114 lines
508 KiB
HTML
114 lines
508 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[5101]='John, Gospel of`<b>I. INTRODUCTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Scope of Gospel<P class="in15">2. State of Opinion as to Date of Appearance, etc.<P><b>II. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL</b><P class="in15">1. At the End of 2nd Century<P class="in15">2. Irenaeus—Theophilus<P class="in15">3. Middle of 2nd Century<P class="in15">4. Ignatius, etc.<P class="in15">5. John the Presbyter<P class="in15">6. Summary<P><b>III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL: INTERNAL EVIDENCE</b><P class="in15">1. General Lines of Attack and Defence<P class="in15">2. Unwarrantable Critical Presuppositions<P class="in15">3. Real Aim of Gospel—Results<P class="in30">(1) Relation to Synoptics<P class="in30">(2) Time Occupied in the Gospel<P class="in30">(3) A Personal Record<P class="in30">(4) Reminiscences of an Eyewitness<P class="in30">(5) Reminiscence Illustrated<P class="in30">(6) Conclusions<P>IV. PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE GOSPEL<P class="in15">1. The Presentation of Jesus in the Gospel<P class="in30">(1) Alleged Absence of Development in Character of Jesus<P class="in30">(2) Alleged "Autonomy" of Jesus<P class="in30">(3) "Inconceivability" of Logos-Presentation<P class="in15">2. The Logos-Doctrine of the Prologue<P class="in15">3. Growth of Faith and Development of Unbelief<P class="in30">(1) Early Confessions<P class="in30">(2) Growth of Faith in the Disciples<P class="in30">(3) Gradual Disclosure of Messiahship: Growth of Unbelief<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Introductory.<P>1. Scope of Gospel:<P>The Fourth Gospel has a form peculiar to itself, as well as a characteristic style and attitude, which mark it as a unique document among the books of the New Testament.<P>(1) There is a prologue, consisting of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'1-18\');">Joh 1:1-18</a>, of which something will be said later on.<P>(2) There is a series of scenes and discourses from the life of Jesus, descriptive of Himself and His work, and marking the gradual development of faith and unbelief in His hearers and in the nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'19\');">Joh 1:19-12:50</a>).<P>(3) There is a more detailed account of the closing events of the Passion Week—of His farewell intercourse with His disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,1);">Joh 13-17</a>), of His arrest, trials, crucifixion, death, and burial (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,\'1-\');">Joh 18</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>).<P>(4) There are the resurrection, and the manifestations of the risen Lord to His disciples on the resurrection day, and on another occasion eight days after (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,\'1-29\');">20:1-29</A>). This is followed by a paragraph which describes the purpose of the Gospel, and the reason why it was written (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,30,31);">Joh 20:30,31</a>).<P>(5) Finally, there is a supplementary chapter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>), which has all the characteristic marks of the Gospel as a whole, and which probably, therefore, proceeds from the same pen (thus Lightfoot, Meyer, Alford, etc.; some, as Zahn, prefer to take the chapter as the work of a disciple of John). The concluding verses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,24,25);">21:24,25</a>) read: "This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did," etc. "We know that his witness is true" seems to be a testimony on the part of those who knew as to the identity of the disciple, and the trustworthiness of his witness. Nor has this earliest testimony been discredited by the attacks made on it, and the natural meaning has been vindicated by many competent writers. The present tense, "beareth witness," indicates that the "disciple" who wrote the Gospel was still alive when the testimony was given.<P>2. State of Opinion as to Date of Appearance, etc.:<P>As to the time of the appearance of the Johannine literature, apart from the question as to the authorship of these writings, there is now a growing consensus of opinion that it arose at the end of the 1st century, or at the beginning of the 2nd century. This is held by those who assign the authorship, not to any individual writer, but to a school at Ephesus, who partly worked up traditional material, and elaborated it into the form which the Johannine writings now have; by those also, as Spitta, who disintegrate the Gospel into a Grundschrift and a Bearbeitung (compare his Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu, 1910). Whether the Gospel is looked on as a compilation of a school of theologians, or as the outcome of an editor who utilizes traditional material, or as the final outcome of theological evolution of certain Pauline conceptions, with few exceptions the appearance of the Johannine writings is dated early in the 2nd century. One of the most distinguished of these exceptions is Schmiedel; another is the late Professor Pfleiderer. One may respect Pfleiderer in the region of philosophical inquiry, but in criticism he is a negligible quantity. And the writings of Schmiedel on the Johannine question are rapidly passing into the same category.<P>Thus, the appearance of the Johannine writings at the end of the 1st century may safely be accepted as a sound historical conclusion. Slowly the critics who assigned their appearance to the middle of the 2nd century, or later, have retraced their steps, and assign the emergence of the Johannine writings to the time mentioned. This does not, of course, settle the questions of the authorship, composition and trustworthiness of the Gospel, which must be determined on their merits, on the grounds of external, and still more of internal, evidence, but it does clear the way for a proper discussion of them, and gives us a terminus which must set a limit to all further speculation on matters of this kind.<P>II. External Evidence for the Fourth Gospel.<P>Only an outline of the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel, which concerns both date and authorship, can be given in this article. Fuller information may be sought in the Intros to the Commentaries on the Gospel, by Godet, Westcott, Luthardt, Meyer; in Ezra Abbot\'s The Fourth Gospel and Its Authorship; in Zahn\'s Introduction to the New Testament, III; in Sanday\'s The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel; in Drummond\'s The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. All these and many others defend the Johannine authorship. On the other side, reference may be made to the author of Supernatural Religion, of which many editions have appeared. Among recent works, Moffatt\'s Introduction to the New Testament, and B.W. Bacon\'s Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, may be mentioned as denying the Johannine authorship.<P>1. At End of 2nd Century:<P>The external evidence is as follows. At the end of the 2nd century, the Christian church was in possession of four Gospels, which were used as sacred books, read in churches in public worship, held in honor as authoritative, and treated as part of a Canon of Scripture (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS">GOSPELS</a>). One of these was the Fourth Gospel, universally ascribed to the apostle John as its author. We have the evidence on this point of Irenaeus, of Tertullian, of Clement of Alexandria, a little later of Origen. Clement is witness for the belief and practice of the church in Egypt and its neighborhood; Tertullian for the church in Africa; and Irenaeus, who was brought up in Asia Minor, was a teacher at Rome, and was bishop of Lyons in Gaul, for the churches in these lands. The belief was so unquestioned, that Irenaeus could give reasons for it which would of themselves have convinced no one who had not already had the conviction which the reasons were meant to sustain. To discount the evidence of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement on the ground of the desire to find apostolic authorship for their sacred books, is not argument but mere assertion. There may have been such a tendency, but in the case of the four Gospels there is no proof that there was necessity for this at the end of the 2nd century. For there is evidence of the belief in the apostolic authorship of two Gospels by apostles, and of two by companions of the apostles, as an existing fact in the churches long before the end of the 2nd century.<P>2. Irenaeus—Theophilus:<P>The importance of the testimony of Irenaeus is measured by the efforts which have been made to invalidate his witness. But these attempts fail in the presence of his historical position, and of the means at his command to ascertain the belief of the churches. There are many links of connection between Irenaeus and the apostolic age. There is specially his connection with Polycarp. He himself describes that relationship in his letter to Florinus, a fellow-disciple of Polycarp, who had lapsed into Gnosticism, in which he says, "I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord" (Euseb., HE, V, 20: McGiffert\'s translation). We cannot say what was the age of Irenaeus at that time, but he was of sufficient age to receive the impressions which, after many years, he recorded. Polycarp was martyred in 155 AD, and he had been a Christian for 86 years when he was martyred. Thus there was only one link between Irenaeus and the apostolic age. Another link was constituted by his association with Pothinus, his predecessor in Lyons. Pothinus was a very old man when he was martyred, and had in his possession the traditions of the church of Gaul. Thus, Irenaeus, through these and others, had the opportunity of knowing the belief of the churches, and what he records is not only his own personal testimony, but the universal tradition of the church.<P>With Irenaeus should be adduced the apologist Theophilus (circa 170), the earliest writer to mention John by name as the author of the Gospel. In prefacing a quotation from the commencement of the prologue, he says, "This is what we learn from the sacred writings, and from all men animated by the Spirit, amongst whom John says" (Ad Autol., ii.22). Theophilus is further stated by Jerome to have composed a Harmony of the four Gospels (De Viris Illustr., 25).<P>3. Middle of 2nd Century:<P>From Irenaeus and Theophilus we ascend nearer to the middle of the 2nd century, and here we encounter the Diatessaron of Tatian, on which much need not be said. The Diatessaron is likewise a Harmony of the four Gospels, and this Harmony dates not later than 170. It begins with the 1st verse of the Fourth Gospel, and ends with the last verse of the appendix to the Gospel. Tatian was a pupil of Justin Martyr, and that fact alone renders it probable that the "Memoirs of the Apostles," which Justin quotes so often, were those which his pupil afterward combined in the Diatessaron. That Justin knew the Fourth Gospel seems clear, though we cannot argue the question here. If he did, it follows that it was in existence about the year 130.<P>4. Ignatius, etc.:<P>But there is evidence that helps us to trace the influence of the Fourth Gospel back to the year 110. "The first clear traces of the Fourth Gospel upon the thought and language of the church are found in the Epistles of Ignatius (circa 110 AD). How unmistakable these traces are is shown by the fact that not infrequently this dependence of Ignatius upon John has been used as an argument against the genuineness of the Ignatian letters" (Zahn, Introduction, III, 176). This argument may now be safely used since the Epistles have been vindicated as historical documents by Lightfoot and by Zahn. If the Ignatian Epistles are saturated with the tone and spirit of the Johannine writings, that goes to show that this mode of thought and expression was prevalent in the church of the time of Ignatius. Thus at the beginning of the 2nd century, that distinctive mode of thought and speech which we call Johannine had an existence.<P>A further line of evidence in favor of the Gospel, which need only be referred to, lies in the use made of it by the Gnostics. That the Gospel was used by the Valentinians and Basilides has been shown by Dr. Drummond (op. cit., 265-343).<P>5. John the Presbyter:<P>To estimate aright the force of the above evidence, it is to be remembered that, as already observed, there were many disciples of the John of Ephesus, to whom the Johannine writings were ascribed, living far on in the 2nd century—bishops like Papias and Polycarp, the presbyters" so often mentioned by Irenaeus—forming a chain connecting the time of the origin of the Gospel with the latter half of the century. Here arises the question, recently so largely canvassed, as to the identity of "the presbyter John" in the well-known fragment of Papias preserved by Euseb. (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39). Were there, as most, with Eusebius, understand, two Johns—apostle and presbyter (compare e.g. Godet)—or was there only one? If only one, was he the son of Zebedee? On these points wide difference of opinion prevails. Harnack holds that the presbyter was not the son of Zebedee; Sanday is doubtful; Moffatt believes that the presbyter was the only John at Ephesus. Zahn and Dom J. Chapman (John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel, 1911) think also that there was only one John at Ephesus, but he was the son of Zebedee. It is hardly necessary to discuss the question here, for the tradition is explicit which connected the Gospel with the apostle John during the latter part of his residence in Ephesus—a residence which there is no sufficient ground for disputing (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+THE+APOSTLE">JOHN, THE APOSTLE</a>).<P>6. Summary:<P>On a fair consideration of the external evidence, therefore, we find that it is unusually strong. It is very seldom the case that conclusive proof of the existence and influence of a writing can be brought so near to the time of its publication as in the case of the Fourth Gospel. The date of its publication is at the end of the 1st century, or at the latest in the beginning of the 2nd. Traces of its influence are found in the Epistles of Ignatius. The 1st Epistle of John is quoted in the Epistle of Polycarp (chapter 7). The thought and style of the Gospel had influenced Justin Martyr. It is one of the four interwoven in the Diatessaron of Tatian. It was quoted, commented on, and interpreted by the Gnostics. In truth the external evidence for the early date and Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel is as great both in extent and variety as it is for any book of the New Testament, and far greater than any that we possess for any work of classical antiquity.<P>The history of the controversy on the Johannine authorship is not here entered into. Apart from the obscure sect of the Alogi (who attributed the Gospel to Cerinthus!) in the 2nd century, no voice was heard in challenge of the authorship of John till the close of the 17th century, and serious assault did not begin till the 19th century (Bretschneider, 1820, Strauss, 1835, Weisse, 1838, Baur and his school, 1844 and after, Keim,1865,etc.). The attacks were vigorously repelled by other scholars (Olshausen, Tholuck, Neander, Ebrard, Bleek, etc.). Some adopted, in various forms and degrees, the hypothesis of an apostolic basis for the Gospel, regarded as the work of a later hand (Weizsacker, Renan, etc.). From this point the controversy has proceeded with an increasing dogmatism on the side of the opponents of the genuineness and trustworthiness of the Gospel, but not less firmness on the part of its defenders. The present state of opinion is indicated in the text.<P>III. Characteristics of the Gospel: Internal Evidence.<P>1. General Lines of Attack and Defence:<P>The external evidence for the Fourth Gospel is criticized, but it is chiefly on internal grounds that the opposition to the Johannine authorship and historical trustworthiness of the Gospel is based. Stress is laid on the broad contrast which admittedly exists in style, character and plan, between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; on its supposed philosophical dress (the Logos-doctrine); on alleged errors and contradictions; on the absence of progress in the narrative, etc. The defense of the Gospel is usually conducted by pointing out the different aims of the Gospel, rebutting exaggerations in the above objections, and showing that in a multitude of ways the author of the Gospel reveals his identity with the apostle John. He was, e.g., a Jew, a Palestinian Jew, one familiar with the topography of Jerusalem, etc., an apostle, an eyewitness, the disciple whom Jesus loved (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,23);">13:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,2);">20:2</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,7,20);">21:7,20</a>). The attestation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,24);">21:24</a> of those who knew the author in his lifetime is of the greatest weight in this connection. Instead of following these familiar lines of argument (for which see Godet, Luthardt, Westcott, Ez. Abbot, Drummond, etc., in works cited), a confirmation is here sought on the lines of a fresh comprehensive study.<P>2. Unwarrantable Critical Presuppositions:<P>The study of the Johannine writings in general, and of the Fourth Gospel in particular, has been approached in many ways and from various points of view. One of the most common of these ways, in recent works, is that which assumes that here we have the product of Christian reflection on the facts disclosed in the other Gospels, and that these facts have been modified by the experience of the church, and reflect the consciousness of the church at the end of the 1st century or the beginning of the 2nd century. By this time, it is assumed that the church, now mainly a Gentile church, has been greatly influenced by Greek-Roman culture, that she has been reflecting on the wonder of her own history, and has so modified the original tradition as to assimilate it to the new environment. In the Fourth Gospel, it is said, we have the highest and most elaborate presentation of the outcome of the process. Starting with Paul and his influence, Professor B.W. Bacon traces for us the whole process until a school of theologians at Ephesus produced the Johannine writings, and the consciousness of the church was satisfied with the completeness of the new presentation of Christianity (compare his Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate). Hellenistic ideas in Hebrew form, the facts of the Gospel so transformed as to be acceptable to the Hellenistic mind—this is what scholars of this class find in the Fourth Gospel.<P>Others again come to the Gospel with the presupposition that it is intended to present to the reader a complete view of the life of Jesus, that it is intended to supplement and to correct the statements of the Synoptics and to present Christ in such a form as to meet the new needs of the church at the beginning of the 2nd century. Others find a polemical aim in the Gospel. Weizsacker, e.g. finds a strong polemic aim against the Jews. He says, "There are the objections raised by the Jews against the church after its secession has been consummated, and after the development of the person of its Christ has passed through its most essential stages. It is not a controversy of the lifetime, but that of the school carried back into the history of the life" (Apostolic Age, II, 222). One would have expected that a statement so forcibly put would have been supported by some evidence; that we might have some historical evidence regarding a controversy between Jew and church beyond what we have in the Fourth Gospel itself. But nothing is offered by Weizsacker except the dictum that these are controversial topics carried on in the school, and that they are anachronisms as they stand. As it happens, we know from the Dial. between Justin Martyr and Trypho what were the topics discussed between Jew and Christian in the middle of the 2nd century, and it is sufficient to say that these topics, as reported by Justin, mainly regarded the interpretation of the Old Testament, and are not those which are discussed in the Fourth Gospel.<P>Perhaps the most surprising of all the presuppositions with regard to the Fourth Gospel is that which lays great stress on the supposition that the book was largely intended to vindicate a Christian doctrine of the sacraments which flourished at the beginning of the 2nd century. According to this presupposition, the Fourth Gospel set forth a doctrine of the sacraments which placed them in a unique position as a means of salvation. While scarcely contending that the doctrine of the sacraments held by the church of the 2nd century had reached that stage of development which meets us in the medieval church, it is, according to this view, far on the way toward that goal afterward reached. We do not dwell on this view, for the exegesis that finds sacramentarianism in the Fourth Gospel is hopeless. That Gospel does not put the sacraments in the place of Christ. Finally, we do not find the contention of those who affirm that the Fourth Gospel was written with a view of making the gospel of Jesus more acceptable to the Gentiles any more satisfactory. As a matter of fact, the Gospel which was most acceptable to the Gentiles was the Gospel according to Mt. It is more frequently quoted than any other. In the writings of the early church, it is quoted as often as all the other Gospels put together. The Fourth Gospel did not come into prominence in the Christian church until the rise of the Christological controversies in the 3rd century.<P>3. Real Aim of Gospel—Results:<P>When, after dwelling on these ways of approaching the Fourth Gospel, and reading the demands made on the Gospel by those who approach it with these presuppositions and demands, we turn to the Gospel itself, and ask regarding its aim and purpose, we find a simple answer. The writer of it expressly says: "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,30,31);">Joh 20:30,31</a>). Pursuing this clue, and putting away all the presuppositions which bulk so largely in introductions, exegeses, histories of the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, one meets with many surprises.<P>(1) Relation to Synoptics.<P>In relation to the Synoptics, the differences are great, but more surprising is the fact that the points of contact between these Gospels and the Fourth Gospel are so few. The critics to whom reference has been made are unanimous that the writer or the school who compiled the Johannine writings was indebted to the Synoptics for almost all the facts embodied in the Fourth Gospel. Apart, however, from the Passion Week, only two points of contact are found so obvious that they cannot be doubted, namely, the feeding of the 5,000, and the walking on the sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'4-21\');">Joh 6:4-21</a>). The healing of the child of the royal officer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,\'46-53\');">Joh 4:46-53</a>) can scarcely be identified with the healing of the centurion\'s servant (Mt, Lk); but even if the identification were allowed, this is all we have in the Fourth Gospel of the events of the ministry in Galilee. There is a ministry in Galilee, but the earlier ministry in Judea and in Galilee began before John was cast into prison (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,24);">3:24</A>), and it has no parallel in the Synoptics. In fact, the Fourth Gospel assumes the existence of the other three, and does not anew convey the knowledge which can be gathered from them. It takes its own way, makes its own selections, and sets these forth from its own point of view. It has its own principle of selection: that plainly indicated in the passage already quoted. The scenes depicted, the works done, the words spoken, and the reflections made by the writer, are all directed toward the aim of enabling the readers to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. In the writer\'s view this would issue in their obtaining life in His name.<P>(2) Time Occupied in the Gospel.<P>Accepting this principle for our guidance, we turn to the Gospel, and the first thing that strikes the reader is the small amount of the real time filled up, or occupied, by the scenes described in the Gospel. We take the night of the betrayal, and the day of the crucifixion. The things done and the words spoken on that day, from one sunset to another, occupy no fewer than 7 chapters of the Gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'1-\');">John 13-19</a>). Apart from the supplementary chapter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>), there are 20 chapters in the Gospel, containing 697 vs, and these 7 chapters have 257 verses. More than one-third of the whole given to the ministry is thus occupied with the events of one day.<P>Again, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,3);">Ac 1:3</a>, there was a ministry of the risen Lord which lasted for 40 days, and of all that happened during those days John records only what happened on the day of the resurrection, and on another day 8 days after (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,\'1-\');">John 20</a>). The incidents recorded in the other Gospels fall into the background, are taken for granted, and only the signs done on these two days are recorded here. They are recorded because they are of significance for the purpose he has in hand, of inducing belief in the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If we continue to follow the clue thus afforded, we shall be surprised at the fewness of the days on which anything was transacted. As we read the story of the Fourth Gospel, there are many indications of the passing of time, and many precise statements of date. We learn from the Gospel that the ministry of Jesus probably lasted for 3 years. We gather this from the number of the feasts which He attended at Jerusalem. We have notes of time spent in journeys, but no account of anything that happened during them. The days on which anything was done or anything said are very few. We are told precisely that "six days before the passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,1;">12:1</a>ff), and with regard to these 6 days we are told only of the supper and the anointing of the feet of Jesus by Mary, of the entry into Jerusalem, the visit of the Greeks, and of the impression which that visit made on Jesus. We have also the reflections of the evangelist on the unbelief of the Jews, but nothing further. We know that many other things did happen on these days, but they are not recorded in this Gospel. Apart from the two days during which Jesus dwelt in the place where he was, of which days nothing is recorded, the time occupied with the raising of Lazarus is the story of one day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,\'1-\');">John 11</a>). So it is also with the healing of the blind man. The healing is done one day, and the controversy regarding the significance of that healing is all that is recorded of another day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,\'1-\');">John 9</a>). What is recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,\'1-\');">John 10</a> is the story of two days. The story of the 7th and 8th chapters, interrupted by the episode of the woman taken in adultery, which does not belong to the Gospel, is the story of not more than two days. The story of the feeding of the 5,000 and of the subsequent discourse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'1-\');">John 6</a>) is the story of two days. It is not necessary to enter into fuller detail. Yet the writer, as remarked, is very exact in his notes of time. He notes the days, the number of days on which anything was done, or when anything was said. We make these remarks, which will be obvious to every reader who attends to them, mainly for the purpose of showing that the Gospel on the face of it does not intend to, at least does not, set forth a complete account of the life and work of Jesus. It gives at the utmost an account of 20 days out of the 1,000 days of our Lord\'s ministry. This is of itself sufficient to set aside the idea of those who deal with the Fourth Gospel as if it were meant to set aside, to supplement, or to correct, the accounts in the Synoptics. Plainly it was not written with that purpose.<P>(3) A Personal Record.<P>Obviously the book professes to be reminiscences of one who had personal experience of the ministry which he describes. The personal note is in evidence all through the book. It is present even in the prologue, for in that verse in which he describes the great fact of the incarnation he uses the personal note, "We beheld his glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>). This might be taken as the keynote of the Gospel. In all the scenes set forth in the Gospel the writer believes that in them Jesus manifested forth His glory and deepened the faith of His disciples. If we were to ask him, when did he behold the glory of the incarnate Word, the answer would be, in all these scenes which are described in the Gospel. If we read the Gospel from this point of view, we find that the writer had a different conception of the glory of the incarnate Word from that which his critics ascribe to him. He sees a glory of the Word in the fact that He was wearied with His journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,6);">Joh 4:6</a>), that He made clay of the spittle and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,6);">Joh 9:6</a>), that He wept at the grave of Lazarus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,35);">Joh 11:35</a>), that He groaned in the spirit and was troubled (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,38);">Joh 11:38</a>), and that He could sorrow with a sorrow unspeakable, as He did after the interview with the Greeks (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,27);">Joh 12:27</a>). For he records all these things, and evidently thinks them quite consistent with the glory of the incarnate Word. A fair exegesis does not explain these things away, but must take them as of the essence of the manifested glory of the Word.<P>The Gospel then is professedly reminiscences of an eyewitness, of one who was personally present at all the scenes which he describes. No doubt the reminiscences often pass into reflections on the meaning and significance of what he describes. He often pauses to remark that the disciples, and he himself among them, did not understand at the time the meaning of some saying, or the significance of some deed, of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,22);">Joh 2:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,16);">12:16</a>, etc.). At other times we can hardly distinguish between the words of the Master and the reflections of the disciple. But in other writings we often meet with the same phenomenon. In the Epistle to the Galatians, e.g., Paul writes what he had said to Peter at Antioch: "If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,14);">Ga 2:14</a>). Shortly after, he passes into reflections on the situation, and it is impossible to ascertain where the direct speech ends and the reflections begin. So it is in the Fourth Gospel. It is impossible in many instances to say where the words of Jesus end and the reflections of the writer begin. So it is, e.g., with his record of the witness of the Baptist in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,\'1-\');">John 3</a>. The record of the Baptist\'s words may end with the sentence, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,30);">3:30</a>), and the rest may be the reflections of the writer on the situation.<P>(4) Reminiscences of an Eyewitness.<P>The phenomena of the Gospel are thus, apparently at least, reminiscences of an eyewitness, with his reflections on the meaning of what he has experienced. He was present at the scenes which he describes. He was present on the night on which the Master was betrayed; he was present in the hall of the high priest; he was present at the cross, and bears testimony to the reality of the death of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,15);">Joh 18:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,35);">19:35</a>). As we read the Gospel we note the stress he lays on "witness." The term frequently occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,7,8,19);">Joh 1:7,8,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,11,26,33);">3:11,26,33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,31);">5:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,17);">12:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,24);">21:24</a>, etc.), and is used to set forth the verified facts of experience. In these testimonies we have an unusual combination of elevated thought and minute observation. At one time the evangelist soars aloft into a spiritual world, and moves with ease among the richest and highest elements of spiritual experience. Using common words, he yet reads into them the deepest meanings regarding man, the world, and God which have ever entered into the mind of man. Sublime mysticism and open-eyed practical sense meet in his wonderful writings. Above all, we are impressed with his sense of the supreme value of the historical. All his spiritual meanings have a historical basis. This is as apparent in the 1st Epistle as it is in the Gospel, and in the Gospel it is conspicuous. While his main interest is to focus the minds of his readers on Jesus, His work and His word, yet unconsciously he has written his own spiritual biography. We gradually become aware, as we read ourselves sympathetically into the spirit of the Gospel, that we are following the line of a great spiritual awakening, and are tracing the growth of faith and love in the life of the writer, until they become the overmastering tone of his whole life. On the one hand, the book is a grand objective revelation of a unique life, the story of the self-revelation of the Son of God, of the revelation of the Father in Jesus Christ, moving onward to its consummation through the contrasted developments of faith and unbelief on the part of them who received Him, and on the part of them who received Him not. On the other hand, it has a subjective unity in the heart of the writer, as it tells of how faith began, of how faith made progress, until he came to the knowledge of the Son of God. We can enter into the various crises through which he passed, through which, as they successively passed, he won the assurance which he so calmly expresses; and these supply him with the key by means of which he is able to unlock the mystery of the relations of Jesus to the world. The victory of faith which he sets forth was first won in his own soul. This also is included in the significant phrase, "We beheld his glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>).<P>(5) Reminiscence Illustrated.<P>The Gospel receives powerful confirmation from reflection on the nature of reminiscence generally. A law of reminiscence is that, when we recall anything, or any occurrence, we recall it in its wholeness, with all the accessories of its accompaniments. As we tell it to others, we have to make a selection of that only which is needful to convey our meaning. Inartistic natures do not make a selection; they pour out everything that arises in the memory (compare Dame Quickly in Shakespeare). The finer qualities of reminiscence are abundantly illustrated in the Fourth Gospel, and furnish an independent proof that it is from the pen of an eyewitness. It is possible within reasonable limits to give only a few examples. Observe first the exact notes of time in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'1-\');">John 1</a> and the special notes of character in each of the 6 disciples whom Jesus met on the first 4 days of His ministry. Mark the peculiar graphic note that Nathaniel was under the fig tree (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,50;">1:50</a>). Pass on to notice the 6 water-pots of stone set at Cana after the manner of the Jews\' purifying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,6);">2:6</a>). We might refer in this connection to the geographical remarks frequently made in the course of the narrative, indicative of an intimate knowledge of Palestine, and to the numerous allusions to Jewish laws, customs, beliefs, religious ceremonies, usually admitted now to be accurate, and illustrative of familiar knowledge on the part of the writer. Our main object, however, is to call attention to those incidental things which have no symbolical significance, but are set down because, as the main happening was recalled, these arose with it. He again sees the "lad" with the 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,9);">6:9</a>); remembers that Mary sat still in the house, when the active Martha went forth to meet the Lord as He approached Bethany (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,20);">11:20</a>); recalls the appearance of Lazarus as he came forth bound hand and foot with grave-clothes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,44);">11:44</A>). He has a vivid picture before him as he recalls the washing of the disciples\' feet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,6\'1-5\';">13:1-15</a>), and the various attitudes and remarks of the disciples during the whole of that eventful night. He still sees the attitude of the soldiers who came to arrest Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,\'3-8\');">18:3-8</a>), the flashing of Peter\'s sword (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,10);">18:10</a>), the share of Nicodemus in the burying of Jesus, and the kinds and weights of the spices brought by him for the embalming of the body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,38,39,40);">19:38-40</a>). He tells of the careful folding of the linen cloths, and where they were placed in the empty tomb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,\'4-8\');">20:4-8</a>). These are only some of those vivid touches due to reminiscence which none but an eyewitness could safely make. Looking back on the past, the evangelist recalls the various scenes and words of the Lord in their wholeness as they happened, and he chooses those living touches which bear the mark of reality to all readers.<P>(6) Conclusions.<P>These touches of vivid reality warrant the conclusion that the writer in this Gospel is depicting scenes in a real life, and is not drawing on his imagination. Looking back on his own spiritual history, he remembered with special vividness those words and works of Christ which determined his own life, and led him on to the full assurance of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God. The Gospel can be understood from this point of view: it does not seem to us that it can be understood from any other, without ignoring all the phenomena of the kind now indicated. When the Gospel is approached from this point of view, set forth by itself, one can afford to neglect many of the elaborate discussions which have arisen regarding the possible displacement of certain ehs (Spitta, etc.). Much, e.g., has been made of the sudden transference of the scene from Galilee to Judea as we pass from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,\'1-\');">John 4</a> to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,\'1-\');">John 5</a>, and the equally sudden transference back to Galilee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,1);">6:1</A>). Many suggestions have been made, but they all proceed on the supposition that the reminiscences were meant to be continuous, which it has been seen is not the ease. While it is very likely that there is a sequence in the writer\'s thought, yet this need not compel us to think of displacements. Taken as they are in the Gospel, the selected proofs, whether they occur in Judea or in Galilee, in all instances indicate progress. They illustrate the manifested glory of Jesus, on the one hand, and the growth of faith and the development of unbelief on the other. This, however, opens up a separate line of objection and inquiry to which attention must now be given.<P>IV. Progress and Development in the Gospel.<P>It is an objection often urged against the view of the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel that in it there is no progress, no development, no crisis, nothing, e.g., to correspond with the significance of the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,\'13-17\');">Mt 16:13-17</a> parallel). This is held to be true alike of the character of Jesus, which, under the influence of the Logos-doctrine of the prologue, exhibits no development from first to last, and of the attitude of the disciples, whose faith in Jesus as the Christ is likewise represented as complete from the beginning. In reality the opposite is the case. In the course of the Gospel, as already said, the glory of the Lord is ever more completely manifested, and the disciples attain to a deeper faith, while the unbelief of those who reject Him becomes more fixed, until it is absolute. This will appear clearly on nearer examination.<P>1. The Presentation of Jesus in the Gospel:<P>The objection from the presentation of Jesus in the Gospel takes different forms, which it is desirable to consider separately.<P>(1) Alleged Absence of Development in the Character of Jesus.<P>It is affirmed, first, that there is no development in the character of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, none of those indications such as we have in the Synoptics of widening horizons, no recognition of the fact that the meaning, purpose and issue of His calling became clearer to Him as the days passed by. To this assertion there are two answers. The first is, that in a series of scenes from the activity of Jesus, selected for the definite purpose set forth in the Gospel, there is no need to demand a continuous history of His ministry. Selection is made precisely of those scenes which set forth His insight into human character and motive, His power of sympathetic healing, His command over Nature, and His supreme authority over man and the world. The other remark is, that even in the Fourth Gospel there are hints of a crisis in the ministry of our Lord, during which He came to a clearer recognition of the fuller meaning of His mission (e.g. the visit of the Greeks, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,\'1-\');">John 12</a>). It will be seen further, below, that it is not true in this Gospel, any more than in the Synoptics, that Jesus is represented as publicly proclaiming Himself as the Messiah from the first.<P>(2) Alleged "Autonomy" of Jesus.<P>Akin to the above is the objection to the historicity of the Gospel that in it Jesus is represented as always directing His own course, maintaining an attitude of aloofness to men, refusing to be influenced by them. This, it is held, results from the dominance of the Logos-idea in the prologue. The reply is that there is really no essential difference between the attitude of Jesus in these respects in the Synoptics and in Jn. In all alike He maintains an attitude of authority. In the Synoptics He can say, "I say unto you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,22,28,32);">Mt 5:22,28,32</a>, etc.). In them also He claims to be the teacher of absolute truth, the Saviour, the Ruler, the Judge, of men. In this regard there is no new claim made in the Fourth Gospel: "No one cometh unto the Father, but by me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">Joh 14:6</a>). But He had said, "Come unto me...and I will give you rest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,28);">Mt 11:28</a>). A claim to authority over men is thus common to all the Gospels. In all of them, too, in the Fourth no less than in the others, there is on the part of Jesus loyalty, submission, subordination to the Father. In fact this is more conspicuous in the Fourth Gospel than in the Synoptics: "The Father is greater than I" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,28);">Joh 14:28</a>). The words He speaks are the Father\'s words; the works He does are the Father\'s (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,19,20);">Joh 5:19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,16,18);">7:16,18</a>, etc.): "This commandment received I from my Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,18);">Joh 10:18</a>). In all the Gospels it is one consistent, gracious Figure who appears.<P>(3) "Inconceivability" of Logos-Presentation.<P>A further objection, which aims at showing that this Gospel could not be the work of "a primitive apostle," may be noticed, partly from the eminence of him who makes it, and partly from the interest of the objection itself. In his work on The Apostolic Age, Weizsacker says, "It is a puzzle that the beloved disciple of the Gospel, he who reclined at table next to Jesus, should have come to regard and represent his whole former experience as a life with the incarnate Logos of God. It is impossible to imagine any power of faith and philosophy so great as thus to obliterate the recollection of a real life and to substitute for it this marvelous picture of a Divine being. We can understand that Paul, who had not known Jesus, who had not come into contact with the man. should have been opposed to the tradition of the eyewitnesses, the idea of the heavenly man, and that he should have substituted the Christ who was spirit for His earthly manifestation, pronouncing the latter to be positively a stage above which faith must rise. For a primitive apostle it is inconceivable. The question is decided here and finally here" (II, 211). It is easy to say, "For a primitive apostle it is inconceivable," yet we know that a primitive apostle believed that Jesus rose from the dead, that He was exalted a Prince and Saviour, that He was seated at the right hand of God, that He was Lord of all (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'22-36\');">Ac 2:22-36</a>). If we grant that the primitive church believed these things, it cannot be fairly said that the further step taken in the Fourth Gospel is inconceivable. In truth, the objection of Weizsacker is not taken against the Fourth Gospel; it is equally effective against Christianity in general. If Jesus be what He is said to be in the Synoptic Gospels, and if He be what the primitive church held Him to be, the leading conception of the Fourth Gospel is credible and conceivable. If Christianity is credible, the Fourth Gospel adds nothing to the difficulty of faith; rather it gives an additional ground for a rational faith.<P>2. The Logos-Doctrine of the Prologue:<P>It is proper at this point that a little more should be said on the Logos-doctrine itself, in its bearing on the presentation of Christ in this Gospel (for the philosophical and historical aspects of the doctrine, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOGOS">LOGOS</a>). Obviously the great interest of the author of the reminiscences and reflections in the Fourth Gospel is in the personal life of the Master whom he had known so intimately. To him this real historical life was everything. On it he brooded, on it he meditated, and he strove to make the significance of it ever more real to himself first, and to others afterward. How shall he make the reality of that life apparent to all? What were the relationships of that person to God, to man, and to the world? What Jesus really was, and what were His relations to God, to man, and to the world, John endeavors to make known in the prologue. This real person whom he had known, revered, loved, was something more than was apparent to the eyes of an ordinary observer; more even than had been apparent to His disciples. How shall this be set forth? From the Gospel it is evident that the historical person is first, and the attempt to set forth the meaning of the person is second. The prologue is an attempt to find language to set forth fitly the glory of the person. The Logos-doctrine does not descend on the historic person as a garment from without; it is an endeavor to describe what John had grown to recognize as the essential meaning of the person of Jesus. It is not a speculative theory we have here, not an endeavor to think out a theory of the world or of God; it is an attempt to find suitable language for what the writer recognizes to be a great fact. We need not, therefore, seek an explanation of John\'s Logos-doctrine in the speculation of Heraclitus, in theories of the Stoics, even in the eclecticism of Philo. The interests of these men are far removed from the atmosphere of the Fourth Gospel. They desired a theory of the universe; John sought to set forth the significance of a personal historical life. In the prologue he set forth that life, and he chose a word which he filled up with concreter meaning, a meaning which included the deepest teaching of the Old Testament, and the highest thought of his contemporaries. The teaching of Paul, especially in the epistles of the captivity, approaches very closely to that of the Fourth Gospel. Thus it is not a right method to bring the Logos-doctrine to the interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, and to look at all the phenomena of the Gospel as mere illustrations of that doctrine. The right method is the reverse. The Logos-doctrine has no concreteness, no living reality, taken apart from the personal life which was manifested to the apostle. The prologue represents what John had come to see as to the meaning of the personality he had historically known. He sets it forth once for all in the prologue, and never once in the Gospel does he refer to it again. We can understand that Logos-doctrine when we look at it in the light of those manifestations recorded in\' the Gospel, manifestations which enabled John to behold His glory; we cannot understand the manifestations if we look at them merely as illustrations of an abstract philosophical theorem. In brief, the Fourth Gospel is concrete, not abstract; it is not the evolution or the demonstration of a theory, but the attempt to set forth a concrete personality, and to find fitting words to express the significance of that personality as John had grown to see it.<P>3. Growth of Faith and Development of Unbelief:<P>As it is with the character of Jesus, so it is with the alleged absence of development in the faith of the disciples. Careful inquiry shows this objection also to be unfounded.<P>(1) Early Confessions.<P>Here again, it is said, we see the end from the beginning. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'1-\');">John 1</a> Jesus is twice greeted as the Messiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,41,45);">1:41,45</A>), and twice described as the Son of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,34,49);">1:34,49</A>). The Baptist at this early stage points to Him as "the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,29);">1:29</A>). Reference is made to the case of Nicodemus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,1);">3:1</A>ff), to the Samaritans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,41);">4:41</A>f), and other incidents of the same kind, with the view of proving that at this early stage of the ministry of our Lord such confessions are unlikely, and even impossible. It is to be noticed, however, that the confessions in these cases are represented as the outcome of special manifestations on the part of Jesus to the persons who make them. And the manifestations are such as to justify the psychological possibility of the confession. It is so in the case of Nathaniel. Nor is the objection to the testimony of John the Baptist of a kind which admits of no answer. For the Baptist, according to the Synoptics, had found his own credentials in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,\'1-\');">Isa 40</a>. There he found himself and his mission, and described himself, as we find it in the Fourth Gospel, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,23);">Joh 1:23</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,3);">Mt 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,2,3);">Mr 1:2,3</a>). We find also that when John "heard in the prison the works of the Christ," and "sent by his disciples and said unto him, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,2);">Mt 11:2</a>), the answer of Jesus was a reference to a passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,\'1-\');">Isa 61</a>. According to Jesus these were the true signs of the Messianic kingdom. Is there any reason why we should not say that, as John found his own credentials in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,\'1-\');">Isa 40</a>, he would also have found the character and signs of the Coming One in the description of the suffering servant in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>? If he did so, what more simple than that he should describe the Coming One as the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world? In His answer to John, Jesus simply asks him to read farther on in that prophesy which had already meant so much for him.<P>(2) Growth of Faith in the Disciples.<P>Apart from what may be made of these early confessions, it may fairly be said that there are many signs of a growth of faith on the part of the disciples. Carrying with us the fact that each of these confessions had its ground in a particular manifestation of the glory of Christ, we go on to passages which prove how imperfect was the faith of the disciples. It is to be remembered also that John has only one word to describe all the phases of faith, from the slightest impression up to whole-hearted conviction and thorough surrender. We may refer to the careful and exhaustive treatment of the meanings of the word "believing" by E. A. Abbott in his work, Johannine Vocabulary. In the Fourth Gospel the verb is always used, and never the noun. As the word is used, it denotes the impression made, whether that impression is slight and transient, or deep and abiding. Successive steps of acceptance are seen as the disciples advance to complete and absolute faith.<P>As we read the Gospel, we perceive that Jesus did test and try the faith of His disciples, and made His deeds and His words both tests of faith, and a means for its growth. As the result of the words on the bread of life, we find that many of His disciples said, "This is a hard saying; who can hear it?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,60);">Joh 6:60</a>), and on account of the difficulty of His words, "Many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,66);">Joh 6:66</a>). On His appeal to those who did not go away it is found that the difficulty became really an opportunity to them for a larger faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,68,69);">Joh 6:68,69</a>). The incidents and events of the night of the betrayal, and the conversations on that night, prove how incomplete were the faith and confidence of the disciples; how far they were from a full understanding of the Master\'s purpose. Nor is it until after the resurrection, and the gladness of seeing their risen Lord in the upper room, that faith obtained a complete victory, and attained to full possession of itself.<P>(3) Gradual Disclosure of Messiahship: Growth of Unbelief.<P>On the other side, there is as manifestly an evolution of unbelief from the passing doubt of. the moment on to the complete disbelief in Jesus, and utter rejection of Him.<P>It is only fair here to the Gospel to observe that the confessions to which we have already referred are on the part of individuals who came into special relationship with Jesus. Such is the case with regard to Nathaniel, Nicodemus, the woman of Samaria and the Samaritan people, and the writer places the reader in that close relationship so that he who reads may believe. But such close relationship to Jesus is only the lot of a few in this Gospel. It is not true, as already remarked, that in this Gospel Jesus is represented as definitely proclaiming Himself as the Messiah. There is something of the same reserve here as there is in the Synoptics. He did not assert His claim; He left it to be inferred. His brethren hint that He ought to put His claims really to the test (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,3);">Joh 7:3</a>f). An account of the doubts and speculations regarding Him is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,\'1-\');">John 7</a>. The people hesitate, and inquire, and speculate, Is He a good man, or a deceiver? (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,12);">7:12</a>) Had He really a mission from God? (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,14);">7:14</a>ff)—all of which goes to prove that only certain individuals had such intimate knowledge of Him as to lead to acceptance. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,\'1-\');">John 10</a> we read, "And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: it was winter; and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon\'s porch. The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,\'22-24\');">10:22-24</a>). "It is very clear," as Dr. Sanday says, "that no sharply defined issue was set before the people. They are left to draw their own conclusions; and they draw them as well as they can by the help of such criteria as they have. But there is no entweder...oder ....—either Messiah or not Messiah—peremptorily propounded by Jesus Himself" (The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 164). The sum of the matter as regards the development of unbelief is given by the evangelist in the words: "Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,37);">12:37</A>). On the other hand, the culmination of faith is seen in the word of the Lord to Thomas: "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,29);">20:29</A>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides Comms. and other works mentioned in the article, with valuable articles on the Gospel in Dicts. and Encs, the following may be consulted: M. Dods, common. "Fourth Gospel" in Expositor\'s Greek Testament; Julicher, Eintleitung in das NT6 (1906, English Translation); E. A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary (1905), and Johannine Grammar (1906); H. J. Holtzmann, Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes, besorgt von W. Bauer (1908); Essays on Some Biblical Questions of the Day by Members of the University of Cambridge, edited by Dr. Swete (1909), Essay IX, "The Theology of the Fourth Gospel," by W.H. Inge, and Essay X, "The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel," by C.E. Brooke; Schmiedel, The Johannine Writings (English translation, 1908); J. Armitage Robinson, The Historical Character of John\'s Gospel (1908); Askwith, The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910); Ezra Abbot, External Evidence of the Fourth Gospel, edited by J.H. Thayer (1891); Lowrie, The Doctrine of John (1899).``83';
|
|
