exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/2400.html

112 lines
332 KiB
HTML
Raw Permalink Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[2401]='Creature`kre\'-tur: The word "creature," as it occurs in the New Testament, is the translation and also the exact English equivalent of the Greek ktisis, or ktisma, from ktizo, "to create." In the Old Testament, on the other hand, it stands for words which have in the original no reference to creation, but which come from other roots. Nephesh, "living creature" (literally, "a breathing thing"), occurs in the accounts of the Creation and the Flood and at the close of the lists of clean and unclean animals in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,46);">Le 11:46</a>. Chay, "living creature" (literally, "a living thing"), occurs 13 times in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,\'1-\');">Eze 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,\'1-\');">3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,\'1-\');">10</a> (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CREATURE,+LIVING">CREATURE, LIVING</a>). Sherets, "moving creature" (literally, "a swarming thing," generally rendered "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CREEPING+THING">creeping thing</a>," which see), occurs once in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,20);">Ge 1:20</a>. \'Ochim, "doleful creatures," occurs once only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a>. It appears to be an onomatopoetic word referring to the mournful sounds emitted by the animals in question. From the context it is fair to suppose that owls may be the animals referred to.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OWL">OWL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CREATION">CREATION</a>`37';
isbe[2402]='Creature, Living`(chayyah; zoon): "Living creature" (chayyah) is the designation of each of the composite figures in Ezekiel\'s visions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,5,13);">Eze 1:5, 13</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,13);">3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,15,17,20);">10:15, 17, 20</a>) and, the Revised Version (British and American), of the similar beings in the visions of the Apocalypse, instead of the extremely unfortunate translation of zoon in the King James Version by "beasts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,6);">Re 4:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,6);">5:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,1);">6:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,11);">7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,3);">14:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,7);">15:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,4);">19:4</a>), which, however, went back to Wycliff, in whose time the word had not the low meaning which "beast," "beastly" have with us; hence, he translates <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,44);">1Co 15:44</a>, "It is sowen beestli body," meaning simply animal (see Trench\'s Select Glossary); in Revelation "the beasts of the earth," the "beasts" that came up, the notable "beast" that men worshipped, represent the Greek therion, "a wild beast."<P>The "living creatures" in Ezekiel\'s vision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,5);">Eze 1:5</a>ff) were four in number, "with the general appearance of a man, but each with four faces and four wings, and straight legs with the feet of an ox. Under their wings are human hands, and these wings are so joined that they never require to turn. The front face is that of a man; right and left of this are the faces of a lion and (of) an ox, and behind, that of an eagle...out of the midst of them gleam fire, torches, lightnings, and connected with them are four wheels that can turn in every direction, called whirling wheels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,12,13);">Eze 10:12-13</a>). Like the creatures, these are alive, covered with eyes, the sign of intelligence; the spirit of the living creatures is in them. They are afterward discovered by the prophet to be cherubim" (Schultz, Old Testament Theology, II, 233). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHERUBIM">CHERUBIM</a>. In Ezekiel\'s vision they seem to be the bearers of the throne and glory of God; the bearers of His presence and of His revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,3);">Eze 9:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,3);">10:3</a>). They also sound forth His praise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,12);">Eze 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,2);">10:2</a>). (See Schultz as above.)<P>The four living creatures in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,6);">Re 4:6</a> are not under the throne but "in the midst of the throne" (the American Revised Version, margin "before"; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,17);">Re 7:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,6);">Re 5:6</a>) and "round about the throne." They are also cherubim, and seem to represent the four beings that stand at the head of the four divisions of the creation; among the untamed animals the lion; among cattle the calf or ox; among birds the eagle; among all created beings the man. It gives "a perfect picture of true service, which should be as brave as the lion, patient as the ox, aspiring as the eagle, intelligent as man" (Milligan in the place cited.). They represent the powers of Nature<72>of the creation, "full of eyes" as denoting its permeation with the Divine Reason, the wings signifying its constant, ready service, and the unceasing praise the constant doing of God\'s will. The imagery is founded on Ezekiel as that had been modified in apocalyptic writings and as it was exalted in the mind of the Seer of Patmos.``185';
isbe[2403]='Credit`kred\'-it (pisteuein; 1Macc 10:46 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "gave no credence"; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 18:6</span> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "trusted"; 1Macc 1:30 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "credence"): In the modern commercial sense the noun "credit" does not occur in the canonical Scriptures or in the Apocrypha.``1';
isbe[2404]='Creditor`kred\'-i-ter:<P>(a) nosheh, participle of nashah: <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,24);">Ex 22:24</a> (English translation: 25); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,1);">2Ki 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,1);">Isa 50:1</a>; translated "extortioner," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,11);">Ps 109:11</a>; "taker of usury," <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,2);">Isa 24:2</a> the King James Version;<P>(b) malweh, participle of lawah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,2);">Isa 24:2</a> the Revised Version (British and American), the King James Version "lender";<P>(c) ba\'al mashsheh yadho: "lord of the loan of his hand," <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,2);">De 15:2</a>;<P>(d) danistes: <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,41);">Lu 7:41</a>, "creditor" the King James Version, "lender" the Revised Version (British and American); compare further danistos, Sirach 29:28, "lender" the King James Version, "money-lender" the Revised Version (British and American):<P>In the ideal social system of the Old Testament, debts are incurred only because of poverty, and the law protected the poor debtor from his creditor, who in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,25);">Ex 22:25</a> is forbidden to demand interest, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,2);">De 15:2</a> to exact payment in view of the nearness of the year of release. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,1);">2Ki 4:1</a> shows that the actual practice was not so considerate, and in consequence the creditor fell into bad repute. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,11);">Ps 109:11</a> he is the extortioner; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',29,13);">Pr 29:13</a> the oppressor is evidently the creditor, though a different word is used; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',22,7);">Pr 22:7</a>. In Sirach 29:28 the importunity of the creditor is one of the hardships of the poor man of understanding. The actual practice of the Jews may be gathered from <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,1);">Ne 5:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',34,8);">Jer 34:8</a>ff; and Sirach 29:1-11.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEBT">DEBT</a>`13';
isbe[2405]='Creed; Creeds`kred:<p><b>I. SCRIPTURAL BASIS</b><P class="in15">1. In the Old Testament<P class="in15">2. In the New Testament<6E>Gospels<P class="in15">3. In the Epistles<P class="in30">(1) Paul<P class="in30">(2) Later Writings<P class="in30">(3) Hebrews<p><b>II. HISTORICAL FORMS</b><P class="in15">1. The Apostles\' Creed<P class="in15">2. The Nicene Creed<P class="in30">(1) Origin, Date, Character<P class="in30">(2) "Filioque" Clause<P class="in15">3. The Athanasian Creed<P class="in30">(1) Authorship<P class="in30">(2) Question of Imposture<P class="in30">(3) Value and Features<P class="in15">4. The Reformation Creeds<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>By "creed" we understand the systematic statement of religious faith; and by the creeds of the Christian church we mean the formal expression of "the faith which was delivered unto the saints." The word is derived from the first word of the Latin versions of the Apostles\' Creed, and the name is usually applied to those formulas known as the Apostles\', the Nicene and the Athanasian creeds.<P>In this article we shall first indicate the Scriptural foundation and rudimentary Biblical statements upon which the distinctive dogmas of the church are based; and, secondly, briefly describe the origin and nature of the three most important symbols of belief which have dominated Christian thought.<p>I. Scriptural Basis.<P>There are three forms in which the religious instinct naturally expresses itself<6C>in a ritual, a creed and a life. Men first seek to propitiate the Deity by some outward act and express their devotion in some external ceremony. Next they endeavor to explain their worship and to find a rationale of it in certain facts which they formulate into a confession; and lastly, not content with the outward act or the verbal interpretation of it, they attempt to express their religion in life.<P>Pagan religion first appears in the form of a rite. The worshipper was content with the proper performance of a ceremony and was not, in the earliest stage at least, concerned with an interpretation of his act. The myths, which to some extent were an attempt to rationalize ritual, may be regarded as the earliest approach to a formulated statement of belief. But inasmuch as the myths of early pagan religion are not obligatory upon the reason or the faith of the worshipper, they can scarcely be regarded as creeds. Pagan religion, strictly speaking, has no theology and having no real historical basis of facts does not possess the elements of a creed. In this respect it is distinguished from revealed religion. This latter rests upon facts, the meaning and interpretation of which are felt to be necessary to give to revelation its values and authority.<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>Even in the Old Testament there are not wanting the germs of a creed. In the Decalogue we have the beginnings of the formulation of belief, and in the proclamation, "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God is one Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,4);">De 6:4</a>), we have what may be regarded as the symbol of the Old Testament faith and the earliest attempt to enunciate a doctrine.<P>2. In the New Testament<6E>Gospels:<P>It is to the New Testament, however, we must turn to find the real indications of such a statement of belief as may be designated a creed. We must remember that Christ lived and taught for a time before any attempt was made to portray His life or to record His sayings. The earliest writings are not the Gospels, but some of the Epistles, and it is to them we must look for any definite explanation of the facts which center in the appearance of Christ upon the earth. At the same time in the sequence of events the personality and teaching of Jesus come first, and in the relation to Him of His disciples and converts and in their personal confessions and utterances of faith we have the earliest suggestions of an expression of belief. The confession of Nathanael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,49);">Joh 1:49</a>), "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God," and still more the utterance of Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,16);">Mt 16:16</a>), "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and the exclamation of Thomas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,28);">Joh 20:28</a>), contain the germ of a creed. It is to be noted that all these expressions of belief have Christ as their object and give utterance with more or less explicitness to a conviction of His Divine nature and authority.<P>3. In the Epistles:<P>(1) Paul:<P>But while these sayings in the Gospels were no doubt taken up and incorporated in later interpretations, it is to the Epistles that we must first go, for an explanation of the facts of Christ\'s person and His relation to God and man. Paul\'s Epistles are really of the nature of a confession and manifesto of Christian belief. Communities of believers already existed when the apostle directed to them his earliest letters. In their oral addresses the apostles must have been accustomed not only to state facts which were familiar to their hearers, but also to draw inferences from them as to the meaning of Christ and the great truths centering in His person<6F>His incarnation, His death and resurrection (as we may see from the recorded sermons of Peter and Paul in Acts). It is to these facts that the Epistles appeal. It was at once natural and necessary that some expression of the faith once delivered to the saints should be formulated for a body whose members were pledged to each other and united for common action, and whose bond of union was the acknowledgment of "one Lord, one faith." Paul recognizes it as vital to the very spirit of religion that some definite profession of belief in Christ should be made: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,9);">Ro 10:9</a>). These words would seem to imply that a confession of the Deity, the atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus was the earliest form of Christian creed.<P>It must also be observed that from the very first the confession of faith seems to have been connected with the administration of baptism. Already in the story of the Ethiopian eunuch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,37);">Ac 8:37</a> the King James Version) (a passage indeed of doubtful genuineness but attested by Irenaeus and therefore of great antiquity) we find that as a condition of baptism the convert is asked to declare his belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,12);">1Ti 6:12</a>; (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,23);">Heb 10:23</a>), "Lay hold on the life eternal, whereunto thou wast called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses," may refer to a confession required only of those who were being ordained: but the context leads us to infer that it was a baptismal vow asked of members not less than of ministers of the church. The probability is that the earliest form of creed reflected little more than Christ\'s final command to baptize all men "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>), or perhaps simply "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,5);">Ac 19:5</a>). The verse in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,37);">Ac 8:37</a> the King James Version, though disputed by some, is instructive in this connection. Faith in Jesus Christ was regarded as the cardinal point of the New Revelation and may have been taken to imply a relation to the Father as well as a promise of the Holy Spirit.<P>It is evident that the creeds that have come down to us are mainly an expression of the doctrine of the Trinity as embodied in the original baptismal formula derived from Our Lord\'s commission. Already indeed in some places of the Old Testament this doctrine is foreshadowed; but it is first clearly incorporated in the Lord\'s command just mentioned and in the benediction of Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,14);">2Co 13:14</a>), and subsequently in the Christian doxologies. Some scholars have preferred to find traces in the later writings of the New Testament of a more definite summary of belief: as in the allusion to the form of sound words (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,13);">2Ti 1:13</a>), the "deposit" or "good deposit" which was to be kept (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,20);">1Ti 6:20</a> the Revised Version, margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,14);">2Ti 1:14</a> the Revised Version, margin); also in "the faithful words" enumerated in these epistles (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,15);">1Ti 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,1);">3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,8,9);">4:8-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,11);">2Ti 2:11</a>); and in the remarkable passage in the beginning of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,\'1-\');">Heb 6</a> in which the elementary doctrines of the Christian religion are enumerated; first on the subjective side, repentance and faith, and then objectively, the resurrection and the judgment. There are also brief summaries in several of the Pauline Epistles of what the apostle must have considered to be essential tenets. Thus for example we have the death, burial and resurrection of Christ mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,3);">1Co 15:3</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,3);">Ro 1:3</a>f. Such summaries or confessions of personal faith as in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,13);">2Th 2:13</a>f are frequent in Paul\'s writings and may correspond to statements of truth which the apostle found serviceable for catechetical purposes as he moved from one Christian community to another.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CATECHIST">CATECHIST</a>.<P>(2) Later Writings:<P>It is not indeed till a much later age<67>the age of Irenaeus and Tertullian (175-200 AD)<29>that we meet with any definite summary of belief. But it cannot be doubted that these Scriptural passages to which we have referred not only served as the first forms of confession but also contributed the materials out of which the articles of the church\'s faith were formulated. As soon as Christian preaching and teaching were exercised there would be a felt need for explicit statement of the truths revealed in and through Jesus Christ. It may be said that all the main facts which were subsequently embodied in the creeds have their roots in the New Testament Scripture and especially in the Pauline Epistles. The only exception which might be made is in the case of the virgin birth. It does not lie within the scope of this article to comment upon the silence of the epistles on this subject. This, however, we may say, that the omissions of Paul\'s reference to it does not prove it untrue. It only proves at most that it was not a part of the ground upon which the Christ was commended to the first acceptance of faith. But though no direct allusion to the virgin birth occurs in Paul\'s writings the truth which gives spiritual value to the fact of the virgin conception, namely, God\'s new creation of humanity in Christ, is a vital and fundamental element in the faith both of Paul and of the whole early church. The Christian life is essentially a new creation (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,17);">2Co 5:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,15);">Ga 6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,4);">Ro 6:4</a>) in Jesus Christ, the second Adam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'12-21\');">Ro 5:12-21</a>), who is from heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,47);">1Co 15:47</a>). Into this spiritual context the facts recorded by Matthew and Luke introduce no alien or incompatible element (compare W. Richmond, The Creed in the Epistles of Paul; Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ). And therefore the story of Christ\'s birth as we have it in the Synoptics finds a natural place in the creed of those who accept the Pauline idea of a new creation in Christ.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VIRGIN+BIRTH">VIRGIN BIRTH</a>.<P>(3) Hebrews:<P>It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the evidences of development in the main doctrines of the gospel, but however the later ages may have elaborated them, the leading tenets of the subsequent faith of the church<63>the doctrine of the Trinity; our Lord\'s divinity and real humanity; His atoning death and resurrection; the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and of the catholicity and unity of the church<63>stand clear and distinct in these earliest Scriptural sources.<p>II. Historical Forms.<P>Faith implies a creed as a confession and testimony. Such a confession and testimony answers to a natural impulse of the soul. Hence, a profession of faith is at once a personal, a social and a historical testimony. A formal creed witnesses to the universality of faith, binds believers together, and unites the successive ages of the church. It is the spontaneous expression of the life and experience of the Christian society. As the purpose of this article is chiefly to indicate the Scriptural sources of the creeds rather than to discuss their origin and history, we can only briefly describe the main historical forms which have prevailed in the Christian church.<P>1. The Apostles\' Creed:<P>The Apostles\' Creed, in ancient times called the Roman Creed, though popularly regarded as the earliest, was probably not the first in chronological order. Its origin and growth are involved in considerable obscurity (see separate article, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOSTLES\'+CREED+THE">APOSTLES\' CREED</a>; and compare Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica).<P>2. The Nicene Creed:<P>(1) Origin, Date, Character:<P>The Nicene Creed, called sometimes "the Creed of the 318" from the number of bishops reputed to have been present, was authorized at the Council of Nice in 325 AD, and completed by the Council of Constantinople in 381, when the clauses which follow the mention of the Holy Ghost were added. The opinions of Arius at the beginning of the 4th century created such unrest as to call forth not only the admonition of bishops but also the intervention of the emperor Constantine, who, as a professed Christian, had become the patron of the church. The efforts of the emperor, however, had no effect in allaying the dissensions of the church at Alexandria, which, upon the banishment of Arius, spread throughout eastern Christendom. It was decided, therefore, to convoke a general council of bishops in which the Catholic doctrine should be once and for all formally declared. This, the first ecumenical council, met at Nicea in Bithynia in 325 AD. There is no detailed record of the proceedings. "We do not know whether it lasted weeks or days" (Stanley, Lects on East Ch.). Arius; being only a presbyter, had no seat in the conclave, but was allowed to express his opinions. His chief opponent was Athanasius.<P>(2) "Filioque" Clause:<P>The controversy turned upon the nature of the Son and His relation to the Father. The word homoousios ("of one substance with"), used in the course of the argument with a view of disputeing the extreme orthodox position, became the battleground between the parties. The Arians violently condemned. The Sabellians or Semi-Arians to evade its full force contended for the term homoiousios ("of like substance"). But the majority finally adopted the former expression as the term best suited to discriminate their view of the relation of the Father and Son from the Arian view. The assent of the emperor was gained and the words "being of one substance with the Father" were incorporated into the creed. The clauses descriptive of the Holy Spirit were added or confirmed at a later council (382), and were designed to refute the Macedonian heresy which denied His equality with the Father and Son, and reduced the Holy Spirit to a level with the angels.<P>The phrase "proceedeth from the Father and the Son" is also of historical importance. The last three words are a later addition to the creed by western churches, formally adopted by the Council of Toledo in 589. But when the matter was referred in the 9th century to Leo III he pronounced against them as unauthorized. This interpolation, known as the Filioque, marks the difference still between the Latin and Greek churches. From the 9th century no change has been made in the Nicene Creed. It has remained, without the Filioque clause, the ecumenical symbol of the Eastern Church; and with the addition of that word it has taken its place among the three great creeds of the Western Church.<P>3. The Athanasian Creed:<P>(1) Authorship:<P>The Athanasian Creed, or the Symbolum Quicunque, as it is called, from its opening words, differs entirely in its origin and history from those we have just considered. It is not a gradual growth like the Apostles\' Creed, nor is it the outcome of synodical authority like the Nicene Creed. "When the composition appears for the first time as a document of authority it is cited in its completeness and as the work of the Father whose name it has since, in the most part, borne, although it was not brought to light for many centuries after his death" (Lumby, History of the Creeds). Without going into the full and intricate evidence which has been brought forward by scholars to prove that it is incorrectly attributed to Athanasius, it is sufficient to observe that both authorship and date are uncertain. Dr. Swainson proves in the most conclusive manner that the existence of this creed cannot be traced before the age of Charlemagne, and that its origin may probably be ascribed to then existing demand for a more detailed exposition of the faith than was to be found in the Apostles\' Creed. It is nowhere mentioned at synods before the end of the 8th century, whose special business it was to discuss the very matters which were afterward embodied within it in such detail.<P>(2) Question of Imposture:<P>The question of imposture has been raised with regard to this creed, and it has been maintained by some that it was originally a forgery of the same nature as the "false decretals" and the equally famous "Donation of Constantine" (Swainson). But it may be said that the word "imposture" is incorrectly applied to "a natural and inevitable result of the working of the mind of the Western Church toward a more elaborate and detailed confession of its Trinitarian faith" (Tulloch, Encyclopedia Brit). The imposture, if there was any, consisted not in the origin of the creed but in the ascription of it to a name and a date with which it had no connection. This was done no doubt to secure for it credit and authority, and was supposed to be justified by its special doctrinal import.<P>(3) Value and Features:<P>This symbol, though too compendious and elaborate to serve the purposes of a creed, itself standing in need of exposition and explanation, has its value as representing a further stage of doctrinal development. If the Apostles\' Creed determined the nature of God and the Nicene Creed defined the character and relation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Athanasian Creed may be regarded as establishing the great doctrine of the Trinity. Its distinguishing features are the monitory clauses and its uncompromising statement of the value of the Christian faith. The other creeds set forth the mercies of Revelation; this adds the danger of rejecting them. The others declare the faith; this insists also on its necessity. This, also, alone insists upon the necessity of good works (Yonge, An Exposition of the Apostles\' Creed). The closing warning is based on Christ\'s own words: "Depart from me," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,41,46);">Mt 25:41, 46</a>). If this creed is solemn in its admonitions, we must remember that so also are the Gospels. On the whole it is a comprehensive summary of truth, laying down the rule of faith as a foundation, following out its issues of good or evil. True belief is closely connected with right action.<P>With the adoption of the "Athanasian" symbol, the creed-making of the early and medieval church ceases. Of the three mentioned one only in the broadest sense, the Nicene, is Catholic. Neither the Apostles\' nor the Athanasian Creed is known to the Greek or oriental church which remained faithful to the faith settled by the holy Fathers at Nicea. The two others adopted by the West are really gradual growths or consequences from it, without any definite parentage or synodic authority. But the faith as defined at Nicea and ratified by subsequent councils is the only true Catholic symbol of the universal church.<P>4. The Reformation Creeds:<P>With the Reformation a new era of creed-formation began. It will not, however, be necessary to do more than mention some of the confessions of the Reformed churches which consist mainly of elaborations of the original creeds with the addition of special articles designed to emphasize and safeguard the distinctive doctrines and ecclesiastical positions of particular branches of the church. Of this nature are the Confessions of the Lutheran church<63>the Augsburg Confession of 1530; the Genevese or Calvinistic of 1549 consisting of 26 articles, defining particularly the nature of the Sacraments; confessions of the Dutch church confirmed at the Synod of Dort in 1619 and known as the "Decrees of Dort"; and the famous Heidelberg Catechism. To this series of Protestant confessions must be added the 39 Articles of the Church of England and the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is the doctrinal standard not only. of the churches of Scotland, but of the principal Presbyterian churches of Britain and America.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Winer, Doctrines and Confessions of Christendom (translation Clark, 1873): Lumby, History of the Creeds; Swainson, The Nicene and Apostles\' Creeds (1875); Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica (1858); Zahn, Apost. Symb. (1892); Harnack, Apost. Glaubensbekenntnis; Swete, Apostles\' Creed; Hefele, Councils of the Church; Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom. For exposition, and of a more popular nature, may be mentioned the works of Hooker, Barrow, and Beveridge, and especially Bishop Pearson; Westcott, Historic Faith; Norris, Rudiments of Theology; W. W. Harvey, The Three Creeds; J. Eyre Yonge, An Exposition of the Apostles\' Creed (1888); Wilfred Richmond, The Creed in the Epistles of Paul (1909).``2';
isbe[2406]='Creek`krek, colloq. krik (kolpos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,39);">Ac 27:39</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) "bay"): The spot has been identified as the traditional Bay of Paul about 8 miles Northwest of the town of Valetta in the island of Malta.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MELITA">MELITA</a>`1';
isbe[2407]='Creeping Thing`krep\'-ing (remes, sherets; herpeton): Remes and sherets, with the root verbs ramas and sharats, are used without any sharp distinction for insects and other small creatures. Ramas means clearly "to creep," and is used even of the beasts of the forest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,20);">Ps 104:20</a>), while sharats is rather "to swarm." But in at least one passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,44);">Le 11:44</a>), we have the noun, sherets, with the verb ramas; "with any manner of creeping thing that moveth upon the earth." The principal passages where these words occur are the accounts of the Creation and the Flood and the references to unclean animals in Leviticus and in the vision of Peter. In the last we have the word herpeton as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew words (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,12);">Ac 10:12</a>). Winged creeping things (sherets ha-\'oph, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,20);">Le 11:20</a>ff), as well as the wingless, are unclean, but an exception is made in favor of the locusts, "which have legs above their feet, where-with to leap upon the earth."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INSECTS">INSECTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOCUST">LOCUST</a>`37';
isbe[2408]='Cremation`kre-ma\'-shun (compare saraph, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,15);">Jos 7:15</a>, etc., "shall be burnt with fire"; kaio, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,3);">1Co 13:3</a>, "If I give my body to be burned," etc.): Cremation, while the customary practice of the ancient Greeks, and not unknown among the Romans, was certainly not the ordinary mode of disposing of the dead among the Hebrews or other oriental peoples. Even among the Greeks, bodies were often buried without being burned (Thuc. i. 134,6; Plato Phaedo 115 E; Plut. Lyc. xxvii). Cicero thought that burial was the more ancient practice, though among the Romans both methods were in use in his day (De leg. ii. 22, 56). Lucian (De luctu xxi) expressly says that, while the Greeks burned their dead, the Persians buried them (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BURIAL">BURIAL</A>, and compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,\'12-14\');">2Sa 21:12-14</a>). In the case supposed by <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,10);">Amos 6:10</a>, when it is predicted that Yahweh, in abhorrence of "the excellency of Jacob," shall "deliver up the city," and, "if there remain ten men in one house, that they shall die," and "a man\'s kinsman (ARVm) shall take him up, even he that burneth him," etc., the suggestion seems to be that of pestilence with accompanying infection, and that this, or the special judgment of Yahweh, is why burning is preferred. When Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,3);">1Co 13:3</a>) speaks of giving his body to be burned, he is simply accommodating his language to the customs of Corinth. (But see Plutarch on Zarmanochegas, and C. Beard, The Universal Christ.)<P>How far religious, or sanitary, or practical reasons were influential in deciding between the different methods, it is impossible to say. That bodies were burned in times of pestilence in the Valley of Hinnom at Jerusalem is without support (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,\'11-16\');">Eze 39:11-16</a>). The "very great burning" at the burial of Asa (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,14);">2Ch 16:14</a>) is not a case of cremation, but of burning spices and furniture in the king\'s honor (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',34,5);">Jer 34:5</a>). Nor is <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,2);">1Ki 13:2</a> a case in point; it is simply a prophecy of a king who shall take the bones of men previously buried, and the priests of the high places that burn incense in false worship, and cause them to be burned on the defiled altar to further pollute it and render it abominable.<P>There is in the New Testament no instance of cremation, Jewish, heathen or Christian, and clearly the early Christians followed the Jewish practice of burying the dead (see Tert., Apol., xlii; Minuc. Felix, Octav., xxxix; Aug., De civ. Dei, i.12,13). Indeed, cremation has never been popular among Christians, owing largely, doubtless, to the natural influence of the example of the Jews, the indisputable fact that Christ was buried, the vivid hope of the resurrection and the more or less material views concerning it prevalent here and there at this time or that. While there is nothing anti-Christian in it, and much in sanitary considerations to call for it in an age of science, it is not likely that it will ever become the prevailing practice of Christendom.``47';
isbe[2409]='Crescens`kres\'-enz (Kreskes, "increasing"): An assistant of Paul, mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,10);">2Ti 4:10</a> as having gone to Galatia. That he was one of the Seventy, and that he founded the church in Vienna in Gaul, are traditions without any trustworthy basis.``1';
isbe[2410]='Crescents`kres\'-ents (saharonim): Moon-shaped necklaces (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,21,26);">Jud 8:21, 26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,18);">Isa 3:18</a>).``1';
isbe[2411]='Crete`kret (Krete, ethnic Kretes, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,11);">Ac 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,12);">Tit 1:12</a>): An island bounding the Aegean Sea on the south. It stretches from 34 degrees 50\' to 35 degrees 40\' North latitude and from 23 degrees 30\' to 26 degrees 20\' East long. With Cythera on the north and Carpathos and Rhodos on the Northeast, it forms a continuous bridge between Greece and Asia Minor. The center of the island is formed by a mountain chain rising to a height of 8,193 ft. in Mt. Ida, and fringed with low valleys beside the coast. There are no considerable rivers; the largest, the Metropole, on the south, is a tiny stream, fordable anywhere. An island of considerable extent (156 miles long, and from 7 to 30 miles broad), in several districts very fertile and possessing one or two good harbors, it seems marked out by its position for an important role in the history of the eastern Mediterranean. But never since an age which was already legendary when Greek history began has Crete occupied a dominating position among the powers of the surrounding continents. Internal dissensions, due in ancient times to the diversity of races inhabiting its soil (Eteocretans<6E>the original inhabitants<74>Pelasgians, Acheans, Cydonians and Dorians), and in modern times to the fact that a large minority of the population has accepted the Ottoman religion along with Ottoman government, have kept Crete in a position of political inferiority throughout the historical period.<P>1. Early History:<P>Mt. Ida in Crete was famous in Greek legend as the birthplace of Zeus. The half-legendary, half-historical King Minos was said to be the son of Zeus, and to have derived from his father the wisdom to which, by a type of myth common in Greek lands, the constitution of the Cretan cities was ascribed. Minos was accepted as a historical personage by Thucydides and Aristotle, who say that he was the first dynast in Greece to establish dominion on the sea. One of his exploits was the suppression of piracy in Cretan waters, a feat which had to be repeated by the Roman Pompeius at a later period. Aristotle compares the Cretan institutions with those of Sparta; the island was said to have been colonized by Dorians from Peloponnesus (Politics ii.10). The most important cities in Crete were Knossos (whose palace has been excavated with fruitful results by Mr. Arthur Evans), Gortyna, near the Gulf of Messara, and Cydonia, with its river Iardanus. The excavations of Mr. Evans at Knossos and of the Italians at Phastos (near Fair Havens) prove that Crete was a center of Mediterranean civilization in an early age. In the Homeric poems, Crete is said to have contained an hundred cities; at that period the Cretans were still famed as daring sailors. In the classical age of Greek history they never held a leading position. They are mentioned chiefly as traders and mercenary soldiers, skilled especially in archery. During the Hellenistic period Crete remained free. Demetrius Nicator made the island his base of operations before his defeat at Azotus in 148.<P>2. The Jews in Crete:<P>In 141, the Cretan Jews were influential enough to secure the patronage of Rome. They were being oppressed by the people of Gortyna, and appealed to Rome, which granted them protection. In strengthening the position of the Jews, the Romans were copying the Seleucid policy in Asia Minor; both the Seleucids and the Romans found the Jews among their most devoted supporters in their subject states. This interference of Rome in the interest of her future partisans paved the way for her annexation of the island in the following century. From this date, there was a strong and prosperous body of Jews in Crete, and Cretans are mentioned among the strangers present at the Feast of Pentecost in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,11);">Ac 2:11</a>. Its alliance with Mithradates the Great, and the help it gave to the Cilician pirates gave Rome the pretext she desired for making war on Crete, and the island was annexed by. Metellus in 67 BC. With Cyrene on the north coast of Africa, it was formed into a Roman province. When Augustus divided the Empire between the Senate and himself, Crete and Cyrene were sufficiently peaceful to be given to the Senate.<P>3. Later History:<P>They formed one province till the time of Constantine, who made Crete a separate province. The Saracens annexed Crete in 823 AD, but it was recaptured for the Byzantine Empire by Nicephorus Phokas in the following century. From the 13th till the 17th century it was held by the Venetian Republic: from this period dates its modern name "Kandia," which the Venetians gave to the Saracen capital Khandax, and afterward to the whole island. After a desperate resistance, lasting from 1645 to 1669 AD, Crete fell into the hands of the Turks, who still exercise a nominal suzerainty over the island.<P>4. Crete in the Old Testament:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,14);">1Sa 30:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,16);">Eze 25:16</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,5);">Ze 2:5</a>, the Philistines are described as Cherethites, which is usually taken to mean Cretans. The name is connected with Caphtor and the Caphtorim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,23);">De 2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',47,4);">Jer 47:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,7);">Am 9:7</a>). The similarity between the river-names Jordan and Iardanos (Homer Odyssey iii. 292) "about whose streams the Kydones dwelt," has suggested that. Caphtor is to be identified with Cydonia; or possibly it was the name of the whole island. Tacitus believed in an ancient connection between Crete and Palestine; the Jews, he said, were fugitives from Crete, and derived their name Iudaei from Mt. Ida (Hist. v.2). Crete is mentioned in connection with the campaign of Demetrius Nicator, referred to above, in 1Macc 10:67.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CAPHTOR">CAPHTOR</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHERETHITES">CHERETHITES</A>.<P>5. Crete in the New Testament:<P>Crete owes its connection with Pauline history to the accident of a gale which forced the ship carrying Paul to Rome to take shelter on the south coast of the island. In the harbor of Myra, on the coast of Lycia, the centurion in charge of Paul transferred him from the Adramyttian ship which had brought them from Caesarea, to a ship from Alexandria in Egypt, bound for Ostia with a cargo of grain. The fact that the centurion was in virtual command of the ship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,11);">Ac 27:11</a>) proves that it was one of the vessels in the imperial transport service. Leaving Myra they came opposite Cnidus with difficulty, against a head-wind. The ordinary course from Cnidus in good weather was to steer straight for Cythera, but on this occasion the west or northwest winds made this route impracticable, and they sailed under the lee of Crete, whose south coast would shelter them from a northwest gale, and afford occasional protection from a west gale. They passed Salmone, the northeast corner of Crete, with difficulty, and worked round the coast to Fair Havens, a harbor somewhat to the east of Cape Matala. The great Feast fell while they were at Fair Havens; in 59 AD it was On October 5, in the middle of the season when the equinoxes made sailing impossible. Paul advised the centurion to winter in Fair Havens, but the captain wished to reach Phoenix, a harbor farther to the west, where ships from Egypt were accustomed to put in during the stormy season. It was decided to follow the captain\'s advice; but on its way to Phoenix the ship was struck by a northeast wind called Euraquilo, which rushed down from Mt. Ida. The ship was carried out to sea; it managed to run under the lee of Cauda, an island 23 miles west of Cape Matala, where the crew hauled in the boat, undergirded the ship, and slackened sail. On the fourteenth night they were driven on the coast of Malta, and wrecked.<P>The narrative does not state that Paul landed in Crete, but as the ship lay for some time at Fair Havens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,8,9);">Ac 27:8-9</a>) he had plenty of opportunity to land, but not to travel inland. The centurion gave him permission to land at Sidon. Paul left Titus in Crete (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,5);">Tit 1:5</a>); tradition made the latter its first bishop, and patron saint.<P>6. The Cretans:<P>Cretans were present, as noted above, at the Feast of Pentecost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,11);">Ac 2:11</a>). Paul\'s estimate of the Cretan character (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,\'10-16\');">Tit 1:10-16</a>) was the one current in antiquity. Paul quotes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,12);">Tit 1:12</a>) a well-known line of the Cretan poet Epimenides (who lived about 600 BC) on the mendacity of the Cretans. The sentiment was repeated by Callimachus (Hymn to Zeus 8). Other ancient witnesses to the detestation in which the Cretan character was held are Livy xliv.45, and Plutarch Aemilius section 23.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, 320-30. On Crete in Greek and Roman times, consult e.g. Grote, Holm, and Mommsen. A succinct account of the prehistoric archaeology of the island is given in Burrows, The Discoveries in Crete, and Bailkie, The Sea Kings of Crete.``20';
