exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/8200.html

114 lines
279 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[8201]='Sinai`si\'-ni, si\'-na-i (cinay; Codex Alexandrinus Sina, Codex Vaticanus Seina):<P>1. The Name:<P>The name comes probably from a root meaning "to shine," which occurs in Syriac, and which in Babylonian is found in the name sinu for "the moon." The old explanation, "clayey," is inappropriate to any place in the Sinaitic desert, though it might apply to Sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,15,16);">Eze 30:15,16</a>) or Pelusium; even there, however, the applicability is doubtful. The desert of Sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,1);">Ex 16:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,1);">17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,11);">Nu 33:11</a>f) lay between Sinai and the Gulf of Suez, and may have been named from the "glare" of its white chalk. But at Sinai "the glory of Yahweh was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,17);">Ex 24:17</a>); and, indeed, the glory of the Lord still dyes the crags of Jebel Musa (the "mountain of Moses") with fiery red, reflected from its red granite and pink gneiss rocks, long after the shadows have fallen on the plain beneath. Sinai is mentioned, as a desert and a mountain, in 35 passages of the Old Testament. In 17 passages the same desert and mountain are called "Horeb," or "the waste." This term is chiefly used in Deuteronomy, though Sinai also occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,2);">De 33:2</a>). In the other books of the Pentateuch, Sinai is the usual name, though Horeb also occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,1);">Ex 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,6);">17:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,6);">33:6</a>), applying both to the "Mount of God" and to the desert of Rephidim, some 20 miles to the northwest.<P>2. Traditional Site:<P>The indications of position, in various passages of the Pentateuch, favor the identification with the traditional site, which has become generally accepted by all those explorers who have carefully considered the subject, though two other theories may need notice. Moses fled to the land of Midian (or "empty land"), which lay east of the Sinaitic peninsula (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,4);">Nu 22:4,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,\'1-\');">25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,\'1-\');">31</a>), and when he wandered with his flocks to Horeb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'1-\');">Ex 3:1</a>) he is said to have reached the west side of the desert. In another note (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,2);">De 1:2</a>) we read that the distance was "eleven days\' journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea" or Petra (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</A>), the distance being about 145 miles, or 14 miles of daily march, though Israel<65>with its flocks, women and children<65>made 16 marches between these points. Sinai again is described as being distant from Egypt "three days\' journey into the wilderness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,3);">Ex 5:3</a>), the actual route being 117 miles, which Israel accomplished in 10 journeys. But, for Arabs not encumbered with families and herds, this distance could still be covered by an average march of 39 miles daily, on riding camels, or even, if necessary, on foot.<P>3. Identification with Jebel Musa:<P>These distances will not, however, allow of our placing Sinai farther east than Jebel Musa. Lofty mountains, in all parts of the world, have always been sacred and regarded as the mysterious abode of God; and Josephus says that Sinai is "the highest of all the mountains thereabout," and again is "the highest of all the mountains that are in that country, and is not only very difficult to be ascended by men, on account of its vast. altitude but because of the sharpness of its precipices: nay, indeed, it cannot be looked at without pain of the eyes, and besides this it was terrible and inaccessible, on account of the rumor that passed about, that God dwelt there" (Ant., II, xii, 1; III, v, 1). Evidently in his time Sinai was supposed to be one of the peaks of the great granitic block called et Tur<75>a term applying to any lofty mountain. This block has its highest peak in Jebel Katarin (so named from a legend of Catherine of Egypt), rising 8,550 ft. above the sea. Northeast of this is Jebel Musa (7,370 ft.), which, though less high, is more conspicuous because of the open plain called er Rachah ("the wide") to its northwest. This plain is about 4 miles long and has a width of over a mile, so that it forms, as Dr. E. Robinson (Biblical Researches,1838, I, 89) seems to have been the first to note, a natural camp at the foot of the mountain, large enough for the probable numbers (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, 3</a>) of Israel.<P>4. Description of Jebel Musu:<P>Jebel Musa has two main tops, that to the Southeast being crowned by a chapel. The other, divided by gorges into three precipitous crags, has the Convent to its north, and is called Ras-es-Cafcafeh, or "the willow top." North of the Convent is the lower top of Jebel edition Deir ("mountain of the monastery"). These heights were accurately determined by Royal Engineer surveyors in 1868 (Sir C. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Sinai); and, though it is impossible to say which of the peaks Moses ascended, yet they are all much higher than any mountains in the Sinaitic desert, or in Midian. The highest tops in the Tih desert to the north are not much over 4,000 ft. Those in Midian, east of Elath, rise only to 4,200 ft. Even Jebel Serbal, 20 miles west of Sinai<61>a ridge with many crags, running 3 miles in length<74>is at its highest only 6,730 ft. above the sea. Horeb is not recorded to have been visited by any of the Hebrews after Moses, except by Elijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,8);">1Ki 19:8</a>) in a time of storm. In favor of the traditional site it may also be observed that clouds suddenly formed, or lasting for days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,15);">Ex 24:15</a>f), are apt to cap very lofty mountains. The Hebrews reached Sinai about the end of May (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1);">Ex 19:1</a>) and, on the 3rd day, "there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,16);">Ex 19:16</a>). Such storms occur as a rule in the Sinaitic desert only in December and January, but thunderstorms are not unknown in Palestine even in May.<P>5. Patristic Evidence:<P>A constant tradition fixing the site is traceable back to the 4th century AD. Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon, under the word "Choreb") place Horeb near Paran, which in their time was placed (Onomasticon, under the word "Raphidim") in Wady Feiran. Anchorites lived at Paran, and at Sinai at least as early as 365 AD, and are noticed in 373 AD, and often later (Robinson, Biblical Res.,1838, I, 122-28); the monastery was first built for them by Justinian in 527 AD and his chapel still exists. Cosmas (Topogr. Christ.), in the same reign, says that Rephidim was then called Pharan, and (distinguishing Horeb from Sinai, as Eusebius also does) he places it "about 6 miles from Pharan," and "near Sinai." These various considerations may suffice to show that the tradition as to Horeb is at least as old as the time of Josephus, and that it agrees with all the indications given in the Old Testament.<P>6. Lepsius\' Theory:<P>Lepsius, it is true (Letters from Egypt, 1842-44), denying the existence of any unbroken tradition, and relying on his understanding of Cosmas, supposed Sinai to be the Jebel Serbal above mentioned, which lies immediately South of Wady Feiran. His main argument was that, visiting Sinai in March, he considered that the vicinity did not present sufficient water for Israel (Appendix B, 303-18). But, on this point, it is sufficient to give the opinion of the late F. W. Holland, based on the experience of four visits, in 1861,1865,1867-68.<P>He says (Recovery of Jerusalem, 524):<P>"With regard to water-supply there is no other spot in the whole Peninsula which is nearly so well supplied as the neighborhood of Jebel Musa. Four streams of running water are found there: one in Wady Leja; a second in Wady et Tl\'ah which waters a succession of gardens extending more than 3 miles in length, and forms pools in which I have often had a swim; a third stream rises to the north of the watershed of the plain of er Rachah and runs west into Wady et Tl\'ah; and a fourth, is formed by the drainage from the mountains of Umm Alawy, to the east of Wady Sebaiyeh and finds its way into that valley by a narrow ravine opposite Jebel edition Deir. In addition to these streams there are numerous wells and springs, affording excellent water throughout the whole of the granitie district. I have seldom found it necessary to carry water when making a mountain excursion, and the intermediate neighborhood of Jebel Masa would, I think, bear comparison with many mountain districts in Scotland with regard to its supply of water. There is also no other district in the Peninsula which affords such excellent pasturage."<P>This is important, as Israel encamped near Sinai from the end of May till April of the next year. There is also a well on the lower slope of Jebel Musa itself, where the ascent begins.<P>7. Greene\'s Theory:<P>Another theory, put forward by Mr. Baker Greene (The Hebrew Migration from Egypt), though accepted by Dr. Sayce (Higher Cricitism, 1894, 268), appears likewise to be entirely untenable. Mr. Greene supposed Elim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,27);">Ex 15:27</a>) to be Elath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,8);">De 2:8</a>), now \'Ailah at the head of the Gulf of \'Akabah; and that Sinai therefore was some unknown mountain in Midian. But in this case Israel would in 4 days (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,22,23,27);">Ex 15:22,23,27</a>) have traveled a distance of 200 miles to reach Elim, which cannot but be regarded as quite impossible for the Hebrews when accompanied by women, children, flocks and herds.``28';
isbe[8202]='Sincere; Sincerity`sin-ser\', sin-ser\'-i-ti (tamim; aphtharsia, eilikrineia): "Sincerity" occurs once in the Old Testament as the translation of tamim, "complete," "entire," "sincere," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,14);">Jos 24:14</a>); the same word is translated "sincerity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,16,19);">Jud 9:16,19</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "uprightly"). Four different words are rendered "sincere," "sincerely" "sincerity," in the New Testament: adolos, "without guile," "unadulterated," "desire the sincere milk of the word" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,2);">1Pe 2:2</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "the spiritual," the American Revised Version margin "Greek, \'belonging to the reason\'; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,1);">Ro 12:1</a>," the English Revised Version margin reasonable"), "milk which is without guile," with no other purpose but to nourish and benefit the soul (Alford); hagnos, "without blame," "pure," "preach Christ...not sincerely" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,17);">Php 1:17</a>); aphtharsia, "without corruption" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,24);">Eph 6:24</a>, the King James Version "that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," the American Standard Revised Version "with a love incorruptible," margin "\' in incorruption.\' See <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,7);">Ro 2:7</a>," the English Revised Version "uncorruptness"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,7);">Tit 2:7</a>, the King James Version "shewing uncorruptness...sincerity," the Revised Version (British and American) "uncorruptness"); gnesios, "not spurious" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,8);">2Co 8:8</a>); eilikrines, literally, judged of in the sunlight, hence, "clear," "manifest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,10);">Php 1:10</a>); eilikrineia, with same meaning, is translated "sincerity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,8);">1Co 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,12);">2Co 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,17);">2:17</a>).<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "sincere" for "pure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,1);">2Pe 3:1</a>), "sincerely" for "clearly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',33,3);">Job 33:3</a>).<P>In <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 7:25</span> we have eilikrines in the description of Wisdom as a "pure influence," the Revised Version (British and American) "clear effluence."``185';
isbe[8203]='Sinew`sin\'-u (gidh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,11);">Job 10:11</a>, etc.)): The tendons and sinews of the body are uniformly (7 times) thus called. "Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob\'s thigh in the sinew of the hip" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,32);">Ge 32:32</a>). In the poetical description of Behemoth (hippopotamus) it is said: "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are knit together" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,17);">Job 40:17</a>). The prophet Ezekiel saw in his vision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,6,8);">37:6,8</a>) that the dry bones were gathered together, that they were covered with sinews, flesh and skin, and that they were revived by the spirit of the Lord. In figurative language the neck of the obstinate is compared to an "iron sinew" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,4);">Isa 48:4</a>). the King James Version "my sinews take no rest" (we\'oreqay lo\' yishkabhun, <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,17);">Job 30:17</a>) has been corrected by the Revised Version (British and American) into "the pains that gnaw me take no rest," but the earlier version has been retained in the margin.``106';
isbe[8204]='Singers; Singing`sing\'-erz, sing\'-ing: Singing seems to have become a regular profession at quite early date among the Hebrews. David had his troupe of "singing men and singing women" at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,35);">2Sa 19:35</a>), and no doubt Solomon added to their numbers. <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,16);">Isa 23:16</a> suggests that it was not uncommon for foreign female minstrels of questionable character to be heard making "sweet melody," singing songs along the streets and highways of Judea. Nor was the worship of the temple left to the usually incompetent and inconstant leadership of amateur choristers. The elaborate regulations drawn up for the constitution of the temple orchestra and chorus are referred to under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MUSIC">MUSIC</A> (which see). It has been inferred from <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,65);">Ezr 2:65</a> that women were included among the temple singers, but this is erroneous, as the musicians there mentioned were of the class employed at banquets, festivals, etc. The temple choir consisted exclusively of Levites, one essential qualification of an active member of that order being a good voice.<P>Of the vocal method of the Hebrews we know nothing. Wellhausen imagines that he can detect one of the singers, in the portrayal of an Assyrian band, compressing his throat in order to produce a vibrato; and it is quite possible that in other respects as well as this, ancient and modern oriental vocalization resembled each other. But that is about all that can be said.<P>On the other hand, we cannot repeat too often that we are quite unable to identify any intervals, scales, or tunes as having been used in ancient Israel. Even those who hold that the early church took the Gregorian "tones" from the synagogue, confess that it was "certainly not without considerable modifications." And, of course, there was not the slightest affinity between the Hebrew and the Anglican chant.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MUSIC">MUSIC</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRAISE">PRAISE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SONG">SONG</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE">TEMPLE</a>`120';
isbe[8205]='Single, Eye`sin\'-g\'-l:<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,22);">Mt 6:22</a>f parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,34);">Lu 11:34</a>: "If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness." "Single" and "evil" here represent haplouis, and poneros. Poneros elsewhere in the New Testament means "wicked"; haplous occurs only here in the New Testament, but is very common in ordinary Greek and always has the meaning "simple." But in view of the context, most commentators take haplous here as meaning "normal," "healthy," and poneros as "diseased," so rendering "Just as physical enlightenment depends on the condition of the eye, so does spiritual enlightenment depend on the condition of the heart." This is natural enough, but it is not satisfactory, as it gives to haplous a unique sense and to poneros a sense unique in the 73 New Testament examples of the word. Moreover, the same expression, "evil eye," is found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,15);">Mt 20:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,22);">Mr 7:22</a>, where it means "jealousy" or "covetousness." With poneros = "covetous" haplous would = "generous"; and this rendition gives excellent sense in Matthew, where the further context deals with love of money. Yet in Luke it is meaningless, where the context is of a different sort, a fact perhaps indicating that Luke has placed the saying in a bad context. Or the Greek translation of Christ\'s words used by Matthew and Luke may have taken the moral terms haplous and poneros to translate physical terms ("healthy" and "diseased"?) employed in the original Aramaic. The Sinaitic Syriac version of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,36);">Lu 11:36</a> may perhaps contain a trace of an older rendering. See Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 98-108.``48';
isbe[8206]='Singular`sin\'-gu-lar: "Pertaining to the single person," "individual," and so sometimes "unusual," "remarkable." So <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 14:18</span>, the King James Version "the singular diligence of the artificer" (philotimia, "love of honor," the Revised Version (British and American) "ambition"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,2);">Le 27:2</a> by "when a man shall make a singular vow" the King James Version seems to have understood a "personal" or "private" vow. the Revised Version (British and American) has "accomplish a vow," with margin "make a special vow." Compare the same phrase (yaphli\' (yephalle\') nedher) used of the Nazirite vow in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,2);">Nu 6:2</a>.``1';
isbe[8207]='Sinim, Land of`si\'-nim, sin\'-im (\'erets cinim; ge Person): The name occurs in Isaiah\'s prophecy of the return of the people from distant lands: "Lo, these shall come from far; and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,12);">Isa 49:12</a>). The land is clearly far off, and it must be sought either in the south or in the east. Septuagint points to an eastern country. Many scholars have favored identification with China, the classical Sinae. It seems improbable that Jews had already found their way to China; but from very early times trade relations were established with the Far East by way of Arabia and the Persian Gulf; and the name may have been used by the prophet simply as suggesting extreme remoteness. Against, this view are Dillmann (Commentary on Isaiah), Duhm, Cheyne and others. Some have suggested places in the south: e.g. Sin (Pelusium, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,15);">Eze 30:15</a>) and Syene (Cheyne, Introduction to Isaiah, 275). But these seem to be too near. In harmony with his reconstruction of Biblical history, Cheyne finally concludes that the reference here is to the return from a captivity in Northern Arabia (EB, under the word). While no certain decision is possible, probability points to the East, and China cannot be quite ruled out. See article "China," Encyclopedia Brittanica (11th edition), 188b.``54';
isbe[8208]='Sinites`si\'-nits (cini): A Canaanite people mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,17);">Ge 10:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,15);">1Ch 1:15</a>. The identification is uncertain. Jerome mentions a ruined city, Sin, near Arka, at the foot of Lebanon.``1';
isbe[8209]='Sinlessness`sin\'-les-nes: The 15th Anglican article ("Of Christ Alone without Sin") may be quoted as a true summary of Scripture teaching on sinlessness: "Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, from which He was clearly (prorsus) void, both in His flesh and in His spirit ..... Sin, as Saint John saith, was not in Him. But all we the rest, though baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves."<P>1. Christ Sinless:<P>Here the sinlessness of the Incarnate Son is affirmed. It needs no elaborate argument to show that this is the affirmation of Scripture. It is not only, as we are reminded above, definitely taught there. Yet more is it implied in the mysterious (and morally miraculous) phenomenon of the Lord\'s evidently total immunity from the sense of sin, His freedom from inward discord or imperfection, from the slightest discontent with self. It is not too much to say that this representation is self-evidential of its truth to fact. Had it been the invention of worshipping disciples, we may say with confidence that they (supposed thus capable of "flee handling") would have been certain to betray some moral aberrations in their portraiture of their Master. They must have failed to put before us the profound ethical paradox of a person who, on the one hand, enjoins penitence and (with a tenderness infinitely deep) loves the penitent, and, on the other hand, is never for a moment penitent Himself, and who all the while has proved, from the first, a supreme moral and spiritual magnet, "drawing all men to him." Meanwhile the Scripture represents the sinlessness of the Incarnate Lord as no mere automatic or effortless condition. He is sensitive to temptation, to a degree which makes it agony. His sinlessness, as to actual experience (we are not here considering the matter sub specie aeternitatis), lies in the perfect fidelity to the Father of a will, exercised under human conditions, filled absolutely with the Holy Spirit, willingly received.<P>2. Saints Not Sinless:<P>On the other hand, "we the rest," contemplated as true believers, are warned by the general teaching of Scripture never to affirm sinlessness as our condition. There are passages (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,9);">1Joh 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,1);">5:1</a>f) which affirm of the regenerate man that he "sinneth not." But it seems obvious to remark that such words, taken without context and balance, would prove too much; they would make the smallest sense of sin a tremendous evidence against the person\'s regeneration at all. It would seem that such words practically mean that sin and the regenerate character are diametrical opposites, so that sinning is out of character, not in the man as such, but in the Christian as such. And the practical result is an unconquerable aversion and opposition in the regenerate will toward all known sin, and a readiness as sensitive as possible for confession of failure. Meanwhile such passages as 1 John are, to the unbiased reader, an urgent warning of the peril of affirming our perfect purity of will and character. But then, on the other hand, Scripture abounds in both precepts and promises bearing on the fact that in Christ and by the power of His Spirit, received by faith into a watchful soul, our weakness can be so lifted and transformed that a moral purification and emancipation is possible for the weakest Christian which, compared with the best efforts of unregenerate nature, is a "more than conquest" over evil (see e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,9,10);">2Co 12:9,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,16);">Eph 6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,24);">Jude 1:24</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FLESH">FLESH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIRIT">SPIRIT</a>`46';
isbe[8210]='Sinner`sin\'-er (chatta; hamartolos, "devoted to sin," "erring one"): In the New Testament, in addition to its ordinary significance of one that sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,8);">Lu 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,2);">13:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,8,19);">Ro 5:8,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,15);">1Ti 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,26);">Heb 7:26</a>), the term is applied to those who lived in disregard of ceremonial prescription (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,10,11);">Mt 9:10,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,15);">Mr 2:15</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,30);">Lu 5:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,15);">Ga 2:15</a>); to those stained with certain definite vices or crimes, as the publicans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,2);">Lu 15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,13);">18:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,7);">19:7</a>); to the heathen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,45);">Mt 26:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,15);">Ga 2:15</a>; compare Tobit 13:6; 1Macc 1:34; 2Macc 2:48,62); to the preeminently sinful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,38);">Mr 8:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,24,31);">Joh 9:24,31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,17);">Ga 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,9);">1Ti 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,15);">Jude 1:15</a>). It was the Jewish term for a woman of ill-fame (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,37);">Lu 7:37</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,32);">Mt 21:32</a>, where it is stated that such had come even to John\'s baptism also).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIN">SIN</a>`91';
isbe[8211]='Sion`si\'-un (si\'on; Seon):<P>(1) A name given to Mt. Hermon in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,48);">De 4:48</a>. The name may mean "protuberance" or "peak," and may have denoted the lofty snow-covered horn of the mountain as seen from the South. It may, however, be a scribal error for Sirion, the name by which the mountain was known to the Zidonians. Syriac takes it in this sense, which, however, may be a correction of the Hebrew. It is possible that this name, like Senir, may have applied to some distinct part of the Hermon Range.<P>(2) Mt. Sion.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZION">ZION</a>`1';
isbe[8212]='Siphmoth`sif\'-moth, sif\'-moth (siphmoth (Ginsburg), shiphamoth (Baer); Saphei): One of the cities to which David sent presents from Ziklag (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,28);">1Sa 30:28</a>). It occurs between Aroer and Eshtemoa, so it must have been somewhere in Southern Judah. The site has not been recovered. Zabdi the Shiphmite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,27);">1Ch 27:27</a>) may quite probably have been a native of this place.``1';
isbe[8213]='Sippai`sip\'-i, si-pa\'-i.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAPH">SAPH</a>`1';
isbe[8214]='Sir`sur: In the Old Testament this word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,20);">Ge 43:20</a> the King James Version (\'adhon) is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) into "my lord." In the New Testament the word sometimes represents aner, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,26);">Ac 7:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,15);">14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,25);">19:25</a>, etc.; more frequently kurios, "lord," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,27);">Mt 13:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,30);">21:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,36);">27:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,11,15,19,49);">Joh 4:11,15,19,49</a> (the Revised Version margin "lord"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,15);">Joh 20:15</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,14);">Re 7:14</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) renders "my lord."``1';
isbe[8215]='Sirach, Book of`si\'-rak, or The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach:<P><b>I. NAME</b><P><b>II. CANONICITY</b><P><b>III. CONTENTS</b><P><b>IV. TEACHING</b><P class="in15">1. Religion<P class="in15">2. Morals<P class="in15">3. Manners<P class="in15">4. Counsels of Prudence<P><b>V. LITERARY FORM</b><P><b>VI. AUTHOR</b><P class="in15">1. Jesus, Son of Sirach<P class="in15">2. Other Views<P><b>VII. UNITY AND INTEGRITY</b><P><b>VIII. DATE</b><P class="in15">1. Most Probable Views<P class="in15">2. Brief Statement of Other Views<P><b>IX. ORIGINAL LANGUAGES</b><P class="in15">1. Composed in Hebrew<P class="in15">2. Margoliouth\'s View<P><b>X. VERSIONS</b><P class="in15">1. Greek<P class="in15">2. Syriac<P class="in15">3. Latin<P class="in15">4. English<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>Sirach is the largest and most comprehensive example of Wisdom Literature (see WISDOM LITERATURE), and it has also the distinction of being the oldest book in the Apocrypha, being indeed older than at least two books (Daniel, Esther) which have found a place in the Canon alike of the Eastern and Western churches.<P>I. Name.<P>The Hebrew copy of the book which Jerome knew bore, according to his explicit testimony (see his preface to his version of Libri Sol.), the same title as the canonical Proverbs, i.e. meshalim, "Proverbs" (Parabolae is Jerome\'s word). It is quoted in rabbinical literally, by the sing. of this name, mashal = Aramaic mathla\', but in the Talmud it is cited by the author\'s name, "Ben Sira" (ben cira\'). The Hebrew fragments found in recent years have no title attached to them. In the Greek manuscripts the heading is Sophia Iesou huiou Sirach (or Seirach), "The Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach" (so "A"); or simply Sophia Seirach (B), "The Wisdom of Sirach." The Fathers called it either (as Euseb., etc.) he panaretos sophia, "the all virtuous wisdom," or simply he panaretos, "the all virtuous (one)," or (Clement of Alexandria) paidagogos, "teacher." The first Hebrew and the several Greek titles describe the subject-matter, one Hebrew title (ben cira\') the author. But the Latin name Ecclesiasticus was given the book because it was one of the books allowed to be read in the Ecclesia, or church, for edification (libri ecclesiastici), though not one of the books of the Canon (libra canonici) which could be quoted in proof or disproof of doctrine. The present book is called Ecclesiasticus by way of preeminence since the time of Cyprian (Testimon. 2, etc.). The Syriac (Peshitta) title as given in the London Polyglot is "The Book of Jesus the son of Simon \'Acira\', called also the Book of the Wisdom of Baruch (= Hebrew ben, "son of") \'Acira\'." There can be no doubt that Asira (sometimes translated "bound") is but a corrupted form of Sira. For other explanations see Ryssel in Kautzsch, AT Apocrypha, 234.<P>Lagarde in his corrected text prefixes the title, "The Wisdom of Baruch = Hebrew ben, "son of") Sira." How is that the Hebrew cira\', has in the Greek become Sirach (or Seirach)? How are we to explain the final chapter in the Greek? The present writer thinks it is due to an attempt to represent in writing the guttural sound of the final letter \'aleph (\') in the Hebrew name as in the Greek Akeldamach, for the Aramaic chaqal dema\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,19);">Ac 1:19</a>). Dalman, however (Aramaic Grammar, 161, note 6), followed by Ryssel, holds that the final chapter is simply a sign that the word is indeclinable; compare Iosech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,26);">Lu 3:26</a>), for Hebrew yoce.<P>II. Canonicity.<P>Though older than both Daniel and Esther, this book was never admitted into the Jewish Canon. There are numerous quotations from it, however, in Talmudic and rabbinic literature, (see a list in Zunz, Die Gottesdiensilichen Vortrage(2), 101f; Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jud. Poesie, 204f; Schechter, JQR, III, 682-706; Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, xix-xxx). It is not referred to explicitly in Scripture, yet it is always cited by Jewish and Christian writers with respect and perhaps sometimes as Scripture. It forms a part of the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of the Tridentine Council and therefore of the Romanist Canon, but the Protestant churches have never recognized it as canonical, though the bulk of modern Protestant scholars set a much higher value upon it than they do upon many books in the Protestant Canon (Chronicles, Esther, etc.). It was accepted as of canonical rank by Augustine and by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), yet it is omitted from the lists of accepted books given by Melito (circa 180 AD), Origen, in the Apostolic Canons and in the list of the Councils of Laodicea (341 and 381). Jerome writes in Libri Sol.: "Let the church read these two books (Wisdom and Sirach) for the instruction of the people, not for establishing the authority of the dogmas of the church." It suffered in the respect of many because it was not usually connected with a great name; compare the so-called "Proverbs of Solomon." Sirach is cited or referred to frequently in the Epistle of James (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,\'2-4\');">Jas 1:2-4</a><3E>compare Sirach 2:1-5; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,5);">Jas 1:5</a><3E>compare Sirach 1:26; 41:22; 51:13f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,8);">Jas 1:8</a> ("double minded")<29>compare Sirach 1:28, etc.). The book is often cited in the works of the Fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, etc.) and also in the Apostolical Constitutions with the formula that introduces Scripture passages: "The Scripture says," etc. The Reformers valued Sirach highly, and parts of it have been incorporated into the Anglican Prayer-book.<P>III. Contents.<P>It is quite impossible in the book as it stands to trace any one scheme of thought, for the author\'s mind moves lightly from topic to topic, recurring frequently to the same theme and repeating not seldom the same idea. It is, however, too much to say with Sonntag (De Jesu Siracidae, etc.) that the book is a farrago of sayings with no connection, or with Berthold that the "work is but a rhapsody," for the whole is informed and controlled by one master thought, the supreme value to everyone of Wisdom. By this last the writer means the Jewish religion as conceived by enlightened Jews toward the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and as reflected in the Law of Moses (see Sirach 24:23-34), and in a less degree in the books of the Prophets and in the other writings (see Prologue). The book follows the lines of the canonical Book of Proverbs, and is made up of short pithy sayings with occasional longer discussions, largely collected but in part composed, and all informed and governed by the dominant note of the book: true Wisdom, the chief end of man. Most of the book is poetical in form, and even in the prose parts the parallelism of Hebrew poetry is found. Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to trace a definite continuous line of reasoning in the book, but the vital differences in the schemes propounded suggest what an examination of the book itself confirms, that the compiler and author put his materials together with little or no regard to logical connection, though he never loses sight of his main theme<6D>Wisdom, the chief thing.