114 lines
283 KiB
HTML
114 lines
283 KiB
HTML
<!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[8501]='Sunrising`sun\'-riz-ing: A frequent designation in the Old Testament for the East (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,11);">Nu 21:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,41,47);">De 4:41,47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,15);">Jos 1:15</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,2);">Re 7:2</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) has "sunrising" for the King James Version "east."``1';
|
||
isbe[8502]='Sunstroke`sun\'-strok.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SUN,+SMITING+BY">SUN, SMITING BY</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8503]='Sup; Supper`sup\'-er.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEALS">MEALS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8504]='Superfluous; Superfluity`su-pur\'-floo-us, su-per-floo\'-i-ti (sara\'; perissos (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,1);">2Co 9:1</a>), perisseia): According to the Levitical Law, "a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a fiat nose, or anything superfluous" could not fulfill priestly functions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,18);">Le 21:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,23);">22:23</a>). According to Dillmann (Baentsch, BDB) the word should be rendered "a limb too long," but Ewald (following the Septuagint) suggests "having cropped ears." The only instance of superfluity occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,21);">Jas 1:21</a>, the King James Version "superfluity of naughtiness"; according to Mayor "overflowing ebullition of malice" (the Revised Version (British and American) "overflowing of wickedness," margin "malice"); but the Greek word is used in other connections, e.g. of "grace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,17);">Ro 5:17</a>); "joy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,2);">2Co 8:2</a>).``103';
|
||
isbe[8505]='Superscription`su-per-skrip\'-shun (epigraphe):<P>(1) The legend on a coin designating the person in whose honor or by whose authority it is issued (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,20);">Mt 22:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,16);">Mr 12:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,24);">Lu 20:24</a>).<P>(2) The accusation on the cross of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,26);">Mr 15:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,38);">Lu 23:38</a>). According to Roman custom an inscription bearing the charge or ground of a criminal\'s condemnation was fixed to the cross on which he was crucified. The use of such an inscription at the crucifixion of Jesus is mentioned by all four evangelists. The fullest description is that of Mark, "the superscription of his accusation" (he epigraphe tes aitias autou) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,26);">15:26</A>). Matthew calls it more briefly "his accusation" (ten aitian autou) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,38);">27:38</A>), while Luke styles it merely "a superscription" (epigraphe) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,38);">23:38</A>). In the Fourth Gospel it is called a "title" (titlon) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,19);">Joh 19:19</a>). The text of the superscription is given by the four evangelists in varying terms and with various degrees of fullness.``121';
|
||
isbe[8506]='Superstition; Superstitious`su-per-stish\'-un; su-per-stish\'-us (deisidaimonia, "fearing demons"): The Biblical use of these words is limited to that of the former in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,19);">Ac 25:19</a> the King James Version, and of the latter in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,22);">Ac 17:22</a>. In the former reference, Festus speaks of the Jews\' "superstition" (the Revised Version (British and American) "religion"), thus artfully dodging an avowal of his own convictions "respecting the Hebrew faith." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,22);">Ac 17:22</a> the King James Version Paul tactfully refers to the Athenians as being "too superstitious" (the Revised Version (British and American) "too religious"), thus using the term correctly from both their and his point of view. They were truly too "religious" with their superstitions.``41';
|
||
isbe[8507]='Suph`soof (cuph; plesion tes eruthras (thalasses); the King James Version Red Sea): As the verse stands, the place where Moses addressed the children of Israel is indicated as "beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,1);">De 1:1</a>). the King James Version, following Septuagint, takes the name as a contraction of yam suph (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RED+SEA">RED SEA</a>). The abbreviation is not found elsewhere. The name of the sea was not derived from that of a city; so we need not look in that direction. Knobel suggested Naqb es-Safa, a pass about 25 miles west-southwest of the Dead Sea. But it is "unsuitably situated; nor does the name agree phonetically (for Arabic ts agrees with Hebew tsade not with Hebew samek)." (Driver, "Deuteronomy," ICC, 4). No identification is possible.``54';
|
||
isbe[8508]='Suphah`soo\'-fa (suphah, for wahebh becuphah; Septuagint reads ten Zoob ephlogise; the King James Version Rea Sea): Suphah is the region in which Vaheb is situated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,14);">Nu 21:14</a>). It is probably identical with Suph of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,1);">De 1:1</a>. Tristram (Land of Moab, 50f) suggested identification with Ghor es-Safiyeh], a small oasis east of the mud flats of Es-Sebkhah], south of the Dead Sea; but "the sibilants do not correspond, and Safiyeh is a specifically Arabic term (Wetzstein in Delitzsch, Gen4, 586, note 2) which does not seem to be a likely explanation of Suphah" (Gray, "Nu," ICC, 285f). This, and other questions of identification, must wait for solution until a more thorough exploration of the whole district has been accomplished.``54';
|
||
isbe[8509]='Supper`sup\'-er.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEALS">MEALS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8510]='Supper, Lord\'s``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LORD\'s+supper">LORD\'S SUPPER</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8511]='Supply`su-pli\':<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,19);">Php 4:19</a> for pleroo; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,17);">1Co 16:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,30);">Php 2:30</a> for anapleroo; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,12);">2Co 9:12</a> (the King James Version); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,9);">2Co 11:9</a> for prosanapleroo. All three verbs mean "to fill," the 3rd containing the additional connotation "fill up to a certain point." <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,16);">Eph 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,19);">Php 1:19</a> for the noun epichoregia, literally, "an additional supply." But no special force of "additional" seems to be contained in the passages. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,10);">2Co 9:10a</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,5);">Ga 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,9);">Col 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,5,11);">2Pe 1:5,11</a>, we have epichoregeo, "to furnish besides," i.e. fully supply; in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,10);">2Co 9:10b</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,11);">1Pe 4:11</a> the simple choregeo, "to furnish,"``48';
|
||
isbe[8512]='Sur`sur (Codex Vaticanus Assour, Codex Alexandrinus Sour): Those that dwelt in Sur are mentioned along with the inhabitants of Sidon, Tyre, Ocina, etc., as dreading the approach of Holofernes and the Assyrian any (Judith 2:28). The names run from north to south, and Sur immediately follows Tyre (modern Sur), with which, therefore, it can hardly be identified. No probable identification has been suggested.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8513]='Sure; Surely`shoor, shoor\'-li: In modern English is used chiefly in the phrases "to be sure" or "to make sure," and as a simple adjective it is usually either archaic or exceedingly colloquial. The adjectival use, however, is common (chiefly for \'aman, "to confirm," and its derivatives) in English Versions of the Bible, where modern English would prefer "secure" or "certain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,35);">1Sa 2:35</a>; Sir 40:25; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,34);">Ac 13:34</a>, etc.). "To be sure that" is also fairly common in the King James Version, and occasionally (as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,23);">De 12:23</a>, "Be sure that thou eat not the blood," for chazaq, "to be firm") it has rather more emphasis than in modern English. But usually the phrase is a mere periphrasis for some word meaning "to know" (compare the Revised Version (British and American) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,19);">Ex 3:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,11);">Lu 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,2);">Ro 2:2</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,3);">Pr 6:3</a>, the King James Version has "Make sure thy friend" for rahabh, "be boisterous" "beset" the Revised Version (British and American) "importune." The sense is "Force him to pay his debt."<P>Surely in English Versions of the Bible is used almost always to qualify an entire phrase, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,16);">Ge 28:16</a>, "Surely Yahweh is in this place." In modern English "surely" used in this way suggests that the statement is being argued and is therefore slightly doubtful, but in Elizabethan English the purpose is to exclude all doubt ("beyond question"). With this force the King James Version uses "surely" to translate almost any emphatic form, and the Revised Version (British and American) has conformed to AV\'s use, and such changes as have been made by the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,73);">Mt 26:73</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,23);">Lu 4:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,20);">Re 22:20</a>, etc.) are merely to preserve uniformity of rendition. The most common use of "surely" in this sense is to translate a verb when emphasized by its own part. (absolute inf. in Hebrew), as "Thou shalt, surely die" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,17);">Ge 2:17</a>) for "dying thou shalt die" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,17);">Ge 22:17</a> for the Hebrew construction). In this sense "surely" is sometimes varied by "of a surety" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,13);">Ge 15:13</a>, etc.) without the slightest difference in meaning (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,5);">Ge 9:5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,9);">26:9</A>). In addition "surely" is used occasionally as a simple adverb where modern English would prefer "securely" or "certainly" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,9);">Pr 10:9</a> and the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,1);">Lu 1:1</a>, "surely believed," the Revised Version (British and American) "fulfilled," the Revised Version margin "fully established").<P>Surety, besides its use in "of a surety" appears, in the Old Testament to translate \'arabh, "to be surety," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,22);">Heb 7:22</a> for egguos, "guarantor," "giver of security." Modern English prefers "security," as does even the King James Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,9);">Ac 17:9</a>. "Suretiship" (the American Standard Revised Version "suretyship") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,15);">Proverbs 11:15</a> for taqa\', "to strike (hands)."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STRIKE">STRIKE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SURETY">SURETY</a>`48';
|
||
isbe[8514]='Surety`shoor\'-ti: This word is used in three different connections or groups:<P>(1) As a derivative of the word "sure" it means "of a certainty" or "surely."<22>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,13);">Ge 15:13</a> the infinitive absolute of the verb is used to give emphasis to the idea of the verb and is rendered "of a surety." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,13);">Ge 18:13</a> the Hebrew \'omnam is translated "of a surety." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,9);">Ge 26:9</a> \'akh is similarly rendered, and has the force of our "indeed." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,11);">Ac 12:11</a> alethos, is translated in the King James Version "of a surety," but better in the Revised Version (British and American) "of a truth."<P>(2) In the sense of security or pledge for a person.<2E>This means that one person may become security for another, that such a one will do a certain thing at a time in the future. Judah was "surety" to his father Jacob that Benjamin would safely return from Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,9);">Ge 43:9</a>). He pledged his life that the younger brother would return safely. He tells Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,32);">Ge 44:32</a>) how he had become surety for Benjamin, and offers to become Joseph\'s slave for the sake of his brother. Job says (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',17,3);">Job 17:3</a>), "Give now a pledge, be surety for me with thyself; who is there that will strike hands with me?" The striking of hands refers to the action or gesture by which the surety or pledge was publicly manifested and thus ratified. Job here beseeches God to become surety for him, to pledge him that some time in the future He will cause Job\'s innocence to be made known and be acknowledged by God Himself. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,14);">Isa 38:14</a> Hezekiah says, "O Lord, I am oppressed, be thou my surety." He wishes God to give him a pledge of some kind, to go security for him in such a way that he will surely be saved out of his sickness and distress. Jesus is called "the surety (egguos) of a better covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,22);">Heb 7:22</a>). Jesus is the pledge or surety that through Him we may obtain the assurance and certainty that a more excellent covenant has been established by God, and are assured also of the truth of the promises connected with it.<P>(3) It is used to describe the practice of going security for another by striking hands with that person and becoming responsible for money or any object loaned.<2E>The Book of Proverbs unhesitatingly condemns the practice. No mention is made of it in the Mosaic Law, as if the custom were then practically unknown. The Book of Proverbs makes no distinction between a stranger and a neighbor; the person who does such a thing is likened unto an animal caught in a trap. He is exhorted to sleep no more until he has got out of the trap, or freed himself from this obligation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,\'1-5\');">Pr 6:1-5</a>). The wisdom of such advice has been abundantly verified by experience. It does not necessarily preclude certain special cases, where the practice may be justified. The international relationships of the Jews in the period of the monarchy, together with the unsettled condition of the country (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,3);">Ne 5:3</a>) and people, needed such commercial strictness. Their trade was mostly in the hands of the Phoenicians and other foreigners, and the pressure of taxation for the payment of foreign tribute, etc., was heavy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,4);">Ne 5:4</a>f). <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,15);">Pr 11:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,18);">17:18</a> declare one "void of understanding" who thus goes security for another. <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,16);">Pr 20:16</a> seems to contain an exclamation of contemptuous rebuke for the man who goes security. <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',22,26);">Pr 22:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,13);">27:13</a> contain like admonitions.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEBT">DEBT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PLEDGE">PLEDGE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SECURITY">SECURITY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STRIKE">STRIKE</a>`146';
|
||
isbe[8515]='Surname`sur\'-nam (kanah; epikalein): A word derived from the French., meaning "an additional name"; in modern English always the family name of a person. Indeed, the spelling "surname" in the King James Version 1Macc 1:10; 2:2; 6:43 may be due to a confusion with "sire\'s name." But the custom of family names was entirely unknown among the Hebrews. The word is used twice in the King James Version of the Old Testament, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,5);">Isa 44:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,4);">45:4</a>. The Hebrew word means "to give flattering or honorary titles." In the former passage foreigners are so envious of the prosperity of the Jews that they are anxious to be surnamed by the name of Israel, i.e. to be enrolled as members of the Jewish nation. In the latter case Yahweh gives Cyrus an honorary title, namely, "servant of Yahweh," and thus appoints him to be His instrument in the restoration of His people. The same word is rendered in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',32,21);">Job 32:21</a>, the King James Version "give flattering titles." Elihu declares his intention to examine the situation without fear or favor. He will not allow such high-sounding titles as "Your Worship" or "My Lord" to stand in his way. He will not be overawed by Job\'s social position. In the New Testament the word is used in the case of Peter<65>Simon whose surname is Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,5,32);">Ac 10:5,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,13);">11:13</a>); of Mark<72>John whose surname was Mark (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,12,25);">Ac 12:12,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,37);">15:37</a>); of Judas<61>surnamed Iscariot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,3);">Lu 22:3</a>); of Barsabbas<61>who was surnamed Justus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,23);">Ac 1:23</a>); and of Judas<61>surnamed Barsabbas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,22);">Ac 15:22</a>). It was a widespread custom in the ancient world to give honorary and symbolical titles. our Lord surnamed Simon Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,16);">Mr 3:16</a>), and James and John Boanerges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,17);">Mr 3:17</a>). <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,37);">Ac 15:37</a> the King James Version has "surname" for the simple "call" (so the Revised Version (British and American)).``103';
|
||
isbe[8516]='Susa`su\'-sa, soo\'-sa (Additions to Esther 11:3).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHUSHAN">SHUSHAN</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8517]='Susanchites`su-san\'-kits (shushanekhaye\').`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHUSHANCHITES">SHUSHANCHITES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8518]='Susanna, the History of`su-zan\'-a:<P>1. Name<P>2. Canonicity and Position<P>3. Contents<P>4. Fact or Fiction?<P>5. Date<P>6. Original Language<hr /><P>1. Name:<P>This novelette has, in the Septuagint, the bare title "Susanna" (Sousanna, from Hebrew shoshannah, "lily"). So also in the Syro-Hexapla. In Codex Alexandrinus (Theodotion) it is designated Horasis a (Vision I); see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL+AND+THE+DRAGON">BEL AND THE DRAGON</A>, sec. I. In the Harklensian Syriac (Ball\'s W2) its title is "The Book of Little (or the child?) Daniel."<P>2. Canonicity and Position:<P>Susanna was with the other Additions included in the Bible Canon of the Greek, Syrian and Latin churches. Julius Africanus (circa 230 AD) was the first to dispute the right of Susanna to a place in the Canon, owing to its improbable character. Origen replied to him, strongly maintaining its historicity (see Schurer, GJV4, III, 455; HJP, II,3,p. 186, where the references are given). In the Septuagint, Syro-Hexapla and Vulgate, Susanna is Daniel 14, but in Theodotion (ABQ) it opens Daniel, preceding chapter 1, a position implied in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) which are based on Theodotion, formerly believed to be the true Septuagint. Yet it is probable that even in Theodotion the original place agreed with that in the true Septuagint (Swete\'s 87); so Roth (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 172) and Driver (Commentary on Daniel, Cambridge Bible, xviii).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL+AND+THE+DRAGON">BEL AND THE DRAGON</A>.<P>3. Contents:<P>The story of Susanna is thus told in Theodotion\'s version, and therefore in English Versions of the Bible which follows it. Susanna was the beautiful and devout wife of Joakim who resided in Babylon in the early years of the exile, and owned a fine park which was open to his fellow-exiles (verses 1-4). Two of these last were elders and judges who, though held in high esteem, suffered impure thoughts toward Susanna to enter their minds. One day, meeting in the park, they divulged to each other their lustful passion toward this beautiful woman, and resolved together to seize the first opportunity to waylay her in the park and to overpower her (verses 5-15). A joint attempt was made upon Susanna, who resisted, notwithstanding threats of false accusation (verses 22-26). The elders make a false charge, both in private and in public, and she is accordingly condemned to death (verses 27-41). On the way to execution she is met by Daniel (= judge "of God") who has the case reopened, and by a system of cross-examination of the two elders succeeds in convincing the people that Susanna is innocent of the charge brought against her. She is acquitted, but her accusers are put to death.<P>The story told in the Septuagint (87) is essentially the same, though varying somewhat in details. Versions 1-4 seem to have been prefixed for clearness by Theodotion, for in Susanna verse 7 of the Septuagint Susanna is introduced for the first time: "These seeing a woman of beautiful appearance called Susanna, the wife of one of the Israelites," etc. The original text began therefore with verse 5, though in a slightly different form. Septuagint omits verses 15-18 which tell of the two elders concealing themselves and watching as Susanna entered the park and took her bath. There is not a word in Septuagint concerning the threats of the elders to defame Susanna in the event of her refusing what they desired (verses 20ff); this omission makes the Septuagint form of the story obscure, suggesting that this section has fallen out by error. Nor does the Septuagint mention the crying out of Susanna and the elders (verse 24). The trial took place in the house, according to Theodotion (and English Versions of the Bible) (verse 28), but, according to Septuagint, in the synagogue (verse 28). In Septuagint (verse 30) it is said that the number of Susanna\'s relatives, servants and servant-maids present at the trial was 500; Theodotion is silent on this. Septuagint (verse 35) makes Susanna pray to God before her condemnation, but Theodotion (English Versions of the Bible, verses 42-44) after. According to Septuagint the young man whom the elders falsely said they found with Susanna escaped unobserved because masked; Theodotion says he got away because the elders had not strength to hold him (verse 39). Septuagint is silent about the two maids who, according to Theodotion (verse 36), accompanied Susanna to the bath. Theodotion does not speak of the angel who according to Septuagint imparted to Daniel the wisdom he displayed (but compare Theodotion, verse 50); but on the other hand he adds the words ascribed to Daniel (verse 51, English Versions), though he leaves out the words imputed to him by Septuagint (= even elders may lie). Septuagint omits the words of the people addressed to Daniel: "What mean these words which thou hast spoken?" (verse 47, Theodotion, English Versions of the Bible). According to Theodotion (verse 50) the people entreated Daniel to act as judge among them; Septuagint omits this statement. Two questions were put to the elders, according to the Septuagint: "Under what kind of tree?" "In what part of the park?" but only one, according to Theodotion (and English Versions of the Bible): "Under what kind of tree?" Septuagint has it that as a punishment the two elders were hurled down the precipice; according to Theodotion they were slain (verse 62). In the last two verses (verses 63f) Septuagint points the moral of the story, but Theodotion closes by describing the joy of Susanna\'s relatives at the happy issue of the trial and the increased respect in which Daniel came to be held. For the dependence of the version see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEXT+AND+MANUSCRIPTS+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEXT+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VERSIONS">VERSIONS</A>.<P>4. Fact or Fiction?:<P>It is quite evident that the story is a fabrication and that it came to be attached to Daniel on account of the part played in it by Daniel the judge.<P>(1) The form of the story differs in Septuagint, Theodotion and the various Syriac recensions, showing that it was a floating legend, told in manifold ways.<P>(2) No confirmation of what is here narrated has been discovered in written or epigraphic sources.<P>(3) The grounds on which Susanna was condemned are trivial and wholly inadequate.<P>(4) The conduct of the judge, Daniel, is unnatural and arbitrary.<P>Though, however, the story is fictitious, it rests in part or wholly on older sources.<P>(1) Ewald (Geschichte(3), IV, 386) believed that it was suggested by the Babylonian legend in which two old men are seduced by the goddess of love (compare Koran 2 96).<P>(2) Brull (Das apokryphische Sus-Buch, 1877), followed by Ball (Speaker\'s Apocrypha, II, 323-31), Marshall and R. H. Charles, came to the following conclusions:<P>(a) That the first half of the story rests on a tradition regarding two elders (Ahab and Zedekiah) who seduced certain women by persuading them that they would thus become the mother of the Messiah. This tradition has its origin probably in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,\'21-23\');">Jer 29:21-23</a>, where it is said that Yahweh would sorely punish Ahab and Zedekiah because they had "committed villany in Israel," having "committed adultery with their neighbours\' wives" (the King James Version). We can trace the above story amid many variations in the writings of Origen and Jerome and in sundry rabbinical works.<P>(b) The trial scene is believed to have a wholly different origin. It is said to have arisen about 100-96 BC, when Simon ben Shetach was president of the Sanhedrin. His son was falsely accused of a capital offense and was condemned to death. On the way to execution the accusers admitted that he was innocent of the crime; yet at his own request the son is executed in order that the father\'s hands might be strengthened in the inauguration of new reforms in the administration of justice. The Pharisees and Sadducees differed as to the punishment to be meted out to false witnesses where the death sentence was involved. The first party advocated a stricter examination of witnesses, and a severer penalty if their testimony could be proved false. The Sadducee party took up a more moderate position on both points. Susanna has been held to be a kind of tract setting forth by example the views of the Pharisee party. If this opinion of the origin of Susanna be accepted, this tract was written by a Palestinian Jew, a position rendered probable by other considerations.<P>5. Date:<P>If, as the Greek, Latin and Syriac churches held and hold, Susanna forms an integral part of Daniel, the date of this last book (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DANIEL">DANIEL</a>) is the date of Sus. But there is conclusive evidence that the three "Additions" circulated independently, though we have no means of fixing the date with any certainty. Perhaps this piece arose during the struggles between the Pharisees and Sadducees about 94-89 BC; see preceding section. In that case 90 BC would be a suitable date. On the date of Theodotion\'s translation see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DANIEL">DANIEL</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL+AND+THE+DRAGON">BEL AND THE DRAGON</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VERSIONS">VERSIONS</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEXT+AND+MANUSCRIPTS+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEXT+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</A>.<P>6. Original Language:<P>Our materials for judging of the language in which the author wrote are slender, and no great probability can at present be reached. The following scholars argue for a Greek original: Fritzsche, De Wette, Keil, Herzfeld, Graf, Holtzmann. The following are some of the grounds:<P>(1) There are several paronomasias or word-plays, as in Susanna verses 54f; schinon ("under a mastick tree")...schisei ("will cut"); verses 58f; prinon ("under a holm tree")...prisai ("to cut"). But this last word (prisai) is absent from the true Septuagint, though it occurs in Theodotion (Swete\'s text, verse 59, has kataprise from the same root). If the word-play in verses 58f is due to a translation based on Septuagint, the first example (verses 54f), found in Septuagint and Theodotion, is as likely to be the work of the translator of those verses from the Hebrew.<P>(2) It is said that no trace of a Hebrew original has been discovered; but up to a few years ago the same statement could have been made of Sir.<P>There is a growing opinion that the author wrote in Hebrew (or Aramaic?); so Ball, J. T. Marshall, R. H. Charles.<P>(1) The writer was almost certainly a Palestinian Jew, and he would be far more likely to write in his own language, especially as he seems to have belonged to the Pharisaic party, who were ardent nationalists (see preceding section, at end).<P>(2) There is a goodly number of Hebraisms, rather more than one would expect had the writer composed in Hellenistic Greek<P>For versions and literature see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL+AND+THE+DRAGON">BEL AND THE DRAGON</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DANIEL">DANIEL</A>; the Oxford Apocrypha, edition by R. H. Charles, 638ff.``33';
|
||
isbe[8519]='Susi`su\'-si, soo\'-si (cuci): Father of Gaddi, one of the spies, who represented the tribe of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,11);">Nu 13:11</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[8520]='Swaddle; Swaddling-Band`swod\'-\'-l, swod\'-ling-band (verb chathal, "enwrap," "swaddle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,4);">Eze 16:4</a>), noun chathullah, "swaddling-band" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,9);">Job 38:9</a>); verb sparganoo, "to wrap in swaddling clothes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,7,12);">Lu 2:7,12</a>), noun spargana (pl.), "swaddling clothes" (The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 7:4</span>). the King James Version also has "swaddle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,22);">La 2:22</a>) for Taphach, literally, "to extend." But the word means "to carry on the outstretched palms of the hands" (compare Tippuchim, "dandled in the hands," <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,20);">La 2:20</a>), whence RV\'s "to dandle"): "To swaddle" and "to swathe" are really the same word, both forms going back to an AS form swethel, "a bandage," but "swaddle" has become the technical term for the wrapping of an infant in the Orient or elsewhere. The oriental swaddling-clothes consist of a square of cloth and two or more bandages. The child is laid on the cloth diagonally and the corners are folded over the feet and body and under the head, the bandages then being tied so as to hold the cloth in position. This device forms the clothing of the child until it is about a year old, and its omission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,4);">Eze 16:4</a>) would be a token that the child had been abandoned. The mention of darkness as a "swaddling-band" at the birth of the sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,9);">Job 38:9</a>) is only a poetic way of saying that the sea, at its creation, was covered with clouds and darkness, and to find any idea of restraint involved is fanciful.``48';
|
||
isbe[8521]='Swallow`swal\'-o (deror; strouthos, in Proverbs and Psalms, chelidon, in Isa; Latin Hirundo rustica): A small long-winged bird of exhaustless flight, belonging to the family Hirundinidae. Deror means the bird of freedom, and as the swallow is of tireless wing, it has been settled upon as fitting the requirements of the text. In the passages where \'aghur is translated "swallow," there is a mistake, that word referring to the crane. There is also a word, cuc or cic, that means a rushing sound, that is incorrectly translated "swallow," when it should be "swift" (Cypselus apus).<P>These birds are near relatives and so alike on the wing as to be indistinguishable to any save a close observer. Yet the Hebrews knew and made a difference. The swallow is a trifle larger and different in color. It remains all the year, while in numerous instances the swift migrates and is a regular sign of returning spring. The swallow is of long and tireless flight. The swift is so much faster that the sound of its wings can be heard when passing. The swallow plasters a mud nest under eaves, on towers, belfries, and close to human habitations. The swifts are less intimate, building in deserted places, under bridges and on rocky crevices. The swallows utter constantly a rather sweet low note; the swifts chatter harshly and incessantly at their nests. These differences are observable to the most careless people. Scientists separate the birds on account of anatomical structure also. Despite this, the birds are confused in most of our translations.<P class="in15">"Like a swallow or a crane, so did I chatter;<br>I did moan as a dove; mine eyes fail with looking upward:<br>O Lord, I am oppressed, be thou my surety"<br>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,14);">Isa 38:14</a>).<P>Here \'aghur is translated "swallow" and cuc "crane," which is clearly interchanging words, as the Arabic for "swift" is cuc, the same as the Hebrew. The line should read, "swift and crane." And another reason for changing swallow to swift, in this passage, lies in the fact that of the two birds the swift is the incessant and raucous chatterer, and this was the idea in the mind of Hezekiah when he sang his Trouble Song. Another incorrect reference is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,7);">Jer 8:7</a>: "Yea, the stork in the heavens knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle-dove and the swallow and the crane observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the law of Yahweh." Few swallows migrate. Returning swifts are one of the first signs of spring.<P class="in15">"As the sparrow in her wandering, as the swallow in her flying,<br>So the curse that is causeless alighteth not"<p class="in15"> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,2);">Pr 26:2</a>).<P>This reference might apply to either, remembering always that the swift took its name from its exceptional flight, it being able to cover over 80 miles an hour. However, the swallow is credited with 800 miles in a night.<P class="in15">"Yea, the sparrow hath found her a house,<br>And the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young,<br>Even thine altars, O Yahweh of hosts,<br>My King, and my God"<p class="in15" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',84,3);">Ps 84:3</a>).<P>Here is one instance, at least, where the swallow is at home and the translation correct. The swift might possibly have built in the temple: the swallow was sure to be there.``167';
|
||
isbe[8522]='Swan`swon (tinshemeth, "chameleon," "tree-toad," "water-hen," "owl"; kuknos; Latin cygnus; Anglo-Saxon: swan and swon): Mentioned only in old versions and the Revised Version margin in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,18);">Le 11:18</a>: "the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,16);">De 14:16</a> Septuagint porphurion = "water-hen"; Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) ibis). In the Revised Version (British and American) this is rightly changed to "the horned owl, and the pelican, and the vulture." A bird of the duck family wrongly placed among the abominations in old versions of the Bible, now changed to horned owl.<P>White and gray swans spend their winter migratory season on the waters of the Holy Land. They are among the most ancient birds of history; always have been used for food; when young and tender, of fine flesh and delicious flavor; so there is no possibility that they were ever rightfully placed among the birds unsuitable for food. Their feeding habits are aquatic, their food in no way objectionable.``167';
|
||
isbe[8523]='Swearing`swar\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OATH">OATH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERJURY">PERJURY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8524]='Sweat`swet (ze\'ah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,19);">Ge 3:19</a>), yeza\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,18);">Eze 44:18</a>); hidros (2Macc 2:26; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,44);">Lu 22:44</a>)): "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,19);">Ge 3:19</a>). Somewhat difficult is the passage, which the Revised Version (British and American) renders: "But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok...shall have linen tires upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causeth sweat," literally, "they shall not gird themselves with sweat" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,15,18);">Eze 44:15,18</a>). The idea is evidently that profuse perspiration would make their ministrations unpleasant. The rule was of special importance in the sultry climate of Palestine.<P>Luke, the physician, describing the agony of the Lord in Gethsemane, says: "His sweat became as it were great drops (thromboi) of blood falling down upon the ground" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,44);">Lu 22:44</a>, the Revised Version (British and American), following Codex Sinaiticus (a), Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus etc., notes in margin: "Many ancient authorities omit <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,43,44);">Lu 22:43,44</a>"). There are two difficulties of interpretation in this passage, apart from the difficulty which the physiological explanation of the phenomenon presents:<P>(1) the word (thrombos) translated "drop" means literally, "a clot of blood," "a lump," "a curd," and is nowhere else used in the sense of drop.<P>(2) It has been generally accepted that the sweat of the brow of Jesus had become bloody in appearance and in character, a symptom called in ancient medicine haimatodes hidros, "bloody sweat."<P>It must, however, be observed that this translation would make the Greek particle hosei, superfluous, by which, not the identity of the sweat with drops of blood, but a certain similarity or comparison must be intended. Ch. Th. Kuinoel, in his Latin commentary on the historical books of the New Testament (Leipzig,1809,II, 654), has given all known parallel instances in history and legend, which seem to prove that under certain psychological or physiological conditions, though rarely, haimatodes hidros has occurred.<P>Olshausen in his Commentary, II, 469, thinks that the following points of comparison might have been in the mind of Luke:<P>(1) the sweat may have appeared on the forehead of Jesus in heavy drops;<P>(2) these may have dropped visibly to the ground, just as drops of blood fall from a wound;<P>(3) in addition, possibly a reddish color may have been noticeable, owing to an exudation of the arteries, though the latter is not directly expressed in the words of the evangelist. See also Dr. Stroud, On the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, 183; Bynaeus, De morte Christi, II, 33.<P>The people of Palestine in Greek-Roman times were generally provided with handkerchiefs, used especially to wipe off the perspiration. The fashion was derived from Rome, whence the name of these napkins became soudarion, Latin sudarium. The late legend of Berenice or Veronica, who presented her handkerchief to the Saviour on His way to be crucified, and who found, when it had been returned to her by the Lord, that His features had been imprinted upon the cloth, is a reminiscence of this use. These handkerchiefs were frequently used to tie up small bundles of certain possessions, money, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,20);">Lu 19:20</a>). As a rule the dead had their faces covered with one, or had it tied around the head (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,44);">Joh 11:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,7);">20:7</a>). In Ephesus the handkerchiefs of Paul were carried to the sick, and achieved miraculous cures (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,12);">Ac 19:12</a>).<P>The verb hidroo, "to sweat," is found in a rather difficult passage of the Didache (i.6), which is introduced as a quotation, the source of which, however, we do not know: "Let thy alms sweat into (in ?) thy hands, until thou knowest to whom thou givest." The context seems to show that we have here a free repetition of the arguments of Sirach 12:1ff. so that the meaning would be: "In giving charity, do not give indiscriminately or thoughtlessly, but consider carefully so that no one who is unworthy receive your benefaction." Still it is not impossible that the text is corrupt in the passage.``106';
|
||
isbe[8525]='Sweet Cane`swet kan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REED">REED</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8526]='Sweet Incense`See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPICES">SPICES</A>.``1';
|
||
isbe[8527]='Swell`swel (tsabhah): In the ordeal of the Water of Jealousy described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,\'11-31\');">Nu 5:11-31</a> (P), the effect on the unfaithful wife ot the drinking of the holy water was to cause the thigh to fall away (Revised Version) or rot (the King James Version) and the abdomen to "swell." This ceremonial was a direct appeal to the judgment of God, for there was nothing in the holy water (taken from the laver) or the dust of the temple which was mixed with it to produce this effect. In the Talmudic tract Cotah there are given many rabbinical opinions and particulars as to the procedure in later times. Apparently from the passage in Numbers, the judgment speedily followed the appeal, but according to Sotah, iii.4, it might be postponed even for four years, and in v.1, it is said to have produced the same effect on the adulterer as on the unfaithful wife. We have no details as to the nature or permanency of the swelling.<P>"Swell" as the translation of another word, batseq, is used in the sense of blistering of the feet from long tramping. Both in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,4);">De 8:4</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,21);">Ne 9:21</a> it is said that in spite of their long wilderness marches the feet of the Israelites did not swell. This was a token of divine protection.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SWOLLEN">SWOLLEN</a>`107';
|
||
isbe[8528]='Swelling`swel\'-ing: The verb ga\'-ah, means "rise up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,5);">Eze 47:5</a>, etc.), so that the noun ga\'awah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',46,3);">Ps 46:3</a>) means "arising." The "swelling" of the sea that shakes the mountains is a perfectly good translation, and "pride" (so the American Revised Version margin) is beside the mark. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',12,5);">Jer 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,19);">49:19</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,44);">50:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',11,3);">Zec 11:3</a> is found the phrase ge\'on ha-yarden, "exaltation of the Jordan," which the King James Version translates "pride of Jordan" in Zechariah and "swelling of Jordan" in Jeremiah (the Revised Version (British and American) has "pride" throughout, with "swelling" in the margin of Jeremiah). What is described is a place, with a mass of vegetation, easily burned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',11,\'1-3\');">Zec 11:1-3</a>), a lair of lions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,19);">Jer 49:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',11,3);">Zec 11:3</a>), and a particularly dangerous place for human beings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',12,5);">Jer 12:5</a>). The luxuriant thicket of the Jordan bank is evidently meant, which could well be spoken of as "Jordan\'s pride" (OHL, "majesty of the Jordan"), and "swelling" is quite impossible.<P>In the New Testament "swelling" is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,20);">2Co 12:20</a> for phusiosis, "puffing up," "blatant self-conceit," and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,18);">2Pe 2:18</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,16);">Jude verse 16</a> for huperogkos, "overgrown," "solemnly inane."``48';
|
||
isbe[8529]='Swift``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SWALLOW">SWALLOW</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8530]='Swift Beasts`(kirkaroth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,20);">Isa 66:20</a>)): the King James Version and the English Revised Version "swift beasts," the English Revised Version margin and the American Standard Revised Version "dromedaries." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,13);">Mic 1:13</a> (rekhesh) a horse is meant, the Revised Version (British and American) "swift steed."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CAMEL">CAMEL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HORSE">HORSE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8531]='Swine`swin (chazir; compare Arabic khinzir; hus, Septuagint and New Testament; compare Greek sus, and Latin sus; adjective hueios, as a substantive, the Septuagint; choiros, Septuagint and New Testament): In both ancient and modern times domestic swine have been little kept in Palestine, but wild swine are well known as inhabitants of the thickets of the Chuleh, the Jordan valley, the Dead Sea, and some of the mountains. The species is Susanna scrofa, the wild pig of Europe, North Africa and Western Asia.<P>In the Old Testament the swine is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,7);">Le 11:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,8);">De 14:8</a> as an unclean animal: "And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,4);">Isa 65:4</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,3,17);">66:3,17</A> the eating of swine\'s flesh and the offering of oblations of swine\'s blood are referred to as abominations. Septuagint also refers to swine in three passages where these animals are not mentioned in the Hebrew and EV. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,8);">2Sa 17:8</a> where English Versions of the Bible has "as a bear robbed of her whelps in the field," Septuagint adds (translation) "and as a savage boar in the plain." In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',21,19);">1Ki 21:19</a> Septuagint 20:19), where English Versions of the Bible has "in the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth," Septuagint has "where the swine and the dogs licked"; similarly in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,38);">1Ki 22:38</a>. In 1Macc 1:47 there is reference to a decree of Antiochus ordering the sacrifice of swine. In 2Macc 6 and 7 there are accounts of the torture and death of Eleazar, an aged scribe, and of a mother and her seven sons for refusing to taste swine\'s flesh. Swine, the property of Gentiles, are mentioned in the account of the Gadarene demoniac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,30,31,32);">Mt 8:30,31,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,11,12,13,14,16);">Mr 5:11,12,13,14,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,32,33);">Lu 8:32,33</a>), and in the parable of the Prodigal Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,15,16);">Lu 15:15,16</a>).<P>Figurative: We find the following figurative references to swine:<P class="in15">"The boar out of the wood doth ravage it,<br>And the wild beasts of the field feed on it" (i.e. on the "vine out of Egypt")<br>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,13);">Ps 80:13</a>);<P class="in15">"As a ring of gold in a swine\'s snout,<br>So is a fair woman that is without discretion"<br>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,22);">Pr 11:22</a>);<P>"The Carmonians (the King James Version Carmanians, perhaps of Kirman or Carmania, in southwestern Persia) raging in wrath shall go forth as the wild boars of the wood" (2Esdras 15:30);<P>"The dog turning to his own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,22);">2Pe 2:22</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,11);">Pr 26:11</a>).``37';
|
||
isbe[8532]='Swollen`swol\'-\'-n (pimprasthai, only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,6);">Ac 28:6</a>): The Melitans expected to see Paul poisoned by the viper\'s bite. the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version translate it "swollen," but the word is used by certain medical writers in the sense of inflammation; see Nicander, Theriaca, 306; Hesiod, Theogonia, 856, expressing thereby the burning up by a thunderbolt. Swelling accompanies the local lesion of snake-bite and often large purpuric exudation of blood, as well as paralysis, especially of the lower limbs.``1';
|
||
isbe[8533]='Sword`sord.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR">ARMOR</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8534]='Sycamine, Tree`sik\'-a-min, (sukaminos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,6);">Lu 17:6</a>)): This is generally accepted as the black mulberry tree (Morus nigra; Natural Order, Urlicaceae), known in Arabic as tut shrami, "the Damascus mulberry," a fine tree which grows to the height of 30 ft. It produces the dark blood-red mulberry juice referred to in 1Macc 6:34 (moron), "the blood of...mulberries," which was shown to the elephants of the Syrians. The white mulberry, M. alba, has white and less juicy fruit, and it is cultivated largely for the sake of its leaves with which the silkworms of the Lebanon are fed.``117';
|
||
isbe[8535]='Sycamore`sik\'-a-mor.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SYCOMORE">SYCOMORE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8536]='Sychar`si\'-kar (Suchar): Mentioned only once, in connection with the visit of Jesus to Jacob\'s Well (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,5);">Joh 4:5</a>). He was passing through Samaria on His way to Galilee, "so he cometh to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph: and Jacob\'s well was there." Jerome thought the name was a clerical error for Sychem (Epistle 86). In Eusebius (in Onomasticon) he is content to translate Eusebius, placing Sychar east of Neapolis. It is now generally admitted that the text is correct. Some have held, however, that Sychar is only another name for Shechem ("Sychem"). It is suggested, e.g., that it is a nickname applied in contempt by the Jews, being either shikkor, "drunken," or sheqer, "falsehood." Others think the form has arisen through change of "m" to "r" in pronunciation; as "l" to "r" in Beliar. These theories may safely be set aside. The evidence that Sychar was a distinct place east of Shechem may be described as overwhelming. It is carefully and perspicuously marshaled by G. A. Smith (Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 367ff). The manner in which it is mentioned shows that it was not a specially well-known place: "a city of Samaria called Sychar." No one familiar with Palestine would have written "a city of Samaria called Sychem." It is mentioned only because of its nearness to the well.<P>As to the position of the well, there is general agreement (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JACOB\'S+WELL">JACOB\'S WELL</A>). It is on the right of the road where it bends from the plain of Makhneh into the pass of Shechem. Fully half a mile off, on the edge of the plain, is the village of \'Askar, on the lower slope of Ebal. A little to the west is the traditional tomb of Joseph. This is the district east of Shechem usually identified with Jacob\'s "parcel of ground." Many have sought to find Sychar in the modern \'Askar. There are two difficulties. The first is the initial letter \'ain in the modern name. But G. A. Smith has shown that such a change as this, although unusual, is not impossible. The second is the presence of the copious spring, \'Ain \'Askar, which would make it unnecessary for the villagers to carry water from Jacob\'s Well. This cannot easily be explained away. One could understand a special journey at times, if any peculiar value attached to the water in the well; but from it, evidently, the woman drew her ordinary supplies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,15);">Joh 4:15</a>). This difficulty would probably in any case be fatal to the claim of the village at \'Ain \'Askar to represent the ancient Sychar. But Professor R. S. A. Macalister has shown reason to believe that the village is not older than Arab times (PEFS, 1907, 92ff). He examined the mound Telul Balata, nearly 1/2 mile southwest of \'Askar, and just west of Joseph\'s tomb. There he found evidence of occupation from the days of the Hebrew monarchy down to the time of Christ. Here there is no spring; and it is only 1/4 mile distant from Jacob\'s Well<6C>nearer therefore to the well than to \'Askar. In other respects the site is suitable, so that perhaps here we may locate the Sychar of the Gospel. The name may easily have migrated to \'Askar when the village fell into decay.``54';
|
||
isbe[8537]='Sychem`si\'-kem (Suchem): In this form the name of Shechem appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,16);">Ac 7:16</a> the King James Version, in the report of Stephen\'s speech. the King James Version is a transcription from the Greek; the Revised Version (British and American) in accordance with its practice, to give uniformity in the English, follows the Hebrew form of the name given in the Old Testament.``1';
|
||
isbe[8538]='Sycomore, Tree`sik\'-o-mor, (shiqmah, Aramaic shiqema\' plural shiqmim; in Septuagint wrongly translated by sukaminos, "the mulberry"; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SYCAMINE">SYCAMINE</A> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,27);">1Ki 10:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,28);">1Ch 27:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,15);">2Ch 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,27);">9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,10);">Isa 9:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,14);">Am 7:14</a>): shiqkmoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,47);">Ps 78:47</a>); sukomoraia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,4);">Lu 19:4</a>)): The sycomore-fig, Ficus sycomorus (Natural Order, Urticaceae), known in Arabic as Jummeiz, is one of the finest of the lowland trees of Palestine, and attains still greater proportions in Lower Egypt. It is evident from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,27);">1Ki 10:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,15);">2Ch 1:15</a> that it was once abundant, and at a later period it was so plentiful in the neighborhood of what is now Haifa as to give the name Sykaminon to the town which once stood near there. It is a tree which cannot flourish in the cooler mountain heights; it cannot stand frost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,47);">Ps 78:47</a>). It was one of the distinguishing marks of Lower, as contrasted with Upper, Galilee that the sycomore could flourish there. It is highly improbable that sycomores could ever have flourished near Tekoa (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,14);">Am 7:14</a>), but it is quite possible that the town or individual inhabitants may have held lands in the Jordan valley or in the Shephelah on which these trees grew. Villages in Palestine today not infrequently possess estates at considerable distances; the village of Silwan (Siloam), for example, possesses and cultivates extensive fertile lands halfway to the Dead Sea. The sycomore produces small, rounded figs, about an inch long, which grow upon tortuous, leafless twigs springing from the trunk or the older branches; they are more or less tasteless. It would appear that in ancient times some treatment was adopted, such as piercing the apex of the fruit to hasten the ripening. Amos was a "nipper" (bolec) of sycomore figs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,14);">Am 7:14</a>). The tree not uncommonly attains a height of 50 ft., with an enormous trunk; in many parts, especially where, as near the coast, the tree grows out of sandy soil, the branching roots stand out of the ground for some distance. The timber is of fair quality and was much valued in ancient times (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,27);">1Ki 10:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,15);">2Ch 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,27);">9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,10);">Isa 9:10</a>). Mummy cases and many of the best preserved wooden utensils of ancient Egyptian life are made of it. This tree must be distinguished from the English sycamore, Acer pseudo-platanus (Natural Order, Spindaceae), the "false plane tree," a kind of maple.``117';
|
||
isbe[8539]='Syene`si-e\'-ne.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEVENEH">SEVENEH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8540]='Symeon`sim\'-e-on (Sumeon): the Revised Version (British and American) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,30);">Lu 3:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,1);">Ac 13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,14);">15:14</a> for the King James Version "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIMEON">Simeon</a>" (which see). The persons are:<P>(1) An ancestor of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,30);">Lu 3:30</a>).<P>(2) Symeon, called Niger, one of the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,1);">Ac 13:1</a>).<P>(3) For Simon Peter, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER">PETER</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,14);">Ac 15:14</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIMEON">SIMEON</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8541]='Synagogue`sin\'-a-gog:<P>1. Name<P>2. Origin<P>3. Spread of Synagogues<P>4. The Building<P class="in15">(1) The Site<P class="in15">(2) The Structure<P class="in15">(3) The Furniture<P>5. The Officials<P class="in15">(1) The Elders<P class="in15">(2) The Ruler<P class="in15">(3) The Servant (or Servants)<P class="in15">(4) Delegate of the Congregation<P class="in15">(5) The Interpreter<P class="in15">(6) The Almoners<P>6. The Service<P class="in15">(1) Recitation of the "Shema\'"<P class="in15">(2) Prayers<P class="in15">(3) Reading of the Law and the Prophets<P class="in15">(4) The Sermon<P class="in15">(5) The Benediction<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Name:<P>Synagogue, Greek sunagoge, "gathering" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,43);">Ac 13:43</a>), "gathering-place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,5);">Lu 7:5</a>), was the name applied to the Jewish place of worship in later Judaism in and outside of Palestine Proseuche, "a place of prayer" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,13);">Ac 16:13</a>), was probably more of the nature of an enclosure, marking off the sacred spot from the profane foot, than of a roofed building like a synagogue. Sabbateion in Ant, XV, i,6,2, most probably also meant synagogue. In the Mishna we find for synagogue beth ha-keneceth, in the Targums and Talmud be-khenishta\', or simply kenishta\'. The oldest Christian meetings and meeting-places were modeled on the pattern of the synagogues, and, in Christian-Palestinian Aramaic the word kenishta\' is used for the Christian church (compare Zahn, Tatian\'s Diatessaron, 335).<P>2. Origin:<P>That the synagogue was, in the time of our Lord, one of the most important religious institutions of the Jews is clear from the fact that it was thought to have been instituted by Moses (Apion, ii, 17; Philo, De Vita Moses, iii.27; compare Targum Jer to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,20);">Ex 18:20</a>). It must have come into being during the Babylonian exile. At that time the more devout Jews, far from their native land, having no sanctuary or altar, no doubt felt drawn from time to time, especially on Sabbath and feast days, to gather round those who were specially pious and God-fearing, in order to listen to the word of God and engage in some kind of worship. That such meetings were not uncommon is made probable by <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,1);">Eze 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,1);">20:1</a>. This would furnish a basis for the institution of the synagogue. After the exile the synagogue remained and even developed as a counterpoise to the absolute sacerdotalism of the temple, and must have been felt absolutely necessary for the Jews of the Dispersion. Though at first it was meant only for the exposition of the Law, it was natural that in the course of time prayers and preaching should be added to the service. Thus these meetings, which at first were only held on Sabbaths and feast days, came also to be held on other days, and at the same hours with the services in the temple. The essential aim, however, of the synagogue was not prayer, but instruction in the Law for all classes of the people. Philo calls the synagogues "houses of instruction, where the philosophy of the fathers and all manner of virtues were taught" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,23);">Mt 4:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,21);">Mr 1:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,2);">6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,15,33);">Lu 4:15,33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,6);">6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,10);">13:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,59);">Joh 6:59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,20);">18:20</a>; CAp, ii, 17).<P>3. Spread of Synagogues:<P>In Palestine the synagogues were scattered all over the country, all the larger towns having one or more (e.g. Nazareth, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,54);">Mt 13:54</a>; Capernaum, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,9);">Mt 12:9</a>). In Jerusalem, in spite of the fact that the Temple was there, there were many synagogues, and all parts of the Diaspora were represented by particular synagogues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,9);">Ac 6:9</a>). Also in heathen lands, wherever there was a certain number of Jews, they had their own synagogue: e.g. Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,2);">Ac 9:2</a>), Salamis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,5);">Ac 13:5</a>), Antioch of Pisidia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,14);">Ac 13:14</a>), Thessalonica (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,1);">Ac 17:1</a>), Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,4);">Ac 18:4</a>), Alexandria (Philo, Leg Ad Cai, xx), Rome (ibid., xxiii). The papyrus finds of recent years contain many references to Jewish synagogues in Egypt, from the time of Euergetes (247-221 BC) onward. According to Philo (Quod omnis probus liber sit, xii, et al.) the Essenes had their own synagogues, and, from \'Abhoth 3 10, it seems that "the people of the land," i.e. the masses, especially in the country, who were far removed from the influence of the scribes, and were even opposed to their narrow interpretation of the Law had their own synagogues.<P>4. The Building:<P>(1) The Site.<P>There is no evidence that in Palestine the synagogues were always required to be built upon high ground, or at least that they should overlook all other houses (compare PEFS, July, 1878, 126), though we read in the Talmud that this was one of the requirements (Tos Meghillah, edition Zunz, 4:227; Shabbath 11a). From <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,13);">Ac 16:13</a> it does not follow that synagogues were intentionally built outside the city, and near water for the sake of ceremonial washing (compare Monatsschr. fur Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums,1889, 167-70; HJP II, 370).<P>(2) The Structure.<P>Of the style of the architecture we have no positive records. From the description in the Talmud of the synagogue at Alexandria (Toc Cukkah, edition Zunz, 198 20; Cukkah 51b one imagines the synagogues to have been modeled on the pattern of the temple or of the temple court. From the excavations in Palestine we find that in the building the stone of the country was used. On the lintels of the doors were different forms of ornamentation, e.g. seven-branched candlesticks, an open flower between two paschal lambs, or vine leaves with bunches of grapes, or, as in Capernaum, a pot of manna between two representations of Aaron\'s rod. The inside plan "is generally that of two double colonnades, which seem to have formed the body of the synagogue, the aisles east and west being probably used as passages. The intercolumnar distance is very small, never greater than 9 1/2 ft." (Edersheim). Because of a certain adaptation of the corner columns at the northern end, Edersheim supposes that a woman\'s gallery was once erected there. It does not appear, however, from the Old Testament or New Testament or the oldest Jewish tradition that there was any special gallery for women. It should be noted, as against this conclusion, that in De Vita Contemplativa, attributed by some to Philo, a certain passage (sec. iii) seems to imply the existence of such a gallery.<P>(3) The Furniture.<P>We only know that there was a movable ark in which the rolls of the Law and the Prophets were kept. It was called \'aron ha-qodhesh, but chiefly tebhah (Meghillah 3 1; Nedharim 5 5; Ta\'anith 2 1,2), and it stood facing the entrance. According to Ta\'anith 15a it was taken out and carried in a procession on fast days. In front of the ark, and facing the congregation, were the "chief seats" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHIEF+SEATS">CHIEF SEATS</A>) for the rulers of the synagogue and the learned men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,6);">Mt 23:6</a>). From <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">9:4</a> it appears that the bemah (Jerusalem Meghillah 3 1), a platform from which the Law was read, although it is not mentioned in the New Testament, was of ancient date, and in use in the time of Christ.<P>5. The Officials:<P>(1) The Elders.<P>These officials (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,3);">Lu 7:3</a>) formed the local tribunal, and in purely Jewish localities acted as a Committee of Management of the affairs of the synagogue (compare Berakhoth 4 7; Nedharim 5 5; Meghillah 3 1). To them belonged, most probably, among other things, the power to excommunicate (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,8);">Ezr 10:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,22);">Lu 6:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,22);">Joh 9:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,42);">12:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,2);">16:2</a>; \'Edhuyoth 5 6; Ta\'anith 3 8; Middoth 2 2).<P>(2) The Ruler.<P>Greek archisunagogos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,35);">Mr 5:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,41,49);">Lu 8:41,49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,14);">13:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,8,17);">Ac 18:8,17</a>), Hebrew ro\'sh ha-keneseth (Sotah 7 7,8). In some synagogues there were several rulers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,22);">Mr 5:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,15);">Ac 13:15</a>). They were most probably chosen from among the elders. It was the ruler\'s business to control the synagogue services, as for instance to decide who was to be called upon to read from the Law and the Prophets (Yoma\' 7 1) and to preach (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,15);">Ac 13:15</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,14);">Lu 13:14</a>); he had to look after the discussions, and generally to keep order.<P>(3) The Servant (or Servants).<P>Greek huperetes; Talmud chazzan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,20);">Lu 4:20</a>; Yoma\' 7 1; Sotah 7 7,8). He had to see to the lighting of the synagogue and to keep the building clean. He it was who wielded the scourge when punishment had to be meted out to anyone in the synagogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,17);">Mt 10:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,34);">23:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,9);">Mr 13:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,19);">Ac 22:19</a>; compare Makkoth 16). From Shabbath 1 3 it seems that the chazzan was also an elementary teacher.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EDUCATION">EDUCATION</a>.<P>(4) Delegate of the Congregation.<P>Hebrew sheliach tsibbur (Ro\'sh ha-shanah 4 9; Berakhoth 5 5). This office was not permanent, but one was chosen at each meeting by the ruler to fill it, and he conducted the prayers. According to Meghillah 4 5, he who was asked to read the Scriptures was also expected to read the prayers. He had to be a man of good character.<P>(5) The Interpreter.<P>Hebrew methargeman. It was his duty to translate into Aramaic the passages of the Law and the Prophets which were read in Hebrew (Meghillah 3 3; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,28);">1Co 14:28</a>). This also was probably not a permanent office, but was filled at each meeting by one chosen by the ruler.<P>(6) The Almoners.<P>(Dema\'i 3 1; Kiddushin 4 5). Alms for the poor were collected in the synagogue (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,2);">Mt 6:2</a>). According to Pe\'ah 8 7, the collecting was to be done by at least two persons, and the distributing by at least three.<P>6. The Service:<P>(1) Recitation of the "Shema\'".<P>At least ten persons had to be present for regular worship (Meghillah 4 3; Sanhedhrin 1 6). There were special services on Saturdays and feast days. In order to keep the synagogue services uniform with those of the temple, both were held at the same hours. The order of service was as follows: the recitation of the shema\', i.e. a confession of God\'s unity, consisting of the passages <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,\'4-9\');">De 6:4-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,\'13-21\');">11:13-21</a>; .<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,\'37-41\');">Nu 15:37-41</a> (Berakhoth 2 2; Tamidh 5 1). Before and after the recitation of these passages "blessings" were said in connection with the passages (Berakhoth 1 4). This formed a very important part of the liturgy. It was believed to have been ordered by Moses (compare Ant, IV, viii, 13).<P>(2) Prayers.<P>The most important prayers were the Shemoneh \'esreh, "Eighteen Eulogies," a cycle of eighteen prayers, also called "The Prayer" (Berakhoth 4 3; Ta\'anith 2 2). Like the shema\' they are very old.<P>The following is the first of the eighteen: "Blessed art Thou, the Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: the great, the mighty and the terrible God, the most high God Who showest mercy and kindness, Who createst all things, Who rememberest the pious deeds of the patriarchs, and wilt in love bring a redeemer to their children\'s children for Thy Name\'s sake; O King, Helper, Saviour and Shield! Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Shield of Abraham."<P>The prayers of the delegate were met with a response of Amen from the congregation.<P>(3) Reading of the Law and the Prophets.<P>After prayers the parashah, i.e. the pericope from the Law for that Sabbath, was read, and the interpreter translated verse by verse into Aramaic (Meghillah 3 3). The whole Pentateuch was divided into 154 pericopes, so that in the course of 3 years it was read through in order. After the reading of the Law came the haphtarah, the pericope from the Prophets for that Sabbath, which the interpreter did not necessarily translate verse by verse, but in paragraphs of 3 verses (Meghillah, loc. cit.).<P>(4) The Sermon.<P>After the reading from the Law and the Prophets followed the sermon, which was originally a caustical exposition of the Law, but which in process of time assumed a more devotional character. Anyone in the congregation might be asked by the ruler to preach, or might ask the ruler for permission to preach.<P>The following example of an old (lst century AD) rabbinic sermon, based on the words, "He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,10);">Isa 61:10</a>, a verse in the chapter from which Jesus took His text when addressing the synagogue of Nazareth), will serve as an illustration of contemporary Jewish preaching:<P>"Seven garments the Holy One<6E>blessed be He!<21>has put on, and will put on from the time the world was created until the hour when He will punish the wicked Edom (i.e. Roman empire). When He created the world, He clothed Himself in honor and majesty, as it is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,1);">Ps 104:1</a>): \'Thou art clothed in honor and majesty.\' Whenever He forgave the sins of Israel, He clothed Himself in white, for we read (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,9);">Da 7:9</a>): \'His raiment was white as snow.\' When He punishes the peoples of the world, He puts on the garments of vengeance, as it is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,17);">Isa 59:17</a>): \'He put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.\' The sixth garment He will put on when the Messiah comes; then He will clothe Himself in a garment of righteousness, for it is said (same place): \'He put on righteousness as a breast-plate, and an helmet of salvation upon His head.\' The seventh garment He will put on when He punishes Edom; then He will clothe Himself in \'adhom, i.e. \'red,\' for it is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,2);">Isa 63:2</a>): \'Wherefore art Thou red in Thine apparel?\' But the garment which He will put upon the Messiah, this will shine afar, from one end of the earth to the other, for it is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,10);">Isa 61:10</a>): \'As a bridegroom decketh himself with a garland.\' And the Israelites will partake of His light, and will say:<P class="in15">\'Blessed is the hour when the Messiah shall come!<br>Blessed the womb out of which He shall come!<br>Blessed His contemporaries who are eye-witnesses!<br>Blessed the eye that is honored with a sight of Him!<br>For the opening of His lips is blessing and peace;<br>His speech is a moving of the spirits;<br>The thoughts of His heart are confidence and cheerfulness;<br>The speech of His tongue is pardon and forgiveness;<br>His prayer is the sweet incense of offerings;<br>His petitions are holiness and purity.<br>O how blessed is Israel, for whom such has been prepared!<p class="in15">For it is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,19);">Ps 31:19</a>):<p class="in15">"How great is Thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee" \' "<br>(Pesiqta\', edition Buber).<P>(5) The Benediction.<P>After the sermon the benediction was pronounced (by a priest), and the congregation answered Amen (Berakhoth 5 4; Sotah 7 2,3).<P>LITERATURE.<P>L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden, 2nd edition; Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III, 129-37, 183-226; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch., 2d edition, 73-80; HJP, II, 357-86; GJV4, II; 497-544; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 5th edition, I, 431-50; Oesterly and Box, "The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue," Church and Synagogue, IX, <span class="noTag">number 2</span>, April,1907,p. 46; W. Bacher, article "Synagogue" in HDB; Strack, article "Synagogen," in RE, 3rd edition, XIX.``98';
|
||
isbe[8542]='Synagogue of Libertines``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIBERTINES">LIBERTINES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8543]='Synagogue of Satan``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SATAN,+SYNAGOGUE+OF">SATAN, SYNAGOGUE OF</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8544]='Synagogue, the Great`A college or assembly of learned men, originating with Ezra, to whom Jewish tradition assigns an important share in the formation of the Old Testament Canon, and many legal enactments (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>). One of its latest members is said to have been Simon the Just (circa 200 BC). The oldest notice of the Great Synagogue is in the tract of the Mishna, Pirqe \'Abhoth (circa 200 AD); this is supplemented by an often-quoted, passage in another tract of the Mishna, Babha\' Bathra\' (14b), on the Canon, and by later traditions. It tells against the reliabe of these traditions that they are late, and are mixed up with much that is self-evidently unhistorical, while no corroboration is found in Ezra or Nehemiah, in the Apocrypha, or in Josephus. On this account, since the exhaustive discussion by Kuenen on the subject (Over de Mannen der Groote Synagoge), most scholars have been disposed to throw over the tradition altogether, regarding it as a distorted remembrance of the great convocation described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-\');">Ne 8-10</a> (so W. R. Smith, Driver, etc.; compare article by Selbie in HDB in support of total rejection). This probably is an excess of skepticism. The convocation in Nehemiah has no points of resemblance to the kind of assembly recalled in this tradition; and while fantastic details may be unreal, it is difficult to believe that declarations so circumstantial and definite have no foundation at all in actual history. The direct connection with Ezra may be discounted, though possibly<6C>indeed it is likely<6C>somebody associated with Ezra in his undeniable labors on the Canon may have furnished the germ from which the institution in question was developed (see the careful discussion in C. H. H. Wright, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',1,\'1-\');">Ec 1-10</a>, and Excursus III, "The Men of the Great Synagogue").<P>For the rabbinical quotations and further important details, see C. Taylor\'s Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 11f and 110 f.``132';
|
||
isbe[8545]='Synoptic; Gospels`si-nop\'-tik.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS,+THE+SYNOPTIC">GOSPELS, THE SYNOPTIC</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8546]='Syntyche`sin\'-ti-ke (Suntuche, literally, "fortunate" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,2);">Php 4:2</a>)): A Christian woman in the church at Philippi; She and Euodia, who had some quarrel or cause of difference between them, are mentioned by name by Paul, and are besought separately: "I beseech Euodia, and I beseech Syntyche" (the King James Version) to be reconciled to one another, to be "of the same mind in the Lord." The apostle also entreats an unnamed Christian at Philippi, whom he terms "true yokefellow," to "help these women, for they labored with me in the gospel." What he means is that he asks the true yokefellow to help Euodia and Syntyche, each of whom had labored with Paul.<P>This refers to the visit which he, in company with Silas and Luke and Timothy, paid to Philippi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,12);">Ac 16:12</a>), and which resulted in the gospel being introduced to that city and the church being formed there. Euodia and Syntyche had been among the first converts and had proved helpful in carrying on the work. The word used for "labored" signifies "they joined with me in my struggle," and probably refers to something more than ordinary labor, for those were critical times of danger and suffering, which the apostle and his companions and fellow-workers then encountered at Philippi.<P>That workers so enthusiastic and so honored should have quarreled, was very sad. Paul, therefore, entreats them to be reconciled. Doubtless his request was given heed to, especially in view of his promised visit to Philippi.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EUODIA">EUODIA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=YOKE-FELLOW">YOKE-FELLOW</a>`155';
|
||
isbe[8547]='Synzygus`sin\'-zi-gus (sunzuge): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,3);">Php 4:3</a> it is rendered "yokefellow." WHm (Sunzuge), Thayer, Lex. New Testament, 594 (Suzuge), and others, take it as a proper name in this passage.view of his promised visit to Philippi.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=YOKE+FELLOW">YOKE-FELLOW</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8548]='Syracuse`sir\'-a-kus, sir-a-kus\' (Surakousai; Latin Syracusae, Ital. Siracusa): Situated on the east coast of Sicily, about midway between Catania and the southeastern extremity of the island.<P>The design of the present work scarcely permits more than a passing allusion to Syracuse, the most brilliant Greek colony on the shores of the Western Mediterranean, where Paul halted three days, on his way from Melita to Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,12);">Ac 28:12</a>). The original Corinthian colony rounded in 734 BC (Thucydides vi.3) was confined to the islet Ortygia, which separates the Great Harbor from the sea. Later the city spread over the promontory lying northward of Ortygia and the harbor.<P>Syracuse assumed a pre-eminent position in the affairs of Sicily under the rule of the tyrants Gelon (485-478 BC; compare Herodotus vii.154-55) and Hieron (478-467 BC). It nourisher greatly after the establishment of popular government in 466 BC (Diodorus xi.68-72). The Syracusans successfully withstood the famous siege by the Athenians in 414 BC, the narrative of which is the most thrilling part of the work of Thucydides (vi, vii).<P>Dionysius took advantage of the fear inspired by the Carthaginians to elevate himself to despotic power in 405 BC, and he was followed, after a reign of 38 years, by his son of the same name. Although democratic government was restored by Timoleon after a period of civil dissensions in 344 BC (Plutarch, Timoleon), popular rule was not of long duration.<P>The most famous of the later rulers was the wise Hieron (275-216 BC), who was the steady ally of the Romans. His grandson and successor Hieronymus deserted the alliance of Rome for that of Carthage, which led to the celebrated siege of the city by the Romans under Marcellus and its fall in 212 (Livy xxiv.21-33). Henceforth Syracuse was the capital of the Roman province of Sicily. Cicero calls it "the greatest of Greek cities and the most beautiful of all cities" (Cicero Verr. iv.52).``3';
|
||
isbe[8549]='Syria (1)`sir\'-i-a (Suria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,24);">Mt 4:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,2);">Lu 2:2</a>)):<P>1. Name and Its Origin<P>2. Other Designations<P>3. Physical<P class="in15">(1) The Maritime Plain<P class="in15">(2) First Mountain Belt<P class="in15">(3) Second Mountain Belt<P class="in15">(4) Great Central Valley<P class="in15">(5) The Eastern Belt<P class="in15">(6) Rivers<P class="in15">(7) Nature of Soil<P class="in15">(8) Flora<P class="in15">(9) Fauna<P class="in15">(10) Minerals<P class="in15">(11) Central Position<P>4. History<P class="in15">(1) Canaanitic Semites<P class="in15">(2) Sargon of Agade<P class="in15">(3) Babylonian Supremacy<P class="in15">(4) Hittite and Aramean<P class="in15">(5) Hittites and Egyptians<P class="in15">(6) Amarna Period<P class="in15">(7) Rameses II<P class="in15">(8) Philistines<P class="in15">(9) Tiglath-pileser I<P class="in15">(10) Aramean States<P class="in15">(11) Peaceful Development<P class="in15">(12) Shalmaneser II<P class="in15">(13) Tiglath-pileser III<P class="in15">(14) Shalmaneser IV and Sargon<P class="in15">(15) Pharaoh-necoh and Nebuchadnezzar<hr /><P>1. Name and Its Origin:<P>The name does not occur in the Massoretic Text nor the Peshitta of the Old Testament, but is found in the Septuagint, in the Peshitta of the New Testament and in the Mishna In the Septuagint it represents "Aram" in all its combinations, as Aram-zobah, etc. The name itself first appears in Herodotus vii.63, where he says that "Syrians" and "Assyrians" were the Greek and barbarian designations of the same people. Otherwise he is quite vague in his use of the term. Xenophon is clearer when he (Anab; vii.8, 25) distinguishes between Syria and Phoenicia. Syria is undoubtedly an extension of the name "Suri" the ancient Babylonian designation of a district in Northern Mesopotamia, but later embracing regions beyond the Euphrates to the north and west, as far as the Taurus. Under the Seleucids, Syria was regarded as coextensive with their kingdom, and the name shrank with its dimensions. Strabo, Pliny and Ptolemy give its boundaries as the Taurus Mountains, the Euphrates, the Syro-Arabian desert and the Mediterranean, and the territory within these limits is still politically designated Syria, though popularly Palestine is generally named separately.<P>2. Other Designations:<P>Homer (Iliad ii.785) and Hesiod (Theog. 304) call the inhabitants of the district "Arimoi," with which compare the cuneiform "Arimu" or "Aramu" for Arameans. The earliest Assyrian name was "Martu," which Hommel regards as a contraction of "Amartu," the land of the "Amurru" or Amorites. In Egyptian records the country is named "Ruten" or "Luten," and divided into "Lower" and "Upper," the former denoting Palestine and the latter Syria proper.<P>3. Physical:<P>(1) The Maritime Plain.<P>Syria, within the boundaries given, consists of a series of belts of low and high land running north and south, parallel to the Mediterranean. The first of these is the maritime plain. It consists of a broad strip of sand dunes covered by short grass and low bushes, followed by a series of low undulating hills and wide valleys which gradually rise to a height of about 500 ft. This belt begins in Northern Syria with the narrow Plain of Issus, which extends to a few miles south of Alxandretta, but farther south almost disappears, being represented only by the broader valleys and the smaller plains occupied by such towns as Latakia, Tripolis and Beirut. South of the last named the maritime belt is continuous, being interrupted only where the Ladder of Tyre and Mt. Carmel descend abruptly into the sea. In the Plain of Akka it has a breadth of 8 miles, and from Carmel southward it again broadens out, till beyond Caesarea it has an average of 10 miles. Within the sand dunes the soil is a rich alluvium and readily yields to cultivation. In ancient times it was covered with palm trees, which, being thence introduced into Greece, were from their place of origin named phoinikes.<P>(2) First Mountain Belt.<P>From the maritime plain we rise to the first mountain belt. It begins with the Amanus, a branch of the Taurus in the north. Under that name it ceases with the Orontes valley, but is continued in the Nuseiriyeh range (Mt. Cassius, 5,750 ft.), till the Eleutherus valley is reached, and thence rising again in Lebanon (average 5,000 ft.), Jebel Sunnin (8,780 ft.), it continues to the Leontes or Quasmiyeh. The range then breaks down into the rounded hills of Upper Galilee (3,500 ft.), extends through the table-land of Western Palestine (2,500 ft.), and in the south of Judea broadens out into the arid Badiet et-Tih or Wilderness of Wandering.<P>(3) Second Mountain Belt.<P>Along with this may be considered the parallel mountain range. Beginning in the neighborhood of Riblah, the chain of anti-Lebanon extends southward to Hermon (9,200 ft.), and thence stretches out into the plateau of the Jaulan and Hauran, where we meet with the truncated cones of extinct volcanoes and great sheets of basaltic lava, especially in el-Leja and Jebel ed-Druz. The same table-land continues southward, with deep ravines piercing its sides, over Gilead, Moab and Edom.<P>(4) Great Central Valley.<P>Between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon lies the great valley of Coele-Syria. It is continued northward along the Orontes and thence stretches away eastward to the Euphrates, while southward it merges into the valleys of the Jordan and the Arabah. From the sources of the Orontes and Leontes at Baalbek (4,000 ft.) it falls away gently to the north; but to the south the descent is rapid. In Merj \'Ayun it has sunk to 1,800 ft., at Lake Huleh it is over 7 ft., at the Lake of Tiberias<61>682 ft., and at the Dead Sea<65>1,292 ft., and thence it rises again to the Gulf of Akabah. This great valley was caused by a line of fault or fracture of the earth\'s crust, with parallel and branching faults. In ancient times the whole valley formed an arm of the sea, and till the Glacial period at the end of the Tertiary (Pleistocene) Age, a lake extended along the whole Jordan valley as far as the Huleh. We can thus understand that the great plain and adjoining valleys consist mainly of alluvial deposits with terraces of gravel and sand on the enclosing slopes.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEBANON">LEBANON</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NATURAL+FEATURES">NATURAL FEATURES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PALESTINE">PALESTINE</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENICIA">PHOENICIA</A>.<P>(5) The Eastern Belt.<P>To the east of the Anti-Lebanon belt there is a narrow stretch of cultivated land which in some places attains a breadth of several miles, but this is always determined by the distance to which the eastern streams from Anti-Lebanon flow. Around Damascus the Abana (Barada) and neighboring streams have made the district an earthly paradise, but they soon lose themselves in the salt marshes about 10 miles east of the city. Elsewhere the fruitful strip gradually falls away into the sands and rocks of the Syrian desert, barren alike of vegetable and animal life.<P>(6) Rivers.<P>The mountain ranges determine the course of the rivers and their length. The streams flowing westward are naturally short and little more than summer torrents. Those flowing to the desert are of the same character, the only one of importance being the Abana, to which Damascus owes its existence. Only the great central valley permits the formation of larger rivers, and there we find the Orontes and Leontes rising within a few feet of each other beside Baalbek, and draining Coele-Syria to the north and south, till breaking through the mountains they reach the sea. The Jordan is the only other stream of any size. In ancient, as also in modern times, the direction of these streams determined the direction of the great trade route from Mesopotamia to Egypt through Coele-Syria and across pal, as also the position of the larger towns, but, not being themselves navigable, they did not form a means of internal communication.<P>(7) Nature of Soil.<P>The variation in altitude both above and below the sea-level is naturally conducive to a great variety of climate, while the nature of the disintegrating rocks and the alluvial soil render great productivity possible. Both of the mountain belts in their whole length consist chiefly of cretaceous limestone, mixed with friable limestone with basaltic intrusions and volcanic products. The limestone is highly porous, and during the rainy season absorbs the moisture which forms reservoirs and feeds the numerous springs on both the eastern and western slopes. The rocks too are soft and penetrable and can easily be turned into orchard land, a fact that explains how much that now appears as barren wastes was productive in ancient times as gardens and fruitful fields (Bab Talmud, Megh. 6a).<P>(8) Flora.<P>The western valleys and the maritime plain have the flora of the Mediterranean, but the eastern slopes and the valleys facing the desert are poorer. On the southern coasts and in the deeper valleys the vegetation is tropical, and there we meet with the date-palm, the sugar-cane and the sycomore. Up to 1,600 ft., the products include the carob and the pine, after which the vine, the fig and the olive are met with amid great plantations of dwarf oak, till after 3,000 ft. is reached, then cypresses and cedars till the height of 6,200 ft., after which only Alpine plants are found. The once renowned "cedars of Lebanon" now exist only in the Qadisha and Baruk valleys. The walnut and mulberry are plentiful everywhere, and wheat, corn, barley, maize and lentils are widely cultivated. Pasture lands are to be found in the valleys and plains, and even during the dry season sheep, goats and cattle can glean sufficient pasturage among the low brushwood.<P>(9) Fauna.<P>The animal world is almost as varied. The fox, jackal, hyena, bear, wolf and hog are met nearly everywhere, and small tigers are sometimes seen (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,9);">2Ki 14:9</a>). The eagle, vulture, partridge and blue pigeon are plentiful, and gay birds chirp everywhere. The fish in the Jordan and its lakes are peculiar and interesting. There are in all 22 varieties, the largest being a kind of perch, the coracinus, which is known elsewhere also in the Nile (Josephus, Ant, III, x, 8), and a peculiar old-world variety locally named \'Abu-musht.<P>(10) Minerals.<P>In both the eastern and the western mountain belts there are abundant supplies of mineral wealth. They consist chiefly of coal, iron, bitumen, asphalt and mineral oil, but they are mostly unworked. In the Jordan valley all the springs below the level of the Mediterranean are brackish, and many of them are also hot and sulfurous, the best known being those Tiberias.<P>(11) Central Position.<P>The country, being in virtue of its geographical configuration separated into small isolated districts, naturally tended to break up into a series of petty independent states. Still the central position between the Mesopotamian empires on the one hand and Egypt and Arabia on the other made it the highway through which the trade of the ancient world passed, gave it an importance far in excess of its size or productivity, and made it a subject of contention whenever East and West were ruled by different powers.<P>4. History:<P>(1) Canaanitic Semites.<P>When history begins for us in the 3rd millennium BC, Syria was already occupied by a Semitic population belonging to the Canaanitic wave of immigration, i.e. such as spoke dialects akin to Hebrew or Phoenician. The Semites had been already settled for a considerable time, for a millennium earlier in Egypt we find Semitic names for Syrian articles of commerce as well as Semites depicted on the Egyptian monuments.<P>(2) Sargon of Agade.<P>Omitting as doubtful references to earlier relations between Babylonia and Syria, we may consider ourselves on solid ground in accepting the statements of the Omen Tablets which tell us that Sargon of Agade (2750 BC) four times visited the land of Martu and made the peoples of one accord. His son Naram-sin, while extending the empire in other directions maintained his authority here also. Commercial relations were continued, and Babylonia claimed at least a supremacy over Martu, and at times made it effective.<P>(3) Babylonian Supremacy.<P>Hammurabi and also his great-grandson Ammisatana designate themselves in inscriptions as kings of Martu, and it is very likely that other kings maintained the traditional limits of the empire. The long-continued supremacy of Babylon not only made itself felt in imposing place-names, but it made Assyrian the language of diplomacy, even between Syria and Egypt, as we see in the Tell el-Amarna Letters.<P>(4) Hittite and Aramean.<P>By the middle of the 2nd millennium BC we find considerable change in the population. The Mitanni, a Hittite people, the remains of whose language are to be found in the still undeciphered inscriptions at Carchemish, Marash, Aleppo and Hamath, are now masters of Northern Syria.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HITTITES">HITTITES</A>.<P>The great discoveries of Dr. H. Winckler at Boghazkeui have furnished a most important contribution to our knowledge. The preliminary account may be found in OLZ, December 15,1906,and the Mitteilungen der deutschen orient. Gesellschaft, <span class="noTag">number 35</span>, December, 1907.<P>Elsewhere the Aramean wave has become the predominant Semitic element of population, the Canaanitic now occupying the coast towns (Phoenicians) and the Canaan of the Old Testament.<P>(5) Hittites and Egyptians.<P>At this time Babylonia was subject to the Kassites, an alien race of kings, and when they fell, about 1100 BC, they gave place to a number of dynasties of short duration. This gave the Egyptians, freed from the Hyksos rule, the opportunity to lay claim to Syria, and accordingly we find the struggle to be between the Hittites and the Egyptians. Thothmes I, about 1600 BCa overran Syria as far as the Euphrates and brought the country into subjection. Thothmes III did the same, and he has left us on the walls of Karnak an account of his campaigns and a list of the towns he conquered.<P>(6) Amarna Period.<P>In the reign of Thothmes IV the Hittites began to leave their mountains more and more and to press forward into Central Syria. The Tell el-Amarna Letters show them to be the most serious opponents to the Egyptian authority in Syria and Palestine during the reign of Amenhotep IV (circa 1380 BC), and before Seti I came to the throne the power of the Pharaohs had greatly diminished in Syria. Then the Egyptian sphere only reached to Carmel, while a neutral zone extended thence to Kadesh, northward of which all belonged to the Hitites.<P>(7) Rameses II.<P>Rameses II entered energetically into the war against Hatesar, king of the Hittites, and fought a battle near Kadesh. He claims a great victory, but the only result seems to have been that his authority was further extended into the neutral territory, and the sphere of Egyptian influence extended across Syria from the Lycus (Dog River) to the south of Damascus. The arrangement was confirmed by a treaty in which Northern Syria was formally recognized as the Hittite sphere of influence, and, on the part of the Assyrians who were soon to become the heirs of the Hittite pretensions, this treaty formed the basis of a claim against Egypt. About the year 1200 BC the Hittites, weakened by this war, were further encroached upon by the movements of northern races, and the empire broke up into a number of small separate independent states.<P>(8) Philistines.<P>Among the moving races that helped to weaken and break up the Hittite influence in Syria were the Pulusati (or Purusati), a people whose origin is not yet definitely settled. They entered Syria from the north and overcame all who met them, after which they encamped within the Egyptian sphere of influence. Rameses III marched against them, and he claims a great victory. Later, however, we find them settled in southeastern Palestine under the name of Philistines. Their settlement at that time is in harmony with the Tell el-Amarna Letters in which we find no trace of them, while in the 11th century BC they are there as the inveterate foes of Israel.<P>(9) Tiglath-pileser I.<P>Assyria was now slowly rising into power, but it had to settle with Babylon before it could do much in the West. Tiglath-pieser I, however, crossed the Euphrates, defeated the Hittite king of Carchemish, advanced to the coast of Arvad, hunted wild bulls in Lebanon and received gifts from the Pharaoh, who thus recognized him as the successor of the Hittites in Northern Syria.<P>(10) Aramean States.<P>When the Hittite empire broke up, the Arameans in Central Syria, now liberated, set up a number of separate Aramean states, which engaged in war with one another, except when they had to combine against a common enemy. Such states were established in Hamath, Hadrach, Zobah and Rehob. The exact position of Hadrach is still unknown, but Hamath was evidently met on its southern border by Rehob and Zobah, the former extending along the Biqa\'a to the foot of Hermon, while the latter stretched along the eastern slopes of Anti-Lebanon and included Damascus, till Rezon broke away and there set up an independent kingdom, which soon rose to be the leading state; southeast of Hermon were the two smaller Aramean states of Geshur and Maacah.<P>(11) Peaceful Development.<P>For nearly three centuries now, Syria and Palestine were, except on rare occasions, left in peace by both Mesopotamia and Egypt. In the 12th century BC Babylonia was wasted by the Elamite invasion, and thereafter a prolonged war was carried on between Assyria and Babylonia, and although a lengthened period of peace succeeded, it was wisely used by the peaceful rulers of Assyria for the strengthening of their kingdom internally. In Egypt the successors of Rameses III were engaged against the aggressive Theban hierarchy. During the XXIst Dynasty the throne was usurped by the high priests of Amen, while the XXIId were Lybian usurpers, and the three following dynasties Ethiopian conquerors.<P>(12) Shalmaneser II.<P>In the 9th century Asshur-nazirpal crossed the Euphrates and overran the recently established state of Patin in the Plain of Antioch. He besieged its capital and planted a colony in its territory, but the arrangement was not final, for his successor, Shalmaneser II, had again to invade the territory and break up the kingdom into a number of small principalities. Then in 854 BC he advanced into Central Syria, but was met at Karkar by a strong confederacy consisting of Ben-hadad of Damascus and his Syrian allies including Ahab of Israel. He claims a victory, but made no advance for 5 years. He then made three unsuccessful expeditions against Damascus, but in 842 received tribute from Tyre, Sidon and Jehu of Israel, as recorded and depicted on the Black Obelisk. It was not till the year 797 that Ramman-nirari, after subduing the coast of Phoenicia, was able to reduce Mari\'a of Damascus to obedience at which time also he seems to have carried his conquests through Eastern Palestine as far as Edom. The Assyrian power now suffered a period of decline, during which risings took place at Hadrach and Damascus, and Jeroboam II of Israel was able (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,25);">2Ki 14:25</a>) to extend his boundaries northward to the old limits.<P>(13) Tiglath-pileser III.<P>It thus happened that Tiglath-pileser III (745-728) had to reconquer the whole of Syria. He captured Arpad after two years\' warfare (742-740). Then he divided the territory of Hamath among his generals. At this juncture Ahaz of Judah implored his aid against Rezin of Damascus and Remaliah of Israel. Ahaz was relieved, but was made subject to Assyria. Damascus fell in 732 BC and a Great Court was held there, which the tributary princes of Syria, including Ahaz (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,10);">2Ki 16:10</a>), attended. The Assyrian empire now possessed the whole of Syria as far as the River of Egypt. Sibahe, however, encouraged revolt in what had been the Egyptian sphere of infiuence and insurrections took place in Phoenicia and Samaria.<P>(14) Shalmaneser IV and Sargon.<P>After some difficulty Shalmaneser IV compelled Tyre and Sidon to submit and to pay tribute. Samaria, too, was besieged, but was not taken till Sargon came to the throne in 722. Hamath and Carchemish again rose, but were finally reduced in 720 and 717 respectively. Again in 711 Sargon overran Palestine and broke up a fresh confederacy consisting of Egypt, Moab, Edom, Judah and the Philistines. In 705 the Egyptians under Sibahe and their allies the Philistines under Hanun of Gaza were defeated at Raphia.<P>The last three rulers of Assyria were in constant difficulties with Babylonia and a great part of the empire was also overrun by the Scythians (circa 626 BC), and so nothing further was done in the West save the annexation of the mainland possessions of Phoenicia.<P>(15) Pharaoh-necoh and Nebuchadnezzar.<P>In 609 when Assyria was in the death grapple with Babylonia, Pharaoh-necoh took advantage of the situation, invaded Syria, and, defeating Josiah en route, marched to Carchemish. In 605, however, he was there completely defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, and the whole of Syria became tributary to Babylonia. the former Syrian states now appear as Babylonian provinces, and revolts in Judah reduced it also to that position in 586 BC.<P>Under Persian rule these provinces remained as they were for a time, but ultimately "Ebir nari" or Syria was formed into a satrapy. The Greek conquest with the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Babylon brought back some of the old rivalry between East and West, and the same unsettled conditions. On the advent of Rome, Syria was separated from Babylonia and made into a province with Antioch as its capital, and then the Semitic civilization which had continued practically untouched till the beginning of the Christian era was brought more and more into contact with the West. With the advent of Islam, Syria fell into Arab hands and Damascus became for a short time (661-750 AD) the capital of the new empire, but the central authority was soon removed to Babylonia. Thenceforward Syria sank to the level of a province of the caliphate, first Abbasside (750-1258), then Fatimite (1258-1517), and finally Ottoman.``23';
|
||
isbe[8550]='Syria (2)`sir\'-i-ak: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,4);">Da 2:4</a>, for the King James Version "Syriack" the Revised Version (British and American) has "Syrian," and in the margin "Or, \'in Aramaic.\'"`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARAMAIC+LANGUAGE">ARAMAIC LANGUAGE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LANGUAGES+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8551]='Syria-Maachah`sir\'-i-a-ma\'a-ka.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAACAH">MAACAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SYRIA">SYRIA</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8552]='Syriac Versions`1. Analogy of Latin Vulgate<P>2. The Designation "Peshito" ("Peshitta")<P>3. Syriac Old Testament<P>4. Syriac New Testament<P>5. Old Syriac Texts<P class="in15">(1) Curetonian<P class="in15">(2) Tatian\'s Diatessaron<P class="in15">(3) Sinaitic Syriac<P class="in15">(4) Relation to Peshito<P>6. Probable Origin of Peshito<P>7. History of Peshito<P>8. Other Translations<P class="in15">(1) The Philoxenian<P class="in15">(2) The Harclean<P class="in15">(3) The Jerusalem Syriac<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>As in the account of the Latin versions it was convenient to start from Jerome\'s Vulgate, so the Syriac versions may be usefully approached from the Peshitta, which is the Syriac Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)<P>1. Analogy of Latin Vulgate:<P>Not that we have any such full and clear knowledge of the circumstances under which the Peshitta was produced and came into circulation. Whereas the authorship of the Latin Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has never been in dispute, almost every assertion regarding the authorship of the Peshitta, and the time and place of its origin, is subject to question. The chief ground of analogy between the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and the Peshitta is that both came into existence as the result of a revision. This, indeed, has been strenuously denied, but since Dr. Hort in his Introduction to Westcott and Hort\'s New Testament in the Original Greek, following Griesbach and Hug at the beginning of the last century, maintained this view, it has gained many adherents. So far as the Gospels and other New Testament books are concerned, there is evidence in favor of this view which has been added to by recent discoveries; and fresh investigation in the field of Syriac scholarship has raised it to a high degree of probability. The very designation. "Peshito," has given rise to dispute. It has been applied to the Syriac as the version in common use, and regarded as equivalent to the Greek (koine) and the Latin Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)<P>2. The Designation "Peshito" ("Peshitta"):<P>The word itself is a feminine form (peshitetha\'), meaning "simple," "easy to be understood." It seems to have been used to distinguish the version from others which are encumbered, with marks and signs in the nature of an apparatus criticus. However this may. be, the term as a designation of the version has not been found in any Syriac author earlier than the 9th or 10th century.<P>As regards the Old Testament, the antiquity of the Version is admitted on all hands. The tradition, however, that part of it was translated from Hebrew into Syriac for the benefit of Hiram in the days of Solomon is a myth. That a translation was made by a priest named Assa, or Ezra, whom the king of Assyria sent to Samaria, to instruct the Assyrian colonists mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,\'1-\');">2Ki 17</a>, is equally legendary. That the tr of the Old Testament and New Testament was made in connection with the visit of Thaddaeus to Abgar at Edessa belongs also to unreliable tradition. Mark has even been credited in ancient Syriac tradition with translating his own Gospel (written in Latin, according to this account) and the other books of the New Testament into Syriac<P>3. Syriac Old Testament:<P>But what Theodore of Mopsuestia says of the Old Testament is true of both: "These Scriptures were translated into the tongue of the Syrians by someone indeed at some time, but who on earth this was has not been made known down to our day" (Nestle in HDB, IV, 645b). Professor Burkitt has made it probable that the translation of the Old Testament was the work of Jews, of whom there was a colony in Edessa about the commencement of the Christian era (Early Eastern Christianity, 71ff). The older view was that the translators were Christians, and that the work was done late in the 1st century or early in the 2nd. The Old Testament known to the early Syrian church was substantially that of the Palestinian Jews. It contained the same number of books but it arranged them in a different order. First there was the Pentateuch, then Job, Joshua, Judgess, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah followed by the Twelve Minor Prophets, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, and lastly Daniel. Most of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament are found in the Syriac, and the Book of Sirach is held to have been translated from the Hebrew and not from the Septuagint.<P>4. Syriac New Testament:<P>Of the New Testament, attempts at translation must have been made very early, and among the ancient versions of New Testament Scripture the Syriac in all likelihood is the earliest. It was at Antioch, the capital of Syria, that the disciples of Christ were first called Christians, and it seemed natural that the first translation of the Christian Scriptures should have been made there. The tendency of recent research, however, goes to show that Edessa, the literary capital, was more likely the place.<P>If we could accept the somewhat obscure statement of Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, xxii) that Hegesippus "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac Gospel," we should have a reference to a Syriac New Testament as early as 160-80 AD, the time of that Hebrew Christian writer. One thing is certain, that the earliest New Testament of the Syriac church lacked not only the Antilegomena<6E>2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation<6F>but the whole of the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. These were at a later date translated and received into the Syriac Canon of the New Testament, but the quotations of the early Syrian Fathers take no notice of these New Testament books.<P>From the 5th century, however, the Peshitta containing both Old Testament and New Testament has been used in its present form only as the national version of the Syriac Scriptures. The translation of the New Testament is careful, faithful and literal, and the simplicity, directness and transparency of the style are admired by all Syriac scholars and have earned for it the title of "Queen of the versions."<P>5. Old Syriac Texts:<P>It is in the Gospels, however, that the analogy between the Latin Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and the Syriac Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) can be established by evidence. If the Peshitta is the result of a revision as the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) was, then we may expect to find Old Syriac texts answering to the Old Latin. Such texts have actually been found. Three such texts have been recovered, all showing divergences from the Peshitta, and believed by competent scholars to be anterior to it. These are, to take them in the order of their recovery in modern times, (1) the Curetonian Syriac, (2) the Syriac of Tatian\'s Diatessaron, and (3) the Sinaitic Syriac.<P>(1) Curetonian.<P>The Curetonian consists of fragments of the Gospels brought in 1842 from the Nitrian Desert in Egypt, and now in the British Museum. The fragments were examined by Canon Cureton of Westminster and edited by him in 1858. The manuscript from which the fragments have come appears to belong to the 5th century, but scholars believe the text itself to be as old as the 2nd century. In this recension the Gospel according to Matthew has the title Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, which will be explained in the next section.<P>(2) Tatian\'s "Diatessaron."<P>The Diatessaron of Tatian is the work which Eusebius ascribes to that heretic, calling it that "combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron." It is the earliest harmony of the Four Gospels known to us. Its existence is amply attested in the church of Syria, but it had disappeared for centuries, and not a single copy of the Syriac work survives.<P>A commentary upon it by Ephraem the Syrian, surviving in an Armenian translation, was issued by the Mechitarist Fathers at Venice in 1836, and afterward translated into Latin. Since 1876 an Arabic translation of the Diatessaron itself has been discovered; and it has been ascertained that the Cod. Fuldensis of the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) represents the order and contents of the Diatessaron. A translation from the Arab can now be read in English in Dr. J. Hamlyn Hill\'s The Earliest Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the Four Gospels.<P>Although no copy of the Diatessaron has survived, the general features of Tatian\'s Syriac work can be gathered from these materials. It is still a matter of dispute whether Tatian composed his Harmony out of a Syriac version already made, or composed it first in Greek and then translated it into Syriac. But the existence and widespread use of a Harmony, combining in one all four Gospels, from such an early period (172 AD), enables us to understand the title Evangelion da-Mepharreshe It means "the Gospel of the Separated," and points to the existence of single Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, in a Syriac translation, in contradistinction to Tatian\'s Harmony. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus in the 5th century, tells how he found more than 200 copies of the Diatessaron held in honor in his diocese and how he collected them, and put them out of the way, associated as they were with the name of a heretic, and substituted for them the Gospels of the four evangelists in their separate forms.<P>(3) Sinaitic Syriac.<P>In 1892 the discovery of the 3rd text, known, from the place where it was found, as the Sin Syriac, comprising the four Gospels nearly entire, heightened the interest in the subject and increased the available material. It is a palimpsest, and was found in the monastery of Catherine on Mt. Sinai by Mrs. Agnes S. Lewis and her sister Mrs. Margaret D. Gibson. The text has been carefully examined and many scholars regard it as representing the earliest translation into Syriac, and reaching back into the 2nd century. Like the Curetonian, it is an example of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe as distinguished from the Harmony of Tatian.<P>(4) Relation to Peshito.<P>The discovery of these texts has raised many questions which it may require further discovery and further investigation to answer satisfactorily. It is natural to ask what is the relation of these three texts to the Peshitta. There are still scholars, foremost of whom is G. H. Gwil-liam, the learned editor of the Oxford Peshito (Tetraevangelium sanctum, Clarendon Press, 1901), who maintain the priority of the Peshitta and insist upon its claim to be the earliest monument of Syrian Christianity. But the progress of investigation into Syriac Christian literature points distinctly the other way. From an exhaustive study of the quotations in the earliest Syriac Fathers, and, in particular, of the works of Ephraem Syrus, Professor Burkitt concludes that the Peshitta did not exist in the 4th century. He finds that Ephraem used the Diatessaron in the main as the source of his quotation, although "his voluminous writings contain some clear indications that he was aware of the existence of the separate Gospels, and he seems occasionally to have quoted from them (Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, 186). Such quotations as are found in other extant remains of Syriac literature before the 5th century bear a greater resemblance to the readings of the Curetonian and the Sinaitic than to the readings of the Peshitta. Internal and external evidence alike point to the later and revised character of the Peshitta<P>6. Probable Origin of Peshito:<P>How and where and by whom was the revision carried out? Dr. Hort, as we have seen, believed that the "revised" character of the Syriac Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) was a matter of certainty, and Dr. Westcott and he connected the authoritative revision which resulted in the Peshitta with their own theory, now widely adopted by textual critics, of a revision of the Greek text made at Antioch in the latter part of the 3rd century, or early in the 4th. The recent investigations of Professor Burkitt and other scholars have made it probable that the Peshitta was the work of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, at the beginning of the 5th century. Of this revision, as of the revision which plays such an important part in the textual theory of Westcott and Hort, direct evidence is very scanty, in the former case altogether wanting. Dr. Burkitt, however, is able to quote words of Rabbula\'s biographer to the effect that "by the wisdom of God that was in him he translated the New Testament from Greek into Syriac because of its variations, exactly as it was." This may well be an account of the first publication of the Syriac Vulg, the Old Syriac texts then available having been brought by this revision into greater conformity with the Greek text current at Antioch in the beginning of the 5th century. And Rabbula was not content with the publication of his revision; he gave orders to the priests and the deacons to see that "in all the churches a copy of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe shall be kept and read" (ib 161ff, 177f). It is very remarkable that before the time of Rabbula, who ruled over the Syr-speaking churches from 411 to 435, there is no trace of the Peshitta, and that after his time there is scarcely a vestige of any other text. He very likely acted in the manner of Theodoret somewhat later, pushing the newly made revision, which we have reason to suppose the Peshitta to have been, into prominence, and making short work of other texts, of which only the Curetonian and the Sinaitic are known to have survived to modern times.<P>7. History of Peshito:<P>The Peshitta had from the 5th century onward a wide circulation in the East, and was accepted and honored by all the numerous sects of the greatly divided Syriac Christianity. It had a great missionary influence, and the Armenian and Georgian VSS, as well as the Arabic and the Persian, owe not a little to the Syriac. The famous Nestorian tablet of Sing-an-fu witnesses to the presence of the Syriac Scriptures in the heart of China in the 7th century. It was first brought to the West by Moses of Mindin, a noted Syrian ecclesiastic, who sought a patron for the work of printing it in vain in Rome and Venice, but found one in the Imperial Chancellor at Vienna in 1555<35>Albert Widmanstadt. He undertook the printing of the New Testament, and the emperor bore the cost of the special types which had to be cast for its issue in Syriac. Immanuel Tremellius, the converted Jew whose scholarship was so valuable to the English reformers and divines, made use of it, and in 1569 issued a Syriac New Testament in Hebrew letters. In 1645 the editio princeps of the Old Testament was prepared by Gabriel Sionita for the Paris Polyglot, and in 1657 the whole Peshitta found a place in Walton s London Polyglot. For long the best edition of the Peshitta was that of John Leusden and Karl Schaaf, and it is still quoted under the symbol Syriac schaaf, or Syriac Sch. The critical edition of the Gospels recently issued by Mr. G. H. Gwilliam at the Clarendon Press is based upon some 50 manuscripts. Considering the revival of Syriac scholarship, and the large company of workers engaged in this field, we may expect further contributions of a similar character to a new and complete critical edition of the Peshitta<P>8. Other Translations:<P>(1) The Philoxenian.<P>Besides the Peshitta there are other translations which may briefly be mentioned. One of these is the Philoxenian, made by Philoxenus, bishop of Mabug (485-519) on the Euphrates, from the Greek, with the help of his Chorepiscopus Polycarp. The Psalms and portions of Isaiah are also found in this version; and it is interesting as having contained the Antilegomena<6E>2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude.<P>(2) The Harclean.<P>Another is the Harclean, which is a revision of the Philoxenian, undertaken by Thomas of Harkel in Mesopotamia, and carried out by him at Alexandria about 616, with the help of Greek manuscripts exhibiting western reading. The Old Testament was undertaken at the same time by Paul of Tella. The New Testament contains the whole of the books, except Rev. It is very literal in its renderings, and is supplied with an elaborate system of asterisks and daggers to indicate the variants found in the manuscripts.<P>(3) The Jerusalem Syriac.<P>Mention may also be made of a Syriac version of the New Testament known as the Jerusalem or Palestinian Syriac, believed to be independent, and not derived genealogically from those already mentioned. It exists in a Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican, but two fresh manuscripts of the Lectionary have been found on Mt. Sinai by Dr. Rendel Harris and Mrs. Lewis, with fragments of Acts and the Pauline Epistles. The dialect employed deviates considerably from the ordinary Syriac, and the Greek text underlying it has many peculiarities. It alone of Syriac manuscripts has the pericope adulterae. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,17);">Mt 27:17</a> the robber is called Jesus Barabbas. Gregory describes 10 manuscripts (Textkritik, 523f).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Nestle, Syrische Uebersetzungen, PRE3, Syriac VSS, HDB, and Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, 95-106; G. H. Gwilliam, Studia Biblica, II,1890,III,1891,V,1903,and Tetraevangelium sanctum Syriacum; Scrivener, Intro4, 6-40; Burkitt, "Early Eastern Christianity," Texts and Studies, VII, 2:1-91, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, I, II, and "Syr VSS," EB; Gregory, Textkritik, 479-528.``128';
|
||
isbe[8553]='Syrian; Language`sir\'-i-an (the King James Version <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SYRIAC">SYRIAC</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SYRIAC+VERSIONS">SYRIAC VERSIONS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8554]='Syrians`sir\'-i-anz (\'aram; Suroi; Assyrian Aramu, Arumu, Arimu):<P>1. Division of Aram<P>2. A Semitic Race<P>3. Syria and Israel<P>4. Under Nabateans and Palmyrenes<P>5. A Mixed Race, Semitic Type<P>6. Religion<hr /><P>The terms "Syria" and "Syrians" are used in two senses in the Bible. In the Old Testament they are uniformly "Aram," "Aramaean," while in the New Testament they are used in a wider and more indefinite sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,24);">Mt 4:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,23);">Ac 15:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,18);">18:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,21);">Ga 1:21</a>), and include all the dwellers of the land whether Arameans or not.<P>1. Division of Aram:<P>Aram was divided into several districts, comprising, in general, the region to the east of the Jordan, but extending in the north over most of Northern Syria, or from the Orontes eastward, and Northern Mesopotamia. This latter division was called Aram-naharaim<69>Aram of the two rivers, i.e. Tigris and Euphrates<65>and is the Nahrina of the Egyptian inscriptions. It is also called Paddan-aram in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,20);">Ge 25:20</a>) or field of Aram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,12);">Ho 12:12</a>). The most important of the divisions of Aram in Old Testament times was Aram-dammesek, the Syria of Damascus, which sometimes dominated all of the other divisions lying to the south, such as Rehob, Tob, Zobah, and Mancab (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,8);">2Sa 10:8</a>). Geshur was in this region and should be reckoned as an Aramean dis-trict (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,8);">2Sa 15:8</a>).<P>2. A Semitic Race:<P>The Arameans were of Semitic stock and closely akin to the Hebrews. Aram is called a son of Shem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">Ge 10:22</a>), which means a descendant, for we find him afterward called a grandson of Nahor, the brother of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,21);">Ge 22:21</a>). The Israelites were taught to say "A Syrian (Ara-maean) ready to perish was my father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,5);">De 26:5</a>), and the kinship of the Hebrews and Arameans was further cemented by the marriage of Isaac with Rebekah, the sister of Laban the Syrian, and of Jacob with his daughters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">Ge 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'1-\');">29</a>). The period when the Arameans first appeared in Syria is uncertain, but was probably later than 2000 BC. When Abraham came from Haran, Damascus was already occupied (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2);">Ge 15:2</a>), and this may have been the oldest settlement of the Arameans in Syria proper, although it is not mentioned on the monuments until long after, in the time of Thothmes III of Egypt, about 1479 BC. The Syrians were generally hostile to the Hebrews and had wars with them from the time of David onward. David subdued them, although they were aided by the tribes from beyond the Euphrates (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,\'1-\');">2Sa 10</a>), but after the division of the kingdom they often proved too strong for the northern Israelites.<P>3. Syria and Israel:<P>In the days of Omri the Syrians of Damascus brought them into subjection, but Ahab recovered all the lost territory and Damascus seems to have been subordinate for a time (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,34);">1Ki 20:34</a>). The king of Damascus afterward regained the supremacy, as appears from the Assyrian records, for in the war of Shalmaneser II with the peoples of Syria we find them led by Ben-hadad of Damascus and, among his subject allies, Ahab, who furnished 2,000 chariots and 10,000 men. Ben-hadad succeeded in uniting most of the petty kingdoms of Syria together in opposition to Assyria, but could not hold them, and they fell, one after another, as well as Damascus itself, into the hands of the great world-power. Jeroboam II recovered the districts that had been taken from Israel by the Syrians (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,25);">2Ki 14:25</a>), but this was only a temporary success, for Rezin extended his authority over all the East-Jordanic region as far as Elath on the Red Sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,6);">2Ki 16:6</a>), and he and Pekah joined in an attack upon Judah, but failed on account of the Assyrian advance (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,\'5-9\');">2Ki 16:5-9</a>). Damascus fell into the hands of Tiglath-pileser in 732 BC, and the power of the Syrians was completely broken.<P>4. Under Nabatheans and Palmyrenes:<P>The Aramaic peoples became prominent again under the Nabateans and Palmyrenes, both of whom were of this stock, as their language is clearly Aramaic. The former established a kingdom extending from the Euphrates to the Red Sea, their capital being Petra, and Damascus was under their control in the reign of their king Aretas (el-Harith) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,32);">2Co 11:32</a>). This kingdom was absorbed by Rome in the reign of Trajan. The Palmyrenes did not come into prominence until the 3rd century AD, but became, for a short time, the leading power in Western Asia. In the weakness of Rome, under Gallienus, Odenathus and his still more distinguished wife, Zenobia, dominated all Syria, and the latter dared to dispute with Aurelian the empire of the East. With her fall in 272 AD the power of the Arameans was extinguished and never revived.<P>5. A Mixed Race, Semitic Type:<P>The Syrians in the broader sense have always been a mixed people, though of a prevailing Semitic type. The earliest layer of Semitic population was the Amorite which was found in Syria when the first Babylonian empire extended its authority over the land. Later appear the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Jebusites, Hivites and other tribes, all of which are classed together as descendants of Canaan in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a>, but their Semitic character in historic times is undoubted. The Hyksos who were driven from Egypt to Palestine and Syria were of the same race, as would appear from the Egyptian records. The Arameans formed the next wave of Semitic stock, but there were others, like the Hittites, who were not Semitic, and the Philistines, whose race affinity is doubtful. The Egyptians occupied the country for a long period, but did not contribute much to the population. Some of the tribes brought in by the Assyrians may have been non-Semitic, but most of them were evidently of cognate race (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,24);">2Ki 17:24</a>), and the racial characteristics of the Syrians were not changed. When Alexander and his successors brought in the Greek and Macedoninn elements there was a decided change in the city population, but little in the country districts, and although the Greeks had a powerful influence upon the civilization of the country the Semitic type overcame the admixture of Greek blood and prevailed in the country as a whole. The Romans ruled the country for centuries and established a number of military colonies, but they did not affect the population even as much as the Greeks. When, in the 7th century AD, the Mohammedan conquest swept over Syria, it brought in another great wave of pure Semitic stock with the numerous Arab settlers, who tended to obliterate any non-Semitic elements that might have existed. The effects of the influx of Europeans in the time of the Crusades were not sufficient to produce any marked change, and the same may be said of all later invasions of Turks and Kurds.<P>The Syrians, while thus a mixed people to a large extent, have maintained the Semitic type, but they have never, in all their history, been able to unite politically, and have always been divided, when independent. They have been, during the greater part of their history, under foreign domination, as they still are, under Turkish rule.<P>6. Religion:<P>The religion of the Syrians in ancient times was undoubtedly similar to that of the Babylonians, as is shown by the names of their gods. The Arameans worshipped Hadad and Rimmon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,18);">2Ki 5:18</a>), sometimes joined as Hadadrimmon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,11);">Zec 12:11</a>). Baal, or Bel, Ashtoreth, or Ishtar, were almost universally worshipped, and Nebu, Agli-bol, Melakh-bol, Ati and other deities are found in the Palmyrene inscriptions, showing the Babylonian influence in their cult. This was to be expected from the known prevalence of Babylonian culture throughout Western Asia for centuries.``138';
|
||
isbe[8555]='Syrophoenician`si\'-ro-fe-nish\'-an, sir-o- (Surophoinissa, Surophoinikissa; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek has variant Sura Phoinikissa; the King James Version Syrophenician): The woman from the borders of Tyre and Sidon whose daughter Jesus healed is described as "a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,26);">Mr 7:26</a>), and again as "a Canaanitish woman" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,22);">Mt 15:22</a>). This seems to mean that she was of Canaanite descent, a native of the Phoenician seaboard, Greek in religion, and probably also in speech. The names Syria and Phoenicia are both applied to the same region in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,2,3);">Ac 21:2,3</a>. Syrophoenician may therefore denote simply an inhabitant of these parts. According to Strabo (xvii.3), this district was called Syrophoenicia to distinguish it from the North African Lybophoenicia.``54';
|
||
isbe[8556]='Syrtis`sir\'-tis (surtis): the Revised Version (British and American) form for "quicksands" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,17);">Ac 27:17</a>. These sandbanks, off the northern coast of Africa, have from early times been regarded as a source of danger to mariners. Virgil refers to them (Aen. iv.40f). In Paul\'s voyage, the ship, driven by a tempestuous wind, Euraquilo, was in peril of being cast-upon them.``1';
|
||
isbe[8557]='Syzygus`siz\'-i-gus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SYNZYGUS">SYNZYGUS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8558]='Taanach`ta\'-nak (ta\'anakh, or ta\'nakh; the Septuagint Tanach, with many variants): A royal city of the Canaanites, the king of which was slain by Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,21);">12:21</a>). It was within the boundaries of the portion of Issachar, but was one of the cities reckoned to Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,11);">Jos 17:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,29);">1Ch 7:29</a>), and assigned to the Kohathite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,25);">Jos 21:25</a>). The Canaanites were not driven out; only at a later time they were set to taskwork (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,12);">Jos 17:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,27);">Jud 1:27</a>f). Here the great battle was fought when the defeat of Sisera broke the power of the oppressor Jabin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,19);">Jud 5:19</a>). It was in the administrative district of Baana ben Ahilud (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,12);">1Ki 4:12</a>). The name appears in the list of Thothmes III at Karnak; and Shishak records his plundering of Taanach when he invaded Palestine under Jeroboam I (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,25);">1Ki 14:25</a>f). Eusebius says in Onomasticon that it is a very large village, 3 miles from Legio. it is represented by the modern Ta\'annek, which stands on a hill at the southwestern edge of the plain of Esdraelon. Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim) lies 5 miles to the northwest. These two places are almost invariably named together. The great highway for traffic, commercial and military, from Babylon and Egypt, ran between them. They were therefore of high strategic importance. Excavations were recently conducted on the site by Professor Sellin, and a series of valuable and deeply interesting discoveries were made, shedding light upon the social and religious life and practices of the inhabitants down to the 1st century BC, through a period of nearly 2,000 years. The Canaanites were the earliest occupants. In accordance with Biblical history, "there is no evidence of a break or abrupt change in the civilization between the Canaanite and the Israelite occupation of Taanach; the excavations Show rather gradual development. The Canaanites will have gradually assimilated the Israelites drawn to them from the villages in the plain" (Driver, Schweich Lectures, 1908, 84). In the work just cited Driver gives an admirable summary of the results obtained by Professor Sellin. In his book on the Religion of Ancient Palestine, Professor Stanley A. Cook has shown, in short compass, what excellent use may be made of the results thus furnished.``54';
|
||
isbe[8559]='Taanach`ta\'-nak (ta\'anakh, or ta\'nakh; the Septuagint Tanach, with many variants): A royal city of the Canaanites, the king of which was slain by Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,21);">12:21</a>). It was within the boundaries of the portion of Issachar, but was one of the cities reckoned to Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,11);">Jos 17:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,29);">1Ch 7:29</a>), and assigned to the Kohathite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,25);">Jos 21:25</a>). The Canaanites were not driven out; only at a later time they were set to taskwork (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,12);">Jos 17:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,27);">Jud 1:27</a>f). Here the great battle was fought when the defeat of Sisera broke the power of the oppressor Jabin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,19);">Jud 5:19</a>). It was in the administrative district of Baana ben Ahilud (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,12);">1Ki 4:12</a>). The name appears in the list of Thothmes III at Karnak; and Shishak records his plundering of Taanach when he invaded Palestine under Jeroboam I (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,25);">1Ki 14:25</a>f). Eusebius says in Onomasticon that it is a very large village, 3 miles from Legio. it is represented by the modern Ta\'annek, which stands on a hill at the southwestern edge of the plain of Esdraelon. Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim) lies 5 miles to the northwest. These two places are almost invariably named together. The great highway for traffic, commercial and military, from Babylon and Egypt, ran between them. They were therefore of high strategic importance. Excavations were recently conducted on the site by Professor Sellin, and a series of valuable and deeply interesting discoveries were made, shedding light upon the social and religious life and practices of the inhabitants down to the 1st century BC, through a period of nearly 2,000 years. The Canaanites were the earliest occupants. In accordance with Biblical history, "there is no evidence of a break or abrupt change in the civilization between the Canaanite and the Israelite occupation of Taanach; the excavations Show rather gradual development. The Canaanites will have gradually assimilated the Israelites drawn to them from the villages in the plain" (Driver, Schweich Lectures, 1908, 84). In the work just cited Driver gives an admirable summary of the results obtained by Professor Sellin. In his book on the Religion of Ancient Palestine, Professor Stanley A. Cook has shown, in short compass, what excellent use may be made of the results thus furnished.``54';
|
||
isbe[8560]='Taanath-Shiloh`ta\'-a-nath-shi\'-lo (ta\'-anath shiloh; Codex Vaticanus Thenasa kai Sellesa, Tenathselo): A town on the border of the territory of Ephraim named between Michmethath and Janoah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,6);">Jos 16:6</a>). According to Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. "Thena") it lay about 10 Roman miles east of Neapolis, on the road to the Jordan. Ptolemy speaks of Thena, probably the same place, as a town in Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,5);">Jos 16:5</a>). It may be identified with Ta\'na, a village about 7 miles southeast of Nablus. Yanun, the ancient Janoah, lies 2 miles to the south. A Roman road from Neapolis to the Jordan valley passed this way. At Ta\'na there are "foundations, caves, cisterns and rockcut tombs" (PEFM, II, 245). This identification being quite satisfactory, the Talmudic notion that Taanath-shiloh was the same place as Shiloh may be dismissed (Jerusalem Talmud, Meghillah, i).``54';
|
||
isbe[8561]='Tabaoth, Tabbaoth`ta-ba\'-oth, tab\'-a-oth (tabba\'oth; Tabaoth, Taboth): The name of a family of temple-servants (1Esdras 5:29) = "Tabbaoth" (Hebrew: Tabba\'oth) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,43);">Ezr 2:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,46);">Ne 7:46</a>; perhaps called after the name of a place.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABBATH">TABBATH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8562]='Tabbath`tab\'-ath (Tabbath; Codex Vaticanus Tabath; Gabath): A place named after Abel-meholah in the account of the Midianite flight before Gideon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,23);">Jud 7:23</a>). It must therefore have been a place in the Jordan valley to the east of Beth-shan. No trace of the name has yet been recovered.``1';
|
||
isbe[8563]='Tabeel`ta\'-be-el: A name meaning "good is God," borne by two persons in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,6);">Isa 7:6</a>, the King James Version, "Tabeal").<P>(1) The father of the man whom the kings of Israel and Damascus planned to place upon the throne of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,6);">Isa 7:6</a>). The form of the name Tabhe\'el, suggests that he was a Syrian; his son evidently was a tool of Rezin, king of Damascus. The name is vocalized so as to read Tebeal (Tabhe\'al), which might be translated "good for nothing," though some explain it as a pausal form, with the ordinary meaning. The change, probably due to a desire to express contempt, is very slight in Hebrew.<P>(2) A Persian official in Samaria (Tabhe\'el) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,7);">Ezr 4:7</a>). All that is known of him is that he joined with other officials in sending a letter to Artaxerxes for the purpose of hindering the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem.``50';
|
||
isbe[8564]='Tabellius`ta-bel\'-i-us (Tabellios): One of the Persian officials in Samaria who wrote a letter to Artaxerxes which caused the rebuilding of Jerusalem to be stopped for a time (1Esdras 2:16) = "Tabeel" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,7);">Ezr 4:7</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[8565]='Taber`ta\'-ber (taphaph, "to strike a timbrel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,25);">Ps 68:25</a>)): The word is used only once in the King James Version, namely, in the exceedingly graphic account of the capture of Nineveh given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',2,7);">Na 2:7</a>. The queen (perhaps the city personified) is dishonored and led into ignominious captivity, followed by a mourning retinue of "maids of honor" who taber upon, that is, beat violently, their breasts. Such drumming on the breasts was a gesture indicative of great grief (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,3);">Lu 18:3</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[8566]='Taberah`tab\'-e-ra, ta-be\'-ra (tabh\'erah, "burning"): A wilderness camp of the Israelites, the site of which is unidentified. Here, it is recorded, the people complained against Yahweh, who destroyed many of them by fire. This is the origin of the name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,3);">Nu 11:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',9,22);">De 9:22</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[8567]='Tabernacle of Testimony (Witness)`(<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,15);">Nu 9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,6);">2Ch 24:6</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "the tent of the testimony").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABERNACLE">TABERNACLE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8568]='Tabernacle, A`tab\'-er-na-k\'l (\'ohel mo\'edh "tent of meeting," mishkan, "dwelling"; skene):<P><b>A. STRUCTURE AND HISTORY</b><P><b>I. INTRODUCTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Earlier "Tent of Meeting"<P class="in15">2. A Stage in Revelation<P class="in15">3. The Tabernacle Proper<P><b>II. STRUCTURE</b><P class="in15">1. The Enclosure or Court<P class="in15">2. Structure, Divisions and Furniture of the Tabernacle<P class="in30">(1) Coverings of the Tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,\'1-14\');">Exodus 26:1-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'8-19\');">36:8-19</a>)<P class="in45">(a) Tabernacle Covering Proper<P class="in45">(b) Tent Covering<P class="in45">(c) Protective Covering<P class="in30">(2) Framework and Divisions of the Tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,\'15-37\');">Exodus 26:15-37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'20-38\');">36:20-38</a>)<P class="in45">Arrangement of Coverings<P class="in30">(3) Furniture of the Sanctuary<P class="in45">(a) The Table of Shewbread<P class="in45">(b) The Candlestick (Lampstand)<P class="in45">(c) The Altar of Incense<P><b>III. HISTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Removal from Sinai<P class="in15">2. Sojourn at Kadesh<P class="in15">3. Settlement in Canaan<P class="in15">4. Destruction of Shiloh<P class="in15">5. Delocalization of Worship<P class="in15">6. Nob and Gibeon<P class="in15">7. Restoration of the Ark<P class="in15">8. The Two Tabernacles<P><b>IV. SYMBOLISM</b><P class="in15">1. New Testament References<P class="in15">2. God\'s Dwelling with Man<P class="in15">3. Symbolism of Furniture<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Introductory.<P>Altars sacred to Yahweh were earlier than sacred buildings. Abraham built such detached altars at the Terebinth of Moreh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,6,7);">Ge 12:6,7</a>), and again between Beth-el and Ai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,8);">Ge 12:8</a>). Though he built altars in more places than one, his conception of God was already monotheistic. The "Judge of all the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,25);">Ge 18:25</a>) was no tribal deity. This monotheistic ideal was embodied and proclaimed in the tabernacle and in the subsequent temples of which the tabernacle was the prototype.<P>1. Earlier "Tent of Meeting":<P>The first step toward a habitation for the Deity worshipped at the altar was taken at Sinai, when Moses builded not only "an altar under the mount," but "12 pillars, according to the 12 tribes of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,4);">Ex 24:4</a>). There is no recorded command to this effect, and there was as yet no separated priesthood, and sacrifices were offered by "young men of the children of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,5);">Ex 24:5</a>); but already the need of a separated structure was becoming evident. Later, but still at Sinai, after the sin of the golden calf, Moses is stated to have pitched "the tent" (as if well known: the tense is frequentative, "used to take the tent and to pitch it") "without the camp, afar off," and to have called it, "the tent of meeting," a term often met with afterward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,7);">Ex 33:7</a>). This "tent" was not yet the tabernacle proper, but served an interim purpose. The ark was not yet made; a priesthood was not yet appointed; it was "without the camp"; Joshua was the sole minister (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,11);">Ex 33:11</a>). It was a simple place of revelation and of the meeting of the people with Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,7,\'9-11\');">Ex 33:7,9-11</a>). Critics, on the other hand, identifying this "tent" with that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,16);">Nu 11:16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,16);">12:4ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,14,15);">De 31:14,15</a> (ascribed to the Elohist source), regard it as the primitive tent of the wanderings, and on the ground of these differences from the tabernacle, described later (in the Priestly Code), deny the historicity of the latter. On this see below under B,4,(5).<P>2. A Stage in Revelation:<P>No doubt this localization of the shrine of Yahweh afforded occasion for a possible misconception of Yahweh as a tribal Deity. We must remember that here and throughout we have to do with the education of a people whose instincts and surroundings were by no means monotheistic. It was necessary that their education should begin with some sort of concession to existing ideas. They were not yet, nor for long afterward, capable of the conception of a God who dwelleth not in temples made with hands. So an altar and a tent were given them; but in the fact that this habitation of God was not fixed to one spot, but was removed from place to place in the nomad life of the Israelites, they had a persistent education leading them away from the idea of local and tribal deities.<P>3. The Tabernacle Proper:<P>The tabernacle proper is that of which the account is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'1-\');">30-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">35-40</a>, with additional details in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,25);">Nu 3:25</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,4);">4:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,1);">7:1</a>ff. The central idea of the structure is given in the words, "Make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,8);">Ex 25:8</a>). It was the dwelling-place of the holy Yahweh in the midst of His people; also the place of His "meeting" with them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,22);">Ex 25:22</a>). The first of these ideas is expressed in the name mishkan; the second in the name \'ohel mo\'edh (it is a puzzling fact for the critics that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,1);">Ex 25-27:19</a> only mishkan is used; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,1);">Exodus 28-31</a> only \'ohel mo\'edh; in other sections the names intermingle). The tabernacle was built as became such a structure, according to the "pattern" shown to Moses in the mount (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,9,40);">25:9,40</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,30);">26:30</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,44);">Ac 7:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,2,5);">Heb 8:2,5</a>). The modern critical school regards this whole description of the tabernacle as an "ideal" construction<6F>a projection backward by post-exilian imagination of the ideas and dimensions of the Temple of Solomon, the measurements of the latter being throughout halved. Against this violent assumption, however, many things speak. See below under B.<P>II. Structure.<P>The ground plan of the Mosaic tabernacle (with its divisions, courts, furniture, etc.) can be made out with reasonable certainty. As respects the actual construction, knotty problems remain, in regard to which the most diverse opinions prevail. Doubt rests also on the precise measurement by cubits (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUBIT">CUBIT</A>; for a special theory, see W. S. Caldecott, The Tabernacle; Its History and Structure). For simplification the cubit is taken in this article as roughly equivalent to 18 inches.<P>A first weighty question relates to the shape of the tabernacle. The conventional and still customary conception (Keil, Bahr, A. R. S. Kennedy in HDB, etc.) represents it as an oblong, flat-roofed structure, the rich coverings, over the top, hanging down on either side and at the back<63>not unlike, to use a figure sometimes employed, a huge coffin with a pall thrown over it. Nothing could be less like a "tent," and the difficulty at once presents itself of how, in such a structure, "sagging" of the roof was to be prevented. Mr. J. Fergusson, in his article "Temple" in Smith\'s DB, accordingly, advanced the other conception that the structure was essentially that of a tent, with ridge-pole, sloping roof, and other appurtenances of such an erection. He plausibly, though not with entire success, sought to show how this construction answered accurately to the measurements and other requirements of the text (e.g. the mention of "pins of the tabernacle," <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,18);">Ex 35:18</a>). With slight modification this view here commends itself as having most in its favor.<P>To avoid the difficulty of the ordinary view, that the coverings, hanging down outside the framework, are unseen from within, except on the roof, it has sometimes been argued that the tapestry covering hung down, not outside, but inside the tabernacle (Keil, Bahr, etc.). It is generally felt that this arrangement is inadmissible. A newer and more ingenious theory is that propounded by A. R. S. Kennedy in his article "Tabernacle" in HDB. It is that the "boards" constituting the framework of the tabernacle were, not solid planks, but really open "frames," through which the finely wrought covering could be seen from within. There is much that is fascinating in this theory, if the initial assumption of the flat roof is granted, but it cannot be regarded as being yet satisfactorily made out. Professor Kennedy argues from the excessive weight of the solid "boards." It might be replied: In a purely "ideal" structure such as he supposes this to be, what does the weight matter? The "boards," however, need not have been so thick or heavy as he represents.<P>In the more minute details of construction yet greater diversity of opinion obtains, and imagination is often allowed a freedom of exercise incompatible with the sober descriptions of the text.<P>1. The Enclosure or Court:<P>The attempt at reconstruction of the tabernacle begins naturally with the "court" (chatser) or outer enclosure in which the tabernacle stood (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COURT+OF+THE+SANCTUARY">COURT OF THE SANCTUARY</a>). The description is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,\'9-18\');">Ex 27:9-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'9-20\');">38:9-20</a>. The court is to be conceived of as an enclosed space of 100 cubits (150 ft.) in length, and 50 cubits (75 ft.) in breadth, its sides formed (with special arrangement for the entrance) by "hangings" or curtains (qela\'im) of "fine twined linen," 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) in height, supported by pillars of brass (bronze) 5 cubits apart, to which the hangings were attached by "hooks" and "fillets" of silver. It thus censisted of two squares of 50 cubits each, in the anterior of which (the easterly) stood the "altar of burnt-offering" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALTAR">ALTAR</a>), and the "layer" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LAVER">LAVER</a>), and in the posterior (the westerly) the tabernacle itself. From <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'17-21\');">Ex 30:17-21</a> we learn that the laver<65>a large (bronze) vessel for the ablutions of the priests<74>stood between the altar and the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,18);">Ex 30:18</a>) The pillars were 60 in number, 20 being reckoned to the longer sides (north and south), and 10 each to the shorter (east and west). The pillars were set in "sockets" or bases (\'edhen) of brass (bronze), and had "capitals" (the King James Version and the English Revised Version "chapiters") overlaid with silver (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,17);">Ex 38:17</a>). The "fillets" are here, as usually, regarded as silver rods connecting the pillars; some, however, as Ewald, Dillmann, Kennedy, take the "fillet" to be an ornamental band round the base of the capital. On the eastern side was the "gate" or entrance. This was formed by a "screen" (macakh) 20 cubits (30 ft.) in breadth, likewise of fine twined linen, but distinguished from the other (white) hangings by being embroidered in blue, and purple, and scarlet (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EAST+GATE">EAST GATE</A>). The hangings on either side of the "gate" were 15 cubits in breadth. The 10 pillars of the east side are distributed<65>4 to the entrance screen, 3 on either side to the hangings. The enumeration creates some difficulty till it is remembered that in the reckoning round the court no pillar is counted twice, and that the corner pillars and those on either side of the entrance had each to do a double duty. The reckoning is really by the 5-cubit spaces between the pillars. Mention is made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,19);">Ex 27:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,20);">38:20</a>) of the "pins" of the court, as well as of the tabernacle, by means of which, in the former case, the pillars were held in place. These also were of brass (bronze).<P>2. Structure, Divisions and Furniture of the Tabernacle:<P>In the inner of the two squares of the court was reared the tabernacle<6C>a rectangular oblong structure, 30 cubits (45 ft.) long and 10 cubits (15 ft.) broad, divided into two parts, a holy and a most holy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,33);">Ex 26:33</a>). Attention has to be given here<P>(1) to the coverings of the tabernacle,<P>(2) to its framework and divisions, and<P>(3) to its furniture.<P>(1) Coverings of the Tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,\'1-14\');">Exodus 26:1-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'8-19\');">36:8-19</a>).<P>The wooden framework of the tabernacle to be afterward described had 3 coverings<67>one, the immediate covering of the tabernacle or "dwelling," called by the same name, mishkan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,1,6);">Ex 26:1,6</a>); a second, the tent" covering of goats\' hair; and a third, a protective covering of rams\' and seal- (or porpoise-) skins, cast over the whole.<P>(a) Tabernacle Covering Proper:<P>The covering of the tabernacle proper (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,\'1-6\');">Ex 26:1-6</a>) consisted of 10 curtains (yeri\'oth, literally, "breadth") of fine twined linen, beautifully-woven with blue, and purple, and scarlet, and with figures of cherubim. The 10 curtains, each 28 cubits long and 4 cubits broad, were joined together in sets of 5 to form 2 large curtains, which again were fastened by 50 loops and clasps (the King James Version "taches") of gold, so as to make a single great curtain 40 cubits (60 ft.) long, and 28 cubits (42 ft.) broad.<P>(b) Tent Covering:<P>The "tent" covering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,\'7-13\');">Ex 26:7-13</a>) was formed by 11 curtains of goats hair, the length in this case being 30 cubits, and the breadth 4 cubits. These were joined in sets of 5 and 6 curtains, and as before the two divisions were coupled by 50 loops and clasps (this time of bronze), into one great curtain of 44 cubits (66 ft.) in length and 30 cubits (45 ft.) in breadth<74>an excess of 4 cubits in length and 2 in breadth over the fine tabernacle curtain.<P>(c) Protective Covering:<P>Finally, for purposes of protection, coverings were ordered to be made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,14);">Ex 26:14</a>) for the "tent" of rams\' skins dyed red, and of seal-skins or porpoise-skins (English Versions of the Bible, "badgers\' skins"). The arrangement of the coverings is considered below.<P>(2) Framework and Division of the Tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,\'15-37\');">Exodus 26:15-37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'20-38\');">36:20-38</a>)<P>The framework of the tabernacle was, as ordinarily understood, composed of upright "boards" of acacia wood, forming 3 sides of the oblong structure, the front being closed by an embroidered screen," depending from 5 pillars (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,36,37);">Ex 26:36,37</a>; see below). These boards, 48 in number (20 each for the north and south sides, and 8 for the west side), were 10 cubits (15 ft.) in height, and 1 1/2 cubits (2 ft. 3 in.) in breadth (the thickness is not given), and were overlaid with gold. They were set by means of "tenons" (literally, "hands"), or projections at the foot, 2 for each board, in 96 silver "sockets," or bases ("a talent for a socket," <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,27);">Ex 38:27</a>). In the boards were "rings" of gold, through which were passed 3 horizontal "bars," to hold the parts together<65>the middle bar, apparently, on the long sides, extending from end to end (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,28);">Ex 26:28</a>), the upper and lower bars being divided in the center (5 bars in all on each side). The bars, like the boards, were overlaid with gold. Some obscurity rests on the arrangement at the back: 6 of the boards were of the usual breadth (= 9 cubits), but the 2 corner boards appear to have made up only a cubit between them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,\'22-24\');">Ex 26:22-24</a>). Notice has already been taken of theory (Kennedy, article "Tabernacle," HDB) that the so-called "boards" were not really such, but were open "frames," the 2 uprights of which, joined by crosspieces, are the "tenons" of the text. It seems unlikely, if this was meant, that it should not be more distinctly explained. The enclosure thus constructed was next divided into 2 apartments, separated by a "veil," which hung from 4 pillars overlaid with gold and resting in silver sockets. Like the tabernacle-covering, the veil was beautifully woven with blue, purple, and scarlet, and with figures of cherubim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,31,32);">Ex 26:31,32</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VEIL">VEIL</A>). The outer of these chambers, or holy place" was as usually computed, 20 cubits long by 10 broad; the inner, or most holy place, was 10 cubits square. The "door of the tent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,36);">Ex 26:36</a>) was formed, as already stated, by a "screen," embroidered with the above colors, and depending from 5 pillars in bronze sockets. Here also the hooks were of gold, and the pillars and their capitals overlaid with gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,38);">Ex 36:38</a>).<P>Arrangement of Coverings:<P>Preference has already been expressed for Mr. Fergusson\'s idea that the tabernacle was not flat-roofed, the curtains being cast over it like drapery, but was tentlike in shape, with ridge-pole, and a sloping roof, raising the total height to 15 cubits. Passing over the ridge pole, and descending at an angle, 14 cubits on either side, the inner curtain would extend 5 cubits beyond the walls of the tabernacle, making an awning of that width north and south, while the goats\'-hair covering above it, 2 cubits wider, would hang below it a cubit on either side. The whole would be held in position by ropes secured by bronze tent-pins to the ground (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,19);">Ex 27:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,31);">38:31</a>). The scheme has obvious advantages in that it preserves the idea of a "tent," conforms to the principal measurements, removes the difficulty of "sagging" on the (flat) roof, and permits of the golden boards, bars and rings, on the outside, and of the finely wrought tapestry, on the inside, being seen (Professor Kennedy provides for the latter by his "frames," through which the curtain would be visible). On the other hand, it is not to be concealed that the construction proposed presents several serious difficulties. The silence of the text about a ridge-pole, supporting pillars, and other requisites of Mr. Fergusson\'s scheme (his suggestion that "the middle bar" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,28);">Ex 26:28</a> may be the ridge-pole is quite untenable), may be got over by assuming that these parts are taken for granted as understood in tent-construction. But this does not apply to other adjustments, especially those connected with the back and front of the tabernacle. It was seen above that the inner covering was 40 cubits in length, while the tabernacle-structure was 30 cubits. How is this excess of 10 cubits in the tapestry-covering dealt with? Mr. Fergusson, dividing equally, supposes a porch of 5 cubits at the front, and a space of 5 cubits also behind, with hypothetical pillars. The text, however, is explicit that the veil dividing the holy from the most holy place was hung "under the clasps" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,33);">Ex 26:33</a>), i.e. on this hypothesis, midway in the structure, or 15 cubits from either end. Either, then,<P>(1) the idea must be abandoned that the holy place was twice the length of the Holy of Holies (20 X 10; it is to be observed that the text does not state the proportions, which are inferred from those of Solomon\'s Temple), or<P>(2) Mr. Fergusson\'s arrangement must be given up, and the division of the curtain be moved back 5 cubits, depriving him of his curtain for the porch, and leaving 10 cubits to be disposed of in the rear. Another difficulty is connected with the porch itself. No clear indication of such a porch is given in the text, while the 5 pillars "for the screen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,37);">Ex 26:37</a>) are most naturally taken to be, like the latter, at the immediate entrance of the tabernacle. Mr. Fergusson, on the other hand, finds it necessary to separate pillars and screen, and to place the pillars 5 cubits farther in front. He is right, however, in saying that the 5th pillar naturally suggests a ridge-pole; in his favor also is the fact that the extra breadth of the overlying tentcovering was to hang down, 2 cubits at the front, and 2 cubits at the back of the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,9,12);">Ex 26:9,12</a>). It is possible that there was a special disposition of the inner curtain<69>that belonging peculiarly to the "dwelling"<22>"according to which its "clasps" lay above the "veil" of the Holy of Holies (20 cubits from the entrance), and its hinder folds closed the aperture at the rear which otherwise would have admitted light into the secrecy of the shrine. But constructions of this kind must ever remain more or less conjectural.<P>The measurements in the above reckoning are internal. Dr. Kennedy disputes this, but the analogy of the temple is against his view.<P>(3) Furniture of the Sanctuary<P>The furniture of the sanctuary is described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'10-40\');">Ex 25:10-40</a> (ark, table of shewbread, candlestick); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'1-10\');">30:1-10</A> (altar of incense); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,\'1-\');">Exodus 37</a> for making. In the innermost shrine, the Holy of Holies, the sole object was the ark of the covenant, overlaid within and without with pure gold, with its molding and rings of gold, its staves overlaid with gold passed through the rings, and its lid or covering of solid gold<6C>the propitiatory or mercy-seat<61>at either end of which, of one piece with it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,19);">25:19</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,8);">37:8</a>), stood cherubim, with wings outstretched over the mercy-seat and with faces turned toward it (for details see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARK+OF+THE+COVENANT">ARK OF THE COVENANT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERCY-SEAT">MERCY-SEAT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHERUBIM">CHERUBIM</a>). This was the meeting-place of Yahweh and His people through Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,22);">25:22</A>). The ark contained only the two tables of stone, hence its name "the ark of the testimony" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,16,22);">25:16,22</A>). It is not always realized how small an object the ark was<61>only 2 1/2 cubits (3 ft. 9 in.) long, 1 1/2 cubits (2 ft. 3 in.) broad, and the same (1 1/2 cubits) high.<P>The furniture of the outer chamber of the tabernacle consisted of<P>(a) the table of shewbread;<P>(b) the golden candlestick:<P>(c) the altar of incense, or golden altar.<P>These were placed, the table of shewbread on the north side (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,22);">Ex 40:22</a>), the candlestick on the south side (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,24);">Ex 40:24</a>), and the altar of incense in front of the veil, in the holy place.<P>(a) The Table of Shewbread:<P>The table of shewbread was a small table of acacia wood, overlaid with gold, with a golden rim round the top, gold rings at the corners of its 4 feet, staves for the rings, and a "border" (at middle?) joining the legs, holding them together. Its dimensions were 2 cubits (3 ft.) long, 1 cubit (18 inches) broad, and 1 1/2 cubits (2 ft. 3 inches) high. On it were placed 12 cakes, renewed each week, in 2 piles (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'5-9\');">Le 24:5-9</a>), together with dishes (for the bread), spoons (incense cups), flagons and bowls (for drink offerings), all of pure gold.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEWBREAD,+TABLE+OF">SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF</a>.<P>(b) The Candlestick:<P>The candlestick or lampstand was the article on which most adornment was lavished. It was of pure gold, and consisted of a central stem (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'32-35\');">Ex 25:32-35</a> this specially receives the name "candlestick"), with 3 curved branches on either side, all elegantly wrought with cups of almond blossom, knops, and flowers (lilies?)<29>3 of this series to each branch and 4 to the central stem. Upon the 6 branches and the central stem were 7 lamps from which the light issued. Connected with the candlestick were snuffers and snuff-dishes for the wicks<6B>all of gold. The candlestick was formed from a talent of pure gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,38);">Ex 25:38</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANDLESTICK">CANDLESTICK</a>.<P>(c) The Altar of Incense:<P>The description of the altar of incense occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,\'1-10\');">Ex 30:1-10</a>) for some unexplained reason or displacement out of the place where it might be expected, but this is no reason for throwing doubt (with some) upon its existence. It was a small altar, overlaid with gold, a cubit (18 in.) square, and 2 cubits (3 ft.) high, with 4 horns. On it was burned sweet-smelling incense. It had the usual golden rim, golden rings, and gold-covered staves.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALTAR+OF+INCENSE">ALTAR OF INCENSE</a>.<P>III. History.<P>1. Removal from Sinai:<P>We may fix 1220 BC as the approximate date of the introduction of the tabernacle. It was set up at Sinai on the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,2,17);">Ex 40:2,17</a>), i.e. 14 days before the celebration of the Passover on the first anniversary of the exodus (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRONOLOGY+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>, sec. VII, VIII). When the people resumed their journey, the ark was wrapped in the veil which had served to isolate the most holy place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,5);">Nu 4:5</a>). This and the two altars were carried upon the shoulders of the children of Kohath, a descendant of Levi, and were removed under the personal supervision of the high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,31,32);">Nu 3:31,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,15);">4:15</a>). The rest of the dismembered structure was carried in six covered wagons, offered by the prince, each drawn by two oxen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,\'1-\');">Nu 7</a>). Doubtless others were provided for the heavier materials (compare Keil). Before leaving Sinai the brazen altar had been dedicated, and utensils of gold and silver had been presented for use at the services. The tabernacle had been standing at Sinai during 50 days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,11);">Nu 10:11</a>).<P>2. Sojourn at Kadesh:<P>The journey lay along the "great and terrible wilderness" between Horeb in the heart of Arabia and Kadesh-barnea in the Negeb of Judah; of the 40 years occupied in the journey to Canaan, nearly 38 were spent at Kadesh, a fact not always clearly recognized. The tabernacle stood here during 37 years (one year being occupied in a punitive journey southward to the shore of the Red Sea). During this whole time the ordinary sacrifices were not offered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,25);">Am 5:25</a>), though it is possible that the appropriate seasons were nevertheless marked in more than merely chronological fashion. Few incidents are recorded as to these years, and little mention is made of the tabernacle throughout the whole journey except that the ark of the covenant preceded the host when on the march (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,\'33-36\');">Nu 10:33-36</a>). It is the unusual that is recorded; the daily aspect of the tabernacle and the part it played in the life of the people were among the things recurrent and familiar.<P>3. Settlement in Canaan:<P>When, at last, the Jordan was crossed, the first consideration, presumably, was to find a place on which to pitch the sacred tent, a place hitherto uninhabited and free from possible defilement by human graves. Such a place was found in the neighborhood of Jericho, and came to be known as Gilgal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,19);">Jos 4:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,10);">5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,6);">9:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,6,43);">10:6,43</a>). Gilgal, however, was always regarded as a temporary site. The tabernacle is not directly mentioned in connection with it. The question of a permanent location was the occasion of mutual jealousy among the tribes, and was at last settled by the removal of the tabernacle to Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim, a place conveniently central for attendance of all adult males at the three yearly festivals, without the zone of war, and also of some strategic importance. During the lifetime of Joshua, therefore, the tabernacle was removed over the 20 miles, or less, which separated Shiloh among the hills from Gilgal in the lowlands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,1);">Jos 18:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,51);">19:51</a>). While at Shiloh it seems to have acquired some accessories of a more permanent kind (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,9);">1Sa 1:9</a>, etc.), which obtained for it the name "temple" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,9);">1Sa 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',3,3);">3:3</a>).<P>4. Destruction of Shiloh:<P>During the period of the Judges the nation lost the fervor of its earlier years and was in imminent danger of apostasy. The daily services of the tabernacle were doubtless observed after a perfunctory manner, but they seem to have had little effect upon the people, either to soften their manners or raise their morals. In the early days of Samuel war broke out afresh with the Philistines. At a council of war the unprecedented proposal was made to fetch the ark of the covenant from Shiloh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,1);">1Sa 4:1</a>). Accompanied by the two sons of Eli<6C>Hophni and Phinehas<61>it arrived in the camp and was welcomed by a shout which was heard in the hostile camp. It was no longer Yahweh but the material ark that was the hope of Israel, so low had the people fallen. Eli himself, at that time high priest, must at least have acquiesced in this superstition. It ended in disaster. The ark was taken by the Philistines, its two guardians were slain, and Israel was helpless before its enemies. Though the Hebrew historians are silent about what followed, it is certain that Shiloh itself fell into the hands of the Philistines. The very destruction of it accounts for the silence of the historians, for it would have been at the central sanctuary there, the center and home of what literary culture there was in Israel during this stormy period, that chronicles of events would be kept. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,60);">Ps 78:60</a>ff no doubt has reference to this overthrow, and it is referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,12);">Jer 7:12</a>. The tabernacle itself does not seem to have been taken by the Philistines, as it is met with later at Nob.<P>5. Delocalization of Worship:<P>For lack of a high priest of character, Samuel himself seems now to have become the head of religious worship. It is possible that the tabernacle may have been again removed to Gilgal, as it was there that Samuel appointed Saul to meet him in order to offer burnt offerings and peace offerings. The ark, however, restored by the Philistines, remained at Kiriath-jearim (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,1,2);">1Sa 7:1,2</a>), while courts for ceremonial, civil, and criminal administration were held, not only at Gilgal, but at other places, as Beth-el, Mizpah and Ramah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,\'15-17\');">1Sa 7:15-17</a>), places which acquired a quasi-ecclesiastical sanctity. This delocalization of the sanctuary was no doubt revolutionary, but it is partly explained by the fact that even in the tabernacle there was now no ark before which to burn incense. Of the half-dozen places bearing the name of Ramah, this, which was Samuel\'s home, was the one near to Hebron, where to this day the foundations of what may have been Samuel\'s sacred enclosure may be seen at the modern Ramet-el-Khalil.<P>6. Nob and Gibeon:<P>We next hear of the tabernacle at Nob, with Ahimelech, a tool of Saul (probably the Ahijah of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,3);">1Sa 14:3</a>), as high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,1);">1Sa 21:1</a>). This Nob was 4 miles to the north of Jerusalem and was more-over a high place, 30 ft. higher than Zion. It does not follow that the tabernacle was placed at the top of the hill. Here it remained a few years, till after the massacre by Saul of all the priests at Nob save one, Abiathar (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,11);">1Sa 22:11</a>). Subsequently, possibly by Saul himself, it was removed to Gibeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,39);">1Ch 16:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',21,29);">21:29</a>). Gibeon was 6 miles from Jerusalem, and 7 from Beth-el, and may have been chosen for its strategic advantage as well as for the fact that it was already inhabited by priests, and was Saul\'s ancestral city.<P>7. Restoration of the Ark:<P>This removal by Saul, if he was the author of it, was recognized afterward by David as a thing done, with which he did not think it wise to interfere (of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,40);">1Ch 16:40</a>). On his capturing the fortress of Jebus (later Jerusalem), and building himself a "house" there, David prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched a tent on Zion in imitation of the tabernacle at Gibeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,17);">2Sa 6:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,1);">1Ch 16:1</a>). He must also have provided an altar, for we read of burnt offerings and peace offerings being made there. Meanwhile the ark had been brought from Kiriath-jearim, where it had lain so long; it was restored in the presence of a concourse of people representing the whole nation, the soldiery and civilians delivering it to the priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,1);">2Sa 6:1</a>). On this journey Uzzah was smitten for touching the ark. Arrived near Jerusalem, the ark was carried into the house of Obed-edom, a Levite, and remained there for 3 months. At the end of this time it was carried into David\'s tabernacle with all fitting solemnity and honor.<P>8. The Two Tabernacles:<P>Hence, it was that there were now two tabernacles, the original one with its altar at Gibeon, and the new one with the original ark in Jerusalem, both under the protection of the king. Both, however, were soon to be superseded by the building of a temple. The altar at Gibeon continued in use till the time of Solomon. Of all the actual material of the tabernacle, the ark alone remained unchanged in the temple. The tabernacle itself, with its sacred vessels, was brought up to Jerusalem, and was preserved, apparently, as a sacred relic in the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,4);">1Ki 8:4</a>). Thus, after a history of more than 200 years, the tabernacle ceases to appear in history.<P>IV. Symbolism.<P>Though the tabernacle was historically the predecessor of the later temples, as a matter of fact, the veil was the only item actually retained throughout the series of temples. Nevertheless it is the tabernacle rather than the temple which has provided a substructure for much New Testament teaching. All the well-known allusions of the writer to the Hebrews, e.g. in chapters 9 and 10, are to the tabernacle, rather than to any later temple.<P>1. New Testament References:<P>In general the tabernacle is the symbol of God\'s dwelling with His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,8);">Ex 25:8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,27);">1Ki 8:27</a>), an idea in process of realization in more and more perfect forms till it reaches its completion in the carnation of the Word ("The Word became flesh, and dwelt (Greek "tabernacled") among us," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,1);">2Co 5:1</a>), in the church collectively (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,16);">2Co 6:16</a>) and in the individual believer (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,19);">1Co 6:19</a>) and finally in the eternal glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,13);">Re 2:13</a>). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the locus classicus of the tabernacle in Christian thought, the idea is more cosmical<61>the tabernacle in its holy and most holy divisions representing the earthly and the heavenly spheres of Christ\'s activity. The Old Testament was but a shadow of the eternal substance, an indication of the true ideal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,5);">Heb 8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,1);">10:1</a>). The tabernacle in which Christ ministered was a tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,2);">Heb 8:2</a>). He is the high priest of "the greater and more perfect tabernacle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,11);">Heb 9:11</a>). "Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,24);">Heb 9:24</a>). The symbolical significance of the tabernacle and its worship is not, however, confined to the Epistle to the Hebrews. It must be admitted that Paul. does not give prominence to the tabernacle symbolism, and further, that his references are to things common to the tabernacle and the temple. But Paul speaks of "the layer of regeneration" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,5);">Tit 3:5</a> the Revised Version margin), and of Christ, who "gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for an odor of a sweet smell" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,2);">Eph 5:2</a>). The significance which the synoptic writers give to the rending of the veil of the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,51);">Mt 27:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,38);">Mr 15:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,45);">Lu 23:45</a>) shows how this symbolism entered deeply into their thought and was felt by them to have divine attestation in this supernatural fact. The way into the holiest of all, as the writer to the Hebrews says, was now made manifest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,8);">9:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,19,20);">10:19,20</A>).<P>2. God\'s Dwelling with Man:<P>The suggestion which underlies all such New Testament references is not only that Christ, in His human manifestation, was both tabernacle and priest, altar and sacrifice, but also, and still more, that God ever has His dwelling among men, veiled no doubt from the unbelieving and insincere, but always manifest and accessible to the faithful and devout. As we have a great high priest who is now passed into the heavens, there to appear in our behalf in the true tabernacle, so we ourselves have permission and encouragement to enter into the holiest place of all on earth by the blood of the everlasting covenant. Of the hopes embodied in these two planes of thought, the earthly tabernacle was the symbol, and contained the prospect and foretaste of the higher communion. It is this which has given the tabernacle such an abiding hold on the imagination and veneration of the Christian church in all lands and languages.<P>3. Symbolism of Furniture:<P>The symbolism of the various parts of the tabernacle furniture is tolerably obvious, and is considered under the different headings. The ark of the covenant with its propitiatory was the symbol of God\'s gracious meeting with His people on the ground of atonement (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARK+OF+THE+COVENANT">ARK OF THE COVENANT</a>). The twelve cakes of shewbread denote the twelve tribes of Israel, and their presentation is at once an act of gratitude for that which is the support of life, and, symbolically, a dedication of the life thus supported; the candlestick speaks to the calling of Israel to be a people of light (compare Jesus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'14-16\');">Mt 5:14-16</a>); the rising incense symbolizes the act of prayer (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,8);">Re 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,3);">8:3</a>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>See the articles on "Tabernacle" and "Temple" in Smith\'s DB, HDB, EB, The Temple BD, etc.; also the commentaries. on Exodus (the Speaker\'s Pulpit Commentary, Keil\'s, Lange\'s, etc.); Bahr, Symbolik d. Mosaischen Cult; Keil, Archaeology, I, 98ff (English translation); Westcott, essay on "The General Significance of the Tabernacle," in his Hebrews; Brown, The Tabernacle (1899); W. S. Caldecott, The Tabernacle: Its History and Structure. See the articles in this Encyclopedia on the special parts of the tabernacle.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE">TEMPLE</a>`19';
|
||
isbe[8569]='Tabernacle, B`<b>B. IN CRITICISM</b><P><b>I. CONSERVATIVE AND CRITICAL VIEWS</b><P><b>II. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CRITICAL THEORY EXAMINED</b><P class="in15">1. Not Stated, That the Temple Was Constructed after the Pattern of the Tabernacle<P class="in15">2. No Trace of the Tabernacle in Pre-Solomonic Times<P class="in15">3. The Tabernacle Could Not Have Been Built as Exodus Describes<P class="in15">4. Biblical Account Contains Marks of Its Unhistorical Character<P class="in15">5. Pre-exilic Prophets Knew Nothing of Levitical System of Which the Tabernacle Was Said to Be the Center.<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Conservative and Critical Views.<P>The conservative view of Scripture finds:<P>(1) that the tabernacle was constructed by Moses in the wilderness of Sinai;<P>(2) that it was fashioned according to a pattern shown to him in the Mount;<P>(3) that it was designed to be and was the center of sacrificial worship for the tribes in the wilderness; and<P>(4) that centuries later the Solomonic Temple was constructed after it as a model.<P>However, the critical (higher) view of Scripture says:<P>(1) that the tabernacle never existed except on paper;<P>(2) that it was a pure creation of priestly imagination sketched after or during the exile;<P>(3) that it was meant to be a miniature sanctuary on the model of Solomon\'s Temple;<P>(4) that it was represented as having been built in the wilderness for the purpose of legitimizing the newly-published Priestly Code (P) or Levitical ritual still preserved in the middle books of the Pentateuch; and<P>(5) that the description of the tabernacle furnished in the Priestly Code (P) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'1-\');">36-40; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,2,17);">Nu 2:2,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,\'1-4\');">5:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,44);">14:44</a>) conflicts with that given in the Elohist (E) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">Ex 33:7-11</a>), both as to its character and its location.<P>The principal grounds on which it is proposed to set aside the conservative viewpoint and put in its place the critical theory are these:<P>II. Arguments in Support of the Critical Theory Examined.<P>(1) It is nowhere stated that Solomon\'s Temple was constructed after the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle; hence, it is reasonable to infer that the Mosaic tabernacle had no existence when or before the Solomonic Temple was built.<P>(2) No trace of the Mosaic tabernacle can be found in the pre-Solomonic period, from which it is clear that no such tabernacle existed.<P>(3) The Mosaic tabernacle could not have been produced as Exodus describes, and, accordingly, the story must be relegated to the limbo of romance.<P>(4) The Biblical account of the Mosaic tabernacle bears internal marks of its completely unhistorical character.<P>(5) The pre-exilic prophets knew nothing of the Levitical system of which the Mosaic tabernacle was the center, and hence, the whole story must be set down as a sacred legend.<P>These assertions demand examination:<P>1. Not Stated, That the Temple Was Constructed after the Pattern of the Tabernacle:<P>It is urged that nowhere is it stated that Solomon\'s Temple was fashioned after the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle. Wellhausen thinks (GI, chapter i,3,p. 44) that, had it been so, the narrators in Kings and Chronicles would have said so. "At least," he writes, "one would have expected that in the report concerning the building of the new sanctuary, casual mention would have been made of the old." And so there was<61>in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,4);">1Ki 8:4</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',5,5);">2Ch 5:5</a>. Of course, it is contended that "the tent of meeting" referred to in these passages was not the Mosaic tabernacle of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,1);">Ex 25</a>, but simply a provisional shelter for the ark<72>though in P the Mosaic tabernacle bears the same designation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,21);">Ex 27:21</a>). Conceding, however, for the sake of argument, that the tent of the historical books was not the Mosaic tabernacle of Exodus, and that this is nowhere spoken of as the model on which Solomon\'s Temple was constructed, does it necessarily follow that because the narrators in Kings and Chronicles did not expressly state that Solomon\'s Temple was built after the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle, therefore the Mosaic tabernacle had no existence when the narrators wrote? If it does, then the same logic will demonstrate the non-existence of Solomon\'s Temple before the exile, because when the writer of P was describing the Mosaic tabernacle he made no mention whatever about its being a miniature copy of Solomon\'s Temple. A reductio ad absurdum like this disposes of the first of the five pillars upon which the new theory rests.<P>2. No Trace of the Tabernacle in Pre-Solomonic Times<P>It is alleged that no trace of the Mosaic tabernacle can be found in pre-Solomonic times. On the principle that silence about a person, thing or event does not prove the non-existence of the person or thing or the non-occurrence of the event, this 2nd argument might fairly be laid aside as irrelevant. Yet it will be more satisfactory to ask, if the assertion be true, why no trace of the tabernacle can be detected in the historical books in pre-Solomonic times. The answer is, that of course it is true, if the historical books be first "doctored," i.e. gone over and dressed to suit theory, by removing from them every passage, sentence, clause and word that seems to indicate, presuppose or imply the existence of the tabernacle, and such passage, sentence, clause and word assigned to a late R who inserted it into the original text to give color to his theory, and support to his fiction that the Mosaic tabernacle and its services originated in the wilderness. Could this theory be established on independent grounds, i.e. by evidence derived from other historical documents, without tampering with the sacred narrative, something might be said for its plausibility. But every scholar knows that not a particle of evidence has ever been, or is likely ever to be, adduced in its support beyond what critics themselves manufacture in the way described. That they do find traces of the Mosaic tabernacle in the historical books, they unconsciously and unintentionally allow by their efforts to explain such traces away, which moreover they can only do by denouncing these traces as spurious and subjecting them to a sort of surgical operation in order to excise them from the body of the text. But these so-called spurious traces are either true or they are not true. If they are true, whoever inserted them, then they attest the existence of the tabernacle, first at Shiloh, and afterward at Nob, later at Gibeon, and finally at Jerusalem; if they are not true, then some other things in the narrative must be written down as imagination, as, e.g. the conquest of the land, and its division among the tribes, the story of the altar on the east of Jordan, the ministry of the youthful Samuel at Shiloh, and of Ahimelech at Nob.<P>(1) The Mosaic Tabernacle at Shiloh.<P>That the structure at Shiloh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,3,9,19,24);">1Sa 1:3,9,19,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,11,12);">2:11,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',3,3);">3:3</a>) was the Mosaic tabernacle everything recorded about it shows. It contained the ark of God, called also the ark of the covenant of God and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, or more fully the ark of the covenant of Yahweh of Hosts, names, especially the last, which for the ark associated with the tabernacle were not unknown in the period of the wandering. It had likewise a priesthood and a sacrificial worship of three parts<74>offering sacrifice (in the forecourt), burning incense (in the holy place), and wearing an ephod (in the Holy of Holies)<29>which at least bore a close resemblance to the cult of the tabernacle, and in point of fact claimed to have been handed down from Aaron. Then Elkanah\'s pious custom of going up yearly from Ramathaim-zophim to Shiloh to worship and to sacrifice unto Yahweh of Hosts suggests that in his day Shiloh was regarded as the central high place and that the law of the three yearly feasts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,14);">Ex 23:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-18\');">Le 23:1-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,16);">De 16:16</a>) was not unknown, though perhaps only partially observed; while the statement about "the women who did service at the door of the tent of meeting" as clearly points back to the similar female institution in connection with the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,8);">Ex 38:8</a>). To these considerations it is objected (a) that the Shiloh sanctuary was not the Mosaic tabernacle, which was a portable tent, but a solid structure with posts and doors, and<P>(b) that even if it was not a solid structure but a tent, it could be left at any moment without the ark, in which case it could not have been the Mosaic tabernacle of which the ark was an "inseparable companion"; while<P>(c) if it was the ancient "dwelling" of Yahweh, it could not have been made the dormitory of Samuel.<P>But<P>(a) while it need not be denied that the Shiloh sanctuary possessed posts and doors<72><a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,12);">Jer 7:12</a> seems to admit that it was a structure which might be laid in ruins<6E>yet this does not warrant the conclusion that the Mosaic tabernacle had no existence in Shiloh. It is surely not impossible or even improbable that, when the tabernacle had obtained a permanent location at Shiloh, and that for nearly 400 years (compare above under A, III,1,8 and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRONOLOGY+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>, VII, VIII), during the course of these centuries a porch with posts and doors may have been erected before the curtain that formed the entrance to the holy place, or that strong buildings may have been put up around it as houses for the priests and Levites, as treasure-chambers, and such like<6B>thus causing it to present the appearance of a palace or house with the tabernacle proper in its interior. Then<P>(b) as to the impossibility of the ark being taken from the tabernacle, as was done when it was captured by the Philistines, there is no doubt that there were occasions when it was not only legitimate, but expressly commanded to separate the ark from the tabernacle, though the war with the Philistines was not one. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,33);">Nu 10:33</a>, it is distinctly stated that the ark, by itself, went before the people when they marched through the wilderness; and there is ground for thinking that during the Benjamite war the ark was with divine sanction temporarily removed from Shiloh to Beth-el (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,26,27);">Jud 20:26,27</a>) and, when the campaign closed, brought back again to Shiloh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,12);">Jud 21:12</a>).<P>(c) As for the notion that the Shiloh sanctuary could not have been the Mosaic tabernacle because Samuel is said to have slept in it beside the ark of God, it should be enough to reply that the narrative does not say or imply that Samuel had converted either the holy place or the most holy into a private bedchamber, but merely that he lay down to sleep "in the temple of the Lord where the ark of God was," doubtless "in the court where cells were built for the priests and Levites to live in when serving at the sanctuary" (Keil). But even if it did mean that the youthful Samuel actually slept in the Holy of Holies, one fails to see how an abuse like that may not have occurred in a time so degenerate as that of Eli, or how, if it did, it would necessarily prove that the Shiloh shrine was not the Mosaic tabernacle.<P>(2) The Mosaic Tabernacle at Nob.<P>That the sanctuary at Nob (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,\'1-6\');">1Sa 21:1-6</a>) was the Mosaic tabernacle may be inferred from the following circumstances:<P>(a) that it had a high priest with 85 ordinary priests, a priest\'s ephod, and a table of shewbread;<P>(b) that the eating of the shewbread was conditioned by the same law of ceremonial purity as prevailed in connection with the Mosaic tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,18);">Le 15:18</a>); and<P>(c) that the Urim was employed there by the priest to ascertain the divine will<6C>all of which circumstances pertained to the Mosaic tabernacle and to no other institution known among the Hebrews.<P>If the statement (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',13,3);">1Ch 13:3</a>) that the ark was not inquired at in the days of Saul calls for explanation, that explanation is obviously this, that during Saul\'s reign the ark was dissociated from the tabernacle, being lodged in the house of Abinadab at Kiriath-jearim, and was accordingly in large measure forgotten. The statement (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,18);">1Sa 14:18</a>) that Saul in his war with the Philistines commanded Ahijah, Eli\'s great-grandson, who was "the priest of the Lord in Shiloh, wearing an ephod" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,3);">1Sa 14:3</a>) to fetch up the ark<72>if <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,18);">1Sa 14:18</a> should not rather be read according to the Septuagint, "Bring hither the ephod"<22>can only signify that on this particular occasion it was fetched from Kiriath-jearim at the end of 20 years and afterward returned thither. This, however, is not a likely supposition; and for the Septuagint reading it can be said that the phrase "Bring hither" was never used in connection with the ark; that the ark was never employed for ascertaining the Divine Will, but the ephod was; and that the Hebrew text in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,18);">1Sa 14:18</a> seems corrupt, the last clause reading "for the ark of God was at that day and the sons of Israel," which is not extremely intelligible.<P>(3) The Mosaic Tabernacle at Gibeon.<P>The last mention of the Mosaic tabernacle occurs in connection with the building of Solomon\'s Temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,4);">1Ki 8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,3);">2Ch 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',5,3);">5:3</a>), when it is stated that the ark of the covenant and the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent were solemnly fetched up into the house which Solomon had built. That what is here called the tabernacle of the congregation, or the tent of meeting, was not the Mosaic tabernacle has been maintained on the following grounds:<P>(a) that had it been so, David, when he fetched up the ark from Obed-edom\'s house, would not have pitched for it a tent in the city of David, but would have lodged it in Gibeon;<P>(b) that had the Gibeon shrine been the Mosaic tabernacle it would not have been called as it is in Kings, "a great high place";<P>(c) that had the Gibeon shrine been the Mosaic tabernacle, Solomon would not have required to cast new vessels for his Temple, as he is reported to have done; and<P>(d) that had the Gibeon shrine been the Mosaic tabernacle the brazen altar would not have been left behind at Gibeon but would also have been conveyed to Mt. Moriah.<P>But<P>(a) if it was foolish and wrong for David not to lodge the ark in Gibeon, that would not make it certain that the Mosaic tabernacle was not at Gibeon. That it was either foolish or wrong, however, is not clear. David may have reckoned that if the house of Obed-edom had derived special blessing from the presence of the ark in it for three months, possibly it would be for the benefit of his (David\'s) house and kingdom to have the ark permanently in his capital. And in addition, David may have remembered that God had determined to choose out a place for His ark, and in answer to prayer David may have been directed to fetch the ark to Jerusalem. As good a supposition this, at any rate, as that of the critics.<P>(b) That the Gibeon shrine should have been styled "the great high place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,4);">1Ki 3:4</a>) is hardly astonishing, when one calls to mind that it was the central sanctuary, as being the seat of the Mosaic tabernacle with its brazen altar. And may not the designation "high place," or bamah, have been affixed to it just because, through want of its altar, it had dwindled down into a mere shadow of the true sanctuary and become similar to the other "high places" or bamoth?<P>(c) The casting of new vessels for Solomon\'s Temple needs no other explanation than this, that the new house was at least twice as spacious as the old, and that in any case it was fitting that the new house should have new furniture.<P>(d) That the brazen altar would not have been left behind at Gibeon when the Mosaic tabernacle was removed, may be met by the demand for proof that it was actually left behind. That it was left behind is a pure conjecture. That it was transplanted to Jerusalem and along with the other tabernacle utensils laid up in a side chamber of the temple is as likely an assumption as any other (see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,4);">1Ki 8:4</a>).<P>3. The Tabernacle Could Not Have Been Built as Exodus Describes<P>It is maintained that the Mosaic tabernacle could not have been produced as Exodus describes:<P>(1) that the time was too short,<P>(2) that the Israelites were too little qualified, and<P>(3) that the materials at their disposal were too scanty for the construction of so splendid a building as the Mosaic tabernacle.<P>But<P>(1) does any intelligent person believe that 9 months was too short a time for 600,000 able-bodied men, to say nothing of their women and children, to build a wooden house 30 cubits long, 10 high and 10 broad, with not as many articles in it as a well-to-do artisan\'s kitchen oftentimes contains?<P>(2) Is it at all likely that they were so ill-qualified for the work as the objection asserts? The notion that the Israelites were a horde of savages or simply a tribe of wandering nomads does not accord with fact. They had been bond-men, it is true, in the land of Ham; but they and their fathers had lived there for 400 years; and it is simply incredible, as even Knobel puts it, that they should not have learnt something of the mechanical articles One would rather be disposed to hold that they must have had among them at the date of the Exodus a considerable number of skilled artisans. At least, archaeology has shown that if the escaped bondsmen knew nothing of the arts and sciences, it was not because their quondam masters had not been able to instruct them. The monuments offer silent witness that every art required by the manufacturers existed at the moment in Egypt, as e.g. the arts of metal-working, wood-carving, leather-making, weaving and spinning. And surely no one will contend that the magnificent works of art, the temples and tombs, palaces and pyramids, that are the world\'s wonder today, were the production always and exclusively of native Egyptian and never of Hebrew thought and labor! Nor<P>(3) is the reasoning good, that whatever the Israelites might have been able to do in Egypt where abundant materials lay to hand, they were little likely to excel in handicrafts of any sort in a wilderness where such materials were wanting.<P>Even Knobel could reply to this, that as the Israelites when they escaped from Egypt were not a horde of savages, so neither were they a tribe of beggars; that they had not entered on their expedition in the wilderness without preparation, or without taking with them their most valuable articles; that the quantities of gold, silver and precious stones employed in the building of the tabernacle were but trifles in comparison with other quantities of the same that have been found in possession of ancient oriental peoples; that a large portion of what was contributed had probably been obtained by despoiling the Egyptians before escaping from their toils and plundering the Amalekites whom they soon after defeated at Rephidim, and who, in all likelihood, at least if one may judge from the subsequent example of the Midianites, had come to the field of war bedecked with jewels and gold; and that the acacia wood, the linen, the blue, the purple and the scarlet, with the goats\' skins, rams\' skins, and seal skins might all have been found and prepared in the wilderness (compare Kurtz, Geschichte des alten Bundes, II, section 53). In short, so decisively has this argument, derived from the supposed deficiency of culture and resources on the part of the Israelites, been disposed of by writers of by no means too conservative pro-clivities, that one feels surprised to find it called up again by Benzinger in Encyclopedia Biblica to do duty in support of the unhistorical character of the tabernacle narrative in Exodus.<P>4. Biblical Account Contains Marks of Its Unhistorical Character<P>The Biblical account of the Mosaic tabernacle, it is further contended, bears internal marks of its completely unhistorical character, as e.g.<P>(1) that it represents the tabernacle as having been constructed on a model which had been supernaturally shown to Moses;<P>(2) that it habitually speaks of the south, north, and west sides of the tabernacle although no preceding order had been issued that the tent should be so placed;<P>(3) that the brazen altar is described as made of timber overlaid with brass, upon which a huge fire constantly burned;<P>(4) that, the tabernacle is depicted, not as a mere provisional shelter for the ark upon the march, but "as the only legitimate sanctuary for the church of the twelve tribes before Solomon"; and<P>(5) that the description of the tabernacle furnished in P (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'1-\');">36-40</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,2,17);">Nu 2:2,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,\'1-4\');">5:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,44);">14:44</a>) conflicts with that given in E (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">Ex 33:7-11</a>), both as to its character and its location.<P>But<P>(1) why should the story of the tabernacle be a fiction, because Moses is reported to have made it according to a pattern showed to him in the Mount (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,40);">Ex 25:40 (Hebrew 8:5)</a>)? No person says that the Temple of Solomon was a fiction, because David claimed that the pattern of it given to Solomon had been communicated to him (David) by divine inspiration (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,19);">1Ch 28:19</a>). Every critic also knows that Ezekiel wrote the book that goes by his name. Yet Ezekiel asserts that the temple described by him was beheld by him in a vision. Unless therefore the supernatural is ruled out of history altogether, it is open to reply that God could just as easily have revealed to Moses the pattern of the tabernacle as He afterward exhibited to Ezekiel the model of his temple. And even if God showed nothing to either one prophet or the other, the fact that Moses says he saw the pattern of the tabernacle no more proves that he did not write the account of it, than Ezekiel\'s stating that he beheld the model of his temple attests that Ezekiel never penned the description of it. The same argument that proves Moses did not write about the tabernacle also proves that Ezekiel could not have written about the vision-temple. Should it be urged that as Ezekiel\'s temple was purely visionary so also was Moses\' tabernacle, the argument comes with small consistency and less force from those who say that Ezekiel\'s vision-temple was the model of a real temple that should afterward be built; since if Ezekiel\'s vision-temple was (or should have been, according to the critics) converted into a material sanctuary, no valid reason can be adduced why Moses\' vision-tabernacle should not also have been translated into an actual building.<P>(2) How the fact that the tabernacle had three sides, south, north and west, shows it could not have been fashioned by Moses, is one of those mysteries which takes a critical mind to understand. One naturally presumes that the tabernacle must have been located somewhere and oriented somehow; and, if it had four sides, would assuredly suit as well to set them toward the four quarters of heaven as in any other way. But in so depicting the tabernacle, say the critics, the fiction writers who invented the story were actuated by a deep-laid design to make the Mosaic tabernacle look like the Temple of Solomon. Quite a harmless design, if it was really entertained! But the Books of Kings and Chronicles will be searched in vain for any indication that the Temple foundations were set to the four quarters of heaven. It is true that the 12 oxen who supported the molten sea in Solomon\'s Temple were so placed<65>4 looking to the north, 4 to the south, 4 to the east, and 4 to the west (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,25);">1Ki 7:25</a>); but this does not necessarily warrant the inference that the sides of the Temple were so placed. Hence, on the well-known principle of modern criticism, that when a thing is not mentioned by a writer the thing does not exist, seeing that nothing is recorded about how the temple was placed, ought it not to be concluded that the whole story about the Temple is a myth?<P>(3) As to the absurdity of representing a large fire as constantly burning upon a wooden altar overlaid with a thin plate of brass, this would certainly have been all that the critics say<61>a fatal objection to receiving the story of the tabernacle as true. But if the story was invented, surely the inventor might have given Moses and his two skilled artisans, Bezalel and Oholiab, some credit for common sense, and not have made them do, or propose to do, anything so stupid as to try to keep a large fire burning upon an altar of wood. This certainly they did not do. An examination of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,\'1-8\');">Ex 27:1-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'1-7\');">38:1-7</a> makes it clear that the altar proper upon which "the strong fire" burned was the earth or stone-filled (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24);">Ex 20:24</a>f) hollow which the wooden and brass frame enclosed.<P>(4) The fourth note of fancy<63>what Wellhausen calls "the chief matter"<22>that the tabernacle was designed for a central sanctuary to the church of the Twelve Tribes before the days of Solomon, but never really served in this capacity<74>is partly true and partly untrue. That it was meant to be a central sanctuary, until Yahweh should select for Himself a place of permanent habitation, which He did in the days of Solomon, is exactly the impression a candid reader derives from Exodus, and it is gratifying to learn from so competent a critic as Wellhausen that this impression is correct. But that it really never served as a central sanctuary, it is impossible to admit, after having traced its existence from the days of Joshua onward to those of Solomon. That occasionally altars were erected and sacrifices offered at other places than the tabernacle<6C>as by Gideon at Ophrah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,\'24-27\');">Jud 6:24-27</a>) and by Samuel at Ramah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,17);">1Sa 7:17</a>)<29>is no proof that the tabernacle was not the central sanctuary. If it is, then by parity of reasoning the altar in Mt. Ebal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,5);">De 27:5</a>) should prove that Jerusalem was not intended as a central sanctuary. But, if alongside of the Temple in Jerusalem, an altar in Ebal could be commanded, then also alongside of the tabernacle it might be legitimate to erect an altar and offer sacrifice for special needs. And exactly this is what was done. While the tabernacle was appointed for a central sanctuary the earlier legislation was not revoked: "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24);">Ex 20:24</a>). It was still legitimate to offer sacrifice in any spot where Yahweh was pleased to manifest Himself to His people. And even though it had not been, the existence of local shrines alongside of the tabernacle would no more warrant the conclusion that the tabernacle was never built than the failure of the Christian church to keep the Golden Rule would certify that the Sermon on the Mount was never preached.<P>(5) With regard to the supposed want of harmony between the two descriptions of the tabernacle in P and E, much depends on whether the structures referred to in these documents were the same or different.<P>(a) If different, i.e. if the tent in E (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">Ex 33:7-11</a>) was Moses\' tent (Kurtz, Keil, Kalisch, Ewald and others), or a preliminary tent erected by Moses (Havernick, Lange; Kennedy, and section A (I, 1), above), or possessed by the people from their forefathers (von Gerlach, Benzinger in EB), no reason can be found why the two descriptions should not have varied as to both the character of the tent and its location. The tent in E, which according to the supposition was purely provisional, a temporary sanctuary, may well have been a simple structure and pitched outside the camp; while the tent in P could just as easily have been an elaborate fabric with an ark, a priesthood and a complex sacrificial ritual and located in the midst of the camp. In this case no ground can arise for suggesting that they were contradictory of one another, or that P\'s tent was a fiction, a paper-tabernacle, while E\'s tent was a reality and the only tabernacle that ever existed in Israel. But<P>(b) if on the other hand the tent in E was the same as the tent in P (Calvin, Mead in Lange, Konig, Eerdmans, Valeton and others), then the question may arise whether or not any contradiction existed between them, and, if such contradiction did exist, whether this justifies the inference that P\'s tent was unhistorical, i.e. never took shape except in the writer\'s imagination.<P>That the tent in E was not P\'s Mosaic tabernacle has been argued on the following grounds:<P>(a) that the Mosaic tabernacle (assuming it to have been a reality and not a fiction) was not yet made; so that E\'s tent must have been either the tent of Moses or a provisional tent;<P>(b) that nothing is said about a body of priests and Levites with an ark and a sacrificial ritual in connection with E\'s tent, but only of a non-Levitical attendant Joshua, and<P>(c) that it was situated outside the camp, whereas P\'s tabernacle is always represented as in the midst of the camp.<P>The first of these grounds largely disappears when <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,7);">Ex 33:7</a> is read as in the Revised Version: "Now Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it without the camp." The verbs, being in the imperfect, point to Moses\' practice (Driver, Introduction and Hebrew Tenses; compare Ewald, Syntax, 348), which again may refer either to the past or to the future, either to what Moses was in the habit of doing with his own or the preliminary tent, or what he was to do with the tent about to be constructed. Which interpretation is the right one must be determined by the prior question which tent is intended. Against the idea of E\'s tent being Moses\' private domicile stands the difficulty of seeing why it was not called his tent instead of the tent, and why Moses should be represented as never going into it except to hold communion with Yahweh. If it was a provisional tent, struck up by Moses, why was no mention of its construction made? And if it was a sort of national heirloom come down from the forefathers of Israel, why does the narrative contain not the slightest intimation of any such thing?<P>On the other hand if E\'s tent was the same as P\'s, the narrative does not require to be broken up; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">Ex 33:7-11</a> quite naturally falls into its place as an explanation of how the promises of 33::3 and 5 were carried out (see infra).<P>The second supposed proof that E\'s tent was not P\'s but an earlier one, namely, that P\'s had a body of priests and Levites, an ark and a complex ritual, while E\'s had only Joshua as attendant and made no mention of ark, priests or sacrifices, loses force, unless it can be shown that there was absolute necessity that in this paragraph a full description of the tabernacle should be given. But obviously no such necessity existed, the object of the writer having been as above explained. Driver, after Wellhausen (GJ, 387), conjectures that in E\'s original document <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">Ex 33:7-11</a> may have been preceded "by an account of the construction of the Tent of Meeting and of the ark," and that "when the narrative was combined with that of P this part of it (being superfluous by the side of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Exodus 25-35</a>) was probably omitted." As this however is only a conjecture, it is of no more (probably of less) value than the opinion that <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Exodus 25-35</a> including <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'7-11\');">33:7-11</A> proceeded from the same pen. The important contribution to the interpretation of the passage is that the absence from the paragraph relating to E\'s tent of the ark, priests and sacrifices is no valid proof that E\'s tent was not the Mosaic tabernacle.<P>The third argument against their identity is their different location<6F>E\'s outside and P\'s inside the camp. But it may be argued (a) that the translation in the Revised Version (British and American) distinctly relieves this difficulty. For if Moses used to take and pitch the tabernacle outside the camp, the natural implication is that the tabernacle was often, perhaps usually, inside the camp, as in the Priestly Code (P), and only from time to time pitched outside the camp, when Yahweh was displeased with the people (Eerdmans, Valeton). Or (2) that "outside the camp" may signify away, at an equal distance from all the four camps ("over against the tent of meeting"<22>in the King James Version "far off," after <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,4);">Jos 3:4</a><3E>were the various tribes with their standards, i.e. the four camps, to be pitched; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,2);">Nu 2:2</a>); so that the tabernacle might easily be in the midst of all the camps and yet "outside" and "far off" from each camp separately, thus requiring every individual who sought the Lord to go out from his camp unto the tabernacle. <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,\'26-30\');">Nu 11:26-30</a> may perhaps shed light upon the question. There it is stated that "there remained two men in the camp (who) had not gone out with Moses unto the Tent," and that Moses and the elders after leaving the tent, "gat (them) into the camp." Either the tent at this time was in the center of the square, around which the four camps were stationed, or it was outside. If it was outside, then the first of the foregoing explanations will hold good; if it was inside the camp, then the second suggestion must be adopted, namely, that while the camps were round about the tabernacle, the tabernacle was outside each camp. "Although the tabernacle stood in the midst of the camp, yet it was practically separated from the tents of the tribes by an open space and by the encampment of the Levites" (Pulpit Commentary, in the place cited.; compare Keil, in the place cited.). When one calls to mind that the tabernacle was separated from each side of the square probably, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,4);">Jos 3:4</a>, by 2,000 cubits (at 19-25 inches each = about 3/4 of a mile), one has small difficulty in understanding how the tabernacle could be both outside the several camps and inside them all; how the two promises in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'1-\');">Ex 33</a> (the King James Version)<29>"I will not go up in the midst of thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,3);">33:3</A>) and "I will come up into the midst of thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,5);">33:5</A>)<29>might be fulfilled; how Moses and the elders could go out from the camp (i.e. their several camps) to the tabernacle and after leaving the tabernacle return to the camp (i.e. their several camps); and how no insuperable difficulty in the shape of an insoluble contradiction exists between E\'s account and P\'s account.<P>5. Pre-exilic Prophets Knew Nothing of Levitical System of Which the Tabernacle Was Said to Be the Center.<P>That the pre-exilic prophets knew nothing about the Levitical system of which the tabernacle was the center is regarded as perhaps the strongest proof that the tabernacle had no existence in the wilderness and indeed never existed at all except on paper. The assertion about the ignorance of the pre-exilic prophets as to the sacrificial system of the Priestly Code has been so often made that it has come to be a "commonplace" and "stock-phrase" of modern criticism. In particular, Amos in the 8th century BC (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,25,26);">5:25,26</A>) and Jeremiah in the 7th century BC (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,\'21-23\');">7:21-23</a>) are quoted as having publicly taught that no such sacrificial ritual as the tabernacle implied had been promulgated in the wilderness. But, if these prophets were aware that the Levitical Law had not been given by Moses, one would like to know,<P>(1) how this interpretation of their language had been so long in being discovered;<P>(2) how the critics themselves are not unanimous in accepting this interpretation<6F>which they are not;<P>(3) how Amos could represent Yahweh as saying "I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer me your burnt-offerings and meal-offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,21,22);">5:21,22</A>), if Yahweh had never accepted and never enjoined them;<P>(4) how Jeremiah could have been a party to putting forward Deuteronomy as a work of Moses if he knew that Yahweh had never commanded sacrifices to be offered, which Deuteronomy does; and<P>(5) how Jeremiah could have blamed Judah for committing spiritual adultery if Yahweh had never ordered the people to offer sacrifice.<P>In reply to<P>(1) it will scarcely do to answer that all previous interpreters of Amos and Jeremiah had failed to read the prophets\' words as they stand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,25,26);">Am 5:25,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,22);">Jer 7:22</a>), because the question would then arise why the middle books of the Pentateuch should not also be read as they stand, as e.g. when they say, "The Lord spake unto Moses," and again "These (the legislative contents of the middle books) are the commandments, which Yahweh commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,34);">Le 27:34</a>). As for<P>(2) it is conveniently forgotten that Bohlen (Introduction to Genesis, I, 277) admitted that some of the Pentateuch "might possibly have originated in the time of Moses," and when quoting <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,22);">Jer 7:22</a> never dreamed of putting forward an explanation different from the orthodox rendering of the same, and certainly did not cite it as a proof that the Law had no existence prior to the exile; that De Wette in his Einleitung (261, 262, 8th edition) stated that "the holy laws and institutions of theocratic people had for their author Moses, who in giving them stood under divine guidance"; that Knobel (Die Bucher Ex und Lev, xxii) explicitly declared that Moses must be regarded not only as the liberator and founder of his people, but also the originator of the peculiar Israelite constitution and lawgiving, at least in its fundamental elements; that Ewald (Die Propheten, II, 123) regarded <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,22);">Jer 7:22</a> as making no announcement about the origin of the sacrificial cult; and that Bleek (Introduction to the Old Testament) forgot to read the modern critical interpretation into the words of Amos and Jeremiah for the simple reason that to have done so would have stultified his well-known view that many of the laws of the middle books of the Pentateuch are of Mosaic origin. Nor is the difficulty<P>(3) removed by holding that, if prior to the days of Amos Yahweh did accept the burnt offerings and meal offerings of Israel, these were not sacrifices that had been appointed in the wilderness, because Yahweh Himself appears to intimate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,25,26);">Am 5:25,26</a>) that no such sacrifices or offerings had been made during the whole 40 years\' wandering. Had this been the case, it is not easy to see why the post-exilic authors of the Priestly Code should have asserted the contrary, should have represented sacrifices as having been offered in the wilderness, as they have done (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">Nu 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>). The obvious import of Yahweh\'s language is either that the sacrificial worship which He had commanded had been largely neglected by the people, or that it had been so heartless and formal that it was no true worship at all<6C>their real worship being given to their idols<6C>and that as certainly as the idolaters in the wilderness were excluded from Canaan, so the idolaters in Amos\' day, unless they repented, would be carried away into exile. As to<P>(4) Jeremiah\'s action in putting forward or helping to put forward Deuteronomy as a work of Moses when he knew that it represented Yahweh as having commanded sacrifices to be offered both in the wilderness and in Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,6,11,13);">De 12:6,11,13</a>), and must have been aware as well that J-E had represented Yahweh as commanding sacrifice at Sinai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24,25);">Ex 20:24,25</a>), no explanation can be offered that will clear the prophet from the charge of duplicity and insincerity, or prevent his classification with the very men who were a grief of mind to him and against whom a large part of his life was spent in contending, namely, the prophets that prophesied lies in the name of God. Nor does it mend matters to suggest (Cheyne) that when Jeremiah perceived that Deuteronomy, though floated into publicity under high patronage, did not take hold, he changed his mind, because in the first place if Jeremiah did so, he should, like an honest man, have washed his hands clear of Deuteronomy, which he did not; and in the second place, because had he done so he could not have been "the iron pillar and brazen wall" which Yahweh had intended him to be and indeed had promised to make him against the princes, priests and people of the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,18);">1:18</A>). And, still further,<P>(5) it passes comprehension how, if Yahweh never commanded His people to offer sacrifice to Him, Jeremiah could have represented Yahweh as enjoining him to pronounce a curse upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem because they transgressed the words of Yahweh\'s covenant, which He had made with their fathers in the day when He brought them out of the land of Egypt, by running after other gods to serve them, setting up altars and burning incense unto Baal and even working lewdness in Yahweh\'s house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,\'1-15\');">Jer 11:1-15</a>). It is urged in answer to this, that the offense complained of was not that the men of Judah did not offer sacrifices to Yahweh, but that they offered them to Baal and polluted His temple with heathen rites<65>that what Yahweh demanded from His worshippers was not the offering of sacrifice, but obedience to the moral law conjoined with abstinence from idolatry. But in that case, what was the use of a temple at all? And why should Yahweh speak of it as "mine house," if sacrifices were not required to be offered in it (compare on this Kittel, The Scientific Study of the Old Testament, 218)? Why idolatrous sacrifices were denounced was not merely because they were wrong in themselves, but also because they had supplanted the true sacrificial worship of Yahweh. As already stated, it is not easy to perceive how Jeremiah could have said that Yahweh had never commanded sacrifices to be offered to Him, when he (Jeremiah) must have known that the Book of the Covenant in J-E (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24,25);">Ex 20:24,25</a>) represented Yahweh as expressly enjoining them. Had Jeremiah not read the Book of the Covenant with sufficient care? This is hardly likely in so earnest a prophet. Or will it be lawful to suggest that Jeremiah knew the Book of the Covenant to be a fiction and the assumption of divine authority for its enactments to be merely a rhetorical device? In this case his words might be true; only one cannot help regretting that he did not distinctly state that in his judgment the Book of the Covenant was a fraud.<P>It may now be added in confirmation of the preceding, that the various references to a tabernacle in the New Testament appear at least to imply that in the 1st Christian century the historicity of the Mosaic tabernacle was generally accepted. These references are Peter\'s exclamation on the Mount of Transfiguration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,4);">Mt 17:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,5);">Mr 9:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,33);">Lu 9:33</a>); Stephen\'s statement in the council (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,44);">Ac 7:44</a>); the affirmations in Hebrews (chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,\'1-\');">8</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,\'1-\');">9</A>); and the voice which John heard out of heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,3);">Re 21:3</a>). It may be admitted that taken separately or unitedly these utterances do not amount to a conclusive demonstration that the tabernacle actually existed in the wilderness; but read in the light of Old Testament aeclarations that such a tabernacle did exist, they have the force of a confirmation. If the language of Peter and that of John may fairly enough be regarded as figurative, even then their symbolism suggests, as its basis, what Stephen and the writer to the He affirm to have been a fact, namely, that their "fathers had the tabernacle...in the wilderness," and that, under the first covenant, "there was a tabernacle prepared."<P>LITERATURE.<P>I, critical: De Wette, Beitrage; von Bohlen, Genesis; Georg, Judische Feste; Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des AT; Graf, de Templo Silonensi; Kuenen, The Religion of Israel; Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels; HDB and EB, articles "Tabernacle," II, conservative: Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten; Kurtz, Geschichte des alten Bundes; Havernick, Einleitung; Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses; Riehm, Handworterbuch, and Herzog, RE (ed 1; edition 3 is "critical"), articles "Stiftshutte"; Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice; Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure; Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Whitelaw, Old Testament Critics.``192';
|
||
isbe[8570]='Tabernacles, Feast of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FEASTS+AND+FASTS">FEASTS AND FASTS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8571]='Tabitha`tab\'-i-tha (Tabeitha).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DORCAS">DORCAS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8572]='Table`"Table" is derived from the Latin tabula, meaning primarily "a board," but with a great variety of other significances, of which "writing-tablet" is the most important for the Biblical use of "table." So in English "table" meant at first "any surface" and, in particular, "a surface for writing," and further specialization was needed before "table" became the name of the familiar article of furniture ("object with a horizontal surface"), a meaning not possessed by tabula in Latin. After this specialization "table" in the sense of "a surface for writing" was replaced in later English by the diminutive form "tablet." But "surface for writing" was still a common meaning of "table," and in this sense it represents luach (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,12);">Ex 24:12</a>, etc.), a word of uncertain origin, plax, "something flat" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,3);">2Co 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,4);">Heb 9:4</a>), deltos, "a writing tablet" (1Macc 8:22; 14:18,27,48), or pinakidion "writing tablet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,63);">Lu 1:63</a><3E>a rather unusual word). the American Standard Revised Version has kept the word in the familiar combination "tables of stone" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,12);">Ex 24:12</a>, etc.), but elsewhere (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,3);">Pr 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,3);">7:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,8);">Isa 30:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,1);">Jer 17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,2);">Hab 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,63);">Lu 1:63</a>) has replaced "table" by "tablet," a change made by the English Revised Version only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,8);">Isa 30:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,63);">Lu 1:63</a>.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABLET">TABLET</a>.<P>The table as an article of furniture is shulchan, in the Hebrew and trapezal, in the Greek. The only exceptions are <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,12);">So 1:12</a>, mecabh, "something round," perhaps a "round table," perhaps a "cushion," perhaps a "festal procession," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,4);">Mr 7:4</a>, the King James Version kline, "couch" (so the Revised Version (British and American)), while <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,28);">Joh 13:28</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,2);">Joh 12:2</a>, the King James Version "at the table," and Tobit 7:8, the King James Version "on the table," represent only the general sense of the original. Of the two regular words, shulchan is properly "a piece of hide," and so "a leather mat," placed on the ground at meal time, but the word came to mean any "table," however elaborate (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'23-30\');">Ex 25:23-30</a>). Trapeza means "having four feet."<P><a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,10);">2Ki 4:10</a> seems to indicate that a table was a necessary article in even the simpler rooms. Curiously enough, however, apart from the table of shewbread there is no reference in the Bible to the form or construction of tables, but the simpler tables in Palestine of the present day are very much lower than ours. The modern "tables of the money changers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,15);">Mr 11:15</a> and parallel\'s) are small square trays on stands, and they doubtless had the same form in New Testament times.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEWBREAD,+TABLE+OF">SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MONEY-CHANGERS">MONEY-CHANGERS</a>.<P>To eat at a king\'s table (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,7);">2Sa 9:7</a>, etc.) is naturally to enjoy a position of great honor, and the privilege is made by Christ typical of the highest reward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,30);">Lu 22:30</a>). Usually "to eat at one\'s table" is meant quite literally, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,19);">1Ki 18:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,17);">Ne 5:17</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,5);">1Ki 10:5</a>) it probably means "be fed at one\'s expense." On the other hand, the misery of eating the leavings of a table (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,7);">Jud 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,28);">Mr 7:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,21);">Lu 16:21</a>) needs no comment. The phrase "table of the Lord (Yahweh)" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,7,12);">Mal 1:7,12</a> the King James Version (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',41,22);">Eze 41:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,16);">44:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,20);">Eze 39:20</a> is quite different) means "the table (altar) set before the Lord," but the same phrase in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,21);">1Co 10:21</a> is used in a different sense and the origin of its use by Paul is obscure. Doubtless the language, if not the meaning, of Malachi had its influence and may very well have been suggested to Paul as he wrote <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,18);">1Co 10:18</a>. On the other hand, light may be thrown on the passage by such a papyrus fragment as "Chareimon invites you to dine at the table (kline) of the lord Serapis," a formal invitation to an idol-banquet (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,10);">1Co 8:10</a>; Pap. Oxyr. i.110; compare iii.523). This would explain Paul\'s "table of demons"<22>a phrase familiar to the Corinthians<6E>and he wrote "table of the Lord" to correspond (compare, however, Pirqe \'Abhoth, iii.4). "Table at which the Lord is Host," at any rate, is the meaning of the phrase. On the whole passage see the comms., especially that of Lietzmann (fullest references). Probably <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,30);">Lu 22:30</a> has no bearing on <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,21);">1Co 10:21</a>. The meaning of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,22);">Ps 69:22</a> (quoted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,9);">Ro 11:9</a>), "Let their table before them become a snare," is very obscure ("let them be attacked while deadened in revelings"?), and perhaps was left intentionally vague.``48';
|
||
isbe[8573]='Table of Nations`1. The Table and Its Object<P>2. What It Includes and Excludes<P>3. Order of the Three Races<P>4. Extent of Each<P>5. Sons of Japheth<P>6. Sons and Descendants of Ham<P>7. Further Descendants of Ham<P>8. Sons of Shem<P>9. Further Descendants of Shem<P>10. Value of Table and Its Historical Notes<P>11. Further Arguments for Early Date of Table<hr /><P>1. The Table and Its Object:<P>This is the expression frequently used to indicate "the generations of the sons of Noah" contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a>. These occupy the whole chapter, and are supplemented by <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-9\');">Ge 11:1-9</a>, which explain how it came about that there were so many languages in the world as known to the Hebrews. The remainder of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">Genesis 11</a> traces the descent of Abram, and repeats a portion of the information contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Genesis 10</a> on that account only. The whole is seemingly intended to lead up to the patriarch\'s birth.<P>2. What It Includes and Excludes:<P>Noah and his family being the only persons left alive after the Flood, the Table naturally begins with them, and it is from his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, that the inhabitants of the earth, as known to the Hebrews, were descended. All others<72>the Mongolians of the Far East and Japan, the American Indians, both North and South, the natives of Australia and New Zealand<6E>were naturally omitted from the list. It may, of course, be argued that all the nations not regarded as descended from Shem and Japheth might be included among the descendants of Ham; but apart from the fact that this would give to Ham far more than his due share of the human race, it would class the Egyptians and Canaanites with the Mongolians, Indians, etc., which seems improbable. "The Table of Nations," in fact, excludes the races of which the Semitic East was in ignorance, and which could not, therefore, be given according to their lands, languages, families, and nations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,5,20,31);">Ge 10:5,20,31</a>).<P>3. Order of the Three Races:<P>Notwithstanding that the sons of Noah are here (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,1);">Ge 10:1</a>) and elsewhere mentioned in the order Shem, Ham and Japheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,32);">Ge 5:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,10);">6:10</a>), and Ham was apparently the youngest (see HAM), the Table begins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>) with Japheth, enumerates then the descendants of Ham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,6);">Ge 10:6</a>), and finishes with those of Shem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,21);">Ge 10:21</a>). This order in all probability indicates the importance of each race in the eyes of the Hebrews, who as Semites were naturally interested most in the descendants of Shem with whom the list ends. This enabled the compiler to continue the enumeration of Shem\'s descendants in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,12);">Ge 11:12</a> immediately after the verses dealing with the building of the Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues.<P>4. Extent of Each:<P>The numbers of the descendants of each son of Noah, however, probably bear witness to the compiler\'s knowledge, rather than their individual importance in his eyes. Thus, the more remote and less known race of Japheth is credited with 14 descendants only (7 sons and 7 grandsons), while Ham has no less than 29 descendants (4 sons, 23 grandsons, and 2 great-grandsons), and Shem the same (5 sons, 5 grandsons, 1 great-grandson, and 20 remoter descendants to the 6th generation). Many of the descendants of Shem and Ham, however, are just as obscure as the descendants of Japheth. How far the relationship to the individual sons of Noah is to be taken literally is uncertain. The earlier names are undoubtedly those of nations, while afterward we have, possibly, merely tribes, and in chapter 11 the list develops into a genealogical list of individuals.<P>5. Sons of Japheth:<P>It is difficult to trace a clear system in the enumeration of the names in the Table. In the immediate descendants of Japheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>), Gomer, Magog, Tubal and Mesech, we have the principal nations of Asia Minor, but Madai stands for the Medes on the extreme east, and Javan (the Ionians) for the Greeks (? and Romans) on the extreme west (unless the Greeks of Asia Minor were meant). Gomer\'s descendants apparently located themselves northward of this tract, while the sons of Javan extended themselves along the Mediterranean coastlands westward, Tarshish standing, apparently, for Spain, Kittim being the Cyprians, and Rodanim the Rhodians.<P>6. Sons and Descendants of Ham:<P>Coming to the immediate descendants of Ham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,6);">Ge 10:6</a>), the writer begins with those on the south and then goes northward in the following order: Cush or Ethiopia, Mizraim or Egypt, Phut (better Put, the Revised Version (British and American)) by the Red Sea, and lastly Canaan<61>the Holy Land<6E>afterward occupied by the Israelites. The sons of Cush, which follow (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,7);">Ge 10:7</a>), are apparently nationalities of the Arabian coast, where Egyptian influence was predominant. These, with the sons of Raamah, embrace the interior of Africa as known to the Hebrews, and the Arabian tract as far as Canaan, its extreme northern boundary. The reference to Babylonia (Nimrod) may be regarded as following not unnaturally here, and prominence is given to the district on account of its importance and romantic history from exceedingly early times. Nevertheless, this portion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'8-12\');">Ge 10:8-12</a>) reads like an interpolation, as it not only records the foundation of the cities of Babylonia, but those of Assyria as well<6C>the country mentioned lower down (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">Ge 10:22</a>) among the children of Shem.<P>7. Further Descendants of Ham:<P>The text then goes back to the West again, and enumerates the sons of Mizraim or Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,13);">Ge 10:13</a>), mostly located on the southeastern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean. These include the "Libyans in the narrowest sense" (Lehabim), two districts regarded as Egyptian (Naphtuhim and Pathrusim), the Casluhim from whom came the Philistines, and the Caphtorim, probably not the Cappadocians of the Targums, but the island of Crete, "because such a large island ought not to be wanting" (Dillmann). The more important settlements in the Canaanitish sphere of influence are referred to as the sons of Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,15);">Ge 10:15</a>)<29>Sidon, Heth (the Hittites), the Jebusites (who were in occupation of Jerusalem when the Israelites took it), the Amorites (whom Abraham found in Canaan), and others. Among the sons of Canaan are, likewise, the Girgashites, the Arkites and Sinites near Lebanon, the Arvadites of the coast, and the Hamathites, in whose capital, Hamath, many hieroglyphic inscriptions regarded as records of the Hittites or people of Heth have been found. It is possibly to this occupation of more or less outlying positions that the "spreading abroad" of the families of the Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,18);">Ge 10:18</a>) refers. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,19);">Ge 10:19</a> the writer has been careful to indicate "the border of the Canaanites," that being of importance in view of the historical narrative which was to follow; and here he was evidently on familiar ground. 8. Sons of Shem:<P>In his final section<6F>the nations descended from Shem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,21);">Ge 10:21</a>)<29>the compiler again begins with the farthest situated<65>the Elamites<65>after which we have Asshur (Assyria), to the northwest; Arpachshad (? the Chaldeans), to the west; Lud (Lydia), northwest of Assyria; and Aram (the Aramean states), south of Lud and west of Assyria. The tribes or states mentioned as the sons of Aram (Uz, Hul, Gether and Mash), however, do not give the names with which we are familiar in the Old Testament (Aram Naharaim, Aram Zobah, etc.), and have evidently to be sought in different positions, indicating that they represent an earlier stage of their migrations. With regard to their positions, it has been suggested that Uz lay in the neighborhood of the Hauran and Damascus; Hul near the Sea of Galilee; and that Mash stands for Mons Masius. This last, however, may have been the land of Mas, West of Babylonia.<P>9. Further Descendants of Shem:<P>Only one son is attributed to Arpachshad, namely, Shelah (shalach, shelach, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,24);">Ge 10:24</a>), unidentified as a nationality. This name should, however, indicate some part of Babylonia, especially if his son, Eber, was the ancestor of the Hebrews, who were apparently migrants from Ur (Mugheir) (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABRAHAM">ABRAHAM</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UR+OF+THE+CHALDEES">UR OF THE CHALDEES</a>). Though Peleg, "in whose days the land was divided," may not have been an important link in the chain, the explanatory phrase needs notice. It may refer to the period when the fertilizing watercourses of Babylonia<69>the "rivers of Babylon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',137,1);">Ps 137:1</a>)<29>were first constructed (one of their names was pelegh), or to the time when Babylonia was divided into a number of small states, though this latter seems to be less likely. Alternative renderings for Selah, Eber and Peleg are "sending forth" (Bohlen), "crossing" (the Euphrates), and "separation" (of the Joktanites) (Bohlen), respectively.<P>The Babylonian geographical fragment 80-6-17, 504 has a group explained as Pulukku, perhaps a modified form of Peleg, followed by (Pulukku) sa ebirti, "Pulukku of the crossing", the last word being from the same root as Eber. This probably indicates a city on one side of the river (? Euphrates), at a fordable point, and a later foundation bearing the same name on the other side.<P>Reu, Serug, and Nahor, however, are regarded generally as place-names, and Terah as a personal name (the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran). From this point onward the text (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,27);">Ge 11:27</a>) becomes the history of the Israelite nation, beginning with these patriarchs.<P>10. Value of Table and Its Historical Notes:<P>Arguments for its early date.<2E>There is hardly any doubt that we have in this ethnographical section of Genesis one of the most valuable records of its kind. Concerning the criticisms upon it which have been made, such things are unavoidable, and must be regarded as quite legitimate, in view of the importance of the subject. The interpolated sections concerning Nimrod and the Tower of Babel are such as would be expected in a record in which the compiler aimed at giving all the information which he could, and which he thought desirable for the complete understanding of his record. It may be regarded as possible that this information was given in view of the connection of Abraham with Babylonia. In his time there were probably larger cities than Babylon, and this would suggest that the building of the Babylonian capital may have been arrested. At the time of the captivity on the other hand, Babylon was the largest capital in then known world, and the reference to its early abandonment would then have conveyed no lesson<6F>seeing the extent of the city, the reader realized that it was only a short setback from which it had suffered, and its effects had long since ceased to be felt.<P>11. Further Arguments for Early Date of Table:<P>Limits of its information.<2E>For the early date of the Table also speaks the limited geographical knowledge displayed. Sargon of Agade warred both on the east and the west of Babylonia, but he seems to have made no expeditions to the north, and certainly did not touch either Egypt or Ethiopia. This suggests not only that the information available was later than his time, but also that it was obtained from merchants, travelers, envoys and ambassadors. The scantiness of the information about the north of Europe and Asia, and the absence of any reference to the Middle or the Far East, imply that communications were easiest on the west, the limit of trade in that direction being apparently Spain. If it could be proved that the Phoenicians came as far westward as Britain for their tin, that might fix the latest date of the compilation of the Table, as it must have been written before it became known that their ships went so far; but in that case, the date of their earliest journeys thither would need to be fixed. Noteworthy is the absence of any reference to the Iranians (Aryan Persians) on the east. These, however, may have been included with the Medes (Madai), or one of the unidentified names of the descendants of Japheth in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2,3);">Ge 10:2,3</a>.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEM">SHEM</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAM">HAM</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAPHETH">JAPHETH</A>, and the other special articles in this Encyclopedia; also, for a great mass of information and theories by many scholars and specialists, Dillmann, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Altes Testament, "Die Genesis," Leipzig, 1882; W. Max Muller, Asien und Europa, Leipzig, 1893; and F. Hommel, Grundriss der Geographic und Geschichte des alten Orients, Munich, 1904.``136';
|
||
isbe[8574]='Tablet`tab\'-let: A rigid flat sheet (plate, pad or slab) used to receive writing. Stone, clay, wood and perhaps bronze, gold and lead tablets, at least, are mentioned in the Bible. In the Old English sense of "locket" the word is incorrectly used in the King James Version also of what the Revised Version (British and American) translates as "armlets," margin "necklaces" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,22);">Ex 35:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,50);">Nu 31:50</a>) and "perfume boxes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,20);">Isa 3:20</a>).<P>The technical Hebrew word for tablet, luach, is generally translated in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) as "table." This is used for stone, wood or metal plates or tablets with or without writing. In Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,8);">30:8</a>) where the Revised Version (British and American) translates "tablet," it is contrasted with the "roll" and probably means the wood or waxed tablet. In Habakkuk (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,2);">2:2</a>, the American Standard Revised Version "tablet," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "table") it perhaps refers to a metal tablet to be erected on a wall, but more likely it refers to the wooden tablet. It is also used in Proverbs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,3);">3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,3);">7:3</a>, the American Standard Revised Version "tablet," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "table") and in Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,1);">17:1</a>) figuratively of the writing upon the tablets of the heart, the word being rendered in the Septuagint by the same word (plax) used by Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,3);">2Co 3:3</a>, "tables" in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) in the same figure. In other cases (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,12);">Ex 24:12</a>, etc.) it is used of the tablets of stone containing the Decalogue.<P>The word gillayon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,1);">Isa 8:1</a>), which is translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "tablet" and in the King James Version "roll," is elsewhere (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,23);">Isa 3:23</a>) translated "mirror," and is thought to mean a blank polished surface for writing, particularly because in later use it means the blank margin of a roll.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROLL">ROLL</A>.<P>The clay tablet is referred to in Ezekiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',4,1);">4:1</a>, English Versions of the Bible "tile"), and its use there for a map of the city has been strikingly illustrated in modern excavation by a tablet map discovered at Nippur (Hilprecht, Explorations, 518). Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,14);">32:14</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "deeds," the King James Version "evidences") may also refer to clay tablets, but not surely, since roll deeds were also kept in earthen jars. Job (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,24);">19:24</a>) is thought by some to refer to the writing on leaden tablets, such as were in very common use in antiquity and in the Middle Ages for the writing of charms and especially curses, but more hold that inscriptions filled with lead are meant here. The plate of pure gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,36);">Ex 28:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,9);">Le 8:9</a>), engraved like the gravings of a signet, which was on Aaron\'s miter, may also be properly described as a tablet, recalling the silver treaty between the Hittites and Egyptians and the gold plate on which Queen Helena of Adiabene (Yoma\' 37a; Jewish Encyclopedia, VI, 334) had engraved a passage from the Pentateuch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,\'19-22\');">Nu 5:19-22</a>). Bronze tablets (deltos) are several times referred to in 1Maccabees (8:22; 14:18,27,48).<P>"Daleth" (daleth or deleth), the Semitic (Phoenician) original from which the generic Greek word for tablet (deltos) is derived (Gardthausen, p. 124, note 1), is perhaps not found strictly in this meaning in the Old Testament. The word is used, however, of two kinds of written documents and in such a way as to suggest that one is the original of, and the other derived from, the "daleth"-tablet. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,9);">De 6:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,20);">11:20</A> it is enjoined that the laws of Yahweh shall be written upon the gates of the houses, and in each case the "daleths" (doors) are meant, since the door-posts are also mentioned, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,13);">1Sa 21:13</a>, where David "scrabbles," it is expressly said to be upon the "doors" ("daleths") of the gate. This practice of writing upon house doors and city gates corresponds to the modern posting of notices on church doors and scoring of tallies on a door by the rural innkeeper; and the name seems to have passed from this great door tablet to the portable tablet. On the other hand Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,23);">36:23</a>) uses "daleths" (English Versions of the Bible "leaves") for the columns of a roll, obviously transferring the term from the panel form of the folding tablets.<P>pinakis, or pinakidion, is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,2,11);">Eze 9:2,11</a> in the version of Symmachus in place of the "writer\'s inkhorn," and pinakidion, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,63);">Lu 1:63</a>, of the (wooden) tablet on which Zacharias wrote the name of John. Puxion is used several times by Septuagint as the translation for luach, and once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,14);">So 5:14</a>) for ivory tablets. Sanis is used as the translation of "daleth" or luach 2 or 3 times in the Septuagint and still oftener in the other versions. The most common Greek term both in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,3);">2Co 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,4);">Heb 9:4</a>) and in the Greek Old Testament is plax, most often used of the tables of stone. This, like platos, which is also used for luach in Septuagint, is not recognized in the modern textbooks (Thompson, Gardthausen, Birt).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeog., Leipzig, I (1911), 123-32; compare pp. 24-45.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WRITING">WRITING</a>`147';
|
||
isbe[8575]='Tabor`ta\'-ber, tar\'-bor (tabhor; Codex Vaticanus Thachcheia; Codex Alexandrinus Thabor): One of the towns in the territory of Zebulun, given to the Merarite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,77);">1Ch 6:77</a>). The parallel list in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,24);">Jos 21:24</a>f contains no name like this. There is no indication of its position. Some have thought that it may correspond to Daberath in the territory of Issachar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,28);">21:28</A>), now represented by Deburiyeh on the western slope of Mt. Tabor; others that it may be the mountain itself; and yet others that it may be a city on the mountain, which probably was occupied from very early times. There is a Tabor mentioned as on the border of Issachar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,22);">Jos 19:22</a>); but that is almost certainly the mountain. It has been suggested that Tabor in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,17);">1Ch 6:17</a> may be a contraction of Chisloth-tabor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,12);">Jos 19:12</a>), the modern Iksal, 3 miles west of the mountain. No certainty is possible.``54';
|
||
isbe[8576]='Tabor, Mount`(tabhor, har tabhor; oros Thabor, to Itaburion): This mountain seems to be named as on the border of Issachar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,22);">Jos 19:22</a>). It is possibly identical with the mountain to which Zebulun and Issachar were to call the peoples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,19);">De 33:19</a>). Standing on the boundary between the tribes, they would claim equal rights in the sanctuary on the top. The passage seems to indicate that it was a place of pilgrimage. The worshippers, bringing with them the "abundance of the sea" and the "treasures of the sand," would be a source of profit to the local authorities. The mountain can be no other than Jebel et-Tur, an isolated and shapely height, rising at the northeast corner of the Plain of Esdraelon, about 5 miles west of Nazareth. The mountain has retained its sacred character, and is still a place of pilgrimage, only the rites being changed. The present writer has mingled with great interest among the crowds that assemble there from all parts at the Feast of the Transfiguration.<P>It was on the summit and slopes of this mountain that Deborah and Barak gathered their forces; and hence, they swept down to battle with Sisera in the great plain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,6,12,14);">Jud 4:6,12,14</a>). Here probably the brothers of Gideon were murdered by Zeba and Zalmunna (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,18);">Jud 8:18</a>). Moore ("Jgs," ICC, at the place) thinks the scene of the slaughter must have been much farther south. He does not see what the brothers of Gideon were doing so far north of their home in Abiezer. There is, however, no reason for placing Ophrah so far to the south as he does; and in any case the men were probably captured and taken to Tabor as prisoners. Josephus (Ant., VII, ii, 3) says it was in one of Solomon\'s administrative districts (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,17);">1Ki 4:17</a>). Such a prominent and commanding position must always have invited fortification. In the time of Antiochus the Great, 218 BC, we find a fortress here, which that king took by stratagem, Atabyrion by name (Polyb. v. 70, 6). It was recovered by the Jews, and was held by them under Janneus, 105-70 BC (Ant., XIII, xv, 4). The place fell to the Romans at the conquest under Pompey; and not far from the mountain Alexander, son of Aristobulus II, suffered defeat at the hands of Gabinius, proconsul of Syria, 53 BC (Ant., XIV, iv, 3; BJ, I, viii, 7). Josephus, who commanded in Galilee at the outbreak of the Jewish war, recognized the importance of the position, and built a wall round the summit. After the disaster to Jewish arms at Jotapata, where Josephus himself was taken prisoner, many fugitives took refuge here. Placidus the Roman general did not attempt an assault upon the fortress. Its defenders were by a feint drawn into the plain, where they were defeated, and the city surrendered.<P>A tradition which can be traced to the 4th century AD places the scene of the Transfiguration on this mountain. Allusion has been made above to the sacred character of the place. To this, and to the striking appearance of the mountain, the rise of the tradition may have been due. Passing centuries have seen a succession of churches and monasteries erected on the mountain. The scene of the Transfiguration was laid at the southeastern end of the summit, and here a church was built, probably by Tancred. Hard by was also shown the place where Melchizedek met Abraham returning from the pursuit of Chedorlaomer. The mountain shared to the full the vicissitudes of the country\'s stormy history. In 1113 AD the Arabs from Damascus plundered the monasteries and murdered the monks. An unsuccessful attack was made by Saladin in 1183, but 4 years later, after the rout of the Crusaders at Hattin, he devastated the place. Twenty-five years after that it was fortified by el-Melek el-\'Adel, brother of Saladin, and the Crusaders failed in an attempt to take it in 1217. In 1218, however, the Saracens threw down the defenses. Sultan Bibars in 1263 ordered the destruction of the Church of the Transfiguration, and for a time the mountain was deserted. The Feast of the Transfiguration, however, continued to be celebrated by the monks from Nazareth. During the last quarter of the 19th century much building was done by the Latin and Greek churches, who have now large and substantial monasteries and churches. They have also excavated the ruins of many of the old ecclesiastical buildings. The remains now to be seen present features of every period, from Jewish times to our own.<P>Mt. Tabor rises to a height of 1,843 ft. above the sea, and forms the most striking feature of the landscape. Seen from the south it presents the shape of a hemisphere; from the west, that of a sugar loaf. Its rounded top and steep sides are covered with thick brushwood. It is about half a century since the oak forest disappeared; but solitary survivors here and there show what the trees must have been. A low neck connects the mountain with the uplands to the north. It is cut off from Jebel ed-Duchy on the south by a fertile vale, which breaks down into Wady el-Bireh, and thence to the Jordan. A zigzag path on the northwest leads to the top, whence most interesting and comprehensive views are obtained. Southward, over Little Hermon, with Endor and Nain on its side, and Shunem at its western base, we catch a glimpse of Mt. Gilboa. Away across the plain the eye runs along the hills on the northern boundary of Samaria, past Taanach and Megiddo to Carmel by the sea, and the oak forest that runs northward from the gorge of the Kishon. A little to the north of west, 5 miles of broken upland, we can see the higher houses of Nazareth gleaming white in the sun. Eastward lies the hollow of the Jordan, and beyond it the wall of Gilead and the steep cliffs east of the Sea of Galilee, broken by glens and watercourses, and especially by the great chasm of the Yarmuk. The mountains of Zebulun and Naphtali seem to culminate in the shining mass of Great Hermon, rising far in the northern sky. Standing here one realizes how aptly the two mountains may be associated in the Psalmist\'s thought, although Hermon be mighty and Tabor humble (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,12);">Ps 89:12</a>). Tabor is referred to by Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,18);">46:18</a>), and Hosea alludes to some ensnaring worship practiced on the mountain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,1);">5:1</a>).<P>The present writer spent some weeks on Mt. Tabor, and as the result of careful observation and consideration concluded that the scene of the Transfiguration cannot be laid here. The place would appear to have been occupied at that time; and the remoteness and quiet which Jesus evidently sought could hardly have been found here.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRANSFIGURATION,+MOUNT+OF">TRANSFIGURATION, MOUNT OF</a>`54';
|
||
isbe[8577]='Tabor, Oak of`(<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PLAIN+OF+TABOR">PLAIN OF TABOR</A> in the King James Version) (elon tabhor; he drus Thabor): A place mentioned only in Samuel\'s directions to Saul after his anointing (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,3);">1Sa 10:3</a>). It lay between the city where the two met and Gibeah whither Saul was returning. Ewald and Thenius thought it might be identical with the palm tree of Deborah, but there is nothing to support this conjecture. Others have thought we might read "oak of Deborah," as signifying the place where Rachel\'s nurse was buried (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,8);">Ge 35:8</a>). The truth is that nothing whatever is now known of the site.``54';
|
||
isbe[8578]='Tabret; Timbrel`tab\'-ret, tim\'-brel.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MUSIC">MUSIC</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8579]='Tabrimmon`tab-rim\'-on, tab\'-ri-mon (Tabhrimmon, "Rimmon is good"; Codex Vaticanus Taberema; Codex Alexandrinus Tabenraema): The son of Hezion and father of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BENHADAD">BENHADAD</A> (which see) (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,18);">1Ki 15:18</a>, the King James Version, "Tabrimon").``1';
|
||
isbe[8580]='Taches`tach\'-iz.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CLASPS">CLASPS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8581]='Tachmonite`tak\'-mo-nit.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TAHCHEMONITE">TAHCHEMONITE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8582]='Tackling`tak\'-ling.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHIPS+AND+BOATS">SHIPS AND BOATS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8583]='Tadmor`tad\'-mor, tad\'-mor (tadhmor): A city built by Solomon in the wilderness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,4);">2Ch 8:4</a>), the Roman Palmyra. Tadmor is the native name and is found on inscriptions. It occurs also in the Kere of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,18);">1Ki 9:18</a>, where the Kethibh or consonants read "Tamar" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,19);">Eze 47:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,28);">48:28</a>). It is famous in Arabian as well as in Hebrew literature, and enters Roman history in connection with Zenobia and Longinus. The inscriptions, which belong for the most part to the latter period (266-73 AD), have been published by Dawkins and Wood and also by M. Waddington and the Duc de Luynes. Popular works on the subject are An Account of Palmyra and Zenobia by W. Wright, and The Last Days and Fall of Palmyra by W. Ware.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TAMAR">TAMAR</a>`189';
|
||
isbe[8584]='Tahan; Tahanites`ta\'-han, ta\'-han-its (tachan, tachani): The name of two Ephraimites who lived toward the end of the exodus of the Israelites (circa 1415 BC).<P>(1) The head of one of the families of the tribe of Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,35);">Nu 26:35</a>).<P>(2) The son of Telah and father of Ladan, also of the tribe of Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,25);">1Ch 7:25</a>f).``1';
|
||
isbe[8585]='Tahapanes`ta-hap\'-a-nez (tachpanchec).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TAHPANHES">TAHPANHES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8586]='Tahash`ta\'-hash (tachash; Tochos; the King James Version Thahash): A son of Nahor by his concubine Reumah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,24);">Ge 22:24</a>). The word tachash means a kind of leather or skin, and perhaps the animal yielding it, probably the "dugong" (compare Brown, Briggs, and Driver). Tachash has been identified by Winckler with Tichis (Egypt), located on the Orontes, north of Kadesh.``1';
|
||
isbe[8587]='Tahath (1)`ta\'-hath (tachath, "below"): A wilderness station of the Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,26,27);">Nu 33:26,27</a>), between Makheloth and Terah.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8588]='Tahath (2)`(1) A Kohathite Levite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,24);">1Ch 6:24</a>).<P>(2) The name is mentioned twice among the sons of Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,20);">1Ch 7:20</a>); two families may be meant, or perhaps the name has been accidentally repeated.``1';
|
||
isbe[8589]='Tahchemonite`ta-ke\'-mo-nit, ta\'-ke-mon-it (tachkemoni): Name of a family to which Jashobeam, the chief captain in David\'s army, belonged (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,8);">2Sa 23:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,11);">1Ch 11:11</a>). In 1 Chronicles it is "Hachmonite."``1';
|
||
isbe[8590]='Tahpanhes`ta\'-pan-hez, ta-pan\'-hez (usually in the Old Testament tachpanchec; Septuagint Taphnas; Coptic, Taphnes): The various spellings of the Hebrew text are fairly well indicated in the King James Version by Tahapanes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,16);">Jer 2:16</a>); Tahpanhes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,\'7-9\');">Jer 43:7-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,1);">44:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,14);">46:14</a>); Tehaphnehes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,18);">Eze 30:18</a>), while an Egyptian queen (XXIst Dynasty) is named Tahpenes (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,19,20);">1Ki 11:19,20</a>). Tahpanhes was a city on the eastern frontier of Lower Egypt, represented today by Tell Defenneh, a desert mound lying some 20 miles southwest from Pelusium (Biblical "Sin") and a little north of the modern Al-Kantarah ("the bridge"), marking the old caravan route from Egypt to Palestine, Mesopotamia and Assyria. Its Egyptian name is unknown, but it was called Daphnai, by the Greeks, and by the modern Arabs Def\'neh. The site is now desolate, but it was a fertile district when watered by the Pelusiac branch of the Nile (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,6,7);">Isa 19:6,7</a>). Tahpanhes was so powerful that Jeremiah can say that it, with Memphis, has "broken the crown" of Israel\'s head (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,16);">2:16</A>), and Ezekiel can speak of its "daughters" (colonies or suburban towns), and names it with Heliopolis and Bubastis when the "yokes Septuagint "sceptres") of Egypt" shall be broken by Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,18);">30:18</A>). In a later passage Jeremiah describes the flight of the Jews from their ruined capital to Tahpanhes after the death of Gedaliah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,\'1-7\');">43:1-7</A>) and prophesies that Nebuchadnezzar shall invade Egypt and punish it, establishing his throne upon the brick pavement (the King James Version "kiln") which is at the entry of Pharaoh\'s royal palace at Tahpanhes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,\'8-11\');">Jer 43:8-11</a>). He calls Tahpanhes as a witness to the desolation of the cities of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,1);">Jer 44:1</a>), but prophesies an equal destruction of Tahpanhes and other Egyptian cities (probably occupied by fugitive Jews) when Nebuchadnezzar shall smite them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,14);">Jer 46:14</a>).<P>This invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar was for a long time strenuously denied (e.g. as late as 1889 by Kuenen, Historisch-critisch Onderzoek, 265-318); but since the discovery and publication (1878) of fragments of Nebuchadnezzar\'s annals in which he affirms his invasion of Egypt in his 37th year (568-567 BC), most scholars have agreed that the predictions of Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,\'9-13\');">43:9-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,30);">44:30</a>) uttered shortly after 586 BC and of Ezekiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,19);">29:19</a>) uttered in 570 BC were fulfilled, "at least in their general sense" (Driver, Authority and Archaeology, 116). Three cuneiform inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar were found by Arabs probably on or near this site. The excavation of Tahpanhes in 1886 by W. M. Flinders Petrie made it "highly probable that the large oblong platform of brickwork close to the palace fort built at this spot by Psammetichus I, circa 664 BC, and now called Kasr Bint el-Yehudi, \'the castle of the Jew\'s daughter,\' is identical with the quadrangle \'which is at the entry of Pharaoh\'s house in Tahpanhes\' in which Jeremiah was commanded to bury the stones as a token that Nebuchadnezzar would spread his pavilion over them when he led his army into Egypt" (ibid., 117). Josephus explicitly mentions that Nebuchadnezzar, when he captured Tahpanhes, carried off a Jewish contingent from that city (Ant., IX, vii). Dr. Petrie found that while a small fort had existed here since the Rameside era (compare Herodotus ii.17), yet the town was practically founded by Psammetichus I, continued prosperous for a century or more, but dwindled to a small village in Ptolemaic times. Many sealings of wine jars stamped with the cartouches of Psammetichus I and Amosis were found in situ. Tahpanhes being the nearest Egyptian town to Palestine, Jeremiah and the other Jewish refugees would naturally flee there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,7);">43:7</a>). It is not at all unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar\'s invasion of Egypt was partly due to Egypt\'s favorable reception of these refugees.<P>The pottery found at Tahpanhes "shows on the whole more evidence of Greeks than Egyptians in the place....Especially between 607-587 BC a constant intercourse with the Greek settlers must have been going on and a wider intercourse than even a Greek colony in Palestine would have produced....The whole circumstances were such as to give the best possible opportunity for the permeation of Greek words and Greek ideas among the upper classes of the Jewish exiles" (Petrie, Nebesheh and Defenneh,1888,50). This was, however, only one of many places where the Greeks and Hebrews met freely in this century (see e.g. Duruy, History of Greece, II, 126-80; Cobern, Daniel, 301-307). A large foreign traffic is shown at Tahpanhes in which no doubt the Jews took part. Discoveries from the 6th century BC included some very finely painted pottery, "full of archaic spirit and beauty," many amulets and much rich jewelry and bronze and iron weapons, a piece of scale armor, thousands of arrow heads, and three seals of a Syrian type. One of the few inscriptions prays the blessing of Neit upon "all beautiful souls." There was also dug up a vast number of minute weights evidently used for weighing precious metals, showing that the manufacture of jewelry was carried on here on a large scale. One of the most pathetic and suggestive "finds" from this century, which witnessed the Babylonian captivity, consisted of certain curious figures of captives, carved in limestone, with their legs bent backward from their knees and their ankles and elbows bound together (Petrie, op. cit., chapters ix-xii).``26';
|
||
isbe[8591]='Tahpenes`ta\'-pe-nez, ta-pe\'-nez (tachpenec; Septuagint Thekem(e)ina): Queen of Egypt, the sister of Hadad\'s wife and the foster-mother of his son Genubath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,19);">1Ki 11:19</a>f).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHARAOH">PHARAOH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8592]='Tahrea`ta\'-re-a, ta-re\'-a (tachrea\'): Son of Micah, a descendant of Gibeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,41);">1Ch 9:41</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,35);">8:35</a> "Tarea").``1';
|
||
isbe[8593]='Tahtim-Hodshi`ta-tim-hod\'-shi.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KADESH+ON+THE+ORONTES">KADESH ON THE ORONTES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[8594]='Tail`tal (\'alyah; zanabh; oura): The broad tail of the Syrian sheep, wrongly rendered "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RUMP">rump</a>" (which see) in the King James Version, is mentioned as one of the portions of sacrifice which was burned on the altar as a sweet savor to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,22);">Ex 29:22</a>). The 2nd Hebrew word is used of the tails of serpents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,4);">Ex 4:4</a>), of foxes, which Samson tied together in his cruel sport, in order to destroy the grainfields of the Philistines by means of attached firebrands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,4);">Jud 15:4</a>, etc.). The following seems to be an allusion to this incident: "Fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria, and of the son of Remaliah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,4);">Isa 7:4</a>).<P>Figurative: "Tail" = inferiority, as opposed to "head" = superiority, leadership. "Yahweh will make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if thou shalt hearken unto the commandments of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,13);">De 28:13</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,13);">28:44</A>).<P>In the New Testament we find oura used of the apocalyptic animals, scorpions, horses, and the dragon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,10,19);">Re 9:10,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,4);">12:4</a>).``106';
|
||
isbe[8595]='Take`tak: Most of the very numerous examples of this word are still in good use and only a few call for special attention. "To take" in the sense of "capture" is still common, but when a person or living animal is in point, modern English usually adds "prisoner" or "captive." English Versions of the Bible not infrequently has this addition (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,14);">Ge 14:14</a>, etc.), but more commonly "take" is used without it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,39);">Jos 10:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,13);">Job 5:13</a>; Sirach 23:21; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,30);">Joh 7:30</a>, etc.). An occasional obscurity is thus caused, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,3);">Ge 27:3</a>, "take me venison" for "hunt venison for me." "To take advice" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',25,17);">2Ch 25:17</a>; the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,30);">Jud 19:30</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "counsel") is "to reflect," not "to consult others" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,28);">1Ki 12:28</a>; but contrast <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',6,8);">2Ki 6:8</a>, etc.). "To take knowledge of" is "to learn thoroughly," "investigate" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,23);">1Sa 23:23</a>, etc.), as is "to take notice of" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,36);">2Sa 3:36</a>). "To take an oath of" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,25);">Ge 50:25</a>, etc.) is "to exact an oath of." "To be taken with a disease" in the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,24);">Mt 4:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,38);">Lu 4:38</a> is "to suffer with" (the Revised Version (British and American) "be holden with"), but in 1Macc 9:55; 2Macc 9:21 (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)), the context gives the force "be attacked by," as in modern English Compare the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,37);">Lu 8:37</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "holden"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,9);">Mic 4:9</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "take hold of"). "Take" occurs in the sense "overtake" in the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,19);">Ge 19:19</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "overtake"); Sirach 36:26. "Take away" has sometimes a more forcible significance than in modern English, as in the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,2);">Le 6:2</a>, "a thing taken away by violence" (the Revised Version (British and American) "robbery"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,12);">Da 11:12</a>, the King James Version "He hath taken away the multitude," where the meaning is "swept away" (compare the Revised Version margin "carried away"; the Revised Version (British and American) "shall be lifted up" is inappropriate here). So in "lest he take thee away with his stroke" (the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,18);">Job 36:18</a>), "take away" means simply "slay." (The text here is intensely obscure, and the Revised Version (British and American) has followed a different interpretation.) So "to be taken away" may mean simply "to die," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,6);">Eze 33:6</a>; The Wisdom of Solomon 14:15; Sirach 16:9; 19:3; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,20);">Mr 2:20</a>, although in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,2);">1Co 5:2</a> it means "to be expelled." "To take away judgment" or "right" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',27,2);">Job 27:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,5);">34:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,33);">Ac 8:33</a>) is "to refuse it," but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,15);">Ze 3:15</a> English Versions of the Bible means "the sentence against thee is canceled" (the Hebrew text is dubious). <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,2);">Ne 5:2</a> the King James Version has "take up" for "get" (so the Revised Version (British and American)), perhaps with the connotation "on credit." "Take up" is also used frequently for "utter solemnly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,7);">Nu 23:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,4);">Isa 14:4</a>, etc.), a use due to the Hebrew "lift up," "exalt" (nasa\'). For "take up" in the sense of "lift" (physically), compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,15);">Isa 40:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,43);">Ac 7:43</a>; the King James Version 21:15. "Take care" in Tobit 5:20; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,9);">1Co 9:9</a> the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "to care") means "be anxious about," "have in mind" And the very obscure "scurrility in the matter of giving and taking" (Sirach 41:19) is explained by the Hebrew to mean "refusing the gift for which thou art besought." The following phrases are archaic, but hardly need explanation: "Take indignation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,1);">Ne 4:1</a>); "take wrong" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,7);">1Co 6:7</a>); "take up in the lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,3);">Eze 36:3</a>; the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,4);">Ps 16:4</a>, "take...into my lips," the Revised Version (British and American) "take...upon my lips"); and in the King James Version "take to record" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,26);">Ac 20:26</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "testify unto"); "take shame" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',2,6);">Mic 2:6</a> the King James Version).``48';
|
||
isbe[8596]='Tale`tal (tokhen, mithkoneth, micpar; leros): In the King James Version of the Old Testament (with one exception, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,9);">Ps 90:9</a>) "tale" (in the sing.) means number. "Tell" often has the same meaning, e.g. "I may tell (i.e. reckon) all my bones" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,17);">Ps 22:17</a>). When Moses requested permission to go three days\' journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, Pharaoh replied by demanding the full "tale" of bricks from the Israelites although they were compelled to provide themselves with straw (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,8,18);">Ex 5:8,18</a>; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,27);">1Sa 18:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,28);">1Ch 9:28</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,9);">Ps 90:9</a>, "as a tale that is told" is a doubtful rendering (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GAMES">GAMES</A>). The Septuagint and the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) render "as a spider\'s web." The literal and perhaps accurate translation is "as a sigh" (Driver, in the Parallel Psalter, gives "as a murmur"). The word used in this psalm means "to whisper," or "speak sotto voce," as a devout believer repeats to himself the words of a favorite hymn or passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,2);">Ps 1:2</a>).<P>The disciples considered the account given by the women in regard to the resurrection as "idle tales" (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "idle talk"), literally, "nonsensical talk" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,11);">Lu 24:11</a>).<P>In talebearer the word has another meaning, namely, "slanderous talk or gossip." The word occurs 5 times in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,13);">Pr 11:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,8);">18:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,19);">20:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,20,22);">26:20,22</a> (the King James Version) and once in Leviticus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,16);">19:16</a>). The word used in Leviticus and also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,19);">Pr 20:19</a> means a person who gads about from house to house hawking malicious gossip (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,13);">1Ti 5:13</a>). From the same root comes the Hebrew word for "merchant." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,9);">Eze 22:9</a> for the King James Version "men that carry tales" the Revised Version (British and American) gives "slanderous men," as Doeg (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,9,22);">1Sa 22:9,22</a>); Ziba (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,3);">2Sa 16:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,27);">19:27</a>); and a certain maid-servant (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,17);">2Sa 17:17</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLANDER">SLANDER</a>`103';
|
||
isbe[8597]='Talent`tal\'-ent (kikkar; talanton): A weight composed of 60 manehs (English Versions of the Bible "pounds") equal to about 120 pounds troy and 96 pounds avoirdupois, or 672,500 grains, of the Phoenician standard. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>. When used in the monetary sense the talent might be either of silver or gold, and the value varied according to the standard, but is probably to be taken on the Phoenician, which would give about 410 British pounds, or $2,050 (in 1915), for the silver talent and 6,150 British pounds or $30,750 (in 1915), for the gold.<P>Figurative: "Talent," like "pound," is used metaphorically in the New Testament for mental and spiritual attainments or gifts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'15-28\');">Mt 25:15-28</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MONEY">MONEY</a>`138';
|
||
isbe[8598]='Talitha Cumi`ta-le\'-tha koo\'-me (talitha koumi): Derived from the Aramaic Talyetha\' qumi, "damsel, arise"), which in the New Testament manuscripts is transliterated variously (Westcott-Hort, Taleitha koum, otherwise Talitha koumi). We have no data for determining how far Jesus employed the Aramaic language, but Mark (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,41);">5:41</a>) notes its use in this tender incident, and there is strong probability that Aramaic was used normally, if not exclusively, by Christ. There is, however, no ground for attributing any magical significance to the use of the Aramaic words in connection with this miracle.``1';
|
||
isbe[8599]='Talmai`tal\'-mi, tal\'-ma-i (talmay):<P>(1) A clan, possibly of Aramean origin, generally reputed to be of gigantic height; resident in Hebron at the time of the Hebrew conquest and driven thence by Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,22);">Nu 13:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,14);">Jos 15:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,10);">Jud 1:10</a>).<P>(2) A son of Ammihur (or Ammihud), king of Geshur, a small Aramean kingdom, and a contemporary of David, to whom he gave his daughter Maacah in marriage. When Absalom fled from David after the assassination of Amnon he took refuge with Talmai at Geshur (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,3);">2Sa 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,37);">13:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,2);">1Ch 3:2</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[8600]='Talmon`tal\'-mon (talmon): One of the porters in connection with the temple-service (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,17);">1Ch 9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,42);">Ezr 2:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,45);">Ne 7:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,19);">11:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,25);">12:25</a>).``1';
|
||
</script>
|
||
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
||
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
||
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
||
|