isbe[5102]='John, the Apostle`Sources of the Life of John:<P>The sources for the life of the apostle John are of various kinds, and of different degrees of trustworthiness. There are the references in the Synoptic Gospels, which may be used simply and easily without any preliminary critical inquiry into their worth as sources; for these Gospels contain the common tradition of the early church, and for the present purpose may be accepted as trustworthy. Further, there are the statements in Acts and in Galatians, which we may use without discussion as a source for the life of John. There is next the universal tradition of the 2nd century, which we may use, if we can show that the John of Ephesus, who bulks so largely in the Christian literature of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, is identical with the son of Zebedee. Further, on the supposition that the son of Zebedee is the author of the Johannine writings of the New Testament, there is another source of unequaled value for the estimate of the life and character of the son of Zebedee in these writings. Finally, there is the considerable volume of tradition which gathered around the name of John of Ephesus, of which, picturesque and interesting though the traditions be, only sparing use can be made.<P>I. Witness of the New Testament.<P>Addressing ourselves first to the Synoptic Gospels, to Acts and to Galatians, we ask, What, from these sources, can we know of the apostle John? A glance only need be taken at the Johannine writings, more fully discussed elsewhere in relation to their author.<P>1. The Synoptic Gospels:<P>That John was one of the two sons of Zebedee, that he became one of the disciples of Jesus, that at His call he forsook all and followed Jesus, and was thereafter continuously with Jesus to the end, are facts familiar to every reader of the Synoptic Gospels. The call was given to John and to his brother James at the Sea of Galilee, while in a boat with their father Zebedee, "mending their nets" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,21,22);">Mt 4:21,22</a>, and parallel passages). "Come ye after me," said Jesus, "and I will make you to become fishers of men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,17);">Mr 1:17</a>; on the earlier call in Judea, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,35);">Joh 1:35</a>, see below). That Zebedee was a man of considerable wealth may be inferred from the fact that he had "hired servants" with him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,20);">Mr 1:20</a>), and that his wife was one of those women who ministered of their substance to Jesus and His disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,55,56);">Mt 27:55,56</a>). Comparison of the latter passage with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40,41);">Mr 15:40,41</a> identifies the wife of Zebedee, John\'s mother, with Salome, and it seems a fair inference from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,25);">Joh 19:25</a>, though all do not accept it, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Salome, the wife of Zebedee, were sisters. On this view, James and John were cousins of Jesus, and were also related to the family of John the Baptist. The name of John appears in all the lists of the apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,2);">Mt 10:2</a> and parallels). While his name appears rarely in a position by itself, he is still one of the most prominent of the disciples. With Peter and James he is present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,37);">Mr 5:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,51);">Lu 8:51</a>). These three were also present at the transfiguration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,\'1-\');">Mt 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,\'1-\');">Mr 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'1-\');">Lu 9</a>). They were nearest to the Lord at the agony of Gethsemane. In all these cases nothing characteristic of John is to be noted. He is simply present as one of the three, and therefore one of the most intimate of the disciples. But there is something characteristic in an incident recorded by Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,54);">9:54</a>), in which James and John are represented as wishing to call down fire on a Samaritan village, which had refused them hospitality. From this can be inferred something of the earnestness, zeal, and enthusiasm of the brothers, and of their high sense of what was due to their Master. Peter, James, John, and Andrew are the four who asked Jesus about the prophecies He had uttered: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,4);">Mr 13:4</a>). Then there is the request of their mother as to the place she desired for her sons in the coming kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,35);">Mr 10:35</a>). To Peter and John was entrusted the task of preparation for the keeping of the Passover (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,8);">Lu 22:8</a>). Once John stands alone, and asks what we may consider a characteristic question: "Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,38);">Mr 9:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,49);">Lu 9:49</a>). From these notices we see that John was in the front rank of the disciples, and we see also that he was so far conscious of the position he held, and of the intimate connection he had with the Master. We note further that John was a young man of fiery zeal, and of a tendency toward intolerance and exclusiveness. The zeal and the intolerance are in evidence in the desire to call down fire upon the Samaritan village, and the tendency toward exclusiveness is manifested in the request of his mother as to the place her sons were to occupy in the kingdom. They desire to have the highest positions. These tendencies were not encouraged by Jesus. They were rebuked by Him once and again, but the tendencies reveal the men. In harmony with these notices of character and temperament is the name given to the brothers by Jesus, "Boanerges," "Sons of thunder" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,17);">Mr 3:17</a>), which, whatever else may be meant by it, means strength, unexpectedness, and zeal approaching to methods of violence.<P>2. Acts and Galatians:<P>John is found in company with Peter in the opening scenes in Acts. He is with Peter while the man at the gate was healed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,1);">3:1</a>ff). He is with Peter on the mission to Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,14);">8:14</A>ff). He is with Peter and James, the Lord\'s brother, at the interview with Paul recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">Ga 2</a>, and the three are described by Paul as the pillar apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,9);">2:9</a>). This interview is of importance because it proves that John had survived his brother James, whose death is recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,\'1-\');">Ac 12</a>; at all events that John and James were not killed by the Jews at the same time, as some now contend that they were. This contention is considered below.<P>3. The Johannine Writings: Gospel and Revelation:<P>Much is to be learned of the apostle John from the Fourth Gospel, assuming the Gospel to have been written by him. We learn from it that he was a disciple of John the Baptist (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,35);">1:35</a>), that he was one of the first six disciples called by Jesus in His early ministry in Judea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'37-51\');">1:37-51</A>), and that he was present at all the scenes which he describes in the Gospel. We find later that he had a home in Jerusalem, and was acquainted with many there. To that home he took Mary, the mother of Jesus, whom the dying Saviour entrusted to his care (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,26,27);">19:26,27</a>). Much more also we learn of him and of his history, for the Gospel is a spiritual biography, a record of the growth of faith on the part of the writer, and of the way in which his eyes were opened to see the glory of the Lord, until faith seems to have become vision. He was in the inner circle of the disciples, indeed, nearest of all to Jesus, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,23);">13:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,26);">19:26</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,2);">20:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,7,20);">21:7,20</a>), and, because of that love, became the apostle of love (see, further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+GOSPEL+OF">JOHN, GOSPEL OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+THE+EPISTLES+OF</a>">JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHANNINE+THEOLOGY">JOHANNINE THEOLOGY</a>).<P>The Book of Revelation, likewise traditionally ascribed to John, bears important witness to the apostle\'s banishment in later life to the isle of Patmos in the Aegean (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,9);">1:9</a>). There he received the visions recorded in the book. The banishment probably took place in the reign of Domitian (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REVELATION">REVELATION</a>), with whose practice it was entirely in consonance (on the severity of such exile, compare Sir W.M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, chapter viii). The testimony is of high importance in its bearing on the disputed question of John\'s residence in Asia, a point now to be discussed.<P>II. Alleged Early Martyrdom of John: Criticism of Evidence.<P>1. Recent Denial of John\'s Residence in Ephesus:<P>The consentient testimony of the church of the 2nd century is that the later years of John were spent at Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel, and gathered round him many disciples (see the evidence drawn out in detail in Godet, Commentary on Gospel of John, 43ff; compare also Lightfoot, "The School of Ephesus," in Essays on the Work Entitled "Supernatural Religion"). Before, however, we can use the traditions connected with this residence at Ephesus, it is needful to inquire into the statement alleged to be made by Papias that John, the son of Zebedee, was killed by the Jews at an early date. It is plain, that, if this statement is correct, the apostle could not be the author of the Johannine writings in the New Testament, universally dated near the end of the 1st century.<P>2. Grounds of Denial:<P>The evidence for the statement that John was early killed by the Jews is thus summed up by Dr. Moffatt: "The evidence for the early martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee is, in fact, threefold: (a) a prophecy of Jesus preserved in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,39);">Mr 10:39</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,23);">Mt 20:23</a>, (b) the witness of Papias, and (c) the calendars of the church" (Intro to Lit. of New Testament, 602). Our limits do not admit of an exhaustive examination of this so-called evidence, but, happily, an exhaustive examination is not needed.<P>(a) The first head proceeds on an assumption which is not warranted, namely, that a prophecy of Jesus would not be allowed to stand, if it were not evidently fulfilled. In the present instance, a literal fulfillment of the prophecy ("The cup that I drink ye shall drink," etc.) is out of the question, for there is no hint that either James or John was crucified. We must therefore fall back on the primary meaning of martyrdom, and recognize a fulfillment of the prophecy in the sufferings John endured and the testimony he bore for the Master\'s sake (thus Origen, etc.).<P>(b) Dr. Moffatt lays great stress on what he calls the testimony of Papias. But the alleged testimony of Papias is not found in any early authority, and then occurs in writers not of any great value from the point of view of critical investigation. It is found in a passage of Georgius Hamartolus (9th century), and is held to be corroborated by a fragment of an epitome (7th or 8th century) of the Chronicle of Philip Sidetes (5th century), a thoroughly untrustworthy writer. The passage from Georgius may be seen in convenient form in Lightfoot\'s Apostolic Fathers, 513-19. It tells that John survived to the time of Nerva, quotes a saying of Papias that he was killed by the Jews, states that this was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus above referred to, and goes on to say, "So the learned Origen affirms in his interpretation of Matthew\'s Gospel, that John was martyred, declaring that he had learnt the last from the successors of the apostles" (Lightfoot, op. cit., 531). Fortunately, the statement of Origen can be tested, and it by no means, as Moffatt admits (op. cit., 604), bears out the meaning attached to it. Origen is of opinion that the prophecy of Jesus was sufficiently fulfilled by the fact of John\'s banishment to Patmos and his sufferings there. This, according to him, is what tradition taught and what the prophecy meant. From the whole statement of Georgius, which expressly declares that John survived till the time of Nerva, nothing can be inferred in support of the so-called quotation from Papias. It is to be remembered that the writings of Papias were known to Irenaeus and to Eusebius, and it is inconceivable that, if such a statement was to be found in these, they would have ignored it, and have given currency to a statement contradictory to it. No stress, therefore, can be laid on the alleged quotation. We do not know its context, nor is there anything in the literature of the first 3 centuries corroborative of it. In the citation in the epitome of Philip, Papias is made to speak of "John the divine" (ho theologos). This title is not applied to John till the close of the 4th century.<P>(c) As regards the 3rd line of evidence instanced by Dr. Moffatt—church calendars, in which James and John are commemorated together as martyrs—it is even more worthless than the other two. On the nature and origin of these martyrologies, Dr. J. Drummond may be quoted: "They were constructed in process of time out of local calendars. At some period in the 2nd half of the 5th century, a martyrology was formed by welding together a number of provincial calendars, Roman, Italian, Spanish, and Gallic, into what was in effect a general martyrology of Western Europe. At Nicomedia, about the year 350, a similar eastern martyrology was formed out of the local calendars, and this was translated with curtailments into Syriac at Edessa about the year 400. It is a copy of this, made in 411, which is now in the British Museum" (Inquiry into Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 232). If this is a true account of the rise and origin of martyrologies we need not be surprised that Sir W. M. Ramsay speaks as follows: "That James and John, who were not slain at the same time, should be commemorated together, is the flimsiest conceivable evidence that John was killed early in Jerusalem. The bracketing together of the memory of apostles who had some historical connection in life, but none in death, must be regarded as the worst side, historically speaking, of the martyrologies" (The First Christian Century,49,note).<P>III. The Ephesian Traditions.<P>1. John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter:<P>Thus the early traditions of the churches are available for the life of John the son of Zebedee. But there still remain many blank spaces in that life. After the reference to the pillar apostles in Galatians, silence falls on the life of John, and we know nothing of his life and activity until we read of his banishment to Patmos, and meet with those references to the old man at Ephesus, which occur in the Christian literature of the 2nd century. One point of interest relates to the (genuine) quotation from Papias, preserved by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), regarding a "Presbyter John," a disciple of the Lord, who was one of his living authorities. Were there two Johns at Ephesus? Or was there only one? Or, if there was only one, was he John the Evangelist, or only John the Presbyter? Here there is every possible variety of opinion. Many hold that there were two, and many that there was only one. Many who hold that there was only one, hold that the one was John the son of Zebedee; others hold, with equal assurance, that he was a distinct person. Obviously, it is impossible to discuss the question adequately here. After due consideration, we lean to the conclusion that there was only one John at Ephesus, and he the son of Zebedee. For the proof of this, impossible within our limits, we refer to the learned argument of John Chapman, in his work John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911).<P>2. Characteristic Traditions:<P>Into the traditions which cluster round John in Ephesus it is not necessary to enter in detail (compare Godet, op. cit., 57ff). According to the tradition universally accepted in the church, John survived till the time of Trajan (98 AD). Striking and characteristic things are told of him in harmony with the touches we find in the Synoptic Gospels. The story of his rushing forth from the bath when Cerinthus, the heretic, entered it (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iii. 3, 4) recalls the characteristics of him whom Jesus called "son of thunder." The same tone of exclusiveness, modified by larger experience, is found in the 1st Epistle, which so frequently and so decisively discriminates between those who believe in Jesus and those who do not.<P>IV. The Character of John.<P>The general character of this great apostle is already sufficiently apparent. While we recall the illustrative facts found in the Synoptics, that James and John were the two who wished to call down fire from heaven on the inhospitable village, that John was one of those who desired one of the chief places in the kingdom, that he it was who forbade the man to cast out demons in the name of Jesus because he followed not with them, we do not forget that on each of these occasions he was corrected and rebuked by the Master, and he was not the kind of man who could not profit by the rebuke of Jesus. So that vehemence of disposition was held in check, and, while still in existence, was under control, and allowed to have vent only on occasions when it was permissible, and even necessary. So in his writings, and in the reflections in the Gospel, we note the vehemence displayed, but now directed only against those who refused to believe in, and to acknowledge, Jesus.<P>"A quiet and thoughtful temperament is by no means inconsistent with a certain vehemence, when, on occasions, the pent-up fire flashes forth; indeed, the very violence of feeling may help to foster an habitual quietude, lest word or deed should betray too deep an emotion. Then it is not without significance that, in the three narratives which are cited from the Gospels to prove the overbearing temper of John, we are expressly told that Jesus corrected him. Are we to suppose that these rebukes made no impression? Is it not more likely that they sank deep into his heart, and that the agony of beholding his Master\'s crucifixion made them ineffaceable? Then, if not before, began that long development which changed the youthful son of thunder into the aged apostle of love" (Drummond, op. cit, 410, 411).<P>But love itself has its side of vehemence, and the intensity of love toward a person or a cause may be measured by the intensity of aversion and of hatred toward their contradictories. There are many reflections in the Gospel and in the Epistles which display this energy of hatred toward the work of the devil, and toward those dispositions which are under the influence of the father of lies. We simply notice these, for they prove that the fervent youth who was devoted to his Master carried with him to the end the same disposition which was characteristic of him from the beginning.<P>LITERATURE.<P>In addition to books mentioned in article, see the list of works appended to article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+GOSPEL+OF">JOHN, GOSPEL OF</a>.``83';
|
|
isbe[5103]='John, the Epistles of, Part 1-3`<b>I. GENERAL CHARACTER</b><P class="in15">1. A True Letter<P class="in15">2. Subject-Matter<P class="in15">3. Characteristics of the Writer<P class="in15">4. Style and Diction<P><b>II. POLEMICAL AIM</b><P class="in15">1. Gnosticism<P class="in15">2. Docetism<P class="in15">3. Antinomianism<P class="in15">4. Cerinthus<P><b>III. STRUCTURE AND SUMMARY</b><P class="in15">1. The Prologue, <span class="noTag">1 John 1:1-4</span><P class="in15">2. First Cycle, <span class="noTag">1 John 1:5-2:28</span><P class="in30">The Christian Life as Fellowship with God (Walking in the Light) Tested by Righteousness, Love and Belief<P class="in30">(a) Paragraph A, <span class="noTag">1 John 1:8-2:6</span><P class="in30">(b) Paragraph B, <span class="noTag">1 John 2:7-17</span><P class="in45">(i) Positively<P class="in45">(ii) Negatively<P class="in30">(c) Paragraph C, <span class="noTag">1 John 2:18-28</span><P class="in15">3. Second Cycle, <span class="noTag">1 John 2:29-4:6</span><P class="in30">Divine Sonship Tested by Righteousness, Love and Belief<P class="in30">(a) Paragraph A, <span class="noTag">1 John 2:29-3:10a</span><P class="in30">(b) Paragraph B, <span class="noTag">1 John 3:10b-24b</span><P class="in30">(c) Paragraph C, <span class="noTag">1 John 3:24b through 4:6</span><P class="in15">4. Third Cycle, <span class="noTag">1 John 4:7-5:21</span><P class="in30">Closer Correlation of Righteousness, Love and Belief<P class="in30">(a) Section I, <span class="noTag">1 John 4:7-5:3a</span><P class="in45">(i) Paragraph A, <span class="noTag">1 John 4:7-12</span><P class="in45">(ii) Paragraph B, <span class="noTag">1 John 4:13-16</span><P class="in45">(iii) Paragraph C, <span class="noTag">1 John 4:17-5:3a</span><P class="in30">(b) Section II, <span class="noTag">1 John 5:3b-21</span><P class="in45">(i) Paragraph A, <span class="noTag">1 John 5:3b-12</span><P class="in45">(ii) Paragraph B, <span class="noTag">1 John 5:13-21</span><P><b>IV. CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP</b><P class="in15">1. Traditional View<P class="in15">2. Critical Views<P class="in15">3. Internal Evidence<P><b>V. RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL</b><P class="in15">1. Common Characteristics<P class="in15">2. Coincidences of Vocabulary<P class="in15">3. Divergences of Vocabulary<P class="in15">4. Arguments against Unity of Authorship<P class="in15">5. Conclusion<P class="in15">6. Question of Priority<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>Among the 7 New Testament epistles which from ancient times have been called "catholic" (universal) there is a smaller group of three in which the style alike of thought and language points to a common authorship, and which are traditionally associated with the name of the apostle John. Of these, again, the first differs widely from the other two in respect not only of intrinsic importance, but of its early reception in the church and unquestioned canonicity.<P>THE FIRST EPISTLE<P>I. General Character.<P>1. A True Letter:<P>Not only is the Epistle an anonymous writing; one of its unique features among the books of the New Testament is that it does not contain a single proper name (except our Lord\'s), or a single definite allusion, personal, historical, or geographical. It is a composition, however, which a person calling himself "I" sends to certain other persons whom he calls "you," and is, in form at least, a letter. The criticism which has denied that it is more than formally so is unwarranted. It does not fall under either of Deissmann\'s categories—the true letter, intended only for the perusal of the person or persons to whom it is addressed, and the epistle, written with literary art and with an eye to the public. But it does possess that character of the New Testament epistles in general which is well described by Sir William Ramsay (Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, 24): "They spring from the heart of the writer and speak direct to the heart of the readers. They were often called forth by some special crisis in the history of the persons addressed, so that they rise out of the actual situation in which the writer conceives the readers to be placed; they express the writer\'s keen and living sympathy with and participation in the fortunes of the whole class addressed, and are not affected by any thought of a wider public....On the other hand, the letters of this class express general principles of life and conduct, religion and ethics, applicable to a wider range of circumstances than those which called them forth; and they appeal as emphatically and intimately to all Christians in all time as they did to those addressed in the first instance." The 1st Epistle of John could not be more exactly characterized than by these words. Though its main features are didactic and controversial, the personal note is frequently struck, and with much tenderness and depth of feeling. Under special stress of emotion, the writer\'s paternal love, sympathy and solicitude break out in the affectionate appellation, "little children," or, yet more endearingly, "my little children." Elsewhere the prefatory "beloved" shows how deeply he is stirred by the sublimity of his theme and the sense of its supreme importance to his readers. He shows himself intimately acquainted with their religious environment (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,19);">1Joh 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,1);">4:1</a>), dangers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,26);">1Joh 2:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,7);">3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,21);">5:21</a>), attainments (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'12-14\',21);">1Joh 2:12-14,21</a>), achievements (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,4);">1Joh 4:4</a>) and needs (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,19);">1Joh 3:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,13);">5:13</a>). Further, the Epistle is addressed primarily to the circle of those among whom the author has habitually exercised his ministry as evangelist and teacher. He has been wont to announce to them the things concerning the Word of Life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,1,2);">1Joh 1:1,2</a>), that they might have fellowship with him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,3);">1Joh 1:3</a>), and now, that his (or their) joy may be full, he writes these things unto them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,4);">1Joh 1:4</a>). He writes as light shines. Love makes the task a necessity, but also a delight.<P>2. Subject-Matter:<P>There is no New Testament writing which is throughout more vigorously controversial: for the satisfactory interpretation of the Epistle as a whole, recognition of the polemical aim that pervades it is indispensable. But it is true also that there is no such writing in which the presentation of the truth more widely overflows the limits of the immediate occasion. The writer so constantly lifts up against the error he combats, the simple, sublime and satisfying facts and principles of the Christian revelation, so lifts up every question at issue into the light of eternal truth, that the Epistle pursues its course through the ages, bringing to the church of God the vision and the inspiration of the Divine. The influence of the immediate polemical purpose, however, is manifest, not only in the contents of the Epistle, but in its limitations as well. In a sense it may be said that the field of thought is a narrow one. God is seen exclusively as the Father of Spirits, the Light and Life of the universe of souls. His creatorship and government of the world, the providential aspects and agencies of salvation, the joys and sorrows, hopes and fears that spring from the terrestrial conditions and changes of human life, their disciplinary purpose and effect—to all this the Epistle contains no reference. The themes are exclusively theological and ethical. The writer\'s immediate interest is confined to that region in which the Divine and human vitally and directly meet—to that in God which is communicable to man, to that in man by which he is capax Dei. The Divine nature as life and light, and love and righteousness; the Incarnation of this Divine nature in Jesus, with its presuppositions and consequences, metaphysical and ethical; the imparting of this Divine nature to men by regeneration; the antithesis to it—sin—and its removal by propitiation; the work of the Holy Spirit; the Christian life, the mutual indwelling of God and man, as tested by its beliefs, its antagonism to sin, its inevitable debt of love—such are the fundamental themes to which every idea in the Epistle is directly related. The topics, if few, are supremely great; and the limitations of the field of vision are more than compensated by the profundity and intensity of spiritual perception.<P>3. Characteristics of the Writer:<P>The Epistle is in a sense impersonal to the last degree, offering a strange contrast to that frankness of self-revelation which gives such charm to Paul\'s letters; yet few writings so clearly reveal the deepest characteristics of the writer. We feel in it the high serenity of a mind that lives in constant fellowship with the greatest thoughts and is nourished at the eternal fountain-head; but also the fervent indignation and vehement recoil of such a mind in contact with what is false and evil. It has been truly called "the most passionate" book in the New Testament. Popular instinct has not erred in giving to its author the title, "Apostle of Love." Of the various themes which are so wonderfully intertwined in it, that to which it most of all owes its unfading charm and imperishable value is love. It rises to its sublimest height, to the apex of all revelation, in those passages in which its author is so divinely inspired to write of the eternal life, in God and man, as love.<P>But it is an inveterate misconception which regards him solely as the exponent of love. Equally he reveals himself as one whose mind is dominated by the sense of truth. There are no words more characteristic of him than "true" (alethinos, denoting that which both ideally and really corresponds to the name it bears) and "the truth" (aletheia, the reality of things sub specie aeternitatis). To him Christianity is not only a principle of ethics, or even a way of salvation; it is both of them, because it is primarily the truth, the one true disclosure of the realities of the spiritual and eternal world. Thus it is that his thought so constantly develops itself by antithesis. Each conception has its fundamental opposite: light, darkness; life, death; love, hate; truth, falsehood; the Father, the world; God, the devil. There is no shading, no gradation in the picture. No sentence is more characteristic of the writer than this: "Ye know that no lie is of the truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,21);">1Joh 2:21</a> margin). But again, his sense of these radical antagonisms is essentially moral, rather than intellectual. It seems impossible that any writing could display a more impassioned sense, than this Epistle does, of the tremendous imperative of righteousness, a more rigorous intolerance of all sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,4);">1Joh 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,4,8,9,10);">3:4,8,9,10</a>). The absolute antagonism and incompatibility between the Christian life and sin of whatsoever kind or degree is maintained with a vehemence of utterance that verges at times upon the paradoxical (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,9);">1Joh 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,18);">5:18</a>). So long as the church lays up this Epistle in its heart, it can never lack a moral tonic of wholesome severity.<P>4. Style and Diction:<P>The style is closely, though perhaps unconsciously, molded upon the Hebrew model, and especially upon the parallelistic forms of the Wisdom literature. One has only to read the Epistle with an attentive ear to perceive that, though using another language, the writer had in his own car, all the time, the swing and cadences of Hebrew verse. The diction is inartificial and unadorned. Not a simile, not a metaphor (except the most fundamental, like "walking in the light") occurs. The limitations in the range of ideas are matched by those of vocabulary and by the unvarying simplicity of syntactical form. Yet limited and austere as the literary medium is, the writer handles its resources often with consummate skill. The crystalline simplicity of the style perfectly expresses the simple profundity of the thought. Great spiritual intuitions shine like stars in sentences of clear-cut gnomic terseness. Historical (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,1);">1Joh 1:1</a>) and theological (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,2);">1Joh 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2);">4:2</a>) statements are made with exquisite precision. The frequent reiteration of nearly the same thoughts in nearly the same language, though always with variation and enrichment, gives a cumulative effect which is singularly impressive. Such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'14-17\');">1Joh 2:14-17</a>, with its calm challenge to the arrogant materialism of the world—"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever"—or the closing verses of the Epistle, with their thrice-repeated triumphant "we know" and their last word of tender, urgent admonition, have a solemn magnificence of effect which nothing but such simplicity of language, carrying such weight of thought, could produce. If it has been true of any writer that "le style est l\'homme," it is true of the author of this Epistle.<P>II. Polemical Aim.<P>The polemical intention of the Epistle has been universally recognized; but there has been diversity of opinion as to its actual object. By the older commentators, generally, this was found in the perilous state of the church or churches addressed, which had left their first love and lapsed into Laodicean lukewarmness. But the Epistle gives no sign of this, and it contains many passages that are inconsistent with it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,13,14,20,21,27);">1Joh 2:13,14,20,21,27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,4);">4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'18-20\');">5:18-20</a>). The danger which immediately threatens the church is from without, not from within. There is a "spirit of error" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,6);">1Joh 4:6</a>) abroad in the world. From the church itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,18);">1Joh 2:18</a>), many "false prophets" have gone forth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,1);">1Joh 4:1</a>), corrupters of the gospel, veritable antichrists (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,18);">1Joh 2:18</a>). And it may be asserted as beyond question that the peril against which the Epistle was intended to arm the church was the spreading influence of some form of Gnosticism.<P>1. Gnosticism:<P>The pretensions of Gnosticism to a higher esoteric knowledge of Divine things seems to be clearly referred to in several passages. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,4,6,9);">1Joh 2:4,6,9</a>, e.g. one might suppose that they are almost verbally quoted ("He that saith"; "I know Him"; "I abide in Him"; "I am in the light"). When we observe, moreover, the prominence given throughout to the idea of knowledge and the special significance of some of these passages, the conviction grows that the writer\'s purpose is not only to refute the false, but to exhibit apostolic Christianity, believed and lived, as the true Gnosis—the Divine reality of which Gnosticism was but a fantastic caricature. The confidence he has concerning his readers is that they "know him who is from the beginning," that they "know the Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,13);">2:13</a>). "Every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,7);">4:7</a>); and the final note upon which the Epistle closes is: "We know him that is true, and we are in him that is true" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,20);">5:20</a>). The knowledge of the ultimate Reality, the Being who is the eternal life, is for Christian and Gnostic alike the goal of aspiration.<P>But it is against two closely related developments of Gnostic tendency, a docetic view of the incarnation, and an antinomian view of morals, that the Epistle is specifically directed. Both of these sprang naturally from the dualism which was the fundamental and formative principle of Gnosticism in all its many forms. According to the dualistic conception of existence, the moral schism of which we are conscious in experience is original, eternal, inherent in the nature of beings. There are two independent and antagonistic principles of being from which severally come all the good and all the evil that exist. The source and the seat of evil were found in the material element, in the body with its senses and appetites, and in its sensuous earthly environment; and it was held inconceivable that the Divine nature should have immediate contact with the material side of existence, or influence upon it.<P>2. Docetism:<P>To such a view of the universe Christianity could be adjusted only by a docetic interpretation of the Person of Christ. A real incarnation was unthinkable. The Divine could enter into no actual union with a corporeal organism. The human nature of Christ and the incidents of His earthly career were more or less an illusion. And it is with this docetic subversion of the truth of the incarnation that the "antichrists" are specially identified (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,22,23);">1Joh 2:22,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2,3);">4:2,3</a>), and against it that John directs with wholehearted fervor his central thesis—the complete, permanent, personal identification of the historical Jesus with the Divine Being who is the Word of Life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,1);">1Joh 1:1</a>), the Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2);">1Joh 4:2</a>) and the Son of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,5);">1Joh 5:5</a>): "Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,6);">Joh 5:6</a> there is a still more definite reference to the special form which Gnostic Christology assumed in the teaching of Cerinthus and his school. According to Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., i.26, 1) this Cerinthus, who was John\'s prime antagonist in Ephesus, taught that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, and was distinguished from other men only by superiority in justice, prudence and wisdom; that at His baptism the heavenly Christ descended upon Him in the form of a dove; that on the eve of His Passion, the Christ again left Jesus, so that Jesus died and rose again, but the Christ, being spiritual, did not suffer. That is to say, that, in the language of the Epistle, the Christ "came by water," but not, as John strenuously affirms, "by water and blood...not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,6);">1Joh 5:6</a>). He who was baptized of John in Jordan, and He whose life-blood was shed on Calvary, is the same Jesus and the same Christ, the same Son of God eternally.<P>3. Antinomianism:<P>A further consequence of the dualistic interpretation of existence is that sin, in the Christian meaning of sin, disappears. It is no longer a moral opposition (anomia), in the human personality, to good; it is a physical principle inherent in all nonspiritual being. Not the soul, but the flesh is its organ; and redemption consists, not in the renewal of the moral nature, but in its emancipation from the flesh. Thus it is no mere general contingency, but a definite tendency that is contemplated in the repeated warning: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us....If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,8,10);">1Joh 1:8,10</a>).<P>With the nobler and more earnest spirits the practical corollary of this irreconcilable dualism in human nature was the ascetic life; but to others the same principle readily suggested an opposite method of achieving the soul\'s deliverance from the yoke of the material—an attitude of moral indifference toward the deeds of the body. Let the duality of nature be boldly reduced to practice. Let body and spirit be regarded as separate entities, each obeying its own laws and acting according to its own nature, without mutual interference; the spiritual nature could not be involved in, nor affected by, the deeds of the flesh. Vehement opposition to this deadly doctrine is prominent in the Epistle—in such utterances as "Sin is lawlessness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,4);">1Joh 3:4</a>) and its converse "All unrighteousness is sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,17);">1Joh 5:17</a>), but especially in the stringent emphasis laid upon actual conduct, "doing" righteousness or "doing" sin. The false spiritualism which regards the contemplation of heavenly things as of far superior importance to the requirements of commonplace morality is sternly reprobated: "Little children, let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,7);">1Joh 3:7</a>); and the converse application of the same doctrine, that the mere "doing" of sin is of little or no moment to the "spiritual" man, is met with the trenchant declaration, "He that doeth sin is of the devil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,8);">1Joh 3:8</a>). The whole passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'29-\');">1Joh 2:29</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'1-10\');">3:10</a>) presupposes, as familiar to its readers, a doctrine of moral indifferentism according to which the status of the spiritual man is not to be tested by the commonplace facts of moral conduct. It is only as a passionate contradiction of this hateful tenet that the paradoxical language of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,6,9);">1Joh 3:6,9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,18);">5:18</a> can be understood.<P>To the same polemical necessity is due the uniquely reiterated emphasis which the Epistle lays upon brotherly love, and the almost fierce tone in which the new commandment is promulgated. To the Gnostic, knowledge was the sum of attainment. "They give no heed to love," says Ignatius, "caring not for the widow, the orphan or the afflicted, neither for those who are in bonds nor for those who are released from bonds, neither for the hungry nor the thirsty." That a religion which banished or neglected love should call itself Christian or claim affinity with Christianity excites John\'s hottest indignation; against it he lifts up his supreme truth, God is love, with its immediate consequence that to be without love is to be without capacity for knowing God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,7,8);">1Joh 4:7,8</a>). The assumption of a lofty mystical piety apart from dutiful conduct in the ordinary relations of life is ruthlessly underlined as the vaunt of a self-deceiver (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,20);">1Joh 4:20</a>); and the crucial test by which we may assure our self-accusing hearts that we are "of the truth" is love "not in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,18);">1Joh 3:18</a>).<P>The question is raised whether the polemic of the Epistle is directed against the same persons throughout or whether in its two branches, the Christological and the ethical, it has different objects of attack. The latter view is maintained on the ground that no charge of libertine teaching or conduct is brought against the "antichrists," and there is no proof that docetism in Asia Minor lay open to such a charge. But the other view has greater probability. The Epistle suggests nothing else than that the same spirit of error which is assailing the faith of the church (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,6);">1Joh 4:6</a>) is also a peril to the moral integrity of its life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,7);">1Joh 3:7</a>). And if there is no proof that docetism in Asia Minor was also antinomian, there is no proof that it was not. The probability is that it was. Docetism and the emancipation of the flesh were both natural fruits of the dualistic theory of life.<P>4. Cerinthus:<P>The name, which unvarying tradition associates with the Epistle, as John\'s chief antagonist in Ephesus, is that of Cerinthus. Unfortunately the accounts which have come down to us of Cerinthus and his teaching are fragmentary and confused, and those of his character, though unambiguous, come only from his opponents. But it is certain that he held a docetic view of the incarnation, and, according to the only accounts we possess, his character was that of a voluptuary. So far as they go, the historical data harmonize with the internal evidence of the Epistle itself in giving the impression that the different tendencies it combats are such as would be naturally evolved in the thought and practice of those who held, as Cerinthus did, that the material creation, and even the moral law, had its origin, not in the Supreme God, but in an inferior power.<P>III. Structure and Summary.<P>In the judgment of many critics, the Epistle possesses nothing that can be called an articulate structure of thought, its aphoristic method admitting of no logical development; and this estimate has a large measure of support in the fact that there is no New Testament writing regarding the plan of which there has been greater variety of opinion. The present writer believes, nevertheless, that it is erroneous, and that, in its own unique way, the Epistle is a finely articulated composition. The word that best describes the author\'s mode of thinking is "spiral." The course of thought does not move from point to point in a straight line. It is like a winding staircase—always revolving around the same center, always recurring to the same topics, but at a higher level.<P>Carefully following the topical order, one finds, e.g., a paragraph (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'3-6\');">1Joh 2:3-6</a>) insisting upon practical righteousness as a guaranty of the Christian life; then one finds this treated a second time in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'29-\');">1Joh 2:29</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'1-10\');">3:10a</a>; and yet again in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,3);">5:3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,18);">5:18</a>. Similarly, we find a paragraph on the necessity of love in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'7-11\');">2:7-11</a>, and again in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'10-20\');">3:10b-20</a>, and yet again in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'7-13\');">4:7-13</a>, and also in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'17-\');">4:17</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,1,2);">5:2</a>. So also, a paragraph concerning the necessity of holding the true belief in the incarnate Son of God in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'18-28\');">2:18-28</a>, in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'1-6\');">4:1-6</a>, and the same subject recurring in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'13-16\');">4:13-16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'4-12\');">5:4-12</a>. And we shall observe that everywhere these indispensable characteristics of the Christian life are applied as tests; that in effect the Epistle is an apparatus of tests, its definite object being to furnish its readers with the necessary criteria by which they may sift the false from the true, and satisfy themselves of their being "begotten of God." "These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,13);">5:13</a>). These fundamental tests of the Christian life—doing righteousness, loving one another, believing that Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh—are the connecting themes that bind together the whole structure of the Epistle. Thus, if we divide the Epistle into 3 main sections, the first ending at <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,28);">2:28</a>, the second at <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,6);">4:6</a>, the result is that in the first and second of these sections we find precisely the same topics coming in precisely the same order; while in the third section (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',7,\'7-\');">4:7</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'1-21\');">5:21</a>), though the sequence is somewhat different, the thought-material is exactly the same. The leading themes, the tests of righteousness, love, and belief, are all present; and they alone are present. There is, therefore, a natural division of the Epistle into these three main sections, or, as they might be descriptively called, "cycles," in each of which the same fundamental themes appear. On this basis we shall now give a brief analysis of its structure and summary of its contents.<P>1. The Prologue, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,\'1-4\');">1 John 1:1-4</a>:<P>The writer announces the source of the Christian revelation—the historical manifestation of the eternal Divine life in Jesus Christ—and declares himself a personal witness of the facts in which this manifestation has been given. Here, at the outset, he hoists the flag under which he fights. The incarnation is not seeming or temporary, but real. That which was from the beginning—"the eternal life, which was with the Father"—is identical with "that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled."<P>2. First Cycle, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,\'5-\');">1 John 1:5</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'1-28\');">2:28</a>:<P>The Christian life, as fellowship with God (walking in the Light) tested by righteousness, love and belief.—The basis of the whole section is the announcement: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,5);">1Joh 1:5</a>). What God is at once determines the condition of fellowship with Him; and this, therefore, is set forth: first, negatively (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,6);">1Joh 1:6</a>): "if we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness"; then, positively (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,7);">1Joh 1:7</a>): "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light." What, then, is it to walk in the light, and what to walk in darkness? The answer is given in what follows.<P>(a) Paragraph A, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,\'8-\');">1 John 1:8</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'1-6\');">2:6</a>:<P>(Walking in the Light tested by righteousness): First, in confession of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,\'8-\');">1Joh 1:8</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,1,2);">2:2</a>), then in actual obedience (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'3-6\');">1Joh 2:3-6</a>). The first fact upon which the light of God impinges in human life is sin; and the first test of walking in the light is the recognition and confession of this fact. Such confession is the first step into fellowship with God, because it brings us under the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus, His Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,7);">1Joh 1:7</a>), and makes His intercession available for us (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,1);">1Joh 2:1</a>). But the light not only reveals sin; its greater function is to reveal duty; and to walk in the light is to keep God\'s commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,3);">1Joh 2:3</a>), His word (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,5);">1Joh 2:5</a>), and to walk even as Christ walked (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,6);">1Joh 2:6</a>).<P>(b) Paragraph B, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'7-17\');">1 John 2:7-17</a>:<P>(Walking in the Light tested by love):<P>(i) Positively:<P>The old-new commandment (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'7-11\');">1Joh 2:7-11</a>). Love is the commandment which is "old," because familiar to the readers of the Epistle from their first acquaintance with the rudiments of Christianity (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,7);">1Joh 2:7</a>); but also "new," because ever fresh and living to those who have fellowship with Christ in the true light which is now shining for them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,8);">1Joh 2:8</a>). On the contrary, "He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in the darkness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,9);">1Joh 2:9</a>). The antithesis is then repeated with variation and enrichment of thought (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,10,11);">1Joh 2:10,11</a>). (Then follows a parenthetical address to the readers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'12-14\');">1Joh 2:12-14</a>). This being treated as a parenthesis, the unity of the paragraph at once becomes apparent.)<P>(ii) Negatively:<P>If walking in the light has its guaranty in loving one\'s "brother," it is tested no less by not loving "the world." One cannot at the same time participate in the life of God and in a moral life which is governed by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the vain-glory of the world.<P>(c) Paragraph C, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'18-28\');">1 John 2:18-28</a>:<P>(Walking in the Light tested by belief): The light of God not only reveals sin and duty, the children of God (our "brother") and "the world" in their true character; it also reveals Jesus in His true character, as the Christ, the incarnate Son of God. And all that calls itself Christianity is to be tested by its reception or rejection of that truth. In this paragraph light and darkness are not expressly referred to; but the continuity of thought with the preceding paragraphs is unmistakable. Throughout this first division of the Epistle the point of view is that of fellowship with God, through receiving and acting according to the light which His self-revelation sheds upon all things in the spiritual realm. Unreal Christianity in every form is comprehensively a "lie." It may be the antinomian "lie" of him who says he has no sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,8);">1Joh 1:8</a>) yet is indifferent to keeping God\'s commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,4);">1Joh 2:4</a>), the lie of lovelessness (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,9);">1Joh 2:9</a>), or the lie of Antichrist, who, claiming spiritual enlightenment, yet denies that Jesus is the Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,22);">1Joh 2:22</a>).<P>3. Second Cycle, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'29-\');">1 John 2:29-4:6</a>:<P>Divine Sonship Tested by Righteousness, Love and Belief.<P>The first main division of the Epistle began with the assertion of what God is as self-revealing—light. He becomes to us the light in which we behold our sin, our duty, our brother, the world, Jesus the Christ; and only in acknowledging and loyally acting out the truth thus revealed can we have fellowship with God. This second division, on the other hand, begins with the assertion of what the Divine nature is in itself, and thence deduces the essential characteristics of those who are "begotten of God."<P>(a) Paragraph A, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'29-\');">1 John 2:29</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'1-10\');">3:10a</a>:<P>(Divine sonship tested by righteousness): This test is inevitable. "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,29);">1Joh 2:29</a>). But this new idea, "Begotten of God," arrests for a time its orderly development. The writer is carried away by wonder and thanksgiving at the thought that sinful man should be brought into such a relation as this to God. "Behold what manner of love!" he exclaims. This leads him to contemplate, further, the present concealment of the glory of God\'s children, and the splendor of its future manifestation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,1,2);">1Joh 3:1,2</a>). Then the thought that the fulfillment of this hope is necessarily conditioned by present endeavor after moral likeness to Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,3);">1Joh 3:3</a>) leads back to the main theme, that the life of Divine sonship is by necessity of nature one of absolute antagonism to all sin. This necessity is exhibited<p class="in15">(1) in the light of the moral authority of God—sin is lawlessness (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,4);">1Joh 3:4</a>);<p class="in15">(2) in the light of Christ\'s character, in which there is no sin, and of the purpose of His mission, which is to take away sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'5-7\');">1Joh 3:5-7</a>);<p class="in15">(3) in the light of the diabolic origin of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,8);">1Joh 3:8</a>);<p class="in15">(4) in the light of the God-begotten quality of the Christian life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,9);">1Joh 3:9</a>).<p>Finally, in this is declared to be the manifest distinction between the children of God and the children of the devil (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10);">1Joh 3:10</a>).<P>(b) Paragraph B, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'10-24\');">1 John 3:10b-24a</a>:<P>(Divine sonship tested by love): This test is inevitable (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10,11);">1Joh 3:10,11</a>). The thought is then developed pictorially instead of dialectically. Cain is the prototype of hate (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,12);">1Joh 3:12</a>). Cain\'s spirit is reproduced in the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,13);">1Joh 3:13</a>). Love is the sign of having passed from death into life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,14);">1Joh 3:14a</a>); the absence of it, the sign of abiding in death (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,14,15);">1Joh 3:14,15</a>). In glorious contrast to the sinister figure of Cain, who sacrifices his brother\'s life to his morbid self-love, is the figure of Christ, who sacrificed His own life in love to us His brethren (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,16);">1Joh 3:16a</a>); whence the inevitable inference that our life, if one with His, must obey the same law (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,16);">1Joh 3:16</a>). Genuine love consists not in words, but in deeds (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,17,18);">1Joh 3:17,18</a>); and from the evidence of such love alone can we rightly possess confidence toward God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,19,20);">1Joh 3:19,20</a>) in prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,22);">1Joh 3:22</a>). Then follows recapitulation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,23,24);">1Joh 3:23,24b</a>), combining, under the category of "commandment," love and also belief on His Son Jesus Christ. Thus a transition is made to Paragraph C.<P>(c) Paragraph C, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'24-\');">1 John 3:24b</a> through <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'1-6\');">4:6</a>:<P>(Divine sonship tested by belief): This test is inevitable (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,24);">1Joh 3:24</a>). "We know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us"; and the Spirit "which he gave us" is the Spirit that "confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2);">1Joh 4:2</a>). On the contrary, the Spirit that confesseth not Jesus is the spirit of Antichrist (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,3);">1Joh 4:3</a>) Then follows a characterization of those who receive the true and of those who receive the false teaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'4-6\');">1Joh 4:4-6</a>).<P>4. Third Cycle, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'7-\');">1 John 4:7</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'1-21\');">5:21</a>:<P>Closer Correlation of Righteousness, Love and Belief.<P>In this closing part, the Epistle rises to its loftiest heights; but the logical analysis of it is more difficult. It may be divided into two main sections dealing respectively with love and belief.<P>(a) SECTION I, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'7-\');">1 John 4:7</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'1-3\');">5:3a</a>.<P>(i) Paragraph A, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'7-12\');">1 John 4:7-12</a>:<P>This paragraph grounds more deeply than before the test of love. Love is indispensable, because God is love (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,7,8);">1Joh 4:7,8</a>). The proof that God is love is the mission of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,9);">1Joh 4:9</a>); which is also the absolute revelation of what love, truly so called, is (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,10);">1Joh 4:10</a>). But this love of God imposes upon us an unescapable obligation to love one another (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,11);">1Joh 4:11</a>); and only from the fulfillment of this can we obtain the assurance that "God abideth in us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,12);">1Joh 4:12</a>).<P>(ii) Paragraph B, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'13-16\');">1 John 4:13-16</a>:<P>This paragraph strives to show the inner relation between Christian belief and Christian love. The true belief is indispensable as a guaranty of Christian life, because the Spirit of God is its author (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,13);">1Joh 4:13</a>). The true belief is that "Jesus is the Son of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,14,15);">1Joh 4:14,15</a>). In this is found the vital ground of Christian love (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,16);">1Joh 4:16</a>).<P>(iii) Paragraph C, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'17-\');">1 John 4:17</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'1-3a\');">5:3a</a>:<P>Here the subject is the effect, motives and manifestations of brotherly love. The effect is confidence toward God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,17,18);">1Joh 4:17,18</a>); the motives: <p class="in15">(1) God\'s love to us (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,19);">1Joh 4:19</a>);<p class="in15">(2) that the only possible response to this is to love our brother (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,20);">1Joh 4:20</a>);<p class="in15">(3) that this is Christ\'s commandment (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,21);">1Joh 4:21</a>);<p class="in15">(4) that it is the natural instinct of spiritual kinship (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,1);">1Joh 5:1</a>). But true love is inseparable from righteousness. We truly love the children of God only when we love God, and we love God only when we keep His commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,2,3);">1Joh 5:2,3a</a>).<P>(b) SECTION II, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'3-21\');">1 John 5:3b-21</a>.<P>(i) Paragraph A, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'3-12\');">1 John 5:3b-12</a>:<P>Righteousness is possible only through belief. It is our faith that makes the commandments "not grievous" because it overcomes the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,3,4);">1Joh 5:3b, 4</a>). Then follows a restatement of the contents of the true belief, specially directed against the Cerinthian heresy (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,5,6);">1Joh 5:5,6</a>); then an exposition of the "witness" upon which this belief rests (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'7-10\');">1Joh 5:7-10</a>); then a reiterated declaration of its being the test and guaranty of possessing eternal life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,11,12);">1Joh 5:11,12</a>).<P>(ii) Paragraph B, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'13-21\');">1 John 5:13-21</a>:<P>This closing paragraph sets forth the great triumphant certainties of Christian belief: its certainty of eternal life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,13);">1Joh 5:13</a>), and of prevailing in prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,14,15);">1Joh 5:14,15</a>). Then the writer guards himself by citing an instance in which such certainty is unattainable—prayer for those that sin unto death—and reminds his readers that all unrighteousness, though not sin unto death, is sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,16,17);">1Joh 5:16,17</a>). He then resumes the great certainties of Christian belief: the certainty that the Christian life stands always and everywhere for righteousness, absolute antagonism to all sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,18);">1Joh 5:18</a>); the certainty of the moral gulf between it and the life of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,19);">1Joh 5:19</a>); its certainty of itself, of the facts on which it rests, and the supernatural power which has given perception of these facts (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,20);">1Joh 5:20</a>). With an abrupt, affectionate call to those who know the true God to beware of yielding their trust and dependence to "idols," the Epistle ends.``1';
|
|
