility of the Libyan and Semitic against the agglutinative tendencies of the Southern Hamitic languages. It shows the system of triliterality more clearly than any other Hamitic branch. The assertion that it contains elements from Negro languages is unfounded: the Hamito-Semitic roots only underwent great changes. The sounds {e.g . , 'Ain, k, fr, s) confirm the view of the relation of Egyptian here adopted. The vernacular dialect used from 1400 to 1000 B.C. in letters, etc., is called by modern scholars Neo- Egyptian. 3 The inscriptions tried more or less to preserve the archaic style of the earliest periods — not always successfully, after 500 B.C. wretchedly. For the rest, even the earliest language is less concise and much less obscure than, e.g., Hebrew. On the many loan-words from Semitic, 4 see below, § 39 (end). Coptic — i.e. , the language of Christian Egypt (Arabic Kibt, Kobt) — is the same language as that which used to be written in hieroglyphics, but much changed (many forms, e.g. , being shortened), as might be expected, after a development of 3000 years. 5 6 1 Nothing trustworthy has been written on these relations, I nothing at all on the position within the Hamitic family. It is to be wished that the only competent scholar, Prof, i Reinisch of Vienna, would address himself to this question soon. Ethnographers {e.g., Hartmann, Die Nigritier) generally exaggerate the fact that all white Africans pass gradually over into the Negroes, with whom they are more or less mixed. 2 The latest and best grammar, although very brief, is that of Erman, 1894 (in the series, Porta Linguarum Orient alium , German and English). Brugsch’s Hieroglyphisch-Dcmotisches WSrterbuch , 1867-80, is the leading dictionary, but must be used with the greatest possible caution. Those of Birch (in Bunsen, vol. 5), Pierret, and S. Levi, cannot be recommended. A Thesaurus z'e> bortivi vpgyptiacoru m by Erman and other scholars is in preparation. The stage reached by Egyptian philology is best characterised by the statement (after Erman) that ‘the age of deciphering is at an end, we [begin to] read.' It is, however, a great exaggeration to state, as some have done, that we read Egyptian as a Latinist reads his Cicero. See, e.g ., below (col. 1232, note 1), on the difficulties of transliteration. A better analogy would be the way in which good Phoenician inscriptions are read ; but the greater excellence and abundance of his material gives the advantage, to a considerable extent, to the Egyptologist. 3 See Erman, Neudgyp tische Grammaiik ( 8o), who has also published a treatise on the earlier vernacular style, Die Sprache des Papyrus Wes tear ('89). 4 A small collection by Bondi, Dem heb rd isch -phdnizischcn SpracJtzweige angehorige LehwiuSrter , etc., 1886. An exhaus- tive dictionary by the present writer is in preparation. 6 standard grammar is Stern, Koptische Gram. (1880). (Steindorf's small grammar in the Porta series [*94] may also he used : no older book). The best dictionary' is still that of Peyron, Lex. Lingua C optica, 1835 (reprinted 1896) ; but a new 1 EGYPT Coptic has four principal dialects (Sahidic — i.e., Saldi or Upper Egyptian — Middle Egyptian, represented best by the papyri of Akhmlm, Fa(i)yumic — formerly wrongly called Bash- muric — and Boheiric or Low r er Egyptian), diverging sometimes strongly ; already about 1300 b.c. a payrus states that a man from the N. frontier cannot well understand an Egyptian from Ele- phantine. (On Coptic dialects, see further Text, §37). As the vowels in ancient Egyptian were in general not indicated, their determination, though it is sometimes 12a. Phonetics. P°f ibIe , throu g h late Egyptian (Cop- tic), and, in the case of some proper names (see below, col. 1232, n. 1), through Greek and other authors, cannot usually be effected with precision. Certain grammatical terminations (u and i) , however, were sometimes indicated by the signs for the consonants w and y , and later the ideographic sign for the dual assumed a vocalic value (* or *)• Foreign words, however, demanded exceptionally complete representation of the vowels. In the Middle Empire, accordingly, sprang up the practice of using the symbols for w, n, and » and the signs for certain syllables ending in these consonants, to indicate the vowels in the transliteration of foreign words, often in direct imitation of tbe cuneiform vowels. Tbis has been called the syllabic system.! The 24 consonants distinguished in the script were originally the following : ? (k, not always consonantal, never = 'a in), i (better /, to ex- press both » and [later] m ; the Middle Empire created a special y ), \ w, b,p,f, m, n , r (distinguished from / only in Demotic), h , h, h, h (from very early times not distinguished from h), s (from early times not distinguished from r), s , s, h,g, t, / (an unknown sibilant), d (not, as sometimes maintained, originally = $3), 2 d (better z or/), similar to Semitic x (cp the Ethiopian s later //). The principles of transliteration of Semitic nairas in the New Empire have not been completely explained yet (see As. u. Eur. chap. 5 ); but the following are the commonest equivalences that are not obvious. K is represented by the i; 2 by g (k) or k; *1 by d; j by /, s; 12 by t (or d) ; d by p (rarely s) ; 5 hy p or (never [in early texts] initially)/; s by d (: or /) ; f by * (i) ; and p by s or (before two consonants, etc.) j. The hieroglyphics which constitute the national system of writing (called ’the scripture of sacred words, 1 and 12b Writine said to have been invented b y the g° d Dhouti 6 covt — a name less correctly written Thot) have arisen from a pictographic system very much like that of the Mexicans, just as did the Bahylonian (to which it is very strikingly analogous) and the Chinese writing. Our ’ rebus ’ is based upon the same principles. A man ( rdmet ), a ‘ head ’ (dtp), or a ‘ tree * (am) can easily be painted entirely. ‘ Wood 1 (hot) can be represented by a twigs^-**, ‘water’ (mou) by three water lines /vwwv, and — here we pass over more and more to symbolism' — ‘ night ’ by ‘ star-on -heaven ’ ^ * , ‘ to go ’ by legs * to bring (met) by a vessel -f- going , ‘ to give ’ (dy) by a sacrificial cake (?) in a hand ^ £, ‘ to fight ’ ( l h') by weapons in use ‘to write’ (ss) by the writing material ihus a great many ideas may be symbolised. | [oj This would lead, however, to too many combinations, besides leaving it uncertain how to read signs which admit synonymous translations, and providing no means for the expression of any inflection. Some further contrivances, therefore, were necessary. Hence, just as an English pictograph might perhaps express ’ 1 ’ by an eye , homophonous words are expressed by one sign, heny ‘ to row ’ 'f , e.g., standing also for henu ‘(to be) turbulent. Thus this symbol becomes a syllabic sign, fyn. Similarly kap , ‘claw,’ is used also for kop ‘ to hide,* t( ? fumigate,’ etc. — i.e., as a syllabic sign = hp, etc. lnally, some of these syllabic signs, consisting of only one nrm consonant, came to be used for single consonants. In this f a y (three consonants, but two of them semi- vowels; in Heb. letters something like >t< E ), 'slug' (originally one is a crying need (those of Tattam and Parthey are un. trustworthy). 3 1 Cp WMM As. u. Eur. 58-91. -> £,! na y> a *l s °nant consonants were confounded. * ihe only exception is — « — *, from ses$), ’ bar of a door.’ ne popular explanation by an acrophonic principle is incorrect. 1211 1212 EGYPT EGYPT 4 bearer'), became the simple./; A, kay, ‘high ground ’ (repre- senting a declivity), became the letter k, p \ and so on. By such letters (from 24 to 26 ; Plutarch, 25), all inflections, and many words, were written. (On the treatment of the vowels see above, § 12 **-) . As an additional safeguard a syllabic sign, such as \J fyn mentioned above, is commonly followed (sometimes preceded) by an alphabetic sign (in this case an«) for the sake of clearness (thus jin + n). This is the so-called phonetic complement. /WWW The last element of the system consists of what are called de- terminatives, the method of employing which will appear from the following examples : — Thus, t.g., means ' to write. ’ Followed by the determinative ‘man,’ thus writer— i. e . , ‘scrihe.’ If we place after it’ a~ book,’ <||, thus lorl d » it means writing — i.e . , ‘ book ' (both words from a stem ss, I IS! U j | nno» but differently vocalised). Again i.e. t an elephant + a piece of skin (where the second sign, the de- terminative, could also be omitted), means ‘elephant’ (yebu)\ but in © the sign of a city indicates that YSbu, the city (Elephantinfe), is meant. Similarly every man s name. 4 marks the end of that of a woman’s name ; words for small plants receive at the end, trees , and so on. This is a great help to the reader, and compensates somewhat for the absence of vowels. Thus a very perfect system was formed whereby, by the employment of several thousand signs (of which, HIERATIC. DEM- OTIC. HIERO- GLYPHIC OLD EMPIRE MID EMPIRE NEW EMPIRE BEGINNING NEW EMPIRE H ELLEN •1STIC p □ {JS m m a 11 2_ VI A. 4 4 J J> k > cr-' mn a m & £A 2_ ss 0 n a a d rp r Fig. 2. — To illustrate the development of Egyptian writing. Partly after Erman and Krebs. however, only a few hundred were in common use), anything whatever might be expressed — a complicated system, it is true, but not so complicated and ambiguous as, e.g. , the later Babylonian cuneiform writing. The accomplishments of reading and writing were not rare. 1 The hieroglyphs, or sculptured writing-signs, were admirably suited for monumental and ornamental purposes ; but when used for writing books upon papyrus, they had to be abridged and adapted to the pen, exactly as our written letters differ from the printed forms, (i. ) Thus the picture of a lion (rw ) 2 1 Such papyri of non-magic character as are found in the tombs are mostly old copy-books used by the deceased in their schoolboy days. The mention of women hringing the meals for their sons to the school proves that the poor also aspired to the advantages of education. * This word may be taken as an illustration of tbe old con- became in cursive writing L the man and so on. This is called Hieratic writing — so called as being, like the hieroglyphic, a sacred script, though not, like it, designed for monumental use. (ii. ) In course of time was developed, by the progress of abridgment, a regular shorthand, called by the Greeks Demotic or popular, because in their time it was the style of writing used in daily life. 1 It is also called epis- tolographic, or letter-style (Egyptian sfray-en-$ay). In this script the lion becomes The illustration (fig. 2) gives three letter signs and two word signs : in hieroglyphs, in five forms of hieratic, and in demotic. All cursive writing runs from right to left (like Heb. etc. ), hieroglyphics in both directions (though never bustrophedon) ; but originally both ran mostly from top to bottom, like the oldest Babylonian and like Chinese. The opinion 2 that the Semitic (Phoenician) letters were derived from the hieratic script has become very popular, but is in every way improbable. The latest hieroglyphic inscription is one at Esneh, giving the name of the Roman emperor Decius (250 A. D.) ; the latest demotic text is one at Philae, dated 453 a.d. If the earliest translations of the Christian Scriptures into Coptic — i.e. , Egyptian in its latest form — were made, as is usually assumed, about 200 a.d ., 3 there should be a continuous tradition. As a living language, Coptic died out about 1500 A.D. ; at present only a very few, even of the Coptic priests, possess any understanding of the Coptic liturgic service. Coptic is written with Greek letters and six demotic signs ( CJ / jb * & h, 2C dj, gj [ a palatal sound of doubtful value, later pronounced like ts or The knowledge of the earlier systems of writing was com- pletely lost, 5 after the whole country was subjected to Christianity. The key to the decipherment of the hiero- glyphic and demotic was at last recovered by F. Champollion 6 in 1822, by the help of the Rosetta stone with its trilingual inscription (a decree of Ptolemy V. Epiphanes in Egyptian [in hieroglyphic and demotic characters] and in Greek ; found in 1799, now in the Brit. Mus.). Thus the decipherment was indirectly a consequence of Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt in 1798. The chief writing material of ancient Egypt was papyrus, a kind of paper made from papyrus stalks, which were sliced, beaten, and pasted together. Its colour was brown or yellowish brown. The chief defect was its brittleness ; never- theless, the writing was often washed off and the papyrus used again. Both sides could be written on. Red ink marked divisions and corrections, as in mediaeval MSS. Books were in roll form. (Among the Hebrews the same writing material was in common use : cp Jer. 3623.) Documents of great importance were written on leather, drafts mostly on potsherds ( ostraca ). The religion 7 of Ancient Egypt, always retaining so many remnants of barbarous primitive times, stands in striking contrast to the high civilisation of that country. Originally it was not 13. Primitive religion. very different from the low animism or nection between Hamitic and Semitic (cp §n); it is prehistoric in Egyptian and may have sounded AmvQ. £p Hamitic lubdk (Saho and Afar), libd/i (Somali), with Semitic labu ‘lion '(which migrated back to Egypt as A&BOI), Heb. N' 3 ^. 1 The Demotische Gram, of H. Brugsch (’55) is quite anti- quated. The scholar who has paid most attention to demotic lately is E. Revillout ( Chrestomathie Demotique , etc. ; to be used with caution). 2 Expressed first by De Roug£, Mem. sur r Origine Egyptienne de f Alphabet Pltinicien , [’74]. Still more un- tenable is Haldvy’s attempt to derive the Semitic from the hieroglyphic letters. See Writing. 3 See, however, Text, §§ 36, 38, where a later date ( circa 300) is argued for. 4 Dialects preserve the ancient It as 5 The few traditions about the hieroglyphics found in Greek writers (especially Horapollo, Hieroglyphic a) are now recognised as being all more or less correct ; but for the decipherment they were in various respects insufficient. 6 The attempts of Th. Young (1819), which came near finding the key, but nevertheless missed it, have been well estimated by Le Page Renouf, PS BA 19 188 [’96]. 7 Le Page Renouf, Led. on the Origin and n Growth 0/ Religion ['82]; Wiedemann, Die Rel. der a,lten Agypter ('90, 1214 1213 EGYPT EGYPT fetishism of the negro races. Every locality had its | own spirit haunting it. Such a demon appeared here as a jackal, there as a lion, bird, frog, or snake, or in a tree or a rock. We can understand why, in ' the lakes of the Fa(i)yum and in the whirlpool of the first cataract at Elephantine, a crocodile was the local deity (Sobk and Hnumu) ; why the god Anup(u), leading the dead to Hades, originally (it would seem) in the Memphitic (?) necropolis, was the black jackal of the desert ; and so on. We cannot easily understand, however, why, at Busiris, a wooden fetish of strange form,* the Dad y signified the highest local god, and why at a later date a he -goat represented there the ‘soul(?) of the Dedi’ (Bi-n-ded[i], Mcp&j? — ‘D edi 1 meaning ‘inhabitant of the Dad'), or why the earliest symbol of Osiris was a wine(?)-skin on a pole 2 (which caused the Greeks to identify this dead god with their joyful Bacchus), and so on. Originally, sun, moon, and stars were considered to ; be divine ; but, with the exception of the sun-god Re', 3 the local gods had more temples and enjoyed more worship and sacrifices. At Memphis, the chief god was Ptah , 4 styled by his own priests the ‘ master-artisan,’ and, therefore, the creator, who with his hammer opened the chaotic egg-shaped world ; but even the western ( suburb of the city belonged to a different god, Sokari, a hawk sitting in a sledge shaped like a ship. 5 Thus the gods were almost innumerable in the earliest times. Their forms (human, animal, or mixed), colours (Ncith is green, Amon blue, and so on), symbols, etc., are of perplexing variety. Fortunately, the superior splendour of the deities in the large cities, with their great temples, led to the worship 14 Changes of the tutelar y g° ds of the villa g es and ° ‘ small towns being more and more abandoned. Am( m )on , 6 e.g . , the god of the later capital Thebes (called No-AMoN jy.v.], ‘ Amon’s city,’ in the OT), thus became the official god, and so the highest in the whole kingdom, circa 1600 B.c. (sacred animal the ram). The Egyptians themselves, indeed, seem to have been puzzled by their endless pantheon. They tried to reduce it by identifying minor divinities with great and popular ones, treating them as one being under different appearances — e.g . , the lion -headed Sohmet (wrongly called Sehet or Paht) 7 of Leontopolis and the cat of Bubastus were identified, the one being explained as the warlike, the other as the benevolent, form. Very old is the system of uniting several local gods into a family, usually as father, mother, and child (in Thebes, e.g. , the solar Amon and Mut, and the lunar Honsu). Subsequently, out of such triads, circles — especially of nine divinities (enneads) — were formed, and whole genealogies elaborated. Even in prehistoric times, the progress of thought showed itself in the tendency to make forces of nature, especially solar divinities, out of the old meaningless I fetishes ; but these attempts did not lead to a reason- able, complete system. To enumerate some of the earliest results : Osiris 8 of Abydos becomes, as the setting sun, the god of the lower world, king and judge of the dead. In this function he is assisted by the 1 Moon-god Thout ( Dhouti ), an ibis or an ibis-headed god 9 — origin- I ET ’q 6; useful), brief; also Brugsch, Rel. 11. Myth. [1884-88] (the fullest, but labouring under the great defect of following by preference the systems of the latest Egyptian theology); Lie- blein, Egyptia?i Rel. [’84] ; Maspero, La myth. Agyptienne [’89 ; critical]; Petrie, Religion and Conscience in Anc. Egypt [’98]; Lange in Chantepie de la Saussaye, Rel.-gesch.P), vol. i. For pictures the best work of reference is Lanzone, Dizionario di Mitologia Eeizia [’8i] (cp also Champollion, Pantheon Eg ., ’25). .. - Sl Q ' ’I 6 i^i vocn ^ sat * on * see ^ e ^° w » * • il The ‘ Tomb of Osiris,’ discovered near Abydos in 1898, IVj is an ancient royal tomb. According to some scholars, i — 1 Osiris is mentioned as "VOX (read * TON) in E-104, and Apis as *"n in Jer. 4615. On these readings see notes in Heb. edition of SBOT . Cp also Ahira, Phinehas, Assir, Apis, Hur, Harnepher, and Names, § 68. ■Ili ally god of Hermopolis — who becomes a god of wisdom and writing. Anubis 1 assists, leading the dead to Osiris, like Hermes Psychopompos. Osiris himself (son of the goddess Nut) had been sent down to the dark region — i.e., murdered — by his wicked hrother Set, 1 t}$ (Typhon in Greek), the local god of N. Ombos, 2 who is figured as a poorly-sculptured ass(V). 3 This malicious god, who eventually (though only very late) became a kind of Satan, was explained as god of thunder and clouds (therefore identified with the cloud (?)-serpent 'Apop), in the Jatest period also as the sea or the desert — i.e., all nature hostile to man. He is punished hy Hor(us) 4 (of Edfu), the young son of Isis (HC6), 5 the wife of Osiris (worshipped especially at Phils, often identified with Sothis, the Dog-star), who reunites the body of Osiris (the sun), hewn in pieces (the stars) by Set. The form of the myth which makes Isis go to Phoenicia in search of Osiris* body, carried to Byblus by the Nile and the Ocean, is evidently quite late, identifying her with Beltis-Astarte. She educates Hor, hiding herself from Set and his seventy-two followers (later explained as the seventy-two hottest days) in the Delta-marshes. Her sister Nephthys 6 (Ncbt -hdt) is the wife of Set and the mother of Anut»is (by Osiris). It was this circle of divinities that gained most popularity and became known even outside of Egypt. Possibly it is simply by accident (?) that we possess only fragments of the myths that grew up, representing those connected with the Osirian circle ; the rest of the gods might not look quite so lifeless if we knew the mythology referring to them. We can see under what difficulties Egyptian theology laboured. Not only had it to admit that in the morning the sun was called Hcprcl (a beetle rolling its egg across the heavens), later Hor (a. deity of whom there are seven forms), at noon Re'fi — both Hor and Re' being hawks and evidently representing the sun flying across the heavens, — and in the evening A Him (at Heliopolis, where he was represented in human form sailing in a ship across the heavenly ocean) ; — hut it had also to acknowledge that other solar divinities were appearances of the same being. Some were cosmical gods — Nun (Novv) or Nutt is the abyss from whom all gods and things came — chaos. The earth is the god Seb (or Geb?) \ the heaven or celestial ocean bows herself over him as a goddess, 9 Nut AO tbeir child is the sun ( = Osiris). The space between them is the god Su (Sow, 2 w?), a lion. His companion, Tefnut, represents, perhaps, the celestial moisture. Other gods assume other special functions — On Thout (Dhouti, moon) and Ptah as protectors of scribes and scholars and of artisans and builders, see above (§§12^,13). Imhotep of Memphis was the god of physicians. Ithyphallic Min* 1 became a harvest deity, like the serpent Remute(t), and as god of Coptos, the master of the Trog(l)odytes in the Nubian desert, just as Neit of Sais 12 ruled over the Libyans. The cow Hat - hor (i.e. t abode of the Sun-god) 13 became mistress of love and joy, but showed her solar nature in ruling all Eastern countries. Warlike gods were Onhur of This, Moniu of Hermonthis, and above all, the malicious Set, whose worship was abandoned more and more after 1000 b . c . (see above [first smalj type passage in this section]). This distribution of functions, however, is so contradictory that nowhere does an intelligent system result. The sacred animals belonged to two categories — Some, such as the black bull called Apis 14 (Hapi) at Memphis, that called Mnevis at Heliopolis, and the crocodile Sobk( 2 ovx° 0 r were considered miraculous incarnations of the local god (pure fetishism) ; but at other places every cat was sacred (as at Bubastus), 15 or every letos-fish (as at Letopolis), and so forth (totemism ?). So, while the crocodile was worshipped at some places (e.g., Ombos), it was sometimes persecuted from a sense of religious duty, even in a neighbouring city (as, e.g., at Edfu). 2 He must have played a most important part in prehistoric times. The sceptre which all divinities hold in their hands , seems to bear bis head. His sacred colour was red, and red-haired men were despised as ‘ typhonic.’ 9 The heaven is, besides, frequently represented as a cow, because the abyss on which the earth in its chaotic state floated was the cow Meht-weret. lu ^ 11 i 13 jjj (fetish -*aoi=-). 12 Symbol 14 On a probable OT ref. to Apis see above, col. 1215, n. 8. 15 Hence the large cat cemetery near the modern Zakazlk (now commercially exploited for manure). 1216 1215 EGYPT EGYPT The great mass of the people never advanced beyond the traditional worship of the local idol (the * town god ') 15 . Pantheism. 7 sacrcdl an ! ma1 ' Among the priests , the most advanced thinkers came, it is true, to the result that all gods are only different forms of the same divine energy, — a conclusion which, how- ever, did not lead them to monotheism, as might have been expected, but to a kind of pantheism. Such ad- vanced thought remained, of course, the property of a few educated persons, though it was not treated as a mystery. Other rationalists followed somewhat euhemeristic lines, treating all gods as deified pharaohs of the earliest period. On early traces of the deluge- and the paradise- traditions, see Deluge. Paradise ; of borrowing from Asia there is here no question. In the sphere of cosmogony no reasoned system was ever developed : besides Ptah, the potter //num(u) of Elephantine, 1 as well as other gods, claimed to have been creator. Nowhere can any uniform dogma be found (cp Creation, § 8). It is interesting that, after 1600, the Egyptians had « strong tendency to increase their already end- 16 Foreign ^ eSS P ant ^ eon by adding foreign divini- * cults ties ' es P ec ially gods of a warlike char- acter. 2 We find the god Suteh 3 of the Hittites (not of the Hyksos ; see § 52) so popular as almost to displace S6t. The Semitic god RaSpu (‘ lightning, ' r jCH), the goddesses ‘Anut, ‘Astart (nihu' 3 ,*), Kedesh (' the holy one,' BHp), Belt is of Byblus-Gebal, ’Aslt, AdOm, etc. were recognised. Ba‘al and Astarte had their temples at Thebes and Memphis. Whether the strangely figured Bes* was a foreign (Babylonian ? Arabian ?) divinity is doubtful. This protector against wild animals and serpents, and patron of dancing, music, and the cosmetic art, bad at least a much earlier cult. 5 If we find various accounts of the creation of the world and of man, various explanations of the daily 17 . Life after cour f ,? un ’ K e ‘ c -1 we " eed f not death wonder that the belief in life after death 6 was never reduced to a dogma. According to the opinion of later times, the dead went down to the dark lower world (Amentet, ’AfitvBr)* — i.e . , the west), passed obstacles of every kind, opened many closed gates, and satisfied various guardians of monstrous form by the use of magic formulas previously placed in the coffins for this purpose. Finally the dead man reached the great judgment hall ( iveshet ) of Osiris, into which he was introduced by Anubis. His moral life was tested in a cross-examination by the forty-two monstrous judges (the answers denying the forty-two cardinal sins 7 were ready prepared in his magic book), and by the weighing of his heart in the balance of Meit, the goddess of justice. 8 Those who were declared to be wicked were sent to a hell full of flames, and were tortured by evil spirits (some seem to have supposed that they assumed the form of unclean animals). The good were admitted to ‘ the fields of Aaru- (or Yaaru ?) plants, ' where they sowed and reaped on fields irrigated by the Nile of Hades. Small figures of slaves, or rather substitutes for the dead, made of porcelain or other material, were placed in the coffin to assist the deceased in this peasant life. Originally it may have been only persons belonging to the highest classes who claimed to ascend to heaven upon the ladder of the Sun-god, and to become companions of the sun during his daily voyage over the heavenly ocean ; but, later, this was anticipated for every one who should be ’ found pure. ' 2 See Ed. Meyer, ZDMG 31 717 ['77] ; WMM As. u. Eur. 3 On his representations see Griffith, PS BA 16 87 [’94]. 5 But Hat-hor has nothing to do with 'AStar ; nor has the (Nubian?) deity ’Anuket W at Elephan- tine anything to do with ‘Onka, & as Semitists have sometimes asserted. Yl/ 6 Wiedemann, The Ancient Egyptian Doctrine 0/ the Im- mirtality 0/ the Soul ('95), a popular manual by E A. W. Budge, etc. 7 Murder, adultery, slander, theft, fraud, robbery of the dead, sacrilege, etc. Every deceased person was even expected to become Osiris himself, and is addressed as ’ Osiris So-and-So. ’ The dead were allowed to visit the earth occasionally — not at night but in the day-time — assuming the form of different animals. 1 At night they returned to their tombs, or to the lower world, — places which are rarely distinguished in a clear way. Various conflicting doctrines are intermingled — e.g ., the belief that the souls of the departed are the stars or dwell in the stars (which are by others explained as the dispersed members of the slain Sun -god Osiris: see above, § 14), that all shadows 2 must live in darkness and misery in the nether- world, persecuted by evil spirits, so that it is best for the dead person to become, by witchcraft, one of these evil monsters himself, and that the soul, in the form of a half-human bird 3 (J>ai\ lives in or near the grave, hungry, and dependent entirely upon the offerings of food and drink deposited at the tomb. Sometimes the oases of the Western desert are identified with the fields of the dead. The Egyptian priests never put themselves to any trouble to harmonise these and other contradictory traditions ; they con- tented themselves rather with providing that magic formulae and prayers adapted to each of them were made and collected. On these collections, see helow, § 20. The care bestowed upon the worship of the dead is very remarkable. The huge pyramids of the most « .. ancient kings, the detached tombs of f j 8 T their officials (now called by Egypto- 0 6 6* ] 0 gi s ts mast&bas — an Arabic word), the interior of which was covered with sculptures, and the long rock-galleries, especially at Thebes, testify that the Egyptians devoted greater zeal than any other nation on earth to the abodes and the memory of their dead, and to the sustenance of their souls by sacrifices. This care is shown also in the practice of embalming ; 4 cp Embalming. . Originally only the nobles were able to pay for mummifica- tion, with its costly spices (and natron) and its skilful wrapping in layers of linen, by which means some mummies have sur- vived 4000 years without great change. Later, however, cheaper methods, such as dipping the body into hot asphalt, made the custom almost universal. Tbe ‘ forty days of embalm- ing ’ (Gen. 50 3) after removal of the intestines (which were then placed in the four jars, erroneously called canopes, representing often four tutelary demons) and the brain, and the ’seventy days of lamenting,’ are usual. The face was frequently gilt ', the wrapped body was put in one or two cases of wood or carton- nage, of human form, more or less painted and ornamented ; wealthy people enclosed these, again, in large stone sarcophagi. All this seems to point to a primitive belief that the soul would live only as long as the body existed, though this is indeed nowhere expressly stated. Later, the reason was given that the soul liked to be near the body, and would sometimes even return into it or into a statue of the dead. The distinction between the soul ( 6 ai), the shadow ( haibet ), and the double (ka) which always accompanies a man in life and seems to receive the soul after death, was by no means clear even to Egyptian dogmatists, and is quite obscure for us. The tombs had annexed to them a chapel for offering to the statue of the ha , 5 which stood in an adjoining small, dark room, the latter connected with the chapel by a small window or hole in order to let the smell of incense, etc. , penetrate to the soul in the statue. Besides real offerings, pictures of food were given ; these had the advantage of durability, and were, by the help of magic, as efficacious as real bread and meat. Often a basin of water before the tomb furnished drink for the soul, and trees were planted round it, ‘that the soul might sit under their shady branches.’ The sarcophagus was deposited in a pit, which was filled up with stones and sand (except in the case of rock tombs, already safe enough). The poor were, of course, less luxuriously housed. They were massed in simple pits leased by undertakers. All tombs were situated in the desert, the arable land being much too scarce and costly. Whilst it can hardly be proved that the religious ideas of the Egyptians ever influenced the belief of the Hebrews . (the so-called ’ golden calves’ [see Calf, 1 1 § 2] were certainly no imitation of the Apis cult, all kinds of animals being sacred at one place or another in Egypt), it cannot well be denied that the 1 This was misunderstood by the Greeks. A migration of souls in the Indian sense was unknown to the Egyptians. 4 See The Mummy , by E. A. Wallis Budge, 1893. 5 Or / ’.ay U. 1218 1217 EGYPT ritual laws and laws of purity of the Hebrews often seem to follow the analogy of the later Egyptian customs. The priests had to observe scrupulous cleanliness, to shave all hair (hence their bald heads, imitated in the Roman tonsure), to wear only linen, and to abstain from all unclean food, this being very much the same as among the Hebrews. 1 See above (§ 9) on the unclean- ness (especially) of the swine. Some parts of every animal (the bead ?) were forbidden. Eggs were not to be eaten. Contact with dead bodies defiled, notwith- standing the cult of the dead. Embalmers, therefore, were unclean. Circumcision, for which, a*, for all ritual purposes, only stone knives were to be used (op Josh. 5 2), was general for both sexes from time immemorial (see Circumcision). The method of killing and offering animals, the burning of incense (upon bronze censers of ladle form ^), the ablutions, and many other ritualistic details, were similar to those practised among the Israelites. Human sacrifices occurred in the earlier times (see Isaac) ; later, cakes in human form seem to have been sub- stituted. The priests, called 4 the pure,’ 3 ucb[u) t formed a well -organised hierarchy in four (later five) classes (i TKrfne+ie Bulak 4. transl. by Chabas in l' Agypto- ‘ , c logic ; also by Am^lineau in La Morale 1 era ure. fcgypt. ) are a really beautiful collection of moral rules. Small demotic ethical papyri have been published by Pierret and Revillout. 6 The Praise of Scholastic Studies (Pap. Sallier 2, Anast. 7)® is full of sarcastic humour, but too prosy for modern taste ; the ‘ Papyrus Prisse ’ (Chabas, Virey, partly Griffith ; see World's Best Lit. 5327) is of stilted obscurity. All these works belong to the classical period of the Middle Empire. Several later imitations of the Praise of Scholastic Studies were frequently used as copying exercises for schoolboys, in order to instil love of study. For the rest, the many school- books contain exercises of rhetorical aim. The ‘Story of the Eloquent Peasant ' (Griffith id.), and ‘ The Man tired of Life ’ (Erman [’96]) belong to this category. We see from inscriptions and other representations that the Egyptians had a tolerable knowledge of « . astronomy — the high priest of Heliopolis * 1 ce ' was called the ‘ chief astronomer. ’ We owe to them our modem (Julian) calendar; but they themselves used in common life a year of twelve months (of thirty days each) and five epagomence, or additional days (without any intercalation). The astronomical year, called Sothic because marked by the ‘ rising ’ of Sothis (Sirius), was known, but not in popular use. 7 Ptolemy III. found a reform of the calendar to be an urgent need. His attempt to effect it, however, in 238 B.C., proved a failure. Much superstition in regard to these matters is dis cernible ; cp the Calendar of lucky and unlucky days (transl. Chabas, ’70). The hours were determined by observing the position of tbe celestial bodies with the instrument figured below. 8 No scientific astronomical work has come down to us ; but we have a mathematical handbook (London, ed. Eisenlohr) which shows that the Egyptians were not so far advanced in mathematics as, e.g. f the Babylonians. 0 High admiration of Egyptian medicine was shown throughout the ancient world, and even mediaeval medicine is full of Egyptian elements. 10 The medical papyri (Berlin ed. Brugsch ; un- Dead , ’06 (those by Birch, ’67, and Pierret, 82, are antiquated ; Budge, ’98, is less critical). 1 These three books have been edited by Brugsch, Lieblein, and Von Bergmann respectively. 2 Also in Bonomi, Sarcophagus of Oimeneptah (64), and (from the walls of the royal tombs) Mission Eranf. II. and III. 8 Petrie and Mariette ; the second discussed by Brugscb and Pleyte. 4 That on Amon, translated by Gr^baut, is considered the best. It is, however, anything but an original composition. . It is reprinted in RP 2 121. (This English work gives translations of almost the whole literature of Egypt ; but in the first series these are often of very questionable character. The second series shows improvement in this respect. Excellent translations by Griffith of a large part of the Egyptian literature have just appeared in The Worlds Best Literature [1897], P* 5 22 S^* [the hymn in question, p. 5309]. 5 In Rec. de Traz\ 1 , and Rev. Egypt. 1 . 6 Transl. by Maspero in his Etudes sur le genre ipistolaire. 7 The astronomical and the common year coincided every 1460 years — a so-called Sothic period (see Chronology, § 19). 8 9 Arithmetical fragments also in Griffith's ~r' J Kahun papyri. * 10 Shown first by Le Page Renouf, ZA 11 123 [’73]. How this came (through tbe Arabs ?) is discussed by G- Ebers, ZA 33 1 [’95I. 1219 1220 EGYPT EGYPT published MSS ot Berlin and London; treatises on female diseases and veterinary art in Griffith's Kahun papyri; above all, the great papyrus Ebers at Leipsie, written about 1600 b.c.) show, however, little practical knowledge, and a surprising ignorance of anatomy, as against an abundance of superstition and silly sorcery. 1 There are a good many books of magic (with many religious and some medical elements) — partly lawful 23 Marie magic ( cp ' eg " Chabas ' Le P a t- Magique 6 ' Harris , '57), partly forbidden witchcraft ( Leyden). The latter was threatened with capital punish- ment (cp pap. Lee). Thus we see that the country of Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3 8) was the true home of all kinds of magic (Is. 19 3). It would be quite wrong, however, to ascribe the miracles performed by the pharaoh's magicians (Ex. 7 , etc. ) to anything else than jugglery (see Serpknt, § 3 a ), for there was far less knowledge of natural science in Egypt than, e.g. , in Greece. Even historiography was * not highly developed. There were chronicles of single reigns — a panegyric 94 TT > ,, ,-41 specimen has been preserved in the great tc papyrus Harris I. .referring to Ramses III. ’ (about the largest papyrus in existence ; ed. Birch) ; on the lists of kings see below, § 41 ; but no larger works of scientific character were in the hands of Man&tho when he undertook to compose a history of Egypt for the Greeks (see below, § 41). The poverty of his material forced him to use even popular novels as sources. Xor was grammar ever studied in a scientific way, or textual criticism .ap- plied to the sacred writings. All literary works were, accord- ingly, more exposed to corruption than they were in any other country of antiquity. If we find all ancient nations filled with bound- less admiration for Egyp- tian science, 2 we can ac- count for this only by the mysterious difficulty of all Egyptian writing, into the secrets of which a foreigner could rarely penetrate. In fact, the Babylonians as well as the Greeks were far superior to the Egyptians in everything that required serious thinking. "What Egypt produced, however, in the way of litera- ture designed to amuse and entertain is worthy of our 9K Talpa anH admiration. The number of J poet fanciful tales, very similar to those of * the Arabian Nights, and of historical novels (with much imagination and little true history) is considerable, 3 and some — e.g . , that of * The Doomed Prince’ (a papyrus in London) — are of charming form. Moreover, in their popular poetry, especially in their love songs, the Egyptians come much nearer to our taste than do most oriental peoples. 4 Many hymns in praise of kings and their deeds have survived. The only attempt at an epic, however, is the song, inscribed upon so many temple walls, commemorating the battle 1 They seem to show that Herodotus’s assertion about special- ists for every part of the body is exaggerated. 2 Some find evidence of this also in the apparent pride with which it is stated that Joseph had married a priest's daughter from On. See also 1 K. 4 30 [5 10] Acts 7 22. 3 They need not be enumerated here, as they cau be consulted easily in the collections of Maspero, Contes pop. de t£gypte anc. ['82], and Petrie, Egyptian Tales [’95]. 4 Collected by Maspero, Journ. As. ['83], and by WMM, Die Liebespoesie der alien Agypter [’99]. Fig. 3. — Asiatics bringing tribute ; a painting (fragment) in the British Museum. 28 . Law. of Kadesh, won by Ramses II. ; for modern taste it lacks vigour and is too long. The other eulogies do not come up to it. A satirical poem on bad minstrels, 1 and a collection of stories on animals, embodying ./Esopic fables (which seems to show that these fables originated, possibly, in Egypt), are to be found only in demotic copies. All poetry followed the parallelism of members (like Hebrew poetry) and certain rude rhythms (count- ing only words with full accent, and disregarding the number of syllables) ; it sometimes observed alliteration, but never rbyme. Much more may be expected from recent finds. Of the music connected with this poetry we cannot say much. All oriental instruments were known — the simple monochord, 2 the large harp, 3 the flute, the tambourine, etc. Clapping of 26 Music hands and shaking of the sistrum (tmoTpop, a metal rattle) 4 accompanied the simple tunes. The professional musicians were mostly blind men. See Music. The government was the most absolute monarchy known to antiquity. The despotic power of the king 27 Govern was S reatest dynasties 4 to 5 and 18 ment t0 20 ( a ^ so 2 ^) — P er i°ds of complete centralisation. On the decentralising tendencies of the counts or nomarchs (hereditary under weaker dynasties), and on the changing royal residences etc., see below, §41^ The most influential officer of the kingdom, the administrator of the whole empire, or grand-vizier, was the erpdti. The (a’ti had the general adminis- tration of justice. Among the titles of courtiers that of ‘ Fan- bearer at the left of the king’ carried with it the greatest honour. After dynasty 18 the ‘ cup-bear- ers ( wabe\ nba) of the king,’ although often only foreign slaves, became as influential as the Mamluks of the Middle Ages, be- cause they were charged with the most confidential commissions. The titles of the court and of the officials of the royal palace, harem, stable, kitchen, brewery, etc., are just as abundant as the offices for the administra- tion of the country and its counties (e.g . , royal scribes, inspectors of the granaries, clerks of the soldiers, scribe of the nomos, etc.). Most of these scribes were at the same time priests. The king generally gave aud- iences from a balcony of the palace. Of the laws we do not know much. We have sufficient material in the shape of legal documents only in demotic papyri from dynasty 26 down- wards. 5 These documents are based upon the code of laws given or collected by the great legislator Bocchoris (about 730 b.c. ; see below, § 65). Former institutions are less known. 6 We find (only after 2000 B.C.) the remarkable institution of the jury, 7 a committee of officers and priests — i. e . , educated men — appointed by the government for every day to sit in judgment. They were paid by the litigants. On criminal law 8 we possess acts relating to spoliations of 1 Ed. Revillout and Brugsch. The satirical vein of the Egyptians is often discernible in art (see caricatures in the papyri ot Turin, partlygiven in Lepsius, Auswahl) and literature. 5 Several works of E. Revillout on these — Chrestomatkie Dimotique (’80), Nouvelle Chrest. DSmotique , etc. The de- cipherment is in part much disputed; cp § 12. For some earlier material, see Griffith, Kahun Papyri. 6 What Diod. writes about Egyptian laws is not all certain. On those of the Greek period, see Wessely, SIVA ll\ Bd. 124, Abh. 9. 7 Earlier inscriptions speak of thirty judges for the country. 6 Spiegelberg, Stud. u. Mat. zum Rechtswesen ('92). 1221 1222 EGYPT EGYPT judge by the many complaints, the great host of officers in the service of the king or the temples were even more corrupt than the bureaucracy of other oriental states. Speaking generally, neither bravery nor honesty seems to have been a national virtue . 1 Even in the cult of the dead strange contradictions are visible. Paupers, of whom there were many, broke into most or the tombs of the wealthy soon after burial, and no military protection could prevent even the royal tombs from being ransacked. Even the educated, who expected to be examined by Osiris if they ever disturbed the rest of any dead person, would often appropriate for their own mummies the property, tomb, or equipment of a deceased person who was unprotected. Foundations of real estate for the support of the dead for furnishing the sacrifices — never lasted long. The best part of the population, undoubtedly, was to be found, not in the haughty ' scribes ' and priests (ideas for the most part coinciding), but in the peasants. These were just as simple in their habits, just as laborious, just as poor, and just as patient under their continual oppression, as the modern fellahin. Most of them were serfs — of the king, or of temples, or of landowners. Their worst oppression was the hard taskwork described in Ex. 1. Serfs were branded with the owner's name. The | cities held a large proletariate — the free * working men . ' 2 tombs, to conspiracy against the king, and to forbidden sorcery. Criminals were examined by means of torture and blows. The rod was used as much as the kurbaj is at present. Bastinado (up to 100 strokes) upon hands and feet, cutting off the nose and the ears, deportation to frontier places (Rhinocolura, e.g ., — see Egypt, River of, § i — had its name from the exiles with ‘ muti- lated noses '), to the oases, or to the gold mines in the glowing Nubian desert, and impalement (‘hanged, 1 EV of Gen. 4022 is incorrect), were the punishments. In tbe case of persons of higher rank suicide was allowed to take the place of capital punishment. In civil law, we are struck with the fact that woman was on a perfect equality with man and occupied a higher position than she did in almost any other country of the ancient world. For example, a. married woman could hold property of her own, and might lend from it to her husband upon good security, such as his house. In marriage, the greatest divergence from later Hebrew custom was in sister-marriage, which in Egypt was as common as marrying the cousin is among 29. Marriage. t ^ e g em j tes The majority had their sisters as wives : there seem to have been no forbidden degrees of relationship, Polygamy was permitted, %>ut occurred rarely. Marriage was usually concluded on the basis of a financial agreement, such high indemnities being fixed for the wife in case of divorce or polygamy that expelling her without the most serious reasons should have become impossible. A wife with such legal security was called * mistress of the house, and well distinguished from the concubine (called ‘sister’). Nobles maintained secluded harems in the Asiatic manner; but the ‘ wife ' always enjoyed as much liberty inside and outside of the house as our women, as is shown by the story of Potiphar's wife . 1 Veiling the face was unknown. Adultery was followed by capital punish- ment for both offenders (contrast Gen. 39 20 , J). It will be seen, especially from our review of the literature, that the prevalent views with regard to the n . , national character of the Egyptians are erroneous. They were quite religious ( i. e . , superstitious) according to the views of such super- stitious nations as the Greeks and the Romans. Far from being contemplative, however, they were rather superficial — not only in religion, but also in science, literature, etc. — and more inclined to the gay side of things. We nowhere find deep thinking, everywhere full enjoyment of life, Their art is full of humour ; even the walls of their * eternal abodes ' or tombs are partly covered with drinking and playing scenes and with jokes for inscriptions. Their morality was rather lax. Drunkenness seems to have been not rare. To 1 Accordingly, no evidence has been found, thus far, that eunuchs were kept. Lepsius, Dcnkm. 2 126, etc., represents fat old men, not eunuchs. This fact has not yet been considered in its relation to the designation of Potiphar as d ,- 1D in Gen. 39 x. It was formerly assumed that there were castes. This is, however, a mistake. The sons of the many priests would naturally acquire more easily than ri others the learning which distinguished aBses. t k e j r f at h ers The eldest son, too, of a soldier inherited, with the field of his father, which was a fief from the government, also the duty of serving as fj.axi/J-os — z. e . , soldier, or policeman. The tombstones, however, frequently represent families of whom one member was a soldier, another a priest, another an artisan, and so on. If, in the time of Herodotus, 3 the shepherds were despised and did not intermarry with the rest of the people, the explanation lies in their unclean foreign descent ('Arne, ‘Asiatic, 1 was synonymous with ‘shepherd 1 ; cp Gen. 4332 ). Swineherds had a still lower position. The same may hold good of the sailors, merchants, and interpreters of foreign origin ; at that time, too, the soldiers were mostly descendants of foreigners (Libyans). Formerly, when foreign elements in the country were few, the distinctions just referred to were less marked ; 32 Arm ° n ^ so ^ ers a ^ wa y s had a strong foreign element. The Egyptians were not warlike, x Cp the characteristic explanation in Steph. Byz. alyvnTt.dL^ei.v =ra navovpya kol i fioAta #eat i»7rouAa Trpdrretv. - Interesting accounts of great strikes of the working men employed by the government have come down to our time. Cp Spiegelberg, Arbeiter u. A rbeiterbe'ivegung (’95). 3 He gives seven classes ; Plato and Diodorus, five. 1223 1224 EGYPT EGYPT and, even in the earliest times, they employed by prefer- ence mercenaries. The first to be employed were negroes and brown Africans (the name of the Mazoy archers from the Red Sea became synonymous with ‘police’); after 1500 B.c. Syrians and Europeans; after 1200 b.c. , in increasing numbers, Libyans (MaSawasa, etc.), who became the privileged mercenaries, and rebelled continually against the competition of Carians and Greeks after 650 b.c. (cp the mixed armies of Egypt, Jer. 46 q Ezek. - 7 10, etc.). The charioteers, 1 however, were mostly Egyptians. 2 Besides small fiefs of ground, the native soldiers seem to have received at least their maintenance during active service. The mercenaries had agricultural holdings also as part of their pay. Horses and equipment were lent by the government. The officers passed through a training school ( zahabu , Semitic?) as youths. The national weapons were bow, throwing - stick 3 (only before 1600), war -axe, club, 4 scythe - formed sword, 6 short spear (rarely javelin), and straight sword. 6 Apart from the shield, 7 not much armour (coats- of-mail — of leather, or thick linen, sometimes with metal scales) was used, except in the case of the charioteers. In sieges, the testudo and the battering-ram of the ancients appear, but none of the complicated war- machines used by the Assyrians. The soldiers marched to the sound of long hand-drums and at trumpet-signals. They were divided into regiments, each with its own standard, usually a god or divine symbol upon Lack of personal courage made the sea-trade of the Egyptians also very insignificant. The import of olive oil (from Palestine), wine (from Phoenicia), beer (Asia Minor), wood, metal, wool, etc., and the export of grain (usually monopolised by the govern- 33 . Commerce, ment), linen, papyrus, small works of art in glass, porcelain, metal, and ivory, were mostly in the bands of the Phoenicians. Naval expeditions on the Red Sea for incense were rare, owing (partly) to the great scarcity of wood in Egypt and on the desert coast of the Red Sea, where the ships had to be constructed. Not till Persian times did the import- ant commercial posi- tion of Egypt — as forming the connect- ing link between the Red and the Mediter- ranean Seas, and be- tween Europe, Asia, and Africa — begin to be realised. The majority of the people always had agricultural occupa- tions. Originally, the holdings of the priests _ ... . (and soldiers) were felling trees for Sethos I. After exempt from the heavy Rosellini. taxation of one-fifth (Gen. 47 20 ff. ; see Joseph ii. , § 9) ; later this immunity was interfered with because it withdrew too much from the income of the 34 Affr’ S overnment - In agriculture, the most primi- Ciilture ^ ve ’ m Pl ements were always used, such as wooden hoes, a and ploughs 9 drawn by oxen or by men. Such simple appliances presupposed the softening of the ground by the yearly inundation. The irrigation of the higher fields was likewise effected 2 Riding on horseback was unknown — as among most nations of ancient Western Asia. This combines club and axe. See Agriculture, § 3. fig- 1. with simple machinery. 1 Harvesting (in March — with some growths two harvests are possible), treading out the grain by cattle (rarely threshing with the threshing- wain, nto), winnowing, etc. , were carried out very much in the same way as in Palestine (cp also Agriculture, §§ 2-10). On the granaries 2 see Pitpiom. The industries were highly developed. The renowned Egyptian linen (the best kinds being called pa, (HOatros — _ _ T j , . 1 Semitic word it would seem — and 35. Industries. . . v x T W, Egyptians; see Linen) was manu- factured especially by the poor bondsmen of the temples, shut up at certain times in an athu or ' workhouse ’ for weaving. The temples drew a large portion of their income from this linen manufacture. Cp Is. 19 9 (and 7. 10, where read n'nfc 5 with ( 5 . see SBOT, ad loc.), Pr. 7 16 Ezek. 27 7. In pottery only the more common ware was made. Glass seems to have been not a Phoenician but an Egyptian invention (cp Phcenicia, Glass, § 1 ). The so-called Egyptian porcelain or glazed pottery (faience), mostly green or blue, in imitation of the two most precious stones (malachite and lapis lazuli), furnished the material for small figures, amulets (especi- ally in the form of scarabs — beetles that were supposed to bring good luck), and other ornaments, which found their way, through the Phoenicians, westwards even to Spain. The products of the goldsmiths, who also em- ployed enamel very skilfully, are admirable ; the ivory- carvings were renowned. In general, the smaller articles (utensils, ornaments, etc.) display the best taste; all minute ornamentation was the delight of the Egyptians. The art 3 of Egypt exercised a most powerful influence upon all surrounding countries, especially upon Phoenicia, 36 Art w ^ ere an imitation of the Egyptian style became the national art. Solomon’s temple was in Egyptian style. The Egyptian ornaments, derived from the plants and flowers of the country, especially the lotus and papyrus, penetrated the whole ancient world. The paintings 4 ( preserved mostly as wall deco- ration) have a very childish appearance, from their lack of perspective and of shading; 5 but they possess the merit of great faithfulness — e.g. , in all represent- ations of animals, foreign nations, etc. (compare Fig. 3). The decorative sculp- tures (rarely in relief, mostly incised or in sunk relief, always painted) ex- hibit the same odd principles of per- spective, in accord- ance with which, e.g., the face was always represented in profile, but the eye as though seen from the front, the shoulders from the front, the legs in profile, and so on. This was not awkwardness, but a principle traditionally handed down from the childhood of art ; Fig. 6. — Statue of Ramses II. at Turin. After Riehm-Lepsius. 1 Cp § 7. Water-wheels cannot be proved to have been known. The explanation of Dt. 11 10 as referring to such wheels turned with the foot is questionable ; most probably ‘ watering with the foot ’ means carrying water. 3 Consult Perrot and Chipiez, Hist, of Art in Anc. Egypt (ET), 2 vols. 1883; Maspero, Egyptian Archceology (ET), '93; FI. Petrie, Egyptian Decorative Art, '95. 4 The colours are in part made of ground glass (blue and green), and are all very durable. 5 Petrie, Amarna , pis. 1, 12, is no exception, but an imitation in painting of sunk relief. 1225 1226 EGYPT EGYPT and we can still observe how some sculptors struggled against this strait -jacket. In spite of this disad- vantage, some artists of the earliest times (dyns. 4-6) drew scenes full of vivacity and of delicate execution, much superior to the similar Assyrio - Babylonian and archaic Greek sculptures (which all had, by the way, similar perspective). Later, art became more and more conventionalised. The superiority of the earliest period appears also in the statues. The realism of some of the earliest portraits was never again attained. As early as 1600 b . c . the portraits began to lose in vigour and to betray a suspicious similarity one to another. The New Empire, in marked contrast with the Middle Empire (dyn. 12), looked more to quantity than to quality. After dynasty 26, art sank to a very low level. (On the realism of the ' Reformation period,’ and the archaic renaissance in dynasty 26, see below, § 67. ) Of course, the statues (almost invariably painted) have only a few conventional positions. The technical perfection, however, was always great (see Fig. 6), and it was for a long time a mystery how diorite and basalt could have been cut and polished with copper, bronze, and flint instruments. It seems that for the hardest ventionalised), and betray that their origin is to be sought in ancient wooden constructions. 1 The sloping walls show that originally IN ue mud was another material in general use for all kinds of buildings. The arch was known from the earliest times (dyn. 6?), but was rarely used for stone structures. The elliptic arch was preferred in the case of buildings of hrick. The foundations of temples, threatened hy infiltration of ground water, were laid on thick layers of sand. Some characteristic features of temple architecture may be mentioned. A pair of obelisks 2 stood at the entrance (the surface often gilt, the pyramidal top frequently of metal : their religious — probably solar — meaning was forgotten ; hut they remind us. of the lvassebas of the Semites ; cp Is. 19 19 Jer. 43 13 3 ); galleries of sphinxes 4 — the symhol of wisdom — and of similar sacred heings led to the gate which was crowned hy the symhol of the winged disk ; 5 hroad ‘ pylons ’ 6 resembling fortress- walls pro- tected the entrance on either side. The largest existing temple, that of Karnak, was originally only a modest building of dynasty 12. Every great king added a new court or a hall, and the entrance pylons finally came to stand in the interior of the complex. Many temples had a similar growth. The divinity, however, dwelt not in these courts or halls, but in a small dark chapel in the centre, where it usually sat in a sacred boat. Sacred lakes near the temples were frequent. The principal temple ruins are at Karnak, Luxor, &urna, Medlnet Habu (all included in ancient The- hes), Abydos, Edfu, Esneh, Omhos, Philae; in Nubia at DahOd, Kalabsheh, Bet el-Wali, Dendhr, Gerf Husen, Dakkeh, Sebua, 'Amada, Ahu-Simhel, Soleb. Jebel-Barkal (Napata) and Meroe are imitations by Ethiopian kings. Secular architecture was much lighter, the only materials used be- ing wood, and Nile mud mixed with stubble (Ex. 5 n ) made into sun-dried bricks. The many royal palaces have on this ac- count all disappeared, although some of their sumptuous ornamenta- tions (mosaics and glazed tiles) have remained. Wealthy subjects had the same kind of house (with an open court in the centre) that we still find in the modern East ; the poor dwelt in mere clay huts, such as those occupied by the modern felldhin . Fig. 7. — Ramses II. ’s Great Rock Temple at Abu-Simbel. work diamond or corundum cutters were used (see Diamond, § i). (On the excellent material available for sculptors, see above, § 3. ) It may be mentioned here that in daily life flint instruments were, for reasons of economy, used long after 2000 B. c. The stone and the bronze ages, therefore, coincided, and touched upon the iron age (iron prevailing after 1000 B.c. , copper preceding the bronze). 1 The architecture is well known for its massiveness. This was relieved by the abundance of ornaments upon walls and pillars, and by the polychromy. That the ornamentation was originally derived from the forms of certain plants is seen especially in the ornamental columns 2 07 Arrhi w hh capitals. 3 They represent the lotus- 0 ’ ■ 4 * rcm “ flower hoth in full bloom and in hud, bundles tecture. of papyrus, and palm-trees (often strongly con- 1 Bronze was called hesmen , a word connected with (Brugsch), which may be an Egyptian loan-word (cp Metals). 3 After the manner of the caryatides of Greek art, figures of Osiris are frequently used ; hut these always lean against a pillar. The head of Hathor (with cow’s ears) (perhaps origin- t, wnicn II ally an ox-skull) as a capital for columns is the only other ancient instance of the human form heing employed in architecture. The tomhs had an architecture of their own. Where possible, they were long galleries hewn in the rock (especially at Thebes). The pyramid 7 was the characteristic form of royal tombs from dyn. 3 to dyn. 12, and was frequently imitated by private persons on a smaller scale, and in brick instead of stone. The question has very often been asked how the Egyptians erected edifices of such stupendous size, and monolithic monuments 8 that would tax the skill even of our age of improved mechanical appliances. It would be very wrong to ascribe these achievements to the use of complicated machinery. Everything was done in the simplest possible way, by an unlimited command of 1 This can he said also of the famous fluted columns of Beni- hasan, which remind one strongly of the Doric column. 3 So Wi. ; see Beth-shemesh, 4; and tefyen. cp Massebah. ! Female sphinxes (re- presenting queens) uiav - are rare. ^ 7 A . 8 For example, an ohelisk at Thebes 108 feet / \ high, or the colossus of Memnon (height 64 feet, r — h weight 1175 tons). Fragments of a statue found at Tams indicate a figure originally 80-90 feet high. Each of these ohjects was sculptured from one stone. 1228 1227 EGYPT EGYPT human forces ; and we have to admire far more the energy than the engineering skill. Pictures show how immense monolithic monuments were moved over wooden rollers, smaller stones on a sledge (see Fig. 8). The influence of Egyptian civilisation upon Syria appears strongly in its metrology. For example, the Egyptian 38 . Measures. c °m-measureEphah (©<#., Egyptian ope\t I — i.e. , ’ measure’) and the liquid measure Hln (Egyptian hain(u), 'pot') were adopted by the Hebrews. The weight system (i debcn — i.e. , 90-96 grammes or ^ lb. — had 10 kidet of 140 grains) was decimal, in opposition to the Babylonian sexagesimal system. The cubits, however, — the large or royal cubit of 0.525 metres (about 2oi inches), and the small cubit of 0.450 metres (about 17^ inches), which existed side by side (subdivisions being the span, palm, finger, etc. ) — are said to be borrowed from Babylonia (?). The subject is very complicated, and some measures — such as the largest measure of area, the axoivos (said to contain 12,000 cubits?) — present great difficulties. On the other hand, it is certain that in Egypt a form of money very similar to onr present coin was used — rings or thick wire in spiral form (deben ) 1 originally of The shape of garments constantly varied, according to fashion ; but we can observe that in the earliest times men were satisfied with simple raiment, a short skirt being sufficient even for noble- men. Later, these wore several suits, one over another, skilfully plaited. The fanciful and archaic dress of the king, with his manifold double and triple symbolical crowns, 1 would require a chapter for itself. Dignitaries were distinguished by their staffs/ 2 also by the flagellum/* the signet-ring, 4 and the necklace.6 For men and women alike the commonest adornment was the wearing of ornaments of precious metal, or at least flowers, 6 round the neck. Such collars of gold were the principal decoration given by the king as a reward to faithful officers or brave soldiers. Princes and some priests had their hair tied in a tress 7 on one side of the head. Painting of the eyelids, which in Syria was reserved for women (2 K. 930), was practised by both sexes. A black stripe, formed by the so-called stibium (see Paint), outlined the eyes above, «* green stripe below. 8 Unguents for the hair and body played a great part. Sandals (especially of papyrus) were common; shoes were rare. At night, the African head- rest 9 was used (originally in order not to disarrange the artificial head-dress), and the face covered. The Egyptians were just as ceremonious as other Orientals. The common mode of salutation was by dropping the arms ; 10 prostration ( ’ kissing the ground ') marked highest respect ; in prayer the hands were lifted up. 11 Of their amusements the following may be men- tioned : — fowling (with the snare, or with the boomerang or throwing-stick), fishing, and various games, such as that called mora by the modern Italians, and a kind of checkers, of which they were so fond that they sought to secure it by magic for the souls of the dead. Dancing was left chiefly to women, for the delight of spectators. Although religion de- clared all foreigners un- clean, the Egyptians were not hostile to foreign associations and influ- ences. In dynasties 18- 20, indeed, imitation of Asiatic manners became such a fashion that the I Fig. 8.