isbe[2412]='Crib`(\'ebhuc): "Crib" translates the Hebrew word \'ebhuc exactly, as it denotes "a barred receptacle for fodder used in cowsheds and foldyards; also in fields, for beasts lying out in the winter." The Hebrew is from a word meaning to feed (\'abhac), and is used in the precise sense of the English word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,9);">Job 39:9</a> of the "crib" of the wild ox, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,4);">Pr 14:4</a>, "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,3);">Isa 1:3</a>, "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master\'s crib."``1';
isbe[2413]='Cricket`krik\'-et (chargol): This occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,22);">Le 11:22</a> (the King James Version "beetle"), and doubtless refers to some kind of locust or grasshopper.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEETLE">BEETLE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOCUST">LOCUST</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INSECTS">INSECTS</a>`1';
isbe[2414]='Crier`kri\'-er (qara\'; compare boao):<P>(1) Neither is this exact word found in English Versions of the Bible, nor a word exactly corresponding to it in the Hebrew Bible, but the character it stands for appears as "one who cries aloud," i.e., proclaims mandates or gives public messages. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,21);">Pr 1:21</a> it is said, "She (Wisdom) crieth in the chief place of concourse." John the Baptist calls himself "the voice of one crying in the wilderness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,23);">Joh 1:23</a>)<29>like a herald going before the king.<P>(2) In the East today every village even has its public crier, selected for his loud or penetrating voice, and appointed to give notice of the fresh orders or mandates of the mudir ("governor") or other authorities. The muezzin of the Moslems, who at the five appointed times of prayer mounts the minaret and calls the faithful to prayer, is another striking example. Something like the ancient "heralds" of the king were the "heralds" of the Middle Ages in Europe who, preceded by trumpeters, made official proclamations:``47';
isbe[2415]='Crime; Crimes`krim, krimz: This. term is used in English as the equivalent of the Hebrew mishpat, "judgment," "verdict" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',7,23);">Eze 7:23</a>); zimmah, "a heinous crime" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,11);">Job 31:11</a>); \'asham = "a fault," "sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,10);">Ge 26:10</a>, English Versions of the Bible "guiltiness"); and Greek aitia, "case," "cause" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,27);">Ac 25:27</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "charges"). In the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,38);">Joh 18:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,4,6);">19:4, 6</a>, the rendition is "fault."<P>egklema, "indictment," "charge" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,16);">Ac 25:16</a> the King James Version) is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "matter." A crime is a transgression against the public right; serious offense against the law; a base weakness or iniquity, all of which are regarded by the Bible as offenses against<P class="in15">(1) God, or<P class="in15">(2) man, or<P class="in15">(3) both.<P>An injury to the creature is regarded as obnoxious to the Creator. Specific forms of crime are the following:<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADULTERY"><b>Adultery</b></a>. See separate article.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASSASSINATION"><b>Assassination</b></a>.<p>This term does not occur in the English Versions of the Bible, but, of course, is included in the more general "to kill," or "to slay" (haragh = "to smite with deadly intent" "destroy," "kill," "murder," "put to death"). The law distinguished between unpremeditated and premeditated slaying, pronouncing a curse upon the latter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,25);">De 27:25</a>). David expresses the deepest abhorrence of such an act (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,\'9-12\');">2Sa 4:9-12</a>). Instances are found recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'15-22\');">Jud 3:15-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,27);">2Sa 3:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,\'5-7\');">4:5-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,28,29);">13:28-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,9,10);">20:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,20);">2Ki 12:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,37);">19:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,38);">Isa 37:38</a>. See also separate article.<P><b>Bestiality</b>.<p>According to Webster: "unnatural connection with a beast." This form of vice was treated by the Mosaic law as something exceedingly loathsome and abhorrent, calling for extreme language in its description and rigorous measures in its punishment. Both the beast and the guilty human were to be put to death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,19);">Ex 22:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,23);">Le 18:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,15,16);">20:15-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,21);">De 27:21</a>), in order, as the Talmud says, to obliterate all memory of the crime.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BLASPHEMY"><b>Blasphemy</b></A>. See separate article.<p><b>Breach of Covenant</b><P>Breach of Covenant (parar \'eth ha-berith). According to Poucher (HDB, article "Crimes"), this term included:<P class="in15">(1) failure to observe the Day of Atonement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,29);">Le 23:29</a>); work on that day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,28);">Le 23:28</a>);<P class="in15">(2) sacrifice of children to Moloch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,3);">Le 20:3</a>);<P class="in15">(3) neglect of circumcision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,14);">Ge 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,26);">Ex 4:26</a>);<P class="in15">(4) unauthorized manufacture of the holy oil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,33);">Ex 30:33</a>);<P class="in15">(5) anointing an alien therewith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,33);">Ex 30:33</a>);<P class="in15">(6) neglect of the Passover (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,13);">Nu 9:13</a>).<P>Note also the following: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,14);">Ge 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'15-44\');">Le 26:15-44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,25);">De 29:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,16,20);">31:16, 20</a>. Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,31);">Ro 1:31</a>) speaks of asunthetoi = "Convenant<6E>breakers."<P><b>Breach of Ritual</b>.<p>A term not found in the Scriptures, but designed to cover a number of acts prohibited by the ceremonial law. They have been exhaustively enumerated by Poucher (HDB, article "Crimes"):<P class="in15">(1) eating blood, whether of fowl or beast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,27);">Le 7:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,14);">17:14</a>);<P class="in15">(2) eating fat of the beast of sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,25);">Le 7:25</a>);<P class="in15">(3) eating leavened bread during the Passover (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,15,19);">Ex 12:15, 19</a>);<P class="in15">(4) failure to bring an offering when an animal is slaughtered for food (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,4);">Le 17:4</a>);<P class="in15">(5) offering sacrifice while the worshipper is under the ban of uncleanness. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,20,21);">Le 7:20-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,3,4,9);">22:3-4, 9</a>);<P class="in15">(6) making holy ointment for private use (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,32,33);">Ex 30:32-33</a>);<P class="in15">(7) using the same for perfume (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,38);">Ex 30:38</a>);<P class="in15">(8) neglect of purification in general (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,13,20);">Nu 19:13, 20</a>);<P class="in15">(9) slaughtering an animal for food away from the door of the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,4,9);">Le 17:4, 9</a>); even the alien must comply, so that the introduction of worship at other places might be avoided;<P class="in15">(10) touching holy things illegally (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,16,20);">Nu 4:16, 20</a> the Revised Version (British and American) "the sanctuary").<P>The punishment for the non-observance of these prohibitions was the "cutting off" from the transgressor\'s people (nikhrath miqqerebh = "cut off from among," i.e. excommunicated).<P><b>Breach of Trust</b>. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRUST,+BREACH+OF">TRUST, BREACH OF</A>.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BRIBERY"><b>Bribery</b></a>. See separate article.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES"><b>Burglary</b></A>.<p>This term does not occur. The corresponding act is defined as "thievery accompanied by breaking," and it places the offender beyond protection from violence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,2);">Ex 22:2</a>). The crime might be committed in various degrees, and to burglarize the "devoted things" was punishable by death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,25);">Jos 7:25</a>), as was also man-stealing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,16);">Ex 21:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,7);">De 24:7</a>).<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEBT"><b>Debt</b></a>. See separate article.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DECEPTION"><b>Deception</b></a>. See separate article.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DISOBEDIENCE"><b>Disobedience</b></a>. See separate article.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION"><b>Divination</b></a>. See separate article.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRUNKENNESS"><b>Drunkenness</b></a>. See separate article.<p><p>Evil Speaking, (Slander)</b>. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EVIL-SPEAKING"><b>SPEAKING EVIL;</b> <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLANDER">Slander</a>.<P><b>Falsehood</b>.<p>Occurs as the rendition of ma\'al = "treachery," "sin," "trespass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',21,34);">Job 21:34</a>); and of sheqer = "a sham," "deceit," "lying" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,13);">2Sa 18:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,14);">Ps 7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,118);">119:118</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',144,8,11);">144:8, 11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,15);">Isa 28:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,4);">57:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,13);">59:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,14);">Jer 10:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,25);">13:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',7,1);">Ho 7:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',2,11);">Mic 2:11</a>). In every case willful perversion of the truth or preference for the untruth is at least presupposed, hence, falsehood always marks an evil disposition, enmity against truth, and hence, against God; consequently is criminal in the fullest sense.<P><b>False Swearing</b>.<p>"Swearing to a lie or falsehood" (sheqer) is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,3,5);">Le 6:3, 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,12);">19:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,2);">Jer 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,9);">7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,4);">Ho 10:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',5,4);">Zec 5:4</a>. From these passages and their context, it appears that this crime was considered in the twofold sense of a wrong against<P class="in15">(1) the neighbor, and<P class="in15">(2) against God, for the oath was an appeal to God as a witness to the truthfulness of the statement; hence, to swear falsely was to represent God as supporting a false statement.<P><b>Fornication</b>.<p>Hebrew, zanah = "to commit adultery," especially of the female, and less frequently of mere fornication, seldom of involuntary ravishment; also used figuratively in the sense of idolatry, the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',21,11);">2Ch 21:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,17);">Isa 23:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,26);">Eze 16:26</a>). Once we find the derivative noun taznuth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,29);">Eze 16:29</a>). In the New Testament, with both the literal and the figurative application, we find porneia, and porneuo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,32);">Mt 5:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,19);">15:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,41);">Joh 8:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,20);">Ac 15:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,1);">1Co 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,13,18);">6:13, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,2);">7:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,8);">10:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,21);">2Co 12:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,19);">Ga 5:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,3);">Eph 5:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,5);">Col 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,3);">1Th 4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,14,20,21);">Re 2:14, 20-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,21);">9:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,8);">14:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,2,4);">17:2, 4</a>). The intensive ekporneuo = "to be utterly unchaste" is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,7);">Jude 1:7</a>. Every form of unchastity is included in the term "fornication."<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FORSWEAR"><b>Forswear</b></A>.<p>Found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,33);">Mt 5:33</a> in the sense of committing perjury (epiorkeo).<P><b>Harlotry</b>.<p>The avocational or at least habitual, notorious practice of unchastity. In most instances the ordinary term for unchaste living, zanah, is employed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,31);">Ge 34:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,15,24);">38:15, 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,14);">Le 21:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,1);">Jos 2:1</a> (Rahab); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,1);">Jud 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,1);">16:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,16);">1Ki 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,10);">Pr 7:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',29,3);">29:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,7);">Jer 5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,17);">Am 7:17</a>). For the publicly known woman of the street and the professional devotee in the pagan temple-worship, the term kedheshah, was employed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,21,22);">Ge 38:21-22</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,14);">Ho 4:14</a>). The Greek porne, occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,31);">Mt 21:31</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,30);">Lu 15:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,15,16);">1Co 6:15-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,31);">Heb 11:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,25);">Jas 2:25</a>. Figurative: Often used metaphorically of idolatry or any defection from the Divine covenant, and applied particularly to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,21);">Isa 1:21</a>); the Jewish nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,20);">Jer 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,1,6);">3:1, 6</a>ff; often in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,\'1-\');">Eze 16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,\'1-\');">Eze 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,7);">Mic 1:7</a>); Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,15);">Ho 4:15</a>); Nineveh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,4);">Na 3:4</a>); Tyro, with reference to the various arts employed to renew her commerce (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,16);">Isa 23:16</a>) and to her restored traffic (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,17);">Isa 23:17</a>); and to antiChristian "Babylon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,5,15);">Re 17:5, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,2);">19:2</a>). See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FORNICATION">Fornication</a>.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOMICIDE"><b>Homicide</b></a>. See separate article.<P>"<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MANSLAYER"><b>Manslayer</b></a>"<p>(ratsach, "to dash in pieces," "to kill," "to murder"; Greek androphonos, with the same meaning): Mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,6,12);">Nu 35:6, 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,9);">1Ti 1:9</a>. The Hebrew law distinguished between the premeditated and the unpremeditated slaying. See separate article.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IDOLATRY"><b>Idolatry</b></a>. See separate article.<P><b>Ill-treatment of Parents</b>. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,15,17);">Ex 21:15, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,9);">Le 20:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,18);">De 21:18</a>ff). See below.<P><b>Injuries to the Person </b>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,18);">Ex 21:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,19);">Le 24:19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,11);">De 25:11</a>).<P><b>Irreverence</b>.<p>Lack of respect for God or His natural representatives, the parents or governmental officers. See also Parents, Crimes against; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BLASPHEMY">Blasphemy</a>.<P><b>Incest</b>.<p>Designated in Hebrew by zimmah, "vice," "wickedness," "refined immorality" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,17);">Le 18:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,14);">20:14</a>); also "unnatural vice," tebhel, the same word that is used to designate the unnatural commingling with beasts. Amnon\'s deed is designated as checedh, indicating the degradation of the tenderness natural between brothers and sisters into a tenderness of an immoral character (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,\'1-\');">2Sa 13</a>). The crime of sexual relation of persons within the degrees of relationship forbidden by the Levitical law, as for instance, that of Lot\'s daughters with their father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,33);">Ge 19:33</a>); the son with his father\'s concubines, as for instance, Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,22);">Ge 35:22</a>), and Absalom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,22);">2Sa 16:22</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,1);">1Co 5:1</a>); that of the father-in-law with his daughter-in-law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,15);">Ge 38:15</a>ff; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,11);">Eze 22:11</a>); of the brother with the sister or half-sister, as for instance, Amnon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,14);">2Sa 13:14</a>); of the brother-in-law with the sister-in-law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,3);">Mt 14:3</a>); with the wife\'s mother, or the wife\'s daughter while living in apparent marriage with the mother (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,14);">Le 20:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,17);">18:17</a>). Illicit relation with the brother\'s widow is designated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,21);">Le 20:21</a>) as a disgraceful deed, literally, "uncleanness" (excepting the levirate marriage). Such acts were forbidden on the ground that the Jews were to avoid the evil practices of the Canaanites and the Egyptians in regard to marriage within the specified limits, because this would naturally result in breaking down the sanctity of the bonds connecting near relatives, and in throwing open the flood gates of immorality among them. It is the Divine plan that the unions based on mutual choice and love, mingled with carnality, shall become clarified more and more into the purer love of close consanguineal relations; not vice versa. Then, too, such provisions would secure higher results in training and in the production of mentally and physically healthy children, the balancing and evening up of contrasts of Nature, and the production of new and improved types. The principle on which the prohibitions are imposed seems to be this: Marriage is forbidden between any person and a direct ancestor or a direct descendant or any close relative, such as brother or sister of either himself or any of his ancestors or any of his immediate descendants.<P><b>Infanticide</b>.<P>This crime, in the form in which it has been and is prevalent among barbarous nations, seems to have been quite foreign to the minds of the Hebrews, for they had too lofty a conception of the value of human life, and children were considered a blessing; their absence in the home, a curse (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,17,21);">Ex 1:17, 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',127,\'1-\');">Ps 127</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',128,\'1-\');">Ps 128</a>). For this reason, there appeared to be no reason to prohibit it by law, except as the Israelites might be influenced to sacrifice their children to Molech when following the religious customs of the Canaanites. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MOLECH">MOLECH</a>.<P><b>Kidnapping (Man-Stealing)</b>.<p>andrapodistes = "man-stealer," "slave-dealer" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,10);">1Ti 1:10</a>). This was a mortal offense; but it seems that it, like some other forms of iniquity, was unknown to the Hebrews, except as they came in contact with it through their intercourse with other nations, such as the Romans and the Greeks, whose mythology frequently alludes to such acts. <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIE+LYING">Lying</a>, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=Malice">Malice</a>, Manslaughter, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MURDER">Murder</a>, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=Oath">Oath</a>. See separate articles.<P><b>Parents, Crimes Against</b>.<p>The law enjoined upon the infant all the reverence toward his parents, especially the father, that he could bestow on a merely human being. The reason for this lay in the fact that the heads of families were expected to transmit the Divine law to their household, and thus to stand in the place of God. That the mother was to share this reverence practically on equal terms with the father is shown by the fact that each is mentioned separately whenever obedience and reverence are enjoined upon the child (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,16);">De 5:16</a>). As the specific crime against Yahweh consisted in blasphemy and open rebellion against the law, so the crime against parents consisted in deliberate disobedience and stubbornness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,18);">De 21:18</a>). And here again both the father and the mother are directed to lay hands upon him and bring him unto the elders for punishment. How greatly such conduct was held in horror is seen in many of the Proverbs, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,17);">Pro 30:17</a>. It would be hard to specify all the acts which, in view of the above, would be considered crimes against the parents, but it is evident that everything which would lower their dignity and influence or violate their sense of just recognition must be carefully avoided, as witness the curse visited upon Ham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,\'20-27\');">Ge 9:20-27</a>).<P><b>Perjury</b>.<p>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FALSE+SWEARING">False Swearing</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FORSWEAR">Forswear</a> above; also article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OATH">OATH</a>.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPHESYINGS,+FALSE"><b>Prophesying, False</b></a>.<p>By reason of his position as the recognized mouthpiece of Yahweh, the prophet\'s word was weighty in influence; hence, to prophesy falsely was equivalent to practicing fraud publicly. Jeremiah described the condition as "wonderful and horrible," which made such things possible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,30,31);">Jer 5:30-31</a>). See also <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,32);">Jer 23:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,8,9);">29:8-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,23);">Eze 21:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',10,2);">Zec 10:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,15);">Mt 7:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,11,24);">24:11, 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,22);">Mr 13:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,26);">Lu 6:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,6);">Ac 13:6</a> (Bar-Jesus); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2Pe 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,1);">1Joh 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,13);">Re 16:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,20);">19:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,10);">20:10</a>. See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPHESYINGS,+FALSE">separate article</a>.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROSTITUTION"><b>Prostitution</b></a>.<P>Hebrew and Christian morality never condoned this practice, though the Bible recognizes its existence as a fact even among God\'s people. The Hebrew father was forbidden (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,29);">Le 19:29</a>) to give his daughter over to a life of shame (chalal, "to profane a person, place or thing," "to pollute"). See also Fornication, Harlotry, and Whoredom below.<P><b>Rape</b>.<P>chazak = "to seize," "bind," "restrain," "conquer," "force," "ravish." The punishment for this crime was greater when the act was committed against a betrothed woman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,\'25-29\');">De 22:25-29</a>). See also Seduction.<P><b>Removing Landmarks</b>. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,14);">De 19:14</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LANDMARK">LANDMARK</a>.<P><b>Reviling</b> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,28);">Ex 22:28</a>).<P>See Irreverence above and article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REVILE">REVILE</a>.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROBBERY">Robbery</a>.<P>gazal = "to pluck off," "strip," "rob," "take away by force or violence"; forbidden in the law and frequently referred to as despicable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,13);">Le 19:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,22);">26:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,1);">1Sa 23:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',22,22);">Pr 22:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,2,13);">Isa 10:2, 13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,14);">17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,15);">Eze 33:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,10);">39:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,8,9);">Mal 3:8-9</a>).<P><b>Sabbath-Breaking</b>.<P>As the Hebrew Sabbath was regarded as a day of rest, all acts absolutely unnecessary were considered a violation, a "breaking" of the Sabbath, which appears sufficiently from the commandment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'8-11\');">Ex 20:8-11</a>); and the head of the household was held responsible for the keeping of this commandment on the part of all sojourners under his roof.<P>No other law gave the sophistical legalists of later Judaism so much opportunity for hair-splitting distinctions as did this. In answer to the question what labors were forbidden, they mentioned 39 specific forms of work, and then proceeded to define what constituted each particular form. But as even these definitions would not cover all possible questions, special precepts were invented. In order that one might not be caught in the midst of unfinished labors, when the Sabbath began (at sunset), certain forms of work must not be undertaken on Friday. Thus it was forbidden to fry meat, onions or eggs, if there was not sufficient time for them to be fully cooked before evening. No bread, no cakes, must be put into the oven, if there was not sufficient time remaining for their surface to brown before night.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SABBATH">SABBATH</a>.<P><b>Seduction</b>.<P>ta\'ah, "to dissemble," "seduce," and Ta\'ah, with the same meaning; apoplanao, "to lead astray"; planao, "to go astray," "deceive," "err," "seduce"; and goes, "a wizard," "an impostor," "seducer." In all the passages in which the idea of seduction is expressed in the English the term is used not in the modern sense of a trespass against a woman\'s person, but in the more general and figurative sense of leading into sin generally (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,9);">2Ki 21:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,26);">Pr 12:26</a> the King James Version.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,13);">Isa 19:13</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,10);">Eze 13:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,22);">Mr 13:22</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,13);">2Ti 3:13</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,26);">1Jo 2:26</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,20);">Re 2:20</a>). However, the modern English idea of the word is expressed in the law found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,16,17);">Ex 22:16-17</a>.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLANDER"><b>Slander</b></a>. See separate article.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SODOMY"><b>Sodomy</b></a>. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNNATURAL+VICE">Unnatural Vice</a>.<P><b>Speaking Evil</b>.<P>"To bring an evil (ra\') name upon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,15);">De 19:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,23);">1Ki 22:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,13);">Ps 34:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',41,5);">41:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,19);">50:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,20);">109:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,11);">140:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,28);">Pr 15:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,30);">16:30</a>). Evil speaking is considered a crime because it is simply the expression of the evil intents of the heart. This is brought out more clearly in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,17,18);">Mt 7:17-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,34,35);">12:34-35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,39);">Mr 9:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,45);">Lu 6:45</a>). As such, evil speaking (blasphemia) is represented as entirely unworthy a Christian character (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,31);">Eph 4:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,4,14);">1Pe 4:4, 14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,2,10,12);">2Pe 2:2, 10, 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,11);">Jas 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,10);">Jude 1:10</a>); and katalaleo = "babble against," "gossip." It will be noticed from the above that evil speaking against those in authority is designated with the same word ("blasphemy") as raillery against God, they being considered God\'s representatives on earth. See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EVIL-SPEAKING">EVIL-SPEAKING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLANDER">SLANDER</a>.<P><b>Stealing</b>.<P>Hebrew ganabh = "to thieve" (literal, or figurative); by implication, "to deceive," "carry away," "secretly bring," "steal away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,8);">Ge 44:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,15);">Ex 20:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,16);">21:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,1);">22:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,30);">Pr 6:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',5,3);">Zec 5:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,20,26);">Ge 31:20, 26</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,6);">2Sa 15:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,3);">19:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',27,20);">Job 27:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',9,17);">Pr 9:17</a> ("Stolen waters are sweet"; the forbidden is attractive; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,7);">Ro 7:7</a>)). Greek klepto = "to filch," "steal" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,19,20);">Mt 6:19-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,18);">19:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,10);">Joh 10:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,21);">Ro 2:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,9);">13:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,28);">Eph 4:28</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=THEFT">Theft</A>.<P><b>Suicide</b>.<P>No special law is found against this crime, for it is included in the prohibition against killing. Contrary to the practice and the philosophy of paganism, the act was held in deep abhorrence by the Hebrews because of the high value placed on human life. It was held inexcusable that any but the most degraded and satanic should lay hands on their own lives. Only the remorse of the damned could drive one to it, as witness Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,4);">1Sa 31:4</a>) and Judas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,5);">Mt 27:5</a>).<P><b>Theft</b>.<P>Hebrew genebhah "stealing" (concrete), "something stolen," "theft" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,3,4);">Ex 22:3-4</a>); mentioned in connection with other wickedness (klope) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,19);">Mt 15:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,21);">Mr 7:21</a>; and (klemma) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,21);">Re 9:21</a>. All three words are used abstractly for the act and concretely for the thing stolen. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=THIEF">THIEF</a>.<P>Unchastity. No other form of sin is mentioned with disapproval and threats more frequently than the various forms of carnal vice, for no other sin is more natural or widespread. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHASTITY">CHASTITY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEWDNESS">LEWDNESS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARRIAGE">MARRIAGE</a>.<P><b>Unnatural Vice (Sodomy)</b>.<P>Alluded to with delicacy, but positively condemned as an abomination (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,13);">Ge 13:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,5,7);">19:5, 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,22);">Le 18:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,13);">20:13</a>). It was the specific form of wickedness through which Sodom became notorious, so that "sodomite" is the regular translation of qadhesh, "a (quasi) sacred person," i.e. (technically) "a (male or female) devotee to licentious idolatry" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,17);">De 23:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,24);">1Ki 14:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,12);">15:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,46);">22:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,7);">2Ki 23:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,14);">Job 36:14</a> margin). Though permitted and even encouraged in heathen cult, it was never to be tolerated in the worship of Yahweh.<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=USURY"><b>Usury</b></a>. See separate article.<P><b>Witnessing, False</b>.<P>The Hebrew idiom is \'edh sheqer, "witness of a falsehood," "lie" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,16);">Ex 20:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,16,18);">De 19:16, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,19);">Pr 6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,5,25);">14:5, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,5,9);">19:5, 9</a>); Greek pseudomartureo, "to bring false testimony"; -marturia, "bearing of false testimony" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,19);">Mr 10:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,56,57);">14:56-57</a>). It goes without saying that the law was emphatic in its denunciation of this practice, and in order that the innocent might be protected against the lying accuser, a criminal was to be convicted only on the testimony of at least two or three witnesses, testifying to the same facts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,30);">Nu 35:30</a>). If one be found testifying falsely, he was to be punished by suffering the penalty which would have been inflicted on him against whom he testified, had he been convicted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,\'16-19\');">De 19:16-19</a>).<P><b>Whoredom</b>.<P>Hebrew zanah = "to commit adultery," "fornication or illicit incontinence of any kind"; and its derivative taznuth = "fornication," "harlotry," "whoredom"; Greek porneuo (verb), and porneia (noun), of the same meaning. The following passages will reveal the estimate in which such uncleanness was held, and the fact that men and women given to it were held in equal abhorrence and designated by the same terms: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,24);">Ge 38:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,29);">Le 19:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,33);">Nu 14:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,1);">25:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,\'1-\');">Eze 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,3,7,8,11,27,29,43);">23:3, 7-8, 11, 27, 29, 43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,7,9);">43:7, 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',1,2);">Ho 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,4);">2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,11,12);">4:11-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,10);">6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,4);">Na 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,32);">Mt 5:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,26);">Ro 1:26</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,1);">1Co 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,2);">7:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,8);">10:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,7);">Jude 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,14,20);">Re 2:14, 20</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,9);">18:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,2);">19:2</a>.<P>Figurative: Because of the infidelity to the lifemate and to right living involved in such acts, the practice became symbolical of infidelity to God and His law, and thus served as a frequent figure of speech for Israel\'s error and apostasy.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HARLOT">HARLOT</a>`77';
isbe[2416]='Crimson`krim\'-z\'-n.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COLORS">COLORS</a>`1';
isbe[2417]='Cripple`krip\'-\'-l (cholos): Only occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,8);">Ac 14:8</a>, denoting the congenitally lame man at Lystra. In the King James Version (1611) the word is spelled "creeple." It originally meant one whose body is bent together as in the attitude of creeping. This was probably a case of infantile paralysis.``1';
isbe[2418]='Crisping Pins`kris\'-ping: Pins for crisping, or curling, the hair. Thus the King James Version renders Hebrew charitim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,22);">Isa 3:22</a>; compare Vulgate). the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes more correctly "satchels" (so Qimchi (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,23);">2Ki 5:23</a>); compare Arabic). Others think of girdles; still others of veils or head-bands.``1';
isbe[2419]='Crispus`kris\'-pus (Krispos, "curled"): One of the small number baptized by Paul among the Corinthian Christians (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,14);">1Co 1:14</a>). He had been ruler of the Jewish synagogue, but he "believed in the Lord with all his house"; and, following Paul, withdrew from the synagogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,7,8);">Ac 18:7-8</a>). He seems to have been succeeded by Sosthenes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,17);">Ac 18:17</a>). According to tradition he became bishop of Aegina.``1';
isbe[2420]='Criticism`(The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis)<p><b>I. PRELIMINARY</b><P class="in15">1. Thesis<P class="in15">2. Historical Perspective<P class="in15">3. Inspiration and Criticism<p><b>II. THE LEGISLATION</b><P class="in15">1. Groups<P class="in15">2. Covenant Code<P class="in15">3. The Sanctuary<P class="in15">4. Kinds of Sacrifice<P class="in15">5. Sacrifice in General<P class="in15">6. Vestments<P class="in15">7. Priests and Levites<P class="in15">8. Dues<P class="in15">9. Miscellaneous<P class="in15">10. Summary<P class="in15">11. Additional Note<p><b>III. THE HISTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Chronicles<P class="in15">2. Kings, etc.<P class="in15">3. The Conquest<P class="in15">4. Ideas of God<P class="in15">5. Priesthood<P class="in15">6. Summary<p><b>IV. RECONSTRUCTION</b><P class="in15">1. Covenant Code<P class="in15">2. Deuteronomy<P class="in15">3. Later<P class="in15">4. Evaluation<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><p>I. Preliminary.<P>1. Thesis:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,22,23);">Jer 7:22-23</a> we read: "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people." It is the contention of the present article that this statement of the prophet is correct (compare II, 5).<P>More specifically, it is contended that evidence can be produced from the Old Testament to show that Israel\'s religion can be seen in a long period of growth; and in this growth a fixed sacrificial law, with a minutely regulated ritual obligatory on all Israelites, the culmination and not the beginning of the process. It is contended, moreover, that this conception of the development of the institutional side of the religion of the Old Testament is attained by the strictest evaluation of all the Old Testament evidence and by no a priori considerations.<P>2. Historical Perspective:<P>To be sure, one is met at once in the Old Testament by what seem to be complete denials of this point of view. In the Pentateuch we find statement after statement that a given law was due not to some late author but to Moses himself, and there are numerous passages in the historical books (most notably in Chronicles) that speak of these laws as in effect from the earliest times. Such evidence must be paid all possible respect and must be overruled only on the most imperative considerations.<P>However, if for the moment the books of the Old Testament be viewed only as historical documents, it will be admitted that the possibility of overruling such evidence may well arise. And it may very well arise without calling in question in the slightest degree the good faith of the writers of questioned passages; for an acquisition of historical perspective comes very late in intellectual evolution, particularly<6C>though not only<6C>in the realm of religious history. Even the trained scholar has to be on his guard lest he read back the concepts of his own time into some past generation, while the non-specialist never succeeds in avoiding this error completely. For the uncultured mind, especially for the Oriental, the problem scarcely exists. That which is generally accepted and which is not obviously novel tends to be classified as that which "always has been." A law so old that its actual source is forgotten is referred as a matter of course to some great lawgiver of the past. A custom that in a writer\'s own day is universally observed by the pious must always have been observed by the pious. Even documentary evidence to the contrary is not convincing to such a writer, for that documents may be wrong is not a modern discovery. To be sure, the older document may be copied mechanically or the discrepancy may not even be noticed. But it is never surprising when we find a writer simply accrediting the pious men of old with the customs of his own day, since even documentary evidence to the contrary he felt could not be right. This is not forgery, as we understand the word, nor need there be the faintest moral reproach connected with such conduct. Quite on the contrary, such a writer may well be acting in the only sense that the conscience of any man of his generation could conceive right.<P>3. Inspiration and Criticism:<P>However, the Old Testament is not a mere collection of human documents, and another question arises. Does the acceptance of inspiration compel us to assume that in every case a writer\'s ordinary historical methods were entirely overruled? The question is a rather broad one and does not relate merely to the correct transmission of historic facts. To be asked, rather, is this: Did God present to His instruments a mechanically accurate set of past facts which would give a conception of history that no one of the sacred writer\'s generation could understand? Or did He suffer His revelation to find expression in terms of the current conceptions of history, much as we are accustomed to say it found expression in terms of the current conceptions of science? A full discussion of the various theological arguments involved would be quite outside the province of an article of this Encyclopedia, but reference must be made to two important Biblical arguments:<P>(1) In a question which thus affects the amount covered by the inspiration of the Bible, quotations from the Bible itself beg the question when adduced to show entire infallibility. So appeals to the New Testament are hardly helpful. Moreover, they prove too much. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,14,15);">Jude 1:14-15</a> there is a quotation from the Book of Enoch (<span class="noTag">1:9</span>), which is made in the most formal manner possible. But will anyone maintain that this compels us to believe that our Book of Enoch was actually written by Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Yet if the quotation had been taken from an Old Testament work, precisely this would have been maintained.<P>(2) Far more important is the use of the Old Testament by Christ, for here a quite different authority comes in. But the question must be asked: Just how far did our Lord\'s use of a passage involve ratification of all the current ideas about that passage? A good answer is supplied by <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,6,7);">Ac 1:6-7</a>. When He is asked, "Dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" we know that the pedantically "correct" answer would have been, "The kingdom never will be restored to Israel in any such sense as ye conceive of it." Yet this is precisely what Christ does not say. "It is not for you to know times or seasons." No hint was given at all that the kingdom was universal, for the disciples would find that out for themselves in good time. In order that they should be able to do God\'s work there was no need to bewilder them with a truth as yet altogether revolutionary. And any close student of the "Kingdom of God" passages soon realizes how often Christ uses current terminology without comment, even when it seems almost materialistic. A literal exegesis of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,18);">Lu 22:18</a> would necessitate believing that grapes will grow in the world to come and that Christ will drink wine made from them, and almost certainly the disciples gathered just this idea from the words. But no one today finds them in the least a difficulty. The exact extent of the kingdom and the exact nature of the happiness in it were irrelevant to what the disciples had to do. And so it cannot be thought an injustice to treat Christ\'s use of the Old Testament by exactly the same rules, all the more as nowhere, not even in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,36);">Mr 12:36</a>, does the argument turn on the original human author or the date of writing. What Christ Himself, in His inner consciousness, knew on the subject is something beyond our immediate data. But His use of the Old Testament lends no support to a Kenotic theory, not even on the wildest Old Testament critical hypotheses.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KENOSIS">KENOSIS</a>.<p>II. The Legislation.<P>As is well known, among the laws of the Pentateuch there exist several well-marked groups, of which the most formal is <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,\'12-\');">De 12-26</a>.<P>1. Groups:<P>Another such group is <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17-26</a> or the Holiness Code (H), and still another is <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'22-\');">Ex 20:22-23:19</a> or the Covenant Code (CC). With this last is closely connected the Decalogue and the little compend <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'17-26\');">Ex 34:17-26</a>. Now it will be convenient for present purposes to designate the remaining mass of Pentateuchal legislation under the non-committal symbol X.<P>2. Covenant Code:<P>In the first place, attention may be directed to Covenant Code as a whole. Whatever it was meant to be, it was not meant as a mere interims code for the period of the wanderings, either in its civil or its religious prescriptions. One piece of evidence alone is enough to show the contrary: in the laws touching settlements of disputes it is presupposed that Moses himself is not accessible. And the life assumed is agricultural. Men are living in fields with settled boundaries (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,5,6);">Ex 22:5-6</a>). The vine and the olive are both under cultivation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,5,29);">Ex 22:5, 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,11);">23:11</a>), under such settled circumstances that the rest of the Sabbatical year can be observed. And of the feasts, Weeks and Tabernacles are connected with the harvests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,16);">Ex 23:16</a>). Of course, Moses may very well have given commands that looked to the future, but the present contention is simply that it was the remote and not the immediate future that is in point on this assumption. The life is Canaan and not the wilderness. But, now, the life is very primitive life. Flocks are of great importance, as is shown by the proportion of space given to laws about them. Rulers are mentioned only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,28);">Ex 22:28</a> (nasi\'), and judges, as settled officers, are not mentioned at all, for the very rare word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,22);">Ex 21:22</a> (palil, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,31);">De 32:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,11);">Job 31:11</a> only) should be translated "umpire." Indeed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-9\');">Ex 23:1-9</a> the duties of citizens, witness and judge are so intermingled as to suggest that judgment was administered by a general gathering of the people. It is taken for granted that a master has marital rights over his maidservants (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'7-11\');">Ex 21:7-11</a>). Coined money is mentioned only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,32);">Ex 21:32</a>, if there. There is no attempt to define proportions exactly; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,5);">Ex 22:5</a> ("best of his own field") and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,29);">Ex 22:29</a> (the amount of the gift<66>a tenth?<3F>not stated). Similarly there is no precise dating of the feasts of Weeks and Tabernacles in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,16);">23:16</a>, while the exact day in Abib (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,15);">Ex 23:15</a>) is at least not specified. Now, if this code could be isolated from the rest of the legislation, would not one refer it naturally on the above grounds alone to a time not very far either way from that of Saul?<P>Now, in what follows, the prescriptions of the various codes will be compared with each other in regard to the various institutions of Israel\'s religion and also studied in the wider evidence of the historical books. The evidence of Chronicles, however, will be omitted for the most part, as a separate section is devoted to it (III, 1).<P>3 The Sanctuary:<P>(1) The firstling is to be with its dam seven days, but on the eighth (not later!) it is to be given to God. The offerings from the harvest and from the presses (wine and olives) are to be offered without delay (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,29,30);">Ex 22:29-30</a>). Consequently the place of offering must have been readily accessible. By what has been said above and by the mention of "presses" here, ready accessibility in Palestine is presupposed. But this implies a multiplicity of sanctuaries. And in Samuel-Kings this multiplicity of sanctuaries is exactly what is found. Samuel sacrifices in Mizpah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,9);">1Sa 7:9</a>), in Ramah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,12);">1Sa 9:12</a>ff), in Gilgal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,15);">1Sa 11:15</a>) and in Bethlehem (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,5);">1Sa 16:5</a>). David\'s family held a yearly sacrifice in Bethlehem, which David attended regularly (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,6);">1Sa 20:6</a>). Solomon received a special revelation from God at Gibeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,4);">1Ki 3:4</a>ff<66>for the account in Chronicles see III, 1). Although the heart of Asa was perfect and the way of Jehoshaphat right, yet the many altars were suffered to remain (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,14);">1Ki 15:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,43);">22:43</a><3E>again for Chronicles see III, 1). The destruction of the altars of God was to Elijah a terrible calamity (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,10);">1Ki 19:10</a>). While Amos and Hosea abound in denunciations of sacrifices as substitutes for righteousness, yet they never even intimate a duty to offer sacrifices in some other place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,2);">Am 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,5);">Ho 3:5</a> are irrelevant). Not even do <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,2);">Mic 4:2</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,2);">Isa 2:2</a> imply that Jerusalem was to have the sole right to the cult.<P>(2) Ezekiel is the first prophet who makes the place of sacrifice a matter of paramount importance, and this importance of the place is, in the Pentateuch, emphasized primarily in Deuteronomy. It is needless to collect the familiar evidence from Deuteronomy, but an illuminating comparison with Covenant Code is given by the laws for firstlings. No longer is the firstling given on the eighth day. It must be kept, but not worked or shorn, until the time when "year by year" it may be eaten in the chosen place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,19,20);">De 15:19-20</a>). So now the fruits of the field and the "presses" are not offered "without delay" but again "year by year," with a provision for turning them into money if the way be too long to the sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,\'22-27\');">De 14:22-27</a>). Deuteronomy and Covenant Code evidently have distinct conceptions<6E>and again attention may be called to the fact that Covenant Code contains laws for Palestine, not for the wilderness. The Law of Holiness (H), <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17-26</a>, is as explicit as Deuteronomy<6D>sacrifice anywhere except at the Tent is a capital offense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,8,9);">Le 17:8-9</a>). And the evidence of X need not be collected, but, passing out of the Pentateuch for the moment, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,\'10-34\');">Jos 22:10-34</a> represents Israel as understanding from the first entrance into Canaan that sacrifice at any altar but the one was the worst of crimes.<P>(3) How is the offering of sacrifices in various places by such men as Samuel to be explained? That the worship was disorganized and the proper sanctuary could not be reached is hardly an explanation. For no disorganization of the country could be great enough to justify the offering of sacrifices in places not only unauthorized but flatly forbidden in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,8,9);">Le 17:8-9</a>. On theory of Mosaic origin for the whole of the Pentateuchal legislation, Samuel knew as much about the clear statements of the Law as does any Jew of today, but it is clearly enough recognized by all Jews that no disorganization of the county or Divine reprobation of the Temple justifies sacrifice in any other place. A key, however, seems to be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'8-11\');">De 12:8-11</a>, where sacrifice in various places is actually authorized until such a time as the land should be pacified and the Divine choice given to a place<63>a time represented in the history of Israel as about the time of David, or perhaps Solomon. This certainly does explain the situation as it is found in Samuel-Kings. Only, it is in flat contradiction with H and X.<P>This point is important. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'8-11\');">De 12:8-11</a> not only represents sacrifice in various places as permitted until some later time, but it represents Moses and the Israelites as practicing the same things in the wilderness<73>"the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes; for ye are not as yet come," etc.; i.e. Deuteronomy\'s conception was that in the wilderness Moses and the Israelites offered sacrifice wherever they thought good. This was to continue until God gave them rest from their enemies round about. Then the sacrifices were to be brought to the chosen place and to be offered nowhere else. Now, the conception in H and X is wholly different. On the mount Moses received directions for the building of the Tabernacle, with its altar. From the beginning it was a capital offense to offer sacrifices on any other altar than this (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,8,9);">Le 17:8-9</a>), which was carried everywhere on the wanderings and brought into Canaan. In the very days of Phinehas, the offering of sacrifices on a different altar was enough to make civil war justifiable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,12);">Jos 22:12</a>). For further discussion see III, 2.<P>(4) The difficulties of these data are obvious but are completely satisfied by the assumption that different conceptions of past history are present. Deuteronomy belongs to a period when the unity of the sanctuary had become an established fact, but still before the memory of the many altars as comparatively legitimate was extinguished. H and X, however, belong to a considerably later day, when the unity of the sanctuary had been so long taken for granted that no pious Israelite could conceive that anything else had ever existed. The reference of the commands to Moses is altogether in oriental manner.<P>NOTE.<2E><a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24);">Ex 20:24</a> has not been used in the above argument, but with the evidence presented there seems to be no obstacle to the translations of the EV. The familiar evidence of Judges is of course merely cumulative.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Leviticus 1-7</a> contains a list of the various kinds of sacrifices:<P>4. Kinds of Sacrifice:<P>(a) the sin offering and the trespass offering, very elaborately treated and obviously of the highest importance;<P>(b) the whole burnt offering and the peace offering; and, standing a little by itself, the meal offering.<P>The latter is of no especial significance for the present discussion and may be neglected. Now a curious fact may be noted. In the prophetic writings before Ezekiel there is not one single reference to class (a). This is not simply the argument from silence, for sacrifices with their special names are mentioned freely and sacrificial rites described<65>invariably of class (b), even when presented for penitential purposes. If the offering is not burnt whole, the worshipper eats of it<69>it is a peace offering. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,21);">Jer 7:21</a> is a particularly significant example, but compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,4,5);">Am 4:4-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,22,25);">5:22, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',8,13);">Ho 8:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,4);">9:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,11);">Isa 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,\'12-14\');">22:12-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,7,8);">28:7-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,20);">Jer 6:20</a>. Turning to Samuel-Kings we find this borne out. The names of the sin and trespass offerings appear in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,16);">2Ki 12:16</a>, but it is money that is referred to (the English Versions of the Bible should be checked with the Hebrew here), just as the golden mice appear as a trespass offering in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,3);">1Sa 6:3</a>ff. And in the codes, neither Covenant Code nor Deuteronomy mentions class (a) and even in H they appear only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,21,22);">Le 19:21-22</a>; i.e. what in later times appear as the greatest sacrifices of Israel<65>by <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8</a> Israel\'s first sacrifice was a sin offering<6E>are found only in X and are mentioned in the prophets for the first time in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,39);">Eze 40:39</a>, while the other classes are mentioned frequently. It seems difficult to escape the inference that class (a) appeared relatively late in Israel\'s history, a point discussed more fully in IV.<P>5. Sacrifice in General:<P>The problem presented by <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,22);">Jer 7:22</a> is a very serious one. Obviously, to say that the command to offer sacrifice was not given on the day of the Exodus but on Sinai, is quite unsatisfactory, for this would make Jeremiah quibble. He denies categorically that a command to offer sacrifice was part of the Divine Law at all. Now, if it be noted that the offering of firstlings and first-fruits was altogether distinct from the regular sacrifices, it will be seen that Jeremiah can very well presuppose Covenant Code or even Deuteronomy, both of which contain only regulative prescriptions for sacrifice. (Whether Jeremiah actually did conceive Covenant Code and Deuteronomy as binding is another question.) But by what exegesis of the passage can Jeremiah pre-suppose X? The natural inference is that the regulations of X became obligatory on Israel after Jeremiah\'s day.<P>6. Vestments:<P>What follows is in itself an infinitesimal matter but the evidence is significant. The prohibition of steps for the altar in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,26);">Ex 20:26</a> is based on the fact that the ministrants X were very scantily clad (compare the light clothing of pilgrims at Mecca). This is corroborated in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,14,20,21,22);">2Sa 6:14, 20-22</a>, where Michal reproves David for exposing himself. But in the priests wear rather elaborate vestments, over linen breeches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,42);">Ex 28:42</a>). And, to call in Chronicles for the moment, this is the conception found there of David\'s religious zeal at the bringing in of the ark. Besides the ephod he wears a long linen robe and Michal despises him, not for exposing himself, but only for dancing (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,\'27-29\');">1Ch 15:27-29</a>).<P>7. Priests and Levites:<P>(1) Covenant Code has no regulations regarding the priesthood, but of course it does not follow that this silence has any significance. However, Samuel-Kings furnish us with certain evidence. Samuel, although an Ephraimite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,1);">1Sa 1:1</a>), offers sacrifice repeatedly (see 3, above). In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,25,26);">2Sa 20:25-26</a> the Hebrew says that Zadok and Abiathar were kohanim, and also Ira the Jairite was kohen unto David. Exactly the same word is used for Zadok and Ira in practically the same sentence, and no one without prior conceptions would have dreamed of giving it entirely distinct translations under the circumstances, as do the King James Version and the Revised Version texts (not margins). Again in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,18);">2Sa 8:18</a> it is said that David\'s sons were kohanim and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,5);">1Ki 4:5</a> that Zabud was kohen. Now if kohen does not mean "priest" in these passages, they are the only cases out of a total of 750 occurrences. That the Chronicler understood the word to mean priest is shown by the fact that in his parallel to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,18);">2Sa 8:18</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,17);">1Ch 18:17</a>) he uses a different word altogether. The natural inference from these passages is that the restriction of priestly ministration to a certain line came about after Solomon\'s time (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,12,13);">Jud 17:12-13</a>, a Levite is desirable but not essential).<P>(2) In Deuteronomy the priesthood appears as limited to the sons of Levi, but it is at least safe to say that no explicit distinction is made within the tribe. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,5);">Deu 21:5</a> the priests are the "sons of Levi," just as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,9);">Deu 17:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,1);">18:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,8);">24:8</a> the term is "the priests the Levites." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,8);">Deu 10:8</a> the right to bless and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,\'8-11\');">Deu 33:8-11</a> the right to offer incense and sacrifice are in no ways said to be restricted to a very small proportion of the tribe. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,21,22);">Jer 33:21-22</a> (here questions of authenticity are irrelevant). A clear distinction within the tribe of Levi appears in the prophetic writings for the first time in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,\'10-31\');">Eze 44:10-31</a>, where two kinds of Levites are spoken of, "the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok" (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,15);">15</a>) and the Levites, simply (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,10);">10</a>). No third class is recognized (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,45,46);">Eze 40:45-46</a>, where the distinction is between two classes of priests). Now, the distinction between the Zadokian and non-Zadokian Levites is based by Ezekiel on one thing only, in the past the former had been faithful and the latter had not (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,\'10-15\');">Eze 44:10-15</a>). Because the former had ministered before idols, therefore should they not come to execute the office of a priest, but perform only inferior ministrations. Now this can mean only that the non-Zadokians are excluded from priestly privileges that they once possessed. The non-Zadokians, if they had not sinned, would still have been legitimate priests in Ezekiel\'s eyes, for otherwise the exclusion from the altar would be eviscerated of all meaning as a punishment; i.e. Ezekiel knows of only two kinds of Levites, both kinds originally legitimate priests, but one class now to be forbidden access to the altar because of sin. A third class of Levite, non-Aaronites, who never had had access to the altar, but who, because of their righteousness, had been blessed with the privilege to perform minor ministerial acts, is conspicuous in Ezekiel by its absence. And this absence, in the face of the immense amount of minute detail contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40-48</a>, can be explained on no other hypothesis than that Ezekiel did not know of such a class. When the immense importance of the non-Aaronite Levites in Chronicles, Ezra, etc., is thought of, what other explanation can be given for their omission in Ezekiel\'s elaborate regulations for the cult? To whom did Ezekiel consider the more menial work in the Temple would have fallen if the non-Zadokians had not sinned? Probably he never raised the question at all, but there is no objection to supposing that he would have assigned it to the priesthood as a whole.<P>(3) It is needless to collect the evidence of X. The non-Aaronite Levites appear there as ministers of the greatest importance, elaborately set apart, and with their duties and privileges accurately defined (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,\'1-\');">Nu 8</a>, especially). Now, it is submitted that this evidence points in its most natural interpretation to a gradual narrowing of the priestly privileges in Israel through a period of many centuries. It is natural, though by no means necessary, to identify the non-Zadokians of Ezekiel with the non-Aaronites of X. At all events it is argued that in course of time, long after the priesthood had become restricted to Levites only, a considerable proportion of the latter lost their priestly privilege. Ezekiel stood near enough to the change (that he was the actual innovator is improbable) to state the fact of the degradation and its cause. X regarded the distinction as of such long standing that it must be accredited to Moses himself. It is highly probable that evidence of the change is to be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,\'6-8\');">De 18:6-8</a>, but this will not be pressed here.<P>8. Dues:<P>(1) In Covenant Code first-fruits are to be offered in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,19);">Ex 23:19</a> and a portion (perhaps a tenth, but not specified as such) of the whole harvest in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exo\',22,29);">22:29</a>. Nothing is said about their disposition. In Deuteronomy, the first-fruits of grain, wine and oil (with fleece) belong to the "priests the Levites" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,4);">18:4</a>). And the basket of "fruit" in the beautiful rite of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,\'1-11\');">26:1-11</a> probably had the same destination. Of the general harvest the tithe is to be dedicated, as explained at length in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,\'22-29\');">14:22-29</a>. The worshipper is to eat it himself, but shall take care to see that the Levite receives a portion. Every third year, however, the tithe is to be spent for the benefit of all who need charity, including the Levite. Note that in either case the Levite receives only a part of the tithe. In X the first-fruits are again assigned to the clergy (but now specifically to the priests<74><a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,12,13);">Nu 18:12-13</a>). But it appears that the tithe is to be given wholly to the Levites in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,\'21-24\');">Nu 18:21-24</a>. The contradiction with <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,\'22-29\');">De 14:22-29</a> is real. That two tithes were to be paid by the worshipper may safely be assumed as impossible, as a tax of one-fifth would have been unendurable. (It may be noted, though, that in later days the very pious took this interpretation<6F>compare Tobit 1:7<>but it is certain that no such ruling ever maintained generally.) An alternative explanation offered is that it could be assumed that the Levite would invite the worshipper to join in a feast on the tithe. Frankly, it is difficult to treat this as quite candid. In Deuteronomy the worshipper is anything rather than a mere guest at another man\'s banquet. When the tithe has been brought as money, the worshipper is to spend it on anything that best pleases him, and of the Levite it is said only "thou shalt not forsake him." Moreover, the tithe is to be consumed at the sanctuary and nowhere else (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,23);">De 14:23</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,11);">Deu 12:11</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,\'1-\');">Nu 18</a>, however, the tithe becomes the exclusive property of the Levite and it is assigned him as his source of income (verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,\'25-32\');">25-32</a>) and so exclusively is it his that it in turn is tithed. And, far from being turned into a feast at which the worshipper shares, it need not be consumed at the sanctuary at all but may be eaten in "every place," wherever the Levite and his family may happen to live (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,31);">31</a>). It would be hard to conceive of two rules more mutually exclusive than the tithe directions in Deuteronomy and Numbers. That the livelihood provided for the Levites in Deuteronomy is pitiful is hardly in point and at all events he received more than did the widow and the orphan. But compare IV.<P>(2) Firstlings in Covenant Code must be offered on the eighth day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,30);">Ex 22:30</a>), but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,\'19-22\');">De 15:19-22</a> they were preserved, without being worked or shorn, until "year by year" they could be taken up to the sanctuary. (Apparently by <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,\'23-25\');">14:23-25</a> it might be converted into money in case of great distance.) Here the worshipper was to offer it and eat of it (a peace offering). But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,\'15-18\');">Nu 18:15-18</a> the firstling becomes the personal property of the priest and he receives the flesh of the animal, if it can be sacrificed (i.e. it is his peace offering, not the worshipper\'s). There is no question of giving back a portion to the worshipper, again. Note, moreover, that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,\'21-23\');">De 15:21-23</a>, an animal not fit for sacrifice was eaten at home by the worshipper and so did not come in contact with the priest at all; contrast <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,15);">Nu 18:15</a>.<P>(3) A minor matter is found in the portion of the peace offering that went to the priest. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,3);">De 18:3</a> it is specified as the shoulder, two cheeks and maw. In X (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,26,27,28);">Ex 29:26-28</a>, etc.) this has become the breast and the right thigh<67>a considerably more advantageous portion.<P>(4) In Deu it is laid down that a Levite has no inheritance among his brethren (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,9);">Deu 10:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,12);">12:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,1);">18:1</a>) and hence, is recommended as an object of charity, like the widow and the orphan. And, like the widow and the orphan, he lives "within thy gates" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,12);">Deu 12:12</a>, etc.), i.e. in the same cities as the rest of the Israelites. Now in X the adjurations to charity disappear, because he receives a fixed income (from the tithe), but it is said that this tithe is given the Levites in lieu of an inheritance, "Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,\'21-24\');">Nu 18:21-24</a>), In another part of X, however, there is still a different conception<6F>the Levites receive no less than forty-eight cities with ample "suburbs," expressly said to be given them "from the inheritance" of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,\'1-8\');">Nu 35:1-8</a>). So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'32-34\');">Le 25:32-34</a> the houses of the Levites are "their possession among the children of Israel," and the fields "their perpetual possession" and inalienable. Is there any natural explanation of these passages except that they represent increasing efforts to provide properly for the Levites as time went on? That the different rules represent advances within Moses\' own period cannot be taken seriously, especially as on this hypothesis the Deuteronomy laws would have been the latest. See, in addition, III.<P>9. Miscellaneous:<P>(1) Covenant Code and Deuteronomy have little mention of coined money and little attempt to define fractions exactly. Contrast the elaborate regulations of, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">Le 27</a>. It is not contended that the Israelites could not have had enough culture in Moses\' day to calculate so accurately, but attention must be drawn to the extreme contrast.<P>(2) In Covenant Code (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,16);">Ex 23:16</a>) the year begins in the fall, in H (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,5);">Le 23:5</a>) and X (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,2);">Ex 12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,5);">Nu 9:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,16);">28:16</a>) it begins in the spring.<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,3);">De 16:3</a> explains the use of unleavened bread at the Passover as due to the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt (as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,39);">Ex 12:39</a>), while <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'15-20\');">Ex 12:15-20</a> makes this use depend on the positive command of God before the first-born were slain. And note that, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'18-20\');">Ex 12:18-20</a> is a simple repetition of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'15-17\');">Ex 12:15-17</a> with a more precise dating added. For this matter of dating compare the rough statements of Covenant Code with the exactness of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>.<P>(4) In Covenant Code marital rights of the master over his maidservants are taken for granted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'7-11\');">Ex 21:7-11</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,17);">De 15:17</a> the maidservant has the same privilege of release as the manservant, with the evident assumption that slavery does not confer marital rights on the master. (It is of course gratuitous to assume that two different kinds of maidservants are meant, particularly as in both cases the maidservant is contrasted in general with the manservant in general.) Note, moreover, that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,17);">Ex 20:17</a> "wife" follows "house" in the prohibition against coveting, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,21);">De 5:21</a> "wife" precedes "house" and a different verb is used. The inference is natural that between Covenant Code and Deuteronomy woman, both as slave and as wife, had risen to a higher position.<P>(5) In both Covenant Code (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,6);">Ex 21:6</a>) and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,17);">De 15:17</a> life-long slavery is permitted, if the slave desires it, otherwise the slave is free at the end of the sixth year. In H (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'39-43\');">Le 25:39-43</a>), the slave serves until the Jubilee year and then goes free absolutely.<P>10. Summary:<P>Now, it is not claimed that all the discrepancies in the above lists are incapable of reconciliation, although the examples chosen are among those where reconciliation is extremely difficult. The claim is made, however, that all of this evidence is cumulative and that each successive item points more and more forcibly toward a single conclusion<6F>that in the legislation of the Pentateuch, especially when considered in connection with the Prophets and with Samuel-Kings, there have been incorporated laws belonging to very different periods. And, for the most part, a development from the simple to the highly organized can be traced. And this conclusion explains all the facts.<P>11. Additional Note:<P>The above examples have been chosen as those where no changes in the text need be made. Of the other instances, only one need be considered<65><a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>. On its surface, this chapter appears to refer solely to life in the wilderness. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,8,10,12,13,15);">Le 17:8, 10, 12-13, 15</a> it appears that living in the midst of the Israelites are settled non-Israelites. And the "open field" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,5);">Le 17:5</a> is a contrast to city, not to tent, life. Now in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'3-5\');">Le 17:3-5</a> the question is not at all idolatry but eating of blood at an ordinary meal. An exact commentary is found on this in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'32-35\');">1Sa 14:32-35</a>, where the Israelites sin in eating the blood of animals "slain on the ground"; i.e. in both <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'1-\');">1Sa 14</a>, at every slaying of an animal for food, some formal disposition of the blood had to be made. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,4);">Le 17:4</a> this is sacrificial, and the appearance of the altar in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,35);">1Sa 14:35</a> points in the same direction. Now this investing of every slaying of an animal with a sacrificial character, explains the permission of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'20-25\');">De 12:20-25</a> to eat flesh "after all the desire of thy soul," a permission inexplicable unless there had been an earlier contrary practice. It is to be noted, moreover, that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,16);">De 12:16</a> the blood is to be disposed of by pouring it on the earth, the practice condemned in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,32);">1Sa 14:32</a>. The conclusion is that before the legislation of Deuteronomy the Israelite offered the blood of every slain sacrificial animal at the local sanctuary. Deuteronomy\'s rigid enforcement of the one sanctuary made this impossible, and so permission was given to eat flesh at home, provided the blood was not eaten, and provided that it was disposed of in a non-sacrificial way. Now in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'3-5\');">Le 17:3-5</a> it becomes clear what has happened. The passage read originally something like this: \'What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, and hath not brought it to offer it as an oblation unto Yahweh, blood shall be imputed unto that man. ....\' This offering was to take place at the local sanctuary. But when the passage was incorporated into the whole body of the legislation, the editor was working at a time when the legitimacy of the local sanctuaries had long been forgotten. And so references to the "camp" and "the tent of meeting" were inserted, in accordance with the only laws that the editor conceived could ever have prevailed. The discrepancies with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,5,8);">Le 17:5, 8</a>, etc., were probably not observed.<P>It is to be understood that this passage is not used as presenting a basic argument for the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. But it is cited as an example of other passages where the text is to be considered. And, also, because the assertion is made that this particular passage is a death-blow to the "critical" hypothesis. Naturally, it is nothing of the sort.