isbe[5104]='John, the Epistles of, Part 4-9`IV. Canonicity and Authorship.<P>1. Traditional View:<P>As to the reception of the Epistle in the church, it is needless to cite any later witness than Eusebius (circa 325), who classes it among the books (homologoumena) whose canonical rank was undisputed. It is quoted by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (247-265), by the Muratorian Canon, Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus. Papias (who is described by Irenaeus as a "hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp") is stated by Eusebius to have "used some testimonies from John\'s former epistle"; and Polycarp\'s Epistle to the Philippians (circa 115) contains an almost verbal reproduction of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,3);">1Joh 4:3</a>. Reminiscences of it are traced in Athenagoras (circa 180), the Epistle to Diognetus, the Epistle of Barnabas, more distinctly in Justin (Dial. 123) and in the Didache; but it is possible that the earliest of these indicate the currency of Johannine expressions in certain Christian circles rather than acquaintance with the Epistle itself. The evidence, however, is indisputable that this Epistle, one of the latest of the New Testament books, took immediately and permanently an unchallenged position as a writing of inspired authority. It is no material qualification of this statement to add that, in common with the other Johannine writings, it was rejected, for dogmatic reasons, by Marcion and the so-called Alogi; and that, like all the catholic epistles, it was unknown to the Canon of the ancient Syrian church, and is stated to have been "abrogated" by Theodore (Bishop of Mopsuestia, 393-428 AD).<P>2. Critical Views:<P>The verdict of tradition is equally unanimous that the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle are both the legacy of the apostle John in his old age to the church. All the Fathers already mentioned as quoting the Epistle (excepting Polycarp, but including Irenaeus) quote it as the work of John; and, until the end of the 16th century, this opinion was held as unquestionable. The first of modern scholars to challenge it was Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), who rejected the entire trio of Johannine Epistles as unapostolic; and in later times a dual authorship of the Gospel and the First Epistle has been maintained by Baur, H.J. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, von Soden, and others; although on this particular point other adherents of the critical school like Julicher, Wrede and Wernle, accept the traditional view.<P>3. Internal Evidence:<P>Thus two questions are raised: first, what light does the Epistle shed upon the personality of its own author? And second, whether or not, the Gospel and the Epistle are from the same hand. Now, while the Epistle furnishes no clue by which we can identify the writer, it enables us very distinctly to class him. His relation to his readers, as we have seen, is intimate. The absence of explicit reference to either writer or readers only shows how intimate it was. For the writer to declare his identity was superfluous. Thought, language, tone—all were too familiar to be mistaken. The Epistle bore its author\'s signature in every line. His position toward his readers was, moreover, authoritative. As has already been said, the natural interpretation of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,2,3);">1Joh 1:2,3</a> is that the relation between them was that of teacher and taught. (By this fact we may account for the enigmatic brevity of such a passage as that on the "three witnesses." The writer intended only to recall fuller oral expositions formerly given of the same topics.) The writer is at any rate a person of so distinctive eminence and recognized authority that it is not necessary to remind the readers either who he is or by what circumstances he is compelled now to address them through the medium of writing; their knowledge of both facts is taken for granted. And all this agrees with the traditional account of John\'s relation to the churches of Asia Minor in the last decades of the 1st century.<P>Further, the writer claims to be one of the original witnesses of the facts of the incarnate life: "That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,\'1-3\');">1Joh 1:1-3</a>). To understand the "Word of life" here as the gospel (Westcott, Rothe, Haupt) seems to the present writer frankly impossible; and not less so theories by which the words "what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes," etc., are regarded as utterances of the "faith-mysticism" or the "collective testimony" of the early church. It is difficult to imagine words more studiously adapted to convey the impression that the writer is one of the original, first-hand witnesses of Christ\'s life and resurrection ("that what we beheld, and our hands handled"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,39);">Lu 24:39</a>). At furthest, the use of such language is otherwise compatible with veracity only on the supposition that the writer was recognized by the church as so closely identified with the original witnesses that he could speak of their testimony as virtually his own. But, apart from the presumption that he cannot have been one of the actual disciples of Jesus, there is really nothing to be said for this supposition. So far as the internal evidence is concerned, the ancient and unbroken tradition which assigns it to the apostle John must be regarded as holding the field, unless, indeed, the traditional authorship is disproved by arguments of the most convincing kind. Whether the arguments brought against the apostolic authorship of the Johannine writings as a whole possess this character is too large a question to be investigated here. Yet the kernel of it lies in small compass. It is whether room can be found within the 1st century for so advanced a stage of theological development as is reached in the Johannine writings, and whether this development can be conceivably attributed to one of Our Lord\'s original disciples. To neither of these questions, as it appears to the present writer, is a dogmatically negative answer warranted. If within a period comparatively so brief, Christian thought had already passed through the earlier and later Pauline developments, and through such a development as we find in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is no obvious reason why it may not have attained to the Johannine, within the lifetime of the last survivor of the apostles. Nor, when we consider the nature of the intellectual influences, within and without the church, by which the apostle John was surrounded, if, as tradition says, he lived on to a green old age in Ephesus, is there any obvious reason why he may not have been the chief instrument of that development.<P>V. Relationship to the Fourth Gospel.<P>1. Common Characteristics:<P>The further question remains as to the internal evidence the Epistle supplies regarding its relation to the Fourth Gospel. Prima facie, the case for identity of authorship is overwhelmingly strong. The two writings are equally saturated with that spiritual and theological atmosphere; they are equally characterized by that type of thought which we call Johannine and which presents an interpretation of Christianity not less original and distinctive than Paulinism. Both exhibit the same mental and moral habit of viewing every subject with an eye that stedfastly beholds radical antagonisms and is blind to approximations. There is in both the same strongly Hebrew style of composition; the same development of ideas by parallelism or antithesis; the same repetition of keywords like "begotten of God," "abiding," "keeping his commandments"; the same monotonous simplicity in the construction of sentences, with avoidance of relative clauses and singular parsimony in the use of connecting particles; the same apparently tautological habit of resuming consideration of a subject from a slightly different point of view; the same restricted range of vocabulary, which, moreover, is identical to an extent unparalleled in two independent writings.<P>2. Coincidences of Vocabulary:<P>The evidence for these statements cannot be presented here in full; but the following are some of the words and phrases characteristic of both and not found elsewhere in the New Testament—the Word, joy fulfilled, to see (or behold) and bear witness, to do the truth, to have sin, Paraclete, to keep the word (of God or Christ), to abide (in God or in Christ), the true light, new commandment, little children (teknia), children (paidia), to abide for ever, begotten of God, to purify one\'s self, to do sin, to take away sins, works of the devil, to pass from death into life, murderer, to lay down one\'s life, to be of the truth, to give commandment, to hear (= to hear approvingly), no man hath beheld God at any time, knowing and believing, Saviour of the world, water and blood, to overcome the world, to receive witness, to give eternal life, to have eternal life (in present sense), to believe in the name. The following are some of the terms common to both, which are found very rarely elsewhere in the New Testament: Beginning (= past eternity), to be manifested (9 times in each), to bear witness (6 times in the Epistle, 33 times in the Gospel, once only in Matthew, once in Luke, not at all in Mark), light (metaphorical), walk (metaphorical), to lead astray, to know (God, Christ, or Spirit, 8 times in the Epistle, 10 times in the Gospel), true (alethinos), to confess Jesus (elsewhere only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,9);">Ro 10:9</a>), children of God, to destroy (lauein, elsewhere only in 2 Peter), the spirit of truth, to send (apostellein, of mission of Christ), only begotten son, to have the witness (elsewhere only in Apocrypha), to hear (= to answer prayer).<P>3. Divergences of Vocabulary:<P>On the other hand, the divergences of vocabulary are not more numerous than might be expected in two writings by the same author but of different literary form. The rather notable difference in the choice and use of particles is accounted for by the fact that dialogue and narrative, of which the Gospel is largely composed, are foreign to the Epistle. The discrepancy, when closely examined, sometimes turns out to be a point of real similarity. Thus the particle oun occurs nearly 200 times in the Gospel, not at all in the Epistle. But in the Gospel it is used only in narrative, no occurrence of it being found, e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,\'1-\');">John 14-16</a>.<P>Of the words and phrases contained in the Epistle, but not in the Gospel, the great majority are accounted for by the fact that they are used in connection with topics which are not dealt with in the Gospel. Apart from these, the following may be noted, the most important being italicized: Word of life, fellowship, to confess sins (nowhere else in the New Testament), to cleanse from sin, propitiation (hilasmos, nowhere else in the New Testament), perfected or perfect love, last hour, Antichrist, anointing, to give of the spirit, to have (Father, Son) boldness (Godward), Parousia, lawlessness, seed (of God), come in the flesh, God is love, Day, of Judgment, belief (pistis), to make God a liar, understanding. As regards style and diction, therefore, it seems impossible to conceive of two independent literary productions having a more intimate affinity. The relation between them in this respect is far closer than that between the Acts of the Apostles and the Third Gospel, or even any two of Paul\'s Epistles, except those to the Ephesians and the Colossians.<P>4. Arguments against Unity of Authorship:<P>Arguments for a dual authorship are based chiefly on certain theological emphasis and developments in the Epistle, which are absent from the Gospel; and invariably these arguments have been pressed with complete disregard of the fact that the one writing purports, at least, to be a Gospel, the other, an utterance of the writer in propria persona. If, for example, it is urged that the words "He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins" have a more Pauline ring than any utterance of the Fourth Gospel, or that the conceptions in the Epistle of propitiation, intercession, and cleansing, are presented in a more explicit and technical form than in the Gospel, it is a fair reply to ask, Why not? Is it to be accepted as a canon of criticism that the writer of that Gospel must necessarily have put all his own theological expressions into the mouth of Him whose teaching he proposed to report? Much is made of the assertion that in the matter of the last things the Epistle recedes from the idealism of the Gospel, placing itself more nearly in line with the traditional apocalyptic eschatology. Whereas the Gospel speaks of Christ\'s bodily departure as the necessary condition of His coming again in the Spirit to make His permanent abode with His disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,7);">Joh 16:7</a>), the writer of the Epistle thinks of a visible Parousia as nigh at hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,28);">1Joh 2:28</a>); and whereas the Gospel conceives of judgment as a present spiritual fact (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,18,19);">Joh 3:18,19</a>), the Epistle clings to the "popular" idea of a Judgment Day. But it ought to be noted that in the Epistle, as compared with the Gospel, the eschatological perspective is foreshortened. The author writes under the conviction that "the world is passing away" and that the "last hour" of its day has come (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,17,18);">1Joh 2:17,18</a>). And it is an unwarrantable assumption that he must, if he wrote the Gospel, have been guilty of the manifest anachronism of importing this conviction into it also. Apart from this the fundamental similarities between the eschatology of the Epistle and that of the Gospel are far more striking than the differences. In both, eternal life is conceived of as a present and not merely a future possession. In both, Christ\'s presence is an abiding reality—"Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,3);">1Joh 1:3</a>). If the Gospel speaks of the revelation of Christ as bringing present and inevitable "judgment" into the world, the Epistle is saturated with the same thought. If, on the other hand, the Epistle speaks of a visible future Parousia, this is plainly implied in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,28,29);">Joh 5:28,29</a>. If the Epistle makes a single reference to the Day of Judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,17);">1Joh 4:17</a>), the Gospel has 6 passages which speak of the "last day," and in these the "last day" is explicitly the day of resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,24);">Joh 11:24</a>) and of judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,48);">Joh 12:48</a>). In the two writings different features of the eschatological picture may be made more or less conspicuous; but there is no such diversity as to warrant the hypothesis of a separate authorship. Again, it is urged that in the Epistle the conception of the Logos is modified in the direction of conformity to traditional doctrine. The conception of the personal, preexistent Logos, who "in the beginning was," and "was with God," and "was God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1);">Joh 1:1</a>) was new, it is said, and, because of its Gnostic tinge, suspect; and was therefore avoided and becomes in the Epistle the depersonalized "Word of life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,1);">1Joh 1:1</a>). But why should the "Word of life" necessarily signify anything less personal than the phraseology of the Gospel? The phraseology in both cases is exactly adapted to its purpose. In the Gospel, "in the beginning was the Word...and the Word became flesh" is right, because it sums up the contents of the Gospel, announces its subject, the history of the Incarnate Logos. In the Epistle, the "Word of life" is right, because theme is to be the life, not as to its historical manifestation in Jesus, but as to its essential characteristics, whether in God or in man.<P>5. Conclusion:<P>Other arguments of a similar kind which have been put forward need not be considered. On the whole, it seems clear that, while there are between the Gospel and the Epistle differences of emphasis, perspective and point of view, these cannot be held as at all counterbalancing, on the question of authorship, the unique similarity of the two writings in style and vocabulary and in the whole matter and manner of thought, together with the testimony of a tradition which is ancient, unanimous and unbroken.<P>6. Question of Priority:<P>Regarding the question of priority as between the two writings, the only certainty is that the Epistle presupposes its readers\' acquaintance with the substance of the Gospel (otherwise such expressions as "Word of life," "new commandment" would have been unintelligible); but that does not imply its subsequentness to the composition of the Gospel in literary form. By Lightfoot and others it is supposed to have been written simultaneously with the Gospel, and dispatched along with it as a covering letter to its original readers. In view, however, of the independence and first-rate importance of the Epistle, it is difficult to think of it as having originated in this way; and by the majority of scholars it is regarded as later than the Gospel and separated from it by an appreciable interval. That it was written with a "mediating" purpose (Pfleiderer), to "popularize" the ideas of the Gospel (Weizsacker), or to correct and tone down what in it was obnoxious to the feeling of the church, and at the same time to add certain links of connection (such as propitiation, Paraclete, Parousia) with the traditional type of doctrine, or to emphasize these where they existed (Holtzmann), is a theory which rests on an extremely slender basis; theory that it was written as a protest against Gnostic appropriation of the Fourth Gospel itself (Julicher) has no tangible basis at all.<P>That there was an appreciable interval between the two writings is probable enough. Gnostic tendencies have meanwhile hardened into more definite form. Many, false prophets have gone out into the world. The "antichrists" have declared themselves. The time has come for the evangelist to focus the rays of his Gospel upon the malignant growth which is acutely endangering the life of the church.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Commentaries are numerous and excellent. The most important are those by Calvin, Lucke, Ebrard, Haupt (of fine insight but grievous verbosity), Huther (specially valuable for its conspectus of all earlier exegesis), Westcott (a magazine of materials for the student of the Epistle), Alexander (in the Speaker\'s Commentary), Rothe (original, beautiful, profound), B. Weiss, H.J. Holtzmann, Plummer (in Cambridge Greek New Testament—scholarly and very serviceable); Brooke (in International Critical Commentary, excellent). Among the numerous expositions of the Epistle are those by Neander, Candlish, Maurice, Alexander (Expositor\'s Bible), Watson, J.M. Gibbon (Eternal Life), Findlay (Fellowship in the Life Eternal), Law (The Tests of Life—combined exposition and commentary); among books on Introduction, those by Weiss, Bleek, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Julicher, Zahn, Salmon, Gloag, Peake; and, among books of other kinds, the relevant sections in Beyschlag, New Testament Theology; Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum; Harhack, Geschichte clef altchristl. Litteratur; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity; McGiffert, History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age; Stevens, Johannine Theology and Theology of the New Testament; articles by Salmond in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes); by Schmiedel in Encyclopedia Biblica, and by Haring in Theologische Abhandlungen, Carl von Weizsacker...gewidmet. In German, the fullest investigation of the relationship of the Epistle to the Fourth Gospel will be found in a series of articles by H.J. Holtzmann in the Jahrbucher fur protestantische Theologie (1882-83); in English, in Brooke\'s commentary in Law, Tests of Life, 339-63. See also Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, chapter iii.<P><b>THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES</b><P>1. Canonicity and Authorship:<P>It is not surprising that these brief and fugitive Epistles are among the New Testament writings which have had the hardest struggle for canonical recognition. One is probably, the other certainly, a private letter; and neither the same reason nor the same opportunity for their circulation existed, as in the case of church letters. The 2nd Epistle contains little that is distinctive; the 3rd Epistle is occupied with a vexatious episode in the internal history of a single congregation. Both are written by a person who designates himself simply as "the Presbyter"; and the names of the person (or church) to which the one is addressed and of the church with whose affairs the other is concerned are alike unknown. The fact, therefore, that, in spite of such obstacles, these letters did become widely known and eventually attained to canonical rank is proof of a general conviction of the soundness of the tradition which assigned them to the apostle John.<P>Like all the catholic epistles, they were unknown to the early Syrian church; when 1 John, 1 Peter and James were received into its Canon, they were still excluded, nor are they found even in printed editions of the Syriac New Testament till 1630. They were not acknowledged by the school of Antioch. Jerome distinguishes their authorship from that of the 1st Epistle. They are classed among the disputed books by Eusebius, who indicates that it was questioned whether they belonged to the evangelist or "possibly to another of the same name as he." Origen remarks that "not all affirm them to be genuine"; and, as late as the middle of the 4th century, the effort to introduce them in the Latin church met with opposition in Africa (Zahn).<P>On the other hand, we find recognition of their Johannine authorship at an early date, in Gaul (Irenaeus); Rome (Muratorian Canon, where, however, the reading is corrupt, and it is doubtful whether their authorship is ascribed or denied to the apostle John); Alexandria (Clement, who is reputed by Eusebius to have commented upon them, and who in his extant works speaks of John\'s "larger epistle," implying the existence of one or more minor epistles); Africa (Cyprian reports that 2 John was appealed to at the Synod of Carthage, 256 AD). Dionysius, Origen\'s disciple and successor, speaks of John\'s calling himself in them "the Presbyter." Eusebius, though conscientiously placing them among the antilegomena, elsewhere writes in a way which indicates that he himself did not share the doubt of their authenticity.<P>The internal evidence confirms the ultimate decision of the early church regarding these letters. Quite evidently the 2nd Epistle must have been written by the author of the 1st, or was an arrant and apparently purposeless piece of plagiarism The 3rd Epistle is inevitably associated with the 2nd by the superscription, "\'the Presbyter," and by other links of thought and phraseology.<P>2. The Presbyter:<P>The mention of this title opens up a wide question. The famous extract from Papias (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39) vouches for the existence, among those who were or had been his contemporaries, of a certain "Presbyter" John (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+GOSPEL+OF">JOHN, GOSPEL OF, II, 5</a>). Jerome, moreover, speaks of the two smaller Epistles as, in contrast with the 1st, ascribed to the Presbyter (De Vir. Illustr., ix); Eusebius inclines to ascribe to him the Book of Revelation; and modern critics, like Weizsacker and Harnack, have improved upon the hint by finding in this shadowy personage the author of the Fourth Gospel. Into this far-reaching controversy, we cannot here enter. It may be noted, however, that whether, in the confusedly written passage referred to, Papias really intends to distinguish between John the Apostle and John the Presbyter is a point still in debate; and that Eusebius (Evangelica Demonstratio, III, 5) does not regard the title "Presbyter" as inapplicable to John, but observes that in his Epistles he "either makes no mention of himself or calls himself presbyter, nowhere apostle or evangelist." Dionysius, too, remarks that "in the 2nd and 3rd Epistles ascribed to him, he writes anonymously, as the Presbyter." These Fathers, both exceptionally learned men and presumably well acquainted with primitive usage, saw nothing anomalous, although they did see something characteristic, in the fact, or supposed fact, that an apostle should designate himself by the lowlier and vaguer title. In the very sentence from Papias already referred to, the apostles are called "presbyters"; not to say that in the New Testament itself we have an instance of an apostle\'s so styling himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,1);">1Pe 5:1</a>).<P>To sum up, it is evident that no one desiring falsely to secure apostolic prestige for his productions would have written under so indistinctive a title; also, that these brief and very occasional letters could never have won their way to general recognition and canonical rank unless through general conviction of their Johannine authorship—the very history of these Epistles proving that the early church did not arrive at a decision upon such matters without satisfying itself of the trustworthiness of the tradition upon which a claim to canonicity was rounded; finally, the internal evidence testifies to an authorship identical with that of the 1st Epistle, so that the evidence cited regarding this is available also for those. These letters, along with Paul\'s to Philemon, are the only extant remains of a private apostolic correspondence which must have included many such, and for this reason, apart from their intrinsic worth, possess an interest, material and biographical, peculiar to themselves. We proceed to consider the two Epistles separately, and since an interesting question arises as to whether the 2nd is that referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,9);">3Joh 1:9</a>, it will be convenient to reverse the canonical order in dealing with them.<P>The Third Epistle.<P>This brief note gives a uniquely authentic and intimate glimpse of some aspects of church life as it existed in Asia Minor (this may be taken as certain) somewhere about the end of the 1st century. It concerns a certain episode in the history of one of the churches under the writer\'s supervision, and incidentally furnishes character-sketches of two of its members, the large-hearted and hospitable Gaius, to whom it is written (and whom it is merely fanciful to identify with any other Gaius mentioned in the New Testament), and the loquacious, overbearing Diotrephes; also of the faithful Demetrius, by whose hand probably the letter is sent. The story which may be gathered from the Epistle seems to be as follows. A band of itinerant teachers had been sent out, by the Presbyter\'s authority, no doubt, and furnished by him with letters of commendation to the various churches, and among others to that of which Gaius and Diotrephes were members. Diotrephes, however, whether through jealousy for the rights of the local community or for some personal reason, not only declined to receive the itinerant teachers, but exerted his authority to impose the same course of action upon the church as a whole, even to the<P>length of threatening with excommunication (<a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,10);">3Joh 1:10</a>) those who took a different view of their duty. Gaius alone had not been intimidated, but had welcomed to his home the repulsed and disheartened teachers, who when they returned (to Ephesus, probably) had testified to the church of his courageous and large-hearted behavior (<a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,6);">3Joh 1:6</a>). A 2nd time, apparently, the teachers are now sent forth (<a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,6);">3Joh 1:6</a>), with Demetrius as their leader, who brings this letter to Gaius, commending his past conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,5);">3Joh 1:5</a>) and encouraging him to persevere in it (<a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,6);">3Joh 1:6</a>). The Presbyter adds that he has dispatched a letter to the church also (<a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,9);">3Joh 1:9</a>); but evidently he has little hope that it will be effectual in overcoming the headstrong opposition of Diotrephes; for he promises that he will speedily pay a personal visit to the church, when he will depose Diotrephes from his pride of place and bring him to account for his scornful "prating" and overbearing conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,10);">3Joh 1:10</a>). So far as appears, the cause of friction was purely personal or administrative. There is no hint of heretical tendency in Diotrephes and his party. Pride of place is his sin, an inflated sense of his own importance and a violent jealousy for what he regarded as his own prerogative, which no doubt he identified with the autonomy of the local congregation.<P>The Second Epistle.<P>The letter is addressed to "the elect lady" (better, to "the lady Electa"). Its tone throughout is peculiarly affectionate; there is a warmer rush of emotion, especially in the opening verses, than is characteristic of John\'s usual reserve. But in these verses the keynote of the Epistle is struck—truth. The writer testifies his love for his correspondent and her children "in truth"; this love is shared by all who "know the truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,1);">2Joh 1:1</a>), and it is "for the truth\'s sake which abideth in us, and it shall be with us for ever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,2);">2Joh 1:2</a>). What follows (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,\'4-9\');">2Joh 1:4-9</a>) is in effect an epitome of the 1st Epistle. After declaring his joy at finding certain of her children "walking in truth," he proceeds to expound, quite in the style of the 1st Epistle, what "walking in truth" is. It is to love one another (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,5);">2Joh 1:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'7-11\');">1Joh 2:7-11</a>); but this love is manifested in keeping God\'s commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,6);">2Joh 1:6a</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,2,3);">1Joh 5:2,3</a>); and no less in stedfast adherence to the genuine doctrine of the Gospel (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,23);">1Joh 3:23</a>). "For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,7);">2Joh 1:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,\'1-3\');">1Joh 4:1-3</a>). Then follows an exhortation to stedfastness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,8);">2Joh 1:8</a>), and a warning that whoever in the name of progress departs from this teaching "hath not God," while he who abides in it "hath both the Father and the Son" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,9);">2Joh 1:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,23,24);">1Joh 2:23,24</a>). This leads up to the immediately practical point, a warning to extend no hospitality and show no friendliness to the false teachers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,10,11);">2Joh 1:10,11</a>); and the Epistle closes with the hope of a speedy and joyful meeting "face to face" of the writer and his correspondent, to whom he conveys greetings from the children of her "elect sister." Whether the "elect lady," or "lady Electa" of his letter is a real person or the personification of a church is a point which has been debated from ancient times and is still unsolved. The solution has been found, it is true, if we can accept the hypothesis (put forward by Zahn and Schmiedel and adopted by Findlay) that this is the letter referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,9);">3Joh 1:9</a>. It is urged on behalf of this supposition that the two Epistles are curiously identical in phraseology. In both the writer begins by describing his correspondent as one whom "I love in truth"; in both he uses a distinctive phrase (echaren lian), <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,4);">2Joh 1:4</a>, "I rejoice greatly," not found elsewhere in the New Testament to declare his joy at finding "thy (my) children walking in the truth"; and in both he concludes by saying that he has "many things to write," but that, looking forward to an early interview "face to face," he will not commit these further thoughts to "paper and ink." It is argued that "none but a chancery clerk could have clung so closely to his epistolary formulas" in two private letters written at different periods. But the force of this argument largely vanishes when we look at the formulas in question. If a modern writer may conclude hundreds of friendly letters by subscribing himself "yours sincerely," or something equivalent, why may not the Presbyter have commenced these two and many similar letters by assuring his correspondents that he sincerely loved them? And again, one in his official position must often have had occasion to say that he hoped soon to pay a personal visit, in view of which, writing at greater length was unnecessary. Even if the likeness in phraseology makes it probable that the two letters were written simultaneously, this by no means proves that the one was written to Gaius, the other to the church of which Gaius and Diotrephes were members. Zahn calculates that 2 John would occupy 32 lines, and 3 John not quite 31 lines of ancient writing, and infers that the author used two pages of papyrus of the same size for both letters; but why we are to identify 2 John with the letter mentioned in 3 John because both happen to fill the same size of note paper is not quite clear.<P>On the other hand, the difficulties in the way of this attractive hypothesis are too substantial to be set aside. The two Epistles belong to entirely different situations. Both deal with the subject of hospitality; but the one forbids hospitality to the wrong kind of guests, and says nothing about the right kind, the other enjoins hospitality to the right kind and says nothing about the wrong kind. In the one the writer shows himself alarmed about the spread of heresy, in the other, about the insubordination of a self-important official. Is it conceivable that the Presbyter should send at the same time a letter to Gaius in which he promises that he will speedily come with a rod for Diotrephes (who had carried the church along with him), and another to the church in which that recalcitrant person was the leading spirit, in which he expresses the hope that when he comes and speaks face to face their "joy may be made full"—a letter, moreover, in which the real point at issue is not once touched upon? Such a procedure is scarcely imaginable.<P>We are still left, then, with the question What kind of entity, church or individual, is entitled "the lady Electa"? (See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ELECT+LADY">ELECT LADY</a>, where reasons are given for preferring this translation.) The address of the letter is certainly much more suggestive of an individual than of a church. After all that has been so persuasively argued, notably by Dr. Findlay (Fellowship in the Life Eternal, chapter iii), from the symbolizing of the church as the Bride of Christ, it remains very hard for the present writer to suppose that, in the superscription of a letter and without any hint of symbolism, anyone could address a particular Christian community as "the elect lady" or the "lady elect." On the other hand, the difficulties urged against the personal interpretation are not so grave as sometimes represented. The statement, "I have found certain of thy children walking in truth," does not imply that others of them were not doing so, but emphasizes what had come under the writer\'s personal observation. Nor can we pronounce the elevated and didactic love of the letter more suitable to a church than to an individual without taking into account the character, position and mutual relations of the correspondents. The person (if it was a person) addressed was evidently a Christian matron of high social standing—one able in a special degree to dispense hospitality, and of wide influence, one beloved of "all them that know the truth," whose words would be listened to and whose example would be imitated. And, in view of the ominous spreading of the leaven of Antichrist, it is not difficult to suppose that the Presbyter should write to such a person in such a strain. Nor does there seem to be anything especially odd in the fact of the children of a private family sending their respects to their aunt through the apostle John (Findlay). If he was intimate with that family, and in their immediate vicinity at the time of writing, it appears a natural thing for them to have done. Possibly Dr. Harris\' "exploded" prehistoric countess of Huntington" is not so far astray as a modern equivalent of the lady Electa.<P>LITERATURE.<P>On the 2nd and 3rd Epistles see Commentaries: Lucke, Huther, Ebrard, Holtzmann, Baumgarten, Westcott, Plummer, Bennett, Brooke; Expositions: Findlay, Fellowship in the Life Eternal; S. Cox, The Private Letters of Paul and John; J.M. Gibbon, The Eternal Life.``97';
|
|
isbe[5105]='John, the Revelation of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REVELATION+OF+JOHN">REVELATION OF JOHN</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5106]='Joiada`joi\'-a-da (yoyadha\', "Yahweh knows"; compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOIADA">JEHOIADA</a>):<P>(1) A repairer of the Jerusalem walls (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,6);">Ne 3:6</a>); the King James Version "Jehoiada."<P>(2) Son of Eliashib the high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,10,11,22);">Ne 12:10,11,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,28);">13:28</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5107]='Joiakim`joi\'-a-kim (yoyaqim, "Yahweh raises up"; compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOIAKIM">JEHOIAKIM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOKIM">JOKIM</a>): Son of Jeshua and father of Eliashib, the high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,10,12,26);">Ne 12:10,12,26</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5108]='Joiarib`joi\'-a-rib (yoyaribh, "Yahweh pleads" or "contends"; compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOIARIB">JEHOIARIB</a>):<P>(1) A "teacher" of Ezra\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,16);">Ezr 8:16</a>).<P>(2) A Judahite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,5);">Ne 11:5</a>).<P>(3) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,10);">Ne 11:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,6,19);">12:6,19</a> = <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOIARIB">JEHOIARIB</a> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[5109]='Join`join: Of the New Testament words, kollao, literally, "glue," "weld together," and its compounds, designate the closest form of personal union, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,15);">Lu 15:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,16);">1Co 6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,31);">Eph 5:31</a>. In the words of institution of marriage, suzeugnumi is used (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,6);">Mt 19:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,9);">Mr 10:9</a>, literally, "yoke together"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,24);">Ge 2:24</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5110]='Jokdeam`jok\'-de-am (yoqedhe\'am): An unidentified city of Judah, named with Maon, Carmel and Ziph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,56);">Jos 15:56</a>). It probably lay to the south of Hebron.``1';
|
|
isbe[5111]='Jokim`jo\'-kim (yoqim, "Yahweh raises up"; compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOIAKIM">JEHOIAKIM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOIAKIM">JOIAKIM</a>): A Judahite, descendant of Shelah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,22);">1Ch 4:22</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5112]='Jokmeam`jok\'-me-am (yoqme\'am): A town in Mt. Ephraim assigned to the Kohathite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,68);">1Ch 6:68</a>), named along with Gezer and Beth-horon. Its place is taken by Kibzaim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,22);">Jos 21:22</a> (in Septuagint here the name is omitted). It is mentioned again in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,12);">1Ki 4:12</a> (the King James Version wrongly "Jokneam"), where it seems to indicate some position to the east of Ephraim. So far no identification is possible.``1';
|
|
isbe[5113]='Jokneam`jok\'-ne-am (yoqne\'am): A royal city of the Canaanites taken by Joshua and described as "in Carmel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,22);">Jos 12:22</a>), in the territory of Zebulun, and allotted to the Merarite Levites (21:34). The border of Zebulun "reached to the brook that is before Jokneam" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,11);">19:11</A>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,12);">1Ki 4:12</a> the name appears in the King James Version where, with the Revised Version (British and American), we should read "Jokmeam." Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 6 Roman miles from Lejio (Lejjun) on the way to Ptolemais (Acre). This points to Tell Kaimun, a striking mound on the eastern slope of Mt. Carmel. To the east of it runs the "torrent bed" of the Kishon. It stands about 300 ft. above the valley to the north of it, and the sides are steep. It is crowned by the ruins of an 18th-century fortress. A little lower down are the remains of a small chapel. There are fine springs at the foot (PEFM, II, 69f). In Judith 7:3 it appears as "Cyamon" (Kuamon). It is the "Mons Cain" of the Middle Ages. "In the Samaritan Book of Judges it is noticed as the scene of a conflict between the Hebrews and the Giants; and Joshua is said to have been shut up here in magic walls of brass, till on sending a dove to the Hebrew king of Gilead, he was rescued" (Conder, HDB, under the word).``54';
|
|
isbe[5114]='Jokshan`jok\'-shan (yoqshan, meaning unknown): Son of Abraham and Keturah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,2,3);">Ge 25:2,3</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,32);">1Ch 1:32</a>). Tuch suggested that yoqshan = yoqtan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'25-29\');">Ge 10:25-29</a>); see HDB, under the word; Skinner, Genesis, 350.``1';
|
|
isbe[5115]='Joktan`jok\'-tan (yoqtan, meaning unknown): "Son" of Eber, and "father" of 13 tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,25,26,29);">Ge 10:25,26,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,19,20,23);">1Ch 1:19,20,23</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5116]='Joktheel`jok\'-the-el, jok\'-thel (yoqethe\'el): <P>(1) A city in the Shephelah of Judah named between Mizpeh and Lachish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,38);">Jos 15:38</a>); unidentified.<P>(2) A city in Edom formerly called Sela, taken by Amaziah after the battle in the Valley of Salt, and by him called Joktheel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,7);">2Ki 14:7</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SELA">SELA</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5117]='Jona`jo\'-na.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JONAH">JONAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JONAS">JONAS</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5118]='Jonadab`jon\'-a-dab.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHONADAB">JEHONADAB</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5119]='Jonah`jo\'-na (yonah, "dove"; \'Ionas):<P>(1) According to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,25);">2Ki 14:25</a>, Jonah, the son of Amittai, of Gath-hepher, a prophet and servant of Yahweh, predicted the restoration of the land of Israel to its ancient boundaries through the efforts of Jeroboam II. The prophet lived and labored either in the early part of the reign of Jeroboam (790-750 BC), or during the preceding generation. He may with great probability be placed at 800-780 BC. His early ministry must have made him popular in Israel; for he prophesied of victory and expansion of territory. His native village of Gath-hepher was located in the territory of Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,13);">Jos 19:13</a>).<P>(2) According to the book bearing his name, Jonah the son of Amittai received a command to preach to Nineveh; but he fled in the opposite direction to escape from the task of proclaiming Yahweh\'s message to the great heathen city; was arrested by a storm, and at his own request was hurled into the sea, where he was swallowed by a great fish, remaining alive in the belly of the fish for three days. When on his release from the body of the fish the command to go to Nineveh was renewed, Jonah obeyed and announced the overthrow of the wicked city. When the men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of the prophet, God repented of the evil He had threatened to bring upon them. Jonah was grieved that the oppressing city should be spared, and waited in the vicinity to see what would be the final outcome. An intense patriot, Jonah wished for the destruction of the people that threatened to swallow up Israel. He thought that Yahweh was too merciful to the heathen oppressors. By the lesson of the gourd he was taught the value of the heathen in the sight of Yahweh.<P>It is the fashion now in scholarly circles to treat the Book of Jonah as fiction. The story is said to be an allegory or a parable or a symbolic narrative. Why then did the author fasten upon a true and worthy prophet of Yahweh the stigma of rebellion and narrowness? On theory that the narrative is an allegory, J. Kennedy well says that "the man who wrote it was guilty of a gratuitous insult to the memory of a prophet, and could not have been inspired by the prophet\'s Master thus to dishonor a faithful servant."<P>(3) our Lord referred on two different occasions to the sign of Jonah the prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,\'38-41\');">Mt 12:38-41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,\'29-32\');">Lu 11:29-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,4);">Mt 16:4</a>). He speaks of Jonah\'s experience in the belly of the fish as parallel with His own approaching entombment for three days, and cites the repentance of the Ninevites as a rebuke to the unbelieving men of his own generation. Our Lord thus speaks both of the physical miracle of the preservation of Jonah in the body of the fish and of the moral miracle of the repentance of the Ninevites, and without the slightest hint that He regarded the story as an allegory.``156';
|
|
isbe[5120]='Jonah, the Book of`This little roll of four short chapters has given rise to almost as much discussion and difference of opinion as the first four chapters of Genesis. It would be presumptuous to think that one could, in a brief article, speak the final word on the questions in debate.<P>I. Contents of the Book.<P>The story is too well known to need retelling. Moreover, it would be difficult to give the events in fewer words than the author employs in his classic narrative. One event grows out of another, so that the interest of the reader never flags.<P>1. Jonah Disobedient, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,\'1-3\');">Jonah 1:1-3</a>:<P>When the call came to Jonah to preach in Nineveh, he fled in the opposite direction, hoping thus to escape from his unpleasant task. He was afraid that the merciful God would forgive the oppressing heathen city, if it should repent at his preaching. Jonah was a narrow-minded patriot, who feared that Assyria would one day swallow up his own little nation; and so he wished to do nothing that might lead to the preservation of wicked Nineveh. Jonah was willing to prophesy to Israel; he at first flatly refused to become a foreign missionary.<P>2. Jonah Punished, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,\'4-16\');">Jonah 1:4-16</a>:<P>The vessel in which the prophet had taken passage was arrested by a great storm. The heathen sailors inferred that some god must be angry with some person on board, and cast lots to discover the culprit. When the lot fell upon Jonah, he made a complete confession, and bravely suggested that they cast him overboard. The heathen mariners rowed desperately to get back to land, but made no progress against the storm. They then prayed Yahweh not to bring innocent blood upon them, and cast Jonah into the sea. As the storm promptly subsided, the heathen sailors offered a sacrifice to Yahweh and made vows. In this part of the story the mariners give an example of the capacity of the Gentiles to perform noble deeds and to offer acceptable worship to Yahweh.<P>3. Jonah Miraculously Preserved, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,\'17-\');">Jonah 1:17</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',2,\'1-10\');">2:10</a>:<P>Yahweh prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah and to bear him in his body for three days and nights. Surprised to find himself alive and conscious in the body of the fish, the prophet prayed to his God. Already by faith he speaks of his danger as a past experience. The God who had saved him from drowning in the depths of the sea will yet permit him once more to worship with loud thanksgiving. At the command of Yahweh the fish vomits out Jonah upon the dry land. The almost inevitable grotesqueness of this part of the story is one of the strongest arguments against the view that the Book of Jonah is literal history and not a work of the imagination.<P>4. Jonah\'s Ministry in Nineveh, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',3,\'1-4\');">Jonah 3:1-4</a>:<P>Upon the renewal of the command to go to Nineveh, Jonah obeyed, and marching through the streets of the great city, he cried, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" His message was so brief that he may well have spoken it in good Assyrian. If the story of his deliverance from the sea preceded him, or was made known through the prophet himself, the effect of the prophetic message was thereby greatly heightened.<P>5. The Ninevites Repent, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',3,\'5-10\');">Jonah 3:5-10</a>:<P>The men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah, the entire city uniting in fasting and prayer. So great was the anxiety of the people that even the lower animals were clothed in sackcloth. The men of Nineveh turned from deeds of violence ("their evil way") to seek the forgiveness of an angry God. Yahweh decided to spare the city.<P>6. A Narrow Prophet versus the Merciful God, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',4,\'1-11\');">Jonah 4:1-11</a>:<P>Jonah breaks out into loud and bitter complaint when he learns that Nineveh is to be spared. He decides to encamp near the city to see what will become of it. He hopes it may yet be overthrown. Through a gourd vine Yahweh teaches the prophet a great lesson. If such a mean and perishable plant could come to have real value in the eyes of the sullen prophet, what estimate ought to be put on the lives of the thousands of innocent children and helpless cattle in the great city of Nineveh? These were dearer to the God of heaven than Jonah\'s protecting vine could possibly be to him.<P>II. The Aim of the Book.<P>The main purpose of the writer was to enlarge the sympathies of Israel and lead the chosen people to undertake the great missionary task of proclaiming the truth to the heathen world. Other lessons may be learned from the subordinate parts of the narrative, but this is the central truth of the Book of Jonah. Kent well expresses the author\'s main message: "In his wonderful picture of God\'s love for all mankind, and of the Divine readiness to pardon and to save even the ignorant heathen, if they but repent according to their light, he has anticipated the teaching of the parable of the Prodigal Son, and laid the foundation for some of the broadest faith and the noblest missionary activity of the present generation" (Sermons, Epistles, etc., 420).<P>III. Is the Book History?<p>1. What Did our Lord Teach?:<P>Most of the early interpreters so understood it, and some excellent scholars still hold this view. If Jesus thought of the story as history and so taught, that fact alone would settle the question for the devout believer. On two, possibly three, different occasions He referred to Jonah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,\'38-41\');">Mt 12:38-41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,4);">16:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,\'29-32\');">Lu 11:29-32</a>). It is significant that Jesus brought the two great miracles of the Book of Jonah into relation with Himself and His preaching. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the body of the fish, so should the Son of Man be three days in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah, while the contemporaries of Jesus for the most part rejected His message. It is the fashion now among advanced critics to treat <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,40);">Mt 12:40</a> as an addition to the words of Jesus, though there is no manuscript evidence in favor of regarding the verse as an interpolation. G.A. Smith, among recent scholars, holds the view that Jesus did not mean to teach the historicity of Jonah\'s experience in the fish.<P>"Christ is using an illustration: it matters not whether that illustration be drawn from the realms of fact or of poetry" (BTP, II, 508). In a footnote Dr. Smith says: "Suppose we tell slothful people that theirs will be the fate of the man who buried his talent, is this to commit us to the belief that the personages of Christ\'s parables actually existed? Or take the homiletic use of Shakespeare\'s dramas—\'as Macbeth did,\' or \'as Hamlet said.\' Does it commit us to the historical reality of Macbeth or Hamlet? Any preacher among us would resent being bound by such an inference. And if we resent this for ourselves, how chary we should be about seeking to bind our Lord by it."<P>Notwithstanding Principal Smith\'s skillful presentation of his case, we still think that our Lord regarded the miracles of the fish and the repentance of the Ninevites as actual events. Orelli puts the matter judiciously: "It is not, indeed, proved with conclusive necessity that, if the resurrection of Jesus was a physical fact, Jonah\'s abode in the fish\'s belly must also be just as historical. On this point also the saying, \'A greater than Jonah is here,\' holds good. But, on the other hand, how arbitrary it is to assert, with Reuss, that Jesus regarded Jonah\'s history as a parable! On the contrary, Jesus saw in it a sign, a powerful evidence of the same Divine power which showed itself also in His dying in order to live again and triumph in the world. Whoever, therefore, feels the religious greatness of the book, and accepts as authoritative the attitude taken to its historical import by the Son of God Himself, will be led to accept a great act of the God who brings down to Hades and brings up again, as an actual experience of Jonah in his flight from his Lord" (The Twelve Minor Prophets,172,3).<P>2. Modern Critical Views:<P>Most modern critical scholars since Kleinert (1868) and Bloch (1875) have regarded the Book of Jonah as a work of the imagination. Some prefer to call it an allegory, others a parable, others a prose poem, others a didactic story, others a midrash, others a symbolical book. Keil, Pusey, Delitzsch, Orelli, J. Kennedy and others have contended for the historical character of the narrative. A few treat it as a legend containing a kernel of fact. Cheyne and a few other scholars assert that in the symbolic narrative are imbedded mythical clements. The trend of critical opinion, even in evangelical circles, has of late been toward the symbolical interpretation. Radical critics boldly set aside the teaching of Jesus as erroneous, while the more evangelical take refuge either in the doctrine of the Kenosis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-8\');">Php 2:5-8</a>), or in the principle of accommodation. The last explanation might commend itself to the devout student, namely, that Jesus did not think it worth while to correct the views of his contemporaries, had our Lord not spoken more than once of the sign of Jonah, and in such detail as to indicate His acceptance of the entire narrative with its two great miracles.<P>IV. Authorship and Date.<P>The old view that Jonah was the author is still held by some scholars, though most moderns place the book in the late exilic or post-exilic times. A few Aramaic words occur in the Hebrew text. The question in debate is whether the language of Israel in the days of Jeroboam II had taken over words from the Aramaic. There had certainly been a century of close political and commercial contact between Israel and the Arameans of Damascus, so that it would not be surprising to meet with Aramaic words in a prophet of Samaria. Hosea, in the generation following Jonah, betrays little evidence of Aramaic influence in his style and vocabulary. Of course, the personal equation is a factor that ought not to be overlooked. If the author was a Judean, we should probably have to think of the post-exilic period, when Aramaic began to displace Hebrew as the vernacular of the Jews. The Book of Jonah is anonymous, and we really do not know who the author was or when he lived. The view that Jonah wrote the story of his own disobedience and his debate with the merciful God has not been made wholly untenable.<P>V. The Unity of the Book.<P>Nachtigal (1799) contended that there were three different authors of widely different periods. Kleinert (1868) held that two parallel narratives had been woven together in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',3,\'1-\');">Jonah 3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',4,\'1-\');">4</a>. Kaufmann Kohler (1879) contended that there were a considerable number of glosses and interpolations besides some transpositions of material. W. Bohme, in 1887, advanced the most radical theory of the composition of the roll. He partitioned the story among two authors, and two redactors or supplementers. A few additional glosses were charged to later hands. Even radical critics treat Bohme\'s theory as one of the curiosities of criticism. Winckler (AOF, II, 260ff) tried to improve the story by a few transpositions. Hans Schmidt (1905) subjects the roll of Jonah to a searching criticism, and concludes that a good many changes have been made from religious motives. Budde follows Winckler and Schmidt both in transposing and in omitting some material. Sievers (1905) and Erbt (1907) tried to make of the Book of Jonah a poem; but they do not agree as to the meter. Sievers regards the roll as a unit, while Erbt contends for two main sources besides the prayer in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',2,\'1-\');">Jonah 2</a>. Bewer, in ICC (1912), is far more conservative in both textual and literary criticism, recognizing but few glosses in our present text and arguing for the unity of the story apart from the insertion of the psalm in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',2,\'1-\');">Jonah 2</a>. Nearly all recent critics assign Jonah\'s prayer to a writer other than the author of the narrative about Jonah, but opinions vary widely as to the manner in which the psalm found its way into the Book of Jonah. Bewer holds that it was probably put on the margin by a reader and afterward crept into the text, the copyist inserting it after <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',2,2);">2:2</a>, though it would more naturally follow <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',2,11);">2:11</a>. Bewer remarks: "The literary connections with various post-exilic psalms argue for a post-exilic date of the psalm. But how early or how late in the post-exilic period it belongs we cannot tell. The Hebrew is pure and no Aramaic influence is apparent." It is evident, then, that the presence or absence of Aramaic influence does not alone settle the question of the date of the document. Geography and the personal equation may be more important than the question of date. Bewer recognizes the fact that the psalm in Jonah is not a mere cento of quotations from the Psalms. "The phrases it has in common with other psalms," writes Professor Bewer, "were the common property of the religious language of the author\'s day" (p. 24). Those who still believe that David wrote many of the psalms find no difficulty in believing that a prophet of 780 BC could have drawn upon his knowledge of the Psalter in a prayer of thanksgiving to Yahweh.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Among commentaries covering the twelve Minor Prophets, see especially Pusey (1861), Keil (English translation, 1880), von Orelli (English translation, 1893), Wellhausen (1898), G.A. Smith (1898). Among special commentaries on Jonah, consult Kleinert, in Lange (English translation, 1875); Perowne, in Cambridge Bible (1897); Bewer in ICC (1912). See also C. H. H. Wright, Biblical Essays (1886); H. C. Trumbull, "Jonah in Nineveh," JBL, XI (1892); J. Kennedy, Book of Jonah (1895); Konig in HDB; Cheyne in EB. For more elaborate bibliography see Bewer in ICC, 25-27.``156';
|
|
isbe[5121]='Jonam`jo\'-nam (Ionam, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek; Ionan, Textus Receptus of the New Testament; the King James Version Jonan): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke\'s genealogy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,30);">Lu 3:30</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5122]='Jonan`jo\'-nan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JONAM">JONAM</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5123]='Jonas (1)`jo\'-nas (Ionas; the King James Version, Jonan):<P>(1) Son of Eliasib (1Esdras 9:1).<P>(2) Corresponds in 1Esdras 9:23 to "Eliezer" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,23);">Ezr 10:23</a>.<P>(3) The prophet Jonah (2Esdras 1:39; Tobit 14:4,8).``1';
|
|
isbe[5124]='Jonas (2)`jo\'-nas (yonah, or yochanan; Iona):<P>(1) The name given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,\'39-41\');">Mt 12:39-41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,4);">16:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,\'29-32\');">Lu 11:29-32</a> the King James Version to the Old Testament prophet Jonah (the Revised Version (British and American) renders "Jonah").<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JONAH">JONAH</a>.<P>(2) (Ioanes): The name given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,15,16);">Joh 21:15,16</a> the King James Version to the father of the apostle Simon Peter. Nothing further is known of him, except the different forms of his name. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,42);">Joh 1:42</a> the King James Version he is called Jona (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,17);">Mt 16:17</a> the King James Version). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,42);">Joh 1:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,15,16);">21:15,16</a> the Revised Version (British and American) he is called John, with the marginal note "Gr Joanes." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,17);">Mt 16:17</a> the Revised Version (British and American) Simon Peter is called Simon Bar-Jonah.<P>Jonas may be a contraction for Joanes (Keim). It has also been suggested that the father of Simon may have had a double name, Jona-Johannes (compare F. H. Chase in HDB, article "John, father of Simon Peter").``88';
|
|
isbe[5125]='Jonath Elem Rehokim`jo\'-nath e\'-lem re-ho\'-kim (yonath \'elem rechoqim) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',56,1);">Ps 56, title</a>): "The silent dove of the far ones" (i.e. either of far-off lands, or among aliens), or "The dove of the distant terebinths," in either case indicating the tune to the melody of which the psalm was to be sung.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PSALMS">PSALMS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SONG">SONG</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5126]='Jonathan (1)`jon\'-a-than (yehonathan, yonathan, "Yahweh has given"; Ionathan; compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHONATHAN">JEHONATHAN</a>):<P>(1) (Hebrew yehonathan): The young "Levite" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Judges 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'1-\');">18</a> referred to by name in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,30);">18:30</a>, where he is called "the son of Gershom, the son of Moses," and where the King James Version has "Manasseh" for Moses, following the Massoretic Text in which the letter nun of Manasseh is "suspended."<P>Rashi states the reason thus: "Because of the honor of Moses was the nun written so as to alter the name." The original word was Moses, but it was thought undesirable that a descendant of his should have anything to do with images; and so Jonathan was made to have affinity (metaphorically) with Manasseh. See GB, Intro, 335-38.<P>Jonathan was a Levitical Judahite of Beth-lehem-judah, who came to the house of Micah, in the hill country of Ephraim, and hired himself as a priest in Micah\'s sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-13\');">Jud 17:1-13</a>). The Danites sent 5 men north to spy for new territory, and on their way the spies came to the house of Micah, where they found Jonathan and consulted the oracle through him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'1-5\');">Jud 18:1-5</a>). Having received a favorable answer, they set out and came to Laish, and on their return south they advised that an expedition be sent thither (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'6-10\');">Jud 18:6-10</a>). Their clansmen accordingly sent out a band of warriors who on their way passed by Micah\'s house. The spies informed their comrades of the ephod and teraphim and images there, and they seized them, inducing Jonathan at the same time to accompany them as their priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'11-20\');">Jud 18:11-20</a>). At Laish he founded a priesthood which was thus descended from Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,30);">Jud 18:30</a>).<P>It has been held that there are two sources in the narrative in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Judges 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'1-\');">18</a> (see Moore, Judges, 365-72). The section is important because of the light it throws on life and religion in early Israel. The "Levites" were not all of one tribe (see Moore, op. cit., 383-84); there were priests who claimed descent from Moses as well as Aaronite priests; and images were common in early Hebrew worship (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,30);">Ge 31:30</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,27);">Jud 8:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,13);">1Sa 19:13</a>).<P>(2) Son of King Saul. See separate article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JONATHAN+(2)">Jonathan (2)]</A>.<P>(3) (Hebrew yehonathan, yonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,27,36);">2Sa 15:27,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,17,20);">17:17,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,42,43);">1Ki 1:42,43</a>): Son of Abiathar the priest. He acted with Ahimaaz as courier to inform David of events at Jerusalem during Absalom\'s revolt. It was he who also brought to Adonijah the news of Solomon\'s accession.<P>(4) (Hebrew yehonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,21);">2Sa 21:21</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,7);">1Ch 20:7</a>): Son of Shimei or Shimea, David\'s brother; he is said to be the slayer of Goliath.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHONADAB">JEHONADAB (1)</a>.<P>(5) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,32);">2Sa 23:32</a>, Hebrew yehonathan = <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,34);">1Ch 11:34</a>, Hebrew yonathan): One of David\'s mighty men.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JASHEN">JASHEN</a>.<P>(6) (Hebrew yonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,32,33);">1Ch 2:32,33</a>): A Jerahmeelite.<P>(7) (Hebrew yehonathan, and so <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,25);">1Ch 27:25</a> the King James Version): Son of Uzziah, and one of David\'s treasurers.<P>(8) (Hebrew yehonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,32);">1Ch 27:32</a>): A dodh of David, the Revised Version (British and American) "uncle," the Revised Version margin "brother\'s son"; if he was David\'s nephew, he will be the same as (4) above. He "was a counselor" to David, and "a man of understanding, and a scribe."<P>(9) (Hebrew yonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,6);">Ezr 8:6</a>; 1Esdras 8:32): Father of Ebed, a returned exile.<P>(10) (Hebrew yonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,15);">Ezr 10:15</a>; 1Esdras 9:14): One who either supported (Revised Version (British and American)) or opposed (Revised Version margin, the King James Version) Ezra in the matter of foreign marriages; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAHZEIAH">JAHZEIAH</a>.<P>(11) (Hebrew yonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,11);">Ne 12:11</a>): A priest, descendant of Jeshua (Joshua) = "Johanan" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,22,23);">Ne 12:22,23</a>); see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOHANAN">JEHOHANAN, (3)</a>.<P>(12) (Hebrew yonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,14);">Ne 12:14</a>): A priest.<P>(13) (Hebrew yonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,35);">Ne 12:35</a>): A priest, father of Zechariah.<P>(14) (Hebrew yehonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',37,15,20);">Jer 37:15,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,26);">38:26</a>): A scribe in whose house Jeremiah was imprisoned.<P>(15) (Hebrew yonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,8);">Jer 40:8</a>): Son of Kareah; a Judahite captain who joined Gedaliah after the fall of Jerusalem.<P>(16) (Ionathes, 1Macc 2:5; 9-13; and Inathan 2Macc 8:22; Swete reads Ionathes): The Maccabee surnamed Apphus in 1Macc 2:5, son of Mattathias.<P>(17) Son of Absalom (1Macc 13:11). He was sent by Simon the Maccabee to capture Joppa (compare 1Macc 11:70, where there is mentioned a Mattathias, son of Absalom).<P>(18) A priest who led in prayer at the first sacrifice after the return from exile (2Macc 1:23).``149';
|
|
isbe[5127]='Jonathan (2)`(yehonathan; also yonathan, "Yahweh has given"; Ionathan): The eldest son of Saul, the first king of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin.<P>1. Three Periods:<P>The life of Jonathan, as far as we are told about him, falls naturally into 3 periods.<P>(1) First Period.<P>He comes on the scene as the right hand and lieutenant of his father in his early struggles to beat off the hostile tribes, especially the Ammonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,\'1-\');">1Sa 11</a>), who beset the territory of Israel on all sides. As soon as Saul had gained his first decisive victory, the people rallied to him in great numbers, so that he was able to count upon 3,000 men whenever they took the field. These were divided into two small armies, Saul retaining 2,000 and making Michmash his headquarters, the rest being stationed at Gibeah under Jonathan, some 5 miles distant as the crow flies. Jonathan thus commanded the base, while his father led the fighting force. This position of comparative inactivity does not appear to have been much to the taste of Jonathan. Midway between the two camps was a Philistine outpost at Geba, facing Michmash across the pass of that name, a valley with steep sides, now the Wady Suweinit. Saul does not seem to have felt himself strong enough to commence hostilities against the Philistines, and took means to increase the forces at his disposal. The Philistines no sooner heard that the Israelites had cast off their yoke (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,3);">1Sa 13:3b</a>: for "Let the Hebrews hear," read "The Hebrews have revolted," after the Septuagint), than they came out in great numbers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,5);">1Sa 13:5</a>). They seem to have compelled Saul to evacuate Michmash, which they occupied, Saul falling back on Gibeah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,16);">1Sa 13:16</a>) and Gilgal with a greatly reduced following (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,3,4);">1Sa 13:3,4</a> a seems to be a summary anticipation, in Hebrew style, of the events detailed in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'1-\');">1Sa 14</a>). In spite of this, Jonathan, accompanied only by his armor-bearer, surprised the Philistine outpost at Geba (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,5);">1Sa 14:5</a>, "Gibeah" should be "Geba"), which was killed to a man. This feat precipitated a general engagement, in which the Israelites, whose only weapons appear to have been their farming implements (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,20);">1Sa 13:20</a>), Saul and Jonathan alone being armed with iron swords and spears, routed their enemies. The completeness of the victory was impaired by the superstitious action of Saul in refusing to allow the people to eat until the day was over (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,24);">1Sa 14:24</a>). As this order was unwittingly broken by Jonathan, Saul wished to have him executed; but this the people refused to allow, as they clearly recognized that the credit of the victory was due to the energetic action of Jonathan in striking before the enemy had time to concentrate. (In the Hebrew text there is some confusion between Gibeah and Geba; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,5);">1Sa 10:5</a> margin and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,3);">13:3.</a>)<P>(2) Second Period.<P>The 2nd period of the life of Jonathan is that of his friendship for David. The narrative is too well known to need recapitulating, and the simple tale would only be spoiled by telling it in other words. Jonathan\'s devotion to David was such that he not only took his part against his father, Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,\'1-\');">1Sa 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>), but was willing to surrender to him his undoubted claim to become Saul\'s successor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,\'1-\');">1Sa 20</a>). Their last meeting took place in the "desert" of Ziph, to the south of Hebron, some time after David had been driven into outlawry (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,\'16-18\');">1Sa 23:16-18</a>).<P>(3) Third Period.<P>The 3rd phase of Jonathan\'s life is that of the exile of David, when Saul was directing his energies to combat what he no doubt considered the rebellion of the son of Jesse. During this civil war, if that can be called war in which one of the two sides refuses to take the offensive against the other, Jonathan remained entirely passive. He could not take part in proceedings which were directed against his friend whom he believed to be destined to occupy the place which he himself should in the ordinary course of events have filled. We therefore hear no more of Jonathan until the encroachments of the Philistines once more compelled Saul to leave the pursuit of the lesser enemy in order to defend himself against the greater. Saul\'s last campaign against the Philistines was short and decisive: it ended in the defeat of Gilboa and the death of himself and his sons. The men of Jabesh-gilead, out of gratitude for Saul\'s rescue of their town at the beginning of his reign, crossed over to Beth-shan, on the walls of which town the Philistines had hung in chains the bodies of Saul and Jonathan, and took them down under cover of darkness and carried them to Jabesh. There they burned the bodies after the manner of the primitive inhabitants of the land, and buried the bones.<P>2. His Character:<P>If we may judge from the little which has been handed down to us concerning him, Jonathan must have been one of the finest spirits that ever lived. His character is, as far as our knowledge goes, nearly perfect. He was athletic and brave (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,13);">1Sa 14:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,22,23);">2Sa 1:22,23</a>).<P>3. Military Qualities:<P>He could keep his plans secret when secrecy was necessary in order to carry them to a successful issue (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'1-\');">1Sa 14:1</a>), and could decide on what course of action to follow and act upon it on the instant. His attack upon the Philistine garrison at Geba (or Gibeah, if we adopt the reading of the Septuagint and Targum of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,3);">1Sa 13:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,5);">10:5</a>) was delivered at the right moment, and was as wise as it was daring. If he had a fault, from a military point of view, it may have been an inability to follow up an advantage. The pursuit of the Philistines on the occasion referred to ended with nightfall. In this respect, however, he perhaps cannot be censured with justice, as he never had an entirely free hand.<P>4. Filial Piety:<P>Jonathan\'s independence and capacity for acting on his own responsibility were combined with devotion to his father. While holding his own opinion and taking his own course, he conformed as far as possible to his father\'s views and wishes. While convinced of the high deserts of David, he sought by all means to mitigate Saul\'s hatred toward him, and up to a certain point he succeeded (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,6);">1Sa 19:6</a>). Filial duty could not have been more severely tested than was that of Jonathan, but his conduct toward both his father and his friend is above criticism. Only on one occasion did his anger get the better of him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,34);">1Sa 20:34</a>) under gross provocation, Saul having impugned the honor of Jonathan\'s mother (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,30);">1Sa 20:30</a>, Septuagint) Ahinoam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,50);">1Sa 14:50</a>), and attempted his life. The estrangement was momentary; Saul and Jonathan were undivided in life and in death (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,23);">2Sa 1:23</a> to be so read).<P>5. Friendship for David:<P>But it is as the befriender of David that Jonathan will always be remembered. He is the type of the very perfect friend, as well as of the chivalrous knight, for all time. His devotion to David was altogether human; had it been dictated by a superstitious belief in David\'s destiny as the future ruler of his people (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,17);">1Sa 23:17</a>), that belief would have been shared by Saul, which was not the case (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,31);">1Sa 20:31</a>). In disinterestedness and willingness to efface his own claims and give up his own titles the conduct of Jonathan is unsurpassed, and presents a pleasing contrast to some of the characters with whom we meet in the Bible. In this respect he resembles \'Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, who was the bravest of the brave, save when fighting in his own cause, and who had no ambition to fill the highest posts. So Jonathan preferred to serve rather than to command (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,17);">1Sa 23:17</a>). Jonathan and David stand for the highest ideal of Hebrew friendship, as do Damon and Pythias in Greek literature.<P>6. Inspired Affection:<P>We may be sure that Jonathan won the affection of the people. His squire was ready to follow him anywhere (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,7);">1Sa 14:7</a>). David\'s devotion to him seems to have been sincere, although it unfortunately coincided with his own self-interest. Jonathan appears to have inspired as great an affection as he himself felt (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,41);">1Sa 20:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,26);">2Sa 1:26</a>). His quarrel with his father was largely due to the solicitude of the latter for his son\'s interests (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,29);">1Sa 18:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,31);">20:31</a>).<P>7. His Descendants:<P>Jonathan\'s sons were, in common with his brother\'s, killed in the wars. One alone—Meribbaal (Mephibosheth)—survived. Jonathan\'s posterity through him lasted several generations. A table of them is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,33);">1Ch 8:33</a>ff parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,40);">9:40</a>ff (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,12);">2Sa 9:12</a>). They were famous soldiers and were, like their ancestors, distinguished in the use of the bow (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,40);">1Ch 8:40</a>).``189';
|
|
isbe[5128]='Jonathas`jon\'-a-thas (Swete reads Iathan, in Codex Vaticanus; Nathan, in Codex Sinaticus): The Latin form of the common name "Jonathan" (Tobit 5:13). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JATHAN">JATHAN</a>. It is sometimes represented as Nathan.``1';
|
|
isbe[5129]='Joppa`jop\'-a (yapho, yapho\'; Ioppe): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,46);">Jos 19:46</a> the King James Version called "Japho," a city in the territory allotted to Dan; but there is nothing to show that in pre-exilic times it ever passed into Israelite hands.<P>1. Ancient Notices:<P>"The gate of Joppa" is mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna Letters (214, 32f; compare 178, 20), as guarded by an Egyptian officer for Amenhotep IV. It was conquered by Thothmes III, and old Egyptian records speak of the excellence of its gardens and fruit trees. Sennacherib claims to have taken Jonathas after a siege (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, 2, 93). To Jonathas, the Chronicler tells us, the cedars of Lebanon were brought in floats for transportation to Jerusalem by the workmen of the king of Tyre (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,16);">2Ch 2:16</a>).<P>2. Biblical References:<P>The city does not appear in the history as Philistine, so we may, perhaps, infer that it was held by the Phoenicians, the great seamen of those days. It was doubtless a Phoenician ship that Jonah found here, bound for Tarshish, when he fled from the presence of the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,3);">Jon 1:3</a>). In Ezra\'s time, again, cedars were brought here for the buildings in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,7);">Ezr 3:7</a>). Having been brought by messengers from Lydda to Jonathas, Peter here raised the dead Dorcas to life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,36);">Ac 9:36</a>f). On the roof of Simon\'s house by the sea, the famous vision was vouchsafed to this apostle, from which he learned that the gospel was designed for Jew and Gentile alike (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,1);">Ac 10:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,5);">11:5</a>).<P>3. History from Maccabean Times:<P>The men of Joppa, having treacherously drowned some 200 Jews, Judas Maccabeus fell upon the town "and set the haven on fire by night, and burned the boats, and put to the sword those that had fled thither" (2Macc 12:3ff). Jonathan took the city, in which Apollonius had placed a garrison (1Macc 11:47ff). It was not easy to hold, and some years later it was captured again by Simon, who garrisoned the place, completed the harbor and raised the fortifications (1Macc 12:36f; 13:11; 14:5-34). It is recorded as part of Simon\'s glory that he took it "for a haven, and made it an entrance for the isles of the sea," the Jews thus possessing for the first time a seaport through which commerce might be fully developed. It was taken by Pompey and joined to the province of Syria (Ant., XIV, iv, 4; BJ, I, vii, 7). Caesar restored it to the Jews under Hyrcanus (Ant., XIV, x, 6). It was among the cities given by Antony to Cleopatra (XV, iv, 1). Caesar added it to the kingdom of Herod (vii. 3; BJ, I, xx, 3), and at his death it passed to Archelaus (Ant., XVII, xi, 4; BJ, II, vi, 3). At his deposition it was attached to the Roman province. The inhabitants were now zealous Jews, and in the Roman wars it suffered heavily. After a massacre by Cestius Gallus, in which 8,400 of the people perished, it was left desolate. Thus it became a resort of the enemies of Rome, who turned pirates, and preyed upon the shipping in the neighboring waters. The place was promptly captured and destroyed by Vespasian. The people took to their boats, but a terrific storm burst upon them, dashing their frail craft to pieces on the rocks, so that vast numbers perished (BJ, III, ix, 2-4). At a later time it was the seat of a bishopric. During the Crusades it had a checkered history, being taken, now by the Christians, now by the Moslems. It was captured by the French under Kleber in 1799. It was fortified by the English, and afterward extended by the Turks (Baedeker, Palestine, 130).<P>4. Description:<P>The modern Yafa is built on a rocky mound 116 ft. high, at the edge of the sea. A reef of rocks runs parallel to the shore a short distance out. It may be rounded in calm weather by lighter vessels, and it affords a certain amount of protection. There is a gap in the reef through which the boats pass that meet the steamers calling here. In time of storm the passage is dangerous. On one of these rocks Perseus is said to have rescued the chained Andromeda from the dragon. Yafa is a prosperous town, profiting much by the annual streams of pilgrims who pass through it on their way to visit the holy places in Palestine. A good trade is done with Egypt, Syria and Constantinople. Soap, sesame, wheat and oranges are the chief exports. The famous gardens and orange groves of Jaffa form one of the main sights of interest. The Christians and the Moslems have rival traditions as to the site of the house of Simon the tanner. The remains of the house of Tabitha are also pointed out. From Jaffa to Jerusalem the first railway in Palestine was built.``54';
|
|
isbe[5130]='Jorah`jo\'-ra (yorah meaning uncertain, perhaps "harvest-born"): A family which returned with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,18);">Ezr 2:18</a>) = "Chariph" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,24);">Ne 7:24</a> = "Arsiphurith" (the King James Version "Arzephurith") of 1Esdras 5:16.``1';
|
|
isbe[5131]='Jorai`jo\'-ra-i (yoray, "whom Yahweh teaches"): A Gadite chief, but possibly the name of a clan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,13);">1Ch 5:13</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5132]='Joram`jo\'-ram (yoram, "Yahweh is exalted"; compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHORAM">JEHORAM</a>):<P>(1) Son of Toi (or Tou, according to Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus, and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,9,10);">1Ch 18:9,10</a>), sent by his father to greet David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,10);">2Sa 8:10</a>) = "Hadoram" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,9,10);">1Ch 18:9,10</a>) a form preferred by commentators in 2Sa also.<P>(2) Same as Jehoram, king of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,\'21-24\');">2Ki 8:21-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,2);">11:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,11);">1Ch 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,8);">Mt 1:8</a> Ioram).<P>(3) Same as Jehoram, king of Northern Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,29);">2Ki 8:29</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,15);">2Ki 9:15</a> the Revised Version margin).<P>(4) (In form yoram): A Levite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,25);">1Ch 26:25</a>).<P>(5) (Ioram, 1Esdras 1:9) = "Jozabad" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,9);">2Ch 35:9</a>); see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOZABAD">JOZABAD (4)</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[5133]='Jordan`jor\'-dan (yarden, "flowing downward"; \'Iordanes):<P>1. Source:<P>The Jordan river proper begins at the junction of four streams (the Bareighit, the Hasbany, the Leddan, and the Banias), in the upper part of the plain of Lake Huleh. The Bareighit receives its supply of water from the hills on the west, which separate the valley from the river Litany, and is the least important of the four. The Hasbany is the longest of the four (40 miles), issuing from a great fountain at the western foot of Mt. Hermon near Hasbeiya, 1,700 ft. above the sea, and descends 1,500 ft. in its course to the plain. The Leddan is the largest of the four streams, issuing in several fountains at the foot of the mound Tell el-kady (Dan, or Laish) at an elevation of 505 ft. above the sea. The Banias issues from a celebrated fountain near the town of Banias, which is identified as the Caesarea Philippi associated with the transfiguration. The ancient name was Paneas, originating from a grotto consecrated to the god Pan. At this place Herod erected a temple of white marble dedicated to Augustus Caesar. This is probably the Baal-gad of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,17);">Jos 11:17</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,7);">12:7</a>. Its altitude <span clas="noTag">is</span> 1,100 ft. above tide, and the stream falls about 600 ft. in the 5 miles of its course to the head of the Jordan.<P>2. Lake Huleh:<P>The valley of Lake Huleh, through which the Jordan wends its way, is about 20 miles long and 5 miles wide, bordered on either side by hills and mountains attaining elevations of 3,000 ft. After flowing 4 or 5 miles through a fertile plain, the Jordan enters a morass of marshy land which nearly fills the valley, with the exception of 1 or 2 miles between it and the base of the mountains upon the western side. This morass is almost impenetrable by reason of bushes and papyrus reeds, which in places also render navigation of the channel difficult even with a canoe. Lake Huleh, into which the river here expands, is but 7 ft. above tide, and is slowly contracting its size by reason of the accumulation of the decaying vegetation of the surrounding morass, and of the sediment brought in by the river and three tributary mountain torrents. Its continued existence is evidence of the limited period through which present conditions have been maintained. It will not be many thousand years before it will be entirely filled and the morass be changed into a fertile plain. When the spies visited the region, the lake must have been much larger than it is now.<P>At the southern end of Lake Huleh, the valley narrows up to a width of a few hundred yards, and the river begins its descent into levels below the Mediterranean. The river is here only about 60 ft. broad, and in less than 9 miles descends 689 ft. through a narrow rocky gorge, where it meets the delta which it has deposited at the head of the Sea of Galilee, and slowly winds its way to meet its waters. Throughout this delta the river is easily fordable during a great part of the year.<P>3. Sea of Galilee:<P>The Sea of Galilee occupies an expansion of the Jordan valley 12 miles long and from 3 to 6 miles wide. The hills, reaching, in general, 1,200 or 1,500 ft. above the lake, come down close to its margin on every side. On the east and south they are mainly of volcanic origin, and to some extent of the same character on the northwest side above Tiberias. In the time of Christ the mouth of the river may have been a half-mile or more farther up the delta than now.<P>4. The Yarmuk:<P>As all the sediment of the upper Jordan settles in the vicinity of the delta near Capernaum, a stream of pellucid water issues from the southern end of the lake, at the modern town of Kerak. Before it reaches the Dead Sea, however, it becomes overloaded with sediment. From Kerak the opening of the valley is grand in the extreme. A great plain on the east stretches to the hills of Decapolis, and to the south, as far as the eye can reach, through the Ghor which descends to the Dead Sea, bordered by mountain walls on either side. Four or five miles below, it is joined on the east by the Yarmuk, the ancient Hieromax the largest of all its tributaries. The debris brought down by this stream has formed a fertile delta terrace 3 or 4 miles in diameter, which now, as in ancient times, is an attractive place for herdsmen and agriculturists. The valley of the Yarmuk now furnishes a natural grade for the Acre and Damascus Railroad, as it did for the caravan routes of early times. The town of Gadara lies upon an elevation just south of the Yarmuk and 4 or 5 miles east of the Jordan.<P>Ten miles below the lake, the river is joined on the west by Wddy el-Bireh, which descends from the vicinity of Nazareth, between Mt. Tabor and Endor, and furnishes a natural entrance from the Jordan to Central Galilee. An aqueduct here still furnishes water for the upper terrace of the Ghor. Wddy el-Arab, with a small perennial stream, comes in here also from the east.<P>5. El-Ghor:<P>Twenty miles below Lake Galilee the river is joined by the important Wady el-Jalud, which descends through the valley of Jezreel between Mt. Gilboa and the range of the Little Hermon (the hill Moreh of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,1);">Jud 7:1</a>). This valley leads up from the Jordan to the valley of Esdrelon and thence to Nazareth, and furnished the usual route for Jews going from Jerusalem to Nazareth when they wished to avoid the Samaritans. This route naturally takes one past Beisan (Bethshean), where the bodies of Saul and Jonathan were exposed by the Philistines, and past Shunem and Nain. There is a marked expansion of the Ghor opposite Beisan, constituting an important agricultural district. The town of Pella, to which the Christians fled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, lies upon the east side of the Ghor; while Jabesh-gilead, where the bodies of Saul and Jonathan were finally taken by their friends and cremated, is a little farther up the slope of Gilead. Twenty miles farther down, the Ghor, on the east, is joined by Wady Zerka (the brook Jabbok), the second largest tributary, separating Ammon from Gilead, its upper tributaries flowing past Ammon, Mizpeh, and Ramoth-gilead. It was down this valley that Jacob descended to Succoth.<P>A few miles below, the Wady Farah, whose head is at Sychar between Mts. Ebal and Gerizim, descends from the west, furnishing the natural route for Jacob\'s entrance to the promised land.<P>At Damieh (probably the Adam of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,16);">Jos 3:16</a>), the Ghor is narrowed up by the projection, from the west, of the mountain ridge terminating in Kurn Surtubeh, which rises abruptly to a height of 2,000 ft. above the river.<P>The section of the Ghor between Damieh and the Dead Sea is of a pretty uniform width of 10 to 12 miles and is of a much more uniform level than the upper portions, but its fertility is interfered with by the lack of water and the difficulty of irrigation. From the vicinity of Jericho, an old Roman road follows up the Wady Nawaimeh, which furnished Joshua a natural line of approach to Ai, while through the Wady el-Kelt is opened the natural road to Jerusalem. Both Ai and the Mount of Olives are visible from this point of the Ghor.<P>6. The Zor:<P>In a direct line it is only 70 miles from Lake Galilee to the Dead Sea, and this is the total length of the lower plain (the Zor); but so numerous are the windings of the river across the flood plain from one bluff to the other that the length of the river is fully 200 miles. Col. Lynch reported the occurrence of 27 rapids, which wholly interrupted navigation, and many others which rendered it difficult. The major part of the descent below Lake Galilee takes place before reaching Damieh, 1,140 ft. below the Mediterranean. While the bluffs of the Ghor upon either side of the Zor, are nearly continuous and uniform below Damieh, above this point they are much dissected by the erosion of tributary streams. Still, nearly everywhere, an extended view brings to light the original uniform level of the sedimentary deposits formed when the valley was filled with water to a height of 650 ft. (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARABAH">ARABAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEAD+SEA">DEAD SEA</a>).<P>The river itself averages about 100 ft. in width when confined strictly within its channel, but in the early spring months the flood plain of the Zor is completely overflowed, bringing into its thickets a great amount of driftwood which increases the difficulty of penetrating it, and temporarily drives out ferocious animals to infest the neighboring country.<P>7. The Fords of Jordan:<P>According to Conder, there are no less than 60 fording-places between Lake Galilee and the Dead Sea. For the most part it will be seen that these occur at rapids, or over bars deposited by the streams which descend from one side or the other, as, for example, below the mouths of the Yarmuk, Jabbok, Jalud and Kelt. These fords are, however, impassable during the high water of the winter and spring months. Until the occupation by the Romans, no bridges were built; but they and their successors erected them at various places, notably below the mouth of the Yarmuk, and the Jabbok, and nearly opposite Jericho.<P>Notwithstanding the great number of fords where it is possible to cross at low water, those which were so related to the lines of travel as to be of much avail were few. Beginning near the mouth of the Jordan and proceeding northward, there was a ford at el-Henu leading directly from Jericho to the highlands northeast of the Dead Sea. Two or three miles farther to the north is the ford of the pilgrims, best known of all, at the mouth of Wady Kelt. A few miles farther up the river on the road leading from Jericho to es-Salt, near the mouth of the Wady Nimrin, there is now a bridge where the dependence was formerly upon the ford. Just below the mouth of the Wady Zerka (Jabbok) is the ford of Damieh, where the road from Shechem comes down to the river. A bridge was at one time built over the river at this point; but owing to a change in the course of the stream this is now over a dry water-course. The next important crossing-place is at the opening of the valley of Jezreel coming in from the west, where probably the Bethabara of the New Testament should be located. Upon this ford a number of caravan routes from east to west converge. The next important crossing-place is at el-Mujamia, 2 or 3 miles below the mouth of the Yarmuk. Here, also, there was a Roman bridge. There are also some traces of an ancient bridge remaining just below the exit of the river from Lake Galilee, where there was a ford of special importance to the people residing on the shores of this lake who could not afford to cross in boats. Between Lake Galilee and Lake Huleh, an easy ford leads across the delta of the stream a little above its junction with the lake; while 2 or 3 miles below Lake Huleh is found "the bridge of Jacob\'s daughters" on the line of one of the principal routes between Damascus and Galilee. Above Lake Huleh the various tributaries are easily crossed at several places, though a bridge is required to cross the Bareighit near its mouth, and another on the Hasbany on the main road from Caesarea Philippi to Sidon, at el-Ghagar.``198';
|
|
isbe[5134]='Jordan Valley`1. Physical Peculiarities:<P>As more fully detailed elsewhere (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARABAH">ARABAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEAD+SEA">DEAD SEA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GEOLOGY+OF+PALESTINE">GEOLOGY OF PALESTINE</a>), the Jordan valley in its lower portion occupies a remarkable depression in the earth\'s surface, reaching its greatest depth in the Dead Sea, the surface of which <span class="noTag">is</span> 1,300 ft., the bottom 2,600 ft. below tide level, the portion of the basin below the level of the sea being about 100 miles in length and from 10 to 15 miles in breadth at base, and from two to three times that distance between the bordering summits of the mountains and plateaus on either side. In the early prehistoric period, corresponding with the Glacial epoch, this depression was filled with water to a height of 1,400 ft. (see references above) which gradually disappeared by evaporation as present climatic conditions came on. At an elevation of approximately 650 ft. above the Dead Sea, very extensive sedimentary deposits were made, which, while appearing only in fragments along the shores of the Dead Sea, are continuous over the bottom of the valley (the so-called Ghor), farther north. These deposits are from 100 to 200 ft. thick, consisting of material which was brought down into the valley by the tributary mountain streams descending from each side, while the water stood at this higher level. Naturally these deposits slope gradually from the sides of the valley toward the center, the coarser material of the deposits being nearer the sides, and the amount of sediment being much increased opposite the mouths of the larger streams. The deposit was at first continuous over the entire Ghor, or valley, but has since been much dissected by the Jordan river and its tributaries. The Jordan itself has eroded a channel through the soft sediment, 100 ft. more or less deep, from Lake Galilee to the Dead Sea, a distance in a straight line of about 70 miles. At first this channel was narrow, but it has been constantly enlarged by the stream as it has meandered from side to side, undercutting the banks so that they cave into the river and are washed down to fill up the Dead Sea, a process which is especially familiar to residents upon the banks of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. This narrow gorge is called the Zor, and will hereafter be referred to under this name. The Zor at present averages about 1/2 mile wide, the most of which is occupied by a flood plain extending from the banks of the river to the foot of the sedimentary bluffs on either side. This flood plain is so overgrown with brush and reeds that it is practically impenetrable, except by wild beasts, which, according to Scriptural references, have infested it from earliest times, among which may be mentioned the lion, the tiger, the wild boar. During the spring months, when the snows are melting from Mt. Hermon and cloudbursts are sending sudden torrents of water down the river courses from the plateau of Gilead and the mountains of Samaria, the Jordan "overflows all its banks," i.e. covers this flood plain and drives out the beasts to infest the neighborhood for a short time.<P>The surface of this old lake bed has also been much dissected by the tributary streams which come in from either side, they having cut channels across the Ghor down to a depth corresponding to that of the Zor. As a consequence the roads leading up the valley find it necessary to hug the base of the mountains on either side to avoid the abrupt descent into the channels of the tributary streams, which are deepest near their mouths. Another natural consequence of these physical peculiarities is that agriculture cannot be carried on except as water to irrigate the level surfaces of the Ghor is carried out from the higher levels of the perennial streams. There are many remains of such aqueducts for irrigation constructed in early times. These are now almost all in ruins and unused. Merrill, however, estimates that 200 square miles of the Jordan valley, over which the surface is as level as a prairie, and as free from stones, could be irrigated at the present time and made as fruitful as the valley of the Nile. But from time immemorial settled agriculture in the Ghor has been rendered precarious by the incursions of the nomadic tribes, who periodically come down from the desert regions on the east.<P>2. Descriptions:<P>Two descriptions (the first from my own journal) of the general views obtained of the Jordan valley from adjoining elevated points will give vividness to our conceptions of this remarkable depression.<P>"It was the middle of December when, after wading all day across the southern flanks of Mt. Hermon, through snow knee-deep for our horses, we descended below the clouds and the snow to the brink of the eastern mountain wall overlooking the upper valley of the Jordan. It was a sight ever to be remembered, with the glistering peak of Mt. Hermon to our right, and the jagged walls of the borders of Naphtali stretching across the horizon on the west, only a few miles away, while between and at our feet were the green fields of the upper Jordan valley, through which ran the silver thread of the river, broadening out into the expanded waters of Lake Merom. Over the plain could dimly be seen the black tents of the Arabs, and the husbandmen plowing the fields for an early harvest. No wonder the spies were impressed with the attractiveness and fertility of the region." This of the upper Jordan valley.<P>Dr. Merrill gives the following description of the view of the lower Jordan valley from the summit of Kurn Surtabeh, March 23: "Jebel esh Sheikh (Mt. Hermon) was covered with snow, and so was the Lebanon range farther to the west and north. Lake Merom and the volcanic peaks on the plain to the east of it and south of Hermon were distinctly seen, likewise the Sea of Galilee, the hills about Safed, the hills west of Tiberias and the slope from their summit, which inclines toward Mt. Tabor; also Gamala and Gadara, all the range of Jebel \'Ajlun or hills of Gilead, Kulat er Rubad, Jebel Meisera and Jebel Osha, the mountains of Moab, and the Dead Sea. But the mere naming of different points that can be seen gives no adequate idea of the extent and magnificence of the prospect which one enjoys from the top of this strange landmark. Hills to the west obstruct the view in that direction, and to the east nothing can be seen beyond the highest part of the Moab and Gilead ranges, but it is the north-and-south sweep which makes the prospect a glorious one. No language can picture correctly the Jordan valley, the winding stream, the jungles on its banks, the strange Ghor with its white, ragged sides, the vast plain of the valley, through and in the middle of which the lower Ghor (the Zor) is sunk, the dense green oases formed here and there by some mountain stream, and the still, lifeless sea, as bright and motionless as molten lead, lying far to the south, ending the great valley and touching the mountains on either side! This is an outline merely, but I cannot summon to my aid words which will describe it more accurately. The Jordan valley or Ghor, in front of Surtabeh, is about 8 miles wide, and looks like a vast plain. The lower Ghor (Zor) is the ragged channel cut down along the middle of the large one. This distinction of the upper and lower Ghor is by no means so strikingly defined above the mouth of the Zerka as it is below that point, and all the way thence to the Dead Sea."<P>3. Division into Eight Sections:<P>Considered in detail the valley may be divided, as Conder suggests, into 8 sections. "First the portion between Banias and the Huleh, where it is some 5 miles broad, with steep cliffs some 2,000 ft. high on either side and a broad marsh between. Secondly, from the Huleh to the Sea of Galilee, where the stream runs close to the eastern hills, and about 4 miles from the base of those on the west, which rise toward the high Safed mountains, more than 3,500 ft. above the lake. Thirdly, for 13 miles from the south end of the Sea of Galilee to the neighborhood of Beisan. Here the valley is only 1 1/2 miles broad west of the river, and about 3 on the east, the steep cliffs of the plateau of Kaukab el Hawa on the west reaching an altitude of 1,800 ft. above the stream.<P>"South of Beisan is the 4th district, with a plain west of Jordan, 12 miles long and 6 miles broad, the line of hills on the east being straight, and the foot of the mountains on this side about 2 miles from the river. In the neighborhood of Beisan, the cross-section of the plain shows 3 levels: that of the shelf on which Beisan stands, about 300 ft. below sea-level; that of the Ghor itself, some 400 ft. lower, reached by an almost precipitous descent; and that of the Zor, or narrow trench, from a half to a quarter of a mile wide, and about 150 ft. lower still. The higher shelf extends westward to the foot of Gilboa; it dies away on the south, but on the north it gradually rises into the plateau of Kaukab and to the western table-land above the sea of Galilee, 1,800 ft. above Jordan.<P>"After leaving the Beisan plain, the river passes through a narrow valley 12 miles long and 2 or 3 miles wide, with a raised table-land to the west, having a level averaging about 500 ft. above the sea. The Beisan plain is full of springs of fresh water, some of which are thermal, but a large current of salt warm water flows down Wady Maleh, at the northern extremity of this 5th district.<P>"In the 6th district, the Damieh region, the valley again opens to a width of about 3 miles on the west, and 5 on the east of J. The great block of the Kurn Surtubeh here stands out like a bastion, on the West, 2,400 ft. above the river. Passing this mountain, the 7th district is entered—a broad valley extending from near Fusail to \'Osh el Ghurab, north of Jericho. In this region the Ghor itself <span clas="noTag">is</span> 5 miles broad, west of the river, and rather more on the east. The lower trench or Zor is also wider here and more distinctly separated from the Ghor. A curious geographical feature of this region was also discovered by the Survey party. The great affluents of the Far\'ah and \'Aujeh do not flow straight to Jordan, but turn south about a mile west of it, and each runs, for about 6 miles, nearly parallel with the river; thus the mouth of the Far\'ah is actually to be found just where that of the next valley is shown on most maps.<P>"The 8th and last district is that of the plain of Jericho, which, with the corresponding basin (Ghor-es-Seiseban) east of Jordan, measures over 8 miles north and south, and more than 14 across, with Jordan about in the middle. The Zor is here about a mile wide, and some 200 ft. below the broad plain of the Ghor."<P>4. Climate Fauna and Flora:<P>Owing to its depression below sea-level the climate of the lower Jordan valley is even more than tropical. In the summer months thermometer scarcely falls below 100 degrees F., even in the night; but during the winter months, though the days are hot, thermometer frequently goes down to 40 degrees in the night time.<P>The fauna of this part of the Jordan valley and about the Dead Sea is said by Tristram (SWP, "Fauna and Flora") to be identical with that now existing in Ethiopia. Of the mammalia characteristic of this general region, 34 are Ethiopian and 16 Indian, though there is now no possible connection with either Ethiopia or India. The fish of the Jordan show close affinity to many species of the Nile and of the lakes and rivers of tropical Africa. Many species of birds, also, now confined to the lower basin and the Dead Sea, are related to Ethiopian and Indian species.<P>The flora is equally interesting. Out of 162 species of plants found at the southwest corner of the Dead Sea, 135 species are African in their affinity. In the marshes of Lake Huleh, many acres are covered with the papyrus plant, which became extinct in Egypt long ago, and is now found in Africa only in the Upper Nile beyond the 7th degree of North latitude. The most common trees and plants of the Jordan valley are the castor-oil plant and the oleander, flourishing especially about Jericho, several varieties of the acacia tree, the caper plant, the Dead Sea apple (Solanum Sodomaeum) the oser tree of the Arabs, tamarisks, Agnus casti (a flowering bamboo), Balanites Aegyptiaca (supposed to be the balm of Gilead), Populus Euphratica (a plant found all over Central Asia but not west of the Jordan), and many tropical plants, among which may be mentioned Zygophyllum coccineum, Boerhavia, Indigofera, several Astragali, Cassias, Gymnocarpum, and Nitraria.``198';
|
|
isbe[5135]='Joribus`jor\'i-bus (Ioribos; the King James Version, Joribas):<P>(1) In 1Esdras 8:44, called "Jarib" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,16);">Ezr 8:16</a>.<P>(2) In 1Esdras 9:19, called "Jarib" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,18);">Ezr 10:18</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[5136]='Jorim`jor\'-rim (Ioreim from yehoram, yoram): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke\'s genealogy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,29);">Lu 3:29</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5137]='Jorkeam`jor\'-ke-am (yorqe\'am; the King James Version Jorkoam): This is probably to be taken as the name of a town, the "father" or "founder" of which was Raham (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,44);">1Ch 2:44</a>). It may be identical with "Jokdeam" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,56);">Jos 15:56</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[5138]='Josabad`jos\'-a-bad.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOZABAD">JOZABAD</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5139]='Josabdus`jo-sab\'-dus (Iosabdos, 1Esdras 8:63; probably identical with Iozabados, in <span class="noTag">9:23</span>): The same as Jozabad of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,33);">Ezr 8:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,23);">10:23</a> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[5140]='Josaphat`jos\'-a-fat (Iosaphat, the King James Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,8);">Mt 1:8</a> for <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOSHAPHAT">JEHOSHAPHAT</a> (which see)): A king of Judah, mentioned in Matthew\'s genealogy of Christ.``1';
|
|
isbe[5141]='Josaphias`jos-a-fi\'-as (Iosaphias, 1Esdras 8:36): Called "Josephiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,10);">Ezr 8:10</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[5142]='Jose`jo\'-se (Iose): the King James Version form for "Jesus" (Iesous) in Luke\'s genealogy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,29);">Lu 3:29</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) Greek.``1';
|
|
isbe[5143]='Josech`jo\'-sek (Iosech, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek; Ioseph, Textus Receptus of the New Testament; the King James Version, Joseph): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke\'s genealogy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,26);">Lu 3:26</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5144]='Josedech; Josedek`jos\'-e-dek, jos\'e-dek (Iosedek): Father of Jeshua (1Esdras 5:5). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,1);">Hag 1:1</a> the Revised Version (British and American), the relationship is described as "Joshua the son of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOZADAK">JEHOZADAK</a> (which see), the high priest."``1';
|
|
isbe[5145]='Joseph (1)`jo\'-zef (yoceph; Ioseph):<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P class="in15">(1) The 11th son of Jacob and 1st of Rachel (see separate article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH+(2)">Joseph (2)</a>).<P class="in15">(2) The father of Igal of Issachar, one of the 12 spies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,7);">Nu 13:7</a>).<P class="in15">(3) A son of Asaph (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,2,9);">1Ch 25:2,9</a>).<P class="in15">(4) A man of the sons of Bani, who had married a foreign wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,42);">Ezr 10:42</a>).<P class="in15">(5) A priest of the family of Shebaniah in the days of Joiakim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,14);">Ne 12:14</a>).<P>2. In the Apocrypha:<P class="in15">(1) Son of Zacharias, defeated by Gorgias circa 164 BC (1Macc 5:18,56,60).<P class="in15">(2) Called a brother of Judas Maccabeus in 2Macc 8:22, probably by mistake for John.<P class="in15">(3) Great-grandfather of Judith (Judith 8:1).<P>3. In the New Testament:<P class="in15">(1) The husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus (see special article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH,+HUSBAND+OF+MARY">Joseph, Husband of Mary</a>).<P class="in15">(2, 3) The name of 3 ancestors of Jesus according to the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,24,26,30);">Lu 3:24,26,30</a>); the name of two according to the Revised Version (British and American), which reads "Josech" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,26);">Lu 3:26</a>.<P class="in15">(4) A Jew of Arimathea in whose sepulcher Jesus was buried (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,57);">Mt 27:57</a>, etc.; see article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH+OF+ARIMATHAEA">Joseph of Arimathaea</A>).<P class="in15">(5) One of the brethren of Jesus, according to the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,55);">Mt 13:55</a>, the King James Version "Joses"). the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) both have "Joses" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,56);">Mt 27:56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,3);">Mr 6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40,47);">15:40,47</a>.<P class="in15">(6) Joseph Barsabbas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,23);">Ac 1:23</a>; see article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH+BARSABBAS">Joseph Barsabbas</a>).<P class="in15">(7) Joseph, surnamed Barnabas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,36);">Ac 4:36</a>, the King James Version "Joses"; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BARNABAS">BARNABAS</a>].``78';
|
|
isbe[5146]='Joseph (2)`jo\'-zef (yoceph, "He will add"; Septuagint Ioseph). The narrative (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,23,24);">Ge 30:23,24</a>) indicates not so much a double etymology as the course of Rachel\'s thoughts. The use of \'acaph, "He takes away," suggested to her mind by its form in the future, yoceph, "He will add," "And she called his name Joseph, saying, Yahweh add to me another son"):<P><b>I. THE JOSEPH STORY, A LITERARY QUESTION</b><P class="in15">1. An Independent Original or an Adaptation?<P class="in15">2. A Monograph or a Compilation?<P class="in30">(1) An Analytical Theory Resolving It into a Mere Compilation<P class="in30">(2) A Narrative Full of Gems<P class="in30">(3) The Argument from Chronology Supporting It as a Monograph<P><b>II. THE STORY OF JOSEPH, A BIOGRAPHY</b><P class="in15">1. A Bedouin Prince in Canaan<P class="in15">2. A Bedouin Slave in Egypt<P class="in15">3. The Bedouin Slave Becomes Again the Bedouin Prince<P class="in15">4. The Prime Minister<P class="in15">5. The Patriarch<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The eleventh son of Jacob. The Biblical narrative concerning Joseph presents two subjects for consideration, the Joseph story, a literary question, and the story of Joseph, a biography. It is of the first importance to consider these questions in this order.<P>Cheyne in Encyclopedia Biblica reaches such conclusions concerning the Joseph story that the story of Joseph is mutilated almost beyond recognition as a biography at all. Driver in HDB holds that the Joseph story was "in all probability only committed to writing 700-800 years" later than the time to which Joseph is attributed, points out that Joseph\'s name was also the name of a tribe, and concludes that "the first of these facts at once destroys all guarantee that we possess in the Joseph narrative a literal record of the facts," and that "the second fact raises the further question whether the figure of Joseph, in part or even as a whole, is a reflection of the history and characteristics of the tribe projected upon the past in the individual form." But he draws back from this view and thinks it "more probable that there was an actual person Joseph, afterward...rightly or wrongly regarded as the ancestor of the tribe...who underwent substantially the experience recounted of him in Genesis." In the presence of such critical notions concerning the literature in which the narrative of Joseph is embodied, it is clear that until we have reached some conclusions concerning the Joseph story, we cannot be sure that there is any real story of Joseph to relate.<P>I. The Joseph Story, a Literary Question.<P>1. An Independent Original or an Adaptation?:<P>This literary problem will be solved, if satisfactory answers may be found to two questions: Is it an independent original or an adaptation? Suitable material for such an adaptation as would produce a Joseph story has been sought at either end of the line of history: Joseph the progenitor and Joseph the tribe. The only contestant for the claim of being an early original of which the Joseph story might be an adaptation is the nasty "Tale of Two Brothers" (RP, series I, volume II, 137-46). This story in its essential elements much resembles the Joseph story. But such events as it records are common: why not such stories?<P>What evidence does this "Tale of Two Brothers" afford that the Joseph story is not an independent original? Are we to suppose that because many French romances involve the demi-monde, there was therefore no Madame de Pompadour? Are court scandals so unheard of that ancient Egypt cannot afford two? And why impugn the genuineness of the Joseph story because the "Tale of Two Brothers" resembles it? Is anyone so ethereal in his passions as not to know by instinct that the essential elements of such scandal are always the same? The difference in the narrative is chiefly in the telling. At this latter point the Joseph story and the "Tale of Two Brothers" bear no resemblance whatever.<P>If the chaste beauty of the Biblical story be observed, and then one turn to the "Tale of Two Brothers" with sufficient knowledge of the Egyptian tongue to perceive the coarseness and the stench of it, there can be no question that the Joseph story is independent of such a literary source. To those who thus sense both stories, the claim of the "Tale of Two Brothers" to be the original of the Joseph story cannot stand for a moment. If we turn from Joseph the progenitor to Joseph the tribe, still less will the claim that the story is an adaptation bear careful examination. The perfect naturalness of the story, the utter absence from its multitudinous details of any hint of figurative language, such as personification always furnishes, and the absolutely accurate reflection in the story of the Egypt of Joseph\'s day, as revealed by the many discoveries of which people of 700-800 years later could not know, mark this theory of the reflection of tribal history and characteristics as pure speculation. And besides, where in all the history of literature has it been proven that a tribe has been thus successfully thrown back upon the screen of antiquity in the "individual form"? Similar mistakes concerning Menes and Minos and the heroes of Troy are a warning to us. Speculation is legitimate, so long as it does not cut loose from known facts, but gives no one the right to suppose the existence in unknown history of something never certainly found in known history. So much for the first question.<P>2. A Monograph or a Compilation?:<P>Is it a monograph or a compilation? The author of a monograph may make large use of literary materials, and the editor of a compilation may introduce much editorial comment. Thus, superficially, these different kinds of composition may much resemble each other, yet they are, in essential character, very different the one from the other. A compilation is an artificial body, an automaton; a monograph is a natural body with a living soul in it. This story has oriental peculiarities of repetition and pleonastic expression, and these things have been made much of in order to break up the story; to the reader not seeking grounds of partition, it is one of the most unbroken, simply natural and unaffected pieces of narrative literature in the world. If it stood alone or belonged to some later portion of Scripture, it may well be doubted that it would ever have been touched by the scalpel of the literary dissector. But it belongs to the Pentateuch. There are manifest evidences all over the Pentateuch of the use by the author of material, either documentary or of that paradoxical unwritten literature which the ancients handed down almost without the change of a word for centuries.<P>(1) An Analytical Theory Resolving It into a Mere Compilation.<P>An analytical theory has been applied to the Pentateuch as a whole, to resolve it into a mere compilation. Once the principles of this theory are acknowledged, and allowed sway there, the Joseph story cannot be left untouched, but becomes a necessary sacrifice to the system. A sight of the lifeless, ghastly fragments of the living, moving Joseph story which the analysis leaves behind (compare EB, article "Joseph") proclaims that analysis to have been murder. There was a life in the story which has been ruthlessly taken, and that living soul marked the narrative as a monograph.<P>(2) A Narrative Full of Gems.<P>Where else is to be found such a compilation? Here is one of the most brilliant pieces of literature in the world, a narrative full of gems:<P>(a) the account of the presentation of the brothers in the presence of Joseph when he was obliged to go out to weep (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,\'26-34\');">Ge 43:26-34</a>), and<P>(b) the scene between the terrified brothers of Joseph and the steward of his house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,\'6-13\');">Ge 44:6-13</a>),<P>(c) Judah\'s speech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,\'18-34\');">Ge 44:18-34</a>),<P>(d) the touching close of the revelation of Joseph to his brothers at last (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,\'1-15\');">Ge 45:1-15</a>).<P>The soul of the whole story breathes through all of these. Where in all literature, ancient or modern, is to be found a mere compilation that is a great piece of literature? So far removed is this story from the characteristics of a compilation, that we may challenge the world of literature to produce another monograph in narrative literature that surpasses it.<P>(3) The Argument from Chronology Supporting It as a Monograph<P>Then the dates of Egyptian names and events in this narrative strongly favor its origin so early as to be out of the reach of the compilers. That attempts at identification in Egyptian of names written in Hebrew, presenting as they do the peculiar difficulties of two alphabets of imperfectly known phonetic values and uncertain equivalency of one in terms of the other, should give rise to differences of opinion, is to be expected. The Egyptian equivalents of Zaphenath-paneah and Asenath have been diligently sought, and several identifications have been, suggested (Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs, 122; Budge, History of Egypt, V, 126-27). That which is most exact phonetically and yields the most suitable and natural meaning for Zaphenath-paneah is by Lieblein (PSBA,1898,204-8). It is formed like four of the names of Hyksos kings before the time of Joseph, and means "the one who furnishes the nourishment of life," i.e. the steward of the realm. The name Asenath is found from the XIth Dynasty on to the XVIIIth. Potiphar is mentioned as an Egyptian. Why not of course an Egyptian? The narrative also points distinctly to conditions obtaining under the Hyksos kings. When the people were like to perish for want of food they promised Joseph in return for help that they would be "servants of Pharaoh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,\'18-25\');">Ge 47:18-25</a>). This suggests a previous antagonism to the government, such as the Hyksos kings had long to contend with in Egypt. But the revolution which drove out the Hyksos labored so effectually to eradicate every trace of the hated foreigners that it is with the utmost difficulty that modern Egyptological research has wrested from the past some small items of information concerning them. Is it credible that the editor of scraps, which were themselves not written down until some 700-800 years later, should have been able to produce such a life-story fitting into the peculiar conditions of the times of the Hyksos? Considered as an independent literary problem on its own merits, aside from any entangling necessities of the analytical theory of the Pentateuch, the Joseph story must certainly stand as a monograph from some time within distinct memory of the events it records. If the Joseph story be an independent original and a monograph, then there is in reality to be considered the story of Joseph.<P>II. The Story of Joseph, a Biography.<P>It is unnecessary to recount here all the events of the life of Joseph, a story so incomparably told in the Biblical narrative. It will be sufficient to touch only the salient points where controversy has raged, or at which archaeology has furnished special illumination. The story of Joseph begins the tenth and last natural division of Genesis in these words: "The generations of Jacob" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,2);">Ge 37:2</a>). Up to this point the unvarying method of Genesis is to place at the head of each division the announcement "the generations of" one of the patriarchs, followed immediately by a brief outline of the discarded line of descent, and then to give in detail the account of the chosen line.<P>There is to be now no longer any discarded line of descent. All the sons of Jacob are of the chosen people, the depository of the revelation of redemption. So this division of Genesis begins at once with the chosen line, and sets in the very foreground that narrative which in that generation is most vital in the story of redemption, this story of Joseph beginning with the words, "Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,2);">Ge 37:2</a>). Joseph had been born in Haran, the firstborn of the beloved Rachel, who died at the birth of her second son Benjamin. A motherless lad among the sons of other mothers felt the jealousies of the situation, and the experience became a temptation. The "evil report" of his brethren was thus naturally carried to his father, and quite as naturally stirred up those family jealousies which set his feet in the path of his great career (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'2-4\');">Ge 37:2-4</a>). In that career he appears as a Bedouin prince in Canaan.<P>1. A Bedouin Prince in Canaan:<P>The patriarchs of those times were all sheiks or princes of those semi-nomadic rovers who by the peculiar social and civil customs of that land were tolerated then as they are to this day under the Turkish government in the midst of farms and settled land tenure. Jacob favored Rachel and her children. He put them hindermost at the dangerous meeting with Esau, and now he puts on Joseph a coat of many colors (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,3);">Ge 37:3</a>). The appearance of such a coat a little earlier in the decoration of the tombs of Benichassan among Palestinian ambassadors to Egypt probably indicates that this garment was in some sense ceremonial, a token of rank. In any case Joseph, the son of Jacob, was a Bedouin prince. Did the father by this coat indicate his intention to give him the precedence and the succession as chieftain of the tribe? It is difficult otherwise to account for the insane jealousy of the older brethren (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,4);">Ge 37:4</a>). According to the critical partition of the story, Joseph\'s dreams may be explained away as mere reflections or adaptations of the later history of Joseph (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH">PENTATEUCH</a>). In a real biography the striking providential significance of the dreams appears at once. They cannot be real without in some sense being prophetic. On the other hand they cannot be other than real without vitiating the whole story as a truthful narrative, for they led immediately to the great tragedy; a Bedouin prince of Canaan becomes a Bedouin slave in Egypt.<P>2. A Bedouin Slave in Egypt:<P>The plot to put Joseph out of the way, the substitution of slavery for death, and the ghastly device for deceiving Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'18-36\');">Ge 37:18-36</a>) are perfectly natural steps in the course of crime when once the brothers had set out upon it. The counterplot of Reuben to deliver Joseph reflects equally his own goodness and the dangerous character of the other brothers to whom he did not dare make a direct protest.<P>Critical discussion of "Ishmaelites" and "Midianites" and "Medanites" presents some interesting things and many clever speculations which may well be considered on their own merits by those interested in ethnology and etymologies. Many opinions advanced may prove to be correct. But let it be noted that they arc for the most part pure speculation. Almost nothing is known of the interrelation of the trans-Jordanic tribes in that age other than the few hints in the Bible. And who can say what manner of persons might be found in a caravan which had wandered about no one knows where, or how long, to pick up trade before it turned into the northern caravan route? Until archaeology supplies more facts it is folly to attach much importance to such speculations (Kyle, The Deciding Voice of the Monuments in Biblical Criticism, 221).<P>In the slave market in Egypt, Joseph was bought by Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, "an Egyptian." The significant mention of this fact fits exactly into a place among the recovered hints of the history of those times, which make the court then to be not Egyptian at all, but composed of foreigners, the dynasty of Hyksos kings among whom an "Egyptian" was so unexpected as to have his nationality mentioned.<P>Joseph\'s native nobility of character, the pious training he had received in his father\'s house, and the favor of God with him gave him such prosperity that his master entrusted all the affairs of his household to him, and when the greatest of temptations assails him he comes off victorious (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">Genesis 39</a>). There is strong ground for the suspicion that Potiphar did not fully believe the accusation of his wife against Joseph. The fact that Joseph was not immediately put to death is very significant. Potiphar could hardly do less than shut him up for the sake of appearances, and perhaps to take temptation away from his wife without seeming to suspect her. It is noticeable also that Joseph\'s character soon triumphed in prison. Then the same Providence that superintended his dreams is leading so as to bring him before the king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,\'1-\');">Genesis 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'1-\');">41</a>).<P>3. The Bedouin Slave Becomes Again the Bedouin Prince:<P>The events of the immediately preceding history prepared Joseph\'s day: the Hyksos kings on the throne, those Bedouin princes, "shepherd kings" (Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities), the enmity of the Egyptians against this foreign dynasty so that they accounted every shepherd an "abomination" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,34);">Ge 46:34</a>), the friendly relation thus created between Palestinian tribes and Egypt, the princely character of Joseph, for among princes a prince is a prince however small his principality, and last of all the manifest favor of God toward Joseph, and the evident understanding by the Pharaohs of Semitic religion, perhaps even sympathy with it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,39);">Ge 41:39</a>). All these constitute one of the most majestic, Godlike movements of Providence revealed to us in the word of God, or evident anywhere in history. The same Providence that presided over the boy prince in his father\'s house came again to the slave prince in the Egyptian prison. The interpretation of the dreams of the chief butler and the chief baker of Pharaoh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,\'1-\');">Ge 40</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'1-24\');">41:1-24</a>) brought him at last through much delay and selfish forgetfulness to the notice of the king, and another dream in which the same cunning hand of Providence is plainly seen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'1-\');">Genesis 41</a>) is the means of bringing Joseph to stand in the royal presence. The stuff that dreams are made of interests scarcely less than the Providence that was superintending over them. As the harvest fields of the semi-nomadic Bedouin in Palestine, and the household routine of Egypt in the dreams of the chief butler and the chief baker, so now the industrial interests and the religious forms of the nation appear in the dreams of Pharaoh. The "seven kine" of the goddess Hathor supplies the number of the cows, and the doubling of the symbolism in the cattle and the grain points to the two great sources of Egypt\'s welfare. The Providence that had shaped and guided the whole course of Joseph from the Palestinian home was consummated when, with the words, "Inasmuch as thou art a man in whom is the spirit of God," Pharaoh lifted up the Bedouin slave to be again the Bedouin prince and made him the prime minister.<P>4. The Prime Minister:<P>The history of "kings\' favorites" is too well known for the elevation of Joseph to be in itself incredible. Such things are especially likely to take place among the unlimited monarchies of the Orient. The late empress of China had been a Chinese slave girl. The investiture of Joseph was thoroughly Egyptian—the "collar," the signet "ring," the "chariot" and the outrunners who cried before him "Abrech." The exact meaning of this word has never been certainly ascertained, but its general import may be seen illustrated to this day wherever in the East royalty rides out. The policy adopted by the prime minister was far-reaching, wise, even adroit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'25-36\');">Ge 41:25-36</a>). It is impossible to say whether or not it was wholly just, for we cannot know whether the corn of the years of plenty which the government laid up was bought or taken as a taxlevy. The policy involved some despotic power, but Joseph proved a magnanimous despot. The deep and subtle statesmanship in Joseph\'s plan does not fully appear until the outcome. It was probably through the policy of Joseph, the prime minister, that the Hyksos finally gained the power over the people and the mastery of the land.<P>Great famines have not been common in Egypt, but are not unknown. The only one which corresponds well to the Bible account is that one recorded in the inscription of Baba at el Kab, translated by Brugsch. Some scarcely justifiable attempts have been made to discredit Brugsch in his account of that inscription. The monument still remains and is easily visited, but the inscription is so mutilated that it presents many difficulties. The severity of the famine, the length of its duration, the preparation by the government, the distribution to the people, the success of the efforts for relief and even the time of the famine, as far as it can be determined, correspond well to the Bible account (Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs, chapter vi). The way in which such famines in Egypt come about has been explained by a movement of the sudd, a sedgelike growth in the Nile, so as to clog the upper river (Wright, Scientific Confirmations, 70-79).<P>Joseph\'s brethren came "with those that came," i.e. with the food caravans. The account does not imply that the prime minister presided in person at the selling of grain, but only that he knew of the coming of his brethren and met them at the market place. The watchfulness of the government against "spies," by the careful guarding of the entrances to the land, may well have furnished him with such information. Once possessed with it, all the rest of the story of the interviews follows naturally (compare traditions of Joseph, Jewish Encyclopedia).<P>The long testing of the brethren with the attendant delay in the relief of the father Jacob and the family (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,\'1-\');">Genesis 42-45</a>) has been the subject of much discussion, and most ingenious arguments for the justification of Joseph. All this seems unnecessary. Joseph was not perfect, and there is no claim of perfection made for him in the Bible. Two things are sufficient to be noted here: one that Joseph was ruler as well as brother, with the habits of a ruler of almost unrestrained power and authority and burdened with the necessity for protection and the obligation to mete out justice; the other that the deliberateness, the vexatious delays, the subtle diplomacy and playing with great issues are thoroughly oriental. It may be also that the perplexities of great minds make them liable to such vagaries. The career of Lincoln furnishes some curious parallels in the parleying with cases long after the great president\'s mind was fully made up and action taken.<P>The time of these events and the identification of Joseph in Egypt are most vexed questions not conclusively settled. Toffteen quite confidently presents in a most recent identification of Joseph much evidence to which one would like to give full credence (Toffteen, The Historical Exodus). But aside from the fact that he claims two exodi, two Josephs, two Aarons, two lawgivers called Moses, and two givings of the law, a case of critical doublets more astounding than any heretofore claimed in the Pentateuch, the evidence itself which he adduces is very far from conclusive. It is doubtful if the texts will bear the translation he gives them, especially the proper names. The claims of Rameses II, that he built Pithom, compared with the stele of 400 years, which he says he erected in the 400th year of King Nubti, seems to put Joseph about the time of the Hyksos king. This is the most that can be said now. The burial of Jacob is in exact accord with Egyptian customs. The wealth of the Israelites who retained their possessions and were fed by the crown, in contrast with the poverty of the Egyptians who sold everything, prepares the way for the wonderful growth and influence of Israel, and the fear which the Egyptians at last had of them. "And Joseph died, being 110 years old," an ideal old age in the Egyptian mind. The reputed burial place of Joseph at Shechem still awaits examination.<P>5. The Patriarch:<P>Joseph stands out among the patriarchs in some respects with preeminence. His nobility of character, his purity of heart and life, his magnanimity as a ruler and brother Patriarch make him, more than any other of the Old Testament characters, an illustration of that type of man which Christ was to give to the world in perfection. Joseph is not in the list of persons distinctly referred to in Scripture as types of Christ—the only perfectly safe criterion—but none more fully illustrates the life and work of the Saviour. He wrought salvation for those who betrayed and rejected him, he went down into humiliation as the way to his exaltation, he forgave those who, at least in spirit, put him to death, and to him as to the Saviour, all must come for relief, or perish.<P>LITERATURE. Commentaries on Genesis; for rabbinical literature, compare Seligsohn in Jewish Encyclopedia, some very interesting and curious traditions; Ebers, Egypten und die Bucher Moses; "The Tale of Two Brothers," RP, series I, volume II, 13746; Wilkinson-Birch, The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians; Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt.``93';
|
|
isbe[5147]='Joseph Barnabas``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BARNABAS">BARNABAS</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5148]='Joseph Barsabbas`bar-sab\'-as Barsabbas, or Barsabas; the King James Version Barsabas, bar\'-sa-bas; for etymology, etc., of Joseph, see general article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH">JOSEPH</a>): Joseph Barsabbas was surnamed Justus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,23);">Ac 1:23</a>). Barsabbas was probably a patronymic, i.e. son of Sabba or Seba. Other interpretations given are "son of an oath," "son of an old man," "son of conversion," "son of quiet." It is likely that the "Judas called Barsabbas" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,22);">Ac 15:22</a> was his brother. Ewald considers that both names refer to the same person, but this is improbable.<P>Joseph was one of those who accompanied the apostles "all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,21,22);">Ac 1:21,22</a>). At the meeting of the brethren under the presidency of Peter in Jerusalem shortly after the crucifixion, he was, therefore, proposed along with Matthias as a suitable candidate for the place in the apostleship left vacant by the treachery and death of Judas Iscariot; but was unsuccessful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,\'15-26\');">Ac 1:15-26</a>).<P>According to Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 12), Joseph was one of the 70 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,1);">Lu 10:1</a>), and Papias records the oral tradition that he drank a cup of poison without harm (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,18);">Mr 16:18</a>). The Acts of Paul, a work belonging to the 2nd century and first mentioned by Origen, relates that Barsabbas, Justus the Flatfoot and others were imprisoned by Nero for protesting their faith in Christ, but that upon a vision of the newly martyred Paul appearing to the emperor, he ordered their immediate release.``88';
|
|
isbe[5149]='Joseph of Arimathaea`(A Arimathaias; for etymology, etc., of Joseph, see general article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH">JOSEPH</a>): Joseph of Arimathea—a place the locality of which is doubtful, but lying probably to the northwest of Jerusalem—was a "rich man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,57);">Mt 27:57</a>), "a councilor of honorable estate," or member of the Sanhedrin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,43);">Mr 15:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,50);">Lu 23:50</a>), "a good and righteous man...who was looking for the kingdom of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,50);">Lu 23:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,43);">Mr 15:43</a>), and "himself was Jesus\' disciple" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,57);">Mt 27:57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,38);">Joh 19:38</a>). Although he kept his discipleship secret "for fear of the Jews" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,38);">Joh 19:38</a>), he was yet faithful to his allegiance in that he absented himself from the meeting which found Jesus guilty of death (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,51);">Lu 23:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,64);">Mr 14:64</a>). But the condemnation of his Lord awakened the courage and revealed the true faith of Joseph. On the evening after the crucifixion he went "boldly" to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. There is a fine touch in that he himself took down the body from the cross. With the assistance of Nicodemus he wound it in fine linen with spices (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,57);">Mt 27:57</a>, Joseph was a "rich man") and brought it to the new sepulcher in the garden near the place of His crucifixion. There they "laid him in a tomb that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain" and \'rolled a stone against the door of the tomb\' (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,\'57-60\');">Mt 27:57-60</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,\'42-46\');">Mr 15:42-46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,\'50-53\');">Lu 23:50-53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,\'38-42\');">Joh 19:38-42</a>). In this was held to be the fulfillment of the prophecy of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,9);">Isa 53:9</a>.<P>The Gospel of Peter, written probably in Syria about the middle of the 2nd century, gives a slightly different account. According to this Joseph, "the friend of Pilate and the Lord," was present at the trial of Jesus, and immediately upon its conclusion besought of Pilate that he might have the body for burial. This was granted, and after the crucifixion the Jews handed the body over to Joseph (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 27-30). Legends of a later origin record that Joseph was sent by Philip from Gaul to Britain along with 11 other disciples in 63 AD, and built an oratory at Glastonbury (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILIP">PHILIP</a>, the Apostle), that he brought the Holy Grail to England, and that he freed Ireland from snakes.``88';
|
|
isbe[5150]='Joseph\'s Dream``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH">JOSEPH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5151]='Joseph, Husband of Mary`1. References in New Testament:<P>(For etymology, etc., of Joseph, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH">JOSEPH</a>): Joseph, the carpenter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,55);">Mt 13:55</a>), was a "just man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,19);">Mt 1:19</a> the King James Version), who belonged to Nazareth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,4);">Lu 2:4</a>). He was of Davidic descent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,20);">Mt 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,4);">Lu 2:4</a>), the son of Heli (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,23);">Lu 3:23</a>) or Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,16);">Mt 1:16</a>), the husband of Mary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,16);">Mt 1:16</a>), and the supposed father of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,55);">Mt 13:55</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,23);">Lu 3:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,22);">4:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,45);">Joh 1:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,42);">6:42</a>).<P>(1) Before the Nativity.<P>The Gospels of Matthew and Mark alone give any detailed reference to Joseph and the birth of Jesus, and their accounts vary in part. Luke begins with the Annunciation to Mary at Nazareth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'26-38\');">Lu 1:26-38</a>). Overwhelmed with the tidings, Mary departed "with haste" "into the hill country,...into a city of Judah," to seek communion with Elisabeth, with whom she had been coupled in the Annunciation by the angel Gabriel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'39-55\');">Lu 1:39-55</a>). After abiding with her about three months she returned "unto her own house" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,56);">Lu 1:56</a> the King James Version). The events recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'18-24\');">Mt 1:18-24</a> probably took place in the interval between this return and the birth of Jesus. During Mary\'s visit to Elisabeth, Joseph had likely remained in Nazareth. The abrupt and probably unexplained departure of his espoused wife for Judah (compare the phrase "with haste"), and her condition on her return, had caused him great mental distress (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'18-20\');">Mt 1:18-20</a>). Though his indignation was tempered with mercy, he was minded to put her away "privily," but the visitation of the angel in his sleep relieved him from his dilemma, and he was reconciled to his wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,24);">Mt 1:24</a>). The narrative is then continued by Luke. While Joseph and Mary still abode in Nazareth, "there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">Lu 2:1</a>). "And all went to enroll themselves, every one to his own city" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,3);">Lu 2:3</a>). Being of the house and lineage of David, Joseph went up with Mary, who was "great with child," from Galilee, "out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,4,5);">Lu 2:4,5</a>), and there Jesus was born (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,7);">Lu 2:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,1);">Mt 2:1</a>).<P>(2) After the Nativity.<P>(a) Luke\'s Account:<P>The two accounts now diverge considerably. According to Luke, the Holy Family remained for a time at Bethlehem and were there visited by the shepherds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'8-20\');">Lu 2:8-20</a>). After a sojourn of 40 days for the purification (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,21,22);">Lu 2:21,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,1);">Le 12</a>), Joseph departed with his wife for Jerusalem "to present" the infant Jesus "to the Lord" and to offer up sacrifice according to the ancient law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,24);">Lu 2:24</a>). There he was present at the prophesying of Simeon and Anna concerning Jesus, and received the blessing of the former (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,34);">Lu 2:34</a>). After "they had accomplished all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,39);">Lu 2:39</a>). Every year, at the Passover, they made this journey to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,41);">Lu 2:41</a>). The care and solicitude of Joseph and Mary for the boy Jesus and their grief at His temporary loss aye also recorded (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,45,48,51);">Lu 2:45,48,51</a>). There is evidence that, though Mary "kept all these things in her heart," Joseph at least had no understanding then of the Divine nature of the charge committed to his care (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,50);">Lu 2:50</a>).<P>(b) Matthew\'s Account:<P>But according to Matthew it was from the Wise Men of the East that Jesus received homage at Bethlehem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,\'1-11\');">Mt 2:1-11</a>). There is no further mention of the dedicatory journey to Jerusalem, or of the return to Nazareth. Instead, it is stated that on the departure of the Wise Men from Bethlehem, Joseph was warned in a dream of the impending wrath of Herod, and escaped with his wife and the infant Jesus into Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,13,14);">Mt 2:13,14</a>). Upon the death of Herod, an angel appeared to Joseph, and he returned to the land of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,\'19-21\');">Mt 2:19-21</a>). His original intention was to settle once more in Judea, but on learning that Archelaus, the son of Herod, was ruler there, "he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,22,23);">Mt 2:22,23</a>).<P>(c) The Proper Sequence of the Two Narratives:<P>The narrative of Matthew would thus imply that the Holy Family had no connection with Nazareth previous to their return from Egypt. It has, however, been suggested by Ramsay that Matthew merely reports what was common knowledge, and that Luke, while quite cognizant of this, supplemented it in his own Gospel with details known only to the Holy Family, and in part to the mother alone (compare Sir W. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 78-79). A comparison of the two Gospel narratives makes it clear that the visitation of the Wise Men fell on a later date than that of the shepherds. The latter took place immediately after the Nativity (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,11,15,16);">Lu 2:11,15,16</a>, "is born...this day," "let us now go," "and they came with haste"). On the other hand, when the Wise Men came to Jerusalem, Christ was already born (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,1);">Mt 2:1</a>). Time was required for this journey to Jerusalem and the consultation of Herod with the chief priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,4);">Mt 2:4</a>); and during this interval the events recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'8-39\');">Lu 2:8-39</a> had taken place. That there was sufficient time for this is attested also by the fact that Herod\'s decree was directed against children up to two years of age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,16);">Mt 2:16</a>). Thus it was after the return of the Holy Family to Nazareth, and on a further visit to Bethlehem, implied by Matthew but not recorded by Luke, that the infant Jesus received the adoration of the Wise Men. Jesus being born in 6 BC, this took place in 5 BC, and as Herod died in 4 BC, Joseph may have missed only one of the Passovers (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,41);">Lu 2:41</a>) by his flight into Egypt. (For a full discussion, compare Ramsay, op. cit.) As no mention is made of Joseph in the later parts of the Gospels where the Holy Family is referred to (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,46);">Mt 12:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,19);">Lu 8:19</a>), it is commonly supposed that he died before the commencement of the public ministry of Christ.<P>2. Character:<P>If a type is to be sought in the character of Joseph, it is that of a simple, honest, hard-working, God-fearing man, who was possessed of large sympathies and a warm heart. Strict in the observance of Jewish law and custom, he was yet ready when occasion arose to make these subservient to the greater law of the Spirit. Too practical to possess any deep insight into the Divine mysteries or eternal significance of events which came within his knowledge (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,50);">Lu 2:50</a>), he was quick to make answer to what he perceived to be the direct call of God (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,24);">Mt 1:24</a>). Originally a "just man" (the King James Version), the natural clemency within his heart prevailed over mere justice, and by the promptings of the Holy Spirit that clemency was transferred into a strong and enduring love (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,24);">Mt 1:24</a>). Joseph is known to us only as a dim figure in the background of the Gospel narratives, yet his whole-hearted reconciliation to Mary, even in the face of possible slanderings by his neighbors, his complete self-sacrifice, when he left all and fled into Egypt to save the infant Jesus, are indicative that he was not unworthy to fulfill the great trust which was imposed upon him by the Eternal Father.<P>3. References in Apocryphal Literature:<P>The Gospel of the Infancy according to James, a work composed originally in the 2nd century, but with later additions (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 47-63), gives a detailed account of the marriage of the aged Joseph with Mary, of their journey to Bethlehem, and of the birth of Jesus. A similar gospel, reputed to be by Thomas the philosopher, of later origin and Gnostic tendency (compare Hennecke, 63-73), narrates several fantastic, miraculous happenings in the domestic life of the Holy Family, and the dealings of Joseph with the teachers of the youthful Jesus. Other legends, from Syriac or Egyptian sources, also dealing with the Infancy, in which Joseph figures, are extant. The chief is The History of Joseph the Carpenter (compare Hennecke, Handbuch der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, 95-105). This contains an account of the death and burial of Joseph at the age of 110, and of the entreaties of Mary to Christ to save him. Its aim was to show forth Christ as the Saviour, even at the last hour, and the rightful manner of Christian death. Joseph has received a high place in the Calendar of the Roman Catholic Saints, his feast being celebrated on March 19.``88';
|
|
isbe[5152]='Joseph, Prayer of`An Old Testament pseudepigraph, <span class="noTag">number 3</span> in the Stichometry of Nicephorus (Westcott, Canon of the New Testament(7), 571), with the length given as 1,100 lines, and <span class="noTag">number 5</span> in the List of Sixty Books (Westcott, 568). The work is lost, and the only quotations are in Origen (In Joan., ii.25, English in Ante-Nicene Fathers, IX, 341; In Gen., iii.9, 12). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are said to have been created before every work, but Jacob-Israel is the greatest, "the firstborn of every living creature," the "first minister in God\'s presence," greater than the angel with whom he wrestled. The purport may be anti-Christian, the patriarchs exalted in place of Christ; compare, perhaps, Enoch 71 (but not so in Charles\' 1912 text), but Origen\'s favorable opinion of the book proves that the polemic could not have been very direct.<P>LITERATURE.<P>GJV, 4th edition, III, 359-60; Dillmann in PRE, 2nd edition, XII, 362; compare Beer in 3rd edition, XVI, 256; Fabricius, Codex pseudep. Vet. Test., I, 761-71.``48';
|
|
isbe[5153]='Joseph, the Carpenter, Gospel of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5154]='Josephus`jo-se\'-fus (Iosephos; Codex Vaticanus reads Phosepos): In 1Esdras 9:34, corresponding to "Joseph" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,42);">Ezr 10:42</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[5155]='Josephus; Flavius`jo-se\'-fus, fla\'-vi-us:<P>1. Early Life and Beliefs:<P>Was born at Jerusalem 37-38 AD, and died at Rome early in the 2nd century, when is not known precisely. His father and mother belonged to families of the priestly aristocracy; consequently he received an excellent education, becoming familiar, not only with Jewish, but with Hellenistic, culture. When 16 years old he resorted to one Banus, an <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESSENES">ESSENES</a>, (which see), in the desert of Engedi, with whom he remained for 3 years, absorbing occult lore, and practicing the ascetic life. It might have been expected from his social position that, on his return to Jerusalem, he would join the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SADDUCEES">SADDUCEES</A> (which see); but, his Essene experience having indoctrinated him with ceremonialism, he preferred to become a Pharisee (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHARISEES">PHARISEES</a>). He evidently believed, too, that the Pharisees were akin to the Stoics, who were then influential in the Hellenistic world. During his absence in the desert, the misgovernment of the Roman procurators at Jerusalem had grown apace. And the ineptitudes and injustices of Felix, Albanus and Florus were succeeded by anarchy under Annas, the high priest (62). Accordingly, the Zealots (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZEALOTS">ZEALOTS</a>) plotted against Roman rule. Rebellion simmered, and many of the disaffected were transported to Rome to be dealt with there. Among these were several priests, whom Josephus knew. About the year 64, he went to Rome to plead for them, met shipwreck on the voyage, was rescued with a few survivors and was brought to port at Puteoli. Here he met Alityrus, a Jewish actor, who happened to be in the good graces of Poppea, Nero\'s consort. The empress, a Jewish proselyte, espoused his cause at Rome, and showed him many favors. At the capital, he also discerned the power of the Romans and, in all probability, grew convinced of the hopelessness of armed revolt. On his return to Jerusalem, he found his people set upon insurrection, and was forced, possibly against his better judgment, to make common cause with them. The first part of his public career is concerned with the great struggle that now began.<P>2. Public Career:<P>When war broke out, Josephus was appointed governor of Galilee, the province where the Roman attack would first fall. He had no military fitness for command, but the influence of his friends and the exigencies of politics thrust the office upon him. The Zealots soon found that he did not carry out the necessary preparations with thoroughness, and they tried to compass his removal. But he was too influential, too good a politician also, to be undermined. Surrounded by enemies among his own folk, who even attempted to assassinate him, he encountered several dangerous experiences, and, at length, flying from the Romans, was beleaguered with his army in Jotopata, near the Lake of Gennesaret, in May, 67 AD. The Jews withstood the siege for 47 days with splendid courage, till Titus, assaulting under cover of a mist, stormed the stronghold and massacred the weary defenders. Josephus escaped to a cave where, with his usual adroitness, he saved himself from death at the hands of his companions. The Romans soon discovered his hiding-place, and haled him before Vespasian, the commander-in-chief. Josephus worked upon the superstitions of the general, and so ingratiated himself that Vespasian took him to Alexandria in his train. Having been liberated by his captor, he adopted the family name of the Flavians, according to Roman custom. Returning to Palestine with Titus, he proceeded to mediate between the Romans and the Jews, earning the suspicion of the former, the hatred of the latter. His wonted diplomacy preserved him from anything more serious than a wound, and he was an eyewitness of the terrible events that marked the last days of Jerusalem. Then he accompanied Titus to Rome for the TRIUMPH (which see). Here he lived the remainder of his days, in high favor with the ruling house, and relieved from all anxiety about worldly goods by lavish imperial patronage. He was thus enabled to devote himself to literary pursuits.<P>3. Works:<P>The works of Josephus render him one of the most valuable authorities for the student of New Testament times. They are as follows:<P>(1) Concerning the Jewish War, written before 79; we have the Greek translation of this history by the author; there are 7 books: I, the period from Antiochus Epiphanes (175 BC) to Herod the Great (4 BC); II, from 4 BC to 66 AD, covering the early events of the War; III, occurrences in Galilee in 67 AD; IV, the course of the War till the siege of Jerusalem; V and VI, the investment and fall of Jerusalem; VII, the aftermath of the rebellion. While this work is not written with the objective accuracy of scientific history, it is credible on the whole, except where it concerns the role played by the author.<P>(2) The Antiquities of the Jews, written not later than 94 AD. In this Josephus purports to relate the entire history of his race, from the beginning till the War of 66 AD. The 20 books fall naturally into 5 divisions, thus:<P class="in15">(a) I-X, from prehistoric times till the Captivity, in other words, the period related in the Old Testament substantially;<P class="in15">(b) XI, the age of Cyrus;<P class="in15">(c) XII-XIV, the beginnings of the Hellenistic period, from Alexander the Great, including the Maccabean revolt, till the accession of Herod the Great;<P class="in15">(d) XV-XVII, the reign of Herod;<P class="in15">(e) XVIII-XX, from Herod\'s death till the War of 66.<P>While it cannot be called an apology for the Jews, this work betrays the author\'s consciousness of the disfavor with which his people were viewed throughout the Roman Empire. Josephus does what he can to disabuse the Greek-Roman educated classes, although he shows curious obliquity to the grandeur of Hebrew religion. All in all, the work is disappointing; but it contains many details and sidelights of first importance to investigators.<P>(3) The treatise called, since Jerome, Against Apion, is Josephus\' most inspiring performance. The older title, Concerning the High Antiquity of the Jews, tells us what it contains—a defense of Hebrew religion against the libels of heathendom. It is in two books. The vituperation with which Josephus visits Apion is unimportant in comparison with the defense of Mosaic religion and the criticism of paganism. Here the author\'s character is seen at its best; the air of Worldly Wiseman has been dropped, and he approaches enthusiasm.<P>(4) His last work is the Vita or Autobiography, a misleading title. It is an echo of old days in Galilee, directed against the traductions of an associate, Justus of Tiberias. We have Josephus at his worst here. He so colors the narrative as to convey a totally wrong impression of the part he played during the great crisis. In extenuation, it may be said that his relations with the imperial court rendered it difficult, perhaps impossible, for him to pursue another course.<P>LITERATURE.<P>W.D. Morrison, The Jews under Roman Rule (London, 1890); E. Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Div. I, Vol. I (Edinburgh, 1890); A. Hausrath, History of New Testament Times, IV, div VII, chapter ii (London, 1895); H. Graetz, History of the Jews from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, II, chapter x (London, 1891); article "Josephus" in Jewish Encyclopedia, Translations by Whiston (many editions), and of The War of the Jews, by Traill and Taylor (London, 1862).``190';
|
|
isbe[5156]='Joses`jo\'-sez, jo\'-zez (Ioses):<p>(1) One of the brethren of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,3);">Mr 6:3</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,55);">Mt 13:55</a> the Greek is "Joseph," and the Revised Version (British and American) so renders).<P>(2) A son of Mary, perhaps identical with (1) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,56);">Mt 27:56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40,47);">Mr 15:40,47</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BRETHREN+OF+THE+LORD">BRETHREN OF THE LORD</a>.<P>(3) A name of Barnabas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,36);">Ac 4:36</a> the King James Version, where again Greek and the Revised Version (British and American) have "Joseph").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BARNABAS">BARNABAS</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5157]='Joshah`jo\'-sha (yoshah, "Yahweh\'s gift"): A descendant of Simeon, chief in his family (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,34,38);">1Ch 4:34,38</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5158]='Joshaphat`josh\'-a-fat (yoshaphat, "Yahweh has judged"; compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOSHAPHAT">JEHOSHAPHAT</a>):<P>(1) One of David\'s mighty men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,43);">1Ch 11:43</a>), a "Mithnite," but not included in the list of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,1);">2Sa 23</a>.<P>(2) A priest and trumpeter of David\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,24);">1Ch 15:24</a>), the King James Version "Jehoshaphat."``1';
|
|
isbe[5159]='Joshaviah`josh-a-vi\'-a (yoshawyah, allied form to <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSHAH">JOSHAH</a> (which see)): Son of Elnaam, one of the band of braves who served David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,46);">1Ch 11:46</a>), omitted from the list of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,\'1-\');">2Sa 23</a>, which is less complete and differs in detail.``1';
|
|
isbe[5160]='Joshbekashah`josh-be-ka\'-sha, josh-be-kash\'-a (yoshbeqashah, "son" of Heman; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,4,24);">1Ch 25:4,24</a>): The last 8 or 9 names in per 4 are taken by commentators to be not names but the words of a prayer. See OTJ C2, 143, note; Curtis, Chron, 278, 280; SBOT.``1';
|
|
isbe[5161]='Josheb-Basshebeth`jo-sheb-ba-she\'-beth (yoshebh ba-shebheth): This proper name in the Revised Version (British and American) takes the place of the translation "that sat in the seat" in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,8);">2Sa 23:8</a>). The phrase so rendered is meaningless. The text has evidently suffered corruption. There can be no doubt that a proper name is intended. This, according to the parallel passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,11);">1Ch 11:11</a>, should be Jashobeam. Some scholars think that this also is a corruption, and by a process of emendation arrive at "Eshbaal" as the correct name (Driver, Hebrew Text of S; SBOT, at the place).``1';
|
|
isbe[5162]='Joshibiah`josh-i-bi\'-a (yoshibhyah, "Yahweh sets," or "causes to dwell"; the King James Version Josibiah): A Simeonite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,35);">1Ch 4:35</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5163]='Joshua (1)`josh\'-u-a<P>(a) yehoshua\',<P>(b) yehoshua\', "Yahweh is deliverance" or "opulence"; compare <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESHUA;+JESHUAH">JESHUA</a>; Iesous:<P>(1) Joshua the son of Nun; the name has the Hebrew form (a) above in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,21);">De 3:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,7);">Jud 2:7</a>; elsewhere the form (b), except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,17);">Ne 8:17</a>, where it is of the form yeshua\' (See <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESHUA">JESHUA</a>); compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,8,16);">Nu 13:8,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,44);">De 32:44</a>. See following article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSHUA+(2)">Joshua (2)</a>].<P>(2) In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,14,18);">1Sa 6:14,18</a> (form (b)), the Bethshemite in whose field stood the kine that brought the ark from the Philistines.<P>(3) In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,8);">2Ki 23:8</a> (form (b)), governor of Jerusalem in the time of Josiah.<P>(4) The high priest at Jerusalem after the return. See separate article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSHUA+(3)">Joshua (3)</a>].``78';
|
|
isbe[5164]='Joshua (2)`<b>I. FORM AND SIGNIFICANCE OF NAME</b><P><b>II. HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF JOSHUA</b><P class="in15">1. First Appearance<P class="in15">2. The Minister of Moses<P class="in15">3. One of the Spies<P class="in15">4. The Head of the People<P class="in30">(1) His First Act—Sending of the Spies<P class="in30">(2) Crossing of the Jordan<P class="in30">(3) Capture of Jericho<P class="in30">(4) Conquest of Ai and Bethel<P class="in30">(5) Reading of the Law on Mt. Ebal<P class="in30">(6) The Gibeonites<P class="in30">(7) Conquest of the South<P class="in30">(8) Northern Conquests<P class="in30">(9) Allotment of Territory<P class="in30">(10) Cities of Refuge<P class="in30">(11) Final Address and Death<P><b>III. SOURCES OF HISTORY</b><P><b>IV. CHARACTER AND WORK OF JOSHUA</b><hr /><P>I. Form and Significance of Name.<P>The name Joshua, a contracted form of Jehoshua (yehoshua\'), which also appears in the form Jeshua (yeshua\', <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,17);">Ne 8:17</a>), signifies "Yahweh is deliverance" or "salvation," and is formed on the analogy of many Israelite names, as Jehoiakim (yehoyaqim), "Yahweh exalteth," Jehohanan (yehochanan), "Yahweh is gracious," Elishua or Elisha (\'elishua\', elisha\'), "God is deliverance," Elizur (\'elitsur), "God is a rock," etc. In the narrative of the mission of the spies in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,\'1-\');">Nu 13</a>, the name is given as Hoshea (hoshea\', <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,8,16);">13:8,16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,44);">De 32:44</a>), which is changed by Moses to Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,16);">Nu 13:16</a>). In the passage in Deuteronomy, however, the earlier form of the name is regarded by Dr. Driver (Commentary in the place cited.) as an erroneous reading.<P>The Greek form of the name is Jesus (Iesous, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,45);">Ac 7:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,8);">Heb 4:8</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "Joshua," but the King James Version "Jesus" in both passages), and this form appears even in the passages cited above from Nehemiah and Deuteronomy. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,8,16);">Nu 13:8,16</a>, however, Septuagint has Hause. The name occurs in later Jewish history, e.g. as that of the owner of the field in which the ark rested after its return from the land of the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,14,18);">1Sa 6:14,18</a>), and appears to have become especially frequent after the exile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,40);">Ezr 2:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,1);">Zec 3:1ab</a>, etc.). It is also found (Jeshua) with a local signification as the name of one of the "villages" in Southern Judea, where the repatriated Jews dwelt after their return from Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,26);">Ne 11:26</a>).<P>II. History of the Life of Joshua.<P>The narrative of the life of Joshua, the son of Nun, is naturally divided into two parts, in which he held entirely different positions with regard to the people of Israel, and discharged different duties. In the earlier period he is the servant and minister of Moses, loyal to his leader, and one of his most trusted and valiant captains. After the death of Moses he himself succeeds to the leadership of the Israelite host, and conducts them to a settlement in the Promised Land. The service of the earlier years of his life is a preparation and equipment for the office and responsibility that devolved upon him in the later period.<P>1. First Appearance:<P>The first appearance of Joshua in the history is at Rephidim, on the way from the wilderness of Sin to Horeb. Neither the exact site of Rephidim nor the meaning of the name can be determined; the Israelites, however, apparently came to Rephidim before they approached the rich oasis of Feiran, for at the former place "there was no water for the people to drink" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,\'1-\');">Ex 17:1</a>). The fact that the host encamped there seems to assume the existence of wells; either, therefore, these were found to be dry, or they failed before the wants of the great host were satisfied. The Amalekites, wandering desert tribes, claimed the ownership of the wells, and, resenting the Israelite intrusion, swooped down upon them to drive them away and to enrich themselves with the spoil of their possessions. Under the command of Joshua, the Israelites won a complete victory in a battle that seems to have been prolonged until sunset; the fortunes of the battle varying with the uplifting or falling of Moses\' hands, which were accordingly supported by Aaron and Hur throughout the day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,11);">Ex 17:11</a>). A curse and sentence of extermination pronounced against Amalek were formally written down and communicated to Joshua, apparently that, as the future leader of Israel, he might have it in charge to provide for their fulfillment.<P>It is evident also that at this period Joshua was no young and untried warrior. Although no indication of his previous history is given, his name is introduced into the narrative as of a man well known, who is sufficiently in the confidence of Moses to be given the chief command in the first conflict in which the Israelites had been engaged since leaving Egypt. The result justified the choice. And if, during the march, he had held the position of military commander and organizer under Moses, as the narrative seems to imply, to him was due in the first instance the remarkable change, by which within the brief space of a month the undisciplined crowd of serfs who had fled from Egypt became a force sufficiently resolute and compact to repel the onset of the Amalekite hordes.<P>2. The Minister of Moses:<P>In all the arrangements for the erection and service of the tabernacle, Joshua the warrior naturally has no place. He is briefly named (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,13);">Ex 24:13</a>) as the minister of Moses, accompanying him apparently to the foot of the mount of God, but remaining behind with the elders and Aaron and Hur, when Moses commenced the ascent. A similar brief mention is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,17);">Ex 32:17</a>, where he has rejoined Moses on the return of the latter from the mount with the two tables of the testimony, and is unaware of the outbreak of the people and their idolatrous worship of the molten calf in the camp; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,11);">33:11</A>, where again he is found in the closest attendance upon his leader and chief. No further reference is made to Joshua during the stay of the Israelites at Sinai, or their subsequent journeyings, until they found themselves at Kadesh-barnea on the southern border of the Promised Land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,\'1-\');">Nu 13</a>). His name is once mentioned, however, in an earlier chapter of the same book (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,28);">Nu 11:28</a>), when the tidings are brought to Moses that two men in the camp of Israel, Eldad and Medad, had been inspired to prophesy. There he is described in harmony with the previous statements of his position, as Moses\' minister from his youth. Jealous of his leader\'s prerogative and honor, he would have the irregular prophesying stopped, but is himself checked by Moses, who rejoices that the, spirit of God should rest thus upon any of the Lord\'s people.<P>3. One of the Spies:<P>Of the 12 men, one from each tribe, sent forward by Moses from Kadesh to ascertain the character of the people and land before him, two only, Hoshea the Ephraimite, whose name is significantly changed to Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,8,16);">Nu 13:8,16</a>), and Caleb the Judahite, bring back a report encouraging the Israelites to proceed. The account of the mission of the spies is repeated substantially in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,\'22-46\');">De 1:22-46</a>. There, however, the suggestion that spies should be commissioned to examine and report upon the land comes in the first instance from the people themselves. In the record of Numbers they are chosen and sent by Moses under Divine direction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,1);">13:1</a>f). The two representations are not incompatible, still less contradictory. The former describes in an altogether natural manner the human initiative, probable enough in the circumstances in which the Israelites found themselves; the latter is the Divine control and direction, behind and above the affairs of men. The instructions given to the spies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,17);">13:17</a>ff) evidently contemplated a hasty survey of the entire region of the Negeb or southern borderland of Palestine up to and including the hill country of Judea; the time allowed, 40 days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,25);">13:25</a>), was too brief to accomplish more, hardly long enough for this purpose alone. They were, moreover, not only to ascertain the character of the towns and their inhabitants, the quality and products of the soil, but to bring back with them specimens of the fruits (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,20);">13:20</a>). An indication of the season of the year is given in the added clause that "the time was the time of first-ripe grapes." The usual months of the vintage are September and October (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,39);">Le 23:39</a>); in the warm and sheltered valleys, however, in the neighborhood of Hebron, grapes may sometimes be gathered in August or even as early as July. The valley from which the fruits, grapes, figs and pomegranates were brought was known as the valley of Eshcol, or the "cluster" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,23);">Nu 13:23</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,9);">32:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,24);">De 1:24</a>).<P>No hesitating or doubtful account is given by all the spies of the fertility and attractiveness of the country; but in view of the strength of its cities and inhabitants only Joshua and Caleb are confident of the ability of the Israelites to take possession of it. Their reports and exhortations, however, are overborne by the timidity and dissuasion of the others, who so entirely alarm the people that they refuse to essay the conquest of the land, desiring to return into Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,3);">Nu 14:3</a>f), and attempt to stone Joshua and Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,10);">Nu 14:10</a>). These two alone, therefore, were exempted from the sentence of exclusion from the Promised Land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,24,30,38);">Nu 14:24,30,38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,65);">26:65</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,12);">32:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,25);">De 1:25</a>). The remainder of the spies perished at once by a special visitation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,36);">Nu 14:36</a>); and the people were condemned to a 40-year exile in the wilderness, a year for each day that the spies had been in Palestine, until all the men of that generation "from twenty years old and upward" were dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,29);">Nu 14:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,64);">26:64</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,11);">32:11</a>). An abortive attempt was made to invade the land in defiance of the prohibition of Yahweh, and ended in failure and disastrous defeat (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,40);">Nu 32:40</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,41);">De 1:41</a>ff; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,1-3);">21:1-3</a>).<P>Upon the events of the next 38 or 40 years in the life of Israel an almost unbroken silence falls. The wanderers in the wilderness have no history. Some few events, however, that are recorded without note of time, the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and the breaking out of the plague because of the people\'s murmuring, and probably others (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,\'32-36\');">Nu 15:32-36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">16</a>f), appear to belong to this period. In none of them does Joshua take an active part, nor is his name mentioned in connection with the campaigns against Sihon and Og on the east of the Jordan. When the census of the people is taken in the plains of Moab opposite Jericho, Joshua and Caleb with Moses himself are found to be the only survivors of the host that 40 years previously came out of Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,63);">Nu 26:63</a>). As the time of the death of the great leader and lawgiver drew near, he was commissioned formally to appoint Joshua as his successor and to hand over to him and to Eleazar the priest the duty of finally apportioning the conquered territory among the several tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,18);">Nu 27:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,28);">32:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,17);">34:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,38);">De 1:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,28);">3:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,3,7,23);">31:3,7,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',34,9);">34:9</a>). Some of these passages anticipate the direct Divine commission and encouragement recorded in Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,1,5);">1:1,5</a>ff) and given to him after the death of Moses.<P>4. The Head of the People:<P>The history of Joshua in his new capacity as supreme head and leader of the people in several instances recapitulates as it were the history of his greater forerunner. It was not Head unnatural that it should be so; and the similarity of recorded events affords no real ground for doubt with regard to the reliability of the tradition concerned. The position in which Israel now found itself on the east of the Jordan was in some respects not unlike that which confronted Moses at Kadesh-barnea or before the crossing of the Red Sea. Joshua, however, was faced with a problem much less difficult, and in the war-tried and disciplined host at his command he possessed an instrument immensely more suitable and powerful for carrying out his purpose.<P>(1) His First Act—Sending of the Spies.<P>His first act was to send spies from Shittim to ascertain the character of the country immediately opposite on the west of the Jordan, and especially the position and strength of Jericho, the frontier and fortified city which first stands in the way of an invader from the East who proposes to cross the river by the fords near its mouth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,2);">Jos 2:2</a>). In Jericho the spies owed their lives to the quick inventiveness of Rahab (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,31);">Heb 11:31</a>), who concealed them on the roof of her house from the emissaries of the king; and returning to Joshua, they reported the prospects of an easy victory and conquest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,23);">Jos 2:23</a>f).<P>There were doubtless special reasons which induced Joshua to essay the crossing of the Jordan at the lower fords opposite Jericho. Higher up the river a probably easier crossing-place led directly into Central Palestine, a district in which apparently his advance would not have been obstructed by fortified cities such as confronted him farther south; which therefore would seem to offer the advantages of an open and ready entrance into the heart of the country. His decision was probably influenced by a desire to possess himself of a fortified base at Jericho and in the neighboring cities. The favorable report of the spies also proved that there would be no great difficulty in carrying out this plan.<P>(2) Crossing of the Jordan.<P>The actual crossing of the river is narrated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,\'1-\');">Joshua 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,\'1-\');">4</a>. The city of Jericho was built in a plain from 12 to 14 miles wide formed by the recession of the hills that border the valley of the Jordan from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, and stood at the mouth of the valley of Achor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,24,16);">7:24,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,7);">15:7</a>). The modern village of Eriha is built at a short distance southeast of the ancient site, and Gilgal lay half-way to the river. At the latter place the fixed camp was established after the taking of Jericho, and Gilgal formed for some considerable time the base of operations, where the women and children remained in safety while the men were absent on their warlike expeditions. There also the tabernacle was erected, as the symbol and center of national life, and there apparently it remained until the time came for the removal to Shiloh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,1);">18:1</a>).<P>Within the plain the stream has excavated a tortuous bed to a depth of 200 ft. below the surface, varying from an eighth of a mile to a mile in breadth. In ordinary seasons the waters are confined to a small portion of the channel, which is then crossed opposite Jericho by two fords where the depth does not exceed 2 or 3 ft. When the river is low it may be crossed elsewhere. In times of flood, however, the water rises and fills the entire channel from bank to bank, so that the fords become impracticable. It is expressly stated that it was at such a time of flood that the Israelites approached the river, at the "time of harvest," or in the early spring (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,15);">Jos 3:15</a>). The priests were directed to carry the ark to the brink of the river, the waters of which, as soon as their feet touched them, would be cut off, and a dry passage afforded. The narrative therefore is not to be understood as though it indicated that a wall of water stood on the right and left of the people as they crossed; the entire breadth of the river bed was exposed by the failure of the waters from above.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JORDAN">JORDAN</a>.<P>An interesting parallel to the drying up of the Jordan before Joshua is recorded by an Arabic historian of the Middle Ages, who writes to explain a natural but extraordinary occurrence, without any thought of the miraculous or any apparent knowledge of the passage of the Israelites. During the years 1266-67 AD, a Mohammedan sultan named Beybars was engaged in building a bridge over the Jordan near Damieh, a place which some have identified with the city Adam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,16);">Jos 3:16</a>); but the force of the waters repeatedly carried away and destroyed his work. On one night, however, in December of the latter year, the river ceased entirely to flow. The opportunity was seized, and an army of workmen so strengthened the bridge that it resisted the flood which came down upon it the next day, and stood firm. It was found that at some distance up the river, where the valley was narrow, the banks had been undermined by the running water and had fallen in, thus completely damming back the stream. It seems not improbable that it was by agency of this character that a passage was secured for the Israelites; even as 40 years earlier a "strong east wind" had been employed to drive back the waters of the Red Sea before Moses.<P>At the command of Joshua, under Divine direction, the safe crossing of the Jordan was commemorated by the erection at Gilgal of 12 stones (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,3,9,20);">4:3-9,20</A>ff), one for each of the tribes of Israel, taken from the bed of the river. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,9);">Jos 4:9</a> it is stated that 12 stones were set up in the midst of the river. The statement is probably a misunderstanding, and a mere confusion of the tradition. It is not likely that there would be a double commemoration, or an erection of stones in a place where they would never be seen. At Gilgal also the supply of manna ceased, when the natural resources of the country became available (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,12);">5:12</a>). The date of the passage is given as the 10th day of the 1st month (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,19);">4:19</A>); and on the 14th day the Passover was kept at Gilgal in the plains of Jericho (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,10);">5:10</a>). For the 2nd time, also, at the crisis of the first entrance into the land, Joshua was encouraged for his work by a vision and Divine promise of assistance and direction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,13,14,15);">5:13-15</a>).<P>(3) Capture of Jericho.<P>The narrative that follows, of the taking of Jericho, illustrates, as would naturally be expected in the case of a city so situated the effeminate and unwarlike character of its inhabitants. There was apparently little or no fighting, while for a whole week Joshua with priests and people paraded before the walls. A brief reference (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,1);">6:1</a>) seems to indicate that the citizens were quickly driven to take refuge behind their fortifications. Twice seven times the city was compassed, with the ark of the covenant borne in solemn procession, and at the 7th circuit on the 7th day, while the people shouted, the wall of the city fell "in its place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,20);">6:20</a> margin), and Jericho was taken by assault. Only Rahab and her household were spared. All the treasure was devoted to the service of the Lord, but the city itself was burnt, and a solemn curse pronounced upon the site and upon the man who should venture to rebuild its walls (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,26);">6:26</a>). The curse was braved, whether deliberately or not, by a citizen of Bethel in the time of King Ahab; and the disasters foretold fell upon him in the loss of his children (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,34);">1Ki 16:34</a>). Thenceforward Jericho appears to have been continuously inhabited. There was a settlement of the sons of the prophets there in Elisha\'s day (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,5,15);">2Ki 2:5,15</a>). The natural fertility of the site won for it the name of the city of palm trees (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',34,3);">De 34:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,16);">Jud 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,13);">3:13</a>).<P>From the plains of Jericho two valleys lead up into the central hill country in directions northwest and southwest respectively. These form the two entrances or passes, by which the higher land is approached from the east. Along these lines, therefore, the invasion of the land was planned and carried out. The main advance under Joshua himself took place by the northernmost of the valleys, while the immediate southern invasion was entrusted to Caleb and the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, the supreme control remaining always in the hands of Joshua (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,\'1-\');">Jos 14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'1-\');">Jud 1</a>). This seems on the whole to be the better way of explaining the narratives in general, which in detail present many difficulties.<P>(4) Conquest of Ai and Bethel.<P>At the head of the northern pass stood the city of Luz or Bethel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,19);">Ge 28:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,13);">Jos 18:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,23);">Jdg 1:23</a>). Ai lay close at hand, and was encountered by the invaders before reaching Bethel; its exact site, however, is undetermined. The two towns were in close alliance (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,17);">Jos 8:17</a>), and the defeat and destruction of the one was quickly followed by the similar fate that overtook the other. Before Ai, the advance guard of the Israelites, a small party detached on the advice of the spies sent forward by Joshua from Jericho, suffered defeat and were driven back in confusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,2);">7:2</a>ff). The disaster was due to the failure to obey the command to "devote" the whole spoil of Jericho, and to theft by one of the people of treasure which belonged rightfully to Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,11);">7:11</a>). When the culprit Achan had been discovered and punished, a renewed attempt upon Ai, made with larger forces and more skillful dispositions, was crowned with success. The city was taken by a stratagem and destroyed by fire, its king being hanged outside the city gate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,28);">8:28</a>f). Unlike Jericho, it seems never to have been restored. Bethel also was captured, through the treachery apparently of one of its own citizens, and its inhabitants were put to the sword (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,24);">Jud 1:24</a>f).<P>(5) Reading of the Law on Mt. Ebal.<P>Of further campaigns undertaken by Joshua for the subjugation of Central Palestine no account has been preserved. It is possible, therefore, that the conquest of this part of the country was accomplished without further fighting (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSHUA,+BOOK+OF">JOSHUA, BOOK OF</a>). In the list of the cities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,\'7-24\');">Jos 12:7-24</a>) whose kings were vanquished by Joshua, there are no names of towns that can be certainly identified as situated here; the greater part evidently belong to the north or south. The only record remaining is that of the formal erection of an altar on Mt. Ebal in the presence of all the people and the solemn reading of the law in their hearing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,\'30-35\');">8:30-35</a>). It is expressly noted that all this was done in accordance with the directions of Moses (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,29);">De 11:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,\'2-8\',11);">27:2-8,11</a>ff). It would further appear probable that this ceremony really took place at the close of the conquest, when all the land was subdued, and is narrated here by anticipation.<P>(6) The Gibeonites.<P>The immediate effect of the Israelite victories under Joshua was very great. Especially were the Hivite inhabitants of Gibeon struck with fear (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,3);">9:3</a>ff) lest the same fate should overtake them that had come upon the peoples of Jericho and Ai. With Gibeon, 3 other cities were confederate, namely, Chephirah, Beeroth and Kiriath-jearim, or the "city of groves" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,17);">9:17</a>). Gibeon, however, was the chief, and acted in the name of the others. It is usually identified with the modern village or township of el-Jib, 7 or 8 miles north by west of Jerusalem; and all four lay clustered around the head of the pass or valley of Aijalon, which led down from the plateau westward to the foothills of the Shephelah, toward the plain and the sea. Gibeon held therefore a position of natural strength and importance, the key to one of the few practicable routes from the west into the highlands of Judea, equally essential to be occupied as a defensive position against the incursions of the dwellers in the plains, and as affording to an army from the east a safe and protected road down from the mountains.<P>By a stratagem which threw Joshua and the leaders of Israel off their guard, representing themselves as jaded and wayworn travelers from a distance, the Gibeonites succeeded in making a compact with Israel, which assured their own lives and safety. They affirmed that they had heard of the Israelite victories beyond Jordan, and also of the gift to them by Yahweh of the whole land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,9,24);">Jos 9:9f; 24</a>). Joshua and the princes were deceived and entered too readily into covenant with them, a covenant and promise that was scrupulously observed when on the 3rd day of traveling the Israelites reached their cities and found them to be close at hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,16);">9:16</a>ff). While, however, their lives were preserved, the men of Gibeon were reduced to the position of menial servants, "hewers of wood and drawers of water"; and the writer adds, it is thus "unto this day" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,21,27);">9:21,27</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIBEON">GIBEON</A>.<P>The treaty of peace with the Gibeonites and the indignation thereby aroused among the neighboring kings, who naturally regarded the independent action of the men of Gibeon as treachery toward themselves, gave rise to one of the most formidable coalitions and one of the most dramatic incidents of the whole war. The king of Jerusalem, Adoni-zedek ("the Lord of righteousness" or "the Lord is righteousness," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,1);">Jos 10:1</a>; compare Melchizedek, "the king of righteousness," <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">Ge 14:18</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,5);">Jud 1:5</a>ff the name appears as Adoni-bezek, and so Septuagint reads here), with the 4 kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,3);">Jos 10:3</a>), formed a plan to destroy Gibeon in revenge, and the Gibeonites sent hastily for assistance to Joshua, who had returned with his army to Gilgal. The Israelites made a forced march from Gilgal, came upon the allied kings near Gibeon, and attacked and defeated them with great slaughter. The routed army fled westward "by the way of the ascent to Beth-horon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,10);">Jos 10:10</a>), and in the pass was overtaken by a violent hailstorm, by which more perished than had fallen beneath the swords of the Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,11);">Jos 10:11</a>). The 5 kings were shut up in a cave at Makkedah, in which they had taken refuge, whence they were subsequently brought forth and put to death. The actual pursuit, however, was not stayed until the remnant had found temporary security behind the walls of their fortified cities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,16);">Jos 10:16</a>). The victory of Israel was commemorated by Joshua in a song of which some words are preserved (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,12);">Jos 10:12</a>f).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-HORON,+THE+BATTLE+OF">BETH-HORON, THE BATTLE OF</a>.<P>(7) Conquest of the South.<P>With almost severe simplicity it is further recorded how the confederate cities in turn were captured by Joshua and utterly destroyed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,\'28-39\');">10:28-39</a>). And the account is closed by a summary statement of the conquest of the entire country from Kadesh-barnea in the extreme south as far as Gibeon, after which the people returned to their camp at Gilgal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,\'40-43\');">10:40-43</a>).<P>(8) Northern Conquests.<P>A hostile coalition of northern rulers had finally to be met and defeated before the occupation and pacification of the land could be said to be complete. Jabin, king of Hazor, the "fort," was at the head of an alliance of northern kings who gathered together to oppose Israel in the neighborhood of the waters of Merom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,1);">Jos 11:1</a>). Hazor has been doubtfully identified with the modern Jebel Hadireh, some 5 miles west of the lake. No details of the fighting that ensued are given. The victory, however, of the Israelites was decisive, although chariots and horses were employed against them apparently for the first time on Canaanite soil. The pursuit was maintained as far as Sidon, and Misrephoth-maim, perhaps the "boilings" or "tumults of the waters," the later Zarephath on the coast south of the former city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,8);">Jos 11:8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,6);">13:6</a>); and the valley of Mizpeh must have been one of the many wadies leading down to the Phoenician coast land. The cities were taken, and their inhabitants put to the sword; but Hazor alone appears to have been burnt to the ground (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,11);">Jos 11:11</a>). That the royal city recovered itself later is clear from the fact that a king of Hazor was among the oppressors of Israel in the days of the Judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'1-\');">Jud 4</a>). For the time being, however, the fruit of these victories was a widespread and much-needed peace. "The land had rest from war" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,23);">Jos 11:23</a>).<P>(9) Allotment of Territory.<P>Thus the work of conquest, as far as it was effected under Joshua\'s command, was now ended; but much yet remained to be done that was left over for future generations. The ideal limits of Israel\'s possession, as set forth by Yahweh in promise to Moses, from the Shihor or Brook of Egypt (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',13,5);">1Ch 13:5</a>) to Lebanon and the entering in of Hamath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,\'1-\');">Nu 34</a>), had not been and indeed never were reached. In view, however, of Joshua\'s age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,\'1-\');">Jos 13:1</a>), it was necessary that an allotment of their inheritance west of the Jordan should at once be made to the remaining tribes. Reuben, Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh had been already provided for by Moses in Eastern Palestine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,\'15-32\');">Jos 13:15-32</a>). <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,\'1-\');">Joshua 14-21</a> accordingly contain a detailed account of the arrangements made by the Israelite leader for the settlement of the land and trace the boundaries of the several tribal possessions. The actual division appears to have been made on two separate occasions, and possibly from two distinct centers. Provision was first made for Judah and the children of Joseph; and between the northern border of the former tribe, recorded in detail in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'5-11\');">15:5-11</a>, and the inheritance of the sons of Joseph, a tract of land for the present left unassigned was later given to the tribes of Benjamin and Dan. An extra portion also was promised by Joshua to the descendants of Joseph on the ground of their numbers and strength (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,14);">17:14</a>ff).<P>For the 7 tribes that were yet without defined inheritance a rough survey of the land appears to have been made, and the unallotted districts were divided into 7 portions, for which lots were then cast at Shiloh in the presence of the assembled tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,\'1-\');">Joshua 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>). The express mention of Shiloh here (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,1,10);">Jos 18:1,10</a>) suggests that the previous division was carried out at some other place, and if so, probably at Gilgal, the earlier resting-place of the ark and the tabernacle. No definite statement, however, to that effect is made. Benjamin\'s portion was assigned between the territories of Judah and the children of Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,11);">Jos 18:11</a>). Simeon received his inheritance out of the land given to Judah, a part on the south being taken away on the ground that the whole was too great for a single tribe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'1-9\');">Jos 19:1-9</a>). Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali were established in the north (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'10-39\');">Jos 19:10-39</a>). And Dan was settled on the seacoast by Joppa, with additional territory in the extreme north, of which they apparently took independent and forcible possession, beyond the inheritance of the other tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'40-48\');">Jos 19:40-48</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'27-29\');">Jud 18:27-29</a>).<P>(10) Cities of Refuge.<P>Finally the 6 cities of refuge were appointed, 3 on each side of the Jordan, and the 48 cities of the Levites taken out of the territories of the several tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,\'1-\');">Joshua 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,\'1-\');">Nu 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,\'41-43\');">De 4:41-43</a>). The two and a half tribes whose inheritance lay in Eastern Palestine were then dismissed, their promise of assistance to their brethren having been fulfilled (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,\'1-\');">Joshua 22</a>); and an altar was erected by them on the right bank of the Jordan whose purpose is explained to be to serve as a standing witness to the common origin of all the tribes, and to frustrate any future attempt to cut off those on the east from the brotherhood of Israel.<P>(11) Final Address and Death.<P>In a closing assembly of the Israelites at Shechem, Joshua delivered to the people his final charge, as Moses had done before his death, reminding them of their own wonderful history, and of the promises and claims of God, and exhorting them to faithful and loyal obedience in His service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>). A stone also was set up under the oak in the sacred precinct of Yahweh, to be a memorial of the renewed covenant between God and His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,26);">24:26</a>f). Then at the age of 110 the second great leader of Israel died, and was laid to his rest within his own inheritance in Timnath-serah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,29,30);">24:29,30</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,9);">Jud 2:9</a>, Timnath-heres), in the hill country of Ephraim. The site of his grave is unknown. Tradition has placed it at Kefr Haris, 9 miles south of Nablus or Shechem. But the localizing by tradition of the burying-place of hero or saint is often little more than accidental, nor can any reliance be placed upon it in this instance.<P>III. Sources of History. That the narratives concerning the life and work of Joshua rest in the main upon basis of tradition can hardly be doubted. How far the details have been modified, or a different coloring imparted in the course of a long transmission, it is impossible to determine. There is a remarkable similarity or parallelism between many of the leading events of Joshua\'s life as ruler and captain of Israel and the experiences of his predecessor Moses, which, apart from any literary criticism, suggests that the narratives have been drawn from the same general source, and subjected to the same conditions of environment and transmission. Thus both are called to and strengthened for their work by a special Divine revelation, Moses at Horeb in the burning bush, Joshua at Jericho. Both lead the people across the bed of waters miraculously driven back to afford them passage. And both at no long interval after the passage win a notable victory over their adversaries—a victory ascribed in each case to direct Divine intervention on their behalf, although in different ways. At the close of their life-work, moreover, both Moses and Joshua deliver stirring addresses of appeal and warning to the assembled Israelites; and both are laid in nameless graves. These all, however, are occurrences perfectly natural and indeed inevitable in the position in which each found himself. Nor do they afford adequate ground for the supposition that the achievements of the greater leader have been duplicated, or by mistake attributed to the less. To cross the Jordan and to defeat the Canaanite confederacy were as essential to the progress of Israel as the passage of the Red Sea and the breaking up of the gathering of Amalekite clans; and no true or sufficient history could have evaded the narration of these events. The position of Israel also on the east of the Jordan about to undertake the invasion and conquest of the Promised Land as imperatively demanded a specially qualified captain and guide, a mastermind to control the work, as did the oppressed people in Egypt or the wanderers in the desert. That Joshua was not so great a man as his predecessor the entire narrative testifies. Moses, however, must of necessity have had a successor to take up his unfinished work and to carry it to completion.<P>IV. Character and Work of Joshua.<P>As to the personal character of Joshua, there is little to be inferred from the narrative of his campaigns. In this respect indeed they are singularly colorless. In early life his loyalty to Moses was conspicuous and unswerving. As his successor, he seems to have faithfully acted upon his principles, and in the direction of the Israelite campaigns to have proved himself a brave and competent general, as wise in counsel as he was strong in fight. The putting to death of captives and the handing over to the sword of the inhabitants of hostile cities, which the historian so often records as the consequence of his victories, must evidently be judged by the customs of the times, and have perhaps lost nothing in the narration. They do not in any case justify the attribution to Joshua of an especially inhumane disposition, or a delight in slaughter for its own sake. After the death of Moses he would appear to have been reluctant to undertake the onerous position and duty assigned to him through mistrust of his own ability and lack of self-confidence, and needed more than once to be encouraged in his work and assured of Divine support. In the language of his closing discourse there is apparent a foresight and appreciation of the character and tendencies of the people who had followed him, which is hardly inferior to that of Moses himself.<P>In a real sense also his work was left unfinished at his death. The settlement of Canaan by the tribes of Israel within the appointed and promised limits was never more than partial. The new colonists failed to enjoy that absolute and undisturbed possession of the land to which they had looked forward; witness the unrest of the period of the Judges, prolonged and perpetuated through monarchical times. For all this, however, the blame cannot justly be laid to the account of Joshua. Many causes undoubtedly concurred to an issue which was fatal to the future unity and happiness and prosperity of Israel. The chief cause, as Joshua warned them would be the case, was the persistent idolatry of the people themselves, their neglect of duty, and disregard of the commands and claims of their God.``65';