— Dragging a statue of Dhut-hotep. After Lepsius. The statue, resting on a sledge, is being dragged by four rows of men supposed to be in parallel lines on the ground. Above them are ‘ the whole population of the city ’ come out to do homage. The man standing on the knee of the statue gives the signal to the men below ; the man on its foot pours water on the ground in front of the sledge. Above the latter is Her-heb with a vessel of incense (?). Below the statue are men with water-buckets and wood, also three overseers ; behind the statue the retinue of the governor. copper, later also of gold, finally of silver. This metal, * white gold,’ 2 not being found in Africa, had originally higher value than gold, but after 1600 B. C. it became more frequent, and soon was the common standard of money. The manners and customs of Ancient Egypt, 3 which the Greeks found to be in as direct opposition as possible o Q T| , to their own, were less different from r ss, e c. t h ose Q f se ttled Semites. The Egyptians prided themselves on their great cleanliness (cp Gen. 41 14). They shaved their faces and clipped their hair (the priests shaved it off), wearing artificial beards 4 (at least at religious ceremonies) and wigs. Indeed, the chief decoration of the upper classes consisted of wigs of enormous size. Garments were made not, as with the Semites, of wool, but mostly of cleanly white linen. 1 2 This is what the hieroglyphic expression means. It would seem that ‘ electron,' gold with C. — ■ an admixture of silver, called ivesem (the initial is doubtful, the connection with a{rr?/i.os improbable) also had higher value than gold. 3 On this and most of the preceding subjects see Erman, Egyptian Life (ET 1894). The admirable pioneer work of Wilkinson, Manners and Customs (’36), is, in its text at least, completely antiquated ; as also is the second edition, by Birch ('78). Very concise, and (in .part) very readable, is Brugsch, Die JEgyptologie (’81) ; but he is too much averse from Erman's critical division of periods. It would he out of place here to attempt to trace the various developments^ of 4 Egyptian manners during 3000 years ; the biblical period (1600 to 500 b.C.) is what chiefly concerns us. educated had to a large extent Semitic names and spoke a mixture of Egyptian and Canaanitish. A strong re- action, however, seems to have set in especially after 800 B.C. The names used by the Ancient Egyptians 12 were less poetic than those of the civilised Semites. Simple 40 . Names. names, such as ’ little ’ [Pery) — sometimes even ’dwarf (nm, d\n]rg) — ‘fair face,’ ‘big headed’ (sisoy), ‘cross-eyed’ [komen], prevail, especially in the earlier period. ’ I wished,’ * I saw,’ ‘he cried,’ etc. refer to circumstances of birth , etc. * Maternal uncle ’ ( sen- mau\et\ 4 mother's brother ’) is not uncommon (see Kin- ship). Some names are intended for good omens or to express parental pride: — h.011 nofer , 'the good day’; nefer- (or was-)hau , 'good (or prosperous) circum- •m a ■ q '^8 tggP 8 . The Asiatic custom of painting the nails red with hennah was also known. X "b "T \ 12 The material is collected in Lieblein, Diet, dc nonts ('71 and '92). The fullest discussion, comparatively speaking, will be found in Erman, Egypt. 1229 1230 EGYPT stances uscrtesen, ’ their wealth’ (i.e. , of the parents) ; I ’mother's ornament’ (bes-n-maz/et), ’the land in joy’ ( ta-m-rehut ) p ' gold in Heliopolis,’ ' gold on the way,’ ' ' coming in peace (or ’ luck,' y-m-hotep). Names of animals of all sorts are used: not only ’lion,’ ’monkey,’ 'dog,' ’frog’ (krur), ’tadpole’ ( hefenn ), etc., but also names of unclean animals : ’ mouse ’ (pin) and ’ pig ’ (riret) are favourite girls’ names. Comical names, such as we should have expected a superstitious nation to dread as ill-omened, are met with. Thus, e.g. (Liebl. 1784), an unfortunate infant. retained for life the designation 'offal-swallower' (' m-bwd ’). The Egyptians evidently attached less importance to the name than was usual with other nations. The many senseless syllables — mere babblings, such as Ay, Ata, Teye — which can be explained only as pet names (like the English Bob, Tom, and Dick) — confirm this. Names with a religious signification were, of course, quite frequent. They praise a god (Ptah is beautiful, powerful, etc.) — e.g. , Set-naftt(e) ’S. (is?) strong.’ Amen-em-he t, ’Amon in the first place,’ extols a local god over the others. ’ Beloved by ’ or ’ loving ’ 1 god (mer [vulgar, mey-, mi-~\ Amun , 1 me(r)-en(e)~ Ptah), ’Amon is satisfied’ (Amen-hotep), etc., are common ; even ’ dog of Horus ’ occurs. Sobk-em-sauf, ’ the god S. (stands) behind him,’ and the like, boast of divine protection. The * sons ’ and ’ daughters ’ of all possible gods are very common ; but of ’ brothers ’ of a god only two or three doubtful examples are known. Ameny , Setoy , ’of Amon, of Set,’ ns(i)-Bi-n-dede, ’belonging to Mendes,’ and the thankful p-ed-Amun, whom ’ Amon gave, ’ belong to the same category. ’ Amon in (his) ship, in (his) festival (cp Har-em-liebe, of Horus), and in (his) rising,’ may be intended as comparisons. In ’Isis in the marshes’ and ’Horus in the lake’ we have examples of mythological allusions — Ra'-mes-su fPctyiecrcnjs), ’the sun begot him,’ Dhut(i)-mose, ’the god Thout born’ (i.e., incarnate), say a good deal. Very remarkable is the late usage of employing the name of the divinity itself — e.g. , /sis, Hor (not Osiris, which would be too ill-omened), Har-pe-hrad (H. the child), Har-si~ese( H. the son of Isis), Hons(u) — deities of the Osirian circle and the goddess of love Hat-hor , (paraphrased in ’mistress of Byblos cp § 14) being, in particular, very common. 2 The more complicated names were introduced, for ] the most part, by the kings (e.g., Xefer-ke- re , ’fine 1 is the double of the Sun,’ etc.), who, from dynasty 5 onwards, always had two names ; these and the various regular titles and surnames were imitated or exaggerated by loyal subjects. Loyalty is frequently expressed by names such as ’ King X. is satisfied, well, powerful,’ which were regarded as specially suitable for holders of office. Sometimes these names are as long as Babylonian names. Of foreign names, Semitic formations were quite popular from dynasty 18 onwards (see § 39), Libyan names even before dynasty 22; later we meet with Ethiopic and other names. In treating the history a of Egypt, we find the greatest difficulty 4 in the chronology. The Egyptians 1 Standing alone, or at the end of a compound name, the god’s name was probably pronounced Amun, later Amun (Copt. &MOYN); elsewhere (cp Heb. construct state), Amen. 2 In the earliest examples, however, the possessive - ending -y may be supplied. This could be suppressed in writing, as was the case in the earliest Hebrew orthography. 3 Maspero’s huge History 0/ the Ancient Orient (three volumes, 1895 ^0 1809) is perhaps best up to date, and specially valuable for its ample references ; but its system of trans- literation of names will be found confusing. Petrie’s History 0/ Egypt, still [1000] incomplete, is a very useful collection of material and the Best available work in English. An English Meyer, however, — i.e. , a readable history — by the side of the English Wiedemann (Petrie), is still a desideratum. 4 Another great difficulty is the transcription of names. The reader must bear in mind that Egyptian was written (like primi- tive Hebrew, only still more ’ defectively ’) without vowels. It is full of abbreviations ; letters (especially liquid consonants) are often suppressed ; and some confusion of ’ and s, r and 1, etc., is EGYPT had no eras, but reckoned by the years of their kings. ... „ For practical use long lists of kings nf ^ 01 J rceS had to be kept. The only list preserved 01 History. ^ Turin ) is very fragmentary, and the extracts from ManStho (yiavedu)v\ Mavedws in Euseb. ), a priest of Sebennytos, 1 about 270 B. C. , the only Egyptian historian in the Greek language, have come down in a greatly corrupted state. 2 Besides, even in their original state, both sources (especially ManStho) seem to have been far from the attainment of absolute correctness. For convenience sake, we retain ManStho’s reckoning of thirty-one dynasties (down to the Ptolemies), although his dynasties are not' always correctly divided, and his Fig. 9.— Part of Sety I.’s tablet of kings at Abydos. The king, preceded by his son Ramses II. wearing the princely lock of hair over his ear, advances, censer in hand, to present offerings to Ptah-sokar-Osiris on behalf of 76 famous ancestors. First line : Mny, Tty, etc. Second line : Merenre’-Meht-m-saf, Neterkare’, etc. Third line : Sety I. repeated. chronological data cannot be safely used without a searching criticism. The attempts to use astrological dates — e.g. , the fixed or Sothis year (see Chronology, § 19)— have been, so far, not very successful. 3 Champollion placed the beginning of dynasty 1 in 5867 B.C., Roeckh in 5702, Mariette in 5004 ; Petrie has placed it in 4777 ; Lepsius brought it down to 3892 ; and some have tried to bring it down much lower than 3000 B.c. An accurate chronology for Egypt is possible, accordingly, only after 700 B.C. (CHRONOLOGY, § 20). Approximate dates can be given — thanks to the synchronism afforded by the ’Amarna tablets— back to about 1600 ( ib. , § 22). Thus far, there is no hope that the gaps in the Hyksos period and the preceding allowed. The Coptic forms are our greatest help towards re- covering the pronunciation ; but they frequently differ from the ancient language as much as might be expected after a develop- ment of 3000 years. Hence the greatest confusion reigns in Egyptological literature, some names being current in as many as a dozen forms. Every change of philological theory brings about a change of transliteration, and those who see the trouble which this causes are returning, as much as possible, to the Greek transliterations, where there are such, of Herodotus, Manetho, etc. Where, as often, there are none, this way of escaping the difficulties of wild guessing at the pronunciation fails. [How a different theory, which has the same object, works out, may be seen from Petrie’s History already referred to.] The present writer has tried to be as conservative of customary forms as possible. 1 Hardly ‘high priest of Heliopolis,’ as later sources state. His dynasties are arbitrary groups of kings disagreeing with those, e.g., of the Turin papyrus. 2 Extracted by Julius Africanus, Eus., and Sync, (also partly in Jos.). Handy editions in C. Muller ( Historici Grceci Minores, ii.) and Bunsen, Egypt's Place in Universal History, i. The Turin fragments are best edited by Wilkinson [’51]. Selections of kings' names in the ’ tablets ’ of Abydus (2)(Seti I. ; see above, fig. 9), Sakkarah (private, temp. Ramses II.) and Karnak (Thutmosis III.). Cp De Roug6, Recherches sur les 6 premiers dynasties [’66). Also Brugsch and Bouriant, Le livre des Rois [’87] (Lepsius, Kdnigsbuch [’58], antiquated). 3 Lepsius, Chronologic der Agyp ter (’49), etc., all antiquated. Recent attempts by Mahler, ZA, '89 ff., are followed by some, e.g. , by Petrie, but disputed by others ; cp §§ 50, 56. 1232 1231 EGYPT EGYPT dynasties (13 and 14) will ever be filled up so as to allow similar certainty for the earliest times, although, e.g. , dynasty 12 is fairly well known now [but see eol. 1237, n. 3]. Modern writers have therefore, for the most part, given up trying to form complete chrono- logical systems. The material at command is in- sufficient. At present the efforts of scholars are directed to finding minimum approximate dates. Apart from the division into thirty-one dynasties (down to Alexander, according to Manfitho), Egyptian 42 P ri ds history is commonly divided into three great periods : i. the Ancient Empire (Memphitic), dynasties 1-6 ; dynasties 7-10 may already be reckoned to ii. the Middle Empire : dynasties 11-13 (Theban period) ; the New Empire, from dynasty 17-18 to the end (Theban, Bubastide.^Saitic, etc. periods). The earliest history (before King Menes ; see below) is filled by Egyptian tradition thus : first with the successive reigns on earth of the various gods (on the ehronology the Egyptians, of course, disagreed very greatly), and then for 13,400 years with those of the Semsu-Hor, 'followers of (the Sun -god) Horus' — an expression absolutely equivalent to ‘ancestors’ (Mangtho renders it awkwardly by vinves or ijptoes). Egyptologists are agreed that most probably this long period of kings too obscure to be enumerated, was the time during which 1 Egypt was still divided, and that the first historic king was the ruler wbo united the two kingdoms ; but see below on Menes, § 44. The Egyptian traditions are unanimous that originally there were two kingdoms. The first was that of ' the . t»— v x Southern Land,' to-res(t), onns, with 43. Prehistoric. / ' the twin eities Nehbet (Eileithyia, now El-Kab) and Kehen (Hieraconpolis, opposite Eileithyia) for eapital, and a king styled s{nf)tni, who wore the ( white crown. 1 It had as emblem a kind of rush. 2 The second kingdom, whose rulers 3 wore the red crown, 4 and resided in Buto (anciently Pe ), was to-emhyt(i), ’ the Northern Land,' which had as its emblem the lotus(?) 3 plant. 6 Even the Roman emperors were still styled ' king of the Upper and the Lower country,’ 7 and were represented as such with the two erowns combined. 8 It is unlikely, however, that any monument yet discovered goes back to the period of the separate kingdoms. Still older is the division of Egypt into forty -two pofj.01 or counties (thirty-six to forty-seven in Roman times after many changes), twenty-one of Upper and twenty-one of Lower Egypt. Each nomos had its own god (and totem ?) and its own capital, and kept its dis- tinct frontiers, its coat of arms, etc. down to very recent times. We may see in these counties, accordingly, traces of prehistoric kingdoms or tribes. The beginnings of Egyptian civilisation reach back ( to this remote period. On the other hand, some ; barbarous survivals from it may be found in the later religion (see above, § 13), as also, among other things, • in the decoration of the king, who always wore a leather appendage fastened to his short skirt 9 (the whole re- minding one of a lion's skin with tail). The recent attempts, especially those of Hommel, to prove the proto- Babylonian ( ' Sumerian ' ) origin of the whole primeval culture of Egypt, imply, at least, great exaggerations. Some Semitic (not Sumerian) elements of culture seem to be noticeable in prehistoric times, and one or another trace of indirect Babylonian influence (through the Semites) might be admitted ; but all these influences | are very insignificant in comparison with the elements of native origin. Thus the general conception of 6 4 Y i 3 They were ’ V called \\ (pronounce approximately cbyati). 6 See Griffith in Beni/iasan 3, 9 (Arch. Survey, v.). I pictographic writing might perhaps be borrowed from the Euphrates valley ; but not a single sign taken from the Babylonian system can be found. Egyptian writing bears a thoroughly African stamp, no less than Egyptian art, manners, etc. Recent investigations have revealed many traces of thfe earliest population — that of about the time of the first 44 F’ t th stor i ca l dynasty. 1 The Egyptians _ ' . were more pastoral then than later ; their Dynas les. f ooc ^ th e ir burial customs, and so forth were still barbarous. 2 Already, however, they possessed the art of writing (greatly differing in detail, indeed, from the later system), and, at least at the courts of the kings, most arts were practised (though not as highly developed as in dyn. 3). It is still an open question whether the tomb (not the burning- place) of the first historical king Meny (Menus of the Greeks) has recently been discovered at Nakadeh, 3 near the old city of Nubt (or Nebut, the same name as Ombos), the abode of the god Set (cp § 15 ; fig. 9 shows a tablet found at the same place bearing in archaic writing the word 4 Tombs of a b Fig. 10. — So-called Tablet of Menes. An ivory plate found by De Morgan at Nakadeh : a , from a photograph ; b , outlined from a photograph ( b after L. Borchardt, S itzungsberichte der Berlinischcn Akademie der IVissenscka/tcn , 33 1054/i [’97])- It figures and de- scribes the funereal outfit of the deceased king. eight kings (of about dyn. 1) have been excavated near Abydos (at Umm el-Ga'ab) and the names of several other kings found there. 5 We see now why Man6tho said that dynasty 1 proceeded from This (Egyptian Tini, modern Girgeh?), near Abydos. That would explain the superiority of Upper Egypt over the northern country, perhaps also the spread of the Osiris-worship of Abydos over all Egypt. As regards the unification of Egypt see § 42, although it may be that the later - 1 See (with reserve) De Morgan, Recherches sur les origines de V Egypt e (’96 and ’97). He correctly refers Petrie’s excavations in ‘ Nagada and Balias ’ (’96) here. 2 For example, even the hyaena was fattened and eaten. The cannibalism that some have alleged, however, seems to be only the second burial (J.e., reburial after cleaning the bones of flesh), a practice that is still to be found, eg ., in New Guinea, and is to be connected with the first attempts at embalming. Cutting the dead in pieces in imitation of the fate of Osiris (cp § 14) was also customary during the first dynasties. That several early kings were burned with their whole tomb, although the later Egyptians dreaded nothing more than incineration, is a theory that has not been confirmed. Most of the cities of Egypt go back to this primeval period ; within it, Heliopolis (On) was, evidently, the most important city ; at least, its religious author- ity reached far. 3 De Morgan, Recherches , ii. (’97), and SBA IV, ’97, p. 1054. 4 The word inn seems (so Wiedemann) to designate the tomb, not the king. 5 Am6lineau, Fouilles d Abydos (’96 ff.); more exhaustively, ’09. Quibell’s finds at Hieraconpolis, 1900, Petrie, Royal Tombs. An accurate arrangement and chronological determination of the earliest names of kings is not yet possible ; neither can their names be transliterated with certainty. 1233 I2 34 EGYPT Egyptian scholars, in beginning history with Menes, acted arbitrarily or on unknown grounds, omitting those of Menes’ predecessors whom they were unable to classify. It is not impossible that some of the ancient kings of This precede him. On the tradition that Menes built Memphis, and on the great sphinx near that city, cp Memphis. Of dynasty 2 (six to nine kings) we knew before only that the temple and worship of the kings Sendy (Sethenes in ManStho) and Per-eb-sen are mentioned perhaps a century later. From dynasty 3 (nine kings) we have on monuments (hardly contemporary) the cult of Neb-lca. or Nebkau-re' . King Zoser built the remarkable stepped (i.e., unfinished) pyramid at Sakkarah. (The pyramid as a form of royal tomb does not seem to have been known in dynasties r and 2.) His name bas been found engraved upon the mountains of the Sinaitic peninsula. We may conclude that the copper-mines of the Sinaitic desert, from which the Egyptians drew almost all the copper so neces- sary for tools in the copper age, were already in the hands even of more ancient pharaohs. Later, various stories were carried back to the kings of the first three dynasties ; sacred books were reported to have been written by them, or found by, or under, them ; but all these traditions seem to be apocryphal. The lists of kings drawn up in the fourteenth century B. C. , upon which we have to rely for many names, are mere selections (not trustworthy even for the succession of the names). The whole period of dynasties 1 to 3, therefore, probably included at least 600 years (779, Man&tho), possibly double that time. Thus Menes might be placed near 4000 B.C. Dynasty 4 lies in the full light of history (soon after 3000 B.C.?). King Snefru(i), who founded it, seems . - j. to have been a great ruler. Later ^ ' stories report that he had to fight with Asiatic tribes attacking Egypt near Memphis, where already earlier pharaohs had to build a large fortification, ’the king’s wall,’ against raids through Goshen. Some places founded there by Snefru(i) eonfirm the essentially historical character of these reports. At Wady Magharah in the Sinaitic peninsula, he opened a new mine for copper and greenstone (malachite, which the Egyptians held in strange esteem). His tomb is the irregular pyramid of Meidum. The next kings, the Cheops, Chephren, and Mycerinus of Herodotus (Hufu(i), Ha’f-re\ and Men-ka(u)-re‘ of the monuments), are the builders of the three largest pyramids at Gizeh, stupendous works which were never surpassed (see Memphis). Evidently the strength of Egypt was overtaxed by these gigantic constructions, for the pyramids of all subsequent kings (Ra-ded-f, &epses-ka-f, 1 etc. ) show a considerable falling-off. Dynasty 5 is called Elephantinic by Man&tho. This would indicate that the warlike Nubians, already em- 46 5 th Dvn P lo y ed ^ mercenaries in that early * ’ time, acquired sufficient influence to establish their leaders as kings. 2 This dynasty (nine to eleven kings, reigning about 150 years) marks the zenith of Egyptian art (see above, § 36). The last king ,Unas ( Wenys ; On nos, ManStho), built the earliest of the five pyramids at Sakkarah which have preserved in the in- scriptions on the walls of their burial chambers so valu- able a collection of religious and magical texts (see above, § 20), texts dating in part from prehistoric times, and already in dynasty 5 not all perfectly intelligible. 3 Unas has left, in the so-called Mastabat-el-Far‘aun (Pharaoh's bench), near Sakkarah, the basis of one of those strange colossal 1 The romantic queen Nitocris of Herodotus is legendary. She is a disfigured princess of dynasty 26. 2 The hypothesis that Egypt was ever conquered by Nubians or Trog(l)odytes as a nation cannot be upheld. The soldiery of Egypt, however, was derived mostly from the southernmost counties, where the people, from the mountain range of Silsileh, were of somewhat mixed character (exactly as nowj, and therefore more warlike. 3 Maspero, Les Inscriptions des pyramids s de Saqqarah, 1894 (reprinted from Recucil, 3 to 14), gives these texts along with meritorious attempts at full translations. The grammar of the pyramid-texts remains to be written. Their archaic style has preserved many inflections lost in later Egyptian. 1235 EGYPT monuments of half- pyramidal character 1 which were erected by many of the kings of that time. Their purpose is obscure; we only know that they were, like the obelisks, for tbe cult of tbe Sun-god. Dynasty 6 (five kings, about 140 years, beginning with Tety or A toby) had powerful rulers, especially Pepy .. -n ( read Apopy ?) I. , -t great builder, 47. 6t in uyn. the f ounder of Memphis proper. He waged war, not only with the ’ sand-dwelling ' nomads of the Sinaitic desert, but also in Palestine, which he seems to have been the first (?) to claim as tributary terri- tory. 2 The kingdom, however, was more and more decentralised, and at the end of dynasty 6 went to pieces. It must be mentioned that under Pepy (Apopy) II. Nefer - ka-re (reigning, according to the best traditions, ninety- four years, perhaps the longest reign in the world's history) we find records of a great commercial expedition, a nomarch of Elephantine being sent by the king to the Sudan near Khartum to obtain one of the dwarfs from the woods of Central Africa ’ for the sacred dances. ’ 8 Most kings of dynasties 3-6 (Man£tho calls dynasty 2 as well as dynasty 1 Thinitic, dynasties 3, 4, and 6 Memphitic) had their residences near Memphis, though not at the same place ; many kings built ’ their eity ’ afresh, a work rendered easy by the light material employed. The practice was for each king to build his pyramid west of his own city, in the desert ; it is this alone, in fact, that enables us to guess the site of the city. Gradually Memphis proper became the permanent capital. Dynasties 7 to 11 form an obscure period (only about twenty-five kings known, many more lost), full of the _ struggles of the Nomarchs, the princes 48 . uyns. 7 - 11 . Qf the small counti £ S Dynasties 7 and 8 are called Memphitic, g and 10 came from Heracleopolis in Middle Egypt (see Hanes). These Heracleo- politans had unceasing wars with rival kings in Thebes, whom they seem never to have completely subdued. Manetho mentions only one great king among the Heracleopolitan kings, Achthoes (Egyptian, Hty ; pronounce Ehtoy), whom be describes ascruel — i.e., a powerful warrior. Finally, the Theban rulers from whom the eleventh dynasty descended gained the superiority. Almost all tbese kings, whose number is doubtful (Petrie nine, others five or six) had the name Ante/ or that of Mentuhotep. Of the last kin^ of this dynasty, S'anfc-ka-re , we know' that he sent an expedition through the desert east of Koptos to build a ship on the Red Sea and to sail to Punt for incense. Such ex- peditions to Punt (the Abyssinian and Somali coast of our days) occur under several kings of the next (twelfth) dynasty : the earliest mentioned is one under Assa (Yssy) of dynasty 5. The new line, of seven kings, was founded by Amen- em-het I . , who subdued the rebel nomarchs after hard 10+h H fighting. One of the elassic books, ’the instructions of Amenemhet’ (i.e., in- structions how to rule), 4 professes to have been written by him when, tired of reigning, he abdicated after escaping a conspiracy against his life. His son Usertesen (Wesertesen) I. erected the temple of which the obelisk of Heliopolis is the only trace. He was buried in the pyramid of Lisht. Usertesen II. , who succeeded Amenemhe’t II., built the pyramid of Illahun. His workers inhabited the city on the spot now ealled Kahun, where Petrie found valuable antiquities. 5 Usertesen II. seems to have begun to favour the part of Egypt now called Fa(i)yum — i.e. , ’ the lake,’ in antiquity Rn P /'Wfl to-sei, ‘ the lake-country * — the Arsinoite DO. ra(i;yum. nome Qf the Ptolemies> Xhis is * de- pression in the Libyan desert into which the branch of the Nile now called Bahr- Yusuf flows, forming a lake, now called Birket-Karun, and irrigating one of the most fruitful parts of Egypt (properly an oasis ; see above, 1 f\ A similar monument from dynasty 5 has been found I- — \ near Riga. 2 See the so-called inscription of Una, RPP) 2 1-10. For the reference to Palestine, see WMM, As. n. Eur. 33 . Petrie found in Deshasheh pictures from a similar war, which seem to belong to the same time ( OLZ 1 248). 3 Tomb at Aswan ; inscription first published by Schiaparelli. 4 Best translation, Griffith, ZA , ’97, p. 35 ; JPortd’s Best Lit. 53 | 3 * 5 The collection of the ‘ Petrie or Kahun papyri ’ (ed. Griffith, ’97), to which we bave so often to refer. 1236 EGYPT EGYPT §4). The Nile had been flowing into this depression even in prehistoric times ; 1 but some improvements must have been made in irrigation by the kings of dynasty 12, especially by Amenemket III., who succeeded Usertesen III. At least he is the king Moeris to whom Herodotus erroneously ascribed even the digging (!) of * Lake Moeris’ (thirty-five miles long even now, much more in antiquity); his 'two pyramids’ ( i . e . , large bases), with colossal statues of ‘king Moeris,’ were discovered by Petrie near Biahmu. 2 The pyramid of Amenemhe't III. stands at Hawara, where only insignificant remains betray the site of the labyrinth built by the same king. The classical writers describe it as a gigantic structur e equal to the pyramids of Gizeh. A mcnnnhet 1 1 and a queen Sebk-nofru (or -tiefrow) close this dynasty (194 years, beginning about 2100 B.C.?), 3 which the Egyp- tians, not without justice, considered as the greatest of all. The land was flourishing, art well developed, and literature in its golden age, — at least according to Egyptian taste. Most of the works used as classics in the schools were written while this dynasty reigned (see above, § 21). Many temples and public construc- tions were erected. Conquests were made in Nubia (not in Syria ; 4 only the old copper mines near Sinai were used). All kings were active in subduing Wawat (N. of Nubia) and Kosh (Cush of the Bible, in the S. ) for the sake of the gold mines of that country; Usertesen III. finally fixed his frontier south of the second cataract and fortified it by two large fortresses (now called Semneh and Kummeh) on the two banks of the Nile. For the student of the OT the most interesting monument of this period is the famous wall-painting of Beni Hasan (part of it given in colours in Riehm, HIVBW) which was formerly ex- plained as representing the immigration of Abraham or Jacob (cp Joseph ii., § 8). The inscriptions that accompany the painting inform us, however, that a caravan of ‘37 Asiatics from the desert > < % |2> g ? 0 i 3 W CDi O X * < ^ U (/i S* w ,<"> C Cn < f if > re p- 9 0 •< 3 3 N JL rti fl)i O 5 d O 90 ££££? g- r g: ? §■ ? I & B §' o. a S. d? £ 2 . " " M P- k D w‘ En ►rt O O fCi O *0 T3 « ^ g. a ^ 2> 2 h P 3 crq P 3 - P W |_i vj K d d $ O OJ P cr o d g- 3 & j]> ° If S' 2 8 S- § S §:§ > ~ •?r £ £ if -•> 7 3 ET O to g 1 3 > P o w p n 3 ffl ? S' 3 5 c V) CTo\ 5 E. S » a. a I a . ST OJ *t 9 > > cr cr ^ c o* S’, o oq<* u o O' ^ 9 0 ■< ; a a & & > > ° a 1 & & O c 0 3 & - , 2 ? £- « O 2 = - I iff H I? „ a o o o g § & o o o T 3 13 - 3 o' i-* td td E.& 3- 3'. a cdtsacflcd & «» 5 * S? 1 - S=t* g; S- «->. C? - tO cr & e ^ & s* a « 55 V ft CT 3 | e a ?• - er a § 8 - -sc O <" _ _ dq '-OOP' aw + 3 > £n O' - Bd a *° ?5, w z W O - CD a CD ts td & i.&.& & PI p ^ ^ ^ - » Kf cr o M * cr 6 * 2 . P >• J — w> pi - ^ d 9*1 OJ n p> ^ w ^ n x T* OJ o Ln - 0 9 td ^ pj OJ - r a > > 'o' ffS £ O =• d & - to g: 3 ft a § ■$* ^ K ' >{ g -T’As . tv - S -t Stog" « | | ft ^ *vl - ft ^ •r' >t K o & 5^ fra. K tt K K R W cr 2 & - 2. o r,- 3 §50 5- 3' OJ rlw ft? i 1 ? S' ■ S 9 g> d (!‘ d d d d d a § o' o §■ * -a T) v P O O w * E a* a .0 p> Cfl w - d O S P 1 d- 3 ' ! m n OJ 2 -I era <* wSk ■nsna -i ■= -s ac 2 -a 3 ff (p. c o a a *• •* ■-- — 3 ~ 5 * 5 * ^ 7 V 15 M ^3 o o o- o o k 1 =:• cr a S W V 1 3 * ^ 3 pl re •g* a » f X gi w 3 z r ^ 809 O H to OJ P. 'Si ^ 3 p P o* •CL p P W e cr W 2 ‘ H, o' W 00 a w Pi m p 8 ; ■si 8 § > a >5 ?Si >9 rs- >5 51 ^ I Si- ft - <5 3 JS* a . a o hS Z d re x H O l> W i» a > i a o rei w o Hi ►o H pi cr X CB d r- r. re -re 2 . -re -re re s. -■ X* D 5 P ;^s P - ^ ^ S' S 2 S |5 K P — rr /- ' ^ K 'p VJ I O I re OJ < O H M O K H O p “ 9 9 ? ♦re if, & -—

P P 7* r r L OI OI -pH , PI Si » y> W d ^ ^ Ln (- 1 PC j 51 * - a - ^r L-i ft- 5s> 5 Oq ENCYCLOP/EDIA BIBLICA 1801 12 s-s v s 1 ; 1 , ? ?J k ? S' 75- S '3 =■ W 2 . 3 - d C3 3; » to tr - M ^ O k> k to ^ c. W < S- r f % I £ 2 I 2 ■< s 5 S & 2 .3 © ° EsS s* ^ - =r CD y> — • CD PC Z > r £ cr * X s «► X 5 ? r r r ^ g 5 * * =T O O «■* x r» ■ S; - C £ .c? OJ 3 3 r r at f 5T O 3 ° S. S' Si a n y -o w o p g w 0 o o JL 7 C ‘ 7 C £. -75 75 5i -5 o I-%i «l: 3 n ^ g ») g: 3 " cn p* o H 0 - 75 • 75-0 o - 75 75 Oi O' 3 3 O 2. 3 ' &. O O' 1 75 '- 1 n t/> g 1 3 p. 3 p j ?■ K £. > u> N .— . ^ I 3 « 75 2- S' 75 t« ►-r O P w M X _ o 35 2 . 75 75 5 o' p p p % ■'■ ? H 'O O •75 -75 2 n> a ' g cr a 2 S = O O O X -O 3 55 2 - o' O a W “ 73 7 = c o 5 . | O a> Z ZZZZZ C O O fti jl (t M M m .S' o 3 o' «? j ft 2 P O 73 73 73 2? 2 o 5* «l g* !» • «* i _ 3 3 m? ; § ^ 5J2Z2Z a, S- S- S- S- 55 * C C £o‘ -*■* jj* n> ? * ^ [=3 _ ^ ^ to (/> pj P -5 8 P ^03 - H 5 3 ' U to x x 2 * C to x = _ ^ _ ** ~ -T ' — ‘ 5 . H- - o O ^ Z X X p y •=r p] Oi -sr* a $ ^ I S’ f W C I » f W T N n > a g 51 O •< D3 : O j TJ X 31 c p cr _?r g w ? " a § o ^ £ n> _ ^ p p T D 3 ' . — 5* ^ g ^ x c - I> M X -g W ^ 9 w • ; c c 5 ■ 3. r s ?. 2 r . ^ pi’ 4 . =■ S | 73 55 8 2 p *S i s§ &i ; | -" |o§ 3 n p- -P ■a 1 - a 9 o S Ln 2 2 s g B aq OJ ' |S 2 3 S S N "T p 3—i El - « ' c O D W On | oi r w C D n 2 2 2 3 2 2 ; a 3 5 2 t £ en " o ’ n to D o» /-s oj W . o, g w X X X s g - a £ E? o X X I J 3 g W P* x x X X p P X D. D f to - 0 O M ' £L P c Ul V) p p‘ n P 3 o X ( > • e * 3 W ■3 *9 a> o ol z D W X -i 0 z > 2 o cr z= — < < m S. ft 00 K P £ O 2-2 2 J > £ PI CTO P 1 " ST " ft. fe ~ 2 H • '^W«! £ N - H H H ? 3 S' a S 2 - “ > J » DV ftt r o> g ’ > — 2 O 3 W i w I 3 i Q. 3 - D “ M -a M o- p H H O' O' . D CP D - H «' H H H H makes this view very questionable. It is the opinion of the present writer that any chronological system of the Exodus must, at least, sacrifice Ex. 1 1 1 ( Pithom and Raamses), which might be a gloss, and other details. Attempts to discover the name of Moses (the alleged ' Mesu’ ) in the time of Rameses II. have failed. There are indications that the I sraelitish nation or, at least, some tribes Fjg. i^. — H ead of Meneptah, from bas-relief at Thebes. Lepsius. After - e.g. , Asiier (q.v., § 1)— were resident in Palestine at the beginning of dynasty 19, perhaps earlier (cp Israel, § 2). It must be left to future excavations to determine how far the biblical accounts need a critical revision, and whether the Exodus can be referred to earlier periods. 1 That the JJabiri of the Amarna tablets (under Amenophis III. and IV., see above, § 5Sf) are identical with the immigrating Hebrews does not, however, seem to be satisfactorily proved (cp Israel, § 3). Me(r)neptah had for long to fight hard both with Libyans, who plundered the western part of the Delta, 60. Meneptah, and , with f P irat f ravaged the e •* coasts of Egypt and Syria. Finally these pirates from A sia M inor ( Sakarusa and Luku — i. e . , Lycians) and Europe (Sardena, Akai- wasa and Tur(u)sa — i.e . , Sardinians, Achaeans, and Etruscans,) 2 joined the Libyans and marched against Memphis, in sight of which they met with crushing defeat. 3 The reigns of kings Sethos //., Amen-messe, Meneptah If. or Siptali were short and inglorious. One of them is called a Syrian usurper, which points to his being a royal officer who had originally been a Syrian slave or mercenary. Perhaps the reference is to Meneptah II., who became king by marrying queen T-usoret. After ‘years of anarchy,' dynasty 20 united the country again, under King Setnaht(e) and bis son. Ram(e)ses III. Ram(e)ses III. (somewhat before 1200 B. C. ) cleared the Western Delta of the Libyans, who had settled 61 Ram t * iere * Several attacks were repelled, the III tc Syrian provinces maintained, and the . * ’ territory of the Amorites and of petty cuca 1200. petite kings N. of Palestine ravaged. (The great kingdom of the Hittites had broken up. ) He fought also against the piratical Pulaste or Philistines who had settled in Palestine 4 (in the territory of the Avvim, Dt. 223), and ravaged Phoenicia as well as the Egyptian coasts. Ramses III. sought to imitate also the architectural achieve- ments of Ramses II. during his reign of thirty-two years; but his buildings (especially Mcdlnct Habu in Western Thebes) cannot be compared with those of his predecessor. The kings who followed — Ram(e)ses IV. -XII., the so-called Ramossides — were short-lived and weak rulers (they ruled hardly over eighty years). The Egyptian possessions in Syria were lot. For 400 or 500 years, with small intermissions, Palestine had been tributary to the pharaohs, and Egyptian garrisons had occupied several fortified cities {e.g.. 1 Manetho’s Exodus-narrative is a worthless distortion of the Hebrew account. 2 The dtp of Gen. 10 2 (read DllPi Tur->). They are no- where else mentioned in MX. [Perhaps, however, the name originally stood also in Ezek. 3S2 39 1. See Rosh, 1.] 3 Me(r)neptah's wars with Palestinian revolters do not seem to have been important. The ‘ Israel inscription ' speaks of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yenu'ama. The last mentioned place seems to have been in S. Lebanon (but cp Janoah, 2). There is another new text (R. trait. 17 159), which speaks of him as ‘forcing down Gezer.' This looks as if S. l ales'ine w.is at the head of a rebellion against the Egyptian dominion. 4 See now AIVG, 1900, 1. 1242 EGYPT Zaratuna ; see Zarethan). It must not, however, be assumed that this loose relation influenced the in- habitants of Palestine in any considerable measure. The Egyptians did not often interfere in the continual feuds of the many petty kings. For evidence of this and the unsafe character of the land, see the Amarna letters. A fact of importance for the Exodus question is that the'Apurl, for whom a connection with the Hebrews (nay — nay) has so often been claimed, still appear in great numbers in Egypt under these kings. Under Ram(e)ses III. they inhabited whole towns near Heliopolis — i.e. , at the western opening of Goshen. The last word on this question has, evidently, still to be said, and it is not safe to decide either for or against the Hebrew records. In this period, the paupers of Thebes began systematically to plunder the royal tombs, as is shown by many documents referring to spoliations and the measures taken to repress them. The weakness of the later kings was largely due to the fact that the temples had amassed an unreason- able amount of property by bequests — the high priest of Ainon possessed such a large part of the country, owing chiefly to the liberality of Ram(e)ses III., that he surpassed the pharaoh in wealth. 1 This led finally to the deposition of Ram(e)ses XII. by the high priest Herihor (about i ioo B. C. or somewhat later), who himself assumed the crown. 3 .. t* Herihor, however, 62. Dyn. 21. was • „ Qt ab]e t0 maintain it ; and king Smendes ( Nes-bi-n-dedi ) of Tanis (Zoan, Egyptian Sane) founded a new dynasty, the twenty -first (seven kings, some 130 years), about 1090 n. c. These princes were prudent enough to give the important office of the Theban high priest to their own sons. Nevertheless, the Tanitic dynasty was not strong. By these kings, all that remained of the mummies of the kings of dynasties 18-20 were finally hidden in the hole near Der-el-bahri where they were discovered in 1881 — so powerless were they to protect the royal necropolis. To their prudence we thus owe the preservation of the bodies of Ram(e)ses II. and III., Thut- niosis III., etc. 3 After the time of Ramses III. the immigration of Eibyans began again, and Libyan mercenary troops had now become so numerous that the * generals of the Masawasa’ (a Libyan tribe) came next to the king in power. About 950, one family of Libyan officers had become so influential (also by intermarriage with the high priests of Memphis) that they could venture to 63 Sosenk I P ut 0ne themselves u P on the throne, cit'd 950 * L Til* 5 pharaoh, the con- temporary of Solomon and his son (see Shishak), who reigned at least twenty-one years, was more energetic, and again exercised influence upon Syria. He seems to have assisted Israel against the Philistines, who evident) y still raided the Egyptian coasts (see - K. 9 16 and cp David, § 7); possibly he was the pharaoh (it was hardly his predecessor P-sii-hd-m-ne or Psusennes II.) who gave his ‘daughter’ to Solomon as wife (see, however, Gezer, § 1). A less friendly attitude is shown in 1 K. II 18 (blit see Hadad i.,3; Taiipenes) ; and after the division of 1 For a suppressed ‘rebellion of the high priest’ against Ram(e)>.es IX. or his predecessors, see Spiegelberg, Rec. Trav. EGYPT Solomon’s empire he made an expedition against both Judah and Israel (perhaps to secure the throne to Jeroboam?), an expedition recorded in 1 K. 14 25 and on the monuments of Karnak (see the extract given in Fig. 14). Cp Shishak. It is very doubtful whether the other kings of the n 00 Libyan, or twenty-second, dynasty (from 64. Dyn. 22. ^bastus? 1 ) retained a hold on Palestine. They bear for the most part Libyan names — So§enk (the name of four kings altogether), Osorkon (Wasarken, two or three kings), Tikelo(or e?)ti (Greek Takelothis : two kings), Pemay (one king) — and the whole dynasty seems to have reigned (nominally) about 200 years. On the Zerah of Chronicles cp Zerah, 5. They first mark a tolerably quiet period of Egyptian history ; but about 800 B. C. their dominion began to become weak. The generals commanding the large garrisons of Libyan soldiers in the great cities assumed the role of the ancient nomarchs or counts, and the pharaoh had little power over them. 19 01. 2 The papyrus Golenischeff (WMM u. Eur. 395) reports the adventures of an embassy sent by Herihor to king Zakarba’al of Byblus (to buy ‘ Lebanon wood ’), which visited also Dor, Tyre, and the queen of Cyprus. fSee now Rec. trav. 2 76, MVG , 1900.I 3 On this great find see Maspero, ‘ Les Mommies royale-,,’ 1889, Mim. Miss. Frang. i. pt. 4. Fig. 15.— One line from SoSenk’s list of Palestinian places on a wall of the great temple at Karnak. After Lepsius. The names (nos. 14-31) read thus : — 14 Ta’an(a)ka (Taanach), 15 Shanema (Shunem), 16 Biti-5anra, 17 Ruhaba (Rehob), 18 Hapuruma (Hapharaim), 19 Ad(e)rumam (?), 20 . . ., 21 Shawad(i), 22 Mahan(ai)ma, 23 K(e)ba*ana (Gibeon), 24 Biti-hwarun (Bethhoron), 25 Kad [read Kar]t(e)m (Kiria- thaim), 26 A(i)yulun, 27 Mak(e)do (Megiddo), 28 Adir(u), 29 Yud-h(a)maruk (Y ad- ham- melek ? ; see Shishak), 30 . . ., 31 Ha-'.‘i-n(e)-m. This weakness of the kingdom caused the Ethiopians to attack Egypt. Ethiopia {q.v. ) had been an Egyp- . tian province down to the beginning 6B. Ethiopian of dynasty 2I since that time> owing upremacy. to t ^ e stru ggi e between the secular rulers and the high priests of Thebes, it had become an independent kingdom. The kings of Napata were able to take possession of Thebes. Middle and Lower Egypt were, nominally, under the dominion of dynasty 23, the successors, or rather the contemporaries, of the last members of the twenty-second (Bubastid) 2 dynasty. Really the country was divided among about twenty petty rulers of Libyan descent. About 75o(?) B.c. the Ethiopian king P(i)'anhy tried to subdue them. He met with little resistance from the nominal ruler, Osorkon III. of Bubastus ; but the prince Tefnaht(e) of Sa'is, who had already subjugated central Egypt, was a formidable enemy. He submitted nominally to the Ethiopian, after the latter had taken Memphis ; but the Delta remained in his hands, and Tefnaht(e)'s son Bok- en-renf (Bocchoris of the Greeks) was able to extend his power again southwards. Bocchoris left the reputation of having been a great legislator (cp above, § 28). The new Saitic Dynasty 24 (consisting, in Mangtho, only of 1 Naville, Bubastis, questions their being from this city, p Manetho seems to be wrong in calling them Tanitic. They reigned in Bubastus. His enumeration of four kings must be viewed with suspicion. The third G'a.ju.ju.ous) and the fourth (Zijr ; read Hrjr) seem to be simply the Ethiopians P'anhy and his son KSeta (or Kesta), contemporaneous with dynasty 24. Consequently, only Pedubast (reigning at least nineteen years) and Osorkon III. remain, apparently belonging to a branch of dynasty 22. Their chronological relation to these kings (SoSenk IV.) is not certain. 1243 1244 EGYPT EGYPT Bocehoris), however, was shortlived. The Ethiopian 66 They gathered especially at Alexandria and on the Eastern frontier, in the ancient Goshen. 1 Under Ptolemy VI. they even built at Leon- topolis a great Jewish temple (see Dispersion, § 8). In Alexandria they became strongly Hellenised : hence the Alexandrian version of the Scriptures ; hence too the gnostic tendencies in Judaism. See Alexandria, § 2; Dispersion, §§ 7, 15^ ; Hellenism, § 10; Text. The Ptolemies possessed Palestine from 320 down to 198 B.c. , when Ptolemy V. Epiphanes lost it to Antiochus III., the Great, of Syria, Already his father had defended it against the Syrians with difficulty, and had kept it only by winning the battle of Raphia (216 B.c. ), whilst Ptolemy III. Euergetes had been able to conquer the whole Syrian empire for a short time in 238. The succession is as follows: — Ptolemy I. Soter (323-284). Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (so called because, after the Egyptian custom, he married his own sister Arsinoe), 73 . Ptolemies, to whom the exploration of Eastern Africa was due (285-247). Ptolemy III. Euergetes, the busband of the famous Berenike (a princess of Cyrene), the conqueror among the Ptolemies (247-222). Ptolemy IV. Philopator (222-205) waged war with Antiochus the Great. It was under this dissolute, cruel, and incompetent ruler that the great revolution began. Ptolemy V. Epiphanes came to the throne at the age of five, in 205, under the tutorship of the dissolute Agathocles. After the murder of his guardian by the Alexandrian mob, other generals held the post. 2 The Asiatic rovinces were all lost, although Ptolemy retained their revenue y marrying Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus III., the I Great, of Syria. After subjugating the rebellious Egyptians, Ptolemy became more and more dissolute ; be was poisoned while preparing war against the Syrians. Ptolemy VII. 3 Philometor (181-146) was a nobler personality, but unfortunate. Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, of Syria, took him captive at Pelusium, and would have conquered Egypt had it not been for the brusque intervention of the Romans (171). Ptolemy Philo- metor had to accept as co-regent his younger brother (Euergetes, ironically called Kakergetes or Physcon), by whom he was exiled in 163 ; the Romans, however, brought him back. The ambitious Euergetes became the ruler of Cyrene. After the death of his brother Philometor (killed while intervening in the struggles of Syrian princes) and after tbe short reign of Ptolemy VIII. Neos Philopator, the restless Euergetes came back to Egypt as king. In 1 30, however, he was expelled, and his wife Cleopatra (widow and sister of Philometor) assumed the supreme power. In 127 Euergetes (Ptol. IX.) returned from Cyprus. After his death (117) ensued a long period of ceaseless struggle, which strengthened tbe influence of Rome. Ptolemy X. Soter II. ruled from 117-81, his brother Ptol. XI. Alexander I. (against him) 106-S8, Ptol. XII. Alexander II. 81-80, Ptol. XIII. Neos Dionysos (or Auletes) 80-51. The history of all these rulers is complicated and repulsive. The famous Cleopatra ruled first with her brother Ptol. XIV. under the guardianship of the Roman senate ; ex- pelled by Ptolemy in 48, she was brought hack by Caesar in 47. Her younger brother Ptol. XV. , co-regent 47-45, was murdered by her, and Ptol. XVI. Cajsarion, her son by Caesar, hecame her nominal co-regent. For ten years (41-31) she captivated the Roman triumvir Antony, and thus maintained her kingdom as a typical Ptolemaic ruler, not less able than wicked. 74 . Rome. The sea-fight at Actium and Cleopatra’s tragic death brought Egypt’s independence to an end. It nnwbecame a Roman province under prefects (crrpaTTjy 01), and its history 4 is devoid of interest, till the Arab conquest in 640 a.d. (preceded hy a Persian conquest in 619-629). Many, but insig- nificant, rehellions (one as early as 30-29 B.C.), chiefly directed against the excessive taxation, could be enumerated. On the popularity of Egyptian religion in Western countries, see § 14. On the introduction and progress of Christianity, and on the Egyptian or Coptic versions of the Bible, see Text. In 62 Annianus was bishop of Alexandria (Mark was the legendary first bishop). The last remnants of heathenism were suppressed by Justinian (527-565) on the island of Philm, where the rapacious Ethiopian barbarians (the Blemmyans and Nobates) had maintained the worship of Isis. W. M. M. 1 On Jewish settlers in the Fayum and the Thebaid, see Mahaffy, 86 ; on Samaritans, 178 ; on their infrequency in Memphis, 358. 2 The alleged guardianship of the Roman senate does not seem to be a historical fact. 3 Here Ptolemy Eupator is inserted as sixth king in official documents. He does not seem to have reigned. 4 Compare J. G. Milne in Petrie, Hist. v. (’98 ; very readable). 1248 EKRON EGYPT, RIVER OP EGYPT, RIVER OF. The 'Wady (or 'Torrent') of Mizraim’ (D’HVp ; AV River, or [Is. 27 12] 1. Identification. „ OF , E «" T ' RV BROOK f of Egypt ; but both versions of are misleading), or simply 'the Wady' (nbqa, with H; of direction ; AV River ; RV Brook), Ezek. 47i9 4828 (see RV, and cp Toy, 'Ezekiel,' SBOT), is frequently mentioned as marking the boundary of Canaan towards the SW. See Josh. 15 4 [P] ^apayyos aiyuTrrov [BAL] ; 15 47 \eipidppov aly. [BAL]; Nu. 34 5 % [P] -ppov aty. [A], -ppovv aiy. [BFL]; 1 lv. 865 etas irorap. ov aly. [BA], e. opiov rror. aiy. [L] ; 2 K. 247 airo row \etp.appov [BAL] ; 2 Ch. 7 8 etas x* [BAL] ; Is. 27i2 etas pivoKopovpu>v [BbRAQF]. The identification suggested by (J> 1 in the last-cited passage and adopted by Saadiah in his version of Isaiah is manifestly correct. The Wady of Egypt is not the H’Ji/r Ghazsa (the ‘ torrens iEgypti ’ of William of Tyre, and perhaps Milton’s ' stream that parts Egypt from Syrian ground’) but the I Vddy cl-Arlsh, which with its deep water-course (only filled after heavy rains) starts from about the centre of the Sinaitic peninsula (near the Jebel et-Tlh), and after running N. and NW. finally reaches the sea at the Egyptian fort and town of el-'Arlsh. Here, in late classical times, was an emporium of Nabataean traffic, to which the name Rhinocorura or Rhinocolura was given. Here, too, travellers halted on the route from Gaza to Pelusium. Titus rested here on his way to Jerusalem (Jos. BJ iv. 11 5) and as late as tbe fourteenth century A. D. the place was much visited by travellers (Ibn Batuta). Owing to the fact that as the boundary of Egypt and Canaan we find in two OT passages (Josh. 133 * Ch. 13 5 ; see Shihor of Egypt) an arm of the Nile (the Pelusiac), and in a third passage (Gen. 15 18) the 'river (m3) of Egypt' (which surely must mean the Wady el-ArFsh), some (following Abul- feda, Descr. AZg., ed. Michaelis, 1776, p. 34, no. 68) 2 have supposed that the Wady el- A risk was taken for an intermittent channel of the Nile (cp Jer. on Am. 61 ; Reland, Pal. 285/ 969^). Niebuhr the traveller, on the other hand, seeks the Torrent of Egypt in the largest of three small streams that run into the Mediterranean from the large lake ( bakeire ) which, he says, extended from Damietta eastwards towards Gaza (Descr. de V Arable, 360^). All this speculation is need- less. If a stream in the neighbourhood of el- A risk is referred to, it can only be the wild torrent-stream that in December suddenly covers the banks of the Wady el- *Ar!sh with verdure (cp Haynes, Palmer Search-expedi- tion, 262), which could never have been confounded with a channel of tbe Nile (so also Ebers). As for the expression ‘the river of Mizraim' (*d m3) in Gen. 15 18, either the original reading was Sru ‘ wady, torrent ' (Lagarde, Ball), which was altered into m3. ‘ river (of ),' by an idealistic editor, who placed the SW. boundary of Canaan at the Nile, or else, if Winckler's inference 3 from a Minasan inscription (Hal. 535) is correct, m3 was applied in N. Arabia and its Palestinian neighbour- hood to the Wady el-'Arish, which historically at any rate was not undeserving of the name. The latter view seems preferable. It seems to derive support from Gen. 3637 Nu. 22s when emended (see Rehoboth, Pethor). We have still to account for the name ( ‘ The Wady [or Torrent] of Mizraim'). The ordinary explanation „ makes it equivalent to ’ the wady which ame. p arts c anaan from Egypt.' At the mouth of the wady lay an Egyptian fortress, which might seem to neutralise -the fact that the wady belongs geographic- ally to N. Arabia. That this explanation was prevalent 1 Cp Epiphan. H&r. 2 83, Pi vonopovpa yap epp.7]veveTai NeeA (W 2 See Ritter, Erdkunde, xiv. 3141^ ; Guerin, Judde , 2 240 240. 3 A OF 1 36 337 ; GI 1 174, n. 2. 1249 in later Jewish times is certain ; but does it correctly represent the original meaning of that phrase? This question cannot be answered without considering the Assyriological data. That the nafyal Musur of inscrip- tions of Sargon and Esarhaddon 1 means, not the Egyptian wady, but the wady which runs through the N. Arabian land of Musri, seems to us beyond doubt, unless, indeed, it can be shown that the extended use of the term Musri or Musur had gone out in that king’s time. To assert this, however, would be entirely contrary to the evidence. ' Mizraim ’ should rather be ' Mizrim’. The land of Musri or Musur in N. Arabia was repeatedly referred to by the OT writers ; but the references were misunderstood by the later scribes. See Mizraim, § 2 ( b ). t. i^. c.— s. c. EHI ('HX; Arxeic [BA], -eiN [D], Aa.XClC [L]), in the genealogy of Benjamin (Gen. 462if) ; see Ahieam, i, and Benjamin, § 9, i. 1 Ch. 86 has “i-inx, Ehud, ii. EHUD pwx, ACoA [BAL]), a Benjamite name, which, according to We. ( GGN , 1893, p. 480; cp Gray, HPN , 26, n. 4) is from H.V3K Abihud (also Benjamite). Probably *HiVK should be read ; cp Pesh. 'ihur 1 Ch. 7 10 ; ’ abihur , ib. 86 and -itjtk for -iTJTSR x. b. Gera [^.z».], a Benjamite, the champion of Israel against Moab (Judg. 3 12-30 ; avojd [superscr. v] B a - b in 330 4i). The story is thoroughly archaic in tone, and is a popular tradition (so Moore, Bu. ). It tells how Ehud, with a sword concealed under his garment, came bearing tribute to Eglon, king of Moab, at his residence E. of the Jordan, and sought a private audience. Being left-handed he was able to get hold of his sword without exciting the king's suspicions. In this way he quickly wrought Israel's vengeance, and made good his escape. Fleeing by way of Gilgal and the pillars there (see Quarries) he called the Israelites to arms and, by seizing the Jordan fords, cut off the retreat of the Moabites on the W. of the river, and slew them every one. See Eglon. The historicity of the narrative was questioned in i860 by N5. ( Untersuch . 179), mainly on the ground that both Equd and Gera are clan-names (cp 2, below). More recently, Wi. ( Gcsch . 1 158) bas drawn attention to the improbability of a Benjamite having been tribute-bearer for Ephraim, and points out that there is little to support the existence of Benjamin before the time of Saul. But the mention of Ehud's origin is due, it would seem, to R D (so Moore, SB 07 ), and may very probably be a later trait. That the kernel of the story itself is not homogeneous has been shown by Wi. ( Alttest . Vnt. 55 _^".) ; a satisfactory analysis has yet to be made. Cp Benjamin, § 4. 2. b. Bilhan, in a genealogy of Benjamin ( q.v . § 9 ii. a) 1 Ch. 7 10 (ata0 [BL], ap.ei 8 [A], 'ihur [Pesh.]). EHUD p-inx, [BL], 0 oA [A] ; .4^^ [Pesh.]), in genealogy of Benjamin (1 Ch. 86+). Gen. 462 has Ehi, on which see Ahiram, and Benjamin, § 9, i. The name is doubtless the same as nnx (see above). EKER the pointing is uncertain ; Pesh. reads o in the first syllable ; akop [BA], iK<\p [L]), ben Ram, a Jerahmeelite (1 Ch. 227). EKREBEL(erpeBH\[B]), Judith 7 i8f. SeeAKRA- battine (end). * EKRON (fnpW; AKKApcoN [BAL]; so Jos. also <\(k)kaPO)N ; these [cp the Assyr.] suggest the pro- nunciation p*ijm 'Akkaron). The gentilic is Ekronite pVljJJjn) : Josh. 13 3 (a»c»capjs [BAL]), 1 Sam. 5 10 (oaxaAiai/[e]mj? [BAL] ; see below, § 2). Ekron, the most northerly of the five cities of the Philistines, was first identified by Robinson with the modern 'Akir, in 3i°5i.s' N. lat., 4^ m. E. 1. bite. f rom Yebna (Jabneel, i) and 9 m. from the sea ; in a pass which breaks the low hills that form the northern boundary of the Philistine plain ( PEF map, Sh. xvi. ). Its position, inland, and not on the trunk, but on a branch, of the great line of traffic northwards, is probably the explanation of the fact that its name 1 See Del. Par. 310; Wi .Musri, Meluhlja, Ala' in ['98], 5 /. 1250 EKRON is found in the early Egyptian records of conquest and travel only once ( Lists of Thotmes III. RP$\ 5 50) as Aqar. Not 25 m. from Jerusalem as the crow flies, it lay nearer Israel than did any of its sister towns ; but, though it was assigned to Judah, 1 with its towns and villages from Ekron to the sea’ (Josh. 15 45/. [PJ), and again to Dan (ib. 19 43 [P]), we find (lb. 13 a [D, but probably from older sources]) ‘ all the regions of the Philistines as far as the north border of Ekron which is counted to the Canaanite ' specified as part of the ‘ much land ' that still remained to be possessed after the conquest, and this last representation best accords with all the known facts. Like her sisters Ekron possessed, along with a market, the shrine and oracle of a deity — Baalzebub ( q . v . ), 2 Hist 2 K. I2. In 1 S. 5 10 612 f. 16 it is said that from Ekron the ark was returned to the Israelites by the level road up the Vale of Sorek to Beth-shemesh, not 12 m. distant. <*5 BL , however, in this passage reads AcrKaXtov in each case for Ekron (cp 617 and see Dr., H. P.Sm. , ad loc.). Padi, king of Ekron, remained aloof from the general revolt of Philistia in 704 b.C. against Sennacherib, whose prism-inscription gives the name as Am-kar-ru-na. Padi's subjects delivered him to Hezekiah ; but Sennacherib in 701 restored him to his throne. The next notices of the town are by Esar-haddon (KA Tffl, 164) and Asur-bani-pal (Del., Par. 289) ; and the next (apart from the general history of Philistia, Jer. 2520 Zeph. 24) not till 1 Macc. 108g (cp Jos. Ant. xiii. 44), where it is said to have been given in 147 b.c. by King Alexander Balas to Jonathan the Maccabee for services against Apollonius the general of Demetrius II. , an incident supposed by some, but on insufficient grounds, to be referred to in Zech. 9 5-7 (see, however, Zechariah, Book of). After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans Jews settled in Ekron. See OS (91 6 21S 57) where it is spoken of as a large (‘grandis,’ p.eyLeen a ^ reat ^y mentioned, states in the same inscription that as a punishment for Hezekiah's revolt he cut off parts of his territory and gave them to certain Philistine kings, one of whom was the king of Ekron. This statement has been taken by M'Curdy to refer to certain towns and villages originally Philistine which Uzziah had taken from the Philistines (as the Chronicler probably means to assert in 2 Ch. 266), which Ahaz had lost (2 Ch. 28 18) and which, as I we may infer from 2 K. 188 were retaken by Hezekiah. I The earlier statement respecting the surrender of Padi implies, according to the same scholar, that Hezekiah was recognised by the people of Ekron as their suzerain j (Expos., 1891 b, 389/). So much at least appears to be highly probable, — that in the early part of the reign 1 of Hezekiah the king of Ekron was a vassal of the king of Judah, and that he regained his independence only through the humiliation inflicted on Hezekiah by Sen- nacherib. Hezekiah, however, might console himself by the reflection that Ekron had been captured by the Assyrians and Jerusalem had not. In the reigns of Esarhaddon and Asur-bani-pal we hear of a king of Ekron called Ikausu (with which \VMM compares the name Achish), or Ikasamsu, who elah 5 valley of paid tribute to the great king (COT 2 +i KB 2 149 240). Soon after this a Hebrew prophet declares that Ekron 'shall be rooted up,' suggesting an etymology natural from an Israelite point of view, names being taken as prophetic of the fortunes of their bearers. The modern name ’Akir suggests the far more probable meaning ‘sterile’ (so Guthe ; cp Ar. ' akara , Heb. *dkdr). The dreary nature of the plain close to Ekron may serve to account for the name. G. A. S. , § 1/ ; T. K. C. , § 3. EL (^>X), ELOHIM (D'rfoc). See Names, § n 4/- ELA. 1. (X^X) 1 K. 4 18 RV, AV Elah, {q.v. 6). 2 (rjAa [BA]) i Esd. 9 27; = Ezra 10 26 Elam ii.,i. ELADAH, RV Eleadah (iTJl/pX § 35 ; Kd . d . Kd . [B], €A€aAa [a], -A [L]), a clan-name in a genealogy of Ephraim ( q.v . i. , § 12) individualised (1 Ch. 720). On the story of an ancient border contest in which Eladah fell, see Beriah, *. Other forms of the name are found : Elead, v. 21 (*iySjK ; om. B, eAeaS [A], Aaa5 [L]) and Ladan v. 26 RV (f^l^, for I \a&&av [B], yaAaaSa [A], \a8au [L]) ; Cp also Eran, Ezer ii., 3. See further, Ephraim i., § 12. ELAH (ilbx, and i K. 4iS an abbreviation of some, name beginning with 2 K ; § 51 ; hAth(i K. 926 2 K. 10 6 ; see Elath). See Di. Gen., ad loc., and Tuch, ZD MG 1 170. 2. Son of Baasha, king of Israel in Tirzah. After little more than a year he was killed by Zimri ; his armed men and captains were busied at the time in the siege of Gibbethon, a Philistine city: 1 K. 106 8 137C (rjAaap [B v. 6] Jos. Ant. viii. 124). 3. Father of Hcshea, king of Israel (2 K. 1530 17 1 18 1 9). 4. A son of Caleb (q.v.) : 1 Ch. 415 bis (aA a [A], a&at, aSa [ B]). See Kenaz. 5. b. Uzzi in list of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii. § 5 [l>] § 15 [1] a ), 1 Ch. 98 (om. B. rjAa [A], rjAav [Lj) ; not mentioned in || Neh. 11. 6. Father of Shimei [3] (1 K. 4 18 RV Ela). His name should be restored in 2 S. 23 11 in place of the MT reading KiK (see Agee), and possibly also in v. 33 for Shammah. Cp the ingenious discussion in Marq. (Fund. 20/.). ELAH, VALLEY OF (n^XH p»I?, 'Valley of the Terebinth,' cp AL ), the scene of the combat between David and Goliath (1 S. 172), and of the rout of the Philistines (21 9 [10]). (P’s readings are : in 1 S. 17 2, ev rrj xoiAaSi avroi 1 [BA], n?s 8 pvojA.a.0ot>s, ed. Niese), Elath in former times was called Berenice. Tbe ordinary editions, it will be noticed, refer this remark to Ezion- geber, which is less suitable. ( K.ue. Hex. 247 f. ). The names Eldad and Medad (which perhaps do not belong to the original narrative) were probably selected from a store of old traditional names for the sake of assonance (cp Bera, Birsha ; Jabal, Jubal, etc). It is not at all certain that the names are almost identical. See Apocrypha, § 23. In its present form the prominent feature of the story is that these two men (alone of the seventy elders) for some unknown reason remained behind, and prophesied without going into the tent. Moses' answer shows clearly that the real point is that prophecy is not to be restricted to the few. In v. 26 the words nSnstn IKS* ilDill are probably a gloss. 1 A late scribe took exception to the idea that the power of prophecy could be given to anyone outside the seventy elect, and so in- serted the gloss with the above effect. The inclusion of Eldad and Medad among 4 those that were written down' does not seem, therefore, to belong to the original form of the story. ELDERS (DOpJ), Ex. 3 16. See Government, §§ 16, 19; Law and Justice, § 8 ; and (for the Christian eldership) Presbyter. ELEAD (1l/?N), i Ch. 7 21. See Eladah. ELEADAH (iTH? < ?N), 1 Ch. 7 20 RV, AV Eladah. ELEALEH (nW?N, and Nu. 32 37. ' God is high’; eAe&AH [BNAL]), a Moabite town always associated with Heshbon (Is. 154 1 6 9 , eA«\AHC6N [B ab AQ cp Sw. ad loc.~\ ; Jer. 4834 om. BN, eAe<\AH [AQ]), and assigned in Nu. 323 37 to the Reubenites. Eusebius (OSW 25 3 33) places it 1 R. m. N. from Heshbon. Probably Elealeh should be restored for the questionable D'Vn iNlnl in Is. 15 8. To invent a place-name Erelayim (Perles, Marti) is imprudent. It is quite true, however, that the initial 3 ought to be the preposition. Elealeh seems to be the modern el- Al ( ' the lofty '), an isolated hill, with ruins, ^ hr. NNE. of Heshbon. See SEP 1 16-19 ; Tristr. Moab, 339 /. ; Bad.( 3 ) 174. T. K. c. ELEASA, RVElasa (aAaca [A], eV [NV] ; Elesa [It.], Laisa [Vg.]), an unknown locality in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, where Judas the Maccabee encamped before the encounter which resulted in his defeat and death (1 Macc. 9s). Josephus {Ant. xii. 11 1) places Judas’s camp in Berzetho (the readings vary: fydu}, fttpfr 70co, /3a/>. and /3? jp.); but this may be in error for the Syrian camp which (1 Macc. 94) was at Berea [i] (Syr. Birath). A suggested identification is Kh. Il'asa between the Beth-horons {PEFM 3 115). Reland, however, suggests Adasa {q.v. ). ELEASAH (MK) i Ch. 2 39/ 837 EV. See Elasah, 3, 4. ELEAZAR cWpK. ’ God has helped ' §§ 23, 28, 84 ; eAeAZ&p [BAFL] ; cp Eliezer, Lazarus, and Phcen.' etc. , Sin. etc. ). Both Eleazar and Eliezer are very common names, especially in post- exilic times and in lists of priests ; with regard to the authenticity of the latter see Ezra i. §§ 1, 2, 5 end ; ii. §§ IS (1) <*■ 13 g- 1. The third son of Aaron and Elisheba (Ex. 623 [P]) is mentioned often in P, but only twice in JE, according to Driver — viz., in Dt. 106 and Josh. 24 33. 2 What we learn of him is to this effect. He discharged priestly functions together with Aaron and his brothers Nadab, Abihu, and Ithamar (Ex. 28 1), and after the two elder brothers had died childless Ithamar and he were left to carry on the duties alone (Nu. 34), Eleazar himself becoming the ' prince of the princes of the Levites ’ and superintending those that had the charge of looking after the sanctuary (Nu. 332 ; cp 1637^ [172^] 193 f). His special duty with respect to the 1 Q'innsn applied to persons is a late expression, and the words nVnN.l INS' ttSl are omitted in H-P 16, 52. 73, 77 and in the first hand of 131. 2 From Dt. 106 Di. and Dr. infer that JE, as well as P, knows of Aaron as a priest, and of Eleazar as Aaron’s successor. Robertson Smith, however, bolds ( OTJCK 2 ), 405, n. 2) that Dt 1256 1255 ELEAZAR ELEMENTS things necessary for the sanctuary and its service is de- tailed in Nu. 4 16. Shortly before Aaron’s death he was invested on Mt. Hor with his father’s garments of authority (Nu. 2O25/: ; cp Dt. 106 [D]). He now appears as Moses' eoadjutor, taking the place of Aaron ; together they took the census of the people (Nu. 2663), and divided the spoil of the Midianites (Nu. 31 ). It was to them that the daughters of Zelophehad came to sue for an inheritance (Nu.27ijf. ), and the b’ne Reuben and b’ne Gad for a pasture-land for their flocks (Nu. 322 ff . ). 