<p>III. The History.<P>1. Chronicles:<P>It may be said at the outset that many of the attacks on the historic value of Chronicles have been very gravely exaggerated. But, none the less, a close comparison with Samuel-Kings shows that the Chronicler has most certainly read back into history the religious institutions of his own late day<61>it need not be said, with perfect innocence and sincerity. For instance, in comparing <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,4);">2Ki 11:4</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,\'2-6\');">2Ch 23:2-6</a>, we find the statement of Kings that Jehoiada brought captains of the Carites and of the guard into the house of Yahweh quite altered. In Chronicles Jehoiada summons Levites and heads of houses, with the express provision that only Levites shall enter into the house of Yahweh. So holy a priest as Jehoiada could not have acted as Kings says he did act. Similarly, the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,14);">1Ki 15:14</a> that Asa did not remove the high places is changed into the statement that he did remove the high places (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,\'3-5\');">2Ch 14:3-5</a>), and only those in (northern) Israel were left (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',15,17);">2Ch 15:17</a>). So did Jehoshaphat (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',17,6);">2Ch 17:6</a>), although in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,33);">2Ch 20:33</a> the explicit statement to the contrary is copied (unnoticed?) from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,43);">1Ki 22:43</a>. Such righteous kings must have enforced the single sanctuary. The almost trivial matter of David\'s garb when the ark was brought into Jerusalem (contrast <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,\'20-22\');">2Sa 6:20-22</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,\'27-29\');">1Ch 15:27-29</a>) has been noticed already in II, 6. The important matter in Chronicles, however, is the history of the Tabernacle. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,\'39-42\');">1Ch 16:39-42</a> the Tabernacle is at Gibeon, with the full ministry surrounding it, with the exception of a detail left before the Ark in Jerusalem (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,\'17-32\');">1Ch 9:17-32</a>). And in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',5,5);">2Ch 5:5</a> it is brought up to Jerusalem, although the disposition made of it is not explained. Otherwise it is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,48);">1Ch 6:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',21,29);">21:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,3);">2Ch 1:3</a>. But the narrative presents some serious difficulties. Why did David build a special tent for the Ark in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,1);">1Ch 16:1</a>), if the one Divinely appointed covering for the Ark was still standing<6E>not to be brought to Jerusalem until its utility was past (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',5,5);">2Ch 5:5</a>)? That it was too fragile to be moved can hardly be taken seriously. In the first place, this explanation is without the least support in the text. And, in the second place, it is incredible for such a solid structure of wood, silver and brass, however much repair the curtains might have needed. Moreover, this explanation will not do at all for Bezalel\'s brazen altar, which was still quite usable in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,5);">2Ch 1:5</a>, making the construction of a new altar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',4,1);">2Ch 4:1</a>) altogether inexplicable. The impression is created at once that the Chronicler has injected the Tabernacle into a narrative that knew nothing of it. This is corroborated by <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',21,29,30);">1Ch 21:29-30</a>; the altar at the floor of Ornan is explained by the difficulty of reaching the Tabernacle. But the Ark, the natural means for an inquiry of God, was in Jerusalem, with an altar by it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,1);">1Ch 16:1</a>)<29>why this third altar on the threshing-floor? The inaccessibility of the Tabernacle is invoked here only to solve what was a difficulty to the Chronicler. Now if <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,3);">2Ch 1:3</a> be compared with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,\'2-4\');">1Ki 3:2-4</a>, the key of the whole is discovered. Kings not only does not mention the presence of the Tabernacle at Gibeon, but excludes it. Solomon\'s sacrificing at Gibeon is explained by saying that such was the custom of all Israel, who sacrificed in high places before the Temple was built; Solomon also sacrificed in highplaces and Gibeon was a great high-place. This is an apology for Solomon\'s conduct<63>why should the editor of Kings have apologized for sacrifice offered at the Divinely appointed Tabernacle? The Chronicler, however, could not believe that God blessed Solomon when offering sacrifice in a way forbidden by the law of Chronicle\'s times, and hence, he solves the difficulty by bringing in something that is unknown to the narrative in Kings.<P>2. Kings, etc.:<P>Indeed, Kings mentions the Tabernacle only in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,4);">1Ki 8:4</a>. Samuel mentions the Tabernacle as such only in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,22);">1Sa 2:22</a>. Judges does not mention the Tabernacle at all (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,31);">Jud 18:31</a> is the only possibility and the word there is "house"). Now <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,22);">1Sa 2:22</a> is not found in the Vatican Septuagint, and the description of the Tabernacle as a tent contradicts <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,9);">1Sa 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',3,15);">3:15</a>, where it appears as a temple or house. So it must be dropped as a gloss. Nor will it be denied that <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,4);">1Ki 8:4</a> looks suspiciously like a gloss as well, particularly in view of the presence of Levites there, who are practically unmentioned elsewhere in Samuel-Kings. At all events, there are only these two possible mentions of what should have been the center of Israel\'s worship in all of Judges-Samuel-Kings. This is not the ordinary argument from silence, it is silent about what should have been the most vital matter of all. Deuteronomy knows nothing of the Tabernacle, and, as has already been shown in II, states as clearly as language only can that in the wilderness the centralization of worship was not observed. The argument from silence alone would be conclusive here, for how could the author of Deuteronomy in his passionate advocacy of the single sanctuary fail to appeal to the single sanctuary already established by God\'s decree, if he knew anything about it? But not only is there no such mention in Deuteronomy but a positive exclusion of such a sanctuary in express terms. The case would seem to be complete. The Tabernacle of X and Chronicles is an ideal structure projected back into the past, just as the temple of Ezekiel is an ideal structure projected into the future. And it is needless to appeal to the familiar argument that the Tabernacle of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,\'1-\');">Ex 26</a> would have been blown to pieces by the first storm. It had no provision for tent poles deeply sunk, which alone could resist the blasts of the desert.<P>It is impossible in the space of the present article to enter into all the corroborative evidence, but a very few important arguments may be mentioned.<P>3. The Conquest:<P>Simple people tend most naturally to think of heroes of the past as more and more glorious as time passes. Now <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'1-\');">Jud 1</a> describes the conquest of Canaan as a slow and laborious process after Joshua\'s death. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,\'40-43\');">Jos 10:40-43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,\'10-23\');">11:10-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,\'43-45\');">21:43-45</a><3E>especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,\'16-19\');">11:16-19</a><3E>Canaan was completely swept of its inhabitants by Joshua in a series of annihilatory campaigns, making <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'1-\');">Jud 1</a> quite impossible. Evidently the Joshua passages cited belong to a very much later conception of the past history. The fate of Hebron is especially interesting. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,20);">Jud 1:20</a> Caleb takes Hebron after Joshua\'s death. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'1-\');">Jos 15</a> Caleb takes Hebron during Joshua\'s lifetime and at the latter\'s direction. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,36,37);">Jos 10:36-37</a>, however, Joshua takes Hebron personally and annihilates its inhabitants. Here are three distinct conceptions of Hebron\'s fate, again. But still a fourth is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,11,12);">Jos 21:11-12</a>: it was not Caleb who received the city but the Levites. This evidently belongs to the time when the Levitical right to cities had become a commonplace, and was therefore referred to the earliest days. The accounts of the annihilation of the Canaanites arose naturally enough. Accordings to Judges the conquest was gradual and merciful. But the Canaanites seduced Israel to idolatry repeatedly. Therefore they should have been routed out (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,\'16-18\');">De 20:16-18</a>). But Joshua was righteous and had all power. Therefore he must have rooted them out. How they suddenly reappeared again was a question that was not raised. But perhaps it may be thought a relief to understand that the ruthless campaigns of the Israelites are due to reflection and not to descriptions of what actually happened.<P>4. Ideas of God:<P>Simple people think of God quite naturally and reverently as a greater man. So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'9-11\');">Ex 24:9-11</a> we read that Moses and many others met God in the mount, they all saw Him. and ate and drank before Him. A slightly more refined point of view is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,11);">Ex 33:11</a>, where Moses (but no one else) sees God face to face, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,8);">Nu 12:8</a>, where again he (alone) sees the form of God. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,20);">Ex 33:20</a> no man, not even Moses, can see God face to face. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,\'11-15\');">De 4:11-15</a> it is laid down that only darkness was seen<65>"ye saw no form." Perhaps Moses was thought of as an exception, but the contradiction of the concept that conceived over seventy Israelites besides Moses to have seen God is complete.<P>5. Priesthood:<P>The reading back of an official priesthood into the time of Moses can be seen in certain passages where Aaron appears predominantly. Contrast, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,\'20-24\');">Ex 8:20-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,\'23-26\');">15:23-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'1-7\');">17:1-7</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'1-19\');">Ex 7:1-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,9,10);">16:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,\'2-13\');">Nu 20:2-13</a>. Yet despite the importance of Aaron in the latter passages, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,11);">Ex 33:11</a> the minister of Moses in the Tent is Joshua, who is not a priest at all. Contrast similarly <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,14,15);">De 31:14-15</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,\'18-21\');">Nu 27:18-21</a>, noting how Eleazar appears in the latter passage, although the former excludes him. At the time of X it was not thought possible that Moses could have acted without the official mediation of the official priest.<P>6. Summary:<P>Reasons of space preclude a further discussion of the other arguments here, such as the linguistic. As a matter of fact, the sections that contain the more developed concepts contain also a different vocabulary. To be repeated, however, is the fact that the argument is cumulative and that a single explanation of the differences is offered in the hypothesis of very varying dates for the various portions. Of course an exact analysis of every verse and a rigorous reconstruction of every source is not claimed to be possible. Many scholars have been carried by their enthusiasm for analysis into making preposterous dissections. But the principal lines of division are sufficiently clear. And it may be hoped the reader will not think that the acceptance of them has been dictated by any motive except that of facing the truth<74>least of all by any motive of a weakened faith in the power of God or a suspicion of the miraculous.<p>IV. Reconstruction.<P>1. Covenant Code:<P>Israel came into Canaan, after having received through the mediation of Moses a covenant relation with God and (almost certainly) some accompanying legislation. But this legislation seems not to have prescribed the ritual form that the worship of God was to take. In part, old forms were simply continued and in part new forms were gradually developed or appropriated, the emphasis of the Law at that time being on the moral and the ritual being left quite free. In especial, sacrifices were offered wherever Israelites happened to live, doubtless frequently at former Canaanite sanctuaries, now rededicated to Yahweh. The local sanctuary was the center of the life. Men went thither to learn God\'s will and to give a religious character to what we should call purely secular transactions (contracts, etc.). Firstlings were offered there on the eighth day, first-fruits at once, every meal of flesh food was given a sacrificial character (peace offering), and, for more solemn purposes, the whole burnt offering was offered. So the local sanctuary corresponded to our "village church"; it was the religious home of the people. Certain of these sanctuaries had an especial dignity, above all Shiloh, where the Ark was. Later, when a united Israel had been realized, David brought the Ark to Jerusalem that the national capital might become the center of the national religious life as well, and Solomon enshrined the Ark in the Temple. So to Jerusalem there resorted naturally the best of Israel\'s religious leaders, and there the worship of God would be found in its purest form, normally speaking.<P>2. Deuteronomy:<P>As time went on, the progress of culture and the freer contact with other nations had bad effects as well as good. New and degrading religious practices flowed into the country and they revived old but equally degrading religious practices that had survived from the Canaanites. The priesthood at Jerusalem did not escape a taint, but the place where such rites gained the readiest foothold was of course the obscure local sanctuaries. Not the best-minded king or the most zealous prophet, could watch all the services at them all, and attempts at purging them of idolatry or idolatrous rites (Elijah, Jehu, etc.) could not effect permanent improvement. And it could not have been very long after David\'s own day that the idea must have begun to grow that complete prohibition of country sacrifices and the rigid centralization of everything at Jerusalem was the only measure possible. This would soon become a fixed conviction of the better class of the Jerusalem priesthood and in a few generations would be a tradition. Detailed precepts to carry this tradition into effect arose necessarily and in turn became a tradition and in course of time were regarded as Moses\' work and committed to writing. In this way the legislation of Deuteronomy took form and at the time of its discovery under Josiah there is not the slightest occasion to attribute fraud to anyone engaged in the transaction. The document agreed fairly well with what was the tradition of Jerusalem, and no one at that day could distinguish between a writing a century old or even less and a writing of Moses own time. The country priests and the mass of the people were not consulted as to enforcing it, and they would not have known if they had been consulted. On any reading of the history, the reforms proceeded from a very small group, and any general "tradition of the Jews" was nonexistent.<P>3. Later:<P>(1) The reforms added to theoretical tradition the additional influence of practical experience and the idea of course dominated the minds of the more earnest among the exiles. Ezekiel, in particular, realized that only at a single sanctuary could the worship of God be kept pure<72>the single sanctuary was God\'s will. And Ezekiel\'s influence was immense. Now it is to be noted that at the return only those came back who had a real enthusiasm for Jerusalem, as Babylonia was, materially speaking, a far more attractive place than the Palestine of that day. That the single sanctuary could have been questioned by any of these Jews or that they could have conceived of Moses as instituting anything of less dignity is impossible.<P>(2) Other reforms also had been at work. Even in Deuteronomy the more primitive note of joyousness was maintained in the sacrifices. But joyousness in simple life is often dissipation in cultured life and the peace offering could be made a debauch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,\'12-14\');">Isa 22:12-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,14);">Pr 7:14</a>). A sense of personal guilt had become far better developed and the incongruity of penitential worship with a festal meal was recognized. A very slight change was made: the portion was to be eaten by the priest instead of the worshipper<65>and the sin and trespass offerings emerged. The abuses were cut away by this one stroke and the peace offering proper retired into the background. And sacrifices were made the proper center of the official worship. In accord with the growing culture, proportions of gifts, dates of feasts, etc., were specified more and more exactly, the worship was surrounded with a more impressive ritual, and, in particular, the officiating priests substituted vestments suited to the better taste of the time for the old loin-cloth. Traces are left in the Old Testament of difficulties regarding the rights of the various classes of priests to minister but the matter was settled eventually in a manner that satisfied all. Priests formerly guilty of idolatry and their descendants were admitted to share in the worship and the priestly revenues, but the actual offering of sacrifice was restricted to those who had been faithful. The proper support of the clergy so formed required, in accordance with their dignity, more elaborate provisions than had been needed in the simpler times of old, but was accomplished in a manner again entirely satisfactory. The religion of no other nation could have survived the Babylonian exile intact. But Israel returned, with the elements formerly necessary but now outgrown changed into a form adapted to the new task the nation had before it<69>the preparation of itself and the world for the advent of Christ.<P>4. Evaluation:<P>This growth toward the higher, involving as it did the meeting of all kinds of obstacles, the solving of all kinds of problems, the learning when to abandon elements that had been transcended, is unique in the history of religions. And the explanation of its uniqueness can be found only in the guidance of God. And in the history as reconstructed God is seen truly as the Father, who trained His children little by little, giving them only what they were able to receive but bringing them surely to Himself. And in the documents that contain the precepts for each stage of progress God\'s hand can be seen no less clearly. To be sure, in the secular science of history (as in physics or astronomy) His revelation was expressed in forms that His people could understand. This alteration<6F>and this alteration only<6C>in our view of what is covered by Biblical inspiration is the sacrifice demanded by the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.<P>LITERATURE.<P>This is overwhelming and reference must be made to the separate articles. The standard analysis is that of The Oxford Hexateuch (1900), more briefly in The Composition of the Hexateuch by Carpenter and Harford (Battersby) (1902). Marx, Die Bucher Moses und Josua (1907), is the best brief introduction. Gunkel\'s Genesis (1910) in the Nowack series, his more popular Die Urgeschichte und die Patriarchen (1911), and his "Die israelitische Literatur" in Die Kultur der Gegenwart, I, 7 (1906), should on no account be neglected. The best treatment of the inspiration question from the standpoint of pure dogmatics is F. J. Hall\'s Authority: Ecclesiastical and Biblical (1908).<P>In the above discussion it has been assumed that our text of the Old Testament is at least relatively trustworthy. The reader interested in what can be done by textual reconstruction will find the opposite poles represented in the works of Wiener and of Cheyne.<P>(EDITORIAL NOTE: The promoters of the Encyclopedia are not to be understood as endorsing all the views set forth in Dr. Easton\'s article (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRITICISM+OF+THE+BIBLE">CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE</a>). It was thought right, however, that, in such a work of reference, there should be given a full and adequate presentation of so popular a theory.)``48';
isbe[2421]='Criticism and Archaeology``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARCHAEOLOGY;+ARCHAEOLOGY+AND+CRITICISM">ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRITICISM</a>`1';
isbe[2422]='Criticism of the Bible`krit\'-i-siz\'-m: <b>Criticism in General</b><p><b>I. Divisions</b><P class="in15">1. Lower or Textual Criticism<P class="in15">2. Higher Criticism<p><b>II. LOWER OR TEXTUAL CRITICISM</b><P class="in15">1. Origin of the Science<P class="in15">2. Methods Employed<P class="in15">3. Causes of Error<P class="in15">4. Weighing of Authorities<P class="in30">(1) The Old Testament<P class="in60">Manuscripts and Versions<P class="in30">(2) The New Testament<P class="in60">(a) Manuscripts and Versions<P class="in60">(b) The Western Text<P class="in60">(c) Results<p><b>III. HIGHER CRITICISM</b><P class="in15">1. The Old Testament<P class="in30">(1) Astruc and Successors<P class="in30">(2) Hupfeld<P class="in30">(3) Graf and Wellhausen<P class="in30">(4) Literary and Historical Grounds of Theory<P class="in30">(5) The Codes<P class="in30">(6) Effects on History, etc.<P class="in30">(7) General Results<P class="in30">(8) Criticism of Theory<P class="in15">2. The New Testament<P class="in30">(1) The School of Baur<P class="in30">(2) Synoptical Criticism<P class="in60">(a) Oral, Documentary, and Dependence Theories<P class="in60">(b) The "Logia"<P class="in60">(c) Two-Source Theory<P class="in60">(d) Authorship<69>Lukan and Johannine Questions<P class="in30">(3) Modern "Critical-Historical" School<P class="in30">(4) Remaining Writings of New Testament<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>Criticism in General:<P>So much has been said and written in recent years on "Criticism" that it is desirable that the reader should have an exact idea of what criticism is, of the methods it employs, and of the results it reaches, or believes itself to have reached, in its application to Scripture. Such a survey will show the legitimacy and indispensableness of a truly scientific criticism, at the same time that it warns against the hasty acceptance of speculative and hypothetical constructions. Criticism is more than a description of phenomena; it implies a process of sifting, testing, proving, sometimes with the result of establishing, often with that of modifying or reversing, traditional opinions. Criticism goes wrong when used recklessly, or under the influence of some dominant theory or prepossession. A chief cause of error in its application to the record of a supernatural revelation is the assumption that nothing supernatural can happen. This is the vitiating element in much of the newer criticism, both of the Old Testament and of the New Testament.<p>I. Divisions.<P>1. Lower or Textual Criticism:<P>Criticism of Scripture ("Biblical criticism") is usually divided into what is called "lower or textual criticism" and "higher criticism"<22>the latter a phrase round which many misleading associations gather. "Lower criticism" deals strictly with the text of Scripture, endeavoring to ascertain what the real text of each book was as it came from the hands of its author; "higher criticism" concerns itself with the resultant problems of age, authorship, sources, simple or composite character, historical worth, relation to period of origin, etc.<P>2. Higher Criticism:<P>The former<65>"textual criticism"<22>has a well-defined field in which it is possible to apply exact canons of judgment: the latter<65>"higher criticism"<22>while invaluable as an aid in the domain of Biblical introduction (date, authorship, genuineness, contents, destination, etc.), manifestly tends to widen out illimitably into regions where exact science cannot follow it, where, often, the critic\'s imagination is his only law.<P>It was only gradually that these two branches of criticism became differentiated. "Textual criticism" for long took the lead, in association with a sober form of Biblical "introduction." The relations now tend to be reversed. "Higher criticism," having largely absorbed "introduction" into itself, extends its operations into the textual field, endeavoring to get behind the text of the existing sources, and to show how this "grew" from simpler beginnings to what it now is. Here, also, there is wide opening for arbitrariness. It would be wrong, however, to deny the legitimate place of "higher criticism," or belittle the great services it is capable of rendering, because of the abuses to which it is frequently liable.<P>It is now necessary that these two forms of criticism should be looked at more particularly.<p>II. Lower or Textual Criticism.<P>1. Origin of the Science:<P>We take first lower or textual criticism. There has never been a time when criticism of Scripture<72>lower and higher<65>has been altogether absent. The Jews applied a certain criticism to their sacred writings, alike in the selection of the books, and in the settlement of the text. Examples are seen in the marginal notes to the Hebrew Scriptures (Qere and Kethibh). The Fathers of the early church compared manuscripts of the New Testament books, noting their differences, and judging of the books themselves. The Reformers, it is well known, did not accept blindly the judgments of antiquity, but availed themselves of the best light which the new learning afforded. The materials at the disposal of scholars in that age, however, were scanty, and such as existed were not used with much thoroughness or critical discernment. As aids multiplied with progress of discovery, comparison of manuscripts and versions one with another and with patristic quotations, revealed manifold divergencies and it became apparent that, in both Old Testament and New Testament, the text in current use in the church was far from perfect. "Various readings" accumulated. Not a few of these, indeed, were obvious blunders; many had little or no support in the more ancient authorities; for others, again, authority was fairly equally divided. Some were interpolations which had no right to be in the text at all. How, in these circumstances, was the true text to be ascertained? The work was one of great delicacy, and could only be accomplished by the most painstaking induction of facts, and the strictest application of sound methods. Thus arose a science of textual criticism, which, ramifying in many directions, has attained vast dimensions, and yielded an immense body of secure knowledge in its special department.<P>2. Methods Employed:<P>The materials with which textual criticism works (apparatus criticus) are, as just said, chiefly manuscripts, versions (translations into other tongues), quotations and allusions in patristic writings, with lectionaries (church service-books), and similar aids. The first step is the collection and collation of the material, to which fresh discovery is constantly adding; the noting of its peculiarities, and testing of its age and value; the grouping and designation of it for reference. A next important task is the complete collection of the "various readings" and other diversities of text (omissions, interpolations, etc.), brought to light through comparison of the material, and the endeavor to assign these to their respective causes.<P>3. Causes of Error:<P>More frequently than not errors manuscripts are unintentional, and the causes giving rise to them are sufficiently obvious. Such are the carelessness of scribes, lapses of memory, similarity of sounds (in dictation), or in shape of letters (in copying), wrong dividing of words, omission of a line or clause owing to successive lines or clauses ending with the same word. Intentional changes, again, arise from insertion in the text of marginal notes or glosses, from motives of harmonizing, from the substitution of smoother for harsher or more abrupt expressions<6E>more rarely, from dogmatic reasons.<P>4. Weighing of Authorities:<P>Mistakes of the above kinds can generally be detected by careful scrutiny of sources, but a large number of cases remain in which the correct reading is still doubtful. These, next, have to be dealt with by the impartial weighing and balancing of authorities; a task involving new and delicate inquiries, and the application of fresh rules. It does not suffice to reckon numbers; manuscripts and versions have themselves to be tested as respects reliability and value. Through the presence of peculiarities pointing to a common origin manuscripts come to be grouped into classes and families, and their individual testimony is correspondingly discounted. Older authorities, naturally, are preferred to younger but the possibility has to be reckoned with that a later manuscript may preserve a reading which the older manuscripts have lost. Such rules obtain as that, of two readings, preference is to be given to the more difficult, as less likely to be the result of corruption. But even this has its limits, for a reading may be difficult even to the point of unintelligibility, yet may arise from a simple blunder. As a last resort, in cases of perplexity, conjectural emendation may be admitted; only, however, as yielding probability, not certainty.<P>In the application of these principles an important distinction has to be made between the Old Testament and the New Testament, arising from the relative paucity of material for critical purposes in the one case, and the abundance in the other. The subject is treated here generally; for details see articles on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LANGUAGES+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LANGUAGE+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEXT+AND+MANUSCRIPTS+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>.<P>(1) The Old Testament:<P>Manuscripts and Versions:<P>In the Old Testament, textual criticism labors under the peculiar disadvantage that, with one minute exception (a papyrus fragment of the 2nd century, giving a version of the Decalogue), all known Hebrew manuscripts are late (the oldest not going beyond the 9th century AD); further, that the manuscripts seem all to be based on one single archetype, selected by the rabbis at an early date, and thereafter adhered to by copyists with scrupulous care (compare G. A. Smith, OTJC, 69ff; Driver, Text of Sam, xxxviiff; Strack, however, dissents). The variations which these manuscripts present, accordingly, are slight and unimportant. For a knowledge of the state of the text prior to the adoption of this standard, criticism is dependent on comparison with the versions<6E>especially the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEPTUAGINT">SEPTUAGINT</A> (which see), with the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMARITAN+PENTATEUCH">SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH</a> (which see), and with parallel passages in the Old Testament itself (e.g. in Samual, Kings, Chronicles). Frequent obscurities in the Hebrew text, with undeniable discrepancies in names and numbers, show that before the fixing of the text extensive corruption had already entered. A simple instance of mistake is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,3);">Isa 9:3</a>, where the King James Version reads: "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy." The context shows that the "not" is out of place: the Revised Version (British and American) therefore rightly reads (with the Hebrew Qere: the sounds are similar), "thou hast increased their joy." In the Septuagint the divergences are often very great in order, arrangement, and readings; there are extensive interpolations and omissions (in Jeremiah, Graf reckons that 2,700 words of the Massoretic text are omitted); evidences, where the alterations are not of design, that the Hebrew manuscripts employed by the translators often differed widely from those approved in Palestine. The Samaritan recension likewise exhibits considerable differences.<P>It does not follow that, where difference exists, these rival texts are to be preferred to the Massoretic. Few, since the exhaustive examination of Gesenius, would affirm the superiority of the Samaritan to the Hebrew; even in regard to the Septuagint the trend of opinion seems increasingly in favor of the text of the Massoretes (compare Skinner, "Genesis," International Critical Commentary, xxxv-xxxvi). There is no need, however, to maintain the general superiority of the above texts to the Massoretic to be convinced that, in many instances, the Septuagint, in some cases, probably, even the Sam, has retained readings from which the Massoretic Text has departed. Old Testament criticism has, therefore, a clear field for its labors, and there can be little doubt that, in its cautious application, it has reached many sound results. Less reliance can be placed on the conjectural criticism now so largely in vogue. Dr. G. A. Smith has justly animadverted on the new textual criticism of the poetical and prophetical books, "through which it drives like a great plowshare, turning up the whole surface, and menacing not only the minor landmarks, but, in the case of the prophets, the main outlines of the field as well" (Quarterly Review, January, 1907). This, however, trenches on the domain of the higher criticism.<P>(2) The New Testament:<P>In the New Testament the materials of criticism are vastly more abundant than in the Old Testament; but, with the abundance, while a much larger area of certainty is attainable, more intricate and difficult problems also arise. The wealth of manuscripts of the whole or parts of the Greek New Testament far exceeds that existing for any other ancient writings (Nestle mentions 3,829: 127 uncials and 3,702 cursives: Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, English translation, 34-35, 81); the manuscripts of versions (excluding the Vulgate, reckoned by thousands), are likewise very numerous.<P>(a) Manuscripts and Versions:<P>Greek manuscripts are usually divided into uncials and cursives (or minuscules) from the character of the writing; the oldest uncials go back to the 4th and 5th centuries. The five chief, that alone need be named, are the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), the Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th century), the Codex Alexandrinus (A, 5th century), the Codex Ephraemi (C, 5th century), the Codex Bezae (D, Gospels and Acts, Greek and Latin, 6th century). These manuscripts again are grouped according to affinities (Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, are here chief precursors; Westcott and Hort, chief modern authority), Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (B) going together as representing one type of text, in the opinion of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek the best (the so-called "Neutral"); Codex Bezae (D) representing a "Western" text, with marked peculiarities; A and C exhibiting mixed texts. The VSS, in turn, Syriac, Old Latin, Egyptian (originating with 2nd and 3rd centuries), present interesting problems in their relations to one another and to the Greek manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Bezae. With the Syriac versions (Sinaitic, Curetonian, Peshitta), Tatian\'s Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Gospels, ought to be mentioned. Formerly the Peshitta was taken to be the oldest Syriac version (2nd century); now, especially since the discovery of the Lewis (Sinaitic) palimpsest, it tends to be regarded as a later revision of the older Syriac texts (probably by Rabula of Edessa, beginning of the 5th century). The Old Latin, also the old Syriac, manuscripts show marked affinities with the text of Codex Bezae (D)<29>the "Western" type.<P>(b) The Western Text:<P>The question chiefly exercising scholars at the present time is, accordingly, the relation of the Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Greek text based on Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus to the Western text represented by Codex Bezae, but now finding early support from the Old Latin and Syriac, as well as from quotations in the 2nd and 3rd Fathers. The Western text is discounted by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek for its para-phrastic character, and "astonishing freedom" in changing, inserting and omitting (Westcott-Hort, 122ff); yet, on internal grounds, certain important omissions in this text of the last three chapters of Luke are accepted by these authorities as representing the purer text, the rejected readings being termed "non-Western interpolations." A newer school, however, is disposed to accept the Western readings, as, to a much larger extent than was formerly supposed, the more original; while some writers, as Blass, Nestle, in part Zahn (compare Nestle, op. cit., 324ff), seek a solution of the difference of texts in theory of two editions (Blass, Luke and Acts; Zahn, Acts alone). This theory has not met with much acceptance, and the problems of the Western text must still be regarded as unsolved. The question is not, indeed, vital, as no important doctrine of the New Testament is affected; but it touches the genuineness of several passages to which high value is attached. E.g. the words at the Supper, "which is given for you," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19,20);">Lu 22:19-20</a>, not in D), are excluded by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek as a non-Western interpolation; while the passage on the angel and the bloody sweat (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,43,44);">Lu 22:43-44</a> in both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Bezae), and the first word on the cross, "Father, forgive them," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,34);">Lu 23:34</a>, in Codex Sinaiticus, omitted by Codex Bezae (D) and the Sinaitic Syriac), are rejected as Western interpolations. The Revised Version (British and American) retains these passages with marginal note.<P>(c) Results:<P>As respects results, it may be said generally that the labors of a long line of scholars have given us a New Testament text on which, in nearly all essential respects, we can safely rely. Others, it is to be owned, take a less sanguine view (compare Nestle, op. cit., 227ff). The correct reading seems undeniably settled in a large majority of cases. The Revised Version (British and American) embodies most of the assured results; doubtful cases are noted in the margin. Among passages long known to be interpolations, now altogether removed, is that on the three witnesses in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,8);">1Jo 5:8</a>. The two longest passages noted as not belonging to the original text are the last 12 verses of Mark (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,\'9-20\');">16:9-20</a>), and the story of the woman taken in adultery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,\'53-\');">Joh 7:53</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,\'1-11\');">8:11</a>).<p>III. Higher Criticism.<P>The scope of the higher criticism has already been indicated. Many of the inquiries it undertakes were formerly covered by what was called Biblical introduction; the flight of the newer science, however, is bolder, and the problems it seeks to solve are more complicated and far-reaching. An important part of its work is the analysis of books, with the view of determining their component parts (e.g. the J, E, P, D, of the Pentateuch), the age, origin, and characteristics of each, their connection with external conditions and the state of belief and life of the time. The nature of its task will be better understood from a rapid survey of its procedure.<P>1. The Old Testament:<P>Higher criticism began, mainly, with the Old Testament. Already in the 2nd century, Gnostics assailed the Old Testament as the work of an inferior deity (the Demiurge), and heretical Ebionites (Clementine Recognitions and Homilies) declared it to be corrupted with false prophecy. In the 17th century Spinoza prepared the way in his Tractatus (1670) for future rationalistic attacks.<P>(1) Astruc and Successors.<P>The beginning of higher criticism in the stricter sense is commonly associated with the French physician Astruc, who, in his Conjectures, in 1753, drew attention to the fact that, in some sections of Genesis, the Divine name employed is "Elohim" (God), in others, "Yahweh." This he accounted for by the use of distinct documents by Moses in the composition of the book. Eichhorn (1779), to whom the name "higher criticism" is due, supplemented Astruc\'s theory by the correct observation that this distinction in the use of the names was accompanied by other literary peculiarities. It soon became further evident that, though the distinction in the names mostly ceased after the revelation of Yahweh to Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,6);">Ex 3:6</a>), the literary peculiarities extended much farther than Genesis, indeed till the end of Joshua (Bleek, 1822; Ewald, 1831; Stahelin, 1835). Instead of a "Pentateuch," recognized as of composite authorship, there was now postulated a "Hexateuch" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH">PENTATEUCH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEXATEUCH">HEXATEUCH</a>). Meanwhile De Wette (1805-6), on grounds of style and contents, had claimed for Deuteronomy an origin not earlier than the reign of Josiah. "Fragmentary" theories, like Vater\'s, which contributed little to the general development, may be left unnoticed. A conservative school, headed by Hengstenberg (1831) and Havernick (1837), contested these conclusions of the critics, and contended for the unity and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Bolder spirits, as Vatke (1835), anticipated the conclusions of the newer critical school in declaring that the Levitical laws were latest of all in origin. Their voices were as yet unheeded.<P>(2) Hupfeld. A distinct advance on preceding theories was made by Hupfeld (1853; in part anticipated by Ilgen, 1789). Hitherto the prevailing assumption had been that there was one fundamental document<6E>the so-called Elohistic, dated usually in the age of the Judges, or the time of Saul or David<69>and that the Yahwistic parts were "supplementary" to this (not a separate document). It was the merit of Hupfeld to perceive that not a few of the sections in the "Elohistic" document did not bear the usual literary marks of that writing, but closely resembled the "Yahwistic" sections in everything but the use of the Divine name. These portions he singled out and erected into a document by themselves (though they bear no signs of being such), while the Yahwistic parts were relieved of their "supplementary" character, and regarded as belonging to a distinct document also. There were thus now 3 documents, attributed to as many authors<72>the original Elohist, the 2nd or Younger Elohist (E) and the Jahwist (Jahwist). Deuteronomy, as a distinct book, was added to these, making 4 documents in all.