<P>Eichhorn (Einleitung, 50ff) divides the book into three parts (Sirach 1-23; 24-42:14; 42:15-50:24), and maintains that at first each of these was a separate work, united subsequently by the author. Julian divides the work into three, Scholz into twelve, Fritzsche (Einleitung, xxxii) and Ryssel (op. cit., 240) into seven, Edershelm (op. cit., 19f) and R.G. Moulton (Modern Reader\'s Bible: Ecclus, xviff) into five portions, and many other arrangements have been proposed and defended as by Ewald, Holzmann, Bissell, Zockler, etc. That there are small independent sections, essayettes, poems, etc., was seen by the early scribes to whom the Septuagint in its present form was largely due, for they have prefixed headings to the sections beginning with the following verses: Sirach 18:30 ("Temperance of Soul"); 20:27 ("Proverbs"); 23:7 ("Discipline of the Mouth"); 24:1 ("The Praise of Wisdom"); 30:1 ("Concerning Children"); 30:14 ("Concerning Health"); 30:16 ("Concerning Foods "; this is absent from many manuscripts, though retained by Swete who, however, omits the preceding heading); 30:24 (English Versions of the Bible 33:24, "Concerning Servants"); Sirach 35 (English Versions of the Bible 32:1, "Concerning Rulers"); 44:1 ("Praise of the Fathers"); 51:1 ("The Prayer of Jesus, Son of Sirach"). Probably the whole book possessed such headings at one time, and it is quite possible that they originated in the need to guide readers after the book had become one of the chief church reading-books (so W. J. Deane ii The Expositor, II, vi, 327). These headings are given in English in the King James Version proper (in the margin), though in modern reprints, as also in the Revised Version (British and American), they are unfortunately omitted. The whole book has been arranged in headed sections by H. J. Holzmann (Bunsen\'s Bibelwerk, IX, 392ff) and by R. G. Moulton (op. cit.).<P>IV. Teaching.<P>In general it may be said that the principles enunciated in this book agree with those of the Wisdom school of Palestinian Judaism about 200 BC, though there is not a word in the book about a Messianic hope or the setting up of a Messianic kingdom. None of the views characteristic of Alexandrian Judaism and absent from the teaching of Palestinian Judaism are to be found in this book, though some of them at least are represented in Wisdom (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WISDOM+OF+SOLOMON">WISDOM OF SOLOMON, VI</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=Teach;+Teacher;+Teaching">TEACHING</a>). Girorer (Milo und die jud.-alex. Philo., II, 18ff) and Dahne (Gesch. der jud.-alex. rel. Phil., II, 141ff) hold that the book contains many Alexandrian expressions and numerous statements peculiar to the Alexandrian philosophy. But apart from some late interpolations, mostly Christian, what these German scholars say is untrue, as Drummond (Philo Judaeus, I, 144ff), Deane (Expos, II, v, 334ff) and others have shown. The outstanding features of Alexandrianism are the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, its conception of the ecstatic vision of God, its doctrine of mediating powers between man and God and its adoption of purely Greek ideas. None of these can be traced in Sir. The Hebrews never developed a theoretical or speculative theology or philosophy: all their thinking gathered about life and conduct; the duties that men owed to God and to one another; the hopes that they cherished and the fears by which they were animated. This is the only philosophy which the Bible and the so-called Apocrypha teach, and it is seen at its highest point in the so-called <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WISDOM+LITERATURE">WISDOM LITERATURE</a> (which see). The main lines of the teaching of Sirach may be set out as follows, under the three heads of religion, morals, and manners.<P>1. Religion:<P>(1) God.<P>The view of God given in this book agrees generally with that put forth by the later writers of the Old Testament from the exile (Second Isaiah, Job, etc.) onward, though the God of this book lacks the love and tenderness of the Yahweh of the Old Testament prophets. God is present everywhere (Sirach 16:17-23); He created the world as an ordered whole (Sirach 16:26-30) and made man intelligent and supreme over all flesh. The expressions used are no doubt modeled on <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a>, and it may fairly be inferred that creation out of nothing is meant. Wisdom, on the other hand, teaches the Alexandrian doctrine that matter (hule) is eternal and that the Creator\'s work consisted of fashioning, adapting and beautifying. The world is a creature of God, not (as in Philo, etc.) an emanation from Him. Yet is He compassionate and forgiving (Sirach 17:24ff). His works are past finding out (Sirach 18:2ff); but His compassion is upon all flesh (Sirach 18:13), i.e. upon all that accept His chastening and seek to do His will (Sirach 18:14). In Sirach 43:27 God is said to be "the all" (to pan), which simply means that He pervades and is the ground of everything. It is not Alexandrian pantheism that is taught. Gfrorer and others take a contrary view.<P>(2) Revelation.<P>In harmony with other products of the "Wise Men," Sirach sets chief value upon natural religion, that revealed in the instincts, reason and conscience of man as well as by the sun, moon, stars, etc. Yet Sirach gives far more prominence than Proverbs to the idea that the Divine Will is specially made known in the Law of Moses (Sirach 24:23; 45:1-4). We do not meet once with the word "law" in Ecclesiastes, nor law in the technical sense (Law of Moses) in either Job, Wisdom or Proverbs. In the last-named it is simply one of many synonyms denoting "Wisdom." In Sirach the word occurs over 20 times, not, however, always, even when the expression "Law of Moses" is used, in the sense of the "five books" (Pentateuch). It generally includes in its connotation also "the prophecies and the rest of the books" (Prologue); see Sirach 32 (Septuagint 35):24; 33 (Septuagint 36):1-3.<P>(3) Sin.<P>Sin is due to the wrong exercise of man\'s free will. Men can, if they like, keep the commandments, and when they break from them they are themselves alone to be blamed (Sirach 15:14-17). Yet it was through a woman (Eve) that sin entered the world and death by sin (Sirach 25:24; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,14);">1Ti 2:14</a>). See <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,12);">Ro 5:12</a> where "one man," strictly "human being" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,14);">5:14</A>, "Adam"), is made the first cause of sin. But nowhere in Sirach is the doctrine of original sin taught.<P>(4) Predestination.<P>Notwithstanding the prominence given to "free will" (see (3), above), Sirach teaches the doctrine of predestination, for God has determined that some men should be high and some low, some blessed and others cursed (33:10ff).<P>(5) Satan.<P>The word "Satan" (Satanas) in Sirach 21:27 (it occurs nowhere else in the Apocrypha) denotes one\'s own wicked heart, as the parallelism shows.<P>(6) Salvation.<P>There is no salvation except by way of good works on man\'s part (Sirach 14:16f) and forgiveness on God\'s (Sirach 17:24-32). The only atonement is through one\'s own good works (Sirach 5:5f), honoring parents (Sirach 32:14f), almsgiving, etc. (Sirach 3:30; 17:19ff). There is no objective atonement ("expiation," literally, "propitiation"; the Greek verb exilaskomai, is the great Septuagint word for the Hebrew kipper, "to atone").<P>(7) Sacrifice.<P>The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to God (Sirach 34:18ff), though He Himself appointed sacrifices and first-fruits (Sirach 45:20f), and when the righteous offer sacrifices to God they are accepted and remembered in the time to come (Sirach 35:1-12).<P>(8) Feasts.<P>Festivals as well as seasons are ordained by God to be observed by man (Sirach 33 (Septuagint 36):8f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,14);">Ge 1:14</a>).<P>(9) Prayer.<P>The duty of prayer is often pointed out (Sirach 37:15, etc.), the necessary preparation defined (Sirach 17:25; 18:20,23), and its successful issue promised (Sirach 35:17). There must be no vain repetitions (Sirach 7:14; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,7);">Mt 6:7</a>), nor should there be any faint-heartedness in the matter (Sirach 5:10; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,6);">Jas 1:6</a>). Men are to pray in sickness (Sirach 38:9), but all the same the physician should be consulted and his advice followed (Sirach 38:1f; 12ff).<P>(10) Angelology.<P>Sirach nowhere clearly expresses his belief in angels or uses language which implies such a belief. For "an angel (ho aggelos) destroyed them" the Hebrew of the original passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,35);">2Ki 19:35</a>) has maggephah, "plague," and so the Syriac, though the Septuagint (followed by the Vulgate) has "angel."<P>(11) Eschatology.<P>Nowhere in this book is the doctrine of a future life taught, and the whole teaching of the book leaves no place for such a doctrine. Men will be indeed rewarded or punished according to their conduct, but in this world (see Sirach 2:10f; 9:12; 11:26f). The retribution is, however, not confined to the individuals in their lifetime; it extends to their children and involves their own glorious or inglorious name after death (see Sirach 11:28; 40:15; 41:6; 44:11-13). The passage concerning Gehenna (Sirach 7:17) is undoubtedly spurious and is lacking in the Syriac, Ethiopic, etc. Since the book is silent as to a future life, it is of necessity silent on the question of a resurrection. Nothing is hinted as to a life beyond the grave, even in Sirach 41:1-4, where the author deprecates the fear of death. In these matters Sirach agrees with the Pentateuch and the prophetic and poetical books of the Old Testament (Psalms, Job, etc.), none of which give any intimation of a life beyond the grave. Little or nothing is said of the Messianic hope which must have been entertained largely by Palestinian Jews living in the author\'s time, though in Sirach 36 (Septuagint 33):1-17 the writer prays for the restoration of Israel and Jerusalem, i.e. R.H. Charles thinks (Eschatology, etc., 65), for the bringing in of the Messianic kingdom.<P>(12) Sirach\'s Doctrine of Wisdom.<P>For a general discussion of the rise and development of the conception of Wisdom in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WISDOM+LITERATURE">WISDOM LITERATURE</a>. A brief statement as to what the word implies in Sirach is all that can here be attempted. It is in chapters 1 and 24 that Ben Sira\'s doctrine is chiefly contained.<P>Wisdom is from God: He created it and it must therefore have a separate existence. Yet it is dependent on Him. It is omnipresent, though it dwells in a peculiar sense with all flesh. The root and beginning of Wisdom, its fullness and crown, are the fear of God (Sirach 1:14,16,18,21); so that only the obedient and pious possess it (Sirach 1:10,26); indeed Wisdom is identified with the fear of the Lord and the observance of the Law (Sirach 19:20); it is even made one with the Law of Moses (Sirach 24:23), i.e. it consists of practical principles, of precepts regulating the life. In this doctrine we have a combination of universalism, principles of reason and Jewish particularism as the teaching of the revealed Law. We have the first in Sirach 24:3-21; the second in 24:23-34. Have we in this chapter, as in Proverbs, nothing outside the teaching of Palestinian Judaism? Gfrorer (op. cit., II, 18ff) denies this, maintaining that the whole of Sirach 24 was written by an Alexandrian Jew and adopted unchanged by Ben Sira. But what is there in this chapter which an orthodox, well-informed Palestinian Jew of Ben Sira\'s time might not well have written? It is quite another question whether this whole conception of Wisdom in the so-called Wisdom books is not due, in some measure, to Greek, though not Alexandrian, influence, unless indeed the Greek influence came by way of Alexandria. In the philosophy of Socrates, and in a less exclusive sense in that of Plato and Aristotle, the good man is the wise one. Cheyne (Job and Solomon, 190) goes probably too far when he says, "By Greek philosophy Sirach, as far as we can see, was wholly uninfluenced."<P>2. Morals:<P>The ethical principle of Sirach is Hedonism or individual utilitarianism, as is that of Proverbs and the Old Testament generally, though in the Psalms and in the prophetical writings gratitude to God for the love He has shown and the kind acts He has performed is the basis of endless appeals and vows. Moreover, the individual point of view is reached only in the late parts of the Old Testament. In the older Old Testament books, as in Plato, etc., it is the state that constitutes the unit, not the individual human being. The rewards and penalties of conduct, good and bad, belong to this present world. See what is said in (11) "Eschatology," above; see also Sirach 2:7f; 11:17; 16:6f; 40:13f; etc.<P>The hedonistic principle is carried so far that we are urged to help the good because they are most likely to prove serviceable to us (Sirach 12:2); to aid our fellow-man in distress, so that in his days of prosperity he may be our friend (Sirach 22:23); contrast the teaching of Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,\'30-36\');">Lu 6:30-36</a>). Friends are to be bemoaned for appearance\' sake (Sirach 38:17). Yet many of the precepts are lofty. We are exhorted to show kindness and forbearance to the poor and to give help to our fellow-man (Sirach 29:8,20); to give alms (Sirach 12:3); speak kindly (Sirach 18:15-18); masters should treat servants as brethren, nay as they would themselves be treated (Sirach 7:20-22; 33:30f); parents should give heed to the proper training of their children (Sirach 3:2; 7:23; 30:1-13); and children ought to respect and obey their parents (Sirach 3:1-16). It is men\'s duty to defend the truth and to fight for it. So shall the Lord fight for them (Sirach 4:25,28). Pride is denounced (Sirach 10:2ff), and humility (Sirach 3:18), as well as forgiveness (Sirach 28:2), commended.<P>3. Manners:<P>Sirach is as much a code of etiquette as one of ethics, the motive being almost invariably the individual\'s own good. Far more attention is given to "manners" in Sirach than in Proverbs, owing to the fact that a more complex and artificial state of society had arisen in Palestine. When one is invited to a banquet he is not to show greed or to be too forward in helping himself to the good things provided. He is to be the first to leave and not to be insatiable (Sirach 31:12-18). Moderation in eating is necessary for health as well as for appearance\' sake (Sirach 31:19-22). Mourning for the dead is a social propriety, and it should on that account be carefully carried out, since failure to do this brings bad repute (Sirach 38:16f). It is quite wrong to stand in front of people\'s doors, peeping and listening: only fools do this (Sirach 21:23f). Music and wine are praised: nay even a "concert of music" and a "banquet of wine" are good in their season and in moderation (Sirach 32 (Septuagint 35):5f). The author has not a high opinion of woman (Sirach 25:13). A man is to be on his strict guard against singing and dancing girls and harlots, and adultery is an evil to be feared and avoided (Sirach 36:18-26). From a woman sin began, and it is through her that we all die (Sirach 25:4). Yet no one has used more eulogistic terms in praising the good wife than Ben Sira (Sirach 26:1ff), or in extolling the happiness of the home when the husband and wife "walk together in agreement" (Sirach 25:1).<P>4. Counsels of Prudence:<P>Never lend money to a man more powerful than thyself or thou wilt probably lose it (Sirach 8:12). It is unwise to become surety for another (Sirach 29:18; 8:13), yet for a good man one would become surety (Sirach 29:14) and he would even lend to him (Sirach 29:1ff). It should be remembered that in those times lending and becoming financially liable were acts of kindness, pure and simple: the Jewish Law forbade the taking of interest in any form (see Century Bible, "Ezra," etc., 198). "A slip on, a pavement is better than a slip with the tongue," so guard thy mouth (Sirach 20:18); "He that is wise in words shall advance himself; and one that is prudent will please great men" (Sirach 20:27). The writer has the pride of his class, for he thinks the common untrained mind, that of the plowman, carpenter and the like, has little capacity for dealing with problems of the intellect (Sirach 38:24-34).<P>V. Literary Form.<P>The bulk of the book is poetical in form, abounding in that parallelism which characterizes Hebrew poetry, though it is less antithetic and regular than in Prov. No definite meter has been discovered, though Bickell, Margoliouth and others maintain the contrary (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=POETRY,+HEBREW">POETRY, HEBREW</a>). Even in the prose parts parallelism is found. The only strophic arrangement is that suggested by similarity of subject-matter.<P>Bickell (Zeitschr. far katholische Theol., 1882) translated Sirach 51:1-20 back into Hebrew and tried to prove that it is an alphabetic acrostic psalm, and Taylor supports this view by an examination of the lately discovered fragments of the Hebrew text (see The Wisdom of Ben Sira, etc., by S. Schechter and C. Taylor, lxxixff). After Sirach 51:12 of the Greek and other versions the Hebrew has a psalm of 15 verses closely resembling <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',136,\'1-\');">Ps 136</a>; but the Hebrew version of Sirach 51:1-20 does not favor Bickell\'s view, nor does the ps, found only in the Hebrew, lend much support to what either Bickell or Taylor says. Space precludes detailed proofs.<P>VI. Author.<P>1. Jesus, Son of Sirach:<P>The proper name of the author was Jesus (Jeshua, Greek Iesous(?)), the family name being "Ben Sira." The full name would be therefore "Jesus Ben Sirs." In the Talmud and other Jewish writings he is known as "Ben Sira," literally, "son (or descendant?) of Sira." Who Sira was is unknown. No other book in the Apocrypha gives the name of its author as the Prologue to Sirach does. In the best Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) of Sirach 50:27, the author\'s name appears as \'Iesous huios Seirach Eleazar ho Hierosolumeites, "Jesus the son of Sirach (son of) Eleazar the Jerusalemite." For the last two words Codex Sinaiticus has by a copyist\'s error, ho hiereus ho Solumeites, "the Solomon-like priest." The Hebrew text of Sirach 50:27 and 51:30 gives the following genealogy: Simeon son of Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sira, making the author the grandson and not the son of Sira, and so he is called by Saadia; see HDB (Nestle) and EB, II, 1165 (Toy). We know nothing of Ben Sira beyond what can be gathered from the book itself. He was a resident in Palestine (24:10f), an orthodox Jew, well read in at least Jewish literature, a shrewd observer of life, with a philosophical bent, though true to the national faith. He had traveled far and seen much (34:11f). His interests were too general and his outlook too wide to allow of his being either a priest or a scribe.<P>2. Other Views:<P>Many suppositions have been put forward as to the author\'s identity.<P>(1) That the Author Was a Priest:<P>So in Codex Sinaiticus (Sirach 50:27). In Sirach 7:29-31 he speaks much of the priesthood, and there are numerous references to sacrifices in the book. In 45:6-26 he has a long poem in praise of Aaron and his high-priesthood. Yet on the whole Ben Sira does not write as a priest.<P>(2) That He Was a High Priest:<P>So Syncellus (Chronicles, edition Dindf., 1 525) through a misunderstanding of a passage in Eusebius. But the teaching and temper of the book make this supposition more improbable than the last.<P>(3) That He Was a Physician:<P>An inference drawn from Sirach 38:1f; 12ff and other references to the professional healer of the body (10:10). But this is a very small foundation on which to build so great an edifice.<P>(4) That He Was One of the 72 Translators (Septuagint):<P>So Lapide (Comm.), Calmer, Goldhager, a wholly unsupported hypothesis.<P>(5) No One of Course Believes that Solomon Wrote the Book:<P>Though many of the early Fathers held that he was the author of the five Wisdom Books<6B>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Sirach and Wisdom.<P>VII. Unity and Intergrity.<P>There is, on the whole, such a uniformity in the style and teaching of the book that most scholars agree in ascribing the whole book (except, the Prologue, which is the work of the translator) to Ben Sira. This does not mean that he composed every line; he must have adopted current sayings, written and oral, and this will account for the apparent contradictions, as about becoming surety (Sirach 29:14), and refusing to become surety (Sirach 8:13; 29:18); words in praise (Sirach 25:1; 26:1ff) and condemnation of women (Sirach 25:4,13; 36:18-26); the varying estimates of life (Sirach 36:16-35; 40:1-11), etc. But in these seeming opposites we have probably no more than complementary principles, the whole making up the complete truth. Nothing is more manifest in the book than the all-pervading thought of one dominant mind. Some have denied the genuineness of Sirach 51, but the evidence is at least indecisive. There is nothing in this chapter inconsistent with the rest of the book.<P>In the recently discovered fragments of Hebrew text there is a psalm between Sirach 51:12 and 13 of the Greek and English Versions of the Bible which seems a copy of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',136,\'1-\');">Ps 136</a>. It is absent from the versions and its genuineness is doubtful. But in both the Hebrew and Greek texts there are undoubted additions and omissions. There are, in the Greek, frequent glosses by Christian editors or copyists and other changes (by the translators?) in the direction of Alexandrian Judaism; see Speaker\'s Apocrypha and other commentaries for details.<P>VIII. Date.<P>In the book itself there is one mark of definite date (Sirach 50:1), and in the Prologue there is another. Unfortunately both are ambiguous. In the Prologue the translator, whose grandfather or ancestor (Greek pappos) wrote the book (the younger Siracides, as he is called), says that he reached Egypt, where he found and translated this book in the reign of Euergetes, king of Egypt. But there were two Egyptian kings called Euergetes, namely, Ptolemy Euergetes, or Euergetes I (247-222 BC), and Ptolemy VII Physcon, or Euergetes II (218-198 BC). Sirach 50:1 mentions, among the great men whom he praises, Simon the high priest, son of Onias, who is named last in the list and lived probably near the time of the elder Siracidess. But there were two high priests called Simon and each of them was a son of Onias, namely, Simon I, son of Onias I (circa 310-290 BC), and Simon II, son of Onias II (circa 218-198 BC). Scholars differ as to which Euergetes is meant in the Prologue and which Simon in 50:1.<P>1. Most Probable Views:<P>The conclusions to which the evidence has brought the present writer are these: (1) that Simon I (died 290 BC) is the high priest meant; (2) that Ptolemy VII Physcon (218-198 BC) is the Euergetes meant.<P>(1) In Favor of the First Proposition Are the Following:<P>(a) The book must have been written some time after the death of Simon, for in the meantime an artificial fame had gathered around the name, and the very allusion to him as a hero of the past makes it clear that he had been long dead. Assuming that Simon had died in 290 BC, as seems likely, it is a reasonable conclusion that the original Hebrew work was composed somewhat later than 250 BC. If Simon II is the man intended, the book could hardly have been composed before 150 BC, an impossible date; see below.<P>(b) In the list of great men in Sirach 44-50 the praises of Simon (50:1ff) are sung after those of Nehemiah (Sirach 49:13), suggesting that the space of time between them was not very great.<P>(c) The "Simon the Just" of Josephus was certainly Simon I, he being so called, this Jewish historian says (Ant., XII, ii, 5), on account of his piety and kindness.<P>(d) It is probable that the "Simon the Just" of the Mishna (\'Abhoth i.2) is also Simon I, though this is not certain. It is said of him that he was one of the last members of the great synagogue and in the Talmud he is the hero of many glorifying legends. The so-called great synagogue never really existed, but the date assigned to it in Jewish tradition shows that it is Simon I that is thought of.<P>(e) In the Syriac version (Pesh) Sirach 50:23 reads thus: "Let it (peace) be established with Simon the Just," etc. Some manuscripts have "Simon the Kind." This text may of course be wrong, but Graetz and Edersheim support it. This is the exact title given to Simon I by Josephus (op. cit.), the Mishna and by Jewish tradition generally.<P>(f) The only references to Simon II in Jewish history and tradition depict him in an unfavorable light. In 2Macc 3 he is the betrayer of the temple to the Syrians. Even if the incident of the above chapter were unhistorical, there must have been some basis for the legend. Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 10f) makes him side with the sons of Tobias against Hyrcanus, son of Joseph, the wrong side from the orthodox Jewish point of view.<P>(g) The high priest Simon is said (Sirach 50:1-13) to have repaired the temple and fortified the city. Edersheim says that the temple and city stood in need of what is here described in the time of Simon I, but not in the time of Simon II, for Ptolemy I (247-222 BC) in his wars with Demetrius destroyed many fortifications in Palestine to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy, among which Acco, Joppa, Gaza are named, and it is natural to think that the capital and its sanctuary were included. This is, however, but a priori reasoning, and Derenbourg argues that Simon II must be meant, since according to Josephus (Ant., XII, iii, 3) Antiochus the Great (223-187 BC) wrote a letter in which he undertakes that the city and temple of Jerusalem shall be fully restored. This is not, however, to say that Simon II or anyone else did, at that time, restore either.<P>(h) Of the numerous errors in the Greek text some at least seem due to the fact that the version in that language was made so long after the composition of the original Hebrew that the sense of several Hebrew words had become lost among the Alexandrian Jews. If we assume that the Simon of chapter 50 was Simon I (died 290 BC), so that the Hebrew work was composed about 250 BC; if we further assume that the Euergetes of the Prologue was Ptolemy VII (died 198 BC), there is a reasonable space of time to allow the sense of the Hebrew to be lost in many instances (see Halevy, Revue semitique, July, 1899). It must be admitted that there is no decisive evidence on one side or the other, but the balance weighs in favor of Simon I in the opinion of the present writer.<P>(2) Euergetes of the Prologue:<P>That the Euergetes of the Prologue in whose reign the translation was made must have been Ptolemy VII Physcon, Euergetes II, seems proved by the translator\'s statement that he came to Egypt in the 38th year, epi tou Euergetou basileos, i.e. almost certainly of the reign of Euergetes, for what reason could the younger Siracides have for giving his own age? Now Euergetes I reigned but 25 years, but Euergetes II (Physcon) reigned in all 54 years, from 170 to 145 BC as regent with his father, and from 145 to 116 BC as sole monarch. If we accept this interpretation of the above words, the question is settled. Westcott, however (DB,1863, I, 479, note c), says "the words can only mean that the translator in his 38th year came to Egypt during the reign of Euergetes." The other rendering adopted by Eichhorn is, he adds, "absolutely set at variance with the grammatical structure of the sentence." In the second edition of DB (1893) this note has become expunged, and the article as edited by D.S. Margoliouth (I, 841) teaches the contrary view, which is now accepted by nearly all scholars (Schurer, etc.). We may therefore assume that the original Hebrew book was composed about 240-200 BC, or some 50 or more years after the death of Simon I, and that the translation was made about 130 BC, for the younger Siracides came to Egypt in 132 BC, and he gives us to understand in the Prologue that he translated the Hebrew work of his grandfather almost immediately after reaching that country. If Simon II (died 198 BC) is meant in Sirach 50, we are compelled to assume a date for the original work of about 150 BC in order to allow time for the growth of the halo of legend which had gathered about Simon. The translation must, in that case, have been completed some 20 years after the composition of the Hebrew, a conclusion which the evidence opposes. The teaching of the book belongs to 200 BC, or slightly earlier. The doctrine of the resurrection taught in Daniel (165 BC) is ignored in Sirach, as it has not yet become Jewish doctrine.<P>2. Brief Statement of Other Views:<P>(1) That the Euergetes of the Prologue and the Simon of chapter 50 are in both cases the first so called. So Hug, Scholz, Welt, Keil, Edersheim (Speaker\'s Apocrypha) and many others. The book was accordingly written after 290 BC, perhaps in 250 BC, or later, and the translation was made some time after 220 BC, say 200 BC.<P>(2) That Euergetes II (died 116 BC) and Simon II (died 198 BC) are the two persons referred to. So Eichhorn, De Wette, Ewald, Franz Delitzsch, Hitzig, Schurer.<P>(3) Hitzig (Psalms,1836,II, 118) made the original work a product of the Maccabean period<6F>an impossible supposition, for the book says nothing at all about the Maccabees. Moreover, the priestly house of Zadok is praised in this book (Sirach 50, etc.); it was held in little respect during the time of the Maccabean wars, owing to the sympathy it showed toward the Hellenizing party.<P>IX. Original Languages.<P>1. Composed in Hebrew:<P>Even before the discovery of the substantial fragments of what is probably the original Hebrew text of this book, nearly all scholars had reached the conclusion that Sirach was composed in Hebrew.<P>(1) The fact of a Hebrew original is definitely stated in the Prologue.<P>(2) Jerome (Praef. in vers. libri Sol.) says that he had seen the Hebrew original<61>the same text probably that underlies the fragments recently published, though we cannot be sure of this.<P>(3) Citations apparently from the same Hebrew text are made not seldom in Talmudic and rabbinical literature.<P>(4) There are some word-plays in the book which in the Greek are lost, but which reappear in the discovered Hebrew text, e.g. (Sirach 43:8) ho men kata to onoma autes estin auxanomene (read ananeomene), "the month is called after her name," chodhesh kishemo hu\' mitchadhes, "the moon according to its name renews itself"; the Hebrew words for "moon" and "renews itself" come from one root, as if we said in English<73>what of course is not English<73>"the moon moons itself."<P>There are other cases where mistakes and omissions in the Greek are explained by a reference to the newly found Hebrew text C, or some 50 or more years after the death of Simon I, and that the translation was made about 130 BC, for the younger Siracides came to Egypt in 132 BC, and he gives us to understand in the Prologue that he translated the Hebrew work of his grandfather almost immediately after reaching that country. If Simon II (died 198 BC) is meant in Sirach 50, we are compelled to assume a date for the original work of about 150 BC in order to allow time for the growth of the halo of legend which had gathered about Simon. The translation must, in that case, have been completed some 20 years after the composition of the Hebrew, a conclusion which the evidence opposes. The teaching of the book belongs to 200 BC, or slightly earlier. The doctrine of the resurrection taught in Daniel (165 BC) is ignored in Sirach, as it has not yet become Jewish doctrine.<P>The strongly supported conjecture of former years that the book was composed in Hebrew was turned into a practical certainty through the discovery, by Dr. S. Schechter and others in 1896 and after, of the fragments of a (probably the) Hebrew text called now A B C and D. These contain much over half the whole book, and that the text in them, nearly always identical when the same passages are given in more than one, is the original one, is exceedingly likely, to say the least.<P>2. Margoliouth\'s View:<P>D. S. Margoliouth (Origin of the Original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, 1899) has tried to prove that the Hebrew text of the fragments is a translation of a Persian version which is itself derived from Greek and Syriac. The proofs he offers have not convinced scholars.<P>(1) He refers to words in Hebrew which in that language are senseless, and he endeavors to show that they are disguised Persian words. As a matter of fact, in such cases the copyist has gone wholly wrong or the word is undecipherable.<P>(2) There do appear to be Persian glosses, but they are no part of the original text, and there can be no reasonable doubt that they are due to a Persian reader or copyist.<P>(3) There are many cases in which the Hebrew can be proved to be a better and older text than the Greek or Syriac (see Konig, The Expository Times, XI, 170ff).<P>(4) As regards the character of the language, it may be said that in syntax it agrees in the main with the classical Hebrew of the Old Testament, but its vocabulary links it with the latest Old Testament books. Thus we have the use of the "waw-consecutive" with the imperfect (Sirach 43:23; 44:9,23; 45:2f; etc.) and with the perfect (Sirach 42:1,8,11), though the use of the simple waw with both tenses occurs also. This mixed usage is exactly what meets us in the latest part of the Old Testament (Ecclesiastes, Esther, etc.). As regards vocabulary, the word chephets, has the sense of "thing," "matter," in Sirach 20:9, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',3,1);">Ec 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,7);">5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',8,6);">8:6</a>. In general it may be said that the Hebrew is that of early post-Biblical times. Margoliouth holds that the extant Hebrew version is no older than the 11th century, which is impossible. His mistake is due to confounding the age of the manuscripts with that of the version they contain.<P>(5) It is nevertheless admitted that in some cases the Syriac or the Greek or both together preserve an older and correcter text than the Hebrew, but this because the latter has sometimes been miscopied and intentionally changed.<P>(6) The numerous Hebraisms in the Greek version which in the Hebrew have their original expression point to the same conclusion<6F>that this Hebrew text is the original form of the book.<P>Margoliouth has been answered by Smend (TLZ,1889, col. 506), Konig (Expository Times, X, XI, 1899-1900), Noldeke (ZATW, XX, 81-94), and by many others. Bickell (Zeitschrift fur katholische Theol., III, 387ff) holds also that the Hebrew Sirach extant is a translation from the Greek or Syriac or both.<P>X. Versions.<P>1. Greek:<P>The Septuagint translation was made from the Hebrew direct; it is fairly correct, though in all the extant manuscripts the text is very corrupt in several places. (1) The book occurs in the uncials Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi, and part of Alexandrinus fairly free from glosses, though abounding in obvious errors.<P>(2) The text is found in a much purer form in Codex Venetus and also in Codex Sinaiticus (ca) and part of Codex Alexandrinus.<P>All extant Greek manuscripts except the late cursive 248 seem to go back to one original MS, since in all of them the two sections Sirach 30:25-33:15 and 33:16-36:11 have changed places, so that 33:16-36:11 follows 30:24 and 30:25-33:15 comes after 36:11. Most scholars accept the explanation of Fritzsche (Exeg. Handbuch zu den Apok, V, 21f) that the two leaves on which these two parts (of similar size) were written got mixed, the wrong one being put first. On the other hand, the cursive 248 (14th century) has these sections in their proper order, and the same is true of the Syriac (Peshitta), Latin and Armenian versions and of the Greek version of the Complutensian Polyglot (which follows throughout 248 and not the uncials) and English Versions of the Bible which is made from this Polyglot. The superiority of 248 to the older manuscript (B S A C V) is seen in other parts of the Greek text. In the other Greek manuscripts, Sirach 3:25 is omitted, as it is by Edersheim and most commentators before the discovery of the Hebrew text. But this last supports 248 in retaining the verse, and it is now generally kept. In 43:23 "islands" is properly read by 248, Vulgate, Syriac, 23 and the Hebrew, but older Greek manuscripts read "Jesus," making nonsense ("And Jesus planted her" [auten] for "he planted islands therein"). The other manuscripts have a text which yields no sense in 43:26: English Versions of the Bible "By reason of him his end hath success." The Greek of 248 and the Hebrew give this sense: "The angel is equipped for his task," etc.