1 The charge was given to Joshua in the presence of Eleazar, who was * to inquire for him by the judgment of Urim before Yahwe ’ (Nu. 27 ^ ff . ) ; just as his son 'Phinehas is said to have done, previous to the assault on Gibeah (Judg. 20 28). 2 Henceforth in the accounts of the dividing of the land etc. Eleazar is mentioned before Joshua (Nu. 32 28 34 17 Josh. 14 x 174l95i21i). 3 At his death he was buried at Gibeah of Phinehas (Josh. 2433 [E]), which had been given to his son in Nit. Ephraim. He married * one of the daughters of Putiel ' (Ex. 625), and the priesthood is said to have remained in his family till the time of Eli, and again from Zadok till the time of the Maccabees — state- ments which need a strictly critical examination. See Zadok, ±. s. a. c. .i. Son of Abinadab, temp. Samuel. According to a comparatively late story the ark was deposited for twenty years in the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim under the guardianship of his son Eleazar (1 S. 7 if). Eleazar in this ’ idealisation ' of history is intended as a contrast to that other son of Abinadab (Uzza) who proved wanting in the reverence essential to a minister 1 of the ark (2 S. 636). His name is probably meant to suggest this contrast. Observe that Eleazar was | specially ' sanctified ’ for his functions. See Akk, § 5. • T. k. c. 3. b. Dodo the Ahohite (iCh. II12), or b. Dodai b. Ahohi (2 S. 239 ; but see Ahohite [2]), one of David’s ’ three ' heroes. His great exploit (which was in the valley of ’ Rephaim : see Pas-dammim) is recorded in 2 S. 239/. (® B , however, has eXeavav) and 1 Ch. 11 13/ In both passages the text has to be emended ; but there is much difference among critics (cp Klo. , Marq. Fund. 16, and H. P. Smith). The name of Eleazar does not appear in 1 Ch. 274, though we expect to find him, not Dodai, in high command in David’s army. Compare, however, Dodai, and note that an Eliezer b. Dodavahu occurs in 2Ch.2(>37. See Eliezer (3). 4. A Merarite : x Ch. 2321 f (eXi a£ap v. 21 [A]) 24 28. 5. 1 Esd. 8 43 = Ezra 8 16, Eliezer [10]. 6. In Ezra 8 33 an Eleazar, son of Phinehas, is mentioned as superintending the weighing out of gold and silver in the temple: 1 Esd. 863 and (om. BN*A, but eheatap N c ' a m £* L) Neh. 12 4 2. 7. A priest in the list of those with foreign wives (see Ezra i., § 5 end), 1 Esd. 1*19 (eAeafapos [BA])— Ezra IO18, Eliezer (7). 8 . An Israelite (i.e., a layman), son of Parosh : Ezral025 x Esd. 926. 9. The fourth son of Mattathias (1 Macc. 2 5), who bore the surname Avaran (cp Auranus). 4 According to 2 Macc. 823^ 10 6d (the words after ‘ Moserah ’) is plainly a late and unauthor- ised gloss *, he refers to v. 8, where the institution of the Levitical priesthood is assigned to a later stage of the wanderings. 'It is of Eliezer that rjfW rraHhion as a s on. howj v^rT [ nofbf Aaron*, but [toget her with Gersho m) ot Moses. Tn fact, in JE, Mose;* has riTe~'prior claim to the priestly office, "and in J Aaron originally is not mentioned at all. In the genealogies of P even, one main branch of the tribe of Levi is still called Gershom, and another important member is called Mushi — i.e., the Mosaite (see We. Prol . ( 4 ) 1.38 f, ET 142 f). 1 32 1-17 is of composite origin. How much belongs to P (more precisely P2) is disputed ; but the mention of * Eleazar the priest 1 beyond question comes from this source (see Dr., Intr. 64 ; Holzinger, Mini., * Tabellen,’ 10). 2 Judg. 20 in its present form is post-exilic, and w. 27 b, 28a are no doubt glosses (see Moore, Judges , 434 ; Kue. Enil. § 20, n. 10). 3 All in P ; in JE on the contrary Josbua is always represented as acting alone ; cp 146 17 14 etc. 4 <& [ANV] avapav, Jos. (Ant. xii. 6 1) avpav, apav and afiapav Syr* pin* In 643 (55 gives rd CTotxtiov (Plat. Crat. 426 D), the alphabet is id < TTotxdia , and ’ alphabetical ’ is Kara gtolx^ov. This concrete meaning explains the metonymy by which the plural is so frequently used to denote the beginnings, rudiments, or ’elements’ of a science or art — the ABC as we say; cp the by-name Abecedarians given to a group of Anabaptists at the Reformation, and see the Oxford Engl. Diet., s.v. It is enough to recall the title of Euclid’s work (crTOix c «*) on the Elements of Geometry. Many other examples are to be found in the Lexicons. In this sense the word is met with only once in the Bible, ’ ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God (rd ctoix^cl tt)s &PXV* T & v 'Koylwv tov &eov),’ Heb. 5 12, where the words rijs a pxv$ intensify the idea, ’ the be- ginnings of the elements. ’ 2 (d) Shadow of the sundial ( e.g Aristoph. Reel. 652 : 6rav rj 5€K&7rovv t 6 ? Ta Aoi7rd 7 rvev/xara). The first calls himself the ’ first decan of the zodiac circle ’ (7rpwro? Sexavo? rot; £w8iokov kvkAov ; Fleck, 129 f). Plainly stoicheion here is absolutely synonymous with ‘god’ and ' spirit,’ and we are here dealing, in part, with star-gods. Further, the usage of writers of the Byzantine period has to be noticed. Sophocles (Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods, memorial edition, 1888, p. 1012) gives under cttoix^ov ‘geniiiSj’ ‘the spirit guarding a particular place or person,' also ‘talisman, Theoph. Cont. 379 14, Leo Gram. 287, Anon. Byz. 1209 C. Cp the same Lexicon also, s.w. o-roixetoAdTpij?, o-roixeiow (‘to perform talismanic operations upon anything ’), o-roixeuojLiaTiKos (’ talismanic ’), o-roixeiWi? (’ the performing of talismanic opera- tions upon anything ’), and o-roix«iumKo? (‘ talismanic ’). Most instructive of all, however, is the usage of modern popular Greek. The ordinary name by which the local tutelary spirits are designated in modern Greece is crroi^eio (to) — i.c., o-to«.x« 5W, ‘element .’ 4 Skarlatos, A c£ikov . . ., gives the meaning xar 01 - KiSta Satpiovia 77 (ftavraapiaTa ’ (/A). Alt sorts of oToixeia occur ; the of the threshing-floor, the rock, the river, the bridge, and so on (id. 187-9); oroide uo/xeVo? may mean ‘one under the protection of a o-roiyeto ’ (id. 196J. This employment of the word for ‘ tutelary spirit’ is a specialisation of the more general meaning of ’ spirit,’ and speaks for the relative antiquity of the latter use ; in the ideas and vocabulary of the common people, as Jacob Grimm among others has shown, the conception of a remote antiquity will often be found to survive. Here then is the historical line of progression from the original meaning of the word to that of tutelary spirit : member of a series, element, elemental deity, deity (demon, spirit), tutelary deity. In Gal. 43, where Paul says : ' . . so we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the ele- 2 Gal 4 m ^nts of the world ’ [bird ra arot^eta tov Col 2820 K ^°’f l0V )> an d v - 9« where he says, ' But (and 2 Pet now l ^ at ^ ave come to ^ n °w God, . . ' 3 IO * h° w turn ye back again to the weak 10 *'* and beggarly elements (eirl ra dadevr) Kal TTTcoxd aroixeta) whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again,’ aroix^o. is taken by most interpreters as meaning 'rudiments’ (so RV) in the sense indicated above (i a) ; Paul is supposed to mean the crude first beginnings of religion in those who belong to the /c6a/xos. Others, however, start from the meaning given in § i c and take Paul to be speaking of the elements of the world, ’ world ’ being here taken in its well-known ethical sense ; kosmos is the central idea ; ’ under the elements of the world ’ (i/ 7 tA ra aroix^a tov Kbap.ov) 1 Dieterich (Abraxas, 61) holds that in Wisd. 717 (see above) ‘ demon ’ is a possible rendering as well as ‘ element ’ ; this, how- ever, is not probable, the 7rveuntaTa (not ‘winds’ but ’spirits’) being named in v. 20. 2 Ztschr. fur die hist. Tkcol., 1844, Hft. 3, 15. An edition and discussion of this hitherto much-neglected writing would be very welcome and, in view of recent discoveries in the field of oriental Greek magic, most opportune. 3 F. F. Flecki Anecdota(Lzipsic, 1837)= F. F. Fleck, Wissen - schaftliche Reise durch das siidl. Deutschland , Italien , Sic Men, Frankreick, 23. 4 Bernh. Schmidt, Das V olksleben der N eugriechen u. das hellenische Altertkum , 1 183 (’71). For the history of the word Schmidt refers to Korais, v Ara xra, iii. 2 549. 1260 ELEMENTS ELEPHANT is merely an amplification for * under the world ' (virb rbv k6jAeAa 0 [A], k. veAaeAcuf) [L], to which apparently corresponds B's aebrjicav (variants from H-P are cnjSaAeAe^) o-TfAdAe/i., vc AaAax. ve<£aAe 0 xeAaeAe^) ; Pesh. has NV 31 , perhaps punctuating as 4 a chieftain ' ? Before 4 identifying,' it would have been well to examine the text. The two names before 'Jebus' in (S H are xcu (re’KrjK av kcu OaperjXa — i.e. nStnm ; Kap is a duplication of xat ; aeXrj corresponds to Zela and Taralah therefore answer in (S B to Zelah and Ha-eleph in MT. Ha-eleph (which is an impossible name) must be a corruption of Tar'alah or rather (see Taralah) of Irpeel (^kdv); eomes straight from Vnd- t. k. c. ELEPHANT (eAec^Ac)- The w r ord ' elephant ' occurs, outside the Apocrypha, only in the AV m e- of Job 40 15 „ . for Behemoth [q.v. , § i] and in the references AVm * of 1 K ’ 10z2 2 Ch ‘ 921 <‘ ele ' reierences. phant . s teet h') for Ivory [q.v.\ It is an elephant of the Indian species that appears on the Black Obelisk (see below) ; but the African elephant also was no doubt known. The two species, Elephas indicus ( maximus ) and E. afri- canus y together with such fossil forms as the Mammoth (name probably from Behemoth), 1 the Mastodon, and others, consti- tute the Mammalian order Proboscidea. The Indian elephant is now found, in a state of nature, in India, Burmah, the Malay Peninsula, Assam, Cochin China, Ceylon, and Sumatra, frequent- ing the wooded districts ; its African congener lives throughout Africa south of the Sahara desert, but is retreating before the approach of civilised man. In Pleistocene times it spread as far north as Europe. The Indian species has been domesticated since pre- historic times and is still largely used in the service of man. The male alone as a rule has tusks. The African elephant is, in the male, larger than the Indian, the ear-flaps and the eyes are larger and the forehead more convex, there are two finger- like processes on the trunk instead of one, and the pattern on the teeth is different ; both sexes have tusks. In temper this species is usually fiercer and the animal is undoubtedly more powerful and active than its Indian relative. It is certain that elephants were known to the old inhabitants of Egypt and Assyria, by whom they were sometimes hunted for the sake of their ivory and their hides {KB 139, Tiglath-pileser I. ; As. u. Eur. 263, Thotmes III. ; Houghton, TSBA 8123^). There is an elephant among the animals figured on the Black Obelisk 2 of Shalmaneser II. (858-824). Of course there may have been more than one elephant in the tribute from the land of Musri ; but one was enough for the purpose of representation. Elephants in warfare first appear among the Persians. Darius at Arbela (331 B. c. ) employed 15 of them. „ . They were often used by the Seleucids, 2. Use in J * - - - - • - - warfare frequent mention of them being made in the Maccabean wars (cp 1 Macc. 334 630 86 11 56 2 Macc. 11 4 13 15 etc.). These elephants, 1 The b may have become m through Slavonic influence. 2 The term used for ‘elephant ' in Shalm. Obel. Epigr. III. is baziati. The word al-ap also occurs, but in the sense of 4 ox ' not ‘elephant’ (Wi. KB 1 151). Houghton suggests tbe wild buffalo. Cp Ivory. 1262 ELHANAN ELEUTHEROPOLIS some of which carried towers (i Macc. 637/!), were almost certainly of the Indian species. Special mention is made of the Indian driver (6 lv86s, 1 Macc. ib. ). The war elephants were placed under the care of a special officer (2 Macc. 14 12). In classical times the African species was tamed by the Egyptians and took part both in the Carthaginian wars and in the Roman shows. Since in recent times the natives of Africa have not shown sufficient ability to tame this somewhat restive animal it has been suggested that the Carthaginians imported their animals from the East; 1 but there is little reason to doubt that the true E. africanus was employed in the Punic wars and even accompanied Hannibal's army across the Alps. The presence of African elephants in modern menageries proves that this species is capable of domestication and education in the hands of competent trainers. The elephant rarely breeds in captivity. A. E. s. — S. ELEUTHEROPOLIS (eA€Y0€pOTTOAlC. ‘ free city,' with play on double meaning of CHil, ' Horites 1 and 1 Hi t r * ^ ree men ' ** C P & er - mbba, 42), the name y* bestowed about A.D. 200 by the emperor Septimius Severus on Betogabra, now Beit Jibrln, an important place in Judaea, mentioned already (see Ben- hesed, § 2). How central it was appears from the fact that Eusebius in the Onom. often reckons the distances of other towns with reference to it. It was in fact the capital of a large province during the fourth and the fifth cen- turies of our era. It was also an episcopal city of Palestbia Prima (Notifies Ecclesiastic cb, 6). In the Talmudic period it had a large Jewish population, and produced some eminent Rabbins. The Talmudic name is Beth-gubrin (Neub. Gcog. 122 ffi). The ‘ Doctrine of Addai ’ (3rd cent a.d.) expressly refers to Eleutheropolis as called Betgubrin in the Aramaic tongue (Nestle, PEFQ, ’79, p. 138 ; see Elkoshite, 3). The name Betogabra ( fSaiToyafipa ) is given to it by Ptolemy (v. 166 ). It also appears in the Peutinger Tables as Betogubri, and we can hardly be wrong in correcting, in Niese's text of Jos. BJ iv. 8 1, BrjraPpiv into B-qrayafipiv. Whether the name alludes to pre- historic ‘giants,’ is beyond our knowledge. For some centuries the Graeco -Roman name sup- planted the older designation ; but when, 150 years after the Saracenic conquest, the city was destroyed, the latter revived (Reland, Pal. 222, 227 ; Gesta Dei per Francos, 1044). On this site, which they called ‘ Gibelin ' (a corruption of Ar. [Beth-lgebrim), the Crusaders in the twelfth century built a castle. After the battle of Hattln (1187 a.d.), it fell for a time into the hands of Saladin. Retaken by Richard of England, it was finally captured by Bibars, and remained in possession of the Saracens until its destruction in the sixteenth century ; ruins of it still remain (see Porter, Syria and Pal., 256 /.). The site of Eleutheropolis, in spite of the minute definitions of early writers, passed so completely out of 2 Site m ' nt * ^ at R°bi nson had to discover it. All the early statements point to Beit Jibrln, which is now a large village, N. of Merash, situated in a little nook or glen in the side of long green valley. Near it begin the famous caverns, to the excavation of which the limestone of the adjoining ridges was very favourable. We may not follow the Midrash which ascribes their origin to the Horites [7. v. ] ; but the antiquity of their use can hardly be doubted. Jerome already noticed their wide extent (Comm, in Obad. 1), in which indeed they rival the catacombs of Rome and Malta. They have been explored by Robin- son, and more fully by Porter, who compares them to ‘ subterranean villages. 1 Eleutheropolis, or Beth-gubrin, stands in close histori- cal connection with Mareshah (q.v.). G. A. Smith has put this in a very forcible way (HG 233). If from the first to the sixteenth centuries Beit J ibrln ( = Eleu- theropolis) has been prominent, and Mareshah forgotten, we may infer that the population moved under com- pulsion from the one site to the other. On the caves 1 At all events there seems a close resemblance between tiagi and n&ga. the Ethiopic and Indian words respectively for elephant (Meyer, GA 1 226). 1263 spoken of above, besides Robinson and Porter, compare Lucien Gautier (Souvenir de la Terre-Sainte, 63-67). He is of opinion that such caves have been in use for different purposes at many periods. Elsewhere a refer- ence to them has been traced in a corrupt name in 1 Iv. 4 10, in the original text of which Mareshah may have been designated Beth-Horim (see Ben-heSED, § 2). T. K. c. ELEUTHERUS (eAeyeepoc [ANV]), a river of Syria (1 Macc. 11 7), the mod. Nahr al-Kebir. See Phoenicia. ELHANAN (UI^>N * El is gracious,’ § 28 ; cp Baal- hanan and Palm. |nTl^n, ; eAeANAN 1 Tti [ BA ]» eAAANAN [L] ; Jos. £(|>AN [var. N€(J)An]). (i) The slayer of Goliath; one of David’s warriors (ben-Jair). The MT of 2 S. 21 19 reads (RV), ‘And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob ; and Elhanan the son of Jair the Bethlehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.' The document to which the passage belongs (2 S. 21 15-22, and 238-39) is an extract from an ancient Israelite ' roll of honour, ’ and deserves more credit than the later story which ascribes the slaying of Goliath to the youthful David. It is scarcely necessary to criticise the theory of Sayce {Mod. Rev. 5 169^), which is a development of Bottcher's, that David and Elhanan are the same person (cp Solomon — Jedidiah). This is in fact precritical in its origin. The Targ. on 2 S. 21 19 states that Elhanan was ‘ David the son of Jesse, who wove the curtains (cp Jaare-oregim) of the sanctuary' ; cp also the Targ. on 1 Ch. •20 5 (EAAav [B]). We have next to remark that definite information as to the time w hen Elhanan slew Goliath is wanting ; in fact the meagreness of tradition as to the details of the Philistine war has excited a very natural surprise (see David, § 7). All that is certain is that David was no longer in the prime of life, for an exploit similar to that of Elhanan was performed by the king's nephew Jonathan (2 S. 21 21), and in another episode of the same struggle David's warriors vowed that he should no longer en- counter the risk of a single combat (v. 17). The place where Elhanan fought is mentioned ; but the reading is uncertain. MT says that it was at Gob (q.v.) ; but the first of the three combats related (v. 18) was possibly, and the third certainly (v. 20), at Gath. We may feel sure that Gob in v. 19 is a false reading. , The name of Elhanan’s father also is slightly un- certain. In 2 S. 2324 1 Ch. 11 26 we read of ‘ Elhanan ben-Dodo, of Bethlehem.’ It is true, this Elhanan is sometimes (c.g. in BDB ; but not in SS) distinguished from the slayer of Goliath ; but the grounds do not seem to be conclusive. Dodo is certainly a personal, Jair (q.v. , ii.) may be a clan-name. It is tempting to suppose that the circumstance that, according to one tradition, Elhanan’s father bore the name Dodo (i. ), facilitated the transference of Elhanan's exploit to the youthful David. The description of three out of the four single combats related in 2 S. 21 15-22 recurs in nearly the same form 2 In Ch * n 1 20 4-8. It is to this version (see v. 5) that we are indebted for a correction of the impossible name Jaare-oregim in 2S. 21 19; the name should undoubtedly be read Jair (i.e. not njr but •vjr). The surprising appendage oregim (i.e. * weavers ’) is an accidental repetition of the closing word of the verse. The statement of Chronicles that Elhanan 1 slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath ’ need give us no trouble. The words tin ’DnS (Lahmi the brother of) have been intro- duced by the Chronicler to harmonise this passage with the story of David and Goliath. 1 At the same time the Chronicler omitted the statement that Elhanan was a Bethlehemite (beth-hallahmi). Naturally enough ; for from the latter part of this designation he obtained the name which he affixed to Elhanan’s giant. He would not however deny that the giant had some connection 1 This, however, is denied by Klostermann. 1264 ELI ELIAB with Goliath and so he (or his authority) made Lahmi Goliath’s brother. All this is to be regarded not as conscious depravation of the text, but as a supposed restoration of what must have been the historical fact. The only way to avoid this conclusion would be to assume that Lahmi was derived from the names of the gods Lahamu, Luhmu, mentioned at the beginning of the Babylonian epic of creation (Jensen, Kosmologic, 268, 274 ; cp RPW, 1 133), already hrought into con- nection (not un plausibly) 1 with the name Bethlehem hy Tomkins ( PEFQ , 1885, p. 112). For other discussions of this subject see Ewald, Hist. 370 ; Stade, Gesch. 1 228 ; Kohler, Bibl. Gesch. ii. I294; Che. Aids to Criticism , 10 81 125. Compare Driver, TBS, 272 ; Budde and Kittel in SBO T. See also Goliath. 2. One of David’s * thirty ' heroes ; mentioned second on the list (ben Dodo); 2 S. 2324 1 Ch. 11 26. Perhaps the same as no. 1 above. It is very improbable that David had two warriors of equal rank, both named Elhanan, and both Bethlehemites. Compare the case of Sibbechai (the slayer of Saph), also given in the list of tbe ‘ thirty ' ; cp Jos. Ant. vii. 122. t. k. C. ELI ('Sr. 'high,' §49; cp Palm. "Sy. and Nab. •wh?, * El is high,’ and the numerous Sab. names com- . pounded with vJJ [cp Gcs. < n ) ad loc.] ; the 1 ^ un-Hebraic character of the names Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas may be remarked ; h Aei [BAL], but hAgi. i S. I9 [A], 4ii [A* vid], and Aeyei. M3 [BA]), priest of Yahue at the temple of Shiloh, the sanctuary of the ark, and at the same time judge over Israel — an unusual combination of offices, which must have been won by signal services to the nation in his earlier years, though in the account preserved to us he appears in the weakness of extreme old age, unable to control the petulance and rapacity of his sons, Hophni and Phinehas (1 S. 1-4 143 1 K. 227). While the central authority was thus weakened, the Philistines advanced against Israel, and gained a complete victory in the great battle of Ebenezer [q.v., 1], where the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas slain. On hearing the news Eli fell from his seat and died. According to MT he was ninety-eight years old, and had judged Israel for forty years (1 S. 41518). ® gives but twenty years in v. 18, and seems not to have read v. 15, which is either a gloss or the addition of a redactor (cp SBOT, ad loc. ). After these events the sanctuary of Shiloh appears to have been destroyed by the Philistines (cp Jer. 7 , and see Shiloh), and the descendants of Eli with the whole of their elan or * father’s house ’ subsequently appear as settled at Nob (i S. 21 i [2], 22 n ff., cp M3). The massacre of the clan by Saul, with the subsequent de- position of the survivor Abiathar from the priestly office (1 K. 227), is referred to in a prophetic passage of deuter- onomistic origin, such as might (the narrator thought) have been uttered in the days of Eli ( 1 S. 2 27 3 n^ ; see Bu. SBOT). Now Zadok (from whom the later high priests claimed descent), who appears in 1 Ch. 612 [538] as the lineal 2 The descendant of Aaron through Eleazar and ^ ‘ , Phinehas, was not of the house of Eli priesthood. ( iK . 227 . 35 ) ; and in i Ch. 24 Ahime- lech, son of Abiathar, is reckoned to the sons of Ithamar, the younger branch of the house of Aaron. Hence the traditional view that in the person of Eli the high-priest- hood was temporarily diverted from the line of Eleazar and Phinehas into that of Ithamar (cp Jos. Ant. V.II5 viii. I3, and for the fancies of the Rabbins on the cause of this diversion, Selden, De Succ. in Pontif. , lib. i. cap. 2). This view, however, is at direct variance with the passage in 1 S. 2 which represents Eli’s * father's house ' or clan as the original priestly family, and pre- dicts the destruction or degradation to an inferior position of the whole of this ‘father's house,’ not merely the direct descendants of Eli. Ahimelech, moreover, } The place-names of Palestine must in many cases have an origin very different from what the later inhabitants supposed, and a primitive divine name, famous in Babylonian mythology, is likely to have found a record in Palestine. 1265 who is the only link to connect Eli with Ithamar, is an ambiguous personage, whose name has arisen from a textual corruption (see Abiathar, end), and it is evident that the priestly genealogy in 1 Ch. 5 / merely en- deavours to show that the sons of Zadok derived their origin in an unbroken line of descent from Aaron. The book of Chronicles wholly ignores the priesthood of Eli. [So much at any rate is indisputable — that in the pre-regal period the family of Eli discharged priestly functions at the sanctuary of Shiloh. That it had a levitical connection is implied in the name of Phinehas borne by one of Eli’s sons (Hophni is only a variation of this), and also in 1 S. 227-36. Eli's sons, however, do not appear to have entered into the original tradition ; they are only introduced in the interests of later theory. That Eli helonged to the family of Moses is at any rate not impossible. The explanation of Hophni as an outgrowth of Phinehas leads to the suggestion that for ’Sy, ' Eli, ’ we should perhaps read UV’Sn, ' Eliezer ’ =“Hy i ?Nr, 1 Eleazar.' Eleazar and Eliezer are both Levite names, though the former is the ordinary name of the father of Phinehas. ] See further Levites, Priest, Zadok, § iff. As Heli ( 1 ) Eli comes into the genealogy of Ezra ( 2 Esd. 1 1 ). w. R. s. — T. k. c. ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI, and Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani. The last words of Jesus ( = Ps. 22 1 [2]) according to Mt. 2746, Mk. 15 34 ; 1 followed by a translation, ' My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.’ Evang. Pet. , however, gives (ch. 5), ['And the Lord cried out. saying] My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me' (77 Stive i/xh fiov, r\ Stivafus, /careXet^ds fie ), 2 which is quite different. The number of various readings of the text of Mt. and Mk. is sur- prisingly large. As to the word for ‘ my God,' in both Mt. and Mk. WH give cAwi; Treg. prefers rjAi, in Mt., eAa>i in Mk. ; Ti. and Zahn prefer TjXet in Mt., eAou in Mk. For the verb all agree in adopt- ing o-afiaxOa. vet (Zahn -vt, an unimportant variation). Epiphanius (Haer. 69 68) remarks on Mt. 27 46 that the words r\Ki r\Ki were spoken by Jesus in Hebrew, the rest of the passage in Syrian. Lagarde, too ( GGA , '82, 329), referred to this passage as proving the systematic correction to which even our oldest MSS had been subjected. Certainly eAto'i (or, more completely Aramaic, eAa't, or aAai - ) is what we should have expected ; but in citing a passage like this it was not unnatural to use tbe well- known Hebrew term 'el. Dalman, who holds this ’word from the cross’ to be historical, thinks that Jesus most probably used the Hebrew form {'ell), just because it is a little less obvious. The variation £a 9 ave 1, or rather a£a 9 avti, is a Hebrew substitute for the Aramaic verb, due to one who wished to make the whole passage a quotation from the Hebrew. The original reading aga 9 avti was presumably altered into £aa/3 [«]). ELIADA § 32, 1 God knows,’ or ’ whom El deposits,’ see Beeliada ; also a Sabean name [Halthy] ; eAeiA* [B], -AiaA. [AL]). r. A son of David [q.v. § n d (/3)], 2 S. 5 16 (/JaaAei /xa0 [BA], -AiAa0 [L]); 1 Ch. 3 8 (eAieSa [A]). In x Ch. 14 7 he is called Beeliada ( q.v .) — his true name. 2. A Benjamite captain, temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 17 17). 3. AV Elladah, father of Rezok, i K. 11 23 (eAiaSae [A], om. BL). Winckler {Alt. Unt. 74) supposes that the name is a Hebrew translation of the Aram, name Tabeel (i). ELIADAS (cAiaAac [BA]), i Esd. 928= Ezra IO27, Elioenai, 5. ELIADUN, RV Iliadun ([e]iAta,AOYN [BAL]), 1 Esd. 558. See Madiabun. ELIAH (H’Sn). 1. Ezra IO26 AV, RV Elijah. 3. a. 1 Ch. 827 AV, RV Elijah, 4. ELIAHBA iNZn'Sx 1 God hides ' or ' protects,' § 30 ; cp Habaiah, Jehubbah ; but compound names where an imperf. follows a divine name arc rare and chiefly late : 1 cp Gray, HPN 217, who suggests N 3 n'Sl<), the Shaalbonite (see Shaalbim), one of L>a\ id's 1 thirty' (2 S. 1332 6 MAC 0 Y [B], eAl&B [A], caAaBaQ [L]; i Ch. U33 CAMaBa[B], eam. [K], €AiaBa [A], - A I B. [L ]). 2 ELI AKIM 'God establishes,’ §§ 31, 52; eAiAK[e]iM [BMAQ'rL]). 1. b. Hilkiah, a governor of tbe palace, and ‘grand vizier’ under Hezekiah (2 K. 18 18 19 2 Is. 36 3 22 37 2). See Rab- SHAKEH, SHEBNA. 2. b. Josiah (2 K. 2334 2 Ch. 364). See Jehoiakim. 3. A priest in the procession at tbe dedication of the wall (see Ezra, ii. § 13^), Neh. 1241 (eAiajciju, [Rea mg.], om. BR*A). 4. b. Abiud ; Mt. 1 13 (eAi aKetfx [Ti. WH]), and 5. b. Melea (Lk. 3 30), in the genealogy of Joseph. See Genealogies ii., § 3. ELIALI (eXiAXeic [B], eXiAXei [A], cp Eliel, 1 Ch. 820?), 1 Esd. 934 = Ezra 10 38, Binnui, 5. ELIAM § 46, ’ God is kinsman’ ; cp Ammiel and Phoen. [C /5 1 1, no. 147, /. 16]; gAiaB [BAL]). _ 1. b. Ahithophel the Gilonite (see Giloh) ; one of David's heroes; 2 S. 23 34 (oveAioi^ [A], o 0aAaa/x [L]) = i Ch. 11 36 (where ‘Eliam the son of' is omitted before ‘ Ahijah the Pelonite,’ itself a corrupt reading ; see Ahithophel, end), and perhaps the same as 2 (below). 2. Father of Bathsheba (2 S. 11 3 ; called in 1 Ch. 3 5 Ammiel, a/xLt}\ [BA], r/Aa [L]). See Ahithophel. 3. Possibly to be restored for Aniam { q . v .). ELIAONIAS (eAlAOONIAC [A]), i Esd. 831 = Ezra 84, Eliehoenai, 2. ELIAS (hAeiac). Mt. II14 AV, RV Elijah (q.v.). ELIASAPH ’ God increases |?.r, the family'], §§ 27, 44 ; 6 A[e]lCA [BAFL]). 1. b. Deuel or Reuel (2) ; chief of Gad ; Nu. 1 14 (-<£av [L]), 2i4(‘0[ a » / ] [L]), 74247 10 20. 2. b. Lael ; chief of Gershon (Nu. 324). ELIASHIB i.e., 'God brings back,' §§ 31, 62, 82 ; but (& L except in no. 1 reads ‘ God 1 In all the Aramaic inscriptions only two examples of this form occur, viz. jn'nta and jn'nSi'2. both Palmyrene. 7 For these forms cp Marq. Fund. 20, who shows that the initial tr is, jn each case, due to the following (raAo/Savt, and that the /x is a corruption from A a (M = AA) ; thus efj-aaov, (Ta/xa^a, etc., Stand for eAaa/3ov (=N^n t ?x). aAaa/3a, etc. 1267 I I returns' (or ‘turns’); cp Is. 528 , and prop, name Jashub, old Aram. ' Assur returns,' CIS 2 , no. 36, and Sab. PfcOID, Hal. 485 ; eXlACOyB [L], €A[e]iAceiB [ANB]). 1. A descendant of Zerubbabel ; 1 Ch. 324 (avei# [B], cAiac r. [L]). 2. Eponym of one of the priestly courses : 1 Ch. 24 12 (eAia/3iet [B]). 3. High priest in list of wall-builders (see Nehemiah, § 1 /., Ezra, ii. §§ 16 [1], 15 d ), Neh. 3i (eA(€)i(roi//3 [BRA]); ^20 f. (/37}0-eA(e)urou/3 [B], -aiAeurov and -atA itrou/3 [R], -eAei acre rou/3 and -eAia(roi//3 [A] aA- [L]) mentioned in pedigree of Jaddua (see Ezra, ii. § 6 b), 12 10 (cAia7X [BAL]) ; a man’s name somewhat frequent in Chronicles, but not found else- where in the OT. It means ‘ My God is El, ’ § 38 ; or, perhaps, ’ El is God.’ In 1 Ch. 634 [19] Eliel is sub- stituted for Elihu ( = ’ He [Yahwe] is God ’ ). Both names are virtually identical with Elijah (’Yahw& is God,’ or, ‘my God’). Compare the royal name Iluma-ilu, ’ llu is god,’ where the second ilu takes the place of this king’s special deity (KB 384, Hommel, AHTi2 9 f). 1. ‘The Mahavite’ [q.v.] (C’llTsrr ; A[e]i7jA [BR], teAujA [A], ictjA [L]), one of David’s warriors (x Ch. ll 4 6t), and 2. Another of David’s warriors (SaActrjA [B], aAojA [A]), 1 Ch. Il47-t See David, § n a, ii. 3. A Manassite prince (i Ch. 52 and st). 4. In a genealogy of Bknjamin (y.y,., § 9 ii. J3) ; b. Shimei, 8 ’ . 1 BA D. »• =o.t b. Shashak (e\nai [L])- ELIEZER (“TtlT^X, ’God of help,’ or ’God (or, • iny God’) is a helper ; see Eleazar ; eX[e]i€zep [BANK]). 1. Abraham's chief slave and steward (Gen. 15 2). The clause in which he is referred to is a piece of E’s work and perhaps originally followed «*. 3 a (Bu.). It states that Abram’s most trusted servant, in lieu of a son, would inherit his property (cp 1 Ch. 234/). It should be noticed, however, that the other narrator (J) does not give the name Eliezer (see 21 2), and the text is evidently in some disorder. The most probable way of emending seems to be to read 310; 'Wm proi 1 and my tent-dwelling will be deserted ’ (see Che. E .\ p . T., 11 47 [Oct. 99]). Kalisch thought that the full name of the steward was Dammesek Eliezer, and RV implies the same theory. Gram- matically the rendering ‘ is Dammesek Eliezer ’ (©OLj 0 5 to? Aap.a (TKo? EAtc£ep) is no doubt inevitable ; but how absurd it is ! The text, therefore, must be incorrect. The words ‘be (or it) is Damascus,' are taken by some to be an intrusive marginal gloss on the word / 7 C 7 D which the glossator misunder- stood (although it is difficult to see how he would have construed 7V3 ptran jnn)- So, long ago, HitzigandTuch; unfortunately the existence of a word pro (or -|e'D) ‘ possession ' is extremely doubtful. Balls rendering ‘and he who will possess my house is a Damascene — Eliezer,’ is not much more plausible than that of Hitzig. See Exp. 7 \, l.c. T. K. C. 2. Second son of Moses and Zipporah (Ex. 222). so called because ' the God of my father w as m v help ’ (184)- The Chronicler assigns him an only son Rehabiah (1 Ch. 23 15 17 2625/.). See Eleazar (i), **. 3. A prophet, b. Dodavah of Mareshah, temp. Jehoshaphat : 2 Ch. 20 37 (eAccaSa [Bl). Gray (HPN 232) suggests that the name may have been derived from a good historical record ; but the prophets of Chronicles are often of such doubtful historicity that the suggestion seems hazardous. Was not the name more probably suggested by * Eleazar b. Dodai (or Dodo) ’ in 2S. 239 1 Ch. 11 12 ? See Eleazar (3). 4. A Reubenite ‘prince’ (1 Ch. 27 16). 5. A Benjamite (Benjamin, § 9, ii. a), 1 Ch. 7 8. 6. A Levite (1 Ch. 15 24). 7. 8, and 9. A priest, Ezra 10 18 = 1 Esd. 9 19, Eleazar [7] (eAea£apos [BA]) ; a Levite, Ezra IO23 (eAia£ap (N])=i Esd. £23 Jonas [2] (iwat/ay [B], 1101/as [A}); and an Israelite, b. Harim : Ezra 1031 = 1 Esd. 932 Elionas [2] (eAtwSas [B], -a jvas [A]), in list of those with foreign wives (see Ezra i., § 5 end). 10. Head of family, temp. Ezra (see Ezral, § 2 ; ii., § 15 [i]d), Ezra 816 (c\ea£ap [BA])=i Esd. 843, Eleazar [5] (-pos). 11. Son of Jorim, in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk. 329 eAietJtp [Ti. WH]). See Genealogies ii., § 3. ELIHOENAI Ezra 84 AV, RV Elie- HOENAl (2). ELIHOREPH (Snh^N ; 6 \i&<)> [B], eNApec}) [A], CAiaB [L] ; true name perhaps Elihaph [cp @ B ], i.e., ’God is Haph ’ [ — Apis, see Apis], of which Elihoreph may be an alteration on religious grounds ; cp Ahi- shahar, from Ahi-hur? so Marquart), one of Solomon’s ’scribes,’ son of Shisha (i K. 43). The text of w. i-2o, however, is in much disorder, and v. 3 needs emendation. / ' 2 promises ... 5. One of the b’ne Zattu in list of those with foreign wives (Ezra i., § 5, end), Ezra 10 27 (eAuova [B], eAitovav [n])= 1 Esd. 928, Eltadas (eAiafias [BA]). 6. A priest in the procession at the dedication of the wall (see Ezra ii., § 13 g), perhaps the same as (4), Neh. 12 41 (om. B). See Eliehoenai, Elienai. 7. 1 Ch. 263 AV, RV Eliehoenai. ELIONAS (gAiconac [A]). 1. 1 Esd. 9 22 = Ezra 10 22, Elioenai, 4. 2. 1 Esd. 932 = Ezra 10 31, Eliezer, 9. ELIPHAL (Sq'Sn), I Ch. 11 35 ; AV m e- Eliphelet (q.v., 2). 1273 1274 ELIPHALAT ELISHA ELIPHALAT. i. i Esd. 9 33 (eAei 4 >AAA.T [BA]) = Ezra 1 0 33 Eliphelet, 5. 2. i Esd. 839 RV (tAei^aAa [B])=Ezra 813, Eliphelet, 4. ELIPHALET. i. 2 S. 5 16, RV Eli- PHELET, I. 2. 1 Esd. 8 39 AV = Ezra 8 13, Eliphelet (4). ELIPHAZ (TD'^X, probably a corruption of an old name, but see § 38; eA(€)lct>AC [AL in Gen., B in Ch.], -az [AL in Ch. , E in Gen.] ; 2 rarely becomes c)- 1. Son of Esau, and father of Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, and Amalek (Gen. 364 [- 4 >a£, L], 10-16 [v. 11 -<}>a 0 , E ; v. 15 -a£, D], 1 Ch. 1 35^:). See Amalek, § 4, Edom, §ii. 2. A Temanite, one of Job’s friends (Job 2 11 [€A[e]i<£a£, BNACJ, and often). See Job i. and ii. ELIPHELEH, RV Eliphelehu (ir6p^>N. § 27; €Ai 4><\A [L]). A Levite name, i Ch. 15i8 (eXeic})eN& [BX], eAicJ)AAA [A]) ; 21 (eN(t>AN[&]i<\c [BX], eAi- &A&i&c [A]). ELIPHELET (DJQ'Sx, ’ God is a deliverance, 1 § 30 ; €A[e]l4><\A€T [AXL]. According to Cheyne a similar name, Ahiphelet, was home by 'the Gilonite,' David’s treacherous counsellor, pelet, ’deliverance,' being altered hy tradition into tophel — i. e. , lit., ' hrother of insipidity' or ‘folly’; cp 2 S. 1531). 1. A son of David born to him in Jerusalem (2 S. 5 16 1 Ch. 38 14 7). According to 2 S. , David had eleven sons born to him in Jerusalem ; hut hy a textual error (which occurs also in <*| BL of S. ) this number is increased to thirteen, by the addition of Nogah and another Eliphelet : 1 Ch. 36 14 s (dW?k, Elpalet [AV], Elpelet [RV]). The latter is omitted by Bertheau, Thenius, and Wellhausen ( Gesck. W, 216, ET ib . ). aa 0 [BA bis], c\a\a.T [BA], -8ar, eAiaAa 8 [L] J 1 I Ch. 38 cAei^aAa [B], c\i aArj 0 [B], eAi (f>aO [L] ; i Ch. 14 5 eAeiaAc 0 [B]. See David, § ii (d). 2. One of David's ' thirty ' (2 S. 2334 ; in 1 Ch. 11 35 the name is given by error without the last letter : MT Eliphal, S&’Sk). The name of his father is variously given as Ahasbai (2 S. in MT) and as Ur (1 Ch. in MT) ; see David, § ii (a) i. f. Both forms, however, are evidently corrupt ; and to recover the original name we must not (with We.) omit ‘the son of' before ‘the Maachathite.' p and na, na and n’3 were easily confounded; the words which now follow 'aoriN, ‘Abasbai,’ in MT should probably he read (according to Klo.) *n 3 JH?rnV 3 , 1 a man of Beth-maachah.' And, if Klo. is right in supplying Hepher (ii., 1) before the gentilic noun, we can hardly doubt that he is right also in regarding ’^onH p (EV ‘son of Ahashai’) as a corruption of a gentilic noun formed similarly to TlsyOiTTl’D- If so, the original list ran thus, ‘ Eli- phelet, a man of Beth ; Hepher ? a man of Betb-maachah.' The number thirty-seven in 2 S. 23 39 is thus accounted for (Che.). The ‘Ur’ of 1 Ch. might be a corrupt fragment of the lost place-name. For a more tentative view see Driver, Sam., 284, and for a bolder but very ingenious view Marquart, Fund. 22. The versions are equally obscure (2 S. 2334; aAeu/>aA €0 [B], 0eAAt [L] ; 1 Ch. 11 35, cAAot [BN], eAu^aaA [A], -^>a«A [L]). 3. b. Eshek in a genealogy of Benjamin (q.v., § g, ii. / 3 ), 1 Ch. 839 (eAiaAeis [B]). 4. One of the b’ne Adonikam {q.v.') in Ezra’s caravan (see Ezra i., § 2 ; ii., § 15 [i.l d), Ezra 8 13 (aAei^ar [B], «At^>aAo — jA, for Eliphelet and Jeuel [A], cAi^aAaT [L])=i Esd. 839 Eliphalet, RV Ei.iphalat (cAci^aAa [B], €AiaAaros [A]). 5. One of theb’neHASHUM(^.z/.)in the list of those with foreign wives (see Ezra i., § 5, end); Ezra 10 33 (€Aei 4 >ay €0 [B], -<£aA. [BabN], €Aict(/»aAeT [L])=i Esd. 933, ELIPHALAT (eAei^aAar). ELISABETH (eAeic&BeT [Ti. WH] ; i.e., Eush£ba [q.v.~\), the righteous and hlameless wife of Zacharias, and mother of John the Baptist (Lk. 15^). ELISHA (Ut^vX : ‘ God is salvation, ’ § 28; the name yB^X occurs on a seal from ’Amman, prob. of seventh 1 . Relation to Elijah. century B.C. \ZATW 7501 ('97]); eAeiCAie [B] -AlCC- [AL] ; in NT eAlc[c]&IOc). Elijah's successor in 1 See also David, § 1 i (a), col. 1032. The copy upon which L based his translation seems to have heen corrected to agree with Ch. his prophetic work, and for ahout half a century the ' father ' and guide of the northern kingdom in its struggle for national life and independence. We have in the books of Kings a considerable collection of anecdotes illustrating his history. We cannot be surprised that much of this material from which we have to construct our view of the manner of man he was, bears clear marks of its legendary nature. In this respect the traditions ahout Elisha do not differ from those about his master (cp Historical Literature, §5). Unfortunately, however, in the case of Elisha it is much harder to recover the kernel of literal fact, and we miss the clear and bold lines in which the portrait of the true Elijah stands out on the canvas. The difference springs from the vastly superior origin- ality of Elijah. The ideas which came straight to the master’s heart were taught to the disciple by outward word and example. He learnt as others might learn. Moreover, he sympathised more than Elijah had done with the natural thoughts and desires of his countrymen, and was much more on a level with them. For these reasons there is great difficulty in distinguishing the genuine history of Elisha from the overgrowth of popular imagination. Reference is made elsewhere (see Kings, Books OF, § 8) to the disorder and chronological confusion 2. Disorder of the Anecdotes. which characterise the bundle of anec- dotes on Elisha's life. It may be well to add a few details. In 2 K. 5 the story of Naaman’s cure implies that the rela- tions between the Aramaean and the Israelite kingdoms were ostensibly peaceable. Then, without any explanation of the change, we are introduced in 68-23 to the very midst of the warfare between the nations. In the closing verse of this section we are told that the Aramaeans made no further invasion of Israelite territory, whereupon in 624 we find the Aramaean king besieging Samaria. In 5 26 f. Gebazi, Elisha’s servant, is said to have been struck with life-long leprosy, which, however, does not offer any obstacle to his familiar intercourse with the king in 8 1-6. There is no unity therefore in the stories as a whole, though some of them are, no doubt, connected with each other (so 816 48-37 38-41 42-44. See also Kings, § 8). Further, it is uncertain whether the editor made his selection on any definite principle, for the assertion that he has related twelve and only twelve miracles of Elisha cannot be maintained save on an arbitrary method of reckoning. In any case he failed to under- stand Elisha’s connection with contemporary events. By placing all the anecdotes, with one exception, before Jehu’s revolt, he has reduced the greater part of Elisha's public life to a mere blank. Yet how energetic and fruitful in result that life was, w^ learn with unimpeach- able evidence from the exclamation of the king who stood by the aged prophet’s death-bed (2 K. 13 14). Nevertheless the stories, despite their legendary char- acter, are early in date. They belong to the literature of the Northern Kingdom and to the eighth century B.c. Thus, even when they cannot claim to be treated as sober history, they are of great value for the light they throw on the manners and beliefs which prevailed at the time when they were written ; and sometimes at least we are justified in the confidence that we have before us fragments of tradition which will bear the test of criticism. Elisha was the son of Shaphat and belonged to Abel- MEHOLAH (^. v . ) : it was there that Elijah found him. n P1 . , , ,, The meeting occurred some time after ’ Elijah’s return from Horeb ; for the route from Horeb to Damascus (1 K. 19 15) would not lead through Ahel-meholah, and the word ' thence ' in v. 19 must refer to some place mentioned in a section of the narrative which stood hetween vv. 18 and 19, but has been omitted by the editor. Elisha had twelve pair of oxen ploughing in the field before him , and was himself driving the twelfth pair. This implies that he was a man of substance, and far (therefore) from the common temptation to ‘prophesy for a piece of bread’ (Am. 1276 1275 ELISHA 7 12). Still, when Elijah threw his mantle upon him, he was ready to leave all and only asked leave to bid his parents farewell. The leave was given, hut with the added warning to rememher the sacred service to which he was now bound hy the fact that Elijah had thrown his mantle over him (for this seems to be the meaning of the ohscure words in 1 K. 19 20). Returning, Elisha slew the oxen, kindled a fire with the wood of the plough, and made a sacrificial meal for the people ahout him. From that time forth he was known as Elijah’s disciple, as one who had * poured water on his hands ’ (2 K. 3n). His call had come mediately, through Elijah, not immediately from Yahw&. So also hy Elijah's instrumentality he was perfected for the graver and more independent duties which awaited him when his master was gone. He is said to have followed his master, when his end was near, from Gilgal in the centre of Palestine 1 to the sanctuary of Bethel and thence to Jericho. Elijah smites the Jordan with his mantle and the two comrades cross dry-shod. 1 Ask what I shall do for thee,’ says Elijah, ‘before I am taken from thee.' The disciple indulges no idle hope of becoming a second Elijah ; but he would receive * a double portion ’ of his master's spirit — 7. e . , tbe portion of the first-born, comparing himself with other ' sons of the prophets,’ not with bis and their mighty father. Even that is a ‘ hard thing ’ to ask ; but he is to gain this pre-eminence if he is enabled to behold the parting form, as it is borne upward in the storm and lightning. He sees the wondrous ascent ; he gazes on his ‘father’ till he vanishes in the height, and rends his clothes in grief for his bereavement. Then he lifts the mantle which had fallen from the ascending prophet’s shoulders, smites the river with it and divides the waters in the strength of Elijah's God. Other members of the prophetic guild seek anxiously for their lost leader in hill and dale. Elisha has the calm assurance that Elijah is gone and that he is the heir. The ascension of Elijah introduces a group of miracles. One miracle is stern and cruel ; he curses the youths at 4. Miracles w ^° moc ^ him. an ^ forty-two of them are devoured hy two she-hears (223-25). Another has at least penal character ; Geh&zi is struck with life-long leprosy for his covetous- ness ( 5 20 ff . ). The rest are deeds of heneficence. Elisha heals with salt the waters of Jericho (2 19-22), makes poisonous gourds (see Gourds [W ild]) wholesome hy sprink- ling meal upon them in time of famine (438-41), multiplies Dread to feed a hundred guests (442-^4) and oil to save the poor widow of a prophet from the creditor who would have seized her sons for debt and made them slaves (4 1-7) ; he brings the bor- rowed axe up from the river-bed and makes it swim on the water (61-7). With exquisite tact he enters into the sorrows of the Shunamite woman who had given him hospitable enter- tainment, and restores the life of the son whose very birth had been a token of the prophet’s power and gratitude (48-37). He cleanses the leprosy of Naaman (q.v.) the Aramaean statesman (chap. 5); and even after he has been laid in the grave the touch of his bones restores a dead man to life (13 20 /.) It may be noted that these miracles are in part connected with the prophetic colonies, that they are modelled to some extent on the wonders ascrihed to Elijah (cp 2 K. 214 with v. 8 ; 2 K. 4i/ with 1 K. 17 14^ ; 2 K. 432^ with 1 K. \*1 rqff. ; 2 K. 810^ with 1 4), and that so far as they emhody the spirit of active love, they contrihute a Christ-like element (which is missed, however, in Ecclus. 4812-14) to the ideal of prophecy. Though both Elisha and his master were wonder- workers and champions of Yahw6’s exclusive worship, 5 Political ®'l* s ^ a ' s career presents points of marked influence 1 contrast to l ^ at Elijah. Instead of appearing and disappearing like a meteor flash, Elisha could he found readily enough hy the people who consulted him in the leisure of New Moons and Sabhaths (2 K. 423), or hy princes who sought him in person (2 K. 3 12 633). The strife with Baal was over and Elisha exercised decisive power in court and camp. Thus, Elisha accompanied the combined armies of Israel, Judah and Edom, then a vassal state under Judah, in an ex- pedition against Moab, and saved them from perishing of thirst. . 1 ? K. 2 1. We have assumed that the Gilgal here intended is Jiljilia SW. of Shiloh. See further, Gilgal, § 4. If we identify Elisha’s Gilgal with the famous sanctuary by the Jordan, then we must suppose that there is some confusion in the text, and make Elisha start from his home in Samaria. Robertson Smith (Kings, Books of, in EB) held this to be the original intention of the narrator (see v. 25). ELISHAH The story is historical in substance (cp Jehoram, § 3/.). The allied army marched round the Dead Sea and crossing the Nahal ha-'Arabim (see Arabah ii.) attacked Moab from the S. This was just the course which would suggest itself. Moab, as we now know from Mesha’s altar -stone, had recovered and fortified cities on the N., the Arnon presented an obstacle to invasion from that quarter, and the Aramaeans farther N. still might have cut off all possibility of retreat. ‘ Dig trenches on trenches in this valley,’ said the prophet, a rational method of reaching the water which filters through the sand to the rock beneath, and one which still gives its name to the Wady el- Ahsaat the S. end of the Dead Sea (see W. R. Smith, OT/CP) 147). We may perhaps doubt whether the Moabites really mistook the water under the sun for blood shed in the quarrel of the allies among themselves, though Stade ( GVI 1 536) sees no reason to question the truth of even this feature in the narrative. For his political influence, however, Elisha paid a heavy penalty. He felt, and was sometimes worsted hy, the temptation to use means which his predecessor would surely have disdained. We may, indeed, on consider- ing the relations hetween Samaria and Damascus, question the representation in 87-15 that he was largely responsible for the murder of Ben-hadad by Hazael ; hut he certainly was a prime mover in the revolt by which the crafty and murderous Jehu, a man with no character for religion (note especially 10 18), seized the throne of Israel (see Jehu). He bore a nohler part under other kings of Jehu’s line. If we follow Kuenen’s plausible conjecture (< Onderzoek , 1 2, § 25, n. 12, but see Jehoram { § 2), it was in the time of Jehoahaz that the Aramaeans besieged Samaria, till the famine within the walls made women devour their children, and the king, despairing of help from Yahwe and attributing the evil to Elisha’s supernatural power, sought the prophet’s life. Elisha, we are told, with a confidence like that of Isaiah, predicted victory and plenty. His prophecy was fulfilled ; the Aramaeans, terrified by a rumour that their own land was invaded (see Jehoram, § 2), fled and left their supplies behind. There came a turn in the tide. The Aramseans, struggling for life against Ramman-nirari III., could no longer hope to subjugate Israel ; and Elisha, now stricken in years, saw in spirit the dawn of a brighter day. It is said that on his death-bed he bade king Joash stand by the open window and shoot an arrow eastward. The prophet laid his own aged hands on the hands of the young king, and cried, as the arrow sped : ‘ An arrow of Yahw&’s victory ; yea, an arrow of victory over Aram.’ Moreover he told the king to strike the ground with the arrows and when he did so declared it was the sign of three hattles to be won, chiding him, however, because he did not double the strokes and so double his success against the foe. Well might Joash lament over Elisha : 4 My father, my father ! Israel’s chariots and horsemen (art thou) ' i His guiding and animating spirit had heen worth many a troop to his people. Here lay Elisha’s strength and here also its limitations. No new idea came to the hirth through him. He was a faithful disciple, a true patriot, a man of loving heart. He worked for Israel, scarcely through Israel for the world ; and it is not, perhaps, hy mere accident that in the NT he is mentioned only once (Lk. 427). All the modern histories of Israel— especially those of Stade, Kittel, and Wellhausen — treat of Elisha; Smend, AT Relig ., also may be consulted. W. E. A. ELISHAH eA[e]lC& [BADEL], in of Gen. 10 4 , eAlCC^). a son Javan, occurs elsewhere only in the combination 'N Ezek. 277. ‘coast-lands of Elishah’ (nhccon eA[e]lC«M [BAQ]), whence violet and purple stuffs were brought to Tyre. The two most plausible identifications are that with S. Italy and Sicily, where were Greek colonies (Kiepert, Lag., Di., Kau. ; cp Tiras, end), and that with Carthage or, more widely, the N. African coast (Schulthess, Stade, E. Meyer [ GA , I282]). Both regions were famous for the purple dye (cp Purple). The latter is favoured hy the name ; Elissa, princess of Tyre, was the legendary founder of Carthage, which was perhaps originally called Elissa. On the other side Dillmann quotes the gloss in Syncellus, ‘ Elissa, whence the Sicelots ’ ( Aicrtra oi5 atKeXol ; Eus. Ckron. Armen. 213); but this seems to tell against the identification of Elishah and Sicily. 1278 1277 ELISHAMA Dillmann urges that Carthage, being » Phoenician colony, would not be represented as descended from Japheth ; but this would have as mucb force against Tarshish or Tartessus (cp TlRAS). It may be granted, however, that'tf ' coast-lands of Elisbah,’ would be perhaps more natural of S. Italy and Sicily ; Tg. on Ezek. 27 7 indeed explains tbis phrase by 1 the province of Italy.' A decision is difficult ; but perhaps Carthage has the more in its favour. F. B. ELISHAMA 1 my God hath heard,' § 32 ; eA[e]ici>Mdt [BAL]). 1. b. Ammihud, prince of Ephraim ( g . v. t i.) (Nu. 1 io 2 i 8 7 48 53 10 22), 1 Ch. 7 26 (cKcLfxaaat [B]). Cp Tribes. 2. Son of David (2S. 5 16 tavad aa/j.vs [L] ; 1 Ch. 38 14 7, eAeura/xee [B]), and 3. Another son of David, mentioned in 1 Ch. 3 6 (eAeura IB]) = 2 S. 5 15 1 Ch. 14 s, Elishua, which name should he restored here, as it is scarcely conceivable that two of David’s sons should bear the same name. See David, § ii ( d ). 4. A Judahite, son of Jekamiah, iCh. 241, identified hy some with 5. Grandfather of the royal prince Ishmael [2], 2 K. 2525 {cKurafiav [L]) Jer. 41 1 (<25, 48 I ; eAaua [B], -ecra [tf], eAeacra CQ]). Cp Sayce, Crit. Mon. 380 f. 6 . Jehoiakim's scribe, in whose chamber Jeremiah's roll was laid up, Ter. 36122021 (© 43, eAetcra 7 /u. 2021 [B]). 7. A Levitical priest introduced, by the Chronicler, into his life of Jehoshaphat, 2Ch. 178. ELISHAPHAT (tOQt^NI, 1 God [or, my God] hath judged,’ § 35 ; cp Jeboshaphat and Ph. DSEJ'Sm ; eAeiCAAN [B], 6 Aica 4>AT [AL]), b. Zichri, a captain in the time of Jehoiada (2 Ch. 23 1). ELISHEBA (IDG^N. ‘God is an oath,' or perhaps rather 'God is health' (Che.), see Abishua, Elishua, and cp Bathsheba, BathshuA; similarly Elisabeth, Jehosheba, §§ 33, 50 ; eA[e]iCABe0 [BL], -bgt [A], -Be [A*F]), wife of Aaron and daughter of Amminadab (Ex. 623+P). She is also styled 'sister of Nahshon,’ and ' Nahshon b. Amminadab ’ in P is the well-known chief of Judah in the desert march. P hardly derived the Aaronids from a Judahite mother. ' Sister of Nahshon’ is, therefore, most probably a gloss (R P ) which has arisen from a confusion of Elisheba's father witb the Judahite. It was, possibly, to avoid tbis con- fusion that the writer of 1 Ch. 622 [7] mentions a son of Kohath (Aaron’s grandfather) named Amminadab, whose place, however, is elsewhere taken by Izhar (cp ib. 28). The tribal connection of Aaron's wife, there- fore, is as obscure as that of the wife of his famous son Eleazar [q.v . , 1]. The name Elisheba may well be pre-exilic (see Gray, HPN y 206), and with regard to the difficult question of the origin of Levitical names it may be pointed out that in this case a name of parallel formation is borne hy a devout follower of Yahwfc, the wife of the priest Jehoiada of Judah. See Jehosheba. ELISHUA (INS^K, 1 God is a help, ' § 28 ; cp Elisha; eAlCOye [L]), ‘ a son of David ' [q.v., § 11 <7(/3)] (2S. 5 15, eA[e]icoyc [BA]; 1 Ch, 14s, eKT&e [B], eAlC&Y [A])- In 1 Ch- 36 for Elishama {q.v. , 3) Elishua should be restored (so (S B eXeicra). ELISIMUS, RV Eliasimus (eX[e]ic[e]i/v\oc [BA]), 1 Esd. 9s8 = AV Ezra IO27 Eliashib, 5. ELIU (HAeioy [BNA], hXioy [ Bc ]’ ie " Elihu), a forefather of Judith (Judith 81). ELIUD (eAioyi [Ti. WH], i.e., TUT^N, -God' [or 'my God’] is glorious’; cp Ammihud, Abihud), sixth from Zerubbabel in the ancestry of Joseph (Mt. 1 14). See Genealogies ii. , § 2 ( c ). ELIZAPHAN (1&V7K, i.e., * God [or. my God] shelters’; cp ELzaphan ; eA[e]lCd4>AN [BAL]). 1. A Kohathite prince, according to Nu. 330 P ; but in 1 Ch. 158 his name is co-ordinated with that of Kohath (eXeura^jar [B]). He is also named in 2CT1. 29 13. See Genealogies i., §7(i-). 2. A prince of Zebulun, Nu. 3425 P. See Parnach. ELIZUR (TW^g, * God ’ [or my God ’] is a rock, * ELKOSHITE §29; cp Zuriel, Pedahzur; eA[e]icoyp [BAL]), a Reubenite prince (Nu. I5 2 10 73035 10 18+ ). See Zur, Names with. ELKANAH 'God hath created (him)’ or ‘ God hatb bought bim,’ § 36 ; e/vKANA [BAL]). 1. The father of tbe prophet Samuel (iS. Ii). He was the son of Jerahmeel (see Jeroham [1 ]) according to one form of tbe genealogy of Samuel ; but tbe name of Samuel’s father is also traditionally given (it would seem) as Elibu or rather (see Elihu, 2) Elimelech. 2. Eponym of one of the three divisions of the Kora- bite Levites (Ex. 624; see Korah [3]), the others being Assir (i) and Abi asaph. In t Ch. 6 the genealogy of the sons of Korah is given in two forms, both differ- ing from that of Exodus, and Samuel’s father is repre- sented as a descendant of tbe Korahite Elkanah. This may mean either that the descendants of Samuel were actually incorporated after the exile in the Korahite guild under the name of sons of Elkanah, and that an older Elkanah, son of Korah, was inserted to give symmetry to the genealogical tree, or simply that the Korahite guild of Elkanah was led hy its name to claim kinship with the prophet Samuel and incorporate his ancestors in its genealogy. See Genealogies i., § 7 (ii'- )■ . 3. A Levite : 1 Ch. 9 16 (j\\Kava [B]). 4. One of David's warriors, 1 Ch. 12 6 (jjAxava [BAL]). See David, § ii ( a ). 5. A Levitical door-keeper for the ark; 1 Ch. 15 23 (17X- Kava [BRA])., 6. A Judahite nohle : 2 Ch. 287 (etXxava [B]). \y. r. s. ELKIAH (eAKeiA[BNA]; AVElcia — i.e. , Hilkiah), an ancestor of Judith (Judith 81). ELKOSHITE, THE Ginsb., with most MSS and editions ; 'BtipSKH, Baer, with the small MS Massora; and 'E'ip'^n also are found in MSS.; eAKCCAIOC [BKAQ]), *■ gentilic noun, derived from Elkosh, the name of the town to which tbe prophet Nahum belonged (Nah. Ii). According to Peiser [ZA TW t 7 349 ('97)], the word contains the name of the deity, ebp [cp Kish], which he finds likewise in the name Kushaiah [1 Ch. 15 17], and in Prov. 3O31 [he reads Wpb* for CHp^R]). Three sites have been proposed. a. There is an el-Kus not far from the left bank of the Tigris, two days’ journey N. of tbe ancient Nineveh, where the grave of the prophet Nahum is pointed out. According to Friedrich Delitzsch and A. Jeremias, 1 this is the place referred to in Nah. 1 1. This theory involves the assumption that Nahum belonged to the ' ten tribes ’ and wis horn in exile, and has been thought to he favoured by the prophet’s (presumed) accurate know- ledge of local details respecting Nineveh. On the one hand, however, the N. Israelitish exiles were not settled in Assyria proper (2 K. 176 18 n), and we find no trace in Nahum of any hope of a return home such as an exile would certainly have expressed somewhere (cp Kue., Ond.W ii., § 75, n. 4) ; and, on the other, quite enough was known of Assyria in Palestine in the time of Nahum to enable a prophet of such power to sketch the picture that we have in chap. 2. We must rather suppose that it was at a later day that the graves of the two prophets who prophesied against Nineveh were sought in the neighbourhood of that city. Whilst a resting-place for Jonah was found in Nineveh itself (Nebi Yunus), the village called el-Kus seemed, in view of Nah. 1 1, to be appropriate for the grave of Nahum. That there was a village there, however, in the seventh century b. c. cannot be shown. The earliest reference to it, according to Jeremias, is in the eighth century a. D. ; nor is the grave mentioned before the sixteenth. b. A ruined site in Galilee, Elcese, was shown to Jerome as the birthplace of the prophet, and is attested, 1 See the treatise hy Billerheck and Jeremias cited under Nahum (heg.). 1279 1280 ELLASAR with slight variations, as EX/cetrc also by the Greek fathers. As eXiceiraios is also the form of the name in Nah. li (eX*ccuvafi, eKvaOav, tav. [BA], eA.11/., e\v. [L, who gives only two]). In 1 Esd. 844 there are only two names, Alnathan, RV Elnathan ( evaarav [B]), and Eunatan, a misprint wbicb is corrected in the RV En natan (cvvarav). ELOHIM (D'n^N), see Names, § 114/ ELOI (gAgoi), Mk. 1534 See Eli, Eli. ELON i.e., ' [sacred] oak, ’ § 69 ; cp Allon). 1. One of the cities assigned to Dan in Josh. 19 43, where it is mentioned along with Shaalabbin, Aijalon, Timnah, and Ekron. (<55 has : cuXu w [B], eX. [A], taX. [L], but (5 L e\wv for ‘ Aijalon ' in v. 42 — a case of transposition. ) The site has not been identified ; but it is obviously to be looked for in or near the Valley of Sorek ( W. Sardr). The same Elon is referred to in 1 K. 49 (crit. emend.), where it follows Shaalbim and Bethshemesh. See Elon-beth -hanan (where <55 's readings are given). *• See Aijalon, 2 ; and cp helow, Elon ii., 1 f. ELON (pf?N!, Gin. Ba. ; aAAoon [BAL]). a. A son, that is, family or clan, of Zebulun : Gen. 46 14 (aapwv [B]) = Nu. 2626 (a\u)v [L]) ; perhaps the same as 2. One of the six ‘ minor ' judges, most of whose names ' appear to be those of clans rather than of individuals' (Moore, Judges , xxviii. ): Judg. 12 11 f (Gin. pS’R, Ba. j^k, a iXcofi [BL], -u [A] ; Ahialon). Elon is really the heros eponymos of Aijalon (or rather Elon; see Aijalon, 2), in the land of Zebulun. The gentilic is Elonite, Nu. 2626 (aAXwj/[£]i [BAF], aAowi [L]). 3. (pS'N, Gin. Ba. ; properly a place-name ; see Names, §69), a Hittite, father of Bashemath (1), one of Esau's foreign wives : Gen. 26 34 (aiAwju. [AL], -fiw/u. [D]), called father of Adah, 2 : Gen. 362 (eAxoju [#], jit [/?], -Ao>i/ [E], -jn [L]). See Bashe- math, 1, Beeri, 1. ELON-BETH-HANAN (J3rrn’3 flb'X ; but some MSS have p for JYQ, and others prefix 1 ; eXo)M ecoc BhGAaman [B], aiaAcom ecoc BhGanan [A], aiXlon eooc BAI0NAAM [L]). A name, or rather names, at the end of the description of Solomon’s second prefec- ture ( 1 K. 4 9). (5 is probably right in reading ' . . and Elon as far as B. ’ (cp v. 12, end). Elon is prob- ably the first Elon (i. , 1) mentioned above, though it is also possible to read Aijalon. ‘ Beth-hanan,' if a frontier town is meant, can hardly be right ; some well-known name is wanted. Possibly we should, with Klostermann, read Beth-horon, an important place, marked out by nature for a frontier-town. Conder’s suggestion of Beit 'Anan (Socin, Bet ' Endn , a village 8J m. from Jerusalem, on the road to Jintzu (PEFM. 3 16), Beit Haniin , 2 h. NE. of Gaza ( BR 2 371), may be mentioned. ELOTH 1 K. 9 26 2 Ch. 817. See Elath. ELPAAL (bv&bti, § 31 ; aAa&A, gAxaaA [B], -a., eA. [A], eAei4>. [L]), a name in a genealogy of Benjamin (q.v., § 9 ii. (3) ; 1 Ch. 8 n /. 18. See JQR 11 102^, § 1. Cp Ephlal. ELPALET 1 Ch. 14 5 ; or RV Elpelet (1 Ch. 14 s) see Eliphelet (i). EL-PARAN ( 1 "}NB S'N , i. e. , ' the tree [@ ' terebinth ' ; better, ' palm-tree '] of Paran ' ; eooc THC T6PGAM N0OY 1282 I28X EL-ROI THC a,P&N [(A) (D)], e. T. T6PMIN0OY T. (J>. [E], e. TepeBlNQoy T. X, Assyr. Al-ta-ku-u, €A0€KO> [A]), a town of the Judaean low- land, mentioned with Ekron and Timnah, in the book of Joshua (19 4 4, &Xk& 0& [B], 6A06K6IN [L]), was (21=3 6XKCO0AIM [B], eXeeKA [L]) a Levitical city in the inheritance of Dan. It was taken and destroyed by Sennacherib on his way to Timnah and Ekron after his defeat of the Egyptian forces that had come to the help of the Ekronites (see his 1 prism ’ inscription, Schrader, KA Tffl, 171 /., 289, 292 [ET, 159 /., 282, 285]). The army overthrown by Sennacherib probably consisted of Jews as well as Ekronites and Egyptians, and a likely spot for them to unite and take their stand would be up the Wady Sarar (Vale of Sorek) on the high road between Ekron and Jerusalem, at the foot of the hills — a position which equally suits the data in Joshua. Sennacherib might reach it from the coast and the neighbourhood of Joppa (where he was previously), by the vale of Aijalon and the easy pass from the latter to the Vale of Sorek. No trace of the name, however, has been discovered here or elsewhere. Khirbet Lezka , 7 m. SW. of Ekron and near the great N. road ( PEF map, Sh. xvi. ; see map to JUDiEA) suits the data of Sennacherib’s inscription, but seems incompatible with those of Joshua. Beit Likid in Aijalon (Conder) is too far N. (cp Guthe, Zukunfts- bild d. J esaia , 48). See Chronology, § 21. G. A. S. ELTEKON (piftK : 06KOYM [B], eX0€K€N [AL]), c* town in the hill-country of Judah (Josh. 15 59), mentioned in u small group of six along with Halhul (Halhul), Beth-zur (Burj Sur) and Gedor (Jedur). The site is therefore to be sought, most probably, somewhere on or near the route from Hebron to Jerusalem. The reading OeicovfjL of (5> B suggests that the element Sn in this name was sometimes taken to represent the definite article (cp Eltolad). Some have thought of this Eltekon as the site of Sennacherib's victory of Altaku, and indeed, in spite of what Schrader says {KA 17 1 /), the spelling of the latter is nearer Eltekon than Eltekeh ; but the geographical reasons he gives in favour of Eltekeh are well grounded. See Elteke. ELTOLAD pVlPl'PX), one of the cities of Judah in the Negeb near the border of Edom (Josh. 15 30, €A06 oAaA [A], -coA&A [L], eABconAaA [B]), but in Josh. 19 4 (eA0oyA&A [A], -AaA [L], -Aa [B]) assigned to Simeon. In 1 Ch. 429 the name is Tolad (iVir ; 0 io\ad [A], OovXaeifM [B], 6 o\ad [L]), the prefixed Arabic article being omitted (so at least Kon. 2417, but apparently not Ges. - K. § 35 in ; cp Eltekon , above). ELUL (W?X, eXoyX [B b XA vid ] ; in Assyr. Ululu; see Schr. KA T 380, and cp W>x in Palm, [de Vogii£, Syr. Cent. no. 79]) occurs in Neh. 615 (eAoyA [B], <\AoyX [L]) and 1 Macc. 14 27 (eAoyA [VA], om. K) as the name of a Month {q.v . , § 5). ELUZAI ['t-iu’px, i.e., * God is my refuge ? ’ § 29 ; <\Z<\l [B], eAuozi [A], eAiezep [L]), one of David’s warriors, 1 Ch. 12sf. See David, § 11 (a) iii. ELYMAIS (eA[A]y/v\a 6 aya, tbe name of an Elamite city in Ptolemy, for Gratz himself holds that the rest of tbe clause is deeply corrupt. Compare, how- ever, Vg. and Aq. in Dan. l.c. ; hoth take to be a proper name. * Elymais ’ recurs in Tob. 2 10, where RV ra £- certainly adopts the correct reading. For the statement that Achiachakus went to Elymais [els tijv ’EX(X)u/xat5a [BXA] — possibly yyv ’E.) support has been found in the semi-apocryphal romance which bears his name (Rendel Harris, Story of A hi kar, lii. ). Dillon, however, ingeniously suggests that the name has arisen from the underground cell — the original narrative had some derivative of — in which Ahikar hides himself from the wrath jf Sennacherib and Nadan ( Contemp . Review , March 1898). It is to be noted that the allusion to Achiacharus has little bearing upon Tobit — at least in its present form (see Tobit). ELYMAS (eAyMAC [Ti. WH]|, Actsl38. See Barjesus. ELYON (l'vV»), Gen. 14:8 RV m £ See Names, § n8. ELZABAD p3TSx, 1 God has given,’ § 27 ; cp Palm. "12T13X de Vogu6, Syr. Centr. no. 73. Ili-zabadu, a Jewish name of fifth century b.C. , has been found on a tablet from Nippur [Hilprecht]). 