|
|
isbe[5165]='Joshua (3)`Son of Jehozadak (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,1,12,14);">Hag 1:1,12,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,2,4);">2:2,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,1,3,6,8,9);">Zec 3:1,3,6,8,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,11);">6:11</a> form (b)) and high priest in Jerusalem, called "Jeshua" in Ezra-Nehemiah. His father was among the captives at the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, and also his grandfather Seraiah, who was put to death at Riblah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,18);">2Ki 25:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,15);">1Ch 6:15</a>).<P>Joshua appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,2);">Ezr 3:2</a> with Zerubbabel at the head of the returned exiles and as leader in the work of building an altar and reestablishing sacrificial worship (538 or 537 BC). <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,8);">Ezr 3:8</a> tells of their laying the foundation of the temple, and in 4:1ff the two heads of the community refuse to allow the Samaritans to cooperate in the building operations, with the result that the would-be helpers became active opponents of the work. Building then ceased until Haggai and Zechariah in 520 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,\'1-\');">Ezr 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,\'1-11\');">Hag 1:1-11</a>) exhort the community to restart work, and the two leaders take the lead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,\'12-15\');">Hag 1:12-15</a>). The following are, in chronological order, the prophetic utterances in which Joshua is spoken of:<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,\'1-11\');">Hag 1:1-11</a>;<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,\'1-9\');">Hag 2:1-9</a>;<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,\'1-6\');">Zec 1:1-6</a>;<P>(4) <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,\'10-19\');">Hag 2:10-19</a>;<P>(5) <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,\'20-23\');">Hag 2:20-23</a>;<P>(6) the visions of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,\'7-\');">Zec 1:7-6:8</a> together with<P>(7) the undated utterance of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,\'9-15\');">Zec 6:9-15</a>.<P>1. The Vision of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,\'1-10\');">Zechariah 3:1-10</a>:<P>Two of these call for special attention. First, the vision of a trial in which Joshua is prosecuted before the angel of Yahweh by Satan (ha-satan, "the adversary"), who is, according to one view, "not the spirit of evil who appears in later Jewish writings; he is only the officer of justice whose business is to see that the case against criminals is properly presented" in the heavenly court of justice (H.P. Smith, Old Testament History, 356); while others regard him as the enemy of God\'s people (compare Orelli, Minor Prophets, English translation, 327). We are not told what the charge against Joshua is: some hold him to be tried as in some way a representative of the people or the priesthood, and his filthy garments as symbolical of sin; while others explain the garments as put on to excite the court\'s pity. The adversary is rebuked by "the angel of Yahweh" (read at beginning of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,2);">Zec 3:2</a>, "and the angel of Yahweh said," etc.), and Joshua is acquitted. He is then ordered to be stripped of his old clothes and to be arrayed in "rich apparel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,4);">Zec 3:4</a>), while a "clean turban" (American Standard Revised Version margin) is to be put on his head. Conditional upon his walking in God\'s ways, he is promised the government of the temple and "free access" to God, being placed among the servants of the "angel of Yahweh." Joshua and his companions "are men that are a sign" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,8);">Zec 3:8</a>), i.e. a guaranty of the coming of the Messiah; there is set before Joshua a stone which is to be inscribed upon, and the iniquity of the land will be removed, an event to be followed by peace and plenty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,9);">Zec 3:9</a>f).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,4);">Zec 3:4</a>ff Nowack and Wellhausen (with the Septuagint mostly) read, "And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him (i.e. his servants) thus: Take the filthy garments from off him, and clothe him with rich apparel, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,5);">5</a>) and set a clean turban upon his head. So they set a clean turban upon his head and clothed him with clean garments. And the angel of Yahweh stood up, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,6);">6</a>) and solemnly exhorted Joshua," etc. They also omit the first "for" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,8);">Zec 3:8</a> as a dittography.<P>Different interpretations are given of the vision:<P>(1) Some claim to see here a contest between the civil and religious powers as represented by Zerubbabel and Joshua respectively (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,13);">Zec 6:13</a>), and that Zechariah decides for the supremacy of the latter. The Messiah-King is indeed in Jerusalem in the person of Zerubbabel, though as yet uncrowned; but Joshua is to be supreme (see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 303; H.P. Smith, Old Testament History, 356f). This explanation is dependent to a large extent upon <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,\'9-15\');">Zec 6:9-15</a>, and is not supported by <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,8);">3:8</a>. It is difficult to explain <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,2);">3:2</a> on this view, for Zerubbabel could also be described as a "brand plucked out of the fire." What the vision says is that the vindication of Joshua is a sign for the coming of Yahweh\'s "servant, the Branch," a title that is not given to Joshua (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,7);">Zec 3:7</a>).<P>(2) Others maintain that the garments are symbolical of the sins of the predecessors of Joshua, who is tried for their offenses and himself regarded as being unworthy of the office because he had been brought up in a foreign and heathen land (so Keil, Orelli).<P>(3) Hitzig, followed by Nowack (Kleine Propheten, 325), holds that the idea which lies at the basis of the vision is that Satan is responsible for the ills which the community had suffered (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,\'1-\');">Job 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>). The people had begun to think that their offerings were not acceptable to God and that He would not have pity upon them. There was a feeling among the most pious ones that God\'s righteousness would not allow of their restoration to their former glory. This conflict between righteousness and mercy is decided by silencing the accuser and vindicating Joshua.<P>It is difficult to decide which view, if any, is correct. "The brand plucked out of the fire" seems to point to God\'s recognizing that the community, or perhaps the priestly succession, had almost been exterminated by the exile. It reminds us of the oak of which, after its felling, the stump remaineth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,13);">Isa 6:13</a>), and may perhaps point to God\'s pity being excited for the community. The people, attacked by their enemies and represented by. Joshua, are to be restored to their old glory: that act being symbolized by the clothing of Joshua in clean raiment; and that symbolical act (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,18);">Isa 8:18</a>) is a sign, a guaranty, of the coming of the Messiah-King. The ritualistic tone of Malachi will then follow naturally after the high place given here to the high priest. It is noteworthy that the promise of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,7);">Zec 3:7</a> is conditional.<P>One more point remains, namely, the meaning of the stone in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,9);">Zec 3:9</a>. It has been differently explained as a jewel in the new king\'s crown (Nowack); a foundation stone of the temple, which, however, was already laid (Hitzig); the chief stone of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',4,7);">4:7</a> (Ewald, Steiner); the Messiah Himself (Keil); the stone in the high priest\'s breastplate (Bredenkamp), and the stone which served as an altar (Orelli). Commentators tend to regard the words "upon one stone are seven eyes" as a parenthetical addition characteristic of the author of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,\'1-\');">Zec 9</a>ff.<P>2. Joshua\'s Crown, <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,\'9-15\');">Zechariah 6:9-15</a>:<P>The utterance of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,\'9-15\');">Zec 6:9-15</a> presents to us some more exiles coming from Babylon with silver and gold apparently for the temple. According to the present text, Zechariah is commanded to see that this is used to make a crown for Joshua who is to be a priest-king. This is taken to mean that he is to be given the crown that had been meant for Zerubbabel. But commentators hold that the text has been altered: that the context demands the crowning of Zerubbabel—the Branch of Davidic descent. This view is supported by <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,13);">Zec 6:13</a>, "And the counsel of peace shall be between them both"; and therefore the last clause of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,11);">6:11</a> is omitted. Wellhausen keeps <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,9,10);">6:9 and 10</a>, and then reads: "(<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,11);">11</a>) Yea, take of them silver and gold and make a crown, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,13);">12</a>) and say to them: Thus saith Yahweh of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is the Branch, from whose root there will be a sprout, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,13);">13</a>) and he will build the Temple of Yahweh, and he will obtain glory and sit and rule upon his throne. And Joshua will be a priest on his right hand, and there will be friendly peace between them both. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,14);">14</A>) The crown shall be," etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,15);">Zec 6:15</a> is incomplete.<P>It will be objected that this does away with the idea of a priest-king, an idea found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,\'1-\');">Ps 110</a>. But it seems fairly certain that <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,\'1-\');">Ps 110</a> (see Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms) does not refer to Joshua, the point there being that the king referred to was a priest, although not descended from Aaron, being a priest after the order of Melchizedek, while here the point is, if the present text be correct, that a priest is crowned king. What became of Zerubbabel after this is not known. See Ed. Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine2, 70ff, 86ff. Joshua is called Jesus in Sirach 49:12.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZERUBBABEL">ZERUBBABEL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAGGAI">HAGGAI</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZECHARIAH">ZECHARIAH</a>`149';
|
|
isbe[5166]='Joshua, Book of`<b>I. TITLE AND AUTHORSHIP</b><P><b>II. CONTENTS</b><P class="in15">1. Invasion and Conquest of Western Palestine<P class="in15">2. Allotment of the Country to the Tribes of Israel<P><b>II. HISTORICAL CHARACTER AND CHRONOLOGY</b><P class="in15">1. The Book of Joshua as History<P class="in15">2. Chronology<P><b>IV. SOURCES OF THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE</b><P><b>V. RELATION TO THE BOOK OF JUDGES</b><P class="in15">1. Parallel Narratives<P class="in15">2. Omissions in the History<P><b>VI. PLACE OF JOSHUA IN THE HEBREW CANON</b><P><b>VII. GREEK AND OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS</b><P class="in15">1. The Greek<P class="in15">2. Other Ancient Versions<P><b>VIII. RELIGIOUS PURPOSE AND TEACHING</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Title and Authorship.<P>The name Joshua signifies "Yahweh is deliverance" or "salvation" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSHUA+(2)">JOSHUA (2)</a>). The Greek form of the name is Jesus (Iesous, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,45);">Ac 7:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,8);">Heb 4:8</a>). In later Jewish history the name appears to have become popular, and is even found with a local significance, as the designation of a small town in Southern Palestine (yeshua\'), <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,26);">Ne 11:26</a>). The use of the title by the Jews to denote the Book of Joshua did not imply a belief that the book was actually written or dictated by him; or even that the narratives themselves were in substance derived from him, and owed their authenticity and reliability to his sanction and control. In the earliest Jewish literature the association of a name with a book was not intended in any case to indicate authorship. And the Book of Joshua is no exception to the rule that such early writings, especially when their contents are of a historical nature, are usually anonymous. The title is intended to describe, not authorship, but theme; and to represent that the life and deeds of Joshua form the main subject with which the book is concerned.<P>II. Contents.<P>With regard to the contents of Joshua, it will be found to consist of two well-marked divisions, in the first of which (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,\'1-\');">Joshua 1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>) are narrated the invasion and gradual conquest under the command of Joshua of the land on the west of the Jordan; while the 2nd part describes in detail the allotment of the country to the several tribes with the boundaries of their territories, and concludes with a brief notice of the death and burial of Joshua himself.<P>1. Invasion and Conquest of Western Palestine:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,\'1-\');">Joshua 1</a>: Renewal of the Divine promise to Joshua and exhortation to fearlessness and courage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,\'1-9\');">1:1-9</a>); directions to the people to prepare for the passage of the river, and a reminder to the eastern tribes (Reuben, Gad, and half and Manasseh) of the condition under which they held their possession beyond Jordan; the renewal by these tribes of their pledge of loyalty to Moses\' successor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,\'10-18\');">1:10-18</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,\'1-\');">Joshua 2</a>: The sending of the two spies from Shittim and their escape from Jericho through the stratagem of Rahab.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,\'1-\');">Joshua 3</a>: The passage of Jordan by the people over against Jericho, the priests bearing the ark, and standing in the dry bed of the river until all the people had crossed over.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,\'1-\');">Joshua 4</a>: Erection of 12 memorial stones on the other side of Jordan, where the people encamped after the passage of the river (4:1-14); the priests with the Ark of the Covenant ascend in their turn from out of the river-bed, and the waters return into their wonted course (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,\'15-24\');">4:15-24</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,\'1-\');">Joshua 5</a>: Alarm excited among the kings on the west of Jordan by the news of the successful crossing of the river (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,1);">5:1</A>); circumcision of the people at Gilgal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,\'2-9\');">5:2-9</a>); celebration of the Passover at Gilgal in the plains of Jericho (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,10,11);">5:10,11</a>); cessation of the supply of the manna (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,12);">5:12</A>); appearance to Joshua of the captain of the Lord\'s host (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,13,14,15);">5:13-15</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,\'1-\');">Joshua 6</a>: Directions given to Joshua for the siege and taking of Jericho (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,\'1-5\');">6:1-5</a>); capture of the city, which is destroyed by fire, Rahab and her household alone being saved (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,\'6-25\');">6:6-25</a>); a curse is pronounced on the man who rebuilds Jericho (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,26);">6:26</A>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,\'1-\');">Joshua 7</a>: The crime and punishment of Achan, who stole for himself part of the spoil of the captured city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,1,\'16-26\');">7:1,16-26</A>); incidentally his sin is the cause of a disastrous defeat before Ai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,\'2-12\');">7:2-12</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,\'1-\');">Joshua 8</a>: The taking of Ai by a stratagem, destruction of the city, and death of its king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,\'1-29\');">8:1-29</a>); erection of an altar on Mt. Ebal, and reading of the Law before the assembled people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,\'30-35\');">8:30-35</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,\'1-\');">Joshua 9</a>: Gathering of the peoples of Palestine to oppose Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,1,2);">9:1-2</a>); a covenant of peace made with the Gibeonites, who represent themselves as strangers from a far country (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,\'3-26\');">9:3-26</a>); they are, however, reduced to a condition of servitude (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,27);">9:27</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,\'1-\');">Joshua 10</a>: Combination of 5 kings of the Amorites to punish the inhabitants of Gibeon for their defection, and defeat and rout of the kings by Joshua at Beth-horon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,\'1-14\');">10:1-14</a>); return of the Israelites to Gilgal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,15);">10:15</a>); capture and death by hanging of the 5 kings at Makkedah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,\'16-27\');">10:16-27</a>); taking and destruction of Makkedah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,28);">10:28</a>), Libnah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,29,30);">10:29,30</a>), Lachish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,31,32);">10:31,32</a>), Gezer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,33);">10:33</a>), Eglon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,34,35);">10:34,35</a>), Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,36,37);">10:36,37</a>), Debir (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,38,39);">10:38,39</a>), and summarily all the land, defined as from Kadesh-barnea unto Gaza, and as far north as Gibeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,40,41,42);">10:40-42</a>); return to Gilgal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,43);">10:43</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,\'1-\');">Joshua 11</a>: Defeat of Jabin, king of Hazor, and allied kings at the waters of Merom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,\'1-9\');">11:1-9</a>); destruction of Hazor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,\'10-15\');">11:10-15</a>); reiterated summary of Joshua\'s conquests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,\'16-23\');">11:16-23</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,\'1-\');">Joshua 12</a>: Final summary of the Israelite conquests in Canaan, of Sihon and Og on the east of the Jordan under the leadership of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,\'1-\');">12:1-6</a>); of 31 kings and their cities on the west of the river under Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,\'7-24\');">12:7-24</a>).<P>2. Allotment of the Country to the Tribes of Israel:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,\'1-\');">Joshua 13</a>: Command to Joshua to allot the land on the west of the Jordan, even that which was still unsubdued, to the nine and a half tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,\'1-7\');">13:1-7</a>); recapitulation of the inheritance given by Moses on the east of the river (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,\'8-13\',32);">13:8-13,32</a>); the border of Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,\'15-\');">13:15-23</a>), of Gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,\'24-28\');">13:24-28</a>), of the half-tribe of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,29,30,31);">13:29-31</a>); the tribe of Levi alone received no the landed inheritance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,14,33);">13:14,33</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,\'1-\');">Joshua 14</a>: Renewed statement of the principle on which the division of the land had been made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,\'1-5\');">14:1-5</a>); Hebron given to Caleb for his inheritance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,\'6-15\');">14:6-15</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'1-\');">Joshua 15</a>. The inheritance of Judah, and the boundaries of his territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'1-20\');">15:1-20</a>), including that of Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'13-19\');">15:13-19</a>); enumeration of the cities of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'21-63\');">15:21-63</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,\'1-\');">Joshua 16</a>: Inheritance of the sons of Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,\'1-4\');">16:1-4</a>); the border of Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,\'5-10\');">16:5-10</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,\'1-\');">Joshua 17</a>: Inheritance of Manasseh and the border of the half-tribe on the west of the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,\'1-13\');">17:1-13</a>); complaint of the sons of Joseph of the insufficiency of their inheritance, and grant to them by Joshua of an extension of territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,\'14-18\');">17:14-18</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,\'1-\');">Joshua 18</a>: The land yet unsubdued divided by lot into 7 portions for the remaining 7 tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,\'1-10\');">18:1-10</a>); inheritance of the sons of Benjamin and the border of their territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,\'11-20\');">18:11-20</a>); enumeration of their cities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,\'21-28\');">18:21-28</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'1-\');">Joshua 19</a>: Inheritance of Simeon and his border (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'1-9\');">19:1-9</a>); of Zebulun and his border (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'10-16\');">19:10-16</a>); of Issachar and his border (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'17-23\');">19:17-23</a>); of Asher and his border (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'24-31);">19:24-31</a>); of Naphtali and his border (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'32-39\');">19:32-39</a>); and of Dan and his border (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'40-48\');">19:40-48</a>); inheritance of Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,49,50);">19:49,50</a>); concluding statement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,51);">19:51</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,\'1-\');">Joshua 20</a>: Cities of Refuge appointed, three on each side of the Jordan.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,48);">Joshua 21:48</a> cities with their suburbs given to the Levites out of the territories of the several tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,\'1-41\');">21:1-41</a>); the people had rest in the land, their enemies being subdued, according to the Divine promise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,\'43,44,45);">21:43-45</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,\'1-\');">Joshua 22</a>: Dismissal of the eastern tribes to their inheritance, their duty to their brethren having been fulfilled (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,\'1-9\');">22:1-9</a>); the erection by them of a great altar by the side of the Jordan aroused the suspicion of the western tribes, who feared that they intended to separate themselves from the common cause (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,\'10-20\');">22:10-20</a>); their reply that the altar is to serve the purpose of a witness between themselves and their brethren (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,\'21-34\');">22:21-34</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',23,\'1-\');">Joshua 23</a>: Joshua\'s address of encouragement and warning to the people.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,\'1-\');">Joshua 24</a>: Second address of Joshua, recalling to the people their history, and the Divine interventions on their behalf (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,\'1-23\');">24:1-23</A>); the people\'s pledge of loyalty to the Lord, and formal covenant in Shechem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,24,25);">24:24,25</a>); the book of the law of God is committed to writing, and a stone is erected as a permanent memorial (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,26,27,28);">24:26-28</a>); death and burial of Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,\'29-31\');">24:29-31</a>); burial in Shechem of the bones of Joseph, brought from Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,32);">24:32</a>); death and burial of Eleazar, son of Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,33);">24:33</a>).<P>III. Historical Character and Chronology.<P>1. The Book of Joshua as History:<P>As a historical narrative, therefore, detailing the steps taken to secure the conquest and possession of Canaan, Joshua is incomplete and is marked by many omissions, and in some instances at least includes phrases or expressions which seem to imply the existence of parallel or even divergent accounts of the same event, e.g. in the passage of the Jordan and the erection of memorial stones (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,\'1-\');">Joshua 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,\'1-\');">4</a>), the summary of the conquests of Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,\'40-43\');">10:40-43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,\'16-23\');">11:16-23</a>), or the references to Moses\' victories over the Amorite kings on the east of the Jordan.<P>This last fact suggests, what is in itself sufficiently probable, that the writer or compiler of the book made use of previously existing records or narratives, not necessarily in every instance written, but probably also oral and traditional, upon which he relied and out of which by means of excerpts with modifications and omissions, the resultant history was composed. The incomplete and defective character of the book therefore, considered merely as a history of the conquest of Western Palestine and its allotment among the new settlers, would seem to indicate that the "sources" available for the writer\'s use were fragmentary also in their nature, and did not present a complete view either of the life of Joshua or of the experiences of Israel while under his direction.<P>2. Chronology:<P>Within the limits of the book itself, moreover, notifications of chronological sequence, or of the length of time occupied in the various campaigns, are almost entirely wanting. Almost the only references to date or period are the statements that Joshua himself was 110 years old at the time of his death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,29);">24:29</a>), and that his wars lasted "a long time" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,18);">11:18</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',23,1);">23:1</a>). Caleb also, the son of Jephunneh, companion of Joshua in the mission of the spies from Kadesh-barnea, describes himself as 85 years old, when he receives Hebron as his inheritance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,10);">14:10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,13);">15:13</a>ff); the inference would be, assuming 40 years for the wanderings in the desert, that 5 years had then elapsed since the passage of the Jordan "on the tenth day of the first month" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,19);">4:19</a>). No indication, however, is given of the chronological relation of this event to the rest of the history; and 5 years would be too short a period for the conquest of Palestine, if it is to be understood that the whole was carried out in consecutive campaigns under the immediate command of Joshua himself. On the other hand, "very much land" remained still unsubdued at his death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,1);">13:1</a>). Christian tradition seems to have assumed that Joshua was about the same age as Caleb, although no definite statement to that effect is made in the book itself; and that, therefore, a quarter of a century, more or less, elapsed between the settlement of the latter at Hebron and Joshua\'s death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,10);">14:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,29);">24:29</A>). The entire period from the crossing of the Jordan would then be reckoned at from 28 to 30 years.<P>IV. Sources of the Written Narrative.<P>The attempt to define the "sources" of Joshua as it now exists, and to disentangle them one from another, presents considerably more difficulty than is to be encountered for the most part in the Pentateuch. The distinguishing criteria upon which scholars rely and which have led serious students of the book to conclude that there may be traced here also the use of the same "documents" or "documentary sources" as are to be found in the Pentateuch, are essentially the same. Existing and traditional accounts, however, have been used apparently with greater freedom, and the writer has allowed himself a fuller liberty of adaptation and combination, while the personal element has been permitted wider scope in molding the resultant form which the composition should take. For the most part, therefore, the broad line of distinction between the various "sources" which have been utilized may easily be discerned on the ground of their characteristic traits, in style, vocabulary or general conception; in regard to detail, however, the precise point at which one "source" has been abandoned for another, or the writer himself has supplied deficiencies and bridged over gaps, there is frequent uncertainty, and the evidence available is insufficient to justify an absolute conclusion. The fusion of material has been more complete than in the 5 books of the law, perhaps because the latter were hedged about with a more reverential regard for the letter, and at an earlier period attained the standing of canonicity.<P>A detailed analysis of the sources as they have been distinguished and related to one another by scholars is here unnecessary. A complete discussion of the subject will be found in Dr. Driver\'s LOT6, 105ff, in other Introductions, or in the Commentaries on Joshua. Not seldom in the ultimate detail the distinctions are precarious, and there are differences of opinion among scholars themselves as to the precise limit or limits of the use made of any given source, or at what point the dividing line should be drawn. It is only in a broad and general sense that in Joshua especially the literary theory of the use of "documents," as generally understood and as interpreted in the case of the Pentateuch, can be shown to be well founded. In itself, however, such a theory is eminently reasonable, and is both in harmony with the general usage and methods of ancient composition, and affords ground for additional confidence in the good faith and reliability of the narrative as a whole.<P>V. Relation to the Book of Judges.<P>1. Parallel Narratives:<P>A comparison moreover of the history recorded in Joshua with the brief parallel account in Judges furnishes ground for believing that a detailed or chronological narrative was not contemplated by the writer or writers themselves. The introductory verses of Judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'1-\');">1:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,\'1-5\');">2:5</a>) are in part a summary of incidents recorded in Joshua, and in part supply new details or present a different view of the whole. The original notices that are added relate almost entirely to the invasion and conquest of Southern Palestine by the united or allied tribes of Judah and Simeon and the destruction of Bethel by the "house of Joseph." The action of the remaining tribes is narrated in a few words, the brief record closing in each case with reference to the condition of servitude to which the original inhabitants of the land were reduced. And the general scheme of the invasion as there represented is apparently that of a series of disconnected raids or campaigns undertaken by the several tribes independently, each having for its object the subjection of the territory assigned to the individual tribe. A general and comprehensive plan of conquest under the supreme leadership of Joshua appears to be entirely wanting. In detail, however, the only real inconsistency between the two narratives would appear to be that in Judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,21);">1:21</a>) the failure to expel the Jebusites from Jerusalem is laid to the account of the Benjamites, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,63);">Jos 15:63</a> it is charged against the children of Judah. The difficulties in the way of the formation of a clear conception of the incidents attending the capture of Jerusalem are perhaps insuperable upon any hypothesis; and the variation of the tribal name in the two texts may be no more than a copyist\'s error.<P>2. Omissions in the History:<P>A perhaps more striking omission in both narratives is the absence of any reference to the conquest of Central Palestine. The narrative of the overthrow of Bethel and Ai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,\'1-\');">Jos 6:1-8:29</a>) is followed immediately by the record of the building of an altar on Mt. Ebal and the recitation of the Law before the people of Israel assembled in front of Mts. Ebal and Gerizim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,30);">Jos 8:30</a>). Joshua then turns aside to defeat at Beth-horon the combination of the Amorite kings, and completes the conquest of the southern country as far south as Kadesh-barnea (10:41). Immediately thereafter he is engaged in overthrowing a confederacy in the far north (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,\'1-15\');">11:1-15</a>), a work which clearly could not have been undertaken or successfully accomplished, unless the central region had been already subdued; but of its reduction no account is given. It has been supposed that the silence of the narrator is an indication that at the period of the invasion this district was in the occupation of tribes friendly or even related to the Israelite clans; and in support of the conjecture reference has been made to the mention of Israel on the stele of Merenptah, the Egyptian ruler in whose reign, according to the most probable view, the exodus took place. In this record the nation or a part thereof is regarded as already settled in Palestine at a date earlier by half a century than their appearance under Moses and Joshua on the borders of the Promised Land. The explanation is possible, but perhaps hardly probable. The defects of the historical record are irremediable at this distance of time, and it must be acknowledged that with the available material no complete and consistent narrative of the events of the Israelite conquest of Palestine can be constructed.<P>VI. Place of Joshua in the Hebrew Canon.<P>In the Hebrew Canon Joshua is the first in order of the prophetical books, and the first of the group of 4, namely, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, which form the "Earlier Prophets" (nebhi\'im ri\'shonim). These books, the contents of which are history, not prophecy in the ordinary sense of the term, were assigned by the Jews to the 2nd division of their sacred Canon, and found a place by the side of the great writings of the "Later Prophets" (nebhi\'im \'acharonim). This position was given to them in part perhaps because they were believed to have been written or composed by prophets, but mainly because Jewish history was regarded as in purpose and intent "prophetic," being directed and presided over by Yahweh Himself, and conveying direct spiritual instruction and example. The Canon of the Law, moreover, was already closed; and however patent and striking might be the resemblance of Joshua in style and method of composition to the books of the Pentateuch, it was impossible to admit it therein, or to give a place within the Torah, a group of writings which were regarded as of Mosaic authorship, to a narrative of events which occurred after Moses\' death. Later criticism reviewed and reversed the verdict as to the true character of the book. In every Canon except the Hebrew, its historical nature was recognized, and the work was classified accordingly. Modern criticism has gone further, and, with increasing consciousness of its close literary relationship to the books of the Law, has united it with them in a Hexateuch, or even under the more comprehensive title of Octateuch combines together the Books of Judges and Ruth with the preceding six on the ground of similarity of origin and style. VII. Greek and Other Ancient Versions.<P>1. The Greek:<P>In the ancient versions of Joshua there is not much that is of interest. The Greek translation bears witness to a Hebrew original differing little from the Massoretic Text. In their renderings, however, and general treatment of the Hebrew text, the translators seem to have felt themselves at liberty to take up a position of greater independence and freedom than in dealing with the 5 books of the Law. Probably also the rendering of Joshua into Greek is not to be ascribed to the same authors as the translation of the Pentateuch. While faithful to the Hebrew, it is less constantly and exactly literal, and contains many slight variations, the most important of which are found in the last 6 chapters.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'1-\');">Joshua 19</a>: The Septuagint transposes <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,47,48);">19:47,48</a>, and, omitting the first clause of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,47);">19:47</a>, refers the whole to the sons of Judah, without mention of Dan; it further adds <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,147,48;">19:47a, 48a</a> on the relation between the Amorites and Ephraim, and the Amorites and the Danites respectively. With <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,47);">19:47a</a> compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,10);">16:10</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,29);">Jud 1:29</a>, and with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,48);">19:48a</a> compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,47);">19:47 (Hebrew)</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,34);">Jud 1:34</a>.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,\'4-6\');">Joshua 20:4-6</a> inclusive are omitted in B, except a clause from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,6);">20:6</a>; A, however, inserts them in full. Compare Driver, LOT6,112,who, on the ground of their Deuteronomic tone, regards it as probable that the verses are an addition to the Priestly Code (P), and therefore did not form part of the original text as used by the Greek translators.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,36,37);">Joshua 21:36,37</a>, which give the names of the Levitical cities in Judah, are omitted in the Hebrew printed text although found in many Hebrew manuscripts. Four verses also are added after <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,42);">21:42</a>, the first three of which repeat <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,50);">19:50</a>f; and the last is a reminiscence of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,3);">5:3</a>.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,29);">Joshua 24:29</a>f which narrate the death and burial of Joshua are placed in the Greek text after <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,31);">24:31</a>; and a verse is inserted after <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,30);">24:30</a> recording that the stone knives used for the purposes of the circumcision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,2);">5:2</a>ff) were buried with Joshua in his tomb (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,42);">21:42</a>). After <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,33);">24:33</a> also two new verses appear, apparently a miscellany from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,6,\'11-15\');">Jud 2:6,11-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,7,12,14);">3:7,12,14</a>, with a statement of the death and burial of Phinehas, son and successor of Eleazar, of the idolatrous worship by the children of Israel of Astarte and Ashtaroth, and the oppression under Eglon, king of Moab.<P>2. Other Ancient Versions:<P>The other VSS, with the exception of Jerome\'s translation from the Hebrew, are secondary, derived mediately through the Greek. The Old Latin is contained in a manuscript at Lyons, Cod. Lugdunensis, which is referred to the 6th century. Of the Coptic version only small portions are extant; they have been published by G. Maspero, Memoires de la mission archeologique frantsaise, tom. VI, fasc. 1, le Caire,1892,and elsewhere. A Samaritan translation also is known, for parts of which at least an early origin and an independent derivation from the Hebrew have been claimed. The ancient character of the version, however, is contested, and it has been shown that the arguments on which reliance was placed are insufficient to justify the conclusions drawn. The translation appears to be in reality of quite recent date, and to have been made originally from the Arabic, perhaps in part compared with and corrected by the Massoretic Text. The subject was fully and conclusively discussed by Dr. Yehuda of Berlin, at the Oriental Congress in the summer of 1908, and in a separate pamphlet subsequently published. It was even stated that the author of the version was still living, and his name was given. Dr. Gaster, the original discoverer of the Samaritan MS, in various articles and letters maintains his contention that the translation is really antique, and therefore of great value, but he has failed to convince scholars. (See M. Gaster in JRAS (1908), 795ff, 1148ff; E. N. Adler, ib, 1143ff. The text of the manuscript was published by Dr. Caster in ZDMG (1908), 209ff, and a specimen chapter with English rendering and notes in PSBA, XXXI (1909), 115ff, 149ff.)<P>VIII. Religious Purpose and Teaching. As a whole, then, Joshua is dominated by the same religious and hortatory purpose as the earlier writings of the Pentateuch; and in this respect as well as in authorship and structure the classification which assigns to it a place by the side of the 5 books of Moses and gives to the whole the title of Hexateuch is not unjustified. The author or authors had in view not merely the narration of incident, nor the record of events in the past history of their people of which they judged it desirable that a correct account should be preserved, but they endeavored in all to subserve a practical and religious aim. The history is not for its own sake, or for the sake of the literal facts which it enshrines, but for the sake of the moral and spiritual lessons which may be elucidated therein, and enforced from its teaching. The Divine leading in history is the first thought with the writer. And the record of Israel\'s past presents itself as of interest to him, not because it is a record of events that actually happened, but because he sees in it the ever-present guidance and overruling determination of God, and would draw from it instruction and warning for the men of his own time and for those that come after him. Not the history itself, but the meaning and interpretation of the history are of value. Its importance lies in the illustrations it affords of the controlling working of a Divine Ruler who is faithful to His promises, loving righteousness and hating iniquity, and swaying the destinies of men in truth. Thus the selection of materials, and the form and arrangement of the book are determined by a definite aim: to set forth and enforce moral lessons, and to exhibit Israel\'s past as the working out of a Divine purpose which has chosen the nation to be the recipient of the Divine favor, and the instrument for the carrying forward of His purposes upon earth.<P>LITERATURE.<P>A Complete bibliography of the literature up to date will be found in the dictionaries, under the word "Joshua," DB2,1893,HDB, II,1899,EB, II, 1901; compare W. H. Bennett, "The Book of Joshua," in SBOT, Leipzig, 1895; W.G. Blaikie, "Joshua," in Expositor\'s Bible, 1893; A. Dillmann, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josua 2, Leipzig, 1886; H. Holzinger, "Das Buch Josua," in Kurzer Hand-Comm. zum A T, Tubingen, 1901; C. Steuernagel, "Josua," in Nowack\'s Handcommentar zum Altes Testament, 1899; S. Oettli, "Deuteronomy, Josua u. Richter," in Kurzgef. Komm, Munchen, 1893; W.J. Deane, Joshua, His Life and Times, in "Men of the Bible Series," London.``65';
|
|
isbe[5167]='Josiah`jo-si\'-a (yo\'shiyahu, "Yahweh supports him"; Ioseias; the King James Version <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UPPERCASE">JOSIAS</a> (which see)):<P><b>I. SOURCES FOR HIS LIFE AND TIMES</b><P class="in15">1. Annalistic<P class="in15">2. Prophetic<P class="in15">3. Memorial<P><b>II. TRAITS OF HIS REIGN</b><P class="in15">1. Situation at the Beginning<P class="in15">2. Finding of the Law<P class="in15">3. The Great Reform<P class="in15">4. Disaster at Megiddo</a><P>The name given 6 years before the death of his grandfather Manasseh resumes the Judaic custom, suspended in the case of that king and Amon, of compounding royal names with that of Yahweh; perhaps a hint of the time, when, according to the Chronicler, Manasseh realized Yahweh\'s claim on his realm (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,12,13);">2Ch 33:12,13</a>). One of the most eminent of the kings of Judah; came to the throne at 8 years of age and reigned circa 637-608 BC.<P>I. Sources for His Life and Times.<P>1. Annalistic:<P>The earliest history is dispassionate in tone, betraying its prophetic feeling, however, in its acknowledgment of Yahweh\'s wrath, still menacing in spite of Josiah\'s unique piety (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,26,27);">2Ki 23:26,27</a>). For "the rest of his acts" (to which the rather bald account of his death is relegated as a kind of appendix), it refers to "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah." In the later history (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,\'1-\');">2Ch 34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,\'1-\');">35</a>), written from the developed ecclesiastical point of view, he is considerably idealized: the festal and ceremonial aspects of his reform are more fully detailed, and the story of his campaign and death is more sympathetically told in the sense of it as a great national calamity.<P>2. Prophetic:<P>For the spiritual atmosphere of his time and the prophetic consciousness of a day of wrath impending, the prophet Zephaniah is illuminating, especially for the first half of the reign. Jeremiah, born at about the same time as Josiah, began prophesying in the 13th year of the reign (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,2);">Jer 1:2</a>). His intimate connection with state affairs, however, belongs to succeeding reigns; but some prophecies of his, notably those revealing his attitude toward the temple misuse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,\'1-15\');">7:1-15</a>) and toward the Deuteronomic reform (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,\'1-13\');">11:1-13</a>), throw much light on the prevailing conditions. Nahum, writing near the end of the reign, and from an outlying village, is less concerned with home affairs than with the approaching end of Nineveh (fell 606 BC).<P>3. Memorial:<P>In Jesus Sirach\'s Praise of Famous Men there is a passage (Sirach 49:1-4), wholly eulogistic of Josiah, on the score that "in the days of wicked men he made godliness to prevail"; and along with David and Hezekiah he is one of the three who alone did not "commit trespass." Jeremiah\'s lamentation for Josiah, mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,25);">2Ch 35:25</a>, is not preserved to us; instead there is only an allusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,10);">Jer 22:10</a>), naming his successor Shallum (Jehoahaz) as a fitter subject. The lamentations which became "an ordinance in Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,25);">2Ch 35:25</a>) are not to be referred to the Scripture book of that name; which has no hint of Josiah, unless <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,20);">La 4:20</a> be so construed.<P>II. Traits of His Reign.<P>1. Situation at the Beginning:<P>Until his 18th year 2 Kings gives no events of Josiah\'s reign; 2 Chronicles, however, relates that in his 8th year (at 16 years of age) he "began to seek after the God of David his father," and that in the 12th year he began the purgation of Judah and Jerusalem. The Chronicler may be mistaken in putting the completion of this work before the finding of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,8);">2Ch 34:8</a>), but of his disposition and of his beginning without documentary warrant on a work which Hezekiah had attempted before him, there is no reason to doubt. And indeed various influences were working together to make his procedure natural. The staunch loyalty to the Davidic house, as emphasized by the popular movement which seated him (see under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AMON">AMON</a>), would in itself be an influence to turn his mind to the God of David his father. Manasseh\'s all-embracing idolatry had indeed reduced his aristocracy to a people "settled on their lees, that say in their heart, Yahweh will not do good, neither will he do evil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,12);">Ze 1:12</a>); but these represented merely the inertia, not the intelligence, of the people. Over against them is to be reckoned the spiritually-minded "remnant" with which since Isaiah the prophets had been working; a remnant now seasoned by persecution, and already committed to the virtue of meekness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,3);">Ze 2:3</a>) and the willing acceptance of affliction as their appointed lot, as against the arrogance of the "proudly exulting ones" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,\'11-13\');">Ze 3:11-13</a>). To such courage and hope the redeeming element of Israel had grown in the midst of a blatant infidelity and worldliness. Nor were they so unconnected with the established order as formerly. The ministers of the temple-service, if not subjected to persecution, had been ranked on a level with devotees of other cults, and so had a common cause which would work to unite the sympathies of priests and prophets in one loyalty to Yahweh. All this is adduced as indicating how the better elements of the nation were ripening for a forward step in enlightened religious progress.<P>2. Finding of the Law:<P>The providential moment arrived when in the 18th year of his reign Josiah sent Shaphan the scribe to the temple to arrange with Hilkiah the high priest for the prescribed temple repairs. On giving his account of the funds for that purpose, Hilkiah also delivered to Shaphan a book which he had found in the "house of Yahweh," that is, in the temple proper; which book, when Shaphan read therefrom to the king, caused the latter to rend his robe in dismay and consternation. It was a book in which were commands of Yahweh that had long been unknown or disregarded, and along with these, fearful curses to follow the infraction of them. Such a discovery could not be treated lightly, as one might spurn a prophet or priest; nay, it immediately called the authority of the prophet into requisition. The king sent a deputation to Huldah the prophetess for her verdict on the book; and she, whether aware of its contents or not, assured him that the curses were valid, and that for impieties against which the prophets continually warned, all the woes written in the book were impending. One of the most voluminous discussions of Biblical scholarship has centered round the question what this book was, what its origin, and how it came there in the temple. The Chronicler says roundly it was "the book of the law of Yahweh by the hand of Moses." That it was from the nation\'s great first prophet and lawgiver was the implicit belief of the king and all his contemporaries. There can be little doubt, judging from the nature of the reforms it elicited and the fact that the curses it contained are still extant, that this "book of the law" was virtually identical with our Book of Deuteronomy. But is this the work of Moses, or the product of a later literary activity? In answer, it is fair to say that it is so true to the soundest interpretation of the spirit and power of Moses that there need be no hesitation in calling it genuinely Mosaic, whatever adaptations and supplementations its laws received after his time. Its highly developed style, however, and its imperfect conformity to the nomadic conditions of Moses\' time, make so remote an origin of its present form very doubtful. It comes to us written with the matured skill of Israel\'s literary prime, in a time too when, as we know (see under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEZEKIAH">HEZEKIAH</a>), men of letters were keenly interested in rescuing and putting to present use the literary treasures of their past. As to how it came to be left in the temple at a time so much before its discovery that none questioned its being what it purported to be, each scholar must answer for himself. Some have conjectured that it may have been a product of Solomon\'s time, and deposited, according to immemorial custom in temple-building, in the foundation of Solomon\'s temple, where it was found when certain ruins made repairs necessary. To the present writer it seems likelier that it was one of the literary products of Hezekiah\'s time, compiled from scattered statutes, precedents, and customs long in the keeping—or neglect—of priests and judges, put into the attractive form of oratory, and left for its providential moment.<P>See further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEUTERONOMY">DEUTERONOMY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WRITING">WRITING</a>.<P>3. The Great Reform:<P>Josiah\'s immediate procedure was to call to the temple a representative assemblage—elders, prophets, priests, populace—and to read to them this "book of the covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,2);">2Ki 23:2</a>). Then he made a solemn covenant before Yahweh to obey it, and all the people stood to the covenant. So, perhaps for the first time, the people of Judah and Jerusalem had for their guidance not only the case decisions of judges and priests, nor only the emergency warnings and predictions of prophets, but a written and accessible document, covering in a large and liberal way the duties of their civic, social and religious life. One of the most momentous productions of all history, the book became the constitution of the Jewish race; nor were its noble provisions superseded when, centuries later, the tethers of race were broken and a Christian civilization came into its heritage. But the book that was destined to have so large a significance in all coming history had its immediate significance too, and never had this been so pressing. Josiah\'s consternation arose from the sense of how much of the nation\'s obvious duty had been left undone and unregarded. First of all, they had through heedless years and ages drifted into a medley of religious ideas and customs which had accumulated until all this lumber of Manasseh\'s idolatry was upon them. Hezekiah had tried to clear away some of its most crude and superstitious elements (see under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEZEKIAH">HEZEKIAH</a>), but he was handicapped by the lack of its clear issue and objective, which now this book supplied. Zephaniah too was showing what Yahweh\'s will was (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,\'2-6\');">Ze 1:2-6</a>); there must be a clean sweep of the debasing and obscuring cults, and the purgation must be done to stay. So Josiah\'s first reforming step was to break up the high places, the numerous centers of the evil, to destroy the symbols and utensils of the idolatrous shrines and rites, and to defile them past resuscitation. His zeal did not stop with Jerusalem and Judah; he went on to Bethel, which had been the chief sanctuary of the now defunct Northern Kingdom, and in his work here was recognized the fulfillment of an old prophecy dating from the time of its first king (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,17);">2Ki 23:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,1,2);">1Ki 13:1,2</a>). This necessitated the concentration of public worship in the temple at Jerusalem, and in Deuteronomy was found the warrant for this, in the prescript, natural to Moses\' point of view, that the worship of Israel must have a single center as it had in the wilderness. From this negative procedure he went on to the positive measure of reviving the festival services inseparable from a religion requiring pilgrimage, instituting a grand Passover on a scale unheard of since the time of the Judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,21,22);">2Ki 23:21,22</a>), a feature of his reform on which the Chronicler dwells with peculiar zest (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,\'1-15\');">2Ch 35:1-15</a>). Thus both in the idolatries they must abolish and in the organized worship that they must maintain, the people were committed to a definite and documented issue; this it was which made Josiah\'s reform so momentous. That the reform seemed after Josiah\'s untimely death to have been merely outward, is what might reasonably be expected from the inveteracy of the unspirituality that it must encounter. Jeremiah had small faith in its saving power against the stubborn perversity of the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,\'1-14\');">Jer 11:1-14</a>); and the historian of 2 Kings intimates that more than the piety of a zealous king was needed to turn away the stern decree of Yahweh\'s anger (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,26,27);">2Ki 23:26,27</a>). In spite of all hardness and apostasy, however, the nation that had once "stood to the covenant" of Deuteronomy could never again be at heart the nation it was before.<P>4. Disaster at Megiddo:<P>Ardent and pious as he was, there seems to have been a lack of balance in Josiah\'s character. His extreme dismay and dread of the curse pronounced on the realm\'s neglect of the law seems to have been followed, after his great reform had seemed to set things right, by an excess of confidence in Yahweh\'s restored favor which went beyond sound wisdom, and amounted to presumption. The power of Assyria was weakening, and Pharaoh-necoh of Egypt, ambitious to secure control of Mesopotamia, started on the campaign in which he was eventually to suffer defeat at Carchemish. Josiah, whose reforming zeal had already achieved success in Northern Israel, apparently cherished inordinate dreams of invincibility in Yahweh\'s name, and went forth with a little army to withstand the Egyptian monarch on his march through the northern provinces. At the first onset he was killed, and his expedition came to nothing. In his untimely death the fervid hopes of the pious received a set-back which was long lamented as one of the cardinal disasters of Israel. It was a sore calamity, but also a stern education. Israel must learn not only the enthusiasm but also the prudence and wisdom of its new-found faith.<P>(2) A contemporary of Zechariah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,10);">Zec 6:10</a>), at whose house in Jerusalem the prophet met some returned Jews from Babylon.``66';
|
|
isbe[5168]='Josias`jo-si\'-as (Textus Receptus, Iosias; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Ioseias): <P>(1) Greek form in the King James Version of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,10,11);">Mt 1:10,11</a>; compare 1Esdras 1; Baruch 1:8), king of Judah.<P>(2) In 1Esdras 8:33 the King James Version for <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESIAS">JESIAS</a> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[5169]='Josibiah`jos-i-bi\'-a.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSHIBIAH">JOSHIBIAH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5170]='Josiphiah`jos-i-fi\'-a (yociphyah, "Yah adds"): Found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,10);">Ezr 8:10</a>, where Massoretic Text is "and of the sons of...Shelomith the son of Josiphiah." With the help of Septuagint A and 1Esdras 8:36, the name "Bani" (which is the same in the unpointed text as "the sons of" and was omitted through haplography) can be supplied above before "Shelomith." Josiphia is thus the father of Shelomith, one of Ezra\'s companions. 1Esdras 8:36 has "Josaphias."``1';
|
|
isbe[5171]='Jot`jot: "Jot" (Revised Version, later editions of the King James Version) is a corruption of iote (early editions of the King James Version, Geneva, Rheims, Bishops\'—pronounced i-o\'te), an English transliteration of iota, the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,18);">Mt 5:18</a> parallel). "Iota," in turn, is the nearest Greek equivalent for the Hebrew yodh ("y"), the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in New Testament times being little larger than an English accent (\'). The <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TITTLE">tittle</a> (which see) is the smallest part of a letter (not part of a y, however). Consequently, thinking of the law as written out, the sense of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,17);">Mt 5:17</a>, is: "From this code, so written, not the smallest letter nor part of a letter—not an \'i\' nor the crossing of a \'t\'—shall be erased until all things come to pass." (For the meaning, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LAW">LAW</a>.) The reference is to the synagogue rolls, which were written in Hebrew, so that the passage has no bearing on the language used by Christ. For the form of the "jot," compare the tables in HDB, article "Alphabet," more fully in Chwolson, Corp. Inscr. Hebrew. (1882).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TITTLE">TITTLE</a>`48';
|
|
isbe[5172]='Jotapata`jo-tap\'-a-ta (BJ, III, iii, 7).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOTBATHAH">JOTBATHAH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5173]='Jotbah`jot\'-ba (yotbah, "pleasantness"): The home of Meshullemeth, the mother of King Amon, daughter of Haruz (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,19);">2Ki 21:19</a>). It may be the same as <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOTBATHAH">JOTBATHAH</a> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[5174]='Jotbathah`jot\'-ba-tha (yotbathah): A desert camp of the Israelites between Hor-hagidgad and Abronah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,33,34);">Nu 33:33,34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,7);">De 10:7</a>). It was "a land of brooks of water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,7);">De 10:7</a>). Site is unknown.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5175]='Jotham`o\'-tham (yotham, "Yahweh is perfect"; Ioatham):<P>(1) The youngest son of Gideon-Jerubbaal, the sole survivor of the massacre of his seventy brothers by Abimelech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,5);">Jud 9:5</a>), and (by <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,22);">Jud 8:22</a>) the legitimate ruler of Shechem after their death. Recognizing, however, that he is powerless to assert his claim, Jotham delivers from the summit of Gerizim his famous fable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,\'7-15\');">Jud 9:7-15</a>), applies it to the situation in hand, and then flees for his life to Beer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,21);">Jud 9:21</a>). Nothing more is told of him, but the downfall of Abimelech is referred in part to his "curse" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,57);">Jud 9:57</a>). The fable tells of the kingship of the trees which, after having been declined by all useful plants, was finally offered to the bramble. The latter, inflated by its unexpected dignity, pompously offers its "shade\' to its faithful subjects, while threatening all traitors with punishment (brambles carry forest fires), quite in the manner of an oriental monarch on assuming the throne. Having thus parodied the relationship of the worthless Abimelech to the Shechemites, Jotham ironically wishes both parties joy of their bargain, which will end in destruction for all concerned. Otherwise the connection between the fable and its application is loose, for, while the fable depicts the kingship as refused by all properly qualified persons, in the application the Shechemites are upbraided for their treachery and their murder of the rightful heirs. In fact, the fable taken by itself would seem rather to be a protest against kings as a class (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,\'10-18\');">1Sa 8:10-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,19);">12:19</a>, etc.); so it is possible that either the fable or its application has become expanded in transmission. Or an older fable may have been used for the sake of a single salient point, for nothing is more common than such an imperfect reapplication of fables, allegories and parables.<P>Burton Scott Easton<P>(2) Twelfth king of Judah, son of Uzziah and Jerusha, daughter of Zadok (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,\'32-38\');">2Ki 15:32-38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',27,\'1-9\');">2Ch 27:1-9</a>).<P>1. Accession and Regency:<P>Jotham was 25 years of age at the time of his father\'s attack of leprosy, and was at once called upon to take the administration of the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,5);">2Ki 15:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,21);">2Ch 26:21</a>). In doing this he not only judged the people of the land by presiding at the administration of justice, but also was over the household of the king, showing how complete was the isolation of his father. He was thus king in all but name, and is invariably spoken of as reigning in Jerusalem. His reign lasted for 16 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,33);">2Ki 15:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',27,1);">2Ch 27:1</a>), 759-744 (others put later). While the father loved husbandry and had much cattle (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,10);">2Ch 26:10</a>)—external affairs with which he could occupy himself in his retirement—to the son fell the sterner duties and heavier responsibilities of the state.<P>2. The War with Ammon:<P>The relation between father and son is well brought out in the Chronicler\'s account of the Ammonite war. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,8);">2Ch 26:8</a> we are told that "the Ammonites gave tribute (the King James Version "gifts") to Uzziah," such gifts being compulsory, and of the nature of tribute. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',27,5);">2Ch 27:5</a> we are told that the actual conquest of Ammon was made by Jotham, and that for 3 successive years he compelled them to pay an annual subsidy of 100 talents of silver and 10,000 "cors" each of wheat and barley (the cor (Hebrew kor) was about 10 bushels). The campaign on the east of the Jordan was the only one in which Jotham took part, but as the state suffered no loss of territory during his regency, the external provinces must have been strongly held and well governed.<P>3. Jotham\'s Building Operations:<P>It is probable that before attempting to win any extension of territory, Jotham had spent some years in completing the unfinished building schemes in which his father was engaged at the time of his affliction. Like him, he became an enthusiastic builder (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',27,3,4);">2Ch 27:3,4</a>). He is recorded to have built towers, castles and cities, and specifically to have completed the Ophel wall in Jerusalem, which is still standing to the south of the Haram area. But the crowning architectural glory of his reign was the completion of the temple court by erecting, or setting up, "the upper gate of the house of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',27,3);">2Ch 27:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,35);">2Ki 15:35</a>). This particular gate was the entrance to, and exit from, the upper or new court of the temple, which had been begun so long ago as the time of Asa (compare the writer\'s Solomon\'s Temple, Part II, chapter viii). Its situation is perfectly known, as it bore the same name and place in the Herodian temple as in each of its predecessors. It stood facing the south, and was on higher ground than any other of the temple gates. Hence, its name. It gave entrance to that upper court of the temple, mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,10);">Jer 36:10</a>, where it is spoken of as "the new gate of Yahweh\'s house." As Jeremiah began his ministry about a century after Jotham\'s death, Jeremiah\'s use of the name commemorates the fact that the gate was not built till long after the other parts of the structure.<P>4. The Syrian League:<P>During Jotham\'s regency, a formidable combination of the Northern Kingdom and the Syrian state, with Damascus as capital, began to show signs of hostility to Judah. For 4 years before Jotham\'s death, Pekah occupied the throne of Samaria. The Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser III, was then pushing his arms westward, and a Syrian league was formed to oppose them. Jotham may have refused to join this league. The political situation at his death is thus described: "In those days Yahweh began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,37);">2Ki 15:37</a>).<P>5. Condition of Judah:<P>Jotham\'s character is represented in a moderately favorable light, it being put to his credit that he did not enter the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',27,2);">2Ch 27:2</a>). The wisdom and vigor of his administration, and of his policy for the defense of the country, are recognized. It was owing to his completion of his father\'s plans for the protection of Jerusalem, and of the building of country fortresses, that Hezekiah, a few years afterward, was able to show so stout a resistance to Sennacherib. But within the state itself corruption and oppression were rife. The great prophets, Isaiah, Hosea and Micah, exercised their ministries in Jotham\'s days, and in their pages we have graphic picture of the moral condition of the time. Isaiah does not name Jotham, except in the title (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,1);">Isa 1:1</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,1);">7:1</a>), but <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,\'1-\');">Isaiah 1-5</a> of his book were probably written in this reign. Hosea\'s writings go back to the last years of Jeroboam II, who died the year Jotham came to the throne. Micah\'s evidence is valuable, telling us that Omri had formulated and published rules for the cult of the Zidonian Baal, and that these "statutes" were kept by some of the citizens of Samaria, and, possibly, of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,16);">Mic 6:16</a>).<P>Jotham\'s name appears in the royal genealogical list of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,12);">1Ch 3:12</a>, and in the genealogy of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,9);">Mt 1:9</a>).<P>(3) A Calebite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,47);">1Ch 2:47</a> the King James Version).``17';
|
|
isbe[5176]='Journey`jur\'-ni.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY\'s+journey">DAY\'S JOURNEY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SABBATH+DAY\'s+journey">SABBATH DAY\'S JOURNEY</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5177]='Joy`joi (simchah; chara):<P>1. Terms:<P>The idea of joy is expressed in the Old Testament by a wealth of synonymous terms that cannot easily be differentiated. The commonest is simchah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,6);">1Sa 18:6</a>, etc.), variously translated in English Versions of the Bible "joy," "gladness," "mirth"; from sameah, properly "to be bright," "to shine" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',13,9);">Pr 13:9</a>, "The light of the righteous rejoiceth," literally, "is bright"), but generally used figuratively "to rejoice," "be glad" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,40);">Le 23:40</a> and very frequent).<P>Other nouns are masos and sason, both from sus, properly "to spring," "leap," hence, "exult," "rejoice"; rinnah, "shouting." "joy"; gil, from verb gil or gul, "to go in a circle," hence, "be excited" (dancing round for joy), "rejoice." In the New Testament, far the commonest are chara, "joy," chairo, "to rejoice" (compare charis, "grace"). But we have also agalliasis, which expresses "exuberant joy," "exultation" (not used in classical Greek, but often in the Septuagint; in the New Testament, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,14,44);">Lu 1:14,44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,46);">Ac 2:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,24);">Jude 1:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,9);">Heb 1:9</a>), and the corresponding verb agalliaoo (-aomai), "to exult," "rejoice exceedingly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,12);">Mt 5:12</a>, etc.). In English Versions of the Bible we have sometimes "to joy" (now obsolete as a verb), used in an intransitive sense = "to rejoice" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,18);">Hab 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,13);">2Co 7:13</a>, etc.).<P>2. In the Old Testament:<P>Besides joy in a general sense, as the response of the mind to any pleasurable event or state (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,40);">1Ki 1:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,17);">Es 8:17</a>, etc.), joy as a religious emotion is very frequently referred to in the Old Testament. Religion is conceived of as touching the deepest springs of emotion, including the feeling of exultant gladness which often finds outward expression in such actions as leaping, shouting, and singing. Joy is repeatedly shown to be the natural outcome of fellowship with God. "In thy presence is fullness of joy; in thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,11);">Ps 16:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,8,9);">16:8,9</a>). God is at once the source (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,7);">Ps 4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,12);">51:12</a>) and the object (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,9);">Ps 35:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,19);">Isa 29:19</a>) of religious joy. The phrase "rejoice (be glad) in Yahweh" and similar expressions are of frequent occurrence (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,12);">Ps 97:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',149,2);">149:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,10);">Isa 61:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',10,7);">Zec 10:7</a>). Many aspects of the Divine character call forth this emotion, such as His lovingkindness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',21,6,7);">Ps 21:6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,7);">31:7</a>), His salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',21,1);">Ps 21:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,9);">Isa 25:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,18);">Hab 3:18</a>), His laws and statutes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',12,\'1-\');">Ps 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,\'1-\');">119</a> passim), His judgments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',48,11);">Ps 48:11</a>), His words of comfort in dark days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,15,16);">Jer 15:15,16</a>). The fundamental fact of the sovereignty of God, of the equity of the Divine government of the world, gives to the pious a joyous sense of security in life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',93,1);">Ps 93:1</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',96,10);">96:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,1);">97:1</a>) which breaks forth into songs of praises in which even inanimate Nature is poetically called upon to join (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',96,\'11-13\');">Ps 96:11-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',98,\'4-9\');">98:4-9</a>). In the case of those who held such views of God, it was natural that the service of God should elicit a joyous spirit ("I will offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,6);">Ps 27:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,9);">1Ch 29:9</a>), a spirit which is abundantly manifest in the jubilant shouting with which religious festivities were celebrated, and the trumpet-sound which accompanied certain sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,15);">2Sa 6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,\'1-3\');">Ps 33:1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,10);">Nu 10:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,27);">2Ch 29:27</a>), and especially in psalms of praise, thanksgiving and adoration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',47,\'1-\');">Psalms 47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',81,\'1-\');">81</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',100,\'1-\');">100</a>, etc.). "Rejoice before Yahweh your God" is an oft-repeated phrase in Deuteronomy with reference to the sacrificial feast (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,12);">12:12</a>). But joy is a Divine, as well as a human, emotion; for God Himself is represented in the Old Testament, not as a rigid, impassible Being, but as susceptible to pleasure and pain. God may be conceived of as "rejoicing in his works" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,31);">Ps 104:31</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,31);">Ge 1:31</a>), and over His people "for good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,9);">De 30:9</a>). "He will rejoice over thee (Zion) with joy; he will rest in his love; he will joy over thee with singing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,17);">Ze 3:17</a>). Such noble and vivid anthropomorphisms are a nearer approach to the truth than the abstract doctrine of the impassibility of God which, owing to Platonic influences, dominated theology of the early Christian centuries.<P>3. In the New Testament:<P>The element of joy in religion is still more prominent in the New Testament. It is the appropriate response of the believer to the "good tidings of great joy" which constitute the gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,10);">Lu 2:10</a>). In the four Gospels, especially Luke, this element is conspicuous. It is seen in the canticles of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-\');">Lu 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>. It is both exemplified in the life and character, and set forth in the teaching of Jesus. There are many intimations that, in spite of the profound elements of grief and tragedy in His life, His habitual demeanor was gladsome and joyous, certainly not gloomy or ascetic: such as, His description of Himself as bridegroom, in defense of His disciples for not fasting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,\'18-20\');">Mr 2:18-20</a>); the fact that He came "eating and drinking," giving occasion to the charge that He was "a gluttonous man and a winebibber" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,19);">Mt 11:19</a>); His "rejoicing in the Holy Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,21);">Lu 10:21</a>); the fact that His presence was found to be congenial at social festivities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,3);">Mr 14:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,1);">Lu 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,1);">Joh 12:1</a>), and at the wedding in Cana (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,1);">Joh 2:1</a>); His mention of "my joy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,11);">Joh 15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,13);">17:13</a>). His teaching with reference to His followers harmonizes with this. The Christian virtues confer on those who attain them not only beatitude, a calm and composed state of felicity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'3-11\');">Mt 5:3-11</a>), but also a more exuberant state of joy, which is in sharp contrast to the "sad countenance" of the hypocrites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,16);">Mt 6:16</a>) ("Rejoice, and be exceeding glad", <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,12);">Mt 5:12</a>). This spirit is reflected in many of the parables. The discovery of the true treasure of life brings joy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,44);">Mt 13:44</a>). The three parables in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,\'1-\');">Lu 15</a> reveal the joy of the Divine heart itself at the repentance of sinners (see especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,5,6,7,9,10,22,23,24,32);">15:5-7,9,10,22-24,32</a>). The parable of the Talents lays stress on the "joy of the Lord" which is the reward of faithfulness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,21,22);">Mt 25:21,23</a>). Jesus confers on His followers not only peace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,27);">Joh 14:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,33);">16:33</a>), but participation in His own fullness of joy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,11);">Joh 15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,24);">16:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,13);">17:13</a>), a joy which is permanent, in contrast to the sorrow which is transient (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,22);">Joh 16:22</a>). In the dark days of disappointment that succeeded the crucifixion, the joy of the disciples passed under a cloud, but at the resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,41);">Lu 24:41</a>) and still more on the day of Pentecost it emerged into light, and afterward remained a marked characteristic of the early church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,46);">Ac 2:46</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,39);">8:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,52);">13:52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,3);">15:3</a>). Paul speaks of joy as one of the fruits of the spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>) and of "joy in the Holy Spirit" as an essential mark of the kingdom of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,17);">Ro 14:17</a>). This joy is associated with faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,25);">Php 1:25</a>), hope (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,2);">Ro 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,12);">12:12</a>), brotherly fellowship and sympathy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,15);">Ro 12:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,13);">2Co 7:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,1);">Php 2:1</a>f). To rejoice in the Lord is enjoined as a Christian duty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,1);">Php 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,4);">4:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,17);">2:17</A>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,16);">1Th 5:16</a>). In Christ, the Christian "rejoices with joy unspeakable and full of glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,8);">1Pe 1:8</a>), in spite of his temporary afflictions (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,6);">1Pe 1:6</a>). Christian joy is no mere gaiety that knows no gloom, but is the result of the triumph of faith over adverse and trying circumstances, which, instead of hindering, actually enhance it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,41);">Ac 5:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,3);">Ro 5:3</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,2,12);">Jas 1:2,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,11);">5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,13);">1Pe 4:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,11,12);">Mt 5:11,12</a>). Even our Lord Himself "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,2);">Heb 12:2</a>).``49';
|
|
isbe[5178]='Jozabad`joz\'-a-bad (yozabhadh, "Yahweh has bestowed"):<P>(1) A Gederathite, and one of David\'s recruits at Ziklag (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,4);">1Ch 12:4 (Hebrew 5)</a>). He is named with the Benjamites, but possibly he was a native of the town Gedara in Southern Judah. See Curtis, Chronicles, 196.<P>(2), (3) Two Manassite captains who joined David at Ziklag (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,20);">1Ch 12:20 (Hebrew 21)</a>).<P>(4) A Levite overseer in Hezekiah\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',31,13);">2Ch 31:13</a>); may be the ancestor of the chief of the priests in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,9);">2Ch 35:9</a> = "Joram" of 1Esdras 1:9.<P>(5) A Levite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,33);">Ezr 8:33</a>), mentioned again probably in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,23);">Ezr 10:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,7);">Ne 8:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,16);">11:16</a>. The name in 1Esdras 8:63 (= <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,33);">Ezr 8:33</a>) is "Josabdus" (the King James Version "Josabad").<P>(6) A priest who had married a foreign wife <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,22);">Ezr 10:22</a>) = "Ocidelus" of 1Esdras 9:22.``1';
|
|
isbe[5179]='Jozabdus`jo-zab\'-dus (Iozabdos):<P>(1) Son of Jeshua the Levite (1Esdras 8:63), called "Jozabad" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,33);">Ezr 8:33</a>.<P>(2) Son of Bebai (1Esdras 9:29), called "Zabbai" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,28);">Ezr 10:28</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[5180]='Jozacar`joz\'-a-kar, jo-za\'-kar (yozakhar, "Yahweh has remembered"; the King James Version Jozachar): Servant and murderer (with Jehozabad)of Joash, king of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,21);">2Ki 12:21 (Hebrew 22)</a>); called "Zabad" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,26);">2Ch 24:26</a>. Many manuscripts have "Jozabad" in 2 Kings.``1';
|
|
isbe[5181]='Jozadak`joz\'-a-dak.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOZADAK">JEHOZADAK</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5182]='Jubal`joo\'-bal (yubhal; for meaning see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JABAL">JABAL</a>): Son of Lamech by Adah, and inventor of musical instruments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,21);">Ge 4:21</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[5183]='Jubilee Year`(shenath ha-yobhel; etos tes apheseos; annus jubilaeus, "year of jubilee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,13);">Le 25:13</a>), or simply ha-yobhel, "the jubilee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,28);">Le 25:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',36,4);">Nu 36:4</a>), the King James Version and the English Revised Version Jubile): The Hebrew word yobhel stands for qeren ha-yobhel, meaning the horn of a ram. Now, such a horn can be made into a trumpet, and thus the word yobhel came to be used as a synonym of trumpet. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,9);">Le 25:9</a> a loud trumpet should proclaim liberty throughout the country on the 10th day of the 7th month (the Day of Atonement), after the lapse of 7 sabbaths of years = 49 years. In this manner, every 50th year was to be announced as a jubilee year. All real property should automatically revert to its original owner (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,10);">Le 25:10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,13);">25:13</A>), and those who, compelled by poverty, had sold themselves as slaves to their brothers, should regain their liberty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,10);">Le 25:10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,39);">25:39</a>).<P>In addition to this, the Jubilee Year was to be observed after the manner of the sabbatic year, i.e. there should be neither sowing nor reaping nor pruning of vines, and everybody was expected to live on what the fields and the vineyards produced "of themselves," and no attempt should be made at storing up the products of the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,11);">Le 25:11</a>f). Thus there are three distinct factors constituting the essential features of the Jubilee Year: personal liberty, restitution of property, and what we might call the simple life.<P>1. Personal Liberty:<P>The 50th year was to be a time in which liberty should be proclaimed to all the inhabitants of the country. We should, indeed, diminish the import of this institution if we should apply it only to those who were to be freed from the bonds of physical servitude. Undoubtedly, they must have been the foremost in realizing its beneficial effects. But the law was intended to benefit all, the masters as well as the servants. They should never lose sight of their being brothers and citizens of theocratic kingdom. They owed their life to God and were subject to His sovereign will. Only through loyalty to Him were they free and could ever hope to be free and independent of all other masters.<P>2. Restitution of Property:<P>The institution of the Jubilee Year should become the means of fixing the price of real property (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,15);">Le 25:15</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'25-28\');">25:25-28</a>); moreover, it should exclude the possibility of selling any piece of land permanently (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,23);">Le 25:23</a>), the next verse furnishing the motive: "The land is mine: for ye are strangers and sojourners with me." The same rule was to be applied to dwelling-houses outside of the walled cities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,31);">Le 25:31</a>), and also to the houses owned by Levites, although they were built within walled cities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,32);">Le 25:32</a>).<P>In the same manner the price of Hebrew slaves was to vary according to the proximity of the Jubilee Year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'47-54\');">Le 25:47-54</a>). This passage deals with the enslaving of a Hebrew by a foreigner living among the Jews; it goes without saying that the same rule would hold good in the case of a Hebrew selling himself to one of his own people. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'17-25\');">Le 27:17-25</a> we find a similar arrangement respecting such lands that were "sanctified unto Yahweh." In all these cases the original owner was at liberty to redeem his property at any time, or have it redeemed by some of his nearest relatives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,25,26,27,29,48);">25:25-27,29,48ff</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,19);">27:19</a>).<P>The crowning feature, though, was the full restitution of all real property in the Jubilee Year. The primary object of this regulation was, of course, the reversion of all hereditary property to the family which originally possessed it, and the reestablishment of the original arrangement regarding the division of the land. But that was not all; for this legal disposition and regulation of external matters was closely connected with the high calling of the Jewish people. It was a part of the Divine plan looking forward to the salvation of mankind. "The deepest meaning of it (the Jubilee Year) is to be found in the apokatastasis tes basileias tou theou, i.e. in the restoring of all that which in the course of time was perverted by man\'s sin, in the removing of all slavery of sin, in the establishing of the true liberty of the children of God, and in the delivering of the creation from the bondage of corruption to which it was subjected on account of man\'s depravity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,19);">Ro 8:19</a>) (compare Keil, Manual of Biblical Archaeology). In the Year of Jubilee a great future era of Yahweh\'s favor is foreshadowed, that period which, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,\'1-3\');">Isa 61:1-3</a>, shall be ushered in to all those that labor and are heavy laden, by Him who was anointed by the spirit of the Lord Yahweh.<P>3. The Simple Life:<P>The Jubilee Year, being the crowning point of all sabbatical institutions, gave the finishing touch as it were to the whole cycle of sabbatic days, months and years. It is, therefore, quite appropriate that it should be a year of rest for the land like the preceding sabbatic year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,11);">Le 25:11</a>f). It follows, of course, that in this instance there were two years, one after the other, in which there should be no sowing or systematic ingathering. This seems to be clear from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'18-22\');">Le 25:18-22</a>: "And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat of the fruits, the old store; until the ninth year, until its fruits come in, ye shall eat the old store." Thus in the 7th and 8th years the people were to live on what the fields had produced in the 6th year and whatever grew spontaneously. This shows the reason why we may say that one of the factors constituting the Jubilee Year was the "simple life." They could not help but live simply for two consecutive years. Nobody can deny that this afforded ample opportunity to develop the habit of living within very limited means. And again we see that this external part of the matter did not fully come up to the intention of the Lawgiver. It was not the simple life as such that He had in view, but rather the laying down of its moral and religious foundations. In this connection we must again refer to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'18-22\');">Le 25:18-22</a>, "What shall we eat the seventh year?" The answer is very simple and yet of surpassing grandeur: "Then I will command my blessing upon you," etc. Nothing was expected of the people but faith in Yahweh and confidence in His power, which was not to be shaken by any doubtful reflection. And right here we have found the root of the simple life: no life without the true God, and no simplicity of life without true faith in Him. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,4);">Mt 4:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,3);">De 8:3</a>).<P>We may well ask: Did the Jewish people ever observe the Jubilee Year? There is no reason why they should not have observed it in pre-exilic times (compare Lotz in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, X, under the word "Sabbatical Year" and "Year of Jubilee"). Perhaps they signally failed in it, and if so, we should not be surprised at all. Not that the institution in itself was cumbered with any obstacles that could not have been overcome; but what is more common than unbelief and unwillingness to trust absolutely in Yahweh? Or, was it observed in post-exilic times? Here, too, we are in the dark. There is, indeed, a tradition according to which the Jubilee Year has never been observed—neither in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah nor at any later period. The truth of this seems to be corroborated by the silence of Josephus, who, while referring quite frequently to the sabbatic year, never once mentions the Year of Jubilee.``8';
|
|
isbe[5184]='Jubilee, Cycle of the`joo\'-bi-le, ju\'-bi-le.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5185]='Jubilees, Book of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5186]='Jucal`joo\'-kal.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHUCAL">JEHUCAL</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5187]='Juda`joo\'-da: <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,39);">Lu 1:39</a> the King James Version,`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUTTAH">JUTTAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JODA">JODA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS">JUDAS</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5188]='Judaea`joo-de\'-a, ju-de\'-a (Ioudaia): The "land of the Jews," the Greco-Roman equivalent of Judah. As most of the Israelites returning from the captivity belonged to the tribe of Judah, they came to be called Jews and their land Judea. In Tobit 1:18 the name is applied to the old kingdom of Judah. For a general description of the physical geography and early history of this region see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAH">JUDAH</a>. The limits of this district varied greatly, extending as the Jewish population increased, but in many periods with very indefinite boundaries.<P>Under the Persian empire, Judea (or Judah) was a district administered by a governor who, like Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,14);">Hag 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,2);">2:2</a>), was probably usually a Jew. Even as late as Judas Maccabeus, Hebron and its surroundings—the very heart of old Judah was under the domination of the Edomites, whom, however, Judas conquered (1Macc 5:65); in the time of his brother Jonathan (145 BC), three tetrarchies of Samaria, Aphaerema, Lydda and Ramathaim, were added to Judea (1Macc 10:30,38; 11:34); in some passages it is referred to at this time as the "land of Judah" (Iouda) (1Macc 10:30,33,37). The land was then roughly limited by what may be called the "natural boundaries of Judah" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAH">JUDAH</a>).<P>Strabo (xvi.11, 21) extends the name Judea to include practically all Palestine; as does Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,44);">4:44</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,5);">23:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,9);">Ac 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,37);">10:37</a>, etc.). In several New Testament references (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,25);">Mt 4:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,5);">Mr 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,7);">3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,17);">Lu 5:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,22);">Joh 3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,8);">Ac 1:8</a>), Judea is contrasted with its capital Jerusalem. The country bordering on the shores of the Dead Sea for some miles inland was known as the Wilderness of Judea (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAH">JUDAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESHIMON">JESHIMON</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,1);">Mt 3:1</a>), or "the wilderness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,4);">Mr 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,2);">Lu 3:2</a>); here John the Baptist appeared as a preacher. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,1);">Mt 19:1</a> (but compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,1);">Mr 10:1</a>, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "Judaea and beyond Jordan"), some cities beyond Jordan belonged to Judea. That this was an actual fact we know from Ptolemy (v.16,9) and Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 11).<P>According to Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 5), Judea extended from Anuath-Borkaeos (i.e. Khan Berkit near Khan es Saweh, close to the most northerly frontier of Judah as described in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAH">JUDAH</a> (which see)) to the village Jordan, possibly Tell \'Arad, near Arabia in the south. Its breadth was from Joppa in the west to Jordan in the east. The seacoast also as far north as Ptolemais (\'Akka), except Jamnia, Joppa and (according to the Talm) Caesarea, belonged to this province.<P>After the death of Herod the Great, Archelaus received Judea, Samaria and Idumea as his ethnarchy, but on his deposition Judea was absorbed into the Roman province of Syria, the procurator of which lived at Caesarea.<P>Of later history it is only necessary to notice that in the 5th century Judea became part of the land known as Palaestina Prima; that at the time of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem (12th century) all the hill country of Judah from Sinjil to Tekoa was the royal domain, while the southern section to Beersheba belonged to the Seigneur de Abraham (i.e. of Hebron); and lastly that a district, the rough equivalent of the kingdom of Judah, though larger, and of the Judea described by Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 5), though slightly smaller, forms today the Mutaserraflic of el Kuds, an administrative area where more than in any spot in the world the problem of the "land of the Jews" is today increasingly acute.``117';
|
|
isbe[5189]='Judaea, Wilderness of`(<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,1);">Mt 3:1</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAEA">JUDAEA</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5190]='Judah (1)`joo\'-da (yehudhah, "praised"):<P>(1) 4th son of Jacob by Leah (see separate article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAH+(2)">Judah (2)</A>).<P>(2) An ancestor of Kadmiel, one of those who had the oversight of the rebuilding of the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,9);">Ezr 3:9</a>). He is the same as Hodaviah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,40);">Ezr 2:40</a>), and Hodevah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,43);">Ne 7:43</a>).<P>(3) A Levite who had taken a strange wife (Ezr, 10:23).<P>(4) A Levite who came up with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,8);">Ne 12:8</a>).<P>(5) A priest and musician who took part in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,36);">Ne 12:36</a>); (3), (4) and (5) may be the same person.<P>(6) A Benjamite, the son of Hassenuah, who was second over the city of Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,9);">Ne 11:9</a>).<P>(7) One of the princes of Judah who took part in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,34);">Ne 12:34</a>).``78';
|
|
isbe[5191]='Judah (2)`(yehudah; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,35);">Ge 29:35</a> Codex Vaticanus, Ioudan; Codex Alexandrinus, Iouda; elsewhere Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, Ioudas):<P>1. Jacob\'s Son:<P>The 4th son born to Jacob by Leah in Paddan-aram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,35);">Ge 29:35</a>, etc.). Of this patriarch\'s life only scanty details remain to us. He turned his brethren from their purpose to slay Joseph, persuading them to sell him to the Midianites at Dothan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,26);">Ge 37:26</a>). A dark stain is left upon his memory by the disgraceful story told in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,\'1-\');">Genesis 38</a>. Reuben forfeited the rights of primogeniture by an act of infamy; Simeon and Levi, who came next in order, were passed over because of their cruel and treacherous conduct at Shechem; to Judah, therefore, were assigned the honors and responsibilities of the firstborn (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,\'1-\');">34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,22);">35:22</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'5-12\');">49:5-12</A>). On the occasion of their first visit to Egypt, Reuben acted as spokesman for his brethren (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,22,37);">42:22,37</a>). Then the leadership passed to Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,3);">43:3</A>, etc.). The sons of Joseph evidently looked askance upon Judah\'s promotion, and their own claims to hegemony were backed by considerable resources (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,22);">49:22</A>ff). The rivalry between the two tribes, thus early visible, culminated in the disruption of the kingdom. To Judah, the "lion\'s whelp," a prolonged dominion was assured (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,9);">49:9</A>ff).<P>2. Tribe of Judah:<P>The tribe of Judah, of which the patriarch was the name-father, at the first census in the wilderness numbered 74,600 fighting men; at Sinai the number "from 20 years old and upward" was 76,500 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,27);">Nu 1:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,22);">26:22</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBERS">NUMBERS</a>). The standard of the camp of Judah, with which were also the tribes of Zebulun and Issachar, was to the east of the tabernacle "toward the sunrising," the prince of Judah being Nahshon, the son of Amminadab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,3);">Nu 2:3</a>). Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, represented Judah among the spies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,6);">Nu 13:6</a>); he also was told off to assist at the future allocation of the tribal portions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,19);">Nu 34:19</a>).<P>3. Territory:<P>The land assigned to Judah lay in the south of Palestine (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAH,+TERRITORY+OF">JUDAH, TERRITORY OF</a>), comprising part of the mountain, the Shephelah, and the maritime plain. The information given of its conquest is meager and cannot be arranged in a self-consistent story. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,21);">Jos 11:21</a>ff, the conquest is ascribed to Joshua. Caleb is described as conquering at least a portion in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,12);">Jos 14:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,13);">15:13</a>ff; while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'1-\');">Jud 1</a> the tribes of Judah and Simeon play a conspicuous part; and the latter found a settlement in the south within the territory of Judah The tribal organization seems to have been maintained after the occupation of the land, and Judah was so loosely related to the northern tribes that it was not expected to help them against Sisera. Deborah has no reproaches for absent Judah. It is remarkable that no judge over Israel (except Othniel, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'9-11\');">Jud 3:9-11</a>) arose from the tribe of Judah. The first king of all Israel was chosen from the tribe of Benjamin. This made acquiescence on the part of Judah easier than it would have been had Saul sprung from the ancient rival, Ephraim. But the dignity of Judah was fully vindicated by the splendid reigns of David and Solomon, in lineal descent from whom the Saviour of the world should come. The further history of the tribe is merged in that of Israel.``54';
|
|
isbe[5192]='Judah At (Upon) the Jordan`(yehudhah ha-yarden): A place marking the eastern limit of the territory of Naphtali (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,34);">Jos 19:34</a>). It is generally thought among scholars that the text is corrupt; but no very probable emendation has been suggested. Thomson (L B, II, 466) proposes to identify it with Seiyid Jehuda, a small white-domed sanctuary about 3 miles to the southeast of Tell el-Qady.``1';
|
|
isbe[5193]='Judah, Kingdom of`<b>I. CANAAN BEFORE THE MONARCHY</b><P class="in15">1. The Coming of the Semites<P class="in15">2. The Canaanites<P class="in15">3. The Israelite Confederacy<P class="in15">4. Migration into Canaan<P class="in15">5. The Bond of Union<P class="in15">6. Early Rulers<P class="in15">7. The Judges<P class="in15">8. Hereditary Kings<P><b>II. THE FIRST THREE KINGS</b><P class="in15">1. The Benjamite King<P class="in15">2. Rachel and Leah Tribes<P class="in15">3. The Disruption<P><b>III. THE DUAL MONARCHY</b><P class="in15">1. War between Two Kingdoms<P class="in15">2. First Reform of Religion<P class="in15">3. Two Kingdoms at Peace<P class="in15">4. Two Kingdoms Contrasted<P class="in15">5. Revolution in the Northern Kingdom<P class="in15">6. Effect on the Southern Kingdom<P class="in15">7. Davidic House at Lowest Ebb<P class="in15">8. Begins to Recover<P class="in15">9. Reviving Fortunes<P class="in15">10. Monarchy Still Elective<P class="in15">11. Government by Regents<P class="in15">12. Period of Great Prosperity<P class="in15">13. Rise of Priestly Caste<P class="in15">14. Advent of Assyria<P class="in15">15. Judah a Protectorate<P class="in15">16. Cosmopolitan Tendencies<P><b>IV. PERIOD OF DECLINE</b><P class="in15">1. Judah Independent<P class="in15">2. Reform of Religion<P class="in15">3. Egypt and Judah<P class="in15">4. Traffic in Horses<P class="in15">5. Reaction under Manasseh<P class="in15">6. Triumph of Reform Party<P class="in15">7. Babylonia and Judah<P class="in15">8. End of Assyrian Empire<P class="in15">9. After Scythian Invasion<P class="in15">10. Judah Again Dependent<P class="in15">11. Prophets Lose Influence<P class="in15">12. The Deportations<P class="in15">13. Summary<hr /><P>I. Canaan before the Monarchy.<P>1. The Coming of the Semites:<P>Some 4,000 years BC the land on either side of the valley of the Jordan was peopled by a race who, to whatever stock they belonged, were not Semites. It was not until about the year 2500 BC that the tide of Sere immigration began to flow from North Arabia into the countries watered by the Jordan and the Euphrates. One of the first waves in this human tide consisted of the Phoenicians who settled in the northwest, on the seashore; they were closely followed by other Canaan tribes who occupied the country which long bore their name.<P>2. The Canaanites:<P>The Canaanites are known to us chiefly from the famous letters found at Tell Amarna in Egypt which describe the political state of the country during the years 1415-1360 BC—the years of the reigns of Amenophis III and IV. Canaan was at this time slipping out of the hands of Egypt. The native princes were in revolt: tribute was withheld; and but few Egyptian garrisons remained. Meantime a fresh tide of invasion was hurling its waves against the eastern frontiers of the land. The newcomers were, like their predecessors, Semitic Bedouin from the Syrian desert. Among them the Tell el-Amarna Lettersname the Chabiri, who are, no doubt, the people known to us as the Hebrews.<P>3. The Israelite Confederacy:<P>The Hebrews are so named by those of other nationality after one of their remoter ancestors (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,24);">Ge 10:24</a>), or because they had come from beyond (\'ebher) the Jordan or the Euphrates. Of themselves they spoke collectively as Israel. Israel was a name assumed by the eponymous hero of the nation whose real name was Jacob. Similarly the Arabian prophet belonged to the tribe called from its ancestor Koraish, whose name was Fihr. The people of Israel were a complex of some 12 or 13 tribes. These 12 tribes were divided into two main sections, one section tracing its descent from Leah, one of Jacob\'s wives, and the other section tracing its descent from Rachel, his other wife. The names of the tribes which claimed to be descended from Leah were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and, indirectly, Gad and Asher; those which claimed to be descended from Rachel were Joseph, which was divided into two clans; Ephraim and Manasseh, Benjamin, and, indirectly, Dan and Naphtali. The rivalry between these two great divisions runs all through the national history of the Hebrews, and was only brought to an end by the annihilation of one of the opposing factions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,13);">Isa 11:13</a>). But not only was the Israelite nation a combination of many clans; it was united also to other tribes which could not claim descent, from Israel or Jacob. Such tribes were the Kenites and the Calebites. Toward such the pure Israelite tribes formed a sort of aristocracy, very much as, to change the parallel, the tribe of Koraish did among the Arabs. It was rarely that a commander was appointed from the allied tribes, at least in the earlier years of the national life.<P>4. Migration into Canaan:<P>We find exactly the same state of things obtaining in the history of the Arabian conquests. All through that history there runs the rivalry between the south Arabian tribes descended from Kahtan (the Hebrew Joktan, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,25);">Ge 10:25</a>, etc.) and the northern or Ishmaelite tribes of Modar. It is often stated that the Old Testament contains two separate and irreconcilable accounts of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. According to the Book of Joshua, it is said the invasion was a movement of the whole people of Israel under the leadership of Joshua; according to the Book of Judges, it consisted of a series of expeditions made by individual tribes each on its own account (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,2,10);">Jud 1:2,10</a>, etc.). But again, in the history of the Arabs we find precisely the same apparent discrepancy. For Persia, Syria and Egypt were conquered by the Arabs as a whole; but at the same time no tribe lost its individuality; each tribe made expeditions on its own account, and turned its arms against rival tribes even in the enemy\'s country. On the confines of China in the East and in Spain on the West, the arms of the Yemen\'s tribes were employed in the destruction of those of Modar as fiercely as ever they had been within Arabia itself.<P>5. The Bond of Union:<P>The bond which united the Israelite tribes, as well as those of Kayin (the eponym of the Kenites) and Caleb, was that of the common worship of Yahweh. As Mohammed united all the tribes of Arabia into one whole by the doctrine of monotheism, so did Moses the Israelite tribes by giving them a common object of worship. And the sherifs or descendants of \'Ali today occupy a position very like what the Levites and the descendants of Aaron must have maintained in Israel. In order to keep the Israelite nation pure, intermarriage with the inhabitants of the invaded country was forbidden, though the prohibition was not observed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,5);">Jud 3:5</a>f). So too, the Arab women were not permitted to marry non-Arabs during the first years of conquest.<P>6. Early Rulers:<P>It is customary to date the beginning of monarchy in Israel from Saul the son of Kish, but in point of fact many early leaders were kings in fact if not in name. Moses and Joshua may be compared with Mohammed and his caliph (properly khalifa) or "successor," Abu Bekr. Their word was law; they reigned supreme over a united nation. Moreover, the word "king" (melekh) often means, both in Hebrew and Arabic, nothing more than governor of a town, or local resident. There was more than one "king" of Midinn (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,12);">Jud 8:12</a>). Balak seems to have been only a king of Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,4);">Nu 22:4</a>).<P>7. The Judges:<P>Before the monarchy proper, the people of Israel formed, in theory, a theocracy, as did also the Arabs under the caliphs. In reality they were ruled by temporary kings called judges (shopheT, the Carthaginian sufes). Their office was not hereditary, though there were exceptions (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,\'1-\');">Jud 9</a>). On the other hand, the government of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was practically an elective monarchy, so rarely were there more than two of the same dynasty. The judge again was usually appointed in order to meet some special crises, and theoretically ideal state of things was one in which there was no visible head of the state—a republic without a president. These intervals, however, always ended in disaster, and the appointment of another judge. The first king also was elected to cope with a specially serious crisis. The main distinction between judge and king was that the former, less than the latter, obscured the fact of the true King, upon the recognition of whom alone the continued existence of the nation depended. The rulers then became the "elders" or sheikhs of the tribes, and as these did not act in unison, the nation lost its solidarity and became an easy prey to any invader.<P>8. Hereditary Kings:<P>During the period of the Judges a new factor entered into the disturbed politics of Canaan. This was an invader who came not from the eastern and southern deserts, but from the western sea. Driven out of Crete by invaders from the mainland, the last remnants of the race of Minos found refuge on the shores of the country which ever after took from them the name it still bears—Philistin or Palestine. At the same time the Ammonites and Midianites were pressing into the country from the east (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,\'1-\');">1Sa 11</a>). Caught between these two opposing forces, the tribes of Israel were threatened with destruction. It was felt that the temporary sovereignty of the judge was no longer equal to the situation. The supreme authority must be permanent. It was thus the monarchy was founded. Three motives are given by tradition as leading up to this step. The pretext alleged by the elders or sheikhs is the worthlessness and incapacity of Samuel\'s sons, who he intended should succeed him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,\'1-\');">1Sa 8</a>). The immediate cause was the double pressure from the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,16);">1Sa 9:16</a>) and the Ammonite king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,12);">1Sa 12:12</a>). The real reason was that the system of government by elective kings or judges had proved a failure and had completely broken down. The times called for a hereditary monarchy.<P>II. The First Three Kings.<P>1. The Benjamite King:<P>The most warlike of the clans of Israel shortly before this had been that of Benjamin—one of the Rachel tribes. The national sanctuary, with the ark and the grandson of Aaron as priest, was at Bethel in their territory. Moreover, they had defeated the combined forces of the other tribes in two pitched battles. They had at last been defeated and almost exterminated, but they had recovered much of their strength and prestige (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,\'1-\');">Jud 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,12);">1Sa 4:12</a>). From this tribe the first king was chosen (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAUL">SAUL</a>). He, however, proved unequal to his task. After some years spent in war with the Philistines and in repressing supposed disloyalty at home, he was defeated and killed.<P>Meantime, one of the less-known clans was coming to the front. The territory of the tribe of Judah lay in the south. After its occupation (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,2,3);">Jud 1:2,3</a>), the tribe of Judah appears to have settled down to the care of its flocks and herds. It is not mentioned in the So of Deborah. None of the judges belonged to it, unless Ibzan, who seems to have been of little account (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,8);">Jud 12:8</a>f). Under the leadership of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAVID">DAVID</a> (which see), this tribe now came to the front, and proved in the end to be endowed with by far the greatest vitality of all the tribes. It outlived them all, and survives to this day.<P>2. Rachel and Leah Tribes:<P>The Rachel tribes, led by Benjamin and Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,\'1-\');">2Sa 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,\'1-\');">3</a>), resisted for some time the hegemony of Judah, but were obliged in the end to submit. Under David Israel became again a united whole. By making Jerusalem his capital on the borders of Judah and Benjamin, he did much to insure the continuance of this union (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,3);">1Ch 9:3</a>). The union, however, was only on the surface. By playing off the Rachel tribes, Benjamin and Ephraim, against the rest, Absalom was able to bring the whole structure to the ground (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,1);">2Sa 15</a>), the tribe to which Saul belonged being especially disloyal (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,5);">2Sa 16:5</a>). Nor was this the only occasion on which the smoldering enmity between the two houses burst out into flame (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,\'1-\');">2Sa 20</a>). As soon as the strong hand of David was removed, disaffection showed itself in several quarters (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,14);">1Ki 11:14</a>), and especially the aspiration of the tribe of Ephraim, after independence was fomented by the prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,26);">1Ki 11:26</a>). Egypt afforded a convenient asylum for the disaffected until opportunity should ripen. They had not long to wait.<P>3. The Disruption:<P>Solomon was succeeded by Rehoboam, who found it politic to hold a coronation ceremony at Shechem as well, presumably, as at Jerusalem. The malcontents found themselves strong enough to dictate terms. These Rehoboam rejected, and the northern tribes at once threw off their allegiance to the dynasty of David. The disruption thus created in the Israelite nation was never again healed. The secession was like that of the Moors in Spain from the \'Abbhsid caliphs. Henceforth "Israel," except in the Chronicler, denotes the Northern Kingdom only. In that writer, who does not recognize the kingdom of the ten tribes, it means Judah. It is usual at the present day to recognize in the Northern Kingdom the true Israelite kingdom. Certainly in point of extent of territory and in resources it was far the greater of the two. But as regards intellectual power and influence, even down to the present day, not to mention continuity of dynasty, the smaller kingdom is by far the more important. It is, therefore, treated here as the true representative of the nation. Lying, as it did, in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, the tribe of Benjamin could hardly do otherwise than throw in its lot with that of Judah Bethel, which became one of the religious capitals of the Northern Kingdom, although nominally within their territory, in fact belonged to Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,22);">Jud 1:22</a>). With this union of opposing interests may be compared that of the \'Alids and \'Abbhsids, both belonging to the house of Mohammed and both aspirants to the caliphate, against the house of Umeiya.