<P>2. Syriac:<P>The Syriac (Peshitta) version is now almost universally acknowledged to have been made from the Hebrew, of which, on the whole, it is a faithful rendering. In some places, however, it agrees with the Septuagint against the Hebrew, probably under the influence of the inaccurate idea that the Greek text is the original one. In this version the two sections Sirach 30:25-33:5 and 33:16-36:11 are in proper order, as in the Hebrew, a fresh proof that the Syriac is not translated from the Greek<P>3. Latin:<P>The Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) agrees with the Old Latin which follows the Septuagint closely. Lapide, Sabatier and Bengel tried to prove that the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) was based on the lost original Hebrew, but the evidence they supply falls far short of proof, and recently discovered Hebrew fragments show that they were wrong. The two sections transposed in the Septuagint (except 248) are also transposed in the Latin, showing that the latter is based on the Greek text. The Latin text of both Sirach and Wisdom according to the codex Amiant is given by Lagarde in his Mittheilungen, I, 243-84. This closely follows the Greek text.<P>4. English:<P>The King James Version follows the cursives and often repeats their errors. the Revised Version (British and American) is based, for the most part, on the uncials and thus often departs from the Hebrew. Sirach 3:19 is retained by the King James Version but omitted by the Revised Version (British and American). For the latter clause of the verse ("mysteries are revealed unto the meek"), the King James Version is supported by codex 248, the Syriac and the Hebrew. Both English Versions of the Bible should be corrected by the Hebrew in Sirach 7:26 and 38:1,15.<P>For fuller details concerning versions see Speaker\'s Apocrypha, II, 23-32 (Edersheim); Kautzsch, Die Apok. des Altes Testament, I, 242ff (Ryssel), and the article by Nestle in HDB, IV, 544ff.<P>LITERATURE.<P>In addition to books mentioned under Apocrypha and in the course of the present article, note the following:<P>(1) The Text of the Hebrew Fragments:<P>For accounts of the discovery and decipherments of these see HDB, IV, 546f (Nestle); Bible Polyglotte (F. Vigoureux), V, 4ff; Schurer GJ V4, III, 221ff. The text of the Hebrew as yet known is conveniently printed in the following: H. L. Strack, Die Spruche Jesus, etc. (with notes and glossary), Leipzig, 1903; Isaac Levi, The Hebrew Text of Ecclesiasticus (with notes and glossary), Leiden, 1906; Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Hebrew und Deutsch (with notes and glossary), Berlin, 1906. The Hebrew appears also in the Bible Polyglotte, edition F. Vigoureux, with the Septuagint, Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and a French translation in parallel columns. (No other Polyglot has appeared since the discovery of the Hebrew.) There are parallel texts in Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and English, and also useful notes and tables in The Original Hebrew of Sirach 39:15-49:11, by Cowles and Neubauer, Oxford, 1897. Still later and fuller is The Wisdom of Ben Sira in Hebrew and English, with notes on the Hebrew by Schechter and Taylor, Cambridge, 1899.<P>(2) Commentaries:<P>The works of Fritzsche (1859), who neglects the evidence of the Syriac and ignores the Hebrew idioms in the book, and of Bissell (1880) and Edersheim (1888) appeared before the discovery of the Hebrew fragments. The last-named shows both learning and ingenuity in tracking the Hebrew idioms and in explaining difficulties by means of Hebrew. The following commentaries take full note of the Hebrew text as far as discovered: Israel Levi, L\'Ecclesiastique ou la sagesse de Jesus fils de Sira: traduit et commente, Paris,1898,1901; Ryssel in Kautzsch\'s Apok. des Altes Testament, I, 280-475, exceedingly valuable, especially for the text and introduction, but he takes account of the Hebrew fragments published by Cowley and Neubauer only in this book. To complete his treatment of the Hebrew parts published after he wrote, see further articles by him in Stud. u. Krit., 1900-1-2; Knabenbaur, Commentarius in Ecclesiasticum, Paris, 1902; Peters, Der jungst wieder aufgefundene hebraische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, 1902 (compare the notice by Smend, Theologische Literaturzeitung,1903,72-77); Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklart, 1906 (full discussion of the book in the newest light; compare notice by Julicher in TLZ,1908,323-29). The New Oxford Apocrypha (Introduction and Notes), edition by R. H. Charles (1913), contains a full Introduction and Commentary. J. H. A. Hart has published separately a critical edition of codex 248, in which he collates the principal authorities, manuscript and printed.<P>(3) Dictionaries:<P>Of the Dict. articles those in HDB (Nestle, strong in the critical, but weak and defective on the historical and exegetical side); Encyclopedia Biblica (C. H. Toy, sound and well balanced); see also Jewish Encyclopedia (Israel Levi) and Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition) (W. Baxendale). For detailed register of the literature see HDB (Nestle); Jewish Encyclopedia, "Sirach" (Israel Levi); and especially Schurer, GJ V4, III, 219ff.``33';
isbe[8216]='Sirach, the Alphabet of`Usually called The Alphabet of Ben Sira. The compilation so designated consists of two lists of proverbs, 22 in Aramaic and 22 in Hebrew, arranged in each case as alphabet acrostics. Each of these proverbs is followed by a haggadic comm., with legends and tales, many of them indecent. Some of the proverbs in the Alphabets are probably genuine compositions by Ben Sira and are quoted as such in the Talmud, but in their present form the Alphabets are at least as late as the 11th century AD.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The only complete copy of the text known is in the British Museum, the copy in the Bodleian being defective. Steinschneider has published a reprint of this last with critical notes (Alphabeticum Syracidis, Berlin, 1854). Cowley and Neubauer (The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus), besides giving a general account of this work, add a translation into English of the Aramaic proverbs. In his brief but excellent articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia (Ben Sira, The Alphabet of), Dr. Louis Ginzberg (New York) also gives a translation of the 22 Aramaic proverbs with useful remarks after each. The work has been translated into Latin, Yiddish (often), Judeo-Spanish, French and German, but never, so far, completely into English.``33';
isbe[8217]='Sirah, Well of`si\'-ra (bor hacirah, "the pit," "well" or "cistern of Sarah"): The spot from which Abner was enticed back to Hebron to his death (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,26);">2Sa 3:26</a>). Josephus (Ant., VII, i, 5) calls it Be(r)sira, implying that it was a "well." It is possible that this spot is now \'Ain Sarah, a spring which flows into a little tank near the west side of the road about a mile out of ancient Hebron, on the way to Jerusalem. There is, however, a curious cistern with steps known as Chamam Sarah ("Sarah\'s bath") near Ramet el-Khalil, which is also possibly the site (PEF, 314, Sh XXI).``1';
isbe[8218]='Sirion`sir\'-i-on (siryon; Sanior): The name of Mt. Hermon among the Phoenicians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,9);">De 3:9</a>). It is given as "Shirion" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,6);">Ps 29:6</a> (Hebrew "breastplate" or "body armor"). Here it is named with Lebanon. Sirion therefore probably did not denote a particular part of the Hermon Range, as did Senir, but may have been suggested by the conformation of the range itself, as seen from the heights above the Phoenician coast.``1';
isbe[8219]='Sisamai`sis\'-a-mi.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SISMAI">SISMAI</a>`1';
isbe[8220]='Sisera`sis\'-er-a (cicera\', of doubtful meaning; S(e)isara):<P>(1) Given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'1-\');">Judges 4</a> as the captain of the army of Jabin, king of Hazor. The accounts given of the battle of Sisera with Barak, as found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'1-\');">Judges 4</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>, have important points of difference. The first is a prose, the second a poetic narrative. In the first only Naphtali and Zebulun are mentioned as being under the command of Barak; in the second 6 tribes are given as being under his command. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'1-\');">Judges 4</a> Sisera is known as the captain of Jabin\'s forces, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Judges 5</a> he seems to have been an independent leader. There is also a difference as to the scene of the battle and as to the manner in which Sisera met his death at the hand of Jael. Because of these points of difference, added to the fact that this is the only account, in these early times, where a king did not lead his own forces, it is thought by many that there is here the combination of two traditions dealing with different and distinct events.<P>Sisera resided in Harosheth of the Gentiles, a place identified with el-Charithiyeh, on the right bank of the Kishon and commanding the way from the Central Plain to the sea. Taking the versions in the two chapters of Judges as being the account of a single campaign, we find Deborah urging Barak to combine the forces of Israel to wage war with Sisera as the representative of Jabin, the king of Hazor. The scene of the battle was on the plain at the foot of the slopes of Mt. Tabor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'12-14\');">Jud 4:12-14</a>), or at the foot of the Carmel heights (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,19);">Jud 5:19</a>). The attack of Barak and Deborah was so furious, animated as it was by the hatred of Sisera and the Canaanites, that the hosts of Sisera were put to rout, and Sisera, deserting his troops, fled on foot to the northeast. He took refuge in the tent of Heber, near Kedesh, and here met death at the hands of Jael, the wife of Heber (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAEL">JAEL</a>). Sisera\'s name had long produced fear in Israel because of his oppression of the people, his vast army and his 900 chariots of iron. His overthrow was the cause of much rejoicing and was celebrated by the song in which Deborah led the people.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEBORAH">DEBORAH</a>.<P>It is interesting to note that the great rabbi Aqiba, who fought so valiantly in the Jewish war for independence as standard bearer to Bar-cocheba, was descended from the ancient warlike Sisera of Harosheth.<P>(2) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,53);">Ezr 2:53</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,55);">Ne 7:55</a> the name Sisera, after a long interval, reappears in a family of the Nethinim. There is no evidence that the latter Sisera is connected by family descent with the former.``158';
isbe[8221]='Sisinnes`si-sin\'-ez (Sisinnes): "The eparch (governor) of Syria and Phoenicia" under Darius Hystaspis (1Esdras 6:3,7,27; 7:1) circa 520 BC = "Tattenai the governor beyond the river" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,3,6);">Ezr 5:3,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,6,13);">6:6,13</a>. He took a prominent part in the efforts to prevent the rebuilding of the temple.``1';
isbe[8222]='Sismai`sis\'-mi (tsitsmay; the King James Version Sisamai): A Judahite, of the descendants of the daughter of Sheshan and Jarha, his Egyptian servant (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,40);">1Ch 2:40</a>). Commentators have compared the name to tstsm, a Phoenician god (compare Rudolph Kittel, Commentary at the place; BDB, under the word).``1';
isbe[8223]='Sister`sis\'-ter (\'achoth): Used repeatedly in the Old Testament of a female<P>(1) having the same parents as another; or<P>(2) having one parent in common, with another, half-sister (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,12);">Ge 20:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,9);">Le 18:9</a>), and also<P>(3) of a female belonging to the same family or clan as another, so a kinswoman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,60);">Ge 24:60</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',42,11);">Job 42:11</a>);<P>(4) also of a woman of the same country (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,18);">Nu 25:18</a>).<P>(5) Figuratively, the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, are sisters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,7);">Eze 23:7</a>).<P>(6) Confederate cities are conceived of as sisters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,45);">Eze 16:45</a>).<P>(7) \'Achoth is used of objects which go in pairs, as curtains, each \'coupled to its sister\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,3,6);">Ex 26:3,6</a>), and of wings in pairs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,9);">Eze 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,13);">3:13</a>);<P>(8) of virtues or conditions, with which one is closely related: "Say unto wisdom, thou art my sister" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,4);">Pr 7:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',17,14);">Job 17:14</a>);<P>(9) of a lover concerning his spouse, as a term of endearment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,9);">So 4:9</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,1);">5:1</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,8);">8:8</a>).<P>In the New Testament, adelphe, used<P>(1) in sense of physical or blood kinship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,50);">Mt 12:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,56);">13:56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,29);">19:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,39);">Lu 10:39</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,39);">14:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,1);">Joh 11:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,25);">19:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,16);">Ac 23:16</a>);<P>(2) of fellow-members in Christ: "Phoebe, our sister" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,1);">Ro 16:1</a>; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,15);">1Co 7:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,1);">1Ti 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,15);">Jas 2:15</a>);<P>(3) possibly, of a church, "thy elect sister" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,13);">2Joh 1:13</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS,+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`137';
isbe[8224]='Sister\'s Son`The King James Version translates rightly<P>(1) ben-\'achotho (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,13);">Ge 29:13</a>); and<P>(2) huios tes adelphes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,16);">Ac 23:16</a>), and wrongly,<P>(3) anepsios (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,10);">Col 4:10</a>), where, without doubt, the real meaning is "cousin," as in the Revised Version (British and American).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS,+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`1';
isbe[8225]='Sith`sith: An Anglo-Saxon word meaning "afterward," "since" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',35,6);">Eze 35:6</a> the King James Version and the English Revised Version, the American Standard Revised Version "since").``1';
isbe[8226]='Sithri`sith\'-ri (cithri): A grandson of Kohath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,22);">Ex 6:22</a>).``1';
isbe[8227]='Sitnah`sit\'-na (sitnah, "hatred," "hostility"; echthria): The name of the second of the two wells dug by the herdsmen of Isaac, the cause of further "enmity" with the herdsmen of Gerer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,21);">Ge 26:21</a>, margin "That is, Enmity"). The site is unknown, but Palmer (PEFS, 1871) finds an echo of the name in Shutnet er Rucheibeh, the name of a small valley near Rucheibeh.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REHOBOTH">REHOBOTH</a>`1';
isbe[8228]='Sitting`sit\'-ing (yashabh, "to sit down or still," daghar, "to brood," "hatch"; kathezomai, "to sit down," anakeimai, "to lie back," "recline"): The favorite position of the Orientals (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,3);">Mal 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,9);">Mt 9:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,55);">26:55</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,1);">Mt 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,20);">Lu 4:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,3);">5:3</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,18);">Mr 14:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,35);">Lu 18:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,14);">Joh 2:14</a>, etc.).<P>"In Palestine people sit at all kinds of work; the carpenter saws, planes, and hews with his hand-adze, sitting upon the ground or upon the plank he is planing. The washerwoman sits by the tub, and, in a word, no one stands where it is possible to sit....On the low shopcounters the turbaned salesmen squat in the midst of the gay wares" (LB, II,144,275; III, 72, 75).<P>Figurative:<P>(1) To sit with denotes intimate fellowship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,1);">Ps 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',26,5);">26:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,29);">Lu 13:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,21);">Re 3:21</a>);<P>(2) to sit in the dust indicates poverty and contempt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',47,1);">Isa 47:1</a>), in darkness, ignorance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,16);">Mt 4:16</a>) and trouble (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,8);">Mic 7:8</a>);<P>(3) to sit on thrones denotes authority, judgment, and glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">Mt 19:28</a>).``91';
isbe[8229]='Sivan`se-van\', si\'-van (ciwan): The third month of the Jewish year, corresponding to June (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,9);">Es 8:9</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CALENDAR">CALENDAR</a>`1';
isbe[8230]='Sixty`siks\'-ti (shishshim; hexekonta).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBER">NUMBER</a>`1';
isbe[8231]='Skill; Skilful`skil, skil\'-fool (forms of yadha\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,14);">2Ch 2:14</a>, etc.), bin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,22);">1Ch 15:22</a>), sakhal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,4);">Da 1:4</a>, etc.), lamadh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,18);">1Ch 5:18</a>), chakham (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,21);">1Ch 28:21</a>), charash (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,31);">Eze 21:31</a>), yatabh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,3);">Ps 33:3</a>); in Apocrypha empeiria (<span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 13:13</span>), episteme (Sirach 1:19; 38:3,6); adverb eumathos (<span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 13:11</span>)): As a verb "to skill," meaning to have understanding or to be dexterous, common in Elizabethan English and in the King James Version and the English Revised Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,6);">1Ki 5:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,7);">2Ch 2:7</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,12);">34:12</a>), is obsolete. The American Standard Revised Version substitutes such expressions as "knoweth how" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,6);">1Ki 5:6</a>) and "were skillful with" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,12);">2Ch 34:12</a>). As a noun the word is used in the sense of "knowledge" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',9,11);">Ec 9:11</a>), "insight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,17);">Da 1:17</a>), and "wisdom" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,21);">1Ch 28:21</a>). The adjective skillful is used in corresponding senses, especially in the American Standard Revised Version, where it takes the place of "cunning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,31);">Ex 26:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,4);">31:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,33,35);">35:33,35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,23);">38:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,7,13,14);">2Ch 2:7,13,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,1);">So 7:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,20);">Isa 40:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,9);">Jer 10:9</a>) and of "curious" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,32);">Ex 35:32</a>), where the Hebrew chashabh suggests planning or devising, and thus what we should call "original" work. Both the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version use the word in place of "eloquent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,3);">Isa 3:3</a>), "right" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',4,4);">Ec 4:4</a>) and "cunning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,7);">1Ch 25:7</a>). In the first of these instances the Hebrew word means "understanding"; in the second, it refers to the manner of doing a thing, and in the third, to the training that makes one "skilled." the Revised Version (British and American) uses the word "skilled" of those that "took the war upon them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,27);">Nu 31:27</a> the King James Version). Skillfulness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,72);">Ps 78:72</a>) is used with reference to the hands, not only in their work, but also in guiding (as, e.g., a pilot). To play well (Hebrew hetibhu naggen), is rendered "play skillfully" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,3);">Ps 33:3</a>). "Unskillful" is used with reference to the uninitiated in the sense of "inexperienced" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,13);">Heb 5:13</a>, apeiros).``81';
isbe[8232]='Skin`(\'or, geledh, "human skin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,15);">Job 16:15</a>), basar, "flesh," in the sense of "nakedness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,5);">Ps 102:5</a> the King James Version); derma):<P>Literal:<P>The word \'or designates the skin of both men and animals, the latter both raw and in tanned condition: "Yahweh God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins (\'or), and clothed them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,21);">Ge 3:21</a>); "She put the skins (\'or) of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,16);">Ge 27:16</a>); "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,23);">Jer 13:23</a>). The Hebrew geledh is found in the sense of human skin: "I have sewed sackcloth upon my skin, and have laid my horn in the dust" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,15);">Job 16:15</a>).<P>Figurative:<P>\'To escape by the skin of the teeth\' is equivalent to a narrow escape (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,20);">Job 19:20</a>). Satan says in his calumny of Job: "Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,4);">Job 2:4</a>). The idea here is, that a man will endure or do the worst, even as it were the flaying of his body, to save his life. The Revised Version (British and American) has replaced "skin" as the translation of Hebrew basar by "flesh": "My bones cleave to my flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,5);">Ps 102:5</a>). "The bars of his skin" is a poetical expression for "the members of his body" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',18,13);">Job 18:13</a> margin, where the text interprets rather than translates the original.<P>Skins served for purposes of clothing from an early date (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,21);">Ge 3:21</a>). In later days they were the raiment of prophets and hermits (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',13,4);">Zec 13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,37);">Heb 11:37</a>). Septuagint translates \'addereth, "the mantle" of Elijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,13,19);">1Ki 19:13,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,8,13);">2Ki 2:8,13</a>f), with melote, i.e. "sheepskin," the word in He being derived from these passages. It is not unlikely that the raiment of John the Baptist made "of camel\'s hair" and the "leathern girdle about his loins" are identical with the rough garb of Old Testament prophets. The skins of cattle were largely employed for technical uses; "rams\' skins and badgers\' skins" are especially mentioned in the construction of the tabernacle as material for the waterproof covering of the roof (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,5);">Ex 25:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,8,10);">Nu 4:8,10</a>).<P>The Revised Version, rejecting the translation "badgers\' skins," substitutes "sealskins" and adds "porpoise skins" in the margin. There is little doubt that the rendering of the King James Version is indeed incorrect. The Hebrew name of the animal (tachash) is the same as the Arabic tuchas, which means the dolphin and the "sea-cow" or halicore of the Red Sea, of which genus there are two species even now extant (H. tabernaculi Russ, and H. Helprichii Ehr.). It is probable that the Jews included various marine animals, seals, porpoises, dolphins and halicores, under the same expression.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEALSKIN">SEALSKIN</a>.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,10);">Eze 16:10</a> we find these skins mentioned as material for elegant shoes, and the Arabs of the Red Sea littoral use the same material in the manufacture of sandals. A quaint use was made of skins in the making of skin bottles, the qurbeh or qirbeh of modern Arabia. We find a great variety of Hebrew expressions, which possibly designated special varieties, all of which were rendered askos, in Septuagint and the New Testament (chemeth, no\'dh, no\'dhah, nebhel, nebhel, baqbuq, \'obh). the Revised Version (British and American) has rendered the Greek askos in the New Testament by "wineskin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,17);">Mt 9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,22);">Mr 2:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,37);">Lu 5:37</a>) with the marginal addition "that is, skins used as bottles." These skin bottles were made of the skins of goats, sheep, oxen or buffaloes; the former had more or less the shape of the animals, the holes of the extremities being closed by tying or sewing, and the neck of the skin being closed by a tap or a plug, while the larger ones were sewn together in various shapes. As a rule only the inside of the skin was tanned, the skin turned inside out, and the fluid or semi-fluid filled in, e.g. water, milk, butter, cheese. The hairy inside was not considered as in any way injurious to the contents. Only in the case of wine-and oil-skins was it thought advantageous to tan the skins inside and out.``106';
isbe[8233]='Skirt`skurt:<P>(1) kanaph, "wing" "extremity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',3,9);">Ru 3:9</a>, etc.), is the usual word. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,4);">1Sa 24:4</a>ff perhaps "corner" is the best translation.<P>(2) shul, "loose hanging" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,33);">Ex 28:33</a>, etc.; in the King James Version often rendered "hem").<P>(3) peh, "mouth," "opening" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',133,2);">Ps 133:2</a>, "the precious oil...that came down upon the skirt"). But the "opening" is that for is that for the head, so that the Revised Version margin "collar" is the correct translation.<P>"Skirt" is frequently used in a euphemistic sense, for which the commentaries must be consulted.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRESS">DRESS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRAIN">TRAIN</a>`1';
isbe[8234]='Skull`skul (gulgoleth; kranion): The Hebrew word, which is well known to Bible readers in its Aramaic-Greek form "Golgotha," expresses the more or less globular shape of the human skull, being derived from a root meaning "to roll." It is often translated in English Versions of the Bible by "head," "poll," etc. In the meaning "skull" it is found twice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,53);">Jud 9:53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,35);">2Ki 9:35</a>). In the New Testament the word is found only in connection with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOLGOTHA">GOLGOTHA</a> (which see), "the place of a skull" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,33);">Mt 27:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,22);">Mr 15:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,17);">Joh 19:17</a>), or "the skull" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,33);">Lu 23:33</a>).``1';
isbe[8235]='Sky`ski (shachaq, "fine dust" or "cloud," apparently from [?] shachaq, "to rub," "to pulverize"; Samaritan: shechaqayyah instead of Hebrew shamayim; sachq = "cloud," "small dust"):<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "skies" for the King James Version "clouds" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',35,5);">Job 35:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,28);">36:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,21);">37:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,5);">Ps 36:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',57,10);">57:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,34);">68:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,23);">78:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',108,4);">108:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,20);">Pr 3:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,28);">8:28</a>, in which passages BDB supports the rendering of King James Version. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,6,37);">Ps 89:6,37</a> Revised Version (British and American) has "sky" for King James Version "heaven." English Versions has "sky" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,26);">De 33:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,12);">2Sa 22:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,18);">Job 37:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,11);">Ps 18:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',77,1);">77:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,8);">Isa 45:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,9);">Jer 51:9</a>. The word occurs mainly in poetical passages.<P>2. In the New Ttestament:<P>In the New Testament ouranos, is translated "heaven" (the King James Version "sky") in connection with the weather in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,2,3);">Mt 16:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,56);">Lu 12:56</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,12);">Heb 11:12</a> we find "the stars of heaven" ("the sky") as a figure of multitude. The conception, however, that the visible "sky" is but the dome-like floor of a higher world often makes it hard to tell whether "heaven" in certain passages may or may not be identified with the sky.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEAVEN">HEAVEN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COSMOGONY">COSMOGONY</a>`37';
isbe[8236]='Slander`slan\'-der (substantive, dibbah, "slander"; diabolos, "slanderer"; verb raghal, "to slink about" as a talebearer, lashan, "to use the tongue," "to slander"; diaballo, "to calumniate," "to slander"; and other words): Slander (etymologically a doublet of "scandal," from OFr. esclandre, Latin scandalum, "stumblingblock") is an accusation maliciously uttered, with the purpose or effect of damaging the reputation of another. As a rule it is a false charge (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,11);">Mt 5:11</a>); but it may be a truth circulated insidiously and with a hostile purpose (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,8);">Da 3:8</a>, "brought accusation against," where Septuagint has diaballo, "slander"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,1);">Lu 16:1</a>, the same Greek word). Warnings, condemnations and complaints in reference to this sin are very frequent, both in the Old Testament and New Testament. Mischievous "tale-bearing" or "whispering" is condemned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,16);">Le 19:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,9);">Eze 22:9</a>). There are repeated warnings against evil-speaking (as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,13);">Ps 34:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,28);">Pr 15:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,31);">Eph 4:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,8);">Col 3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,11);">Jas 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,10);">1Pe 3:10</a>), which is the cause of so much strife between man and man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,\'27-30\');">Pr 16:27-30</a>), and which recoils on the speaker himself to his destruction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',101,5);">Ps 101:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,11);">140:11</a>). Especially is false witness, which is "slander carried into a court of justice," to be condemned and punished (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,16);">Ex 20:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,\'16-21\');">De 19:16-21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,17);">Pr 12:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,5,25);">14:5,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,5);">19:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',21,28);">21:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',24,28);">24:28</a>). Special cases of slander more than usually mean are when a wife\'s chastity is falsely impeached by her husband (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,\'13-19\');">De 22:13-19</a>), and when one slanders a servant to his master (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,10);">Pr 30:10</a>). Even a land may be slandered as well as persons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,36);">Nu 14:36</a>). Slanderers and backbiters are mentioned in some of Paul\'s darkest catalogues of evildoers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,29,30);">Ro 1:29,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,20);">2Co 12:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,3);">2Ti 3:3</a>). To refrain from slander is an important qualification for citizenship in theocracy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',15,1,3);">Ps 15:1,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',24,3,4);">24:3,4</a>) and for a place in the Christian church (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,11);">1Ti 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,3);">Tit 2:3</a>). Jesus Himself was the victim of slanders (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,19);">Mt 11:19</a>) and of false testimony (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,63);">Mt 27:63</a>). The apostles, too, came in for a full share of it (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,5);">Ac 24:5</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,22);">28:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,8);">2Co 6:8</a>). In the case of Paul, even his central doctrine of justification was "slanderously reported" as if it encouraged immorality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,8);">Ro 3:8</a>). The devil (= "the calumniator") is represented as the great accuser of God\'s people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,10);">Re 12:10</a>), the slanderer par excellence (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,\'9-11\');">Job 1:9-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,1);">Zec 3:1</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`49';