1. One of David's warriors ; 1 Ch. 12i2 (eXiag’ep [B], probably only a scribe's error, e\efa( 3 a 5 [A], eXtra/3a5 [L])- See David, § n {a) iii. 2. b. Shemaiah, a Korahite door-keeper , 1 1 Ch. 267 (eX*tfa/3a0 [B] ; eXga^ad [A] ; tef. [L]). ELZAPHAN ()DvSx, ' El conceals or * defends,’ § 30; cp Zephaniah ; eXiCA<|)&N [BAL]), b. Uzziel, a Kohathite Levite (Ex. 622 Lev. 10 4). Cp Elizaphan. EMADABUN (hmaXaBoyn [BA]) p i Esd. 5 58 RV, AV Madiabun. EMATHEIS (eMA0eiC [A]), 1 Esd. 929 RV = Ezra 10 28, Athlai. EMBALMING. The Egyptian belief in the con- tinued existence after death of the human Ka (see Egypt, § 18) seems to be of very great antiquity. To make this existence happy precautions of every kind were taken ; food and drink were placed in the grave that the Ka might not starve ; his favourite movables in like manner were buried with him ; but above all the body had to be preserved so that the Ka could resume possession at pleasure. Hence the very ancient practice of embalming. A minute description of the methods employed in his own time is given by Herodotus (286^ ) ; with this may be compared the account of Diodorus Siculus (I91). According to Herodotus embalming was the business of a special guild. He distinguishes three methods. 1 Read ‘ and Elzabad and bis brothers ’ witb ® and some Heh. MSS (Ki.). 1284 EMBROIDERY EMBROIDERY 1. In the costliest of the three the brain was with- drawn through the nose with an iron book and the cavity filled with spices. Tben an incision was made in the abdomen on the left side with an * Ethiopic stone' (flint knife), the bowels removed and washed with palm wine, the cavity filled with myrrh, cassia, and other drugs, and the opening sewed up. Next the body was kept for seventy days in natron (ac- cording to modern analysis, sub-carbonate of soda), then finally washed and skilfully swathed in long strips of byssus smeared with gum. The mummy was usually enclosed in a sort of case which showed the outlines of the body, and lastly in a wooden coffin of human shape, occasionally also in a stone sarcophagus. 2. The second method was simpler, and correspond- ingly cheaper. Cedar oil was introduced into the body and removed after it had decomposed the viscera ; the body was then laid in natron, which, according to Hero- dotus, wholly consumed the flesh, leaving nothing but the skin and bones. 3. Tbe third and cheapest method substituted for the cedar oil of the second some less expensive material. Broadly speaking, the statements of Herodotus are confirmed by what we learn from Egyptian sources and from examination of the mummies themselves. 1 Ex- tant mummies, however, exhibit more methods of em- balming than the three just described. In particular those of the New Empire show a marked advance in the art, as compared witb those of the Old. According to Erman, bowever {Egypt, 315), accurate details as to this are still wanting. One of the main innovations was in the treatment of the viscera. In the New Empire these were removed ; the beart was replaced by a stone scarabasus (the scarabseus, as a peculiarly mysterious and holy creature, was supposed likely to be of essential use to the dead). Tbe heart, lungs, liver, and other remaining viscera were set aside in four vases, usually (from an old misunderstanding) called Canopic. Each vase was under the protection of a special daemon — all four daemons being sons of Osiris — and the lid of each took the form of the bead of that daemon : man, jackal, hawk, cynocephalus. The special function of the daemon was to ward off hunger. This custom of embalming was specifically Egyptian. The Hebrews did not practise it. It is only as being an Egyptian custom that the narrator speaks of it as applied in the cases of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 50 2/. [J 2 ], 50 26 [E]). With his statement that the embalming lasted forty days (50 3) may be compared that of Diodorus (I91) which makes it at least thirty days. Ordinarily, however, it seems to have taken seventy days. There is a statement of Josepbus {Ant. xiv. 74), referring to a later period — a statement which stands by itself — that the body of Aristobulus was embalmed with honey so as to allow of its being afterwards removed to Jerusalem. See Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. ii. 2451 ff. ; Maspero, Mint, sur qiielques Papyrus du Louvre, II. : le rituel de Fembawne- ment ; J. Czermak (as in note); articles in Winer, Riehm, and PREfi) ; Erman, Egypt, chap. 13. I. B. EMBROIDERY. RV’s substitute for the ' needle- work ’ of AV in Judg. 5 30 Ps.45 14 [15] (JlDpn * broidered work ’), and virtually in Ex. 2836 27 16 28393637 38 18 1. Hebrew 39 29 (Dpi n&gD). EV gives ‘broidered work’ terms. , :l , in Ezek. 16 10 13 (rtD/TJ), ‘their hroidered gar- ments' in 26 16 (DnDj?"l ’713). The Heb. word ( rikmah ) is used metaphorically in Ezek. 17 3 (feathers of an eagle) and 1 Ch. 29 2 (ornamental stones, or mosaic work). The cognates of nDpT are Eth. reketn, Ar. rakama 1 to embroider,’ also ‘ to write ’ (‘ to make points '), with which the Targ. NnDpI ‘ coloured spots,' and the Syr. tarfamatha ‘ red pimples,' may he compared, from which it seems to follow that the first step towards embroidery was mak- ing points, or little strokes ; diversity of hue would be sought for in the next stage. In its usual specialised sense of needlework- ornamentation of woven fragments, Ar. rakama has passed into 1 Compare especially the results of Czermak's physiological examination of two mummies at Prague, in SIVA IV, 1852. 1285 Italian ( ricamare ) and Spanish (recam ar). © has irotxtAat, 7] irouaAia tov pat8m>TQv, epyov ttouciAtou, ttouciAos. In Ex. 28 4 AV has * a broidered coat ' for pawn JUha ; RV ‘ a coat of cbequer work.' See Tunic, and observe that, though in Ps. 45 15 [14] (RV ‘ in, or upon, broidered work ') is plainly corrupt, the reference to brocade- work in v. 14 (13] is un- questioned (see Che. Ps.fi)). Embroidery was regarded by the Romans as peculiarly a Phrygian art 1 ( vestis Phrygia; opus Pkrygium). 2 H f (848) even states that embroidery th rt nect ^ e was lnvcnte d by the * Phrygians. More probably the Phrygians derived the art indirectly from Babylonia. According to Perrot and Chipiez {Art in Chaldcea and Assyria, 2 363) the Chaldasans first set the example of wearing richly embroidered stuffs, ‘ as we know from the most ancient cylinders, from the Telloh (Tell Loh ?) monu- ments, and from the stele of Marduk-nadin-ahi.' Should this statement be correct, it practically decides the question as to the origin of the art of embroidery. The Latin expression for an embroidering- needle {acus Babylonia ) would seem to point in the same direction. It is true, the ancient Babylonian cylinder- seals hardly supply any confirmation of the statement of historians. In the magnificent records of De Sarzec's excavations, however, there is (pi. I. bis , fig. la) a representation of a standing figure clothed in a garment covered with diagonal lines whicb form lozenges. In this we may most probably see an example of exceed- ingly early embroidery (3000 or 4000 B.C.), which would naturally assume a very simple form. Our next important example is that of Marduk-nadin-ahi (about 1120 B.C. ), in whicb the robe of the king is very elaborately wrought. The finest specimens of all, however, are the designs on tbe robe of the Assyrian king Asur - nasir - apli (885 B.C.), which are most interesting and instructive with regard to this subject. The sculptures representing him show that his dress was embroidered with most varied designs, representing men, deities, and animals, as well as the king himself performing ceremonies before the sacred tree, etc. The borders and ornaments (generally floral, the chief subject being the sacred tree) are extremely good (see Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, and Perrot and Chipiez, Chaldcea , figs. 253-259, and text). In the inscriptions we cannot at present say with certainty that either needlework or woven embroidery is spoken of. Garments and woven stuffs are indeed referred to ; we even have lists of garments ; but the precise signification of the words employed is often obscure. Very possibly, however, the phrases {subatu) la ina afagi barru and {subatu) fa ina kunsilli barru refer not to garments * torn with thorns, ' or other objects of that kind, but to cloth 'ornamented' or ‘ embroidered -with a thorn' (? needle) and ‘with a. shuttle (?) ' respectively. Egyptian embroidery is known only through late specimens ; blit from these we can safely infer the production of similar fabrics in earlier times. Herodotus (347) mentions that Amasis (570 B.C.) sent totheAthena (Minerva) of Lindos a linen corslet inwoven with figures and embroidered with gold and cotton; and Ezekiel (27 7), addressing Tyre, says ‘ Of embroidered byssus from Egypt was thy sail.’ Lucan (10 141-143) speaks of Egyptian embroidery. The thread is called Sidonian, the silk is from the Seres, tbe needle is Egyptian (Nilotis). In Greece the invention of the art was ascribed to Athena : hence the offerings of foreign work of this kind to her temple (see above). Embroidery with the needle cannot be shown to be mentioned in the Homeric poems. Almost always the terms used are those ap- plicable to weaving {II. 3 125^ 22 440/ ; Od. 19 225^: ). l It is said that the toga picta worn by the emperor on festal occasions, by the consuls on entering office, hy the magistrates when giving public games, and by the Roman generals on their triumphs, was of Phrygian embroidery. 1286 EMEK-KEZIZ EMERODS To the value set on embroidery in ancient Palestine Judg. 530 supplies an eloquent testimony ; it is presum - 3 Biblical Babylonian work that the poet rpfprpnpPH refers to< At an y rate ' • Achan ' s mantle was Babylonian (Josh. 7 21 24). In the account of Hezekiah’s tribute (Taylor cylinder, 3 34 ff>)\ there is no mention of embroidered garments ; but, though we may perhaps assume that the veil of the temple (see below) was not Jewish work, it is probable (especially if P is late) that the art of embroidery was practised in Judaea. The account of the process of preparing the gold thread for the embroiderer, in Ex. 39 3, deserves notice. 1 And they beat out the plates of gold, so that he could cut them into wires, to work these into the blue, and the purple, and the scarlet, and the fine linen, the work of an artist.’ In this passage the word iwri, hofeb (EV ‘cunning workman’) takes the place of Dgi, rokem (EV ‘embroiderer’); another similar but perhaps higher class of work may be meant. According to the Talmudists nDp“l» or emhroidery, was when the design was attached to the stuff by heing sewn on, and visible, therefore, on one side only, and the work of the 3 E 7 n was that in which the design was worked in hy the loom, appearing on hoth sides. 1 The correctness of this, however, may be doubted, for the statement that the 3 B?n worked golden threads and also cherubim into the fabric (Ex. 26 1 31 36835), implies that he, too, was a needle-worker (cherubim being probably much too difficult for a loom-worker at that period), and moreover an ‘artist,’ not only on account of the more com- plicated nature of the work he executed, but also because he worked from new and much more varied designs than the opi- Josephus {Ant. xii. 5 4 BJ v. 5 4) speaks of the wonderful veils both of the first and of the second (Herod’s) temple. Clermont-Ganneau has suggested- that the veil of the first, which Antiochus Epiphanes certainly took away, was the curtain of the sanctuary of Olympia, of Assyrian workmanship, dyed with Phoenician purple, and given by Antiochus. Josephus’s description of the highly artistic veil in Herod’s temple, sets us wondering where it was made. He calls it a Babylonian curtain. It is doubtful whether any but priests’ families remained on the site of ancient Babylon ; but of course the art of embroidery may have been practised in other cities of Babylonia. T. G. P. EMEK-KEZIZ, AV 1 The valley of Keziz ’ (pDI? rVj? = AMEKACeiC [B] -KK&. [A], EM. [L]), an unidentified city in the territory of Benjamin (Josh. 18 21), enumerated between Beth-hoglah and Beth- ARABAH, 2. The name K 2 sis sounds like the word Kesas, another name of the W. Hasaseh , between Tekoa and En-gedi (see Ziz) ; but this Wady could not belong to Benjamin. If . Schwally(Z.<4 TW 18 135 [’98]) compares Ar. ’ ayyim , ‘serpent,' as if 1 serpent-spirits ’ were meant (cp Adam and Eve, col. 61, n. 3) ; but the text is more probably corrupt. The parallel names all admit of simple explanations. T. a. C. EMINENT PLACE p|), Ezek. I624. See High Place, § 6. Emmanuel (6mmano Y hA [Ti. whj), ml i* 3 AV ; RV Immanuel. EMMAUS (eMMAOYC [Ti. WH] ; deriv. uncertain ; C P Dpn, ‘hot [spring],’ see Hammath ; or njfBH, ‘spring, fount,’ see Mozah and cp below, no. 2). 1. A city in the 4 plain, ’ at the base of the mountains of Judaea, near which was the scene of the defeat of Gorgias at the hands of Judas, 164 B.C. (1 Macc. 340, a^a[o]u[v] [AKV]; 57, a/j.fxaovfi [A],-s[K], e/jLfxaovs [V]); 43, e/xfxaovfx [AX cacb ], va.fx[xa.ovv [X*], a/xfx. [V]). It was among the strongholds afterwards fortified by Bacchides {id. 9 50 afxfxaovs [«*]. a/xfjLaovfx [X c * a V], efxfji. 1 Possibly the original reading in 1 S. 617 was which was displaced by the Rere. 1289 [A]). Emmaus, mod. * Amwas , was situated 22 R. m. from Jerusalem on the road to Joppa, and 10 m. SSE. from Lydda. In Roman times it was the seat of a toparchy, and frequently enters into the history of that period (cp Jos. Ant. xiv. II2; BJ i. H2, ii. 5i 2O4, iv. 81, v. 1 6). From the third century it bears the name Nicopolis, the origin of which is variously ex- plained (see Schurer, GVJ 1 537 ^ , ET, 2253/.), and in Christian times it was an episcopal see. Emmaus was renowned for a spring believed to be endowed with miraculous powers (cp Mid. Kohileth 7 7), from the exist- ence of which it may have derived its name. Eusebius and Jerome (05 257 21 1216), whom early writers followed, agreed in identifying Emmaus -Nicopolis with 2. 2. The Emmaus of Lk. 24 13 (referred to, but un- named, in Mk. 16 12), a ‘village’ { Kibfxrj ), 60 (X and some others read 160) stadia from Jerusalem. The identification has found supporters in modern times (notably Robinson LBR 147 JJ.), but is unlikely. Emmaus was too important a city to be called Kibfxr} ; and, not to mention other reasons, the supposition that the disciples accomplished so long a journey (for no specific purpose) is at variance with the narrative. It is very evident that the reading 160 is an intentional alteration to harmonise with the tradition shared by Eusebius and Jerome. Emmaus is to be sought for in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and it is agreed that it can be no other than the Emmaus of Josephus {BJ vii. 66) 30 (so Niese ; others read 60) stadia from Jerusalem, which Vespasian colonised by assigning to it 800 discharged veterans. Now about 34-35 stadia to the NW. of Jerusalem lies Kuloniyeh, a little village, which derives its name, it would appear, from 4 colonia ’ and reminds us of the 800 veterans above. 1 In close proximity is the ruined Bet Mizsa, probably the Benjamite rrxen of Josh. 18 26, which according to the G2mara on Sukk. 4s was also a ‘colonia’ (see Mozah). The close resemblance between the names risen {Bet Mizza) and Emmaus is sufficiently striking, and since it is almost the required distance from Jerusalem, there can be little doubt as to the identity of Kuloniyeh and the Emmaus of Josephus. The further identification of Kuloniyeh and the Emmaus of Lk. becomes equally probable, and is accepted by most moderns ( Hi. , Caspari, Buhl, Pal. 186, Schultz, FREW 11 769 771, Wolff in Riehm HWB, Wilson iu Smith's DB® ; see also Sepp, Jer. u. d. heil. Land , 1 54-73). 2 By those who adopt the less accredited distance of 60 stadia, several sites have been proposed for Emmaus. (a) Conder ( HB 326 /., PEFM 336 Jf .) finds it in the name el-Khamasa (according to him = Emmaus), SW. of Bittlr (see Bether i.) ; the antiquity of the place is vouched for by the existence of rock-hewn tombs. El-Khamasa, however, is 72 stadia from Jerusalem direct, and the distance is even greater by road. ( \b ) el-Kubebeh about 64 stadia from Jerusalem, W. of Neby Samwll. Further support for this is claimed in the tradition (which, however, is not older than the 14th cent.) associating this place With Christ’s appear- ance (cp Baed.( 3 ) 16, 115, and esp. Zschojeke, D. neutest. Emmaus [’65]). (c) Kariet el-‘Enab (or Abu Gosh), to the S. of el-Kubebeh, about 66 stadia from Jerusalem (cp Williams, Diet. Gk\ and Rom. Geo?., Thomson LB( 2 ) 534, 666 f . ; and see JPh. 4262). Cp Kirjath-jearim, § 2. S. A. C. EMMER (eMMHP [A]), i Esd. 9 21 = Ezra 10 20, IMMER ii, EMMERUTH (eMMHpoye [A], etc.), i Esd. 5 24 RV = Ezra 237, IMMER ii., 1. EMMOR (emmcop [Ti. WH]), Acts 7 16 AV, RV Hamor. ENAIM — z . e. , probably ‘ place of a fountain,’ §§ ioi, 107, cp Enan ; ainan [ADEL]), mentioned only in Gen. 381421 RV (AV m s- Enajim), where AV following Pesh., Vg., and Targ. (see Spurrell’s note) 8 1 See Kulon. A little to the WSW. is Kastal, whose name also bears a trace of a former Roman encampment. 2 It is interesting to recall that, according to Wilson, ‘ Kuloniyeh was, and still is, a place to which the inhabitants of Jerusalem went out for recreation.' 3 The apoc. Book of Jubilees (chap. 41 ) omits the name. tTSl 2 ) (93 18 221 18) follows ©, anim, avei/x. 1290 BN AN treat the word as an appellative, ‘an open place.’ Enaim, however, is obviously a place ; it lay between Adullam and Timnah, and is the Enam (or# ; yva up. [AL], paiavei [B]) named in Josh. 15 34 in the first group of towns in the lowland of Judah. The fuller form of the name in Gen. and Josh, is prohably Tappuah of Enaim (or, of Enam) ; see Tappuah, i, and Nephtoah. The Talmud mentions a place called Kefar Enaim ( Pesik . Rab. 23), and here and elsewhere distinctly states that Enaim is a place-name, on the authority of Rab ( Sota , 10 a). Conder's identification with Kh. Wady 'Alin does not suit the reference in Genesis. T. k. c. ENAN (pty, § 101, cp Enaim, Hazar-enan; ai nan [BAFL]). 1. Father of Ahira (Nu. 1 15 229 [cupav A] 7 78 83 10 27, P). See Aner, i. ENASIBUS (€NAc[e]lB0C [BA]), . Esd. 9 3 4=Ezra 10 36, Eliashib, 6. ENCAMPMENT (iTVO), Gen. 25 16 Ezek. 25 4 etc., RV ; see Camp, § 1 ; Cattle, § i, u. ENCHANTER, ENCHANTMENTS etc.). See Magic, § 3 ; Divination, § 3. ENDIRONS (D^DS^), Ezek. 40 4 3 AV*g- See Hook (7). ENDOR (TH fr [Josh. 1 S.], "INI ]'V [Ps.], AGnAcoP [BNARTL ; Euseb.], GNAcopON Jos.), [a) Endor appears in Josh. 17 n (MT)among those Manassite towns within the territory of Issachar from which the Manassites were unable to expel the Canaanite inhabit- ants ; but it is not mentioned in <5> BAL (unless edcop [B a, b mg.j i s a trace of the name) nor in the || Judg. I27, and has evidently slipped into MT through the simi- larity of the name to that of Dor (cp Bennett, SBOT, Josh .. , ad loc . ). [b) Saul’s visit to the witch of Endor before the battle of Gilboa is related in 1 S. 285*25 (aeX5wp [B], vyvdojp [A]). Although the name Endor was recog- nised in the fourth century a.d. as attaching to a large village 4 R. m. S. of Tabor (05 25970; 22625), and though this fourth-century name still lingers at Endur, a miserable village on the N. slope of the NabI Dahl, the question arises whether the narrator of 1 S. 287-25 did not mean a village called En-harod, close to the fountain spoken of in Judg. 7 1. The true order of events in these narratives probably is : ( 1 ) the Philistines muster their troops at Aphek (in Sharon), and Achish promises to take David with him, while Saul musters at 'En H&rod (28 \ff. 29 1) ; (2) Israel encamps in the plain of Jezreel, and the Philistines send David away, etc. ( 292 -ii ); (3) the Philistines penetrate as far as Shunem (284); (4) Saul seeks an oracle and finds it by night at Endbr (283-25 ; so Budde). Note that in 1 S. 285 it is said that Saul's heart ’trembled exceed- ingly ' (mm ; cp H&rod) ; how naturally after this, if our conjecture is right, comes the speech of the servants of Saul in v. 7 respecting the wise woman at the Well of Trembling (En-Harod) ! Almost certainly ’ En-dor ' in 1 S. 287 should be emended as proposed. (c) In Ps. 83 10 [11], * they perished at Endor ' does not accord with the mention of Sisera and Jabin. ’ At Endor ' (")NT"jn) is obviously corrupt. The context requires •without survivors,' and we should probably read v and n are liable to be confounded (Che. Ps. ( 2 ) ). Gratz's conjecture ‘ at the fountain of Harod ' (mn j 'pa), adopted by Winckler and Wellhausen, only re- moves a part of the difficulty. It is suggestive, however. Formerly Gratz read ' En-dor ' for ’ En-harod ' in Judg. 7 1, and <55 BA 's ’Endor' in 1 S. 29 1 may come from * En-harod' (see Harod, Well of, 2). The village of Endur (not' Endur) is ' 7 or 8 m. from the slopes of Gilboa, partly over difficult ground ' (Grove- Wilson). Nor is it quite beyond question that there EN-G-ANNIM was a place called Endor in pre-exilic times. There may perfectly well have been two spots called En-harod. The fourth -century village of Endor may have owed its name to a corruption of the text of 1 Samuel. The meaning of is hy no means perspicuous, and the con- fusion of -)Ni and mn was easy. At any rate we need not speculate as to whether one of the caves in the calcareous cliff on the slope of which Endur stands, was the scene of the visit of the unhappy Saul to the wise woman (so J. L. Porter, in Kitto's Bib. Cyc. s.v. ‘ Endor '). What ‘ Harod 1 really means is uncertain (cp Harodite). Perhaps we should read Ador (thn), from which -jjn [cp * Dor '} would come even more easily than from yn. T. K. C. EN-EGLAIM (D'^r PV, ‘ fountain of Eglaim ’ = Eglam, — i.e. , • calf- place ’ ? on form of name, see Names, §§ ioi, 104, 107) ; eN&r&^eiM [BA], AlNAf-AAeiM [Q]i BNGALLIM ), one of the two points between which fishing in the former ‘ Salt Sea 1 was to be carried on when Ezekiel’s vision was fulfilled (Ezek. 47 io). Since the vision relates to the land W. of the Jordan, and the other point mentioned is En-gedi, we naturally look for En-eglaim near the influx of the Jordan into the Dead Sea. At present, the salt water and the fresh intermingle some way above the mouth of the river, and fish that are carried down are thrown up dead on the beach (cp Dead Sea, § 4). It will there- fore be in the spirit of the vision if, with Tristram [Bible Places , p. 93) we identify En-eglaim with 'Ain Hajlek about 1 hr. from the N. shore of the Dead Sea, which is regarded by the Bedouins as the best fountain in the Ghor. It is hardly too bold to emend the text and read for Eglaim, Hoglah (rtan) ; see Beth-hoglah. t. k. C. ENEMESSAR (eNe/v\ecc<\p[oc] [BNA], salman- asar, Tob. I21315 f. ; a corruption of Shalmaneser (which the Syr. reads). ENENIUS, RV Eneneus (gnhnioc [BA]) 1 Esd. 58 = Neh. 7 7, Nahamani. ENGADDI (Ecclus. 24 14, AV). See En-gedi, n. EN-GANNIM (D'33 ) 'V.—i.e., ‘ fountain of gardens,’ § 101. 1. A city in the first group of towns in the lowland of Judah (Josh. 15 34 adiadaup [A], if we follow the Hebrew order ; but this really represents o;nHJJ of v. 36 ; yyovvup [L], d£ B apparently iXovdud, unless this form represents Tappuah) ; according to Clermont -Ganneau, the modern Umm Jina, W. of Beth-shemesh. Jerome and Eusebius (05 12126, Engannim ; 25966, IBvyav- vip) say ‘ now a village near Bethel. ’ 2. A Levitical town of Issachar (Josh. 19 21, uojv kcu Top.fJ.av [B], rjvyavvip [A], layavveip [L] ; 21 29, ivyyyv ypapparwv [BAL], 1 tt yyyv yavvip [Aq. Sm. Th.]). The parallel passage in 1 Ch. 673 [58] has Anem (djV, avap. [A], aivav [L], B om. v . ) which seems to be a mere corruption (Be., Ki.). There is mentioned in Egyptian texts a place called Kina ( WMM As. u. Eur. 174), which Budde (differing from Muller) would identify with En-gannim (see Heber, i). In Am. Tab. 164 17 21, we find a district called Gina . En-gannim is the Yivdy, Yypa, or Yivala of Josephus [BJ iii. 34 and elsewhere), on the frontier of Galilee, and, though no ruins of the ancient place are still left, we can hardly doubt that it is the modern Jenin . 2 This is a large and picturesque village 17 m. N. from Shechem, at the entrance of a valley which opens into the plain of Esdraelon. The slopes at the foot of which it lies are covered with plantations of olive trees and fig trees, and the houses of the village are surrounded with gardens fenced by hedges of cactus. A few palm trees add to the charm of the place. The secret of this 1 Apparently reading *1DD j'V. Compare ttoAis ypafifidroiv {i.e., -iso imp) in Josh. 15 49 for Kirjath-sannah. 2 Stade’s spelling Jennin is less accurate, and his doubt as to the reading En-ganmm seems unnecessary (GPU 542). 1291 1292 EN-GEDI ENOCH luxuriance is a spring, or rather torrent, which rises in the hills behind the village and sends its waters in many rivulets to fertilise the gardens and meadows, and at last disappears in the undulating plain of Esdraelon. The name of the place was therefore well ehosen, and the author of the ancient song (Cant. 412-15) might almost have been thinking of En-gannim when he made the newly-married husband liken his fair young wife to a 'garden' and a ‘fountain of gardens' (d’ 33 pjjp). The historical associations of Jenin are scanty. It is hardly probable that the ‘ fountain in Jezreel ' referred to in 1 S. 29 1 is the great fountain of En-gannim, ‘Jezreel’ being intended for the whole district (GASm. HG , 402) ; see Harod, 2 ; but most scholars (not, however, Conder) agree in identifying Beth-haggan {q.v . ), in the direction of which Ahaziah fled from Jehu, with Jenin, and therefore with En-gannim. Josephus [Ant. xx. 61 BJ ii. 12 3) describes a fatal dispute between the Galilaean pilgrims to Jerusalem and the Samaritans which took place at Tlv6.t], ' a village of the Samaritans,' and thereby illustrates the unfriendly re- ception accorded to Jesus in just sueh a village (Lk. 9 5 2^). t. k. c. EN-GEDI (**1| j'l? [so also outside pause, Ezek. 47 10 for y], — i.e. , ' fountain of the kid,’ §§ ioi, 104 ; 6NrAAA[e]l [BHAC]), the modern 'Ain Jidi (overlook- ing the western shore of the Dead Sea), 680 ft. below sea-level, and 612 ft. above that of the lake. ‘The beautiful fountain bursts forth at once a fine stream upon narrow terrace or shelf of the mountain.' It was, and is, a spot of rich vegetation in a severely desolate wilderness. Its vineyards and henna flowers are referred to in Cant. 1 14, whilst an allusion to its palm-trees is preserved in its alternative name, Hazazon-tamak {q.v . ) in Gen. 14 7 2CI1. 20 2, and also in Ecclus. 2 4 14 ( ‘ I was exalted like a palm tree in Engaddi'). 1 Hazazon may be connected with the modern Wady Hasasek, up which runs one of the main roads from Engedi to the interior (cp 2 Ch. 20 16, and see Ziz, ASCENT of). Engedi was one of the scenes of the wanderings of David (1 S. 2329 [24 1] ya.881 [L]). The cave whieh plays a part in this narrative is de- scribed as being not at Engedi, but somewhere in the wilderness. In the oasis itself the present writer found only insignificant caves ; but Tristram mentions in the neighbourhood ‘ a fairy grotto of vast size. ’ The * strongholds ’ which David and his men inhabited must have lain about the fountain ; the narrow shelf could be easily made impregnable, and it is here that most of the ruins are scattered. Solomon appears to have fortified Engedi ; for the MT of x K. 9 18 reads ' Tamar ’ [Kt.] (not Tadmor [Kr.]) * in the wilderness in the land (?)’ (cp Josh. 156i f avKaSrjs [B], rjvyaSSt [A], ayyaSSei [L], ' in the wilderness . En-gedi '). It was worthy of fortification, for it commands one of the roads from the Dead Sea Valley to the interior of Judah, and by it the Edomite invasion of Judah seems to have been made in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 20, evyaSet [B], ey7a55t[L]). It is mentioned once, if not thrice, in Ezekiel’s vision of the renovated land (Ezek. 47 10, ivyaS- eiv [B], evya 88. [A JP a tvyaSai/x [Q] ; see Tamar, i.). Josephus praises its fertility, especially its palms and balsam (Ant. ix. 1 2), and says it was the centre of a top- archy under the Romans (Z?/iii. 3 s) ; but Pliny omits it in his list of the toparchies (HN 5 1470). To Pliny it was known as Engadda, a place supplied with palm-groves and a centre of the Essenes (HN 5 15 [17]). It is mentioned by Ptolemy (v. 168). In the fourth century, according to Eusebius and Jerome, it was still * a very large village, whence opobalsamum was obtained ' 0.S119i5 25467) ‘and with vines’ (Epit. Paulas, xii.). 1 This particularly apt parallel is spoilt hy RV, which follows ® BA in reading ev cuyiaAois (as against ev eiryaSSois Kc-a, Pesh., and presupposed hy Vg.), and renders ‘ I was exalted like a palm tree on the sea shore.' During the Crusades there were vineyards held by <*. convent under Hebron (Rey, Colonies Franques en Syrie, 384), and to these times probably belong most of the ruins. The site was recovered by Robinson in 1838 ; it is held and cultivated by the Rushaideh Arabs ; blit there are now neither palms nor vines. The great staircase — for no other name adequately expresses the steepness of the ascent from the spring to the plateau — is hard for beasts of burden, and the camel-drivers who bring salt from Jebel Usdum prefer to go farther N. before turning up to Jerusalem. For further description see Robinson, BR 2439^ ; Lynch, Afarr., 282 ; Tristram, Land of I srael, 286; Conder, Tent Work, new ed. 265./! ; Bad.( 8 ), 200; GASm. HG , 269 f. g. A. S. ENGINE (]'nyn, lit. ‘invention,’ from 2GJTI, see Eccles. 729), in the expression 'engines invented by cunning men’ pKHH rDETip niJlGSTl, MHX&NAC M6MHXANeYM6NAC AOpCTOY [BA], M. M. Aopc- MOIC [L]), diver si generis machinas), to denote contriv- ances for hurling stones and arrows, 2 Ch. 26 15 ; see Siege. For the (AV ‘engines of war,' RV ‘battering engines’) of Ezek. 269! and the (EV ‘mount,’ AVmg. ‘engine of shot’) of Jer. 6 6 3224 Ezek. 26 8 (2 S. 20 15, AV ‘ bank ’), see also Siege. ENGRAVE (nPlQ, Ex. 28 n Zech. 39, etc., 4 vtvtt 6 oj, 2 Cor. 87); Engraver (J3K ehn, Ex. 28 n, etc.); Engraving Ex. 28 n, etc.) ; or Grave (nn3, 1 K. 7 36 2 Ch. 2 14 3 7, EV; 3!*n» Johl9 24; npn, Is. 49 16; ppn, Is. 22 16; ehn. J er - 17 1 ; mn, Ex. 32 16 [all EV]); Graving (nvi£3 f Ex. 39 6 AV, Zech. 3 9 2 Ch. 2 14 EV ; Jity^pp [plu.], 1 K. 7 31 EV) ; Graving Tool (Bin), Ex. 324. See Handicrafts, Seal, Writ- ing, and on Graven Image (^09), see Idol, § 1 d. EN-HADDAH (PHI! ^,§§99, iox ; hnaAAa[A], an. [L], AIMAPEK [B]), in the territory of Issachar (Josh. 19 21 f), apparently not far from En-gannim (Jenin). The identifications with the mod. Kefr Adhan, to the W. of Jenin (Conder), or with 'Ain Judeide, on the E. side of Mt. Gilboa (Kn. ), assume the accuracy of MT. For ‘ spring of Haddah ’ 1 we should perhaps read ‘Spring of Harod’ (*nn for mn), the most probable site of which, * Ain JalHd , is nearly 10 m. NNE. from Jenin. See Harod. S. C. EN-HAKKORE (K*#ir|ty, §§ xoi, 104 — 'spring of the partridge,’ but, in the legend, ‘spring of the caller'; tthth Toy eniKAAoyMeNoy [B], TT- erF IkAhtoC [AL]), the name of a fountain in Lehi (Judg. 15 18 19). Identifications of the site are fanciful (see Lehi). EN-HAZOR pi¥n |W, § IOI ; tthi-h acop [BA], -cop KM lECtop [L]), a fenced city of Naphtali (Josh. 19 37), possibly to be identified with Hazireh to the W. of Kedesh (but see Gugrin, Galil. 2u8). The name, Hazor, however, is not uncommon in Upper Galilee ; see Hazor, j.. EN-MISHPAT (tOe^D ]'ll, § 101), Gen. 14?. See Kadesh i., § z. ENNATAN (ennatan [BA]), lEsd. 844 RV= Ezra8i6, Elnathan, 2. ENOCH CqUO. ipn ; ENMX [ADEL and Ti. WH], henoch). The name of the best-known Enoch seems to be distinct from the names of 2 and 3. It has probably a Babylonian origin (see Cainites, § 6 ), though to a Hebrew ear it suggested the meanings of ■ dedication ’ and • instruction. 1 2 1. A hero or patriarch mentioned in Gen. f. [L evwi in both vv.~\ 5181921-24 (iCh. I3); also in Ezekiel (emended text), in the Apocrypha, and in the 1 Gesenius’s interpretation of rnn, * sharp ’ — i.e.. ‘ rapid ' — must he deemed improbable, 2 See Catechise, Dedicate, -pp and its derivatives, bow- 1 ever, are found only in late passages. 1294 1293 ENOCH NT. It is shown elsewhere (see Cainites, § 6, Noah) that Enoch played a great part in a legend of which fragments alone remain. Confirmations of this view will be supplied presently. The Genesis - passages need no further comment ; but the restoration of Enoch in passages of Ezekiel is p., , too interesting to be passed over. In f A™!® MT of Ezek. 14 14 20, Noah, Daniel, and re er * Job appear as proverbial for their righteousness, and in Ezek. 283 the prince of Tyre is said, poetically, to be wiser, and to have more insight into secrets, than Daniel. This strikes one as strange. The personage referred to should be a hero of legend, and would most naturally be of the same cycle as Noah. The name Daniel, however, is not at all suggestive of this. The type is not ancient, in spite of the occurrence of Daniel in 1 Ch. 3i as the name of a son of David (the reading is corrupt, see Daniel i. 4). It is extremely probable that the name was introduced into Ezekiel by a mistake similar to that which has been conjectured in Gen. 222 (see Isaac, § a ; Moriah). The name is spelt not ^K'n but Snjt ; this must surely be a misreading of lain — 9anak (Enoch). This acute suggestion is due to Hatevy (REJ 14 20 /.). It is supported by the discovery of the true text of Ecclus. 44 14 (see below), and supplies fresh material for the criticism of Daniel and Job, and the exegesis of Ezekiel (cp Expositor , July 1897, p. 23). We pass now to the NT passages. The notice in the genealogy in Lk. 337, and the description of Enoch as the * seventh from Adam ' in Jude 14, need not detain us. Note, however, that the description in Jude is borrowed from Enoch 60 8, and is followed by a quota- tion (v. 14 f) from Enoch 1 9 5 4 27 2. Heb. 11 5 mentions Enoch's 1 translation ’ (fiereTiBrj ; translatus est), and refers to Gen. 5 22 24 in ® ADEL ’s rendering eu 7 jpiffT 7 j[']i, pLereridr] ; 49 14 aveXtffMpdTj [A pueTeriOrj] airb ttjs yrjs ; cp <5I BAL , 2 K. 2 10 avaXafipav bfievov = npS, v. ir dve\^/X(f)d 7 j = Sj/n, also Mk. 16 19 etc). Ecclus. 49 14 merely extols the unique destiny of Enoch; but 44 16, after stating that he was 'taken,' adds the notable phrase njn niN. The Syriac version omits the whole verse, the Greek instead of ' an example of knowledge ' gives U7r65ei7/za fi€Ta»otas ’ an example of repentance,' as if nuupn niK (cp Heb. 4 11, vTr65ety/j.a airetdeias). Noldeke suggests reading ivvolas for fieravotas (see also Ecclesiasticus, § 7 { e )t 71 • ) > but the Greek translator may have drawn the same uncritical inference from Gen. 522 (‘ Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah ’ ) which was drawn by some of the later Rabbis 1 (see the sayings quoted in Ber. Rabba , 25 ; Wunsche, 112 f), and seems to have arisen out of hostility to the Book of Enoch, njn, however, seems to mean 'wisdom' (Prov. 17 27) ; the writer must surely have heard the tradition of Enoch's wisdom alluded to (as has been shown) in Ezek. 283, and largely developed by subsequent writers. We have thus found that the later belief in Enoch's wisdom is traceable in Ecclesiasticus and even in Ezekiel. The ‘ Secrets of Enoch ' (a phrase used as the A For parallels see Enos (i., end), Noah (end). The Alex- andrian scholars seem to have interpreted Enoch's supposed moral crisis in a good sense (cp Philo, De AbraJi., § 3); those of Palestine (so Frankel) in a bad, as if Enoch were on the point of repenting of his former pious life when God in mercy ‘ took ' him. In Wisd. 4 10-14, however, nothing is said of Enoch’s repentance or change of life ; * he was caught away (^piroyrj), lest wickedness should change his understanding ' ( Ne h- 11 29 (pgmmion BA omit), but also referred to in Josh. 15 32 (Ain and Rimmon; epcoMtoe [B], ain KAi peMMON [L]), 197 (epGMMCON [B], AIN KAI P 6 MMCO 0 [A]) and I Ch. 432 (Ain, Rimmon, 6Np* [L]), Zech. 14 ro {' from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem'). En-rimmon is the ’Epe/AjSu? or Eremmon of Eusebius and Jerome ( 0 *S 25692; 120 6), described by them as a 'very -large village’ 16 m. S. from Eleutheropolis. It is usually identified with modern Umm er-rumdmin, 9 m. N. of Beersheba. Zech. 14 10, however, suggests that it lay farther to the S. Elsewhere (Hazar-adar) it is suggested that Azmon, a place on the extreme S. of Judah (Nu. 344/. Josh. 15 4) is a corruption of En- rimmon, and that this is represented by the once highly cultivated el-'Aujeh in the Wady Hanein, called by Arab tradition a • valley of gardens ’ (E. H. Palmer). EN-ROGEL (Sip }W, §101; TTHfH pcorHA [BAL], H p. [B in 1 K. 1 9 ], H tthyh TOY P- E L in 2 S. 1 K.]), a famous land-mark near Jerusalem. It was the hiding- place of David’s spies, Jonathan and Ahimaaz (2 S. 17 i 7 ), and lay close to the stone Zoheleth where Adonijah held a sacrificial feast when he attempted to assert his claims to the throne (1 K. I9). In later times it was one of the boundary marks between Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15 7 18 16). The obviously sacred character of the spring (cp also Gihon [1], 1 K. 1 38) suggests that it is the same as the Dragon Well of Neh. 213 (cp Dragon, § 4g; but see Zoheleth). There can be little doubt of its antiquity, and it may well have been a sacred place in pre- Israelite times. The meaning of the name and its identification are uncertain. Tbe interpretation ‘ Fuller's Well ' does not bear the mark of antiquity, and is rightly omitted in Ges.Qty’, Sjjl, * fuller,' is nowhere else found in biblical Hebrew (see Fuller, Rogelim). It is probable that, like ZGh^leth, the original name had some sacred or mythic significance. Two identifications of the place have met with considerable favour : (r) the Virgin's fountain (‘Ain Sitti Maryam), now ‘Ain Umm ed- Deraj, ‘the only real spring close to Jerusalem,' exactly opposite to which lies ez-Zehweleh , perhaps Zoheleth (Clermont-Ganneau, PEFQ 1869-70, p. 253) ; and(2) Bir-Eyyub, otherwise known as tbe Well of Nenemiah, at the junction of the W. er-Rababi and Kedron (Robinson, BR( 2 ) 1 332). Against (2) (which has found recent support in H. P. Smith, Sam., and Benz., Kings) it is urged that Blr-Eyyub is a well, not a spring, 1 that it lies too far from ez-Zehweleh, that it is in full view of the city, and does not suit the context of 2 S. 17 r7, and that its antiquity is uncertain. The chief points in favour of (1) (which Baed.( 3 ) identifies with Gihon [r]) are : its antiquity (cp Conduits, § 4) and the evidence of Jos. {Ant. vii. 14 4), who places the well in the royal gardens. 2 Other arguments based upon the fact that in later times the well was used by fullers are nec essarily precarious. S. A. C. 1 H. P. Smith, however, observes that water flows into the well, sometimes coming over the top, so that it might readily ~ n Ca ^ e d a spring {Sam. 354). The identification of En-rogel with epwyrj {Ant. ix. 10 4 ; see Grove, Smith's DB ( 2 )) seems difficult ; tne reading is sub- stantially the same in all MSS (see Niese), and appears to be based upon airoppijyyvpi which follows. 1297 ENROLMENT (ATTOrpA I 5, J os h. 157 [nH]fHC HAloy [BAL]; I817 TTHTHN Bd.l6Cd.MYC [B], n. C&M6 [A], [TTH]rH N C&MEC [L]) r on the border of Benjamin, between En- rogel and Ad umm 1 m. The favourite identification with the modern ' Ain el-Hod or 4 Apostles' shrine ' 2 near Bethany is questioned by Baed.( 3 > 149, who seems to prefer the tradition which identifies the Well of the Sun and the Dragon’s Well with 'Ain Sitti Maryam (see En- ROGEl). Van Kasteren, however (ZDPV 13 ir 6 ; see also Buhl, Pal. 98), would find En-shemesh in ' Ainer- Rawabt in an offshoot of the Wady of the same name, situated on the ancient road to Jericho. ENSIGNS AND STANDARDS. Two questions have to be considered here : ( 1 ) how are the Hebrew terms to be rendered, and (2) what inferences are to be drawn from the historical passages containing these terms ? (evy cte) 2r (© fcvyovras) 502 51 1227 ' stand- 1. Renderings, ard'; AV also gives the latter in Is. 4922 62 10, and RV in Nu. 218 / ‘Banner’ is adopted by AV in Is. 132 (RV ‘ ensign ’) and by EV in Ps. 60 4 [6] (see below), also by EVmg. in Ex. 17 15 (© naravyri). In Nu. 218 / AV gives ‘pole,’ RV ‘standard.’ ’ Banner,’ being still in common use, seems the best rendering for 03 except in Nu. 218 /, where ‘pole’ is more natural. ’ Banner ’ is required also in Ex. 17 15/, where Moses is said to have named an altar Yahwe- Nissi, ’ Yahwfe is my banner' (see Jehovah-nissi), and to have broken into this piece of song : — Yea, (lifting up) the hand towards Yahwe’s banner, (I sweai that) Yahwe will give battle to Amalek everlastingly. Here, too, we must not pass over four disputed passages in which AV (and in some cases RV) assumes the existence of a denom. verb from 03, viz., (a) Ps. 60 4 [6] (' a banner . . . that it may be displayed ') ; (/ 3 ) Is. 10 18 (Dpi, EV ‘standard-bearer,’ RV m &- 'sick man' ; (y) Is. 59 19 (' lift up a standard,' so RV m £- ; but RV ’ [which] . . driveth,’ AV m £- 'put to flight'); ( 5 ) Zech. 9 r 6 ( ' lifted up as an ensign, ' but RV ' lifted up on high, ' RV m s- ’ glittering’). All these four passages must be regarded as corrupt, (a) Ps. 60 4 [ 6 ] should probably be read thus, ’ Thou hast given a cup [of judgment] to thy worshippers that they may be frenzied because of the bow’ (£SvrnnS) ; C P J er - 25 16. In compensation Ps. 116 13 becomes, ’ I will raise the banner (03 for oia) of victory. ’ (/ 3 ) Is. 10 18 DDi(<® toren (Is. 30 17), and riNtyo, maseth (Jer. 61, RV ‘signal’). That also was so used in early times is more than can be stated safely, nor can we tell what distinction there may have been between 'oth and nesf Tg. Jerus. (pseudo-Jon. ) tells us that the standards were of silk of three colours, and had pictured upon them *. lion, a stag, * young man, or a cerastes respectively. History to the writer of this Targum was not essentially different from poetry. T. k. c. Banners are frequently found on the Egyptian and the Assyrian monuments. Apart from the royal banner, 3 Parallels each ^ atta ^ on or even each com pany in Egypt had its own particular emblem, which took the form of a monarch’s name, a sacred boat, an animal, or some symbol the meaning of which is more or less doubtful. 6 The standard was borne aloft npon a. spear or staff, and carried by an officer who wore as an emblem two lions (to symbolise courage) 1 It maybe mentioned that Friedr. Del. (Heir. Lang. 40 ; Prol. 59-61) went too far in rendering Assyr. diglu , 1 banner ’ ; it simply means, as his own Ass. HWB states, ‘ the object of gaze, or of attention ’ (on the Arabic and Syriac roots, cp Gray, l.c.). 2 The Jews certainly regarded the TrpoTOfxat on the Roman standards as idols ; see below, § 3. 3 For an attempted restoration, see Che. Ps. ( 2 ). 4 In Is. 3323 EV rightly renders 03 ‘sail’; a coloured, decorated sail is meant (Ezek. 27 7). ® M r - S. A. Cook suggests that the n'lnk in Nu. 2 2 may refer to clan-marks (cp Cuttings, § 6). 6 See Goblet d’Alviellas’s Migration of Symbols., 2.0.0 ff. In some cases the symbols may have been mere totems; for analogies cp Frazer, Totemism , 30. and two other devices apparently representing flies. The standard of the H eta-fortress of Dapuru which figures in a representation of a siege consists of a shield upon a pole pierced with arrows (see Egypt, fig. 4, col. 1223). Reference is made elsewhere (Israel, § 90) to the courtesy with which the Roman procurators, in deference to Jewish prejudice, removed from the ensigns (cnjpaiai) the 'effigies’ (tt pOTO/xal) of the emperor. It was not the ensigns themselves but the presence of the additional tr poropal that was the cause of the Jewish sedition against Pilate (cp Jos. Ant. xviii. 3 1, BJ ii. 92 f. ). See further, art. ‘ Signa Militaria ’ in Smith’s Class. Diet. , and art. ’ Flag ’ in EBW). T. K. C. — S. C. EN-TAPPUAH (n-ISn-pP; tthth n 0 * 4 ) 00)0 [B*], etc.), Josh. 177 . See Tappuah, 2. EPiENETUS (en*lN6TOC [Ti. WH]), * my beloved, the first-fruits of Asia 2 unto Christ, ’ as he is described in the salutation sent to him in Rom. 16 5, appears to have been Paul’s first convert in Ephesus, as Stephanas and his household were in Corinth (1 Cor. 16 15). From his not being designated ’ kinsman ’ it has been inferred that he was a Gentile. The name is of not uncommon occurrence in the East ; cp CIG , 2953 (Ephesus), 3903 (Phrygia). For the bearing which this name has upon the criticism of the epistle, see Romans, §§ 4, 10. Cp Coloss ians, § 4. In the lists of ‘the seventy disciples’ hy the Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo- Hippolytus (see Disciple, § 3), Epzenetus figures as Bishop of Carthage or Carthagena (KapflayeVrjy, Cartaginis). In the Greek Church he is commemorated with Crescens, Silas, and Andronicus on 30th July. EPAPHRAS (en* 4 >p*c [Ti. WH], an abbreviated form of Epaphroditus [q.v.~\), a faithful ‘minister’ SiaKovos), and ‘bond-servant’ (SoOXos) of Christ (Col. 17 4 l 2 ), founder of the church at Colosse \q.v . , § 2], and teacher in the neighbouring towns of Laodicea and Hierapolis (see 413). Epaphras visited Paul in his captivity, and it is probable that the outbreak of false teaching in the Colossian church may have led him to seek Paul’s aid with the result that the epistle to the Colossians (see § 5,/) was written. Did Epaphras share Paul’s imprisonment during the writing of the epistle, or does ‘fellow-prisoner’ (6 owcux/xdXwro s; Philem. 23) refer to merely a spiritual captivity? Cp the term ’ fellow-soldier ’ (art. Epaphroditus) below, and see Milligan in Hastings’ DB. EPAPHRODITUS (eTT*4>poXiTOC [Ti. WH.], ‘charming’), the delegate (d7r6aroXos, see Apostle, §§ 1 n. , 3) of the Philippians, visited Paul during his imprisonment at Rome and remained with him — to the detriment of his health (Phil. 225 ff. 4 18). Paul’s estimate of him is summed up in the eulogy ‘my brother and fellow - worker and fellow - soldier ’ (d 8 e\-r, 4 ,-*,4,* [BALQ*"*], r *i4>* P [KAQ]). 1. Perhaps rather or ,-tepj/, a Midianite clan ; Gen. 254 (yeap [A], yat. [DEL]) ; 1 Ch. I33 (yaa [tt.] [L]) ; v. 47. EPHAH {i”lD 0 )K ; 0Kj)[e]i [Lev. 5 ii 620 Nu. 5 15 285 Judg. 619 Ruth 2 17 1 S. I24 17 17 Ezek. 45 13^], M6TpON [Dt. 25 i 4 /. Pr. 20 io, Am., Zech. , Ezek., etc.]). See Weights and Measures. EPHAI ('&V, Kr. ; Kt. ; co^e [K], -t [A], lcoc|>e [B], -e [Q">e s “ b9 ' ut vid -], OPHI, Syr. Hex.™^ u 9 aij, according to MT, a man of Netophah, whose sons were among the adherents of Gedaliah (Jer. 40 8f). In the parallel text, 2 K. 2523, '331 is not found. Apparently ‘sons of . . ’ {'sijna) is a corruption of a duplication of the following word 4 Netophathite,’ TiBiBjn (Cbe. ) ; note the warning Pasek which pre- cedes. The Netophatbite meant is Seraiah {q.v. , 3). EPHER pDlJ, 'gazelle,* § 68, cp Ephron; &<|)ep [BADEL]. 1. A Midianite clan, Gen. 254 (a^etp [L]) ; 1 Ch. I33 (ocpep [BA], 70. [L]). Knobel and Delitzsch com- pare the Banu Gifar of the stem of Kinana in Hijaz ; but if Hanoch (q.v., 1) has heen rightly identified, Epher may very possibly he tbe modem ' Of r, which is near Hanakiya, between tbe Tihama mountain range and Aban (so Wetzstein ; see Di. ). Glaser ( Skizze , 2449), however, prefers to connect the name with the Apparu of the inscriptions of Asur-bani-pal (KB 2223). From its mention in connection with Judah, E. Manasseh, and Reuben (see below), it is possible that various layers of the tribe of Epber were incorporated with the Israelites at a later time (cp Nold. in Schenkel, BL 4218. See Midian). 2. h. Ezrah, of JUDAH, 1 Ch. 417 (yaep [A], eep [L]) ; cp Ephron i., 3. 3. A head of a subdivision of Manasseh, i Ch. 5 24 (oep [BA]); cp Ephron i., 2. S. A. C. EPHES-DAMMIM (D*EH DDK ; ecfcep M€M [B], A(|)ecA0MMeiN [A], <\(|)6c[AA]MeiN [L,; [Pesb.] ; eN TTGpATl AOMGIM [Aq.], in dnibus dommim [Vg.] ; cp OS 35 11, 9623, 226 i 8 ), or, if ephes be taken to mean * end [of], ' Dammim is, according to MT, the name of a spot where the Philistines encamped, between Socoh 1, and Azekah (iS. 17 1). By Van de Velde (wbo is followed in Riehm's HWB) it is identified witb Damiin , on the N. side of the Wady es-Sant, E. of the Roman road to Bet Nettlf; but a different name for this ruin was obtained in the Ordnance Survey, and the name Damfin, if it occurs at all, seems to belong to a site nearer the high hills. Conder ( PEFQ , 1875, p. 193), on the other hand, finds an echo of the name in Bit Based ( 4 a place of bleeding ' ), which is close to Socob ( Shuweikeh ) on the SE. This | will not do for the site of the encampment — for the reason given in Che. Aids, 85, 1*. 1 — but Conder's view is not that Bet Fased represents the site (Buhl, Geogr. 90, n. 92), but that it is an echo of a name of the great valley of Elah (see El ah, Valley of) which arose out of the sanguinary conflicts that frequently occurred there. This is too fanciful a conjecture. We must, it would seem, either regard 4 in Ephes- dammim* in 1 S. l 7 i as (on the analogy of Pasdam- Mim) a corruption of D'NSn po in 4 in the valley of Rephaim ’ (or Ephraim ; see Rephaim), or else take -dammim to be a corruption of some proper name, ephes being in this case also a corruption of poy, ’ valley. * The latter view is less probahle, but hardly impossible. The Philistines appear to have encamped on the southern, and the Israelites on the northern side of the valley of Elah (see Che. A ids , 85), and, considering how often the same valley has t ? ian one name, we may conjecture that the site of the Philistine encampment was descrihed as 4 in the valley of X ' = in the valley of Elah 1 (or, ‘ terebinth-valley '). In 1 S. 17 2 some point in the valley of Elah is mentioned as the site of the encampment of the Israelites ; hut 1 in the valley of Elah ' would EPHESUS not improhahly he inserted hy the redactor from v. 19, which verse seems to have come from another version of the tradition (see Klo.). The present writer, who prefers the former of the alternatives suggested ahove, supposes (1) that 4 in the valley of Rephaim* (or Ephraim) is a discrepant state- ment of the scene of the fight with Goliath, and (2) that it is the correct statement. Others may have an insuperahle objection to this, and for their benefit another suggestion is made. It is not inconceivable that ‘Valley of the Terehinth ’ (nWi) was the name of that part of the valley in which David won his victory, whilst « larger section of the valley was called 4 Valley of the red-brown [lands] ’ ; cp 4 the ascent of the red- brown [hills],’ Josh. 15 7; red-hrown in each case is □’DTK. ' Large patches of it (the ploughed land in the valley of Elah) were of a deep red colour, exceptional, and therefore remarkable* (Miller, The Least of all Lands, 125). From d'DIR to o'm is an easy step. H. P. Smith is hardly decisive enough in his rejection of Lagarde’s o’Dn nson. 1 The torrent was of course dried up, and no longer a landmark. See Elah, Valley of. t. k. c. EPHESIANS. See Colossians and Ephesians. EPHESUS (e 4 > 6 COC [Ti. WH] ; gent. *E (frfoios, Ephesian) lay on the left bank of tbe Cayster (mod. 1 Earl Kuchuk Mendere, Little Mseander), about 6 hifitorv m ' fr° m sea » near iy opposite the island of Samos. Long before the Ionian im- migration the port at the mouth of the river had attracted settlers, who are called Carians ( Paus. vii. 2 6), but were probably the Hittites whose centre of power lay at Pteria in Cappadocia ; see Hittites, § 11 ff. To the E. of Mt. Koressos, in the plain between the isolated height of Prion (or Pion) and the eminence at the foot of which the modern village stands, there arose a shrine of the many-breasted Nature-goddess identified by the Greeks with their own Artemis (see Diana). The population lived, in the primitive Anatolian fashion, in village groups (ku>/x at) round the shrine, on land belonging to it wholly or in part, com- pletely dominated by the priests. With the coming of the lonians, who, after long conflict, established them- selves on the spur of Mt. Koressos now shown as tbe place of Paul’s prison (ancient Athenaeum), began an obstinate struggle between the Oriental hierarchy and Hellenic political ideas, which were based upon the conception of the city (tt 6 \is). The early struggles of the immigrants with the armed priestesses perhaps gave rise to the Greek Amazon-legends. Even after actual hostilities had ceased, and the two communities had agreed to live side by side, this dualism continued to be the key to Ephesian history. Tbe power of the priestly community remained co-ordinate with, or only partially subordinate to, that of the civic authorities ; the city and the temple continued to be formally distinct centres of life and govern- ment (cp Curtius, Beitr. z. Gesck. u. Top. Kleinas., 14). Tbe situation of the shrine, near one of the oldest ports of Asia Minor, at the very gateway of the East (Strabo, 2 . Govern- ment. 663) hrought the worship into contact with allied Semitic cults. These and similar influences gave the Ephesian worship that oecumenic character which was its greatest boast (Acts I927; Paus. iv. 318 ; Hicks, Inscr. Brit. Mus. 482, see Ramsay, Class. Rev. 1893, p. 78 /. ). Even apart from the existence of the hieron , the greatness of Ephesus was assured ; for, admirably placed as were all the Ionic cities (Herod. 1 142), none were so fortunate as Ephesus, lying as she did midway between the Hermos on the N. (at the mouth of which was Smyrna) and the Maeander on the S. (port, Miletus). On the downfall of Smyrna, before the Lydians, about 585 B.c. , and * See BNy 6 , and cp fibers. 76. For the grounds of this reading see Dr. TBS lxxviii., 292, and note Dr.'s criticism on Lag. 1301 1302 EPHESUS the ruin of Phokaia and Miletus by the Persians in 494 B. c. , she inherited the trade of the Hermos and Masander valleys. The port had always suffered from the alluvium of the Cayster, and its ultimate destruction from that cause had been rendered inevitable by an unfortunate engineering scheme of Attalus II. Philadelphus, about a century and a half before Strabo wrote ; yet in Strabo's time and in that of Paul the city was the greatest em- porium of Asia (Str. 641, ifnrbpiov oboa fityiarov twv K ara ttjv ' Kg Lav ttjv ivrbs tov Tat Opov ; reflected in Rev. 1811-14). Shortly after Paul's visit the proconsul Korea Soranus tried to dredge the port (61 a.d. ; Tac. Ann. 16 23). Its commercial relations are illus- trated by the fact that even the minium (filXros) of Cappadocia was shipped from Ephesus, not from Sinope (Str. 540), and by the travels of Paul himself (Acts 18 19-21 19 1 ; cp I824). Ephesus was tbe centre of Roman administration in Asia. The narrative in Acts reveals an intimate acquaintance with the special features of its position. As the Province of Asia was senatorial (Str. 840), the governor is rightly called proconsul. 1 Being «. free city, Ephesus had assemblies and magistrates, senate (/3oi/\i)), and popular assembly {£kk\t)u 'E^eorjji'a ypafifiara xaAa) When pronounced they were regarded as powerful charms, especially effective in cases of possession by evil spirits (cp Plut. Syttip. vii. 54: ot fidyoi, rovy 8 aifiovt£o(i€vovs xeAevovtn to 'E eceis, XoAkotuitoi. Possibly classification by trade was pre-Greek— Herod. 1 93 — the tribe being a Greek introduction ; Rams. Hist, rkryg. 1 105. Cp Oxyrhyncus Papyri , vol. i. p. 85 — returns of st ° c K in trade by Egyptian guilds, kolv'ov rutv xoAko/coAAtjtwi', r,a £ SvffoirwKiav, etc. See Menadier, Ephes. 28. “ [The Pastoral Epistles, though they may possibly contain fragments of genuine letters of Paul (worked up with freedom), 43 I3 o5 Philem. 22 (‘prepare me also a lodging'; cp Phil. 2 24) expresses an expectation of visiting Colossae, which inevitably implied a visit to Ephesus. 1 Tim. 1 3 implies that this in- tention was realised, and perhaps there are hints also of a fourth visit: some reconstruct the fragmentary picture of these years so as to give even a fifth or a sixth visit (Conybeare and Howson 2 54 7 /) before the final departure for Nicopolis by way of Miletus and Corinth (2 Tim. 4 20). On the destruction of Jerusalem the surviving apostles and leading members of the church found refuge in 5 Post- ^ s * a ’ and for a dme Ephesus became virtu - Christian ally the centre of the Christian world, times ANDR£lr frnd piulip , with Aristion and John the Elder, had their abode here ; in' this circle Polycarp passed his youth. The modern name of Ephesus ( Ayasaluk ) is a corruption of Ayos Theoldgos (*Ayios ©eoAoyos), the town being named in Byzantine times from the great Church of St. John the Divine, built by Justinian on the site of an earlier edifice : its ruins are visible on the height above the modern village (cp Procop. de AEd. 5 1 ; Rams. Hist. Geogr. AM, 110). This church became the centre of a town, Ephesus itself being gradually abandoned. The plain has thus reverted to its original condition, the miserable remnant of the population now occupying the site of the sanc- tuary of Artemis founded by the prehistoric settlers, whilst tbe site of the Greek and Roman Ephesus is a desert (Rev. 2 5). See Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus , 1877, for the excavations (now resumed in the town by the Vienna Arch. Inst.; cp 6 BihlifiPranhv Athena:um , no. 3677; Class. Rev . April, t>. HlDUOgrapny. igoo) For history> Curtius, Bcitr. z. Gesch. u. Top. Kleinasiens , 1872 ; but Guhl’s Ephesiaca , 1843, is still valuable. The epigraphic results of Wood's labours are given in Greek Inscr. of Brit. Mus. 3. Consult also Zimmer- mann, EpJtesos itn ersten christ. Jahrhundert ; Weber, Guide du Voyageur h Ephese (Smyrna, 1891), with good maps (plan of Ephesus after Weber in Handbook to Asia Minor , Murray, 1895, p. 96) ; good article, with good views and maps, by Benn- dorf (‘ Topographische Urkunde aus Ephesos ’), in Festschrift fiir H. Kiepert, 1898. W. J. W. EPHLAL meaning ?), a Jerahmeelite name, 1 Ch. 2 37. The MT is virtually supported by & (acpa/xrjX, -rjd [BJ, oOyA, ecoA, ephod ; in 2 S. 614 1 Ch. 15 27 ctoAh. but e<$>oy\ [L] in 1 Ch. ; Hos. 34 iep<\T€l<\ [BAQ]), a Hebrew word {ephod) which the English translators have taken over as a technical term. The word is used in the historical books in two meanings, the connection between which is not clear. The boy Samuel ministered before Yahwe, 1 girt with a linen ephod’ (13 -pDN nun. 1 S. 2 1 8 ) ; in the same 1 As g arb - David, when he brought the ark up , to Jerusalem, danced before Yahw& with garment. aU his might ( 2S<6l4; in r ch. 15 27 £ the words are a gloss). It was long the accepted opinion that the linen ephod was the common vestment of the priests; but in 1 S. 22 18 ‘linen' {bad) is a gloss (see d§ B , as also 0> L in 1 S. 2 18), and the other passages usually alleged in support of the theory speak of bearing or cartying the ephod, not of wearing it (see below, § 2). This ephod was manifestly a scanty gar- ment, for Michal taunts David with indecently exposing himself like any lewd fellow. It was probably not a short tunic, as is generally thought, but a loin-cloth {irepLfapLa) about the waist ; Samuel’s tunic (Std) is mentioned separately, and the verb rendered ‘gird ’ (un) is used in Hebrew not of belting in an outer garment, but only of binding something (girdle, sword-belt, loin- cloth) about the loins ; additional support is given to this view by the shape of the high priest's ephod (see below, § 3). David’s assumption of this meagre garb on an occasion of high religious ceremony may perhaps have been a return to a primitive costume which anti- quity h'ad rendered sacred, as the pilgrims to Mecca are un-Pauline in language and in theological position, nor can they be fitted into a chronology of the life of Paul. See Julicher {op. cit ., § 13), and cp Pastoral Epistles. — Ed.] 1306 EPHOD to-day must wear the simple loin-cloth ('isdr; see Girdle, i), which was once the common dress of the Arabs. The ephod was used in divining or consulting Yahw&. Of this there is frequent mention in the history of o TV,a arrtiswi Saul and David (i S. 14 18 bis [<§] r 1 2 . The ephod- cp ^ 3 2369 3 o 7): see also H os.3 4 . oracle. From the passages in i S. it appears that the ephod was carried by the priest (14 318 cp 236 ) ; to carry the ephod is the distinction of the priesthood (22 18 @), one of its chief prerogatives (228). When Saul or David wishes to consult Yahwib, the priest brings the ephod to him ; he puts an inter- rogatory which can be answered categorically (14 37 23 10- 12 308 ), or a simple alternative, or a series of alternatives narrowing the question by successive exclu- sion (14 36-42, cp 10 20-22). The priest manipulated the ephod in some way ; Saul breaks off a consultation by ordering the priest to take his hand away ( 14 19). The response, as we should surmise from the form of the interrogatory, was given by lot ; in 1441/! ( 0 , cp 18) the lot is cast with two objects, named respectively Urim and Thummim (see Urim). That the ephod was part of the apparatus of divination may be inferred also from its frequent association with the Teraphim [7.^.] (Judg. 1 7 f Hos. 34 ; cp Ezek. 21 21 [26] Zech. 10 2). The passages in Samuel, whilst leaving no doubt concerning the use of the ephod, throw little light upon its nature. They show, however, that it was not *. part of the priests' apparel ; it was carried, not worn (ttbo never means 1 wear' a garment ; cp also 236 , * in his hand'), and brought (e?*an, ‘bring near’) to the person who desired to consult the oracle. Other pass- ages seem to lead to a more positive conclusion. At Nob the sword of Goliath, which had been deposited in the temple as a trophy, was kept wrapped up in « mantle ' behind the ephod,' which must, therefore, be imagined as standing free (1 S. 21 9 [10]). 2 In Judg. 17 f ephod and teraphim in one version of the story are parallel to pesel and massekah (idol) in the other. It is natural, though not necessary, to suppose that the ephod was something of the same kind, and the association of ephod with teraphim elsewhere (Hos. 34) is thought to confirm this view. Gideon's ephod (made of 1700 shekels of gold) set up (yyn, cp 1 S. 5 2 2 S. 617 [of the ark] ; cp Idpbeiv) at Ophrah, where, according to the deuteronomistic editor, it became the object of idolatrous worship Judg. 827), was plainly an idol, or, more pre- cisely, an agalma , of some kind. Many scholars infer that the ephod in Judg. 827 17 f and iS. 2I9 was an image of Yahw6 ; 3 and some think that a similar image is meant in all the places cited above where the ephod is used in divining. 4 We should then imagine a portable idol before which the lots were cast. See below, §§ 3 (end), 4. In P the ephod is one of the ceremonial vestments of the high priest enumerated in Ex. 284. The pattern _ Th hVh ^ or l ^ e e Ph° d gi ven ^ 28 6 ff.\ the Driest'a enhod fabrication is recorded in 39 s ( = ® ” . 369 ff.) t the investiture of Aaron in m 29 s Lev. 87. The description is not altogether clear ; nor do the accounts of those who had (probably) seen the high priest in his robes afford much additional light. 