<P>(3) Graf and Wellhausen.<P>Thus matters stood till the appearance of Graf\'s work, The Historical Books of the Old Testament, in 1866, through which something like a revolution in the critical outlook was effected. Following in the track of Vatke, earlier, Reuss, of Strassburg, had taken up the idea that the Levitical legislation could not, as was commonly presumed, be earlier than Deuteronomy, but was, on the contrary, later<65>in fact, a product of the age of the exile. Graf adopted and developed this theory. He still for a time, while putting the laws late, maintained an earlier date for the Elohistic narratives. He was soon led, however, to see that laws and history must go together; so the whole Elohistic writing was removed from its former place, and brought down bodily to the end of the religious development. Graf, at the same time, did not regard it as an independent document. At first theory was scouted, but gradually, through the able advocacy of Kuenen and Wellhausen<65>especially the latter<65>it secured ascendancy, and is now regarded as the critical view par excellence. Order and nomenclature of the assumed documents were now changed. The Elohist, instead of standing first, was put last under the designation P or Priestly Code; Wellhausen\'s symbol for this writing was Q. Its date was taken to be post-exilian. The Jahwist becomes J; the Elohist becomes E. These are placed in the 9th or 8th centuries BC (circa 850-750), but are supposed to have been combined a century or so later (JE). Deuteronomy, identified with the law-book found in the temple in the reign of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,\'1-\');">2Ki 22</a>), is thought to have been written shortly before that time. The order is therefore no longer 1st Elohist-Jahwist and 2nd Elohist-D, but J and E-D-P. The whole, it is held, was finally united into the great law-book (Pent) brought by Ezra to Jerusalem from Babylon (458 BC; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,\'6-10\');">Ezr 7:6-10</a>), and read by him before the people 14 years later (444 BC; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-\');">Ne 8</a>).<P>(4) Literary and Historical Grounds of Theory.<P>A sketch like the above gives, of course, no proper idea of the grounds on which, apart from the distinction in the Divine names, the critical theory just described is based. The grounds are partly literary<72>the discrimination of documents, e.g. resting on differences of style and conception, duplicates, etc. (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH">PENTATEUCH</a>)<29>but partly also historical, in accordance with the critic\'s conception of the development of religion and institutions in Israel. A main reliance is placed on the fact that the history, with its many sanctuaries up to the time of Deuteronomy, is in conflict with the law of that book, which recognizes only one sanctuary as legitimate (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'1-\');">12</a>), and equally with the Priestly Code, which throughout assumes this centralizing law. The laws of Deu and Priestly Code, therefore, cannot be early. The prophets, it is held, knew nothing of a Levitical legislation, and refused to regard the sacrificial system as Divine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,22);">Jer 7:22</a>ff).<P>(5) The Codes:<P>The code under which older Israel lived was that formulated in the Book of the Covenant (<span="noTag">Ex 20-23</span>), which permitted many altars (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24);">Ex 20:24</a>f). The law of Deuteronomy was the product of a centralizing movement on the part of the prophets, issuing in the reformation of Josiah. The Priestly Code was the work of fertile brains and pens of post-exilian priests and scribes, incorporating older usage, devising new laws, and throwing the whole into the fictitious form of Mosaic wilderness legislation.<P>(6) Effects on History, etc.<P>The revolution wrought by these newer constructions, however, is not adequately realized till regard is had to their effects on the picture given in the Old Testament itself of Israel\'s history, religion and literature. It is not too much to say that this picture is nearly completely subverted. By the leaders of the school (Graf, Kuenen, Wellhausen, Duhm, Stade, etc.) the supernatural element in the history and religion is totally eliminated; even by those who do not go so far, little is left standing. The history of the Pentateuch<63>indeed the history down to the time of the kings<67>is largely given up. Genesis is legend, Exodus hardly more trustworthy, Joshua a romance. The histories of Samuel and David are "written up" by a theocratic narrator. None of the laws<77>even the Decalogue<75>are allowed to be certainly Mosaic. Monotheism is believed to have come in with Amos and Hosea; earlier, Yahweh was a "tribal" God. Ark, tabernacle, priesthood, feasts, as depicted in the Priestly Code, are post-exilic fiction. The treatment accorded to the Pentateuch necessarily reacts on the other historical books; the prophetic literature suffers in an almost equal degree through disintegration and mutilation. It is not Isaiah alone<6E>where the question has long been mooted of the post-exilian origin of chapters 40-66 (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISAIAH">ISAIAH</a>); the critical knife is applied with scarcely less freedom to the remaining prophetical books. Few, if any, of the psalms are allowed to be preexilic. Daniel is a work of the Maccabean age.<P>(7) General Results.<P>As a general summary of the results of the movement, which it is thought "the future is not likely to reverse," the following may be quoted from Professor A. S. Peake: "The analysis of the Pentateuch into four main documents, the identification of the law on which Josiah\'s reformation was based with some form of the Deuteronomic Code, the compilation of that code in the reign of Manasseh at the earliest, the fixing of the Priestly Code to a date later than Ezekiel, the highly composite character of some parts of the prophetic literature, especially the Book of Isaiah, the post-exilian origin of most of the Psalms, and large parts of the Book of Proverbs, the composition of Job not earlier than the exile and probably later, the Maccabean date of Daniel, and the slightly earlier date of Ecclesiastes" ("Present Movement of Biblical Science," in Manchester, Inaugural Lects, 32).<P>(8) Criticism of Theory.<P>The criticism of this elaborate theory belongs to the arts which deal with the several points involved, and is not here attempted at length (compare the present writer\'s Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament). The gains that have accrued from it on the literary side in a more exact and scholarly knowledge of the phenomena to be explained (e.g. distinction in the Divine names; distinction of P element in the Pentateuch from that known as JE) are not to be questioned; on the historical and religious sides also much has been done to quicken interest, enlarge knowledge and correct older ideas which have proved untenable<6C>in general, to place the whole facts of the Old Testament in a clearer and more assured light. On the other hand, much even in the literary criticism is subjective, arbitrary and conjectural, while the main hypothesis of the subsequentness of the Levitical law to Ezekiel, with the general view taken of the historical and religious development in Israel, is open to the most serious exception. The Old Testament has its own account to give of the origin of its religion in the monotheism of Abraham, the covenants with the patriarchs, the legislation through Moses, which is not thus readily to be set aside in the interests of a theory resting largely on naturalistic pre-suppositions (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BIBLE">BIBLE</a>). There is not a word in the history in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-\');">Ne 8</a> to suggest that the law introduced by Ezra was a new one; it was received without demur by a deeply divided community as the ancient law of Moses. So with the law of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,\'1-\');">2Ki 22</a>). Its genuineness was doubted by no one. The position of theory, generally, is by no means so secure as many of its adherents suppose. Internally, it is being pushed to extremes which tend to discredit it to sober minds, and otherwise is undergoing extensive modifications. Documents are multiplied, dates lowered, authors are converted into "schools." Archaeologists, in large majority, declare against it. The facts they adduce tend to confirm the history in parts where it had been most impugned. The new Babylonian school in Germany (that of Winckler) assails it in its foundations. Recently, the successor of Kuenen in Leyden, Professor B. D. Eerdmans, formerly a supporter, has broken with theory in its entirety, and subjects the documentary hypothesis to a damaging criticism. It is too early yet to forecast results, but the opinion may be hazarded that, as in the case of the Tubingen New Testament critical school in last century referred to below, the prevailing critical theory of the Old Testament will experience fundamental alteration in a direction nearer to older ideas, though it is too much to expect that traditional views will ever be resuscitated in their completeness.<P>2. The New Testament:<P>Higher criticism of the New Testament may be said to begin, in a Deistic spirit, with Reimarus (Fragments, published by Lessing, 1778), and, on Hegelian lines, with Strauss (Life of Jesus, 1835). In the interests of his mythical theory, Strauss subjected every part of the gospel history to a destructive criticism.<P>(1) The School of Baur.<P>In a more systematic way, F. Baur (1826-60), founder of the famous Tubingen school, likewise proceeding from Hegel, applied a drastic criticism to all the documents of the New Testament. Strauss started with the Gospels. Baur sought firmer ground in the phenomena of the Apostolic Age. The key to Baur\'s theory lies in the alleged existence of Pauline and Petrine parties in the early church, in conflict with one another. The true state of matters is mirrored, he holds, not in the Book of Acts, a composition of the 2nd century, written to gloss over the differences between the original apostles and Paul, but in the four contemporary and undoubtedly genuine epistles of Paul, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Roman, and in the Book of Revelation. In these documents the church is seen rent by a schism that threatened its very existence. By and by attempts were made at conciliation, the stages of which are reflected in the Gospels and remaining writings of the New Testament. The Fourth Gospel, about 170 AD, brings up the rear. This theory, which found influential support in the scholarship of the time (Schwegler, Zeller, etc.), could not stand the test of impartial investigation, and is now on all sides discredited. Professor Bacon, in a recent work, pronounces its theory of the Johannine writings to be "as obsolete as the Ptolemaic geography" (Fourth Gospel, 20). Its influence on later criticism has, however, been considerable. (2) Synoptic Criticism.<P>Meanwhile more sober scholarship was concerning itself with the intricate problem of the relations of the Synoptic Gospels. The problem is a very real one (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS">GOSPELS</a>). The three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are seen on inspection to exhibit an amount of agreement in subject-matter, order, often in language, which cannot be accounted for except on theory of some common source. Suppose the Gospels divided into sections, in 52 of these the narratives coincide, 12 more are common to Matthew and Mark, 5 to Mark and Luke, and 14 to Matthew and Luke, while 5 are peculiar to Matthew, 2 to Mark and 9 to Luke. The verbal agreement is greater in the recital of the words of others, particularly of words of Jesus, than in the narrative portions.<P>(i) Oral, Documentary, and Dependence Theories:<P>How is this to be explained? Three forms of theory were early propounded<65>the oral, the documentary, and the hypothesis of dependence of one gospel upon another. Of these theories, the oldest is the 3rd (Augustine already held that Mark was an abridgment of Matthew and Luke), and to it, in combination with the 2nd, though in reversed order (Mark being put first), it will be seen below that criticism has largely reverted. The oral theory, proposed by Gieseler (1818), has, till recently, been the favorite one in England (Westcott, Alford, etc., with Godet, Pressense, Ebrard, etc., on the Continent). In it resemblances in the three Gospels are explained by an oral tradition assumed to have attained a relatively fixed form while the apostles were yet teaching together in Jerusalem. The documentary theory took its origin with Eichhorn (1794), but in the hands of Marsh (1801), finally in Eichhorn\'s own (1804), received so elaborate a development as completely to discredit it. The dependence theory, in turn, went through every possible shape. Gradually, with sifting, certain combinations were eliminated (those which put Luke first, or Matthew last, or made Mark a middle term), till only two remained<65>Matthew, Luke, Mark (Griesbach 1789-90, Baur, etc.), and Mark, Matthew, Luke (Weisse,1838,Wilke,1838,etc.). The prestige of the Baur school obtained a temporary ascendancy for the former view<65>that which put Mark last; this, however, has now quite given way in favor of Mark\'s priority. There remained a division of opinion as to whether the Mark employed by the other evangelists was the canonical Mark (Weisse, Meyer, B. Weiss, etc.), or an ur-Markus (Holtzmann, Reuss, etc.), but the difficulties of the latter hypothesis proved so insurmountable that Holtzmann finally gave it up.<P>(ii) The "Logia":<P>It is obvious, however, that the use of Mark by the other evangelists, even if granted, does not yet completely solve the synoptical problem. There is still to be considered that large mass of matter<65>chiefly discourses<65>common to Matthew and Luke, not to speak of the material peculiar to Luke itself. For the explanation of these sections it becomes necessary to postulate a second source, usually identified with the much-canvassed Logia of Papias, and designated by recent scholars (Wellhausen, etc.) Q. It is regarded as a collection of discourses, possibly by Matthew, with or without an admixture of narrative matter (B. Weiss, etc.).<P>(iii) Two-Source Theory:<P>This yields the "two-source" theory at present prevailing in synoptical criticism (for a different view, compare Zahn\'s Introduction). Matthew and Luke, on this view, are not independent Gospels, but are drawn up on the basis of<P>(1) Mark and<P>(2) Q = the Logia, with original material on the part of Luke (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS">GOSPELS</a>).<P>A theory which commands the assent of so many scholars has necessarily great weight. It cannot, however, be regarded as finally established. Many grave difficulties remain; there is, besides, a prima facie improbability in a Gospel like Mark\'s being treated in the manner supposed or included among the "attempts" which Luke\'s own Gospel was designed to supersede (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-4\');">Lu 1:1-4</a>; compare Wright, Luke\'s Gospel in Greek, xiv, xv).<P>(iv) Authorship<69>Lukan and Johannine Questions:<P>With criticism of the sources of the Gospels there goes, of course, the question of authorship. A powerful vindication of the Lucan authorship of the 3rd Gospel and the Book of Acts has recently come from the pen of Professor A. Harnack, who maintains that in this, as in most other points regarding early Christian literature, "tradition is right" (compare his Luke, the Physician, English translation). Outside the Synoptics, the burning question still is the authorship of the Johannine writings. Here also, however, the extreme positions of the Baur school are entirely given up ("It is perfectly apparent," says Professor Bacon, "that Baur mistook the period of dissemination for that of origin," op. cit., 21), and powerful defenses of Johannine authorship have of late appeared (notably Sanday\'s Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, and ex-Principal Drummond\'s Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+GOSPEL+OF">JOHN, GOSPEL OF</a>.<P>(3) Modern "Historical-Critical" School.<P>On the other hand, a new and intensely aggressive radical school has recently come to the front, the so-called "historical-critical," which treats the text and history of the Gospels generally with a recklessness to which no limits can be put. It is even doubted if Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Wrede). Sayings are accepted, rejected, or mutilated at pleasure. The latest phase of this school is the "Apocalyptic," which finds the essence of Christ\'s message in His insistence on the approaching end of the world (compare Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede; English translation The Quest of the Historical Jesus). These excesses may be depended on to cure themselves.<P>(4) Remaining Writings of the New Testament.<P>For the rest of the writings on the New Testament, the trend of criticism has been in the main in a conservative direction. One by one the Pauline Epistles have been given back to the apostle<6C>doubt chiefly still resting in certain minds on the Pastorals. The Book of Revelation is restored by most to the age of Domitian, where tradition places it. Its relation to the Fourth Gospel and to John is still in dispute, and some moderns would see in it a groundwork of Jewish apocalypse. These and kindred questions are discussed in the arts devoted to them.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Articles on Text, manuscripts, VSS, of Old Testament and New Testament in Bible Dicts. and Encyclopedias: works on Introduction to Old Testament and New Testament.<P>On the Old Testament.<P>S. Davidson, Revision of the English Old Testament; W. R. Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church; Wellhausen, Prol to the Hist of Israel (English translation); Kuenen, The Hexateuch (English translation); Oxford Hexateuch according to the Revised Version (British and American); Orr, Problem of the Old Testament, and Bible Under Trial; H. M. Wiener, Essays on Pentateuchal Criticism; W. Moller. Are the Critics Right? (English translation).<P>On the New Testament.<P>Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Intro; F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament; Nestle, Textual Crit of the Greek Testament (English translation); Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th edition; K. Lake, The Text of the New Testament; Ebrard, Gospel History (English translation); F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission; Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research; Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede (English translation: The Quest of the Historical Jesus): A. S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament.``132';
isbe[2423]='Crocodile`krok\'-o-dil.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVIATHAN">LEVIATHAN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRAGON">DRAGON</a>`1';
isbe[2424]='Crocodile, Land``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHAMELEON">CHAMELEON</a>`1';
isbe[2425]='Crook-Backed`krook\'-bakt (gibben; kurtos): A disqualification for the priesthood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,20);">Le 21:20</a>); was probably an angular curvature of the spine, usually the result of tubercular caries of the vertebrae. It was by no means uncommon in ancient Egypt, where I have found a considerable number of spines affected with this disease. Some Talmudic authorities explain it as meaning "very dark colored," but this is unlikely.<P>The woman bound by the spirit of infirmity and unable to lift herself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,\'11-17\');">Lu 13:11-17</a>) was affected with senile kyphosis, a chronic bone disease often found among aged men (and more frequently women) whose lives have been spent in agricultural labor. In these the vertebrae become altered in shape so that it is impossible to straighten the back. Some rabbinical authorities believed all deformities to be due to Satan, and to this our Lord seems to have alluded in his rebuke to those who caviled at His healing on the Sabbath. I have found this condition in some Egyptian skeletons, and have seen it in a Palestinian fellah. A skeleton affected with a similar curvature was found buried under the threshold of a house at Gezer, where she had evidently been offered as a foundation sacrifice.``107';
isbe[2426]='Crooked`krook\'-ed (\'awah, \'aqash, \'aqalqal, \'aqallathon, pethaltol; skolios): Primarily designates something that is bent, twisted or deformed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,1);">Isa 27:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,2);">45:2</a> the King James Version).<P>Figurative:<P>(1) It designates a course of action that deviates from rectitude, especially deceit, guile, hypocrisy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,5);">De 32:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,15);">Pr 2:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',1,15);">Ec 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,5);">Lu 3:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,15);">Php 2:15</a>);<P>(2) trials (sent by God, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',7,13);">Ec 7:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,9);">La 3:9</a>);<P>(3) difficulties (removed by God, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,16);">Isa 42:16</a>).``1';
isbe[2427]='Crooked Serpent`krook\'-ed sur\'-pent.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[2428]='Crop`(1) As noun the translation of mur\'-ah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,16);">Le 1:16</a>), which is the craw of a bird, especially of doves and pigeons, which had to be removed by the priest before he offered the birds as a burnt sacrifice.<P>(2) As a verb it is (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',17,4,22);">Eze 17:4, 22</a>) the translation of qataph, which has the meaning of "cutting off," "cutting down," "plucking."``1';
isbe[2429]='Cross`(stauros, "a cross," "the crucifixion"; skolops, "a stake," "a pole"): The name is not found in the Old Testament. It is derived from the Latin word crux. In the Greek language it is stauros, but sometimes we find the word skolops used as its Greek equivalent. The historical writers, who transferred the events of Roman history into the Greek language, make use of these two words. No word in human language has become more universally known than this word, and that because all of the history of the world since the death of Christ has been measured by the distance which separates events from it. The symbol and principal content of the Christian religion and of Christian civilization is found in this one word.<P>1. Forms of the Cross:<P>The cross occurs in at least four different forms:<P>(1) the form usually seen in pictures, the crux immissa, in which the upright beam projected above the shorter crosspiece; this is most likely the type of cross on which the Saviour died, as may be inferred from the inscription which was nailed above His head;<P>(2) the crux commissa, or Anthony\'s cross, which has the shape of the letter T;<P>(3) the Greek cross of later date, in which the pieces are equally long;<P>(4) the crux decussata, or Andrew\'s cross, which has the shape of the letter X.<P>2. Discovery of the True Cross:<P>The early church historians Socrates (1, 17), Sozomen (2, 1), Rufinus (1, 7) and Theodoret (1, 18) all make mention of this tradition. The most significant thing is that Eusebius (Vit. Const., iii.26-28), who carries more weight than they all together, wholly omits it.<P>According to it, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, in 325 AD, when she was 79 years old, discovered the true cross of Jesus by an excavation she caused to be made on the traditional spot of His grave. With the cross of the Saviour were found the two crosses of the malefactors who were crucified with Him. A miracle of healing, wrought by touching the true cross, revealed its identity. Whenfound it was intact, even the holy nails of the crucifixion being discovered. The main part of the cross was deposited by Helena in a church erected over the spot. Of the remainder, a portion was inserted into the head of the statue of Constantine, and the balance was placed in a new church, specially erected for it at Rome and named after it Santa Croce. Small fragments of the wood of the true cross were sold, encrusted with gold and jewels, and since many among the wealthy believers were desirous of possessing such priceless relics, the miracle of the "multiplication of the cross" was devised, so that the relic suffered no diminution "et quasi intacta maneret" (Paulinus epistle 11 ad Sev). Fragments of the true cross are thus to be found in many Roman Catholic churches of many countries, all over Christendom. It is said that the East celebrated the staurosimos hemera (Crucifixion Day) on September 14, since the 4th century. The evidence for this fact is late and untrustworthy. It is certain that the West celebrated the Invention of the Cross, on May 3, since the time of Gregory the Great in the 6th century. The finding and publication of the apocryphal "Doctrina Addaei" has made it evident that the entire legend of the discovery of the cross by Helena is but a version of the old Edessa legend, which tells of an identical discovery of the cross, under the very same circumstances, by the wife of the emperor Claudius, who had been converted to Christianity by the preaching of Peter.<P>3. Symbolical Uses of the Cross:<P>(1) Extra-Scriptural.<P>The sign of the cross was well known in the symbolics of various ancient nations. Among the Egyptians it is said to have been the symbol of divinity and eternal life, and to have been found in the temple of Serapis. It is known either in the form of the Greek cross or in the form of the letter "T". The Spaniards found it to be well known, as a symbol, by the Mexicans and Peruvians, perhaps signifying the four elements, or the four seasons, or the four points of the compass.<P>(2) Scriptural.<P>The suffering implied in crucifixion naturally made the cross a symbol of pain, distress and burden-bearing. Thus Jesus used it Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,38);">Mt 10:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,24);">16:24</a>). In Paulinic literature the cross stands for the preaching of the doctrine of the Atonement (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,18);">1Co 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,14);">Ga 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,18);">Php 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,20);">Col 1:20</a>). It expresses the bond of unity between the Jew and the Gentile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16);">Eph 2:16</a>), and between the believer and Christ, and also symbolizes sanctification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,24);">Ga 5:24</a>). The cross is the center and circumference of the preaching of the apostles and of the life of the New Testament church.<P>4. Crucifixion:<P>As an instrument of death the cross was detested by the Jews. "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,13);">Ga 3:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,23);">De 21:23</a>), hence, it became a stumbling-block to them, for how could one accursed of God be their Messiah? Nor was the cross differently considered by the Romans. "Let the very name of the cross be far away not only from the body of a Roman citizen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears" (Cicero Pro Rabirio 5). The earliest mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, the transfixion of the body lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes, a mode of death-punishment still well known among the Mongol race. The usual mode of crucifixion was familiar to the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, Persians and Babylonians (Thuc. 1, 110; Herod. iii.125, 159). Alexander the Great executed two thousand Tyrian captives in this way, after the fall of the city. The Jews received this form of punishment from the Syrians and Romans (Ant., XII, v, 4; XX, vi, 2; BJ, I, iv, 6). The Roman citizen was exempt from this form of death, it being considered the death of a slave (Cicero In Verrem i. 5, 66; Quint. viii.4). The punishment was meted out for such crimes as treason, desertion in the face of the enemy, robbery, piracy, assassination, sedition, etc. It continued in vogue in the Roman empire till the day of Constantine, when it was abolished as an insult to Christianity. Among the Romans crucifixion was preceded by scourging, undoubtedly to hasten impending death. The victim then bore his own cross, or at least the upright beam, to the place of execution. This in itself proves that the structure was less ponderous than is commonly supposed. When he was tied to the cross nothing further was done and he was left to die from starvation. If he was nailed to the cross, at least in Judea, a stupefying drink was given him to deaden the agony. The number of nails used seems to have been indeterminate. A tablet, on which the feet rested or on which the body was partly supported, seems to have been a part of the cross to keep the wounds from tearing through the transfixed members (Iren., Adv. haer., ii.42). The suffering of death by crucifixion was intense, especially in hot climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained of the body and insufferable thirst. The swelled about the rough nails and the torn lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. The mind was confused and filled with anxiety and dread foreboding. The victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths. Tetanus not rarely supervened and the rigors of the attending convulsions would tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily forces were exhausted and the victim sank to unconsciousness and death. The sufferings were so frightful that "even among the raging passions of war pity was sometimes excited" (BJ, V, xi, 1). The length of this agony was wholly determined by the constitution of the victim, but death rarely ensued before thirty-six hours had elapsed. Instances are on record of victims of the cross who survived their terrible injuries when taken down from the cross after many hours of suspension (Josephus, Vita, 75). Death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs of the victims and by a hard blow delivered under the armpit before crucifixion. Crura fracta was a well-known Roman term (Cicero Phil. xiii.12). The sudden death of Christ evidently was a matter of astonishment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,44);">Mr 15:44</a>). The peculiar symptoms mentioned by John (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,34);">19:34</a>) would seem to point to a rupture of the heart, of which the Saviour died, independent of the cross itself, or perhaps hastened by its agony.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BLOOD+AND+WATER">BLOOD AND WATER</a>`42';
isbe[2430]='Crossway`kros\'-wa (perek, literally, "division"): A forking or dividing of the way. Obadiah warns Edom, "And stand thou not in the crossway, to cut off those of his that escape" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Oba\',1,14);">Obad 1:14</a>). In Septuagint, "a mountain pass."``1';
isbe[2431]='Crown`kroun: The word crown in the Old Testament is a translation of five different Hebrew words, and in the New Testament of two Greek words. These express the several meanings, and must be examined to ascertain the same.<P>1. In Hebrew:<P>The five Hebrew words are as follows:<P class="in15">(1) qodhqodh, from qadhadh;<P class="in15">(2) zer, from zarar;<P class="in15">(3) nezer, or nezer, both from nazar;<P class="in15">(4) atarah, from \'atar;<P class="in15">(5) kether, from kathar.<P>(1) Qodhqodh means "the crown of the head," and is also rendered in the King James Version "top of the head," "scalp," "pate." It comes from qadhadh, meaning "to shrivel up," "contract," or bend the body or neck through courtesy. Both the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,35);">De 28:35</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,16);">33:16</a>, translation it "crown" instead of "top" as in the King James Version. Jacob in his prophecy concerning his sons says: "The blessings of thy father...shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that is prince among his brethren" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,26);">Ge 49:26</a> the American Revised Version, margin). Other references are: <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,20);">De 33:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,25);">2Sa 14:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,7);">Job 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,17);">Isa 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,16);">Jer 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,45);">48:45</a>. Translated "scalp" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,21);">Ps 68:21</a> and "pate" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,16);">Ps 7:16</a>.<P>(2) Zer means a "chaplet," something spread around the top as a molding about the border, and because of its wreath-like appearance called a crown. "That which presses, binds" (BDB). Comes from zarar, meaning "to diffuse" or "scatter." It is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,11,24,25);">Ex 25:11, 24-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,3,4);">30:3-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,2,11,12,26,27);">37:2, 11-12, 26-27</a>.<P>(3) Nezer means something "set apart"; i.e. a dedication to the priesthood or the dedication of a Nazarite, hence, a chaplet or fillet as a symbol of such consecration. The word in the King James Version is rendered "crown," "consecration," "separation," "hair." Comes from nazar, meaning "to hold aloof" from impurity, even from drink and food, more definitely, "to set apart" for sacred purposes, i.e. "to separate," "devote," "consecrate." It is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,6);">Ex 29:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,30);">39:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,9);">Le 8:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,12);">21:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,10);">2Sa 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,12);">2Ki 11:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,11);">2Ch 23:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,39);">Ps 89:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,18);">132:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,24);">Pr 27:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,16);">Zec 9:16</a>.<P>(4) \'Atarah means a crown in the usual sense. Comes from \'atar, meaning "to encircle," as in war for offense or defense; also actually and figuratively "to crown." Rendered sometimes "to compass." It is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,30);">2Sa 12:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,2);">1Ch 20:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,15);">Es 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,9);">Job 19:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,36);">31:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',21,3);">Ps 21:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,9);">Pr 4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,4);">12:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,24);">14:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,31);">16:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,6);">17:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,11);">So 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,1,3,5);">Isa 28:1,3,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',62,3);">62:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,18);">Jer 13:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',5,16);">La 5:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,12);">Eze 16:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,26);">21:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,42);">23:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,11,14);">Zec 6:11, 14</a>; "crowned," <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,11);">So 3:11</a>; "crownest," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',65,11);">Ps 65:11</a>; "crowneth," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,4);">Ps 103:4</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) translations "crowned," of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',8,5);">Ps 8:5</a> "hast crowned." the American Standard Revised Version prefers to translation "crowning," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,8);">Isa 23:8</a>, "the bestower of crowns."<P>(5) Kether means a "circlet" or "a diadem." From kathar, meaning "to enclose": as a friend, "to crown"; as an enemy, "to besiege." Variously translated "beset round," "inclose round," "suffer," "compass about." Found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,11);">Es 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,17);">2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,6);">6:8</a>; "crowned," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,18);">Pr 14:18</a>.<P>2. In Greek:<P>The two Greek words of the New Testament translated crown are:<P class="in15">(1) stephanos, from stepho, and<P class="in15">(2) diadema, from diadeo, "to bind round."<P>(1) Stephanos means a chaplet (wreath) made of leaves or leaf-like gold, used for marriage and festive occasions, and expressing public recognition of victory in races, games and war; also figuratively as a reward for efficient Christian life and service (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GAMES">GAMES</a>). This symbol was more noticeable and intricate than the plain fillet. Only in the Revelation of John is stephanos called "golden." The "crown of thorns" which Jesus wore was a stephanos (woven wreath) of thorns; the kind is not known (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,29);">Mt 27:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,17);">Mr 15:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,2,5);">Joh 19:2, 5</a>). Luke makes no mention of it. Whether intended to represent royalty or victory, it was caricature crown. Stephanos is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,25);">1Co 9:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,1);">Php 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,19);">1Th 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,8);">2Ti 4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,12);">Jas 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,4);">1Pe 5:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,10);">Re 2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,11);">3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,2);">6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,1);">12:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,14);">14:14</a>; plural in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,4,10);">Re 4:4, 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,7);">9:7</a>; "crowned" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,5);">2Ti 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,9);">Heb 2:9</a>; "crownedst" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,7);">Heb 2:7</a>.<P>(2) Diadema is the word for "diadem," from dia (about) and deo (bound), i.e. something bound about the head. In the three places where it occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,3);">Re 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,1);">13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,12);">19:12</a>) both the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version translation it not "crowns" but "diadems," thus making the proper distinction between stephanos and diadema, such as is not done either in the King James Version or the Septuagint (see Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament). According to Thayer the distinction was not observed in Hellenic Greek "Diadems" are on the dragon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,3);">Re 12:3</a>), the beast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,1);">Re 13:1</a>) and on the Rider of the White Horse, "the Faithful and True" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,12);">Re 19:12</a>). In each case the "diadems" are symbolic of power to rule.<P>3. Use and Significance:<P>There are five uses of the crown as seen in the Scripture references studied, namely, decoration, consecration, coronation, exaltation, and remuneration.<p>(1) Decoration.<P>The zer of Exodus, as far as it was a crown at all, was for ornamentation, its position not seeming to indicate any utility purpose. These wavelet, gold moldings, used in the furnishings of the tabernacle of Moses, were placed about<P>(a) the table of shewbread (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,24);">Ex 25:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,11);">37:11</a>);<P>(b) the ark of the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,11);">Ex 25:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,2);">37:2</a>);<P>(c) the altar of incense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,3,4);">Ex 30:3-4; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,26,27);">37:26-27</a>). The position of these crowns is a debated question among archaeologists. Their purpose other than decoration is not known. The encircling gold might signify gratitude, parity and enduring worth.<P>(2) Consecration.<P>The nezer had a twofold use as the crown of consecration:<P>(a) It was placed as a frontlet on the miter of the high priest, being tied with a blue lace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,30);">Ex 39:30</a>). The priestly crown was a flat piece of pure gold, bearing the inscription, "Holy to Yahweh," signifying the consecration of the priest as the representative of the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,6);">Ex 29:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,9);">Le 8:9</a>).<P>(b) Likewise the Hebrew king (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,12);">2Ki 11:12</a>) was set apart by God in wearing on his head a royal nezer, whether of silk or gold we do not know. It was set with jewels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,16);">Zec 9:16</a>) and was light enough to be taken into battle (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,10);">2Sa 1:10</a>).<P>(3) Coronation.<P>The ordinary use of the crown. There were three kinds of kingly crowns used in coronation services:<P>(a) The nezer or consecration crown, above referred to, was the only one used in crowning Hebrew kings. What seems to be an exception is in the case of Joshua, who represented both priest and king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,11);">Zec 6:11</a> the American Revised Version, margin).<P>(b) The \'atarah, and<P>(c) the kether were used in crowning foreign monarchs.<P>No king but a Hebrew could wear a nezer<65>a "Holy to Yahweh" crown. It is recorded that David presumed to put on his own head the \'atarah of King Malcam (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,30);">2Sa 12:30</a> the American Revised Version, margin). The kether or jeweled turban was the crown of the Persian king and queen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,11);">Es 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,17);">2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',6,8);">6:8</a>).<P>(4) Exaltation.<P>The \'atarah, the stephanos and the diadema were used as crowns of exaltation. Stephanos was the usual crown of exaltation for victors of games, achievement in war and places of honor at feasts. The \'atarah was worn at banquets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,11);">So 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,1,3);">Isa 28:1, 3</a>), probably taking the form of a wreath of flowers; also as a crown of honor and victory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,12);">Eze 16:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,26);">21:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,42);">23:42</a>). Stephanos is the crown of exaltation bestowed upon Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,2);">Re 6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,14);">14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,9);">Heb 2:9</a>). "Exaltation was the logical result of Christ\'s humiliation" (Vincent). The Apocalyptic woman and locusts receive this emblem of exaltation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,1);">Re 12:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,7);">9:7</a>). The symbolic dragon and beast are elevated, wearing diadema, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,3);">Re 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,1);">13:1</a>). The conquering Christ has "upon his head...many diadems" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,12);">Re 19:12</a>). See further Tertullian, De corona.<P>(5) Remuneration.<P>Paul, witnessing the races and games, caught the vision of wreath-crowned victors flush with the reward of earnest endeavor. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GAMES">GAMES</a>. He also saw the persistent, faithful Christian at the end of his hard-won race wearing the symbolic stephanos of rejoicing (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,19);">1Th 2:19</a> the King James Version), of righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,8);">2Ti 4:8</a>), of glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,4);">1Pe 5:4</a>), of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,12);">Jas 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,10);">Re 2:10</a>). Paul\'s fellow Christians were his joy and stephanos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,1);">Php 4:1</a>), "of which Paul might justly make his boast" (Ellicott). Long before Paul, his Hebrew ancestors saw the \'atarah of glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,9);">Pr 4:9</a>) and the \'atarah of a good wife, children\'s children, riches and a peaceful old age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,4);">Pr 12:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,24);">14:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,31);">16:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,6);">17:6</a>). For Apocrypha references see 1Macc 10:29; 11:35; 13:39.``142';