<P>III. The Dual Monarchy.<P>1. War between Two Kingdoms:<P>Rehoboam made no decisive attempt to bring back the recalcitrant tribes to their allegiance (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,21);">1Ki 12:21</a>), though the two countries made raids, one upon the other (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,30);">1Ki 14:30</a>). For his own security he built numerous fortresses, the remains of some of which have, it is probable, been recovered within recent years (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,5);">2Ch 11:5</a>). These excited the suspicion of Shishak of Egypt, who invaded the country and reduced it to vassalage (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,25);">1Ki 14:25</a>). Under Rehoboam\'s son Abijah, actual war broke out between the two kingdoms (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,6);">1Ki 15:6</a> as corrected in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,7);">15:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,\'1-\');">2Ch 13</a>). The war was continued during the long reign of his son Asa, whose opponent, Baasha, built a fort some 6 miles north of Jerusalem in order to cut off that city from communication with the north Asa confessed his weakness by appealing for help to Ben-hadad of Damascus. The end justified the means. The fort was demolished.<P>2. First Reform of Religion:<P>The reign of Asa is also remarkable for the first of those reformations of worship which recur at intervals throughout the history of the Southern Kingdom. The high places Reform of were not yet, however, considered illegitimate (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,14);">1Ki 15:14</a>; but compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,5);">2Ch 14:5</a>). He also, like his grandfather, was a builder of castles, and with a similar, though more fortunate, result (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,6,9);">2Ch 14:6,9</a>). Asa\'s old age and illness helped to bring to the rival kingdoms a peace which lasted beyond his own reign (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,23);">1Ki 15:23</a>).<P>3. Two Kingdoms at Peace:<P>An effect of this peace is seen in the expanding foreign trade of the country under his successor Jehoshaphat. He rebuilt the navy as in the days of Solomon, but a storm ruined the enterprise (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,48);">1Ki 22:48</a>f). During this reign the two kingdoms came nearer being united than they had done since the disruption. This was no doubt largely due to the Northern Kingdom having been greatly weakened by the wars with Syria and Assyria, and having given up the idea of annexing the smaller country. Moreover, Jehoshaphat had married his son Joram (Jehoram) to Ahab\'s daughter Athaliah. From a religious point of view, the two states reacted upon one another. Jehoram of Israel inaugurated a reformation of worship in the Northern Kingdom, and at the same time that of Judah was brought into line with the practice of the sister kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,18);">2Ki 8:18</a>). The peace, from a political point of view, did much to strengthen both countries, and enabled them to render mutual assistance against the common foe.<P>4. Two Kingdoms Contrasted:<P>Up to the death of Jehoram of Israel, which synchronized with that of Joram and Ahaziah of Judah, 6 kings had reigned in Judah Of these the first 4 died in their beds and were buried in their own mausoleum. During the same period of about 90 years there were in Israel 9 kings divided into 4 dynasties. The second king of the Ist Dynasty was immediately assassinated and the entire family annihilated. Precisely the same fate overtook the IId Dynasty. Then followed a civil war in which two pretenders were killed, one perishing by his own hand. The IIIrd Dynasty lasted longer than the first two and counted 4 kings. Of these one was defeated and killed in battle and another assassinated. The fate of the kings of Israel is very like that of the middle and later \'Abbasid caliphs. The murder of his brothers by the Judean Jehoram, a proceeding once regular with the sultans of Turkey, must also be put down to the influence of his Israelite wife.<P>5. Revolution in the Northern Kingdom:<P>It was obvious that a crisis was impending. Edom and Libnah had thrown off their allegiance, and the Philistines had attacked and plundered Jerusalem, even the king\'s sons being taken prisoners, with the exception of the youngest (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',21,16);">2Ch 21:16</a>). Moreover, the two kingdoms had become so closely united, not only by intermarriage, but also in religion and politics, that they must stand and fall together. The hurricane which swept away the northern dynasty also carried off the members of the southern royal house more nearly connected with Ahab, and the fury of the queen-mother Athaliah made the destruction complete (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,1);">2Ki 11:1</a>).<P>6. Effect on the Southern Kingdom:<P>For 6 years the daughter of Ahab held sway in Jerusalem. The only woman who sat on the throne of David was a daughter of the hated Ahab. In her uniqueness, she thus holds a place similar to that of Shejered-Durr among the Memluk sultans of Egypt. The character of her reign is not described, but it can easily be imagined. She came to her inevitable end 6 years later.<P>7. Davidic House at Lowest Ebb:<P>Successive massacres had reduced the descendants of David until only one representative was left. Jehoram, the last king but one, had murdered all his brothers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',21,4);">2Ch 21:4</a>); the Arab marauders had killed his sons except the youngest (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',22,1);">2Ch 22:1</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',21,17);">21:17</A>). The youngest, Ahaziah, after the death of his father, was, with 42 of his "brethren," executed by Jehu (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,14);">2Ki 10:14</a>). Finally, Athaliah "destroyed all the seed royal." The entente with the Northern Kingdom had brought the Davidic dynasty to the brink of extinction.<P>8. Begins to Recover:<P>But just as \'Abd er-Rahman escaped from the slaughter of the Umeiyads to found a new dynasty in Spain, so the Davidic dynasty made a fresh start under Joash. The church had saved the state, and naturally the years that followed were years in which the religious factor bulked large. The temple of Baal which Athaliah had built and supported was wrecked, the idols broken, and the priest killed. A fund was inaugurated for the repair of the national temple. The religious enthusiasm, however, quickly cooled. The priests were found to be diverting the fund for the restoration of the temple to their own uses. A precisely similar diversion of public funds occurred in connection with the Qarawiyin mosque in Fez under the Almoravids in the 12th century. The reign which had begun with so much promise ended in clouds and darkness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,17);">2Ki 12:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,17);">2Ch 24:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,35);">Mt 23:35</a>), and Joash was the first of the Judean kings to be assassinated by his own people (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,20);">2Ki 12:20</a>f).<P>9. Reviving Fortunes:<P>By a curious coincidence, a new king ascended the throne of Syria, of Israel and of Judah about the same time. The death of Hazael, and accession of Ben-hadad III led to a revival in the fortunes of both of the Israelite kingdoms. The act of clemency with which Amaziah commenced his reign (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,5,6);">2Ki 14:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,16);">De 24:16</a>) presents a pleasing contrast to the moral code which had come to prevail in the sister kingdom; and the story of his hiring mercenaries from the Ephraimite kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',25,\'5-10\');">2Ch 25:5-10</a>) sheds a curious light on the relations subsisting between the two countries, and even on those times generally. It is still more curious to find him, some time after, sending, without provocation, a challenge to Jehoash; and the capture and release of Amaziah evinces some rudimentary ideas of chivalry (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,8);">2Ki 14:8</a>). The chief event of the reign was the reconquest of Edom and taking of Petra (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,7);">2Ki 14:7</a>).<P>10. Monarchy Still Elective:<P>The principle of the election of kings by the people was in force in Judah, although it seemed to be in abeyance since the people were content to limit their choice to the Davidic line. But it was exercised when occasion required. Joash had been chosen by the populace, and it was they who, when the public discontent culminated in the assassination of Amaziah, chose his 16-year-old son Uzziah (or Azariah) to succeed him.<P>11. Government by Regents:<P>The minority of the king involved something equivalent to a regency. As Jehoiada at first carried on the government for Joash, so Uzziah was at first under the tutelage of Zechariah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,5);">2Ch 26:5</a>), and the latter part of his reign was covered by the regency of his son Jotham. It is obvious that with the unstable dynasties of the north, such government by deputy would have been impracticable.<P>12. Period of Great Prosperity:<P>The reign of Uzziah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,\'1-\');">2Ch 26</a>) was one of the most glorious in the annals of the Judean kingdom. The Philistines and Southern Arabs, who had been so powerful in the reign of Jehoram, were subdued, and other Bedouin were held in check. The frontiers were strengthened with numerous castles. Now that Edom was again annexed, the Red Sea trade was resumed. Irrigation was attended to, and the agricultural resources of the country were developed. Uzziah also established a standing army, properly equipped and trained. Artillery, in the shape of catapults and other siege engines, was manufactured. It is obvious that in this reign we have advanced far beyond the earlier and ruder times.<P>13. Rise of Priestly Caste:<P>In this and the preceding reigns, we notice also how the priests are becoming a distinct and powerful caste. Zadok and Abiathar were no more than the domestic chaplains of David. The kings might at pleasure discharge the functions of the priest. But the all-powerful position of Jehoiada seems to have given the order new life; and in the latter part of the reign of Uzziah, king and priest come into conflict, and the king comes off second-best (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,16);">2Ch 26:16</a>).<P>14. Advent of Assyria:<P>Uzziah is the first king of Judah to be mentioned in the Assyrian annals. He was fighting against "Pul" in the years 742-740. The advent of the great eastern power upon the scene of Judean politics could end but in one way—as it was soon to do with Israel also. The reign of Jotham may be passed over as it coincided almost entirely with that of his father. But in the following reign we find Judah already paying tribute to Assyria in the year of the fall of Damascus and the conquest of the East-Jordan land, the year 734.<P>15. Judah a Protectorate:<P>During the regency of Jotham, the effeminacy and luxury of the Northern Kingdom had already begun to infect the Southern (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,9);">Mic 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,16);">6:16</a>), and under the irresolute Ahaz the declension went on rapidly. This rapprochement in morals and customs did not prevent Israel under Pekah joining with Rezin of Syria against Judah, with no less an object than to subvert the dynasty by placing an Aramean on the throne (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,6);">Isa 7:6</a>). What the result might have been, had not Isaiah taken the reins out of Ahaz\' hands, it is impossible to say. As it was, Judah felt the strain of the conflict for many a year. The country was invaded from other points, and many towns were lost, some of which were never recovered (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,17);">2Ch 28:17</a>). In despair Ahaz placed himself and his country under the protection of Assyria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,7);">2Ki 16:7</a>).<P>16. Cosmopolitan Tendencies:<P>It was a part of the cosmopolitan tendencies of the time that the worship became tarnished with foreign innovations (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,10);">2Ki 16:10</a>). The temple for the first time in its history was closed (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,24);">2Ch 28:24</a>). Altars of Baal were set up in all the open spaces of Jerusalem, each representing some urban god (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,13);">Jer 11:13</a>). About the closing of the temple Isaiah would not be greatly concerned. Perhaps it was his suggestion (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,\'1-\');">Isa 1</a>). The priests who were supreme in the preceding reigns had lost their influence: their place had been taken by the prophets. The introduction of Baalism, however, was no doubt due to Ahaz alone.<P>IV. Period of Decline.<P>1. Judah Independent:<P>The following reign—that of Hezekiah—was, perhaps as a result of the disappearance of the Northern Kingdom, a period of reformation. Isaiah is now supreme, and the history of the times will be found in his biography. It must have been with a sigh of relief that Hezekiah saw the Northern Kingdom disappear forever from the scene. The relations of the two countries had been too uniformly hostile to make that event anything but an omen for good. It was no doubt due to Isaiah that Hezekiah sought to recover the old independence of his country. Their patriotism went near to be their own undoing. Sennacherib invaded Palestine, and Hezekiah found himself shorn of everything that was outside the walls of Jerusalem. Isaiah\'s patriotism rose to the occasion; the invading armies melted away as by a miracle; Judah was once more free (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,13);">2Ki 18:13</a>).<P>2. Reform of Religion:<P>A curious result of Sennacherib\'s invasion was the disappearance of the high places—local shrines where Levitical priests officiated in opposition to those of the temple. When the Judean territories were limited to the city, these of necessity vanished, and, when the siege was over, they were not restored. They were henceforward regarded as illegal. It is generally held by scholars that this reform occurred later under Josiah, on the discovery of the "Book of the Law" by Hilkiah in the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,8);">2Ki 22:8</a>), and that this book was Deuteronomy. The high places, however, are not mentioned in the law book of Deuteronomy. The reform was probably the work of Isaiah, and due to considerations of morals.<P>3. Egypt and Judah:<P>The Judeans had always had a friendly feeling toward Egypt. When the great eastern power became threatening, it was to Egypt they turned for safety. Recent excavation has shown that the influence of Egypt upon the life and manners of Palestine was very great, and that that of Assyria and Babylonia was comparatively slight, and generally confined to the north. In the reign of Hezekiah a powerful party proposed an alliance with Egypt with the view of check-mating the designs of Assyria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,4);">2Ki 17:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,2,3);">Isa 30:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',31,1);">31:1</a>). Hezekiah followed Isaiah\'s advice in rejecting all alliances.<P>4. Traffic in Horses:<P>The commercial and other ties which bound Palestine to Egypt were much stronger than those between Palestine and the East. One of the most considerable of these was the trade in horses. This traffic had been begun by Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,28);">1Ki 10:28</a>f). The chief seat of the trade in Palestine was Lachish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,13);">Mic 1:13</a>). In their nomadic state the Israelites had used camels and donkeys, and the use of the horse was looked upon with suspicion by the prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,16);">De 17:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,10);">Zec 9:10</a>). When the horse is spoken of in the Old Testament, it is as the chief weapon of the enemies of the nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,1);">Ex 15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,22);">Jud 5:22</a>, etc.).<P>5. Reaction under Manasseh:<P>On the death of Hezekiah, the nation reverted to the culture and manners of the time of Ahaz and even went farther than he in corrupt practices. Especially at this time human sacrifice became common in Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,7);">Mic 6:7</a>). The influence for good of the prophets had gone (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,1);">2Ki 21</a>). There is a curious story in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,11);">2Ch 33:11</a>f that Manasseh was taken captive by the Assyrians, and, after spending some time in captivity in Babylon, reformed and was restored to his throne. His son, however, undid these reforms, and public discontent grew to such an extent that he was assassinated (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,19);">2Ki 21:19</a>).<P>6. Triumph of Reform Party:<P>Once more the tide turned in the direction of reform, and on this occasion it rose higher than ever before. The reformation under Josiah was never again wholly undone. The enthusiasm of the iconoclasts carried them far beyond the frontiers of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,6);">2Ch 34:6</a>), for on this occasion they were backed up by the newly found "Book of the Law." All boded well for a prosperous reign, but unforeseen disasters came from without. The Scythian invasion swept over southwestern Asia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,\'14-16\');">Jer 1:14-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,1);">6:1</a>, etc.). The storm passed, and hope rose higher than before, for the power of Assyria had been shattered forever.<P>7. Babylonia and Judah:<P>Already in 722, when Sargon seized the throne on the death of Shalmaneser, Babylonia had revolted, and crowned Marduk-baladan king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',39,1);">Isa 39:1</a>). Hezekiah received a deputation from Babylonia (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,12);">2Ki 20:12</a>), no doubt in the hope of freeing himself from the Assyrian danger by such an alliance. The revolt of Merodach-baladan was maintained for 12 years; then it was suppressed. There was, however, a second revolt of Babylonia on the accession of Sennacherib, Sargon\'s son, in 705, which went on till 691, and the events referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,1);">2Ki 20</a> may have happened at this time, for Hezekiah\'s reign seems to have ended prosperously.<P>8. End of Assyrian Empire:<P>Sennacherib was assassinated in 681 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,38);">Isa 37:38</a>) and was succeeded by his son Esar-haddon, who rebuilt Babylon, razed to the ground by his father, and under whom the province remained quiet. In 674 hostilities with Egypt broke out, and that country was overrun, and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TIRHAKAH">TIRHAKAH</a> (which see) was expelled in 670. Two years later, however, occurred the revolt of Egypt and the death of Esar-haddon. Assur-bani-pal succeeded, and Egypt regained her independence in 660. The revolt of Babylonia, the incursion of the Scythians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,14);">Jer 1:14</a>) and the death of Assur-bani-pal followed. Two more kings sat on the throne of Assyria, and then Nineveh was taken by the combined Scythians (Mandor) and Babylonians (Herod. i.74; Nah; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,\'13-15\');">Ze 2:13-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,5);">Hab 1:5</a>f).<P>9. After Scythian Invasion:<P>The Scythian tempest passed quickly, and when it was over the Assyrian peril was no more. Pharaoh-necoh seized the opportunity to avenge the injuries of his country by the invasion of the erstwhile Assyrian territories. Josiah, pursuing the policy of alliance with Babylonia inaugurated by Hezekiah, endeavored to arrest his progress. He was defeated and mortally wounded at Megiddo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,11);">Zec 12:11</a>).<P>10. Judah Again Dependent:<P>By the foolhardy action of Josiah, Judah lost its independence. The people, indeed, elected Jehoahaz (Shallum) king, but he was immediately deposed and carried to Egypt by the Pharaoh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,10);">Jer 22:10</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',19,3);">Eze 19:3</a>f), who appointed Jehoiakim (Eliakim) as vassal-king. After the defeat of the Pharaoh at Carchemish, the old Hittite stronghold, by Nebuchadrezzar, Jehoiakim submitted, and Judah became a dependency of Babylon. There must have been some return of prosperity, for Jehoiakim is denounced for his luxury and extravagance and oppressive taxation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,13);">Jer 22:13</a>), but the country was raided by the neighboring Bedouin (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,2);">2Ki 24:2</a>), and Jehoiakim came to an untimely end (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,19);">Jer 22:19</a>).<P>11. Prophets Lose Influence:<P>The prophets were no longer, as under Hezekiah, all-powerful in the state. The influence of Jeremiah was no doubt great, but the majority was against him. His program was both unpopular in itself and it had the fatal defect of being diametrically opposed to that of Isaiah, the patriot-politician (if such there be), who had saved the state from shipwreck. Isaiah had preached reliance upon the national God and through it the political independence of the nation. It was the sad duty of Jeremiah to advise the surrender of the national independence to the newly risen power of Babylon. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',21,4,9);">Jer 21:4,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,2);">38:2</a>, etc.). Isaiah had held that the Holy City was impregnable (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,32);">2Ki 19:32</a>); Jeremiah was sure that it would be taken by the Chaldeans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,24,43);">Jer 32:24,43</a>). Events proved that each prophet was right for the time in which he lived.<P>12. The Deportations:<P>Jehoiakim was the only Judean king who was a vassal first to one overlord and then to another. Judah took a step downward in his reign. It was under him also that the first deportation of the Judeans occurred (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,\'1-17\');">Da 1:1-17</a>). He was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin who, on account of a rebellion which closed the reign of his father, was ere long deported, along with the best of the nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,24);">Jer 22:24</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',19,5);">Eze 19:5</a>). A 3rd son of Josiah, Mattaniah, was set on the throne under the title of Zedekiah. Against the advice of Jeremiah, this, the last king of Judah, declared himself independent of Babylon, and threw in his lot with Egypt under Pharaoh Hophra (Apries), thus breaking his oath of fealty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',17,15);">Eze 17:15</a>). On the advance of the Chaldeans, Judah was deserted by her allies, the Edomites and Philistines (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOB,+ BOOK+OF">JOB, BOOK OF</a>), and soon only Lachish (Tell el-Hesy), Azekah (probably Tell Zakarua) and Jerusalem remained in the hands of Zedekiah. The siege of the city lasted two years. It was taken on the fatal 9th of Ab in the year 586. Zedekiah\'s family was put to the sword, and he himself was taken to Babylon. Egypt shared the fate of Judah, with whom she had been often so closely connected, and Hophra was the last of the Pharaohs.<P>13. Summary:<P>The kingdom of Judah had lasted 480 years, counting from its commencement, exactly twice as long as the kingdom of Israel, counting from the disruption. No doubt this longer mary existence was due in the first place to the religious faith of the people. This is clear from the fact that the national religion not only survived the extinction of the nation, but spread far beyond its original territories and has endured down to the present day. But there were also circumstances which conspired to foster the growth of the nation in its earliest and most critical period. One of these was the comparative isolation and remoteness of the country. Neither the kingdom of Israel nor that of Judah is for a moment to be compared to those of Egypt and Assyria. Even the combined kingdom under David and Solomon hardly deserves that comparison; and separate, the Northern Kingdom would be about the size of New Hampshire and the Southern Kingdom about that of Connecticut. The smaller kingdom survived the larger because it happened to be slightly farther removed from the danger zone. Even had the two kingdoms held together, it is impossible that they could have withstood the expansion of Assyria and Babylonia on the one side and of Egypt on the other. The Egyptian party in Judean politics in the times of Isaiah and Jeremiah were so far in the right, that, if Judah could have maintained her independence in alliance with Egypt, these two countries combined might have withstood the power of Assyria or Babylon. But it is because this ancient race, tracing its descent from remote antiquity, preserved its religious, at the expense of its national independence, that its literature continues to mold much of the thought of Europe and America today.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL,+KINGDOM+OF">ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF</a>`189';
|
|
isbe[5194]='Judah, Territory of`(yehudhah):<P><b>I. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA</b><P class="in15">1. The Natural Boundaries<P class="in15">2. The Natural Divisions of Judah<P class="in30">(1) The Maritime Plain<P class="in30">(2) The Shephelah<P class="in30">(3) The Hill Country of Judah<P><b>II. THE TRIBE OF JUDAH AND ITS TERRITORY</b><P><b>III. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Geographical Data.<P>Although the physical conformation of Western Palestine divides this land into very definite areas running longitudinally north and south, yet all through history there has been a recognition of a further—and politically more important—division into 3 areas running transversely, known in New Testament times as Galilee, Samaria and Judea. These districts are differentiated to some extent by distinctive physical features which have in no small degree influenced the history of their inhabitants.<P>1. The Natural Boundaries:<P>The southernmost of these regions possesses on 3 sides very definite natural boundaries: to the west the Mediterranean, to the east the Dead Sea, and the Jordan, and to the south 60 miles, north to south, of practically trackless desert, a frontier as secure as sea or mountain range. On the north no such marked "scientific frontier" exists, and on this the one really accessible side, history bears witness that the frontier has been pushed backward and forward. The most ideal natural northern frontier, which only became the actual one comparatively late in Hebrew times (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAEA">JUDAEA</a>), is that which passes from the river \'Aujeh in the west, up the Wady Deir Baldt, by the wide and deep Wady Ishar to \'Akrabbeh and thence east to the Jordan. A second natural frontier commences at the same line on the west, but after following the Wady Deir Baldt, branches off southward along the Wady Nimr (now traversed by the modern carriage road from Jerusalem to Nablus), crosses the water-parting close to the lofty Tell Ashur and runs successively down the Wady Sanieh and the Wady \'Aujeh and by the eastern river \'Aujeh to the Jordan. This division-line is one conformable to the physical features, because north of it the table-lands of "Judea" give place to the more broken mountain groups of "Samaria." Another less natural, though much more historic, frontier is that which traverses the Vale of Ajalon, follows the Beth-horon pass, and, after crossing the central plateau near el Jib (Gibeon) and er Ram (Ramah of Benjamin), runs down the deep and rugged Wady SuweiniT, between Jeba\' (Geba) and Mukhmas (Michmash), to Jericho and the Jordan. It was along this line that the great frontier fortresses, Bethel, Gibeon, Ramah, Adasa, Geba and Michmash, were erected. Such, on the north, south, east, and west, were the natural boundaries of the southern third of Palestine; yet in all history the land thus enclosed scarcely ever formed a homogeneous whole.<P>2. The Natural Divisions of Judah:<P>Within these boundaries lay four very different types of land—the maritime plain, the "lowland" or Shephelah, the "hill country" and, included usually with the last, the desert or Jeshimon.<P>(1) The Maritime Plain:<P>The maritime plain, the "land Judah of the Philis" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,1);">1Sa 6:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,1);">27:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,2);">2Ki 8:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,5);">Ze 2:5</a>), was ideally though never actually, the territory of Judah (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'45-47\');">Jos 15:45-47</a>); it may have been included, as it is by some modern writers, as part of the Shephelah, but this is not the usual use of the word. It is a great stretch of level plain or rolling downs of very fertile soil, capable of supporting a thriving population and cities of considerable size, especially near the seacoast.<P>(2) The Shephelah:<P>The Shephelah (shephelah), or "lowland" of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,7);">De 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,1);">Jos 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,2,16);">11:2,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'33-44\');">15:33-44</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(\'Jer\',17,26);">Jer 17:26</a>).—In these references the word is variously rendered in the King James Version, usually as "vale" or "valley," sometimes, as in the last two, as "plain." In the Revised Version (British and American) the usual rendering is "lowland." In 1Macc 12:38, the King James Version has "Shephela" and the Revised Version (British and American) "plain country." The word "Shephelah" appears to survive in the Arabic Sifla about Beit Jebrin.<P>This is a very important region in the history of Judah. It is a district consisting mainly of rounded hills, 500-800 ft. high, with fertile open valleys full of corn fields; caves abound, and there are abundant evidences of a once crowded population. Situated as it is between the "hill country" and the maritime plain, it was the scene of frequent skirmishes between the Hebrews and the Philistines; Judah failed to hold it against the Philistines who kept it during most of their history. The Shephelah is somewhat sharply divided off from the central mountain mass by a remarkable series of valleys running north and south. Commencing at the Vale of Ajalon and passing south, we have in succession the Wady el Ghurab and, after crossing the Wady es Siwan, the Wady en Najil, the Wady es Sunt (Elah) and the Wady es Cur. It is noticeable that the western extremity of the most historic northern frontier of ancient Judah—that limited by the Vale of Ajalon in the west—appears to have been determined by the presence of this natural feature. North of this the hills of Samaria flatten out to the plain without any such intervening valleys.<P>(3) The Hill Country of Judah:<P>The hill country of Judah is by far the most characteristic part of that tribe\'s possessions; it was on account of the shelter of these mountain fastnesses that this people managed to hold their own against their neighbors and hide away from the conquering armies of Assyria and Egypt. No other section of the country was so secluded and protected by her natural borders. It was the environment of these bare hills and rugged valleys which did much to form the character and influence the literature of the Jews. The hill country is an area well defined, about 35 miles long and some 15 broad, and is protected on three sides by natural frontiers of great strength; on the north alone it has no "scientific frontier." On the south lay the Negeb, and beyond that the almost waterless wilderness, a barrier consisting of a series of stony hills running east and west, difficult for a caravan and almost impracticable for an army. On the west the hills rise sharply from those valleys which delimit them from the Shephelah, but they are pierced by a series of steep and rugged defiles which wind upward to the central table-land. At the northwestern corner the Bethhoron pass—part of the northern frontier line—runs upward from the wide Vale of Ajalon; this route, the most historic of all, has been associated with a succession of defeats inflicted by those holding the higher ground (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-HORON">BETH-HORON</a>). South of this is the Wady \'Ali, up which runs the modern carriage road to Jerusalem, and still farther south lies the winding rocky defile, up part of which the railway from Jaffa is laid, the Wady es Surar. A more important valley, because of its width and easier gradient, is the great Vale of Elah (Wady es Cunt), to guard the highest parts of which (now the Wady es Cur) was built the powerful fortress of Beth-zur (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,7);">2Ch 11:7</a>, etc.), which Josephus (Ant., XIII, v, 6) describes as "the strongest place in all Judea (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-ZUR">BETH-ZUR</a>). Up this pass the Syrians successfully with the aid of elephants (Ant., XII, ix, 4) invaded Judea. The eastern frontier of the hill country is one of extraordinary natural strength. Firstly, there were the Jordan and the Dead Sea; then along all but the northernmost part of the eastern frontier lay a long line of semi-precipitous cliffs, in places over 1,000 ft. high, absolutely unscalable and pierced at long intervals by passes all steep and dangerous. Within this again came a wide area of waterless and barren desert, the Wilderness of Judah (or Judea) known in English Versions of the Bible as <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESHIMON">JESHIMON</a> (which see). To the northeasterly part of the frontier, where the ascent from the Jericho plain to the mountains presents no special difficulty in gradation, the waterless condition of the Jeshimon greatly restricted the possible routes for an enemy. The natural position for the first line of defense was the fortified city of Jericho, but as a frontier fortress she failed from the days of Joshua onward (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERICHO">JERICHO</a>). From Jericho four roads pass upward to the plateau of Judah; unlike the corresponding passes on the western frontier, they do not traverse any definite line of valley, but in many places run actually along the ridges.<P>These roads are:<P>(a) The earliest historically, though now the least frequented, is the most northerly, which passes westward at the back of ancient Jericho (near \'Ain es Sultan) and ascends by Michmash and Ai to Bethel;<P>(b) the route traversed by the modern Jerus-Jericho road;<P>(c) the more natural route which enters the hills by Wady Joreif Ghusal and runs by Nebi Musa joining the line of the modern carriage road a mile or so after passing the deserted ruin of the Saracenic Khan el Ahmar. Here runs the road for the thousands of pilgrims who visit the shrine of Nebi Musa in the spring.<P>(d) The most natural pass of all is by way of Wady el Kuneiterah, across the open plateau of el Bukeia\' and over the shoulder of Jebel el Muntar to Bethlehem.<P>From \'Ain Feshkhah a very steep road, probably ancient, ascends to join this last route in el Bukeia\', From Engedi (\'Ain Jidy) a steep ascent—almost a stairway—winds abruptly to the plateau above, whence a road passes northwesterly by the Wady Hucaceh past Tekoa to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and another branch goes west to Hebron and Juttah.<P>Somewhere along these routes must have lain the "Ascent of Ziz" and the "Wilderness of Jeruel," the scene of the events of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,\'1-\');">2Ch 20</a>. The hill country of Judah is distinguished from other parts of Palestine by certain physical characteristics. Its central part is a long plateau—or really series of plateaus-running north and south, very stony and barren and supplied with but scanty springs: "dew" is less plentiful than in the north; several of the elevated plains, e.g. about Bethlehem, Beit Jala and Hebron, are well suited to the growth of corn and olive trees; in the sheltered valleys and on the terraced hillsides to the west of the water-parting, vines, olives, figs and other fruit trees flourish exceedingly. There is evidence everywhere that cultivation was far more highly developed in ancient times; on most of the hill slopes to the west traces of ancient terraces can still be seen (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BOTANY">BOTANY</a>). This district in many parts, especially on its eastern slopes, is preeminently a pastoral land, and flocks of sheep and goats abound, invading in the spring even the desert itself. This last is ever in evidence, visible from the environs of all Judah\'s greater cities and doubtless profoundly influencing the lives and thoughts of their inhabitants.<P>The altitude attained in this "hill country" is usually below 3,000 ft. in the north (e.g. Ramallah, 2,850 ft., Nebi Samwil, 2,935 ft.), but is higher near Hebron, where we get 3,545 ft. at Ramet el Khulil. Many would limit the term "hill country of Judea" to the higher hills centering around Hebron, but this is unnecessary. Jerusalem is situated near a lower and more expanded part of the plateau, while the higher hills to its north, are, like that city itself, in the territory of Benjamin.<P>II. The Tribe of Judah and Its Territory.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'19-22\');">Nu 26:19-22</a>, when the tribes of the Hebrews are enumerated "in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,3);">Nu 26:3</a>), Judah is described as made up of the families of the Shelanites, the Perezites, the Zerahites, the Hezronites and the Hamulites. "These are the families of Judah according to those that were numbered of them," a total of 76,500 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,22);">Nu 26:22</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,16);">Jud 1:16</a> we read that the Kenites united with the tribe of Judah, and from other references (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,\'6-15\');">Jos 14:6-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'13-19\');">15:13-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'12-15\',20);">Jud 1:12-15,20</a>) we learn that the two Kenizzite clans of Caleb and Othniel also were absorbed; and it is clear from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,10);">1Sa 27:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,29);">30:29</a> that the Jerahmeelites—closely connected with the Calebites (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,42);">1Ch 2:42</a>)—also formed a part of the tribe of Judah. The Kenizzites and Jerahmeelites were probably of Edomite origin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,11);">Ge 36:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,42);">1Ch 2:42</a>), and this large admixture of foreign blood may partly account for the comparative isolation of Judah from the other tribes (e.g. she is not mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Jud 5</a>).<P>The territory of the tribe of Judas is described ideally in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'1-\');">Jos 15</a>, but it never really extended over the maritime plain to the west. The natural frontiers to the west and east have already been described as the frontiers of the "hill country"; to the south the boundary is described as going "even to the wilderness of Zin southward, at the uttermost part of the south," i.e. of the Negeb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,1);">15:1</A>), and (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,3);">15:3</A>) as far south as Kadesh-barnea, i.e. the oasis of \'Ain Kadis, 50 miles south of Beersheba, far in the desert; the position of the "Ascent of Akrabbim," i.e. of scorpions, is not known. The "Brook of Egypt" is generally accepted to be the Wady el \'Arish. The fact is, the actual frontier shaded off imperceptibly into the desert—varying perhaps with the possibilities of agriculture and depending therefore upon the rainfall. The cities mentioned on the boundaries, whose sites are now lost, probably roughly marked the edge of the habitable area (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NEGEB">NEGEB</A>).<P>The northern boundary which separated the land of Judah from that of Benjamin requires brief mention. The various localities mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,\'5-12\');">Jos 15:5-12</a> are dealt with in separate articles, but, omitting the very doubtful, the following, which are generally accepted, will show the general direction of the boundary line: The border went from the mouth of the Jordan to Beth-hoglah (\'Ain Hajlah), and from the Valley of Achor (Wady Kelt) by the ascent of Adummin (Tala \'at edition Dumm) to the waters of Enoch Shemesh (probably \'Ain Haud), Enoch Rogel (Bir Eyyub), and the Valley of Hinnom (Wady er Rababi). The line then crossed the Vale of Rephaim (el Bukeia\') to the waters of Nephtoah (Lifta), Kiriath-jearim (Kuryet el \'Enab), Chesalon (Kesla), Beth-shemesh (\'Ain Shems), Ekron (\'Akir), and Jabneel (Yebnah), "and the goings out of the border were at the sea." According to the above line, Jerusalem lay entirely within the bounds of Benjamin, though, according to a tradition recorded in the Talmud, the site of the altar was in a piece of land belonging to Judah. The above frontier line can be followed on any modern map of Palestine, and if it does not in many parts describe a natural frontier, it must be remembered that the frontiers of village and town possessions in modern Palestine are extremely arbitrary, and though undetermined by any natural limits such as streams or mountain summits, they persist from generation to generation, and this too during periods—not long past—when there was constant warfare between different clans.<P>The territory of Judah was small; even had it included all within its ideal boundaries, it would have been no more than 2,000 square miles; actually it was nearer 1,300 square miles, of which nearly half was desert.<P>III. The Boundaries of the Kingdom of Judah.<P>These were very circumscribed. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,\'5-12\');">2Ch 11:5-12</a> there is a list of the cities—chiefly those on the frontier—which Rehoboam fortified. On the east were Bethlehem, Etam and Tekoa; and on the west and southwest were Beth-zur, Soco, Adullam, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah, Zorah, Aijalon and Hebron. The sites of the great majority of these are known, and they are all upon the borders of the Shephelah or the hill country. It will be seen too that the military preparation then made was against an attack from the west. In the 5th year of the reign of Rehoboam the expected attack came, and Shishak (Sheshenq I) of Egypt swept over the land and not only conquered all Judah and Jerusalem, but, according to the reading of some authorities in the account of this campaign given in the great temple of Karnak, he handed over to Jeroboam of Israel certain strongholds of Judah.<P>The usual northern frontier between the two Hebrew kingdoms appears to have been the southernmost of the three natural lines described in I above, namely by the Valley of Ajalon on the west and the Gorge of Michmash (Wady SuweiniT) on the east. Along the central plateau the frontier varied. Bethel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,29);">1Ki 12:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,29);">2Ki 10:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,14);">Am 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,4);">4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,10,13);">7:10,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,15);">Ho 10:15</a>) belonged to Israel, though once it fell to Judah when Abijah took it and with it Jeshanah (\'Ain Sinia) and Ephron (probably et Taiyibeh) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,19);">2Ch 13:19</a>). Geba (Jeba\'), just to the south of the Wady Suweinit, was on the northern frontier of Judah, hence, instead of the old term "from Dan to Beer-sheba" we read now of "from Geba to Beersheba" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,8);">2Ki 23:8</a>). Baasha, king of Israel, went south and fortified Ramah (er Ram, but 4 miles from Jerusalem) against Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,17);">1Ki 15:17</a>), but Asa stopped his work, removed the fortifications and with the materials strengthened his own frontier at Geba and Mizpah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,21,22);">1Ki 15:21,22</a>). In the Jordan valley Jericho was held by Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,34);">1Ki 16:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,4);">2Ki 2:4</a>).<P>After the Northern Kingdom fell, the frontier of Judah appears to have extended a little farther north, and Bethel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,\'15-19\');">2Ki 23:15-19</a>) and Jericho (to judge from <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,34);">Ezr 2:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,2);">Ne 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,36);">7:36</a>) also became part of the kingdom of Judah. For the further history of this district see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAEA">JUDAEA</A>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See especially H G H L, chapters viii-xv; P E F, III, and Saunders, Introduction to the Survey of Western Palestine.``117';
|
|
isbe[5195]='Judaism`joo\'-da-iz\'-m.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL,+RELIGION+OF">ISRAEL, RELIGION OF</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[5196]='Judas`joo\'-das (Ioudas; Greek form of Hebrew "Judah"):<P>(1) A Levite mentioned in 1Esdras 9:23 = <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAH">JUDAH (3)</a>.<P>(2) Judas Maccabeus, 3rd son of Mattathias (1Macc 2:4).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MACCABEES">MACCABEES</a>.<P>(3) Judas, son of Chalphi, a Jewish officer who supported Jonathan bravely at the battle of Hazor (1Macc 11:70; Ant, XIII, v, 7).<P>(4) A person of good position in Jerusalem at the time of the mission to Aristobulus (2Macc 1:10); he has been identified with Judas Maccabeus and also with an Essene prophet (Ant., XIII, xi, 2; BJ, III, 5).<P>(5) Son of Simon the Maccabee, and brother of John Hyrcanus (1Macc 16:2). He was wounded in the battle which he fought along with his brother against Cendebeus (1Macc 16:1ff; Ant, XIII, vii, 3), and was murdered by Ptolemy the usurper, his brother-in-law, at Dok (1Macc 16:11ff).``79';
|
|
isbe[5197]='Judas Barsabbas`bar-sab-\'as (Ioudas Barsabbas): Judas was, with Silas, a delegate from the church in Jerusalem to the GentileChristians of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. They were appointed to convey the letter containing the decision of "the apostles and the elders, with the whole church" regarding the attitude to be taken by GentileChristians toward the Mosaic law, and also to explain "the same things by word of mouth." They accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, and, "being themselves also prophets," i.e. preachers, they not only handed over the epistle but stayed some time in the city preaching and teaching. They seem to have gone no farther than Antioch, for "they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth," and it was Paul and Silas who some time afterward strengthened the churches in Syria and Cilicia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,40,41);">Ac 15:40,41</a>).<P>According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,34);">Ac 15:34</a> the King James Version, Judas returned to Jerusalem without Silas, who remained at Antioch and afterward became Paul\'s companion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,40);">Ac 15:40</a>). The oldest manuscripts, however, omit <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,34);">Ac 15:34</a>, and it is therefore omitted from the Revised Version (British and American). It was probably a marginal note to explain <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,40);">Ac 15:40</a>, and in time it crept into the text. Judas and Silas are called "chief men among the brethren" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,22);">15:22</a>), probably elders, and "prophets" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,32);">15:32</A>).<P>Barsabbas being a patronymic, Judas was probably the brother of Joseph Barsabbas. He cannot be identified with any other Judas, e.g. "Judas not Iscariot" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,22);">Joh 14:22</a>). We hear no more of Judas after his return to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,22);">Ac 15:22</a>).``78';
|
|
isbe[5198]='Judas Iscariot`is-kar\'-i-ot (Ioudas Iskariotes, i.e. \'ish qeriyoth, "Judas, man of Kerioth"): One of the twelve apostles and the betrayer of Jesus; for etymology, etc., see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS">JUDAS</A>.<P>I. Life.<P>Judas was, as his second name indicates, a native of Kerioth or Karioth. The exact locality of Kerioth (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,25);">Jos 15:25</a>) is doubtful, but it lay probably to the south of Judea, being identified with the ruins of el Karjetein (compare A. Plummer, article "Judas Iscariot" in HDB).<P>1. Name and Early History:<P>He was the son of Simon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,2);">Joh 13:2</a>) or Simon Iscariot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,71);">Joh 6:71</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,26);">13:26</a>), the meaning of Iscariot explaining why it was applied to his father also. The first Scriptural reference to Judas is his election to the apostleship (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,4);">Mt 10:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,19);">Mr 3:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,16);">Lu 6:16</a>). He may have been present at the preaching of John the Baptist at Bethany beyond Jordan (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,28);">Joh 1:28</a>), but more probably he first met Jesus during the return of the latter through Judea with His followers (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,22);">Joh 3:22</a>). According to the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIMON+THE+ CANAANITE">SIMON THE CANAANITE</A>), Judas was among those who received the call at the Sea of Tiberias (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,\'18-22\');">Mt 4:18-22</a>).<P>2. Before the Betrayal:<P>For any definite allusion to Judas during the interval lying between his call and the events immediately preceding the betrayal, we are indebted to John alone. These allusions are made with the manifest purpose of showing forth the nefarious character of Judas from the beginning; and in their sequence there is a gradual development and growing clearness in the manner in which Jesus makes prophecy regarding his future betrayer. Thus, after the discourse on the Bread of Life in the synagogue of Capernaum (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'26-59\');">Joh 6:26-59</a>), when many of the disciples deserted Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,66);">Joh 6:66</a>) and Peter protested the allegiance of the apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,69);">Joh 6:69</a>), Jesus answered, "Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,70);">Joh 6:70</a>). Then follows John\'s commentary, "Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,71);">Joh 6:71</a>), implying that Judas was already known to Jesus as being in spirit one of those who "went back, arid walked no more with him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,66);">Joh 6:66</a>). But the situation, however disquieting it must have been to the ambitious designs which probably actuated Judas in his acceptance of the apostleship (compare below), was not sufficiently critical to call for immediate desertion on his part. Instead, he lulled his fears of exposure by the fact that he was not mentioned by name, and continued ostensibly one of the faithful. Personal motives of a sordid nature had also influence in causing him to remain. Appointed keeper of the purse, he disregarded the warnings of Jesus concerning greed and hypocrisy (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,20);">Mt 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,\'1-3\');">Lu 12:1-3</a>) and appropriated the funds to his own use. As a cloak to his avarice, he pretended to be zealous in their administration, and therefore, at the anointing of Jesus\' feet by Mary, he asked "Why was not this ointment sold for 300 shillings, and given to the poor? Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,5,6);">Joh 12:5,6</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'7-13\');">Mt 26:7-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'3-8\');">Mr 14:3-8</a>).<P>3. The Betrayal:<P>Yet, although by this craftiness Judas concealed for a time his true nature from the rest of the disciples, and fomented any discontent that might arise among them (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,4);">Mr 14:4</a>), he now felt that his present source of income could not long remain secure. The pregnant words of his Master regarding the day of his burial (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,12);">Mt 26:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,8);">Mr 14:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,7);">Joh 12:7</a>) revealed to His betrayer that Jesus already knew well the evil powers that were at work against Him; and it is significant that, according to Matthew and Mark, who alone of the synoptists mention the anointing, Judas departed immediately afterward and made his compact with the chief priests (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,14,15);">Mt 26:14,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,10,11);">Mr 14:10,11</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'3-6\');">Lu 22:3-6</a>). But his absence was only temporary. He was present at the washing of the disciples\' feet, there to be differentiated once more by Jesus from the rest of the Twelve (compare "Ye are clean, but not all" and "He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,10,18);">Joh 13:10,18</a>), but again without being named. It seemed as if Jesus wished to give Judas every opportunity, even at this late hour, of repenting and making his confession. For the last time, when they had sat down to eat, Jesus appealed him thus with the words, "One of you shall betray me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,21);">Mt 26:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,18);">Mr 14:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,21);">Lu 22:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,21);">Joh 13:21</a>). And at the end, in answer to the anxious queries of His disciples, "Is it I?" He indicated his betrayer, not by name, but by a sign: "He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,26);">Joh 13:26</a>). Immediately upon its reception, Judas left the supper room; the opportunity which he sought for was come (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,30);">Joh 13:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,16);">Mt 26:16</a>). There is some doubt as to whether he actually received the eucharistic bread and wine previous to his departure or not, but most modern commentators hold that he did not. On his departure, Judas made his way to the high priests and their followers, and coming upon Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, he betrayed his Master with a kiss (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'47-50\');">Mt 26:47-50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,43,44);">Mr 14:43,44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,47);">Lu 22:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,\'2-5\');">Joh 18:2-5</a>).<P>4. His Death:<P>After the betrayal, Mark, Luke and John are silent as regards Judas, and the accounts given in Matthew and Acts of his remorse and death vary in detail. According to Matthew, the actual condemnation of Jesus awakened Judas\' sense of guilt, and becoming still more despondent at his repulse by the chief priests and elders, "he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself." With the money the chief priests purchased the potter\'s field, afterward called "the field of blood," and in this way was fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',11,\'12-14\');">11:12-14</A>) ascribed by Matthew to Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,\'3-10\');">Mt 27:3-10</a>). The account given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,\'16-20\');">Ac 1:16-20</a> is much shorter. It mentions neither Judas\' repentance nor the chief priests, but simply states that Judas "obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,18);">1:18</a>). The author of Acts finds in this the fulfillment of the prophecy in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,25);">Ps 69:25</a>. The Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) rendering, "When he had hanged himself, he burst asunder," suggests a means of reconciling the two accounts.<P>According to a legendary account mentioned by Papias, the death of Judas was due to elephantiasis (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 5). A so-called "Gospel of Judas" was in use among the Gnostic sect of the Cainites.<P>II. Character and Theories.<P>1. Joined the Apostles to Betray Jesus:<P>Much discussion and controversy have centered, not only around the discrepancies of the Gospel narratives of Judas, but also around his character and the problems connected with it. That the betrayer of Jesus should also be one of the chosen Twelve has given opportunity for the attacks of the foes of Christianity from the earliest times (compare Orig., Con. Cel., ii.12); and the difficulty of finding any proper solution has proved so great that some have been induced to regard Judas as merely a personification of the spirit of Judaism. The acceptance of this view would, however, invalidate the historical value of much of the Scriptural writings. Other theories are put forward in explanation, namely, that Judas joined the apostolic band with the definite intention of betraying Jesus. The aim of this intention has again received two different interpretations, both of which seek to elevate the character of Judas and to free him from the charge of sordid motives and cowardly treachery. According to one, Judas was a strong patriot, who saw in Jesus the foe of his race and its ancient creed, and therefore betrayed Him in the interests of his country. This view is, however, irreconcilable with the rejection of Judas by the chief priests (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,\'3-10\');">Mt 27:3-10</a>). According to the other, Judas regarded himself as a true servant of Christianity, who assumed the role of traitor to precipitate the action of the Messiah and induce Him to manifest His miraculous powers by calling down the angels of God from heaven to help Him (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,53);">Mt 26:53</a>). His suicide was further due to his disappointment at the failure of Jesus to fulfill his expectations. This theory found favor in ancient times with the Cainites (compare above), and in modern days with De Quincey and Bishop Whately. But the terms and manner of denunciation employed by Jesus in regard to Judas (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,12);">Joh 17:12</a>) render this view also untenable.<P>2. Foreordained to Be a Traitor:<P>Another view is that Judas was foreordained to be the traitor: that Jesus was conscious from the first that He was to suffer death on the cross, and chose Judas because He knew that he should betray Him and thus fulfill the Divine decrees (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,54);">Mt 26:54</a>). Those holding this view base their arguments on the omniscience of Jesus implied in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,24);">Joh 2:24</a>, Jesus "knew all men"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,64);">Joh 6:64</a>, "Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray him," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,4);">Joh 18:4</a>, "knowing all the things that were coming upon him." Yet to take those texts literally would mean too rigid application of the doctrine of predestination. It would treat Judas as a mere instrument, as a means and not an end in the hands of a higher power: it would render meaningless the appeals and reproaches made to him by Jesus and deny any real existence of that personal responsibility and sense of guilt which it was our Lord\'s very purpose to awaken and stimulate in the hearts of His hearers. John himself wrote after the event, but in the words of our Lord there was, as we have seen, a growing clearness in the manner in which He foretold His betrayal. The omniscience of Jesus was greater than that of a mere clairvoyant who claimed to foretell the exact course of future events. It was the omniscience of one who knew on the one hand the ways of His Eternal Father among men, and who, on the other, penetrated into the deepest recesses of human character and beheld there all its secret feelings and motives and tendencies.<P>3. Betrayal the Result of Gradual Development:<P>Although a full discussion of the character of Judas would of necessity involve those ultimate problems of Free Will and Original Sin (Westcott) which no theology can adequately solve, theory which regards the betrayal as the result of a gradual development within the soul of Judas seems the most practical. It is significant that Judas alone among the disciples was of southern extraction; and the differences in temperament and social outlook, together with the petty prejudices to which these generally give rise, may explain in part, though they do not justify, his after treachery—that lack of inner sympathy which existed between Judas and the rest of the apostles. He undoubtedly possessed certain business ability, and was therefore appointed keeper of the purse. But his heart could not have been clean, even from the first, as he administered even his primary charge dishonestly. The cancer of this greed spread from the material to the spiritual. To none of the disciples did the fading of the dream of an earthly kingdom of pomp and glory bring greater disappointment than to Judas. The cords of love by which Jesus gradually drew the hearts of the other disciples to Himself, the teaching by which He uplifted their souls above all earthly things, were as chafing bonds to the selfishness of Judas. And from his fettered greed and disappointed ambition sprang jealousy and spite and hatred. It was the hatred, not of a strong, but of an essentially weak man. Instead of making an open breach with his Lord, he remained ostensibly one of His followers: and this continued contact with a goodness to which he would not yield (compare Swete on <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,10);">Mr 14:10</a>), and his brooding over the rebukes of his Master, gave ready entrance for "Satan into his soul." But if he "knew the good and did not do it" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,17);">Joh 13:17</a>), so also he was weak in the carrying out of his nefarious designs. It was this hesitancy, rather than a fiendish cunning, which induced him to remain till the last moment in the supper room, and which prompted the remark of Jesus "What thou doest, do quickly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,27);">Joh 13:27</a>). Of piece with this weak-mindedness was his attempt to cast the blame upon the chief priests and elders (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,3,4);">Mt 27:3,4</a>). He sought to set himself right, not with the innocent Jesus whom he had betrayed, but with the accomplices in his crime; and because that world which his selfishness had made his god failed him at the last, he went and hanged himself. It was the tragic end of one who espoused a great cause in the spirit of speculation and selfish ambition, and who weighed not the dread consequences to which those impure motives might lead him (compare also Bruce, Training of the Twelve; Latham, Pastor Pastorum; Stalker, Trial and Death of Jesus Christ).``88';
|
|
isbe[5199]='Judas Iscariot, Gospel of`A "Gospel of Judas" is mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., i.31), Epiphanius (Haer., xxxviii.1), Theodoret, etc., as current in the Gnostic sect of the Cainites, to whom Judas was a hero. It must have been in existence in the 2nd century, but no quotation is given from it (see Baring-Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels, III, chapter v).``1';
|
|
isbe[5200]='Judas Maccabaeus``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MACCABAEUS">MACCABAEUS</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>
|
|
|