5 1 MT (so ©a) substitutes the ark (pin), as in i K. 2 26. See Ark, col. 305, n. 2 It is possible, however, that ephod has here been substituted for another word (perhaps drort , ‘ark’), for reasons similar to those which led © to omit the words altogether (they have been introduced in many codd. from Theodotion). 3 See Moore, Judges^ 381. 4 If the words ‘ before me 1 (usS) in 1 S. 2 28 are original, they exclude this hypothesis ; see, however, ©bal and Pesh. 6 Ecclus. 45 10 Heb. ; Ep. Arist ., ed. Schmidt, in Merx, A rchiv , 1 2717C ; Philo, De Monarch. 2 5 /. (ii. 225^ Mangey), / it. Mosis, 3 11 ff. (ii. 151 ff.)\ Jos. B/v. 57; Ant. iii. 7 5. See also Jerome, Ad Fabiolam , ep. 6415; Ad Marcellam , ep. 29. EPHOD Braun ( De vest it u saccrdotum , 1698, p. 462 Jp.), whom most scholars since his day have followed, held that the ephod con- sisted of two pieces, one covering the front of the body to a little below the waist, the other the back ; two shoulder straps (mans) ran up from the front piece on either side of the breastplate, and were attached to the back by clasps on the shoulders ; a band, woven in one piece with the front of the ephod, passed around the body under the arms and secured the whole. Others conceive of the ephod as an outer garment covering the body from the arm-pits to the hips, firmly bound on by its girdle, and supported by straps over the shoulders, something like a waistcoat with a square opening in front for the insertion of the breastplate. 1 This view is incompatible with the descrip- tions in Exodus, especially with the directions for the making and the use of the band (28 8 27 29 5) ; against Braun’s theory it must be noted that nothing is said in the text about a back piece, nor is there anything to suggest that the ephod was made in two parts ; 28 8 again seems to exclude such a construction. As far as we can now understand the description, the high priest’s ephod appears to have been a kind of apron, tied around the waist by a band or girth (2trn = eon. cingulum ) ; from the corners of the apron two broad shoulder-straps (msn:>) were carried up to the shoulders, and there fastened (to the robe, b'yo) by two brooches set with onyx stones. 2 The oracle- pouch (cfiiro ] vn , EV ' breastplate of judgment ' ; cp Breast- plate ii. col. 607) was permanently attached by its corners to the shoulder-straps, filling the space between them, and on its lower border meeting the upper edge of the ephod proper. The high priest's ephod may then be regarded as a ceremonial survival of the primitive loin- cloth ( ephod bad; see above, § 1) worn by Samuel and David, 3 precisely as a Christian bishop at one time wore — as the Pope does still — over his alb a succinctorium with its zona, the two ends falling at his left side. 4 The fact that the apparatus of the high -priestly oracle, the bs^d j^n, with the sacred lots, was per- manently attached to the ephod recalls the use of the ephod by the priests of Saul and David in divining (see Urim) ; and the most natural explanation is that it also is a survival. This is, of course, impossible if the ephod in Samuel was an image (see above, § 2) ; but the latter conjecture is not so certainly established that the evidence of P may not be put into the scales against it. 5 Various hypotheses have been proposed to connect the different meanings and uses of ephod in the OT. 4 Attempted 11 is P° ssible that the primitive ephod AiMinipMia _ a corner of whjch was the earliest exp ana 10ns. p OC ket — was used as a receptacle for the lots, from which they were drawn, or into which they were cast (see Prov. 16 33) ; and that when it was no longer a common piece of raiment it was perpetuated in this sacred use, not worn, but carried by the priest ; the ephod and oracle-pouch of the high priest would then preserve this ancient association. The ephod of Gideon — perhaps also the ephod in the temple at Nob — was, however, an agalma of an entirely different character ; what relation there may be between the ephod -garment and the ephod-idol, it is not easy to imagine. 6 In both cases we must admit the possibility 1 Dillmann, Ex. n. Lev. ( 3 ) 334; Nowack, HA 2 118 f.\ Driver in Hastings’ DB, s.v. ; cp Saadia, Abulwalld. The figures in Lepsius’ Denkmdler (3 224 a d t 222 h t 274 b\ in which Ancessi, followed by Dillm. and others, would see an Egyptian ephod of this form, represent, not a ceremonial dress, but simply body armour of two familiar types. 2 The interpretation ‘shoulder-cape,’ ‘ Schulterkleid,’ found in some recent works is a mechanical mistranslation (through Old Latin and Vg. superhumerale) of © cttw/ais, which is not a garment covering the shoulders, but one open on the shoulders and supported by brooches or shoulder-straps (cTrw/jufies). 3 Rashi (on Ex. 28 4^! 40 end) likens the ephod of the high priest to a woman’s surceint , two pieces of cloth, in front and behind, on a band or belt. 4 See Marriott, Vestiarium Christianum , 153, 165^ ; that the original use of the succinctorium was not forgotten, see Innocent III., De sacro altaris mysterio t lib. 1, c. 52. 5 The alternative is that the union of the ephod with the Urim and Thummim is an artificial combination suggested to the author of P by the passages in Samuel themselves. P, it is thought, knew nothing about the true nature of the old ephod or the Urim and Thummim. 6 For the etymological explanation by J. D. Michaelis, see below ; cp also Smend, A T Rel.gesch. 41 n. 1308 1307 EPHPHATHA EPHRAIM that ephod has supplanted i more offensive word, possibly Ho film ; cp the substitution of a ran, ‘ark,’ for ephod in i S. 14 18 i K. 226. See Ark, § 6, n. 1. The etymology of ephod is obscure ; the verb nsx (E\. 29 s Lev. 87) is generally regarded as denominative. Lagarde’s derivation from a root nai is formally un- impeachable ; but his explanation, 4 garment of ap- proach to God,' is inadmissible { Ucbcrs. 178). J. D. Michaelis conjectured that Gideon’s ephod-idol was so called because it had a * coating ‘ (max, cp Ex. 288 392 ) of gold over a wooden core (cp Is. 3O22). 1 This theory has been widely accepted, and extended to the whole class of supposed oracular ephod-idols ; but the com- bination is very doubtful. Even in Isaiah it is quite possible that an actual garment may be meant. See the authors cited above in the notes, and in Moore, Judges , 381. Older monographs : B. D. Carpzov, ‘ De Ponti- ficum Hebraeorum vestitu sacro,’ in Ugolini, 5 . Literature. Thesaurus , 12 785 jf. \ Ugolinus, ‘Sacer- dotium Hebraicum,’ T/tcs. 13 135 Jp. (opinions of Jewish scholars in eatenso) ; cp Maimonides (Kelt hamiq- ddsh 9 9 ffi), ib. 8 1002 ff.\ especially Braun, De Vestitu Sacerdotum , ii. 6 ; Spencer, De Leg-, lib. lii. diss. 7, c. 3 ; further, Ancessi, Annates de philos. chretiennc , 1872; Konig, Rel. Hist, of Israel, 107 Jf. ; Sellin, Beitr. zur isr. u. jild. Rel. ii. 1 1197C ; ran Hoonacker, Le saccrdoce L&intique , 370 Jf. (99). G. F. M. EPHPHATHA (e 4 >& 0 <\ [Ti. WH]), an Aramaism used by Jesus according to Mk. 7 34 1 - It is glossed by StavolxOyTi, and is properly the passive (Ethpe’el or Ethpa’al — opinions differ) of nns, ' to open.’ The assimilation of the n before g can be paralleled in later Aramaic ; but it would perhaps be simpler to suppose that tbe older reading was (correctly) G 0 (f><\ 0 &. See Kau. Gram. 10, Dalm. Gram. 202, 222. EPHRAIM Name (§ if.) Origin (§§ 6-8) Land (§ 3 /) History (§ 9/) People (§ s f.) P's statistics (§§ 10-12) Ephraim (D^lSpNt ; § 100 ; on meaning of name see below, § 2 ; ec|>P. or -eM 5 2 on 1. Application ®!, ntiUc R « Eph r a T te ’ .^P^thite see of names below > §§ 1 [end]. 5 1- )» the common designation in Hosea (originally oftener than now) of the northern kingdom of Israel. This usage was not confined, however, to northern writers. It occurs also in Isaiah and Jeremiah 3 and in post-exilic prophets and poets. 4 There is no evidence that the name was used by other nations. The Moabites called the northern kingdom 1 Israel ’ [MI, l. 5) ; the Assyrians called it Bit Humri (cp Omri), or Israel (cp Ahabbu Sir’ilai). Nor does * Ephraim ’ in this sense occur in the earlier historical books. 5 The explanation probably is that it was not a correct, formal style. An orator may speak of ’ England’ ; a diplomatist must say 1 Great Britain.’ The form of the name suggests that it is really geo- graphical (cp the many place-names ending in aim' [Names, § 107], and, for the prefixed N, such names as Ahlab, Achshaph ; cp also Achzib). Land of Ephraim’ (dhSK piR), it is true, occurs only once, late (Judg. 1215), and ‘Woo’d of Ephraim' may be corrupt (see Ephraim [Wood of]) ; but 4 Mount Ephraim ' (d'IDK *in)® occurs over thirty times (cp Mt. Gilead), and it is significant that we never bear of ‘ house of Ephraim ’ (as we do of 4 house of Joseph V 1 See Idol, § 5. The following forms occur in Josephus : for the eponym eippatfi ; for the tribe e<£pai/u.:s ; variants edtparif, -afivj, -aflrj, -atm, 'W, -at/nTj. 3 Ezekiel is uncertain. Cp Ecclus. 47 21, ‘out of Ephraim a kingdom of violence 5 n, nnyep onsRn ; and v. 23). rx j 1 tlstlcs . as to the occurrence of the name may now be lound conveniently collected in W. Staerk, Studien , 1 84-86. or N.n we have in Obad. 19 'r mb'- If the text of these wo words is correct (see Negkb), we must give ,-njy the mean- Field^) 111 ^ ss ^ r * an (**<£«), viz. ‘ mountain 1 (for other cases see rrhe late passage, Judg. 10 9, cannot be considered an ption. The phrase is artificial, modelled after others. Against the view that Ephraim is the name of a district the absence of such a place-name from the Egyptian records is of no significance. They mention, on the whole, towns rather than districts. Nor need we consider seriously the suggestion (Niebuhr, Gesch. Izsi) that there may be in Egypt a trace of Ephraim as the name of a people — viz. in the '(A)pury, repeatedly discussed in relation to Israel (the ’ Hebrews ’ ; cp Hebrew, § i), since Chabas called attention to them, in 1862 [Mil. Egypt. 42 Jf .). 1 The objections to such a view — initial 'ain for ’ aleph 2 and certain facts about the '(A)pury — are obvious (so, strongly, WMM). The occurrence in a document of Egyptian 'ain 3 for initial Semitic 'aleph, is not indeed impossible, as is proved by the singular case of the similar name Achshaph (see above); 4 but that must be regarded simply as a blunder of the scribe who wrote the papyrus (WMM As. u. Eur. 173). The name ‘(A)pury occurs too often for there to be any uncertainty about its spelling and it i.s always with 'ain A Phonetically, therefore, the equation is indefensible. Nor is there in favour of it any positive argument. We find ‘(A)pury in the time of Ramses II. (cp Egypt, § 58) in the (eastern) borders of Egypt where a persistent tradition says that Joseph, which, as we shall see, is practically equivalent to Ephraim, was settled (cp Joseph i.) ; but ‘(A)pury are mentioned as early as the thirteenth and as late as the twentieth dynasty, 6 and there is nothing to suggest their being connected with a special movement towards Canaan. It is most probable, therefore, that ’ Ephraim is strictly the name of the central highlands of W. Palestine. The people took the name of the tract in which they dwelt, just as their neighbours towards the S. were called 4 men of the south,’ ’ sons of the south' (see Benjamin, § i). Ephraim would thus be simply the country of Joseph ; called his son, as Gilead is called the son of Machir. It is just possible that Machir, too, was at one time used in * wider sense, more nearly equal to Joseph; J’s story says (Gen. 3728 b; cp 454) that it was because Joseph was sold (rpv n.x IlDD^) that he was found living in Egypt (vdd. Machir =' sold '). 7 When Joseph was regarded as consisting definitely of three collections of clans — Machir (Manasseh), Ephraim, and Benjamin — the main body retained the name Ephraim. The gentilic occurs seldom (Judg. 12 5 1S.I1 iK. 11 26) in MT, and the text is doubtful (see below, § 5, i.). Analogy would lead us to expect Ephrite (HSR* ; cp nxD f rom 0 '* 1 XD *» ’nn from D'j-irO » but the form used is Ephrathite On*l£)K)> as if f rom a noun Ephrah. ‘Ephraimite’ G os h - 16 10 [AV] Judg. 12 46 [AV], v. 5 [EV]) is an invention of EV. ‘ Epbrathite ’ in Judg. 12 5 is probably genuine (e^paflctTrjs [B], ex tou e^jpeu/u. [AL]) in the sense of ‘ belonging to Mount Ephraim.’ i. From the days of Hosea ( 13 15. n’t fl’) and the Bless- ings of Jacob (Gen. 49 ) and of Moses (Dt. 33 ) men „ . have seen in the name Ephraim a fitting 2. eamng designation for the central district of Ot name. p a i es tine, 8 4 fair and open,’ fertile and well- watered ; and modern scholars [e.g . , We., Abriss d. Gesch. 5) regard the name as originally a Hebrew omits ‘house of.’ The Chronicler speaks of tbe ‘sons of Ephraim ’ ('r ^3), 2 Ch. 28 12. a For the literature see reflf. in Kittel, Gesch. 1 166 n. 2, Marq. Chronologische Untersuth. 57 n. 124. 2 Another phonetic objection, that medial g is normally repre- sented by f not p (so WMM, As. u. Eur. 93), is not decisive. P also appears, for example, Ba>-tj-tu-pa-jra = ^SG JV 3 (P a P- Anast. i. 22 3). 3 Brugsch compared theMidianite 'Epher, nsjj ( ZA '76, p. 71). 4 Achshaph occurs in the list of towns in Upper Rtnu of Thotmes III. (no. 40) normally as '-k-sap ; but in pap. Anast. i. 21 4 it appears as '-k-sa-pu (initial jj). 5 As the Egyptian pronunciation of 'ain was less emphatic than the Canaamte it might be thought possible that an emphatic Semitic 'aleph should sometimes be represented in Egyptian by 'ain. What is found, however, is the converse effect — Egyptian 'aleph for Semitic 'ain ,— and it is hardly possible to believe that in the case of people for many centuries in the employment of the Egyptians a name which was spelled by the Egyptians with initial jj invariably, really began with r. 6 It has even been argued that '(A)pury is never a race name (Meyer, GA, 297, n. 2; Maspero, Hist. anc. 2443, n. 3; but not so Erman, W. M. Miiller). 7 The place of the incident of the sale in the life of Joseph is referred to elsewhere. See Joseph ii. § 3. 6 E applies the etymology differently (Gen. 41 52 : ‘fruitful in the land of my affliction ’ [”3y]) ; and again, Josephus (Ant. ii. 6 1 [§ 92]): * restoring ' (aTroStSovs), ‘ because of the restoration ( 5 ia TO a7ro8o6r)vai ) * to the freedom of his forefathers.’ 1310 I 3°9 EPHRAIM appellative meaning 1 fertile tract. ' 1 Formally this is plausible (see above, § i), and, as we shall see (§ 3/), such a name is fitting — it would be eminently fitting on the lips of Hebrew immigrants from the Steppes. The Arabs called the beautiful plain of Damascus 2 the guta, and this has become a proper name (el-Ghuta). Compare the (very different) name given to the parched tract S. of Judah (see Negeb). Other possible explanations, however, should not be overlooked. ii. If “ISK means * earth,’ 8 Gesenius in connecting ‘Ephraim 1 with -0K may have been wrong only in interpreting the termina- tion aim as a dual ending, and ‘Ephraim ’ may have meant ‘ the loamy tract.' The Assyrian epru may be tskj not “isx 4 - iii. A slightly different explanation would be reached if we followed the hint of the Mishnic Hebrew 1 DN* (Buxt. "ISN) ; cp Besa 5 7 : ‘Domestic animals (nvn'Il) are such as pass the night in the city Cry a), pastoral animals (jiVUTD) are suc ^ as pass the night in the open (iSK3) » ' also Pesikta 8£ : ‘ [Exod. 3424] teaches that thy cow may pasture in the open ("isto)-’ If this sense for *isn was old, * Ephraim ' might mean the country where the earlier settlers in Palestine had not yet built (many) cities (cp below, § 7 ii.). N"i2N, niStt in the Talmud means ‘ meadow. ' On the other hand, the interpretation of geographical names is proverbially precarious (cp Canaan, § 6, Aram, § 1) ; we must take into consideration the possi- bility that the name Ephraim as it has reached us may owe its precise form in part to popular etymology such as, it is thought, has turned (conversely) Chateau vert into Shotover (hill). Ephraim is generally called * Mount Ephraim ’ 4 (k m) — /• e . , ‘ mountainous -country 6 of Ephraim. . This was no mere form of speech. From 3. GAaracier the plain of Megiddo to Beersheba is a and extent. r great mountainous mass, ninety miles in length, called 4 the mountain.’ * Mountain of Ephraim ' will mean that part of this great mountain mass which lies within the (fertile) tract called Ephraim — viz. the northern part. It is impossible not to see that Ephraim differs from the less fertile tract that extends down to Beer- sheba. The change is patent. It is more difficult, how- ever, to say where it occurs (see, further, end of this §). In fact, there is not really a definite physical line of sec- tion, any more than there was a stable political boundary. It has been suggested elsewhere (Benjamin, § if. ) that this made easier the formation of an intermediate canton called ' the southern [Ephraim]’ — i. e. , Benjamin. The OT nowhere defines the extent of Ephraim. It is likely that there was always a certain vagueness about its southern limits. There can be little doubt, however, that it included Benjamin (see Benjamin, § 1). All that follows the word ' even' in Judg. 19 16 is probably an interpolation (to magnify the wickedness of the Ben- jamites ? ; so Bu. ad loc . ). The northern boundary is clearer. When Josephus tells us [Ant. v. I22 [83]) that Ephraim reached (from Bethel) to 4 the great plain' (r6 /x 4 ’ ya irediov) he may mean the plain not of Megiddo but of the Makhneh (see below r , § 4) ; but he is speak- ing of the seat of the smaller Ephraim tribe. The general character of the OT references and the cities assigned to Mt. Ephraim (see helow, § 13) make it probable that it reached to the plain of Megiddo. The only serious argument against it is the rather obscure passage Josh. 17 14-18 (on the text of which see Che. Crit. Bib., 1 On the view of Gesenius see later (§ 2 ii.). G. H. Skipwith suggests ( JQR 11 247 [99]) that max is the masculine equivalent of (n)m?N ; an appellation of Rachel, signifying ‘ her that maketh fruitful ' (see Rachel). 2 Cheyne has conjectured that the plain below Jerusalem similarly received the name ‘ Ephraim,' corrupted by transposi- tion of letters into Rep haim [q.v.]. Bethlehem (or a place near it), only two or three miles distant, seems to have been called Ephrath. 3 So Barth, Etym. Stud. 20 f, comparing Ar. gubdr , which, however, means ‘ dust ' •, also < its. ( 13 ). Bu. I 2 ) * 4 Twice ‘mount Israel,’ Josh. 11 16 21 [D] ; on Ezekiel's frequent ‘ mountains of Israel ' ('1 'in), see High Place, § 2. ® Looked at from the sea, indeed, or from across the Jordan, it ‘presents the aspect,' as G. A. Smith says, ‘of a single moun- tain massif' EPHRAIM and cp Rephaim). The house of Joseph, complaining that Mt. Ephraim is too small for them, are told to clear for themselves a settlement in the wood in the land of the Rephaim and the Perizzites. It has been supposed that this refers to the northern part of the western highlands from Shechem to Jenin (so Stade, Steuernagel, van Kasteren, MDPV '95, p. 28/); but it is more likely that the passage is to be connected with the story of Tosephite colonies settling E. of the Jordan (cp Jair etc. ; Rephaim [wood]); so Bu. RiSa , 34 jf. 87; A HC ad loc.. Buhl, Pal. 121 n. 265). See Machir, Manasseh, and, on the relation of Ephraim to other tribes, below, § 5. The places expressly said to be in Mount Ephraim are : in the south, Ramath(aim), perhaps Bet Rlnui (see Ramathaim), Zuph, and Timnath-heres (Josh. 19 so 2430 Judg. 29), perhaps et-Tibnah (see Timnath- heres) ; in the centre, Shechem (Josh. 20 7 21 21 1 K. 12 25 1 Ch. 6 67 [52]) ; in the N., Siiamik [q.v. ; Judg. 10 1) ; also the hills Zemaraim, S. of Bethel (2 Ch. 134 ), and Gaash, near Timnath-heres (Judg. 29, etc.). The Ephraim highlands differ from those of Judah in several respects. 1 In Judah we have a compact and fairly regular tableland deeply cut by steep defiles, bounded on the E. by the precipices that overlook the depths of the Dead Sea, and separated on the W. from the maritime plain by the isolated 4 lowland district ' of the Shgphelah (see Judah). In Ephraim this gives place to a confused complex of heights communicating on theE. by great valleys with the Jordan plain, and letting itself down by steps on the W. directly on to the plain of Sharon, cut across the middle by a great cleft (see below, § 4, end) and elsewhere by deep valleys, and en- closing here and there upland plains surrounded by hills. The change in the western border occurs about Wady Malaka, directly west of Bethel ; the change in the character of the surface not till the Bethel plateau ends (some 5 or 6 m. farther N. ) at the base of the highest peak of Ephraim — on which the ruins of Tell-'Asur probably mark the site of Baal-hazor — whose waters running east through the W. Samiya and west through the W. en-Nimr and the \Y. Der Ballut empty them- selves into the Jordan and the Mediterranean by the two 'Aujas. Geographically, as well as historically, the heart and centre of the land is Shechem. 1 Embosomed in a p . . forest of fruit gardens ' in a fair vale 4 . r ams, sheltered by the heights of Ebal and wadys, etc. Q er j z i mi j t sen( j s out its roads, like I arteries, over the whole land, distributing the impulse of its contact with foreign culture. ±. Northwestwards the W. esh-Shair winds past the open end of the Samaria plain down to Sharon. From the plain of Samaria, whose island city-fortress the sagacity of Omri made for centuries the capital, one gets by the valley up to near Yasid and then down the W. Abu Kaslan, or by a road over the saddle of Beyazld, into the upland plains of Fandakumiyeh and Marj el-6arak, and on to Sahl 'Arrabeh, Dothan, and the plain of Megiddo. 2. The E. end of the vale of Shechem is the plain of 1 .'Askar. If one turns to the left, the steep, rugged gorge of W. Bedan (with its precipitous cliffs, surmounted by Ebal on the left and by Neby Belan on the right) takes one down northwards to the great crumpled basin which collects the waters of the W, Faria, the main avenue of access from Gilead 2 by the ford of ed- Damieh, less than 20 m. off. W. Fari’a turns off to the right (SE). Straight on (NE.) past *Ain Fari’a is the road to Beisan in the Jordan plain, passing by the large village of Tubas (identified by some with Thebez, q. v.), which lies (10 m. from Nablus) looking down the W. Buke’, by Teyaslr (identified by some with Asher [q.v., ii.]) in a secluded and fertile open valley near the head of the W. Malih and by Kh. IbzTk (Bezek), and through the W. Khashneh, with its hills thickly ciothed with wild olives. On the left all along the road is the watershed, with the heights of Talluza (1940 ft. ; a village on a knoll commanding a fine view of W. Fari’a), the ‘ barren rounded top ’ of Ras el- *Akra (2230 ft.), and Ras Ibzlk (2404 ft.), which rises 1400 ft. above Teyasfr. 3. Straight in front of the E. exit from Shechem the plain 1 When Josephus says loosely that they do not differ at all (BJ iii. 34 [68 f] ; xar’ ov&ev Sia^opo?) he explains his meaning thus: they are made up of hilly country and level country ('opeival xal TreStaSe?), are moist and fertile, etc. 2 Note that it is just opposite the W. Zerka, that great cleft in the Gilead plateau. 1311 1312 English Miles MOUNT EPHRAIM. Kilometres !£_ l - boft.Jjwturah ^ . , ■F/t'rrhjci) r^ynofij uaj\i -v- j oen-ntu'ura \ i.'Ai viEa.pqo,,/ - / • ^ 4 . M>A A2fVC <('; ‘V r ^ N J§ / *M *> A Jnsperefe&j. • (HISLOTH TWOOR/- 1th, ^E^OOR.i Hdw 4/ =* J oehrFM 'ufa c m ..SoM/ty j 1 fauknb s HEIGHT IN FEET BOVE 3000 100 0 !000 ’'BOO 1000 600 0 SEA LEVEL [500 BELOW PT — — — 15 m: e fcbF HA«d , ::vi.N •»«« r* - • - '•• • . - -Q :;••-<• ■/ v\- y j -° ** Por index to names see lack of mop. It'a Uct ; « 5 * Cocke 1 ell sc. ENCYCLOPAEDIA BlBUCA 1901, MAP OF EPHRAIM INDEX TO NAMES Parenlkeses indicating articles that refer to the place-names are in certain cases added to non-biblical names having no biblical equivalent. The alphabetical arrangement usually ignores prefixes : abu {' father of'), 'am {'spring'), belt {'house'), beni ['sons’), birket {'pool'), dahret {'summit'), der {' monastery'), el (' the'), ghor {'hollow'), jehir {'hole'), karn {'horn'), kasr {'castle'), kefr {'village'), khan {'inn'), khirbet {'ruin'), makhddet {'ford'), mejdel {'castle'), merj (' meadow'), neby {'prophet'), ras {'summit'), sheikh {'saint'), taV at {' ascent'), tell (‘ mound'), thoghret {'pass'), wady ( ' valley ' ). Abel-Meholah, CD3 wady el-Abyad, D3 Adamah or Adam, D3 wady el-\Adeimeh, D4 Adummim, C4 khan el-Ahmar, C4 (Adum- mim) Ai, C4 Aijalon, and valley, B4 kal’at ras el-'Ain, A3 'Ainun, C2 W. 'AjlCin, D23 (Bith-ron) ras el-'Akra, C2 (Ephraim, §4) 'Akrabeh, C3 (Ekrebel) jehir 'Akrabeh, C3 (Eph- raim, *84) Alemeth. C4 tell der Alla, D3 (Gilead, § 7) 'Almlf, C4 Amateh, D3 'Amwas, A4 beit 'Anan, B4 (Elon- bethhanan) Ananiah, B4 'Anuta and Anathoth, C4 'Annabeh, A4 Antipatris, A3 Aphek, A3 Archi and 'ain *Arik, B4 'Arrabeh, B2 (Dothan) 'Artuf, A4 (Etam, Rock of) Arumah, C3 Asher, C2 'Asiret (el-Hatab), C3 'Askar, C3 (Ephraim, § 4) tell 'Asur, C4 'Atara, B4 Ataroth-addar, B4 Kh. 'Atuf, C2 W. el-'Aujeh, CD 4 'Awarta, C3 (Gibe ah, § 2) wady 'Ay On Musa, D4 el-'Azariyeh, B4 Azmaveth, C4 Baal-Hazor, C4 Baal-shalisha. B3 W. der Ballut, B3 (Eph- raim, g§ 4, 7) ras el-Bedd, C2 W. Beidan, C3 (Ephraim, *4) Beitin, B4 esh-sheikh Beiyazid, B2 and neby Belan, C3(Ephraim § 4) Bethany 1, B4 Beth-aven, C4 Bethel, B4 Beth-haccerem, B4 Beth hoglah, C 4 the Beth-horons, B4 Beth-nimra, D4 Beth-shemesh, A4 Bethulia, C2 Bezek, C2 el-Bireh, B4 (Berroth) W. el-Buke', CD3 (Eph- raim, § 4) Burka, BC4 Chephirah, B4 Chesalon, B4 W. abu Dab' C4 (Zeboim) tal'at ed-*Dam, C4 ed-Damieh, D3 thoghret ed-Diebr, C4 (De- bir) beit Dejan, C3 (Dagon) d€r Diwan, C4 Docus, C4 Dothan and tell DGthan, B2 ‘ain ed-Duk, C4 Mt. Ebal, C3 Eleasa, B4 Emmaus 1, A4 *, 2, B4 Ephraim 2, C4 Ephron 1, C4 Eriha, C4 Kh. 'Erma, B4 (Kirjath- jearim) Esora, C3 Eshtaol, B4 Eshu', C4 mejdel-beni-Fadel, C3 and Fandakumiyeh, B2 (Eph- raim, § 4) *ain Fara, Kh. Fara, and W. Fara, C4(Euphrates) 'ain el-Fari'a, C2 (Ephraim) W. Fari'a, C3 (Beth- barah) wady Fasail, C3 Fejja, A 3 ' Ferata, B 3 tell el-Ful, B 4 Geba, C4 eastern Gederoth, A4 Mt. Gerizim, C3 Gezer, A4 merj el-Gharak, C2 (Eph- raim, § 4) Gibeah, B4 Gibeah of Phinehas, B4 el-Ghor, Di, 2, 3 (Jordan) wady Ghuweir, D4 Gibeon, B4 Gilgal (§ 4), B 3 ; (§2), C 4 ; (§ 5), c 3 Gimzo, A4 'ain el-Habs, B4 (John the Baptist) Hadid, A4 Haditheh, A4 Kh. Haiyan, C4 tell el-Hajar, C4 'ain Hajla, D4 kasr Hajla, C4 makhadet Hajla, D4 tell Ham mum, D4 beit Hanina, B4 W. beit Hanina, B4 (Israel, § 7) kefr Haris, B 3 (Gaash) Hazor 2, B4 Kh. Hazzur, B4 w. Hesbiin, D4 (Beth- peor) wady el-Himar, D2 el-Hizmeh, C4 el-Hod, D 4 'ain el-Hod, C4 (Enshe- mesh) wady el-Humr, C 3 wady Ibten Ghazal, D 3 Kh. Ibzik and ras Ibzik, C2 (Ephraim, § 4 [2]) W. el-I^im, C 3 (Ephraim, ,$ 4 > Kh. Il'asa, B4 W. Imeish, B4 (Beth- HORON) el-'Isawiyeh, B4 wady Ish'ar,BC 3 (EpHRAiM, §4) wady Ishkar, A3 (Kan ah) jebel Islamiyeh, C3 Jabbok, Dj Jabesh Gilead, D2 rils Jadir, C2 Janohah, C3 Jeba', B2 (Geba, 2) Jeba' C4 (Geba, i) Kh. Jedireh, A4 Jericho, Crusaders', C4 Jericho of OT, C4 Jerusalem, B4 Jeshanah, B4 tell Jezer, A4 el-Jib, B4 wady el-Jib, B 3 , 4 JIbia., B4 Jiljilia, B 3 (Gilgal, § 4) Jiljulieh, A 3 (Gilgal, § 6 a) birket Jiljuliyeh, C4 Jimzu, A4 Jordan, D1-4 wady el-Jorfeh, D4 W. el Jozeleh, D3 Juleijil, C3 esh-sheikh Kamil, C 3 Kanah, AB3 W. Kanah, AB3 J. Karan tel, Cd (Jericho) Karawa, CD3 (Jericho) 'ain Karim, B4 Karyat el-* I nab, B4 W. abu Kaslan, BC2 (Eph- raim, § 4) jebel el-Keblr, C3 Kefira, B4 tell el-Kefrein, D4 W. el-Kefrein, D4 (Abel- shittim) wady el- Kelt, C4 W. el-Keriid, C3 (Ephraim, J4) Kesla, B4 W. el-Khashneh, C2 (Eph- raim, § 4) W. el-Khudera, A2 Kibbiah, B4 (Gibbethon) Kilkilieh, A3 (Gii.gal, § 6 a) Kirjath-jearim, B4 el-Kubab, A4 (Gob) el-Kuds, B4 Kuloniyeh, B4 Kuzah, B3 (Chusi) Laishah, B4 Lebonah, B3 Lifta, B4 el-Lubban, B3 (Ephraim, §4 [4]) Ludd, A4 Lydda, A4 Madmenab, B4 Makhmas, C4 el-Makhna, BC3 W. Malakeh, B4 (Ephraim) 'ain Malih, and W. el-Malih, C2 (Abel-meholah) W. el-Malih, AB2 W. el-Mafyah, C4 (Ai) Mazra'at, C3 W. nahr el-Mefjir, A2 (Kanah) W. Meidan, D4 Meithalun, C2 (Arbf.la) W. el-Mellaha, CD3, 4 Meselieh, C2 Michmash, C4 Michmethah, BC3 Midieh, AB4 Kh. beit Mizza, B4 Mozah, B4 W. Mukelik, C 4 Naarath, C4 Nablus, C3 W. abu Nar, B2 (Aphek, 3 ) W. Nawa'imeh, CD4 (Emek) beit Nebala, A4 Nehallat, A4 Nephtoah, B4 W. en-Nimr, BC4 (Eph- raim, § 4) tell Nimrin and W. Nimrin, d 4 belt Nuba, B 4 (Ishbibenob) nebi Nun, C3 (Janoah) nebi Nun, C2 (Joseph) Ophrah 3, B3 ; 2, C4 Kh. el-'Ormeh, C 3 Parah, C 4 Raba, C 2 Rabbith, C2 er-Ram, B 4 Ramah 1, B4 ; 2, B3 Ramallah, B 4 er-Rameh, B2 tell er-Rameh, D 4 ras er-Rammali, C2 'ain er-Rawabi and W. er- Rawaby, C 4 (Enshem- esh) wady er-Retem, D3, 4 beit Rima, B3 er-Rujeb, D3 wady er-Rujeb, D3 (Argob) Rujib, C3 (Ephraim, § 4) kefr Saba, A3 (Antipatris) tell es-Sa'Fdiyeh, D2 'ain es-Sukut, D2 Salim, C3 (Ephraim, § 4) Samaria, B2 'ain Samieh, C 4 wady Samieh, C4 (Ephraim) nebi Samwil, B 4 W. es-Sant, B4 Siinur, B2 (Bethulia) Sar'a, A4 W. es-Sarar, AB4 (Mar- ked ah) karn Sartabeh, C3 Sebustiyeh, B2 Seilun, C3 ghur es-Seisebun, D 4 (Beth- peor) W. Selhab, BC2 (Dothan) W. Selman, AB 4 (Beth- horon) Sha'fat, B4 W. esh-Sha'ir (Ephraim, § 4) and 'ain esh-Sham- siyeh, B2 Shechem, C3 'ain Shems, A4 Sheri'at el-Kebireh, Di- 4 Shiloh, C3 wady Shubash, CD2 abu Shusheh, A4 (Gezer) wady es-Sidr, D3 wady abu Sidreh, D3 'ain Sinia, B 4 Sinjil, C3 ^Ephraim, § 4) beit Sira, B 4 (Beth-horon) Kh. Sirlsia, B3 'ain es-SulpIn, C 4 'ain Suwemeh, D 4 khirbet Suwemeh, D 4 W. es-Suwenit, C 4 (Geba) Taanath -Shiloh, C3 et-Taiyibeli, C 4 jebel Tammun, C2 Ta'na, C3 wady abu Tara, D 4 et-Tawanlk, C3 (Ephraim, §4) et-Tell, C4 Teyasir and Thebez, C2 Kh. kefr Thilth, B 3 (Baal- shalisha) Tibneh, B3 Timnath-heres, B3 W. et-Tin, AB2 et-Tireh, A3 (Antipatris) jebel et-TOr, C3 Tubas, C2 merj ibn 'Umer, AB4 Umm el-'Amdan, D2 ras Umm el-Kharrubeh, C3 dahret Umm el-Kubeish, C; ras Umm ZOka, D2 beit 'Ur el-Fokh, B 4 beit 'Ur et-Tahtil, B 4 wady Yabis, D2 Yalu, B 4 Kh. Yanun, C 3 Yasid, C2 (Ephraim, § 4) Yasuf B3 (Joseph) Yerzeh, C2 (Ephraim, § 7) Zarethan, C 3 Valley of Zeboim, C 4 bTr ez-Zeit, B 4 (AzOTUS) W. Zemir, AB2 N. ez-Zerka, D3 Zorah, A 4 EPHRAIM EPHRAIM of 'Askar connects with the plain of Salim leading on to Tana (Taanath- SHILOH) at the head of W. el-Kerad, which leads through the steep W. Ifjim down to the Jordan. 4. On the right the plain of 'Askar (see Sychar) leads S. into the plain of Rujib and the plain of Makhneh, the route to the S. passing on across ridges and valleys through the deep plain of Lubhan, round the heights of Sinjil — leaving up on the left shut in between high bare mountains, the_ancient temple- city of Shiloh (near it the open plain of Merj el-*Id) — on through the W. el- Jib, under the heights of Tell ' Astir (E. of which is the enclosed plain of Merj Sia), up to the plateau of Betin (Bethel) and el-BIreh, and so on to Jerusalem and the south. 5. West of the line just described, leading south from the plain of 'Askar, u maze of valleys gradually simpli- fies itself into the great arterial wadys that lead down to the maritime plain and finally unite in the lower course of the 'Auja. These are the W. Kanah, the \V. Deir Ball fit, and the W. Malakeh : the Deir Balliit, with its two [or three] great con- verging branches (the straight \V. Ish'ar beginning in a little plain south of the village of 'Akraba upon the main watershed, and the deep W. en-N’imr); the W. Malakeh, with its deep head valleys beginning below el-Bireh. South of the W. Malakeh is the W. Selman, the country drained by which is enclosed in the great sweep of the \V. Sar.ir, which, beginning just below el-Bireh, describes a semicircle and enters the sea as N. Rubin due W. of er-Ramleh. 6. South of Gerizim the. watershed lies east of the traveller’s route. Just as, north of the W. Faria, 1 we have seen, there runs along the watershed a suc- cession of valleys or plains, so from the S. foot of et-Tawanlk (2847) the Jehir 'Akrabah runs S. as far as Mejdel-beni-Fadel {2146), overlooked by Yanun (Janoah) in the northern part, and by the modern village of 'Akrabeh (2045) about midway. Then, however, the system becomes more complex, till at Tell 'Asur we reach the Bethel plateau. 7. The district of the open valley of Fandakumiye and the enclosed plain Marj el-Garak is, we saw, partly separated from the Samaria valley by the Bayazld range. Farther north are the plains of Dothan, 'Arrabeh, and the \V. Selhab. If the W. Fari'a was the route of the invasions from the east ( Nomads, Aramaeans, Assyrians), the upland plain of Dothan was the great route across from Sharon to the east end of the plain of Megiddo. There were other routes (W. 'Ara, etc.) farther NW. By these routes the armies of Egypt and the other great states passed and repassed for centuries and centuries. The low hill-land beyond the plain of Dothan culmin- ates in the height of Sheikh Iskander, north of which the W. 'Ara divides it from the still lower hill -land called Bilad Ruha which stretches across to W. el- Milh, beyond which rises the range of Carmel [y.z/.]. Mt. Ephraim is thus divided across the middle (by the great valleys that continue the vale of Shechem) into a northern and a southern half. The northern of these again is divided by the great line of plains and valleys that reaches from the Jordan plain near Gilboa southwestwards to the Makhneh. The NW. quarter is remarkable for its plains ; the NE. for its series of parallel valleys (especially the great W. Fari'a) running down SE. to the Ghor. In the southern half the SW. is remarkable for its maze of wadys (note the long straight W. Ish'ar that runs down thirteen miles without a bend SW. from 'Akrabe) coagulating at the base of Tell 'Asur and below el-Bireh, and its great valleys converging into the 'Auja ; the SE. for its heights, plains, and plateaus, and the series of deep rugged wadys (note in particular the deep W. el-'Aujah leading up to Tell 'Asur and the W. Kelt-Suwenit leading up to the Benjamin plateau) that furrow its eastern declivity. Such is Ephraim ; a land well watered and fertile, a land of valleys, plains, and heights, a land open to the commerce, the culture, and the armies of the world. i. Relation to Manasseh. — Not all the Ephraim district, however, was regarded as belongifig to the 6 . Inhabitants E P hraim tribe *• P art was P eo P led b y men of Machir-Manasseh (see Manas- i S£ h). Their towns were apparently chiefly in the I I 3 I 3 N. A writer of disputed date tried to delimit a northern portion to be assigned to Manasseh (see below, § 11); but from the fragments of another account ( ib . ) it would seem that there was in reality no geographical boundary. The whole highland country was Ephraim ; certain towns were specially Manassite. The fact that in the whole OT there is scarcely a case of a man being called an Ephraimite suggests that Ephraim was hardly ever a tribe name in the ordinary sense : the leading men were men of Ephraim unless they were otherwise described. The two cases occurring in the MT are those of (a) Jeroboam and (6) Elkanah the 1 father 1 of Samuel. Both are doubtful. (a) Jeroboam is called ‘an Ephrathite’ (et/>pa0[e]i [BAL]) in iK.1126(= MT) ; but in ©l 1228 = ©^ 1224^, in the other recension of the story (see Kings, § 3), he is only ‘a man of .Mount Ephraim ’ (ef opovs E^paija [BL]). 1 (b) The ‘genealogy’ of Samuel (1 S. 1 1) is corrupt (see Elihu, 2 ; Elkanah, i). ©a follows MT (uiov 2oi>7r Epa0aio?) ; but © BL read Ephraim (ihov ef opov? E (frpaifj. [L] ; ev Natret/3 E<£patju. = 'N 'n rpjf p, ‘ son of Zuph of Ephraim ’ [B]). The mutual relations of the branches of Joseph are somewhat perplexing (see Manasseh, and cp Joseph i.). J, E, and P appear to agree in representing Ephraim as the younger (Gen. 48 18 [J], 41 51 [E], Josh. 17 1 [PI) ; but whilst J and E lay stress on the preeminence attributed by Jacob- Israel to the younger (Gen. 48 14 zgb [ J], v. 206 [E]), P usually speaks of Manasseh and Ephraim. 2 The significance of the distinctions just referred to has been explained in various ways. It has been supposed that in the seniority of Manasseh lay a reference to early attempts at monarchy (Gideon, Jephthah, Abimelech) ; whilst in the blessing of Ephraim lay a reference to the undisputed preeminence of the monarchy established by Jeroboam I. Of this latter reference there can be no doubt. The meaning of the seniority of Manasseh is not so certain, especially when we bear in mind how in Israelitish legend preference of the younger is almost universal. Jacobs has acutely argued that this preference is simply a survival of the forgotten custom of junior birthright, which the later legend - moulders misunderstood. There is a rather obscure allusion in Is. 921 [20] to discord between Ephraim and Manasseh. The reference may be to conflict between rival factions in the last years of the northern kingdom. Legend told of rivalries also in the pre-historic period (see Jephthah, Gideon). The currents that stirred the troubled waters of Samarian politics cannot now be fully traced : Shallum and Pekah may have been Gileadites (see Jabesh, 2 ; Argob, 2), Menahem was erhaps a Gadite 3 (see Gad, § 10). The family of Jehu may ave belonged to Ephraim (see, however, Issachar, § 4). 4 ii. Relation to Joseph . — If there is some difference of usage in regard to the order of the tribes Ephraim and Manasseh, there is agreement as to their being brothers. Still there is at times a tendency to regard them as a single tribe (see Joseph i. ). The question therefore arises whether their distinctness was on the increase or on the decrease. Did they unite to form Joseph, or did Joseph split up into Ephraim and Manasseh (for a similar question see Benjamin, § if )? In the ‘Blessing’ of Jacob as we find it in our Genesis, Ephraim and Manasseh do not appear ; 6 they are represented by Joseph. There is indeed a play on the name Ephraim (v. 22) ; G but as there is no reference to Manasseh, Ephraim might be not part but the whole of Joseph. This may be so. On the other hand the Song of Deborah already recognises two tribes ; Ephraim 1 See, further, Cheyne’s theory of Jeroboam's origin on the mother’s side (Jeroboam, 1). 2 Sometimes, however, P gives the other order. See, es- pecially, Gen. 48 5. See, more fully, Manasseh. 3 Baasha was an Issacharite ; Tibni may have been a Naphtalite (see Ginath). It was, according to Cheyne, against the Ephraimite city of Tappuah that Menahem took such cruel vengeance (see Tiphsah). It has been conjectured that Omri also was of Issachar (Guthe, GVI, 138). Cp Issachar, § 4. 4 It is to be noted that in this family the name Jeroboam recurs. 5 The same is true of the ‘ Blessing ’ of Moses (Dt. 33). V. 17 b is a gloss. 6 Cp We. C H ( 2 ) 322, (3)324. C« J. Ball, however, would transfer the word rna to the saying on Naphtali (PS BA 17 173 ['95]). For other views see Di.'s commentary. Cheyne's sug- gested restoration of the passage is mentioned in the next note. 1314 EPHRAIM EPHRAIM and Machir seem (already) to be found side by side W. of the Jordan. 1 Whether the designation of Benjamin as a brother, and of Ephraim and Manasseh as sons of Joseph implies a popular belief that when Benjamin definitely separated from Joseph, Manasseh was not yet distinguished clearly from Ephraim we cannot say ; nor yet whether such a belief, if it existed, was based on any real tradition (cp Manasseh). The general result is : on the whole, Joseph was in early times equated with Ephraim, which included Machir- Manasseh and Benjamin (cp above, § 3; Joseph i. ). On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that • Joseph ' was doubtless originally a group of clans. There seems to have been much speculation as to how Ephraim came to be settled where he was. The _ T , great sanctuaries would have their legends. ' . s At Gilgal [i q.v .] in the plain of Jericho a ou eir though not in the highlands, e emen . belonged to jyj. Israel, priests may have told how a great Ephraimitish hero, after erecting their sacred circle of stones (Josh. 4 20, E) and leading the immigrant clans from Gilead against Jericho and other places, had encamped for long by their sanctuary (Josh. 1015 = 43: © om. ; perhaps late), and how there Yahw& had instructed the tribes to what part of the highlands they were to ascend to find a home (Judg. 1 1 ). Up on the plateau, at the royal sanctuary of Bethel, it was told how their fathers had effected an entrance into the city (Judg. 1 25), and how the mound that now stood two miles off in the direction of Jericho had once been a royal Canaanite city, till their fathers, with much difficulty, had stormed it and made it the 'heap’ it now was (Josh. 828). At the great natural centre of the land, home of many stocks, conflicting stories were told of quiet settlements, of treaties, of treacherous attacks, of a legal purchase (cp Dinah, § 3), of a great assembly gathered to hear the last admonition of the veteran Ephraimite leader (Josh. 24), and how he had set up the great stone under the terebinth (t ( . 26). Shiloh, too, must have had its settlement stories to tell, especially how the great Ephraimitic shrine (see Ark) had been there ; but these stories have perished (for a possible trace of a late story see Melchizedek, § 3). When its temple was lying in ruins there was written (in circles of students who had never seen Shiloh) a book which explained that after Israel had conquered the whole of Canaan, they were assembled there by the successors of Moses and Aaron to set up a wonderful sacred tent and to distribute by lot the holy land (Josh. 18 1 14 1). Timnath-heres boasted that it was the resting-place of the great leader of Ephraim (see below). Shechem even claimed that near at hand were buried the bones of the great eponym of the house of Joseph (Josh. 2432, E). The legendary history was carried back still farther. Joseph, though he entered by way of Gilead, came from Egypt, where Ephraim and Manasseh were born.- In fact they were really Egyptian; but Jacob-Israel had adopted them (Gen. 48 E). 3 Even before that, Joseph had been at Shechem and Dothan (Joseph i. § 3), Jacob-Israel had founded the royal sanctuary at Bethel (Gen. 35 14 [J], and 28 18 [E]), and reared the sacred pillar at Shechem 4 (Gen. 33 20 [E]), and Abraham had built altars at Shechem (Gen. 12 7 [J]), and at Bethel (7/. 8 [J]). It is pretty clear that Ephraim had forgotten how he came there. Some seem to have thought that before the Israelites known to history settled in Ephraim there were others, who eventually moved southward (see Simeon, Levi, Dinah, Judah). It was remembered that there had been more Danites on the western slopes of Ephraim than there were in later times (Dan, § 2 /). It is unlikely that it was believed that there had been a t 1 It has been suggested that in an earlier form of the text the Bk-ssing' of Jacob also perhaps mentioned not Joseph but Ephraim and Manasseh (Che. PS BA 21 243/ [’99]). 2 This, however, may be merely an incident in the story, un- avoidable since Joseph, the hero, never left Egypt. 3 Cp Bertholet, Stellung , 50. 4 On 1 Jacob’s well ' see Sychar. settlement of Amalekites. 1 On the other hand, it has been suggested that there may be a trace of an ancient tribe in the neighbourhood of Shechem (see Girzite). The evidence for the preponderating Canaanite element in Shechem has been referred to already. The ancient Canaanite city of Gezer, once an Egyptian fortress, which, we are told, became Israelite in the days of Solomon, was hardly in Mt. Ephraim ; but it belonged to Ephraim (see Gezer). Issachar may have been re- presented on Mt. Ephraim's NE. slopes (see Issachar, § 8). ♦ There were late Israelitish writers who thought that Asher, too, had its claims, and it has recently been suggested that there may really be traces of an early stay of people of Asher south of Carmel (see Asher, § 3). Timnath-heres is said to have been settled by Joshua (see Joshua i. ). Of a clan of this name in historic times we have no evidence, and the same is true of Rahab [£.».]. On the extraordinarily meagre Ephraimite ‘ genealogy ' in Chronicles and on its points of contact with other tribes, see below (§ 12). The extra-biblical hints are vague in the extreme and difficult to turn to account. _ i. The long list of places conquered , . J:. , j . by Thotmes III. probably contains some biblical data. . „ . towns in central Ephraim. Flinders Petrie {Hist. Egypt 2 323-332) proposes a consider- able number of identifications, including, e.g., Shechem and several places near it ; Yerzeh, Teyaslr, and Raba in the NE ; and not a few places in the SW, from W. Der Ballut southwards. When the land of Haru was added to the Egyptian Empire it can hardly have sufficed to seize the towns on the margin: Y-ra-da (?), Mi-k-ti-ra (Mejdel Yaba? so WMM), Gezer (Ka-di'-ru, 104). Even if we could identify with certainty, however, many names of towns, we should still know nothing about the people who occupied them. Special interest and importance, however, attaches to two unidentified sites which, it would seem, must be in Ephraim — the much- discussed * Jacob-el ’ and ‘ Joseph-el. ' The reading ’ Jacob ' may be treated as fairly sure; but that of ‘Joseph’ is questionable (see Joseph i. § 1). For the interpreta- tion of these names we must be content to wait for more light (see, for a suggestion, Jacob, § i). We may hope, however, that they have something to tell us of the origin of Ephraim. ii. As the report of the early expedition of Amen- hotep II. contains nothing that casts light on our present problems, 2 our next data belong to the time of Amenhotep IV. Unfortunately, though the Amarna correspondence tells us a good deal about the fortified towns in Palestine 3 and their conflicts, it sheds little light on the central highlands. Knudtzon's proposal to read mt &a-ak-mi for Winckler's mdt-su la-a(?)-mi in letter 185, /. 10, however, brings the Habiri into connection with ' the land of Shechem ' 4 in a very interesting way. 5 Moreover, we must remember that the tablets rescued from destruction are only some of those that were found at Tell el-Amarna. Those that were allowed to perish may have referred to other Ephraimite places. If, however, there really were few (if any) Egyptian fortresses in that tract, 1 On Judg. 5 14 see below, § 8 ; on Judg. 12 15 (‘mountain of the Amalekite '), see Piuathon, t. 2 We have no details of Syrian expeditions of Thotmes II . Amenhotep III. was engaged in other concerns. 3 Ashkelon, Bit-Ninib (see Ir-heres), Aijalon, Zorah, Gimti (see Gath), Gezer, perhaps Beth-shean (see Knudtzon, Beitr. z. Assyr. 4 m), Megiddo. 4 The passage remains obscure. Knudtzon (/.c.) says that tablet 185 is a continuation of 182. In addition to reading wt&akini for tnat-su /a-a(?)-mihe reads nia-sar- tii for Winckler’s itta-ku- ut in /. 7, and provisionally renders lines 6 £-11 {KB 5 no. 185) thus: and the people of Ginti are a garrison in Bitsani, and, indeed, we have to do (in the same way?) after Labaya and Sakmi have contributed (cp no. 180 /. 16) to the Habiri (so Knudtzon kindly informs the present writer). 5 Are we to compare with this the story of Gen. 34? Accord- ing to Marquart {Philologus, suppl. bd. Ifdoff.), the Habiri immigration is to be brought into connection with the settlement of the Leah-tribes : Joseph came later. Cp Steuernagel, Josua , 151 (in #A’). See Jldah. 1315 EPHRAIM EPHRAIM the Habiri might be already settling there without our hearing of them. 1 iii. The contests of Seti I. were in S. Phoenicia and Galilee. When we again get a glimpse of Palestine in the time of Ram(e)ses II. it is once more the border towns that are named : Heres, Luz, Sa-ma-sa-na. 2 iv. To Ram(e)ses' successor we owe what is perhaps the most interesting statement of all. 1 Israel,' says Merenptah, is devastated; and ‘Israel,' it is to be noted, is not a place but a people. If we assume that the people referred to were settled in Ephraim, nothing very definite can be urged against the assumption — or for it 3 (cp Israel, § 7 ; Egypt, § 59). The cities mentioned in Ram(e)ses III. ’s list seem to be Amorite, north of Galilee (As. u. Eur. 227). Until hieroglyphic or cuneiform (or Hittite) records shed some more light on the scene, accordingly, we must remain without definite information as to the early history of Ephraim. It is clear, however, that the girdle of Canaanite cities was of remote antiquity and practically certain that there were already towns up in the highlands — Shechem, perhaps Luz, and others. The population was no doubt mixed ; Habiri, although we have no certain mention of them, may have immi- grated there also. The earliest incontestable fact that Ephraim remem- bered was the great fight with Sisera ; 4 but they may „ , have known no more about who he was Memories' than we do < see SlsERA )- What P art Ephraim played in the great conflict, the condition of the text in Judg. 5 14 does not enable us to say with certainty. 5 Perhaps we should read : ’ Out of Ephraim they went down into the plain.’ It is not likely that Ephraim supplied the leader (see Deborah). It was not only along its northern border that Ephraim was exposed to attack. The open valleys and easy fords, 6 which, when circumstances favoured, united it with Gilead, exposed it to the inroads 7 of the still nomadic peoples of the east. Stories were told at Ophrah [q.v.~\ and elsewhere of beroic fights (see Gideon), and of spirited colonies sent out (see Manasseh). Pirathon 8 and Shamir, an unidentified place in Mount Ephraim, seem to have boasted that they had produced heroes in the time of old (see Abdon, Tola). The Shechemites even told of how they came, for a time, to have a tyrannos, and how they got rid of him again (Abimelech, 2). Of greatest historical importance was the life-and- death struggle with hated non-Semitic rivals (see Philis- 9 . Transition T1NES )- North Ephraim claimed a share in the glory of the struggle of those dark days ; but when the cloud lifts the 1 C. Niebuhr also suggests that the Habiri were already settled in Mt. Ephraim (Der alte Orient 1 60). 2 The pap. Anast. I., however, appears to mention again ‘the mountain of Shechem’ u. Eur. 394, note to pp. 172-175). 3 It has even been suggested that Yi-si-ra-al maybe not really Israel at all (see Jezreel i. § 1). On the other hand Marquart (/.c.) inclines to explain the name as referring to the Leah-tnbes, supposed to be still resident in central Palestine (see Judah). S* A. Fries ( Sphinx , 1 214 [Upsala, ’97]), ana Hommel ’ P* . X1 “ n * 3) a g enu i ne tradition of a still earlier event in the quaint story in 1 Ch. 7 21^-25. See, however, below, § 12 (towards end) and cp Beriah. 5 J. Marquart (Fund. 6 [’96]), following Winckler (AOF 1 193) reads, So pDin ne» onsm do DppnD 1T1* "GD ’JD Out of Ephraim they descended into the plai Out of Machir went down leaders.' n also Budde, KHC ad loc. P. Ruben (JQR 10 550 /.) reads pjno nh teas icl ittsk *jd . . . 6 There are said to be, between the Lake of Galilee and the -Dead Sea, 54 fords : 5 near Jericho, the rest between 7 If -Zerka and the Lake of Galilee (Guthe, Gl V 47). We read of attacks by Ammon, Moab, Midian, and Assyria, in addition to tbe Philistines and the Egyptians. Judah often escaped. 8 Even if the view advocated in the article Pirathon be adopted, Abdon may perhaps be claimed for Mt. Ephraim. Abdon is Benjamite. hegemony is passing to Benjamin. If the monarchy thus involved a loss to N. Ephraim, there was also a gain ; Gilead and Ephraim were bound together more closely (on earlier relations see Jephthah, §§3, 5 [end] ; Gad, § 2 ; Machir). Indeed when the disaster of Gilboa laid Israel once more at the feet of the Philistines, the connection with Gilead was found to be very valuable (see Ishbaal, i). How, exactly, Ephraim was brought under the sway of the state that was rising beyond the belt of Canaanite cities to the S. , is not very clear (see David, § 6, Ishbaal, 1, Abner, Israel, § ff.). The skill and energy of David must have been great. It is difficult to believe, however, that he effected in Ephraim all that has been attributed to him by Winckler. Still the change must have been profound. How far there may have been an influx of people from the S. we cannot tell. Others besides Absalom (2 S. 13 23) may have acquired possessions in Mt. Ephraim. Although we must on general grounds assume that there were dialectical differences, chiefly in pronunciation, between the various Hebrew- speaking, as between other, communities — peculiarities of the Shibboleth type are universal — they cannot have had any effect on freedom of intercourse. The fixing of the capital at Jerusalem was most politic. It was perhaps in a belt hitherto unclaimed, scarcely ten miles from Bethel. Ephraim might regard it and the other Canaanite cities annexed as ^ gain in territory. The fairs at the great Ephraimite sanctuaries would now be open to people from Mt. Judah and the Negeb in a way that would hardly have been possible before. Ephraimite legend became enriched. Abraham, e.g.> it came to be said, had built an altar at Shechem (Gen. 127 [J]) and at Bethel ( v . 8 [J]). Many interesting questions arise. When did the general interweaving of legends take place? How was it possible to deposit tbe great Ephraimite shrine in Jerusalem? (see Ark). How did Ephraim act in the Absalom rebellion and in that of Sheba? How was Solomon’s ‘overseer of the whole house of Joseph’ related to his prefect of Ephraim? The former, of course, had his official residence at the natural centre of the land, Shechem. The latter, whether or not he was a son of Zadok and of Beth-horon (see Ben-Hur), may have resided nearer Jerusalem (see also below, § 12). The final schism cannot have taken anyone by surprise (Jeroboam, § i ; Solomon, § 2 ; Israel, § __ , 28). The old royal city of Shechem 0. onarc y. was natura py the scene of the negotia- tions and the first seat of the monarchy of Ephraim. 1 The links between Gilead and Ephraim, geographical and historical, were too close to be severed now. The kingdom of Ephraim included Gilead. That is to say, Gilead, if it befriended David (against Judah? see Mahan aim), would not go out of its way to help his sons. For two eventful centuries Ephraim main- tained a real or nominal independence. How it sub- ordinated Judah, contended with Aram, allied itself with Phoenicia, was distracted by constant dynastic changes and yet reached a high level of civilization and produced a wonderful literature, is told elsewhere! Shechem, indeed, centre of the land though it was, was not able to maintain itself as the capital. It may not have been quite suitable from a military point of view. It had to yield to Tirzah (an important but somewhat tantalising place-name, see Tirzah) and then to Samaria, which was well able to stand even a regular siege. In historical times the great sanctuaries were Bethel and Gilgal. See also Gibeon, Shiloh. That any attempt was made to centralise religious festivals at one sanctuary in Ephraim there is no evidence. A. Duff, however, has propounded 2 the interesting theory that such a project had been conceived,— that indeed the kernel of the book of Deuteronomy originated in Ephraim, and that tbe (now) unnamed sanctuary meant in it was originally that of Shechem (see now Theol. o/OT, 225 39 n., 50 n., 59/.). 1 On the Egyptian incursion see Shishak.^ 2 In a paper read before the Society of Historical Theology, Oxford C96). 1318 1317 EPHRAIM However that may be, there must have been other great thinkers besides Hosea. Ephraim produced a Decalogue and a longer code {see Exodus ii. § 3), and must have had otherwise a share in the development of that mass of ritualistic prescrip- tion which was ultimately codified in Judah (see Law Literature). If it had its Elis, 1 Samuels, and Elishas, whom legend loved to glorify, we must not forget the men of name unknown whose only memorial is their work : the work of its story-tellers, annalists, poets, and other representatives of social or religious movements, whose achievements are dealt with elsewhere. We probably under-estimate rather than over-estimate the debt of Judah to Ephraim. 2 See Historical Literature ; Poetical Literature ; Elisha; Elijah; Prophet; Idolatry. The accessibility to the outer world, however, to which Ephraim owed its rapid advance, occasioned also its fall. In the struggle with Aram, it lost much ; and when Aram was swamped in the advancing tide of Assyrian conquest another great turning-point in Ephraim's history was at hand. How, precisely, it was affected by the Assyrian conquest, how it fared when the Semitic Empire passed to Persia, what befel it during the long struggles between Ptolemy and Seleucid, Seleucid and Maccabee, Palestinian and Roman, will be discussed elsewhere (see Samaria, and cp Israel). On the late notion of a Messiah called * Ephraim,' 3 or ‘son of Ephraim,' 4 or ‘son of Joseph,' etc., alongside of the ‘son of David' (in ri'B'E) see Hamburger, RE, artt. ‘ Messias- leiden' and * Messias Sohn Joseph'; cp Messiah; Joseph [husband of Mary]. Great difficulty in the way of a true knowledge of the history of Ephraim is occasioned by its rivalry with 11 . P's boundary. Judah . This has distorted the J perspective, broken the outlines, and tinged the colour, of the picture that has reached us. A. Bernstein tried to show how Ephraimite patriotism might account for many points in the patriarch stories. It is certain that Ephraim has suffered at the hands of the writers of Judah. The account of the occupation of the Ephraim highlands in Joshua is surprisingly meagre. All that lies N. of Bethel is passed over in silence (cp Joshua ii. § 9). The indications of the boundary of Ephraim as they appear in the post-exilic book are very incomplete and only partly intelligible. The critical analysis is still disputed. Great confusion prevails, and the text is bad. Apparently the southern border is represented as reaching from the Jordan at Jericho up to Bethel { Betfn ), to Ataroth Addar C A far a ? ; see Archites, Ataroth, 2), down west- wards to the territory of Jhe Japhletite (Palti) and of the Beth-horons {Bet 'Ur), and on to Gezer ( Tell (jezer) and the sea. The northern boundary is given eastwards and westwards from [the plain of] Mich- methath {el-Makhna ?). Eastward it reaches to Taanath- SHILOH {Tana), on to JANOHAH ( Kh. Ydniin), Ataroth (unidentified), Naarath {’Ain Samieht ), Jericho and the Jordan; westwards it pro- ceeds from 4 Asher of the Michmethath ' (see Ashf.r ii. ) east of Shechem southwards to En-Tappuah, and the course of the Kanah ( IV. Kanaht), and on to the sea (17 7-9). One of the writers who have contributed to the account just sketched, however, is aware that this representation is somewhat arbitrary (cp above, § 5, i. ), and so he proposes (Josh. 16 9) to give a list of Ephraimite cities beyond the Manassite border. Some editor has unfortunately removed the list. The list of Ephraimite cities, too, that E must have given has been removed. P's 4 genealogy * of Ephraim is not only very meagre 1 Are we to add Moses? Guthe says yes {GVF 22). 2 A. Duff throws out tbe suggestion that Nahum may have been of northern descent {op. cit. 2 36 46). 3 Tis n't’D C"irx- See the statements in Pesikta Rabbatki (ed. Friedmann, 161 b). 4 Targ. Jon. on Ex. 40 11. EPHRAIM (cp above, §11) but also somewhat obscure. We have , . it in two forms A in Nu. 2635/ and, 12 . Genealogies. ag rC p ro( j uce d by the Chronicler, in 1 Ch. 7 20-25. A study of the variants in 0 and Pesh. and of the re- petitions (noticed by A. C. Hervey) 2 in MT, leads to the following hypothetical results (reached independently of Hervey ; see further JQR vol. 13, Oct. [1900]). Bered (v. 20) should be deleted as a corruption of Becher [g.v. J, which has strayed hither from the genealogy of Benjamin. Zahad is simply a duplicate of Bered, and Ezer of Elead. The middle letter (s/i) of Resheph (v. 25) belongs really to the next name, Telah. What is left — Reph — is a duplicate of Rephab (see below). Thus emended the list stands 1. ( v . 20) Shuthelah, Tahath, Eleadah. 2. 3 {v. 21) Tahath, Shuthelah, Elead (or Ezer). 3. ( v . 25) Shuthelah, Tahan, Ladan. We have thus simply a triplet written thrice. The third name may be really Eleadah or (so Pesh. in v. 21) Eleazer : Azariah, Klostermann has suggested, may have been the name of Solomon’s prefect over Ephraim, perhaps of Betb-boron (cp Ben-Hur) ; see below, and above, § 9 (end). The middle name appears here and elsewhere (in the gene- alogy of Samuel ; and in that of Reuel the Midianite) in many forms : Tahath, Tohu, Tahan, Nahath. The last may he what the Chronicler wrote : note the story of the Ephraimites who descended against Gath (nrn = * descend ’). The triplet is followed by an appendix — the ‘prince 1 of Ephraim and its great hero. The Ephraimite clans mentioned in the historical books are few : Nahath or Tahath, Zuph (in one genealogy of Samuel ; the first also a ‘son of Reuel, 1 Gen. 3 li 13 17), Nebat (cp Jero- boam i.). On the story in tv. 21 b - 23 see Beriah, 2 f. Between the recurring triplets and the genealogical appendix there is a list of towns: the Beth-horons (see above, § n)and . . . and Hepher (?), founded perhaps by Eleazar. 4 In the blank, MT has Uzzen-sheerah. Perhaps we should read Ir-serah (cp tpL) or Ir-heres. The degree of probability of tbe suggestions in § 12 varies Several seem almost certain. To the ‘ genealogical ’ list are appended two geogra- phical lists : v. 28, a pentad of Ephraimite border towns ,0 m T • *. mentioned in Joshua, with the addition 13. Town Lists. Qf Ai . and ^ ^ a pentad of towns which Manasseh was unable to occupy (=Josh. 17 n = Judg. I27). Of other towns that must have been in Ephraim we find mention of Micron {Makriin), Gibe ah of Phinehas {Jibia), Gibbeath - ha - araloth, Baal - Hazor. Ramah {er-Rarn) was fortified by Baasha against Judah. It has been suggested that Jericho was fortified by Jehu against the Aramaeans (Jeiiu, § 3). Many of the most famous Ephraimite sanctuaries were in the part of Ephraim that was called Benjamin {q.v . , § 6) ; but the holy mountains Ebal, Gerizim, and Carmel must always have had a high place in the regard of Israel. Ramah {Beit-Rima), Shiloh, Shechem, Ophrah, Timnath-heres, and Samaria must all have had important sanctuaries. We perhaps learn incidentally of the destruction of some unnamed Ephraimite sanctuary in the story of the founding of Dan. H. w. H. EPHRAIM (D)’lD^, §§ 100, 107 ; ec|)pp. [L]), a. city near Baal-Hazor (see Hazor, 2), mentioned in the story of Absalom (2 S. 13 23 ; see Dr. TBS, ad loc. ). Possibly the name should be ’Ephraim, with 'ain for aleph (nney ; 5 cp < 5 L ), and the place identified with Ephron in 2 Ch. 13 19 (see Ephron, i. 1). So, cautiously, Buhl (p. 177), who also thinks the same city may be meant (1) in 1 Macc. 11 34 (where the governments of Apherema \_q.v.~\, Lydda, and Ramathem are said to have been added to Judaea from Samaria) ; (2) in Jn. 11 54 (where Jesus is said to have * withdrawn to the country near the wilderness, to a city called Ephraim 1 [i^paifx, all editors, but NL, Vet Lat. , Yg. , Memph. € see Jannes. 1319 1320 EPHRAIM, GATE OF ( Bethel and ’E0pctqu, two 'small cities' taken by Vespasian). A village called Efrem is defined by Jerome (OS 04 7) as being 5 R. m. E. of Bethel ; Eus. (222 40) writes the name api jA(?). We also hear (118 30) of an Efreea, 20 R. m. N. of Olia. This position agrees well with that of the modern et- Taiyibek, which occupies a splendid (and no doubt ancient) site crowning a conical hill on a high ridge 4 m. NE. of Bethel (BR 2 121 427). See Ophrah. These identifications, however, are by no means all certain. The site of Baal-liazor, and therefore also of Ephraim in 2 S. l.c. , cannot be said to be fixed. Indeed, the reading may perhaps be questioned (for analogies see Mahanaim) ; Gratz would read ' in the valley (poyn) of Rephaim.’ The ' city' in Jn. 11 54 also is very doubtful (for different views see Keim, Jesu von Nazar a, 37, n. 2). It is even possible that the Greek text is corrupt, and that €p<\0A [@ BipcoN [BADEFL]), b. Zohar, a Hittite, the seller of the cave of Machpelah, Gen. 23 8 Jf. 25 9 i9igf. [P]. As to the question in what sense, or with how much justice, he is called a Hittite, see Hittites, § 1/ EPICUREANS (01 eniKoypioi [Ti. WH]), Acts 17 18. What opinions the Epicureans really held do not now concern us, but only what faithful Jews or Jewish Christians believed them to hold. This is how Josephus describes the Epicureans, — ' who cast provid- ence out of life, and deny that God takes care of human affairs, and hold that the universe is not directed with a view to the continuance of the whole by the blessed and incorruptible Being, but that it is carried along auto- matically and heedlessly ’ {Ant. x. 11 7). Some, both in ancient and in modern times, have thought that the system, thus ungently characterized, is referred to in Ecclesiastes \q. v. , § 13]. Jerome remarks (on Eccles. 97-9), ’ Et heEc, inquit aliquis, loquatur Epicurus, et Aristippus et Cyrenaici et casteras pecudes Philoso- phorum. Ego autem, mecum diligenter retractans, invenio,' 1 etc. According to Jerome, then, the author of Ecclesiastes only mentions the ideas of these ‘ brutish ’ philosophers in order to refute them. In later times certainly the leaders of Judaism could find no more reproachful designation for an apostate than D’mp'DN Epikuros. The author of Ecclesiastes, how- ever, is not a sufficiently fervent Jew to justify us in assuming that he would altogether reject Epicurean ideas, if they came before him. A fervent Christian, like Paul, doubtless did reject them, if he ever eame into contact with them. Did he, then, encounter these ideas ? 1 Opera , ii. (1699), Comm, in Eccles. 1322 EPILEPTIC From Acts 17 18 (if the narrative is historical) we only learn that certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met with him (ffvvtpaWov aurf) 1 — observe in passing the precedence given to the Epicureans. There is nothing in the sequel to suggest that he held any conferences with them ; the speech beginning ' Men of Athens ’ ("A vSpes ' A.drfvaXoi) is plainly not intended for them. It looks as if the reference to the philosophers were merely a touch suggested by the writer’s imagination, which he did not permit to exercise any influence on the following narrative. That Paul had examined and rejected Epicureanism elsewhere, is probable enough. See Athens, § 2, Hellenism, § 9. t. k. c. EPILEPTIC (c€Ahniazom£NOc). Mt. 424 17 15 RV. See Medicine. EPIPHANES (€TTI str ictly speaking, non-normal . , and exceptional. The true letter is from letters and r , , , . . its very nature ephemeral — ephemeral * * as the hand which wrote it or the eye for which it was meant. It is to piety or to chance that we owe the preservation of such letters. The practice of collecting the written remains of great men after their death is indeed an old one. In Greek literature, the earliest instance of publication of such a collection is held to be tbat of the letters of Aristotle (ob. 322 B.C.), which was made soon after his death. Whether the still extant Letters 0/ Aristotle 2 contain any fragments of the genuine collection is indeed a question. On the other hand the letters of Isocrates ( ob . 338 B.c.) which have come down 3 to us are probably genuine in part ; and we have also genuine letters of Epicurus (ob. 270 B.c.), among tbem the fragment of a perfectly charming little note to his child, 4 worthy to be compared with Luther's letter to his little boy Hiinschen. 5 Among the Romans it will be enough to refer to the multitude of letters 1 See Deissmann, Bibelstudien , 190. 2 Published by Hercher (Epistolographi Greed , 172-174 ['73]). 3 See Hercher, op. dt. 3x9-336. 4 See Usener, Epicure a , 154 (’87); also Deissmann, Bibel- studien , 2x9 f. 6 See Luther- Brie/e in Auswahl und U ebersetzung, herausg. von C. A. Hase, 224^ (’67). 1323 1324 EPISTOLARY LITERATURE of Cicero ipb. 43 b.c.) of which four collections, brought together and published after his death, have come down to us. As compared with such letters of famous men a value in some respects still greater attaches to the numerous letters of obscure men and women, dating from the third century B.C. to the eighth A.D., which have become known to us through recent papyrus finds in Egypt. 1 They have, to begin with, the inestimable advantage that the originals themselves have reached us. Nor is this all. The writers had absolutely no thought of publication, so we may take it that their self-portraiture is wholly unconscious and sincere. The light they throw upon the essence and the form of the letter in ancient times 2 is important, and is of value in the investigation of the letters found in the OT or the NT. That ancient epistles have survived in large numbers is not surprising. The literary epistle is not intended to be ephemeral. From the outset it is published in several copies and so has less chance of disappearing than the private letter. The epistle, moreover, is a comparatively easy form of literary effort. It is subject to no severe laws of style or strict rules of prosody ; all that the essay needs is to be fitted with the requisite formulae of the letter and to be provided with an address. Any dabbler could write an epistle, and thus the epistle became one of the favourite forms of literature, and remains so even at the present day. Among ancient * Epistolographers ’ we have, for example, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch in Greek, and L. Annaeus Seneca and the younger Pliny in Roman, literature, not to speak of the poetical epistles of a Lucilius, a Horace, or an Ovid. Specially common was the epistle in the literature of magic and religion. Another fact of literary history requires notice here : the rise of pseudonymous epistolography. In the early period of the empire, especially, epistles under names other than those of the real authors were w*ritten in great numbers, not by impostors, but by unknown literati who for various honest reasons did not care to give their own names. 3 They wrote 4 Epistles ’ of Plato and Demosthenes, Aristotle and Alexander, Cicero and Brutus ; it would be perverse to brand ofthand as frauds such products of a certainly not very original literary activity. Absolute forgeries undoubtedly there were ; but it is equally certain that the majority of the 1 pseud- onymous ’ epistles of antiquity are products of a widely spread, and in itself inoffensive, literary custom. 4 We now come to the question whether the biblical ' epistles ’ admit of being separated into the two distinct classes just mentioned. The immense masses of cuneiform writing which have recently been brought to light abundantly show that 5 OT terms e pi st °l ar y correspondence was exten- sively practised by the people using that script from very early times. It is not surprising, therefore, to find frequent mention of letters in the OT. The Hebrew terms so rendered are (1) : sepJier , 2 S. 11 14 2 K- ^5 Jer. 29 1 ; in Is. 37 14 30 1, where MT gives on£D. the text is corrupt (see SBOT, ‘Isaiah,’ Heb.); ‘ letters stpkdrim, 1 K. 21 8 Esth. 1 22, etc. (2) pithgam , Esth. 1 2o(see Meyer, IZntst. 23); in Bibl. Aram. Ezra 41757 Dan. 414(17], etc. (3) nistewdn, Ezra 47 7 n (see Meyer, op. cit. 22); in Bibl. Aram. Ezra 4 18, etc. (4) 'iggtretk, Neh. 27 Esth. 9 26, etc. (see Meyer, op. cit. 22); in Bibl. Aram. NTIN, Ezra4 8n 5 6. 1 A selection of such papyrus- letters will be found in Deiss- mann, Bib. -stud., 209-216. 2 There is thus a promise of good results in the theme pro- posed for its prize essay by the Heidelberg Faculty of Philosophy in 1898-99 : On the basis of a chronological survey of the Greek private letters which have been brought to light in recent papyrus finds, to characterise and set forth historically the forms °f the Greek epistolary style.’ 3 Cp Deissmann, Bib. -stud. 199 jf. A well-known modern instance is that of the famous Letters of Junius.’ The Ass. terms for ‘ letter ’ are diippu (tablet ; cp Syr. dappd), whence dupsarru (Heb. IDSa), ‘scribe,’ and egirtu (cp no. 4 above). In Am. Tab. 50 rev. 30 supdru 4 message’ or ‘missive’ is virtually duppu ‘letter ’ (rev. 17). This suggests that sep/ier (see 1) may be a loan-word ; cp Scribe. In besides m- o-roAi}, we find fiipKiov (2 S. 11 14), /3t£Aoy (Jer. 29 1), pijats (Ezra 6 7), 8taray/j.a(Ezra 7 11), <£opoA6yos (Ezra4 x8),andypa/jipa; cp Acts 28 21 (pi.). Special interest attaches to the cases in which the actual text of the letters is professedly given, as in r rvr lof+oY-H 2 11 15 (David's letter to Joab about ui lexers. Urjah ^ lK>2 i 9 /. (jezebel to the elders about Naboth), 2 K. 5 s/. (king of Aram to king of Israel), 2 K. IO2/. 6 (Jehu to the authorities of Samaria). On the letter of Jeremiah in Jer. 29, see Jeremiah ii.; on that of Elijah in 2 Chr. 21 12-15, see Jehoram, 2; on the official letters in Ezra4 9_/. 17 Jjf. 57 ff., see Ezra, ii., § 6; and on the letter of Nebuchadrezzar in Dan. 4, see Daniel ii. Many instances occur also in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic books of the OT, especially in Macca- bees. In the last-named books in particular, we find, exactly as in Greek and Roman literature, 1 letters, mostly official, embodied word for word in the historical narrative. It would be wrong to cast doubt on the genuineness of such insertions on this ground alone. In many cases, it is true, they are in all likelihood spurious (cp Maccabees, First, § 10) ; but in some instances we are constrained to accept them. The de- cision must rest in each case on internal evidence alone. Turning now to the NT, we find in Acts two letters which, like those in Maccabees, are introduced tjt 1 ff into a P rofessedl y historical narrative : 7 . 1 6 tiers. the letter Q f the a postles and elders to the Gentile Christian brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia ( 15 23-29), and that of Claudius Lysias to Felix (2326-30). The question of their genuineness must be decided by the same rules of criticism as apply to the cases mentioned in the preceding section (see, for example, Community of Goods, § 16/.). In both cases the documents, at any rate, claim to be true letters. Turning next to the other writings which frankly bear the designation epistolce in the NT, we must again bear in mind the distinction already established between ‘letters’ and ‘epistles.’ It is accordingly not enough if we are able merely to establish the existence of p group of epistolce; the question as to their definite character remains. The answer must be supplied in each case by the writing itself. In some cases not much reading between the lines is necessary for this ; and even in those cases where the answer is not quite obvious, it is, for the most part, possible to arrive at something more than a mere non liquet. (a) To begin with, the Epistle to Philemon stands out unmistakably as a letter, and it is as a self-revelation of the great apostle that it possesses a unique value for all time. If (as seems very probable) Rom. 16 is to be taken as being in reality a separate letter, addressed by Paul to Ephesus, it also is an unmistakable example of that class of writing. {b) Philippians also is a true letter ; it becomes intelligible only when referred to a perfectly definite and unique epistolary situation. The same remark applies to Thessalonians, Galatians, Colossi ans (and Ephesians). They are indeed more didactic and general than those previously mentioned ; but they too are missives occasioned by perfectly definite needs of the Pauline churches, not fugitive pieces com- posed for Christendom at large, or even for publicity in a still larger sense of the word. To the same class in like manner belong the first and the second extant epistles to the Corinthians. What is it in fact that makes 2 Corinthians everywhere so difficult ? It is that it is throughout a true letter, full of allusions to which we, for the most part, have not the key. Paul wrote it with all his personality ; in deep emotion and thankful- ness, and yet full of reforming passion, of irony, and of 1 Cp Deissmann, op. cit. 220. 1326 13=5 EPISTOLARY LITERATURE stinging frankness, i Corinthians is quieter in tone ; but it too is a real letter, being in part, at least, an answer to one from the Church of Corinth. 1 (r) In the case of Romans, one might perhaps at first hesitate to pronounce. Its character as a letter is un- deniably much less conspicuously marked, mucb less palpable, than in the case of 2 Corinthians. Still, neither is it an epistle written for the public, nor for Christendom at large, designed to set forth in com- pendious form the apostle's dogmatic and ethical system. In it Paul has a definite object — to prepare the way for his visit to the church in Rome ; such is his aim in writing, and it is that of an individual letter-writer. He does not yet know the church to which he writes, and he himself is known to it only by hearsay. The letter, therefore, from the nature of the case, cannot be so full of personal detail as those he wrote to com- munities with which he had long been familiar, such as Corinth and Philippi. Our first impression of Romans, perhaps, may be that it is an epistle ; but this judgment will not stand scrutiny. We need not hesitate longer then, to lay down the broad thesis that all the Pauline epistles hitherto enumerated (the genuineness of none of them is doubted by the present writer) are real letters. 3 Paul is a true letter-writer, not an * epistolographer. ’ Nor yet is he a man of letters. His letters became literary products only after the piety of the churches had made a collection of them and had multiplied copies indefinitely till they had become accessible to all Christendom. At a later date still they became Holy Scripture when they were received into the ’ New ’ Testament, then in process of formation. As an integral part of the New Testa- ment they have exercised a literary influence that is incalculable. All these later vicissitudes, however, cannot alter their original and essential character. Paul, who with ardent longings expected the coming of the Lord, and with it the final judgment and the life of the coming age — Paul, who reckoned the future of this present world, not by millennia or centuries, but by a few short years, had not the faintest surmise of the part his letters were destined to play in the providential ordering of the world. It is precisely in this untram- melled freedom that the chief value of his letters consists ; their absolute trustworthiness and supremely authorita- tive character as historical records, are guaranteed there- by. The letters of Paul are the (alas, only too frag- mentary) remains of what would have been the immediate records of his mission. Each one of them is a piece of his biography ; in many passages we feel that the writer has dipped his pen in his own heart's blood. (d) Two other real letters in the NT remain to be mentioned — the Second and the Third Epistle of John . 3 Of 3 John we may say with Wilamowitz- Moellendorff, 1 It was 1 quite private note, and must have been preserved from the papers of Gaius as a relic of the great presbyter. ' 2 John does not present so many of the features of a letter in detail ; but it also has a particular object in view just as 1 letter has, even if we do not find ourselves able to say with complete confidence who the 4 lady ' addressed may have been — whether a church or some distinguished individual Christian. That the letter was addressed to the Church at large seems hardly admissible. Both writings are in point of form interesting, as in many respects clearly exhibiting the ancient epistolary style of their period. No instance of an epistle is met with in the canonical books of the OT ; but we have several in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. i. The most instructive ex- 1 Cp. Joh. Weiss, ‘ Der Eingang des ersten Korintherbriefs, St. Kr. 1900, pp. 125-130. - The Pastoral Epistles, also, may perhaps contain fragments from genuine letters of Paul. 8 Cp U. von Wilamuwicz- Moellendorff, ‘ Lesefriichte ’ in Hermes , 33 529 ff. (’98), (specially instructive on the question of form). ample is undoubtedly the (Greek) Epistle of Jeremiah, „ . , , appended to Lamentations (so in (S), 1 8. Apocryphal or tQ g aruc j] Vg. as Baruch 6). hpistles. This ^ort composition, which certainly was originally written in Greek, 2 contains throughout. The -j i> vouched for by Sam. Push, py, and also by © (eSev, 6 e5e»4e]i [BAFL]), cp Gen. 40 20 (eSep. [AD], -aip. [L] ; om. MT). Ladan is doubtless shortened from Elad(d)an ( py 1 ?}* ; cp jtjAt). S. a. c. ERASTUS (epACTOC [Ti. WH]), ' the treasurer {01 KONOMOc) of the city [of Corinth] 1 1 (Rom. I623 ; cp 2 Tim. 420), is probably mentioned as one of those that 'ministered’ to Paul (Acts 1922) and as having been sent by him with Timothy from Ephesus on some errand into Macedonia. This combination of passages, however, is plausible only if Rom. 16 was originally a letter to the church of Ephesus. ERECH (ipX, opex [ADEL], arach , classical ’Opxorj, Ass. Arku , Uruk ) is named in Gen. 10 10 as one of the four cities originally founded by Nimrod in Babylonia. The explorations of Loftus ( Travels in Chaldea and Susiana, 162 ff.) established its site at the mod. Warka , halfway between Hilla and Korna. The enormous mounds and ruins scattered over an area six ! miles in circuit testified to a large population in ancient times ; but the discoveries did little to restore the history of the city. The earliest inscriptions recovered were those of Dungi, Ur-Bau, and Gudea, kings of Ur (which lay 30 m. SW. ). The next in date were those of Sin- gasid and another, kings of Erech as an independent state. Erech was then capital of the kingdom of Amnanu. The later kings of Babylon (Merodach- baladan) also left traces of their buildings and restora- tions. Many commercial documents of all periods down to 200 B.C. attest the continuous prosperity of the city. As if to make up for the lack of historical docu- ments furnished by the site itself, we have perpetual reference to the place in the Assyrian and Babylonian literature. No place had a greater hold on the affection and imagination of the literati. The author of the Creation Tablets (non- Semitic version) ascribes its foundation to the god Marduk. It is the theatre of the Gilgames or Nimrod epic (see Deluge, § 2). Its poetical names (3 R. 41 15 ff. ) show how often it was the theme of story and legend. Some of them — c.g . , the ' en- closure’ (snbuni), 'the seven districts’ — seem justified by its ruins. Surrounded completely by a wall, inter- sected by many canals, flanked by two large streams, and probably then, as now, almost inaccessible for most of the year, it was a secure refuge. Later in its history — perhaps in Assyrian times, certainly in the Parthian period — it became a sort of national necropolis. The city deity was the goddess Nana, whose statue had such strange vicissitudes (see Nanea). _ During her absence a goddess, Istar, whose temple was E-ulmas, seems to have taken her place. Continual reference is made to Uruk even by Assyrian kings (KB i. and ii., passim). Their correspondence (Harper, ABL passim), when fully published, will throw much light on the city life of Uruk during the Sargonid period. At present it • would be premature to attempt to write its municipal history. c * H - w - J- ERI surely not ‘watcher, &AA(e)l [BAFL, cp Samar. Pent.]), a subdivision of Gad (§ 13), Gen. 46 16 (AHA(e)iC ADL]), Nu. 26 i 6 [625]); ethnic Erites (Hi;n, Nu. l.c.; o &AA(e)l [BAFL]). ESAIAS (hcaiac. isaias), 4Esd.2i8 EV; Mt.3 3 , etc., AV, RV Isaiah (q.v., i. ). 1 Notice that Cenchreze is mentioned in v. 2. 1330 x 3 2 9 ESA RH ADDON ESARRADDON (pn~lDK, acopAan [HA], * X 0. [L] ; acapaxoAA&c, Jos.; c&xepAONOC, Ptol.; 1 Early ^C&piAiNOC ; Ass. Asur-ah-iddina, — i.e., TTiRtnrv ^ ur g lven a brother' ), son and successor of Sennacherib on the throne of Assyria (2K.1937; Is. 3738, axOpAan [O], nax* [N*Q m £-],&cop. [N c - b Q*]). His brother Asur-nadin- sum, who had been made king of Babylon by Sennacherib, was carried away captive alter a reign of six years by Hallusu king of Elam 694 B.c. (AT? 2 278). Ardi-Belit was then regarded as crown-princc (mar sarri) in N ineveh, as appears from a contract tablet dated Sept. -Oct. 694 b. c. For another son, Asur-munik, Sennacherib built a palace in the suburbs of Nineveh (see Adrammelech, 2). The so-called * Will of Sennacherib ' 1 (3 R. 16, No. 3) records some rich gifts to Esarhaddon and the wish that his name should be changed to Asur-edil-ukln-apla (Asur- the-hero has established the son). In the Hebrew notice of Sennacherib's murder, two sons of Sennacherib, named Adrammelech (2, q.v.) and Sharezer (i ,q.v.), are referred to, occasioning a historical difficulty, which is dealt with elsewhere. The expressions of the Baby- lonian Chronicle have led some to think that Esarhaddon himself was the parricide 2 (Edwards, The Witness of Assyria, 149). It is certainly singular that in no in- scription set up in Assyria (yet published) does Esar- haddon refer to the event. On the stele found at Sam- alla, however, he distinctly calls himself the 4 avenger of the father who begat him' (mutir gimilli abi alidihi ). 3 Sennaeherib died on the 20th of Tebetu, B.c. 682, and Esarhaddon was crowned on the 28th of Adar, B.C. 682-1. The chief sources for the history of Esarhaddon's reign are his cylinders (KB 2 \10ff . ). The opening paragraph of the broken prism (KB 2 141 f) has usually been taken to refer to his struggle with his brother for the throne. It is a very fragmentary account, as remarkable for its gaps and omissions as for its information. From it we learn that, presumably early in his reign, Esarhaddon, who was evidently away from Nineveh, was called to face a formidable foe. He could not take all his troops with him. The march was made 4 hastily and under difficulty ’ in the winter-month of Sabatu. His enemy met him at Hanirabbat and was signally defeated. That it was a fight for the throne is clear from the fact that the enemy said of their leader, 4 This is our king.' On a more or less plausible combination of this account with the biblical data it has been asserted that Esarhaddon was in command of an expedition to Armenia. The time of year is against this supposition. Hanirabbat was near Malatya, and therefore a great distance from both Nineveh and Armenia (see map in KB 2 and in vol. i. of this work between cols. 352 and 353). If Esarhaddon had left the bulk of his forces behind on the confines of Armenia it is not easy to see how the rebels could have escaped thither. Winckler ( GBA 259) argues better that Esarhaddon was in Babylon at the time of his father’s death. 4 The Babylonian Chronicle states that on the 2nd of Adar the revolt in Nineveh was at an end. This gives six weeks for Esarhaddon's receipt of the news and march to Nineveh. On his arrival the regicides and their party must have retreated and, doubtless with reinforcements, he pursued them at once. They made their stand at Hanirabbat, and on their defeat escaped to Armenia. Esarhaddon seems then to have returned to Nineveh and ascended the throne on the 28th of Adar (682-1 b.c.), about eight months after the murder of his father. Esarhaddon's residence in Babylon before his accession may account for his friendly treatment of the fallen 0 Adminis ea P lta k He made good the damage Nation caused by Sennacherib [q.v.], brought back the gods, and repeopled the eity. During the reign of Merodach-baladan Chaldean sup- porters of that king had dispossessed the native Baby- lonians ; after Babylon had been rendered helpless, the Chaldeans continued to encroach. Esarhaddon expelled 1 This document is not dated, hut has been used to support the contention that Esarhaddon was the favourite son. “ Cp the Hebrew version of Tobit ( PS BA 18 260), which ascribes the murder to 4 Esarhaddon and Sharezer.' A usgraJ’ungcn in Sendschirli, 36. 4 He was appointed regent there by his father in 681 B.c. ESARHADDON the Chaldeans from the neighbourhood of Babylon and Borsippa, and crippled their power. This policy of restoration extended to Erech. At Nineveh too. the king built a great palace (cp Layard, Nitt. and Bab. 634); also palaces at Kalah and Tarbisi, the last for his son Asur-bani-pal (1 R. 48, Nos. 4 and 5 ; KB - 150; cp Lay. op. cit. 19). Throughout Assyria and Mesopotamia he rebuilt some thirty temples. It was perhaps due to this antiquarian taste, so strongly developed in his son Asur-bani-pal, that Esar- haddon, first of the Sargonids, lays claim to ancient royal lineage. He calls himself the descendant of Bel -ban i, son of Adasi, king of Assyria, and offspring of Asur (KB 2 120, n. 1). As a fighting king Esarhaddon was not behind any of his race. At the very beginning of his reign he was threatened by the Gimirrai (see Gomer, i ). His oft- sent requests to the sun-god Samas (Knudtzon, Gebete, 72-264) mention his fears of Kastarit of Karkassi, 4Mamiti-arsu the Mede, the Mannai (see Minni), and other branches or forerunners of the great Manda horde. The peril culminated in an actual invasion of Assyria by the Gimirrai, who were, however, defeated before the fourth year of this reign (KB 2282). The next year was a busy one. An expedition penetrated the Arabian desert, conquering eight rulers in the districts of Bazu and Hazn (cp Buz, 1 ; Hazo). Sidon having revolted was taken and destroyed, a new city Kar- Esarhaddon being built to overshadow it. The king of Sidon, Abdi-Milkuti, and Sanduarri a Cilician prince who had sided with him, were captured and beheaded. Following up this success, the Assyrian king received the submission of all Syria and Palestine. Of the vassal kings who then paid him homage Esar- haddon has left us 1 very important list (AT? 2 148). Among them are Baal king of Tyre, and Manasseh [q.v.\ king of the city of Judah. The terms of the agreement between Esarhaddon and Baal king of Tyre are recorded on the tablet K. 3500 from which Hommel gives some extracts (AHT 196 ; the full text is now given by Winckler, AOB 2 10). These events occurred in 677-6 B.c. The Chronicler also tells us of a colonisa- tion of Samaria by Esarhaddon, Ezra 42 (acapeadu >v [B], - pabdusp [A], va\opbav [L]) ; but the accuracy of this statement has been questioned (see Samaria, Samaritans). Being now in full possession of the route to Egypt, Esarhaddon made a reconnaissance of it in 675 B.c. He returned next year to the attack. In 672 B.C. he lost his queen and seems to have remained a year or more at home. In 670 b. c. , leaving the government in the hands of his mother, 1 he departed for a supreme struggle with Egypt, in which he was completely victorious (see Egypt, § 66). As a 4 hard lord ’ he ruled over the Egyptians, 2 garrisoning some cities with Assyrian troops, and in others installing native dependent rulers. He returned home by way of Samalla, where he set up the stele mentioned above. Esarhaddon was not allowed to rest long. A revolt broke out in Egypt, and he set out to repress it. However, he never saw Egypt again. On the way he fell ill and died; it was on Arahsamna (November ; see Month, §§ 3 5) the 10th, 669 b.c. (not, as usually stated, 668). He divided his kingdom, giving Asur- bani-pal Assyria and the Empire, but making Samas- sum-ukin king of Babylon under him. A third son, Asur-mukin-palla, was raised to the high-priesthood ; the youngest, Asur -edil- same -u-ersitim, was made priest of Sin at Harran. Another son, Sin-iddin-aplu, seems to have died before his father. We find the names of a daughter, Serua-etirat, and a sister, Matti. The name of Esarhaddon's mother is best read Nakia, 1 To this lady Nakia are addressed many letters from the provincial governors (Harper, ABL). During her regency occurred the Elamite invasion of 675 B.C., which threatened Sippara. The gods of Agade were carried off by the Elamites. * See Is. 192 , according to one interpretation (see Che. Intr. Is. 1 14/). I 33 I 1332 ESAU which is rendered in Assyrian by Zakutu, and seems to be Hebrew, ’the pure one.' She survived her son, and on his death issued a proclamation to the Empire, demanding its allegiance to the princes Asur-bani-pal and SamaS-sum-ukin. 1 C. H. W. j. ESAU (t'V ; hcay [BAL]). i. A popular etymology, which may, however, be correct, is suggested in Gen. 2025 (J) : 'And the first w came out tawny, all over like a hairy mantle ; * * and his name was called Esau.’ As Budde ( Urgesck . 217, n. 2, incorrectly reported by Di.) has pointed out, 4 tawny ‘ ('Jb"lN, adnidni )' 2 cannot have been the original word. Budde's own conjecture, however (that it displaced some rare word meaning * hairy ’ ) is not probable. It may have arisen out of D'DIWb ‘twins,’ which intruded from the margin where it stood as a correction of n'Din ( 7 '- 2 4)- Miswritten as O’DWN* it would be easily changed into 'j'iD'iN (3 and are frequently confounded) ; cp t». 30. We must assume a root ncy, ’ to have thick hair,’ 3 and regard ‘the shaggy,' as the equivalent of Seir ’the hairy' (~\'y? = Typ, Gen. 27 n), which appears to have been regarded by J as a synonym for hunter (Gen. 2525, cp v. 27). In this, as in the former case, J really appears to have hit upon ... sound interpretation. It seems impossible to show that the mountain district of Seir (whether E. or even W. of the Arabah) was ’ hairy ’ in the sense of ’ wooded, ’ nor would the sense ■ wooded 1 accord with the gloomy oracle of Isaac. The probability is that Esau and Seir are names of a hunter- god ; 4 and though the hero Usoos in Philo of Byblus (Eus. Praep. Ev. i. 10 7) may conceivably be simply the personification of Usu (Palaetyrus), 6 it seems more probable, since his brother Samemrumos is a divine hero of culture, that Usoos represents a hunter- god, 8 after whom the city of USu was named. Certainly Philo of Byblus describes Usoos as entering into con- flict with wild beasts, though also as the first who ventured on the sea (as if a personification of Old Tyre). However tbis may be, Esau never displaced Edom as the Hebrew name for the people of Mount Seir. The phrase ’ sons of Esau 1 is found only in late writers (Dt. 24 Obad. 18) ; ’ Esau the father of Edom ’ (Gen. 36943) also is late (see Holzinger’s analysis). The early traditions on Esau are given in Gen. 2021-34 27 1-45 3I4-22 33i-i7; these belong to JE. 9 TmAifinna The editor has done his best to cull 8 * the finest parts from both J and E. At the beginning he depends solely on J, unless we may assume with Dillmann and Bacon ( Genesis , 152) that the admoni (‘tawny’) of Gen. 2525 (see above) was taken by the editor from E, who, however, surely knew and had to account for the name Esau. The fore- shadowing which JE gives of the differences of national fortunes (cp Mai. I2/;) and national character in the story of tbe two tribal ancestors is most effective. That 1 S^e johns, Assyr. Deeds and Documents , vol. 2. 2 lhis verse gives J’s explanation of the name Edom. ‘Let me quickly eat some of that edom, for I am faint ; therefore his name was called Edom. For O'lKn 01NH read D1N.1 ; cp Ar. idam> 'a by-dish, as vegetables, etc.' So T. D. Anderson, with the assent of Dillmann. 3 It is difficult not to compare Ar. ' athiya , 4 to have thick or matted hair,’ a'thd, ‘having thick hair’ (Lane), though rleischer (in Levy, NI/IVB 3732) points out that this com- violates the ordinary laws of phonetic changes. PrdSek assents to this view (Forsch. z. Gesc/i. d. Alt. ['98] ^ 53 '* See Hosah, andcp note in ZATW , 1897, p. 189. The present article, including the above view, is of older date than m 1 L° te * The wr * ter has since found that the identification of Usu belongs to PriSek, and that Hal^vy has already connected Usoos and Usu, though in conjunction with the improbable theory that USu = the nkok of the Talmud, which he identifies wth Umm ePAwamid (see Hammon, i). Enough remains to justify the writer’s claim to have advanced the investigation by a e e wk Uggestion ’ Whether the Syrian desert goddess ‘Aslt, whose name is connected by W. M. Muller with that of Esau (cp Edom, § 2) is a female form of this hunter god, we can hardly venture to say. ■Wen; can we make any use of the divine name Esu, apparently ot foreign origin, found in a cuneiform text (Pinches, PSBA 182 5S>- ESAU the two brothers strove in the womb is a purely etymo- logical myth (see Jacob, § 1) ; Edom is an independent people when tradition first brings it into contact with Israel. That the older people was gradually eclipsed by the younger, however, and that nevertheless the older people at length achieved its liberation, are facts which agree exactly with the legend. How naturally, too, and with what regard to primitive sentiment, that legend (cp Isaac, § 5) is told ! Of conscious purpose on the narrator's part there is not a trace. It seems as if by a kind of fate the course of future history were prescribed by the forefathers, who in their blessings and cursings discharged divine functions. 1 That writers like J and E, who have infused so much of the pure prophetic religion into the traditional material, should not be without traces of primitive superstition, will startle only those who are fettered by an abstract supernaturalism. J and E un- hesitatingly believe that by his blessing or his curse a father may determine the fate of his children ; at any rate the fore- fathers of Israel could do this. These writers certainly mean us to regard the oracles in Gen. 27 2S f. and 30 f. (which are im- aginative reproductions of what Isaac would be likely to have said) as creating history. The latter oracle has often been mis- understood. It should run tlius, ‘ Surely, far from fruitful ground shall be thy dwelling, and untouched by the dew of the heaven above ; by thy sword shall thou live, and thou shalt serve thy brother ; but when thou shalt revolt,’ 2 thou shalt shake off his yoke from thy neck.' For another view of the blessing (shared by Vg. and AV) see Edom, § 5. Most readers sympathise more with Esau than with Jacob. This may perhaps be to some extent in accord- ance with the wishes of the narrators. Surely J and E must have condemned the fraud practised by Jacob at his mother's bidding upon his aged father. Whether they would have condemned Jacob’s shiftiness (apart from the special circumstances) as immoral, may, however, be doubted. The later prophets, it is true, denounce shiftiness in no measured terms ; 3 but the contemporaries of J and E were not so far from the old nomadic period, and not so open to new moral ideas, as to do the same (see Che. Aids , 35). To them the quiet, cautious, calculating character of Jacob seemed to be more praise- worthy thap the careless, unaspiring, good-natured, passionate character of Esau ; Jacob, they said, ' was a blameless 4 man (cn), dwelling in tents ' (Gen. 2527 [J]). What P thought of these stories does not appear ; he confines his attention to Esau’s marriages (Gen. 2634/. [cp 2746 (R)], 286-9), and to geographical and statistical information respecting the Edomites (chap. 36 ; but how much is P's, is uncertain). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews presents Esau as the type of a ’profane ’ person, on the ground that he sacrificed his birthright ‘for one mess of food ' (Heb. 12 i6)._ He addresses Hebrews who were tempted to barter their privileges in the church for the external satisfactions of the temple services. As a matter of fact, however, it is only J who makes Esau willingly resign his birthright; E apparently knows only the second of the two accounts of the loss of the frpwroToxia. It is obvious lhat J despises Esau for his conduct (see 25 34 in the Hebrew). To him Esau represents Edom. To the later Jews Esau becomes the symbol of the heathen world (see a striking Haggada in Weber, Jild. Theol. 401). 2. i Esd. 529 (tj craw [BA]). See Ziha, 1. T. K. C. 1 See Blessings and Cursings. Robertson Smith points out that Jacob, when seeking the paternal benediction, wears the skins of sacrificial animals. His father is a quasi-divine being. So the priests in Egypt wore the skins of sacred animals (cp Leopard), and several examples of this can be indi- cated within the Semitic field ( Bel . Sem.V) 437 ; cp 467). The antique flavour of the narrative in Genesis now becomes much more perceptible. (Sayce has already connected the dress of Jacob with the ‘robe of goat's skin, the sacred dress of the Babylonian priests,’ Hill). Led. ’87, p. 285). See Dress, § 8. 2 For the impossible Tin read -HP. n, of which another cor- ruption is riNn (‘Book of Jubilees,’ JQR O734). It may be added that "H in Hos. 12 1, UT1 in Jer. 231, and l")it in Ps. 55 3 are also demonstrably due to corruption. 3 Hosea does not indeed mention this action, but he accuses the Israelites of a deceitfulness which he traces back to Jacob’s overreaching of his brother in the womb (Hos. 12 [3] 4 ; cp Jacob, § 2). 4 Or, harmless (innocent of acts of violence). It was said of Esau, ’By thy sword shalt thou live.' DPI may have begun to acquire a specialized sense in popular use. In Job 9 22 DfJ and yen are opposed. 1333 1334 ESCHATOLOGY CONTENTS. [Short Subject Index at End of Article.) A. HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. I. The Individual (§§ 1-33). Gleams of future life (§ 28). Antique elements (§§ 1-21). Tbe Psalms (§§ 29-32). Practices relating to the dead (§§ 3-6). Result as to individual immortality Beliefs about the dead (§§ 7-9). (§ 33). Sheol (§ 10). Soul and Body (§§ 12-18). Spirit (§ 19 f). II. The Nation (§§ 34-38). R6sum6 (§ 21). Day of Yah we (§ 34). Rise of individualism (Jer., Ezek. 1. Popular idea (also Nah., Hab. ; etc., Eccles., Job ; §§ 22-27). § ZS/f Earlier prophetic (also Is. Zeph.; §§ 37-39). 3. Exilic (Jer., Ezek. ; §§ 40-42) 4. Universalistic (Exilic and post exilic ; § 43/)- 5. Nationalistic (post-exilic ; §1 45-48). III. Synthesis (§ 49 f). Doctrine of resurrection (§ 49./".) B. APOCRYPHAL AND APOCALYPTIC WRITERS. Review (§ 51). Comparative eschatology (§ 52). Method of sketch (§ 53). Ecclus. and Tobit (§ 54^) Hasidim (§ 56). I. Second Century b.c. (§§ 57*63). (a) General development (§ 58). (b) Writers: Dan., Eth.-Enoch 83-90, Test. xii. Patr., Judith (§| 59-62). (c) Special conceptions (§ 63). Introduction (§ 82). I. The Several Writers (§§ 83-101). Synoptic Gospels (§§ 83-87). Apocalypse (§ 88). 2 Pet., Jude, James (§§ 89-91). Hebrews (§ 92). II. Last Century b.c. (§§ 64-70). (a) General development (§ 64). (3) Writers : Ethiopic Enoch 91-104 (§ 65). Eth.-fcnoch 37-70 and 1 Macc. (§ 65). Psalms of Solomon (§ 67). Sibylline Oracles (§ 68). 2 Macc. (§ 69). ( c ) Special conceptions (§ 70). C. NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. Johannine (§ 93). Petrine (§§ 94-96). ‘ spirits in prison,’ etc. (§ 96). Pauline (§§ 97-101). z and 2 Thess. (§ 98). 1 Cor. (§ 99). Bibliography (§§ 104-106). III. First Century a.d. (§§ 71-81). (a) General development (§ 71). \b) Writers : Jubilees (§ 72), Ass Mos. (§ 73), Phik , (§74), Slav. - EnocI (§ 75). Wisd. (§ 76), . Macc. (§ 77), BarucI and Apoc.-Bar. (§78) 4 Esd. (§ 79), Josephus (§ 80). (c) Special conceptions (§ 81). 2 Cor., Rom. (§ 100). Phil., Col., Eph. (§ 101). II. Special Conceptions. Soul and Spirit (§ 102). Places of abode (§ 103). A. HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT. In studying a great religion the inquirer naturally seeks to trace an organic connection between its central p . ... conceptions and the most remote portions p 1Ve its system. He expects to find a s certain degree of logical coherence be- tween all its p;irts. In dealing with such religions as Christianity, Mohammedanism, or Buddhism, his ex- pectations are not disappointed. In these religions the eschatology or teaching on the final condition of man and of the world follows in the main from the funda- mental doctrines. The early religion of Israel, however, must not be approached with such an expectation. There is an organic connection between its theology and that portion of its eschatology which deals with the nation as a whole ; but this connection does not extend to the eschatology concerning the individual. 1 . The Individual. — The ideas about the future life which prevailed in the earliest times and were current indeed in some degree down to the second century b.c. , were in many respects common to Israel and to some other Semitic nations. They were not the out- come of any revelation. They were survivals. With these antique elements advancing thought was at strife centuries before it succeeded in completely expelling them and in furnishing in their stead a doctrine of the future life in harmony with its own character. Such a doctrine, though foreshadowed in the earlier literature, was not definitely taught till the fourth century B.c. The antique elements belong in all probability to the system of belief and practice known as ancestor worship. n * .At first this phase of religion dominated worship 017 t0 a £ reat degree the life of the Israelite. The religion of Yahwe, however, as it developed, engaged with it in irreconcilable strife. Still, for several centuries, many of those primitive tenets and usages were left unaffected. Early Yahwism had no distinctive eschatology regarding the problem of the individual ; it concerned itself only with the nation. The individual, accordingly, was left to his hereditary I33S beliefs, which, as we have said, were connected with ancestor worship . 1 In this system the departed were not regarded as in a full sense dead. They shared in all the vicissitudes 01 their posterity, and possessed superhuman powers to benefit or injure. With a view to propitiating these powers the living offered sacrifices. The vitality of the dead was thus preserved, and their honour in the next world upheld. A man made sacrifice naturally only to his own ancestors ; these with their living descendants formed one family. That such beliefs prevailed in Israel is shown by _ . . customs observed with regard to the . rove y ^ ea( j 2 The mourning usages have a mourning re iigi OUSj no t merely a psychological cus oms. significance. They indicate reverence for the dead and a confession of dependence upon them. 1. The mourner girt himself with sackcloth (2 S. 331 1 K. 2O31 Is. 324 153 22 12 Jer. 626), or laid it on his loins (Gen. 37 34 Jer. 4837). This practice expresses submission to a superior*, it is thus that tbe servants of Benhadad go forth from Apbek to Ahab (1 K. 20 31 /.). 2. Tbe mourner put off his shoes (2 S. 15 30 Ezek. 2417). This is explained by the removal of the shoes required in approaching holy places (Ex. ?>$/. Josh. 5 15). 3. Mourners cut off the hair (Is. 22 12 Jer. 729 Am. 810 Mic. 1 16 Ezek. 7 182731), or the beard (Jer. 41 5), or both (Is. 152 Jer. 4837) ; and made baldnesses between the eyes (Dt. 14 if.). The hair was designed as an offering to the dead (see Cuttings of the Flesh, § 3, and Sacrifice). These rites are con- demned as idolatrous in Dt. 14 \ /. ; but they are mentioned by the prophets of the eighth century without any consciousness of their impropriety (cp Am. 810 Mic. 1 16 Is. 152 2212). They appear still to have been the universal custom (Jer. 41 5). 4. Mourners made cuttings in their flesh for the dead. Such incisions were regarded as making ‘ an enduring covenant with the dead 1 (WRS Ret. Sem.fi) 322 /.). They were made by the priests of Baal (1 K. 18 28). They were forbidden by the Hebrew law (Dt. 14 1 Lev. 19 28) on the same grounds as in the case of 3. 1 Cp Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode , chap. 1, ‘ Der alte Glaube’; Stade, GVI 1387^; Marti, Gesch. d. Israel. Rel.fi) 22-26, 30,40-43, 48, 193. The conclusions of these scholars are attacked by Frey, Tod , Seelcnglaube und Seelencult ini alien Israel , 1898, but on the whole without success. 2 See Stade, GVI I387 ff. ; Schwally, op. cit. 9-16. 1336 ESCHATOLOGY 5. The covering of the bead by the mourners (2S. 10 30 Esth. 612 Jer. M3) is probably to be regarded as a substitute for cutting off tbe hair ; similarly the covering of the beard re- presents its removal (Ezek. 2417). This practice expresses reverence for the dead. Tbe same custom was observed by the worshipper in approaching God (cp the case of Elijah at Horeb), and is universal in the synagogue and the mosque at the present day. 6 . The mourner offered sacrifices to tbe dead (Ezek. 241722 2Cb. I614 21 19). They are probably implied in Is. 819 19 3 ; for when a man wished to consult tbe dead, he would naturally present an offering. Their object is clear from Dt. 2614 Jer. I67 (?)*, it was to give sustenance to the dead and to win their favour. In later times they came to be regarded as mere funeral feasts. This had not come about in the second century D.C., however ; for sacrifices to the dead appear to be commended in Ecclus. 733 (‘For a dead man withhold not a gift’ [«ir! i/e*pia ju .> 1 arroKwXv(rps Yapiv]) and in Tob. 417 (‘Pour out thy breacl on the burial of the just ’), though they are derided in Ecclus. 30 x 8 / Ep. Jer. 31/. Wisd. H15 193 Or. Sibyl. 8382^ In Jubilees * 22 17 tbey are referred to as prevailing among the Gentiles. The tgraphim mentioned in Gen. 35 were household gods. 1 They are called 'strange gods,’ and their 4. B th wors ^ , P 1S regarded as incompatible with 7 . £ that of Yahwi. Their sacred character _ _ appears from their being buried under a 1 rap m. sacred tree terebinth. An earlier mention is in Gen. 31 19 30-35, where Rachel steals the tfiraphim of her father. In Ex. 21 2-6 we have another passage attesting their worship. According to this section there was in private houses a god close to the door, to which the slave who desired enrolment in his master's family had to be brought. Originally this meant admission to the family cult with all its obliga- tions and privileges (see statement of Eliezer’s position below, § 5). Later the tSraphim, which were of human form (iS, 19 i 3 ), were regarded as images of Yah we (cp Judg. 175 , and 18 17^ ; see also 1 S. 19 13-16) ; for it is difficult to believe that David, the champion of the religion of Yahw&, would have worshipped the tgraphim in their original character as household gods. In Hos. 34 and Zech. 102 , however, they seem to retain their original character as images of ancestors (cp Teraphim). In Dt. 15 12-18 the rite of initiation mentioned in Ex. 21 is, by the omission of the term ‘god,' robbed of all its primitive religious significance, and given et wholly secular character. It is ancestor worship that explains the importance of male offspring. The honour and wellbeing of the 5 Bv imDort- ( * ea< * depended on the worship rendered a p f 1 and the sacrifices offered by their male offspring descendants. Even in the after life, ^ therefore, men could be punished by \ahw£ by the destruction of their posterity (Ex. 20 5 347 Nu. 14 18 Dt. 59) ; for the sacrifices then ceased to be made. 2 If a man failed to have male offspring, the difficulty could be surmounted by adoption. The adopted man passed from his own clan to that of his adopted father, and thereby took upon himself all the obligations attaching to the latter. Even a slave could be so adopted (see Family, § 2). Eliezer is regarded as Ahraham’s heir in default of male issue (Gen. 152 /). It is to be presumed that he had already been adopted into the family cult. The right of inheritance is thus derived in principle from ancestor worship ; only the son and heir could fulfil its rites (see Law and Justice, § 18). Illegitimate sons, therefore, could not inherit (Stade, G F/I391); their mother had not been admitted by marriage into the cult (cp Judg. 11 2). In Nu. 36 the law has already undergone a change. A daughter i s allowed to inherit if she has married a man be- longing to her father’s family or tribe. In Athens, on the other * ian ur e P ro P ert y descended to the next male heir ; but he was obliged to marry the daughter of the deceased (Stade, ib.). On Stade’sand Schwally’s identification of the teraphim with an ancestor image (accepted by Budde on Judg. 17 5, Holzinger -Ocn. 31 19, Nowack on Hos. 3 4, etc.), see Teraphim. On the same principle a man destroyed his enemy and all . sons with the object of depriving him of respect and worship in the lower world. H * 44 1337 ESCHATOLOGY It is thus clear that the living and the dead formed one family, and the departed participated in all the vicissitudes of their living descendants. Rachel in her grave shared in the troubles of her children in northern Israel (Jer. 31 15). The necessity of a son who should perform the family ancestor worship gave birth to the levirate 6. By levirate la ^ A must ™ r ry ‘ he law and widow of his deceased brother. Where nature of elan. * h 1 ? dece I ased had n ° , br °ther, the duty fell on the nearest male relation. The firstborn son of such a marriage was registered as the son of the deceased, who was thus secured the respect and the sacrifices which could be rendered only by a son legitimately begotten or adopted. This law appears to be assumed as in force in Gen. 3826 ; but its significance is forgotten in Dt. 25 5-10. According to old Israelitish views, Tamar fulfilled a duty of piety towards her dead husband (Stade 1 394) ; similarly Ruth. Even the daughters of Lot may have had the same end in view. The fact that, even in David’s time, the clan consti- tuted a sacramentally united corporation (iS. 20 29) points back to an earlier worship of ancestors. The customs just considered (§§ 3-6) regulate the eonduct of the living. We have now to consider more 7. Beliefs about directl y ,he “ iefs ^ding the dead the dead themselves, their place of abode and the nature of their existence there. These beliefs are no less essentially connected with ancestor worship ; but they had a much more extended lease of life. Long after the practices w r e have described had become unintelligible or sunk into complete abey- ance, the beliefs flourished in the high places of Judaism ; they claimed the adherence of no small portion of the priesthood down to the destruction of the temple by Titus. As in the religions of Greece and Rome, burial was _ , . held to be indispensable to the com- 8. Importance fort of the dep£ f rted . It was hardly 01 Dunai. ever withheld Criminals who were hanged (Dt. 21 2 f.) or stoned (Josh. 724-26), and suicides (Jos. Bell. Jud. iii. 85), were accorded burial ; as were even the most hostile of foes (Ezek. 39 12). Of the calamities that could befall a man the lack of burial was one of the most grievous. Such was the sentence of punishment pronounced on Jezebel (2 K. 9 10). It was the fate that awaited the enemies of Yahwe £jer. 25 33). Even the materialistic writer of Ecclesiastes (6 3), if the text is correct, regards such a misfortune as outweighing a whole lifetime of material blessings. 1 This horror at the thought of being unburied cannot be explained in the same way as in the religions of Greece and Rome, where it involved exclusion from Hades : according to Hebrew views all without excep- tion descended to Sh£dl. It may be explained on two grounds. (1) In earlier times unless the dead had received burial no sacrifice could be offered to them. The grave, in ancestor worship, was in some measure the temple. (2) In later times, when such conceptions were forgotten, to be deprived of burial entailed a lasting dishonour and subjected the dead in Sh6ol to unending reproach (Ezek. 28 10 3 * 2 21). Not simply burial, however, but also burial in the family grave, was the desire of every Israelite. Hence the frequent statement that a man was 9. In 0 gathered to his fathers (Gen. 15 15 Judg. family grave. 2 IO ) or to ^is people (Gen. 4929-33 Nu. 27 i 3 ). The departed must be introduced into the society of his ancestors. In the earliest times the abode of this society was conceived to be the family grave or its immediate neighbourhood. Everyone wished to be buried with his father and mother 1 [The context is against this reference to the loss of burial. We must perhaps either strike out the entire phrase ‘and more- over he have no burial ’ (with Iiitzig), or else the negative (with Wildeboer).] 1338 ESCHATOLOGY {2 S. 1723 19 37 [38]). Jacob and Joseph are said to have directed that their bodies should be carried back to Canaan to be buried in the family grave (Gen. 4730 50 25 Ex. 1319). This was originally in the house. It was there, e.g . , that Samuel was buried (1 S. 25 1); similarly Joab (1 K. 234). As no family stood in isolation, however, but was closely united with others, and as these together made up the clan or tribe, and these tribes in due time were consolidated into the nation, ^ new conception arose ; all the graves of the tribe or nation were regarded as united in one. It was this new conception that received the designation of Sh€ol. In all probability, therefore, the Hebrew Sh6ol was originally conceived as a combination of the graves of 10 © • • the clan or nation, and thus as its final of Sh 861 a k° de - due course this conception was naturally extended till it embraced the de- parted of all nations, and became the final abode of all mankind. It has already reached this stage in Ezek. 32 Is. 14 Job 30 23. Strictly regarded, the conceptions of an abode of the dead in the grave and of one in Shfiol are mutually exclusive. Being popular notions, however, they do not admit of scientific definition, and their characteristics are treated at times as interchangeable. The family grave, with its associations of ancestor wor- ship, is of course the older conception. As burial in the family grave enabled a man to join the circle of his ancestors, so burial with honour was a condition of his attaining an honourable place in Sh6ol — i. e. , joining his people there. Otherwise he is thrust into the lowest and outermost parts of the pit (Ezek. 3223). When, however, ShSol is said to have distinct divisions (Prov. 727), the statement may be merely poetical. Regarding the condition of the dead in Sh6ol (on which see below, §§ 15-18) it will here be sufficient to point out two main characteristics. {a) In early times (and down to the fourth century 11 Two char B C * there was llttle change 1 ) ShSol acteristics ' ' vas quite inde P« n dent of Yahw£ and outside (he sphere Qf his rulg Yahwfc was originally the god of the tribe or nation, and his sway for long after the settlement in Canaan was conceived to extend, not to the whole upper world, much less to the lower (She 5 l), but only to his own people and land. The persistence of this conception of SheOl for several centuries side by side with the monotheistic conception of Yahwfc as creator and ruler of the world is, for the Western mind, hard to understand, the conceptions being mutually exclusive. It is clear, however, that Israel believed that when a man died he was removed from the jurisdiction of Yahwfc (Ps. 885 [6] 31 22 [23]), and relations between them ceased (Is. 38 18). (b) As independent of Yahw&, Sh6ol knew nothing of the moral distinctions that prevailed on earth. According to the OT death means an end of the earthly life, not the cessation of all existence : the 12 * Soul * P erson stl ^ subsist- As the nature of this , > * continued existence depends on the OT theory of man’s composite personality, it will be necessary at this point to make a study of that theory. In its most primitive form it regards man as consisting of two elements, ‘soul’ ( nephesh ) and ‘body’ (basar). What was thought of the body does not con- cern us here (see, however, § 18). Regarding the soul we may note four points. 1. The soul is identified with the blood. As the shedding of blood caused death, the ‘soul’ was con- ceived to be in the blood (Lev. 17 11 a), or it was actually iden- tified with it (Dt. 1223 Gen. 94./C). Hence men avoided eating blood ; they offered it to God. Hence, too, blood unjustly spilt on the earth —the ‘ soul ’ — cried to heaven for vengeance (Gen. 4 10). Again, since the ’ soul 1 was the blood and the central seat of the blood was the heart, the heart was regarded as the organ of thought. A man without x Though God’s power is conceived from the eighth century onward (cp Am. !> 2 Job 26 6 Prov. 15 11 Ps. 139 7 f.) to extend to Shepl, yet Shed maintains its primitive character. In the earlier centuries the powers that bore sway in Shefll were the ancestors of the living. ESCHATOLOGY intelligence was a ‘heartless man (Hos. 7 n); when a man thought, he was said to ‘speak in his heart.’ Thought is not ascribed directly to the ‘ soul, ’ however, though a certain limited intelligence is. 2. To the ’ soul ’ are attributed not only purely animal functions such as hunger (Prov. 10 3), thirst _ .. (Prov. 2525), sexual desire (Jer. 224), but id. teen g. a ] so psychical affections such as love (Is. 42 i), joy (Ps. 864), fear (Is. 15 4), trust (Ps. 57 1 [2]), hate (Is. I14), contempt (Ezek. 36 s ). 1 To it are ascribed also wish and desire (Gen. 23 8 2 K. 9 15 1 Ch. 289), and likewise, but very rarely, memory (Lam. 320 Dt. 49) and knowledge (Ps. 139 14). As the seat of feeling and desire (and, in a limited degree, of in- telligence) it becomes an expression for the individual conscious life. Thus ‘my soul’ (^33) means ’ I,’ ‘thy soul’ means ‘thou,’ etc. (Hos. 94 Ps. 3 2 [3] 7 2 [3] lli). So ’ many souls ’ means so many ’ persons ’ (Gen. 46 18 Ex. 1 5). This designation of the personality by ‘ soul 1 ( nephesh ) shows how meagre a conception of personality prevailed in Israel, 'nil (‘my spirit’) was never so used in the OT. 3. The soul leaves the body in death (Gen. 35 18 1 K. 1721 2S. I9 Jn. 43), not necessarily immediately, 14 Soul k Ut (apparently) at least on the appearance , ' . of corruption. In certain cases, after out- ** * ward death the soul was regarded as still in some sense either in or near the body ; a dead person was called a nephesh (Lev. 1928 21 1 224 Nu. 96710 Hag. 2 13) or a dead nephesh (no pdj ; Nu. 66 Lev. 21 11). 4. The soul therefore also dies. Its death, how- ever, is not absolute. Moreover, we must note the 15 . Its condition P revalence in Israel two inoon- . - sistent views — a fact (not hitherto fully brought to light) 2 that has forced its recognition on the present writer in the course of the present study — ( a ) an older view, which attributes to the departed a certain degree of knowledge and power in reference to the living and their affairs ; {b) a later view, which denies this. 3 {a) According to the older view the departed possessed a certain degree of self-consciousness and the power of 16 Earl>r s P eecil and movement (Is. 14 ); a large f measure of knowledge — hence their name, o’jij/t, ’the knowing ones’ (Lev. aeam. 19 3i 20 6 Is 19 3 . C p divination, § 4, iii. ); acquaintance with the affairs of their living descendants and a keen interest in their fortunes — thus Rachel mourns from her grave for her captive children (Jer. 31 15) ; — ability to forecast the future (whence they were consulted about it by the living ; 1 S. 28 13-20 [where observe that the dead person invoked is called Elohlm] Is. 819294); whence the practice of incuba- tion 4 (Is. 654 ). As we have already seen that the departed were believed to have the power of helping or injuring their descendants (see § 2), we need only ob- serve here that it follows from Is. 63 16 that Abraham and Israel were conceived as protectors (see Cheyne and Duhm, etc. , in loc . ). The relations and customs of earth were reproduced in Sh€ol. The prophet was distinguished by his mantle (iS. 2814), kings by their crowns and thrones (Is. 14 ), the un circumcised by his foreskin (Ezek. 32 ). Each nation preserved its individuality and no doubt its national garb and customs (Ezek. 32 ). Those slain with the sword bore for ever the tokens of a violent death (Ezek. 32 25), as likewise those who died from grief (Gen. 4238). Indeed the departed were regarded as possessing exactly the same features as marked them at the moment of death. We can appreciate, accordingly, the terrible significance of David’s 1 These are so essentially affections of the ‘soul’ that they are hardly ever attributed to the ‘ spirit ’ (nn) \ yet see § 19. 2 Only Stade appears to have apprehended the fact, and that but partially — as far as we may judge from his published works. 3 It follows logically^ from the doctrine of man’s nature, unknown in pre-prophetic times, which is set forth in Gen. 2 f.\ see below, § 16. 4 z.e., the practice of sleeping in a temple in the hope of re- ceiving a communication or a visit from the god. 1339 ESCHATOLOGY departing counsel to Solomon touching Joab ; ‘ Let not his hoar head go down to Shed in peace ' (x K. 2 6). In many respects the view just sketched is identical with that which underlies ancestor worship. This worship had withdrawn entirely into the background before the prophetic period ; but, as we have said (§ 7), many of its presuppositions maintained themselves in the popular belief till late in the post-exilic period. Tbe most significant fact to observe is the comparatively large measure of life, movement, knowledge, and power attributed to tbe departed in Sh£dl. How important tbis is becomes obvious when the earlier view is con- trasted with the later and antagonistic view. (&) The later view follows logically from the account in Gen. 24^-3, according to which it was when animated 17. Later view by the ‘ spirit ’ that the material form of death. became a living ’ soul ’ : the life of the ‘ soul ' is due to the presence of the ' spirit,’ death ensues on its removal. 1 Death, however, even here does not imply annihilation, though it logic- ally should imply it : the soul ’ still subsists in some ’ sense. The subsistence, however, is purely shadowy and negative : all the faculties are suspended. SheOl, the abode of the shades, is thus almost a synonym for abaddon or destruction (Job 266 Prov. 15 n). In opposition to the older view that in She5l there is a certain degree of life, movement, and remembrance, the later view teaches that it is the land of forgetfulness (Ps. S8X2), of silence (Ps. 94 17 115 17), of destruction (Job 26 6 2822); in opposition to the belief that the dead return to counsel the living, the later teaches that the dead cannot return (Job 7 9 14 12); in opposition to the belief that they are acquainted with the affairs of their living de- scendants, the later teaches that they no longer know what befalls on earth (Job 14 21) ; in opposition to the belief in their superhuman knowledge of the future— as the 1 knowing ones ’ — the later teaches that all knowledge has forsaken them (Eccles. 95), that they have neither device nor knowledge nor wisdom (Eccles. 9 10). Whereas the older view permitted their being invoked as ‘ElOhim,’ the later view regards them as ‘dead ones ’ (q'jtej) (Is. 26 14 Ps. 88 10 [ix]). 2 See Dead, § 2. Finally tbe relations of the upper world appear to be reproduced, if at all, more faintly ; the inhabitants of ShSol, king and slave, oppressor and oppressed, good and bad, are all buried in a profound sleep (Job 3 14-19). All existence seetns to be at an end. Thus we read in Ps. 39 13, * O spare me, that I may recover strength, before I go hence, and be no more ’ ; and in Job 14 7 to, ‘There is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again — but— man giveth up tbe ghost, and where is he?’ 3 5. Though in death the ’ soul ' leaves the body and departs, the departed in ShSol are never designated 18 Shadowv s * m Pty ’ souls.' 4 The early Israelites were - - * metaphysically unable to conceive the body. body without psychical functions, or the soul without a certain corporeity. The departed were conceived, accordingly, as possessing not only a soul but also a shadowy body. This appears in the use of the term 'shades’ (rfphaim), which was current in all ages (see Rephaim i. ). Elohlm, the title by which in earlier times the shades were addressed, passed out of use. In later times, when such a doctrine of man's being as that underlying Gen. 2 4^-3, became current, * This view strikes at the root of the worship of ancestors. ■The deceased can have no vitality or power ; for the ‘ spirit ’ is s P r j n g of life, and the departed are only ‘souls’ that are t’t.j 1 souls ' in which every faculty is dormant. Gen. 24^.3, which did not originate till the prophetic period, is the outcome of monotheism, whether we regard it as being of Hebrew or of foreign origin. It is needless to add that, when monotheism emerged, for various reasons ancestor worship became impossible. . ? he term ‘ shades ’ (used also in the Phoenician religion) was applied to the departed in both systems ; but possibly with a difference (contrast Is. 14 9 /. 261419 with rs. 88 io[ii] Prov. 2 18 9 18 etc., where it is synonymous with the dead). 3 It will be observed that the currency of the later view is attested by the second Isaiah, by Ezekiel, Job, and Ecclesiastes, in these books the teaching in Gen. 2 4^-3 has reached its logical That teaching is implied in Is. 42 5 Ezek. 37 S Jf. Job 27 3^ 334 Eccles. 127 ‘the spirit shall return to God who gave it ’ (yet it is doubtful if this verse belongs to the text ; cp3 2 i> 4 We seem to find in Job 14 22 Ps. 16 10 such a use, or at all events the preparation for it. ESCHATOLOGY tbe epithet * dead ones ' was employed. To designate ' the dead ’ simply ■ souls ’ without any qualification would hardly have been possible ; according to the later view, souls in Sheol were bereft of all their natural psychical functions. The Hebrew writers speak, however, of a ■ spirit’ as well as of - 1 soul,” and we must consider briefly the 19 Spirit • re ' at ‘ on °f the terms to each other, earlier view • ° ri g inall y the y were synonyms meaning man a * * ^ reat ^ ' or 1 wind. ’ The primitive con- h x ception was arrived at by observation. aicnobomy. When the breath—*.*., the ntphesh or ruah — left the body, the body died. The ndphesh or ruah. was, therefore, regarded as the principle of life. As Stade has remarked (GVI® I419), ruah probably designated specially the stronger and stormier emotions : the custom of personifying the psychical affections generally as ndphesh, once introduced, led to the practice of naming the stronger expressions of tbis personification ruah. Thus anger is an affection of the ruah. (Judg. 83, see below). So long as a man was wholly master of his powers, he possessed his ruah ; but when he became lost in amazement (1 K. 10 5) or despair (Josh. 2 ii), or when he fainted (1 S. 30 12 Judg. 1619), his ruah left him. On his reviving it returned (Gen. 4627). In keeping with this view of the ‘spirit’ ( rUah ) it is said to be the subject of trouble (Gen. 41 8), anguish (Job 7 11), grief (Gen. 2635 Is. 546), contrition (Ps. 51 17 [19] Is. 662), heaviness (Is. 61 3). It is the seat of energetic volition and action— the ‘haughty spirit’ (Prov. 16 18), the ‘lowly spirit’ (2923), the impatient spirit (Prov. 14 29), etc. As its departure entails a paralysis of voluntary power (see above) the riidh expresses the impulse of the will (Ex. 35 21). The purposes of man are ‘ ... of the ruah' nil n^J/oCEzek.ll 5); the false prophets follow their own * spirit ’ rather than that of Yahwk (Ezek. 133); God tries men's ‘spirits’ (Prov. 16 2). ‘ Ruah ’ seems also to express character, — the result of will — in Nu. 1424, ‘ Caleb . . . had another “ spirit " with him.’ By this development in the application of the term riiah it has become I the seat of man’s highest spiritual functions. To sum up : ‘ soul ’ and * spirit ’ are at this early stage identical in essence and origin ; the distinction is one of function. ( 6 ) This primitive view was in part superseded by a later doctrine (later from the point of view of the genesis of ideas), taught in Gen. 2 4^-3. 1 The most complete story of the creation of man 2 represents that Yahwb ElShlm formed man of earth from the ground, and « . .. blew into his nostrils ‘breath’ ( ntshdma ) of ZU. bpirrO . uf e nDB >j) so that man became a living later View ‘soul’ (njphesh), Gen. 27. The n^shamd of man a 2 7 is called ruah (o^n nn) in 617 715. t-riplintnmv There are therefore in man three elements: ‘ soul ’ (nfphesk), ‘ body ’ ( baSdr ), and ' spirit ' or ruah (n’J'O, which last, in the later theory, is simply that which gives life to the ‘soul.’ 3 This ‘spirit’ of life (Q”n nil) is in the lower creation as well (Gen. 6 17 7 15 22 Ps. 104 30), and by virtue of it they too become living ‘souls.’ According to the story worked up by a late priestly writer (Gen. 1 24) the brute creation is only indirectly the product of divine creation ; whereas man is so directly. Angels, however, are never, either in the canonical or in the apocryphal books, said to have | ‘souls,’ though occasionally the term is used in regard to God : he swears by his ' soul’ (Am. 68 ; cp Is. 42 1 1 Lev. 261130 cp below, § 63). In the account of the relation of ' soul ’ to ‘ body ’ and ‘ spirit, ’ in Gen. 2 /. the ' spirit ’ has become quite distinct from the * soul ’ in essence and origin. It is the divine element in man. According to the older view the difference was one of * [Into the historical relation of this doctrine to the Hebrew conceptions of Creation [q.v.\ we cannot here enter at length. It cannot be denied that the statement in Gen. 2 7 is of early origin. That remains a fact, even if the narrative in Gen. 24^-3 has passed through more than one literary phase. Critics are of opinion, however, that the myth of creation utilized for didactic purposes in that narrative was not very widely spread among the Israelites, and that the religious ideas attached to the myth but slowly became operative in the popular mind.] 2 [On the references to creation, whether in narratives or in other forms, see Creation ; on the question as to the early or late date of the ideas in Gen. 273 see preceding note.] 3 Cp below, § 81 (1). 1341 I34 2 21. R6sum£. 22. No individual retribution. ESCHATOLOGY function, hardly of essence, certainly not of origin. Now ‘ spirit ’ is the life-giving power in the body. When it enters the material form the man becomes a living soul. Without riidh there is no life (Hab. 2 19). In death the ’ soul,’ robbed of every vital function, descends into Sh6ol and practically ceases to exist. The ‘ spirit ' (ruah) never dies ; it merely leaves the body and returns to God who gave it (Ps. 146 4 Eccles. 12 7). 1 Of this view the logical result is the scepticism of Ecclesiastes and of the Sadducees. We have found that the Israelite derived from the circle of ideas underlying ancestor worship his views as to the nature of * soul’ and ‘ spirit,’ and of ShSol and the condition of the departed there. On these questions no light was thrown for many centuries by anything distinctive of the religion of Yah we, which had originally no eschatology of its own relating to the individual. Looking back, however, on the far-off days of the origins of the religion of Yah we, we can see that the beliefs connected with ancestor worship were doomed to extinction by their inconsistency with that religion, though centuries bad to elapse before the doom was fully accomplished. The preparation for a higher doctrine of the future life was made essentially when a new value came to be set on the individual. The early Israelite was not alarmed by the prosperity of the wicked man or the calamities of the righteous : Yah\v6 was supposed to concern himself only with the well- being of the people as a whole, not with that of its individual members. It seemed natural and reasonable that he should visit the virtues and vices of tbe fathers on the children (Ex. 20s Lev. 20s Josh. 724 1 S. 313), of an individual on his community or tribe (Gen. 12 17 20 18 Ex. 1229). Indeed, in postponing the punishment of the sinner till after death and allowing it to fall on his son, 2 Yahwe showed his mercy (1 K. 11 12 21 29). Towards the close of the kingdom of Judah, the popular sentiment expressed itself in the proverb, ‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge ’ (Jer. 31 29). Explicitly this denied the responsibility of the people for the overthrow of the nation — a view that naturally paralysed all personal effort after righteousness and made men the victims of despair. Implicitly it expressed, not a humble sub- mission to the divine judgments, but rather an arraignment of the divine method of government. In opposition to this popular statement Jeremiah answered as follows : — ‘ In those days they shall no __ T . , , more say, The fathers have eaten sour 23. Jeremiah s J . ,. . , .. grapes, and the children s teeth are individualism. . A set on edge ; but every one shall die for his own iniquity' (Jer. 31 2g /.). At an earlier date the same prophet had delivered a divine oracle of a very different import, * I will cause them to be tossed to and fro among all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah ’ (Jer. 15 4). The new departure in his teaching recorded in the later passage is to be explained by the ' new covenant ' described in Jer. 31 31-34 (see Covenant, § 6 (v. )). Jeremiah foresaw a new relation between Yahw6 and his worshippers — a relation determined by two great facts : man’s incapacity to reform himself, and God's repugnance to any but a spiritual worship (see Jeremiah i. , § 4). Jeremiah's idea was further developed by Ezekiel. Every soul is God's and is in direct and immediate 24. Individual relation *° him < Ezek - 18 *)■ lf the retribution : Ezekiel and others. individual is faithful in this relation, he is unaffected by his own past (1821-28), or by the sins or the righteousness of his fathers (18 20 1 Cp below, § 102 (1) b note. - Rewards and punishments were necessarily conceived as limited ^ to the earthly life ; for Sheol was regarded as outside Yahwe's jurisdiction. 25. Criticism. ESCHATOLOGY 14 12*20). Righteousness raises him above the sweep of the dooms that befall the sinful individual or the sinful nation. 1 Since the achievement of this righteous- ness is possible for him, he possesses moral freedom, and his destiny is the shaping of his own will (1830^;). There is, therefore, a strictly individual retribution, and the outward lot of tbe individual is exactly proportioned to his moral deserts. This doctrine rooted itself firmly in the national consciousness. It is taught and applied in detail in tbose great popular handbooks, the Psalter and the Book of Proverbs. Though the righteous may have many afflictions, Yahw6 delivers him out of them all ; all his bones are kept, not one of them is broken ; but evil slays the wicked (Ps. 34 18 [19]^ , see also 37 28 etc. ). The righteous and the wicked are to be recompensed on earth (Prov. 11 31). Life is the outcome of righteous- ness; death, of wickedness (Prov. 221 /. 10 2 11 19 15 24/. 19 16 etc. ). Such a doctrine was, naturally, a continual stumbling- block to the righteous when trouble came. Doubts as to its truth were freely expressed, notably in the Psalms. Nor was it to the sufferer alone that this difficult view was an impedi- ment. The doctrine of an adequate retribution in this life blocked the way that led to a true solution of the problem of prosperity and adversity. Indeed it denied the existence of any problem to solve ; the righteous as such could not suffer. As long as this was regarded as the orthodox doctrine, the doctrine of a future life could not emerge, and progress was impossible. It was only some of the elements in Ezekiel's teaching that were sanctioned by subsequent religious thought ; others were opposed. It is his undying merit that he asserted the independent worth of the individual ; but he fell into two errors. He taught (a) that the individual suffers not for the sins of his fathers, but for his own, and ( b ) that the individual’s experiences are in perfect keeping with his deserts. In other words, sin and suffering, righteousness and wellbeing are, according to Ezekiel, always connected ; the outward lot of the individual is God’s judgment in concrete form. 2 Now as regards a, the experience of the nation must have run counter to this statement. It was evident that the elements in a man’s lot which lie out- side the sphere of his volition are shaped for better or for worse in accordance with the merits or demerits of his father and people. The older view accordingly continues to be attested in Jewish literature (see Ps. 109 13 Ecclus. 2325 40 15 416, and especially Dan. 97/., Judith728, Tob. 33, Ass. Mos. 3 s. Baruch 1 18-21 226 38, Apoc. Bar. 773410) : it is freely acknowledged that men are punished for the sins of their fathers and brethren. Ezekiel’s second error ( b ), that the individual's experience agrees with his deserts, is the corollary of it. It gave birth to a long controversy, of which two notable memorials have come down to us in Job and Ecclesiastes. Eccles. is much the later ; but we w ill for convenience sake deal with it first. Against the statement ( b ) that tbe experience of the — . , individual is in perfect keeping with his 6 ‘ i; r0 estl deserts, the writer of Ecclesiastes enters a or Eccles. dec j ded negative. He declares, in fact, that there is no retribution at all. 3 He asserts that sometimes evil prolongs a man's days, and righteousness curtails them (7 15) ; that the destinies of the wise man and of the fool (2 14), of the righteous and the wicked (9 2) are identical ; that the wicked attain to the honour of burial, whilst this is often denied to the righteous (810). If any one 1 That there is an inconsistency between Ezek. 9 3-6 and 21 3 f cannot, howeyer, be denied. - Both a and b seemed to Ezekiel to follow logically from God's righteousness, and rightly, if there was no retribution beyond the grave. 3 The passages where judgment is threatened (3 17 11 gb 12 14) are, according to an increasing number of critics, intrusions in the text, being at variance with the entire thought of the writer. 812 is no longer in its original form. *343 *344 ESCHATOLOGY complains of the shallowness of Ecclesiastes, 1 is not Ezekiel on the opposite side equally shallow ? In the book of Job the principal elements of Ezekiel's teaching reappear. The doctrines of man’s individual Of T h wort h anc * a strictly individual retribu- * ' tion, however, are shown to be really irre- concilable (see Job, Book of, §§ 5-8). Conscious in the highest degree of his own worth and rectitude, Job claims that God should deal with him in accordance with his deserts. Like his contemporaries his belief is (for Job and the author of the dialogues may be identified) that every event that befalls a man reflects God’s disposition towards him ; misfortune betokens God’s anger, prosperity his favour. This belief, how- ever, is not confirmed by the fortunes of other men (2I1-15), and, with the added insight derived from a sad personal experience, Job concludes that, as the world is governed, righteousness may even be awarded the meed of wickedness. Faith, in order to be sure of its own reality, claims its attestation by the outward judgments of God, and Job’s faith receives no such attestation. Still it does not entirely give way ; from the God of circumstance, of outer providence, Job appeals to the God of faith (by Job, as we have said, we mean the author). The fact that Job does not seek to solve the problem by taking into his argument the idea of a future life, no £ shows that this idea or belief had not 28. Gleams of „ . future life ^ et won acce P tance among the religious thinkers of Israel. The main views and conclusions of Job, however, point in that direction. The emphasis laid on man’s individual worth, with his consequent claims upon a righteous God — claims which are during life entirely unsatisfied — should lead to the conclusion that at some future time all these wrongs will be righted by the God of faith. Such a conclusion, however, is never explicitly drawn. The poem of Job cannot be said to teach the doctrine of a future life. Still, the idea seems for a moment to have gleamed on Job’s mind, and the fancy expressed in 14 13/. became the accepted doctrine of later times. If the Hebrew text of 1925-29 is sound, perhaps there also Sheol is conceived as only an intermediate place. At any rate Job declares in this great passage that God will appear for his vindication, and that at some time after his death he will enjoy the divine vision face to face. It is not indeed stated that this vision will endure heyond the moment of Job’s justification by God. Never- theless the importance of the spiritual advance here made cannot be exaggerated. The soul is no longer regarded as cut off from God and shorn of all its powers by death, but as still capable of the highest spiritual activities though without the body. A belief in the continuance of this higher life is certainly in the line of many of Job’s reasonings. On the other hand, if Job had not merely wished but also been convinced that this idea was sound, would it have been possible for him to ignore such an all-important conviction throughout the rest of the book ? There are likewise textual difficulties, which recent critics have considered to justify a very radical treatment of the text. The words rendered in RV ‘ And after my skin hath been thus yet from my flesh shall I see God,’ 2 are specially aoubted. RVmg. gives two alternative marginal renderings for ;r e vf P art . this passage, and for ‘ from my flesh ' suggests tie widely different rendering ‘ without my flesh,’ which is that generally adopted by those scholars who adhere to MT. Cp rc^r 11 * ^ toe., and, on the other side, Job, § 6. [Siegfried (Job, SBOT, Heb.) looks upon v. ?$f. as ‘a later w ht c h the resurrection of the just is regarded as a 1 possibility contrary to the opinion put forth in the Book of Job ' A ™ re g ar d to Sheol (ib. 3 etc.).’ The result, however, is not Istacto jy. Siegfried appeals to © ; but we have a right to P ect theological glosses in the Alexandrian Jewish version. 1 Cp Ecclesiastes. 2 nanfipj ’ny mw mm? mtnni 1345 ESCHATOLOGY Something different must have stood where our present v. 25 /. stands, and it is the work of the textual critic to trace its relics] See also Budde, ad loc., and Che.’s criticism, Expos., 189 ja, p. In spite of this criticism it is true to say that this great poem suggests the doctrine of a future life. Later students may or may not have found it in 11 13-15 1925-29 ; but in any case the rest of the book presents the antinomies of the present so forcibly that thinkers who assimilated its contents could not avoid taking up a definite attitude towards the ‘ higher theology. 1 Some made a venture of faith, and postulated the doctrine of a future life ; others, like the writer of Ecclesiastes, made the ' great refusal ’ and fell back on unbelief and materialism. We have arrived at the parting of the ways. 1 It remains to consider whether there is evidence of a belief in the immortality of the individual in the Psalter. 29 In the 11 * s unfortunate that the text of this book Psalms s h° u ^ d he so far from accurate as (from textual criticism) it appears to be. The psalms that chiefly have to be considered are 16, 17, 49, and 73. Here we find one of the most recent critics receding from his original conclusion (in favour of the existence of the hope of immortality), on the ground that * a searching textual revision ’ is adverse to it. As regards the first two, at any rate, of the psalms just referred to, the evidence, even if we assume the trustworthiness of all that the unemended text contains, is inadequate to prove the point. In Ps. 16 there is nothing that necessarily relates to an indi- vidual future life. The psalm appears to express the fears and hopes, not of the individual, but of the community. 30 . In PSS. In Ps. 17 likewise the Psalmist speaks not as an 16 - 17 . individual (cp the plurals, w. 7 n), but as the mouthpiece of the J ewish people, who are to Yah we as the apple of the eye (v. 8) ; in fear of a foreign invader (pv. 9 13) the Psalmist prays for help. This being so, however, in- stead of ‘I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness,’ we should expect some reference to God's help. In any case the context does not admit of a reference to a future life. 2 In Ps. 49 the present text admits of two interpretations. In v. i4[i5]yC the speaker announces speedy destruction for the wicked but complete redemption from death 31. In Ps. 49 . for himself; but who is the speaker? Does the ‘ I ’ here denote the Psalmist as a repre- sentative pious Israelite, or the righteous -community? In favour of the collective meaning it is argued that those for whom the Psalmist speaks are the righteous poor who are oppressed by the wicked rich; that v. 10 [n] states that ‘all die, alike the wise man (i.e., the righteous) and the fool ’; and that when the individual is undoubtedly intended (v. 16 [17]) he is addressed as ‘thou.’ The escape from death is therefore, on this interpretation, that of the righteous community. 3 On the other hand, it seems to be in favour of a reference to immortality that, as Cheyne has pointed out, Sheol appears in v. 14 [15] as a place of punishment for the wicked rich. 4 As such it could never become the abode of the righteous. It is reasonable therefore to expect that the speaker should somewhere state his own consciousness (as a representative pious Israelite) of exemption from this fate. This seems to give us the key to the words, ‘ Surely my soul God will set free ; for from the hand of Sheol will he take me.' 6 We must, therefore, lay stress on the naturalness 1 On the belief in retribution in early Judaism, see especially Che. OPs. 381-452 ; Jew. Pel. Life, 229-247. For translations from the psalms, cp Wellh.’s and Driver’s recent works. A complete translation from a critical text of Job is still a desideratum. 2 So Smend, ZA TIV8 95 [’88] ; Che. Jew. Ret. Life, 240/ 3 So Smend, Schwally, and now Cheyne. 4 This is one of the results reached in OPs. by Cheyne, who (going much beyond previous writers) regards Ps. 49 as incident- ally a protest against the old Hehrew notion of SheOl, with its disregard of moral distinctions, and confirms this view by the parallelisms between Ps. 49 and chap. 102 f. of Enoch (written probably be tween 1 34 and 94 B.C.). The rich man holds that neither in life nor in death has he to fear a judgment ; but all the details of this pleasant dream the psalmist contradicts. The moral significance of the descent of the rich into SheOl is still more visible in Cheyne's attractively emended text ( Jew \ Rel. Life , 238). This conception of the penal character of SheOl is all the more credible from the reference made in the OT to two other places of punishment for special offenders — the so-called ‘pit’ (Is. 242 i /.'), and a place strikingly resembling Gehenna for Jewish apostates (Is. 6624). 6 The present writer is of opinion that to the authors of Pss. 49 and 73 Sheol is the future ahode of the wicked alone, heaven that of the righteous. 1346 ESCHATOLOGY of our own interpretation, that there is in Ps. 49 a reference to immortality, an interpretation which is in fact that maintained, with fulness of argument, by Cheyne himself in his Origin of the Psalter. In Ps. 73 , as in Ps. 49 , the wicked enjoy prosperity ; but they are speedily to meet with unexpected retribution TP -o (18-20). As for the righteous, their * * ' highest good and blessedness consist in communion with God. In comparison with God the whole world is to them as nothing (22-25). He is their portion. Despite deadly perils they can safely trust in him (25), and all the more assuredly that he destroys the wicked (27). A new thought, however, emerges in o. 24. God, we are told, ‘ will guide the righteous with his counsel, and afterwards take him to (or, with) glory. ' 1 In the latter phrase, if we may acquiesce in the received text, there must be a reference to the story of Enoch (Gen. 524), which was very popular in post- exilic times (see Enoch, i), and the whole passage is an assertion of individual immortality (so Delitzsch, Davidson, Baethgen, and originally Cheyne), for the text would be unfairly treated if we restricted the reference to this present life. On grounds which he has not yet fully stated, but which, from the note of Wellhausen on the passage, 2 we may assume to be partly grammatical, Cheyne now regards v. 24 b as corrupt, and reads, 1 And wilt make known to me the path of glory.' 3 Assuming, however, with Konig 4 that the grammatical difficulties can be overcome, can we show that the new thought of which we have spoken is thoroughly consistent with what follows? 6 To the present writer no incongruity is visible. He would venture to rest his case on the impassioned words of v. 250, which prove that the speaker felt assured of the continuance of his union with God not only on earth but also in heaven. For themselves the righteous make no claim to material prosperity either here or hereafter ; they look for and indeed possess something far higher. As a corollary of the truth of the justice of God, how- ever, they do expect retribution for the wicked, both here (w. 18-2127) and (apparently) hereafter ( v . 19/.). We have now done with the question of individual immortality so far as it is dealt with in the OT. In „„ qo J°b ^ emerges merely as an aspiration. , Only in Pss. 49 and 73 (if our interpre- . a tation is valid) does it rise to the stage immortality. of conviction / Xhe evidence , ther 8 e . fore, in favour of an origin not later than 400 B.c. is far from strong. Even were it wholly wanting, however, we should be obliged, by the logical necessities of thought, to postulate the doctrine. The doctrine of an individual immortality of the righteous, and the doctrine of the Messianic kingdom are presupposed as the chief factors of the complex doctrine of the Resurrection which was developed towards the close of the fourth century or at latest early in the third century. With the evolution of this resurrection hope, however, the entire doctrine of individual immortality falls absolutely into the back- ground, and is not again attested, till the growing dualism of the times leads to the disintegration of the resurrection hope into its original elements about 100 B.c. (see § 64). Indeed, never in Palestinian Judaism down to the Christian era did the doctrine of a merely individual immortality appeal to any but a few isolated thinkers. The faithful looked forward to a blessed future only as members of a holy people, as citizens of a righteous kingdom that should embrace their brethren. II. The Nation. — W hen we turn to the eschato- f 1 .H. Schultz (A T Theol. 760) rejects these translations. ‘With glory’ is that adopted by Driver (Par. Ps. 211) and formerly by Che. (Psalms). 2 p sa lms, SBO T (Heb.) 88. 3 *•*•» the glory of God and of Israel and its members in the Messianic age (Jew. R el. Life , 240). * Syntax, 319 (pointed out to the writer by Prof. Cheyne). 0 Schwally ( Das Leben> etc., 128 f.) denies this. For a much fuller statement of the present writer’s view see his Doctrine of a Future Life , 73-77. ESCHATOLOGY logical ideas that concern the nation as a whole we can _ , , . hardly venture to go beyond the 3 . Eschatology f acts an( j h 0 p es contained in the pro- regardmg the phecies> In the main these cluster nation. at t ^ e outse t rQ und the familiar con- ception of ‘ the day of Yahw6.' The day of Yahw& in itself, however, constitutes not the blessed future, but only the divine act of judgment which inaugurates it. Hence the eschatology of the nation centres in the future national blessedness introduced by the day of Yahwl. This future was variously conceived. According to the popular conception down to the eighth century, it was merely a period of material and unbroken pros- perity which the nation should enjoy through Yahw&s overthrow of Israel’s national foes. This conception gave place, however, in the eighth century, to the pro- phetic doctrine of the coming kingdom, for the realisa- tion of which two factors, and only two, were indis- pensable. This kingdom was to be a community of Israelites first and chiefly, and in the next place a community in which God's will should be fulfilled. Whether this kingdom was constituted under monarchi- cal, hierarchical, or purely theocratic forms was in itself a matter of indifference. Since the Messiah formed no organic part of the conception, he was sometimes con- ceived as present at its head, sometimes as absent. How far the eighth century prophets foretold this kingdom is still an unsettled question. As regards the day of Yahwe there is no such critical difficulty. Our study of the eschatology of the nation will begin with this unquestioned element in Israel's expectations. It is with a development of some complexity that we shall have to deal — a complexity most marked in exilic and post-exilic times, where, as we have seen, the individual no less than the nation began to maintain his claims to righteous treatment. Ezekiel's attempt to satisfy these claims will demand our attention afterwards. Some centuries later what he had essayed to do was achieved in a true synthesis of the eschatologies relating to the nation and to the individual respectively (see § 49). The day of Yahw& concerns the people as a whole, not the individual. It is essentially the day on which t» f Yahwe manifests himself in victory over y , 7 , his foes. Amongst the Hebrews, as , . * sometimes among the Arabs, ‘day’ had popular idea. , he definite signification of , day of battle ( e.g . , Is. 9 3 [4] ‘ the day of Midian ' ; see WRS Prophet *( 2 ), 397). The belief in this ' day ’ was older than any written prophecy. In the time of Amos it was a popular expectation. Unethical and nationalistic, it was adopted by the prophets and transformed into a conception of thoroughly ethical and universal signifi- cance. It assumed the following forms. (i.) Popular conception; a judgment on Israel's enemies. This conception originated, no doubt, in the old limited view of Yahw6 as merely the national god of Israel. We can distinguish two stages. (a) In its earlier form it was held by the contem- poraries of Amos ( 8 th century B.c. ). The relation of Yahw 6 to Israel in their minds was not ethical ; to a large extent it was national (Am. 32). Israel's duty was to worship Yahwe and Yahw^'s was to protect Israel. As the Israelites were punctual in the perform- ance of ceremonial duties ( 4 s 5521 /. ), they not only confidently looked forward to, but also earnestly prayed for, ‘ the day of Yahwe ' as the time of his vindication of them against their enemies. 1 Not so, says the prophet. It is a day in which, not the claims of Israel, but the righteousness of Yahw£, will be vindicated against wrong-doing whether in Israel or in its enemies. (b) The primitive conception of the day of Yahw6 RpvivpH was rev * ve d by Nahum and Habak- , ‘ XT , tt , kuk : there was to be a judgment of byNah. Hab. Israers enemies , he Gentiles x This belief that Yahwfc must save his people survived, despite the prophets, till the captivity of Judah in 586 B.C. *347 ESCHATOLOGY ESCHATOLOGY (650-600 B. C. ). It was the bitterness and resentment en- gendered by the sufferings of the Israelites at the hands of their oppressors that led to this revival. The grounds, however, on which the expectation of the intervention of Yahw6 was based were somewhat different. Accord- ing to the primitive view Yahwe was bound to intervene on behalf of his people because of the natural affinities hetween them. According to Nahum and Habakkuk, 1 the affinities are ethical. In fact, such was the self- righteousness generated by Josiah's reforms that neither Nahum nor Habakkuk makes any mention of Israel’s sin. In this they represent their people, who felt them- selves, in contrast with the wickedness of the Gentiles, relatively righteous (see Hab. 1 4 13). Hence the im- pending judgment will strike not righteous Israel, but the godless Gentiles. Here we have the beginnings of the thought that Israel is right, regarded as over against the world — the beginning, for in Nahum and Habakkuk this view is applied only to a single nation, not, as in later times, to all Gentiles. The later usage of designat- ing the Gentiles absolutely as the godless (D*yish) and Judah as the righteous (opHx) is only the legitimate fruit of Habakkuk* s example. Cp Is. 26 10 Pss. 9 5 [6] 16 [17 ]/! IO2-4 58io[n] 68 2 [3]/. 1253. In most subsequent representations of the future the destruction of the Gentiles stands as a central thought. (ii. ) Prophetic pre-exilic conception. — The prophetic conception also passed through several stages. (a) A day of judgment directed mainly against Israel. For Amos, as we have seen, the day of Yahwe 2 is the . day in which Yahwe intervenes to vindicate * . .7 himself and his righteous purposes. It P .? c appears in this prophet only, in its darker * side (cp 5 18). Other nations will feel it in proportion to their unrighteousness ; but unrighteous Israel, being specially related to Yahwe, wfll experience the severest judgments (32). Hosea is of one mind with Amos. 3 He does not use the phrase ‘ the day of Yahwfc ’ ; but he describes in awful terms the irreversible- ness of the judgment (Hos. 13 12-14 [n-13]). (Amos, § 18/, Hosea, § 7/.). (t>) Mainly against Judah . — In Isaiah 4 and Micah the day of Yahwe receives a new application ; it is 38 Later • d * rected a g a i nst Judah. Not that warnings T * 4. 'of judgment against Israel are neglected ha. etc. ( 2 6 ^ 5 8i . 4 98 W 176-i.28.-4). The prophet takes all the chief surrounding nations within his range ; but he does so only in relation to the judg- ment on his own people. Although he declares that Yahwe’ s purpose of ‘ breaking Assyria ’ concerns all the nations (14 25 /), there is no evidence to show that he arrived at the conception of Sf 5 There are many passages in the post-exilic additions to Is. which speak of Israel only in relation to the Messianic age ; cp 4 2-6 .9 16-24 35 1-10. 6 The only exception is Malachi. 7 Cheyne regards these verses as alien to 132-1421. 8 These passages are post-exilic ; 60 and 61 about 432 B.C. (Che.). 9 We have a world -judgment described in 136-13, though tbe judgment is there directed primarily against Bahylon (cp 13 5 11), just as in 34 it is specially directed against Edom. 10 In the post-exilic (?) passage 9 1-7 it is the Messiah who destroys the oppressors of Israel ( v . 4). This active r61e of the Messiah is rare in the OT. 11 Cp the world-judgment in the fourth-century apocalypse in Is. 24 256-8, where, after the judgment (2418-23), the surviving 1352 1351 ESCHATOLOGY fragment of the same date (63 1-6), which closely resembles the preceding passage in subject and phraseology, only destruction is announced for all. In Haggai and Zechariah, where the establishment of the Messianic kingdom is expected on the completion of the temple 1 (Zech. 8 15), to be rebuilt by the Messiah, 2 a pre-condition is the destruction of the Gentile powers. We have, thus, a further development of that opposition between the kingdom of God and the world-kingdoms which appears in Ezekiel and is presented in its sharpest features in Daniel. See, e.g . , Zech. 1 19-21 [22-4] 61-8, Hag. '22i f In Joel (4th Cent.; cp Joel, § 4) the enemies of Judah who are not present foes but the nations generally , . are to be gathered together in order to 46. In Joel, etc. annihilated (3 [4] x-6). Even the place of judgment is mentioned — the valley of Jehosha- phat, the ehoice being obviously determined by the etymological meaning of the name. Yahwc will sit in judgment (3[4]i2) and all the Gentiles shall be destroyed. This is a nearer approximation to the idea of a final world-judgment than there is elsewhere in the OT save in Dan. 1 9 f Still the judgment is one-sided. The 1 day of Yah we ’ does not, as in the pre-exilic and some exilie prophets and the exceptional post-exilic Mai. 32-s 4 1-3 5 [319-21 23], morally sift Israel ; it serves to justify Israel (225-27 3 16 f) against the world (cp the interpolation in the Second Isaiah, — i. e., 45 25). See Joel, § 6. With Joel and his sueeessors prophecy is beginning to change into apocalypse. The forecasts do not, as a rule, stand in a living relation with the present ; frequently they are the results of literary reflection on earlier propheeies. This lack of organic relation with the present, such as we find in the earlier prophets, is specially clear in Joel’s 4 day of Yah\v6. ' Aeeording to the late post-exilic fragment Zech. 12 1- 13 6, 3 all the Gentiles while making an attack on Jerusalem shall be destroyed before it (123 / 9), whereas in the still later fragment, chap. 14, it is only the hostile nations that are to be annihilated (Zech. 14 12 /), the remnant being converted to Judaism and led to attend the yearly feast of Tabernacles (Zech. 147 16-21). This fragment is peculiar also in postponing divine intervention till Jerusalem is in the hands of the Gentiles (14/ ). In the apocalypse of Daniel there is a great advance on the eschatological ideas of its predecessors. When 47 T n the need °f the saints is greatest (721/ n ante . ^21 in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes) the Aneient of Days will intervene ; his tribunal shall be set up (79); the powers of this world shall be over- thrown (7 11 /), and everlasting dominion given to his holy ones (7 14 22 27). These will destroy all rival powers (244), and become lords of all the surviving nations (7 14). To the contrasted fates of the faithful and the unfaithful in Israel who have deceased (12 1-3) we shall return (§ 59). In defiance of historical sequence we have reserved to the last the consideration of the composite chapters Is. 65 / They call for special treat- 48. In Is. 65 / ment because they seem to present a new development as regards the scene of the Messianic kingdom — there are to be new heavens and a new earth. 4 Gentiles shall be admitted to the worship of Yahwfe 25 6. It is very remarkable that in 24 21/ we read of an intermediate place of punishment . The judgment, therefore, appears to be conceived as consisting of two distinct acts. The clause 258 a declaring the annihilation of death appears to be an interpola- tion. It is against the general drift of the content, and wholly alien to the thought-development of the period. 1 For Yahwe the temple is indispensable as his dwelling-place. This thought is apocalyptic. It is not through moral reforma- tion but through divine intervention that the kingdom is to be introduced. 2 After the example of Ter. 23 5 33 15 Zechariah names him ‘ the Branch '(612 38 /). He identifies him with Zerubbabel (cp Hag 26-923). 3 See Zechariah ii. , § 3/; 4 Cp Che. OPs. 404 ff. ESCHATOLOGY We must not be misled by appearances, however. When, in ehap. 65, Jerusalem is to be especially blessed — it is to be transformed into a. blessing (65 18) — the reference is apparently not to « New Jerusalem. It is the same material Jerusalem as before, but super- naturally blessed ; men still build houses and plant vineyards (652i f . ), sinners are still found (6520), 1 and death still prevails. 65 17, therefore, where the ereation of new heavens and a new earth is proclaimed, seems out of place. In the Messianic times here foreshadowed men live to a patriarchal age, and the animal world, as in an earlier prophecy (11 6-9), loses its ferocity and shares in the prevailing peace and blessedness (6525). In 666-16 i8£ f. we have a fragmentary apocalypse (see Che. Intr. Is. 374-385) which describes the judgment of the hostile nations (66 16 18^ f . ). Those of the Gentiles who escape are to go to the more distant peoples and declare the divine glory (66 19). Thereupon the latter are to go up to Jerusalem, escorting the returning exiles. This apocalypse concludes with a remarkable reference to the new heavens and the new earth, which is all but unintelligible. Does the new creation take place at the beginning of the Messianic kingdom? or at its close? By neither supposition can we overcome the inherent difficulties of the text. If the new creation is to be taken literally, it can only be supposed to be carried out at the close of the Messianic kingdom ; but this kingdom has apparently no close. Either, then, the expression is used loosely and vaguely, or — and the present writer inclines to this view — 6622 is a later intrusion. 2 III. Synthesis. — Concurrently with the establishment if the Messianic hope in the national consciousness (see § 34) the elaims of the individual had, 49. Synthesis. as we have seen, pressed themselves irresistibly on the notice of religious thinkers — so irre- sistibly in fact that no representation of the future which failed to render them adequate satisfaction could hope for ultimate acceptance. The two questions naturally eame to be regarded as essentially related. The righteous individual and the righteous nation must be blessed together — or rather the righteous man must ultimately be recompensed, not with a solitary im- mortality in heaven or elsewhere but with a blessed resurrection life with his brethren in the coming Messianic kingdom. If, as we have seen, the doctrine of an individual immortality failed to establish itself in the OT, the grounds of such a failure were not far to seek, and the very objections against the belief in a blessed immortality of the righteous man apart from the righteous community are actual arguments in favour of the resurrection of the righteous to a share in the Messianic kingdom. The doctrine of a resurrection is clearly enunciated in two passages of great interest, (a) as a spiritual concep- tion in Is. 261-19, and (b) as a mechanical conception in _ Dan. 12. (a) Is. 26 1-19 forms an inde- 50. Resurrec- penc j e nt writing composed, according to tion in Is. Cheyne, about 334 b. c. The writer, Dan. iz. w ^ o S p ea k s [ n ^e name of the people, looks forward to the setting up of the kingdom, with a strong city, whose walls and bulwarks are salvation, and whose gates will be entered by ’ the righteous nation ’ (26 1/ ) ; and since the nation is but few, the righteous dead shall rise and share the blessedness of the regenerate nation (2619). This notable verse should, with Duhm and Cheyne, be read as follows: — ’Thy dead men (Israel) shall arise : the inhabitants of the dust shall 1 Unless 6020 b is a gloss, as Haupt thinks (SPOT, Heb. ad loci). 2 Is. 51 16 and 60 19 can hardly be quoted in support of 65 17 66 22, for in the last two passages the language is obviously meant to be literal, whereas in the former it is metaphorical. A synthesis of these two eschatologies, of the individual and of the nation, was attempted by Ezekiel wholly within the sphere of this life. The reconciliation, however, was achieved only through a misconception and misrepresentation of the facts of the problem. Still this doctrine of retribution gave such general satisfaction that tbe need of a theory that would do justice to the facts of the problem was not experienced save by isolated thinkers till the close of the fourth century B.C. 1354 1353 ESCHATOLOGY ESCHATOLOGY awake 1 and shout for joy ; 2 for a dew of lights is thy dew, and the earth shall bring to life the shades.’ s This positive belief in the resurrection of the right- eous did not win its way into acceptance, however, till over <*. century later. Still, that it gained some currency and underwent some development in the interval is obvious from the next and only remaining passage which attests it in the OT. (3) In Dan. 12 2 ( 168 B. c. ), which seems to be based on Is. 26 19, 4 there is an extension of the statement. The resurrection here is not only of the righteous but also 1 of the wicked, 6 who are to rise in order to receive their due reward — shame and everlasting contempt. 6 The resurrection moreover ushers in the Messianic kingdom (12 1). This spiritual form of the resurrection doctrine is the genuine product of Jewish inspiration ; for all its factors are indigenous to Jewish thought. Between the rise of the doctrine enunciated in Is. 26 and Dan. 12 a considerable period must have elapsed, sufficiently long to account for the loss of the original significance of the resurrection as a restoration, in the next world, of the life of communion with God which had been broken off by death. During this interval the spiritual doctrine passed into a lifeless dogma. In Is. 26 it was the sole prerogative of the righteous Israelite, nowVit is extended to the pre-eminently good and the pre-eminently bad in Israel. Without any consciousness of impropriety the writer of Daniel can speak of the resurrection of the wicked. Thus severed from the spiritual root from which it grew the resurrection is trans- formed into <1 sort of eschatological property, a device by means of which the members of the nation are pre- sented before God to receive their final award. The doctrine must therefore have been familiar to the Jews for several generations before Daniel. B. APOCRYPHAL AND APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE (200 B.c.-ioo A. D. ) Before entering on the further development of Jewish eschatology, it will be helpful to sum up shortly the ki T?p V i fiW results arrived at by the writers whom we have already considered. We find in them an eschatology that to a large extent takes its character from the conception of Yah we. As long as his jurisdiction was conceived as limited to this life, there could be no such eschatology with reference to the individual. When at last, however, Israel reached real monotheism, the way was prepared for the moral- isation of the future no less than of the present. The exile contributed to this development by making possible a truer conception of the individual. The individual, not the nation, became the religious unit. Step by step through the slow processes of the religious life, the 1 The designation of death as a * sleep 1 did not arise from the resurrection hope. It is found in books that are unacquainted with that hope. Death is described as ‘sleep 1 in Gen. 4730 Dt. 31 16 Job 7 21 14 12, as ‘ the eternal sleep 1 in Jer. 51 39 57. In the later period, therefore, in which the belief in the resurrection 1 was finally established, when the state of the departed is described as a ‘ sleep,’ the word must in no case be taken in its literal meaning. 2 vrr and are omitted by these scholars as interpolations, and instead of W'jpn they read DJ 1 ]} 3 See Che. Intr. Is. 158, and cp OPs. 403/. 4 Cp ‘ the inhabitants of the dust shall awake 1 and ’ many that sleep in the land of dust shall awake. 1 6 This resurrection to punishment, or a belief perfectly akin, is found in contemporary work; 24 25 6-8 2620 f 27 1 i2_/T, a fragmentary apocalypse of 334 b.c. (Che.). Thus in 2421 yC, the ‘host of heaven ’ — i.e ., angelic rulers of the nation and the kings of the earth — are to be imprisoned in the ‘pit 1 and, ‘after many days,’ to be visited with punishment. Cp Eth. En. 54 90 25. According to later views God does not punish a nation until he has first humiliated its angelic patron ( Shir-rabba 27 b). More- over the future judgment of the Gentile nations will be preceded by the judgment of their angelic chiefs (Beshallacb 13 (see Weber, L. d. Talmud, 165]). 6 The ‘many 1 who are condemned here are Jewish apostates. Tbe place into which they are cast is evidently Gehenna, though the term does not appear in OT with this special penal sense. I The place is referred to also in Is. 6624 and probably in 50 n. 1355 religious thinkers of Israel were led to a moral concep- tion of the future life and to the certainty of their share therein. These beliefs were reached, not through deductions of reason, as in Greece, but through spiritual crises deep as the human personality and wide as human life. [At this point a caution must be offered to the student. The study of the religious content of eschatological p ideas is to some extent distinct from , .* that of its form, nor can either religious ive sc a Qr ii terar y cr iticism (to the latter of which special attention is given here) enable us to dispense with the help of the comparative historical study of the religious ideas of those peoples which came most into contact with the Jewish. Some excellent introductions to ’ Biblical Theology 1 are based, consciously or unconsciously, on the principle that the movement of religious thought in Israel was completely independent of external stimulus. There can be no greater mistake. Students of Jewish religion can no longer avoid acquainting themselves with Babylonio- Assyrian, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and Greek religion, and using any further collateral information that they can get. 1 The abundance of fresh literary material for the study of eschatology as it took form in Jewish minds is our excuse for not, in this article, bringing Jewish eschatology into relation to other eschatologies, more especially Babylonian and Persian. The article would have become disproportionately long if we had adopted the course which is theoretically the only right one. It must also be remembered that the ‘ spiritual crises 1 referred to above were conditioned by crises in the history of the nation. We are far from denying that * the spirit 1 as well as the wind, ’ breatheth where it listeth.’ Even the spirit of revelation, however, cannot work on unprepared minds. Jewish eschatology there- fore can be fully sketched only on a canvas larger than is here at our disposal, and this article must be supple- mented by reference to a group of other articles, includ- ing especially Antichrist and Persia (the part dealing with religion). On the narrative in Gen. 24^-3 which influenced directly or indirectly so many later writers, reference should be made, for the mythic form of the ideas, to Creation, § 20 (r). — E d.] In the writings (Apocryphal, Apocalyptic, etc.) that we are now to consider, the eschatological ideas of the ontlinp ^ ater P ro P hets are reproduced and further of Method deve l°P ed - We shall find it convenient to deal with this literature in three chrono- logical periods ; I. 200-100 (§§51-63), II. 1 00- 1 B.C. (§§ 64-70), III. 1-100 A. d. (§§ 71-81). In treating each of these periods, after (a) a general account of its thought and ( b ) an account of the various works it pro- duced, we shall show in detail ( c ) the development of certain special conceptions — viz. (1) Soul and spirit, (2) Judgment, (3) Places of abode for the departed, (4) Resurrection, (5) Messianic kingdom, Messiah, Gentiles. Unlike the rest of the apocalyptic and apocryphal books, Ecclus. and Tobit, instead of reproducing and 64 Ecclus devel °P in S t ^ ie * deas we h ave just summar- and Tobit * sed ’ re P resent °lder and more conser- * vative views. As lying off the main path of religious development and witnessing to still surviving primitive elements in Judaism, we shall consider them together at the outset. In Ecclus. the problem of retribution takes a peculiar form. On the one hand it is purely conservative. All 56 Ecclus retr ‘6ution without exception is confined to this life : there is ’ no inquisition of life ’ 1 See Charles, Doctrine 0/ a Future Life , pp. 24-25 n., 33 n., 34 n -» 57 n., on the relation of the religion of Babylonia to that of ancient Israel j pp. 116 n., 134-136, on the relation of Zoroas- trianism to Judaism ; pp. 24 n., 26-27 n., 34 n. , 40 n., 57 n., on the analogies between tbe primitive religion of Israel and that of Greece ; and pp. 79 n., 1 37-151, on the development of the doctrine of immortality in Greece as contrasted with Ibat in Palestine. 1356 ESCHATOLOGY in Shfiol (41 4). On the other hand it supplements Ezekiel's theory of exact individual retribution with the older view which he attacked, and seeks to cover its obvious defects with the doctrine of the solidarity of the family. A man's conduct must receive its recompense in this life (see especially 2ioyi and cp 23-9 9 12 122 f. also 11 26). Obvi- ously, however, all men do not meet with their deserts. Hence a man’s sins are visited through the evil remembrance of his name and in the misfortunes of his children after him (11 28 2324 26 4O15 41 5-8). Similarly the posterity of the righteous is blessed (447-15). Sheol is the abode of the shades and the region of death 1 (9 12 14 12 16 41 4 48 s), where is no delight (14 16), no praise of God (17 17-28) : man is plunged in an eternal sleep (4619 22 n 3617 SS23).2 As regards the future of the nation, the writer looks forward to the Messianic kingdom of which Elijah is to be the forerunner (48 10), when Israel shall be delivered from evil (5O23./C), the scattered tribes restored (38 13 = AV 3(5 1 z), the heathen nations duly punished (32 22-24 =AV 35 18 /C). This kingdom of Israel will last for ever (37 25 [so Gk. and Eth. but wanting in Syr.l) 44 13 [so Gk. and Eth.; Heb. and Syr. read * memorial ’ instead of ’ seed ’]). The eschatology of Tobit is very slight. Like the earlier books, it entertains high hopes for the Jewish 56 T bit P eo Pj e * Jerusalem and the temple shall be rebuilt witb gold and precious stones, the scattered tribes shall be restored, and the heathen, for- saking their idols, shall worship the God of Israel (13 10- 18 144-6). Sh€ol is taken in the traditional sense ‘ eternal place,’ 6 alJjvios tSttos, 3 6. As in Job and in Ecclesiastes, Hades (cp 3 10 13 2) is a place wbere exist- ence is practically at an end. Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, prays: ‘Command my spirit to be taken from me, that I may . . . become earth . . . and go to the everlasting place ’ (36). This description is accounted for by the writer’s acceptance of the later doctrine of the spirit (§ 17). We now pass to the writings of the Haslds or Assi- deans, a small but important body of zealous Jews, first S7 Aqsidpans referred t0 as a religion organisation 0/. assmeans. jn Eth £n 9Q6 ( see nQte in Charles's ed. ). Its rise may be placed at about 200 B. c. 3 The Haslds first appear as the champions of the law against the Hellenizing Sadducees ; but they were still more the representatives of advanced forms of doctrine about the Messianic kingdom and the resurrection. The arrange- ment we shall adopt has been explained already (§ 53). 68. Second I. Second Century b.c. Cent. B.C. Authorities. Ethiopic Enoch 1-36 (Apoca- Sibylline Oracles — Prooem- lyptic, § 27). mium and 3 97-818. 4 Daniel ('§ 59). Test. xii. Patriarchs— Some of Ethiopic Enoch 83-90 (§ 60). its apocalyptic sections(§6i). Judith (?) (§ 62). [a) General eschatological development . — It was under the pressure of one of tbe most merciless persecutions re- 1 In 21 10 thoughts of the penal character of SheCl do not seem to be quite absent. 2 The reference to Gehenna in 7 17 (exSifojtris auy (the humble), Q'TDn (the pious, covenant-keepers) cp Psalms ; and on the ’AtriSatot of Macc. cp Assideans ; Israel, § 73. 4 This, the oldest, portion of the Sibylline oracles dates from the latter half of the second century B.c. Since, however, it helongs to Hellenistic Judaism, its evidence is not of primary interest in the story of Palestinian eschatology, and may ad- vantageously be relegated to a note. Broadly speaking, we may say that it combines, though not always consistently, various earlier descriptions of the future. It shows no trace of original thought. Its eschatological forecasts are confined to this world. Though so limited, it gives a vivid account of the Messianic kingdom. Very soon the people of the Mighty God will grow strong (3 194-198), and God wifi send from the east the Messiah, who will put an end to evil war, slaying some and fulfilling the promises in behalf of others, and he will be guided in all things by God. The temple shall be resplendent with glory, and the earth teem with fruitfulness (3652-660) [cp Che. OPs. 23]. Then the nations shall muster their forces and attack .Palestine (366o-668); but God will destroy them, and their judgment shall be accompanied by fearful portents (3 669- 697). Israel, how- ever, shall dwell safely under the divine protection (3702-709); and the rest of the cities and the islands snail he converted, and unite with Israel in praising God (3710-731). The blessings of the Messianic age are recounted (3 744-754 ; cp also 3 367-380, 1357 ESCHATOLOGY corded in history that much of the eschatological thought of this century was built up. In order to encourage the faithful, various religious thinkers consolidated and devel- oped into more or less consistent theodicics the scattered statements and intimations of an eschatological nature in the OT. In these theodicies there is no vagueness or doubt as to the ultimate destinies of the righteous and the wicked. Faith rests in the reasonable axiom that the essential distinctions between these classes must one day be realised outwardly. The certainty of judgment on the advent of the Messianic kingdom, accordingly, is preached in the most emphatic tones, and the doctrine is taught that at death men enter immediately in ShSol on a state of bliss or woe which is but the prelude of their final destiny. The righteous, both living and dead, shall be recompensed to the full in the eternal Messianic kingdom established on earth with its centre at Jerusalem. Within the sphere of Judaism it is in this second century b.c. that the eschatologies of the individual and of the nation attain their most complete synthesis (cp below, § 82). The firm lines in which these eschatological hopes are delineated mark the great advance achieved in this period by religious thought. (<$) The theodicies of the several writers. — Eth. En. ±-36 has been described in detail elsewhere (see Apoca- 59 Eth En LYPTIC > § 2 7)* With regard to Daniel, _ n • \ as the right point of view for studying it , ame . ^ een gj ven elsewhere (Daniel ii.), and we have already noticed its main eschatological conceptions (above, § 47), we need only observe that in it, as in Eth. En. 1-36, the Messianic kingdom is eternal, its scene is the earth, and all the Gentiles are subject (7i4). There is no Messiah. Those Jews who are ’ found written in the book ' 1 [of life] shall be 4 delivered ’ during the period of the Messianic woes. At the resurrection only those Jews who are pre-eminently righteous and wicked shall rise from the ’ land of dust’ 2 (i.e. , Sh6ol) to receive their deserts: the righteous to inherit 4 aeonian life,' the wicked to be cast into Gehenna 8 (12 2). For the pre-eminently righteous in Israel, there- fore, SbSol has become an intermediate abode, though for the Gentiles it continues to be final. The risen body seems to possess its natural appetites (as in Eth. En. 1-36). The Messianic kingdom of which the righteous are members is one that bears sway over peoples. The writer of Daniel makes a very special use of the belief in angelic patrons of nations, of which another application will he found in the almost contemporaneous work to which we turn next — viz., Eth. En. 83-90. 60. Eth. En. 83-90 The author of Ethiopic Enoch 83-90, which was written a few years later than Eth. En. 1-36 (on which see Apocalyptic, § 27), was a. Hasid and a supporter of the Maccabean I , movement. His eschatology is de- (B.C. 166-161). ve i 0 p e( j at greater length than that of the Daniel apocalypse, to which in many respects it is so closely allied. The belief in angelic patrons of nations is common, as we have seen, to both writings ; but our author applies it in a peculiar way. 691-723). The kings of the earth shall be at peace with one another (3 755-759)-. , _ , , _ In the later section of this book the forecast is somewhat different. Though in the earlier part, as we have seen ahoye, it was the Messiah that conducted the war against the hostile nations, in this it is the prophets of God. Thus God will establish a universal kingdom over all mankind, with Jerusalem as centre (3 767-771), and the prophets of God shall lay down the sword and become judges and kings of the earth (3781 f.\ and men shall hring offerings to the temple from all parts of the earth (3 772 /.). 1 On this eschatological term see Charles, Enoch 131-133. In the earlier passages in which it occurs it stands in connection with temporal hlessings only. 2 We assume that the reading riD"IN is correct. For this description of Sheol cp Job 17 16, Ps. 22 15, with Cheyne’s note referring to a similar Assyrian phrase. If this interpretation is correct, Sheol, though it has become a temporary abode for the righteous, still retains its traditional character. 3 Cp Che. OPs. 406. 1358 ESCHATOLOGY ESCHATOLOGY The undue severities that have befallen Israel are not from . God’s hand ; they are the doing of the seventy shepherds (/.*., I angels) into whose care God had committed Israel (8959) for the destruction of its faithless members. These angels have not wronged Israel with impunity, however; for judgment is at hand. When their oppression is at its worst there shall be formed a righteous league (i.e., the Hasidim ; 906), out of one of the families of which shall come forth Judas the Maccabee (90 7-16), who shall war victoriously against all the enemies of Israel. While the struggle is still raging, God will intervene in person. The earth shall swallow the adversaries of the righteous ( 90 18). The wicked shepherds and the fallen watchers shall then be cast into an abyss of fire (*.?., Tartarus ; 9O20-25), and the blinded sheep — i.e., theapostate(J ews ) — into Gehenna (90 20). Whether the apostate Jews already dead are to be transferred from Sheol does not appear. Then God himself will set up the new Jerusalem (90 28 f . ). The surviving Gentiles shall be converted and serve Israel (90 30), the dispersion be brought back, and the righteous Israelites be raised to take part in the kingdom (9O33). When all is accomplished, the Messiah, whose r 61 e is a passive one, shall appear ■ (90 37), and all shall be transformed into his likeness. 1 Until a critical edition of the XII. Patriarchs is published, that composite work cannot be quoted as an 61 T st authoril y- I* belongs to very different •• p * periods. It contains apocalyptic sections xu. a r. a pp ear t0 belong to the second century B.C. ; but the body of the work seems to have been written about the beginning of the Christian era. There are, moreover, numerous (Christian) interpola- tions. Many of the apocalyptic sections appear to have constituted originally a defence of the warlike Macca- bean high priests of the latter half of the second century b.c. , whilst others 1 seem to attack the later chiefs of that family, in the last century B. C. It is hardly possible to interpret otherwise such a statement regarding Levi as that in Reub. 6 ad Jin. : ‘ He shall die for us in wars visible and invisible ' ; cp Sim. 5. Whilst one or more of these sections may be of an earlier date, many of them may belong to the last century b.c. Since, however, their eschatological thought in some respects belongs to the second century B.c., we shall for the sake of convenience deal with it here, though in no case shall we build upon it as a foundation. 2 Levi has been chosen by God to rule alj the Gentiles with supreme sovereignty (Reub. 6). The Messiah of the tribe of Levi, who will appear at the close of the seventh jubilee, will possess an eternal priesthood 3 (Levi 18; apoc. sections of Levi = 2-5 S 10 14-18). This will endure till God comes and restores Jerusalem and dwells in Israel (Levi 5). This Messiah will judge as a king ; he will bind Beliar, open the gates of Paradise arid give his saints to eat of the tree of life (Levi 18 cp Eth. En. 264-6). To the Messianic kingdom on earth, all the righteous patriarchs shall rise (Sim. 64 Zeb. 10 Jud. 25). Then the spirits 1 of deceit shall be trodden under foot (Sim. 6 Zeb. 9) and Beliar 1 destroyed (Levi 18 Jud. 25). There shall be only one people and one tongue (Jud. 25). The surviving Gentiles are in all cases to be converted, save in Sim. 6 where they are doomed to anni- hilation. According to Benj. 10 there is to be a resurrection, first of the OT heroes and patriarchs, and next of the righteous and of the wicked. Thereupon is to follow judgment, first of Israel and then of the Gentiles. It is doubtful whether we are to regard this resurrection as embracing Israel only or all man- kind. The designation of Michael in Dan. 6 (cp Lev. 5 Judith 25 ) as ‘a mediator between God and man' is noteworthy. It may be permitted in conclusion to refer to the book of Judith. The words in w'hich the Gentile T /THi enem ^ es °f Israel are threatened ( 16 17) 62. ductitn. obv j ously refer t0 Gehenna, and remind us of the very late appendix to Is. 66 (v. 23 /.), which however refers to unfaithful Jews. The view of I Gehenna as the final abode of the Gentiles is not again j attested till the first century of the Christian era (in Ass. 1 Cp Levi 14 16 (beg.). These passages resemble the Psalms of Solomon that assail the Sadducean priesthood. 2 In the references here made we shall use the better readings of the A rmenian l ' ersion . 3 Sometimes a Messiah of the tribe of Judah is spoken of. There is nothing against the Jewish origin of such passages ; but others which combine the two ideas are Christian. Mos. 10 IO 4 Ezra 7 36). In so far, the date ( circa 63 b.c.) given elsewhere for this book (see Judith, § 5) seems preferable to the earlier one advocated by Schurer. {c) Development of special conceptions in second century b.c. x . Soul and Spirit. —The later view of the ‘ spirit ’ (see § 20) as the divine breath of life 63 . Special p roba bly underlies Ecclus. 3823 Bar. 217 conceptions. ^ , tbe dead also who are in Hades , whose spirit is taken from their bodies’); see also Tob. 36 1 Judith 10 13. Elsewhere in the second century we can trace only the older Semitic view (above, § 19), according to which 1 soul ’ and 4 spirit ’ are practically identical. The apocalyptic use, however, diverges from the more primitive ; what is predicated of 4 soul ’ can be predicated also of 4 spirit.’ In Daniel indeed we always find, not 4 soul ’ but 4 spirit,’ even where 4 soul ’ could have been used with perfect propriety. 2 In Enoch 1-36 the inhabitants of Sh 6 ol are spoken of as ‘souls’ in 22 3 (cp 93), but generally as ‘spirits’ (22 5-7 9 11- 13). We even find the strange expression ‘spirits of the souls of the dead’ 3 ( 9 10). Here also, therefore, * soul ’ and 1 spirit ’ are practically identical. Fallen angels and demons are always spoken of as ’spirits’ (the former in 13 6 15 4 6/., the latter in 159 11 16 1). Indeed 'soul 1 is never in Jewish litera- ture used of angels, fallen or otherwise (cp above, § 20). 2. Judg)nent . — The judgment, which is preliminary and final, involves all men living and dead, the faithless angelic rulers, and the impure angels. It will be on the advent of the Messianic kingdom. These points mark the development of the second century B. c. upon the past. There is the further development that the judgment is sometimes (?) conceived as setting in, immediately -after death, in an intermediate abode of the soul. In Eth. En. 1-36 there is a preliminary judgment on the angels who married the daughters of men, and likewise on all men who were alive at the deluge (IO1-12). The final judg- ment before the advent of the Messiah's kingdom will involve the impure angels (10 12 f), the demons who have hitherto gone unpunished (16 1), and all Israel with the exception of a certain class of sinners. In Daniel there is a preliminary judgment of the sword executed by fhe saints (244 722), as well as the final world-judg- ment (7 9 11 f ), which will introduce the Messianic king- dom by God himself. There is no mention of judgment of angels ; but judgment of the angelic patrons of Persia and Greece may be assumed. In Eth. En. 83-90 there is the first world-judgment of the deluge ( 89 ), the judg- ment of the sword executed under Judas the Maccabee ( 90 19 16), and the final judgment on the impure angels and on the faithless angelic patrons (90 20-25). The last serves to introduce the Messianic kingdom on the present earth. 3. Places of abode for the departed. — i. ShSol. ShSol undergoes complete transformation in the second century B.c. and becomes an intermediate place of moral retribution for the righteous and the wicked. (The traditional sense probably survives in Dan. 122, but not in Eth. En. 22 . ) All the dead who die before the final judgment have to go to Sh&dl. It has four divisions ; two for the righteous and two for the wicked. From three of them there is a resurrection to final judg- ment ; but from the fourth, where are the wicked who met with violent death, there is no rising. Sh&ol has in this last case become hell. ii. Paradise. In the second century only two men, Enoch and Elijah, were conceived as having been J How thoroughly life was identified with the presence of the spirit appears from this verse ; 4 Command my spirit to be taken from me, that I may be released, and become earth. ' 2 In Dan. 7 15 it has generally been thought that the spirit is spoken of as enclosed in the 4 sheath ’ (nj-jj) of the body ; but we should no doubt, with Buhl and Marti, read nil pja * because of this.' C) 87 which gives ev tovtoi?, and Vg., imply yjj-j 3 In these references the Gizeh Greek text has been followed. In the Ethiopic text the term 4 sou) ' is used instead of 4 spirit ’ in 223 9 11 jff out corruptly. 1360 1359 ESCHATOLOGY admitted to Paradise on leaving this world (Eth. En. 87 j f 89 52). 1 Th/s cause is manifest. See Enoch, i. iii. Gehenna. Gehenna is definitely conceived in Dan. 122 Eth. En. 27 1 /. and 9O26 f (?) as the final, not the immediate, abode of apostates in the next world. iv. The abyss of fire. 2 This is the final place of punishment for the faithless angelic rulers and for the impure angels (Eth. En. 18n-19 21 90 21-25). In Eth. En. I811-16 21 1-6 the fiery abyss for the impure angels is distinguished from another fiery abyss mentioned in 21 7-10. This latter may be for the faithless angelic [ rulers. 4. Resurrection. — In Eth. En. 83-90 (see 90 33) there is a resurrection only of the righteous ; in Dan. 1 2 2 f . , of those who are righteous and wicked in a pre-eminent degree ; and in Eth. En. 22 of the righteous and of such of the wicked as had not met with retribution in life. Thus in Eth. En. 83-90 the older and spiritual form of the doctrine is preserved. In all cases the righteous rise to participate in the Messianic kingdom. 5. Messianic kingdom. — In Dan. and Eth. En. 1-36 the scene of the Messianic kingdom is the earth. In Eth. En. S3-90 its centre is to be, not the earthly Jerusalem, but tbe new Jerusalem brought down from heaven. This is the first trace in the second century B.c. of a sense of the unfitness of the present world for Messianic glory. The kingdom is to be eternal. Its members are to enjoy a life of patriarchal length (Eth. En. 5 9 256), or to live for ever(9033). In Dan. 122 /. the point is left doubtful. Besides the Messiah in Sibyll. Or. 3 652-654 there is no mention of the Messiah in the second century b.c. except in Eth. En. 83-90 (see 90 37), wbere, however, bis introduction seems due merely to literary reminiscence. 6. Gentiles . — According to Eth. En. 10 21, all the Gentiles are to become righteous and worship God. Only the hostile Gentiles are to be destroyed (Dan. 2244 7 11 f. Eth. En. 90 9-16 18). The rest will be converted (?) and serve Israel (Dan. 7 14 Eth. En. 90 30). 64. Last II. Last Century b.c. Cent. B.C. Authorities for 104-1 B.c. Ethiopic Enoch 91-104 (§ 65). Psalms of Solomon (§ 67). Ethiopic Enoch 37-70 (§ 66). Sibylline Oracles 3 1-62 (§ 68). 1 Maccabees (§ 66, end). 2 Maccabees (§ 69). (a) General eschatological development. — A great gulf divides the eschatology of the last century B.c. as a whole from that of its predecessor. The hope of an eternal Messianic kingdom on the present earth is all but universally abandoned. 3 The earth as it is, is mani- festly regarded as wholly unfit for the manifestation of the kingdom. The dualism which had begun to assert itself in the preceding century is therefore now the preponderating dogma. This new attitude compels writers to advance to new conceptions concerning the kingdom. (i. ) Some boldly declare (Eth. En. 91-104), or else imply (Pss. Sol. 1-16 2 Macc. [?]), that the Messianic kingdom is only temporary, and that the goal, of the risen righteous is not this transitory kingdom but heaven itself. In the thoughts of these writers the belief in a personal immortality has disassociated itself from the doctrine of the Messianic kingdom, and the synthesis of the two eschatologies achieved in the preceding century (see § 58) is anew resolved into its elements A This is a natural consequence, as we have said, of the growing dualism of the times. 1 Cp Che. OPs. 414. 3 Cp Persia (the part dealing with religion). 3 Only in Pss. Sol. 17 f. of this century does the Messianic kingdom seem to be of eternal duration on the present earth (cp 17 4). Since the Messiah himself, however, is only a man, his kingdom is probably of only temporary duration (see below, § 6 7 fi-J, and Apocalyptic, § 85). 4 On the synthesis effected in the NT, see § 82 ; on the exceptional anticipation of this in Eth. En. 27-70, see § 66. 1361 ESCHATOLOGY (ii. ) Quite another line of thought, however, was possible. The present earth could not, it is true, be regarded as the scene of an eternal Messianic kingdom ; but a renewed and transformed earth could. The scene of the eternal Messianic kingdom would be such a. new earth, and a new heaven, and to share in this eternal kingdom the righteous should rise (Eth. En. 37-70). Here the idea of a new heaven and a new earth, which appeared il logic ally in Is. 65 f. (§48), is applied with reasonable consistency. It is further to be observed that writers of the former class (i. ) anticipated a resurrection only of the righteous, a resurrection of the spirit not of the body (Eth. En. 91-104 Pss. Sol.) ; but writers of the latter class (ii. ) looked forward to a resurrection of all Israel (Eth. En. 37-70) at the elose of the temporary, and the beginning of the eternal, Messianic kingdom. In 2 Macc., which diverges in some respects from both classes, a bodily resurrection of the righteous, and possibly of all Israel, is expected. Again, in contradistinction to the preceding century there is now developed a vigorous, indeed a unique, doctrine of the Messiah, the doctrine of the supernatural Son of Man (Eth. En. 37-70). Finally, the present sufferings of Israel at the hands of the Gentiles are explained as disciplinary (2 Macc. 6 12-17 cp Jud. 827 Wisd. I222). Israel is chastened for its sins lest they should come to a head ; but the Gentiles are allowed to fill up the cup of their iniquity (cp Gen. 15 16 Dan. 8 23 9 26). (£) Eschatologies of the several writers. — We have said that the eschatology of the last century b. C. introduces _ Fth F us * nto a wor ^ °f new conceptions (§ 70). 91 104 Whilst in tbe writings of the preceding century the resurrection and the final judg- ment were the prelude to an everlasting Messianic king- dom, in Ethiopic Enoch 91-104 they are adjourned to the close. The Messianic kingdom is thus, for the first time, conceived as temporary. It is therefore no longer the goal of the hopes of the righteous. Their soul finds its satisfaction only in a blessed immortality in heaven. The author acknowledges that the wicked seem to sin with impunity ; but he believes that this is not so in truth ; their evil deeds are recorded every day (104 7), and they will suffer endless retribution in Sh6ol (99 11), a place of darkness and flame (for Sh£ol is here conceived as hell), from which there is no escape (98310 103 7 /)• In the eighth week, the Messianic kingdom (but without a Messiah) shall be established, and the righteous shall slay the wicked with the sword (91 12 967961 98 12 9946). To this kingdom the righteous who have departed this life shall not rise. At its close, in the tenth week, shall be held the final judgment ; the former heaven and earth shall he destroyed, and a new heaven created (91 14-16). The righteous dead, who have hitherto been guarded by angels (100 5), in a department of Sheol (? cp 4 Ezra 4 41), shall he raised, 91 10 92 3 (not, however, in the body, but as spirits ; 103 3/I), and the portals of heaven shall be opened to them (104 2) ; they shall joy as the angels (104 4), becoming companions of the heavenly host 1046), and shining as the stars for ever (104 2). The interest of the author of Eth. En. 37-70 is in the sphere of the moral and spiritual. This is manifest even in his usual name for God, ' the 66. Etn. En. j^ord of Spirits, ' and in the peculiar turn 37 iff and l ^ at gi yes to trisagion in 39 12 1 Macc. « Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of spirits : he filleth the earth with spirits. ’ His views are strongly apocalyptic and follow closely in the wake of Daniel. Unlike the writer of chaps. 91-104 (§65), however, he clings fast to a future kingdom of (righteous) Israel, destined to endure for ever, to which the righteous shall rise. The righteous individual will thus find his con- summation in the righteous community. In addition to the eschatological details given elsewhere (Apocalyptic, § 30) we should observe the following points: — The Son of Man is to judge all angels, unfallen and fallen (61 8 554), and men— righteous and sinners (62 2 /.), kings and mighty (623-11 63 1-4 11). The Messiah is for the first time represented as a supernatural being, Judge of men and angels. The fallen 1362 ESCHATOLOGY angels are to be cast into a fiery furnace ( 546 ), the kings and the mighty to be tortured in Gehenna by the angel of punish- ment (53 3-5 54 1 f.\ and the remaining sinners and godless to be driven from the face of the earth (38 3 41 2 45 6) ; the Son of Man shall slay them by the word of his mouth (62 2). Heaven and earth shall be transformed (45 4 _/C), the righteous shall have their mansions therein (396 41 2), and live in the light of eternal life (583). The elect one shall dwell amongst them (44 a), and they shall eat and lie down and rise up with him for ever (62 14). They shall be clad in garments of life ( 62 i 5 _/;), and become angels in heaven ( 51 4) ; and they shall seek after light and find righteousness (58 3./C), and grow in knowledge and righteousness (58 5). 1 Macc. is quite without eschatological teaching, if we except the writer’s expectation of a prophet in 446 1441. 1 In considering the Psalms of Solomon the eschato- logical system of the last two psalms (17 f ), which differs in many important respects from that of Pss. 1-16, may be taken first. i. The eschatology of Ps. Sol. 17 f is marked by a singular want of originality. There is hardly a statement relative to the hopes of Israel that could not be explained as a literary reminiscence. Where A7 P«nlmc- psalms are at all original their influence 0 1 . rsaims j s distinctly hurtful ; the proof that the popular of Solomon, aspirations with which they connect the Messiah B.C. 70 - 40 . were injurious to the best interests of the nation was ‘ written in fire and blood ’ (see Messiah). The following is the account of the Messiah (who is specifically so called in 17 36 186 8 ). He is to be descended from David (17 23), a righteous king (17 35), pure from sin (17 4r). He will gather the dispersed tribes together and make Jerusalem holy as in the days of old. No Gentile shall be suffered to sojourn there, nor any one that knows wickedness. The ungodly nations he shall destroy with the word of his mouth (17 27 cp 17 39 41). The remaining Gentiles shall become subject to him (1731^); he will have mercy on all the nations that come before him in fear (17 38). They shall come from the ends of the world to see his glory, and bring their sons as gifts to Zion (17 34). The Messianic kingdom is apparently of temporary duration. There is no hint of the rising of the righteous who have died ; only the surviving righteous are to share in it (cp l7so). We might infer the transitory nature of the Messianic kingdom from the fact that the Messiah is a single person, not a series of kings. The duration of his kingdom is to be regarded as conter- minous with that of its ruler. ii. In Pss. Sol. 1-16 there is hardly a single reference to the future kingdom and none to the Messiah. Since, however, they paint in glowing colours the restoration of the tribes (834 11 3-8), they look for a Messianic kingdom — at all events a period of prosperity, when God’s help should be enjoyed ( 7 9 ). Beyond prophesying vengeance on the hostile nations and on sinners, however, the psalmists do not dwell on this coming time. For them the real recompense of the righteous is not bound up with an earthly kingdom. The righteous rise, not to any kingdom of temporal prosperity, but to eternal life (3 16 139) ; they inherit life in gladness (146), and live in the righteousness of their God (15 15 ). There seems to be no resurrection of the body. As for the wicked, ‘their inheritance is Hades (here=hell), and darkness and destruction’ (146 cp 15 11 ), whither they go immediately on dying (16 2). The eschatology of Pss. 1-16 thus agrees in nearly every point with that of Eth. En. 91-104 (§ 6 s ). 2 In Sibylline Oracles 3 1 - 62 , written before 31 B.C. (see Apocalyptic, § 85 ), God’s kingdom is expected eo o-v it and the advent of a holy king who 68 . biDyllme shall sway t h e sceptre of every land 3 Uracles. ^ ^ This Mess i an i c king is to reign ’ 1 ‘ for all the ages ’ (3 50). These words must not be pressed, however ; for, a few lines later, a universal judgment on all men is foretold (3 53-56 60 f). For a similar limitation cp Apoc. Bar. 40 3 73 1 . 1 Cp Che. OPs. 40 n. 2 Cp Apocalyptic, § 85. The sketch there given is merely to justify dividing Pss. 1-16 from 17 f. 3 Tj£et S’ ayvos ava£ Tratnjs yfc (TKijinpa Kptvrj t he older Semitic view (above, § 19 ). The exceptions are in 2 Macc. 7 22 f. In v. 22 the mother of the seven martyred brethren declares : ‘ I did not give you spirit and life ’ (ro 7 rvevfia /cat riji/ p eflvrj. The inclusion of the Messiah and the Messianic king- dom, though really foreign to his system, in Philo’s eschatology, is strong evidence as to the prevalence of these expectations even in Hellenistic Judaism. Appar- ently Philo did not look forward to a general and final judgment. All enter after death into their final abode. The punishment of the wicked is everlasting (De Cherub. 1) ; even the wicked Jews are committed to Tartarus (De Execrat. 6). As matter is incurably evil, there can be no resurrection of the body. Our present 1 So Eth. En. 22 ig Apoc. Bar. 30 4 f. 36 n 4 Esd. 7 87. 1367 ESCHATOLOGY life in the body is death, for the body is the sepulchre of the soul (Quod Deus immut. 32) ; our e ' WvvriXeta rod aUouos), Mt. 1339/ 49 at hand “* 3 ^ 2 °* we seek a more precise definition of time, however, we find in the Gospels two apparently conflicting accounts. (i. ) The parusia is within the current generation and preceded by certain signs. This was very natural, because in the OT the foundation and the consummation of the kingdom are closely connected. Hence Jesus declared that ' this generation ’ (77 yevea aiin)) should not 4 pass away ’ till the prophetic description had been realised (Mt. 2434). The description referred to (see Mt. 24 and Mk. 13 ; Lk. 21 5-35) is no doubt full ; but these chapters appear to be derived in part from Jesus and in part from a Judaistic source. They identify two distinct occurrences, the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. 2 * This is sometimes explained hy the well-known theory of prophetic perspective (see Prophecy) ; but the explanation is unsatisfactory. _ Illusions of the hodily eye are gradually corrected by experience until at last they cease to mislead ; hut it is not so with prophecy as regards either the prophet or those who accept his prophecy : both are deceived. That Jesus did expect to return during the existing generation (Mt. 10 23 16277^ Mk.9i Lk. 9267C) is proved Beyond question by the universal hopes of the apostolic age. To speak of error in this regard, however, is to misconceive the essence of prophecy. So 1 The idea of the parusia could not but arise in the mind of Jesus when he saw clearly the approaching violent end of his ministry. As a fact, it is first expressed in connection with Christ’s first prophecy of this great event (Mk. 838 Mt. 16 27 Lk. 926). Among attempts to analyse the chapters that of Wendt (Die Lehre Jesu, 10-21) deserves attention. He traces Mt. 24 1-5 2 3‘259 _I 3 3 2 ./- 36-42 (z.^-, Mk. 13 i-6 21-23 9-13 287C 32-37) t0 J esus * and the rest of this chapter to a Jewish Christian apocalypse written before jo a.d. Cp also Abomination of Desolation. The present writer is of opinion that the solution of the difficulty must be found in some such theory as that of Wendt, which is amodification of that of Colani (JSsns Christ et les Croyances Messianiques de son Temps , p. 201 ff. [’64]). According to the Jewish apocalypse just referred to, the parusia was to be heralded by unmistakeable signs, but this view is irreconcilable with another which teaches that the parusia will take the world by surprise (Mk. 13 33-36 Mt. 2442-44 Lk. 12 35-40). This latter doctrine goes back undoubtedly to Jesus ; the former is derived *rom traditional Judaism. ESCHATOLOGY far as relates to fulfilment, it is always conditioned by the course of human development. OT prophecy and Jesus' own inner consciousness as God's Messiah pointed to the immediate con- summation of the kingdom ; hut there was still possibility that it might be long delayed (Mt. 2448 Lk. 12 45, also Mk. 13 35 Lk. 1238 Mt. 255), and he expressly declared that the day and the hour of his return was known only to God (Mk. 13 32). This determination God had withheld from him because it was dependent not on the divine will alone but also on the course of human development. He could indicate, however, the ‘signs of his coming,’ such as the appearance of many false Messiahs (Mt. 24 5 Mk. 13 22), ‘deceived’ by whom the nation would finally arise in arms against Rome, complete the national guilt, and entail on themselves destruction (see also Abomination of Desolation) (Mt. 2336). These things would be as cer- tainly prophetic as the growing greenness of the fig-tree (Mt. 2432). The return of the Son of Man to judgment would be imminent (2429-31). It should be noted, however, that docu- ments from two very different sources appear to be combined here. See note 2 below. The same expectation is attested in Mt. 10 23, where Jesus declares to his disciples that they will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the coming of the Son of Man, and likewise in Mt. I627/ Mk. 838 9 1 Lk. 9 26/ , where it is said that some shall not taste of death before that time. It must be abundantly clear from the evidence that the expectation of the nearness of the end formed a real factor in Jesus' views of the future. There are, on the other hand, many passages which just as clearly present us with a different forecast of the future, and this view demands as careful attention. (ii. ) The parusia will not take place till the process of human development has run its course, and the Gospel has been preached to Jew and Gentile. The kingdom must spread extensively and intensively : exten- sively, till its final expansion is out of all proportion to its original smallness (cp the parable of the 85. At the end. mustard seed); intensively, till it transforms and regenerates the life of the nation, or rather of the world (cp the parable of the leaven, Mt. 1331-33). This process has its parallel in the gradual growth of a grain of corn ; the ripe fruit is the sign for harvest (Mk. 4 26 ff.'). The preaching of the Gospel too must extend to the non-Israelites (Mt. 2287C). To the Jews, who were on their last trial, it would appeal in vain (Lk. 13 3ff). In the coming days the kingdom of God should be taken from them and given to others who would bear appropriate fruits (Mk.129 Mt. 21 41 43 Lk. 20 16); their city should be destroyed (Mt. 227), the ‘times of the nations ' should come in (Lk. 21 24 only), and the glad tidings of the kingdom should be carried to all nations before the end should come (Mk. 13 10 and Mt. 24 14 1 [cp 249] Mt. 28 19). This representation of the future obviously presupposes a long period of development. No less than that of the near parusia, it goes back to Jesus. The con- tingency that the more sanguine view, which is derived from OT prophecy, might not be realised, is acknow- ledged in Mt. 2448 Lk. 12 45, 2 also in Mk. 13 35 where the possibility of an indefinitely long night of history preceding the final advent is clearly contemplated. It is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that discourses relating to different events and from absolutely different sources are confused together in Mk. 13 = Mt. 24 = Lk. 21 {see § 84, n. ). 1 It is possible, as Weiss (. Marcus-ev ., 417) thinks, that the original form of this statement is to be found in Mt. 10 18 and that its present form is due to Mk. 2 Beyschlag (NT Theology , ET 1 197 f.) points out that the words 4 of that day or that hour knoweth no man, etc.’ (Mk. 13 32 Mt. 24 36) cannot be reconciled with the words that precede them, 4 This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.’ Accordingly he refers the latter to the destruction of Jerusalem (cp Mt. 23 36) and thefformer to the final judgment of the world. An interesting discussion of these chapters is given by Briggs (Messiah 0/ the Gospels , 132-165). Weiffenbach ( IViederkunftsgedanke Jesu, 1873), like Colani, Pfleiderer, and Keim, seeks to show that in Mk. 13 (=Mt. 24= Lk. 21) there is a Jewish- Christian apocalypse interwoven with the genuine words of Jesus. This apocalypse consisted of three parts— (1) Mk. I377C giving the beginning of woes, (2) Mk. 13 14-20 giving the tribulation, (3) Mk. 13 24-27 giving the parusia. Wendt's modification of this theory has been referred to already. He and other scholars think that this is the oracle referred to by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 5 3). It is impossible to treat seriously the statement of Weiss (NT Theology, 1 148) that there is no contradiction between Mk. 13 32 and 13 30 because ‘the time of the current generation presented a very considerable margin for the determining of the day and hour.' This would be tantamount to saying, r It will be within the next thirty or forty years ; but I am not acquainted with the exact day or hour. ' 1373 1374 ESCHATOLOGY ESCHATOLOGY b. The parusia was to be likewise the ' day of judgment ’ (Mt. 10 is 11 22 24 DJ36), also called ' that day’ (Mt. 722 2436 Lk. 623 10 12 21 34). Christ himself will be judge; 1 for all things have been _ delivered by the Father into his hand 06. a he (Mt. 11 27). All nations shall be gathered judgment. before him (Mt. 25 33). He will reward every man according to his works (Mt. 1341-4349^16272211-14). Amongst the judged appear his own servants (Lk. 19 22 f. Mt. 2514-30), the Israelites (Mt. 1928), the ‘nations’ (Mt. 25 32), not only the contemporaries of Jesus, but also all the nations of the past, Nineveh, the Queen of Sheba (Mt. 12 41 /. Lk. 11 3i./i), Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt. 11 20 24). The demons probably are judged at the same time (Mt. 8 29). c. The kingdom is consummated, ' comes with power ' (Mk. 9i), on the advent of Christ. The elect are 87 Th gathered in from the four winds (Mt. 2431), and now, after being, we must resurrec ion. assume ^ spiritually transformed, enter on their eternal inheritance (Mt. 2534), equivalent to eternal life (Mk. 10 17). The kingdom, therefore, is of a heavenly, not of an earthly character : the present heaven and earth shall pass away on its coming (Mt. 5 18 24 35). The righteous rise to share in it ; but only the righteous : the resurrection is only to life. Those who share in it are 'as angels in heaven’ (Mt. 2230 Mk. 1225), 'are equal to the angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection ' (Lk. 20 36). Only those, therefore, attain to the resurrection who ’ are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead’ (Lk. 20 35). Elsewhere the third evangelist speaks of 'the resurrection of the just’ (14 14). The entire context of Mt. 22 23-33 ( = Mk. 12 18-27 Lk. 2O27-40) points clearly to the conclusion that the resurrection is conceived as springing from life in God. In such communion man is brought to the perfection to which he was destined. The righteous thus in an especial sense become 'sons of God,’ inasmuch as they are 4 sons of the resurrection ' (Lk. 20 36). In the resurrection, therefore, the wicked have no part. It has been said by some scholars that there must be a resurrection of all men in the body because all must appear at the final judgment ; but the final judgment and the resurrection have no necessary con- nection. In Jubilees there is a final judgment but no resurrection of the body, and in Eth. En. 91-104 there is a final judgment, but a resurrection only of the spirits of the righteous ( 91 10 92 3 103 3-4). The fact that demons and other disembodied spirits (Mt. 8 29) are conceived as falling under the last judgment is further evi- dence in the same direction. As the righteous are raised to the perfected kingdom of God, the wicked, on the other hand, are cast down into Gehenna (Mt. 529 f. IO28 Mk. 943 45 47 f\ fire spoken of in this connection (Mt. 522) is not to be con- ceived sensuously ; it is a vivid symbol of the terrible wrath of God. The place or state of punishment is also described as 'the outer darkness’ (Mt. 812), the place of those who are excluded from the light of the kingdom. The torment appears to be a torment of the soul or disembodied spirit. See above, § 70 (3 iv. ). Though in conformity with Jewish tradition the punishment is generally conceived in the Gospels as everlasting, there are not wanting passages which appear to fix a finite and limited punishment for certain offenders, and hence recognise the possibility of moral change in the intermediate state. Thus some are to beheaten with few, others with many stripes (Lk. 1246-48). It is not possible to conceive eternal torment under the figure of a few stripes. Again, with regard only to one sin is it said that ‘ neither in this world (aioSv) nor in that which is to come ’ can it be forgiven (Mt. 12 32). Such a statement would be not only meaningless, but also in the highest degree mislead- ing, if forgiveness in the next life were regarded as_ a thing impossible. It may not be amiss to find signs of a belief in the possibility of moral improvement after death in the rich man m Hades who appeals to Abraham on behalf of his five brethren still on earth (Lk. 16 27-31). 1 In the parables sometimes God himself is judge (Mt. 18 32 208 22 11 Lk. IS 7), sometimes the Messiah (Mt. 1330 2450 25 12 19). ws. In considering the Apocalypse, the whole of which (see Apocalypse) is eschatological, our attention must be confined to a few of its character- 88. The j st j c doctrines, the obvious meaning of Apocalypse. which is independent of the various conflicting methods of interpretation that have been applied to the book. The book is remarkable for the large survivals of traditional Judaism which it attests. Its main object appears to be to encourage the perse- cuted church to face martyrdom. With this purpose its editor draws freely on current Jewish eschatology, some elements of which we shall notice in the sequel. We shall deal with its teaching under four heads. {a) Parusia and Messianic judgment. — Every visit- ation of the churches, every divine judgment in regard to them is regarded as a spiritual advent of the Messiah (25 16 33 20) ; but this invisible coming ends in final advent, visible to all. Its date is not revealed ; but it is close at hand (3ii 22 12 20). At Messiah’s coming all families of men shall wail (1 7). In chap. 14 his coming is in the clouds of heaven, and the judg- ment appears under various symbolical figures. Thus he reaps the great harvest with a sharp sickle (14 14-16) ; he treads the winepress of the wrath of God (14 17-20; cp 19 15). The judgment of the great day — ‘the great day of God* 16 14) — is presented under the image of illimitable slaughter, before the beginning of which the birds of prey are summoned to feast on the bodies and blood of men (19 17-19 21 cp 14 20). At Armageddon (q.v.) Antichrist 1 [q.v. ] and his allies are annihilated ( 16 16), the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire (19 20), and all their followers slain with the sword (19 21). (b) First Resurrection , Millennium , uprising and de- struction of Gog and Magog (cp Gog). With the overthrow of the earthly powers, Satan— ‘the old dragon, the old serpent ' — is stripped of all his might, and cast in chains into the abyss where he is imprisoned for a thousand years 2 (20 1-3). Thereupon ensues the Millennium , 3 when the martyrs' 1 (and the martyrs only) are raised in the first resurrec- tion and become priests of God (cp Is. 61 6) and Christ, and reign with Christ personally on earth for a thousand years (20 4-6) with Jerusalem as the centre of the kingdom. At the close of this period Satan is loosed, and the nations Gog and Magog — the idea is, with certain changes, derived from Ezek. 38 2 39 16 (see Gog)— are set up to make a last assault on the kingdom of Christ. In this attack they are destroyed by God himself, who sends down fire from heaven (20 9). The devil is then (as in the fully developed Zoroastrian belief) finally cast into the lake of fire (20 10). (c) General resurrection and judgment. — These follow the Millennium, the destruction of the heathen powers, and the final overthrow of Satan. Contemporaneously the present heaven and earth pass away (20 1 1 ; cp 21 1). God is judge ; but in some respects the Messiah also (22 12 ; cp also 6 16 /.). All are judged according to their works, which stand revealed in the heavenly books (20 12). The wicked are cast into the lake of fire ( 218 ; see also 102a 20 10). So likewise are Death and Hades 5 (20 14). This is the second death 5 (20 14 21 8). (See also 2 n 206 .) 1 Observe that, whereas in the Johannine epistles Antichrist denotes the false teachers and prophets, in tne Apocalypse it designates Rome. In 2 Thess., on the other hand, Rome is a beneficent power which hinders the manifestation of Antichrist. 2 On the origin of the conquest of ‘the dragon’ (Antichrist* § 14, Persia [Religion]), and on the older Jewish view (of myth- ical origin) that this and other sea monsters were overcome in primeval times by God (cp Prayer of Manasses, 2-4), see Dragon, Serpent, Behemoth, with references there given. 3 The idea of a temporary Messianic kingdom first emerged at the beginning of the last century B.C. (see above, § 64/!). Its limitation to a thousand years is first found in Slav. En. 33 (see above, § 75). 4 This idea also is mainly Jewish. In Is. 26 ig the reference may perhaps be to the bodies of Jews who had died for their religion in the troublous times of Artaxerxes (so Che. Intr. Is. 158; Isaiah, SBOT , ad loci). In 4 Ezra 7 28 the saints who accompany the Messiah on his advent probably include the martyrs. In Rev. 20 4 it is said with reference to these saints, ‘(I saw) the souls of them that had been beheaded.’ 5 Hades seems to be the intermediate abode of the wicked only ; for it is always combined with death (see 1 18 68 20 13 f). The souls of the martyrs have as their immediate abode the place beneath the altar (69-11). The rest of the righteous were probably conceived as in Paradise or in the Treasuries of the righteous (see 4 Ezra). 6 The second death is the death of the soul, as the first is the death of the body. It is the endless torment, not the annihila- tion, of the wicked that is here meant. The expression is a familiar Rabbinic one; see Tg. Jer. on Dt. 33 fi. The occupa- tion of the martyred souls in the intermediate state reminds one 1376 T 375 ESCHATOLOGY (tf) Final consummation of the righteous . — The scene of this consummation is the new world — the new heaven and the new earth (21 i 5), the heavenly Jerusalem (21 10-21 ). J The ideal kingdom of God becomes actual. The city needs no temple ; God and Christ (the Lamb) dwell in it ( 21 22). The citizens dwell in perfect fellowship with God (224), and are as kings unto God (22 5). The Messiah does not resign his mediatorial functions as in the Pauline eschatology. See 7 17 21 22 f). 3. 2 Peter and Jude. — 2 Peter is closely related to Jude — in fact presupposes it. Like Jude, 2 Peter recounts various temporal judgments which the author treats as warnings to the godless of his own day. Thus he adduces the condemnation of the fallen 89 . 2 Peter, angels to Tartarus [q.v.] (where they were to be reserved till the judgment) (2 4), the Deluge (25 3 6), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ( 26 ). These, however, were but preliminary acts of judgment. The final ‘day of judgment ’ ( 2 9 8 7) is impending. Meantime the un- righteous are kept under punishment (xoA.a£o/xeVovs) — i.e., in Hades (2 9). The ultimate doom of the wicked false teachers and their followers will be destruction (amiiAeia, 3 7) ; it is coming speedily upon them (2 3) ; they have brought it on themselves (2 1) ; they shall assuredly be destroyed (2 12). At the final judgment the world as it is shall perish by fire (3 7 io), as formerly by water (2 5 3 6), and new heavens and a new earth shall arise (3 12 f). All this, however, shall not be till Christ’s parusia ( 1 16 8 4 12). The last days are already come (3 4), and the parusia is postponed only through the longsuffering of God with a view to the repentance of the faithless (3 9), and their salvation ( 3 12). By holy living and godliness Christians could prevent any further postponement of the parusia (3 12). With the parusia the eternal kingdom of Christ (In) begins in the new heavens and the new earth, wherein the perfect life of righteousness shall be realised ( 3 13). In Jude, the divine judgments in the history of the past are but types of the final judgment ( e.g . , Israelites Jude ( * esert ’ Sodom, Korah, and the angels who were guilty of unnatural crime). ‘Everlasting bonds under darkness' ( v . 6), ‘punishment of eternal fire ’ (r>. 7), are the terms employed for the preliminary punishments of sinners. The ‘judgment of the great day’ ( v . 6) is described in the well-known quotation from the patriarch Enoch The extension of it to the angels is found also in 2 Pet. and in 1 Cor. 63 ; but for at jeast 300 years it had already been an accepted doctrine of Judaism. At this final judgment with which Jude menaces the godless libertines of his own day the faithful will obtain eternal life, through the mercy of Christ (' ’• 21). 4. James. — James is a production of primitive Jewish Christianity in which Christ’s religion is conceived as 91 James the ^ ul ^ lment °f the P erfect law > promi- nence being given to the doctrine of recompense. Hence, whilst the fulfilment of the law under testing afflictions (weLpao-fioC) led to a recompense of blessing (I12 5 ii), failure for those who are subjects of ‘ the perfect law, the law of liberty,’ entails an aggravated punishment (2 12 ; cp 1 25). None, how- ever, can fulfil the law perfectly (3 2), and so claim ‘the crown of life’ as their reward. Men who need forgiveness now (5 15) must need a merciful judge hereafter. By the law of recompense only the merciful will find God to be such ( 2 13 ; cp Ps. 18 25). Moreover the judgment is close at hand. It is a day of slaughter for the godless rich (5 5). The advent of the Messiah who will judge the world is close at hand (5 8 f). He alone can save or destroy (4 12). As faithful endurance receives life (I72), so the issue of sin is death (1 15). A fire will consume the wicked, 5 3 (does this mean Gehenna?). Nor is it only to a death of the body that they will be delivered ; it is a death of the soul (5 20). The faithful will enter into the promised kingdom (2 5). 5. There is a large eschatological element in Hebrews. The final judgment ( • the day’) is nigh at hand (10 25). 92 Hebrews ^ * s * ntr °d uce d by the final shaking of heaven and earth (12 26 compared with I22529) and by the parusia. God is judge (1030/".), the judge of all (1223). The second coming of Christ is coincident with this judgment ; but he does not judge (927/ 10 37). Retribution is reserved unto this judgment (10 30), which will be terrible (10 31) and inevitable (12 25). The righteous expect Christ to appear not for judgment but for salvation (9 28). Their recompense is to be in heaven (6 19 f), where they have an of the departed spirits in Eth. En. 91-104 : their whole prayer is for the destruction of their persecutors. 1 Quite inconsistently with the idea of a new heaven and a new earth the writer represents Gentile nations as dwelling out- side the gates ; cp 22 15. ESCHATOLOGY eternal inheritance (9 15), a better country ( 11 16), a city which is to come (18 14), whose builder and maker is God ( 11 9 yi). Then the present visible world ( 11 3), which is already growing old (1 10-12), will be removed, and the kingdom which cannot be shaken will remain (12 26-28). Into this new world the righteous will pass through the resurrection. There is apparently to be a resurrection of the righteous only. 1 This follows from 11 35 : ‘that they might obtain a better resurrection.’ These words, which refer to the Maccabean martyrs (2 Macc. 7 ), set the resurrection in contrast with a merely temporary deliverance from death, and represent it as a prize to be striven for, not as the common lot of all. The blessedness of the righteous is described as a participation in the glory of God (2 10) and in the divine vision (12 14). As regards the wicked, their doom is ‘destruction’ ( 10 39). This is something far worse than mere bodily death (827). It is represented as a consuming fire (10 27 12 29 ; cp 6 8). The destiny of the wicked 2 seems to be annihilation. 6. The sources for the Johannine eschatology are the 93 The Fourth Gospel and the epistles. The TnhnmiiTie Apocalypse (§§ 14-17) springs from a p , . 1 different author, and belongs to a differ - sc a 0 ogy. ent Q f eschatological thought. Though these writings do not present us with any fresh teaching about hades and hell, their author furnishes us with principles which in themselves necessi- tate a transformation of the inherited views regarding the immediate and the final abodes of the departed. Thus when he teaches that God so loved the world as to give his only son to redeem it (Jn. 3i6), that ‘God is love’ (1 Jn. 48), that he is light, and in him is no darkness at all, hades, which is wholly under his sway, must surely be a place where moral growth is possible. The conception of a final eternal abode of the damned seems to find no place in a cosmos ruled by such a God as this writer conceives. Whilst in a certain sense in the Johannine teaching the kingdom has already come, the Christ is already present, the faithful already risen, and the judgment already in fulfilment, we have to deal here not with these present aspects, but with their future consummation. The salient points of the Johannine eschatology may be shortly put as follows. \a) The parusia is close at hand. (&) It ushers in the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment, (c) Thereupon believers enter into the perfect life of heavenly blessedness and through the vision of God are transformed into his likeness. (a) The parusia is foretold in Jn. 143, where Jesus promises that he will return from heaven and take the disciples unto himself that they may be with him where he is — i.e . , in heaven. 3 That 14 2^ cannot be interpreted of his coming to receive his disciples individually on death is shown by 21 22. According to the NT writers death translates believers to Christ (2 Cor. 58 Phil. 1 23 Acts 7 59); he is nowhere said to come and fetch them. This parusia is at hand ; for some of his disciples are expected to survive till it appears (21 22), though Peter must first be martyred ( 21 18 /.). Even in extreme old age the apostle still hopes to witness it together with his disciples, whom he exhorts to abide in Christ that they may not be ashamed before him at his coming (1 Jn. 228). The close approach of the parusia is likewise shown by the appearance of false prophets and teachers who deny the fundamental truths of Christianity. In these the Antichrist manifests himself. Such a manifestation must precede the parusia (1 Jn. 2 18 22 4 1 3). Hence this is the ‘ last hour ' (1 Jn. 2 18). 1 In 6 2 we have set forth the alternatives awaiting all men — on the one hand resurrection for the righteous, on the other eternal judgment (xpqxa aiiivtov) for the wicked. 2 In the above the traditional views of scholars have in the main been followed ; but this has not been done without some hesita- tion. The eschatology might be differently construed. Judg- ment sets in immediately after death in the case ofeach individual (9 27). In 6 2 11 35, as in Pss. Sol. and elsewhere, the resurrection may be not only confined to the righteous but also confined to the spirits of the righteous. Observe that God is spoken of as ‘ the Father of spirits ' (12 9). An Alexandrian origin for the epistle would favour this view. The expression ‘ spirits of just men made perfect ’ (12 23) points in the same direction ; for if the perfection meant is moral, these spirits must have already reached their consummation. If they have reached their con- summation as spirits, however, the writer (as an Alexandrian) seems to teach only a spiritual resurrection. The chief obstacle in the way of this interpretation is the meaning of the words ‘ to perfect’ and ‘perfection.’ See Weiss, Bib. Theol. of NT 123. 3 In a spiritual sense Christ has come already (1 Jn. 5 12): * he that hath the Son hath the life.’ 1378 1377 ESCHATOLOGY ESCHATOLOGY (^) On the last day Jesus himself, as the resurrection and the life (Jn. 11 25), raises his own to the resurrection- life (639/ 44 54 H 25), a life that believers indeed al- ready possess 1 (5 24 f 8 51 ; cp 3 15 f ). Resurrection of all the dead is taught in 5 28/. It is clear, however, from the leading thoughts of the Fourth Gospel that a resurrection of the wicked — i.e., ‘ a resurrection of judgment —can be nothing more than a deliverance of the wicked to eternal death at the last day. 5 28 f. which teach a general resurrection of the dead are most probably interpolated (see Wendt, Lehre Jcsu, 1 249-251; Charles, Doctrine of a Future Life , 370-372). In the Fourth Gospel the resurrection is synonymous with life. Hence in some form the resurrection life follows immediately on death, though its perfect consumma- tion cannot be attained till the final consummation of all things. It is Jesus also who executes the final judgment. This is the result of his unique mediatorial significance. The Father judgeth no man but has committed all judgment to the Son (5 22 27). 2 In a certain sense believers do not incur judgment (3 18 524) ; but this judgment is that which is present and sub- jective, 3 4 and in this respect the world is judged already (3 18 12 31). The final result of this daily secret judgment must how- ever one day become manifest ; believers must appear at the final judgment. They shall, however, have boldness there (1 Jn. 228 417). A man's attitude to Christ determines now, and will determine finally, his relation to God and his destiny (Jn. 3 18/ 939). (c) The final consummation is one of heavenly blessedness. After the resurrection and the final judgment the present world shall pass away (1 Jn. 2 17), and Cnrist will take his own to heaven (Jn. 142 f.)', for they are to be with him where he is (12 26 17 24). Eternal life is then truly consummated. Begun essentially on earth, it is now realised in its fulness and perfected. The faithful now obtain their 'full reward’ (2 Jn. 8). As ‘children of God' they shall, through enjoyment of the divine vision, be transformed into the divine likeness (1 Jn. 3 2 f). 94. The Petrine Eschatology. 7. Acts 3 12-26 may be accepted provisionally as repre- senting the teaching of Peter (cp, however, Acts, § 14) ; nor do we see any reason at all for hesitating to receive 1 Peter as fully Petrine (cp, however, Peter [Epistles], § 5). The passage in Acts is, at any rate, of great historical value as embodying a highly Judaistic view, and as showing how much in this view had eventu- ally to yield in the Christian church to distinctively Christian principles. The speech ascribed to Peter anticipates that the kingdom of God will be realised in the forms of the Jewish theocracy (cp Acts 16), and that the non-Israelites will participate in its blessings only through conversion to Judaism (326). Hence also Jesus is conceived, not as the world-Messiah, but as the predestined Messiah of the Jews, 320 (t 6 v irpoKex eL P L n prison ** * ' (319-21), and the preaching of the gospel to the dead (45/. )A The interpretations are multitudinous. The majority attribute a false sense to the phrase **the spirits in prison. ' This phrase can be interpreted only in two ways. The spirits in question are either those of men in Sh£ol, or the fallen angels mentioned in 2 Pet. 24 Jude 6. In the next place the words ' in prison 1 denote the local condition of the spirits at the time of preaching. Hence, according to the text, Christ ' in the spirit ' ( i. e. , between his death and his resurrection) preached the gospel of redemption (for so only can we render iici}pvi;ev) to human or angelic spirits in the underworld. With the more exact determination of the objects of this mission we are not here concerned ; for, however it be decided, we have here a clear statement that, in the case of certain individuals human or angelic, the scope of redemption is not limited to this life. We have now to deal w'ith 4 5 /. , . . who will have to give account to him that is ready to judge the living and the dead. For with this purpose was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh (body), but live according to God in the spirit. ' The doctrine we found stated above in 3 19-21 is here substantiated, as being part of the larger truth now enunciated. Christ is ready to judge the living and the dead — the latter no less than the former ; for even to the dead was the gospel preached 2 in order that though they were judged in the body they might live the life of God in the spirit. Thus it is taught that when the last judgment takes place the evangelium will already have been preached to all. As to how far this preaching of redemption succeeds, there is no hint in the Petrine teaching. rendered ‘rest’ or ‘relief'; for it is ©\ rendering of niTH in Ex. 8 15. If it is taken so, it finds a perfect parallel in 2 Thess. 1 7 where Paul uses at/etri? in the same connection. This rest ’ is promised also in Asc. Is. 415. 1 For the various conflicting interpretations that have been assigned to these passages from the earliest times, see Dietel- maier, Histona Dogmatic de Descensu Christi ad Inferos litterana (1741 and 1762) ; Glider, Die Lehre vo?i d. Er- scheinung Christi unter den Toten C53) ; Zeyschwitz, De Christi ad Inferos Descensu ('57); Usteri, H inabgefahren zur 0 / -i-i hweit7er > AI inabgefahren zur Holle ; Hofmann, Schriftbeiveis , 2335-341; Salmond, Christian Docir. of Immort. 450-486 (96) ; Spitta, Christi Prcdigt an die Geister ; Bruston, La Descente du Christ aux Enfers (’97) as well as the Commentators in loc. 2 The tense of evij-y-yeAicrflij creates no difficulty here. This preaching is regarded as a completed act in the past, because as 4 7 declares, the end of all things is at hand.' Even if this were not so, the aorist can be used of a continuous practice (cp 1 Cor. 9 20 Jas. 26). K 1379 1380 ESCHATOLOGY ESCHATOLOGY These passages in i Peter are of extreme value. They attest the achievement of the final stage in the moralisation of Sh&dl. The first step in this moralisa- tion was taken early in the second century B.C. , when it was transformed into a place of moral distinctions (§ 3 [3]) having been originally one of merely social or national dis- tinctions (§§ 10-18). This moralisation, however, was very inadequately carried out. According to the Judaistic conception souls in ShSol were conceived as insusceptible of ethical progress. What they were on entering Shgol, that they continued to be till the final judgment. From the standpoint of a true theism can we avoid pro- nouncing this conception mechanical and unethical ? It precludes moral change in moral beings who are under the rule of a perfectly moral being. 8. In the writings of Paul we find no single eschato- logical system. His ideas in this respect were in a 97. The Pauline state of “pmenL began with V.x.hatnlm™ an expectation of the future inherited largely from traditional Judaism ; but under the influence of great fundamental Christian con- ceptions he parted gradually from this and entered on a process of development in the course of which the heterogeneous elements were silently dropped. Four stages are marked out. Even in the last Paul does not seem to have attained finality, though he was still working towards it. It is permissible, therefore, for his readers to develop his thoughts in symmetrical completeness and carry to its conclusion his chain of reasoning. The various stages are attested by (i.) 1 and 2 Thess. (§ 9 8 ); (ii. ) 1 Cor. (§ 99); (iii.) 2 Cor. and Rom. (§ 100); (iv.) Phil., Col., Eph. (§ 101). (i. ) The Epistles to the Thessalonians (on the criticism and contents of which cp Thessalonians) present us 98 1 and the ear ^ est * orm of the P au li ne teaching 2 Thess and eschatolo &y- They constitute, in fact, the Pauline apocalypse. In this apocalypse the salient points are () the resurrection ; and (c) the consummation of the blessed. (a) The parusia and final judgment. — Paul looks forward to the parusia of Christ 1 ( 1 Cor. 4 s 1 1 26 1551 16 22), which will be preceded by severe trials (7 26 28). 2 The interval preceding the parusia will be shortened in order that the faithful may keep themselves free from the entanglements of this life (729, cp Mt. 2422). This second coming will immediately manifest Christ’s glory and bring the world to a close (I7 /. , cp 2 Cor. 1 13 f . ). With it is connected the final judg- ment, at which the judge will be Christ (44/. ). 3 That the second coming is conceived as one of judgment is seen also in the designations elsewhere applied to it (‘ the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ 18 ; ‘ the day,’ 3 13 ; 'the day of the Lord ,’ 5 5). From the above facts it follows that Paul did not expect the intervention of a millennial period between the parusia and the final judgment, as some have inferred from 1 Cor. 15 22-24. According to this passage every power hostile to God in the world is stripped of its influence by the time of the parusia. With the resurrection which ensues thereupon is involved the destruction of the last enemy, death (1526). Thus the parusia, accompanied by the final judgment and the resur- rection, marks the end of the present age and the beginning of the new. The angels are to be judged ; but their judges are the righteous (1 Cor. 63; see, on Bk. of Wisd., above, § 76). (1 b ) The resurrection. — The resurrection of man is connected organically with that of Christ. As God has raised up Christ, so also he will raise us (1 Cor. 6r4, cp 2 Cor. 4 14). The doctrine of man’s resurrection had been denied by certain members of the church of Corinth, who did not question the resurrection of Jesus. To these the apostle rejoined that both were indissolubly united and stood or fell together. The ground of man’s resurrection-hope was his living fellowship with Christ (15 22). The relation manifestly in each case is the same. As it cannot be natural and genealogical it must of necessity be ethical and spiritual. Furthermore, from tbe position of the words («>/ ti 3 ’Afio/x irdvrcs diroBvria'KOVtTLv ) tbe ‘ in Adam ’ must be connected with ‘all.’ Hence it is equivalent to ‘all who are in Adam.’ Similarly ' all in Christ ’= all who are in Christ. 4 Thus the verse means : ‘ as all wbo are ethically in fellowship with Adam die, so all who are spiritually in fellowship with Christ shall be made alive.’ This being made spiritually alive 5 (£u>O7roieuT0ai) involves the ‘being raised’ (cp Rom. 811). There can be no resurrection but in Christ. That the righteous alone are raised we shall be forced to conclude also from Paul's teaching on the origin of the resurrection body in 1535-49- In answer to the question how the dead are raised, Paul rejoins : ‘ thou witless one, that which thou sowest is not brought to life, except it die ’ (15 36). That is, a man’s own experience should overturn the objection that is raised. The death of the seed consists in the decomposition of its material wrappings. By this process the living principle within it is set 1 So also in Phil. S20 jl, yet he had always before him the possibility of meeting deatb. This is perhaps the case in 1 Cor. 1531 /. . ■ • V 2 This is the nearest approach to tbe terrible picture of the future troubles in Thess. 3 As in Thessalonians (see above, § 98). This doctrine appears also in 2 Cor. 5 10 ‘ the judgment seat of Christ.’ The judgment is also spoken of as tbe judgment of God (Rom. 14 10). Cp also 1 Rom. 25 f. 36 14 x 2 . In Rom. 2 16 the two views are recon- ciled ; God will judge the world through Jesus Christ. 4 For similar constructions see 15 18 1 Thess. 4 16. 5 That this is the meaning of £tooTrot£i Cor. 5 (§ 100, c)! *384 ESCHATOLOGY ESCHATOLOGY tion 1 of the righteous dead will take place in a moment, at the last trump (15 52). Then will follow the transfiguration of the righteous living, when the corruptible shall put on incorruption and the mortal immortality (15 53), and the institution of the perfected kingdom of God 2 in a new and glorious world that has taken the place of the present, which is already passing away (1 Cor. 731). That which is perfect has then come ( 13 10), and the blessed, in immediate communion, see God face to face ( 13 12). In this perfected kingdom God has become ‘all in all ' ( 15 2ft). This statement is limited to the blessed. It does not apply to the powers in 152 $ 28. These have heen reduced to unwilling obedience. (iii. ) In 2 Corinthians and Romans we arrive at the third stage in the development of the Pauline - eschatology. The development is ap- 10 ' p 0 ' parent mainly in a change of view an ' as to the time of the resurrection and in enlarged conceptions as to the universal spread and comprehensiveness of Christ's kingdom on earth. We shall range our evidence under four heads. (a) Parusia and judgment. — The parusia is ’ the day of our Lord Jesus Christ ’ (2Cor. 1 14 ; cp Phil. 16 10 2 16). The judge will be Christ (2 Cor. 5 10) — likewise God (Rom. 14 10; see col. 1383, n. 3). All men must appear before the judgment seat (Rom. 14 to, cp 12). The judg- ment will proceed according to works (Rom. 26) ; for if faith is operative it can be only in the sphere of works. The purpose of tbe mission of Christ is ‘ that the righteous demands of the law might be fulfilled in us who live according to the spirit, not the flesh ' (Rom. 84). We are wbat we make ourselves. Destiny is related to character as harvest to seed- time (Gal. 6 7 f.). Every man bears in his character his own reward and his own punishment (2 Cor. 5 10). Hence, since character is the creation of will, arises the all-importance of the principle that rules the will. Retribution, present and future, follows in the line of a man’s works (2 Cor. 11 15). 3 (£) Universal spread of Christ' s kingdom on earth . — Between the writing of 1 and 2 Thessalonians and that of Romans we have to place a great crisis of thought. In the earlier epistles, as we have seen, Paul looks forward to a great apostasy and the revelation of the ’ man of sin ' as the immediate precursor of the parusia. In Rom. 11, on the other hand, he proclaims the inner and progressive transformation of mankind through the Gospel ; the conversion of the entire Jewish and non- Jewish worlds is the immediate prelude of the advent of Christ. The ‘unbelieving’ Jews of to-day are indeed as ‘vessels of wrath' ( 922 ), hastening to destruction. This temporary destruction of the race, however, has brought about the * com- pletion ( ir\rjpu>p.a ) of the nations,' and when the ‘nations' have entered Christ’s kingdom, then ‘ all Israel shall be saved ’ ( 11 25 f). God has thus shaped tbe history of both Jew and Gentile ’in order that he might have mercy upon all * (Rom. 11 32). (c) The resurrection — the immediate sequel of de- parture from this life. — We have discovered in the earlier epistles certain inconsistencies in regard to the time of the resurrection. Although Paul formally adjourns this event to the parusia, his teaching with regard to the resurrection body is implicitly at variance with such a belief (§ 99, b). By the time when he wrote the second of the epistles to Corinth he had come to a conscious breach with the older view. The main evidence for this is found in 2 Cor. 5 1-8 (where a specially careful translation is required ; see e.g. , Weizsacker’s). In v. 4 Paul declares his wish to live till the parusia in order that he may escape the dissolution of the earthly body and be transformed alive. In other verses he faces the possibility of death, and comforts himself and his readers with the prospect before them. When we die we have (^o/xev) — we come into possession of — -an immortal body in heaven. 1 Since the resurrection is possible only through living fellow- ship with Christ, there can be no resurrection of the wicked. 2 The phrase ’ kingdom of God ' is used by Paul to denote the kingdom of the consummation. In a few cases, however, he applies it to tbe kingdom as it is at present heing realised on earth (1 Cor. 4 20 Rom. 14 17). Even here Weiss argues that the passages refer to the kingdom not in its realisation but in its essence. In Col. 1 13 the present kingdom is called ‘the kingdom of his dear son.' 3 The retributive character of the judgment is expressed in still sharper terms in the later epistles (see Col. 3 25 Eph. 6s). 138S That this is a real, not an ideal possession to be realised at the parusia, follows from the date assigned for our becoming possessed of it. Ideally, the faithful receive their immortal bodies at the time of their election (Rom. >s 29) ; actually, Paul now declares, at death. This idea of the future body being a divine gift in no way contradicts tbe teaching in 1 Cor. 16 35-49; it forms its complement and completion. We have already seen (§ ^9, col. 1384, n.) that whereas, regarded from our usual stand- point, the new body is the result of a secret vital process, re- garded from Paul’s standpoint it may be called a divine gift. Similarly the glorified body is, in one aspect, the result of the action of the human spirit itself divinely quickened, in another an independent gift of God. In 1 Cor. 1535-49 view that the resurrection follows immediately on the death of the faithful is implied ; in 2 Cor. 5 1-8 it is categorically stated. Of Paul's change of view we naturally expect to find further evidence in his references to the experiences of the faithful at the parusia, and such surely we find in Rom. 8 19 : 1 the earnest longing of the created world waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. ' At the second coming, just as there will be a revelation of Christ (1 Cor. I7 2 Thess. I7) — that is, a manifestation of the glory he already possesses — so there will be a manifesta- tion of the glory already possessed by the faithful. Thus Paul speaks no longer of a resurrection of the faithful to glory at the parusia, but of a manifestation of the glory they already possess. Glory (So£a) is to be their clothing. In Col. 3 4 the manifestation of Christ and that of his people at his parusia are expressly connected. (iv. ) In Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians 1 we have the final stage in the development of the Pauline eschatology, that which deals with the cosmic significance of Christ. In the 101. Phil., Col., and Eph. ear ^ er e pi s ties, whilst the creation of the world was effected through the Son (1 Cor. 86), its consummation was to be realised in the Father, when the Son had resigned to him his mediatorial kingdom (1 Cor. 1524-28). In these epistles not only is the Son the creative agent and the principle of cohesion (o-vv€ time of tbe : (1) at parusia, 98 (c), 99 {b) (2) at death — (a) implied, 99 (b) (fi) directly taught, 1 00(c) Retribution in Ezekiel, 24 Revelation of the sons of God, 100 (c) Sheol : I. in earlier writings : (1) original conception, 11 psychical activity, 16 later, destruction, 17 (2) for righteous tempo- rary, for others eternal, 28, 50 (3) for very good and bad, temporary, 50 (4) for wicked only, 31 ./l II. in apocalyptic and apoc- ryphal literature, 63 (3), 70(3X81(3): (1) eternal, for all, 55 f. (2) three modifications: (a) 59 (see Apocalyp- tic, 27); (b), 69; (c), 78 (111.) 81 T389 1390 ESDRAELON ESDRAS (3) final abfcde of fire, 70 (? «i. (*)) 111. in NT, 103 (1) intermediate *, moral change possible, 96 (2) for wicked only; inter- mediate, 88 (n. 5) Sihylline Oracles, 58 (n. 5) Soul in OT : — I. primitive Semitic concep- 1 tion — (1) identified with the blood, 12 seat of personality, 13 almost = spirit, 19 conscious after death, 16 (a), is (2) later ; extinguished at death, 16 (b) II. after rise of belief in immortality — in Job, 28 individual immortality in Pss., 31/ in apocalyptic literature — almost identical with spirit, 63, 70, 81 pre-existent, 75/r Soul in NT — identical with the spirit, 102 Pauline = mere functions of body, 102 Spirit — primitive conception : almost = soul, 19 later view, 20 in apocalyptic literature = soul ; descends to Sbeol, 63, 70, 81 not = soul, 63 in NT— = SOul, 102 Pauline ; immaterial per- sonality ; deserves death, 102 Tartarus, 89 I Teraphim, 4 Testament xii. Patriarchs, 61 Tobit, Book of, 56 Universal ism in Jeremiah and later, 42-44 Wisdom, Book of, 76 Yah we : early religion, 21, 17 (n. 1) Zechariah, 45 Zephaniah, 39 ESDRAELON, or, rather, as RV, Esdrelon, or Esrelon, 1 a place ' nigh unto Dotsea [Dothan], which is over against the great ridge 2 of Judsea’ (Judith 3 9), and ’ over against ' which was Cyamon 3 (73 RV). Esrelon is the Grsecised form of * Jezreel,' the name of tbe well- known city at the E. end of the great central plain of Palestine. In modern books * Esdraelon ’ is sometimes used for the * plain of Esdraelon,’ a phrase which is not exactly accurate (see Jezreel i., § 2), but can hardly now be set aside. The phrases ‘ the great plain* (to fieya ir efitov E., Judith Is ; to irtbCov to jueya, 1 Macc. 12 49) and ‘ the great plain of E.' occur in the Apocrypha for the region called elsewhere 1 the bite a of Megiddo’ (TOD nypa, 2 Ch. 35 22 ; jTOD 'l, Zech.l2n). A nyp3 hik'd (from yp3 ‘ to cleave ') is a level tract surrounded by hills (see Vale, 2) ; the term accurately describes this central plain, which is like a great gap ‘cleft asunder’ among the hills. Esdraelon (now called Merj ibn 'Amir, or ' meadow of the son of 'Amir ’ ) is, in form, triangular ; the base on the east extending fifteen miles, from Jenin to Tabor ; one side, formed by the hills of Galilee, is 12 m. long, and the other, formed by tbe mountains of Samaria, 18 m. The apex is a narrow pass opening into the plain of Acre. (On the five gateways of Esdraelon, see GASm. HG 390 /). This broad plain has for centuries attracted, as if by a spell, both nomad tribes and civilized hosts, who have coveted the rich lands of Palestine. See Galilee (map of Galilee and Esdraelon). Three eloquent pages are devoted by G. A. Smith 4 to the historic scenes of Esdraelon, with the object of conveying, not so much the dry historic facts, as the impression which this pageant of emhattled hosts is fitted to produce. To the hihlical student, however, two memories dwarf all the others. It was in this plain that Barak won his famous victory (Judg. if); here, too, that Josiah received his mortal wound (2 K. 2329). Whether the apocalyptic seer expected the kings of the earth to assemble in the latter days on the mountains of Megiddo, is a difficult problem. See Armageddon. Let it be also noticed tbat one whose conquests were moral, not material, was no stranger to Esdraelon ; the * city called Nain ' (Lk. 7 11) was situated to the NE. of the great plain. Esdraelon lies 250 feet below the sea -level, and is extremely fertile. The rich, coarse grass gives a pleas- ing aspect to the plain in spring-time, and yet the land is for the most part untouched by husbandry. What it might yield under better agricultural conditions is shown by the tall stalks of grain which spring up wherever corn is cultivated (W. Ewing, in Hastings, DB I757 b . ). The only important stream is the Kishon, the southern affluents of which come from near Jenin, whilst the northern branch rises near cl-Mezra'a, SW of Mt. Tabor (cp 'the torrent-course of Kishon,' Judg. 413). This drains the Great Plain, and falls into the sea at Haifa. There are numerous springs on the NE and W. Tbe most noteworthy is that of Jenin (seeEN-GANNiM, 2), 1 0 eaSprj\(iiv ; but in Judith 1 8 e