isbe[2432]='Crown of Thorns`thornz (akdnthinos stephanos): Three of the four evangelists mention the crown of thorns, wherewith the rude Roman soldiers derided the captive Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,29);">Mt 27:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,17);">Mr 15:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,2);">Joh 19:2</a>). All speak of the akanthine (Acanthus) crown, but there is no certainty about the peculiar plant, from the branches of which this crown of cruel mockery was plaited. The rabbinical books. mention no less than twenty-two words in the Bible signifying thorny plants, and the word akantha in the New Testament Greek is a generic and not a specific term. And this word or its adjective is used in the three Gospels, quoted above. It is therefore impossible definitely to determine what was the exact plant or tree, whose thorny branches were selected for this purpose. Tobler (Denkbl., 113, 179) inclines to the Spina Christi, as did Hasselquist. Its botanical name is Zizyphus Spina Christi, It is very common in the East. Its spines are small and sharp, its branches soft, round and pliable, and the leaves look like ivy, with a dark, shiny green color, making them therefore very adaptable to the purpose of the soldiers. Others have designated the Paliurus aculeatus or the Lycium horridum. Both Geikie (Life of Christ, 549) and Farrar (Life of Christ, note 625) point to the Nubk (Zizyphus lotus). Says the latter, "The Nubk struck me, as it has all travelers in Palestine, as being most suitable both for mockery and pain, since its leaves are bright and its thorns singularly strong. But though the Nubk is very common on the shores of Galilee, I saw none of it near Jerusalem." The settlement of the question is manifestly impossible.``42';
isbe[2433]='Crucifixion`kroo-si-fik\'-shun`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CROSS">CROSS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[2434]='Cruel; Cruelty`kroo\'-el, kroo\'-el-ti \'akhzar, ("harsh," "fierce," chamac, "violence"): There are various uses of the word "cruel" in the Old Testament:<P>(a) "the cruel (deadly) venom of asps" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,33);">De 32:33</a>);<P>(b) spoken of men of relentless hate: "They hate me with cruel hatred" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,19);">Ps 25:19</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',5,9);">Pr 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,17);">11:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,10);">12:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,23);">Jer 6:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,42);">50:42</a>);<P>(c) Job speaks of God\'s dealings with him as "cruel" and arbitrary: "Thou art turned to be cruel to me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,21);">Job 30:21</a>); conscious of his virtue, yet holding God to be the author of his sufferings, Job is driven to the conclusion that God has become his enemy and is bent upon destroying him;<P>(d) the "day of Yahweh"<22>a prophetic phrase to denote the time of God\'s manifestation in judgment<6E>is described as coming, "cruel, with wrath and fierce anger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,9);">Isa 13:9</a>). The word "cruelty" has nearly disappeared from the Bible. In the Revised Version (British and American) it occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,12);">Ps 27:12</a>. The King James Version has it in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,5);">Ge 49:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,20);">Ps 74:20</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "violence"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,4);">Eze 34:4</a> (perekh, "crushing," the Revised Version (British and American) "rigor").<P>The Old Testament records many acts on the part of chosen individuals and the elect nation which are marked by gross cruelty, particularly when measured by the leaders are standards of our own age. Some of these acts are sanctioned by Scripture or even presented as commanded by God, as, for example, the sacrifice of Isaac, the extermination of the Canaanites, the authorization of the avenger of blood and of human slavery, and of retaliation for evil. Some of the deeds performed by Divinely appointed of Israel are characterized by inhumanity. Samuel "hewed Agag in pieces" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,33);">1Sa 15:33</a>). David massacred the Ammonites with great barbarity (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,31);">2Sa 12:31</a>). Elijah slew the prophets of Baal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,40);">1Ki 18:40</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',1,10);">2Ki 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,25);">10:25</a>). Some of the utterances of the Psalmists breathe spirit of hate and revenge, as in the so-called imprecatory psalms (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',137,8,9);">Ps 137:8-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,21);">139:21</a>f). This has often been a matter of great perplexity to the devout student of the Bible. He has found it difficult to reconcile such practices, which bear the stamp of Divine approval, with the highest standards of Christian morality. It is sometimes urged in justification that these deeds are permitted, but not commanded by God. But this answer if we recognize the fact, which Jesus emphasizes, that the in attendant cruelties and horrors. The Old Testament religion is a self-accommodation to the low moral standard of those whom it was designed to instruct. This He reiterates in the Sermon on the Mount (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,22,28,34);">Mt 5:22, 28, 34</a>), and affirms in His reference to the hardness of the ancestral Jewish heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,8);">Mt 19:8</a>). In the Old Testament we are dealing with the childhood of the world, in which revelation is compelled to limit itself to the comprehension of its subjects. It must speak so that they can understand. It must start with them where it finds them. It walk, that character may grow step by step. A gradual development of spiritual and ethical ideals may clearly be traced in the sacred records. We must therefore read the Old Testament narratives and interpret their teaching, not according to the standards of our own age, but the light of the age to which these narratives belong. The spirit of Elijah may not be the spirit of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,55);">Lu 9:55</a>). While many of the acts of cruelty and barbarity recorded in the Old Testament are indicative of an age of a low type of morality, yet we must at the same time recognize the fact, that Israel\'s religion by emphasizing holy living and righteous conduct created an atmosphere favorable for the growth of high ethical ideals. Wherever this religion is seen at its best, as in the teachings of the prophets, it is the mark of the righteous man to treat human life as sacred and to refrain scrupulously from inflicting unnecessary pain. Even the Gentiles shall be brought to judgment for their barbarities and inhuman practices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,2);">Am 1:2</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,7);">2Ki 25:7</a>). Among the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, predicted by the prophets, is the cessation of war with all of its Law of Israel also reflected this tendency toward humanity, and many of its ordinances, while seemingly inhuman, really tended to mitigate prevailing barbarity. Instances of such ordinances those referring to the maltreatment of slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,20);">Ex 21:20</a>), to the Cities of Refuge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,19);">Nu 35:19</a>ff; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,\'1-\');">Jos 20</a>), to rules of warfare (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,10);">De 20:10</a>f), etc. The extermination of the Canaanites is represented as a Divine judgment upon a morally corrupt civilization (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,16);">Ge 15:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,30);">De 12:30</a>). It is declared necessary in order to guard the Hebrews from contamination by the sins of the Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,32);">Ex 23:32</a>). It is not so far back, that many of the practices that are condemned by the most enlightened Christianity of our day, prevailed universally and were not thought incompatible with Christian civilization. Even our own time needs to secure a more widespread practical recognition of the principles of humanity, kindness and justice, which are professedly the law of the Christian life. L. Kaiser must lead them along lines in which they of their own volition can hardly meets the facts of the case. We shall arrive at a truer answer``1';
isbe[2435]='Crumb`krum (psichion, "a little bit"): Occurs only in the New Testament, of remnants of food, scraps. Lazarus desired "to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man\'s table" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,21);">Lu 16:21</a>). "Even the (little) dogs eat of the crumbs" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,27);">Mt 15:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,28);">Mr 7:28</a>), "possibly the fragments of bread on which the guests wiped their hands (after thrusting them into the common dish), and flung to the dogs" (Farrar, Life of Christ, I, 476).``1';
isbe[2436]='Cruse`kroos: A small earthen vessel or flask, usually for holding liquids: tsappachath; as water, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,11,12,16);">1Sa 26:11-12, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,6);">1Ki 19:6</a>; it being porous, the liquid is kept cool; also for holding oil, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,12,14,16);">1Ki 17:12,14,16</a>.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,3);">1Ki 14:3</a> ("a cruse of honey") the word baqbuq, would be better rendered "bottle," doubtless deriving its name from the gurgling sound of issuing liquids. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,20);">2Ki 2:20</a> tselochith, is not a jar or flask, but a dish, or platter, for salt or other substances.<P>In the New Testament a small jar or vial, alabastron, "alabaster cruse" or flask, for holding ointment; not "box" as in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,7);">Mt 26:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,3);">Mr 14:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,37);">Lu 7:37</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,1);">1Sa 10:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,1,3);">2Ki 9:1, 3</a>, where "box" in the King James Version is used for "vial" the Revised Version (British and American)).``137';
isbe[2437]='Cry, Crying`kri\'-ing (zaaq, tsa\'aq (and forms), qara\', shawa\', rinnah; boao, krazo, phoneo):<P>Various words are translated "cry," "crying," etc., the chief of which are those above given; za\'aq and tsa\'aq denote especially a cry for help, from pain or distress, and are frequently used for crying to God, e.g. (za\'aq, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,23);">Ex 2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,9,15);">Jud 3:9, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,5);">Ps 22:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,13,19);">107:13, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,4);">Mic 3:4</a>); (tsa\'aq, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,12);">Ex 8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,25);">15:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,17);">Ps 34:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',77,1);">77:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,20);">Isa 19:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,18);">La 2:18</a>); qara\' (a mimetic word) has the widest signification, but is often used of appealing to God (frequently translated "call," "called," etc., <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,14,15,18);">Ge 39:14-15, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,43);">41:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,9);">De 15:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,15);">24:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,27);">1Ki 18:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',3,4);">Ps 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,2);">22:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,7);">27:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,21);">Pr 1:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">Isa 34:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,2);">Jer 2:2</a>, etc.); shawa\', "to cry aloud" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,12);">Job 29:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,20,28);">30:20, 28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,6,41);">Ps 18:6, 41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,13);">88:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',2,2);">Jon 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,2);">Hab 1:2</a>, etc.); rinnah, "a shouting," whether for joy or grief (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,28);">1Ki 8:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,1);">Ps 17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',61,1);">61:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,2);">88:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,169);">119:169</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',142,6);">142:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,14);">Isa 43:14</a> the Revised Version (British and American) "rejoicing," etc.). Other Hebrew words are \'anaq, "to groan" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,4);">Eze 9:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,17);">24:17</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',26,15);">Eze 26:15</a> the King James Version); hamah, "to make a noise" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',55,17);">Ps 55:17</a> the King James Version); rua\', "to shout" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,21);">Jud 7:21</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,5);">Job 30:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,13);">Isa 42:13</a>, etc.); ranan, "to cry aloud" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',84,2);">Ps 84:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,19);">La 2:19</a>); shoa\', "crying" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,5);">Isa 22:5</a>); teshu\'oth, "crying," "noise" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,7);">Job 39:7</a> the King James Version).<P>In the New Testament we have boao, "to cry," "shout" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,3);">Mt 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,3);">Mr 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,34);">15:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,27);">Ga 4:27</a>, etc.); krazo (mimetic, the hoarse cry of the raven), "to cry out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,27);">Mt 9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,30);">14:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,9);">21:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,50);">27:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,5);">Mr 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6);">Ga 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,10);">Re 6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,2);">7:2</a>, etc.); phoneo, "to give forth the voice," "sound" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,8);">Lu 8:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,24);">16:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,46);">23:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,28);">Ac 16:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,18);">Re 14:18</a> the King James Version); anaboao, "to cry out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,46);">Mt 27:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,38);">Lu 9:38</a>); aphiemi, "to let go," "to send away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,37);">Mr 15:37</a> the King James Version); epiboao, "to cry about" (anything) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,24);">Acts 25:24</a>); epiphoneo, "to give forth the voice upon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,21);">Lu 23:21</a> the King James Version); kraugazo, "to make a cry, or outcry, or clamor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,19);">Mt 12:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,22);">15:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,43);">Joh 11:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,40);">18:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,6,15);">19:6, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,23);">Ac 22:23</a>); anakrazo, "to cry out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,23);">Mr 1:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,33);">Lu 4:33</a>, etc.); krauge, "a crying out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,6);">Mt 25:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,9);">Ac 23:9</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,7);">Heb 5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,4);">Re 21:4</a>).<P>For "cry" the Revised Version (British and American) has "sound" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,12);">2Ch 13:12</a>); "cry because of these things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,24);">Job 30:24</a> the English Revised Version); "cry out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,38);">Job 31:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,14);">Isa 42:14</a>); "call" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',28,1);">Ps 28:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',61,2);">61:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',141,1);">141:1</a>); "be blind" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,9);">Isa 29:9</a>); "groan" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',26,15);">Eze 26:15</a>); "pant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,20);">Joe 1:20</a>); "cry aloud" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,19);">Mt 12:19</a>); "clamor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,9);">Ac 23:9</a>). Among the other changes are, "moan" for "cry aloud" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',55,17);">Ps 55:17</a>); "sound an alarm" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,8);">Ho 5:8</a>); "take your pleasure," margin "blind yourselves." for "cry ye out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,9);">Isa 29:9</a>): "sigh, but not aloud" for "forbear to cry" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,17);">Eze 21:17</a>); "shoutings" for "crying" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,7);">Job 39:7</a>); "destruction" for "crying" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,18);">Pr 19:18</a>, where we have instead of "let not thy soul spare for his crying," "set not thy heart on his destruction," margin, Hebrew "causing him to die" (muth, "to put to death")); "went up" for "crying aloud" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,8);">Mr 15:8</a>, different text); "cry" for "voice" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,42);">Lu 1:42</a>); for "had cried" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,46);">Lu 23:46</a>), the American Standard Revised Version has "crying."``185';
isbe[2438]='Crystal`kris\'-tal: In English Versions of the Bible the word is probably intended to signify rock-crystal, crystallized quartz. This the Greeks called krustallos, "ice," believing it to have been formed from water by intense cold. Thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,6);">Re 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,11);">21:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,1);">22:1</a>, either "crystal" (EV) or "ice" (Greek, krustallos) suits the context. The word rendered "crystal" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,22);">Eze 1:22</a> (qerach) is ambiguous in precisely the same way (the Revised Version, margin "ice"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,17);">Job 28:17</a> the context favors the King James Version "crystal," rather than the Revised Version (British and American) "glass" (zekhukhith). Finally, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,18);">Job 28:18</a> the Revised Version (British and American) reads "crystal" for the King James Version "pearls" (Hebrew gabhish; the weight of evidence favors the Revised Version (British and American) in spite of the parallelism suggested by the King James Version).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`57';
isbe[2439]='Cub`kub (kubh; the King James Version Chub): The word occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,5);">Eze 30:5</a>. There it is almost certainly a corruption, and we should read, as in Septuagint, "Lub," i.e. Libya. Libya, in the earlier part of the same verse (the King James Version), is a mistr of "Put," thus correctly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American).``1';
isbe[2440]='Cubit`ku\'-bit (\'ammah; pechus): The standard for measures of length among the Hebrews. They derived it from the Babylonians, but a similar measure was used in Egypt with which they must have been familiar. The length of the cubit is variously estimated, since there seems to have been a double standard in both countries, and because we have no undisputed example of the cubit remaining to the present time. The original cubit was the length of the forearm, from the elbow to the end of the middle finger, as is implied from the derivation of the word in Hebrew and in Latin (cubitum). It seems to be referred to also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,11);">De 3:11</a>: "after the cubit of a man." But this was too indefinite for a scientific standard, and the Babylonians early adopted a more accurate method of measurement which passed to the nations of the West. They had a double standard, the so-called royal cubit and the ordinary one. From the remains of buildings in Assyria and Babylonia, the former is made out to be about 20,6 inches, and a cubit of similar length was used in Egypt and must have been known to the Hebrews. This was probably the cubit mentioned by <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,5);">Eze 40:5</a> and perhaps that of Solomon\'s temple, "cubits after the first measure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',3,3);">2Ch 3:3</a>), i.e. the ancient cubit. The ordinary cubit of commerce was shorter, and has been variously estimated at between 16 and 18 or more inches, but the evidence of the Siloam inscription and of the tombs in Palestine seems to indicate 17,6 inches as the average length. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>. This was the cubit of six palms, while the longer one was of seven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,5);">Eze 40:5</a>). The cubit mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,16);">Jud 3:16</a> is from a different word in Hebrew (gomedh) and was probably shorter, for Ehud girded it on his thigh under his clothing.<P>The New Testament references are <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,27);">Mt 6:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,25);">Lu 12:25</a>, "Which of you...can add a cubit unto the measure of his life?"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,18);">Joh 21:18</a>, "about two hundred cubits off"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,17);">Re 21:17</a>, "the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits."``138';
isbe[2441]='Cuckow; Cuckoo`kook\'-oo, kuk\'-oo (shachaph; laros; Latin Cuculus canorus): The Hebrew root from which the word shachaph is derived means "to be lean" and "slender," and in older versions of the Bible was translated cuckow (cuckoo). It was mentioned twice in the Bible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,16);">Le 11:16</a>, and practically the same in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,15);">De 14:15</a> the King James Version "cuckoo"), in the list of unclean birds. The Latin term by which we designate the bird is very similar to the Arabic, and all names for it in different countries are so nearly the same that they prove themselves based on its double cry, "cuck-oo," or the single note "kowk" or "gouk." The bird is as old as history, and interesting because the European species placed its eggs in the nests of other birds, which gave rise to much fiction concerning its habits. The European bird is a brownish gray with white bars underneath, and larger than ours, which are a beautiful olive gray, with tail feathers of irregular length touched with white, knee tufts, black or yellow bill, according to species, and beautiful sleek head and shining eyes. Our birds build their own nests, attend their young with care and are much loved for their beauty. Their food is not repulsive in any species; there never was any reason why they should have been classed among the abominations, and for these reasons scientists in search of a "lean, slender" bird of offensive diet and habit have selected the "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEA-MEW">SEA-MEW</a>" (which see) which is substituted for cuckoo in the Revised Version (British and American) with good natural-history reason to sustain the change.``167';
isbe[2442]='Cucumber`ku\'-kum-ber (qishshu\'im; sikuos): One of the articles of food for which Israel in the wilderness looked back with longing to Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,5);">Nu 11:5</a>). Cucumbers are great favorites with all the people of Palestine. Two varieties occur, Cucumis sativus (Arabic, Khyar), originally a product of Northwest India, which is smooth-skinned, whitish and of delicate flavor, and requires much water in its cultivation, and Cucumis chate (Arabic, faqqus), which is long and slender but less juicy than the former. Probably the Biblical reference is to this latter as it is a plant much grown in Egypt where it is said to attain unusual excellence.<P>A "garden of cucumbers" or more literally a "place of cucumbers" (miqshdh), is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,8);">Isa 1:8</a>; Baruch 6:70. "A lodge in a garden of cucumbers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,8);">Isa 1:8</a>) is the rough wooden booth erected by the owner from which he keeps guard over his ripening vegetables. It is commonly raised upon poles and, when abandoned for the season, it falls into decay and presents a dreary spectacle of tottering poles and dead leaves.``117';
isbe[2443]='Cud``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHEW;+CUD">CHEW</a>`1';
isbe[2444]='Culture`kul\'-tur: Found only in 2Esdras 8:6 the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), "give...culture to our understanding," i.e. to nourish it as seed in the ground.``1';
isbe[2445]='Cumber; Cumbered`kum\'-ber, (katargeo, "to make idle," perispaomai, "to be drawn about," in mind "to be distracted"): Spoken of the barren fig tree in the parable: "Cut it down; why doth it also cumber (block up, make unproductive) the ground?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,7);">Lu 13:7</a>). Cumbered means to be over-occupied with cares or business, distracted: "But Martha was cumbered about much serving" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,40);">Lu 10:40</a>). The word cumbrance occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,12);">De 1:12</a>: "How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance?" (Torach, "an encumbrance," "a burden"). Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,14);">Isa 1:14</a>, where the Revised Version, margin has "cumbrance," the Revised Version (British and American) "trouble."``1';
isbe[2446]='Cumi`koo\'-me, ku\'-mi.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TALITHA+CUMI">TALITHA CUMI</a>`1';
isbe[2447]='Cummin`kum\'-in (kammon; kuminon): The seed of the herb Cuminum cyminum (Natural Order Umbelliferae). It has carminative properties and is used for flavoring various dishes, especially during fasts. In flavor and appearance it resembles caraway, though it is less agreeable to western palates. As an illustration of Yahweh\'s wisdom it is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,25,27);">Isa 28:25, 27</a>) that cummin is scattered in sowing and beaten out with a rod in threshing. These facts are true in Palestine today. The Jews paid tithes of cummin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,23);">Mt 23:23</a>)``1';
isbe[2448]='Cun`kun (kun, A, ek ton eklekton poleon, "from the chosen cities"): One of the cities of Hadarezer, king of Syria, spoiled by David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,8);">1Ch 18:8</a>, the King James Version "Chun"). In the parallel passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,8);">2Sa 8:8</a>) its place is taken by <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEROTHAH">BEROTHAH</a>, which see.``1';
isbe[2449]='Cunning`kun\'-ing (chakham, chashabh): In Bible-English "cunning" means always "wise" or "skilful"; the word does not occur in the bad sense, and it is found in the Old Testament only. The chief Hebrew words are chakham, "wise," "skilful" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,7);">2Ch 2:7</a> the King James Version "a man cunning to work in gold"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,13);">2Ch 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,3);">Isa 3:3</a> the King James Version, etc.); chashabh, "to think," "devise," "desire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,1,31);">Ex 26:1, 31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,6,15);">28:6, 15</a> the King James Version, etc.). We have also da\'ath, "knowledge" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,14);">1Ki 7:14</a> the King James Version); bin, "to be intelligent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,7);">1Ch 25:7</a> the King James Version); machasbebheth, "thought," "device," "design" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,4);">Ex 31:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,33,35);">35:33, 35</a> the King James Version); \'aman, "artificer" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,1);">So 7:1</a> the King James Version); yadha\', "to know," once translated "cunning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,4);">Da 1:4</a> the King James Version).<P>For cunning the American Standard Revised Version gives "skilful" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,4);">Ex 31:4</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,3);">Isa 3:3</a> "expert"); for "cunning work" the work of the "skilful workman" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,1,31);">Ex 26:1, 31</a>, etc., the English Revised Version "cunning workman"); for "curious," "skilfully woven," the English Revised Version "cunningly woven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,8);">Ex 28:8</a>, etc.).``185';
isbe[2450]='Cup`(Most frequently, koc; four other words in one passage each; poterion): A vessel for drinking from, of a variety of material (gold, silver, earthenware), patterns (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,7);">Es 1:7</a>) and elaboration.<P>Figurative: By ordinary figure of speech, put sometimes for the contents of the cup, namely, for that which is drunk (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,39);">Mt 26:39</a>). In both Old Testament and New Testament applied figuratively to that which is portioned out, and of which one is to partake; most frequently used of what is sorrowful, as God\'s judgments, His wrath, afflictions, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',11,6);">Ps 11:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',75,8);">75:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,17);">Isa 51:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,10);">Re 14:10</a>). In a similar sense, used by Christ concerning the sufferings endured by Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,39);">Mt 26:39</a>), and the calamities attending the confession of His name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,23);">Mt 20:23</a>). In the Old Testament applied also to the blessedness and joy of the children of God, and the full provision made for their wants (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,5);">Ps 16:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,5);">23:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',116,13);">116:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',16,7);">Jer 16:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,6);">Pr 31:6</a>). All these passages refer not only to the experience of an allotted joy and sorrow, but to the fact that all others share in this experience. Within a community of those having the same interests or lot, each received his apportioned measure, just as at a feast, each cup is filled for the individual to drain at the same time that his fellow-guests are occupied in the same way.<P>The Holy Supper is called "the cup of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,21);">1Co 10:21</a>), since it is the Lord who makes the feast, and tenders the cup, just as "the cup of demons" with which it is contrasted, refers to what they offer and communicate. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,25);">1Co 11:25</a>, the cup is called "the new covenant in my blood," i.e. it is a pledge and seal and means of imparting the blessings of the new covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,16);">Heb 10:16</a>f)<29>a covenant established by the shedding of the blood of Christ. The use of the word "cup" for the sacrament shows how prominent was the part which the cup had in the Lord\'s Supper in apostolic times. Not only were all commanded to drink of the wine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,27);">Mt 26:27</a>), but the very irregularities in the Corinthian church point to its universal use (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,27);">1Co 11:27</a>). Nor does the Roman church attempt to justify its withholding the cup from the laity (the communion in one form) upon conformity with apostolic practice, or upon direct Scriptural authority. This variation from the original institution is an outgrowth of the doctrines of transubstantiation and sacramental concomitance, of the attempt to transform the sacrament of the Eucharist into the sacrifice of the Mass, and of the wide separation between clergy and laity resulting from raising the ministry to the rank of a sacerdotal order. The practice was condemned by Popes Leo I (died 461) and Gelasius (died 496); but gained a firm hold in the 12th century, and was enacted into a church regulation by the Council of Constance in 1415.<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BLESSING,+CUP+OF">BLESSING, CUP OF</a>.<P>As to the use of cups for divination (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,5);">Ge 44:5</a>), the reference is to superstitious practice derived from the Gentiles. For various modes of divining what is unknown by the pouring of water into bowls, and making observations accordingly, see Geikie, Hours with the Bible, I, 492f; and article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION</a>.``84';
isbe[2451]='Cupbearer`kup\'-bar-er (mashqeh, "one giving drink"; oinochoos): An officer of high rank at ancient oriental courts, whose duty it was to serve the wine at the king\'s table. On account of the constant fear of plots and intrigues, a person must be regarded as thoroughly trustworthy to hold this position. He must guard against poison in the king\'s cup, and was sometimes required to swallow some of the wine before serving it. His confidential relations with the king often endeared him to his sovereign and also gave him a position of great influence. This officer is first mentioned in Scripture in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,1);">Ge 40:1</a>ff, where the Hebrew word elsewhere translated "cupbearer" is rendered "butler." The phrase "chief of the butlers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,2);">Ge 40:2</a>) accords with the fact that there were often a number of such officials under one as chief (compare Xen. Hellen. vii.1, 38). Nehemiah (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',1,11);">Ne 1:11</a>) was cupbearer to Artaxerxes Longimanus, and was held in high esteem by him, as the record shows. His financial ability (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,8,10,14,17);">Ne 5:8, 10, 14, 17</a>) would indicate that the office was a lucrative one. Cupbearers are mentioned further in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,5);">1Ki 10:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,4);">2Ch 9:4</a>, where they, among other evidences of royal splendor, are stated to have impressed the queen of Sheba with Solomon\'s glory. The title Rabshakeh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,2);">Isa 36:2</a>), once thought to mean "chief of the cupbearers," is now given a different derivation and explained as "chief of the officers," or "princes" (BDB under the word). See further on cupbearers Herod. iii.34; Xen. Cyrop. i.3,8,9; Josephus, Ant, XVI, viii, 1; Tobit 1:22.``44';
isbe[2452]='Cupboard`kub\'-erd (kulikion, 1Macc 15:32): A kind of sideboard in or on which Simon\'s gold and silver vessels were displayed, and which, among other evidences of his glory, amazed the Syrian envoy Athenobius. Compare the Roman abacus, said to have been introduced into Rome from Asia.``1';
isbe[2453]='Curdle`kur\'-dl (qapha\', "to congeal," "harden," "curdle"): Occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,10);">Job 10:10</a>, "Hast thou not...curdled me like cheese?" i.e. made him take solid form. "The formation of the embryo is a mystery on which the Hebrew dwells with a deep and reverential awe: compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,\'13-16\');">Ps 139:13-16</a>." These similes are often met with in the Koran and oriental poetry. See Speaker\'s Commentary in the place cited``1';
isbe[2454]='Cure; Cures`kur: Represents the words gahah, marpe\', raphdh; therapeuo, iasis. Gahah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,22);">Pr 17:22</a> translated "medicine" means properly the removal of a bandage from a healed wound, and, is used figuratively in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,13);">Ho 5:13</a>; marpe\', "healing," is used in the sense of deliverance of the city in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,6);">Jer 33:6</a>; with a negative particle in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',21,18);">2Ch 21:18</a> it is used to describe the bowel disease of Jehoram as incurable. The Greek words are used of physical cures (iasis in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,32);">Lu 13:32</a>) as contradistinguished from the casting out of demons as <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,16);">Mt 17:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,21);">Lu 7:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,10);">Joh 5:10</a>. Cure is only used in the New Testament in the sense of physical healing; in the Old Testament usually in the sense of spiritual or national deliverance from danger.``107';
isbe[2455]='Curious`ku\'-ri-us (machashebheth; periergos): The above Hebrew word, meaning "thought," "device," "design," is translated "curious," <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,32);">Ex 35:32</a> the King James Version "curious works"; the English Revised Version "cunning"; the American Standard Revised Version "skilful"; cheshebh ("device," "devised work"), translated the King James Version "curious girdle," is translated by the English Revised Version "cunningly woven band," the American Standard Revised Version "skilfully" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,8,27,28);">Ex 28:8, 27-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,5);">29:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,5,20,21);">39:5, 20-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,7);">Le 8:7</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,15);">Ps 139:15</a> raqam, "embroidered," "variegated" is used figuratively of a child in the womb, translated "curiously wrought"; "the body or the fetus is described as woven together of so many different-colored threads, like a cunning and beautiful network or tapestry" (Perowne in the place cited.). See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CURDLE">CURDLE</A>. Periergos, "working round about," is used of the "curious arts" of some in Ephesus who brought their books to be burned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,19);">Ac 19:19</a> the American Standard Revised Version "magical").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>`185';
isbe[2456]='Current Money``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MONEY,+CURRENT">MONEY, CURRENT</a>`1';
isbe[2457]='Curse`kurs (\'alah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,21,23,27);">Nu 5:21, 23, 27</a>, etc.), me\'erah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,33);">Pr 3:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,2);">Mal 2:2</a>, etc.), klalah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,12,13);">Ge 27:12-13</a>); katara (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,10,13);">Ga 3:10, 13</a>): This word as noun and verb renders different Hebrew words, some of them being more or less synonymous, differing only in degree of strength. It is often used in contrast with "bless" or "blessing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,29);">De 11:29</a>). When a curse is pronounced against any person, we are not to understand this as a mere wish, however violent, that disaster should overtake the person in question, any more than we are to understand that a corresponding "blessing" conveys simply a wish that prosperity should be the lot of the person on whom the blessing is invoked. A curse was considered to possess an inherent power of carrying itself into effect. Prayer has been defined as a wish referred to God. Curses (or blessings) were imprecations referred to supernatural beings in whose existence and power to do good or inflict harm primitive man believed. The use of magic and spells of all kinds is based on the belief that it is possible to enlist the support of the superhuman beings with whom the universe abounds, and to persuade them to carry out the suppliant\'s wishes. It has been suggested that spells were written on pieces of parchment and cast to the winds in the belief that they would find their way to their proper destination<6F>that some demoniac being would act as postman and deliver them at the proper address. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',5,\'1-3\');">Zec 5:1-3</a> the "flying roll," with curses inscribed on it "goeth forth over the face of the whole land." It would find its way into the house of every thief and perjurer. But it was not always possible to commit curses to writing, it was enough to utter them aloud. Generally the name of some deity would be coupled with such imprecations, as Goliath cursed David by his gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,43);">1Sa 17:43</a>). Such curses once uttered possessed the power of self-realization. It was customary for heads of families in their declining years to bless their children, such a blessing being, not simply a paternal wish that their children should prosper in life, but a potent factor in determining their welfare (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,25);">Ge 9:25</a>). in this case Jacob seeks his father\'s blessing, which was more than his father\'s good wishes for his future career. Such blessings and curses were independent of moraI considerations. Before moral distinctions played any part in molding theological conceptions it was not necessary, before a spell could be effectual, that the individual against whom the spell was pronounced should be deserving, on moral grounds, of the fate which was invoked on him. It was sufficient that he should be the foe of the author of the curse. We may assume that such curses signalized the commencement of a battle. But in process of time such indiscriminate imprecations would not satisfy enlightened moral judgment. In the dramatic situation depicted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,29);">De 11:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,12);">27:12</a>f the curse was placed on Mt. Ebal and the blessing. on Mr. Gerizim. But the curse was the penalty for disobedience, as the blessing was the reward for obedience. The Book of Proverbs <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,2);">Pr 26:2</a> summarily dismisses the traditional belief<65>"the curse that is causeless alighteth not." "In the discourses of Jesus we find blessings and curses. They are however simply authoritative declarations of the eternal connection between right doing and happiness, wrong doing and misery" (Cheyne). <P>Whereas curses by ordinary persons were considered more or less efficacious<75>some god being always only too glad to speed them on their way to their destination<6F>yet special persons<6E>"holy" persons<6E>in virtue of their special relation to Divine beings possessed special powers of pronouncing effectual curses on account of their powers of enlisting supernatural aid. Balaam, according to the narrative in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,\'1-\');">Nu 22</a>f; was an expert in the art. Balak was convinced that Balaam\'s curse would bring about the defeat of the Israelites (see Gray, "Numbers," ICC).<P>The term<72>and the thing signified<65>plays an important part in Paul\'s interpretation of the cross. In the light of the law all men are guilty. There is no acquittal through appeal to a law that commands and never forgives<65>prohibits and never relents. The violator of the law is under a curse. His doom has been pronounced. Escape is impossible. But on the cross Jesus Christ endured the curse<73>for "cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,10,13);">Ga 3:10, 13</a>)<29>and a curse that has overtaken its victim is a spent force.<P>Jesus commands His disciples, "Bless them that curse you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,28);">Lu 6:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,14);">Ro 12:14</a>). He Himself cursed the fruitless fig tree (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,21);">Mr 11:21</a>)<29>a symbol of the doom of a fruitless people.<P>Curse as the rendering of cherem, implies a totally different, idea.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACCURSED">ACCURSED</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`103';
isbe[2458]='Curtain`kur\'-t\'-n, -ten, -tin: The word ordinarily used for curtain is yeri\'ah. Thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,1);">Ex 26:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,8);">36:8</a>ff of the curtains of the tabernacle (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABERNACLE">TABERNACLE</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,2);">2Sa 7:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,2);">Ps 104:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,5);">So 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,2);">Isa 54:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,20);">Jer 4:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,20);">10:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,29);">49:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,7);">Hab 3:7</a>.<P>Figurative: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,22);">Isa 40:22</a> (like <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,2);">Ps 104:2</a>, of the heavens), the word used is doq, literally, "gauze."``1';
isbe[2459]='Cush (1)`kush (kush):<P>1. The Ancestor of Many Nations:<P>(1) The first of the sons of Ham, from whom sprang Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabtecah. He was also the father of Nimrod, who rounded Babel (Babylon) and the other great states of Shinar or Babylonia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'6-8\');">Ge 10:6-8</a>). The meaning of the name is uncertain.<P>(2) The name of the country around which the Gihon flowed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,13);">Ge 2:13</a>), rendered "Ethiopia" in the King James Version, but in view of the distance of that country from the other rivers mentioned, this seems to be an unlikely identification.<P>2. A District of the Garden of Eden:<P>Fried. Delitzsch has suggested (Wo lag das Paradies? 74ff) that the watercourse in question is the canal Gu-hande or Arahtu, which, coming from the south, entered Babylon a little to the east of the Euphrates, and, flowing alongside the Festival-Street, entered the Euphrates to the north of Nebuchadrezzar\'s palace. Koldewey (Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa, 38) regards the Gu-hande as the section of the Euphrates itself at this point. There is no indication, however, that the district which it enclosed was ever called Kusu or Cush, and the suppression of the final syllable of Gu-hande would remain unexplained. Moreover, the identification of Cush with a possible Cas, for Kasdu, "Chaldea," seems likewise improbable, especially as that name could only have been applied, in early times, to the district bordering on the Persian Gulf (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHALDEA">CHALDEA</a>).<P>3. Probably not in Asia Minor:<P>Another theory is, that the Cush of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,13);">Ge 2:13</a> is the Kusu of certain Assyrian letters, where it seems to designate a district in the neighborhood of Cappadocia. This identification apparently leads us back to an ancient tradition at one time current in the East, but later forgotten, which caused the Pyramus river to assume the name of Jihun (i.e. Gihon). This stream rises in the mountains northeast of the Gulf of Alexandretta, and, taking a southwesterly course, flows into the Mediterranean near Karatash. Though nearer than the Ethiopian Cush, this is still too far west, and therefore unsatisfactory as an identification<6F>all the streams or waterways of the Garden of Eden ought to flow through the same district.<P>4. The Ethiopian Cush:<P>(3) The well-known country of Cush or Ethiopia, from Syene (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,10);">Eze 29:10</a>) southward<72>Egyptian Kos, Babylonian Kusu, Assyrian Kusu. This name sometimes denotes the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,11);">Isa 11:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',18,1);">18:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,10);">Ze 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,10);">Eze 29:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,19);">Job 28:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,1);">Es 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,9);">8:9</a>); sometimes the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',20,4);">Isa 20:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,9);">Jer 46:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,5);">Eze 38:5</a>); but is in many passages uncertain. Notwithstanding that the descendants of Ham are always regarded as non-Semites, the Ethiopians, Ge\'ez, as they called themselves, spoke a Semitic language of special interest on account of its likeness to Himyaritic, and its illustration of certain forms in Assyro-Babylonian. These Cushites were in all probability migrants from another (more northerly) district, and akin to the Canaanites<65>like them, dark, but by no means black, and certainly not Negroes. W. Max Muller (Asien und Europa, 113 note) states that it cannot be proved whether the Egyptians had quite black neighbors (on the south). In earlier times they are represented as brown, and later as brown mingled with black, implying that negroes only came to their knowledge as a distinct and extensive race in comparatively late times. Moses\' (first?) wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,1);">Nu 12:1</a>) was certainly therefore not a Negress, but simply a Cushite woman, probably speaking a Semitic language<67>prehistoric Ge\'ez or Ethiopian (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUSHITE+WOMAN">CUSHITE WOMAN</a>). In all probability Semitic tribes were classed as Hamitic simply because they acknowledged the supremacy of the Hamitic Egyptians, just as the non-Semetic Elamites were set down as Semites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">Ge 10:22</a>) on account of their acknowledging Babylonian supremacy. It is doubtful whether the Hebrews, in ancient times, knew of the Negro race<63>they probably became acquainted with them long after the Egyptians.<P>5. Negroes Probably not Included:<P>In the opinion of W. Max Mailer (A, und East, 112), the Egyptians, when they became acquainted with the Negroes, having no word to express this race, classed them with the nechese, which thereafter included the Negroes. If the Hebrew name Phinehas (Pi-nechas) be really Egyptian and mean "the black," there is still no need to suppose that this meant "the Negro," for no Israelite would have borne a name with such a signification. The treasurer of Candace queen of Meroe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'27-39\');">Ac 8:27-39</a>)<29>the Ethiopian eunuch<63>was an Abyssinian, not a Negro; and being an educated man, was able to read the Hebrew Scriptures in the Greek (Septuagint) version. Cush (mat Kusi, pr. Kushi) is frequently mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions in company with Melubha (Merohha) to indicate Ethiopia and Meroe.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EDEN">EDEN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHIOPIA">ETHIOPIA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABLE+OF+NATIONS">TABLE OF NATIONS</a>`136';
isbe[2460]='Cush (2)`kush (kush; Septuagint Chousei, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,1);">Ps 7 title</a>): A Benjamite, perhaps he that "was without cause" the "adversary" of David (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,4);">Ps 7:4</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUSHI">CUSHI</a>`1';
isbe[2461]='Cushan`kushan: In the psalm of Habakkuk (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,7);">Hab 3:7</a>) "the tents of Cushan" are mentioned in an individualizing description of the effects of a theophany. Parallel is the phrase "the curtains of the land of Midian." Septuagint renders Cushan, kushan, by Aithiopon, reading perhaps kushim, or kushin (kushin). The context indicates that the same land or people is intended as the Old Testament elsewhere calls Cush, yet vaguely and not in any strict geographical usage that would limit it to Africa.``1';
isbe[2462]='Cushan-Rishathaim`ku\'-shan-rish-a-tha\'-im (kushan rish\'athayim, translated, or rather interpreted, as "man from Cush, he of the twofold crime"; Septuagint Chousarsathaim, the King James Version Chushan-rishathaim): Mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'8-10\');">Jud 3:8-10</a> as a king of Mesopotamia who was chosen by God as his tool to chastise the Israelites for their idolatry. After Joshua\'s death the children of Israel soon began to affiliate themselves with the heathen peoples among whom they dwelt. This was the fertile source of all their troubles. God delivered ("sold") them into the hands of the heathen. Cushan-Rishathaim is the first whose name is given in this connection. Barring this short passage in Judges nothing is known of the man. Eight years the Israelites were under his dominion, when the Lord raised up a deliverer to them, Othniel, the son of Kenaz, Caleb\'s younger brother<65>the first of the judges.``8';
isbe[2463]='Cushi`ku\'-shi: This name represents kushi, (in the original Septuagint Chousei, Chousi), either with or without the article. With the article (so in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,\'21-32\');">2Sa 18:21-32</a> seven out of eight times, all readings supported by the Septuagint) it simply indicate that the person so designated was of the Cushite people, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,7);">Jer 38:7</a>ff. Its use without the article has doubtless developed out of the foregoing according to a familiar process. For the Cush of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,1);">Ps 7, title</a> read "Cushi" with Septuagint.<P>(1) The messenger (the Revised Version (British and American) "the Cushite") sent by Joab to acquaint David with the victory over Absalom. That this man was in fact a foreigner is indicated by his ignorance of a shorter path which Ahimaaz took, by his being unrecognized by the watchman who recognizes Ahimaaz, and by his ignorance, as compared with Ahimaaz, of the sentiments of David, whom he knows only as a king and not as a man. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,21);">2Sa 18:21</a> (twice, the second time without the article), <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,22,23,31);">2Sa 18:22-23, 31</a> (twice), <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,32);">2Sa 18:32</a> (twice).<P>(2) The great-grandfather of Jehudi, a contemporary of Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,14);">Jer 36:14</a>). The name Jehudi itself ("a man of Judah") is sufficient refutation of the opinion that the use of Cushi as or in lieu of a proper name "seems to show that there were but few Cushites among the Israelites."<P>(3) The father of Zephaniah the prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,1);">Ze 1:1</a>).``15';
isbe[2464]='Cushion`koosh\'-un (proskephalaion): In New Testament, only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,38);">Mr 4:38</a> the Revised Version (British and American). The word means literally, a cushion for the head (the King James Version "pillow") but was also used of one for sitting or reclining upon, e.g. of a rower\'s cushion. The article used with it in this passage suggests that it was one of the customary furnishings of the boat, and it was probably similar to the cushion placed for the comfort of passengers in the stern of modern boats on the Sea of Galilee. "Silken cushions" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,12);">Am 3:12</a> the Revised Version (British and American) is a rendering of the Hebrew demesheq from its supposed connection with damask. These cushions formed the divan, often the only article of furniture in an oriental reception room. "Cushions" occurs further in the somewhat doubtful the Revised Version, margin rendering of <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,16);">Pr 7:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,22);">31:22</a>.``44';
isbe[2465]='Cushite`kush\'-it: Whereas kushi, is elsewhere rendered Ethiopian, in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,\'21-32\');">2Sa 18:21-32</a> it is rendered Cushite in the Revised Version (British and American) (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUSHI">CUSHI</a> and compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUSHITE+WOMAN">CUSHITE WOMAN</a>). Its plural, which occurs in Zephaniah, Daniel and 2 Chronicles, also in the form kushiyim, in Amos, is uniformly translated Ethiopians, following Septuagint. The other Old Testament books use simply kush, for people as well as land.``1';
isbe[2466]='Cushite Woman; Ethiopian Woman`kush\'-it: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,1);">Nu 12:1</a> Moses is condemned by his sister Miriam and his brother Aaron "because of the Cushite woman ha-\'ishshah ha-kushith whom he had married"; and the narrator immediately adds by way of needed explanation, "for he had married a Cushite woman" (\'ishshah khushith). Views regarding this person have been of two general classes:<P>(1) She is to be identified with Zipporah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,21);">Ex 2:21</a> and elsewhere), Moses\' Midianite wife, who is here called "the Gushite," either in scorn of her dark complexion (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,23);">Jer 13:23</a>) and foreign origin (so most older exegetes), or as a consequence of an erroneous notion of the late age when this apocryphal addition, "because of the Cushite," etc., was inserted in the narrative (so Wellhansen).<P>(2) She is a woman whom Moses took to wife after the death of Zipporah, really a Cushite (Ethiopian) by race, whether the princess of Meroe of whom Josephus (Ant., II, x, 2) romances (so Targum of Jonathan), or one of the "mixed multitude" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,38);">Ex 12:38</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,4);">Nu 11:4</a>) that accompanied the Hebrews on their wanderings (so Ewald and most). Dillmann suggests a compromise between the two classes of views, namely, that this woman is a mere "variation in the saga" from the wife elsewhere represented as Midianite, yet because of this variation she was understood by the author as distinct from Zipporah. The implication of the passage, in any case, is clearly that this connection of Moses tended to injure his prestige in the eyes of race-proud Hebrews, and, equally, that in the author\'s opinion such a view of the matter was obnoxious to God.``15';
isbe[2467]='Custody`kus\'-to-di (yadh, pequddah): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,3,8);">Es 2:3, 8</a> bis. <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,14);">14</a>, yadh, "the hand," is translated "Custody": pequddah, "numbering," "charge"; occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,36);">Nu 3:36</a> the Revised Version (British and American) "the appointed charge," margin, Hebrew "the office of the charge."``1';
isbe[2468]='Custom (1)`kus\'-tum (tax):<P>(a) halakh, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,13,20);">Ezr 4:13, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,24);">7:24</a> the King James Version;<P>(b) belo, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,13);">Ezr 4:13</a>, etc.;<P>(c) telonion, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,9);">Mt 9:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,14);">Mr 2:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,27);">Lu 5:27</a>, "receipt of custom" the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "place of toll," the collectors\' office;<P>(d) telos, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,25);">Mt 17:25</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "toll"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,7);">Ro 13:7</a>; <span class="noTag">1Macc 11:35</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "tolls"; compare 1Macc 10:31).<P>The tax designated by halakh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,13);">Ezr 4:13</a>, etc., is usually taken to mean a road tax, a toll, from root halakh, but compare Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, II, 463, which derives from root ilku, a command, a decree, hence, an imposed tax. Belo from root yabhal is supposed to be a tax on merchandise or produce (as distinguished from "tribute" or the tax on houses, lands and persons), usually paid in kind and levied for the support of the native or provincial government. See Ryle, Cambridge Bible, Ezra-Nehemiah, in the place cited Telos in New Testament and Maccabees is an indirect tax farmed out to the publicans.``13';
isbe[2469]='Custom (2)`kus\'-tum (usage): In the Old Testament, except, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,35);">Ge 31:35</a> where the Revised Version (British and American) renders, better, "manner" (derekh, "way"), the words translated "custom" are choq, chuqqah, "statute," and mishpaT, "judgment." Such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,39);">Jud 11:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,11);">Jer 32:11</a>, and especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,4);">Ezr 3:4</a> (the King James Version "custom," the Revised Version (British and American) "ordinance"), illustrate the difficulty of deciding upon the proper translation, in cases where "custom" might become "statute," "usage" establish itself as "law." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,30);">Le 18:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,3);">Jer 10:3</a> the reference is to heathen religious practices.<P>In the New Testament <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,9);">Lu 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,42);">2:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,14);">Ac 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,1);">15:1</a> (the King James Version "manner"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,21);">Lu 16:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,21);">21:21</a> (ethos), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,27);">Lu 2:27</a> from the same Greek root, refer likewise to definitely established religious practices; in every case except <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,21);">Ac 16:21</a>, those of the Jewish law. The Revised Version (British and American) makes the translation of ethos uniform, reading "custom" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,39);">Lu 22:39</a> (the King James Version "wont") and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,40);">Joh 19:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,16);">Ac 25:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,25);">Heb 10:25</a> (the King James Version "manner"). Greek eiothos, from the same root, is rendered "custom" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,16);">Lu 4:16</a> by English Versions of the Bible, and by the Revised Version (British and American) also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,2);">Ac 17:2</a>, its only other occurrence in the New Testament. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,39);">Joh 18:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,16);">1Co 11:16</a> "custom" is the translation of Greek sunetheia, in the sense of "usage" rather than of "law."``57';
isbe[2470]='Cut; Cutting`(karath, gadha\', kachadh, nathach; apokopto, ekkopto): Many Hebrew words are translated "cut." Of these karath, "to cut down, out, off," is the most frequent. As "cut off" it is used in the sense of laying or destroying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,11);">Ge 9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,29);">De 12:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,16);">1Ki 11:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',101,8);">Ps 101:8</a>, etc.), also for cutting off transgressors from the community of Yahweh, which meant probably separation, or exclusion, rather than death or destruction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,14);">Ge 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,15,19);">Ex 12:15, 19</a>). Other words are damam, ("to be silent," "cease" <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,37);">Jer 25:37</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,2);">Jer 48:2</a>); tsamath "to destroy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',54,5);">Ps 54:5</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',94,23);">Ps 94:23</a>, etc.); gadhadh, "to cut, one\'s self," is used of the cutting of one\'s flesh before heathen gods and in mourning for the dead, which was forbidden to the Israelites, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,1);">De 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,28);">1Ki 18:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',16,6);">Jer 16:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,5);">41:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',47,5);">47:5</a>); seret, sareteth, "incision," are also used of those "cuttings of the flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,28);">Le 19:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,5);">Le 21:5</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUTTINGS+IN+THE+FLESH">CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH</a>. The cutting of the hair of head and beard in mourning for the dead is referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,2);">Isa 15:2</a>; "Every, beard is cut off" (gadha\'), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,29);">Jer 7:29</a>, gazaz, "Cut off thy hair" (the Revised Version, margin "thy crown"), O Jerusalem (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,12);">Isa 22:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',16,6);">Jer 16:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',7,18);">Eze 7:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,10);">Am 8:10</a>). This early and widespread practice was also forbidden to the Israelites as being unworthy of them in their relation to Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,27);">Le 19:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,1);">De 14:1</a>).<P>Charosheth, "carving," "engraving," is used for the cutting of stones (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,5);">Ex 31:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,33);">35:33</a>).<P>In the New Testament we have apokopto "to cut away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,43,45);">Mr 9:43, 45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,12);">Ga 5:12</a> the King James Version; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CONCISION">CONCISION</a>); diaprio, "to saw through" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,33);">Ac 5:33</a>, "they were cut to the heart"); dichotomeo, "to cut in two" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,51);">Mt 24:51</a>); suntemno, "to cut together" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,28);">Ro 9:28</a>), "finishing it and cutting it short," i. e; "making it conclusive and brief."<P>"mutilate themselves," the American Standard Revised Version "go "rest"), "noontide," margin "Or, tranquillity" (Gesenius, Delitzsch, etc., "in the quiet of my days"); instead of, "I would that they were even cut off which trouble you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,12);">Ga 5:12</a>), Among the changes of the Revised Version (British and American) are "brought to silence" for "cut down" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,37);">Jer 25:37</a>), also for "cut off" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,3);">Zec 12:3</a>); for "cut off," "pass through" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,10);">Job 11:10</a>), head" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,1);">Am 9:1</a>), "break them in pieces on the head of"; for "in the cutting off of my days" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,10);">Isa 38:10</a>; Hebrew demi, "silence," the English Revised Version has "cut themselves off," margin beyond circumcision," margin, Greek: "mutilate themselves." W. L. Walker "gone" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,10);">Ps 90:10</a>); "rolled up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,12);">Isa 38:12</a>); "cut off" for "destroy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,40);">Ps 18:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,4);">69:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',118,10,11,12);">118:10-12</a>); for "cut them in the (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,26);">Jer 49:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,30);">50:30</a>); "sore wounded" for "cut in pieces"``1';
isbe[2471]='Cuth; Cuthah`kuth, ku\'-tha (kuth, kuthah; Choua, Chountha): The longer writing is the better of the two, and gives the Hebrew form of the name of one of the cities from which Sargon of Assyria brought colonists to fill the places of the Israelites which he deported from Samaria in 772 BC (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,24,30);">2Ki 17:24, 30</a>). Probably in consequence of their predominating numbers, the inhabitants of Samaria in general were then called kuthiyim, or Cutbeans.<p>1. The Ruins of Cuthah:<P>From contract-tablets found at Tel-Ibrahim by the late Hormuzd Hassam, on which the ancient name of the place is given as Gudua or Kutu, it would seem that that is the site which has to be identified with the Biblical Cuthah. It lies to the Northeast of Babylon, and was one of the most important cities of the Babylonian empire. The explorer describes the ruins as being about 3,000 ft. in circumference and 280 ft. high, and adjoining them on the west lies a smaller mound, crowned with a sanctuary dedicated to Ibrahim (Abraham). From the nature of the ruins, Rassam came to the conclusion that the city was much more densely populated after the fall of Babylon than in earlier times. A portion of the ruins were in a very perfect state, and suggested an unfinished building.<P>2. The Temple:<P>The great temple of the city was called E-mes-lam, and was dedicated to Nergal (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,30);">2Ki 17:30</a>), one of whose names was Meslam-ta-ea. Both city and temple would seem to have been old Sumerian foundations, as the name Gudua and its later Sere form, Kutu, imply.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See Rassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod,396,409, and, for details of the worship of Nergal, PSBA, December, 1906, 203-18.``136';
isbe[2472]='Cutha`ku\'-tha (Koutha; 1Esdras 5:32, the King James Version Coutha): Head of a family of temple servants who returned with Zerubbabel from Babylon; not mentioned in the canonical lists.``1';
isbe[2473]='Cuthah``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUTH;+CUTHAH">CUTH; CUTHAH</a>`1';
isbe[2474]='Cuthean; Cuthite`ku-the\'-an, kuth\'-it.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUTH">CUTH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMARITANS">SAMARITANS</a>`1';
isbe[2475]='Cutting Asunder``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASUNDER">ASUNDER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[2476]='Cutting off``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CONCISION">CONCISION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[2477]='Cuttings in the Flesh`(seret, sareteth): For relatives or friends to cut or beat themselves even to free blood-flowing, especially in the violence of grief in mourning for their dead (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BURIAL">BURIAL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MOURNING">MOURNING</a>), was a widely prevalent custom among ancient peoples, and is well-nigh universal among uncivilized races today (see Spencer, Prin. of Soc., 3rd edition, I, 163ff). The fact is abundantly attested for most of the nations of antiquity, but there are two notable exceptions, the Egyptians (Herod. ii.61, 85; Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptian II, 374), and the Hebrews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,1);">De 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,5);">Le 21:5</a>). According to Plutarch (Sol. 21) Solon forbade the women of Athens to beat themselves to the effusion of blood, and the laws of the Twelve Tables, quoted by Cic. (De leg. ii.23) contained a like injunction. Among the ancient Arabs the forbidden practice was associated, as among the Hebrews, with the cutting off of the hair (Wellhausen, Skizzen, III, 160f).<P>That the prohibition among the Hebrews was urgently called for is made clear by the way it is dealt with by the Law and the prophets. The Law of Holiness reads: "Ye are the children of Yahweh your God: ye shall not cut yourselves" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,1);">De 14:1</a>), or "make any incision" (seret; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,28);">Le 19:28</a>, sareteth; Septuagint entomis) in the flesh "for the dead." Probably the earliest reference to the custom as actually prevalent among the Hebrews is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',7,14);">Ho 7:14</a> (ERVm). It was widely prevalent in the time of Jeremiah among his countrymen, even as among the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',47,5);">Jer 47:5</a>) and the Moabites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,37);">Jer 48:37</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,10);">Am 8:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,24);">Isa 3:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,2);">15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,12);">22:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,16);">Mic 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',7,18);">Eze 7:18</a>).<P>In seeking for the reason or purpose underlying all such prohibitions, we may note, first, that the "cuttings" and "baldness" forbidden are alike said to be "for the dead." Not less explicitly are they said to be incompatible with Israel\'s unique relation to Yahweh<65>a relation at once of sonship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,1);">De 14:1</a>) and of consecration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,2);">De 14:2</a>). Moreover such mutilations of the body are always dealt with as forming part of the religious rites of the heathen (as of the Canaanitish Baal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,28);">1Ki 18:28</a>) note "after their manner," see article in HDB, under the word). Both such shedding of blood and the dedication of the hair are found in almost all countries of that day in intimate connection with the rituals of burial and the prevailing belief in the necessity of propitiating the spirit of the deceased. The conclusion, then, seems clearly warranted that such tokens of grief were prohibited because they carried with them inevitably ideas and associations distinctly heathen in character and so incompatible with the pure religion of Yahweh, and unworthy of those who had attained to the dignity of the sons ("children") of Yahweh.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Benzinger, Heb Arch., section 23; Nowack, Heb Arch., I, 33f; Tylor, Prim. Cult.; W. R. Smith, Rel Semitic, Lect IX; and Comm., Knobel-Dillmann, Ex-Le on <span class="noTag">);">Le 19:28</span>; Driver, Deuteronomy on <span class="noTag">14:1</a>; and Lightfoot, Ga on <span class="noTag">6:17</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARK">MARK</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STIGMATA">STIGMATA</a>`47';
isbe[2478]='Cyamon`si\'-a-mon (Kuamon, Judith 7:3): Probably identical with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOKNEAM">JOKNEAM</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[2479]='Cymbal`sim\'-bal.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MUSIC">MUSIC</a>`1';
isbe[2480]='Cypress`si\'-pres.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLM+TREE">HOLM-TREE</a>`1';
isbe[2481]='Cyprians`sip\'-ri-ans (Kuprioi): Occurs in 2Macc 4:29. Menelaus who was high priest at Jerusalem, and Sostratus who was governor of the citadel, were summoned by King Antiochus to appear before him. "Menelaus left his own brother Lysimachus for his deputy in the high-priesthood; and Sostratus left Crates, who was over the Cyprians." The Cyprians were the inhabitants of the island of Cyprus. Barnabas, who was Paul\'s associate on his first missionary journey, was a Cyprian (Kuprios; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,36);">Ac 4:36</a>). the Revised Version (British and American) designates him as a man of Cyprus. The governor of the island was called a Cypriarch (see 2Macc 12:2, and compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASIARCH">ASIARCH</a>).``62';
isbe[2482]='Cyprus`si\'-prus (Kupros):<P>1. Name:<P>An island situated near the Northeast corner of the Levant, in an angle formed by the coasts of Cilicia and Syria. In the Old Testament it is called Kittim, after the name of its Phoenician capital Kition. The identification is expressly made by Josephus (Ant., I, vi, 1) and by the Cyprian bishop Epiphanius (Haer., xxx.25). In the tablets from Tell el-Amarna it is referred to as Alashia (E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterthums,12,section 499), in Egyptian records as Asi, while in the Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions it is named Yavnan.<P>2. Geography:<P>The island is the largest in the Mediterranean with the exception of Sardinia and Sicily, its area being about 3,584 square miles. It lies in 34 degrees 30\'-35 degrees 41\' North latitude and 32 degrees 15\'-34 degrees 36\' East longitude, only 46 miles distant from the nearest point of the Cilician coast and 60 miles from the Syrian. Thus from the northern shore of the island the mainland of Asia Minor is clearly visible and Mt. Lebanon can be seen from Eastern Cyprus. This close proximity to the Cilician and Syrian coasts, as well as its position on the route between Asia Minor and Egypt, proved of great importance for the history and civilization of the island. Its greatest length, including the Northeast promontory, is about 140 miles, its greatest breadth 60 miles. The southwest portion of Cyprus is formed by a mountain complex, culminating in the peaks of Troodos (6,406 ft.), Madhari (5,305 ft.), Papofitsa (5,124 ft.) and Machaira (4,674 ft.). To the Northeast of this lies the great plain of the Mesorea, nearly 60 miles in length and 10 to 20 in breadth, in which lies the modern capital Nicosia (Lefkosia). It is watered chiefly by the Pediaeus (modern Pedias), and is bounded on the north by a mountain range, which is continued to the east-northeast in the long, narrow promontory of the Karpass, terminating in Cape Andrea, the ancient Dinaretum. Its highest peaks are Buffavento (3,135 ft.) and Hagios Elias (3,106 ft.). The shore-plain to the north of these hills is narrow, but remarkably fertile.<P>3. Products:<P>Cyprus is richly endowed by nature. Its fruits and flowers were famous in antiquity. Strabo, writing under Augustus, speaks of it as producing wine and oil in abundance and corn sufficient for the needs of its inhabitants (XIV, 684). The elder Pliny refers to Cyprian salt, alum, gypsum, mica, unguents, laudanum, storax, resin and precious stones, including agate, jasper, amethyst, lapis lazuli and several species of rock-crystal. His list includes the diamond (xxxvii.58) and the emerald (xxxvii.6, 66), but there is reason to believe that under these names a variety of rock-crystal and the beryl are intended. The chief source of the island\'s wealth, however, lay in its mines and forests. Silver is mentioned by Strabo (loc. cit.) among its products; copper, which was called by the Greeks after the name of the island, was extensively mined there from the earliest period down to the Middle Ages; iron too was found in considerable quantities from the 9th century until Roman times. Scarcely less important were the forests, which at an early date are said to have covered almost the whole island. The cypress seems to have been the principal tree, but Pliny tells of a giant cedar, 130 Roman feet in height, felled in Cyprus (xvi.203), and the island supplied timber for shipbuilding to many successive powers.<P>4. Early History:<P>The original inhabitants of Cyprus appear to have been a race akin to the peoples of Asia Minor. Its vast resources in copper and timber gained for it a considerable importance and wide commercial relations at a very remote period. Its wealth attracted the attention of Babylonia and Egypt, and there is reason to believe that it was conquered by Sargon I, king of Accad, and about a millennium later by Thothmes III, of the XVIIIth Egyptian Dynasty (1501-1447 BC). But the influences which molded its civilization came from other quarters also. Excavation has shown that in Cyprus were several seats of the Minoan culture, and there can be little doubt that it was deeply influenced by Crete. The Minoan writing may well be the source of the curious Cyprian syllabic script, which continued in use for the representation of the Greek language down to the 4th century BC (A. J. Evans, Scripta Minoa, I). But the Minoan origin of the Cyprian syllabary is still doubtful, for it may have been derived from the Hittite hieroglyphs. Phoenician influences too were at work, and the Phoenician settlements<74>Citium, Amathus, Paphos and others<72>go back to a very early date. The break-up of the Minoan civilization was followed by a "Dark Age," but later the island received a number of Greek settlers from Arcadia and other Hellenic states, as we judge not only from Greek tradition but from the evidence of the Cyprian dialect, which is closely akin to the Arcadian. In 709 BC Sargon II of Assyria made himself master of Cyprus, and tribute was paid by its seven princes to him and to his grandson, Esarhaddon (681-667 BC). The overthrow of the Assyrian Empire probably brought with it the independence of Cyprus, but it was conquered afresh by Aahmes (Amasis) of Egypt (Herod. ii. 182) who retained it till his death in 526 BC; but in the following year the defeat of his son and successor Psamtek III (Psammenitus) by Cambyses brought the island under Persian dominion (Herod. iii.19, 91).<P>5. Cyprus and the Greeks:<P>In 501 the Greek inhabitants led by Onesilus, brother of the reigning prince of Salamis, rose in revolt against the Persians, but were decisively beaten (Herodotus v.104ff), and in 480 we find 150 Cyprian ships in the navy with which Xerxes attacked Greece (Herod. vii.90). The attempts of Pausanias and of Cimon to win Cyprus for the Hellenic cause met with but poor success, and the withdrawal of the Athenian forces from the Levant after their great naval victory off Salamis in 449 was followed by a strong anti-Hellenic movement throughout the island led by Abdemon, prince of Citium. In 411 Euagoras ascended the throne of Salamis and set to work to assert Hellenic influence and to champion Hellenic civilization. He joined with Pharnabazus the Persian satrap and Conon the Athenian to overthrow the naval power of Sparta at the battle of Cnidus in 394, and in 387 revolted from the Persians. He was followed by his son Nicocles, to whom Isocrates addressed the famous panegyric of Euagoras and who formed the subject of an enthusiastic eulogy by the same writer. Cyprus seems later to have fallen once again under Persian rule, but after the battle of Issus (333 BC) it voluntarily gave in its submission to Alexander the Great and rendered him valuable aid at the siege of Tyre. On his death (323) it fell to the share of Ptolemy of Egypt. It was, however, seized by Demetrius Poliorcetes, who defeated Ptolemy in a hotly contested battle off Salamis in 306. But eleven years later it came into the hands of the Ptolemies and remained a province of Egypt or a separate but dependent kingdom until the intervention of Rome (compare 2Macc 10:13). We hear of a body of Cyprians, under the command of a certain Crates, serving among the troops of Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria and forming part of the garrison of Jerusalem about 172 BC (2Macc 4:29). This interpretation of the passage seems preferable to that according to which Crates had been governor of Cyprus under the Ptolemies before entering the service of Antiochus.<P>6. Cyprus and Rome:<P>In 58 BC the Romans resolved to incorporate Cyprus in their empire and Marcus Porcius Cato was entrusted with the task of its annexation. The reigning prince, a brother of Ptolemy Auletes of Egypt, received the offer of an honorable retirement as high priest of Aphrodite at Paphos, but he preferred to end his life by poison, and treasures amounting to some 7,000 talents passed into Roman hands, together with the island, which was attached to the province of Cilicia. In the partition of the Roman empire between Senate and Emperor, Cyprus was at first (27-22 BC) an imperial province (Dio Cassius liii.12), administered by a legatus Augusti pro praetore or by the imperial legate of Cilicia. In 22 BC, however, it was handed over to the Senate together with Southern Gaul in exchange for Dalmatia (Dio Cassius liii. 12; liv.4) and was subsequently governed by ex-praetors bearing the honorary title of proconsul and residing at Paphos. The names of about a score of these governors are known to us from ancient authors, inscriptions and coins and will be found in D. G. Hogarth, Devia Cypria, App. Among them is Sergius Paulus, who was proconsul at the time of Paul\'s visit to Paphos in 46 or 47 AD, and we may notice that the title applied to him by the writer of the Acts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,7);">13:7</a>) is strictly accurate.<P>7. Cyprus and the Jews:<P>The proximity of Cyprus to the Syrian coast rendered it easy of access from Palestine, and Jews had probably begun to settle there even before the time of Alexander the Great. Certainly the number of Jewish residents under the Ptolemies was considerable (1Macc 15:23; 2Macc 12:2) and it must have been increased later when the copper mines of the island were farmed to Herod the Great (Josephus, Ant, XVI, iv, 5; XIX, xxvi, 28; compare Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, 2628). We shall not be surprised, therefore, to find that at Salamis there was more than one synagogue at the time of Paul\'s visit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,5);">Ac 13:5</a>). In 116 AD the Jews of Cyprus rose in revolt and massacred no fewer than 240,000 Gentiles. Hadrian crushed the rising with great severity and drove all the Jews from the island. Henceforth no Jew might set foot upon it, even under stress of shipwreck, on pain of death (Dio Cassius lxviii.32).<P>8. The Church in Cyprus:<P>In the life of the early church Cyprus played an important part. Among the Christians who fled from Judea in consequence of the persecution which followed Stephen\'s death were some who "travelled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,19);">Ac 11:19</a>) preaching to the Jews only. Certain natives of Cyprus and Cyrene took a further momentous step in preaching at Antioch to the Greeks also (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,20);">Ac 11:20</a>). Even before this time Joseph Barnabas, a Levite born in Cyprus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,36);">Ac 4:36</a>), was prominent in the early Christian community at Jerns, and it was in his native island that he and Paul, accompanied by Barnabas nephew, John Mark, began their first missionary journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,4);">Ac 13:4</a>). After landing at Salamis they passed "through the whole island" to Paphos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,6);">Ac 13:6</a>), probably visiting the Jewish synagogues in its cities. The Peutinger Table tells us of two roads from Salamis to Paphos in Roman times, one of which ran inland by way of Tremithus, Tamassus and Soil, a journey of about 4 days, while the other and easier route, occupying some 3 days, ran along the south coast by way of Citium, Amathus and Curium. Whether the "early disciple," Mnason of Cyprus, was one of the converts made at this time or had previously embraced Christianity we cannot determine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,16);">Ac 21:16</a>). Barnabas and Mark revisited Cyprus later (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,39);">Ac 15:39</a>), but Paul did not again land on the island, though he sighted it when, on his last journey to jerus, he sailed south of it on his way from Patara in Lycia to Tyre (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,3);">Ac 21:3</a>), and again when on his journey to Rome he sailed "under the lee of Cyprus," that is, along its northern coast, on the way from Sidon to Myra in Lycia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,4);">Ac 27:4</a>). In 401 AD the Council of Cyprus was convened, chiefly in consequence of the efforts of Theophilus of Alexandria, the inveterate opponent of Origenism, and took measures to check the reading of Origen\'s works. The island, which was divided into 13 bishoprics, was declared autonomous in the 5th century, after the alleged discovery of Matthew\'s Gospel in the tomb of Barnabas at Salamis. The bishop of Salamis was made metropolitan by the emperor Zeno with the title "archbishop of all Cyprus," and his successor, who now occupies the see of Nicosia, still enjoys the privilege of signing his name in red ink and is primate over the three other bishops of the island, those of Paphos, Kition and Kyrenia, all of whom are of metropolitan rank.<P>9. Later History:<P>Cyprus remained in the possession of the Roman and then of the Byzantine emperors, though twice overrun and temporarily occupied by the Saracens, until 1184, when its ruler, Isaac Comnenus, broke away from Constantinople and declared himself an independent emperor. From him it was wrested in 1191 by the Crusaders under Richard I of England, who bestowed it on Guy de Lusignan, the titular king of Jerusalem, and his descendants. In 1489 it was ceded to the Venetians by Catherine Cornaro, widow of James II, the last of the Lusignan kings, and remained in their hands until it was captured by the Ottoman Turks under Sultan Selim II, who invaded and subjugated the island in 1570 and laid siege to Famagusta, which, after a heroic defense, capitulated on August 1, 1571. Since that time Cyprus has formed part of the Turkish empire, in spite of serious revolts in 1764 and 1823; since 1878, however, it has been occupied and administered by the British government, subject to an annual payment to the Sublime Porte of $92,800 and a large quantity of salt. The High Commissioner, who resides at Nicosia, is assisted by a Legislative Council of 18 members. The estimated population ia 1907 was 249,250, of whom rather more than a fifth were Moslems and the remainder chiefly members of the Greek Orthodox church.<P>LITERATURE.<P>An exhaustive bibliography will be found in C. D. Cobham, An Attempt at a Bibliography of Cyprus, Nicosia, 4th edition, 1900. The following works may be specially mentioned: E. Oberhummer, Aus Cypern, Berlin, 1890-92; Studien zur alten Geographic yon Kypros, Munich 1891; A. Sakellarios, Ta Kupriaka, Athens, 1890-91. References in ancient sources are collected in J. Meursius, Cyprus, Amsterdam,1675,and W. Engel, Kypros, Berlin, 1841. For Cyprian archaeology see P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter vi, London, 1892; J. L. Myres and M. OhnefalschRichter, Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum, Oxford, 1899; M. O. Richter, Kypros, die Bibel und Homer, Berlin, 1893; D. G. Hogarth, Devia Cypria, London, 1889; and J. L. Myres\' article on "Cypriote Archaeology" in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, VII, 697ff. For excavations, Journal of Hellenic Studies, IX, XI, XII, XVII, and Excavations Cyprus, London (British Museum), 1900; for art, G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, Art in Phoenicia and Cyprus, English translation, London, 1885; for coins, B. V. Head, Historia Numorum, Oxford, 1911; for inscriptions, Sammlung der griech. Dialekt-Inschriften, I, Gottingen, 1883; for the Cyprian church, J. Hackett, History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus, London, 1901; for authorities on medieval and modern history, CL. D. Cobham, Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition), 11th edition, VII, 701.``176';
isbe[2483]='Cyrama`si-ra\'-ma, sir\'-a-ma.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KIRAMA">KIRAMA</a>`1';
isbe[2484]='Cyrene`si-re\'-ne (Kurene "wall"):<P>1. Location:<P>Cyrene was a city of Libya in North Africa, lat. 32 degrees 40\' North, long. 22 degrees 15\' East. It lay west of ancient Egypt, from which it was separated by a portion of the Libyan desert, and occupied the territory now belonging to Barca and Tripoli. It was situated upon an elevated plateau about 2,000 ft. above the sea, from which it was distant some 10 miles. A high range of mountains lies to the south, about 90 miles inland. This shelters the coast land from the scorching heat of the Sahara. The range drops down toward the north in a series of terrace-like elevations, thus giving to the region a great variety of climate and vegetation. The soil is fertile.<P>2. History:<P>Cyrene was originally a Greek colony rounded by Battus in 630 BC. Because of the fertility of the soil, the great variety in climate and vegetation, together with its commercial advantages in location, the city soon rose to great wealth and importance. Greater fame, however, came to it through its distinguished citizens. It was the home of Callimachus the poet, Carneacles the founder of the New Academy at Athens, and Eratosthenes the mathematician. To these must be added, from later times, the elegant ancient Christian writer Synesius. So important did this Greek colony become that, in little more than half a century, Amasis II of Egypt formed an alliance with Cyrene, marrying a Greek lady of noble, perhaps royal, birth (Herod. ii.181). Ptolemy III (Euergetes I), 231 BC, incorporated Cyrene with Egypt. The city continued, though with much restlessness, a part of the Egyptian empire until Apion, the last of the Ptolemies, willed it to Rome. It henceforth belonged to a Roman province.<P>In the middle of the 7th century, the conquering Saracens took possession of Cyrene, and from that time to this it has been the habitation of wandering tribes of Arabs.<P>3. Biblical Importance:<P>Cyrene comes into importance in Biblical history through the dispersion of the Jews. Ptolemy I, son of Lagus, transported Jews to this and other cities of Libya (Josephus, CAp, II, 4) and from this time on Jews were very numerous there. By the return of the Jews of the Dispersion to the feasts at Jerusalem, Cyrenians came to have a conspicuous place in the New Testament history. "A man of Cyrene, Simon by name," was caught by the Roman soldiers and compelled to bear the cross of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,32);">Mt 27:32</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,21);">Mr 15:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,26);">Lu 23:26</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CYRENIAN">CYRENIAN</a>. Jews from Cyrene were among those present on the day of Pentecost. Their city appears as one of the important points in the wide circle of the Dispersion described by Peter in his sermon on that occasion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,10);">Ac 2:10</a>). Cyrenian Jews were of sufficient importance in those days to have their name associated with a synagogue at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,9);">Ac 6:9</a>). And when the persecution arose about Stephen, some of these Jews of Cyrene who had been converted at Jerusalem, were scattered abroad and came with others to Antioch and preached the word "unto the Jews only" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,19,20);">Ac 11:19-20</a> the King James Version), and one of them, Lucius, became a prophet in the early church there. In this case, as in so many others, the wise providence of God in the dispersion of the Jews in preparation for the spread of the gospel of the Messiah is seen.<P>4. Archaeology:<P>In the ruins of Cyrene are to be seen the remains of some beautiful buildings, and a few sculptures have been removed. The most interesting remains of the wondrous civilization of this Greek colony are in a great system of tombs, some built, but the finest cut in the solid rock of the cliff. Doric architecture and brilliant decorative painting adorn these tombs.<P>LITERATURE<P>Herodotus ii; Josephus, Apion; Thrige, Res Cyrenensium.``93';
isbe[2485]='Cyrenian; Cyrenians`si-re\'-ni-an (Kurenaios, "a native or inhabitant of Cyrene"): Two Jews of Cyrene are mentioned in the New Testament, namely, Simon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,21);">Mr 15:21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,26);">Lu 23:26</a> the King James Version) who was impressed to bear the Lord\'s cross (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,21);">Mr 15:21</a> the Revised Version, margin), and Lucius, a Christian teacher at Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,1);">Ac 13:1</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CYRENE">CYRENE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LUCIUS">LUCIUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIMON+(2)">SIMON (2)</a>`1';
isbe[2486]='Cyrenius`si-re\'-ni-us (Kurenios, "of Cyrene").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=QUIRINIUS">QUIRINIUS</a>`1';
isbe[2487]='Cyria`sir\'-i-a (Kuria): The word means "lady," feminine of lord, and it is so translated in the King James Version and the text of the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,5);">2Joh 1:5</a> the Revised Version, margin). But it is possible that the word is a proper name, and this possibility is recognized by placing Cyria, the usual transliteration of the word, in the margin by the Revised Version (British and American).``1';
isbe[2488]='Cyrus`si\'-rus (koresh; Old Persian Kurus; Babylonian Kur(r)as, Kur(r)asu; Greek Kuros, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,22);">2Ch 36:22</a>, etc.):<P>1. Genealogy of Cyrus<P>2. His Country, Ansan or Anzan<P>3. His Origin (Herodotus)<P>4. His Origin (Xenophon)<P>5. His Origin (Nicolaus of Damascus)<P>6. His Origin (Ctesias)<P>7. Babylonian Records of His Reign<67>The Cylinder of Nabonidus<p>8. The Babylonian Chronicle<P>9. The Babylonian Chronicle<6C>The Capture of Babylon<P>10. The Cylinder of Cyrus<P>11. Cyrus\' History from Greek Sources<P>12. The Massagetae<P>13. The Sacae, Berbices, etc.<P>14. Doubt as to the Manner of His Death<P>15. Cyrus\' Reputation<P>16. Why Did the Babylonians Accept Him?<P>17. Cyrus and the Jews<P>18. Cyrus in Persia<69>His Bas-relief<hr /><P>1. Genealogy of Cyrus:<P>The son of the earlier Cambyses, of the royal race of the Achemenians. His genealogy, as given by himself, is as follows: "I am Cyrus, king of the host, the great king, the mighty king, king of Tindir (Babylon), king of the land of Sumeru and Akkadu, king of the four regions, son of Cambyses, the great king, king of the city Ansan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of the city Ansan, great-grandson of Sispis (Teispes), the great king, king of the city Ansan, the all-enduring royal seed whose sovereignty Bel and Nebo love," etc. (WAI, V, plural 35, 20-22).<P>2. His Country, Ansan or Anzan:<P>As, in the Babylonian inscriptions, Assan (Ansan, Anzan) is explained as Elam<61>the city was, in fact, the capital of that country<72>it is probable that Cyrus\' name was Elamite; but the meaning is doubtful. The Greek etymology connecting it with khor, "the sun" in Persian, may therefore be rejected. According to Strabo, he was at first called Agradates, the name by which he was universally known being taken from that of the river Cyrus. This, however, is more likely to have been the reason why his grandfather (after whom he was probably named) was called Cyrus.<P>3. His Origin (Herodotus):<P>Several versions of his birth and rise to power are recorded. Herodotus (i.95) mentions three. In that which he quotes (i.107ff), it is said that Mandane was the daughter of the Median king Astyages, who, in consequence of a dream which he had had, foretelling the ultimate triumph of her son over his dynasty, gave her in marriage to a Persian named Cambyses, who was not one of his peers. A second dream caused him to watch for her expected offspring, and when Cyrus came into the world Astyages delivered the child to his relative, Harpagus, with orders to destroy it. Being Unwilling to do this, he handed the infant to a Shepherd named Mitradates, who, his wife having brought forth a still-born child, consented to spare the life of the infant Cyrus. Later on, in consequence of his imperious acts, Cyrus was recognized by Astyages, who came to learn the whole story, and spared him because, having once been made king by his companions in play, the Magians held the predictions concerning his ultimate royal state to have been fulfilled. The vengeance taken by Astyages upon Harpagus for his apparent disobedience to orders is well known: his son was slain, and a portion, disguised, given him to eat. Though filled with grief, Harpagus concealed his feelings, and departed with the remains of his son\'s body; and Cyrus, in due course, was sent to stay with his parents, Cambyses and Mandane. Later on, Harpagus persuaded Cyrus to induce the Persians to revolt, and Astyages having blindly appointed Harpagus commander-in-chief of the Median army, the last-named went over to the side of Cyrus. The result was an easy victory for the latter, but Astyages took care to impale the Magians who had advised him to spare his grandson. Having gathered another, but smaller, army, he took the field in person, but was defeated and captured. Cyrus, however, who became king of Media as well as of Persia, treated him honorably and well.<P>4. His Origin (Xenophon):<P>According to Xenophon, Cyropedia i. section 2, Cambyses, the father of Cyrus, was king of Persia. (NOTE: He may have added Persia to his dominion, but according to Cyrus himself, he was king of Ansan or Elam.) Until his 12th year, Cyrus was educated in Persia, when he was sent for, with his mother, by Astyages, to whom he at once manifested much affection. Astyages is said to have been succeeded by his son Cyaxares, and Cyrus then became his commander-in-chief, subduing, among others, the Lydians. He twice defeated the Assyrians (= Babylonians), his final conquest of the country being while the Median king was still alive. As, however, the Cyropedia is a romance, the historical details are not of any great value.<P>5. His Origin (Nicolaus of Damascus):<P>Nicolaus of Damascus describes Cyrus as the son of a Mardian bandit named Atradates, his mother\'s name being Argoste. While in service in the palace of Astyages, he was adopted by Artembarks, cupbearer, and thus obtained prominence. Cyrus now made his bandit-father satrap of Persia, and, with base ingratitude, plotted against his king and benefactor. The preparations for a revolt having been made, he and his general Oibaras were victorious at Hyrba, but were defeated at Parsagadae, where his father Atradates was captured and later on died. Cyrus now took refuge in his mountain home, but the taunts of the women sent him and his helpers forth again, this time to victory and dominion.<P>6. His Origin (Ctesias):<P>Ctesias also states that there was no relationship between Cyrus and Astyages (Astyigas), who, when Cyrus conquered Media, fled to Ecbatana, and was there hidden by his daughter Amytis, and Spitamas her husband. Had not Astyages yielded, Cyrus, it is said, would have tortured them, with their children. Cyrus afterward liberated Astyages, and married his daughter Amytis, whose husband he had put to death for telling a falsehood. The Bactrians are said to have been so satisfied at the reconciliation of Cyrus with Astyages and his daughter, that they voluntarily submitted. Cyrus is said by Ctesias to have been taken prisoner by the Sacae, but he was ransomed. He died from a wound received in battle with the Derbices, assisted by the Indians.<P>7. Babylonian Records of His Reign<67>the Cylinder of Nabonidus:<P>In the midst of so much uncertainty, it is a relief to turn to the contemporary documents of the Babylonians, which, though they do not speak of Cyrus\' youth in detail, and refer only to other periods of his career in which they were more immediately interested, may nevertheless, being contemporary, be held to have an altogether special authority. According to the inscriptions, the conflict with Astyages took place in 549 BC. From the cylinder of Nabonidus we learn that the Medes had been very successful in their warlike operations, and had gone even as far afield as Haran, which they had besieged. The Babylonjan King Nabonidus desired to carry out the instructions of Merodach, revealed in a dream, to restore the temple of Sin, the Moon-god, in that city. This, however, in consequence of the siege, he could not do, and it was revealed to him in a dream that the power of Astyages would be overthrown at the end of three years, which happened as predicted. "They (the gods Sin and Merodach) then caused Cyrus, king of Anzan, his (Merodach\'s) young servant, with his little army, to rise up against him (the Median); he destroyed the extensive Umman-manda (Medes), Istuwegu (Astyages), king of the Medes, he captured, and took (him) prisoner to his (own) land." The account of this engagement in the Babylonian Chronicle (which is, perhaps, Cyrus\' own), is as follows: "(Astyages) gathered his army, and went against Cyrus, king of Ansan, to capture him, and (as for) Astyages, his army revolted against him and took him, and gave him to Cyrus."<P>8. The Babylonian Chronicle:<P>Cyrus went to the land of Ecbatana, his royal city. He carried off from Ecbatana silver, gold, furniture, merchandise, and took to the land of Ansan the furniture and merchandise which he had captured.<P>The above is the entry for the 6th year of Nabonidus, which corresponds with 549 BC; and it will be noticed that he is here called "king of Ansan." The next reference to Cyrus in the Babylonian Chronicle is the entry for Nabonidus\' 9th year (546 BC), where it is stated that "Cyrus, king of the land of Parsu (Persia) gathered his army, and crossed the Tigris below Arbela," and in the following month (Iyyar) entered the land of Is- ...., where someone seems to have taken a bribe, garrisoned the place, and afterward a king ruled there. The passage, however, is imperfect, and therefore obscure, but we may, perhaps, see therein some preparatory move on the part of Cyrus to obtain possession of the tract over which Nabonidus claimed dominion. The next year (545 BC) there seems to have been another move on the part of the Persians, for the Elamite governor (?) is referred to, and had apparently some dealings with the governor of Erech. All this time things seem to have been the same in Babylonia, the king\'s son (he is not named, but apparently Belshazzar is meant) and the soldiers remaining in Akkad (possibly used in the old sense of the word, to indicate the district around Sippar), where it was seemingly expected that the main attack would be delivered. The reference to the governor of Erech might imply that some conspiracy was on foot more to the south<74>a movement of which the native authorities possibly remained in ignorance.<P>9. The Babylonian Chronicle<6C>the Capture of Babylon:<P>After a gap which leaves four years unaccounted for, we have traces of four lines which mention the goddess Ishtar of Erech, and the gods of the land of Par ....(? Persia) are referred to. After this comes the long entry, which, though the date is broken away, must refer to the 17th year of Nabonidus. A royal visit to a temple is referred to, and there is mention of a revolt. Certain religious ceremonies were then performed, and others omitted. In the month Tammuz, Cyrus seems to have fought a battle in Opis, and succeeded in attacking the army of Akkad situated on the Tigris. On the 14th of the month, Sippar was taken without fighting, and Nabonidus fled. On the 16th Ugbaru (Gobryas) governor of Media, entered Babylon, with the army of Cyrus, without fighting, and there Nabonidus was captured with his followers. At this time E-saggil and the temples of the land seem to have been closed, possibly to prevent the followers of Nabonidus from taking sanctuary there, or else to prevent plotters from coming forth; and on the 3rd of Marcheswan (October), Cyrus entered Babylon. "Crowds collected before him, proposing peace for the city; Cyrus, command the peace of Babylon, all of it." Gobryas, his vice-regent, then appointed governors in Babylon, and the gods whom Nabonidus had taken down to Babylon, were returned to their shrines. On the night of the 11th of Marcheswan, Ugbaru went against (some part of Babylon), and the son of the king died; and there was mourning for him from the 27th of Adar to the 3rd of Nisan (six days). There is some doubt as to whether the text speaks of the king or the son of the king, but as there is a record that Nabonidus was exiled to Carmania, it would seem most likely that the death of Belshazzar "in the night" is here referred to. The day after the completion of the mourning (the 4th of Nisan), Cambyses, son of Cyrus, performed ceremonies in the temple E-nig-had-kalamma, probably in connection with the new year\'s festival, for which Cyrus had probably timed his arrival at Babylon. According to Herodotus (i.191), Babylon\' was taken during a festival, agreeing with <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,1);">Da 5:1</a>ff.<P>10. The Cylinder of Cyrus:<P>The other inscription of Cyrus, discovered by Mr. H. Rassam at Babylon, is a kind of proclamation justifying his seizure of the crown. He states that the gods (of the various cities of Babylonia) forsook their dwellings in anger that he (Nabonidus) had made them enter within Su-anna (Babylon). Merodach, the chief divinity of Babylon, sought also a just king, the desire of his heart, whose hand he might hold<6C>Cyrus, king of Ansan, he called his title<6C>to all the kingdoms together (his) name was proclaimed.<P>The glory of Cyrus\' conquests probably appealed to the Babylonians, for Cyrus next states that Merodach placed the whole of the troops of Qutu (Media) under his feet, and the whole of the troops of the Manda (barbarians and mercenaries). He also caused his hands to hold the people of the dark head (Asiatics, including the Babylonians)<29>in righteousness and justice he cared for them. He commanded that he should go to his city Babylon, and walked by his side like a friend and a companion<6F>without fighting and battle Merodach caused him to enter Su-anna. By his high command, the kings of every region from the upper sea to the lower sea (the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf), the kings of the Amorites, and the dwellers in tents, brought their valuable tribute and kissed his feet within Su-anna (Babylon). From Nineveh(?), the city Assur, Susa, Agade, the land of Esnunnak, Zamban, Me-Turnu, and Deru, to the borders of Media, the gods inhabiting them were returned to their shrines, and all the people were collected and sent back to their dwellings. He finishes by soliciting the prayers of the gods to Bel and Nebo for length of days and happiness, asking them also to appeal to Merodach on behalf of Cyrus "his worshipper," and his son Cambyses.<P>11. Cyrus\' History from Greek Sources:<P>It was probably between the defeat of Astyages and the capture of Babylon that Cyrus defeated Croesus and conquered Lydia. After preparing to attack the Greek cities of Asia Minor, he returned to Ecbatana, taking Croesus with him. The states which had formed the Lydian empire, however, at once revolted, and had again to be reduced to submission, this time by Harpagus, his faithful general, after a determined resistance. It was at this period that Cyrus subdued the nations of Upper Asia, his next objective being Babylonia (section 9 and the two preceding paragraphs). In this connection it is noteworthy that, in the Babylonian official account, there is no mention of his engineering works preparatory to the taking of Babylon<6F>the turning of the waters of the Gyndes into a number of channels in order to cross (Herod. i.189); the siege of Babylon, long and difficult, and the final capture of the city by changing the course of the Euphrates, enabling his army to enter by the bed of the river\' (Herodotus i.190-91). There may be some foundation for this statement, but if so, the king did not boast of it<69>perhaps because it did not entail any real labor, for the irrigation works already in existence may have been nearly sufficient for the purpose. It seems likely that the conquest of Babylon opened the way for other military exploits. Herodotus states that he next attacked the Massagetae, who were located beyond the Araxes.<P>12. The Massagetae:<P>One-third of their army was defeated, and the son of Tomyris, the queen, captured by a stratagem; but on being freed from his bonds, he committed suicide. In another exceedingly fierce battle which followed, the Persian army was destroyed, and Cyrus himself brought his life to an end there, after a reign of 29 years. (He had ruled over Media for 11, and over Babylonia (and Assyria) for 9 years.) According to the Babylonian contract-tablets, Cambyses, his son, was associated with him on the throne during the first portion of his 1st year of rule in Babylon.<P>13. The Sacae, Berbices, etc.:<P>According to Ctesias, Cyrus made war with the Bactrians and the Sacae, but was taken prisoner by the latter, and was afterward ransomed. He died from a wound received in battle with the Berbices. Diodorus agrees, in the main, with Herodotus, but relates that Cyrus was captured by the Scythian queen (apparently Tomyris), who crucified or impaled him.<P>14. Doubt as to the Manner of His Death:<P>It is strange that, in the case of such a celebrated ruler as Cyrus, nothing certain is known as to the manner of his death. The accounts which have come down to us seem to make it certain that he was killed in battle with some enemy, but the statements concerning his end are conflicting. This absence of any account of his death from a trustworthy source implies that Herodotus is right in indicating a terrible disaster to the Persian arms, and it is therefore probable that he fell on the field of battle<6C>perhaps in conflict with the Massagetae, as Herodotus states. Supposing that only a few of the Persian army escaped, it may be that not one of those who saw him fall lived to tell the tale, and the world was dependent on the more or less trustworthy statements which the Massagetae made.<P>15. Cyrus\' Reputation:<P>That he was considered to be a personage of noble character is clear from all that has come down to us concerning him, the most noteworthy being Xenophon\'s Cyropedia and Institution of Cyrus. The Babylonian inscriptions do not reproduce Babylonian opinion, but the fact that on the occasion of the siege of Babylon the people trusted to his honor and came forth asking peace for the city (apparently with every confidence that their request would be granted); and that the Babylonians, as a whole, were contented under his rule, may be regarded as tacit confirmation. Nabonidus, before the invasion of his territory by the Persian forces, was evidently well disposed toward him, and looked upon him, as we have seen, as "the young servant of Merodach," the patron deity of Babylon.<P>16. Why Did the Babylonians Accept Him?:<P>It is not altogether clear, however, why theBabylonians submitted to him with so little resistance<63>their inscriptions contain no indication that they had real reason to be dissatisfied with the rule of Nabonidus<75>he seems to have been simply regarded as somewhat unorthodox in his worship of the gods; but could they expect an alien, of a different religion, to be better in that respect? Dissatisfaction on the part of the Babyloninn priesthood was undoubtedly at the bottom of their discontent, however, and may be held to supply a sufficient reason, though it does not redound to the credit of Babylonian patriotism. It has been said that the success of Cyrus was in part due to the aid given him by the Jews, who, recognizing him as a monotheist like themselves, gave him more than mere sympathy; but it is probable that he could never have conquered Babylonia had not the priests, as indicated by their own records, spread discontent among the people. It is doubtful whether we may attribute a higher motive to the priesthood, though that is not altogether impossible. The inner teaching of the Babylonian polytheistic faith was, as is now well known, monotheistic, and there may have been, among the priests, a desire to have a ruler holding that to be the true faith, and also not so inclined as Nabonidus to run counter to the people\'s (and the priests\') prejudices. Jewish influence would, in some measure, account for this.<P>17. Cyrus and the Jews:<P>If the Jews thought that they would be more sympathetically treated under Cyrus\' rule, they were not disappointed. It was he who gave orders for the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,23);">2Ch 36:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,2);">Ezr 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,13);">5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,3);">6:3</a>), restored the vessels of the House of the Lord which Nebuchadnezzar had taken away (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,7);">Ezr 1:7</a>), and provided funds to bring cedar trees from Lebanon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,7);">Ezr 3:7</a>). But he also restored the temples of theBabylonians, and brought back the images of the gods to their shrines. Nevertheless the Jews evidently felt that the favors he granted them showed sympathy for them, and this it probably was which caused Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,28);">44:28</a>) to see in him a "shepherd" of the Lord, and an anointed king (Messiah, to Christo mou, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,1);">Isa 45:1</a>)<29>a title suggesting to later writers that he was a type of Christ (Hieron., Commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,1);">Isa 44:1</a>).<P>18. Cyrus in Persia<69>His Bas-relief:<P>From Persia we do not get any help as to his character, nor as to the estimation in which he was held. His only inscription extant is above his idealized bas-relief at Murghab, where he simply writes: "I am Cyrus, the Achemenian." The stone shows Cyrus standing, looking to the right, draped in a fringed garment resembling those worn by the ancientBabylonians, reaching to the feet. His hair is combed back in the Persian style, and upon his head is an elaborate Egyptian crown, two horns extending to front and back, with a uraeus serpent rising from each end, and between the serpents three vase-like objects, with discs at their bases and summits, and serrated leaves between. There is no doubt that this crown is symbolical of his dominion over Egypt, the three vase-like objects being modifications of the triple helmet-crown of the Egyptian deities. The king is represented as four-winged in the Assyro-Babylonian style, probably as a claim to divinity in their hierarchy as well as to dominion in the lands of Merodach and Assur. In his right hand, which is raised to the level of his shoulder, he holds a kind of scepter seemingly terminating in a bird\'s head<61>in all probability also a symbol of Babylonian dominion, though the emblem of the Babylonian cities of the south was most commonly a bird with wings displayed.``136';
isbe[2489]='Dabareh`dab\'-a-re.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DABERATH">DABERATH</a>`1';
isbe[2490]='Dabbesheth`dab\'-e-sheth (dabbesheth; Dabasthai; the King James Version Dabbasheth, dab\'a-sheth): A town on the western boundary of Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,11);">Jos 19:11</a>). It is probably identical with the modern Dabsheh, a ruined site to the east of Acre.``1';
isbe[2491]='Daberath`dab\'-e-rath (ha-dabherath, "pasture"; Dabeiroth): A city in the territory of Issachar, on the boundary between that tribe and Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,12);">Jos 19:12</a>). It was assigned to the Gershonite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,28);">Jos 21:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,72);">1Ch 6:72</a>). The most probable identification is with Dabuiriyeh, a village on the lower western slopes of Tabor.``1';
isbe[2492]='Dabria`da\'-bri-a: One of the five who wrote down the visions of Esdras, described (2Esdras 14:24) as "ready to write swiftly."``1';
isbe[2493]='Dacubi; Dacobi` da-ku\'-bi, da-ko\'-bi, King James Version: Head of a family of gate-keepers (1Esdras 5:28).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AKKUB">AKKUB</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAKUBI">DAKUBI</a>`1';
isbe[2494]='Daddeus`da-de\'-us, the Revised Version (British and American); <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LODDEUS">LODDEUS</a> (Loddaios), which see.``1';
isbe[2495]='Dagger`dag\'-er.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR;+ARMS">ARMOR; ARMS</a>`1';
isbe[2496]='Dagon`da\'-gon (daghon; apparently derived from dagh, "fish"): Name of the god of the Philistines (according to Jerome on <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,1);">Isa 46:1</a> of the Philistines generally); in the Bible, Dagon is associated with Gaza (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,\'1-\');">Jud 16</a>) but elsewhere with Ashdod (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',5,\'1-\');">1Sa 5</a> and 1Macc 10:83f; 11:4); in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,10);">1Ch 10:10</a> there is probably an error (compare the passage <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,10);">1Sa 31:10</a>). The god had his temple ("the house of Dagon") and his priests. When the ark was captured by the Philistines, it was conducted to Ashdod where it was placed in the house of Dagon by the side of the idol. But on the morrow it was found that the idol lay prostrate before the ark of the Lord. It was restored to its place; but on the following day Dagon again lay on the ground before the ark, this time with the head and both hands severed from the body and lying upon the miphtan (the word is commonly interpreted to mean "threshold"; according to Winckler, it means "pedestal"); the body alone remained intact. The Hebrew says: "Dagon alone remained." Whether we resort to an emendation (dagho, "his fish-part") or not, commentators appear to be right in inferring that the idol was half-man, half-fish. Classic authors give this form to Derceto. The sacred writer adds that from that time on the priests of Dagon and all those that entered the house of Dagon refrained from stepping upon the miphtan of Dagon. See <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',5,\'1-5\');">1Sa 5:1-5</a>. The prophet Zephaniah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,9);">Ze 1:9</a>) speaks of an idolatrous practice which consisted in leaping over the miphtan. The Septuagint in 1 Samuel indeed adds the clause: "but they were accustomed to leap." Leaping over the threshold was probably a feature of the Philistine ritual which the Hebrews explained in their way. A god Dagon seems to have been worshipped by the Canaanites;<P>LITERATURE<P>Commentaries on Judges and 1 Samuel; Winckler, Altoriental. Forschungen, III, 383.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-DAGON">BETH-DAGON</a>`115';
isbe[2497]='Daily`da\'-li: This word, coming as it does from the Hebrew yom "day," and the Greek hemera, suggests either day by day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,13);">Ex 5:13</a>), that which is prepared for one daily (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,18);">Ne 5:18</a>), as e.g. our "daily bread," meaning bread sufficient for that day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,11);">Mt 6:11</a>); or day by day continuously, one day after another in succession, as "the daily burnt offering" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,6);">Nu 29:6</a> the King James Version), "daily ministration" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,1);">Ac 6:1</a>), and "daily in the temple" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,42);">Ac 5:42</a> the King James Version). The meaning of the word "daily" as used in the Lord\'s Prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,11);">Mt 6:11</a>) seems to indicate sufficient for our need, whether we consider that need as a day at a time, or day after day as we are permitted to live. "Give us bread sufficient for our sustenance."``181';
isbe[2498]='Daily offering; Daily Sacrifice``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</a>`1';
isbe[2499]='Dainties; Dainty (Meats)`dan\'-tis (maT\'ammoth, "things full of taste," man\'ammim, ma\'adhan; liparos, "fat," "shining"): Jacob is represented as predicting of Asher, "He shall yield royal dainties" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,20);">Ge 49:20</a>; compare parallel clause, "His bread shall be fat," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,24);">De 33:24</a>, "Let him dip his foot in oil"). David, praying to be delivered from the ways of "men that work inquiry," cries, "Let me not eat of their dainties" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',141,4);">Ps 141:4</a>). The man who sitteth "to eat with a ruler" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,\'1-3\');">Pr 23:1-3</a>) is counseled, "If thou be a man given to appetite, be not desirous of his dainties; seeing they are deceitful food" (compare John\'s words in the woes upon Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,14);">Re 18:14</a>), "All things that were dainties and sumptuous are perished from thee," and Homer\'s Iliad (Pope). xviii.456). "Dainties," then, are luxuries, costly, delicate and rare. This idea is common to all the words thus rendered; naturally associated with kings\' tables, and with the lives of those who are lovers of pleasure and luxury. By their associations and their softening effects they are to be abstained from or indulged in moderately as "deceitful food" by those who would live the simple and righteous life which wisdom sanctions. They are also "offered not from genuine hospitality, but with some by-ends." He should also shun the dainties of the niggard (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,6);">Pr 23:6</a>), who counts the cost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,7);">Pr 23:7</a> the Revised Version, margin) of every morsel that his guest eats.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DELICATE">DELICATE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</a>`47';
isbe[2500]='Daisan`da\'-san, da\'-i-san (Daisan): Head of a family of temple servants (1Esdras 5:31) called Rezin in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,48);">Ezr 2:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,50);">Ne 7:50</a>, the interchange of "D" and "R" in Hebrew being not uncommon.``1';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink