exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/7800.html

114 lines
286 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[7801]='Self-Control`self-kon-trol\' (egkrateia): Rendered in the King James Version "temperance" (compare Latin temperario and continentia), but more accurately "self-control," as in the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,25);">Ac 24:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,23);">Ga 5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,6);">2Pe 1:6</a>); adjective of same, egkrates, "self-controlled" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,8);">Tit 1:8</a> the Revised Version (British and American)); compare verb forms in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,9);">1Co 7:9</a>, "have...continency"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,25);">9:25</a>, the athlete "exerciseth self-control." Self-control is therefore repeatedly set forth in the New Testament as among the important Christian virtues.``1';
isbe[7802]='Self-Righteousness`self-ri\'-chus-nes: A term that has come to designate moral living as a way of salvation; or as a ground for neglecting the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The thought is present in the teaching of Jesus, who spoke one parable particularly to such as reckoned themselves to be righteous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,9);">Lu 18:9</a>). The Pharisees quite generally resented the idea of Jesus that all men needed repentance and they most of all. They regarded themselves as righteous and looked with contempt on "sinners." Paul in all his writings, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'1-\');">Ro 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,\'1-\');">Ga 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,1);">Eph 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,1);">Php 3</a>, contrasts the righteousness that is God\'s gift to men of faith in Jesus Christ, with righteousness that is "of the law" and "in the flesh." By this latter he means formal conformity to legal requirements in the strength of unregenerate human nature. He is careful to maintain (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,\'1-\');">Ro 7</a>) that the Law is never really kept by one\'s own power. On the other hand, in full agreement with Jesus, Paul looks to genuine righteousness in living as the demand and achievement of salvation based on faith. God\'s gift here consists in the capacity progressively to realize righteousness in life (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,1);">Ro 8:1</a>ff).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANCTIFICATION">SANCTIFICATION</a>`21';
isbe[7803]='Self-Surrender`self-su-ren\'-der: The struggle between the natural human impulses of selfseeking, self-defence and the like, on the one hand, and the more altruistic impulse toward self-denial, self-surrender, on the other, is as old as the race. All religions imply some conception of surrender of self to deity, ranging in ethical quality from a heathen fanaticism which impels to complete physical exhaustion or rapture, superinduced by more or less mechanical means, to the high spiritual quality of self-sacrifice to the divinest aims and achievements. The Scriptures represent self-surrender as among the noblest of human virtues.<P>I. In the Old Testament.<P>1. Illustrious Examples:<P>In the Old Testament self-surrender is taught in the early account of the first pair. Each was to be given to the other (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,24);">Ge 2:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,16);">3:16</a>) and both were to be surrendered to God in perfect obedience (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-15\');">Ge 3:1-15</a>). The faithful ones, throughout the Bible narratives, were characterized by self-surrender. Abraham abandons friends and native country to go to a land unknown to him, because God called him to do so (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,1);">Ge 12:1</a>). He would give up all his cherished hopes in his only son Isaac, at the voice of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-18\');">Ge 22:1-18</a>). Moses, at the call of Yahweh, surrenders self, and undertakes the deliverance of his fellow-Hebrews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'1-\');">Ex 3:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,\'1-13\');">4:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,25);">Heb 11:25</a>). He would be blotted out of God\'s book, if only the people might be spared destruction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,32);">Ex 32:32</a>).<P>2. The Levitical System:<P>The whole Levitical system of sacrifice may be said to imply the doctrine of self-surrender. The nation itself was a people set apart to Yahweh, a holy people, a surrendered nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,5,6);">Ex 19:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,31);">22:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,7);">Le 20:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,6);">De 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,2);">14:2</a>). The whole burnt offering implied the complete surrender of the worshipper to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,1);">Le 1</a>). The ceremony for the consecration of priests emphasized the same fundamental doctrine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,1);">Le 8</a>); so also the law as to the surrender of the firstborn child (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,13);">Ex 13:13</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,29);">22:29</a>).<P>3. The Prophets:<P>In the divine call to the prophets and in their life-work self-surrender is prominent. The seer, as such, must be receptive to the divine impress, and as mouthpiece of God, he must speak not his own words, but God\'s: "Thus saith the Lord." He was to be a "man of God," a "man of the spirit." \'The hand of the Lord was upon me\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,3);">Eze 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,14);">3:14</a>) implies complete divine mastery. Isaiah must submit to the divine purification of his lips, and hearken to the inquiry, "who will go for us?" with the surrendered response, "Here am I; send me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,8);">Isa 6:8</a>). Jeremiah must yield his protestations of weakness and inability to the divine wisdom and the promise of endowment from above (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,\'1-10\');">Jer 1:1-10</a>). Ezekiel surrenders to the dangerous and difficult task of becoming messenger to a rebellious house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',2,\'1-\');">Eze 2:1</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,\'1-3\');">3:3</a>). Jonah, after flight from duty, at last surrenders to the divine will and goes to the Ninevites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',3,3);">Jon 3:3</a>).<P>4. Post-exilic Examples:<P>On the return of the faithful remnant from captivity, self-giving for the sake of Israel\'s faith was dominant, the people enduring great hardships for the future of the nation and the accomplishment of Yahweh\'s purposes. This is the spirit of the great Messianic passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,7);">Isa 53:7</a>: "He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." Nehemiah surrendered position in Shushan to help reestablish the returned exiles in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,5);">Ne 2:5</a>). Esther was ready to surrender her life in pleading for the safety of her people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,16);">Es 4:16</a>).<P>II. In the New Testament.<P>1. Christ\'s Teaching and Example:<P>In the New Testament self-surrender is still more clearly set forth. Christ\'s teachings and example as presented in the Gospels, give to it special emphasis. It is a prime requisite for becoming His disciple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,38);">Mt 10:38</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,24);">16:24; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,23,24,59);">Lu 9:23,24,59</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,27,33);">14:27,33</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,27);">Mt 19:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,34);">Mr 8:34</a>). When certain of the disciples were called they left all and followed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,20);">Mt 4:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,9);">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>f). His followers must so completely surrender self, as that father, mother, kindred, and one\'s own life must be, as it were, hated for His sake (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,26);">Lu 14:26</a>). The rich young ruler must renounce self as an end and give his own life to the service of men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,21);">Mt 19:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,21);">Mr 10:21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,33);">Lu 12:33</a>). But this surrender of self was never a loss of personality; it was the finding of the true selfhood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,35);">Mr 8:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,39);">Mt 10:39</a>). Our Lord not only taught self-surrender, but practiced it. As a child, He subjected Himself to His parents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,51);">Lu 2:51</a>). Self-surrender marked His baptism and temptation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,15);">Mt 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,1);">4:1</a>). It is shown in His life of physical privation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,20);">Mt 8:20</a>). He had come not to do His own will, but the Fathers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,34);">Joh 4:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,30);">5:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,38);">6:38</a>). He refuses to use force for His own deliverance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,53);">Mt 26:53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,11);">Joh 18:11</a>). In His person God\'s will, not His own, must be done (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,29);">Mt 26:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,42);">Lu 22:42</a>); and to the Father He at last surrendered His spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,46);">Lu 23:46</a>). So that while He was no ascetic, and did not demand asceticism of His followers, He "emptied himself...becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,7);">Php 2:7</a>f).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KENOSIS">KENOSIS</a>.<P>2. Acts of Apostles:<P>The early disciples practiced the virtue of self-surrender. Counting none of their possessions their own, they gave to the good of all (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,44,45);">Ac 2:44,45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,34,35,37);">4:34,35,37</a>). Stephen and others threw themselves into their witnessing with the perfect abandon of the martyr; and Stephen\'s successor, Paul, counted not his life dear unto himself that he might finish the divinely-appointed course (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'22-24\');">Ac 20:22-24</a>).<P>3. Epistles of Paul:<P>The Epistles are permeated with the doctrine of self-surrender. The Pauline Epistles are particularly full of it. The Christian life is conceived of as a dying to self and to the world<6C>a dying with Christ, a crucifixion of the old man, that a new man may live (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,14);">6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,20);">Col 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,3);">3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,6);">Ro 6:6</a>), so that no longer the man lives but Christ lives in him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,21);">Php 1:21</a>). The Christian is no longer his own but Christ\'s (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,19,20);">1Co 6:19,20</a>). He is to be a living sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,1);">Ro 12:1</a>); to die daily (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,31);">1Co 15:31</a>). As a corollary to surrender to God, the Christian must surrender himself to the welfare of his neighbor, just as Christ pleased not Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,3);">Ro 15:3</a>); also to leaders (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,16);">1Co 16:16</a>), and to earthly rulers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,1);">Ro 13:1</a>).<P>4. Epistles of Peter:<P>In the Epistles of Peter self-surrender is taught more than once. Those who were once like sheep astray now submit to the guidance of the Shepherd of souls (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,25);">1Pe 2:25</a>). The Christian is to humble himself under the mighty hand of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,6);">1Pe 5:6</a>); the younger to be subject to the elder (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,5);">1Pe 5:5</a>); and all to civil ordinances for the Lord\'s sake (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,13);">1Pe 2:13</a>).<P>So also in other Epistles, the Christian is to subject himself to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,7);">Jas 4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,9);">Heb 12:9</a>).``137';
isbe[7804]='Self-Will`self-wil\' (ratson; authades): Found once in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,6);">Ge 49:6</a>, "In their self-will they hocked an ox") in the death song of Jacob (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOCK">HOCK</a>). The idea is found twice in the New Testament in the sense of "pleasing oneself": "not self-willed, not soon angry" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,7);">Tit 1:7</a>); and "daring, self-willed, they tremble not to rail at dignities" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,10);">2Pe 2:10</a>). In all these texts it stands for a false pride, for obstinacy, for "a pertinacious adherence to one\'s will or wish, especially in opposition to the dictates of wisdom or propriety or the wishes of others."elfare of his neighbor, just as Christ pleased not Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,3);">Ro 15:3</a>); also to leaders (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,16);">1Co 16:16</a>), and to earthly rulers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,1);">Ro 13:1</a>).``42';
isbe[7805]='Sell, Seller`sel\'-er.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRADE">TRADE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LYDIA">LYDIA</a>`1';
isbe[7806]='Selvedge`sel\'-vej (qatsah): The word occurs only in the description of the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,4);">Ex 26:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,11);">36:11</a>). It has reference to the ten curtains which overhung the boards of the sanctuary. Five of these formed one set and five another. These were "coupled" at the center by 50 loops of blue connected by "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CLASPS">clasps</a>" (which see) with 50 others on the opposite side. The "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SELVEDGE">selvedge</a>" (self-edge) is the extremity of the curtain in which the loops were.``1';
isbe[7807]='Sem`sem (Sem): the King James Version from the Greek form of Shem; thus the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,36);">Lu 3:36</a>).``1';
isbe[7808]='Semachiah`sem-a-ki\'-a (cemakhyahu, "Yah has sustained"): A Korahite family of gatekeepers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,7);">1Ch 26:7</a>). Perhaps the same name should be substituted for "Ismachiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',31,13);">2Ch 31:13</a> (see HPN, 291, 295).``1';
isbe[7809]='Semei`sem\'-e-i:<P>(1) (Codex Alexandrinus Semei; Codex Vaticanus Semeei): One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:33) = "Shimei" "of the sons of Hashum" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,33);">Ezr 10:33</a>.<P>(2) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Semeias" (Additions to Esther 11:2).<P>(3) the King James Version form of the Revised Version (British and American) "Semein" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,26);">Lu 3:26</a>).``1';
isbe[7810]='Semeias`se-me-i\'-as (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus Semeias; Codex Vaticanus Semeeias; the King James Version Semei): An ancestor of Mordecai (Additions to Esther 11:2) = "Shimei" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,5);">Es 2:5</a>).``1';
isbe[7811]='Semein`se-me\'-in (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus Semeein; Codex Alexandrinus Semeei, Textus Receptus of the New Testament, Semei; the King James Version, Semei): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke\'s genealogy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,26);">Lu 3:26</a>).``1';
isbe[7812]='Semeis`sem\'-e-is (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, Semeis; Codex Vaticanus Senseis; the King James Version, Semis): One of the Levites who put away their "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:23) = "Shimei" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,23);">Ezr 10:23</a>.``1';
isbe[7813]='Semellius`se-mel\'-i-us: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMELLIUS">SAMELLIUS</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7814]='Semis`se\'-mis: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEMEIS">SEMEIS</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7815]='Semites, Semitic Religion`sem\'-its, sem-it\'-ik,<P>1. Biblical References<P>2. The Five Sons of Shem<P>3. Original Home of the Semites<P>4. Confusion with Other Races<P>5. Reliability of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Genesis 10</a><P>6. Semitic Languages<P>7. Semitic Religion<P class="in15">(1) Its Peculiar Theism<P class="in15">(2) Personality of God<P class="in15">(3) Its View of Nature<P class="in15">(4) The Moral Being of God<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Biblical References:<P>The words "Semites," "Semitic," do not occur in the Bible, but are derived from the name of Noah\'s oldest son, Shem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,32);">Ge 5:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,10);">6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,18,23);">9:18,23</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,1,21);">10:1,21</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,10);">11:10</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,1);">1Ch 1</a>). Formerly the designation was limited to those who are mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,1);">Ge 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,1);">11</a> as Shem\'s descendants, most of whom can be traced historically and geographically; but more recently the title has been expanded to apply to others who are not specified in the Bible as Semites, and indeed are plainly called Hamitic, e.g. the Babylonians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,10);">Ge 10:10</a>) and the Phoenicians and Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'15-19\');">Ge 10:15-19</a>). The grounds for the inclusion of these Biblical Hamites among the Semites are chiefly linguistic, although political, commercial and religious affinities are also considered. History and the study of comparative philology, however, suggest the inadequacy of a linguistic argument.<P>2. The Five Sons of Shem:<P>The sons of Shem are given as Elam, Assbur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">Ge 10:22</a>). All except the third have been readily identified, Elam as the historic nation in the highlands east of the Tigris, between Media and Persia; Asshur as the Assyrians; Lud as the Lydians of Asia Minor; and Aram as the Syrians both east and west of the Euphrates. The greatest uncertainty is in the identification of Arpachshad, the most prolific ancestor of the Semites, especially of those of Biblical and more recent importance. From him descended the Hebrews and the Arab tribes, probably also some East African colonies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'24-30\');">Ge 10:24-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'12-26\');">11:12-26</a>). The form of his name \'arpakhshadh) has given endless trouble to ethnographers. McCurdy divides into two words, Arpach or Arpath, unidentified, and kesedh, the singular of kasdim, i.e. the Chaldeans; Schrader also holds to the Chaldean interpretation, and the Chaldeans themselves traced their descent from Arpachshad (Josephus, Ant, I, vi, 4); it has been suggested also to interpret as the "border of the Chaldeans" (BDB; Dillmann, in the place cited.). But the historic, ordinary and most satisfactory identification is with Arrapachitis, northeast of Assyria at the headwaters of the Upper Zab in the Armenian highlands (so Ptolemy, classical geographers, Gesenius, Delitzsch). Delitzsch calls attention to the Armenian termination shadh (Commentary on Genesis, in the place cited.).<P>3. Original Home of the Semites:<P>If we accept, then, this identification of Arpachshad as the most northeasterly of the five Semitic families (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">Ge 10:22</a>), we are still faced by the problem of the primitive home and racial origin of the Semites. Various theories of course have been proposed; fancy and surmise have ranged from Africa to Central Asia.<P>(1) The most common, almost generally accepted, theory places their beginnings in Arabia because of the conservative and primitive Semitic of the Arabic language, the desert characteristics of the various branches of the race, and the historic movements of Semitic tribes northward and westward from Arabia. But this theory does not account for some of the most significant facts: e.g. that the Semitic developments of Arabia are the last, not the first, in time, as must have been the case if Arabia was the cradle of the race. This theory does not explain the Semitic origin of the Elamites, except by denial; much less does it account for the location of Arpachshad still farther north. It is not difficult to understand a racial movement from the mountains of the northeast into the lowlands of the south and west. But how primitive Arabs could have migrated uphill, as it were, to settle in the Median and Armenian hills is a much more difficult proposition.<P>(2) We must return to the historic and the more natural location of the ancient Semitic home on the hillsides and in the fertile valleys of Armenia. Thence the eldest branch migrated in prehistoric times southward to become historic Elam; Lud moved westward into Asia Minor; Asshur found his way down the Tigris to become the sturdy pastoral people of the middle Mesopotamian plateau until the invasion of the Babylonian colonists and civilization; Aram found a home in Upper Mesopotamia; while Arpachshad, remaining longer in the original home, gave his name to at least a part of it. There in the fertile valleys among the high hills the ancient Semites developed their distinctively tribal life, emphasizing the beauty and close relationship of Nature, the sacredness of the family, the moral obligation, and faith in a personal God of whom they thought as a member of the tribe or friend of the family. The confinement of the mountain valleys is just as adequate an explanation of the Semitic traits as the isolation of the oasis. So from the purer life of their highland home, where had been developed the distinctive and virile elements which were to impress the Semitic faith on the history of mankind, increasing multitudes of Semites poured over the mountain barriers into the broader levels of the plains. As their own-mountain springs and torrents sought a way to the sea down the Tigris and Euphrates beds, so the Semitic tribes followed the same natural ways into their future homes: Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Palestine. Those who settled Arabia sent further migrations into Africa, as well as rebounding into the desert west of the Euphrates, Syria and Palestine. Thus Western Asia became the arena of Semitic life, whose influences also reached Egypt and, through Phoenicia, the far-away West-Mediterranean.<P>4. Confusion with Other Races:<P>While we may properly call Western and Southwestern Asia the home of the Semitic peoples, there still remains the difficulty of separating them definitely from the other races among whom they lived. The historic Babylonians, e.g., were Semites; yet they dispossessed an earlier non-Semitic people, and were themselves frequently invaded by other races, such as the Hittites, and even the Egyptians. It is not certain therefore which gods, customs, laws, etc., of the Babylonians were Semites, and not adopted from those whom they superseded.<P>Assyria was racially purely Semitic, but her laws, customs, literature, and many of her gods were acquired from Babylonia; to such an extent was this true that we are indebted to the library of the Assyrian Ashurbanipal for much that we know of Babylonian religion, literature and history. In Syria also the same mixed conditions prevailed, for through Syria by the fords of the Euphrates lay the highway of the nations, and Hittite and Mitannian at times shared the land with her, and left their influence. Possibly in Arabia Semitic blood ran purest, but even in Arabia there were tribes from other races; and the table of the nations in Genesis divides that land among the descendants of both Ham and Shem (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABLE+OF+NATIONS">TABLE OF NATIONS</a>). Last of all, in Palestine, from the very beginning of its historic period, we find an intermingling and confusion of races and religions such as no other Semitic center presents. A Hamitic people gave one of its common names to the country<72>Canaan, while the pagan and late-coming Philistine gave the most used name<6D>Palestine. The archaic remains of Horite, Avite and Hivite are being uncovered by exploration; these races survived in places, no doubt, long after the Semitic invasion, contributing their quota to the customs and religious practices of the land. The Hittite also was in the land, holdling outposts from his northern empire, even in the extreme south of Palestine. If the blue eyes and fair complexions of the Amorites pictured on Egyptian monuments are true representations, we may believe that the gigantic Aryans of the north had their portion also in Palestine<P>5. Reliability of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,1);">Genesis 10</a>:<P>It is customary now in Biblical ethnology to disregard the classification of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,1);">Genesis 10</a>, and to group all the nations of Palestine as Semitic, especially the Canaanite and the Phoenician along with the Hebrew. McCurdy in the Standard BD treats the various gods and religious customs of Palestine as though they were all Semitic, although uniformly these are represented in the Old Testament as perversions and enormities of alien races which the Hebrews were commanded to extirpate. The adoption of them would be, and was, inimical to their own ancestral faith. Because the Hebrews took over eventually the language of the Phoenician, appropriated his art and conveniences, did traffic in his ships, and in Ahab\'s reign adopted his Baal and Astarte, we are not warranted at all in rushing to the conclusion that the Phoenicians represented a primitive Semitic type. Racial identification by linguistic argument is always precarious, as history clearly shows. One might as well say that Latin and the gospel were Saxon. There are indications that the customs and even the early language of the Hebrews were different from those of the people whom they subdued and dispossessed. Such is the consistent tradition of their race, the Bible always emphasizing the irreconcilable difference between their ancestral faith and the practices of the people of Canaan. We may conclude that the reasons for disregarding the classification of Genesis with reference to the Semites and neighboring races are not final. Out from that fruitful womb of nations, the Caucasus, the Semites, one branch of the Caucasian peoples, went southwestward<72>as their cousins the Hamites went earlier toward the south and as their younger relatives, the Aryans, were to go northward and westward<72>with marked racial traits and a pronounced religious development, to play a leading part in the life of man.<P>6. Semitic Languages:<P>The phrase Semitic Languages is used of a group of languages which have marked features in common, which also set them off from other languages. But we must avoid the unnecessary inference that nations using the same or kindred languages are of the same ancestry. There are other explanations of linguistic affinity than racial, as the Indians of Mexico may speak Spanish, and the Germans of Milwaukee may speak English. So also neighboring or intermingled nations may just as naturally have used branches of the Semitic language stock. However, it is true that the nations which were truly Semitic used languages which are strikingly akin. These have been grouped as<P>(1) Eastern Sere, including Babylonian and Assyrian;<P>(2) Northern, including Syriac and Aramaic;<P>(3) Western, including Canaanite, or Phoenician, and Hebrew, and<P>(4) Southern, including Arabic, Sabean and Ethiopic (compare Geden, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 14-28).<P>The distinctive features of this family of languages are<P>(1) the tri-literal root,<P>(2) the consonantal writing, vowel indications being unnecessary so long as the language was spoken,<P>(3) the meager use of moods and tenses in verbal inflection, every action being graphically viewed as belonging to one of two stages in time: completed or incomplete,<P>(4) the paucity of parts of speech, verb and noun covering nearly all the relations of words,<P>(5) the frequent use of internal change in the inflection of words, e.g. the doubling of a consonant or the change of a vowel, and<P>(6) the use of certain letters, called "serviles," as prefixes or suffixes in inflection; these are parts of pronouns or the worn-down residua of nouns and particles. The manner of writing was not uniform in these languages, Babylonian and Assyrian being ideographic and syllabic, and written from left to right, while Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic were alphabetic and written from right to left.<P>The primitive forms and inflections of the group are best preserved in the Arabic by reason of the conservatism of the desert peoples, and in the Assyrian by the sudden destruction of that empire and the burial of the records of that language in a comparatively pure state, to be brought back to light by 19th-century exploration. All the characteristics given above are clearly manifest in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.<P>7. Semitic Religion:<P>In the study of Semitic Religion there are two tendencies toward error:<P>(1) the Western pragmatical and unsympathetic overtaxing of oriental Nature-symbols and vividly imaginative speech. Because the Semite used the figure of the rock (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,4,18,30);">De 32:4,18,30</a>) in describing God, or poetically conceived of the storm-cloud as Yahweh\'s chariot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,3);">Ps 104:3</a>), we must not be led into believing that his religion was a savage animism, or that Yahweh of Israel was only the Zeus of the Greeks. How should an imaginative child of Nature speak of the unseen Spiritual Power, except in the richest analogies of Nature?<P>(2) The second error is the tendency to treat the accretions acquired by contact with other nations as of the essence of Semitic religion, e.g. the golden calf following the Egyptian bondage, and the sexual abominations of the Canaanite Baal and Astarte.<P>The primitive and distinctive beliefs of the Semitic peoples lie still in great uncertainty because of the long association with other peoples, whose practices they readily took over, and because of the lack of records of the primitive periods of Semitic development, their origin and dispersion among the nations being prehistoric. Our sources of information are the Babylonian and Assyrian tablets and monuments, the Egyptian inscriptions, Phoenician history, Arabian traditions and inscriptions, and principally the Old Testament Scriptures. We can never know perhaps how much the pure Semitism ofBabylonians and Assyrians was diverted and corrupted by the developed civilization which they invaded and appropriated; Egypt was only indirectly affected by Semitic life; Semitic development in Arabia was the latest in all the group, besides which the monuments and reste of Arabian antiquity which have come down to us are comparatively few; and the Phoenician development was corrupted by the sensuality of the ancient Canaanitish cults, while the Bible of the Hebrews emphatically differentiated from the unwholesome religions of Palestine their own faith, which was ancestral, revealed and pure. Was that Bible faith the primitive Semitic cult? At least we must take the Hebrew tradition at its face value, finding in it the prominent features of an ancestral faith, preserved through one branch of the Semitic group. We are met frequently in these Hebrew records by the claim that the religion they present is not a new development, nor a thing apart from the origin of their race, but rather the preservation of an ancient worship, Abraham, Moses and the prophets appearing not as originators, but reformers, or revivers, who sought to keep their people true to an inherited religion. Its elemental features are the following:<P>(1) Its Peculiar Theism:<P>It was pronouncedly theistic; not that other religions do not affirm a god; but theism of the Semites was such as to give their religion a unique place among all others. To say the least, it had the germ of monotheism or the tendency toward monotheism, if we have not sufficient evidence to affirm its monotheism, and to rate the later polytheistic representations of Babylonia and Assyria as local perversions. If the old view that Semitic religion was essentially monotheistic be incapable of proof, it is true that the necessary development of their concept of God must ultimately arrive at monotheism. This came to verification in Abram the Hebrew, Jesus the Messiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,\'21-24\');">Joh 4:21-24</a>) and Mohammed the false prophet. A city-state exclusively, a nation predominantly, worshipped one god, often through some Nature-symbol, as sun or star or element. With the coming of world-conquest, intercourse and vision, the one god of the city or the chief god of the nation became universalized. The ignorant and materialistic Hebrew might localize the God of Israel in a city or on a hilltop; but to the spiritual mind of Amos or in the universal vision of Isaiah He was Yahweh, Lord of all the earth.<P>(2) Personality of God:<P>Closely related to this high conception of Deity was the apparently contradictory but really potent idea of the Deity as a personality. The Semite did not grossly materialize his God as did the savage, nor vainly abstract and etherealize Him and so eliminate Him from the experience of man as did the Greek; but to him God universal was also God personal and intimate. The Hebrew ran the risk of conditioning the spirituality of God in order to maintain His real personality. Possibly this has been the most potent element in Semitic religion; God was not far from every one of them. He came into the closest relations as father or friend. He was the companion of king and priest. The affairs of the nation were under His immediate care; He went to war with armies, was a partner in harvest rejoicings; the home was His abode. This conception of Deity carried with it the necessary implication of revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,8);">Am 3:8</a>). The office, message and power of the Hebrew prophet were also the logical consequence of knowing God as a Person.<P>(3) Its View of Nature:<P>Its peculiar view of Nature was another feature of Semitic religion. God was everywhere and always present in Nature; consequently its symbolism was the natural and ready expression of His nature and presence. Simile, parable and Nature-marvels cover the pages and tablets of their records. Unfortunately this poetic conception of Nature quickly enough afforded a ready path in which wayward feet and carnal minds might travel toward Nature-worship with all of its formalism and its degrading excesses. This feature of Semitic religion offers an interesting commentary on their philosophy. With them the doctrine of Second Causes received no emphasis; God worked directly in Nature, which became to them therefore the continuous arena of signs and marvels. The thunder was His voice, the sunshine reflected the light of His countenance, the winds were His messengers. And so through this imaginative view of the world the Semite dwelt in an enchanted realm of the miraculous.<P>(4) The Moral Being of God:<P>The Semite believed in a God who is a moral being. Such a faith in the nature of it was certain to influence profoundly their own moral development, making for them a racial character which has been distinctive and persistent through the changes of millenniums. By it also they have impressed other nations and religions, with which they have had contact. The Code of Hammurabi is an expression of the moral issues of theism. The Law and the Prophets of Israel arose out of the conviction of God\'s righteousness and of the moral order of His universe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,5,6);">Ex 19:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,\'16-20\');">Isa 1:16-20</a>). The Decalogue is a confession of faith in the unseen God; the Law of Holiness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,1);">Le 17-26</a>) is equally a moral code.<P>While these elements are not absent altogether from other ancient religions, they are pronouncedly characteristic of the Semitic to the extent that they have given to it its permanent form, its large development, and its primacy among the religions of the human race. To know God, to hear His eternal tread in Nature, to clothe Him with light as with a garment, to establish His throne in righteousness, to perceive that holiness is the all-pervading atmosphere of His presence<63>such convictions were bound to affect the life and progress of a rate, and to consecrate them as a nation of priests for all mankind.<P>LITERATURE.<P>For discussion of the details of Semitic peoples and religions reference must be made to the particular articles, such as <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARPACHSHAD">ARPACHSHAD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EBER">EBER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABRAHAM">ABRAHAM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAMMURABI">HAMMURABI</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASSYRIA">ASSYRIA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BABYLONIA">BABYLONIA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAAL">BAAL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHTORETH">ASHTORETH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHERITES">ASHERITES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MOLOCH">MOLOCH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHEMOSH">CHEMOSH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHIUN">CHIUN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL,+RELIGION+OF">ISRAEL, RELIGION OF</a> etc. The literature on the subject is vast, interesting and far from conclusive. Few of the Bible Dictionaries have articles on this particular subject; reference should be made to those in the Standard and in the HDB, volume both by McCurdy; "Semites" in Catholic Encyclopedia skims the surface; articles in International Enc are good. In Old Testament Theologies, Davidson, pp. 249-52; Schultz, chapter iii of volume I; Riehm, Alttestamentliche Theologie; Delitzsch, Psychology of the Old Testament. For language see Wright\'s Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages. For history and religion: Maspero\'s three volumes; McCurdy, HPM; Hommel. Ancient Hebrew Tradition, and Semitic Volker u. Sprache; Jastrow, Comparative Semitic Religion; Friedr. Delitzsch, Babel u. Bibel; W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites.``109';
isbe[7816]='Senaah`se-na\'-a, sen\'-a-a (cena\'ah; Codex Vaticanus Sanana; Sananat; Codex Alexandrinus Sanana, Sennaa, Hasan): The children of Senaah are mentioned as having formed part of the company returning from the captivity with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,35);">Ezr 2:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,38);">Ne 7:38</a>). The numbers vary as given by Ezra (3,630) and Nehemiah (3,930), while 1Esdras 5:23 puts them at 3,330. In the last place the name is Sanaas, the King James Version "Annaas" (Codex Vaticanus Sama; Codex Alexandrinus Sanaas). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,3);">Ne 3:3</a> the name occurs with the definite article, ha-senaah. The people may be identical with the Benjamite clan Hassenuah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,7);">1Ch 9:7</a>). Eusebius, in Onomasticon, speaks of Magdalsenna a village about 7 miles north of Jericho, which may be the place intended; but the site is not known.``54';
isbe[7817]='Senate; Senator`sen\'-at, sen\'-a-ter: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,22);">Ps 105:22</a>, "teach his senators (the Revised Version (British and American) "elders") wisdom." The Hebrew is zaqen, "elder" Septuagint presbuteroi). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,21);">Ac 5:21</a>, "called the council together and all the senate of the children of Israel." The Greek gerousia, is here evidently used as a more precise equivalent of the foregoing "council" (sunedrion), to which it is added by kai, explicative. Reference is had to the Sanhedrin. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANHEDRIN">SANHEDRIN</a>. This term gerousia occurs in Septuagint <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,16);">Ex 3:16</a>, etc., and in 1Macc 12:6; 2Macc 1:10; 4:44 of the supreme council of the Jews (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOVERNMENT">GOVERNMENT</a>). In 1Macc 8:15; 12:3, bouleuterion, is used of the Roman senate, which is said to consist of 320 members meeting daily, consulting always for the people, to the end that they may be well governed. These statements are not quite accurate, since the senate consisted normally of 300 members, and met not daily, but on call of the magistrates. Originally, like the gerousia of the Jews, the representatives of families and clans (gentes), the senators were subsequently the ex-magistrates, supplemented, to complete the tale of members, by representatives of patrician (in time also of plebeian) families selected by the censor. The tenure was ordinarily for life, though it might be terminated for cause by the censor. Although constitutionally the senate was only an advisory body, its advice (senatus consultum, auctoritas) in fact became in time a mandate which few dared to disregard. During the republican period the senate practically ruled Rome; under the empire it tended more and more to become the creature and subservient tool of the emperors.``75';
isbe[7818]='Seneh`se\'-ne (ceneh; Senna): This was the name attaching to the southern of the two great cliffs between which ran the gorge of Michmash (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,4);">1Sa 14:4</a>). The name means "acacia," and may have been given to it from the thorn bushes growing upon it. Josephus (BJ, V, ii, 1) mentions the "plain of thorns" near Gabathsaul. We may hear an echo of the old name in that of Wady Suweinit, "valley of the little thorn tree," the name by which the gorge is known today. The cliff must have stood on the right side of the wady; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BOZEZ">BOZEZ</a>. Conder gives an excellent description of the place in Tent Work in Palestine, II, 112-14.``54';
isbe[7819]='Senir`se\'-nir (senir; Saneir): This was the Amorite name of Mt. Hermon, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,9);">De 3:9</a> (the King James Version "Shenir"). But in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,23);">1Ch 5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,8);">So 4:8</a>, we have Senir and Hermon named as distinct mountains. It seems probable, however, that Senir applied to a definite part of the Anti-Lebanon or Hermon range. An inscription of Shalmaneser tells us that Hazael, king of Damascus, fortified Mt. Senir over against Mt. Lebanon. So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,5);">Eze 27:5</a>, Senir, whence the Tyrians got planks of fir trees, is set over against Lebanon, where cedars were obtained. The Arab geographers give the name Jebel Sanir to the part of the Anti-Lebanon range which lies between Damascus and Homs (Yakut, circa 1225 AD, quoted by Guy le Strange in Palestine under the Moslems, 79. He also quotes Mas\'udi, 943 AD, to the effect that Baalbek is in the district of Senir, 295).``54';
isbe[7820]='Sennacherib`se-nak\'-er-ib (cancheribh; Sennachereim, Assyrian Sin-akhierba, "the moon-god Sin has increased the brothers"): Sennacherib (704-682 BC) ascended the throne of Assyria after the death of his father Sargon. Appreciating the fact that Babylon would be difficult to control, instead of endeavoring to conciliate the people he ignored them. The Babylonians, being indignant, crowned a man of humble origin, Marduk-zakir-shum by name. He ruled only a month, having been driven out by the irrepressible Merodach-baladan, who again appeared on the scene.<P>In order to fortify himself against Assyria the latter sent an embassy to Hezekiah, apparently for the purpose of inspiring the West to rebel against Assyria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,\'12-19\');">2Ki 20:12-19</a>).<P>Sennacherib in his first campaign marched into Babylonia. He found Merodach-baladan entrenched at Kish, about 9 miles from Babylon, and defeated him; after which he entered the gates of Babylon, which had been thrown open to him. He placed a Babylonian, named Bel-ibni, on the throne.<P>This campaign was followed by an invasion of the country of the Cassites and Iasubigalleans. In his third campaign he directed his attention to the West, where the people had become restless under the Assyrian yoke. Hezekiah had been victorious over the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,8);">2Ki 18:8</a>). In preparation to withstand a siege, Hezekiah had built a conduit to bring water within the city walls (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,20);">2Ki 20:20</a>). Although strongly opposed by the prophet Isaiah, gifts were sent to Egypt, whence assistance was promised (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,\'1-4\');">Isa 30:1-4</a>). Apparently also the Phoenicians and Philistines, who had been sore pressed by Assyria, had made provision to resist Assyria. The first move was at Ekron, where the Assyrian governor Padi was put into chains and sent to Hezekiah at Jerusalem.<P>Sennacherib, in 701 BC, moved against the cities in the West. He ravaged the environs of Tyre, but made no attempt to take the city, as he was without a naval force. After Elulaeus the king of Sidon fled, the city surrendered without a battle, and Ethbaal was appointed king. Numerous cities at once sent presents to the king of Assyria. Ashkelon and other cities were taken. The forces of Egypt were routed at Eltekeh, and Ekron was destroyed. He claims to have conquered 46 strongholds of Hezekiah\'s territory, but he did not capture Jerusalem, for concerning the king he said, in his annals, "himself like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem, his royal city, I penned him." He states, also, how he reduced his territory, and how Hezekiah sent to him 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, besides hostages.<P>The Biblical account of this invasion is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,13);">2Ki 18:13-19:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,1);">Isa 36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,1);">37</a>. The Assyrian account differs considerably from it; but at the same time it corroborates it in many details. One of the striking parallels is the exact amount of gold which Hezekiah sent to the Assyrian king (see The Expository Times, XII, 225, 405; XIII, 326).<P>In the following year Sennacherib returned to Babylonia to put down a rebellion by Bal-ibni and Merodach-baladan. The former was sent to Assyria, and the latter soon afterward died. Ashurnadin-shum, the son of Sennacherib, was then crowned king of Babylon. A campaign into Cilicia and Cappadocia followed.<P>In 694 BC Sennacherib attacked the Elamites, who were in league with the Babylonians. In revenge, the Elamites invaded Babylonia and carried off Ashur-nadin-shum to Elam, and made Nergalushezib king of Babylon. He was later captured and in turn carried off to Assyria. In 691 BC Sennacherib again directed his attention to the south, and at Khalute fought with the combined forces. Two years later he took Babylon, and razed it to the ground.<P>In 681 BC Sennacherib was murdered by his two sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,37);">2Ki 19:37</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHAREZER">SHAREZER</a>). Esar-haddon their younger brother, who was at the time conducting a campaign against Ararat, was declared king in his stead.``24';
isbe[7821]='Senses`sen\'-siz: The translation of aistheterion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,14);">Heb 5:14</a>, "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil"). The word means, primarily, the seat of the senses, the region of feeling; in the Septuagint of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,19);">Jer 4:19</a>, it represents the Hebrew qir, "the walls of the heart" (see the Revised Version (British and American)), and is used to denote the internal sense or faculty of perceiving and judging, which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,14);">Heb 5:14</a> is regarded as becoming perfected by use or exercise (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,12);">Eph 4:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,7);">1Ti 4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,18);">2Pe 3:18</a>).<P>In 2Esdras 10:36 we have "Or is my sense deceived, or my soul in a dream?" Latin sensus, here "mind" rather than "sense."``185';
isbe[7822]='Sensual`sen\'-shoo-al (psuchikos, "animal," "natural"): Biblical psychology has no English equivalent for this Greek original. Man subject to the lower appetites is sarkikos, "fleshly"; in the communion of his spirit with God he is pneumatikos, "spiritual." Between the two is the psuche, "soul," the center of his personal being. This ego or "I"in each man is bound to the spirit, the higher nature; and to the body or lower nature.<P>The soul (psuche) as the seat of the senses, desires, affections, appetites, passions, i.e. the lower animal nature common to man with the beasts, was distinguished in the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy from the higher rational nature (nous, pneuma).<P>The subjection of the soul to the animal nature is man\'s debasement, to the spirit indwelt of God is his exaltation. The English equivalent for psuchikos, "psychic" does not express this debasement. In the New Testament "sensual" indicates man\'s subjection to self and self-interest, whether animal or intellectual<61>the selfish man in whom the spirit is degraded into subordination to the debased psuche, "soul." This debasement may be<P>(1) intellectual, "not wisdom...from above, but...earthly, sensual" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,15);">Jas 3:15</a>);<P>(2) carnal (and of course moral), "sensual, having not the Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,19);">Jude 1:19</a>).<P>It ranges all the way from sensuous self-indulgence to gross immorality. In the utter subjection of the spirit to sense it is the utter exclusion of God from the life. Hence, "the natural (psuchikos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,14);">1Co 2:14</a>). The term is equivalent to "the mind of the flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,7);">Ro 8:7</a>) which "is not subject to the law of God."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PSYCHOLOGY">PSYCHOLOGY</a>`139';
isbe[7823]='Sent`(shalach; apostello): "Sent" in the Old Testament is the translation of shalach, "to send" (of presents, messengers, etc., <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,18);">Ge 32:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,3);">44:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,14);">Jud 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,6);">1Ki 14:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,13);">Es 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,11);">Pr 17:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,14);">Jer 49:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,5);">Eze 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,40);">23:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,11);">Da 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Oba\',1,1);">Ob 1:1</a>); of shelach, Aramaic (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,14);">Ezr 7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,24);">Da 5:24</a>); of shilluchim, "sending" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,2);">Ex 18:2</a>); in the New Testament of apostello, "to send off" or "away," "to send forth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,7);">Joh 9:7</a>, "the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent)"); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,4);">Lu 13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,15);">Ne 3:15</a>, the pool of Siloah, the Revised Version (British and American) "Shelah"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,6);">Isa 8:6</a>, "the waters of Shiloah that go softly," where Septuagint has Siloam for Hebrew shiloach, "a sending," which, rather than "Sent," is the original meaning<6E>a sending forth of waters. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SILOAM">SILOAM</a>. "Sent" is also the translation of apostolos, "one sent forth" (the original of the familiar word "apostle"); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,16);">Joh 13:16</a>, "one that is sent" (margin, "Greek \'an apostle\'"); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,14);">Heb 1:14</a>.``185';
isbe[7824]='Sentence`sen\'-tens: Eight Hebrew and three Greek words are thus translated in the King James Version. Sometimes it points to a mystery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,12);">Da 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,23);">8:23</a>); then again to the contents of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,11);">De 17:11</a>); then again to the idea of judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,2);">Ps 17:2</a>) or of a judicial sentence (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,9);">2Co 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,24);">Lu 23:24</a>), or of judicial advice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,19);">Ac 15:19</a>, the American Standard Revised Version "judgment").``1';
isbe[7825]='Senuah`se-nu\'-a, sen\'-u-a (cenu\'ah): In the King James Version "A Benjamite" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,9);">Ne 11:9</a>); the Revised Version (British and American) has "Hassenuah," transliterating the definite article the King James Version is to be preferred (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,7);">1Ch 9:7</a>).``1';
isbe[7826]='Seorim`se-o\'-rim, se-or\'-im (se\'orim): The name borne by one of the (post-exilic) priestly courses (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,8);">1Ch 24:8</a>).``1';
isbe[7827]='Separate`sep\'-a-rat: The translation of a number of Hebrew and Greek words, badhal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,24);">Le 20:24</a>, etc.), and aphorizo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,32);">Mt 25:32</a>, etc.), being the most common. "To separate" and "to consecrate" were originally not distinguished (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,2);">Nu 6:2</a> margin), and probably the majority of the uses of "separate" in English Versions of the Bible connote "to set apart for God." But precisely the same term that is used in this sense may also denote the exact opposite (e.g. the use of nazar in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,7);">Eze 14:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,3);">Zec 7:3</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLINESS">HOLINESS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NAZIRITE">NAZIRITE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAINTS">SAINTS</a>`1';
isbe[7828]='Separation`sep-a-ra\'-shun: In the Pentateuch the word niddah specially points to a state of ceremonial uncleanness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,2,5);">Le 12:2,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,20);">15:20</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,4);">Nu 6:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,13);">12:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,21);">19:21</a>). For a description of the "water of purification," used for cleansing what was ceremonially unclean (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,\'1-\');">Nu 19</a>), see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEIFER,+RED">HEIFER, RED</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNCLEANNESS">UNCLEANNESS</a>. For "separation" in the sense of nezer, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NAZIRITE">NAZIRITE</a>.``1';
isbe[7829]='Sephar`se\'-far: Only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,30);">Ge 10:30</a> cepharah, "toward Sephar"), as the eastern limit of the territory of the sons of Yoktan (Joktan). From the similarity between the names of most of Yoktan\'s sons and the names of South Arabian towns or districts, it can hardly be doubted that Sephar is represented by the Arabic Qafar. The appropriateness of the site seems to outweigh the discrepancy between Arabic "z" and Hebrew "s". But two important towns in South Arabia bear this name. The one lies a little to the south of San\'a\'. According to tradition it was founded by Shammir, one of the Sabean kings, and for a long time served as the royal seat of the Tubbas. The other Zafar stands on the coast in the district of Shichr, east of Chadramaut. The latter is probably to be accepted as the Biblical site.``63';
isbe[7830]='Sepharad`se-fa\'-rad, sef\'-a-rad (cepharadh): Mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Oba\',1,20);">Ob 1:20</a> as the place of captivity of certain "captives of Jerusalem," but no clear indication is given of locality. Many conjectures have been made. The Targum of Jonathan identifies with Spain; hence, the Spanish Jews are called Sephardim. Others (Pusey, etc.) have connected it with the "(Tsparda" of the Behistun Inscription, and some have even identified it with "Sardis." The now generally accepted view is that which connects it with the "Saparda" of the Assyrian inscriptions, though whether this is to be located to the east of Assyria or in Northern Asia Minor is not clear. See Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, II, 145-46; Sayce, HCM, 482-84; articles in DB, HDB, EB, etc.``132';
isbe[7831]='Sepharvaim`sef-ar-va\'-im, se-far-va\'-im (cepharwayim: Sephpharouaim, Seppharoudim, Seppharoun, Seppharoumain, Eppharouaim, Sepphareim, the first two being the forms in manuscripts Alexandrinus and Vaticanus respectively, of the passages in Kings, and the last two in Isaiah):<P>1. Formerly Identified with the Two Babylonian Sippars:<P>This city, mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,24);">2Ki 17:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,34);">18:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,13);">19:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,19);">Isa 36:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,13);">37:13</a>, is generally identified with the Sip(p)ar of the Assyrians-Babylonian inscriptions (Zimbir in Sumerian), on the Euphrates, about 16 miles southwest of Bagdad. It was one of the two great seats of the worship of the Babylonian sun-god Samas, and also of the goddesses Ishtar and Anunit, and seems to have had two principal districts, Sippar of Samas, and Sippar of Anunit, which, if the identification were correct, would account for the dual termination -ayim, in Hebrew. This site is the modern \'Abu-Habbah, which was first excavated by the late Hormuzd Rassam in 1881, and has furnished an enormous number of inscriptions, some of them of the highest importance.<P>2. Difficulties of That Identification:<P>Besides the fact that the deities of the two cities, Sippar and Sepharvaim, are not the same, it is to be noted that in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,13);">2Ki 19:13</a> the king of Sepharvaim is referred to, and, as far as is known, the Babylonian Sippar never had a king of its own, nor had Akkad, with which it is in part identified, for at least 1,200 years before Sennacherib. The fact that Babylon and Cuthah head the list of cities mentioned is no indication that Sepharvaim was a Babylonian town<77>the composition of the list, indeed, points the other way, for the name comes after Ava and Hamath, implying that it lay in Syria.<P>3. Another Suggestion:<P>Joseph Halevy therefore suggests (ZA, II, 401ff) that it should be identified with the Sibraim of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,16);">Eze 47:16</a>, between Damascus and Hamath (the dual implying a frontier town), and the same as the Sabara\'in of the Babylonian Chronicle, there referred to as having been captured by Shalmaneser. As, however, Sabara\'in may be read Samara\'in, it is more likely to have been the Hebrew Shomeron (Samaria), as pointed out by Fried. Delitzsch.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, I, 71f; Kittel on K; Dillmann-Kittel on Isaiah, at the place; HDB, under the word``136';
isbe[7832]='Sepharvites`se\'-far-vits, se-far\'-vits> (cepharwim): In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,31);">2Ki 17:31</a>, the inhabitants of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEPHARVAIM">SEPHARVAIM</a> (which see), planted by the king of Assyria in Samaria. They continued there to burn their children to their native gods.``1';
isbe[7833]='Sepphoris`sef\'-o-ris: A city of Galilee, taken by Josephus (Vita, IX, lxvii, 71) and later destroyed by the son of Varus (Ant., XVII, x, 9).``1';
isbe[7834]='Septuagint, 1`sep\'-tu-a-jint:<P><b>I. IMPORTANCE</b><P><b>II. NAME</b><P><b>III. TRADITIONAL ORIGIN</b><P class="in15">1. Letter of Aristeas<P class="in15">2. Evidence of Aristobulus and Philo<P class="in15">3. Later Accretions<P class="in15">4. Criticism of the Aristeas Story<P class="in15">5. Date<P class="in15">6. Credibility<P><b>IV. EVIDENCE OF PROLOGUE TO SIRACH</b><P><b>V. TRANSMISSION OF THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT</b><P class="in15">1. Early Corruption of the Text<P class="in15">2. Official Revision of Hebrew Text circa 100 AD<P class="in15">3. Adoption of Septuagint by Christians<P class="in15">4. Alternative 2nd-Century Greek Versions<P class="in15">5. Aquila<P class="in15">6. Theodotion<P class="in15">7. Symmachus and Others<P class="in15">8. Origen and the Hexapla<P class="in15">9. Hexaplaric Manuscripts<P class="in15">10. Recensions Known to Jerome<P class="in15">11. Hesychian Recension<P class="in15">12. Lucianic Recension<P><b>VI. RECONSTRUCTION OF SEPTUAGINT TEXT; VERSIONS, MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS</b><P class="in15">1. Ancient Versions Made from Septuagint<P class="in15">2. Manuscripts<P class="in15">3. Printed Texts<P class="in15">4. Reconstruction of Original Text<P><b>VII. NUMBER, TITLES AND ORDER OF BOOKS</b><P class="in15">1. Contents<P class="in15">2. Titles<P class="in15">3. Bipartition of Books<P class="in15">4. Grouping and Order of Books<P><b>VIII. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VERSION AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS</b><P class="in15">1. Grouping of Books on Internal Evidence<P class="in30">(1) The Hexateuch<P class="in30">(2) The "Latter" Prophets<P class="in30">(3) Partial Version of the "Former" Prophets<P class="in30">(4) The "Writings"<P class="in30">(5) The Latest Septuagint Translations<P class="in15">2. General Characteristics<P><b>IX. SALIENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GREEK AND HEBREW TEXTS</b><P class="in15">1. Sequence<P class="in15">2. Subject-Matter<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Importance.<P>The Greek version of the Old Testament commonly known as the Septuagint holds a unique place among translations. Its importance is manysided. Its chief value lies in the fact that it is a version of a Hebrew text earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew manuscript extant (916 AD), a version, in particular, prior to the formal rabbinical revision of the Hebrew which took place early in the 2nd century AD. It supplies the materials for the reconstruction of an older form of the Hebrew than the Massoretic Text reproduced in our modern Bibles. It is, moreover, a pioneering work; there was probably no precedent in the world\'s history for a series of translations from one language into another on so extensive a scale. It was the first attempt to reproduce the Hebrew Scriptures in another tongue. It is one of the outstanding results of the breaking-down of international barriers by the conquests of Alexander the Great and the dissemination of the Greek language, which were fraught with such vital consequences for the history of religion. The cosmopolitan city which he founded in the Delta witnessed the first attempt to bridge the gulf between Jewish and Greek thought. The Jewish commercial settlers at Alexandria, forced by circumstances to abandon their language, clung tenaciously to their faith; and the translation of the Scriptures into their adopted language, produced to meet their own needs, had the further result of introducing the outside world to a knowledge of their history and religion. Then came the most momentous event in its history, the starting-point of a new life; the translation was taken over from the Jews by the Christian church. It was the Bible of most writers of the New Testament. Not only are the majority of their express citations from Scripture borrowed from it, but their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its language. Its words are household words to them. It laid for them the foundations of a new religious terminology. It was a potent weapon for missionary work, and, when versions of the Scriptures into other languages became necessary, it was in most cases the Septuagint and not the Hebrew from which they were made. Preeminent among these daughter versions was the Old Latin which preceded the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.), for the most part a direct translation from the Hebrew, was in portions a mere revision of the Old Latin; our Prayer-book version of the Psalter preserves peculiarities of the Septuagint, transmitted through the medium of the Old Latin. The Septuagint was also the Bible of the early Greek Fathers, and helped to mold dogma; it furnished proof-texts to both parties in the Arian controversy. Its language gives it another strong claim to recognition. Uncouth and unclassical as much of it appears, we now know that this is not wholly due to the hampering effects of translation. "Biblical Greek," once considered a distinct species, is now a rather discredited term. The hundreds of contemporary papyrus records (letters, business and legal documents, etc.) recently discovered in Egypt illustrate much of the vocabulary and grammar and go to show that many so-called "Hebraisms" were in truth integral parts of the koine, or "common language," i.e. the international form of Greek which, since the time of Alexander, replaced the old dialects, and of which the spoken Greek of today is the lineal descendant. The version was made for the populace and written in large measure in the language of their everyday life.<P>II. Name.<P>The name "Septuagint" is an abbreviation of Interpretatio secundum (or juxta) Septuaginta seniores (or viros), i.e. the Greek translation of the Old Testament of which the first installment was, according to the Alexandrian legend (see III, below), contributed by 70 (or 72) elders sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria for the purpose at the request of Ptolemy II. The legend in its oldest form restricts their labors to the Pentateuch but they were afterward credited with the translation of the whole Bible, and before the 4th century it had become customary to apply the title to the whole collection: Aug., De Civ. Dei, xviii.42, "quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo" ("whose translation is now by custom called the Septuagint"). The manuscripts refer to them under the abbreviation hoi o\' ("the seventy"), or hoi ob\',(" the seventy-two"). The "Septuagint" and the abbreviated form "LXX" have been the usual designations hitherto, but, as these are based on a now discredited legend, they are coming to be replaced by "the Old Testament in Greek," or "the Alexandrian version" with the abbreviation "G".<P>III. Traditional Origin.<P>The traditional account of the translation of the Pentateuch is contained in the so-called letter of Aristeas (editions of Greek text, P. Wendland, Teubner series,1900,and Thackeray in the App. to Swete\'s Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek,1900,etc.; Wendland\'s sections cited below appear in Swete\'s Introduction, edition 2; English translation by Thackeray, Macmillan,1904,reprinted from JQR, XV,337,and by H. T. Andrews in Charles\' Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II, 83-122, Oxford, 1913).<P>1. Letter of Aristeas:<P>The writer professes to be a high official at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 BC), a Greek interested in Jewish antiquities. Addressing his brother Philocrates he describes an embassy to Jerusalem on which he has recently been sent with another courtier Andreas. According to his narrative, Demetrius of Phalerum, a prominent figure in later Athenian history, who here appears as the royal librarian at Alexandria, convinced the king of the importance of securing for his library a translation of the Jewish Law. The king at the same time, to propitiate the nation from whom he was asking a favor, consented, on the suggestion of Aristeas, to liberate all Jewish slaves in Egypt. Copies follow of the letters which passed between Ptolemy and Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem. Ptolemy requests Eleazar to select and dispatch to Alexandria 72 elders, proficient in the Law, 6 from each tribe, to undertake the translation the importance of the task requiring the services of a large number to secure an accurate version Eleazar complies with the request and the names of the selected translators are appended to his letter.<P>There follow: (1) a detailed description of votive offerings sent by Ptolemy for the temple; (2) a sketch of Jerusalem, the temple and its services, and the geography of Palestine, doubtless reflecting in part the impressions of an eyewitness and giving a unique picture of the Jewish capital in the Ptolemaic era; (3) an exposition by Eleazar of portions of the Law.<P>The translators arrive at Alexandria, bringing a copy of the Law written in letters of gold on rolls of skins, and are honorably received by Ptolemy. A seven days\' banquet follows, at which the king tests the proficiency of each in turn with hard questions. Three days later Demetrius conducts them across the mole known as the Heptastadion to the island of Pharos, where, with all necessaries provided for their convenience, they complete their task, as by a miracle, in 72 days; we are expressly told that their work was the result of collaboration and comparison. The completed version was read by Demetrius to the Jewish community, who received it with enthusiasm and begged that a copy might be entrusted to their leaders; a solemn curse was pronounced on any who should venture to add to or subtract from or make any alteration in the translation. The whole version was then read aloud to the king who expressed his admiration and his surprise that Greek writers had remained in ignorance of its contents; he directed that the books should be preserved with scrupulous care.<P>2. Evidence of Aristobulus and Philo:<P>To set beside this account we have two pre-Christian allusions in Jewish writings. Aristobulus, addressing a Ptolemy who has been identified as Philometor (182-146 BC), repeats the statement that the Pentateuch was translated under Philadelphus at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus (Eusebius, Praep. Ev., XIII, 12,664b); but the genuineness of the passage is doubtful. If it is accepted, it appears that some of the main features of the story were believed at Alexandria within a century of the date assigned by "Aristeas" to the translation Philo (Vit. Moys, ii.5ff) repeats the story of the sending of the translators by Eleazar at the request of Philadelphus, adding that in his day the completion of the undertaking was celebrated by an annual festival on the isle of Pharos. It is improbable that an artificial production like the Aristeas letter should have occasioned such an anniversary; Philo\'s evidence seems therefore to rest in part on an independent tradition. His account in one particular paves the way for later accretions; he hints at the inspiration of the translators and the miraculous agreement of their separate VSS: "They prophesied like men possessed, not one in one way and one in another, but all producing the same words and phrases as though some unseen prompter were at the ears of each." At the end of the 1st century AD Josephus includes in his Antiquities (XII, ii, 1ff) large portions of the letter, which he paraphrases, but does not embellish.<P>3. Later Accretions:<P>Christian writers accepted the story without suspicion and amplified it. A catena of their evidence is given in an Appendix to Wendland\'s edition. The following are their principal additions to the narrative, all clearly baseless fabrications.<P>(1) The translators worked independently, in separate cells, and produced identical versions, Ptolemy proposing this test of their trustworthiness. So Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, the Chronicon Paschale and the Cohortatio ad Graecos (wrongly attributed to Justin); the author of the last work asserts that he had seen the cells and heard the tradition on the spot.