Put Your Arrow On
Scripture Reference;
Wait Two Seconds,
Scripture Appears!
ALWAYS Read Bible!









Comprehensive Bible Encyclopedia™
By The Cambridge Theological Seminary™
Where The Word of God Is: "STILL...INERRANT!"




Comprehensive Bible Encyclopedia

All Entries for LETTER "S"



Understanding Future According to "HIS WORD",
Understanding History Providentially, as "HIS-STORY!"
And Today, From Where We've Been, To Where "HE'S LEADING!"


FACT: Wikipedia is the "World's Most-Referenced Resource!"
FACT: We Recognize Wikipedia's Great Success


"CHRISTIPEDIA™ Recommendation!

Use Ameripedia, Conservapedia, Theopedia, Biblipedia, Islamipedia;
Scriptipedia, Judaeopedia, Medipedia, Christipedia, Musicipedia, etc;
We plead for support to Biblical Christian Researchers, Scholars;

"CHRISTIPEDIA™" is a “Trademark” Of NewtonStein Academy,
Of Cambridge Theological Seminary™, American Bible Church;


Web’s Largest and Most,

Comprehensive, Christian Website!


(Nearly 500,000 Pages!)
The Web

God's Eternal Guarantee!

"Heaven and Earth Shall Pass Away;
But GOD'S WORDS Shall NOT Pass Away! (Matthew 5:18) "
--Jesus the Messiah, AD-33


    NewtonStein Statement On Holy Scriptures;

    The ‘Lens’ Through Which All Knowledge Is Understood;


    "IF" there exists any such thing as 'The Word of God'; [and ALL evidence proves such does exist:]

    "THEN" by inherent definition - it must be:

      Holy, Inspired, Inerrant, Intrepid, Infallible, Infinitive, Invincible, Indestructible, Inexhaustible, Inalienable, Immutable, Implacable, Impossible-to-Improve: Eternal and Indubitable NEVER FAILING and ALL CONQUERING!

      DEDUCTING from the simple fact - that God equates His Word with Himself:

        "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, . . ." John 1:1 (and other Scriptures),
    Thus 'GOD'S WORD' can have no lesser standard than stated above;


      As true in history, archeology, geography, Earth science, medical science, nutrition, gerontology, agriculture, botany, astronomy, physics, chemistry, climatology, government, law, psychology, sociology - and every subject it touches - as in Theology, Divinity and Doctrine:

    And "IF IT BE NOT" - true in all subjects mentioned above; and And "IF IT BE NOT"

      Holy, Inspired, Inerrant, Intrepid, Infallible, Infinitive, Invincible, Indestructible, Inexhaustible, Inalienable, Immutable, Implacable, Impossible-to-Improve: Eternal and Indubitable in EVERY FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE:
    Whatever else it may be, it cannot be ‘The Incomparable Word’ of the Great Creator God!


    Do You Qualify for
    An Honorary "Doctor of Divinity" from Cambridge Theological Seminary?
    If you believe God's Word as Stated Above:
    (CLICK! For a Free Evaluation!)

    Please Visit Top Webpages


    [1] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "GREAT COMMISSION MANDATE!” Some Sobering Questions; (Very Brief!)

    [2] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – "God’s Goals” v. “Satan’s Goals” – WHO WINS? (Very Brief!)

    [3] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Greatest PLAN of Evangelization DO THE MATH, Part-1 (Very Brief!)

    [4] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –Jesus said: “I WILL Build MY Church!”
    (But Did He Really Mean It?)

    [5] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Alarming Church News! USA! (Brief)

    [6] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christ’s Commission: Does it Mean “Global Domination?”

    [7] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Can You Face The Truth? Part-1 (MESSAGE)

    [8] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Can You Face The Truth? Part-2 (MESSAGE)

    [9] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Jesus and Paul on the “End-of-the-World” by-NewtonStein

    [10] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - Conservative Activists: "Who's Who in Christian Conservative Politics?

    [11] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Is Our Modern Church Ignorant of Christ’s Purpose?

    [12] "RAPTURE-READY™" – Why Jesus did not come back in 2009! (Do you Know?)

    [13] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Preachers’ Greatest Sin: (Are You guilty?)

    [14] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christ Warns: A “Five-Fold-Question!”

    [15] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – OPEN LETTER to Our Fellow Laborers

    [16] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Are All Denominations Wrong? Mostly?

    [17] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Who Will save Christianity?

    [18] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – A Workable Plan that would-Truly Revive Christianity!

    [19] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "American Christianity Rides The Titanic!

    [20] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Founding Fathers’ Kingdom, Now Dominion!

    [21] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Great Falling Away Prophesied by Apostle Paul!

    [22] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Biblical End of World, Basic Terms and Concepts

    [23] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christianity Is Dying In Western Civilization: WHY?

    [24] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christian Myths! Do You Believe Them?

    [25] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Church Growth Goals Priority Page

    [26] "RAPTURE-READY™" – Modern Christianity Is A Mess!

    [27] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – The “Anti-Christ Home Page

    [28] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – TOP-TEN Messages To Maximize Your Ministry

    [29] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Calling All Christians Unite, Christ Commands!

    [30] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christianity Is Confusing and Getting WORSE! WHY?

    [31] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Every-Minister A Hero

    [32] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Legal Abortion: Is It Good for Christians?

    [33] " CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Southern Baptists Dying: WHY?

    [34] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Satan’s TOP-TEN Greatest-Lies! Do You Believe Any?

    [35] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –Truth Test-3 Questions For Christians

    [36] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Evangelicals Call for Government School Exodus!

    [37] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Hall of Faith Christian Activist Ministers, 2nd-half 20th Century "

    [38] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –The Early Christian-Church Outlaws Homosexuality!


    [40] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Our GOD-GIVEN Rights, Guaranteed in the Bible: Called “Civil” and “Human” Rights

    [41] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Rush Limbaugh Quotes" on Christ and Christianity!

    [42] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, "Republican Power and Catholics!"

    [43] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "GREAT COMMISSION MANDATE!" Some Sobering Questions;

    [44] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Hall of Faith Christian Activist Ministers, 2nd-half 20th Century "

    [45] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –The Early Christian-Church Outlaws Homosexuality!


    [47] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Our GOD-GIVEN Rights, Guaranteed in the Bible: Called “Civil” and “Human” Rights

    [48] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Rush Limbaugh Quotes" on Christ and Christianity!

    [49] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, "Republican Power and Catholics!"

    [50] “AMERIPEDIA™" - George Washington Used 30-THEOLOGICAL TERMS, 3000 Times!





    Haeckel's Imaginary Drawings: 100 Years of Error

    The 40-Year Piltdown Hoax!

    The 'Nebraska Man' becomes a 'Pig's Tooth!'

    10 Scientific Frauds that Rocked the World!

    Global Warming Hoax (Hundreds of Articles!)






    Comprehensive Bible Encyclopedia™
    The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia™


    By Cambridge Theological Seminary;

    Key Word - Color Coded Edition;

    Approx 12,000 Entries;
    Approx 20,000 Web-Pages;
    Approx 100,000 Scriptures;

    LETTER "S"

    All Commentary from INSPIRED-INERRANT View of God's Word!

    NewtonStein combines the best Bible Scholars of Yester-year,



    Simply Move Your "ARROW" over any Scripture Reference

    Scripture will appear in TWO VERSIONS, KJV & LITERAL;

    Do You Qualify for
    An Honorary "Doctor of Divinity" from Cambridge Theological Seminary?
    If you believe God's Word as Stated Above:
    (Click for a Free Evaluation)



    Will You Take "THE BIBLE PLEDGE?"

    (Christians Sending a "Message" to ALL Elected Officials!)

    Many Thousands Already Have: And GOD is "Keeping Track!"!

    (Are you Afraid? Ashamed? Apathetic? Anti-Christ? Or Against God's Authority?)


        "The BIBLE is the WORD of GOD!


          *HOLY and UNCHANGING!

          *HIGHEST AUTHORITY on Earth!

        As I UNDERSTAND the BIBLE,

          >> I will NEVER 'GO' against, 'VOTE' against, or 'SPEAK' Against,

          >> The WORD of GOD,

          >> So Help me GOD!


        Please "CLICK" the following to Affirm your Commitment as a CHRISTIAN AMERICAN to the Word of God upon the Earth!

      This Christian American BELIEVES in the WORD OF GOD!


    Many Fine Bible Scholars seem unaware,
    Of Christ's Great Parable covering the whole Church Age,
    From His Sowing First Seed and His Great End-Time Harvest of Souls!
    To Final Judgment of the Unsaved and their Damnation;
    To Christ’s Presence and Eternal Kingdom!

    (See Greatest Parable on End of Times!)
    Christ’s Greatest Parable on End of Times: Brief Overview





    By Webster-NewtonStein;

    With Cambridge Theological Seminary™, AD-2000;

    Translation Axiom: God's Word! "INSPIRED-INERRANT!"




    (See Cambridge Comprehensive Concise COMMENTARY)

    (See Cambridge Concise Bible CONCORDANCE)

    (See Cambridge Concise Bible DICTIONARY)

    (See Cambridge Comprehensive Bible DICTIONARY)

    (See Cambridge Comprehensive Bible ENCYCLOPEDIA)

    (See Cambridge Comprehensive Bible COMMENTARY)


    ** Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, The Whole NEW TESTAMENT

    [1] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, HOMEPAGE and INDEX

    [2] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, INTRO and PREFACE

    [3] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, GENESIS - DEUTERONOMY

    [4] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, JOSHUA To ESTHER

    [5] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, JOB To SONG of SOLOMON

    [6] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, THE PSALMS

    [7] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, ISAIAH To JEREMIAH

    [8] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, EZEKIEL To MALACHI

    [9] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, MATTHEW To ACTS

    [10] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, ROMANS To THE-REVELATION

    ** Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, The Whole OLD TESTAMENT



    Self-Confessed List: GAY & PRO-GAY Ministers!

    AMERIPEDIA: George Washington on HOMOSEXUALITY




      Deuter-canonical Books are included as references, and less often, the Pseudo-pigraphia (extra-biblical New Testament Era writings - such as the Epistle of Barnabas - used for over 300 years by the early Church.

      Though these are 'NOT' Inerrant Scripture, they are very important as geographical and historical references, and helping to understand how particular Hebrew and Greek words were used.

      Since the Deuter-canonical Books were part of the Jewish Bible that Jesus and Paul used, they have great value for understanding the era between the Covenants, and all things Jewish.

      Many will be surprised to know they were in the Geneva Bible of Calvin and Knox - and the Puritan Pilgrims - and included in the King James for over 275 years . . .

      . . . and left out in later versions - ONLY to make the Bible MORE PROFITABLE, by selling at the usual price, while being much smaller to print!

      No wonder Paul said the "love of money is the root of all evil!"

      Further know, that that these books are rejected by most Bible Preachers today, BECAUSE the Jews of Jesus' Day rejected them for the Jewish Canon at the Council of Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem.

      This seems reasonable enough, and though these Scribes and Lawyers SHOULD have had superior knowledge in ALL THINGS JEWISH . . . in their Jewish wisdom, THEY ALSO REJECTED JESUS AS THE MESSIAH!!!

      TheDeuter-canonical Books are very "Kingdom of God" and "Messianic" Oriented, thus the Jews sis NOT want any writings confirming that Jesus WAS the Jewish Messiah.

      The wise "Students-north-Scholars" will know them, as they provide light on New Testament Scripture that are NOT understood otherwise;

    Quick Example:

    In Luke 3:36 YOUR Bible reads as follows:
        "Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem (Shem), which was the son of Noe (Noah), which was the son of Lamech;"

      This ancestor of Jesus named "Cainan, son of Arphaxad: where is he in YOUR Bible; (Check Genesis 11:13, and other genealogies).

      This dilemma - which the WORLD calls a great contradiction in the linage of Jesus as the Christ - can ONLY be solved by the Bible Jesus used, which included the Deuter-canonical Books.

      Do you suppose Jesus knew more about the "Correct Books of the Bible than modern "lukewarm" Denominations?


    How To Use This Page

    ** To SEARCH for any word, subject or Scripture on this website, use the GOLD-BOX SITE SEARCH near top of page: over 600,000 pages available from Cambridge Theological Seminary Archives;

    ** To SEARCH for anyword, subject or Scripture on this SINGULAR-WEB-PAGE you are now on, (which may be from 100-3,000 regular notebook sized pages);

      [1] Go to the TOP TOOLBAR of your Monitor and find EDIT

      [3] Click EDIT and menu drops down: "Click FIND

      [3] Type in word, Scripture or whatever you are looking for;

      [4] Then Click "MATCH CASE" if you need it;

      [5] Then Click "NEXT" or "PREVIOUS" to search as much as you desire!



      Consider the Hebrew Language:

      Hebrew is "The Perfect Language" - in the original form - as the Hebrew Language has evolved from perfection:

        >> God taught, or programmed, Adam and Eve perfect Hebrew;

        >> over a thousand years it eroded into informal Hebrew, as formal British-English eroded into the American dialect;

        >> over hundreds of more years it became a "dead Hebrew", meaning it is no longer spoken by any nation of people;

        >> eventually evolving into into the derivative Aramaic, which was commonly spoken in the days of Jesus;

        >> finally evolving into that "modern Hebrew" spoken in Israel in Post-AD-2000).

      The linguistics of the Hebrew Language as designed and taught by God to Adam and Eve (or perhaps "programmed" - either way does not affect the evidence of the Godhead) gives us massive and mighty "Eternal Evidence", daily clues and reminders of the Existence and Transcendence of the Almighty Godhead:

        >> God the Spirit - who is Spirit; manifest as Spirit of Ghost (that is Presence without corporeal body or manifestation such as Christ after His Resurrection);

        >> God the Father - willing to give His Son to save the World John 3:16-17;

        >> God the Son - willing to give His life to save the World! John 12:47;

      God decided to continually reveal the "THREE-FOLD-NATURE-OF-HIS-GODHEAD" by making EVERY Hebrew "root word" have THREE-CONSONANTS!"

        > NEVER 2 letters;

        > NEVER 4, 5, 6, or more;

        > BUT ALWAYS 3 letters!

        > And ONLY 3 and THREE alone!


      Likewise, the "Language of Life" - called by some "The Protein Language" - also designed and programmed by God to be the language of all living substance from lions to dandelions to from babies to buttercups top butterflies!

      The Protein Language is the language of Genetics, of Cells, of plants and animals and all that exists: the Code of Life;

      The PROTEIN LANGUAGE consists of "CODONS".

      This Language of all Life is also made of THREE LETTER WORDS, and each letter of these TRINITARIAN CODONS, is the life-giving code for an amino acid, creating the genetic structure of all that is LIFE!

      Thus every word that your body parts (cells, organs, glands and tissues, etc.,) write to each other, and every word your body reads in communication from another body part, these are ALL THREE LETTER WORDS!

      All of the intelligence your body has, all it knows and all it communicates - in every bodily function possible - is given in THREE LETTER WORDS!

        > NEVER 2 letters;

        > NEVER 4, 5, 6, or more;

        > ALWAYS 3 letters!

        > ONLY 3 and THREE alone!

      Can we possibly miss this, asks NewtonStein? (Not if we can count as far as 1, 2, 3!!!)

    Even the Word "G-O-D" in English . . . is Three Letters!

      Why is "GOD" in English significant?

      For the simple reason that today, in the POST-AD-2,000 word, very few scores of thousands speak Biblical Hebrew with the THREE-LETTER-ROOT-WORD structure.

      Comparatively, scores of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS SPEAK English!

        >> ENGLISH, is an Official Language in well over 100 nations of the World!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Major Language of Science, Globally!

        >> ENGLISH, is an Official - and the Major - Language of , the United Nations!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Official Language of The Internet!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Major Language of Serious Publishing - even in Japan and Germany!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Official Language of Global Airlines and Airports!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Official Language of OF the World!

        ** THUS more people will hear the Gospel in ENGLISH than any other Language!

        ** THUS more people will read the Gospel in ENGLISH than any other Language!

        ** THUS more people will own a Bible in ENGLISH than any other Language!

        ** THUS more people will get saved from learning TRUTH in ENGLISH than any other Language!

        FACT! SINCE God knew of the ENGLISH as the Global Language before the Foundation of the World!

        FACT! SINCE God in His Goodness has ALWAYS given Signs to Those Who Believe, from Moses and Israel, to Samson, to The Virgin Birth as a sign (Isa 7:14) to the Swaddling Clothes as a sign, to the Signs of the times in Matthew 24:4-24, Mark 13:5-20 and Luke 17:31-41 and 21:10-25;

        FACT! SINCE God originally made His name a "Three-Letter-Root-Word in Hebrew - "JAH" (Psalm 68:4)

        FACT! ONCE AGAIN God made His Name a THREE LETTER WORD in ENGLISH, the Global Language of the most populated era of Earth!

      So remember this every time "GOD!" is heard, read, said, etc., teach this to others, and help your family and friends see the "SIGNS along the WAY!"

    Seeing God in Linguistics, in General;

      In linguistics, there are many, many more, that PROVE God is the Designer of (a)All language, (b)alphabet, (c)Hebrew, (d) that Hebrew is the parent language of all others, (e)word structure, (f)actual words unique to Hebrew that pertain to God . . .


      . . . BECAUSE they had no God with eternal Attributes!

      Emmanuel is the same word in every language, and no language has a word it can be translated into, because it means GOD DWELLING IN HIS PEOPLE . . . and no people had "this experience apart from the People of the One True GOD JAH, thus "Emmannuel remains the same word in all languages!

      Likewise "Halleluah" - which is a Hebrew compound word "Hallelu-JAH" - and is a Command to "PRAISE JAH!"

      "Amen!" and Hosanna are also neat, unique words and there are literally hundreds more!

      The scoffing world asks: "Where is evidence for God!?" to which we answer:






    All Commentary from INSPIRED-INERRANT View of God's Word!

    Letter "S"


    Letter "S"

    SABACHTHANI, sa-bak'tha-ne.
      'Lama Sabachthani, See Eli, Eli,'

    SABACO, sab'a-ko,
      SABAKON, sab'a-kon. See

    SABAEANS, sa-be'anz
      sh'bha'lm [Joel 3 8 AV], □"'SID ,

      2£ptt£(n, Sehaeim [Isa 45 14]; O'^XIID ,

      1. Forms of read ^dbha'im, but rendered as though the Word from .sdbha', "to imbibe," hence

      "drunkards"; otvufi^voi, oinomenoi, "wine-drunken" [Ezk 23 42 AV]) : "Sabaeans" is also the tr of the name of the country itself (i'?!? , sh'bha') in Job 1 15; 6 19. This last, which is the root of sh'hha'im, is regarded by Arabists as coming from that root with the meaning of "to take captive," though seba'a, "he raided" (cf Job 1 15), has also been suggested.

      As Sheba is said m Gen 10 7; 10 28; and 25 3 respectively to have been (1) a son of Raamah, the

      4th son of Cush; (.2) the 10th son of

      2. Two Joktan, son of Eber; (3) the 1st son Different of Jokshan, 2d son of Abrahani and Races Keturah, at least two nationahties of

      this name are implied. The former were identified by Jos (Ant, II, x, 2) with the tall people of Saba in Upper Egypt, described by him as a city of Ethiopia, which Moses, when m the service of the Egyptians, besieged and captured.

      It is the Sem Sabaeans, however, who are the best

      known, and the two genealogies attributed to them

      (Joktan-Eber and Jokshan-Abraham)

      3. Semitic seem to imply two settlements in the Sabaeans land regarded as that of their origin. and Their As Ezekiel (27 23) mentions Haran Commerce (Hirran), Canneh (Kannah), and Eden

      (Aden) as being connected with Sheba, and these three places are known to have been in Southern Arabia, their Sem parentage is undoubted. The Sabaeans are described as being exporters of gold (Isa 60 6; Ps 72 15), precious stones (Ezk 27 23), perfumes (Jer 6 20; Isa and Ezk), and it the rendering "Sabaeans" for Joel 3 (4) 8 be correct, the Sebaim, "a nation far off," dealt m slaves. See Seba; Sheba; Table of Nations.

      T. G. Pinches

    SABANNEUS, sab-a-ne'us
      AV Bannaia, following the Aldine) : One of the sons of Asom who had married ' 'strange wives' ' ( 1 Esd 9 33) = "Zabad" in Ezr 10 33.

    SABANNUS, sa-ban'nus
      AV Sabban): The father of Moeth, one of the Levites to whom the silver and gold were delivered (1 Esd 8 63). "Moeth-the-son-of-Sabannus" stands in the position of "Noadiah the son of Binnui," in Ezr 8 33.

    SABAOTH, sab'a-oth
      , sa-ba'oth. See God, Names OF, III, 8; Lord or Hosts, armies, soldiers, warriors;

    SABAT, sa'bat
      : AV = RVSaphat, (2) (q.v.).

    SABATEUS, sab-a-te'us
      (A, SaPParaCas, Sab- balaias, B, 'Apratos, Abtaios; AV Sabateas) : One of the Levites who "taught the law of the Lord" to the multitude (1 Esd 9 48) = "Shabbethai" in Neh 8 7.

    SABATHUS, sab'a-thus,
      (SaPaOos, Sdbathos; AV Sabatus): An Israelite who put away his "strange wife" (1 Esd 9 28)="Zabad" in Ezr 10 27.

    SABATUS, sab'a-tus:
      AV = RV Sabathds (q.v.).

    SABBAN, sab'an:
      AV = RV Sabannus (q.v.).

    SABBATEUS, sab-a-te'us
      AV Sabbatheus: One of the three (or rather two, for "Levis" = Levite) "assessors" in the investigation held concerning "foreign wives" (1 Esd 9 14) = "Shabbethai the Levite" in Ezr 10 15. He is probably the "Sabateus," one of the Levites who expounded the Law (1 Esd 9 48), and so = the "Shabbethai" in Neh 8 7.

    SABBATH, sab'ath
      (nSTlJ, shabbalh, |in31|5 , shabbdlkon; o-Apparov, sdbbalon, to, o-dppaxa, td sdbbata; the y shdbhalh in Heb means "to desist," "cease," "rest"):

      I. Origin of the Sabbath

      1. The Biblical Account

      2. Critical Theories




      II. History of the Sabbath after Moses

      1. In the OT

      2. In the Intcr-Testamental Period

      3. Jestis and the Sabbath

      4. Paul and the Sabbath Literature

      The Sabbath was the day on which man was to leave off his secular labors and keep a day holy to Jeh.

      /. Origin of the Sabbath. — The sketch of crea- tion in Gen 1 1 — 2 3 closes with an impress- ive account of the hallowing of the 1. The 7th day, because on it God rested from

      Biblical all the work which He had made

      Account creatively. The word "Sabbath" does not occur in the story; but it is recog- nized by critics of every school that the author (P) means to describe the Sabbath as primeval. In Ex 20 8-11 (ascribed to JE) the reason assigned for keeping the 7th day as a holy Sabbath is the fact that Jeh rested after the six days of creative activity. E.x 31 17 employs a bold figure, and describes Jeh as refreshing Himself ("catching His breath") after six days of work. The statement that God set apart the 7th day for holy purposes in honor of His own rest after six days of creative activ- ity is boldly challenged by many modem scholars as merely the pious figment of a priestly imagination of the exile. There are so few hints of a weekly Sabbath before Moses, who is comparatively a modem character, that argumentation is alrnost excluded, and each student will approach the ques- tion with the bias of his whole intellectual and spiritual history. There is no distinct mention of the Sabbath in Gen, though a 7-day period is referred to several times (Gen 7 4.10; 8 10.12; 29 27 f). The first express mention of the Sabbath is found in Ex 16 21-30, in connection with the giving of the manna. Jeh taught the people in the wilderness to observe the 7th day as a Sabbath of rest by sending no manna on that day, a double supply behig given on the 6th day of the week. Here we have to do with a weekly Sabbath as a day of rest from ordinary secular labor. A little later the Ten Words were spoken by Jeh from Sinai in the hearing of all the people, and were afterward written on the two tables of stone (Ex 20 1-17;

      34 1-5.27 f). The Fotu-th Commandment enjoins upon Israel the observance of the 7th day of the week as a holy day on which no work shall be done by man or beast. Children and servants are to desist from aU work, and even the stranger within the gates is required to keep the day holy. The reason assigned is that Jeh rested on the 7th day and blessed it and hallowed it. There is no hint that the restrictions were meant to guard against the wrath of a jealous and angry deity. The Sabbath was meant to be a blessing to man and not a burden. After the sin in connection with the golden calf Jeh rehearses the chief duties required of Israel, and again announces the law of the Sabbath (Ex 34 21, ascribed to J). In the Levitical legislation there is frequent mention of the Sabbath (Ex 31 13-16;

      35 2f; Lev 19 3.30; 23 3..38). A wilful Sab- bath-breaker was put to death (Nu 15 32-36). In the Deuteronomic legislation there is equal recognition of the importance and value of the Sabbath (Dt 5 12-15). Here the reason assigned for the observance of the Sabbath is philanthropic and humanitarian: "that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou." It is thus manifest that aU the Pentateuchal codes, whether proceeding from Moses alone or from many hands in widely different centuries, equally recog- nize the Sabbath as one of the characteristic insti- tutions of Israel's religious and social life. If we cannot point to any observance of the weekly Sab- bath prior to Moses, we can at least be sure that this

      was one of the institutions which he gave to Israel. From the daj-s of Moses until now the holy Sabbath has been kept by devout Israelites.

      "The older theories of the origin of the Jewish Sabbath (connecting it with Egypt, with the day of Saturn, or in general with the 2. Critical seven planets) have now been almost Theories entirely abandoned [see Astbonomy, I, 5]. The disposition at present is to regard the day as originally a lunar festival, similar to a Bab custom (Schrader, Stud. u. Krit., 1874), the rather as the cuneiform documents appear to contain a term sahattu or sahaltum, identical in form and meaning with the Heb word sahhathon." Thus wrote Professor C. H. Toy in 1899 {JBL, XVIII, 190). _ In a syUabary (II R, 32, 16o, 6) sahaltum is said to be equivalent to iim n'CLh libbi, the natural tr of which seemed to be "day of rest of the heart." Schrader, Sa3rce and others so understood the phrase, and naturally looked upon sabattum as equivalent to the Heb Sabbath. But Jensen and others have shown that the phrase should be rendered "day of the appeasement of the mind" (of an offended deity). The reference is to a day of atonement or pacification rather than a day of rest, a day in which one must be careful not to arouse the anger of the god who was supposed to preside over that particular day. Now the term sabattum has been found only 5 or 6 t in the Bab inscriptions and in none of them is it connected with the 7th day of a week. There was, however, a sort of institution among the superstitious Babylonians that has been compared with the Heb Sabbath. In certain months of the year (Elul, Marcheshvan) the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st and 28th days were set down as favorable daj^s, or unfavorable days, that is, as days in which the king, the priest and the physician must be careful not to stir up the anger of the deity. On these days the king was not to eat food prepared by fire, not to put on royal dress, not to ride in his chariot^ etc. As to the 19th day, it is thought that it was mcluded among the unlucky days because it was the 49th (7 times 7) from the 1st of the preced- ing month. As there were 30 days in the month, it is evident that we are not dealing with a recurring 7th day in the week, as is the case with the Heb Sab- bath. Moreover, no proof has been adduced that the term sabattum was ever appUed to these dies nefasti or unlucky days. Hence the assertions of some Assyriologists with regard to the Bab origin of the Sabbath must be taken with several grains of salt. Notice must be taken of an ingenious and able paper by Professor M. Jastrow, which was read before the Eleventh International Congress of Orientalists in Paris in 1897, in which the learned author attempts to show that the Heb Sabbath was originally a day of propitiation like the Bab sabat- tum {AJT, II, 312-52). He argues that the restrict- ive measures in the Heb laws for the observance of the Sabbath arose from the original conception of the Sabbath as an unfavorable day, a day in which the anger of Jeh might flash forth against men. Although Jastrow has supported his thesis with many arguments that are cogent, yet the reverent student of the Scriptures wiU find it difficult to resist the impression that the OT writers without exception thought of the Sabbath not as an unfavor- able or unlucky day but rather aa a day set apart for the benefit of man. Whatever may have been the attitude of the early Hebrews toward the day which was to become a characteristic institution of Judaism in all ages and in aU lands, the organs of revelation throughout the OT enforce the observance of the Sabbath by arguments which lay emphasis upon its beneficent and humanitarian aspects.

      We must call attention to Mcinhold's ingenious hypothesis as to the origin of the Sabbath. In 1894




      Thcophilus G. Pinches discovered a tablet in wliich tlie term shapattu is applied to the 15th day of the month. Meinhold argues that shabaltu in Bab denotes the day of the full moon. Dr. Skinner thas describes Meinhold's theory: " He points to the close association ot new-moon and Sabbath in nearly all the pree.xiUc references (Am 8 5; Hos 2 11: Isa 1 13; 2 K 4 23 f ) ; and concludes that in early Israel, as in Babylonia, the Sabbath was the full-moon festival and nothing else. The institution of the weekly Sabbath he traces to a desire to compensate for the loss of the old lunar festivals, when these were abrogated by the Deutoronomic reformation. This innovation he attributes to Ezekiel; but steps toward it are found in the introduction of a weekly day of rest during harvest only (on the ground of Dt 16 8 f ; cf Ex 34 21), and in the establishment of the sabbatical year (Lev 25), which he considers to bo older than the weekly Sabbath" (ICC on Gen, p. 39). Dr. Skinner well says that Meinhold's theory involves great improbabili- ties. It is not certain that the Babylonians applied the term i-abattu to the l.'jth day of the month because it was the day of the full moon; and it is by no means certain that the early prophets in Israel identified Sabbath with the festival of the full moon.

      The wealth of learning and ingenuity expended in the search for the origin of the Sabbath has up to the present yielded small returns.

      //. History of the Sabbath after Moses. — The

      early prophets and historians occasionally make mention of the Sabbath. It is some-

      1. In the times named in connection with the OT festival of the new moon (2 K 4 23;

      Am 8 5; Hos 2 11; Isa 1 13; Ezk 46 3). The prophets found fault with the worship on the Sabbath, because it was not spiritual nor prompted by love and gratitude. The Sabbath is exalted by the great prophets who faced the crisis of the Bab exile as one of the most valuable institu- tions in Israel's life. Great promises are attached to faithful observance of the holy day, and confession is made of Israel's unfaithfulness in profaning the Sabbath (Jer 17 21-27; Isa 56 2.4; 58 13; Ezk 20 12-24). In the Pers period Nehemiah struggled earnestly to make the people of Jerus observe the law of the Sabbath (Neh 10 31; 13 15-22).

      With the development of the synagogue the Sabbath became a day of worship and of study of

      the Law, as weU as a day of cessation

      2. In the from all secular employment. That Inter-Testa- the pious in Israel carefully observed mental the Sabbath is clear from the conduct Period of the Maccabees and their followers,

      who at first declined to resist the onslaught made by their enemies on the Sabbath (1 Mace 2 29-38); but necessity drove the faith- ful to defend themselves against hostile attack on the Sabbath (1 Mace 2 39-41). It was during the period between Ezra and the Christian era that the spirit of Jewish legalism flourished. Innumer- able restrictions and rules were formulated for the conduct of life under the Law. Great principles were lost to sight in the mass of petty details. Two entire treatises of the Mish, Shahbath and 'Erubhln, are devoted to the details of Sabbath observance. The subject is touched upon in other parts of the Mish; and in the Gemara there are extended dis- cussions, with citations of the often divergent opinions of the rabbis. In the Mish (Shahbath, vii.2) there are 39 classes of prohibited actions with regard to the Sabbath, and there is much hair- spUtting in working out the details. The beginnmga of this elaborate definition of actions permitted and actions forbidden are to be found in the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. The movement was at flood tide during Our Lord's earthly ministry and continued for centuries after- ward, in spite of His frequent and vigorous protests. Apart from His claim to be the Messiah, there ia no subject on which Our Lord came into such sharp conflict with the religious leaders of the Jews as in the matter of Sabbath observance. He set Him- self squarely against the current rabbinic restric-

      tions as contrary to the spirit of the original law

      of the Sabbath. The rabbis seemed t» think that

      the Sabbath was an end in itself, an

      3. Jesus in.stitution to which the pious Israelite and the must subject all his personal interests; Sabbath in other words, that man was made for

      the Sabbath: man might suffer hard- ship, but the institution must be preserved inviolate. Jesus, on the contrary, taught that the Sabbath was made for man's benefit. If there should arise a confhct between man's needs and the letter of the Law, man's higher interests and needs must take precedence over the law of the Sabbath (Mt 12 1-14; Mk 2 23—3 6; Lk 6 l-U; also Jn 5 1-18; Lk 13 10-17; 14 1-6). There is no reason to think that Jesus meant to discredit the Sabbath as an institution. It was His custom to attend worship in the synagogue on the Sabbath (Lk 4 16). The humane element in the rest day at the end of every week must have appealed to Hia sympathetic nature. It was the one precept of the Decalogue that was predominantly ceremonial, though it had distinct sociological and moral value. As an institution for the benefit of toiling men and animals, Jesus held the Sabbath in high regard. As the Messiah, He was not subject to its restrictions; He could at any moment assert His lordship over the Sabbath (Mk 2 28). The institution was not on a par with the great moral precepts, which are unchangeable. It is worthy of note that, while Jesus pushed the moral precepts of the Decalogue into the inner realm of thought and desire, thus making the requirement more difflcult and the law more exacting, He fought for a more hberal and lenient interpretation of the law of the Sabbath. Rigorous Sabbatarians must look elsewhere for a champion of their views.

      The early Christians kept the 7th day as a Sab- bath, much after the fashion of other Jews. Gradu- ally the 1st day of the week came to be

      4. Paul recognized as the day on which the and the followers of Jesus would meet for Sabbath worship. The resurrection of Our

      Lord on that day made it for Christians the most joyous day of all the week. When Gentries were admitted into the church, the question at once arose whether they should be required to keep the Law of Moses. It is the glory of Paul that he fought for and won freedom for his gentile fellow-Christians. It is significant of the attitude of the apostles that the decrees of the Council at Jerus made no mention of Sabbath observance in the requirements laid upon gentile Christians (Acts 15 28 f). Paul boldly contended that be- lievers in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, were set free from the burdens of the Mosaic Law. Even circumcision counted for nothing,- now that men were saved by believing in Jesus (Gal 5 6). Chris- tian liberty as proclaimed by Paul included all days and seasons. A man could observe special days or not, just as his own judgment and conscience might dictate (Rom 14 5 f) ; but in all such matters one ought to be careful not to put a stumbling- block in a brother's way (Rom 14 13 ff). That Paul contended for personal freedom in respect of the Sabbath is made quite clear in Col 2 16 f, where he groups together dietary laws, feast days, new moons and sabbaths. The early Christians brought over into their mode of observing the Lord's Day the best elements of the Jewish Sabbath, without its onerous restrictions. See further Lord's Day; Ethics of Jesus, I, 3, (1).

      Literature. — J. A. Hessey, Sunday, Its Origin, fft'j- tory, and Present Obligation (Bampton Lects for 1860); Zahn, Geschichte des Honntags. 1878; Davis, Genesis and Semitic Tradiliun, 1894, 23-3.5; Jastrow, "The Original Character of the Heb Sabbath." AJT, II. 1898, 312-52; Toy, "The Earliest Form ot the Sabbath," JBL, XVIII,




      1899, 190-94; W. Lotz, Questionum de historia Sahbali libri duo, 188^; Nowack, Hebr. Arch., II, 1894. 140 fl; Driver, HDB, IV, 1902, 317-23; ICC, on "Gen," 1911, 3.5-39; Dillmann, Ex u. Ln", 1897,212-16; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, 1883, 51-62, 777-87; Broadus, Comm. on M(, 256-61; -BB. IV, 1903, 4173-80; Gunkel. Gen'. 1910. 114-16; Meinhold, Sa66o( u. Woche im AT, 1905; Beer. Schabbalh, 1908.

      John Richard Sampey Se\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'enth-Day Adventist Position

      The views entertained by Seventh-Day Advent- ists concerning the nature and obUgation of the Sabbath may conveniently be presented under three general divisions: (1) what the Bible says concern- ing the Sabbath; (2) what history says concerning the Sabbath; (3) the significance of the Sabbath.

      (1) OT teaching. — In their views concerning the institution and primal obUgation of the Sabbath, Seventh-Day Adventists are in har- 1. What the mony with the views held by the Bible Says early representatives of nearly all the concerning evangelical denominations. The Sab- the Sabbath bath is coeval with the finishing of creation, and the main facts connected with establishing it are recorded in Gen 2 2.3. The blessing here placed upon the seventh day dis- tinguishes it from the other days of the week, and the day thus blessed was "sanctified" (AV, RV "hallowed") and set apart for man.

      That the Sabbath thus instituted was well known throughout the Patriarchal age is clearly estabhshed both by direct evidence and by necessary inference.

      "If we had no other passage than this of Gen 2 3, there would be no difficulty in deducing from it a precept for the universal observance of a Sabbath, or seventh day, to be devoted to God as lioly time by all of that race for whom the earth and all things therein were specially prepared. The first men must have laiown it. The words, 'He hallowed it,' can have no meaning other- wise. They would be a blank unless in reference to some who were required to keep it holy" (Lange's Comm. on Gen 2 3. 1, 197).

      "And the day arrived when Moses went to Goshen to see tiis brethren, that he saw the children of Israel in their burdens and hard labor, and Moses was grieved on their account. And Moses returned to Egypt and came to the house of Pharaoh, and came before the king, and Moses bowed down before the king. And Moses said unto Pharaoh, I pray thee, my lord, I have come to seek a small request from thee, turn not away my face empty; and Pharaoli said unto liim. Speali:. And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Let tliere be given unto thy servants the children of Israel who are in Goshen, one day to rest therein from their labor. And the king answered Moses and said. Behold I have lifted up thy face in this thing to grant thy request. And Pharaoh ordered a proclamation to be issued throughout Egypt and Goshen, saying. To you. all the children of Israel, thus says the king, for six days you shall do your work and labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest, and shall not perform any work; thus shall you do in all the days, as the king and Moses the son of Bathia have commanded. And Moses rejoiced at this thing which the king liad granted to him. and aU the children of Israel did as Moses ordered them. For this thing was from the Lord to the children of Israel, for the Lord had begun to remember the children of Israel to save them for the sake of their fathers. And the Lord was with Moses, and his fame went throughout Egypt. And Moses became great in the eyes of all the Egyptians, and in the eyes of all the children of Israel, seeking good for his people Israel, and speaking words of peace regarding them to the king" (Book of Jashar 70:41-51, pubUshed by Noah & Gould. New York, 1840).

      "Hence you can see that the Sabbath was before the Law of Moses came, and has existed from the beginning of the world. Esp. have the devout, who have preserved the true faith, met together and called upon God on this day" (Luther's Works. XXXV. p. 330).

      "Why should God begin two thousand years after (the creation of the world) to give men a Sabbath upon the reason of His rest from the creation of it. if He had never called man to that commemoration before '! And it is certain that the Sabbath was observed at the falling of the manna before the giving of the Law; and let any considering Christian judge .... (1) whether the not falling of manna, or the rest of God after the creation, was like to be the original reason of the Sabbath; (2) and whether, if it had been the first, it would not have been said, Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day; for on six days the manna fell, and not on the seventh; rather than 'for in six days God created heaven and earth, etc, and rested the seventh day.' And it is

      casually added. ' Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sab- bath day, and hallowed it.' Nay. consider whether this annexed reason intimates not that the day on this ground being hallowed before, therefore it was that God sent not down the manna on that day, and that He pro- hibited the people from seeking it" (Richard Baxter, Practieal Works, III, 774, ed 1707).

      That the Sabbath was known to those who came out of Egypt, even before the giving of the Law at Sinai, is shown from the experience with the manna, as recorded in Ex 16 22-30. The double portion on the sixth day, and its preservation, was the con- stantly recurring miracle which reminded the people of their obligation to observe the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath was a definite day, the seventh day. To the people, first wondering at this remarkable occurrence, Moses said, "This is that which the Lord hath said. To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord" (ver 23 AV). And to some who went out to gather manna on the seventh da}', the Lord administered this rebuke: "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" (ver 28). All this shows that the Sabbath law was well understood, and that the failure to observe it rendered the people justly subject to Divine reproof.

      At Sinai, the Sabbath which was instituted at creation, and had been observed during the inter- vening centuries, was embodied in that formal statement of man's duties usually designated as the "Ten Commandments." It is treated as an insti- tution already well known and the command is, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Ex 20 8). In the 4th commandment the basis of the Sabbath is revealed. It is a memorial of the Creator's rest at the close of those six days in which He made "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." For this reason "Jeh blessed the sab- bath day, and hallowed it." This blessing was not placed upon the day at Sinai, but in the beginning, when "God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it" (Gen 2 3).

      From the very nature of the basis of the Sabbath, as set forth in this commandment, both the insti- tution itself and the definite day of the Sabbath are of a permanent nature. So long as it is true that God created heaven and earth, and all things therein, so long will the Sabbath remain as a me- morial of that work; and so long as it is true that this creative work was completed in six days, and that God Himself rested on the seventh day, and was refreshed in the enjoyment of His completed work, so long will it be true that the memorial of that work can properly be celebrated only upon the seventh day of the week.

      During all the period from the dehverance out of Egypt to the captivity in Babylon, the people of God were distinguished from the nations about them by the worship of the only true God, and the observance of His holy day. The proper observance of the true Sabbath would preserve them from idol- atry, being a constant reminder of the one God, the Creator of all things. Even when Jerus was suffer- ing from the attacks of the Babylonians, God as- sured His people, through the prophet Jeremiah, that if they would hallow the Sabbath day, great should be their prosperity, and the city should remain forever (Jer 17 18). This shows that the spiritual observance of the Sabbath was the su- preme test of their right relation to God. In those prophecies of Isaiah, which deal primarily with the restoration from Babylon, remarkable promises were made to those who would observe the Sabbath, as recorded in Isa 66 1-7.

      (2) NT teaching. — From the record found in the four Gospels, it is plain that the Jews during all the previous centuries had preserved a knowledge both of the Sabbath institution and of the definite day.




      It is equally plain that they had made the Sabbath burdensome by their own rigorous exactions con- cerning it. And Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, both by example and by precept, brushed aside these traditions of men that He might reveal the Sabbath of the commandment as God gave it — a blessing and not a burden. A careful reading of the testimony of the evangelists will show that Christ taught the observance of the commandments of God, rather than the traditions of men, and that the charge of Sabbath-breaking was brought against Him for no other reason than that He refused to allow the requirements of man to change the Sabbath, blessed of God, into a merely human insti- tution, grievous in its nature, and enforced upon the people with many and troublesome restrictions.

      All are agreed that Christ and His disciples observed the seventh-day .Sabbath previous to the crucifixion. That His followers had received no intimation of any proposed change at His death, is evident from the recorded fact that on the day when He was in the tomb they rested, "on the sabbath .... according to the com- mandment" (Lk 23 .56); and that they treated the fol- lowing day. the first day of the week, the same as of old, is further evident, as upon that day they came unto the sepulcher for the purpose of anointing the body of Jesus. In the Book of Acts, which gives a brief history of the work of the disciples in proclaiming the gospel of a risen Saviour, no other Sabbath is recognized than the seventh day, and this is mentioned in the most natural way as the proper designation of a well-known institution (Acts 13 14.27.42; 16 13; 18 4).

      In Our Lord's great prophecy, in which He foretold the experience of the church between the first and the second advent. He recognized the seventh-day Sabbath as an existing institution at the time of the destruction of Jerus (70 AD), when He instructed His disciples, "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a sabbath" (Mt 24 20). Such instruction given in these words, and at that time, would have been confusing in the extreme, had there been any such thing contem- plated as the overthrow of the Sabbath law at the cruci- fixion, and the substitution of another day upon an entirely different basis.

      That the original Sabbath is to be observed, not only during the present order of things, but also after the restoration when, according to the vision of the revelator, a new heaven and a new earth will take the place of the heaven and the earth that now are, is clearly intimated in the words of the Lord through the prophet Isaiah: "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which 1 will make, shall remain before me, saith Jeh, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sab- bath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith Jeh" (Isa 66 22.2.3).

      Seventh-Day Adventists regard the effort to establish the observance of another day than the seventh by using such texts as Jn 20 19.26; Acts 20 7; 1 Cor 16 1.2; Rev 1 10 as being merely an afterthought, an effort to find warrant for an observ- ance established upon other than Bib. authority. During the last two or three centuries there has been a movement for the restoration of the origmal seventh-day Sabbath, not as a Jewish, but as a Christian, institution. This work, commenced and carried forward by the Seventh-Day Baptists, has been taken up and pushed with renewed vigor by the Seventh-Day Adventists during the present generation, and the Bible teaching concerning the true Sabbath is now being presented in nearly every country, both civilized and uncivilized, on the face of the earth.

      (1) Josephus. — This summary of history must neces- sarily be brief, and it will be impossible, for lack of space, to quote authorities. Prom the testi- c% Tin, J. mony of Jos it is clear that the Jews, as a

      2. Wnat nation, continued to observe the seventh-

      History day Sabbath until their overthrow, when


      stitute a living testimony for the benefit of all who desire to know the truth of this matter.

      (2) Church hi-itory. — According to church history the seventh-day Sabbath was observed by the early church, and no other day was observed as a Sabbath during the first two or three centuries (see HDB, IV, 322 b).

      In the oft-repeated letter of Pliny, the Rom governor of Bithynia, to the emperor Trajan, written about 112 AD, there occurs the expression, "a certain stated day," which is usually assumed to mean Sunday. With reference to this matter VV. B. Taylor, in Historical Comms., ch i, sec. 47, makes the following statement: "As the Sabbath day appears to have been quite as commonly observed at this date as the sun's day (if not even more so), it is just as probable that this "stated day' referred to by Pliny was the 7th day as that it was the 1st day; though the latter is generally taken for granted." "Sunday wa.s distinguished as a day of joy by the circumstances that men did not fast upon it, and that they prayed standing up and not kneeling, as Christ had now been raised from the dead. The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, ■ far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the 2d cent. , a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin" (Tertul- lian De Oral., c. 23). This quotation is taken from Rose's Meander. London, 1831, I, 33 f, and is the correct tr from Neander's first Ger. ed, Hamburg, 1826, I, pt. 2, p. 339. Neander has in his 2d ed, 1842, omitted the second sen- tence, in which he expressly stated that Sunday was only a human ordinance, l5ut he has added nothing to the con- trary. "The Christians in the ancient church very soon distinguished the first day of the week, Sunday; however, not as a Sabbath, but as an assembly day of the chm-ch, to study the Word of God together and to celebrate the ordinances one with another: without a shadow of doubt this took place as early as the first part of the 2d cent." {Geschiefde den Sonnlags. 60).

      Gradually, however, the first day of the week came into prominence as an added day. but finally by civil and ecclesiastical authority as a required observance. The first legislation on this subject was the famous law of Con- stantine, enacted 321 AD. The acts of various councils during the 4th and .5th cents, established the observance of the first day of the week by ecclesiastical authority, and in the great apostasy which followed, the rival day ob- tained the ascendancy. During the centuries which fol- lowed, however, there were always witnesses for the true Sabbath, although under great persecution. And thus in various lands, tile knowledge of the true Sabbath has been preserved.

      In the creation of the heavens and the earth the foundation of the gospel was laid. At the close of His created work, "God saw everything 3. The Sig- that he had made, and, behold, it was nificance of very good" (Gen 1 31). The Sab- the Sabbath bath was both the sign and the memorial of that creative power which is able to make all things good. But man, made in the image of God, lost that image through sin. In the gospel, provision is made for the restoration of the image of God in the soul of man. The Creator is the Redeemer and redemption is the new creation. As the Sabbath was the sign of that creative power which wrought in Christ, the Word, in the making of the heaven and the earth and all things therein, so it is the sign of that same creative power working through the same eternal Word for the restoration of all things. "Wherefore if any man is in Christ, there is a new creation: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new" (2 Cor 5 17 m). "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumoision, but a new creation" (Gal 6 1.5 m). "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore pre- pared that we should walk in them" (Eph 2 10).

      A concrete illustration of tills gospel meaning of the Sabbath is found in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. The same creative power which wrought in the beginning was exorcised in the signs and miracles which preceded their dehverance, and in those miracles, such as the open- ing of the Red Sea, the giving of the manna, and the water from the rock, which attended the journeyings of the Israelites. In consequence of these manifestations of creative power in their behalf, the children of Israel were instructed to remember in their observance of the Sabbath that they were bondmen in the land of Egypt. Israel's deliverance from Egypt is the type of every man's deliv- erance from sin ; and the instruction to Israel concerning



      the Sabbath shows its true significance in the gospel of salvation from sin, and the new creation in the image of God.

      Furthermore, the seventh-day Sabbath is the sign of both the divinity and the deity of Christ. God only can create. He througli whom tliis woric is wrougltt must be one with God. To this the Scriptures testify: "In the beginning was the Word,

      .... and the Word was God All things

      were made through him ; and without him was not anything made that hath been made." But this same A^'ord which was with God, and was God, "became flesh, and dwelt among us" (Jn 1 1.3.14). This is the eternal Son, "in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" (Eph 17). To the Christian the Sabbath, which was the sign and memorial of that Divine power which wrought through the eternal Word in the creation of the heaven and the eartli, becomes the sign of the same power working through the same eternal Son to accomphsh the new creation, and is thus the sign of both the divinity and the deity of Christ.

      Inasmuch as the redemptive work finds its chief est expression in the cross of Christ, the Sabbath, which is the sign of that redemptive work, becomes the sign of the cross.

      Seventh-Day Adventists teach and practise the observ- ance of the Sabbath, not because they believe in salvation through man's effort to keep the law of God, but because they beheve in that salvation which alone can be accom- plished by the creative power of God working through the eternal Son to create believers anew in Christ Jesus,

      Seventh-Day Adventists believe, and teach, that the observance of any other day than the seventh as the Sabbath is the sign of that predicted apostasy in which the man of sin would be revealed who would exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.

      Seventh-Day Adventists believe, and teach, that the observance of the true Sabbath in this generation is a part of that gospel work which is to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

      SABBATH-BREAKING,' s.-brak'ing. See

      Crimes ; Punishments.



      See Covered



      SABBATH DAY'S JOURNEY, jur'ni (o-appdrou 686s, sahhnlou hodos) : I'sed only in Acts 1 12, where it designates the distance from Jerus to the Mount of Olives, to which Jesus led His disciples on the day of His ascension. The expression comes from rabbinical usage to indicate the distance a Jew might travel on the Sabbath without trans- gressing the Law, the command against working on that day being interpreted as including travel (see Ex 16 27-30). The limit set by the rabbis to the Sabbath day's jom-ney was 2,000 cubits from one's house or domicile, which was derived from the statement found in Josh 3 4 that this was the distance between the ark and the people on their march, this being assumed to be the distance between the tent.s of the people and the tabernacle during the sojourn in the wilderness. Hence it must have been allowable to travel thus far to attend the worship of the tabernacle. We do not know when this assumption in regard to the Sabbath day's journey was made, but it seems to have been in force in the time of Christ. The distance of the ]\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'Iount of Olives from Jerus is stated in .Jos (AnI, XX, viii, 6) to have been five stadia or furlongs and in BJ, V, ii, 3, six stadia, the discrepancy being explainecl by supposing a different point of departure. This would make the distance of the Sabbath day's jour- ney from 1,000 to 1,200 yds., the first agreeing very closely with the 2,000 cubits. The rabbis, however,

      invented a way of increasing this distance without technically infringing the Law, by depositing some food at the 2,000-cubit limit, before the Sabbath, and declaring that spot a temporary domicile. They might then proceed 2,000 cubits from this point without transgressing the Law.

      And in some cases even this intricacy of preparation was unnecessary. If, for instance, the approach of the Sabbath found one on his journey, the traveler might select some tree or some stone wall at a distance of 2,000 paces and mentally declare this to be his residence for the Sabbath, in which case he was permitted to go the 2,000 paces to the selected tree or wall and also 2,000 paces beyond, but in such a case he most do the work thoroughly and must say; "Let my Sabbath residence be at the trunk of that tree." for if he merely said: "Let my Sabbath residence be under that tree," this would not be sufficient, because the expression would be too general and indefinite (Tract. 'Erubhin i 7).

      Other schemes for extending the distance have been devised, such as regarding the quarter of the town in which one dwells, or the whole town itself, as the domicile, thus allowing one to proceed from any part of the town to a point 2,000 cubits beyond its utmost limits. This was most probably the case with walled towns, at least, and boundary stones have been found in the vicinity of Gaza with in- scriptions supposed to mark these Hmits. The 2,000- cubit limits around the Levitical cities (Nu 35 5) may have suggested the limit of the Sabbath day's journey also. The term came to be used as a desig- nation of distance which must have been more or less definite. H. Porter


      Morrow after the Sabbath.


      SABBATH, SECOND AFTER THE FIRST (o-dpPaTov ScvTepoTrpwTov, sdbbaton deuteroprolon [Lk 6 1], ht. "the second-first sabbath," of RVm): We will mention only a few of the e.xplanations ehcited by this ex-pression. (1) It was the first Sab- bath in the second year of a 7-year cycle compris- ing the period from one Sabbatic year to the other; (2) the first Sabbath after the second day of Pass- over, i.e. the first of the seven Sabbaths the Hebrews were to "count unto" themselves from "the morrow after the sabbath" (the day after Easter) until Pentecost (Lev 23 15); (3) the first Sabbath in the Jewish ecclesiastical year (about the middle of March), the first Sabbath in the civil year (aljout the middle of September) being counted as the "first-first" Sabbath; (4) the term deuterdprotos, is a monstrous combination of the words deuteros, "second," and protos, "first," attributable to un- skilful attempts at textual emendation on the ])art of copyists. This supposition would, of course, render unnecessary all other efforts to unravel the knotty problem, and, as a matter of fact, deutero- protos is omitted by many MSS (including X and B). To those not feehng incUned to accept this solution we would suggest the first of the above- named explanations as the most natural and protj- able one. William Baur

      SABBATHEUS, sab-a-the'us: AV = RV Sab- bateus (q.v.).

      SABBATHS, sab'aths, OF YEARS (D^JTIJ nhaiT , shahbHhoth shanlm; dvairaio-tis eroiv, anapailseis (■(o/iILev 25 8]): The seven sabbatic years preceding the Year of Jubilee. See Sabbatical Year; Jubilee Year; Astronomy', I, 5.

      SABBATICAL, sa-bat'ik-al, YEAR ( )in3T15 n:ia , sh'nath shahbdthdii; eviauros dva-n-avio-ems, eiiiaulos anapauseos, "a year of solemn rest" ; or 'jinSlp nSlB , shahbalh shahbdthon; o-dppara dvdirauo-Ls, sdbbala andpausis, "a sabbath of solemn rest" [Lev 26 4];



      Sabbath-Breaking Sabbatical Year

      or nCJ'alBn rilll), sh'nath ha-sh'mitlah; «tos t<^s

      d(|>^(rcus, elos Its apheseos, "the year of release" [Dt

      15 9; 31 10]): We find the first rudi-

      1. Primary ments of tiiis institution in the so- Intention calledCovenant Boole (Ex 21-23). Its

      connection with the day of rest (Sab- bath) is obvious, although it strikes us as somewhat remarkable that in Ex 23 10-12 the regulation regarding the 7th year should precede the statute respecting the 7th day. Still it seems natural that after the allusion in ver 9, "Ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt," the Covenant Book should put in a good word for the poor in Israel (ver 11 : "Let it rest and he fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat"). Even the beasts of the field are re- membered (cf Jon 4 11).

      We must, therefore, conclude that in this early period of the history of Israel the regulation regard- ing the 7th year was primarily intended for the relief of the poor and for the awakening of a sense of re- sponsibility in the hearts of those better provided with the means of subsistence. It would be wrong, however, to deny its Sabbatic character, for the text says expressly, "But in the 7th year thou shaft let it rest" (ht. "thou shalt release it"), implying that the land was entitled to a rest because it needed it; it must be released for a time in order to gain fresh strength and insure its future fertility. Two motives, then, present themselves most clearly, one of a social, the other of an economic character, and both are rooted in God's dealings with Israel (cfEx 21 1).

      Another evidence of the humane spirit pervading the

      Mosaic Law may be found in Ex 21 2-6 where, in the

      case of a Heb slave, the length of his

      2. Mosaic servitude is limited to six years. The con- f' - 1 ^- nection with the idea of the Sabbath is i/egisiauon evident, but we fail to detect here any Humane reference to the Sabbatical year. It is

      clear that the 7th year in which a slave might be set free need not necessarily coincide with the SaiSbatical year, though it might, of course. The same is true of Dt 15 12-18; it has nothing to do with the Sabbatical year. On the other hand it is reasonable to assume that the "release" mentioned in Dt 15 1-3 took

      glace in the Sabbatical year; in other words, its scope ad been enlarged in later years so as to include the release from pecuniary obligation, i.e. the remission of debts or, at least, their temporary suspension. This means that the children of Israel were now developing from a purely agricultural people to a commercial na- tion. Still the same spirit of compassion for the poor and those struggling for a living asserts itself as in the earlier period, and it goes without saying that the old regulation concerning the release of the land in the 7th year was still in force (cf ver 2; "because Jeh's release hatli been proclaimed").

      According to ver 1, this proclamation occurred at the end of every 7 years, or, rather, during the 7th year; for we must be careful not to strain the expression ' at the end" (cf ver 9, where the 7th year is called "the year of release"; it is quite natural to identify this 7th year with the Sabbatical year).

      Moreover we are now almost compelled to assert that the Sabbatical year by this time had become an institution observed simultaneously all over the country. Prom the wording of the regulation regarding the 7th year in the Covenant Book we are not certain about this in those early times. But now it is different. Jeh s release hath been proclaimed."

      It was a solemn and general proclamation, the date

      of which was very hkely the day of atonement in

      the 7th month (the Sabbatical month).

      3. General The celebration of the Feast of Taber- Observance nacles (booths) began five days later and

      it lasted from the 1.5th day to the 21st of the 7th month (Tisri) . In the Sabbatical year at that time, the Law was read "before all Israel m their hearing," a fact which tends to prove that the Sabbatical year had become a matter of general and simultaneous observance (cf Dt 31 10-13). An- other lesson may be deduced from this passage: it gives us a hint respecting the use to which the people may have put their leisure time during the

      12 months of Sabbatical rest; it may have been a period of religious and probably other instruction.

      In Lev 25 1-7 the central idea of the Sabbatical year is unfolded. Although it has been said we should be careful not to look for too much of the ideal and dogmatic in the institutions of the chil- dren of Israel, yet we must never lose sight of the religious and educational character even of their ancient legislation.

      One central thought is brought home to them, viz. God is the owner of the soil, and through His grace only the chosen people have come 4. Central into its possession. Their time, i.e. Idea they themselves, belong to Him: this

      is the deepest meaning of the day of rest; their land, i.e. their means of subststence, belong to Him: this reveals to us the innermost significance of the year of rest. It was Jeh's pleas- ure to call the children of Israel into life, and if they live and work and prosper, they are indebted to His unmerited loving-kindness. They should, therefore, put their absolute trust in Him, never doubt His word or His power, always obey Plim and so always receive His unbounded blessings.

      If we thus put all the emphasis on the religious character of the Sabbatical year, we are in keeping with the idea permeating the O'T, namely that the children of Israel are the chosen people of Jeh. AU their agricultural, social, commercial and politi- cal relations were to be built upon their Divine calling and shaped according to God's sovereign will.

      But did they live up to it? Or, to limit the ques- tion to our subject: Did they really observe the Sabbatical year? There are those who hold that the law regarding the Sabbatical year was not observed before the captivity. In order to prove this asser- tion they point to Lev 26 34f.43; also to 2 Ch 36 21. But all we can gather from these passages is the palpable conclusion that the law regarding the Sabbatical year had not been strictly obeyed, a deficiency which may mar the effect of any law.

      The possibility of observing the precept respect- ing the Sabbatical year is demonstrated by the post- exilic history of the Jewish people. Nehemiah registers the solemn fact that the reestablished nation entered into a covenant to keep the law and to maintain the temple worship (Neh 9 38; 10 32 if). In ver 31 of the last-named chapter he alludes to the 7th year, "that we would forego the 7th year, and the exaction of every debt." We are not sure of the exact meaning of this short allu- sion; it may refer to the Sabbatical rest of the land and the suspension of debts.

      For a certainty we know that the Sabbatical year was observed by the Jews at the time of Alexander the Great. When he was petitioned by the Samari- tans "that he would remit the tribute of the 7th year to them, because they did not sow therein, he asked who they were that made such a petition' ' ; he was told they were Hebrews, etc (Jos, Ant, XI, viii, 6).

      During Maccabean and Asmonean times the law regarding the Sabbatical year was strictly ob- served, although it frequently weakened the cause of the Jews (1 Mace 6 49.53; Jos, Anf, XIII, viii, 1; cf BJ, I, ii, 4; Ant, XIV, x, 6; XV, i, 2). Again we may find references to the Sabbatical year in Jos, Ant, XIV, xvi, 2, etc; Tac. Hist. v. 4, etc, all of which testifies to the observance of the Sabbatical year in the Herodian era. The words of Tacitus show the proud Roman's estimate of the Jewish character and customs: "For the 7th day they are said to have prescribed rest because this day ended their labors; then, in addition, being allured by their lack of energy, they also spend the 7th year in laziness." See also Astronomy, I, 5, (3), (4); Jubilee Year. William Baur

      Sabbeus Sacraments



      SABBEUS, sa-be'us (Sappatas, Sabbaias): In

      I Esd 9 32, the same as "Shemaiah" in Ezr 10 31.

      SABI, sa'bl:

      (1) A, Sa/3el, Sabd, B, Tw^eis, Tobels. Fritzsche; AV Sami) : Eponym of a family of porters who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esd 5 28) = "Shobai" in Ezr 2 42; Neh 7 45.

      (2) AV = RVSabie (q.v.).

      SABIAS, sa-bi'as (SapCas, Sabias, Fritzsche, 'Ao-apCas, Asabias; AV Assabias): One of the six "captains over thousands" who supplied the Levites with much cattle for'Josiah's Passover (1 Esd 1 9) = "Hashabiah" in 2 Ch 35 9.

      SABIE, sa'bi-e (Sapei-ii, Saheit, or SaPirj, Sabie; AV Sabi) : In 1 Esd 5 34 both AV and RV, follow- ing A, read "the sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabie" (AV "Sabi") for the "Pochereth-hazzebaim" of Ezr 2 57; Neh 7 59. B reads correctly as one proper name: "Phacareth Sabie."

      SABTA, or SABTAH, sab'ta (SnnO, sabhta', nri?D, sabhiah): Third son of Cush '(Gen 10 7 = 1 Ch 19). A place Sabta is probably to be looked for in South Arabia. Arab geographers give no exact equivalent of the name. Al Bekri (i.65) quotes a line of early poetry in which Dhu '1 Sabta is men- tioned, and the context might indicate a situation in Yemamah ; but the word is possibly not a proper name. It is usually identified with Saubatha (Ptol., vi.7, 38) or with the Sabota of Pliny (vi.32; xii.32), an old mercantile city in South Arabia celebrated for its trade in frankincense and, accord- ing to Ptolemy, possessing 60 temples. It is said also to have been the territory of a king Elisarus, whose name presents a striking resemblance to Dhu '1-Adhar, one of the "Tubbas" or Himyarite kings of Yemen. Another conjecture is the Saphtha of Ptolem5' (vi.7, 30) near the Arabian shore of the Pers Gulf. A. S. FrLTON

      SABTECA, sab't5-ka (X?ri3p , sabhi'kha' : Sapa- Ka6d, Sabakathd, Stpteaxa, Sebethachd; AV Sab- techah) : The 5th named of the sons of Cush in the genealogy of Gen 10 .5-7. In 1 Ch 1 8.9 AV reads "Sabtecha," RV "Sabteoa." Many con- jectures have been made as to the place here indi- cated. Recently Glazer (Skizze, II, 252) has re- vived the suggestion of Bochart that it is to be identified with Samydake in Carmania on the E. of the Pers Gulf. This seems to rest on nothing more than superficial resemblance of the names; but the phonetic changes involved are difficult. Others have thought of various places in Arabia, toward the Pers Gulf; but the data necessary for any sat- isfactory decision are not now available.

      W. EwiNG

      SACAR, sa'kar (ID© , sakhar) :

      (1) Father of Ahiam, a follower of David (1 Ch

      II 35, B, 'Axdp, ^c/iiir. A, 2(ix

      (2) Eponym of a family of gatekeepers (1 Ch 26 4).

      SACKBUT, sak'but. See Mu.sic, III, 1, (/).

      SACKCLOTH, sak'kloth. See Bubi.^l.

      SACRAMENTS, sak'ra-ments: The word "sac- rament" comes from the Lat sacramentum, which in the classical period of the language was used in two chief senses: (1) as a legal term to denote the sum of money deposited by two parties to a suit

      which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated

      to sacred uses; (2) as a mihtary term to designate

      the oath of obedience taken by newly

      1. The enlisted soldiers. Whether referring to Term an oath of obedience or to something

      set apart for a sacred purpose, it is evident that sacramentum would readily lend itself to describe such ordinances as Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the Gr NT, however, there is no word nor even any general idea corresponding to "sacrament," nor does the earliest history of Christianity afford any trace of the apphcation of the term to certain rites of the church. Pliny (c 112 AD) describes the Christians of Bithynia as "binding themselves by a sacramentum to com- mit no kind of crime" [Epp. x.97), but scholars are now pretty generally agreed that Pliny here uses the word in its old Rom sense of an oath or solemn obligation, so that its occurrence in this passage is nothing more than an interesting co- incidence.

      It is in the writings of TertuUian (end of 2d and beginning of 3d cent.) that we find the first evidence of the adoption of the word as a technical term to designate Baptism, the Eucharist, and other rites of the Christian church. This Christian adoption of sacramentum' may have been partly occasioned by the evident analogies which the word suggests with Baptism and the Eucharist; but what appears to have chiefly determined its history in this direc- tion was the tact that in the Old Lat VSS (as after- ward in the Vulg) it had been employed to translate the Gr fiv

      Though esp. employed to denote Baptism and

      the Eucharist, the name "sacraments" was for long

      used so loosely and vaguely that it

      2. Nature was applied to facts and doctrines of and Christianity as well as to its symbolic Number rites. Augustine's definition of a

      sacrament as "the visible form of an invisible grace" so far limited its application. But we see how widely even a definition like this might be stretched when we find Hugo of St. Victor (12th cent.) enumerating as many as 30 sacraments that had been recognized in the church. The Council of Trent was more exact when it declared that visible forms are sacraments only when they represent an invisible grace and become its channels, and when it sought further to delimit the sacramental area by reenacting (1547) a decision of the Council of Florence (1439), in which for the first time the authority of the church was given to a suggestion of Peter Lombard (r2th cent.) and other schoolmen that the number of the sacraments should be fixed at seven, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matri- mony — a suggestion which was supported by cer- tain fanciful analogies designed to show that seven was a sacred number.

      The divergence of the Protestant churches from this definition and scheme was based on the fact that these proceeded on no settled principles. The notion that there are seven sacraments has no NT authority, and must be described as purely arbi- trary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. It is perfectly arbi- trary, for example, to place Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ as ordi- nances of the church, in the same category with marriage, which rests not on His appointment but on a natural relationship between the sexes that is



      Sabbeus Sacraments

      as old as the human race. While, therefore, tlie Reformers retained the term "sacrament" as a convenient one to express the general idea that has to be drawn from the characteristics of the rites classed together under this name, they found the distinguishing marks of sacraments (1) in their institution by Christ, (2) in their being enjoined by Him upon His followers, (3) in their being bound up with His word and revelation in such a way that they become "the expressions of Divine thoughts, the visible symbols of Divine acts." And as Bap- tism and the Lord's Supper are the only two rites for which such marks can be claimed, it follows that there are only two NT sacraments. Their unique place in the original revelation justifies us in separating them from all other rites and cere- monies that may have arisen in the history of the church, since it raises them to the dignity of form- ing an integral part of the historical gospel. A justification for their being classed together under a common name may be found, again, in the way in which they are associated in the NT (Acts 2 41.42; 1 Cor 10 1-4) and also in the analogy which Paul traces between Baptism and the Lord's Supper on the one hand, and Circumcision and the Passover — the two most distinctive rites of the Old Covenant— on the other (Col 2 11; 1 Cor 5 7; 11 26).

      The assumption made above, that both Baptism and the Lord's Sapper owe their origin as sacra- ments of the church to their definite 3. Institu- appointment by Christ Himself, has tion by been strongly challenged by some

      Christ modern critics.

      (1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mk 16 15 f occurs in a passage (vs 9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mt 28 19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more esp. as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narra- tives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mt 28 19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula "foreign to the mouth of Jesus" (see Har- nack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given) . It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural pre- suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Acts 2 38.41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpreta- tion of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (cf Rom 6 3ff; 1 Cor 12 13; Eph 4 5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by Our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle's earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have origi- nated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and gentile Christians alike.

      (2) In the case of the Lord's Supper the challenge of its institution by Christ rests mainly upon the fact that the saying, "This do in remembrance of me," is absent from the Mk-Mt text, and is found only in the Supper-narratives of Paul (1 Cor 11 24.25) and his disciple Luke (Lk 22 19). Upon this circumstance large structures of critical hy- pothesis have been reared. It has been affirmed that in the upper room Jesus was only holding a

      farewell supper with His disciples, and that it never occurred to Him to institute a feast of commemo- ration. It has further been maintained that the views of Jesus regarding the speedy consummation of His kingdom make it impossible that He should have dreamed of instituting a sacrament to com- memorate His death. The significance of the feast was eschatological merely; it was a pledge of a glorious future hour in the perfected kingdom of God (see Mt 26 29 and parallels) . And the theory has even been advanced that the institution of this sacrament as an ordinance of the church designed to commemorate Christ's death was due to the initia- tive of Paulj who is supposed to have been influ- enced in this direction by what he had seen in Corinth and elsewhere of the mystery-practices of the Gr world.

      All these hypothetical fabrics fall, of course, to the ground if the underlying assumption that Jesus never said, "This do in remembrance of me," is shown to be unwarrantable. And it is unwarrant- able to assume that a saying of Jesus which is vouched for by Paul and Luke cannot be authentic because it does not occur in the corresponding nar- ratives of Matthew and Mark. In these narratives, which are highly compressed in any case, the first two evangelists would seem to have confined them- selves to setting down those sayings which formed the essential moments of the Supper and gave its sjinbolic contents. The command of its repetition they may have regarded as sufficiently embodied and expressed in the universal practice of the church from the earliest days. For as to that practice there is no question (Acts 2 42.46; 20 7; 1 Cor 10 16; 11 26), and just as little that it rested upon the belief that Christ had enjoined it. "Every assumption of its having originated in the church from the recollection of intercourse with Jesus at table, and the necessity felt for recalling His death, is precluded" (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, II, 279). That the simple historical supper of Jesus with His disciples in the upper room was converted by Paul into an institution for the gentile and Jewish churches alike is altogether inconceiv- able. The primitive church had its bitter contro- versies, but there is no trace of any controversy as to the origin and institutional character of the Lord's Supper.

      In the NT the sacraments are presented as means of grace. Forgiveness (Acts 2 38), cleansing (Eph 5 25 f), spiritual quickening (Col 2 4. Efficacy 12) are associated with Baptism; the Lord's Supper is declared to be a par- ticipation in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10 16). So far all Christians are agreed; but wide divergence shows itself thereafter. According to the doctrine of the Rom church, sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato, i.e. in virtue of a power inherent in themselves as outward acts whereby they communicate saving benefits to those who receive them without opposing any obstacle. The Reformed doctrine, on the other hand, teaches that their efficacy lies not in themselves as outward acts, but in the blessing of Christ and the operation of His Spirit, and that it is conditioned by faith in the recipient. The traditional Lutheran doctrine agrees with the Reformed in affirming that faith is necessary as the condition of saving benefits in the use of the sacraments, but resembles the Rom teach- ing in ascribing the efficacy of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, not to the attendant working of the Holy Spirit, but to a real inherent and objective virtue resident in them — a virtue, however, which does not lie (as the Rom church says) in the mere elements and actions of the sacraments, but in the power of the Divine word which they embody. See Baptism; Lord's Supper.



      Literature. — Candlish, The Christian Sacraments; Lambert. The Sacraments in the NT; Bartlet. Apostolic Age. 495 fl; Hodge, Systematic Theology, III. ch xx,

      J. C. Lambert SACRIFICE, sak'ri-fis, sak'ri-fiz:

      In the Old Testament

      I. Terms .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\nd Definitions II. Origin and Nature of Sacrifices

      1. Theory of a Divine Revelation

      2. Tiieories of a Human Origin

      (1) Tlie Gilt-Tiieorv

      (2) Tlie Magic Theory

      (3) The Table-Bond theory

      (4) The Sacramental Comniunion Theory (.5) The Homage Theory

      (6) The Piacular Theory

      (7) Originating in Religious Instincts

      III. Classification of S.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\crifices

      1. Maimonides

      2. W. R. Smith and Others

      3. Oehler

      4. Paterson and Others

      5. H. M. Wiener

      IV. Sacrifices in the Pre-Mosaic Age

      1. In Egypt

      2. In Babylonia

      3. Among Arabians and Syrians, etc

      4. The Offerings of Cain and Abel

      5. Of Noah

      6. Of Abraham

      7. Of Job

      8. Of Isaac

      9. Of Jacob

      10. Of Israel in Egypt

      11. Of Jethro

      12. Summary and Conclusions

      V. The Mosaic S.4.crificial System

      1. The Covenant Sacrifice

      2. The Common Altars

      3. The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons

      4. Before the Golden Calf

      6. The Law of the Burnt Offering

      (1) Ritual for the Offerer

      (2) Ritual for the Priest

      (3) General Laws for the Priest

      (4) Laws in Deuteronomy

      6. The Law of the Meal Offering

      (1) Ritual for the Offerer

      (2) Ritual for the Priest

      (3) General Laws for the Priest

      7. The Law of the Peace Offering

      (1) Ritual for the Offerer

      (2) Ritual for the Priest

      (3) General Laws for the Priest

      8. The Law of the Sin Offering

      (1) At the Consecration of Aaron

      (2) Laws

      (a) The Occasion and Meaning

      (b) Ritual for the Offerer

      (c) Ritual for the Priest

      (d) General Laws for the Priest

      (e) Special Uses of the Sin Offering

      (i) Consecration of Aaron and His

      Sons (ii) Purifications from Uncleanness (iii) On the Day of Atonement (iv) Other Special Instances

      9. The Guilt Offering

      (1) The Ritual

      (2) Special Laws: Leper, Nazirite, etc

      10. The Wave Offering

      11. The Heave Offering

      12. Drink Offerings

      13. Primitive Nature of the Cultus VI. S.^cRiFicES in the History of Isr.ael

      1. The Situation at Moses' Death

      2. In the Time of Joshua

      3. The Period of the Judges

      4. Times of Samuel and Saul

      5. Days of David and Solomon

      6. In the Northern Kingdom

      7. In the Southern Kingdom to the Exile

      8. In the Exilic and Post-exihc Periods

      9. At Elephantine

      10. Human Sacrifices

      11. Certain Heathen Sacrifices VII. The Prophets and Sacrifices

      VIII. Sacrifice in the "Writings"

      1. Proverbs

      2. The Psahns

      IX. The Idea and Efficacy of Sacrifices

      1. A Gift of P'ood to the Deity

      2. Expression of Adoration and Devotion, etc

      3. Means of Purification from Uncleanness

      4. Means of Consecration to Divine Service

      5. Means of Establishing a Community of Lite b. View of Ritschl

      7. The Sacramental View

      8. Symbol or Expression of Prayer .

      9. View of Kautzsch

      10. Vicarious Expiation Theory; Objections

      11. Typology of Sacrifice Literature

      /. Terms and Definitions. — Ti^T, ^ebhah. " sa,cv\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ace" ;

      nbiy. 'ofd*," burnt offering"-, nsbn, hataah. nsDn ,

      hattath, " sin offering" ; DUJS . 'asAam, "guilt" or "tres- pass offering " ; nbip, sheleni, QTob© , sA'iamtm, "peace offerings"; nn?iO . minhah, "offering." "present"; D"''!3bTlJ niT , ^zebhah sh'lamim, "sacrifice of peace offer- ings"; rninn n3T. zeiAaft^ia-iodAa/i," thank offerings"; nD~5 nit, zebhah n'dhabhah, "free-wiU offerings"; "1"; nST, zebhah nedher, "votive offerings"; nS^rP . t'niphah, "wave offering"; H^liri . t'rHmdh, "heave offering"; "S^lp ■ korbdn, "oblation," "gift"; HIBN . 'ishsheh, " fire offering " ; TTCS, nesefc/i, "drink offering"; b'^bs , kalll, " whole burnt offering " ; yn < hagh, "feast"; ni'l^b, I'bhonah, "frankincense"; mlUp. kHordh, rriiljp . k'toreth, "odor," "incense"; nb^, melah, "salt": 'i.'ty^ , shemen, "oil":

      Zebhah:\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ " slaughtered animal," a "sacrifice," general term for animals used in sacrifice, including burnt offer- ings, peace offerings, thank offerings, and all sacrifices offered to the Deity and eaten at the festivals. More particularly it refers to the flesh eaten by the worship- pers after the fat parts had been burned on the altar and the priest had received his portion.

      'Olah: a "burnt offering." sometimes whole burnt offering. Derived from the vb. 'd/d/z, "to go up." Itmay mean "that which goes up to the altar" (Knobel, Well- iiausen, Nowack, etc), or "that which goes up in smoke to the sky" (Bahr, Delitzsch, Dillmann, etc); some- times used synonymously with kdUl (q.v.). The term applies to beast or fowl "when entirely consumed upon the altar, the hide of the beast being taken by the priest. This was perhaps the most solemn of the sacrifices, and symbolized worship in the full sense, i.e. adoration, de- votion, dedication, supplication, and at times expiation.

      Hdtd'dh, hattd'th: a "sin offering," a special kind, first mentioned in the Mosaic legislation. It is essentially expiatory, intended to restore covenant relations with the Deity. The special features were: (1) the blood must be sprinkled before the sanctuary, put upon the horns of the altar of incense and poured out at the base of the altar of burnt olfering: (2) the flesh was holy, not to be touched by worshipper, but eaten by the priest only. The special ritual of the Day of Atonement centers around the sin offering.

      'Ashdm: " guilt offering," " trespass offering " (AV; in Isa 53 10. AV and RV "an offering for sin," ARVm" tres- pass offering"). A special kind of sin offering intro- duced in the ISIosaic Law and concerned with offences against God and man that could be estimated by a money value and thus covered by compensation or resti- tution accompanying the offering. A ram of different degrees of value, and worth at least two shekels, was the usual victim, and it must be accompanied by full resti- tution with an additional fifth of the value of the damage. The leper and Nazirite coifld offer he-lambs. The guilt toward God was expiated by the blood poured out, and the guilt toward men by the restitution and fine. The calUng of the Servant an 'dshdm (Isa 63 10) shows the value attached to this offering.

      Shelem, shHdmlm: "peace offering," generally used in the pi., sh'lamim, only once shelem (Am 5 22). These were sacrifices of friendship expressing or promoting peaceful relations with the Deity, and almost invariably accompanied by a meal or feast, an occasion of great joy. They are sometimes caUed z'bhdhim. sometimes zebkah sh'lamim , and were of different kinds, such as zebhah ha-todhdh, "thank offerings," which expressed the grati- tude of the giver because of some t)lessings, zebhah n'^- dhabhah, "free-will offerings," bestowed on the Deity out of a full heart, and zebhah nedher, "votive offerings," which were offered in f lUfilmeut of a vow.

      Minhah: "meal Offering" (RV), "meat offering" (AV), a gift or presentation, at first applied to both bloody and unbloody offerings (Gen 4 5), but in Moses' time confined to cereals, whether raw or roasted, ground to flour or baked and mixed with oil and frankincense. These cereals were the produce of man's labor with the soil, not fruits, etc, and thus represented the necessities and results of hfe, if not life itself. They were the in- variable accompaniment of animal sacriflces, and in one instance could be substituted for them (see Sin Offer- ing). The term minhah describes a gift or token of friendship (Isa 39 1), an act of homage (1 S 10 27; 1 K 10 25), tribute (,lgs 3 15.17 f), propitiation to a friend wronged (Gen 32 13.18 [Heb 14 19]), to procure favor or assistance (Gen 43 11 fl; Hos 10 fj).

      T'nUphdh: "wave offering," usually the breast, the priest's share of the peace oirerings, which was waved before the altar by both offerer and priest together (the exact motion is not certain), symbolic of its presentation



      to Deity and given back by Him to the offerer to be used in the priests' service.

      T'rumdii: "heave offering," sometiung lifted up, or, properly, separated from the rest and given to the service ot the Deity. Usually the right shoulder or thigh was thus separated (or the priest. The term is apphed to products of the soil, or portion of land separated unto the Divine service, etc.

      Korban: "an oblation," or "offering"; another ge- neric term for all kinds of offerings, animal, vegetable, or even gold and silver. Derived from the vb. karabh, "to draw near," it signifies what is drawn or brought near and given to God.

      'Ishsheh: " flro offering," applied to offerings made by Are and usually bloody offerings, but at times to the minhdh. the sacred bread and frankincense placed on the tables as a memorial, part of which was burned with the frankincense, the bulk, however, going to the priest. The gift was thus presented through fire to the Deity as a sort of etlierealized food.

      Nesekh: "drink offering," or "hbation," a liquid offer- ing of wine, rarely water, sometimes of oil, and usually accompanying the 'oldh, but often with the peace offer- ings.

      Kdlil: "whole burnt offering," the entire animal being burned upon the altar. Sometimes used synony- mously with 'olah. A technical term among the Cartha- ginians.

      Hagh: a "feast," used metaphorically for a sacrificial feast because the meat ot the sacrifices constituted the material of the feast.

      L^bhondh: "frankincense," "incense," used in com- bination with the meal offerings and burnt offerings and burned also upon the altar in the holy place. See In- cense.

      KHordh, k^oreih: "smoke," "odor of sacrifice," or incense ascending as a sweet savor and supposed to be pleasing and acceptable to God.

      Melah: "salt," used in all sacrifices because of its purifying and preserving qualities.

      Shemen: "oil," generally olive oil, used with the meal offerings of cakes and wafers, etc.

      Sacrifice is thus a complex and comprehensive term. In its simplest form it may be defined as "a gift to God." It is a presentation to Deity of some material object, the possession of the offerer, as an act of worship. It may be to attain, restore, maintain or to celebrate friendly relations with the Deity. It is religion in action — in early times, almost the whole of religion — an inseparable ac- companiment to all religious exercises. Few or many motives may actuate it. It may be wholly piacular and expiatory, or an offering of food as a gift to God; it may be practically a bribe, or a prayer, an expression of dependence, obligation and thanksgiving. It may express repentance, faith, adoration, or all of these combined. It was the one and only way of approach to God. Theo- phrastus defines it as expressing homage, gratitude and need. Hubert and Mauss define it as "a reli- gious act which by the consecration of the victim modifies the moral state of the sacrificer, or of certain material objects which he has in view, i.e., either confers sanctity or removes it and its analogue, impiety."

      //. Origin and Nature of Sacrifices. — The begin- nings of sacrifice are hidden in the mysteries of pre- historic life. The earliest narrative in Gen records the fact, but gives no account of the origin and primary idea. The custom is sanctioned by the sacred writings, and later on the long-estabhshed custom was adopted and systematized in the Mosaic Law. The practice was almost universal. The Vedas have their elaborate rituals. Some Sem peoples, Greeks, Romans, Africans, and Indians of Mexico offered human sacrifices. It is unknown in Austraha, but even there something akin to it exists, for some natives offer a portion of a kind of honey, others offer a pebble or a spear to their god. For this practically universal habit of the race, several solutions are offered.

      One view maintains that God Himself initiated the rite by Divine order at the beginnmgs of human history. Such a theory implies a monotheistic faith on the part of primitive man. This theory was strongly held by many of the Reformed theo-

      logians, and was based mainly on the narrative in

      Gen 4 4 f . Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice,

      and, according to He 11 4, this was

      1. Theory because of his faith. Faber makes a of a Divine strong plea as follows: Since faith was Revelation what made the sacrifice acceptable to

      God, this faith must have been based upon a positive enactment of God in the past. Without this Divine positive enactment to guaran- tee its truthfulness, faith, in Abel, would have been superstition. In other words, faith, in order to be truly based and properly directed, must have a revelation from God, a positive expression of the Divine will. Fairbairn, in his Typology, goes further and holds that the skins wherewith Adam and Eve were clothed were from animals which had been slain in sacrifices. This is entirely without support in the narrative. The theory of a Divine order cannot be maintained on the basis of the Bib. narrative. Moreover, it involves certain assump- tions regarding the nature of faith and revelation which are not generally held in this age. A revela- tion is not necessarily a positive Divine command, an external thing, and faith may be just as real and true without such a revelation as with it. That there may have been such a revelation cannot be denied, but it is not a necessary or probable ex- planation.

      (1) The gift-theory. — By this it is held that sacri- fices were originally presents to the deity which the

      offerer took for granted would be re-

      2. Theories ceived with pleasure and even grati- of a Human tude. Good relations would thus be Origin established with the god and favors

      would be secured. Such motives, while certainly true among many heathen people, were obviously based upon low conceptions of the deity. They were either Nature-spirits, ancestral ghosts or fetiches which needed what was given, and of course the god was placed under obligations and his favor obtained. Or, the god may have been conceived of as a ruler, a king or chief, as was the custom in the East.

      Cicero vouches for such a view when he says: "Let not the impious dare to appease the gods with gifts. Let them hearken to Plato, who warns them that there can be no doubt what God's dispo.sition to them will be, since even a good man will refuse to accept presents from the wicked" UIDB, IV, 3:31a). This view of sacrifice prevails in classical literature. Spencer therefore thinks it is self-evident that this was the idea of primitive man. Tylor and Herbert Spencer also find the origin of sacri- fices in the idea of a gift, whether to the deity or to dead ancestors, food being placed for them, and this afterward comes to be regarded as a sacrifice. Such a view gives no account of the peculiar value attached to the blood, or to the burnt offerings. It may account for some heathen systems of sacrifice, but can help in no degree in understanding the Bib. sacrifices.

      (2) The magic theory. — There are two slightly variant forms of this: (a) that of R. C. Thompson (Sem Magic, lU Origins and Developments, 175-218), who holds that a sacrificial animal serves as a substitute victim offered to a demon whose activity has brought the offerer into trouble; the aim of the priest is to entice or drive the malignant spirit out of the sick or sinful man into the sacrificial victim where it can be isolated or destroyed; (6) that of L. Marillier, who holds that sacrifice in its origin is essentially a magical rite. The liberation of a magical force by the effusion of the victim's blood will bend the god to the will of the man. From this arose under the "cult of the dead" the gift-theory of sacrifice. Men sought to ally themselves with the god in particular by purifying a victim and effecting communion with the god by the application ot the blood to the altar, or by the sacrifice ot tlie animal and the contact ot the sacrificer with its blood. Such theories give no account of the burnt offerings, meal offerings and sin offermgs, disconnect them entirely from any sense ot sm or estrange- ment from God, and divest them of all piacular value. They may account for certain depraved and heathen systems, but not for the Biblical.

      (3) The table-bond theory. — Ably advocated by Well- hausen and W. R. Smith, this view holds that sacrifices were meals which the worshippers and the god shared, partaking of the same food and thus establishing a firmer bond of fellowshiip between them. Sykes (Nature of



      Sacrifices, 75) first advocated this, holding that the efS- cacy of sacrifices ' ' is the fact that eating and drinking were the Icnown and ordinary symbols of friendship and were the usual rites in engaging in covenants and leagues." Thus sacrifices are more than gifts; they are deeds of hospitality which knit god and worsliipper together. W. R. Smith has expounded the idea into the notion that the common meal unites physically those who partake of it. Though this view may contain an ele- ment of truth in regard to certain Arabian customs, it does not help much to account for Bible sacrifices. As A. B. Davidson says, "It fails utterly to account for the burnt offering, which was one of the earliest, most solemn and at times the most important of all the sacrifices."

      (4) The sacramental communion theory. — This is a modification of the table-bond theory. The basis of it is the totemistic idea of reverencing an animal which is beheved to share with man the Divine nature. On certain solemn occasions this animal would be sacrificed to furnish a feast. At this meal, according to men's savage notions, they literally "ate the god," and thus incorporated into themselves the phj'sical, the intellectual and the moral qualities which characterized the animal. If the Divine life dwelt in certain animals, then a part of that precious life would be distributed among all the people (RS^, 31.3). In some cases the blood is drunk by the worshippers, thus imbibing the life. Sometimes, as in the case of the sacred camel, they devoured the quivering flesh before the animal was really dead, and the entire carcase was eaten up before morning.

      The brilhant work of W. R. Smith has not been universally accepted. L. MariUier has criticized it along several lines. It is by no means certain that totemism prevailed so largely among Semites and there is no evidence of its existence in Israel. Also, if an original bond of friendship existed be- tween the god and the kin, there is no need to maintain it by such sacrificial rites. There is no clear instance of this having been done. If on the other hand there was no common bond between the god and the people but that of a common meal, it does not appear that the god is a totem god. There is no reason why the animal should have been a totem. In any case, this idea of sacrifice could hardly have been anything but a slow growth, and consequently not the origin of sacrifice. Hubert and Mauss also point out that W. R. Smith is far from having estabhshed the historical or the logical connection between the common meal and the other kinds of sacrifices. Under piacula he confuses puri- fication, propitiation and expiations. His attempts to show that purifications of magical character are late and not sacrificial do not succeed. Smith's theory is mainly the sacramental, though he does recognize the honorific and piacular element. The theory may be apphcable to some of the heathen or savage feasts of the Arabs, but not to the practices of the Hebrews (see Enc Brit, XXIII, 981).

      (5) The homage theory. — This has been advocated by Warburton and F. D. Maurice. The idea is that sacrifices were originally an expression of hom- age and dependence. Man naturally felt impelled to seek closer communion with God, not so much from a sense of guilt as from a sense of dependence and a desire to show homage and obedience. In giving expression to this, primitive man had re- course to acts rather than words and thoughts. Thus sacrifice was an acted prayer, rather than a prayer in words. It was an expression of his long- ings and aspirations, his reverence and submission. There is much truth in this view; the elements of prayer — dependence and submission — enter into some sacrifices, the burnt offerings in particular; but it does not account for all kinds of offerings.

      (6) The piacular theory. — This holds that sacri- fices are fundamentally expiatory or atoning, and the death of the beast is a vicarious expiation of the sins of the offerer. Hubert and Mauss admit that

      in all sacrifices there are some ideas of purchase or substitution, though these may not have issued from some primitive form. The unifying principle in all sacrifices is that the Divine is put in communi- cation with the profane by the intermediary — the victim — which may be piacular or honorific. It is thus a messenger, a means of divination, a means of alimenting the eternal life of the species, a source of magical energy which the rite diffuses over objects in its neighborhood. Westermarck (Origin of Moral Ideas) makes the original idea in sacrifice a piacu- lum, a substitute for the offerer.

      This view is the most simple, the most natural, and the only one that can explain certain sacrifices. Man felt himself under liability to punishment or death. The animal was his, it had life, it was of value, and perchance the god would accept that life in place of his. He felt that it would be accepted, and thus the animal was sacrificed. The offerer in a sense gives up part of himself. The beast must be his own; no sacrifice can be made of another person's property (2 S 24 24a). The true spirit of sacrifice appears in a willingness to acknowledge God's right to what is best and dearest (Gen 12).

      Objection is raised to this by A. B. Davidson [OT Theology), Paterson {HDB, IV, 331) and others, on the ground that such an origin represents too advanced a stage of ethical thought and reflec- tion for primitive man. We question seriously whether this be an advanced stage of moral reflec- tion. On the contrary, it represents a very simple and primitive stage. The feeling that sin of some kind is never absent from human life, and that its true penalty is death, has been inseparable from the human heart's sense of sin. What could be more simple and natural than to take an innocent animal and offer it in place of himself, hoping that the Deity would accept it instead? Nor is there much force in Professor Paterson's objection that sacrifices were preponderantly joyous in character and there- fore could not be offered as an expiation. This joyous character belongs to such sacrifices as peace offerings and thank offerings, but does not belong to the ''oldh and others. In most cases the joyous feast followed the killing of the animal by which the ex- piation was accomplished, and the feast was joyoua because atonement had been made. In fact, many sacrifices were of the most solemn character and represented the deepest and most serious emotions of the heart.

      (7) Originating in religious instiyicts. — Neither the theory of an objective Divine revelation, nor of a human origin will account for the universality and variety of sacrifices. The truth lies in a proper combination of the two. The notion of offering a gift to the Deity arose out of the religious instincts of the human heart, which in an early period had a consciousness of something wrong between itself and God, and that this something would mean death sooner or later. Added to these true in- stincts was the Omnipresent Spirit to guide men in giving expression. What could be more simple and primitive than to offer something possessing life? Of course the notion originated in simple and childlike ideas of God, and its real motive was not to gratify God by sharing a meal with Him, or to gain His favor by a bribe, but to present Him with something that represented a part of the offerer which might be accepted in his stead. Thus sac- rifices became the leading features of the reUgious life of primitive man. Naturally other ideas would be added, such as a gift of food by fire to the Deity, the peace offerings, etc, to celebrate the friendly relations with God, the thank offerings, the sin offerings, etc, all of which naturally and logically developed from the primitive idea. It might be expected that there would be many corruptions and



      6. Wiener

      abuses, that the sense of sin would be obscured or lost among some peoples, and the idea of sacrifice correspondingly degraded. Such has heen' the case, and as well might we try to understand man at his best by studying the aboriginal tribes of Africa and Australia, or the inmates of asylums and peniten- tiaries, as to attempt to understand the Bible ideas in sacrifices by studying the cults of those heathen and savage tribes of Semites, etc.

      ///. Classification of Sacrifices. — Maimonides was

      among the first to classify them, and he divided them

      into two Idnds: (1) Those on behalf of the

      1. Maimon- "whole congregation, fixed by statute, time. j J number and ritual being specified. This laes would include burnt, meal and peace offer- ings with their accompaniments. (2)

      Those on behalf of the individual, whether by virtue of his connection with the community or as a private per- son. These would be burnt, sin and guilt offerings with their accompaniments.

      Others, such as W. R. Smith, classify them as: (1)

      honorific, or designed to render homage, devotion, or

      adoration, such as burnt, meal and peace

      2. W. R. offerings; (2) piacular, designed to ex- Qmi+ln anH piate or make atonement for the errors omim ana q, ^^g people, i.e. burnt, sin and guilt Others offerings; (3) communistic, intended to

      establish the bond between the god and the worshipper, such as peace offerings.

      Oehler divides them into two classes, viz. ; (1) those which assume that the covenant relation is undisturbed,

      such as peace offerings ; (2) those intended « Oplilpr ^^ *^° away with any disturbance in the

      0. v-»eiiier relation and to set it right, such as burnt,

      sin and guilt offerings. Professor Pat«rson and others divide them into three: (1) animal sacrifices, burnt, peace, sin and guilt offer- ings; (2) vegetable sacrifices, meal offer- A Patpr<:nTi '"^s, shewbread, etc; (3) liquid and *' .rauci&uii incense offerings; wine, oil, water, etc.

      H. M. Wiener offers a more suggestive and scientific division {Essai/s on Pentateuchal Criti- cism, 200 f) : (1) customary lay offerings, such as had from time immemorial been offered on rude altars of earth or stone, without priest, used and regulated by Moses and in more or less general use until the exile, viz. burnt, meal and peace offerings; (2) statutory individual offer- ings, introduced by Moses, offered by laymen with priestly assistance and at the religious capital, i.e. burnt, peace, meal, sin and guilt offerings; (3) statutory na- tional offerings introduced by Moses and offered by the priest at the religious capital, viz. burnt, meal, peace and sin offerings.

      IV. Sacrifices in the Pre-Mosaic Age. — Out of

      the obscure period of origins emerged the dimly light- ed period of ancient history. Everywhere sacrifices existed and sometimes abounded as an essential part of religion. The spade of the archaeologist, and the researches of scholars help us understand the pre-Mosaic period.

      In Egypt — probably from the beginning of the 4th

      millennium BO — there were sacrifices and sacrificial

      systems. Temples at Abydos, Thebes,

      1 T I7,v^m<. On, etc, were great priestly centers with

      1. in Hgypt ijjgij priests, lower priests, rituals and sac-

      rifices in abundance. Burnt, meal and peace offerings predominated. Oxen, wild goats, pigs, geese were the chief animals offered. Besides these, wine oil, beer, milk, cakes, grain, ointment, flowers, fruit vegetables were offered, but not human bemgs. In these offerings there were many resemblances to the Heb gifts, and many significant exceptions. Moses would be somewhat familiar with these practices though not with the details of the ritual. He would appreciate the unifying power of a national religious center. It is inconceivable that in such an age a national leader and organizer like Moses would not take special care to in- stitute such a system.

      In Babylonia, from the year 3000 BC or thereabouts, according to E. Meyer {GeschirMe des Alterthuma) , there

      were many centers of worship such as 9 Tt, Rahv Eridu, Nippur, Agade. Erech, Ur, Nisin, i. m oaoy La^sa, Sippar, etc. These and others lonia continued for centuries with elaborate

      systems of worship, sacrifices, temples, priesthoods, etc. Considerably over 100 temples and sanctuaries are mentioned on inscriptions, and several hundreds in the lit. and tablets, so that Babylonia was studded with temples and edifices for the gods. At all these, sacrifices were constantly offered — animal and vegetable. A long list of the offerings of King Gudea includes oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (i.e. eagles and doves), dates, milk, greens (Jastrow. in HDB, V 580 t s v ) The sacrifices provided an income for

      the priests, as did the Mosaic system at a later time. It had long passed the stage when it was supposed to furnish a meal for the god. A sacrifice always accom- panied a consultation with a priest, and was really an assessment for the services rendered. It was not a vol- untary offering or ritualistic observance. The priests on their own behalf offered a daily sacrifice, as in the Mosaic Law, and likewise on special occasions, to insure the good will of tlie gods they served. It seems certain that in some of the larger centers of worship animals were offered up twice a day, morning and evening. At these sacrifices certain portions were consumed on the altar, the rest be- longing to the priest. The similarity of much of this to the Mosaic institutions is obvious. Tliat the culture and civilization of Babylon was known to Egypt and Israel with other nations is shown clearly by the Am Tab. Special sacrifices on special occasions were offered in Babylonia as in Israel. As Jastrow says. "In the Heb codes, both as regards the purely legal portions and those sections dealing with religious ritual, Bab methods of legal procedure and of ritual developed in Bab temples must be taken into consideration as determining factors." We do not doubt that Moses made use of many elements found in the Egyp and Bab systems, and added to or subtracted from or purified as occasion required. As sacrificial systems and ritual had been in use more than a millennium before Moses, there is absolutely no need to suppose that Israel's ritual was a thousand years in developing, and was completed after the exile. To do so is to turn history upside down.

      Among the nomads and tribes of Arabia and Syria, sacrifices had been common for millenniiuns before Moses.

      The researches of WelUiausen and W. R. n ivrrtmoile Smith are valuable here, whatever one J ™ -u ™^y think ol their theories. The offer-

      and Tribes ings were usually from the fiocks and herds. of Arabia sometimes from the spoils taken in war and "^vrifl which had been appropriated as their own. ana oyna r^j^g occasions were many and various.

      and the ritual was very simple. A rude altar of earth or stone, or one stone, a sacred spot, the offerer killing the victim and burning all, or perhaps certain parts and eating the remainder with the clan or family, constituted the customary details. Sometimes wild animals were offered. Babylonians, Phoenicians and Arabs offered gazelles, but the Hebrews did not. Arabs would sometimes sacrifice a captive youth, while the Carthaginians chose some of the fairest of the captives for offerings by night. Assyr kings sometimes sacrificed captive Itings. The Canaanites and others constantly sacrificed children, esp. the firstborn.

      The account of the offerings of Cain and Abel

      (Gen 4 4 f ) shows that the ceremony dates from

      almost the beginnings of the human

      4. Cain race. The custom of offering the first- and Abel hngs and first-fruits had already begun.

      Arabian tribes later had a similar cus- tom. Cain's offering was cereal and is called minhah, "a gift" or "presentation." The same term is applied to Abel's. There is no hint that the bloody sacrifice was in itself better than the unbloody one, but it is shown that sacrifice without a right attitude of heart is not acceptable to God. This same truth is em- phasized by the prophets and others, and is needed in this day as much as then. In this case the altars would be of the common kind and no priest was needed. The sacrifices were an act of worship, adoration, dependence, prayer and possibly pro- pitiation.

      The sacrifices of Noah followed and celebrated the

      epochal and awe-inspiring event of leaving the ark

      and beginning hfe anew. He offered

      5. Noah burnt offerings of all the clean ani-

      mals (Gen 8 20 ff) . On such a solemn occasion only an 'olah would suffice. The custom of using domestic animals had arisen at this time. The sacrifices expressed adoration, recognition of God's power and sovereignty, and a gift to please Him, for it is said He smelled a sweet savor and was pleased. It was an odor of satisfaction or restful- ness. Whether or not the idea of expiation was included is difficult to prove.

      Abraham lived at a time when sacrifices and reh- gion were virtually identical. No mention is made

      of his offering at Ur or Haran, but

      6. Abraham on his arrival at Shechem he erected

      an altar (Gen 12 7). At Beth-el also (ver 8), and on his return from Egypt he worshipped there (Gen 13 4). Such sacrifices expressed adora-



      tion and prayer and probably propitiation. They constituted worship, which is a complex exercise. At Hebron he built an altar (Gen 13 18), officiating always as his own priest. In 15 4 ff he offers a "covenant" sacrifice, when the animals were slain, divided, the parts set opposite each other, and pre- pared for the appearance of the other party to the covenant. The exact idea in the killing of these animals may be difficult to find, but the effect is to give the occasion great solemnity and the highest religious sanction. What was done with the car- cases afterward is not told. That animals were slain for food with no thought of sacrilice is shown by the narrative in ch 18, where Abraham had a calf slain for the meal. This is opposed to one of the chief tenets of the Wellhausen school, which main- tains that all slaughtering of animals was sacrificial until the 7th cent. BC. In ch 22 Abraham at- tempts to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering, as was probably the custom of his neighbors. That he attempted it shows that the practice was not shocking to his ethical nature. It tested the strength of his devotion to God, shows the right spirit in sacrifices, and teaches for all time that God does not desire human sacrifice — a beast will do. What God does want is the obedient heart. Abra- ham continued his worship at Beer-sheba (Gen 21 33),

      Whatever may be the date of the writing of the

      Book of Job, the saint himself is represented as

      living in the Patriarchal age. He

      7. Book constantly offered sacrifices on behalf of Job of his children (1 5), "sanctifying"

      them. His purpose no doubt was to atone for possible sin. The sacrifices were mainly expiatory. This is true also of the sacrifices of his friends (42 7-9).

      Isaac seems to have had a permanent altar at Beer-sheba and to have regularly offered sacrifices.

      Adoration, expiation and supplica-

      8. Isaac tion would constitute his chief motives

      (Gen 26 25). Jacob's first recorded sacrifice was the pouring of the oil upon the stone at Beth-el (Gen 28 18). This was consecration or dedication

      9. Jacob in recognition of the awe-inspiring

      presence of the Deity. After his cove- nant with Laban he offered sacrifices (z'bhdhim) and they ate bread (Gen 31 54). At Shechem, Jacob erected an altar (Gen 33 20). At Beth-el (35 7) and at Beer-sheba he offered sacrifices to Isaac's God (46 1).

      While the Israelites were in Egypt they would be accustomed to spring sacrifices and spring feasts,

      for these had been common among the

      10. Israel Arabs and Syrians, etc, for centuries. in Egypt Nabataean inscriptions testify to this.

      Egyp sacrifices have been mentioned (see above). At these spring festivals it was prob- ably customary to offer the firstlings of the flocks (cf Ex 13 15). At the harvest festivals sacrificial feasts were celebrated. It was to some such feast Moses said Israel as a people wished to go in the wilderness (Ex 3 18; 5 3ff; 7 16). Pharaoh understood and asked who was to go (Ex 10 8). Moses demanded flocks and herds tor the feast (10 9). Pharaoh would keep the flocks, etc (10 24), but Moses said they must offer sacrifices and burnt offerings (10 25 f).

      The sacrifice of the Passover soon occurs (Ex 12 3-11). That the Hebrews had been accustomed to sacrifice their own firstborn at this season has no support and is altogether improbable (Frazer, Golden Bough', pt. Ill, 175 f). The whole ceremony is very primitive and has retained its primitiveness to the end. The choosing of the lamb or kid, the killing at a certain time, the family gathered in the home, the carcase roasted whole, eaten that night.

      and the remainder, if any, burned, while the feasters had staff in hand, etc, all this was continued. The blood in this case protected from the Deity, and the whole ceremony was "holy" and only for the circumcised. Frazer in his Golden Bough gives a very different interpretation.

      As a priest of Midian Jethro was an expert in

      sacrificing. On meeting Moses and the people he

      offered both 'olah and z'bhahim and

      11. Jethro made a feast (Ex 18 12).

      From the above it is evident that sacrifices were almost the substance of religion in that ancient world. From hilltops and temples in- numerable, the smoke of sacrifices was

      12. Sum- constantly rising heavenward. Burnt mary and offerings and peace offerings were well Conclusions known. Moses, in establishing a reli- gion, must have a sacrificial system.

      He had abundance of materials to choose from, and under Divine guidance would adopt such rules and regulations as the pedagogic plans and pur- poses of God would require in preparing for better things.

      V. The Mosaic Sacrificial System. — The funda- mental function of Moses' work was to establish the covenant between Israel and God. 1. The This important transaction took place

      Covenant at Sinai and was accompanied by Sacrifice solemn sacrifices. The foundation principle was obedience, not sacrifices (Ex 19 4-8). No mention is made of these at the time, as they were incidental — mere by-laws to the constitution. The center of gravity in Israel's religion is now shifted from sacrifices to obedience and lojralty to Jeh. Sacrifices were helps to that end and without obedience were worthless. This is in exact accordance with Jer 7 21 ff. God did not speak unto the fathers at this time about sac- rifices; He did speak about obedience.

      The covenant having been made, the terms and conditions are laid down by Moses and accepted by the people (Ex 24 3). The Decalogue and Covenant Code are given, an altar is built, burnt and peace offerings of oxen are slain by young men servants of Moses, not by priests, and blood is sprinkled on the altar (24 4 ff). The blood would symbohze the community of hfe between Jeh and Israel, and consecrated the altar. The Law was read, the pledge again given, and Moses sprinkled the representatives of the people, consecrating them also (24 7f). Ascending the mount, they had a vision of God, held a feast before Him, showing the joys and privileges of the new relationship. The strilting feature of these ceremonies is the use of the blood. It is expiatory and consecrating, it is life offered to God, it consecrates the altar and the people: they are now acceptable to God and dare approach Him and feast with Him. There is no idea of God's drinking the blood. The entire ritual is far removed from the crass features of common Sem worship.

      In the Covenant Code, which the people accepted, the customary altars are not abolished, but regu- lated (Ex 20 24 ff). This law ex- 2. The pressly applies to the time when they

      Common shall be settled in Canaan. Tn the Altars whole place where I cause my name to

      be remembered,' etc (ver 24 m). No need to change the reading to "in every place where I cause," etc, as the Wellhausen school does for ob- vious reasons. All the land was ehgible. On such rude altars sacrifices were allowed. This same law is implied in Dt 16 21, a passage either ignored or explained away by the Wellhausen school (see Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, 200 f). Moses commanded Joshua in accordance with it (Dt 27 5ff). Joshua, Gideon, Jephthah, Samuel,



      Saul, David, Elijah and many others used such altars. There were altars at Shechem (Josh 24 1.26), Miz- pa,h in Gilead (Jgs 11 11), Gilgal (1 S 13 9). High places were chiefly used until the times of Hezekiah and Josiah, when they were abolished because of their corruptions, etc. All such altars were perfectly legitimate and in fact necessary, until there was a central capital and sanctuary in Jerus. The customary burnt and peace offer- ings with the worshipper officiating were the chief factors. Heathen sacrifices and the use of heathen altars were strictly forbidden (Ex 22 20 [Heb 19] ; 34 15).

      The altar used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons was a "horned" or official altar, the central one.

      The offerings were a tjullocls, two rams, q The Con- ""'''^^^'"'^'i bread, etc (Ex 29 1-4). and ,7 " were brought to the door of the sanctuary. secration or The ritual consisted of Aaron laying his Aaron and hand on the bullock's head, designating Hi

      some blood on the horns of the altar, and pouring the rest at its base (ver 12). The blood consecrated the altar, the life was given as atonement for sins, the fat parts were burned upon the altar as food for God, and the flesh and remainder were burned without tile camp (vs 13.14). Tiiis is a sin offering — hatfd'th — the first time the term is used. Probably in- troduced by Moses, it was intended to be piacular and to "cover" possible sin. One ram was next slain, blood was sprinkled round about the altar, flesh was cut in pieces, washed and piled on the altar, then burned as an offering by Are Cishsheh) unto God as a burnt offering, an odor of a sweet savor (vs 15-18). The naive and primitive nature of this idea is apparent. The other ram, the ram of consecration, is slain, blood is smeared on Aaron's right ear, thumb and great toe; in the case of his sons likewise. The blood is sprinkled on the altar round about; some upon the garments of Aaron and his .sons (vs 19-21J. Certain parts are waved before Jeh along with the bread, and are then burned upon the altar (vs 22-2.5). The breast is offered as a wave offer- ing (fnuphdh), and the right thigh or shoulder as a heave offering {t'-rumdh). These portions here first mentioned were the priests' portion for all time to come, although this particular one went to Moses, since he officiated ( vs 26— :30j . The flesh must be boiled in a holy place, and must be eaten by Aaron and his sons only, and at the sanctuary. What was left till morning must be burned (vs 3 1-34) . Consecrated to a holy service it was dangerous for anyone else to touch it, or the Divine wrath would flame forth. The same ceremony on each of the seven days atoned for, cleansed and consecrated the altar to the service of Jeh, and it was most holy (vs 35-37). The altar of incense is ordered (Ex 30 1), and Aaron is to put the blood of the sin offering once a year upon its horns to consecrate it.

      When the golden calf was made an altar was

      erected, burnt and peace offerings were presented.

      From the latter a feast was made, the

      4. Sacrifices people followed the usual habits at such before the festivals, went to excess and Joined in Golden CaU revelry. Moses' ear quickly detected

      the nature of the sounds. The cove- nant was now broken and no sacrifice was available for this sin. Vengeance was executed on 3,000 Is- raelites. Moses mightily interceded with God. A moral reaction was begun; new tables of the Law were made with more stringent laws against idols and idol worship (Ex 32 1-35).

      At the setting-up of the tabernacle burnt and meal offerings were sacrificed (Ex 40 29). The law

      of the burnt offering is found in Lev 1 .

      5. Law of Common altars and customary burnt the Burnt offerings needed no minute regulations, Offering but this ritual was intended primarily Qolah) for the priest, and was taught to the

      people as needed. They were for the statutory individual and national offering upon the "homed" altar before the sanctuary. Already the daily burnt offerings of the priests had been pro- vided for (Ex 29 38-42). The burnt offering is here called korhan, "oblation."

      (1) The ritual Jor the offerer {Lev 1 3-17).— This may have been from the herd or flock or fowls, brought to the tent of meeting; hands were laid

      (heavily) upon its head designating it as the offerer's substitute, it was killed, flayed and cut in pieces. If of the flock, it was to be killed on the north side of the altar; if a fowl, the priest must kill it.

      (2) The riliial for the priest (Lev 1 3-17).~I! a bullock or of the flock, the priest was to sprinkle the blood round about the altar, put on the fire, lay the wood and pieces of the carcase, wash the inwards, legs, etc, and burn it all as a sweet savor to God. If a fowl, he must wring the neck, drain out the blood on the side of the altar, cast the crop, filth, etc, among the ashes, rend the wings without dividing the bird and burn the carcase on the altar.

      (3) General laws for the priest. — The burnt offering must be continued every morning and every evening (Ex 29 38 f ; Nu 28 3-8). At the fulfiknent of his vow the Nazirite must present it before God and offer it upon the altar through the priest (Nu 6 14. 16) : on the Sabbath, two lambs (Nu 28 9) ; on the first of the month, two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs (Nu 28 11); on the day of first-fruits, the same (Nu 28 27) ; on the 1st day of the 7th month, one bullock, one ram, seven lambs (Nu 29 8) ; on the 15th day, 13 bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs, the number of bullocks diminishing daily until the 7th day, when seven bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs were offered (Nu 29 12-34) ; on the 22nd day of this month one bul- lock, one ram and seven lambs were offered (Nu 29 35.36). Non-Israelites were permitted to offer the 'oldh, but no other sacrifices (Lev 17 8; 22 18.25).

      (4) Laws in Dt (12; 27 6).— Antici- pating a central sanctuary in the future, the law- giver counsels the people to bring their offerings there (12 6.11); they must be careful not to offer them in any place (ver 13), but must patronize the central sanctuary (ver 14) . In the meantime com- mon altars and customary sacrifices were allowable and generally necessary (16 21; 27 6).

      The term "meal offering" is here confined to offer- ings of flour or meal, etc (AV "meat-offering"), and

      was first used at the consecration of 6. Law of Aaron and his sons (Ex 29 41). These the Meal must not be offered on the altar of Offering incense (Ex 30 9); were used at the (minhaK) completion of the tabernacle (40 29);

      and always with the morning and evening burnt offerings.

      (1) Thi ritual for the offerer (Lev 2 1-16). — It must be of fine flour, with oil and frankincense added, and brought to the priest; if baked in the oven, unleavened cakes mingled with oil, or wafers and oil; if of the baking -pan, flne flom' mingled with oil parted into pieces and oil thereon; if of the frying pan, the same ingredients. Ijeaven and honey must never be used as they quickly become corrupt. Every offering must be seasoned with salt. If of the first-fruits (bikkurim), it should consist of corn in the ear, parched with oil and frankincense upon it.

      (2) The ritual for the priest {Lev 2 1-16). — This required him to take out a handful with the oil and frankincense thereon and burn it as a memorial upon the altar. The remainder was holy and belonged to the priest. Of the cakes, after bringing them to the altar, he was to take a portion, burn it and appropriate the remainder ; the same with the first-fruits.

      (3) General laws for the priest (Lev 6 14-18 [Heb 7-11], etc). — He might eat his portion without leaven in the holy place. At his anointing Aaron offered his own oblation of fine flour — ^ of an ephah, one- half in the morning and one-haff in the evening. If baked, it must be with oil. This meal offering must all be burnt; none could be eaten. With the sin and guilt offerings every meal offering baked in any way belongs to the priest (Lev 7 9.10; 10 12; Nu 18 9). The meal offerings accompanied the other offerings on all important occasions, such as the consecration of Aaron (Lev 9 4.17); cleansing of a leper (Lev 14; feast of first-fruits



      (Lev 23 13); Pentecost (Lev 23 16); set feasts (Lev 23 37). Special charge was given to Eleazar to care for the continual meal offerings (Nu 4 16). The Nazirite must offer it (Nu 6 15.17). When the tribes presented their offerings, meal offerings were always included (Nu 7 13.19, etc); when the Levites were set apart (Nu 8 8); with vows of freewill offerings (Nu 15 4.6) ; with the sin offer- ings (15 24) ; at all the several seasons (Nu 28 5 — 29 39). A special form was the "showbread" (bread of memorial). Twelve loaves were to be placed in two rows or heaps of six each on a pure table in the holy place, with frankincense on each pile or row. These were to remain for one -week and then to be eaten by the priests. They were an offering of food by fire, though probably only the frankincense was actually burned (Lev 24 5f).

      The peace offerings indicated right relations with God, expressing good-fellowship, gratitude and

      obligation. The common altars were 7. Law of fitted for their use (Ex 20 24), as the Peace feasts had been thus celebrated from Offering time immemorial. At the feast before

      God on the Mount, peace offerings provided the food (Ex 24 5) ; also before the golden bull (Ex 32 6). The wave and heave offerings were portions of these.

      (1) The ritual for the ogerer (Lev 3 1-17). — The offering might be a bullock, a lamb, or a goat, either male or female, latitude being allowed In tliis case. The ritual was the same as in the case of the l:»umt offering (see above).

      (2) The ritual for the priest (Lev 3 1-17). — Blood must be sprinkled on the altar round about, the caul, the liver and the kidneys must be taken away and the fat parts bm'ned on the altar; the fat tail of the lamb must also be burned. These portions were offerings of food by fire to the Deity. The ritual for a goat was the same as for a bullock.

      (3) General laws for the priest (Lev 6 12 [Heb 5]; 7 1 ff). — The fat was to be burned on the altar of burnt offering. If it was a thank offering (zebhah ha-todhah), it must have unleavened cakes with oil, cakes mingled with oil and fine fiour soaked. Cakes of leavened bread might be offered, and one cake was to be a heave offering to the priest. The fiesh was to be eaten that day, none was to be left till morn- ing (Lev 22 30). If it was a votive offering {zebhah nedher) or a freewill offering {zebhah n'dhdhhdh), it might be eaten on the first and second days, but not on the third day; it should then be an abomination (Lev 7 18 f). If eaten then by anyone, that per.son was to be cut off from the community. Of all peace oft'erings the wave-breast and heave-thigh belong to the priest (Lev 7 29-34), the remainder was to be eaten by the worshippers. At Aaron's consecration an ox and a ram were the peace offerings (Lev 9 4. 18.22). The priest's portion was to be eaten in a clean place by the priest's family (Lev 10 14). When Israel should have a central sanctuary, all were to be brought there (Lev 17 4.5). When they had no central place, the common altars would suffice. All peace offerings must be made in an acceptable manner (Lev 19 5). Votive offerings must be perfect (Lev 22 18-22), but certain imper- fections are allowable in freewill offerings (ver 23). At Pentecost two he-lambs of the first year could be offered as peace offerings (Lev 23 19). The Nazi- rite at the end of his separation must offer one ram for a peace offering with unleavened bread (Nu 6 14.17), and the hair shaved from his head must be burned under the peace offerings (6 18). This hair was regarded as a thing having life and offered as a sacrifice by other nations. The various tribes brought peace offerings (ch 7, passim), and at the feast of trumpets the people were to rejoice and blow trumpets over the peace offerings (10 10). Some further regulations are given (15 9 f).

      The sin offering was a sacrifice of a special kind,

      doubtless pecuhar to Israel and first mentioned

      at the consecration of Aaron and his

      8. The Sin sons. It is not then spoken of as an

      Offering innovation. It was of special value

      as an expiatory sacrifice.

      (1) Use at the consecration of Aaron and his sons {Ex 29 10ff).—A bullock was killed before the altar, some blood was put upon the horns of the altar by Moses, the rest was poured out at the base. The fat of the inwards was burned upon the altar, the flesh and skin were burned without the camp. Every day during the consecration this was done (Ex 29 36).

      (2) The law of the sin offering {Lev 4 1-S5; 6 24-30, etc). — (a) The occasion and meaning: Specifi- cally to atone for unwitting sins, sins of error {sh'ghdghdh) , mistakes or rash acts, unknown at the time, but afterward made known. There were gradations of these for several classes of offenders: the anointed priest (vs 3-12), the whole congregation (vs 13-21), a ruler (vs 22-26), one of the common peo- ple (vs 27-35), forswearing (5 1), touching an unclean thing (ver 2) or the imcleanness of man (ver 3), or rashly swearing in ignorance (ver 4). For conscious and wifful violations of the Law, no atonement was possible, with some exceptions, for which provision was made in the guilt offerings (see below) .

      (b) The ritual for the offerer (Lev 4 1-5.13, etc): The anointed priest must offer a bullock at the tent of meeting, lay his hands upon it and slay it before Jeh. The congregation was also required to bring a young bullock before the tent of meeting, the elders were to lay hands upon it and slay it before Jeh. The ruler must bring a lie-goat and do the same. One of the common people might bring a she-goat or lamb and present it in the same manner. If too poor for these, two turtledoves or young pigeons, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering, would suffice. If too poor for these, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frank- incense would suffice.

      (c) The ritual for the priest (Lev 4 1-5.13, etc): He must bring the bullock's blood to the tent of meeting, dip his finger into it and sprinkle blood 7 t before the veil of the sanctuary, and put some on the horns of the altar of incense, but most of the blood must be poured out at the base of the altar. The fat must be burned upon the altar, all the rest of the carcase must be carried to a clean place without the camp and burned. In the case of the whole congregation, the ritual is the same. In the case of a ruler, the blood is to be put upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, not the altar of in- cense. In the case of one of the common people, the ritual is similar to that of the ruler. In both the latter cases the carcase belonged to the priest. If a bird, the priest must wring off its head, sprinkle some blood on the side of the altar and pour the rest at the base. Nothing is said of the disposal of the carcase. If of fine flour, the priest must take out a handful and burn it upon the altar, keeping the remainder for himself. The use of fine flour for an expiatory sacrifice is evidentlj' exceptional and intended to be so. Though life was not given, yet a necessity of life — that which represented Uf e — was offered.

      {d) General laws for the priest (Lev 6 24-30): The sin offering was to be slain in the same place as the burnt offering. It was most holy, and the priest alone might eat what was left of the ram, pigeon or flour, in the holy place. Whatever touched it was to be holy, any garment sprinkled with the blood must be washed in a holy place, earthen vessels used must be broken, and brazen vessels thoroughly scoured and rinsed.

      (e) Special uses of the sin offering: (i) The con- secration of Aai-on and his sons (Lev 8 2.14.15) was similar to that of Lev 4 11.12, only Moses was to kill the offering and put the blood on the horns of the altar. On the 8th day a bull-caff was offered (9 2), and the congregation offered a he-goat (ver 3). In this case Aaron perfonned the ceremony, as in Lev 4 11.12. Moses complained that they had not eaten the flesh of the calf and goat in the sanc- tuary, since that was requisite when the blood was not brought into the sanctuary (Lev 10 16-20).

      (ii) Purifications from uncleannesses required after childbirth a young pigeon or turtledove (Lev 12



      6-8). The leper must bring a guilt offering' (a special kind of sin offering), a he-lamb (Lev 14 12-14.19); if too poor for a lamb, a turtledove or young pigeon (vs 22.31). Special use of the blood is required (ver 25). In uncleanness from issues a sin offering of a turtledove or young pigeon must be offered by the priest (Lev 15 15.30).

      (iii) On the Day of Atonement (Lev 16 1-28) Aaron must take a bullock for himself and house, two he-goats for the people, present the goats at the sanctuary, cast losts, one for Jeh, as a sin offer- ing, the other for Azazel, to be sent into the wilder- ness. The bullock was killed, sweet incense was burned within the rail, blood was sprinkled on the mercy-seat and before it 7 times. The one he-goat was killed and a similar ceremony was performed. Blood must be put on the horns of the altar and sprinkled 7 t about it. The other goat was pre- sented, hands were laid on it, the sins of all con- fessed and put upon the goat, and it was sent into the wilderness. The carcase of the bullock and he- goat were burned without the camp. At the feast of first-fruits a he-goat was offered (Lev 23 19).

      (iv) Other special instances were: in the case of defilement, the Nazirite must offer a turtledove or young pigeon on the 8th day after contraction (Nu 6 10 ff ) ; when the days of the separation were fulfilled a ewe-lamb with the other offerings (ver 14) was to be offered; the twelve tribes included in each case a he-goat for sin offering (7 16 ff) ; at the consecration of the Levites a young bullock (8 8.12). For unwitting sins of the congregation a he- goat was to be offered (15 24.25). If one person erred, a she-goat was permitted (ver 27). A sin offering was required at the feast of the new moon (28 15), at the Passover (ver 22), at Pen- tecost (ver 30), on the 1st day of the 7th month (29 5), and on the 10th, 15th-22d days (vs 10-38). The ceremony of the red heifer (19 1-10.17) was a special sin offering for purification purposes only. It was of ancient and primitive origin. The young cow was brought without the camp and was slain before the priest's face, blood was sprinkled 7 t be- fore the sanctuary, the entire carcase with cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet was burned, the ashes gathered and laid without the camp in a clean place to be kept for the water of impurity. It was to purify after contact with the dead. In the case of the unknown homicide (Dt 21 1-9) a young unbroken heifer was brought to a running stream, its neck was broken, the elders washed their hands over the heifer in the presence of the priests, de- claring their innocence. Thus the bloodshed was expiated. The action was a judicial one, but essen- tially vicarious and expiatory and had doubtless a primitive origin.

      The guilt offering (AV "trespass offering") (Lev 6 14 — 6 7) was a special kind of sin offering, always of a private character and accompanied 9. The by a fine. It expressed expiation and

      Guilt restitution. The classes of sin requir-

      Offering ing a guilt offering with reparation in money are: (1) a trespass in the holy things done unwittingly; (2) anything which the Law forbade depriving God or the priest of their due; (3) deahng falsely with a neighbor in a deposit, or pledge, or robbery, or oppression; (4) swearmg falsely regarding anything lost; (5) seduction of a betrothed bondmaid (Lev 19 20-22). The first two of these are unwitting sins, the others cannot be. The clear statement is made in another place that sins done with a "high hand," i.e. in rebeUion against the covenant and its provisions, can have no sacri- fice (Nu 15 30). Is this a contradiction, or a later development when it was found that the more stringent law would not work? (See J. M. P. Smith, at al., Atonement, 47 f.) Neither conclu-

      sion is probable. These conscious sins are of a kind that will admit of full reparation because against rights of property or in money matters. The sin offering makes atonement toward God, the restitution with the additional one-fifth makes full reparation to man. No such reparation can be made with such sins described as committed with a "high hand." In the case of seduction, rights of property are violated (cf Nu 5 5-8; Dt 22 29).

      (1) The ritual (Lev S 14—6 7). — A ram proportion- ate in value to tlie offence and worth at two shekels is required. The ritual is probably the same as that of the sin offering, though no mention is made of the laying on of hands, and the blood is not brought into the sanc- tuary, but sprinkled about the base of the altar, the fat and inside parts being burned, and the flesh eaten by the priests in a holy place.

      (2) Special statutes. — The leper, when cleansed, on the 8th day must bring a guilt offering of two he- lambs and one ewe-lamb ; the priest must wave one he-lamb before Jeh, kill it, and smear blood on the right ear, thumb and toe of the leper. The guilt offering belongs to the priest (Lev 14 12-20). If the leper were too poor for two lambs, one sufficed, with a corresponding meal offering, or one turtle- dove and a young pigeon (vs 21.22). The Nazirite, if defiled during his period of separation, must bring a he-lamb for a guilt offering (Nu 6 12). All guilt offerings were the priests' and most holy (18 9).

      The wave offerings were parts of the peace offerings, and the custom was seemingly initiated at the consecra- tion of Aaron and his sons (Ex 29 24—27), in XVflTTp when the breast and bread were waved iu. yytivc ijgfore Jeh. Lev 7 30.. 34 fixes the law. UliermgS it niust be brought from the peace offer- ings of the offerer himself. At Aaron's consecration Moses put the breast, etc, on Aaron's hands and waved them before Jeh (Lev 8 27). On the 8th day Aaron did the waving (Lev 9 21). The priests were to eat it in a clean place (Lev 10 14 f). The leper's he-lamb was to be waved by the priest, before being offered (Lev 14 12) ; the lamb of the guilt offering also (14 24). At the feast of flrst-frults the sheaf must be waved before Jeh (Lev 23 10.11.15); two loaves also (vs 17.20). Of the Nazirite the priest took the boiled shoulder, a cake and a wafer, put them on the Nazirite's hand and waved them before Jeh (Nu 6 19 f).

      Heave offerings also are parts of the peace offerings, and refer particularly to what is lifted up, or separated unto the service of Jeh. They are first 1 1 TTpflvp mentioned at the consecration of Aaron i±. xicttvc ^g^ gg 27.28). The offering consisted of UnenngS the right shoulder or thigh and was the fixed due of the priest (Lev 7 32.34). One cake of the peace offering must be heaved (Lev 7 14). The offering must be eaten in a clean place (Lev 7 14) by the priest's family only (Lev 10 14.15). Of the Nazirite's offering the heave thigh also went to the priest (Nu 6 20). When the Israehtes should come into the promised land to eat bread, they must offer a heave offering of the dough, a cake (Nu 15 19.20.21). The law is repeated in Nu 18 8.11.19, and the Levites are to receive a tithe of the heave offerings of tlie people (ver 24). They were in turn to offer up a tithe of this to the priests (vs 26-32). A portion of the spoil of Midian was a heave offering (31 29.41). Dt commands that all heave offerings be brought to the central sanc- tuary and eaten there (12 6.11).

      Jacob poured oil on the stone he had set up (Gen 28 18) in honor of the Deity and consecrated the

      spot. Jacob later (Gen 35 14) set up 12. Drink a pillar where God had revealed Himself Offerings or and poured drink offerings and oil upon Libations it. Probably wine was used. Drink

      offerings accompanied many of the sac- rifices (Ex 29 40.41). None could be poured upon the altar of incense (Ex 30 9). At all set feasts the drink offerings must be presented (Lev 23 13.18.37). The Nazirite was not exempt (Nu 6 15.17). Wine and oil must accompany all votive and freewill offerings (15; the con- tinual burnt offering (28 7.8); sabbaths (vs 9.10) and all the other set feasts' (vs 14-31; 29 6-39, passim) . That drink offerings were common among the heathen is shown by Dt 32 38.

      The cultus is thoroughly in keeping with and adapted to the age, and yet an ideal system in



      many respects. The ethical side is in the back- ground, the external has the emphasis. No sacrifices

      will avail for a breach of the covenant 13. Primi- between God and the people. The tive Nature people thoroughly believed in the effi- of the cacy of the blood. It secured atone-

      Cultus ment and forgiveness. Their religious

      life found expression in the sacrifices. God was fed and pleased by the offerings by fire. Many of the customs are ancient and crude, so that it is difficult to imagine how such a primitive system could have been arranged and accepted afterward by the people who had the lofty ethical teachings of the prophets in their hands.

      VI. Sacrifices in the History of Israel. — The tribes were outwardly consolidated, and a religious

      system was provided. Some of it was

      1. The for the rulers, much for the people and Situation much for the priests alone. The vari- at Moses' ous laws were given in portions and Death afterward compiled. No one expected

      them to be observed until the nation had a capital and central sanctuary. Even then not every detail was always possible. They were not observed to any extent in the wilderness (Am 5 25), as it was impracticable. Even circum- cision was neglected until the wanderers crossed the Jordan (Josh 5 2). The body of the system was not in full practice for 300 or 400 years. The ritual, as far as it could be observed, served as an educational agency, producing in the minds of the worshippers proper conceptions of the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, and the proper spirit in approaching God.

      Lay or common altars were in accordance with Ex 20 24; Dt 16 21; 27 7. In the days of Joshua,

      the Passover was celebrated (Josh 5

      2. In the 10 f). At Ebal an altar was erected. Time of burnt and peace offerings were pre- Joshua sented (Josh 8 30-32). The tabernacle

      was set up at Shiloh with a horned altar doubtless (Josh 18 1), and the cultus was observed to some extent. Concerning the altar on the east side of the Jordan, see Altar.

      Canaanitish altars were abundant with their

      corrupt and licentious cults of the Nature-gods.

      Israelites with their common altars

      3. In the would naturally use the high places, Period of when possible. The stationary altars the Judges of the Canaanites were of course unlaw- ful. The inevitable tendency would be

      to imitate the worship of the Canaanites. They were rebuked and threatened for this, and, weeping, offered sacrifices at Bochim (Jgs 2 1-5). Gideon rebuilt an altar of Jeh and offered a bullock as a burnt offering (6 2.5.26). The kid prepared for the angel was not first a sacrifice, but its acceptance as a gift was indicated by its being burned (6 19 f ) . Jephthah offered up his daughter as a burnt offering, believing such a sacrifice well-pleasing to Jeh (11 31.39). Manoah and his wife prepared a kid for a burnt offering, a meal offering accompanying it (13 16 f). Atthetimeof the civil war with Benjamin the ark and statutory altar seemed to be at Beth-el, where they offered burnt and peace offerings (20 26). The feasts at Shiloh imply at least peace offerings (21 19).

      Common lay altars and customary sacrifices

      were still much in use. The official altar with

      the statutory individual and national

      4. In the offerings appears to be at Shiloh. El- Times of kanah sacrifices and feasts there yearly Samuel (1 S 1 3f). Such feasts were joy- and Saul ous and tended to excesses, as drunken- ness .seemed common (1 13 f). All

      Israel came thither (2 14) ; the priests claimed their portion, seizing it in an unlawful manner before the

      fat had been burned, or the flesh had been boiled (2 13-17). This shows that such ritual as was pre- scribed in Lev was practised and considered by the people the only lawful custom. Was it in writ- ing? Why not? Guilt offerings were made by the PhiUs when smitten by tumors (6 There were five golden mice and five golden tumors. Crude as were their ideas of a guilt offering, their actions show familiarity with the concept. Burnt offerings were used on special occasions and in great crises, such as receiving the ark (6 14 f), going to war (7 9f; 13 9-12), victory (11 15), etc. Saul met Samuel at a sacrificial feast in a small city (9 12.13) on a high place. At Gilgal there were burnt and peace offer- ings (10 8; 15 15.21). Saul offered burnt offerings himself (13 9-12), but his fault was not in offering them himself, but in his haste and disobedience toward Samuel. "To obey is better than sacrifice," etc, says Samuel (15 22), recognizing the funda- mental principle of the covenant and realizing that ceremonies are in themselves worthless without the right spirit. The same truth is reiterated by the prophets later. To prevent the eating of flesh with the blood Saul built a special altar (14 32-35). Family and clan sacrifices and feasts were evidently common (16 2-5).

      The common altars and those on the high places were still in use. The central sanctuary at ShOoh had been removed, first apparently to 6. In the Gilgal, then to Nob, and later to Days of Gibeon. David's and Saul's families

      David and kept the feast of the new moon, when Solomon peace offerings would be sacrificed (1 S 20 5.24-29). The sanctuary at Nob had the shewbread upon the table (21 4 ff) according to Ex 25 30. When the ark was brought up to Jerus, burnt and peace offerings were offered according to the Law (2 S 6 17.18; 1 Ch 16 2.40). Ahithophel offered private sacrifices at Shiloh (2 S 15 12). David offered up burnt, meal and peace offerings when purchasing the threshing-floor of Araunah (1 Ch 21 23-26). The statutory horned altar at this time was at Gibeon (2 Ch 1 6; 1 Ch 21 29), but was soon removed to Jerus (1 Ch 22 1). In the organized sanctuary and ritual, Levites were ap- pointed for attendance on the shewbread, meal offerings, burnt offerings, morning and evening sacrifices, sabbaths, new moons and set feasts (23 28-31), attempting to carry out the Levitical laws as far as possible. At the dedication of the temple Solomon offered burnt, meal and peace offerings in enormous quantities (1 K 8 63; 2 Ch 7 4-7); also burnt and peace offerings with incense trien- nially (1 K 9 25) . The ritual at the regular seasons, daily, sabbaths, new moons, set feasts, etc, was observed according to the Levitical Law (2 Ch 2 4; 8 13). Was it written?

      The golden calf worship was carried on at Dan and Beth-el, with priests, altars and ritual (1 K 12 27 f). The high places were in use, 6. lathe but very corrupt (13 2ff). A com- Northem mon altar was in use on Mt. Carmel Kingdom (18 30.32). Many others were known as Jeh's altars (19 10). The system was in full swing in Amos' time (Am 4 4.5) at Beth-el and Gilgal and probably at Beer-sheba (5 5). Amos bitterly satirizes the hollow, insincere wor- ship, but does not condemn the common altars and sacrifices, as these were legitimate. With Hosea the situation is worse, the cultus has been "canonized," priests have been fed on the sin or sin offerings of the people, and the kingdom soon perished because of its corruption.

      The high places were still in use and not de- nounced yet by the prophets (1 K 3 2; 2 K 14 4; 15 4.35). Worship was not fully centrahzed, though tendmg m that du-ection. In the days of Abijah



      the temple cult was in full operation according to

      Moses' Law (2 Ch 13 10 f). Asa removed many

      strange altars and high places because

      7. In the of their corruption (14 3), but not all Southern (15 17; 20 33). In the days of Je- Kingdom to hoiada priests and Levites were on duty the Exile according to Moses (23 18; 24 14fc;

      2 K 12 4-16). Sin and guilt offer- ings were in sufficient numbers to be mentioned, but the money went to the priests. Kautzsch (HDB, V) and Paterson (HDB, IV), with others, think these offerings were only fines and altogether differ- ent from those of Lev 4, 5. Such a statement is wholly gratuitous. The guilt offerings must be accompanied by fines, but not necessarily the sin offerings. The passage speaks of both as perfectly familiar and of long standing, but details are lack- ing and there can be no certainty in the matter, except that it proves nothing regarding a ritual of sin and guilt^offerings existent or non-existent at that time. Kautzsch's and Paterson's motives are obvious. Having reversed the history and put the ritual law late, they must needs make adjust- ments in the records to have them agree. In the days of Ahaz, the regular offerings were observed for priests, kings and people (2 K 16 13-15). Hezekiah destroyed many high places (18 4). When repairing the temple, many sin offerings were presented to expiate the terrible sins of the previous reigns and the desecration of the temple (2 Ch 29 21-24) ; and so, also, burnt offerings (vs 27 f), peace and thank offerings, etc, in large number (vs 31-3.5; cf Isa 1 10-17). The Passover was celebrated with peace offerings (2 Ch 30, oblations and tithes (31 12); courses of Levites were estab- lished (31 2), and the king's portion (ver 3). All the common altars were aboUshed as far as possible, and worship centralized in Jerus (32 12). Reversed by Manasseh (33 3f), the high places were again used (ver 17). Josiah purged Jerus (34 3), and on the discovery of the Book of the Law, with its rule regarding a central sanctuary, that law was rigidly enforced (35 6-14). The reformation under Josiah did not change the hearts of the people, and the rule followed in spite of aU the efforts of Jeremiah and other prophets.

      That the cultus was entirely suspended in Jerus

      from 586 to 536 BC seems certain. There is no

      support for G. F. Moore's statement

      8. In the (EB, IV) that an altar was soon re- Exihc and built and sacrificing was carried on Post-exiUc with scarcely a break. On the return Periods of the exiles an altar was soon built and

      the continual burnt offerings began (Ezr 3 2 f), and likewise at the Feast of Tabernacles, new moons and set feasts (vs 4-7). Darius decreed that the Israelites should be given what was needed for the sacrifices (6 9f). The band under Ezra offered many sin offerings on their return (8 35). At the dedication of the temple many burnt and sin offerings were made for all the tribes (6 17). Those who had married foreign wives offered guilt offerings (10 19). The firman of Artaxerxes pro- vided money for bullocks, rams, lambs, with meal and drink offerings (7 17). Under Nehemiah and after the formal acceptance of the Law, a more com- plete effort was made to observe it. The shew- bread, continual burnt and meal offerings, sabbaths, new moons, set feasts, sin offerings, first-fruits, firsthngs, first-fruits of dough, heave offerings of all trees, wine and oil, etc, were carefully attended to (Neh 10 33-37) and were in full force later (13 5.9). There is no hint of innovation, only a thoroughgoing attempt to observe laws that had been somewhat neglected.

      At the time of Nehemiah and probably two or tliree centuries previous, there existed a temple on the island

      of Elephantine in the Nile. It was built by a Jewish military colony, and a system of sacrifices was observed.

      Just how far they copied the laws of Moses. q A Xpmnlp "'^'^ what were their ideas of a central

      H Q • sanctuary are uncertain. and bacri- Several Sem tribes or nations practised

      fices at Ele- human sacrifices. It was common among Dhantine ^^^ Canaanitcs, as is shown by the exca-

      '^ vations at Gezer, Taanach, etc. They

      seemed to offer children in sacrifice at the laying of cornerstones of houses and other such occa- sions. Among the Carthaginians, Phoenicians. Greeks

      and Romans human sacrifices were all too in TTiiman common. Thecustom was not unknown to lu. numcm ^jjg Israelites. Abraham felt called ui>on oacriflces to offer up Isaac, but was stopped in the in Israel's ^ct, and a lesson was given for all time. TTict/^rif '^^^ abominable practice is forbidden by

      nisiory Moses (Lev 18 21), where it is spoken of

      as a passing through the fire to Moloch, referring to Moaijitish and Ammonitish practices. Anyone practising it was to be stoned (Lev 20 2-5; Dt 12 31; 18 10). The rash vow of Jephthah resulted in the immolation of his daughter, but the incident is recorded as something e.xtraordinary (Jgs 11 .31 f). The execution of Zebah and Zalmunna is a case of blood revenge, not sacrifice (8 18 fl). Nor is the slaughter of Agag in any sense a sacrifice (1 ,S 15 32 f). The death of Saul's sons because of his breach of cove- nant with the Gibeonites was an expiatory sacrifice, to atone for the father's perfidy (2 S 21 9). The Moabite king in desperation offered up his firstborn and heir to appease the anger of Chemosh, and the effect was start- ling to the Israelites (2 K 3 27). Ahaz practised the abomination in times of trouble (16 3). Such sacrifices were intended to secure favor with the Deity or appease His wrath. Kiel's firstborn and youngest sons were probably sacrificed at the rebuilding or fortifying of Jericho (1 K 16 34; cf Josh 6 26). Manasseh practised the custom (2 K 21 6), but it was stopped by Josiah (23 10). Micah's words were probably apphcable to those times of Ahaz or Manasseh, when they thought to obtain God's favor by costly gifts apart from ethical conditions (Mic 6 6-8). Isaiah refers to a heathen cus- tom practised by Israel of slaying the children in secret places (Isa 57 5), and Jeremiah represents it as practised in his time (Jer 7 31; 19 .5). Ezekiel denounces the same practice (Ezk 16 20.21; 23 37).

      Heathen sacrifices are hinted at in the later books, such as swine, a mouse, a horse, a dog (Isa 65 4; 66 3.17;

      Ezk 8 10; 2 K 23 11). All such ani- 11. Certain nials were unclean to the Hebrews, and the TTpfltVipn practice had its roots in some form of

      jxeaineu primitive totemism which survived in those

      Sacrifices heathen cults. They were little practised

      among the Israelites. See Totemism.

      VII. The Prophets and Sacrifices. — The prophets were reformers, not innovators. Their emphasis was on the ethical, rather than the ritual. They based their teachings on the fundamentals of the covenant, not the incidentals. They accepted sacrifices as part of the reUgious hfe, but would give them their right place. They accepted the law regarding common altars, and Samuel, David and Elijah used these altars. They also endorsed the movement toward a central sanctuary, but it is the abuse of the cult that they condemned, rather than its use. They combated the heathenish idea that all God needed was gifts, lavish gifts, and would condone any sin if only they bestowed abundance of gifts. They demanded an inward religion, moral- ity, justice, righteousness, in short, an ethical reli- gion. They preached an ethical God, rather than the profane, debasing and almost blasphemous idea of God which prevailed in their times. They re- minded the people of the covenant at Sinai, the foun- dation principle of which was obedience and loyalty to Jeh. If Joel be early, the cult is in full practice, as he deplores the cutting-off of the meal offering, or minhdh, and the ne^ekh or drink offering, through the devastation of the locusts. He does not mention the burnt offerings, etc, as these would not be cut off by the locusts (Joel 1 7.13; 2 14). Joel empha- sized the need for a genuine rei)entance, telling them to rend their hearts and not their garments (2 13).

      Amos condemns the cultus at Bcth-el and Gilgal, and sarcastically bids them go on transgressing (4 4.5), mentions burnt, peace, thank and freewill offerings (4 4 f ; 5 22), reminds them of the fact that they did not offer sacrifices in the wilderness (5 25),



      but demands rather righteousness and justice. There is nothing liere against the Mosaic origin of the laws.

      In Hosea's time the hollow externalism of the cult had become worse, while vice, falsehood, murder, oppression, etc, were rampant. He utters an epoch- making sentence when he says, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," etc (6 6). This is no sweeping renunciation of sacrifices, as such; it is only putting the emphasis in the right place. Such sacrifices as Hosea speaks of were worse than worthless. It is somewhat extravagant for Kautzsch to say, "It is perfectly futile to read out of 6 6 anything else than a categorical rejection of sacrifices." Hosea recognizes their place in religion, and deplores the loss during exile (3 4). The corrupt cults he con- demns (4 13 f), for the}' are aa bad as the Canaan- itish cults (4 9). Jeh will spurn them (8 13; 9 4). The defection of the nation began earlv (11 2), and they have multiplied altars (12 11;" 13 2). He predicts the time when they shall render as bullocks the "calves" of their lips (14 2 AV).

      Micah is as emphatic. The sacrifices were more costly in his day, in order the more surely to purchase the favor of the Deity. Human sacrifices were in vogue, but Micah says God requires them "to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (6 8). This does not in the least affect sacrifices of the right kind and with the right spirit.

      Isaiah faces the same situation. There are mul- titudes of sacrifices, burnt offerings, blood of bullocks and goats, oblations, sweet incense, beasts, etc, but no justice, morality, love, truth or goodness. Thus their sacrifices, etc, are an abomination, though right in themselves (1 11-17; 61 8). The same is true of all pious performances today. It is probable that Isaiah worshipped in the temple (6 1.6). In his eschatological vision there is free- dom to offer sacrifices in Egypt (19 19.21). The people are to worship in the holy mountain (27 13). Ariel must let the feasts come around (29 1).

      Jeremiah maintains the same attitude. Your "frankincense from Sheba, and the sweet cane," burnt offerings and sacrifices are not pleasing to God (6 20; 14 12). They made the temple a den of robbers, in the streets they baked cakes to the Queen of heaven, etc. He speaks sarcastically, saying, "Add your burnt-offerings unto your sac- rifices, and eat ye flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers .... concerning .... sacrifices: but .... commanded .... saying. Hearken un- to my voice," etc (7 21-23). This was literally true, as we have seen above; the covenant was not based on sacrifices but on obedience. Such a state- ment docs not deny the institution of sacrifices for those within the covenant who are obedient. It is no "subterfuge," as Kautzsch calls it, "to say that the prophets never polemize against sacrifice per se, but only against offerings presented hypocritically, without repentance and a right disposition, with blood-stained hands ; against the opera operata of the carnally-minded, half-heathen mass of the people." This is exactly what they do, and thej' are in perfect harmony with the covenant constitution and with their own ethical and spiritual functions. Kautzsch can make such an extravagant assertion only by ignoring the fact that Jeremiah himself in predict- ing the future age of righteousness and blessedness makes sacrifice an important factor (33 11.18). Picturing possible prosperity and glory, Jeremiah speaks of burnt and meal offerings, frankincense, thank offerings, etc, being brought into the house of Jeh (17 26). (We are aware of the harsh and arbitrary transference of this passage to a later time.)

      Ezekiel is called by Kautzsch "the founder of the Levitical system." He is said to have preserved

      the fragment of the ritual that was broken up in the exile. But his references to Ihe burnt, sin and trespass offerings presuppose familiaritv with them (40 38-42).

      He assigns tlio nortli and .soiitli chambers for tlie meal, sin and trespass ofterings (42 13). The cleansing of the altar requires a bullock and he-goat for a sin offering, ivith burnt and peace offerings with a ritual similar to Lev 8 If (Ezk 43 18-27). The Levites are to be minis- ters and slay burnt offerings and sacrifice for the people (44 11). The priest must offer his sin offering before he ministers in the sanctuary (44 27). They are to eat the meal, sin, and trespass offerings as in 44 29. In ch 45 the people are to give the wheat, barley, oil and lambs for meal, burnt and peace offerings, while the prince shall give the meal, biirnt and drink offerings for tlie feasts, the new moons, sabbaths and appointed feasts. He is to prepare them to make atonement (45 13-17). In cleansing the sanctuary the Levitical ritual is followed with added details (45 18-20). The Passover requires the burnt, sin and meal offerings with an extra amount of cereal. The priests prepare the prince's burnt and peace offerings (46 2-4.6.9-12) for the sab- baths, new moons, etc. The daily burnt offerings (vs 13-15) must have a sixth instead of a tenth part of an ephah, as in Lev 1. The sin and guilt offerings are to be boiled in a certain place, and the meal offering baked (vs 20.26). Ezk varies from the Levitical Law in the quan- tity of the meal offering, picturing the ritual in a more ideal situation than Moses. The people are all righteous, with new hearts, the Spirit in them enabling them to keep the Law (36 26 f ) , and j'et he institutes an elaborate ritual of purification for them. Does this seem to indi- cate that the prophets would abolish sacrifices entirely ? It is strange reasoning which makes the prophets de- nounce the whole sacrificial system, when one of the greatest among them seeks to conserve an elaborate cult for the blessed age in tlie future.

      In the second part of Isa, God declares that He has not been honored by the people with burnt and meal offerings, etc., and that He has not burdened them with such offer- ings, but that He is wearied with their sins (43 23 f). Those foreigners who respect the covenant shall offer ac- ceptable sacrifices (56 7) in the blessed age to come. The Servant of Jeh ts to be a guilt offering (53 10) to expiate the sins of Israel. Sacrifice is here for the first time lifted out of the animal to the human sphere, thus forging the link between the OT and the NT. In the glorious age to come there are to be priests and Levites, new moons, sabbaths and worsliip in Jerus (66 21.23).

      Daniel speaks of the meal offering being caused to cease in the midst of the week (9 27).

      Zechariah pictures the golden age to come when all nations shall go up to Jerus to keep the Feast of Taber- nacles, which implies sacrifices. Pots are used, and ail the worshippers shall use them in the ritual (14 16-21).

      In Malachi's age the ritual was in practice, but grossly abused. They offered polluted bread (1 7), blind, lame and sick animals (1 13 f). Jeh has the same attitude toward these as toward those in the times of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah (Mai 1 10 f). The Gentiles offer better ones (1 11). The Israel- ites covered the altar of Jeh with tears by their hypocritical, non-ethical actions (2 13). They robbed God in withholding tithes and heave offer- ings (3 8). It is the abuse of the cult that is de- nounced here, as in all the other Prophets.

      A special use of the term "sacrifice" is made by Zephaniah (1 7 f), applying it to the destruction of Israel by Jeh. Bozrah and Edom are to be victims (Isa 34 6); also Gog and Magog (Ezk 39 17.19).

      In summing up the general attitude of the prophets toward sacrifices, even G. F. Moore in EB admits: "It is not probable that the prophets distinctly entertained the idea of a religion without a cultus, a purely spiritual worship. Sacrifice may well have seemed to them the natural expression of homage and gratitude." He might have added, "and of atonement for sin, and full fellowship with God."

      Vm. Sacrifice in the "Writings." — Dates are very uncertain here. The Pss and Prov extend from David and Solomon into the Pers period.

      The sages take the same attitude as the prophets. They enjoin the sacrifice of first-fruits (Prov 3 9). A feast usually follows a sacrifice of 1. In the peace offerings (7 14). The trespass Proverbs offering (?) has no meaning to fools (14 9), and the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination to God (15 8; 21 27). Right-



      eousness and justice are more acceptable to Jeh than sacrifices (21 3), yet to them sacrifices are a regular part of worship. Koheleth spealis of sacri- fices as quite the custom, and deprecates the offer- ings of fools (Eccl 5 1; 9 2).

      The Psalmist admonishes the faithful to offer the sacrifices of righteousness, i.e. sacrifices offered in the right spirit (4 5). The drink 2. In the offerings of idolaters are well known Psalms (16 4). Prayer is made for the ac-

      .ceptanoe of sacrifices (20 3). It is a coveted privilege to offer them (27 6; 84 1-4). The true relation between sacrifice and obedience is expressed in 40 6-8. As in Jer 7 21 f, the em- phasis is laid on obedience, without which sacrifices are worthless and repugnant to God. They are not the important thing in Israel's religion, for that religion coald exist without them as in the wilder- ness and exile. The teaching corresponds exactly with that of the prophets and is probably late. Ps 50 is even more emphatic. The Psalmist knows that sacrifices are in the covenant regulations (ver 5), but repudiates the idea of giving anything to Gocl or of feeding Him (vs 12.13). Everything belongs to Him, He is not hungry, He would scorn the idea of drinking the blood of goats, etc. The idea of the cultus being of any real value to God is scouted. Yet in the next verse the reader is admonished to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving and pay vows (ver 14). The sacrifices that express worship, penitence, prayer, thanksgiving and faith are acceptable. The penitent Psalmist speaks in similar terms. Sacrifices as such are no delight to God, the real sacrifice is a broken heart (51 16 f) . When the heart is right, then, as an expression of true-hearted- ness, devotion, repentance and faith, burnt offerings are highly acceptable (ver 19). Another Psalmist promises a freewill offering to God (54 6; 66 13. 1.5). Sacrifices of thanksgiving are advised (96 8; 107 22; 118 27) and promised (116 17). Prayer is likened to the evening sacrifice (141 2).

      IX. The Idea and Efficacy of Sacrifices. — That the Hebrews thoroughly beheved in the efficacy of sacrifices is without doubt. What ideas they en- tertained regarding them is not so clear. No single theory can account for all the facts. The unbloody sacrifices were regarded as food for the Deity, or a pleasant odor, in one instance, taking the place of a bloody offering (see above). The bloody offerings present some difficulties, and hence many different views.

      Included under the head of gifts of food to the

      Deity would be the meal and peace offerings, in so

      far as they were consumed by fire,

      1. A Gift the burnt offerings and the shewbread, of Food to etc. They were fire-food, the fire- the Deity distilled essence or etherealized food

      for God which gave Him pleasure and disposed Him favorably toward the offerer. They were intended either to appease wrath, to win favor, or to express thanks and gratitude for favors ex- perienced. The earher and more naive idea was probably to win the favor of the Deity by a gift. Later, other ideas were expressed in the offerings.

      The burnt offering best gave expression to the sentiments of adoration and devotion, though they

      may not be excluded from the meal

      2. Expres- and peace offerings. In other words, sion of sacrifice meant worship, which is a Adoration complex exercise of the soul. Such and was Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Devotion Isaac. The daily burnt offerings were

      intended to represent an unbroken course of adoration and devotion, to keep the right relations with the Deity. On particular occasions, special offerings were made to insure this relation which was specially needed at that time.

      The burnt and sin offerings were the principal

      kinds used for the purpose of purification; water

      being used in case of uncleanness from

      3. A Means contact with the dead. There were of Purifi- three classes of uncleanness: (1) those cation from inseparable from the sex functions of Unclean- men and women; (2) those resulting ness from contact with a corpse; (3) the

      case of recovery from leprosy. Puri- fication ceremonies were the condition of such per- sons enjoying the social and religious life of the community. Why they should require a sin offer- ing when most of them occurred in the regular course of nature and could not be guarded against, can be understood only as we consider that these offences were the effects of sin, or the weaknesse.s of the fleshly nature, due to sin. Such unclean- nesses made the subject unfit for society, and that unfitness was an offence to God and required a piacular offering.

      Consecration was of men and things. The cere- monies at the seahng of the covenant and the con- secration of the Ijcvites and of Aaron

      4. A Means and his sons have been mentioned. of Conse- The altar and furniture of the taber- cration to nacle were consecrated by the blood the Divine of the sin offering. This blood being Service the means of expiation, it cleansed from

      all defilement caused by human hands, etc. The sprinkling and smearing of the blood con- secrated them to the service of God. The blood be- ing holy, it sanctified all it touched (cf Ezk 45 19 f). In other words, it is a kind of sacral communion. The blood is the sacred cement between man and

      God. This is possible only because

      5. To Es- it contains the life and is appropriated tablish a by God as a symbol of the communion Community into which He enters with the offerer. of Life This blood "covers" all sin and de- between filement in man, permits him to enter Worshipper God's presence and attests the oom- and God munion with Him. This is the view of

      Schultz, and partly that of Kautzsch, in regard to earlier ideas of sacrifice. Such a view may have been held by certain peoples in primitive times, but it does not do justice to the Levitical system.

      The view o( Ritschl is tliat sacrifices served as a form of self-protection from God whose presence meant de- struction to a weali creature. Thus sacri- 6 View of ^'^^^ have no moral value and no relation Tj'., ., to sin and defilement. They have relation

      lULSCnx only to man's creaturely weakness which

      is in danger of destruction as it approaches the presence of God. God's presence necessarily meant death to the creature without reference to his holiness, etc. Such a view banishes all real sense of sin, all ethical values, and furnishes no proper motives. It gives a false idea of the character of God, and is entirely out of accord with the sacred record.

      That sacrifices were really a sacrament has been advocated by many. According to some theolo- gians, the sacrifices were signs of spirit- 7. Sacrifice ual realities, not only representing but a Sacra- sealing and applying spiritual blessings, ment and their eflicacy was proportionate to

      the faith of the offerer. By some Roman Catholic theologians it is held that the Pass- over was esp. of a sacramental character, correspond- ing to the Eucharist. The purificatory rites corre- sponded to penance and the consecrating sacrifices to the sacrament of ordination. Biihr says that the acceptance of the sacrifice by Jeh and His gift of sanctification f o the worshippers give to the sacrifice the character of a sacramental act. Cave also speaks of them as having a sacramental sig- nificance, while refuting the position of Bahr. Though there may be a slight clement of truth in some of these ideas, it is not the idea expressed in the cultus, and seems to read into the ritual the

      Sacrifice (OT) Sacrifice (NT)



      theology of the theologians themselves. This view is closely allied to a phase of the following view (see Paterson, HDB, IV).

      That it is a symbol or expression of prayer is held by Maurice and to some extent b}' Schultz. Thus

      the sacrifices are supposed to be sym- 8. A Sym- bols of the rehgious sentiment, which bol or Ex- are the conditions of acceptance with pression of God. The victim serves as an index Prayer of what is in the worshipper's heart,

      and its virtue is exhausted when it is presented to God. Thus it may express spiritual aspiration or supplication, hatred of sin and sur- render to God with confession and supplication. Bahr holds that a valuable and unblemished victim is selected as symbolical of the excellence and purity to which the offerer aspires, the death is necessary to procure life which may be offered to God, and the sprinklins of the blood is the pres- entation to God of the life still resident in the blood. Schultz thinks that the sin offering was distinct- ively purifying. "Hence the real ground of puri- fication is that God accepts the sacrifice and thereby enters into communion with the sinner, granting him actual pardon, and that man in this offering enjoined by God as the embodied prayer of a peni- tent expresses his confession, his regrets and his petition for forgiveness." While there is an element of truth in this, and it is particularly applicable to the burnt offering, it does not embrace all the facts. It represents the views of the prophets and psalm- ists more than that of the Levitical code.

      Kautzsch holds that the efficacy of sacrifices consists in this; "God lias connected the accomplishment of atonement with the obedient discharge of 9 View of ^^® sacrificial prescriptions; whoever ful- .jj , fils these and gets the priest to perform tlie

      Js.autzscll atoning usage.s, is forgiven. Tlie ritual, &sp. the presenting of tile blood, istheindis- pensable condition of atonement, but it is not synony- mous. Forgiveness of sin flows from the ^race of God as taught by the prophets, only with them it is unneces- sary, but with the PC it is necessary." Thus Kautzsch teaches a fundam'ental contradiction between the prophets and the Law, which is utterly wrong and is made necessary by first turning the history upside down and making the PC a hideous anachronism. He says, "That tlie process of atonement is connected with the presenting of blood, explains itself naturally as a powerful after-influence of primitive sacrificial usages, in which the presenting of blood had a different meaning. It is a symbohc (not real) satisfaction, as through the animal's li'fe symbolic expression is given to the fact that the sin- ner's life is forfeited to God. But tlie main idea is that God has commanded it" (H DB, Y ,721a). The half-truths in these statements will be obvious to most readers.

      The theory that sacrifices were a vicarious ex- piation of sin and defilement, by a victim whose life

      is forfeited instead of the sinner's, is 10. Vicari- the only one that will complete the ous Ex- Levitical idea of sacrifices. This of

      piation course applies esp. to the sin offering.

      Theory While there is an element of truth in

      the gift-theory, the praj'er and sacra- mental theories and others, including that of Kautzsch, the idea of a vicarious suffering is neces- sary to complete the conception. Oehlcr recognizes the force of the prayer-theory, but advances to the idea that in sacrifices man places the life of a pure, innocent, sacrificial animal between himself and God, because he is unable to approach God on account of his sinfulness and impurity. Thus it becomes a kopher for him, to cover his sin. This is not a punishment inflicted on the animal, although in the case of uncertain homicide it is (Dt 21 1-9). The law does not lay tlie emphasis upon the slaughter, but on the shedding of the blood and the sprinkling of it on certain articles. The slaughter is of course presupposed. The all ar is not regarded as a placeof execution, it is themcansfor "covering" the sins of the covenant people, a gracious ordi- nance of God and well-pleasing to Him. But the

      gift can please God only as the gift of one who has given himself up to Him; therefore the ritual must represent this self-surrender, the hfe of the clean and guiltless animal in place of the impure and sinful soul of the offerer, and this pure soul, coming in between the offerer and the Holy God, lets Him see at the altar a pure life by which the impure hfe is covered. In the same way the pure element serves to cover the pollutions of the sanctuary and the altar, etc. Its meaning is specific, it is the self- sacrifice of the offerer vicariously accomplished. This self-sacrifice necessarily involves suffering and punishment, which is inflicted on the beast to which the guilt and sin are imputed, not imparted (see Oehler, or Theol.,278i).

      Objections have been raised by Dillmann, Kautzsch and others on the ground that it could not have been vicarious because sacrifices were not aUowed for sins which merited death, but only for venial transgressions (Nu 15 30). Certainly, but the entire sacriflcial system was for those who were in the covenant, who did not commit sins that merited death, and was never intended as a penal substitute, because the sins of those in the covenant were not of a penal nature. The sacrifices were "to cover" the sin and defilement of the offerer, not the deserved death-penalty of one who broke the cov- enant. Again, they object, a cereal offering may atone, and this excludes a penal substitute. But sacrifices were not strictly penal, and the cereal was distinctly an excep- tion in case of the very poor, and the exception proves the rule. In any case it represented the self-sacriflce of the offerer, and that was the important thing. Further, the victim was slain by the offerer and not by the priest, whereas it sliould have been put to death by God's representative. This carries no weight whatever, as the essential thing was a sacriflce, and priests were not necessary for that. A more serious objection is that in the case of penal substitution, by wliich the sin and guilt are transferred to the animal, the flesh of that ani- mal is regarded as most holy and to be eaten by the priests only, whereas it would necessarily be regarded as laden with guilt and curse, and hence polluted and unfit for use. This is a pure assumption. In the first place, the substitution was not strictly penal, and, sec- ondly, there is no hint that actual pollution is conveyed to the iiesh of the animal or to the blood. Even if it were so, the shedding of the blood would expiate the sin and guilt, wipe out the pollution, and the flesh would be in no way affected. On the contrary, the fiesh, having been the vehicle for the blood which has accomplished such a sacred and meritorious service, would necessarily be regarded as most holy. All the animal would be holy, rather than polluted, since it had performed such a holy service. Kautzsch's objection thus appears puerile. The ritual of the Day of Atonement presents all these features. It is distinctly stated that the high priest confesses the iniquities of the children of Israel over the scapegoat, and tiiat the goat carries this guilt away to the desert. Its blood is not shed, it is wholly unclean, and the man leading it away is unclean. This is unde- niably a vicarious act. In the case of the other goat, a sin offering, the sin and guilt are imputed to it, but the life is taken and thus the expiation is made and the flesh of the victim used in such a holy service is most holy.

      That this view of a vicarious expiation was gen- erally accepted is evident on every hand. There was no need of a theoretical explanation in the cultus; it was self-evident; as Holtzmann says, "the most external indeed, but also the simplest and most generally intelligible and the readiest answer to the natureof expiation" {NT Theol., I, 68). This view is amply corroborated by the researches of S. I, Curtiss in his Primitive Sem Religion of Today. By searching questions he found that the fundamental idea of bloody sacrifices was that the victim took the place of the man, redeemed him, or atoned for him as a substitute. The "bursting forth of the blood" was the essential thing (see pp. 218 f).

      The typology of sacrifice has been much dis- cussed. 'There can be no question that, from the standpoint of the NT, many of the 11. Typol- sacrifices were typical. They pre- ogy of figured, and designedly so, the great

      Sacrifice sacrifice of Christ. Thus they could not really take away sin; they were in that sense unreal. But the question is, were they typical to the people of Israel? Did Moses and the priests and prophets and people understand that



      Sacrifice (OT) Sacrifice (NT)

      they were merely figures, adumbrations of the true Sacrifice to come, which alone could take away sin? Did they understand that their Messiah was to be sacrificed, His blood shed, to make an atonement for them, and render their Divinely given means of atonement all unreal ? The answer must be an em- phatic "No." There is no hint that their minds were directed to think of the Coming One as their sacrifice, foreshadowed by their offerings. That was the one thing the nation could not and would not under- stand, and to this day the cross is their chief stumbling-block. The statement that the Servant is to be a guilt offering (Isa 53 10) is the nearest ap- proach to it, but this is far from saying that the whole sacrificial system was understood as foreshadowing that event. The great prophets all speak of a sacri- ficial system in full vogue in the Messianic age.

      We prefer to regard the sacrificial system as a great religious educational system, adapted to the capacity of the people at that age, intended to develop right conceptions of sin, proper apprecia- tion of the holiness of God, correct ideas of how to approach God, a familiarity with the idea of sacri- fice as the fundamental thing in redemption, life, and service to God and man.

      Literature. — Only a selection is attempted: arts, in Enc Brit, nth ed; EB (G. F. Moore); UDB (Pater- son); RE and Sc/i-Herz (Orelli); Jew Enc: McClintock and Strong, etc; INIurray's Bible Diet.; Standard BD, etc. Kautzsch, Jastrow and Wiedermann in HDB: art. on "Comparative Religion" in Sch-Herz: OT Theologies of Oehler, Dillmann. Sraend, Schultz. Davidson, Koenig, etc.

      On sacrifices in general: Wellhausen, Re^te des ara- bisehen Heidenthums; W. R. Smith. Religion of the Semites; 3. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, II, III; E. B. Tylor, Primi- tive Culture; E. Westermarck, Origin of Moral Ideas; H. Hubert ct iVIauss, Annee sociologique, II; L. Maril- lier, Revue de Vhistoire des religions, XXXVI, 208; S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Sem Religion of Today.

      Biblical sacrifices: F. Bahr, Symbolik des Mosdischen Kultus; J. H. Kurtz, Der alttestamentliche Opfercultus; A. Stewart, The Mosaic Sacrifices; J. G. Murphy, Sac- rifice as Set Forth in Scripture; A. Cave, Scriptural Doc- trine of Sacrifice; F. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice; J. M. P. Smith, Bib. Doctrine of Atonement. See also: Schultz. AJT, 1900, 2.57 (f ; Smoller, Studien und Kritiken, 1891; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism; Penta- teuchal Studies; Driver, ERE, VI. t t -n

      J. J. Reeve

      In the New Testament

      I. Terms of Sacrifice Epitomized II. Attitude of Jesus and NT Writers to the OT Sacrificial System

      1. Jesus' Attitude

      2. Paul's Attitude

      3. Attitude of the Author of Hebrews

      III. The Sacrificial Idea in the NT

      1. Teaching of John the Baptist

      2. Teaching of Jesus

      3. Teaching of Peter

      4. Paul's Teaching

      5. Teaching of Hebrews

      6. Johannine Teaching

      IV. Relation of Christ's Sacrifice to Man's Salvation

      1. Redemption or Deliverance from Curse of Sin

      2. Reconciliation

      3. Remission of Sins

      4. The Cancellation of Guilt

      5. Justification or Right Standing with God

      6. Cleansing or Sanctiflcation

      7. Sonship ^

      V. How Christ's Sacrifice Procures Salvation

      1. Jesus' Teaching

      2. Paul's Teaching

      3. Teaching of Hebrews

      4. Petrine and Johannine Teaching

      VI. Rationale of the Efficacy of Christ's Sacri- fice

      1. Jesus' Teaching

      2. Paul's Teaching

      3. The Teaching in Hebrews

      VII The Human Conditions of Application

      1. Universal in Objective Potentiality

      2. Efficacious When Subjectively Applied

      VIII The Christian's Life the Life of Sacrifice

      1. Consequence of Christ's Sacrifice „, . ^. ,

      2. Christ's Death the Appeal for Christian s

      3. Necessary to Fill Out Christ's Sacrifice

      4. Content of the Christian's Sacrifice

      5. The Supper as a Sacrifice Literature

      /. Terms of Sacrifice Epitomized. — The word "offer- ing" (Trpo(T(fiop

      11 4). The noun prosphora occurs 15 t in LXX, usually as the tr of nns^j. minhah, "sacrifice." This noun in

      the NT refers to OT sacrifices in Acts 7 42; 21 26; to the ofrcring of money in Acts 24 17; Rom l5 16. The vl). (ii'n<|>epuj, anaphrro, also occurs 3 t in He (7 27; 9 28; 13 15); also in 1 Pet 2 5.

      The word "sacrifice" (t^vaia. thusia, translates in LXX 8 Heb words for various kinds of sacrifice, occurring about 350 t) refers to Christ's death, once in Paul (Eph 5 2) and 5 t in He (5 1; 9 23.20; 10 12.26). It refers ' several times to OT sacrifice and 5 t to Christian living or giving (Phil 2 17; 4 18; He 13 15.16; 1 Pet 2 5). The vi>. "to sacrifice" (0uu>, thud) is used once by Paul to describe Christ's death (1 Cor 6 7).

      The blood {a.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ti.a., haima) of Christ is said to secure re- demption or salvation, 6 t in Paul (Rom 3 25; 5 9; 1 Cor 10 16; Eph 1 7; 2 13; Col 1 20) ; 3 t in He (9 12.14; 10 19; ct also 10 29); 2 t in 1 Pet (1 2.19) and 5 t in the Johannine writings (1 Jn 1 7; 5 6^.8; Rev 1 5) . Unmistakably this figure of the blood refers to Christ's sacrificial death. "In any case the phrase kv Tw auToy a'l^aTt. [ea td auiou haimati, 'in his blood,' Rom 3 25] carries with it the idea of sacrificial blood- shedding" (Sanday, Comm. on Ep. to Rom, 91).

      AuTpoi- {lutron, "ransom," the price paid for redeem- ing, occurring in LXX 19 t, meaning the price paid for redeeming the servant [Lev 25 51.52]; ransom for first- born [Nu 3 46] ; ransom for the life of the owner of the goring ox [E.x 21 30, etc]) occurs in tlie NT only twice (Mt 20 28; Mk 10 45). This word is used by Jesus to signify the culmination of His sacrificial life in His sacrificial death.

      'Ai'TtAuTpof (antilutron, "ransom," a word not found in LXX, stronger in meaning than the preceding word) occurs only once in the NT (1 Tim 2 6).

      'ATToAuTpojcTLy (apolutrosis, "redemption," in Ex 21 8. meaning the ransom paid by a father to redeem his daughter from a cruel master) signifies (1) deliverance from sin by Clirist's death, 5 t in Paul (Rom 3 24; 1 Cor

      1 30; Eph 1 7.14; Col 1 14); once in He (9 15); (2) gen- eral deliverance, twice (Lk 21 28; He 11 35); (3) the Christian's final deliverance, physical and spiritual (Rom 8 23; Eph 4 30). The simple word AiJTpwo-ts ilutrosis, "redemption," 10 t in LXX as the tr of 5 Heb words) occurs once for spiritual deliverance (He 9 12).

      'E^ayopa^w {exagordzo, "redeem," only once in LXX, Dnl 2 8) in the NT means (1) to deliver from the curse of the law, twice by Paul (Gal 3 13; 4 5); (2) to use time wisely, twice by Paul (Eph 5 18; Col 4 5). The simple vb. ayopd^'w {agordzij, meaning in Lev 27 19 to redeem land) occurs twice in Paul (1 Cor 6 20; 7 23) and means "to redeem" (in a spiritual sense).

      KarnAAav^ (katallagf, " reconciUation," only twice in LXX) means the relation to God into which men are brought by Christ's death, 4 t by Paul (Rom 5 11; 11 15; 2 Cor 5 18.19).

      KaTa\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\d(Ta-€Lv {katalldssein, "to reconcile," 4 t in LXX [3 in 2 Mace]) means to bring men into the state of reconciliation with God. 5 t in Paul (Rom 5 10 bis;

      2 Cor 5 18.19.20).

      The words with the propitiatory idea occur as follows: l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aaKOfj.o.t (hildskomai, "to propitiate," 12 tin LXX, trd "to forgive") occurs twice (Lk 18 13; He 2 17); iXaiTnoi (hilasmds. 9 t in LXX, Nu 5 8; Ps 129 [130] 4, etc; "atonement," "forgiveness") occurs twice in 1 Jn (2 2; 4 10); iAao-rijptoi' {hilast^rion, 24 tin LXX, trans- lates "mercy-seat," where God was gracious and spake to man) translates in the NT "propitiation" (Rom 3 25), "mercy-seat" (He 9 5).

      Christ is called "the Lamb," d^ti'd^, amnds, twice by the Baptist (Jn 1 29.36) ; once by Philip apphed to Christ from Isa 53 7 (Acts 8 32); and once by Peter (1 Pet 1 19); dipi'.ov, arnion. 28 t in Rev (5; 6 1.16; 7 9.10.14; 19 7.9; 21; 22 1.3).

      The cross (crTaupds, staurds) is used by Paul 10 t to describe the sacrificial death of Christ (1 Cor 1 17.18; Gal 5 11; 6 12.14; Eph 2 16: Phil 2 8; 3 IS; 1 Cor 1 20; 2 14) and once by the author of He (12 2). Jesus also 5 t used tlie figure of tlie cross to define the life of sacriflco demanded of His disciples and to make His own cross the symbol of sacrifice (Mt 10 38; 16 24; Mk 8 34; Lk 9 23; 14 27, with contexts; cf Jn 3 14;

      12 32, etc).

      Though it is not our province in this article to discuss the origin and history of sacrifice in the ethnic religions, it must be noted that sacrifice has been a chief element in almost every religion (Jain- ism and Buddhism being the principal exceptions). The bloody sacrifice, where the idea of propitiation is prominent, is well-nigh universal in the ethnic religions, being found among even the most enhght- ened peoples like the Greeks and Romans (see art. "Expiation and Atonement" in ERE). Whether



      or not the system of animal sacrifices would have ceased, not only in Judaism but also in aU the ethnic religions, had not Jesus hved and taught and died, is a question of pure speculation. It must be con- ceded that the sect of the Jews (Essenes) attaining to the highest ethical standard and living the most unselfish lives of brotherhood and benevolence did not believe in animal sacrifices. But they exerted small influence over the Jewish nation as compared with the Pharisees. It is also to be noted that the prophets Amos, Hosea, Micah and Isaiah exalted the ethical far above the ceremonial; even de- nounced the sacrifice of animals if not accompanied by personal devotion to righteousness (Am 5 21 iT; Hos 6 6; Mic 6 6 ff; Isa 1 11 ff). The Stoic and Platonic philosophers also attacked the sj'stem of animal sacrifices. But these exceptions only accen- tuate the historical fact that man's sense of the necessity of sacrifice to Deity is well-nigh universal. Only the sacrifice of Christ and the destruction of Jerus caused a cessation of the daily, weekly, monthly and annual sacrifices among the Jews, and only the knowledge of Christ's sacrifice of Himself will finally destroy the last vestige of animal sacrifice. //. Attitude of Jesus and NT Writers to the OT Sacrificial System. — Jesus never attacks the sacrificial system. He even takes for

      1. Jesus' granted that the Jews should offer Attitude sacrifices (Mt 5 24). More than that.

      He accepted the whole sacrificial system, a part of the OT scheme, as of Divine origin, and so He commanded the cleansed leper to offer the sacrifice prescribed in the Mosaic code (Mt 8 4) . _ There is no record that Jesus Himself ever worshipped by offering the regular sacrifices. But He worshipped in the temple, never attacking the sacrificial system as He did the oral law (Mk 7 6 ff). On the other hand, Jesus undermined the sacrificial system by teaching that the ethical tran- scends the ceremonial, not only as a general prin- ciple, but also in the act of worship (Mt 5 23.24). He endorses Hosea's fine ethical epigram, 'God will have mercy and not sacrifice' (Mt 9 13; 12 7). He also commends as near the kingdom the scribe who put love to God and man above sacrifice (Mk 12 33). But Jesus teaches not merely the inferiority of sacrifice to the moral law, but also the discon- tinuance of sacrifice as a system, when He said, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mk 14 24; Mt 26 28; Lk 22 20). Not only is the ethical superior to the ceremonial, but His sacrifice of Himself is as superior to the sacri- fices of the old system as the new covenant is superior to the old.

      Paul's estimate of the Jewish sacrifices is easily

      seen, although he does not often refer to them.

      Once only (Acts 21 26) after his

      2. Paul's conversion does he offer the Jewish Attitude sacrifice, and then as a matter of ex-

      _ pediency for winning the Judaistic wing of Christianity to his universal gospel of grace. He regarded the sacrifices of the OT as types of the true sacrifice which Christ made (1 Cor 5 7).

      The author of the Ep. to the He discusses the OT

      sacrifices more fully than other NT writers. He

      regards the bloody sacrifices as superior

      3. Attitude to the unbloody and the yearly sacri- of the fice on the Day of Atonement by the Author of high priest as the climax of the OT Hebrews system. The high priest under the

      old covenant was the type of Christ under the new. The sacrifices of the old covenant could not take away sin, or produce moral trans- formation, because of the frailties of men (10 1-11), shown by the necessity of repeating the offerings (5 2), and because God had appointed another high priest, His Son, to supplant those of the old cove-

      nant (6 5; 7 1-28). The heart of this author's teaching is that animal sacrifices cannot possibly atone for sin or produce moral transformation, since they are Divinely appointed only as a type or shadow of the one great sacrifice by Christ (8 7; 10 1).

      To sum up, the NT writers, as well as Jesus, re- garded the OT sacrificial system a^ of Divine origin and so obhgatory in its day, but imperfect and only a type of Christ's sacrifice, and so to be supplanted by His perfect sacrifice.

      ///. The Sacrificial Idea in the NT.— The one central idea of NT writers is that the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross is the final perfect sacrifice for the atonement of sin and the salvation of men, a sacrifice t}T)ified in the various sacrifices of the OT, which are in turn abrogated by the operation of the final sacrifice. Only James and Jude among NT writers are silent as to the sacrifice of Christ, and they -nTite for practical purposes only.

      The Baptist, it is true, presents Jesus as the com- ing Judge in the Synoptic Gospels, but in Jn 1 29.36 he refers to Him as "the Lamb of

      1. Teaching God," in the former passage adding of John the "that taketh away the sin of the Baptist world." Westcott {Comm. on St.

      John, 20) says: "The title as applied to Christ .... conveys the ideas of vicarious suffering, of patient submission, of sacrifice, of redemption, etc." There is scarcely any doubt that the Baptist looked upon the Christ as the one who came to make the great sacrifice for man's sins. Professor Burton {Bib. Ideas of Atonement, Burton, Smith and Smith, 107) says that John sees Christ "sufJering under the load of human sin." There are recorded in the SjTioptic Gospels two immistakable references by Jesus to His death as a

      sacrifice (Mk 10 45 i| Mt 20 28; Mk

      2. Teach- 14 24 || Mt 26 28 1| Lk 22 20; cf 1 ing of Cor 11 25). In the former He declares Jesus He came to give His "life a ransom."

      Thayer (Gr-Eng. Lex. of the NT) says this word means "the price paid for redeem- ing." Hence the idea in ransom must be of sac- rificial significance. But if there could be any doubt as to the sacrificial import of this passage, there is a clear case of the sacrificial idea in Mk 14 24. Practically all -nTiters of the NT theology, Wendt, Weiss, Stevens, Sheldon and others, hold that Jesus considered the death as the ratification sacrifice of the new covenant, just as the sacrifice offered at Sinai ratified the old covenant (Ex 24 3-8). _ Ritschl and Beyschlag deny that this pas- sage is sacrificial. But according to most exegetes, Jesus in this reference regarded His death as a sacrifice. The nature of the sacrifice, as Jesus estimated it, is in doubt and is to be discussed later. What we are pressing here is the fact that Jesus regarded His death as a sacrifice. We have to concede the meagerness of material on the sacrificial idea of His death as taught by Jesus. Yet these two references are unquestioned by Hterary and his- torical critics. They both occur in Mk, the primi- tive Gospel (the oldest Gospel record of Jesus' teachings). The first occurs in two of the Synop- tists, the second in aU three of them. Luke omits the first for reasons peculiar to his purpose. Accord- ing to Lk 24 25, Jesus regarded His sufferings and death as the fulfilment of the OT Scriptures.

      Though the head apostle does not in the early

      chapters of Acts refer to Christ as the sacrifice for

      sin, he does imply as much in 2 36

      3. Teach- (He is Lord and Christ in spite of His ing of crucifixion); 3 18.19 (He fulfilled the Peter prophecies lay suffering, and by means

      of repentance sins are to be blotted out); 4 10-12 (only in His name is salvation) and in 5 30.31 (through whose death Israel received



      remission of sins). In his First Ep. (1 18.19) he expressly declares that we are redeemed by the blood of the spotless Christ, thus giving the sacri- ficial significance to His death. The same is implied in 1 2; 3 18.

      Paul ascribes saving efficacy to the blood of Christ

      in Rom 3 25; 5 9; 1 Cor 10 16; Eph 1 7; 2 13;

      Col 1 20. He identifies Christ with

      4. Paul's a sin offering in Rom 8 3, and perhaps Teaching also in 2 Cor 5 21, and with the

      paschal lamb in 1 Cor 5 7. In other passages he implies that the death of Christ secured redemption, forgiveness of sins, justification and adoption (Rom 3 24-26; 5 10.11; 8 15.17, etc).

      The argument of the author of He to prove the finaUty of Christianity is that Christ is superior to

      the Aaronic high priest, being a royal,

      5. Teaching eternal high priest, after the order of of Hebrews Melchizedek, and offering Himself as

      the final sacrifice for sin, and for the moral transformation of men (4 14; 10 18). _ In the First Ep. of Jn (1 7; 2 2; 5 6.8) propi- tiation for sin and cleansing from sin are ascribed

      to the blood of Christ. In Rev 1 5

      6. Johan- John ascribes deliverance (not washing nine Teach- or cleansing, according to best MSS) ing from sin , to the blood of Christ. Several

      times he calls Christ the Lamb, making the sacrificial idea prominent. Once he speaks of Him as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (13 8).

      To sum up, all the NT writers, except James and Jude^ refer to Christ's death as the great sacrifice for sm. Jesus Himself regarded His death as such. In the various types of NT teaching Christ's death is presented (1) as the covenant sacrifice (Mk 14 24 II Mt 26 28 || Lk 22 20; He 9 15-22); (2) as the sin offering (Rom 8 3; 2 Cor 5 21; He 13 11; 1 Pet 3 18); (3) as the offering of the paschal lamb (1 Cor 6 7); (4) as the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (He 2 17; 9 12 ff).

      IV. Relation of Christ's Sacrifice to Man's Sal- vation. — The saving benefits specified in the NT as resulting from the sacrificial death of Christ are as follows:

      Redemption or dehverance from the curse of sin: This must be the implication in Jesus' words, "The Son of man also came .... 1. Redemp- to give his life a ransom for many" tion or (Mk 10 45 || Mt 20 28). Man is a

      Deliverance captive in sin, the Father sends His from Ctxrse Son to pay the ransom price for the of Sin deliverance of the captive, and the

      Son's death is the price paid. Paul also uses the words "redeemed" and "redemption" in the same sense. In the great letters he asserts that we are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God set forth to be a propitiation .... in his blood" (Rom 3 24.25). Here the apostle traces justifica- tion back to redemption as the means for securing it, and redemption back to the "blood" (Christ's death) as the cause of its procurement. That is, Christ's death secures redemption and redemption procures justification. In Gal (3 13), he speaks of being redeemed "from the curse of the law." The law involved man in a curse because he could not keep it. This curse is the penalty of the broken law which the transgressor must bear, unless deliverance from said penalty is somehow secured. Paul represents Christ by His death as securing for sinners deliverance from this curse of the broken law (cf Gal 4 5 for the same thought, though the word "curse" is not used). Paul also emphasizes the same teaching in the Captivity Epp.: "In whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 17; cf

      Col 1 14). In the pastoral letters (1 Tim 2 6) he teaches that Christ gave "himself a ransom for all." This is the only NT passage in which occurs the strong word anliluiron for "ransom." In his old age the apostle feels more positively than ever before that Christ's death is the ransom price of man's deliverance from sin.

      The author of He asserts that Christ by the sacri- fice of Himself "obtained eternal redemption" for man (9 12). John says that Christ "loosed [Xi^w, Mo] us from our sins by his blood" (Rev 1 5). This idea in John is akin to that of redemption or deliver- ance by ransom. Peter teaches the same truth in

      1 Pet 1 19. So, we see, Jesus and all the NT writers regard Christ's sacrifice as the procuring cause of human redemption.

      The idea of reconciliation involves a personal difference between two parties. There is estrange- ment between God and man. Recon-

      2. Recon- ciUation is the restoration of favor be- ciliation tween the two parties. Jesus does not

      utter any direct message on recon- ciliation, but implies God's repugnance at man's sin and strained relations between God and the unrepentant sinner (see Lk 18 13). He puts into the mouth of the praying ta.x-gatherer the words, 'God be propitious to me' (see Thayer, Gr-Eng. Lex., hilaskomai) , but Jesus nowhere asserts that His death secures the reconciliation of God to the sinner. Paul, however, does. "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son," etc (Rom 5 10). There can be no doubt from this passage that Paul thought of the death of Christ as the procuring cause of recon- ciliation. In Eph 2 13.14.18 Paul makes the cross of Christ the means of reconciUation between the hostile races of men. Paul reaches the climax in his conception of the reconcihation wrought by the cross of Christ when he asserts the unifying results of Christ's death to be cosmic in extent (Eph 1 10).

      The author of He also implies that Christ's death secures reconciliation when he regards this death as the ratification of the "better covenant" (8 611), and wlien he plays on the double meaning of the word ScaSiiKri {diathtke, 9 15 IT), now "covenant" and now "will," ' ' testament. " The death of Christ is necessary to secure the ratification of the new covenant which brings God and man into new relations (8 12). In 2 17 the autlior uses a word implying propitiation as wrought by the death of Christ. So the doctrine of reconciliation is also in the Ep. to the He. John teaches reconciliation with God through Christ our Advocate, but does not expressly connect it with His death as the procuring cause (1 Jn

      2 1.2). Peter is hkewise silent on this point.

      Reconciliation imphes that God can forgive; yea, has forgiven. Jesus and the NT writers de- clare the death of Christ to be the basis

      3. Remis- of God's forgiveness. Jesus in insti- sion of Sins tuting the memorial supper said, "This

      is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins" (Mt 26 28). It is true Mk and Lk do not record this last phrase, "unto remission of sins." But there is no intimation that this phrase is the result of Mat- thew's theologizing on the purpose of Christ's death (see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, II, 239 ff, who claims this phrase is not from Jesus; also Allen in "Mt," ICC, in loc). But Paul leaves no doubt as to the connection between man's forgiveness by God and Christ's sacrifice for him. This idea is rooted in the great passage on justification (Rom 3 21 — 5 21; see esp. 4 7); is positively declared in Eph 1 7; Col 1 14. The author of He teaches that the shedding of Christ's blood under the new covenant is as necessary to secure forgiveness as the shedding of animal's blood under the old. John also implies that forgiveness is based on the blood (1 Jn 1 7-9). True reconciliation and forgiveness include the canceling of the offender's guilt. Jesus has no direct



      word on the cancellation of guilt. Paul closes his argument for the universality of human sin by assert- ing that "all the world may be brought

      4. The under the judgment of God" (AV Cancellation "guilty before God," Rom 3 19). of Guilt Thayer {Gr-Eng. Lex., in loc.) says

      this word "guilty" means "owing satis- faction to God" (liable to punishment by God). But in Rom 8 1.3 Paul exclaims, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus .... God, sending his own Son in the like- ness of sinful flesh and for sin" (ERVandARVm "as an offering for sin"). The guilt, or exposure of the sinner to God's wrath and so to punishment, is re- moved by the sin offering which Christ made. This idea is implied by the author of He (2 1.5), but is not expressed in Peter and John,

      Right standing with God is also implied in the

      preceding idea. Forgiving sin and canceling guilt

      are the negative, bringing into right

      5. Justifica- standing with God the positive, aspects tion or of the same transaction. "Him who Right knew no sin he made to be sin [i.e. Standing the sin offering; so Augustine and with God other Fathers, Ewald, Ritschl; see

      Meyer, Comm., in loc, who denies this meaning] on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor 5 21). In this passage Paul makes justification the Divine purpose of the sacrificial death of Christ. This thought is elaborated by the apostle in Gal and Rom, but is not expressed by Jesus, or in He, in Pet or in Jn.

      Jesus does not connect our cleansing or sanctifica- tion with His death, but with His word (.Jn 17 17).

      The subst. "cleansing" {KaSapia-fiSs, ki-

      6. Cleansing tharismds) is not used by Paul, and the or Sancti- vb. "to cleanse" ((ca9ap(fu, kntharlzo) fication occurs only twice in his later letters

      (Eph 5 26; Tit 2 14). He does use the idea of sanctification, and in Rom 6-8 teaches that sanctification is a logical consequence of justi- fication which is secured by Christ's sacrificial death. In Phil 3 10.11, he views Christ's death and resur- rection as the dynamic of transformation in the new life. The author of He (1 3; 9 14.22.23; 10 2), following his OT figures, uses the idea of cleansing for the whole process of putting away sin, from atonement to sanctification (see Westcott, Comm., in loc). He makes Christ's death the procuring cause of the cleansing. John does the same (1 Jn 1 7; Rev 7 14).

      Divine sonship of the believer is also traced by

      Paul to the sacrificial death of Christ (Rom 8 17),

      though this thought is not found in

      7. Sonship other NT writers.

      So, ^\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'e sum up, the whole process of salvation, from reconciliation with God to the adop- tion of the saved sinner into heaven's household, is ascribed, to some extent by Jesus, largely by Paul the theologian of the NT, and, in varying degrees, by other NT writers, to the sacrificial death of Christ. Even Holtzmann {A^eulest. Theol, II, 111) admits "It is upon the moment of death that the grounding of salvation is exclu.sively concentrated."

      V. Mow Christ's Sacrifice Procures Salvation, — It must be conceded that the NT writers, much less Jesus, did not this subject from the i)hilo- sophical point of view. Jesus never philosophizes except incidentally. Paul, the author of He, and John had a philosophy underlying their theology, the first and second dealing most with the sacrificial work of Christ, the last with His person. But Paul and the author of He did not write their letters to produce a philosophical system explaining how Christ's sacrificial death can and does procure man's salvation.

      By some it is claimed tliat the word "ransom" (Mlj 10 4.5) gives us ttie \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Ley to ttie philosophy of the atone- ment as presented by Jesus Himself. 1 Tpsik:' S'lt *he rules of e.xegesis are against this i. jesua supposition. Jesus in the context is teach-

      Teacning ing His disciples that sacrificial service is greatness. To illustrate the truth He refers to His own example of coming to "minister, and to give his life a ransom for many," That is, Jesus is enforcing a practical principle and not elaborating a theoretical truth. Moreover, the word "ransom" is used metaphorically, and the laws of exegesis forbid us to press the literal meaning of a figure. The figure sug- gests captivity in sin and deliverance by payment of a price (the death of Christ). But Jesus does not tell us how His sacrificial death can and does pay the price for man's redemption from sin. The word "ransom" docs give the clue to the development of the vicarious sacrifice elaborated later by Paul. Ritschl (Rechtfertigung und Versohnung. II, 8.5) does not do the word "ransom" justice when he claims. that it merely reproduces the meaning of the Heb 1S3 . kopher, "covering as a pro- tection." and that Christ's death, like a covering, delivers us by stimulating us to lead the life of sacrificial service as Christ did. AVendt {Lehre Jesu, II, 237; Teaching of Jesus, II, 226 f) admits the " ransom "-idea in the word, hut says Christ delivers us from bondage to suffering and death, not by His death, but by His teaching which is illustrated by His sacrificial death. Beyschlag {Neutest. Theol.. I, 1.53) thinks Christ's death delivers us from worldly ambitions and such sins by showing us the ex- ample of Jesus in sacrifice. Weiss {Bih. Theol. of Ihe NT,

      1, 101-3) thinks Christ's "surrender of His life .... avails as a ransom which He gives instead of the many" who were not able to pay the price themselves. He also adds, "The saying regarding the ransom lays emphasis upon the God-pleasing performance of Jesus which secures the salvation," etc.

      Nor does Jesus' saying at the Last Supper, "This is my blood of the covenant" (Mk 14 24) give us luimis- takable evidence of how His death saves men. It docs teach that sinners on entering the kingdom come into a new covenant relation with God which implies forgive- ness of sin and fellowship with God, and that, as the covenant sacrifices at INlt. Sinai (E.x 24 3-8) ratified the legal covenant between God and His people, so the death of Christ as a covenant sacrifice ratifies the covenant of grace between God and lost sinners, by virtue of which covenant God on His part forgives the penitent sinner, and tlie surrendering sinner on his part presents himself to God for the life of sacrifice. But this state- ment fails to tell us how God can forgive sin on the basis of a covenant thus ratified by Christ's deatli. Does it mean substitution, that as the animal whose blood ratified the covenant was slain instead of the people, so Christ was slain in the place of sinners 'I Or does it suggest the immutability of the covenant on the basis of the animal's (and so Christ's) representing both God and man, and killing signifying loss of life or will to change the covenant (so Westcott, Comm. on. He, 301)? It could scarcely mean that Christ's sacrifice was the offer- ing of a perfect, acceptable life to God (Wendt, op. cit.,

      II, 237), or that Clirist's death is viewed merely as the common meal sacrifice, that God and His peor)le thus enter into a kind of union and communion (so some evolutionists in the study of comparative religion: see INIenzies, Hist of Religion. 416 fl).

      Ritschl and many modern scholars are disposed

      to reject all philosophy in religion. They say, "Back

      to Christ." Paul was only a human

      2. Paul's interpreter of Jesus. But he was a Teaching Divinely-guided interpreter, and we

      need his first-hand interpretations of Jesus. What has he to say as to how Christ's death saves men?

      (1) The ivords expressing the idea of redemption. — See above on the terms of sacrifice. The classical passage containing the idea of redemption is Rom 3 24-26: "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the pass- ing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbear- ance of God; for the showing, I say, of his right- eousness at this present season: that he might him- self be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Je.sus." A fair interpretation of this passage gives us the following propositions: (a) The believer ob- tains right standing with God by means of, through the channel of (see Thayer, Gr-Eng. Lex., Aid, A,

      III, 2), redemption which is in Christ, (b) This redemption in Christ involves, or is based upon, the Divinely-purposed propitiation which Christ made



      in His death, (c) The design of God in making such a propitiation was the exhibition of His right- eousness; i.e., the vindication of that side of His character which demands the punishment of sin, which had not been shown in former generations when Hia forbearance passed over men's sins. See Sanday, Camm. on Rom, in loo. The classical passage containing the other word to redeem {i^ayopd^a, exagordzo) is Gal 3 13: "Christ re- deemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us," etc. Professor E. D. Burton {AJT, October, 1907) thinks: (a) Law here means "law legalistically understood." (h) The "curse" was the verdict of the law of pure legalism, "a disclosure to man of his actual status before God on a basis of merit." (c) The redemption meant is that Christ "brought to an end the ri5gime of law .... rather than deliverance of individuals through release from penalty." He bases this argument largely on the use of vms, hemds, "us," meaning Jews in antithesis with tA edvTi, td ethne, the Gentiles (ver 14). Everett (The Gospel of Paul) thinks that Christ was cursed in that He was "crucified" (the manner not the fact of His death being the curse) ; that is, as Everett sees it, Christ became ceremonially unclean, and so free from the law. So does His follower _ by being crucified with Christ become ceremonially unclean and so free from the law. The passage seems to give us the following propositions: (a) Man under law (whether the revealed law of the OT or the moral law) is under a "curse," that is, liable to the penalty which the broken law demands. (6) Christ by His death on the cross became a "curse for us." (c) By means of Christ thus becoming a "curse for us" He delivered us, "not the Jews as a nation, but all of us, Jews and Gentiles, who beUeved," from the curse incurred by the break- ing of the law. Professor Burton admits that the participle yev6fievos, gendmenos, "becoming," may be a "participle of means" (art. cited above, 643), and so we have "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law hy becoming a curse for us." The pas- sage at least suggests, if it does not declare, that Christ saves us by vicariously enduring the penalty to which we were exposed.

      (2) The idea of reconciliation. — Paul uses the phrase "wrath of God" (Rom 1 18, etc) to express the attitude of God toward sin, an attitude of dis- pleasure and of grief, of revulsion of holy character which demands the punishment of sin. On the other hand, God loves the sinner; love is the prompting cause of redemption through Christ (Rom 5 8 ; 8 32) . That is, wrath is love grieving and righteousness revolting because of sin, and both phases may act simultaneously (Simon, Redemption of Man, 216, to the contrary). So Paul says, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their tres- passes" (2 Cor 5 19). Now this word "recon- cile" (katallassein) means in the active, "to receive into favor," in the passive, "to be restored to favor" (Thayer). See also Reu. and Expos, October, 1909, 600 ff, where Professor Estes shows, from Sophocles, Xenophon, Josephus, LXX and passages in the NT like Mt 5 24, that the word must mean a change in the attitude of God toward men and not merely a change of men toward God. Practically the same is taught by Meyer (Comm. on 2 Cor); Lipsius {Handcomm. zum NT); Sanday (Comm. on Rom); Denney (Exeget. Gr Test, on Rom) ; Lietzmann (Hand- buchzum NT); Holtzmann (Neutest. TheoL); Weiss (Rel. of the NT); Pfleiderer (Paulinism); Stevens (Christian Doctrine of Salvation), and in nearly all the great comms. on Rom and 2 Cor, and by all the writers on NT theology except Beyschlag. See also Reconciliation; Retribution.

      (3) The idea of propitiation. — Only once (Rom

      3 2.5) does Paul use the word "propitiation." As we saw in (1) above, the redemption in Christ is based upon the propitiation which Christ made in His death. Thayer (Gr-Eng. Lex., in loe.) says the noun signifies "a means of appeasing, expiating, a propitiation, an expiatory sacrifice." He thinks it has this meaning in Rom 3 25. but refers it to the "mercy-seat" in He 9 5. Sanday (Comm. on Rom, 88) regards hilasterion as an adj. meaning "propitia- tory." De Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Lipsius and many others take it in this sense; Gifford, Vaughan, Liddon, Ritschl think it means "mercy-seat" here as in He. But with either meaning the blood of Christ is viewed as securing the mercy of God. Propitiation of God is made by the blood of Christ, and because of that men have access to the mercy-seat where shines the glory of God in His forgiveness of man's sins. See Romans, Epistle to the, 9, (3). (4) The prepositions inrip, huper, and ivri, ardi. — Paul never uses are

      Summing up Paul's teaching as to iiow Christ's sacri- flcesaves: (a) The propitiatory sacrifice does not "soften God, or assuage the anger of God" (as Bushnell claims the advocates of the satisfaction theories assert. Vicarious Sacrifice, 486). God is already willing to save men. His love makes the propitiatory sacrifice (Rom 5 8). God's love makes the sacrifice, not the sacrifice His willingness to save. (6) But man by breaking God's law had come under the curse, the penalty of tlie broken law (Gal 3 1-3) , and so was under God's wrath (Rom 1 18), i.e. man's sin exposed him to punishment, while at the same time God's love for the sinner was grieved, (c) Christ by His sacri- ficial death made it possible for God to show His righteous- ness and love at the same time; i.e. that He did punish sin, but did love the sinner and wish to save him (Rom 3 25.26; 5 8). (d) Christ, who was sinless, sufTered ?)tcari- ously for sinful men. His death was not due to His sins but those of men (2 Cor 5 21). (e) His death, followed by His resurrection which marked Him off as the sinless Son of God, and so appointed the Saviour of men (Rom 14), was designed by God to bring men into right relation with God (Rom 3 2%b; 2 Cor 5 2\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\b). So, wemaysay, Paul explained the relation of Christ's death to the sinner's spiritual life by thinking of a transfer of the sinner's "curse" to Christ, which He bore on the cross, and of God's righteousness through Christ (Phil 3 9) to the sinner by faith in Christ. But we must not press this vicarious idea too far into a system of philosophy of the atonement and claim that the system is the teaching of Paul. The quantitative, commercial idea of transfer is not in Paul's mind. The language of redemption, propitiation, ransom, is largely figurative. We must feel the spiritual truth of a qualitative transfer of sin from man to Christ and of righteousness from Christ to man, and rest the matter there, so far as Paul's teaching goes. Beyond this our conclusions as to substitution as the method of atonement are results of philosophizing on Paul's teaching.

      The author of He adds nothing to Paul's teaching respecting the method whereby Christ's sacrifice operates in saving men. His purpose 3. Teach- to produce an apology showing forth ing of the superior efficacy of Christ's high-

      Hebrews priestly sacrifice over that of the Aaronic priesthood fixes his first thought on the efficacy of the sacrifice rather than on its mode of operation. He does use the words "redemption" (9 12; cf ver 1.5), "propitiate" (2 17), and empha- sizes the opening up of the heavenly holy of holies by the high-priestly sacrifice of Christ (the way of access to the very presence of God by Christ's death, 10 19.20), which gives us data for forming a system based on a real propitiation for sin and reconciliation of God similar to the Pauline teach- ing formulated above.



      Peter asserts that Christ suffered vicariously (1 Pet 2 22-24), who, although He "did no sin," "his own self bare our sins in his body 4. Petrine upon the tree"; who "suffered for and Johan- sins once, the righteoiis for [hiiper, nine Teach- not anti] the unrighteous" (I Pet ing 3 18). But Peter goes no farther

      than Paul (perhaps not so far) in elaborating how Jesus' vicarious suffering saves the sinner. The Johannine writings contain the pro- pitiatory idea (1 Jn 2 2; 4 10), although John writes to emphasize the incarnation and not the work of the Incarnate One (Jn 1 1-18; 1 Jn 4 2.3).

      To sum up the NT teachings on the mode or operation: Jesus asserts His vicarious suffering (Mk 10 45; cf Jn 10 11) and hints at the mode of its operation by using the "ransom" figure. Paul, Peter and John teach that Christ's sacrifice was vicarious, and all but Peter suggest the idea of propitiation as to the mode of its operation. There is no direct discussion of what propitiation means.

      VI. Rationale of the Efficacy of Christ' s Sacrifice. —

      Jesus emphasizes His voluntary spirit in making tlie sacri- fice. "The Son of maa also came ....

      1 Tesus' ^"-' Sive his life a ransom." The sacrifice ™ -^ , . was voluntary, not compulsory. God ieacnmg (jj^ not force Him to lay down His life;

      He chose to do so (cf Jn 10 11). But Jesus gives us no philosophy on this or any other element in His sacrifice as being the ground of its elScacy.

      Paul also emphasizes the voluntary gift of Christ

      (Gal 2 20), but he urges rather the dignity of Him who

      makes the sacrifice as a ground of its effi-

      2 PauPs cacy. It is the sacrifice of God's Son, ™* , . shown to be such in His resurrection (Rom ieacning l 4; 4 256). It was no ordinary man but

      the sinless Son who gave "himself" (Gal 2 20). It was not merely a dying Christ but the Son who rose again "in power" (Rom \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 4), who secures our "justification" (Rom 4 2.56; 1 Cor 15 3.4.17ft). Paul also emphasizes the sinless life and character of Jesus as a ground of efficacy in Christ's sacrifice, "who knew no sin" in His life experience (2 Cor 5 21a).

      The author of He, most of all NT writers, elaborates the grounds of efficacy in Christ's sacrifice. (1) It was a personal not an animal sacrifice (9 12-14; 3. The 9 26, "sacrifice of himself"; 10 4).

      Touz-liJrKr I'n (2) It was the sacrifice of the Son of God ieacnmg m (g g^ (g, it was a royai person who made Hebrews the sacrifice (6 206; 7 l, " after the order of Melchizedek .... king of Salem"). (4) It was a sinless person (7 26.27; 9 14; 10 10.12). Westcott, Comm. on He, 298, well says, "It becomes necessary, therefore, in order to gain a complete view of the Sacrifice of Christ, to combine Avith the crowning act upon the Cross His fulfilment of the will of God from first to last, the Sacrifice of Life with the Sacrifice of Death." (.5) It was an e^er/ia^ person (6 20, "for ever"; "7 16, "after the power of an endless [m "indissoluble"] life"). The author of He reaches the climax of his argument for the superior efficacy of Christ's sacrifice when he represents Him as entering the holy of holies in the very presence of God to complete the offering for man's sin (8 1.2; 9 11.12.24).

      Peter and John do not discuss the ground of efficacy, and so add notlilng to our conclusions above. The efficacy of the sacrifice is suggested by describing the glory of the person (1 Pet 1 19; 2 22.23; 1 Jn 1 76; 2 2).

      To sum up our conclusion as to the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice: Jesus and the leading NT writers intimate that the efficacy of His sacrifice centers in His personahty. Jesus, Peter and John do not discuss the subject directly. Paul, though discuss- ing it more extensively, does not do so fully, but the author of He centers and culminates his argument for the finality of Christianity, in the superior effi- cacy of Christ's sacrifice, which is grounded in His personality, Divine, royal, sinless, eternal (see M&g- goz, Theol. de I'Ep. mix Hehreux). It is easy to see, from the position taken by the author of He, how Anselm in Cur Deus Homo develo|)ed his theory of satisfaction, according to which the Divinity in Christ gave His atoning sacrifice its priceless worth in God's ej'es.

      VII. The Human Conditions of Application. — The sacrificial death ot Christ is universal in its

      objective potentiality, according to Jesus (Lk

      24 47, "unto all the nations"); according to

      Paul (Rom 1 5; 5 18; 11 32; 2 Cor

      1. Universal 5 14.15; Gal 3 14); according to the in Objective author of He (2 9, "taste of death for Potentiality every man"); according to John (1

      Jn 2 2, "propitiation .... for the whole world").

      But the objective redemption to be efficacious must be subjectively applied. The blood of Christ

      is the universally efficacious remedy

      2. Effica- for the sin-sick souls of men, but cious When each man must make the subjective Subjectively apphcation. How is the apphcation Applied made? And the threefold answer

      is, by repentance, by faith, and by obedience.

      (1) By repentance. — The Baptist and Jesus empha- sized repentance (change of mind first of all, then change of relation and of life) as the condition of en- trance into the kingdom and of enjoyment of the Mes- sianic salvation (Mt 3 2; Mk 1 15). Peter preached repentance at Pentecost and immediately after as a means of obtaining forgiveness (Acts 2 38: 3 19, etc). Paul, although emphasizing faith, also stressed repentance as an element in the human condition of salvation (Acts 20 21; Rom 3 4, etc). John (Rev 2, 3, passim) emphasizes repentance, tfiough not stressing it as a means of receiv- ing the benefits of redemption.

      (2) By faith. — Jesus connected faith with repentance (Mk 1 15) as the condition of receiving the Messianic salvation. Paul makes faith the all-inclusive means of applying the work of Christ. The gospel is ' ' the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom 1 16); "whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith" (3 25); "faith [not works! is reckoned for right- eousness" (4 5); "justified by faith" (5 l). In Gal, the letters to the Cor, in the Captivity and the Pastoral Epp. he emphasizes faith as the sole condition of receiv- ing salvation. But what kind of faith is it that appropri- ates the saving benefit of Christ's death ? Not historical or intellectual but "heart" faith (Rom 10 10). To Paul "heart" meant the seat or essence of the whole personalitj;, and so faith which appMes the redemption in Clirist is the personal commitment of one's self to Christ as Saviour and Lord (2 Cor 5 15). See Thayer, Gr-Eng. Lex., TrttrTeua), pisteud, 1, 6, y, for a particular discussion of the meaning of faith in this sense. The author of He discusses esp. faith as a conquering power, but also implies that it is the condition of entrance upon the life of spiritual rest and fellowship (clas 3 and 4, passim). Peter (1 Pet 1 9) and .John (1 Jn 3 23; 4 16: 5 1.5, etc) also regard faitfi as a means of applying the saving benefits of Christ's death.

      (3) By obedience in sacrificial service. — Jesus said, " If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mk 8 34). Here He lays down two elements in the conditions of discipleship, denying one's self and taking up his cross. The former means the renunciation of self as the center of thought, faith, hope and life. The latter means the life of sacrifice. Jesus was stressing this truth when He uttered that incomparable saying, "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his lite a ransom for many" (Mk 10 45 || Mt 20 28). Paul also emphasizes this phase of the human condition of salvation when he shows how sanctiflcation grows spontaneously out of justification (Rom 6 8) and when he says that what "avails" is "faith working through love" (Gal 5 6). The author of He says, "He became unto all them that obey him the author |Gr a'lnos, aitios, "cause"] of eternal salvation " (5 9). Peter and John, the latter esp., emphasize the keeping of His command- ments, the life of service, as the means of appropriating to the fullest the saving benefits of Christ's death. The theologians in classrooms and preachers in the pulpits have failed to emphasize this aspect of "saving faith" as did Jesus, Paul, the author of He, and John. In the NT salvation is a process as well as an instantaneous act on the part of God, and the process is carried on by means of obedience, the life of service, which appropriates by faith the dynamic of Christ's sacrifice.

      VIII. The Christian 's Life the Life of Sacrifice.

      — This discussion of the faith that "obeys" leads to the consideration of that chmactic thought of NT writers, namely, that the Christian's life is sacrificial living based on Christ's sacrifice for him. We note in outline the following:

      The Christian's life ot sacrifice is the logical consequence of Christ's sacrificial death. The Christ who sacrificed Himself for the believer is now continuing the sacrifice in the behever's life



      (Gal 2 20; Phil 1 21). Paul was crucified when

      Christ was crucified (in a bold mystic figure), and

      the life of Christ which sacrificed itself

      1. Conse- on the cross and perpetuates itself quence of in resurrection power now operates as a Christ's mighty dynamic for the apostle's moral Sacrifice and spiritual transformation (Phil 3

      10.11). It is to be noted, Jesus also emphasized this kind of living, though not so ex- pressly connecting the believer's sacrificial Ufe with His sacrifioial death (see Mk 8 34 f).

      Christ's sacrificial death becomes the persuasive appeal for the Christian's sacrificial hfe, "Because

      we thus judge, that one died for all,

      2. Christ's therefore all diedj and he died for all. Death the that they that live should no longer Appeal for hve unto themselves, but unto him Christian's who for their sakes died and rose again" Sacrifice (2 Cor 5 14.15). Because He died

      for us we should live for Him. But what is the appeal which Christ's sacrificial death makes to the saved sinner? "The love of Christ constraineth us" (2 Cor 5 14). Christ's death on the cross exhibits His love, unspeakable, unthink- able love, for it was love for His "enemies" (Rom 5 10), and that matchless love kindles love in the forgiven sinner's heart. He is willing to do any- thing, even to die, for his Saviour who died for him (Acts 21 13; Phil 1 29.30). It is a greater privi- lege for the saved sinner to suffer for Christ than it is to believe on Him. Peter (1 Pet 3 17.18), the author of He (12 ; 13 13) and John (1 Jn 3 16; 4 16-19) emphasize this truth.

      The Christian's sacrifice is necessary to fill out

      Christ's sacrifice. "Now I rejoice in my sufferings

      for your sake, and fill up on my part

      3. Neces- that which is lacking of the afflictions sary to Fill of Christ in my flesh for his body's Out Christ's sake, which is the church" (Col 1 24). Sacrifice Roman Catholic exegetes have made

      the apostle teach that the sufferings of the saints, along with Christ's sufferings, have atoning efficacy. But Paul nowhere intimates that his sufferings avail for putting away sins. We may hold with Weiss (Comm. on the NT) that Paul longed to experience in his life the perfect sacrificial spirit as Christ did ; or with Alford (in loc.) that he wished to suffer his part of Christ's sufferings to be endured by him through His church; or, as it seems to us, he longed to make effective by his ministry of sac- rificial service to as many others as possible the sacrificial death of Christ. Christ's sacrifice avails in saving men only when Christians sacrifice their fives in making known this sacrifice of Christ.

      (1) The Christian is to present his personality

      (Rom 15 16). Paul commends the Macedonians

      for "first" giving "their own selves

      4. Content to the Lord" (2 Cor 8 5). (2) Chris- of the tians must present their "bodies a Christian's living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to Sacrifice God" (Rom 12 1). In the old system

      of sacrifices the animals were offered as dead; Christians are to offer their bodies, all their members with their powers, to God a "livmg sacri- fice," i.e. a sacrifice which operates in lives of holiness and service (see also Rom 6 13.19). (3) Christians must offer their money or earthly posses- sions to God. Paul speaks of the gift from the church at Philippi as "a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God" (Phil 4 18). This gift was to the apostle a beautiful expression of the sacrificial spirit imparted to them because they had the "mind" of Christ who "emptied himself, .... becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (2 5-8). The author of He (13 16) exhorts his readers, "But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." (4) Thegeneral

      exercise of all our gifts and graces is viewed by Peter as sacrificial living (1 Pet 2 5): "Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices," etc. All Christians are priests and daily offer up their burnt offerings acceptable to God, if they 'suffer as Christians' (1 Pet 2 20; 3 18) in tMl exercise of their graces and powers.

      But how do these sacrifices of the Christian affect him and God? The NT writers never hint that our sacrifices propitiate God, or so win His favor that He will or can on account of our sacrifices forgive our sins. They are "well-pleasing" to Him, a "sweet odor"; that is, they win His approval of our lives thus lived according to the standard which Christ gives us. Their influence on us is the in- crease of our spiritual efficiency and power and finally a greater capacity for enjoying spiritual blessings in heaven (1 Cor 3 14).

      Some scholars (Roman Catholic, Episcopahan, etc) regard the memorial supper as a kind of sacrifice which the Christian offers in worship. 5. The Neither Jesus, Paul, the author of He,

      Supper as a Peter, or John, ever hints that in Sacrifice eating the bread and drinking the wine the Christian offers a sacrifice to God in Christ. Paul teaches that in partaking of the Supper we "proclaim the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor 11 26). That is, instead of offering a sacrifice ourselves to God, in partaking of the Supper we proclaim the offering of Christ's sacrifice for us. Milligan argues that as Christ in heaven perpetually offers Himself for us, so we on earth, in the Supper, offer ourselves to Him (Heavenly Priesthood, 266). Even Cave {Spiritual Doctrine of Sacrifice, 439) maintains, "In a certain loose sense the Lord's Sup- per may be called a sacrifice." See the above books for the argument supporting this position.

      To sum up our conclusions on sacrifice in the NT:

      (1) Jesus and NT writers regard the OT sacrificial system as from God, but imperfect, the various sacrifices serving only as types of the one great sacrifice which Christ made.

      (2) All the writers, except James and Jude, with Jesus, emphasize the sacrificial idea, Jesus less, giving only two hints of His sacrificial death (in the Synoptic Gospels), the author of He putting the climactic emphasis on Christ's sacrifice as the sac- rifice of atonement.

      (3) As to the relation of Christ's sacrifice to man's salvation, the latter is the achievement of the former, so expressed only twice by Jesus, but emphatically so declared by Paul, the author of He, Peter, and John (Paul and He laying most emphasis on this point).

      (4) As to how Christ's sacrifice saves men, Jesus, the author of He, Peter and John suggest the idea of propitiation, while Paul emphatically teaches that man is under a curse, exposed to the displeasure of God, and that Christ's sacrifice secured the recon- ciliation of God by vindicating His righteousness in punishing sin and His love in saving sinners. Jesus and the leading NT writers agree that Christ saves men through His vicarious suffering.

      (5) As to the rational basis of efficacy in Christ's sacrifice, there is no direct discussion in the NT except by the author of He who grounds its final, eternal efficacy in Christ's personality. Divine, royal, sin- less and eternal.

      (6) As to the conditions of applying Christ's sacri- fice, repentance and faith, which lives and fruits in obedience and sacrificial living, are recognized by Jesus and all the leading NT writers as the naeans of appropriating the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.

      (7) By Jesus, Paul, the author of He, Peter and John t'he Christian life is viewed as the life of sacri- fice. Christ's death is at once the cause, motive,

      Sacrifice, Human Sadducees



      measure, and the dynamic of the Christian's sacrificial life.

      Literature. — In addition to tiie great comms. — ICC, Allen on "Mt," Gould on "Mk," Sanday-Headlam on "Rom": Westcott on the Gospel and Epp. of Jolm, and on the Hchrews: Davidson. Dehtzsch and Meyer on He: ]Muyer on ^ Cor: Lightfoot and Abbott on Col: and the standard authors of the Bib. Theol. of the NT, Weiss. Beyschlag. Bovon, Stevens, Sheldon — see tho following special works: Cave, Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, Edinl^urgh, 1S90: Simon, Redemption of Man, 1886: G. IMilligan, The Theology of the Ep. to the He, Edinburgh, 1899: Milhgan. The Ascension- and lleacenhj Priesthood of Our Lord. London, 1908: AV. P. Du Bose. High-Priesthood and Sacrifice; Everett. The Gospel of Paul, Boston, 1893: Burton, Smith, and Smith, Bib. Ideas of Atonement, Chicago, 1909: Denncy, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the NT. London, 1902: Denney, The Atonement and the Modern Mind, London. 1903" Ritschl. Reehtfertigung und Versohnung (Justifica- tion and Reconciliation). Bonn, 1895-1902. ET, 1900: Menegoz, Thiol, del' Ep. aux Hcbreux: art. "Blood," ERE. by H. Wheeler Robinson; art. "Communion with Deity." ib, by Nathan Soderblom: art. "Communion with Deity" (Christian), ib.bvDarwell Stone and D. C. Simpson: art. "Expiation and Atonement." ib. by W. A. Brown (Chris- tian viewpoint). S. R. Driver (Heb). H. Loewe (Jewish): art "Redemption from the Curse of the Law," in AJT, October, 1907, by Professor E. D. Burton: art. "Some Thoughts as to the Effects of the Death of Christ," in Rev. and Expos, October, 1909.

      C. B. Williams SACRIFICE, HUMAN, ha'man: As an expression of rehgious devotion, human sacrifice has been wide- spread at certain stages of the race's development. The tribes of Western Asia were deeply affected by the practice, probably prior to the settlement of the Hebrews in Pal, and it continued at least down to the 5th cent. BC. At times of great calamity, anxiety and danger, parents sacrificed their children as the greatest anil most costly offering which they could make to propitiate the anger of the gods and thus secure their favor and help. There is no inti- mation in the Bible that enemies or captives were sacrificed; only the offering of children by their parents is mentioned. The belief that this offering possessed supreme value is seen in IMic 6 6 f , where the sacrifice of the firstborn is the climax of a series of offerings which, in a rising scale of values, are suggested as a means of propitiating the angry Jeh. A striking example of the rite as actually practised is seen in 2 K 3 27, where iMesha the king of Moab (made famous by the Moabite Stone), under the stress of a terrible siege, offered his eldest son, the heir-apparent to the throne, as a burnt offering upon the wall of Kir-hareseth. As a mat- ter of fact this horrid act seems to have had the effect of driving oft the allies.

      Human sacrifice was ordinarily resorted to, no doubt, only in times of great distress, but it seems to have been practised among the old Canaanitish tribes with some frequency (Dt 12 31). The Israel- ites are said to have borrowed it from their Can. neighbors (2 K 16 3; 2 Ch 28 3), and as a matter of fact human sacrifices were never offered to Jeh, but only to various gods of the land. The god who was most frequently worshipped in this way was Moloch or Molech, the god of the Ammonites (2 K 23 10; Lev 18 2f; 20 2), but from Jeremiah we learn that the Phoen god Baal was, at least in the later period of the history, also associated with Molech in receiving this worsliip (Jer 19 5; 32 35). As in the case of the Canaaniles, the only specific cases of human sacrifice mentioned among the Israelites are those of the royal princes, sons of Ahaz and Manasseh, the two kings of Judah who were most deeply affected by the surrounding heathen practices and who, at the same time, fell into great national distress (2 K 16 3; 2 Ch 28 3; 2 K 21 6; 2 Ch 33 6). But it is clear from many general statements that the custom was widespread among the masses of the people as well. It is forbidden in the Mosaic legislation (Lev 18 21; 20 2-5; Dt 18 10) ; it is said in 2 K 17 17 that the sacrifice

      of sons and daughters was one of the causes of the captivity of the ten tribes. Jeremiah charges the people of the Southern Kingdom with doing the same thing (Jer 7 31; 19 5; 32 35); with these general statements agree Isa 57 5; Ezk 16 2 f; 20 31; 23 37; Ps 106 37 f. A study of these passages makes it certain that in the period im- mediately before the captivity of Judah, human sacrifice was by no means confined to the royal family, but was rather common among the people. Daughters as well as sons weie sacrificed. It is mentioned only once in connection with the North- ern Kingdom, and then only in the summary of the causes of their captivity (2 K 17 17), but the Southern Kingdom in its later years was evidently deeply affected. There were various places where the bloody rite was celebrated (Jer 19 5), but the special high place, apparently built for the purpose, was in the Valley of Tophet or Hinnom (ge-hin- noin, Gehenna) near Jerus (2 Ch 28 3; 33 6). This great high place, built for the special purpose of human sacrifice (Jer 7 31; 32 3.5), was defiled by the good king Josiah in the hope of eradicating the cruel practice (2 K 23 10).

      The Bib. writers without exception look upon the practice with horror as the supreme point of na- tional and religious apostasy, and a chief cause of national disaster. They usually term the rite "passing through fire," probably being unwilling to use the sacred term "sacrifice" in reference to such a revolting custom. There is no evidence of a continuance of the practice in captivity nor after the return. It is said, however, that the heathen Sepharvites, settled by the Assyr kings in the de- populated territory of the Northern Kingdom, "burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim" (2 K 17 31). The practice is not heard of again, and probably rapidly died out. The restored Israelites were not affected by it. Cf Sacrifice (OT), VI, 10. William Joseph McGlothlin

      SACRILEGE, sak'ri-lej: For "commit sacrilege" in Rom 2 22 (AV and ERVm), RV has "rob temples," which more exactly expresses the meaning of the vb. {hierosuleo; cf Acts 19 37, "robbers of temples" [q.v.]). The noun occurs in 2 Mace 4 39 (AVand RV) for the corresponding form hierosulema.

      SADAMIAS, sad-a-ml'as: AV = RV Salem as (q.v.).

      SADAS, sa'das: AV = RV Astad (q.v.).

      SADDEUS, sa-de'us: AV = RV Loddeus (q.v.).

      SADDLE, sad" 1: As noun (33"|^ , merkabh, "a, riding seat") the word occurs in Lev 15 9 (m "car- riage"); ordinarily it is used as a vb. (IBSH , habhash, lit. to "bind up" or "gird about"), to saddle an ass (Gen 22 3; Nu 22 21; Jgs 19 10, etc).

      SADDUCEES, sad'il-sez (D^pll? , ^adduklm; EaSSovKaioi, Saddoukaioi) : 1. Introductory

      1. N'aine: Rival Etymologies. Probably from Zadok the High Priest

      2. Autliorities; NT, Josephus, Talmud (primary). Church Fathers (secondary)

      II. Origin and History

      1. Early Notices in Josephus; Alleged Relation to Ditterences between Propliets and Priests

      2. Tendencies of Sadducees toward Hellenism as Causing Rise of hdsidhlm

      3. Favored by Alex. "Jannaous; Put in the Back- ground by Alexandra Salome

      4. From a Political. Become Also a Religious Party

      5. NT Time — Dread of Roman Interference if iVtessianic Claim Recognized

      0. Sadducees Antagonistic to the Apostles; Phari- sees More Favorable

      7. Pall of Sadducean Party at Outbreak of Jewish War



      Sacrifice, Human Sadducees

      III. Doctrines of the Sadducees

      1. Laid Stress on Ceremonial Exactness

      2. Disbelief in the Spiritual World, in a Resur- rection, and in Providence: Their Materialism

      3. Sadducees and the Pentateuch

      4. Relation to Epicureans IV. Character of Sadducees

      1. Josephus Describes Them as Boorish

      2. Tahuudic Account of the Sadducees

      3. Relation to Temple and Worship a Heathenish One

      4. Works of Sadducees

      V. Relation of Sadducees to Jesus

      1. Reasons for His Denouncing the Sadducees Less Frequently Than the Pharisees

      2. Attitude of Sadducees to Jesus

      This prominent Jewish sect, though not so nu- merous as their opponents, the Pharisees, by their wealth and the priestly descent of many of them had an influence which fuUy balanced that of their more popular rivals. They were a political party, of priestly and aristocratic tendency, as against the more religious and democratic Pharisees.

      /. Introductory, — The Talm form suggests deri- vation from the name of their founder, but the form in NT and Jos would imply connection

      1. Name: with the vb. "to be righteous." The Rival Ety- probability is, that the name is derived mologies from some person named "Zadok."

      The most prominent Zadok in history was_ the Davidio high priest (2 S 8 17; 15 24; 1 K 1 35), from whom all succeeding high priests claimed to descend. It is in harmony with this, that in the NT the Sadducees are the party to whom the high priests belonged. On the authority of 'Abhoth d'-Rabbi Nathan (c 1000 AD) another Zadok is asserted to be he from whom the Sadducees received their name. He was a disciple of Antigonus of Socho (c 2.50 BC) who taught that love to God should be absolutely disinterested {Pirke 'Abhoth, i.3). 'Abhoth d'-Rabbl Nathan's account of the derivation of the Sadduceanism from this teaching is purely an imaginary deduction (Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers'^, 112). The majority of authoritative writers prefer to derive the name from Zadok, the colleague of Abiathar, the con- temporary of David.

      Our main authorities for the teaching of the Sad- ducees are the NT and Jos. According to the

      former, the Sadducees denied the

      2. Author- resurrection of the body, and did not ities believe in angels or spirits (Mt 22 23;

      Acts 23 8). More can be learned from Jos, but his evidence is to be received with caution, as he was a Pharisee and, moreover, had the idea that the Sadducees were to be paralleled with the Epicureans. The Talm is late. Before even the Mishna was committed to writing (c 200 AD) the Sadducees had ceased to exist; before the Gemara was completed (c 700 AD) every vahd tradition of their opinions must have vanished. Further, the Talm is Pharisaic. The Fathers, Origen, Hippolytus, Epiphanius and Jerome, have derived their information from late Pharisaic sources.

      //. Origin and History. — Jos describes the Sad- ducees along with the contemporary sects, the

      Pharisees and the Essenes (Jos, Ant, 1. Early XIII, v, 9; X,vi,2; XVIII, i, 4, .5; BJ, Notices in II, viii, 14). His earhest notice of Josephus them is after his account of the treaties

      of Jonathan with the Romans and the Lacedemonians. He indicates his belief that the parties were ancient; but if so, they must have formerly had other names. It has been suggested that the earlier form of the conflict between the Sad- ducees and Pharisees was opposition between the priests and the prophets. This, however, is not tenable; in the Southern Kingdom there was rio such opposition; whatever the state of matters in

      theNorthernKingdom, it could have had no influence on opinion in Judaea and Gahlee in the time of Our Lord. By others the rivalry is supposed to be in- herited from that between the scribes and the priests, but Ezra, the earliest scribe, in the later sense of the term, was a priest with strong sacerdotal sympathies.

      Probably the priestly party only gradually crys- tallized into the sect of the Sadducees. After the return from the exile, the high priest

      2. Tenden- drew to himself all powers, civil and cies toward rehgious. To the Pers authorities he Hellenism was as the king of the Jews. The high

      priest and those about him were the persons who had to do with the heathen supreme government and the heathen nationalities around; this association would tend to lessen their religious fervor, and, by reaction, this roused the zeal of a section of the people for the law. With the Gr domination the power of the high priests at home was increased, but they became still more subser- vient to their heathen masters, and were the leaders in the Hellenizing movement. They took no part in the Maccabean struggle, which was mainly sup- ported by their opponents the hdfldhlm, as they were called (the Hasidaeans of 1 Mace 2 42, etc). When the h&sidhlm, having lost sympathy with the Maccabeans, sought to reconcile themselves to the priestly party, Alcimus, the legitimate high priest, by his treachery and cruelty soon renewed the breach. The Hasmoneans then were confirmed in the high-priesthood, but were only lukewarmly supported by the hasidhim.

      The division between the Hasmoneans and the

      hd^tdhlm, or, as they were now called, Pharisees,

      culminated in the insult offered by

      3. Favored Eleazar to John Hyrcanus, the Has- by Jan- monean high priest (Jos, Ant, XIII, naeus; Put x, 5). Alexander Jannaeus, the son of in Back- Hyrcanus, became a violent partisan ground by of the Sadducees, and crucified large Alexandra numbers of the Pharisees. Toward Salome the end of his life he fell out of sym- pathy with the Sadducees, and on his

      deathbed recommended his wife Alexandra Salome, who as guardian to his sons succeeded him, to favor the Pharisees, which she did. In the conflict be- tween her two sons, John Hyrcanus II and Aristo- bulus II, the Sadducees took the side of Aristobulus, the younger and abler brother. So long as the con- test was between Jews, theSadducean candidate pre- vailed. When the Romans were called in, they gave the advantage to Hyrcanus.

      Thrown into the background by the overthrow of

      their candidate for the high-priesthood, they soon

      regained their influence. They allied

      4. Become themselves with the Herodians who a Religious had supported Hyrcanus, but were Party subservient to Rome. Though they

      were not theological at first, they be- came so, to defend their policy against the attacks of the Pharisees. A historic parallel may be found in the Cavaliers of the reign of Charles I, as over against the Puritans.

      The Sadducees at first regarded the struggle between Our Lord and the Pharisees as a matter

      with which they had no concern. It

      5. Fear was not until Our Lord claimed to be Roman In- the Messiah, and the excitement of the terference people consequent on this proved likely if Jesus' to draw the attention of the Rom au- Messianic thorities, that they intervened. Should Claims Are Tiberius learn that there was wide- Recognized spread among the Jews the belief in

      the coming of a Jewish king who was to rule the world, and that one had appeared who claimed to be this Messiah, very soon would the

      Sadducees Saints



      quasi-independence enjoyed by the Jews be taken from them, and with this the influence of the Sad- ducees would depart. An ohgarchy is proverbially sensitive to anything that threatens its stability ; a priesthood is unmeasured in its vindictiveness; and the Sadducees were a priestly oligarchy. Hence it is not wonderful that only the death of Jesus would satisfy them.

      After the resurrection, the Pharisees became

      less hostile to the followers of Christ; but the

      Sadducees maintained their attitude

      6. Continue of suspicion and hatred (Acts 4 1). Antagonistic Although a Pharisee, it was as agent to Apostles of the Sadducean high priest that Paul after persecuted the behevers. The Sad- Christ's ducees gained complete ascendency Departure in the Sanhedrin, and later, under the

      leadership of Annas, or as he is some- times called by Jos, Ananus, the high priest, they put James the brother of Our Lord to death (Jos, Ant, XX, ix, 1) with many others, presumably Christians. The Pharisees were against these pro- ceedings; and even sent messengers to meet Al- binus who was coming to succeed Festus as governor to entreat him to remove Annas from the high- priesthood.

      With the outbreak of the Jewish war, the Sad- ducees with their aUies the Herodians were driven

      into the background by the Zealots,

      7. Fall of John of Gischala and Simon ben Gioras. Sadducean Annas and Joshua, also called high Party priest by Jos, were both put to death

      by the Zealots and their Idumaean allies (Jos, BJ, IV, v, 2). With the destruction of the temple and the fall of the Jewish state the Sad- ducean party disappeared.

      ///. Doctrines of the Sadducees. — As the sacer- dotal party, the Sadducees laid great stress on the

      ceremonial of sacrifice, and rejected

      1. Cere- the changes introduced by their oppo- monial nents unless these found support in Exactness the words of the Law.

      The most prominent doctrine of the

      Sadducees was the denial of the immortahty of

      the soul and of the resurrection of the body. The

      Pharisees beHeved that Moses had de-

      2. Disbelief hvered these doctrines to the elders, in Spiritual and that they had in turn handed them World and on to their successors. The Sadducees Resurrec- rejected aU these traditions. From tion Acts (23 8) we learn that they be- lieved in neither "angel or spirit."

      As appearances of angels are mentioned in the Law, it is difficult to harmonize their reverence for the Law with this denial. They may have regarded these angelophanies as theophanies. Jos distinctly asserts [Ant, XVIII, i, 4) that the Sadducees believe that the soul dies with the body. They deny, he says. Divine providence (BJ, II, viii, 14). Their theology might be called "religion within iihe limits of mere sensation."

      The Fathers, Hippolytus, Origen and Jerome,

      credit the Sadducees with regarding the Pent as

      alone canonical (Hipp., Haer., ix.24;

      3. Alleged Orig., Contra Celsum, i.49; on Mt BeUef in 22 24-31; Jer on Mt 22 31.32). This Canonicity idea may be due to a false identification of Penta- of the views of the Sadducees with those teuch Alone of the Samaritans. Had they rejected

      all the rest of Scripture, it is hardly possible that Jos would have failed to notice this. The Talm does not mention this among their errors. It is certain that they gave more impor- tance to the Pent than to any other of the books of Scripture. Hence Our Lord, in the passage com- mented on by Origen and Jerome, appeals to the Law rather than to the Prophets or the Pss. It

      follows from the little value they put upon the Prophets that they had no sympathy with the Mes- sianic hopes of the Pharisees.

      It need hardly be said that there was no real con- nection between Sadduceanism and the doctrines of Epicurus. There was a super- 4. Relation ficial resemblance which was purely to Epicu- accidental. Their favor for Helleii- reanism ism would give a color to this identi- fication. IV. Character of the Sadducees. — Jos says that while the Pharisees have amiable manners and cul- tivate concord among all, the Saddu- 1. Charae- cees are "very boorish" (BJ, II, viii, terized as 14). This want of manners is not a Rough and characteristic usually associated with Boorish an aristocracy, or with supple diplo- mats, yet it suits what we find in the NT. The cruel horseplay indulged in when Our Lord was tried before the irregular meeting of the Sanhedrin (Mt 26 67.68), the shout of Ananias at the trial of Paul before the same tribunal to "smite him on the mouth," show them to be rough and overbearing. What Jos relates of the conduct of Annas (or Ananus) in regard to James, above re- ferred to, agrees with this. Jos, however, does not always speak in such condemnatory terms of Ana- nus — in BJ (IV, V, 2) he calls him "a man venerable and most just." Only the violence which, as Jos relates in the chapter immediately preceding that from which we have quoted, Ananus resorted to against the Zealots better suits the earlier ver- dict of Jos than the later. As to their general character Jos mentions that when the Sadducees became magistrates they conformed their judgments to Pharisaic opinion, otherwise they would not have been tolerated (Ant, XVIII, i, 4).

      As noted above, the Talm account is untrustworthy, late and Pharisaic. The Gemara from wlilch most of

      the references are talcen was not committed 2 Talmudic ^^ "writing till 7 centuries after Christ — ,' when the traditions concerning the Sad-

      ACCOUntS ducees, such as had survived, had filtered

      through 20 generations of Pharisaism. Despite this lengthened time and suspicious medium, there may be some truth in the representations of the Talmudic rabbin. In Pesdhlm 57a it is said, "Woe's me on account of the house of ISeothus, woe's me on account of their spears; woe's me on accotmt of the house of Hanun [Annas], woe's me on account of their serpent brood; woe's me on account of the house of Kathros, woe's me on account of their pen; woe's me on account of the house of Ishmael ben Phabi; woe's me on account of their fists. They are high priests and their sons are treasurers of the temple, and their sons- in-law, assistant treasurers; and their servants beat the people with sticks." As these are Sadducean names, this passage exhibits Pharisaic tradition as to the habits of the Sadducees.

      The Sadducean high priests made Hophni and

      Phinehas too much their models. Annas and

      his sons had booths in the courts of

      3. Relation the temple for the sale of sacrificial to Temple requisites, tables for money-changers, and Its as ordinary coins had to be changed Worship into the shekels of the sanctuary.

      From all these the priests of the high- priestly caste derived profit at the expense of dese- crating the temple (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, I, 371 ff). They did not, as did the Phari- sees, pay spiritual religion the homage of hypocrisy; they were frankly irreligious. While officials of rehgion, they were devoid of its spirit. This, how- ever, represents their last stage.

      The favor for the memory of John Hyrcanus shown

      by the writer of 1 Mace (16 23.24) renders probable

      Geiger's opinion that the author was a Sad-

      4. Saddu- ducee. He shows the party in its best form: »_„_ his outlook on life is eminently sane, and T ■+ 4. ^'^ history is trustworthy. He has sympa- Llterature thy with the patriotism of the Hasidaeans,

      but none with the religious scruples which led them to desert Judas Maccabaeus. That the writer



      Sadducees Saints

      of Ecclus from his silence as to the national expectation of a Messiah and the hope of a future life was afeo a Sad- ducee. is almost certain.

      V. The Relation of the Sadducees to Jesus, — As

      the doctrines and practices of the Sadducees were quite aUen from the teaching of Our

      1. Less De- Lord and the conduct He enjoined, nounced it is a problem why He did not de- by Jesus nounce them more frequently than He Than the did. Indeed He never denounces the Pharisees Sadducees save along with their oppo- nents the Pharisees; whereas He fre- quently denounces the Pharisees alone. As His position, both doctrinal and practical, was much nearer that of the Pharisees, it was necessary that He should clearly mark Himself off from them. There was not the same danger of His position being confused with that of the Sadducees. Jos informs us that the Sadducees had influence with the rich; Jesus drew His adherents chiefly from the poor, from whom also the Pharisees drew. The latter opposed Him all the more that He was sapping their source of strength; hence He had to defend Him- self against them. Further, the Gospels mainly recount Our Lord's ministry in Galilee, whereas the Sadducees were chiefly to be found in Jerus and its neighborhood; hence there may have been severe denunciations of the Sadducees that have not come down to us.

      The Sadducees probably regarded Jesus as a

      harmless fanatic who by His denunciations was

      weakening the influence of the Phari-

      2. Attitude sees. Only when His claim to be the toward Messiah brought Him within the sphere Jesus of practical politics did they desire

      to intervene. When they did de- termine to come into conflict with Jesus, they promptly decreed His arrest and death; only the arrest was to be secret, "lest a tumult arise among the people" (Mt 26 5). In their direct encounter with Our Lord in regard to the resurrection (Mt 22 25 ff; Mk 12 20ff; Lk 20 29 ff), there is an ele- ment of contempt implied in the illustration which they bring, as it till almost the end they failed to take Him seriously. For Literature see Pharisees.

      J. E. H. Thomson SADDXJK, sad'uk (A [Fritzsche], 2d88ov)Kos, Sdddoukos, B, SaSSovXovKos, Saddouloukos; AV Sad- due): The high priest, an ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd 8 2) = "Zadok"inEzr 7 2 = "Sadoc" in 2 Esd 1 1.

      SADOC, sa'dok:

      (1) (Lat Sadoch) : An ancestor of Ezra (2 Esd 1 l) = "Zadok" inEzr 7 2 = "Sadduk"in 1 Esd 8 2. (2) (SaSii/c, Sadok) : A descendant of Zerubbabel and ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1 14).

      SAFFRON, saf'run (D3"}?, karkom; kp6kos, krdkos): Identical with the Arab, kurkum, the same as zafaran, "saffron." The source of the true saffron is Crocus sativus (N.O. Indaceae), a plant cultivated in Pal; there are 8 wild varieties in all of which, as in the cultivated species, the orange-colored styles and stigmas yield the yellow dye, saffron. Cant 4 14 probably refers to the C. sativus. There is a kind of bastard saffron plant, the Carthamus linctorius (N.O. Composilae) , of which the orange-colored flowers yield a dye like saffron. E. W. G. Masterman

      SAIL, sal, SAILOR, sal'er. See Ships and Boats, II, 2, (3); 111,2.

      SAINTS, sants: In AV 3 words are thus ren- dered: (1) ®ilp3, kadhosh (in Dnl the same root occurs several times in its Aram, form, TC'^'li? , i:ad-

      dish); (2) T'Pn, haftdh, and (3) dyi-oi, hdgioi. Of these words (2) has in general the meaning of right- eousness or goodness, while (1) and (3) have the meaning of consecration and Divine claim and ownership. They are not primarily words of char- acter, like hdijidh, but express a relation to God as being set apart for His own. Wherever kddhosh refers to angels, the rendering "holy one" or "holy ones" has been substituted in RV for AV "saint" or "saints," which is the case also in Ps 106 16 m (cf 34 9), and in 1 S 2 9, as the tr of ha^idh.

      While hagioi occurs more frequently in the NT than does kddhosh in the OT, yet both are applied with practical uniformity to the company of God's

      Saffron {Crocus sativus),

      people rather than to any individual. Perhaps the rendering "saints" cannot be improved, but it is necessary for the ordinary reader constantly to guard against the idea that NT saintship was in any way a result of personal character, and conse- quently that it implied approval of moral attain- ment already made. Such a rendering as "con- secrate ones," for example, would bring out more clearly the relation to God which is involved, but, besides the fact that it is not a happy tr, it might lead to other errors, for it is not easy to remember that consecration — the setting apart of the indi- vidual as one of the company whom God has in a peculiar way as His own — springs not from man, but from God Himself, and that consequently it is in no way something optional, and admits of no degrees of progress, but, on the contrary, is from the beginning absolute duty. It should also be noted that while, as has been said, to be a saint is not directly and primarily to be good but to be set apart by God as His own, yet the godly and holy character ought inevitably and immediately to result. When God consecrates and claims moral beings for Himself and His service. He demands that they should go on to be fit for and worthy of the relation in which He has placed them, and so we read of certain actions as performed "worthily

      Sala, Salah Salmons



      of the saints" (Rom 16 2) and as such "as beoometh saints" (Eph 5 3). The thought of the holy char- acter of the "saints," which is now so common as almost completely to obscure the real thought of the NT writers, already lay in their thinking very close to their conception of saintship as consecration by God to be His own. David Foster Estes

      SALA, SALAH, sa'la (Hbt), s/ie?a/j, "a missile," "petition"; 2a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\d, Said): A son of Arpachshad (AV Gen 10 24; 11 13 ff; 1 Ch 1 18.24). Lk 3 35.36 follows LXX of Gen 10 24; 11 12=Shelah (q.v.).

      SALAMIEL, sa-la'mi-el (B A, SaXaiJii'iiX, Salamiel, N , 2a(ia|ii^\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, Samamitl) : An ancestor of Judith (Jth 8 1)=AV "Samael" = "ShelumieL"

      SALAMIS, sal'a-mis (2aX.a|ji£s, Salamis) : A town on the east coast of Cyprus, situated some 3

      miles to the N. of the mediaeval and 1. Site modem Famagusta. It lay near the

      river Pediaeus, at the eastern extrem- ity of the great plain of the Mesor^a, which runs far into the interior of the island toward Nicosia (Lefkosia), the present capital. It possessed a good harbor and was the most populous and flourish- ing town of Cyprus in the Hellenic and Rom periods, carrying on a vigorous trade with the ports of Cili- cia and Syria. Its population was mixed, consisting of Gr and Phoen elements. The former, however, gave its tone and color to the city, and the chief cult and temple were those of Salaminian Zeus.

      Tradition represented Salamis as founded soon after the fall of Troy by Teucer. the prince of Gr archers ac- cording to the narrative of the Iliad, who 2 Earlv named it after his home, the island of 7i. , ^ Salamis oft the Attic coast. In the 6th

      xlistory cent. BC it figures as an important Hel-

      lenic city, ruled by a hne of limgs reputed to be descended from Teucer and strengthened hy an alliance with Cyrene (Herod. iv.l62). Gorgus, who was on the throne in 498 BC, refused to join the Ionic revolt against Persia, but the townsmen, led by his brother One- silus, took up arms in the struggle for freedom. A crush- ing defeat, however, inflicted under the walls of Salamis, restored the island to its Pers overlords, who reinstated Gorgus as a vassal prince (Herod, v. 10,3 fl). In 449 a CJr fleet under Athenian leadership defeated the Phoen navy, which was in the service of Persia, off Salamis: but the Athenian withdrawal which followed the battle led to a decided anti-Hellenic reaction, tmtil the able and vigorous role of the Salaminian prince Euagoras, who was a warm friend of the Athenians (Isocrates, Euau.) and a successful champion of Hellenism. In 306 a second great naval J)attle was fought off Salamis, in which Demetrius Poliorcetes defeated the forces of Ptolemy I (Soter), king of Egypt. But 11 years later the town came into Ptolemy's hands and, with the rest of the island, remained an appanage of the Egyp king- dom until the incorporation of Cyprus in the Rom Emph-e (58 BC).

      When Barnabas and Paul, accompanied by John Mark, set out on their 1st missionary journey, they sailed from Seleucia, the seaport of 3. Visit of Antioch, and landed at Salamis, about the Apostles 130 miles distant, as the harbor nearest to the Syrian coast. There they preached the gospel in the "synagogues of the Jews" (Acts 13 5) ; the phrase is worth noting as pointing to the existence of several synagogues and thus of a large Jewish community in Salamis. Of work among the Gentiles we hear nothing, nor is any indication given either of the duration of the apostles' visit or of the success of their mission; but it would seem that after a short stay they pro- ceeded "through the whole island" (Acts 13 6 RV) to Paphos. The words seem to imply that they visited allj or at least most, of the towns in which there were Jewish communities. Paul did not return to Salamis, but Barnabas doubtless went there on his 2d missionary journey (Acts 15 39), and tradition states that he was martyred there in

      Nero's reign, on the site marked by the monastery named after him,

      In 116 AD the Jews in Cyprus rose in revolt and massacred 240,000 Greeks and Romans. The rising was crushed with the utmost 4. Later severity by Hadrian. Salamis was History almost depopulated, and its destruction

      was afterward consummated by earth- quakes in 332 and 342 AD. It was rebuilt, though on a much smaller scale, by the emperor Constan- tius II (337-61 AD) under the name Constantia, and became the metropolitan see of the island. The most famous of its bishops was Epiphanius, the staunch opponent of heresy, who held the see from 367 to 403. In 647 the city was finally destroyed by the Saracens. Considerable remains of ancient buildings still remain on the site; an account of the excavations carried on there in 1890 by Messrs. J. A. R. Munro and H. A. Tubbs under the auspices of the Cyprus Exploration Fund will be found in the Journal oj Hellenic Studies, XII, 59-198.

      M. N. ToD

      SALASADAI, sal-a-sad'a-i (A, SaXao-aSaC, Sala- sadai, B, 2apa

      SALATHIEL, sa-la'thi-el:

      (1) {^a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aeLi,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\,SalathiU): AV; Gr form of "Sheal- tiel" (thus RV). The father of Zerubbabel (1 Esd 5 5.48.56; 6 2; Mt 1 12; Lk 3 27).

      (2) RV: Another name of Esdras (2 Esd 3 1, "Salathiel").

      SALE, sal (^319'a, mimhar): The word is used:

      (1) in the sense of the transaction (Lev 26 50);

      (2) in the sense of the limit of time involved in the transaction (Lev 25 27); (3) in the sense of the price paid in the transaction (Dt 18 8), though it may be the same as (1) above.

      SALECAH, sal'g-ka, SALCAH, SALCHAH, sal'- ka (npbo , .^al'khah; B,'ZiKxaL.Sekchal,'A\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\6.,Achd, J.i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\6., "held, A, "EXxa, Elchd, 'Ao-eXx". Aselchd, SeXxa, Selchd) : This place first appears in Dt 3 10 as marking the eastern boundary of Bashan. It is named as one of the cities in which Og, king of Bashan, ruled (Josh 12 5). It must certainly have been included in the portion given to the half- tribe of Manasseh, "all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan," although it is not named among the cities that fell to him (Josh 13 29 ff). At a later time we are told that Gad dwelt over against the Reuben- itesin the land of Bashan unto Salecah (1 Ch 5 11). The boundaries of the tribes probably changed from time to time.

      The ancient city is represented by the modern Salkhad, a city in a high and strong position at the southern end of Jebel ed-Druze (the Mountain of Bashan). On a volcanic hill rising some 300 ft, above the town, in what must have been the crater, stands the castle. The view from the battlements, as the present writer can testify, is one of the finest E. of the Jordan, including the rich hollow of the Hauran, Mt. Hermon, and all the intervening country to the mountains of Samaria, with vast reaches of the desert to the S. and to the E. The old Rom roads are still clearly seen running without curve or deviation across the country to Bozrah and Der'ah, away to the S.E. over the desert to KaVat el-^Azrak, and eastward to the Pers Gulf. The castle was probably built by the Romans, Restored by the Arabs, it was a place of strength in Crusading times. It has now fallen on evil days. The modern town, containing many ancient houses, lies mainly on the slopes S.E. of the castle. The inhabitants are Druzes, somewhat noted for turbu-



      Sala, Salah Salmone

      lence. In the recent rising of the Druzes (1911) the place suffered heavily from bombardment by the Turks. For water-supply it is entirely depend- ent on cisterns filled during the rainy season.

      , . W. EWING

      SALEM, sa'lem (Q^ffl , shalem; 2tt\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^(i, Saltm) : The name of the city of which Melchizedek was king (Gen 14 18; He 7 1.2; cf Ps

      1. Identifi- 76 2). To aU appearance it lay near cation and "the Vale of Shaveh," described as Meaning "the King's Vale." The general opin- ion among the Jews was that Salem

      was the same as Jerus, as stated by Jos (Ant, I, x, 2), who adds (VII, iii, 2) that it was known as Solyma (S6Xu/ia, Sdluma, variants, according to Whiston, Salem and Hierosolyma) m the time of Abraham. It was also reported that the city and its temple were called Solyma by Homer, and he adds that the name in Heb means "security." This identification with Jerus was accepted by On- kelos and all the Tgs, as well as by the early Chris- tians. The Samaritans have always identified Salem with Salim, E. of Nablus, but Jewish and Christian tradition is more likely to be correct, supported, as it is, by Ps 76 2.

      The testimony of the Am Tab is apparently nega- tive. Knudtzon's no. 287 mentions "the land" and "the lands of Urusalim," twice

      2. Testi- with the prefix for "city"; no. 289 mony of likewise has this prefix twice; and no. Tell el- 290 refers to "the city" or "a city of Amama the land Urusalim caDed Btt-Ninip" Tablets {Beth-Anusat ["!]). As there is no prefix

      of any kind before the element salim, it is not probable that this is the name of either a man (the city's founder) or a god (like the Assyr Sulmanu). The form in Sennacherib's inscriptions (cf Taylor Cylinder, III, 50), Ursalimmu, gives the whole as a single word in the nominative, the double m implying that the i was long. As the Assyrians pronounced s as sh, it is hkely that the Urusahmites did the same, hence the Heb y'rlXshalaim, with sh. See Jeru-salem. T. G. Pinches

      SALEM (SAXtipLos, Sdlemos; AV Saltun): An ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd 8 l) = "ShaIlum" in Ezr 7 2="Salemas" in 2 Esd 1 1.

      SALEMAS, sal'S-mas, sa-le'mas (Lat Salame; AV Sadamias): An ancestor of Ezra (2 Esd 11) = "Shallum" in Ezr 7 2; called also "Salem" in 1 Esd 8 1.

      SALIM, sa'lim (2aXc£|i, Saleim): A place evi- dently well known, since the position of Aenon, the springs where John was baptizing, was defined by reference to it: they were "near to Salim" (Jn 3 23). It must be sought on the W. of the Jordan, as will be seen from comparison of Jn 1 28; 3 26; 10 40. Many identifications have been proposed: e.g. that of Alford with Shilhim and Ain in the S. of judah; that of Btisching with 'Ain Karim, and that of Barclay, who would place Salim in Wddy Suleim near 'Anata, making Aenon the springs in Wddy Far'ah. These are all ruled out by their dis- tance from the district where John is known to have been at work. If there were no other objec- tion to that suggested by Conder (Tent Work, 49 f) following Robinson (BR, III, 333) with Salim m the plain E. of Nahlus, Aenon being 'Ainun in WAdy Far'ah, it would be sufficient to say that this is in the very heart of Samaria, and therefore impossible. In any case the position of Aenon, 6 miles distant, with a high ridge intervening, would hardly be defined by the village of Salim, with the important city of Shechem quite as near, and more easily accessible.

      Onom places Aenon 8 Rom miles S. of Scythopolis (Beisdn), near Salumias (Salim) and the Jordan. This points to Tell Ridhghah, on the northern side of which is a shrine known locally as Sheikh Sellm. Not far off, by the ruins of Umm el-'Amdan, there aie seven copious fountains which might well be called Aenon, "place of springs."

      There is reason to believe that this district did not belong to Samaria, but was included in the lands of Scythopolis, which was an important member of the league of ten cities. W. Ewinq

      SALIMOTH, sal'i-moth (B, 2o\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\€i|ji

      SALLAI, sal'a-i, sal'i ClD , ^allay; SaXiGn, Sal&m, A, 2o\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.u, Said, with variants) :

      (1) Eponym of a Benjamite family which settled at Jerus after the return, descendants of "Sallu" (1 Ch 9 7; Neh 11 7.8); the pedigrees of Sallu differ decidedly in the two passages. Curtis (ICC) suggests that "son of Hodaviah, the son of Hasse- nuah" (Ch) is a corruption or derivation of "Judah the son of Hassenuah" (Neh).

      (2) Name of a priestly family (Neh 12 20), called "SaUu" in ver 7.

      SALLU, sal'ti. See Sallai.

      SALLUMUS, sa-lu'mus, sal'Q-mus (2dXX.ou(ios,

      Sdlloumos) : One of the porters who had taken "strange wives" (1 Esd 9 2.5) = "Shallum" in Ezr 10 24; called also "Salum" in 1 Esd 5 28.

      SALMA, sal'ma. See Salmon.

      SALMAI, sal'ml, sal'mS-i C^O?^ , salmay; AV Shalmai [AVin Neh 7 48 is "Shalmai" = Ezr 2 46]; RV "Salmai"): The eponym of a family of Nethi- nim, caUed "Shamlai" in Ezr 2 46 (K«re, ■'':l21p , shamlay, K'thibh, "^^bll) , shalmay, followed by AV text, "Shalmai"; B, Xaixadu, Samadn, A, ^eXafil, Selami; Neh 7 48, B, SaXe^ef, Salemei, A, ZeX^el, Selmei, N, Sa/md, Samael). The name suggests a foreign reign. In 1 Esd 5 30 the corresponding name is "Subai."

      SALMANASAR, sal-ma-na'sar (2 Esd 13 40) =

      Shalmaneser (q.v.).

      SALMON, sal'mon, SALMA^ (^''2^1?', salmon, "investiture" [Ruth 4 21], H'abip, sa'lmah, "cloth- ing" [Ruth 4 20], iSpbiB, salma' [I Ch 2 11.51.54]; 2a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|j.

      (1) The father of Boaz the husband of Ruth, and thus the grandfather of Jesse, David's father (Ruth 4 20.21). He is mentioned in both the genealogies of Jesus (Mt 1 4.5;_ Lk 3 32). From IMt 1 5 we learn that he married Rahab, by whom he begat Boaz.

      (2) In 1 Ch 2 51 if, we read of a Salma, "the father of Beth-lehem," a son of Caleb the son of Hur. He is also said to be the father of "the Ne- tophathites, Atroth-beth-joab, and half of the Ma- nahathites, the Zorites," and several "families of scribes." See also Zalmon. S. F. Hunter

      SALMONE, sal-mo'ne (2a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\(iuvT), Salmone): Acts 27 7. See Phoenix.

      Saloas Salvation



      SALOAS, sal'6-as (2aX.6as, Salons; AV Talsus after Lat Thalsas): In 1 Esd 9 22, for "Elasah" of Ezr 10 22.

      SALOM, sa'Iom (Sa\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\»(i,, Saldm):

      (1) The father of Helkias (Bar 17). Gr form of "Shallum."

      (2) AV = RV "Salu" (1 Maec 2 26).

      SALOME, sa-lo'me (Sa\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\w(iT], Salome):

      (1) One of the holy women who companied with Jesus in Galilee, and ministered to Him (Mk 15 40.41). She was present at the crucifixion (15 40), and was among those who came to the tomb of Jesus on the resurrection morning (16 1 .2) . Com- parison with Mt 27 56 clearly identifies her with the wife of Zebedee. It is she, therefore, whose ambitious request for her sons James and John is recorded in Mt 20 20-24; Mk 10 35-40. From Jn 19 25 many infer that she was a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (thus Meyer, Luthardt, Alford) ; others (as Godet) dispute the inference.

      (2) Salome was the name of the daughter of Herodias who danced before Herod, and obtained as reward the head of John the Baptist (Mt 14 3- 11; Mk 6 17-28; cf Jos, Ant, XVIII, v, 4). She is not named in the Gospels. James Orb

      SALT, solt (nbp , melah; aXas, hdlas, a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\s, hdls) : Common salt is considered by most authorities as an essential ingredient of our food. Most people intentionally season their cooking with more or less salt for the sake of palatabihty. Others depend upon the small quantities which naturally exist in water and many foods to furnish the necessary amount of salt for the body. Either too much salt or the lack of it creates undesirable disturbance in the animal system. Men and animals alike instinctively seek for this substance to supplement or improve their regular diet. The ancients appre- ciated the value of salt for seasoning food (Job 6 6) . So necessary was it that they dignified it by making it a requisite part of sacrifices (Lev 2 13; Ezr 6 9; 7 22; Ezk 43 24; Mk 9 49). In Nu 18 19; 2 Ch 13 5, a "covenant of salt" is mentioned (cf Mk 9 49). This custom of pledging friendship or confirming a compact by eating food containing salt is still retained among Arab .-speaking people. The Arab, word for "salt" and for a "compact" or "treaty" is the same. Doughty in his travels in Arabia appealed more than once to the superstitious behef of the Arabs in the "salt covenant," to save his Ufe. Once an Arab has received in his tent even his worst enemy and hag eaten salt (food) with him, he is bound to protect his guest as long as he remains. See Covenant of Salt.

      The chief source of salt in Pal is from the exten- sive deposits near the "sea of salt" (see Dead Sea), where there are literally mountains and valleys of salt (2 S 8 13; 2 K 14 7; 1 Ch 18 12; 2 Ch 25 11). On the seacoast the inhabitants frequently gather the sea salt. They fill the rock crevices with sea water and leave it for the hot summer sun to evaporate. After evaporation the salt crystals can be collected. As salt-gathering is a govern- ment monopoly in Turkey, the government sends men to pollute the salt which is being surreptitious- ly cry.stallized, so as to make it unfit for eating. Another extensive supply comes from the salt lakes in the Syrian desert E. of Damascus and toward Palmyra. All native salt is more or less bitter, due to the presence of other salts such as magnesium sulphate.

      Salt was used not only as a food, but as an anti- septic in medicine. Newborn babes were bathed and salted (Ezk 16 4), a custom still prevailing. The Arabs of the desert consider it so necessary,

      that in the absence of salt they bathe their infanta in camels' urine. Elisha is said to have healed the waters of Jericho by casting a cruse of salt into the spring (2 K 2 20 f). Abimelech sowed the ruins of Shechem with salt to prevent a new city from arising in its place (Jgs 9 45). Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt (Gen 19 26).

      Figurative: Salt is emblematic of loyalty and friendship (see above). A person who has onoe joined in a "salt covenant" with God and then breaks it is fit only to be cast out (cf Mt 5 13; Mk 9 50). Saltness typified barrenness (Dt 29 23; Jer 17 6). James compares the absurdity of the same mouth giving forth blessings and cursings to the impossibility of a fountain yielding both sweet and salt water (Jas 3 11 f). James A. Patch

      SALT, CITY OF (nb^n T^y, %r ha-melah; A, at iroXfe]!.! aXwv, hai p6l{e\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\is halon) : One of the six cities in the wilderness of Judah mentioned between Nibshan and Engedi (Josh 15 62). The site is very uncertain. The large and important Tell el- Milh (i.e. "the salt hill"), on the route from Hebron to Akaba, is possible.

      SALT, COVENANT OF. See Covenant of Salt.

      SALT, PILLAR OF. See Lot; Salt; Siddim; Slime.

      SALT SEA. See Dead Sea.

      SALT, VALLEY OF (nb'sn X^J , ge' ha-melah) : The scene of battles, firstly, between David or his lieutenant Abishai and the Edomites (2 S 8 13;

      1 Ch 18 12; Ps 60, title), and later between Amaziah and these same foes (2 K 14 7; 2 Ch 25 11). It is tempting to connect this "Valley of Salt" with es Sebkhah, the marshy, salt-impreg- nated plain which extends from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the foot of the clifTs, but in its present condition it is an almost impossible place for a battle of any sort. The ground is so soft and spongy that a wide detour around the edges has to be made by those wishing to get from one side to the other. It is, too, highly probable that in earher times the whole of this low-lying area was covered by the waters of the Dead Sea. It is far more natu- ral to identify ge' ha-melah with the Wddy el- Milh ("Valley of Salt"), one of the three valleys which unite at Beersheba to form the Wddy ej- Seba\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ These valleys, el-Milh and e^-Seba', together make a natural frontier to Canaan.

      E. W. G. Mastebman SALT-WORT, sdlt'wArt {TPlyQ , inallwh, a word connected with melah, "salt," tr'' in LXX fiXijios, hdlimos; AV mallows) : The halimos of the Greeks is the sea orache, Atriplex halimus, a silvery whitish shrub which flourishes upon the shores of the Dead Sea alongside the rutm (see Junipeb). Its leaves are oval and somewhat like those of an olive. They have a sour flavor and would never be eaten when better food was obtainable (Job 30 4). The tr "mallows" is due to the apparent similarity of the Heb mallu'h to the Gr fj.a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\dxv, maldche, which is the Lat 7iialDa and Eng. "mallow." Certain species of

      malva known in Arab., as S\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\UL~«. , khubbdzeh, are

      very commonly eaten by the poor of Pal.

      . E. W. G. Mastebman SALU, sa'lu .(S^bO, ^dlu' ; LXX B, SaX^K^v, SaZjnon, A, SaXw, 5aZo; AV has "Salom" in 1 Mace

      2 26): A prince and the head of a house of the tribe of Simeon and the father of Zimri who was slain by Phinehas along with the Midianitish woman



      Saloas Salvation

      whom he had brought to the camp of Israel (Nu 25 14; 1 Maco 2 26).

      SALUM, sa'lum (2a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\oii|x, Saloum) :

      (1) The head of one of the families of porters (1 Esd 5 28; om. in B) = "Shallum" in Ezr 2 42; 10 24; Neh 7 45 = "Sallumus" in 1 Esd 9 25.

      (2) 1 Esd 8 1 AV = RV "Salem."

      SALUTATION, sal-Q-ta'shun (tt(ni-a(r(i.6s, aspas- mds): A greeting which might be given in person, orally (Lk 1 29.41.44), or in writing, usually at the close of a letter (1 Cor 16 21; Col 4 18; 2 Thesa 3 17; of use of xafpe"', chairein, "greeting," "joy" in Jas 1 1). The Pharisaic Jews loved salutations in pubhc places (Mt 23 7; Mk 12 38, AV "greet- ing," RV "salutation" ; Lk 11 43; 20 46). Often these salutations were very elaborate, involving much time in prostrations, embracings, etc. When Jesus therefore sent out the Seventy, He forbade salutation by the way (Lk 10 4), though He ordi- narily encouraged proper civilities of this sort (Mt 5 47; 10 12). Edward Bagby Pollard

      SALVATION, sal-va'shun:

      I. In the OT

      1. General

      2. Individualism

      3. Faith

      4. Moral Law

      5. Sacrifices

      6. Ritiial Law


      1. General

      2. The Law

      III. The Te.aching of Christ

      1. The Baptist

      2. Kingdom of God

      3. Present and Future

      4. Individuahsm

      5. jNIoral Progress

      6. Forgiveness

      7. Person of Christ

      8. Notes

      IV. St. Paul

      1. General '

      2. Moral Progress

      3. The Spirit

      4. Mystical Union

      5. Forgiveness

      6. Atonement

      7. Summary

      8. Notes

      V. Rest of NT: Summary

      1. St. John

      2. Hebrews

      3. St. Peter

      4. Simimary Literature

      In EV the words "salvation," "save," are not technical theological terms, but denote simply "deliverance," in almost any sense the latter word can have. In systematic theology, however, "sal- vation" denotes the whole process by which man is delivered from all that would prevent his attain- ing to the highest good that God has prepared for him. Or, loy a transferred sense, "salvation" de- notes the actual enjoyment of that good. So, while these technical senses are often associated with the Gr or Heb words tr"* "save," etc, yet they are still more often used in connection with other words or represented only by the general sense of a passage. And so a collection of the original terms for "save," etc, is of value only for the student doing minute detailed work, while it is the purpose of the present article to present a general view of the Bib. doctrine of salvation.

      /. In the OT. — (1) As long as revelation had not raised the veil that separates this life from the

      next, the Israelite thought of his high- 1. General est good as long life in a prosperous

      Pal, as described most typically in Dt 28 1-14. But a definite reUgious idea was pres- ent also, for the "land of milk and honey," even under angeho protection, was worthless without

      access to God (Ex 33 1-4), to know whom gives happiness (Isa 11 9; Hab 2 14; Jer 31 34). Such a concept is normal for most of the OT, but there are several significant enlargements of it. That Israel should receive God's characteristic of righteousness is a part of the ideal (Isa 1 26; 4 3.4; 32 1-8; 33 24; Jer 31 33.34; Ezk 36 2.5. 26; Zee 8; Dnl 9 24; Ps 51 10-12). Good was found in the extension of Israel's good to the sur- rounding nations (Mic 4 1-4; Isa 2 2-4; 45 5.6; Zee 2 11; 8 22.23; Isa 60; 66 19-21; Zee 14 16.17, etc), even to the extension of the legitimate sacrificial worship to the soil of Egypt (Isa 19 19- 22). Pal was insufficient for the enjoyment of God's gifts, and a new heaven and a new earth were to be received (Lsa 65 17; 66 22), and a share in the glories was not to be denied even to the dead (Isa 26 19; Dnl 12 2). And, among the people so glorified, God would dwell in person (Isa 60 19. 20; Zee 2 10-12). (2) Salvation, then, means de- liverance from all that interferes with the enjoy- ment of these blessings. So it takes countless forms — deliverance from natural plagues, from in- ternal dissensions, from external enemies, or from the subjugation of conquerors (the exile, particii- larly). As far as enemies constitute the threaten- ing danger, the prayer for deliverance is often based on their evil character (Ps 101, etc). But for the individual all these evils are summed up in the word "death," which was thought to terminate all rela- tion to God and all possibility of enjoying His bless- ings (Ps 115 17; Isa 38 18, etc). And so "death" became established as the antinomy to "salvation," and in this sense the word has persisted, although the equation "loss of salvation = physical death" has long been transcended. But death and its attend- ant evils are worked by God's wrath, and so it is from this wrath that salvation is sought (Josh 7 26, etc). And thus, naturally, salvation is from every- thing that raises that wrath, above aU from sin (Ezk 36 25.26, etc).

      (1) At first the "unit of salvation" was the nation (less prominently the family), i.e. a man though righteous could lose salvation through 2. Individ- the faults of others. A father could ualism bring a curse on his children (2 S 21

      1-14), a king on his subjects (2 S 24), or an unknown sinner could bring guilt on an entire community (Dt 21 1-9). (On the other hand, ten righteous would have saved Sodom [Gen 18 32].) And the principle of personal responsibihty was grasped but slowly. It is enunciated partly in Dt 24 16 (of Jer 31 29.30), definitely in Ezk 14 12-20; 18; 33 1-20, and fairly consistently in the Pss. But even Ezekiel still held that five-and-twenty could defile the whole nation (8 16), and he had not the premises for resolving the problem — that tem- poral disasters need not mean the loss of salvation. (2) But even when it was realized that a man lost salvation through his own fault, the converse did not foUow. Salvation came, not by the man's mere merit, but because the man belonged to a nation peculiarly chosen by God. God had made a cove- nant with Israel and His fidelity insured salvation: the salvation comes from God because of His promise or (in other words) because of His name. Indeed, the great failing of the people was to trust too blindly to this promise, an attitude denounced continually by the prophets throughout (from, say. Am 3 2 to Mt 3 9). And yet even the prophets admit a real truth in the attitude, for, despite Israel's sins, eventual salvation is certain. Ezk 20 states this baldly: there has been nothing good in Israel and there is nothing good in her at the prophet's own day, but, notwithstanding, God will give her restoration (cf Isa 8 17.18; Jer 32 6-15, etc).




      Hence, of the human conditions, whole-hearted

      trust in God is the most important. {Belief in God

      is, of course, never argued in the Bible.)

      3. Faith Inconsistent with such trust are, for

      instance, seeking aid from other na- tions (Isa 30 1-5), putting rehance in human skill (2 Ch 16 12), or forsaking Pal through fear (Jer 42). In Isa 26 20 entire passivity is demanded, and in 2 K 13 19 lukewarmness in executing an apparently meaningless command is rebuked.

      (1) Next in importance is the attainment of a moral standard, expressed normally in the various

      codes of the Law. But fulfilment of

      4. Moral the letter of the commandment was by Law no means all that was required. For

      instance, the Law permitted the selling of a debtor into slavery (Dt 15 12), but the reckless use of the creditor's right is sharply condemned (Neh 5 1-13). The prophets are never weary of giving short formulae that will exclude such supra- legalism and reduce conduct to a pure motive : "Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate" (Am 5 15); "To do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Mic 6 8). And the chief emphasis on the Law as written is found in the later books, esp. Ps 119 (cf Ps 147 20) . (2) Certain breaches of the Law had no pardon , but were visited with death at once, even despite re- pentance and confession (Josh 7). But for the most part it is promised that repentance will remove the guilt of the sin if the sin be forsaken (Ezk 18) or, in the case of a sin that would not be repeated, if contrition be felt (2 S 12). Suffering played a part in salvation by bringing knowledge of sin to the conscience, the exile being the most important example (Ezk 36 31). But almost always it is assumed that the possibiUty of keeping the Law is in man's o-nrn power, Dt 30 11-14 stating this ex- plicitly, while the Wisdom Books equate virtue with learning. Consequently, an immense advance was made when man felt the need of God's help to keep the Law, the need of the inscription of the Laws on the heart (Jer 31 31-34). So an outlook was opened to a future in which God would make the nation righteous (see references in 1, above).

      (1) The acceptance of repentance as expiating

      past sins was an act of God's mercy. And so His

      mercy instituted other and additional

      5. Sacrifices means of expiation, most notably that

      of the sacrifices. But a theology of sacrifice is conspicuously absent from the whole OT, for Lev 17 11 is too incidental and too obscure to be any exception. The Christian (or very late Jew- ish) interpretations of the ritual laws lack all solid- ity of exegetical foundation, despite their one-time prevalence. Nor is the study of origins of much help for the meaning attached to the rites by the Jews in historic times. General ideas of offering, of self-denial, of propitiation of wrath, and of enter- ing into communion with God assuredly existed. But in the advanced stages of the religion there is no evidence that sacrifices were thought to produce their effect because of any of these things, but solely because God had commanded the sacrifices. (2) Most sins required a sacrifice as part of the act of repentance, although in case of injury done the neighbor, only after reparation had been made. It Is not (}uite true that for conscious sins no sacrifices were appointed, for in Lev 5 1; 6 1-3, sins are included that could not be committed through mere negligence. And so such rules as Nu 15 30.31 must not be construed too rigorously. (3) Sacri- fices as means of salvation are taught chiefly by Ezk, while at the rebuilding of the temple (Hag, Zee) and the depression that followed (Mai), they were much in the foreground, but the preexilic prophets have little to say about their positive value

      (Jer 7 22 is the nadir). Indeed, in preexihc times the danger was the exaltation of sacrifice at the ex- pense of morahty, esp. with the peace offering, which could be turned into a drunken revel (Am 5 21-24; Isa 22 13; cf Prov 7 14). Attempts were made to "strengthen" the sacrifices to Jeh by the use of ethnic rites (Hos 4 14; Isa, 65 1-5), even with the extreme of human sacrifice (Jer 7 31; Ezk 20 26). But insistence on the strict centrali- zation of worship and increasing emphasis laid on the sin and trespass offerings did away with the worst of the abuses. And many of the Pss, esp. 66, 118, give beautiful evidence of the devotion that could be nourished by the sacrificial rites.

      Of the other means of salvation the ritual law (not always sharply distinguishable from the moral law) bulks rather large in the legisla- 6. Ritual tion, but is not prominent in the Law prophets. Requisite to salvation was

      the abstention from certain acts, arti- cles of food, etc, such abstinence seeming to lie at the background of the term "holiness." But a ritual breach was often a matter of moral duty (burying the dead, etc), and, for such breaches, ritual means of purification are provided and the matter dropped. Evidently such things lay rather on the circumference of the religion, even to Eze- kiel, with his anxious zeal against the least defile- ment. The highest ritual point is touched by Zee 14 20.21, where all of Jerus is so holy that not a pot would be unfit to use in the temple (cf Jer 31 38-40). Yet, even with this perfect holiness, sacrifices would still have a place as a means by which the holiness could be increased. Indeed, this more "positive" view of sacrifices was doubtless present from the first.

      //. Intermediate Literature. — (1) The great change, compared with the earlier period, is that the idea of God had become more 1. General transcendent. But this did not neces- sarily mean an increase in religious value, for there was a corresponding tendency to take God out of relation to the world by an intel- lectualizing process. This, when combined with the persistence of the older concept of salvation in this life only, resulted in an emptying of the reli- gious instinct and in indifferentism. This tendency is well represented in Eccl, more acutely in Sir, and in NT times it dominated the thought of the Sad- ducees. On the other hand the expansion of the idea of salvation to correspond with the higher con- ception of God broke through the hmitations of this hfe and created the new literary form of apocalyp- tics, represented in the OT esp. by Zee 9-14 j Isa 24-27, and above all by Dnl. And in the inter- mediate literature all shades of thought between the two extremes are represented. But too much emphasis can hardly be laid on the fact that this intermediate teaching is in many regards simply faithful to the OT. Almost anything that can be found in the OT — with the important exception of the note of joyousness of Dt, etc — can be found again here. (2) Of the conceptions of the highest good the lowest is the Epicureanism of Sir. The highest is probably that of 2 Esd 7 91-98 RV: "To be- hold the face of him whom in their hf etime they served," the last touch of materiahsm being elimi- nated. Indeed, real materialism is notably absent in the period, even En 10 17-19 being less exuber- ant than the fancies of such early Christian writers as Papias. Individualism is generally taken for granted, but that the opposite opinion was by no means dormant, even at a late period, is shown by Mt 3 9. The idea of a special privilege of Israel, however, of course pervades all the literature, Sib Or 5 and Jub being the most exclusive books and the XII Tests, the most broad-hearted. In place of national privilege, though, is sometimes found the




      still less edifying feature of party privilege (Ps Sol; En 94-105), the most offensive case being the asser- tion of En 90 6-9 that the (inactive) Israel will be saved by the exertions of the "little lamb" Pharisees, before whom every knee shall bow in the Messianic kingdom.

      (1) The conceptions of the moral demands for salvation at times reach a very high level, esp. in

      the XII Tests, (making every allowance 2. The Law for Christian interpolations). "The

      spirit of love worketh together with the law of God in long-suffering unto the salvation of men" (Test. Gad 4 7) is hardly unworthy of St. Paul, and even Jub can say, "Let each love his brother in mercy and justice, and let none wish the other evil" (36 8). But the great tendency is to view God's law merely as a series of written statutes, making no demands except those gained from a rigid constru- ing of the letter. In Lk 10 29, "Who is my neigh- bor?" is a real question — if he is not my neighbor I need not love him! So duties not literally com- manded were settled by utihtarian motives, as out- side the domain of religion, and the unhealthy phenomenon of works of supererogation made its appearance (Lk 17 10). The writer of Wisd can feel smugly assured of salvation, because idolatry had been abstained from (15 4; contrast St. Paul's polemic in Rom 2). And discussions about "great- est commandments" caused character in its relation to religion to be forgotten. (2) As God's com- mands were viewed as statutes the distinction be- tween the moral and the ritual was lost, and the ritual law attained enormous and familiar propor- tions. The beautiful story of Judith is designed chiefly to teach abstinence from ritually unclean food. And the most extreme case is in Jub 6 34- 38 — all of Israel's woes come from keeping the feasts by the actual moon instead of by a correct (theoretical) moon (!). (3) Where self-compla- cency ceased and a strong moral sense was present, despair makes its appearance with extraordinary frequency. The period is the period of penitential prayers, with an undercurrent of doubt as to how far mercy can be expected (Three vs 3-22; Pr Man; Bar 3 1-8, etc). "What profit is it unto us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas we have done the works that bring death?" (2 Esd 7 119 RV). The vast majority of men are lost (9 16) and must be forgotten (8 55), and Ezra can trust for his own salvation only by a special revelation (7 77 RV). So, evidently, St. Paul's pre-Christian ex- perience was no unique occurrence. (4) Important for the NT background is the extreme lack of prom- inence of the sacrifices. They are never given a the- ological interpretation (except in Philo, where they cease to be sacrifices). Indeed, in Sir 35 they are explicitly said to be devotions for the righteous only, apparently prized only as an inheritance from the past and "because of the commandment" (Sir 35 5; yet cf 38 11). When the temple was destroyed and the sacrifices ceased, Judaism went on its way almost unaffected, showing that the sacrifices meant nothing essential to the people. And, even in earlier times, the Essenes rejected sacrifices altogether, without losing thereby their recognition as Jews.

      ///. The Teaching of Christ. — The Baptist pro- claimed authoritatively the near advent of the

      kingdom of God, preceded by a Mes- 1. The sianic judgment that would bring fire for

      Baptist the wicked and the Holy Spirit for the

      righteous. Simple but incisive moral teaching and warning against trusting in national privileges, with baptism as an outward token of repentance, were to prepare men to face this judg- ment securely. But we have no data to determine how much farther (if any) the Baptist conceived his teaching to lead.

      It was in the full heat of this eschatological re- vival that the Baptist had fanned, that Christ began to teach, and He also began

      2. Kingdom with the eschatological phrase, "The of God kingdom of God is at hand." Conse- quently His teaching must have been

      taken at once in an eschatological sense, and it is rather futile to attempt to limit such implications to passages where modern eschatological phrases are used unambiguously. "The kingdom of God is at hand" had the inseparable connotation "Judg- ment is at hand," and in this context, "Repent ye" (Mk 1 15) must mean "lest ye be judged." Hence, Our Lord's teaching about salvation had primarily a future content: positively, admission into the kingdom of God, and negatively, deliverance from the preceding judgment. So the kingdom of God is the "highest good" of Christ's teaching but, with His usual reserve. He has httle to say about its externals. Man's nature is to be perfectly adapted to his spiritual environment (see Resurrection), and man is to be with Christ (Lk 22 30) and the patriarchs (Mt 8 11). But otherwise — and again as usual — the current descriptions are used without comment, even when they rest on rather material- istic imagery (Lk 22 16.30). Whatever the king- dom is, however, its meaning is most certainly not exhausted by a mere reformation of the present order of material things.

      But the fate of man at judgment depends on what man is before judgment, so that the practical prob- lem is salvation from the conditions

      3. Present that will bring judgment; i.e. present and Future and future salvation are inseparably

      connected, and any attempt to make rigid distinctions between the two results in logoma- chies. Occasionally even Christ speaks of the king- dom of God as present, in the sense that citizens of the future kingdom are living already on this earth (Mt 11 11; Lk 17 21[?]; the meaning of the latter verse is very dubious) . Such men are ' 'saved" already (Lk 19 9; 7 50[?]), i.e. such men were delivered from the bad moral condition that was so extended that Satan could be said to hold sway over the world (Lk 10 18; 11 21).

      That the individual was the unit in this deliver- ance needs no emphasis. Still, the Divine privilege

      of the Jews was a reality and Christ's

      4. Individ- normal work was limited to them (Mt ualism 10 5; 15 26, etc). He admitted even

      that the position of the Jewish rehgious leaders rested on a real basis (Mt 23 3). But the "good tidings" were so framed that their extension to all men would have been inevitable, even had there not been an explicit command of Christ in this regard. On the other hand, while the message involved in every case strict individual choice, yet the individual who accepted it entered into social relations with the others who had so chosen. So salvation involved admission to a community of service (Mk 9 35, etc). And in the latter part of Christ's ministry, He withdrew from the bulk of His disciples to devote Himself to the training of an inner circle of Twelve, an act expUcable only on the assumption that these were to be the leaders of the others after He was taken away. Such passages as Mt 16 18; 18 17 merely corroborate this.

      Of the conditions for the individual, the primary

      (belief in God being taken for granted) was a correct

      moral ideal. Exclusion from salvation

      5. Moral came from the Pharisaic casuistry Progress which had invented limits to right- eousness. Ex 20 13 had never con- templated permitting angry thoughts if actual murder was avoided, and so on. In contrast is set the idea of character, of the single eye (Mt 6 22), of the pure heart (5 8). Only so can the spiritual




      house be built on a rock foundation. But the mere ideal is not enough; persistent effort toward it and a certain amount of progress are demanded impera- tively. Only those who have learned to forgive can ask for forgiveness (Mt 6 12; 18 35). They who omit natural works of mercy have no share in the kingdom (25 31-46), for even idle words will be taken into account (12 36), and the most pre- cious possession that interferes with moral progress is to be sacrificed ruthlessly (18 8.9, etc). Men are known by their fruits (7 20) ; it is he that doeth the win of the Father that shall enter into the kingdom (7 21), and the final ideal — which is likewise the goal — is becoming a son of the Father in moral hkeness (5 4.5). That this progress is due to God's aid is so intimately a part of Christ's teaching on the entire dependence of the soul on God that it receives little explicit mention, but Christ refers even His own miracles to the Father's power (Lk 11 20). Moral efi'ort, through God's aid, is an indispen- sable condition for salvation. But complete suc- cess in the moral struggle is not at all

      6. Forgive- a condition, in the sense that moral ness perfection is required. For Christ's

      disciples, to whom the kingdom is promised (Lk 12 32), the palsied man who receives remission of sins (Mk 2 5), Zacchaeus who is said to have received salvation (Lk 19 9), were far from being models of sinlessness. The element in the character that Christ teaches as making up for the lack of moral perfection is becoming "as a little child" (cf Mk 10 15). Now the point here is not credulousness (for belief is not under discussion), nor is it meekness (for children are notoriously not meek). And it most certainly is not the pure pas- sivity of the newly born infant, for it is gratuitous to assume that only such infants were meant even in Lk 18 15, while in Mt 18 2 (where the child comes in answer to a call) this interpretation is excluded. Now, in the wider teaching of Christ the meaning is made clear enough. Salvation is for the poor in spirit, for those who hunger and thirst after right- eousness, for the prodigal knowing his wretched- ness. It is for the penitent publican, while the self- satisfied Pharisee is rejected. A sense of need and a desire that God will give are the characteristics. A child does not argue that it has earned its father's benefits but looks to him in a feeling of dependence, with a readiness to do his bidding. So it is the soul that desires all of righteousness, strives toward it, knows that it falls short, and trusts in its Father tor the rest, that is the savable soul.

      Christ speaks of the pardon of the publican (Lk 18 9 ff) and of the prodigal welcomed by the

      Father (Lk 15 20), both without

      7. Person intermediary. And it is perhaps not of Christ necessary to assume that all of those

      finding the strait gate (Mt 7 14) were exphcitly among Christ's disciples. But would Christ have admitted that anyone who had come to know Him and refused to obey Him would have been saved? To ask this question is to an- swer it in the negative (Mk 9 40 is irrelevant). Real knowledge of the Father is possible only through the unique knowledge of the Son (Lk 10 21.22), and lack of faith in the Son forfeits all blessings (Mk 6 5.6; 9 23). Faith in Him brings instant forgiveness of sins (Mk 2 5), and love directed to Him is an indisputable sign that for- giveness has taken place (Lk 7 47). But Christ thought of Himself as Messiah and, if the term "Messiah" is not to be emptied of its meaning, this made Him judge of the world (such verses as Mk 8 38 are hardly needed for direct evidence). And, since for Christ's consciousness an earthly judgeship is unthinkable, a transcendental judgeship is the sole alternative, corroborated by the use of the title Son

      of Man. But passage from simple humanity to the transcendental glory of the Son-qf-Mau Messiah involved a change hardly expressible except by death and resurrection. And the expectation of death was in Christ's mind from the first, as is seen by Mk 2 18.19 (even without ver 20). That He could have viewed His death as void of significance for human salvation is simply inconceivable, and the ascription of Mk 10 45 to Pauhne influence is in defiance of the facts. Nor is it credible that Christ conceived that in the interval between His death and His Parousia He would be out of relation to His own. To Him the unseen world was in the closest relation to the visible world, and His passage into glory would strengthen, not weaken. His power. So there is a complete justification of Mk 14 22-25: to Christ His death had a significance that could be paralleled only by the death of the Covenant victim in Ex 24 6-8, for by it an entirely new relation was estabhshed between God and man.

      (1) Salvation from physical evil was a very real part, however subordinate, of Christ's teaching (Mk 1 34, etc). (2) Ascetic prac- 8. Notes tices as a necessary element in salva- tion can hardly claim Christ's author- ity. It is too often forgotten that the Twelve were not Christ's only disciples. Certainly not all of the hundred and twenty of Acts 1 15 (cf ver 21), nor of the five hundred of 1 Cor 15 6, were converted after the Passion. And they all certainly could not have left their homes to travel with Christ. So the demands made in the special case of the Twelve (still less in such an extremely special case as Mk 10 21) in no way represent Christ's normal practice, whatever readiness for self-sacrifice may have been asked of all. So the representations of Christ as ruthlessly exacting all from everyone are quite unwarranted by the facts. And it is well to remember that it is Mt 11 19 that con- tains the term of reproach that His adversaries gave Him.

      IV. St. Paul. — Instead of laying primal stress on St. Paul's peculiar contributions to soteriology, it will be preferable to start from such Pauline pas- sages as simply continue the explicit teaching of Christ. For it is largely due to the common rever- sal of this method that the present acute "Jesus- Paulus" controversy exists.

      That St. Paul expected the near advent of the

      kingdom of God with a judgment preceding, and

      that salvation meant to him primarily

      1. General deliverance from this judgment, need

      not be argued. And, accordingly, em- phasis is throwTi sometimes on the future deliver- ance and sometimes on the present conditions for the deliverance (contrast Rom 5 9 and 8 24), but the practical problem is the latter. More explicitly than in Christ's recorded teaching the nature and the blessings of the kingdom are described (see Kingdom op God), but the additional matter is without particular religious import. A certain privilege of the Jews appears (Rom 3 1-8; 9-11), but the practical content of the privilege seems to be eschatological only (11 26). Individual con- version is of coui:se taken for granted, but the life after that becomes highly corporate (see Church). (1) The moral ideal is distinctly that of char- acter. St. Paul, indeed, is frequently obliged to

      give directions as to details, but the

      2. Moral detailed directions are referred con- Progress stantly to the underlying principle,

      Rom 14 or 1 Cor 8 being excellent examples of this, while "love is the fulfilment of the law" (Rom 13 10) is the summary. (2) Persistent moral effort is indispensable, and the new life ab- solutely must bring forth fruit to God (Rom 6 4; 13 12; Gal 5 24; Col 3 5; Eph 2 3; 4 17.22-32;




      Tit 2 11-14). Only by good conduct can one please God (1 Thess 4 1), and the works of even Christians are to be subjected to a searching test (1 Cor 3 13; 4 5; 2 Cor 5 10) in a judgment not to be faced without the most earnest striving (1 Cor 10 12; Phil 2 12), not even by St. Paul him- self (1 Cor 9 27; Phil 3 12-14). And the possi- bility of condemnation because of a lack of ?noral attainment must not be permitted to leave the mind (1 Cor 3 17; Gal 5 21; cf Rom 8 12.13; 11 20; 1 Cor 10 12; Gal 6 7-9). Consequently, growth in ac/Mo/ righteousness is as vital in St. Paul's soteri- ology as it is in that teaching of Christ: Chris- tians have "put oE the old man with his doings" (Col 3 9).

      That this growth is God's work is, however, a

      point where St. Paul has expanded Christ's quiet

      assumption rather elaborately. In

      3. The particular, what Christ had made the Spirit source of His own supernatural power

      — the Holy Spirit — is specified as the source of the power of the Christian's ordinary life, as well as of the more special endowments (see Spiritual Gifts). In the Spirit the Christian has received the blessing promised to Abraham (Gal 3 14); by it the deeds of the body can be put to death and all virtues flow into the soul (Gal 5 16- 26), if a man walks according to it (1 Cor 6 19.20; 1 Thess 4 S). The palmary passage is Rom 7-8. In ch 7 St. Paul looks back with a shudder on his pre-Christian helplessness (it is naturally the ex- treme of exegetical perversity to argue that he dreaded not the sin itself but only God's penalty on sin). But the Spirit gives strength to put to death the deeds of the body (8 13), to disregard the things of the flesh (8 .5), and to fulfil the ordinance of the Law (8 4). Such moral power is the test of Christianity: as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God (8 14).

      This doctrine of the Spirit is simply that what Christ did on earth would be carried on with in- creased intensity after the Passion.

      4. Mystical That this work could be thought of out Union of relation to Christ, or that Christ

      Himself could have so thought of it (see above. III, 7) is incredible. So the exalted Christ appears as the source of moral and spiritual power (St. Paul speaks even more of Christ's resur- rection than of the Passion), the two sources (Christ and the Spirit) being very closely combined in 2 Cor 3 17; Rom 8 9; Gal 4 6. Our old man has been crucified, so putting an end to the bondage of sin, and we can prevent sin from reign- ing in our mortal bodies, for our burial into Christ's death was to enable us to walk in newness of life (Rom 6 2-14). The resurrection is a source of power, and through Christ's strength all things can be done (Phil 4 13.20). Christ is the real center of the believer's personahty (Gal 2 20); the man has become a new creature (2 Cor 5 17; cf Col 2 20; 3 3); we were joined to another that we might bring forth fruit to God (Rom 7 4). And by contact with the glory of the Lord we are trans- formed into the same image (2 Cor 3 18), the end being conformation to the image of the Son (Rom

      8 30). , . , ,

      (1) This growth in actual holiness, then, is funda- mental with St. Paul: "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his

      5. Forgive- (Rom 8 9). And the acquisition of ness strength through union with Christ

      is vitally connected with the remission of sins. In Rom 7 1-6 (cf Col 2 11.12), the mystical union with Christ makes His death ours (cf Col 3 3) and so removes us from the Law (cf Rom 10 4; 1 Cor 15 56), which has no relation to the dead. And by the life-giving power of this

      union the strength of sin is broken (Rom 6 6) . (2) The condition in man that makes forgiveness pos- sible St. Paul calls ' 'faith" — a very complicated term. Its chief use, however, is in opposition to "works" (most clearly in Rom 9 30—10 13). The Jews' "pursuit after righteousness" — the attempt to wring salvation from God as wages earned — was vain (Rom 10 13), and in contrast is the appeal to God, the conscious relinquishment of all claim (4 5). The soul looks trustingly for salvation to its Father, precisely the attitude of the "children" in the teaching of Christ. But no more than in the teaching of Christ is faith a purely passive virtue, for man must be "obedient" to it (Rom 1 5; 10 16; 1 Thess 2 13). And for the neces.sary pres- ence of love in faith cf 1 Cor 13 2; Gal 5 6; Eph 3 17.

      Because of faith — specifically, faith in Christ

      (except Rom 4; Gal 3 6) — God does not visit the

      penalties of sins on believers, but

      6. Atone- treats them as if they were righteous ment (Rom 5 1, etc). But this is not

      because of a quaHty in the believer or in the faith, but because of an act that preceded any act of Christian faith, the death of Christ (not the cross, specifically, for St. Paul does not argue from the cross in all of Rom). Through this death God's mercy could be extended safely, while before this the exercise of that mercy had proved disastrous (Rom 3 2.5.26). And this death was a sacrifice (Rom 3 2.5, etc). And it is certain that St. Paul conceived of this sacrifice as existing quite inde- pendently of its effect on any human being. But he has given us no data for a really complete sacri- ficial doctrine, a statement sufficiently proved by the hopeless variance of the interpretations that have been propounded. And that St. Paul ever constructed a theory of the operation of sacrifices must be doubted. There is none in the contem- porary Jewish literature, there is none in the OT, and there is none in the rest of the NT, not even in He. Apparently the rites were so familiar that sac- rificial terminology was ready to hand and was used without particular reflection and without attempt- ing to give it precise theological content. This is borne out by the ease with which in Rom 3 24.25 St. Paul passes from a ransom (redemption) illus- tration to a (quite discordant) propitiation illus- tration. For further discussion see Atonement; Justification. Here it is enough to say that to make a juridical theory constructed from Pauline implications and illustrations central in Christianity is to do exactly what St. Paul did not do.

      Summing up, there is a double line of thought in

      St. Paul: the remission of penalties through the

      atoning death of Christ and the de-

      7. Summary struction of the power of sin through

      strength flowing from Christ, the human element in both cases being faith. The question of the order of the steps is futile, for "to have faith," "to be in Christ," and "to have the Spirit" are convertible terms, i.e. in doctrinal phraseology, the beginnings of sanctification are simultaneous with justification. Attempts to unify the two lines of thought into a single theory cannot claim purely Bib. support. The "ethical" theory, which in its best form makes God's pardon depend en the fact that the sinner will be made holy (at least in the next world), introduces the fewest ex- traneous elements, but it says something that St. Paul does not say. On the other hand one may feel that considering St. Paul as a whole — to say nothing of the rest of the NT — the pure justification doctrine has bulked a httle too large in our dogmatics. God's pardon for sin is an immensely important matter, but still more important is the new power of holi-

      Salvation Samaria



      (1) Baptism presents another obstacle to a strict unifying of Pauline theology. A very much stronger sacramentarianism is admitted in St. 8. Notes Paul today than would have been accepted a generation ago, and such passages as Rom 6 1-7; Gal 3 27; Col 2 12 make it certain that he regarded baptism as conferring very real spiritual powers. But that he made a mechanical distinction between the blessings given then and those given at some other time must be doubted. (2) Salvation from the flesh (Rom 7 24) involves no metaphysical duahsm, as "flesh" is the whole of the lower nature from which the power to holiness saves a man (8 13). Indeed, the body it- self is an object of salvation (Rom 8 11; and see Resitrrection). (3) Quite in the background lies the idea of salvation from ph>'sical evil (2 Cor 1 10, etc). Such evils are real evils (1 Cor 11 30), but in God's hands they may become pure blessings (Rom 5 3; 2 Cor 12 7). (4) Salvation from sin ajler conversion is due to God's judging the man in terms of the acquked supernatural nature (Rom 8 14, etc). Yet certain sins may destroy the union with Christ altogether (1 Cor 3 17, etc), while others bring God's chastening judgment (1 Cor 11 30-32) . Or proper chastisement may be inflicted by St. Paul himself (1 Cor 5 1-5; 1 Tim 1 20) or bv the congregation (Gal 6 1; 2 Thess 3 10-15; 2 Cor 2 6).

      V. Rest of NT: Summary.— (I) St. John had the task of presenting Christ to Gentiles, who were as unfamihar with the technical meaning 1. St. John of such phrases as "kingdom of God" or "Son of Man" as is the world toda}', and to Gentiles who had instead a series of concepts unknown in Pal. So a "tran.slation of spiritual values" became necessary if the gospel were to make an immediate appeal, a translation accom- plished so successfully that the Fourth Gospel has always been the most popular. The Synoptists, esp. the extremely literal St. Mark, imperatively demand a historical commentary, while St. John has successfully avoided this necessity. (2) The "kingdom of God," as a phrase (3 3.5; cf 18 36), is replaced by "eternal hfe." This life is given in this world to the accepter of Christ's teaching (5 24; 6 47), but its full reaUzation will be in the "many mansions" of the Father's house (14 2), where the behever will be with Christ (17 24). Ajudgmentof all men will precede the estabUshment of this glori- fied state (5 28.29), but the believer may face the judgrnent with equanimity (5 24). So the behever is delivered from a state of things so bad as expres- sible as a world under Satan's rule (12 31; 14 30; 16 11), a world in darkness (3 19), in ignorance of God (17 25), and in sin (8 21), all expressible in the one word "death" (5 24). (3) The Jews had real privilege in the reception of Christ's message (111; 4 22, etc), but the extension of the good tidings to all men was inevitable (12 23.32, etc). Behef in Christ is whoUy a personal matter, but the believers enter a community of service (13 14), with the unity of the Father and Son as their ideal (17 21). (4) The nature of the moral ideal, reduced to the single word "love" (13 34; 15 12), is assumed as known and identifiod with "Christ's words" (5 24; 6 63, etc), and the necessity of progress toward it as sharply pointed as in the Synoptists. The sinner is the servant of sin (8 34), a total change of char- acter is needed (3 6), and the blessing is only on him who does Christ's commandments (13 17). This "doing" is the proof of love toward Christ (14 15. 21); only by bearing fruit and more fruit can dis- cipleship be maintained (15 1-6; cf 14 24), and, indeed, by bearing fruit men actually become Christ's disciples (15 8, Gr). The knowledge of Christ and of God that is eternal life (17 3) comes only through

      moral effort (7 17). In St. John the contrasts are colored so vividly that it would almost appear as if perfection were demanded. But he does not present even the apostles as models of sanctity (13 38; 16 32), and seh-righteousness is condemned without compromise; the crowning sin is to say, "We see" (9 41). It is the Son who frees from sin (8 36), deUvers from darkness (8 12; 12 46), and gives eternal hfe (11 25.26; cf 3 16; 5 24; 6 47). This emphasis on the Divine side of the process ia probably the reason for the omission of the terms "repent," "repentance," from the Gospel in favor of "faith" (6 29, esp.), but this "faith" mvolves in turn human effort, for, without "abiding," faith is useless (8 30.31). (5) An advance on the Synop- tists is found in the number of times Christ speaks of His death (3 14.15; 10 11.15; 12 24.32; 17 19) and in the greater emphasis laid on it, but no more than in the Synoptists is there any explana- tion of how the Atonement became effectual. A real advance consists in the prospect of Christ's work after His death, when, through the Paraclete (7 38.39; 14 16 ff), a hitherto unknown spiritual power would become available for the world. And spiritual power is due not only to a union of will with Christ but to mystical union with Him (15 1-9). See above. III, 7, for the relation of these thoughts to the synoptic teaching.

      (1) The emphasis of He is of course on the sacri- ficial work of Christ, but the Ep. makes practically no contribution to the theology of

      2. Hebrews sacrifice. The argument is this: The

      OT sacrifices certainly had an efficacy ; Christ's sacrifice fulfilled their types perfectly, therefore it had a perfect efficacy (9 13.14). This must have been a tremendously potent argument for He's own purpose, but it is of very little help to the modern theologian. (2) More than in St. Paul is emphasized the human training of Christ for His high-priestly work. Since He laid hold of the seed of Abraham (2 16), He learned by experience all that man had to suffer (2 17; 4 15; 5 8, etc). In He the essence of the sacrifice hes not in the death but in what we call the ascension — the pres- entation of the blood in the heavenly tabernacle (9 11-14; see the comms.). That the death was specifically on the cross (12 2 only) belonged to the stage of training and had no especial significance in the sacrificial scheme. Christ's intercession for us in heaven receives more emphasis than in the rest of the NT (7 25).

      The one other distinct contribution to NT sote-

      riology is made in 1 Pet's evaluation of the vicarious

      suffering of the "Servant" of Isa 53.

      3. St. Peter What Christ did through His sufferings

      we may do in some degree through our sufferings; as His pains helped not only living man- kind, but even departed sinners, so we may face persecution more happily with the thought that our pains are benefiting other men (3 16-20). It is hardly possible that St. Peter thought of this com- parison as conveying an exhaustive description of the Atonement (cf 1 19), but that the comparison should be made at all is significant.

      (1) Salvation is^both a present and a future matter for us. The full reahzation of all that God

      has in store will not be ours until the

      4. Sum- end of human history (if, indeed, there mary will not be opened infinite possibihties

      of eternal growth), but the enjoyment of these blessings depends on conditions fulfilled in us and by us now. But a foretaste of the blessings of forgiveness of sins and growth in hohness is given on this earth. The pardon depends on the fact of God's mercy through the death of Christ— a fact for religious experience but probably incapable of e.xpression as a complete philosophical dogma.



      Salvation Samaria

      But strength comes from God through the glorified Christ (or through the Spirit), this vital union with God being a Christian fundamental. These two lines are in large degree independent, and the selec- tion of the proportions profitable to a given soul is the task of the pastor. (2) That human effort is an essential in salvation is not to be denied in the face of all the NT evidence, esp. St. Paul taken as a whole. And yet no one with the faintest con- ception of what religion means would think of coming before God to claim merit. Here the purely intellectual discussions of the subject and its psy- chological course in the soul run in different chan- nels, and "anti-syncrgistic" arguments are really based on attempts to petrify psychological expe- rience into terms of pure dogma. (3) Still more true is this of attempts to describe mathematically the steps in salvation — the ordo salutis of the older dogmatics — for this differs with different souls. In particular, NT data are lacking for the develop- ment of the individual born of Christian parents in a Christian country. (4) Further, the social side of salvation is an essentially Christian doctrine and cannot be detached from the corporate life of the Christian church. Salvation from temporal evils is equally, if secondarily. Christian. Nationalism in salvation is at present much in the background. But it is as true today as it was in ancient Israel that the sins of a nation tend to harm the souls of even those who have not participated actively in those sins.

      Literature. — The literature of salvation is virtually the Uterature of theology (see under separate arts., Atonement; Justification; Sanctification ; Person OF Christ; JohannineTheology; Pauline Theology, etc), but a few recent works may be mentioned. In- dispensable are the works of Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation and The Pauline Theology. Gar- vie's Romans in the "New Century" series should be used as a supplement to any other comm. on Rom. The juridical theory has as its best defence in Eng. Denney's The Death of Christ. The ethical theory is best presented in the works of Du Bose, The Gospel in the Gospels, The Gospel according to St. Paul, and High-Priesthood and Sacrifice (Sanday's Expos reviews of the two former, re- printed in The Life of Christ in Recent Research, should be read in any case) .

      Burton Scott Easton SAMAEL, sam'S-el: AV = RV Salamiel (q.v.).

      SAMAIAS, sa-ma'yas (2a|ia£as, Samaias) :

      (1) One of the "captains over thousands" promi- nent at the Passover of Josiah (1 Esd 1 9) = "She- maiah" in 2 Ch 35 9.

      (2) One of the heads of families of the sons of Adonikam who returned with Ezra (1 Esd 8 39) = "Shemaiah" in Ezr 8 13.

      (3) One of the "men of understanding" whom Ezra commissioned to obtain from Loddeus, the captain, men to execute the priest's office (1 Esd 8 44) = "Shemaiah" in Ezr 8 16 (AV Mamaias).

      (4) AV = RV "Shemaiah the great," a kmsman of Tobit and father of Ananias and Jonathan (Tob 5 13). S- ^°us

      SAMARIA, sa-ma'ri-a, CITY OF (pl^TlJ , shom'- ron; 2a|idpeio, Samdreia, 2e|j-«pwv, Semeron, and

      (1) Shechem was the first oaPtal of the Northern Kingdom (1 K 12 25). Jeroboam seems later to have removed the royal residence to Tirzah (14 U). After the brief reigns of Elah and Zimri canie that of Omri, who reigned 6 years in Tirzah, then he purchased the hill of Samaria and built a city there, which was thenceforward the metropohs of the king- dom of Israel (16 24). Here the hiU and the city are said to have been named after Shemer, the origi- nal owner of the land. There is nothmg mtrmsi- caUy improbable m tliis. It might naturaUy be denved from shainar, and the name m the sense ot

      "outlook" would fitly apply to a city in such a commanding position. The residence, it was also the burying-place, of the kings of Israel (1 K 16 28; 22 37; 2 K 10 3.5; 13 9.13; 14 16).

      Toward the western edge of the Ephraimite up- lands there is a broad fertile hollow called Wddy esh-Sha'tr, "valley of barley." From the of it rises an oblong hill to a height of over 300 ft., with a level top. The sides are steep, esp. to the S. The greatest length is from E. to W. The sur- rounding mountains on three sides arc much higher, and are well clad with olives and vineyards. To the W. the hills are lower, and from the crest a wide view is obtained over the Plain of Sharon, with the yellow ribbon of sand that marks the coast line, and the white foam on the tumbling billows; while away beyond stretch the blue waters ot the Medi- terranean. On the eastern end of the hill, sur- rounded by olive and cactus, is the modern village of Scbasliyeh, under which a low neck of land con- nects the hill with the eastern slopes. The position



      Ruins in Samaria.

      is one of great charm and beauty; and in days of ancient warfare it was one of remarkable strength. While it was overlooked from three sides, the battle- ments crowning the steep slopes were too far off to be reached by missiles from the only artillery known in those times — the sling and the catapult. For besiegers to attempt an assault at arms was only to court disaster. The methods adopted by her ene- mies show that they relied on famine to do their work for them (2 K 6 24 f, etc). Omri displayed excellent taste and good judgment in the choice he made.

      The city wall can be traced in almost its entire length. Recent excavations conducted by Ameri- can archaeologists have uncovered the foundations of Omri's palace, with remains of the work of Ahab and of Herod (probably here was Ahab's ivory palace), on the western end of the hill, while on the western slope the gigantic gateway, flanked by massive towers, has been exposed to view.

      Under the influence of Jezebel, Samaria naturally became a center of idolatrous worship. Ahab "reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had Ijuilt in Samaria. And Ahab made the Asherah" (1 K 16 32 f). Jehoram his son put away the piUar of Baal (2 K 3 2), ancl within the temple Jehu made an end at once of the instruments of idolatry and of the priests (10 19 f). There are many prophetic references to the enormities prac- tised here, and to their inevitable consequences (Isa 8 4; 9 9; 10 9; 28 Iff; 36 19; Jer 23 13; Ezk 23 4; Hos 7 1; 13 16; Am 3 12; Mic 1 6, etc).

      Under pressure of Damascus Omri conceded to the

      Samaria Samaritans



      Syrians the right to "make streets in Samaria" (1 K 20 34).

      Ben-hadad II besieged the city, but suffered ignominious defeat (20 1-21; Jos, Ant, VIII, xiv, 1 f). Persistent attempts by the Syrians to reach the city in the time of Jehoram were frustrated by EHsha (2K6 8ff; Jos, A?U, IX, iv, 3). At length, however, Ben-hadad again invested the city, and the besieged were reduced to dire straits, in which, urged by famine, scenes of awful horror were enacted (2 K 6 24ff). A m3-sterious panic seized the Syrians. Their deserted camp was discovered by despairing lepers who carried the good news to the famished citizens of the plentj' to be found there. Probably in the throat of the great western gateway occurred the crush in which the incredulous captain was trampled to death (ch 7; Jos, Ant, IX, iv, 5).

      Here the 70 sons of Ahab were slain by Jehu in the general destruction of the house of Ahab (2 K 10 Iff). In Samaria, the Chronicler tells us, Aha- ziah in vain hid from Jehu (2 Ch 22 9; of 2 K 9 27). Pekah brought hither much spoil from Jerus and many captives, whom, at the instance of the prophet Oded, he released (2 Ch 28 8ff). The siege of Samaria was begun by Shalmaneser in the 7th year of Hoshea, and the city was finally taken by Sargon II at the end of 3 years, 722 BC (2 K 17 5f; 18 9f; Ant, IX, xiv, 1). This marked the downfall of the Northern Kingdom, the people being transported by the conqueror. That this was not done in a thoroughgoing way is evident from the fact recorded in the inscriptions that two years later the country had to be subdued again. Colonists were brought from other parts to take the places of the exiles (2 K 17 24; Ezr 4 10). Alex- ander the Great took the city in 331 BC, killed many of the inhabitants, and settled others in Shechem, replacing them with a colony of Syro-Macedonians. He gave the adjoining country to the Jews (CAp, II, 4). The city suffered at the hands of Ptolemy Lagi and Demetrius Poliorcetes, but it was still a place of strength (Jos, Ant, XIII, x, 2) when John Hyrcanus came against it in 120 BC. It was taken after a year's siege, and the victor tried to destroy the city utterly. His turning of the water into trenches to undermine the foundations could only refer to the suburbs under the hUl. From the only two sources, 'Aire Hdrun and 'Ain Kefr Rlma, to the E. of the town, the water could not rise to the hill. The "many fountains of water" which Ben- jamin of Tudela says he saw on the top, from which water enough could be got to fiU the trenches, are certainly not to be seen today; and they have left no trace behind them. The city was rebuilt by Pompey and, having again fallen under misfortune, was restored by Gabinius (Jos, Ant, XIV, iv, 4; V, 3; BJ, I, vii, 7; viii, 4). To Herod it owed the chief splendor of its later days. He extended, strengthened and adorned it on a scale of great magnificence, calling it Sebaste ( = Augusta) in honor of the emperor, a name which survives in the modern Sehastiyeh. A temple also was dedicated to Caesar. Its site is probably marked by the im- pressive flight of steps, with the pedestal on which stood the gigantic statue of Augustus, which recent excavations have revealed. The statue, somewhat mutilated, is also to be seen. Another of Herod's temples W. of the present village was cleared out by the same explorers. The remains of the great double-columned street, which ran round the upper terrace of the hill, bear further testimony to the splendor of this great builder's work (Jos, Anl, XV, vii, 3; viii, 5; BJ, I, xxi, 2). It was here that Herod killed perhaps the only human being whom he ever really loved, his wife Mariamne. Here also his sons perished by his hand (Jos, Ant, XV vii 6-7; XVI, iii, 1-3; xi, 7).

      It is commonly thought that this city was the scene of PhOip's preaching and the events that followed recorded in Acts 8, but the absence of the def. art. in ver 5 makes this doubtful. A Rom colony was settled here by Septimius Severus. From that time httle is known of the history of the city; nor do we know to what the final castastrophe was due. It became the seat of a bishopric and was represented in the councils of Nicaea, Con- stantinople and Chalcedon. Its bishop attended the Synod of Jerus in 536 AD.

      The Church of St. John, a Crusading structure beside the modern village, is now a Moslem mosque. It is the traditional burying-place of John the Bap- tist's body.

      (2) 17 Sa/idpeict, he Samdreia: A town mentioned in 1 Mace 5 66 as on the route followed by Judas from the district of Hebron to the land of the Philis. The name is probably a clerical error. The margin reads Marisa, and probably the place intended is Mareshah, the site of which is at Tell Sandahannah, about a mile S. of Beit Jibrin. W. Ewing

      SAMARIA, COUNTRY OF ("iilttiiJ, shdm'ron; T) 2a|iapeiTis X"P°'' ''^ Samareitis chdra) : The name of the city was transferred to the country of which it was the capital, so that Samaria became synony- mous with the Northern Kingdom (1 K 13 32; Jer 31 5, etc). The extent of territory covered by this appellation varied greatly at different periods. At first it included the land held by Israel E. of the Jordan, Galilee and Mt. Ephraim, with the north- ern part of Benjamin. It was shorn of the eastern portion by the conquest of Tiglath-pileser (1 Ch 5 26). Judah probably soon absorbed the terri- tory of Dan in the S. In NT times Samaria had shrunk to still smaller dimensions. Then the country W. of the Jordan was divided into three portions: Judaea in the S., Galilee in the N., and Samaria in the middle. The boundaries are given in general terms by Jos (BJ, III, iii, 1, 4, 5). The southern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon and the lands of ScythopoUs, the city of the Decapolis W. of the Jordan, formed the northern boundary. It reached S. as far as the toparchy of Acrabatta (modern 'Akrabeh), while on the border between Samaria and Judaea lay the villages of Annath and Borceos, the modern Khirbet 'Aina and Berkit, about 15 miles S. of Nahlus. The Jordan of course formed the eastern boundary. On the W. the coast plain as far as Acre belonged to Judaea. The country thus indicated was much more open to approach than the high plateau of Judah with its steep rocky edges and difficult passes. The road from the N. indeed was comparatively easy of defence, following pretty closely the line of the watershed. But the gradual descent of the land to the W. with long wide valleys, offered inviting avenues from the plain. The great trade routes, that to the fords of Jordan and the E., passing through the cleft in the mountains at Shechem, and those connecting Egypt with the N. and the N.E., traversed Samarian territory, and brought her into constant intercourse with surrounding peoples. The influence of tl»heathen religions to which she was thus exposed iMfde a swift impression upon her, leading to the corruptions of faith and life that heralded her doom (Jer 23 13; Hos Tiff, etc). The Assyrians came as the scourge of God (2 K 17 5-23). Their attack centered on the capital. Shal- maneser began the siege, and after three years the city fell to Sargon II, his successor. With the fall of Samaria the kingdom came to an end. Follow- ing the usual Assyr policy, great numbers of the in- habitants were deported from the conquered coun- try, and their places taken by men brought from "Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and



      Samaria Samaritans

      from Hamath and Sepharvaim," cities which had already bowed to the Assyr power (ver 24).

      It appears from the Assyr inscriptions that the number carried away was 27,290. The number afterward deported from Judah was 200,000, and then the poorest of the land were left to be vine- dressers and husbandmen (2 K 26 12). It is evi- dent that a similar policy must have been followed in Samaria, as 27,290 could certainly not include the whole population of the cities and the country. But it would include the higher classes, and esp. the priests from whom the victors would have most to fear. The population therefore after the con- quest contained a large proportion of Israelites. It was no doubt among these that Josiah exercised his reforming energy (2 K 23 19 f; 2 Ch 34 6f). Here also must have been that "remnant of Israel," Manasseh and Ephraim, who contributed for the repair of the house of God (ver 9). These people, left without their religious guides, mingling with the heathen who had brought their gods and, pre- sumably, their priests with them, were apt to be turned from the purity of their faith. A further importation of pagan settlers took place under Esar-haddon and Osnappar (Ezr 4 9.10). The latter is to be identified with Assur-bani-pal. What the proportions of the different elements in the pop- ulation were, there is now no means of knowing. That there was some intermarriage is probable; but having regard to racial exclusiveness, we may suppose that it was not common. When the Jews deny to them any relation to Israel, and call them Cuthaeans, as if they were the descendants purely of the heathen settlers, the facts just mentioned should be borne in mind.

      After the Assyr conquest we are told that the people suffered from lions (2 K 17 25). Jos (Ant, IX, xiv, 3) says "a plague seized upon them." In accordance with the ideas of the time, the strangers thought this due to the anger of the tutelary deity of the land, because they worshipped other gods in his territory, while neglecting him. Ignorant of his special ritual ("manner"), they petitioned the Assyr king, who sent one (Jos says "some") of the priests who had been carried away to teach them "how they should fear the Lord." How much is implied in this "fearing of the Lord" is not clear. They continued at the same time to serve their own gods. There is nothing to show that the Israelites among them fell into their idolatries. The interest of these in the temple at Jerus, the use of which they may now have shared with the Jews, is proved lay 2 Ch 34 9. In another place we are told that four score men "from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria," evidently Israelites, were going up with their offerings to the house of the Lord (Jer 41 5). Once the people of the country are called Samaritans (2 K 17 29). Elsewhere this name has a purely religious significance. See Samari- tans.

      Of the history of Samaria under Assyr and Bab rulers we know nothing. It reappears at the return of the Jews under Pers auspices. The Jews refused the proffered assistance of the Samaritans in rebuild- ing the temple and the walls of Jerus (Ezr 4 1.3). Highly offended, the latter sought to frustrate the purpose of the Jews (vs 4 ff; Neh 4 7 ff ; 1 Esd 2 16 ff). That the Samaritans were accustomed to worship in Jerus is perhaps implied by one phrase in the letter sent to the Pers king: "The Jews that came up from thee are come to us unto Jerus" (Ezr 4 12). Perhaps also they may be referred to m 6 21. Idolatry is not alleged against the "adver- saries." We can hardly err if we ascribe the refusal in some degree to the old antagonism between the N. and the S ., between Ephraim and Judah. What- ever the cause, it led to a wider estrangement and a

      deeper bitterness. For the history of the people and their temple on Gerizim, see Samaritans.

      Samaria, with Pal, fell to Alexander after the battle of Issus. Antiochus the Great gave it to Ptolemy Epiphanes, as the dowry of his daughter Cleopatra (Jos, Aiit, XII, iv, 1). John Hyrcanus reduced and desolated the country (Jos, BJ, I, ii, 6 f ) . After varying fortunes Samaria became part of the kingdom of Herod, at whose death it was given to Archelaus (Jos, Ant, XVII, xi, 4; BJ, II, vi, 3). When Archelaus was banished it was joined to the Rom province of Syria (Jos, Ant, XVII, xiii, 5; BJ^ II, viii, 1).

      Samaria is a country beautifully diversified with mountain and hill, valley and plain. The olive grows plentifully, and other fruit trees abound. There is much excellent soil, and fine crops of barley and wheat are reaped annually. The vine also is largely cultivated on the hill slopes. Remains of ancient forests are found in parts. As Jos said, it is not naturally watered by many rivers, but derives its chief moisture from rain water, of which there is no lack [BJ, III, iii, 4). He speaks also of the excellent grass, by reason of which the cows yield more milk than those in any other place.

      There is a good road connecting Nablus with Jaffa; and by a road not quite so good, it is now possible to drive a carriage from Jerus to Nazareth, passing through Samaria. W. Ewing

      SAMARITAN, sa-mar'i-tan, PENTATEUCH,

      THE. See Pentateuch, The Samaritan.

      SAMARITANS, sa-mar'i-tanz (D'^I'TBTC , shom'- ronlm; 2a|jiap6iTai,, Samareltai, NT 2a|jiap(Ti)s [sing.], Samarites): The name "Samaritans" in 2 K

      17 29 clearly appKes to the Israelitish inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom. In subsequent history it denotes a people of mixed origin, composed of the peoples brought by the conqueror from Babylon and elsewhere to take the places of the expatriated Israehtes and those who were left in the land (722 BC). Sargon claims to have carried away only 27,290 of the inhabitants {KIB, II, 55) . Doubtless these were, as in the case of Judah, the chief men, men of wealth and influence, including all the priests, the humbler classes being left to till the land, tend the vineyards, etc. Hezekiah, who came to the throne of Judah probably in 715 BC, could still appeal to the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, Asher and Zebulun (2 Ch 30 5.10.11.

      18 ff); and the presence of these tribesmen is im- plied in the narrative of Josiah's reformation (34 6f). Although the number of the colonists was increased by Esar-haddon and Osnappar (Assur- bani-pal, Ezr 4 2.9 f), the population, it is reason- able to suppose, continued prevaihngly Israelite; otherwise their religion would not so easily have won the leading place. The colonists thought it necessary for their own safety to acknowledge Jeh, in whose land they dwelt, as one among the gods to be feared (2 K 17 24 ff). In .the intermixture that followed "their own gods" seem to have fallen on evil days; and when the Samaritans asked per- mission to share in building the temple under Zerubbabel, they claimed, apparently with a good conscience, to serve God and to sacrifice to Him as the Jews did (Ezr 4 1 f). Whatever justification there was for this claim, their proffered friendship was turned to deadly hostihty by the blunt refusal of their request. The old enmity between north and south no doubt intensified the quarrel, and the antagonism of Jew and Samaritan, in its bitterness, was destined to pass into a proverb. The Samari- tans set themselves, with great temporary success, to frustrate the work in which they were not per- mitted to share (Ezr 4 4ff: Neh 4 7 ff. etcl.

      aamatus Samson



      From the strict administration of the Law in Jerus malcontents found their way to the freer at- mosphere of Samaria. Among these renegades was Manasseh, brother of the liigh priest, who had mar- ried a daughter of Sanballat, the Pers governor of Samaria. According to Jos, Sanballat, with the sanction of Alexander the Great, built a temple for the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim, of which Manasseh became high priest (Ant, XI, vii, 2; viii, 2ff}. Jos, however, places Manasseh a century too late. He was a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 13 28). ^

      When it suited their purpose the Samaritans claimed relationship with the Jews, asserting that their roll of the Pent was the only authentic copy (see Pentateuch, The S.imaritan) ; they were equally ready to deny all connection in times of stress, and even to dedicate their temple to a heathen deity (Jos, Ant, XII, V, 5). In 128 BC, John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple (XIII, ix, 1). In the time of Christ the Samaritans were ruled by procurators under the Rom governor of Syria. Lapse of years brought no lessening of the hatred between Jews and Samaritans {Ant, XX, vi, 1). To avoid insult and injury at the hands of the latter, Jews from Gahlee were accustomed to reach the feasts at Jerus by way of Peraea. "Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon" was an expression of opprobrium (Jn 8 48). Although Jesus forbade the Twelve to go into any city of the Samaritans (Mt 10 5), the parable of the Good Samaritan shows that His love overleaped the boundaries of national hatred (Lk 10 30 ff; cf 17 m; Jn 4 9).

      During the Jewish war Cereahs treated the Sa- maritans with great severity. On one occasion (67 AD) he slaughtered 11,600 on Mt. Gerizim. For some centuries they were found in considerable numbers throughout the empire, east and west, with their synagogues. They were noted as "bank- ers" and money-changers. For their anti-Christian attitude and conduct Justinian inflicted terrible vengeance on them. From this the race seems never to have recovered. Gradually dwindling, they now form a small community in Nahlus of not more than 200 souls. Their great treasure is their ancient copy of the Law. See Sajiahia.

      Literature. — The best account of the Samaritans is IMills, Nahlus and the Modern Samaritans (Murray, London): cf Montgomery, The Samaritans (1907). A good recent description by Rev. J. E. H. Thomson. D.D., of the Passover celebrated annually on Mt. Gerizim will be found in FEES, 1902, 82 fl.

      W. EwiNQ

      SAMATUS, sam'a-tus (Sdiiaros, Sdmatos): One of the sons of Ezora who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esd 9 34). It is difficult to say which, if any, name it represents in || Ezr 10 34 ff , where no "sons of Ezora" are inserted between "sons of Bani" and "sons of Nebo": probably Shallum (ver 42), but possibly Shemariah (ver 41).

      SAMECH, sam'ek (D , samekh) : The 15th letter of the Heb alphabet; transliterated in this Ency- clopaedia as .s. It came to be used for the number 60. For name, etc, see Alphabet.

      SAMEIUS, ,sa-me'yus: AV = RV Sametj.s (q.v.).

      SAMELLIUS, sa-mel'i-us (B, SaneXXtos, Samel- lios, A, SePt'Wios, Sehellios, al 2e|ieX\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ios, Hemellios; AV Semellius): "S. the scribe," one of those who wrote a letter of protest to Arlaxerxes against the building of Jerus by the returned exiles (1 Esd 2 = "Shimshai" in Ezr 4 8.

      SAMEUS. sa-me'us (A and Fritzsche, Sajiatos, Samaios, B, 0a|iaios, Thamaios; AV Sameius): One of the sons of Emmer who put away their

      "strange wives" (1 Esd 9 21) = "Shemaiah" (RVm "Maaseiah") of the sons of Harim in Ezr 10 21.

      SAMGAR-NEBO, sam-gar-ne'bo (il? "15'??, samgar n'hho, a Bab name) : An officer of Nebuchad- nezzar, king of Babylon, who, according to the MT of Jer 39 3, took his seat with other nobles in the middle gate of Jerus after the Chaldaean army had taken the city. Schrader {COT, ii, 109) holds that the name is a Hebraized form of the Assyr Sum- girnabu ("be gracious, Nebo"), but Giesebrecht {Comm., 211) conjectures for Samgar a corruption of Sar-mag {sar-magli), equivalent to Rab-mag {rab- magh) , v.'hich implies virtual dittography. The num- ber of variant readings exhibited by the LXX seems to confirm the belief that the text is corrupt. Nebo {nahu) is there joined with the following Sarsechim to agree with Nebushazban of ver 13. If the name Samgar-nebo is correct, the first Netgal-sharezer should perhaps be dropped; we would then read: "Samgar-nebo the Sarsechim, Nebushazban the Rab-saris [cf ver 13] and Nergal-sharezer the Rab- mag" (Sayce). See Rab-mag; Rab-saris.

      Horace J. Wolf

      SAMI, sa'mi: AV = RV Sabi (q.v.).

      SAMIS, sa'mis: AV = RV Someis (q.v.).

      SAMLAH, sam'la (nbpto , samlah; 2aX.a|j.d, Salamd) : One of the kings of Edom, of the city of Masrekah. He reigned before the Israehtes had kings (Gen 36 36.37; 1 Ch 1 47.48). The fact that the city is mentioned in connection with the name of the king suggests that Edom was a con- federacy at this time and the chief city was the metropohs of the whole country.

      SAMMUS, sam'us (A, 2a(i(ioiis, Sammous, B, 2a(i(ioii, Sammou): One of those who stood on Ezra's right hand as he expounded the Law (1 Esd 9 43) = "Shema" in Neh 8 4.

      SAMOS, sa'mos (Sdfjios, Sdtnos, "height," "moun- tain" [see Strabo 346, 457]) : One of the most famous of the Ionian islands, third in size among the group which includes Lesbos, Chios (q.v.) and Cos (q.v.). It is situated at the mouth of the bay, of Ephesus, between the cities of Ephesus and Miletus (q.v.), and separated from the mainland of Ionia by the narrow strait where the Greeks met and conquered the Pers fleet in the battle of Myoale, 479 BC (Herod. ix.lOO ff). The surface of the island is very rugged and mountainous, Mt. Kerki (modern name) rising to a height of 4,700 ft., and it was due to this that the island received its name (see above; see also Samothrace).

      Samos was renowned in antiquity as one of the noted centers of Ionian luxury, and reached its zenith of prosperity under the rule of the famous tyrant Poly crates (533-522 BC), who made hunself master of the Aegean Sea. He carried on trade with Egypt, and his intercourse with that country, his friendship with Amasis, the famous "ring" story and the revolting manner of the death of Polyc- rates are all told in one of the most interesting stories of Herodotus (Herod, iii.39 ff).

      In 84 BC, the island was joined to the province of Asia, and in 17 BC it became a ciuitas libera, through the favor of Augustus (Dio Cass, liv.9; Phny, NH, v. 37). Both Marcus Agrippa and Herod visited the island; and according to Jos {Ant, XVI, ii, 2; BJ, 1, xxi, 11) "bestowed a great many benefits" on it. In the Apoc, Samos is mentioned among the places to which Lucius, consul of the Romans, wrote, asking their good will toward the Jews (1 Mace 15 23).



      Samatus Samson

      In the NT, Paul touched here, after passing Chios (q.v.), on his return from his third missionary journey (Acts 20 15) . In TR, we find in this pas- sage Kal fielvavTes iv TpuiyvWii/j, kai me'inantes en Trogulllo ("and having remained in Trogyllium")- This reading is wanting in the oldest MSS, and may be a sort of gloss, or explanation, due to the technical use of parabdllein, "to touch land" (cf Jos, Ant, XVIII, vi, 4), and not necessarily "to make a landing." Trogyllium lay on the mainland opposite Samos, at the end of the ridge of Mycale. Still there is no particular reason why this reading should be supported, esp. as it is not found in the earliest of authorities. Soden's 1913 text, however, retains the reading in brackets.

      LiTERATTTRE. — Tozor. Islands of the Aegean (1890). Herodotus and Pausanias have rather full accounts of Samos, and Enc Brit (11th ed) gives a good bibliography of works both ancient and modern.

      Arthur J. Kinsblla

      SAMOTHRACE, sam'6-thras (SapioepqlKTi, Samo- ihrdke, "the Thracian Samos"; AV Samothracia, sam-5-thra'sha; the island was formerly Dardania; for change of name see Pausanias vii.4,3; Strabo X.457, and for a full discussion Conze, Hauser and Benndorf, Neue U ntersuchungen auf S., 1S80): An island in the Aegean Sea, S. of Thrace opposite the mouth of the Hebrus River, and N.W. of Troas. The island is mountainous, as the name indicates (see Samos), and towers above Imbros when viewed from the Trojan coast. The summit is about a mile high. It is mentioned in the Iliad (xiii. 12) as the seat of Poseidon and referred to by Virgil Aeneid vii.208.

      The island was always famous for sanctity, and the seat of a cult of the Cabeiri, which Herodotus (ii.51) says was derived from the Pelasgian inhabitants (see also Aristophanes, Pax 277). The mysteries connected with the worship of these gods later rivaled the famous mysteries of Eleusis, and both Phihp of Macedon and Olympias his wife were initiated here (Plut. Alex. 3).

      Probably because of its sacred character the island did not figure to any extent in history, but in the expedition of Xerxes in 480 BC, one ship at least of the Samothracian contingent is mentioned as conspicuous in the battle of Salamis.

      The famous "Victory of Samothrace" (now in the Louvre) was set up here by Demetrius Polior- cetes c 300 BC, and was discovered in 1863. Since that time (1873-75), the Austrian government carried on extensive excavations (see Conze, Hauser and Benndorf, op. cit.).

      In the NT the island is mentioned m Acts 16 11. From Troas, Paul made a straight run to Samo- thrace, and the next day sailed to Neapolis (q.v.) on the Thracian coast, the port of Philippi (q.v.). At the northern end of S. was a town where the ship could anchor for the night, and on the return jour- ney (Acts 20 6) a landing may have been made, but no details are given. Pliny characterizes the island as being most difficult for anchorage, but because of the hazards of sailing by night, the an- cient navigators always anchored somewhere if possible.

      Literature.— See under Samos.

      Arthur .1. Kinsella

      SAMPSAMES, samp'sa-mez (Sa|i4(diiTis, Natn- vsdmes): A place mentioned in 1 Mace 15 23, usually identified with Samsun, on the coast of the Black Sea. Vulg, with RVm, has "Lampsacus.

      SAMSON, sam'sun ( illBpiP , shimshon, derived probably from ©pi? , shemesh, "sun," with the

      diminutive ending X^-, -on, meaning 1 Name "little sun" or "sunny," or perhaps

      "sun-man"; Saii+uv, Samyson; l,sX and Eng. Samson): His home was near Beth-

      shemesh, which means "house of the sun." Com- pare the similar formation "'IBUIC , shimshay (Ezr 4,3).

      Samson was a judge, perhaps the last before

      Samuel. He was a Nazirite of the tribe of Dan

      (Jgs 13 5); a man of prodigious

      2. Charac- strength, a giant and a gymnast — the ter Heb Hercules, a strange champion for

      Jeh! He intensely hated the Philis who had oppressed Israel some 40 years (13 1), and was willing to fight them alone. He seems to have been actuated by little less than personal vengeance, yet in the NT he is named among the heroes of faith (He 11 32), and was in no ordinary sense an OT worthy. He was good-natured, sar- castic, full of humor, and fought with his wits as well as with his fists. Milton has graphically por- trayed his character in his dramatic poem Samson Agonistes (1671), on which Handel built his ora- torio Samson (1743).

      The story of S.'s Hfe is unique among the biog- raphies of the OT. It is related in Jgs 13-16.

      Like Isaac, Samuel and John the Bap-

      3. Story of tist, he was a child of prayer (13 8.12). His Life To Manoah's wife the angel of Jeh

      appeared twice (13 3.9), directing that the child which should be born to them should be a Nazirite from the womb, and that he would "begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philis" (13 5.7.14). The spirit of Jeh first began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol (13 25). On his arriving at manhood, five remark- able circumstances are recorded of him.

      (1) His marriage with a Phili woman of Timnah (ch 14) . His parents objected to the alliance (14 3), but S.'s motive in marrying her was that he "sought an occasion against the Philis." At the wedding feast S. propounded to his guests a riddle, wagering that if they guessed its answer he would give them 30 changes of raiment. Dr. Moore feUcitously renders the text of the riddle thus:

      'Out of the eater came something to eat. And out of the strong came something sweet' (14 14).

      The Philis threatened the life of his bride, and she in turn wrung from S. the answer; whereupon he retorted (in Dr. Moore's version) :

      ' If with my heifer ye did not plough. Ye had not found out my riddle, I trow' (14 18).

      Accordingly, in revenge, S. went down to Ash- kelon, slew some 30 men, and paid his debt; he even went home without his wife, and her father to save her from shame gave her to S.'s "best man" (14 20). It has been suggested by W. R. Smith {Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 70-76) that S. did not from the first intend to take his bride to his home, his marriage being what is known among the Arabs as a gadlkat, or gift marriage, by which is meant that the husband becomes a part of the wife's tribe. This assumes that the social relations of the Hebrews at that time were matri- archate, the wife remaining with her family, of which custom there are other traces in the OT, the husband merely visiting the wife from time to time. But this is not so obvious in S.'s case in view of his pique (14 19), and esp. in view of his parents' objection to his marrying outside of Israel (14 3). Not knowing that his bride had been given by her father to his friend, S. went down to Timnah to visit her, with a kid; when he discovered, how- ever, that he had been taken advantage of, he went out and caught 300 jackals, and putting firebrands between every two tails, he burned up the grain fields and olive yards of the Philis. The Philis, however, showed they could play with fire, too, and burned his wife and her father. Thereupon, S.

      Samson Samuel



      smote the Philis in revenge, "hip and thigh" (15 1-8).

      (2) When he escaped to Etam, an aknost vertical rock cliff in Judah (by some identified with 'Araq Ismain) not far from Zorah, S.'s home, the Philis invaded Judah, encamped at Lehi above Etam, and demanded the surrender of their arch-enemy. The men of Judah were willing to hand S. over to the PhiUs, and accordingly went down to the cliff Etam, bound S. and brought him up where the Philis were encamped (15 9-13). When S. came to Lehi the Philis shouted as they met him, whereupon the spirit of Jeh came mightily upon him, so that he broke loose from the two new ropes with which the 3,000 men of Judah had bound him, and seizing a fresh jawbone of an ass he smote with it 1,000 men of the Philis, boasting as he did so in pun-like poetry, 'With the jawbone of an ass, m-ass upon m-ass'; or, as Dr. Moore translates the passage, 'With the bone of an ass, I ass-ailed my ass-ailants' (15 16). At the same time, S. reverently gave Jeh the glory of his victory (15 18) . S. being thirsty, Jeh provided water for him at a place called En-hakkore, or "Partridge Spring," or "the Spring of the Caller" — another name for partridge (15 17-19).

      (3) S. next went down to Gaza, to the very stronghold of the Philis, their chief city. There he saw a harlot, and, his passions not being under control, he went in unto her. It was soon noised about that S., the Heb giant, was in the city. Ac- cordingly, the Philis laid wait for him. But S. arose at midnight and laid hold of the doors of the gate and their two posts, and carried them a fuU quarter of a mile up to the top of the mountain that looketh toward Hebron (16 1-3).

      (4) From Gaza S. betook himself to the vaUey of Sorek where he fell in love with another Phili woman, named Delilah, through whose machina- tions he lost his spiritual power. The Phili lords bribed her with a very large sum to dehver him into their hands. Three times S. deceived her as to the secret of his strength, but at last he explains that he is a Nazirite, and that his hair, which has never been shorn, is the secret of his wonderful power. J. G. Frazer {Golden Bough, III, 390 if) has shown that the belief that some mysterious power resides in the hair is still widespread among savage peoples, e.g. the Fiji Islanders. Thus S. fell. By disclosing to Delilah this secret, he broke his cove- nant vow, and the Spirit of God departed from him (16 4-20). The Philis laid hold on him, put out his eyes, brought him down to Gaza, bound him with fetters, and forced him to grind in the prison house. Grinding was women's work! It is at this point that Milton catches the picture and writes,

      "Eyeless in Gaza, at the mill -with slaves."

      Howbeit, the hair of his head began to grow again; but his eyes did riot! (16 21.22).

      (5) The final incident recorded of S. is in con- nection with a great sacrificial feast which the Phili lords gave in honor of Dagon, their god. In their joyous celebration they sang in rustic rhythm:

      ' Our god has given us into our hand The foe of our land, "Whom even our most powerful band Was never able to withstand' (16 24).

      This song was accompanied probably, as Mr. Macalister suggests, by hand-clapping {Gezer, 129). When they became still more merry, they called for S. to play the buffoon, and by his pranks to entertain the assembled multitude. The house of Dagon was full of people; about 3,000 were upon the roof beholding as S. made sport. With the new growth of his hair his strength had returned to him. The dismantled giant longed to be avenged on his adversaries for at least one of his two eyes (16 28).

      He prayed, and Jeh heard his prayer. Guided by his attendant, he took hold of the wooden posts of the two middle pillars upon which the portico of the house rested, and slipping them off their pedestals, the house fell upon the lords and upon all the people that were therein. "So the dead that he slew at hia death were more than they that he slew in his life" (16 29.30). His kinsmen came and carried him up and buried him near his boyhood home, between Zorah and Eshtaol, in the family burying-ground of his father. "And he judged Israel twenty years" (16 31).

      The story of Samson is a faithiful mirror of his times: "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (17 6; 21 25). There was no king in 4 Histori- those days, i.e. no central government. ' . ,^ , Each tribe was separately occupied driving

      cai value Q^t their individual enemies. For 40 years the Phihs had oppressed S.'s tribal compatriots. Their suzerainty was also recognized by Judah (14 4; 15 11). S. was the hero of his tribe. The general historicity of his story cannot be impeached on the mere ground of improbability. His deeds were those which would most naturally be expected from a giant, filled with a sense of justice. He received the local popularity which a man of extraordinary prowess would natm-ally be given. All peoples glory in their heroes. The theory that the record in Jgs 13-16 is based upon some "solar myth" is now generally abandoned. That there are incidents in liis career which are diffi- cult to explain, is freely granted. For example, that he killed a lion (14 6) is not without a parallel; David and Benaiah did the same (1 S 17 34-36; 2 S 23 20). God always inspires a man in the line of his natural en- dowments. That God miraculously supplied his thirst (15 19) is no more marvelous than what God did for Hagar in the wilderness (Gen 21 19). That S. carried off the doors of the gate of Gaza and their two posts, bar and all. must not confound us till we know more definitely their size and the distance from Gaza of the hill to which he carried them. The fact that he pulled down the roof on which there were 3,000 men and women is not at all impossible, as Mr. Macalister has shown. If we suppose that there was an immense portico to the temple of Dagon, as is quite possible, which was supported by two main pillars of wood resting on bases of stone, like the cedar pillars of Solomon's house (1 K 7 2), all that S., therefore, necessarily did, was to push the wooden beams so that their feet would slide over the stone base on which they rested, and the whole por- tico would collapse. Moreover, it is not said that the whole of the 3,000 on the roof were destroyed (16 30). Many of those in the temple proper probably perished in the number (R. A. S. Macalister, Bible Side-Lighta from the Mound of Gezer, 1906, 127-38).

      Not a few important and suggestive lessons are deducible from the hero's fife: (1) S. was the object

      of parental solicitude from even before 6. Religious his birth. One of the most suggestive Value and beautiful prayers in the OT is that

      of Manoah for guidance in the train- ing of his yet unborn child (13 8). Whatever our estimate of his personality is, S. was closely linked to the covenant. (2) He was endowed with the Spirit of Jeh — the spirit of personal patriotism, the spirit of vengeance upon a foe of 40 years' standing (13 1.25; 14 6 19; 15 14). (3) He also prayed, and Jeh answered him, though in judgment (16 30). But he was prodigal of his strength. S. had spirit- ual power and performed feats which an ordinary man would hardly perform. But he was uncon- scious of his high vocation. In a moment of weak- ness he yielded to DeUlah and divulged the secret of his strength. He was careless of his personal endowment. He did not realize that physical en- dowments no less than spiritual are gifts from God, and that to retain them we must be obedient. (4) He was passionate and therefore weak. The ani- mal of his nature was never curbed, but rather ran unchained and free. He was given to sudden fury. S. was a wild, self-willed man. Passion ruled. He could not resist the blandishments of women. In short, he was an overgrown schoolboy, without self- mastery. (.5) He accordingly wrought no per- manent deliverance for Israel; he lacked the spirit of cooperation. He undertook a task far too great for even a giant single-handed. Yet, it must be



      Samson Samuel

      allowed that S. paved the way for Saul and David. He began the deliverance of Israel from the Philis. He must, therefore, be judged according to his times. In his days there was unrestrained indi- vidual independence on every side, each one doing as he pleased. S. differed from his contemporaries in that he was a hero of faith (He 11 32) . He was a Nazirite, and therefore dedicated to God. He was given to revenge, yet he was ready to sacrifice himself in order that his own and his people's enemies might be overthrown. He was willing to lay down his own life for the sake of his fellow- tribesmen — not to save his enemies, however, but to kill them. (Cf Mt 5 43 f; Rom 6 10.)

      Literature. — (1) Comms. on Jgs, notably those by G. F. Moore, ICC. 1895; Budde, Kurzer Handkom- mentar, 1897; Nowack, Handkommentar, 1900; E. L. Curtis, The Bible for Home and School, 1913; Bachmann. 1868; Keil. 1862; Farrar in EllicoU's Comm.; Watson, Expositor's Bible. (2) Arts, on " Samson" in the various Bible Diets, and Encs; in particular those by Budde, HDB: C. W. Emmet, in 1-vol HDB; S. A. Cook, New Enc Brit; Davis, Diet, of the Bible.

      George L. Robinson SAMUEL, sam'fl-el (bX^lSTa , sh'mu'el; Sanou^X, Samouel): The word "Samuel" signifies "name of God," or "his name is El" (God). Other inter- pretations of the name that have been offered are almost certainly mistaken. The play upon the name in 1 S 1 20 is not intended of course to be an explanation of its meaning, but is similar to the play upon the name Moses in Ex 2 10 and fre- quently elsewhere in similar instances. Thus by the addition of a few letters sh'mu'el becomes shd'ul me' el (bXlBlD, bSU b^SlB) , "asked of God," and recalb to the mother of Samuel the circumstances of the Divine gift to her of a son. Outside of the 1st Book of S the name of the great judge and prophet is found in Jer 15 1 ; Ps 99 6 and in 1 and 2 Ch. The reference in Jer seems intended to convey the same impression that is given by the narrative of 1 S, that in some sense Samuel had come to be regarded as a second Moses, upon whom the mantle of the latter had fallen, and who had been once again the dehverer and guide of the people at a great national crisis.

      The narrative of the events of the life of Samuel

      appears to be derived from more than one source

      (see Samuel, Books op). The narra-

      1. Sources tor had before him and made use of and Char- biographies and traditions, which he acter of the combined into a single consecutive History history. The completed picture of the

      prophet's position and character which is thus presented is on the whole harmonious and consistent, and gives a very high impression of his piety and loyalty to Jeh, and of the wide influence for good which he exerted. There are divergences apparent in detail and standpoint between the sources or traditions, some of which may probably be due merely to misunderstanding of the true nature of the events recorded, or to the failure of the modem reader rightly to appreciate the exact circumstances and time. The greater part of the narrative of the life of Samuel, however, appears to have a single origin.

      In the portion of the general history of Israel contained in 1 S are narrated the circumstances of

      the future prophet's birth (ch 1); of

      2. Life his childhood and of the custom of his

      parents to make annual visits to the sanctuary at Shiloh (2 11.18-21.26); of his vision and the universal recognition of him as a prophet enjoying the special favor of Jeh (3-^ 1). the narrative is then interrupted to describe the conflicts with the Philis, the fate of Eh and his sons, and the capture of the ark of God. It is only after the

      return of the ark, and apparently at the close of the 20 years during which it was retained at Kiriath- jearim, that Samuel again comes forward publicly, exhorting the people to repentance and promising them deliverance from the Philis. A summary narrative is then given of the SMmmoning of a na- tional council at Mizpah, at which Samuel "judged the children of Israel," and offered sacrifice to the Lord, and of Jeh's response in a great thunderstorm, which led to the defeat and panic-stricken flight of the Philis. Then follows the narrative of the erec- tion of a commemorative stone or pillar, Eben-ezer, "the stone of help," and the recovery of the Israelite cities which the Philis had captured (7 5-14). The narrator adds that the Philis came no more within the border of Israel all the days of Samuel (7 13); perhaps with an intentional refer- ence to the troubles and disasters of which this people was the cause in the time of Saul. A brief general statement is appended of Samuel's practice as a judge of going on annual circuit through the land, and of his home at Ramah (7 15-17).

      No indication is given of the length of time occu- pied by these events. At their close, however, Samuel was an old man, and his sons who had been appointed judges in his place or to help him in his office proved themselves unworthy (8 1-3). The elders of the people therefore came to Samuel de- manding the appointment of a king who should be his successor, and should judge in his stead. The request was regarded by the prophet as an act of disloyalty to Jeh, but his protest was overruled by Divine direction, and at Samuel's bidding the people dispersed (8 4-22).

      At this point the course of the narrative is again interrupted to describe the family and origin of Saul, his personal appearance, and the search for the lost asses of his father (9 1-5) ; his meeting with Samuel in a city in the land of Zuph, in or on the border of the territory of Benjamin (Zuph is the name of an ancestor of Elkanah, the father of Samuel, in 1 S 1 1), a meeting of which Samuel had received Di- vine pre-intimation (9 15 f); the honorable place given to Saul at the feast; his anointing by Samuel as ruler of Israel, together with the announcement of three "signs," which should be to Saul assurances of the reality of his appointment and destiny; the spirit of prophecy which took possession of the future king, whereby is explained a proverbial say- ing which classed Saul among the prophets; and his silence with regard to what had passed between himself and Samuel on the subject of the kingdom (9 6—10 16).

      It is usually, and probably rightly, believed that the narrative of these last incidents is derived from a differ- ent source from that of the preceding chapters. Slight differences of inconsistency or disagreement lie on the surface. Samuel's home is not at Ramah. but a nameless city in the land of Zuph, where he is priest of the high place, with a local but, as far as the narrative goes, not a national influence or reputation; and it is anticipated that he will require the customary present at the hands of his visitors (9 6-8). He is described, moreover, not as a judge, nor does he discharge judicial fvmctions, but expressly as a "seer," a name said to be an earlier title equivalent to the later "prophet" (9 9.11.19). Apart, however, from the apparently different position which Samuel occupies, the tone and style of the narrative is altogether distinct from that of the preceding chapters. It suggests, both in its form and in the religious concep- tions which are assumed or implied, an older and less elaborated tradition than that which has found expression in the greater part of the book; and it seems to regard events as it were from a more primitive standpoint than the highly religious and monotheistic view of the later accounts. Its value as a witness to history is not im- paired, but perhaps rather enhanced by its separate and independent position. The writer or compiler of 1 S has inserted it as a whole in his completed narrative at the point which he judged most suitable. To the same source should possibly be assigned the announce- ment of Saul's rejection in 13 8-15a.

      The course of the narrative is resumed at 10 17 ff,

      Samuel Samuel, Books of



      where, in a second national assembly at Mizpah, Saul is selected by lot and accepted by the people as king (10 17-24); after which the people dis- persed, and Saul returned to his home at Gibeah (vs 25-27). At a solemn assembly at Gilgal, at which the kingship is again formally conferred upon Saul, Samuel delivered a farewell address to his fellow-countrymen. A thunderstorm terrified the people; they were reassured, however, by Samuel with promises of the protection and favor of Jeh, if they continued to fear and serve Him (11 14 — 12 25). Later the rejection of Saul for disobedi- ence and presumption is announced by Samuel (13 8-1 5a). The commission to destroy Amalek is de- livered to Saul by Samuel; and the rejection of the king is again pronounced because of his failure to carry out the command. Agag is then slain by Samuel with his own hand; and, the latter having returned to his home at Ramah, the narrator adds that he remained there in seclusion until the day of his death, "mourning" for Saul, but refusing to meet him again (ch 15). Finally the death and burial of Samuel at Ramah, together with the lamentation of the people for him, are briefly recorded in 25 1, and referred to again in 28 3.

      Two incidents of Samuel's life remain, in which he is brought into relation with the future king David. No indication of date or circumstance is given except that the first incident apparently follows immediately upon the second and final re- jection of Saul as recorded in ch 15. In 16 1-13 is narrated the commission of Samuel to anoint a successor to Saul, and his fulfilment of the com- mission by the choice of David the son of Jesse, the Bethlehemite. And, in a later chapter (19 18-24), a second occasion is named on which the compeUing spirit of prophecy came upon Saul, and again the proverbial saying, "Is Saul also among the proph- ets?" is quoted (19 24; cf 10 11.12), and is appar- ently regarded as taking its origin from this event.

      The anointing of David by Samuel is a natural sequel to his anointing of Saul, when the latter has been rejected and his authority and rights as king have ceased. There is nothing to determine alasolutely whether the narra- tive is derived from the same source as the greater part of the preceding history. Slight dilTerences of style and the apparent presuppositions of the writer have led most scholars to the conclusion that it has a distinct and separate origin. If so. the compiler of the Books of S drew upon a third source for his narrative of the life of the seer, a source which there is no reason to regard as other than equally authentic and reliable. With the second incident related in 19 18-24, the case is different. It is hardly probable that so striking a proverb was sug- gested and passed into currency independently on two distinct occa.sions. It seems evident that here two inde- pendent sources or authorities were used, which gave hardly reconcilable accounts of the origin of a well- known saying, in one of which it has been mistakenly attributed to a similar but not identical occurrence in the life of Saul. In the final composition of the book both accounts were then inserted, without notice being taken of the inconsistency which was apparent between them.

      Yet later in the history Samuel is represented as appearing to Saul in a vision at Endor on the eve of his death (28 11-20). The witch also sees the prophet and is stricken with fear. He is described as in appearance an old man "covered with a robe" (ver 14). In characteristically grave and meas- ured tones he repeats the sentence of death against the king for his disobedience to Jeh, and announces its execution on the morrow; Saul's sons also will die with him (ver 19), and the whole nation will be involved in the penalty and suffering, as they all had a part in the sin.

      The high place which Samuel occupies in the thought of the writers and in the tradition and esteem of the people is manifest throughout the history. The different sources from which the narrative is derived are at one in this, although perhaps not to an equal degree. He is the last

      and greatest of the judges, the first of the prophets, and inaugurates under Divine direction the Israelite

      kingdom and the Davidic line. It is 3. Charac- not without reason, therefore, that he ter and In- has been regarded as in dignity and fluence of importance occupying the position of Samuel a second Moses in relation to the

      people. In his exhortations and warn- ings the Deuteronomic discourses of Moses are reflected and repeated. He delivers the nation from the hand of the Philis, as Moses from Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and opens up for them a new national era of progress and order under the rule of the kings whom they have desired. Thus, like Moses, he closes the old order, and establishes the people with brighter prospects upon more assured foundations of national prosperity and greatness. In nobility of character and utterance also, and in fidelity to Jeh, Samuel is not unworthy to be placed by the side of the older lawgiver. The record of his life is not marred by any act or word which would appear unworthy of his office or prerogative. And the few references to him in the later literature (Ps 99 6; Jer 15 1; 1 Ch 6 28; 9 22; 11 3; 26 28; 29 29; 2 Ch 35 18) show how high was the estima- tion in which his name and memory were held by his fellow-countrymen in subsequent ages.

      Literature. — The literature is given in the art. Samuel, Books op (q.v.).

      A. S. Geden SAMUEL, BOOKS OF:

      I. Place OF THE Books OF S in the Hebrew Canon II. Contents of the Books and Period of Time Covered by the History

      III. Summary^ and Analysis

      1. Life of Samuel

      2. Reign and Death of Saul

      3. Reign of David

      (1) In Hebron

      (2) In Jerusalem

      4. Appendix

      IV. Sources of the History

      Two Main and Independent Sources V. Character and Date of the Sources VI. Greek Versions of the Books of S VII. Ethical and Religious Teaching Literature

      /. Place in the Canon. — In the Heb Canon and enumeration of the sacred books of the OT, the two Books of S were reckoned as one, and formed the third division of the Earlier Prophets (D''S''3D D''D1BS"), ii^bhi'lm ri'shonim). The one book bore the title "Samuel" (bX^'QlC , sh'mu'el), not because Samuel was beheved to be the author, but because his life and acts formed the main theme of the book, or at least of its earlier part. Nor was the Book of S separated by any real division in subject-matter or continuity of style from the Book of K, which in the original formed a single book, not two as in the Eng. and other modern VSS. The history was carried forward without interruption; and the record of the life of David, begun in S, was com- pleted in K. This continuity in the narrative of Israelite history was made more prominent in the LXX, where the four books were comprised under one title and were known as the four "Books of the Kingdoms" (/3i/3Xoi PanCKaCiv, hihloi basileioii). This name was probably due to the translators or scholars of Alexandria. The division into four books, but not the Gr title, was then adopted in the Lat tr, where, however, the influence of Jerome secured the restoration of the Heb names, 1 and 2 S, and 1 and 2 K (Regum). Jerome's example was universally followed, and the fourfold division with the Heb titles found a place in all subsequent VSS of the OT Scriptures. Ultimately the distinction of S and K each into two books was received also into printed editions of the Heb Bible. This was done for the first time in the editio princeps of the Rab- binic Bible, printed at Venice in 1516-17 AD.



      Samuel Samuel, Books of

      //. Contents and Period of the History. — The

      narrative of the two Books of S covers a period of about a hundred years, from the close of the un- settled era of the .ludges to the establishment and consolidation of the kingdom under David. It is therefore a record of the changes, national and con- stitutional, which accompanied this growth and development of the national life, at the close of which the Israelites found themselves a united people under the rule of a king to whom all owed allegiance, controlled and guided by more or less definitely established institutions and laws. This may be described as the general purpose and main theme of the books, to trace the advance of the people under Divine guidance to a state of settled pros- perity and union in the promised land, and to give prominence to the theocratic rvde which was the essential condition of Israel's life as the people of God under all the changing forms of early govern- ment. The narrative therefore centers itself around the lives of the three men, Samuel, vSaul and David, who were chiefly instrumental in the establishment of the monarchy, and to whom it was due more than to any others that Israel emerged from the depressed and disunited state in which the tribes had remained during the period of the rule of the Judges, and came into possession of a combined and effective national life. If the formal separation therefore into two books be disregarded, the his- tory of Israel as it is narrated in "Samuel" is most naturally divided into three parts, which are_ fol- lowed by an appendLx recording words and inci- dents which for some reason had not found a place in the general narrative:

      A. The life and rule of Samuel (1 S 1-15) (death 1 S 25 1).

      B. The life, reign and death of Saul (1 S 16—2 S 1).

      C. The reign and acts of David to the suppression of the two rebelhons of Absalom and Sheba (2 S 2-20).

      D. Appendix; other incidents in the reign of David, the names of his chief warriors and his Song or Psalm of Praise (2 S 21-24).

      ///. Summary and Analysis. — To present a brief and clear analysis of these Books of S is not altogether easy. For as in the Pent and the earlier historical Books of Josh and Jgs, repetitions and apparently duplicate accounts of the same event are found, which interfere with the chronological development of the narrative. Even the main divisions, as stated above, to a certain extent over- lap.

      (1) Visit of Hannah to Shiloh, and promise of the birth of a son (1 S 1 1-19) ; birth and weaning of Samuel, and

      presentation to Eli at Shiloh (1 19-28). 1 T if p nf (2) Hannah's song or prayer (2 1-10) ;

      X. ivue ui ministry of Samuel to Eh the priest (2 bamuel jj I8-2126); the evil practices of the

      (1 S 1-15) sons of Eli and warning to Eh of the con-

      sequences to his house (2 12-17.22-25.

      (k) Samuel's vision at the sanctuary and his induction to the prophetic office (3 1—4 1).

      (4) Defeat of the Israelites by the Phihs, capture of the ark of God, death of the two sons of Eli and of Eli himself {ch 4). „ , , ^, ,,/-,, 4.

      (.5) Discomfiture of Dagon before the ark of God at Ashdod- return of the ark to Beth-shemesh, with expi- atory offerings of golden tumors, and golden mice; its twenty years' sojourn at Kiriath-]eanm (S 1—7 4).

      (6) Assembly of Israel under Samuel at Mizpah, and victory over the Phihs (7 S-14) ; Samuel established as judge over all Israel (vs 1.5-17). , . , , , .

      (7) Samuel's sons appointed to be ]udges and the con- sequent demand of the people for a king; Samuels warning concerning the character of the king for whom

      * '(8) "^Saul's "^search for the lost asses of his father and meeting with Samuel (ch 9). , ^i,

      (9) Saul is anointed by Samuel to be ruler over the people of Israel, and receives the gift of prophecy (10 1-16) ; second assembly of the people under Samuel at Mizpah, and election of Saul to be king (vs 17-27).

      (10) Victory of Saul over the Ammonites and deliver- ance of Jabesh-gilead (11 l-13j; Saul made king in

      *^"!l) ^slm^'uel's^address to the people in Gilgal, defend-

      2. Reign and Death of Saul (1 S 16— 2 SI)

      ing his own life and action, and exhorting them to fear and serve the Lord (ch 12).

      (12) Saul at Gilgal olfers the burnt offering in Samuel's absence; gathering of the Philis to battle at Michmash; the Israelites' lack of weapons of iron (ch 13).

      (i:i) .Jonathan's surprise of the Phih army, and their sudden panic (14 1-23); Saul's vow, unwittingly broken by Jonathan, whom the people deliver from the fatal con- sequences (vs 24-4.5) ; victories of Saul over his enemies on every side (vs 46-.52).

      (14) War against Amalek, and Saul's disobedience to the Divine command to exterminate the Amalekites (ch 15).

      (I) Anointing of David as Saul's .successor (16 1-13); his summons to the court of Saul to act as minstrel

      before tlie king (vs 14—23).

      (2) David and Goliath (ch 17).

      (3) The love of David and .Jonathan (18 1-4); the former's advancement and fame, the jealousy of Saul, and his attempt to kin David (18 5-16.29.30); David's mar- riage to the daughter of Saul (vs 17-28).

      (4) Saul's renewed jealousy of David and second attempt to kill him (19 1-17);

      David's escape to Ramah, whitlier the king followed (vs 18-24).

      (5) Jonathan's warning to David of his father's resolve and their parting (ch 20).

      (6) David at Nob (21 1-9) ; and with Achish of Gath (vs 10-15).

      (7) David's band of outlaws at Adullam (22 1.2); his provision for the safety of his father and mother in Moab (ys 3-5) ; vengeance of Saul on those who had helped David (vs 6-23).

      (8) Repeated attempts of Saul to take David (chs 23, 24).

      (9) Death of Samuel (25 1); Abigail becomes David's wife, after the death of lier husband Nabal (vs 2-44;.

      (10) Saul's further pursuit of David (ch 26).

      (II) David's sojourn with Achish of Gath (27 1 — 28 2.29) ; Saul and the witch of Endor (28 3-25).

      (12) David's pursuit of the Amalekites who had raided Ziklag, and victory (ch 30).

      (13) Battle between the Philis and Israel in Mt. Gil- boa and death of Saul (ch 31).

      (14) News of Saul's death brought to David at Ziklag (2 S 1 1-16); David's lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (vs 17-27).

      (1) David's seven and a half years' reign over Judah in Hebron (2 8 2 1—5 3).

      (a) Consecration of David as king in

      3. Reign of Hebron (2 l-4a) ; message to the men of

      •p, jj Jabesh-gilead (2 46-7); Ish-bosheth made

      ^ r^ nn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ k'"S o^sr Northern Israel (vs 8-11);

      (2 S 2-20) defeat of Abner and death of Asahel

      (vs 12-32).

      (b) Increase of the fame and prosperity of David, and the names of his sons (3 1-5) ; Abner's submission to David, and treacherous murder of the former by Joab (vs 6-39).

      (c) Murder of Ish-bosheth and David's vengeance upon his murderers (4 1-3.5-12) ; notice of the escape of Mephibosheth, when Saul and Jonathan were slain at Jezreei (ver 4).

      (d) David accepted as Wng over all Israel (5 1-3).

      (2) Reign of David in Jerus over united Israel (5 4 — 20 26).

      (o) Taking of Jerus and victories over the Philis (5 4-25).

      (b) Return of the ark to the city of David (ch 8).

      (c) David's purpose to build a temple for the Lord (7 1-3) ; the Divine answer by the prophet Nathan, and the king's prayer (vs 4-29).

      (d) Victories over the Phihs, Syrians, and other peoples (ch 8).

      (e) David's reception of Mephibosheth (ch 9).

      (/) Defeat of the Ammonites and Syrians by the men of Israel under the command of Joab (10 1 — 11 1).

      ((7) David and Uriah, the latter's death in battle, and David's marriage with Batli-sheba (11 2-27).

      (h) Nathan's parable and David's conviction of sin (12 l-15a) ; the king's grief and intercession for his sick son (vs 156-25) ; siege and capture of Rabbah, the Am- monite capital (vs 26-31).

      (i) Amnon and Tamar (13 1-22); Absalom's revenge and murder of Amnon (vs 23-36) ; flight of Absalom (vs 37-.39).

      if) Return of Absalom to Jerus (14 1-24) ; his beauty, and reconciliation with the king (vs 25-33).

      (k) Absalom's method of ingratiating himself with the people (15 1-6) ; his revolt and the flight of tlie king from Jerus (vs 7-31); meeting with Hushai (vs 32-37a); Absalom in Jerus (ver 376).

      (0 David's meeting with Ziba (16 1-4), and Shimei (vs .5-14) ; counsel of Ahitophel and Hushai (16 15 — 17 14) ; the news carried to David (vs 15-22) ; death of Ahitophel (ver 23).

      Im) David at Mahanaim (17 24-29).

      (n) The revolt subdued, death of Absalom, and recep- tion by David of the tidings (18 1 — 19 80).

      (o) Return of the king to Jerus, and meetings with Shimei, Mephibosheth, and Barzillai the Gileadite (19 86-43).

      Samuel, Books of Sanctification



      (p) Revolt of Sheba the Benjamite. and its suppres- sion by Joab witli the death of Amasa (20 1.2.4-22); the king's treatment of the concubines left at Jems (ver 3) ; the names of his officers (vs 23-26).

      (1) Seven male descendants of Saul put to death at the instance of the Gibeonites (21 1-14); incidents of

      wars with the Philis (vs 1.5-22). 4 AoDendix ^-^^ David's song of thanksgiving and ^ c oi oi^ praise (ch 22).

      (2 b 21-24) (3) The "last words" of David (23 l-*?) ; names and exploits of David's "mighty men" (vs 8-39).

      (4) The king's numbering of the people, the resulting plague, and the dedication of the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (ch 24) .

      IV. Sources of the History. — The natural infer- ence from the character and contents of the Books of S, as thus reviewed, is that the writer has made use of authorities, "sources" or "documents," from which he has compiled a narrative of the events which it was his desire to place on record. The same characteristics are noticeable here which are found in parts of the Pent and of the Books of Josh and Jgs, that in some instances duplicate or parallel accounts are given of one and the same event, which seems to be regarded from different points of view and is narrated in a style which is more or less divergent from that of the companion record. Examples of this so-called duphcation are more frequent in the earher parts of the books than in the later. There are presented, for instance, two accounts of Saul's election as king, and an act of disobedience is twice followed, apparently quite independently, by the sentence of rejection. Inde- pendent also and hardly consistent narratives are given of David's introduction to Saul (1 S 16 14- 23; 17 31fT.55ff); and the two accounts of the manner of the king's death can be imperfectly recon- ciled only on the hypothesis that the young Amalek- ite told a false tale to David in order to magnify his own part in the matter. In these and other instances httle or no attempt seems to be made to harmonize conflicting accounts, or to reconcile apparent discrepancies. In good faith the 'writer set down the records as he found them, making extracts or quotations from his authorities on the several events as they occurred, and thus building up his own history on the basis of the freest possible use of the materials and language of those who had preceded him.

      However alien such a method of composition may appear to modem thought and usage in the West, it is characteristic of all early oriental writing. It would be almost impossible to find in any eastern literature a work of any length or importance which was not thus silently indebted to its predecessors, had incorporated their utterances, and had itself in turn suffered interpolation at the hands of later editors and transcribers. Accordingly, early Heb historical literature also, while unique in its spirit, conformed in its methods to the practice of the age and country in which it was composed. It would have been strange if it had been otherwise.

      Apart from the appendix and minor additions, of which Hannah's song or psalm in 1 S 2 is one, the main por- tion of the book is derived from two inde- Two Main Pendent sources, which themselves in all J T J probability formed part of a larger whole, a

      ana inae- more or less consecutive history or histories pendent of Israel. These sources may. however,

      siniircpt; ^^^^ been, as others think, rather of a bio-

      ouuiv-co graphical nature, presenting and enforcing

      the teaching of the acts and experience of the great leaders and rulers of the nation. The parallehsm and duplication of the narrative is perhaps most evident in the history of Saul. The broad lines of distinction between the two may be defined without much difficulty or uncertainty. Tlie greater part of the first eight chapters of 1 S is in all probability derived from tne later of these two sources, to which is to be assigned more or less completely chs 10-12, 15, 17-19 21-26, 28 and 2 S 1-7. The earher source has contrib- uted 18 9 with parts of chs 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 20 and considerable portions of chs 22, 23, 26-27, 29-31, 2 S 1 (in part), 2-6,9-20. Some details have probably been

      derived from other sources, and additions made by the editor or editors. This general determination of sources rests upon a difference of standpoint and religious con- ception, and upon slighter varieties of style which are neither so pronounced nor so readily distinguished as in the books of the Pent. It is reasonable also to bear in mind that a close and exact division or line of demar- cation in every detail is not to be expected.

      V. Character and Date of Sources. — Attempts which have been made to determine the date of these two sources, or to identify them with one or other of the principal authorities from which the historical narratives of the Pent are derived, have not been convincing. In the judgment of some, however, the later of the two sources siiould be regarded as a continuation of the narrative or document knoivn as E, and the earlier be assigned to J. The style of the latter has much in conmion with the style of J, and is clear, vigorous and poetical: the religious conceptions also that are embodied and taught are of a simple and early type. The later writing has been supposed to give indications of the influence of the

      grophetic teaching of the 8th cent. The indications, owever, are not sufficiently decisive to enable a final judgment to be formed. If it is borne in mind that J and E represent rather schools of teaching and thought than individual writers, the characteristics of the two sources of the Books of S would not be out of harmony with the view that from these two schools respectively were derived the materials out of which the history was compiled. The "sources" would then, according to the usual view, belong to the 9th and 8th cents, before the Cliristian era; and to a period not more than a century or a century and a half later should be assigned the final compilation and completion of the book as it is con- tained in the Heb Canon of Scripture.

      VI. Creek Versions. — For an exact estimate and un- derstanding of the history and text of the Books of S ac- count must further be taken of the Gr version or versions. In the LXX there is great divergence from the Heb Mas- soretic text, and it is probable that in the course of trans- mission the Gr has been exposed to corruption to a very considerable extent. At least two recensions of the Gr text are in existence, represented by the Vatican and Alexandrian MSS respectively, of which the latter is nearer to the Heb original, and has apparently been conformed to it at a later period with a view to removing discrepancies; and this process has naturally impaired its value as a witness to the primary shape of the Gr text itself. There are therefore ttiree existing types of the text of S; the Massoretic Heb and B and A in the Greek. The original form of the LXX, If it could be recovered, would represent a text anterior to the Mas- soretic recension, ditfering from, but not necessarily superior to, the latter. For the restoration of the Gr text, the Old Lat. where it is available, affords valuable help. It is evident then that in any given instance the agreement of these three types or recensions of the text is the strongest possible witness to the originality and authenticity of a reading ; but that the weight attaching to the testimony of A will not in general, on account of the history of its text, be equivalent to that of either of the other two.

      VII. Ethical and Religious Teaching. — The re- ligious teaching and thought of the two Books of S it is not difficult to summarize. The books are in form a historical record of events; but they are at the same time and more particularly a history conceived with a definite purpose, and made to sub- serve a definite moral ancl religious aim. It is not a narrative of events solely, or the preservation of his- torical detail, that the writer has in view, but rather to elucidate and enforce from Israel's experience the significance of the Divine and moral govern- ment of the nation. The duty of king and people alike is to obey Jeh, to render strict and willing deference to His commands, and on this path of obedience alone will national independence and prosperity be secured. With the strongest em- phasis, and with uncompromising severity, sin even in the highest places is condemned; and an ideal of righteousness is set forth in language and with an earnestness which recalls the exhortations of Dt. Thus the same is true of the Books of S as is mani- fest in the preceding books of the canonical OT: they are composed with a didactic aim. The expe- rience of the past is made to afford lessons of warn- ing and encouragement for the present. To the writer or writers — the history of the development and upbuilding of the Israelite kingdom is pregnant with a deeper meaning than lies on the surface, and this meaning he endeavors to make plain to his readers through the record. The issues of the events



      Samuel, Books of Sanctification

      and the events themselves are under the guidance and control of Jeh, who always condemns and punishes wrong, but approves and rewards right- eousness. Thus the narrative is history utilized to convey moral truth. And its value is to be esti- mated, not primarily as recording the great deeds of the past, but as conveying ethical teaching; that by means of the history with all its glamor and interest the people may be recalled to a sense of their high duty toward God, and be warned of the inevitable consequences of disobedience to Him.

      LiTERATuni3. — Upon all points of introduction, criti- cism and interpretation, the comms. alTord abundant and satisfactory guidance. The principal Eng. comms. are by H. P. Smith in ICC, Edinburgh, 1899, and S. R. Driver, Notes on the Heb Text of the Books of S, 2d ed, Oxford, 1913; A. R. S. Kennedy, "Samuel," New Century Bible, New York, Prowde, 1905; in German by R. Budde, 1902, W. Nowack. 1902, A. Klostermann, 1887. See also the arts. "Samuel" in IIDB, EB and Jew Enc.

      A. S. Geden

      SANAAS, san'4-as (A and Fritzsche, Savaas, iSandas, B, Sajid, Sam(i; AVAnnaas): The sons of Sanaas re1;unied in large numbers with Zerubbabel (1 Esd 5 23) = "Senaah" in Ezr 2 3.5; Neh 7 38. The numbers vary in each case (Esd, 3,330 or 3,301; Ezr, 3,630; Neh, 3,930).

      SANABASSAR, san-a-bas'ar (in 1 Esd 2 12.15), SANABASSARUS, san-a-bas'a-rus (in 6 18.10; a name appearing in many variations, A always read- ing 2ava(3d(rcrapos, Sanabdssaros, B, 2ava|j,acro-dpa>, Sanamassdro, in 2 12[11] [RVm Samanassar], Sa|i- avao-o-dpov, Samanassdrou, in 2 15[14], but Sa|3av- atro-dpui, Sabanassdro, in 6 18[17J [RVm] and 2ava- pdo-o-apos, Sanabdssaros, in 6 20 [19]): He was "governor of Judaea" under Cyrus, conveyed the holy vessels of the temple from Babylon to Jerus and "laid the foundations of the house of the Lord" for the first time since its destruction (1 Esd 2 12. 15; 6 18-20) = "Sheshbazzar [q.v.] the prince of Judah" (Ezr 1 8).

      Some identify him with Zerubbabel as AVm in 1 Esd 6 18: "Z., which is also S. the ruler." This view ap- pears to be favored by the order of the words here, where, in case of two persons, one might expect "S. the ruler" to come first. Zerubbabel appears as "governor of Ju- daea" also in 1 Esd 6 27-29. Ezr 3 10 speaks of the foundation of the temple imder Zerubbabel and 6 16 as under Sheshbazzar. There is further the analogy of 1 Esd 5 40 where Nehemias and Attharias refer to the same person. Against this identification: Zerubbabel is not styled ruler or governor either in Neh or Ezr, but in Hag 1 14; 2 2.21 he is pehdh or governor of Judah; no explanation is given of the double name, as in the case of e g Daniel, Belteshazzar ; the language of Ezr 5 14f seems to refer to work commenced under a different person than Zerubbabel. Nor is there any reason against supposing a first return mider Sheshbazzar (Sanabassar) and a foundation of the temple previous to the time of Zerubbabel— an undertaking into which the Jews did not enter heartily, perhaps because Sanabassar may have been a foreigner (though it is uncertain whether he was a Babylonian, a Persian, or a Jew). A later pro- posal is to identify Sanabassar with bhenazzar. the uncle of Zerubbabel in 1 Ch 3 18. But either of these identi- fications must remain doubtful. See Shenazzar; Ze- rubbabel. ~ .

      S. Angus

      SANASIB, san'a-sib (Fritzsche, 2avao-C|3, Sanaslb, but B and Swcte, 2avaPe£s, Sanabels, A, Avao-tCp, Anaselb) : Found only in 1 Esd 5 24, where the sons of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, are a priestly family returning "among the sons of »anasib^ Thenameisnot foundinthe |1 Ezr 2 36; Neh 7 39, and is perhaps preserved m the Vulg Eliasib.

      SANBALLAT, san-bal'at (t335?D, ^an'bhallat; Or and Vulg Sanaballdt, Pesh Samballal): San- ballat the Horonite was, if the appellation which follows his name indicates his origin, a Moabite ot Horonaim, a city of Moab mentioned mlsa 15 5; Jer 48 2.5.34; Jos, Ant, XIII, xxin; XIV, ii. He is named along with Tobiah, the Ammonite slave (Neh 4 1), and Geshem the Arabian (Neh b 1)

      as the leading opponent of the Jews at the time when Nehemiah undertook to rebuild the walls of Jerus (Neh 2 10; 4 1; 6 1). He was related by mar- riage to the son of Eliashib, the high priest at the time of the annulment of the mixed marriages for- bidden by the Law (Neh 13 28).

      Renewed interest has been awakened in Sanballat from the fact that he is mentioned in the papyri I and II of Sachau (Die aramdischen Papyrusur- kunden aus Elephantine, Berlin, 1908, and in his later work, Aramdische Papyrus und Ostraka, Leip- zig, 1911; cf Staerk's convenient ed in Lietzmanns Kleine Texle, No. 32, 1908) as having been the governor (pahath) of Samaria some time before the 17th year of Darius (Nothus), i.e. 408-407 BC, when Bagohi was governor of Judah. His two sons, Dclaiah and Shelemiah, received a letter from Jedoniah and his companions the priests who were in Yeb (Elephantine) in Upper Egypt. This letter contained information concerning the state of affairs in the Jewish colony of Yeb, esp. concerning the de- struction of the temple or synagogue {agora) which had been erected at that place.

      The address of this letter reads as follows: "To our lord Bagohi, the governor of Judaea, his servants Jedo- niah and his companions, the priests in the fortress of Yeb [Elephantine]. May the God of Heaven inquire much at every time after the peace of our lord and put thee in favor before Darius the king," etc. The conclusion of the letter reads thus: "Now, thy servants, Jedoniah and his companions and the Jews, all citizens of Yeb, say thus: If it seems good to our lord, mayest thou think on the rebuilding of that temple [tlie ayora which had been destroyed by the Egyptians]. Since it has not been permitted us to rebuild it, do thou look on the receivers of thy benefactions and favors here in Egypt. Let a letter with regard to the rebuilding of the temple of the God Jaho in the fortress of Yeb, as it was formerly built, be sent from thee. In thy name will they offer the meal offerings, the incense, and the burnt offerings upon the altar of the God Jaho; and we shall always pray for thee, we and our wives and our children and all the Jews found here, until the temple has beenrebuilt. And it will be to thee a meritorious work [c^d/iafcd/i] in the sight of Jaho, the God of Heaven, greater than the meritorious work of a man who offers to him a burnt offering and a sacrifice of a value equal to the value of 1,000 talents of silver. And as to the gold (probably that which was sent by the Jews to Bagohi as a bak- sheesh] we have sent word and given knowledge. Also, we have in our name communicated in a letter all [these] matters unto Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of San- ballat, governor of Samaria. Also, from all that has been done to us, Arsham [the satrap of Egypt] has learned nothing.

      The 20th of Marchoshvan in the 17th year ot Darius the king."

      Sanballat is the Bab Sin-uballit, "may Sin give him life," a name occurring a number of times in the contract tablets from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, and Darius Hystaspis. (See Tallquist, Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, 183.)

      R. Dick Wilson

      SANCTIFICATION, sank-ti-ii-ka'shun :

      Etymology I. The Formal Sense

      1. In the OT

      2. In the NT

      II. The Ethical Sense

      1. Transformation of Formal to Ethical Idea

      2. Our Relation to God as Personal: NT Idea

      3. Sanctification as God's Gift

      4. Questions of Time and Method

      5. An Element in All Christian Life

      6. Follows from Fellowship with God

      7. Is It Instantaneous and Entire ?

      8. Sanctification as Man's Task Literature

      . The root is found in the OT in the Heb vb. ■©■jfj , kddhash, in the NT in the Gr vb. aiidfu, hagidzo. The noun "sanctification" Etymology (ix7ia



      "sanctification." It must be borne in mind that these words are all tr' of the same root, and that therefore no one of them can be treated adequately without reference to the others. All have under- gone a certain development. Broadly stated, this has been from the formal, or ritual, to the ethical, and these different meanings must be carefully dis- tinguished.

      /. The Formal Sense. — By sanctification is ordi- narily meant that hallowing of the Christian believer by which he is freed from sin and enabled to realize the will of God in his life. This is not, however, the first or common meaning in the Scriptures. To sanctify means commonly to make holy, that is, to separate from the world and consecrate to God.

      To understand this primary meaning we must go back to the word "holy" in the OT. That is holy which belongs to Jeh. There is 1. In the nothing implied here as to moral OT character. It may refer to days and

      seasons, to places, to objects used for worship, or to persons. Exactly the same usage is shown with the word "sanctify." To sanctify anything is to declare it as belonging to God. "Sanctify unto me all the first-born .... it is mine" (Ex 13 2; of Nu 3 13; 8 17). It applies thus to all that is connected with worship, to the Levites (Nu 3 12), the priests and the tent of meeting (Ex 29 44), the altar and all that touches it (Ex 29 36 f), and the offering (Ex 29 27; ct 2 Maco 2 IS; Ecclus 7 31). The feast and holy days are to be sanctified, that is, set apart from ordi- nary business as belonging to Jeh (the Sabbath, Neh 13 19-22; a fast, Joel 1 14). So the nation as a whole is sanctified when Jeh acknowledges it and receives it as His own, "a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation" (Ex 19 5,6). A man may thus sanctify his house or his field (Lev 27 14.16), but not the firstling of the flock, for this is already Jeh's (Lev 27 26).

      It is this formal usage without moral implication that explains such a passage as Gen 38 21. The word tr'^ "prostitute" here is from the same V kddhash, meaning lit., as elsewhere, the sanctified or conse- crated one (kfdhenhdfi; see margin and cf Dt 23 IS; 1 K 14 24; ilos 4 14). It is the hierodule, the fa- mihar figure of the old pagan temple, the sacred slave consecrated to the temple and the deity for immoral purposes. The practice is protested against in Israel (Dt 23 17 f), but the use of the term illustrates clearly the absence of anything essentially ethical in its pri- mary meaning (cf also 2 K 10 20, "And .lehu said. Sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal. And they pro- claimed it"; cf Joel 1 14).

      Very suggestive is the transitive use of the word in the phrase, "to sanctify Jeh." To understand this we must note the use of the word "holy" as applied to Jeh in the OT. Its meaning is not pri- marily ethical. Jeh's holiness is His supremac}-. His sovereignty, His glory. His essential being as God. To say the Holy One is simply to say God. Jeh's holiness is seen in His might. His manifested glory; it is that before which peoples tremble, which makes the nations dread (Ex 15 11-18; ci; 1 S 6 20; Ps 68 35; 89 7; 99 2.3). Significant is the way in which "jealous" and "holy" are almost identified (Josh 24 19; Ezk 38 23). It is God asserting His supremacy. His unique claim. To sanctify Jeh, therefore, to make Him holy, is to assert or acknowledge or bring forth His being as God, His supreme power and glory, His sovereign claim. Ezekicl brings this out most clearly. Jeh has been profaned in the eyes of the nations ilirough Is- rael's defeat and captivity. True, it was because of Israel's sins, but the nations thought it was because of Jeh's weakness. The ethical is not wanting in these passages. The people are to be separated from their sins and given a new heart (Ezk 36 25. 26.33). But the word "sanctify" is not used for

      this. It is applied to Jeh, and it means the assertion of Jeh's power in Israel's triumph and the conquest of her foes (20 41; 28 25;_36 23; 38 16; 39 27). The sanctification of Jeh is thus the assertion of His being and power as God, just as the sanctifi- cation of a person or object is the assertion of Jeh's right and claim in the same.

      The story of the waters of RIeribah illustrates the same meaning. Moses' failure to sanctify Jeh is his failure to declare Jeh's glory and power in the miracle of the waters (Nu 20 12.13; 27 14; Dt 32 51). The story of Nadab and Abihu points the same way. Here " I will be sanctified " is the same as " I will be glorified " (Lev 10 1-3). Not essentially dillerent is the usage in Isa 5 16: "Jeh of hosts is exalted in justice, and God the Holy One is sanctified in righteousness." Holiness again is the e.xaltedness of God, His supremacy, which is seen here in the judgment (justice, righteousness) meted out to the disobedient people (cf the recurrent refrain of 5 25; 9 12.17.21; 10 4; see Justice; Justice of God). Isa 8 13; 29 23 suggest the same idea by the way in which they relate "sanctify" to fear and awe. One NT passage brings us the same meaning (1 Pet 3 15): "Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord," that is, exalt Him as supreme.

      In a few NT passages the OT ritual sense reap- pears, as when Jesus speaks of the temple sanctify- ing the gold, and the altar the gift 2. In the (Mt 23 17.19; cf also He 9 13; 1 NT Tim 4 5). The prevailing meaning

      is that which we found in the OT. To sanctify is to consecrate or set apart. We may first take the few passages in the Fourth Gospel. As applied to Jesus in 10 36; 17 19, sanctify cannot mean to make holy in the ethical sense. As the whole context shows, it means to consecrate for His mission in the world. The reference to the dis- ciples, "that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth," has both meanings: that they may beset apart (for Jesus sends them, as the Father sends Him), and that they may be made holy in truth.

      This same meaning of consecration, or separation, appears when we study the word saint, which is the same as "sanctified one." Aside from its use in the Pss, the word is found mainly in the NT. Outside the Gospels, where the term "disciples" is used, it is the common word to designate the followers of Jesus, occurring some 56 t. By "saint" is not meant the morally perfect, but the one who belongs to Christ, just as the sanctified priest or offering belonged to Jeh. Thus Paul can salute the disci- ples at Corinth as saints and a little later rebuke them as carnal and babes, as those among whom are jealousy and strife, who walk after the manner of men (1 Cor 12; 3 1-3). In the same way the phrase "the sanctified" or "those that are sanctified" is used to designate the believers. By "the inherit- ance among all them that are sanctified" is meant the heritage of the Christian believer (Acts 20 32; 26 18; cf 1 Cor 1 2; 6 11; Eph 1 IS; Col 1 12). This is the meaning in He, which speaks of the be- liever as being sanctified by the blood of Christ. In 10 29 the writer speaks of one who has fallen away, who "hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing." Evidently it is not the inner and personal holiness of this apostate that is referred to, esp. in view of the tense, but that he had been separated unto God by this sacrificial blood and had then counted the holy offering a common thing. The contrast is between sacred and common, not between moral perfection and sin (cf 10 10; 13 12). The formal meaning appears again in 1 Cor 7 12-14, where the unbelieving husband is said to be sanctified by the wife, and vice versa. It is not moral character that is meant here, but a certain separation from the profane and unclean and a certain relation to God. This is made plain by the reference to the children: "Else were your children unclean; but now aie they holy." The formal sense is less certain in other



      instances where we have the thought of sanctifi- cation in or by the Holy Spirit or in Christ; as in Rom 15 16, "being sanctified by the Holy Spirit"; 1 Cor 1 2, to "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus"; 1 Pet 1 2, "in sanctification of the Spirit." Paul's doctrine of the Spirit as the new life in us seems to enter in here, and yet the reference to 1 Cor suggests that the primary meaning is still that of setting apart, the relating to God.

      //. The Ethical Sense. — We have been consider- ing so far what has been called the formal meaning of the word; but the chief interest of Christian thought lies in the ethical idea, sanctification con- sidered as the active deed or process by which the life is made holy.

      Our first question is, How does the idea of belong- ing to God become the idea of transformation of life and character? The change is, in- 1. Trans- deed, nothing less than a part of the formation whole movement for which the entire of Formal Scriptures stand as a monument. The to Ethical ethical is not wanting at the beginning. Idea but the supremacy of the moral and

      spiritual over against the formal, the ritual, the ceremonial, the national, is the clear direction in which the movement as a whole tends. Now the pivot of this movement is the conception of God. As the thought of God grows more ethical, more spiritual, it molds and changes all other con- ceptions. Thus what it means to belong to God (holiness, sanctification) depends upon the nature of the God to whom man belongs. The hierodules of Corinth are women of shame because of the na- ture of the goddess to whose temple they belong. The prophets caught a vision of Jeh, not jealous for His prerogative, not craving the honor of punc- tilious and proper ceremonial, but with a gracious love for His people and a passion for righteousness. Theirgreat message is: This now is Jeh ; hear what it means to belong to such a God and to serve Him. "What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? .... Wash you, make you clean; . . . . seek justice, relieve the oppressed" (Isa 1 11.16.17).

      "When Israel was a child, then I loved him

      I desire goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowl- edge of God more than bumt^offerings" (Hos 11 1; 6 6).

      In this way the formal idea that we have been considering becomes charged with moral meaning. To belong to God, to be His servant. His son, is no mere external matter. Jesus' teaching as to sonship is in point here. The word "sanctification" does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels at all, but "son- ship" with the Jews expressed this same relation of belonging. For them it meant a certain obedience on the one hand, a privilege on the other. Jesus declares that belonging to God means likeness to Him, sonship is sharing His spirit of loving good will (Mt 5 43-48). Brother and sister for Jesus are those who do God's will (Mk 3 3.5). Paul takes up the same thought, but joms it definitely to the words "saint" and "sanctify." The rehgious means the ethical, those "that are sanctified are "called to be saints" (1 Cor 1 2). The signffioant latter phrase is the same as in Rom 1 1, Paul called to be an apostle." In this light we read Eph 4 1 "Walk worthily of the calling wherewith yewerecaUed." Cf 1 Thess 2 12; Phil 1 27 And the end of this caUing is that we are "foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8 29) We must not limit ourselves to the words "saint" or "sanctify" to get this teaching with Paul. It is his constant and compelling moral appeal: You belong to Christ; live with Him, live unto Him (Col 3 1-4; 1 Thess 6 10). It is no formal belonging, no external surrender. It is the yielding of the life in its passions and purposes, m its deepest

      affections and highest powers, to be ruled by a new spirit (Eph 4; cf Rom 12 1).

      But we do not get the full meaning of this thought

      of sanctification as consecration, or belonging, until

      we grasp the NT thought of our rela-

      2. Relation tion to God as personal. The danger to God has always been that this consecration Personal: should be thought of in a negative or NT Idea passive way. Now the Christian's

      surrender is not to an outer authority but to an inner, living fellowship. The sanctified life is thus a life of personal fellowship lived out with the Father in the spirit of Christ in loving trust and obedient service. This positive and vital meaning of sanctification dominates Paul's thought. He speaks of living unto God, of living to the Lord, and, most expressively of all, of being alive unto Gocl (Rom 14 8; cf 6 13; Gal 2 19). So com- pletely is his life filled by this fellowship that he can say, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal 2 20). But there is no quietism here. It is a very rich and active life, this life of fellowship to which we are surrendered. It is a life of sonship in trust and love, with the spirit that enables us to say, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8 1.5; Gal 4 6). It is a life of unconquerable kindness and good will (Mt 5 43-48) . It is a life of "faith work- ing through love" (Gal 5 6), it is having the mind of Christ (Phil 2 5). The sanctified life, then, is the life so fully surrendered to fellowship with Christ day by day that inner spirit and outward expression are ruled by His spirit.

      We come now to that aspect which is central for Christian interest, sanctification as the making holy

      of life, not by our act, but by God's

      3. Sancti- deed and by God's gift. If holiness fication as represents the state of heart and life God's Gift in conformity with God's will, then

      sanctification is the deed or process by which that state is wrought. And this deed we are to consider now as the work of God. Jesus prays that the Father may sanctify His disciples in truth (Jn 17 17). So Paul prays for the Thessa- lonians (1 Thess 5 23), and declares that Christ is to sanctify His church (cf Rom 6 22; 2 Thess 2 13; 2 Tim 2 21; 1 Pet 1 2). _ Here sanctification means to make clean or holy in the ethical sense, though the idea of consecration is not necessarily lacking. But aside from special passages, we must take into account the whole NT teaching, according to which every part of the Christian life is the gift of God and wrought by His Spirit. "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to work" (Phil 2 13; cf Rom 8 2-; Gal 6 22 f). Sig- nificant is the use of the words "creature" ("crea- tion," see margin) and "workmanship" with Paul (2 Cor 5 17; Gal 6 15; Eph 2 10; 4 24). The new life is God's second work of creation.

      When we ask, however, when and how this work is wrought, there is no such clear answer. What

      we have is on the one hand uncompro-

      4. Ques- mising ideal and demand, and on the tions of other absolute confidence in God. By Time and adding to these two the evident fact Method that the Christian believers seen in the

      NT are far from the attainment of such Christian perfection, some writers have as- sumed to have the foundation here for the doctrine that the state of complete holiness of life is a special experience in the Christian life wrought in a definite moment of time. It is well to realize that no NT passages give a specific answer to these questions of time and method, and that our conclusions must be drawn from the general teaching of the NT as to the Christian life.

      First, it must be noted that in the NT view sancti- fication in the ethical sense is an essential element



      and inevitable result of all Christian life and experi- ence. Looked at from the religious point of view, it follows from the doctrine of regenera-

      5. An Ele- tion. Regeneration is the implanting ment in All of a new life in man. So far as that Christian is a new life from God it is ipso facto Life holy. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit

      teaches the same (see Holy Spirit). There is no Christian life from the very beginning that is not the work of the Spirit. "No man can [even] say, Jesus is Lord, but in the .... Spirit" (1 Cor 12 3). But this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, whether with Paul we say Spirit of Christ or Spirit of God (Rom 8 9) . His presence, therefore, in so far forth means holiness of life. From the ethical standpoint the same thing is constantly declared. Jesus builds here upon the prophets: no religion without righteousness; clean hands, pure hearts, deeds of mercy are not mere conditions of worship, but joined to humble hearts are themselves the worship that God desires (Am 5 21-25; Mic 6 6-8). Jesus deepened the conception, but did not change it, and Paul was true to this succession. "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, .... the spirit is hfe because of righteousness" (Rom 8 9.10). There is nothing in Paul's teaching to suggest that sanctification is the special event of a unique experience, or that there are two kinds or qualities of sanctification. All Christian living meant for him clean, pure, right living, and that was sanctification. The simple, practical way in which he attacks the bane of sexual impurity in his pagan congregations shows this. "This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor. For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification" (1 Thess 4 3.4.7). The strength of Paul's teaching, indeed, lies here in this combination of moral earnestness with absolute dependence upon God.

      The second general conclusion that we draw from

      the NT teaching as to the Christian Hfe is this: the

      sanctification which is a part of all

      6. Follows Christian living follows from the very from Fel- nature of that life as fellowship with lowship God. Fundamental here is the fact with God that the Christian hfe is personal, that

      nothing belongs in it which cannot be stated in personal terms. It is a life with God in which He graciously gives Himself to us, and which we live out with Him and with our brothers in the spirit of Christ, which is His Spirit. The two great facts as to this fellowship are, that it is God's gift, and that its fruit is holiness. First, it is God's gift. AYhat God gives us is nothing less than Himself. The gift is not primarily for- giveness, nor victory over sin, nor peace of soul, nor hope of heaven. It is fellowship with Him, which includes all of these and without which none of these can be. Secondly, the fruit of this fellowship is holiness. The real hallowing of our life can come in no other way. For Christian holi- ness is personal, not something formal or ritual, and its source and power can be nothing lower than the personal. Such is the fellowship into which God graciously lifts the believer. Whatever its mystical aspects, that fellowship is not magical or sacra- mental. It is ethical through and through. Its condition on our side is ethical. For Christian faith is the moral surrender of our life to Him in whom truth and right come to us with authority to command. The meaning of that surrender is ethical; it is opening the life to definite moral real- ities and powers, to love, meekness, gentleness, humihty, reverence, purity, the passion for right- eousness, to that which words cannot analyze but

      which we know as the Spirit of Christ. Such a fellowship is the supreme moral force for the mold- ing of life. An intimate human fellowship is an analogue of this, and we know with what power it works on life and character. It cannot, however, set forth either the intimacy or the power of this supreme and final relation where our Friend is not another but is our real self. So much we know: this fellowship means a new spirit in us, a renewed and daily renewing life.

      It is noteworthy that Paul has no hard-and-fast forms for this life. The reality was too rich and great, and his example should teach us caution in the insistence upon theological forms which may serve to compress the truth instead of expressing it. Here are some of his expressions for this life in us: to "have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2 16; Phil 2 5), "the Spirit of Christ" (Rom 8 9), "Christ is in you" (Rom 8 10), "the spirit which is from God" (1 Cor 2 12), "the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 3 16), "the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 6 19). "the Spirit of the Lord " (2 Cor 3 17). "the Lord the Spirit" (2 Cor 3 18). But in all this one fact stands out. this life is personal, a new spirit in us, and that spirit is one that we have in personal fellowship with God; it is His Spirit. Especially signiflcant Is the way in which Paul relates this new life to Christ. We have already noted that Paul uses indiflerently "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ." and that in the same passage (Rom 8 9). Paul's great contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit hes here. As he states it in 2 Cor 3 17: "Now the Lord is the Spirit." "With that the whole conception of the Spirit gains moral content and per- sonal character. The Spirit is personal, not some thing, nor some strange and magical power. The Spirit is ethical; there is a definite moral quality which is ex- pressed when we say Christ. He has the Spirit who has tlie qualities of Christ. Thus the presence of the Spirit is not evidenced in the unusual, the miraculous, the ecstatic utterance of the enthusiast, or some strange deed of power, but in the workaday quahties of kindness, goodness, love, loyalty, patience, self-restraint (Gal 5 22 f). With this identification of the Spirit and the Christ in mind, we can better understand the passages in which Paul brings out the relation of Christ to the sanctification of the believer. He is the goal (Rom 8 29). We are to grow up in Him (Eph 4 15). He is to be formed in us (Gal 4 19)- We are to behold Him and be changed into His image (2 Cor 3 17 f). This deep- ens into Paul's thought of the mystical relation with Christ. The Christian dies to sin with Him that he may live with Him a new life. Christ is now his real life. He dwells in Christ, Christ dwells in him. He has Christ's thoughts. His mind. See Rom 6 3-11; 8 9.10; 1 Cor 2 16; 15 22; Gal 2 20.

      This vital and positive conception of the sanctifica- tion of the believer must be asserted against some popu- lar interpretations. The symbols of fire and water, as suggesting cleansing, have sometimes been made the basis for a whole superstructure of doctrine. (For the former, note Isa 6 6 f ; Lk 3 16; Acts 2 3; for the latter. Acts 2 38; 22 16; 1 Cor 6 11; Eph 5 26; Tit 3 5; He 10 22; Rev 1 .5; 7 14.) There is a two- fold danger here, from which these writers have not escaped. The symbols suggest cleansing, and their over-emphasis has meant first a negative and narrow idea of sanctification as primarily separation from sin or defilement. This is a falling back to certain OT levels. Secondly, these material symbols have been literalized, and the result has been a sort of mechanical or magical conception of the work of the Spirit. I3ut the soul is not a substance for mechanical action, however sublimated. It is personal life that is to be hallowed, thought, affections, motives, desires, will, and only a personal agent through personal fellowship can work this end.

      The clear recognition of the personal and vital character of sanctification will help us with another problem. If the holy life be God's re- 7. Is It In- quirement and at the same time His stantaneous deed, why should not this sanctifica- and Entire? tion be instantaneous and entire? And does not Paul imply this, not merely in his demands but in his prayer for the Thessalonians, that God may establish their hearts in holiness, that He may sanctity them wholly and preserve spirit and soul and body entire, without blame at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 3 13; 5 23)?

      In answer to this we must first discriminate be- tween the ideal and the empirical with Paul. Like John (1 Jn 1 6; 3 9), Paul insists that the hfe of Christ and the life of sin cannot go on together, and



      he knows no qualified obedience, no graduated standard. He brings the highest Christian demand to the poorest of his pagan converts. Nor have we any finer proof of his faith than this uncompro- mising ideahsm. On the other hand, how could he ask less than this? God cannot require less than the highest, but it is another question how the ideal is to be achieved. In the realm of the ideal it is always either .... or. In the realm of life there is another category. The question is not simply. Is this man sinner or saint? It is rather, What is he becoming? This matter of becoming is the really vital issue. Is this man turned the right way with aU his power? Is his life wholly open to the Divine fellowship? Not the degree of achieve- ment, but the right attitude toward the ideal, is decisive. Paul does not stop to resolve paradoxes, but practically he reckons with this idea. Side by side with his prayer for the Thessalonians are his admonitions to growth and progress (1 Thess 3 12; 6 14). Neither the absolute demand or the promise of grace gives us the right to conclude how the con- summation shall take place.

      That conclusion we can reach only as we go back again to the fundamental principle of the personal

      character of the Christian life and the 8. Sanctifi- relation thus given between the ethical cation as and the religious. All Christian life Man's Task is gift and task alike. "Work out your

      own salvation .... for it is God who worketh in you" (Phil 2 12 f). All is from God; we can only five what God gives. But there is a converse to this: only as we live it out can God give to us the fife. This appears in Paul's teaching as to sanctification. It is not only God's gift, but our task. "This is the will of God, even your sanctification" (1 Thess 4 3). "Having therefore these promises .... let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting hohness [hagiosune] in the fear of God" (2 Cor 7 1). Sig- nificant is Paul's use of the word "walk." We are to "walk in newness of life," "by [or in] the Spirit," "in love," and "in Christ Jesus the Lord" (Rom 6 4; Gal 5 16; Eph 5 2; Col 2 6). The gift in each case becomes the task, and indeed becomes real and effective only in this activity. It is only as we walk by the Spirit that this becomes powerful in overcoming the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5 16; cf 5 2.5). But the ethical is the task that ends only with life. If God gives only as we live, then He cannot give all at once. Sanctification is then the matter of a life and not of a moment. The hfe may be consecrated in a moment, the right relation to God assumed and the man stand in saving fellow- ship with Him. The hfe is thus made holy m principle. But the real making holy is coextensive with the whole life of man. It is nothing less than the constant in-forming of the life of the inner spirit and outer deed with the Spirit of Christ until we, "speaking truth in love, may grow up m all things into him, who is the head" (Eph 4 15). (Read also Rom 6; that the Christian is dead to sin is not some fixed static fact, but is true only as he refuses the lower and yields his members to a higher obedience. Note that in 1 Cor 5 7 Paul in the same verse declares "ye are unleavened," and then exhorts "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump"; cf also 1 Thess 5 5-10 )

      We may sum up as follows: The word sanctify_ is used with two broad meanings: (1) The first is to devote, to consecrate to God, to recognize as holy, that is, as belonging to God. This is the regular OT usage and is most common m the N i . The prophets showed that this belonging to Jeh demanded righteousness. The NT deepens this into a whole-hearted surrender to the fellowship of God and to the rule of His Spirit. (2) Though the

      word itself appears in but few passages with this sense, the NT is full of the thought of the making holy of the Christian's life by the Spirit of God in that fellowship into which God lifts us by Hia grace and in which He gives Himself to us. This sancti- fying, or hallowing, is not mechanical or magical. It is wrought out by God's Spirit in a daily fellow- ship to which man gives himself in aspiration and trust and obedience, receiving with open heart, living out in obedient life. It is not negative, the mere separation from sin, but the progressive hal- lowing of a life that grows constantly in capacity, as in character, into the stature of full manhood as it is in Christ. And from this its very nature it is not momentary, but the deed and the privilege of a whole life. See also Holy Spirit and the follow- ing article.

      Literature. — The popular and special works are usually too undiscriminating and unhistorical to be of value for the Bib. study. An exception is Beet. Holiness Symbolic and Real. Full Bib. material in Cremer, Bib. Theol. Lex., but treated from special points of view. See Systematic Theologies. OT Theologies (cf esp. Smend), and NT Theologies (cf esp. Holtzmann).

      Harris Franklin Rall

      Wesleyan Doctrine

      1. Doctrine Stated

      2. Objections Answered

      3. Importance for the Preacher

      4. Hymnology

      5. Its Glorious Results

      6. Wesley's Personal Testimony

      Christian perfection, through entire sanctifica- tion, by faith, here and now, was one of the doc- trines by which John Wesley gave 1. Doctrine great offence to his clerical brethren Stated in the Anglican church. From the

      beginning of his work in 1739, till 1760, he was formulating this doctrine. At the last date there suddenly arose a large number of witnesses among his followers. Many of these he questioned with Baconian skiU, the result being a confirmation of his theories on various points.

      In public address he used the terms "Christian Perfection," "Perfect Love," and "Hohness," as synonymous, though there are differences between them when examined criticaUy. With St. Paul he taught that all regenerate persons are saints, i.e. holy ones, as the word "saint," from Lat sanctus, through the Norman-Fr., signifies (1 Cor 1 2; 2 Cor 1 1). His theory is that in the normal Christian the principle of holiness, beginning with the new birth, gradually expands and strengthens as the believer grows in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, till, by a final, all-surrendering act of faith in Christ, it reaches an instantaneous com- pletion through the act of the Holy Spirit, the sanctifier: 2 Cor 7 1, "perfecting holiness," etc; Eph 4 13, AV "TiU we all come .... unto a perfect man," etc. Thus sanctification is gradual, but entire sanctificatien is instantaneous (Rom 6 6, "our old man was crucified," etc, a sudden death; Gal 2 20, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that five"). In 1 Thess 6 23, the word "sanctify" is a Gr aorist tense, sig- nifying an act and not a process, as also in Jn 17 19, "that they .... may be sanctified in truth," or truly. (See Meyer's note.) Many Christians experience this change on their deathbeds. If death suddenly ends the life of a growing Christian before he is wholly sanctified, the Holy Spirit per- fects the work. Wesley's advice to the preachers of this evangelical perfection was to draw and not to drive, and never to quote any threatenings of God's word against God's children. The declara- tion, "Without sanctification no man shall see the Lord" (He 12 14), does not apply to the saints, "the holy ones."

      Sanctification Sanctuary



      Wesley's perfection of love is not perfection of degree, but of kind. Pure love is perfect love. The gradual growth toward perfect purity of love is beautifully expressed in Monod's hymn,

      "O the bitter shame and sorrow!" The first response to the Saviour's call is,

      "AU of self, and none of Thee." But after a vie-w of Christ on the cross, the answer Is faintly,

      " Some of self, and some of Thee." Then, after a period of growing love, the cry is,

      "Less of self, and more of Thee." After another period, tlie final cry is,

      "None of self, and all of Thee!" an aspiration for pure love, without any selfishness.

      The attainment of this grace is certified by the total cessation of all servile fear (1 Jn 4 18). Wesley added to this the witness of the Spirit, for which his only proof-text is 1 Cor 2 12.

      (1) Paul, in Phil 3 12, declares that he is not "made perfect" : (a) in ver 15, he declares that he is

      perfect; (h) "made perfect" is a term,

      2. Objec- borrowed from the ancient games, tions signifying a finished course. This is Answered one of the meanings of teleido, as seen

      also in Lk 13 32 m, "The third day I end my course." Paul no more disclaims spiritual perfection in these words than does Christ before "the third day." Paul claims in ver 15, by the use of an adj., that he is perfect. In ver 12 Paul claims that he is not perfect as a ■victor, because the race is not ended. In ver 15 he claims that he is perfect as a racer.

      (2) Paul says (1 Cor 15 31), "I die daily." This does not refer to death to sin, as some say that it does, but to his daily danger of being killed for preaching Christ, as in Rom 8 36, "we are killed all the day long."

      (3) 1 Jn 1 8: "If we say that we have no sin," etc. (a) If this includes Christians, it contradicts John himself in the very next verse, and in 3 9, "^Tiosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin," and Jn 8 36, "If .... the Son shall make you free," etc, and in all those texts in the NT declaring sins forgiven.

      (b) Bishop "Westcott says that the expression, "to have sin." is distinguished from "to sin." as the sinful principle is distinguished from the sinful act in itself. It includes the idea of personal guilt. Westcott asserts that John refers to the Gnostics, who taught that moral evil exists only in matter, and never touches spirit, which is always holy: and, therefore, though guilty of all manner of "\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ace, their spirits had no need of atonement, because they were untouched by sin, which existed only in their bodies, as it does in all matter. When told that this made the body of Christ sinful, they denied the reahty of His body, saying that it was only a phantom. Hence, in the very first verse of this Ep., John writes evidently against the gnostic error, quoting three of the five senses to prove the reality of Christ's humanity. (By all means, see "The Epp. of St. John," Cambridge Bible for Schools, etc, 17-21.)

      The relation of this doctrine to the Methodist

      Episcopal church in the United States is seen in the

      following questions, which have been

      3. Required affirmatively answered in public by for the all its preachers on their admission to Highest the Conferences: "Are you going on Success to perfection?"; "Do you e.xpect to of the be made perfect in love in this life?"; Preacher "Are you earnestly striving after it?"

      The hymns of tlie Wesleys, still uni- versally sung, are filled with this doctrine, in which occur such expressions as:

      "Take away our bent to sinning," .... " Let us find that second rest," .... "Make and keep me pure within," .... "'Tis done! Thou dost tlais moment save, "VVith full salvation bless. " ....

      4. Hym- nology

      To the preaching of Christian perfection Wesley ascribed the success of his work in the conversion, religious training and intellectual education of the

      masses of Great Britain. It furnished him a multi- tude of consecrated workers, many of them lay preachers, who labored in nearly every

      5. Its hamlet, and who carried the gospel Glorious into all the British colonies, includ- Results ing America. It is declared by secular

      historians that this great evangelical movement, in which the doctrine of entire sancti- fication was so prominent, saved England from a disastrous revolution, hke that which drenched France with the blood of its royal family and its nobihty, in the last decade of the 18th cent. It is certain that the great Christian and humani- tarian work of William Booth, originally a Metho- dist, was inspired by this doctrine which he con- stantly preached. This enabled his followers in the early years of the Salvation Army to endure the persecutions which befell them at that time.

      Wesley's own experience of this grace is found in his

      journal, March, 1760: "I felt my soul was all love.

      I was so stayed on God as I never felt

      6. Wesley's before, and knew that I loved Him with Personal all my heart. When I came home I Testimony could ask for nothing; I could only give

      thanks. And the witness that God had saved me from all my sins grew clearer every hour. On Wednesday this was stronger than ever. I have never since found my heart wander from God."

      This is as explicit a testimony to his entire sancti- fication as his only recorded testimony to his justi- fication in these words (May 24, 1738): "I felt my heart strangely warmed .... and an assur- ance was given me, that He had taken away my sins," etc. Daniel Steele

      SANCTITY, sank'ti-ti, LEGISLATION, lej-is- la'shun, OF. See Astronomy, I, 5, (6) .

      SANCTUARY, sank'ta-a-ri, sank'tu-a-ri (tD^pl? , mikddsh, W~^'i2 , viikk'dhash, TS"!" , kodhesh, "holy place"; a.^ lov, hdgion):

      1. Nature of Article

      2. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis The Three Stages

      3. Difficulties of the Theory

      (1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial

      (2) Sacrifice and Theophany

      (3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries

      (4) The Altar of God's House

      (5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy

      4. The Alternative View

      (1) Lay Sacrifice

      (2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals

      5. The Elephantine Papyri The Elephantine Temple


      The present art. is designed to supplement the arts, on Altars; High Place; Pentateuch; Tabern.acle; Temple, by giving an 1. Nature outline of certain rival views of the of the course of law and history as regards

      Article the place of worship. The subject

      has a special importance because it was made the turning-point of Wellhausen's dis- cussion of the development of Israel's literature, history and religion. He himself writes: "I differ from Graf chiefly in this, that I always go back to the centralization of the cultus, and deduce from it the particular divergences. i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Iy whole position is contained in my first chapter" (Prolegomena, 368). For the purposes of this discussion it is necessary to use the sj'mbols JE, D, H, and P, which are explained in the art. Pentateuch.

      It is said that there are three distinct stages of law and history.

      (1) In the first stage all slaughter of domestic ani- mals for food purposes was sacrificial, and every layman could sacrifice locally at an altar of earth or unhewn stones. The law of JE is contained in Ex



      Sanctiflcation Sanctuary

      20 24-26, providing for the making of an altar of earth or stones, and emphasis is laid on the words

      "in every place ["in all the place" is 2. The grammatically an equally possible ren-

      Graf-Well- dering] where I record my name I will hausen Hy- come unto thee and I will bless thee." pothesis This, it is claimed, permits a plurality

      of sanctuaries. Illustrations are pro- vided by the history. The patriarchs move about the country freely and build altars at various places. Later sacrifices or altars are mentioned in con- nection with Jethro (Ex 18 12), Moses (17 15, etc), Joshua (Josh 8 30), Gideon (Jgs 6 26 etc), Manoah (13 19), Samuel (1 S 7 17, etc), Elijah (1 K 18 32), to take but a few instances. Per- haps the most instructive case is that of Saul after the battle of Michmash. Observing that the people were eating meat with blood, he caused a large stone to be rolled to him, and we are e.xpressly told that this was the first altar that he built to the Lord (1 S 14 35). While some of these examples might be accounted for by theophanies or other special circumstances, they are too numerous when taken together for such an explanation to suffice. In many instances they represent the conduct of the most authoritative and religious leaders of the age, e.g. Samuel, and it must be presumed that such men knew and acted upon the Law of their own day. Hence the history and the Law of Ex 20 are in unison in permitting a multiplicity of sanctuaries. Wellhausen adds: "Altars as a rule are not built by the patriarchs according to their own private judgment wheresoever they please; on the contrary, a theophany calls attention to, or, at least after- ward, confirms, the holiness of the place" (op. cit., 31).

      (2) The second stage is presented by Dt in the Law and Josiah's reformation in the history. Undoubtedly Dt 12 permits local non-sacrificial slaughter for the purposes of food, and enjoins the destruction of heathen places of worship, insisting with great vehemence on the central sanctuary. The narrative of Josiah's reformation in 2 K 23 taUies with these principles.

      (3) The third great body of law (P) does not deal with the question (save in one passage, Lev 17). In Dt "the unity of the cultus is commanded; in

      the PC it is presupposed What follows from

      this forms the question before us. To my thinking, this: that the PC rests upon the result which is only the aim of Dt" {Prolegomena, 35). Accordingly, it is later than the latter book and dates from about the time of Ezra. As to Lev 17 1-9, this belongs to H, an older collection of laws than P, and is taken up in the latter. Its intention was "to secure the exclusive legitimation of the one lawful place of

      sacrifice Plainly the common man did not

      quite understand the newly drawn and previously quite unknown distinction between the religious and the profane act" {Prolegomena, 50). Accord- ingly, this legislator strove to meet the difficulty by the new enactment. See Criticism (The Graf- Wellhausen Hypothesis).

      (1) Slaughter not necessarily sacrificial.— T ho general substratum afforded by the documentary

      theory falls within the scope of the 3. Difflcul- art. Pentateuch. The present dis- ties of the cussion is limited to the legal and his- Theory torical outline traced above. The

      view that all slaughter of domestic animals was sacrificial till the time of Josiah is rebutted by the evidence of the early books. The following examples should be noted: in Gen 18 7 a calf is slain without any trace of a sacrifice, and m

      27 9-14 (Jacob's substitute for venison) no altar or religious rite can fairly be postulated. In 1 S

      28 24 the slaughter is performed by a woman, so

      that here again sacrifice is out of the question. If Gideon performed a sacrifice when he "made ready a kid" (Jgs 6 19) or when he killed an animal for the broth of which the narrative speaks, the animals in question must have been sacrificed twice over, once when they were killed and again when the food was consumed by flames. Special importance attaches to Ex 22 'l (Heb 21 37), for there the JE legislation itself speaks of slaughter by cattle thieves as a natural and probable occurrence, and it can surely not have regarded this as a sacrificial act. f)ther instances are to be found in Gen 43 16;

      1 S 25 11; 1 K 19 21. In 1 S 8 13 the word tr** "cooks" means lit. "women slaughterers." All these instances are prior to the date assigned to Dt. With respect to Lev 17 1-7 also, the theory is unworkable. At any time in King Josiah's reign or after, it would have been utterly impossible to limit all slaughter of animals for the whole race wherever resident to one single spot. This part of the theory therefore breaks down.

      (2) Sacrifi.ce and theophany. — The view that the altars were erected at places that were peculiarly holy, or at any rate were subsequently sanctified by a theophany, is also untenable. In the Patri- archal age we may refer to Gen 4 26, where the calUng on God implies sacrifice but not theophanies, Abram at Beth-el (12 8) and Mamre (13 18), and Jacob's sacrifices (31 54; 33 20). Compare later Samuel's altar at Ramah, Adonijah's sacrifice at En-rogel (1 K 1), Naaman's earth (2 K 5), David's clan's sacrifice (1 S 20 6.29). It is impossible to postulate theophanies for the sacrifices of every clan in the country, and it becomes necessary to tran.s- late Ex 20 24 "in all the place" (see supra 2, [1]) and to understand "the place" as the territory of Israel.

      (3) Alleged plurality of sanctuaries. — The hy- pothesis of a multiplicity of sanctuaries in JE and the history also leaves out of view many most im- portant facts. The truth is that the word "sanc- tuary" is ambiguous and misleading. A pluraUty of altars of earth or stone is not a plurality of sanctuaries. The early legislation knows a "house of Jeh" in addition to the primitive altars (Ex 23 19; 34 26; cf the parts of Josh 9 23.27 assigned to J). No eyewitness could mistake a house for an altar, or vice versa.

      (4) The altar ofOod's house. — Moreover a curious little bit of evidence shows that the "house" had quite a different kind of altar. In 1 K 1 50 f;

      2 28 ff, we hear of the horns of the altar (of Am 3 14). Neither earth nor unhewn stones (as required by the Law of Ex 20) could provide such horns, and the historical instances of the altars of the patriarchs, religious leaders, etc, to which reference has been made, show that they had no horns. Ac- cordingly we are thrown back on the description of the great altar of burnt offering in Ex 27 and must assume that an altar of this type was to be found before the ark before Solomon built his Temple. Thus the altar of the House of God was quite dif- ferent from the customary lay altar, and when we read of "mine altar" as a refuge in Ex 21 14, we must refer it to the former, as is shown by the pas- sages just cited. In addition to the early legislation and the historical passages cited as recognizing a House of God with a horned altar, we see such a house in Shiloh where Eli and hia sons of the house of Aaron (1 S 2 27) ministered. Thus the data of both JE and the history show us a House of God with a horned altar side by side with the multi- plicity of stone or earthen altars, but give us no hint of a plurality of legitimate houses or shrines or sanctuaries.

      (5) Local altars in Deuteronomy . — Dt also recog- nizes a number of local altars in 16 21 (see ICC, ad

      Sanctuary Sanhedrin



      loc.) and so does Da in Josh 8 30 ff. There is no place for any of these passages in the Wellhausen theory; but again we find one house side by side with many lay altars.

      (1) Lay sacrifice. — The alternative view seeks to account for the whole of the facts noted above. In bald outline it is as follows: In pre- 4. The Al- Mosaic times customary sacrifices temative had been freely offered by laymen at View altars of earth or stone which were not

      "sanctuaries," but places that could be used for the nonce and then abandoned. Slaugh- ter, as shoTiTi by the instances cited, was not neces- sarily sacrificial. Moses did not forbid or dis- courage the custom he found. On the contrary, he regulated it in Ex 20 24-26; Dt 16 21 f to pre- vent possible abuses. But he also superimposed two other kinds of sacrifice — certain new offerings to be brought by individuals to the religious capital and the national offerings of Nu 28, 29 and other passages. If P assumes the rehgious capital as axiomatic, the reason is that this portion of the Law consists of teaching intrusted to the priests, embracing the procedure to be followed in these two classes of offerings, and does not refer at all to the procedure at customary lay sacrifices, which was regulated by immemorial custom. Dt thunders not against the lay altars — which are never even men- tioned in this connection — but against the Canaan- itish high places. Dt 12 contemplates only the new individual offerings. The permission of lay slaughter for food was due to the fact that the in- fidelity of the Israelites in the wilderness (Lev 17 5-7) had led to the universal prohibition of lay slaughter for the period of the wanderings only, though it appears to be continued by Dt for those who lived near the House of God (see 12 21, limited to the case "if the place .... be too far from thee").

      (2) Three •pilgrimage festivals in JE. — The JE leg- islation itself recognizes the three pilgrimage festi- vals of the House of God (Ex 34 22 f) . One of these festivals is called "the feast of weeks, even of the bikkiiritn [a kind of first-fruits] of wheat harvest," and as 23 19 and 34 26 require these bikkurlm to be brought to the House of God and not to a lay altar, it follows that the pilgrimages are as firmly estaWished here as in Dt. Thus we find a House (with a horned altar) served by priests and lay altars of earth or stone side by side in law and history till the exile swept them all away, and by breaking the continuity of tradition and practice paved the way for a new and artificial interpretation of the Law that was far removed from the intent of the lawgiver.

      The Elephantine temple. — Papyri have recently been found at Elephantine which show us a Jewish community in Egypt which in 405 5. The Ele- BO possessed a local temple. On the phantine Wellhausen hypothesis it is usual to Papyri assume that P and Dt were still un-

      known and not recognized as authori- tative in this community at that date, although the Deuteronomic law of the central sanctuary goes back at least to 621. It is difficult to understand how a law that had been recognized as Divine by Jeremiah and others could still have been unknown or destitute of authority. On the alternative view this phenomenon will have been the result of an interpretation of the Law to suit the needs of an age some 800 years subsequent to the death of Moses in circumstances he never contemplated. The Pent apparently permits sacrifice only in the land of Israel: in the altered circumstances the choice lay between interpreting the Law in this way or abandoning public worship altogether; for the synagogue with its non-sacrificial form of public

      worship had not yet been invented. All old legis- lations have to be construed in this way to meet changing circumstances, and this example contains nothing exceptional or surprising.

      Literature. — J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the His- tory of Israel, oh i, for the critical hypothesis: H. M. Wiener, EPC, ch vi, PS passim for the alternative view: POT, 173 fit.

      Harold M. Wiener

      SAND (bin , hoi: a|i(ios, amnios; a variant of the more usual \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l/d|ji|ios, psdmmos; cf d|ia6os, dmalhos, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|/a(ia9os, psdmalhos):

      Sand is principally produced by the grinding action of waves. This is accompanied by chemical solution, with the result that the more soluble constituents of the rock diminish in amount or disappear and the sands tend to become more or less purely silicious. silica or quartz being a common constituent of rocks and very insoluble. The rocks of Pal are so largely composed of limestone that the shore and dune sands are unusually calcareous, containing from 10 to 20 per cent of calcium carbonate. This is subject to solution and redeposition as a cement between the sand grains, binding them together to form the porous sandstone of the seashore, which is easily worked and is much used in building. See Bock, III, (2).

      Figurative: (1) Used most often as a symbol of countless multitude; esp. of the children of Israel (Gen 22 17; 32 12; 2 S 17 11; 1 K 4 20; Isa 10 22; 48 19; Jer 33 32; Hos 1 10; Rom 9 27; He 11 12); also of the enemies of Israel (Josh 11 4; Jgs 7 12; 1 S 13 5; cf Rev 20 8). Joseph laid up grain as the sand of the sea (Gen 41 49); God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding and large- ness of heart as the sand that is on the seashore (1 K 4 29); Job says "I shall multiply my days as the sand" (Job 29 18); the multitude of quails provided for the Israelites in the desert is compared to the sand (Ps 78 27); the Psalmist says of the thoughts of God, "They are more in number than the sand" (Ps 139 18); Jeremiah, speaking of the deso- lation of Jerus, says that the number of widows is as the sand (Jer 15 8). (2) Sand is also a symbol of weight (Job 6 3; Prov 27 3), and (3) of insta- bility (Mt 7 26).

      It is a question what is meant by "the hidden treasures of the sand" in Dt 33 19.

      Alfred Ely Day

      SAND FLIES, sand'fllz (DS3 , kinnim [Ex 8 16 m; Wisd 19 10 m]): EV "hce." See Flea; Gnat; Insects; Lice.

      SAND, GLOWING, glo'ing. See Mirage.

      SAND-LIZARD, sand'liz-ard (UpH , hornet; LXX o-aOpa, saura, "hzard"; AV snail):' Hornet is 7th in the list of unclean "creeping things" in Lev 11 29.30, and occurs nowhere else. It is probably a skink or some species of Lacerta. See Lizard; Snail.

      SANDAL, san'dal. See Dress, 6; Shoe; Shoe- Latchet.

      SANHEDRIN,san'h5-drin (r^lO?© , janAed/irire, the Talmudic transcription of thie Gr o-uv^Sptov,

      sunidrion): The Sanhedrin was, at 1. Name and before the time of Christ, the name

      for the highest Jewish tribunal, of 71 members, m Jerus, and also for the lower tribunals, of 23 members, of which Jerus had two (Toijephta' Haghlghah 11 9; Sanh. 16; 11 2). It is derived from sun, "together," and Udra, "seat." In Gr and Rom literature the senates of Sparta, Carthage, and even Rome, are so called (cf Pausan. iii 11 2' Polyb. ui.22; Dion Cassius xl.49). In Jos we meet with the word for the first time in connection with the governor Gabinius (57-55 BC), who divided the whole of Pal into 5 sunedria (Ant, XIV, v, 4), or sunodoi (BJ, I, viii, 5) ; and with the term sune- drion for the high council in Jerus first in Anl, XIV,


      Sanctuary Sanhedrin

      ix, 3-5, in connection with Herod, who, when a youth, had to appear before the sunedrion at Jerus to answer for his doings in Galilee. But before that date the word appears in the LXX version of Prov- erbs (c 130 BC), esp. in 22 10; 31 23, as an equivalent for the Mishnaic 6e(/i-dm = "judgment- chamber."

      In the NT the word sometimes, esp. when used in the pi. (Mt 10 17; Mk 13 9; cf Sank. 1 5), means simply "court of justice," i.e. any judicatory (Mt 5 22). But in most cases it is used to desig- nate the supreme Jewish Court of Justice in Jerus, in which the process against Our Lord was carried on, and before which the apostles (esp. Peter and John, Stephen, and Paul) had to justify themselves (Mt 26 59; Mk 14 55; 15 1; Lk 22 66; Jn 11 47; Acts 4 15; 5 21 fif; 6 12 ff; 22 30; 23 Iff; 24 20). Sometimes preshiterion (Lk 22 66; Acts 22 5) and gerousla (Acts 5 21) are substituted for sunedrion. See Senate.

      In the Jewish tradition-literature the term ' 'San- hedrin" alternates with k'nlshta' "meeting-place" {M''ghillalh Ta'&nith 10, compiled in the 1st cent. AD), and beth-din, "court of justice" (Sank. 11 2.4). As, according to Jewish tradition, there were two kinds of sunedria, viz. the supreme sunedrion in Jerus of 71 members, and lesser sunedria of 23 members, which were appointed by the supreme one, we find often the term ^anhedhrin g'dholSh, "the great Sanhedrin," or beth-din ha-gadhol, "the great court of justice" {Middoth 5 4; Sanh. 1 6), or sanhedhrin g'dholah ha-yoshebheth b'-Ush'khath ha- gazlth, "the great Sanhedrin which sits in the hall of hewn stone."

      There is lack of positive historical information as to the origin of the Sanhedrin. According to Jew- ish tradition (cf Smih. 1 6) it was 2. Origin constituted by Moses (Nu 11 16-24) and History and was reorganized by Ezra imme- diately after the return from exile (cf the Tg to Cant 6 1). But there is no historical evidence to show that previous to the Gr period there existed an organized aristocratic governing tribunal among the Jews. Its beginning is to be placed at the period in which Asia was convulsed by Alexander the Great and his successors.

      The Hellenistic kings conceded a great a,mount of internal freedom to municipal communities, and Pal was then practically under home rule, and was governed by an aristocratic council of Elders (1 Mace 12 6; 2 Mace 1 10; 4 44; 11 27; 3 Mace 1 8; cf Jos, Ani, XII, iii, 4; XIII, v, 8; M'ghUlath Ta'dnith 10), the head of which was the hereditary high priest. The court was called Gerousia, which in Gr always signifies an aristocratic body (see Westermann in Pauly's RE, III, 49) . Subsequently this developed into the Sanhedrin.

      During the Rom period (except for about 10 years at the time of Gabinius, who applied to Ju- daea the Rom system of government; cf Mar- quardt, Romische Siaatsverwaltung, I, 501), the Sanhedrin's influence was most powerful, the inter- nal government of the country being practically in its hands {Ant, XX, x), and it was religiously rec- ognized even among the Diaspora (cf Acts 9 2; 22 5; 26 12). According to Schiirer (ffJP, div II, vol 1, 171; GJVS 236) the civil authority of the Sanhedrin, from the time of Archelaus, Herod the Great's son, was probably restricted to Judaea proper, and for that reason, he thinks, it had no judicial authority over Our Lord so long as He re- mained in Galilee (but see G. A. Smith, Jerus, I, 416).

      The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerus (70 AD). The beth-din (court of judg- ment) in Jabneh (68-80), in Usah (80-116), m Shafran (140-63), in Sepphoris (163-93), m Tibe-

      rias (193-220), though regarded in the Talm (cf Ro'sh ha-shdnah 31a) as having been the direct con- tinuation of the Sanhedrin, had an essentially different character; it was merely an assembly of scribes, whose decisions had only a theoretical im- portance (cf Sotah 9 11).

      The Great Sanhedrin in Jerus was formed (Mt

      26 3.57.59; Mk 14 53; 15 1; Lk 22 66; Acts

      4 5f; 5 21; 22 30) of high priests

      3. Consti- (i.e. the acting high priest, those who tution had been high priests, and members of

      the privileged families from which the high priests were taken), elders (tribal and family heads of the people and prie.sthood}, and scribes (i.e. legal assessors), Pharisees and Sadducees alike (cf Acts 4 Iff; 5 17.34; 23 6). In Mk 15 43; Lk 23 50, Joseph of Arimathaea is called bouleutts, "councillor," i.e. member of the Sanhedrin.

      According to Jos and the NT, the acting high priest was as such always head and president (Mt 26 3.57; Ac*s 5 17fr; 7 1; 9 1 f ; 22 5; 23 2; 24 1; Ant, IV, viii, 17; XX, x). Caiaphas is president at the trial of Our Lord, and at Paul's trial Ananias is president. On the other hand, according to the Talm (esp. H&ghighah 2 2), the Sanhedrin is repre- sented as a juridical tribunal of scribes, in which one scribe acted as nasi', "prince," i.e. president, and another as ' abh-beth-din, father of the judgment- chamber, i.e. vice-president. So far, it has not been found possible to reconcile these conflicting descrip- tions (see "Literature," below).

      Sanh. 4 3 mentions the soph're-ha-daydnim, "notaries," one of whom registered the reasons for acquittal, and the other the reasons for condem- nation. In the NT we read of huperetai, "con- stables" (Mt 5 25) and of the "servants of the high priest" (Mt 26 51; Mk 14 47; Jn 18 10), whom Jos describes as "enlisted from the rudest and most restless characters" {Ant, XX, viii, 8; ix, 2). Jos speaks of the "pubhc whip," Matthew mentions "tormentors" (18 34), Luke speaks of "spies" (20 20).

      The whole history of post-exilic Judaism circles round the high priests, and the priestly aristocracy always played the leading part in the Sanhedrin (cf Sank. 4 2). But the more the Pharisees grew in importance, the more were they represented in the Sanhedrin. In the time of Salome they were so powerful that "the queen ruled only in name, but the Pharisees in reaUty" (Ant, XIII, xvi, 2). So in the time of Christ, the Sanhedrin was formally led by the Sadducean high priests, but practically ruled by the Pharisees {Ant, XVIII, i, 4).

      In the time of Christ the Great Sanhedrin at

      Jerus enjoyed a very high measure of independence.

      It exercised not only civil jurisdiction,

      4. Juris- according to Jewish law, but also, in diction some degree, criminal. It had ad- ministrative authority and could order

      arrests by its own officers of justice (Mt 26 47; Mk 14 43; Acts 4 3;^ 5 17 f ; 9 2; cf Sanh. 1 5). It was empowered to judge cases which did not in- volve capital punishment, which latter required the confirmation of the Rom procurator (Jn 18 31 ; ci Jerus Sanh. 1 1; 7 2 [p. 24]; Jos, Ant, XX, ix,l). But, as a rule, the procurator arranged his judg- ment in accordance with the demands of the San- hedrin.

      For one offence the Sanhedrin could put to death, on their own authority, even a Rom citizen, namely, in the case of a Gentile passing the fence which divided the inner court of the Temple from that of the Gentiles {BJ, VI, ii, 4; Middoth 11 3; cf Acts 21 28). The only case of capital punishment in connection with the Sanhedrin in the NT is that ot Our Lord. The stoning of Stephen (Acts 7 54 ff) was probably the illegal act of an enraged multitude.

      Sansannah Saraias



      The Talmudic tradition names "the hall of hewn etonc," which, according to Middolh 5 4, was on

      the south side of the great court, as 6. Place the seat of the Great Sanhedrin (Pe'ah and Time 2 6; 'Edhmjolh 7 4, et al.). But the of Meeting last sittings of the Sanhedrin were

      held in the city outside the Temple area (Sank. 41a; Shabbdth 15a; Ro'sh ha-shanah 31o; '■Abhodhdh zdrah 8c). Jos also mentions the place where the houleutai, "the councillors," met as the houle, outside the Temple {BJ, V, iv, 2), and most probably he refers to these last sittings.

      According to the Tosephta' Sank. 7 1, the San- hedrin held its sittings from the time of the offering of the daily morning sacrifice till that of the evening sacrifice. There were no sittings on Sabbaths or feast days.

      The members of the Sanhedrin were arranged in a semicircle, so that they could see each other

      (Sare/i. 4 3; Tosephta' 8 1). The two 6. Pro- notaries stood before them, whose duty

      cedure it was to record the votes (see 3, above) .

      The prisoner had to appear in humble attitude and dressed in mourning {Ant, XIV, ix, 4). A sentence of capital punishment could not be passed on the day of the trial. The decision of the judges had to be examined on the following day (Sank. 4 1), except in the case of a person who misled the people, who could be tried and condemned the same day or in the night (To- sephta' Sanh. 10). Because of this, cases which involved capital punishment were not tried on a Friday or on any day before a feast. A herald preceded the condemned one as he was led to the place of execution, and cried out: "N. the son of N. has been found guilty of death, etc. If anyone knows anything to clear him, let him come forward and declare it" (Sank. 6 1). Near the place of execution the condemned man was asked to confess his guilt in order that he might partake in the world to come (ib; cf Lk 23 41-43).

      Literature. — Our knowledge about the Sanhedrin is based on three sources: the NT, Jos, and the Jewish tradition-literature (esp. Mish i^anhedhrln and Makkoth, best ed, Strack, with Ger. tr, Schriftea des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin, N. 38, Leipzig, 1910). See art. Talmud.

      Consult the following histories of the Jewish people: Ewald, Herzfeld. Gratz, but esp. Schiirer's excellent HJP, much more fully in GJV^; also G. A. Smith, Jems. Special treatises on Sanhedrin: D. Hoffmann, Der oberste GerichCshof in der Stadt des Helligtums, Berlin. 1878. where the author tries to defend the Jewish traditional view as to the antiquity of the Sanhedrin; J. Reifmann, l^anhe- dhrln (in Heb), Berditschew, 1888; A. Kuenen, On the Composition of the Sanhedrin, in Dutch, tr

      See also W. Bacher's art. in HDB (excellent for sifting the Talmudic sources); Dr. Lauterbaoh's art. in Jew Bnc (accepts fully Biichler's view) ; H. Strack's art. in Sch-Herz (concise and exact).

      Paul Levertoff

      SANSANNAH, san-san'a (n305P, ^an^armah; Savcravva, Sansdnna, or SeBevvaK, Selhenndk) : One of the uttermost cities in the Negeb of Judah (Josh 15 31), identical with Hazar-susah (Josh 19 .5), one of the cities of Simeon, and almost certainly the

      same as Hazar-susim (1 Ch 4 31). It cannot be said to have been identified with any certainty, though Sinmim, "a good-sized village with well and pool, surrounded by gardens and having a grove of olives to the north," has been suggested (PEF, III, 260, Sh XX).

      SAPH, saf (ap , saph; B, Sdcf), Sdph, A, 24^, Sephe) : A Philistine, one of the four champions of the race of Rapha ("giant") who was slain bv Sibbecai, one of David's heroes (2 S 21 18; 1 Ch 20 4). It is supposed bj' some that he was the son of the giant Goliath, but this is not proved. In 1 Ch 20 4, the same person is called "Sippai."

      SAPHAT, sa'fat:

      (1) A and Fritzsche, Sa^dr, Saphdt; omitted in B(andSwete); B"'"'"! 'Ao-d^, Asaph: The eponym of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esd 5 9) = "Shephatiah" in Ezr 2 4; Neh 7 9.

      (2) A, ^aipdr, Saphdt; B, Swete, and Fritzsche, Sa0ci7, Saphdg; AV Sabat: One of the families of "the sons of the servants of Solomon" who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esd 5 34); wanting in the 1| Ezr 2 57; Neh 7 59.

      SAPHATIAS, saf-a-tl'as (2aaT£as, Saphatlas, B, So((>oT£as, Sophotias; omitted in A) : Name of a family of returning exiles (1 Esd 8 34) = "Shepha- tiah" in Ezr 8 8. If Saphatias (1 Esd 8 34) = Saphat (5 9), as would appear, then part of the family went up with Zerubbabel and part with Ezra.

      SAPHETH, sa'feth: AV = RV Saphuthi (q.v.).

      SAPHIR, sa'fer CT^SliJ , shdphir). See Shaphir.

      SAPHUTHI, saf'ft-thl, sa-fu'thi (A and Fritzsche, Sa4>aj9t, Saphuthi, B [and Swete], 2a(j)vc£, Saphuei; AV Sapheth): Name of one of the families of "the sons of the servants of Solomon" (1 Esd 5 33) = "Shephatiah" in Ezr 2 57; Neh 7 59.

      SAPPHIRA, sa-fl'ra (S'l'^STB, shappird'; Aram, for either "beautiful" or "sapphire"; 2air<|)£Cpa, Sappheira): Wife of Ananias (Acts 5 1-10). See An.inias, (1).

      SAPPHIRE, saf'ir. See Stones, Precious.

      SARABIAS, sar-a-bi'as (SapapCas, Sarabia^) : One of the Levites who taught and expounded the Law for Ezra (1 Esd 9 48) = "Sherebiah" in Neh 8 7, probably identical with the "Asebebias" in 1 Esd 8 47 (Ezr 8 18).

      SARAH, sa'ra, SARAI, sa'ri:

      (1) In Gen 17 15 the woman who up to that time has been known as Sarai CIIB > sdray; l,dpa, Sdra) receives by Divine command the name Sarah (nntS , sdrdh; Xdppa, Sdrra). (This last form in Gr preserves the ancient doubhng of the r, lost in the Heb and the Eng. forms.)

      The former name appears to be derived from the same root as Israel, if, indeed, Gen 32 28 is intended as an etymology of Israel. "She that strives." a contentious person, is a name that might be given to a child at birth (cf Hos 12 3.4, of Jacob), or later when the child's char- acter developed; in Gen 16 6 and 21 10 a contentious character appears. Yet comparison with the history of her husband's name (see Abraham) warns us not to operate solely upon the basis of the Heb language. Sarai was the name this woman brought with her from Mesopotamia. On the other hand there can be little doubt that the name Sarah, which she received when her son was promised, means "princess," for it is the fem. form of the extremely common title sar, used by the Semites to designate a ruler of greater or lesser rank.



      Sansannah Saraias

      In the verse following the one where this name is con- ferred, it is declared of Sarah that "kings of peoples shall be other" (Gen 17 16).

      We are introduced to Sarai in Gen 11 29. She is here mentioned as the wife that Abraham "took," while still in Ur of the Chaldees, that is, while among his kindred. It is immediately added that "Sarai was barren; she had no child." By this simple remark in the overture of his narrative, the writer sounds the molij that is to be developed in all the sequel. When the migration to Haran occurs, Sarai is named along with Abram and Lot as accom- panying Terah. It has been held that the author (or authors) of ch 11 knew nothing of the relation- ship announced in 20 12. But there can be no proof of such ignorance, even on the assumption of diversity of authorship in the two passages.

      Sarai's career as described in ch 11 was not dependent on her being the daughter of Terah. Terah had other descendants who did not accompany him. Her move- ments were determined by her being Abram's wife. It appears, however, that she was a daughter of Terah by a different mother from the mother of Abram. The language of 20 12 would indeed admit of her being Abram s niece, but the fact that there was but 10 years' difference between his age and hers (Gen 17 17) renders this hypothesis less probable. Marriage with half- sisters seems to have been not uncommon in antiquity (even in the OT cf 2 S 13 13).

      This double relationship suggested to Abraham the expedient that he twice used when he lacked faith in God to protect his life and in cowardice sought his own safety at the price of his wife's honor. The first of these occasions was in the earlier period of their wanderings (oh 12). From Canaan they went down into Egypt. Sarai, though above 60 years of age according to the chronology of the sacred historian, made the impression on the Egyptians by her beauty that Abraham had antici- pated, and the result was her transfer to the royal palace. But this was in direct contravention of the purpose of God for His own kingdom. The earthly majesty of Pharaoh had to bow before the Divine majesty, which plagued him and secured the stranger's exodus, thus foreshadowing those later plagues and that later exodus when Abraham's and Sarah's seed "spoiled the Egyptians."

      We meet Sarah next in the narrative of the birth of Ishmael and of Isaac. Though 14 years separated the two births, they are closely associated in the story because of their logical continuity. Sarah's barrenness persisted. She was now far past middle life, even on a patriarchal scale of longevity, and there appeared no hope of her ever bearmg that child who should inherit the promise of God. She therefore adopts the expedient of being "builded by" her personal slave, Hagar the Egyp (see Gen 16 2 m). That is, according to contemporary law and custom as witnessed by the CH (see Abraham, IV, 2), a son born of this woman would be the free- born son and heir of Abraham and Sarah.

      Such was in fact the position of Ishmael later. But the insolence of the maid aroused the vmdictive jealousy of the mistress and led to a painful scene of unjustified exnulsion. Hagar, however, returned at God s behest, humbled herself before Sarah, and bore Ishmael in his own father's house. Here he remained the sole and right- ful heir until the miracle of Isaac's birth disappointed all human expectations and resulted in the ultimate ex- pulsion of Hagar and her son.

      The change of name from Sarai to Sarah when Isaac was promised has abeady been noted. Sarah s laughter of increduhty when she hears the promise is of course associated with the origin of the name of Isaac, but it serves also to emphasize the miracu- lous character of his birth, coming as it does after his parents are both so "well stricken m age as to make parenthood seem an absurdity.

      Before the birth of this child of promise, however, Sarah is again exposed, through the cowardice of

      her husband, to dishonor and ruin. Abimelech, king of Gerar, desiring to be allied by marriage with a man of Abraham's power, sends for Sarah, whom he knows only as Abraham's sisl-er, and for the second time she takes her place in the harem of a prince. But the Divine promise is not to be thwarted, even by persistent human weakness and sin. In a dream God reveals to Abimelech the true state of the case, and Sarah is restored to her hus- band with an indemnity. Thereupon the long- delayed son is born, the jealous mother secures the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, and her career comes to a close at the age of 127, at Hebron, long time her home. The grief and devotion of Abraham are broadly displayed in ch 23, in which he seeks and obtains a burying-place for his wife. She is thus the first to be interred in that cave of the field of Machpelah, which was to be the common resting-place of the fathers and mothers of the future Israel.

      The character of Sarah is of mingled light and shade. On the one hand we have seen that lapse from faith which resulted in the birth of Ishmael, and that lack of self-control and charity which re- sulted in a quarrel with Abraham, an act of injus- tice to Hagar, and the disinheriting of Ishmael. Yet on the other hand we see in Sarah, as the NT writers point out (He 11 11; 1 Pet 3 6), one who through a long life of companionship with Abraham shared his hope in God, his faith in the promises, and his power to become God's agent for achieving what was humanly impossible. In fact, to Sarah is ascribed a sort of spiritual maternity, correlative with Abraham's position as "father of the faithful"; for all women are declared to be the (spiritual) daughters of Sarah, who like her are adorned in "the hidden man of the heart," and who are "doers of good" and "fearers of no terror" (1 Pet I.e., literally rendered). That in spite of her outbreak about Hagar and Ishmael she was in general "in subjection to her husband" and of "a meek and quiet spirit," appears from her husband's genuine grief at her decease, and still more clearly from her son's prolonged mourning for her (Gen 24 67; cf 17 17 and 23 1 with 25 20). And He who maketh even the wrath of man to praise Him used even Sarah's jealous anger to accomplish His purpose that "the son of the freewoman," Isaac, "born through promise," should alone inherit that promise (Gal 4 22-31).

      Apart from the three NT passages abeady cited, Sarah is alluded to only in Isa 51 2 ("Sarah that bare you," as the mother of the nation), in Rom 4 19 ("the deadness of Sarah's womb"), and in Rom 9 9, where God's promise in Gen 18 10 is quoted. Yet her existence and her history are of course pre- supposed wherever allusion is made to the stories of Abraham and of Isaac.

      To many modem critics Sarah supplies, by her name, a welcome argument in support of the mythical view of Abraham. She has been held to be the local iiumen to whom the cave near Hebron was sacred; or the deity whose consort was worshipped in Arabia under the title Dusares. i.e. Husband-of -Sarah ; or. the female associate of Sin the moon-god, worshipped at Haran. On these views the student will do well to consult Baethgen, BeilTdoe, 94, 1.57, and, for the most recent point of view, Gressmann's art., "Sage und Geschichte in den Patri- archenerzahlungen," ZATW, 1910, and Eerdmans, All- testamenlliche Studien, II, 13.

      (2) The daughter of Raguel, and wife of Tobias (Tob 3 7.17, etc). See Tobit, Book of.

      J. Oscar Boyd

      SARAIAS, sa-ra'yas, sa-ri'as (Sapatas, Saraias, Lat Sareus) :

      (1) = Seraiah, the high priest in the reign of Zede- kiah(l Esd 5 5, cf 1 Ch 6 14).

      (2) Sareus the father of Ezra (2 Esd 11) = "Seraiah" in Ezr 7 1, sometimes identified with

      Saramel Satan



      Saraias under (1). He is probably identical with the "Azaraias" of 1 Esd 8 1.

      (3) AV = RV "Azaraias" (1 Esd 8 1).

      SARAMEL, sar'a-mel ; AV = RV Asaeamel (q. v.) ■

      SARAPH, sa'raf, sii'raf (B'l'l? , saraph, "noble one".; cf 3"!^, saraph, "burn," "shine"): A de- scendant of Judah through Shelah (1 Ch 4 22).

      SARCHEDONUS, sar-ked'6-nus (B S , Sax^p- Sovos, Sacherdonds, A, SaxepSav, Sacherddn, but 2ax«p8ovo(r6s, Sacherdonosos in Tob 1 22) : An incorrect spelling, both in AV and RV, for Sacher- donus in Tob 1 21 f, another form of Esar-haddon.

      SARDEUS, sar-de'us; AV = RV Zardeus (q.v.)-

      SARDIN(E), sar'din, sar'din, SARDIUS. See Stones, Precious.

      SARDIS, sar'dis (SdpSeis, Sdrdeis): Sardis is of special interest to the student of Herodotus and Xenophon, for there Artaphernes, the brother of Darius, lived, and from there Xerxes invaded Greece and Cyrus marched against his brother Artaxerxes; it is also of interest to the student of early Christian history as the home of one of the Seven Churches of Rev (1 11; 3 Iff). It was moreover one of the oldest and most important cities of Asia Minor, and until 549 BC, the capital of the kingdom of Lydia. It stood on the northern slope of Mt. Tmolus; its acropolis occupied one of the spurs of the mountain. At the base flowed the river Pactolus which served as a moat, render- ing the city practically impregnable. Through the failure to watch, however, the acropolis had beea successfully scaled in 549 BC by a Median soldier, and in 218 by a Cretan (cf Rev 3 2.3). Because of its strength during the Pers period, the satraps here made their homes. However, the city was burned by the lonians in 501 BC, but it was quickly rebuilt and regained its importance. In 334 BC it surrendered to Alexander the Great who gave it independence, but its period of independence was brief, for 12 years later in 322 BC it was taken by Antigonus. In 301 BC, it fell into the possession of the Seleucidan kings who made it the residence of their governor. It became free again in 190 BC, when it formed a part of the empire of Pergamos, and later of the Rom province of Asia. In 17 AD, when it was destroyed by an earthquake, the Rom emperor Tiberius remitted the taxes of the people and rebuilt the city, and in his honor the citizens of that and of neighboring towns erected a large monument, but Sardis never recovered its former importance (cf Rev 3 12). Again in 295 AD, after the Rom province of Asia was broken up, Sardis became the capital of Lydia, and during the early Christian age it was the home of a bishop. The city continued to flourish until 1402, when it was so completely destroyed by Tamerlane that it was never rebuilt. Among the ruins there now stands a small village called Sert, a corruption of its an- cient name. The rains may be reached by rail from Smyrna, on the way to Philadelphia.

      The ancient city was noted for its fruits and wool, and for its temple of tlie goddess Cybele, whose worship resembled that of Diana of Ephesus. Its wealth was also partly due to the gold which was found in the sand of the river Pactolus, and it was here that gold and silver coins were first struck. During the Rom period its coins formed a beautiful series, and are foimd in abundance by the peasants who till the surrounding fields. The ruins of the buildings which stood at the base of the hill have now been nearly buried by the dirt washed down from above. The hill upon which the acropolis stood meas- ures 950 ft. high: the triple walls still surround it. The more imposing of the ruins are on the lower slope of the

      hill, and among them the temple of Cybele is the most interesting, yet only two of its many stone columns are still standing. Equally imposing is the necropoUs of the city, which is at a distance of two hours' ride from Sert S. of the Gygaean lake. The modern name of the necropoUs is Bui Tepe or Thousand Mounds, because of the large group of great mounds in which the kings and nobles were buried. Many of the mounds were long ago excavated and plundered.

      Coin of Sardis.

      We quote the following from the Missionary Herald (Boston, Mass., August, 1911, pp. 361-62):

      Dr. C. O. Tracy, of Marsovan, has made a visit to ancient Sardis and observed the work of his countryman. Professor Butler, of Princeton University, who is un- covering the ruins of that famous city of the past. Al- ready rich "finds" have been made; among them por- tions of a temple of Artemis, indicating a building of the same stupendous character as those at Ephesus and Haalbec, and a necropohs from whose tombs were un- earthed three thousand relics, including utensils, orna- ments of gold and precious stones, mirrors, etc. What chiefly impressed Dr. Tracy was the significance of those "Seven Churches of Asia," of which Sardis held one. "When I think of the myriads of various nationality and advanced civilization for whose evangelization these churches were responsible, the messages to the Christian communities occupying the splendid strategic centers fill me with awe. While established amid the splendors of civilization, they were set as candlesticks in the midst of gross spiritual darkness. Did they fulfil their mis- sion ?"

      One of Dr. Butler's recoveries is the marble throne of the Bishop of Sardis: looking upon it the message to Sardis recurs to mind. A fact of current history quick- ened the visitor's appreciation of the word to "the angel " of that church. "Yonder among the moim tains over- hanging Sardis there is a robber gang led by the noto- rious Chakirjali. He rules in the moimtains; no govern- ment force can take him. Again and again he swoops down like an eagle out of the sky, in one quarter of the region or another. From time immemorial these moun- tains have been the haimts of robbers ; very likely it was so when Rev was written, ' I will come upon thee as a thief.' In each case the message was addressed to 'the angel of the church.' Over every church in the world there is a spirit hovering, as it were — a spirit representing that church and by whose name it can be addressed. 'Tlie messages are as vital as they were at the first. 'He that hath ar^.ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churched. ' "

      E. J. Banks

      SARDITE, sar'dlt. See Sered.

      SARDIUS, sar'di-us. See Stones, Precious.

      SARDONYX, sar'do-niks. See Stones, Pre- cious.

      SAREPTA, sa-rep'ta (Hdpeirra, Sdrepta): The name in Lk 4 26 AV, following the Gr, of the Phoen town to which Elijah was sent in the time of the great famine, in order to save the lives of a widow and her son (1 K 17 9.10). RV adopts the form of the name based upon the Heb, and as found intheOT: Zarephath (q.v.).

      SARID, sa'rid (TIlB , saridh; B, 'EtreStK^uXa, Esedekgold, SeSSovK, Seddouk, A, 2ap9t8, Sarthid, 2ap(8, Sarid) : A place on the southern border of ZebuluntotheW.ofChisloth-tabor(Josh 19 10.12). It is mentioned but not identified in Onom. Prob- ably we should read "Sadid," and in that case may with Conder locate it at Tell Shaddu, an artificial mound with some modern ruins and good springs,



      Saramel Satan

      which stands on the plain, about 5 miles W. of Iksdl.

      SARGON, sar'gon (722-705 BC): The name of this ruler is written lianD , jargon, in the OT, Shar-ukm in the cuneiform inscriptions, 'Apvd, Arnd, in the LXX, and 'ApKeavos, Arkeanos, in the Ptolemaic Canon. Sargon is mentioned but once by name in the OT (Isa 20 1), when he sent his Tartan (turlannu) against Ashdod, but he is referred to in 2 K 17 6 as "the king of Assyria" who carried Israel into captivity.

      Shalmaneser V had laid siege to Samaria and besieged it three years. But shortly before or very soon after its capitulation, Sargon, perhaps being responsible for the king's death, overthrew the dynasty, and in his annals credited himself with the capture of the city and the deportation of its in- habitants. Whether he assumed the name of the famous ancient founder of the Accad dynasty is not known.

      Sargon at the beginning of his reign was con- fronted with a serious situation in Babylon. Mero- dach-baladan of Kaldfl, who paid tribute to pre- vious rulers, on the change of dynasty had himself

      Sargon in His War Chariot.

      proclaimed king, New Year's Day, 721 BC. At Dur-ilu, Sargon fought with the forces of Merodach- baladan and his ally Khumbanigash of Elam, but although he claimed a victory the result was appar- ently indecisive. Rebellions followed in other parts of the kingdom.

      In 720 Uu-bi'di (or Yau-bi'di), king of Hamath, formed a coalition against Sargon with Hanno of Gaza, Sib'u of Egypt, and with the cities Arpad, Simirra, Damascus and Samaria. He claims that Sib'u fled, and that he captured and flayed Ilu- bi'di, burned Karkar, and carried Hanno captive to Assyria. After destroying Rapihu, he carried away 9,033 inhabitants to Assyria.

      In the following year Ararat was invaded and the Hittite Carchemish fell before his armies. The territory of Rusas, king of Ararat, as well as a part of Mehtene became Assyr provinces.

      In 710 Sargon directed his attention to Merodach- baladan, who no longer enjoyed the support of Elam, and whose rule over Babylon had not been popular with his subjects. He was driven out from Babylon and also from his former capital Btt- Yaktn, and Sargon had himself crowned as the shakkanak of Babylon.

      In 706 the new city called Dftr-Sharruktn was dedicated as his residence. A year later he was murdered. It was during his reign that the height of Assyr ascendancy had been reached.

      A. T. Clay

      SARON, sa'ron (Sdpwv, Sdron): AV; Gr form of Sharon (Acts 9 35).

      SAROTHIE, sa-ro'thi-e (A, SapueU, Sarolhie, B and Swel e, SapwBet, Saroihel) : Name of a family of "the sons of the servants of Solomon" who re- turned with Zerubbabel (1 Esd 5 34); it is want- ing in the |1 lists in Ezr 2 57; Neh 7 59.

      SARSECHIM, siir'se-kim, sar-se'kim (DID?"!©, sarfkhim) : A prince of Nebuchadnezzar, present at the taking of Jerus by Nebuchadnezzar in the 11th year of Zedekiah (Jer 39 3). The VSS with their various readings — "Nabousachar," "Nabousarach," "Sarsacheim" — point to a corrupt text. The best emendation is the reading "N°bhoshazibhon" ( = Nab&s&zih-anni, "Nebo delivers me"); this is based on the reading in Jer 39 13.

      SARUCH, sa'ruk (Sapoix., Sarouch, Sepoix, Serouch): AV; Gr form of Serug (thus Lk 3 35RV).

      SATAN, sa'tan Ciplp , sdtan, "adversary," from the vb. ]I2TC , satan, "to lie in wait" [as adversary]; Sarav, Saldn, Saravds, Satands, "adversary," Sid^oXos, didbolos," devil," "adversary" or "accuser," KaT-<)Y

      I. Definition

      II. ScBiPTURAL Facts concerning Satan

      1. Names of Satan

      2. Ctiaracter of Satan

      3. Works of Satan

      4. History of Satan

      III. General Considerations

      1. Scripture Doctrine of Satan Not Systematized

      2. Satan and God

      3. Satan Essentially Limited

      4. Conclusions- Literature

      /. Definition. — A created but superhuman, per- sonal, evil, world-power, represented in Scripture as the adversary both of God and men.

      //. Scriptural Facts concerning Satan. — The

      most important of these are the Heb and Gr equiva- lents noticed above. These words are

      1. Names used in the general sense justified by of Satan their etymological significance. It is

      applied even to Jeh Himself (Nu 22 22.32; cf 1 S 29 4; 2 S 19 22; Ps 109 6, etc). The word "Satan" is used 24 t in the OT. In Job (1 6 f) and Zee (3 1 f) it has the prefixed definite article. In all cases but one when the art. is omitted it is used in a general sense. This one exception is 1 Ch 21 1 (cf 2 S 24 1), where the word is gen- erally conceded to be used as a proper name. This meaning is fixed in NT times. We are thus en- abled to note in the term "Satan" (and Devil) the growth of a word from a general term to an appella- tion and later to a proper name. All the other names of Satan save only these two are descriptive titles. In addition to these two principal names a number of others deserve specific enumeration. Tempter (Mt 4 5; 1 Thess 3 5); Beelzebub (Mt 12 24); Enemy (Mt 13 39); Evil One (Mt 13 19.38; 1 Jn 2 13.14; 3 12, and particularly 5 18); Belial (2 Cor 6 15); Adversary {ivrtdiKoi, anlldikos), (1 Pet 6 8); Deceiver (ht. "the one who deceives") (Rev 12 9) ; Dragon (Great) (Rev 12 3) ; Father of Lies (Jn 8 44); Murderer (Jn 8 44); Sinner (1 Jn 3 8) — these are isolated references occurring from 1 to 3 t each. In the vast majority of passages (70 out of 83) either Satan or Devil is used.

      Satan is consistently represented in the NT as

      the enemy both of God and man. The popular

      notion is that Satan is the enemy of

      2. Charac- man and active in misleading and ter of Satan cursing humanity because of his in- tense hatred and opposition to God.

      Mt 13 39 would seem to point in this direction, but if one were to venture an opinion in a region where there are not enough facts to warrant a conviction,




      it would be that the general tenor of Scripture indi- cates quite the contrary, namely, that Satan's jealousy and hatred of men has led him into an- tagonism to God and, consequently, to goodness. The fundamental moral description of Satan is given by Our Lord when He describes Satan as the "evil one" (Mt 13 19.38; cf Isa's description of Jeh as the "Holy One," 1 4 and often); that is, the one whose nature and wiU are given to evil. Moral evil is his controUing attribute. It is evident that this description could not be apphed to Satan as originally created. Ethical evil cannot be con- created. It is the creation of each free will for itself. We are not told in definite terms how Satan became the evil one, but certainly it could be by no other process than a fall, whereby, in the mystery of free personaHty, an evil will takes the place of a good one.

      The world-wide and age-long works of Satan are to be traced to one predominant motive. He hates

      both God and man and does aO that 3. Works in him hes to defeat God's plan of of Satan grace and to estabhsh and maintain

      a kingdom of evil, in the seduction and ruin of mankind. The balance and sanity of the Bible is nowhere more strikingly exhibited than in its treatment of the work of Satan. Not only ig the Bible entirely free from the extravagances of popular Satanology, which is full of absurd stories concerning the appearances, tricks, and transfor- mations of Satan among men, but it exhibits a de- pendable accuracy and consistency of statement which is most reassuring. Almost nothing is said concerning Satanic agency other than wicked men who mislead other men. In the controversy with His opponents concerning exorcism (Mk 3 22 f and ll's) Our Lord rebuts their slanderous assertion that He is in league with Satan by the simple propo- sition that Satan does not work against himself. But in so saying He does far more than refute this slander. He definitely aUgns the Bible against the popular idea that a man may make a definite and conscious personal alliance with Satan for any pur- pose whatever. The agent of Satan is always a victim. Also the hint contained in this discussion that Satan has a kingdom, together with a few other not very definite allusions, are aU that we have to go upon in this direction. Nor are we taught any- where that Satan is able to any extent to introduce disorder into the physical universe or directly oper- ate in the lives of men. It is true that in Lk 13 16 Our Lord speaks of the 'woman who was bowed over as one "whom Satan has bound, lo, these eighteen years," and that in 2 Cor 12 7 Paul speaks of his infirmity as a "messenger of Satan sent to buffet him." Paul also speaks (1 Thess 2 18) of Satan's hindering him from visiting the church at Thessalonica. A careful study of these related passages (together with the prologue of Job) will reveal the fact that Satan's direct agency in the physical world is very limited. Satan may be said to be implicated in all the disasters and woes of human life, in so far as they are more or less directly contingent upon sin (see particularly He 2 14). , On the contrary, it is perfectly evident that Satan's power consists principally in his ability to deceive. It is interesting and characteristic that according to the Bible Satan is fundamentally a Uar and his kingdom is a kingdom founded upon lies and deceit. The doctrine of Satan therefore corresponds in every important particular to the general Bib. emphasis upon truth. "The truth shall make you free" (Jn 8 32) — this is the way of deliverance from the power of Satan.

      Now it would seem that to make Satan preemi- nently the deceiver would make man an innocent victim and thus relax the moral issue. But accord-

      ing to the Bible man is particeps criminis in the process of his own deception. Lie is deceived only because he ceases to love the truth and comes first to love and then to believe a lie (2 Cor 1 10). This really goes to the very bottom of the problem of temptation. Men are not tempted by evil, per se, but by a good which can be obtained only at the cost of doing wrong. The whole power of sin, at least in its beginnings, consists in the sway of the fundamental falsehood that any good is really at- tainable by wrongdoing. Since temptation con- sists in this attack upon the moral sense, man is constitutionally guarded against deceit, and is morally culpable in allowing himself to be deceived. The temptation of Our Lord Himself throws the clearest possible light upon the methods ascribed to Satan. The temptation was addressed to Christ's consciousness of Divine sonship; it was a deceitful attack emphasizing the good, minimizing or cover- ing up the evil; indeed, twisting evil into good. It was a deliberate, mahgnant attempt to obscure the truth and induce to evil through the acceptance of falsehood. The attack broke against a loyalty to truth which made seK-deceit, and consequently deceit from without, impossible. The lie was punctured by the truth and the temptation lost its power (see Temptation op Christ). This inci- dent reveals one of the methods of Satan — by immediate suggestion as in the case of Judas (Lk 22 3; Jn 13 2.27). Sometimes, however, and, perhaps, most frequently, Satan's devices (2 Cor 2 11) include human agents. Those who are given over to evil and who persuade others to evil are children and servants of Satan (see Mt 16 23; Mk 8 33; Lk 4 8; Jn 6 70; 8 44; Acts 13 10; 1 Jn 3 8). Satan also works through persons and institutions supposed to be on the side of right but really evil. Here the same ever-present and active falseness and deceit are exhibited. When he is called "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4 4) it would seem to be intimated that he has the power to clothe himself in apparently Divine attributes. He also makes himself an angel of hght by presenting ad- vocates of falsehood in the guise of apostles of truth (2 Cor 11 13.15; 1 Jn 4 1; 2 Thess 2 9; Rev 12 9; 19 20). In the combination of passages here brought together, it is clearly indicated that Satan is the instigator and fomenter of that spirit of law- lessness which exhibits itself as hatred both of truth and right, and which has operated so widely and so disastrously in human life.

      The history of Satan, including that phase of it which remains to be reahzed, can be set forth only along the most general lines. He be- 4. History longs to the angehc order of beings. He of Satan is by nature one of the sons of Elohim (Job 16). He has fallen, and by virtue of his personal forcefulness has become the leader of the anarchic forces of wickedness. As a free being he has merged his life in evil and has become altogether and hopelessly evU. As a being of high intelligence he has gained great power and has exercised a wide sway over other bemgs. As a created being the utmost range of his power lies within the compass of that which is permitted. It is, therefore, hedged in by the providential govern- ment of God and essentially limited. The Bib. emphasis upon the element of falsehood in the career of Satan might be taken to imply that his kingdom may be less in extent than appears. At any rate, it is confined to the cosmic sphere and to a limited portion of time. It is also doomed. In the closely related passages 2 Pet 2 4 and Jude ver 6 it is affirmed that God cast the angels, when they sinned, down to Tartarus and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. This both refers to the constant Divine control of




      these insurgent forces and also points to their final and utter destruction. The putting of Satan in bonds is evidently both constant and progressive. The essential hmitation of the empire of evil and its ultimate overthrow are foreshadowed in the Book of Job (chs 38-41), where Jch's power ex- tends even to the symboUzed spirit of evil.

      According to synoptic tradition, Our Lord in the crisis ot temptation immediately following the baptism (Mt 4 and ||) met and for the time conquered Satan as His own personal adversary. This preliminary contest did not close the matter, but was the earnest of a com- plete victory. According to Lk (10 18), wlien the Seventy returned from their mission flushed with victory over the powers of evil, Jesus said: 'I saw Satan fall [not "fallen"; see Plummer, "Lk," ICC, in loc] as light- ning from heaven.' In every triumph over the powers of evil Christ beheld in vision the downfall of Satan. In connection with the coming of the Hellenists who wished to see Him, Jesus asserted (Jn 12 31), "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prmce of this world be cast out." In view of His approaching passion He says again (Jn 14 30), "The prince of the world Cometh: and he hath nothing in me." Once again in connection with the promised advent of the Spirit, Jesus asserted (Jn 16 11) that the Spirit would convict the world ot judgment, "because the prince of this world hath been judged." In Ho (2 14.15) it is said that Christ took upon Himself human nature in order "that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." In 1 Jn 3 8 it is said, "To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works ot the devil." In Rev 12 9 it is asserted, in connection with Christ's ascen.sion, that Satan was cast down to the earth and his angels with him. According to the passage immediately following (12 10-12), this casting down was not complete or final in the sense of extinguishing his activities altogether, but it involves the potential and certain triumph of God and His saints and the equally certain defeat of Satan. In 1 Jn 2 13 the young men are addressed as those who "have overcome the evil one." In Rev 20 the field of the future is covered in the assertion that Satan is "bound a thousand years"; then loosed "for a little time," and then finally "cast into the lake of fire."

      A comparison of these passages will convince the careful student that while we cannot construct a definite chronological program for the career of Satan, we are clear in the chief points. He is lim- ited, judged, condemned, imprisoned, reserved for judgtnent from the beginning. The outcome is certain though the process may be tedious and slow. The victory of Christ is the defeat of Satan; first, for Himself as Leader and Saviour of men (Jn 14 30); then, for behevers (Lk 22 31; Acts 26 18; Rom 16 20; Jas 4 7; 1 Jn 2 13; 5 4.18); and, finaUy, for the whole world (Rev 20 10). The work of Christ has abeady destroyed the empire of Satan.

      ///. General Considerations. — There are, no doubt, serious difficulties in the way of accepting the doctrine of a personal, superhuman, evil power as Satan is described to be. It is doubtful, however, whether these difficulties may not be due, at least in part, to a misunderstanding of the doctrine and certain of its imphcations. In addition, it must be acknowledged, that whatever difficulties there may be in the teaching, they are exaggerated and, at the same time, not fairly met by the vague and irrational skepticism which denies without investi- gation. There are difficulties involved in any view of the world. To say the least, some problems are met by the view of a superhuman, evil world-power. In this section certain general considerations are urged with a view to lessening diffioulties keenly felt by some minds. Necessarily, certain items gathered in the foregoing section are here empha- sized again.

      The Scriptural doctrine of Satan is nowhere systematically developed. For materials m this field we are shut up to scattered and incidental references. These passages, which even m the aggregate are not numerous, tell us what we need to know concerning the nature, history, kingdom and works of Satan, but offer scant satisfaction to

      the merely speculative temper. The comparative

      lack of development in this field is due partly to

      the fact that the Bib. writers are pri-

      1. Scripture marily interested in God, and only Doctrine of secondarily in the powers of darkness; Satan Not and partly to the fact that in the Systema- Bible doctrine waits upon fact. Hence tized the malign and sinister figure of the

      Adversary is gradually outlined against the light of God's holiness as progressively revealed in the providential world-process which centers in Christ. It is a significant fact that the statements concerning Satan become numerous and definite only in the NT. The dayhght of the Christian revelation was necessary in order to uncover the lurking foe, dimly disclosed but by no means fully known in the earlier revelation. The disclosure of Satan is, in form at least, historical, not dogmatic. In the second place, the relationship of Satan to God, already emphasized, must be kept constantly

      in mind. The doctrine of Satan

      2. Satan merges in the general doctrine con- and God cerning angels (see Angels). It has

      often been pointed out that the per- sonal characteristics of angels are very little insisted upon. They are known chiefly by their functions: merged, on the one hand, in their own offices, and, on the other, in the activities of God Himself.

      In the OT Satan is not represented as a fallen and mahgnant spirit, but as a servant of Jeh, per- forming a Divine function and having his place in the heavenly train. In the jl accounts of David's numbering of Israel (1 S 24 1; 1 Ch 21 1) the tempting of David is attributed both to Jeh and Satan. The reason for this is either that 'the temptation of men is also a part of his providence,' or that in the interval between the documents the personality of the tempter has more clearly emerged. In this case the account in Ch would nearly ap- proximate the NT teaching. In the Book of Job (1 6), however, Satan is among the Sons of God and his assaults upon Job are Divinely permitted. In Zee (3 1.2) Satan is also a servant of Jeh. In both these passages there is the hint of opposition be- tween Jeh and Satan. In the former instance Satan assails unsuccessfully the character of one whom Jeh honors ; while in tlie latter Jeh explicitly rebukes Satan for his attitude toward Israel (see G. A. Smith, BTP, II, 316 f). The unveihng of Satan as a rebellious world-power is reserved for the NT, and with this fuller teaching the symbolic treatment of temptation in Gen is to be connected. There is a sound pedagogical reason, from the view- point of revelation, for this earUer withholding of the whole truth concerning Satan. In the early stages of religious thinking it would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, to hold the sovereignty of God without attributing to His agency those evils in the world which are more or less directly connected with judgment and punishment (cf Isa 45 7; Am 3 6). The OT sufficiently emphasizes man's responsibility for his own evil deeds, but super- human evil is brought upon him from above. "When wilful souls have to be misled, the spirit who does so, as in Ahab's case, comes from above" (G. A. Smith, op. cit., 317). The progressive reve- lation of God's character and purpose, which more and more imperatively demands that the origin of moral evil, and consequently natural evil, must be traced to the created will in opposition to the Divine, leads to the ultimate declaration that Satan is a morally fallen being to whose conquest the Divine Power in history is pledged. There is, also, the distinct possibility that in the significant transition from the Satan of the OT to that of the NT we have the outlines of a biography and an indication of the way by which the angels fell.

      Satan Saul



      A third general consideration, based upon data

      given in tlie earlier section, should be urged in the

      same connection. In the NT delin-

      3. Satan eation of Satan, his limitations are Essentially clearly set forth. He is superhuman, Limited but not in any sense Divine. His

      activities are cosmic, but not universal or transcendent. He is a created being. His power is definitely circumscribed. He is doomed to final destruction as a world-power. His entire career is that of a secondary and dependent being who is permitted a certain limited scope of power — a tim£-lease of activity (Lk 4 6).

      These three general considerations have been grouped in this way because they dispose of three

      objections which are current against

      4. Conclu- the doctrine of Satan.

      sions (1) The first is, that it is mytho-

      logical in origin. That it is not dog- matic is a priori evidence against this hypothesis. Mythology is primitive dogma. There is no evi- dence of a theodicy or philosophy of evil in the Bib. treatment of Satan. Moreover, while the Scriptural doctrine is unsystematic in form, it is rigidly limited in scope and everywhere essentially consistent. Even in the Apocalypse, where natu- rally more scope is allowed to the imagination, the same essential ideas appear. The doctrine of Satan corresponds, item for item, to the intellectual sane- ness and ethical earnestness of the Bib. world-view as a whole. It is, therefore, not mythological. The restraint of chastened imagination, not the extravagance of mythological fancy, is in evidence throughout the entire Bib. treatment of the sub- ject. Even the use of terms current in mythology (as perhaps Gen 3 1.13.14; Rev 12 7-9; cf 1 Pet 5 8) does not imply more than a literary clothing of Satan in attributes commonly ascribed to ma- lignant and disorderly forces.

      (2) The second objection is that the doctrine is due to the influence of Pers dualism (see Persian Reugion; Zoroastrianism). The answer to this is plain, on the basis of facts already adduced. The Bib. doctrine of Satan is not dualistic. Satan's empire had a beginning, it will have a definite and permanent end. Satan is God's great enemy in the cosmic .sphere, but he is God's creation, exists by Divine will, and his power is relatively no more commensurate with God's than that of men. Satan awaits his doom. Weiss says (concerning the NT representation of conflict between God and the powers of evil) : "There lies in this no Manichaean dualism, .... but only the deepest experience of the work of redemption as the definite destruction of the power from which all sin in the world of men proceeds" {Bib. Theol. NT, ET, II, 272; cf G. A. Smith, op. cit., II, 318).

      (3) The third objection is practically the same as the second, but addressed directly to the doctrine itself, apart from the question of its origin, namely, that it destroys the unity of God. The answer to this also is a simple negative. To some minds the reality of created wills is dualistic and therefore untenable. But a true doctrine of unity malces room for other wills than God's — namely of those beings upon whom God has bestowed freedom. Herein stands the doctrine of sin and Satan. The doctrine of Satan no more militates against the unity of God than the idea, so necessary to morality and religion alike, of other created wills set in oppo- sition to God's. Just as the conception of Satan merges, in one direction, in the general doctrine of angels, so, in the other, it blends with the broad and difficult subject of evil (cf "Satan," HDB, IV, 412a).

      LiTEH.^TrEE. — All Standard works on Bib. Theology, as well as Diets., etc, treat with more or less thorough-

      ness the doctrine of Satan. The German theologians of the more evangelical type, such as Weiss, Lange, Martensen (Danish), Dorner, while exhibiting a tend- ency toward excessive speculation, discern the deeper aspects of the doctrine. Of monographs known to the writer none are to be recommended without qualification. It is a subject on which the Bible is its own best inter- preter.

      Louis Matthews Sweet SATAN, DEPTHS OF (rd PaB^a tov Sarava, td bathea tou Sataiid) : Found in Rev 2 24, and has reference to false teaching at Thyatira. It is a question (that perhaps may not be decided) whether tou Satana, "of Satan," represents the claim of the false teachers, or is thrown in by the Lord. Did those false teachers claim to know "the depths" of Satan? Or was it that they claimed to know "the depths" of Deity, and the Lord said it was rather "the depths of Satan"? In either case the an- tithesis to "depths of Satan" is "depths of God," as referred to in Rom 11 33; 1 Cor 2 10.

      SATAN, SYNAGOGUE OF: The expression occurs neither in the Heb nor in the Gr of the OT, nor in Apoc. Three passages in the OT and one in Apoc suggest the idea conveyed in the expression. In Nu 14 27.3.5, Jeh expresses His wrath against "the evil congregation" (LXX .0-11^70177; irov-rjpi, sunagogi ponerd) which He threatens to consume in the wilderness. In Ps 21 (22) 16, we find, "A company of evil doers [LXX !ri;ra7u77) woinj- pevoiiivav, sunagogt ponereuomenon] have inclosed me." In Sir 16 6, we read, "In the congregation of sinners [LXX o-vna-yuyT] a.fiapTui\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\u>v, sunagogt hamartolon] shall a fire be kindled."

      Only in the NT occurs the phrase "synagogue of Satan," and here only twice (Rev 2 9; 3 9). Three observations are evident as to who consti- tuted "the synagogue of Satan" in Smyrna and Philadelphia. (1) They claimed to be Jews, i.e. they were descendants of Abraham, and so laid claim to the blessings promised by Jeh to him and his seed. (2) But they are not regarded by John as real Jews, i.e. they are not the genuine Israel of God (the same conclusion as Paul reached in Rom 2 28). (3) They are persecutors of the Christians in Smyrna. The Lord "knows their blasphemy," their sharp denunciations of Christ and Christians. They claim to be the true people of God, but really they are "the synagogue of Satan." The gen. Xarapa, Satand, is probably the possessive gen. These Jewish persecutors, instead of being God's people, are the "assembly of Satan," i.e. Satan's people.

      In Polyc, Mar. xvii.2 (c 155 AD) the Jews of Smyrna were still persecutors of Christians and were conspicuous in demanding and planning the martyrdom of Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna, the same city in which the revelator calls persecuting Jews "the assembly of Satan."

      In the 2d cent., in an inscription {CIJ, 3148) describing the classes of population in Smyrna, we find the expression 01 vori 'louSawi, hoi poti loudaioi, which Mommsen thinks means "Jews who had abandoned their rehgion," but which Ramsay says "probably means those who formerly were the nation of the Jews, but have lost the legal standing of a separate people."

      Literature. — Ramsay, The Seven Churches of Aaia, ch .xii; .Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 31, 32; Poly- carp, Mar. xiiiff.17.2; Mommsen, Historische Zrit- schrift. XXXVII, 417.

      Charles B, Williams SATCHEL, sach'el. See Bag.

      SATHRABUZANES, sath-ra-bu'za-nez, sath-ra- bfi-za'nez (2a9papoT)JdvT|s, Sathrabouzdnes) : In 1 6 3.7.27 = "Shethar-bozenai" in Ezr 5 3.6; 6 6.13.



      Satan Saul

      SATISFACTION, sat-is-fak'shun : Occurs twice in AV (Nu 35 31.32) as a rendering of the Heb kopher (RV "ransom"). It nfieans a price paid as compensation for a life, and the pa.ssage cited is a prohibition against accepting such, in case of murder, or for the return of the manslayer. Such compensation was permitted in ancient justice among many peoples. Cf iroiv/i, -point, which Liddell and Scott define as "properly quit-money for blood spilt, the fine paid by the slayer to the kinsman of the slain, as a ransom from all conse- quences." The same custom prevailed among Teutonic peoples, as seen in the Ger. Wergeld and Old Eng. wergild. The Heb laws of the OT per- mit it only in the case of a man or woman gored to death by an ox (Ex 21 30-32).

      Benjamin Reno Downer

      SATRAPS, sa'traps, sat'raps (D'lISn.lirinS , 'Ohashdarp'nim, Ezr 8 36; Est 3 12; 8 9; 9 3, AV "lieutenants"; Dnl 3 2.3.27; 6 1 ff, A V "princes"): The viceroys or vassal rulers to whom was in- trusted the government of the provinces in the Pers empire. The word answers to the Old Pers khsha- thrapavan, "protectors of the realm."

      SATYR, safer, sa'ter ("1^3?©, saHr, lit. "he- goat"; cf lyiri, saHr, "hairy" [Gen 27 11, of Esau],

      and Arab. JLci, sha'r, "hair"; pi. DiTy'l?,

      s'Hrlm): For s^'irim in Lev 17 7 and 2 Ch 11 15, AV has "devils," RV "he-goats," ERVni "satyrs," LXX Tois /xarafois, tols mataiois, "vain things." For s''irl7n in Isa 13 21, AV and ERV have "satyrs," ERVm ."he-goats," ARV "wild goats," LXX dai.- Iibvia, daimonia, "demons." For sd'lr in Isa 34 14, AV and ERV have "satyr," ERVm "he- goat, ARV "wild goat." LXX has Irepos Trpbs rbv irepov, heteros pr6s tdn heteron, "one to an- other," referring to daimonia, which here stands for fiyim, "wild beasts of the desert."

      The text of ARV in these passages is as follows: Lev 17 7, "And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the he-goats, after which they play the harlot": 2 Ch 11 1.5, "And he [Jcroboaml appointed him priests for the high places, and for the he-goats, and for the calves which he had made"; Isa 13 21 f (of Babylon), "But wild beasts of the desert [vylm] shaU lie there; and their houses shaU be full of doleful creatures ['ohlm]; and ostriches [b-nolh ya'dnah] shall dwell there, and wild goats ls''irim] shaU dance there. And wolves ['lyim] shall cry in their castles, and jackals [tannlm] in the pleasant palaces"; Isa 34 (of Edom) "But the pehcan [ka'Uh] and the porcupine [kippodh] shall po.ssess it; and the owl [yanshoph] and the raven I'arei/i] shall dwell therein: .... and it shaU be a habi- tation of jackals [tannim], a court for ostriches [h'noth ya'dnah]. And the wild beasts of the desert [oiyim] shall meet with the wolves ['ij/imj, and the wild goat Isd'ir] shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night monster

      rJW/il shall settle there There shaU the dart-snake

      [kippoz] make hernest .... there shall the kites [daj/- yoth] be gathered, every one with her mate."

      The question is whether sa'ir and s^'lrim in these passages stand for real or for fabulous animals. In Lev 17 7 and 2 Ch 11 15, it is clear that they are ob,iects of worship, but that still leaves open the question of their nature, though it may to many minds make "devils" or "demons" or "satyrs' seem preferable to "he-goats." In Isa 13 20 we read, "neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall shepherds make their flocks to he down there." This may very likely have influ- enced the American Committee of Revisers to use "wild goat" in Isa 13 21 and 34 14 instead of the "he-goat" of the other passages. In ARV, no fabulous creatures (except perhaps "night-monster ) are mentioned here, but LXX employs daimonia, "demons," in Isa 13 21 for s'Hrim and m 34 14 for Qiylm; ivoKivravpoL, onokenlauroi, from Sj/os, 6nos "ass " and Kivravpoi, kenlauros, "centaur," in Isa 13 22 and 34 14 for 'lyim, and again in 34

      14 for llliih; creipTjves, neirines, "sirens," in Isa 13 21 for b'noth ya^dnah, and in 34 13 for tannim. We must bear in mind the uncertainty regarding the identity of giyim, 'lyim, 'ohlm and tannim, as well as of some of the other names, and we must recall the tales that are hung about the name lilUh (AV "screech owl," AVm and RV "night-monster," RVm "Lilith"). While sa^ir is almost alone among these words in having ordinarily a well-understood meaning, i.e. "hc-goat," there is good reason for considering that here it is used in an exceptional sense. The tr "satyr" has certainly much to be said for it. See Goat; Jackal.

      Alfred Ely Day SAUL, sol (blSttJ , sha'Ul; SaovX, Saoixl) :

      (1) The first king of Israel. I. Early Histohy

      1. Name and Meaning

      2. Genealogy

      3. Home and Station

      4. Sources for Life

      5. Election as King

      6. Reasons for It II. Reign and Fall

      1. His First Action

      2. Army Reorganized

      3. Battle of Michmash

      4. Defeats the Amalekites

      5. Deposition Pronounced

      6. David Introduced to Saul

      7. Two Accounts

      8. Saul's Envy of David

      9. Attempts to Got Rid of Him

      10. David Spares Saul

      11. Saul's Divided Energies

      12. Consults a Necromancer

      13. Battle of Gilboa

      14. Double Accounts

      15. Saul's Posterity III. Character

      1. Book of Chronicles

      2. Saul's Failings

      3. His Virtue

      4. David's Elegy

      /. Early History. — The name Saul is usually

      regarded as simply the passive participle of the

      vb. "to ask," and so meaning "asked"

      1. Name (cf 1 S 8 4fT), but the gentilic adj. and Mean- sha'uli (Nu 26 13) would point to its ing having also an intensive connotation,

      "the one asked importunately," or

      perhaps, "the one asking insistently," "the beggar."

      Saul was the son of Kish, a Benjamite. His

      genealogical tree is given in 1 S 9 1 (cf LXX

      10 21). In 1 S 9 1 his grandfather is

      2. Gene- Abiel, but in 1 Ch 8 33; 9 39, Ner, alogy who appears as his paternal uncle in

      1 S 14 50.51.

      The last verse contains a very curious scribal error, a yodh having slipped out of one word in it into another. It states that both Abner and Ner were sons of Abiel. These apparent inconsistencies are to be explained by the tact ttiat in Heb. as in Arab., "son" is often used in the sense of grandson. Also, with the facility of divorce then prevalent, by "brother" and "sister" we must in most cases understand half-brother and half-sister. Moreover, Saul's mother might have been the wife at different times of Kish and of his brother Ner (cf 1 S 20 30). This was quite common, and in some cases compulsory (Dt 25 5-9).

      Saul's home was at Gibeah (q.v.), which is also

      called Gibeah of Saul, i.e. Saul's Hill (1 S 11 4;

      cf also 10 5, God's Hill, or simply The

      3. Home Hill, 10 10; Hos 5 8, etc), or the Hill and Station of Benjamin or of the Benjamites (1 S

      13 15; 2 S 23 29). It is usually iden- tified with Tell el-FAl, but perhaps its site is marked rather by some ruins near but beneath that eminence. The tribe of Benjamin was the fighting tribe of Israel, and Kish seems to have been one of its most important members. Saul's remarks in depreciation (1 S 9 21) are not to be taken Htcrally.

      The circumstances of Saul's career are too well known to require recapitulation. It will be suffi- cient to refer to some of the recognized difficulties




      of the narrative. These difficulties arise from the

      faet that we appear to have two distinct biographies

      of Saul in the present Books of S.

      4. Sources This may well be the case as it is the for Life practice of the Sem historian to set

      down more than one tradition of each event, without attempting to work these up into one consistent account. We shall call the duplicated narratives A and B, without postulating that either is a continuous whole. See Samuel, Books of.

      According to A, Saul was anointed king of Israel at Ramah by the prophet Samuel acting upon an

      inspiration from Jeh, not only without

      5. Election consulting anyone, but in the strictest as King secrecy (1 S 9 1 — 10 16). According

      to B, the sheiks of the tribes demanded a king. Samuel in vain tried to dissuade them. They would not listen, and a king was chosen by lot at Mizpah. The lot fell upon Saul, and Samuel immediately demitted office (ch 8; 10 17-27, omit- ting last clause; and ch 12).

      There are three distinct reasons given in the text

      for the aboUtion of the theocracy and institution of

      an elective or hereditary monarchy:

      6. Reasons first, the incapacity of Samuel's sons for It (8 IS); second, an invasion of the

      Ammonites (12 12); and third, the Philis (9 16). These three motives are not mutually exclusive. The Philis formed the standing menace to the national existence, which would have necessi- tated the creation of a monarchy sooner or later. The other two were temporary circumstances, one of which aggravated the situation, while the other showed the hopelessness of expecting any improve- ment in it in the near future.

      //. Reign and Fall. — The election of Saul at Mizpah was conducted in the presence of the chief- tains of the clans; it is not to be

      1. His First supposed that the whole nation was Action present. As soon as it was over, the

      electors went home, and Saul also returned to his father's farm and, like Cincinnatus, once more followed the plough. "Within about a month," however (10 27 LXX, for MT "But he held his peace"), the summons came. A message from the citizens of Jabesh-gilead (q.v.) was sent round the tribes appealing for help against the Ammonites under Nahash. They, of course, knew nothing about what had taken place at Mizpah, and it was only by chance that their messengers arrived at Gibeah when they did. Saul rose to the occasion, and immediately after he was acclaimed king by the whole body of the people (ch 11). This double election, first by the chiefs and then by the people, is quite a regular proceeding.

      This first success encouraged Saul to enter upon what was to be the mission of his life, namely, the

      throwing off of the Phih suzerainty.

      2. Army From the first he had had the boldest Reorgan- spirits upon his side (10 26 LXX, ized RVm) ; he was now able to form a

      standing army of 3,000 men, under the command of himself and his son Jonathan (q.v.). The Philis, the last remnant of the Minoan race, had the advantage of the possession of iron weapons. It was, in fact, they who introduced iron into Pal from Crete — the Israelites knowing only bronze, and having even been deprived of weapons of the softer metals. They seem to have armed them- selves — with the exception of the king and his son — with mattocks and ploughshares (13 19 ff).

      The first encounter was the attack upon the Phih post at Michmash (1 S 13, 14). The text of the narrative is uncertain, but the following out- line is clear. On hearing that the Hebrews had re- volted (13 3 LXX), the Philis gathered in great force, including 3,000 chariots (13 5 LXX; MT has

      30,000) at Michmash. In dismay, Saul's troops de- serted (vs 6 f), until he was left with only 600 (14 2). In spite of this, Jonathan precipitated

      3. Battle of hostilities by a reckless attack upon one Michmash of the outposts. This was so success- ful that the whole Phili army was

      seized with panic, and the onset of Saul and the desertion of their Heb slaves completed their dis- comfiture. Saul followed up his victory by making predatory excursions on every side (14 47).

      Saul's next expedition was against the Amalekites

      under Agag, who were likewise completely defeated.

      The fight was carried out with all the

      4. Defeats remorselessness common to tribal war- the Amalek- fare. Warning was sent to the friendly ites Kenites to withdraw out of danger;

      then the hostile tribe was slaughtered to a man, their chief alone being spared for the time being. Even the women and children were not taken as slaves, but were all killed (1 S 15).

      It is not clear what was the precise attitude of Samuel toward Saul. As the undoubted head of

      the theocracy he naturally objected to

      5. Deposi- his powers being curtailed by the loss tion Pro- of the civil power (8 6). Even after nounced the elections of Saul, Samuel claimed

      to be the ecclesiastical head of the state. He seems to have objected to Saul's offering the sacrifice before battle (13 10 ff), and to have considered him merely as his lieutenant (15 3) who could be dismissed for disobedience (15 14 S) . Here again there seem to be two distinct accounts in the traditional text, which we may again call A and B. In A Saul is rejected because he does not wait long enough for Samuel at Gilgal (13 8; cf 10 8). "Seven days," of course, means eight, or even more, in short, until Samuel should come, whenever that might be. The expression might almost be omitted in translating. In B Saul is rejected because he did not carry out Samuel's orders (15 3) to the letter. The two narratives are not mutually exclusive. The second offence was an aggravation of the first, and after it Samuel did not see Saul again (15 35).

      He had good reason for not doing so. He had

      anointed a rival head of the state in opposition to

      Saul, an act of treason which, if dis-

      6. David covered, would have cost him his Introduced head(cf2 K 9 6.10). Saul did not at to Saul once accept his deposition, but he lost

      heart. One cannot but admire him, deserted by Samuel, and convinced that he was playing a losing game, and yet continuing in office. To drive away his melancholy, his servants intro- duced to him a musician who played until his spirits revived (16 14 ff; cf 2 K 3 15).

      By a strange coincidence (cf I, 5, above) the min- strel was the very person whom Samuel had secretly

      anointed to supplant Saul. According

      7. Two to what looks like another account, Accounts however, it was his encounter with

      Gohath which led to the introduction of David to Saul (17 Iff; see David). In spite of all that has been said to the contrary, the two narratives are not incompatible, since we are not told the order of the events nor over how many years these events were spread. The theory of duplicate narratives rests upon the assumption that all statements made by the dramatis personae in the Bible are to be taken at their face value. If chs 16 and 17 had formed part of a play of Shake- speare, they would have been considered a fine example of his genius. Treatises would have been written to explain why Saul did not recog- nize David, and why Abner denied all knowledge of him. LXX, however, omits 17 12-— 18 5.




      Whether Saul actually discovered that David had

      been anointed by Samuel or not, he soon saw in

      him his rival and inevitable successor,

      8. Saul's and he would hardly have been human Envy of if he had not felt envious of him. His David dislike of David had two motives.

      The first was jealousy, because the women preferred the mihtary genius of David to his own (18 7 f). His consequent attempt upon the life of David (vs 8-11) is omitted in LXX. Not least was the love of his own daughter for David (18 20; in ver 28 read with LXX "all Israel"). The second cause was his natural objection to see his son Jonathan supplanted in his rights to the throne, an objection which was aggravated by the devotion of that son to his own rival (20 30; see also David; Jonathan).

      Saul could not believe that David could remain loyal to him (24 9) ; at the first favorable oppor- tunity he would turn upon him, hurl him

      9. Attempts from the throne, and exterminate his to Get Rid whole house. In these circumstances, it of Him was his first interest to get rid of him.

      His first attempt to do so (omitting with LXX 18 86-11) was to encourage him to make raids on the Philis in the hope that these might kill him (18 21 ff); his ne.xt, assassination by one of his servants (19 1), and then by his own hand (19 9 f ) . When David was compelled to fly, the quarrel turned to civil war. The supersti- tious fear of hurting the chosen of Jeh had given place to bhnd rage. Those who sheltered the fugitive, even priests, were slaughtered (22 17 ff). From one spot to another David was hunted, as he says, like a partridge (26 20).

      It is generally maintained that here also we have duplicate accounts; for example, that there are two

      accounts of David taking refuge

      10. David with Achish, king of Gath, and two of Spares Saul his sparing Saul's life. The latter

      are contained in chs 24 and 26, but the points of resemblance are shght. Three thou- sand (24 2; 26 2) was the number of Saul's picked men (cf 13 2). David uses the simile of "a flea" in 24 14, but in 26 20 for "a flea" LXX has "my soul," which is no doubt original. The few other expressions would occur naturally in any narrative with the same contents.

      Obviously Saul's divided energies could not hold out long; he could not put down the imaginary

      rebelhon within, and at the same time

      11. Saul's keep at bay the foreign foe. No sooner Divided had he got the fugitive within his Energies grasp than he was called away by an

      inroad of the Philis (23 27f); but after his life had been twice spared, he seemed to realize at last that the latter were the real enemy, and he threw his whole strength into one desperate effort for existence.

      Saul himself saw that his case was desperate, and -that in fact the game was up. As a forlorn

      hope he determined to seek occult

      12. Con- advice. He could no longer use the suits a Nee- official means of divination (28 6), romancer and was obliged to have recourse to a

      necromancer, one of a class whom he himself had taken means to suppress (28 3). The result of the seance confirmed his worst fears and filled his soul with despair (28 7 G).

      It says much for Saul that, hopeless as he was, he engaged in one last forlorn struggle with the enemy.

      The Philis had gathered in great

      13. Battle force at Shunem. Saul drew up his of Gilboa army on the opposing hill of Gilboa.

      Between the two forces lay a valley (cf 14 4). The result was what had been foreseen. The Israelites, no doubt greatly reduced in numbers

      (contrast 11 8), were completely defeated, and Saul and his sons slain. Their armor was placed in the temple of Ashtaroth, and their bodies hung on the wall of Bethshan, but Saul's head was set in the temple of Dagon (1 Ch 10 10). The citizens of Jabesh-gilead, out of ancient gratitude, rescued the bodies and, in un-Semitic wise, burned them and buried the bones.

      Once more we have, according to most present- day critics, duplicate accounts of the death of Saul. According to one, which we may name

      14. Double A, he fell, like Ajax whom he much Accounts resembles, upon his own sword, after

      being desperately wounded by the archers (1 S 31 4). According to the second (2 S 1 2 ff ) , an Amalekite, who had been by accident a witness of the battle, dispatched Saul at his own request to save him from the enemy. But B is simply the continuation of A, and tells us how David received the news of the battle. The Amalekite's story is, of course, a fabrication with a view to a reward. Similar claims for the reward of assassination are common (2 S 4 9 ff) .

      With Saul the first Israelite dynasty began and ended. The names of his sons are given in 1 S

      14 49 as Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchi-

      15. Saul's shua. Ishvi or Ishyo (LXX) is Posterity Eshbaal, called in 2 S 2 8 Ish-bo-

      SHETH (q.v.). 1 Ch 8 33 adds Abina- dab. Jonathan left a long line of descendants famous, like himself, as archers (1 Ch 8 34 ff). The rest of Saul's posterity apparently died out. Malchishua and Abinadab were slain at Gilboa (1 S 31 6; 1 Ch 10 2), and Ish-bosheth was assassinated shortly after (2 S 4 2 fT) . Saul had also two natural sons by Rizpah who were put to death by David in accordance with a superstitious custom, as also were the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab(2 S 21 8,notMichal; cf 1 S 18 19). Saul's other daughter Michal apparently had no children. Saul had, it seems, other wives, who were taken into the harem of David in accordance with the practice of the times (2 S 12 8), but of them and their descendants we know nothing.

      ///. Character, — Saul's hfe and character are

      disposed of in a somewhat summary fashion by the

      Chronicler (1 Ch 10, esp. vs. 13.14).

      1. Book of Saul was rejected because he was dis- Chronicles loyal to Jeh, esp. in consulting a

      necromancer. The major premise of this conclusion, however, is the ancient dictum, "Misfortune presupposes sin." From a wider point of view Saul cannot be dismissed so cavaherly. Like everyone else, Saul had his virtues and his failings. His chief weakness seems to have been

      want of decision of character. He was

      2. Saul's easily swayed by events and by people. FaiUngs The praises of David (1 S 18 7 f) at

      once set his jealousy on fire. His per- secution of David was largely due to the instigation of mischievous courtiers (24 9) . Upon remonstrance his repentance was as deep as it was short-Uved (24 16; 26 21). His impulsiveness was such that he did not know where to stop. His interdict (14 24 ff) was quite as uncalled for as his religious zeal (15 9) was out of place. He was always at one extreme. His hatred of David was only equal to his affection for him at first (18 2) . His pusillanimity led him to commit crimes which his own judgment would have forbidden (22 17). Like most beaten persons, he became suspicious of everyone (22 7 f), and, like those who are easily led, he soon found his evil genius (22 9.18.22). Saul's inability to act alone appears from the fact that he never engaged in single combat, so far as we know. Before he could act at all his fury or his pity had to be roused to boiling-point (11 6). His mind was peculiarly sub-


      Sceptre, Scepter



      ject to external influences, so that he was now a respectable man of the world, now a prophet (10 11; 19 24).

      On the other hand, Saul possessed many high

      qualities. His dread of office (10 22) was only

      equaled by the coolness with which he

      3. His accepted it (11 5). To the first call Virtues to action he responded with prompti- tude (11 6 ff). His timely aid excited

      the lasting gratitude of the citizens of Jabesh-gilead (31 11 ff). If we remember that Saul was openly disowned by Samuel (15 30), and believed himself cast off by Jeh, we cannot but admire the way in which he fought on to the last. IMoreover, the fact that he retained not only his own sons, but a sufficient body of fighting men to engage a large army of Philis, shows that there must have been something in him to excite confidence and loyalty.

      There is, however, no question as to the honorable

      and noble qualities of Saul. The chief were his

      prowess in war and his generosity

      4. David's in peace. They have been set down Elegy by the man who knew him best in

      what are among the most authentic verses in the Bible (2 S 1 19 ff). (2) Saul of Tarsus. See Paul.

      Thomas Hunter Weir SAVARAN, sav'a-ran: AV = RV Avaran (q.v.).

      SAVE, sav: In tihe sense "except," the word came into Eng. through the Fr. (sauf) and is fairly com- mon (38 t, in addition to "saving," AV Eccl 5 11; Am 9 8; Mt 6 32; Lk 4 27; Rev 2 17). It represents no particular Heb or Gr terms but is employed wherever it seems useful. It is still in good (slightly archaic) use, and RV has few modi- fications (Dt 15 4 AV; _Ps 18 31&, etc), but ERV has dropped "saving" in Lk 4 27 and Rev 2 17 and ARV also in Eccl 5 11; Am 9 8, retaining it only in Mt 5 32.

      SAVIAS,sa-vi'as(5;ao«la,,SaoM(o): In 1 Esd 8 2, for Uzzi, an ancestor of Ezra, in Ezr 7 4.

      SAVIOUR, sav'yer: (1) While that "God is the deliverer of his people" is the concept on which, virtually, the whole OT is based (see Salvation), yet the Hebrews seem never to have felt the need of a title for God that would sum up this aspect of His relation to man. Nearest to our word "Saviour" is a participial form (^"^115112, moshi"') from'the vb. ^'^1 , yasha} (Qal not used; "save" in Hiphil), but even this participle is not frequently apphed to God (some 13 t of which 7 are in Isa 43-63). (2) In the NT, however, the case is different, and Sur-^p, Soltr, ia used in as technical a way as is our "Saviour." But the dis- tribution of the 24 occurrences of the word is signifi- cant, for two-thirds of them are found in the later books of the NT— 10 in the Pastorals, 5 in 2 Pet, and one each in Jn, 1 Jn, and Jude — while the other instances are Lk 1 47; 2 11; Acts 5 31; 13 23; Eph 5 23; Phil 3 20. And there are no occurrences in Mt, Mk, or the earlier Pauline Epp. The data are clear enough. As might be expected, the fact that the OT used no technical word for Saviour meant that neither did the earliest Chris- tianity use any such word. Doubtless for Our Lord "Messiah" was felt to convey the meaning. But in Gr-speaking Christianity, "Christ," the tr of Messiah, soon became treated as a proper name, and a new word_ was needed. (3) Soter expressed the exact meaning and had already been set apart in the language of the day as a religious term, having become one of the most popular Divine titles in use. Indeed, it was felt to be a

      most inappropriate word to apply to a human being. Cicero, for instance, arraigns Verres for using it: "Soter .... How much does this imply? So much that it cannot be expressed in one word in Latin" (Verr. ii.2, 63, § 154). So the adoption of Soter by Christianity was most natural, the word seemed ready-made. (4) That the NT writers derived the word from its contemporary use is shown, besides, by its occurrence in combina- tion with such terms as "manifestation" (epi- phdneia, 2 Tim 1 10; Tit 2 13), "love toward man" (philanlhropia, Tit 3 4), "captain" {archegos, Acta 6 31; cf He 2 10), etc. These terms are found in the Gr sources many times in exactly the same combinations with Soter. (5) In the NT Soter ia uniformly reserved for Christ, except in Lk 1 47; Jude ver 25, and the Pastorals. In 1 Tim (1 1; 2 3; 4 10) it is appHed only to the Father, in 2 Tim (1 10, only) it is applied to Christ, while in Tit there seems to be a deliberate alternation; of the Father in 1 3; 2 10; 3 4; of Christ in 1 4; 2 13; 3 6.

      Literature. — P. Wendland, "Sajriip," ZNTW. V, 335-53, 1904; J. Weiss. "Heiland," In BGG, II, 1910; H. Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland, 1909. Much dntailed Information is available in various parts of Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 19i0.

      Burton Scott Easton SAVOR, sa'ver (ni"! , re'h; oiry.i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, osmt) : (1) The primary meaning of the word is "taste," "flavor" (from Lat sapor, "taste"). So in Mt 5 13; Lk 14 34, "if the salt have lost its savor" (fiupanffi, moranthe, "become tasteless," "insipid," so as to lose its characteristic preserving virtue). (2) But gener- ally it has the meaning of "smell," "odor"; (a) once of evil odor: "Its stench shall come up, and its ill savor shall come up" (Joel 2 20); (t) elsewhere in the sense of pleasant smell. In the OT, with the exception of Ex 5 21 and AV Cant 1 3 (RV "fragrance"), it is always accompanied by the adj. "sweet." It stands for the smell of sacrifices and oblations, in agreement with the ancient anthro- pomorphic idea that God smells and is pleased with the fragrance of sacrifices (e.g. "Jeh smelled the sweet savor," Gen 8 21; "to make a sweet savor unto Jeh," Nu 15 3; and frequently). In the NT, "savor" in the sense of smell is used meta- phorically; (a) once the metaphor is borrowed from the incense which attends the victor's triumphal procession; God is said to make manifest through His apostles "the savor of his knowledge in every place" as He "leadeth" them "in triumph in Christ" (2 Cor 2 14; see Triumph), (fe) Elsewhere the metaphor is borrowed from the fragrant smell of the sacrifices. The apostles "are a sweet savor of Christ unto God" (2 Cor 2 15), i.e. they are, as it were, a sweet odor for God to smell, an odor which is pleasing to God, even though its effect upon men varies (to some it is a "savor from death unto death," i e. such as is emitted by death and itself causes death; to others it is "a savor from fife unto life," ver 16). By the same sacrificial metaphor, Christ's offering of Himself to God is said to be "for a sweet smelUng savor" (Eph 5 2 AV, RV "for an odor of a sweet smell"; the same phrase is used in Phil 4 18 of acts of kindness to Paul, which were "a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God"). (3) Once it is used in the figurative sense of reputa- tion: "Ye have made our savor to be abhorred [lit. "our smell to stink"] in the eyes of Pharaoh" (Ex 5 21). Cf the Eng. phrase, "to be in bad odor."

      The vb. "to savor" means: (1) intransitively, to taste or smell of, to partake of the quality of something, as in the Preface of AV, "to savour more of curiosity than wisdonie," or (2) transitively, to perceive by the taste or smell, to discern: "thou savourest not the things that be of God" (AV Mt 16 23; Mk 8 33, RV "mindest"; cfjpoi'si!, phTonets: Vulg sapis). The adj. "savory" occurs only in Gen 27 ("savory food") and RV Isa 30 24 (m "salted"). .^

      D. Ml ALL Edwards



      Savaran Sceptre, Scepter

      SAW, so. See Tools.

      SAWING ASUNDER, so'ing ' a-sun'der. See Punishments.

      SAYEST, sa'est: "Thou sayest" (Mt 27 11 Mk 15 2; Lk 22 70, "Ye say"; Jn 18 37), i.e rightly; "Thou hast said" (Mt 26 25.64), = "Yes" a rabbinical idiom never found in the OT. Mark (14 62) renders by "I am." All these passages WHm punctuate interrogatively (cf KHhubhoth, i. 103 6).

      SAYINGS, sa'ingz, DARK. See Dark Sayings.

      SAYINGS, FAITHFUL. See Faithful Sayings.

      SAYINGS OF JESUS. See Logia.

      SAYINGS, UNWRITTEN, un-rit"n. See Agra-


      SCAB, skab, SCABBED, skab'ed, skabd (ns|^, yallepheth, nnSOn, mispahalh, nnSD , ^appahath, vb. nSIB , sippah;

      Alex. Macalister

      SCABBARD, skab'ard, SHEATH, sheth. See Armor, III, 5; War, 9.

      SCAFFOLD, skaf'old Clip's, kiyyor): The Eng. word is used once of Solomon's "brazen scaffold" on which he knelt at the dedication of the temple (2 Ch 6 13).

      SCALE, skal. See Siege, 4, (e) ; Weights and Measures.

      SCALES, skalz ([1] ritofjiSp, kaskeseth, "fish- scales"; [2] nsjp, m'ghinnah, pp , macjhen, "scales of the crocodile"; [3] XeirJs, lepls, with vfj. Xcirtju, fepizo, "scale away" [Tob 3 17; 11 13]): (1) The first Heb word kaskeseth means the imbri- cated scales of fish, which together with the dorsal fin were a distinguishing mark of all fish allowed as

      food to the Israehte (Lev 11 9ff; Dt 14 9f). In the figurative sense the word is used of a coat of mail (1 S 17 5.38). (2) M'ghinnah from maghen, lit. "a buckler" or "small shield" (2 Ch 23 9; Jer 46 3), is used in the description of the crocodile (see Leviathan) for the homy scales or scutes imbedded in the skin, not imbricated upon it (Job 41 15 [Heb ver 7]). (3) The Gr lepis, which in classical lan- guage has a much wider range of meaning than the above Heb words ("rind," "husk," "shell," "fish- scale," "scale of snake," "flake of metal and of snow," etc), is found in the NT description of St. Paul's recovery from temporary blindness, "And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight" (Acts 9 18). There is nothing in the words of the sacred text which compels us to think of literal scales. (In Tob, however, a literal flaking-off of foreign substance is meant.) We have here rather a description of the sensation which terminated the three days' period of blindness which the apostle suffered after his meeting with the risen Lord on the road to Damas- cus. The apostle himself does not use this e.xpres- sion in his own graphic description of the same experience: "In that very hour I looked upon him" (22 13). The phrase has, however, come into Eng., for we speak of "scales falling from one's eyes" when we mean a sudden illumination or remembrance or a dissipation of harassing doubt.

      In Isa 40 12; RV Prov 16 11 for Obs , peZe.?, in the sense of "instrument for weighing." See Bal- ance. H. L. E. LUERING

      SCALL, skol (priD , nethek; flpaio-|ia, ihrausma) : This only occurs in Lev 13 and 14 where it is used 14 t to describe bald or scaly patches of eruption on the skin. Such patches are generally the result of the action of parasitic organisms. The common form known now as scalled head is produced by a microscopic plant, Achorion schoenleinii. In Old and Middle Eng., scall was used for scabbiness of the head (Chaucer and Spenser). See also Skeat, Concise Etymol. Diet, of Eng. Language.

      SCAPE-GOAT, skap'got. See Azazel.

      SCARLET, skar'let. See Colors; Dyeing.

      SCARLET (WORM) C^t: n?bin , tola'alh shanl [Ex 25 4, etc]): Cermes vermilio, a scale insect from which a red dye is obtained. See Color; Dyeing; Worm.

      SCATTERED ABROAD, skat'erd a-brod'. Dispersion.


      SCENT, sent: (1) In Hos 14 7, "The scent [m "his memorial"] thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon." "Scent" is used for IDT, zekher (so MT, but the pointing is uncertain), 'properly "memorial," whence RVm. The Eng. tr comes through the LXX which took zkr as "offering of sweet savor," and so "sweet savor." For the "wine of Lebanon'' see Wine. If this tr is not right, the alternative is "memorial" in the sense of "renown." (2) Job 14 9; Jer 48 11 for ni"! , re'h, "odor." "Scent" of the water in Job 14 9 is poetic for "contact with." (3) Wisd 11 18 AV has "filthy scents of scattered smoke," where "scent" is used in the obsolete sense of "disagreeable odor." The tr is, however, very loose, and "scents" is a gloss; RV "noisome smoke." Burton Scott Easton

      SCEPTRE, SCEPTER, sep'ter CJnTlJ , shebhet, tJlll.TB , sharbhlt, expanded form in Est 4 11; 5 2; 8 4;' pdpSos, rhdbdos [Ad Est 15 11; He 1 8],

      Sceva Scorpion



      o-KTjirTpos, sktptros) : A rod or mace used by a sovereign as a symbol of royal authority. The Heb shebhet is the ordinary word for rod or club, and is used of an ordinary rod (of 2 S 7 14), of the shep- herd's crook (Ps 23 4), scribe's baton or marshal's staff (Jgs 5 14), as well as of the symbol of royalty. Its symbolism may be connected with the use of the shebhet for protection (2 S 23 21 ; Ps 23 4) or for punishment (Isa 10 24; 30 31). It is used with reference to the royal line descended from Judah (Gen 49 10), and figuratively of sovereignty in general and possibly of conquest (Nu 24 17, in Israel; Isa 14 5, in Babylonia; Am 1 5.8, in Syria, among Philis; Zee 10 11, in Egypt), the disappearance or cutting off of him that holdeth the scepter being tantamount to loss of national independence. The kingship of Jeh is spoken of as a scepter (Ps 45 6 [Heb ver 7] quoted in He 1 8). The manner of using the scepter by an oriental monarch is suggested in the act of Ahasuerus, who holds it out to Esther as a mark of favor. The subject touches the top of it, perhaps simply as an act of homage or possibly to indicate a desire to be heard. The scepter of Ahasuerus is spoken of as "golden" (Est 5 2), but it is probable that scepters were ordinarily made of straight branches (inateh) of certain kinds of vines (Ezk 19 11.14).

      It is sometimes difficult to determine whether the word shebhet is used in figurative passages in the sense of scepter or merely in the ordinary sense of staff (e.g. Ps 125 3, AV "rod," RV and ARV "sceptre" [of the wicked]; Ps 2 9, "rod of iron"; Prov 22 8, "rod of his wrath"). Another word, m'hokek, lit. "prescribing" (person or thing), for- merly tr"* uniformly "lawgiver," is now generally taken, on the basis of parallelism, to mean "sceptre" in four poetic passages (Gen 49 10, "ruler's staff" to avoid repetition; Nu 21 18; Ps 60 7; 108 8).

      Nathan Isaacs

      SCEVA, se'va (SkevcI, Shewi): A Jew, a chief priest, resident in Ephesus, whose seven sons were exorcists (Acts 19 14 ff). Ewald regards the name as being Heb sh'khabhyah. He was not an officiat- ing priest, as there were only synagogues in Asia Minor. He may have belonged to a high-priestly family, or perhaps at one time he had been at the head of one of the 24 courses in the temple.

      In the narrative the construction is loose. There were seven sons (ver 14), and it would appear (ver 16) that in this particular case all were present. But (ver 16) the demon-possessed man over- powered "both of them." TR gets over the diffi- culty by omitting "both," but SABD, so Tisch., WH, Soden, and best critics, retain the difficult reading. The explanation is that ver 14 states the custom: "who did this" being hoi touto poioiintes, "who used to do this." Vs 15 and 16 state a par- ticular case in which two took part, but the in- cident is mtroduced in a careless manner.

      Ewald would translate amphoteron as "in both sides," but this is impossible. Baur understood "disciples" for "sons." D and Syr have an interest- ing expansion which Blass considers original (ver 14): "Among whom also the sons [Syr 'seven'] of a certain Sceva, a priest, wished to do the same, [who] were in the custom of exorcising such. And enter- ing into the demon-possessed man they began to call upon the Name, saying, 'We charge you by Jesus whom Paul preaches to come out.' "

      " S. F. HUNTEE

      SCHISM, siz'in (o-x(o-|jia, schisma): Only in 1 Cor 12 25. The same Gr word, lit. "a split," is tr

      (1 Cor 12 18 ff). The ecclesiastical meaning is that of a break from a church organization, that may or may not be connected with a doctrinal dissent.

      SCHOOL, skool (a-xo\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, schole) . See Tyrannus.

      SCHOOLMASTER, skool'mas-ter: Gal 3 24 f AV reads: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." "Schoolmaster" is a tr of -a-aiSa- 70)765, paidagogos, lit. "child-leader." This paida- gogos was not a teacher but a slave, to whom in wealthy famihes the general oversight of a boy was committed. It was his duty to accompany his charge to and from school, never to lose sight of him in public, to prevent association with objec- tionable companions, to inculcate moral lessons at every opportunity, etc. He was a familiar figure in the streets, and the (sour) "face of a paidagogos" and "to follow one like a paidagogos" were proverbial expressions. Naturally, to the average boy the paidagogos must have represented the incorporation of everything objectionable. Hence St. Paul's figure may be paraphrased: "The law was a paidagogos, necessary but irksome, to direct us until the time of Christ. Then was the time of our spiritual coming-of-age, so that the control of the paidagogos ceased." The word paidagogos was taken over into Aram, at an early date, and St. Paul's language, which is hardly that of a mere adult observer, suggests that he had had personal experience with the institution. Wealthy and intensely orthodox Jewish parents living in a gentile city may well have adopted such a precau- tion for the protection of their children.

      No Eng. word renders paidagogos adequately. "Schoolmaster" is quite wrong, but RV's "tutor" (cf 1 Cor 4 15) is Uttle better in modern Eng. Burton Scott Easton

      SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS. See Edu- cation; Prophets.

      SCIENCE, sl'ens: This word as found in AV means simply "knowledge." "Science" occurs in AV only in two places, Dnl 1 4, "children .... understanding science" (r?l '^.?"!"^ , yodh^'edha^aih, "those who understand science"). The meaning of the term here is "knowledge," "wisdom." The only other occurrence of "science" is in the NT (1 Tim 6 20, "avoiding .... oppositions of science falsely so called," rrjs ^cvBaviifLov 7>'ci(rews, tts pseudonumou gnoseos, "the falsely called gnosis"). "Science" is the tr of the Gr gnosis, which in the NT is usually rendered "knowledge." The science here referred to was a higher knowledge of Christian and Divine things, which false teachers alleged that they pos- sessed, and of which they boasted. It was an incipient form of Gnosticism, and it prevailed to a considerable extent in the churches of proconsular Asia, e.g. in Colossae and Ephesus. Timothy ia put on his guard against the teaching of this gnosis falsely so called, for it set itself in opposition to the gospel. See Gnosticism.

      "Science" in the modem sense of the word, as the discovery and orderly classification and exposi- tion of the phenomena and of the laws of Nature, is not found either in the OT or the NT unless the passage in Dnl be interpreted as meaning the scientific knowledge which the learned men of Baby- lon possessed of mathematics and astronomy, etc. See also Acts 7 22. To the Heb mind all natural phenomena meant the working of the hand of God in the world, directly and immediately, without the intervention of any secondary laws.

      John Rutherfurd



      Sceva Scorpion

      SCIMITAR, sim'i-tar, -ter (aKivdKii, akindke): Formerly given as "fauchion" in AV Jth 13 6; 16 9, the weapon which Judith took down from the rail of the bed at Holoferncs' head, and with which she severed his head from his body.

      SCOFF, skof, SCOFFER, skof'er: The vb. indicates the manifestation of contempt by insulting words or actions; it combines bitterness with ridi- cule. It is much more frequent in RV than in AV, replacing "scorn" of the latter in Ps 1 1; Prov 1 22, etc. "Scorn" refers rather to an inner emotion based on a sense of superiority; "scoff," to the outward expression of this emotion.

      SCORN, skorn: Fox Talbot connects this Eng, word with the Danish skarn, "dirt," "ordure," "mud," "mire." As distinguished from such words as "mock," "deride," "scoff," all of which refer specifically to the various ways in which scorn finds outward expression, scorn itself denotes a subjective state or reaction.

      Further, this state or reaction is not simple but complex. It includes a sense of superiority, resentment, and aver- sion. This reaction occurs when one is confronted with a person or a proposition that by challenging certain things for itself evokes a vivid sense of one's own superiority and awakens mingled resentment, repulsion and contempt by the holiowness of its claims and its intrinsic inferiority or worse. Scorn is a hotter, fiercer emotion than disdain or contempt. It is obvious that scorn may — indeed, it not uncommonly does — arise in connection with an un- grounded, arrogant sense of self-esteem.

      The word, outside of the phrase "laugh to scorn," is found only in the OT, and then only 4 t (Est

      3 6; AVPs44 1.3; 79 4; Hab 1 10), and it repre- sents three different Heb words for none of which it is a suitable rendering. The two words "thought scorn" in Est 3 6 represent but one in Heb, viz. bdzah, for which "di.sdain" would be a nearer equiv- alent. In Hab 1 10 AV the word tr"^ "scorn" is mi^hdk, "an object of laughter," "laughing-stock." In Ps 44 13; 79 4 the Heb word is la'agh from a root, probably meaning "to stutter," "stammer," for which "mocking" is a better Eng. equivalent. In AV Job 34 7; Ps 123 4, la'agh is rendered "scorning" (the rendering given in Prov 1 22 to lagdn, a word from a totally different root and one much more nearly approximating the fundamental idea of the Eng. word "scorn." In Prov 29 8 and Isa 28 14 tefon is rendered "scornful").

      As a vb. the word Is the tr given to Id'agh, "to mock" (2 K 19 21 II Isa 37 22; Job 22 19; Neh 2 19; Ps 22 7, "all laugh to scorn"); fcate =" to scoff" (Ezk 16 31, m "Gr scoffelh," but te.Kt still "scorneth"); for the noun c'hok. "laughter" (Ezk 23 32); sahak =''to laugh," "laugh at" (Job 39 7.18; 2 Ch 30 10). with the noun s'hok. "laugh to scorn" (RV "laughing-stock." Job 12 4)'- luc =" to scoff" (as used in ethical and religious con- nections) (Job 16 20; Prov 3 34; 9 12, aU "scoff" in RV); in Prov 19 2.8 RV, not happily, mock at. RV is warranted in substituting "scoff" for "scorn" because the context Indicates some form of outward expression of the scorn.

      RV always (except Job 12 4; Sir 6 4; 1 Mace 10 70) retains "laugh to scorn" (2 K 19 21; 2 Ch 30 10; Neh 2 19; Job 22 19; Ps 22 7; Lsa 37 22; Ezk 16 31; 23 32; 2 Esd 2 21; Jth 12 12; Wisd

      4 18; Sir 7 11; 13 7; 20 17; Mt 9 24; Mk 5 40; Lk 8 53). The vb. in Apoc and the NT is usually KarayeKda, katageldo, but in Wisd 4 1 iKyeXdoi, ekge- Ido • in Sir 13 7 /cara/^tw/ctio/xai, katamokdomai; and in 2 Esd 2 21 inrideo. In addition "scorn" is retained in Est 3 6; Job 39 7.18; 2 Esd 8 56 (contemno). In Prov 19 28 "scorn" is changed to "mock at,' but elsewhere invariably to "scoff."

      Scorner is the tr of the participle of luQ, and once of the participle of lagag. For "sconier|_ RV everywhere substitutes— properly— ' scoffer. Outside of Prov (and Hos 7 5) the word is to be found only in Ps 1 2. The force of the word has

      D^nnpy rbTQ,

      been well indicated by Cheyne, who says that the "scorner [scoffer] is one who despises that which is holy and avoids the company of the noble 'wise men,' but yet in his own vain way seeks for truth; his character is marked by arrogance as that of the wise is characterized by devout caution."

      W. M. McPheeteks SCORPION, skor'pi-un i'^-j'^?, 'akrahh; of Arab.

      i_,Ji£., 'akrab, "scorpion"

      ma'dleh 'akrahhtm, "the ascent of Akrabbim"; o-Kopirios, skorpios. Note that the Gr and Heb may be akin; cf, omitting the vowels, ^krh and skrp) : In Dt 8 15, we have, "who led thee through the great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents [nahdsh sdrdph] and scorpions I'akrafjh]." Rehoboam (1 K 12 11.14; 2 Ch 10 11.14) says, "My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." Ezekiel is told to prophesy to the children of Israel (2 6), and "Be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions." "The ascent of Akrabbim," the north end of Wddi-ul-'Arabak, S. of the Dead Sea, is mentioned as a boundary 3 t (Nu 34 4; Josh 15 3; Jgs 1 36). Jesus says to the Seventy (Lk 10 19), "Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions," and again in Lk 11 12 He says, "Or if he shall ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion?"

      Note that we have here three doublets, the loaf and the stone, the fish and the serpent, and the egg and the scorpion, whereas in the passage in Mt (7 9 f) we have only the loaf and stone and the fish and serpent. EB (s.v. "Scorpion") ingeniously seeks to bring Lk into nearer agreement with Mt by omitting from Lk the second doublet, i.e. the fish and the serpent, instancing several texts as authority for the omission, and reading 6t//oi', dpson, "fish," for woe, oon, "egg."

      In Rev 9 2-10 there' come out of the smoke of the abyss winged creatures ("locusts," ixpiSes, akrldes) like war-horses with crowns of gold, with the faces of men, hair of women, teeth of lions, breastplates of iron, and with stinging tails like scorpions. In Ecclus 26 7 it is said of an evil wife, "He that taketh hold of her is as one that graspeth a scorpion." In 1 Mace 6 51 we find mention of "pieces [aKopni^ia, skorpldia, diminutive of skorpios] to cast darts." In Plutarch skorpios is used in the same sense (Liddell and Scott, s.v. a-Kopmoi).

      In the passage cited from Dt, and probably also in the name "ascent of Akrabbim," we find refer- ences to the abundance of scorpions, esp. in the warmer parts of the country. Though there is a Gr proverb, "Look for a scorpion under every stone," few would agree with the categorical state- ment of Tristram (NHB) that "every third stone is sure to conceal one." Nevertheless, campers and Scorpion,

      people sleeping on the

      ground need to exercise care in order to avoid their stings, which, though often exceedingly painful for several hours, are seldom fatal.

      Scorpions are not properly insects, but belong with spiders, mites and ticks to the Arachnidac. The scor- pions of Pal are usually 2 or 3 in. long. The short cepha- lothorax bears a powerful pair of jaws, two long limbs terminating with pincers, which make the creature look like a small crayfish or lobster, and tour pairs of legs. The rest of the body consists of the abdomen, a broad part continuous with the cephalothorax, and a slender part forming the long tail which terminates with the sting. The tail is usually carried curved over the back and is used for stinging the prey into insensibility. Scorpions feed mostly on insects for which they lie in wait. The scorpion family is remarkable for having existed with very little change from the Silurian age to the present time.

      It does not seem necessary to consider that the

      Scorpions Scrip



      Roman Scourges.

      words of Rehoboam (1 K 12 11, etc) refer to a whip that was called a scorpion, but rather that as the sting of a scorpion is worse than the lash of a whip, so his treatment would be harsher than his father's.

      Alfred Ely Day SCORPIONS, skor'pi-unz, CHASTISING WITH. See Punishments, 3, (17); Scorpion.

      SCOURGE, skArj, SCOURGING, skvVjing ((idcTTil, mdslix, |iao-Ti,-y6u, masUgdo; in Acts 22 25 fiao-TlJu, mastlzo, in Mk 16 15 1] Mt 27 26 4>paY6X- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\6a, phnigelloo) : A Rom implement for severe bodily punishment. Horace calls it Aorri6iie./Za(7cMMm. It consisteil of a handle, to which several cords or leather thongs were affixed, which were weighted with jagged pieces of bone or metal, to make the blow more pain- ful and effective. It is comparable, in its horrid effects, only with the Rus- sian knout. The victim was tied to a post (Acts 22 25) and the blows were applied to the back and loins, sometimes even, in the wanton cruelty of the executioner, to the face and the bowels. In the tense position of the body, the effect can easily be imagined. So hideous was the punishment that the victim usually fainted and not rarely died under it. Eusebius draws a horribly realistic picture of the tor- ture of scourging (HE, IV, 15). By its appUcation secrets and confessions were wrung from the victim (Acts 22 24). It usually preceded capital punish- ment (Livy xxxiii.36). It was illegal to apply the flagellum to a Rom citizen (Acts 22 25), since the Porcian and Sempronian laws, 248 and 123 BC, although these laws were not rarely broken in the provinces (Tac. Hisl. iv.27; Cic. Verr. v. 6, 62; Jos, BJ, II, xiv, 9). As among the Russians today, the number of blows was not usually fixed, the severity of the punishment depending entirely on the commanding officer. In the punishment of Jesus, we are reminded of the words of Ps 129 3. Among the Jews the punishment of flagellation was well known since the Egyp days, as the monuments abundantly testify. The word "scourge" is used in Lev 19 20, but ARV translates "punished," the original word hikkoreth expressing the idea of investigation. Dt 25 3 fixed the mode of a Jewish flogging and limits the number of blows to 40. Appareiitly the flogging was administered by a rod. The Syrians reintroduced true scourging into Jewish life, when Antiochus Epiphanes forced them by means of it to eat swine's flesh (2 Mace 6 30; 7 1). Later it was legalized by Jewish law and became customary (Mt 10 17; 23 34; Acts 22 19; 26 11), but the traditional limitation of the number of blows was still preserved. Says Paul in his "foolish boasting": "in stripes above meas- ure," "of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one," distinguishing it from the "beatings with rods," thrice repeated (2 Cor 11 23-25).

      The other OT references (Job 5 21; 9 23; Isa 10 26; 28 15.18 [dW , shot]; 23 13 ['d'Oti , shotet]) are figurative for "affliction." Notice the curious mixture of metaphors in the phrase "over- flowing scourge" (Isa 28 15.18).

      Henuy E. Dosker

      SCRABBLE, skrab"!: Occurs only in 1 S 21 13, as the tr of niri, tdwah: "David .... feigned him- self mad and scrabbled on the doors of the gate." "To scrabble" (modern Eng. "scrawl") is here to

      make unmeaning marks; tdwah means "to make a mark" from taw, "a, mark," esp. as a cross (Ezk 9 4), a signature (Job 31 35, see RV), the name of the letter P , originally made in the form of a cross ; RVm has "made marks" ; but LXX has tumpanizo, "to beat as a drum," which the Vulg, Ewald, Driver and others follow ("beat upon" or "drummed on the doors of the city," which seems more probable).

      SCREECH, skrech, OWL. See Night-Monster.

      SCRIBES, skribz: The existence of law leads necessarily to a profession whose business is the study and knowledge of the law; at any rate, if the law is extensive and complicated. At the time of Ezra and probably for some time after, this was chiefly the business of the priests. Ezra was both priest and scholar ("ISO, sopher). It was chiefly in the interest of the priestly cult that the most important part of the Pent (P) was written. The priests were therefore also in the first instance the scholars and the guardians of the Law; but in the course of time this was changed. The more highly esteemed the Law became in the eyes of the people, the more its study and interpretation became a life- work by itself, and thus there developed a class of scholars who, though not priests, devoted them- selves assiduously to the Law. These became known as the scribes, that is, the professional stu- dents of the Law. During the Hellenistic period, the priests, esp. those of the upper class, became tainted with the Hellenism of the age and frequently turned their attention to paganistio culture, thus neglecting the Law of their fathers more or less and arousing the scribes to opposition. Thus the scribes and not the priests were now the zealous defenders of the Law, and hence were the true teachers of the people. At the time of Christ, this distinction was complete. The scribes formed a solid profession which held undisputed sway over the thought of the people. In the NT they are usually called ypafifiaTeis, grammateis, i.e. "students of the Scriptures," "schol- ars," corresponding to the Heb D'^ISD , soph''rim = homines literati, those who make a profession of literary studies, which, in this case, of course, meant chiefly the Law. Besides this general designation, we also find the specific word vo/ukoI, nomikol, i.e. "students of the Law," "lawyers" (Mt 22 35; Lk 7 30; 10 25; 11 45.52; 14 3); and in so far as they not only know the Law but also teach it they are called TO/ioSiSdo-zcaXoi, nomodiddskaloi, "doctors of the Law" (Lk 5 17; Acts 5 34).

      The extraordinary honors bestowed on these scholars on the part of the people are expressed in tlieir honorary titles. Most common was the appellative "rabbi" = "my lord" (Mt 23 7 and otherwise). This word of polite address gradually became a title. The word 'rabboni" (Mk 10 51; Jn 20 16) is an extensive form, and was employed by the disciples to give e.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\pression to their veneration of Christ. In the Gr NT "rabbi" is tr

      From their students the rabbis demanded honors even surpassing those bestowed on parents. "Let the honor of thy friend border on the honor of thy teacher, and the honor of thy teacher on the fear of God" i'lbholh 4 12). "The honor of thy teacher must surpass the honor bestowed on thy father; for son and father are both in duty bound to honor the teacher" (K'rilhoth 6 9). Everywhere the rabbis demanded the position of first rank (Mt 23 6f; Mk 12 38 f; Lk 11 43; 20 46). Their dress equaled that of the nobihty. They wore crroXal, stolal, "tunics," and these were the mark of the upper class.



      Scorpions Scrip

      Since the scribes were lawyers (see Laws-br), much of their time was occupied in teaching and in judicial functions, and both these activities must be pursued gratuitously. Rabbi Zadok said: "Make the knowledge of the Law neither a crown in which to glory nor a spade with which to dig." Hillel used to say: "He who employs the crown [of the Law] for external purposes shall dwindle." That the judge should not receive presents or bribes was written in the Law (Ex 23 8; Dt 16 19); hence the Mish said: "If anyone accept pay for rendering judgment, his judgment is null and void." The rabbis were therefore obliged to make their living by other means. Some undoubtedly had inherited wealth; others pursued a handicraft besides their study of the Law. Rabbi Gamaliel II emphatically advised the pursuit of a business in addition to the pursuit of the Law. It is well known that the apostle Paul kept up his handicraft even after he had become a preacher of the gospel (Acts 18 3; 20 34; 1 Cor 4 12; 9 6; 2 Cor 11 7; 1 Thess 2 9; 2 Thess 3 8), and the same is reported of many rabbis. But in every instance the pursuit of the Law is represented as the worthier, and warning is given not to overestimate the value of the ordinary avocation. It was a saying of Hillel: "He that devotes himself to trade will not become wise." The principle of gratuity was probably carried out in practice only in connection with the judicial activity of the scribes; hardly in connection with their work as teachers. Even the Gospels, in spite of the admonition that the disciples should give without pay because they had received without pay (Mt 10 8), nevertheless also state that the workman is worthy of his hire (Mt 10 10; Lk 10 7); and Paul (1 Cor 9 14) states it as his just due that he receive his livelihood from those to whom he preaches the gospel, even though he makes use of this right only in exceptional cases (1 Cor 9 3-18; 2 Cor 11 8.9; Gal 6 6; Phil 4 10.18). Since this appears to have been the thought of the times, we are undoubtedly justified in assuming that the Jewish teachers of the Law also demanded pay for their services. Indeed, the ad- monitions above referred to, not to make instruc- tion in the Law the object of self-interest, lead to the conclusion that gratuity was not the rule; and in Christ's philippics against the scribes and Phari- sees He makes special mention of their greed (Mk 12 40; Lk 16 14; 20 47). Hence, _ even though they ostensibly gave instruction in the Law gratuitously, they must have practised methods by which they indirectly secured their fees.

      Naturally the place of chief influence for the scribes up to the year 70 AD was Judaea. But not only there were they to be found. Wherever the zeal for the law of the fathers was a perceptible force, they were indispensable; hence we find them also in Galilee (Lk 5 17) and in the Diaspora. In the Jewish epitaphs in Rome, dating from the latter days of the empire, grammaleis are frequently mentioned; and the Bab scribes of the 5th and 6th cents, were the authors of the most monumental work of rabbinical Judaism — the Talmud.

      Since the separation of the Pharisaic and the Sadducean tendencies in Judaism, the scribes generally belonged to the Pharisaic class; for thi3 latter is none other than the party which recog- nized the interpretations or "traditions" which the scribes in the course of time had developed out of the body of the written Law and enforced upon the people as the binding rule of life. Smce, however, "scribes" are merely "students of the Law," there must also have been scribes of the Sadducee type; for it is not to be imagined that this party, which recognized only the written Law as binding, should not have had some opposing students in the other

      class. Indeed, various passages of the NT which speak of the "scribes of the Pharisees" (Mk 2 16; Lk 5 30; Acts 23 9) indicate that there were also "scribes of the Sadducees."

      Under the reign and leadership of the scribes, it became the ambition of every Israelite to know more or less of the Law. The aim of education in family, school and synagogue was to make the entire people a people of the Law. Even the common laborer should know what was written in the Law; and not only know it, but also do it. His entire life should be governed according to the norm of the Law, and, on the whole, this purpose was reahzed in a high degree. Jos avers: "Even though we be robbed of our riches and our cities and our other goods, the Law remains our possession forever. And no Jew can be so far removed from the land of his fathers nor will he fear a hostile commander to such a degree that he would not fear his Law more than his commander." So loyal were the majority of the Jews toward their Law that they would gladly endure the tortures of the rack and even death for it. This frame of mind was due almost wholly to the systematic and persistent instruction of the scribes.

      The motive underlying this enthusiasm for the Law was the behef in Divine retribution in the strictest judicial sense. The prophetic idea of a covenant which God had made with His select people was interpreted purely in the judicial sense. The covenant was a contract through which both parties were mutually bound. The people are bound to observe the Divine Law literally and con- scientiously; and, in return for this, God is in duty bound to render the promised reward in proportion to the services rendered. This apphes to the people as a whole as well as to the individual. Services and reward must always stand in mutual relation to each other. He who renders great services may expect from the justice of God that he will receive great returns as his portion, while, on the other hand, every transgression also must be followed by its corresponding punishment.

      The results corresponded to the motives. Just as the motives in the main were superficial, so the results were an exceedingly shallow view of religious and moral life. Religion was reduced to legal formalism. All religious and moral life was dragged down to the level of law, and this must necessarily lead to the following results: (1) The individual is governed by a norm, the application of which could have only evil results when applied in this realm. Law has the purpose of regulating the relations of men to each other according to certain standards. Its object is not the individual, but only the body of society. In the law, the individual must find the proper rule for his conduct toward society as an organism. This is a matter of obligation and of government on the part of society. But rehgion is not a matter of government; where it is found, it is a matter of freedom, of choice, and of conduct. (2) By reducing the practice of religion to the form of law, all acts are placed on a par with each other. The motives are no longer taken into consideration, but only the deed itself. (3) From this it follows that the highest ethical attainment was the formal satisfaction of the Law, which naturally led to finical Uteralism. (4) Finally, moral life must, under such circumstances, its unity and be split up into manifold precepts and duties. Law always affords opportunity for casuistry, and it was the development of this in the guidance of the Jewish religious life through the "precepts of the elders" which called forth Christ's repeated denunci- ation of the work of the scribes.

      Frank E. Hirsch

      SCRIP, skrip: A word connected with "scrap," and meaning a "bag," either as made from a "scrap"

      Scripture Sea, The Great



      (of skin) or as holding "scraps" (of food, etc). AV has "scrip" in 1 S 17 40 and 6 t in NT; ERV has "wallet" in the NT, but retains "scrip" in 1 S 17 40; ARV has "wallet" throughout. See Bag.

      SCRIPTURE, skrip'ttlr (t) -ypael)!], he grapht, pi. at ■ypa4)a[, hai graphai): The word means "wTiting." In the OT it occurs in AV only once, "the scripture of truth," in Dnl 10 21, where it is more correctly rendered in RV, "the writing of truth." The reference is not to Holy Scripture, but to the book in which are inscribed God's purposes. In the NT, "scripture" and "scriptures" stand regularly for the OT sacred books regarded as "in- spired" (2 Tim 3 16), "the oracles of God" (Rom 3 2). Cf on this usage Mt 21 42; 22 29; Mk 12 10; Lk 4 21; 24; Jn 5 39; 10 3.5; Acts 8 32; 17 2.11; Rom 15 4; 16 26, etc; in Rom 1 2, "holy scriptures." See Bible. The ex- pression "holy scriptures" in 2 Tim 3 15 AV repre- sents different words {Herd grdtmnala) and is properly rendered in RV "sacred writings." In 2 Pet 3 16, the term "scriptures" is extended to the Epp. of Paul. In J as 4 5, the words occur: "Think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto envying?" The passage is probably rather a summary of Scrip- ture teaching than intended as a direct quotation. Others (e.g. Westcott) think the word is used in a wide sense of a Christian hymn. J.-iMES Orr

      SCRIPTURES, skrip'tarz, SEARCH THE. See

      Search the Scriptures.

      SCROLL, skrol. See Roll.

      SCUM, skum (Jl^^n, hel'ah; LXX Ws, ids, "poison" or "verdigris"; cf Plato &/). 609a) : The word is only found in Ezk 24 6.11.12, where RV translates it "rust." The fact, however, that the caldron is of brass and therefore not liable to rust, and the astonishment expressed that the fire did not remove it (ver 12), would seem to point to the preferability of the tr "scum," the residue of dirt adhering to the caldron from previous use.

      SCURVY, sklii-'vi (3"1^, garabh; x(/iipa avpia, psora agrla [Lev 21 20;" 22 22j) : This word is used to denote an itchy, scaly disease of the scalp, probably any of the parasitic diseases which are known as tinea, porrigo or impetigo. These cases have no relation whatever to the disease now known as scorbutus or scurvy. The name was probably derived from its scaliness, and the old Gr physicians believed these diseases to be peculiarly intractable.

      The name " Oareb " is used in Jor 31 39 as the place- name of a hili at or near the southeastern corner of Jerus. probably from the bare roughness of the surface of its slope at the southern end of the Wddy er-Rabahi. Another hiil of this name is mentioned near Shiloh in tlie Talm, and tlie name is given to one of David's war- riors {2 S 23 38).

      Scurvy etymologically means any condition of scaliness of skin which can be scra]5ed off, such as dandruff. Alex. Macalister

      SCYTHIANS, sith'i-anz (ol SKuBai, hoi Skuthai) : The word does not occur in the Heb of the OT, but LXX of Jgs 1 27 inserts Sku^wc ttSXis, Skuthon pdlis (Scythopolis), in explanation, as being the same as Beth-shean. The same occurs in Apoc (Jth 3 10; 1 Mace 12 29), and the S. as a people in 2 Mace 4 47, and the adj. in 3 Mace 7 5. Thepeoplearealsomentionedin theNT (Col 3 11), wliere, as in Mace, the fact that they were barba- rians is implied. This is clearly set forth in classical

      writers, and the description of them given by Herod- otus in book iv of his history represents a race of savages, inhabiting a region of rather indefinite boundaries, north of the Black and Caspian seas and the Caucasus Mountains. They were nomads who neither plowed nor sowed (iv.l9), moving about in wagons and carrying their dwellings with them (ib, 46) ; they had the most filthy habits and never washed in water (ib, 75); they drank the blood of the first enemy killed in battle, and made napkins of the scalps and drinking bowls of the skulls of the slain (ib, 64-6.5). Their deities were many of them identified with those of the Greeks, but the most characteristic rite was the worship of the naked sword (ib, 62), and they sacrificed every hundredth man taken in war to this deity. War was their chief business, and they were a terrible scourge to the nations of Western Asia. They broke through the barrier of the Caucasus in 632 BC and swept down hke a swarm of locusts upon Media and Assyria, turning the fruitful fields into a desert; pushing across Mesopotamia, they ravaged Syria and were about to invade Egypt when Psammitichus I, who was besieging Ashdod, bought them off by rich gifts, but they remained in Western Asia for 28 years, according to Herodotus. It is supposed that a company of them settled in Beth-shean, and from this circumstance it received the name Scy- thopolis. Various branches of the race appeared at different times, among the most noted of which were the Pabthians (q.v.). H. Porter

      SCYTHOPOLIS, si-thop'5-lis, si-thop'6-lis. See Beth-shean.

      SEA, se {W^jyam; 9a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ao-o-a, Ihdlassa; in Acts 27 .5 ireXaYos, pelagos) : The Mediterranean ia called ha-yam ha-gadhol, "the great sea" (Nu 34 6; Josh

      1 4; Ezk 47 10, etc); ha-yam hd-'ahdron, "the hin- der," or "western sea" (Dt 11 24; 34 2; Joel 2 20; Zee 14 8); yam pHishtim, "the sea of the Philis" (Ex 23 31); AV translates yam ydpho' in Ezr 3 7 by "sea of Joppa," perhaps rightly.

      The Dead Sea is called ydm ha-melah, "the Salt Sea" (Nu 34 3; Dt 3 17; Jash 3 16,' etc); ha- ydm ha-kadhmoni, "the east sea" (Ezk 47 18; Joel

      2 20; Zee 14 8); ydm hd-^drdbhdh, "the sea of the Arabah" (Dt 3 17; Josh 3 16; 12 3; 2 K 14 25).

      The Red Sea is called ydm siiph, lit. "sea of weeds" (Ex 10 19; Nu 14 25; Dt 1 1; Josh 2 10; Jgs 11 16; 1 K 9 26; Neh 9 9; Ps 106 7; Jer 49 21, etc); ipvBpa. Bahaaaa, eruthrd thdlassa, lit. "red sea" (Wisd 19 7; Acts 7 36; He 11 29); ydmmi<;- rayim, "the Egyp sea" (Isa 11 15).

      Ydm is used of the Nile in Nah 3 8 and probably also in Isa 19 5, as in modem Arab, bahr, "sea," is used of the Nile and its affluents. Ydm is often used for "west" or "westward," as "look from the place where thou art, .... westward" (Gen 13 14); "western border ' (Nu 34 6). Ydm is used for "sea" in general (Ex 20 11); also for "molten sea" of the temple (1 K 7 23).

      The Sea of Galilee is called kinnereth, "Chiune- reth" (Nu 34 11); kimiroth, "Chinneroth" (Josh 11 2); kinn'roth, "Chinneroth" (1 K 15 20); yam kinnereth, "the sea of Chinnereth" (Nu 34 11; 13 27); ydm kinn'roth, "the sea of Chinneroth" (Josh 12 3); ij 'Klfj.i'Ti Tevvriaap^T, he limne Gennesa- ret, "the lake of Gennesaret" (Lk 5 1); and t6 liSup Vevv-qaip, t6 huddr Gennesdr, "the water of Gennesar" (1 Mace 11 67), from late Heb 1033, gine^ar, or "10^.?? , g'ne^ar; ri 6d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aacra ttjs FaXiXaias, he thdlassa its GaUlalas, "the sea of Gahlee" (Mt 4 18; 15 29; Mk 1 16; 7 31; Jn 6 1); v eiXaaaa. TTjs Ti/3epid5os, he thdlassa its Tiberiddos, "the sea of Tiberias" (Jn 21 1; cf Jn 6 1).



      Scripture Sea, The Great

      In .Ter 48 32 we have yam ya'zer, "the sea of Jazer." Jazer is a site E. of the Jordan, not satis- factorily identified (Nu 21 32; 32 1.3.35; Josh 13 25; 21 39; 2 S 24 5; 1 Ch 6 81; 26 31; Isa 16 8.9). See Sea OF Jazeb.

      In midhbar yam, "the wilderness of the sea" (Isa 21 1), there may perhaps be a reference to the Pers Gulf. Alfred Ely Day

      SEA, ADRIATIC, a-dri-at'ic, ad-ri-at'ik. See ■ Adkia.

      SEA, BRAZEN, bra'z'n. See Sea, The Molten.

      SEA, DEAD; EASTERN, es'tern. See Dead Sea.

      SEA, FORMER, for'mer. See Dead Sea; Former.

      SEA, HINDER, hln'der; UTMOST, ut'most; UTTERMOST, ut'er-most; WESTERN, wes'tern. See Mediterranean Sea.


      NEAN Sea.

      See Mediterra-

      SEA-MEW, se'mu ("HTl), shahaph; Xdpos, Idros; Lat Larus canus): The sea-gull. Used by modern translators in the list of abominations in the place of the cuckoo (Lev 11 16; Dt 14 15). It is very probable that the sea-gall comes closer to the bird intended than the Cuckoo (q.v.). The sea-gull is a "slender" bird, but not "lean" as the root shahaph implies. However, with its stretch of wing and restless flight it gives this impression. Gulls are common all along the Mediterranean coast and around the Sea of Galilee. They are thought to have more intelligence than the average bird, and to share with some eagles, hawks, vultures and the raven the knowledge that if they find a moUusk they cannot break they can carry it aloft and drop it on the rocks. Only a wise bird learns this. Most feathered creatures pick at an unyield- ing surface a few times and then seek food elsewhere. There are two reasons why these birds went on the abomination Usts. To a steady diet of fish they add carrion. Then they are birds of such ner- vous energy, so exhaustless in flight, so daring in flying directly into the face of fierce winds, that the Moslems believed them to be tenanted with the souls of the damned. Moses was reared and educated among the Egyptians, and the laws he formulated often are tinged by traces of his early life. History fails to record any instance of a man reared in Egypt who permitted the kilhng of a gull, ibis, or hoopoe. Gene Steatton-Porter

      SEA-MONSTER, se'mon-ster: Gen 1 21 (DJisn, tannlrnm), "sea monsters," AV "whales," LXX rh, K-qT-n, td htle, "sea-monsters," "huge fish, or "whales." Job 7 12 ("j"'?!? , tannin), "sea-monster," AV "whale," LXX SpdKuiv, drdkon, "dragon." Pa 74 13 (D"'3''3ri, tannlnlm), ARV and ERVm "sea-monsters," AV and ERV "dragons," AVrn "whales " LXX Spdnovres, drdkontes, "dragons. Ps 148 7 (DT???, lanninim), "sea-monsters," AV and ERV "dragons," ERVm "sea-monsters" or "water-spouts," LXX drakontes, "dragons." Lam 4 3 (rsP, tannin), "jackals," AV "sea monsters, AVm "sea calves," LXX drakontes. Mt 12 iO (referring to Jonah) (k^tos, kelos) EY whale RVm "sea-monster." In the Apoc RV changes AV "whale" (ketos) into "sea-monster m Sir 43 25 but not in Three ver 57. See Dragon; Jackal; Whale. Alfred Ely Day

      SEA OF CHINNERETH, kin'e-reth. Sec Gali- lee, Sea op.

      SEA OF GALILEE. See Galilee, Sea of.

      SEA OF GLASS. See Glass. Sea of.

      SEA OF JAZER ClT^^n q; ^ yam ya'zer) : This is a scribal error (Jer 48 32), yam ("sea") being accidentally imported from the preceding clause. See Jazer; Sea.

      SEA OF JOPPA. See Mediterranean Sea.

      SEA OF LOT. See Dead Sea; Lake.

      SEA OF SODOM (SODOMITISH, sod-ora-it'- ish). See Dead Sea.

      SEA OF THE ARABAH. See Dead Sea.

      SEA OF THE PHILISTINES. See Mediterra- nean Sea.

      SEA OF THE PLAIN (ARABAH, ar'a-ba). See Dead Sea.

      SEA OF TIBERIAS, ti-be'ri-as. See Galilee, Sea of.

      SEA, RED. See Red Sea.

      SEA, SALT. See Dead Sea.

      SEA, THE. See Mediterranean Sea; Sea, The Great.

      SEA, THE GREAT (biniin D^H, ha-yam ha- gadhol) : This is the name given to the Medi- terranean, which formed the western

      1. Names boundary of Pal (Nu 34 6 f; Josh of the Sea 15 12.47; Ezk47 19f; 48 28). It

      is also called "the hinder sea" (Heb ha-ydm h&-'ahdron), i.e. the western sea (Dt 11 24; 34 2; Joel 2 20; Zee 14 8), and "the sea of the Philis" (Ex 23 31), which, of course, applies esp. to the part washing the shore of Philistia, from Jaffa southward. Generally, when the word "sea" is used, and no other is definitely indicated, the Mediterranean is intended (Gen 49 13; Nu 13 29, etc). It was the largest sheet of water with which the Hebrews had any acquaintance. Its gleaming mirror, stretching away to the sunset, could be seen from many an inland height.

      It bulked large in the minds of the landsmen —

      for Israel produced few mariners — impressing itself

      upon their speech, so that "seaward"

      2. Israel was the common term for "westward" and the Sea (Ex 26 22; Josh 5 1, etc). Its mys- tery and wonder, the raging of the

      storm, and the sound of "sorrow on the sea," borne to their upland ears, infected them with a strange dread of its wide waters, to which the seer of Patmos gave the last Scriptural expression in his vision of the new earth, where "the sea is no more" (Rev 21 1).

      Along the coast lay the tribal territories assigned

      to Asher, Zebulun, Manasseh, Dan and Judah.

      Many of the cities along the shore

      3. The they failed to possess, however, and Coast Line much of the land. The coast line

      offered little facility for the making of harbors. The one seaport of which in ancient times the Hebrews seem to have made much use was Joppa — the modern Jaffa (2 Ch 2 16, etc). From this place, probably, argosies of Solomon turned their prows westward. Here, at least.

      Sea, The Molten Sealskin



      "ships of Tarshish" were wont to set out upon their adventurous voyages (Jon 1 3). The ships on this sea figure in the beautiful vision of Isaiah (60 8 f ) . See Acco; Joppa.

      The boy Jesus, from the heights above Nazareth,

      must often have loolved on the waters of the great

      sea, as they broke in foam on the

      4. The curving shore, from the roots of Sea in the Carmel to the point at Acre. Once NT only in His joumeyings, so far as we

      know, did He approach the sea, namely on His ever-memorable visit to the "borders of Tyre and Sidon" {Ut 15 21; Mk 7 24), The sea, in all its moods, was well known to the great apostle of the Gentiles. The three shipwrecks, which he suffered (2 Cor 11 25), were doubtless due to the power of its angry billows over the frail craft of those old days. See Paul.

      The land owes much to the great sea. During the hot months of summer, a soft breeze from

      the water springs up at dawn, fanning

      5. Debt of all the seaward face of the Central Palestine to Range. At sunset the chilled air the Sea slips down the slopes and the higher

      strata drift toward the uplands, charged with priceless moisture, giving rise to the refreshing dews which make the Palestinian morning so sweet. See, further, Meditekranean Sea. W. Ewing

      SEA, THE MOLTEN, mol't'n, or BRAZEN

      (pS^ia D^ , yam mugak, iniBnsn D^ , yam ha- n'hosheih) : This was a large brazen (bronze) reservoir for water which stood in the court of Solomon's Temple between the altar and the temple porch, toward the S. (1 K 7 23-26; 2 Ch 4 2-5.10). The bronze from which it was made is stated in 1 Ch 18 8 to have been taken by David from the cities Tibhath and Cun. It replaced the laver of the tabernacle, and, like that, was used for storing the water in which the priests washed their hands and their feet (cf Ex 30 18; 38 8). It rested on 12 brazen (bronze) oxen, facing in four groups the four quarters of heaven. For particulars of shape, size and ornamentation, see Temple. The "sea" served its purpose till the time of Ahaz, who took away the brazen oxen, and placed the sea upon a pavement (2 K 16 17). It is recorded that the oxen were afterward taken to Babylon (Jer 52 20). The sea itself shared the same fate, being first broken to pieces (2 K 25 13.16).

      W. Shaw Caldecott SEA, WESTERN, wes'tem. See IVIediter- ranean Sea.

      SEAH, se'a (HXP , f''ah) : A dry measure equal to about one and one-half pecks. See Weights and


      SEAL, sel (subst. Qriin , hothdm, "seal," "sig- net," Py^t? , tabba'ath, "signet-ring"; Aram. S5]5Ty, Hzkd'; o-4>pa7is, sphragis; vb. Dpn , hatham [Ai-am. nrin , hatham]; pa7l^o|jiai., katasphragizomai, "to seal"):

      /. Literal Sense. — A seal is an instrument of stone, metal or other hard substance (sometimes set in a ring), on which is engraved some device or figure, and is used for making an impression on some soft substance, as clay or wax, affixed to a document or other object, in token of authenticity.

      The use of seals goes back to a very remote antiquity, esp. in Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria. Herodotus (i.l95) records the Bab custom of wear- ing signets. In Babylonia the seal generally took the form of a cyhnder cut in crystal or some hard stone, which was bored through from end to end and a cord passed through it. The design, often

      accompanied by the owner's name, was engraved on the curved part. The signet was then suspended

      by the cord round the neck or waist (cf 1. Preva- RV "cord" in Gen 38 18; "upon thy lence in heart .... upon thine arm," i.e. one

      Antiquity seal hanging down from the neck and

      another round the waist; Cant 8 6). In Egypt, too, as in Babylonia, the cylinder was the earliest form used for the purpose of a seal;

      8 9

      Ancient Seals from Originals in the British Museum.

      1. Signet cylinder. 2. Signet cylinder of Sennaclierib. 3. Seal of chalce-

      dony with Flioeniciau inscri|itiuii. 4. Seal of sapphire chalcedony, with Assyrian inscription. 0. Seal of chalcedony, ^vith Persian inscription. C. Seal in forn) of a duck with head resting on the back. 7. Clay impres- sion from seal of Esar-haddon, from Konyunjik. S. Clay impression from seal, device, ear of wheat, from Konyunjik. 9. Clay impression from seal, device, a scorpion, from Konyunjik.

      but this form was in Egypt gradually superseded by the scarab ( = beetle-shaped) as the prevailing type. Other forms, such as the cone-shaped, were also in use. From the earhest period of civilization the finger-ring on which some distinguishing badge was engraved was in use as a convenient way of carrying the signet, the earliest e.xtant rings being those found in Egyp tombs. Other ancient peoples, such as the Phoenicians, also used seals. From the East the custom passed into Greece and other western countries. Devices of a variety of sorts were in use at Rome, both by the emperors and by private individuals. In ancient times, almost every variety of precious stones was used for seals, as well as cheaper material, such as limestone or terra-cotta. In the West wax came early into use as the material for receiving the impression of the seal, but in the ancient East clay was the medium used (cf Job 38 14). Pigment and ink also came into use.

      That the Israelites were acquainted with the use in Egypt of signets set in rings is seen in the state- ment that Pharaoh delivered to Joseph

      2. Seals his royal signet as a token of deputed among the authority (Gen 41 41 f). They were Hebrews also acquainted with the use (if seals

      among the Persians and IVIedes (Est 3 12; 8 8.10; Dnl 6 17). The Hebrews them- selves used them at an early period, the first recorded instance being Gen 38 18.25, where the patriarch Judah is said to have pledged his word to Tamar by leaving her his signet, cord and staff. We have evidence of engraved signets being in important use among them in early times in the description of the two stones on the high priest's ephod (Ex 28 11; 39 6), of his golden plate (Ex 28 36; 39 30), and breastplate (39 14). Ben-Sirach mentions as a distinct occupation the work of engraving on signets



      (Sir 38 27). From the case of Judah and the common usage in other countries, we may infer that every Hebrew of any standing wore a seal. In the case of the signet ring, it was usual to wear it on one of the fingers of the right hand (Jer 22 24). The Hebrews do not seem to have developed an original type of signets. The seals so far discovered in Pal go to prove that the predominating type was the Egyptian, and to a less degree the Babylonian.

      (1) One of the most important uses of seahng in antiquity was to give a proof of authenticity and

      authority to letters, royal commands, etc. 3. Uses of It served the purposes of a modern Sealing signature at a time when the art of

      writing was known to only a few. Thus Jezebel "wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal" (1 K 21 8); the written commands of Ahasuerus were "sealed with the king's ring," "for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man reverse" (Est 8 8.10; 3 12). (2) Allied to this is the formal ratification of a transaction or covenant. Jeremiah sealed the deeds of the field which he bought from Hanamel (Jer 32 10-14; of ver 44) ; Nehemiah and many others affixed their seal to the written covenant between God and His people (Neh 9 38; 10 Iff). (3) Ap. additional use was the preservation of books in security. A roU or other document intended for preservation was sealed up before it was deposited in a place of safety (Jer 32 14; cf the "book .... close sealed with seven seals," Rev 5 1). In seal- ing the roll, it was WTapped round with flaxen thread or string, then a lump of clay was attached to it impressed with a seal. The seal would have to be broken by an authorized person before the book could be read (Rev 5 2.5.9; 6 1.3, etc). (4) Sealing was a badge of deputed authority and power, as when a king handed over his signet ring to one of his officers (Gen 41 42; Est 3 10; 8 2; 1 Mace 6 15). (5) Closed doors were often sealed to prevent the entrance of any unauthorized person. So the door of the lion's den(Dnl 6 17; cf Bel ver 14). Herodotus mentions the custom of sealing tombs (ii.l21). So we read of the chief priests and Pharisees seahng the stone at the mouth of Our Lord's tomb in order to "make the sepulchre sure" against the intrusion of the disciples (Mt 27 66). Cf the seahng of the abyss to prevent Satan's escape (Rev 20 3) . A door was sealed by stretchmg a cord over the stone which blocked the entrance, spread- ing clay or wax on the cord, and then impressmg it with a seal. (6) To any other object might a seal be affixed, as an official mark of ownership; e.g. a large number of clay stoppers of wine jars are still preserved, on which seal impressions of the cyhnder type were stamped, by rolling the cylmder along the surface of the clay when it was still solt (cf Job 38 14). , , ^ ^u 1

      // Metaphorical Use of the Term.— The word "seal," both subst. and vb., is often used figuratively for the act or token of authentication, confirmation, proof security or possession. Sm is said not to be forgotten by God, but treasured' and stored up with Him against the sinner, under a seal (Dt 3i 34; Job 14 17). A lover's signet is the emblem of 'love as an inah enable possession (Cant 8 6); an unresponsive maiden is "a spring shut up, a fountain sealed" (Cant 4 12). The seal is some-

      Sealed Stone at Entrance to a Tomb.

      times a metaphor for secrecy. That which is beyond the comprehension of the uninitiated is said to be as "a book that is sealed" (Isa 29 11 f; cf the book with seven seals, Rev 5 1 ff). Daniel is bidden to "shut up the words" of his prophecy "and seal the book, even to the time of the end," i.e. to keep his prophecy a secret till it shall be revealed (Dnl 12 4.9; cf Rev 10 4). Elsewhere it stands for the ratification of prophecy (Dnl 9 24). The exact meaning of the figure is sometimes ambiguous (as in Job 33 16; Ezk 28 12). In the NT the main ideas in the figure are those of authenti- cation, ratification, and security. The beUever in Christ is said to "set his seal to this, that God is true" (Jn 3 33), i.e. to attest the veracity of God, to stamp it with the believer's own endorsement and confirmation. The Father has sealed the Son, i.e. authenticated Him as the bestower of life-giving bread (Jn 6 27). The circumcision of Abraham was a "sign" and "seal," an outward ratification, of the righteousness of faith which he had already received while uncircumcised (Rom 4 11; cf the prayer offered at the circumcision of a child, "Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved from the womb, and put His ordinance upon his flesh, and sealed His offering with the sign of a holy covenant" ; also Tg Cant 38: "The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was sealed in the flesh of Abraham"). Paul describes his act in making over to the saints at Jerus the contribution of the Gentiles as having "sealed to them this fruit" (Rom 15 28); the mean- ing of the phrase is doubtful, but the figure seems to be based on sealing as ratifying a commercial trans- action, expressing Paul's intention formally to hand over to them the fruit (of his own labors, or of spiritual blessings which through him the Gentiles had enjoyed), and to mark it as their own property. Paul's converts are the "seal," the authentic con- firmation, of his apostleship (1 Cor 9 2). God by His Spirit indicates who are His, as the owner sets his seal on his property; and just as documents are sealed up until the proper time for opening them, so Christians are sealed up by the Holy Spirit "unto the day of redemption" (Eph 1 13; 4 30; 2 Cor 1 22). Ownership, security and authentication are implied in the words, "The firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal. The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim 2 19). The seal of God on the foreheads of His servants (Rev 7 2-4) marks them off as His own, and guarantees their eternal security, whereas those that "have not the seal of God on their foreheads" (Rev 9 4) have no such guaranty.

      On the analogy of the rite of circumcision (see above) , the term "seal" Isphragis) was at a very early period ap- plied to Christian baptism. But there is no sufficient ground for referring such passages as Eph 1 13; 4 30; 2 Cor 1 22 to the rite of baptism (as some do). The use of the metaphor in connection with baptism came after NT times (early instances are given in Gebhardt and Light- foot on 2 Clem 7 6). Harnack and Hatch maintain that the name "seal" for baptism was taken from the Gr mysteries, but Anrich and Sanday-Headlam hold that it was borrowed from the Jewish view of circum- cision as a seal. See Mystery.

      D. MiALL Edwards

      SEALED, seld, FOUNTAIN: These words, ap- plied to the bride (Cant 4 12), find their explana- tion under Seal (q.v.). Anything that was to be authoritatively protected was sealed. Where water was one of the most precious things, as in the East, fountains and wells were often sealed (Gen 29 3; Prov 5 15-18).

      SEALSKIN, sel'skin: The rendering of RV (Ex 25 5; Ezk 16 10) for iSnn -\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^V , 'or tahash, RVm "porpoise-skin," AV "badgers' skin." A seal, Monachus albiventer, is found in the Mediterra- nean, though not in the Red Sea, but it is likely

      Seam, Seamless Secure, Security



      that tahash means the dugong, which is found in the Red Sea. See Badger; Porpoise.

      SEAM, sem, SEAMLESS, sem'les: The coat or inner garment (x""'^'', chiton) of Jesus is described in Jn 19 23 as "without seam" (iS/S/ia^os, drrha- phos), i.e. woven in one piece.

      SEAR, ser: In 1 Tim 4 2 for Kai/o-Tiypidfu, kaiisteridzo, "burn with a hot iron" (cf "cauterize"), AV "having their conscience seared with a hot iron," and RVm. "Seared" in this connection means "made insensible," like the surface of a deep burn after healing. The vb., however, probably means "brand" (soRV). "Criminals are branded on their forehead, so that all men may know their infamy. The consciences of certain men are branded just as truly, so that there is an inward consciousness of hypocrisy." See the comms.

      SEARCH, silrch: Some peculiar senses are: (1) In the books of Moses, esp. in Nu, "searching out the land" means to spy out(551 , raggel), to investi- gate carefully, to examine with a view to giving a full and accurate report on. (2) When apphed to the Scriptures, as in Ezr 4 15.19 ("Ip?, bakker); Jn 5 39; 1 Pet 1 11 (ipawda, erau7mo), it means to examine, to study out the meaning. In Acts 17 11, RV substitutes "examining" for the "searched" of AV. See Seabchinqs. (3) "Search out" often means to study critically, to investigate carefully, e.g. Job 8 S; "29 16; Eccl 1 13; Lam 3 40; Mt 2 8; 1 Cor 2 10; 1 Pet 1 10. (4) When the word is applied to God's searching the heart or spirit, it means His opening up, laying bare, disclosing what was hidden, e.g. 1 Ch 28 9; Ps 44 21; 139 1; Prov 20 27; Jer 17 10; Rom 8 27.

      G. H. Gerberdinq

      SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES: The sentence beginning with ipavvdre, eraundte, in Jn 5 39 AV has been almost universally regarded as meaning "Search the scriptures, for m them ye think ye have eternal life." But one cannot read as far as Sokcitc, dokeite, "ye think," without feeHng that there is something wrong with the ordinary version. This vb. is at least a disturbing element in the current of thought (if not superfluous), and onlj' when the first vb. is taken as an indicative does the meaning of the wTiter become clear. The utterance is not a com- mand, but a declaration: "Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them," etc. Robert Barclay as early as 1675, in his Apology for the True Christian Divinity (91 ff), refers to two scholars before him who had handed down the correct tradition: "Moreover, that place may be taken in the indicative mood, Ye search the Scriptures; which interpretation the Gr word will bear, and so Pasor tr"' it : which by the reproof following seemet h also to be the more genuine interpretation, as Cyril- lus long ago hath observed." So Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, in his Johannine Grammar (London, 1906, §2439 [i]). See also Transactions Aynerican Philo- logical Association, 1001, 64 f. J. E. Harry

      SEARCHINGS, sur'chingz ([a'-Ji-ipn , hikre [lehh], from hakar, to "search," "explore," "examine thoroughly"): In the song of Deborah the Reuben- ites are taunted because their great resolves of heart, hik'ke lehh, led to nothing but great "search- ings" of heart, hikre lebh, and no activity other than to remain among their fioclcs (Jgs 5 15 f). The first of the two Heb expressions so emphatically contrasted (though questioned by commentators on the authority of 5 MSS as a corruption of the second) can with reasonable certainty be inter- preted "acts prescribed by one's understanding"

      (cf the expressions hdkham lebh, n'bhon lebh, in which the heart is looked upon as the seat of the understanding). The second expression may mean either irresolution or hesitation based on selfish motives, as the heart was also considered the seat of the feelings, or answerabihty to God (cf Jer 17 10; Prov 25 3) ; this rendering would explain the form liph'laghoth in Jgs 5 16, lit. 'for the water courses of Reuben, great the searchings of heart!'

      Nathan Isaacs

      SEASONS, se'z'nz (summer: flp., Ifayig, Chald t3'^|?, kayit [Dnl 2 35]; O^pos, iheros; winter: inp , sHhdw [Cant 2 11], CI"))!, horeph; \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\tiY.av, cheimon): The four seasons in Pal are not so marked as in more northern countries, summer gradually fading into winter and winter into summer. The range of temperature is not great. In the Bible we have no reference to spring or autumn; the only seasons mentioned are "summer and winter" (Gen 8 22; Ps 74 17; Zee 14 8).

      Winter is the season of rain lasting from Novem- ber to May. "The winter is past; the rain is over" (Cant 2 11). See Rain. The temperature at sea- level in Pal reaches freezing-point occasionally, but seldom is less than 40° F. On the hills and moun- tains it is colder, depending on the height. The people have no means of heating their houses, and suffer much with the cold. They wrap up their necks and heads and keep inside the houses out of the wind as much as possible. "The sluggard will not plow by reason of the winter" (Prov 20 4). Jesus in speaking of the destruction of Jerus says, "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter" (Mt 24 20). Paul asks Timothy to "come before winter" (2 Tim 4 21) as navigation closed then and travel was virtually impossible.

      Summer is very hot and rainless. "[When] the fig tree .... putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh" (Mk 13 28); "The harvest is past, the summer is ended" (Jer 8 20). It is the season of harvesting and threshing (Dnl 2 35). "He that gathereth in summer is a wise son" (Prov 10 5). See Cold; Heat; Astronomy, I, 5.

      Alfred H. Joy

      SEAT, set : This word is used to translate the Heb words ^iria , moshdbh, ^311J , shebheth, XD3 , kisife', and rij^Dn, t'khundh, once (Job 23 3). It trans- lates the Gr word KaS^Spa, kathedra

      SEATS, sets, CHIEF. See Chief Seats.'ba (^?SD , s'bha'; 2a(3d, Sa6d [Gen 10 7; 1 Ch 1 9]; Gr ib', but B has 2a|3av, Sabdn):

      The first son of Cush, his brothers 1. Forms of being Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Name, and Sabtecha. In Ps 72 10 and Isa 43 3 Parentage (where the Gr has Xo-Zivri, Soene), of Seba Seba is mentioned with Egypt and

      Ethiopia, and must therefore have been a southern people. In Isa 45 14 we meet with the gentilic form, D^XID , ^'bha'lm (SajSati^, Sabaeim), rendered "Sabaeans," who are described as "men of stature" (i.e. tall), and were to come over to Cyrus in chains, and acknowledge that God was in him — their merchandise, and that of the Ethiopians, and the labor of Egypt, were to be his.



      Seam, Seamless Secure, Security

      Their country is regarded as being, most likely, the district of Saba, N, of Adulis, on the west coast

      of the Red Sea. There is just a possi- 2. Position bility that the Sabi River, stretching of the from the coast to the Zambesi and

      Nation the Limpopo, which was utilized as a

      waterway by the states in that region, though, through silting, not suitable now, may con- tain a trace of the name, and perhaps testifies to still more southern extensions of the power and influence of the Sebaim. (See Th. Bent, The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland, 1892.) The ruins of this tract are regarded as being the work of others than the black natives of the country. Dillmann, how- ever, suggests (on Gen 10 7) that the people of Seba were another branch of the Cushites E. of Napatha by the Arabian Sea, of which Strabo (xvi. 4, 8, 10) and Ptolemy (iv.7, 7 f ) give information. See Sheba and HDB, s.v. T. G. Pinches

      SEBAM, se'bam (Dsip , s'hham; 2€pa(i(i, Sebamd; AV Shebam): A town in the upland pasture land given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad. It is named along with Heshbon, Elealeh and Nebo (Nu 32 3). It is probably the same place as Sibmah (AV "Shibmah") in ver 38 (so also Josh 13 19). In the time of Isaiah and Jeremiah it was a Moabite town, but there is no record of how or when it was taken from Israel. It appears to have been famous for the luxuriance of its vines and for its summer fruits (Isa 16 8f; Jer 48 32). Oreoni calls it a city of Moab in the land of Gilead which tell to the tribe of Reuben. Jerome (Comm. in Isa 5) saj's it was about 500 paces from Heshbon, and he describes it as one of the strong places of that region. It may be represented by the modern Stmia, which stands on the south side of Wddy Hesbdn, about 2 miles from Hesbdn. The ancient ruins are considerable, with large sarcophagi; and in the neighboring rock wine presses are cut (PEFM, "Eastern Pal," 221 f). W. EwiNG

      SEBAT, se-bat', se'bat (Zee 1 7). See Shebat.

      SECACAH, sf-ka'ka, sek'a-ka (n33D , s'khdkhdh; B, Alxio^o, Aichiozd, A, Soxoxd, Sochochd): One of the six cities "in the wilderness of Judah" (Josh 15 61), that is in the uncultivated lands to the W. of the Dead Sea, where a scanty pasturage is still ob- tained by wandering Bedouin tribes. There are many signs in this district of more settled habitation in ancient times, but the name Secacah is lost. Conder proposed Kh. ed Dikkeh (also called Kh. es Sikkeh), "the ruin of the path," some 2 miles S. of Bethany. Though an ancient site, it is too near the inhabited area; the name, too, is uncertain {PEF, III, 111, ShXVII). E. W. G. Masterman

      SECHENIAS, sek-g-ni'as:

      (1) (A, Xexclas, Sechenias; omitted in B and Swete): 1 Esd 8 29="Shecaniah" in Ezr 8 3; the arrangement in Ezr is different.

      (2) (A, Sechenias, but B and Swete, Efcxo^fas, Eiechonias): Name of a person who went up at the head of a family in the return with Ezra (1 Esd 8 32) = "Shecaniah" in Ezr 8 5.

      SECHU, se'ku (^DiP , sekhU). See Secu.

      SECOND COMING, sek'und kum'ing. See Parousia; Eschatology of the NT, V.

      SECOND DEATH. See Death; Eschatology

      OF THE NT, X, (6).

      SECOND SABBATH. See Sabbath, Second.

      SECONDARILY, sek'un-da-ri-h; AV for Sei)- repov, deuleron (1 Cor 12 28). Probably without distinction from "secondly" (so RV, and so AV also for deuleron in Sir 23 23). Still AV may have wi.shed to emphasize that the prophets have a lower rank than the apostles.

      SECRET, se'kret: In Ezk 7 22, EV has "secret place" for 152, gaphan, "hide," "treasure." A correct tr is, "They shall profane my cherished place" (Jerus), and there is no reference to the Holy of Holies. The other of "secret" in RV are obvious, but RV's corrections of AV in Jgs 13 18; 1 S 5 9; Job 15 11 should be noted.

      SECT, sekt (al'peo-ig, hairesis): "Sect" (Lat secta, from sequi, "to follow") is in the NT the tr of hairesis, from haired, "to take," "to choose"; also tr"* "heresy," not heresy in the later ecclesiastical sense, but a school or party, a sect, without any bad meaning attached to it. The word is applied to schools of philosophy; to the Pharisees and Sad- ducees among the Jews who adhered to a common religious faith and worship; and to the Christians. It is tr"* "sect" (Acts 5 17, of the Sadducees; 15 5, of the Pharisees; 24 5, of the Nazarenes; 26 5, of the Pharisees; 28 22, of the Christians); also RV 24 14 (AV and ERVm "heresy"), "After the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers" (just as the Pharisees were "a sect"); it is tr

      SECU, se'ku ODtS , sekhu; B, Iv tu Se

      W. EwiNG

      SECUNDUS, sC-kun'dus (WH, 2^ko«v8os, Se- koundos, TR, SckoOvSos, Sekoundos) : A Thessa- lonian who was among who accompanied Paul from Greece to Asia (Acts 20 4). They had preceded Paul and waited for him at Troas. If he were one of the representatives of the churches in Macedonia and Greece, intrusted with their con- tributions to Jerus (Acts 24 17; 2 Cor 8 23), he probably accompanied Paul as far as Jerus. The name is found in a list of politarchs on a Thessa- lonian inscription.

      SECURE, ss-kur', SECURITY, s?-ku'ri-ti: The word bdtah and its derivatives in Heb point to se-

      Sedecias Sela



      cvirity, either real or imaginary. Thus we read of a host that "was secure" (Jgs 8 11) and of those "that provoke God [and] are secure" (Job 12 6); but also of a security that rests in hope and is safe (Job 11 IS). The iiT words Troiiuj aiMepljxmvs, poied amerltnnous, used in Mt 28 14 [AV "secure you"], guarantee the safety of the soldiers, who witnessed against themselves, in the telling of the story of the disappearance of the body of Christ.

      Securely is used in the sense of "trustful," "not anticipating danger" (Prov 3 29; Mic 2 8; Ecclus 4 15).

      The word lKav6v^ hihanon, tr* security (Acts 17 9), may stand either for a guaranty of good behavior exacted from, or for some form of punishment in- flicted on, Jason and his followers by the rulers of Thessalonica. Heney E. Dosker

      SEDECIAS, sed-5-si'as: AV = RV Sedekias (q.v.).

      SEDEKIAS, sed-e-ki'as:

      (1) (BA, ^eieKlas, Sedekias; AV Zedechias) : 1 Esd 1 46 (44)=Zedekiah kingof Judah; also in Bar 1 8 where AV reads "Sedecias."

      (2) In Bar 1 1 (AV "Sedecias"), an ancestor of Baruch, "the son of Asadias," sometimes (but in- correctly) identified with the false prophet "Zede- kiah the son of Maaseiah" (Jer 29 21).

      SEDITION, s5-dish'un: The tr in Ezr 4 15.19

      for "I'l'inipS , 'eshtaddur, "struggling," "revolt"; in 2 Esd 15 16 for inconslahilitio, "instabihty," with "be seditious" for o-rairicifu), stasidzo, "rise in rebellion" in 2 Mace 14 6. In addition, AV has "sedition" for o-Tcieris, stasis, "standing up," "re- volt" (RV "insurrection") in Lk 23 19.25; Acts 24 5, with Sixoaraa-ia, dichostasia, "a standing asunder" (RV ''division") in Gal 5 20. _ As "sedi- tion" does not include open violence against a gov- ernment, the word should not have been used in any of the above cases.

      SEDUCE, sS-dtls', SEDUCER, se-dus'er (Hiphil of nyu , ta'ah, or n7ri , la'ah, "to err"; of HrS , pdthah, "to be simple"; irXavdw, plandd, dn-oirXavdu, apoplando, "to lead astray") : (1) The word "seduce" is only used in the Bible in its general meaning of "to lead astray," "to cause to err," as from the paths of truth, duty or religion. It occurs in AV and RV Ezk 13 10; 2 K 21 9; 1 Tim 4 1; Rev 2 20; in AV only, Prov 12 26 (RV "causeth to err"); Isa 19 13 (RV "caused to go astray"); Mk 13 22; 1 Jn 2 26 (RV "lead astray"). The noun "seducer" (2 Tim 3 13 AV, yiv^, goes) is correctly changed in RV into "impostor." (2) It is not found in its specific sense of "to entice a female to surrender her chastity." Yet the crime itself is referred to and condemned.

      Three cases are to be distingui.shed : (a) The seduction of an imbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer ac- cording to JE (Ex 22 16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his "wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter tlie usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In tlie Deuteronomlc Code (Dt 22 2.S) the amount is flxed at 50 shel£els, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce, (b) The seduction of a betrothed virgin : This case (Dt 22 23-27; not referred to in the other codes) is treated as virtually one of adultery, tlie virgin being regarded as pledged to her future husband as fully as if she were formally married to him ; the penalty there- fore is the same as for adultery, viz. death for both parties (except in the case where the girl can reasonably be acquitted of blame, in which case the man only is put to death) . (c) The seduction of a betrothed bondmaid (men- tioned only in Lev 19 20-22) : Here there is no infliction of death, because the girl was not free; but the seducer shall make a trespass ofrering, besides paying the fine. See Crimes; Punishments.

      D. Miall Edwards

      SEE, se: In addition to the ordinary sense of perceiving by the eye, we have (1) nj^ , hazah, "to see" (in vision): "Words of Amos .... which he saw concerning Israel" (Am 1 1). The revelation was made to his inward eye. "The word of Jeh .... which he [Micah] saw concerning Samaria" (Mic 1 1), describing what he saw in prophetic vision (cf Hab 1 1); see Revelation, III, 4; (2) opdu, hordo, "to take heed": "See thou say noth- ing" (Mk 1 44); (3) ei5oi/, eldon, "to know," "to note with the mind": "Jesus saw that he answered discreetly" (Mk 12 34); (4) Bewp^a, theoreo, "to view," "to have knowledge or experience of": "He shall never see death" (Jn 8 51). M.O.Evans

      SEED, sed (OT always for yiT, zera\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Aram. [Dnl 2 43] ynr, z'ra\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ except in' Joel 1 17 for ninns, pTudhmh [pi. RV "seeds," AV "seed"], and Lev 19 19 [AV "mingled seed"] and Dt 22 9 [AV "divers seeds"] for CXbS , hiVayim, lit. "two kinds," RV "two kinds of seed." Invariably in Gr Apoc and usually in the NT for o-ir^ppia, sperma, but Mk 4 26.27; Lk 8 5.11; 2 Cor 9 10 for o-TTopos, spdros, and 1 Pet 1 23 for o-iropa, spord) : (1) For "seed" in its literal sense see Agriculture. Of interest is the method of measuring land by means of the amount of seed that could be sown on it (Lev 27 16). The prohibition against using two kinds of seed in the same field (Lev 19 19; Dt 22 9) undoubtedly rests on the fact that the practice had some connection with Canaanitish worship, making the whole crop "consecrated" {taboo). Jer 31 27 uses "seed of man" and "seed of beast" as a figure for the means by which God will increase the prosperity of Israel (i.e. "seed yielding men"). (2) For the transferred physio- logical apphcatiou of the word to human beings (Lev 15 16, etc) see Clean; Unclean. The con- ception of Christians as "born" or "begotten" of God (see Regeneration) gave rise to the figure in 1 Pet 1 23; 1 Jn 3 9. If the imagery is to be stressed, the Holy Spirit is meant. In

      1 Jn 3 9 a doctrine of certain Gnostics is opposed. They taught that by learning certain formulas and by submitting to certain rites, union with God and salvation could be attained without holi- ness of life. St. John's reply is that union with a righteous God is meaningless without righteous- ness as an ideal, even though shortcomings exist in practice (1 Jn 1 8). (3) From the physio- logical use of "seed" the transition to the sense of "offspring" was easy, and the word may mean "children" (Lev- 18 21, etc) or even a single child (Gen 4 25; 1 S 1 11 RVm). Usually, however, it means the whole posterity (Gen 3 15, etc); ef "seed royal" (2 K 11 1, etc), and "Abraham's seed" (2 Ch 20 7, etc) or "the holy seed" (Ezr 9 2; Isa 6 13; 1 Esd 8 70; cf Jer 2 21) as desig- nations of Israel. So "to show one's seed" (Ezr

      2 59: Neh 7 61) is to display one's genealogy, and ''one's seed" may be simply one's nation, con- ceived of as a single family (Est 10 3). From this general sense there developed a stiU looser use of "seed" as meaning simply "men" (Mai 2 15; Isa 1 4; 57 4; Wisd 10 15; 12 11, etc).

      In Gal 3 16 St. Paul draws a distinction between "seeds" and "seed" that has for its purpose a proof that the promises to Abraham were realized in Christ and not in Israel. The distinction, how- ever, overstresses the language of the OT, which never pluralizes zera^ when meaning "descend- ants" (pi. only in 1 S 8 15; cf Rom 4 18; 9 7). But in an argument against rabbinical adversaries St. Paul was obliged to use rabbinical methods (cf Gal 4 25). For modern purposes it is probably best to treat such an exegetical method as belong-



      Sedecias Sela

      ing simply to the (now superseded) science of the times. Burton Scott Easton

      SEER, se'er, ser: The word in EV represents two Heb words, HSh, ro'eh (1 S 9; 2 S 15 27; 1 Ch 9 22, etc), and nth, hozeh (2 S 24 11; 2 K 17 13; 1 Ch 21 9; 25'5; 29 29, etc). The former designation is from the ordinary vb. "to see"; the latter is connected with the vb. used of pro- phetic vision. It appears from 1 S 9 9 that "seer" (ro'eh) was the older name for those who, after the rise of the more regular orders, were called "prophets." It is not just, however, to speak of the "seers" or "prophets" of Samuel's time as on the level of mere fortune-tellers. What insight _ or vision they possessed is traced to God's Spirit. Samuel was the ro'eh by preeminence, and the name is little used after his time. Individuals who bear the title "seer" Qiozeh) are mentioned in connection with the kings and as historiographers (2 S 24 1 1 ; 1 Ch 21 9; 25 5; 29 29; 2 Ch 9 29; 12 15; 19 2, etc), and distinction is sometimes made be- tween "prophets" and "seers" (2 K 17 13; 1 Ch 29 29, etc). Havernick thinks that "seer" denotes one who does not belong to the regular prophetic order (Intro to OT, 50 ff, ET), but it is not easy to fix a precise distinction. See Prophet, Prophecy.

      James Orr

      SEETHE, seth; Old Eng. for "boil"; past tense, "sod" (Gen 25 29), past participle, "sodden" (Lam 4 10). See Ex 23 19 AV.

      SEGUB, se'gub (a^Si?, s'ghuhh [K're], niJTP , s'ghlbh [KHhibh]; B, Ze-yovP, Zegoub, A, Se-yoip, Segoub) :

      (1) The youngest son of Hiel, the rebuilder of Jericho (1 K 16 34). The death of Segub is probably connected with the primitive custom of laying foundations with blood, as, indeed, skulls were found built in with the brickwork when the tower of Bel at Nippur was excavated. See Gezer. If the death of the two sons was based on the custom just mentioned, the circumstance was deliberately obscured in the present account. The death of Segub may have been due to an accident in the setting up of the gates. In any event, tradition finally yoked the death of Hiel's oldest and youngest sons with a curse said to have been pronounced by Joshua on the man that should venture to rebuild Jericho (Josh 6 26).

      (2) Son of Hezron and father of Jair (1 Ch 2 21).

      Horace J. Wolf SEIR, se'ir:

      (1) ("liytJ in, har seHr, "Mt. Sen-" [Gen 14 6, etc], TW "flS, 'eres se'lr [Gen 32 3, etc]; ri Spos "Zvelp, id 6ros s'eeir, yv ^v^^P, gi Seelr) : In Gen 32 3 "the land of Seir" is equated with "the field of Edom." The Mount and the Land of Seir are alternative appellations of the mountainous tract which runs along the eastern side of the Arabah, occupied by the descendants of Esau, who suc- ceeded the ancient Horites (Gen 14 6; 36 20), "cave-dwellers," in possession. For a description of the land see Edom.

      (2) (1"'yi9 in, har se'ir; B, 'Airirdp, Assdr, A, S-nelp, Seeir): A landmark on the boundary of Judah (Josh 15 10), not far from Kiriath-jearim and Chesalon. The name means shaggy, and probably here denoted a wooded height. It may be that part of the range which runs N.E. from Saris by Karyat el-'Anab and Biddu to the plateau of el-Jib. traces of an ancient forest are still to be seen here.

      W. EwiNG SEIRAH, s5-I'ra, se'i-ra (n'l"'??ton , ha-s'Hrah; B, 2eT€ipio9d, Seteirothd, A, Sccipweo, Seeirdtha; AV

      Seirath): The place to which Ehud escaped after his assassination of Eglon, king of Moab (Jgs 3 26). The name is from the same root as the foregoing, and probably applied to some shaggy forest. The quarries by which he passed are said to have been by Gilgal (ver 19), but there is nothing to guide us to an identification. Onom gives the name, but no indication of the site.

      SEIRATH, sS-i'rath, se'i-rath. See Seirah.

      SELA, se'la (7bD , sela\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ rbon , ha-sela' [with the art.]; ii-^Tpa, petra, tj ir^rpa, he petra; AV Selah [2 K 14 7]) : EV renders this as the name of a city in 2 K 14 7; Isa 16 1. In Jgs 1 36; 2 Ch 25 12; and Ob ver 3, it translates lit. "rock"; but RVm in each case "Sela." It is impossible to assume with Hull (HDB, s.v.) that this name, when it appears in Scripture, always refers to the capital of Edom, the great city in TFddj/Afusa. In Jgs 1 36 its association with the Ascent of Akrabbim shuts us up to a position toward the southwestern end of the Dead Sea. Probably in that case it does not denote a city, but some prominent crag. Moore ("Judges," ICC, 56), following Buhl, would identify it with e^-Safieh, "a bare and dazzlingly white sandstone promontory 1,000 ft. high, E. of the mud flats of es-Sebkah, and 2 miles S. of the Dead Sea." _ A more probable identification is a high cliff which com- mands the road leading from Wddy el-Milh, "valley of Salt," to Edom, over the pass of Akrabbim. This was a position of strategic importance, and if forti- fied would be of great strength. (In this passage "Edomites" must be read for "Amorites.'') The victory of Amaziah was won in the Valley of Salt. He would naturally turn his arms at once against this stronghold (2 K 14 7) ; and it may well be the rock from the top of which he hurled his prisoners (2 Ch 25 12). He called it Jokteel, a name the meaning of which is obscure. Possibly it is the same as Jekuthiel (1 Ch 4 18), and may mean "preservation of God" {OHL, s.v.). No traceof this name has been found. The narratives in which the place is mentioned put identification with Petra out of the question.

      "The rock" (RVm "Sela") in Ob ver .3. in the phrase "thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock," is only a vivid and picturesque description of Mt. Edom. "The purple mountains into which the wild sons of Esau clambered run out from Syria upon the desert, some hundred miles by twenty, of porphyry and red sandstone. They are said to be the finest rock scenery in the world. 'Salvator Rosa never conceived so savage and so suit- able a haunt for banditti . ' .... The interior is reached by defiles so narrow that two horsemen may scarcely ride abreast, and the sun is shut out by the overhanging

      rocks Little else than wild fowls' nests are the

      villages: human eyries perched on high shelves or hidden away in caves at the ends of the deep gorges" (G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, 11, 178 f).

      In Isa 16 1; 42 11 RV, perhaps we have a reference to the great city of Petra. Jos {Ant, IV, vii, 1) tells us that among the kings of the Midianites who fell before Moses was one Rekem, king of Rekem {akre, or rekeme), the city deriving its name from its founder. This he says was the Arab, name; the Greeks called it Petra. Onom says Petra is a city of Arabia in the land of Edom. It is called Jechthoel; but the Syrians call it Rekem. Jokteel, as we have seen, must be sought elsewhere.^ There can be no doubt that Jos intended the city in Wddy Musa. Its OT name was Bozrah (Am 1 12, etc). Wetzstein {Excursus in Delitzsch's Isa', 696 ff) hazards the conjecture that the complete ancient name was Bozrat has-Sela, "Bozrah of the Rook." This "rose-red city half as old as Time"

      was for long difficult of access, and the attempt to visit it was fraught with danger. In recent years, however, it has been seen by many tourists and

      Sela Self-Surrender



      exploring parties. Of the descriptions written the best is undoubtedly that of Professor Daknan of Jerus [Petra mid seine Felsheiligtumer, Leipzig, 1908). An excellent account of this wonderful city, brightly and interestingly written, will be found in Libbey and Hoskins' book (The Jordan Valley and Petra, New York and London, 1905; see also Na- tional Geographic Magazine, May, 1907, Washington, D.C.). The ruins lie along the sides of a spacious hollow siu-rounded by the many-hued cliffs of Edom, just before they sink into the Arabah on the W. It is near the base of Jebel HarUn, about 50 miles

      Entrance to the Sllc.

      from the Dead Sea, and just N. of the watershed between that sea and the Gulf of Alvaba. The valley owes its modern name, Wady Milsa, "Valley of IMoses," to its connection with Moses in Moham- medan legends. While not wholly inaccessible from other directions, the two usual approaches are that from the S.W. by a rough path, partly artificial, and that from the E. The latter is by far the more important. The valley closes to the E., the only opening being through a deep and narrow defile, called the Sik, "shaft," about a mile in length. In the bottom of the SJk flows westward the stream that rises at 'Ain Mfisa. E. of the cleft is the village of Elji, an ancient site, corre- sponding to Gaia of Onom. Passing this village, the road tlireads its way along the shadowy wind- ing gorge, overhung by lofty cliffs. When the valley is reached, a sight of extraordinary beauty

      and impressiveness opens to the beholder. The temples, the tombs, the theater, etc, hewn with great skill and infinite pains from the living rock, have defied to an astonishing degree the tooth of time, many of the carvings being as fresh as if they had been cut yesterday. An idea of the scale on which the work was done may be gathered from the size of the theater, which furnished accommodation for no fewer than 3,000 spectators.

      Such a position could not have been overlooked in ancient times; and we are safe to assume that a city of importance must always have existed here. It is under the Nabataeans, however, that Petra begins to play a prominent part in history. This people took possession about the end of the 4th cent. BC, and continued their sway until overcome by Hadrian, who gave his own name to the city — Hadriana. This name, however, soon disappeared. Under the Romans Petra saw the days of her greatest splendor.

      According to old tradition St. Paul visited Petra when he went into Arabia (Gal 1 17). Of this there is no certainty; but Christianity was early intro- duced, and the city became the seat of a bishopric. Under the Nabataeans she was the center of the great caravan trade of that time. The merchandise of the East was brought hither; and hence set out the caravans for the South, the West, and the North. The great highway across the desert to the Pers Gulf was practically in her hands. The fall of the Nabataean power gave Palmyra her chance; and her supremacy in the commerce of Northern Arabia dates from that time. Petra shared in the declining fortunes of Rome; and her death blow was dealt by the conquering Moslems, who desolated Arabia Petraea in 629-32 AD. The place now furnishes a retreat for a few poor Bedawy families. W. Ewinq

      SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH, se-la-ha-male-koth, -koth (nipbrrsn rbo , sela^ ha-mahl''koth; -rrirpa r\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (iepio-Oeio-a, petra he meristheisa) : "The rock of divisions (or, escape)" (1 S 23 28m). "Saul .... pursued after David in the wilderness of Maon. And Saul went on this side of the mountain, and David and his men on that side of the mountain: and David made haste to get away for fear of Saul" (1 S 23 25.26). The name seems to survive in Wddy Malaki, "the great gorge which breaks down between Carmel and Maon eastward, with vertical chffs" {PEF, III, 314, Sh XXI).

      SELAH, sela. See Music, II, 1.

      SELED, se'led (nbo , ijeledh) : A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2 30 6is).

      SELEMIA, sel-5-mI'a: One of the swift scribes whose services Ezra was commanded to secure (2 Esd 14 24). The name is probably identical with Sblemias of 1 Esd 9 34 (q.v.).

      SELEMIAS, seI-5-mi'as (2e\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\e(j.£as, Selemias) : One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esd 9 34) = "Shelemiah" in Ezr 10 39, and probably identical with "Selemia" in 2 Esd 14 24.

      SELEUCIA, sS-lu'slii-a (StXeuKta, Seleukia): The seaport of Antioch from which it is 16 miles distant. It is situated 5 miles N. of the mouth of the Orontes, in the northwestern comer of a fruit- ful plain at the base of Mt. Rhosus or Pieria, the modern Jebel MUsa, a spur of the Amanus Range. Built by Seleucus Nicator (d. 280 BC) it was one of the Syrian Tetrapolis, the others being Apameia, Laodicea and Antioch. The city was protected










      Sela Self-Surrender

      by nature on the mountain side, and, being strongly fortified on the S. and W., was considered invulner- able and the key to Syria (Strabo 751; Polyb. v.58). It was taken, however, by Ptolemy Euergetea (1 Mace 11 8) and remained in his family till 219 BC, when it was recovered for the Seleucids by Antiochus the Great, who then richly adorned it. Captured again by Ptolemy Philometor in 146 BC, it remained for a short time in the hands of the Egyptians. Pompey made it a free city in 64 BC in return for its energy in resisting Tigranes (Pliny, NH, V.18), and it was then greatly improved by the Romans, so that in the 1st cent. AD it was in a most flourishing condition.

      On their first missionary journey Paul and Barna- bas passed through it (Acts 13 4; 14 26), and though it is not named in Acts 15 30.39, this route is again impUed; while it is excluded in Acts 15 3.

      The ruins are very extensive and cover the whole space within the line of the old walls, which shows a circuit of four miles. The position of the Old Town, the Upper City and the suburbs may still be identified, as also that of the Antioeh Gate, the Market Gate and the King's Gate, which last leads to the Upper City. There are rock-cut tombs, broken statuary and sarcophagi at the base of the Upper City, a position which probably repre- sents the burial place of the Seleucids. The outline of a circus or amphitheater can also be traced, while the inner harbor is in perfect condition and full of water. It is 2,000 ft. long by 1,200 ft. broad, and covers 47 acres, being oval or pear-shaped. The passage seaward, now silted up, was protected by two strong piers or moles, which are locally named after Barnabas and Paul. The most re- markable of the remains, however, is the great water canal behind the city, which the emperor Con- stantius cut through the solid rock in 338 AD. It is 3,074 ft. long, has an average breadth of 20 ft., and is in some places 120 ft. deep. Two portions of 102 and 293 ft. in length are tunneled. The object of the work was clearly to carry the mountain tor- rent direct to the sea, and so protect the city from the risk of flood during the wet season.

      Church synods occasionally met in Seleucia in the early centuries, but it gradually sank into decay, and long before the advent of Islam it had lost all its significance. W. M. Christie

      SELEUCIDAE, se-lu'si-de. See Sbleucus.

      SELEUCtrS, sS-lu'kus (2A.evKos, Seleukos) :

      (1) Seleucus I (Nicator, "The Conqueror"), the founder of the Seleucidae or House of Seleucus, was an officer in the grand and thoroughly equipped army, which was perhaps the most important part of the inheritance that came to Alexander the Great from his father, Phihp of Macedon. He took part in Alexander's Asiatic conquests, and on the division of these on Alexander's death he obtained the satrapy of Babylonia. By later conquests and un- der the name of king, which he assumed in the year 306, he became ruler of Syria and the greater part of Asia Minor. His rule extended from 312 to 280 BC, the year of his death; at least the Seleucid era which seems to be referred to in 1 Mace 1 16 is reckoned from Seleucus I, 312 BC to 6.5 BC, when Pompey reduced the kingdom of Syria to a Rom province. He followed generally the policy of Alexander in spreading Gr civilization. He founded Antioeh and its port Seleucia, and is said by Jos {Ant, XII, iii, 1) to have conferred civic privileges upon the Jews. The reference m Dnl 11 5 is usually understood to be to this ruler.

      (2) Seleucus II (Calhnicus, "The Gloriously Triumphant"), who reigned from 246 to 226 BC,

      was the son of Antiochus Soter and is "the king of the north" in Dnl 11 7-9, who was expelled from his kingdom by Ptolemy Euergetes.

      (3) Seleucus III (Ceraunus, "Thunderbolt"), son of Seleucus II, was assassinated in a campaign which he undertook into Asia Minor. He had a short reign of rather more than 2 years (226-223 BC) and is referred to in Dnl 11 10.

      (4) Seleucus IV (Philopator, "Fond of his Father") was the son and successor of Antiochus the Great and reigned from 187 to 175 BC. He is called "King of Asia" (2 Mace 3 3), a title claimed by the Seleucidae even after their serious losses in Asia Minor ('see 1 Mace 8 6; 11 13; 12 39; 13 32). He was present at the decisive battle of Magnesia (190 BC). He was murdered by Heliodobus (q.v.), one of his own courtiers whom he had sent to plunder the Temple (2 Mace 3 1-40; Dnl 11 20).

      For the connection of the above-named Seleucidae with the "ten horns" of Dnl 7 24, the commentators must be consulted.

      Seleucus V (12.5-124 BC) and Seleucus VI (95-93 BC) have no connection with the sacred narrative. J. Hutchison

      SELF-CONTROL, self-kon-trol' (IvKpdTcta, egkrd- teia): Rendered in AV "temperance" (cf Lat temperatio and conlinentia), but more accurately "self-control," as in RV (Acts 24 25; Gal 5 23; 2 Pet 1 6); adj. of same, iyKparris, egkraies, "self -con trolled" (Tit 1 8 RV); cf vb. forms in 1 Cor 7 9, "have .... continency" ; 9 25, the athlete "exerciseth self-control." Self-control is therefore repeatedly set forth in the NT as among the important Christian virtues.

      SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS, self-ri'chus-nes: A term that has come to designate moral living as a way of salvation; or as a ground for neglecting the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The thought is present in the teaching of Jesus, who spoke one parable particularly to such as reckoned themselves to be righteous (Lk 18 9 ff ) . The Pharisees quite generally resented the idea of Jesus that all men needed repentance and they most of all. They regarded themselves as righteous and looked with contempt on "sinners." Paul in all his writings, esp. Rom 3; Gal 3; Eph 2; Phil 3, contrasts the righteousness that is God's gift to men of faith in Jesus Christ, with righteousness that is "of the law" and "in the flesh." By this latter he means formal conformity to legal requirements in the strength of unregenerate human nature. He is careful to maintain (cf Rom 7) that the Law is never reaUy kept by one' s own power. On the other hand, in full agreement with Jesus, Paul looks to genuine righteousness in Hving as the demand and achievement of salvation based on faith. God's gift here consists in the capacity progressively to realize righteousness in hfe (cf Rom 8 1 ff). See also Sanctification. William Owen Carver

      SELF-SURRE NDER, self-su-ren 'der : The strug- gle between the natural human impulses of self- seeking, self-defence and the like, on the one hand, and the more altruistic impulse toward self- denial, self-surrender, on the other, is as old as the race. All religions imply some conception of surrender of self to deity, ranging in ethical quality from a heathen fanaticism which impels to complete physical exhaustion or rapture, superinduced by more or less mechanical means, to the high spiritual quality of self-sacrifice to the divinest aims and achievements. The Scriptures represent self-sur- render as among the noblest of human virtues.

      Self-Surrender Semites



      /. In the OT. — In the OT self-surrender is taught

      in the early account ot the first pair. Each was to

      be given to the other (Gen 2 24; 3 16i)

      1. nius- and both were to be surrendered to trious Ex- God in perfect obedience (3 1-15). amples The faithful ones, throughout the

      Bible narratives, were characterized by self-surrender. Abraham abandons friends and native country to go to a land unknown to him, because God called him to do so (12 1). He would give up all his cherished hopes in his only son Isaac, at the voice of God (22 1-18). Moses, at the caU of Jeh, surrenders self, and undertakes the deliverance of his fellow-Hebrews (Ex 3 1 — 4 13; cf He 11 25). He would be blotted out of God's book, if only the people might be spared destruction (Ex 32 32).

      The whole Levitical system of sacrifice may be said to imply the doctrine of self-surrender. The

      nation itself was a people set apart to

      2. The Jeh, a holy people, a surrendered Levitical nation (Ex 19 5.6; 22 31; Lev 20 7; System Dt 7 6; 14 2). The whole burnt

      offering implied the complete surrender of the worshipper to God (Lev 1). The ceremony for the consecration of priests emphasized the same fundamental doctrine (Lev 8) ; so also the law as to the surrender of the firstborn child (Ex 13 13 ff ; 22 29).

      In the Divine call to the prophets and in their life-work self-surrender is prominent. The seer, as

      such, must be receptive to the Divine

      3. The impress, and as mouthpiece of God, Prophets he must speak not his own words, but

      God's: "Thus saith the Lord." He was to be a "man of God," a "man of the spirit." 'The hand of the Lord was upon me' (Ezk 13; 3 14) imphes complete Divine mastery. Isaiah must submit to the Divine purification of his lips, and hearken to the inquiry, "Who will go for us?" with the surrendered response, "Here am I; send me" (Isa 6 8). Jeremiah must yield his protestations of weakness and inabilitj' to the Divine wisdom and the promise of endowment from above (Jer 1 1-10). Ezekiel surrenders to the dangerous and difficult task of becoming messenger to a rebellious house (Ezk 2 1—3 3). Jonah, after flight from duty, at last surrenders to the Divine will and goes to the Ninevites (Jon 3 3).

      On the return of the faithful remnant from cap- tivity, self-giving for the sake of Israel's faith was

      dominant, the people enduring great

      4. Post- hardshiyjs for the future of the nation exilic Ex- and the accomplishment of Jeh's amples purposes. This is the spirit of the

      great Messianic passage, Lsa 53 7: "He was oppressed, j'et when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." Nchemiah surrendered position in Shushan to help reestablish the returned exiles in Jerus (Neh 2 5). Esther was ready to surrender her life in pleading for the safety of her people (Est 4 16).

      //. In the NT. — In the NT self-surrender is still more clearly set forth. Christ's teachings and ex- ample as presented in the Gospels, give 1. Christ's to it special emphasis. It is a prime Teaching requisite for becoming His disciple and Ex- (Mt 10 38 1; 16 24; Lk 9 23.24.

      ample 59 f; 14 27.33; cf Mt 19 27; Mk 8

      34). When certain of the disciples were called they left all and foUowcd (Mt 4 20; 9 9; Mk 2 14; Lk 5 27 f). His followers must so completely surrender self, as that father, mother, kindred, and one's own life must be, as it were, hated for His sake (Lk 14 26). The rich young

      ruler must renounce self as an end and give his own life to the service of men (Mt 19 21; Mk 10 21; cf Lk 12 33). But this surrender of seK was never a loss of personality; it was the finding of the true self- hood (Mk 8 35; Mt 10 39). Our Lord not only taught self-surrender, but practised it. As a child, He subjected Himself to His parents (Lk 2 51). Self-surrender marked His baptism and temptation (Mt 3 15; 4 Iff). It is shown in His life of physical privation (8 20). He had come not to do His own will, but the Father's (Jn 4 34; 5 30; 6 38) . He refuses to use force for His own deliver- ance (Mt 26 53; Jn 18 11). In His person God's will, not His own, must be done (Mt 26 29; Lk 22 42) ; and to the Father He at last surrendered His spirit (Lk 23 46). So that while He was no ascetic, and did not demand asceticism of His followers, He "emptied himself .... becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Phil 2 7 f ; see Kenosis) .

      The early disciples practised the virtue of self- surrender. Counting none of their possessions their own, they gave to the good of all (Acts

      2. Acts of 2 44.45; 4 34.35.37). Stephen and Apostles others threw themselves into their

      witnessing with the perfect abandon of the martyr; and Stephen's successor, Paul, counted not his life dear unto himself that he might finish the Divinely appointed course (20 22-24).

      The Epp. are permeated with the doctrine of self-surrender. The Pauline Epp. are particularly

      full of it. The Christian life is con-

      3. Epistles ceived of as a dying to self and to the of Paul world — a dj'ing with Christ, a cruci- fixion of the old man, that a new man

      may live (Gal 2 20; 6 14; Col 2 20; 3 3; Rom 6 6), so that no longer the man lives but Christ lives in him (Gal 2 20; Phil 1 21). The Christian is no longer his own but Christ's (1 Cor 6 19.20). He is to be a hving sacrifice (Rom 12 1); to die daily (1 Cor 15 31). As a corollary to surrender to God, the Christian must surrender himself to the welfare of his neighbor, just as Christ pleased not Himself (Rom 15 3); also to leaders (1 Cor 16 16), and to earthly rulers (Rom 13 1).

      In the Epp. of Peter self-surrender is taught

      more than once. Those who were once like sheep

      astray now submit to the guidance of

      4. Epistles the Shepherd of souls (1 Pet 2 25). of Peter The Christian is to humble himself

      under the mighty hand of God (5 6); the younger to be subject to the elder (5 5); and all to civil ordinances for the Lord's sake (2 13).

      So also in other Epp. The Christian is to subject himself to God (Jas 4 7; He 12 9).

      Edward Bagby Pollard

      SELF-WILL, self-wQ' C\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^2-\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, ragon; avBaSiis, authddcs): Found once in the OT (Gen 49 6, "In their self-will they hocked an ox") in the death song of Jacob (see Hock). The idea is found twice in the NT in the sense of "pleasing oneself": "not self-wflled, not soon angry" (Tit 1 7); and "daring, self-willed, they tremble not to rail at dignities" (2 Pet 2 10). In all these texts it stands for a false pride, for obstinacy, for "a pertinacious ad- herence to one's will or wish, esp. in opposition to the dictates of wisdom or propriety or the wishes of others." Henry E. Dosker

      SELL, SELLER, sel'er. See Trade; Lydia.

      SELVEDGE, sel'vej (HSf; , kagah) : The word occurs only in the description of the tabernacle (Ex 26 4; 36 11). It has reference to the ten curtains which overhung the boards of the sanctuary. Five of these formed one set and five another.



      Self-Surrender Semites

      These were "coupled" at the center by 50 loops of blue connected by "clasps" (q.v.) with 50 others on the opposite side. The "selvedge" (self-edge) is the extremity of the curtain in which the loops were.

      SEM, sem (Stuj., Stm) : AV from the Gr form of Shem; thus RV (Lk 3 36).

      SEMACHIAH, sem-a-kl'a (in^DUD , fmakhyahu, "Jeh has sustained"): A Korahite family of gale- keepers (1 Ch 26 7). Perhaps the same name should be substituted for "Ismachiah" in 2 Ch 31 13 (see UPN, 291, 295).

      SEMEI, sem'G-I:

      (1) (A, Se^e(, Semei, B, Se/ieel, Seineel) : One of those who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esd 9 33) = "Shimei" "of thesonsof Hashum" in Ezr 10 33.

      (2) AV = RV "Semeias" (Ad Est 11 2).

      (3) AV form of RV "Semein" (Lk 3 26).

      SEMEIAS, se-mf'-i'as (X A, 2e|j.«Cas, Semeiaa; B, SefieeCas, jS'emeefas; AV Semei): An ancestor of Mordecai (Ad Est 11 2) = "Shimei" (Est 2 5).

      SEMEIN, se-me'in (N B, 2e(iee£v, Semeein, A, 2e|i£€t, iSemeei, TR, 2«|j.e£, Semet; AV Semei): An ancestor of Jesus in Lk's genealogy (Lk 3 26).

      SEMEIS, sem'g-is (A and Fritzsche, Sejiels, Semein; B, Sevo-tts, SenseU; AV Semis): One of the Levites who put away their "strange wives" (1 Esd 9 23) = "Shimei" in Ezr 10 23.

      SEMELLIUS, so-mel'i-us: AV = RV Samellius (q.v.).

      SEMIS, se'mis: AV = RV Sembis (q.v.).

      SEMITES, sem'its, SEMITIC, sem-it'ik, RELIGION:

      1. Biblical Reference.s

      2. The Five Sons of .Shem

      3. Original Home of the Semites

      4. Confusion with Other Races

      5. Reliability of Gen 10

      6. Semitic Languages

      7. Semitic Religion

      (1) Its Peculiar Theism

      (2) Personality of God

      (3) Its View of Nature

      (4) The Moral Being of God


      The words "Semites," "Semitic," do not occur in the Bible, but are derived from the name of Noah's oldest son, Shem (Gen 5 32; 6 10; 1. Biblical 9 18.23 ff; 10 1.21 f; lllOf; 1 Ch References 1). Formerly the designation was limited to those who are mentioned in Gen 10, 11 as Shem's descendants, most of whom can be traced historically and geographically; but more recently the title has been expanded to apply to others who are not specified in the Bible as Semites, and indeed are plainly called Hamitic, e.g. the Babylonians (Gen 10 10) and the Phoeni- cians and Canaanitcs (vs 15-19). The grounds for the inclusion of these Bib. Haraites among the Senl+tes are chiefly linguistic, although political, cbftfmercial and religious affinities arc also con- sftfered. History and the study of comparative ptiilology, however, suggest the inadequacy of a

      Jjnguistio argument.

      ' The sons of Shem are given as Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram (Gen 10 22). AU except the third have been readily identified, Elam as the historic narion in the highlands E. of the Tigris, between Media and Persia; Asshur as the Assyrians; Lud as the Lydians of Asia Minor; and Aram as the Syrians both E. and W. of the

      Euphrates. The greatest uncertainty is in the

      identification of Arpachshad, the most prolific

      ancestor of the Semites, esp. of those

      2. The of Bib. and more recent importance. Five Sons From him descended the Hebrews and of Shem the Arab tribes, probably also some

      East African colonies (Gen 10 24- 30; 11 12-26). The form of his name (nTPPEnS , ' arpakhshadh) has given endless trouble to ethnog- raphers. McCurdy divides into two words, Arpach or Arpath, unidentified, and kesedh, the sing, of kasdim, i.e. the Chaldaeans; Schrader also holds to the Chaldaean interpretation, and the Chaldaeans themselves traced their descent from Arpachshad (Jos, Ant, I, vi, 4); it has been suggested also to interpret as the "border of the Chaldaeans" (BDB; Dillmann, in loc). But the historic, ordinary and most satisfactory identification is with Arrapachilis, N.E. of Assyria at the headwaters of the Upper Zab in the Armenian highlands (so Ptolemy, classical geographers, Gesenius, Delitzsch). Delitzsch calls attention to the Armenian termination shadh (Comm. on Gen, in loc).

      If we accept, then, this identification of Arpach- shad as the most northeasterly of the five Sem famihes (Gen 10 22), we are still

      3. Original faced by the problem of the primitive Home of home and racial origin of the Semites. the Semites Various theories of course have been

      proposed; fancy and surmise have ranged from Africa to Central Asia. (1) The most common, almost generally accepted, theory places their beginnings in Arabia because of the conserva- tive and primitive Semitic of the Arabic language, the desert characteristics of the various branches of the race, and the historic movements of Sem tribes northward and westward from Arabia. But this theory does not account for some of the most significant facts: e.g. that the Sem developments of Arabia are the last, not the first, in time, as must have been the case if Arabia was the cradle of the race. This theory does not explain the Sem origin of the Elamites, except by denial; much less does it account for the location of Arpach- shad still farther north. It is not difficult to understand a racial movement from the moun- tains of the N.E. into the lowlands of the South and West. But how primitive Arabs could have mi- grated uphill, as it were, to settle in the Median and Armenian hills is a much more difficult proposition. (2) We must return to the historic and the more nat- ural location of the ancient Sem home on the hillsides and in the fertile valleys of Armenia. Thence the eldest branch migrated in prehistoric times south- ward to become historic Elam; Lud moved west- ward into Asia Minor; Asshur found his way down the Tigris to become the sturdy pastoral people of the midfUe Mesopotamian plateau until the invasion of the Bab colonists and civilization; Aram found a home in Upper Mesopotamia; while Arpachshad, remaining longer in the original home, gave his name to at least a part of it. There in the fertile valleys among the high hills the ancient Semites developed their distinctively tribal life, emphasizing the beauty and close relationship of Nature, the sacredncss of the family, the moral obligation, and faith in a personal God of whom they thought as a member of the tribe or friend of the family. The confinement of the mountain valleys is just as adequate an explanation of the Sem traits as the isolation of the oasis. So from the purer life of their highland home, where had been developed the dis- tinctive and virile elements which were to impress the Sem faith on the history of mankind, increasing multitudes of Semites poured over the mountain barriers into the broader levels of the plains. As

      Semites Senate, Senator



      their own mountain springs and torrents sought a way to the sea down the Tigris and Euphrates beds, so the Sem tribes followed the same natural ways into their future homes: Elam, Babylonia, AssjTia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Pal. Those who settled Arabia sent further migrations into Africa, as well as rebounding into the desert west of the Euphrates, Syria and Pal. Thus Western Asia became the arena of Sem life, whose influences also reached Egypt and, through Phoenicia, the far-away West- Mediterranean.

      While we may properly call Western and South- western Asia the home of the Sem peoples, there still remains the difficult j' of separating

      4. Confu- them definitely from the other races sion with among whom they lived. The historic Other Babylonians, e.g., were Sem; yet Races they dispossessed an earlier non-Sem

      people, and were themselves frequently invaded by other races, such as the Hittites, and even the Egyptians. It is not certain therefore which gods, customs, laws, etc, of the Babylonians were Sem, and not adopted from those whom they superseded.

      AssjTia was racially purely Sem, but her laws, customs, literature, and many of licr gods were acquired from Babylonia: to such an extent was this true that we are indebted to the library of the Assyr Asshurbanipal for much that we know of Bab religion, literature and his- tory. In Syria also the same mixed conditions prevailed, for'through Syria by the fords of the Euphrates lay the highway of tlie nations, and Hittite and INIitannian at times shared the land with her, and left their influence. Possibly in Arabia Sem blood ran purest, but even in Arabia there were tribes from other races; and the table of the nations in Gen divides that land among the descendants of both Ham and Shem (see Table of Nations). Last of all, in Pal, from the very beginning of its historic period, we find an intermingling and con- fusion of races and rehgions such as no otlier Sem center presents. A Hamitic people gave one of its common names to the country — Canaan, wliile the pagan and late-coming Philistine gave the most used name — Pales- tine. The archaic remains of Horite, Avite and Hivite are being uncovered by exploration; these races sur- vived in places, no doubt, long after the Sem invasion, contributing their quota to the customs and religious practices of the land. The Hittite also was in the land, holding outposts from his northern empire, even in the extreme south of Pal. If the blue eyes and fair complex- ions of the Amorites pictured on Egyp monuments are true representations, we may believe that the gigantic Aryans of the North had their portion also in Pal.

      It is customary now in Bib. ethnology to dis- regard the classification of Gen 10, and to group all the nations of Pal as Sem, esp.

      5. Reliabil- the Canaanite and the Phoenician ity of along with the Hebrew. McCurdy Gen 10 in the Standard BD treats the vari- ous gods and religious customs of Pal

      as though they were all Sem, although uniformly these are represented in the OT as perversions and enormities of alien races which the Hebrews were commanded to extirpate. The adoption of them would be, and was, inimical to their own ancestral faith. Because the Hebrews took over eventually the language of the Phoenician, appro- priated his art and conveniences, did traffic in his ships, and in Ahab's reign adopted his Baal and Astarte, we are not warranted at all in rushing to the conclusion that the Phoenicians represented a primitive Sem type. Racial identification by linguistic argument is always precarious, as history clearly shows. One might as well say that Latin and the gospel were Saxon. There are indications that the customs and even the early language of the Hebrews were different from those of the people whom they subdued and dispossessed. Such is the consistent tradition of their race, the Bible alwaj'S emphasizing the irreconcilable difference between their ancestral faith and the practices of the people of Canaan. We may conclude that the reasons for disregarding the classification of Gen with reference

      to the Semites and neighboring races are not final. Out from that fruitful womb of nations, the Cau- casus, the Semites, one branch of the Caucasian peoples, went southwestward — as their cousins the Hamites went earlier toward the South and as their younger relatives, the Arj-ans, were to go northward and westward — with marked racial traits and a pronounced religious development, to play a leading part in the life of man.

      The phrase Sem Languages is used of a group of languages which have marked features in common, which

      also set them off from other languages. fi Semitic But we must avoid the unnecessary D. ociiuui- inference that nations using the same or Languages kindred languages are of the same ancestry.

      There are other explanations of linguistic affinity than racial, as the Indians of Mexico may speak Spanish, and the Germans of Milwaulvee, Enghsh. So also neighboring or intermingled nations may just as naturally have used Ijranches of the Sem language stock. However, it is true that the nations which were truly Sem used lan- guages wliich are strikingly akin. These have been grouped as (1) Eastern Sem, including Bab and Assyr; (2) Northern, including Syriac and Aramaic; (3) Western, including Canaanite. or Phoenician, and Hebrew, and (4) Southern, including Arabic. Sabaean and Ethiopic (cf Geden. Intro to the Heb Bible, 14-28). The dis- tinctive features of this family of languages are (1) the tri-literal root. (2) the consonantal writing, vowel indica- tions being unnecessary so long as the language was spoken. (3) the meager use of moods and tenses in verbal inflection, every action being graphically viewed as belonging to one of two stages in time: completed or incomplete. (4) the paucity of parts of speech, verb and noun covering nearly aU the relations of words. (5) the frequent use of interiial change in the inflection of words, e.g. the doutiling of a consonant or the change of a vowel, and (6) the use of certain letters, called "serviles." as prefixes or suffixes in inflection; these are parts of pro- noims or the worn-down residua of nouns and particles. The manner of writing was not uniform in these lan- guages, Bab and Assyr being ideographic and syllabic, and written from left to right, while Aram. , Hob and Arab, were alphabetic and written from right to left. The primitive forms and inflections of the group are best pre- served in the Arab, by reason of the conservatism of the desert peoples, and in the Assyr by the sudden destruc- tion of that empire and the burial of the records of that language in a comparatively pure state, to be brought back to light by 19th-cent. exploration. All the char- acteristics given above are clearly manifest in the Heb of the OT.

      In the study of Sem Religion there are two tendencies toward error: (1) the Western prag- matical and unsympathetic overtaxing 7. Semitic of oriental Nature-symbols and vividly Religion imaginative speech. Because the Sem- ite used the figure of the rock (Dt 32 4.18.30) in describing God, or poetically conceived of the storm-cloud as Jeh's chariot (Ps 104 3), we must not be led into believing that his religion was a savage animism, or that Jeh of Israel was only the Zeus of the Greeks. How should an imaginative child of Nature speak of the unseen Spiritual Power, except in the richest analogies of Nature ? (2) The second error is the tendency to treat the accretions acquired by contact with other nations as of the essence of Sem religion, e.g. the golden calf following the Egyp bondage, and the sexual abominations of the Can. Baal and Astarte.

      The primitive and distinctive beliefs of the Sem peoples lie still in great uncertainty because of the long association with other peoples, whose practices they readily took over, and because of the lack of records of the primitive periods of Sem development, their origin and dispersion among the nations being prehistoric. Our sources of information are the Bab and Assyr tablets and monuments, the Egyp inscriptions, Phoen history, Arabian traditions and inscriptions, and principally the OT Scriptures. We can never know perhaps how much the pure Semitism of Babylonians and Assyrians was diverted and corrupted by the developed civilization which they invaded and appropriated; Egypt was only indirectly affected by Sem Ufe; Sem development in Arabia was the latest in all the group, besides which the monuments and resle of Arabian antiquity



      Semites Senate, Senator

      which have come down to us are comparatively few; and the Phoen development was corrupted ty the sensuality of the ancient Canaanitish cults, while the Bible of the Hebrews emphatically differentiated from the unwholesome rehgions of Pal their own faith, which was ancestral, revealed and pure. Was that Bible faith the primitive Sem cult? At least we must take the Heb tradition at its face value, finding in it the prominent features of an ancestral faith, preserved through one branch of the Sem group. We are met frequently in these Heb records by the claim that the religion they present is not a new development, nor a thing apart from the origin of their race, but rather the preservation of an ancient worship, Abraham, Moses and the prophets appearing not as originators, but reformers, or revivers, who sought to keep their people true to an inherited religion. Its elemental features are the following:

      (1) II was pronouncedly theistic; not that other religions do not affirm a god; but the theism of the Semites was such as to give their religion a unique place among all others. To say the least, it had the germ of or the tendency toward monotheism, if we have not sufficient evidence to affirm its mono- theism, and to rate the later polytheistic representa- tions of Babylonia and Assyria as local perversions. If the old view that Sem religion was essentially monotheistic be incapable of proof, it is true that the necessary development of their concept of God must ultimately arrive at monotheism. This came to verification in Abram the Hebrew, Jesus the Messiah (Jn 4 21-24) and Mohammed the false prophet. A city-state exclusively, a nation pre- dominantly, worshipped one god, often through some Nature-symbol, as sun or star or element. With the coming of world-conquest, intercourse and vision, the one god of the city or the chief god of the nation became universalized. The ignorant and materialistic Hebrew might localize the God of Israel in a city or on a hilltop ; but to the spiritual mind of Amos or in the universal vision of Isaiah He was Jeh, Lord of all the earth.

      (2) Closely related to this high conception of Deity was the apparently contradictory but really potent idea of the Deity as a personality. The Semite did not grossly materiaUze his God as did the savage, nor vainly abstract and ethereahze Him and so ehminate Him from the experience of man as did the Greek; but to him God universal was also God personal and intimate. ^ The Hebrew ran the risk of conditioning the spirituahty of God in order to maintain His real personality. Possibly this has been the most potent element in Sem religion; God was not far from every one of them. He came into the closest relations as father or friend. He was the companion of king and priest. The affairs of the nation were under His immediate care; He went to war with armies, was a partner in har- vest rejoicings; the home was His abode. This conception of Deity carried with it the necessary implication of revelation (Am 3 8). The office, message and power of the Heb prophet were also the logical consequence of knowing God as a Person.

      (3) Its peculiar view of Nature was another feature of Sem religion. God was everywhere and always present in Nature; consequently its syni- bolism was the natural and ready expression of His nature and presence. Simile, parable and Nature- marvels cover the pages and tablets of their records. Unfortunately this poetic conception of Nature quickly enough afforded a ready path m which wayward feet and carnal minds might travel toward Nature-worship with all of its formalism and its degrading excesses. This feature of Sem religion offers an interesting commentary on their philosophy. With them the doctrine of Second

      Causes received no emphasis; God worked directly in Nature, which became to them therefore the continuous arena of signs and marvels. The thunder was His voice, the sunshine reflected the light of His countenance, the winds were His mes- sengers. And so through this imaginative view of the world the Semite dwelt in an enchanted realm of the miraculous.

      (4) The Semite believed in a God who is a moral being. Such a faith in the nature of it was certain to influence profoundly their own moral development, making for them a racial character which has been distinctive and persistent through the changes of millenniums. By it also they have impressed other nations and religions, with which they have had contact. The CH is an expression of the moral issues of theism. The Law and the Prophets of Israel arose out of the conviction of God's right- eousness and of the moral order of His universe (Ex 19 5.6; Isa 1 16-20). The Decalogue is a coii- fession of faith in the unseen God; the Law of Holi- ness (Lev 17-26) is equally a moral code.

      While these elements are not absent altogether from other ancient rehgions, they are pronouncedly characteristic of the Sem to the extent that they have given to it its permanent form, its large devel- opment, and its primacy among the religions of the human race. To know God, to hear His eternal tread in Nature, to clothe Him with light as with a garment, to establish His throne in righteousness, to perceive that holiness is the all-pervading atmos- phere of His presence — such convictions were bound to affect the life and progress of a race, and to con- secrate them as a nation of priests for aU mankind.

      LiTEKATUBE. — For discussion of the details of Sem peoples and religions reference must be made to the par- ticuiar articles, such as Arpachshad; Eber; Abraham; Hammurabi; Assyria; Babylonia; Baal; Ashtoreth; Abherim; Moloch; Chemosh; Chitjn; Israel, Reli- gion OF, etc. The lit. on the subject is vast, interesting and far from conclusive. Few of the Bible Diets, have arts, on this particular subject; reference should be made to those in the Standard and in the HDB, vol V, both by McCurdy; "Semites" in Catholic Bnc skims the surface; arts, in International Enc are good. In OT Theologies, Davidson, pp. 249-52; Schultz, eh ill of vol I; Riehm, Altteslamentliche Theologie: Dehtzsch, Psy- chology of the OT. For language see Wright's Compara- tive Grammar of Sem Languages. For history and reli- gion: Maspero's three vols; McCurdy, HPU: Hommel, Ancient Heb Tradition, and Sem VOlker u. Sprache; •Jastrow, Comparative Sem Religion; Friedr. Delitzsch, Babel u. Bihel; W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites.

      Edward Mack SENAAH, s6-na'a, sen'S-a (HXrO, s'na'ah; B, Saavd, Saand, Savavdr, Sanandt, A, Savavd, Sanand, Sewaa, Sennad, 'Ao-av, Hasan) : The children of Senaah are mentioned as having formed part of the company returning from the captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 35; Neh 7 38). The numbers vary as given by Ezr (3,630) and Neh (3,930), while 1 Esd 5 23 puts them at 3,330. In the last place the name is Sanaas, AV "Annaas" (B, 2a|ii(i, Samd, A, Sai/das, Sandas) . In Neh 3 3 the name occurs with the def. art., ha-senaah. The people may be identical with the Benjamite clan Hassenuah (1 Ch 9 7). Onom speaks of Magdal- senna, a village about 7 miles N. of Jericho, which may be the place intended; but the site is not known. W. Ewing

      SENATE, sen'at, SENATOR, sen'a-ter: In Ps 105 22, "teach his senators [RV "elders"] wisdom." The Heb is ]pT , zdken, "elder" (LXX ■wpeafiiTepoi, preshuteroi) . In Acts 6 21, "called the council together and all the senate of the children of Israel." The Gr yepovula, gerous'ia, is here evidently used as a more precise equivalent of the foregoing "council" {avv^Spiov, sunedrion), to which it is added by Kal, kai, explicative. Reference is had to the Sanhedrin. See Sanhedein. This term gerousia

      Seneh Sepharvaim



      occurs in LXX Ex 3 16, etc, and in 1 Mace 12 6; 2 Mace 1 10; 4 44 of the supreme council of the Jews (see Government). In 1 Mace 8 15; 12 3, povXevTTipiov, bouleulerion, is used of the Rom senate, which is said to consist of 320 members meeting daily, consulting always for the people, to the end that they may be well governed. These statements are not quite accurate, since the senate consisted nor- mally of 300 members, and met not daily, but on call of the magistrates. Originally, like the gerousia of the Jews, the representatives of families and clans (gentes), the senators were subsequently the ex- magistrates, supplemented, to complete the tale of members, by representatives of patrician (in time also of plebeian) families selected by the censor. The tenure was ordinarily for life, though it might be ter- minated for cause by the censor. Although constitu- tionally the senate was only an advisory body, its ad- vice (senatus considtiim, audoritas) in fact became in time a mandate which few dared to disregard. During the republican period the senate practically ruled Rome; under the empire it tended more and more to become the creature and subservient tool of the emperors. William Arthur Heidel

      SENEH, se'ne (n3D , seneh; Sevva, Senna) : This was the name attaching to the southern of the two great cliffs between which ran the gorge of Michmash (1 S 14 4). The name means "acacia," and may have been given to it from the thorn bushes growing upon it. Jos (BJ, V, ii, 1) mentions the "plain of thorns" near Gabathsaul. We may hear an echo of the old name in that of Wddy Suweinll, "valley of the little thorn tree," the name by which the gorge is known today. The chff must have stood on the right side of the wddy: see Bozez. Conder gives an excellent description of the place in Tent Work in Pal, II, 112-14. W. EwiNQ

      SENIR, se'nir ("I'^jip, s'nir; Savetp, Sane'ir): This was the Amorite name of Mt. Hermon, accord- ing to Dt 3 9 (AV "Shenir"). But in 1 Ch 5 23; Cant 4 8, we have Senir and Hermon named as distinct mountains. It seems probable, however, that Senir applied to a definite part of the Anti- Lebanon or Hermon range. An inscription of Shalmaneser tells us that Hazael, king of Damascus, fortified Mt. Senir over against Mt. Lebanon. So in Ezk 27 5, Senir, whence the Tyrians got planks of fir trees, is set over against Lebanon, where cedars were obtained. The Arab geographers give the name Jebel Sanlr to the part of the Anti-Lebanon range which lies between Damascus and Horns (Yakut, c 1225 AD, quoted by Guy le Strange in Pal under the Moslems, 79. He also quotes Mas'udi, 943 AD, to the effect that Baalbek is in the district of Senir, 295). W. Ewing

      SENNACHERIB, se-nak'er-ib (3l"in3P, ?an- heribh; SevvaxTipelji, Sennachereim, Assyr Sin-akhi- er6a,"themoon-god Sin has increased the brothers") : Sennacherib (704-682 BC) ascended the throne of Assyria after the death of his father Sargon. Appreciating the tact that Bab3don would be difficult to control, instead of endeavoring to conciliate the people he ignored them. The Baby- lonians, being indignant, crowned a man of humble origin, Marduk-zakir-shum by name. He ruled only a month, having been driven out by the irre- pressible Merodach-baladan, who again appeared on the scene.

      In order to fortify himself against As.syria the latter sent an embassy to Hezekiah, apparently for the purpose of inspiring the W. to rebel against Assyria (2 K 20 12-19).

      Sennacherib in his first campaign marched into Babylonia. He found Merodach-baladan in- trenched at Kish, about 9 miles from Babylon, and defeated him; after which he entered the gates of Babylon, which had been thrown open to him. He placed a Babylonian, named Bel-ibni, on the throne.

      This campaign was followed by an invasion of the country of the Cassites and lasubigalleans. In his third campaign he directed his attention to the W., where the people had become restless under the Assyr yoke. Hezekiah had been victorious over the Philis (2 K 18 8). In preparation to with- stand a siege, Hezekiah had built a conduit to bring water within the city walls (2 K 20 20). Although strongly opposed by the prophet Isaiah, gifts were sent to Egypt, whence assistance was promised (Isa 30 1-4). Apparently also the Phoenicians and Philis, who had been sore pressed by Assyria, had made provision to resist Assyria. The first move was at Ekron, where the Assyr governor Padi was put into chains and sent to Hezekiah at Jerus.

      Sennacherib, in 701, moved against the cities in the W. He ravaged the environs of Tyre, but made no attempt to take the city, as he was without a naval force. After Elulaeus the king of Sidon fled, the city surrendered without a battle, and Ethbaal was appointed king. Numerous cities at once sent presents to the king of Assyria. Ashkelon and other cities were taken. The forces of Egypt were routed at Eltekeh, and Ekron was destroyed. He claims to have conquered 46 strongholds of Heze- kiah's territory, but he did not capture Jerus, for concerning the king he said, in his annals, "him- self like a bird in a cage in Jerus, his royal city, I penned him." He states, also, how he reduced his territory, and how Hezekiah sent to him 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, besides hostages.

      The Bib. account of this invasion is found in 2 K 18 13—19 37; Isa 36, 37. The Assyr account differs considerably from it; but at the same time it corroborates it in many details. One of the striking parallels is the exact amount of gold which Hezekiah sent to the Assyr king (see Expos T, XII, 225,405; XIII, 326).

      In the following year Sennacherib returned to Babylonia to put down a rebellion by Bel-ibni and Merodach-baladan. The former was sent to Assyria, and the latter soon afterward died. Ashur- n^din-shum, the son of Sennacherib, was then crowned king of Babylon. A campaign into Cili- cia and Cappadocia followed.

      In 694 Sennacherib attacked the Elamites, who were in league with the Babylonians. In revenge, the Elamites invaded Babylonia and carried off Ashur-nadin-shum to Elam, and made Nergal- ushezib king of Babylon. He was later captured and in turn carried off to Assyria. In 691 Sen- nacherib again directed his attention to the S., and at Khalute fought with the combined forces. Two years later he took Babylon, and razed it to the ground.

      In 681 Sennacherib was murdered by his two sons (2 K 19 37; see Sharezer). Esar-haddon their younger brother, who was at the time con- ducting a campaign against Ararat, was declared king in his stead. A. T. Clay

      SENSES, sen'siz: The tr of at



      Seneh Sepharvaim

      14 is regarded as becominf!; perfected by use or exercise (cf Eph 4 12f; 1 l^ini 4 7; 2 Pet 3 18). In 2 Esd 10 30 we have "Or is iny sense deceived, or my soul in a dream?" Lat sensus, here "mind" rather than "sense." W. L. Walker

      SENSUAL, scn'shoo-al (>|;uxik69, psuchikds, "ani- mal," "natural"): Bib. psychology has no Eng. equivalent for this Gr original. Man subject to the lower appetites is a-apKiKds, sarhihus, "fleshly"; in the communion of his spirit with God he is irveu- liariKbi, pneumatikos, "spiritual." Between the two is the i/vx"//, psucht, "soul," the center of his per- sonal being. This ego or "1" in each man is bound to the spirit, the higher nature; and to the body or lower nature.

      The soul (^psuchf) as the seat of the senses, desires, affections, appetites, passions, i.e. the lower animal nature common to man with the beasts, was distinguished in the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy from the higher rational nature {nous, pneuma).

      The subjection of the soul to the animal nature is man's debasement, to the spirit indwelt of God is his exaltation. The Eng. equivalent for psuchilcos, "psy- chic," does not express this debasement. In the NT "sensual" indicates man's subjection to self and self-interest, whether animal or intellectual — the selfish man in whom the spirit is degraded into sub- ordination to the debased psuche, "soul." This debasement may be (1) intellectual, "not wisdom .... from above, but .... earthly, sensual" (Jas 3 1.5); (2) carnal (and of course moral), "sen- sual, having not the Spirit" (Jude ver 19). It ranges aU the way from sensuous self-indulgence to gross immorality. In the utter subjection of the spirit to sense it is the utter exclusion of God from the Ufe. Hence "the natural [psuchikos] man re- ceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2 14). The term is equivalent to "the mind of the flesh" (Rom 8 7) which "is not subject to the law of God." See Pstchologt. Dwight M. Pratt

      SENT (nblB , shalah; diroo-T^XXu, aposlello) : "Sent" in the OT is the tr of shalah, "to send" (of presents, messengers, etc. Gen 32 18; 44 3; Jgs 6 14; 1 K 14 6; Est 3 13; Prov 17 11; Jer 49 14; Ezk 3 5; 23 40; Dnl 10 11; Ob ver 1); of sh'iah, Aram. (Ezr 7 14; Dnl 5 24); oi shilluhlm, "sending" (Ex 18 2); in the NT of aposlello, "to send off" or "away," "to send forth" (Jn 9 7, "the pool of Siloam [which is by interpretation. Sent]"); cf Lk 13 4; Neh 3 15, "the pool of Siloah," RV "Shelah"; Isa 8 6, "the waters of Shiloah that go softly," where LXX has Siloam for Heb shiloah, "a sending," which, rather than "Sent," is the original meaning — a sending forth of waters. See Siloam. "Sent" is also the tr of apdslolos, "one sent forth" (the original of the familiar word "apostle"); in Jn 13 16, "one that is sent" (m "Gr 'an apostle' "); cf He 1 14. W. L. Walker

      SENTENCE, sen'tens: Eight Heb and three Gr words are thus tr'' in AV. Sometimes it points to a mystery (Dnl 5 12; 8 23); then again to the con- tents of the Law (Dt 17 11); then again to the idea of judgment (Ps 17 2) or of a judicial sen- tence (2 Cor 19; Lk 23 24), or of judicial advice (Acts 15 19, ARV "judgment").

      SENUAH, s6-nu'a, sen'a-a (HXIDP , s'nU'ah) : In AV "A Benjamite" (Neh 11 9); RV has "Has- senuah," transliterating the def. art. AV is to be preferred (cf 1 Ch 9 7).

      SEORIM, sS-6'rim, sS-6r'im (D^^to, s''orim): The name borne by one of the (post-exilic) priestly courses (1 Ch 24 8).

      SEPARATE, sep'a-rat: The tr of a number of Heb and Gr words, '"3, hcUlhal (Lev 20 24, etc), and atpopl^o}, aphorizo (Mt 25 32, etc), being the most common. "To separate" and "to conse- crate" were originally not distinguished (e.g. Nu 6 2 m), and probably the majority of the uses of "separate" in EV connote "to set apart for God." But precisely the same term that is used in this sense may also denote the exact opposite (e.g. the use of nazar in Ezk 14 7 and Zee 7 3). See Holy; Nazirite; Saint.

      SEPARATION, sep-a-ra'shun : In the Pent the word niddah specially points to a state of cere- monial uncleanness (Lev 12 2.5; 15 20ff; Nu 6 4ff; 12 13; 19 21). For a de.scription of the "water of purification," used for cleansing what was cere- monially unclean (Nu 19), see Heifer, Red; Un- cleanness. For "separation" in the sense of nezer, see Nazirite.

      SEPHAR, se'fiir: Only in Gen 10 30 (HISO , fpharah, "toward Sephar"), as the eastern limit of the territory of the sons of Yoktan (Joktan). From the similarity between the names of most of Yoktan's sons and the names of South Arabian towns or districts, it can hardly be doubted that Sephar is represented by the Arab. Zafdr. The appropriateness of the site seems to outweigh the discrepancy between Arab, z and Heb ?. But two important towns in South Arabia bear this name. The one lies a little to the S. of San'a' . According to tradition it was founded by Shiammir, one of the Sabaean kings, and for a long time served as the royal seat of the Tubbas. The other Zafdr stands on the coast in the district of Shihr, E. of Hadra- maut. The latter is probably to be accepted as the Bib. site. A. S. Fulton

      SEPHARAD, s6-fa'rad, sef'a-rad (TISO , .fp/ia- rddh) : Mentioned in Ob ver 20 as the place of cap- tivity of certain "captives of Jerus," but no clear indication is given of locality. Many conjectures have been made. The Tg of Jonathan identifies with Spain; hence the Spanish Jews are called Sephardim. Others (Pusey, etc) have connected it with the "^parda" of the Behistun Inscription, and some have even identified it with "Sardis." The now generally accepted view is that which con- nects it with the "Saparda" of the Assyr inscrip- tions, though whether this is to be located to the E. of Assyria or in Northern Asia Minor is not clear. See Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, II, 145-46; Sayoe, HCM, 482-84; arts, in DB, HDB, EB, etc.

      James Orr SEPHARVAIM, sef-ar-va'im, se-far-va'im (D'^IISO , fpharwayim: 2€apou(lt(i, Sephpharou- dim, 2«irapo«4in, iSeppharoudim, Seir- 1. Formerly apovv, Seppharoun, 2eir(j>apoD|j.di.v, Identified Seppharonmdin, 'Ei7apoiidi)i, Eppha- with the roudim, 2eir4>apc((j., Sepphareim, the Two Baby- first two being the forms in MSS A and Ionian B respectively, of the passages in K, and

      Sippars the last two in Isa): This city, men-

      tioned in 2 K 17 24; 18 34; 19 13; Isa 36 19; 37 13, is generally identified with the Sipip)ar of the Assyr-Bab inscriptions (Zimhir in Sumerian), on the Euphrates, about 16 miles S.W. of Bagdad. It was one of the two great seats of the worship of the Bab sun-god Samas, and also of the goddesses IStar and Anunit, and seems to have had two principal districts, Sippar of Samas, and Sippar of Anunit, which, if the identification were correct, would account for the dual termination -ayim,, in Heb. This site is the modern 'Abu-Habbah, which was first excavated by the late Hormuzd Rassam in

      Sepharvites Septuagint



      18R1, and has furnished an enormous number of in- scriptions, some of them of the highest importance. Besides the fact tliat the deities of the two cities, Sippar and Sepharvaim, are not the same, it is to be noted that in 2 K 19 13 the king

      2. Difficul- of Sepharvaim is referred to, and, as ties of That far as is k;nomi, the Bab Sippar never Identifl- had a Icing of its own, nor had Alvlcad, cation with which it is in part identified, for

      at least 1,200 years before Sennacherib. The fact that Babylon and Cuthah head the Hst of cities mentioned is no indication that Sepharvaim was a Bab town — the composition of the list, indeed, points the other way, for the name comes after Ava and Hamath, implying that it lay in Syria.

      Joseph Halevy therefore suggests (ZA, II, 401 S)

      that it should be identified with the Sibraim of

      Ezk 47 16, between Damascus and

      3. Another Hamath (the dual implying a frontier Suggestion town), and the same as the Sahara'in

      of the Bab Chronicle, there referred to as having been captured by Shalmaneser. As, however, Sabara'in may be read Samara'in, it is more hkely to have been the Heb Shom'ron (Sa- maria), as pointed out by Fried. DeUtzsch.

      LiTEEATUHB. — See Schrader, COT, I, 71 f; Kittel on K; DilLmann- Kittel on Jsa, ad loc. ; HDB,s.y.

      T. G. Pinches

      SEPHARVITES, se'far-vlts, s5-tar'vlts (a^1-)SD , ^'pharwim): In 2 K 17 31, the inhabitants of Sepharvaim (q.v,), planted by the king of Assyria in Samaria. They continued there to burn their children to their native gods.

      SEPPHORIS, sef'6-ris: A city of Galilee, taken by Josephus (Vita, IX, Ixvii, 71) and later de- stroyed by the son of Varus [Ant, XVII, x, 9).

      SEPTUAGINT, sep'ta-a-jint:

      I. Import.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\nce

      II. N.iME

      III. Tradition.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l Origin

      1. Letter of Aristeas

      2. Evidence of Aristobulus and Philo

      3. Later Accretions

      4. Criticism of the Aristeas vStory .5. Date

      6. Credibility

      IV. Evidence op Prologue to Sirach V. Transmission of the LXX Text

      1. Early Corruption of the Text

      2. OEBcial Revision of Hebrew Text c 100 AD .3. Adoption of LXX by Christians

      4. Alternative 2d-Centiiry Greek Versions

      5. Aquila

      6. Theodotion

      7. Symmachns and Others

      8. OVigen and the Hexapla

      9. Hexaplaric Manuscripts

      10. Recensions Known to Jerome

      11. Hesychian Recension

      12. Lucianic Recension

      VI. Reconstruction of LXX Text; Versions, M.ANusCRiPTa and Printed Editions

      1. Ancient Versions Made from LXX

      2. Manuscripts

      3. Printed Texts

      4. Reconstruction of Original Te.xt VII. Number, Titles and Order of Books

      1. Contents

      2. Titles

      3. Bipartition of Books

      4. Grouping and Order of Books

      VIII. Characteristics of the Version and Its Com- ponent Parts

      1. Grouping of Books on Internal Evidence

      (1) The Hexateuch

      (2) The "Latter" Prophets

      (3) Partial Version of the "Former" Prophets

      (4) The "Writings"

      (5) The Latest LXX Translations

      2. General Characteristics

      IX. Salient Differences betwee.n Greek a.nd Hebrew Texts

      1. Sequence

      2. Subject-Matter Literature

      /. Importance. — The Gr VS of the OT commonly known as the Septuagint holds a unique place

      among translations. Its importance is many- sided. Its chief value lies in the fact that it is a VS of a Heb text earlier by about a millennium than the earhest dated Heb MS extant (916 AD), a VS, in particular, prior to the formal rabbinical revi- sion of the Heb which took place early in the 2d cent. AD. It supplies the materials for the recon- struction of an older form of the Heb than the MT reproduced in our modern Bibles. It is, moreover, a pioneering work ; there was probably no precedent in the world's history for a series of translations from one language into another on so extensive a scale. It was the first attempt to reproduce the Heb Scriptures in another tongue. It is one of the outstanding results of the breaking-down of inter- national barriers by the conquests of Alexander the Great and the dissemination of the Gr language, which were fraught with such vital consequences for the history of religion. The cosmopohtan city which he founded in the Delta witnessed the first attempt to bridge the gulf between Jewish and Gr thought. The Jewish commercial settlers at Alex- andria, forced by circumstances to abandon their language, clung tenaciously to their faith; and the tr of the Scriptures into their adopted language, produced to meet their own needs, had the further result of introducing the outside world to a knowl- edge of their history and religion. Then came the most momentous event in its history, the starting- point of a new life; the tr was taken over from the Jews by the Christian church. It was the Bible of most writers of the NT. Not only are the majority of their express citations from Scripture borrowed from it, but their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its language. Its words are house- hold words to them. It laid for them the founda- tions of a new religious terminology. It was a potent weapon for missionary work, and, when VSS of the Scriptures into other languages became necessary, it was in most cases the LXX and not the Heb from which they were made. Preeminent among these daughter VSS was the Old Lat which preceded the Vulg. Jerome's VS, for the most part a direct tr from the Heb, was in portions a mere revision of the Old Lat; our Prayer-book VS of the Psalter preserves peculiarities of the LXX, trans- mitted through the medium of the Old Lat. The LXX was also the Bible of the early Gr Fathers, and helped to mold dogma; it furnished proof- texts to both parties in the Arian controversy. Its language gives it another strong claim to recog- nition. Uncouth and unclassical as much of it appears, we now know that this is not wholly due to the hampering effects of translation. "Biblical Greek," once considered a distinct species, is now a rather discredited term. The hundreds of con- temporary papyrus records (letters, business and legal documents, etc) recently discovered in Egypt illustrate much of the vocabulary and grammar and go to show that many so-called "Hebraisms" were in truth integral parts of the koini, or "common language," i.e. the international form of Gr which, since the time of Alexander, replaced the old dia- lects, and of which the spoken Gr of today is the lineal descendant. The VS was made for the populace and written in large measure in the lan- guage of their everyday life.

      //. Name. — The name "Septuagint" is an abbre- viation of Inter pretalio secundum (or juxta) Sep- luaginta seniores (or viros), i.e. the Gr tr of the OT of which the first instalment was, according to the Alexandrian legend (see III, below), contributed by 70 (or 72) elders sent from Jerus to Alexandria for the purpose at the request of Ptolemy II. The legend in its oldest form restricts their labors to the Pent, but they were afterward credited with the tr of the whole Bible, and before the 4th cent, it



      Sepharvites Septuagint

      had become customary to apply the title to the whole collection: Aug., De Civ. Dei, xviii.42, "quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo" ("whose tr is now by custom called the Septuagint"). The MSS refer to them under the abbreviation ol o', hoi o' ("the seventy"), or oi 0^', hoi oh' ("the seventy-two"). The "Sep- tuagmt" and the abbreviated form "LXX" have been the usual designations hitherto, but, as these are based on a now discredited legend, they are coming to be replaced by "the OT in Greek," or "the Alexandrian version" with the abbreviation (6.

      ///. Traditional Origin. — The traditional account of the tr of the Pent is contained in the so-called letter of Aristeas (edd Gr text, P. Wendland, Teubner series, 1900, and Thackeray in the App. to Swete's Inlro to the OT in Gr, 1900, etc; Wendland's sections cited below appear in Swete's hdro, ed 2; ET by Thackeray, Macmillan, 1904, reprinted from JQR, XV, 337, and by H. T. Andrews in Charles's Apoc- rypha and Pseudepigmpha of the OT, II, 83-122, Oxford, 1913).

      The writer professes to be a high official at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 BC), a Greek interested in Jewish antiquities. 1. Letter of Addressing his brother Philocrates Aristeas he describes an embassy to Jerus on which he has recently been sent with another courtier Andreas. According to his narra- tive, Demetrius of Phalerum, a prominent figure in later Athenian history, who here appears as the royal librarian at Alexandria, convinced the king of the importance of securing for his library a tr of the Jewish Law. The king at the same time, to propitiate the nation from whom he was asking a favor, consented, on the suggestion of Aristeas, to liberate all Jewish slaves in Egypt. Copies follow of the letters which passed between Ptolemy and Eleazar, the high priest at Jerus. Ptolemy requests Eleazar to select and dispatch to Alexandria 72 elders, proficient in the Law, 6 from each tribe, to undertake the tr, the importance of the task re- quiring the services of a large number to secure an accurate VS. Eleazar complies with the request and the names of the selected translators are ap- pended to his letter.

      There follow: (1) a detailed description of votive offerings sent by Ptolemy for the temple; (2) a sketch of Jerus, the temple and its services, and the geography of Pal. doubtless reflecting in part the impressions of an eyewitness and giving a unique picture of the Jewish capital in the Ptolemaic era ; (3) an exposition by Eleazar of portions of the Law.

      The translators arrive at Alexandria, bringing a copy of the Law written in letters of gold on rolls of skins, and are honorably received by Ptolemy. A seven days' banquet follows, at which the king tests the proficiency of each in turn with hard ques- tions. Three days later Demetrius conducts them across the mole known as the Heptastadion to the island of Pharos, where, with all necessaries pro- vided for their convenience, they complete their task, as by a miracle, in 72 days; we are expressly told that their work was the result of collaboration and comparison. The completed VS was read by Demetrius to the Jewish community, who received it with enthusiasm and begged that a copy might be intrusted to their leaders; a solemn curse was pronounced on any who should venture to add to or subtract from or m;ike any alteration in the tr. The whole VS was then read aloud to the king who expressed his admiration and his surprise that Gr writers had remained in ignorance of its contents; he directed that the books should be preserved with scrupulous care.

      To set beside this account we have two pre- Christian allusions in Jewish writings. Aristobulus, addressing a Ptolemy who has been identified as

      Philometor (182-146 BC), repeats the statement that the Pent was tr'^ under Philadelphus at the in- stance of Demetrius Phalereus (Euseb.,

      2. Evidence Praep. Ev., XIII, 12.6646); but the of Aristo- genuineness of the passage is doubtful. bulus and If it is accepted, it appears that some Philo of the main features of the story were

      believed at Alexandria within a century of the date assigned by "Aristeas" to the tr. Philo (Vit. Mays, ii,5 ff) repeats the story of the send- ing of the translators by Eleazar at the request of Philadelphus, adding that in his day the com- pletion of the undertaking was celebrated by an annual festival on the isle of Pharos. It is improb- able that an artificial production like the Aristeas letter should have occasioned such an anniversary; Philo's evidence seems therefore to rest in part on an independent tradition. His account in one particular paves the way for later accretions; he hints at the inspiration of the translators and the miraculous agreement of their separate VSS : "They prophesied like men possessed, not one in one way and one in another, but all producing the same words and phrases as though some unseen prompter were at the ears of each," At the end of the 1st cent. AD Jos includes in his Antiquities (XII, ii, 1 ff ) large portions of the letter, which he para- phrases, but does not embellish.

      Christian writers accepted the story without sus- picion and amplified it. A catena of their evidence

      is given in an Appendix to Wend-

      3. Later land's ed. The following are their Accretions principal additions to the narrative,

      all clearly baseless fabrications.

      (1) The translators worked independently, in separate cells, and produced identical versions, Ptolemy proposing this test of their trustworthiness. So Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, the Chronicon Paschale and the Cohortatio ad Graecos (wrongly attributed to Justin) : the author of the last work asserts that he had seen the cells and heard the tradition on the spot. (2) A modiflcation of this legend says that the translators worked in pairs in 36 cells. So Epiphanius (d. 403 AD), and later G. Syncellus, Julius Pollux and Zonaras. Epiphanius' account is the most detailed. The trans- lators were locked up in sky-lighted cells in pairs with attendants and shorthand writers; each pair was in- trusted with one book, the books were then circulated, and 36 identical VSS of the whole Bible, canonical and apocryphal books, were produced; Ptolemy wrote two letters, one asking for the original Scriptures, the second for translators. (3) This story of the two embassies appears already in the 2d cent. AD, in Justin's Apology, and (4) the extension of the translators' work to the Prophets or the whole Bible recurs in the two Cyrils and in Chrysostom. (.5) The miraculous agreement of the translators proved thera to be no less inspired than the authors (Irenaeus, etc; cf Philo). (6) As regards date, Clement of Alexandria quotes an alternative tra- dition referring the VS back to the time of the first Ptolemy (322-28.5 BC); while Chrysostom brings it down to "a hundred or more years [elsewhere ' ' not many years"] before the coming of Christ." Justin absurdly states that Ptolemy's eml^assy was sent to King Herod; the Chronicon Paschale calls the high priest of the time Onias Simon, brother of Eleazar.

      Jerome was the first to hold these later inventions up to ridicule, contrasting them with the older and more sober narrative. They indicate a growing oral tradition in Jewish circles at Alexandria. The origin of the legend of the miraculous consensus of the 70 translators has been reasonably sought in a passage in Ex 24 LXX to which Epiphanius expressly refers. We there read of 70 elders of Israel, not heard of again, who with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu form a hnk between Moses and the people. After reciting the Book of the Covenant Moses ascends to the top of the mount; the 70, however, ascend but a little way and are bidden to worship from afar: according to the LXX text "They saw the place where the God of Israel stood .... and of the elect of Israel not one perished" (ver 11), i.e. they were privileged to escape the usual effect of a vision of the Deity (Ex 33 20). But the vb. used for




      "perish" (diaphdnein) was uncommon in this sense; "not one disagreed" would be the obvious meaning; hence apparently the legend of the agreement of the translators, the later intermediaries between Moses and Israel of the Dispersion. When the translations were recited, "no difference was dis- coverable," says Epiphanius, using the same vb. Cave-dwellings in the island of Pharos probably account for the legend of the cells. A curious phenomenon has recently suggested that there is an element of truth in one item of Epiphanius' ob- viously incredible narrative, viz. the working of the translators in pairs. The Gr books of Jer and Ezk fall into two nearly equal parts, apparently the work of separate translators (see VIII, 1, [2], below) ; while in Ex, Lev and Pss orthographical details indi- cate a similar division of the books for clerical pur- poses. There was, it seems, a primitive custom of transcribing each book on 2 separate rolls, and in the case of Jer and Ezk the practice goes back to the time of tr (JTS, IV, 245 ff, 398 ff ; IX, 88 if).

      Beside the later extravagances, the story of

      Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it

      has long been recognized that much of

      4. Criticism it is unhistorical, ia particular the pro- of the fessed date and nationality of the Aristeas writer. Its claims to authenticity Story were demolished by Dr. Hody two

      centuries ago (De hihliormn textibus originalihus, Oxon., 1705) . Clearly the writer is not a Greek, but a Jew, whose aim is to glorify his race and to disseminate information about their sacred books. Yet the story is not wholly to be rejected, though it is difficult to disentangle truth from fiction. On one side his veracity has since Hody's time been established; his court titles, technical terms, epis- tolary formulae, etc, reappear in Egyp papyri and inscriptions, and all his references to Alexandrian life and customs are probably equally trustworthy (§§ 28, 109 ff, measures to counteract the ill effects upon agriculture of migration from country to town ; § 167, treatment of informers [cf §25]; § 175 recep- tion of foreign embassies [cf § 182]). The import of this discovery has, however, since its announcement by Lombroso (Recherches sur I'economie politique de I'Egypte, Turin, 1870), been somewhat modified by the new-found papyri which show that Aristeas' titles and formulae are those of the later, not the earlier, Ptolemaic age.

      The letter was used by Jos and probably known

      to Philo. How much earlier is it? Schurer (HJP,

      II, iii, 309 f [GJV\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ III, 608-16]), rely-

      5. Date ing on (1) the questionable Aristobulus

      passage, (2) the picture drawn of Pal as if still under Ptolemaic rule, from which it passed to the Seleucids c 200 BC, argued that the work could not be later than that date. But it is hard to believe that a fictitious story (as he regards it to be) could have gained credence within little more than half a century of the period to which it relates, and Wendland rightly rejects so ancient an origin. The following indications suggest a date about 100-80 BC.

      (1) Many of Aristeas' formulae, etc (see above), only came into use in the 2d cent. BC (Strack, Rhein. Mus.. LV, IGSff: Thackeray, Aristeas. ET, pp. 3, 12). (2) The later Maccabean age or the end of the 2d cent. BC is suggested by some of the translators' names (Wend- land, xxvi), and (.3) by tlie independent position of the high priest. (4) Some of Ptolemy's questions indicate a tottering dynasty (§187, etc). (.5) The writer occasion- ally forgets his rOie and distinguishes between his own time and that of Philadelphus (§§ 28, 182). (6) He appears to borrow his name from a Jewish historian of the 2d cent. BO and to wish to pass off the latter's history as his own (§ 6). (7) He is guilty of historical inaccuracies concerning Demetrius, etc. (S) The pro- logue to the Gr Ecclus (after 132 BC) ignores and contradicts tlie Aristeas story, whereas Aristeas possibly used this prologue (Wendland, xxvii; cf Hart, Ecclus in Qrcck. 1909). (9) The imprecation upon any wlio should

      alter the tr (§ 311) points to divergences of text which the writer desired to check; cf §57, where he seems to insist on the correctness of the LXX text of Ex 25 22, "gold of pure gold," as against the Heb. (10) Allusions to current criticisms of the Pent (§§ 128, 144) presuppose a famiUarity with it on the part of non-Jewish readers only explicable if the LXX had long been current, (11) Yet details in the Gr orthography preclude a date much later than 100 BC.

      The probable amount of truth in the story is ably discussed by Swete (Intro, 16-22). The follow- ing statements in the letter may be 6. Credi- accepted: (1) The tr was produced at bility Alexandria, as is conclusively proved

      by Egyp influence on its language. (2) The Pent was tr'' first and, in view of the homo- geneity of style, as a whole. (3) The Gr Pent goes back to half of the 3d cent. BC; the style is akin to that of the 3d-cent. papyri, and the Gr Gen was used by the Hellenist Demetrius toward the end of the cent. (4) The Heb rolls were brought from Jerus. (5) Possibly Philadelphus, the patron of literature, with his religious impartiahty, may have countenanced the work. But the assertion that it owed its inception wholly to him and his librarian is incredible; it is known from other sources that Demetrius Phalereus did not fill the office of librarian under that monarch. The language is that of the people, not a literary style suitable to a work produced under royal patronage. The imi^ortation of Palestinian translators is likewise fictitious. Dr. Swete acutely observes that Aristeas, in stating that the tr was read to and welcomed by the Jewish community before being presented to the king, un- consciously reveals its true origin. It was no doubt produced to meet their own needs by the large Jewish colony at Alexandria. A demand that the Law should be read in the synagogues in a tongue "understanded of the people" was the originating impulse.

      IV. Evidence of Prologue to Sirach. — The inter- esting, though in places tantalizingly obscure, pro- logue to Ecclus throws light on the progress made with the tr of the remaining Scriptures before the end of the 2d cent. BC.

      The translator dates his settlement in Egypt, during which he produced his VS of his grandfather's work, as "the 38th year under Euergetes tlie king." The words have been the subject of controversy, but, with the majority of critics, we may interpret this to mean the 38th year of Euergetes II, reckoning from ttie beginning (170 BC) of his joint reign with Philometor, i.e. 132 BC. Euergetes I reigned for 2.5 years only. Others, in view of the superfluous preposition, suppose that the age of tlie translator is intended, but the cum- brous form of expression is not unparalleled. A recent explanation of tlie date (Hart, Ecclus in Gr) as the 38th year of Philadelphus Which was also the 1st year of Euergetes I (i.e. 247 BC) is more ingenious than con- vincing.

      The prologue implies the existence of a Gr VS of the Law, the Prophets and "the rest of the books." The translator, craving his readers' indulgence for the imperfections of his own work, due to the diffi- culty of reproducing Hob in Gr, adds that others have experienced the same difficulties: "The Law itself and the prophecies and the rest of the books have no small difference when spoken in their origi- nal language." From these words we may under- stand that at the time of writing (132-100 BC) Alexandrian Jews possessed Gr VSS of a large part (probably not the whole) of "the Prophets," and of some of "the Writings" or Hagiographa. For some internal evidence as to the order in which the several books were tr"' see VIII, below.

      V. Transmission of the LXX Text. — The main value of the LXX is its witness to an older Heb text than our own. But before we can reconstruct this Heb text we need to have a pure Gr text before us, and this we are at present far from possessing. The Gr text has had a long and complex history of




      its own. Used for centuries by both Jews and Christians it underwent corruption and interpo- lation, and, notwithstanding the multitude of materials for its restoration, the original text has yet to be recovered. We are much more certain of the ipsissima verba of the NT writers than of the original Alexandrian VS of the OT. This does not apply to all portions alike. The Or Pent, e.g., has survived in a relatively pure form. But everywhere we have to be on our guard against interpolations, sometimes extending to whole paragraphs. Not a verse is without its array of variant readings. An indication of the amount of "mixture" which has taken place is afforded by the numerous "doub- lets" or alternative renderings of a single Heb word or phrase which appear side by side in the trans- mitted text.

      Textual corruption began eax'ly, before the Chris- tian era. We have seen indications of this in the letter of Aristeas (III, 5, [9] above).

      1. Early Traces of corruption appear in Philo Corruption (e.g. his comment, in Quis Rer. Div. of Text Her. 56, on Gen 15 15, shows that al- ready in his day taphels, "buried," had

      become traphels, "nurtured," as in all our MSS); doublets already exist. Similarly in the NT the author of He quotes (12 15) a corrupt form of the Or of Dt 29 18.

      But it was not until the beginning of the 2d cent.

      AD that the divergence between the Gr and the

      Palestinian Heb text reached an acute

      2. Official stage. One cause of this was the revi- Revision of sion of the Heb text which took place Hebrew about this time. No actual record Text c 100 of this revision exists, but it is beyond AD doubt that it originated in the rab- binical school, of which Rabbi Akiba

      was the chief representative, and which had its center at Jamnia in the years following the destruc- tion of Jerus. The Jewish doctors, their temple in ruins, concentrated their attention on the settlement of the text of the Scriptures which remained to them. This school of eminent critics, precursors of the Massoretes, besides settling outstanding ques- tions concerning the Canon, laid down strict rules for Bib. interpretation, and in all probabihty estab- lished an official text.

      But another cause widened still farther the dis- tance between the texts of Jerus and Alexandria. This was the adoption of the LXX

      3. Adoption by the Christian church. WhenChri.s- of LXX by tians began to cite the Alexandrian VS Christians in proof of their doctrines, the Jews

      began to question its accuracy. Hence mutual recriminations which are reflected in the pages of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. "They dare to assert," says Justin (Dial, 68), "that the interpretation produced by your seventy elders under Ptolemy of Egypt is in some points inaccu- rate " A crucial instance cited by the Jews was the rendering "virgin" in Lsa 7 14, where they claimed with justice that "young woman would be more accurate. Justin retahates by charging the Jews with deliberate excision of passages favor- able to Christianity. ■ • .v.

      That such accusations should be made in those critical years was inevitable, yet there is no evi- dence of any material interpolations

      4. Alterna- having been introduced by either tive 2d- party. But the Alexandrian \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\b, m Century view of the revised text and the new Greek and stricter canons of interpretation. Versions was felt by the Jews to be inadequate,

      and a group of new translations of Scripture in the 2d cent. AD supplied the demand We possess considerable fragments of the work ot three of these translators, viz. Aquila, Symmaohus

      and Thcodotion, besides scanty remnants of further anonymous VSS.

      The earliest of "the three" was Aqulla, a proselyte to Judaism, and, lilte his NT namesalce, a native of Pontus. He flourished, according to K Aniiilfl Epiphanius (whose account of these later o. Aquiia translators in his De menn. et pond, is not wholly tru-stworthy), under Hadrian (117- 38 AD) and was related to that emperor; there is no probability in Epiphanius' further statement that Hadrian Intrusted to Aquila the superintendence of the building of Aelia CapitoMna on tho site of Jerus, that there he was converted to Christianity by Christian exiles returning from Pella, but that refusing to abandon astrology he was excommunicated, and in revenge turned Jew and was actuated by a bias against Christianity in his VS of the OT. What is certain is that he was a pupil of the new rabbinical school, in particular of Rabbi Akiba (9.5-135 AD), and that his VS was an attempt to repro- duce exactly the revised official text. The result was an extraordinary production, unparalleled in Gr lit., if it can be classed under that category at all. No jot or tittleof the Heb might be neglected; uniformity in the tr of each Heb word must be preserved and the etymological kinship of different Heb words represented. Such were some of his leading principles. The opening words of his tr (Gen 1 1) may be rendered: "In heading founded God with the heavens and with the earth." "Heading" or "summary" was selected because the Heb word for "beginning" was a derivative of "head." "With" represents an untranslatable word ('fith) prefixed to the accusative case, but indistinguishable from the preposi- tion "with." The Divine Name (the tetragrammaton) was not trd, but written in archaic Heb characters. "A slave to the letter," as Origen calls him, his work has aptly been described by a modem writer as "a colossal crib" (Burkitt, JQR. October, 1896, 207 fl). Yet it was a success. In Origen's time it was used by all Jews ignorant of Heb, and continued in use for several cen- turies; Justinian expressly sanctioned its use in the synagogues (.Nov., 146). Its lack.of style and violation of the laws of grammar were not due to ij^norance of Gr, of which the writer shows, in vocabulary at least, a considerable command. Its importance lay and lies (so far as it is preserved) in its exact reproduction of the rabbinical text of tiie 2d cent. AD; it may be regarded as the beginning of the scientific study of the Heb Scrip- tures. Though "a bold attempt to displace the LXX." it cannot be charged with being intentionally antagonistic to Christianity. Of the original work, previously known only from extracts in MSS, some palimpsest fragments were recovered from the Cairo Genizah in 1897 and edited by F. C. Bin-kitt (Fragments of the Books of Kings, 1897) and by C. Taylor (.Sayings of the Jewish Fathers'', 1897; Heb-Gr Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, 1900). The student of Swete's OT will trace Aquila's unmistali- able style in the footnotes to the Books of S and K; the older and shorter B te.xt in those books has constantly been supplemented in the A text from Aquila. A longer specimen of his work occurs in the Gr Eccl, which has no claim to be regarded as " Septuagint"; Jerome re- fers to a second ed of Aquila's VS, and the Gr Eccl is perhaps his first ed of that book, made on the basis of an unrevised Heb text (McNeile, Intro to Eccl. Cambridge, 1904, App. I). The suggested identification of Aquila with Onkelos, author of the Tg of that name, has not been generally accepted.

      Epiphanius' account of the dates and history of Theodotion and Symmachus is untrustwortliy. He seems to have reversed their order, prob- 6 Theodo- ^^^y niisled by the order of the trf in the o. xiicu columns of the Hexapla (see below). He

      tion also apparently confused Aquila and Theo-

      dotion in calling the latter a native of Pon- tus. As regards date, Theodotion. critics are agreed, preceded Symmachus and probably flourished under M. Aurelius (161-80), whereas Symmachus Uved under Com- modus (180-92); Irenaeus mentions only the VSS of Aquila and Theodotion, and that of Symmachus had in his day either not been produced or at least not widely circulated. According to the more credible account of Irenaeus, Theodotion was an Ephesian and a convert to Judaism. His VS constantly agrees with the LXX and was rather a revision of it, to bring it into accord with the current Heb text, than an independent work. The supplementing of lacunae in the LXX (due partly to the fact that the older VS of some books did not aim at completeness) gave scope for greater originality. These lacunae were greatest in Job and his VS of that book was much longer than the LXX. The text of Job printed in Swete's ed is a patchwork of old and new; the careful reader may detect tho Thcodotion portions by translitera- tions and other peculiarities. Long extracts from Theo- dotion are preserved in cod. Q in Jer. As regards the additional matter contained in LXX, Theodotion was inconsistent; he admitted, e.g., the additions to Dnl (Sus, Bel and the Three), but did not apparently admit the non-canonical books as a whole. The church adopted his Dnl in place of the inadequate LXX VS, which has survived in only one Gr MS; but the date when the change took place is imknown and the early




      history of the two Gr texts is obscure. Theodotion's renderings have been found in writings before his time (including the NT), and it is reasonably conjectured that even before the 2d cent. AD the LXXtext had been discarded and that Theodotion's VS is but a working over of an older alternative VS. Theodotion is tree from the barbarisms of Aquila, but is addicted to transliteration, i.e. the reproduction of Heb words in Gr letters. His reasons for this habit are not always clear; ignorance of Heb will not account for all (cf VIU, 1, [.5], below).

      Beside the two VSS produced by, and primarily

      intended for, Jews was a third, presumably to meet

      the needs of a Christian sect who

      7. Symma- ^^ei^e dissatisfied with the LXX. Sym- rViiio nnH machus, its author, was, according to the i^ius

      which was given to Origen by Juliana, a lady who received it from its author (Euseb., HE, VI, 17). Epiphanius' description of him as a Samaritan convert to Judaism may be rejected. The date of his work, as above stated, was probably the reign of Conimodus (180-92 AD). In one respect the VS resembled Aquila's, in its faithful adherence to the sense of the current Heb text; its style, however, which was flowing and literary, was a revolt against Aquila's monstrosities. It seems to have been a recasting of Aquila's VS, with free use of both LXX and Theodotion. It carried farther a tend- ency apparent in the LXX to refine away the anthro- pomorphisms of the OT.

      Of three other MSS discovered by Origen (one at Nicopolis in Greece, one at Jericho) and known from their position in the Hexapla as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, httle is known. There is no reason to suppose that they embraced the whole OT. Quinta is character- ized by Field as the most elegant of the Gr VSS. F. C. Burkitt has discussed "the so-called Quinta of 4 Kings" in PSBA, June, 1902. The Christian origin of Seita be- trays itself in Hab 3 13 ("Thou wentest forth to save thy people for the sake of [or "by"] Jesus thy anointed One").

      These later VSS play a large part in the history

      of the text of the LXX. This is due to the labors

      of the greatest LXX scholar of an-

      8. Origen tiquity, the celebrated Origen of Alex- and the andria, whose active life covers the Hexapla first half of the 3d cent. Origen

      frankly recognized, and wished Chris- tians to recognize, the merits of the later VSS, and the divergence.s between the LXX and the current Heb. He determined to provide the church with the materials for ascertaining the true text and mean- ing of the OT. With this object he set himself to learn Heb — a feat probably unprecedented among non-Jewish Christians of that time — and to collect the later VSS. The idea of using these VSS to amend the LXX seemed to him an inspiration : "By the gift of God we found a remedy for the di- vergence in the copies of the OT, namely to use the other editions as a criterion" {Comm. on Mt 15 14). The magnimi opus in which he embodied the results of his labors was known as the Hexapla or "six- column" edition. This stupendous work has not survived; a fragment was discovered toward the end of the 19th cent, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (Swete, htlro, 61 ff) and another among the Cairo Genizah palimp.scsts (ed C. Tajdor, Cam- bridge, 1900). The material was arranged in six parallel columns containing (1) the current Heb text, (2) the same in Gr letters, (3) the VS of Aquila, (4) that of Symmachus, (5) that of the LXX, (6) that of Theodotion. The text was broken up into short clauses; not more than two words, usually one only, stood in the first column. The order of the columns doubtless represents the degree of conform- ity to the Heb; Aquila's, as the faithful, heads the VSS, and Symmachus' is on the whole a revi- sion of Aquila as Theodotion's is of the LXX. But Origen was not content with merely collating the VSS; his aim was to the LXX and the 5th column exhibited his revised text. The basis of it was the current Alexandrian text of the 3d cent. AD; this was supplemented or corrected where necessary by the other VSS. Origen, however, deprecated alteration of a text which had received ecclesiastical sanction, without some indication of its extent, and

      the construction of the 5th column presented diffi- culties. There were (1) numerous cases of words or paragraphs contained in the LXX but not in the Heb, which could not be wholly rejected, (2) cases of omission from the LXX of words in the Heb,

      (3) cases of paraphrase and minor divergences,

      (4) variations in the order of words or chapters. Origen here had recourse to a system of critical signs, invented and employed by the grammarian Aristarchus (3d cent. BC) in his ed of Homer. Passages of the first class were left in the text, but had prefixed to them an obelus, a sign of which the original form was a "spit" or "spear," but figuring in LXX MSS as a horizontal fine usually with a dot above and a dot below (^); other varieties are -^, — r, C/5; the sign in Aristarchus indicated censure, in the Hexapla the doubtful authority of the words which followed. The close of the obe- lized passage was marked by the metobelus, a colon (:), or, in the Syr VSS, a mallet (y). Passages missing in the LXX were supplied from one of the other VSS (Aquila or Theodotion), the beginning of the extract being marked by an asterisk ( -^ ) — a sign used by Aristarchus to express special ap- proval — the close, by the metobelus. Where LXX and Heb widely diverged, Origen occasionally gave two VSS, that of a later translator under an asterisk, that of LXX obelized. Divergence in order was met by transposition, the Heb order being followed ; in Prov, however, the two texts kept their respective order, the discrepancy being indicated by a com- bination of signs. Minor supposed or real cor- ruptions in the Gr were tacitly corrected. Origen produced a minor edition, the Tetrapla, without the first two columns of the larger work. The Heptapla and Oclapla, occasionally mentioned, appear to be alternative names given to the Hexa- pla at points where the number of columns was increased to receive other fragmentary VSS. This gigantic work, which according to a reasonable esti- mate must have filled 5,000 leaves, was probably never copied in exlenso. The original was pre- served for some centuries in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea; there it was studied by Jerome, and thither came owners of Bib. MSS to collate their copies with it, as we learn from some interesting notes in our uncial MSS (e.g. a 7th-cent. note ap- pended to Est in cod. S). The Library probably perished c 638 AD, when Caesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens.

      But, though the whole work was too vast to be copied, it was a simple task to copy the 5th column.

      This task was performed, partly in 9. Hexa- prison, by Pamphilus, a martyr in the plaric MSS Diocletian persecution, and his friend

      Eusebius, the great bishop of Caesarea. Copies of the "Hexaplaric" LXX, i.e. Origen's doc- tored text with the critical signs and perhaps occa- sional notes, were, through the initiative of these two, widely circulated in Pal in the 4th cent. Natu- rally, however, the signs became unintelligible in a text detached from the parallel columns which explained them; scribes neglected them, and copies of the doctored text, lacking the precautionary symbols, were multiplied. This carelessness has wrought great confusion; Origen is, through others' fault, indirectly responsible for the production of MSS in which the current LXX text and the later VSS are hopelessly mixed. No MSS give the Hexaplaric text as a whole, and it is jjrcserved in a relatively pure form in very few: the uncials G and M (Pent and some historical books), the cursives 86 and 88 (Prophets). Other so-called Hexaplaric MSS, notably cod. Q (Marchalianus: Proph.) pre- serve fragments of the 5th and of the other columns of the Hexapla. (For the Syro-Hexaplar see below, VI, 1.) Yet, even did we possess the 5th column




      entire, with the complete apparatus of signs, we should not have "the original LXX," but merely, after removing the asterisked passages, a text current in the 3d cent. The fact has to be empha- sized that Origen's gigantic work was framed on erroneous principles. He assumed (1) the purity of the current Heb text, (2) the corruption of the current LXX text where it deviated from the Heb. The modern critic recognizes that the LXX on the whole presents the older text, the divergences of which from the Heb are largely attributable to an official revision of the latter early in the Christian era. He recognizes also that in some books (e.g. Job) the old Gr VS was only a partial one. To reconstruct the original text he must therefore have recourse to other auxiliaries beside Origen.

      Such assistance is partly furnished by two other re- censions made in the century after Origen. Jerome (Praef. in Paralipp.; ci Adv. Ruf., ii.27)

      10. Recen- states that in the 4th cent, three re- sions censions circulated in different parts of Known to the Christian world: "Alexandria and Jerome Egypt in their Septuagint acclaim

      Hesychius as their authority, the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martjT, the intermediate Palestinian provinces read the MSS which were promulgated by Eusebius and Pamphilus on the basis of Origen's labors, and the whole world is divided between these three varieties of text."

      Hesychius is probably to be identified with the martyr bishop mentioned by Eusebius {HE, VIII,

      1.3) along with another scholar martyr,

      11. Hesych- Phileas bishop of Thmuis, and it is ian Re- thought that these two were engaged cension in prison in revising the Egyp text at

      the time when Pamphilus and Eusebius were employed on a similar task under similar con- ditions. How far existing MSS preserve the He- sychian recension is uncertain; agreement of their text with that of Egyp VSS and Fathers (Cyril in particular) is the criterion. For the Prophets Ceriani has identified cod. Q and its kin as He- sychian. For the Octateuch N. McLean {JTS, II, 306) finds the Hesychian text in a group of cursives, 44, 74, 76, 84, 106, 134, etc. But the first instal- ments of the larger Cambridge LXX raise the question whether cod. B (Vaticanus) may not itself be Hesychian; its text is more closely allied to that of Cyril Alex, than to any other patristic text, and the consensus of these two witnesses against the rest is sometimes (Ex 32 14) curiously striking. In the Psalter also Rahlfs {Sepluaginla-Sludien, 2. Heft, 1907, 23-5) traces the Hesychian text in B and partially in S (Sinait.). Cf von Soden's theory for the NT and see Text and MSS of the NT.

      The Lucianic recension was the work of another martyr, Lucian of Antioch (d. 311-12), probably

      with the collaboration of the Hebraist

      12. Lucianic Dorotheus. There are, as Hort has Recension shown, reasons for associating Lucian

      with a "Syrian" revision of the NT in the 4th cent., which became the dominant type of text. That he produced a Syrian recension of the Gr OT is expressly stated by Jerome, and we are moreover able with considerable certainty to iden- tify the extant MSS which exhibit it. The identifi- cation, due to Field and Lagarde, rests on these grounds: (1) certain verses in 2 K are in the Arab. Syro-Hexaplar marked with the letter L, and a note explains that the letter indicates Lucianic readings; (2) the readings so marked occur in the cursives 19, 82, 93, 108, 118; (3) these MSS in the historical books agree with the LXX citations of the Antioch- ene Fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret. _ This clue enabled Lagarde to construct a Lucianic text of the historical books (Lihrorum Vet. Test, canonic.

      'pars prior, Gottingen, 1883); his death prevented the completion of the work. Lagarde's edition is vitiated by the fact that he does not quote the read- ings of the individual MSS composing the group, and it can be regarded only as an approximate reconstruction of "Lucian." It is evident, however, that the Lucianic LXX possessed much the same qualities as the Syrian revision of the NT; lucidity and completeness were the main objects. It is a "full" text, the outcome of a desire to include, so far as possible, all recorded matter; "doublets" are consequently numerous. While this "conflation" of texts detracts from its value, the Lucianic re- vision gains importance from the fact that the sources from which it gleaned include an element of great antiquity which needs to be disengaged; where it unites with the Old Lat VS against all other authorities its evidence is invaluable.

      VI. Reconstruction of LXX Text; Versions, Manuscripts and Printed Editions. — The task of restoring the original text is beset with difficulties. The materials (MSS, VSS, patristic citations) are abundant, but none has escaped "mixture," and the principles for reconstruction are not yet securely established (Swete, hitro, I, iv-vi; III, vi).

      Among the claief aids to restoration are the daughter VSS made from the LXX. and above aU the Old Lat (pre-Hieronymian) VS, for the earhest 1 Anriont (African) Old Lat VS dates from the ij "^'-i^"'- 2d cent. AD, i.e. before Origen, and con- versions tains a te.xt from wliich the asterisked Made from passages in Hexaplaric MSS are absent; tliATYY ^* thus "brings us the best independent

      tne LiJ^Ji. proof we have that the He.xaplar signs in-

      troduced by Origen can be reUed on lor the reconstruction of the LXX" (Burkitt). The Old Lat also enables us to recognize the ancient element in the Lucianic recension. But the Lat evidence itself is by no means unanimous. Augustine {De Doctr. Christ., ii.l6) speaks of the infinite variety of Lat VSS, though they may ultimately prove all to fall into two main families, African and European. Peter Sabatier's collec- tion of patristic quotations from the Old Lat is still useful, though needing verification by recent editions of the Fathers. Of Old Lat MSS one of the most important is the cod. Lugdunensis, edited by U. Robert {Pentateuchi e cod. Lugd. versio Lat. antiquissima, Paris. 1881; Hep- tateuchi partis post, versio Lat. antig. e cod. Lugd., Lyons, 1900). The student should consult also Burkitt's ed of The Rules of Tyconius ("Te.xts and Studies," III, 1, CamlDridge, 1894) and The Old Latin and the Itala (ib, IV, 3, 1896).

      Jerome's Vulgate is mainly a direct tr from the Heb, but the Vtilg Psalter, the so-called GalUcan, is one of Jerome's two revisions of the Old Lat, not his later VS from the Heb, and some details in our Prayer-book Psalter are ultimately derived through the Vulg Psalter from the LXX. Parts of the Apoc (Wisd, Ecclus, Bar, 1 and 2 Mace) are also pure Old Lat, untouched by Jerome.

      The early date (2d cent. AD) once claimed for the Egyp or Coptic VSS (Bohairic. i.e. in the dialect of Lower Egypt, Sahidic or Upper Egyp, and Middle Egyp) has not been confirmed by later researches, at least as regards the first-named, which is probably not earlier than the :3cl or 4th cent. AD. Rahlfs {Sept.-Studien, II, 1907) identifies the Bohairic Psalter as the Hesych- ian recension. The Sahidic VS of Job has fortunately preserved tiie shorter text lacking the later insertions from Theodotion (Lagarde. Mittheilungen, 1884, 204); this does not conclusively prove that it is pre-Origenic; it may be merely a Hexaplaric text with ttie asterisked passages omitted (Burkitt, EB, IV, 5027). The influ- ence of the Hexapla is traceable elsewhere in this VS.

      The Ethiopic VS was made in the main from the Gr and in part at least from an early text; Rahlfs (Sept Stud., I, 1904) considers its text of S-K, with that of cod. B. to be pre-Origenic.

      The Vulg or Peshitta Syriac VS was made from the Heb, though partly' influenced by the LXX. But another Syr VS is of primary importance for the LXX text, viz. that of Paul, bishop of Telia (Constantino in Mesopotamia), executed at Alexandria in 616-17 and known as the Syro-Hexaplar. This is a bald Syr VS of the LXX column of the Hexapla, containing the Hexaplar signs. A MS of the poetical and prophetical books is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and has been edited by Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana, 1874): fragments of the historical books arc also extant (Lagarde and Rahlfs, Bibliolhecae Sliriacae, Gottingen, 1892). This VS supplements the Gr Hexaplaric MSS and is the principal authority for Origen's text. For the original VS of Dnl, which has survived in only one late MS, the




      Syro-Hexaplar supplies a second and older authority of great value.

      The Armenian VS (ascribed to the 5th cent.) also owes its value to its extreme literalness; its text of the Octateuch is largely Hexaplaric.

      A bare mention must suffice of the Arabic VS (of which the prophetical and poetical books, Job excluded, were rendered from the LXX) : the fragments of the Gothic VS (made from the Lucianic recension), and the Slavonic (partly from LXX, also Lucianic) and the Georgian VSS.

      For a full description of the Gr MSS see Swete, Intro, I, ch V. They are divided according to their script (capi- tals or minuscules) into uncials and cur-

      2 Manu- sives, the former ranging from the 4th cent. ■ . , (four papyrus scraps go back to the 3d

      scnpts cent.; Nestle in PRE, XXIII, 208) to the

      10th cent. AD, the latter from the 9th to the 16th cent. AD. Complete Bibles are few; the ma- jority contain groups of books only, such as the Pent, Octateuch (Gen-Ruth), the later historical books, the Psalter, the 3 or 5 "Solomonic" books, the Prophets (major, minor or both). Uncials are commonly denoted by capital letters (in the ed of Holmes and Parsons by Roman figures) ; cursives, of which over 300 are known, by Arabic figures ; in the larger Cambridge LXX the selected cursives are denoted by small Roman letters.

      The following are the chief uncials containing, or which once contained, the whole Bible: B (Vaticanus, at Rome, 4th cent. AD), adopted as the standard text in all recent edd; S or S< (Sinaiticus, at St. Petersburg and Leipzig, 4th cent. AD), discovered by Tischendorf in 1844 and subsequent years in St. Catherine's Convent, Mt. Sinai; A (Alexandriniis, British Museum, probably 5th cent. AD); C (Ephraemi rescriptus, Paris, probably 5th cent.), a palimpsest, the older Bib. matter underlying a mediaeval Gr text of works of Ephrem the Syrian. For the Octateuch and historical books: D (Cottonianus, Brit. Mus., probably 5th or 6th cent.), fragments of an illuminated Gen, the bulk of which perished in a fire at Ashburnham House in 1731, but earlier collations of Grabe and others are extant, which for the lost por- tions are cited in the Cambridge texts as D (Dsi'I, i.e. silet Grabius, denotes an inference from Grabe's silence that the MS did not contain a variant): F (Ambro- sianus, Milan, 4th to 5th cent.), fragments of the Octa- teuch; G (Sarravianus, fragments at Leyden, Paris and St. Petersburg, 4th to 5th cent.), important as containing an Origenic te.xt with the Hexaplar signs; L (Purpureus Vindobonensis, Vienna, 5th to 6th cent.), fragments of an illuminated MS Genesis on purple veUinn; M (Coisli- nianus, Paris, 7th cent.), important on account of its marginal Hexaplaric matter. For the Prophets, Q (Mar- chalianus, Rome, 6th cent.) is valuable, both for its text, which is "Hesychian" (see above), and for its abundant marginal Hexaplaric matter. A curious mixture of uncial and cursive writing occurs in E (Bodleianus, probably 10th cent.), fragments of the historical books (to 3 R 16 28) preserved at Oxford, Cambridge (1 leaf), St. Peters- burg and London: Tischendorf, who brought the M3 from the East, retained the tell-tale Cambridge leaf, on which the transition from uncial to cursive script occurs, until his death. The long-concealed fact that the scattered fragments were part of a single MS came to light through Swete's identification of the Cambridge leaf as a continuation of the Bodleian fragment. Many of the cursives still await investigation, as do also the lectionaries. The latter, though the MSS are mainly late, should repay study. The use of the LXX for lectionary piirposes was inherited by the church from the synagogue, and the course of lessons may partly represent an old system: li^ht may also be expected from them on the local distribution of various types of text.

      Of the printed text the first four editions were (1) the

      Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, 1514-17.

      comprising the Gr, Heb and VuJg texts,

      3 Printed '''"^ '''^* '^ ^^^ middle place of honor being ~ , compared to Jesus in the midst between lextS the two thieves (!). The Gr was based on

      MSS from the Vatican and one from Venice ; it exhibits on the whole the Lucianic recension, as the Hesychian is by a curious coincidence represented in (2) the Aldine ed of 1518, based on Venetian MSS. (3) The monumental Sixtine ed, pubUshed at Rome in 1586 under the auspices of Pope Sixtus V and frequently reprinted, was mainly based on the cod. Vaticanus, the superiority of which text is justly recognized in the inter- esting preface (printed in Swete's Intro). (4) The Eng. ed (Oxford, 1707-20) begun by Grabe (d. 1712) was based on the cod. Alexandrinus, with aid from other MSS, and had the peculiarity that he employed Origen's critical signs and different sizes of type to show the divergence between the Gr and the Heb. Of more recent edd three are preeminent. (5) The great Oxford ed of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827, 5 vols, folio) was the first attempt to bring together in a gigantic apparatu.i criticus all the evidence of uncial and cursive MSS (upward of 300), VSS and early citations from Philo and Jos onward. As a monumental storehouse of materials " H. and P." will not be wholly superseded by the latest ed now (1913) in preparation. (6) The service- able Cambridge "manual," ed of Swete (Isted 1887-94, ed 3, 1901-7, 3 vols, 8vo) , is in the hands of all serious LXX

      4. Recon- struction of Original Text

      students. The text is that of B, or (where B fails) of A, and the apparatus contains the readings of the principal uncial MSS. New materials discovered since the ed of H. and P., esp. cod. S, are employed, and greater accuracy in the presentation of the other evidence has been made possible by photography. The fact that the text here printed is but a provisional one is sometimes overlooked. Swete's ed was designed as a precursor to (7) the larger Cambridge LXX, of which three instalments embracing the Pent have (1913) appeared {The OT in Gr, ed A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1911 pt. Ill, Nu and Dt). The text is a reprint of Swete's except that from E.x onward a few alterations of errors in the primary MS have been corrected, a delicate task in which the editors have rejected a few old readings without suffi- cient regard to the pecuUarities of Hellenistic Gr. The importance of the work lies in its apparatus, which presents the readings of all the uncials, VSS and early citations, and those of a careful representative selection of the cursives. The materials of H and P are brought up to date and presented in a more reliable and con- venient form. Besides these there is (8) Lagarde's reconstruction of the Lucianic recension of the historical books, which, as stated, must be used with caution (see above).

      The task of reconstructing the oldest text is still un- accomplished. Materials have accumulated, and much preliminary "spade-work" has been done, by Lagarde in particular (see his "axioms" in Swete, Intro, 484 ff) and more recently by Nestle and Rahlfs; but the principles which the editor must follow are not yet finally determined. The extent to which "mixture" has affected the documents is thestumbUng-block. Clearly no single MS presents the oldest text. That of cod. B, as in the NT, is on the whole the purest. In the 4 books of "Reigns" (1 S-2 K), e.g., it has escaped the grosser interpolations found in most MSS, and Rahlfs (Sept.-Studien, I, 1904) regards its text as pre-Origenic. It is, however, of unequal value and by no means an infallible guide; in Jgs, e.g., its text is undoubtedly late, no earher than the 4th cent. AD , according to one authority (Moore," Jgs," ICC). Inrela- tiontotwo of the 4th-cent. recensions its text is neutral, neither predominantly Lucianic nor Hexaplaric; but it has been regarded by some authorities as Hesychian. Possibly the recension made in the country which pro- duced the LXX adhered more closely than others to the primitive text; some "Hesychian" features in the B text may prove to be original. Still even its purest portions contain marks of editorial revision and patent corrup- tions. Cod. A presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the MT. In the books of " Reigns " it is practically a Hexaplaric text without the critical signs, the additional matter being mainly derived from Aquila. Yet that it contains an ancient element is shown by the large support given to its readings by the N'T and early Christian writers. Individual MSS must give place to groups. In order to reconstruct the texts current before Origen's time, it is necessary to isolate the groups containing the three 4th-cent. recensions, and to eliminate from the recensions thus recovered all Hexa- plaric matter and such changes as appear to have been introduced by the authors of those recensions. Other groups brought to light by the larger Cambridge text have also to be taken into account. The attempt to penetrate into the earher stages of the history is the hardest task. The Old Lat VS is here the surest guide; it has preserved readings which have disappeared from all Gr MSS, and affords a criterion as to the relative antiquity of the Gr variants. The evidence of early Christian and Jewish citations is also valuable. Ulti- mately, after elimination of all readings proved to be " recensional " or late, the decision between outstand- ing variants must depend on internal evidence. 'These variants will fall into two classes: (1) those merely affecting the Gr text, by far the larger number and pre- senting less difBculty; (2) those which imply a different Heb text. In adjudicating on the latter Lagarde's main axioms have to be borne in mind, that a free tr is to be preferred to a slavishly literal one, and a tr presupposing another Heb original to one based on the MT.

      VII. Number, Titles and Order of Books. — In

      addition to the Heb canonical books, the LXX in- cludes all the books in the Eng. Apoo 1. Contents except 2 Esd (Pr Man only finds a place among the canticles appended in some MSS to the Ps) besides a 3d and 4th book of Mace. Swete further includes in his text as an appendix of Gr books on the borderland of canon- icity the Ps of Sol (found in some cursives and men- tioned in the Ust in cod. A), the Gr fragments of the Book of En and the ecclesiastical canticles above mentioned. Early Christian writers in quoting freely from these additional books as Scripture doubt- less perpetuate a tradition inherited from the Jews of Alexandria. Most of the books being original




      Gr compositions were ipso facto excluded from a place in the Heb Canon. Greater latitude as re- gards canonicity prevailed at Alexandria; the Pent occupied a place apart, but as regards later books no very sharp line of demarcation between "canonical" and "uncanonical" appears to have been drawn.

      Palestinian Jews employed the first word or words

      of each book of the Pent to serve as its title; Gen

      e.g. was denoted "in the beginning,"

      2. Titles Ex "[And these are the] names"; a

      few of the later books have similar titles. It is to the LXX, through the medium of the Lat VSS, that we owe the famOiar descriptive titles, mostly suggested by phrases in the Gr VS. In some books there are traces of rival titles in the Ptolemaic age. Exodus ("outgoing") is also called Exagogt ("leading out") by Philo and by the Hel- lenist Ezekiel who gave that name to his drama on the deliverance from Egypt. Philo has also al- ternative names for Dt — Epinomis ("after-law") borrowed from the title of a pseudo-Platonic treat- ise, and for Jgs "the Book of Judgments." The last title resembles the Alexandrian name for the books of S and K, viz. the four Books of Kingdoms or rather Reigns; the name may have been given in the first place to a partial VS including only the reigns of the first few monarchs. Jerome's influ- ence in this case restored the old Heb names as also in Ch ( = Heb "Words of Days," "Diaries"), which in LXX is entitled Paraleipomena, "omissions," as being a supplement to the Books of Reigns.

      Another innovation, due apparently to the Gr

      translators or later editors, was the breaking up of

      some of the long historical narratives

      3. Biparti- into volumes of more manageable tion ot compass. In the Heb MSS, S, K, Ch, Books Ezr-Neh form respectively one book

      apiece. In the LXX the first three of these collections are subdivided into two volumes as in modern Bibles; an acquaintance with the other arrangement is, however, indicated in cod. B by the insertion at the end of 1 R, 3 R, 1 Ch of the first sentence of the succeeding book, a reminder . to the reader that a continuation is to follow. Ezr- Neh, the Gr VS (2 Esd) being made under the influence of Palestinian tradition, remains undivided. Originally Ch-Ezr-Neh formed a unit, as was ap- parently still the case when the oldest Gr VS (1 Esd) was made. , , . ,. ,

      In the arrangement of books there is a radical departure from Palestinian practice. There were

      three main unalterable divisions in the

      4. Grouping Heb Bible, representing three stages in and Order the formation of the Canon: Law, of Books Prophets ("Former," i.e. Josh, Jgs, S,

      K, and "Latter") and "Writings." This arrangement was known at Alexandria at the end of the 2d cent. BC (Sir, prol.) but was not followed The "Writings" were a miscellaneous collection ot history and poetry with one prophetical book (Dnl). Alexandrian scholars introduced a more hterary and symmetrical system, bringing together the books of each class and arranging them with some re- gard to the supposed chronological order ot their authors. The Law, long before the Gr tr, had secured a position of supreme sanctity; this group was left undisturbed, it kept its precedence and the individual books their order (Lev and Nu, however, exchange places in a few lists) . I he other two groups are broken up. Ruth is removed trom the 'Writings" and attached to Jgs. Ch and Jizr- Neh are similarly transferred to the end of the his- torical group. This group, from chronological con- siderations, is followed by the poetical a,nd other "Writings,*' the Prophets coming last (so m B, etc, in S A prophets precede poets) . The mtemal order

      of the Gr Hagiographa, which includes quasi-his- torical (Est, Tob, Jth) and Wisdom books, is va- riable. Dnl now first finds a place among the Prophets. The 12 minor prophets usually precede the major (S and Western authorities give the Four precedence), and the order of the first half of their company is shufHed, apparently on chronological grounds, Hos being followed by Am, Mic, Joel, Ob, Jon. Jer has his train of satellites. Bar, Lam (trans- ferred from the "Writings") and Ep. Jer; Sus and Bel consort with and form integral parts of Dnl. Va- riation in the order of books is partly attributable to the practice of writing each book on a separate papyrus roll, kept in a cylindrical case; rolls con- taining kindred matter would tend to be placed in the same case, but there would be no fixed order for these separate items until the copying of large groups in book-form came into vogue (Swete, Intro, 225 i, 229 f).

      VIII. Characteristics of the Version and Its Component Parts. — Notwithstanding the uncertain state of the text, some general characteristics of the VS are patent. It is clear that, like the Heb itself, it is not a single book, but a library. It is a series of VSS and Gr compositions covering weU-nigh 400 years, since it includes a few productions of the 2d cent. AD; the bulk of the tr», however, fall within the first half of the period (Sir, prol.).

      The tr8 may be grouped and their chronological order approximately determined from certain character- istics of their style. (1) We may inquire 1 GrouDinp ^°^ ^ ^^^ word or phrase is rendered in ', J YY different parts of the work. Diversity of

      ol IrAA renderings is not an infallible proof that

      Books on different hands have been employed, since Internal invariable uniformity in tr is difficult of

      T-, ., attainment and indeed was not the aim

      iiviaence of the Pent translators, who seem rather to have studied variety of expression. If, however, a Heb word is consistently rendered by one Gr word in one portion and by another elsewhere, and if each of the two portions has other features peculiar to itself, it becomes highly probable that the two portions are the work of different schools. Among "test-words" which yield results of this kind are "servant" in "Moses the servant of the Lord," "Hosts" in "Lord of Hosts," "Phihstines" (Swete, //i^ro, 317 f; Thackeray, Grammar of the OT, 7 ft). (2) We may compare the Gr with that of dated documents of the Ptolemaic age. The trs were written in the koini or "common " Gr, most of them in the vernacular variety of it, during a period when this new cosmopolitan language was in the making; the abundant dated papyri enable us to trace some stages in its evolution. The Petrie and Hibeh papyri of the 3d cent. BC afford the closest parallels to the Gr Pent. The following century witnessed a considerable develop- ment or "degeneracy" in the language, of which traces may be found in the Gr of the prophetical books. Beside the vernacular Gr was the Uterary language of the "Atticistic" school which persistently struggled, with indifferent success, to recover the literary flavor of the old Gr masterpieces. This style is represented in the LXX by most of the original Gr writings and by the para- phrases of some of the "Writings." (3) We may cora- f)are the Gr books as translations, noting in which books icense is allowed and which adhere strictly to the Heb. The general movement is in the direction of greater literalism; the later books show an increasing reverence for the letter of Scripture, resulting in the production of pedantically literal VSS; the tendency culminated in the 2d cent. AD in the barbarisms ol Aquila. Some of the " Writings " were freely handled, because they had not yet obtained canonical rank at the time of tr. In- vestigation on these lines goes to show that the order of the tr was approximately that of the Heb Canon. The Gr Hexateuch may be placed in the 3d cent. BO, the Prophets mainly in the 2d cent. BO, the "Writings" mainly in the 2d and 1st cents. BO.

      (1) The Hexateuch.— The Gr Pent should un- doubtedly be regarded as a unit: the Aristeas story may so far be credited. It is distinguished by a uniformly high level of the "common" vernacular style, combined with faithfulness to the Heb, rarely lapsing into literalism. It set the standard which later translators tried to imitate. The text was more securely established in this portion and substantial variant readings are comparatively few. The latter part of Ex is an exception; the Heb had




      here not reached its final form in the 3d cent. BC, and there is some reason for thinking that the VS is not the work of the translator of the first half. In Dt a few new features in vocabulary appear (e.g. ek1;lesia; see Hort, Christian Ecclesia, Iff). The Gr VS of Jos forms a link between the Pent and the later historical books. The text was not yet fixed, and variants are more abundant than in the Pent. The earliest VS, probably of selections only, appears from certain common features to have been nearly coeval with that of the Law.

      (2) The "Latter" Prophets.— There is little doubt that the next books to be tr** were the Prophets in the narrower sense, and that Isa came first. The style of the Gr Isa has a close similarity, not wholly attributable to imitation, to that of the Pent: a certain freedom of treatment connects it with the earlier tr period: it was known to the author of Wisd (Isa 3 10 with Ottley's n.). The tr shows "obvious signs of incompetence" (Swete), but the task was an exacting one. The local Egyp coloring in the tr is interesting (R. R. Ottley, Book of Isa according to the LXX, 2 vols, Gr text of A, tr and notes, Cambridge, 1904-6, with review in JTS, X, 299). Jer, Ezk and the Minor Prophets were probabty tr'^ en bloc or nearly so. The Palestinian Canon had now been enlarged by a second group of Scriptures and this stimulated a desire among Alexandrian Jews to possess the entire collection of the Prophets in Gr. The undertaking seems to have been a formal and quasi-official one, not a haphazard growth. For it has been ascertained that Jer and Ezk were divided for tr purposes into two nearly equal parts; a change in the Gr style occurs at the junctures. In Jer the break occurs in ch 29 (LXX order) ; the clearest criterion of the two styles is the twofold rendering of "Thus saith the Lord." The last ch (52) is probably a later addition in the Gr. The translator of the second haK of Jer also tr

      (3) Partial version of the "Former" Prophets (1-3 R). — The Gr style indicates that the history of the monarchy was not all tr^ at once. Ulfilas is said to have omitted these books from the Gothic VS as likely to inflame the military temper of his

      race; for another reason the Gr translators were at first content with a partial VS. They omitted as unedifying the more disastrous portions, David's sin with the subsequent calamities of his reign and the later history of the divided monarchy culmi- nating in the captivity. Probably the earliest VSS embraced only (1) 1 R, (2) 2 R 1 1—11 1 (David's early reign), (3) 3 R 2 12—21 13 (Solomon and the beginning of the divided monarchy) ; the third book of "Reigns" opened with the accession of Solomon (as in Lucian's text), not at the point where 1 K opens. These earlier portions are written in a freer style than the rest of the Gr "Reigns," and the Heb original differed widely in places from that tr-^ in the Eng. Bible (JTS, VIII, 262).

      (4) The "Writings"— The Hagiographa at the end of the 2d cent. BC were regarded as national lit. (Sir, prol. "the other books of our fathers"), but not as canonical. The translators did not scruple to treat these with great freedom, undeterred by the prohibition against alteration of Scripture (Dt 4 2; 12 32). Free paraphrases of extracts were produced, sometimes with legendary additions. A partial VS of Job (one-sixth being omitted) was among the first; Aristeas, the historian of the 2d cent. BC, seems to have been acquainted with it (Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1875, 136 ff). The translator was a student of the Gr poets; his VS was probably produced for the general reader, not for the synagogues. Hatch's theory (Essays in Bib. Gr, 1889, 214) that his Heb text was shorter than ours and was expanded later is untenable; avoid- ance of anthropomorphisms explains some omis- sions, the reason for others is obscure. The first Gr narrative of the return from exile (1 Esd) was probably a similar VS of extracts only from Ch-Ezr- Neh, grouped round a fable of non-Jewish origin, the story of the 3 youths at the court of Darius. The work is a fragment, the end being lost, and it has been contended by some critics that the VS once embraced the whole of Ch-Ezr-Neh (C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910). The Gr is obviously earlier than Esd B and is of great value for the re- construction of the Heb. The same translator appears from peculiarities of diction to have pro- duced the earliest VS of Dnl, treating it with similar freedom and incorporating extraneous matter (the Three Children, Sus, Bel). The maximum of inter- polation is reached in Est, where the Gr additions make up two-thirds of the story. The Gr Prov (probably 1st cent. BC) includes many maxims not in the Heb ; some of these appear to be derived from a lost Heb collection, others are of purely Gr origin. This translator also knew and imitated the Gr classics; the numerous fragments of iambic and hexameter verse in the tr cannot be accidental (JTS, XIII, 46). The Psalter is the one tr in this category in which liberties have not been taken; in Ps 13 [14] 3 the extracts from other parts of Pss and from Isa included in the B text must be an interpolation possibly made before St. Paul's time (Rom 3 13 ff), or else taken from Rom. The little Ps 151 in LXX, described in the title as an "auto- graph" work of David and as "outside the number," is clearly a late Gr production, perhaps an appendix added after the VS was complete.

      (5) The latest LXX translations. — The latest VSS included in the LXX are the productions of the Jewish translators of the 2d cent. AD; some books may be rather earlier, the work of pioneers in the new school which advocated strict adherence to the Heb. The books of "Reigns" were now completed, by Theodotion, perhaps, or by one of his school; the later portions (2 R 11 2—3 R 2 11, David's downfall, and 3 R 22 — 4 R end, the downfall of the monarchy) are by one hand, as shown by pecu-




      liarities in style, e.g. "I am have with child" (2 R 11 5) = "I am with child," a use which is due to a desire to distinguish the longer form of the pro- noun 'anohhl ("I," also used for "I am") from the shorter 'anl. A complete VS of Jgs was now prob- ably first made. In two cases the old paraphrastic VSh were replaced. Theodotion's Dnl, as above stated, superseded in the Christian church the older VS. A new and complete VS of Ch-Ezr-Neh was made (Esd B), though the older VS retained its place in the Gr Bible on account of the interesting legend imbedded in it; the new VS is here again possibly the work of Theodotion; the numerous transliterations are characteristic of him (Torrey, Ezra Studies; the theory had previously been ad- vanced by Sir H. Howorth). In the Gr Ecol we have a specimen of Aquila's style (see McNeile's ed, Cambridge, 1904). Canticles is another late VS.

      A marked feature of the whole tr is the scrupu- lous avoidance of anthropomorphisms and phrases derogatory to the Divine transcend- 2. General ence. Thus Ex 4 16, "Thou shalt Character- be to him in things pertaining to God" istics (Heb "for" or "as God"); 15 3, "The

      Lord is a breaker of battles" (Heb "a Man of war"); 24 10, "They saw the place where the God of Israel stood" (Heb "they saw the God of Israel"); ver 11, "Of the elect of Israel not one perished and they were seen in the place of God" (Heb "Upon the nobles .... He laid not His hand, and they beheld God"). The comparison of God to a rock was consistently paraphrased as idolatrous, as was sometimes the comparison to the sun from fear of sun-worship (Ps 83 [84] 12, "The Lord loves mercy and truth" for Heb "The Lord is a sun and shield"). "The sons of God" (Gen 6 2) becomes "the angels of God." For mmor liberties, e.g. shght amplifications, interpretation of difficult words, substitution of Gr for Heb coinage, tr of place-names, see Swete, 7n«ro, 323 ff. Blunders m tr are not uncommon, but the difficulties which these pioneers had to face must be remembered, esp. the paleographical character of the Heb originals. These were written on flimsy papyrus rolls, in a script probably in a transitional stage between the archaic and the later square characters; the words were not separated, and there were no vowel-points; two of the radicals (wdw and yodh) were also fre- quently omitted. Add to this the absence at Alex- andria, for parts at least of the Scriptures, of any sound tradition as to the meaning. On the other hand the vocalization adopted by the translators, e.g. in the proper names, is of great value in the his- tory of early Sem pronunciation. It must further be remembered that the Sem language most famil- iar to them was not Heb but Aram., and sonie mis- takes are due to Aram, or even Arab. coUoquiahsms (Swete, Inlro, 319). ^ t j w

      IX. Salient Differences between Greek and He- brew Texts. — Differences indicating a Heb original other than the MT affect either the sequence or the subject-matter (cf Swete, Intro, 231 ff).

      The most extensive discrepancies in arrangement of materials occur in (1) Ex 35—39, the construc- tion of the Tabernacle and the orna- 1. Sequence ments of its ministers, (2) 3 R 4-11, Solomon's reign, (3) Jer (last half), (4) Prov (end) . (1) In Ex the LXX gives precedence to the priests' ornaments, which m the Heb follow the account of the Tabernacle, and omits altogether the altar of incense. The whole section describing the execution of the instructions given in the pre- vious chapters in aknost identical words is one ot the latest portions of the Pent and the text had clearly not been finaUy fixed in the 3d cent. BC; the section was perhaps absent from the oldest Gr Vb. In Ex 20 13-15 cod. B arranges three of the com-

      mandments in the Alexandrian order (7, 8, 6), at- tested in Philo and in the NT. (2) Deliberate re- arrangement has taken place in the history of Solo- mon, and the LXX unquestionably preserves the older text. The narrative of the building of the Temple, like that of the Tabernacle, contains some of the clearest examples of editorial revision in the MT (Wellhaasen, Hist of Israel, 67, 280, etc). At the end of 3 R LXX places chs 20 and 21 in their proper order; MT reverses this, interposing the Naboth story in the connected account of the Syr wars and justifying the change by a short pref- ace. (3) In Jer the chapter numbers differ from the middle of ch 26 to the end of ch 51, the historical appendix (ch 62) concluding both texts. This is due to the different position assigned to a group of prophecies against the nations: LXX places them in the center, MT at the end. The items in this group are also rearranged. The diversity in order is earlier than the Gr tr; see JTS, IV, 245. (4) The order of some groups of maxims at the end of Prov was not finally fixed at the time of the Gr tr; like Jeremiah's prophecies against the nations, these httle groups seem to have circulated as late as the 2d or 1st cent. BC as separate pamphlets. The Ps numbers from 10 to 147 differ by one in LXX and MT, owing to discrepancies in the lines of demarcation between individual pss.

      Excluding the end of Ex, striking examples of divergence in the Pent are few. LXX alone pre- serves Cain's words to his brother, 2. Subject- "Let us go into the field" (Gen 4 8). Matter The close of Moses' song appears in

      an expanded form in LXX (Dt 32 43) . Similarly Hannah's song in 1 R 2 (? originally a warrior's triumph-song) has been rendered more appropriate to the occasion by the substitution in ver 8c of words about the answer to prayer, and enlarged by the insertion of a passage from Jer; the changes in both songs may be connected with their early use as canticles. In Josh the larger amount of divergence suggests that this book did not share the peculiar sanctity of the Law. But the books of "Reigns" present the widest differences and the fullest scope for the textual critic. The LXX here proves the existence of two independent accounts of certain events. Sometimes it incor- porates both, while the MT rejects one of them; thus LXX gives (3 R 2 35a ff .46a ff) a connected summary of events in Solomon's personal history; most of which appear elsewhere in a detached form, 12 24a-z is a second account of the dismemberment of the kingdom; 16 28a-h a second summary of Jehoshaphat's reign (cf 22 41ff); 4 R 1 ISa another summary of Joram's reign (cf 3 Iff). Conversely in 1 R 17-18, MT has apparently pre- served two contradictory accounts of events in David's early history, while LXX presents a shorter and consistent narrative (Swete, I?itro, 245 f). An "addition" in LXX of the highest interest appears in 3 R 8 536, where a stanza is put into the mouth of Solomon at the Temple dedication, taken from "the Song-book" (probably the Book of Jashar); the MT gives the stanza in an edited form earlier in the chapter (8 12 f) ; for the reconstruction of the original Heb see JTS, X, 439; XI, 518. The last line proves to be a title, "For the Sabbath — On Alamoth" (i.e. for sopranos), showing that the song was set to music for liturgical purposes. In Jer, besides transpositions, the two texts differ widely in the way of excess and defect; the verdict of critics is mainly in favor of the priority of the LXX (Streane, Double Text of Jer, 1896). For diver- gences in the "Writings" see VIII, above; for addi- tional titles to the Pss see Swete, Intro, 250 f .

      LiTEBATURE. — The most important works have been mentioned in the body ol the article. See, further, the

      Sepulchre Sermon on Mount



      very full lists in Swete's Intro and the bibliographies by Nestle in PRE\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ III, 1-24, and XXIII, 207-10 (1913) ; HDB. IV, 45.3-54.

      SEPULCHRE, sep'ul-ker (2 Ch 21 20; 32 33;

      Jn 19 41 f; Acts 2 29, etc). See Burial; Jeru- salem, VIII.

      SERAH, se'ra (TI'llJ , serah, "abundance"): Daughter of Asher (Gen 46 17; Nu 26 46, AV "Sarah"; 1 Ch 7 30).

      SERAIAH, se-ra'ya, s5-rl'a (^iT^^W, s'raydhu, "Jeh hath prevailed"; LXX 2apa£as, Saraias, or Zapata, Saraiu) :

      (1) Secretary of David (2 S 8 17); in 2 S 20 25 he is called Sheva ; in 1 K 4 3 the name appears as Shisha. This last or Shasha would be restored elsewhere by some critics; others prefer the form Shavsha, which is found in 1 Ch 18 16.

      (2) A high priest in the reign of Zedekiah; exe- cuted with other prominent captives at Riblah by order of Nebuchadnezzar (2 K 25 18.21; Jer 52 24.27). Mentioned in the list of high priests (1 Ch 6 14). Ezra claims descent from him (Ezr 7 1[3]). See Az.-iRAiAs; Saraias.

      (3) The son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and one of the heroic band of men who saved themselves from the fury of Nebuchadnezzar when he stormed Jerus. They repaired to Gedaliah, the son of Ahi- kam, but killed him on account of his allegiance to the Chaldaeans (2 K 25 23.25).

      (4) Son of Kenaz, and younger brother of 0th- niel, and father of Joab, the chief of Ge-harashim (1 Ch 4 13.14).

      (5) Grandfather of Jehu, of the tribe of Simeon (1 Ch 4 35).

      (6) A priest, the third in the list of those who returned from Babylon to Jerus with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 2; Neh 7 7, here called Azariah; 12 1), and third also (if the same person is meant) in the record of those who sealed the covenant binding all Jews not to take foreign wives (Neh 10 2). As the son of Hilkiah, and consequently a direct descend- ant of the priestly family, he became governor of the temple when it was rebuilt (Neh 11 11). He is mentioned (under the name Azariah) also in 1 Ch 9 11. Neh 12 2 adds that "in the days of Joi- akim" the head of Seraiah's house was Meraiah.

      (7) Son of Azriel, one of those whom Jehoiakim commanded to imprison Jeremiah and Baruch, the son of Neriah (Jer 36 26).

      (8) The son of Neriah, who went into exile with Zedekiah. He was also called Sar M'mlhdh ("prince of repose"). The Tg renders Sar M'nuhah by Rabh Tlkrabhla' , "prince of battle," and LXX by ipxt^" Siipoiv, drchon dordn, "prince of gifts," reading Minhah for M'nuhah. At the request of Jeremiah he carried with him in his exile the passages contain- ing the prophet's warning of the fall of Babylon, written in a book which he was bidden to bind to a stone and cast into tlie Euphrates, to symboHze the fall of Babylon (Jer 51 59-64).

      Horace J. Wolf SERAPHIM, ser'a-fim (Q"^Sliri , s-rdphlm): A pi. word occurring only in Isa 6 2 ff — Isaiah's vision of Jeh. The origin of the term in Heb is uncertain. Sarap/i in Nu 21 6; Isa .14 29, etc, sig- nifies a fiery serpent. A Bab name for the fire-god, Nergal, was Sharrapu. In Egypt there have been found eagle-lion-shaped figures guarding a grave, to which is applied the name senf. The equivalent Eng. term is "griffin."

      It is probable enough that popular mythology connected fire with the attendants of the deity in various ways among different peoples, and that burning lies at the base of the idea in all these sug-

      gested etymologies. It remains, however, that in Isaiah's use there is nothing of the popular legend or superstition. These seraphim are august beings whose forms are not at all fully described. They had faces, feet, hands and wings. The six wings, in three pairs, covered their faces and feet in humility and reverence, and were used for sustaining them in their positions about the throne of Jeh. One of them is the agent for burning (with a coal off the altar, not with his own power or person) the sin from the lips of the prophet.

      Seraphim are in Jewish theology connected with cherubim and ophanim as the three highest orders of attendants on Jeh, and are superior to the angels who are messengers sent on various errands. As the cherubim in popular fancy were represented by the storm-clouds, so the seraphim were by the serpentine flashes of the lightning; but none of this appears in Isaiah's vision.

      In the NT the only possible equivalent is in "the living ones" ("beasts" of AV) in Rev 4, 6, etc. Here, as in Isa, they appear nearest Jeh's throne, supreme in praise of His hohness.

      William Owen Carver

      SERAR, se'rar (Sepdp, Serdr; AV Aserer) : Name of one of the families which returned with Zerub- babel (1 Esd 5 32) = "Sisera" of Ezr 2 53; Neh 7 55.

      SERED, se'red ("ID , ^eredh) : Son of Zebulun (Gen 46 14; Nu 26 26).

      SERGIUS PAULUS, sflr'ji-us po'lus. See

      Paulus, Sergius.

      SERJEANTS, sar'jents, -jants (papSovxoi, rhdb- douchoi): In Acts 16 35.38 the word (ht. "holders of rods," corresponding to Rom "lictors," thus RVm) is used of the officers in attendance on the Philippian magistrates, whose duty it was to exe- cute orders in scourging, etc, in this case in setting prisoners free. Paul and Silas, however, as Romans, refused thus to be "privily" dismissed.

      SERMON, stir'mun, ON THE MOUNT, THE:

      I. P.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\RALLEL Accounts

      II. Historicity of the Discourse

      III. Time and Occasion

      IV. Scene

      V. The Hearers VI. The Message: Summary

      1. Analysis

      2. Argument: The Kingdom of God (Heaven)

      (1) Characteristics of the Subjects

      (2) Vocation of the Subjects

      (3) Relation of New Righteousness to Mosaic Law

      (a) The Relation Defined (6) The Relation Illustrated

      (4) Motives and Principles of Conduct

      (a) In Worship

      Ih) In Life's Purpose (c) In Social Relations

      (5) Hortatory Conclusion (o) The Narrow Way

      (b) The Tests of Character VII. Principles


      The Sermon on the Mount is the title commonly given to the collection of sayings recorded in Mt 5-7 and in Lk 6 20-49. The latter is sometimes called the Sermon on the Plain from the fact that it is said to have been dehvered on a level space some- where on the descent of the mountain. The Sermon appears to be an epitome of the teachings of Jesus concerning the kingdom of heaven, its subjects and their life. For this reason it has always held the first place of attention and esteem among the sayings of Jesus. See Sermon on the Plain.

      /. Parallel Accounts. — As indicated above, the Sermon is reported by both Matthew and Luke.


      A comparison of the two accounts reveals certain striking differences. A total of 47 verses of the account in Mt have no parallel in Lk, while but 4J verses of the latter are wanting in the former. On the other hand, many of the sayings in Mt that are lacking in the Sermon of Lk, amounting in all to 34 verses, appear elsewhere distributed throughout the Lukan narrative and in some instances con- nected with different incidents and circumstances.

      These facts give rise to some interesting literary and historical questions : Do the two accounts represent two distinct discourses dealing with the same general theme but spoken on different occasions, or are they simply different reports of the same discourse ? If it be held that the Sermon was delivered but once, which of the accounts represents more closely the original address 7 Is the discourse in Mt homogeneous or does it include sayings originally spoken on other occasions and early Incorporated in the Sermon in the gospel tradition 7

      //. Historicity of the Discourse. — There have been and are today scholars who regard the sermons recorded in Mt and Lk as collections of sayings spoken on different occasions, and maintain that they do not represent any connected discourse ever delivered by Jesus. In their view the Sermon is either a free compilation by the evangeUsts or a product of apostolic teaching and oral tradition.

      The prevailing opinion among NT scholars is, however, that the gospel accounts represent a genuine historical discourse. The Sermon as recorded in Mt bears such marks of inner unity of theme and exposition as to give the appearance of genuineness. That Jesus should deliver a discourse of this kind accords with all the cir- cumstances and with the purpose of His ministry. Besides, we know that in His teaching He was accustomed to speak to the multitudes at length, and we should expect Him to give early in His ministry some formal exposition of the kingdom, the burden of His first preach- ing. That such a summary of one of His most important discourses should have been preserved is altogether probable.

      On the other hand, it may be conceded that the accounts need not necessarily be regarded as full or exact reports of the discourse but possibly and probably rather summaries of its theme and substance. Our Lord was accustomed to teach at length, but this dis- course could easily be delivered in a few minutes. Again, while His popular teaching was marked by a unique wealth of illustration the Sermon is largely gnomic in form. This gnomic style and the paucity of the usual concrete and illustrative elements suggest the probability of condensation in transmission. Moreover, it is hardly probable that such an address of Jesus would be recorded at the time of its delivery or would be remembered in detail.

      There is evidence that the account in Mt 5-7 contains some sayings not included in the original discourse. This view is confirmed by the fact that a number of the sayings are given in Luke's Gospel in settings that appear more original. It is easy to believe that related sayings spoken on other occasions may have become associated with the Sermon in apostolic teaching and thus handed down with it, but if the discourse were well known in a specific form, such as that recorded in Mt, it is hardly conceivable that Luke or anyone else would break it up and distribute the fragments or associate them with other incidents, as some of the sayings recorded in both Gospels are found associated in Lk.

      ///. Time and Occasion. — Both Matthew and Luke agree in assigning the dehvery of the Sermon to the first half of the Galilean ministry. The former apparently places it a httle earlier than the latter, in whose account it follows immediately after the appointment of the twelve apostles. While the time cannot be accurately determined, the position assigned by the Gospels is approximately correct and is supported by the internal evidence. _ Por- tions of the Sermon imply that the opposition of the religious teachers was already m evidence, but it clearly belongs to the first year of Our Lord s ministry before that opposition had become serious. On the other hand, the occasion was sufficiently late for the popularity of the new Teacher to have reached its climax. In the early Galilean mmistry Jesus confined His teaching to the synagogues, but later.

      when the great crowds pressed about Him, He re- sorted to open-air preaching after the manner of the Sermon. Along with the growth in His popular- ity there is observed a change in the character of His teaching. His earher message may be summed up in the formula, "Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" {Mi 4 17). Later, both in His pubhc discourses and in His more intimate con- ferences with His disciples. He was occupied with the principles of the kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount belongs to this later type of teaching and fits naturally into the circumstances to which it has been assigned. Luke probably gives the true historical occasion, i.e. the appointment of the Twelve.

      IV. Scene. — According to the evangelists, the scene of the delivery of the Sermon was one of the mountains or foothills surrounding the Galilean plain. Probably one of the hills lying N.W. of Capernaum is meant, for shortly after the Sermon we find Jesus and His disciples entering that city. There are no data .justifying a closer identification of the place. There is a tradition dating from the time of the Crusades that identifies the mount of the Sermon with Kam Haltin, a two-peaked hill on the road from Tiberias to Nazareth, but there are no means of confirming this late tradition and the identification is rather improbable.

      V. The Hearers. — The Sermon was evidently addressed, primarily, to the disciples of Jesus. This is the apparent meaning of the account of both evangelists. According to Matthew, Jesus, "seeing the multitudes, .... went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth and taught them." The separation from the multitudes and the direction of His words to the disciples seem clear, and the distinction appears intentional on the part of the WTiter. However, it must be observed that in the closing comments on the Sermon the presence of the multitudes is implied. In Luke's account the distinction is less marked. Here the order of events is : the night of prayer in the mountain, the choice of the twelve apostles, the descent with them into the presence of the multitude of His disciples and a great number of people from Judaea, Jerus and the coast country, the healing of great numbers, and, finally, the address. While the continued presence of the multitudes is implied, the plain meaning of the words, "And he hfted up his eyes on his disciples, and said," is that his address was intended esp. for the latter. This view is borne out by the address itself as recorded in both accounts. Observe the use of the second person in the reference to suffering, poverty and persecution for the sake of the Son of Man. Further the sayings concerning the "salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" could hardly have been addressed to any but His disciples. The term disciple, however, was doubtless employed in the broader sense by both evangelists. This is clearly the case in Matthew's account, according to which the Twelve had not yet been appointed.

      VI. The Message : A Summary. — It is hardly proper to speak of the Sermon on the Mount as a digest of the teaching of Jesus, for it does not include any reference to some very important subjects dis- cussed by Our Lord on other occasions in the course of His ministry. It is, however, the most comprehensive and important collection or summary of His sayings that is preserved to us in the gospel record. For this reason the Sermon properly holds in Christian thought the first place of esteem among all the NT messages. As an exposition of the ideal life and the program of the new society which Jesus ,)« proposed to create, its interpretation is of the deepest interest and the profoundest concern.



      It may assist the student of the Sermon in arriving at a clear appreciation of the argument and the saUent

      teatiu-es of the discourse if the whole is 1 Anali7<;r<; *'''^* viewed in outline. There is some i. /uiaij/sis difference of opinion among scholars as

      to certain features of the analysis, and consequently various outUnes have been presented by diftereut writers. Those of C. W. Votaw in HDB, Canon Gore in The Sermon on the Mount, and H. C King in The Ethics of Jesus are worthy of special mention. The fol- lowing analysis of the Sermon as recorded by Matthew is given as the basis of the present discussion.

      It is not implied that there was any such formal plan before the mind of .Jesus as He spoke, but it is believed that the outline presents a faithful syllabus of the argu- ment of the Sermon as preserved to us.

      theme: the kingdom of god (heaven), its subjects AND ITS righteousness (5 -3 — 7 27),

      I. The .subjects of the kingdom (5 .3-16).

      1. The qualities of character essential to happi- ness and influence (vs 3-12).

      2. The vocation of the subjects (vs 13-16).

      11. The relation of the new rigliteousness to the INIosaic Law (5 17-48).

      1. The relation defined as that of continuance in a higher fulfilment (vs 17-20).

      2, The higher fulfilment of the new righteousness illustrated by a comparison of its principles with the Mosaic Law as currently taught and prac- tised (vs 21-48).

      (1) The higher law of brotherhood judges ill- will as murder (vs 21-26).

      (2) The higher law of purity condemns lust as adultery (vs 27-32).

      (3) The higher law of truth forbids oaths as unnecessary and evil (vs 33-37).

      (4) The higher law of rights substitutes self-restraint and generosity for retaliation and resistance (vs 38-42).

      (5) The higher law of love demands universal good will of a supernatural quahty like that of the Father (vs 43-48).

      III. The new righteousness. Its motives as applied to religious, practical and social duties, or the principles of conduct (6 1 — 7 12).

      1. Reverence toward the Father essential in all acts of worship (6 1-lS) .

      (1) In all duties (ver 1).

      (2) In almsgiving (vs 2-4).

      (3) In prayer (vs 5-15).

      (4) In fasting (vs 16-18),

      2. Loyalty toward the Father fundamental in all activities (6 19-34),

      (1) In treasure-seeking (vs 10-24).

      (2) In trustful devotion to the kingdom and the Father's righteousness (vs 25-34).

      3. Love toward the Father dynamic in all social relations (7 1-12).

      (1) Critical estimate of self instead of censorious judgment of others (vs 1-5).

      (2) Discrimination in the communication of spiritual values (ver 6),

      (3) Kindness toward others in all things like the Father's kindness toward aU His chil- dren (vs 7-12).

      IT, Hortatory conclusion (7 13-27).

      1, The two gates and the two ways (vs 13-14).

      2. The tests of character (vs 15-27),

      (1) Characteristics of the subjects (5 3-12). — The Sermon open.9 'n'ith the famihar Beatitudes,

      Unlike many reformers, Jesua begins 2. Argu- the exposition of His program with a ment: The promise of happiness, •n'ith a blessing Kingdom of rather than a curse. He thus con- God nects His program directly -uith the (Heaven) hopes of His hearers, for the central

      features in the current Messianic con- ception were dehverance and happiness. But the conditions of happiness proposed were in strong con- trast with those in the popular thought. Happiness does not consist, saj's Jesus, in what one possesses, in lands and houses, in social position, in intellectual attainments, but in the wealth of the inner life, in moral strength, in self-control, in spiritual insight, in the character one is able to form within himself and in the service he is able to reiider to his fellow- men. Happiness, then, like character, is a by- product of right living. It is presented as the fruit, not as the object of endeavor.

      It is interesting to note that character is the secret of happiness botfi for the individual and for society. There are two groups of Beatitudes. The first four

      deal with personal qualities: humility, penitence, self-control, desire for righteousness. These are the sources of inner peace. The second group deals with social qualities; mercifulness toward others, purity of heart or reverence for personaUty, peace- making or sohcitude for others, self-sacrificing loy- alty to righteousness. These are the sources of social rest. The blessings of the kingdom are social as well as individual.

      (2) Vocationof the subjects (5 13-16). — Men of the qualities described in the Beatitudes are called "the salt of the earth," "the hght of the world." Their happiness is not, then, in themselves or for them- selves alone. Their mission is the hope of the kingdom. Salt is a preservative element; light is a life-giving one; but the world is not eager to be preserved or willing to receive life. Therefore such men must expect opposition and persecution, but they are not on that account to withdraw from the world. On the contrary, by the leaven of character and the light of example they are to help others in the appreciation and the attainment of the ideal life. By their character and deeds they are to make their influence a force for good in the lives of men. In this sense the men of the kingdom are the salt of the earth, the hght of the world. See Beatitudes,

      (3) The relation of the new righteousness to the Mosaic Law (5 17-4S). — (a) Relation defined (6 17-20) : The qualities of character thus set before the citizens of the kingdom were so surprising and revolutionary as to suggest the inquiry: Wliat is the relation of the new teaching to the Mosaic Law? This Jesus defines as continuance and fulfilment. His hearers are not to think that He has come to destroy the law. On the contrary. He has come to conserve and fulfil. The old law is imperfect, but God docs not despair of what is imperfect. Men and institutions are judged, not by the level of present attainment, but by character and direction. The law moves in the right direction and is so valuable that those who violate even its least pre- cepts have a very low place in the kingdom.

      The new righteousness then does not set aside the law or offer an easier religion, but one that is more exacting. The kingdom is concerned, not so much with ceremonies and external rules, as with motives and with social virtues, with self-control, purity, honesty and generosity. So much higher are the new standards of righteousness that Jesus is constrained to warn His hearers that to secure even a place in the kingdom, their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.

      (b) The relation illustrated (5 21-48) : In iUustra- tion of the deeper meaning of the new righteousness and its relation to the Mosaic Law, Jesus proceeds to deal in detail with the precepts of the old moral law, deepening it as He proceeds into the higher law of the kingdom. In each instance the standard of judgment is raised and the individual precepts are deepened into spiritual principles that call for perfect fulfilment. In considering specific precepts no account is taken of overt acts, for in the new righteousness they are impossible. All acts are treated as expressions of tiie inner life. The law is carried back to the impulse and the will to sin, and these are judged as in the old law the completed acts were judged. Therefore all anger and lust in the heart are strictly enjoined. Likewise every word is raised to a sacredness equal -with that of the most solemn religious vow or oath. Finally, the instinct to avenge is entirely forbidden, and uni- versal love like that of the Father is made the funda- mental law of the new social life. Thus Jesus does not abrogate any law but interprets its precepts in terms that call for a deeper and more perfect fulfilment.



      (4) Motives and principles of conduct {6 1 — 7 12). — The relation of His teaching to the law defined, Jesus proceeds to explain the motives and principles of conduct as applied to religious and social duties.

      (a) In worship (6 1-18) : In the section 6 1—7 12 there is one central thought. All righteousness looks toward God. He is at once the source and the aim of life. Therefore worship aims alone at Divine praise. If acts of worship are performed before men to be seen of them there is no reward for them before the Father, In this Jesus is passing no slight on public worship. He Himself instituted the Lord's Supper and authorized the continuance of the rite of baptism. Such acts have their proper value. His censure is aimed at the love of ostenta- tion so often associated with them. The root of ostentation is selfishness, and selfishness has no part in the new righteousness. Any selfish desire for the approval of men thwarts the purpose of all worship. The object of almsgiving, of prayer or of fasting is the expression of brotherly love, com- munion with God or spiritual enrichment. The possibility of any of these is excluded by the pres- ence of the desire for the approval of men. It is not merely a Divine fiat but one of the deeper laws of life which decrees that the only possible reward for acts of worship performed from such false motives is the cheap approval of men as well as the impoverishment of the inner life.

      (b) In life's purpose (6 19-34): The same principle holds, says Jesus, in the matter of life's purpose. There is only one treasure worthy of man's search, only one object worthy of his highest endeavor, and that is the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Besides, there can be no division of aim. God will be first and only. Material blessings must not be set before duty to Him or to men. With any lower aim the new righteousness would be no better than that of the Gentiles. And such a demand is reasonable, for God's gracious providence is ample guaranty that He will supply all things needful for the accompHshment of the purposes He has planned for our lives. So in our vocations as in our worship, God is the supreme and effectual motive.

      (c) In social relations (7 1-12): Then again because God is our Father and the supreme object of desire for all men, great reverence is due toward others. Considerate helpfulness must replace the censorious spirit. For the same reason men will have too great reverence for spiritual values to cast them carelessly before the unworthy. Moreover, because God is so gracious and ready to bestow the best gifts freely upon His children, the men of the kingdom are under profound obhgation to observe the higher law of brotherhood expressed in the Golden Rule: "All things .... whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them." Thus in the perfect law of the Father- hood of God and the brotherhood of men the new righteousness makes perfect the Law and the

      Prophets. , s rnu

      (5) Hortatory conclusion {7 13-27). — (a) Ihe narrow way (7 13-14): In the hortatory con- clusion (7 13-27), Jesus first of all warns His hearers that the way into the kingdom is a narrow one It might seem that it ought to be different; that the way to destruction should be narrow and difficult, and the way to Kfe broad and easy, but it is not so. The way to all worthy achievement is the narrow way of self-control, self-sacrifice and infinite pains. Such is the way to the righteousness of the kingdom, the supreme object of human endeavor. "Narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life."

      (b) The tests of character (7 15-27): The test of the higher fulfilment is fruit. By their fruits

      alone the subjects of the kingdom will be known. In the presence of the Father there is no room for those who bring nothing but the leaves of empty professions. The kingdom is for those alone who do His will. The test of righteou.sness is illustrated in conclusion by the beautiful parable of the Two Builders. The difference between the two is essen- tially one of character. It is largely a question of fundamental honesty. The one is superficial and thinks only of that which is visible to the eye and builds only for himself and for the present. The other is honest enough to build well where only God can see, to budd for others and for all time. Thus he builds also for himself. The character of the builder is revealed by the building.

      VII. Principles. — The Sermon on the Mount is neither an impractical ideal nor a set of fixed legal regulations. It is, instead, a statement of the principles of life essential in a normal society. Such a society is possible in so far as men attain the character and live the life expressed in these principles. Their correct interpretation is there- fore important.

      Many of the sayings of the Sermon are meta- phorical or proverbial statements, and are not to be understood in a literal or legal sense. In them Jesus was illustrating principles in concrete terms. Their interpretation literally as legal enactments is contrary to the intention and spirit of Jesus. So interpreted, the Sermon becomes in part a visionary and impractical ideal. But rather the principles behind the concrete instances are to be sought and applied anew to the life of the present as Jesua applied them to the Ufe of His own time.

      The following are some of the leading ideas and prin- ciples underlying and expressed in the Sermon:

      (1) Character is the secret of happiness and strength. Men of the quahties described in the Beatitudes are called "blessed." Happiness consists, not in external blessings, but in the inner poise of a normal hfe. The virtues of the Beatitudes are also the elements of strength. Humility, self-control, purity and loyalty are the genuine ciuahties of real strength. Men of such qualities are to inherit the earth because they are the only ones strong enough to possess and use it.

      (2) Righteousness is grounded in the inner life. Char- acter is not something imposed from without but a life that unfolds from within. The hope of a perfect morahty and a genuine fulfilment of the law lies in the creation of a sound inner life. Therefore the worth of all religious acts and all personal and social conduct is judged by the quality of the inner motives.

      (3) The inner life is a unity. The spiritual nature is all of a piece, so that a moral slump at one point imperils the whole life. Consequently a rigid and exacting spiritual asceticism, even to the extent of extreme major surgery, is sometimes expedient and necessary. "If thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into Gehenna" (Mt 5 29 m).

      (4) Universal love is the fundamental social law. It is the dynamic principle of true character and right conduct. In this respect, at least, the perfection of the Father is set as the standard for men. Kindliness in disposition , in word and in act is an obligation binding on all. We may not feel aUke toward aU, but our wills must be set to do good even to our enemies. In this the supernatural quality of the Christian life may be known.

      (.5) The Sermon sets the fact of God the Father at the center of Ufe. Character and life exist in and for fellow- ship with the Father. All worship and conduct look toward God. His service is the supreme duty, His perfection the standard of character. His goodness the ground of universal love. Given this fact, all the essen- tials of religion and life follow as a matter of course. God is Father, aU men are brothers. God is Father, all duties are sacred. God is Father, infinite love is at the heart of the world and life is of infinite worth.

      (6) Fulfilment is the final test of life. The blossoms of promises must ripen into the fruit of abiding character. The leaves of empty professions have no value in the eyes of the Father. Deeds and character are the only things that abide, and endurance is the final test. The life of perfect fulfilment is the lite anchored on the rock of ages. See further Ethics; Ethics of Jesus; King- dom OF God.

      Literature. — The standard comms. and Lives of Christ. Among the most important encyclopaedic arts, are those of C. W. Votaw in IIDB, James Moffatt

      Sermon on Plain Serpent



      in EB and W. F. Adeney in DCG. Tlie following are a few of the most helpful separate volumes on the subject: A. Tholuck, Ex-position of Christ's Sermon on the Mount; Canon Gore, The Sermon on the Mount; B. W. 33acon, The Sermon on the Mount; W. B. Car- penter, The Great Charter of Christ; Hubert Foston, The Beatitudes and the Contrasts; cf H. C. King, The Ethics of Jesus, and Stalker, The Ethic of Jesus. The following periodical arts, are worthy of notice: Franklin Johnson, "The Plan of the Sermon on the Mount," Homiletic Remew, XXIV, 360: A. H. HaU, "The Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount," Bih. Sac. XLVIII, 322; The Bishop of Peterborough (W. C. Magee), "The State and the Sermon on the Mount," Fortnightly Review, LIII, 32; J. G. Pyle. "The Sermon on the Motmt," Putnam's Magazine, VII, 285.

      Russell Benjamin Miller SERMON ON THE PLAIN, THE: This title is sometimes given to the discourse recorded in Lk 6 20-49, because according to the Gospel (ver 17) it was delivered on a plain at the foot of the mountain. In many respects this address resembles the one re- corded in Mt 5-7, but in general the two are so dif- ferent as to make it uncertain whether they are different reports of the same discourse or reports of different addresses given on different occasions. See Sermon on the Mount.

      In contrast with the Sermon on the Mount which

      is assigned a place early in the Galilean ministry,

      and prior to the appointment of the

      1. The Twelve, that event is represented as Occasion the occasion of this discourse. If the

      two accounts are reports of the same address the setting of Lk is probably the historical one.

      The Sermon of Lk includes a little less than one- third of the matter recorded in the Sermon on the

      Mount. The Lukan discourse includes

      2. Contents only a portion of the Beatitudes, with

      a set of four "woes," a rather brief section on the social duties, and the concluding parable of the Two Houses.

      The Gospel of Lk has been called the social Gospel because of its sympathy with the poor and its

      emphasis on the duty of kindUness of

      3. Message spirit. This social interest is esp.

      prominent in the Sermon. Here the Beatitudes deal with social differences. In Mt they refer to spiritual conditions. Here Jesus speaks of those who hunger now, probably meaning bodily hunger. In Mt the reference is to hunger and thirst after righteousness. In Mt the invectives are addressed against the seK-satisfied religious teachers and their religious formalism. Here the rich and their unsocial spirit are the subject of the woes. This social interest is further emphasized by the fact that in addition to this social bearing of the Beatitudes, Lk's discourse omits the remainder of the Sermon on the Mount, except those portions that deal with social relations, such as those on the Golden Rule, the duty of universal love, the equality of servant and master, and the obligation of a charitable spirit. Russell Benjamin Miller

      SERON, se'ron (S-fipuv, Seron) : "The commander of the host of Syria" of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was defeated at Beth-horon by Judas in 166 BC (1 Mace 3 13 ff). Not a Gr name; "perhaps it represents the Phoen Hiram" (Rawlinson, adloc).

      SERPENT, sdr'pent: Serpents are not particu- larly abundant in Pal, but they are often mentioned

      in the Bible. In the Heb there are 11 1. General names. The NT has four Gr names and

      LXX employs two of these and three others as well as several compound expressions, such as 8015 Terdfievos, ophis petdinenos, "flying serpent," irfiis eavaTdv, Uphis thanaton, "deadly serpent," and (i^is SaKPuiv, 6phis ddknon, 'TDiting" or "sting- ing serpent." Notwithstanding this large vocab- ulary, it is impossible to identify satisfactorily a

      single species. Nearly every reference states or implies poisonous qualities, and in no case is there so much as a hint that a snake may be harmless, except in several expressions referring to the millen- nium, where their harmlessness is not natural but miraculous. In Arab, there is a score or more of names of serpents, but very few of them are em- ployed at all definitely. It may be too much to say that the inhabitants of Syria and Pal consider all snakes to be poisonous, but they do not clearly distinguish the noh-poisonous ones, and there are several common and well-known species which are universally beUeved to be poisonous, though actually harmless. Of nearly 25 species which are certainly known to be found in SjTia and Pal, four are deadly poisonous, five are somewhat poisonous, and the rest are absolutely harmless. With the exception of kippoz, "dart-snake" (Isa 34 15), which is prob- ably the name of a bird and not of a snake, every one of the Heb and Gr names occurs in passages where poisonous character is expressed or implied. The deadly poisonous snakes have large perforated poison fangs situated in the front of the upper jaw, an efficient apparatus like a hypodermic syringe for conveying the poison into the depths of the wound. In the somewhat poisonous snakes, the poison fangs are less favorably situated, being farther back, nearly under the eye. Moreover, they are smaller and are merely grooved on the anterior aspect instead of being perforated. All snakes, except a few which are nearly or quite tooth- less, have numerous small recurved teeth for hold- ing and helping to swallow the prey, which is usually taken into the stomach while living, the pecuhar structure of the jaws and the absence of a breast- bone enabling snakes to swallow animals which exceed the ordinary size of their own bodies.

      The following Ust includes all the serpents which are certainly known to exist in Pal and Syria, omitting the names of several which have been reported 2. Serpents but whose occurrence does not seem to be of Pal nnrt sufHciently confirmed. The range of " . """ each species is given.

      oyria (l) Harmless serpents. — Typhlops vermi-

      cularis Merr., Greece and Southwestern Asia; T. simoni Bttgr., Pal; Eryx jaculus L., Greece. North Africa, Central and Southwestern Asia; Tropido- notus tessellatus Laur., Central and Southeastern Europe, Central and Southwestern Asia; Zamenis gemonensis Laur., Central and Southeastern Europe, Gr islands. Southwestern Asia; Z. dahlii Fitz., Southeastern Europe, Southwestern Asia, Lower Egypt; Z. rhodorhachis Jan., Egypt, Southwestern Asia, India; Z. ravergieri Menatr., Southwestern Asia: Z. nummifer Renss., Egypt, Syria, Pal, Cyprus, Asia Minor; Oligodon melanocephalus Jan., Syria, Pal, Sinai, Lower Egypt; Contia decemlineata D. andB., Syria, Pal; C. collarisMenetr., Grislands, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Syria, Pal; C. rothi Jan., Syria, Pal; C. coro- nella Schleg., Syria, Pal.

      (2) Somewhat poisonous serpents. — Tarbophis savignyi Blgr., Syria, Pal, Egypt; T. fallaz Fleischm., Balkan Peninsula, Gr islands, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Syria, Pal; Coelopellis monspessulana Herm., Mediterranean coun- tries, Caucasus, Persia; Psammophis schokari Forsk., North Africa, Southwestern Asia; Micrelaps muelleri Bttgr., Syria, Pal.

      (3) Deadly poisonous serpents. — Vipera ammodytes L., Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Syria; Vipera lebetina L., North Africa, Gr islands. Southwestern Asia; Cerastes cornutus Forsk., Egypt, Sinai, Arabia; Echis coloratus Gthr., Southern Pal, Arabia, Socotra.

      To this hst should be added the scheltopusik, a large snake-like, limbless hzard, Ophiosaurus apus, inhabiting Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Persia, Syria and Pal, which while perfectly harmless is commonly classed with vipers.

      Of all these the commonest is Zamenis nummifer,

      Arab. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\j^' (XftS- , 'akd-ul-jauz, "string of walnuts."

      a fierce but non-poisonous snake which attains the length of a meter. Its ground color is pale yellow and it has a dorsal series of distinct diamond-shaped dark spots. Al- ternating with spots of the dorsal row are on each side two lateral rows of less distinct dark spots. It is everywhere considered to be fatal. Another common snake is Zamenis

      gemonensis, Arab. mJJ.^ ^» , hanash, which attains the



      Sermon on Plain Serpent

      length of two meters. It is usually black and much resembles the American black snake, Zamenis constrictor. -Like all species of Zamenin, these are harmless. Other common harmless snakes are Zamenis dahlii, Tropidono- tu8 tessellatus which is often found in pools and streams, Coniia collaris, Oligodon melanocephalus, a small, nearly toothless snake with the crown of the head coal black. Among the somewhat poisonous snakes, a very common

      - '■ ^-o Si-:


      one is Coelopeltie monspeasulana, Arab.

      al-haiyat ul-harshat, which is about two meters long, as large as the black snake. It is uniformly reddish brown above, paler below. Another is Psammophia schokari.


      an-nashshdb, "the arrow." It is about a

      meter long, slender, and white with dark stripes. Many marvelous and utterly improbable tales are told of its jumping powers, as for instance that it can shoot through the air for more than a hundred feet and penetrate a tree like a rifle bullet.

      The commonest of the deadly poisonous snakes is Vipera lebetina, which attains the length of a meter, has a thick body, a short tail, a broad head and a narrow neck. It is spotted somewhat as Zamenis nummifer, but the spots are less regular and distinct and the ground color is grey rather than yellow. It does not seem to have a distinct name. Cerastes comutus, having two small horns, which are modified scales, over the eyes, is a small but dangerous viper, and is found in the south. Not only are the species of poisonous serpents fewer than the non-poisonous species, but the individuals also appear to be less numerous. The vast majority of the snakes which are encountered are harmless.

      As stated above, all of the Heb and Gr names except kippoz, which occurs only in Isa 34 1.5, are used of snakes actually or supposedly 3. Names poisonous. This absence of discrimi- nation between poisonous and non- poisonous kinds makes determination of the species difficult. Further, but few of the Heb names are from roots whose meanings are clear, and there is little evident relation to Arab, names.

      (1) The commonest Heb word is IBnj , nahash, which occurs 31 t and seems to be a generic word for serpent. While not always clearly indicating a venomous serpent, it frequently does: e.g. Ps 58 4; 140 3; Prov 23 32; Eccl 10 8.11; Isa 14 29; Jer 8 17; Am 5 19. According to BDB it is perhaps from an onomatopoetic ■/, liSHD , nahash,

      "to hiss." It may be akin to the Arab. iJLi.:^ , hanash, which means "snake" in general, or esp. the black snake. Cf Ir-nahash (1 Ch 4 12); Nahash (a) (1 S 11 1; 2 S 10 2), (6) (2 S 17 27), (c) (2 S 17 2.5); also mCrij , n'hosheih, "copper" or "brass"; and inipnp , n'hushtan, "Nehushtan," the brazen serpent (2 K 18 4). But BDB derives the last two words from a different root._

      (2) nn* , saraph, apparently from OniB , saraph, "to burn'" is used of the fiery serpents of the wilder- ness. In Nu 21 8, it occurs in the sing.: "Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard." In ver 6 we have D"'P^ipn D"'lCn3n , ha-n'hashim ha-s'raphim, "fiery serpents"; in Dt 8 15 the same in the sing. : O^TC iBnj , nahash saraph, also tr"^ "fiery serpents" ;" in Isa 14 29; 30 6 we have nsiyia anto , saraph nf'opkeph, "fiery flying ser- pent." The same word in the pi. D"'EniC , s'raphlm, is tr** "seraphim" in Isa 6 2.6.

      (3) T^sn, tannin, elsewhere "dragon or sea- monster" "(q. v.), is used of the serpents into which the rods of Aaron and the magicians were trans- formed (Ex 7 9.10.12), these serpents bemg desig- nated by nahash in Ex 4 3; 7 15. Tannm is rendered "serpent" (AV "dragon") m Dt 32 33 "Their wine is the poison of serpents, and Ps sJl 13 "The young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under foot." On the other hand, nahash seems in three passages to refer to a mythical crea- ture or dragon: "His hand hath pierced the switt

      serpent" (Job 26 13); "In that day Jeh ■ ■ ■ ■ will punish leviathan the swift serpent and leviathan the crooked serpent" (Isa 27 1); ". . . . though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and it shall bite them" (Am 9 3).

      (4) ibm , zoMe, is tr

      (5) a^lTD? , 'akhshilbh, occurs only in Ps 140 3, where it is tr"* "adder" (LXX Surirh, aspls, Vulg aspis), "adders' poison is under their lips." It has been suggested (BDB) that the reading should be Tljinsy, 'akkabhish, "spider" (q.v.). The || word in the previous line is nahash.

      (6) 'irs , pelhen, like most of the other names a word of uncertain etymology, occurs 6 t and it is tr'' "asp," except in Ps 91 13, "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder." According to Liddell and Scott, aspis is the name of the Egyp cobra, Naia haje L., which is not included in (2) above, because it does not certainly appear to have been found in Pal. The name "adder" is applied to various snakes all of which may perhaps be supposed to be poisonous but some of which are actually harmless. Aspis occurs in Rom 3 13 in a para- phrase of Ps 140 3 (see [5] above); it occurs fre- quently, though not uniformly, in LXX for (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (10).

      (7) ySS , fep/ia", occurs only m Isa 14 29 where it is tr'' "adder" (AV "cockatrice," ERV "basihsk," LXX eKyova. i

      (8) "^jirSS , or "'pis^S? , giph'onl, occurs in Prov 23 32, "At the last it biteth like a serpent [nahash], and stingeth like an adder" (gipVont). In Isa 11 8; 59 5, and Jer 8 17, ARV has "adder," while AV has "cockatrice" and ERV has "basilisk."

      (9) ■)b"'?lS, sh'phiphm, occurs only in Gen 49

      'Dan shall be a serpent [nahash] in the way. An adder [shephiphon] in the path. That biteth the horse's heels. So that his rider falleth backward,"

      This has been thought to be Cerastes cornulus, on the authority of Tristram (NHB), who says that lying in the path it will attack the passer-by, while most snakes will glide away at the ap- proach of a person or large animal. He adds that his horse was much frightened at seeing one of these serpents coiled up in a camel's footprint. The word is perhaps

      akin to the Arab.



      siff, or i_ft-uu , suff, which denotes a spotted and deadly snake.

      (10) nySS, 'eph'eh, is found in Job 20 16; Isa 30 6; 59 5, and in EV is uniformly tr"* "viper."

      It is the same as the Arab. , JlsI , 'afa, which is

      usually tr"* "viper," though the writer has never found anyone who could tell to what snake the name belongs. In Arab, as in Heb a poisonous snake is always understood.

      (11) nsp, kippoz, ARV "dart-snake," ERV "arrowsnake," AV "great owl," only in Isa 34 15, "There shall the dart-snake make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shade; yea, there shall the kites be gathered, every one with her

      Serpent Servant of Jeh



      mate." This is the concluding verse in a vivid picture of the desolation of Edom. The renderings "dart-snake" and "arrowsnake" rest on the author- ity of Bochert, but LXX has ix'""^, echlnos, "hedgehog," and Vulg ericeus, "hedgehog." The rendering of AV "great owl" seems preferable to the others, because the words "make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shade" are as a whole quite inapplicable to a mammal or to a rep- tile. The derivation from TB]5 , kaphaz (cf Arab.

      ■yS3 , kdfaz), "to spring," "to dart," suits, it is

      true, a snake, and not a hedgehog, but may also suit an owl. Finally, the next word in Isa 34 15

      is "kites," riVT , dayyoth; cf Arab. sIlXs^, hida'at.

      See Bitteen; Owl; Porcupine.

      (12) 801!, opKis, a general term for "serpent," occurs in numerous passages of the NT and LXX, and is fairly equivalent to nahash.

      (13) cl(T7ris, aspis, occurs in the NT only in Rom 3 13 II to Ps 140 3. See under (5) 'akhshubh and (6) pelhen. It is found in LXX for these words, and also for 'eph'eh (Isa 30 6).

      (14) exi-Sva, echidna, occurs in Acts 28 3, "A viper came out .... and fastened on his [Paul's] hand," and 4 t in the expression "offspring [AV "generation"] of vipers," yew-^/MTa ^x'^'"^'', genne- mata echidnon (Mt 3 7; 12 34; 23 33; Lk 3 7). The allied (masc. ?) form e'xis, echis, occurs in Sii' 39 30, RV "adder."

      (1.5) epireThv, herpelon, "creeping thing," AV "ser- pent," is founcl in Jas 3 7.

      That the different Heb and Gr names are used without

      clear distinction is seen from several e.xamples of the

      employment of two different names in il expressions:

      "Their poison is like the poison of a serpent [nahash];

      They are like the deaf adder [pethen] that stoppeth

      her ear" (Ps 58 4). "They have sharpened their tongue like a serpent

      [nahash]; Adders'" ['akhshubh] poison is under their lips"

      (Ps 140 3). "For, behold. I "will send serpents [nihashlnt], adders

      [ciph'anim], among you, which will not be

      charmed; and they shall bite vou, saith Jeh"

      (Jer 8 17). "They shall lick the dust like a serpent [nahash];

      like crawling things of the earth [zdhdW 'erer]

      thev shall come trembling out of their close

      places" (Mic 7 17). " He shall suck the poison of asps [pethen]: The viper's

      ['eph'eh] tongue shall slay him" (Jfob 20 16). "Their wine is the poison of serpents [tannutim], and

      the cruel venom of asps [p'i/ianim] " (Dt 32 33). "And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the

      asp [pethen], and the weaned child shall put his

      hand on the adder's [^iph'on'i] den" (Isa 11 8). See also (8) and (9) above.

      Most of the Bib. references to serpents are of a figurative nature, and they usually imply poison- ous qualities. The wicked (Ps 58 4), 4. Figura- the persecutor (Ps 140 3), and the tive enemy (Jer 8 17) are likened to venom-

      ous serpents. The effects of wine are compared to the bites of serpents (Prov 23 32). Satan is a serpent (Gen 3; Rev 12 9; 20 2). The term "offspring of vipers" is applied by John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 3 7) or to the multitudes (Lk 3 7) who came to hear him; and by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 12 34; 23 33). Dan is a "serpent in the way .... that biteth the horse's heels" (Gen 49 17). Serpents are among the terrors of the wilder- ness (Dt 8 15; Isa 30 6). Among the signs ac- companying believers is that "they shall take up serpents" (Mk 16 18; cf Acts 28 5). It is said of him that trusts in Jeh :

      " Thou Shalt tread upon the lion and adder: The young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample underfoot" (Ps 91 13).

      In the millennium, "the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den" (Isa 11 8). The serpent is subtle (Gen 3 1; 2 Cor 11 3); wise (Mt

      10 16); accursed (Gen 3 14); eats dust (Gen 3 14 Isa 65 25; Mic 7 17). The adder is deaf (Ps 58 4) The serpent lurks in unexpected places (Gen 49 l7 Eccl 10 S; Am 5 19). Serpents may be charmed (Ps 58 5; Eccl 10 11; Jer 8 17). Among four won- derful things is "the way of a serpent upon a rock" (Prov 30 19). Alfred Ely Day

      SERPENT, BRAZEN, bra'z'n. See Nehushtan.

      SERPENT-CHARMING, -charm'ing: Allusion to this art, widely practised by the ancients (see references in DB, s.v.; esp. Bochart, Hieron., Ill, 161, 164, etc), as by modern Orientals, is found in Ps 58 5; Eccl 10 11; Jer 8 17; Sir 12 13, perhaps in Jas 3 7. The skill displayed in taming snakes, often without removing the poison fangs, is very sur- prising. Bruce, Davy and other travelers give strik- ing illustrations. See esp. the interesting account of serpent-charming in Hengstenberg's Egypt and the Books of Moses, ET, 100-104.

      SERPENT, CROOKED, krook'ed: With refer- ence to the constellation round the North Pole, in Job 26 13, RV "the swift serpent," m "fleeing"; and Isa 2'7 1, RVm "winding." In the first part of the latter passage, AV "piercing serpent" is changed in RV to "swift serpent," m "gliding" or "fleeing." See Astronomy, II, 1.

      SERPENT, FIERY. See Serpent, 3, (2).

      SERPENT WORSHIP, wijr'ship: Traces of this superstition are thought by certain critics to be discoverable in the religion of Israel. Stade men- tions that W. R. Smith supposed the serpent to be the totem of the house of David (Geschichte, I, 465). H. P. Smith says: "We know of a Serpent's Stone near Jerus, which was the site of a sanctuary (1 K

      I 9), and this sanctuary was dedicated to Jeh" {Hist of OT, 239, 240). Special reUance is placed on the narrative of the brazen serpent, which Heze- kiah is recorded to have destroyed as leading to idolatry (2 K 18 4). "In that case," says H. P. Smith, "we must treat the Nehushtan as a veritable idol of the house of Israel, which had been wor- shipped in the temple from the time of its erection. Serpent worship is so widespread that we should be surprised not to find traces of it in Israel" (ut supra). In the same line, see G. B. Gray, Nu, 27.5-76. The fancifulness of these deductions is obvious. See Nehushtan. James Orr

      SERUG, se'rug (.l^lip , s'rugh; Scpoix, Serouch): Son of Reu and great-grandfather of Abraham (Gen

      11 20 ff; 1 Ch 1 26; Lk 3 35).

      SERVANT, sur'vant (13^, 'ebhedh; SoCXos, dotilos): A very common word with a variety of meanings, all implying a greater or less degree of inferiority and want of freedom: (1) The most fre- quent usage is as the equivalent of "slave" (q.v.), with its various shades in position (Gen 9 25; 24 9; Ex 21 5; Mt 10 24; Lk 17 7, and often); but also a hired workman where "hired servant" translates Heb and Gr expressions which differ from the above. (2) An attendant in the service of someone, as Joshua was the "servant," RV "minister " of Moses (Nu

      II 28). (3) As a term of respectful self-depreciation referring to one's self, "thy servant" or "your serv- ant" is used in place of the personal pronoun of the first person: (a) in the presence of superiors (Gen



      Serpent Servant of Jeh

      19 2; 32 18, and often); (b) in addressing the Su- preme Being (1 S 3 9; Ps 19 11; 27 9; Lk 2 29, and often). (4) OflScials of every grade are called the "servants" of kings, princes, etc (1 S 29 3; 2 S 16 1; 1 K 11 26; Prov 14 35, and often). (5) The position of a king in relation to his people (1 K 12 7). (6) One who is distinguished as obedient and faithful to God or Christ (Josh 1 2; 2 K 8 19; Dnl 6 20; Col 4 12; 2 Tim 2 24). (7) One who is enslaved by sin ( Jn 8 34) .

      William Joseph MoGlothlin SERVANT OF JEHOVAH (THE LORD):

      1. Historical Situation

      2. The Authorship of Isa Chs 40-66

      3. The Prophet of the Exile

      4. The Unity of Chs 40-66

      5. Principal Ideas of Chs 40-66

      6. The Servant-Passages

      (1) Date of the Servant-Passages

      (2) Discussion of the Passages

      (.3) Whom Did the Prophet Mean by the Servant ? (4) The Psychology of the Prophecy

      7. Place of the Servant-Passages in OT Prophecy

      8. Large Messianic Signiflcanco of the Servant-Passages

      A century and a half had passed since the great

      days of Isaiah in Jcrus. The world had vastly

      changed during those long decades

      1. Histori- when politicians had planned, armies cal Sit- surged back and forth, and tribes and uation nations had lost or won in the struggle

      for existence, place and power. The center of the world had changed — for Assyria had gone to its long home, and the city claiming pre- eminence was not Nineveh but Babylon.

      Nowhere perhaps had time laid a heavier hand than on the city of Jerus and the country of Judah. For city and land had come to desolation, and the inhabitants of the country had become familiar with the strange sights and sounds of Babylonia, whither they had been carried by their conquerors. Many had found graves in the land of the exile, and new generations had arisen who had no memory of the hill country of their fathers. It is the sit- uation of these captive Jews in Babylonia which is reflected and they who are addressed at the waning of the long night of captivity by the stirring message recorded in Isa chs 40-66 (leaving out of account here disputed passages in chs 40-66).

      The more one studies the problem of the author- ship of these chapters, the more unlikely does it seem that their author penned them

      2. Author- 150 years before the time with which ship of Isa they are vitally connected. It is ob- Chs 40-66 viously impossible to treat that prob- lem in a detailed way here, but one rnay

      sum up the arguments by saying that in theological ideas, in style, and use of words they show such differences from the as.sured productions of Isaiah's pen as to point to a different authorship. And the great argument, the argument which carries the most weight to the author of this article, is that these late chapters are written from the standpoint of the exile. The exile is assumed in what is said. These chapters do not prophesy the exile, do not say it is to come; they all the time speak as though it had come. The message is not that an exile is to be, but beginning with the fact that the exile already is, it foretells deliverance. Now of course it is conceivable that God might inspire a man to put himself forward 150 years, and with a message to people who were to live then, assuming their cir- cumstances as a background of what he said, but it is improbable to the last degree. To put it_ in plain, almost gruff, English, it is not the way God did things. The prophet's message was always primarily a message to his own age. Then there is no claim in the chapters themselves that Isaiah was their author. And having once been placed 80 that it was supposed they were by Isaiah— placed

      so through causes we do not know — the fact that in speaking of passages from these chapters NT authors referrefl to them by a name the peojjle would recognize, is not a valid argument that they meant to teach anything as to their authorship. The problem had not arisen in NT times. Isa, chs 40- 66, as Professor Davidson has suggested, has a parallel in the Book of Job, each the production of a great mind, each from an author we do not know (cf Isaiah).

      Out of the deep gloom of the exile — when the Jew was a man without a country, when it seemed as if

      the nation's sins had murdered hope — 3. The out of this time comes the voice most

      Prophet of full of gladness and abounding hope the Exile of all the voices from the OT life. In

      the midst of the proud, confident civili- zation of Babylonia, with its teeming wealth and exhaustless splendor, came a man who dared to speak for Jeh — a man of such power to see reality that to him Babylonia was already doomed, and he could summon the people to prepare for God's deliverance.

      In recent criticism, esp. in Germany, there has been a strong tendency to assign the last chapters of this section

      to a different author from the first. The

      4 The Unitv *'^'^''?''°'^"'^ '* '^ claimed is not Bab;

      f ru A(\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ RR *^^ ^^^^ rebul^ed are the sins of the people

      01 <.^ns4U-bb when at home in Judaea, and in at least

      one passage the temple at Jerus seems to be standing. That these chapters present difficulties need not be disputed, but it seems to me that again and again in them one can find the hand of Second Isa. Then undoubtedly the author quotes from previous prophecies which we can recognize, and the suggestion that some of the diiScult passages may be quotations from other older prophecies which are not preserved to us, I think an exceedingly good one. The quotation of such passages in view of the prospect of return, and the prophet's feeling of the need of the people, would seem to me not at all unnatural. If a later hand is responsible for some utterances in the latter part of the section, it seems to me fairly clear that most of it is from the hand of the great unknown prophet of the exile.

      The fiuestions regarding the Servant-passages as affecting the unity of the book will be treated later.

      The first part of this section vividly contrasts Jeh and the idols worshipped with such splendor and

      ceremony. All the resources of irony 5. Principal and satire are used to give point and Ideas of effect to the contrast. Cyrus the Chs 40-66 Median conqueror is alreafly on the

      horizon, and he is declared to be God's instrument in the deliverance. The idols are de- scribed in process of manufacture; they are ad- dressed in scornful apostrophe, they are seen carried away helpless. On the other side Jeh, with illimit- able foresight and indomitable strength, knows and reveals the future. They know and reveal nothing. He brings to pass what He has planned. They do nothing. Not only the idols but Babylonia itself is made the victim of satire — and the prophet hurls a taunt song at the proud but impotent city.

      Israel — the people of Jeh — the elect of God — is given the prophet's message. The past is called up as a witness to Jeh's deahngs. His righteous- ness — His faithfulness to His people — shall not fail. They are unworthy, but out of His own bounty salvation is provided. And with joy of this salva- tion from exile and from sin the book rings and rings. The Zion of the restored Israel is pictured with all the play of color and richness of imagery at ttie prophet's command. And this restored Israel is to have a world-mission. Its light is to fall upon all lands. It is to minister salvation to all races of men.

      But back of and undc^r those pictures of great hope is the prophet's sense of his pi«plc's sin and their struggle with it In the latter part of the book, esp. chs 59 and 64 this comes out clearly. And the mood of these chap- ters expresses the feehng out of which some of the deep things of the Servant-passages came. There is no need to insist that the chapters as they stand are in the order



      in which they were written. We know from other prophecies that this was not always true. But even if a man were convinced that tlie chapters now occurring after the Servant-passages were all written after them, he could stiU hold, and I think would be justified in holding, that in places in those chapters the reader finds the record of a state of the prophet's mind before the writing of those passages. The former view would be, I think, the preferable one. At any rate the point of view Is logically that out of which some of the deep things in the Servant-passages came.

      In profoundness of meaning the climax of the book is reached in these passages where the deliver- ance from exile and the deliverance from sin are connected with one great figure — the Servant of Jeh.

      The word "servant," as applied to servants of God, is not an unfamiliar one to readers of the OT. It is applied to different individuals 6. The and by Jeremiah to the nation (cf Jer

      Servant- 30 10; 46 27); but its message is on Passages the whole so distinct and complete in Second Isa that we can study it without any further reference to previous usage.

      The "servant" first appears in Isa 41 8. Here the reference is undoubtedly to Israel, chosen and called of God and to be upheld by Him. Here Israel is promised victory over its enemies. In vivid picture their destruction and Israel's future trust and glory in God are portrayed.

      There are several incidental references to Israel as Jeh's servant: created by Jeh and not to be forgotten (41 8) ; Cyrus is said to be called for the sake of His servant Jacob (45 4) ; Jeh is said to have redeemed His servant Jacob (48 20).

      In 44 26 "servant " seems to be used with the meaning of prophet. It is said of Jeh that He "conflrmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers."

      In 42 19 we find the failure and inadequacy of Israel presented in the words, " Who is blind, but my servant ? or deaf, as my messenger that I send ? ' ' This passage is an explanation of the exile. Israel proved unworthy and sinned, hence its punishment, but even in the exile the lesson had not been taken to heart.

      In 43 8 fl Jeh summons Israel the servant, who in spite of blindness and deafness yet is His witness. It has at least seen enough to be able to witness for Him in the presence of the heathen.

      In 44 1-5, leaving the unworthiness of the actual Israel, there comes what seems to me a summons in the name of the possible, the ideal. The underlying thought is a call to the high ifutiu'e which God has ready to give.

      This covers the reference to the servant outside the great Servant-passages to which we now come. There are four of these: 42 1-9; 49 l-9a; 60 4-11; 62 13 — 63 12. 61 1-4 perhaps represents words of the Servant, but may refer to words of the prophet, and, as at any rate it adds no new features to the picture of the Servant already given in the passages undoubtedly referring to him, we will not discuss it.

      (1) Date of the Servant-passages. — Ewald long ago suggested that the last of the Servant-passages must have been borrowed from an earlier compo- sition, which he assigned to the age of Manasseh. "If we find in the study of the passage reason for its vividness, we shall not need to seek its origin in the description of some past martyrdom."

      Duhm quoted by Cheyne thinks the Servant- passages post-exilic. The gentleness and quiet activity of the Servant for one thing, according to Duhm, suggest the age of the scribes, rather than that of the exile. But might not an age of suffering be a time to learn the lesson of gentleness? Ac- cording to Skinner, Duhm thinks the passages were inserted almost haphazard, but Skinner also refers to Kosters, showing that the passages cannot be lifted without carrying some of the succeeding verses with them. This is particularly significant in view of the recent popularity of other theories which deny the Servant-passages to the hand and time of Second Lsa. The theory that these passages form by themselves a poem or a set of poems which

      have been inserted here can boast of distinguished names.

      There does not seem much to commend it, however. As to the argument from dilference as to rhythm, there is disagreement, and the data are probably not of a sort to warrant much significance being applied to it either way. The fact that the passages are not always a part of a connected movement of thought would play great havoc if made a universal principle of discrimination as to authorship in the prophecies of the OT. If we succeed in giving the fundamental ideas of the passages a place in relation to the thought of Deutero-Isa, an argu- ment for which cogency might be claimed will be dissi- pated. But even at its best this argument would not be conclusive. To deny certain ideas to an author simply because he has not expressed them in a certain bit of writing acknowledged to him is perilous business. A message of hope surely does not preclude an appreciation of the dark things.

      The truth of the matter is that even by great scholars the temptation to a criticism of knight-errantry is not always resisted. And I think we sliall not make any mistake in believing that this is the case with the attempt to throw doubt upon the Deutero-Isaianic authorship of the Servant-passages.

      (2) Discussion of the passages. — 42 1-9: In these verses Jeh Himself is the speaker, describing the Servant as His chosen, in whom His soul delights, upon whom He has put His spirit. He is to bring justice to the Gentiles. His methods are to be quiet and gentle, and the very forlorn hope of goodness He will not quench. He is to set justice in the earth, and remote countries are described as waiting for His law. Then comes a declaration by the prophet that Jeh, the Creator of all, is the speak- er of words declaring the Servant's call in righteous- ness to be a covenant for the people, a light to the Gentiles, a helper to those in need — the blind and imprisoned. Jeh's glory is not to be given to an- other, nor His praise to graven images. Former prophecies have come to pass. New things He now declares. One's attention needs to be called to the distinction of the Servant from Israel in this passage. He is to be a covenant of the people: according to Delitzsch, "he in whom and through whom Jeh makes a new covenant with His people in place of the old one that has been broken."

      49 l-9a; Here the Servant himself speaks, telling of his calling from the beginning of his hfe, of the might of his word, of his shelter in God, of a time of discouragement in which he thought his labor in vain, followed by insistence on his trust in God. Then Jeh promises him a largef mission than the restoration of Israel, viz. to be a light to the Gentiles. Jeh speaks of the Servant as one despised, yet to be triumphant so that he will be honored by kings and princes. He is to lead his people forth at their restoration, "to make them inherit the desolate heritages; saying to them that are bound. Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show your- selves."

      Clearly the Servant is distinct from the people Israel in this passage. Yet in ver 3 he is addressed as Israel. The word Israel here may be a gloss, which would solve the difficulty, or the Servant may be addressed as Israel because he gathers up in himself the meaning of the ideal Israel. If it is true that the prophet gradually passed from the concep- tion of Israel as a nation to a person through whom its true destiny would be realized, this last sug- gestion would gain in probability.

      One notices here the emphasis on the might of the Servant, and in this passage we come to under- stand that he is to pass through a time of ignominy. The phrase "a servant of rulers" is a difficult one, which would be clear if the prophet conceived of him as one of the exiles, and typically representing them. The Servant's mission in this passage seems quite bound up with the restoration.

      50 4-11 : In the first part of this passage the Servant is not mentioned directly, but it seems clear that he is



      speaking. He is taught of God continually, that he may bring a message to the weary. He has opened his ear so that he may fully understand Jeh's message. The Servant now describes his sufferings as coming to him because of his obedience. He was not rebellious and did not turn back from his mission. Flint-like he set his face and with confidence in God met the shame which came upon him. After language vivid with a sense of ignominy his assured consciousness of victory and faith in God are expressed.

      In vs 10-11, according to DeUtzsch, Jeh speaks, first encouraging those who listen to the Servant, then addressing those who despise his word. Cheyne thinks the Servant mentioned in ver 10 may be the prophet, but I prefer Delitzsch's view.

      52 13—53 12: The present division of 52 13— 53 12 is unfortunate, for obviously it is all of a piece and ought to stand together in one chapter.

      In 52 13-15 Jeh speaks of the humiliation and later of the exaltation of the Servant. He shall deal wisely — the idea here including the success re- sulting from wisdom — and shall be exalted. Words are piled upon each other here to express his exal- tation. But the appearance of the Servant is such as to suggest the very opposite of his dignity, which will astonish nations and kings when they come to understand it.

      Entering upon eh 53 we find the people of Israel speaking confessing their former unbelief, and giving as a reason the repulsive aspect of the Servant — • despised, sad, sick with a visage to make men turn from him. He is described as though he had been a leper. They thought all this had come upon him as a stroke from God, but they now see how he went even to death, not for his own transgression but for theirs. Their peace and healing came through his suffering and death. They have been sinful and erring; the result of it all God has caused to Ught upon him.

      They look back in wonder at the way he bore his sufferings — Hke a lamb led to the slaughter; with a false judicial procedure he was led away, no one considering his death, or its relation to them. His grave even was an evidence of ignominy.

      Beginning at ver 10 the people cease speaking, according to Delitzsch, and the prophecy becomes the organ of God who acknowledges His Servant. The reference to a trespass offering in ver 10 is remarkable. Nowhere else is prophecy so con- nected with the sacrificial system (A.B, Davidson). It pleased God to bruise the Servant^is soul hay- ing been made a trespass offering; the time of humil- iation over, the time of exaltation will come.

      By his knowledge we are told— ;here a momentary reversion to the time of humiliation taking place — by his knowledge he shall justify many and bear their iniquities. Then comes the exaltation — dividing of spoils and greatness — the phrases sug- gesting kingly glory: all' this is to be his because of his suffering. The great fact of ch 53 is vicarious suffering. , , „ .

      (3) Whom did the prophet mean by the bervanl I — (a) Obviously not all of Israel always, for the Serv- ant is distinguished from Israel. (6) Not the godly remnant, for he is distinguished from them. Then the godly remnant does not attain to any such proportions as to fit the description of ch 53. (c) And one cannot accept the theory that the pro- phetic order is intended. The whole order is not great enough to exhaust the meaning of one of a half-dozen of the greatest lines in ch 53.

      Professor A. B. Davidson's OT Prophecy con- tains a brilKant and exceedingly able discussion of the question which he approaches from the stand- point of Bib. rather than simply exegetical theology. His fundamental position is that in the prophet s outlook the restoration is the consummation. In his mind the Servant and his work cannot come after the restoration. The Servant, if a real person, must be one whose work lies in the past or the

      present, as there is not room in the future for him, for the restoration which is at the door brings felicity, and after that no sufferings of the Servant are con- ceivable. But there is no actual person in the past and none in the present who could be the Servant. Hence the Servant cannot be to the prophet's mind a real person (see Coniah) .

      Of course Davidson relates the result to his larger conception of prophecy in such a way as to secure the Messianic significance of the passages in relation to their fulfilment in Our Lord. The ideas they contain are realized in Him.

      But coming back to the prophet's mind — if the Servant was not a person to him. what significance did he have ? The answer according to Davidson is, He is a great per- sonification of the ideal Israel. "He is Israel according to its idea." To quote more fully, "The proplaet has created out of the Divine determinations imposed on Israel, election, creation and forming, endowment with the word or spirit of Jeh, and the Divine purpose in these operations, an ideal Being, an inner Israel in the heart of the phenomenal or actual Israel, an indestructible Being having these Divine attributes or endowments, present in the outward Israel in all ages, powerful and effectual because really composed, if I can say so, of Divine forces, who cannot fail in God's purpose, and who as an inner power within Israel by his operation causes all Israel to become a true servant" (cf Davidson, OT Prophecy, 4.35-.36).

      Now it seems to me that Davidson is more effective in his destructive than in his constructive work. One must confess that he presents real difliculties in the way of holding to a personal Servant as the prophet's conception. But on the other hand when he tries to replace that by a more adequate conception, I do not think he conspicu- ously succeeds.

      The greatest of the Servant-passages (it seems to me) presents more than can be successfully dealt with under the conception of the Servant as the ideal Israel. The very great emphasis on vicarious suffering in ch 53 simply is not answered by the theory. Words would not leap with such a flame of reality in describing the suffering of a personifi- cation. The sense of sin back of the passage is not a thing whose problem could be solved by a glitter- ing figure of speech. There it surges — the move- ment of an aroused conscience — and the answer to it could never be anything less than a real deed by a real person. My own feeling is that if language can express anything it expresses the fact that the prophet had a real personal Servant in view.

      But what of the difficulties Davidson suggests? Even if the answer were not easy to find, one could rest on the total impression the passages make. One cannot vaporize a passage for the sake of pla- cing it in an environment in which one believes it belongs. As Cheyne in other days said, "In the sublimest descriptions of the Servant I am unable to resist the impression that we have the present- ment of an individual, and venture to think that our general view of the Servant ought to be ruled by those passages in which the enthusiasm of the author is at its height."

      The first thing we need to remember in dealing with the difficulties Davidson has brought forth is the timelessness of prophecy, and the resulting fact that every prophet saw the future as if lying just on the horizon of his own time. As prophets saw the day of Jeh as if at hand, so it seems to me Deutero-Isaiah saw the Servant: each really afar off, yet each really seen in the colors of the present. Then we must remember that the prophets did not relate all their conceptions. They stated truths whose meaning and articulation they did not under- stand. They were not philosophers with a Hege- lian hunger for a total view of life, and when we try to read them from this standpoint we misjudge them. Then we must remember that the prophet may here have been lifted to a height of prophetic receptiveness where he received and uttered what went beyond the limits of his o-mi understanding. To be sure there was a point of contact, but I see no objection to the thought that in a place of unique

      Servant of Jeh Seven Stars



      significance and importance like this, God might use a man to utter words which reached far beyond the limits of his own understanding. In this con- nection some words of Professor Hermann Schultz are worth quoting: "If it is true anjTvhere in the history of poetry and prophecy, it is true here that the writer being full of the spirit has said more than he himself meant to say and more than he himself understood."

      (4) The psychology of the prophecy. — This does not mean that something may not be said about the connection of the Servant-passages with the prophet's own thought. Using DeUtzsch's illus- tration, we can see how from regarding all Israel as the servant the prophet could narrow down to the godly part of Israel as e.xperience taught him the faith- lessness of many, and it ought not to be impossible for us to see how all that Israel really meant at its best could have focused itself in his thought upon one person. Despite Davidson's objection, I can see nothing artificial about this movement in the prophet's mind. There was probably more pro- gression in his thought than Professor Davidson is willing to allow. If it is asked, Where was the person to whom the prophet could ascribe such greatness, conceiving as he did that he was to come at once? surely a similar question would be fair in relation to Isaiah's Messiah. The truth is that even on the threshold of the restoration there was time for a great one suddenly to arise. As John the Baptist on the Jordan watched for the coming One whom he knew not, yet who was alive, so the great prophet of the exile may have watched even day by day for the coming Servant whose work had been revealed to him.

      But deep in the psychology of the prophecy is the sense of sin out of which these passages came and indications of which I think are found in the latter part of the book. The great guilt-laden past lay terribly behind the prophet, and as he mused over the sufferings of the righteous, perhaps esp. drawn to the heart-rent Jeremiah, the thought of redemptive suffering may have da'nmed upon him. And if in its Ught, and with a personal sense of sin drawn from what experiences we know not, he grapples with the problem, can we not understand, can we not see that God might flash upon him the great conception oi a sin-bearer?

      At last the idea of vicarious suffering had been connected with the deep things of the nation's life, and henceforward was a part of its 7. Place of heritage. To the profoundest souls the Servant- it would be a part of the nation's for- Passages ward look. The priestly idea had in OT been deepened and filled with new

      Prophecy moral meaning. The Servant was a prophet too — so priest and prophet met in one. And I think Cheyne was right when he suggested that in the Servant's exaltation in ch 53, the idea of the Servant is brought nearer to that of king than we sometimes think. So in suggestion, at least, prophet, priest and king meet in the great figure of the suffering Servant.

      A new rich stream had entered into prophecy, fuU of power to fertilize whatever shores of thought it touched. In the thoughts of these passages prophecy seemed pressing with impatient eagerness to its goal, and though centuries were to pass before that goal was reached, its promise is seen here, full of assurance and of knowledge of the kind of goal it is to be.

      But whatever our view of the meaning of the prophet, we must agree (cf Mt 8 17; 12 18-21; 26 67; Jn 12 41, et al.) that the conception he so boldly and powerfully put upon his canvas had its realization, its fulfilment in the One who spoke to the world from the cross on Calvary. And in its

      darkly glorious shadow the Christian, with all the sadness and joy and wonder of it, with a sense of

      its solving all his problems and meet- 8. Larger ing the deepest needs and outreaches Messianic of his Ufe, can feel a strange companion- Significance ship with the exihc prophet whose of the yearning for a sin-bearer and behef in

      Servant- His coming call across the long and Passages slowly moving years. In the fight and

      penetration of that hour he may be trusted to know what the prophet meant. Pro- fessor Dehtzsch well said of that passage, "Every word is as it were written under the cross at Gol- gotha." Lynn Harold Hough

      SERVANTS, SOLOMON'S. See Solomon's Servants.

      SERVICE, siir'vis: Six Heb, two Aram, and four Gr words are so rendered.

      In the OT the word most used for "service" is (1)

      'dbhodhah, from ^abhadh, which is the general word,

      meaning "to work" and so "to serve,"

      1. In the "to tiU," also "to enslave." The noun OT means "bondage," "labor," "minister- ing," "service," "tiUage," "work,"

      "use." The word is used in describing work in the fields (Ex 1 14, et al.), work in the tabernacle (Ex 27 19, et al.), sanctuary service (Nu 7 9), service of Jeh (Nu 8 11), Levitical or priestly service (Nu 8 22), kmgly service (1 Ch 26 30), etc. Reference is made to instruments, wood vessels, cattle, herbs, shekels for the service in the house of Jeh. (2) 'Abhadh itself is tr

      The following are the uses in the NT: (1) Dia-

      konia, from root meaning "to run on errands," and

      so attendance, aid as a servant, min-

      2. In the istry, relief, and hence service; cf NT Eng. word "deacon"; Paul: "that

      I might minister unto you" (2 Cor 11 8); also found in Rom 15 31 ("ministration") and Rev 2 19 ("ministry"). (2) Douleiio, lit. "to be a slave," in bondage, service (Gal 4 8, "bond- age"; Eph 6 7, "service"; 1 Tim 6 2, "serve"). (3) Lalreia, from root meaning "to render religious homage," menial service to God, and so worship (Jn 16 2, "service"; Rom 9 4, "service"; Rom 12 1, "spiritual service"; He 9 1, "service"; 9 6, "services"). (4) Leitourgla, from root "to perform reUgious or charitable functions," worship, relieve, obey, minister, and hence a pubUc function, priestly or charitable (liturgy) (2 Cor 9 12, "service"; also in Phil 2 17,30). See Servant.

      William Edward Raffety



      Servant of Jeh Seven Stars

      SERVITUDE, sAr'vi-tud. Sec Servant; Slave.

      SESIS, se'sis (B, Secreis, ^eseis, A, Sto-o-ets, Sesseis): One who put away his foreign wife (1 Esd 9 34) = "Shashai" in Ezr 10 40.

      SESTHEL, ses'thel (2eo-8t|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, SeslMl) : One of the sons of Addi who put away their foreign wives (1 E,sd 9 31) = "Bezalel" in Ezr 10 30.

      SET: Few words in the Eng. language have such a rich variety of meaning and are used in so rich a variety of idiomatic expression as the word "set." A glance at any of the great diets, will con- vince anyone of the truth of this statement. The Standard Dictionary devotes three and a half columns to the word. In its primary meaning it there de- notes 22 distinct things, in its secondary meaning 17 more, while 18 distinct phrases are given in which it is used, in some cases again in a variety of meanings. It is indeed a word calculated to drive a foreigner to despair. Some 70 Heb and about 30 Gr words in the original tongues of the Holy Scriptures have been rendered by the word "set, in AV and also in RV. A careful comparative study of the original and of tr' in other tongues will at once indicate that a lack of discrimination is evi- dent on the part of the Eng. translators in the fre- quent use of the word "set."

      Thus in Cant 5 14, " hands are as rings of gold set with beryl," the Heb word is sbli maie'," to be filled," "full." Vulg translates plenae, the Dutch gevuld, the Ger. voll; Prov 8 27, "when he set a circle," Heb ppH hdkak, "to describe," "decree," Vulg vallahat, Dutch beschreef; Ezr 4 10, "set in the city of Samaria," Aram. ^P"' . ythihh. "to cause to sit down," "to cause to dwell," Vulg hahiiare eas fecit, Dutch doen wonen; Ps 2 6, "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill," Heb tfOD . ndsakh,

      " to pour out," "to anoint," Dutch (7eeaZ/(i; Isa 19 2, AV "I will s?t the Egyptians against the Egyptians," Heb tTDO . sdkhakh, "to disturb," "to confuse," Vulg concur- rere faciam, Dutch verwarren, Ger. an einander setzen; Rev 3 8, "I have set before thee a door," Gr 6i6u)/ii, diddmi, "to give," Vulg dedi coram te, Dutch gegeven, Ger. gegeben; Acts 19 27, AV "Our craft is in danger to be set at nought." Gr IpxoiJ^a^, Irchomai. "to come," Vulg periclitabituT , Dutch in verachting komen; Lk:_4 18, "to set at liberty them," Gr aTTorrriWisj. apostello, "to send away," Dutch keen te zenden in vrijheid; Acts 13 9, AV "Saul .... set his eyes on him," Gr irei-i^o,, atenizo, "to stare fixedly," Vulg intuens in eum, Dutch de oogen op hem houdende. These are but a few examples chosen at random where our Eng. translators have rendered Heb and Gr words by "set," where a more literal tr, in equally good idiomatic language, was

      f)ossible. The word "set" is the causative of "sit," and ndicates primarily a power of self-support, in opposition to the Idea of the word "lay."

      (1) In its primary meaning the word "set" is used in our Eng. Bible in many senses: (a) Foun- dation: Cant 5 15, "His legs are as pillars of marble set upon." (6) Direction: Ezk 21 16, "whither- soever thy face is set." (c) Appointed lime: Acts 12 21, "upon a set day." {d) Fixed -place: 2 Ch 20 17, "Set yourselves, stand ye still, and see"; 2 S 6 17; Mt 4 5. (e) Cause to sit: 1 S 2 8, AV "to set them among princes"; 2 Ch 23 20; Ps 68 6. (0 Appointment: Ezr 7 2.5, AV "set magistrates and judges"; Gen 41 41; 1 S 12 13; Ps 2 6; Dnl 1 11. (g) To lift up: Gen 31 17, "set his eons and his wives upon." (h) Appointed place: Gen 1 17, "God set them in the firmament." (i) Cause to stand: Gen 47 7, "Joseph brought in Jacob .... and set him before Pharaoh"; Nu 8 13; 2 Ch 29 25. 0) Sitting: Mt 5 1, AV "when he was set"; He 8 1 AV. (k) Location: Mt 5 14, "a city set on a hill." These by no means exhaust the meaning which the word, in its primary sense, has in our Eng. Bible.

      (2) In a secondary or tropical sense it is used with equal frequency, usually with various prepositions.

      Thus (a) To attack: Jgs 9 33, AV "and set upon the city." {b) To imprint: Gen 4 15, AV "The Lord set a mark ui)on Cain." (c) To direct to: 1 K 2 15, "And that all Israel set their faces on me." (d) To place: 1 K 20 12, Ben-hadad shouted one word to his allies: "Set," i.e. set the armies in array, the battering-rams and engines of attack in their place, (e) To incline toward: Ezk 40 4, "Set thy heart upon all that I shall show." (/) To trust in: Ps 62 10, "If riches increase, set not your heart thereon." [g) To place before: Ps 90 8, "Thou hast set our iniquities before"; Ps 141 3, "Seta watch, O Jeh, before my mouth." Qi) To go down: of the setting of the sun (Mk 1 32; Lk 4 40). (i) To be proud: Mai 3 15, AV "They that work wickedness are set up." (j) To fill in: Ex 35 9, "stones to be set, for the ephod." (fc) To plant: Mk 12 1, "set a hedge about it." (Q To mock: Lk 23 11, "Herod .... set him at nought." (m) To honor: 1 S 18 30, "so that his name was much set by." (n) To start: Acts 21 2, "We went aboard, and set sail." As may be seen the word is used in an endless variety of meanings. Henry E. Dosker

      SETH, seth, SHETH, sheth (nffi, shelh; 2^9, Stlh) :

      (1) The son born to Adam and Eve after the death of Abel (Gen 4 25 f ; 5 3 fT; 1 Ch 1 1; Sir 49 16; Lk 3 38). In Gen 4 25 the derivation of the name is given. Eve "called his name Seth: For, said she, God hath appointed [shath] me another seed instead of Abel." In 1 Ch 1 1 AV, the form is "Sheth"; elsewhere in AV and in RV throughout the form is "Seth."

      (2) AV "the children of Sheth," RV "the sons of tumult." According to AV rendering, the name of an unknown race mentioned in Balaam's parable (Nu 24 17). S. F. Hunter

      SETHUR, se'thur ("linD , ^Hhur; SaBoiiip, Sa- thour): An Asherite spy (Nu 13 13 [14]).

      SETTING, set'ing {Ty&Ta , millu'ah, ht. "a fill- ing") : The word is used in the description of the manufacture of the breastplate of judgment (Ex 28 17). The instruction runs: "Thou shaft set in it settings of stones," viz. four rows of precious stones. The same word is rendered "inclosings" in ver 20, and in 39 13 AV.

      SETTLE, set"l (tllTr , 'dzarah) : For this word in Ezk 43 14.17.20; 45' 19, ARV and ERVm sub- stitute more correctly "ledge." See Temple.

      SETTLE : The Heb language has 8 words which are thus tr'': yashabh, nahath, ''dmadh, shdkat, tabha'', 7id;abh, mdkom, kapha'. Now the meaning is to settle down, to cause to occur (Ezk 38 11 AV; 1 Ch 17 14); then it denotes fixedness (2 K 8 11; Ps 119 89; Prov 8 25); again it points to a condition of absolute quiescence, as the settlings on the lees (Jer 48 11); and in still another place it means packing solidly together (Ps 65 10). In the NT the words ^S/jdios, hedraios, BefieXiSa^ themelioo, and TlB-qui^ tithemi, have been tr'' "settle." RV in 1 Pet 5 10 has tr-i "estabhsh," and the context unquestionably points to the idea of a fixed establishment in the faith. In Lk 21 14 the word tr<* "settle" evidently points to a fixed determination. Henry E. Dosker

      SEVEN, sev"n (3751?, shehha'; tirrd.Aepid). See Number.

      SEVEN CHURCHES. See Churche.s, Seven.

      SEVEN STARS. See Astronomy.

      Seveneh Shade, Shadow



      SEVENEH, se-ven'e, se-ve'ne {T\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'.')D , s'weneh): For AV "the tower of Syene," in Ezk 2Q 10; 30 6, RV reads, "the tower of Seveneh," with note m, "or, from Migdol to Syene." Seveneh is the to'o'n at the First Cataract in Egj-pt, now known as Assuan. Fresh interest has recently been given to it by the Elephantine discoveries bearing on the ancient Jew- ish colony and temple of Jeh in that place in the 5th cent. BC. See Aramaic; Egypt; Papyri; Sanc- tuary, 4, etc.

      SEVENTH, sev"nth, DAY. See Sabbath.

      SEVENTY, sev"n-ti (D''3?niB , shibh'im; ipSoii^i- KovTa, hehdomekonta) . See Number.

      SEVENTY DISCIPLES: The account of the designation and mission of these is found only in Lk 10. Some have therefore sought to maintain that we have here only a confused variant of the appointment of the Twelve; but this is impossible in the light of Luke's account of the Twelve in ch 9.

      The documents vary as between the numbers seventy and seventy-two, so that it is impossible to determine which is the correct reading; and internal evidence does not help at all in this case. There is nothing in the function or circumstances to indicate any reason for the specific number.

      Commentators have sought parallels in the seventy elders chosen to assist Moses (Nu 11) and suppose that Jesus was incidentally indicating Himself as the " prophet like unto Moses" whom God would raise up.

      Again, the Jews popularly reckoned the "number of the nations of the earth" at seventy (cf Gen 10), and some have supposed Jesus to be thus indicating that His gospel is universal. Attention is called to the fact that the Seventj' are not forbidden to go to Gentiles and that their commission probably included Peraea, where many Gentiles were to be found. Some, again, have supposed that Jesus had in mind the Jewish Sanhedrin, composed of seventy (or seventy-two), and that the appointment of a like number to extend the work of His kingdom was a parabolic recognition that as the Jews were officially rejecting Him. so He was rejecting them as agents for the work of the kingdom. It is impossible to speak with any certainty as to any of these suggestions. It is to be noted that there is the same confusion be- tween the numbers seventy and seventy-two in all four instances, as also in the tradition as to the number of translators of the LXX.

      Inasmuch as no further mention is made of these workers, it is to be understood that they were ap- pointed for a temporary ministry. Tradition names several of them and identifies them with disciples active after Pentecost. While it is prob- able that some of these were witnesses later, the tradition is worthless in details. The mission of these and the reason assigned for their appoint- ment are essentially the same as in the case of the Twelve. Jesus is now completing His last popular campaign in preaching and introducing the king- dom of heaven. The employing of these in this service is in line with the permanent ideal of Chris- tianity, which makes no distinction between the "laymen" and the "clergy" in responsibility and service. Jesus was perhaps employing all whose experience and sympathy made them fit for work in the harvest that was so plenteous while the laborers were few. He foimd seventy such now as He would find a hundred and twenty such after His ascension (Acts 1 15). William Owen Carver

      SEVENTY WEEKS: The "seventy weeks" of the prophecy in Dnl 9 24-27 have long been a sub- ject of controversy in the critical schools. The conflicting views may be seen very fuUy in Dr. Driver's Dnl, 94 ff, 14.3 £f, and Dr. Pusey's Daniel the Prophet, lects II, III, IV. On both sides it is agreed that the "weeks" in this prophecy are to be interpreted as "weeks of years," i.e. the 70 weeks represent 490 years. This period, commencing

      with "the going forth of the commandments to restore and build Jerus' ' (ver 25) , is divided into three parts, 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434 years), and one week (7 years). The 69 weeks extend to the appearance of "an anointed one [Heb "Mes- siah"], the prince" (ver 25), who, after the 62 weeks, shall be "cut off" (ver 26), apparently in the "midst" of the 70th week (ver 27). On the traditional view (see Pusey), the 69 weeks (483 years) mark the interval from the decree to rebuild Jerus till the appearance of Christ; and if, with Pusey, the decree in question be taken to be that of the 7th year of Artaxerxes (457-56 BC; the mission of Ezra; cf Ezr 7 8 G), confirmed and extended in the 20th year of the same king (mission of Nehemiah; cf Neh 2 1 ff), the 483 years run out about 27-28 AD, when Our Lord's pubhc ministry began. On the other hand, the view which supposes that the Book of Dnl belongs whoUy to the Maccabean age, and does not here contain genuine prediction, is under the necessity of making the 490 years termi- nate with the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (171-164 BC), and this, it is admitted, cannot be done. To give time the violent expedient is adopted of dating the commencement of the 70 weeks from the prophecy of Jeremiah of the 70 years' captivity, or of the rebuilding of Jerus (606 or 587 BC), i.e. before the captivity had begun. Even this, as Dr. Driver admits (p. 146), leaves us in 171 BC, some 67 years short of the duration of the 62 weeks, and a huge blunder of the writer of Dnl has to be as- sumed. The divergent reckonings are legion, and are mutually contradictory (see table in Pusey, p. 217). To invaUdate the older view Dr. Driver avails himself of the altered renderings of vs 25 and 27 in ERV. It is to be noted, however, that ARV does not foUow ERV in these changes. Thus, whereas ERV reads in ver 25, "Unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks: and three- score and two weeks, it shall be built again," and accordingly takes "the anointed one" of ver 26 to be a distinct person, ARV (as also ERVm) reads, as in AV, "shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks." Again, where ERV reads in ver 27 "For the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease," ARV (and ERVm) has as formerly, "In the midst of the week he shall cause" etc (conversely, in ver 25 ARVm gives the ERV rendering). The question cannot be dis- cussed here, but it is believed that the traditional interpretation may yet claim acceptance from those who do not accept the postulates of the newer critical writers. See Daniel; Jubilees, Book op.

      James Orr SEVENTY YEARS: The period assigned by Jeremiah for the duration of the Jewish exile in Babylon (Jer 25 11.12; 29 10; cf 2 Ch 36 21 f; Ezr 1 1; Dnl 9 2). If the period be reckoned from the date of the first deportation in the 4th year of Jehoiakim (2 K 24 1; 2 Ch 36 6fT; Dnl 1 1 by another reckoning calls it the 3d year), i.e. 606 BC, till the decree of Cyrus, 536 BC, the pre- diction was fulfilled to a year. See Captivity.

      SEVER, sev'er: The three Heb words hddhal, paldh and paradh are thus tr"*. The idea conveyed is that of setting apart (Lev 20 26 AV) or of setting someone or something apart in a miraculous way (Ex 8 22; 9 4 AV, ERV), or, agam, of simple sepa- ration on one's ovra vohtion (Jgs 4 11 AV, ERV). The Gr word d^opifw, aphorlzo (Mt 13 49) stands for final judicial segregation.

      SEVERAL, sev'er-al, SEVERALLY, sev'er-al-i: The Heb words hophshuth and hophshUh, tr** "several" in AV, ERV, 2 K 15 5; 2 Ch 26 21, are in both cases tr'' "separate" in ARV, and indicate



      Seveneh Shade, Shadow

      ceremonial uncleanness and consequent severance on account of leprosy. In the parable of the Talents (Mt 25 15) and also in 1 Cor 12 11 the word tdios, idios, is tx"^ "several," "severally." In both cases it points to the individuality of the recipients of the gift bestowed.

      SHAALABBIN, sha-a-lab'in (T'5'?3'lp , sha'Mab- hin; B, 2a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aP«(v, Salabein, A, 2aXa|ielv, Salameln): A town in the territory of Dan named between Ir- shemesh and Aijalon (Josh 19 42). It seems to be identical with Shaalbim.

      SHAALBIM, sha-al'bim (n"'?l':?'llj , sha'alblm; B, BtjeaXaiieC, Bethalamei, A, 2a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ap~c[|x, Salabelm, in Josh BA 0a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aP6(|i, Thalabeim): When the Amorites had forced the children of Dan into the mountain they came and dwelt in Mt. Heres, Aija- lon and Shaalbim, where, it appears, they were made tributary to the house of Joseph (Jgs 1 35). In the time of Solomon it was included in the admin- istrative district presided over by Ben-deker, along with Makaz, Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan (1 K 4 9). Beth-shemesh is the same as Ir-shemesh (Josh 19 42). Shaalbim is probably only another name of Shaalabbin. One of David's mighty men is called Eliahba the Shaalbonite. This presumes the existence of a town called Shaalbon (2 S 23 32 ;

      1 Ch 11 33), which again is probably identical with Shaalbim. Onom identifies it with Salaba, a large village in the district of Sebaste (Samaria), which apparently Eusebius and Jerome thought to be in the territory of Dan. It seems, however, too far to the N. Jerome in his comm. on Ezk 48 speaks of the towers of Aijalon and Selebi and Emmaus. Conder would identify Selebi with Selbit, 3 miles N.W. of Aijalon {Yalo), and 8 miles N.' of Beth- shemesh. This would suit for Shaalbim, as far as position is concerned; but it is difficult to account for the heavy t in the name, if derived from Shaalbim.

      W. EWING SHAALBONITE, sha-al-bo'nit, sha-al'bo-nlt (■^;35yi25n , ka-sha'albonl; 6 2aXaPo)V€£Tr)s, ho Sala- boneim [2 S 23 32]^ B, 6 'Ov-iL, ho Homel, A, 6 SaXaPuvC, ho Salaboni) : EUahba, one of David's heroes, a native of Shaalbon. See Shaalbim.

      SHAALIM, sha'a-lim, LAND OF (D"'byia yyf. , 'ereg sha'&lim; B, Tfjs yf[S 'Eao-aK^ii, tts gts EasaHm, A, Tf|s -yns SaaXttii, ds gts Saaleim; AV Shalim): Saul in search of his father's asses passed through Mt. Ephraim and the land of Shahshah, then through the land of Shaahm and the land of y'mlni. This last name EV renders "Benjamin" (I S 9 4). The whole passage is so obscure that no certain conclusions can be reached. The search party may have proceeded northward from Gibeah, through the uplands of Ephraim, turning then westward, then southward, and finally eastward. We should thus look for the land of Shahshah and the land of Shaalim on the west side of the mountain range: and the latter may have been on the slopes to the E of Lydda. Possibly we ought here to read "Shaalbim," instead of "Shaalim." W. Ewing

      SHAAPH, sha'af (0?© , sha'aph) :

      (1) A son of Jahdai (1 Ch 2 47).

      (2) The son of Maachah, a concubine of Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel. Shaaph is called the "father," or founder, of the city Madmannah (1 Ch

      2 48 f).

      SHAARAIM, sha-a-ra'im (D";n7lC , sha'&rayim, "two gates"; SaKapcffi, Sakareim; AV Sharaim):

      (1) A city in the Shephelah or "lowland" of Judah mentioned (Josh 15 36) in close association

      with Socoh and Azekah; the vanquished army of the Philis passed a Shaaraim in their flight from Socoh toward Gath and Ekron (1 S 17 52). It is possible that in this latter reference the "two gates" may refer — as LXX implies — to the two Phili strongholds themselves. Shaaraim has been identified with Tell Zakanya (see however Azekah) and with Kh. Sa'lreh {PEF, III, 124, Sh XVII), an old site W. of Beit 'Atab. Both proposals are hazardous.

      (2) One of the towns of Simeon (1 Ch 4 31), called (Josh 19 6) "Sharuhen" and, as one of the uttermost cities of Judah, called (Jash 15 32) "Shilhim." This town was in Southwestern Pal and is very probably identical with the fortress Sharhana, a place of some importance on the road from Gaza to Egypt. Aahmes (XVIIIth Dynasty) besieged and captured this city in the 5th year of his reign in his pursuit of the flying Hyksos (Petrie, Hist, II, 22, 35), and a century later Tahutmes III, in the 23d year of his reign, took the city of Sharu- hen on his way to the siege and capture of Megiddo (Petrie, Hist, II, 104). On philological grounds Tell esh-Sheri'ah, 12 miles N.W. of Beersheba, a large ruin, has been proposed, but it does not suit at all the Egyp data (PEF, III, 399, Sh XXIV). E. W. G. Masterman

      SHAASHGAZ, sha-ash'gaz (TjllB?ip, sha'ash- gaz; LXX reads TaC, Oai, the same name it gives to the official referred to in Est 2 8.15; the name may go back to the Old Bactrian word Sasakshant, "one anxious to learn" [Scheft] ; most commentators suggest no explanation) : A chamberlain of Ahas- uerus, king of Persia; as keeper of "the second house of women," he had Esther under his charge (ver 14).

      SHABBETHAI, shab'g-thi (in^TB, shabbHhay, "one born on the Sabbath"; B, 2aPa9a£, Sabalhai, A, KappaBat, iCa6ba(Aai = "Sabbateus" of 1 Esd 9 14) : A Levite who opposed (?) Ezra's suggestion that the men who had married foreign wives put them aside (Ezr 10 15). Kuenen, however, ren- ders the phrase tlST 5^ ^TS^ , ''aiWdhv, ^al zo'th, of which Asahiel and Jahaziah are the subjects, to mean "stand over," "have charge of," rather than "stand against," "oppose" {Gesammelte Abhand- lungen, 247 f ) ; this would make Shabbethai, who was in accord with the two men mentioned above, an ally rather than an opponent of Ezra. We in- cline toward Kuenen's interpretation in view of the position attained by Shabbethai under Nehemiah — one he would have been unlikely to attain had he been hostile to Ezra. He is mentioned among those appointed to explain the Law (Neh 8 7), and as one of the chiefs of the Levites who had the over- sight of "the outward business of the house of God" (Neh 11 16). Horace J. Wolf

      SHACHIA, sha-kl'a, shak'i-a (H^Sip , sakh'yah [so Baer, Ginsberg] ; some edd read 5'|'3ip , sakh'ya', or K^Dlp , sakh'ya'; also H^pllj , shakh'yah, and n^Dip , shdbh'yah. This last reading is favored by the Syrian and the LXX [B, Sapta, Sabla, A, 2«Pi.A, Sebid, but Luc, StxiA, Sechid]; the forms in kh (D) instead of bh (3) have the support of the Vulg, Sechia, "Yahweh has forgotten"[?]) : A name in a genealogy of Benjamin (1 Ch 8 10).

      SHADDAI, shad'a-i, shad'i. See God, Names OF, II, 8.

      SHADE, shad, SHADOW, .shad'6, SHADOW- ING, shad'o-ing (53? , ^el; o-Kid, skid) : A shadow is any obscuration of the Ught and heat with the form

      Shadow of Death Shalmaneser



      of the intervening object, obscurely projected, con- stantly changing and passing away. "Shadow" is used lit. of a roof (Gen 19 8), of mountains (Jgs 9 36), of trees (Jgs 9 15, etc), of wings (Ps 17 8, etc), of a cloud (Isa 25 5), of a great rock (Isa 32 2), of a man (Peter, Acts 5 1.5), of the shadow on the dial (2 K 20 9, etc), of Jonah's gourd (Jon 4 5f). It is used also figuratively (1) of shelter and protection (of man. Gen 19 8; Cant 2 3; Isa 16 3, etc; of God, Ps 36 7; 91 1; Isa 4 6, etc); (2) of anything fleeting or transient, as of the days of man's hfe on earth (1 Ch 29 15; Job 8 9; Ps 109 23) ; (3) with the idea of obscurity or imper- fection (in He 8 5; 10 1, of the Law; cf Col 2 17); (4) of darkness, gloom; see Shadow of De.ath. In Jas 1 17, we have in AV, "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" {aposkiasma), RV "shadow that is cast by turning"; the reference is to the un- changeableness of God as contrasted with the changes of the heavenly bodies. RV has "of the rusthng of wings" for "shadowing with wings" in Isa 18 1; ARV has "shade" for "shadow" in various places (Jgs 9 15; Job 40 22; Isa 4 6, etc). In Job 40 21.22, for "shady trees" RV has "lotus-trees." W. L. Walkeb

      SHADOW OF DEATH (Hipb?, ^almaweth): The Heb word tr"^ "shadow of death" is used poeti- cally for thick darkness (Job 3 5), as descriptive of Sheol (Job 10 21 f; 12 22; 38 17); figuratively of deep distress (Job 12 22; 16 16; 24 17 6is; 28 3; 34 22 [in the last three passages ARV has "thick darkness" and "thick gloom"]; Ps 23 4, RVm "deep darkness [and so elsewhere]"; 44 19; 107 10.14; Isa 9 2; Jer 2 6; 13 16; Am 5 8; Mt 4 16; Lk 1 79, skid thanatou). The Heb word is perhaps composecl of gel, "shadow," and maweth, "death," and the idea of "the valley of the shadow of death" was most probably derived from the deep ravines, dark- ened by over-hanging briars, etc, through which the shepherd had sometimes to lead or drive his sheep to new and better pastures. W. L. Walker

      SHADRACH, sha'drak: The Bab name of one of the so-called Heb children. Shadrach is probably the Sumerian form of the Bab Kudurru-Aki, "serv- ant of Sin." It has been suggested by Meiahold that we should read Merodach instead of Shadrach. Since there were no vowels in the original Heb or Aram., and since sh and m as well as r and d are much aUke in the old alphabet m which Dnl was WTitten, this change is quite possible.

      Shadrach and his two companions were trained along with Daniel at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, who had carried all four captive in the expedition against Jerus in the 3d year of Jehoiakim (Dnl 1 1). They all refused to eat of the food provided by Ashpenaz, the master who had been set over them by the king, but preferred to eat pulse (Dnl 1 12). The effect was much to their advantage, as they appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than those who ate of the king's meat. At the end of the appointed time they passed satisfactory examinations, both as to their physical appearance and their intellectual acquirements, so that none were found like them among all with whom the king communed, and they stood before the king (see Dnl 1).

      When Daniel heard that the wise men of Babylon were to be slain because they could not tell the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, after he had gained a respite from the king, he made the thing known to his three companions that they might unite with him in prayer to the God of heaven that they all might not with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. After God had heard their prayer and the dream was made known to the king by Daniel,

      Nebuchadnezzar, at Daniel's request, set Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon (Dnl 2). With Meshach and Abed-nego, Shadrach was cast into a fiery furnace, but escaped unhurt (Dnl 3). SeeABED-KEQo; Han- aniah; Song of Three Children.

      R. Dick Wilson SHADY, shad'i, TREES (Job 40 21 f). See Lotus Trees.

      SHAFT, shaft: Isa 49 2 for yn , heg,"a.naTTOw"; also Ex 25 31; 37 17; Nu 8 4 AV for a part of the candlestick of the tabernacle somewhat vaguely designated by the word ^"l^ , j/areA:/i, "thigh." The context in the first 2 verses shows that the upright stem or "shaft" is intended, but in Nu 8 4a differ- ent context has caused RV to substitute "base." See also Archery; Armor, Arms.

      SHAGEE, sha'ge (SJIB , shaghe'; B, 2»Xd, Sold, A, Say'^, Sage; AV Shage) : The father of Jona- than, one of David's heroes (1 Ch 11 34) .

      SHAHARAIM, sha-ha-ra'im (D'^'iniB , shahd- rayim; B, Saap^jX, Saartl, A, Saap^iii, Saarem): A Benjamite name (1 Ch 8 8). The passage is cor- rupt beyond only the most tentative emendation. "Sharaim" has no connection with the foregoing text. One of the suggested restorations of vs 8.9 reads: "And Shaharaim begat in the field of Moab, after he had driven them [i.e. the Moabites] out, from Hodesh his wife, Jobab," etc (Curtis, ICC).

      SHAHAZUMAH, sha-ha-zob'ma, sha-haz'6o-ma (np^SHiP , shahagumak; B, 2a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\el|j. Kara 6d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\a

      SHALEM, sha'lem (05^ , shalein; ets SaXifjp., eis Saltm) : The word as a place-name occurs only in Gen 33 18. With Luther, following LXX, Pesh and Vulg, AV reads "And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem." RV with the Tgs Onkelos and pseudo-Jonathan, the Sam codex and the Arab., reads, "came in peace to the city of Shechem." There is a heavy balance of opinion among scholars in favor of the latter reading. It is certainly a remarkable fact, supporting A V. that about 4 miles E. of Shechem {Ndhlus), there is a village bearing the name Salem. If AV is right, this must repre- sent the city referred to; and E. of Salem would transpire the events recorded in Gen 44. Against this is the old tradition locating Jacob's well and Joseph's tomb near to Shechem. Onom gets over the difficulty by identifying Shalem with Shechem.

      W. EwiNQ

      SHALIM, sha'Um. See Shaalim.

      SHALISHAH, sha-h'sha, shal'i-sha, LAND OF (nipbffi-y-lS, 'ereg shdlishdh; B, fj yfi SeXxa, he gt SelcM, A, t) yf\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 2aXio-crd, he gt Salissd) : If the general indication of the route followed by Saul, given under Shaalim, is correct, the land of Shali- shah (1 S 9 4) will he to theN.E. of Lydda on the western slope of the range. Baal-shahshah would most likely be in the district, and may indeed have given its name to it. If Conder is right in identify- ing this city with Khirbet Kefr Tkilth, about 19 miles N.E. of Jaffa, it meets well enough the general indication given above. Onom knows the name, but gives no guidance as to where the district is.



      Shadow of Death Shalmaneser

      Baal-shalishah it places in the Thamnite region, 15 miles N. of Diospolis (Lydda). No boundaries can be laid down, but probability points to this neighborhood. W. Ewinq

      SHALLECHETH, shal'S-keth, sha-le'keth, THE GATE (riDblB nyiri, s/jaVr sMZeMe^/t, i.e. as in m, "Casting forth"): A gate of the temple "at the causeway that goeth up" (1 Ch 26 16)— probably an ascent from the Tyropoeon Valley to the W. of the temple. It has been supposed on account of the meaning of the name that the ashes and offal of the temple were oast forth there, but this is very unlikely — they were thrown into the Kidron valley to the E. or S.E. The LXX has ■n-a(7To(t>opiov, pastophorlon, which seems to point to a building with chambers; in consonance with this Cheyne reads in the Heb n'ISTpb , Ushkolh, "[of] the cham- bers." E. W. G. Masterman

      SHALLUM, shal'um (D'lSTlJ , shallum, D^llj , shallum; various forms in LXX) : This is the name of not less than 12 Heb persons;

      (1) The youngest son of NaphtaU (1 Ch 7 13). He is also called "Shillem" in Gen 46 24; Nu 26 49.

      (2) A descendant of Simeon, the son of Shaul and the father of Mibsam (1 Ch 4 25). He lived in 1618 BC.

      (.3) The son of Sismai "son" of Shesham of the tribe of Judah (1 Ch 2 40.41). He lived in 1300 BC.

      (4) A son of Kore, a porter of the sanctuary dur- ing the reign of David (1 Ch 9 17.19.31; Ezr 2 42; Neh 7 45). The name is also written "Me- shuUam" in Neh 12 25, "Salum" in 1 Esd 5 28, "Meshelemiah" in 1 Ch 26 1.2.9, and "Shelemiah" in 1 Ch 26 14. He lived about 1050 BC.

      (5) A son of Zadok and father of Hilkiah, a high priest and ancestor of Ezra the scribe (1 Ch 6 12. 13; Ezr 7 2). In the works of Jos he is called "SaUumus"; in 1 Esd 8 1, "Salem," and in 2 Esd 1 1, "Salemas."

      (6) The 15th king of Israel. See following article.

      (7) A son of Bani, a priest who had taken a heathen wife and was compelled by Ezra the scribe to put her away (Ezr 10 42; omitted in 1 Esd 9 34) .

      (8) The father of Jehizkiah, an Ephraimite in the time of Ahaz king of Israel (2 Ch 28 12).

      (9) The husband of the prophetess Huldah (2 K 22 14; 2 Ch 34 22). He was the keeper of the sacred wardrobe and was probably the uncle of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer 32 7; cf Jer 35 4).

      (10) King of Judah and son of Josiah (Jer 22 11; 1 Ch 3 15), better known by the name Jehoahaz II. This name he received when he ascended the throne of the kingdom of Judah (2 Ch 36 1).

      (11) A Levite who was a porter at the time of Ezra (Ezr 10 24; "Sallumus" in 1 Esd 9 25).

      (12) A ruler over a part of Jerus and a son of Hallohesh. He with his daughters aided in build- ing the walls of Jerus in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 3 12). S. L. Umbach

      SHALLUM (01^12) , shallum, D3TZJ , shallum, "the requited one" [2 K 15 10-1.5]): The 1.5th king of Israel, and successor of Zechariah, whom he pub- licly assassinated in the 7th month of his reign. Nothing more is known of Shallum than that he was a son of Jabesh, which may indicate that he was a Gileadite from beyond Jordan. He is said to have made "a conspiracy" against Zechariah, so was not alone in his crime. The conspirators, how- ever, had but a short-lived success, as, when Shallum had "reigned for the space of a month in Samaria,"

      Menahem, then at Tirzah, one of the minor capitals of the kingdom, went up to Samaria, slew him and took his place.

      It was probably at this time that Syria threw off the yoke of tribute to Israel (see Jeroboam II), as when next we meet with that kingdom, it is under its own king and in alliance with Samaria (2 K 16 5).

      The 10 years of rule given to Menahem (2 K 15 17) may be taken to include the few months of military violence under Zechariah and Shallum, and cover the full years 758-750, with portions of years before and after counted as whole ones. The unsuccessful usurpation of Shallum may therefore be put in 758 BC (some date lower).

      W. Shaw Caldecott

      SHALLUN, shal'un CjlbTC , shallun, not in LXX) : Another form of Shallum, the son of Col-hozeh. He was the ruler of the district of Mizpah. He assisted Nehemiah in building the wall of Jerus and in repair- ing the gate by the Pool of Siloah at the King's Gardens (Neh 3 15).

      SHALMAI, shal'ml, shal'ma-I: AV form in Ezr 2 46 for"Shamlai"; Neh 7 48 "Salmai" (q.v.).

      SHALMAN, shal'man (Tpblp, shalman): A name of uncertain meaning, found only once in the OT (Hos 10 14), in connection with a place-name, equally obscure, "as Shaknan destroyed Beth- arbel." Shalman is most commonly interpreted as a contracted form of Shalmaneser, the name of several Assyr kings. If this explanation is correct, the king referred to cannot be identified. Some have thought of Shalmaneser IV, who is said to have undertaken expeditions against the West in 775 and in 773-772. Others have proposed Shal- maneser V, who attacked Samaria in 725. This, however, is improbable, because the activity of Hosea ceased before Shalmaneser V became king. Shalman has also been identified with Salamanu, a king of Moab in the days of Hosea, who paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser V of Assyria; and with Shalmah, a North Arabian tribe that invaded the Negeb. The identification of Beth-arbel (q.v.) is equally uncertain. From the reference it would seem that the event in question was well known and, there- fore, probably one of recent date and considerable importance, but our present historical knowledge does not enable us to connect any of the persons named with the destruction of any of the localities suggested for Beth-arbel. The ancient tr' offer no solution; they too seem to have been in the dark.

      F. C. ElSELEN

      SHALMANESER, shal-ma-ne'zer (IDNJ^blp , shalman' e^er : LXX Saiievvio-ap, Samenndsar, 2a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|iavao-ap, Salmandsar) : The name of several Assyr kings. See Assyria; Assyrian Captivity. It is Shalmaneser IV who is mentioned in the Bib. history (2 K 17 3; 18 9). He succeeded Tiglath- pileser on the throne in 727 BC, but whether he was a son of his predecessor, or a usurper, is not appar- ent. His reign was short, and, as no annals of it have come to light, we have only the accounts con- tained in 2 K for his history. In the passages referred to above, we learn that Hoshea, king of Israel, who had become his vassal, refused to con- tinue the payment of tribute, relying upon help from So, king of Egypt. No help, however, came from Egypt, and Hoshea had to face the chastising forces of his suzerain with his own unaided resources, the result being that he was taken prisoner outside Samaria and most likely carried away to Nineveh. The Bib. narrative goes on to say that the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria and besieged it 3 years. There is

      Shama Shaphan



      reason to believe that, as the siege of Samaria was proceeding, Shalmaneser retired to Nineveh and died, for, when the city was taken in 722 BC, it is Sargon who claims, in his copious annals, to have captured it and carried its inhabitants into cap- tivity. It is just possible that Shalman (Hos 10 14) is a contraction for Shalmaneser, but the iden- tity of Shalman and of Beth-arbel named in the same passage is not sufficiently made out.

      LiTEHATUHE. — Schrader, COT, I, 258 fl; McCurdy, HPilf , I, 387 fl.

      T. NiCOL

      SHAMA, sha'ma ("Slp^ , shama') : One of David's heroes (1 Ch 11 44). ' '

      SHAMAI, sham'a-I. See Salmai.

      SHAMARIAH, sham-a-rT'a, sha-mar'ya. See Shemariah.

      SHAMBLES, sham'b'lz ((idKtXXov, mdkellon) : A slaughter-house; then a butcher's stall, meat- market. The word is once used in the NT in 1 Cor 10 25.

      SHAME, sham (liJ"l3 , bosh, "to be ashamed," rilB3 , bosheth, "shame," Tl^pJ , kalon; alo-xivii, aischiine, "ignominy," dnjita, atimla, "dishonor," and other words) : An oft-recurring word in Scripture almost uniformly bound up with a sense of sin and guilt. It is figuratively set forth as a wild beast (Jer 3 24), a Nessus-garment (3 2.5), a blight (20 18), a sin against one's own soul (Hab 2 10), and twice as the condensed symbol of Heb abomination — Baal (Jer 11 13 m; Hos 9 10 m; seelsH-BOSHETH). It is bracketed with defeat (Isa 30 3), reproach (Ps 69 7; Isa 64 4; Mic 2 6), confusion (Isa

      6 7), nakedness (Isa 47 3; Mic 1 11), everlast- ing contempt (Dnl 12 2), folly (Prov 18 13), cruelty (Isa 50 6; He 12 2), poverty (Prov 13 18), nothingne-ss (Prov 9 7AV), unseemliness (1 Cor 11 6; 14 35 AV; Eph 5 12), and "them that go down to the pit" (Ezk 32 25). In the first Bib. reference to this emotion, "shame" ap- pears as "the correlative of sin and guilt" (De- litzsch. New Comm. on Gen and Bib. Psychology). Shamelessness is characteristic of abandoned wick- edness (Phil 3 19; Jude ver 13, ni "Gr 'shames'"). Manifestly, then, shame is a concomitant of the Divine judgment upon sin; the very worst that a Hebrew could wish for an enemy was that he might be clothed with shame (Ps 109 29), that the judg- ment of God might rest upon him visibly.

      Naturally, to the Hebrew, shame was the portion of those who were idolaters, who were faithless to Jeh or who were unfriendly to themselves — the elect people of Jeh. Shame is to come upon Moab because Moab held Israel in derision (Jer 48 39.27), and upon Edom "for violence against his brother Jacob" (Ob ver 10). But also, and impartially, shame is the portion of faithless Israelites who deny Jeh and follow after strange gods (Ezk 7 18; Mic

      7 10; Hos 10 6, and often). But shame, too, comes upon those who exalt themselves against God, who trust in earthly power and the show of mate- rial strength (2 Ch 32 21; Isa 30 3); and upon those who make a mock of righteousness (Job 8 22; Ps 35 26; 132 IS). With a fine sense of ethical distinctions the Bib. writers recognize that in con- fessing to a sense of shame there is hope for better things. Only in the most desperate cases is there no sense of shame (Hos 4 18; Zeph 3 5; Phil 3 19; Jude ver 13); in pardon God is said to remove shame (Isa 54 4 bis; 61 7).

      On conditions beyond the grave the Bib. revela- tion is exceedingly reticent, but here and there are hints that shame waits upon the wicked here and

      hereafter. Such an expression as that in Dnl (12 2) cannot be ignored, and though the writing itself may belong to a late period and a somewhat sophisticated theological development, the idea is but a reflection of the earlier and more elementary period, when the voice of crime and cruelty went up from earth to be heard in the audience chamber of God (Gen 4 11; 6 13). In the NT there is similar reticence but also similar implications. It cannot be much amiss to say that in the mind of the Bib. writers sin was a shameful thing; that part of the punishment for sin was a consciousness of guilt in the sense of shame; and that from this conscious- ness of guilt there was no deliverance while the sin was unconfessed and unforgiven. "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlast- ing contempt." From one's own past there is no deliverance, save through contrition of spirit and the grace and forgiveness of God. While the sense of shame persists, or, in other words, while the moral constitution of man's nature remains as it is, there will never be wanting an avenger of sin.

      Charles M. Stuart SHAMED, sha'med. See Shemed.

      SHAMEFACED NESS, sham'fast-nes, sham- fas' ed-nes. See Shamefastness.

      SHAMEFASTNESS, sham'fast-nes: The origi- nal AV tr of alSws, aidds, in Sir 41 16 and 1 Tim 2 9. Perhaps halt a century later the spelling "shamefacedness" supplanted the better form, and continues in the ordinary editions of the King James Version. RV, however, rightly restores "shame- fastness."

      SHAMER, sha'mer. See Shemer.

      SHAM GAR, sham'giir (IJ'^gTB , shamgar) : One

      of the judges, son of Anath Candth), in whose days,

      which preceded the time of Deborah

      1. Biblical (Jgs 5 6.7) and followed those of Account Ehud, Israel's subjugation was so

      complete that "the highways were unoccupied, and the travelers walked through by- ways." The government had become thoroughly disorganized, and apparently, as in the days of Deborah, the people were entirely unprepared for war. Shamgar's improvised weapon with which he helped to "save Israel" is spoken of as an ox- goad. With this he smote of the Philis 600 men. This is the first mention of the Philis as trouble- some neighbors of the Israelites (Jgs 3 31). Ac- cording to a tradition represented in Jos (Ant, V, iv, 3), Shamgar died in the year he became judge. Several writers have challenged the Bib. account on the following grounds: that in Jgs 5 no mention

      is made of any deliverance; that the

      2. Critical name "Shamgar" resembles the name Hypotheses of a Hittite king and the name "Anath"

      that of a Syrian goddess; that the deed recorded in Jgs 3 31 is analogous to that of Samson (Jgs 15 15), and that of Shammah, son of Agee (2 S 23 11 f); and lastly, that in a group of Gr MSS and other VSS this verse is inserted after the account of Samson's exploits. None of these is necessarily inconsistent with the traditional account. Nevertheless, they have been used as a basis not only for overthrowing the tradition, but also for constructive theories such as that which makes Shamgar a foreign oppressor and not a judge, and even the father of Sisera. There is, of course, no limit to which this kind of interesting speculation cannot lead.

      (For a complete account of these views see Moore, "Jgs," in ICC, 1895, 104 f, and same author



      Shama Shaphan

      in Journal of the American Oriental Society, XIX, 2, 159-60.) Ella Davis Isaacs

      SHAMHUTH, sham'huth. See Shammtjah, IV.

      SHAMIR, sha'mer (TiQlri , shamir; Saiictp, Samelr) :

      (1) Mentioned along with Jattir and Socoh (Josh 15 48) as one of the fities of Judah in the hill country. Possibly it is Kh. (or Umm) Somerah, 2,000 ft. above sea-level, a site with ancient walls, caves, cisterns and tombs not far W. of Debtr [edh Dhather'iych) and 2 miles N. of Anab CAnab) (PEF, 111,262, 286, Sh XX).

      (2) A place in the hill country of Ephraim (Jgs 10 1) from which came "Tola, the son of Pual, a rnan of Issachar," who judged Israel 23 years; he died and was buried there. It is an attractive theory (Schwartz) which would identify the place with the semi-fortified and strongly-placed town of San-dr on the road from Nahlus to Jenin. A local chieftain in the early part of the last century fortified Snniir and from there dominated the whole district. That Sanilr could hardly have been within the bounds of Issachar is an objection, but not neces- sarily a fatal one. It is noticeable that LXX A has "SaixApua, Samdreia, for Shamir (PEF, II, Sh XI). E. W. G. Masteeman

      SHAMIR (T'^B, Shamir; 2o|i^p, Samtr): A Kohathite, son of 'Micah (1 Ch 24 24).

      SHAMLAI, sham'lft-i, sham'U. See Salmai.

      SHAMMA, sham'a (XTGIIJ , shamma' ; B, Stn-d,

      SHAMMAH, sham'a (riBTS , shammah) :

      ( 1 ) The sou of Reuel, the son of Esau, a tribal chief ofEdora(Gen 36 13.17; 1 Ch 1 37, Xo/j.^, Some).

      (2) The third son of Jesse and brother of David. Together with his two other brothers he fought under Saul in the campaign against the Philis and was with the army in the valley of Elah when David slew Goliath (1 S 17 13 ff). One redactor states that he was a witne-ss of the anointing of David by Samuel (1 S 16 1-13). He was the father of Jonadab, the friend of Amnon (2 S 13 3 ff), and that Jonathan whose victory over a Phili giant is narrated in 2 S 21 20 fT was also his son. His name is rendered as "Shammah" (1 S 16 9; 17 13), "Shimeah" (2 S 13 3.32), "Shimei" (2 S 21 21), and "Shimea" (1 Ch 2 13; 20 7).

      (3) The son of Agee, a Hararite, one of the "three mighty men" of David (2 S 23 11, LXX Xa^cud, Samaid), who held the field against the Philis. The || passage (1 Ch 11 10 ff) ascribes this deed to Eleazar, the son of Dodo. The succeeding incident (2 S 23 13 ff), viz. the famous act of three of David's heroes who risked their hves to Ijring their leader water from the well of Bethlehem, has frequently been credited to Shammah and two other members of "the three" ; but the three warriors are plainjy said (ver 13) to belong to "the thirty"; ver 33 should read "Jonathan, son of Shammah, the Hararite," Jonathan, one of David's "thirty," was a son of Shammah; the word "son" has been acci- dentally omitted (Driver, Budde, Kittcl, etc). The II passage (1 Ch 11 34) has "son of Shagee,'^ which is probably a misreading for "son of Agee." Lucian's version, "son of Shammah," is most plau- sible. "Shimei the son of Ela" (1 K 4 18) should also appear in this passage if Lucian's reading of "Ela" for "Agee" (2 S 23 11) be correct.

      (4) A Harodite (2 S 23 25.33), i.e. probably a native of \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Ain-harod QAin Jalud, Jgs 7 1; see

      Harod). One of "the thirty" and captain of Solo- mon's 5th monthly course. In the || hsts (1 Ch 11 27) he is called "the Harorite" (this last being a scribal error for Harodite) and "Shamhuth the Izra- hite" (1 Ch 27 8). Horace J. Wolf

      SHAMMAI, sham'a-I, sham'i CBIB , shammay) :

      (1) A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2 28.32).

      (2) The son of Rekem and father of Maon (1 Ch 2 44 ff).

      (3) A Judahite (1 Ch 4 17).

      SHAMMOTH, sham'oth, sham'oth. See Sham- mah, (4).

      SHAMMUA, SHAMMUAH, sha-mu'a, sham'a-a {"Sym , shammu''):

      (1) The Reubenite spy (Nu 13 4, XaiwvfiX, SamouM, and other forms).

      (2) One of David's sons (2 S 5 14; 1 Ch 14 4, Sa,a;i«iCs, Sammous). In 1 Ch 3 5 he is called "Shimea."

      (3) A Levite (Neh 11 17); he is called "She- maiah" in 1 Ch 9 16.

      (4) The head of a priestly family (Neh 12 18); a contemporary of Joiakim.

      SHAMSHERAI, sham'sh5-rl, sham-shg-ra'i (i"1TpT?TP, shamsh'ray): A Benjamite (1 Ch 8 26).

      SHAPE, shap: In AV the tr of eiSos, eldos, "form," "appearance" (Lk 3 22; Jn 5 37), and of ofiotuifia, homoloma, "likeness," "resemblance" (Rev 9 7). The meaning of these words is not so much "tangible shape," in which sense we use the word in modern Eng., but rather "aspect," "ap- pearance," the looks of a thing or a person. This is even the case where the word is joined with the adj. auiJ.aTi.Kbi, somatikos, "bodily," as in the pas- sage Lk 3 22, "The Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form [i.e. "in a corporeal appearance," AV "in a bodily shape"], as a dove, upon him." The second passage also refers to the "appearance" of God, and cannot therefore be regarded as material shape: "Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form" (AV "shape") (Jn 5 37). As has been seen from the above quotations, RV, which retains the tr "shape" for homoidma, has tr'' eidos with "form," which also serves to render several other Gr synonyms, such as M°P0'7, morpht (Mk 16 12; Phil '2 6f), ij.6p4,a

      H. L. E. LUERINQ

      SHAPHAM, sha'fam (DSlB , shapham; SacjidH., Saphdm, SapAr, Sabdt): Name of a Gadite chief, who had the second place in command of his tribe (1 Ch 5 12). So far as the fragmentary geneal- ogies are intelligible, they seem to indicate that Shapham and his chief, Joel, lived in the time of Saul and shared in the war against the Hagrites (1 Ch 5 7-10.18-22), but it is to be noted that these lists were first recorded between the years 750 and 740 BC, just before the eastern tribes were carried into captivity.

      SHAPHAN, sha'fan {)^tl , shaphan, "rock- badger," EV "coney"; Sa

      (1) Son of AzaUah and scribe of King Josiah. He received from Hilkiah the Book of the Law

      Shaphat Shavsha



      which had been found in the Temple (2 K 22 3 ff; 2 Ch 34 8-2S). It was from Shaphan's hps that Josiah heard the Law read. Shaphan was also one of those sent by the king to the prophetess Huldah (2 K 22; 2 Cii 34). He was undoubtedly one of the staunchest supporters of Josiah in his work of reform. He was the father of Ahikam (2 K 22 12; 2 Ch 34 20; Jer 26 24), who befriended and pro- tected the prophet Jeremiah. Another son, Elasah, was one of the two men intrusted by Jeremiah with his letter to the captives in Babylon (Jer 29 3). A third son, Gemariah, vainly tried to prevent King Jehoiakim from burning "the roll" (Jer 36 10.11.12. 25). The Micaiah of Jer 36 11.12, and Gedahah, the governor of Judaea after the captivity of 586 BC, were his grandsons (Jer 39 14).

      (2) Perhaps the father of Jaazaniah, one of the 70 men whom Ezekiel saw, in his vision of the Temple, sacrificing to idols (Ezk 8 11).

      Horace J. Wolf

      SHAPHAT, sha'fat (T3STB , shaphat) :

      (1) The Simeonite spy (Nu 13 5,^a

      (2) The father of the prophet Elisha (1 K 19 16; 2 K 3 11, LXX Saphdlh).

      (3) A name in the royal genealogy of Judah (1 Ch 3 22).

      (4) A Gadite (1 Ch 5 12).

      (5) One of David's herdsmen (1 Ch 27 29).

      SHAPHER, sha'fer. SeeSnEPHEE.

      SHAPHIR, sha'fer (~|1STZJ, shSphir, "glittering";, kalos; AV Saphir): One of a group of towns mentioned in Mic 1 10-15. From the asso- ciation with Gath, Achzib (of Judah) and IMare- shah, it would seem that the places mentioned were in Southwestern Pal. According to Onom, there was a 'Zacpetp, Sapheir, "in the hill country" (from a confusion with Shamir [Josh 15 48], where LXX A has Sapheir) between Eleutheropolis and Ascalon. The name probably survives in that of three vil- lages called es-Suafir, in the plain, some 3j miles S.E. of Ashdod (PEF, II, 413, Sh XV). Cheyne {EB, col. 4282) suggests the white "glittering" hill Tell e^-Safi, at the entrance to the Wddy es-Sunt, which was known to the Crusaders as Blanche- garde, but this site seems a more probable one for Gath (q.v.). E. W. G. Masterman

      SHARAI, sha-ra'I, sha'ri ("^"lip , sharay) : One of the sons of Bani who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10 40).

      SHARAIM, sha-ra'im. See Shaaraim.

      SHARAR, sha'rar. See Sacar.

      SHARE, shar. See Plow.

      SHAREZER, sha-re'zer ("iSJ^lip , sar'e^er, '125, shar'eqer) : Corresponds to the Assyr Shar-u.^ur, "protect the king"; found otherwise, not as a com- plete name, but as elements in personal names, e.g. Bel-shar-uijur, "may Bel protect the king," which is the equivalent of Belshazzar (Dnl 5 1). The name is borne by two persons in the OT:

      (1) The son of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who with Adrammelech (q.v.) murdered his father (2 K 19 37; Isa 37 38). The Bab Chronicle says concerning Sennacherib's death: "On the 20th day of Tebet Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was slain by his son in a revolt." This differs from the OT account in that it speaks of only one murderer, and does not give his name. How the two accounts can be harmonized is still uncertain. Hitzig, (Kritik, 194 ff), following Abydenus, as quoted by

      Eusebius, completed the name of Sennacherib's son, so as to read Nergal-sharezer= N ergal-shar-u§ur (Jer 39 3.13), and this is accepted by many modern scholars. Johns thinks that Sharezer (shar'eger or sar'eger) may be a corruption from Shar-etir-Ashur, the name of a son of Sennacherib (1-vol HDB, S.V.). The question cannot be definitely settled.

      (2) A contemporary of the prophet Zechariah, mentioned in connection with the sending of a delegation to the spiritual heads of the community to inquire concerning the propriety of continuing the fasts: "They of Beth-el had sent Sharezer and Regem-melech" (Zee 7 2). This tr creates a diffi- culty in connection with the succeeding words, lit. "and his men." The Revisers place in the margin as an alternative rendering, "They of Beth-el, even Sharezer .... had sent." Sharezer sounds pecu- liar in apposition to "they of Beth-el"; hence some have thought, esp. since Sharezer seems incomplete, that in the two words Beth-el and Sharezer we have a corruption of what was originally a single proper name, perhaps Bel-sharezer= iJei-s?!ar-MSMr = Bel- shazzar. The present text, no matter how tr"*, presents difficulties. See Regem-melech.

      . . F. C. Eisblen

      SHARON, shar'un (""niSn, ha-sharon, with the def. art. possibly meaning "the plain"; to irtStov, to pedion, 6 Spv)j.(Ss, ho drumos, 6 Sapuv, ho SaroJi) : (1) This name is attached to the strip of fairly level land which runs between the mountains and the shore of the Mediterranean, stretching from Nahr Rubin in the S. to Mt. Carmel in the N. There are considerable rolUng hills; but, compared with the mountains to the E., it is quite properly described as a plain. The soil is a deep rich loam, which is favorable to the growth of cereals. The orange, the vine and the olive grow to great per- fection. When the many-colored flowers are in bloom it is a scene of rare beauty.

      Of the streams in the plain four carry the bulk of the water from the western slopes of the mountains to the sea. They are also perennial, being fed by fountains. Nahr el-'Aujeh enters the sea to the N. of Jaffa; Nahr I skanderuneh 7 miles, and Nahr el-Mefjir fully 2 miles S. of Caesarea; and Nahr ez-Zerka, the "Crocodile River," 2i miles N. of Caesarea. Nahr el-Falik runs its short course about 12 miles N. of Nahr el-''Aujeh. Water is plentiful, and at almost any point it may be obtained by dig- ging. Deep, finely built wells near some of the villages are among the most precious legacies left by the Crusaders. The breadth of the plain varies from 8 to 12 miles, being broadest in the S. There are traces of a great forest in the northern part, which accounts for the use of the term drumos. Jos {Ant, XIV, xiii, 3) speaks of "the woods" {hoi drumoi) and Strabo (xvi) of "a great wood." There is still a considerable oak wood in this district. The "excellency" of Carmel and Sharon (Isa 35 2) is probably an allusion to the luxuriant oak forests. As in ancient times, great breadths are given up to the pasturing of cattle. Over David's herds that fed in Sharon was Shitrai the Sharonite (1 Ch 27 29). In the day of Israel's restoration "Sharon shall be a fold of flocks" (Isa 65 10). Jerome speaks of the fine cattle fed in the pastures of Sharon, and also sings the praises of its wine {Comtn. on Isa 33 and 65). Toward the S. no doubt there was more cultivation then than there is at the present day._ IThe Ger. colony to the N. of Jaffa, pre- serving in its name, Sarona, the old Gr name of the plain, and several Jewish colonies are proving the wonderful productiveness of the soil. The orange groves of Jaffa are far-famed.

      "The rose of Sharon" (Cant 2 1) is a mistrans- lation: hdhhaggeleth is not a "rose," but the white narcissus, which in season abounds in the plain.



      Shaphat Shavsha

      Sharon is mentioned in the NT only in Acts 9 35.

      (2) A district E. of the Jordan, occupied by the tribe of Gad (1 Ch 5 16; here the name is without the art.). , Kittel ("Ch," SBOT) sugge.sts that this is a corruption from "Sirion," which again is synony- mous with Hermon. He would therefore identify Sharon with the pasture lands of Hermon. Others think that the mishor or table-land of Gilead is intended.

      (.3) In Josh 12 18 we should perhaps read "the king of Aphek in Sharon." See Lashahon. The order seems to point to some place N.E. of Tabor. Perhaps this is to be identified with the Sarona of OrMm in the district between Tabor and Tiberias. If so, the name may be preserved in that of Sarona on the plateau to the S.W. of Tiberias.

      W. EWINQ

      Canaanitish descent. The patronymic Shaulites is found in Nu 26 1.3.

      (3) An ancestor of Samuel (1 Ch 6 24 [Heb 9]); in ver 36 he is called "Joel."

      SHAVEH, sha've, VALE OF (niT» pp?, 'emeJ? shdweh). See King's Vale.

      SHAVEH-KIRIATHAIM, sha've-kir-ya-tha'im (D^rr^lp rrill) , shUweh kiryalhayim; iv Zaui] t^ ir6X.€i, en Saut It pdlei) : Here Chedorlaomer is said to have defeated the Emim (Gen 14 5). RVm reads "the plain of Kiriathaim." If this rendering is right, we must look for the place in the neighbor- hood of Kiriathaim of Moab (Jer 48 1, etc), which is probably represented today by el-Kareiydt, about 7 miles to the N. of Dibon.

      Plain of Shaeon.

      SHARONITE, shar'un-It ("^JIIlBn, ha-sharml; 6 2apuv€tTT)s, ho Saroneites) : Apphed in Scripture only to Shitrai (1 Ch 27 29). See Sharon.

      SHARUHEN, sha-roo'hen (]n^"ll9 , sharuhen; ot oiYpol avTMv, hoi agroi aulon): One of the cities in the territory of Judah as.signed to Simeon (Josh 19 6). In 15 32 it is called "Shilhim," and in 1 Ch 4 31, "Shaaraim" (q.v.).

      SHASHAI, sha'shi (ilBffl , shashay; 2co-eC, Hesei) : One of the sons of Bani who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10 40) = "Sesis" in 1 Esd 9 34.

      SHASHAK, sha'shak (pllJl» , shashak) : Eponym of a Benjamitefamily (1 Ch 8 14.2.5).

      SHAUL, sha'ul, SHAULITES, sha'ul-Its ('^^STIJ , sha'ul; 2oov\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, Saoul) :

      (1) A king of Edom (Gen 36 37 ff = l Ch 1 48 ff).

      (2) A son of Simeon (Gen 46 10; Ex 6 15; Nu 26 13; 1 Ch 4 24). The clan was of notori- ously impure stock, and, therefore, Shaul is called "the son of a Canaanitish woman" (Gen 46 10; Ex 6 15); the clan was of mixed Israelitish and

      SHAVING, Bhav'ing (in Job 1 20, TTS, gazaz, usually nbj, galah; in Acts 21 24, |vpdu, xurdo): Customs as to shaving differ in different countries, and in ancient and modern times. Among the Egyp- tians it was customary to shave the whole body (cf Gen 41 14). With the Israelites, shaving the head was a sign of mourning (Dt 21 12; Job 1 20); ordinarily the hair was allowed to grow long, and was only cut at intervals (cf Absalom, 2 S 14 26). Nazirites were forbidden to use a razor, but when their vow was expired, or if they were defiled, they were to shave the whole head (Nu 6 5.9.18 ff; cf Acts 21 24). The shaving of the beard was not permitted to the Israelites; they were prohibited from shaving off even "the corner of their beard" (Lev 21 5). It was an unpardonable insult when Hanun, king of the Ammonites, cut off the half of the beards of the Israelites whom David had sent to him (2 S 10 4; 1 Ch 19 4).

      Shaving "with a razor that is hired" is Isaiah's graphic figure to denote the complete devastation of Judah by the Assyr army (Isa 7 20) .

      James Orr

      SHAVSHA, shav'sha (XTplT?, shawsha' ; in 2 S 20 25, Knhibh, S^'^IC, sh'yd', K're, NIllJ, sh'wa', EV "Sheva," are refuted by LXX; in 2 S 8 15-18,

      Shawl Shebna



      in other respects identical with Ch, "Seraiah" is found; LXX varies greatly in all passages; it is the general consensus that Shavsha is correct) : State secretary or scribe during the reign of David (1 Ch 18 16; 2 S 20 25). He was the first occupant of this office, which was created by David. It is sig- nificant that his father's name is omitted in the very exact hst of David's officers of state (1 Ch 18 14- 17 II 2 S 8 15-18); this fact, coupled with the foreign sound of his name, points to his being an "ahen"; the assumption that the state secretary handled correspondence with other countries may explain David's choice of a foreigner for this post. Shavsha's two sons, Elihoreph and Ahijah, were secretaries of state under Solomon ; they are called "sons of Shisha" (1 K 4 3), "Shisha" probably being a variant of "Shavsha."

      Horace J. Wolf SHAWL, shol: RV substitutes "shawls" for AV "wimples" in Isa 3 22. See Dress.

      SHEAF, shef, SHEAVES, shevz (Inia'jS, 'alum- mah, Toy , 'omcr, T^'DS' , 'amir) : When the grain is reaped, it is laid in handfuls back of the reaper to be gathered by children or those who cannot stand the harder work of reaping (Ps 129 7). The handfuls are bound into large sheaves, two of which are laden at a time on a donkey (cf Neh 13 15). In some districts carts are used (cf Am 2 13). The sheaves are piled about the threshing-floors until threshing time, which may be several weeks after harvest. It is an impressive sight to see the huge stacks of sheaves piled about the threshing-floors, the piles often covering an area greater than the nearby vil- lages (see Agriculture). The ancient Egyptians bound their grain into small sheaves, forming the bundles with care so that the heads were equally distributed between the two ends (see Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, 1878, II, 424; cf Joseph's dream. Gen 37 .5-8). The sheaves mentioned in Lev 32 10-12.15 must have been handfuls. It is a custom in parts of Syria for the gatherers of the sheaves to run toward a passing horseman and wave a handful of grain, shouting kemshi, kemshi (lit. "handful"). They want the horseman to feed the grain to his horse. In OT times forgotten sheaves had to be left for the sojourner (Dt 24 19); cf the kindness shown to Ruth by the reapers of Boaz (Ruth 2 7.15).

      Figurative: "Being hungry they carry the sheaves" is a picture of torment similar to that of the hungry horse urged to go by the bundle of hay tied before him (Job 24 10). The joyful sight of the sheaves of an abundant harvest was used by the Psalmist to typify the joy of the returning captives (Ps 126 6). James A. Patch

      SHEAL, she'al (bxffi , sh''al, "request"): One of the Israelites of the sons of Bani who had taken foreign wives (Ezr 10 29, LXX Salmiid. LXX Luc, Assael; 1 Esd 9 30, "Jasaelus").

      SHEALTIEL, shG-ol'ti-el (bs^nbsip , sh"aUl'el, but in Hag 1 12.14; 2 2, bsipbllj , shalti'el; LXX and the NT always 2a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aeLT|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, SalalhiU, hence "Sala- thiel" of 1 Esd 5 5.48..56; 6 2; AV of Mt 1 12; Lk 3 27): Father of Zerubbabel (Ezr 3 2.8; 5 2; Neh 12 1; Hag 1 1.12.14; 2 2.23). But, accord- ing to 1 Ch3 17, Shealtiel was the oldest son of King Jeconiah; in ver 19 the MT makes Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel, the father of Zerubbabel (cf Curtis, /CC).

      SHEAR, sher. See Sheep; Sheep Tending.

      SHEARIAH, she-a-ri'a, shs-iir'ya (n;!"]?®, sh'^aryah; Sapaid, Saraid) : A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8 38; 9 44).

      SHEARING, sher'ing, HOUSE (Diyhn nj?? Pli?, heth 'ekedh ha-roHm, "house of binding of the shep- herds"; B, BaiBaKaS [A, Bai6dKa8] Twv woin^vcov, Baithdkath [Baithdkad] ton poimenon) : Here, in the course of his extinction of the house of Ahab, Jehu met and destroyed 42 men, "the brethren of Aha- ziah king of Judah" (2 K 10 12-14). Onom takes the phrase as a proper name, Bethacath, and locates the village 15 miles from Legio in the plain. This seems to point to identification with Beit Kad, about 3 miles E. of Jenln.

      SHEAR-JASHUB, she-ar-ja'shub or jash'ub (IITC^ ''¥'?'> sh'^ar yashUhh, "a remnant shall re- turn"; LiXX. ho kataleiphtheis lasoiib) : The son of Isaiah, who accompanied him when he set out to meet Ahaz (Isa 7 3). The name like that of other children of prophets (cf "Immanuel," "Maher- shalal-hash-baz," "Lo-ruhamah," etc) is symbolic of a message which the prophet wishes to empha- size. Thus Isaiah uses the very words sh''dr ya- shubh to express his oft-repeated statement that a remnant of Israel will return to Jeh (Isa 10 21).

      SHEATH, sheth. See Sword.

      SHEBA, she'ba (Sni? , shobM'; Sapd, Sabd) : (1) Sheba and Dedan are the two sons of Raamah son of Cush (Gen 10 7). (2) Sheba and Dedan are the two sons of Jokshan the son of Abraham and Keturah (25 3). (3) Sheba is a son of Joktan son of Eber who was a descendant of Shem (10 28).

      From the above statements it would appear that Sheba was the name of an Arab tribe, and conse- quently of Sem descent. The fact that Sheba and Dedan are represented as Cushite (Gen 10 7) would point to a migration of part of these tribes to Ethiopia, and similarly their derivation from Abraham (25 3) would indicate that some families were located in Syria. In point of fact Sheba was a South- Arabian or Joktanite tribe (Gen 10 28), and his own name and that of some of his brothers (e.g. Hazarmaveth = Hadhramaut) are place-names in Southern Arabia.

      The Sabaeans or people of Saba or Sheba, are referred to as traders in gold and spices, and as in- habiting a country remote from Pal (1 K 10 1 f; Isa 60 6; Jer 6 20; Ezk 27 22; Ps 72 15; Mt 12 42), also as slave-traders (Joel 3 8), or even desert-rangers (Job 1 15; 6 19; cf CIS 84 3).

      By the Arab genealogists Saba is represented as great-grandson of Kahtan ( = Joktan) and ancestor of all the South-Arabian tribes. He is the father of Himyar and Kahlan. He is said to have been named Saba because he was the first to take prisoners (shabhah) in war. He founded the capital of Saba and built its citadel Marib (Mariaba), famous for its mighty barrage.

      The authentic history of the Sabaeans, so far as known, and the topography of their country are derived from South-Arabian inscrip- 1. History tions, which began to be discovered about the middle of the last century, and from coins dating from about 150 BC to 150 AD, the first collection of which was published in 1880, and from the South-Arabian geographer HamdanI, who was later made known to European scholars. One of the Sabaean kings is mentioned on Assyr inscriptions of the year 715 BC; and he is apparently not the earliest. The native monu- ments are scattered over the period extending from before that time until the 0th cent. AD, when the



      Shawl Shebna

      Sabaean state came to an end, being most numerous about the commencement of our era. Saba was the name of the nation of which Marib was the usual capital. The Sabaeans at first shared the sovereignty of South Arabia with Himyar and one or two other nations, but gradually absorbed the territories of these some time after the Christian era. The form of government seems to have been that of a republic or oligarchy, the chief magistracy going by a kind of rotation, and more than one "king" holding office simultaneously (similarly Dt 4 47 and often in the OT). The "people seem to have been divided into patricians and plebeians, the former of whom had the right to build castles and to share in the government.

      A number of deities are mentioned on the inscrip- tions, two chief being Il-Makkih and Ta'lab. Others are Athtar (masc. form of the

      2. Religion Bib. 'ashtarolh), Rammon (the Bib.

      Rimmon), the Sun, and others. The Sun and Athtar were further defined by the addition of the name of a place or tribe, just as Baal in the OT. Worship took the form of gifts to the temples, of sacrifices, esp. incense, of pilgrimages and prayers. Ceremonial ablution, and abstinence from certain things, as well as formal dedication of the wor- shipper and his household and goods to the deity, were also religious acts. In return the deity took charge of his worshipper's castle, wells, and belong- ings, and supplied him with cereals, vegetables and fruits, as well as granted him male issue.

      (1) The chief occupations of the Sabaeans were raiding and trade. The chief products of their

      country are enumerated in Isa 60 6,

      3. Civil- which agrees with the Assyr inscrip- ization tions. The most important of all

      commodities was incense, and it is sig- nificant that the same word which in the other Sem languages means "gold," in Sabaean means "per- fume" (and also "gold"). To judge, however, from the number of times they are mentioned upon the inscriptions, agriculture bulked much more largely in the thoughts of the Sabaean than commerce, and was of equal importance with religion.

      (2) The high position occupied by women among the Sabaeans is reflected in the story of the Queen of Sheba and Solomon. In almost all respects women appear to have been considered the equal of men, and to have discharged the same civil, religious and even military functions. Polygamy does not seem to have been practised. The Sabaean inscriptions do not go back far enough to throw any light upon the queen who was contemporary with Solomon, and the Arab, identification of her with Bilkis is merely due to the latter being the only Sabaean queen known to them. Bilkis must have Uved several centuries later than the Heb monarch.

      (3) The alphabet used in the Sabaean inscriptions is considered by Professor Margoliouth to be the original Sem alphabet, from which the others are derived. In other respects Sabaean art seems to be dependent on that of Assyria, Persia and Greece. The coins are Gr and Rom in style, while the system of weights employed is Persian. See further Sa- baeans.

      LiTERATnRE. — Rodiger and Osiander in ZDMG, vols XX and XXI; Halevy in Journal Asiatique, Serie 6, vol IX; CIS, pt. IV. ed by J. and H. Derenbourg; IJam- dani, ed by D. H. Muller, 1891; Mordtmann, Himya- rische Inachriften, 1893; Hommel. Siidarabische Chrestho- mathie, 1893; Gla.ser, Abyssinien in Arabien, 189.5; D. H. Muller, Sudarabische AlterthUmer, 1899; Deren- bourg, Les monuments sabeens, 1899. On the Coins, Schlumberger, Le tresor de Sana, 1880; Mordtmann in Wiener numismatische Zeitschrift, 1880.

      Thomas Hunter Weir SHEBA, she'ba (7?© , shebha'; ZdpcE, Sdbee, or Sdjiao, Sdmaa): The name of one of the towns aOotted to Simeon (Josh 19 2). AV mentions it

      as an independent town, but as it is not men- tioned at all in the parallel list (1 Ch 4 28), and is omitted in Josh 19 2 in some KISS, it is probable that RV is correct in its tr "Beer-sheba or Sheba." Only in this way can the total of towns in this group be made 13 (Josh 19 6). If it is a separate name, it is probably the same as Shema (q.v.).

      E. W. O. Masterman SHEBA, QUEEN OF. See Queen of Sheba.

      SHEBAH, she'ba. See Shibah.

      SHEBAM, she'bam. See Sebam.

      SHEBANIAH, sheb-a-ni'a, shS-ban'ya (H'^^nT? , sh'hhanyah, in 1 Ch 15 24, sh'bhanyahu) :

      (1) Name of a Levite or a Levitical family that participated in the religious rites that followed the reading of the Law (Neh 9 4). The name is given in Neh 10 10 among those that sealed the covenant .

      (2) A priest or Levite who took part in the sealing of the covenant (Neh 10 4; 12 14). See Shecaniah.

      (3) Another Levite who sealed the covenant (Neh 10 12).

      (4) A priest in the time of David (1 Ch 15 24).

      SHEBARIM, sheb'a-rim, shB-ba'rim (Di-l31pn, ha-sh'hharim; o-i)v^Tpi\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|iav, sunetripsan) : After the repulse of the first attack on their city the men of Ai chased the Israelites "even unto Shebarim" (Josh 7 5). RVm reads "the quarries"; so Keil, Steuernagel, etc. LXX reads "until they were broken," i.e. until the rout was complete. The direction of the flight was of course from Ai toward Gilgal in the Jordan valley. No trace of such a name has yet been found.

      SHEBAT, she-biit' (UlTlJ , sh'bhal): The 11th month of the Jewish year (Zee 1 7), corresponding to February. See Calendar.

      SHEBER,she'ber (IITB , shebher; B, Sdpep, Sd6er, A, 2ip«p, Seber) : A son of Caleb by his concubine Maacah (1 Ch 2 48).

      SHEBNA, sheb'na (XD3ip, shebhna'; Soiivas, Sdmnas; but nD31|5, shebhnah, in 2 K 18 18.26; meaning uncertain [2 K 18 18.26.37 and 19 2 = Isa 36 3.11.22 and 37 2; Isa 22 15]):

      In Isa 22 15 Shebna is referred to as he "who is over the house," or household, apparently that of the king. The phrase is tr^" ' 'steward of 1. Position the house" in RV of Gen 43 16.19; 44 1, in Isa 22 and occurs also in 39 4, "overseer"; 44 4. It is used of an officer of the Northern Kingdom in 1 K 16 9; 18 3; 2 K 10 5. This officer is distinguished from him "that was over the city" in 2 K 10 5, and it is said in 2 K 15 5 that after his father Azariah was stricken with leprosy, "Jotham, the king's son, was over the household, judging all the people of the land." Again Isa 22 15 speaks of "this ^okhen," a phrase that must apply to Shebna if the prophecy refers to him. This word is the participle of a vb. meaning "to be of use or service," so "to benefit" in Job 15 3; 22 2; 34 9. The fem. participle is employed of Abishag in 1 K 1 2.4, where AVm translates "cherisher"; iJZ)S renders it "servitor" or "steward" in Isa 22 15. It occurs also as a Can. gloss in the Am Tab (Winckler no. 237.9). The .■}dkhen was evidently a high officer: Shebna had splendid chariots (ver 18), but what the office exactly was is not certain. The other reference to Shebna in the title of the prophecy would lead one to conclude that it denoted him "who was over the household,"

      Shebna Shechem



      i.e. govei-nor of the palace, probably, or major- domo. The word sokhen is thus a general title; others deny this, maintaining that it would then occur more frequently.

      In 2 K 18 f = Isa 36 f we find too a Shebna men- tioned among the oflficers of Hezekiah. There he is called the gopher, "scribe" or "sec-

      2. Shebna retary," i.e. a minister of state of some in 2 K 18 f kind, whereas Eliakim is he ' 'who is

      over the household." Is then the Shebna of Isa 22 the same as this officer? It is of course possible that two men of the same name should hold high office about the same time. We find a Joah (ben Asaph) "recorder" under Heze- kiah (2 K 18 IS) and a Joah (ben Joahaz) having the very same position under Josiah a century later (2 Ch 34 8). But such a coincidence is rare. Had there been two high officers of state bearing this name, it is most probable that they would somehow have been distinguished one from the other. Shebna's name is thought to be Aram., thus pointing to a foreign descent, but G. B. Gray, "Isa," ICC, 373 ff, denies this. We can perhaps safely infer that he was a parvenu from the fact that he was hewing himself a sepulcher in Jerus, apparently among those of the Heb nobility, whereas a native would have an ancestral burial- place in the land.

      However, in 2 K, Shebna is the scribe and not the governor of the palace. How is this to be ex- plained? The answer is in Isaiah's prophecy.

      The prophecy of Isa 22 divides itself into 3 sec- tions. The words "against [not as RV "unto"]

      Shebna who is over the house," or

      3. Isa 22: palace, are properly the title of the 15 S prophecy, and should come therefore

      at the very beginning of ver 15.

      (1) Vs 15-18 form one whole. In ver 16 the words "hewing him out a sepulchre," etc, should be placed immediately before the rest of the verse as ver 16a with the rest of the section is in the second person. We thus read (vs 15-17) : 'Against Shebna who was over the house. Thus saith the Lord, Jeh of hosts, Go unto this steward [RVm] that is hewing him out a sepulchre on high, graving a habitation for himself in the rock, (and say] What doest thou here and whom hast thou here that thou hast hewed thee out here a sepulchre? Be- hold, Jeh of hosts, . . . .' etc. G. H. Box (Isa) would further transpose some parts of vs 17 f. Shebna is to be tossed like a ball into "a land wide of sides," i.e. a broad extensive land. He is addressed as a disgrace to the house of his royal master. The prophet's language is that of personal invective, and one asks what had made him so indignant. Some (e.g. Dillmann, Delitzsch) suggest that Shebna was the leader of a pro-Egyp party, while others (e.g. Cheyne) believe that the party was pro-Assyr (cf Isa 8 5-8a). The actual date of the prophecy can only be inferred.

      (2) Isa 22 19-23 contains a prophecy which states that Eliakim is to be given someone's post, apparently that of Shebna, if this section be by Isaiah; ver 23, however, is held by many to be a gloss. These verses are not so vehement in tone as the previous ones. Some maintain that the section is not by Isaiah (Duhm, Marti). It can, however, be Isaianic, only later in date than vs 15 ff , being possibly meant to modify the former utter- ance. The palace governor is to lose his office and to be succeeded by Eliakim, who is seen to hold that post in 2 K 18 f (see Eliakim) .

      (3) Vs 24 f are additions to the two utterances by a later hand; they predict the ruin of some such official as Ehakim owing to his own family.

      There is nothing a priori against believing that these three sections are entirely independent one

      of another, but there seems to be some connection between (1) and (2), and again between (2) and (3).

      Now the question that has to be solved 4. Date is that of the relation of Isa 22 15 ff

      of the with 2 K 18f=Isa 36 f, where are

      Prophecy given the events of 701 BC. We have

      the following facts : (a) Shebna is scribe in 701, and Eliakim is governor of the palace; (b) Shebna is governor of the palace in Isa 22 15, and is to be deposed; (c) if Isa 22 18-22 be by Isaiah, Eliakim was to succeed Shebna in that post. Omitting for the moment everything but (a) and (fe), the only solution that is to any extent satis- factory is that Isa 22 15-18 is to be dated previ- ous to 701 BC. This is the view preferred by G. B. Gray, op. cit. And this is the most satis- factory theory if we take (2) above into considera- tion. The prophecy then contained in (1) had not been as yet fulfilled in 701, but (2) had come to pass; Shebna was no longer governor of the pal- ace, but held the position of scribe. Exile might still be in store for him.

      Another explanation is put forward by K. Fullerton in AJT. IX, 621-42 (1905 and criticized by E. Konig in X, 675-86 (1906). Fullerton rejects vs 24 f as not due to Isaiah, and maintains that Isa 22 15-18 was spoken by the prophet early in the reign of Rlanasseh, i.e. later than 2 K 18 f. "not so much as a prophecy, a simple prediction, as an attempt to drive Shebna from

      office It must be admitted that Isaiah probably

      did not succeed. The reactionary party seems to have

      remained in control during the reign of Manass