isbe[8237]='Slaughter, of the Innocents`slo\'-ter.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INNOCENTS,+MASSACRE+OF+THE">INNOCENTS, MASSACRE OF THE</a>`1';
isbe[8238]='Slaughter, Valley of`In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,32);">Jer 7:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',19,6);">19:6</a>, a name given to the valley of Hinnom.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HINNOM,+VALLEY+OF">HINNOM, VALLEY OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>`1';
isbe[8239]='Slave; Slavery`slav, slav\'-er-i:<P>1. Acquiring of Slaves<P>2. Hebrews as War Captives<P>3. Freedom of Slaves<P>4. Rights of Slaves<P>5. Rights of Slave Masters<P>6. The New Testament Conception<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>The origin of the term "slave" is traced to the German sklave, meaning a captive of the Slavonic race who had been forced into servitude (compare Slav); French esclave, Dutch slaaf, Swedish slaf, Spanish esclavo. The word "slave" occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,14);">Jer 2:14</a> and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,13);">Re 18:13</a>, where it is suggested by the context and not expressed in the original languages (Hebrew yelidh bayith, "one born in the house"; Greek soma, "body"). However, the Hebrew word \'ebhedh, in the Old Testament and the Greek word doulos, in the New Testament more properly might have been translated "slave" instead of "servant" or "bondservant," understanding though that the slavery of Judaism was not the cruel system of Greece, Rome, and later nations. The prime thought is service; the servant may render free service, the slave, obligatory, restricted service.<P>Scripture statement rather than philological study must form the basis of this article. We shall notice how slaves could be secured, sold and redeemed; also their rights and their masters\' rights, confining the study to Old Testament Scripture, noting in conclusion the New Testament conception. The word "slave" in this article refers to the Hebrew slave unless otherwise designated.<P>1. Acquiring of Slaves:<P>Slaves might be acquired in the following ways, namely:<P>(1) Bought.<P>There are many instances of buying slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,39);">Le 25:39</a>). Hebrew slavery broke into the ranks of every human relationship: a father could sell his daughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,7);">Ex 21:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,5);">Ne 5:5</a>); a widow\'s children might be sold to pay their father\'s debt (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,1);">2Ki 4:1</a>); a man could sell himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,39,47);">Le 25:39,47</a>); a woman could sell herself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,12,13,17);">De 15:12,13,17</a>), etc. Prices paid were somewhat indefinite. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,32);">Ex 21:32</a> thirty shekels was a standard price, but <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'3-7\');">Le 27:3-7</a> gives a scale of from 3 to 50 shekels according to age and sex, with a provision for an appeal to the priest in case of uncertainty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,8);">27:8</A>). Twenty shekels is the price set for a young man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,5);">27:5</A>), and this corresponds with the sum paid for Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,28);">Ge 37:28</a>).<P>But in 2Macc 8:11 the price on the average is 90 for a talent, i.e. 40 shekels each. The ransom of an entire talent for a single man (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,39);">1Ki 20:39</a>) means that unusual value (far more than that of a slave) was set on this particular captive.<P>There were certain limitations on the right of sale (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,7);">Ex 21:7</a>).<P>(2) Exchange.<P>Slaves, i.e. non-Hebrew slaves, might be traded for other slaves, cattle, or provisions.<P>(3) Satisfaction of Debt.<P>It is probable that a debtor, reduced to extremity, could offer himself in payment of his debt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,39);">Le 25:39</a>), though this was forbidden in the Torath Kohanim; compare \'Otsar Yisra\'el, vii.292b. That a creditor could sell into slavery a debtor or any of his family, or make them his own slaves, has some foundation in the statement of the poor widow whose pathetic cry reached the ears of the prophet Elisha: "Thy servant my husband is dead;...and the creditor is come to take unto him my two children to be bondsmen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,1);">2Ki 4:1</a>).<P>(4) Gift.<P>The non-Hebrew slave, and possibly the Hebrew slave, could be acquired as a gift (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,24);">Ge 29:24</a>).<P>(5) Inheritance.<P>Children could inherit non-Hebrew slaves as their own possessions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,46);">Le 25:46</a>).<P>(6) Voluntary Surrender.<P>In the case of a slave\'s release in the seventh year there was allowed a willing choice of indefinite slavery. The ceremony at such a time is interesting: "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (margin), and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,6);">Ex 21:6</a>). A pierced ear probably meant obedience to the master\'s voice. History, however, does not record a single instance in which such a case occurred.<P>(7) Arrest.<P>"If the thief be found breaking in,...he shall make restitution: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,2,3);">Ex 22:2,3</a>).<P>(8) Birth.<P>The children of slaves, born within the master\'s house of a wife given to the slave there, became slaves, and could be held, even if the father went free (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,4);">Ex 21:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,54);">Le 25:54</a>).<P>(9) Capture in War.<P>Thousands of men, women and children were taken in war as captives and reduced, sometimes, to most menial slavery. Such slavery, however, was more humane than wholesale butchery according to the customs of earlier times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,\'7-35\');">Nu 31:7-35</a>). Males were usually slain and females kept for slavery and concubinage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,10,11,14);">De 21:10,11,14</a>). Captive slaves and bought slaves, "from nations round about," forced moral ruin into Israel\'s early civilization.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIEGE">SIEGE</a>, 3.<P>The two principal sources of slave supply were poverty in peace and plunder in war.<P>2. Hebrews as War Captives:<P>The Hebrews themselves were held as captive slaves at various times by<P>(1) Phoenicians (the greatest slave traders of ancient times),<P>(2) Philistines,<P>(3) Syrians (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,2);">2Ki 5:2</a>),<P>(4) Egyptians, and<P>(5) Romans.<P>There must have been thousands subjected to severest slavery.<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EGYPT">EGYPT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL">ISRAEL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHARAOH">PHARAOH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERVANT">SERVANT</a>, etc.<P>3. Freedom of Slaves:<P>The freedom of slaves was possible in the following ways:<P>(1) By Redemption.<P>Manumission by redemption was common among the Hebrews. The slave\'s freedom might be bought, the price depending on<P>(a) the nearness to the seventh year or the Jubilee year,<P>(b) the first purchase price, and<P>(c) personal considerations as to age and ability of the one in bondage.<P>A slave could be redeemed as follows:<P>(a) by himself,<P>(b) by his uncle,<P>(c) by his nephew or cousin,<P>(d) or by any near relative (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'48-55\');">Le 25:48-55</a>).<P>The price depended on certain conditions as indicated above.<P>(2) By the Lapse of Time.<P>The seventh year of service brought release from bondage. "If thou buy a Hebrew servant (margin "bondman"), six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'2-4\');">Ex 21:2-4</a>).<P>(3) By the Law of the Jubilee Year.<P>The year of Jubilee was the great year when slaves were no longer slaves but free. "He shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee: then shall he go out from thee, he and his children...return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,40);">Le 25:40</a>f).<P>(4) By Injury.<P>A servant whose master maimed him (or her), in particular by causing the loss of an eye or even a tooth, was thereby freed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,26);">Ex 21:26</a>f).<P>(5) By Escape.<P>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,15);">De 23:15</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,39);">1Ki 2:39</a>). See "Code of Hammurabi" in HDB (extra vol, p. 600) and compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,12);">Phm 1:12</a>ff.<P>(6) By Indifference.<P>In case of a certain kind of female slave, the neglect or displeasure of her master in itself gave her the right to freedom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'7-11\');">Ex 21:7-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,14);">De 21:14</a>).<P>(7) By Restitution.<P>A caught thief, having become a bondsman, after making full restitution by his service as a slave, was set at liberty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'1-4\');">Ex 22:1-4</a>).<P>(8) By the Master\'s Death.<P>"And Abram said,...I go childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus...and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2);">Ge 15:2</a>f). This passage has been mistakenly supposed to indicate that a master without children might give freedom to a slave by constituting the slave an heir to his possessions. But on the contrary, Abram seems to contemplate with horror the possibility that Eliezer will take possession of his goods in the absence of an heir. In view of the fact that adoption, the adrogatio of the Roman law, was unknown both to Biblical and Talmudic law (see Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word), the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2);">Ge 15:2</a> does not seem to indicate any such custom as the adoption of slaves. If any method of emancipation is here suggested, it is by the death of the master without heir, a method thoroughly discussed in the Talmud (mithath ha-\'adhon).<P>(9) By Direct Command of Yahweh.<P>"The word that came unto Jeremiah from Yahweh,...that every man should let his man-servant, and...his maid-servant, that is a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free; that none should make bondsmen of them...they obeyed, and let them go" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',34,\'8-10\');">Jer 34:8-10</a>).<P>The nine methods here enumerated may be classified thus:<P>A. By operation of law:<P>1. By lapse of time.<P>(a) After serving six years or other contractual period. See (2) above.<P>(b) Upon the approach of the Jubilee year. See (3) above.<P>2. By death of the master without heirs. See (8) above.<P>B. By act of the parties:<P>1. By an act of the master.<P>(a) Voluntary manumission, including (9) above.<P>(b) Indifference in certain cases. See (6) above.<P>(c) Maiming servant. See (4) above.<P>2. By act of the servant.<P>(a) Redemption. See (1) above.<P>(b) Restitution. See (7) above.<P>(c) Escape. See (5) above.<P>3. By act of a third party.<P>Redemption<6F>(1) above.<P>4. Rights of Slaves:<P>As noted in the beginning of this article, the Hebrew slaves fared far better than the Grecian, Roman and other slaves of later years. In general, the treatment they received and the rights they could claim made their lot reasonably good. Of course a slave was a slave, and there were masters who disobeyed God and even abused their "brothers in bonds." As usual the unfortunate female slave got the full measure of inhuman cruelty. Certain rights were discretionary, it is true, but many Hebrew slaves enjoyed valuable individual and social privileges. As far as Scripture statements throw light on this subject, the slaves of Old Testament times might claim the following rights, namely:<P>(1) Freedom.<P>Freedom might be gained in any one of the above-mentioned ways or at the master\'s will. The non-Hebrew could be held as a slave in perpetuity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'44-46\');">Le 25:44-46</a>).<P>(2) Good Treatment.<P>"Thou shalt not rule over him (Hebrew slave) with rigor, but shalt fear thy God....Ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,43,46);">Le 25:43,46</a>). The non-Hebrew seemed to be left unprotected.<P>(3) Justice.<P>An ancient writer raises the query of fairness to slaves. "If I have despised the cause of my man-servant or of my maid-servant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,13);">Job 31:13</a>f). No doubt the true Hebrew master was considerate of the rights of his slaves. The very fact, however, that the Hebrew master could punish a Hebrew slave, "to within an inch of his life," gave ready opportunity for sham justice. "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid ("bondman or bondwoman"), with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,20);">Ex 21:20</a>f).<P>(4) Family.<P>The slave before his release might have his wife and children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,5);">Ex 21:5</a>).<P>(5) Voluntary Slavery.<P>Even when the seventh year came, the slave had a right to pledge himself, with awl-pierced ear, to perpetual service for his master (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,5);">Ex 21:5</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,16);">De 15:16</a>). The traditional interpretation of "forever" in these passages is "until the next Jubilee year" (compare Kiddushin 21).<P>(6) Money or Property.<P>Some cases at least indicate that slaves could have money of their own. Thus, if a poor slave "waxed rich" he could redeem himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,49);">Le 25:49</a>). Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,\'5-10\');">1Sa 9:5-10</a>, where, however, the Hebrew throughout calls the "servant" na\'ar, "a youth," never \'ebhedh.<P>(7) Children.<P>If married when free, the slave could take wife and children with him when freedom came, but if he was married after becoming a slave, his wife and children must remain in possession of his master. This law led him often into perpetual slavery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,3);">Ex 21:3</a>f).<P>(8) Elevation.<P>A chance to rise was allowable in some instances, e.g. Eliezer, a foreign slave in a Hebrew household, and Joseph, a Hebrew slave in a foreign household. Each rose to a place of honor and usefulness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2);">Ge 15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,4);">39:4</a>).<P>(9) Religious Worship.<P>After being circumcised, slaves were allowed to participate in the paschal sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,44);">Ex 12:44</a>) and other religious occasions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,12);">De 12:12</a>).<P>(10) Gifts.<P>Upon obtaining freedom, slaves, at the discretion of masters, were given supplies of cattle, grain and wine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,13);">De 15:13</a>f).<P>5. Rights of Slave Masters:<P>The rights of a slave master may briefly be stated as follows:<P>(1) to hold as chattel possession his non-Hebrew slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,45);">Le 25:45</a>);<P>(2) to leave such slaves as an inheritance for his children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,46);">Le 25:46</a>);<P>(3) to hold as his own property the wife and children of all slaves who were unmarried at the time they became slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,4);">Ex 21:4</a>);<P>(4) to pursue and recover runaway slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,\'39-41\');">1Ki 2:39-41</a>);<P>(5) to grant freedom at any time to any slave. This is implied rather than stated. Emancipation other than at the Sabbatical and Jubilee years was evidently the right of masters;<P>(6) to circumcise slaves, both Jew and Gentile, within his own household (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,13,23,27);">Ge 17:13,23,27</a>);<P>(7) to sell, give away, or trade slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,24);">Ge 29:24</a>. According to Torath Kohanim a Hebrew servant could be sold only under certain restrictions. See 1, (1));<P>(8) to chastise male and female slaves, though not unto death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,20);">Ex 21:20</a>);<P>(9) to marry a slave himself, or give his female slaves in marriage to others (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,35);">1Ch 2:35</a>);<P>(10) to marry a daughter to a slave (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,34);">1Ch 2:34</a>f);<P>(11) to purchase slaves in foreign markets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,44);">Le 25:44</a>);<P>(12) to keep, though not as a slave, the runaway slave from a foreign master (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,15,16);">De 23:15,16</a>. See 3, (5));<P>(13) to enslave or sell a caught thief (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,\'8-33\');">Ge 44:8-33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,3);">Ex 22:3</a>);<P>(14) to hold, in perpetuity, non-Hebrew slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,46);">Le 25:46</a>);<P>(15) to seek advice of slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,14);">1Sa 25:14</a>ff; but the reference here is open to doubt. See 4, (6));<P>(16) to demand service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,14);">Ge 14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>).<P>Throughout Old Testament times the rights of both slaves and masters varied, but in general the above may be called the accepted code. In later times Zedekiah covenanted with the Hebrews never again to enslave their own brothers, but they broke the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',34,8);">Jer 34:8</a>).<P>6. The New Testament Conception:<P>There were slaves during New Testament times. The church issued no edict sweeping away this custom of the old Judaism, but the gospel of Christ with its warm, penetrating love-message mitigated the harshness of ancient times and melted cruelty into kindness. The equality, justice and love of Christ\'s teachings changed the whole attitude of man to man and master to servant. This spirit of brotherhood quickened the conscience of the age, leaped the walls of Judaism, and penetrated the remotest regions. The great apostle proclaimed this truth: "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free,...ye all are one man in Christ Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,28);">Ga 3:28</a>). The Christian slaves and masters are both exhorted in Paul\'s letters to live godly lives and make Christ-like their relations one to the other<65>obedience to masters and forbearance with slaves. "Bondservants (m), be obedient unto...your masters,...as bondservants (m) of Christ...And, ye masters...forbear threatening:...their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'5-9\');">Eph 6:5-9</a>).<P>Christ was a reformer, but not an anarchist. His gospel was dynamic but not dynamitic. It was leaven, electric with power, but permeated with love. Christ\'s life and teaching were against Judaistic slavery, Roman slavery and any form of human slavery. The love of His gospel and the light of His life were destined, in time, to make human emancipation earth-wide and human brotherhood as universal as His own benign presence.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Nowack, Hebrew Arch.; Ewald, Alterthumer, III, 280-88; Grunfeld, Die Stellung des Sklaven bei den Juden, nach bibl. und talmud. Quellen, 1886; Mielziner, Die Verhaltnisse der Sklaven bei den alter Hebrdern, 1859; Mandl, Das Sklavenrecht des Altes Testament, 1886; Kahn, L\'esclavagedans la Bible et le Talmud, 1867; Sayce, Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians; Lane, Manners and Customs of Modern Egyptians, 205; Arabian Nights, I, 64ff; Thomson, LB; McCurdy, HPM, 1894; Trumbull, Studies in Oriental Social Life, 1894. There is a wealth of material in the Talmudic tractate Kiddushin (pp. 17-22).``142';
isbe[8240]='Slaying`sla\'-ing (by spear, dart, or sword).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[8241]='Sleep`slep: Represents many words in Hebrew and Greek. For the noun the most common are shenah, and hupnos; for the verb, yashen, shakhabh, and katheudo. The figurative uses for death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,16);">De 31:16</a>, etc.) and sluggishness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,14);">Eph 5:14</a>, etc.) are very obvious.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DREAM">DREAM</a>`1';
isbe[8242]='Sleep, Deep`(tardemah, verb radham, from a root meaning "to be deaf"): The verb radham has no further meaning than "to be fast asleep" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,21);">Jud 4:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,5);">Jon 1:5</a>), but the King James Version used "deep sleep" as a translation only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,18);">Da 8:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,9);">10:9</a>, where a sleep supernaturally caused (a "trance") is meant compare "dead sleep" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',76,6);">Ps 76:6</a>). The Revised Version\'s insertion of deep sleep in place of The King James Version\'s "fast asleep" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,21);">Jud 4:21</a> is consequently unfortunate. The noun tardemah has the same meaning of "trance" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,21);">Ge 2:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,12);">15:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,12);">1Sa 26:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,13);">Job 4:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',33,15);">33:15</a>, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,15);">Pr 19:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,10);">Isa 29:10</a>, it is used figuratively of torpor. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,9);">Ac 20:9</a> (huipnos bathtus), heavy natural sleep is meant.``48';
isbe[8243]='Sleeves`slevz (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,3);">Ge 37:3</a> margin).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRESS">DRESS</a>`1';
isbe[8244]='Sleight`slit: No connection with "slight," but from the same root as "sly" and so = "cunning." So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,14);">Eph 4:14</a>, "sleight of men," for kubeia, "dice-plalying" (compare "cube") "gamblers\' tricks" "trickery."``1';
isbe[8245]='Slime; Slime Pits`slim, slim\'-pits (chemar; Septuagint asphaltos; Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) bitumen; the Revised Version margin "bitumen"; compare Arabic chummar, "bitumen"; and compare chomer, "clay," "mortar"): In the account of the ark in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,14);">Ge 6:14</a>, kopher Septuagint asphaltos; Vulgate: bitumen; compare Arabic kufr, "pitch") does not necessarily denote vegetable pitch, but may well mean bitumen. The same may be said of zepheth, "pitch" (compare Arabic zift, "pitch"), in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,3);">Ex 2:3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,9);">Isa 34:9</a>. The word "slime" occurs in the following passages: "And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,3);">Ge 11:3</a>); "Now the vale of Siddim was full of slime pits" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,10);">Ge 14:10</a>, margin "bitumen pits"); "She took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,3);">Ex 2:3</a>).<P>Bitumen is a hydrocarbon allied to petroleum and natural gas. It is a lustrous black solid, breaking with a conchoidal fracture, burning with a yellow flame, and melting when ignited. It is probably derived from natural gas and petroleum by a process of oxidation and evaporation, and its occurrence may be taken as a sign that other hydrocarbons are or have been present in the strata. It is found in small lumps and larger masses in the cretaceous limestone on the west side of the Dead Sea, and there is reason to believe that considerable quantities of it rise to the surface of the Dead Sea during earthquakes. In ancient times it was exported to Egypt to be used in embalming mummies. Important mines of it exist at Chasbeiya near Mt. Hermon and in Northern Syria. Springs of liquid bituminous matter exist in Mesopotamia, where according to Herodotus and other classical writers it was used as mortar with sun-dried bricks. Various conjectures have been made as to the part played by bitumen in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Diodorus Siculus calls the Dead Sea limne asphalstitis, "lake of asphalt."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIDDIM">SIDDIM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CITIES+OF+THE+PLAIN">CITIES OF THE PLAIN</a>`37';
isbe[8246]='Sling``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR,+ARMS">ARMOR</a>`1';
isbe[8247]='Slip`As meaning "a cutting from a plant," it is still good English. In this sense in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,10);">Isa 17:10</a> for zemorah, "branch," "twig." For the phrase "slip of the tongue" compare Sirach 14:1; 19:16; 20:18; 21:7; 25:8.``1';
isbe[8248]='Slopes`slops.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHDOTH+PISGAH">ASHDOTH PISGAH</a>`1';
isbe[8249]='Slow`slo: Chiefly for \'erekh, literally, "long," in the phrase "slow to anger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,17);">Ne 9:17</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,10);">Ex 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,25);">Lu 24:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,19);">Jas 1:19</a>, for kabhedh; bradus, both meaning "heavy," "sluggish," while Sirach 7:35 uses "be slow" for okneo, "hesitate." In addition, the King James Version uses. "slow" for argos, "inactive," in <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 15:15</span>, "slow to go" (the Revised Version (British and American) "helpless for walking"), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,12);">Tit 1:12</a>, "slow bellies" (the Revised Version (British and American) "idle gluttons"). In Sirach 51:24, the King James Version has "be slow" for hustereo, "be lacking" (so the Revised Version (British and American)).``1';
isbe[8250]='Sluggard`slug\'-ard: Found only in the Old Testament, and there only in Proverbs. It is the rendering given the word \'atsel everywhere in the Revised Version (British and American), but in the King James Version only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,6,9);">Pr 6:6,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,26);">10:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',13,4);">13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,4);">20:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,16);">26:16</a> (elsewhere the King James Version translates by "slothful"). The root meaning of [\'atsel] is "to be sluggish," "stupid." The English word "slug" is said to be "allied to slack" (Webster).``1';
isbe[8251]='Sluice`sloos (sekher, literally, "hire"): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,10);">Isa 19:10</a>, the King James Version reads, "all that make sluices and ponds for fish." the Revised Version (British and American) entirely alters the translation of the whole verse. It reads, "And the pillars of Egypt shall be broken in pieces; all they that work for hire (margin "that make dams") shall be grieved in soul."``1';
isbe[8252]='Smell`smel (Hebrew and Aramaic reach, as noun, "savor," "scent"; ruach, as verb, literally, "to breathe," "to inhale," thence "to smell"; osme, the "smell," "savor," euodia, "sweet smell" "fragrance" osphresis "the sense of smell"; verb osphrainomai): And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled (way-yarach) the smell (reach) of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell (reach) of my son is as the smell (reach) of a field which Yahweh hath blessed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,27);">Ge 27:27</a>). Idols are described as "gods, the work of men\'s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,28);">De 4:28</a>). Acceptable sacrifices and pious conduct are called a "sweet smell" or "savor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,18);">Ex 29:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,2);">Eph 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,18);">Php 4:18</a>) well-pleasing to God. The godless life, which dishonors God, is hateful to Him: "I will not smell the savor of your sweet odors" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,31);">Le 26:31</a>). The phrase, "being in bad odor with a person," can be traced to Biblical language: "Ye have made our savor to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,21);">Ex 5:21</a>). Thus "smell" is occasionally equivalent with "quality," "character": "His (Moab\'s) taste remaineth in him, and his scent is not changed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,11);">Jer 48:11</a>). Character or quality is the most infallible test, the most manifest advertisement of a thing or a person; thus we find the following very instructive passage: "(God) maketh manifest through us the savor (osme) of his knowledge in every place. For we are a sweet savor (euodia) of Christ unto God, in (better: "among") them that are saved, and in (better: "among") them that perish; to the one a savor (osme) from death unto death; to the other a savor (osme) from life unto life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,\'14-16\');">2Co 2:14-16</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRIUMPH">TRIUMPH</a>. In the passage <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,24);">Isa 3:24</a>, the King James Version "sweet smell" (besem, "balsam plant") has been changed to "sweet spices" in the Revised Version (British and American).``106';
isbe[8253]='Smith`smith.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRAFTS">CRAFTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TUBAL-CAIN">TUBAL-CAIN</a>`1';
isbe[8254]='Smiting By the Sun``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SUN,+SMITING+BY">SUN, SMITING BY</a>`1';
isbe[8255]='Smoke`smok: Used figuratively of the divine jealousy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,20);">De 29:20</a>) and anger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,1);">Ps 74:1</a>); symbolic of the glory of the divine holiness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,5);">Isa 4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,4);">6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,8);">Re 15:8</a>).``1';
isbe[8256]='Smyrna`smur\'-na (Smurna):<P>1. Ancient:<P>Smyrna, a large ancient city on the western coast of Asia Minor, at the head of a gulf which reaches 30 miles inland, was originally peopled by the Asiatics known as the Lelages. The city seems to have been taken from the Lelages by the Aeolian Greeks about 1100 BC; there still remain traces of the cyclopean masonry of that early time. In 688 BC it passed into the possession of the Ionian Greeks and was made one of the cities of the Ionian confederacy, but in 627 BC it was taken by the Lydians. During the years 301 to 281 BC, Lysimachus entirely rebuilt it on a new site to the Southwest of the earlier cities, and surrounded it by a wall. Standing, as it did, upon a good harbor, at the head of one of the chief highways to the interior, it early became a great trading-center and the chief port for the export trade. In Roman times, Smyrna was considered the most brilliant city of Asia Minor, successfully rivaling Pergamos and Ephesus. Its streets were wide and paved. Its system of coinage was old, and now about the city coins of every period are found. It was celebrated for its schools of science and medicine, and for its handsome buildings. Among them was the Homerium, for Smyrna was one of several places which claimed to be the birthplace of the poet. On the slope of Mt. Pagus was a theater which seated 20,000 spectators. In the 23 AD year a temple was built in honor of Tiberius and his mother Julia, and the Golden Street, connecting the temples of Zeus and Cybele, is said to have been the best in any ancient city. Smyrna early became a Christian city, for there was one of the Seven Churches of the Book of Revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,\'8-11\');">2:8-11</a>). There Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, was martyred, though without the sanction of the Roman government. It seems that the Jews of Smyrna were more antagonistic than were the Romans to the spread of Christianity, for it is said that even on Saturday, their sacred day, they brought wood for the fire in which Polycarp was burned. His grave is still shown in a cemetery there. Like many other cities of Asia Minor, Smyrna suffered frequently, especially during the years 178-80 AD, from earthquakes, but it always escaped entire destruction. During the Middle Ages the city was the scene of many struggles, the most fierce of which was directed by Timur against the Christians. Tradition relates that there he built a tower, using as stones the heads of a thousand captives which he put to death, yet Smyrna was the last of the Christian cities to hold out against the Mohammedans; in 1424 it fell into the hands of the Turks. It was the discovery of America and the resulting discovery of a sea route to India which ruined the Smyrna trade.<P>2. Modern:<P>Modern Smyrna is still the largest city in Asia Minor, with a population of about 250,000, of whom half are Greek and less than one-fourth are Mohammedans. Its modern name, Ismir, is but a Turkish corruption of the ancient name. Even under the Turkish government the city is progressive, and is the capital of the Aidin vilayet, and therefore the home of a governor. Several railroads follow the courses of the ancient routes into the distant interior. In its harbor ships from all parts of the world may be seen. The ancient harbor of Paul\'s time has been filled in, and there the modern bazaars stand. The old stadium has been destroyed to make room for modern buildings, and a large part of the ancient city lies buried beneath the modern houses and the 40 mosques of which the city boasts. The better of the modern buildings, belonging to the government and occupied by the foreign consuls, stand along the modern quay. Traces of the ancient walls are still to be found. West of Mt. Pagus is the Ephesian gate, and the Black-gate, as the Turks call it, is near the railroad station. The castle upon Mt. Pagus, 460 ft. above the sea, dates from Byzantine times. The prosperity of Smyrna is due, not only to the harbor and the port of entry to the interior, but partly to the perfect climate of spring and autumn<6D>the winters are cold and the summers are hot; and also to the fertility of the surrounding country. Figs, grapes, valonia, opium, sponges, cotton and liquorice root are among the chief articles of trade.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHURCHES,+SEVEN">CHURCHES, SEVEN</a>`7';