<P>(2) A modification of this legend says that the translators worked in pairs in 36 cells. So Epiphanius (died 403 AD), and later G. Syncellus, Julius Pollux and Zonaras. Epiphanius\' account is the most detailed. The translators were locked up in sky-lighted cells in pairs with attendants and shorthand writers; each pair was entrusted with one book, the books were then circulated, and 36 identical versions of the whole Bible, canonical and apocryphal books, were produced; Ptolemy wrote two letters, one asking for the original Scriptures, the second for translators.<P>(3) This story of the two embassies appears already in the 2nd century AD, in Justin\'s Apology, and<P>(4) the extension of the translators\' work to the Prophets or the whole Bible recurs in the two Cyrils and in Chrysostom.<P>(5) The miraculous agreement of the translators proved them to be no less inspired than the authors (Irenaeus, etc.; compare Philo).<P>(6) As regards date, Clement of Alexandria quotes an alternative tradition referring the version back to the time of the first Ptolemy (322-285 BC); while Chrysostom brings it down to "a hundred or more years (elsewhere "not many years") before the coming of Christ." Justin absurdly states that Ptolemy\'s embassy was sent to King Herod; the Chronicon Paschale calls the high priest of the time Onias Simon, brother of Eleazar.<P>Jerome was the first to hold these later inventions up to ridicule, contrasting them with the older and more sober narrative. They indicate a growing oral tradition in Jewish circles at Alexandria. The origin of the legend of the miraculous consensus of the 70 translators has been reasonably sought in a passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,1);">Ex 24</a> Septuagint to which Epiphanius expressly refers. We there read of 70 elders of Israel, not heard of again, who with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu form a link between Moses and the people. After reciting the Book of the Covenant Moses ascends to the top of the mount; the 70, however, ascend but a little way and are bidden to worship from afar: according to the Septuagint text "They saw the place where the God of Israel stood...and of the elect of Israel not one perished" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,11);">Ex 24:11</a>), i.e. they were privileged to escape the usual effect of a vision of the Deity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,20);">Ex 33:20</a>). But the verb used for "perish" (diaphonein) was uncommon in this sense; "not one disagreed" would be the obvious meaning; hence, apparently the legend of the agreement of the translators, the later intermediaries between Moses and Israel of the Dispersion. When the translations were recited, "no difference was discoverable," says Epiphanius, using the same verb, cave-dwellings in the island of Pharos probably account for the legend of the cells. A curious phenomenon has recently suggested that there is an element of truth in one item of Epiphanius\' obviously incredible narrative, namely, the working of the translators in pairs. The Greek Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel fall into two nearly equal parts, apparently the work of separate translators (see VIII,1,(2), below); while in Exodus, Leviticus and Psalms orthographical details indicate a similar division of the books for clerical purposes. There was, it seems, a primitive custom of transcribing each book on 2 separate rolls, and in the case of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the practice goes back to the time of translation (JTS, IV, 245ff, 398ff; IX, 88ff).<P>4. Criticism of the Aristeas Story:<P>Beside the later extravagances, the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705). Clearly the writer is not a Greek, but a Jew, whose aim is to glorify his race and to disseminate information about their sacred books. Yet the story is not wholly to be rejected, though it is difficult to disentangle truth from fiction. On one side his veracity has since Hody\'s time been established; his court titles, technical terms, epistolary formulas, etc., reappear in Egyptian papyri and inscriptions, and all his references to Alexandrian life and customs are probably equally trustworthy (sections 28, 109ff, measures to counteract the ill effects upon agriculture of migration from country to town; section 167, treatment of informers (compare section 25); section 175 reception of foreign embassies (compare section 182)). The import of this discovery has, however, since its announcement by Lombroso (Recherches sur l\'economie politique de l\'Egypte, Turin, 1870), been somewhat modified by the new-found papyri which show that Aristeas\' titles and formulas are those of the later, not the earlier, Ptolemaic age.<P>5. Date:<P>The letter was used by Josephus and probably known to Philo. How much earlier is it? Schurer (HJP, II, iii, 309f (GJV4, III, 608-16)), relying on (1) the questionable Aristobulus passage, (2) the picture drawn of Palestine as if still under Ptolemaic rule, from which it passed to the Seleucids circa 200 BC, argued that the work could not be later than that date. But it is hard to believe that a fictitious story (as he regards it to be) could have gained credence within little more than half a century of the period to which it relates, and Wendland rightly rejects so ancient an origin. The following indications suggest a date about 100-80 BC.<P>(1) Many of Aristeas\' formulas, etc. (see above), only came into use in the 2nd century BC (Strack, Rhein. Mus., LV, 168ff; Thackeray, Aristeas, English translation, pp. 3, 12).<P>(2) The later Maccabean age or the end of the 2nd century BC is suggested by some of the translators\' names (Wendland, xxvi), and<P>(3) by the independent position of the high priest.<P>(4) Some of Ptolemy\'s questions indicate a tottering dynasty (section 187, etc.).<P>(5) The writer occasionally forgets his role and distinguishes between his own time and that of Philadelphus (sections 28, 182).<P>(6) He appears to borrow his name from a Jewish historian of the 2nd century BC and to wish to pass off the latter\'s history as his own (section 6).<P>(7) He is guilty of historical inaccuracies concerning Demetrius, etc.<P>(8) The prologue to the Greek Ecclesiasticus (after 132 BC) ignores and contradicts the Aristeas story, whereas Aristeas possibly used this prologue (Wendland, xxvii; compare Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek, 1909).<P>(9) The imprecation upon any who should alter the translation (section 311) points to divergences of text which the writer desired to check; compare section 57, where he seems to insist on the correctness of the Septuagint text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,22);">Ex 25:22</a>, "gold of pure gold," as against the Hebrew.<P>(10) Allusions to current criticisms of the Pentateuch (sections 128, 144) presuppose a familiarity with it on the part of non-Jewish readers only explicable if the Septuagint had long been current.<P>(11) Yet details in the Greek orthography preclude a date much later than 100 BC.<P>6. Credibility:<P>The probable amount of truth in the story is ably discussed by Swete (Intro, 16-22). The following statements in the letter may be accepted:<P>(1) The translation was produced at Alexandria, as is conclusively proved by Egyptian influence on its language.<P>(2) The Pentateuch was translated first and, in view of the homogeneity of style, as a whole.<P>(3) The Greek Pentateuch goes back to the first half of the 3rd century BC; the style is akin to that of the 3rd-century papyri, and the Greek Genesis was used by the Hellenist Demetrius toward the end of the century.<P>(4) The Hebrew rolls were brought from Jerusalem.<P>(5) Possibly Philadelphus, the patron of literature, with his religious impartiality, may have countenanced the work.<P>But the assertion that it owed its inception wholly to him and his librarian is incredible; it is known from other sources that Demetrius Phalereus did not fill the office of librarian under that monarch. The language is that of the people, not a literary style suitable to a work produced under royal patronage. The importation of Palestinian translators is likewise fictitious. Dr. Swete acutely observes that Aristeas, in stating that the translation was read to and welcomed by the Jewish community before being presented to the king, unconsciously reveals its true origin. It was no doubt produced to meet their own needs by the large Jewish colony at Alexandria. A demand that the Law should be read in the synagogues in a tongue "understanded of the people" was the originating impulse.<P>IV. Evidence of Prologue to Sirach.<P>The interesting, though in places tantalizingly obscure, prologue to Ecclesiasticus throws light on the progress made with the translation of the remaining Scriptures before the end of the 2nd century BC.<P>The translator dates his settlement in Egypt, during which he produced his version of his grandfather\'s work, as "the 38th year under Euergetes the king." The words have been the subject of controversy, but, with the majority of critics, we may interpret this to mean the 38th year of Euergetes II, reckoning from the beginning (170 BC) of his joint reign with Philometor, i.e. 132 BC. Euergetes I reigned for 25 years only. Others, in view of the superfluous preposition, suppose that the age of the translator is intended, but the cumbrous form of expression is not unparalleled. A recent explanation of the date (Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek) as the 38th year of Philadelphus which was also the 1st year of Euergetes I (i.e. 247 BC) is more ingenious than convincing.<P>The prologue implies the existence of a Greek version of the Law; the Prophets and "the rest of the books." The translator, craving his readers\' indulgence for the imperfections of his own work, due to the difficulty of reproducing Hebrew in Greek, adds that others have experienced the same difficulties: "The Law itself and the prophecies and the rest of the books have no small difference when spoken in their original language." From these words we may understand that at the time of writing (132-100 BC) Alexandrian Jews possessed Greek versions of a large part (probably not the whole) of "the Prophets," and of some of "the Writings" or Hagiographa. For some internal evidence as to the order in which the several books were translated see VIII, below.<P>V. Transmission of the Septuagint Text.<P>The main value of the Septuagint is its witness to an older Hebrew text than our own. But before we can reconstruct this Hebrew text we need to have a pure Greek text before us, and this we are at present far from possessing. The Greek text has had a long and complex history of its own. Used for centuries by both Jews and Christians it underwent corruption and interpolation, and, notwithstanding the multitude of materials for its restoration, the original text has yet to be recovered. We are much more certain of the ipsissima verba of the New Testament writers than of the original Alexandrian version of the Old Testament. This does not apply to all portions alike. The Greek Pentateuch, e.g., has survived in a relatively pure form. But everywhere we have to be on our guard against interpolations, sometimes extending to whole paragraphs. Not a verse is without its array of variant readings. An indication of the amount of "mixture" which has taken place is afforded by the numerous "doublets" or alternative renderings of a single Hebrew word or phrase which appear side by side in the transmitted text.<P>1. Early Corruption of the Text:<P>Textual corruption began early, before the Christian era. We have seen indications of this in the letter of Aristeas (III,5,(9) above). Traces of corruption appear in Philo (e.g. his comment, in Quis Rer. Div. Her. 56, on <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,15);">Ge 15:15</a>, shows that already in his day tapheis, "buried," had become trapheis, "nurtured," as in all our manuscripts); doublets already exist. Similarly in the New Testament the author of Hebrews quotes (12:15) a corrupt form of the Greek of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,18);">De 29:18</a>.<P>2. Official Revision of Hebrew Text circa 100 AD:<P>But it was not until the beginning of the 2nd century AD that the divergence between the Greek and the Palestinian Hebrew text reached an acute stage. One cause of this was the revision of the Hebrew text which took place about this time. No actual record of this revision exists, but it is beyond doubt that it originated in the rabbinical school, of which Rabbi Akiba was the chief representative, and which had its center at Jamnia in the years following the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish doctors, their temple in ruins, concentrated their attention on the settlement of the text of the Scriptures which remained to them. This school of eminent critics, precursors of the Massoretes, besides settling outstanding questions concerning the Canon, laid down strict rules for Biblical interpretation, and in all probability established an official text.<P>3. Adoption of Septuagint by Christians:<P>But another cause widened still farther the distance between the texts of Jerusalem and Alexandria. This was the adoption of the Septuagint by the Christian church. When Christians began to cite the Alexandrian version in proof of their doctrines, the Jews began to question its accuracy. Hence, mutual recriminations which are reflected in the pages of Justin\'s Dialogue with Trypho. "They dare to assert," says Justin (Dial., 68), "that the interpretation produced by your seventy elders under Ptolemy of Egypt is in some points inaccurate." A crucial instance cited by the Jews was the rendering "virgin" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,14);">Isa 7:14</a>, where they claimed with justice that "young woman" would be more accurate. Justin retaliates by charging the Jews with deliberate excision of passages favorable to Christianity.<P>4. Alternative 2nd Century Greek Versions:<P>That such accusations should be made in those critical years was inevitable, yet there is no evidence of any material interpolations having been introduced by either party. But the Alexandrian version, in view of the revised text and the new and stricter canons of interpretation, was felt by the Jews to be inadequate, and a group of new translations of Scripture in the 2nd century AD supplied the demand. We possess considerable fragments of the work of three of these translators, namely, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, besides scanty remnants of further anonymous versions<P>5. Aquila:<P>The earliest of "the three" was Aquila, a proselyte to Judaism, and, like his New Testament namesake, a native of Pontus. He flourished, according to Epiphanius (whose account of these later translators in his De mens. et pond. is not wholly trustworthy), under Hadrian (117-38 AD) and was related to that emperor; there is no probability in Epiphanius\' further statement that Hadrian entrusted to Aquila the superintendence of the building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, that there he was converted to Christianity by Christian exiles returning from Pella, but that refusing to abandon astrology he was excommunicated, and in revenge turned Jew and was actuated by a bias against Christianity in his version of the Old Testament. What is certain is that he was a pupil of the new rabbinical school, in particular of Rabbi Akiba (95-135 AD), and that his version was an attempt to reproduce exactly the revised official text. The result was an extraordinary production, unparalleled in Greek literature, if it can be classed under that category at all. No jot or tittle of the Hebrew might be neglected; uniformity in the translation of each Hebrew word must be preserved and the etymological kinship of different Hebrew words represented. Such were some of his leading principles. The opening words of his translation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1);">Ge 1:1</a>) may be rendered: "In heading rounded God with the heavens and with the earth." "Heading" or "summary" was selected because the Hebrew word for "beginning" was a derivative of "head." "With" represents an untranslatable word (\'eth) prefixed to the accusative case, but indistinguishable from the preposition "with." The Divine Name (the tetragrammaton, YHWH) was not translated, but written in archaic Hebrew characters. "A slave to the letter," as Origen calls him, his work has aptly been described by a modern writer as "a colossal crib" (Burkitt, JQR, October,1896,207ff). Yet it was a success. In Origen\'s time it was used by all Jews ignorant of Hebrew, and continued in use for several centuries; Justinian expressly sanctioned its use in the synagogues (Nov., 146). Its lack of style and violation of the laws of grammar were not due to ignorance of Greek, of which the writer shows, in vocabulary at least, a considerable command. Its importance lay and lies (so far as it is preserved) in its exact reproduction of the rabbinical text of the 2nd century AD; it may be regarded as the beginning of the scientific study of the Hebrew Scriptures. Though "a bold attempt to displace the Septuagint," it cannot be charged with being intentionally antagonistic to Christianity. Of the original work, previously known only from extracts in manuscripts, some palimpsest fragments were recovered from the Cairo Genizah in 1897 and edited by F. C. Burkitt (Fragments of the Books of Kings, 1897) and by C. Taylor (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers2, 1897; Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, 1900). The student of Swete\'s Old Testament will trace Aquila\'s unmistakable style in the footnotes to the Books of Samuel and Kings; the older and shorter B text in those books has constantly been supplemented in the A text from Aquila. A longer specimen of his work occurs in the Greek Ecclesiastes, which has no claim to be regarded as "Septuagint"; Jerome refers to a second edition of Aquila\'s version, and the Greek Ecclesiastes is perhaps his first edition of that book, made on the basis of an unrevised Hebrew text (McNeile, Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge,1904,App. I). The suggested identification of Aquila with Onkelos, author of the Targum of that name, has not been generally accepted.<P>6. Theodotion:<P>Epiphanius\' account of the dates and history of Theodotion and Symmachus is untrustworthy. He seems to have reversed their order, probably misled by the order of the translations, in the columns of the Hexapla (see below). He also apparently confused Aquila and Theodotion in calling the latter a native of Pontus. As regards date, Theodotion, critics are agreed, preceded Symmachus and probably flourished under M. Aurelius (161-80), whereas Symmachus lived under Commodus (180-92); Irenaeus mentions only the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, and that of Symmachus had in his day either not been produced or at least not widely circulated. According to the more credible account of Irenaeus, Theodotion was an Ephesian and a convert to Judaism. His version constantly agrees with the Septuagint and was rather a revision of it, to bring it into accord with the current Hebrew text, than an independent work. The supplementing of lacunae in the Septuagint (due partly to the fact that the older version of some books did not aim at completeness) gave scope for greater originality. These lacunae were greatest in Job and his version of that book was much longer than the Septuagint. The text of Job printed in Swete\'s edition is a patchwork of old and new; the careful reader may detect the Theodotion portions by transliterations and other peculiarities. Long extracts from Theodotion are preserved in codex Q in Jeremiah. As regards the additional matter contained in Septuagint, Theodotion was inconsistent; he admitted, e.g., the additions to Daniel (Sus, Bel and the Dragon, and the So of Three Children), but did not apparently admit the non-canonical books as a whole. The church adopted his Daniel in place of the inadequate Septuagint version, which has survived in only one Greek manuscript; but the date when the change took place is unknown and the early history of the two Greek texts is obscure. Theodotion\'s renderings have been found in writings before his time (including the New Testament), and it is reasonably conjectured that even before the 2nd century AD the Septuagint text had been discarded and that Theodotion\'s version is but a working over of an older alternative version Theodotion is free from the barbarisms of Aquila, but is addicted to transliteration, i.e. the reproduction of Hebrew words in Greek letters: His reasons for this habit are not always clear; ignorance of Hebrew will not account for all (compare VIII, 1, (5), below).<P>7. Symmachus and Others:<P>Beside the two versions produced by, and primarily intended for, Jews was a third, presumably to meet the needs of a Jewish Christian sect who were dissatisfied with the Septuagint. Symmachus, its author, was, according to the more trustworthy account, an Ebionite, who also wrote a commentary on Matthew, a copy of which was given to Origen by Juliana, a lady who received it from its author (Euseb., HE, VI, 17). Epiphanius\' description of him as a Samaritan convert to Judaism may be rejected. The date of his work, as above stated, was probably the reign of Commodus (180-192 AD). In one respect the version resembled Aquila\'s, in its faithful adherence to the sense of the current Hebrew text; its style, however, which was flowing and literary, was a revolt against Aquila\'s monstrosities. It seems to have been a recasting of Aquila\'s version, with free use of both Septuagint and Theodotion. It carried farther a tendency apparent in the Septuagint to refine away the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament.<P>Of three other manuscripts discovered by Origen (one at Nicopolis in Greece, one at Jericho) and known from their position in the Hexapla as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, little is known. There is no reason to suppose that they embraced the whole Old Testament. Quinta is characterized by Field as the most elegant of the Greek versions F.C. Burkitt has discussed "the so-called Quinta of 4 Kings" in PSBA, June, 1902. The Christian origin of Sexta betrays itself in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,13);">Hab 3:13</a> ("Thou wentest forth to save thy people for the sake of (or "by") Jesus thy anointed One").<P>8. Origen and the Hexapla:<P>These later versions play a large part in the history of the text of the Septuagint. This is due to the labors of the greatest Septuagint scholar of antiquity, the celebrated Origen of Alexandria, whose active life covers the first half of the 3rd century. Origen frankly recognized, and wished Christians to recognize, the merits of the later VSS, and the divergences between the Septuagint and the current Hebrew. He determined to provide the church with the materials for ascertaining the true text and meaning of the Old Testament. With this object he set himself to learn Hebrew<65>a feat probably unprecedented among non-Jewish Christians of that time<6D>and to collect the later versions The idea of using these versions to amend the Septuagint seemed to him an inspiration: "By the gift of God we found a remedy for the divergence in the copies of the Old Testament, namely to use the other editions as a criterion" (Commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,14);">Mt 15:14</a>). The magnum opus in which he embodied the results of his labors was known as the Hexapla or "six-column" edition. This stupendous work has not survived; a fragment was discovered toward the end of the 19th century in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (Swete, Introduction, 61ff) and another among the Cairo Genizah palimpsests (ed C. Taylor, Cambridge, 1900). The material was arranged in six parallel columns containing<P>(1) the current Hebrew text,<P>(2) the same in Greek letters,<P>(3) the version of Aquila,<P>(4) that of Symmachus,<P>(5) that of the Septuagint,<P>(6) that of Theodotion.<P>The text was broken up into short clauses; not more than two words, usually one only, stood in the first column. The order of the columns doubtless represents the degree of conformity to the Hebrew; Aquila\'s, as the most faithful, heads the VSS, and Symmachus\' is on the whole a revision of Aquila as Theodotion\'s is of the Septuagint. But Origen was not content with merely collating the VSS; his aim was to revise the Septuagint and the 5th column exhibited his revised text. The basis of it was the current Alexandrian text of the 3rd century AD; this was supplemented or corrected where necessary by the other versions Origen, however, deprecated alteration of a text which had received ecclesiastical sanction, without some indication of its extent, and the construction of the 5th column presented difficulties. There were<P>(1) numerous cases of words or paragraphs contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew, which could not be wholly rejected,<P>(2) cases of omission from the Septuagint of words in the Hebrew,<P>(3) cases of paraphrase and minor divergences,<P>(4) variations in the order of words or chapters.<P>Origen here had recourse to a system of critical signs, invented and employed by the grammarian Aristarchus (3rd century BC) in his edition of Homer. Passages of the first class were left in the text, but had prefixed to them an obelus, a sign of which the original form was a "spit" or "spear," but figuring in Septuagint manuscripts as a horizontal line usually with a dot above and a dot below; there are other varieties also. The sign in Aristarchus indicated censure, in the Hexapla the doubtful authority of the words which followed. The close of the obelized passage was marked by the metobelus, a colon (:), or, in the Syriac VSS, shaped like a mallet. Passages missing in the Septuagint were supplied from one of the other versions (Aquila or Theodotion), the beginning of the extract being marked by an asterisk<73>a sign used by Aristarchus to express special approval<61>the close, by the metobelus. Where Septuagint and Hebrew widely diverged, Origen occasionally gave two VSS, that of a later translator under an asterisk, that of Septuagint obelized. Divergence in order was met by transposition, the Hebrew order being followed; in Proverbs, however, the two texts kept their respective order, the discrepancy being indicated by a combination of signs. Minor supposed or real corruptions in the Greek were tacitly corrected. Origen produced a minor edition, the Tetrapla, without the first two columns of the larger work. The Heptapla and Octapla, occasionally mentioned, appear to be alternative names given to the Hexapla at points where the number of columns was increased to receive other fragmentary versions. This gigantic work, which according to a reasonable estimate must have filled 5,000 leaves, was probably never copied in extenso. The original was preserved for some centuries in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea; there it was studied by Jerome, and thither came owners of Biblical manuscripts to collate their copies with it, as we learn from some interesting notes in our uncial manuscripts (e.g. a 7th-century note appended to Esther in codex S). The Library probably perished circa 638 AD, when Caesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens.<P>9. Hexaplaric Manuscripts:<P>But, though the whole work was too vast to be copied, it was a simple task to copy the 5th column. This task was performed, partly in prison, by Pamphilus, a martyr in the Diocletian persecution, and his friend Eusebius, the great bishop of Caesarea. Copies of the "Hexaplaric" Septuagint, i.e. Origen\'s doctored text with the critical signs and perhaps occasional notes, were, through the initiative of these two, widely circulated in Palestine in the 4th century. Naturally, however, the signs became unintelligible in a text detached from the parallel columns which explained them; scribes neglected them, and copies of the doctored text, lacking the precautionary symbols, were multiplied. This carelessness has wrought great confusion; Origen is, through others\' fault, indirectly responsible for the production of manuscripts in which the current Septuagint text and the later versions are hopelessly mixed. No manuscripts give the Hexaplaric text as a whole, and it is preserved in a relatively pure form in very few: the uncials G and M (Pentatruch and some historical books), the cursives 86 and 88 (Prophets). Other so-called Hexaplaric manuscripts, notably codex Q (Marchalianus: Proph.) preserve fragments of the 5th and of the other columns of the Hexapla. (For the Syro-Hexaplar see below, VI, 1.) Yet, even did we possess the 5th column entire, with the complete apparatus of signs, we should not have "the original Septuagint," but merely, after removing the asterisked passages, a text current in the 3rd century. The fact has to be emphasized that Origen\'s gigantic work was framed on erroneous principles. He assumed (1) the purity of the current Hebrew text, (2) the corruption of the current Septuagint text where it deviated from the Hebrew. The modern critic recognizes that the Septuagint on the whole presents the older text, the divergences of which from the Hebrew are largely attributable to an official revision of the latter early in the Christian era. He recognizes also that in some books (e.g. Job) the old Greek version was only a partial one. To reconstruct the original text he must therefore have recourse to other auxiliaries beside Origen.<P>10. Recensions Known to Jerome:<P>Such assistance is partly furnished by two other recensions made in the century after Origen. Jerome (Praef. in Paralipp.; compare Adv. Ruf., ii.27) states that in the 4th century three recensions circulated in different parts of the Christian world: "Alexandria and Egypt in their Septuagint acclaim Hesychius as their authority, the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martyr, the intermediate Palestinian provinces read the manuscripts which were promulgated by Eusebius and Pamphilus on the basis of Origen\'s labors, and the whole world is divided between these three varieties of text."<P>11. Hesychian Recension:<P>Hesychius is probably to be identified with the martyr bishop mentioned by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, VIII, 13) along with another scholar martyr, Phileas bishop of Thmuis, and it is thought that these two were engaged in prison in revising the Egyptian text at the time when Pamphilus and Eusebius were employed on a similar task under similar conditions. How far existing manuscripts preserve the Hesychian recension is uncertain; agreement of their text with that of Egyptian versions and Fathers (Cyril in particular) is the criterion. For the Prophets Ceriani has identified codex Q and its kin as Hesychian. For the Octateuch N. McLean (JTS, II, 306) finds the Hesychian text in a group of cursives,44,74,76,84,106,134, etc. But the first installments of the larger Cambridge Septuagint raise the question whether Codex B (Vaticanus) may not itself be Hesychian; its text is more closely allied to that of Cyril Alex. than to any other patristic text, and the consensus of these two witnesses against the rest is sometimes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,14);">Ex 32:14</a>) curiously striking. In the Psalter also Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien, 2. Heft,1907,235) traces the Hesychian text in B and partially in Codex Sinaiticus. Compare von Soden\'s theory for the New Testament.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEXT+AND+MANUSCRIPTS+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>.<P>12. Lucianic Recension:<P>The Lucianic recension was the work of another martyr, Lucian of Antioch (died 311-12), probably with the collaboration of the Hebraist Dorotheus. There are, as Hort has shown, reasons for associating Lucian with a "Syrian" revision of the New Testament in the 4th century, which became the dominant type of text. That he produced a Syrian recension of the Greek Old Testament is expressly stated by Jerome, and we are moreover able with considerable certainty to identify the extant manuscripts which exhibit it. The identification, due to Field and Lagarde, rests on these grounds:<P>(1) certain verses in 2 Kings are in the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar marked with the letter L, and a note explains that the letter indicates Lucianic readings;<P>(2) the readings so marked occur in the cursives 19,82,93,108,118;<P>(3) these manuscripts in the historical books agree with the Septuagint citations of the Antiochene Fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret.<P>This clue enabled Lagarde to construct a Lucianic text of the historical books (Librorum Vet. Test. canonic. pars prior, Gottingen, 1883); his death prevented the completion of the work. Lagarde\'s edition is vitiated by the fact that he does not quote the readings of the individual manuscripts composing the group, and it can be regarded only as an approximate reconstruction of "Lucian." It is evident, however, that the Lucianic Septuagint possessed much the same qualities as the Syrian revision of the New Testament; lucidity and completeness were the main objects. It is a "full" text, the outcome of a desire to include, so far as possible, all recorded matter; "doublets" are consequently numerous. While this "conflation" of texts detracts from its value, the Lucianic revision gains importance from the fact that the sources from which it gleaned include an element of great antiquity which needs to be disengaged; where it unites with the Old Latin version against all other authorities its evidence is invaluable.``170';
isbe[7835]='Septuagint, 2`VI. Reconstruction of Septuagint Text; Versions, Manuscripts and Printed Editions.<P>The task of restoring the original text is beset with difficulties. The materials (MSS, VSS, patristic citations) are abundant, but none has escaped "mixture," and the principles for reconstruction are not yet securely established (Swete, Introduction, I, iv-vi; III, vi).<P>1. Ancient Versions Made from Septuagint:<P>Among the chief aids to restoration are the daughter versions made from the Septuagint, and above all the Old Latin (pre-Hieronymian) version, for the earliest (African) Old Latin version dates from the 2nd century AD, i.e. before Origen, and contains a text from which the asterisked passages in Hexaplaric manuscripts are absent; it thus "brings us the best independent proof we have that the Hexaplar signs introduced by Origen can be relied on for the reconstruction of the LXX" (Burkitt). The Old Latin also enables us to recognize the ancient element in the Lucianic recension. But the Latin evidence itself is by no means unanimous. Augustine (De Doctr. Christ., ii.16) speaks of the infinite variety of Latin VSS; though they may ultimately prove all to fall into two main families, African and European. Peter Sabatier\'s collection of patristic quotations from the Old Latin is still useful, though needing verification by recent editions of the Fathers. Of Old Latin manuscripts one of the most important is the codex Lugdunensis, edited by U. Robert (Pentateuchi e codex Lugd. versio Latin antiquissima, Paris, 1881; Heptateuchi partis post. versio Latin antiq. e codex Lugd., Lyons, 1900). The student should consult also Burkitt\'s edition of The Rules of Tyconius ("Texts and Studies," III,1,Cambridge, 1894) and The Old Latin and the Itala (ibid., IV,3,1896).<P>Jerome\'s Vulgate is mainly a direct translation from the Hebrew, but the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Psalter, the so-called Gallican, is one of Jerome\'s two revisions of the Old Latin, not his later version from the Hebrew, and some details in our Prayer-book Psalter are ultimately derived through the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Psalter from the Septuagint. Parts of the Apocrypha (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2Maccabees) are also pure Old Latin, untouched by Jerome.<P>The early date (2nd century AD) once claimed for the Egyptian or Coptic versions (Bohairic, i.e. in the dialect of Lower Egypt, Sahidic or Upper Egyptian and Middle Egyptian) has not been confirmed by later researches, at least as regards the first-named, which is probably not earlier than the 3rd or 4th century AD. Rahlfs (Sept-Studien, II, 1907) identifies the Bohairic Psalter as the Hesychian recension. The Sahidic version of Job has fortunately preserved the shorter text lacking the later insertions from Theodotion (Lagarde, Mittheilungen,1884,204); this does not conclusively prove that it is pre-Origenic; it may be merely a Hexaplaric text with the asterisked passages omitted (Burkitt, EB, IV, 5027). The influence bf the Hexapla is traceable elsewhere in this version<P>The Ethiopic version was made in the main from the Greek and in part at least from an early text; Rahlfs (Sept. Stud., I, 1904) considers its text of S-K, with that of codex B, to be pre-Origenic.<P>The Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) or Peshitta Syriac version was made from the Hebrew, though partly influenced by the Septuagint. But another Syriac version is of primary importance for the Septuagint text, namely, that of Paul, bishop of Tella (Constantine in Mesopotamia), executed at Alexandria in 616-17 and known as the Syro-Hexaplar. This is a bald Syriac version of the Septuagint column of the Hexapla, containing the Hexaplar signs. A manuscript of the poetical and prophetical books is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and has been edited by Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana, 1874); fragments of the historical books are also extant (Lagarde and Rahlfs, Bibliothecae Syriacae, Gottingen, 1892). This version supplements the Greek Hexaplaric manuscripts and is the principal authority for Origen\'s text. For the original version of Daniel, which has survived in only one late MS, the Syro-Hexaplar supplies a second and older authority of great value.<P>The Armenian version (ascribed to the 5th century) also owes its value to its extreme literalness; its text of the Octateuch is largely Hexaplaric.<P>A bare mention must suffice of the Arabic version (of which the prophetical and poetical books, Job excluded, were rendered from the Septuagint); the fragments of the Gothic version (made from the Lucianic recension), and the Slavonic (partly from Septuagint, also Lucianic) and the Georgian versions.<P>2. Manuscripts:<P>For a full description of the Greek manuscripts see Swete, Introduction, I, chapter V. They are divided according to their script (capitals or minuscules) into uncials and cursives, the former ranging from the 4th century (four papyrus scraps go back to the 3rd century; Nestle in Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XXIII, 208) to the 10th century AD, the latter from the 9th to the 16th century AD. Complete Bibles are few; the majority contain groups of books only, such as the Pentateuch, Octateuch (Gen-Ruth), the later historical books, the Psalter, the 3 or 5 "Solomonic" books, the Prophets (major, minor or both). Uncials are commonly denoted by capital letters (in the edition of Holmes and Parsons by Roman figures); cursives, of which over 300 are known, by Arabic figures; in the larger Cambridge Septuagint the selected cursives are denoted by small Roman letters.<P>The following are the chief uncials containing, or which once contained, the whole Bible: B (Vaticanus, at Rome, 4th century AD), adopted as the standard text in all recent editions; Codex Sinaiticus, at Petersburg and Leipzig, 4th century AD), discovered by Tischendorf in 1844 and subsequent years in Catherine\'s Convent, Mt. Sinai; A (Alexandrinus, British Museum, probably 5th century AD); C (Ephraemi rescriptus, Paris, probably 5th century), a palimpsest, the older Biblical matter underlying a medieval Greek text of works of Ephrem the Syrian. For the Octateuch and historical books: D (Cottonianus, British Museum, probably 5th or 6th century), fragments of an illuminated Genesis, the bulk of which perished in a fire at Ashburnham House in 1731, but earlier collations of Grabe and others are extant, which for the lost portions are cited in the Cambridge texts as D (Dsil, i.e. silet Grabius, denotes an inference from Grabe\'s silence that the manuscript did not contain a variant); F (Ambro-sianus, Milan, 4th to 5th century), fragments of the Octateuch; G (Sarravianus, fragments at Leyden, Paris and Petersburg, 4th to 5th century), important as containing an Origenic text with the Hexaplar signs; L (Purpureus Vindobonensis, Vienna, 5th to 6th century), fragments of an illuminated manuscript Genesis on purple vellum; M (Coislinianus, Paris, 7th century), important on account of its marginal Hexaplaric matter. For the Prophets, Q (Marchalianus, Rome, 6th century) is valuable, both for its text, which is "Hesychian" (see above), and for its abundant marginal Hexaplaric matter. A curious mixture of uncial and cursive writing occurs in E (Bodleianus, probably 10th century), fragments of the historical books (to 3 R 16 28) preserved at Oxford, Cambridge (1 leaf), Petersburg and London; Tischendorf, who brought the manuscript from the East, retained the tell-tale Cambridge leaf, on which the transition from uncial to cursive script occurs, until his death. The long-concealed fact that the scattered fragments were part of a single manuscript came to light through Swete\'s identification of the Cambridge leaf as a continuation of the Bodleian fragment. Many of the cursives still await investigation, as do also the lectionaries. The latter, though the manuscripts are mainly late, should repay study. The use of the Septuagint for lectionary purposes was inherited by the church from the synagogue, and the course of lessons may partly represent an old system; light may also be expected from them on the local distribution of various types of text.<P>3. Printed Texts:<P>Of the printed text the first four editions were<P>(1) the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, 1514-17, comprising the Greek, Hebrew and Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) texts, the last in the middle place of honor being compared to Jesus in the midst between the two thieves (!). The Greek was based on manuscripts from the Vatican and one from Venice; it exhibits on the whole the Lucianic recension, as the Hesychian is by a curious coincidence represented in<P>(2) the Aldine edition of 1518, based on Venetian manuscripts.<P>(3) The monumental Sixtine edition, published at Rome in 1586 under the auspices of Pope Sixtus V and frequently reprinted, was mainly based on the codex Vaticanus, the superiority of which text is justly recognized in the interesting preface (printed in Swete\'s Intro)<P>(4) The English edition (Oxford, 1707-20) begun by Grabe (died 1712) was based on the codex Alexandrinus, with aid from other manuscripts, and had the peculiarity that he employed Origen\'s critical signs and different sizes of type to show the divergence between the Greek and the Hebrew. Of more recent editions three are preeminent.<P>(5) The great Oxford edition of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827, 5 volumes, folio) was the first attempt to bring together in a gigantic apparatus criticus all the evidence of uncial and cursire manuscripts (upward of 300), versions and early Citations from Philo and Josephus onward. As a monumental storehouse of materials "H. and P." will not be wholly superseded by the latest edition now (1913) in preparation.<P>(6) The serviceable Cambridge "manual," edition of Swete (lst edition 1887-94, edition 3, 1901-7, 3 volumes, 8vo), is in the hands of all serious Septuagint students. The text is that of B, or (where B fails) of A, and the apparatus contains the readings of the principal uncial manuscripts. New materials discovered since the edition of H. and P., especially codex S, are employed, and greater accuracy in the presentation of the other evidence has been made possible by photography. The fact that the text here printed is but a provisional one is sometimes overlooked. Swete\'s edition was designed as a precursor to<P>(7) the larger Cambridge Septuagint, of which three installments embracing the Pentateuch have (1913) appeared (The Old Testament in Greek, edition A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1911 pt. III. Numbers and Deuteronomy). The text is a reprint of Swete\'s except that from Exodus onward a few alterations of errors in the primary manuscript have been corrected, a delicate task in which the editors have rejected a few old readings without sufficient regard to the peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek. The importance of the work lies in its apparatus, which presents the readings of all the uncials, versions and early citations, and those of a careful representative selection of the cursives. The materials of H (Law of Holiness, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,1);">Lev. 17-26</a>) and P (the Priestly Code) are brought up to date and presented in a more reliable and convenient form. Besides these there is<P>(8) Lagarde\'s reconstruction of the Lucianic recension of the historical books, which, as stated, must be used with caution (see above)<P>4. Reconstruction of Original Text:<P>The task of reconstructing the Oldest text is still unaccomplished. Materials have accumulated, and much preliminary "spade-work" has been done, by Lagarde in particular (see his "axioms" in Swete, Introduction,484,ff) and more recently by Nestle and Rahlfs; but the principles which the editor must follow are not yet finally determined. The extent to which "mixture" has affected the documents is the stumbling-block. Clearly no single Moabite Stone presents the oldest text. That of codex B, as in the New Testament, is on the whole the purest. In the 4 books of "Reigns" (1 Samuel through 2 Kings), e.g., it has escaped the grosser interpolations found in most manuscripts, and Rahlfs (Sept.-Studien, I, 1904) regards its text as pre-Origenic. It is, however, of unequal value and by no means an infallible guide; in Judges, e.g., its text is undoubtedly late, no earlier than the 4th century AD, according to one authority (Moore," Jgs," ICC). In relation to two of the 4th-century recensions its text is neutral, neither predominantly Lucianic nor Hexaplaric; but it has been regarded by some authorities as Hesychian. Possibly the recension made in the country which produced the Septuagint adhered more closely than others to the primitive text; some "Hesychian" features in the B text may prove to be original. Still even its purest portions contain marks of editorial revision and patent corruptions. Codex Alexandrinus presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the Massoretic Text. In the books of "Reigns" it is practically a Hexaplaric text without the critical signs, the additional matter being mainly derived from Aquila. Yet that it contains an ancient element is shown by the large support given to its readings by the New Testament and early Christian writers. Individual manuscripts must give place to groups. In order to reconstruct the texts current before Origen\'s time, it is necessary to isolate the groups containing the three 4th-century recensions, and to eliminate from the recensions thus recovered all Hexaplaric matter and such changes as appear to have been introduced by the authors of those recensions. Other groups brought to light by the larger Cambridge text have also to be taken into account. The attempt to Renetrate into the earlier stages of the history is the hardest task. The Old Latin version is here the surest guide; it has preserved readings which have disappeared from all Greek manuscripts, and affords a criterion as to the relative antiquity of the Greek variants. The evidence of early Christian and Jewish citations is also valuable. Ultimately, after elimination of all readings proved to be "recensional" or late, the decision between outstanding variants must depend on internal evidence. These variants will fall into two classes: (1) those merely affecting the Greek text, by far the larger number and presenting less difficulty; (2) those which imply a different Hebrew text. In adjudicating on the latter Lagarde\'s main axioms have to be borne in mind, that a free translation is to be preferred to a slavishly literal one, and a translation presupposing another Hebrew original to one based on the Massoretic Text.<P>VII. Number, Titles and Order of Books.<P>1. Contents:<P>In addition to the Hebrew canonical books, the Septuagint includes all the books in the English Apocrypha except 2Esdras (The Prayer of Manasseh only finds a place among the canticles appended in some manuscripts to the Psalms) besides a 3rd and 4th book of Maccabees. Swete further includes in his text as an appendix of Greek books on the borderland of canonicity the Ps of Sol (found in some cursives and mentioned in the list in codex A), the Greek fragments of the Book of Enoch and the ecclesiastical canticles above mentioned. Early Christian writers in quoting freely from these additional books as Scripture doubtless perpetuate a tradition inherited from the Jews of Alexandria. Most of the books being original Greek compositions were ipso facto excluded from a place in the Hebrew Canon. Greater latitude as regards canonicity prevailed at Alexandria; the Pentateuch occupied a place apart, but as regards later books no very sharp line of demarcation between "canonical" and "uncanonical" appears to have been drawn.<P>2. Titles:<P>Palestinian Jews employed the first word or words of each book of the Pentateuch to serve as its title; Genesis e.g. was denoted "in the beginning," Exodus "(and these are the) names"; a few of the later books have similar titles. It is to the Septuagint, through the medium of the Latin VSS, that we owe the familiar descriptive titles, mostly suggested by phrases in the Greek version. In some books there are traces of rival titles in the Ptolemaic age. Exodus ("outgoing") is also called Exagoge ("leading out") by Philo and by the Hellenist Ezekiel who gave that name to his drama on the deliverance from Egypt. Philo has also alternative names for Deuteronomy<6D>Epinomis ("after-law") borrowed from the title of a pseudo-Platonic treatise, and for Judgess "the Book of Judgments." The last title resembles the Alexandrian name for the Books of Samuel and Kings, namely, the four Books of Kingdoms or rather Reigns; the name may have been given in the first place to a partial version including only the reigns of the first few monarchs. Jerome\'s influence in this case restored the old Hebrew names as also in Chronicles (= Hebrew "Words of Days," "Diaries"), which in the Septuagint is entitled Paraleipomena, "omissions," as being a supplement to the Books of Reigns.<P>3. Bipartition of Books:<P>Another innovation, due apparently to the Greek translators or later editors, was the breaking up of some of the long historical narratives into volumes of more manageable compass. In the Hebrew manuscripts, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah form respectively one book apiece. In the Septuagint the first three of these collections are subdivided into two volumes as in modern Bibles; an acquaintance with the other arrangement is, however, indicated in Codex B by the insertion at the end of 1 R, 3 R, 1 Chronicles of the first sentence of the succeeding book, a reminder to the reader that a continuation is to follow. Ezra-Nehemiah, the Greek version (2Esdras) being made under the influence of Palestinian tradition, remains undivided. Originally Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah formed a unit, as was apparently still the case when the oldest Greek version (1Esdras) was made.<P>4. Grouping and Order of Books:<P>In the arrangement of books there is a radical departure from Palestinian practice. There were three main unalterable divisions in the Hebrew Bible, representing three stages in the formation of the Canon: Law, Prohets "Former" i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and "Latter") and "Writings." This arrangement was known at Alexandria at the end of the 2nd century BC (Sir, prol.) but was not followed. The "Writings" were a miscellaneous collection of history and poetry with one prophetical book (Daniel). Alexandrian scholars introduced a more literary and symmetrical system, bringing together the books of each class and arranging them with some regard to the supposed chronological order of their authors. The Law, long before the Greek translation, had secured a position of supreme sanctity; this group was left undisturbed, it kept its precedence and the individual books their order (Leviticus and Numbers, however, exchange places in a few lists). The other two groups are broken up. Ruth is removed from the "Writings" and attached to Judges. Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah are similarly transferred to the end of the historical group. This group, from chronological considerations, is followed by the poetical and other "Writings," the Prophets coming last (so in Codex Vaticanus, etc.; in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, prophets precede poets). The internal order of the Greek Hagiographa, which includes quasi-historical (Esther, Tobit, Judith) and Wisdom books, is variable. Daniel now first finds a place among the Prophets. The 12 minor prophets usually precede the major (Codex Sinaiticus and Western authorities give the four precedence), and the order of the first half of their company is shuffled, apparently on chronological grounds, Hosea being followed by Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Jeremiah has his train of satellites, Baruch, Lamentation (transferred from the "Writings") and Epistle of Jeremiah; Susanna and Bel and the Dragon consort with and form integral parts of Daniel. Variation in the order of books is partly attributable to the practice of writing each book on a separate papyrus roll, kept in a cylindrical case; rolls containing kindred matter would tend to be placed in the same case, but there would be no fixed order for these separate items until the copying of large groups in book-form came into vogue (Swete, Introduction, 225f; 229f).<P>VIII. Characteristics of the Version and Its Component Parts.<P>Notwithstanding the uncertain state of the text, some general characteristics of the version are patent. It is clear that, like the Hebrew itself, it is not a single book, but a library. It is a series of versions and Greek compositions covering well-nigh 400 years, since it includes a few productions of the 2nd century AD; the bulk of the translations, however, fall within the first half of the period (Sirach, prolegomena).<P>1. Grouping of Septuagint Books on Internal Evidence:<P>The translations may be grouped and their chronological order approximately determined from certain characteristics of their style.<P>(1) We may inquire how a Hebrew word or phrase is rendered in different parts of the work. Diversity of renderings is not an infallible proof that different hands have been employed, since invariable uniformity in translation is difficult of attainment and indeed was not the aim of the Pentateuch translators, who seem rather to have studied variety of expression. If, however, a Hebrew word is consistently rendered by one Greek word in one portion and by another elsewhere, and if each of the two portions has other features peculiar to itself, it becomes highly probable that the two portions are the work of different schools. Among "test-words" which yield results of this kind are "servant" in "Moses the servant of the Lord," "Hosts" in "Lord of Hosts," "Philistines" (Swete, Introduction, 317f; Thackeray, Grammar of the Old Testament, 7ff).<P>(2) We may compare the Greek with that of dated documents of the Ptolemaic age. The translations were written in the koine or "common" Greek, most of them in the vernacular variety of it, during a period when this new cosmopolitan language was in the making; the abundant dated papyri enable us to trace some stages in its evolution. The Petrie and Hibeh papyri of the 3rd century BC afford the closest parallels to the Greek Pentateuch. The following century witnessed a considerable development or "degeneracy" in the language, of which traces may be found in the Greek of the prophetical books. Beside the vernacular Greek was the literary language of the "Atticistic" school which persistently struggled, with indifferent success, to recover the literary flavor of the old Greek masterpieces. This style is represented in the Septuagint by most of the original Greek writings and by the paraphrases of some of the "Writings."<P>(3) We may compare the Greek books as translations, noting in which books Iicense is allowed and which adhere strictly to the Hebrew. The general movement is in the direction of greater literalism; the later books show an increasing reverence for the letter of Scripture, resulting in the production of pedantically literal VSS; the tendency culminated in the 2nd century AD in the barbarisms of Aquila. Some of the "Writings" were freely handled, because they had not yet obtained canonical rank at the time of translation. Investigation on these lines goes to show that the order of the translation was approximately that of the Hebrew Canon. The Greek Hexateuch may be placed in the 3rd century BC, the Prophets mainly in the 2nd century BC, the "Writings" mainly in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.<P>(1) The Hexateuch.<P>The Greek Pentateuch should undoubtedly be regarded as a unit: the Aristeas story may so far be credited. It is distinguished by a uniformly high level of the "common" vernacular style, combined with faithfulness to the Hebrew, rarely lapsing into literalism. It set the standard which later translators tried to imitate. The text was more securely established in this portion and substantial variant readings are comparatively few. The latter part of Exodus is an exception; the Hebrew had here not reached its final form in the 3rd century BC, and there is some reason for thinking that the version is not the work of the translator of the first half. In Deuteronomy a few new features in vocabulary appear (e.g. ekklesia; see Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 4ff). The Greek version of Josephus forms a link between the Pentateuch and the later historical books. The text was not yet fixed, and variants are more abundant than in the Pentateuch. The earliest VS, probably of selections only, appears from certain common features to have been nearly coeval with that of the Law.<P>(2) The "Latter" Prophets.<P>There is little doubt that the next books to be translated were the Prophets in the narrower sense, and that Isaiah came first. The style of the Greek Isaiah has a close similarity, not wholly attributable to imitation, to that of the Pentateuch: a certain freedom of treatment connects it with the earlier translation period: it was known to the author of Wisdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,10);">Isa 3:10</a> with Ottley\'s note). The translation shows "obvious signs of incompetence" (Swete), but the task was an exacting one. The local Egyptian coloring in the translation is interesting (R. R. Ottley, Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint, 2 volumes, Greek text of A, translation and notes, Cambridge, 1904-6, with review in JTS, X, 299). Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets were probably translated en bloc or nearly so. The Palestinian Canon had now been enlarged by a second group of Scriptures and this stimulated a desire among Alexandrian Jews to possess the entire collection of the Prophets in Greek. The undertaking seems to have been a formal and quasi-official one, not a haphazard growth. For it has been ascertained that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were divided for translation purposes into two nearly equal parts; a change in the Greek style occurs at the junctures. In Jeremiah the break occurs in chapter 29 Septuagint order); the clearest criterion of the two styles is the twofold rendering of "Thus saith the Lord." The last chapter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,1);">Jer 52</a>) is probably a later addition in the Greek. The translator of the second half of Jeremiah also translated the first half of Baruch (1:1-3:8); he was incompetent and his work, if our text may be relied on, affords flagrant examples of Greek words being selected to render words which he did not understand merely because of their similar sound. Ezekiel is similarly divided, but here the translator of the first half (chapters 1-27) undertook the difficult last quarter as well (chapters 40-48), the remainder being left to a second worker. An outstanding test is afforded by the renderings of the refrain, "They shall know that I am the Lord." The Greek version of "the twelve" shows no trace of a similar division; in its style it is closely akin to the first half of Ezekiel and is perhaps by the same hand (JTS, IV,245,398, 578). But this official version of the Prophets had probably been preceded by versions of short passages selected to be read on the festivals in the synagogues. Lectionary requirements occasioned the earliest versions of the Prophets, possibly of the Pentateuch as well. Two indications of this have been traced. There exists in four manuscripts a Greek version of the Psalm of Habakkuk (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,1);">Hab 3</a>), a chapter which has been a Jewish lesson for Pentecost from the earliest times, independent of and apparently older than the Septuagint and made for synagogue use. Similarly in Ezekiel of the Septuagint there is a section of sixteen verses (36:24-38) with a style quite distinct from that of its context. This passage was also an early Christian lesson for Pentecost, and its lectionary use was inherited from Judaism. Here the Septuagint translators seem to have incorporated the older version, whereas in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,1);">Hab 3</a> they rejected it (JTS, XII, 191; IV, 407).<P>(3) Partial Version of the "Former" Prophets.<P>The Greek style indicates that the history of the monarchy was not all translated at once. Ulfilas is said to have omitted these books from the Gothic version as likely to inflame the military temper of his race; for another reason the Greek translators were at first content with a partial version. They omitted as unedifying the more disastrous portions, David\'s sin with the subsequent calamities of his reign and the later history of the divided monarchy culminating in the captivity. Probably the earliest versions embraced only (1) 1 R, (2) 2 R 1 1-11 1 (David\'s early reign), (3) 3 R 2 12-21 13 (Solomon and the beginning of the divided monarchy); the third book of "Reigns" opened with the accession of Solomon (as in Lucian\'s text), not at the point where 1 Kings opens. These earlier portions are written in a freer style than the rest of the Greek "Reigns," and the Hebrew original differed widely in places from that translated in the English Bible (JTS, VIII, 262).<P>(4) The "Writings."<P>The Hagiographa at the end of the 2nd century BC were regarded as national literature. (Sirach, prolegomena "the other books of our fathers"), but not as canonical. The translators did not scruple to treat these with great freedom, undeterred by the prohibition against alteration of Scripture (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,2);">De 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,32);">12:32</a>). Free paraphrases of extracts were produced, sometimes with legendary additions. A partial version of Job (one-sixth being omitted) was among the first; Aristeas, the historian of the 2nd century BC, seems to have been acquainted with it (Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien,1875,136ff). The translator was a student of the Greek poets; his version was probably produced for the general reader, not for the synagogues. Hatch\'s theory (Essays in Biblical Greek,1889,214) that his Hebrew text was shorter than ours and was expanded later is untenable; avoidance of anthropomorphisms explains some omissions, the reason for others is obscure. The first Greek narrative of the return from exile (1Esdras) was probably a similar version of extracts only from Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, grouped round a fable of non-Jewish origin, the story of the 3 youths at the court of Darius. The work is a fragment, the end being lost, and it has been contended by some critics that the version once embraced the whole of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910). The Greek is obviously earlier than Esdras B and is of great value for the reconstruction of the Hebrew. The same translator appears from peculiarities of diction to have produced the earliest version of Daniel, treating it with similar freedom and incorporating extraneous matter (the Song of Three Children, Susanna, Bel). The maximum of interpolation is reached in Esther, where the Greek additions make up two-thirds of the story. The Greek Proverbs (probably 1st century BC) includes many maxims not in the Hebrew; some of these appear to be derived from a lost Hebrew collection, others are of purely Greek origin. This translator also knew and imitated the Greek classics; the numerous fragments of iambic and hexameter verse in the translation cannot be accidental (JTS, XIII, 46). The Psalter is the one translation in this category in which liberties have not been taken; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',13,1);">Ps 13</a> (14):3 the extracts from other parts of Psalms and from Isaiah included in the B text must be an interpolation possibly made before Paul\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,13);">Ro 3:13</a>), or else taken from Romans. The little Ps 151 in Septuagint, described in the title as an "autograph" work of David and as "outside the number," is clearly a late Greek production, perhaps an appendix added after the version was complete.<P>(5) The Latest Septuagint Translations.<P>The latest versions included in the Septuagint are the productions of the Jewish translators of the 2nd century AD; some books may be rather earlier, the work of pioneers in the new school which advocated strict adherence to the Hebrew. The books of "Reigns" were now completed, by Theodotion, perhaps, or by one of his school; the later portions (2 R 11 2--3 R 2 11, David\'s downfall, and 3 R 22-4 R end, the downfall of the monarchy) are by one hand, as shown by peculiarities in style, e.g. "I am have with child" (2 R 11 5) = "I am with child," a use which is due to desire to distinguish the longer form of the pronoun \'anokhi ("I," also used for "I am") from the shorter \'ani. A complete version of Judges was now probably first made. In two cases the old paraphrastic versions were replaced. Theodotion\'s Daniel, as above stated, superseded in the Christian church the older version A new and complete version of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah was made (Esdras B), though the older version retained its place in the Greek Bible on account of the interesting legend imbedded in it; the new version is here again possibly the work of Theodotion; the numerous transliterations are characteristic of him (Torrey, Ezra Studies; theory had previously been advanced by Sir H. Howorth). In the Greek Ecclesiastes we have a specimen of Aquila\'s style (see McNeile\'s edition, Cambridge, 1904). Canticles is another late version<P>2. General Characteristics:<P>A marked feature of the whole translation is the scrupulous avoidance of anthropomorphisms and phrases derogatory to the divine transcendence. Thus <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,16);">Ex 4:16</a>, "Thou shalt be to him in things pertaining to God" (Hebrew "for" or "as God"); 15:3, "The Lord is a breaker of battles" (Hebrew "a Man of war"); 24:10, "They saw the place where the God of Israel stood" (Hebrew "they saw the God of Israel"); 24:11, "Of the elect of Israel not one perished and they were seen in the place of God" (Hebrew "Upon the nobles...He laid not His hand, and they beheld God"). The comparison of God to a rock was consistently paraphrased as idolatrous, as was sometimes the comparison to the sun from fear of sun-worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',83,1);">Ps 83</a> (84):12, "The Lord loves mercy and truth" for Hebrew "The Lord is a sun and shield"). "The sons of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,2);">Ge 6:2</a>) becomes "the angels of God." For minor liberties, e.g. slight amplifications, interpretation of difficult words, substitution of Greek for Hebrew coinage, translation of place-names, see Swete, Introduction, 323ff. Blunders in translation are not uncommon, but the difficulties which these pioneers had to face must be remembered, especially the paleographical character of the Hebrew originals. These were written on flimsy papyrus rolls, in a script probably in a transitional stage between the archaic and the later square characters; the words were not separated, and there were no vowel-points; two of the radicals (waw and yodh) were also frequently omitted. Add to this the absence at Alexandria, for parts at least of the Scriptures, of any sound tradition as to the meaning. On the other hand the vocalization adopted by the translators, e.g. in the proper names, is of great value in the history of early Semitic pronunciation. It must further be remembered that the Semitic language most familiar to them was not Hebrew but Aramaic, and some mistakes are due to Aramaic or even Arabic colloquialisms (Swete, Introduction, 319).<P>IX. Salient Differences between Greek and Hebrew Texts.<P>Differences indicating a Hebrew original other than the Massoretic Text affect either the sequence or the subject-matter (compare Swete, Introduction, 231ff).<P>1. Sequence:<P>The most extensive discrepancies in arrangement of materials occur in<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,1);">Ex 35-39</a>, the construction of the Tabernacle and the ornaments of its ministers,<P>(2) 3 R 4-11, Solomon\'s reign,<P>(3) Jeremiah (last half),<P>(4) Proverbs (end).<P>(1) In Exodus the Septuagint gives precedence to the priests\' ornaments, which in the Hebrew follow the account of the Tabernacle, and omits altogether the altar of incense. The whole section describing the execution of the instructions given in the previous chapters in almost identical words is one of the latest portions of the Pentateuch and the text had clearly not been finally fixed in the 3rd century BC; the section was perhaps absent from the oldest Greek version In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'13-15\');">Ex 20:13-15</a> Codex B arranges three of the commandments in the Alexandrian order (7,8,6), attested in Philo and in the New Testament.<P>(2) Deliberate rearrangement has taken place in the history of Solomon, and the Septuagint unquestionably preserves the older text. The narrative of the building of the Temple, like that of the Tabernacle, contains some of the clearest examples of editorial revision in the Massoretic Text (Wellhausen, Hist of Israel,67,280, etc.). At the end of 3 R Septuagint places chapters 20 and 21 in their proper order; Massoretic Text reverses this, interposing the Naboth story in the connected account of the Syriac wars and justifying the change by a short preface.<P>(3) In Jeremiah the chapter numbers differ from the middle of chapter 25 to the end of chapter 51, the historical appendix (chapter 52) concluding both texts. This is due to the different position assigned to a group of prophecies against the nations: Septuagint places them in the center, Massoretic Text at the end. The items in this group are also rearranged. The diversity in order is earlier than the Greek translation; see JTS, IV; 245.<P>(4) The order of some groups of maxims at the end of Proverbs was not finally fixed at the time of the Greek translation; like Jeremiah\'s prophecies against the nations, these little groups seem to have circulated as late as the 2nd or 1st century BC as separate pamphlets. The Psalms numbers from 10 to 147 differ by one in Septuagint and Massoretic Text, owing to discrepancies in the lines of demarcation between individual psalms.<P>2. Subject Matter:<P>Excluding the end of Exodus, striking examples of divergence in the Pentateuch are few. Septuagint alone preserves Cain\'s words to his brother, "Let us go into the field" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,8);">Ge 4:8</a>). The close of Moses\' song appears in an expanded form in Septuagint (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,43);">De 32:43</a>). Similarly Hannah\'s song in 1 R 2 (? originally a warrior\'s triumph-song) has been rendered more appropriate to the occasion by the substitution in verse 8c of words about the answer to prayer, and enlarged by the insertion of a passage from Jeremiah; the changes in both songs may be connected with their early use as canticles. In Joshua the larger amount of divergence suggests that this book did not share the peculiar sanctity of the Law. But the books of "Reigns" present the widest differences and the fullest scope for the textual critic. The Septuagint here proves the existence of two independent accounts of certain events. Sometimes it incorporates both, while the Massoretic Text rejects one of them; thus Septuagint gives (3 R 2 35aff, 46aff) a connected summary of events in Solomon\'s personal history; most of which appear elsewhere in a detached form, 3 R 12 24a-z is a second account of the dismemberment of the kingdom; 16:28a-h a second summary of Jehoshaphat\'s reign (compare 22 41ff); 4 R 1 18a another summary of Joram\'s reign (compare 3 1ff). Conversely in 1 R 17-18, Massoretic Text has apparently preserved two contradictory accounts of events in David\'s early history, while Septuagint presents a shorter and consistent narrative (Swete, Intro, 245f). An "addition" in Septuagint of the highest interest appears in 3 R 8 53b, where a stanza is put into the mouth of Solomon at the Temple dedication, taken from "the Song-book" (probably the Book of Jashar); the Massoretic Text gives the stanza in an edited form earlier in the chapter (8 12f); for the reconstruction of the original Hebrew see JTS, X, 439; XI, 518. The last line proves to be a title, "For the Sabbath<74>On Alamoth" (i.e. for sopranos), showing that the song was set to music for liturgical purposes. In Jeremiah, besides transpositions, the two texts differ widely in the way of excess and defect; the verdict of critics is mainly in favor of the priority of the Septuagint (Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah, 1896). For divergences in the "Writings" see VIII, above; for additional titles to the Psalms see Swete, Introduction, 250 f.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The most important works have been mentioned in the body of the article. See, further, the very full lists in Swete\'s Introduction and the bibliographies by Nestle in PRE3, III, 1-24, and XXIII, 207-10 (1913); HDB, IV, 453-54.``170';
isbe[7836]='Sepulchre`sep\'-ul-ker (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',21,20);">2Ch 21:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,33);">32:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,41);">Joh 19:41</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,29);">Ac 2:29</a>, etc.).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BURIAL">BURIAL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>`1';
isbe[7837]='Serah`se\'-ra (serach, "abundance"): Daughter of Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,17);">Ge 46:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,46);">Nu 26:46</a>, the King James Version "Sarah"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,30);">1Ch 7:30</a>).``1';
isbe[7838]='Seraiah`se-ra\'-ya, se-ri\'-a (serayahu, "Yah hath prevailed"; Septuagint Saraias, or Saraia):<P>(1) Secretary of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,17);">2Sa 8:17</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,25);">2Sa 20:25</a> he is called Sheva; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,3);">1Ki 4:3</a> the name appears as Shisha. This last or Shasha would be restored elsewhere by some critics; others prefer the form Shavsha, which is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,16);">1Ch 18:16</a>.<P>(2) A high priest in the reign of Zedekiah; executed with other prominent captives at Riblah by order of Nebuchadnezzar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,18,21);">2Ki 25:18,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,24,27);">Jer 52:24,27</a>). Mentioned in the list of high priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,14);">1Ch 6:14</a>). Ezra claims descent from him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,1);">Ezr 7:1</a> (3)).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AZARAIAS">AZARAIAS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SARAIAS">SARAIAS</a>.<P>(3) The son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and one of the heroic band of men who saved themselves from the fury of Nebuchadnezzar when he stormed Jerusalem. They repaired to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, but killed him on account of his allegiance to the Chaldeans (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,23,25);">2Ki 25:23,25</a>).<P>(4) Son of Kenaz, and younger brother of Othniel, and father of Joab, the chief of Ge-harashim (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,13,14);">1Ch 4:13,14</a>).<P>(5) Grandfather of Jehu, of the tribe of Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,35);">1Ch 4:35</a>).<P>(6) A priest, the third in the list of those who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezr 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,7);">Ne 7:7</a>, here called Azariah; 12:1), and third also (if the same person is meant) in the record of those who sealed the covenant binding all Jews not to take foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,2);">Ne 10:2</a>). As the son of Hilkiah, and consequently a direct descendant of the priestly family, he became governor of the temple when it was rebuilt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,11);">Ne 11:11</a>). He is mentioned (under the name Azariah) also in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,11);">1Ch 9:11</a>. <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,2);">Ne 12:2</a> adds that "in the days of Joiakim" the head of Seraiah\'s house was Meraiah.<P>(7) Son of Azriel, one of those whom Jehoiakim commanded to imprison Jeremiah and Baruch, the son of Neriah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,26);">Jer 36:26</a>).<P>(8) The son of Neriah, who went into exile with Zedekiah. He was also called Sar Menuchah ("prince of repose"). The Targum renders Sar Menuchah by Rabh Tiqrabhta, "prince of battle, and Septuagint by archon doron, "prince of gifts," reading Minchah for Menuchah. At the request of Jeremiah he carried with him in his exile the passages containing the prophet\'s warning of the fall of Babylon, written in a book which he was bidden to bind to a stone and cast into the Euphrates, to symbolize the fall of Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,\'59-64\');">Jer 51:59-64</a>).``197';
isbe[7839]='Seraphim`ser\'-a-fim (seraphim): A plural word occurring only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,2);">Isa 6:2</a>ff<66>Isaiah\'s vision of Yahweh. The origin of the term in Hebrew is uncertain. Saraph in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,6);">Nu 21:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,29);">Isa 14:29</a>, etc., signifies a fiery serpent. A Babylonian name for the fire-god, Nergal, was Sharrapu. In Egypt there have been found eagle-lion-shaped figures guarding a grave, to which is applied the name seref. The equivalent English term is "griffin."<P>It is probable enough that popular mythology connected fire with the attendants of the deity in various ways among different peoples, and that burning lies at the base of the idea in all these suggested etymologies. It remains, however, that in Isaiah\'s use there is nothing of the popular legend or superstition. These seraphim are august beings whose forms are not at all fully described. They had faces, feet, hands and wings. The six wings, in three pairs, covered their faces and feet in humility and reverence, and were used for sustaining them in their positions about the throne of Yahweh. One of them is the agent for burning (with a coal off the altar, not with his own power or person) the sin from the lips of the prophet.<P>Seraphim are in Jewish theology connected with cherubim and ophanim as the three highest orders of attendants on Yahweh, and are superior to the angels who are messengers sent on various errands. As the cherubim in popular fancy were represented by the storm-clouds, so the seraphim were by the serpentine flashes of the lightning; but none of this appears in Isaiah\'s vision.<P>In the New Testament the only possible equivalent is in "the living ones" ("beasts" of the King James Version) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,\'1-\');">Re 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>, etc. Here, as in Isaiah, they appear nearest Yahweh\'s throne, supreme in praise of His holiness.``21';
isbe[7840]='Serar`se\'-rar (Serar; the King James Version Aserer): Name of one of the families which returned with Zerubbabel (1Esdras 5:32) = "Sisera" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,53);">Ezr 2:53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,55);">Ne 7:55</a>.``1';
isbe[7841]='Sered`se\'-red (ceredh): Son of Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,14);">Ge 46:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,26);">Nu 26:26</a>).``1';
isbe[7842]='Sergius Paulus`sur\'-ji-us po\'-lus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAULUS,+SERGIUS">PAULUS, SERGIUS</a>`1';
isbe[7843]='Serjeants`sar\'-jents, -jants (rhabdouchoi): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,35,38);">Ac 16:35,38</a> the word (literally, "holders of rods," corresponding to Roman "lictors," thus the Revised Version margin) is used of the officers in attendance on the Philippian magistrates, whose duty it was to execute orders in scourging, etc., in this case in setting prisoners free. Paul and Silas, however, as Romans, refused thus to be "privily" dismissed.``1';
isbe[7844]='Sermon On the Mount`sur\'-num,<P><b>I. PARALLEL ACCOUNTS</b><P><b>II. HISTORICITY OF THE DISCOURSE</b><P><b>III. TIME AND OCCASION</b><P><b>IV. SCENE</b><P><b>V. THE HEARERS</b><P><b>VI. THE MESSAGE: SUMMARY</b><P>1. Analysis<P>2. Argument: The Kingdom of God (Heaven)<P class="in15">(1) Characteristics of the Subjects (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'3-12\');">Matthew 5:3-12</a>)<P class="in15">(2) Vocation of the Subjects (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'13-16\');">Matthew 5:13-16</a>)<P class="in15">(3) Relation of New Righteousness to Mosaic Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'17-48\');">Matthew 5:17-48</a>)<P class="in30">(a) The Relation Defined (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'17-20\');">Matthew 5:17-20</a>)<P class="in30">(b) The Relation Illustrated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'21-48\');">Matthew 5:21-48</a>)<P class="in15">(4) Motives and Principles of Conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,1);">Matthew 6:1-7:12</a>)<P class="in30">(a) In Worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'1-18\');">Matthew 6:1-18</a>)<P class="in30">(b) In Life\'s Purpose (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'19-34\');">Matthew 6:19-34</a>)<P class="in30">(c) In Social Relations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'1-12\');">Matthew 7:1-12</a>)<P class="in15">(5) Hortatory Conclusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'13-27\');">Matthew 7:13-27</a>)<P class="in30">(a) The Narrow Way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'13-14\');">Matthew 7:13-14</a>)<P class="in30">(b) The Tests of Character (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'15-27\');">Matthew 7:15-27</a>)<P><b>VII. PRINCIPLES</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The Sermon on the Mount is the title commonly given to the collection of sayings recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'1-\');">Mt 5-7</a> and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,\'20-49\');">Lu 6:20-49</a>. The latter is sometimes called the Sermon on the Plain from the fact that it is said to have been delivered on a level space somewhere on the descent of the mountain. The Sermon appears to be an epitome of the teachings of Jesus concerning the kingdom of heaven, its subjects and their life. For this reason it has always held the first place of attention and esteem among the sayings of Jesus.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERMON+ON+THE+PLAIN">SERMON ON THE PLAIN</a>.<P>I. Parallel Accounts.<P>As indicated above, the Sermon is reported by both Matthew and Luke. A comparison of the two accounts reveals certain striking differences. A total of 47 verses of the account in Matthew have no parallel in Luke, while but 4 1/2 verses of the latter are wanting in the former. On the other hand, many of the sayings in Matthew that are lacking in the Sermon of Luke, amounting in all to 34 verses, appear elsewhere distributed throughout the Lukan narrative and in some instances connected with different incidents and circumstances.<P>These facts give rise to some interesting literary and historical questions: Do the two accounts represent two distinct discourses dealing with the same general theme but spoken on different occasions, or are they simply different reports of the same discourse? If it be held that the Sermon was delivered but once, which of the accounts represents more closely the original address? Is the discourse in Matthew homogeneous or does it include sayings originally spoken on other occasions and early incorporated in the Sermon in the gospel tradition?<P>II. Historicity of the Discourse.<P>There have been and are today scholars who regard the sermons recorded in Matthew and Luke as collections of sayings spoken on different occasions, and maintain that they do not represent any connected discourse ever delivered by Jesus. In their view the Sermon is either a free compilation by the evangelists or a product of apostolic teaching and oral tradition.<P>The prevailing opinion among New Testament scholars is, however, that the gospel accounts represent a genuine historical discourse. The Sermon as recorded in Matthew bears such marks of inner unity of theme and exposition as to give the appearance of genuineness. That Jesus should deliver a discourse of this kind accords with all the circumstances and with the purpose of His ministry. Besides, we know that in His teaching He was accustomed to speak to the multitudes at length, and we should expect Him to give early in His ministry some formal exposition of the kingdom, the burden of His first preaching. That such a summary of one of His most important discourses should have been preserved is altogether probable.<P>On the other hand, it may be conceded that the accounts need not necessarily be regarded as full or exact reports of the discourse but possibly and probably rather summaries of its theme and substance. our Lord was accustomed to teach at length, but this discourse could easily be delivered in a few minutes. Again, while His popular teaching was marked by a unique wealth of illustration the Sermon is largely gnomic in form. This gnomic style and the paucity of the usual concrete and illustrative elements suggest the probability of condensation in transmission. Moreover, it is hardly probable that such an address of Jesus would be recorded at the time of its delivery or would be remembered in detail.<P>There is evidence that the account in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'1-\');">Mt 5-7</a> contains some sayings not included in the original discourse. This view is confirmed by the fact that a number of the sayings are given in Luke\'s Gospel in settings that appear more original. It is easy to believe that related sayings spoken on other occasions may have become associated with the Sermon in apostolic teaching and thus handed down with it, but if the discourse were well known in a specific form, such as that recorded in Matthew, it is hardly conceivable that Luke or anyone else would break it up and distribute the fragments or associate them with other incidents, as some of the sayings recorded in both Gospels are found associated in Luke.<P>III. Time and Occasion.<P>Both Matthew and Luke agree in assigning the delivery of the Sermon to the first half of the Galilean ministry. The former apparently places it a little earlier than the latter, in whose account it follows immediately after the appointment of the twelve apostles. While the time cannot be accurately determined, the position assigned by the Gospels is approximately correct and is supported by the internal evidence. Portions of the Sermon imply that the opposition of the religious teachers was already in evidence, but it clearly belongs to the first year of our Lord\'s ministry before that opposition had become serious. On the other hand, the occasion was sufficiently late for the popularity of the new Teacher to have reached its climax. In the early Galilean ministry Jesus confined His teaching to the synagogues, but later, when the great crowds pressed about Him, He resorted to open-air preaching after the manner of the Sermon. Along with the growth in His popularity there is observed a change in the character of His teaching. His earlier message may be summed up in the formula, "Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,17);">Mt 4:17</a>). Later, both in His public discourses and in His more intimate conferences with His disciples, He was occupied with the principles of the kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount belongs to this later type of teaching and fits naturally into the circumstances to which it has been assigned. Luke probably gives the true historical occasion, i.e. the appointment of the Twelve.<P>IV. Scene.<P>According to the evangelists, the scene of the delivery of the Sermon was one of the mountains or foothills surrounding the Galilean plain. Probably one of the hills lying northwest of Capernaum is meant, for shortly after the Sermon we find Jesus and His disciples entering that city. There are no data justifying a closer identification of the place. There is a tradition dating from the time of the Crusades that identifies the mount of the Sermon with Karn Chattin], a two-peaked hill on the road from Tiberias to Nazareth, but there are no means of confirming this late tradition and the identification is rather improbable.<P>V. The Hearers.<P>The Sermon was evidently addressed, primarily, to the disciples of Jesus. This is the apparent meaning of the account of both evangelists. According to Matthew, Jesus, "seeing the multitudes,...went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth and taught them." The separation from the multitudes and the direction of His words to the disciples seem clear, and the distinction appears intentional on the part of the writer. However, it must be observed that in the closing comments on the Sermon the presence of the multitudes is implied. In Luke\'s account the distinction is less marked. Here the order of events is: the night of prayer in the mountain, the choice of the twelve apostles, the descent with them into the presence of the multitude of His disciples and a great number of people from Judea, Jerusalem and the coast country, the healing of great numbers, and, finally, the address. While the continued presence of the multitudes is implied, the plain meaning of the words, "And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said," is that his address was intended especially for the latter. This view is borne out by the address itself as recorded in both accounts. Observe the use of the second person in the reference to suffering, poverty and persecution for the sake of the Son of Man. Further the sayings concerning the "salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" could hardly have been addressed to any but His disciples. The term disciple, however, was doubtless employed in the broader sense by both evangelists. This is clearly the case in Matthew\'s account, according to which the Twelve had not yet been appointed.<P>VI. The Message: Summary.<P>It is hardly proper to speak of the Sermon on the Mount as a digest of the teaching of Jesus, for it does not include any reference to some very important subjects discussed by our Lord on other occasions in the course of His ministry. It is, however, the most comprehensive and important collection or summary of His sayings that is preserved to us in the gospel record. For this reason the Sermon properly holds in Christian thought the first place of esteem among all the New Testament messages. As an exposition of the ideal life and the program of the new society which Jesus proposed to create, its interpretation is of the deepest interest and the profoundest concern.<P>1. Analysis:<P>It may assist the student of the Sermon in arriving at a clear appreciation of the argument and the salient features of the discourse if the whole is first viewed in outline. There is some difference of opinion among scholars as to certain features of the analysis, and consequently various outlines have been presented by different writers. Those of C. W. Votaw in HDB, Canon Gore in The Sermon on the Mount, and H. C. King in The Ethics of Jesus are worthy of special mention. The following analysis of the Sermon as recorded by Matthew is given as the basis of the present discussion.<P>It is not implied that there was any such formal plan before the mind of Jesus as He spoke, but it is believed that the outline presents a faithful syllabus of the argument of the Sermon as preserved to us.<hr width="60%"><P><b>THEME: THE KINGDOM OF GOD (HEAVEN), ITS SUBJECTS AND ITS RIGHTEOUSNESS</b> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,3);">MATTHEW 5:3-7:27</a>)<P>I. The subjects of the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'3-16\');">Mt 5:3-16</a>).<P class="in15">1. The qualities of character essential to happiness and influence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'3-12\');">Mt 5:3-12</a>).<P class="in15">2. The vocation of the subjects (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'13-16\');">Mt 5:13-16</a>).<P>II. The relation of the new righteousness to the Mosaic Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'17-48\');">Mt 5:17-48</a>).<P class="in15">1. The relation defined as that of continuance in a higher fulfillment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'17-20\');">Mt 5:17-20</a>).<P class="in15">2. The higher fulfillment of the new righteousness illustrated by a comparison of its principles with the Mosaic Law as currently taught and practiced (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'21-48\');">Mat 5:21-48</a>)<P class="in30">(1) The higher law of brotherhood judges ill-will as murder (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'21-26\');">Mt 5:21-26</a>).<P class="in30">(2) The higher law of purity condemns lust as adultery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'27-32\');">Mt 5:27-32</a>).<P class="in30">(3) The higher law of truth forbids oaths as unnecessary and evil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'33-37\');">Mt 5:33-37</a>).<P class="in30">(4) The higher law of rights substitutes self-restraint and generosity for retaliation and resistance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'38-42\');">Mt 5:38-42</a>).<P class="in30">(5) The higher law of love demands universal good will of a supernatural quality like that of the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'43-48\');">Mt 5:43-48</a>).<P>III. The new righteousness. Its motives as applied to religious, practical and social duties, or the principles of conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,1);">Mt 6:1-7:12</a>).<P class="in15">1. Reverence toward the Father essential in all acts of worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'1-18\');">Mt 6:1-18</a>).<P class="in30">(1) In all duties (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,1);">Mt 6:1</a>).<P class="in30">(2) In almsgiving (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'2-4\');">Mt 6:2-4</a>).<P class="in30">(3) In prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'5-15\');">Mt 6:5-15</a>).<P class="in30">(4) In fasting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'16-18\');">Mt 6:16-18</a>).<P class="in15">2. Loyalty toward the Father fundamental in all activities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'19-34\');">Mt 6:19-34</a>).<P class="in30">(1) In treasure-seeking (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'19-24\');">Mt 6:19-24</a>).<P class="in30">(2) In trustful devotion to the kingdom and the Father\'s righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'25-34\');">Mt 6:25-34</a>).<P class="in15">3. Love toward the Father dynamic in all social relations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'1-12\');">Mt 7:1-12</a>).<P class="in30">(1) Critical estimate of self instead of censorious judgment of others (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'1-5\');">Mt 7:1-5</a>).<P class="in30">(2) Discrimination in the communication of spiritual values (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,6);">Mt 7:6</a>).<P class="in30">(3) Kindness toward others in all things like the Father\'s kindness toward all His children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'7-12\');">Mt 7:7-12</a>).<P>IV. Hortatory conclusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'13-27\');">Mt 7:13-27</a>).<P class="in15">1. The two gates and the two ways (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'13-14\');">Mt 7:13-14</a>).<P class="in15">2. The tests of character (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'15-27\');">Mt 7:15-27</a>).<hr width="60%"><P>2. Argument: The Kingdom of God (Heaven):<P>(1) Characteristics of the Subjects (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'3-12\');">Matthew 5:3-12</a>).<P>The Sermon opens with the familiar Beatitudes. Unlike many reformers, Jesus begins the exposition of His program with a promise of happiness, with a blessing rather than a curse. He thus connects His program directly with the hopes of His hearers, for the central features in the current Messianic conception were deliverance and happiness. But the conditions of happiness proposed were in strong contrast with those in the popular thought. Happiness does not consist, says Jesus, in what one possesses, in lands and houses, in social position, in intellectual attainments, but in the wealth of the inner life, in moral strength, in self-control, in spiritual insight, in the character one is able to form within himself and in the service he is able to render to his fellowmen. Happiness, then, like character, is a by-product of right living. It is presented as the fruit, not as the object of endeavor.<P>It is interesting to note that character is the secret of happiness both for the individual and for society. There are two groups of Beatitudes. The first four deal with personal qualities: humility, penitence, self-control, desire for righteousness. These are the sources of inner peace. The second group deals with social qualities; mercifulness toward others, purity of heart or reverence for personality, peacemaking or solicitude for others, self-sacrificing loyalty to righteousness. These are the sources of social rest. The blessings of the kingdom are social as well as individual.<P>(2) Vocation of the Subjects (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'13-16\');">Matthew 5:13-16</a>).<P>Men of the qualities described in the Beatitudes are called "the salt of the earth," "the light of the world." Their happiness is not, then, in themselves or for themselves alone. Their mission is the hope of the kingdom. Salt is a preservative element; light is a life-giving one; but the world is not eager to be preserved or willing to receive life. Therefore such men must expect opposition and persecution, but they are not on that account to withdraw from the world. On the contrary, by the leaven of character and the light of example they are to help others in the appreciation and the attainment of the ideal life. By their character and deeds they are to make their influence a force for good in the lives of men. In this sense the men of the kingdom are the salt of the earth, the light of the world.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEATITUDES">BEATITUDES</a>.<P>(3) Relation of the New Righteousness to Mosaic Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'17-48\');">Matthew 5:17-48</a>).<P>(a) The Relation Defined (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'17-20\');">Matthew 5:17-20</a>):<P>The qualities of character thus set before the citizens of the kingdom were so surprising and revolutionary as to suggest the inquiry: What is the relation of the new teaching to the Mosaic Law? This Jesus defines as continuance and fulfillment. His hearers are not to think that He has come to destroy the law. On the contrary, He has come to conserve and fulfil. The old law is imperfect, but God does not despair of what is imperfect. Men and institutions are judged, not by the level of present attainment, but by character and direction. The law moves in the right direction and is so valuable that those who violate even its least precepts have a very low place in the kingdom.<P>The new righteousness then does not set aside the law or offer an easier religion, but one that is more exacting. The kingdom is concerned, not so much with ceremonies and external rules, as with motives and with social virtues, with self-control, purity, honesty and generosity. So much higher are the new standards of righteousness that Jesus is constrained to warn His hearers that to secure even a place in the kingdom, their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.<P>(b) The Relation Illustrated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'21-48\');">Matthew 5:21-48</a>):<P>In illustration of the deeper meaning of the new righteousness and its relation to the Mosaic Law, Jesus proceeds to deal in detail with the precepts of the old moral law, deepening it as He proceeds into the higher law of the kingdom. In each instance the standard of judgment is raised and the individual precepts are deepened into spiritual principles that call for perfect fulfillment. In considering specific precepts no account is taken of overt acts, for in the new righteousness they are impossible. All acts are treated as expressions of the inner life. The law is carried back to the impulse and the will to sin, and these are judged as in the old law the completed acts were judged. Therefore, all anger and lust in the heart are strictly enjoined. Likewise every word is raised to a sacredness equal with that of the most solemn religious vow or oath. Finally, the instinct to avenge is entirely forbidden, and universal love like that of the Father is made the fundamental law of the new social life. Thus Jesus does not abrogate any law but interprets its precepts in terms that call for a deeper and more perfect fulfillment.<P>(4) Motives and Principles of Conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,1);">Matthew 6:1-7:12</a>).<P>The relation of His teaching to the law defined, Jesus proceeds to explain the motives and principles of conduct as applied to religious and social duties.<P>(a) In Worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'1-18\');">Matthew 6:1-18</a>):<P>In the section <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,1);">Mt 6:1-7:12</a> there is one central thought. All righteousness looks toward God. He is at once the source and the aim of life. Therefore worship aims alone at divine praise. If acts of worship are performed before men to be seen of them there is no reward for them before the Father. In this Jesus is passing no slight on public worship. He Himself instituted the Lord\'s Supper and authorized the continuance of the rite of baptism. Such acts have their proper value. His censure is aimed at the love of ostentation so often associated with them. The root of ostentation is selfishness, and selfishness has no part in the new righteousness. Any selfish desire for the approval of men thwarts the purpose of all worship. The object of almsgiving, of prayer or of fasting is the expression of brotherly love, communion with God or spiritual enrichment. The possibility of any of these is excluded by the presence of the desire for the approval of men. It is not merely a divine fiat but one of the deeper laws of life which decrees that the only possible reward for acts of worship performed from such false motives is the cheap approval of men as well as the impoverishment of the inner life.<P>(b) In Life\'s Purpose (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'19-34\');">Matthew 6:19-34</a>):<P>The same principle holds, says Jesus, in the matter of life\'s purpose. There is only one treasure worthy of man\'s search only one object worthy of his highest endeavor, and that is the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Besides, there can be no division of aim. God will be first and only. Material blessings must not be set before duty to Him or to men. With any lower aim the new righteousness would be no better than that of the Gentiles. And such a demand is reasonable, for God\'s gracious providence is ample guaranty that He will supply all things needful for the accomplishment of the purposes He has planned for our lives. So in our vocations as in our worship, God is the supreme and effectual motive.<P>(c) In Social Relations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'1-12\');">Matthew 7:1-12</a>):<P>Then again because God is our Father and the supreme object of desire for all men, great reverence is due toward others. Considerate helpfulness must replace the censorious spirit. For the same reason men will have too great reverence for spiritual values to cast them carelessly before the unworthy. Moreover, because God is so gracious and ready to bestow the best gifts freely upon His children, the men of the kingdom are under profound obligation to observe the higher law of brotherhood expressed in the Golden Rule: "All things...whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them." Thus in the perfect law of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men the new righteousness makes perfect the Law and the Prophets.<P>(5) Hortatory Conclusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'13-27\');">Matthew 7:13-27</a>).<P>(a) The Narrow Way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'13-14\');">Matthew 7:13-14</a>):<P>In the hortatory conclusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'13-27\');">Mt 7:13-27</a>), Jesus first of all warns His hearers that the way into the kingdom is a narrow one. It might seem that it ought to be different; that the way to destruction should be narrow and difficult, and the way to life broad and easy, but it is not so. The way to all worthy achievement is the narrow way of self-control, self-sacrifice and infinite pains. Such is the way to the righteousness of the kingdom, the supreme object of human endeavor. "Narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life."<P>(b) The Tests of Character (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'15-27\');">Matthew 7:15-27</a>):<P>The test of the higher fulfillment is fruit. By their fruits alone the subjects of the kingdom will be known. In the presence of the Father there is no room for those who bring nothing but the leaves of empty professions. The kingdom is for those alone who do His will. The test of righteousness is illustrated in conclusion by the beautiful parable of the Two Builders. The difference between the two is essentially one of character. It is largely a question of fundamental honesty. The one is superficial and thinks only of that which is visible to the eye and builds only for himself and for the present. The other is honest enough to build well where only God can see, to build for others and for all time. Thus he builds also for himself. The character of the builder is revealed by the building.<P>VII. Principles.<P>The Sermon on the Mount is neither an impractical ideal nor a set of fixed legal regulations. It is, instead, a statement of the principles of life essential in a normal society. Such a society is possible in so far as men attain the character and live the life expressed in these principles. Their correct interpretation is therefore important.<P>Many of the sayings of the Sermon are metaphorical or proverbial statements, and are not to be understood in a literal or legal sense. In them Jesus was illustrating principles in concrete terms. Their interpretation literally as legal enactments is contrary to the intention and spirit of Jesus. So interpreted, the Sermon becomes in part a visionary and impractical ideal. But rather the principles behind the concrete instances are to be sought and applied anew to the life of the present as Jesus applied them to the life of His own time.<P>The following are some of the leading ideas and principles underlying and expressed in the Sermon:<P>(1) Character Is the Secret of Happiness and Strength.<P>Men of the qualities described in the Beatitudes are called "blessed." Happiness consists, not in external blessings, but in the inner poise of a normal life. The virtues of the Beatitudes are also the elements of strength. Humility, self-control, purity and loyalty are the genuine qualities of real strength. Men of such qualities are to inherit the earth because they are the only ones strong enough to possess and use it.<P>(2) Righteousness Is Grounded in the Inner Life.<P>Character is not something imposed from without but a life that unfolds from within. The hope of a perfect morality and a genuine fulfillment of the law lies in the creation of a sound inner life. Therefore, the worth of all religious acts and all personal and social conduct is judged by the quality of the inner motives.<P>(3) The Inner Life Is a Unity.<P>The spiritual nature is all of a piece, so that a moral slump at one point imperils the whole life. Consequently, a rigid and exacting spiritual asceticism, even to the extent of extreme major surgery, is sometimes expedient and necessary. "If thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into Gehenna" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,29);">Mt 5:29</a> margin).<P>(4) Universal Love Is the Fundamental Social Law.<P>It is the dynamic principle of true character and right conduct. In this respect, at least, the perfection of the Father is set as the standard for men. Kindliness in disposition, in word and in act is an obligation binding on all. We may not feel alike toward all, but our wills must be set to do good even to our enemies. In this the supernatural quality of the Christian life may be known.<P>(5) The Sermon Sets the Fact of God the Father at the Center of Life.<P>Character and life exist in and for fellowship with the Father. All worship and conduct look toward God. His service is the supreme duty, His perfection the standard of character, His goodness the ground of universal love. Given this fact, all the essentials of religion and life follow as a matter of course. God is Father, all men are brothers. God is Father, all duties are sacred. God is Father, infinite love is at the heart of the world and life is of infinite worth.<P>(6) Fulfillment Is the Final Test of Life.<P>The blossoms of promises must ripen into the fruit of abiding character. The leaves of empty professions have no value in the eyes of the Father. Deeds and character are the only things that abide, and endurance is the final test. The life of perfect fulfillment is the life anchored on the rock of ages.<P>See further <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHICS">ETHICS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHICS+OF+JESUS">ETHICS OF JESUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KINGDOM+OF+GOD">KINGDOM OF GOD</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The standard commentaries and Lives of Christ. Among the most important encyclopaedic articles are those of C. W. Votaw in HDB, James Moffatt in Encyclopedia Biblica and W. F. Adeney in DCG. The following are a few of the most helpful separate volumes on the subject: A. Tholuck, Exposition of Christ\'s Sermon on the Mount; Canon Gore, The Sermon on the Mount; B. W. Bacon, The Sermon on the Mount; W. B. Carpenter, The Great Charter of Christ; Hubert Foston, The Beatitudes and the Contrasts; compare H. C. King, The Ethics of Jesus, and Stalker, The Ethic of Jesus. The following periodical articles are worthy of notice: Franklin Johnson, "The Plan of the Sermon on the Mount," Homiletic Review, XXIV, 360; A. H. Hall, "The Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount," Biblical Sac., XLVIII, 322; The Bishop of Peterborough (W. C. Magee), "The State and the Sermon on the Mount," Fortnightly Review, LIII, 32; J. G. Pyle, "The Sermon on the Mount," Putnam\'s Magazine, VII, 285.``121';
isbe[7845]='Sermon On the Plain, the`This title is sometimes given to the discourse recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,\'20-49\');">Lu 6:20-49</a>, because according to the Gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,17);">6:17</A>) it was delivered on a plain at the foot of the mountain. In many respects this address resembles the one recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'1-\');">Mt 5-7</a>, but in general the two are so different as to make it uncertain whether they are different reports of the same discourse or reports of different addresses given on different occasions.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERMON+ON+THE+MOUNT">SERMON ON THE MOUNT</a>.<P>1. The Occasion:<P>In contrast with the Sermon on the Mount which is assigned a place early in the Galilean ministry, and prior to the appointment of the Twelve, that event is represented as the occasion of this discourse. If the two accounts are reports of the same address the setting of Luke is probably the historical one.<P>2. Contents:<P>The Sermon of Luke includes a little less than one-third of the matter recorded in the Sermon on the Mount. The Lukan discourse includes only a portion of the Beatitudes, with a set of four "woes," a rather brief section on the social duties, and the concluding parable of the Two Houses.<P>3. Message:<P>The Gospel of Luke has been called the social Gospel because of its sympathy with the poor and its emphasis on the duty of kindliness of spirit. This social interest is especially prominent in the Sermon. Here the Beatitudes deal with social differences. In Matthew they refer to spiritual conditions. Here Jesus speaks of those who hunger now, probably meaning bodily hunger. In Matthew the reference is to hunger and thirst after righteousness. In Matthew the invectives are addressed against the self-satisfied religious teachers and their religious formalism. Here the rich and their unsocial spirit are the subject of the woes. This social interest is further emphasized by the fact that in addition to this social bearing of the Beatitudes, Luke\'s discourse omits the remainder of the Sermon on the Mount, except those portions that deal with social relations, such as those on the Golden Rule, the duty of universal love, the equality of servant and master, and the obligation of a charitable spirit.``121';
isbe[7846]='Seron`se\'-ron (Seron): "The commander of the host of Syria" of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was defeated at Beth-horon by Judas in 166 BC (1Macc 3:13ff). Not a Greek name; "perhaps it represents the Phoenician Hiram" (Rawlinson, at the place).``1';
isbe[7847]='Serpent`sur\'-pent:<P>1. General:<P>Serpents are not particularly abundant in Palestine, but they are often mentioned in the Bible. In the Hebrew there are 11 names. The New Testament has four Greek names and the Septuagint employs two of these and three others as well as several compound expressions, such as ophis petamenos, "flying serpent," ophis thanaton, "deadly serpent," and ophis daknon, "biting" or "stinging serpent." Notwithstanding this large vocabulary, it is impossible to identify satisfactorily a single species. Nearly every reference states or implies poisonous qualities, and in no case is there so much as a hint that a snake may be harmless, except in several expressions referring to the millennium, where their harmlessness is not natural but miraculous. In Arabic there is a score or more of names of serpents, but very few of them are employed at all definitely. It may be too much to say that the inhabitants of Syria and Palestine consider all snakes to be poisonous, but they do not clearly distinguish the non-poisonous ones, and there are several common and well-known species which are universally believed to be poisonous, though actually harmless. Of nearly 25 species which are certainly known to be found in Syria and Palestine, four are deadly poisonous, five are somewhat poisonous, and the rest are absolutely harmless. With the exception of qippoz, "dart-snake" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,15);">Isa 34:15</a>) which is probably the name of a bird and not of a snake, every one of the Hebrew and Greek names occurs in passages where poisonous character is expressed or implied. The deadly poisonous snakes have large perforated poison fangs situated in the front of the upper jaw, an efficient apparatus like a hypodermic syringe for conveying the poison into the depths of the wound. In the somewhat poisonous snakes, the poison fangs are less favorably situated, being farther back, nearly under the eye. Moreover, they are smaller and are merely grooved on the anterior aspect instead of being perforated. All snakes, except a few which are nearly or quite toothless, have numerous small recurved teeth for holding and helping to swallow the prey, which is usually taken into the stomach while living, the peculiar structure of the jaws and the absence of a breast-bone enabling snakes to swallow animals which exceed the ordinary size of their own bodies.<P>2. Serpents of Palestine and Syria:<P>The following list includes all the serpents which are certainly known to exist in Palestine and Syria, omitting the names of several which have been reported but whose occurrence does not seem to be sufficiently confirmed. The range of each species is given.<P>(1) Harmless Serpents.<P>Typhlops vermicularis Merr., Greece and Southwestern Asia; T. simoni Bttgr., Palestine; Eryx jaculus L., Greece, North Africa, Central and Southwestern Asia; Tropidonotus tessellatus Laur., CentraI and Southeastern Europe, Central and Southwestern Asia; Zamenis gemonensis Laur., Central and Southeastern Europe, Greek islands, Southwestern Asia; Z. dahlii Fitz., Southeastern Europe, Southwestern Asia, Lower Egypt; Z. rhodorhachis Jan., Egypt, Southwestern Asia, India; Z. ravergieri Menatr., Southwestern Asia: Z. nummifer Renss., Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Cyprus, Asia Minor; Oligodon melanocephalus Jan., Syria, Palestine, Sinai, Lower Egypt; Contia decemlineata D. and B., Syria, Palestine; C. collaris Menerr., Greek islands, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine; C. rothi Jan., Syria, Palestine; C. coronella Schleg., Syria, Palestine<P>(2) Somewhat Poisonous Serpents.<P>Tarbophis savignyi Blgr., Syria, Palestine, Egypt; T. fallax Fleischm., Balkan Peninsula, Greek islands, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine; Coelopeltis monspessulana Herre., Mediterranean countries, Caucasus, Persia; Psammophis schokari Forsk., North Africa, Southwestern Asia; Micrelaps muelleri Bttgr., Syria, Palestine<P>(3) Deadly Poisonous Serpents.<P>Vipera ammodytes L., Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Syria; Vipera lebetina L., North Africa, Greek islands, Southwestern Asia; Cerastes cornutus Forsk., Egypt, Sinai, Arabia; Echis coloratus Gthr., Southern Palestine, Arabia, Socotra.<P>To this list should be added the scheltopusik, a large snake-like, limbless lizard, Ophiosaurus apus, inhabiting Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Persia, Syria and Palestine, which while perfectly harmless is commonly classed with vipers.<P>Of all these the commonest is Zamenis nummifer, Arabic \'aqd-ul-jauz, "string of walnuts," a fierce but non-poisonous snake which attains the length of a meter. Its ground color is pale yellow and it has a dorsal series of distinct diamond-shaped dark spots. Alternating with spots of the dorsal row are on each side two lateral rows of less distinct dark spots. It is everywhere considered to be fatal. Another common snake is Zamenis gemonensis, Arabic chanash, which attains the length of two meters. It is usually black and much resembles the American black snake, Zamenis constrictor. Like all species of Zamenis, these ire harmless. Other common harmless snakes are Zamenis dahlii, Tropidonotus tessellatus which is often found in pools and streams, Contia collaris, Oligodon melanocephalus, a small, nearly toothless snake with the crown of the head coal black.<P>Among the somewhat poisonous snakes, a very common one is Coelopeltis monspessulana, Arabic al-chaiyat ul-barshat, which is about two meters long, as larke as the black snake. It is uniformly reddish brown above, paler below. Another is Psammophis schokari. Arabic an-nashshab, "the arrow." It is about a meter long, slender, and white with dark stripes. Many marvelous and utterly improbable tales are told of its jumping powers, as for instance that it can shoot through the air for more than a hundred feet and penetrate a tree like a rifle bullet.<P>The commonest of the deadly poisonous snakes is Vipera lebetina, which attains the length of a meter, has a thick body, a short tail, a broad head and a narrow neck. It is spotted somewhat as Zamenis nummifer, but the spots are less regular and distinct and the ground color is gray rather than yellow. It does not seem to have a distinct name. Cerastes cornutus, having two small horns, which are modified scales, over the eyes, is a small but dangerous viper, and is found in the south. Not only are the species of poisonous serpents fewer than the non-poisonous species, but the individuals also appear to be less numerous. The vast majority of the snakes which are encountered are harmless.<P>3. Names:<P>As stated above, all of the Hebrew and Greek names except qippoz, which occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,15);">Isa 34:15</a>, are used of snakes actually or supposedly poisonous. This absence of discrimination between poisonous and non-poisonous kinds makes determination of the species difficult. Further, but few of the Hebrew names are from roots whose meanings are clear, and there is little evident relation to Arabic names.<P>(1) The commonest Hebrew word is nachash, which occurs 31 times and seems to be a generic word for serpent. While not always clearly indicating a venomous serpent, it frequently does: e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,4);">Ps 58:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,3);">140:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,32);">Pr 23:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,8,11);">Ec 10:8,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,29);">Isa 14:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,17);">Jer 8:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,19);">Am 5:19</a>. According to BDB it is perhaps from an onomatopoetic nachash, "to hiss." It may be akin to the Arabic chanash, which means "snake" in general, or especially the black snake. Compare Ir-nahash (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,12);">1Ch 4:12</a>); Nahash<P>(a) (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,1);">1Sa 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,2);">2Sa 10:2</a>),<P>(b) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,27);">2Sa 17:27</a>),<P>(c) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,25);">2Sa 17:25</a>); also nechosheth, "copper" or "brass"; and nechushtan, "Nehushtan," the brazen serpent (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,4);">2Ki 18:4</a>). But BDB derives the last two words from a different root.<P>(2) saraph, apparently from saraph, "to burn," is used of the fiery serpents of the wilderness. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,8);">Nu 21:8</a>, it occurs in the singular: "Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard." In 21:6 we have ha-nechashim ha-seraphim, "fiery serpents"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,15);">De 8:15</a> the same in the singular: nachash saraph, also translated "fiery serpents"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,29);">Isa 14:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,6);">30:6</a> we have saraph me\'opheph, "fiery flying serpent." The same word in the plural seraphim, is translated "seraphim" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,2,6);">Isa 6:2,6</a>.<P>(3) tannin, elsewhere "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRAGON">dragon</a>" or "seamonster" (which see), is used of the serpents into which the rods of Aaron and the magicians were transformed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,9,10,12);">Ex 7:9,10,12</a>), these serpents being designated by nachash in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,3);">Ex 4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,15);">7:15</a>. Tannin is rendered "serpent" (the King James Version "dragon") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,33);">De 32:33</a>, "Their wine is the poison of serpents," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,13);">Ps 91:13</a>, "The young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under foot." On the other hand, nachash seems in three passages to refer to a mythical creature or dragon: "His hand hath pierced the swift serpent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,13);">Job 26:13</a>); "In that day Yahweh...will punish leviathan the swift serpent and leviathan the crooked serpent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,1);">Isa 27:1</a>); ".... though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and it shall bite them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,3);">Am 9:3</a>).<P>(4) zochale is translated "crawling things" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,24);">De 32:24</a> (the King James Version "serpents") and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,17);">Mic 7:17</a> (the King James Version "worms").<P>(5) \'akhshubh, occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,3);">Ps 140:3</a>, where it is translated "adder" Septuagint aspis, Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) aspis), "adders\' poison is under their lips." It has been suggested (BDB) that the reading should be \'akkabhish, "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIDER">spider</a>" (which see). The parallel word in the previous line is nachash.<P>(6) pethen, like most of the other names a word of uncertain etymology, occurs 6 times and it is translated "asp," except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,13);">Ps 91:13</a>, "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder." According to Liddell and Scott, aspis is the name of the Egyptian cobra, Naia haje L., which is not included in (2) above, because it does not certainly appear to have been found in Palestine The name "adder" is applied to various snakes all of which may perhaps be supposed to be poisonous but some of which are actually harmless. Aspis occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,13);">Ro 3:13</a> in a paraphrase of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,3);">Ps 140:3</a> (see (5) above); it occurs frequently, though not uniformly, in Septuagint for (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (10).<P>(7) tsepha\', occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,29);">Isa 14:29</a> where it is translated "adder" (the King James Version "cockatrice," the English Revised Version "basilisk," Septuagint ekgona aspidon, Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) regulus). The root tsapha\', of (7) and (8) may be an onomatopoetic word meaning "to hiss" (BDB).<P>(8) ..., or tsiph\'oni, occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,32);">Pr 23:32</a>, "At the last it biteth like a serpent (nachash), and stingeth like an adder" (tsiph\'oni). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,8);">Isa 11:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,5);">59:5</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,17);">Jer 8:17</a>, the American Standard Revised Version has "adder," while the King James Version has cockatrice" and the English Revised Version has "basilisk."<P>(9) shephiphon, occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,17);">Ge 49:17</a>:<P class="in15">"Dan shall be a serpent (nachash) in the way,<br>An adder (shephiphon) in the path,<br>That biteth the horse\'s heels,<br>So that his rider falleth backward."<P>This has been thought to be Cerastes cornulus, on the authority of Tristram (NHB), who says that lying in the path it will attack the passer-by, while most snakes will glide away at the approach of a person or large animal. He adds that his horse was much frightened at seeing one of these serpents coiled up in a camel\'s footprint. The word is perhaps akin to the Arabic siff, or suff, which denotes a spotted and deadly snake.<P>(10) \'eph\'eh, is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',20,16);">Job 20:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,6);">Isa 30:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,5);">59:5</a>, and in English Versions of the Bible is uniformly translated "viper." It is the same as the Arabic \'af\'a, which is usually translated "viper," though the writer has never found anyone who could tell to what snake the name belongs. In Arabic as in Hebrew a poisonous snake is always understood.<P>(11) qippoz, the American Standard Revised Version "dart-snake," the English Revised Version "arrowsnake," the King James Version "great owl," only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,15);">Isa 34:15</a>, "There shall the dart-snake make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shade; yea, there shall the kites be gathered, every one with her mate." "This is the concluding verse in a vivid picture of the desolation of Edom. The renderings "dart-snake" and "arrowsnake" rest on the authority of Bochert, but Septuagint has echinos, "hedgehog," and Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) ericeus, "hedgehog." The rendering of the King James Version "great owl" seems preferable to the others, because the words "make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shade" are as a whole quite inapplicable to a mammal or to a reptile. The derivation from qaphaz (compare Arabic qafaz), "to spring," "to dart," suits, it is true, a snake, and not a hedgehog, but may also suit an owl. Finally, the next word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,15);">Isa 34:15</a> is "kites," dayyoth; compare Arabic chida\'at.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UPPERCASE">BITTERN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OWL">OWL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PORCUPINE">PORCUPINE</a>.<P>(12) ophis, a general term for "serpent," occurs in numerous passages of the New Testament and Septuagint, and is fairly equivalent to nachash.<P>(13) aspis, occurs in the New Testament only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,13);">Ro 3:13</a> parallel to <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,3);">Ps 140:3</a>. See under (5) \'akhshubh and (6) pethen. It is found in Septuagint for these words, and also for \'eph\'eh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,6);">Isa 30:6</a>).<P>(14) echidna, occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,3);">Ac 28:3</a>, "A viper came out...and fastened on his (Paul\'s) hand," and 4 times in the expression "offspring (the King James Version "generation") of vipers," gennemata echidnon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,7);">Mt 3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,34);">12:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,33);">23:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,7);">Lu 3:7</a>). The allied (masculine?) form echis, occurs in Sirach 39:30, the Revised Version (British and American) "adder."<P>(15) herpeton, "creeping thing," the King James Version "serpent," is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,7);">Jas 3:7</a>.<P>That the different Hebrew and Greek names are used without clear distinction is seen from several examples of the employment of two different names in parallel expressions:<P class="in15">"Their poison is like the poison of a serpent (nachash);<br>They are like the deaf adder (pethen) that stoppeth her ear" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,4);">Ps 58:4</a>).<P class="in15">"They have sharpened their tongue like a serpent (nachash); Adders\' (\'akhshubh) poison is under their lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,3);">Ps 140:3</a>).<P class="in15">"For, behold, I will send serpents (nechashim), adders (tsiph\'onim), among you, which will not be charmed; and they shall bite you, saith Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,17);">Jer 8:17</a>).<P class="in15">"They shall lick the dust like a serpent (nachash): like crawling things of the earth (zohale \'erets) they shall come trembling out of their close places" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,17);">Mic 7:17</a>).<P class="in15">"He shall suck the poison of asps (pethen): The viper\'s (\'eph\'eh) tongue shall slay him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',20,16);">Job 20:16</a>).<P class="in15">"Their wine is the poison of serpents (tanninim), and the cruel venom of asps (pethanim)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,33);">De 32:33</a>).<P class="in15">"And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp (pethen), and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder\'s (tsiph\'oni) den" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,8);">Isa 11:8</a>).<P>See also (8) and (9) above.<P>4. Figurative:<P>Most of the Biblical references to serpents are of a figurative nature, and they usually imply poisonous qualities. The wicked (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,4);">Ps 58:4</a>), the persecutor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,3);">Ps 140:3</a>), and the enemy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,17);">Jer 8:17</a>) are likened to venomous serpents. The effects of wine are compared to the bites of serpents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,32);">Pr 23:32</a>). Satan is a serpent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,1);">Ge 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,9);">Re 12:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,2);">20:2</a>). The term "offspring of vipers" is applied by John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,7);">Mt 3:7</a>) or to the multitudes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,7);">Lu 3:7</a>) who came to hear him; and by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,34);">Mt 12:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,33);">23:33</a>). Dan is a "serpent in the way...that biteth the horse\'s heels" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,17);">Ge 49:17</a>). Serpents are among the terrors of the wilderness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,15);">De 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,6);">Isa 30:6</a>). Among the signs accompanying believers is that "they shall take up serpents" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,18);">Mr 16:18</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,5);">Ac 28:5</a>). It is said of him that trusts in Yahweh:<P class="in15">"Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder:<br>The young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under foot" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,13);">Ps 91:13</a>).<P>In the millennium, "the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder\'s den" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,8);">Isa 11:8</a>). The serpent is subtle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,1);">Ge 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,3);">2Co 11:3</a>); wise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,16);">Mt 10:16</a>); accursed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,14);">Ge 3:14</a>); eats dust (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,14);">Ge 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,25);">Isa 65:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,17);">Mic 7:17</a>). The adder is deaf (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,4);">Ps 58:4</a>). The serpent lurks in unexpected places (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,17);">Ge 49:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,8);">Ec 10:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,19);">Am 5:19</a>). Serpents may be charmed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,5);">Ps 58:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,11);">Ec 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,17);">Jer 8:17</a>). Among four wonderful things is "the way of a serpent upon a rock" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,19);">Pr 30:19</a>).``37';
isbe[7848]='Serpent Worship`wur\'-ship: Traces of this superstition are thought by certain critics to be discoverable in the religion of Israel. Stade mentions that W. R. Smith supposed the serpent to be the totem of the house of David (Geschichte, I, 465). H. P. Smith says: "We know of a Serpent\'s Stone near Jerusalem, which was the site of a sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,9);">1Ki 1:9</a>), and this sanctuary was dedicated to Yahweh" (Hist of Old Testament, 239, 240). Special reliance is placed on the narrative of the brazen serpent, which Hezekiah is recorded to have destroyed as leading to idolatry, (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,4);">2Ki 18:4</a>). "In that case," says H. P. Smith, "we must treat the Nehushtan as a veritable idol of the house of Israel, which had been worshipped in the temple from the time of its erection. Serpent worship is so widespread that we should be surprised not to find traces of it in Israel" (ut supra). In the same line, see G. B. Gray, Numbers, 275-76. The fancifulness of these deductions is obvious.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NEHUSHTAN">NEHUSHTAN</a>`132';
isbe[7849]='Serpent, Brazen`bra\'-z\'-n.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NEHUSHTAN">NEHUSHTAN</a>`1';
isbe[7850]='Serpent, Crooked`krook\'-ed: With reference to the constellation round the North Pole, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,13);">Job 26:13</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "the swift serpent," margin "fleeing"; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,1);">Isa 27:1</a>, the Revised Version margin "winding." In the first part of the latter passage, the King James Version "piercing serpent" is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "swift serpent," margin "gliding" or "fleeing."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[7851]='Serpent, Fiery``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERPENT">SERPENT</a>`1';
isbe[7852]='Serpent-Charming`-charm\'-ing: Allusion to this art, widely practiced by the ancients (see references in DB, under the word; especially Bothart, Hieron., III, 161, 164, etc.), as by modern Orientals, is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,5);">Ps 58:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,11);">Ec 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,17);">Jer 8:17</a>; Sirach 12:13, perhaps in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,7);">Jas 3:7</a>. The skill displayed in taming snakes, often without removing the poison fangs, is very surprising. Bruce, Davy, and other travelers give striking illustrations. See especially the interesting account of serpent-charming in Hengstenberg\'s Egypt and the Books of Moses, English Translation, 100-104.``1';
isbe[7853]='Serug`se\'-rug (serugh; Serouch): Son of Reu and great-grandfather of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,20);">Ge 11:20</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,26);">1Ch 1:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,35);">Lu 3:35</a>).``1';
isbe[7854]='Servant`sur\'-vant (\'ebhedh; doulos): A very common word with a variety of meanings, all implying a greater or less degree of inferiority and want of freedom:<P>(1) The most frequent usage is as the equivalent of "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLAVE;+SLAVERY">slave</a>" (which see), with its various shades in position (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,25);">Ge 9:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,9);">24:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,5);">Ex 21:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,24);">Mt 10:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,7);">Lu 17:7</a>, and often); but also a hired workman where "hired servant" translates Hebrew and Greek expressions which differ from the above.<P>(2) An attendant in the service of someone, as Joshua was the "servant" the Revised Version (British and American) "minister" of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,28);">Nu 11:28</a>).<P>(3) As a \'term of respectful self-depreciation referring to one\'s self, "thy servant." or "your servant" is used in place of the personal pronoun of the first person:<P>(a) in the presence of superiors (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,2);">Ge 19:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,18);">32:18</a>, and often);<P>(b) in addressing the Supreme Being (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',3,9);">1Sa 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,11);">Ps 19:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,9);">27:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,29);">Lu 2:29</a>, and often).<P>(4) Officials of every grade are called the "servants" of kings, princes, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,3);">1Sa 29:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,1);">2Sa 16:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,26);">1Ki 11:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,35);">Pr 14:35</a>, and often).<P>(5) The position of a king in relation to his people (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,7);">1Ki 12:7</a>).<P>(6) One who is distinguished as obedient and faithful to God or Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,2);">Jos 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,19);">2Ki 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,20);">Da 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,12);">Col 4:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,24);">2Ti 2:24</a>).<p>(7) One who is enslaved by sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,34);">Joh 8:34</a>).``114';
isbe[7855]='Servant of Jehovah; Servant of the Lord; Servant of Yahweh`<p>1. Historical Situation<P>2. The Authorship of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66<P>3. The Prophet of the Exile<P>4. The Unity of <span class="noTag">Isaiah 40-66</span><P>5. Principal Ideas of <span class="noTag">Isaiah 40-66</span><P>6. The Servant-Passages<P class="in15">(1) Date of the Servant-Passages<P class="in15">(2) Discussion of the Passages<P class="in15">(3) Whom Did the Prophet Mean by the Servant?<P class="in15">(4) The Psychology of the Prophecy<P>7. Place of the Servant-Passages in Old Testament Prophecy<P>8. Large Messianic Significance of the Servant-Passages<hr /><P>1. Historical Situation:<P>A century and a half had passed since the great days of Isaiah in Jerusalem. The world had vastly changed during those long decades when politicians had planned, armies surged back and forth, and tribes and nations had lost or won in the struggle for existence, place and power. The center of the world had changed<65>for Assyria had gone to its long home, and the city claiming preeminence was not Nineveh but Babylon.<P>Nowhere perhaps had time laid a heavier hand than on the city of Jerusalem and the country of Judah. For city and land had come to desolation, and the inhabitants of the country had become familiar with the strange sights and sounds of Babylonia, whither they had been carried by their conquerors. Many had found graves in the land of the exile, and new generations had arisen who had no memory of the hill country of their fathers. It is the situation of these captive Jews in Babylonia which is reflected and they who are addressed at the waning of the long night of captivity by the stirring message recorded in <span class="noTag">Isaiah 40-66</span> (leaving out of account here disputed passages in <span class="noTag">Isaiah 40-66</span>).<P>2. The Authorship of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66:<P>The more one studies the problem of the authorship of these chapters, the more unlikely does it seem that their author penned them 150 years before the time with which they are vitally connected. It is obviously impossible to treat that problem in a detailed way here, but one may sum up the arguments by saying that in theological ideas, in style, and use of words they show such differences from the assured productions of Isaiah\'s pen as to point to a different authorship. And the great argument, the argument which carries the most weight to the author of this article, is that these late chapters are written from the standpoint of the exile. The exile is assumed in what is said. These chapters do not prophesy the exile, do not say it is to come; they all the time speak as though it had come. The message is not that an exile is to be, but beginning with the fact that the exile already is, it foretells deliverance. Now of course it is conceivable that God might inspire a man to put himself forward 150 years, and with a message to people who were to live then, assuming their circumstances as a background of what he said, but it is improbable to the last degree. To put it in plain, almost gruff, English, it is not the way God did things. The prophet\'s message was always primarily a message to his own age. Then there is no claim in the chapters themselves that Isaiah was their author. And having once been placed so that it was supposed they were by Isaiah<61>placed so through causes we do not know<6F>the fact that in speaking of passages from these chapters New Testament authors referred to them by a name the people would recognize, is not a valid argument that they meant to teach anything as to their authorship. The problem had not arisen in New Testament times. <span class="noTag">Isaiah 40-66</span>, as Professor Davidson has suggested, has a parallel in the Book of Job, each the production of a great mind, each from an author we do not know.<P>Compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISAIAH">ISAIAH</a>.<P>3. The Prophet of the Exile:<P>Out of the deep gloom of the exile<6C>when the Jew was a man without a country, when it seemed as if the nation\'s sins had murdered hope<70>out of this time comes the voice most full of gladness and abounding hope of all the voices from the Old Testament life. In the midst of the proud, confident civilization of Babylonia, with its teeming wealth and exhaustless splendor, came a man who dared to speak for Yahweh<65>a man of such power to see reality that to him Babylonia was already doomed, and he could summon the people to prepare for God\'s deliverance.<P>4. The Unity of <span class="noTag">Isaiah 40-66</span>:<P>In recent criticism, especially in Germany, there has been a strong tendency to assign the last chapters of this section to a different author from the first. The background it is claimed is not Babylonian; the sins rebuked are the sins of the people when at home in Judea, and in at least one passage the temple at Jerusalem seems to be standing. That these chapters present difficulties need not be disputed, but it seems to me that again and again in them one can find the hand of Second Isaiah. Then undoubtedly the author quotes from previous prophecies which we can recognize, and the suggestion that some of the difficult passages may be quotations from other older prophecies which are not preserved to us, I think an exceedingly good one. The quotation of such passages in view of the prospect of return, and the prophet\'s feeling of the need of the people, would seem to me not at all unnatural. If a later hand is responsible for some utterances in the latter part of the section, it seems to me fairly clear that most of it is from the hand of the great unknown prophet of the exile.<P>The questions regarding the Servant-passages as affecting the unity of the book will be treated later.<P>5. Principal Ideas of <span class="noTag">Isaiah 40-66</span>:<P>The first part of this section vividly contrasts Yahweh and the idols worshipped with such splendor and ceremony. All the resources of irony and satire are used to give point and effect to the contrast. Cyrus the Median conqueror is already on the horizon, and he is declared to be God\'s instrument in the deliverance. The idols are described in process of manufacture; they are addressed in scornful apostrophe, they are seen carried away helpless. On the other side Yahweh, with illimitable foresight and indomitable strength, knows and reveals the future. They know and reveal nothing. He brings to pass what He has planned. They do nothing. Not only the idols but Babylonia itself is made the victim of satire<72>and the prophet hurls a taunt song at the proud but impotent city.<P>Israel<65>the people of Yahweh<65>the elect of God<6F>is given the prophet\'s message. The past is called up as a witness to Yahweh\'s dealings. His righteousness<73>His faithfulness to His people<6C>shall not fail. They are unworthy, but out of His own bounty salvation is provided. And with joy of this salvation from exile and from sin the book rings and rings. The Zion of the restored Israel is pictured with all the play of color and richness of imagery at the prophet\'s command. And this restored Israel is to have a world-mission. Its light is to fall upon all lands. It is to minister salvation to all races of men.<P>But back of and under these pictures of great hope is the prophet\'s sense of his people\'s sin and their struggle with it. In the latter part of the book, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,1);">Isaiah 59</a> and 64 this comes out clearly. And the mood of these chapters expresses the feeling out of which some of the deep things of the Servant-passages came. There is no need to insist that the chapters as they stand are in the order in which they were written. We know from other prophecies that this was not always true. But even if a man were convinced that the chapters now occurring after the Servant-passages were all written after them, he could still hold, and I think would be justified in holding, that in places in those chapters the reader finds the record of a state of the prophet\'s mind before the writing of those passages. The former view would be, I think, the preferable one. At any rate the point of view is logically that out of which some of the deep things in the Servant-passages came.<P>In profoundness of meaning the climax of the book is reached in these passages where the deliverance from exile and the deliverance from sin are connected with one great figure<72>the Servant of Yahweh.<P>6. The Servant-Passages:<P>The word "servant," as applied to servants of God, is not an unfamiliar one to readers of the Old Testament. It is applied to different individuals and by Jeremiah to the nation (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,10);">Jer 30:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,27);">46:27</a>); but its message is on the whole so distinct and complete in Second Isaiah that we can study it without any further reference to previous usage.<P>The "servant" first appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,8);">Isa 41:8</a>. Here the reference is undoubtedly to Israel, chosen and called of God and to be upheld by Him. Here Israel is promised victory over its enemies. In vivid picture their destruction and Isracl\'s future trust and glory in God are portrayed.<P>There are several incidental references to Israel as Yahweh\'s servant: created by Yahweh and not to be forgotten (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,8);">Isa 41:8</a>); Cyrus is said to be called for the sake of His servant Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,4);">Isa 45:4</a>); Yahweh is said to have redeemed His servant Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,20);">Isa 48:20</a>).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,26);">Isa 44:26</a> "servant" seems to be used with the meaning of prophet. It is said of Yahweh that He "confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers."<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,19);">Isa 42:19</a> we find the failure and inadequacy of Israel presented in the words, "Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I send?" This passage is an explanation of the exile. Israel proved unworthy and sinned, hence, its punishment, but even in the exile the lesson had not been taken to heart.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,8);">Isa 43:8</a>ff Yahweh summons Israel the servant, who in spite of blindness and deafness yet is His witness. It has at least seen enough to be able to witness for Him in the presence of the heathen.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,\'1-5\');">Isa 44:1-5</a>, leaving the unworthiness of the actual Israel, there comes what seems to me a summons in the name of the possible, the ideal. The underlying thought is a call to the high future which God has ready to give.<P>This covers the reference to the servant outside the great Servant-passages to which we now come. There are four of these: <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,\'1-9\');">Isa 42:1-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,\'1-9\');">49:1-9</a> a; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12; 61:1-4 perhaps represents words of the Servant, but may refer to words of the prophet, and, as at any rate it adds no new features to the picture of the Servant already given in the passages undoubtedly referring to him, we will not discuss it.<P>(1) Date of the Servant-Passages.<P>Ewald long ago suggested that the last of the Servant-passages must have been borrowed from an earlier composition, which he assigned to the age of Manasseh. "If we find in the study of the passage reason for its vividness, we shall not need to seek its origin in the description of some past martyrdom."<P>Duhm quoted by Cheyne thinks the Servant-passages post-exilic. The gentleness and quiet activity of the Servant for one thing, according to Duhm, suggest the age of the scribes, rather than that of the exile. But might not an age of suffering be a time to learn the lesson of gentleness? According to Skinner, Duhm thinks the passages were inserted almost haphazard, but Skinner also refers to Kosters, showing that the passages cannot be lifted without carrying some of the succeeding verses with them. This is particularly significant in view of the recent popularity of other theories which deny the Servant-passages to the hand and time of Second Isaiah. The theory that these passages form by themselves a poem or a set of poems which have been inserted here can boast of distinguished names.<P>There does not seem much to commend it, however. As to the argument from difference as to rhythm, there is disagreement, and the data are probably not of a sort to warrant much significance being applied to it either way. The fact that the passages are not always a part of connected movement of thought would play great havoc if made a universal principle of discrimination as to authorship in the prophecies of the Old Testament. If we succeed in giving the fundamental ideas of the passages a place in relation to the thought of Deutero-Isaiah, an argument for which cogency might be claimed will be dissipated. But even at its best this argument would not be conclusive. To deny certain ideas to an author simply because he has not expressed them in a certain bit of writing acknowledged to him is perilous business. A message of hope surely does not preclude an appreciation of the dark things.<P>The truth of the matter is that even by great scholars the temptation to a criticism of knight-errantry is not always resisted. And I think we shall not make any mistake in believing that this is the case with the attempt to throw doubt upon the Deutero-Isaianic authorship of the Servant-passages.<P>(2) Discussion of the Passages.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,\'1-9\');">Isa 42:1-9</a>: In these verses Yahweh Himself is the speaker, describing the Servant as His chosen, in whom His soul delights, upon whom He has put His spirit. He is to bring justice to the Gentiles. His methods are to be quiet and gentle, and the very forlorn hope of goodness He will not quench. He is to set justice in the earth, and remote countries are described as waiting for His law. Then comes a declaration by the prophet that Yahweh, the Creator of all, is the speaker of words declaring the Servant\'s call in righteousness to be a covenant for the people, a light to the Gentiles, a helper to those in need<65>the blind and imprisoned. Yahweh\'s glory is not to be given to other, nor His praise to graven images. Former prophecies have come to pass. New things He now declares. One\'s attention needs to be called to the distinction of the Servant from Israel in this passage. He is to be a covenant of the people: according to Delitzsch, "he in whom and through whom Yahweh makes a new covenant with His people in place of the old one that has been broken."<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,\'1-9\');">Isa 49:1-9</a> a; Here the Servant himself spoaks, telling of his calling from the beginning of his life, of the might of his word, of his shelter in God, of a time of discouragement in which he thought his labor in vain, followed by insistence on his trust in God. Then Yahweh promises him a larger mission than the restoration of Israel, namely, to be a light to the Gentiles. Yahweh speaks of the Servant as one despised, yet to be triumphant so that he will be honored by kings and princes. He is to lead his people forth at their restoration, "to make them inherit the desolate heritages; saying to them that are bound, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves."<P>Clearly the Servant is distinct from the people Israel in this passage. Yet in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,3);">Isa 49:3</a> he is addressed as Israel. The word Israel here may be a gloss, which would solve the difficulty, or the Servant may be addressed as Israel because he gathers up in himself the meaning of the ideal Israel. If it is true that the prophet gradually passed from the conception of Israel as a nation to a person through whom its true destiny would be realized, this last suggestion would gain in probability.<P>One notices here the emphasis on the might of the Servant, and in this passage we come to understand that he is to pass through a time of ignominy. The phrase "a servant of rulers" is a difficult one, which would be clear if the prophet conceived of him as one of the exiles, and typically representing them. The Servant\'s mission in this passage seems quite bound up with the restoration.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,\'4-11\');">Isa 50:4-11</a>: In the first part of this passage the Servant is not mentioned directly, but it seems clear that he is speaking. He is taught of God continually, that he may bring a message to the weary. He has opened his ear so that he may fully understand Yahweh\'s message. The Servant now describes his sufferings as coming to him because of his obedience. He was not rebellious and did not turn back from his mission. Flint-like he set his face and with confidence in God met the shame which came upon him. After language vivid with a sense of ignominy his assured consciousness of victory and faith in God are expressed, .<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,\'10-11\');">Isa 50:10-11</a>, according to Delitzsch, Yahweh speaks, first encouraging those who listen to the Servant, then addressing those who despise his word. Cheyne thinks the Servant mentioned in 50:10 may be the prophet, but I prefer Delitzsch\'s view.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,13);">Isa 52:13-53:12</a>: The present division of 52:13-53:12 is unfortunate, for obviously it is all of a piece and ought to stand together in one chapter.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,\'13-15\');">Isa 52:13-15</a> Yahweh speaks of the humiliation and later of the exaltation of the Servant. He shall deal wisely<6C>the idea here including the success resulting from wisdom<6F>and shall be exalted. Words are piled upon each other here to express his exaltation. But the appearance of the Servant is such as to suggest the very opposite of his dignity, which will astonish nations and kings when they come, to understand it.<P>Entering upon <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,1);">Isaiah 53</a> we find the people of Israel speaking confessing their former unbelief, and giving as a reason the repulsive aspect of the Servant<6E>despised, sad, sick with a visage to make men turn from him. He is described as though he had been a leper. They thought all this had come upon him as a stroke from God, but they now see how he went even to death, not for his own transgression but for theirs. Their peace and healing came through his suffering and death. They have been sinful and erring; the result of it all God has caused to light upon him.<P>They look back in wonder at the way he bore his sufferings<67>like a lamb led to the slaughter; with a false judicial procedure he was led away, no one considering his death, or its relation to them. His grave even was an evidence of ignominy.<P>Beginning at <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,10);">Isa 53:10</a> the people cease speaking, according to Delitzsch, and the prophecy becomes the organ of God who acknowledges His Servant. The reference to a trespass offering in 53:10 is remarkable. Nowhere else is prophecy so connected with the sacrificial system (A. B. Davidson). It pleased God to bruise the Servant<6E>his soul having been made a trespass offering; the time of humiliation over, the time of exaltation will come.<P>By his knowledge we are told<6C>here a momentary reversion to the time of humiliation taking place<63>by his knowledge he shall justify many and bear their iniquities. Then comes the exaltation<6F>dividing of spoils and greatness<73>the phrases suggesting kingly glory: all this is to be his because of his suffering. The great fact of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,1);">Isaiah 53</a> is vicarious suffering.<P>(3) Whom Did the Prophet Mean by the Servant?<P>(a) Obviously not all of Israel always, for the Servant is distinguished from Israel. (b) Not the godly remnant, for he is distinguished from them. Then the godly remnant does not attain to any such proportions as to fit the description of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,1);">Isaiah 53</a>. (c) And one cannot accept theory that the prophetic order is intended. The whole order is not great enough to exhaust the meaning of one of a half-dozen of the greatest lines in chapter 53.<P>Professor A. B. Davidson\'s Old Testament Prophecy contains a brilliant and exceedingly able discussion of the question which he approaches from the stand-point of Biblical rather than simply exegetical theology. His fundamental position is that in the prophet\'s outlook the restoration is the consummation. In his mind the Servant and his work cannot come after the restoration. The Servant, if a real person, must be one whose work lies in the past or the present, as there is not room in the future for him, for the restoration which is at the door brings felicity, and after that no sufferings of the Servant are conceivable. But there is no actual person in the past and none in the present who could be the Servant. Hence, the Servant cannot be to the prophet\'s mind a real person.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CONIAH">CONIAH</a>.<P>Of course Davidson relates the result to his larger conception of prophecy in such a way as to secure the Messianic significance of the passages in relation to their fulfillment in our Lord. The ideas they contain are realized in Him.<P>But coming back to the prophet\'s mind<6E>if the Servant was not a person to him, what significance did he have? The answer according to Davidson is, He is a great personification of the ideal Israel. "He is Israel according to its idea." To quote more fully, "The prophet has created out of the divine determinations imposed on Israel, election, creation and forming, endowment with the word or spirit of Yahweh, and the divine purpose in these operations, an ideal Being, an inner Israel in the heart of the phenomenal or actual Israel, an indestructible Being having these divine attributes or endowments, present in the outward Israel in all ages, powerful and effectual because really composed, if I can say so, of divine forces, who cannot fail in God\'s purpose, and who as an inner power within Israel by his operation causes all Israel to become a true servant" (compare Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 435-36).<P>Now it seems to me that Davidson is more effective in his destructive than in his constructive work. One must confess that he presents real difficulties in the way of holding to a personal Servant as the prophet\'s conception. But on the other hand when he tries to replace that by a more adequate conception, I do not think he conspicuously succeeds.<P>The greatest of the Servant-passages (it seems to me) presents more than can be successfully dealt with under the conception of the Servant as the ideal Israel. The very great emphasis on vicarious suffering in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,1);">Isaiah 53</a> simply is not answered by theory. Words would not leap with such a flame of reality in describing the suffering of a personification. The sense of sin back of the passage is not a thing whose problem could be solved by a glittering figure of speech. There it surges<65>the movement of an aroused conscience<63>and the answer to it could never be anything less than a real deed by a real person. My own feeling is that if language can express anything it expresses the fact that the prophet had a real personal Servant in view.<P>But what of the difficulties Davidson suggests? Even if the answer were not easy to find, one could rest on the total impression the passages make. One cannot vaporize a passage for the sake of placing it in an environment in which one believes it belongs. As Cheyne in other days said, "In the sublimest descriptions of the Servant I am unable to resist the impression that we have the presentment of an individual, and venture to think that our general view of the Servant ought to be ruled by those passages in which the enthusiasm of the author is at its height."<P>The first thing we need to remember in dealing with the difficulties Davidson has brought forth is the timelessness of prophecy, and the resulting fact that every prophet saw the future as if lying just on the horizon of his own time. As prophets saw the day of Yahweh as if at hand, so it seems to me Deutero-Isaiah saw the Servant: each really afar off, yet each really seen in the colors of the present. Then we must remember that the prophets did not relate all their conceptions. They stated truths whose meaning and articulation they did not understand. They were not philosophers with a Hegelian hunger for a total view of life, and when we try to read them from this standpoint we misjudge them. Then we must remember that the prophet may here have been lifted to a height of prophetic receptivehess where he received and uttered what went beyond the limits of his own understanding. To be sure there was a point of contact, but I see no objection to the thought that in a place of unique significance and importance like this, God might use a man to utter words which reached far beyond the limits of his own understanding. In this connection some words of Professor Hermann Schultz are worth quoting: "If it is true anywhere in the history of poetry and prophecy, it is true here that the writer being full of the spirit has said more than he himself meant to say and more than he himself understood."<P>(4) The Psychology of the Prophecy.<P>This does not mean that something may. not be said about the connection of the Servant-passages with the prophet\'s own thought. Using Delitzsch\'s illustration, we can see how from regarding all Israel as the servant the prophet could narrow down to the godly part of Israel as experience taught him the faithlessness of many, and it ought not to be impossible for us to see how all that Israel really meant at its best could have focused itself in his thought upon one person. Despite Davidson\'s objection, I can see nothing artificial about this movement in the prophet\'s mind. There was probably more progression in his thought than Professor Davidson is willing to allow. If it is asked, Where was the person to whom the prophet could ascribe such greatness, conceiving as he did that he was to come at once? surely a similar question would be fair in relation to Isaiah\'s Messiah. The truth is that even on the threshold of the restoration there was time for a great one suddenly to arise. As John the Baptist on the Jordan watched for the coming One whom he knew not, yet who was alive, so the great prophet of the exile may have watched even day by day for the coming Servant whose work had been revealed to him.<P>But deep in the psychology of the prophecy is the sense of sin out of which these passages came and indications of which I think are found in the latter part of the book. The great guilt-laden past lay terribly behind the prophet, and as he mused over the sufferings of the righteous, perhaps especially drawn to tim heart-rent Jeremiah, the thought of redemptive suffering may have dawned upon him. And if in its light, and with a personal sense of sin drawn from what experiences we know not, he grapples with the problem, can we not understand, can we not see that God might flash upon him the great conception of a sin-bearer?<P>7. Place of the Servant-Passages in Old Testament Prophecy:<P>At last the idea of vicarious suffering had been connected with the deep things of the nation\'s life, and henceforward was a part of its heritage. To the profoundest souls it would be a part of the nation\'s forward look. The priestly idea had been deepened and filled with new moral meaning. The Servant was a prophet too<6F>so priest and prophet met in one. And I think Cheyne was right when he suggested that in the Servant\'s exaltation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,1);">Isaiah 53</a>, the idea of the Servant is brought nearer to that of king than we sometimes think. So in suggestion, at least, prophet, priest and king meet in the great figure of the suffering Servant.<P>A new rich stream had entered into prophecy, full of power to fertilize whatever shores of thought it touched. In the thoughts of these passages prophecy seemed pressing with impatient eagerness to its goal, and though centuries were to pass before that goal was reached, its promise is seen here, full of assurance and of knowledge of the kind of goal it is to be.<P>8. Larger Messianic Significance of the Servant-Passages:<P>But whatever our view of the meaning of the prophet, we must agree (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,17);">Mt 8:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,\'18-21\');">12:18-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,67);">26:67</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,41);">Joh 12:41</a>, et al.) that the conception he so boldly and powerfully put upon his canvas had its realization, its fulfillment in the One who spoke to the world from the cross on Calvary. And in its darkly glorious shadow the Christian, with all the sadness and joy and wonder of it, with a sense of its solving all his problems and meeting the deepest needs and outreaches of his life, can feel a strange companionship with the exilic prophet whose yearning for a sin-bearer and belief in His coming call across the long and slowly moving years. In the light and penetration of that hour he may be trusted to know what the prophet meant. Professor Delitzsch well said of that passage, "Every word is as it were written under the cross at Golgotha."``74';
isbe[7856]='Servants, Solomon\'s``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SOLOMON\'s+servants">SOLOMON\'S SERVANTS</a>`1';
isbe[7857]='Service`sur\'-vis:<p>Six Hebrew, two Aramaic and four Greek words are so rendered.<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>In the Old Testament the word most used for "service" is<P>(1) \'abhodhah, from \'abhadh, which is the general word, meaning "to work" and so "to serve," "to till," also "to enslave." The noun means "bondage," "labor," "ministering," "service," "tillage," "work," "use." The word is used in describing work in the fields (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,14);">Ex 1:14</a>, et al.), work in the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,19);">Ex 27:19</a>, et al.), sanctuary service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,9);">Nu 7:9</a>), service of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,11);">Nu 8:11</a>), Levitical or priestly service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,22);">Nu 8:22</a>), kingly service (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,30);">1Ch 26:30</a>), etc. Reference is made to instruments, wood vessels, cattle, herbs, shekels for the service in the house of Yahweh.<P>(2) \'Abhadh itself is translated "service" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,15);">Nu 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,23);">18:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,13);">Jer 22:13</a>.<P>(3) Seradh means "stitching," i.e. piercing with a needle; it occurs only 4 times, and in each case in the Revised Version (British and American) instead of "service" is translated "finely wrought garments" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,10);">Ex 31:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,19);">35:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,1,41);">39:1,41</a>).<P>(4) Sharath means primarily "to attend" as a servant or worshipper, and to contribute to or render service, wait on, and thence service; occurs only 3 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,19);">Ex 35:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,1,41);">39:1,41</a> the King James Version) and in the American Standard Revised Version is rendered "for ministering."<P>(5) Tsabha\' is found 7 times, used in the same connection each time, and refers to those numbered for service in the tent of meeting. Its primary root meaning refers to service for war, campaign, hardship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,30,35,39,43);">Nu 4:30,35,39,43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,24);">8:24</a>).<P>(6) Yadh means literally, an "open hand, indicating direction, power, and so ministry as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,31);">1Ch 6:31</a>, where David appoints certain ones to have direction of the music, translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,5);">1Ch 29:5</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) not service, but "himself."<P>(7) \'Abhidhah means "business," "labor," "affairs"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,18);">Ezr 6:18</a> is the only place where it is found.<P>(8) Polchan, from root meaning "to worship," "minister to," and so in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,19);">Ezr 7:19</a> vessels given for service.<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>The following are the uses in the New Testament:<P>(1) Diakonia, from root meaning "to run on errands," and so attendance, aid as a servant, ministry, relief, and hence, service; compare English word "deacon"; Paul: "that I might minister unto you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,8);">2Co 11:8</a>); also found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,31);">Ro 15:31</a> ("ministration") and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,19);">Re 2:19</a> ("ministry").<P>(2) Douleuo, literally, "to be a slave," in bondage, service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,8);">Ga 4:8</a>, "bondage"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,7);">Eph 6:7</a>, "service"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,2);">1Ti 6:2</a>, "serve").<P>(3) Latreia, from root meaning "to render religious homage," menial service to God, and so worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,2);">Joh 16:2</a>, "service"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,4);">Ro 9:4</a>, "service"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,1);">Ro 12:1</a>, "spiritual service"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,1);">Heb 9:1</a>, "service"; 9:6, "services").<P>(4) Leitourgia, from root "to perform religious or charitable functions," worship, relieve, obey, minister, and hence, a public function, priestly or charitable (liturgy) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,12);">2Co 9:12</a>, "service"; also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,17,30);">Php 2:17,30</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERVANT">SERVANT</a>`142';
isbe[7858]='Servitude`sur\'-vi-tud.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERVANT">SERVANT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLAVE">SLAVE</a>`1';
isbe[7859]='Sesis`se\'-sis (Codex Vaticanus Seseis; Codex Alexandrinus Sesseis): One who put away his foreign wife (1Esdras 9:34) = "Shashai" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,40);">Ezr 10:40</a>.``1';
isbe[7860]='Sesthel`ses\'-thel (Sesthel): One of the sons of Addi who put away their foreign wives (1Esdras 9:31)= "Bezalel" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,30);">Ezr 10:30</a>.``1';
isbe[7861]='Set`Few words in the English language have such a rich variety of meaning and are used in so rich a variety of idiomatic expression as the word "set." A glance at any of the great dictionaries will convince anyone of the truth of this statement. The Standard Dictionary devotes three and a half columns to the word. In its primary meaning it there denotes 22 distinct things, in its secondary meaning 17 more, while 18 distinct phrases are given in which it is used, in some cases again in a variety of meanings. It is indeed a word calculated to drive a foreigner to despair. Some 70 Hebrew and about 30 Greek words in the original tongues of the Holy Scriptures have been rendered by the word "set," in the King James Version and also in the Revised Version (British and American). A careful comparative study of the original and of translations in other tongues will at once indicate that a lack of discrimination is evident on the part of the English translators in the frequent use of the word "set."<P>Thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,14);">So 5:14</a>, "hands are as rings of gold set with beryl," the Hebrew word is male\', "to be filled," "full." Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates plenae, the Dutch gevuld, the German voll; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,27);">Pr 8:27</a>, "when he set a circle," Hebrew chaqaq, "to describe," "decree," Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) vallabat, Dutch beschreef; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,10);">Ezr 4:10</a>, "set in the city of Samaria," Aramaic yethibh, "to cause to sit down," "to cause to dwell," Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) habitare eas fecit, Dutch doen wonen; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,6);">Ps 2:6</a>, "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill," Hebrew nacakh, "to pour out," "to anoint," Dutch gezalfd; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,2);">Isa 19:2</a>, the King James Version "I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians," Hebrew cakhakh, "to disturb," "to confuse," Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) concurrere faciam, Dutch verwarren, German an einander setzen; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,8);">Re 3:8</a>, "I have, set before thee a door," Greek didomi, "to give," Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) dedi coram te, Dutch gegeven, German gegeben; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,27);">Ac 19:27</a>, the King James Version "Our craft is in danger to be set at nought," Greek erchomai, "to come," Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) periclitabitur, Dutch in verachting komen; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,18);">Lu 4:18</a>, "to set at liberty them," Greek apostello, "to send away," Dutch heen te zenden in vrijheid; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,9);">Ac 13:9</a>, the King James Version "Saul...set his eyes on him," Greek atenizo, "to stare fixedly," Vulgate: intuens in eum, Dutch de oogen op hem houdende. These are but a few examples chosen at random where our English translators have rendered Hebrew and Greek words by "set," where a more literal translation, in equally good idiomatic language, was possible. The word "set" is the causative of "sit," and indicates primarily a power of self-support, in opposition to the idea of the word "lay."<P>(1) In its primary meaning the word "set" is used in our English Bible in many senses:<P class="in15">(a) Foundation: <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,15);">So 5:15</a>, "His legs are as pillars of marble set upon."<P class="in15">(b) Direction: <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,16);">Eze 21:16</a>, "whithersoever thy face is set."<P class="in15">(c) Appointed time: <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,21);">Ac 12:21</a>, "upon a set day."<P class="in15">(d) Fixed place: <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,17);">2Ch 20:17</a>, "Set yourselves, stand ye still, and see"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,17);">2Sa 6:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,5);">Mt 4:5</a>.<P class="in15">(e) Cause to sit: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,8);">1Sa 2:8</a>, the King James Version "to set them among princes"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,20);">2Ch 23:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,6);">Ps 68:6</a>.<P class="in15">(f) Appointment: <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,25);">Ezr 7:25</a>, the King James Version "set magistrates and judges"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,41);">Ge 41:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,13);">1Sa 12:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,6);">Ps 2:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,11);">Da 1:11</a>.<P class="in15">(g) To lift up: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,17);">Ge 31:17</a>, "set his sons and his wives upon."<P class="in15">(h) Appointed place: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,17);">Ge 1:17</a>, "God set them in the firmament."<P class="in15">(i) Cause to stand: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,7);">Ge 47:7</a>, "Joseph brought in Jacob...and set him before Pharaoh"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,13);">Nu 8:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,25);">2Ch 29:25</a>.<P class="in15">(j) Sitting: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,1);">Mt 5:1</a>, the King James Version "when he was set"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,1);">Heb 8:1</a> the King James Version.<P class="in15">(k) Location: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,14);">Mt 5:14</a>, "a city set on a hill." These by no means exhaust the meaning which the word, in its primary sense, has in our English Bible.<P>(2) In a secondary or tropical sense it is used with equal frequency, usually with various prepositions. Thus,<P class="in15">(a) To attack: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,33);">Jud 9:33</a>, the King James Version "and set upon the city."<P class="in15">(b) To imprint: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,15);">Ge 4:15</a>, the King James Version "The Lord set a mark upon Cain."<P class="in15">(c) To direct to: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,15);">1Ki 2:15</a>, "And that all Israel set their faces on me."<P class="in15">(d) To place: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,12);">1Ki 20:12</a>, Ben-hadad shouted one word to his allies: "Set," i.e. set the armies in array, the battering-rams and engines of attack in their place.<P class="in15">(e) To incline toward: <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,4);">Eze 40:4</a>, "Set thy heart upon all that I shall show."<P class="in15">(f) To trust in: <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,10);">Ps 62:10</a>, "If riches increase, set not your heart thereon."<P class="in15">(g) To place before: <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,8);">Ps 90:8</a>, "Thou hast set our iniquities before"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',141,3);">Ps 141:3</a>, "Set a watch, O Yahweh, before my mouth."<P class="in15">(h) To go down: of the setting of the sun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,32);">Mr 1:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,40);">Lu 4:40</a>).<P class="in15">(i) To be proud: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,15);">Mal 3:15</a>, the King James Version "They that work wickedness are set up."<P class="in15">(j) To fill in: <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,9);">Ex 35:9</a>, "stones to be set, for the ephod."<P class="in15">(k) To plant: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,1);">Mr 12:1</a>, "set a hedge about it."<P class="in15">(l) To mock: <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,11);">Lu 23:11</a>, "Herod...set him at nought."<P class="in15">(m) To honor: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,30);">1Sa 18:30</a>, "so that his name was much set by."<P class="in15">(n) To start: <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,2);">Ac 21:2</a>, "We went aboard, and set sail." As may be seen the word is used in an endless variety of meanings.``42';
isbe[7862]='Seth; Sheth`seth, sheth (sheth; Seth):<P>(1) The son born to Adam and Eve after the death of Abel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,25);">Ge 4:25</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,3);">5:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,1);">1Ch 1:1</a>; Sirach 49:16; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,38);">Lu 3:38</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,25);">Ge 4:25</a> the derivation of the name is given. Eve "called his name Seth: For, said she, God hath appointed (shath) me another seed instead of Abel." In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,1);">1Ch 1:1</a> the King James Version, the form is "Sheth"; elsewhere in the King James Version and in the Revised Version (British and American) throughout the form is "Seth."<P>(2) the King James Version "the children of Sheth," the Revised Version (British and American) "the sons of tumult." According to the King James Version rendering, the name of an unknown race mentioned in Balaam\'s parable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,17);">Nu 24:17</a>).``78';
isbe[7863]='Sethur`se\'-thur (cethur; Sathour): An Asherite spy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,13);">Nu 13:13 (Hebrew 14)</a>).``1';
isbe[7864]='Setting`set\'-ing (millu\'ah, literally, "a filling"): The word is used in the description of the manufacture of the breastplate of judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,17);">Ex 28:17</a>). The instruction runs: "Thou shalt set in it settings of stones," namely, four rows of precious stones. The same word is rendered "inclosings" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,20);">Ex 28:20</a>, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,13);">39:13</a> the King James Version.``1';
isbe[7865]='Settle (1)`set\'-\'-l (\'azarah): For this word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,14,17,20);">Eze 43:14,17,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,19);">45:19</a>, the American Standard Revised Version and the English Revised Version margin substitute more correctly "ledge."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE">TEMPLE</a>`1';
isbe[7866]='Settle (2)`The Hebrew language has 8 words which are thus translated: yashabh, nachath, \'amadh, shaqat, tabha\', natsabh, maqom, qapha\'. Now the meaning is to settle down, to cause to occur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,11);">Eze 36:11</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',17,14);">1Ch 17:14</a>); then it denotes fixedness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,11);">2Ki 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,89);">Ps 119:89</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,25);">Pr 8:25</a>); again it points to a condition of absolute quiescence, as the settlings on the lees (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,11);">Jer 48:11</a>); and in still another place it means packing solidly together (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',65,10);">Ps 65:10</a>). In the New Testament the words hedraios, themelioo, and tithemi, have been translated "settle." the Revised Version (British and American) in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,10);">1Pe 5:10</a> has translated "establish," and the context unquestionably points to the idea of a fixed establishment in the faith. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,14);">Lu 21:14</a> the word translated "settle" evidently points to a fixed determination.``42';
isbe[7867]='Seven`sev\'-\'-n (shebha\'; hepta).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBER">NUMBER</a>`1';
isbe[7868]='Seven Churches``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHURCHES,+SEVEN">CHURCHES, SEVEN</a>`1';
isbe[7869]='Seven Stars``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[7870]='Seveneh`se-ven\'-e, se-ve\'-ne (ceweneh): For the King James Version "the tower of Syene," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,10);">Eze 29:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,6);">30:6</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "the tower of Seveneh," with a marginal note, "or, from Migdol to Syene." Seveneh is the town at the First Cataract in Egypt, now known as Assuan. Fresh interest has recently been given to it by the Elephantine discoveries bearing on the ancient Jewish colony and temple of Yahweh in that place in the 5th century BC.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARAMAIC">ARAMAIC</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EGYPT">EGYPT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAPYRUS">PAPYRUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANCTUARY">SANCTUARY</a>`1';
isbe[7871]='Seventh, Day`sev\'-\'-nth.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SABBATH">SABBATH</a>`1';
isbe[7872]='Seventy`sev\'-n-ti (shibh\'im; hebdomekonta).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBER">NUMBER</a>`1';
isbe[7873]='Seventy Disciples`The account of the designation and mission of these is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'1-\');">Luke 10</a>. Some have therefore sought to maintain that we have here only a confused variant of the appointment of the Twelve; but this is impossible in the light of Luke\'s account of the Twelve in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'1-\');">9</A>.<P>The documents vary as between the numbers seventy and seventy-two, so that it is impossible to determine which is the correct reading; and internal evidence does not help at all in this case. There is nothing in the function or circumstances to indicate any reason for the specific number.<P>Commentators have sought parallels in the seventy elders chosen to assist Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,\'1-\');">Nu 11</a>) and suppose that Jesus was incidentally indicating Himself as the "prophet like unto Moses" whom God would raise up.<P>Again, the Jews popularly reckoned the "number of the nations of the earth" at seventy (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a>), and some have supposed Jesus to be thus indicating that His gospel is universal. Attention is called to the fact that the Seventy are not forbidden to go to Gentiles and that their commission probably included Peraea, where many Gentiles were to be found. Some, again, have supposed that Jesus had in mind the Jewish Sanhedrin, composed of seventy (or seventy-two), and that the appointment of a like number to extend the work of His kingdom was a parabolic recognition that as the Jews were officially rejecting Him, so He was rejecting them as agents for the work of the kingdom. It is impossible to speak with any certainty as to any of these suggestions. It is to be noted that there is the same confusion between the numbers seventy and seventy-two in all four instances, as also in the tradition as to the number of translators of the Septuagint.<P>Inasmuch as no further mention is made of these workers, it is to be understood that they were appointed for a temporary ministry. Tradition names several of them and identifies them with disciples active after Pentecost. While it is probable that some of these were witnesses later, the tradition is worthless in details. The mission of these and the reason assigned for their appointment are essentially the same as in the case of the Twelve. Jesus is now completing His last popular campaign in preaching and introducing the kingdom of heaven. The employing of these in this service is in line with the permanent ideal of Christianity, which makes no distinction between the "laymen" and the "clergy" in responsibility and service. Jesus was perhaps employing all whose experience and sympathy made them fit for work in the harvest that was so plenteous while the laborers were few. He found seventy such now as He would find a hundred and twenty such after His ascension (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,15);">Ac 1:15</a>).``21';
isbe[7874]='Seventy Weeks`The "seventy weeks" of the prophecy in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,\'24-27\');">Da 9:24-27</a> have long been a subject of controversy in the critical schools. The conflicting views may be seen very fully in Dr. Driver\'s Daniel, 94ff, 143ff, and Dr. Pusey\'s Daniel the Prophet, lectionaries II, III, IV. On both sides it is agreed that the "weeks" in this prophecy are to be interpreted as "weeks of years," i.e. the 70 weeks represent 490 years. This period, commencing with "the going forth of the commandments to restore and build Jerus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,25);">Da 9:25</a>), is divided into three parts, 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434 years), and one week (7 years). The 69 weeks extend to the appearance of "an anointed one (Hebrew "Messiah"), the prince" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,25);">Da 9:25</a>), who, after the 62 weeks, shall be "cut off" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,26);">Da 9:26</a>), apparently in the "midst" of the 70th week (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,27);">Da 9:27</a>). On the traditional view (see Pusey), the 69 weeks (483 years) mark the interval from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem till the appearance of Christ; and if, with Pusey, the decree in question be taken to be that of the 7th year of Artaxerxes (457-56 BC; the mission of Ezra; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,8);">Ezr 7:8</a>ff), confirmed and extended in the 20th year of the same king (mission of Nehemiah; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,1);">Ne 2:1</a>ff), the 483 years run out about 27-28 AD, when our Lord\'s public ministry began. On the other hand, the view which supposes that the Book of Daniel belongs wholly to the Maccabean age, and does not here contain genuine prediction, is under the necessity of making the 490 years terminate with the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (171-164 BC), and this, it is admitted, cannot be done. To give time the violent expedient is adopted of dating the commencement of the 70 weeks from the prophecy of Jeremiah of the 70 years\' captivity, or of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (606 or 587 BC), i.e. before the captivity had begun. Even this, as Dr. Driver admits (p. 146), leaves us in 171 BC, some 67 years short of the duration of the 62 weeks, and a huge blunder of the writer of Daniel has to be assumed. The divergent reckonings are legion, and are mutually contradictory (see table in Pusey, p. 217). To invalidate the older view Dr. Driver avails himself of the altered renderings of <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,25);">Da 9:25</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,27);">27</a> in the English Revised Version. It is to be noted, however, that the American Standard Revised Version does not follow the English Revised Version in these changes. Thus, whereas the English Revised Version reads in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,25);">9:25</A>, "Unto the anointed one; the prince, shall be seven weeks: and threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again," and accordingly takes "the anointed one" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,26);">9:26</a> to be a distinct person, the American Standard Revised Version (as also the English Revised Version margin) reads, as in the King James Version, "shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks." Again, where the English Revised Version reads in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,27);">Da 9:27</a> "For the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease," the American Standard Revised Version (and the English Revised Version margin) has as formerly, "In the midst of the week he shall cause" etc. (conversely, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,25);">9:25</A> the American Revised Version margin gives the English Revised Version rendering). The question cannot be discussed here, but it is believed that the traditional interpretation may yet claim acceptance from those who do not accept the postulates of the newer critical writers.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DANIEL">DANIEL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUBILEES,+BOOK+OF">JUBILEES, BOOK OF</a>`132';
isbe[7875]='Seventy Years`The period assigned by Jeremiah for the duration of the Jewish exile in Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,11,12);">Jer 25:11,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,10);">29:10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,21);">2Ch 36:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,1);">Ezr 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,2);">Da 9:2</a>). If the period be reckoned from the date of the first deportation in the 4th year of Jehoiakim (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,1);">2Ki 24:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,6);">2Ch 36:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,1);">Da 1:1</a> by another reckoning calls it the 3rd year), i.e. 606 BC, till the decree of Cyrus, 536 BC, the prediction was fulfilled to a year.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CAPTIVITY">CAPTIVITY</a>`1';
isbe[7876]='Sever`sev\'-er: The three Hebrew words badhal, palah and paradh are thus translated. The idea conveyed is that of setting apart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,26);">Le 20:26</a> the King James Version) or of setting someone or something apart in a miraculous way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,22);">Ex 8:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,4);">9:4</a> the King James Version, the English Revised Version), or, again, of simple separation on one\'s own volition (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,11);">Jud 4:11</a> the King James Version, the English Revised Version). The Greek word aphorizo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,49);">Mt 13:49</a>) stands for final judicial segregation.``1';
isbe[7877]='Several; Severally`sev\'-er-al, sev\'-er-al-i: The Hebrew words chophshuth and chophshith, translated "several" in the King James Version, the English Revised Version, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,5);">2Ki 15:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,21);">2Ch 26:21</a>, are in both cases translated "separate" in the American Standard Revised Version, and indicate ceremonial uncleanness and consequent severance on account of leprosy. In the parable of the Talents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,15);">Mt 25:15</a>) and also in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,11);">1Co 12:11</a> the word idios, is translated "several," "severally." In both cases it points to the individuality of the recipients of the gift bestowed.``1';
isbe[7878]='Shaalabbin`sha-a-lab\'-in (sha\'alabbin; Codex Vaticanus Salabein; Codex Alexandrinus Salamein): A town in the territory of Dan named between Irshemesh and Aijalon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,42);">Jos 19:42</a>). It seems to be identical with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHAALBIM">SHAALBIM</a>.``1';
isbe[7879]='Shaalbim`sha-al\'-bim (sha\'albim; Codex Vaticanus Bethalamei; Codex Alexandrinus Salabeim, in Joshua, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus Thalabeim): When the Amorites had forced the children of Dan into the mountain they came and dwelt in Mt. Heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim, where, it appears, they were made tributary to the house of Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,35);">Jud 1:35</a>). In the time of Solomon it was included in the administrative district presided over by Ben-deker, along with Makaz, Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,9);">1Ki 4:9</a>). Beth-shemesh is the same as Ir-shemesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,42);">Jos 19:42</a>). Shaalbim is probably only another name of Shaalabbin. One of David\'s mighty men is called Eliahba the Shaalbonite. This presumes the existence of a town called Shaalbon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,32);">2Sa 23:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,33);">1Ch 11:33</a>), which again is probably identical with Shaalbim. Eusebius (in Onomasticon) identifies it with Salaba, a large village in the district of Sebaste (Samaria), which apparently Eusebius and Jerome thought to be in the territory of Dan. It seems, however, too far to the north. Jerome in his commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-\');">Eze 48</a> speaks of the towers of Aijalon and Selebi and Emmaus. Conder would identify Selebi with Selbit, 3 miles northwest of Aijalon (Yalo), and 8 miles north of Bethshemesh. This would suit for Shaalbim, as far as position is concerned; but it is difficult to account for the heavy "T" (Hebrew letter Tet) in the name, if derived from Shaalbim.``54';
isbe[7880]='Shaalbonite`sha-al-bo\'-nit, sha-al\'-bo-nit (ha-sha\'alboni; ho Salaboneites (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,32);">2Sa 23:32</a>) Codex Vaticanus ho Homei; Codex Alexandrinus ho Salaboni): Eliahba, one of David\'s heroes, a native of Shaalbon.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHAALBIM">SHAALBIM</a>`1';
isbe[7881]='Shaalim, Land of`sha\'-a-lim (\'erets sha\'alim; Codex Vaticanus tes ges Easakem; Codex Alexandrinus tes ges Saaleim; the King James Version Shalim): Saul in search of his father\'s asses passed through Mt. Ephraim and the land of Shalishah, then through the land of Shaalim and the land of yemini. This last name English Versions of the Bible renders "Benjamin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,4);">1Sa 9:4</a>). The whole passage is so obscure that no certain conclusions can be reached. The search party may have proceeded northward from Gibeah, through the uplands of Ephraim, turning then westward, then southward, and finally eastward. We should thus look for the land of Shalishah and the land of Shaalim on the west side of the mountain range: and the latter may have been on the slopes to the east of Lydda. Possibly we ought here to read "Shaalbim," instead of "Shaalim."``54';
isbe[7882]='Shaaph`shy\'-af (sha\'aph):<P>(1) A son of Jahdai (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,47);">1Ch 2:47</a>).<P>(2) The son of Maachah, a concubine of Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel. Shaaph is called the "father," or founder, of the city Madmannah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,48);">1Ch 2:48</a>f).``1';
isbe[7883]='Shaaraim`sha-a-ra\'-im (sha\'arayim, "two gates"; Sakareim; the King James Version Sharaim):<P>(1) A city in the Shephelah or "lowland" of Judah mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,36);">Jos 15:36</a>) in close association with Socoh and Azekah; the vanquished army of the Philistines passed a Shaaraim in their flight from Socoh toward Gath and Ekron (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,52);">1Sa 17:52</a>). It is possible that in this latter reference the "two gates" may refer<65>as Septuagint implies<65>to the two Philistine strongholds themselves. Shaaraim has been identified with Tell Zakariya (see however <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AZEKAH">AZEKAH</a>) and with Kh. Sa\'ireh (PEF, III,124,Sh XVII), an old site west of Beit \'Atab. Both proposals are hazardous.<P>(2) One of the towns of Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,31);">1Ch 4:31</a>), called (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,6);">Jos 19:6</a>) "Sharuhen" and, as one of the uttermost cities of Judah, called (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,32);">Jos 15:32</a>) "Shilhim." This town was in Southwestern Palestine and is very probably identical with the fortress Sharhana, a place of some importance on the road from Gaza to Egypt. Aahmes (XVIIIth Dynasty) besieged and captured this city in the 5th year of his reign in his pursuit of the flying Hyksos (Petrie, Hist, II,22,35), and a century later Tahutmes III, in the 23rd year of his reign, took the city of Sharuhen on his way to the siege and capture of Megiddo (Petrie, Hist, II, 104). On philological grounds Tell esh-Sheri\'ah, 12 miles northwest of Beersheba, large ruin, has been proposed, but it does not suit at all the Egyptian data (PEF, III, 399, Sh XXIV).``117';
isbe[7884]='Shaashgaz`sha-ash\'-gaz (sha\'ashgaz; Septuagint reads Gai, the same name it gives to the official referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,8,15);">Es 2:8,15</a>; the name may go back to the Old Bactrian word Sasakshant, "one anxious to learn" (Scheft); most commentators suggest no explanation): A chamberlain of Ahasuerus, king of Persia; as keeper of "the second house of women," he had Esther under his charge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,14);">2:14</a>).``1';
isbe[7885]='Shabbethai`shab\'-e-thi (shabbethay, "one born on the Sabbath"; Codex Vaticanus Sabathai; Codex Alexandrinus Kabbathai = "Sabbateus" of 1Esdras 9:14): A Levite who opposed (?) Ezra\'s suggestion that the men who had married foreign wives put them aside (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,15);">Ezr 10:15</a>). Kuenen, however, renders the phrase \'amedhu \'al zo\'th, of which Asahiel and Jahaziah are the subjects, to mean "stand over," "have charge of," rather than "stand against," "oppose" (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 247f); this would make Shabbethai, who was in accord with the two men mentioned above, an ally rather than an opponent of Ezra. We incline toward Kuenen\'s interpretation in view of the position attained by Shabbethai under Nehemiah<61>one he would have been unlikely to attain had he been hostile to Ezra. He is mentioned among those appointed to explain the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,7);">Ne 8:7</a>), and as one of the chiefs of the Levites who had the oversight of "the outward business of the house of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,16);">Ne 11:16</a>).``197';
isbe[7886]='Shachia`sha-ki\'-a, shak\'-i-a (sakheyah (so Baer, Ginsberg); some editions read sakheya\', or sakheya\'; also shakheyah, and shabheyah. This last reading is favored by the Syrian and the Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus Sabia; Codex Alexandrinus Sebia, but Lucian, Sechia); the forms in "kh" instead of "bh" have the support of the Vulgate, Sechia, "Yahweh has forgotten" (?)): A name in genealogy of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,10);">1Ch 8:10</a>).``1';
isbe[7887]='Shaddai`shad\'-a-i, shad\'-i.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD,+NAMES+OF">GOD, NAMES OF</a>`1';
isbe[7888]='Shade; Shadow; Shadowing`shad, shad\'-o, shad\'-o-ing (tsel; skia): A shadow is any obscuration of the light and heat with the form of the intervening object, obscurely projected, constantly changing and passing away. "Shadow" is used literally of a roof (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,8);">Ge 19:8</a>), of mountains (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,36);">Jud 9:36</a>), of trees (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,15);">Jud 9:15</a>, etc.), of wings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,8);">Ps 17:8</a>, etc.), of a cloud (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,5);">Isa 25:5</a>), of a great rock (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,2);">Isa 32:2</a>), of a man (Peter, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,15);">Ac 5:15</a>), of the shadow on the dial (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,9);">2Ki 20:9</a>, etc.), of Jonah\'s gourd (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',4,5);">Jon 4:5</a>f). It is used also figuratively<P>(1) of shelter and protection (of man, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,8);">Ge 19:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,3);">So 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',16,3);">Isa 16:3</a>, etc.; of God, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,7);">Ps 36:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,1);">91:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,6);">Isa 4:6</a>, etc.);<P>(2) of anything fleeting or transient, as of the days of man\'s life on earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,15);">1Ch 29:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',8,9);">Job 8:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,23);">Ps 109:23</a>);<P>(3) with the idea of obscurity or imperfection (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,5);">Heb 8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,1);">10:1</a>, of the Law; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,17);">Col 2:17</a>);<P>(4) of darkness, gloom; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHADOW+OF+DEATH">SHADOW OF DEATH</a>.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,17);">Jas 1:17</a>, we have in the King James Version, "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (aposkiasma); the Revised Version (British and American) "shadow that is cast by turning"; the reference is to the unchangeableness of God as contrasted with the changes of the heavenly bodies. the Revised Version (British and American) has "of the rustling of wings" for "shadowing with wings" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',18,1);">Isa 18:1</a>; the American Standard Revised Version has "shade" for "shadow" in various places (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,15);">Jud 9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,22);">Job 40:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,6);">Isa 4:6</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,21,22);">Job 40:21,22</a>, for "shady trees" the Revised Version (British and American) has "lotus-trees."``185';
isbe[7889]='Shadow of Death`(tsalmaweth): The Hebrew word translated "shadow of death" is used poetically for thick darkness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,5);">Job 3:5</a>), as descriptive of Sheol (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,21);">Job 10:21</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',12,22);">12:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,17);">38:17</a>); figuratively of deep distress (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',12,22);">Job 12:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,16);">16:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',24,17);">24:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,3);">28:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,22);">34:22</a> (in the last three passages the American Standard Revised Version has "thick darkness" and "thick gloom"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,4);">Ps 23:4</a>, the Revised Version margin "deep darkness (and so elsewhere)"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,19;">44:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,10,14);">107:10,14</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,2);">Isa 9:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,6);">Jer 2:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,16);">13:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,8);">Am 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,16);">Mt 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,79);">Lu 1:79</a>, skia thanatou). The Hebrew word is perhaps composed of tsel, "shadow," and maweth, "death," and the idea of "the valley of the shadow of death" was most probably derived from the deep ravines, darkened by over-hanging briars, etc., through which the shepherd had sometimes to lead or drive his sheep to new and better pastures.``185';
isbe[7890]='Shadrach`sha\'-drak: The Babylonian name of one of the so-called Hebrew children. Shadrach is probably the Sumerian form of the Bah Kudurru-Aki, "servant of Sin." It has been suggested by Meinhold that we should read Merodach instead of Shadrach. Since there were no vowels in the original Hebrew or Aramaic, and since "sh" and "m" as well as "r" and "d" are much alike in the old alphabet in which Daniel was written, this change is quite possible.<P>Shadrach and his two companions were trained along with Daniel at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, who had carried all four captive in the expedition against Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,1);">Da 1:1</a>). They all refused to eat of the food provided by Ashpenaz, the master who had been set over them by the king, but preferred to eat pulse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,12);">Da 1:12</a>). The effect was much to their advantage, as they appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than those who ate of the king\'s meat. At the end of the appointed time they passed satisfactory examinations, both as to their physical appearance and their intellectual acquirements, so that none were found like them among all with whom the king communed, and they stood before the king (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,\'1-\');">Da 1</a>).<P>When Daniel heard that the wise men of Babylon were to be slain because they could not tell the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, after he had gained a respite from the king, he made the thing known to his three companions that they might unite with him in prayer to the God of heaven that they all might not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. After God had heard their prayer and the dream was made known to the king by Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, at Daniel\'s request, set Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,\'1-\');">Da 2</a>). With Meshach and Abed-nego, Shadrach was cast into a fiery furnace, but escaped unhurt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,\'1-\');">Da 3</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABED+NEGO">ABED-NEGO</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HANANIAH">HANANIAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SONG+OF+THE+THREE+CHILDREN">SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN</a>`196';
isbe[7891]='Shady, Trees`shad\'-i (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,21);">Job 40:21</a>f).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOTUS+TREES">LOTUS TREES</a>`1';
isbe[7892]='Shaft`shaft: <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,2);">Isa 49:2</a> for chets, "an arrow"; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,31);">Ex 25:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,17);">37:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,4);">Nu 8:4</a> the King James Version for a part of the candlestick of the tabernacle somewhat vaguely designated by the word yarekh, "thigh." The context in the first <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,1,2);">2</A> verses shows that the upright stem or "shaft" is intended, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,4);">Nu 8:4</a> a different context has caused the Revised Version (British and American) to substitute "base."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARCHERY">ARCHERY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR,+ARMS">ARMOR, ARMS</a>`1';
isbe[7893]='Shagee`sha\'-ge (shaghe\'; Codex Vaticanus Sola; Codex Alexandrinus Sage; the King James Version Shage): The father of Jonathan, one of David\'s heroes (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,34);">1Ch 11:34</a>).``1';
isbe[7894]='Shahapaim`sha-ha-ra\'-im (shacharayim; Codex Vaticanus Saarel; Codex Alexandrinus Saarem): A Benjamite name (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,8);">1Ch 8:8</a>). The passage is corrupt beyond only the most tentative emendation. "Sharaim" has no connection with the foregoing text. One of the suggested restorations of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,8,9);">1Ch 8:8,9</a> reads: "And Shaharaim begat in the field of Moab, after he had driven them (i.e. the Moabites) out, from Hodesh his wife, Jobab," etc. (Curtis, International Critical Commentary).``1';
isbe[7895]='Shahazumah`sha-ha-zoo\'-ma, sha-haz\'-oo-ma (shachatsumah; Codex Vaticanus Saleim kata thalassan; Codex Alexandrinus Saseimath; the King James Version Shahazimah, sha-haz\'i-mah): A town in the territory of Issachar on the boundary which ran from Tabor to the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,22);">Jos 19:22</a>). The site, which has not yet been recovered, must be sought, probably, to the southeast of the mountain.``1';
isbe[7896]='Shalem`sha\'-lem (shalem; eis Salem): The word as a place-name occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,18);">Ge 33:18</a>. With Luther, following Septuagint, Peshitta and Vulgate, the King James Version reads "And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem." the Revised Version (British and American) with the Targums Onqelos and pseudo-Jonathan, the Samaritan codex and the Arabic, reads "came in peace to the city of Shechem." There is a heavy balance of opinion among scholars in favor of the latter reading. It is certainly a remarkable fact, supporting the King James Version, that about 4 miles east of Shechem (Nablus), there is a village bearing the name Salem. If the King James Version is right, this must represent the city referred to; and east of Salem would transpire the events recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,\'1-\');">Ge 44</a>. Against this is the old tradition locating Jacob\'s well and Joseph\'s tomb near to Shechem. Eusebius (in Onomasticon) gets over the difficulty by identifying Shalem with Shechem.``54';
isbe[7897]='Shalim`sha\'-lim`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHAALIM">SHAALIM</a>`1';
isbe[7898]='Shalishah, Land of`sha-li\'-sha, shal\'-i-sha (\'erets shalishah; Codex Vaticanus he ge Selcha; Codex Alexandrinus he ge Salissa): If the general indication of the route followed by Saul, given under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHAALIM">SHAALIM</a>, is correct, the land of Shalishah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,4);">1Sa 9:4</a>) will lie to the northeast of Lydda on the western slope of the range. Baal-shalishah would most likely be in the district, and may indeed have given its name to it. If Conder is right in identifying this city with Khirbet Kefr Thilth, about 19 miles northeast of Jaffa, it meets well enough the general indication given above. Eusebius, Onomasticon knows the name, but gives no guidance as to where the district is. Baal-shalishah it places in the Thamnite region, 15 miles north of Diospolis (Lydda). No boundaries can be laid down, but probability points to this neighborhood.``54';
isbe[7899]='Shallecheth, the Gate`shal\'-e-keth, sha-le\'-keth (sha\'ar shallekheth, i.e. as in margin, "Casting forth"): A gate of the temple "at the causeway that goeth up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,16);">1Ch 26:16</a>)<29>probably an ascent from the Tyropoeon Valley to the west of the temple. It has been supposed on account of the meaning of the name that the ashes and offal of the temple were cast forth there, but this is very unlikely<6C>they were thrown into the Kidron valley to the east or southeast. The Septuagint has pastophorion, which seems to point to a building with chambers; in consonance with this Cheyne reads in the Hebrew lishkoth, "(of) the chambers."``117';
isbe[7900]='Shallum (1)`shal\'-um (shallum, shallum; various forms in the Septuagint): This is the name of not less than 12 Hebrew persons:<P>(1) The youngest son of Naphtali (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,13);">1Ch 7:13</a>). He is also called "Shillem" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,24);">Ge 46:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,49);">Nu 26:49</a>.<P>(2) A descendant of Simeon, the son of Shaul and the father of Mibsam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,25);">1Ch 4:25</a>). He lived in 1618 BC.<P>(3) The son of Sismai "son" of Shesham of the tribe of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,40,41);">1Ch 2:40,41</a>). He lived in 1300 BC.<P>(4) A son of Kore, a porter of the sanctuary during the reign of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,17,19,31);">1Ch 9:17,19,31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,42);">Ezr 2:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,45);">Ne 7:45</a>). The name is also written "Meshullam" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,25);">Ne 12:25</a>, "Salum" in 1Esdras 5:28, "Meshelemiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,1,2,9);">1Ch 26:1,2,9</a>, and "Shelemiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,14);">1Ch 26:14</a>. He lived about 1050 BC.<P>(5) A son of Zadok and father of Hilkiah, a high priest and ancestor of Ezra the scribe (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,12,13);">1Ch 6:12,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,2);">Ezr 7:2</a>). In the works of Josephus he is called "Sallumus"; in 1Esdras 8:1, "Salem," and in 2Esdras 1:1, "Salemas."<P>(6) The 15th king of Israel. See following article. [<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHAALIM+(2)">Shallum (2)</a>]<P>(7) A son of Bani, a priest who had taken a heathen wife and was compelled by Ezra the scribe to put her away (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,42);">Ezr 10:42</a>; omitted in 1Esdras 9:34).<P>(8) The father of Jehizkiah, an Ephraimite in the time of Ahaz king of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,12);">2Ch 28:12</a>).<P>(9) The husband of the prophetess Huldah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,14);">2Ki 22:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,22);">2Ch 34:22</a>). He was the keeper of the sacred wardrobe and was probably the uncle of Jeremiah the prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,7);">Jer 32:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,4);">Jer 35:4</a>).<P>(10) King of Judah and son of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,11);">Jer 22:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,15);">1Ch 3:15</a>), better known by the name Jehoahaz II. This name he received when he ascended the throne of the kingdom of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,1);">2Ch 36:1</a>).<P>(11) A Levite who was a porter at the time of Ezra (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,24);">Ezr 10:24</a>; "Sallumus" in 1Esdras 9:25).<P>(12) A ruler over a part of Jerusalem and a son of Hallohesh. He with his daughters aided in building the walls of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,12);">Ne 3:12</a>).``178';
</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