isbe[8257]='Snail`snal<P>(1) chomet, the Revised Version (British and American) "sand-lizard," Septuagint saura, "lizard" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,30);">Le 11:30</a>);<P>(2) shabbelul, Septuagint keros, "wax" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,8);">Ps 58:8</a>)):<P>(1) Chomet is 7th in the list of unclean "creeping things" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,30);">Le 11:30</a>, and occurs nowhere else. "Snail" is not warranted by Septuagint or Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) the Revised Version (British and American) has "sand-lizard." It may be the skink or a species of Lacerta. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIZARD">LIZARD</a>.<P>(2) Shabbelul is translated "snail" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,8);">Ps 58:8</a>: "Let them be as a snail which melteth and passeth away." Mandelkern gives limax, "slug."<P>Gesenius derives shabbelul from balal, "to pour"; compare Arabic balla, "to wet," instancing leimax, "snail," or "slug," from leibo, "to pour." While Septuagint has keros, "wax," Talmud (Mo\'edh Qatan 6b) supports "snail." The ordinary explanation of the passage, which is not very satisfying, is that the snail leaves a trail of mucus (i.e. it melts) as it moves along. This does not in any way cause the snail to waste away, because its glands are continually manufacturing fresh mucous. Two large species of snail, Helix aspersa and Helix pomatia, are collected and eaten, boiled, by the Christians of Syria and Palestine, especially in Lent. The Jews and Moslems declare them to be unclean and do not eat them.``37';
isbe[8258]='Snare`snar (pach; pagis, but brochos, in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,35);">1Co 7:35</a>): Over half a dozen Hebrew words are used to indicate different methods of taking birds and animals, of which the snare (pach) is mentioned oftener than any other. It was a noose of hair for small birds, of wire for larger birds or smaller animals. The snares were set in a favorable location and grain scattered to attract the attention of feathered creatures. They accepted the bribe of good feeding and walked into the snare, not suspecting danger. For this reason the snare became particularly applicable in describing a tempting bribe offered by men to lead their fellows into trouble, and the list of references is a long one, all of the same nature. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,7);">Ex 10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,21);">1Sa 18:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,9);">28:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',11,6);">Ps 11:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,5);">18:5</a>, "snares of death"; used symbolically of anything that may kill: <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,3);">91:3</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',124,7);">124:7</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,5);">140:5</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',141,9);">141:9</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,23);">Pr 7:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',13,14);">13:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,7);">18:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,25);">20:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',22,25);">22:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',29,25);">29:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',9,12);">Ec 9:12</a>. But this is a people robbed and plundered; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,22);">Isa 41:22</a>). Here it is specified that the snare was in a hole so covered as to conceal it. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,22);">Jer 18:22</a> clearly indicates that the digging of a pit to take prey was customary, and also the hiding of the snare for the feet. North American Indians in setting a snare usually figure on catching the bird around the neck. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,24);">Jer 50:24</a>, "I have laid a snare for thee"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,8);">Ho 9:8</a>, "A fowler\'s snare is in all his ways"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,5);">Am 3:5</a> seems to indicate that the snare was set for the feet; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,34);">Lu 21:34</a>, "But take heed to yourselves, lest haply...that day come on you suddenly as a snare"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,9);">Ro 11:9</a>, "Let their table be made a snare, and a trap"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,35);">1Co 7:35</a>, "not that I may cast a snare upon you"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,7);">1Ti 3:7</a>, "the snare of the devil"; also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,9);">6:9</A> "But they that are minded to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and hurtful lusts, such as drown men in destruction and perdition."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIN">GIN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NET">NET</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRAP">TRAP</a>`167';
isbe[8259]='Sneeze`snez (zorer, Pho\'el-form zarar): "The child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,35);">2Ki 4:35</a>). "Sneezing," better "snorting," is found in the description of Leviathan (the crocodile): "His sneezings (\'atsishah) flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,18);">Job 41:18 (Hebrew 10)</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NEESING">NEESING</a>`1';
isbe[8260]='Snow`sno (shelegh, telagh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,9);">Da 7:9</a>); chion):<P>(1) Snow is not uncommon in the winter in Jerusalem, but it never reaches any depth and in many winters it is not seen at all. It usually disappears, for the most part, as soon as the sun appears, though it may "hide itself" for a time in the gorge cut by a stream (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,16);">Job 6:16</a>). On lower levels than Jerusalem there is never sufficient to cover the ground, though often there are some flakes seen in the air. Even at sea-level there is occasionally a sufficient fall of hail to cover the ground. A very exceptional snowfall is related in 1Macc 13:22 at Adora (near Hebron). It was heavy enough to prevent the movement of troops.<P>(2) The tops of the mountains of Lebanon are white with snow for most of the year, and snow may be found in large banks in the valleys and the northern slopes at any time in the summer. Mt. Hermon, 9,200 ft. high, has long streaks of snow in the valleys all the summer.<P>(3) The snow of the mountains is the source of the water of the springs which last throughout the drought of summer. In case the snow fails there is sure to be a lack of water in the fountains: "Shall the snow of Lebanon fail...or shall the cold waters that flow down from afar be dried up?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,14);">Jer 18:14</a>).<P>(4) Large quantities of snow are stored in caves in the mountains in winter and are brought down to the cities in summer to be used in place of ice for cooling drinks and refrigerating purposes.<P>(5) God\'s power over the elements of Nature is often brought out in the Old Testament: "For he saith to the snow, Fall thou on the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,6);">Job 37:6</a>); but man cannot fathom the works of God: "Hast thou entered the treasuries of the snow?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,22);">Job 38:22</a>). "The snowy day" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,22);">1Ch 11:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,20);">2Sa 23:20</a>) and the "fear of snow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,21);">Pr 31:21</a>) are figurative uses describing winter and cold. "Snow in summer" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,1);">Pr 26:1</a>) would be most out of place, yet it might be most refreshing to the tired workmen in the time of harvest.<P>(6) Snow is the symbol of purity and cleanness, giving us some of our most beautiful passages of Scripture: "Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,7);">Ps 51:7</a>); "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,18);">Isa 1:18</a>). Carrying the figure farther, snow-water might be expected to have a special value for cleansing: "If I wash myself with snow-water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',9,30);">Job 9:30</a>). The most common use in Scripture is to denote whiteness in color and implying purity as well: "His raiment was white as snow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,9);">Da 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,3);">Mt 28:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,3);">Mr 9:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,14);">Re 1:14</a>).<P>(7) The whiteness of leprosy is compared to snow (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,6);">Ex 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,10);">Nu 12:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,27);">2Ki 5:27</a>).``85';
isbe[8261]='Snuffers; Snuffdishes`snuf\'-erz, snuf\'-dish-ez (melqachayim, machtoth): These two utensils are thrice mentioned in connection with the wilderness tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,38);">Ex 25:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,23);">37:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,9);">Nu 4:9</a>). the American Standard Revised Version prefers to read "snuffers and snuffdishes" in place of "tongs and snuffdishes" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',4,22);">2Ch 4:22</a>), the connection between the two utensils being indicated by the fact that both are said to belong to the seven lamps, and were to be made out of the talent of gold which was specified as the weight of the whole (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'37-39\');">Ex 25:37-39</a>).<P>The seven-branched candlestick which stood in the holy place of both tabernacle and temple was surmounted, in each of its arms, by a removable lamp in which olive oil was burnt. From the requirement of keeping these lights brilliantly burning throughout each night of the year, arose the need for snuffers and snuffdishes. By the former, the burnt portions of the wick were removed; in the latter they were deposited previous to removal. The lamps may have required to be trimmed as often as every half-hour. For this purpose a priest would enter the outer chamber "accomplishing the services" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,6);">Heb 9:6</a>).<P>In the time of Solomon\'s Temple another word than melqachayim was used to describe this utensil. It is mezammeroth, from a verb meaning "to prune" or "trim," and is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,50);">1Ki 7:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,13);">2Ki 12:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,14);">25:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',4,22);">2Ch 4:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,18);">Jer 52:18</a>. In 4 of these passages, the English text reads, "the snuffers and the basins"; the 5th is merely a summary of things taken to Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,14);">2Ki 25:14</a>). In this constant later association of "basins" and "snuffers" it is seen that the basins referred to were used for the reception of the cast-off portions of the wicks of the seven lamps, and took the place of the snuffdishes of an earlier age.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TONGS">TONGS</a>`17';
isbe[8262]='So`so (co\', although the Hebrew might be pointed cewe\'; Assyrian Sib\'u; Septuagint Segor, Soa; Manetho, Seuechos; Latin Sevechus; Herodotus (ii. 137ff), Sabakon): In all probability the "Sabaeo" of Herodotus, the Shabaka, who founded the Ethiopian dynasty, the XXVth of Egyptian kings. His date is given as 715-707 BC (Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 281ff), but we may suppose that before his accession to the throne he was entitled to be designated king, as being actually regent. To this So, Hoshea, king of Israel, made an appeal for assistance to enable him to throw off the yoke of the Assyrian Shalmaneser IV (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,3);">2Ki 17:3</a>). But Hoshea\'s submission to So brought him no advantage, for Shalmaneser came up throughout all the land and laid siege to Samaria. Not long after the fall of Samaria, So ventured upon an eastern campaign, and was defeated by Sargon, the successor of Shalmaneser, in the battle of Raphia in 720 BC.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 281ff; McCurdy, HPM, I, 422; Schrader, COT, I, 261.``128';
isbe[8263]='Soap`sop (borith; the King James Version sope): Borith is a derivative of bor, "purity," hence, something which cleanses or makes pure. Soap in the modern sense, as referring to a salt of a fatty acid, for example, that produced by treating olive oil with caustic soda, was probably unknown in Old Testament times. Even today there are districts in the interior of Syria where soap is never used. Cooking utensils, clothes, even the body are cleansed with ashes. The ashes of the household fires are carefully saved for this purpose. The cleansing material referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,22);">Jer 2:22</a> (compare Septuagint at the place, where borith is rendered by poia = "grass") and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,2);">Mal 3:2</a> was probably the vegetable lye called in Arabic el qali (the origin of English alkali). This material, which is a mixture of crude sodium and potassium carbonates, is sold in the market in the form of grayish lumps. It is produced by burning the desert plants and adding enough water to the ashes to agglomerate them. Before the discovery of Leblanc\'s process large quantities of qali were exported from Syria to Europe.<P>For washing clothes the women sprinkle the powdered qali over the wet garments and then place them on a flat stone and pound them with a wooden paddle. For washing the body, oil is first smeared over the skin and then qali rubbed on and the whole slimy mixture rinsed off with water. Qali was also used in ancient times as a flux in refining precious metals (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,2);">Mal 3:2</a>). At the present time many Syrian soap-makers prefer the qali to the imported caustic soda for soap-making.<P>In Susanna (verse 17) is a curious reference to "washing balls" (smegmata).``133';
isbe[8264]='Sober; Sobriety; Soberness`so\'-ber, sa-bri\'-e-ti, so\'-ber-nes (Greek adjective sophron, and its related nouns, sophrosune, sophronismos; verbs sophroneo and sophronizo; adverb sophronos, "of sound mind," and sophronizo; "self-possessed," "without excesses of any kind," "moderate and discreet"): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,15);">Mr 5:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,35);">Lu 8:35</a>, "sane," said of one out of whom demons had just been cast. In the Pastoral Epistles, this virtue is especially commended to certain classes, because of extravagances characterizing particular periods of life, that had to be guarded against, namely, to aged men, with reference to the querulousness of old age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,2);">Tit 2:2</a>); to young men, with reference to their sanguine views of life, and their tendency to disregard consequences (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,6);">Tit 2:6</a>); enjoined upon young women, with reference to extravagance in dress and speech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,5);">Tit 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,9);">1Ti 2:9</a>); and, in a similar manner, commended to ministers, because of the importance of their judgment and conduct, as teachers and exemplars (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,2);">1Ti 3:2</a>). "Words of soberness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,25);">Ac 26:25</a>) are contrasted with the "mania," "madness," that Festus had just declared to be the explanation of Paul\'s eloquence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,24);">Ac 26:24</a>).<P>In a few passages, the Greek verb nepho and its derivative adjective nephalios are used in the same sense. The word originally had a physical meaning, as opposed to drunkenness, and is thus used in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,6,8);">1Th 5:6,8</a>, as the foundation of the deeper meaning. Used metaphorically also in the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Peter, as sometimes in the classics, for "cool," "unimpassioned." Ellicott, on <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,2,11);">1Ti 3:2,11</a>, distinguishes between the two words by regarding sophron "as pointing to the outward exhibition of the inward virtue" implied in nephalios.``84';
isbe[8265]='Socho`so\'-ko: Occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,18);">1Ch 4:18</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "Soco."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SOCOH">SOCOH</a>`1';
isbe[8266]='Socket`sok\'-et (\'edhen): The tabernacle in the wilderness being constructed as a portable building without permanent foundation, its stability was attained by the use of "sockets" into which the pillars and boards forming its walls were sunk. The word therefore is used solely in relation to the tabernacle, except in one poetic passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,15);">So 5:15</a>), where the legs of the beloved are compared to "pillars of marble set upon sockets of fine gold." In all, the tabernacle with its court rested upon 165 bases or sockets, apportioned thus:<P>(1) silver sockets, each a talent (circa 95 lbs.) in weight (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,27);">Ex 38:27</a>), namely, 96 to support the 48 boards of the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,19);">Ex 26:19</a>); 4 for the pillars supporting the veil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,32);">Ex 26:32</a>) = 100;<P>(2) bronze sockets, weight not given, namely, 50 to support the 50 standards on which were hung the curtains of the tabernacle on north, south and west (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,10);">Ex 27:10</a>), 10 to support 10 pillars on the east. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,13);">Ex 27:13</a>), and 5 to support the 5 pillars upholding the screen at the tabernacle entrance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,27);">Ex 26:27</a>) = 65. The site for the tabernacle being chosen and leveled, these sockets would be "laid" upon it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,18);">Ex 40:18</a>), and the tenons of the boards, or projecting base of the pillar, inserted into holes made for the purpose.``17';
isbe[8267]='Socoh; Soco`so\'-ko (sokkhoh, "branches"), (sokho (in Chronicles only); Socho, most usual, but many forms in Septuagint and in the King James Version: Socoh, Shochoh, Shoco, Shocho):<P>(1) A city in the Shephelah of Judah mentioned along with Jarmuth, Adullam, Azekah, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,35);">Jos 15:35</a>); the Philistines "gathered together at Socoh, which belongeth to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and Azekah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,1);">1Sa 17:1</a>); it is mentioned as one of the districts from which Solomon drew his supplies (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,10);">1Ki 4:10</a>, the King James Version "Sochoh"); the association of Socoh in this verse with Hepher is worth noticing in connection with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,18);">1Ch 4:18</a> ("Heber"). Soco (the King James Version "Shoco") was one of the cities fortified by Rehoboam for the defense of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,7);">2Ch 11:7</a>); it was captured by the Philistines in the time of Ahaz (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,18);">2Ch 28:18</a>). The site is, without doubt, Khirbet esh Shuweikeh (Shuweikeh is a diminutive of Shaukeh, "a thorn"), a rounded, elongated hilltop, showing clear traces of ancient city walls. The situation is one of considerable natural strength on the south side of the Vale of Elah just where the Wady ec Cur makes a sweep to the west and becomes the Wady es Sunt. Like so many such ancient sites, the hill has very steep slopes on 3 sides (south, west, and north), and is isolated from the ridge of higher ground to the east by a narrow neck of lower ground. In the valley to the Southwest is a plentiful spring. The site was known to Jerome in the 4th century. He described it as 8 or 9 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin) (PEF, III, 53,125, Sh XVII, BR, II, 21). The Sucathites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,55);">1Ch 2:55</a>) were probably inhabitants of Soco.<P>(2) A city of Judah in the South, associated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,48);">Jos 15:48</a>) with Shamir and Jattir. This is doubtless Khirbet Shuweikeh, a large ruin occupying a low hill, 10 miles Southwest of Hebron; there are many caves and rock-cut cisterns as well as drafted stones. Cheyne doubtfully locates the Socoh of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,10);">1Ki 4:10</a> here. See PEF, 404, 410, Sh XXV; B R, I, 494.``117';
isbe[8268]='Sod, Sodden`sod\'-\'-n.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEETHE">SEETHE</a>`1';
isbe[8269]='Soda`so\'-da.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NITRE">NITRE</a>`1';
isbe[8270]='Sodering`sod\'-er-ing (debheq): the King James Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,7);">Isa 41:7</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "soldering," of smith work.``1';
isbe[8271]='Sodi`so\'-di (codhi): One of the spies, representing the tribe of Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,10);">Nu 13:10</a>).``1';
isbe[8272]='Sodom`sod\'-um (cedhom; Sodoma) One of the 5 <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CITIES+OF+THE+PLAIN">CITIES OF THE PLAIN</a> (which see), destroyed by fire from heaven in the time of Abraham and Lot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,24);">Ge 19:24</a>). The wickedness of the city became proverbial. The sin of sodomy was an offense against nature frequently connected with idolatrous practices (see Rawlinson, History of Phoenicia). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SODOMITE">SODOMITE</a>. The fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is used as a warning to those who reject the gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,15);">Mt 10:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,24);">11:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,6);">2Pe 2:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,7);">Jude 1:7</a>). The word is used in a typical sense in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,8);">Re 11:8</a>. Sodom was probably located in plain South of the Dead Sea, now covered with water. The name is still preserved in Jebel Usdum (Mt. Sodom).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Dillmann. Genesis, 111f; Robinson, BR, II, 187ff; G. A. Smith, HGHL, 505ff; Blanckenhorn, ZDPV, XIX,1896, 53ff; Baedeker-Socin, Palestine, 143; Buhl, GAP,117,271, 274.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARABAH">ARABAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CITIES+OF+THE+PLAIN">CITIES OF THE PLAIN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEAD+SEA">DEAD SEA</a>`198';
isbe[8273]='Sodom, Vine of`(gephen cedhom):<P class="in15">"For their vine is of the vine of Sodom,<br>And of the fields of Gomorrah:<br>Their grapes are grapes of gall,<br>Their clusters are bitter" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,32);">De 32:32</a>).<P>This must be distinguished from the "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APPLES+OF+SODOM">Apples of Sodom</a>" (which see), described by Josephus (BJ, IV, viii, 4), which appear to have been an actual species of fruit, probably either the colocynth or the fruit of the Usher tree, Calotropis procera. It would appear, however, from the above, the only passage referring to the Vine of Sodom, that this expression is metaphorical and does not refer to any particular plant.``117';
isbe[8274]='Sodomite`sod\'-om-it (qadhesh, feminine qedheshah): Qadhesh denotes properly a male temple prostitute, one of the class attached to certain sanctuaries of heathen deities, and "consecrated" to the impure rites of their worship. Such gross and degrading practices in Yahweh\'s land could only be construed as a flagrant outrage; and any association of these with His pure worship was abhorrent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,17);">De 23:17</a>f): The presence of Sodomites is noted as a mark of degeneracy in Rehoboam\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,24);">1Ki 14:24</a>). Asa endeavored to get rid of them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,12);">1Ki 15:12</a>), and Jehoshaphat routed them out (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,46);">1Ki 22:46</a>). Subsequent corruptions opened the way for their return, and Josiah had to break down their houses which were actually "in the house of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,7);">2Ki 23:7</a>). The feminine qedheshah is translated "prostitute" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,21,22);">Ge 38:21,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,14);">Ho 4:14</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,17);">De 23:17</a> "prostitute" (the King James Version margin "sodomitess," the Revised Version margin transliterates). The English word is, of course, derived from Sodom, the inhabitants of which were in evil repute for unnatural vice.``54';
isbe[8275]='Sodomitish; Sea`sod\'-om-it-ish.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEAD+SEA">DEAD SEA</a>`1';
isbe[8276]='Sodomy`sod\'-o-mi.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SODOM">SODOM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SODOMITE">SODOMITE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[8277]='Sojourner`soj\'-er-ner, so\'-jur-ner, suj\'-er-ner.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STRANGER+AND+SOJOURNER">STRANGER AND SOJOURNER</a>`1';
isbe[8278]='Soldering`sod\'-er-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SODERING">SODERING</a>`1';
isbe[8279]='Soldier`sol\'-jer.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMY">ARMY</a>`1';
isbe[8280]='Solemn Assembly (Meeting)``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CONGREGATION">CONGREGATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FASTS+AND+FEASTS">FASTS AND FEASTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SOLEMN,+SOLEMNITY">SOLEMN, SOLEMNITY</a>`1';
isbe[8281]='Solemn, Solemnity`sol\'-em, so-lem\'-ni-ti: The word "solemn" had<P>(1) at first the meaning "once in the year," through its derivation from Latin sollus, "whole," annus, "year." As, however, a regular annual occurrence is usually one of particular importance, the word took on<P>(2) the meaning "ceremonious." From this is derived<P>(3) the usual modern force of "grave" in opposition to "joyous."<P>This last meaning is not in Biblical English, and the meanings of "solemn" in English Versions of the Bible are either (1) or (2). Nor is there any certain case of (1), for the word is always a gloss in English Versions of the Bible and, although frequently introduced in references to annual events (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,36);">Le 23:36</a>, etc.), it is even more often used where "annual" is foreign to the passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,20);">2Ki 10:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,3);">Ps 92:3</a>, etc.). The use of the word in the King James Version is unsystematic. It is always (except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,2);">Jer 9:2</a>) found in conjunction with "assembly" when (10 times) the latter word represents atsarah (\'atsereth) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,36);">Le 23:36</a>, etc.) (retained by the Revised Version (British and American) with margin "closing festival," <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,36);">Le 23:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,9);">2Ch 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,18);">Ne 8:18</a>). the King James Version uses "solemnity" or "solemn day," "feast," etc., 17 times for the very common word mo\'edh ("appointed" time, etc.).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FASTS,+FEASTS">FEASTS</A>.<P>RV\'s treatment of these passages defies analysis. "Solemnity" is kept in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,20);">Isa 33:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,11);">Eze 46:11</a>, and "solemn" in Lamentations (4 times); Hosea (3 times); <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,18);">Ze 3:18</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,38);">Eze 36:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,17);">45:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,9);">46:9</a> it is replaced by "appointed," elsewhere (and for mo\'adhoth, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,13);">2Ch 8:13</a>) by "set." The margins further complicate the renderings. the King James Version also uses "solemn" with chagh, "feast," 4 times, and with chaghagh, "keep a feast," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,15);">De 16:15</a>. The word is dropped by the Revised Version (British and American), except the English Revised Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',81,3);">Ps 81:3</a>. Finally, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "solemn sound" for higgayon, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,3);">Ps 92:3</a>. The context, however, demands "resounding melody." And 11 times the Revised Version (British and American) has introduced "solemn" to represent the intensive in the form shabbath shabbathon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,23);">Ex 16:23</a>, etc.), where the King James Version has simply "sabbath" or "sabbath of rest." the Revised Version (British and American) here has imitated the adverbial "solemnly" in the similar intensified expressions in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,3);">Ge 43:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,9);">1Sa 8:9</a>.<P>The Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha translates en hemerais kairou, "in the days of the season" (Baruch 1:14), by "on the days of the solemn assembly" (the King James Version "solemn days"), and both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "solemn feast days" for dies festos (2Esdras 1:31). Otherwise the King James Version\'s use of "solemn" is dropped by the Revised Version (British and American).``48';
isbe[8282]='Solomon`sol\'-o-mun (shelomoh; New Testament Solomon):<P><b>I. EARLY LIFE</b><P class="in15">1. Name and Meaning<P class="in15">2. Sources<P class="in15">3. Birth and Upbringing<P class="in15">4. His Accession<P class="in15">5. Closing Days of David<P><b>II. REIGN OF SOLOMON</b><P class="in15">1. His Vision<P class="in15">2. His Policy<P class="in15">3. Its Results<P class="in15">4. Alliance with Tyre<P class="in15">5. Alliance with Egypt<P class="in15">6. Domestic Troubles<P><b>III. HIS BUILDINGS</b><P class="in15">1. The Temple<P class="in15">2. The Palace<P class="in15">3. Other Buildings<P class="in15">4. The Corvee<P><b>IV. HIS CHARACTER</b><P class="in15">1. Personal Qualities<P class="in15">2. His Wisdom<P class="in15">3. His Learning<P class="in15">4. Trade and Commerce<P class="in15">5. Officers of State<P class="in15">6. Wives<P class="in15">7. Revenues<P class="in15">8. Literary Works<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Early Life.<P>Solomon was the son of David and Bath-sheba, and became the 3rd king of Israel.<P>1. Name and Meaning:<P>He was so named by his mother (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,24);">2Sa 12:24</a>, Qere; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEXT+AND+MANUSCRIPTS+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEXT+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>), but by the prophet Nathan, or by his father (Vulgate), he was called Jedidiah<61>"loved of Yahweh." The name "Solomon" is derived from the root meaning "to be quiet" or "peaceful," and Solomon was certainly the least warlike of all the kings of Israel or Judah, and in that respect a remarkable contrast to his father (so <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,9);">1Ch 22:9</a>). His name in Hebrew compares with Irenaeus in Greek, Friedrich in German, and Selim in Arabic; but it has been suggested that the name should be pronounced shillumah, from the word denoting "compensation," Bath-sheba\'s second son being given in compensation for the loss of the first (but see 3, below).<P>2. Sources:<P>The oldest sources for the biography of Solomon are doubtless the "Annals of Solomon" referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,41);">1Ki 11:41</a>, the "history of Nathan the prophet," the "prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite" and the "visions of Iddo the seer," mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,29);">2Ch 9:29</a>, all which may be merely the relative sections of the great book of the "Annals of the Kings" from which our Books of Kings and Chronicles are both derived. These ancient works are, of course, lost to us save in so far as they have been embodied in the Old Testament narrative. There the life of Solomon is contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,24);">2Sa 12:24</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,\'1-\');">1Ki 1-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,\'1-\');">1Ch 22-2Ch 9</a>. Of these sources <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,24);">2Sa 12:24</a>f and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,\'1-\');">1Ki 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,1);">2</a> are much the oldest and in fact form part of one document, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,\'1-\');">2Sa 9-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,\'1-\');">1Ki 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,\'1-\');">2</a> dealing with the domestic affairs of David, which may well be contemporary with the events it describes. The date of the composition of the Books of Chronicles is about 300 BC<42>700 years after the time of Solomon<6F>and the date of the Books of Kings, as a completed work, must, of course, be later than the exile. Nothing of importance is gained from citations from early historians in Josephus and later writers. Far and away the best source for, at least, the inner life of Solomon would be the writings ascribed to him in the Old Testament, could we be sure that these were genuine (see below).<P>3. Birth and Upbringing:<P>The children of David by Bath-sheba are given in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,5);">1Ch 3:5</a> as Shimea, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. Compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,14);">2Sa 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,4);">1Ch 14:4</a>, where the same persons evidently are named. It would thus appear that Solomon was the 4th son of Bath-sheba, supposing Shimea to be the child that died. Otherwise Solomon would be the 5th son. There are therefore some events omitted in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,24);">2Sa 12:24</a>f; or else the names Shobab and Nathan are remains of some clause which has been lost, and not proper names. Like the heir apparent of a Turkish sultan, Solomon seems to have spent his best years in the seclusion of the harem. There he was doubtless more influenced by his mother than by his father, and in close intimacy with his mother was the prophet Nathan, who had given him his by-name of fortunate import (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,25);">2Sa 12:25</a>).<P>4. His Accession:<P>It was not until David lay on his deathbed that Solomon left the women\'s quarters and made his appearance in public. That he had been selected by David, as the son of the favorite wife, to succeed him, is pre-supposed in the instructions which he received from his father regarding the building of the Temple. But as soon as it appeared that the life of David was nearing its end, it became evident that Solomon was not to have a "walk over." He found a rival in Adonijah the son of Haggith, who was apparently the eldest surviving son of his father, and who had the support of Joab, by far the strongest man of all, of Abiathar, the leading, if not the favorite, priest (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,24);">2Sa 15:24</a>ff), and of the princes of the royal house. Solomon, on the other hand, had the support of his mother Bath-sheba, David s favorite wife, of Nathan the court prophet, of Zadok who had eclipsed Abiathar, of Benaiah, the son of a priest, but one of the three bravest of David\'s soldiers, and captain of the bodyguard of Cherethites and Pelethites, and of the principal soldiers. It is especially noted that Shimei and Hushai (so Josephus) took no active part at any rate with Adonijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,8);">1Ki 1:8</a>). The conspiracy came to nothing, for, before it developed, Solomon was anointed at Gibeon (not Gihon, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,33,38,45);">1Ki 1:33,38,45</a>), and entered Jerusalem as king.<P>5. Closing Days of David:<P>The age of Solomon at his accession is unknown. The expression in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,7);">1Ki 3:7</a> is not, of course, to be taken literally (otherwise Ant, VIII, vii, 8). His reign opened, like that of many an oriental monarch, with a settlement in blood of the accounts of the previous reign. Joab, David\'s nephew, who had brought the house within the bounds of blood revenge, was executed. Adonijah, as soon as his father had breathed his last, was on a nominal charge put to death. Abiathar was relegated to his home at Anathoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,26);">1Ki 2:26</a>). Conditions were imposed on Shimei which he failed to keep and so forfeited his life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,36);">1Ki 2:36</a>). These steps having been taken, Solomon began his reign, as it were, with a clean slate.<P>II. Reign of Solomon.<P>1. His Vision:<P>It was apparently at the very beginning of his reign that Solomon made his famous choice of a "hearing heart," i.e. an obedient heart, in preference to riches or long life. The vision took place at Gibeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,7);">2Ch 1:7</a>, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,4);">1Ki 3:4</a>f the ancient versions read "upon the altar that was in Gibeon. And the Lord appeared," etc.). The life of Solomon was a curious commentary on his early resolution. One of the first acts of his reign was apparently, in the style of the true oriental monarch, to build himself a new palace, that of his father being inadequate for his requirements. In regard to politics, however, the events of Solomon\'s reign may be regarded as an endorsement of his choice. Under him alone was the kingdom of Israel a great world-power, fit almost to rank beside Assyria and Egypt. Never again were the bounds of Israel so wide; never again were north and south united in one great nation. There is no doubt that the credit of this result is due to the wisdom of Solomon.<P>2. His Policy:<P>Solomon was by nature an unwarlike person, and his whole policy was in the direction of peace. He disbanded the above-mentioned foreign legion, the Cherethites and Pelethites, who had done such good service as bodyguard to his father. All his officers seem to have been mediocre persons who would not be likely to force his hand, as Joab had done that of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,39);">2Sa 3:39</a>). Even the fortification of Jerusalem and of the frontier towns was undertaken with a view to repel attack, not for the purposes of offense. Solomon did, no doubt, strengthen the army, especially the cavalry arm (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,26);">1Ki 4:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,26);">10:26</a>), but he never made any use of this, and perhaps it existed largely on paper. At any rate Solomon seems to have been rather a breeder of and dealer in horse-flesh than a soldier. He appears also to have had a fine collection of armor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,25);">1Ki 10:25</a>), but much of it was made of gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,16);">1Ki 10:16</a>f) and was intended for show, not for use. Both in his reputation for wisdom and in his aversion to war Solomon bears a striking resemblance to King James VI of Scotland and I of England, as depicted by the hand of Sir Walter Scott. It was fortunate for him that both the neighboring great powers were for the time in a decadent state, otherwise the history of the kingdom of Israel would have ended almost before it had begun. On the other hand, it has been remarked that if Solomon had had anything like the military genius of David and his enthusiasm for the religion of Yahweh, he might have extended the arms of Israel from the Nile to the Tigris and anticipated the advent of Islam. But his whole idea was to secure himself in peace, to amass wealth and indulge his love of grandeur with more than oriental splendor.<P>3. Its Results:<P>Solomon, in fact, was living on the achievements and reputation of his father, who laid the basis of security and peace on which the commercial genius of Solomon could raise the magnificent structure which he did. But he took the clay from the foundations in order to build the walls. The Hebrews were a military people and in that consisted their life. Solomon withdrew their energies from their natural bent and turned them to cornmerce, for which they were not yet ripe. Their soul rebelled under the irksome drudgery of an industry of which they did not reap the fruits. Solomon had in fact reduced a free people to slavery, and concentrated the wealth of the whole country in the capital. As soon as he was out of the way, his country subjects threw off the yoke and laid claim to their ancient freedom. His son found himself left with the city and a territory as small as an English county.<P>4. Alliance with Tyre:<P>Solomon\'s chief ally was Hiram, the king of Tyre, probably the friend and ally of David, who is to be distinguished from Hiram the artificer of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,13);">1Ki 7:13</a>ff. Hiram the king entered into a treaty with Solomon which was to the advantage of both parties. Hiram supplied Solomon with cedar and pine wood from Lebanon, as well as with skilled artisans for his building. Tyrian sailors were also drafted into the ships of Solomon, the Hebrews not being used to the sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,26);">1Ki 9:26</a>f), besides which Phoenician ships sailed along with those of Solomon. The advantages which Hiram received in return were that the Red Sea was open to his merchantmen, and he also received large supplies of corn and oil from the land of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,11);">1Ki 5:11</a> corrected by Septuagint and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,10);">2Ch 2:10</a>). At the conclusion of the building of the palace and Temple, which occupied 20 years, Solomon presented Hiram with 20 villages (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,11);">1Ki 9:11</a>; the converse, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,2);">2Ch 8:2</a>), and Hiram made Solomon a return present of gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,14);">1Ki 9:14</a>; omitted in 2 Chronicles).<P>5. Alliance with Egypt:<P>Second to Hiram was the Pharaoh of Egypt, whose daughter Solomon married, receiving as her dower the town of Gezer (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,16);">1Ki 9:16</a>). This Pharaoh is not named in the Old Testament. This alliance with Egypt led to the introduction of horses into Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,28);">1Ki 10:28</a>f), though David had already made a beginning on a small scale (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,4);">2Sa 8:4</a>). Both these alliances lasted throughout the reign. There is no mention of an alliance with the eastern power, which was then in a decadent state.<P>6. Domestic Troubles:<P>It was probably nearer the beginning than the end of Solomon\'s reign that political trouble broke out within the realm. When David had annexed the territory of the Edomites at the cost of the butchery of the male population (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,14);">2Sa 8:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',60,1);">Ps 60, title</a>) one of the young princes of the reigning house effected his escape, and sought and found an asylum in Egypt, where he rose to occupy a high station. No sooner had he heard of the death of David and Joab than he returned to his native country and there stirred up disaffections against Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,14);">1Ki 11:14</a>ff; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HADAD">HADAD</a>), without, however, restoring independence to Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,26);">1Ki 9:26</a>). A second occasion of disaffection arose through a prophet having foretold that the successor of Solomon would have one of the Israelite tribes only and that the other ten clans would be under Solomon\'s master of works whom he had set over them. This officer also took refuge in Egypt and was protected by Shishak. He remained there until the death of Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,26);">1Ki 11:26</a>). A third adversary was Rezon who had fled from his master the king of Zobah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,23);">1Ki 11:23</a>), and who established himself at Damascus and rounded a dynasty which was long a thorn in the side of Israel. These domestic troubles are regarded as a consequence of the falling away of Solomon from the path of rectitude, but this seems to be but a kind of anticipative consequence, that is, if it was not till the end of his reign that Solomon fell into idolatry and polytheism (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,4);">1Ki 11:4</a>).<P>III. His Buildings.<P>1. The Temple:<P>The great undertaking of the reign of Solomon was, of course, The <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE,+A1">TEMPLE</a> (which see), which was at first probably considered as the Chapel Royal and an adjunct of the palace. The Temple was begun in the 4th year of the reign and finished in the 11th, the work of the building occupying 7" years (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,\'1-\');">1Ki 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,13);">7:13</a>). The delay in beginning is remarkable, if the material were all ready to hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,\'1-\');">1Ch 22</a>). Worship there was inaugurated with fitting ceremony and prayers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,\'1-\');">1Ki 8</a>).<P>2. The Palace:<P>To Solomon, however, his own palace was perhaps a more interesting undertaking. It at any rate occupied more time, in fact 13 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,\'1-12\');">1Ki 7:1-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,10);">9:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,1);">2Ch 8:1</a>), the time of building both palace and Temple being 20 years. Possibly the building of the palace occupied the first four years of the reign and was then intermitted and resumed after the completion of the Temple; but of this there is no indication in the text. It was called the House of the Forest of Lebanon from the fact that it was lined with cedar wood (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,2);">1Ki 7:2</a>). A description of it is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,\'1-12\');">1Ki 7:1-12</a>.<P>3. Other Buildings:<P>Solomon also rebuilt the wall of the city and the citadel (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MILLO">MILLO</a>). He likewise erected castles at the vulnerable points of the frontiers<72>Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,15);">1Ki 9:15</a>), lower Beth-horon and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAALATH">BAALATH</a> (which see). According to the Qere of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,18);">1Ki 9:18</a> and the ancient versions as well as <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,4);">2Ch 8:4</a>, he was the founder of Tadmor (Palmyra); but the Kethibh of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,18);">1Ki 9:18</a> reads Tamar (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,19);">Eze 47:19</a>). Some of the remains of buildings recently discovered at Megiddo and Gezer may go back to the time of Solomon.<P>4. The Corvee:<P>Solomon could not have built on the scale he did with the resources ordinarily at the command of a free ruler. Accordingly we find that one of the institutions fostered by him was the corvee, or forced labor. No doubt something of the kind always had existed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,21);">Jos 9:21</a>) and still exists in all despotic governments. Thus the people of a village will be called on to repair the neighboring roads, especially when the Pasha is making a progress in the neighborhood. But Solomon made the thing permanent and national (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,\'13-15\');">1Ki 5:13-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,15);">9:15</a>). The immediate purpose of the levy was to supply laborers for work in the Lebanon in connection with his building operations. Thus 30,000 men were raised and drafted, 10,000 at a time, to the Lebanon, where they remained for a month, thus having two months out of every three at home. But even when the immediate cause had ceased, the practice once introduced was kept up and it became one of the chief grievances which levi to the dismemberment of the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,18);">1Ki 12:18</a>, Adoram = Adoniram; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,24);">2Sa 20:24</a>), for hitherto the corvee had been confined to foreign slaves taken in war (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,21);">1Ki 9:21</a>). It is said the higher posts were reserved for Israelites, the laborers being foreigners (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,22);">1Ki 9:22</a>), that is, the Israelites acted as foremen. Some of the foreign slaves seem to have formed a guild in connection with the Temple which lasted down to the time of the exile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'55-57\');">Ezr 2:55-57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'57-59\');">Ne 7:57-59</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NETHINIM">NETHINIM</a>.<P>IV. His Character.<P>1. Personal Qualities:<P>In Solomon we have the type of a Turkish sultan, rather than a king of Israel. The Hebrew kings, whether of Israel or Judah, were, in theory at least, elective monarchs like the kings of Poland. If one happened to be a strong ruler, he managed to establish his family it might be, for three or even four generations. In the case of the Judean dynasty the personality of the first king made such a deep impression upon the heart of the people that the question of a change of dynasty there never became pressing. But Solomon would probably have usurped the crown if he had not inherited it, and once on the throne he became a thoroughgoing despot. All political power was taken out of the hands of the sheiks, although outward respect was still paid to them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,1);">1Ki 8:1</a>), and placed in the hands of officers who were simply creatures of Solomon. The resources of the nation were expended, not on works of public utility, but on the personal aggrandizement of the monarch (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,18);">1Ki 10:18</a>). In the means he took to gratify his passions he showed himself to be little better than a savage and if he did not commit such great crimes as David, it was perhaps because he had no occasion, or because he employed greater cunning in working out his ends.<P>2. His Wisdom:<P>The wisdom for which Solomon is so celebrated was not of a very high order; it was nothing more than practical shrewdness, or knowledge of the world and of human nature. The common example of it is that given in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,16);">1Ki 3:16</a>ff, to which there are innumerable parallels in Indian, Greek and other literatures. The same worldly wisdom lies at the back of the Book of Proverbs, and there is no reason why a collection of these should not have been made by Solomon just as it is more likely that he was a composer of verses than that he was not (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,32);">1Ki 4:32</a>). The statement that he had breadth of heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,29);">1Ki 4:29</a>) indicates that there was nothing known which did not come within his ken.<P>3. His Learning:<P>The word "wisdom," however, is used also in another connection, namely, in the sense of theoretical knowledge or book leaning, especially in the department of natural history. It is not to be supposed that Solomon had any scientific knowledge of botany or zoology, but he may have collected the facts of observation, a task in which the Oriental, who cannot generalize, excels. The wisdom and understanding (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,29);">1Ki 4:29</a>) for which Solomon was famous would consist largely in stories about beasts and trees like the well-known Fables of Pilpai. They included also the "wisdom" for which Egypt was famous (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,30);">1Ki 4:30</a>), that is, occult science. It results from this last statement that Solomon appears in post-Biblical and Arabian literature as a magician.<P>4. Trade and Commerce:<P>Solomon was very literally a merchant prince. He not only encouraged and protected commerce, but engaged in it himself. He was in fact the predominant, if not sole, partner in a great trading concern, which was nothing less than the Israelite nation. One of his enterprises was the horse trade with Egypt. His agents bought up horses which were again sold to the kings of the Hittites and the Arameans. The prices paid are mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,29);">1Ki 10:29</a>). The best of these Solomon no doubt retained for his own cavalry (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,26);">1Ki 10:26</a>). Another commodity imported from that country was linen yarn (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,28);">1Ki 10:28</a> the King James Version). The navy which Solomon built at the head of the Gulf of Akaba was not at all for military, but purely commercial ends. They were ships of Tarshish, that is, merchant ships, not ships to Tarshish, as <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,21);">2Ch 9:21</a>. They traded to <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OPHIR">OPHIR</a> (which see), from which they brought gold; silver, ivory, apes and peacocks, the round voyage lasting 3 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,26);">1Ki 9:26</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,22);">10:22</a>). Special mention is made of "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALMUG+OR+ALGUM">almug</a>" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,11);">1Ki 10:11</a>) or "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALMUG+OR+ALGUM">algum</a>" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,10);">2Ch 9:10</a>f) trees (which see). The visit of the Queen of Sheba would point to the overland caravan routes from the Yemen being then open (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,15);">1Ki 10:15</a>). What with direct imports and the result of sales, silver and cedar wood became very plentiful in the capital (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,27);">1Ki 10:27</a>).<P>5. Officers of State:<P>The list of Solomon\'s officers of state is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,2);">1Ki 4:2</a>ff. These included a priest, two secretaries, a recorder, a commander-in-chief, a chief commissariat officer, a chief shepherd (if we may read ro\'eh for re\'eh), a master of the household, and the head of the corvee. The list should be compared with those of David\'s officers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,16);">2Sa 8:16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,23);">20:23</a>). There is much resemblance, but we can see that the machine of state was becoming more complicated. The bodyguard of foreign mercenaries was abolished and the captain Benaiah promoted to be commander-in-chief. Two scribes were required instead of one. Twelve commissariat officers were appointed whose duty it was to forward from their districts the supplies for the royal household and stables. The list of these officials, a very curious one, is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,7);">1Ki 4:7</a>ff. It is to be noted that the 12 districts into which the country was divided did not coincide with the territories of the 12 tribes. It may be remarked that Solomon seems as far as possible to have retained the old servants of his father. It will be noticed also that in all the lists there is mention of more than one priest. These "priests" retained some of their original functions, since they acted as prognosticators and diviners.<P>6. Wives:<P>Solomon\'s principal wife was naturally the daughter of Pharaoh; it was for her that his palace was built (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,1);">1Ki 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,8);">7:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,16,24);">9:16,24</a>). But in addition to her he established marriage relations with the neighboring peoples. In some cases the object was no doubt to cement an alliance, as with the Zidonians and Hittites and the other nationalities (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,1);">1Ki 11:1</a>), some of which were forbidden to Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,3);">De 7:3</a>). It may be that the daughter of Pharaoh was childless or died a considerable time before Solomon, but his favorite wife was latterly a grand-daughter of Nahash, the Ammonite king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,21);">1Ki 14:21</a> Septuagint), and it was her son who succeeded to the throne. Many of Solomon\'s wives were no doubt daughters of wealthy or powerful citizens who wished by an alliance with the king to strengthen their own positions. Yet we do not read of his marrying an Israelite wife. According to the Arabian story Bilqis, the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,1);">1Ki 10:1</a>), was also married to him. He appears to have had only one son; we are not told of any other than Rehoboam. His daughters were married to his own officers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,11,15);">1Ki 4:11,15</a>).<P>7. Revenues:<P>Solomon is said to have started his reign with a capital sum of 100,000 talents of gold and a million talents of silver, a sum greater than the national debt of Great Britain. Even so, this huge sum was ear-marked for the building of the Temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,14);">1Ch 22:14</a>). His income was, for one year, at any rate, 666 talents of gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,14);">1Ki 10:14</a>), or about twenty million dollars. This seems an immense sum, but it probably was not so much as it looks. The great mass of the people were too poor to have any commodities which they could exchange for gold. Its principal use was for the decoration of buildings. Its purchasing power was probably small, because so few could afford to buy it. It was in the same category as the precious stones which are of great rarity, but which are of no value unless there is a demand for them. In the time of Solomon there was no useful purpose to which gold could be put in preference to any other metal.<P>8. Literary Works:<P>It is not easy to believe that the age of Solomon, so glorious in other respects, had not a literature to correspond. Yet the reign of the sultan Ismail in Morocco, whom Solomon much resembles, might be cited in favor of such a supposition. Solomon himself is stated to have composed 3,000 animal stories and 1,005 songs (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,32);">1Ki 4:32</a>). In the Old Testament the following are ascribed to him: three collections of Proverbs, <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,1);">1:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,1);">10:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,1);">25:1</a>ff; The Song of Songs; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,\'1-\');">Psalms 72</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',127,\'1-\');">127</a>; Ecclesiastes (although Solomon is not named). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,1);">Pr 25:1</a> the men of Hezekiah are said to have copied out the following proverbs.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The relative portions of the histories by Ewald, Stanley (who follows Ewald), Renan, Wellhausen and Kittel; also H. Winckler, Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen; and the commentaries on the Books of Kings and Chronicles.``189';
isbe[8283]='Solomon\'s Porch``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PORCH,+PORTICO,+SOLOMON\'s">PORCH, PORTICO, SOLOMON\'S</a>`1';
isbe[8284]='Solomon\'s Servants`(\'adbhedhe shelomoh; douloi Salomon): "The children of Solomon\'s servants" constituted a company or guild of the Jewish exiles who returned with Zerubbabel from Babylonia to Jerusalem in 537 BC, pursuant to the decree of Cyrus; they are mentioned 5 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,55,28);">Ezr 2:55,58</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,57,60);">Ne 7:57,60</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,3);">Ne 11:3</a>). As the prime purpose of the returning exiles was the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of Yahweh\'s worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,2,3);">Ezr 1:2,3</a>), it was important that those who held the privileges of sanctuary service as a family heritage should go back to their duties. This included, besides priests and Levites, the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NETHINIM">NETHINIM</a> (which see) and Solomon\'s Servants. In every reference to them, Solomon\'s Servants are connected with the Nethinim, who had been "given" or dedicated (nethinim or nethunim is pass. participle of nathan, "to give," "to appoint") by David "for the service of the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,20);">Ezr 8:20</a>); so Solomon\'s Servants traced their official beginning back to Solomon\'s appointment, as their name indicates. In the joint references they always fall into the natural chronological order, i.e. following the Nethinim. It is possible, therefore, that they are referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,24);">Ezr 7:24</a> also, under the title "servants of this house of God," which immediately follows "Nethinim" in the list of those exempt from taxation and tolls.<P>What their duties in the house of God may have been is not stated in the records. These must have been more or less menial, the more formal and honorable duties being reserved for "the priests and Levites, the singers, (and) porters" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,24);">Ezr 7:24</a>). When the ark was brought to Jerusalem by David and the ceremonial of the sacrificial system was more strictly observed, the services of priests and Levites were greatly increased, and to meet the needs of the new order David appointed the Nethinim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,20);">Ezr 8:20</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,2);">1Ch 9:2</a>). Likewise the much greater increase in such duties on the completion of Solomon\'s Temple was the occasion for the dedication of an additional number of these assistants to the Levites.<P>The number of those who returned with Zerubbabel was not great, together with the Nethinim being only 392. This does not appear to have been sufficient for the needs of the sanctuary, since Ezra, in preparation for his expedition in 458 BC, made special appeal for Nethinim to go with him, of whom 220 responded (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,\'15-20\');">Ezr 8:15-20</a>). No doubt at the first their service was considered to be lowly; but by the time of the exile, certainly after it, their position had developed into one of considerable honor and constituted them a privileged class in the nation. While many of the people were required by Nehemiah to live in Jerusalem, they were allowed to dwell in their possessions "in the cities of Judah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,3);">Ne 11:3</a>).<P>A question of some interest and of difference of opinion is whether Solomon\'s Servants were Levites or non-Israelites. The latter view is the more generally held, for the following reasons; (1) After the completion of the Temple and his other great buildings a large body of workmen, whom Solomon had drafted from the non-Israelite population, were without occupation, and might well have been assigned to the menial duties of the Temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,\'1-\');">1Ki 9</a>), their name in Septuagint (douloi) properly indicating such a class; (2) Ezekiel excludes non-Israelites from the service of his ideal temple, as though they had been allowed in the preexilic Temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,9);">44:9</A>); (3) they are always clearly distinguished from the Levites in the lists of religious bodies.<P>But, on the other hand, equally strong arguments favor their Levitical descent:<P>(1) Levites also are called douloi in 1Esdras; (2) it is more probable that Ezekiel refers to the abuses of Athaliah, Ahaz and Manasseh than to the institutions of David and Solomon;<P>(3) Ezra specifically classifies the Nethinim as Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,\'15-20\');">8:15-20</A>);<P>(4) there is not the slightest intimation in the text of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,\'15-22\');">1Ki 9:15-22</a> that the Gentile bondservants were assigned to temple-service after completion of the great building operations; such an interpretation is wholly inferential, while, on the contrary, it is more probable that such an innovation would have been mentioned in the narrative; and<P>(5) it is not probable that Ezra and Nehemiah, or Zerubbabel, with their strict views of Israelite privilege (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,62);">Ezr 2:62</a>), would have admitted non-Israelites to sacred functions, the less so in view of Ezekiel\'s prohibition. There is more ground, then, for holding that Solomon\'s Servants, like the porters and singers, were an order of Levites.``109';
isbe[8285]='Solomon, Odes of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
isbe[8286]='Solomon, Pools of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=POOLS+OF+SOLOMON">POOLS OF SOLOMON</a>`1';
isbe[8287]='Solomon, Psalms (Psalter) of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
isbe[8288]='Solomon, Song of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SONG+OF+SONGS">SONG OF SONGS</a>`1';
isbe[8289]='Solomon, Wisdom of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WISDOM+OF+SOLOMON">WISDOM OF SOLOMON</a>`1';
isbe[8290]='Someis`so\'-me-is (Someeis; the King James Version Samis): One of the Israelites, who put away their foreign wives (1Esdras 9:34) = "Shimei" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,38);">Ezr 10:38</a>.``1';
isbe[8291]='Sometime`sum\'-tim: In modern English means "occasionally," and is so used in Sirach 37:14 for eniote. Otherwise the word means "at some past time," and is the translation of pote. the Revised Version (British and American) changes to "aforetime" in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 5:3</span>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,20);">1Pe 3:20</a>; to "once" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,13);">Eph 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,8);">5:8</a>; to "in time past" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,21);">Col 1:21</a>; while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,7);">Col 3:7</a> the English Revised Version has "aforetime," the American Standard Revised Version "once." the King James Version does not distinguish between "sometime" and "sometimes."``1';
isbe[8292]='Son of God, the`(ho huios theou):<P>1. Use of Title in the Synoptists<P>2. Meanings in the Old Testament<P>3. Sense as Applied to Jesus<P>4. Physical Reason<P>5. Alleged Equivalence to "Messiah"<22>Personal Sense Implied<P>6. Higher Use by Jesus Himself<P>7. The "Son" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Matthew 11:27</a><P>8. The "Son" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mark 13:32</a><P>9. The "Son" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,\'18-20\');">Matthew 28:18-20</a><P>10. Apostolic Doctrine: Deity Affirmed<P>11. The Fourth Gospel: Deity, Preexistence, etc.<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Use of Title in the Synoptists:<P>While the title "the Son of man" is always, except once, applied by Jesus to Himself, "the Son of God" is never applied by Jesus to Himself in the Synoptists. When, however, it is applied to Him by others, He accepts it in such a way as to assert His claim to it. Now and then He Himself employs the abbreviated form, "the Son," with the same intention; and He often speaks of God as "the Father" or "my Father" or "my Father who is in heaven" in such a manner as to betray the consciousness that He is the Son of God.<P>2. Meanings in the Old Testament:<P>While to the common mind "the Son of man" is a title designating the human side of our Lord\'s person, "the Son of God" seems as obviously to indicate the divine side. But scholarship cannot take this for granted; and, indeed, it requires only a hasty glance at the facts to bring this home even to the general reader, because in Scripture the title is bestowed on a variety of persons for a variety of reasons. First, it is applied to angels, as when in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,1);">Job 2:1</a> it is said that "the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh"; they may be so called because they are the creatures of God\'s hands or because, as spiritual beings, they resemble God, who is a spirit. Secondly, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,38);">Lu 3:38</a> it is applied to the first man; and from the parable of the Prodigal Son it may be argued that it is applicable to all men. Thirdly, it is applied to the Hebrew nation, as when, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,22);">Ex 4:22</a>, Yahweh says to Pharaoh, "Israel is my son, my first-born," the reason being that Israel was the object of Yahweh\'s special love and gracious choice. Fourthly, it is applied to the kings of Israel, as representatives of the chosen nation. Thus, in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,14);">2Sa 7:14</a>, Yahweh says of Solomon, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son"; and, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,7);">Ps 2:7</a>, the coronation of a king is announced in an oracle from heaven, which says, "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." Finally, in the New Testament, the title is applied to all saints, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,12);">Joh 1:12</a>, "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name." When the title has such a range of application, it is obvious that the Divinity of Christ cannot be inferred from the mere fact that it is applied to Him.<P>3. Sense as Applied to Jesus:<P>It is natural to assume that its use in application to Jesus is derived from one or other of its Old Testament uses; and the one almost universally fixed upon by modern scholarship as that from which it was derived is the fourth mentioned above<76>that to the Jewish kings. Indeed, it is frequently asserted that in the Jewish literature between the Old Testament and the New Testament, it is found already coined as a title for the Messianic king; but the instances quoted by Dalman and others in proof of this are far from satisfactory.<P>4. Physical Reason:<P>When we come to examine its use in the New Testament as applied by others to Jesus, the facts are far from simple, and it is not applied in a uniform sense. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,35);">Lu 1:35</a>, the following reason for its use is given, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God." This is a physical reason, akin to that on account of which the angels or the first man received the title; but it is rather curious that this point of view does not seem to be adopted elsewhere, unless it be in the exclamation of the centurion at the foot of the cross, "Truly this was the Son of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,54);">Mt 27:54</a>). As a pagan this soldier might be thinking of Jesus as one of those heroes, born of human mothers but divine fathers, of whom the mythology of his country had so much to tell (compare the margin).<P>5. Alleged Equivalence to Messiah<61>Personal Sense Implied:<P>(1) Baptism, Temptation.<P>It has been contended, not without plausibility, that for Jesus Himself the source of the title may have been the employment of it in the voice from heaven at His Baptism, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,17);">Mt 3:17</a>). By these words, it is usually assumed, He was designated as the Messiah; but in the adjective "beloved," and the words "in whom I am well pleased," there is something personal, beyond the merely official recognition. The same may be said of the voice from heaven in the scene of the Transfiguration. Milton, in Paradise Regained, makes Satan become aware of the voice from heaven at the Baptism; but this is also implied in the terms with which he approached Him in the Temptation in the wilderness, "If thou art the Son of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,3);">Mt 4:3</a>, etc.); and, if this was the sense in which the prince of devils made use of the phrase, we may conclude that in the mouths of the demoniacs who hailed Jesus by the same title it must have had the same meaning.<P>(2) At Caesarea Philippi.<P>When, at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus evoked from the Twelve their great confession, this is given by two of the synoptists in the simple form, "Thou art the Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,29);">Mr 8:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,20);">Lu 9:20</a>); but Matthew adds, "the Son of the living God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,16);">Mt 16:16</a>). It is frequently said that Hebrew parallelism compels us to regard these words as a mere equivalent for "Messiah." But this is not the nature of parallelism, which generally includes in the second of the parallel terms something in excess of what is expressed in the first; it would be quite in accordance with the nature of parallelism if the second term supplied the reason for the first. That is to say, Jesus was the Messiah because He was the Son of God.<P>(3) Trial before Sanhedrin.<P>There is another passage where it is frequently contended that "the Christ" and "the Son of God" must be exactly parallel, but a close examination suggests the reverse. In the account of the ecclesiastical trial in the Gospel of Luke, He is charged, "If thou art the Christ, tell us"; and, when He replies, "If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God," they all say, "Art thou then the Son of God?" and, when He replies in the affirmative, they require no further witness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'67-71\');">Lu 22:67-71</a>), Matthew informing us that the high priest hereupon rent his garments, and they all agreed that He had spoken blasphemy and was worthy of death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,65);">Mt 26:65</a>f). The usual assumption is that the second question, "Art thou...the Son of God?" implies no more than the first, \'Art thou the Christ?\'; but is not the scene much more intelligible if the boldness of His answer to the first question suggested that He was making a still higher claim than to be the Christ, and that their second question applied to this? It was when Jesus affirmed this also that their angry astonishment knew no bounds, and their sentence was immediate and capital. It may be questioned whether it was blasphemy merely to claim to be the Messiah; but it was rank and undeniable blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God. This recalls the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,18);">Joh 5:18</a>, "The Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God"; to which may be added (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,33);">Joh 10:33</a>), "The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."<P>6. Higher Use by Jesus Himself:<P>Naturally it is with the words of Jesus Himself on this subject that we are most concerned. He speaks of God as His Father, and to the disciples He speaks of God as their Father; but He never speaks to them of God as their common Father: what He says is, "My Father and your Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,17);">Joh 20:17</a>). H. J. Holtzmann and others have attempted to make light of this, and even to speak of the opening words of the Lord\'s Prayer, "Our Father who art in heaven," as if Jesus might have uttered them in company with the disciples; but the distinction is a vital one, and we do not agree with those who can believe that Jesus could have uttered, for Himself along with others, the whole of the Lord\'s Prayer, including the petition, "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."<P>7. The "Son" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Matthew 11:27</a>:<P>Of the passages in the Synoptists where Jesus speaks about God as "the Father" and Himself as "the Son," a peculiar solemnity attaches to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,22);">Lu 10:22</a>, "All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him." There is a Johannine flavor in these words, and they reveal an intimacy of the Son with the Father, as well as a power over all things, which could not have been conferred by mere official appointment, unless there had been in the background a natural position warranting the official standing. Not infrequently has the word "Messianic" been allowed by scholars to blind them to the most obvious facts. The conferring of an office on a mere man could not enable him to do things beyond the reach of human powers; yet it is frequently assumed that, if only Jesus was Messiah, He was able for anything, even when the thing in question is something for which a mere man is wholly incompetent.<P>8. The "Son" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mark 13:32</a>:<P>There is a saying of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a>) about His own Sonship which may seem to refute the church doctrine on the subject, as in it He confesses ignorance of the date of His Second Coming: "Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Yet, while there is much in this passage fitted to produce sane and sober views as to the real manhood of Jesus, there are few sayings of His that betray a stronger consciousness of His being more than man. Four planes of being and of knowledge are specified<65>that of men, that of angels, that of Himself, and that of God. Evidently the Son is above not only men but angels, and, if it is confessed that He is ignorant of anything, this is mentioned as a matter of surprise.<P>9. The "Son" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,\'18-20\');">Matthew 28:18-20</a>:<P>The conclusion would seem to be that He is a being intermediate between the angels and God; but this impression is corrected by the greatest of all the sayings in which He calls Himself the Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,\'18-20\');">Mt 28:18-20</a>), "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Here the Son is named along with the Father and the Holy Spirit in a way suggesting the equality of all three, an act of worship being directed to them jointly. By those who disbelieve in the Deity of Christ, the most strenuous attempts have been made to get rid of this passage, and in certain quarters it is taken for granted that it must have been an addition to the text of this Gospel. But for this there is no ground whatever; the passage is the climax of the Gospel in which it occurs, in the same way as the confession of Thomas is the climax of the Gospel of John; and to remove it would be an intolerable mutilation. Of course to those who disbelieve in the bodily resurrection of our Lord, this has no more substance than the other details of the Forty Days; but to those who believe in His risen glory the words appear to suit the circumstances, their greatness being congruous with the entire representation of the New Testament.<P>10. Apostolic Doctrine: Deity Affirmed:<P>Indeed, it is the Son of God, as He appears in this final scene in the First Gospel, who dominates the rest of the New Testament. Thus, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,20);">Ac 9:20</a>, the beginning of Paul\'s testimony as a Christian is given in these words, "And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God"; and what this meant to Paul may be gathered from his own statement in the opening of Romans, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'1-4\');">Ro 1:1-4</a>). In He the equality of the Son with the Father is theme throughout the entire book; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,18);">Re 2:18</a>, "the Son of God, who hath his eyes like a flame of fire," speaks from the right hand of power to the church.<P>On this subject there was no division of opinion in the apostolic church. On many other questions the followers of Jesus were divided; but on this one they were unanimous. For this the authority of Paul is often assumed to be responsible; but there was a prior and higher authority. This was the self-testimony of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Though this may not have been put in literary form till all the other books of the New Testament had been completed, it was active and influential in the church all the time, affecting Paul and the other New Testament writers.<P>11. The Fourth Gospel: Deity, Preexistence, etc.:<P>There is no real disharmony between the expression of our Lord\'s self-consciousness in the Synoptists and that in John; only in the latter it is far ampler and more distinct. Here Jesus is not only called "the Son of God" by others, but applies the title to Himself in its full shape, as well as in the abbreviated form of "the Son." He further calls Himself the "only begotten Son of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Khn\',3,16,18);">3:16,18</A>), that is to say, He is Son in a sense in which no others can claim the title. This seems expressly to contradict the statement, so often made, that He makes others sons of God in the same sense as Himself, or that His Sonship is ethical, not metaphysical. No doubt it is ethical<61>that is to say, He is like the Father in feeling, mind and will<6C>but it does not follow that it is not at the same time metaphysical. In fact, the perfection of ethical unity depends upon that which is metaphysical. Between a dog and a man there may be deep sympathy, yet it is limited by the difference of their natures; whereas between a woman and a man there is perfect sympathy, because they are identical in nature.<P>Another feature of Sonship in the Fourth Gospel is preexistence, though, strange to say, this is more than once connected with the title "Son of man." But the strongest and most frequent suggestions as to what is implied in Sonship are to be found in the deeds attributed to the Son; for these are far beyond the competence of any mere man. Thus, He executes judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,22);">Joh 5:22</a>); He has life in Himself and quickeneth whom He will (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,21,26);">Joh 5:21,26</a>); He gives eternal life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,10);">Joh 10:10</a>), and it is the will of the Father that all men should honor the Son, even as they do the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,23);">Joh 5:23</a>). Nevertheless, the Son does nothing of Himself, but only what He hath seen the Father do (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,19);">Joh 5:19</a>); and only that which He hath heard of the Father does He speak (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,10);">Joh 14:10</a>). In short, God is not only His Father, but His God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,17);">Joh 20:17</a>). To statements such as these a merely official Sonship is not adequate; the relation must be ethical and metaphysical as well; and to a perfect Sonship all three elements are essential.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See the books on the Theology of the New Testament by Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Feine, Schlatter, Weinel, Bovon, Stevens, Sheldon; and on the Teaching of Jesus by Bruce, Wendt, Dalman; Gore, The Incarnation of the Son of God, Bampton Lectures,1891,and Dissertations on Subjects Connected with the Incarnation; Robertson, Teaching of Jesus concerning God the Father; full bibliography in Stalker, Christ\'s Teaching concerning Himself.``163';
isbe[8293]='Son of Man, the`(ho huios tou anthropou): <P>1. Use in the New Testament: Self-Designation of Jesus<P>2. Questions as to Meaning<P><b>I. SOURCE OF THE TITLE</b><P class="in15">1. The Phrase in the Old Testament<6E>Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel<P class="in15">2. "Son of Man" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,\'1-\');">Daniel 7</a><3E>New Testament Allusions<P class="in15">3. Expressive of Messianic Idea<P class="in15">4. Post-canonical Literature: Book of Enoch<P><b>II. WHY JESUS MADE USE OF THE TITLE</b><P class="in15">1. Consciousness of Being the Messiah<P class="in15">2. Half Concealed, Yet Half Revealed His Secret<P class="in15">3. Expressive of Identification with Men in Sympathy, Fortunes and Destiny<P class="in15">4. Speculations (Lietzmann, Wellhausen, etc.) on Aramaic Meaning: These Rejected (Dalman, etc.)<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>1. Use in New Testament: Self-Designation of Jesus:<P>This is the favorite self-designation of Jesus in the Gospels. In Matthew it occurs over 30 times, in <span class="noTag">Mark 15</span> times, in Luke 25 times, and in John a dozen times. It is always in the mouth of Jesus Himself that it occurs, except once, when the bystanders ask what He means by the title (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,34);">Joh 12:34</a>). Outside the Gospels, it occurs only once in Acts, in Stephen\'s speech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,56);">Ac 7:56</a>), and twice in the Book of Revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,13);">1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,14);">14:14</a>).<P>2. Questions as to Meaning:<P>At first sight it appears so apt a term for the human element in our Lord\'s person, the divine element being similarly denoted by "the Son of God," that this was supposed to be its meaning, as it still is by the common man at the present day. As long as it was assumed that the meaning could be elicited by merely looking at the words as they stand and guessing what they must signify, this was substantially the view of all, although this common conception went in two directions<6E>some noting especially the loftier and more ideal elements in the conception, while others emphasized what was lowly and painful in the human lot; and both could appeal to texts in support of their view. Thus, the view "that Christ by this phrase represented Himself as the head, the type, the ideal of the race" (Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah), could appeal to such a saying as, "The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,28);">Mr 2:28</a>); while the humbler view could quote such a saying as, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,20);">Mt 8:20</a>).<P>The more scientific investigation of the phrase began, however, when it was inquired, first, what the source was from which Jesus derived this title, and, secondly, why He made use of it.<P>I. Source of the Title.<P>1. The Phrase in the Old Testament<6E>Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel:<P>That the phrase was not one of Jesus\' own invention is manifest, because it occurs often in the Old Testament.<P>Thus, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',8,4);">Ps 8:4</a> it is used as an equivalent for "man" in the parallel lines,<P class="in15">"What is man, that thou art mindful of him?<br>And the son of man, that thou visitest him ?"<P>This passage has sometimes been regarded as the source whence Jesus borrowed the title; and for this a good deal might be said, the psalm being an incomparable exposition both of the lowliness and the loftiness of human nature. But there is another passage in the Psalms from which it is far from incredible that it may have been derived: in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,17);">Ps 80:17</a> occur the words,<P class="in15">"Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,<br>Upon the son of man whom thou maddest strong for thyself."<P>This is an appeal, in an age of national decline, for the raising up of a hero to redeem Israel; and it might well have kindled the spark of Messianic consciousness in the heart of the youthful Jesus.<P>There is a book of the Old Testament in which the phrase "the son of man" occurs no fewer than 90 times. This is the Book of Ezekiel, where it is always applied to the prophet himself and designates his prophetic mission. In the words of Nosgen (Christus der Menschenund Gotlessohn): "It expresses the contrast between what Ezekiel is in himself and what God will make out of him, and to make his mission appear to him not as his own, but as the work of God, and thus to lift him up, whenever the flesh threatens to faint and fail." Thus there was one before Jesus of Nazareth who bore the title, at least in certain moments of his life; and, after Ezekiel, there arose another Hebrew prophet who has put on record that he was addressed from the same high quarter in the same terms; for, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,17);">Da 8:17</a>, it is written, "So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was affrighted, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man"<22>words then following intended to raise the spirit of the trembling servant of God. By Weizsacker and others the suggestion has been made that Jesus may have borrowed the term from Ezekiel and Daniel to express His consciousness of belonging to the same prophetic line.<P>2. "Son of Man" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,\'1-\');">Daniel 7</a><3E>New Testament Allusions:<P>There is, however, in the same Book of Daniel another occurrence of the phrase, in a totally different sense, to which the attention of science is more and more being drawn. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,3);">7:3</a>ff, in one of the apocalyptic visions common to this prophet, four beasts are seen coming out of the sea<65>the first a lion with eagle\'s wings, the second a bear, the third a fourheaded leopard, and the fourth a terrible monster with ten heads. These beasts bear rule over the earth; but at last the kingdom is taken away from them and given to a fifth ruler, who is thus described, "I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,13,14);">Da 7:13,14</a>). Compare with these words from Daniel the words of Jesus to the high priest during His trial, "Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,64);">Mt 26:64</a>), and the echo of the Old Testament words cannot be mistaken. Equally distinct is it in the great discourse in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,30);">Mt 24:30</a>, "Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."<P>3. Expressive of Messianic Idea:<P>The use of this self-designation by Jesus is especially frequent and striking in passages referring to His future coming to judgment, in which there is necessarily a certain resemblance to the apocalyptic scene in Daniel. In such utterances the Messianic consciousness of Jesus is most emphatically expressed; and the passage in Daniel is also obviously Messianic. In another considerable series of passages in which this phrase is used by Jesus, the references are to His sufferings and death; but the assumption which explains these also most easily is that they are Messianic too; Jesus is speaking of the fortunes to which He must submit on account of His vocation. Even the more dignified passages, expressive of ideality, are best explained in the same way. In short, every passage where the phrase occurs is best understood from this point of view, whereas, from any other point of view, not a few appear awkward and out of place. How little, for example, does the idea that the phrase is expressive of lowliness or of brotherhood with suffering humanity accord with the opening of the judgment-scene in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,31);">Mt 25:31</a>, "But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory"!<P>4. Post-canonical Literature: Book of Enoch:<P>The son of man, or rather "one like unto a son of man" mentioned in Daniel, is primarily the Hebrew people, as is expressly noted in the prophecy itself; but Jesus must have looked upon Himself as the representative of the people of God, in the same way as, in the Old Testament generally, the reigning sovereign was regarded as the representative of the nation. But the question has been raised whether this transference of the title from a collective body to an individual may have been mediated for Him through postcanonical religious literature or the prevalence among the people of ideas generated through this literature. In the Book of Enoch there occur numerous references to the son of man, which bear a remarkable resemblance to some of the sayings of Jesus. The date usually assigned to this production is some 200 years BC; and, if these passages in it actually existed as early as this, the book would almost require to be included in the canonical Scriptures, though for other reasons it is far from worthy of any such honor. The whole structure of the Book of Enoch is so loose and confused that it must always have invited interpolation; and interpolations in it are recognized as numerous. The probability, therefore, is that the passages referring to the son of man are of later date and of Christian origin.<P>II. Why Jesus Made Use of the Title.<P>The conclusion that this title expresses, not the personal qualities of Jesus as a man, but His functions as Messiah, may be disappointing; but there is a way of recovering what seems to have been lost; because we must now inquire for what reasons He made use of this term.<P>1. Consciousness of Being the Messiah:<P>The first reason, of course, is, that in Daniel it expressed Messiahship, and that Jesus was conscions of being the Messiah. In the Old Testament He was wont all His days to read His own history. He ranged over all the sacred books and found in them references to His own person and work. With divinatory glance He pierced into the secrets of Scripture and brought forth from the least as well as the best-known portions of the ancient oracles meanings which are now palpable to all readers of the Bible, but which He was the first to discover. From the passage in Daniel, or from some other passage of the Old Testament in which the phrase "the son of man" occurs, a hint flashed out upon Him, as He read or heard; and the suggestion grew in His brooding mind, until it rounded itself into the fit and satisfying expression for one side of His self-consciousness.<P>2. Half Concealed, Yet Half Revealed His Secret:<P>Another reason why He fixed upon this as His favorite self-designation may have been that it half concealed as well as half revealed His secret. Of the direct names for the Messiah He was usually shy, no doubt chiefly because His contemporaries were not prepared for an open declaration of Himself in this character; but at all stages of His ministry He called Himself the Son of man without hesitation. The inference seems to be, that, while the phrase expressed much to Himself, and must have meant more and more for those immediately associated with Him, it did not convey a Messianic claim to the public ear. With this accords well the perplexity once manifested by those listening to Him, when they asked, "Who is this Son of man?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,34);">Joh 12:34</a>); as it also explains the question of Jesus to the Twelve at Caesarea Philippi, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" or, as it is in the margin, "that I the Son of man am?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,13);">Mt 16:13</a>). That He was the Son of man did not evidently mean for all that He claimed to be the Messiah.<P>3. Expressive of Identification with Men in Sympathy, Fortunes and Destiny:<P>But when we try to realize for what reasons Jesus may have picked this name out from all which presented themselves to Him in His intimate and loving survey of the Old Testament, it is difficult to resist the belief that a third and the principal reason was because it gave expression to His sense of connection with all men in sympathy, fortunes and destiny. He felt Himself to be identified with all as their brother, their fellow-sufferer, their representative and champion; and, in some respects, the deepest word He ever spake was, "For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,45);">Mr 10:45</a> parallel).<P>4. Speculations (Lietzmann, Wellhausen, etc.) on Aramaic Meaning: These Rejected (Dalman, etc.):<P>In 1896, Hans Lietzmann, a young German scholar, startled the learned World with a speculation on the "Son of man." Making the assumption that Aramaic was the language spoken by Jesus, he contended that Jesus could not have applied to Himself the Messianic title, because there is nothing corresponding with it in Aramaic. The only term approximating to it is barnash, which means something very vague, like "anyone" or "everyman" (in the sense of the old morality play thus entitled). Many supposed Lietzmann to be arguing that Jesus had called Himself Anyone or Everyman; but this was not his intention. He tried to prove that the Messianic title had been applied to Jesus in Asia Minor in the first half of the 2nd century and that the Gospels had been revised with the effect of substituting it for the first personal pronoun. But he failed to show how the manuscripts could have been so universally altered as to leave no traces of this operation, or how, if the text of the New Testament was then in so fluid a state as to admit of such a substitution, the phrase should not have overflowed into other books besides the Gospels. Although the hypothesis has secured wide attention through being partially adopted by Wellhausen, whose view is to be found in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, and at p. 66 of his Commentary on Mark, it may be reckoned among the ghosts which appear for an hour on the stage of learning, attracting attention and admiration, but have no permanent connection with the world of reality. Dalman, the leading authority on Aramaic, denies the foundation on which the views of both Lietzmann and Wellhausen rest, and holds that, had the Messianic title existed, the Aramaic language would have been quite capable of expressing it. And in 1911 Wellhausen himself explicitly admitted this (Einleitung in die drei eraten Evangelien(2), 130).<P>LITERATURE.<P>See the books on New Testament Theology by Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Feine, Schlatter, Weinel, Stevens, Sheldon; and on the Teaching of Jesus by Wentit, Bruce, Dalman; Abbott, The Son of Man, 1910; very full bibliography in Stalker, The Teaching of Jesus concerning Himself.``163';
isbe[8294]='Son-In-Law``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS,+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`1';
isbe[8295]='Son; Sons`sun, sunz:<P>(1) In Biblical language the word "son" is used first of all in its strictly literal sense of male issue or offspring of a man or woman. In a few cases in the Old Testament, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,16);">Ge 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,2);">Jos 17:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,15);">Jer 20:15</a>, the Hebrew word ben, is translated correctly in the English by the word "child" or "children" as it includes both sexes, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,16);">Ge 3:16</a>, or is limited to males by the use of the modifying term "male." Closely connected with this meaning of direct male issue or of children is its use to denote descendants, posterity in the more general sense. This usage which, as in the case of the sons (children) of Israel, may be regarded perhaps as originating in the conception of direct descent from the common ancestor Israel, came in the course of time to be a mere ethnographic designation, so that the term "the children of Israel" and "the children of Ammon" meant no more than Israelites or Ammonites, that is, inhabitants of the lands of Israel or Ammon respectively. An extension of this usage is to be found in the designation of a people as the sons or children of a land or city; so in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,7);">Am 9:7</a> "children of the Ethiopians," or <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,28);">Eze 16:28</a>, where the literal rendering would be "sons of Asshur," instead of the Assyrians, and "the children of Jerus" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,6);">Joe 3:6</a>.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAR+(1)">BAR (1) (prefix)</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEN-">BEN-</A>.<P>(2) More characteristic of Biblical usage is the employment of the word "son" to indicate membership in a class or guild, as in the common phrase "sons of the prophets," which implies nothing whatever as to the ancestry, but states that the individuals concerned are members of the prophetic guilds or schools. In the New Testament the word "sons" (huioi) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,19);">Lu 11:19</a>, rendered "children" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,27);">Mt 12:27</a> the King James Version, means, not physical descendants, but members of the class or sect; according to Matthew the Pharisees, who were attacking Christ.<P>(3) The word "son" is used with a following genitive of quality to indicate some characteristic of the person or persons described. In the English the word "son" is usually omitted and the phrase is paraphrased as in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,34);">2Sa 3:34</a>, where the words translated "wicked men" in the King James Version mean literally, sons or children of wickedness. Two examples of this usage may be cited: the familiar phrase "sons of Belial" in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,13);">De 15:13</a> the King James Version, and often), where the meaning is simply base or worthless fellows (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,17);">Nu 24:17</a>, margin "children of Sheth" (Expository Times, XIII, 64b)); and in the New Testament the phrase "sons of thunder," which is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,17);">Mr 3:17</a> as the explanation of the epithet "Boanerges." This use is common in the New Testament, as the phrases "children of the kingdom," "children of light," etc., indicate, the general meaning being that the noun in the genitive following the word children indicates some quality of the persons under consideration. The special phrases "Son of man" and "Son of God" are considered in separate articles.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS,+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`13';
isbe[8296]='Song`(shir, shirah): Besides the great collection of sacred songs contained in the Psalter, as well as the lyric outbursts, marked by strong religious feeling, on great national occasions, it is natural to believe, and we have evidence to show, that the Hebrews possessed a large number of popular songs of a secular kind. <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SONG+OF+SONGS">Song of Songs</a> (which see) of itself proves this. Probably the very oldest song or fragment of song in the Old Testament is that "To the well" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,17);">Nu 21:17</a>). W. R. Smith (Religions of the Semites, 167) regards this invocation of the waters to rise as in its origin hardly a mere poetic figure. He compares what Cazwini 1, 189, records of the well of Ilabistan: "When the water failed, a feast was held at its source with music and dancing, to induce it to flow again." If, however, the song had its origin in an early form of religious belief, it must have been secularized later.<P>But it is in the headings of the Psalms that we find the most numerous traces of the popular songs of the Hebrews. Here there are a number of words and phrases which are now believed to be the names or initial words of such lyrics. In the King James Version they are prefaced with the prep. "on," in the Revised Version (British and American) with "set to," i.e. "to the tune of." We give a list:<P>(1) Aijeleth Shahar the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) Aijeleth hash-shahar, \'ayyeleth ha-shachar. The title means (Revised Version, margin) "The hind of the morning," but whether the original song so named was a hunting song or a morning serenade it is useless to conjecture. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HIND+OF+THE+MORNING">HIND OF THE MORNING</a>.<P>(2) Al-taschith (the King James Version), Al-tashheth (Revised Version), \'al-tashcheth, i.e. "Destroy not," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',57,\'1-\');">Psalms 57-59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',75,\'1-\');">75</a>, is apparently quoted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,8);">Isa 65:8</a>, and in that case must refer to a vintage song.<P>(3) Jonah elem rehokim or Yonath\'elem rechoqim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',56,\'1-\');">Ps 56</a>), the Revised Version margin "The silent dove of them that are afar off," or<6F>with a slightly different reading<6E>"The dove of the distant terebinths."<P>(4) Machalath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',53,\'1-\');">Ps 53</a>) and Machalath le\'annoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,\'1-\');">Ps 88</a>). Machalath may mean "sickness," and be the first word of a song. It might mean, on the other hand, a minor mode or rhythm. It has also been held to designate a musical instrument.<P>(5) Muthlabben (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,\'1-\');">Ps 9</a>) has given rise to many conjectures. Literally, it may mean "Die for the son," or "Death of the son." An ancient tradition referred the words to Goliath (death at the hand of the son [?]), and they have been applied to the fate of Absalom. Such guesses need only be quoted to show their worthlessness.<P>(6) Lastly, we have Shoshannim = "Lilies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,\'1-\');">Psalms 45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,\'1-\');">69</a>), Shushan \'Edhuth = "The lily of testimony" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',60,\'1-\');">Ps 60</a>); and Shoshannim \'Edhuth = "Lilies, a testimony" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,\'1-\');">Ps 80</a>), probably to be explained like the others.<P>The music to which these songs were sung is irretrievably lost, but it was, no doubt, very similar in character to that of the Arabs at the present day. While the music of the temple was probably much more elaborate, and of wider range, both in notes and expression of feeling, the popular song was almost certainly limited in compass to a very few notes repeated over and over in long recitations or ballads. This is characteristic of the performances of Arab minstrels of today. The melodies are plaintive, in spite of the majority of them being in major keys, owing to the 7th being flattened, as in genuine Scottish music. Arabic music, further, is marked by great variety and emphasis of rhythm, the various kinds of which have special names.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIRITUAL+SONGS">SPIRITUAL SONGS</a>`120';
isbe[8297]='Song of Songs`(shir hashirim; Septuagint Asma; Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Asma asmaton; Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Canticum Canticorum):<P><b>I. CANONICITY</b><P><b>II. TEXT</b><P><b>III. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE</b><P><b>IV. HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION</b><P>1. The Allegorical Interpretation<P>2. The Typical Interpretation<P>3. The Literal Interpretation<P><b>V. CLOSING HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The full title in Hebrew is "The Song of Songs, which is Solomon\'s." The book is called by some Canticles, and by others Solomon\'s Song. The Hebrew title implies that it is the choicest of all songs, in keeping with the dictum of Rabbi \'Aqiba (90-135 AD) that "the entire world, from the beginning until now, does not outweigh the day in which Canticles was given to Israel."<P>I. Canonicity.<P>Early Jewish and Christian writers are silent as to the So of Songs. No use is made of it by Philo. There is no quotation from it in the New Testament, nor is there any clear allusion to it on the part of our Lord or the apostles. The earliest distinct references to the So of Songs are found in Jewish writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (4Esdras 5:24,26; 7:26; Ta\'anith 4:8). The question of the canonicity of the So was debated as late as the Synod of Jamnia (circa 90 AD), when it was decided that Canticles was rightly reckoned to "defile the hands," i.e. was an inspired book. It should be borne in mind that the So of Songs was already esteemed by the Jews as a sacred book, though prior to the Synod of Jamnia there was probably a goodly number of Jewish teachers who did not accept it as canonical. Selections from Canticles were sung at certain festivals in the temple at Jerusalem, prior to its destruction by Titus in 70 AD (Ta\'anith 4:8). The Mishna pronounces an anathema on all who treat Canticles as a secular song (Sanhedhrin, 101a). The latest date for the composition of the Song of Songs, according to critics of the advanced school, is toward the close of the 3rd century BC. We may be sure that it was included in the Kethubhim before the ministry of our Lord, and so was for Him a part of the Scriptures.<P>II. Text.<P>Most scholars regard the text of Canticles as comparatively free from corruption. Gratz, Bickell, Budde and Cheyne have suggested a good many emendations of the traditional text, a few of which commend themselves as probable corrections of a faulty text, but most of which are mere guesses without sufficient confirmation from either external or internal evidence. For details see Budde\'s able commentary, and articles by Cheyne in JQR and Expository Times for 1898-99 and in the The Expositor, February, 1899.<P>III. Authorship and Date.<P>The title in the Hebrew text ascribes the poem to Solomon. That this superscription was prefixed by an editor of Canticles and not by the original writer is evident from the fact that the relative pronoun employed in the title is different from that employed throughout the poem. The beauty and power of the book seemed to later students and editors to make the writing worthy of the gifted king, whose fame as a composer of both proverbs and songs was handed on to later times (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,32);">1Ki 4:32</a>). Moreover, the name of Solomon is prominent in the Song of Songs itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,5);">1:5</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,7,9,11);">3:7,9,11</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,11);">8:11</a>f). If the traditional view that Solomon wooed and won the Shulammite be true, the Solomonic authorship may even yet be defended, though the linguistic argument for a later date is quite strong.<P>The question in debate among recent critics is whether the Song was composed in North Israel in preexilic days, or whether it is post-exilic. The author is at home in Hebrew. His vocabulary is extensive, and the movement of the poem is graceful. There is no suggestion of the use of lexicon and grammar by a writer living in the period of the decadence of the Hebrew language. The author is familiar with cities and mountains all over Palestine, especially in the northern section. He speaks of the beauty of Tirzah, the capital of Northern Israel in the 10th century BC, along with the glory of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,4);">So 6:4</a>). The recollection of Solomon\'s glory and pomp seems to be fresh in the mind of the writer and his contemporaries. W.R. Smith regarded Canticles as a protest against the luxury and the extensive harem of Solomon. True love could not exist in such an environment. The fidelity of the Shulammite to her shepherd lover, notwithstanding the blandishments of the wealthy and gifted king, stands as a rebuke to the notion that every woman has her price. Driver seems inclined to accept a preexilic date, though the arguments from vocabulary and philology cause him to waver in his opinion (LOT, 8th edition, 450). An increasing number of critics place the composition of Canticles in the post-exilic period, many bringing it down into the Greek period. Among scholars who date Canticles in the 3rd century BC we may name Gratz, Kuenen, Cornill, Budde, Kautzsch, Martineau and Cheyne. The chief argument for bringing the So into the time of the early Ptolemies is drawn from the language of the poem. There are many Hebrew words that are employed elsewhere only in later books of the Old Testament; the word pardec (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,13);">So 4:13</a>) is a Persian loan-word for "park"; the word for "palanquin" may be Indian, or possibly Greek. Moreover, the form of the relative pronoun is uniformly that which is found in some of the latest books of the Old Testament. The influence of Aramaic is apparent, both in the vocabulary and in a few constructions. This may be accounted for on theory of the northern origin of the Song, or on the hypothesis of a post-exilic date. The question of date is still open.<P>IV. History of Interpretation.<P>1. The Allegorical Interpretation:<P>All interpreters of all ages agree in saying that Canticles is a poem of love; but who the lovers are is a subject of keen debate, especially in modern times.<P>First in point of time and in the number of adherents it has had is theory that the So is a pure allegory of the love of Yahweh and His people. The Jewish rabbis, from the latter part of the 1st century AD down to our own day, taught that the poem celebrates a spiritual love, Yahweh being the bridegroom and Israel the bride. Canticles was supposed to be a vivid record of the loving intercourse between Israel and her Lord from the exodus on to the glad Messianic time. The So is read by the Jews at Passover, which celebrates Yahweh\'s choice of Israel to be His spouse. The Targum interprets Canticles as an allegory of the marital love of Yahweh and Israel. Origen made the allegorical theory popular in the early church. As a Christian he represented the bride as the church or the soul of the believer. In more recent centuries the Christian allegorical interpreters have favored the idea that the soul of the believer was the bride, though the other type of the allegorical view has all along had its advocates.<P>Bernard of Clairvaux wrote 86 sermons on the first two chapters of Canticles; and a host of writers in the Roman church and among Protestants have composed similar mystical treatises on the Song. Devout souls have expressed their fervent love to God in the sensuous imagery of Canticles. The imagery could not become too fervid or ecstatic for some of these devout men and women in their highest moments of beatific vision. Whatever may be the final verdict of sane criticism as to the original purpose of the author of the Song, it is a fact that must not be overlooked by the student of Canticles that some of the noblest religious souls, both Hebrew and Christian, have fed the flame of devotion by interpreting the So as an allegory.<P>What justification is there for theory that Canticles is an allegory of the love between Yahweh and His people, or of the love of Christ and the church, or of the love of the soul of the believer and Christ? It must be frankly confessed that there is not a hint in the So itself that it is an allegory. If the modern reader of Canticles had never heard of the allegorical interpretation, nothing in the beginning, middle or end of the poem would be likely to suggest to his mind such a conception of the poet\'s meaning. How, then, did the early Jewish interpreters come to make this the orthodox interpretation of the Song? The question is not easy to answer. In the forefront of our answer we must recall the fact that the great prophets frequently represent the mutual love of Yahweh and Israel under the symbolism of marriage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',1,\'1-\');">Hosea 1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,\'1-\');">Jeremiah 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,\'1-\');">Ezekiel 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,1);">Isa 50:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,5,6);">54:5,6</a>). The Hebrew interpreter might naturally expect to find some echo of this bold imagery in the poetry of the Kethubhim. In the Torah the frequent command to love Yahweh might suggest the marital relation as well as that of the father and son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,5);">De 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,\'7-9\',13);">7:7-9,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,12,15);">10:12,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,16,20);">30:16,20</a>), though it must be said that the language of Deuteronomy suggests the high ethical and religious teaching of Jesus in the matter of love to God, in which the sexual does not appear.<P>Cheyne suggests (EB, I, 683f) that the So was too joyous to be used, in its natural sense, by the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, and hence, they consecrated it by allegorical interpretation. The suggestion may contain an element of truth.<P>It is an interesting fact that the Psalter has so few expressions in which love to Yahweh is expressed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,23);">Ps 31:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,10);">97:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,20);">145:20</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,1);">18:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',42,1);">42:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,1);">63:1</a>). In this manual of devotion one would not be suprised to find the expansion of the image of wedlock as expressive of the soul\'s relation to God; but we look in vain for such a poem, unless <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,\'1-\');">Ps 45</a> be capable of allegorical interpretation. Even that beautiful song of love and marriage contains no such highly sensuous imagery as is found in Canticles.<P>Christian scholars found it easy to follow the Jewish allegorical interpreters; for the figure of wedlock is employed in the New Testament by both Paul and John to represent the intimate and vital union of Christ and His church (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,2);">2Co 11:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'22-33\');">Eph 5:22-33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,\'7-9\');">Re 19:7-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,2,9);">21:2,9</a>).<P>The entire body of true believers is conceived of as the bride of Christ. Naturally the purity of the church is sullied through the impure conduct of the individuals of whom it is composed. Hence, the appeal to individuals and to local churches to live pure lives (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,1);">2Co 11:1</a>). To the unmarried believer the Lord Jesus takes the place of the husband or wife as the person whom one is most eager to please (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,32);">1Co 7:32</a>f). It is not difficult to understand how the fervid, sensuous imagery of Canticles would appeal to the mind of a man like Origen as a proper vehicle for the expression of his passionate love for Christ.<P>Sober inquiry discovers no sufficient justification of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs. The pages of the mystical commentators are filled with artificial interpretations and conceits. Many of them practice a familiarity with Christ that is without example in the Biblical devotional literature.<P>2. The Typical Interpretation:<P>The allegorical interpreters, for the most part, saw in the So of Songs no historic basis. Solomon and the Shulammite are introduced merely as figures through whom God and His people, or Christ and the soul, can express their mutual love. In modern times interpreters have arisen who regard the So as primarily the expression of strong and passionate human love between Solomon and a beautiful maiden, but by virtue of the typical relation of the old dispensation, secondarily, the fitting expression of the love of Christ and the church.<P>The way for this modern typical interpretation was prepared by Lowth (Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lectionaries XXX, XXXI) in his modified allegorical view, which is thus described by Canon Driver: "Bishop Lowth, though not abandoning the allegorical view, sought to free it from its extravagances; and while refusing to press details, held that the poem, while describing the actual nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, contained also an allegoric reference to Christ espousing a church chosen from among the Gentiles" (LOT, 451). Few interpreters have been found to follow Theodore of Mopsuestia and Lowth in their view that the So celebrates the marriage of Solomon and an Egyptian princess; and Lowth\'s notion of a reference to the espousal of a church chosen from among the Gentiles is one of the curiosities of criticism. Of the typical interpreters Delitzsch is perhaps the ablest (Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the So of Songs).<P>The typical commentators are superior to the allegorical in their recognition of Canticles as the expression of the mutual love of two human beings. The further application of the language to Yahweh and His people (Keil), or to Christ and the church (Delitzsch), or to God and the soul (M. Stuart) becomes largely a matter of individual taste, interpreters differing widely in details.<P>3. The Literal Interpretation:<P>Jewish interpreters were deterred from the literal interpretation of Canticles by the anathema in the Mishna upon all who should treat the poem as a secular song (Sanhedhrin, 101a). Cheyne says of Ibn Ezra, a great medieval Jewish scholar, he "is so thorough in his literal exegesis that it is doubtful whether he is serious when he proceeds to allegorize." Among Christian scholars Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted Canticles as a song in celebration of the marriage of Solomon and Pharaoh\'s daughter. This strictly literal interpretation of the So was condemned at the second council of Constantinople (553 AD). For the next thousand years the allegorical theory reigned supreme among Christian interpreters. In 1544 Sebastian Castellio revived the literal theory of the Song, though the allegorical view remained dominant until the 19th century.<P>Herder in 1778 published a remarkable little treatise entitled Lieder der Liebe, die altesten und schonsten aus dem Morgenlande, in which he advanced theory that Canticles is a collection of independent erotic songs, about 21 in number, which have been so arranged by a collector as to trace "the gradual growth of true love in its various nuances and stages, till it finds its consummation in wedlock" (Cheyne). But the greatest and most influential advocate of the literal interpretation of Canticles was Heinrich Ewald, who published the 1st edition of his commentary in 1826. It was Ewald who first developed and made popular theory that two suitors compete for the hand of the Shulammite, the one a shepherd and poor, the other a wise and wealthy king. In the Songs he ascribes to Solomon <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,\'9-11\',15);">1:9-11,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,2);">2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,\'1-7\');">4:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,\'4-13\');">6:4-13</a> (quoting the dialogue between the Shulammite and the ladies of the court in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,\'10-13\');">6:10-13</A>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,\'1-9\');">7:1-9</A>. To the shepherd lover he assigns few verses, and these are repeated by the Shulammite in her accounts of imaginary or real interviews with her lover. In the following passages the lover described is supposed to be the shepherd to whom the Shulammite had plighted her troth: <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,\'2-7\',\'9-14\');">1:2-7,9-14</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,\'16-\');">1:16</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,1);">2:1</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,\'3-17\');">2:3-7,8-17</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,\'1-5\');">3:1-5</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,\'8-\');">4:8</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,1);">5:1</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,\'2-8\');">5:2-8</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,\'10-16\');">5:10-16</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,2);">6:2</A>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,\'10-\');">7:10</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,\'1-4\');">8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,\'5-14\');">8:5-14</A>. The shepherd lover is thus supposed to be present in the Shulammite\'s dreams, and in her waking moments she is ever thinking of him and describing to herself and others his many charms. Not until the closing scene (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,\'5-14\');">So 8:5-14</a>) does Ewald introduce the shepherd as an actor in the drama. Ewald had an imperial imagination and a certain strength of mind and innate dignity of character which prevented him from dragging into the mud any section of the Biblical literature. While rejecting entirely the allegorical theory of Canticles, he yet attributed to it an ethical quality which made the Song worthy of a place in the Old Testament. A drama in praise of fidelity between human lovers may well hold a place beside Ecclesiastes and Proverbs in the Canon. Many of the ablest Old Testament critics have followed Ewald in his general theory that Canticles is a drama celebrating the loyalty of a lowly maiden to her shepherd lover. Not even Solomon in all his glory could persuade her to become his queen.<P>Within the past quarter of a century the unity of Canticles has been again sharply challenged. An account of the customs of the Syrian peasants in connection with weddings was given by the Prussian consul at Damascus, J. G. Wetzstein, in 1873, in an article in Bastian\'s Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, 270ff, on "Die syrische Dreschtafel," in which he illustrated the Old Testament from modern Syrian customs. Driver thus describes the customs that are supposed to throw light upon Canticles: "In modern Syria, the first seven days after a wedding are called the \'king\'s week\'; the young pair play during this time king and queen; the \'threshing-board\' is turned into a mock-throne, on which they are seated, while songs are sung before them by the villagers and others, celebrating them on their happiness, among which the watsf, or poetical \'description\' of the physical beauty of the bride and bridegroom, holds a prominent place. The first of these watsfs is sung on the evening of the wedding-day itself: brandishing a naked sword in her right hand, and with a handkerchief in her left, the bride dances in her wedding array, lighted by fires, and surrounded by a circle of guests, half men and half women, accompanying her dance with a watsf in praise of her charms" (LOT, 452). Wetzstein suggested the view that Canticles was composed of the wedding-songs sung during "the king\'s week." This theory has been most fully elaborated by Budde in an article in the New World, March,1894,and in his commentary (1898). According to Budde, the bridegroom is called King Solomon, and the bride Shulammith. The companions of the bridegroom are the 60 valiant men who form his escort (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,7);">So 3:7</a>). As a bride, the maiden is called the most beautiful of women (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,8);">So 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,9);">5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,1);">6:1</a>). The pictures of wedded bliss are sung by the men and women present, the words being attributed to the bride and the bridegroom. Thus the festivities continue throughout the week. Budde\'s theory has some decided advantages over Ewald\'s view that the poem is a drama; but the loss in moral quality is considerable; the book becomes a collection of wedding-songs in praise of the joys of wedlock.<P>V. Closing Hints and Suggestions.<P>Having given a good deal of attention to Canticles during the past 15 years, the author of this article wishes to record a few of his views and impressions.<P>(1) Canticles is lyric poetry touched with the dramatic spirit. It is not properly classed as drama, for the Hebrews had no stage, though much of the Old Testament is dramatic in spirit. The descriptions of the charms of the lovers were to be sung or chanted.<P>(2) The amount that has to be read between the lines by the advocates of the various dramatic theories is so great that, in the absence of any hints in the body of the book itself, reasonable certitude can never be attained. (3) The correct translation of the refrain in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,7);">So 2:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,5);">3:5</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,4);">8:4</A>) is important for an understanding of the purpose of Canticles. It should be rendered as follows:<P class="in15">\'I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,<br>By the gazelles, or by the hinds of the field,<br>That ye stir not up, nor awaken love,<br>Until it please.\'<P>Love between man and woman should not be excited by unnatural stimulants, but should be free and spontaneous. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,4);">So 8:4</a> it seems to be implied that the women of the capital are guilty of employing artifices to awaken love:<P class="in15">\'I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,<br>Why do ye stir up, or awaken love,<br>Until it please?\'<P>That this refrain is in keeping with the purpose of the writer is clear from the striking words toward the close of the book:<P class="in15">"Set me as a seal upon thy heart,<br>As a seal upon thine arm:<br>For love is strong as death;<br>Jealousy is cruel as Sheol;<br>The flashes thereof are flashes of fire,<br>A very flame of Yahweh.<br>Many waters cannot quench love,<br>Neither can floods drown it:<br>If a man would give all the substance of his house for love,<br>He would utterly be contemned" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,6);">So 8:6</a>f).<P>(4) Canticles discloses all the secret intimacies of wedded life without becoming obscene. The imagery is too sensuous for our taste in western lands, so that words of caution are often timely, lest the sensuous degenerate into the sensual; but I have been told by several Syrian and Palestinian students whom I have had the privilege of teaching, that Canticles is considered quite chaste among their people, the wedding-songs now in use among them being more minute in their description of the physical charms of the lovers.<P>(5) Canticles is by no means excluded from the Canon by the acceptance of the literal interpretation. Ewald\'s theory makes it an ethical treatise of great and permanent value. Even if Canticles is merely a collection of songs describing the bliss of true lovers in wedlock, it is not thereby rendered unworthy of a place in the Bible, unless marriage is to be regarded as a fall from a state of innocency. If Canticles should be rejected because of its sensuous imagery in describing the joys of passionate lovers, portions of Proverbs would also have to be excised (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',5,\'15-20\');">Pr 5:15-20</a>). Perhaps most persons need to enlarge their conception of the Bible as a repository for all things that minister to the welfare of men. The entire range of man\'s legitimate joys finds sympathetic and appreciative description in the Bible. Two young lovers in Paradise need not fear to rise and meet their Creator, should He visit them in the cool of the day.<P>LITERATURE.<P>C. D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs, with a Commentary, Historical and Critical, 1857; H. Ewald, Dichter des Alten Bundes, III, 333-426, 1867; F. C. Cook, in Biblical Commentary, 1874; Franz Delitzsch, Hoheslied u. Koheleth, 1875 (also translation); O. Zockler, in Lange\'s Comm., 1875; S. Oettli, Kurzgefasster Kommentar, 1889; W. E. Griffis, The Lily among Thorns, 1890; J. W. Rothstein, Das Hohe Lied, 1893; K. Budde, article in New World, March, 1894. and Kommentar, 1898; C. Siegfried, Prediger u. Hoheslied, 1898; A. Harper, in Cambridge Bible, 1902; G. C. Martin, in Century Bible, 1908; article on "Canticles" by Cheyne in EB, 1899.``156';
isbe[8298]='Song of the Three Children`1. Name<P>2. Canonicity<P>3. Contents<P>4. Author and Date<P>5. Original Language<P>6. Text and Versions<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>For general remarks concerning the Additions to Daniel see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL+AND+THE+DRAGON">BEL AND THE DRAGON</a>.<P>1. Name:<P>This Addition has no separate title in any manuscript or version because in the Septuagint, Theod, Syriac and Latin (Old Latin and Vulgate) it follows <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,23);">Da 3:23</a> immediately, forming an integral portion of that chapter, namely, The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:24-90 in the Septuagint and Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It is the only one of the three Additions which has an organic connection with Daniel; as regards the others see preliminary remarks to <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL+AND+THE+DRAGON">BEL AND THE DRAGON</A>. The title in English Versions of the Bible is "The Song of the Three Holy Children," a title describing its matter as formerly understood, though a more rigid analysis shows that in the 68 verses so designated, we have really two separate sections. See 3, below.<P>2. Canonicity:<P>See introductory remarks to <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL+AND+THE+DRAGON">BEL AND THE DRAGON</a>. The order in which the three "Additions to Daniel" are found in the (Separate Protestant) Apocrypha is decided by their sequence in the Vulgate, the Song of the Three Children forming part of chapter 3, Susanna of chapter 13, and Bel and the Dragon of chapter 14 of Daniel.<P>3. Contents:<P>Though the English and other Protestant versions treat the 68 verses as one piece under the name given above, there are really two quite distinct compositions. These appear separately in the collection of Odes appended to the Psalter in Cod. A under the headings, "The Prayer of Azarias" (Proseuche Azariou, Azariah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,6);">Da 1:6</a>f) and "The Hymn of Our Fathers" (Humnos ton pateron hemon); see Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, 3804ff, and Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 253f. Luther with his usual independence makes each of these into a separate book under the titles, "The Prayer of Azaria" (Das Gebet Asarjas) and "The Song of the Three Men in the Fire" (Der Gesang der drei Manner im Feuerofen).<P>(1) The Prayer of Azarias (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:1-22) (<span class="noTag">Daniel 3:24-48</span>).<P>Azariah is the Hebrew name of Abed-nego (= Abednebo, "servant of Nebo"), the latter being the Babylonian name (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,7);">Da 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,49);">2:49</a>, etc.). This prayer joins on to <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,23);">Da 3:23</a>, where it is said that "Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego (Azariah) fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace." &#920; (the version of Theodotion; see "Text and Versions" below) adds, "And they walked (Syr adds "in their chains") in the midst of the fire, praising God, and blessing the Lord." This addition forms a suitable connecting link, and it has been adopted by the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and in modern versions which are made from &#920; and not from the Septuagint, which last was lost for many centuries (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL+AND+THE+DRAGON">BEL AND THE DRAGON</A>, III). In the Septuagint the words with which the Prayer was introduced are these: "Thus therefore prayed Hananias, and Azarias and Misael and sang praises (hymns) to the Lord when the king commanded that they should be cast into the furnace." The prayer (offered by Azarias) opens with words of adoration followed by an acknowledgment that the sufferings of the nation in Babylon were wholly deserved, and an earnest entreaty that God would intervene on behalf of His exiled and afflicted people. That this prayer was not composed for the occasion with which it is connected goes without saying. No one in a burning furnace could pray as Azarias does. There are no groans or sighs, nor prayer for help or deliverance of a personal nature. The deliverance sought is national.<P>(2) The Song of the Three Holy Children (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:28-68) (Da 3:51-90).<P>This is introduced by a brief connecting narrative (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27). The king\'s servants continued to heat the furnace, but an angel came down and isolated an inner zone of the furnace within which no flames could enter; in this the three found safety. Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 175) is inclined to think that this narrative section (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27) stood between <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,23);">Da 3:23</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,24);">3:24</A> in the original Hebrew text. The "Song" is really a psalm, probably a translation of a Hebrew original. It has nothing to do with the incident<6E>the three young men in the furnace<63>except in The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 (EV) where the three martyrs call upon themselves by name to praise and bless the Lord for delivering them from the midst of the furnace. This verse is an interpolation, for the rest of the Song is a long litany recalling <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,\'1-\');">Ps 103</a> and especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',136,\'1-\');">Psalms 136</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',148,\'1-\');">148</a>, and Sirach 43. The Song, in fact, has nothing to do with the sufferings of the three young men, but is an ordinary hymn of praise. It is well known from the fact that it forms a part of the Anglican Prayer-book, as it had formed part of many early Christian liturgies.<P>4. Author and Date:<P>(1) Author.<P>We know nothing whatever of the author besides what may be gathered from this Addition. It is quite evident that none of the three Additions belong to the original text of Daniel, and that they were added because they contained legends in keeping with the spirit of that book, and a song in a slight degree (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 English Version of the Bible) adapted to the situation of the three Hebrew youths in the furnace, though itself of an independent liturgical origin.<P>For a long time the three Additions must have circulated independently. Polychronius says that "The Song of the Three Holy Children" was, even in the 5th century AD, absent from the text of Daniel, both in the Peshitta and in the Septuagint proper. Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 176) contends that the Additions formed a part of the Septuagint from the beginning, from which he infers that they were all composed before the Septuagint was made. What was the date of this version of Daniel? Since its use seems implied in 1Macc 1:54 (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,31);">Da 11:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,11);">12:11</a>), it would be safe to conclude that it existed about 100 BC.<P>(2) Date of the Prayer of Azarias.<P>In The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:15 (English Versions of the Bible) it is said that at the time the prayer was offered, there was no prince, prophet or leader, nor sacrifice of any kind. This may point to the time between 168 and 165 BC, when Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) profaned the temple. If written in that interval, it must have been added to Daniel at a much later time. But on more occasions than one, in later times, the temple-services were suspended, as e.g. during the invasion of Jerusalem by the Egyptian king, Ptolemy IV (Philopater).<P>(3) Date of the Song.<P>We find references in the Song (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:62f English Versions of the Bible) to priests and temple-servants, and in The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:31 to the temple itself, suggesting that when the So was written the temple-services were carried on. This, in itself, would suit a time soon after the purification of the temple, about 164 BC. But the terms of the Song are, except in verse 66 (English Versions of the Bible), so general that it is impossible to fix the date definitely. On the date of the historical connecting narrative (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27) see 3, (2), above.<P>5. Original Language:<P>(1) Romanist scholars in general and several Protestants (Eichhorn, Einleit., in das Altes Testament, IV, 24f; Einleit. in die apok. Schriften, 419; Vatke; Delitzsch, De Habacuci, 50; Zockler, Bissell, Ball, Rothstein, etc.) hold that the original language was Hebrew. The evidence, which is weak, is as follows: (a) The style is Hebraistic throughout (not more so than in writings known to have been composed in Alexandrian Gr; the idiom kataischunesthai + apo = bosh min (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:44 English Versions of the Bible; the Septuagint 1:44), "to be ashamed of," occurs in parts of the Septuagint which are certainly not translations). (b) The three Hebrew martyrs bear Hebrew names (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 English Versions). This only shows that the tale is of Hebrew origin. (2) Most modern non-Romanist scholars hold that the original language of the So (and Prayer) was Greek. So Keil, Fritzsche, De Wette, Schurer, Konig, Cornill, Strack, etc.<P>Some grounds:<P>(1) The Hebraisms are comparatively few, and those which do exist can be paralleled in other writings composed in Hellenistic Greek<P>(2) It can be proved that in Daniel and also in Bel and the Dragon (see Introduction to Bel in the Oxford Apocrypha, edition R.H. Charles), Theodotion corrects the Septuagint from the Hebrew (lost in the case of Bel); but in Three, Theodotion corrects according to Greek idiom or grammar. It must be admitted, however, that the evidence is not very decisive either way.<P>6. Text and Versions:<P>As to the text and the various versions of the Song, see what is said in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL+AND+THE+DRAGON">BEL AND THE DRAGON</a>. It is important to note that the translations in English Versions of the Bible are made from Theodotion\'s Greek version, which occurs in ancient versions of the Septuagint (A B V Q dc) instead of the true Septuagint (Cod. 87).<P>LITERATURE.<P>See the article Bel and the Dragon; Marshall (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, IV, 754); W. H. Bennett (Oxford Apocrypha, edition R.H. Charles, 625ff).``33';
isbe[8299]='Songs of Degrees``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEGREES,+SONGS+OF">DEGREES, SONGS OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIAL+OF+AHAZ">DIAL OF AHAZ</a>`1';
isbe[8300]='Sons of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SON,+SONS">SON, SONS</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>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink