CAB.—See Weights and Measures.
CABBON (Jos 15:40).—A town of Judah near Eglon. See Machdena.
CABIN.—The Eng. word ‘cabin’ is now chiefly confined to an apartment in a ship, but was formerly used of any small room. It occurs in AV for the cell ( which is the word in AVm and RV) in which Jeremiah was confined (Jer 37:16). Cf.
Spenser, FQ I. vi. 23—
‘So long in secret cabin there he held
Her captive to his sensual desire.’
CABUL (Jos 19:27, 1 K 9:13).—A town of Asher on the border of Zebulun. The district was ceded by Solomon to Tyre. Prob. the large village Kabul, E. of Acco.
CÆSAR.—This is the cognomen or surname of the gens Julia, which was borne, for example, by its most illustrious representative, Caius Julius Cæsar. The emperor Augustus (b.c. 23–a.d. 14) had it by adoption, and was officially named
‘Imperator Cæsar Augustus.’ His stepson, the emperor Tiberius, officially
‘Tiberius Cæsar Augustus’ (a.d. 14–37), had it through his adoption by Augustus.
It was borne also, amongst other less important persons, by the emperor Caius
Cæsar Germanicus (nicknamed ‘Caligula,’ ‘Boots’) (a.d. 37–41), who was a son of
Germanicus, the adopted son of the emperor Tiberius. These alone among the Roman emperors had it as a family name, but all the emperors bore it as a title except Vitellius (a.d. 69), and hence we find it continued in the titles Kaiser and Czar. The beginning of this use is seen in the NT. There the name is found always, except twice (Lk 2:1, 3:1), by itself, simply equal to ‘the Emperor.’ The remaining emperors of the 1st cent. are Claudius (wh. see), Nero (wh. see), Galba (9 June 68– 15 Jan. 69), Otho (15 Jan.–25 Apr. 69), Vitellius (2 Jan. 69–20 [?] Dec. 70) , Vespasian (69–79), Titus (71–79–81), Domitian (81–96), Nerva (96–98), Trajan (97–98–117).
A. Souter.
CÆSAR’S HOUSEHOLD.—In Ph 4:22 ‘they that are of Cæsar’s house’ send special greetings to the Philippians. St. Paul wrote from Rome, where he was in semi-captivity, and some of the Christians in Rome belonged to the efficient and talented body of slaves and freedmen who worked in the Imperial palace and performed varied service for the emperor Nero. The number of these servants was very large, and amongst them were accountants, governors of provinces, secretaries, stewards, etc., as well as a great many officials concerned with humbler duties. They were persons of influence and often of considerable wealth, drawn from all nations within the Empire. The testimony of inscriptions makes it certain that most of the persons named in Ro 16 were’ of Cæsar’s household.’
A. Souter.
CÆSAREA (mod. Kaisariyeh).—A city rebuilt by Herod the Great on the site of Straton’s Tower, on the coast of Palestine, between Joppa and Dora. Its special features were—a large harbour protected by a huge mole and by a wall with 10 lofty towers and colossi; a promenade round the port, with arches where sailors could lodge; a temple of Augustus raised on a platform, and visible far out at sea, containing two colossal statues of Rome and the Emperor; a system of drainage whereby the tides were utilized to flush the streets; walls embracing a semicircular area stretching for a mile along the sea-coast; two aqueducts, one of them 8 miles in length, displaying great engineering skill; a hippodrome; an amphitheatre capable of seating 20,000 persons; a theatre; a court of justice, and many other noble structures. The city took 12 years to build, and Herod celebrated its completion (b.c. 10–9) with sumptuous games and entertainments which cost £120,000. Herod used the port for his frequent voyages. Here he condemned to death his two sons Alexander and Aristobulus. After the banishment of Herod’s successor Archelaus, Cæsarea became the official residence of the Roman procurators of Palestine (broken only by the brief interval during which it was under the independent rule of Herod Agrippa I., who met his tragic death here in
b.c. 44 [Ac 12:20–23]). The fifth of these, Pontius Pilate, ordered a massacre in the hippodrome of Cæsarea of those Jews who had flocked to implore the removal from Jerusalem of the profane eagle standards and images of the Emperor recently introduced. Only on their baring their necks for death and thus refusing to submit, did Pilate revoke the order, and direct the ensigns to be removed. Christianity early found its way here, Philip probably being the founder of the Church (Ac 8:40) , while Paul passed through after his first visit to Jerusalem (Ac 19:31). Cæsarea was the scene of the baptism of Cornelius (Ac 10). Here also the Holy Spirit for the first time fell on heathen, thus inaugurating the Gentile Pentecost (v. 44). Paul may have passed through Cæsarea (Ac 18:22) at the time when numbers of Jewish patriots, captured by Cumanus, had here been crucified by Quadratus, legate of Syria. It was at Cæsarea that Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem was foretold by Agabus ( Ac 21:8–14). Here he was imprisoned for two years under Felix (Ac 23). During that time a riot broke out between Greeks and Jews as to their respective rights, and Felix ordered a general massacre of the Jews to be carried out in the city. On the recall of Felix, Nero sent Porcius Festus, who tried Paul (Ac 25:9) and also allowed him to state his case before Herod Agrippa II. and Berenice (Ac 26). The wickedness of the last procurator, Gessius Florus, finally drove the Jews into revolt. A riot in Cæsarea led to a massacre in Jerusalem, and simultaneously 20,000 of the Jewish population of Cæsarea were slaughtered. During the Great War, Cæsarea was used as the base for operations, first by Vespasian, who was here proclaimed Emperor by his soldiers (a.d. 69), and latterly by his son Titus, who completed the destruction of Jerusalem. The latter celebrated the birthday of his brother Domitian by forcing 2500 Jews to fight with beasts in the arena at Cæsarea. The city was made into a Roman colony, renamed Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Cæsarensis, released from taxation, and recognized as the capital of Palestine.
Several Church Councils were held at Cæsarea. It was from a.d. 200 to 451 the residence of the Metropolitan bishop of Palestine. Origen taugh there, and Eusebius was its bishop from a.d. 313 to 340. It was the birthplace of Procopius, the historian. In a.d. 548 the Christians were massacred by the Jews and Samaritans. In 638 it surrendered to the Moslems under Abu Obeida. It was recovered in 1102 by Baldwin I., who massacred the Saracens in the mosque, once the Christian cathedral. The loot contained the so-called ‘Holy Grail’ of mediæval legend. Saladin recaptured Cæsarea in 1187, but it was retaken by Richard I. in 1192. The city, however, was so ruined that when restored it covered only onetenth of the original ground. In 1251 Louis IX. fortified it strongly. In 1265 it was stormed by Sultan Bibars, who utterly demolished it. To-day it is a wilderness of dreary ruins, tenanted only by a few wandering shepherds.
G. A. Frank Knight.
CÆSAREA PHILIPPI.—The scene of Christ’s charge to Peter (Mt 16:13–20 , Mk 8:27). Here was a sanctuary of Pan—a fact still remembered in the modern name Banias—and when Herod the Great received the territory from Augustus in
b.c. 20, he erected here a temple. His son Philip refounded the city, and changed its name from Paneas to Cæsarea in honour of Augustus—adding his own name to distinguish the town from the similarly named city founded by his father on the sea-coast. For a while it was called Neronias, but ultimately the old name came once more to the surface and ousted the others. Here Titus celebrated with gladiatorial shows the capture of Jerusalem. It was captured by the Crusaders in 1130, and finally lost by them to the Moslems in 1165. It lies 1150 ft. above the sea in a recess of the Hermon mountains, and is well watered. Under the ancient castle of the Crusaders a copious stream issued from a cave, now much choked with fallen fragments of rock, where was the shrine of Pan. The modern village is small, and the remains of the Roman city meagre.
R. A. S. Macalister.
CAGE.—Birds were taken to market in a cage or coop of wicker work ( Jer 5:27); a similar cage might hold a decoy-bird in fowling (Sir 11:30). One of Ashurbanipal’s hunting scenes shows a cage of strong wooden bars from which a lion is being let loose (cf. Ezk 19:8 RV). In Rev 18:2 render, with RV, ‘hold’ or ‘prison’ for AV ‘cage.’
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CAIAPHAS.—Joseph Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas (Jn 18:13), was high priest between a.d. 18 and 36; and thus ‘the memorable year’ of our Lord’s trial fell in the course of his pontificate (Jn 11:51, 18:13). He was, like all the priestly order, a Sadducee; and he was a man of masterful temper, with his full share of the insolence which was a Sadducæan characteristic. He figures thrice in the NT. 1. After the raising of Lazarus, the rulers, alarmed at the access of popularity which it brought to Jesus, convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin to determine what should be done. Caiaphas presided ex officio, and with a high hand forced a resolution that Jesus should be put to death (Jn 11:47ff.). 2. He presided at the subsequent meeting of the Sanhedrin when Jesus was tried and condemned; and there again he displayed his character by his open determination to find Him guilty, and his shameless disregard of the forms of law in order to bring about that end (Jn 18:24 , Mt 26:57–68 = Mk 14:53–65 = Lk 22:66–71). 3. He took part in the examination of Peter and John (Ac 4:6).
David Smith.
CAIN.—In Gn 4:1 the name (Qayin) is derived from qānāh, ‘procure.’ This, however, is linguistically impossible. It is probably to be connected with a root signifying to ‘forge’ in metal (cf. vv. 22–24).
1. (a) vv. 1–16 (J). Cain and Abel are represented as the sons of Adam and Eve. But it is clear that the narrative was at one time independent of Adam and Eve; it presupposes a much later stage in human progress. The distinction between pastoral and agricultural life (v. 2), and between cereal and animal offerings (vv. 3 , 4), the custom of blood-revenge (v. 14), and the large increase in the number of human beings implied in Cain’s fear of being slain (vv. 14, 15), in his possession of a wife (v. 17), and in his erection of a city (ib.), all show that a long period must be understood to have elapsed since the primitive condition of the first pair. The meaning of certain passages in the story is uncertain; vv. 7, 13, 15 must be studied in the commentaries. When Cain was condemned to be a fugitive and a wanderer, he feared death in revenge for his murder of Abel; but Jahweh ‘appointed a sign’ for him. This is not explained, but the writer probably thought of it as something which rendered Cain sacrosanct, so that, according to a deeply rooted Semitic conception, it would be a defilement and a crime to touch him (see art. Holiness). And he went and dwelt (v. 16) in the land of Nōd (‘Wanderland’). The fact that the story appears to describe conditions long subsequent to those of the first pair has led many writers to hold that Cain is the eponymous ancestor of a tribe, and that the tradition was intended to explain the wild and wandering life of Arabian nomads. This kind of life, so different from the prosperous peace of settled agricultural communities, must have been the result of a primitive curse, incurred by some crime. And the narrative relates that the settled, agricultural Cainite tribe ruthlessly destroyed members of an adjacent tribe of pastoral habits; that the fear of strict blood-revenge was so great that the Cainites were obliged to leave their country, and become wandering nomads; and that some tribal sign or badge—such as a tattoo, or incisions in the flesh—was adopted, which marked its possessors as being under the protection of their tribal god. It is further conjectured, owing to the formation of the two names from the same root, that ‘Cain’ stands for the Kenites (cf. Nu 24:22, Jg 4:11 with RVm). See Driver, Genesis, p. 72.
(b) vv. 17–24 seem to contain a different tradition, but incorporated also by J. Cain’s erection of a city scarcely seems to harmonize with his being a fugitive and a wanderer in fear of his life. The purpose of the tradition was to explain the origin of early arts and social conditions—e.g. the beginnings of city-life (v. 17) , polygamy (v. 19), nomad life (v. 20), music (v. 21), metallurgy (v. 22).
2. The value of the story lies, as always, mainly in its religious teaching. We know not of how much crude superstition and polytheism the tradition may have been divested by the prophetical writer who edited it. But in its present form, the connexion of Cain with Adam and Eve suggests the thought of the terrible effects of the Fall: the next generation reaches a deeper degree of guilt; Cain is more hardened than Adam, in that he feels no shame but boldly tries to conceal his guilt; and the punishment is worse—Adam was to till the ground with labour, but Cain would not henceforth receive from the earth her strength. The story teaches also the sacredness of human life, the moral holiness of God, and the truth that a result of sin is a liability to succumb to further sin (v. 7 b ).
3. In the NT Cain is referred to in He 11:4, Jude 11, 1 Jn 3:12. The latter passage must be explained by vv. 9, 10. The children of God—qua children of God—cannot sin; and conversely the children of the devil cannot do righteousness or love one another. Cain, then, murdered his brother because he belonged to the latter category, and his brother to the former.
A. H. M‘Neile.
CAINAN.—1. The son of Enos and father of Mahalaleel (Lk 3:37). See Kenan. 2. The son of Arphaxad (Lk 3:36, which follows LXX of Gn 10:24, 11:12). The name is wanting in the Heb. text of the last two passages.
CAKE.—See Bread.
CALAH.—The Kalach of the inscriptions, one of the great fortresses which after the fall of Nineveh (cf. Jon 4:11 and the Greek writers) were supposed to make up that city. Both Nineveh and Calah were, however, always separate in structure and in administration. Calah lay on the site of the great modem mounds of Nimrūd, as was first proved by the explorer Layard. In Gn 10:11f. it is said to have been founded by Nimrod, and, along with Nineveh and other cities, to have formed part of ‘the great city.’ It was the capital, or at least the chief royal residence, under several of the greatest Assyrian kings, whose palaces have been excavated by modern explorers. Here also was found the famous black obelisk of Shalmaneser II.
J. F. McCurdy.
CALAMOLALUS (1 Es 5:22).—A corrupt place-name, probably due to a conglomeration of the two names Lod and Hadid in Ezr 2:33 (cf. Neh 7:37).
CALAMUS.—See Reed.
CALCOL.—A, Judahite, adescendant of Zerah (1 Ch 2:6), otherwise described in 1 K 4:31 (where AV has Chalcol) as a son of Mahol, famous for wisdom, but surpassed by Solomon.
CALDRON.—See House, § 9.
CALEB (‘dog,’ one of the numerous animal names in the OT which testify to early totemistic conceptions).—The son of Jephunneh (Nu 13:6). As an individual, he appears as one of the spies who were sent to ‘spy out the land’ of Canaan. He represented the tribe of Judah, and, together with Joshua, advocated an immediate attack upon the land; the fear of the people he denounces as rebellion against Jahweh (Nu 14:9); this, however, is resented by the people, who threaten to stone both him and Joshua. The carrying out of this threat is frustrated by the appearance of the Shekinah (‘the glory of the Lord’) in the Tabernacle (v. 10). As a reward for his faithfulness Caleb is specially singled out for Jahweh’s favour (Nu 14:24, 30 , 38, Dt 1:36). He is thus one of the great champions of Jahweh.
As a name of a clan, Caleb (= Calebites) formed a branch of the children of Kenaz, an Edomite tribe, who settled in the hill-country north of the Negeb; they had possessions also in the Negeb itself (Jos 14:13–15, 1 S 30:14, 1 Ch 24:2 ff.); they ultimately became absorbed in the tribe of Judah.
W. O. E. Oesterley.
CALEB-EPHRATHAH.—Named in 1 Ch 2:24 as the place where Hezron
died. It is not improbable, however, that we should read: ‘after Hezron died, Caleb came unto Ephrath the wife of Hezron his father.’ CALENDAR.—See Time.
CALF, GOLDEN.—The incident of ‘the golden calf, is related in detail in Ex 32 (cf. Dt 9:7–21), a chapter which belongs to the composite Prophetic source of the Pentateuch (JE). At the request of the people, who had begun to despair of Moses’ return from the mount, Aaron consented to make a god who should go before them on the journey to Canaan. From the golden ear-rings of their wives and children he fashioned an image of a young bull; this, rather than ‘calf,’ is the rendering of the Heb. word in the present connexion. The view that ‘calf is diminutive and sarcastic for bull’ is precluded by the use of the word elsewhere to denote the young but mature animal. A ‘feast to J″’ was proclaimed for the following day, and an altar erected on which sacrifice was offered. The sequel tells of Moses’ return, of the destruction of the image, and finally of Moses’ call to his tribesmen, the sons of Levi, to prove their zeal for the pure worship of J″ by taking summary vengeance on the backsliders, 3000 of whom fell by their swords.
Two to three centuries later, bull images again emerge in the history of Israel. Among the measures taken by Jeroboam I. for the consolidation of his new kingdom was one which was primarily designed to secure its independence of the rival kingdom of the South in the all-important matter of public worship. With this end in view, perhaps also with the subsidiary purpose of reconciling the priesthood of the local sanctuaries to the new order of things, Jeroboam set up two golden ‘calves,’ one at Bethel and the other at Dan, the two most important sanctuaries, geographically and historically, in his realm (1 K 12:26–33, 2 Ch 11:14f.). Of the workmanship of Jeroboam’s ‘calves,’ as of that of Aaron, it is impossible to speak with certainty. The former probably, the latter possibly (cf. Ex 32:20), consisted of a wooden core overlaid with gold. The view that the Heb. term necessarily implies that the images were small, has been shown above to be groundless. It is also uncertain whether the other chief sanctuaries of the kingdom were at a later period provided with similar images, the leading passage (Am 8:14) being capable of another interpretation.
With regard to the religious significance of this action on the part of Jeroboam, it is now admitted on all hands that the bulls are to be recognized as symbols of J″. He, and He alone, was worshipped both in the wilderness (see Ex 32:5 ‘a feast to J″’) and at Bethel and Dan under the symbol of the golden bull. For the source of this symbolism we must not look to Egypt, as did the scholars of former days, but to the primitive religious conceptions of the Semitic stock to which the Hebrews belonged. Evidence, both literary and monumental, has accumulated in recent years, showing that among their Semitic kin the bull was associated with various deities as the symbol of vital energy and strength. Jeroboam, therefore, may be regarded as having merely given official sanction to a symbolism with which the Hebrews had been familiar, if not from time immemorial, at least since their association with the Canaanites.
A comparison of Ex 32:8 with 1 K 12:28 shows that the two narratives have a literary connexion, of which more than one explanation is possible. In the opinion of most recent scholars, the author or editor of Ex 32 has adapted the traditional material on which he worked so as to provide a polemic, in the spirit of Hosea, against the established worship of the Northern Kingdom, which is here represented as condemned in advance by J″ Himself (Ex 32:7f.). The attitude of Amos to this feature of the established worship at Bethel is not so evident as might have been expected, but of the attitude of Hosea there can be no doubt. It is one of profound scorn and bitter hostility (see 8:5f., 10:5, 13:2—the last passage gives the interesting detail that the bulls were kissed like the black stone in the Kaaba at Mecca). In the same spirit, and in harmony with the true character of the religion of J″), as revealed through the prophets who succeeded Hosea, the Deuteronomic editor of the Books of Kings repeatedly characterizes the introduction of the bull images into the cult of J″ as the sin wherewith Jeroboam made Israel to sin (1 K 14:18, 15:26 etc.).
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CALITAS.—One of the Levites who undertook to repudiate his ‘strange wife,’ 1 Es 9:23. He bore a second name, Colius. A Levite of the same name, and probably the same person, is mentioned in v. 48 as one of those who expounded the Law. See also Kelaiah.
CALLISTHENES (2 Mac 8:33).—A Syrian, captured by the Jews in a small house, where he had taken refuge after the great victory over Nicanor and Gorgias, in b.c. 165 (cf. 1 Mac 4:1–34). At a festival in celebration of the victory, the Jews burnt Callisthenes to death, because he had set fire to the portals of the Temple ( cf. 1 Mac 4:38).
CALNEH, CALNO.—1. Calneh is associated in Gn 10:10 with Babylon, Erech, and Accad as the earliest cities of Shinar. The Talmudic assertion that
‘Calneh means Nippur’ receives some support from the age and importance of Nippur, but it is not known that this was ever the name of that city. Kulunu, the early name of an important city near Babylon, may be meant. 2. Calneh, linked with Hamath and Gath in Am 6:2, is probably the Kulnia (Kullani) associated with Arpad and Hadrach, Syrian cities, in the Assyrian ‘tribute’ lists, Kullanhu now six miles from Arpad. 3. Calno, compared with Carchemish in Is 10:9, is probably the same as No. 2.
C. H. W. Johns.
CALVARY (Lk 23:33).—See Golgotha.
CALVES OF THE LIPS.—Hos 14:2 (AV ‘so will we render the calves of our lips’; RV ‘… [as] bullocks [the offering of] our lips’), an obscure passage. A very slight change of the MT yields the LXX and Syr. rendering ‘the fruit of our lips.’
CAMEL.—The bones of camels are found among the remains of the earliest Semitic civilization at Gezer, b.c. 3000 or earlier, and to-day camels are among the most common and important of domesticated animals in Palestine. They have thus been associated with every era of history in the land. Two species are known: the one-humped Camelus dromedarius, by far the more common in Bible lands; and the Bactrian, two-humped Camelus bactrianus, which comes from the plateau of Central Asia. This latter is to-day kept in considerable numbers by Turkomans settled in the Jaulan, and long caravans of these magnificent beasts may sometimes be encountered coming across the Jordan into Galilee or on the Jericho-Jerusalem road. The C. dromedarius is kept chiefly for burden-bearing, and enormous are the loads of corn, wood, charcoal, stone, furniture, etc., which these patient animals carry: 600 to 800 lbs. are quite average loads. Their owners often ride on the top of the load, or on the empty baggage-saddle when returning; Moslem women and children are carried in a kind of palanquin—the camel’s furniture of Gn 31:34. For swift travelling a different breed of camel known as hajīn is employed. Such a camel will get over the ground at eight to ten miles an hour, and keep going eighteen hours in the twenty-four. These animals are employed near Beersheha, and also regularly to carry the mails across the desert from Damascus to Baghdad. They may be the ‘dromedaries’ of Est 8:10.
Camels are bred by countless thousands in the lands to the E. of the Jordan, where they form the most valuable possessions of the Bedouin, as they did of the Midianites and Amalekites of old (Jg 7:12). The Bedouin live largely upon the milk of camels (Gn 32:15) and also occasionally eat their flesh, which was forbidden to the Israelites (Dt 14:17, Lv 11:4). They also ride them on their raids, and endeavour to capture the camels of hostile clans. The fellahin use camels for ploughing and harrowing.
The camel is a stupid and long-enduring animal, but at times, especially in certain months, he occasionally ‘runs amok,’ and then he is very dangerous. His bite is almost always fatal. The camel’s hair which is used for weaving (Mk 1:6 , Mt 3:4) is specially taken from the back, neck, and neighbourhood of the hump: over the rest of the body the ordinary camel has his hair worn short. His skin is kept anointed with a peculiar smelling composition to keep off parasites. The special adaptation of the camel to its surroundings lies in its compound stomach, two compartments of which, the rumen and the reticulum, are especially constructed for the storage of a reserve supply of water; its hump, which though useful to man for attachment of burdens and saddles, is primarily a reserve store of fat; and its wonderful fibrous padded feet adapted to the softest sandy soil. The camel is thus able to go longer without food and drink than any other burdenbearing animal, and is able to traverse deserts quite unadapted to the slender foot of the horse and the ass. On slippery soil, rock or mud, the camel is, however, a helpless flounderer. The camel’s food is chiefly tibn (chopped straw), kursenneh, beans, oil-cake, and occasionally some grain. There seems, however, to be no thorn too sharp for its relish.
In the NT references to the camel it is more satisfactory to take the expressions ‘swallow a camel’ (Mt 23:24) and ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,’ etc. (Mt 19:24||), as types of ordinary Oriental proverbs (cf. the Talmudic expression ‘an elephant through a needle’s eye’) than to weave fancied and laboured explanations. The present writer agrees with Post that the gate called the ‘needle’s eye’ is a fabrication.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CAMEL’S HAIR.—See Camel, Dress, § 1.
CAMON.—See Kamon.
CAMP.—See War.
CAMPHIRE (kōpher, Ca 1:14, 4:13) is the henna plant (Lawsonia alba), a small shrub which may still be found at Engedi. It is a great favourite with the people of Palestine to-day, and a ‘cluster’ of the flowers is often put in the hair; the perfume is much admired. It is also extensively used for staining the hands (especially the nails), the feet, and the hair; it stains an ochre-red, but further treatment of the nails with a mixture of lime and ammonia turns the colour almost black. Old women frequently redden their hair, and Moslems their beards, by means of henna.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CANA.—A Galilæan village, where Christ turned water into wine (Jn 2:1) and healed with a word a nohleman’s son who lay sick at Capernaum (4:46). Nathanael was a native of this place (21:2). Three sites have been suggested as identifications, any one of which would satisfy the meagre indications. These are Kanat el-Jelil, perhaps the most probable, north of Sephurieh; ‘Ain Kana, east of Nazareth; and Kefr Kenna, north-east of, and a little farther from, the same town. The last is the site fixed upon by ecclesiastical tradition.
R. A. S. Macalister.
CANAAN.—See next art.; Ham, Palestine.
CANAANITES.—A name given in the J document to the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine (e.g. Gn 24:3–7, 38:2, Ex 3:8, 17, 13:5, 11, Nu 14:43, 45 , 21:1, 3, Jg 1:1, 5, 17, 23, 29, 30, 33).
In this usage the P document concurs, though the E document generally calls them ‘Amorites’ (wh. see). The E document (Nu 13:29) says that the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and the Amorites in the mountains. All the writers unite in calling Palestine the land of Canaan. Opinions differ as to whether the people were named from the land or the land from the people. The earliest usage in the el-Amarna tablets (where it is called Kinaḫḫi and Kinaḫni) and in the Egyptian inscriptions of the XlXth dynasty, seems to confine the name to the low land of the coast (cf. KIB v. 50.41, 151.50; and Müller, Asien und Europa, 205 ff.). The Phœnicians, much later, on their coins called their land Canaan; and two or three Greek writers testify that they called it Chna’ (cf. Schröder, Phön. Sprache, 6 ff.). A view proposed by Rosenmüller has been held by many modern scholars, viz.:—that Canaan means ‘lowland,’ and was applied to the seacoast of Palestine, as opposed to the central range and the Lebanons. If this view were correct, the Canaanites would have received their name after settling in the coast-land. This view has been proved incorrect by Moore (Proc. of Am. Or. Soc. 1890, p. lxvii ff.). Probably ‘Canaanite’ was a tribal name, and the people gave their name to the land (cf. Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine, 68). It appears from Dt 3:9 that the language of the Canaanites differed only dialectically from that of the Amorites. Both peoples were therefore closely related. Probably the Canaanites were a later wave of Amorites. In Is 19:18 Hebrew is called ‘the language of Canaan,’—a statement which is substantiated by the Moabite Stone, the Phœnician inscriptions, and the Hebrew idioms in the el-Amarna tablets. It appears from the latter that the Canaanites had given their name to the country before b.c. 1400. Paton connects their migration with that movement of races which gave Babylonia the Kassite dynasty about b.c. 1700, and which pushed the Hyksos into Egypt. Probably their coming was no later than this.
In Jg. 1 we are told of many Canaanites whom Israel did not at first conquer. After the time of Solomon, however, those resident in the high lands who had not been absorbed into the Israelitish tribes (cf. Israel §§ 3, 11), were reduced to taskwork. The coming of the Philistines pushed the Canaanites out of the maritime plain south of Mt. Carmel, so that ultimately the Phœnicians were the only pure Canaanites left. The leading Phœnician cities were such commercial centres that ‘Canaanite’ afterwards became equivalent to ‘trader’ (cf. Hos. 12:8, Is 23:8, Zeph 1:11, Ezk 17:4, Pr 31:24).
George A. Barton.
CANANÆAN or CANAANITE occurs in Mt 10:4 and Mk 3:18 as a
designation of Simon, one of the disciples of Jesus. The first is the correct reading, the Gr. Kananaios being the transliteration of kan’ānayyā (a late Heb. derivative from kannā’ = ‘jealous’). It is rendered in Lk 6:15 and Ac 1:13 by Zēlōtēs ( zealot ). The Cananæans or Zealots were a sect founded by Judas of Gamala, who headed the opposition to the census of Quirinius (a.d. 6 or 7). They bitterly resented the domination of Rome, and would fain have hastened by the sword the fulfilment of the Messianic hope. During the great rebellion and the siege of Jerusalem, which ended in its destruction (a.d. 70), their fanaticism made them terrible opponents, not only to the Romans, but to other factions amongst their own countrymen.
CANDACE.—Queen of Ethiopia. A eunuch belonging to her, in charge of her treasure, was baptized by Philip (Ac 8:27). The name was borne by more than one queen of Ethiopia. The Candace who invaded Egypt in b.c. 22 (Strabo) is, of course, earlier than this. A Candace is perhaps named on one of the pyramids of Meroe. See Cush.
F. Ll. Griffith.
CANDLE, CANDLESTICK.—See Lamp.
CANE.—See Reed.
CANKERWORM.—See Locust.
CANNEH.—A town named with Haran and Eden (Ezk 27:23), not identified. Mez (Gesch. der Stadt Harrān, 34) suggests that it may be a clerical error for bĕnê, i.e. bĕnê Eden, ‘sons of Eden’ (see Guthe, Bibelwörterbuch, s.v.).
W. Ewing.
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
1. Explanation of terms.—The word ‘Testament’ is the Eng. tr. Of the Gr.
Diathēkē, which in its turn represents the Heh. Berīth or ‘Covenant.’ The epithet ‘Old’ was introduced by Christians after the NT had come into being. Jews recognize no NT, and have a polemic interest in avoiding this designation of their Holy Scripture. The Gr. word kanōn, meaning primarily a measuring-rod, a rule, a catalogue, was applied by Christian authors of the 4th cent. to the list of books which the Church acknowledged to be authoritative as the source of doctrine and ethics. In investigating how the Hebrew race formed their Bible, these later appellations of their sacred books have to be used with the reservations indicated.
2. The three periods of formation.—Briefly stated, the process of forming the OT Canon includes three main stages. Under the influence of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Law (Torah) as in the Pentateuch was set apart as Holy Scripture; at some date prior to b.c. 200, the Prophets (Nebīīm), including the prophetic interpretation of history in the four books—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings—had been constituted into a second canonical group; by b.c. 132, most, though not all, of the remaining books ranked as Scripture. This third group was defined, and the OT Canon finally fixed, by the Synod of Palestinian Jews held at Jamnia, near Joppa, about the year a.d. 90.
3. Pre-canonical conditions
(a) The art of writing. The formation of language and the invention of writing must precede the adoption of a sacred book. An illiterate race can have no Scripture. Israel’s language was in its main features an inheritance from the common ancestors of the Semites; even its religious vocabulary was only in part its own creation. As to writing, the Semites in Babylonia had used the cuneiform syllabic script, and Egypt had Invented the hieroglyphs before the Hebrews had arisen as a separate race. But, happily for the Canon, an alphabet had become the possession of some of the Semitic family before the Hebrews had anything to put on record. The provincial governors of Canaan about b.c. 1400 sent their reports to Egypt in Babylonian cuneiform; whereas Mesha, king of Moab, and Panammu, king of Ya’di in North Syria, in extant Inscriptions from about b.c. 900, make use of an Aramaic alphabet. After b.c. 1400, and some time before b.c. 900, must therefore be placed the genesis of the Hebrew alphabet.
(b) Absence of any precedent.—In the case of other sacred books, the influence of a historical precedent has contributed to their adoption. Recognizing the OT, Christians were predisposed to use a literary record in preserving the revelation they had received. Similarly Islam admitted the superiority of ‘the people of a book’ (Jews and Christians), and were easily induced to accord like sanctity to their own Koran. But such a precedent did not come into operation in the early religion of Israel. It is true that the Code of Hammurabi (c. b.c. 2200) was recorded on stone, and publicly set forth as the rule of civil life in Babylonia. But this method of regulating communal life can hardly have affected the earliest legislators in Israel. The relation of the Code of Hammurabi to the Mosaic Laws appears to be correctly indicated by Mr. Johns: ‘The coexisting likenesses and differences argue for an independent recension of ancient custom deeply influenced by Babylonian law.’ Egypt also had literature before Moses, but the Hebrews appear to have acted on an independent initiative in producing and collecting their religious literature. The OT Canon is thus peculiar in being formed as the first of its kind.
(c) Religious experience.—Other conditions of a less general kind have also to be noted. The religious leaders of the people must have had definite convictions as to the attributes of Jehovah before they could judge whether any given prophet or document were true or false. The life depicted in the book of Genesis reveals a non-writing age, when religious experience and unwritten tradition were the sole guides to duty. The Sinaitic legislation, although it formed the basis of national life, did not till late in the monarchy penetrate the popular consciousness. Mosaic Law provided that Divine guidance would be given through the voice of prophets and of priests (Dt 18:18, 19:17, 21:5, 24:8); with these living sources of direction, it would be less easy to feel dependence on a book. The symbolism of a sacrificial system compensated for the want of literature. It was only after books of various kinds had become prevalent that the utility of writing began to be appreciated. Isaiah (30:8), about b.c. 740, perceives that what is inscribed in a book will be permanent and indisputable. On the other hand, Hosea (8:12), about b.c. 745, sees a limit to the efficacy of a copious literature. The exponents of the traditional Law appear to have applied it with arbitrary freedom. Even a high priest in Josiah’s reign had apparently had no occasion to consult the Law-book for a long period. Variations appear in the reasons annexed even to the Decalogue; and the priests who offered incense to the brazen serpent in the Temple in the days of Hezekiah cannot have regarded the Tables of the Law in the light of canonical Scripture.
4. Josiah’s reformation.—The first trace of a Canon is to be found in the reign of King Josiah about b.c. 621. By this time the Northern Kingdom had disappeared with the Fall of Samaria (b.c. 722). It had left behind, as its contribution to the future Bible, at least the works of Hosea and the Elohist historian. The prophets, Isaiah I., Amos, and Micah, had delivered their message a century ago, and their words were in the possession of their disciples. The fate of the ten tribes had vindicated the prophetic warnings. The beginnings of Israel’s history were made familiar by the beautiful narratives of the Jahwist historian. Many songs were known by heart, and contributed to the growth of a feeling that the nation had a Divine mission to fulfil. Laws, that had been kept for rare reference in the sanctuary, were studied by disciples of the prophets, and were expounded with a new sense of their Divine obligation. The annals of the monarchy had been duly recorded by the official scribes, but their religious significance was as yet unthought of. Other books, which afterwards disappeared, were also in circulation.
Such were ‘the Book of the Wars of the Lord’ (Nu 21:14), and ‘the Book of Jashar’ (Jos 10:13, 2 S 1:18). In such conditions at Jerusalem there came about Josiah’s reformation, described in 2 K 22, 23.
5. Inspiration recognized in the Bk. of Deuteronomy.—A book identified on satisfactory grounds with our Deuteronomy (excluding possibly the preface and the appendix) was discovered in the Temple and read to the king. In consequence, Josiah convened a general assembly at Jerusalem, and read the words of the book to all the people. All parties agreed that this Lawbook should constitute a solemn league and coveoant between themselves and Jehovah. The grounds of its acceptance are its inherent spiritual power, the conviction it produced that it truly expressed the will of Jehovah, and also its connexion with the great name of Moses. The book was not imposed merely by royal authority; the people also ‘stood to the covenant.’ These conditions combine to give Deuteronomy canonical authority of an incipient kind from that date onwards (b.c. 622).
6. Pentateuch made canonical. The next stage in the growth of the Canon is found in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (b.c. 457–444). Much had happened in the intervening 170 years. The captivity in Babylon (b.c. 586–536) intensified national feeling and made their books more precious to the exiles. Temple ceremonial had now no place in religious practice; and spiritual aspiration turned to prayer and reading, both public and private. Fresh expositions of the Mosaic Law were prepared by the prophet Ezekiel (b.c. 592–570), and by the anonymous priest who put the Law of Holiness (Lv 17–26) into written form. Just as the Fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 supplied the Incentive for recording in the Mishna the oral tradition of the Pharisees, so in Babylon expatriation impelled the priestly families to write out their hereditary usages, thus forming the document known as the Priestly Code. The problem of suffering, national and individual, was considered in the work of the Second Isaiah and in the book of Job. The past history of Israel was edited so as to show the method of Divine Providence. The Restoration of the Temple ( b.c. 516) and the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah began a new chapter in the story of Judaism. Many of the Jews remained in Babylon, and continued their activity in the study of the national literature. From Babylon they sent Ezra the scribe ( b.c. 457) and Nehemiah (b.c. 444) with help for the Jerusalem community. Under the influence of these leaders the Pentateuch was made canonical (Neh 8–10). This work had been formed by constructing a ‘Harmony’ of the various expositions of Mosaic Law (Ex 20–23, Deut., Lv 17–26, and the Priestly Code) and combining these with the histories of the Jahwist and the Elohist. The initial cosmology shows the high plane of religious thought that had now been attained. Some opposition appears to have come from the priests, who favoured mixed marriages and a Samaritan alliance; but the people as a whole ‘make a sure covenant and write it. And our princes, our Levites, and our priests seal unto it’ (Neh 9:38). That this Canon included only the Torah is proved by the fact that the Samaritans, who were severed from Judaism shortly after Nehemiah’s time, never had any Canon beyond the Pentateuch. Their apocryphal Joshua does not prove that Ezra’s Canon was the Hexateuch. Had Joshua been attached to the Law, the LXX version of it would have been less inaccurate. Nor is it easy to see how a book so solemnly adopted could ever after have been relegated to a secondary place.
7. Canon of the Prophets.—The next addition to the Canon consists of the
Prophets, reckoned as 8 books—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (Minor Prophets) forming one book. No account of their canonization is available, and the process has to be inferred from what is known of the period. The books themselves give some guidance. Under the influence of Deut., history was studied so as to reveal the progress of a Divine purpose. The books of Kings record events down to about b.c. 560, hence their preparation for the Canon must have been some time later. Isaiah includes the works of the first and second of that name, besides chapters from later sources. The redaction of the whole must have been made at a time when the separate authorship was forgotten. Jeremiah (b.c. 627–586) is supplemented by extracts from the book of Kings written after 560. The Twelve include Malacbi, who wrote between b.c. 458 and 432. Jonah and Zechariah are also late, and the latter book has a supplement of uncertain date. Internal evidence thus implies that when the Law was made canonical, the prophets had not been carefully edited or collected into one group. The Chronicler, writing about b.c. 300, recognizes that the Law has become Holy
Scripture, but he makes the freest use of the history in Samuel and Kings. After
Malachi the people became well aware that the voice of true prophecy had ceased (Zec 13:3, Neh 6:7, 14, Ps 74:9, 1 Mac 9:27, etc.). The predictions of the prophets had been ominously vindicated by the course of history. Such observations would tend continually to increase the veneration for the prophetic literature. The rivalry of Hellenic culture after the cooquests of Alexander the Great (c. b.c. 300) may possibly have suggested to the Jews an Increase of their own sacred Canon. At all events, the canonization of the prophetic literature had become matter of past history by b.c. 200. This limit is fixed by the testimony of Jesus ben-Sira, who writes the book in the Apocrypha called Ecclesiasticus. His praise of the famous men in Israel (chs. 44–50) shows that the Law and the Prophets were invested with canonical authority in his day. The Lectionary of the Synagogue would quickly establish the unique position of the Law and the Prophets as Holy Scripture (cf. Ac 13:15, 27).
8. The Hagiographa made canonical.—The third division of the OT is called in Hebrew Kethūbhīm, i.e. ‘Writings.’ In Greek the name is Hagiographa, i.e. ‘Sacred Writings.’ In a Hebrew Bible these books are arranged in the following order:—
1. The Poetical Books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job.
2. The Five Megilloth (‘Rolls’): Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther.
3. Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.
This group is much more varied in form and substance than the first two parts of the Canon. Several of these books may have been prized as highly as the Prophets, though their inclusion in the Second Canon would have been incongruous. The Psalter, for instance, had been for long familiar through its use in Temple services; and its influence on religious life was great, apart from any declaration of canonicity. But as some Psalms (e.g. 74, 79) appear to have been composed about b.c. 170–160, the final collection of the smaller hymnaries into the Psalter of five books cannot have been made before b.c. 150. The priestly summary of history in Chron., Ezr.-Neh. would be widely acceptable in an age when the Priestly Code was the dominant influence. The book about Daniel, published during the Maccabæan persecutions (b.c. 165), quickly won recognition and proved its religious worth.
(a) Disputed books.—A hesitating approval was extended to Esther, Canticles, and Eccleslastes, owing to the nature of their contents. Other books, apocalyptic and apocryphal, were competing for a place in the religious library. There is no means of showing how or when the third group was separated from other books. The conjecture is probable that the effort of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the copies of the Law may have evoked the determination to preserve the later religious literature by giving it a place in the Canon.
(b) Prologue to Sirach.—The earliest testimony to the existence of sacred books in addition to the Law and the Prophets is given in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus. The grandson of ben-Sira wrote in Egypt about b.c. 132, and made a Greek translation of his kinsman’s ‘Wisdom.’ In the preface he refers three times to ‘the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of our fathers.’ He speaks of Greek versions of these books. But this statement does not say that the third group was definitely completed. In the 1st cent. a.d., the schools of Hillel and Shammal differed as to whether Ecclesiastes was in the Canon or not.
(c) New Testament.—The NT expresses a doctrine of Holy Scripture; it acknowledges a threefold division (Lk 24:44); it implies that Chronicles was the last book in the roll of the OT (Mt 23:35, Lk 11:51); but it does not quote Esther, Cant., Eccl., and leaves undecided the question whether these disputed books were as yet admitted to the Canon.
(d) Philo.—Philo of Alexandria (d. a.d. 40) acknowledges the inspiration of Scripture (the Mosaic Law pre-eminently), and quotes many of, but not nearly all, the OT books. His use of the Greek Apocrypha for information only, suggests, however, that he did know of a Palestinian limit to the third group.
(e) Josephus.—Josephus (a.d. 100), defending his earlier books against adverse reviews, maintains that Jewish records had been made by trained historians. The elegant inconsistencies of Greek narratives had no place in his authorities.
‘It is not the case with us,’ he says (c. Apion. i. 8), ‘to have vast numbers of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another. We have but two-and-twenty, containing the history of all time, books that are justly believe din.… Though so great an interval of time has passed, no one has ventured either to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew from the day of his birth to consider these books as the teaching of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down life in their behalf.’
The number 22 is probably due to his reckoning, with the LXX, Ruth and Judges as one, and Lamentations and Jeremiah as one. It is less likely that he refused to count Cant, and Eccl. as Scripture. His words reveal the profound reverence now entertained for the OT as a whole, although individuals may still have cherished objections to particular books.
(f) Synod of Jamnia.—The completion of the Hebrew Canon must be associated with a synod held at Jamnia, near Joppa, where the Sanhedrin settled after Jerusalem was taken by Titus (a.d. 70). The popularity of the Alexandrian OT, including Apocrypha, and the growing influence of NT books caused the Rabbinical teachers to remove all doubt as to the limits of their Scripture. ‘All Holy Scriptures defile the hands (the Hebrew phrase for ‘are canonical’): Canticles and Eccleslastes defile the hands.’ Such was the dictum at Jamnia (c. a.d. 90) to which Rabbi’ Akiba (d. a.d. 135) appealed in dismissing the possibility of reopening discussion on the limits of the Canon.
9. Text.—The Hebrew Bible was now complete. Elaborate precautions were taken to secure an unchangeable text; and a system of vowel-signs was invented some centuries later to preserve the old pronunciation. It has been considered strange that the oldest dated MS of the OT should be so recent as a.d. 916, whereas the Greek Bible and NT are found in MSS of the 4th and 5th centuries. This may be due to the requirement of the Synagogue that the copy in use should be perfect, and that any roll deficient in a word or letter should be suppressed, if not destroyed. The vigilant care of copies in use lessened the interest in superseded MSS.
10. Relation of the Church to the OT.—The NT freely acknowledges Divine inspiration in the OT. Such a formula as ‘All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet’ (Mt 1:22), Implies that the Supreme Disposer of events had Intimated His purpose through the prophets. Posterity, therefore, rightly apprehends any occurrence when it has detected its place in the scheme of things foretold by the prophets. But it is also recognized that Scripture may be misapplied, and that therefore criticism is essential. The Interpretation of the OT must differ among Jews and Christians. The logic of events cannot be Ignored, and the Advent of the Messiah cannot be treated as a negligible accident. The attitude of our Lord has the effect of making the OT a subordinate standard as compared with His own words and the teaching of the Apostles. He did not report the word of the Lord as received by vision or prophecy; in His own name He supplied what was wanting in Law and Prophets. He did not pronounce any book in Itself adequate to determine the communion between the Living God and living men; all Scripture must be illuminated by the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. The 24 Hebrew books are valid for the Church only in so far as their authority is sanctioned by the NT. But, subject to this limitation, the OT remains ‘profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for Instruction which is in righteousness’ (2 Ti 3:16).
D. M. Kay.
CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. Title.—The Greek word ‘canon,’ meaning originally a ‘rod’ and so a ‘rule for measuring,’ is used in a variety of senses by the Patristic writers, among the most familiar instances being the expressions ‘rule of truth’ and ‘rule of faith’ for the doctrinal teaching officially recognized by the bishops. Hence, since we meet with the phrase ‘canonical books’ in Origen, as rendered by Rufinus’ translation, before we see the substantive ‘canon’ applied to the list of NT books, it has been argued that the adjective was first used in the sense of ‘regulative,’ so that the phrase means ‘the books that regulate faith or morals.’ But the substantive must mean the’ list’ of books, and in Athanasius we have a passive participle in the phrase ‘canonized books,’ i.e. books belonging to the Canon; soon after which the actual word ‘canon’ is applied to the books of the NT by Amphilochius, the bishop of Iconium (end of 4th cent. a.d.). The NT Canon, then, is the list of NT books, and this simple meaning, rather than ‘the regulative books,’ is the more likely
Interpretation of the expression to have occurred to people who were in the habit of using the term for lists of officials, lists of festivals, etc. The question of the Canon differs from questions of the authenticity, genuineness, historicity, inspiration, value, and authority of the several NT books in concerning itself simply with their acceptance in the Church. Primarily the question was as to what books were read in the churches at public worship. Those so used became in course of time the Christian Scriptures. Then, having the value of Scripture gradually associated with them, they came to be treated as authoritative. The first stage is that of use in the form of Church lessons; the second that of a standard of authority to be employed as the basis of instruction, and to be appealed to in disputed cases of doctrine or discipline.
2. The Formation of the Canon in the 2nd Century.—The very earliest reading of NT books in the churches must have occurred in the case of epistles addressed to particular churches, which of course were read in those churches; next come the circular letters (e.g. Eph., 1 Peter), which were passed round a group of churches. Still this involved no repeated liturgical use of these writings as in a church lectionary. During the obscure period of the sub-Apostolic age we have no indication of the use of epistles in church worship. Clement of Rome assumed that the church at Corinth was acquainted with 1 Corinthians, although he was writing nearly 40 years after St. Paul had sent that Epistle to the church, and a new generation had arisen in the interval; but there is no proof or probability that it was regularly read at the services. The earliest references to any such reading point to the Synoptic Gospels as alone having this place of honour, together with the OT prophets. This was the case in the worship described by Justin Martyr (1 Apol. lxvii.). A little later Justin’s disciple Tatian prepared his Harmony (Diatessaron) for use in the church at Edessa. This was constructed out of all four Gospels; i.e. it included John, a Gospel probably known to Justin, though not included in his Memoirs of the Apostles. As yet no epistles are seen in the place of honour of church reading side by side with OT Scriptures. But long before this a collection had been made by Marcion (c. a.d. 140) in his effort to reform the Church by recalling attention to the Pauline teaching which had fallen into neglect. Marcion’s Canon consisted of a mutilated Gospel of St. Luke and 10 Epistles of St. Paul ( the 3 Pastoral Epistles being omitted). Although other early Church writers evidently allude to several of the Epistles (e.g. Clemens Rom., Ignatius, Polycarp, ‘Barnabas’), that is only by way of individual citation, without any hint that they are used in a collection or treated as authoritative Scripture. Marcion is the earliest who is known to have honoured any of the Epistles in this way. But when we come to Irenæus (180) we seem to be in another world. Irenæus cites as authoritative most of the books of the Christian Scriptures, though he does not appear to have known Hebrews. We now have a NT side by side with the OT; or at all events we have Christian books appealed to as authoritative Scripture, just as in the previous generation the LXX was appealed to as authoritative Scripture. Here is evidence of a double advance: (1) in the addition of the Epistles to the Gospels as a collection, (2) in the enhancement of the value of all these books for the settlement of questions of doctrine.
This is one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the Church. And yet history is absolutely silent as to how, when, where, and by whom it was brought about. Nothing is more amazing in the history of the Christian Church than the absence of all extant contemporary references to so great a movement. The 30 years from Justin Martyr, who knew only a collection of 3 Gospels as specially authoritative, and that simply as records of the life and teaching of Christ, to Irenæus, with his frequent appeals to the Epistles as well as the Gospels, saw the birth of a NT Canon, but left no record of so great an event. Irenæus, though bishop of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, was in close communication with Asia Minor where he had been brought up, and Prof. Harnack conjectures that bishops of Asia Minor in agreement with the Church at Rome deliberately drew up and settled the Canon, although we have no historical record of so significant an event. It may be, however, that Irenæus was himself a pioneer in a movement the necessity of which was recognized as by common consent. Some authoritative standard of appeal was wanted to save the essence of Christian teaching from being engulfed in the speculations of Gnosticism. The Gospels were not sufficient for this purpose, because they were accepted by the Gnostics, who, however, interpreted them allegorically. What was needed was a standard of doctrinal truth, and that was found in the Epistles.
Near this time we have the earliest known Canon after that of Marcion, the most ancient extant list of NT books in the Catholic Church. This is named the ‘Muratorian Fragment,’ after its discoverer Muratori, who found it in a 7th or 8 th cent. monk’s commonplace book in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and published it in 1740. The fragment is a mutilated extract of a list of NT books made at Rome probably before the end of the 2nd cent., since the author refers to the episcopate of Pius as recent (nuperrime temporibus nostris), and Pius I., who died in a.d. 157, is the only bishop of Rome of that name in the early age to which unquestionably, as internal evidence indicates, the original composition must be assigned. The fragment begins in the middle of a sentence which appears to allude to St. Peter’s connexion with our Second Gospel, and goes on to mention Luke as the Third Gospel and John as the Fourth. Therefore it evidently acknowledged the 4 Gospels.
Then it has Acts, which it ascribes to Luke, and it acknowledges 13 Epistles of Paul—admitting the Pastorals, but excluding Hebrews, though it subsequently refers to ‘an Epistle to the Laodiceans,’ and another ‘to the Alexandrians forged under the name of Paul,’ as well as ‘many others’ which are not received in the Catholic Church ‘because gall ought not to be mixed with honey.’ Further, this
Canon includes Jude, 2 Epistles of John, and the Apocalypse, which it ascribes to
John. It also has the Book of Wisdom, which it says was ‘written by the friends of Solomon in his honour,’ and the Apocalypse of Peter, although acknowledging that there is a minority which rejects the latter work, for we read ‘we receive moreover the Apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [latter] some of our body will not have read in the church.’ This indicates that the author’s church as a whole acknowledges the Apocalypse of Peter, and that he associates himself with the majority of his brethren in so doing, while he candidly admits that there are some dissentients. Lastly, the Canon admits Hermas for private reading, but not for use in the church services. We have here, then, most of our NT books; but, on the one hand, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, James, and one of the 3 Epistles of John are not mentioned. They are not named to be excluded, like the forged works referred to above; possibly the author did not know of their existence. At all events he did not find them used in his church. On the other hand, Wisdom, without question, and the Apocalypse of Peter, though rejected by some, are included in this canon, and Hermas is added for private reading.
Passing on to the commencement of the 3rd cent., we come upon another anonymous writing, an anti-gambling tract entitled ‘Concerning dice-players’ (de Aleatoribus), which Prof. Harnack attributes to Victor of Rome (a.d. 200–230). In this tract the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache are both quoted as ‘Scripture.’ The author refers to three divisions of Scripture: (1) Prophetic writings—the OT Prophets, the Apocalypse, Hermas; (2) the Gospels; (3) the Apostolic Writings— Paul, 1 John, Hebrews.
Neither of these Canons can be regarded as authoritative either ecclesiastically or scientifically, since we are ignorant of their sources. But they both indicate a crystallizing process, in the Church at Rome about the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd centuries, that was tending towards our NT, though with some curious variations. The writings of the Fathers of this period agree in the main with Irenæus in their citations from most of the NT books as authoritative—a condition very different from that of Justin Martyr half a century earlier. Two influences may be recognized as bringing this result about: (1) use in churches at public worship, (2) authoritative appeals against heresy—especially Gnosticism. It was necessary to settle what books should be read in church and what books should be appealed to in discussion. The former was the primary question. The books used at their services by the churches, and therefore admitted by them as having a right to be so employed, were the books to be appealed to in controversy. The testing fact was church usage. Canonical books were the books read at public worship. How it came about that certain books were so used and others not is by no means clear. Prof. Harnack’s theory would solve the problem if we could be sure it was valid. Apart from this, (1) traditional usage and (2) assurance of Apostolic authorship appear to have been two grounds relied upon.
Turning to the East, we find Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 165–220) acknowledging the 4 Gospels and Acts, and 14 Epistles of Paul (Hebrews being included), and quoting 1 and 2 John, 1 Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse. He makes no reference to James, 2 Peter, or 3 John, any of which he may perhaps have known, as we have no list of NT books from his hand, for he does not name these books to reject them. Still, the probability as regards some, if not all, of them is that he did not know them. In the true Alexandrian spirit, Clement has a wide and comprehensive idea of inspiration, and therefore no very definite conception of Scriptural exclusiveness or fixed boundaries to the Canon. Thus he quotes
Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, the Preaching of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Sibylline Writings as in some way authoritative. He was a literary eclectic who delighted to welcome Christian truth in unexpected places. Still he had a NT in two volumes which he knew respectively as ‘The Gospel’ and ‘The Apostle’ (see Euseb. HE vi. 14). Origen (a.d. 184–253), who was a more critical scholar, treated questions of canonicity more scientifically. He acknowledged our books of the OT and some parts of the Apocrypha, such as 1 Mac.; and in the NT the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Epistles of Paul, Hebrews (though the latter as of doubtful authorship; nevertheless in his homily on Joshua he seems to include it among St. Paul’s works, since he makes them 14, when he writes that ‘God, thundering on the 14 trumpets of his [i.e. Paul’s] Epistles, threw down even the walls of Jericho, that is all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of the philosophers’), 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation. He does not directly mention the Epistles of James or Jude, although he seems to refer to them once in a rhetorical way, classing Peter, James, and Jude with the 4 Evangelists as represented by Isaac’s servants—if we are to trust Rufinus’ version. He mentions 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John as of disputed genuineness, and refers to the Gospel of the Hebrews in an apologetic tone, the Gospels of Peter and James, and the Acts of Paul, and quotes Hermas and Barnabas as ‘Scripture,’ while he admits that, though widely circulated, Hermas was not accepted by all. It is a significant fact, however, that he wrote no commentaries on any of those books that are not included in our NT.
3. The Settlement of the Canon in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries.—An important step towards the settlement of the Canon on historical and scientific lines was taken by Eusebius, who, with his wide reading and the great library of Pamphilus to resort to, also brought a fair and judicious mind to face the problems involved. Eusebius saw clearly that it is not always possible to give a definite affirmative or negative answer to the question whether a certain book should be in the Canon. Therefore he drew up three lists of books—(1) The books that are admitted by all, (2) the books which he is disposed to admit although there are some who reject them, (3) the books that he regards as spurious. A fourth class, which really does not come into the competition for a place in the Canon, consists of heretical works which ‘are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious’ (HE iii. 25). The first class, consisting of the books universally acknowledged, contains the 4 Gospels; Acts; the Epistles of Paul—which in one place (iii. 3) are reckoned to be 14, and therefore to include Hebrews, although in another place (vi. 14) Hebrews is placed in the second class, among the disputed books; 1 Peter; 1 John; and Revelation (doubtfully). The second class, consisting of books widely accepted, though disputed by some (but apparently all admitted by Eusebius himself), contains James; Jude; 2 Peter—regarded in another place (iii. 3) as spurious; 2 and 3 John. The third class, consisting of spurious works, contains the Acts of Paul; the Shepherd of Hermas; the Apocalypse of Peter; the Didache; and perhaps, according to some, the Revelation. Under the orders of Constantine, Eusebius had 50 copies of the Scriptures sumptuously produced on vellum for use in the churches of Constantinople. Of course these would correspond to his own Canon and so help to fix it and spread its influence. After this the fluctuations that we meet with are very slight. Athanasius in one of his Festal Letters (a.d. 365) undertakes to set forth in order the books that are canonical and handed down and believed to be Divine. His NT exactly agrees with our Canon, as does the NT of
Epiphanius (c. a.d. 403). Cyril of Jerusalem (who died a.d. 386) gives a list of
‘Divine Scriptures’ which contains all the NT except the Revelation; and
Amphilochius of Iconium (a.d. 395) has a versified catalogue of the Biblical books, in which also all our NT books appear except the Revelation, which he regards as spurious; Amphilochius refers to doubts concerning Hebrews and to a question as to whether the number of Catholic Epistles is 7 or 3. Even Chrysostom (who died
a.d. 405) never alludes to the Revelation or the last 4 Catholic Epistles. But then he gives no list of the Canon. One of the Apostolical Canons (No. 85), which stand as an appendix to the 8th book of the Apostolical Constitutions (85), and cannot be dated earlier than the 4th cent. in their present form, gives a list of the books of Scripture. Sirach is here placed between the OT and the NT with a special recommendation to ‘take care that your young persons learn the wisdom of the very learned Sirach.’ Then follow the NT books—the 4 Gospels, 14 Epistles of Paul (Hebrews therefore included in this category), 2 Epistles of Peter, 3 of John, James, Jude, 2 Epistles of Clement, the 8 books of the Constitutions, Acts. Thus, while Clement and even the Apostolical Constitutions are included, the Revelation is left out, after a common custom in the East. Manifestly this is an erratic Canon.
Returning to the West, at this later period we have an elaborate discussion on the Canon by Augustine (a.d. 430), who lays down rules by which the canonicity of the several books claimed for the NT may be determined. (1) There are the books received and acknowledged by all the churches, which should therefore be treated as canonical. (2) There are some books not yet universally accepted. With regard to these, two tests are to be applied: (a) such as are received by the majority of the churches are to be acknowledged, and (b) such as are received by the Apostolic churches are to be preferred to those received only by a smaller number of churches and these of less authority, i.e. not having been founded by Apostles. In case (a) and (b) conflict, Augustine considers that ‘the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal’ (Christian Doctrine, II. viii. 12). Thus the tests are simply Church reception, though with discrimination as to the respective authority of the several churches. The application of these tests gives Augustine just our NT.
Jerome (a.d. 420) also accepts our NT, saying concerning Hebrews and the Revelation that he adopts both on the authority of ancient writers, not on that of present custom. He is aware that James has been questioned; but he states that little by little in course of time it has obtained authority. Jude was even rejected by most people because it contained quotations from Apocryphal writings. Nevertheless he himself accepts it. He notes that 2 and 3 John have been attributed to a presbyter whose tomb at Ephesus is still pointed out. The immense personal influence of Augustine and the acceptance of Jerome’s Vulgate as the standard Bible of the Christian Church gave fixity to the Canon, which was not disturbed for a thousand years. No General Council had pronounced on the subject. The first Council claiming to be (Ecumenical which committed itself to a decision on the subject was as late as the 16th cent. (the Council of Trent). We may be thankful that the delicate and yet vital question of determining the Canon was not flung into the arena of ecclesiastical debate to be settled by the triumph of partisan churchmanship, but was allowed to mature slowly and come to its final settlement under the twofold influences of honest scholarship and Christian experience. There were indeed local councils that dealt with the question; but their decisions were binding only on the provinces they represented, although, in so far as they were not disputed, they would be regarded as more or less normative by those other churches to which they were sent. As representing the East we have a Canon attributed to the Council of Laodicea (c. a.d. 360). There is a dispute as to whether this is genuine. It is given in the MSS variously as a 60th canon and as part of the 59th appended in red ink. Half the Latin versions are without it; so are the Syriac versions, which are much older than our oldest MSS of the canons. It closely resembles the Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem, from which Westcott supposed that it was inserted into the canons of Laodicea by a Latin hand. Its genuineness was defended by Hefele and Davidson. Jülicher regards it as probably genuine. This Canon contains the OT with Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy, and all our NT except the Revelation. Then in the West we have the 3rd Council of Carthage ( a.d. 397), which orders that ‘besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of Divine Scriptures,’ and appends a list of the books thus authorized in which we have the OT, the Apocrypha, and just our NT books. Here we have a whole province speaking for those books; when we add the great authority of Augustine, who belongs to this very province, and the influence of the Vulgate, we can well understand how the Canon should now be considered fixed and inviolable. Thus the matter rested for ten centuries.
4. Treatment of the Canon at the Renaissance and the Reformation.—The question of the Canon was revived by the Renaissance and the Reformation, the one movement directing critical, scholarly attention to what was essentially a literary question, the other facing it in the interest of religious controversy. Erasmus writes: ‘The arguments of criticism, estimated by the rules of logic, lead me to disbelieve that the Epistle to the Hebrews is by Paul or Luke, or that the Second of Peter is the work of that Apostle, or that the Apocalypse was written by the Evangelist John. All the same, I have nothing to say against the contents of these books, which seem to me to be in perfect conformity with the truth. If, however, the Church were to declare the titles they bear to be canonical, then I would condemn my doubt, for the opinion formulated by the Church has more value in my eyes than human reasons, whatever they may be’—a most characteristic statement, revealing the scholar, the critic, the timid soul—and the satirist (?). Within the Church of Rome even Cardinal Cajetan—Luther’s opponent at Augsburg—freely discusses the Canon, doubting whether Hebrews is St. Paul’s work, and whether, if it is not, it can be canonical. He also mentions doubts concerning the five General Epistles, and gives less authority to 2 and 3 John and Jude than to those books which he regards as certainly in the Holy Scriptures. The Reformation forced the question of the authority of the Bible to the front, because it set that authority in the place of the old authority of the Church. While this chiefly concerned the book as a whole, it could not preclude inquiries as to its contents and the rights of the several parts to hold their places there. The general answer as to the authority of Scripture is an appeal to ‘the testimony of the Holy Spirit.’ Calvin especially works out this conception very distinctly. The difficulty was to apply it to particular books of the Bible so as to determine in each case whether they should be allowed in the Canon. Clearly a further test was requisite here. This was found in the ‘analogy of faith’ (Analogia fidei), which was more especially Luther’s principle, while the testimony of the Holy Spirit was Calvin’s. With Luther the Reformation was based on justification by faith. This truth Luther held to be confirmed (a) by its necessity, nothing else availing, and (b) by its effects, since in practice it brought peace, assurance, and the new life. Then those Scriptures which manifestly supported the fundamental principle were held to be ipso facto inspired, and the measure of their support of it determined the degree of their authority. Thus the doctrine of justification by faith is not accepted because it is found in the Bible; but the Bible is accepted because it contains this doctrine. Moreover, the Bible is sorted and arranged in grades according as it does so more or less clearly, and to Luther there is ‘a NT within the NT,’ a kernel of all
Scripture, consisting of those books which he sees most clearly set forth the gospel.
Thus he wrote: ‘John’s Gospel, the Epistles of Paul, especially Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter—these are the books which show thee Christ, and teach all that it is needful and blessed for thee to know even if you never see or hear any other book, or any other doctrine. Therefore is the Epistle of James a mere epistle of straw (eine rechte stroherne Epistel) since it has no character of the gospel is it’ (Preface to NT1, 1522; the passage was omitted from later editions). Luther places Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse at the end of his translation, after the other NT books, which he designates ‘the true and certain capital books of the NT, for these have been regarded in former times in a different light.’ He regards Jude as ‘indisputably an extract or copy from 2 Peter.’ Nevertheless, while thus discriminating between the values of the several books of the NT, he includes them all in his translation. Luther’s friend Carlstadt has a curious arrangement of Scripture in three classes, viz. (1) The Pentateuch and the 4 Gospels, as being ‘the clearest luminaries of the whole Divine truth’; (2) The Prophets ‘of Hebrew reckoning’ and the acknowledged Epistles of the NT, viz. 13 of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John; (3) the Hagiographa of the Hebrew Canon, and the 7 disputed books of the NT. Dr. Westcott suggested that the omission of Acts was due to its being included with Luke. Calvin is more conservative with regard to Scripture than the Lutherans. Still in his Commentaries he passes over 2 and 3 John and the Revelation without notice, and he refers to 1 John as ‘the Epistle of John,’ and expresses doubts as to 2 Peter; but he adds, with regard to the latter,’ Since the majesty of the Spirit of Christ exhibits itself in every part of the Epistle, I feel a scruple in rejecting it wholly, however much I fail to recognize in it the genuine language of Peter’ (Com. on 2 Peter, Argument). Further, Calvin acknowledges the existence of doubts with respect both to James and to Jude; but he accepts them both. He allows full liberty of opinion concerning the authorship of Hebrews; but he states that he has no hesitation in classing it among Apostolical writings. In spite of these varieties of opinion, the NT Canon remained unaltered. At the Council of Trent (1546) for the first time the Roman Catholic Church made an authoritative statement on the Canon, uttering an anathema (‘anathema sit’) on anybody who did not accept in their integrity all the books contained in the Vulgate. Thus the Apocrypha is treated as equally canonical with the OT books; but the NT Canon is the same in Roman Catholic and Protestant Canons.
Translations of the Bible into the vernacular of various languages laid the question of the Canon to rest again, by familiarizing readers with the same series of books in all versions and editions.
5. The Canon in Modern Criticism.—In the 18th cent. the very idea of a Canon was attacked by the Deists and Rationalists (Toland, Diderot, etc.); but the critical study of the subject began with Semler (1771–5), who pointed out the early variations in the Canon and attacked the very idea of a Canon as an authoritative standard, while he criticised the usefulness and theological value of the several books of the NT. Subsequent controversy has dealt less with the Canon as such than with the authenticity and genuineness of the books that it contains. In the views of extreme negative criticism canonicity as such has no meaning except as a historical record of Church opinion. On the other hand, those who accept a doctrine of inspiration in relation to the NT do not connect this very closely with critical questions in such a way as to affect the Canon. Thus doubts as to the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Peter, James, etc., have not given rise to any serious proposal to remove these books from the NT. The Canon rests mainly on tradition and usage. But the justification for it when this is sought is usually found (1) in the Apostolic authorship of most of the NT books; (2) in the Apostolic atmosphere and association of the remaining books; (3) in the general acceptance and continuous use of them in the churches for centuries as a test of their value; (4) in their inherent worth to-day as realized in Christian experience. It cannot be said that these four tests would give an indefeasible right to every book to claim a place in the Canon if it were not already there—e.g. the small Epistle of Jude; but they throw the burden of proof on those who would disturb the Canon by a serious proposal to eject any of its contents; and in fact no such proposal—as distinct from critical questions of the dates, authorship, historicity, etc., of the several books—is now engaging the attention of scholars or churches.
W. F. Adeney.
CANOPY.—A loan-word from the Gr. kōnōpeion, a mosquito-net. It is used to render this word in the description of the bed of Holofernes with its mosquitocurtain (Jth 10:21 etc.); also in Is 4:5 RV for Heb. chuppah in the sense of a protective covering. This Heb. word is becoming naturalized in English to denote the canopy under which a Jewish bridegroom and bride stand while the wedding ceremony is being performed.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CANTICLES.—See Song of Songs.
CAP.—See Dress, § 5 (a).
CAPER-BERRY (abīyyōnah).—Ec 12:5 RV; AV ‘desire.’ The RV tr. is supported by the LXX, Pesh. and the Mishna. The caper-berry is the fruit of Capparis spinosa, a common Palestine plant, which, largely on account of its habit of growing out of crevices in walls, has been identified with the Hyssop (wh. see). Various parts of the caper plant are extensively used as medicine by the fellahīn. The familiar capers of commerce are the flower buds. The ‘failure’ of the caperberry in old age may have been its ceasing to act as a stimulant, either as an aphrodisiac or a stomachic.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CAPERNAUM.—The headquarters of Christ in His Galilæan ministry, after His rejection at Nazareth (Mt 4:13, Jn 2:12). Here he healed the centurion’s palsied servant (Mt 8:5–13, Lk 7:2–10), provided the half-shekel for the Temple tribute (Mt 17:24), taught in the synagogue (Mk 1:21, Lk 4:31, Jn 6:59), performed many miracles (Mk 1:23–2:12, Lk 4:33–41), taught humility to the disciples (Mk 9:33) , healed a nobleman’s son by a word from Cana (Jn 4:46). For its unbelief He denounced the city (Mt 11:23, Lk 10:15). Though it was evidently a town of considerable importance, the site is forgotten and is a matter of dispute. The two sites most in favour are Tell Hum and Khan Minyeh, both on the north side of the Sea of Galilee, the former about midway between the latter and the mouth of the Jordan. At Tell Hum are extensive ruins, including the remains of a synagogue.
Khan Minyeh does not show such important remains, and, as these seem all to be Arab, the balance of probability is on the side of Tell Hum, whose name should probably be written Telhum, and regarded as a corruption of Caphar Tanhum, the Talmudic form of the city’s name (see the latest discussion on the subject in PEFST 1907, p. 220). If the remains at Tell Hum are not Capernaum, it is difficult to say what important city they represent (see Sanday’s art. ‘Capernaum’ in Hastings’ DCG).
R. A. S. Macalister.
CAPH or KAPH.—Eleventh letter of Heb. alphabet, and as such used in the 119th Psalm to designate the 11th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.
CAPHARSALAMA (1 Mac 7:31).—Apparently near Jerusalem. Kefr Silwȃn, the village of Siloam, is possibly intended.
CAPHIRA (1 Es 5:19).—A town of Benj., inhabitants of which returned with Zerubbabel; called in Ezr 2:25 Chephirah; cf. Neh 7:29.
CAPHTOR.—The region whence the Philistines came to Palestine (Am 9:7 , Jer 47:4). Hence in Dt 2:23 Caphtorim means the Philistines. In Gn 10:14 Caphtorim is used of the country itself in place of Caphtor; it should be placed in the text immediately after Casluhim. Many identifications of Caphtor have been attempted. The favourite theory has been that it means the island of Crete ( cf. Cherethites). Next in favour is the view that Caphtor was the coast of the Egyptian Delta. It has also been identified with Cyprus. The correct theory is suggested by inscriptions of Ramses III. of Egypt (c. b.c. 1200), who tells of his having repelled a great invasion by enemies who had entered Syria and Palestine from the north. The leaders of these barbarians were called Purusati, which (Egyp. r being Sem. l) is equivalent to the Heh. Pelishtī. Connecting these facts with the circumstance that the southern coast of Asia Minor, more especially Cilicia, was called Kefto or Kafto in the Egyptian inscriptions, it appears very probable that this Kafto and Caphtor are identical. The further conjecture might be hazarded that the writing of the Hebrew waw as a vowel-letter in an original Kafto gave rise to the additional rēsh. Compare the similar case Ashkenaz.
J. F. McCurdy.
CAPPADOCIA.—A large district in the mid-eastern part of Asia Minor, formed into a Roman province in a.d. 17. It was administered by a procurator sent out by the reigning emperor, being regarded as an unimportant district. In a.d. 70 Vespasian united it with Armenia Minor, and made the two together a large and important frontier province, to be governed by an ex-consul, under the title of legatus Augusti pro prœtore, on the emperor’s behalf. The territory to the N. and W. of Cilicia, the kingdom of the client-king Antiochus, was incorporated in it at the time, and it afterwards received various accessions of territory. Jews from Cappadocia are mentioned in Ac 2:9, and their presence there (c. b.c. 139) is implied in 1 Mac 15:22 where a letter in their favour is addressed by the Roman Senate to king Arathes. Cappadocia was not visited by St. Paul, probably as insufficiently Romanized, but it was one of the provinces to which 1 Peter (? about a.d. 70–80) was sent.
A. Souter.
CAPTAIN.—This word occurs very frequently in the OT (AV and RV), and appears to have been favoured by the translators as a comprehensive term to denote a ruler, or a military commander of any unit, whatever its size might be. In modern military language it means especially the commander of a company of infantry, numbering about 100 to 110 men, and is quite unsuitable as a translation. It represents in OT 13 different Hebrew words. In Ezekiel it is often used for the secular head of the Messianic kingdom: ‘prince’ will there and often elsewhere do as a rendering; ‘officer’ and ‘chief’ will suit other passages. There are further places where none of these words will do as a translation. In the NT it translates four Greek words, and means: (1) Jn 18:12, Ac 22:28 a Roman military officer, a tribune of the soldiers, in command of about 1000 men, constituting the garrison of Jerusalem (hence Rev 6:15, 19:18 in a general sense); (2) Lk 22:4, 52, Ac 4:1 etc., the captain of the Temple, a Levite, who had under him a body of police, probably themselves also priests, whose duty it was to keep order in the Temple at Jerusalem and guard it by night; (3) He 2:10 (RV ‘author’) leader, initiator; (4) Ac 28:16 AV ‘captain of the guard’ (wanting in RV), a doubtful reading and of doubtful sense. See also Army, § 2.
A. Souter.
CAPTIVITY.—See Israel, I. 23.
CARABASION (1 Es 9:34).—A corrupt name of one of those who put away their ‘strange’ wives. It seems to correspond to Meremoth in Ezr 10:36.
CARAVAN.—See Trade and Commerce.
CARBUNCLE.—See Jewels and Precious Stones.
CARCAS (Est 1:10).—One of the seven eunuchs or chamberlains of king Ahasuerus.
CARCHEMISH was the northern capital of the Hittite empire, but was probably also of consequence before the era of the Hittites, as it commanded the principal ford of the Euphrates on the right bank, and was therefore indispensable to travel and commerce in Northern Syria. It was shown by George Smith to have lain on the site of the modern Jerablus or Hierapolis. It was an obstacle to the march of the invading Egyptians about b.c. 1600. Several Assyrian conquerors attempted to capture it. It was taken finally by Sargon in b.c. 717 (cf. Is 10:9), after which it became the capital of an Assyrian province. Here Nebuchadrezzar defeated Pharaoh-necho in b.c. 605, and thus ended the latest native Egyptian rēgime in Asia (Jer 46:2, 2 Ch 35:20).
J. F. McCurdy.
CAREFULNESS.—Careful and carefulness do not express approbation in the English of the Bible, as they do now. To be careful is to be too anxious, to worry. ‘Be careful for nothing,’ says St. Paul (Ph 4:6), and ‘I would have you without carefulness’ (1 Co 7:32). Latimer says: ‘Consider the remedy against carefulness, which is to trust in God.’ Again, to be careless is not blameworthy, meaning simply to be without apprehension, to feel safe, as Jg 18:7 ‘they dwelt careless, after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure.’
CARIA (S.W. of Asia Minor) is mentioned only in 1 Mac 15:23 as one of the districts to which the Roman Senate sent a letter in favour of the Jews in b.c. 139– 138. It was free at that date, with its inland States federated. The more important States, Rhodes, etc., are separately named.
A. Souter.
CARITES occurs in the Kethībh of the Heb. text and margin of RV in 2 S 20:23, where the Kerē has Cherethites, and in RV of 2 K 11:4, where the AV has captains (RVm executioners). The Carites were possibly Phil. mercenaries from Caria, as the Cherethites were from Crete.
CARMEL.—1. A town in the mountains south of Hebron, in the territory of Judah (Jos 15:55). Here Saul set up a memorial of his conquest of the Amalekites (1 S 15:12), and here Nabal (1 S 25:2) and Uzziah (2 Ch 26:10 AV) had property.
It was the home of Hezral or Hezro, one of David’s followers (2 S 23:35, 1 Ch 11:37). It is identified with Kurmul, about 10 miles S.E. of Hebron. 2. A hilly promontory by which the sea-coast of Palestine is broken, forming the south side of the hay of Acca. It continues as a ridge running in a S.E. direction, bordering the plain of Esdraelon on the S., and finally joining the main mountain ridge of the country in the district round about Samaria. On this ridge was Jokneam, reduced by Joshua (Jos 12:22). The promontory was included in the territory of Asher (19:26).
It was the scene of Elijah’s sacrifice (1 K 18), and hither after Elijah’s translation Elisha came on the way to Samaria (2 K 2:25). Elisha was for a time established here (4:25). The fruitfulness of Carmel is alluded to (Is 33:9, 35:2, Am 1:2); it was wooded (Mic 7:14), a fact which made it a good hiding-place (Am 9:3). The head of the Shulammite is compared to Carmel (Ca 7:5).
The mountain seems from a very early period to have been a place of sanctity. In the list of Tahutmes III. of places conquered by him in Palestine, Maspero sees in one name the words Rosh Kodsu, ‘holy headland,’ referring to Carmel. The site was probably chosen for the sacrifice whereby the claims of Baal and Jehovah were tested, because it was already holy ground. An altar of Jehovah existed here before Elijah (1 K 18:30). The traditional site is at the E. end of the ridge, but it is probably a mere coincidence that on the bank of the river Kishon just below there is a mound known as Tell el-Kasis, ‘the mound of the priest.’ Tacitus (Hist. ii. 78) refers to the mountain as the site of an oracle; the Druses hold the traditional site of the sacrifice of Elijah sacred; and the mountain has given its name to the Carmelite order of friars.
R. A. S. Macalister.
CARMI.—1. A Judahite, the father of Achan (Jos 7:1, 18, 1 Ch 2:7). 2. The
Carmi of 1 Ch 4:1 should probably be corrected to Chelubai, i.e. Caleb (cf. 1 Ch 2:9, 18). 3. The eponym of a Reubenite family (Gn 46:9, Ex 6:14, 1 Ch 5:3), the Carmites of Nu 26:6.
CARMONIANS (2 Es 15:30, AV Carmanians).—A people occupying an
extensive district north of the entrance to the Persian Gulf, between Persis on the west and Gedrosia on the east. They are said to have resembled the Medes and Persians in customs and language. The name survives in the present town and district of Kirman. In the above verse the reference is probably to Sapor I. ( a.d. 240–273), the founder of the Sassanid dynasty, who, after defeating Valerian, overran Syria, and destroyed Antioch.
CARNAIM, 1 Mac 5:26, 43, 44, and Carnion, 2 Mac 12:21, 26 ( RVm Carnain).—The ancient Ashteroth-Karnaim (wh. see).
CARNELIAN.—See Agate under Jewels.
CARNION.—See Carnaim.
CAROB (Lk 15:16) RVm.—See Husks.
CARPENTER.—See Arts and Crafts, § 1.
CARPUS.—An inhabitant of Troas, with whom St. Paul stayed, probably on his last journey to Rome (2 Ti 4:13). The name is Greek, but we have no means of proving his nationality.
CARRIAGE.—This word is always used in the AV in the literal sense of ‘something carried,’ never in the modern sense of a vehicle used for carrying. Thus Ac 21:15 ‘we took up our carriages’ (RV ‘baggage’).
CARSHENA.—One of the wise men or counsellors of king Ahasuerus ( Est
1:14).
CART, WAGON.—The cart, like the chariot, is an Asiatic invention. The earliest wheeled carts show a light framework set upon an axle with solid wheels (illust. in Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. [1878], i. 249). The type of cart in use under the
Heb. monarchy may be seen in the Assyrian representation of the siege of Lachish (Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, ii. pl. 23), where women captives and their children are shown seated in wagons with a low wooden body (cf. 1 S 6:14) , furnished with wheels of 6 and 8 spokes. They were drawn by a pair of oxen ( Nu 7:3, 7, 8)—exceptionally by two cows (1 S 6:7, 10)—yoked to a pole which passed between them, and were used for the transport of persons (Gn 45:19ff.) and goods (Nu l.c.), including sheaves of grain to the threshing-floor (Am 2:13). The rendering ‘covered wagons’ (Nu 7:3) is doubtful. For the threshing-wagon, see Agriculture, § 3.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CASEMENT.—Only Pr 7:6 AV; RV ‘lattice,’ as Jg 5:28, where the same word is used in both places parallel to ‘window.’ Cf. also the Heb. text of Sir 42:11 ‘Let there be no lattice to the room where thy daughter dwells.’ See, further, House, § 7.
CASIPHIA.—A settlement in the neighbourhood of Ahava (wh. see) In North Babylonia (Ezr 8:17), whose site has not been identified.
J. F. McCurdy.
CASLUHIM.—A name occurring in Gn 10:14, 1 Ch 1:12, in connexion with the names of other peoples there spoken of as descended from Mizraim, esp. the Caphtorim and Philistines.
CASPHOR (1 Mac 5:26, 36, AV Casphon; 2 Mac 12:13 Caspin).—Near a large lake in Gilead. The site is unknown.
CASSIA.—1. qiddah. Ex 30:24, Ezk 27:19. 2. qetsi‘ōth, Ps 45:8. Both these words apparently refer to some kind of cassia wood. The cassia bark from the Cinnamomum cassia is very similar in smell and properties to Cinnamon (wh. see).
E. W. G. Masterman.
CASTANET.—See Music and Musical Instruments.
CASTLE.—1. In Gn 25:16, Nu 31:10, 1 Ch 6:54, an obsolete, if not erroneous, rendering in AV of a word denoting a nomad ‘encampment’ (so RV).
2. In 1 Ch 11:5, 7 AV speaks of the ‘castle’ of Zion, the citadel or acropolis of the Jebusite city, but RV renders as in 2 S 5:7, 9 ‘stronghold.’ A different word (birah) is used of the castle or fort which in Nehemiah’s day defended the Temple
(Neh 2:8, 7:2), and of the fortified royal residence of the Persian kings at Susa (Neh 1:1, Est 1:2 etc.; RV ‘palace,’ marg. ‘castle’). The fortress in Jerusalem to which the authors of the books of Maccabees and Josephus give the name of Acra, is termed ‘the castle’ in 2 Mac 4:27, 5:5, 10:20 AV, where RV has throughout ‘citadel’ (so also 1 Mac 1:33 and elsewhere). See, further. City, Fortification and Siegecraft, § 4.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CASTOR AND POLLUX.—See Dioscuri.
CAT.—This animal is mentioned only in the Apocr. (Ep. Jer v. 22 [Gr. 21]). There are two species of wild cat in the Holy Land.
CATERPILLAR.—See Locust.
CATHOLIC EPISTLES.—The title of ‘Catholic’ was given by the early Church to the seven Epistles which bear the names of James, Peter, Jude, and John.
There is much uncertainty as to the meaning of the title. Perhaps the most probable explanation is that this group of Epistles was looked upon as addressed to the Church generally, while the Pauline Epistles were written to particular churches and were called forth by local circumstances.
CATHUA (1 Es 5:30).—One of the heads of families of Temple servants who returned with Zerubbabel from captivity. It appears to correspond to Giddel in Ezr 2:47; cf. Neh 7:49.
CATTLE.—The word commonly used in OT is miqneh, meaning primarily possessions or wealth—oxen, camels, sheep, and goats being the only wealth of peoples in a nomadic stage of civilization. It includes sometimes horses and asses, e.g. Ex 9:3, Job 1:3. The word is also sometimes rendered ‘possessions’ (e.g. Ec 2:7), ‘flocks’ (Ps 78:46), and ‘herds’ (Gn 47:18). For other words rendered in EV ‘cattle,’ see Beast. See also Ox, Sheep, Shepherd, etc.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CAUDA (AV wrongly Clauda; now Gaudho) is an island off the S. coast of Crete. St. Paul’s ship, sailing from Myra to Rome, shortly after rounding Cape Matala was making in a W.N.W. direction, when a sudden strong wind coming from E.N.E. drove it along at a rapid rate for about 23 miles, till it got under the lee of Cauda (Ac 27:16). Such a change of wind is frequent there at the present day.
A. Souter.
CAUL.—The Eng. word ‘caul’ is used (1) In Is 3:18 for a veil of net-work. (2) In Ex 29:13, Lv 3:4, 10, 15, 4:9, 7:4, 8:16, 25, 9:10, 19 for the fatty mass at the opening of the Liver (wh. see). (3) In Hos 13:8 for the pericardium,
CAUSEY.—This Eng. word was used in the original edition of AV in 1 Ch 26:16, 18, and in the margin of Pr 15:19 and Is 7:3. It is now found only in Pr 15:19 marg., being changed in modern editions in the other places into causeway. The Heb. word is literally ‘a raised way,’ and is used of a public road, but never of a street in a city. The word ‘causey’ is still used in Scotland for the raised footpath by the side of a road or street.
CAVE.—The soft limestone hills of Palestine abound in caves, natural and artificial; and these must have attracted attention from a very early period. The aboriginal race of Horites were cave-dwellers, and the excavation at Gezer has revealed remains of a probably analogous race in W. Palestine. Lot (Gn 19:30) and David (1 S 22:1 etc.) dwelt for a time in caves; and their use as places of hiding and refuge is illustrated by many passages, e.g., Jos 10:16, Jg 6:2, 1 K 18:4 etc. Caves were also used, at all periods in the history of Palestine, for sepulture, as in the case of Machpelah (Gn 23). Probably the most remarkable series of caves yet discovered in Palestine are the great labyrinths tunnelled in the bills round Beit Jibrin; one of these, in Tell Sandahannah, contains sixty chambers, united by doors and passages, and groups containing fourteen or fifteen chambers are quite
common in the same hill. Another artificial cave near Beit Jibrin contains a hall 80 ft. high and 400 ft. long; it has now fallen in. Other groups of caves, only less extensive, occur in various parts of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan. Little or nothing is known about the history of these great excavations; no definite information about their origin has yet been yielded by them, so far as they have been scientifically explored.
R. A. S. Macalister.
CEDAR (erez).—The finest of the trees of Lebanon, the principal constituent of its ‘glory’ (Is 35:2, 60:13); it was noted for its strength (Ps 29:5), its height (2 K 19:23) and its majesty (1 K 4:33, 2 K 14:9, Zec 11:1, 2). Its wood was full of resin (Ps 104:16), and, largely on that account, was one of the most valuable kinds of timber for building, especially for internal fittings. It was exceedingly durable, being not readily infected with worms, and took a high polish (cf. 1 K 10:27, Ca 1:17, Jer 22:14). It was suitable, too, for carved work (Is 44:14, 15). In all these respects the ‘cedar of Lebanon’ (Cedrus Libani) answers to the requirements. Though but a dwarf in comparison with the Indian cedar, it is the most magnificent tree in Syria; it attains a height of from 80 to 100 feet, and spreads out its branches horizontally so as to give a beautiful shade (Ezk 31:3); it is evergreen, and has characteristic egg-shaped cones. The great region of this cedar is now the Cilician Taurus Mountains beyond Mersina, but small groves survive in places in the
Lebanon. The most famous of these is that at Kadisha, where there are upwards of
400 trees, some of great age. In a few references erez does not mean the Cedrus Libani, but some other conifer. This is specially the case where ‘cedar-wood’ is used in the ritual of cleansing after defilement by contact with a leper (Lv 14:4) or a dead body (Nu 19:6). Probably erez here is a species of juniper, Juniperus Sabina, which grows in the wilderness. The reference in Nu 24:6 to ‘cedar trees beside the waters’ can hardly apply to the Lebanon cedar, which flourishes best on bare mountain slopes.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CEDRON.—See Kidron.
CEILED, CEILING.—See Cieled, Cieling.
CELLAR.—See House.
CENCHREÆ (AV Cenchrea is wrong) was the southern harbour of Corinth, and was on the Saronic Gulf about 7 miles E. of Corinth. It was a mere village, and existed solely for the transit of goods to and from Corinth. Thence St. Paul set sail for Syria (Ac 18:18). Phœbe, the lady commended for her service to the church here (Ro 16:1), carried St. Paul’s Epistle to Rome.
A. Souter.
CENDEBÆUS.—A general of Antiochus VII. Sidetes, who was given the command of the sea-coast, and sent with an army into Palestine in order to enforce the claims of Antiochus against Simon Maccabæus. In a battle which took place in a plain not far from Modin the Jews gained a complete victory over Cendebæus, and pursued the Syrians as far as Kidron and the neighbourhood of Ashdod (1 Mac 15:38, 16:9; cf. Jos. Ant. XIII. vii. 3).
CENSER.—See Firepan, Incense.
CENSUS.—See Quirinius.
CENTURION.—A centurion was a Roman military officer, corresponding in the number of infantry commanded by him (100) to the modern ‘captain,’ but in his status like our non-commissioned officers. The passage to the higher ranks was even more difficult in his case than it is amongst our non-commissioned officers. However, the chief centurion of a legion. known as the ‘centurion of the first (chief) pike,’ was sometimes promoted to the equestrian order. The Capernaum centurion (Mt 8:5–13, Lk 7:2–10) was probably in Herod’s army, not in the Roman army strictly so called. Some of those mentioned in the NT were on special service in command of their units, and separated from the cohorts or legions of which they formed a part.
A. Souter.
CEPHAS.—See Peter.
CHABRIS.—One of the three rulers of Bethulia (Jth 6:15, 8:10, 10:6).
CHADIASAI (AV ‘they of Chadias’, 1 Es 5:20.)—They are mentioned as returning, to the number of 422, with Zerubbabel. There are no corresponding names in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.
CHÆREAS (AV Chereas) held command at the fortress of Gazara, i.e.
probably Jazer in the trans-Jordanic territory (see 1 Mac 5:6–8). He was slain upon the capture of Gazara by Judas Maccabæus (2 Mac 10:32–38).
CHAFF.—See Agriculture, § 3.
CHAIN is used in two different senses. 1. Chains for securing prisoners are denoted by a variety of words in OT and NT, which are also rendered by ‘bonds’ or ‘fetters,’ although the monuments show that ropes were more generally used for this purpose. 2. A chain of precious metal was worn as a sign of rank, as by Joseph and Daniel, or purely as an ornament. See Ornaments, § 2.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CHALOEDONY.—See Jewels and Precious Stones.
CHALDÆA, CHALDÆANS.—The Heb. Kasdim is generaliy rendered ‘Chaldees’ (Gn 11:28), and in Jer 50:10, 51:24, 24:5 25:12, and often, is used for ‘Babylonian.’ The word is derived from the Bab. name Kaldū for the district S.E. of Babylonia proper, on the sea-coast as it then was. From b.c. 1000 onwards its capital was Bit Yakin. The people were Aramæans, independent and aggressive. In the time of Babylonian weakness they pushed into the country, and Merodachbaladan was a Chaldæan usurper. Nabopolassar was also a Chaldæan, and, from his time, Chaldæa meant Babylonia. The Chaldæans were Semites and not the same as the Kashdu, Kashshu, or Kassites, who conquered Babylonia, and ruled it from the 13th cent. b.c. onwards, but they came through, and probably had absorbed a part of, the country to which the Kassites had already assured the name Kashda.
The name as applied since Jerome to the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra is incorrect. The use of the term ‘Chaldæan’ (Dn 1:4 and often) to denote a class of astrologers is not found in native sources, but arose from a transfer of a national name to the Babylonians in general, and occurs in Strabo, Diodorus, etc. It can hardly be older than Persian times.
C. H. W. Johns.
CHALK-STONES (Is 27:9 only).—The expression is of much interest, as showing that the practice of burning limestone and slaking with water was followed in Pal. in OT times.
CHALLENGE.—To ‘challenge’ in the language of AV is to claim, as in Golding’s tr. of Calvin’s Job, p. 578; ‘Iob neuer went about to challenge such perfection, as to have no sinne in him.’ The word occurs in Ex 22:9, in the heading of Is 45 ‘By his omnipotency he challengeth obedience;’ and in Job 3:5 AVm.
CHALPHI (AV Calphi).—The father of Judas, one of the two captains of Jonathan Maccabæus who stood firm in a battle fought against the Syrians at Hazor in N. Galilee (1 Mac 11:70).
CHAMBER.—Now obsolescent, is used by AV in a variety of connexions where modern usage employs ‘room,’ as e.g. ‘bed-chamber,’ ‘upper chamber,’ etc. See, generally. House. For the Temple chambers, see Temple.
CHAMBERLAIN.—In OT the word occurs in 2 K 23:11 and repeatedly in
Est., where the original is ‘eunuch’ (sārīs); but it is generally believed that this name is not to be taken always in a literal sense, and hence it is often rendered by the word ‘officer.’ In Esther, however, the chamberlain evidently belongs to that class of persons who are entrusted with the watchful care of the harems of Oriental monarchs. In NT at Ac 12:20 it is said that the people of Tyre and Sidon sought the favour of Herod Agrippa through the mediation of Blastus ‘the king’s chamberlain,’ showing that the office was one of considerable influence. The word occurs again in AV in Ro 16:23, but is rendered in RV more accurately ‘treasurer of the city.’
CHAMBERS OF THE SOUTH.—See Stars.
CHAMELEON.—The chameleon (Chamœleonvulgaris) is a very common Palestine lizard. It may be found on hot days clinging with its bird-like feet and prehensile tail to the trees, or passing with slow and deliberate walk over the ground. It is remarkable for its marvellous protective gift of changing the colour of its skin to resemble its surroundings, and for its eyes which, moving
Independently, one looking backwards while the other looks to the front, give it an unusual range of vision. Even to-day it is supposed by the ignorant, as in olden times, to live upon air. In reality it lives on small insects, catching them by means of its long sticky tongue, which it can protrude and withdraw with extraordinary quickness. Two words in Lv 11:30 are rendered ‘chameleon’ in the Eng. versions. In the A V kōach is so translated, but in the RV we have ‘land crocodile’ ( see Lizard); while in the RV tinshemeth—‘mole’ in AV—is tr. ‘chameleon.’ Both renderings are very uncertain. See Mole.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CHAMOIS (zemer, Dt. 14:5).—The tr. of zemer as ‘chamois’ in EV and as ‘camelopard,’ i.e. giraffe, in LXX, are both certainly incorrect, as neither of these animals occurs in Palestine. Tristram suggests the wild sheep, Ovis tragelaphus, an animal about 3 feet high with long curved horns. It is well known to the Bedouln.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CHAMPAIGN.—This spelling in modern editions of AV has replaced champion (Dt 11:30, Jth 5:1) and champion (Ezk 37:2 marg.) of the 1611 edition of AV. The word means an open plain.
CHANCELLOR.—See Beeltethmus and Rehum.
CHANGES OF RAIMENT (Gn 45:22, Jg 14:12f., 2 K 5:5).—A literal tr. of a Heb. expression which not merely denotes a change of garments in the modern sense, but implies that the ‘changes’ are superior, in material or texture or both, to those ordinarily worn. Hence ‘gala dresses,’ ‘festal robes,’ or the like, may be taken as a fair equivalent. Gifts of such gala robes have always been common in the East as special marks of favour or distinction. Cf. Dress, § 7.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CHANUNEUS (AV Channuneus), 1 Es 8:48.—A Levite, answering to Merari, if to anything, in the parallel list in Ezr 8:19.
CHAPHENATHA (1 Mac 12:37).—Close to Jerusalem on the east. Unknown.
CHAPITER.—See Temple.
CHAPMAN.—A chapman is a trader, the word being still used in some places for a travelling merchant. It occurs in 2 Ch 9:14 AV and BV, and also in 1 K 10:15 RV. The Amer. RV has ‘trader’ in both places.
CHARAATHALAN (AV Charaathalar), 1 Es 5:36.—A name given to a
leader of certain families who returned under Zerubbabel. But ‘Charaathalan leading them and Allar’ is due to some perversion of the original, which has ‘Cherub, Addan, Immer,’ three names of places in Babylonia, from which the return was made (Ezr 2:59; cf. Neh 7:61).
CHARAX (2 Mac 12:17, RV ‘to Charax,’ AV ‘to Characa’).—East of Jordan, and apparently in the land of Tob. Unknown.
CHAREA, 1 Es 5:32 = Harsha, Ezr 2:52, Neh 7:54.
CHARGER.—An obsolete word for a large flat dish on which meat was served. The Amer. RV everywhere substitutes ‘platter,’ e.g. Nu 7:13ff., Mt 14:8 and parallels.
CHARIOT.—The original home of the chariot was Western Asia, from which it passed to Egypt and other countries. In OT chariots are associated mainly with war-like operations, although they also appear not infrequently as the ‘carriages,’ so to say, of kings, princes, and high dignitaries (Gn 50:9, 2 K 5:9, Jer 17:25; cf. Ac 8:28ff. the case of the Ethiopian eunuch) in times of peace. When royal personages drove in state, they were preceded by a body of ‘runners’ (2 S 15:1, 1 K 1:5).
The war chariot appears to have been introduced among the Hebrews by David (2 S 8:4 LXX), but it did not become part of the organized military equipment of the State till the reign of Solomon. This monarch is said to have organized a force of 1400 chariots (1 K 10:26, 2 Ch 1:14), which he distributed among the principal cities of his realm (1 K 9:19, 10:26). At this time, also, a considerable trade sprang up in connexion with the importation of chariots and horses. It was not from Egypt, however, which was never a horse-breeding country, that these were imported as stated in the corrupt text of 1 K 10:28f., but from two districts of Asia Minor, in the region of Cappadocia and Cilicia, named Musri and Kuë (see Skinner, Cent. Bible, in loc). In the following verse a chariot from Musri is said to have cost 600 shekels of silver (see Money), and a horse 150, hut the Gr. text gives 100 shekels and 50 shekels respectively. Similarly in 2 K 7:6 the reference is to the chariotry of the Hittites and their allies of Musri.
Until the Macedonian period, when we first hear of chariots armed with scythes (2 Mac 13:2), the war chariot of antiquity followed one general type, alike among the Assyrians and the Egyptians, the Hittites and the Syrians. It consisted of a light wooden body, which was always open behind. The axle, fitted with stout wheels with 6 or 8 spokes (for the Heb. terms see 1 K 7:33), was set as far back as possible for the sake of greater steadiness, and consequently a surer aim. The pole was fixed into the axle, and after passing beneath the floor of the chariot was bent upwards and connected by a band of leather to the front of the chariot. The horses, two in number, were yoked to the pole. Traces were not used. In Assyrian representations a third horse sometimes appears, evidently as a reserve. The body of the chariot naturally received considerable decoration, for which, and for other details, reference may be made to Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyp. (1878), i. 224–241, and Rawlinson’s Five Great Monarchies (1864), ii. 1–21, where numerous illustrationss are also given. The ‘chariots of iron’ of the ancient Canaanites ( Jos 17:16, Jg 1:19, 4:3) were chariots of which the woodwork was strengthened hy metal plates.
In Egypt and Assyria the normal number of the occupants of a war chariot was two—the driver, who was often armed with a whip, and the combatant, an archer whose bow-case and quiver were usually attached to the right-hand side of the car. Egyptian representations of Hittite chariots, however, show three occupants, of whom the third carries a shield to protect his comrades. This was almost certainly the practice among the Hebrews also, since a frequently recurring military term, shālīsh, signifies ‘the third man,’ presumably in such a chariot.
Mention may be made, finally, of the chariots set up at the entrance to the Temple at Jerusalem, which were destroyed by Josiah. They were doubtless dedicated originally to J″, although they are termed by the Hebrew historian ‘chariots of the sun’ (2 K 23:11), their installation having been copied from the Babylonian custom of representing Shamash, the sun-god, riding in a chariot.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CHARITY.—The word ‘charity’ never occurs in AV in the sense of almsgiving, but always with the meaning of love. It comes from the Vulg. caritas, which was frequently used to translate the Greek agapē, probably because amor had impure associations, and because dilectio (which is sometimes so used) was scarcely strong enough. Wyclif followed the Vulg., as did afterwards the Rhemish translators. Tindale and the Genevan Version preferred ‘love’; but in the Bishops’ Bible’ charity’ was again often used, and the AV followed the Bishops in this. In the RV, however, ‘charity’ never occurs, the Gr. agapē being everywhere rendered
‘love.’
For Feast of Charity (Jude 12 AV) see Love Feast.
CHARM.—See Amulets and Chakms; and Magic Divination and Sorcery.
CHARME (1 Es 5:25).—Called Harim, Ezr 2:39, Neh 7:42 The form in 1 Es. is derived from the Heb., and not from the Gr. form in the canonical books.
CHARMIS (Gn 46:9).—Son of Melchiel, one of three rulers or elders of Bethnlia (Jth 6:15, 8:10, 10:6).
CHASE.—See Hunting.
CHASEBA (1 Es 5:31).—There is no corresponding name in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.
CHASTITY.—See Crimes and Punishments, and Marriage.
CHEBAR.—A canal in Babylonia (Ezk 1:1ff.) beside which the principal colony of the first Exile of Judah was planted. It has been identified by the Pennsylvania expedition with the canal Kabaru, named in cuneiform documents of the time of Artaxerxes i. It apparently lay to the east of Nippur. The name means
‘great.’ Hence for ‘the river Chebar’ we may read ‘the Grand Canal.’
J. F. McCurdy.
CHECKER WORK.—A designation applied in 1 K 7:17 (only) to the netornament on the pillars before the Temple.
CHEDOR-LAOMER.—An early king of Elam, who, according to Gn 14 , exercised dominion over a considerable part of Western Asia. His vassals, Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, and Tidal, king of Goiim, helped him to defeat the Canaanite princes of Sodom, Gomorrah, Adman, Zeboiim, and Zoar, who had rebelled against him after having acknowledged his authority for twelve years. Chedor-laomer and his allies defeated the Canaanite princes in the valley of Siddim, and sacked Sodom and Gomorrah. But the story relates that they were in turn defeated by’ Abram, the Hebrew,’ who surprised them by night and recovered the spoil of Sodom and his nephew Lot. The name of Chedorlaomer is a purely Elamite name (Kudur-Lagamar or Kutir-Lagamar), though it has not yet been found upon the inscriptions as that of an early king of Elam. But the recent excavations of M. de Morgan at Susa confirm the Biblical story, by revealing the considerable part which Elam played in the early history of Western Asia.
L. W. King.
CHEEK.—The seat of health and beauty (Ca 1:10, 5:13). To be smitten on the cheek was the climax of insult and violence. That the command in Mt 5:39 is not to be interpreted literally is shown by Christ’s own protest in Jn 18:23.
C. W. Emmet CHEESE.—See Milk.
CHELAL.—One who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:30).
CHELLIANS.—Probably the Inhabitants of the town Chellus (wh. see). Cf. Jth 1:9, 2:23.
CHELLUS.—From the text (Jth 1:9) this place is supposed to have been situated S.W. of Jerus. near Betane and N. of Kadesh and the ‘river of Egypt,’ i.e. the Wady-el-‘Arish; but any certain identification is Impossible.
CHELOD.—Jth 1:6b reads, not as AV and RV ‘many nations of the sons of Chelod assembled themselves to battle,’ but ‘there came together many nations unto the array (or ranks) of the sons of Cheleul.’ It is not certain whether the ‘many nations’ are allies of Nebuchadrezzar or of Arphaxad, or whether they come to help or to fight the ‘sons of Chelod.’ Probably v. 6b summarizes v. 6a; hence ‘sons of Chelod’ should be Nebuchadrezzar’s army. But he is, in Jth., king of Assyrians, not Chaldsæans. No probable conjecture as to Aram. original has been made.
CHELUB.—1. A descendant of Judah (1 Ch 4:11). 2. The father of Ezri, one of David’s superintendents (1 Ch 27:26).
CHELUBAI (1 Ch 2:9).—Another form of Caleb. Cf. 1 Ch 2:18, 42, and see Caleb, and Carmi, No. 2.
CHELUHI.—One of the sons of Bani who had married a foreign wife ( Ezr
10:35).
CHEMARIM.—In EV this word is found only in Zeph 1:4; but the original of which it is the transliteration is used also at 2 K 23:5 and Hos 10:5, and in both instances Chĕmārim is placed in the margin of AV and RV. Chōmer, of which Chĕmārim is the plural, is of Aram. origin, and when used in Syr. carries no unfavourable connotation. In the Heb. of the OT, however, Chĕmārim always has a bad sense; it is applied to the priests who conducted the worship of the calves (2 K 23:5, Hos 10:5), and to those who served the Baalim (Zeph 1:4). Kimchi believed the original significance of the verbal form was ‘to be black,’ and explained the use of the noun by the assertion that the idolatrous priests wore black garments. Others take the root to mean, ‘to be sad,’ the chumra being a sad, ascetic person, a monk or priest.
CHEMOSH.—The national god of the Moabites (Nu 21:29; in Jg 11:24 probably ‘Chemosh’ is a scribal or other error for ‘Milcom’ [wh. see], who held the same position among the Ammonites). His rites seem to have included human sacrifice (cf. 2 K 3:27). It was for this ‘abomination of Moab’ that Solomon erected a temple (1 K 11:7), later destroyed by Josiah (2 K 23:13).
N. Koenig.
CHENAANAH.—1. A Benjamite (1 Ch 7:10). 2. The father of Zedekiah the false prophet in the reign of Ahab (1 K 22:11, 2 Ch 18:10).
CHENANI.—A Levite (Neh 9:4).
CHENANIAH.—Chief of the Levites at the removal of the ark from the house of Obed-edom (1 Ch 15:22, 27), named among the officers and judges over Israel
(26:29).
CHEPHAR-AMMONI (‘village of the Ammonites,’ Jos 18:24).—A town of Benjamin. Probably the ruin Kefr ‘Āna near Bethel.
CHEPHIRAH (‘village,’ Jos 9:17, 18:26, Ezr 2:25, Neh 7:29).—One of the four Hivite cities which made peace with the Hebrews; re-peopled after the Captivity, having belonged to Benjamin; called in 1 Es 5:19 Caphira. Now Kefīreh S.W. of Gibeon.
CHEQUER WORK.—See Spinning and Weaving.
CHERAN.—One of the children of Dishon, the son of Seir, the Horite ( Gn 36:26, 1 Ch 1:41).
CHERETHITES AND PELETHITES.—These were mercenary soldiers, who probably began to attach themselves to David whilst he was an outlaw (2 S 22:2 etc.), and subsequently became the king’s bodyguard and the nucleus of his army (2 S 8:18, 15:18, 20:7, 23, 1 K 1:38, 44, 1 Ch 18:17). Benaiah, whom Josephus calls ‘captain of the guard’ (Ant. VII. xi. 8), was their commander. They accompanied David in his retreat from Jerusalem (2 S 15:18), fought against Absalom (2 S 20:7, 23), acted as Solomon’s bodyguard at his coronation (1 K 1:38 ,
44). The Cherethites were a Philistine clan (1 S 30:14), dwelling on the coast ( Ezk
25:16, Zeph 2:5); and the name Pelethites may have been a corrupt form of Philistines. Unwillingness to believe that foreigners stood so near the national hero led certain Jewish scholars to assert that the two clans were Israelites. The appellation ‘Cherethite’ seems to be connected with Crete, and there is good ground (but see Caphtor) for the belief that Caphtor, from which Am 9:7 says the Philistines came, is to be identified with Crete. The LXX of Ezk 25:16, Zeph 2:5 uses Cretans as the equivalent of Cherethites.
J. Taylor.
CHERITH.—The ‘brook’ by which Elijah lived (1 K 17:3, 5) was ‘before,’ i.e. on the E. of Jordan. The popular identification of Cherith with the Wady Kelt between Jerusalem and Jericho is unwarranted.
CHERUB (Ezr 2:59, Neh 7:61).—One of the places from which certain families, on the return from Babylon, failed to prove their register as genuine branches of the Israelite people. See Charaathalan.
CHERUBIM.—1. The most important passage for determining the origin of the Hebrew conception of the cherubim is Ps 18:10. The poet, in describing a theophany of Jehovah, represents the God of Israel as descending to earth on the black thunder-cloud: ‘He rode upon a cheruh and did fly, yea, he soared on the wings of the wind.’ According to this passage, the cherub is a personification of the storm-cloud, or, as others prefer to interpret, of the storm-wind which bears Jehovah from heaven to earth.
2. We shall next discuss the part the cherubim play in the religious symbolism of the OT. In the Tabernacle there were two small golden cherubim, one at each end of the mercy-seat. It was these figures that invested the ark with its special significance as an emblem of the immediate presence of Jehovah. Cherubic figures were embroidered on the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place, and on the other tapestries of the sanctuary. In the Temple two huge cheruhim of olive wood, overlaid with gold, overshadowed the ark with their wings (1 K 6:23–28). Cherubic figures were also found among the other decorations of the Temple (1 K 6:29, 32, 35). In both sanctuaries they are figures of religious symbolism; they act as bearers of Deity, and are consequently emblematic of Jehovah’s immediate presence. Hence we have the phrase ‘Thou that sittest on the cherubim’ (Ps 80:1 et al.). In Ezekiel’s Inaugural vision (ch. 1) the four composite figures of the living creatures are in a later passage termed cherubim (10:2). They support the firmament on which the throne of Jehovah rests, and in this connexion we again have them as bearers of Deity. In the Paradise story, the cherubim perform another function; they appear as guardians of the tree of life (Gn 3:24 J). A different version of this story is alluded to by Ezekiel (28:14 , 16); according to this prophet, a cherub expels the prince of Tyre from Eden, the garden of God. In both these passages they perform the function of guardians of sacred things, and in view of this it is probable that, in the Temple and Tabernacle, they were looked upon as guardians of the contents of the ark as well as emblems of the Divine presence.
3. As to the figure of the cherubim in the sanctuaries we have no clue, and Josephus is probably correct when he says that no one knows or can guess their form. The prophet Ezekiel and the results of Babylonian excavations assist us in solving the enigma. The prophet’s living creatures were composite figures, each having the face of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. We are not to suppose that these forms corresponded exactly to anything that the prophet had seen, but he worked out these figures in his gorgeous imagination, combining elements Hebrew and Babylonian. The native element is to some extent an unsolved riddle, but of the contribution made by Babylonian art there can be no reasonable doubt. The huge composite figures with human head, eagle’s wings, and bull’s body, which were placed as guardians at the doors of temples and palaces in Babylonia, supplied the prophet with the material for his vision. The writer of the story of the Garden of Eden had some such figures in mind. Basing his conjecture on Ezekiel’s vision, Schultz (OT Theol. ii. p. 236) imagines that the cherubim of the sanctuary were composite figures with feet of oxen, wings of eagles, manes of lions, and human bodies and faces, standing upright and spreading their wings over the ark. This view is somewhat problematic. Cheyne and Dillmann prefer to associate them with the griffin, which so often appears in mythology as a guardian of sacred treasures. The former asserts that the Hebrew cherubim were of Hittite origin. It is not correct to suppose that they were directly borrowed either from the Babylonians or the Hittites, but the Hebrew imagination combined foreign and native elements as they were suited to its purpose. The derivation of the Heb. word from the Bab. kurubu, a designation of the steer-god, is, although advocated by Delitzsch, exceedingly uncertain and is denied by Zimmern. We are now in a position to judge the three theories as to the nature of the cherubim,—that they were (1) real, (2) symbolical, and (3) mythical. That they were higher angelic beings with actual existence is now generally discarded. They were in reality creations of the imagination, the form being borrowed from mythological sources and afterwards invested with a symbolic meaning.
4. In Jewish theology the cherubim are one of the three highest classes of angels, the other two being the seraphim and ophanim, which guard the throne of the Most High. They appear as youthful angels in Rabbinical literature. Philo allegorizes them as representing two supreme attributes of God—His goodness and authority; he also mentions other views (for Jewish ideas, cf. JE s.v.). The living creatures of the Apocalyptic vision are borrowed from Ezekiel’s imagery. Starting with this passage (Rev 4:6ff.), and borrowing elements from Jewish theology, some Christian theologians have incorrectly maintained that the cherubim of Scripture were supramundane spiritual essences.
James A. Kelso.
CHESALON.—Near Kiriath-jearim on the border of Judah (Jos 15:10). Now the village Kesla on the hill N. of Kiriath-jearim.
CHESED.—One of the sons of Nahor and Milcah (Gn 22:22 J). He is obviously here introduced into the genealogy of the Terahites as the presumptive forefather of the Kasdim or Chaldæans. This probably represents a different tradition from that in P, where Ur of the Chaldees (i.e. Kasdim) is spoken of as the dwelling place of Terah (Gn 11), Nahor’s father.
CHESIL (Jos 15:30).—The LXX reads Bethel, probably for Bethul, as in the parallel passage, Jos 19:4, and Chesil of MT is prob. a textual error.
CHESTNUT TREE (‘armōn, Gn 30:37, Ezk 31:8. RV plane).—There is no doubt that the RV is correct. The chestnut tree is only an exotic in Palestine, but the plane (Arab. dilb) is one of the finest trees of the land. It attains great development; a wonderful specimen, which has a small room or shop within its hollow trunk, is to be seen in one of the streets of Damascus. The plane (Planus orientalis) peels its outer layers of bark annually, leaving a white streaky surface. It flourishes specially by watercourses (Sir 24:14).
E. W. G. Masterman.
CHESULLOTH (Jos 19:18).—The same as Chisloth-tabor, Jos 19:12. A place on the border of Zebulun. Now the ruin Iksâl at the foot of the Nazareth hills, in the fertile plain W. of Tabor.
CHETH.—Eighth letter of Heb. alphabet, and as such used in the 119th Psalm to designate the 8th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.
CHEZIB (Gn 38:5).—See Achzib, No. 2.
CHIDON.—The name, acc. to 1 Ch 13:9, of the threshing-floor where Uzzah was struck dead for rashly touching the ark (see Uzzah). In 2 S 6:6 the name is given as Nacon. No locality has ever been identified with either name.
CHIEF OF ASIA.—Ac 19:31; RV ‘chief officers of Asia’; RVm ‘Asiarchs.’ See Asiarch.
CHILD, CHILDREN
1. Value set on the possession of children.—Throughout the Bible a noteworthy characteristic is the importance and happiness assigned to the possession of children, and, correspondingly, the intense sorrow and
disappointment of childless parents. Children were regarded as Divine gifts ( Gn 4:1, 33:5), pledges of God’s favour, the heritage of the Lord (Ps 127:3). It followed naturally that barrenness was looked upon as a reproach, i.e. a punishment inflicted by God, and involving, for the woman, disgrace in the eyes of the world.
Thus, Sarah was despised by her more fortunate handmaid Hagar (Gn 16:4) ;
Rachel, in envy of Leah, cried, ‘Give me children or else I die’ (Gn 30:1) ; Hannah’s rival taunted her to make her fret, because the Lord had shut up her womb (1 S 1:6); Elisabeth rejoiced when the Lord took away her ‘reproach among men’ (Lk 1:25). ‘He maketh the barren woman to keep house and to be a joyful mother of children’ (Ps 113:9), cries the Psalmist as the climax of his praise. The reward of a man who fears the Lord shall be a wife like a fruitful vine, and children like olive branches round about his table (Ps 128:3). Our Lord refers to the joy of a woman at the birth of a man into the world (Jn 16:21). Not only is natural parental affection set forth in these and similar passages, but also a strong sense of the worldly advantages which accompanied the condition of parentage. A man who was a father, especially a father of sons, was a rich man; his position was dignified and influential; his possessions were secured to his family, and his name perpetuated. ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ was a blessing desired by every married couple—for the sake of the latter part of the blessing, the necessary accompaniment of fruitfulness—‘replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion’; for fatherhood involved expansion of property and increase in importance and wealth.
2. The filial relationship.—The position of children was one of complete subordination to their parents. Gn 22, Jg 11:39, and the sacrifices to Molech of children by their parents (Lv 18:21, 20:2–5, 2 K 23:10, Jer 32:35) indicate that the father had powers of life and death over his children; these powers are limited in Dt 21:18–21. Reverence and obedience on the part of children towards their parents were strongly enjoined (Ex 20:12, Lv 19:3, Dt 27:16, Pr 1:8 etc.). Any one smiting or cursing his father or mother is to be put to death (Ex 21:15, 17). Any one who is disrespectful to his parents is accursed (Dt 17:16). Irreverence on the part of children towards an older person is visited by a signal instance of Divine judgment (2 K 2:23, 24). Several passages in the Book of Proverbs urge care, even to severity, in the upbringing of children (Pr 3:12, 13:24, 15:5, 22:6, 29:15 etc.). The outcome of this dependence of children upon their parents, and of their subordination to them, was an intensely strong sense of the closeness of the filial bond, and a horror of any violation of it. A son who could bring himself to defy his father and break away from his home life was indeed no longer worthy to be called a son (Lk 15:19). The disobedience of Israel is bewailed in penitence by the prophet because it appears to him like the most heinous crime, the rebellion of children against a loving father: ‘Surely they are my people, children that will not err.… In his love and in his pity he redeemed them, … and he bare them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled’ (Is 63:8–10). In this connexion some of the sentences in our Lord’s charge to the Twelve must have fallen upon startled ears (Mt 10:21, 35–38). Children were expected to follow in the footsteps of their parents and to resemble them. Hence such expressions as ‘Abraham’s children,’ which carried the notion of resemblance in character. Hence also the figurative use of the word ‘children’: ‘children of transgression’ ‘children of disobedience.’ Phrases like these are closely connected with others in which the words ‘children’ or ‘sons’ are used in a spiritual sense conveying the ideas of love and trust and obedience. St. Peter speaks of ‘Mark, my son.’ In touching anxiety for their spiritual welfare, St. Paul, writing to the Galatians, addresses them: ‘My little children’; and St. John, in his Epistles, is fond of the same expression.
3. The feeling for childhood.—Tenderness towards child life, appreciation of the simplicity, the helplessness, of children, affection of parents for their children, and children for their parents: all these are features of the Bible which the most superficial reader cannot fail to observe. There are many touching and vivid examples of and references to parental love. All the sons and daughters of Jacob rose up to comfort him for the loss of Joseph, but he refused to be comforted ( Gn 37:35). ‘If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved’ (43:14), is his despairing cry when Benjamin also is taken from him—Benjamin, ‘a child of his old age, a little one … and his father loveth him’ (44:20). Hannah dedicated her little son to the service of the Lord in gratitude for his birth; and then year by year ‘made a little robe and brought it to him’ (1 S 2:19). David fasted and lay all night upon the ground praying for the life of his sick child (2 S 12:16). The brief account of the death of the Shunammite’s boy is a passage of restrained and pathetic beauty (2 K 4:18ff.). Isaiah’s feeling for the weakness and helplessness of children is displayed in the mention of the words first articulated by his own son (Is 8:4); and in his description of the time when the earth should be full of the knowledge of the Lord, and little children, still dependent for life and protection upon their mother’s care, should, without fear of harm on her part, be allowed to play among wild beasts and handle the asp and the adder (11:6–9). Zechariah dreams of the happy time when Jerusalem shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets (Zec 8:5). The beauty of a child’s humble simplicity is acknowledged by the Psalmist, who likens his own soul to a weaned child with its mother (Ps 131:2); unconsciously anticipating the spirit of One, greater than he, who said that only those who became as little children should in any wise enter the Kingdom of heaven (Mt 18:3), and who gave thanks to His Father for revealing the things of God to ‘babes’ (Mt 11:25).
E. G. Romanes.
CHILDREN (SONS) OF GOD.—There are a few passages in the OT in which the term ‘sons of God’ is applied to angelic beings (Gn 6:1–4, Job 1:6, 2:1 , 38:7; cf. Dn 3:25 RV). Once the judges of Israel are referred to as ‘gods,’ perhaps as appointed by God and vested with His authority (but the passage is very obscure; may the words be ironical?), and, in parallel phrase, as ‘sons of the Most High’ (Ps 82:6, cf. Jn 10:34; also, Ps 29:1, 89:6 RVm).
With these exceptions, the term, with the correlative one of ‘Father,’ designates the relation of men to God and of God to men, with varying fulness of meaning. It is obvious that the use of such a figure has wide possibilities. To call God ‘Father’ may imply little more than that He is creator and ruler of men (cf. ‘Zeus, father of gods and men’); or it may connote some phase of His providence towards a favoured individual or nation; or, again, it may assert that a father’s love at its highest is the truest symbol we can frame of God’s essential nature and God’s disposition towards all men. Similarly, men may conceivably be styled ‘children of God’ from mere dependence, from special privilege, from moral likeness, or finally from a full and willing response to the Divine Fatherhood in filial love, trust, and obedience. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Scripture facts present a varying and progressive conception of God as Father and of men as His children.
I. In the OT.—The most characteristic use of the figure is in connexion with God’s providential dealings with His people Israel. That favoured nation as a whole is His ‘son,’ He their ‘Father’: it is because this tie is violated by Israel’s ingratitude and apostasy that the prophets rebuke and appeal, while here, too, lies the hope of final restoration. Thus Hosea declares that God loved Israel and called His ‘son’ out of Egypt (Hos 11:1, cf. Ex 4:22 ‘Israel is my son, my firstborn’); and, in spite of the Divine rejection of the Northern Kingdom (Hos 1:9 Lo-ammi, ‘not my people’), prophesies that it shall still be said to them ‘ye are the sons of the living God’ (1:10). So too Isaiah: ‘I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me … Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider’ (1:2, 3). In Deuteronomy the same figure is used (1:31; 8:5, 14:1, 2), and in the Song of Moses (Dt 32) receives striking development. God is the ‘Father’ of Israel, whom He begat by delivering them from Egypt, nourished in the wilderness and established (vv. 6, 10–15, 18); the people are His ‘sons and daughters,’ His ‘children’ (vv. 19, 20). Yet they are warned that this sonship has moral implications, and may be forfeited by neglect of them (v. 5 ‘they have dealt corruptly with him, they are not his children’); and the hint is given of the bringing in of the Gentiles through a sonship based, not on national privilege but on faith and obedience (v. 21, cf. Ro 10:12, 13, 19).
Thus the relation is not merely formal but ethical, and on both sides. The Divine Fatherhood towards Israel is manifested in protecting and redeeming love: it involves the Divine faithfulness, to which His people may make appeal in their extremity (Jer 31:9, 18–20, Is 43:6, 63:16, 64:8–12). The fact of Israel’s sonship carries with it the obligation of filial response: ‘a son honoureth his father … if then I be a Father, where is mine honour?’ (Mal 1:6). But such response is, of necessity, not only national, but also, and first, individual; and the way is opened for a conception of God as Father of every man (cf. Mal 2:10), and of all men as, at least potentially, ‘children of God.’
The Psalms have been left for separate reference. For if the religion of Israel had really attained to any clear conception of God as Father and of men as His children, it would most naturally find utterance in these compositions, in which we have at once the devoutest expression of the personal religious consciousness and the chosen vehicle of the worship of the congregation. But the dominating conception is of God as King and of man as His servant. True, the Divine care for man and the Divine help are set forth under a wealth of imagery: God is shield, rock, fortress, refuge, shepherd, light, salvation, but not Father. Twice only is the name used of Him, not as appellative but in simile, to describe His tender mercies. He is ‘a Father of the fatherless’ (Ps 68:5); ‘Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him’ (103:13, cf. Is 66:13). Once the term ‘thy children’ is applied to ‘Israel, even the pure in heart’ (Ps 73:15, 1); and in several passages the term ‘son of God’ is used of the theocratic king, as representing ideal Israel (Ps 2:7; see also Ps 89:26, 27, 2 S 7:14, He 1:5).
It cannot, then, be said that in the OT we have a doctrine of men as ‘children of
God,’ springing from, and developed under, a conception of God as essentially Father. Nor is it clear that later Judaism made advance towards this closer and more individual conviction of sonship.
Bousset affirms that ‘the belief comes to light, more and more frequently the nearer we approach to Jesus’ own time, that God is the Father of each individual believer’ (Jesus, p. 113, Eng. ed.). But against this may be set the judgment of Wendt: ‘In the later Judaism, down to the time of Jesus, there was by no means a development of the conception of God … inclining to a more prevalent use of the name of Father. The development proceeded rather in the way of enhancing to the utmost the idea of God’s transcendent greatness and judicial authority over men. According to the Pharisaic view, the moral relation of man to God was one of legal subjection’ (Teaching of Jesus, i. 190).
The relevant passages in the Apocrypha, at least, leave the gulf unbridged between OT and NT (To 13:4, Wis 5:5, 14:3, Sir 23:1, 4, 36:12, 51:10, Ad. Est 16:16), and nowhere does our Lord’s teaching appear in sharper contrast to current religious ideas than in relation to the Divine Fatherhood (e.g. Jn 8:39–42).
II. In the NT.—The outstanding fact is that in the self-revelation of Jesus Christ, as well as in His teaching, the characteristic name for God is ‘Father.’ He enters into full inheritance of the OT conception of the Divine power and transcendence, proclaims a Kingdom of God, and develops its meaning for His disciples; but the King is also Father, and the stress of Christ’s teaching on this side is not on the Kingship but on the Fatherhood of God. In what unique sense He knew God as ‘His own Father,’ Himself as ‘Son of God,’ we do not here inquire (see Jesus Christ), noting only how simply, in the deepest experiences of joy or trouble, His faith uttered itself in the name ‘Father’ (Mt 11:25, 26:39, Lk 23:46). But there was that in His religious consciousness which He could freely share with His disciples as ‘children of God’: the faint and halting analogy of the OT became through Him a clear and steadfast revelation of the Divine Fatherhood, and of sonship, in its fullest sense, as the possible and indeed normal relation of human to Divine.
1. The Synoptic Gospels.—The essential and universal Fatherhood of God appears in such sayings as that of Mt 5:43–48, and, supremely, in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Even when, as generally, it is in discourse to the disciples that the term ‘your Father’ is used, it still connotes what is in God, awaiting in man that obedient recognition which is sonship. It is the appeal of Christ to His disciples against hypocrisy, unforgivingness, lack of faith (Mt 6:1, 15, 26); it stands as symbol of the Divine providence, forgiveness, redemption—in a word, of the Divine love (Lk 6:36, 11:13, Mk 11:25), and hence it gives the ground and manner of all access to God,—‘Whensoever ye pray, say, Father’ (Lk 11:2).
If with Jesus the Fatherhood of God lies in His disposition towards men, not in the mere fact that He created them, so the filial relationship is ethical. God is Father, men must become children. In the Synoptic Gospels the term implying generation—‘child (children) of God’—is not used, and the references to ‘sons of God’ are few, though sufficient to emphasize the moral conditions of sonship. Thus, the peacemakers ‘shall be called sons of God’ (Mt 5:9): love to one’s enemies has for its motive ‘that ye may become sons of your Father which is in heaven’ (Mt 5:45, cf. Lk 6:35). But since sonship is virtually identical with membership of the Kingdom of God, these direct references must be supplemented by the many sayings in which the conditions of entrance into the Kingdom are laid down: it is the righteous (and what the term means is set forth in the Sermon on the Mount) who ‘shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father’ ( Mt 13:43).
2. The Gospel (and 1 Ep.) of St. John.—In the Fourth Gospel ( considered here rather than in its chronological sequence, for the sake of comparison with the Synoptics) certain elements in our Lord’s revelation of the Father receive new emphasis.
(a) The unique Sonship of Jesus is the prevailing theme (Jn 1:14, 18, 20:31). Hence the Synoptic phrase ‘your Father’ all but disappears. What it implies is not absent, but is to be reached through a rich unfolding of, and fellowship with, the personal religious consciousness of Jesus Himself, under the terms ‘my Father’ and, especially, ‘the Father.’ Only once does He speak to the disciples of ‘your Father,’ when, after His resurrection, He links them with Himself as’ brethren’ in the message, ‘I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God’ (Jn 20:17, cf. 14:20).
(b) The sonship of the disciples is to be attained through Jesus Christ: ‘No one cometh unto the Father but through me’ (Jn 14:6). What is exceptional in the
Synoptics (Mt 11:25, Lk 10:22) becomes the normal teaching of the Fourth
Gospel: to see, know, believe, love, confess the Son, is the one way of access to the Father (Jn 14–17, 1 Jn 2:23). Moreover, the impulse of attraction to Christ is itself from the Father (Jn 6:44, 65), and the Divine initiative, as well as the completeness of the break required with ‘the world’ and ‘the flesh’ (1 Jn 2:16, Jn 3:6), is described as being ‘born anew,’ ‘born of the Spirit,’ ‘born of God’ (Jn 3:3–8, 1:13 , 1 Jn 3:9). In 1 Jn. the moral fruits of this new birth are set forth—righteousness, incapability to sin, love, faith in the Son of God, victory over the world (1 Jn 2:29 , 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 4).
These are the elements which combine in the conception of sonship in the Johannine writings: the actual phrase ‘children (not ‘sons’) of God’ occurs Jn 1:12 , 11:52, 1 Jn 3:1, 2, 10, 5:2.
3. The Epistles of St. Paul.—St. Paul speaks both of ‘children of God’ and of ‘sons of God.’ His doctrine comprises the mystical and the ethical elements already noted, while it is enriched and developed by additional features. In his speech at Athens (Ac 17:28) he for a moment adopts the Greek point of view, and regards all men as the ‘offspring’ of God. Apart from this, he—like the Fourth Gospel, but in his own way—connects sonship with faith in Christ: it is part of his doctrine of redemption, a status and privilege conferred by God upon men through faith in Christ, attested by the indwelling Spirit and His fruits. ‘Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus’ (Gal 3:26); ‘The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God’ (Ro 8:16); ‘As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God’ (Ro 8:14). It is as ‘children of God’ that his converts have a moral mission to the world (Ph 2:15).
The idea of sonship as a Divinely conferred status is expressed by St. Paul under the Roman custom of ‘Adoption’ (wh. see), by which a stranger could be legally adopted as ‘son’ and endowed with all the privileges of the ‘child’ by birth (Eph 1:5–14, cf. Ro 8:29). The figure suggests fresh points of analogy. To the Romans, St. Paul makes moral appeal on the ground that in exchange for the ‘spirit of bondage’ they had received the ‘spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father’ (Ro 8:15). In the passage Gal 3:23–4:7 be likens the state of the faithful under the Law to that of ‘young children’ needing a ‘tutor’; ‘heirs,’ yet, because under guardians, differing nothing from ‘bondservants.’ The Law as ‘tutor’ has led them to Christ, in whom they are now ‘sons of God’; Christ has ‘redeemed’ them from the bondage of Law that they might ‘receive the adoption of sons,’ and, because they are sons, ‘God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ The spiritual sonship, open to all believers, should be no stumblingblock to Israel, though to them specially belonged ‘the adoption’ (Ro 9:4). It fulfils the typical distinction within Israel itself of ‘children of the flesh’ and ‘children of the promise’: by Divine election alone men become ‘children of God,’ ‘sons of the living God’ (Gal 4:28, Ro 9:8, 26).
St. Paul further conceives of sonship as looking forward for its full realization.
We are ‘waiting for our adoption, to wit the redemption of our body’ (Ro 8:23). As Christ was Son of God, yet was by His resurrection ‘declared to be the Son of God with power’ (Ro 1:4), so will deliverance from the ‘bondage of corruption’ reveal the ‘sons of God,’ and all creation shall share in ‘the liberty of the glory of the children of God’ (Ro 8:18–25). This ultimate realization of sonship is ‘to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (Ro 8:29, cf. 1 Jn 3:2). Finally, the greatness and the certainty of the future glory are set forth under the thought of the son as ‘heir’ (Ro 8:17, Gal 4:1–7 ; cf. Eph 1:14–18).
4. Other NT writers.—The opening chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasize the greatness and finality of a revelation through the Son, who in stooping to redeem men is not ashamed to call them ‘brethren’; they are ‘children’ whose nature He shares, ‘sons’ who through Him are brought to glory (He 2:9–18). And at the close of the Epistle the readers are exhorted to regard suffering as the Divine chastening, which marks them out as ‘sons’ and comes from ‘the Father of spirits’ (12:4–13).
If the Ep. of St. James suggests a universal view of the Fatherhood of God in the phrases ‘the God and Father,’ ‘the Lord and Father,’ ‘the Father of lights’ ( Ja 1:27, 3:9, 1:17), it also endorses the deeper spiritual sonship under the figure, ‘Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth’ (1:18). The same metaphor of spiritual birth is used by St. Peter. In 1 P 1:23 this birth, as in James, is through the ‘word’ of God; in 1:3 it is attributed to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and is joined with the Pauline thought of an inheritance yet to be fully revealed. The name ‘Father’ appears as the distinctively Christian name for God—‘if ye call on him as Father’ (1:17). But the idea of sonship is not developed: the thought does not occur in the enumeration of Christian privileges in 2:1–10, where the phrase ‘sons of the living God’ is absent from the reference to Hosea, though found in the corresponding reference by St. Paul (cf. 1 P 2:10 with Ro 9:25, 26).
Finally, in Revelation we meet with this figure of sonship, with emphasis on its ethical side, in the vision of the new heaven and the new earth: ‘He that overcometh shall inherit these things: and I will be his God, and he shall be my son’ (Rev 21:7, cf. v. 8).
S. W. Green.
CHILDREN, SONG OF THE THREE.—See Apocrypha, p. 42b.
CHILEAB.—The second son of David by Abigail, the widow of Nabal the Carmelite (2 S 3:3). In 1 Ch 3:1 he is called Daniel.
CHILIARCH (Rev 19:18 RVm).—See Band.
CHILIASM.—A peculiar doctrine of the future, based upon a developed and literalized exposition of the eschatological pictures of the NT. It includes the doctrine of the Millennium (whence its name fr. Gr. chilioi), that is to say, the period of 1000 years between the resurrection of the saints and that of the rest of the dead, of the visible appearance of Christ to establish His Kingdom of risen saints and defeat an equally literal Antichrist, and of the Last Judgment.
The germ of developed Chiliasm is to be found in the teaching of the Apostles, and particularly in Rev. 20; but it seems to have had no great prominence in doctrinal development until the middle of the 2nd cent., when it spread from Asia Minor, particularly among the Jewish Ebionites. Justin Martyr believed in the earthly reign of Christ, but knew that some orthodox Christians did not. Papias describes the coming Kingdom with the extravagant imagery of the Jewish Apocalyptic. The Montanists were extreme cbiliasts, but Origen opposed the doctrine. Augustine may be said to have given the death-blow to the chiliastic expectation in the early Church by his identification of the Church with the Kingdom of God on earth; and throughout the Middle Ages his view obtained.
A revival of chiliastic conceptions came with the Reformation, when attention was again concentrated on NT teaching. The fanatics among the reforming sects, particularly the Anabaptists at Münster, expected the speedy establishment of Christ on earth, apparently taking some steps towards preparation therefor. The
Augsburg and Helvetic Confessions, however, condemn Chiliasm, and the leading Reformers, while they expected the speedy coming of Christ, did not attempt to literalize descriptions of this event. Throughout the 17th cent. the chiliastic views again appear—a fact doubtless due, as in the time of the early Church and of the Reformation, to persecution. The view, however, was never regarded as strictly orthodox, although advocated by prominent writers on both the Continent and in England.
In modern times Chiliasm has been championed by a number of prominent theologians, but particularly by sects like the Mormons, the Second Adventists, and, as pre-millenarians, by many professional evangelists. There is, however, no uniformity in these chiliastic views, except as to the belief in the coming of the Millennium (see Millennium), in which all share. The opinions as to the nature of the Kingdom also range from extremely sensuous views like those of certain of the early Church Fathers to the highly socialistic views of men like Oetinger. At the present time, outside of the circle of the pre-millenarians, chiliastic views have little influence, and the tendency is strong to substitute belief in social evolution, under the inspiration of Christianity, for the cataclysmic establishment of a literal kingdom by Jesus at His second Advent.
Shailer Mathews.
CHILION and Mahlon were the two sons of Elimelech and Naomi (Ru 1:1, 2). They married women of the Moabites—Mahlon marrying Ruth, and Chilion Orpah (Ru 4:10)—and after a sojourn of ten years in Moabite territory died there. Chilion means ‘wasting away.’ Mahlon means ‘sickly.’ Neither of these names occurs elsewhere in the Bible. The two names occur in varying order in Ru 1:2 and 4:9, so that no conclusion can be drawn as to which was the elder.
CHILMAD occurs in Ezk 27:23 at the close of the list of nations that traded with Tyre. The name has been thought to be the Aram. form of Charmande, a town on the Euphrates mentioned by Xenophon (Anab. i. 5. 10). George Smith identified Chilmad with the modern Kalwādha near Baghdad—but neither of these conjectures has much probability.
CHIMHAM.—Probably the son (cf. 1 K 2:7) of Barzillai the Gileadite, who returned with David from beyond Jordan to Jerusalem after the death of Absalom (2 S 19:31f.). See, further, Geruth-chimham.
CHIMNEY.—See House, § 7.
CHINNERETH.—A city (Dt 3:17, Jos 11:2 [in latter spelt Chinneroth] 19:35) which gave its name to the Sea of Chinnereth (Nu 34:11, Jos 12:3, 13:27) , the OT designation of the Sea of Galilee. The site of the town is uncertain, but it follows Rakkath (probably Tiberias), and may have been in the plain of Gennesaret (cf. 1 K 15:20).
CHIOS.—An island in the Ægean Sea opposite the Ionian peninsula in Asia Minor. In the 5th cent. b.c. the inhabitants were the richest of all the Greeks. The city was distinguished in literature also, and claimed to be the birth-place of Homer. Up to the time of Vespasian it was, under the Roman Empire, a free State. The chief city was also named Chios. St. Paul passed it on his last voyage in the Ægean Sea (Ac 20:15).
A. Souter.
CHISLEV (AV Chisleu, Neh 1:1, Zec 7:1).—See Time.
CHISLON (‘strength’).—Father of Elidad, Benjamin’s representative for dividing the land (Nu 34:21 P).
CHISLOTH-TABOR, Jos 19:12.—See Chesulloth.
CHITHLISH (Jos 15:40, AV Kithlish).—A town in the Shephelah of Judah.
The site is unknown.
CHITTIM (1 Mac 1:1, 8:5) for Kittim (wh. see).
CHIUN.—Am 5:26 (see Rephan, Siccuth). As shown by the appositional phrase ‘your god-star,’ this name refers to the Assyr. Kaiwanu, the planet Saturn (= Ninib, war-god), whose temple, Bit Ninib, in the province of Jerusalem is mentioned by the Egyptian governors of this city as early as b.c. 1450. The translation of the word as an appellative (‘pedestal’) by some is due to the vocalization of the Massoretes, who are supposed to have considered it a common noun. However, it is far more probable that they, conscious of its reference, substituted for the original vowels those of the word shiqqūts (‘abomination’)—an epithet often applied to strange gods.
N. Koenig.
CHLOE (mentioned only in 1 Co 1:11).—St. Paul had been informed of the dissensions at Corinth prob. by some of her Christian slaves. Chloe herself may have been either a Christian or a beathen, and may have lived either at Corinth or at Ephesus. In favour of the latter is St. Paul’s usual tact, which would not suggest the invidious mention of his informants’ names, if they were members of the Corinthian Church.
CHOBA (Jth 4:4; Chobai 15:4, 5, noticed with Damascus).—Perhaps the land of Hobah (wh. see).
CHOIR (Neh 12:8 RVm).—See Praise.
CHOLA.—An unknown locality mentioned in Jth 15:4.
CHOLER is used in Sir 31:20, 37:30 in the sense of a disease, ‘perhaps cholera, diarrhœa’—Oxf. Eng. Dict. (RV ‘colic’); and in Dn 8:7, 11:11 in the sense of bitter anger. Both meanings are old, and belonged indeed to the Lat. cholera as early as the 3rd and 4th centuries.
CHORAZIN.—A place referred to only in the denunciation by Christ ( Mt 11:21, Lk 10:13). It is with probability identified with Kerazeh, north of Tell Hum, where are remains of pillars, walls, etc., of basalt.
R. A. S. Macalister.
CHORBE (AV Corbe), 1 Es 5:12 = Zaccai, Ezr 2:9, Neh 7:14.
CHOSAMÆUS (1 Es 9:32).—It is not improbable that the Gr. reading is due to a copyist’s error, especially seeing that the three proper names that follow Simeon in the text of Ezr 10:31 are omitted in 1 Esdras.
CHRIST.—See Jesus Christ, and Messiah.
CHRISTIAN.—This name, from very early times the distinctive title of the followers of Jesus Christ, occurs only thrice in NT (Ac 11:26, 26:28, 1 P 4:16).
1. Time and place of origin.—Our only information on this point comes from
Ac 11:26. It was in Antioch, and in connexion with the mission of Barnabas and Saul to that city, that the name arose. It has sometimes been suggested that the infrequent use of ‘Christian’ in the NT points to a considerably later origin, and that the author of Acts had no better reason for assigning it to so early a date than the fact that the founding of the first Gentile church appeared to him to be an appropriate occasion for its coming into use. But apart from St. Luke’s wellestablished claim, as the historian of Christ and early Christianity, to have ‘traced the course of all things accurately from the first,’ his own non-employment of the word as a general designation for the disciples of Christ suggests that he had no reason other than a genuine historical one for referring to the origin of the name at all.
2. Authors of the name.—(1) It is exceedingly unlikely that it was originally adopted by the Christians themselves. As the NT shows, they were in the habit of using other designations—‘the disciples’ (Ac 11:26 and passim), ‘the brethren’ Ac 9:30, Ro 16:14 and constantly), ‘the elect’ (Ro 8:33, Col 3:12), ‘the saints’ ( Ac
9:13, Ro 12:13), ‘believers’ (Ac 5:14, 1 Ti 4:12), ‘the Way’ (Ac 9:2, 19:9). But in NT times we never find them calling themselves Christians. In Ac 26:28 it is king Agrippa who employs the name. And though in 1 P 4:16 it comes from the pen of an Apostle, the context shows that he is using it as a term of accusation on the lips of the Church’s enemies.
(2) It cannot have been applied to the followers of Jesus by the Jews. The Jews believed in ‘the Christ,’ i.e. ‘the Anointed One,’ the Messiah; and they ardently looked for Him to come. But it was their passionate contention that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Christ. To call His followers Christians was the last thing they would have thought of doing. They referred to them contemptuously as ‘this sect’ (Ac 28:22, cf. 24:5, 14), and when contempt passed into hatred they called them ‘Nazarenes’ (Ac 24:5, cf. Jn 1:46). It is true that Agrippa, a Jewish king, makes use of the name; but this was nearly 20 years after, and when, in that Roman world with which he lived in close relations, it had become the recognized designation of the new faith.
(3) Almost certainly the name owed its origin to the non-Christian Gentiles of Antioch. As these Antiochenes saw Barnabas and Saul standing day by day in the market-place or at the corners of the streets, and proclaiming that the Christ had come and that Jesus was the Christ, they caught up the word without understanding it, and bestowed the name of ‘Christians’ on these preachers and their followers. Probably it was given, not as a mere nickname, but as a term of convenience. Yet doubtless it carried with it a suggestion of contempt, and so may be compared to such titles as ‘Puritan’ and ‘Methodist’ originally applied by those who stood outside of the spiritual movements which the names were meant to characterize.
3. The spread of the name.—Originating in this casual way, the name took deep root in the soil of human speech, and the three passages of the NT in which it occurs show how widely it had spread within the course of a single generation. In Ac 26:28 we find it on the lips of a Jewish ruler, speaking in Cæsarea before an audience of Roman officials and within 20 years after it was first used in Antioch. A few years later St. Peter writes to ‘the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia’ (1 P 1:1); and, without suggesting that ‘Christian’ was a name which the Church had yet adopted as its own, he assumes that it was perfectly familiar to the ‘elect’ themselves over a vast region of the Dispersion; and further implies that by this time, the time probably of Nero’s persecution (a.d. 64), to be called a Christian was equivalent to being liable to suffer persecution for the sake of Christ (4:16). It was later still that St. Luke wrote the Book of Acts; and when he says that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Ac 11:26), he evidently means that this was a name by which they were now commonly known, though his own usage does not suggest that they had even yet assumed it themselves.
Outside of the NT we find Tacitus and Suetonius testifying that the designation Christian (or ‘Chrestian’) was popularly used in Rome at the time of the Neronian persecution; while from Pliny, early in the 2nd cent., we learn that by his day it was employed in Roman courts of law. ‘Are you a Christian?’ was the question he was himself accustomed to put to persons brought before him on a charge of being followers of Christ. By the time of Polycarp’s martyrdom (soon after the middle of the 2nd cent.), the term of accusation and cross-examination has become one of joyful profession. ‘I am a Christian’ was Polycarp’s repeated answer to those who urged him to recant. It was natural that those who were called ‘to suffer as Christians’ should come to glory in the name that brought the call and the opportunity to confess Christ. And so a name given by the outside world in a casual fashion was adopted by the Church as a title of glory and pride.
4. The meaning attached to the name.—The original meaning was simply ‘a follower of Christ.’ The Antiochenes did not know who this Christ was of whom the preachers spoke; so little did they know that they mistook for a proper name what was really a designation of Jesus. But, taking it to be His personal name, they called Christ’s disciples ‘Christians,’ just as Pompey’s followers had been called ‘Pompeians,’ or the adherents of Herod’s dynasty ‘Herodians.’ No doubt they used the word with a touch of good-humoured contempt—the Christians were the followers of somebody or other called Christ. It is contempt again, but of an intenser kind, that seems to be conveyed by Agrippa’s words to St. Paul, ‘With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian!’ (Ac 26:28). In 1 Peter a darker shadow has fallen upon the name. Nero has made it criminal to be a Christian, and the word is now one not of scorn merely, but of hatred and fear. The
State ranks a Christian with murderers and thieves and other malefactors (cf. 1 P 4:14 with v. 15). On its adoption by the Church, deeper meanings began to be read into it. It testified to the dignity of the Church’s Lord—‘the Anointed One,’ the rightful King of that Kingdom which hath no end. It proclaimed the privileges that belonged to Christians themselves; for they too were anointed with the oil of God to be a holy generation, a royal priesthood. Moreover, in Greek the word christos (‘anointed’) suggested the more familiar word chrestos (‘gracious’). The Christians were often misnamed ‘Chrestians’ from an idea that the founder of their religion was ‘one Chrestos.’ And this heathen blunder conveyed a happy and beautiful suggestion. It is possible that St. Peter himself is playing on the word ‘Christ’ when he writes (1 P 2:3), ‘If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious (chrestos).’ And by and by we find Tertullian reminding the enemies of the Church that the very name ‘Chrestians,’ which they gave to Christ’s people in error, is one that speaks of sweetness and benignity.
5. The historical significance of the name.—(1) It marked the distinct emergence of Christianity from Judaism, and the recognition of its right to a separate place among the religions of the world. Hitherto, to outsiders, Christianity had been only a Jewish sect (cf. the words of Gallio, Ac 18:14, 15), nor had the first Apostles themselves dreamt of breaking away from synagogue and Temple. But the Antiochenes saw that Christ’s disciples must be distinguished from the Jews and put into a category of their own. They understood, however dimly, that a new religion had sprung up on the earth, and by giving its followers this new name, they helped to quicken in the mind of the Church itself the consciousness of a separate existence. (2) It marked the fact, not heretofore realized, that Christianity was a religion for the Gentiles. Probably it was because the missionaries to Antioch not only preached Christ, but preached Him ‘unto the Greeks also’ ( Ac 11:20), that the inhabitants discerned in these men the heralds of a new faith. It was not the way of Jewish Rabbis to proffer Judaism to Greeks in the market-place. Christianity appeared in Antioch as a universal religion, making no distinction between Jew and Gentile. (3) It is not without significance that it was ‘first in Antioch’ that the Christians received this name. It shows how the Church’s centre of gravity was shifting. Up to this time Christians as well as Jews looked to Jerusalem in everything as the mother of them all. But Jerusalem was not fitted to be the chief city of a universal faith. Paul saw this clearly—helped to it without doubt by his experiences at this very time. And so Antioch became the headquarters of his missionary labours, and through him the headquarters of aggressive Christianity in the early Apostolic age (13:1ff., 14:26f., 15:1ff., 22 f., 35ff., 18:22ff.). It served as a stepping-stone for that movement, inevitable from the day when Christianity was first preached unto the Gentiles, which by and by made Rome, the metropolis of the world, the mother-city also of the universal Church. (4) The name marked the fact that Christianity was not the religion of a book or a dogma, an idea or an institution, but a faith that centred in a Person. The men of Antioch were mistaken when they supposed that Christ was a personal name, but they made no mistake in thinking that He whose name they took to be Christos was the foundation-stone of this new faith. By calling the disciples
Christians they became unconscious prophets of the truth that Christianity, whether regarded from the side of historical revelation or of personal experience, is all summed up in the Person of Jesus Christ.
J. C. Lambert.
CHRISTIANITY.—When the name ‘Christian’ (see preceding art.) had come to be the specific designation of a follower of Jesus Christ, it was inevitable that the word ‘Christianity’ should sooner or later be used to denote the faith which Christians profess. The word does not occur in the NT, however, and first makes its appearance in the letters of Ignatius early in the 2nd century. But for 1800 years it has been the regular term for the religion which claims Jesus Christ as its founder, and recognizes in His Person and work the sum and substance of its beliefs.
Christianity presents itself to us under two aspects—objective and subjective, past and present, world-historical and personal. It is a great fact of universal history, but also a truth of personal experience. It is a revelation given from above, but also an appropriation effected from within. We must think of it therefore (1) as it was historically revealed to the world; (2) as it is realized in the life of the individual.
I. Christianity as a Historical Revelation.—In dealing with this part of the subject two opposite mistakes must be avoided. (1) First the mistake of those who confound history with dogma, principles with institutions, and read back into Christianity as a Divine revelation the later creeds and rites and orders of the Church. It was inevitable that the Christian religion in the course of its history should clothe itself in outward forms, but it is not to be identified with the forms it has assumed. In dealing with the subject, we are limited, of course, by the plan of this work, to the Biblical material. But apart from that, the view taken in the present article is that, in seeking to discover Christianity in its essential nature, we must accept the NT as our authority and norm, inasmuch as there alone we find the historical record of the life and self-witness of Jesus Christ, and also the writings of that Apostolic group which moved in the immediate light of His manifestation as that was given not only in His life on earth, but in His death and resurrection and their extraordinary spiritual results.
(2) On the other hand, we must avoid the error of those who, when they insist on going ‘back to Christ,’ and demand the substitution of the Christ of history for the Christ of dogma, assume that nothing that is supernatural can he historical, and that the Christ whom we find in the NT—the Christ of the Incarnation and the Resurrection and the Atonement, the Christ who wrought miracles and claimed to be the Son of God, and was so accepted by those who had known Him in the flesh and subsequently knew Him in the Spirit—is not the Jesus of history at all. To this it can only be said here that the reality of alleged supernatural facts, like the reality of any other alleged facts, depends upon the evidence, and is not to be ruled out by any presuppositions. Further, that while from the nature of the case there is a difference between the teaching of Jesus during His earthly ministry and the teaching of the Apostles regarding the risen Christ, the evidence of our Lord’s own consciousness and history, even as we find it in the Synoptic Gospels, points to the correctness of the Apostolic conclusions about Him. We therefore hold that whatever Christianity is, it is not what certain modern writers describe as ‘the religion of Jesus,’ but something very different; and that as it is not to be confounded with churchly dogmas and institutions, it is just as little to be identified with an ethical theism based on the beauty of Christ’s character and the pure precepts of His Sermon on the Mount. The men who were first called Christians (Ac 11:26) had never seen Jesus or listened to His teaching, and the gospel that laid its grasp upon them and won for them this distinctive name was neither a hare repetition of the Master’s teaching nor a mere exhibition of His perfect life. On the contrary, it was such a gospel as meets us in the Epistles of St. Paul and the sermons reported in Acts—the gospel of One who not only lived a spotless life and spake as never man spake, but died for our sins and was raised again for our justification, and was thereby declared to be the Son of God with power. It is in accordance, therefore, with the original application of the name ‘Christian’ that in seeking for the meaning of the word ‘Christianity’ we should make full use of the Apostolic testimony regarding Christ.
1. As a religion appearing in history, Christianity had its historical relations and its historical roots. (a) It was related to all the old ethnic faiths, and to every religious experience of vision and longing, of striving and despair, that the soul of man had ever known. The modern study of Comparative Religion is enabling us to realize this as it has never been realized before; but the NT makes the general truth perfectly plain. God speaks to man in the visible world (Ro 1:20), He writes His law on the natural heart (2:15), He never leaves Himself without witness ( Ac 14:17). And on their part men grope through the darkness after God (Ac 17:27) , being dimly conscious of the truth that they are also His offspring (v. 28). And so when Christ comes, He comes not only as the Light of the world (Jn 8:12), but as the true Light which Iighteth every man that cometh into it (1:9)—a statement which implies that even apart from His historical manifestation in Judæa, the heavenly Christ was the Light and Life of all men, and that there is a sense in which a soul may be ‘naturally Christian’ as Tertullian said.
(b) But while Christianity was and is related to all the ethnic faiths, it was deeply rooted in the soil of the OT. In the pagan religions we find many anticipations of Christianity, but in Judaism there is a definite and Divine preparation for it. Law and prophecy, priesthood and sacrifice all contributed directly to this result. St. Paul declares that ‘the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ’ (Gal 3:24). The Evangelists draw attention again and again to the fact, so evident to every discerning reader of Scripture, that the prophets were heralds of the Christ who was to come. The author of Hebrews shows us that the ministries of Tabernacle and Temple were examples and shadows of Christ’s heavenly Priesthood. In the Fourth Gospel we find Jesus Himself affirming that ‘salvation is of the Jews’ (Jn 4:22); and in that very sermon in which He sets forth the manifesto of His own Kingdom, He proclaims that He came to fulfil and not to destroy the Law and the Prophets of Israel (Mt 5:17).
2. But notwithstanding its historical connexions with the past, Christianity was a religion absolutely new. The pagan faiths, so far from explaining its origin, serve rather to reveal the world’s great need of it. St. Paul seized on this truth when he saw in the altar at Athens inscribed ‘To an Unknown God,’ an unconscious appeal to the Christian missionary to declare the God and Father of Jesus Christ ( Ac 17:22ff.). And even Judaism no more accounts for Christianity than the soil accounts for the mighty tree which springs out of it. While carefully relating Himself to Judaism, Jesus no less carefully discriminated between the permanent and the passing in its institutions. He claimed the right not only to give a fresh reading of its ancient laws (Mt 5:21ff., 27ff.), but even to abrogate certain laws altogether (vv. 33ff., 38ff., 43ff.). He set Himself not merely above ‘them of old time’ (Mt 5 passim), but above Moses (19:7ff. ||, 22:24ff. ||, Jn 6:32ff.) and Solomon (Mt 12:42 ||), Abraham (Jn 8:53ff.) and David (Mt 22:41ff. ||). It was this freedom of Jesus in dealing with the old religion that astonished His hearers: ‘He taught them as having authority, and not as their scribes’ (7:28f.). Moreover, His attitude of independence towards Judaism is illustrated by the opposition of the Jewish leaders to Himself. His condemnation and crucifixion is the standing proof that He and His religion did not grow out of Judaism by any process of natural evolution. St. Paul sets the immense difference between the two faiths in the clearest light by his contrast, so fully worked out in Rom. and Gal., between the Law of Moses and the grace of Christ. And very soon in the history of the early Church there came that inevitable crisis which decided that though Judaism had been the cradle of Christianity, it was not to be its nursing-mother (cf. Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, p. 52); that Christianity was not a mere spiritualized Judaism, but a new and universal religion recognizing no distinction between Jew and Greek, circumcision and uncircumcision, and seeing in Christ Himself the ‘all in all.’
3. When, with the NT as our guide, we seek for the essential features of objective Christianity, the following characteristics present themselves:—
(a) It is a revelation of God through the life and in the Person of Jesus Christ. Upon this the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians are practically agreed. ‘God was in Christ’ (2 Co 5:19); and in the human face of Jesus there so shone the brightness of the Eternal Glory (4:6) that he that hath seen Him hath seen the Father (Jn 14:9). In His teaching Jesus revealed God to us as our Father in heaven; in His own tenderness and pity and boundless love for men He showed us what the heavenly Fatherhood really means. And so, as we read the Gospels, the assurance grows that in looking on the face of Jesus Christ we are seeing right into the heart of the invisible God.
There are those, however, who, while fully admitting all this, yet hesitate to recognize in the historical Jesus a personal revelation of the Divine nature in human form. For them Jesus as the Revealer has the worth of God without being Himself God. But this is not the Christ who is presented to us in the NT; and if we fall short of the NT view of Christ, our Christianity will not be the Christianity of the NT. If, on the other hand, we take the Gospels and Epistles as our authorities, we must hold upon their evidence not only that ‘God was in Christ,’ but that He so dwelt in Christ that Christ Himself was God; and that historical Christianity is nothing less than an immediate revelation of the Divine nature through the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ.
(b) Christianity is the religion not only of the revelation of God but of the redemption of man. The paganism that reared altars to an unknown God proved impotent to redeem human life from the dominion of evil (see Ro 1:21ff.), while the visions of the Divine that came to true Israelites only made them more deeply conscious of their sin and need (cf. Is 6:5). The purpose of Jesus is announced in His very name; He came ‘to save his people from their sins’ (Mt 1:21). His own testimony runs: ‘The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost’ (Lk 19:10). St. Paul sets Christ before us as the Divine Reconciler and Redeemer. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Co 5:19, cf. Ro 5:10); He sent forth His Son that we might have redemption through His blood, and might receive the adoption of sons (Gal 4:4, 5, Eph 1:7). And it is the witness of the whole NT that Christ accomplished His work of seeking and saving, of reconciling and redeeming, by taking our sins upon Him, by suffering with men and for them, by dying at last on the cross the Just for the unjust, by rising from the dead and sitting down at God’s right hand to dispense those spiritual gifts and powers whereby we are enabled to overcome the world.
(c) It follows from what has just been said that Christianity is the religion of perfected character. Whatever may be the case with other faiths, Christianity permits of no divorce between religion and morality. It is not from the pains of sin merely that Jesus comes to redeem us, but from sin itself. In keeping with this He sets up an ideal standard of personal attainment—‘Ye shall be perfect,’ He says, ‘as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Mt 5:48). Unlike the religions of the pagan world, Judaism was based upon a moral law of wonderful purity and breadth. But the law which Jesus gave and which His Apostles enforced is broader and loftier beyond comparison—a law for heart and mind as well as for the outward life, forbidding unreasonable anger equally with murder (v. 21ff.), and unholy desire no less than adultery (v. 27f.). Moreover, Christ not only enjoined this heavenly standard of character, but exemplified it personally. It is not a theoretical ideal that He sets before us, but one that has been realized in a human life. The ethics of Jesus are the ethics of His own example; ‘the mind of Christ’ is the Christian’s indwelling law (Ph 2:5).
(d) Christianity is the religion of a regenerated society. It has the promise not of personal perfection only, but of the establishment of a Society pure, blessed, and world-wide. ‘The kingdom’ was the characteristic word of Jesus in proclaiming His message; and so both Mt. and Mk. describe His gospel as ‘the gospel of the kingdom’ (Mt 4:23, 9:35, Mk 1:14). And as the rule of a Divine King is the first implication of the word, the second is the harmonious relation of the subjects of the Kingdom to one another. Love is the rule of the Kingdom (Mt 5:43ff. ||, Jn 13:34 ,
15:12, 17); and love from its very nature is the fulfilling of all social law (Ro 13:8 , 10, Gal 5:14). The Church which Christ established is the organization of this social Kingdom for moral and religious ends (Mt 16:18f., 18:17). And when Christ’s people shall have been joined together in a perfect harmony of brotherly love and mutual co-operation, even as they are severally joined to Him who is their Head (Ro 12:5, 1 Co 12:27, Eph 1:22f., 4:15f., 5:23), there will come the realization of that perfect Society which is variously shadowed forth in the NT under the figures of a Kingdom from which there have been cast forth all things that cause stumbling (Mt 13:41), a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph 5:27), a Holy City, the New Jerusalem, ‘descending out of heaven from God’ (Rev 21:10f.).
II. Christianity as a Personal Experience.—Christianity is not only a revelation in history, but a reality of personal life. Without Christians there would be no Christianity. What is it then that constitutes men Christians, and so translates the historical fact of the revelation of Jesus Christ into the religion which has lived through the centuries and surrounds us to-day?
1. Here faith is the fundamental thing. Just as Christianity, regarded as a historical revelation, may all be summed up in the fact of Christ, so, when it is considered as a personal reality, it may all be included in the faith that lays hold of and appropriates Christ. The whole effort of Jesus during His earthly ministry was directed to this end—to secure faith in Himself. And when His death and resurrection and the experiences of Pentecost had revealed Him to His followers in His fuller glory, faith in Christ crucified and risen became the first demand of the Christian preacher (Ac 2:36ff., 3:15f., 8:37, 11:20f., 13:38f. etc.). So much was this the case, that before the disciples were called ‘Christians’ they were called ‘believers’ (Ac 5:14, 10:45, 16:1, 1 Ti 4:12), while others were distinguished from them as unbelievers (Ac 14:2, 1 Co 6:8 and passim). And as Christ had shown Himself to be not the revealer of the Father only, but the bringer of redemption to sinful men, faith in Him came to mean specifically trust in Him as One who was able to meet the sinner’s greatest need—the need of redemption from sin. So St. Peter called upon the Jews in Jerusalem to repent and be baptized ‘in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins’ (Ac 2:38). So St. Paul in like manner, when the Philippian jailor cried out in the night, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ replied, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved’ (Ac 16:30, 31)—words which contain in brief the essence of the Apostolic testimony as to the way of salvation. And when we would learn from the NT how the Christianity of those who have trusted in Christ is to live and increase and be perfected, we find that it is faith again, still clinging to Christ, that is the vital principle of the life which faith has begun. Through faith Christ dwells in our hearts (Eph 3:17). This is the secret of that abiding in Christ which secures His abiding in us (Jn 15:4), and results in the fruitfulness that makes us worthy to be called His disciples (v. 8).
2. The next principle of the Christian life is obedience. Between faith and obedience there is no opposition any more than between the roots of a tree and its fruits and flowers. And yet, in the one case as in the other, the secret spring of life and its outward manifestations may be distinguished and separately considered. The root of Christianity, as we have seen, is the religious principle of faith; but from that root there grows an ethical practice bringing life into conformity with all Divine laws. The actual conduct of professedly Christian people has always served as the world’s rough test of Christianity. As applied by the world, it is a rude, imperfect test; for the obedience wrought by faith is a product far too fine and subtle to be fully judged by ‘the world’s coarse thumb and finger.’ The law by which a Christian walks is a law that it needs a Christian mind to appreciate. But though often roughly applied, the test of obedience to God is an unfailing gauge of what claims to be Christianity. It was Christ Himself who said, ‘Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven’ (Mt 7:20, 21).
3. The third great principle is love. For Christianity is social as well as ethical and religious. It is a Divine Kingdom whose subjects stand in a definite relation not only to their King but to all their fellows. Now love is the proper attitude of every Christian to all those of whatsoever name for whom Christ died; and love binds men together as they are bound by nothing else. Even worldly kingdoms are beginning to learn, through the gradual infiltration of Christian ideas into the general mind, that neither force nor mutual self-interest is the true bond of society, but the brotherhood of love. How to produce and secure such brotherhood remains the difficulty for the statesmen of the world. But Jesus, who first gave clear utterance to this great social law, also furnished the sufficient motive for giving effect to it within His own Kingdom. His love to them inspires His disciples to love one another (Jn 13:34, 15:12), and also to love all men after the example of the Divine ‘philanthropy’ (Mt 5:43ff. ||; cf. Tit 3:4, Ro 5:8). And so the faith in Christ which in the ethical sphere blossoms into obedience to God, fills the social sphere with the bloom and fragrance of a universal love to man. Thus once more we are brought back to Him who is at once the object of Christian faith and its ‘leader and perfecter’ (He 12:2). And whether we think of Christianity as revealed or realized, as a historical manifestation of the Divine or a present human experience, we may justly say that it is all comprehended in Jesus Christ Himself. J. C. Lambert.
CHRISTOLOGY.—See Person of Christ.
CHRONICLES, I. AND II.
1. Position in Canon.—It is quite clear from linguistic and other considerations that Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. originally formed one book. As the first part of this large work dealt with a period which was already covered by Samuel and Kings, it was omitted, to begin with, in the formation of the Canon; while the latter part of the book, dealing with the ecclesiastical life of Jerusalem after the Exile, was granted a place. Only as the liturgical and ritual interest became more and more strong was it seen that Chron. contained matter of special importance from that point of view. Hence the book was included in the Canon after Ezr. and Neh., which had originally formed its second and concluding portion. In the English Bible, which follows the LXX, the original order has been restored, but Chron. is the last book in the Hebrew canon. Its Hebrew name is Dibhre Hayyāmim, i.e. ‘the Annals.’ The LXX entitled it the Paraleipomena, or ‘things left out,’ a reference to the fact that Chron. contains much not found in the earlier narratives of Samuel and Kings. Our word ‘Chronicles’ is the Anglicized form of Chronicon, the name given to the book by Jerome in translating Dibhre Hayyāmim.
2. Aim.—The key to the understanding and estimation of Chron. lies in a clear grasp of its aim. It is not history, as we understand the term, but history rewritten from a late standpoint, with the intention of carrying back into a remote past the origin of customs which the writer considered to be vital for true faith. He is concerned with the history of Judah, and that history interests him only in so far as it has special reference to the worship and institutions of the second Temple. This determines his choice of matter, and the treatment of such facts as he selects. The Northern Kingdom, politically so much more important than the kingdom of Judah, hardly comes within his range of view, and is referred to only when the narrative absolutely necessitates it.
3. Contents.—With this clue the contents of the book are easily grouped.
(i) 1 Ch 1–9, Adam to the death of Saul. These chapters are filled mainly with genealogical tables, but even in these the ecclesiastical interest is supreme. Judah and Levi have the greatest space given to them (2:3–4:23, 6).
(ii) 1 Ch 10–29, from the death of Saul to the accession of Solomon.
(iii) 2 Ch 1–9, the reign of Solomon.
(iv) 2 Ch 10–36, from the division of the kingdom down to the fall of Jerusalem, and the restoration edict of Cyrus.
The material is most carefully chosen, with the object of bringing out the importance of Judah, the greatness of the line of David, the religious value of Jerusalem, and the position of the Levites. A comparison of the narrative in Chron. with the earlier narratives of Samuel and Kings will do more than anything else to convince the reader of the pragmatism of the Chronicler.
(a) Omissions in Chronicles.—The whole career of Samuel; the reign of Saul, except its close; the struggle David had to establish himself on the throne; the story of Uriah and Bathsheba; the story of Amnon and Tamar; Absalom’s rebellion and David’s flight; the characteristically Oriental intrigues attending Solomon’s accession; his alliances with foreign women and his idolatries in later life; his struggle against disaffection and rebellion; practically the entire history of the Northern Kingdom;—all these sections are omitted, with the view of suppressing what might be held to be discreditable to the religious heroes.
(b) The additions to the narrative show how the Chronicler’s thoughts ran. He gives, as we should have expected, full statistical lists (1 Ch 12); he describes at length matters that have to do with the gradual elevation of the sanctuary at Jerusalem (1 Ch 13, 15, 16); he details the ordering of the Temple ministry and the genealogies of its members (1 Ch 22–29). There is a large class of additions connected with ritual, and especially with musical matters, a fact which has led to the suggestion that the writer was perhaps one of the musicians (2 Ch 5:12, 13, 7:1 , 3, 6, 13:8–12, 17:8, 9, 20:19, 21). He so handles historical events as to make them bear out his particular theory of the working of Providence. To love God is to be blessed; to sin against God is immediately to feel the pressure of His hand; the religious meaning of particular events is pointed out to the wrong-doers by prophets of the Lord (1 Ch 10:13, 14, 2 Ch 12:2, 13:3–21, 15:1–15, 16:7–12 , 20:37, 21:10, 16–19). In 2 Ch 8:11 the removal of the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon had married, from the city of David to the house that he had built for her, is said to have been occasioned by the house of David having become too holy because of the coming of the ark. The compiler of Kings assigns no such reason for the removal to the new house (1 K 3:1, 7:8, 9:24). It was a stumbling-block to the later writer that so bad a king as Manasseh should have enjoyed so long a reign, and so he is described as latterly a penitent, although Kings has no thought of any such change (cf. 2 Ch 33:11–19 with 2 K 21 and Jer 15:4).
(c) Alterations have been made in the narrative with the view of removing what seemed offensive to the later age. Kings distinctly says that Asa and Jehoshaphat did not abolish the high places, although they did what was right in the sight of the Lord (1 K 15:14, 22:43). Such a conjunction of well-doing with idolatry is incredible to the Chronicler, so he says that the high places were abolished by these kings (2 Ch 14:5, 17:5). He finds it necessary to change several narratives in the interests of the Levites, who were not assigned so important a place in matters of ritual under the monarchy as in the days when he was writing (cf. 1 Ch 13, 15 with 2 S 6; 2 Ch 5:4 with 1 K 8:3). According to the original account (2 K 11), Jehoiada was assisted in his rebellion against Athaliah by the foreign bodyguard. In 2 Ch 23 the bodyguard is replaced by the Levites. The rule of the second Temple did not allow aliens to approach so near to the sacred things.
Occasionally there is a misunderstanding of the older narrative. 1 K 22:48 tells how Jehoshaphat built ‘Tarshish-ships,’ i.e. large sea-going vessels such as were used by the Phœnicians for their trade on the Mediterranean, for the South Arabian gold trade. The Chronicler thinks that ‘Tarshish-ships’ means ‘ships to go to Tarshish’ (2 Ch 20:37).
4. Historicity.—It is thus evident that Chron. is not to be considered as history, in the sense in which we now use the word. The events of the time with which the writer deals have been treated in a particular religious interest. Some facts have been stated not simply as they were in themselves, but as they appeared to one whose vision was influenced by his theological viewpoint. Other facts have been suppressed when they interfered with the conveying of the impression that David and Solomon were almost immaculate kings. To a past age were attributed the customs and ceremonial of the days in which the writer lived. The Priests’ Code was supposed to have been recognized and observed by David even before the Temple was built. Again and again an anachronism has been committed that the Levites might have the place of honour in the record. Some special features of this method of writing history are:
(a) Exaggerated numbers.—Every one has felt difficulty with regard to these numbers. Palestine to-day is by no means thinly populated, but the total number of its inhabitants is only about 600,000. At its greatest prosperity the number may have reached 21/2 millions. But we read (2 Ch 13:3, 17) that Abijah with 400,000 men fought against Jeroboam with 800,000, and killed 500,000 of them. Asa (2 Ch 14:8) takes the field against Zerah the Ethiopian, who has 1,000,000 men, with 300,000 men of Judah, and 280,000 of Benjamin, the smallest of the tribes, which had previously been practically wiped out by the slaying of 25,000 men (Jg 20:46). When the numbers can be checked by the parallel passages in the older narrative, the tendency of the Chronicler to exaggerate is manifest. 1 Ch 18:4, 19:18 make David capture 7000 horsemen and slay 7000 chariotmen, while 2 S 8:4, 10:18 give 700 of each. According to 1 Ch 21:25, David pays 600 shekels of gold for Orran’s threshing-floor, while according to 2 S 24:24 he gives only 50 shekels of silver. David gathers together for the building of the Temple, according to 1 Ch 22:14 , 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver; but, according to 1 K 10:14 , the whole revenue in gold of the kingdom, in the much richer days of Solomon, was only 666 talents of gold.
(b) Anachronisms creep in to show that the writer was carrying back to that earlier day the customs and names of his own time. 1 Ch 26:18 states that one of the gates of the Temple—the first Temple—was called Parbar. There is here the double mistake of supposing that the Temple existed in David’s time, and that one of the gates of the first Temple had a Persian name. 1 Ch 29:7 speaks of the coin ‘daric’ or ‘dram’ as being current in the time of David. This coin was Persian, and was current in Palestine only after the Captivity.
(c) The speeches put into the mouths of the personages have not been taken from any ancient document, but bear on every line the characteristics of the very peculiar Hebrew style of the Chronicler.
5. Date.—1 Ch 3:17–24 appears to give six generations of the descendants of Zerubbabel, and would thus bring the book down to about b.c. 350. The precise rendering of the passage is, however, a little uncertain. Evidence as to date is clearer from Neh., which, as we have seen, was originally part of Chronicles. Neh
12:11 speaks of Jaddua, who was, as we know from Josephus, a contemporary of
Alexander the Great (b.c. 333). Neh 12:22 mentions the reign of Darius the Persian, i.e. Darius III., who reigned b.c. 336–332. Chron. must therefore be dated about b.c. 300.
6. Sources.—Chron. contains several additions to the narrative of Samuel and Kings—additions that have not been inserted because of any special ecclesiastical interest (2 Ch 11:8–12, 17, 23, 14:9–15, 20, 25:8–10, 13, 26:8–15, 28:5–15). Does the Chronicler then preserve any fresh and original tradition, or does he merely work up older material? Apart from Samuel and Kings, his main authority was a work cited under a variety of different titles, ‘the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah’ (2 Ch 27:7, 35:27, 36:8), ‘the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel’ (2 Ch
16:11, 25:26, 28:26). This book must have contained genealogical tables (1 Ch 9:1), as well as other particulars not mentioned in any book that has come down to us (2 Ch 27:7, 33:18). Another source is the ‘Midrash of the Book of Kings’ (2 Ch 24:27). A midrash was an exposition of the religious lessons that could be drawn from a historical work; Chron. itself is an excellent instance of a midrash, and this earlier midrash may have been the writer’s model. He frequently refers to writings quoted under the name of prophets: 1 Ch 29:29 (Samuel, Nathan, and Gad), 2 Ch 9:29 (Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo), 12:15 (Shemaiah and Iddo), 13:22 (Iddo), 26:22
(Isaiah). As he never cites at the same time the ‘Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah,’ it is probable that these passages, connected with the various prophets, were only excerpts from that book. From the extracts that Chron. preserves of this book it is probable that it was post-exilic, unless indeed the Chronicler in using it has thoroughly transformed its style and diction into his own.
Chron., then, so far from being a fresh source for the period of which it treats, is a midrash of Jewish order. The history is treated in a particular religious interest, the customs and ritual of the later age are carried back into the earlier. The book is evidence not of the condition of things under the monarchy, but of the religious belief and ceremonial observances of a time when national life had ceased, and when the people’s interest was confined to the worship of the Temple.
R. Bruce Taylor.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.—The importance of a fixed
era by which to date events was not discovered by the Hebrews until after their national existence came to an end. All the endeavours to fix such an era which we find in our OT—like the dating of the building of Solomon’s Temple 480 years from the Exodus (1 K 6:1)—belong to the post-exilic period. During the existence of the monarchy all that was thought necessary was to date by the years of the reigning king. If we had a complete series of public documents for all the reigns, this would answer very well for historical purposes. But what has actually come down to us is at best only a fragmentary series of notices based in part on official records.
Numerical statements there are in plenty in the Bible, and among them all those in the Books of Kings most deserve attention as the basis for a scientific chronology. At first sight their accuracy seems to be guaranteed, because they check each other for the time covered by the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Not only does the author give us the length of the reigns in the two lines, but he has taken pains to work out a series of synchronisms, that is, he dates the accession of each king by the regnal year of his contemporary monarch in the other kingdom. But comparison of these figures with each other shows that they cannot all be accurate. For example, we learn that Jehoshaphat of Judah came to the throne in the fourth year of Ahab of Israel; also that Ahab reigned 22 years. Yet we are told that Ahaziah, who followed Ahab after his death, came to the throne in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, and in addition that Ahaziah’s brother Jehoram, who could be crowned only after the two years’ reign assigned to the latter, succeeded in the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat (1 K 22:41, 51, 2 K 3:1).
This example makes us give up the synchronisms and turn our attention to the length of reigns, where we have reason to suppose that the figures are drawn from earlier documents. The history gives a convenient point of division at the accession of Jehu in Israel and of Athaliah in Judah, for these two came to the throne in the same year. The two series of lengths of reigns ought to give the same sum for the period. But they do not. In one line we find 95 years and in the other 98.
It is possible that the discrepancy here is due to the mode of reckoning. The reigns are given as so many years without regard to fractions, yet it will be manifest that few if any reigns are an exact number of years with no months or days. Where the method of dating by regnal years is in vogue, the fractions may be treated in two ways. If a king dies in the tenth year of his reign, for example, the calendar year may continue to be called his tenth; and the next calendar year will be the first of his successor. But it will also be possible to begin at once to date by the first year of the new king, making the next calendar year his second. In this latter case the public records will show more years (judging by the dates) than there actually are, by one in each reign. According to this method, the number of years from Rehoboam to Athaliah would be 90, which cannot be far from correct. The next period, however,—from Athaliah to Hezekiah, and from Jehu to the fall of Samaria,—gives us greater difficulty. Here we find the sum of years in one line to be greater than in the other by more than twenty. The various hypotheses which have been advanced to overcome this discrepancy do not concern us in the present article. All that we need to note is that the figures of the Hebrew text do not give us a sure basis for a chronology.
If this is true in what we have reason to suppose is the most reliable of the OT dates, the case is even worse when we examine the earlier period of the history. No doubt the authors of the Pentateuchal narratives thought themselves able to give the length of time which had elapsed from the creation of the world. There is no other way to interpret their language. In the genealogy of the sons of Adam, for example (Gn 5), we read how Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth, Seth 105 years old when he begat Enosh, and so on down to the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in which the Flood came. The summing up of the figures gives us 1656 years from the Creation to the Flood.
The unhistorical character of the numbers in this table is now generally conceded. The conclusions of natural science concerning the duration of man upon the earth are enough to invalidate the calculation. But this gives additional interest to the inquiry as to what the authors had in mind. It has been pointed out that if to the sum we have just obtained we add the years from the Flood to the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, we get 2666, that is, two-thirds of 4000. Now the interest that the writer had in this calculation was probably due to the theory which he had formed or which had come down to him by tradition, that the length of time from the Creation to the coming of the Messiah would be 4000 years.
Four thousand is 100 generations of 40 years each. Any one who is familiar with the OT figures will recall how common it is to find 40 years as a round number. The 40 years of the wilderness wandering, 40 years of peace in the time of several of the Judges, 40 years each for David and Solomon, are sufficiently marked. Then we recall the 480 years from the Exodus to the building of the Temple—12 generations of 40 years each. It is probable also that a similar term was counted from the building of the Temple to its rebuilding under Darius or to the end of the Exile, while it is not without significance that the duration of the Northern Kingdom was calculated to be 240 years.
All this shows that these late Biblical writers were dominated by a theory. It must be noticed also that more than one theory had an influence. The Greek translators, working in the second century before Christ, had a Hebrew text which differed considerably from ours in this matter of numbers. They reckoned nearly 600 years more from the Creation to the Flood than the sum in our Bible, while from the Flood to the Call of Abraham they make nearly 800 more. The copy of the Pentateuch which circulated among the Samaritans has a still different system. The question which of these systems is the earliest is still unsettled. It may be said to have only an academic interest, since we know that no one of them gives us authentic data for the antiquity of the world.
Fortunately our appreciation of the Bible does not depend upon the accuracy of its dates. In general the picture it gives of the sequence of events from the time of the Judges down to the Fall of Jerusalem is correct. Of late years we have received welcome light on the dates of certain Biblical events from the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions. These empires had made great advances in astronomy, and consequently in the regulation of the calendar. While they did not date from a fixed era, they had a reckoning of time which secured accuracy for their historical records. Each calendar year was named for an official whom we call an eponym, and records were kept showing the series of eponyms with brief notes of the events in each one’s year. These lists have come down to us in fragmentary form, but we are able by them to correct some of the dates of our Hebrew history. The accuracy of the Babylonian system has been tested by its records of eclipses as far back as the year b.c. 763.
More than a hundred systems of Biblical Chronology have been invented or reckoned out—another testimony to the uncertain nature of the Biblical data. The received system, which has found a place in the margin of our reference Bibles, is well known to be that of the learned Archbishop Ussher. By the Babylonian canon we are now able to correct its figures. These are for the early period too high. Thus for David, Ussher gives us the date 1056. But reckoning back from the earliest Assyrian allusion to Israel, this should be about 1010. The amount of error is less as we come down to later times, and disappears at the Fall of Samaria. From David down to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, therefore, we are able to give approximately correct dates for our history. Before the time of David there must be some uncertainty, which up to the present time has not been much mitigated by the Egyptian inscriptions. From the time of the rebuilding of the Temple under Darius we are also in uncertainty, though this period does not bulk largely in the received OT.
H. P. Smith.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.—In this article it is
proposed first to examine the books of the NT, so as to determine as far as possible their relative chronology,—that is, the length of time between the principal events narrated; and then to investigate the points of contact between the NT and secular history, and thus to arrive at the probable dates of the incidents in the former. It must, however, he remembered that the Gospels and Acts are not biographies or histories in the modern sense of the terms. The writers had a religious object; they wished to teach contemporary Christians to believe (Jn 20:31), and were not careful to chronicle dates for the benefit of posterity. Sir W. Ramsay points out (St. Paul the Traveller6, p. 18) that a want of the chronological sense was a fault of the age, and that Tacitus in his Agricola is no better (until the last paragraph) than the sacred writers. It must also be noted that reckoning in old times was inclusive. Thus ‘three years after’ (Gal 1:18) means ‘in the third year after’ (cf. Ac 19:8, 10 with 20:31); ‘three days and three nights’ (Mt 12:40) means ‘from to-day to the day after to-morrow’ (Mt 17:23). Cf. also Gn 42:17 f.
I. Relative Chronology
1. Interval between our Lord’s birth and baptism.—This is determined by Lk 3:23 to have been about 30 years, but the exact interval is uncertain. The RV translates: ‘Jesus himself, when he began (lit. beginning) [to teach (cf. Mk 4:1)] , was about thirty years of age,’ and so most moderns, though the word ‘beginning,’ standing by itself, is awkward; it perhaps denotes the real commencement of the Gospel, the chapters on the Birth and Childhood being introductory ( Plummer ).
The difficulty of the phrase was early felt, for the Old Syriac and the Peshitta Syriac omit the participle altogether, and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 21) has merely ‘Jesus was coming to his baptism, being about,’ etc. The AV, following Irenæus and also the Valentinians whom he was opposing, renders: ‘began to be about 30 years of age,’ which can mean only that Jesus was 29 years old. Irenæus (Haer. II. xxii. 4 f.) says that Jesus was baptized ‘being 30 years old,’ having ‘not yet completed his 30th year,’ He ‘then possessing the full age of a teacher.’ The translation of AV is judged to be grammatically impossible, though it is odd that the Greek-speaking Irenæus did not discover the fact, unless we are to suppose that his Latin translator misrepresents him. Let us, then, take the RV translation; but what is the meaning of ‘about 30 years’? Turner (art. ‘Chronology of NT’ in Hastings’ DB—the most complete modern work on the subject in English) and
Plummer (St. Luke, in loc.) think that any age from 28 to 32 would suit; but Ramsay, who remarks that St. Luke’s authority for his early chapters was clearly a very good one, and that he could not have been ignorant of the real age, thinks that the phrase must mean 30 plus or minus a few months. There seems to be some doubt as to the age when a Levite began his ministry at this time, as the age had varied; but we may follow Irenæus in thinking that 30 was the full age when a public teacher began his work. On this point, then, internal evidence by itself leaves us a latitude of some little time, whether of a few months or even of a few years.
2. Duration of the ministry.—Very divergent views have been held on this subject. (a) Clement of Alexandria (loc. cit.), and other 2nd and 3rd cent. Fathers, the Clementine Homilies (xvii. 19, ‘a whole year’), and the Valentinians (quoted by Irenæus, ii, xxii. 1), applying ‘the acceptable year of the Lord’ (Is 61:2; cf. Lk 4:18f.) literally to the ministry, made it last for one year only. The Valentinians believed that Jesus was baptized at the beginning, and died at the end, of His 30 th year. A one-year ministry has also been advocated by von Soden (EBi, art. ‘Chronology’) and by Hort (see below). The latter excises ‘the passover’ from Jn 6:4. This view is said to be that of the Synoptists, who, however, give hardly any indications of the passing of time. (b) The other extreme is found in Irenæus (loc. cit.), who held, as against the Valentinians, that the ministry lasted for more than ten years. He takes the feast of Jn 5:1 to be a Passover, but does not mention that of Jn 6:4. He considers, however, that the Passovers mentioned in Jn. are not exclusive; that Jesus was a little less than 30 years old at His baptism, and over 40 when He died. This appears (he says) from Jn 8:56f., which indicates one who had passed the age of 40; and moreover, Jesus, who came to save all ages, must have ‘passed through every age,’ and in the decade from 40 to 50 ‘a man begins to decline towards old age.’ He declares that this tradition came from ‘John the disciple of the Lord’ through ‘those who were conversant in Asia with’ him—i.e. probably Papias; and that the same account had been received from other disciples. But here Irenæus almost certainly makes a blunder. For a 3rd cent. tradition that
Jesus was born a.d. 9, was baptized a.d. 46, and died a.d. 58 at the age of 49, see Chapman in JThSt viii. 590 (July, 1907). (c) Eusebius (HE i. 10), followed as to his results provisionally by Ramsay (Was Christ born at Bethlehem?3, p. 212f.), makes the ministry last over three years (‘not quite four full years’), and this till lately was the common view. Melito (c. a.d. 160) speaks of Jesus working miracles for three years after His baptism (Ante-Nic. Chr. Lib. xxii. p. 135). (d) Origen and others, followed by Turner (op. cit. p. 409 f.), Sanday (art. ‘Jesus Christ’ in Hastings’ DB, p. 610 ff.), and Hitchcock (art. ‘Dates’ in Hastings’ DCG, p. 415 f.), allow a little more than two years for the ministry (‘Judas did not remain so much as three years with Jesus,’ c. Cels. ii. 12).
Indications of a ministry of more than a single year are found in the Synoptics;
e.g. Mk 2:23 (harvest) 6:39 (spring; ‘green grass’), for the length of the journeys of
6:56–10:32 shows that the spring of 6:39 could not be that of the Crucifixion. Thus Mk. implies at least a two years’ ministry. In Lk. also we see traces of three periods in the ministry: (1) 3:21–4:30, preaching in the wilderness of Judæa and in Nazareth and Galilee, briefly recorded; (2) 4:31–9:50, preaching in Galilee and the
North, related at length; (3) 9:51-end, preaching in Central Palestine as far as Jerusalem. Ramsay (op. cit. p. 212) takes each of these periods as corresponding roughly to one year. In Jn. we have several indications of time: 2:13, 23 (Passover), 4:35 (four months before harvest; harvest near), 5:1 (‘a feast’ or ‘the feast’), 6:4 (Passover, but see below), 7:2 (Tabernacles, autumn), 10:22 (Dedication, winter). In two cases (5:1, 6:4) there is a question of text; in 5:1 the reading ‘a feast’ is somewhat better attested, and is preferable on internal grounds, for ‘the feast’ might mean either Passover or Tabernacles, and since there would be this doubt, the phrase ‘the feast’ is an unlikely one. If so, we cannot use 5:1 as an indication of time, as any minor feast would suit it. In 6:4 Hort excises ‘the passover’ (Westcott-Hort, NT in Greek, App. p. 77 ff.). But this is against all MSS and VSS, and rests only on the omission by Irenæus (who, however, merely enumerates the Passovers when Jesus went up to Jerusalem; yet the mention of 6:4 would have added to his argument), and probably on Origen (for him and for others adduced, see Turner op. cit. p. 408); on internal grounds the omission is very improbable, and does not in reality reconcile Jn. and the Synoptics, for the latter when closely examined do, as we have seen, imply more than a single year’s ministry. The note of time in Jn 4:35 seems to point to (say) January (‘there are yet four months and then cometh the harvest’), while the spiritual harvest was already ripe (‘the fields … are white already unto harvest’), though Origen and others less probably take the former clause to refer to the spiritual, the latter to the material, harvest, which lasted from 15th April to 31st May (see Westcott, Com. in loc.). We may probably conclude then that in the ministry, as related in Jn., there were not fewer than three Passovers, and that it therefore lasted (at least) rather more than two years. But did the Fourth Evangelist mention all the Passovers of the ministry? Irenæus thought that he mentioned only some of them; and though his chronology is clearly wrong, and based (as was that of his opponents) on a fanciful exegesis, Lightfoot (Sup. Rel. p. 131) and Westcott (Com. p. lxxxi.) are inclined to think that in this respect he may to a very limited extent be right. Turner, on the other hand, considers that the enumeration in Jn. is exclusive, and that the notes of time there are intended to correct a false chronology deduced from the Synoptics. On the whole we can only say that the choice apparently lies between a ministry of rather over two years, and one of rather over three years; and that the probability of the former appears to be slightly the greater.
3. Interval between the Ascension and the conversion of St. Paul.—We have no certain internal evidence as to the length of this interval. Ac 2:46f. may imply a long or a short time. We have to include in this period the spread of the Church among the Hellenists, the election of the Seven, and the death of Stephen, followed closely by St. Paul’s conversion. For this period Ramsay allows 21/2 to 4 years, Harnack less than one year; but these conclusions come rather from external chronology (see II.) than from internal considerations. It is quite probable that in the early chapters of Acts St. Luke had not the same exact authority that he had for St. Paul’s travels, or even for his Gospel (see Lk 1:2f.).
4. St. Paul’s missionary career.—The relative chronology of St. Paul’s Christian life may be determined by a study of Acts combined with Gal 1:18, 2:1.
Indications of time are found in Ac 11:26, 18:11, 19:8, 10, 20:6, 16, 31, 21:1–5 , 27, 24:1, 11, 27, 25:1, 6, 27:9, 27, 28:7, 11–14, 17, 30. With these data we may reconstruct the chronology; but there is room for uncertainty (1) as to whether the visit to Jerusalem in Gal 2:1 was that of Ac 11:30 or that of Ac 15:4, and whether the ‘three years’ and ‘fourteen years’ of Gal 1:18, 2:1 are consecutive ( so Lightfoot, Rackham), or concurrent (so Ramsay, Turner, Harnack); (2) as to the length of the First Missionary Journey; and (3) as to the later journeys after the Roman imprisonment. If the ‘three years’ and ‘fourteen years’ are consecutive, a total of about 16 years (see above) is required for the interval between the conversion and the visit of Gal 2:1. But as the interval at Tarsus is indeterminate, and the First Journey may have been anything from one to three years, all systems of relative chronology can be made to agree, except in small details, by shortening or lengthening these periods. For a discussion of some of the doubtful points named see art. Galatians [Ep. to the], § 3, and for the details of the events see art.
Acts of the Apostles, § 5ff.
The following table, in which the year of St. Paul’s conversion is taken as 1 , gives the various events. Ramsay’s calculation is taken as a basis, and the differences of opinion are noted.
1, 2. Conversion near Damascus, Ac 9:3, 22:5, 26:12; retirement to Arabia, Gal 1:17; preaching in Damascus, Ac 9:20–22 (?), Gal 1:17.
3. First visit to Jerusalem, Ac 9:26, Gal 1:18, ‘three years after’ his conversion.
4–11. At Tarsus and in Syria-Cilicia, Ac 9:30, Gal 1:21 [so HR, but T gives two years less, L three years less].
12. To Antioch with Barnabas, Ac 11:26.
13. Second visit to Jerusalem, with alms 11:30 [= Gal 2:1, R?]
14–16. First Missionary Journey, to Cyprus, 13:4; Pamphylia, and Southern
Galatia (Pisidian Antioch, 13:14; Iconium, 13:51; Lystra, 14:6; Derbe, 14:20), and back by Attalia to Antioch, 14:26 [so HR; TL give one year less].
17. Apostolic Council and third visit to Jerusalem, 15:4 [= Gal 2:1, TL?; so Sanday and most commentators].
18–20. Second Missionary Journey, from Antioch through Syria-Cilicia to Derbe and Lystra, Ac 15:41, 16:1; through the ‘Phrygo-Galatic’ region of the province Galatia to Troas, 16:6–8; to Macedonia, 16:11; Athens, 17:15 ; and Corinth, 18:1, where 18 months are spent; thence by sea to Ephesus, 18:19; Jerusalem (fourth visit), 18:22; and Antioch, where ‘some time’ is spent, 18:23.
21–24. Third Missionary Journey, from Antioch by the ‘Galatic region’ and the ‘Phrygian region,’ 18:23, to Ephesus, 19:1, where two years and three months are spent, 19:8, 10; by Troas 2 Co 2:12, to Macedonia, Ac 20:1 ; and Corinth, 20:2 (see 2 Co 13:1), where three months are spent; thence back by Macedonia to Troas, Miletus, and Cæsarea, 20:4f., 15, 21:8; fifth visit to Jerusalem, 21:17; and arrest, 21:33; imprisonment at Cæsarea, 23:33.
25. In Cæsarea, 24:27.
26. Departure for Rome, autumn, 27:1; shipwreck off Malta, 28:1.
27. Arrival at Rome, 28:10.
28. (end) or 29 (early). Acquittal.
29–34. Later journeys and death [so R; L gives one year less, T two years less].
II. Points of Contact with General History.—It will he useful to give the dates of the earlier emperors, and those of the procurators of Judæa. Some of the latter dates are approximate only; information as to them is derived from Josephus’ Antiquities, and to some extent from his Jewish Wars (BJ).
Roman Emperors.
Augustus
[b.c. 31 (a)]–a.d. 14 (Aug. 19)
Tiberius 14–37 (Mar. 16)
Caligula (Gaius) 37–41 (Jan. 24)
Claudius 41–54 (Oct. 13)
Nero 54–68
Galha 68–69
Otho 69
Vitellius 69
Vespasian 69–79
Titus 79–81
Domitian 81–96
(a) i.e. the battle of Actium; Julius Cæsar died b.c. 44, and Eusebius dates Augustus’ reign from that year (HE i. 5, 9), as does also Irenæus (Haer. III. xxi. 3).
Rulers of Judæa.
Herod the Great, king (a) b.c. 37–4
Archelaus, ethnarch (b) b.c. 4–a.d. 6 Procurators. Coponius (c) a.d. 6–9 ?
Marcus Ambivius (d) 9–12 ?
Annius Rufus (e) 12–15 ?
Valerius Gratus (f) 15–26
Pontius Pilate (g) 26–36
Marcellus (h) 36–37 ? Marullus (i) 37–41 ?
Herod Agrippa, king (j) 41–44
Procurators. Cuspius Fadus (k) 44–46 ?
|
Tiberius Alexander (l) |
46?–48 |
|
Cumanus (m) |
48–52 |
|
Antonius Felix (n) |
52–58 or 59 ? |
|
Porcius Festus (o) |
59?–61 |
|
Albinus (p) |
61–65 |
|
Gessius Florus (q) |
65–66 |
(a) He had been king de jure since b.c. 40. (b) Josephus, Ant. XVII. xi. 4, xiii. 2; he reigned over nine years. (c) ib. XVIII. i. 1; he arrived with Quirinius at the time of the taxing, Ac 5:37. (d) ib. ii. 2. (e) ib.; in his time ‘the second emperor of the Romans [Augustus] died.’ (f) ib.; sent by Tiberius; he ruled eleven years. (g) ib. and iv. 2; he ruled ten years and was deposed and sent to Rome, arriving there just after Tiberius’ death; Turner makes his accession to office a.d. 27. (h) ib. iv. 2; sent temporarily by Vitellius, governor of Syria, (i) ib. vi. 10; sent by Caligula on his accession, (j) ib. and XIX. v. 1; made king by Claudius on his accession, having been previously given the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias by Caligula. (k) ib. XIX. ix. 2; sent by Claudius on Agrippa’s death. (l) ib. XX. v. 2. (m) ib. (n) ib. vii.
1, viii. 9; brother of Pallas; sent by Claudius; in his time was the rebellion of one
Theudas; recalled by Nero, see below, § 12. (o) ib. viii. 9 ff. (p) ib. ix. 1; sent by Nero on Festus’ death; while he was on his way to Judæa, ‘the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James,’ was stoned by the Jews. (q) ib. xi. 1; the last procurator; he was appointed through the influence of Poppæa; his had government precipitated the Jewish War.—For the procurators see also BJ II. viii. 1, ix. 4, xi. 6, xii. 1 f, 8, xiii. 7, xiv. 1 f., etc.
1. Date of the nativity.—Early chronology is in such confusion that it is very difficult to assign exact dates to the various events, and the early Fathers give us little or no guidance. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 21) says that our Lord was born 194 years 1 month 13 days before the death of Commodus [a.d. 192], in the 28th year of Augustus; but his dating of Commodus is wrong (see 4 below). The calculation of our Christian era, due to Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th cent., is obviously wrong by several years. Even the dating by the regnal years of emperors is open to considerable doubt, as it is not always certain from what epoch calculation is made; e.g. whether from the death of the predecessor, or from the association with the predecessor as colleague. For the birth of Christ indications have been found in the death of Herod, the Lukan census, and the Star of the Magi.
(a) Death of Herod.—This probably took place b.c. 4, possibly b.c. 3. His son Archelaus (Mt 2:22), who succeeded him in part of his dominions with the title of ethnarch, was deposed (Dion Cassius, lv. 27) in the consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius (a.d. 6), either in his ninth (so Joseph. BJ II. vii. 3) or in his tenth year (so Ant. XVII. xiii. 2; and the Life, § 1, speaks of his tenth year). This would give the above dates for Herod’s death; for various considerations which make b.c. 4 the preferable date see Turner, op. cit. p. 404. We must then place our Lord’s birth one or two years before at least, for Herod slew the male children of two years old and under (Mt 2:18), and we have to allow for the sojourn in Egypt.
(b) The Lukan census (Lk 2:1ff.) would suit the result just reached; see art.
Luke [Gospel acc. to], § 7
(c) The Magi. Kepler calculated the date of the Nativity from a conjunction of planets, which he believed the ‘star in the east’ to be (Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem?3, p. 215 ff.). But it is impossible to build chronological results on such an uncertain basis.
The date arrived at by Ramsay from these considerations is b.c. 6 (summer), by Turner, b.c. 6 (spring) or b.c. 7. We must remain in ignorance of the day and month. The calculations which give Dec. 25 and Jan. 6 are both based on a fanciful exposition and a wrong date for the Crucifixion; see the present writer’s art. ‘Calendar’ in Hastings’ DCG i. 261 f.
2. The Baptism of our Lord.—According to St. Luke (3:1), the Baptist began to preach in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Pilate being procurator. Eusebius (HE i. 10) says that Christ was baptized in the fourth year of Pilate’s governorship, and (HE i. 9) that Pilate was appointed ‘about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius’; the latter statement is quoted from Josephus (Ant. XVIII. ii. 2), but the former seems to be Eusebius’ own deduction from St. Luke. But Pilate cannot have reached Palestine before a.d. 26 or 27, as his ten years ended shortly before Tiberius’ death in a.d. 37, and no date later than a.d. 27 is possible for our Lord’s baptism, if we take into account the date of the Nativity and St. Luke’s statement of our Lord’s age. It is probable, therefore, that Pilate’s accession to office and John’s appearance as a preacher both belong to the same year, say a.d. 26. Does this, however, suit St. Luke’s phrase, ‘the 15th year of the rule (or hegemony) of Tiberius,’ for that is the exact phrase? The 15th year from the death of Augustus would be Aug. a.d. 28 to Aug. a.d. 29. Ramsay supposes (Was Christ born at Bethlehem?, p. 202) that ‘the rule of Tiberius’ is dated from the grant by Augustus of a share in the government of the provinces just before he celebrated his triumph over the people of Pannonia and Dalmatia, Jan. 16, a.d. 12; and this would bring us to c. a.d. 25–26. This system of counting years is not found elsewhere, but it is quite a possible one. Turner inclines to the same supposition.
3. The rebuilding of the Temple.—In Jn 2:20, at a Passover not long after the
Baptism, the Jews say that the Temple was 46 years in building, which, since the Temple was hardly completed at the outbreak of the War (Joseph. Ant. XX. ix. 7) , can only mean that the rebuilding had begun 46 years before the Passover in question. But this rebuilding began in Herod’s 18th year de facto (ib. XV. xi. 1; for the computation of BJ I. xxi. i., see Turner, p. 405); i.e. the Passover of b.c. 19 would be that of the first year of the rebuilding, and therefore the Passover of a.d. 27 that of the 46th year. This would agree with the result already reached.
4. Date of the Crucifixion.—The Fathers seem to have known nothing certainly as to the exact year of our Lord’s death. Clement of Alexandria (loc. cit.) , who believed in a one-year ministry, gives the 16th year of Tiberius, 421/4 years before the Destruction of Jerusalem (this would be a.d. 28), which was 128 years 10 months 3 days before the death of Commodus (this would make the latter 7 years too late). A common tradition (Tertullian [?], adv. Jud. 8 [Patr. Lat. ii. 656] ; Lactantius, Div. Inst. IV. 10, de Mort. Pers. 2 [Patr. Lat. vi. 474, vii. 194]) assigns the Crucifixion to the consulship of L. Rubellius Geminus and C. Fifius ( ? ) Geminus—Hippolytus (in Dan. iv.) and the Acts of Pilate give the names as Rufus and Rubellio,—i.e. a.d. 29, or possibly a.d. 28. The latest possible year is a.d. 33 (so Eusebius, HE i. 10), for Josephus (Ant. XVIII. iv. 3, 6) relates that Caiaphas was deposed just before he tells us of the death of Herod Philip, which occurred in the 20th year of Tiberius, i.e. a.d. 33–34, reckoning from Augustus’ death; Josephus’ order has every appearance of being chronological.
Now, it is not certain on which day of the month Nisan the Friday of the
Passion fell. We must put aside Westcott’s suggestion that our Lord died on a Thursday, as contradicting entirely the Eastern idea of ‘the third day’ and ‘after three days’ (see above). But the Synoptics would suggest that our Lord ate the Passover with the disciples on 14th Nisan, and died on the 15th, while Jn. would lead us to suppose that He died on 14th Nisan at the time of the killing of the lambs. The determination of this difficult question will only affect the chronological investigation if in a possible year of the Passion only Nisan 15 or only Nisan 14 can positively be said to have fallen on a Friday. But there is some uncertainty in the reckoning of Nisan. The Jewish months were lunar, and (in early times at least) the first day of the month was not that of the true new moon, but that on which it was first visible. This would be some 30 hours later than the true new moon. But it seems certain that the Jews at the time of the Gospel narrative had some sort of calendrical rules or some rough cycle to determine the first day of a lunar month; otherwise the Jews of the Dispersion would never have been sure of observing the Passover all on the same day, and the difference of a cloudy or of a bright sky on a particular day would introduce confusion. Thus we have to exercise great caution. A table of the true new moons, and of the days when the moon may be presumed to have been first visible, from a.d. 27 to 36 inclusive, is given by Dr. Salmon (Introd., lect. XV.). His result is that in a.d. 27, 30, 33, 34, one or other of the two days Nisan 14 and 15 might have fallen on a Friday. We may omit the first and last of these years, and we have left a.d. 30 and 33. But a.d. 29, which has the best traditional support, is also calendrically possible. Taking the equinox as March 21, Nisan 14 that year would be Sunday, April 18; the moon would have been first visible on Monday, April 4. But the equinox was not then, as now, accurately determined, and Turner (op. cit. p. 411 f.) gives an argument for believing that Nisan in a.d. 29 was really the month before that supposed by Salmon. In that case Nisan 14 would fall on one of the three days March 17–19, of which March 18 was a Friday. Thus a.d. 29 is admissible, and the choice almost certainly lies between it and a.d. 30; for a.d. 33 is hard to fit in with the calculation as to the Nativity, and no doubt that year was selected because of the dating of the ‘fifteenth year’ of Lk 3:1 from the death of Augustus. Of the two years, then, a.d. 30 is chosen by Lightfoot, Salmon, and Wieseler; a.d. 29 by Turner, and in this conclusion Ramsay now acquiesces (Was Christ born, etc.?3, p. 202), as does also Sanday (art. ‘Jesus Christ’ in Hastings’ DB, p. 610). Of the days of the month, Nisan 14 is upheld by
Claudius Apollinaris (c. 150), Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian ( ?), Africanus; and by many moderns, e.g. Sanday (art. ‘Jesus Christ’ in Hastings’ DB) and Westcott. Nisan 15 is supported by Origen, pseudo-Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom; and in modern times by Edersheim (LT), Lewin (Fasti sacri), and McClellan (Com. on NT). But the choice between these days should be determined by internal evidence of the Gospels rather than by the chronological investigations, which are too uncertain to be trustworthy.
5. Aretas and the occupation of Damascus.—Turner deduces the earliest possible date for the conversion of St. Paul from the incident of 2 Co 11:32f., and accordingly gives a.d. 38 for the first visit to Jerusalem, a.d. 35 or 36 for the Conversion. But, in the opinion of the present writer, for reasons stated in art. Aretas, the incident cannot be used in determining the chronology at all. If it is so used, the date is consistent with the view that the second visit synchronizes with the Apostolic Council (above, i. 4). Ramsay, however (St. Paul6, p. xiv), adduces as an external support for his date (a.d. 33) for St. Paul’s conversion, a 4th cent. oration found in St. Chrysostom’s works, which says that Paul served God 35 years and died at the age of 68. If he died in a.d. 67, this would give a.d. 33 for the Conversion. But Patristic chronology is very erratic.
6. Herod Agrippa the Elder received Herod Philip’s tetrarchy and the title of king early in a.d. 37 from Caligula, and somewhat later Antipas’ tetrarchy (Josephus, BJ II. ix. 6); and Claudius gave him the whole of his grandfather’s kingdom, which he held for three years till his death, ‘as he had governed his tetrarchies three other years’ (ib. xi. 6). We see from his coins, which were issued up to his ninth year, that he died in a.d. 44 or 45; probably his ‘second year’ began with the Nisan next after his accession in a.d. 37. Of these two dates, then, Josephus enables us to choose a.d. 44. This fixes Ac 12:20ff., though the events of Ac 12:1ff. need not have been immediately before Agrippa’s death; and gives a.d. 41 for his accession to Herod the Great’s dominions. It is therefore probable, but not certain, that the Cornelius episode (Ac 10) must be dated before a.d. 41, as it is not likely that a centurion of the Italic cohort would be stationed at Cæsarea during Agrippa’s semi-independent rule (see art. Cornelius).
7. The Famine.—This was predicted by Agabus, and happened in the reign of Claudius (Ac 11:27ff.). If we can date the famine, it will help us to fix St. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, as this was occasioned by the sending of alms through him to the famine-stricken Christians there. In Claudius’ reign there were many famines, and not in every country at the same time. We read of Helena, queen of Adiabene, a convert to Judaism, arriving at Jerusalem in the middle of the famine, apparently in the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander, probably therefore after the summer of a.d. 46 (Joseph. Ant. XX. ii. 5, v. 2). Orosius, a Spanish writer who visited Palestine a.d. 415, puts the famine in Claudius’ fourth year, i.e. in a.d. 44 (Hist. vii. 6), but Ramsay (St. Paul6, p. 68) shows that his dates at this period are a year too early; thus we arrive at a.d. 45. It is probable that a bad harvest in a.d. 45 resulted in a famine in a.d. 46, and St. Paul’s visit might then be either in the middle of the famine, or at any rate during the preceding winter, when the bad harvest showed that the famine was imminent.
8. Sergius Paulus.—The term of office of this proconsul cannot be dated ( for the inscription referring to it, see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 12); but, as the proconsuls in a.d. 51, 52 are known, St. Paul’s visit to Cyprus must have been before that.
9. Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews.—The edict (Ac 18:2) is mentioned by Suetonius. Tacitus, whose Annals are defective for the early years of Claudius, speaks only of the expulsion of astrologers in a.d. 52 (Ann. xii. 52). Suetonius (Claudius, § 25) says that the edict was due to Jewish tumults ‘at the instigation of one Chrestus,’ a confusion not unnatural in a heathen writer. Orosius (Hist. vii, 6) quotes Josephus as saying that the decree was made in the ninth year of Claudius,
i.e. a.d. 49, but this should probably be (as above, 7) a.d. 50. Josephus, as a matter of fact, does not refer to the matter at all, so that Orosius’ authority must have been some other writer. The arrival of Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth, if we accept Orosius’ statement, must have been later than this, perhaps in a.d. 51 (so Ramsay; Turner puts it one year, Harnack three years earlier).
10. Gallio.—Achaia had been made a senatorial province by Claudius in a.d. 44, and the proconsulship of Gallio, who seems to have arrived at the end of St.
Paul’s stay at Corinth (Ac 18:12), was no doubt several years later than this. Gallio was brother to Seneca, who was in disgrace a.d. 41–49, but was recalled and made prætor in a.d. 50. Pliny (HN xxxi. 33) says that Gallio became consul; this was probably after his proconsulship in Achaia. He is said by Seneca (Ep. 104) to have caught fever in Achaia, and this is the only indication outside Acts of his proconsulship. The probability is that he did not bold this office while Seneca was out of favour at Court, and therefore a.d. 50 would be the earliest year for the incident of Ac 18:12. It may have happened some few years later.
11. The Passover at Philippi.—Ramsay (St. Paul6, p. 289 f.) considers that St. Paul left Philippi on a Friday (Ac 20:8). He traces back the journey from the departure from Troas (v. 7), on the assumption that the sermon and Eucharistic celebration at Troas were on what we call Sunday night. But would any Eastern call this ‘the first day of the week’ (see art. ‘Calendar,’ I. 1 in Hastings’ DCG)? If Ramsay’s calculation be accepted, the further assumption is that St. Paul, who was in baste to reach Jerusalem, left Philippi on the morrow of the Passover, which therefore fell on Thursday. But in a.d. 57 it is calculated that it did so fall (April 7) , and this therefore is Ramsay’s date for St. Paul’s fifth visit to Jerusalem and his arrest there. There is a triple element of doubt in this calculation—(a) as to the day on which Troas was left, (b) whether St. Paul started from Philippi on the day after the Passover, (c) as to the calculation of the Passover. We must therefore probably dismiss this element in calculating the years, though Ramsay’s date is for other reasons quite probable.
12. Felix and Festus.—Felix married Drusilla, sister of Agrippa II., not long after the latter’s accession to the tetrarchies of Herod Philip and Lysanias (c. a.d. 52–53); for she had married Azizus of Emesa on Agrippa’s accession, and ‘no long time afterward’ deserted him for Felix (Joseph. Ant. XX. vii. 1, 2). Thus St. Paul’s arrest could not have been before the summer of a.d. 54. Felix seems to have become procurator in a.d. 52, but previously be had held some office in Samaria (and possibly in Judæa) under, or concurrently with, Cumanus; and this accounts for the ‘many years’ of Ac 24:10 (see art. Felix). An apparent contradiction between Tacitus, Josephus, and Eusebius is resolved by Turner (op. cit. p. 418) as against Harnack (Chronologie, p. 233 f.), who interprets Eusebius as meaning that Felix came into office in a.d. 51.
The date of Festus’ arrival is greatly disputed. Lightfoot, Wieseler, and Schürer conclude that it could not have been before a.d. 60 or 61, because of Ac 24:10, and because Josephus’ description of the events which happened under Felix implies the lapse of many years. But for these events five or six years are amply sufficient; and for the ‘many years’ see above. Eusebius (Chronicle), followed by Harnack, says that Festus arrived in the second year of Nero, i.e. Oct. a.d. 55 to Oct. a.d. 56. But Eusebius probably makes the first year of an emperor begin in the September after his accession (Turner, p. 418), and this would make the second year to be Sept. a.d. 56 to Sept. a.d. 57; accordingly Rackham (Acts, p. 454) gives a.d. 57 for Festus’ arrival. Another argument for an early date for Festus’ arrival is that Felix was acquitted, after his recall, through the influence of his brother Pallas ( Joseph. Ant. XX. viii. 9), and this could only have been (it is said) while Pallas was still in office (Josephus says that Pallas ‘was at that time held in the greatest honour by’ Nero). But he was dismissed just before Britannicus’ 14th birthday, in the spring of a.d. 55 (Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 14 f.). This, however, would make Festus’ arrival in any case too early; it would be in the summer of a.d. 54, before Claudius’ death, which contradicts Eusebius (Chron., and HE ii. 22). Harnack supposes that Tacitus wrote ‘fourteenth birthday’ in error for ‘fifteenth.’ It is, however, preferable to suppose that Pallas still retained influence even after he had left office. Turner suggests that at any rate the acquittal of Felix, when accused by the Jews, shows that Poppæa had not yet acquired her influence over Nero. This began in a.d. 58, though he did not marry her till a.d. 62, the year of Pallas’ murder by him. This consideration, then, militates against Lightfoot’s date (a.d. 60 or 61). Harnack’s date (a.d. 56) comes from following Eusebius; and accordingly be dates the events of Acts two or three years at least before Ramsay and Turner. Even that early date, if Pallas was still in office when Felix was acquitted, is not easy to reconcile with Tacitus’ statement. It does not seem safe to rely on Eusebius’ chronology in this case, considering that in other cases it is so inaccurate.
13. Persecutions of Nero and Domitian
(1) Death of St. Peter and of St. Paul.—There is no good reason for supposing that the two Apostles died on the same day or even in the same year, though we may probably conclude that they both were martyred under Nero. Their joint commemoration is due to their bodies having been transferred to the Catacombs together on June 29, a.d. 258 (so the Philocalian calendar, a.d. 354). Clement of Rome (Cor. 5) mentions them in the same connexion as examples of patience; Ignatius, writing to the Romans (§ 4), says: ‘I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul did’; Tertullian says that they were both martyred at Rome under Nero (Scarp. 15 , de Prœscr. 36 [Patr. Lat. ii. 174 f., 59]), and so Origen (Euseb. HE iii. 1) ; Dionysius of Corinth says ‘about the same time’ (Euseb. HE ii. 25); Caius (c. a.d. 200) describes their graves near Rome (Euseb. ib.). Prudentius (Peristeph. xii. 5) , in the 4th cent., is the first to say that they died on the same day. Eusebius puts their death at the very end of Nero’s reign, i.e. not long before a.d. 68. The determining considerations are: (a) the connexion of their deaths with the fire at Rome in July a.d. 64; (b) the necessary interval after St. Paul’s acquittal for his later travels, which would take some three years; and this, if we took Lightfoot’s chronology (Clement, i. 75 n.), would probably prevent us from fixing on a.d. 64 as the year of St. Paul’s death; (c) the date of St. Peter’s First Epistle, if a genuine work; and (d) the fact that St. Mark attended both Apostles, the suggestion being that he served St. Peter after St. Paul’s death. The last consideration, if true, would make St. Peter’s martyrdom the later of the two. The date of 1 Peter is a difficulty. It makes Christianity a crime (1 P 4:14, so in Rev.), and it is said by Pfleiderer not to have been so before the reign of Trajan. At first Christians were accused of ill doing; at a later period they were put to death as Christians. Ramsay gives reasons for believing that the change was made by Nero, and developed in the interval a.d. 68–96 under the Flavian emperors (Ch. in Rom. Emp. pp. 245, 252 ff., 280). The fact of persecutions being mentioned makes it unlikely that 1 Peter was written before a.d. 64 (Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 498 f.), and its indebtedness to some of St. Paul’s Epistles implies some interval after they were written. Dr. Bigg, however (Internal. Crit. Com.), pleads for a much earlier date, in an argument that will not bear abbreviation: he thinks that the persecutions mentioned were not from the State at all, but from the Jews. Ramsay, on the other hand, thinks that the provinces of Asia Minor cannot have been so fully evangelized as 1 Peter implies before a.d.
65, and that the Epistle was written c. a.d. 80, soon after which date St. Peter died. But this is against all the Patristic testimony, which there is little reason to reject. Probably, then, we must date the death of both Apostles in Nero’s reign. Two of the arguments mentioned above—on the one hand that the two martyrdoms must have been in close connexion with the Roman fire; and, on the other hand, that St. Mark can only have attended on the one Apostle after the other’s death—appear to have little weight. If, as seems likely from what has already been said, the general scheme of chronology adopted by Lightfoot and Wieseler places the events of Acts a year or two too late all through, the argument for postponing the date of St. Paul’s death, to allow for his travels, falls, although the later date for the death is in itself quite probable. On the whole, the conclusion seems to be that the martyrdoms may have taken place at any time between a.d. 64 and a.d. 68, more probably towards the end than towards the beginning of that period, though not necessarily in the same year.
(2) The Apocalypse.—This work gives us our last chronological indications in NT. Like 1 Peter, it implies persecution for the Name; but, unlike 1 Peter, it implies emperor-worship. The tone of antagonism to the Empire is entirely different from that of St. Paul’s Epistles and the Acts. Rome-worship was greatly developed by Domitian, and was scarcely at all prominent in Nero’s time. This feature in Rev., then, points to the scene being laid in the Domitianic persecution; and that date is argued for by Swete (Apocalypse, p. xcv. ff.—the most complete English commentary on the work) and Ramsay (Ch. in Rom. Emp. p. 295 ff.). It is accepted by Sanday (JThSt viii. 481 ff., July 1907). Lightfoot, however (Bibl. Ess. p. 51, Sup. Rel. p. 132), and Westcott (St. John, Introd. p. lxxxiv.) argue for a date during Nero’s persecution, mainly because of the difference of style between Rev. and Jn., the latter being dated late in the century; this argument assumes identity of authorship, and makes little allowance for a possible difference of scribes. Other arguments for the Neronic date have been taken from the number of the Beast, which is supposed to spell, in Hebrew letters, the names Nero Cæsar, and from the indication as to the ‘kings’ (emperors) in 17:10. The earlier date was in fashion a generation ago, but a reaction has lately set in, and the opinion of Irenæus is now largely supported, namely, that the book was written towards the end of the reign of Domitian, who died a.d. 96 (Iren. Haer. v. 30. 3; Euseb. HE iii. 18). The evidence seems to preponderate largely in favour of the supposition that the last decade of the 1st cent. is that illustrated by the last book of the NT Canon.
III. Results.—The following table gives the dates arrived at by Harnack, Turner, Ramsay, and Lightfoot, respectively. The results of Lightfoot are in the main also those of Wieseler, Lewin, and Schürer. To the present writer the intermediate dates seem to be the only ones which fulfil all the necessary conditions; but Turner’s year for St. Paul’s conversion appears less probable than Ramsay’s. In view, however, of the confusion in reckoning Imperial years, lunar months, and the like, it would be vain to expect anything like certainty in determining NT dates.
|
|
|
|
H. |
|
|
Nativity of Christ, b.c. |
|
7w or 6sp |
6s |
|
|
Baptism of Christ, a.d. |
|
27sp |
25w or 26sp |
|
|
Crucifixion |
29 or 30 |
29 |
29 |
30 |
|
Conversion of St. Paul |
30 |
35 or 36 |
33 |
34 |
|
First Visit to Jerusalem |
33 |
38 |
35 |
37 |
|
Second Visit |
44 |
46 |
45a and 46sp |
45 |
|
First Miss. |
45–46? |
47–48 |
47–49 |
48–49 |
Journey
|
Council (Third Visit) |
47 |
49 |
49w and 50sp |
51 |
|
Second M. J. and Fourth Visit |
47–50 |
49–52 |
50–53 |
51–54 |
|
Third Miss. Journey |
50–54 |
52–56 |
53–57 |
54–58 |
|
Fifth Visit and arrest |
54 |
56 |
57 |
58 |
|
Festus succeeds |
56 |
58s |
59s |
60 or 61 |
|
St. Paul’s arrival in Rome |
57sp |
59sp |
60sp |
61sp |
|
Acquittal |
|
61sp |
61w or 62sp |
63sp |
|
Death of St. Paul |
64 |
64 or 65 |
67 |
67 |
|
Death of St. Peter |
64 |
64 or 65 |
80 |
64 |
A. J. Maclean.
CHRYSOLITE, CHRYSOPRASE.—See Jewels and Precious Stones.
CHURCH.—1. The word ecclesia, which in its Christian application is usually tr. ‘church,’ was applied in ordinary Greek usage to the duly constituted gathering of the citizens in a self-governing city, and it is so used of the Ephesian assembly in Ac 19:39. It was adopted in the LXX to tr. a Heb. word, qāhāl, signifying the nation of Israel as assembled before God or considered in a religious aspect ( Jg 21:8, 1 Ch 29:1, Dt 31:30 etc.). In this sense it is found twice in the NT (Ac 7:38 RV ‘church,’ He 2:12 RV ‘congregation’). The term is practically equivalent to the familiar ‘synagogue’ which, however, was more frequently used to translate another Heb. word, ‘ēdhāh. This will probably explain our Lord’s words in Mt 18:17. For ‘synagogue’ was the name regularly applied after the Babylonian exile to local congregations of Jews formally gathered for common worship, and from them subsequently transferred to similar congregations of Hebrew Christians ( Ja 2:2). ‘Tell it to the ecclesia’ can hardly refer directly to communities of Jesus’ disciples, as these did not exist in the time of the Galilæan ministry, but rather to the Jewish congregation, or its representative court, in the place to which the disputants might belong. The renewal of the promise concerning binding and loosing in v. 18 (cf. 16:19) makes against this interpretation. And the assurance of Christ’s presence in v. 20 can have reference only to gatherings of disciples. But it may well be that we have these sayings brought together by Matthew in view of the Christian significance of ecclesia. There is no evidence that ecclesia, like ‘synagogue,’ was transferred from the congregation of Israel to the religious assemblies which were its local embodiment. But, though not the technical term, there would be no difficulty in applying it, without fear of misunderstanding, to the synagogue. And this would be the more natural because the term is usually applied to Israel in its historical rather than in its ideal aspect (see Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 12).
2. Ecclesia is used constantly with its Christian meaning in the Pauline Epistles. Its earliest use chronologically is probably in 1 Th 1:1. But the growth of its use is hest studied by beginning with Acts. Here the term first occurs in 5:11, applied to the Christians of Jerusalem in their corporate capacity. In 1:15 St. Peter is represented as standing up ‘in the midst of the brethren.’ Thus from the first Christians are a brotherhood or family, not a promiscuous gathering. That this family is considered capable of an ordered extension is evident (a) from the steps immediately taken to fill a vacant post of authority (1:25), and (b) from the way in which converts on receiving baptism are spoken of as added to a fellowship (2:47 AV ‘added to the church,’ but see RV) which continues in the Apostles’ teaching, and the bond of a common table and united prayer (2:42, 46). This community is now called ‘the assemblage of them that believed’ (4:32), the word used, as compared with its employment elsewhere, suggesting not a throng or crowd but the whole body of the disciples. In Ex 12:6 we have the phrase ‘the whole assembly of the congregation (Gr. synagōgē) of Israel.’ When, therefore, it became necessary to find a collective name for ‘the believers,’ ecclesia, the alternative to ‘synagogue,’ was not unnaturally chosen. For the disciples meeting in Jerusalem were, as a matter of fact, the true Israel (Gal 6:16), the little flock to whom was to be given the Messianic Kingdom (Lk 12:32). Moreover, they were a Christian synagogue, and, but for the risk of confusion, might have been so called. The name, therefore, as applied to the primitive community of Jesus, is on the one hand universal and ideal, on the other local and particular. In either case the associations are Jewish, and by these the subsequent history of the name is determined.
3. As Christianity spread, the local units of the brotherhood came to he called ecclesiæ (Ac 9:31, 13:1, 14:23, 15:41, 20:17 etc.), the original community being now distinguished as ‘the ecclesia in Jerusalem’ (8:1). Thus we reach the familiar use of the Pauline Epistles, e.g. the ecclesia of the Thessalonians (1 Th 1:1), of Laodicea (Col 4:16), of Corinth (1 Co 1:2); cf. 1 P 5:13, Rev 2:1 etc. They are summed up in the expression ‘all the ecclesiœ of Christ’ (Ro 16:16). This language has doubtless given rise to the modern conception of ‘the churches’; but it must be observed that the Pauline idea is territorial, the only apparent departure from this usage being the application of the name to sections of a local ecclesia, which seem in some instances to have met for additional worship in the houses of prominent disciples (Ro 16:5, 1 Co 16:19 etc.). The existence of independent congregations of Christians within a single area, like the Hellenistic and Hebrew synagogues ( see Ac 6:1, 9), does not appear to be contemplated in the NT.
4. The conception of a Catholic Church in the sense of a constitutional federation of local Christian organizations in a universal community is postApostolic. The phrase is first found in Ignatius (c. a.d. 115; see Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers, Pt. 2. ii. p. 310). But in the 1st cent. the Church of Jerusalem, as the seat of Apostolic authority (Ac 8:1, 14), still exercises an influence upon the other communities, which continues during the period of translation to the world-wide society. At Jerusalem Saul receives the right hand of fellowship and recognition from the pillar Apostles (Gal 2:9). Thence Apostles go forth to confirm and consolidate the work of evangelists (Ac 8:14). Thither missionaries return with reports of newly-founded Gentile societies and contributions for the poor saints (Ac 15:2, 24:17, 1 Co 16:1–3). It is this community that promulgates decisions on problems created by the extension of Christianity (Ac 15:22–29). Till after the destruction of the city in a.d. 71 this Church continued, under the presidency of James the Lord’s brother (Gal 2:12, Ac 12:17, 15:13, 21:18), and then of other members of the Christian ‘royal family’ (Eusebius, HE iii. 11, 19, 20), to be the typical society of Jesus’ disciples.
5. But already in the NT that ideal element, which distinguished the primitive fellowship as the Kingdom of Messiah, is beginning to express itself in a conception of the ecclesia which, while it never loses touch with the actual concrete society or societies of Christians, has nevertheless no constitutional value. It is scarcely possible to suppose that the adoption of the name ecclesia for the Christian society was altogether unrelated to the celebrated use of the word by the
Lord Himself in His conversation with the disciples at Cæsarea Philippi ( Mt 16:13–20 ||). Two suggestions with regard to this passage may be dismissed. The first is that it was interpolated to support the growth of ecclesiastical authority in the 2nd cent.; this rests solely on an assumption that begs the question. The second is that ecclesia has been substituted for ‘kingdom’ in our Lord’s utterance through subsequent identification of ideas. But the occasion was one that Christ evidently intended to signalize by a unique deliverance, the full significance of which would not become apparent till interpreted by later experience (cf. Mt 10:38, Jn 6:53). The metaphor of building as applied to the nation of Israel is found in the OT ( Jer 33:7; cf. Am 9:11, Ps 102:16). There is therefore little doubt that Jesus meant His disciples to understand the establishment of Messiah’s Kingdom; and that the use of the less common word ecclesia, far from being unintentional, is designed to connect with the new and enlarged Israel only the spiritual associations of Jehovah’s congregation, and to discourage the temporal aspirations which they were only too ready to derive from the promised Kingdom.
6. The Kingdom of God, or of Heaven, is a prominent conception in the Synoptic Gospels. It is rather the Kingdom than the King that Christ Himself proclaims (Mk 1:14, 15, cf. Mt 4:17). The idea, partially understood by His contemporaries, was broadened and spiritualized by Jesus. It had been outlined by prophets and apocalyptic writers. It was to realize the hopes of that congregation of Israel which had been purchased and redeemed of old (Ps 74:2), and of which the
Davidic monarchy had been the pledge (Mic 4:8, Is 55:3 etc.). Typical passages are
Dn 2:44, 7:14. This was the Kingdom which the crowd hailed at the Triumphal
Entry (Mt 21:9 ||). Christ begins from the point of Jewish expectation, but the Kingdom which He proclaims, though not less actual, surpasses any previous conception in the minds of His followers. It is already present (Lk 11:20, 17:21 RVm) in His own Person and work. It is revealed as a historical institution in the parables of the Tares (Mt 13:24ff.) and the Drag-net (13:47ff.). Other parables present it as an ideal which no historical institution can satisfy, e.g. Treasure hid in a field (13:44), a merchantman seeking goodly Pearls (13:45), a grain of Mustard Seed (13:21, 32). We cannot solve the problem involved in Christ’s various presentations of the Kingdom by saying that He uses the word in different senses. He is dealing with a reality too vast to be submitted to the human understanding otherwise than in aspects and partial views which no powers of combination will enable us adequately to adjust. The twofold conception of the Kingdom as at once a reality and an ideal is finally brought home by those utterances of Jesus which refer its realization to the end of the age. Daniel’s prophecy is to be realized only when the Son of Man shall come in His Kingdom (24:3, 15, 25:31, 26:64). It is then that the blessed are to inherit what nevertheless was prepared for them from the beginning of time (25:34). And all views of the Kingdom which would limit it to an externally organized community are proved to be insufficient by a declaration like that of Lk 17:20, 21. But even when contemplated ideally, the Messianic Kingdom possesses those attributes of order and authority which are inseparable from a society (Mt 19:28).
It is hardly to be doubted, therefore, that the name ecclesia, as given to the primitive community of Christians at Jerusalem, even if suggested rather by the synagogue than by our Lord’s declaration to St. Peter, could not be used without identifying that society with the Kingdom of God, so far as this was capable of realization in an institution, and endowing it with those ideal qualities which belong thereto. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples at Pentecost, fulfilling as it did the expectation of a baptism of fire that was to accompany the establishment of the Kingdom (Ac 1:5, 2:3, 4, Mt 3:11), connects the Church with the Kingdom, and the scattering of its members after Stephen’s death (Ac 8:1) would begin to familiarize the disciples with the idea of the unity in Christ unbroken by local separation (cf. 8:1 and 9:31).
7. But it is only in the theology of St. Paul that we find the Kingdom of the Gospels interpreted in terms of the actual experience of the Christian ecclesia. The extension of the fellowship beyond the limits of a single city has shown that the ideal Church cannot be identified simpliciter with any Christian community, while the idealization of the federated ecclesiœ, natural enough in a later age, is, in the absence of a wider ecclesiastical organization, not yet possible. It is still further from the truth to assert that St. Paul had the conception of an invisible Church, of which the local communities were at best typical. ‘We have no evidence that St. Paul regarded membership of the universal ecclesia as invisible’ (Hort, Christian
Ecclesia, p. 169). The method by which the Apostle reached his doctrine of the
Church is best illustrated by his charge to the elders at Miletus to feed the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers (Ac 20:28). Here the local Ephesian Church represents practically God’s Church purchased with His precious blood (v. 28), a real community of which visibility is an essential characteristic, but which by the nature of the case is incapable of a complete manifestation in history. The passage combines in a remarkable degree the three elements in the Divine Society, namely, the redeemed congregation of Israel ( Ps 74:2), the Kingdom or ecclesia of Messiah (Mt 16:18), and the body established upon the Atonement (Col 1:20–22, Eph 2:13). All three notes are present in the teaching of the Epistles concerning the ecclesia. It is the historical fact of the inclusion of the Gentiles (Eph 2:18) that is the starting-point. Those nations which under the old covenant were alien from the people of God (Eph 2:12) are now included in the vast citizenship or polity (v. 13ff.) which membership in a local ecclesia involves. The Church has existed from all eternity as an idea in the mind of God (3:3–11), the heritage prepared for Christ (1:10, 11). It is the people of possession (1:14, cf. 1 P 2:9, Tit 2:14), identified with the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12), and as such the immediate object of redemption (5:25); but through the reconciliation of the Cross extended (2:14), and, as it were, reincorporated on a wider basis (v. 15), as the sphere of universal forgiveness (v. 16), the home of the Spirit (v. 18), and the one body of Christ (4:12 etc.), in which all have access to the Father (2:18). The interlaced figures of growth and building (4:12, 16), under which it is presented, witness to its organic and therefore not exclusively spiritual character. Baptism, administered by the local ecclesiœ and resulting in rights and duties in respect of them, is yet primarily the method of entrance to the ideal community (Ro 6:3, 4, 1 Co 12:13, Gal 3:27, 28, Eph 4:5), to which also belong those offices and functions which, whether universal like the Apostolate (1 Co 12:27, 28) or particular like the presbyterate (Ac 20:17, 28; cf. 1 Co 12:8–11, Eph 4:11), are exercised only in relation to the local societies. It is the Church of God that suffers persecution in the persons of those who are of ‘the Way’ (1 Co 15:9 , Ac 8:3, 9:1); is profaned by misuse of sacred ordinances at Corinth (1 Co 11:22) ; becomes at Ephesus the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Ti 3:16).
That St. Paul, in speaking of the Church now in the local now in the universal sense, is not dealing with ideas connected only by analogy, is proved by the ease with which he passes from the one to the other use (Col 4:15, 16; cf. 1:18, 24 and Eph. passim). The Church is essentially visible, the shrine of God (1 Co 3:16, 17) , the body of Christ (Eph 1:23 etc.); schism and party-strife involving a breach in the unity of the Spirit (4:3). Under another figure the Church is the bride of Christ (5:25ff.), His complement or fulness (1:23), deriving its life from Him as He does from the Father (v. 22, 1 Co 11:3).
8. Thus the Biblical view of the Church differs alike from the materialized conception of Augustine, which identifies it with the constitutionally incorporated and œcumenical society of the Roman Empire, with its canon law and hierarchical jurisdiction, and from that Kingdom of Christ which Luther, as interpreted by Ritschl, regarded as ‘the inward spiritual union of believers with Christ’ (Justification and Reconciliation, Eng. tr. p. 287). The principle of the Church’s life is inward, so that ‘the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ’ remains the object of Christian hope (Eph 4:13). But its manifestation is outward, and includes those ministries which, though marred, as history shows, by human failure and sin, are set in the Church for the building up of the body (v. 11, 12). Just as members of the legal Israel are recognized by our Lord as sons of the Kingdom (Mt 8:12), so the baptized are the called, the saints, the members of the body. There is no warrant in the NT for that sharp separation between membership in the legal worshipping Church and the Kingdom of God which is characteristic of Ritschlianism.
9. The Church in its corporate capacity is the primary object of redemption. This truth, besides being definitely asserted (Eph 5:25, 27, Ac 20:28, Tit 2:14), is involved in the conception of Christ as the second Adam (Ro 5:12–21, 1 Co 15:20– 22), the federal head of a redeemed race; underlies the institutions of Baptism and the Eucharist; and is expressed in the Apostolic teaching concerning the two Sacraments (see above, also 1 Co 10:16–18, 11:20–34). The Church is thus not a voluntary association of justified persons for purposes of mutual edification and common worship, but the body in which the individual believer normally realizes his redemption. Christ’s love for the Church, for which He gave Himself ( Eph 5:25), constituting a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of possession (1 P 2:5, 9) through His blood (Eph 2:13), completes the parallel, or rather marks the identity, with the historical Israel. Membership in Abraham’s covenanted race, of which circumcision was the sign (Gn 17:8), brought the Israelite into relation with Jehovah. The sacrifices covered the whole ‘church in the wilderness’ (Ac 7:38) , and each worshipper approached God in virtue of his inclusion in the holy people. No foreigner might eat of the Passover (Ex 12:45). The propitiatory ritual of the
Day of Atonement was expressly designed for the consecration of the whole nation (Lv 16). So the sacrifice of the Cross is our Passover (1 Co 5:7). The worship of the Christian congregation is the Paschal feast (v. 8, cf. He 13:10–16). In Christ those who are now fellow-citizens have a common access to the Father (Eph 2:18 , He 10:22). Through the Mediator of a new covenant (12:24) those that are consecrated (10:14, 22) are come to the Church of the first-born (12:23), which includes the spirits of the perfected saints (ib.) in the fellowship of God’s household (Eph 2:19, He 10:21). See also following article.
J. G. Simpson.
CHURCH GOVERNMENT.—1. The general development seems fairly clear, though its later stages fall beyond NT times. The Apostles were founders of churches, and therefore regulated and supervised the first arrangements; then were added sundry local and unlocal rulers; then the unlocal died out, and the local settled down into the three permanent classes of bishops, elders, and deacons. The chief disputed questions concern the origin of the local ministry, its relation to the other, and the time and manner in which it settled down under the government of (monarchical) bishops.
2. Twice over St. Paul gives something like a list of the chief persons of the Church. In 1 Co 12:28 he counts up—‘first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powers; then gifts of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues.’ It will be noticed that all the words after the first two plainly describe functions, not offices. A few years later (Eph 4:11) he tells us how the ascended Lord ‘himself gave some as apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the work of service’ (diakonia)—they are all of them ‘deacons’ (diakonoi), whatever more they may be.
3. At the head of both lists is the Apostle. The Apostles were not limited to the
Eleven, or to the number twelve, though twelve was always the ideal number (1 Co 15:5, Rev 21:14; perhaps Ac 2:14, 6:2). Whether Matthias remained an Apostle or not, Paul and Barnabas were certainly Apostles (e.g. Ac 14:14), and so was James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19). The old disciples Andronicus and Junias (not Junia) were ‘notable’ Apostles (Ro 16:7). On the other hand, Timothy seems excluded by the greetings of several Epistles (e.g. 2 Co.), and Apollos by the evidence of Clement of Rome, who most likely knew the truth of the matter.
The Apostle’s first qualification was to have seen the risen Lord (Ac 1:22, 1 Co 9:5), for his first duty was to bear witness of the Resurrection. This qualification seems never to have been relaxed in NT times. A direct call was also needed, for (1 Co 12:28, Gal 1:1, Eph 4:11) no human authority could choose an Apostle. The call of Barnabas and Saul was acknowledged (Ac 13:8) by a commission from the church at Antioch; and if Matthias remained an Apostle, we must suppose that the direct call was represented by some later Divine recognition.
Therefore the Apostle was in no sense a local official. His work was not to serve tables, but to preach and to make disciples of all nations, so that he led a wandering life, settling down only in his old age, or in the sense of making, say, Ephesus or Corinth his centre for a while. The stories which divide the world among the Twelve are legends: the only division we know of was made (Gal 2:8) at the Conference, when it was resolved that the Three should go to the Jews, Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles. With this preaching went the founding and general care of churches, though not their ordinary government. St. Paul interferes only in cases of gross error or corporate disorder. His point is not that the Galatians are mistaken, but that they are altogether falling away from Christ; not that the Corinthian is a bad offender, but that the church sees no great harm in the matter.
He does not advise the Corinthians on further questions without plain hints (1 Co 6:5, 10:14, 11:14) that they ought to have settled most of them for themselves.
4. Next to the Apostle comes the shadowy figure of the Prophet. He too sustained the Church, and shared with him (Eph 2:20, 3:5) the revelation of the mystery. He spoke ‘in the spirit’ words of warning, of comfort, or it might be of prediction. He too received his commission from God and not from men, and was no local officer of a church, even if he dwelt in the city. But he was not an eyewitness of the risen Lord, and ‘the care of all the churches’ did not rest on him. Women also might prophesy (1 Co 11:5), like Philip’s daughters (Ac 21:9) at
Cæsarea, or perhaps the mystic Jezebel (Rev 2:20) at Thyatira. Yet even in the Apostolic age prophecy (1 Th 5:20) is beginning to fall into discredit, and false prophets are flourishing (1 Jn., 2 Pet., Jude). This may be the reason for the marked avoidance of the name ‘Apostle’ by and of St. John.
5. It will be seen that St. Paul’s lists leave no place for a local ministry of office, unless it comes in under ‘helps and governments’ on ‘pastors and teachers.’ Yet such a ministry must have existed almost from the first. We have (1) the appointment of the Seven at Jerusalem (Ac 6); (2) elders at Jerusalem in the years 44, 50, 58 (11:30, 15:8, 22, 21:18), appointed by Paul and Barnabas in every church about 48 (14:23), mentioned Ja 5:14; at Ephesus in 58 (Ac 20:17) , mentioned 1 P 5:1; (3) Phœhe a deaconess at Cenchreæ in 58 (Ro 16:1), bishops and deacons at Philippi in 63 (Ph 1:1). Also in the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy at Ephesus about 66 is (1 Ti 3, 4) in charge of four orders: (1) bishops (or elders) (5:1); (2) deacons; (3) deaconesses (3:11) (‘women’ [in Gr. without the article] cannot be wives of deacons); (4) widows. With Titus in Crete only bishops are mentioned (Tit 1:5). To these we add (5) the prominent quasi-episcopal positions of James at Jerusalem in 44 (Ac 12:17), in 50, and in 58; and (6) of Timothy and Titus at Ephesus and in Crete.
To these we must not add (1) the ‘young men’ (neōteroi) who carried out Ananias (Ac 5:6). [The tacit contrast with presbyteroi is of age, not office, for it is neaniskoi who bury Sapphira]; (2) the indefinite proistamenoi of 1 Th 5:12 and Ro 12:8, and the equally indefinite hēgoumenoi of some unknown church shortly before 70 (He 13:7, 17). [If these are officials, we can say no more than that there are several of them]; (3) the angels of the seven churches in Asia. [These cannot safely be taken literally.]
6. The questions before us may be conveniently grouped round the three later offices of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon. But bishop and deacon seem at first to have denoted functions of oversight and service rather than definite offices. The elder carries over a more official character from the synagogue; but in any case there is always a good deal of give and take among officials of small societies. If so, we shall not be surprised if we find neither definite institution of offices nor sharp distinction of duties.
(1) Deacons. The traditional view, that the choice of the Seven in Ac 6 marks the institution of a permanent order of deacons, is open to serious doubt. The opinion of Cyprian and later writers is not worth much on a question of this kind, and even that of Irenæus is far from decisive. The vague word diakonia (used too in the context of the Apostles themselves) is balanced by the avoidance of the word ‘deacon’ in the Acts (e.g. 21:8 Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven). Since, however, Phœbe was a deaconess at Cenchreæ in 58, there were probably deacons there and at Corinth, though St. Paul does not mention any; and at Philippi we have bishops and deacons in 63. In both cases, however, the doubt remains, how far the name has settled into a definite office. See art. Deacon.
(2) Elders. Elders at Jerusalem receive the offerings in 44 from Saul and
Barnabas. They are joined with the Apostles at the Conference in 50, and with James in 58. As Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every city on their first missionary journey, and we find elders at Ephesus in 58, we may infer that the churches generally had elders, though there is no further certain mention of them till the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Peter. Probably Ja 5:12 is earlier, but there we cannot be sure that the word is official.
The difference of name between elders and bishops may point to some difference of origin or duties; but in NT (and in Clement of Rome) the terms are practically equivalent. Thus the elders of Ephesus are reminded (Ac 20:28) that they are bishops. In the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy appoints ‘bishops and deacons’; Titus, ‘elders and deacons,’ though Timothy also (1 Ti 5:17) has elders under him. The qualifications of the elder, as described to Titus, are practically those of the bishop as given to Timothy, and it is added (Tit 1:7) that the elders must be such ‘because the bishop must be blameless,’ etc.—which is decisive that the bishop’s office was at least as wide as the elder’s. Moreover, in both cases the duties implied are ministerial, not what we call episcopal. If the elder’s duty is to rule (1 Ti 5:17), he does it subject to Timothy, much as a modern elder rules subject to his bishop.
(3) Bishops. See Bishop.
H. M. Gwatkin.
CHURCHES, ROBBERS OF.—This is in Ac 19:37 an AV mistranslation (RV has ‘robbers of temples’). Even the RV is inexact. The word ought to be translated simply ‘sacrilegious persons,’ that is, persons acting disrespectfully to the goddess of Ephesus. In 2 Mac 4:42 (RV ‘author of the sacrilege’) the expression is applied to Lysimachus, brother of Menelaus the high priest, who perished in a riot caused by sacrilege (b.c. 170).
A. Souter.
CHURCHES, SEVEN.—See Angels of the Seven Churches, Revelation [Book of], also the artt. on Ephesus, Smyrna, etc.
CHUSI (Jth 7:18), mentioned with Ekrebel (’Akrabeh), is possibly Kuzah, 5 miles S. of Shechem and 5 miles W. of ‘Akrabeh.
CHUZA (Amer. RV Chuzas).—The steward of Herod Antipas. His wife Joanna (wh. see) was one of the women who ministered to our Lord and His disciples (Lk 8:3).
CIELED, CIELING (Amer. RV ‘ceiled,’ ‘ceiling’). The latter occurs only 1 K 6:15, where it has its modern signification (reading, however, ‘unto the beams [ or rafters] of the cieling).’ The verb, on the other hand, should everywhere be rendered ‘panelled’ (2 Ch 3:5, Jer 22:14, Ezk 41:16, Hag 1:4 ‘your panelled houses’), the reference being to the panels of cedar or other costly wood with which the inner walls were lined. See House, § 4.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CILICIA.—A district in the S.E. corner of Asia Minor, which in NT times was divided into two portions. The Roman province Cilicia, which is alone referred to in the NT, stretched from a little E. of Corycus to Mt. Amanus, and from the Cilician Gates and Anazarbus to the sea. For administrative purposes it was combined with Syria and Phœnicia. The sense of the unity of Syria and Cilicia is seen clearly in Gal 1:21 (also in Ac 15:23, 41). The capital of the province Cilicia was Tarsus (Ac 21:39, 22:3). The other portion to which the name was applied was the client-kingdom of king Antiochus, which was under the suzerainty of Rome, and included Cilicia Tracheia (Rugged Cilicia) to the W., as well as a belt surrounding the Roman province on the N. and E. Neither district has as yet been thoroughly explored.
A. Souter.
CIMMERIANS.—The name, which has come to us through the Greek, of the people known as Gomer (wh. see) in the Bible, the Gimirrē of the cuneiform inscriptions.
J. F. McCurdy.
CINNAMON (Ex 30:23, Pr 7:17, Ca 4:14, Rev 18:13).—Almost without doubt the product of Cinnamomum zeylanicum of Ceylon. The inner bark is the part chiefly used, but oil is also obtained from the fruit. Cinnamon is still a favourite perfume and flavouring substance in Palestine.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CIRCUIT occurs 4 times in AV: 1 S 7:16 (a late and doubtful passage, acc. to which Samuel went on circuit to various high places), Job 22:14 (RVm and Amer.
RV ‘vault,’ i.e. the vault of heaven), Ps 19:6 (of the sun’s course in the heavens), Ec 1:8 (of the circuits of the wind). Besides retaining these instances, RV substitutes ‘made [make] a circuit’ for AV ‘fetch a compass’ in 2 S 5:23, 2 K 3:9 , Ac 28:13. See Compass.
CIRCUMCISION.—This rite is not of Israelite origin; there are some good grounds for the belief that it came to the Israelites from the Egyptians. The fact of a flint being used for its performance (Jos 5:2, 3) witnesses to the immense antiquity of the rite. Its original meaning and object are hidden in obscurity, though the theory that it was regarded as a necessary preliminary to marriage has much to commend it. Among the Israelites it became the sign of the Covenant People; whoever was uncircumcised could not partake of the hopes of the nation, nor could such join in the worship of Jahweh; he could not be reckoned an Israelite ( Gn 17:14). Not only was every Israelite required to undergo circumcision, but even every slave acquired by the Israelites from foreign lands had likewise to be circumcised (Gn 17:12, 13); according to Ex 12:48, 49 even a stranger sojourning in the midst of Israel had to submit to the rite, at all events if he wished to join in the celebration of the Passover. Originally male children were not circumcised in Israel (cf. Jos 5:5–9), but boys had to undergo it on arriving at the age of puberty; but in later days the Law commanded that every male child should be circumcised on the eighth day after birth (Lv 12:3).
In the OT there are two accounts as to the occasion on which circumcision was first practised by the Israelites; according to Gn 17:10–14 the command was given to Abraham to observe the rite as a sign of the covenant between God and him, as representing the nation that was to be; while according to Ex 4:25, 26 its origin is connected with Moses. It was the former that, in later days, was always looked upon as its real origin; and thus the rite acquired a purely religious character, and it has been one of the distinguishing marks of Judaism ever since the Exile. The giving of a name at circumcision (Lk 1:59, 2:21) did not belong to the rite originally, but this has been the custom among Jews ever since the return from the Captivity, and probably even before.
In the early Church St. Paul had a vigorous warfare to wage against his Judaizing antagonists, and it became a vital question whether the Gentiles could be received into the Christian community without circumcision. As is well known, St. Paul gained the day, but it was this question of circumcision, which involved of course the observance of the entire Mosaic Law, that was the rock on which union between the early Christians and the Judaizing Christians split. Henceforth the Jewish and the Christian communities drifted further and further apart.
Circumcision in its symbolic meaning is found fairly frequently in the OT; an ‘uncircumcised heart’ is one from which disobedience to God has not been ‘cut off’ (see Lv 26:41, Dt 10:16, 30:6); the expression ‘uncircumcised lips’ (Ex 6:12 , 30) would be equivalent to what is said of Moses, as one who ‘spake unadvisedly with his lips’ (Ps 106:33, cf. Is 6:5); in Jer 6:10 we have the expression ‘their ear is uncircumcised’ in reference to such as will not hearken to the word of the Lord. A like figurative use is found in the NT (e.g. Col 2:11, 13).
W. O. E. Oesterley.
CISTERN.—In Palestine, the climate and geological formation of the country render the storage of water a prime necessity of existence. Hence cisterns, mostly hewn in the solid rock, were universal in Bible times, and even before the Hebrew conquest (Dt 6:11, Neh 9:25, both RV). Thus at Gezer it has been found that ‘the rock was honeycombed with cisterns, one appropriated to each house [cf. 2 K 18:31] or group of houses … (and) fairly uniform in character. A circular shaft, about 3 feet in diameter and 5 feet deep, cut through the rock, expands downwards into a chamber roughly square or circular in plan, about 13 to 25 feet in diameter and generally about 20 feet deep.… The wall is generally covered with coarse plaster’ (PEFSt 1903, 111 f.).
A cistern might contain only rain water conveyed from the court or flat roof during the rainy season by gutters and pipes, or might be fed by a conduit led from a spring at a distance. The largest of the innumerable cisterns of Jerusalem, the ‘great sea’ in the Haram area, which is estimated to have held 3,000,000 gallons, derived its water-supply partly from surface drainage and partly from water brought by a conduit from Solomon’s Pools near Bethlehem ( Wilson ).
The mouth of a cistern, through which the water was sometimes drawn by a wheel (Ec 12:6), was legally required to have a cover (Ex 21:33, cf. Jos. Ant. IV. viii. 37). A disused or temporarily empty cistern formed a convenient place of detention, as in the case of Joseph (Gn 37:20ff.) and of Jeremiah (Jer 38:6 ff. ).
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CITADEL (1 Mac 1:33, 3:45 etc. [RVm]).—See Fortification, § 4.
CITHERN (1 Mac 4:54 AV).—See Music.
CITIES OF THE PLAIN.—See Plain [Cities of the].
CITIZENSHIP.—See Paul, Rome.
CITY.—The surprisingly large number of places in the ‘least of all lands’ which receive in Scripture the honourable designation of ‘city’ is in itself evidence that the OT ‘cities,’ like the NT ‘ships,’ must not be measured by modern standards. The recent excavations in Palestine have confirmed this conclusion. In his recent work, Canaan d’après l’exploration récente (1907), the Dominican scholar, Father Vincent, has prepared plans on a uniform scale of the various sites excavated (see op. cit. 27 ff. with plate). From these the modest proportions of an ancient Canaanite or Hebrew city may be best realized. The area of Lachish, for example, did not exceed 15 acres; Taanach and Megiddo each occupied from 12 to 13 acres—an area about equal to the probable extent of the Jehusite city on Ophel captured by David (2 S 5:6ff.). Gezer, at the time of its greatest expansion, did not exceed 23 acres, or thereby, the circuit of its outer wall being only 1500 yards, about 1/3 of the extent of the present wall of Jerusalem.
With the exception of cities on the sea-board, the situation of the Canaanite city was determined, as elsewhere in that old world, by two supreme considerations— the presence of an adequate water-supply and the capability of easy defence against the enemy. ‘The cities of Canaan,’ says Vincent, ‘were almost invariably perched upon a projecting spur of a mountain slope, or upon an isolated eminence in the plain: Megiddo, Gezer, Tell-es-Safy [Gath?]—not to mention the hill of the primitive Jerusalem—are characteristic examples of the former site, Taanach and Lachish of the latter.’ With this well-known fact agrees the mention of the ‘cities on their mounds’ (Jos 11:13 RV, Jer 30:18 RVm [Heb. tillīm, the Arabic tell, now so common in the topographical nomenclature of Western Asia]).
The relation between the city and the dependent villages was regarded as that of a mother (2 S 20:19 ‘a mother in Israel’) and her daughters, a point lost in our rendering ‘villages’ (e.g. Jos 15:32, 36, 41 and passim), though noted in the margins. From these the city was outwardly distinguished by its massive walls ( cf. Nu 13:28, Dt 1:28 ‘walled up to heaven’), on the construction of which recent excavation has thrown a flood of new light (see Fortification). Close to, if not actually upon, the walls, houses were sometimes built, as we learn from Jos 2:15 (cf. 2 Co 11:33).
The streets are now seen to have been exceedingly narrow and to have been laid out on no definite plan, ‘a maze of narrow crooked causeways and blind alleys,’ as at Gezer. Only at the intersection of the more important streets, and especially near the city gates, were broad places (Jer 5:1, Neh 8:1, 3, 16 RV—where AV, as often, has ‘streets’)—the markets (Mt 11:16, Lk 11:43) and market-places ( Mt 20:3, Lk 7:32) of NT—where the citizens met to discuss public affairs, the children to play, and the elders to dispense justice. The importance of the gates, which were closed at nightfall (Jos 2:5), is treated of in art. Fortification and Sieoecraft, § 5.
During the night the watchmen mounted guard on the ramparts, or went ‘about the city’ (Ca 3:3, Is 62:6; cf. Ps 127:1). A feature of an Eastern city in ancient as in modern times was the aggregation in a particular street or streets of representatives of the same craft or occupation, from which the name of the street or quarter was derived (see Arts and Crafts, § 10).
The houses were absurdly small to Western ideas (see House), for the city folk lived their life in the courts and streets, retiring to their houses mainly to eat and sleep. Every city of any importance, and in particular every royal city, had its castle, citadel, or acropolis, as the excavations show, to which the inhabitants might flee as a last defence. Such was the ‘strong tower within the city’ of Thebez (Jg 9:51). Indeed the common term for city (‘ir) is often used in this restricted sense; thus the ‘stronghold of Zion’ is re-named ‘David’s castle’ or citadel (2 S 5:7, AV ‘city of David’), and the ‘city of waters’ (12:27) at Rabbath-ammon is really the ‘water fort.’
As regards the water-supply, it was essential, as we have seen, to have one or more springs in the immediate vicinity, to which ‘at the time of evening’ ( Gn 24:11) the city maidens went forth to draw (see Well). Against the long rainless summer, and especially against the oft-recurring cases of siege, it was not less necessary that the city should be provided with open pools and covered cisterns for the storage of water. Mesha, king of Moab, tells in his famous inscription how, as there was ‘no cistern in the midst of’ a certain city, he ‘said to all the people: make you each a cistern in his house’ (cf. Cistern).
In the internal affairs of the city the king in Canaanite days was supreme. Under the Hebrew monarchy and later, law and justice were in the hands of ‘the elders of the city’ (Dt 19:12, 21:3ff., Ru 4:2 etc.). In addition to freemen, possessing the full rights of citizenship—the ‘men of the city’ par excellence—with their wives and children, the population will have included many slaves, mostly captives of war, and a sprinkling of sojourners and passing strangers (see Stranger).
No city, finally, was without its sanctuary or high place, either within its own precincts, as in most cities of note (see High Place), or on an adjoining height (1 S 9:12ff.). With due religious rites, too, the city had been founded in far-off Canaanite, or even, as we now know, in pre-Canaanite days, when the foundation sacrifice claimed its human victim (see House, § 3). A survival of this wide-spread custom is almost certainly to be recognized in connexion with the rebuilding of Jericho, the foundation of which was laid by Hiel the Bethelite, ‘with the loss of Abiram his first born,’ and whose gates were set up ‘with the loss of’ his youngest son, Segub (1 K 16:34 RV).
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CLASPS.—See Taches.
CLAUDA.—See Cauda.
CLAUDIA.—A Roman Christian, perhaps wife of Pudens and mother of Linus (2 Ti 4:21); but Lightfoot (Clement, i. 76) shows that this is improbable. The two former names are found in a sepulchral inscription near Rome, and a Claudia was wife of Aulus Pudens, friend of Martial. If these are identified, Claudia was a British lady of high birth; but this is very unlikely.
A. J. Maclean.
CLAUDIUS.—Claudius, the fourth Roman emperor, who bore the names Tiberius Claudius Cæsar Augustus Germanicus, reigned from (24th) 25th Jan. 41 till his murder on 13th Oct. 54 a.d. He was a son of Nero Claudius Drusus ( the brother of the emperor Tiberius) and Antonia minor (a daughter of the triumvir Mark Antony and Octavia, sister of the emperor Augustus), and was born on 1 st August 10 b.c. at Lyons. From childhood he was weakly, and a prey to disease, which affected his mind as well as his body. This caused him to be neglected and despised. He was, however, a man of considerable ability, both literary and administrative, as he showed when he was called to succeed his own nephew Gains (Caligula) as emperor. He has been compared with James I. (VI. of Scotland) in both his weak and his strong points. It was in his reign that the first real occupation of Britain by the Romans took place. He is twice mentioned in Acts (11:28 and 18:2). The great famine over the whole of the Roman world which Agabus foretold took place in his reign. The expulsion of Jews from Rome, due to dissensions amongst them, occurred in the year 50. This latter date is one of the few fixed points of chronology in the Book of Acts. The reign of Claudius was satisfactory to the Empire beyond the average. The government of the provinces was excellent, and a marked feature was the large number of public works executed under the emperor’s supervision.
A. Souter.
CLAUDIUS LYSIAS. See Lysias.
CLAW.—In Dn 4:33 ‘claw’ means a bird’s claw; but in Dt 14:6 and Zec 11:16 it has the obsolete meaning of an animal’s hoof.
CLAY.—See Pottery.
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN
Introductory.—The words ‘clean,’ ‘unclean,’ ‘purity,’ ‘purification,’ have acquired in the process of religious development a spiritual connotation which obscures their original meaning. Their primitive significance is wholly ceremonial; the conceptions they represent date back to a very early stage of religious practice, so early indeed that it may be called pre-religious, in so far as any useful delimitation can be established between the epoch in which spell and magic predominated, and that at which germs of a rudimentary religious consciousness can be detected.—In a conspectus of primitive custom, one of the most widespread phenomena is the existence of ‘taboo.’ Anthropology has yet to say the last word about it, and its general characteristics can be differently summarized. But, broadly speaking, taboo springs from the religion of fear. The savage met with much which he could not understand, which was supra-normal to his experience. Such phenomena appeared to him charged with a potency which was secret and uncanny, and highly energetic. They were therefore to be avoided with great care; they were ‘taboo’ to him. It would be rash to dogmatize about the origin of this notion; it most probably dates back to days prior to any conscious animistic beliefs, and may even be traceable ultimately to instincts which mankind shares with the higher animals. No doubt in later times the idea was artificially exploited in deference to the exigencies of ambition and avarice on the part of chiefs and priests, to the distrust of innovations (cf. Ex 20:25, Dt 27:5, 6, Jos 8:31), to the recommendations of elementary sanitation, etc. But originally the savage regarded as taboo certain persons, material substances, and bodily acts or states which be considered to possess a kind of transmissible electric energy with which it was very dangerous to meddle; and these taboos were jealously guarded by the sanctions of civil authority, and later of religious belief.
It seems probable that even at such an early epoch taboos could be viewed from two distinct points of view. A taboo might be either a blessing or a curse, according as it was handled by an expert or a layman. Thus blood produced defilement, but, properly treated, it might remove impurity. A chief or king was taboo, and to touch him produced the primitive equivalent of ‘king’s evil’; and yet his touch could remove the disease it created. The reasons for this twofold point of view are very obscure, and do not come within the scope of this article. But the differentiation seems to have existed in a confused way at the earliest era.
Afterwards this notion crystallized into a very vital distinction. On the one hand we find the conception of holiness as expressing an official consecration and dedication to the Divine beings. A sanctuary, a season, a priest or chief, were set apart from common life and placed in a peculiar relation of intimacy to God or the gods; they were tabooed as holy. On the other hand, certain taboos were held to arise from the intrinsic repulsiveness of the object or condition, a repulsiveness which affected both God and man with dislike. Such taboos were due to the essential uncleanness of their object.
With the rise of animistic beliefs and practices this differentiation was reinforced by the dualism of benevolent and malignant spirits. Uncanny energy varied according as it arose from the one or the other class, and much care must be taken to propitiate the one and avert the power of the other. Thus on the one side we find sacrificial ritual, which has as its object to please the good demons, and on the other side we have a cathartic ritual, which aims at expelling evil demons from the vicinity (cf. Lv 16, where the two notions are united in one ceremony). But even after the growth of such refinements, ideas and rules survived which can be explained only as relics of primitive and even primeval taboo customs. A still later stage is seen when rules of purity are attributed to the conscious command of God, and their motive is found in His own personal character (Lv 11:44). The Jewish sacred books teem with references which demonstrate the survival of primitive taboos. Thus Frazer draws especial attention to the Nazirite vows (Nu 6:1–21), to the Sabbath regulations (Ex 35:2, 3), to the views as to death (Nu 19:11ff.), and childbirth (Lv 12). Similarly the origin of the conception of holiness may be seen in the idea that it is transmissible by contact (Ex 29:37, 30:29, Lv 6:27, Ezk 44:19) , or in the penalty for meddling with a holy object (1 S 6:19, 2 S 6:7); whilst allusions to ritual uncleanness occur frequently in Ezekiel, and the legislation on the subject forms a large part of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In some cases these ideas may have arisen in protest against historical developments of Hebrew custom. Thus it has been supposed that the Nazirite vows originated in the desire for a return to primitive simplicity by way of contrast to the habits of Palestinian Canaanites. But many of the regulations about uncleanness can be explained only by a reference to primitive ritualism, with its conceptions of objects charged with a secret energy which the ordinary man does well to shun.
The word ‘clean,’ it may be remarked, conveyed originally no positive idea. A clean object was one which was not under a taboo, which had contracted no ceremonial taint. And so again ‘purification’ meant the removal of a ceremonial taint by ceremonial means, the unclean object being thus restored to a normal condition. Fire and liquids were the best media of purification. Similarly ‘common,’ the opposite of ‘holy,’ merely meant ‘undedicated to God,’ and expressed no ethical or spiritual notion. In fact, when the conceptions of holiness and uncleanness had been definitely differentiated, the rule would be that, though the holy must be clean, the clean need in no way be holy. Later thought, however, confused the two ideas (cf. Ac 10:14).
I. Uncleanness in the OT.—The consequences of uncleanness and the methods of purification naturally differed in different races. But in the Jewish religion uncleanness was always held to disqualify a man for Divine worship and sacrifice. In practice a certain amount of laxity seems to have been tolerated (Ezk 22:26 , 44:7), though this did not pass without protest (Ezk 44:9, Is 52:1). But, strictly, an unclean man was debarred from religious offices (Lv 7:19, 20); and nobody could perform them in an unclean place, e.g. in any land but Palestine (2 K 5:17, Hos
9:3).
The Jewish rules about uncleanness can be roughly classified under five main heads: sexual impurity, uncleanness due to blood, uncleanness connected with food, with death, and with leprosy. This division is not scientific; some rules are equally in place in more than one class; but at present none but a rough classification is possible.
1. Sexual impurity.—All primitive religions display great terror of any functions connected, however remotely, with the organs of reproduction. Sexual intercourse produced uncleanness; and later animism taught that demons watched over such periods and must be averted with scrupulous care. The time when marriage is consummated was especially dangerous, and this idea is clearly seen in To 8:1–3, though this instance is unique in Jewish sacred literature. But, apart from this, the Jews considered all intercourse to defile till evening, and to necessitate a purificatory bath (Lv 15:18). Under certain circumstances, when cleanness was especially important, complete abstinence from women was required (Ex 19:15). Thus, too, from 1 S 21:5 it appears as if soldiers on a campaign came under this regulation; perhaps because war was a sacred function, duly opened with religious rites (cf. 2 S 11:11), and this may also be the cause for a bridegroom’s exemption from military service for a year after marriage (Dt 24:5).
Uncircumcision was regarded as unclean. The reason for this is not obvious; rites of circumcision were performed by many primitive nations at the time of puberty (whether for decorative purposes, or in order to prepare a young man or woman for marriage, or for some other reason), and it is possible that among the Jews this custom had been thrown back to an earlier period of life. Or it may be that they regarded circumcision as imposing a distinct tribe-mark on the infant. The condition of uncircumcision might be held as unclean because it implied foreign nationality. Taboos on strangers are very common in savage nations.
Seminal emission made a man unclean till the evening, and necessitated bathing and washing of clothes (Lv 15:16, 17).
Childbirth was universally regarded as a special centre of impurity, though among the Jews we find no evidence that the new-born child was subject to it as well as the mother. The mother was completely unclean for seven days; after that she was in a condition of modified impurity for 33 days, disqualified from entering the sanctuary or touching any hallowed thing. (These periods were doubled when the baby was a girl.) After this, in order to complete her purification, she must offer a lamb of the first year and a pigeon or turtle dove, though poorer people might substitute another pigeon or dove for the lamb (Lv 12, cf. Lk 2:24).
Analogous notions may perhaps be traced in the prohibition of any sexual impersonation (Dt 22:5), any mingling of different species (Dt 22:9–11, Lv 19:19) , and in the disqualifications on eunuchs, bastards, and the Ammonites and Moabites, the offspring of an incestuous union (Dt 23:1–6); though some of these rules look like the product of later refinement.
Human excreta were sources of uncleanness (Dt 23:12–14); but the directions on this subject very possibly date from the epoch of magical spells, and arose from the fear lest a man’s excrement might fall into an enemy’s hands and be used to work magic against him.
The prohibition to priests of woolen garments which caused sweat, is possibly an extension of a similar notion (Ezk 44:17–18). Finally, the abstinence from eating the sinew of the thigh, which in Gn 32:32 is explained by a reference to the story of Jacob, may have originated in the idea that the thigh was the centre of the reproductive functions.
2. Uncleanness due to blood.—The fear of blood dates back in all probability to the most primeval times, and may be in part instinctive. Among the Jews it was a most stringent taboo, and their aversion from it was reinforced by the theory that it was the seat of life (Dt 12:23). A clear instance of the all-embracing nature of its polluting power is seen in Dt 22:8. The same idea would probably cause the abstinence from eating beasts of prey, carrion birds, and animals which had died without being bled (Ezk 4:14, Ex 22:31, Lv 17:15, 22:3). To break this rule caused defilement (1 S 14:33, Ezk 33:25). Such a taboo is so universal and ancient that it cannot reasonably be accounted for by the Jewish hatred for heathen offerings of blood.
The taboos on menstrual blood and abnormal issues must come under this category or that of sexual impurity. Menstruation was terribly feared. It was exceedingly dangerous for a man even to see the blood. The woman in such a condition was unclean for seven days, and her impurity was highly contagious ( Lv 15:19–24). Similarly, abnormal issues produced contagious uncleanness for seven days after they had stopped. The purification required was the offering of two turtle doves and two young pigeons. A man bad also to bathe and wash his clothes, but we are not told that a woman was under the same necessity, though it is hardly credible that she was exempt (Lv 15:2–15, 25–30).
3. Uncleanness connected with food.—Anthropology no longer explains all food taboos as survivals of totemism, though no doubt this explanation may account for some. It appears rather that ‘theriolatry’ was the more general phenomenon. For reasons which cannot even be conjectured in many cases, certain animals were treated as sacred, and tahooed accordingly; it might be that the animal was very useful or very dangerous or very strange; the savage had no consistent theory of taboo. Some animals may be cases of sympathetic taboo; they were not eaten from the fear lest their qualities should be imparted to the consumer. In later times some animals might be tabooed from more elaborate motives. But food taboos cover so wide a range, and appear in many cases so inexplicable, that no single derivation of them can be adequate.
The Jews themselves dated the distinction between clean and unclean animals from an early antiquity (cf. Gn 7:2 and 8:20); Gn 9:3, however, appears to embody a theory of antediluvian vegetarianism.
The lists of clean and unclean beasts are given in Lv 11 and Dt 14:4ff. It is impossible to give any certain explanation of the separate items. Clean animals are there classified as those which part the hoof, are cloven-footed, and chew the cud. But this looks like an attempt of later speculation to generalize regulations already existent. The criterion would exclude the ass, horse, dog, and beasts of prey, which are nowhere mentioned as unclean. The last class, as we have seen, would probably be so on different grounds. The horse and dog seem to have been connected with idolatrous rites (2 K 23:11, Is 66:3), and so perhaps were forbidden. But Jg 6:4 appears to treat the ass as an ordinary article of diet. ( The circumstances in 2 K 6:25 are exceptional.) The rule that a kid must not be seethed in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19, 34:26, Dt 14:21) is difficult to account for. A magical conception appears to underlie the prohibition, and it has been suggested that some nations used to sprinkle the broth on the ground for some such purposes. In that case the taboo would be of great antiquity. But the matter is not at present satisfactorily explained. The taboo on the tree in Eden (Gn 3:3) hardly calls for discussion. So far as we know, it had no subsequent history; and the general colouring of the story makes it improbable that the prohibition had any origin in Jewish custom.
4. Uncleanness connected with death.—Death, as well as birth, was a source of great terror to the savage. The animistic horror of ghosts and theories of a continued existence after death, gave a rationale for such terror; but it probably existed in pre-animistic days, and the precautions exercised with regard to dead bodies were derived partly from the intrinsic mysteriousness of death, partly from the value of a corpse for magical purposes. Among the Jews a corpse was regarded as exceptionally defiling (Hag 2:13). Even a bone or a grave caused infectious uncleanness, and graves were whitened in order to be easily recognizable. He who touched a corpse was unclean for seven days (Nu 19:11ff.). Purification was necessary on the third and seventh days; and on the latter the unclean person also washed his clothes and bathed. A corpse defiled a tent and all open vessels in it. For similar reasons warriors needed purification after a battle (Nu 31:19–24); a murderer defiled the land and had to flee to a city of refuge, where he must remain till the death of the high priest (Nu 35). It has been suggested that this provision was due to the notion that the high priest, the temporary representative of Jahweh, was regarded as suffering from the defilement of murder as God suffered, and as the land suffered (Dt 21:1). It is singular that apparently a person who was unclean from touching a corpse might yet eat the Passover (Nu 9:6–12).
The kinsmen of a dead man were usually also unclean; Hos 9:4 points to a similar idea among the Jews. Indeed, mourning customs were in origin probably warnings of such impurity. Some of the most common are prohibited in Dt 14:1 and Lv 19:28, perhaps because of their heathenish associations.
The ritual of purification from corpse-defilement, described in Nu 19, must be of high antiquity. The purifying medium was water, the blood and ashes of a red heifer, with cedar, hyssop, and scarlet. This was sprinkled over the unclean person on the third and seventh days, and the priest and attendants who performed the ceremony were themselves defiled by it till evening, and needed purification ( cf. Dt 21). The ritual thus unites the three great cathartic media, fire, water, and aromatic woods and plants. The last, perhaps, were originally considered to be efficacious in expelling the death-demons by their scent.
5. Uncleanness connected with leprosy.—Orientals considered leprosy the one specially unclean disease, which required not healing but cleansing (cf. Nu 12:12). It appears to have been a kind of elephantiasis, and Lv 13 gives directions for its diagnosis. If pronounced unclean, the leper was excluded from the community (cf. 2 K 7:3). He could not attend a synagogue service in a walled town, though in open towns a special part of the synagogue was often reserved for lepers. If he was cured, he must undergo an elaborate process of purificatory ritual (Lv 14), including (a) the sacrifice of one bird and the release of another, perhaps regarded as carrying away the demon; fragrant plants, water, and the blood of the dead bird were used at this stage; (b) the washing of clothes, shaving of the hair, and bathing of the body; then (c) after seven days’ interval this second process was repeated; and finally (d) on the eighth day sacrifices were offered, and the man ceremonially cleansed with the blood and oil of the sacrifice.
II. Uncleanness in the NT.—Legal casnistry carried the cathartic ritual to a high pitch of complexity, and Jesus came into frequent conflict with the Jewish lawyers over the point (cf. Mk 7:1–5). He denounced it energetically (Lk 11:38, Mt 15:10) , and, by insisting on the supreme importance of moral purity, threw ceremonial ideas into a subordinate position. The full force of this teaching was not at once realized (cf. Ac 10:14). The decree in Ac 15:29 still recommends certain taboos. But St. Paul had no illusions on the subject (cf. Ro 14:14, 1 Co 6:13, Col 2:16, 20–
22, Tit 1:15). In practice he made concessions to the scruples of others (Ac 21:26 , Ro 14:20) as Jesus had done (Mk 1:44); and it was recognized that a man who had scruples must not be encouraged to violate them. But it was inevitable that with the process of time and reflexion, ceremonial prohibitions and ritualistic notions of cleanness should disappear before the Christian insistence on the internal elements in religion. There are certain survivals of such notions even now, and ceremonialism is not extirpated. But its scope is very narrow, and it is the custom to explain such ritual regulations as survive, on grounds that accord better with the spirit of Christianity and the ideas of civilized society.
A. W. F. Blunt.
CLEMENT.—The name of a fellow-worker with St. Paul (Ph 4:3). There are no sufficient grounds for identifying him with Clement, bishop of Rome, the writer of the Epistle to the Church of Corinth.
J. G. Tasker.
CLEOPAS.—Only Lk 24:18; whether to be identified with Clopas of Jn 19:25 and Alphæus of Mt 10:3 etc., is a matter of dispute.
CLEOPATRA.—1. A daughter of Ptolemy Epiphanes. She married in b.c. 173 her own brother Ptolemy Philometor (Ad. Est 11:1), and afterwards her second brother Ptolemy Physcon (Liv. xlv. 13, Epit. 59; Justin, xxxviii. 8). She greatly favoured the Jews in Egypt (Jos. c. Apion. ii. 5), and encouraged Onias IV. in the erection of the temple at Leontopolis (Jos. Ant. XIII. iii. 2). 2. A daughter of Ptolemy Philometor. In b.c. 150 she was given in marriage by her father to Alexander Balas (1 Mac 10:57, 58; Jos. Ant. XIII. iv. 1). When Balas was driven into Arabia, she became (b.c. 146), at her father’s bidding, the wife of his rival, Demetrius Nikator (1 Mac 11:12; Jos. Ant. XIII. iv. 7; Liv. Epit. 52).
CLOKE (AV and RV, but Amer. RV ‘cloak’).—See Dress, § 4.
CLOPAS (AV Cleophas) is named only in Jn 19:25. See Alphæus and Brethren of the Lord.
CLOSET.—The Gr. word so rendered in NT properly denotes ‘a storechamber’ as Lk 12:24 RV, then any inner or more private room as opposed to the living-room; so Mt 6:6, Lk 12:3 RV ‘inner-chamber.’ Cf. 1 K 20:30, 22:25, lit. ‘a chamber within a chamber,’ and House, § 2. For JL 2:16 see Driver, Joel and Amos, in loc.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CLOTHES, CLOTHING.—See Dress.
CLOUD.—In Scripture, as with us, the clouds are the visible masses of aqueous vapour, darkening the heavens, sources of rain and fertility, telling the present state of the weather or indicating a coming change. They serve also for figures of instability and transitoriness (Hos 6:4), calamity (La 2:1), the gloom of old age (Ec 12:2), great height (Job 20:6), immense numbers (He 12:1). The following points should be noted. 1. The poetic treatment in Job. The waters are bound up securely in the clouds, so that the rain does not break through (26:8) ; when the ocean issues from chaos like a new-born child, God wraps it in the swaddling-bands of clouds (38:9); the laws of their movements are impenetrable mysteries (36:29, 37:16, 38:37). 2. The cloud indicates the presence of God, and at the same time veils the insufferable brightness of His glory (Ex 16:10, 19:9 etc.). Similarly the bright cloud betokens the Father’s presence, and His voice is heard speaking from it (Mt 17:5). But a dark cloud would effectually hide Him, and thus furnishes a figure for displeasure (La 3:44). At Rev 10:1 the cloud is an angel’s glorious robe. 3. The pillar of cloud and fire directs and protects the journeyings of the Exodus (Ex 13:21, Ps 105:39). This corresponds with the fact that armies and caravans have frequently been directed by signals of fire and smoke. 4. The cloud alternates with the cherub as Jahweh’s chariot (Ps 18:10, Is 19:1). Indeed, the cherub is a personification of the thunder-cloud. The Messianic people and the Messiah Himself sweep through the heaven with clouds (Dn 7:13, Mk 14:62, Rev 1:7), or on the clouds (Mt 26:64): hence the later Jews identified Anani (= ‘He of the clouds,’ 1 Ch 3:24) with the Messiah. The saints are to be caught up in the clouds (1 Th 4:17). The Messiah’s throne is a white cloud (Rev 14:14). 5. In the ‘Cloud Vision’ of Apoc. Bar 53–73, the cloud from which the twelve streams of water pour is ‘the wide world which the Almighty created’—a very peculiar piece of imagery.
J. Taylor.
CLOUT.—Jer 38:11–12 ‘old cast clouts.’ The word is still used in Scotland for cloths (as in ‘dish-clout’), but for clothes only contemptuously. Formerly there was no contempt in the word. Sir John Mandeville (Travels, Macmillan’s ed. p. 75) says, ‘And in that well she washed often-time the clouts of her son Jesu Christ.’ The verb ‘to clout’ occurs in Jos 9:5, of shoes (Amer. RV ‘patched’).
CLUB.—Only Job 41:29 RV, for AV ‘dart.’ The stout shepherd’s club, with its thick end probably studded with nails, with which he defended his flock against wild beasts, is rendered by ‘rod’ in Ps 23:4 and elsewhere.
CNIDUS.—A city of Caria, in S.W. of Asia Minor. It was the dividing point between the S. and W. coasts of Asia Minor, and at this point St. Paul’s ship changed its course in the voyage to Rome (Ac 27:7). It contained Jewish inhabitants as early as the 2nd cent. b.c. (1 Mac 15:23), and had the rank of a free city.
A. Souter.
COAL.—Mineral coal was unknown in Bible times. Wherever ‘coal’ ( or ‘coals’) is mentioned, therefore, we must in the great majority of cases understand wood or charcoal. Several species of wood used for heating purposes are named in Is 44:14–16, to which Ps 120:4 adds ‘coals of broom’ (RVm). In two cases, however, the ‘live coal’ of Isaiah’s vision (Is 6:6) and the ‘coals’ on which was ‘a cake haken’ for Elijah (1 K 19:6), the Heb. word denotes a hot stone (so RVm— see Bread). The charcoal was generally burned in a brasier (Jer 36:22ff. RV, AV ‘hearth’) or chafing-dish, the ‘pan of fire’ of Zec 12:6 RV. See, further, House, § 7.
Coal, or rather charcoal, supplies several Scripture metaphors, the most interesting of which is illustrated by the expression of the wise woman of Tekoa, ‘thus shall they quench my coal that is left’ (2 S 14:7). By this she means, as shown by the following words, the death of her son and the extinction of her family, an idea elsewhere expressed as a putting out of one’s lamp (Pr 13:9).
A. R. S. Kennedy.
COAST.—Coast, now confined to the shore of the sea, was formerly used of the border between two countries, or the neighbourhood of any place. When St. Paul ‘passed through the upper coasts’ (Ac 19:1), he was in the interior of Asia Minor. Herod ‘slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof’ (Mt 2:16).
COAT.—See Dress, §§ 2 (d), 4.
COAT OF MAIL.—See Armour, Arms, § 2 (c).
COCK.—Mt 26:34, 74, Mk 13:35, 14:30, 72, Lk 22:34, 60, 61, Jn 13:30 , 18:27. Cocks and hens were probably unknown in Palestine until from two to three centuries before Christ’s time. In the famous painted tomb at Marissa ( see Mareshah), a work of about b.c. 200, we have the cock depicted. Cocks and hens were introduced from Persia. The absence of express mention of then from the Law, and the fact that it is a ‘clean’ bird, have made it possible for the Jews for many centuries to sacrifice, these birds on the eve of the Day of Atonement—a cock for each male and a hen for each female in the household. Talmudic tradition finds references to the cock in Is 22:17, Job 38:36, and Pr 30:31, but all these are very doubtful. The ‘cock-crowing’ was the name of the 3rd watch of the night, just before the dawn, in the time of our Lord. During this time the cocks crow at irregular intervals.
E. W. G. Masterman.
COCKATRICE.—See Serpent.
COCKER.—Sir 30:9 ‘Cocker thy child, and he shall make thee afraid,’ that is
‘pamper.’ Cf. Shaks. King John V. i. 70—
‘Shall a beardless boy,
A cocker’d silken wanton, brave our fields?’ and Hull (1611), ‘No creatures more cocker their young than the Asse and the Ape.’ The word is not found earlier than the 15th century. Its origin is obscure.
COCKLE (bo’shāh, Job 31:40).—AVm ‘stinking weeds’ or RVm ‘noisome weeds’ are both more correct. Sir J. Hooper has suggested ‘stinking arums,’ which are common Palestine plants, but the more general rendering is safer.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CŒLE-SYRIA, ‘Hollow Syria,’ is properly the great hollow running N. and S. between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges (1 Es 4:48; Strabo, xvi. 2). It corresponds to the Biq‘ath ha-Lebānōn of Jos 11:17 etc.; possibly also to Biq‘ath Aven of Am 1:5. The first element of the name persists in the modern name of the valley S. of Baalbek, el-Buqā‘. The Orontes drains the valley northward, and the Litāni southward, both rivers rising near Baalbek. The soil is rich, producing splendid crops of wheat, etc., while some of the finest vineyards in Syria clothe the adjoining slopes.
‘Cœle-Syria’ came to have a wider significance, covering indeed, with
Phœnicia, all the Seleucid territory S. of the River Eleutherus (2 Mac 3:5 etc.;
Strabo, xvi. 753). In 1 Es 2:17 etc., Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia denote the whole Persian province, stretching from the Euphrates to the borders of Egypt. Josephus reckons the country E. of Jordan to Cœle-Syria (Ant. I. xi. 5, XIII. xiii. 2 f.,etc.), including in it Scythopolis, the only member of the Decapolis west of the river.
W. Ewing.
COFFER occurs only in 1 S 6:8, 11, 15, and the Heb. term ’argāz, of which it is the tr., is also found nowhere else. It appears to have been a small chest which contained (?) the golden figures sent by the Philistines as a guilt-offering.
COFFIN.—Gn 50:26 only (of the disposal of Joseph’s body in Egypt). Israelitish burial rites (see Mourning Customs, Tomb) did not include the use of coffins.
COHORT.—See Band, Legion.
COINS.—See Money.
COL-HOZEH (‘seeing all’).—A Judahite (Neh 3:15, 11:5).
COLIUS (1 Es 9:23).—See Calitas, Kelaiah.
COLLAR.—See Ornaments, § 2.
COLLEGE.—This stands in AV (2 K 22:14, 2 Ch 34:22) for the Heb.
mishneh, which RV correctly renders ‘second quarter,’—a quarter of the city lying to the north (Zeph 1:10), and possibly referred to in Neh 11:9, where our versions have ‘second over the city.’ The idea of a ‘college’ came from the Targ. on 2 K 22:14, ‘house of instruction.’
J. Taylor.
COLONY.—The word colonia is a pure Latin word, which is written in Greek letters in the only place where it occurs in the Bible (Ac 16:12), and expresses a purely Roman institution. It is a piece of Rome transported bodily out of Rome itself and planted somewhere in the Roman Empire. In other words, it is a collection of Roman citizen-soldiers settled on a military road to keep the enemies of the Empire in check. These retained their citizenship of Rome and constituted the aristocracy of every town in which they were situated. Their constitution was on the model of Rome and the Italian States. A number of places are mentioned in the NT which were really coloniœ, but only one, Philippi, is so named, and the reason for this naming is no doubt that the author of Acts was proud of this city, with which he had some connexion. Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Corinth, and Ptolemais, not to mention others, were coloniœ. Sometimes these coloniœ were merely settlements of veterans for whom their generals had to find a home.
A. Souter.
COLOSSÆ was an ancient city of Phrygia (Roman province Asia), at one time of great importance, but dwindling later as its neighbour Laodicea prospered. It was situated in the upper part of the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of the Mæander, about 10 miles from Laodicea, and 13 from Hierapolis. The three cities naturally formed a sphere of missionary labour for Epaphras (Epaphroditus), an inhabitant of Colossæ (Col 4:12, 13), Timothy (Col 1:1), and others. St. Paul himself never visited any of them (Col 2:1). It has been suggested with great probability that in Rev 1:11, 3:14 the single church of Laodicea must represent the other churches of the Lycus valley also. The church in Colossae had developed Judaizing tendencies which St. Paul found it necessary to combat in the Epistle which has come down to us. If, as seems certain, ‘the epistle from Laodicea’ ( Col 4:16) is our ‘Epistle to the Ephesians,’ it also was read in the church at Colossæ.
Both letters were carried from Rome by Tychicus, who was accompanied by Onesimus, whose master Philemon was an inhabitant of Colossæ. See also following article.
A. Souter.
COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
1. Authenticity.—This Epistle is one of the ten Epistles of St. Paul included in Marcion’s collection (a.d. 140). It appears to have been accepted without question as genuine both by Churchmen and by heretics, and is referred to by the Muratorian Fragment, by Irenæus, and by Clement of Alexandria. Its authenticity remained undisputed till the early part of last century, and was then contested only on internal grounds of style and subject-matter.
As to the first objection, the Epistle is marked, to a greater degree than St. Paul’s earlier writings, by ‘a certain ruggedness of expression, a want of finish that borders on obscurity.’ The vocabulary also differs in some respects from that of the earlier writings, but this is amply accounted for by the difference of subject. As a matter of fact, the resemblances in style to St. Paul’s other writings are as marked as the differences; and in any case arguments from style in disproof of authenticity are very unreliable. The later plays of Shakespeare, as compared with those of his middle period, show just the same condensation of thought and want of fluency and finish.
The argument from subject-matter is more important. The Epistle was regarded by earlier German critics as presupposing a fully developed system of Gnostic teaching, such as belongs to the middle of the 2nd cent., and a correspondingly developed Christology. But a more careful study of the Epistle has shown that what St. Paul has in view is not a system of teaching, but rather a tendency. Words like plērōma, to which later Gnosticism gave a technical sense, are used in this Epistle with their usual non-technical signification. And our study of early Christian and Jewish thought has shown that Gnostic tendencies date from a much earlier time than the great Gnostic teachers of the 2nd cent., and are, indeed, older than Christianity. The Christology of the Epistle certainly shows an advance on that of St. Paul’s earlier Epistles, especially in the emphasis laid on the cosmical activity of the pre-incarnate Christ. This may be accounted for in part by the special purpose of the Epistle (see below), and in part by a development in St. Paul’s own Christological ideas. It is irrational to deny the authenticity of an
Epistle claiming to be St. Paul’s, merely because it shows that the mind of the Apostle had not remained stagnant during a period of imprisonment that must have given him special opportunities for thought. (See Ephesians.)
Many German critics, such as Harnack and Jülicher, are now in agreement with the leading British scholars in accepting the Epistle as St. Paul’s. The authenticity of the Epistle is sustained by its close relation to the Epistle to Philemon, the Pauline authorship of which is hardly seriously disputed. (On the relation of our
Epistle to the Epistle to the Ephesians see Ephesians.)
2. Integrity and Text.—The integrity of the Epistle is now generally admitted, though certain obscurities in the text have given rise to some conjectural emendations. Holtzmann attempted to prove that this Epistle and the Epistle to the Ephesians are recensions of one original Epistle of St. Paul’s, which he tried to reconstruct by extracting a Pauline nucleus of about forty verses; but his conclusions have not been accepted by later scholars. More recently, von Soden has proposed the rejection of about nine verses, but not on any adequate grounds. It would have been no easy task to interpolate a genuine Epistle of St. Paul’s, jealously guarded as it would have been by the Church to which it was sent.
3. Time and Place of Writing.—The Epistle to the Colossians belongs to the group of four Epistles written by St. Paul in captivity (4:3, 18). Of this group three—the Epistles to ‘the Ephesians,’ to the Colossians, and to Philemon—were written at the same time and sent by the same messenger, Tychicus. The remaining Epistle of the group—that to the Philippians—was almost certainly written from
Rome towards the end of St. Paul’s two years’ imprisonment there. The other three Epistles were most probably written from Rome, though some critics have dated them from the period of St. Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea.
4. Occasion and Purpose.—Most of St. Paul’s Epistles were written under some definite external stimulus. In the case of this Epistle two events seem to have led to its composition. (1) Epaphras, who had been the first evangelist of the Colossians, and who seems to have held at Colossæ a position somewhat similar to that which Timothy is represented in the Pastoral Epistles as holding in Ephesus, had come to Rome bringing information as to the special needs and dangers of the Colossian Church. As he elected to remain at Rome, and apparently shared for a time the Apostle’s imprisonment (Philem 23), Tychicus was sent to Asia, taking with him this letter. (2) Onesimus, a runaway slave from Colossæ, had found his way to Rome and had there come under the influence of St. Paul. The Apostle took advantage of Tychicus’ journey to send Onesimus back to his master at Colossæ, with a letter of commendation (see Philemon).
The special purpose of the Epistle, as distinct from its general purpose as a message of goodwill, was to warn the Colossian Christians against a danger of which Epaphras had no doubt informed St. Paul. The exact nature of the so-called Colossian heresy is a matter of some uncertainty. On its doctrinal side it was probably a blend of Jewish Kabbalistic ideas with floating Oriental speculations. It appears to have denied the direct agency of God in the work of creation, and to have inculcated the worship of angels and other mysterious powers of the unseen world (2:18). On its practical side it combined rigorous asceticism (2:23) and strict observance of Jewish ceremonial (2:18) with an arrogant claim to special enlightenment in spiritual things (2:18). Its special danger lay in the fact that it tended to obscure, or even to deny, the unique grandeur of the ascended Lord, the one Mediator, through faith in whom the life of the Christian was lifted into the new atmosphere of liberty. On one side, therefore, this Epistle may be compared with He I, where the supremacy of the Son over all angels is strongly insisted on, while on the other side it takes up the line of thought of the Epistle to the Galatians—the relation of the Christian life to external ordinances. The way in which St. Paul deals with the question can best be seen by a short summary of the
Epistle.
5. Summary.—After the usual salutation, thanksgiving, and prayer, in which St. Paul associates Timothy with himself (perhaps because he was known personally to the Colossian Church), he plunges at once into a doctrinal statement (1:13–2:3) of the Person and Work of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God, the origin and goal of all created things, in whom all the fulness (plērōma) of the Godhead abides. After a personal reference to his own commission and to his sufferings for the Church, he passes to the directly controversial part of the Epistle (2:4–3:4), warning the Colossians against being led astray by strange philosophies. The fulness of the Godhead is in Christ; He is over all principalities and powers; the life of externally imposed ordinances—‘Touch not, taste not, handle not’—is a life to which the Christian has died in Christ. He has risen to a new life whose centre and secret are in heaven. He must still mortify the deeds of the flesh, but from a new motive and in the power of a new life. The third section of the Epistle (3:5–4:6) applies this principle to various relations of life—the mutual relation of Christians, husbands and wives, children and fathers, slaves and masters; and lastly, to the relation of St. Paul to them, and to their relation with the world. The closing section (4:7–18) deals with personal matters—with the mission of Tychicus, with whom St. Paul tactfully associates Onesimus; with St. Mark’s proposed visit, in connexion with which St. Paul writes a word of special commendation, showing how completely the former discord has been healed. Then follow a warm commendation of Tychicus, greetings from Luke and Demas, instructions for exchanging letters with the neighbouring Church of Laodicea, and a final message for Archippus, who had apparently succeeded, in Epaphras’ absence, to the supervision of the Colossian Church.
J. Howard B. Masterman.
COLOURS.—The colours named in OT and NT, as in other ancient literatures, are few in number, and of these several are used with considerable latitude.
1. White as the colour of snow in Is 1:18, of the teeth described as milk-white (Gn 49:12), and of horses (Zec 1:8, 6:3, 6); also of wool (Rev 1:14)—the prevailing colour of the Palestinian sheep being white (see Ca 4:2, 6:6)—and of garments (Ec 9:8, Mk 9:3). Gray (and grey) occurs only in the expression ‘gray hairs,’ while grisled (lit. ‘grey,’ from French gris) apparently means black with white spots (Gn 31:10, Zec 6:3, 6; cf. 6 below). Green is not a colour adjective ( in
Est 1:6 read as RVm), but a noun signifying green plants and herbs, as e.g. in Gn 1:30 and Mk 6:39. A kindred word rendered greenish (Lv 13:49, 14:37) is probably a greenish yellow, since it is also used in Ps 68:13 of ‘yellow gold.’
2. The darker colours likewise merge into each other, black and brown, for example, not being clearly distinguished. Black is the colour of hair (Ca 5:11 ‘black as a raven’), of horses (Zec 6:2, 6, Rev 6:5), and of ink (2 Co 3:3). In Ca 1:5 the same Heb. word signifies dark-complexioned (AV ‘black’). Laban’s black sheep (Gn 30:32ff. RV) were probably dark brown (AV brown).
3. Red is the colour of blood (2 K 3:22), and of grape juice (Is 63:2). The same word is used of the reddish-brown colour of the ‘red heifer’ of Nu 19, and of the chestnut horse of Zechariah’s vision (1:8, AV ‘red’), although the precise colour distinction between the latter and his companion, the sorrel (AVm bay; in Zec 6:3 EV ‘bay’ should prob. be ‘strong,’ and in v. 7 [by a slight change of text] perh. ‘red’) horse, is not clear. ‘Red’ is used also of the sky (Mt 16:2f.—lit. ‘of the colour of fire’).
4. Crimson and scarlet are shades of the same colour, and were both derived from the same insect, the coccus ilicis or cochineal, which ‘attaches itself to the leaves and twigs of the quercus coccifera’ (Post), and is termed in Hebrew ‘the scarlet worm.’ Scarlet-coloured garments were regarded as a mark of distinction and prosperity (2 S 1:24, Pr 31:21), but in OT scarlet is most frequently mentioned as one of the four liturgical, or, as we should say, ecclesiastical colours ( see below). Vermilion is mentioned as a pigment (Jer 22:14, Ezk 23:14).
5. Associated with scarlet in the Priests’ Code of the Pentateuch are found two colours, ’argāmān rendered purple, and tĕkhēleth rendered blue. In reality these are two shades of purple, the red tone predominating in the former, the blue tone in the latter. Since blue predominates in our modern purple, it would be well to drop the cumbrous terms red-purple or purple-red, and blue-purple or purple-blue, in favour of the simpler names purple and violet, as in the margin of Est 1:6, 8:15 (AV). Both shades were obtained by the use, as a dye, of a colourless fluid secreted by the gland of a shell-fish, the murex trunculus, which was found in great quantities on the Phœnician coast. Hence Tyre became the chief seat of the manufacture of the purple cloth for which Phœnicia was famous throughout the ancient world (cf. Ezk 27:7, 16). Purple raiment is repeatedly mentioned in Scripture as worn by kings and nobles. It was as ‘King of the Jews’ that our Lord was derisively robed in purple (Mk 15:17, Jn 19:2).
In the Priests’ Code, as has been noted, from Ex 25 onwards, ‘violet’ ( AV ‘blue’), ‘purple,’ and ‘scarlet’ are used—and always in this order—to denote the fine linen thread, spun from yarn that had been dyed these colours (see esp. Ex 35:25), which, with the natural white thread, was employed in weaving the rich material for the various hangings of the Tabernacle, and for certain parts of the priests’ dress.
6. Jacob’s small cattle, ‘ring-straked, speckled, and spotted’ (Gn 30:39 etc.), showed white mixed with black or brown in the case of the sheep, and black mixed with white in the case of the goats. For Joseph’s ‘coat of many colours’ see Dress, 2 (d).
It may be added that the art of dyeing was one in which the Jews of later times excelled. According to tradition, as we have just seen, purple and scarlet—also red (Ex 26:14)—dyes were known as early as the Exodus time (cf. Jg 5:30 RVm). In NT times, as may be seen from the Mishna, dyeing was a flourishing branch of native industry. The true Tyrian purple was always a monopoly, and consequently imported; but many less costly dyes were known, such as the cochineal insect for scarlet, dyer’s woad (isatis) for true blue, madder (Heb. pūah, cf. Tola ben-Puah, i.e. ‘Cochineal, son of Madder,’ Jg 10:1), and others.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
COLT is applied in the Bible not to the young horse, but to the young ass, and once (Gn 32:15) to the young camel. Outside the Bible it is not applied to the young of any animal but the horse.
COMFORT, from late Lat. confortare, ‘to strengthen,’ ‘reinforce,’ denoted in old Eng. (a) physical, or (b) mental refreshment of an active kind (invigoration, encouragement)—obsolete meanings. In modern use it denotes (c) mental refreshment of the softer kind (consolation). Sense (a) appears in Gn 18:6, Jg 19:5 , 8, Ca 2:5; (c) elsewhere in OT. In NT, ‘comfort’ usually represents a Gr. verb and noun, common in Paul, which include any kind of animating address; in this connexion the sense (b) prevails, as in Ac 9:31, 16:40, Ro 1:12, 15:4, 2 Co 13:11 etc.; the tenderer signification (c) appears in Mt 5:4, 2 Co 1:3ff. etc. For the above Gr. noun, however, AV fourteen times writes ‘consolation’ ( interchanging ‘comfort’ and ‘consolation’ in 2 Co 1:3–7), alike in senses (b) and (c): this RV replaces seven times (in Paul) by ‘comfort.’ ‘Comfort’ is also in AV the rendering of a second and rarer group of Gr. words denoting consolation (in sorrow): so in Jn 11:19, 31, 1 Co 14:3, and Ph 2:1 (cf. AV and RV), 1 Th 2:11, 5:14; the original of ‘comfort’ (soothing) in Col 4:11 is an isolated expression kindred to the last. ‘Of good comfort’ in Ph 2:19 renders a fourth Gr. word = in good heart, cheerful; while ‘of good comfort’ in Mt 9:22 || = of good cheer in v. 2 and elsewhere (so RV here, and in Mk 10:49).
For OT and NT, comfort has its source in the tender love of God for His people, and for the individual soul; it is mediated (in the NT) by the sympathy of Christ, the visitings of the Holy Spirit, the help of brethren, and the hope of glory; it counteracts the troubles of life, and the discouragement of work for God: see esp. Jn 16:33, Ro 5:2–5, 2 Co 1:3–7.
G. G. Findlay.
COMFORTER.—See Advocate.
COMING OF CHRIST.—See Parousia.
COMMANDMENTS.—See Ten Commandments.
COMMENTARY (2 Ch 13:22, 24:27 RV).—The Heb. (midrash) has been adopted into English. But the Midrash is not exactly what we understand by a commentary; it is ‘an imaginative development of a thought or theme suggested by Scripture, especially a didactic or homiletic exposition, or an edifying religious story’ ( Driver ).
COMMERCE.—See Trade and Commerce.
COMMON.—In Ac 10:14f. synonymous with ‘ceremonially unclean’ (cf. Mk 7:2, and see Clean and Unclean).
COMMUNICATION.—While ‘conversation’ in AV means manner of life, conduct, ‘communication’ means conversation, talk. So Col 3:6 ‘filthy communication’ (RV ‘shameful speaking’) and elsewhere. The verb ‘to communicate’ is now used in a restricted sense, so that its occurrences in AV, where it has the general meaning of making common cause with one, may be misunderstood. Cf. the Rhemish tr. of Jn 4:9: ‘For the Jewes do not communicate with the Samaritanes’ (AV ‘have no dealings with’).
COMMUNION (Gr. koinōnia).—In EV koinōnia is tr. ‘communion’ in only 3 passages (1 Co 10:16, 2 Co 6:14, 13:14), while it is frequently rendered
‘fellowship’ (AV 12, RV 15 times), and twice ‘contribution’ or ‘distribution’ ( Ro 15:26, 2 Co 9:13 [RV has ‘contrib.’ in both cases; AV ‘contrib.’ in the first passage, ‘distrib.’ in the second]). But it is ‘communion’ that brings us nearest to the original, and sets us in the path of the right interpretation of the word on every occasion when it is used in the NT.
Koinōnia comes from an adj. which means ‘common,’ and, like ‘communion,’ its literal meaning is a common participation or sharing in anything. Similarly, in the NT the concrete noun koinōnos is used of a partner in the ownership of a fishing-boat (Lk 5:10); the verb koinōnein of sharing something with another, whether by way of giving (Ro 12:13, Gal 6:6) or of receiving (Ro 15:27, 1 Ti 5:22); and the adj. koinōnikos (1 Ti 6:18) is rendered ‘willing to communicate.’
1. Koinōnia meets us first in Ac 2:42, where RV as well as AV obscures the meaning not only by using the word ‘fellowship,’ but by omitting the def. article. The verse ought to read, ‘And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ teaching and the communion, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.’ And the meaning of ‘communion’ in this case can hardly be doubtful. The reference evidently is to that ‘having all things common’ which is referred to immediately after (v. 44f.), and the nature and extent of which St. Luke explains more fully at a later stage (4:32–5:4). It appears that ‘the communion’ was the regular expression for that ‘community of goods’ which was so marked a feature of the Christianity of the first days, and which owed its origin not only to the unselfish enthusiasm of that Pentecostal period and the expectation of the Lord’s immediate return, but to the actual needs of the poorer Christians in Jerusalem, cut off from the means of self-support by the social ostracism attendant on excommunication from the synagogue (Jn 9:22, 34 , 12:42, 16:2).
2. The type of koinōnia in Jerusalem described in Ac 2 seems to have disappeared very soon, but its place was taken by an organized diakonia, a daily ‘ministration’ to the poor (6:1, 2). And when the Church spread into a larger world free from the hostile influences of the synagogue, those social conditions were absent which in Jerusalem had seemed to make it necessary that Christ’s followers should have all things common. But it was a special feature of St. Paul’s teaching that Christians everywhere were members one of another, sharers in each other’s wealth whether material or spiritual. And in particular he pressed constantly upon the wealthier Gentile churches the duty of taking part in the diakonia carried on in Jerusalem on behalf of the poor saints. In this connexion we find him in 2 Co 8:4 using the striking expression ‘the koinōnia of the diakonia [‘the communion of the ministration’] to the saints.’ The Christians of Corinth might have communion with their brethren in Jerusalem by imparting to them out of their own abundance. Hence, by a natural process in the development of speech, the koinōnia, from meaning a common participation, came to be applied to the gifts which enabled that participation to be realized. In Ro 15:26 and 2 Co 9:13, accordingly, the word is properly enough rendered ‘contribution.’ And yet in the Apostolic Church it could never be forgotten that a contribution or collection for the poor brethren was a form of Christian communion.
3. From the first, however, ‘communion’ undoubtedly had a larger and deeper sense than those technical ones on which we have been dwelling. It was out of the consciousness of a common participation in certain great spiritual blessings that Christians were impelled to manifest their partnership in these specific ways. According to St. Paul’s teaching, those who believed in Christ enjoyed a common participation in Christ Himself which bound them to one another in a holy unity (1 Co 1:9, cf. v. 10ff.). In the great central rite of their faith this common participation in Christ, and above all in His death and its fruits, was visibly set forth: the cup of blessing was a communion of the blood of Christ; the broken bread a communion of the body of Christ (1 Co 10:16). Flowing again from this common participation in Christ there was a common participation in the Holy Spirit, for it is from the love of God as manifested in the grace of Christ that there results that ‘communion of the Holy Ghost’ which is the strongest bond of unity and peace (2 Co 13:14; cf.
v. 11, Ph 2:1f.). Thus the communion of the Christian Church came to mean a fund of spiritual privilege which was common to all the members but also peculiar to them, so that the admission of a man to the communion or his exclusion from it was his admission to, or exclusion from, the Church of Christ itself. When the Jerusalem Apostles gave ‘the right hands of communion’ to Paul and Barnabas (Gal 2:9), that was a symbolic recognition on their part that these missionaries to the uncircumcision were true disciples and Apostles of Christ, sharers with themselves in all the blessings of the Christian faith.
4. We have seen that in its root-meaning koinōnia is a partnership either in giving or in receiving. Hence it was applied to Christian duties and obligations as well as to Christian privileges. The right hands of communion given to Paul and Barnabas were not only a recognition of grace received in common, but mutual pledges of an Apostolic service to the circumcision on the one hand and the heathen on the other (Gal 2:9). St. Paul thanks God for the ‘communion’ of the Philippians in the furtherance of the gospel (Ph 1:5), and prays on behalf of Philemon that the ‘communion’ of his faith may become effectual (Philem 6), i.e. that the Christian sympathies and charities inspired by his faith may come into full operation. It is the same use of koinōnia that we find in He 13:16, where the proper rendering is ‘forget not the welldoing and the communion.’ Here also the communion means the acts of charity that spring from Christian faith, with a special reference perhaps to the technical sense of koinōnia referred to above, as a sharing of one’s material wealth with the poorer brethren.
5. In all the foregoing passages the koinōnia seems to denote a mutual sharing, whether in privilege or in duty, of Christians with one another. But there are some cases where the communion evidently denotes a more exalted partnership, the partnership of a Christian with Christ or with God. This is what meets us when St. Paul speaks in Ph 3:10 of the communion of Christ’s sufferings. He means a drinking of the cup of which Christ drank (cf. Mt 20:22f.), a moral partnership with the Redeemer in His pains and tears (cf. Ro 8:17). But it is St. John who brings this higher koinōnia before us in the most absolute way when he writes, ‘Our communion is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ’ (1 Jn 1:3, cf. v. 6) , and makes our communion one with another depend upon this previous communion with God Himself (v. 7, cf. v. 6). Yet, though the koinōnia or communion is now raised to a higher power, it has still the same meaning as before. It is a mutual sharing, a reciprocal giving and receiving. And in his Gospel St. John sets the law of this communion clearly before us when he records the words of the Lord Himself, ‘Ablde in me, and I in you’ (Jn 15:4). The communion of the human and the Divine is a mutual activity, which may be summed up in the two words grace and faith. For grace is the spontaneous and unstinted Divine giving as revealed and mediated by Jesus Christ, while faith in its ideal form is the action of a soul which, receiving the Divine grace, surrenders itself without any reserve unto the Lord.
J. C. Lambert.
COMMUNITY OF GOODS.—See Communion.
COMPASS.—A ‘compass’ is the space occupied by a circle, or the circle itself: Pr 8:27 ‘he set a compass upon the face of the deep’ (AVm and RV ‘a circle’) usually explained of the horizon, which seems to be a circle resting on the ocean. To ‘fetch a compass’ (Nu 34:5, Jos 15:3, 2 S 5:23, 2 K 3:9) is to make a circuit or simply ‘go round.’ The tool for making a circle is a compass ( Is 44:13).—See Arts and Crafts, § 1.
COMPASSION.—See Pity.
CONANIAH.—1. A Levite who had charge of the tithes and offerings in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch 31:12, 13). 2. A chief of the Levites in Josiah’s reign (2 Ch 35:9); called in 1 Es 1:9 Jeconias.
CONCISION.—A name applied contemptuously by S. Paul (Ph 3:2) to the merely fleshly circumcision (Gr. katatomē; the ordinary word for ‘circumcision’ is peritomē).
CONCORDANCES.—The Latin word concordantiœ, for an alphabetical list of the words of Scripture drawn up for purposes of reference to the places where they occur, was first used by Hugo de Sancto Caro, who compiled a Concordance to the Vulgate in 1244. This was revised by Arbottus (1290), and became the basis of a Hebrew Concordance by Isaac Nathan (1437–45). Nathan’s work was revised and enlarged by John Buxtorf, the elder, whose Concordantiœ Bibliorum Hebraicœ (1632) held the place of standard Concordance for two centuries, and served as the model for many others. John Taylor’s Hebrew Concordance adapted to the English Bible, disposed after the manner of Buxtorf (2 vols. folio, Norwich, 1754– 57), is another link in the succession. The first Concordance to the English Bible is that of John Marbeck (folio, London, 1550). The earliest Concordance to the Septuagint is Conrad Kircher’s (1607). The first Greek NT Concordance was published at Basle anonymously in 1546. In the use of the following lists it will be understood that, while the most recent works, other things being equal, are to be preferred, there is so much common material that many of the older works are by no means obsolete.
1. Hebrew.—Fuerst, Libr. Sacrorum Vet. Test. Concordantiœ Heb. atque Chald. (1840); The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of OT (2 vols., Bagster); B. Davidson, A Concordance of the Heb. and Chaldee Scriptures (Bagster, 1876); Bagster’s Handy Hebrew Concordance [an invaluable work]; Mandelkern, Vet. Test. Concordantiœ (folio, Leipzig, 1896), and a smaller edition without quotations (Leipzig, 1897).
2. Greek
(a) The Septuagint.—Bagster’s Handy Concordance of the Septuagint; HatchRedpath’s Concordance of the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the OT, with two supplemental fasciculi (Clarendon Press, 1892–97). This is the standard work, replacing Trommius’ Concordantiœ Grœcœ Versionis vulgo dictœ LXX Interpretum (2 vols. Amst. 1718).
(b) The NT.—The Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the NT (Bagster); C. F.
Hudson, Greek Concordance to NT, revised by Ezra Abbot (do.); Schmoller,
Concordantiœ manuales NT grœci (1890); Bruder, Concordantiœ omnium vocum NT grœci4 (1888). All these works are now superseded by Moulton-Geden’s Concordance to the Greek Testament (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1897).
3. English.—Until recent times the standard work was Cruden’s Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures (1st ed. 1738. Cruden’s is truly a marvellous work, and was frequently copied, without acknowledgment, in subsequent productions. It was even issued in abridgment—the most useless and provoking of all literary products). More recent works are Eadie’s Analytical Concordance;
Young’s Analytical Bible Concordance (Edin. 1879–84), with supplem. vol. by W.
B. Stevenson; Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (Hodder & Stoughton, 1894) ; Thoms’s Concordance to RV of NT (1882).
W. F. Adeney and J. S. Banks.
CONCUBINE.—See Family, Marriage, § 6.
CONCUPISCENCE.—Concupiscence is intense desire, always in a bad sense, so that it is unnecessary to say ‘evil concupiscence’ as in Col 3:5. The reference is nearly always to sexual lust.
CONDUIT.—See Jerusalem.
CONEY (EV tr. of shāphān, RVm rock badger).—The Hyrax syriacus, called by the Arabs wabr, also the ghanam beni Israel (the sheep of the children of Israel). The coney is a small rabbit-like animal, with short ears and a mere stump of a tail. It has stiff greyish-brown hair, with softer, lighter-coloured hair on the belly; it is nocturnal in its habits, and lives in holes in the rocks. Conies are very plentiful along the rocky shores of the Dead Sea, and also in the Lebanon, especially above Sidon; they can, however, be seen as a rule only between sunset and sunrise. They are gregarious in their habits, and disappear into their rocky fastnesses (Ps 104:18, Pr 30:24, 26) with the greatest rapidity on the slightest approach of danger. The Bedouin, when hunting them, lie hidden for many hours during the night close to their holes. They feed on grass and sweet-smelling herbs, and their flesh is esteemed for eating by the Bedouin; they do not actually ‘chew the cud’ (Lv 11:5, Dt 14:7), though they work their jaws in a way that resembles a ruminant. Structurally the coney is so peculiar as to have an order, the Hyracoidea, to itself.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CONFECTION.—This word in AV means perfume (Ex 30:35), and ‘confectionary’ (1 S 8:13), means perfumer.
CONFESSION.—In Eng. the words ‘confess,’ ‘confession’ denote either a profession of faith or an acknowledgment of sin; and they are used in EV in both of these meanings.
1. Confession of faith.—(1) In the OT the word ‘confess’ is found in this sense only in 1 K 8:33, 35 = 2 Ch 6:24, 26. But the acknowledgment of God as God and the proclamation of personal trust in Him meet us continually in the lives or on the lips of patriarchs, prophets, and psalmists. The Book of Psalms in particular is a storehouse of confessional utterances in prayer and song (see 7:1, 48:14 etc.).
(2) Coming to the NT, we find that ‘confess’ is of frequent occurrence in the sense we are considering, and that confession now gathers expressly round the Person and the Name of Jesus Christ. Moreover, the idea of confession has been elaborated, its immediate relation to faith and vital importance for salvation being clearly brought out.
(a) The meaning of confession.—In the earlier period of our Lord’s ministry, confession meant no more than the expression of belief that Jesus was the expected Messiah (Jn 1:41). Even the title ‘Son of God’ (Mt 8:29 ||, cf. Jn 1:34, 49) at this stage can be used only in its recognized Messianic sense (Ps 2:7). A great advance in faith and insight is marked by St. Peter’s confession at Cæsarea Philippi, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16:16 ||). This was the highest point reached by Apostolic belief and profession during the Lord’s earthly ministry, and it anticipated those later views of Christ’s true nature which found embodiment in the Creeds of the Church. After the Resurrection, confession of Christ carried with it readiness to bear witness to that supreme fact (Jn 20:28, 29, Ro 10:9); and this of course implied an acceptance of the historical tradition as to His marvellous life and character which made it impossible for death to hold Him (cf. Ac 2:24). All that was at first demanded of converts, however, may have been the confession ‘Jesus is Lord’ (1 Co 12:3; cf. Ph 2:11, 2 Ti 1:8); a view that is confirmed by the fact of their being baptized ‘into (or in) the name of the Lord’ (Ac 8:16, 10:48 , 19:5). At a later period the growth of heresy made a more precise confession necessary. In the Johannine Epistles it is essential to confess, on the one hand, that ‘Jesus Christ is come in the flesh’ (1 Jn 4:2, 3, 2 Jn 7), and, on the other, that ‘Jesus is the Son of God’ (1 Jn 4:15). With this developed type of confession may be compared the gloss that has been attached to the narrative of the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism (Ac 8:37, see RVm), probably representing a formula that had come to be employed as a baptismal confession. It was out of baptismal formulas like this that there gradually grew those formal ‘Confessions’ of the early Church which are known as the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creeds.
(b) The value of confession.—Upon this Jesus Himself lays great stress. If we confess Him before men, He will confess us before His Father in heaven; if we deny Him, He will also deny us (Mt 10:32f. ||, cf. Mk 8:38). The glorious blessing He gave to St. Peter at Cæsarea Philippi was the reward of the Apostle’s splendid profession of faith; and it contained the assurance that against the Church built on the rock of believing confession the gates of Hades should not prevail (Mt 16:17– 19). In the Epp. the value of confession is emphasized not less strongly. According to St. Paul, the spirit of faith must speak (2 Co 4:13), and confession is necessary to salvation (Ro 10:8–10). And St. John regards a true confession of Christ as a sign of the presence of the Divine Spirit (1 Jn 4:2), a proof of the mutual indwelling of God in man and man in God (v. 15).
2. Confession of sin.—(1) This holds a prominent place in the OT. The Mosaic ritual makes provision for the confession of both individual (Lv 5:1ff., 26:40) and national (16:21) transgressions; and many examples may be found of humble acknowledgment of both classes of sin, for instance in the Penitential Psalms and in such prayers as those of Ezra (10:1), Nehemiah (1:6, 7), and Daniel (9:4ff., 20).
It is fully recognized in the OT that confession is not only the natural expression of penitent feeling, but the condition of the Divine pardon (Lv 5, 6, Ps 32:5, Pr 28:13).
(2) In the NT ‘confess’ occurs but seldom to express acknowledgment of sin (Mt 3:6 = Mk 1:5, Ja 5:16, 1 Jn 1:9). But the duty of confessing sin both to God and to man is constantly referred to, and the indispensableness of confession in order to forgiveness is made very plain (Lk 18:10f., 1 Jn 1:9).
(a) Confession to God.—This meets us at many points in our Lord’s teaching— in His calls to repentance, in which confession is involved (Mt 4:17 = Mk 1:15, Lk 11:29, 32, 24:47), in the petition for forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:12, Lk 11:4), in the parables of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:17, 18, 21) and the Pharisee and the Publican (18:10f.). It is very noteworthy that while He recognizes confession as a universal human need (Lk 11:4 ||), He never confesses sin on His own account or shares in the confessions of others.
(b) Confession to man.—Besides confession to God, Christ enjoins confession to the brother we have wronged (Mt 5:23, 24), and He makes it plain that human as well as Divine forgiveness must depend upon readiness to confess (Lk 17:4). In Ja 5:16 (RV) we are told to confess our sins one to another. The sins here spoken of are undoubtedly sins against God as well as sins against man. But the confession referred to is plainly not to any official of the Church, much less to an official with the power of granting absolution, but a mutual unburdening of Christian hearts with a view to prayer ‘one for another.’
J. C. Lambert.
CONFIRMATION.—The noun ‘confirmation’ is used only twice in AV ( Ph 1:7, He 6:16), the reference in the first case being to the establishment of the truth of the gospel, and in the second to the ratification of a statement by an oath. The verb ‘confirm,’ however, is found frequently in both OT and NT, in various shades of meaning, but with the general sense of strengthening and establishing. The only questions of interest are (1) whether ‘confirm’ is used in NT to denote the ecclesiastical rite of Confirmation; and (2) whether that rite is referred to under the
‘laying on of hands.’
1. There are 3 passages in Acts (14:22, 15:32, 41) in which Paul and Barnabas, or Judas and Silas, or Paul by himself, are said to have confirmed ‘the souls of the disciples,’ ‘the brethren,’ ‘the churches.’ In none of these is there any indication of the performance of a rite, and the natural suggestion is that the word is used simply of a spiritual strengthening.
2. In the ‘Order of Confirmation’ in the Book of Common Prayer, ‘the laying on of hands upon those that are baptized and come to years of discretion,’ as performed by the bishop, is said to be done ‘after the example of Thy holy Apostles.’ Presumably the reference is to such passages as Ac 8:15–17, 19:6, He 6:2. In the passages in Acts, however, the imposition of hands is associated with the impartation of extraordinary spiritual gifts, while of He 6:2 no more can be said than that in the early Church the act appears to have been closely associated with baptism. That it might precede baptism instead of following it is shown by Ac 9:17, 18; which further shows that it might be performed by one who was not an Apostle or even an official of the Church. In all likelihood it was simply a natural and beautiful symbol accompanying prayer (Ac 8:15), which had come down from OT times (Gn 48:14), and had been used by Christ Himself in the act of blessing (Mt 19:13–15). See, further, Laying on of Hands.
J. C. Lambert.
CONFISCATION.—See Ban, § 2, Excommunication.
CONFUSION OF TONGUES.—See Tongues [Confusion of].
CONGREGATION, ASSEMBLY.—In AV these terms are both employed to render either of the two important Heb. words ‘ēdhah and qāhāl, with a decided preference, however, in favour of ‘congregation’ for the former, and ‘assembly’ for the latter. In RV, as we read in the Revisers’ preface, an effort has been made to secure greater uniformity on these lines. Of the two, qāhāl is the more widely distributed, although neither is frequent in pre-exilic literature; ‘ēdhah, which is not used in the prophetic or Deuteronomic sources of the Pentateuch, is found at least 115 times in the Priests’ Code alone, where it denotes the theocratic community of Israel as a whole, the church-nation in its relation to J″. The full designation, as found in Nu 1:2 and a score of times elsewhere, is ‘(the sum of) all the congregation of the children of Israel,’ which is the equivalent of the Deuteronomic phrase ‘all the assembly (qāhāl) of Israel’ (Dt 31:30, RV and AV ‘congregation’). In the older and more secular writers the same idea would have been expressed by ‘the sum of the people’ of Israel, as in 2 S 24:2.
It is extremely doubtful if there is any valid ground for the attempts to find a distinction between the two expressions ‘congregation’ and ‘assembly,’ even within P itself, as if ‘assembly’ represented either ‘picked members of the congregation’ (EBi col. 345), or the latter in its capacity as an assembly of worshippers. For in one and the same verse P employs ‘congregation’ and ‘assembly’ as synonymous terms, as in Lv 4:13, Nu 16:3 RV, and in the priestly redaction of Jg 20:1f., the whole body of the people being intended in every case. The only two passages which seem to imply that the ‘assembly’ was a limited section of the ‘congregation,’ viz. Ex 12:6, Nu 14:5 ‘all the assembly of the congregation,’ etc., clearly show conflate readings (cf. LXX.). What difference, finally, can be detected between ‘the assembly of J″’ of Nu 16:3, 20:4 (cf. Dt 23:3 , 4) and ‘the congregation of J″’ of 27:17, 31:16—all P passages?
In the LXX ’ēdhah is in most cases rendered by synagōgē, qāhāl by ecclēsia, both being used, according to Schürer, without essential distinction to signify the religious community of Israel, in this agreeing, as has been argued above, with the original and with our AV. The subsequent history of these terms in the Jewish and early Christian Churches is of considerable interest. Later Judaism, as Schürer has shown, began to distinguish between synagōgē and ecclēsia in the direction of applying the former in an empirical, the latter in an ideal, sense, the one to signify the religious community in a particular place, the other ‘the community of those called by God to salvation,’ the ideal Israel. This Jewish usage explains how, while synagōgē is occasionally found in early Patristric literature in the sense of ‘the Christian congregation,’ its rival finally gained the day. The Christian synagogue became ‘the Church,’ while the Jewish Church remains ‘the synagogue’ (see under Church, Synagoque).
The expression solemn assembly, in which ‘solemn’ has its etymological, but now obsolete, sense of ‘stated,’ ‘appointed’ (lit. ‘yearly,’ sollennis), represents a third Heb. word applicable originally to any religious gathering (Am 5:21, Is 1:13 ,
2 K 10:20), but afterwards limited to those appointed for the seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened Cakes (Mazzoth, Dt 16:8), and the eighth of the Feast of Booths (Lv 23:36, Nu 29:35).
‘Holy convocation’ occurs frequently in the Priestly sections of the Pentateuch (esp. Lv. 17–26 [h]).
The ‘mount of the congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north’ (Is 14:13 RV), to which the king of Babylon aspired, was the Babylonian Olympus or abode of the gods. An echo of this mythological conception is probably to be found in the similar phrase Ps 48:2.
For tabernacle of the congregation see Tabernacle.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CONIAH (Jer 22:24, 28) = Jehoiachin (wh. see).
CONSCIENCE.—The term occurs 30 times in the NT; it signifies joint knowledge. The two things known together may be two motives, two deeds, etc.; or the comparison instituted may be between a standard and a volition, etc. Self or others may be judged, and approval (Ac 23:1, 24:16, Ro 9:1, 2 Co 1:12, 1 Ti 1:5 , 19, 3:9, 2 Ti 1:3, He 13:18, 1 P 3:16, 21) or disapproval (Jn 8:9, He 9:9, 10:2, 22) may be the issue. The conviction that a certain course of conduct is right is accompanied by a sense of obligation, whether that course receives (Ro 13:5) or fails to secure (1 P 2:19, Ac 4:19, 20) legal confirmation. The belief on which the consciousness of duty depends is not necessarily wise (1 Co 8:7, 10, 12, Ac 26:9) , though the holders of the belief should receive careful consideration on the part of more enlightened men (Ro 15:1, 1 Co 8, 10:25, 29). Unfaithfulness to moral claims leads to fearful deterioration, resulting in confusion (Mt 6:22, 23) and insensitiveness (1 Ti 4:2, Tit 1:15).
1. Sphere.—The sphere of conscience is volition in all its manifestations. That which merely happens and offers to us no alternative movement lies outside morality. Let there be a possibility of choice, and conscience appears. Appetites, so far as they can be controlled; incentives of action admitting preference; purposes and desires,—all deeds and Institutions that embody and give effect to human choice; all relationships that allow variations in our attitude give scope for ethical investigation, and in them conscience is directly or indirectly implicated. Conscience makes a valuation. It is concerned with right, wrong; worthiness, unworthiness; good, bad; better, worse. This appraisement is ultimately occupied with the incentives that present themselves to the will, in regard to some of which (envy and malice, for instance) there is an Immediate verdict of badness, and in regard to others a verdict of better or worse. The dispositions that are commended by the Saviour’s conduct and teachings—purity of heart, meekness, mercifulness, desire for righteousness, etc.—are recognized as worthy of honour. The conscience censures the selfishness of the Unjust Judge (Lk 18:6), and assents to the injunction of considerateness and justice (Ph 2:4). The rightness of many general statements is discerned intnitively, and is carried over to the deeds that agree therewith. Sidgwick considers that the statement ‘I ought not to prefer my own lesser good to the greater good of another’ is axiomatic, and that some such intnitively discerned principle is a necessary foundation of morals. We do not question the baseness of some pleasures; their curse is graven on their foreheads. Both mediately and immediately we arrive at ethical convictions. The appearance in one’s life of a person of distinguished excellence will cause many virtues to shine in our estimation. The mind surveying a course of conduct can judge it as bad or good on the whole. A precept to seek to raise the whole tone of one’s life (Mt 5:48, Col 4:12) is felt to be reasonable, and as the capacity for improvement is greater in man than in any other creature, better motives, deeds, habits, aims, characters may righteously be demanded.
2. Obligation.—‘In the recognition of any conduct as right there is involved an authoritative prescription to do it.’ This feeling of oughtness—which is the core of conscience—can be exhibited but not analyzed. It is an ultimate. It is unique. It is an evidence within the soul that we are under government. There is a ‘categorical imperative’ to aim at that which we have admitted to be right. From the duty discerned there issues a command which cannot be silenced so long as the duty is present to the mind. Likings or dislikings, hopes or fears, popularity or unpopularity—no matter what may be advanced,—the dictatorial mandate is unaltered:
‘’Tis man’s perdition to be safe,
When for the truth he ought to die.’
When Jesus Christ asserts His supremacy and demands deference to Himself at all costs, He does so as the incarnation of the moral law. To be His friend is to be under His orders (Jn 15:14), and one is bound to follow Him without regard to any claims that can be urged by self or kindred (Mt 10:37, 38, Lk 14:33). Let it be ascertained that this is the way and the command is at once heard, ‘Walk ye in it.’ The peremptory claim made by conscience is eminently reasonable, because it rests upon what we have admitted to be right. It is a provision in our nature that links—or that would link if we were loyal—belief and practice, and would cause us to be builders as well as architects. ‘Had it strength as it has right; had it power as it has manifest authority, it would absolutely govern the world’ (Butler, Serm. ii.).
3. The ethical feeling.—The perception of oughtness has its own emotional tone. There is, of course, a sense of relief when the mind has arrived at a decision; but is there not an additional element? Is there not an inclination—at least a faint one—in favour of the behest? And in men habitually conscientious, is not the inclination immediate and strong? All men are clearly aware that they are wrong in case of refusal to obey. Man is a born judge of himself, and the verdict that results from self-examination brings peace or uneasiness. Herod is ill at ease by reason of self-judgment (Mk 6:20), and so is Felix (Ac 24:25). Peter sees himself as one who has broken the law, and the light hurts him (Lk 5:8). All the best men have had some experience like that of Isaiah (6:5) and that of Job (42:6), for with them the moral susceptibility has been great. All the emotional accompaniments of penitence and remorse, as well as the glow incident to the hearing of noble deeds— all anticipations of the Lord’s ‘Well done!’ are instances of moral feeling. These pleasures and pains are a class by themselves. They are as distinct from those of sensation and intellect as colours are distinct from sound. That pleasures are qualitatively different was rightly maintained by J. S. Mill, though his general theory was not helped by the opinion. In consciousness we know that sorrow for sin is not of the same order as any physical distress, nor is it to be ranked with the feeling of disappointment when we are baffled in a scientific inquiry. The difference between the moral and the unmoral emotions is one of kind and not of quantity, of worth and not of amount: some pleasures low in the scale of value are very intense, while the moral satisfactions may have small intensity and yet are preferred by good men to any physical or intellectual delights. It should be noticed that the pleasure attendant upon a choice of conduct known to be right may be not unmixed; for the feelings, clinging for a while to that which has been discarded, interfere with the satisfaction due to the change that has been made. Converts are haunted by renounced beliefs, and their peace is disturbed; beside the main current of emotion there is a stream which comes from past associations and habits.
4. Education of conscience.—(1) No training can impart the idea of right: it is constitutional. (2) Malevolent feelings (as vindictiveness, the desire to give pain gratuitously) are known by all to be wrong; immediately they are perceived at work, they are unconditionally condemned. (3) The inward look makes no mistake as to our meaning, gets no wavering reply to such questions as, ‘Do you desire to have full light? to know all the facts? to be impartial? to act as a good man should act in this particular?’ For this accurate self-knowledge provision is made in our nature. (4) Some general moral principles are accepted as soon as the terms are understood. (5) When two competing incentives are to be judged, we know, and cannot be taught, which is the higher. (6) The imperative lodged in a moral conviction is intuitively discerned. ‘I do not know how to impart the notion of moral obligation to any one who is entirely devoid of it’ (Sidgwick). (7) The feeling of dishonour comes to us without tuition when we have refused compliance with known duty. Belonging to a moral order, we are made to react in certain definite ways to truths, social relations, etc. The touch of experience is enough to quicken into action certain moral states, just as the feelings of cold and heat are ours because of the physical environment, and because we are what we are. We can evoke while we cannot create the elementary moral qualities. ‘An erring conscience is a chimera’ (Kant). ‘Conscience intuitively recognizes moral law; it is supreme in its authority; it cannot be educated’ (Calderwood). These sentences are not intended to deny that in the application of principles there is difficulty. One may readily admit the axioms of geometry, and yet find much perplexity when asked to establish a geometrical theorem the truth of which directly or indirectly flows from the axioms. The Apostle Paul prayed that his friends might improve in moral discrimination (Ph 1:10, Col 1:9). We have to learn what to do, and often the problems set by our domestic, civic, and church relationships are hard even for the best and wisest to solve. The scheme of things to which we belong has not been constructed with a view to saving us the trouble of patient, strenuous, and sometimes very painful investigation and thought.
5. Implications.—Of the many implications the following are specially noteworthy. The feeling of responsibility suggests the question, to Whom? Being under government, we feel after the Ruler if haply we may find Him. Jesus tells us of the ‘Righteous Father.’ The solemn voice of command is His. The preferences which we know to be right are His. The pain felt when righteous demands are resisted, and the joy accompanying obedience, are they not His frown and smile? Neither our higher self nor society can be the source of an authority so august as that of which we are conscious. To the best minds we look for guidance; but there are limits to their rights over us, and how ready they are to refer us to Him before whom they bow! We are made to be subjects of the Holy One. Admitting that we are in contact with Divine Authority, and that His behests are heard within, the encouraging persuasion is justified that He sympathizes with the soul in its battles and renders aid (Ph 2:12, 13). The inference that it is God with whom we have to do makes it fitting for us to say that conscience is man’s capacity to receive progressively a revelation of the righteousness of God. But is law the last word? May there not be mercy and an atonement? Cannot the accusing voices be hushed? May the man who admits the sentence of conscience be pardoned? Conscience is a John the Baptist preparing the way for the Saviour, who has a reply to the question ‘What must I do to be saved?’
W. J. Henderson.
CONSECRATION.—See Clean and Unclean, Nazirite.
CONSOLATION.—See Comfort.
CONSUMPTION.—The Heb. word (kālāh) which is translated
‘consummation’ in Dn 9:27 is rendered ‘consumption’ in Is 10:23, 28:22, these Eng. words having then the same meaning. Cf. Foxe, Actes and Mon., ‘Christ shall sit … at the right hand of God till the consumption of the world.’ Consumption occurs also with the same meaning in Is 10:22 (Heb. killyōn). But in Lv 26:16, Dt 28:22 it is used of a disease of the body. See Medicine.
CONTENTMENT.—1. The word does not occur in the OT, but the duty is implied in the Tenth Commandment (Ex 20:17), and the wisdom of contentment is enforced in Pr 15:17, 17:1 by the consideration that those who seem most enviable may, be worse off than ourselves. But the bare commandment ‘Thou shalt not covet’ may only stir up all manner of coveting (Ro 7:7f.); and though a man may sometimes be reconciled to his lot by recognizing a principle of compensation in human life, that principle is far from applying to every case. It is not by measuring ourselves with one another, but only by consciously setting ourselves in the Divine presence, that true contentment can ever be attained. Faith in God is its living root (cf. Ps 16:6 with v. 5; also Hab 3:17f.).
2. In the NT the grace of contentment is expressly brought before us. Our Lord inculcated it negatively by His warnings against covetousness (Lk 12:15–21) , positively by His teaching as to the Fatherhood of God (Mt 6:25–32 ||) and the Kingdom of God (v. 33, cf. v. 19f.). St. Paul (Ph 4:11–13) claims to have ‘learned the secret’ of being content in whatsoever state he was. The word he uses is autarkēs, lit. ‘self-sufficient.’ It was a characteristic word of the Stoic philosophy, implying an independence of everything outside of oneself. The Apostle’s selfsufficiency was of a very different kind (see v. 13), for it rested on that great promise of Christ, ‘My grace is sufficient (arkei) for thee’ (2 Co 12:9). Christian contentment comes not from a Stoic narrowing of our desires, but from the sense of being filled with the riches of Christ’s grace. For other NT utterances see 1 Ti 6:8, He 13:5.
J. C. Lambert.
CONVENIENT.—This Eng. word often has in AV its primary meaning of befitting, as Ro 1:28 ‘God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient’ (RV ‘fitting’). So in the trans. of Agrippa’s Van Artes (1684) ‘She sang and danc’d more exquisitely than was convenient for an honest woman.’
CONVERSATION.—In EV the word is always used in the archaic sense of ‘behaviour,’ ‘conduct.’ In the OT, AV gives it twice (Ps 37:14, 50:23) , representing Heb. derek = ‘way’ (cf. RV and RVm). In the NT it is used in AV to render three sets of words. (1) The noun anastrophē = ‘behaviour’ (Gal 1:13, Eph 4:22, 1 Ti 4:12, He 13:7, Ja 3:13, 1 P 1:15, 18, 2:12, 3:1, 2, 16, 2 P 2:7, 3:11), RV substituting in each case ‘manner of life,’ ‘manner of living,’ ‘life,’ ‘living,’ or ‘behaviour’; the vb. anastrephesthai = ‘to behave oneself’ (2 Co 1:12, Eph 2:3).
(2) The noun politeuma = ‘citizenship’ or ‘commonwealth’ (Ph 3:20); the vb.
politeuesthai = ‘to act as a citizen’ (Ph 1:27). (3) tropos = ‘manner,’ ‘character,’ lit. ‘turning’ (He 13:5). Cf. RV and RVm throughout. The main point to notice is that in every case ‘conversation’ in the Bible refers not to speech merely, but to conduct.
J. C. Lambert.
CONVERSION.—The noun occurs only in Ac 15:3 (epistrophē), but in AV ‘convert’ is found several times both in OT (Heb. shūbh) and NT (Gr. epistrephō, strephō) to denote a spiritual turning, RV in most cases substituting ‘turn.’ ‘Turn’ is to he preferred because (1) in the Eng. of AV ‘convert’ meant no more than ‘turn’; (2) ‘conversion’ has come to be employed in a sense that often goes beyond the meaning of the originals. RV has further corrected AV by giving act. ‘turn’ for pass. ‘be converted’ in Mt 13:15, 18:3, Mk 4:12, Lk 22:32, Jn 12:40, Ac 3:19 , 28:27, where the Gr. vbs. are reflexive in meaning. In OT shūbh is used to denote a turning, whether of the nation (Dt 30:10, 2 K 17:13 etc.) or of the individual ( Ps 51:13, Is 55:7 etc.). In NT epistrephō, strephō are used esp. of individuals, but sometimes in a sense that falls short of ‘conversion’ as the conscious change implied in becoming a Christian. Mt 18:3 was spoken to true disciples, and the ‘conversion’ demanded of them was a renunciation of their foolish ambitions ( cf. v. 1). Lk 22:32 was addressed to the leader of the Apostles, and his ‘conversion’ was his return to his Master’s service after his fall. In Acts and Epp., however, ‘convert’ or ‘turn’ is employed to denote conversion in the full Christian sense ( Ac 3:19, 9:35, 11:21, 14:15 [cf. 15:3 ‘conversion’], 2 Co 3:16, 1 Th 1:9). Conversion as a spiritual fact comes before us repeatedly in the Gospels (Lk 7:47ff., 15:17 ff., 19:8ff., 23:42, 43) and in the history of the Apostolic Church (Ac 2:41, 47, 8:5, 6 , 12, 9:3ff., 16:30ff.etc.). RV brings out the fact that in the NT conversion (as distinguished from regeneration [wh. see]) is an activity of the soul itself, and not an experience imposed from above. This view of its nature is confirmed when we find repentance (Ac 3:19, 26:20; cf. Ezk 14:6, 18:30) and faith (Ac 11:21; cf. 20:21) associated with it as the elements that make up the moral act of turning from sin and self to God in Christ.
J. C. Lambert.
CONVINCE.—Adams (Serm. ii. 38) says: ‘Whatsoever is written is written either for our instruction or destruction; to convert us if we embrace it, to convince us if we despise it.’ This is the meaning of ‘convince’ in the AV. It is what we now express by convict. Thus Jude 15 ‘to convince all that are ungodly among them of their ungodly deeds.’
COOKING AND COOKING UTENSILS.—See House, § 9.
COPPER.—See Brass, and Mining and Metals.
COPPERSMITH (2 Ti 4:14).—See Alexander, Arts and Crafts, § 2.
COR.—See Weights and Measures.
CORAL.—See Jewels and Precious Stones.
COR-ASHAN (AV Chor-ashan, 1 S 30:30) is the present reading of MT, but the orig. text was undoubtedly Bor-ashan. The place may be the same as Ashan of Jos 15:42, 19:7.
CORBAN.—See Sacrifice and Offering.
CORD, ROPE.—Hebrew possesses a considerable number of words rendered, without any attempt at uniformity, by ‘cord,’ ‘rope,’ and a variety of other terms. It is difficult for the English reader to recognize the same original in the Psalmist’s bow ‘string’ (Ps 11:2) and the ‘green withs’ (RVm ‘new bowstrings’) with which Samson was bound; or again in the tent ropes of Is 33:20 (EV ‘cords’) and the ships’ ‘tacklings’ of v. 23. The former set were probably of animal sinews or gut, the latter of twisted flax. The stronger ropes were of three strands (Ec 4:12). No doubt the fibres of the palm and, as at the present day, goats’ hair were spun into ropes. The process of rope-making from leather thongs is illustrated on an Egyptian tomb, the ‘wreathen work’ (lit. ‘rope-work’) of Ex 28:14 (see RV), where, however, gold wire is the material used. Ec 12:6 speaks also of a silver cord, and Job 41:2 of a ‘rope of rushes’ (see RVm). The Gr. word for the cords of our Saviour’s scourge (Jn 2:15) and the ropes of Ac 27:32 also denoted originally such a rope.
The everyday use of cords for binding evil-doers suggested the metaphor of the wicked man ‘holden with the cords of his sin’ (Pr 5:22), while from the hunter’s snares comes the figure of Ps 140:5; also ‘the cords of death’ of Ps 116:3 RV.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CORE.—See Korah.
CORIANDER SEED (gad, Ex 16:31, Nu 11:7).—A product of the Coriandrum sativum, a common cultivated plant all over the East. It has a carminative action on the stomach. It is a globular ‘fruit’ about twice the size of a hemp seed.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CORINTH was the capital of the Roman province Achaia, and, in every respect except educationally (see Athens), the most important city in Greece in Roman times. It was also a most important station on the route between E. and W., the next station to it on the E. being Ephesus, with which it was in close and continual connexion. Its situation made it a leading centre of Christianity. The city occupied a powerful position at the S. extremity of the narrow isthmus which connected the mainland of Greece with the Peloponnese. Its citadel rises 1800 feet above sea-level, and it was in addition defended by its high walls, which not only surrounded the city but also reached to the harbour Lechæum, on the W. (11/2 miles away). The other harbour, Cenchreæ, on the E., on the Saronic Gulf, was about 81/2 miles away. The view from the citadel is splendid. The poverty of the stony soil and the neighbourhood of two quiet seas made the Corinthians a maritime people. It was customary to haul ships across from the one sea to the other on a made track called the Diolkos. This method at once saved time and protected the sailors from the dangers of a voyage round Cape Malea (S. of the Peloponnese). Larger ships could not, of course, be conveyed in this way, and in their case the goods must have been conveyed across and transhipped at the other harbour. The place was always crowded with traders and other travellers, and we find St. Paul speaking of Gaius of Corinth as ‘my host and of the whole Church’ (Ro 16:23).
The city had been destroyed by the Romans in 146 b.c., but exactly a hundred years afterwards it was refounded by Julius Cæsar as a colonia, under the name Laus Julia Corinthus (see Colony). A number of Roman names in the NT are found in connexion with Corinth; Crispus, Titius Justus (Ac 18:7, 8), Lucius, Tertius, Gaius, Quartus (Ro 16:21–23), Fortunatus (1 Co 16:17). The population would consist of (1) descendants of the Roman colonists of 46 b.c., the local aristocracy; (2) resident Romans, government officials and business men; (3) a large Greek population; (4) other resident strangers, of whom Jews would form a large number (their synagogue Ac 18:4). Of these some joined St. Paul (Ac 18:4–8 , Ro 16:21, 1 Co 9:20), and the hatred against him in consequence led to a plot against his life. The church, however, consisted chiefly of non-Jews (see 1 Co 12:2).
St. Paul did not at first intend to make Corinth a centre of work (Ac 18:1), but a special revelation altered his plans (Ac 18:9–10), and he remained there at least 18 months. The opposition he met in the Jewish synagogue made him turn to the Gentiles. St. Paul left the baptism of his converts almost entirely to his subordinates, and himself baptized only Stephanas (1 Co 16:15), Gaius (Ro 16:23) , and Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue (1 Co 1:14–16). Some weeks after his arrival in Corinth, St. Paul was joined by Silas and Timothy, returning from Macedonia. News brought by Timothy caused him to write there the First Ep. to the Thess. (1 Th 3:6), and the Second was probably written there also, immediately after the receipt of an answer to the First. While St. Paul was in Corinth, Gallio came there as proconsul of the second grade to govern Achaia, probably in the summer of the year 52 a.d. The Jews brought an action before him against St. Paul, but Gallio, rightly recognizing that his court could take no cognizance of a charge of the sort they brought, dismissed the action. St. Paul’s preaching was thus declared to he in no way an offence against Roman law, and in future he relied more on his relation to the State, against the enmity of the Jews. After the examination Gallio permitted the populace to show their hatred to the Jews ( Ac 18:17). It was in Corinth that St. Paul became acquainted with Prisca and Aquila (Ac 18:2, 3, 18, 26), and he lived in their house during all his stay. They worked at the same industry as himself, and no doubt influenced his plans for later work. They also left for Ephesus with him.
Christianity grew fast in Corinth, but the inevitable dissensions occurred. Apollos had crossed from Ephesus to Corinth (Ac 18:27, 2 Co 3:1) and done valuable work there (Ac 18:27, 28, 1 Co 1:12). He unconsciously helped to bring about this dissension, as did also Cephas, if (but see next art. § 3) he visited Corinth. The subject of these dissensions is, however, more appropriately dealt with under the following two articles. The Apostle wrote at least three letters to the church: the first, which is lost (1 Co 5:9); the second, which we call First Corinthians, and which was probably carried by Titus (Timothy also visited Corinth at the instance of St. Paul, 1 Co 4:17); the third, our Second Corinthians, which was taken by Titus and Luke (2 Co 8:16–18, 12:18). St. Paul spent three months in Greece, chiefly no doubt at Corinth, in the winter of 56–57. Whether the Corinthians actually contributed or not to St. Paul’s collection for the poor Christians at Jerusalem must remain uncertain (but see p. 159b, § 2 ad fin.).
A. Souter.
CORINTHIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE
1. Occasion of the Epistle.—Some four or five years had elapsed since St.
Paul’s first evangelization of Corinth when he addressed the present Epistle to the Christians in that great centre of commerce. No doubt there had been frequent communications, especially during the Apostle’s stay in Asia, for the journey between Corinth and Ephesus was a very easy one; but the communications were probably by letter only. A former epistle is mentioned in 1 Co 5:9, in which St. Paul had bidden his disciples ‘to have no company with fornicators’—advice which was no doubt considered hard to obey in the most vicious and pleasureloving city of the world, and which to some extent is modified in the present Epistle (5:10f.); and a letter from the Corinthians to St. Paul is the immediate object of the Apostle’s writing on the present occasion (7:1). But before answering it, he reproves the Corinthians for certain abuses which he had heard of from ‘the [household] of Chloe’ (1:11), namely, schism and party spirit, a bad case of incest, and litigiousness; for ‘they of Chloe’ seem to have been St. Paul’s informants on all these matters. Chloe was perhaps a woman of importance who carried on a trade in Corinth, as Lydia of Thyatira did at Philippi (Ac 16:14). She therefore not improbably belonged to Asia Minor—the reference to her seems to imply that she was not a Corinthian,—and ‘they of Chloe’ would be her agents who passed to and fro between Ephesus and Corinth. Having reproved the Corinthians for these abuses, the Apostle answers the questions put in their letter to him, as to marriage and other social questions; perhaps also as to Christian worship, the doctrine of the Resurrection, and the collection for the poor of Judæa. We may consider these topics in order.
2. The state of the Corinthian Church.—It will be remembered that the majority of the Christians at Corinth were Gentiles, though there were some Jews among them (Ro 16:21, 1 Co 7:18, 9:20, 12:13), including such influential men as Crispus (Ac 18:8) and (probably) Sosthenes (Ac 18:17, 1 Co 1:1). It was the heathen antecedents of the Corinthians that led to most of the evils for which St. Paul rebukes them (6:11, 12:2). The Apostle, though he had not intended to stay long in Corinth when he first went there, desiring to return to Macedonia (1 Th 2:18), yet, when his wish was found to be impracticable, threw himself with all his heart into the task of making heathen Corinth, the famous trade centre which lay on one of the greatest routes of communication in the Empire, into a religious centre for the spread of the gospel (cf. Ac 18:5). But the difficulties were not those with which he had met in Athens, where the philosophic inhabitants derided him. At Corinth the vices of the city had lowered the tone of public opinion; and when St. Paul preached Christ crucified with all plainness of speech (1 Co 1:17ff.), many heard him gladly, but retained with their nominal Christianity their old heathen ideas on morals. He preached no longer ‘wisdom’ to the Jewish lawyer or the Greek sophist (1:20), but salvation to the plain man; the Gentiles had no sense of sin, and the preaching of a personal Saviour was to them ‘folly’ (1:23). We need not indeed suppose, as Sir W. Ramsay (Expositor VI. [i.] 98) points out, that the passage 1:26ff. describes Corinthian Christians as distinguished from those in other places; the disciples at Corinth were not merely the ‘dregs of society,’ separated from the rest of the population, as the negro from the white man in some countries to-day. Ramsay thinks that the special work of the Church was to raise the thoughtful and educated middle classes. It certainly included men of means (11:20ff.). Still, the upper classes and the learned were everywhere less attracted by Christianity than were the poor, with certain conspicuous exceptions, such as St. Paul himself.
It has been debated how far the Church was organized at Corinth at this time. The ministry is seldom referred to in these two Epistles; the ‘bishops and deacons’ of Ph 1:1 are not mentioned; but we read of apostles, prophets, and teachers (12:28). It would, however, be unsafe to conclude that there was not a settled local ministry at Corinth. St. Paul had certainly established presbyters in every Church on his First Journey (Ac 14:23), and so apparently in Asia on his Second (20:17). In this Epistle the regular ministers are perhaps not explicitly mentioned, because they were the very persons who were most responsible for the disorders ( Goudge, Westminster Com. p. xxxvi), while in ch. 12 the possession of ‘spiritual gifts’ is the subject of discussion, and the mention of the regular ministry would not be germane to it. A settled order of clergy is implied in 9:7, 12, 14.
3. Party Spirit at Corinth.—It is more correct to say that there were parties in the Church than that the Corinthians had made schisms. We read, not of rival organizations, but of factions in the one organization. It is noteworthy that Clement of Rome (Cor. 1, 47), writing less than 50 years later, refers to the factions prevalent at Corinth in his time. The Greeks were famous for factions; their cities could never combine together for long. In St. Paul’s time there was a Paul-party, and also an Apollos-party, a Cephas-party, and a Christ-party (1:12), though the words ‘but I [am] of Christ’ are interpreted by Estius (Com. ed. Sausen, ii. 110) and many Greek and Latin commentators, and also perhaps by Clement of Rome (see below, § 10), as being St. Paul’s own observation: ‘You make parties, taking Paul, Apollos, Cephas as leaders, but I, Paul, am no party man, I am Christ’s’ ( cf. 3:23). If, however, we take the more usual interpretation that there were four parties, we may ask what lines of thought they severally represented. The Apollosparty would probably consist of those who disparaged St. Paul as not being sufficiently eloquent and philosophical (cf. 2:1, 13, Ac 18:24, 2 Co 10:10, 11:6). The Cephas-party would be the party of the circumcision, as in Galatia. At Corinth the great dispute about the Law was as yet in its infancy; it seems to have grown when 2 Corinthians was written (see § 7 (c) below). The Christ-party, it has been conjectured, was the ultra-latitudinarian party, which caricatured St. Paul’s teaching about liberty (cf. Ro 6:1); or (Alford) consisted of those who made a merit of not being attached to any human teacher, and who therefore slighted the Apostleship of St. Paul. Another view is that the Christ-party consisted of the Judaizers mentioned in 2 Co. and Gal. as denying St. Paul’s Apostleship ( Goudge, p. xxi.: cf. 2 Co 10:7 where St. Paul’s opponents claim to be peculiarly Christ’s); but it is not easy in that case to distinguish them from the Cephas-party. There is no sufficient reason for deducing from 1 Co 1:12, 9:5 that St. Peter had visited Corinth, and that this party consisted of his personal disciples.—St. Paul, then, reproves all these parties, and most emphatically those who called themselves by his name. They were united by baptism with Christ, not with him (1:13).
4. Moral Scandals (ch. 5).—A Christian had married his (probably heathen) step-mother. Perhaps his father had been separated from her on his becoming a Christian, but (if 2 Co 7:12 refers to this incident) was still alive; and the son thereupon married her. The Corinthian Church, in the low state of public opinion, did not condemn this, and did not even mention it in their letter to St. Paul. St. Paul reproves them for tolerating ‘such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles’ [the word ‘named’ of the AV text has no sufficient authority]. There is a difficulty here, for the heathen tolerated even more incestuous connexions, as between a man and his half-sister. Ramsay (Exp. VI. [i.] 110) supposes the Apostle to mean that the Roman law forbade such marriage. The Roman law of affinity was undoubtedly very strict, and Corinth, as a colony, would be familiar with Roman law; though the law was not usually put in force. The Jews strongly denounced such connexions (Am 2:7). The Apostle says nothing of the punishment of the heathen step-mother (cf. 1 Co 5:12), but the man is to be ‘delivered unto Satan’ (5:5, cf. 1 Ti 1:20).
This phrase probably means simple excommunication, including the renouncing of all intercourse with the offender (cf. 5:13), though many take it to denote the infliction of some miraculous punishment, disease, or death, and deny that the offender of 2 Co 2 and 7 is the incestuous Corinthian of 1 Co 5. Ramsay conjectures that the phrase is a Christian adaptation of a pagan idea, that a person wronged by another but unable to retaliate should consign the offender to the gods and leave punishment to he inflicted by Divine power; Satan would be looked on as God’s instrument in punishing the offender; and the latter, being cast out of the Christian community, would be left as a prey to the devil.
5. Legal Scandals.—St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for litigiousness, 6:1–8. This passage is usually interpreted as superseding heathen imperial tribunals by voluntary Christian courts for all cases, such as the Jews often had. Ramsay (Exp. VI. [i.] 274) suggests that the Apostle, who usually treats Roman institutions with respect, is not here considering serious questions of crime and fraud at all, nor yet law courts whether heathen or Christian, but those smaller matters which Greeks were accustomed to submit to arbitration. In Roman times, as this procedure developed, the arbiters became really judges of an inferior court, recognized by the law, and the magistrates appointed them. In this view St. Paul reproves the Corinthians for taking their umpires from among the heathen instead of from among their Christian brethren.
6. Questions of Moral Sin and of Marriage (6:12–7:40).—Probably the passage 6:12–20 is part of the answer to the Corinthian letter. The correspondent had said, ‘All things are lawful for me.’ But all things (the Apostle replies) are not expedient. ‘Meats are for the belly, and the belly for meats’ (i.e. just as food is natural to the body, so is impurity). But both are transitory, and the body as a whole is for the Lord; in virtue of the Resurrection fornication is a serious sin, for it destroys the spiritual character of the body. True marriage is the most perfect symbol of the relation between Christ and the Church (6:15ff.; cf. Eph 5:23ff.). In ch. 7 the Apostle answers the Corinthians’ questions about marriage. It is usually thought that they wished to extol asceticism, basing their view on our Lord’s words in Mt 19:11f., that they suggested that celibacy was to be strongly encouraged in all, and that the Apostle, though agreeing as an abstract principle, yet, because of imminent persecution and Jesus’ immediate return (7:26, 29), replied that in many cases celibacy was undesirable. But Ramsay points out that such a question is unnatural to both Jews and Gentiles of that time. The better heathen tried to enforce marriage as a cure for immorality; while the Jews looked on it as an universal duty. Ramsay supposes, therefore, that the Corinthians wished to make marriage compulsory, and that St. Paul pleads for a voluntary celibacy. Against this it is urged that the Essenes (a Jewish sect) upheld non-marriage. But it is difficult to think, in view of 11:11 and Eph 5:23ff., that St. Paul held the celibate life to be essentially the higher one, and the married life only a matter of permission, a concession to weakness.—After positive commands as to divorce (7:10ff.) the Apostle answers in 7:25ff. another question: which would be either (see above) a suggestion that fathers should he discouraged from finding husbands for their daughters, or that they should be compelled to do so. On the latter supposition, St. Paul says that there is no obligation, and that the daughter may well remain unmarried. The subject is concluded with advice as to widows’ remarriage.
7. Social Questions (8:1–11:1)
(a) Food.—Another question was whether Christians may eat meats which had previously been offered to Idols, as most of the meat sold in Corinth would have been. St. Paul’s answer is a running commentary on the Corinthians’ words ( so Lock, Exp. V. [vi.] 65; Ramsay agrees): ‘We know that we all have knowledge; we are not bound by absurd ceremonial restrictions.’ Yes, but knowledge puffeth up; without love and humility it is nothing; besides not all have knowledge. ‘The false gods are really non-existent; we have but one God; as there is no such thing really as an idol we are free to eat meats offered in idol temples.’ But there are weaker brethren who would be scandalized. ‘Meat will not commend us to God: it is indifferent.’ But do not let your liberty cause others to fall (note the change of pronoun in v. 8f.).
Why is the decree of Ac 15:29 not quoted? Lock suggests that it is because at Corinth there was no question between Jew and Gentile, but only between Gentile and Gentile, and Jewish opinion might be neglected. Ramsay (Exp. VI. [ii.] 375) thinks that the decree is not mentioned because it was the very subject of discussion. The Corinthians had said (he supposes): ‘Why should we be tied down by the Council’s decree here at Corinth, so long after? We know better than to suppose that a non-existent idol can taint food.’ St. Paul replies, maintaining the spirit of the decree, that offence must not be given to the weaker brethren ( so Hort).
(b) Idol Feasts (8:10–13, 10:14–11:1).—St. Paul absolutely forbids eating at idol feasts. Probably many of the Corinthians had retained their connexion with pagan clubs. The pagan feast meant a brotherhood or special bond of union; but the two kinds of brotherhood were incompatible. A Christian who, out of complaisance, attends an idol feast, is really entering a hostile brotherhood.
(c) Digression on Forbearance (9:1–10:13).—St. Paul says that he habitually considers the rights of others and does not press his own rights as an Apostle to the full; he implies that the Corinthians should not press their liberty so as to scandalize others. This passage shows how little as yet the Judaizers had been at work in Corinth. St. Paul announces his position as an Apostle, and the right of the Christian minister to live of the gospel, but he will not use his rights to the full (9:18 RV). He teaches self-denial and earnestness from the example of the Isthmian games (9:24ff.), and shows that the Israelites, in spite of all their privileges, fell from lack of this self-discipline. It is noteworthy that he speaks of ‘our fathers’ (10:1). Perhaps, having addressed the Gentiles in particular in ch. 9 , he now turns to the Jewish section of the Corinthian Church; he refers to a Rabbinical legend in 10:4. Or he may he considering the whole Church as being the spiritual descendants of Israel.
8. Christian Worship (11:2–14:40)
(a) Veiling of Women.—In reply (as it seems) to another question, St. Paul says that it is the Christian custom for men ‘praying or prophesying’ to have their heads uncovered, but for women to have theirs covered. This apparently trivial matter is an instance of the application of Christian principles to Christian ceremonial. The Jews of both sexes prayed with head covered and with a veil before the face (cf. 2 Co 3:14ff.); therefore St. Paul’s injunction does not follow Jewish custom. It is based on the subordination of the woman to the man, and is illustrated by the existence of regulated ranks among the angels; for this seems to be the meaning of 11:10.
(b) The Eucharist.—The Corinthians joined together in a social meal— somewhat later called an Agape or Love-feast—and the Eucharist, probably in imitation both of the Last Supper and of the Jewish and heathen meals taken in common. To this combination the name ‘Lord’s Supper’ (here only in NT) is given. But the party-spirit, already spoken of, showed itself in this custom; the Corinthians did not eat the Lord’s supper, but their own, because of their factions. St. Paul therefore gives the narrative of our Lord’s Institution as he himself had received it, strongly condemns those who make an unworthy communion as ‘guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,’ and inculcates preparation by selfprobation.
It is chiefly this passage that has led some to think that the writer of the Epistle is quoting the Synoptic Gospels (see below, § 10); the Lukan account, as we have it in our Bibles, is very like the Pauline. But the deduction is very improbable. Even if our Lukan text is right, the result is only what we should have expected, that the companion of St. Paul has taken his master’s form of the narrative, which he would doubtless have frequently heard him use liturgically, and has incorporated it in his Gospel. As a matter of fact, however, it is not improbable that the Lukan form was really much shorter than the Pauline, and that some early scribe has lengthened it to make it fit in with 1 Co 11:23ff. (Westcott-Hort, NT in Greek, ii. Append. p. 64).
(c) Spiritual Gifts (chs. 12–14).—The public manifestation of the presence of the Spirit known as ‘speaking with tongues’ (see art. Tongues [Gift of]), seems to have been very common at Corinth. After the magnificent digression of ch. 13 , which shows that of all spiritual gifts love is the greatest, that it alone is eternal, that without it all other gifts are useless, St. Paul applies the principle that spiritual gifts are means to an end, not an end in themselves; and he therefore upholds ‘prophecy’ (i.e., in this connexion, the interpretation of Scripture and of Christian doctrine) as superior to speaking with tongues, because it edifies all present. He says, further, that women are to keep silence (i.e. not to prophesy?) in the public assemblies (14:34f., cf. 1 Ti 2:12). In 11:5 (Cf. Ac 21:9) some women are said to have had the gift of prophecy; so that we must understand that they were allowed to exercise it only among women, or in their own households. But possibly the Apostle has chiefly in his mind questions asked by women in the public assemblies (cf. 14:35).
9. The Resurrection of the Body (ch. 15).—This, the only doctrinal chapter of the Epistle, contains also the earliest evidence for our Lord’s resurrection. Apparently the Gentile converts at Corinth felt a great difficulty in accepting the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; it appeared to them too material a doctrine to he true (15:12, cf. 2 Ti 2:18). St. Paul replies that Christ has risen, as many still alive can testify, and that therefore the dead will rise. For his treatment of the subject see art. Paul the Apostle, iii. 10, The Corinthian scepticism does not seem to have died out at the end of the century, for Clement of Rome, writing to Corinth, strongly emphasizes the doctrine (Cor. 24f.).
St. Paul concludes the Epistle with directions about the regular collecting of alms for the poor Christians of Judæa, and with personal notices and salutations.
10. Date and genuineness of the Epistle.—It is referred to as St. Paul’s by Clement of Rome, c. a.d. 95 (Cor. 47), who speaks of the parties of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos, but omits the Christ-party (see above § 3); we cannot infer from his phrase ‘the Epistle of the blessed Paul’ that he knew only one Epistle to the Corinthians, as early usage shows (Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 143). There are other clear allusions in Clement. Ignatius (Eph. 18f.) refers to 1 Co 1:20, 23f., 4:13 and probably 2:6; Polycarp (§ 11) quotes 1 Co 6:2 as Paul’s; references are found in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, in Justin Martyr, and in the Epistle to Diognetus; while Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian at the end of the 2nd cent. quote the Epistle fully. Of the 2nd cent. heretics the Ophites and Basilides certainly knew it. Internal evidence fully hears out the external; no Epistle shows more clearly the mark of originality; and the undesigned coincidences between it and Acts, which Paley draws out, point in the same direction. It is in fact one of the four ‘generally accepted’ Epistles of St. Paul. See art. Paul the Apostle, i. 2, for the general arguments adduced against their genuineness. Against that of our Epistle in particular it has been alleged that it is dependent on Romans—thus, 4:6 (‘the things which are written’) is said to be a quotation of Ro 12:3, surely a most fanciful idea—and on the Synoptic Gospels, especially in two particulars, the account of the Last Supper (see § 8 (b) above), and that of the Resurrection appearances of our Lord (15:4ff.). The real problem of the latter passage, however (as Goudge remarks, p. xxvii.), is not to account for the extent to which it runs parallel with the Gospels, but to explain why it does not run more nearly parallel with them. Few will he convinced by a criticism which practically assumes that a Christian writer of the 1st cent. could only know the facts of our Lord’s earthly life from our Gospels. We may then take the genuineness of the Epistle as being unassailable.
If so, what is its date? Relatively to the rest of the Pauline chronology, it may he approximately fixed. In the year of his arrest at Jerusalem, St. Paul left Corinth in the early spring, after spending three months there (Ac 20:3, 6). He must therefore have arrived there in late autumn or early winter. This seems to have been the visit to Corinth promised in 2 Co 13:1, which was the third visit. Two visits in all must have therefore preceded 2 Cor. (some think also 1 Cor.), and in any case an interval of some months between the two Epistles must be allowed for. In 1 Co 16:6 the Apostle had announced his intention of wintering in Corinth, and it is possible that the visit of Ac 20:3 is the fulfilment of this intention, though St. Paul certainly did not carry out all his plans at this time (2 Co 1:15f., 23). If so, 1 Cor. would have been written from Ephesus in the spring of the year before St. Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem.
This date is favoured by the allusion of 5:7f., which suggests to many commentators that the Easter festival was being, or about to he, celebrated when St. Paul wrote. It is a little doubtful, however, whether the Gentile churches kept the annual as well as the weekly feast of the Resurrection at this early date; see art. ‘Calendar, The Christian,’ in Hastings’ DCG i. 256.
Ramsay (St. Paul the Trav. p. 275) thinks that we must date our Epistle some six months earlier, in the second autumn before St. Paul’s arrest. The events alluded to in 2 Cor. require a long interval between the Epistles. Moreover, the Corinthians had begun the collection for the poor Jews ‘a year ago’ when St. Paul wrote 2 Cor. (8:10, 9:2), and it seems, therefore, that at least a year must have elapsed since the injunction of 1 Co 16:1. It is suggested, however, that we should rather translate the phrase ‘last year,’ and that to one who used the Macedonian calendar, and who wrote in the autumn, ‘last spring’ would also be ‘last year,’ for the new year began in September. On the whole, however, the argument about the Easter festival seems to be precarious, and the conditions are probably better satisfied if a longer interval be allowed, and the First Epistle put about 18 months before St. Paul’s arrest. The absolute, as opposed to the relative, date will depend on our view of the rival schemes given in art. Chronology of the NT, § iii.
A. J. Maclean.
CORINTHIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO
1. Circumstances of the Epistle.—The circumstances of this Epistle are more difficult to discover than those of any other of St. Paul’s Epistles. The historical situation has been well described as a ‘trackless forest,’ and as a consequence the views of writers are very varied. We may best start by noticing that the Epistle was clearly written when the Apostle was burdened by some great anxiety, perhaps physical, but assuredly spiritual (11:28). This anxiety seems to have been connected with at least three things: (a) a mission of Titus; (b) a letter St. Paul had written to Corinth, either our 1 Cor., or an Epistle now lost (7:8); (c) the treatment of some offender at Corinth, either the guilty one of 1 Co 5:1, or some resolute opponent of St. Paul’s authority. In 13:1 we read of a projected third visit (for such seems the most natural interpretation of the words), and this presupposes a second visit of which we have no record. Four questions then need to be answered. (1) Why Titus’ mission should have caused anxiety? (2) What was the letter that led to St. Paul’s concern as to its effect? (3) Who was the offender referred to? (4) When did the second visit take place?
2. St. Paul and Corinth.—The Church was founded in 53 or 54 on the Second Missionary Journey (Ac 18:1). St. Paul remained there two years. After leaving, he kept up communications (2 Co 12:17), though it was only at Ephesus on the Third Missionary Journey in 56 (Ac 19:1) that he could resume personal intercourse. While there, he heard of the terrible immorality, and wrote a short letter (1 Co 5:9) , ordering them to have no intercourse with fornicators. This letter, now lost, may be referred to in 2 Co 1:18; and if so, it may have contained a statement that he would come to Corinth before going to Macedonia. This project, however, was altered (1 Co 16:5). About the same time (a.d. 56) he possibly paid a second visit from
Ephesus to Corinth, which caused him great pain and grief (2 Co 2:1, 12:14, 21 ,
13:1). Then in the spring of 57 he wrote 1 Cor., and on the strength of his
Apostolic authority ordered the punishment of the incestuous person (1 Co 5:1–5). At the same time he sent Timothy on a mission (1 Co 4:17, 16:10) to support and supplement his letter. It is possible that Timothy returned with the sad news that the Church refused to carry out St. Paul’s orders, or possibly that there was a growing opposition to his authority under some Judaizing ringleader. Then followed the mission of Titus, carrying with him a letter, our 1 Cor., or another now lost (2 Co 2:3, 7:8), in which St. Paul insisted on Church discipline. Paul leaves Ephesus owing to riot (Ac 19), expects to see Titus in Troas, but does not meet him until they reach Macedonia in the summer or autumn of 57 (2 Co 2:12 , 13). The news Titus brought from Corinth is mixed. The majority of the Church had obeyed his orders and punished the offender (2 Co 2:6–11), but the Judaizers had grown stronger in opposition to the Apostle, charging him with inconsistency, false Apostleship, boasting, and money-making. They were also probably endeavouring to thwart his collections for Jerusalem (1 Co 16:1, 2 Co 8:9). Not least of all was the still existing danger for Gentile converts of relapsing into heathen worship and impurity (2 Co 6:14, 7:1, 12:19–21). As a result of this news, St. Paul writes our 2 Cor., in which (1) he expresses great satisfaction at the good news of discipline exercised against evildoers, (2) justifies the collection for Jerusalem, and (3) vindicates his Apostolic authority. Then followed a visit ( the third) to Corinth, and a stay of three months (Ac 20:3).
The most uncertain point is the place of the second visit. As above stated, it is thought by some to have taken place before our 1 Cor. was written, though others suggest it should come soon after Timothy’s mission and as a result of his failure. On this view, however, it is difficult, if not impossible, to account for Titus’ mission. It is also urged (Robertson in Hastings’ DB) that a place for the second visit cannot be found anterior to our 1 Cor., and it must therefore be removed altogether from the sphere and circumstances of our two Epistles. It is also uncertain whether the offender is the one of 1 Cor., as seems more probable, or some entirely different person who was a virulent opponent of St. Paul’s Apostolic authority. Godet makes out a strong and almost convincing case for a different set of circumstances in 2 Cor. from those in 1 Corinthians. There is equal uncertainty as to the letter about which St. Paul was anxious Most probably it is one now lost, and not our 1 Corinthians. Denney (Expos. Bible) considers the connexion between 1 and 2 Cor. so close as to need no hypotheses of additional Epistles now lost. He would explain 2 Cor. entirely out of 1 Corinthians. Bernard favours this view ( so formerly Plummer). On the other hand, Godet places the second visit between our 1 and 2 Cor., which visit is thought to be the painful and recent one in 2 Co 1:8 f., 23. The following, modified from Robertson (Hastings’ DB i. 495), is perhaps the best scheme of events:—(1) Foundation of Church at Corinth (Ac 18:1–5). (2) Apollos at Corinth (Ac 19:1, 1 Co 1:12). (3) St. Paul at Ephesus (Ac 19:1). [ The second visit to Corinth if before our 1 Cor.] (4) Lost letter of 1 Co 5:9 ( perhaps announcing the plan of 2 Co 1:16). (5) Some would put second visit to Corinth here. (6) Visit of Stephan as and others from Corinth to St. Paul at Ephesus (1 Co 16:17, 18), asking for advice on certain matters (1 Co 7:1, 8:1). (7) 1 Cor. sent by Titus and the ‘brother’ (2 Co 12:18). (8) St. Paul determines to pay a double visit to Corinth (2 Co 1:15). (9) Painful news from Corinth through Titus leads to a change of plan. (10) A severe letter sent. (11) Titus sent to Corinth (2 Co 7:7–15) , with, on the whole, favourable results. (12) Titus returns and meets St. Paul in Macedonia. (13) Titus sent to Corinth with 2 Corinthians. (14) St. Paul’s visit to Corinth and three months’ stay (Ac 20:3).
It is interesting to note the happy results of this letter. Not only did the Apostle go again to Corinth, but actually wintered there. Still more, it was during these three months that he wrote his great Epistle to the Romans, the quiet tone and massive strength of which bear witness to the restfulness of the Apostle’s mind and heart, as well as to the complete victory over the Judaizers. Not least of all, his favourite project—the collection for Jerusalem—was brought to a successful completion, and the Church of Corinth had some of its members included in the delegation to Jerusalem (Ac 20:4). His vigorous Epistle was therefore not in vain, and Corinth and the whole Church have been the gainers by it in the overruling providence of God.
3. Date.—1 Cor. was written in the spring of 57, and 2 Cor. probably in the same year, though it is impossible to say definitely what was the exact interval between them. The all-engrossing topic of the collection for Jerusalem (chs. 8 and 9) indicates the date as during the time of the Third Missionary Journey. St. Paul had left Asia (1:8), and had passed through Troas (2:12), and was in Macedonia (2:13, 9:2). From Ac 20:3 we know that he wintered at Corinth, and so 2 Cor. fits in exactly with Ac 20:2. Waite (Speaker’s Com.) therefore suggests October 57 and not earlier. This would suit the circumstances of Timothy’s and Titus’ visits, and account for the great change at Corinth towards St. Paul. Godet would put just over a year between the two Epistles, arguing that such a change of circumstances and tone could not have arisen within a few months.
4. Integrity.—There is no ground for supposing that the letter is not now in its original form. Recent attempts to separate it into two letters and to identify one of them (chs. 10–13) with the supposed lost painful Epistle, are not only not convincing in their arguments, but also have the great weight of textual criticism and Church tradition against them. It is impossible to suppose that all trace of such textual changes could have been entirely removed. Our authorities for the text are early enough to make us question the possibility of a sufficient time elapsing for so serious a modification of the original text. The subject-matter entirely agrees with the situation described above. The strong feelings under which the Epistle was written, and the conflicting emotions which swayed the Apostle, amply account for its ruggedness and abruptness.
5. Character.—Not even Galatians gives so full a revelation of the Apostle’s mind and soul as does 2 Corinthians. It has been rightly called ‘Paul’s Apologia,’ and as 1 Cor. is the first chapter of Ecclesiastical History, so 2 Cor. is the first chapter of Ecclesiastical Biography. It reveals the personal character of the great Apostle of the Gentiles in its twofold aspect of tenderness and strength, gentleness and severity, meekness and indignation. In questioning his Apostolic authority, the Judaizers were really questioning the gospel he preached, and indirectly the Master he loved and served. We are not surprised, therefore, to notice the vehemence of his vindication and the torrent of irony and denunciation with which he overwhelms his opponents. Here as nowhere else we see the man he was, stern yet tender, with a will of steel and yet a heart of wax. The iron hand and the velvet glove are combined in no common degree. His spiritual experiences are also brought out here as nowhere else; his visions (12:1), his ‘thorn’ (v. 7), his conflicts (2:10, 12:7), his physical weakness (4:7), his constant sufferings (11:23–27), We see something of what he had to endure from his unscrupulous Judaizing foes in their remarks about his personal appearance (10:10), his fickleness (1:17), his pretended Apostleship and Jewish birth (11:22), and his doubtful, if not dishonest, motives about the collection (6:3). But if we see what he endured, we see also what he enjoyed in union with his Master. We have not a few indications of his personal relation to Christ and his oneness with his Master in suffering (1:5, 4:10) , fellowship (12:8, 9), and the hope of glory (5:1). The keynote of chs. 1–9 is ‘comfort in tribulation,’ and of chs. 10–13 ‘boasting in weakness.’ The Epistle is thus noteworthy for its remarkable revelation of the inner life of the Apostle as he faced his enemies, pleaded with his friends, bore the burden of the care of all the Churches, and lived in fellowship and communion with His unseen Lord and Master.
The doctrinal element of the Epistle is necessarily not prominent, but the foundations of the characteristic Pauline position are both assumed and seen. The comparison between the two dispensations (ch. 3), the teaching about Christ’s death (5:14–21), the eschatology (4:16–5:8), the Christology (8:19), and the Trinitarian expression of the concluding Benediction (13:14), are among the leading Apostolic thoughts.
6. Authenticity.—There are but slight traces of the Epistle in the writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, though this is not to be wondered at, because of its personal rather than doctrinal character. The evidence for the text of the Epistle is, of course, practically on the same basis as that of 1 Corinthians. The real proofs of authenticity are internal, and are found in the character of the Epistle. It is too manifestly Pauline in its intensely individual character to be other than genuine, and hence it has long been one of the four undisputed Epistles of Paul.
7. Analysis.—The personal and emotional nature of the contents makes analysis far less easy than that of Epistles which were written under very different, because quieter, circumstances. Perhaps we may best understand and master the contents of the Epistle if, generally following Godet, we analyze it under its three main sections. Their connexion is mainly chronological: 1:12–7:16 dealing with the past in relation to himself and Corinth, 8:1–9:15 dealing with a special and important matter of present duty, and 10:1–13:10 taking up a question that affected the entire future of his relations to them and the whole Church.
(1) Personal Introduction, 1:1–11.
(2) 1:12–7:16. Himself and his ministry with special reference to Corinth. The Past.
(a) 1:12–2:11. Explanation of his change of plans.
(b) 2:12–7:3. After personal references he passes to discuss the Christian ministry.
i. Its power, 2:14–4:6.
ii. Its tribulations and hopes, 4:7–5:10.
iii. Its object and source, 5:11–21. iv. Its fulfilment by himself, 6:1–7:3.
(c) 7:4–16. The return of Titus and its glad results.
(3) 8:1–9:15. His efforts on behalf of the poor saints in Jerusalem. The Present.
(a) 8:1–5. The example of Macedonia. (b) 8:6–9:5. The new mission of Titus.
(c) 9:6–15. The Corinthian Church encouraged to give.
(4) 10:1–13:10 His approaching visit to Corinth, and the consequent need of a personal vindication in the face of enemies. The Future.
(a) 10:1–18. His claim to Apostolic authority.
(b) 11:1–12:18. His claim to superiority of Apostleship.
(c) 12:19–13:10. His contemplated visit and mode of procedure.
(5) Personal conclusion, 13:11–13.
[Note—The chronology t given above follows Lightfoot. According to Turner
(Hastings’ DB, art. ‘Chronology of the NT’) the dates would all be two years
earlier.]
W. H. Griffith Thomas.
CORMORANT (Lv 11:17, Dt 14:17, shālāk).—The shālāk, as the meaning of the word implies, was some kind of plunging bird. Two varieties of cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo and P. pygmœus, occur in Palestine both on the sea coasts and on inland waters, e.g. the Dead Sea. It was an ‘unclean’ bird. See also Pelican.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CORN.—This term may be taken to include—(1) Barley, (2) Wheat, (3)
Fitches, (4) Lentils, (5) Beans, (6) Millet, (7) Rye, wrong translation for ‘Vetches,’ (8) Pulse—for most of which see separate articles. Rye and oats are not cultivated in Palestine.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CORNELIUS.—A ‘proselyte of the gate’ or ‘devout man’ (Ac 10:1, see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 6), whose baptism was a step forward towards admitting the Gentiles into the Church. He was a Roman centurion of the Italic cohort ( see art. Band). An inscription recently discovered near Vienna shows that an Italic cohort was stationed in Syria c. a.d. 69, and this makes St. Luke’s statement ( once said to be an anachronism) quite probable. If the presence of such an officer in Cæsarea was not possible during the semi-independent rule of Agrippa (a.d. 41– 44), we must date the episode before that; but we cannot assert such an impossibility.
A. J. Maclean.
CORNER, CORNER-STONE.—1. The special sanctity which in the Hebrew mind attached to corners is to be regarded as an inheritance from certain primitive and widely-spread animistic conceptions. Several of these were taken up and, so to say, ‘regularized’ in the later legislation (cf. the remarks on Azazel under Atonement [Day of]). Examples will be found in the ideas associated with the corners of the altar (Zec 9:15), usually termed the ‘horns’ (Altar, § 7), the unreaped corners of the field (Lv 19:9; Agriculture, § 3), the corners of the beard and headhair (v. 27) and of the upper garment or cloak ( Fringes ).
2. Another illustration is found in the importance attached among many peoples to the corner-stone in the foundation course of every important building, which was laid with religious rites, including, in early times, the burial beneath it of a human victim (see House, § 3). The corrected text of Is 28:16 speaks of ‘a precious foundation corner-stone,’ which is neither Zion (as usually interpreted), nor the future Messiah, but a calm trust in J″; hence the prophet adds ‘he that trusts shall not be moved’ or ‘put to shame’ (LXX, cf. 1 P 2:6 and Kittel, Bib. Heb.). Jer 51:26 and Job 38:6 both associate the corner-stone with the foundations. Hence the figurative use of the word for the chief men of the State, as its ‘corners,’ i.e. supports and defences (Jg 20:2, 1 S 14:38 [cf. marg.], Is 19:13 RV, Zec 10:4). On the other hand, the stone of Ps 118:22 which became ‘the head of the corner’ (RV)—the reference is to Zion—is understood by many to be the corner-stone of the topmost course. (cf. the head stone of Zec 4:7, which is different from the ‘foundation’ of v. 9). In NT this passage and Is 28:16 receive a Messianic application, Jesus Christ being both the foundation and the head of His Church ( Mt 21:42 ||, Ac 4:11, 1 P 2:6f.).
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CORNET.—See Music and Musical Instruments.
CORRUPTION.—Jewish anthropology conceived of man as composed of two elements, the physical body and the soul. At death the soul went to Sheol, and the body decayed. The term ‘corruption’ came, therefore, to stand for the physical aspects of that state which followed death and preceded the resurrection. In this sense it is used in Ac 2:27, 31, 13:34–37, 1 Co 15:42, 50; cf. also 1 Co 15:53–54. There is no evidence that it had a moral force, although some have found such an implication in Gal 6:8, where the reference is rather to a belief that the wicked will not share in the glories of the resurrection. Neither is it a term to indicate annihilation, which idea does not seem to have been held by the Palestinian Jews. Jesus through His resurrection is represented (2 Ti 1:10) as having brought life and incorruption to light. The resurrection as a part of salvation is thus placed in sharpest contrast with the condition of the personality following physical death, since, as St. Paul says (2 Co 5:1f.), for a man who is saved, the decomposition of the physical body is but an occasion for the assumption of an incorruptible heavenly body.
Shailer Mathews.
COS.—An island off the coast of Caria, S.W. of Asia Minor, famous for its fertility and beauty. It was a Dorian colony, and a great seat of the worship of Æsculapius and of the study of medicine. Its position made it also an important place from a trade point of view, as it lay on the cross lines of traffic between Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. It is uncertain whether Cos, which had been a faithful ally of the Romans, was incorporated in the province of Asia in b.c. 139 (see Caria), but it certainly was a part of it in the time of Augustus. Its trade connexion made it one of the Jewish centres of the Ægæan. The Jews there were favoured by the Romans in b.c. 139–138 (1 Mac 15:23). It was a place on the route of the Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem (cf. Ac 21:1). Herod the Great was a benefactor of the people of Cos.
A. Souter.
COSAM.—An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:28).
COSMOGONY.—See Creation.
COSSÆANS.—A name adapted from the Greek form of Bab. Kasshē, a semibarbarous people inhabiting the mountain region between Elam and Media proper.
They answer to Cush (wh. see) in Gn 10:8 (and 2:13?) as distinguished from the African Cush. They were a powerful people between the 18th and the 12 th centuries b.c., during which time Babylonia was ruled by a Cossæan dynasty.
J. F. McCurdy.
COTTON is the better tr. (so RVm) of karpas, which in AV and RV is tr. ‘green,’ Est 1:6. It was either muslin or calico.
E. W. G. Masterman.
COUCH.—See House, § 8. The verb ‘to couch’ occurs in Dt 33:13 ‘the deep that coucheth beneath.’ The word means simply to lie down, but it is used almost exclusively of animals, as is the Heb. word also. The subterranean deep, says Driver, is perhaps pictured as a gigantic monster.
COULTER.—Only 1 S 13:20f. for the word elsewhere rendered ‘plow-share,’ and so it should be here, as the Hebrew plough, like its Syrian representative today, had no coulter. See Agriculture, § 1.
COUNCIL.—See Sanhedrin. For the Council of Ac 15, Gal 2, see Paul, Galatians [Ep. to], § 3.
COUNSELLOR.—This is the spelling in modern editions of the AV. In the ed. of 1611 it is ‘counseller,’ except in Ezr 8:25, Pr 12:20, 15:22, where the spelling is ‘counsellour.’ The word is used mostly of a king’s counsellor, or more generally of one who gives counsel. But in Dn 3:2, 3 it means a justice; and in Mk 15:43, Lk 23:50, it is used of Joseph of Arimathæa as a member of the Sanhedrin. In Dn 3:24 , 27, 4:36, 6:7 the peculiar word rendered ‘counsellor’ in AV is hesitatingly translated by Driver ‘minister’; RV retains ‘counsellor.’
COUNTERVAIL.—To countervail (Est 7:4, Sir 6:15) is to make up for, give an equivalent, as in More’s Utopia: ‘All the goodes in the worlde are not liable to countervayle man’s life.’
COURAGE.—In Dn 11:25 ‘courage’ is the rendering of the Heb. word for
‘heart’; in Am 2:16 ‘courageous’ is literally ‘stoutest of heart.’ Elsewhere in the OT the root-ideas of the words generally used are ‘to be firm’ (’āmēts) and ‘to be strong’ (chāzaq). Courage, being a quality of mind, has manifold manifestations, as, e.g. in the sufferer’s endurance, the reformer’s boldness, and the saint’s ‘wrestling’ (Eph 6:12), as well as in the soldier’s valour. Professor Sorley says that moral courage is ‘the control of the fear of social evils (disgrace or ridicule from those who determine the opinion of the community), whereas the ordinary application of courage is to the fear of physical evils’ (Baldwin, Dict. of Philosophy, i. 239).
In the NT the Gr. noun for ‘courage’ is found only in Ac 28:15. The corresponding verb is rendered uniformly in the RV ‘be of good cheer’; but a later form of the same verb occurs six times, and is tr. in RV ‘be of good courage.’ The comparative rarity of the word ‘courage’ implies no disparagement of the virtue, for exhortations to ‘be strong,’ and to ‘fear not’ are frequent. T. H. Green, comparing Greek and Christian ideals of virtue (Prolegomena to Ethics, p. 277 ff.), shows how greatly the conception of moral heroism has been widened. Courage or fortitude is defined as ‘the will to endure even unto death for a worthy end’; therefore the Christian may be courageous ‘in obscure labours of love as well as in the splendid heroism at which a world might wonder.’
J. G. Tasker.
COURSE.—See Priests and Levites, III 2 (b).
COURT.—See House, § 2; Justice; Tabernacle; Temple.
COUSIN.—Elisabeth is called Mary’s ‘cousin’ in Lk 1:36, and the relationship is often understood in the modern sense of that word. But ‘cousin’ in the English of 1611 meant no more than kinsman or kinswoman. The relationship between Mary and Elisabeth is not known.
COVENANT.—The term is of frequent occurrence in the Bible, and is used in the general sense of a compact or agreement between parties, and also in the more technical and legal sense of an arrangement entered into by God, and confirmed or sealed with the due formalities. The Hebrew word (berīth) has a similarly wide signification; whilst the Greek (diathēkē) is used alike in the classics and on the papyri in the further sense of ‘testament’ or ‘will,’ though Aristophanes (Av. 439) is a good witness for the meaning of mutual agreement. The rendering ‘testament’ is retained by the RV in two places only (He 9:16, 17; cf. margin of Gal 3:15), and is perpetuated in the titles given to the two main parts of the Bible (see Testament).
As for the formalities in concluding a covenant, the primitive way seems to have been for the two parties to swallow each a drop of the other’s blood, thus becoming covenant-brothers. This actual mingling of blood soon became distasteful, and substitutes were found, such as the cutting of sacrificial animals into two parts, between which the contracting parties passed (Gn 15:10, 17, Jer 34:18f.), the meat probably being eaten afterwards in a joint meal. This ritual appears to have been inherited from the nomadic period, and it afterwards generally gave way to a solemn oath or invocation of God, combining a pledge to observe the covenant (Gn 26:31, He 6:17) and the imprecation of a curse on nonobservance (Dt 27:15ff.). Sometimes a handshake took the place of the oath ( Ezr 10:19, Pr 6:1, 17:18, 22:26, 1 Ch 29:24 marg., 1 Mac 6:58), or was added to it ( Ezk 17:18). In very early times an agreement between two men was sometimes confirmed by setting up a pillar or a heap of stones (Gn 31:44–48), the religious sanction being added (Gn 31:49f., 53). When God was Himself directly one of the parties, and an obligation was thought to be assumed by Him rather than by both, a token was substituted (Gn 9:12); but in these cases the transaction takes the form chiefly of a pledge or assurance, though the idea of some obligation upon the other party is often implicit. Compacts would often be made or confirmed at a shrine; and the god was invoked as a witness (Gn 31:49ff., Jos 24:27, 2 K 11:4, 23:3), or a sacrificial meal accompanied the act (Gn 26:30, 31:54, 2 S 3:20). Sprinkling of sacrificial blood (Ex 24:8, Zec 9:11, He 9:20) was a specially solemn indication of God’s approving presence and of the obligations undertaken; and its significance survives and is deepened in the death of Christ (He 10:29, 13:20) and in the Eucharist (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24, Lk 22:20, 1 Co 11:25).
Of the covenants referred to in Scripture, there are two classes.
1. Covenants between men.—These, again, are of several kinds, the most frequent being international alliances (e.g. Gn 21:27, Jos 9:6, Ps 83:5, Am 1:9) , judicial decisions and codes (Sir 38:33, possibly Ex 24:7), agreements between a ruler and the people (2 S 5:3, Dn 9:27), and civil and domestic compacts of every variety. The word was used for alliances of friendship (1 S 18:3, Ps 55:20), and of marriage (Pr 2:17, Mal 2:14). By an easy metaphor, a covenant in the sense of an imposed will may be made with the eyes (Job 31:1); or, in the other sense of agreement, with the stones (Job 5:23), but not with Leviathan (Job 41:4), because of his greatness and intractability, nor wisely with death either in scorn of God ( Is 28:15, 18) or in yearning (Wis 1:16). In Dn 11:22 ‘the prince of the covenant’ is sometimes rendered ‘a prince in league with him’; but if the other translation stands, ‘covenant’ will represent the nation as a religious community (cf. Dn 11:28 , 30, Ps 74:20), and the prince will be the high priest, Onias III., who was deposed by Antiochus about b.c. 174. Similarly in Mal 3:1 ‘the messenger of the covenant’ may be the attendant of God, His instrument in dealing with the nation (cf. RVm).
2. Covenants between God and men.—The idea of a covenant with Adam, beyond the simple injunction of Gn 2:16, 17, has been found by some writers in Sir
17:12, which is more easily interpreted of the transactions on Horeb (Dt 5:3). In Ps 25:14, as in 55:20, the word has its fundamental meaning of an alliance of friendship, with a specific allusion in the former case to the Deuteronomic covenant of the tenth verse. In other cases the technical meaning of an agreement with signs and pledges is more conspicuous. The Noachian covenant (Gn 6:18 , 9:8–17, Is 54:9f., Jer 33:20, 25) guarantees the stability of natural law. The covenant with Abraham (Gn 15:18, 17:2–21) was confirmed in its promise to Isaac and Jacob (Ex 2:24, Lv 26:42, Ps 105:9f.), and ensured a blessing through their seed to all nations, circumcision being adopted as the token (cf. Ac 7:8, 1 Mac 1:15). Of still greater significance was the covenant at Horeb or Sinai (Ex 19:5 , 34:10, 27f. et al.), which was renewed in the plains of Moab (Dt 29:1), and is frequently referred to in the OT. It was really a constitution given to Israel by God, with appointed promise and penalty, duly inscribed on the tables of the covenant (Dt 9:9, 11, 15), which were deposited in the ark (Dt 10:2, 5, 1 K 8:9, 21, 2 Ch 5:10, He 9:4). Elsewhere the covenant is described as set forth in words (Ex 34:28 , Dt 29:9) and written in a book (Ex 24:7, 2 K 23:2). Amongst other covenants of minor importance are that with Phinehas establishing an everlasting priesthood in his line (Nu 25:12f.), and that with David establishing an everlasting kingdom ( Ps 89:3f., Jer 33:21; cf. 2 S 7). Joshua and the people covenant to serve Jehovah only (Jos 24:25); so Jehoiada and the people (2 K 11:17). Hezekiah and the people solemnly agree to reform the worship (2 Ch 29:10); Josiah (2 K 23:3) and Ezra (10:3) lead the people into a covenant to observe the Law.
Whilst the Sinaitic covenant is rightly regarded as the charter of the Jewish dispensation, the establishment by God of a new constitution was contemplated by a series of prophets (Jer 31:31, 33, 32:40, 50:5, Is 55:3, 59:21, 61:8, Ezk 16:60, 62 , 20:37, 34:25). Some of the pledges were new, and not confined in their range to
Israel, whilst the Messianic Servant becomes ‘for a covenant of the people’ ( Is 42:6f., 49:8; cf. ‘messenger of the covenant,’ Mal 3:1). The Sinaitic covenant is thus transformed, and, whilst continuing as a note of racial separation until the period for the Incarnation was come, gave way then to a new dispensation with increased emphasis on personal religion and the provision of means adequate to ensure it (He 8:6–13). Yet the ancient covenant, even that with Abraham, was everlasting (Gn 17:7), and still stands in its supreme purpose (Lv 26:44f., Ac 3:25 , Ro 11:26f.) of making men the people of God, the new elements consisting mainly
in the adoption of more effective influences and inspiration. The Exile is sometimes thought of as marking the dissolution of the Old Covenant ( Jer 31:31ff.), though the new one was not fully introduced until some centuries later. The act of making the New Covenant is compared with the transactions in the wilderness (Ezk 20:36ff.). On God’s part there is forgiveness with the quickening of the inner life of man (Ezk 36:24ff.). And both the activity and the blessedness are associated with the Messianic expectations (Jer 33:15f., Ezk 37:21–28, Lk 1:20).
In the later OT writings the word ‘covenant,’ as appears from the previous citations, has lost much of its technical signification, and does not always denote even a formal act of agreement, but becomes almost a synonym, and that without much precision, for the conditions of religion (Ps 103:18). St. Paul recognizes a series of covenants (Ro 9:4, Eph 2:12) on an ascending scale of adequacy (2 Co 3:6, Gal 4:24ff.; cf. He 7:22, 8:6ff.); and Sinai is but a stage (Gal 3:15ff.) in the course from Abraham to Christ.
Of special phrases, two or three may present some difficulty. ‘A covenant of salt’ (Nu 18:19, 2 Ch 13:5) is a perpetual covenant, the eating of salt together being a token of friendship as sealed by sacred hospitality. ‘The salt of the covenant’ ( Lv 2:13) has probably the same primary suggestion, as at natural accompaniment of the sacrificial meal, and with it constituting an inviolable bond. Sometimes the two great divisions of Scripture are called the books of the Old and of the New Covenant respectively. The name ‘Book of the Covenant’ (see next article) is given to Ex 20:22–23; that of ‘Little Book of the Covenant’ to Ex 34:11–26. A distinction is often drawn between the Covenant of Works, assumed to have been made by God with Adam (Gn 2:17), and that of Grace or Redemption (2 Ti 1:9) , whereby Christ becomes to man the medium of all spiritual blessings.
R. W. Moss.
COVENANT, BOOK OF THE.—The oldest code of Hebrew law which has come down to us is contained in Ex 20:22–23:33. It receives its name from the expression in Ex 24:7, while its character as a covenant is demonstrated by the promises attached to the keeping of it (23:20–33). Owing to the confused form in which the Book of Exodus has been transmitted, doubt has been expressed as to the limits of the Book of the Covenant. Some maintain that the words in 24:7 refer only to ch. 23; others would make them include 21–23; Driver holds with the generally accepted opinion that the code begins with 20:22. The close proximity of the Decalogue (20:1–17) might lead to the inference that both codes were given at the same time. But the Book of the Covenant is certainly not a law that was
‘delivered’; it is a series of decisions gradually gathered together. It has been incorporated by the compiler at this particular place in the Book of Exodus, with the intention of bringing the ancient codes together.
1. Contents.—These fall into two broad divisions:—
(1) mishpātim, or ‘judicial decisions.’ In early Semitic life justice was administered according to a series of tōrōth, or judicial and priestly decisions, originally transmitted orally, but gradually written down for more exact use as precedents. The Book of the Covenant was such a series, and was probably committed to writing, in the first instance, to serve as a hand-book for those who had to administer the law. Hypothetical cases are put in the regular form, ‘If … then …’: e.g. 21:26 ‘If a man smite the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid that it perish; (then) he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.’ Sometimes the form changes slightly; the crime and the punishment attached to it are stated in the briefest possible way: e.g. 21:12 ‘He that smiteth a man so that he die shall be surely put to death.’ This collection of mishpātim reflects an extremely simple state of society. It deals with the rights of the male and female slave (21:1–11); murder and homicide (vv. 12–15); injuries to the body, not resulting in death (vv. 16–32) ; injuries to cattle (vv. 33–36); theft (22:1–5); arson (v. 6); breach of trust (vv. 7– 13); loans (vv. 14, 15, 25–27); seduction (vv. 16, 17). The injunctions put in the shorter form cover murder, abduction, the cursing of parents, bestiality (21:12, 15 , 16, 17, 22:19). The prominence given in this code to the ox, ass, and sheep (21:28– 22:10) shows that it was originally drawn up for a society that was predominantly agricultural. In several respects, however, the code indicates a considerable measure of progress. A limitation is imposed on the lex talionis, in the drawing of a distinction between premeditated murder and accidental homicide. The service of a slave cannot last beyond six years unless with his own consent, and then his determination to remain in slavery is sealed by a solemn act. Apart from retaliation there is no punishment, except a pecuniary compensation. The thief who will not make restitution is the only wrong-doer who loses his liberty. The position of women is that the daughter is the property of her father, who receives money for her when he gives her in marriage, and also exacts from any who should dishonour her the price she would have brought as a bride; the injury is thought of as being done not to the daughter, who is only a chattel, but to the father.
(2) debārim, or ‘commands.’ In form, these are akin to the commands of the Decalogue, being introduced with ‘Thou shalt,’ or ‘Thou shalt not.’ In substance, they are concerned with religious observances to a much greater extent than the mishpātim, and do not give the same prominence to agricultural life. 20:24–26 deals with the construction of an altar. (Stade, Bibl. Theol. § 57, thinks that this command is the product of a period of reaction in the time of the later monarchy, and that it was aimed at the brazen altar which Solomon had made, and at the centralization of worship in Jerusalem.) Other matters dealt with are witchcraft (22:18); the treatment of strangers (v. 21); the reviling of God (or judges) and rulers (vv. 28, 29); the offering of the first fruits and firstlings (vv. 29, 30); the eating of animals found torn in the field (v. 31); just judgment (23:1–3, 6–8); the year of rest, and the Sabbath (vv. 10–12); feasts (vv. 14–16). The three feasts mark points in the agricultural year, the beginning and the end of harvest and the end of the vintage. Leaven is not to be eaten in connexion with the blood of the sacrifice, and the fat of the sacrifice is to be burned the same night (23:16–19); but apart from these there are no matters of sacrificial ritual insisted on. Whoever sacrifices to any other god than Jehovah is to be placed under the ban (22:20). 23:20–33 seems to he the work of the compiler. The familiar style of Deut. appears in v. 23 ; but in this section there would appear to be vestiges of an older text (23:28–31).
2. Date.—As to the date of the Book of the Covenant, there is no evidence save what the document itself affords us. But the state of society reflected in it is primitive. Agriculture is the industry of the people. The law of blood-revenge is just beginning to he modified; woman has as yet no property in herself; sacrifice is emerging from its primitive domestic character; there is as yet no clear conception of a State. The code would thus seem to date from the days of the desert wandering, and to he older than the Decalogue itself. See, further, artt. Exodus and Hexateuch.
R. Bruce Taylor.
COVETOUSNESS.—In the Bible, covetousness is a crime. In the Ten Commandments it is put under the ban along with murder, adultery, theft, and slander (Ex 20:17, Dt 5:21). Achan was guilty of this crime, and was stoned to death (Jos 7:16–26). Every occurrence of the word or the thing in the OT is connected with a prohibition or a curse (Ps 10:3, 119:36, Pr 21:26, 28:16, Is 57:17 , Hab 2:9). In the NT adultery and covetousness are usually classed together (1 Co 5:11, 6:9, 10, Col 3:5, 2 P 2:14). This conjunction of sensual sin and love of money probably rests upon the authority of Jesus (Mk 7:21, 22). Jesus and the Apostles declared that the worshipper of Bacchus and the worshipper of Venus and the worshipper of Mammon belong to one and the same class. Grasping avarice is as incompatible with the spirit of self-sacrifice taught in the NT as is the selfish indulgence in drink or the grosser indulgence in vice. The Bible puts the covetous man in the same category with the murderer and the thief. The Christian Church needs to study anew the Bible teaching concerning covetousness, as found in Jer 22:17, Mic 2:2, Lk 12:15, Ro 7:7, Eph 5:3, 6, 1 Ti 6:10, He 13:5, and other passages. No covetous man has any inheritance in the Kingdom of God.
D. A. Hayes.
COZBI.—The Midianitess slain by Phinehas (Nu 25:15, 18).
COZEBA, 1 Ch 4:22 = Achzib, No. 2.
CRACKNELS.—See Bread.
CRAFT, in the sense of ‘trade,’ survives in RV only in Rev 18:22 ‘no craftsman of whatever craft.’ In Ac 18:3, 19:25, 27 ‘trade’ or ‘business’ has been substituted for AV ‘craft.’ ‘Craftsman’ and ‘craftsmen,’ however, are retained. See list under Arts and Crafts.
CRANE.—In Is 38:14 and Jer 8:7 sūs or sīs is rendered in AV ‘crane,’ RV correctly ‘Swallow’ [wh. see]. In the same passages ‘agūr is rendered in AV ‘swallow,’ RV ‘crane.’ The crane (Grus communis) is the largest bird which visits
W. Palestine; its length is four feet. They arrive in large flocks in the winter ( Jer 8:7). Its trumpeting note is strangely described (in Is 38:14 EV) as ‘chattering,’ and this makes the translation somewhat doubtful.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CRATES.—A deputy left in charge of the citadel at Jerusalem (Acra) when the regular governor, Sostratus, was summoned to Antioch by Antiochus Epiphanes, in consequence of a dispute with the high priest Menelaus (2 Mac 4:29). Crates was ‘over the Cyprians’: probably he was sent to Cyprus shortly afterwards, when, in b.c. 168, Antiochus obtained possession of the island.
CREATION.—One of the most convincing proofs of the composite authorship of the Pentateuch has always been found in the existence side by side of two independent and mutually irreconcilable accounts of the creation of the world. The first, Gn 1:1–2:4a, forms the introduction of the Priestly Code (P), which was compiled, as is now generally acknowledged, in the 5th cent. b.c. The second, Gn 2:4bff., opens the Jahwistic document (J), whose latest portions must be dated at least a century and a half earlier than the compilation of P. These two narratives, while expressing the same fundamental religious ideas, differ profoundly in their concrete conceptions of the process of creation. The account of P starts with a description (v. 2) of the primeval chaos—a dark formless watery abyss, out of which the world of light and order was to be evolved. Whether this chaotic matter owed its origin to a prior creative act of God is a question depending on a delicate point of grammatical construction which cannot be adequately explained here; but, looking to the analogy of the Babylonian Creation-story (see below), it seems probable that the chaos is conceived as pre-existent, and that the representation of the chapter falls short of the full dogmatic idea of creation as production out of nothing,—an idea first unambiguously expressed in 2 Mac 7:28 The work of creation then proceeds in a series of eight Divine fiats, viz.: (1) Creation of light and separation of light from the primeval darkness, vv. 3–5; (2) division of the chaotic waters by the firmament, vv. 6–8; (3) separation of land and sea, vv. 9, 10 ; (4) clothing of the earth with vegetation, vv. 11–13; (5) formation of the heavenly bodies, vv. 14–19; (6) production of fishes and birds, vv. 20–23; (7) land animals, v. 24f.; and (8) the creation of man in the image of God with dominion over the creatures, v. 26ff. The most remarkable formal feature of the record is a somewhat artificial but carefully planned and symmetrical arrangement of the eight works under a scheme of six days. The creative process is thus divided into two parallel stages, each embracing four works and occupying three days, the last day in each division having two works assigned to it. There is an obviously designed, though not quite complete, correspondence between the two series: (1) light || (5) luminaries; (2) waters and firmament || (6) fishes and fowls; (3) dry land || (7, 8) terrestrial animals; (4) trees and grasses, and (on the sixth day) the appointment of these as the food of men and animals. The significance of the six days’ scheme is revealed in the closing verses (2:1–3), where the resting of the Creator on the seventh day is regarded as the antitype and sanction of the Jewish Sabbath-rest. It is not improbable that the scheme of days is a modification of the original cosmogony, introduced in the interest of the Sabbath law; and this adaptation may account for some anomalies of arrangement which seem to mar the consistency of the scheme.
In the narrative of J (2:4bff.), the earth as originally made by Jahweh was an arid lifeless waste, in which no plant could grow for lack of moisture, and where there was no man to till the ground (vv. 5, 6). The idea of man’s superiority to the other creatures is here expressed by placing his creation, not at the end as in P, but at the beginning (v. 7); followed by the planting of the garden in which he was to dwell and from whose trees he was to derive his food (vv. 8, 9, 15–17); the forming of beasts and birds to relieve his solitude and awake his craving for a nobler companionship (vv. 18–20); and lastly of the woman, in whom he recognizes a part of himself and a helpmeet for him (vv. 21–23). The express reference to the welfare of man in each act of creation makes it doubtful whether a systematic account of the origin of things was contemplated by the writer, or whether the passage is not rather to be regarded as a poetic clothing of ideas generated by reflexion on fundamental facts of human life and society. It is probable, however, that it contains fragments of a fuller cosmogony which has been abridged and utilized as a prologue to the story of Paradise and the Fall. On either view, the divergence from the account of P is so obvious as to preclude the attempt to harmonize the two, or to treat the second as merely supplementary to the first.
Much ingenuity has been expended in the effort to bring the Biblical record of creation into accord with the facts disclosed by the modern sciences of Geology and Astronomy. Naturally such constructions confine their operations to the systematic and semi-scientific account of Gn 1; for it has probably never occurred to any one to vindicate the scientific accuracy of the more imaginative narrative of J. But even if we were to admit the unique claim of the first chapter to be a revealed cosmogony, the difficulty of harmonizing it with the teachings of science is seen to be insurmountable as soon as the real nature of the problem to be solved is fairly apprehended. It is not sufficient to emphasize the general idea of gradation and upward progress as common to science and Scripture, or to point to isolated coincidences, such as the creation of fishes before mammals, or the late appearance of man on the earth: the narrative must be taken as a whole, and it must be shown that there is a genuine parallelism between the order of days and works in Gn 1 and the stages of development recognized by science as those through which the universe has reached its present form. This has never been done; and after making every allowance for the imperfection of the geological record, and the general insecurity of scientific hypothesis as distinguished from ascertained fact, enough is known to make it certain that the required correspondence can never be made out. Thus the formation of the sun and moon after the earth, after the alternation of day and night, and even after the emergence of plant-life, is a scientific impossibility. Again, the rough popular classifications of Genesis (plants, aquatic animals, birds, land animals, etc.) are, for scientific purposes, hopelessly inadequate; and the idea that these groups originated as wholes, and in the order here specified, is entirely contrary to the ‘testimony of the rocks.’ But, indeed, the whole conception of the universe on which the cosmogony of Genesis rests opposes a fatal barrier to any valid reconciliation with scientific theory. The world whose origin is here described is a solid expanse of earth, surrounded by and resting on a world-ocean, and surmounted by a rigid vault called the firmament, above which the waters of a heavenly ocean are spread. Such a world is unknown to science; and the manner in which such a world was conceived to have come into being cannot truly represent the process by which the very different world of science and fact has been evolved. This fact alone would amply justify the emphatic verdict of Professor Driver: ‘Read without prejudice or bias, the narrative of Gn 1 creates an impression at variance with the facts revealed by science: the efforts at reconciliation … are but different modes of obliterating its characteristic features, and of reading into it a view which it does not express’ (Westm. Com. ‘Genesis,’ p. 26).
To form a correct estimate of the character and religious value of the first chapter of Genesis, it has to be borne in mind that speculative theories of the origin of the universe were an important element of all the higher religions of antiquity. Many of these cosmogonies (as they are called) are known to us; and amidst all the diversity of representation which characterizes them, we cannot fail to detect certain underlying affinities which suggest a common source, either in the natural tendencies of early thought, or in some dominant type of cosmological tradition. That the Hebrew cosmogony is influenced by such a tradition is proved by its striking likeness to the Babylonian story of creation as contained in cuneiform tablets from Ashurbanipal’s library, first unearthed in 1872. From these
Assyriologists have deciphered a highly coloured mythological epic, describing the origin of the world in the form of a conflict between Marduk, god of light and supreme deity of the pantheon of Babylon, and the power of Chaos personified as a female monster named Ti’āmat (Heb. Tĕhōm). Wide as is the difference between the polytheistic assumptions and fantastic imagery of the Babylonian narrative and the sober dignity and elevated monotheism of Genesis, there are yet coincidences in general outline and in detail which are too marked and too numerous to be ascribed to chance. In both we have the conception of chaos as a watery abyss, in both the separation of the waters into an upper and a lower ocean; the formation of the heavenly bodies and their function in regulating time are described with remarkable similarity; special prominence is given to the creation of man; and it may be added that, while the order of creation differs in the two documents, yet the separate works themselves are practically identical. In view of this pervading parallelism, it is clear that the Hebrew and Babylonian cosmogonies are very closely related; and the only question open to discussion is which of them represents more faithfully the primary tradition on which each is based. Looking, however, to the vastly higher antiquity of the Babylonian narrative, to its conformity (even in points which affect the Biblical record) to the climatic conditions of the Euphrates Valley, and to the general indebtedness of Israel to the civilization of Babylon, it cannot reasonably be doubted that the Hebrew narrative is dependent on Babylonian models; though it is of course not certain that the particular version preserved in the tablets referred to is the exact original by which the Biblical writers were influenced.
From this point of view we are able to state the significance of the Scripture account of creation in a way which does justice at once to its unrivalled religious value and to its lack of scientific corroboration. The material is derived from some form of the Babylonian cosmogony, and shares the imperfection and error incident to all pre-scientific speculation regarding the past history of the world. The Scripture writers make no pretension to supernatural illumination on matters which it is the province of physical investigation to ascertain. Their theology, on the other hand, is the product of a revelation which placed them far in advance of their heathen contemporaries, and imparted to all their thinking a sanity of imagination and a sublimity of conception that instinctively rejected the grosser features of paganism, and transformed what was retained into a vehicle of Divine truth. Thus the cosmogony became a classical expression of the monotheistic principle of the OT, which is here embodied in a detailed description of the genesis of the universe that lays hold of the mind as no abstract statement of the principle could do. In opposition to the heathen theogonies, the world is affirmed to have been created,
i.e. to have originated in the will of God, whose Personality transcends the universe and exists independently of it. The spirituality of the First Cause of all things, and His absolute sovereignty over the material He employs, are further emphasized in the idea of the word of God as the agency through which the various orders of existence were produced; and the repeated assertion that the world in all its parts was ‘good,’ and as a whole ‘very good,’ suggests that it perfectly reflected the Divine thought which called it into being. When to these doctrines we add the view of man, as made in the likeness of God, and marked out as the crown and goal of creation, we have a body of spiritual truth which distinguishes the cosmogony of Gn 1 from all similar compositions, and entitles it to rank amongst the most important documents of revealed religion.
John Skinner.
CREATURE.—In AV ‘creature’ is used in the general (and original) sense of ‘what is created.’ Thus 2 Co 5:17 ‘if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature’; 1 Ti 4:4 ‘for every creature of God is good.’ In Ro 8:19, 20, 21 it is not merely living creatures in the modern use of the word that wait for deliverance, but the whole creation of God (as AV itself has it in v. 22).
CREDITOR.—See Debt.
CREED (or Credo [AS. creda], taken from the first word of the Latin confession of faith = Greek ‘symbol’ [symbolon, symbolum]).—An ecclesiastical (non-Biblical) term, signifying ‘the faith’ objectively and as explicitly declared, ‘the articles of’ Christian ‘belief’ drawn up in systematic and authoritative form.
‘The Creeds’ denote the three great historical Confessions of the early Church— ‘the Apostles’,’ the Nicene or Constantinopolitan (325, 381 a.d.), and the
Athanasian (of Latin origin, 6th century); ‘the Creed’ commonly means the Apostles’ Creed alone. This last can be traced, in its simplest form, to the 2 nd century; see Lumby’s Hist. of the Creeds, or Swete’s Apostles’ Creed. Shaped in their developed form by doctrinal controversy and Conciliar definition, the Creeds owe their origin to the necessities of worship and the instinct of public confession in the Church, felt at baptism to begin with. Christian believers formed the habit, when they met, of reciting their common faith, and this recitation assumed a fixed rhythmical form; so that the creed is akin to the hymn and the doxology. Its beginnings are visible in the NT—see Mt 16:16, 28:19, Ro 10:9, 10, 1 Co 8:6, 12:3 (RV), Eph 4:4–6, 1 Ti 3:16, 1 Jn 4:2; and further back, for the OT and the Synagogue, in the Shema of Dt 6:4.
G. G. Findlay.
CREEPING THINGS.—In the EV this term is the tr. of two distinct words, which have no etymological connexion, and in usage are not synonymous. The Hebrew words are remes and sherets. It is unfortunate that the latter term is tr.
‘creeping thing,’ for the root means to swarm. It includes both terrestrial and aquatic animals which appear in great swarms; in Gn 1:20 it refers to the creatures that teem in the waters, while in other passages it includes insects, as locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers (Lv 11:20–23), together with the smaller quadrupeds as the weasel and mouse, as well as reptiles proper (Lv 11:29–31). The verb is used of frogs (Ex 8:3). Etymologically remes signifies that which glides or creeps, and for its usage the two crucial passages are Gn 1:24 and 1 K 4:33. In the latter the entire animal kingdom is popularly divided into four classes: beasts, birds, creeping things, and fishes (cf. Hos 2:18). In Gn 1:24 the land animals are put into three groups: cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the earth. By eliminating the first and third classes, which respectively include domesticated quadrupeds, and the wild animals, we see that the expression ‘creeping things’ is, roughly speaking, equivalent to our term ‘reptiles,’ exclusive of those which are aquatic. Delitzsch defines remes as ‘the smaller creeping animals that keep close to the earth’; Dillmann as creatures ‘which move along the ground either without feet or with imperceptible feet.’ From this discussion it is evident that the two are not interchangeable terms. Remes has also a wider signification: in Ps 104:25 it is used of marine animals, in Gn 9:3 (EV ‘moving thing’) it includes all living creatures. See, further, the careful discussion by Professor Driver in Hastings’ DB i. 517 f.
James A. Kelso.
CRESCENS.—A companion of St. Paul in his final imprisonment, sent by him to Galatia (2 Ti 4:10), i.e. either to Asiatic Galatia, or possibly to Gaul. A late Western tradition treats him as the founder of the Churches of Vienne and of
Mayence. His memory is honoured in the Roman Martyrology on June 27, in the Greek Menologion on May 30, and there he is treated as one of the seventy disciples, and a bishop of Chalcedon.
CRESCENTS.—See Amulets, § 4, and Ornaments, § 3.
CRETE, CRETANS.—Crete, the modern Candia, is an island 60 miles S. of Greece proper, about 150 miles long, and varying in breadth from 30 to 7 miles, with mountains as high as 7000 feet. It is about equidistant from Europe, Asia, and Africa, and was inhabited from the earliest times of which we have any knowledge. The researches of Mr. Arthur J. Evans and others have revealed traces of a very ancient civilization, including an alphabet hitherto unknown. In historical times it was famed for its archers, who were valued in the armies of Europe. It was conquered by Rome in b.c. 67, and became, in conjunction with the district Cyrenaica on the N. of Africa, a Roman senatorial province, governed by a proconsul. Jews were early to be found there, and were very numerous. Some were present at Pentecost in the year of the crucifixion (Ac 2:11). St. Paul’s ship, on the voyage to Rome, sailed along the Cretan coast close in (Ac 27:7), and came to Fair Havens near Lasea. These places were on the S. coast, which had few harbours.
The epithets which a native of the island, the poet Epimenides (flourished b.c.
600), flung at the Cretans, are quoted in a somewhat un-apostolic manner in the Epistle to Titus (1:12). Epimenides styled them ‘always liars, evil beasts of prey, lazy gluttons.’ Such vituperation, though countenanced by others also, must not be taken too seriously. The ancients were much given to it, and it probably reveals as much of the natures of the persons who used it as of those to whom it was applied. Greeks in general are not, and were not famous for truthfulness, for instance. When and by whom Christianity was planted in Crete cannot be said. It is probable that it was well established there in the 1st century. In the Epistle to Titus we find Titus introduced as having been left by St. Paul in charge of the churches.
A. Souter.
CRIB is the modern manger (Lk 2:7), which contained the fodder for oxen ( Pr 14:4), asses (Is 1:3), and doubtless other live stock as well.
CRICKET.—Lv 11:22 (AV ‘beetle’). See Locust.
CRIME.—In 1611 the word ‘crime’ had not lost its early meaning of accusation, whence Ac 25:16 ‘the crime laid against him’ (RV ‘matter,’ but in Ac 23:29 the same Gr. word is translated ‘charge’ in both AV and RV). It is possible, that in Job 31:11 ‘crime’ is used in the more modern sense; elsewhere it means ‘charge.’
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS.—The term ‘crimes’ is here used loosely in the sense of punishable offences, including not merely crimes (crimina) in the sense of breaches of the criminal law in the modern sense, and torts (delicta) or breaches of the civil law, but also those offences in the sphere of religion and worship to which definite penalties were attached. Within the limits of this article it is possible to present only a summary of the more important and typical punishable offences recognized in the various Hebrew law-codes. The latter, indicated by the usual symbols, are: (1) BC, the oldest code, known as the Book of the Covenant, Ex 20:22–23:33, with which for convenience sake is joined the Decalogue of Ex 20:2–17; (2) D, the Deuteronomic Code, Dt 12–28; (3) H, the Holiness Code, Lv 17–26; and (4) P, the great collection of laws known as the Priests’ Code, and comprising the rest of the legislative material of the Pentateuch. In the case of P alone will it be necessary to name the books (Ex., Lv., or Nu.) to which reference is made.
The penal offences of the Pentateuch may be conveniently grouped under the three heads of crimes against J″, against society (including property), and against the individual.
1. A. Crimes against J″, or offences in the sphere of religion and worship.— Although it is true that misdemeanours of every kind were in the last resort offences against J″, who was regarded as the only fountain of law and justice, it will be convenient to group under this head those belonging to the special sphere of religious belief and its outward expression in worship. Among these the first place must be given to the worship of heathen deities—condemned in the strongest terms in BC (from 20:3 onwards) and D—and of the heavenly bodies, D 17:3 (cf. 4:19). The penalty is death under the ban (BC 22:20, D 13:12ff. [ see Ban]), or by stoning (D 17:5). Inseparable from this form of apostasy is the crime of idolatry, entailing the curse of God (D 27:15). Blasphemy, or profanation of the Divine name, is forbidden in all the codes; the penalty is death by stoning ( H 24:13ff.). The practice of magic, wizardry, and similar black arts, exposes their adepts and those who resort to them to the same penalty (H 20:27).
2. The punishment for doing ‘any work on the Sabbath day’ is death, but only in the later legislation (Ex 31:15 [probably H] 35:2 [P]; cf. the very late Haggadic section, Nu 15:32ff.). For neglect of ordinances, to use a familiar phrase, such as failing to observe the fast of the Day of Atonement (H 23:29), or to keep the Passover (Nu 9:13 [P], an offender was liable to be ‘cut off from his people’; see below). This was also the punishment prescribed for a number of offences that may be grouped under the head of sacrilege, such as partaking of blood (Lv 7:27 [ P]), and the unauthorized manufacture and use of the holy anointing oil (Ex 30:32 f.
[P]).
3. B. Crimes against Society.—As the family, according to Hebrew ideas, was the unit of society, the crimes that mar the sanctities of family life may be taken first. Such pre-eminently was adultery, severely condemned in all the codes, the punishment for both parties being death (D 22:22, H 20:10). In a case of seduction the man was required to marry her whom he had wronged, if her father gave consent (BC 22:16f.), paying the latter a ‘dowry,’ i.e. the usual purchase price ( see Marriage), estimated in D 22:29 at 50 shekels of silver. On the other hand, the penalty for rape, if the victim was betrothed, was death (D 22:25ff.), as it was for unnatural crimes like sodomy (H 18:22, 20:13 ‘thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind’) and bestiality (BC 22:19, H 20:15f.). The marriage of near kin is forbidden in H 18:6–18 under seventeen heads (see Marriage). Incest with a step-mother or a daughter-in-law was punishable by the death of both parties ( H 20:11f.), while for a man to marry ‘a wife and her mother’ was a crime that could be expiated only by the death of all three, and that, as many hold (see below), by being burnt alive (ib. v. 14). Ordinary prostitution is condemned by H 19:29 ( cf.
D 22:21)—for a priest’s daughter the punishment was even death by burning (21:9)—while the wide-spread heathen practice of establishing religious prostitutes, male and female, at the local sanctuaries is specially reprobated in D
23:17f., where the male prostitute is to be recognized under the inexact term
‘sodomite,’ and the contemptuous ‘dog.’
4. To carry disrespect for one’s parents to the extent of smiting (BC 21:15), or cursing them (BC 21:17, H 20:9), or even of showing persistent contumacy ( D
21:18ff.), entailed the extreme penalty of death at the hands of the local authorities.
5. Everything that would tend to impair the impartial and effective administration of justice is emphatically condemned in the Hebrew codes, the giving and receiving of bribes, in particular, being forbidden even in the oldest legislation (BC 23:8 ‘for a gift blindeth them that have sight’). Against those who would defeat the ends of justice by perjury and false witness, the law is rightly severe (D 19:15ff.). Tale-bearing (H 19:16), and the spreading of a report known to be false (BC 23:1), are condemned, while in the more heinous case of a man slandering his newly-wedded wife, the elders of the city are to amerce him in an hundred shekels (D 22:18–21).
6. Property had also to be protected against theft (BC 20:15) and burglary (22:2), with which may be classed the crime of removing the boundary-stones of a neighbour’s property to increase one’s own (D 19:14), and the use of false weights and measures (D 25:15ff., H 19:35ff.). The earliest code likewise deals with trespass (BC 22:5), and arson, or wilful fire-raising (ib. v. 6), for which the penalty in either case was restitution.
7. C. Crimes against the Individual.—BC 21:15–26 deals with various forms of assault, a crime to which the pre-Mosaic jus talionis (see below) was specially applicable. Kidnapping a freeman was a criminal offence involving the death penalty (BC 21:16, D 24:17). Murder naturally has a place in the penal legislation of all the codes from BC 20:13 onwards. The legislators, as is well known, were careful to distinguish between murder deliberately planned and executed ( BC 21:14, D 19:11ff.) and unpremeditated homicide or manslaughter (BC 21:13, D
19:4ff., and esp. P, Nu 35:9ff.). The former, with certain exceptions (BC 21:20 , 22:2), entailed capital punishment in accordance with the fundamental principle laid down in Gn 9:6; in the case of ‘the manslayer’ special provision was made for the mitigation of the ancient right of blood revenge (see Refuge [Cities of]).
8. Punishments.—From the earliest period of which we have any record two forms of punishment prevailed among the Hebrews and their Semitic kinsfolk, viz. retaliation and restitution. Retaliation, the jus talionis of Roman law, received its classical expression in the oldest Hebrew code: ‘thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe’ (BC 21:23f.). The talio, as has already been mentioned, was specially applicable in cases of injury from assault. When life had been taken, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the right of enforcing the jus talionis lay with the dead man’s next of kin (see Kin [Next of]).
In BC restitution varies from fivefold for an ox, and fourfold for a sheep that has been stolen and thereafter killed or sold, to twofold if the animal is still in the thief’s possession (BC 22:1–4), and finally to a simple equivalent in the case of wilful damage to a neighbour’s property (ib. v. 5f.). Compensation by a money payment was admitted for loss of time through bodily injury (BC 21:19), for loss of property (vv. 33–35), but not, in Hebrew law, for loss of life, except in the cases mentioned BC 21:30. The payments of 100 shekels and 50 shekels respectively ordained in D 22:19, 29 appear to the modern eye as fines, but fall in reality under the head of compensation paid to the father of the women in question.
9. In the penal code of the Hebrews there is a comparative lack of what may be termed intermediate penalties. Imprisonment, for example, has no place in the Pentateuch codes as an authorized form of punishment, although frequent cases occur in later times and apparently with legal sanction (see Ezr 7:26). The use of the stocks also was known to the Jewish (Jer 20:2f.) as well as to the Roman authorities (Ac 16:24). Beating with rods and scourging with the lash were also practised. The former seems intended in D 25:1ff., but later Jewish practice substituted a lash of three thongs, thirteen strokes of which were administered ( cf. 2 Co 11:24). Many, however, would identify the punishment of this passage of D with the favourite Egyptian punishment of the bastinado. Mutilation, apart from the talio, appears only as the penalty for indecent assault (D 25:11f.).
10. The regular form of capital punishment was death by stoning, which is prescribed in the Pentateuch as the penalty for eighteen different crimes, including Sabbath-breaking. ‘For only one crime—murder—is it the penalty in all the codes.’ The execution of the criminal took place outside the city (H 24:14), and according to D 17:7 the witnesses in the case cast the first stone (cf. Jn 8:7). In certain cases the dead body of the malefactor was impaled upon a stake; this, it can hardly be doubted, is the true rendering of D 21:22f. (AV ‘hang him on a tree’), and of the same expression elsewhere. Hanging or strangulation is mentioned only as a manner of suicide (2 S 17:23, Mt 27:5). Crucifixion, it need hardly be said, was a Roman, not a Jewish, institution. Beheading appears in Mt 14:10||, Ac 12:2, Rev 20:4.
11. The meaning of the expression frequently found in P, ‘to be cut off from his people, from Israel,’ etc., is uncertain; most probably it denotes a form of excommunication, with the implication that the offender is handed over to the judgment of God, which also seems to be intended by the banishment of Ezr 7:26 (note margin). A similar division of opinion exists as to the penalty of burning, which is reserved for aggravated cases of prostitution (H 21:9) and incest (20:19). Here the probability seems in favour of the guilty parties being burned alive ( cf. Gn 38:24), although many scholars hold that they were first stoned to death. The most extreme form of punishment known to the codes, in that a whole community was involved, is that of total destruction under the ban of the first degree (see Ban) prescribed for the crime of apostasy (BC 22:20, more fully D 13:15–17).
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CRIMSON.—The word tōlā‘, tr. in Is 1:18 ‘crimson’ and in La 4:5 ‘scarlet,’ is usually tr. ‘Worm’ (wh. see), exactly as the Arab. dūdeh, the common word for ‘worm,’ is to-day also used in Palestine for the imported cochineal insect. The Palestine insect is the female Coccus ilicis of the same. Natural Order as the American C. cacti; it feeds on the holm-oak.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CRISPING PINS.—Is 3:22 AV; RV satchel (see Bag).
CRISPUS.—The chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue at Corinth (Ac 18:8). Convinced by the reasonings of St. Paul that Jesus was the Messiah, he believed with all his house. The Apostle mentions him (1 Co 1:14) as one of the few persons whom he himself had baptized.
CRITICISM.—Biblical criticism is divided into two branches: (1) Lower Criticism, which is concerned with the original text of Scripture—the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT, by reference to (a) the external evidence of MSS, versions, and citations in ancient literature, and (b) the intrinsic evidence of the inherent probability of one reading as compared with a rival reading, judged by such rules as that preference should be given to the more difficult reading, the shorter reading, the most characteristic reading, and the reading which accounts for the alternative readings (see Text of the NT); (2) Higher Criticism, which is concerned with the authorship, dates, and circumstances of origin, doctrinal character and tendency, historicity, and other such questions concerning the books of Scripture, as far as these matters can be determined by a careful examination of their contents, comparing the various sections of each one with another, or comparing the books in their entirety with one another, and bringing all possible light to bear upon them from history, literature, antiquities, monuments, etc.
The title of the second branch of criticism is often misunderstood in popular usage. The Lower Criticism being little heard of except among experts, while the Higher Criticism is often mentioned in public, the true comparison suggested is not perceived, and the latter phrase is taken to indicate a certain arrogance on the part of advanced critics, and contempt for the older scholarship. Then the word ‘criticism’ is also taken in its popular sense as implying captiousness and faultfinding. Further, the most startling, and therefore the most generally observed, results of criticism being destructive of preconceived notions, criticism itself has been regarded as a negative process, and even as an attack on the Bible. It is not to be denied that there are Higher Critics whose arguments may be construed in this way; but these are a minority, and there are also Higher Critics who are not only loyal to the Divine revelation in Scripture, but whose work may be described as largely constructive. Higher criticism itself is neutral; it has no bias; it is a scientific process. The champions of accepted views are compelied to use this process when arguing with scholars who take up positions with which they disagree. But, strictly speaking, it is not a controversial weapon. It is a powerful instrument for ascertaining facts about the history of the Bible. Seeing, however, that a certain amount of odium has been attached to the title—however unwarrantably—perhaps it would be better to substitute a phrase less liable to misinterpretation—such as the expression ‘Historical method.’ For in point of fact it is in the application of this method, which has been found so fruitful in other regions of study, to the Bible, that the actual work of the Higher Criticism is carried on. The several parts of Scripture are viewed in their places in the total development of the literature to which they belong, with regard to the spirit of the times in which they were produced, and as themselves throwing light on the problem of their own origin and purpose. In place of the external evidence of testimony conjoined to mere tradition, attention is now given more carefully to the internal evidence of literary and doctrinal characteristics.
Traces of the ‘Higher’ Criticism are to be discovered among the Fathers, e.g. in Origen with his discussion of the authorship of Hebrews, in Dionysius of Alexandria’s critical objections to the ascription of the Revelation to the author of the Fourth Gospel, etc. It was revived at the Renaissance by Reuchlin and Erasmus, and it was fearlessly pursued by Martin Luther. But the scientific development of the method begins with Michaelis (1750) and Semler (1771) , especially the latter, for Michaelis did not fully develop his critical views till he issued the 4th ed. of his Introduction to the NT (1788). Eichhorn went further in raising a criticism of the NT Canon (1804), and was opposed by Hug, a Roman Catholic writer, in a very scholarly work. A little later came de Wette (1826), who pursued the new critical method with moderation and great precision of scholarship. Credner followed on similar lines (1836). Meanwhile Guericke, Olshausen, and Neander opposed the contemporary trend of criticism. A new departure was taken by Ferdinand Christian Baur in 1831, who introduced the ‘tendency’ criticism, the result of which has come to be known as the ‘Tübingen hypothesis,’ according to which there was a sharp division in the early Church between St. Paul and the twelve Apostles, and which regarded the several NT books as in some cases inspired by the tendency of one or other of these parties, and as in other cases written with a view to effect a reconciliation between them in the interest of a subsequent Catholic unity. Zeller (1842) and Schwegler (1846) followed on the same lines. A little later (1850) one of Baur’s disciples, Albrecht Ritschl, threw a bombshell into the Tübingen camp by starting from the same position as his master, but advancing to very different conclusions. The Tübingen hypothesis was advocated in England by S. Davidson; but its extreme positions have been given up by most scholars, although it had a later representative in Hilgenfeld, and its spirit has been continued in Pfleiderer.
Meanwhile new problems have emerged, represented in a free critical manner by the Holtzmanns, Weizsäcker, Wernle, etc., while the Ritschlian school has been brought down to recent times in Harnack, Jülicher, etc. A line of negative criticism, first seen in Bruno Bauer (1850), who gave up all historicity in the Gospels, and denied the genuineness of any of St. Paul’s Epistles, was revived during the latter part of the 19th cent. in Holland, by Loman and Steck. Schmiedel took up an extreme negative position with regard to the Gospels, but he has since modified it, and Van Manen has argued against the genuineness of all St. Paul’s Epistles. In the second half of the last cent. the historicity of the Gospels and the genuineness of all the Pauline Epistles were maintained by Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, and others in the first rank of scholarship. Zahn, with great learning, argues for a conservative position, and the tendency of the mediating school represented by Harnack and Jülicher is to admit the genuineness of much the greater part of the NT, the exceptions with this school being especially Eph., 2 Thess., the Pastorals, 1 and 2 Peter, James. There is a tendency to connect the Fourth Gospel more closely with
St. John, even among those who do not attribute it immediately to the pen of the Apostle.
Criticism came later into contact with the OT; but here it has been much more revolutionary, and not only extremists but nearly all scholars of eminence have now come to agreement with regard to the main points of the new position. It may be said to have commenced with Lessing and Herder in their literary treatment of Scripture; but this did not seriously affect the historical position. That was first attacked on modern critical lines by Vatke early in the 19th cent., but his work met with universal disapproval, due in a great measure to its difficult Hegelianism. We come to more intelligible positions in Ewald, the first edition of whose History of Israel appeared in 1843–52, and contained criticism of authorities, four of which he distinguished in the Pentateuch. Then K. H. Graf (1866), following hints of Reuss, dropped in the lecture-room, but never published by that cautious scholar, put forth the hypothesis which became the basis of the subsequently developed theory of the early history of Israel, and thus gave rise to the phrase ‘the Grafian hypothesis,’ according to which the Priestly legislation of the Pentateuch came later than Deuteronomy, and was only incorporated with the earlier work of the Deuteronomist after the Exile. Meanwhile Colenso was working at the historical difficulties of the Pentateuch, and he was followed by Kuenen, whose Religion of Israel (1869–70) drew attention to the great 8th cent. prophets as affording the true basis of that religion, rather than the Pentateuch which is later in date, and the references of which to earlier times can be best appreciated after a study of the prophets. This study of the prophets, as the key to the OT, was greatly promoted in England by Robertson Smith, who also introduced the newer views of the OT generally to English readers. Wellhausen’s History of Israel (1878) worked out a view of the early history, on the basis of the analysis of the documents along the lines laid down by Graf, with such clearness and force that his positions have come to be accepted by most OT scholars, especially as they were subsequently more fully developed (1884). Reuss, after keeping silence on the subject for half a century, published his own views on the OT (1879), and these also tended to confirm the Grafian theory. Even Franz Delitzsch, after long maintaining a conservative standpoint, moved at last a good way towards the accepted theory, and thus proved his openness of mind and loyalty to truth. Less radical positions than that of Kuenen and Wellhausen have been defended by Dillmann, Schrader, Nöldeke, Strack, Ryssel, Kittel. On the other hand, we see in Duhm, among the more recent critics, an advance of disintegrating criticism, especially with regard to the prophets; and a quite unique attitude is taken up by Cheyne. But English scholars are more in agreement with the views of Driver and G. Adam Smith, who accept the main positions of Wellhausen and assign a primary place to the prophets as the chief exponents of the higher religion of Israel, in which the world possesses a genuine revelation of the mind and will of God of the highest value for all ages.
W. F. Adeney.
CROCODILE.—(1) livyāthān, Ps 74:14, Is 27:1, Job 41:1f. The last reference is almost certainly to the crocodile, which is adopted in RVm. See Leviathan. (2) hayyath qāneh, ‘the wild beast of the reeds,’ Ps 68:30 RV, is thought by many to be the crocodile or the hippopotamus as symbolizing Egypt. (3) In Jer 14:6 tannīm is in RVm ‘crocodiles.’ See Dragon. For ‘land crocodile’ see Lizard. The crocodile probably still exists in the Nahr ez-Zerka, S. of Mount Carmel, called by Pliny the Crocodile River. It is supposed to have been brought there by some Egyptian settlers. A dead crocodile was brought from there to the late Rev. J. Zeller of Nazareth. Herr Schumacher reports that he saw one there, and quite recently a number of crocodile’s eggs were brought from this river and sold in Jerusalem. A stuffed specimen is in the PEF museum, London.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CROSS.—The cross in its literal sense is dealt with under Crucifixion, but there are certain spiritual uses of the word in the NT that call for separate consideration.
(1) It is a symbol of self-sacrifice.—According to the Gospels, Jesus on at least three occasions affirmed the necessity for those who would follow Him of taking up the cross (Mt 10:38; Mk 8:34 = Mt 16:24 = Lk 9:23; [Mk 10:21 only in AV]; Lk 14:27). The words imply a prophetic anticipation of His own experience on Calvary; but even although on Christ’s earliest use of them this special application was hidden from His disciples (cf. Mt 16:21, 20:19), the figure of bearing one’s cross would convey a quite intelligible meaning. In Galilee multitudes had been crucified after the rebellion under Judas the Gaulonite (Jos. Ant. XVII. X. 10, BJ II. v. 2); in Jerusalem, as we see from the execution of two robbers side by side with Jesus, a crucifixion must have been an ordinary incident of the administration of Roman law. And as it was usual to compel a cruciarius to carry to the place of execution the transverse beam (patibulum) of his own cross, Christ’s figure would have a meaning as plain as it was vivid. But, unlike the wretched cruciarius, His disciples of their own free will were to take up the cross and follow Him.
(2) It is a thing of shame.—The author of Hebrews tells us bow Jesus ‘endured the cross, despising shame’ (12:2). Both to the Roman and to the Jew the death of the cross was the most shameful death a man could die—to the former because reserved by Roman usage for slaves, foreigners, or desperate criminals; to the latter because it came under the curse denounced by the Jewish Law upon any one whose dead body hung upon a tree (Dt 21:23; cf. Gal 3:13). To Jew and Gentile alike this was the great ‘stumbling-block of the cross’ (Gal 5:11, 1 Co 1:23). And even St. Paul himself regards ‘the death of the cross’ as the very lowest point in Christ’s long pathway of humiliation (Ph 2:8).
(3) There are certain theological uses of the word peculiar to the Pauline writings. St. Paul makes the cross a summary of the gospel. Thus for ‘the preaching of the gospel’ in 1 Co 1:17 he substitutes in v. 18 ‘the word of the cross,’ and in v. 23 ‘the preaching of Christ crucified’ (cf. 2:2). Again in Gal 6:12 he speaks of suffering persecution ‘for the cross of Christ,’ where the meaning evidently is ‘for the confession of faith in the Christian gospel.’ And when he glories in ‘the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (v. 14), the cross is used, as the clauses following show, to epitomize the saving work of Jesus both for us and in us.
(4) Further, in the Pauline theology the cross is set forth as the great instrument of reconciliation. It is ‘through the blood of his cross’ that Christ has effected a reconciliation between God and man (Col 1:20ff.). He took out of the way the bond written in ordinances that was against us, ‘nailing it to the cross’ (2:14). It is ‘through the cross’ that He has reconciled the Gentile and the Jew, abolishing that
‘law of commandments’ which rose between them like a middle wall of partition (Eph 2:14–16). And there are glimpses of a still wider reconciliation accomplished by Jesus through His cross—a reconciliation of all things unto God the Father, whether they be things upon the earth or things in the heavens (Col 1:20, cf. Eph 1:10).
(5) Once more, the cross is to St. Paul the symbol of a mystical union with Christ Himself. In the great figure of the Gospels (Mt 10:38 ||) cross-bearing stands for the imitation of Christ. St. Paul goes deeper, and sees in the cross a crucifixion with Christ from which there springs a possession of the indwelling life of Christ (Gal 2:20). The old man is crucified (Ro 6:6), that a new man may rise from the dead (cf. v. 4). The flesh is crucified, with its passions and lusts (Gal 5:24), that the Christian may live and walk by the Spirit (v. 25). And yet this mysticism of the cross never causes the Apostle to lose sight of the cross as the means of an objective redemption. On the contrary, he regards the two ideas as inseparably connected; and, glorying in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, does so because through it (a) the world—the sphere of external ordinances—is crucified unto him; and (b) he himself is crucified unto the world (Gal 6:14).
J. C. Lambert.
CROW occurs once in Apocr. (Bar 6:54), where the helplessness of idols is illustrated by the remark that ‘they are as crows between heaven and earth.’ See also Raven.
CROWN
1. In the OT.—The word represents several Heb. terms with distinct meanings. (1) zēr, properly an edge or border, with the suggestion of a twisted or wreathed appearance. It occurs only in Ex (25:11 and frequently). It is always of gold, and in the furniture of the Tabernacle surrounds the ark, the table of shew-bread and its border, the altar of incense. RVm gives as alternative renderings ‘rim,’ ‘moulding.’ Its purpose seems to have been ornamental merely.—(2) nēzer, properly ‘mark of separation or consecration’ (fr. nāzar ‘to separate, consecrate’; whence nāzir = ‘Nazirite’). Originally it was no more than a fillet to confine hair that was worn long (W. R. Smith, RS2 p. 483). It is used of the crown set upon the forehead of the high priest (Ex 29:6 etc.)—a plate of pure gold with the engraving ‘Holy to J″’ (39:30, cf. Lv 8:9), and also of the crown worn by Heb. kings (2 S 1:10, 2 K 11:12). In both cases it was the symbol of consecration.—(3) kether, similar in meaning to (2) but without the idea of consecration, is used in Est. (1:11, 2:17, 6:8) to denote the diadem of a Persian king or queen.—(4) ’atārah, the word that is most frequent and of the most general significance. It is applied to the crown worn by kings, whether Jewish (2 S 12:30 etc.) or foreign (1 Ch 20:2, Est 8:15 [cf. 6:8]) , to the wreath worn at banquets (Is 28:1, 3, Ezk 23:42); but also in a fig. sense, as when, e.g. a virtuous woman is called her husband’s crown (Pr 12:4), a hoary head the crown of old age (16:31), the Lord of hosts the crown of His people ( Is 28:5).—(5) qodhqōdh is the crown or top of the head, as in the expression ‘from the sole of his foot even unto his crown’ (Job 2:7); cf. Gn 49:26, Dt 33:20 etc.— The vb. ‘to crown’ is comparatively rare in the OT: ‘ātar (corresponding to (4) above) is found in Ps 8:5, 65:11, 103:4, Ca 3:11, Is 23:8; kathar (corresp. to (3)) in Pr 14:18; nāzar (corresponding to (2)) in Nah 3:17.
2. In the NT.—In AV ‘crown’ represents two Gr. words: (1) stephanos (whence stephanoō, ‘to crown’), (2) diadema; the former being the badge of merit or victory, the latter (found only in Rev 12:3, 13:1, 19:12) the mark of royalty. This distinction, though not strictly observed in LXX, is properly maintained in RV, where (2) is in each case rendered ‘diadem.’ The stephanos (properly ‘wreath’ = Lat. corona) was the garland given as a prize to the victors in the games (1 Co
9:25; cf. 2 Ti 2:5). It is the word applied to our Lord’s ‘crown of thorns’ (Mt 27:29 ,
Mk 15:17, Jn 19:2, 5). It is used figuratively of the ‘crown of righteousness’ (2 Ti 4:8), ‘of life’ (Ja 1:12, Rev 2:10), ‘of glory’ (1 P 5:4). St. Paul applies it to his converts as being his joy and reward (Ph 4:1, 1 Th 2:19); and in Rev. it is employed in various symbolical connexions (4:4, 10, 6:2, 9:7, 12:1, 14:14).
J. C. Lambert.
CRUCIFIXION
1. Its nature.—Crucifixion denotes a form of execution in which the condemned person was affixed in one way or another to a cross (Lat. crux) and there left to die. The Gr. term rendered ‘cross’ in the Eng. NT is stauros (stauroō = ‘crucify’), which has a wider application than we ordinarily give to ‘cross,’ being used of a single stake or beam as well as of a cross composed of two beams. The crucifixion of living persons does not meet us on OT ground (unless it be in Ezr 6:11; see RV), though death by hanging does (Est 7:10. The stauroō of LXX here renders the Heb. talah = ‘to hang’); but the hanging up of a dead body, especially on a tree, is familiar (Jos 10:26; cf. 1 S 31:10, 2 S 4:12, 21:12), and is sanctioned by the Law (Dt 21:22), with the proviso that a body thus hung, as something accursed, must be removed and buried before nightfall (v. 23). This enactment explains Jn 19:31, Gal 3:13, as well as the reff. in the NT to the cross as a tree ( Ac 5:30, 10:39, 13:29, 1 P 2:24).
2. Its origin and use.—The origin of crucifixion is traced to the Phœnicians, from whom it passed to many other nations, including both Greeks and Romans. Among the latter it was exceedingly common, but was confined almost exclusively to the punishment of slaves, foreigners, or criminals of the lowest class, being regarded as incompatible with the dignity of any Roman citizen (cf. Cic. in Verr. i. 5, v. 61, 66). This explains why, as tradition affirms, St. Paul was beheaded, while St. Peter and other Apostles, like the Master Himself, were put to death on the cross.
3. Forms of the cross.—The primitive form was the crux simplex—a single post set upright in the earth, to which the victim was fastened; or a sharp stake on which he was impaled. The Roman cross was more elaborate, consisting of two beams, which, however, might be put together in different ways. Three shapes are distinguished: (1) The crux commissa (T), shaped like a capital T, and commonly known as St. Anthony’s cross; (2) the crux immissa (+), the form with which we are most familiar; (3) the crux decussata (X), shaped like the letter X, and known as St. Andrew’s cross. Early Christian tradition affirms that it was on (2) that Jesus died (e.g. Iren. Hær. ii. 24, § 4; Justin, Trypho, 91); and this is confirmed by the statements of the Gospels as to the ‘title’ that was set above His head (Mt 27:37 , Mk 15:26, Lk 23:38, Jn 19:19f.).
4. Method and accompaniments of crucifixion.—These are very fully illustrated in the Gospel narratives of the death of Jesus, to which we shall now especially refer. Immediately after being condemned to the cross, a prisoner was brutally scourged. [In the case of Jesus the scourging appears to have taken place before His condemnation (Jn 19:1), and to have been intended by Pilate as a compromise with the Jews between the death sentence and a verdict of acquittal (Lk 23:22).] The cross-beam (patibulum), not the whole cross, was then laid on his shoulders, and borne by him to the place of execution, while his titulus (Jn 19:19 f., Gr. titlos, Eng. ‘title’) or tablet of accusation hung around his neck, or was carried before him by a herald. If it was only the patibulum that Jesus carried, the probable failure of His strength by the way, leading to the incident of Simon the Cyrenian (Mt 27:32||), must be attributed not to the weight of His burden, but to sheer physical exhaustion aggravated by loss of blood through scourging, as well as to the anguish that pressed upon His soul.
Arrived at the place of execution, which both with the Romans and the Jews was outside of the city (see art. Golgotha), the condemned was stripped of his clothing by the soldiers detailed to carry out the sentence, who immediately appropriated it as their lawful booty (Mt 27:35||). He was then laid on the ground, the crossbeam was thrust beneath his shoulders, and his hands were fastened to the extremities, sometimes with cords, but more usually, as in the case of Jesus ( Jn 20:25, Lk 24:39f.; cf. Col 2:14), with nails. The beam was next raised into position and securely fixed to the upright already planted in the ground. On the upright was a projecting peg (sedile) astride of which the victim was made to sit, thereby relieving the strain on the pierced hands, which might otherwise have been torn away from the nails. Finally the feet were fastened to the lower part of the upright, either with nails (Lk 24:39f.) or with cords.
The cross was not a lofty erection—much lower than it is usually represented in Christian art (cf. Mt 27:48 ||). Hanging thus quite near the ground, Jesus, in the midst of His last agonies, was all the more exposed to the jeers and insults of the bystanders and passers-by. It was a custom in Jerusalem to provide some alleviation for the physical tortures and mental sufferings of the crucified by giving him a stupefying draught. This was offered to Jesus before He was nailed to the cross; but He refused to take it (Mt 27:34). He would drink every drop of the cup that His Father had given Him, and go on to death with an unclouded
consciousness. But for this we could hardly have had those ‘Seven Words from the Cross’ which come to us like the glorious rays that shoot from a sun sinking in awful splendour.
In crucifixion the pains of death were protracted long—sometimes for days. Even when the victims were nailed and not merely tied to the cross, it was hunger and exhaustion, not loss of blood, that was the direct cause of death. Sometimes an end was put to their sufferings by the crurifragium—the breaking of their legs by hammer-strokes. It is not likely that in ordinary circumstances the Jews would induce a Roman governor to pay any attention to the law of Dt 21:22f. But, as the day following our Lord’s crucifixion was not only a Sabbath, but the Sabbath of Passover week, Pilate was persuaded to give orders that Jesus and the two robbers crucified along with Him should be despatched by the crurifragium and their bodies removed (Jn 19:31). The soldiers broke the legs of the robbers first, but when they came to Jesus they found that He was already dead. One of them, either in sheer brutality or to make sure of His death, ran a spear into His side. The blood and water that gushed out (Jn 19:34, cf. 1 Jn 5:6, 8) have been held by some medical authorities to justify the opinion that the Saviour died of a broken heart. His death being certified, Joseph of Arimathæa, who had begged the body from Pilate, removed it from the cross and laid it in his own sepulchre (Mt 27:57ff. ||). J. C. Lambert.
CRUELTY.—The word ‘cruelty’ has nearly disappeared from our Bibles. The RV has introduced ‘rigour’ and ‘violence’ in its stead. However, many instances of cruelty remain in the OT records, and some of these seem to have the sanction of Scripture. Such passages as Dt 20:17, Jos 6:21, 2 S 12:31 no longer trouble the devout student of the Bible as they once did. He now recognizes the fact that in the Bible we have a faithful record of the slow evolution of spiritual ideals, and that the revelation of the NT brands as un-Christian and inhuman many things that were written by the ancient scribes and some things that were done by ancient saints. The spirit of Elijah may not be the spirit of Christ (Lk 9:55). Cruelty is unChristian; kindness is the law of the Christian life.
D. A. Hayes.
CRUSE.—See House, § 9.
CRYSTAL.—See Jewels and Precious Stones.
CUB in Ezk 30:5 is almost certainly a corruption of Lub (i.e. Lybia), as was read by LXX. The ‘Libya’ of AV is a mistranslation of Put (see RV). Cf. Nah 3:9 , where Lybians are mentioned along with Cush (Ethiopia), Egypt, and Put, as here; also 2 Ch 12:3, 16:8.
CUBIT.—See Weights and Measures.
CUCKOW (shachaph, Lv 11:16, Dt 14:15, RV ‘seamew,’ following LXX).— Although cuckoos are common in Palestine, and their voices may be heard all over the land in the spring, yet there is good reason for rejecting this translation. The Heb. root implies ‘leanness,’ and the ‘unclean’ bird referred to must have been some kind of gull.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CUCUMBERS.—Two varieties of cucumber are very common in Palestine. The Cucumis sativus (Arab. khyār), a smooth-skinned, whitish cucumber of delicate flavour, is a prime favourite with the Arabs. It is cool and juicy, but for cultivation requires abundant water. The second (C. chate, Arab. [in Jerusalem] faqqūs, [in Syria] qiththā) is a long slender cucumber, less juicy than the former. The reference in Nu 11:5 is probably to the latter, which is an Egyptian plant. The ‘lodge in a garden of cucumbers’ (Is 1:8) is the rough booth erected by the owner, raised, as a rule, high upon poles, from which he may keep guard over his ripening vegetables. When the harvest is over, the ‘lodge’ is not taken down but is allowed to drop to pieces. It is a dreary ruin of poles and dried branches during more than half the year.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CUMI.—See Talitha Cumi.
CUMMIN.—The seed of an umbelliferous plant, the Cuminum cyminum (syriacum), widely cultivated in and around Palestine. It is used to flavour dishes, and, more particularly, bread; in flavour and appearance it resembles carraway; it has long been credited with medicinal properties; it certainly is a carminative. It is even now beaten out with rods (Is 28:27). Tithes of cummin were paid by the Jews (Mt 23:23).
E. W. G. Masterman.
CUN.—See Berothah.
CUNNING.—As a subst. ‘cunning’ in AV means either skill or knowledge; as an adj. either skilful or wise (we cannot say knowing, for that adj. has also degenerated). It is the pres. participle of the Anglo-Sax. verb cunnan, which meant both ‘to know’ and ‘to be able.’ In the Preface to the Wyclifite version of 1388 we read of ‘the Holy Spyrit, author of all wisdom and cunnynge and truth.’
CUP.—1. In OT the rendering of various words, the precise distinction between which, either as to form or use, is unknown to us. The usual word is kōs, the ordinary drinking-vessel of rich (Gn 40:11, 13, 21) and poor (2 S 12:3) alike, the material of which varied, no doubt, with the rank and wealth of the owner. Joseph’s divining cup (gābhīa’, Gn 44:2ff.) was of silver, and, we may infer, of elaborate workmanship, since the same word is used for the bowls (AV) or cups (RV), i.e. the flower-shaped ornamentation, on the candlestick of the Tabernacle. That the gābhīa’ was larger than the kōs is clear from Jer 35:5. The kĕsāvōth of 1 Ch 28:17 were more probably flagons, as RV in Ex 25:29, 37:16 (but Nu 4:7 RV ‘cups’). The ’aggān (Is 22:24) was rather a basin, as Ex 24:6, than a cup ( EV ).
In NT potērion is the corresponding name of the ordinary drinking-cup ( water Mt 10:42 etc., wine 23:25 etc.). The ‘cup of blessing’ (1 Co 10:16) is so named from the kōs habberākhah of the Jewish Passover (wh. see, also Eucharist).
2. The word ‘cup’ has received an extended figurative application in both OT and NT. (a) As in various other literatures, ‘cup’ stands, esp. in Psalms, for the happy fortune or experience of one’s earthly lot, mankind being thought of as receiving this lot from the hand of God, as the guest receives the wine-cup from the hand of his host (Ps 16:5, 23:5, 73:10 etc.). But also, conversely, for the bitter lot of the wicked, Ps 11:6 (cf (c) below), and in particular for the sufferings of Jesus Christ, Mt 20:22, 23, Mk 10:38, 39, 14:36, Lk 22:42, Jn 18:11. (b) Another figure is the ‘cup of salvation’ (lit. ‘of deliverances’), Ps 116:13. The reference is to the wine of the thank-offerings, part of the ritual of which was the festal meal before J″ (cf. vv. 14a, 17ff.). (c) By a still bolder figure the punitive wrath of the offended Deity is spoken of as a cup which the guilty, Israelites and heathen alike, must drain to the dregs. So Jer 25:15ff. (the wine-cup [of] fury), Ezk 23:32–34, Is 51:17ff. (‘the cup of trembling,’ RV ‘staggering’), Zec 12:2 (RV ‘cup of reeling’),
Ps 75:8, Rev 14:10, 16:19, 18:6, for all which see the commentaries. (d) Lastly, we have ‘the cup of consolation’ offered to the mourners after the funeral-rites, Jer 16:7 (cf. Pr 31:6).
CUPBEARER.—An officer of considerable importance at Oriental courts, whose duty it was to serve the wine at the table of the king. The first mention of this officer is in the story of Joseph (Gn 40:1–15), where the term rendered butler in EV is the Heb. word which is rendered in other passages ‘cupbearer.’ The holder of this office was brought into confidential relations with the king, and must have been thoroughly trustworthy, as part of his duty was to guard against poison in the king’s cup. In some cases he was required to taste the wine before presenting it. The position of Nehemiah as cupbearer to Artaxerxes Longimanus was evidently high. Herodotus (iii. 34) speaks of the office at the court of Cambyses, king of Persia, as ‘an honour of no small account,’ and the narrative of Nehemiah shows the high esteem of the king, who is so solicitous for his welfare that he asks the cause of his sadness (2:2). The cupbearers among the officers of king Solomon’s household (1 K 10:5) impressed the queen of Sheba, and they are mentioned among other indications of the grandeur of his court, which was modelled upon courts of other Oriental kings.
CUPBOARD (1 Mac 15:32).—A sideboard used for the display of gold and silver plate. This is the earliest meaning of ‘cupboard’; cf. Greene (1592), ‘Her mistress … set all her plate on the cubboorde for shew.’ CURSE.—See Ban and Excommunication.
CURTAIN.—See Tabernacle.
CUSH in OT designates Ethiopia, and is the only name used there for that region. It is the same as the Egyptian Kash or Kesh. Broadly speaking, it answers to the modern Nubia. More specifically, the Egyptian Kash extended southwards from the first Cataract at Syene (Ezk 29:10), and in the periods of widest extension of the empire it embraced a portion of the Sudan. It was conquered and annexed by Egypt under the 12th Dynasty (c. b.c. 2000) and remained normally a subject country. After the decline of the 22nd (Libyan) Dynasty, the Cushites became powerful and gradually encroached on northern Egypt, so that at length an Ethiopian dynasty was established (the 25th, 728–663), which was overthrown by the Assyrians. Within this period falls the attempt of Tirhakah, king of Cush, to defeat Sennacherib of Assyria in Palestine (2 K 19:9).
In Gn 10:6 Cush is a son of Ham, though his descendants as given in v. 7 are mostly Arabian. Surprising also is the statement in 2 Ch 14:9ff. that Zerah the Cushite invaded Judah in the days of Asa, at a time when the Cushites had no power in Egypt. An attempt has been made to solve these and other difficulties by the assumption of a second Cush in Arabia (cf. 2 Ch 21:16). Instructive references to the Cushite country and people are found in Am 9:7, Is 18:1f., Jer 13:23. Cushites were frequent in Palestine, probably descendants of slaves; see 2 S 18:21ff., Jer 36:14, 38:7ff. These were, however, possibly Arabian Cushites. For the explanation of the Cush of Gn 10:8ff., and possibly of 2:13, see Cossæans.
J. F. McCurdy.
CUSH as a personal name occurs only in the title of Ps 7. He is described as a Benjamite, and was probably a follower of Saul who opposed David.
CUSHAN (Hab 3:7) = Arabian (?) Cush (wh. see).
CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM.—King of Mesopotamia, or Aram-naharaim, first of the oppressors of Israel, from whom Othniel. son of Kenaz. delivered them after eight years (Jg 3:8–10). It has been conjectured that he was a king of the Mitanni, whose territory once covered the district between the Euphrates and Habor, or that ‘Aram’ is a mistake for Edom, ‘Rishathaim’ for Resh-hat-temani, ‘chief of the Temanites.’ The name has not yet received any monumental explanation, and its nationality is unknown.
C. H. W. Johns.
CUSHI, CUSHITE.—The word Cūshī occurs with the article in Nu 12:1, 2 S 18:21; without the article in Jer 36:14, Zeph 1:1. 1. With the article it is probably merely an expression of nationality, ‘the Cushite’ (see Cush). It was looked upon as a disgrace that Moses should have married a Cushite. 2. Without the article the word is used merely as a proper name. It is borne by (1) the great-grandfather of Jehudi, the latter one of Jehoiakim’s courtiers (Jer 36:14); (2) the father of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph 1:1).
CUSHION.—See Pillow.
CUSTOM(S) (Mt 17:25, Ro 13:7): ‘receipt of custom’ (Mt 9:9, Mk 2:14, Lk 5:27).—This is to be carefully distinguished from ‘tribute’ (wh. see). The customs were paid on the value of goods, in Galilee and Peræa to the Herods, but in the Roman province of Judæa to the procurator as agent of the Roman government. The ‘receipt of custom’ was the collector’s office.
A. Souter.
CUTH, CUTHAH.—One of the cities from which Sargon brought colonists to take the place of the Israelites whom he had deported from Samaria, b.c. 722 (2 K 17:24, 30). These colonists intermingled with the Israelite inhabitants who were left by Sargon; and their descendants, the Samaritans, were in consequence termed by the Jews ‘Cuthæans.’ According to the old Arabic geographers, Cuthah was situated not far from Babylon. This view is borne out by the Assyrian inscriptions, from which we learn that Kuti (or Kutu) was a city of Middle-Babylonia. It has now been identified with the modern Tell Ibrāhim, N.E. of Babylon, where remains of the temple of Nergal (cf. v. 30) have been discovered.
CUTHA (1 Es 5:32).—His sons were among the Temple servants who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel.
CUTTING OFF FROM THE PEOPLE.—See Crimes and Punishments, §
11.
CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH.—This expression occurs only in Lv 19:28 , 21:5. The former passage runs thus: ‘Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead.… I am the Lord.’ The same prohibition, otherwise expressed in the original, is found in the earlier Deuteronomic legislation (Dt 14:1). The reference is to the practice, not confined to the Hebrews or even to their Semitic kinsfolk, of making incisions in the face, hands (Jer 48:37), and other parts of the body to the effusion of blood, as part of the rites of mourning for the dead (see Marks, § 4) , and by a natural transition, to which the wearing of sackcloth forms a parallel, in times of national calamity. The custom is referred to without condemnation by the pre-Deuteronomic prophets, see Hos 7:14 (corrected text, as RVm), and esp. Jer 16:6, 41:5, 47:5.
The underlying motive of this practice and the reasons for its legislative prohibition have been variously stated. It may be regarded as certain, however, that the practice had its root in primitive animistic conceptions regarding the spirits of the departed. The object in view may have been either so to disfigure the living that they should be unrecognizable by the malignant spirits of the dead, or, more probably, by means of the effusion of blood—which originally, perhaps, was brought into contact with the corpse—to maintain or renew the bond of union between the living and the dead.
The explanation just given is confirmed by the allied practice, springing from similar motives, of shaving off the whole (Ezk 44:20, cf. Bar 6:31) or part of the head hair or of the beard in token of mourning (Is 15:2, 22:12, Ezk 7:18, Am 8:10 etc.). Both practices, the incisions and the shaving, are named together in the legislative passages above cited. Thus Dt 14:1 forbids ‘baldness between the eyes,’ i.e. the shaving of the front of the scalp, ‘for the dead’; in Lv 19:27 it is forbidden to ‘round the corners’ of the head, i.e. to shave the temples (cf. Jer 9:26 , 25:23, where certain desert tribes are named the ‘corners clipt,’ from their habit of shaving the temples, see Hair), and to ‘mar the corners of the beard’ (cf. Jer 48:37). These references recall the wide-spread heathen practice of hair-offerings, which goes back to the antique conception that the hair, like the blood, is the seat of life.
The reason of the twofold prohibition now becomes apparent. With the growth of loftier conceptions of J″ and His worship, these practices, with their animistic background and heathen associations, were seen to be unworthy of a people who owed exclusive devotion to their covenant God, a thought implied in the concluding words of Lv 19:28 ‘I am Jahweh.’ The practice of gashing the body till the blood ran, as part of the ritual of Baal worship, is attested by 1 K 18:28.
The further prohibition of Lv 19:28 ‘nor print any marks upon you,’ refers to another widely prevalent custom in antiquity, that of tattooing and even branding (3 Mac 2:29) the body with the name or symbol of one’s special deity, a practice to which there is a reference in Is 44:5, to be rendered as in RVm, ‘another shall write on his hand. Unto the Lord,’ or, better, as one word, ‘Jahweh’s.’
A. R. S. Kennedy.
CYAMON, Jth 7:3 = Jokneam (wh. see).
CYLINDER.—Ca 5:14 RVm for EV ‘ring.’ See Ring.
CYMBAL.—See Music and Musical Instruments.
CYPRESS.—(1) tirzah (Is 44:14, RV ‘holm oak’) stands for some tree with very hard wood, the meaning of the root (in Arabic) being to be hard. ‘Holm oak’ is the rendering of the oldest Latin translation. This is the Quercus ilex, a tree now rare W. of the Jordan, but still found in Gilead and Bashan; (2) te’ashshur (Is 41:19 RVm). Both AV and RV have ‘box tree’ (wh. see); (3) berōsh (2 S 6:5 RVm). Both AV and RV have ‘fir wood’ (see also Is 55:13). In Palestine to-day cypresses are extensively planted, especially in cemeteries.
E. W. G. Masterman.
CYPRUS.—An island in the N.E. corner of the Levant, within sight of the Syrian and Cilician coasts. Its greatest length is 140 miles, breadth 60 miles. In configuration it consists of a long plain shut in on the N. and the S.W. by mountain ranges.
In the OT the name Cyprus does not occur, but undoubtedly the island is referred to under the name Kittim, which is the same as the name of the Phœnician town Kition, now Larnaka. In Gn 10:4 Kittim is spoken of as a son of Javan, together with Tarshish and Elishah. This probably implies that the earliest population of Cyprus was akin to the pre-Hellenic population of Greece. In Ezk 27:6 the isles of Kittim are spoken of as supplying Tyre with boxwood. But the name Kittim is used also of the West generally, as in Dn 11:30 of the Romans ( cf. Nu 24:24).
The early importance of Cyprus was due to its forests and its copper. Its copper has long ago been exhausted, and owing to neglect its forests have perished. But throughout the ‘bronze age,’ which for Ægæan countries may roughly be reckoned as b.c. 2000 to b.c. 1000, its copper was exported not only to Syria but to Egypt and to Europe, and, mixed with the tin brought by Phœnicians from Cornwall and the West, it provided the metal from which both weapons and ornaments were made. Hence the name copper is derived from Cyprus. When the iron age began, this metal also was obtained from Cyprus.
Doubtless the copper was first exported by Phœnicians, who early founded Kition and other towns in Cyprus, and introduced the worship of the Syrian
Aphrodite who became known to the Greeks as the ‘Cyprian goddess.’ But the Greeks themselves were not long behind the Phœnicians in the island,—the settlers were doubtless Peloponnesians disturbed by the Dorian invasions, and they used what the Greeks called the Arcadian dialect. They brought with them the Ægæan civilization, as relics found in the island prove conclusively. Paphoe, Soli, Salamis were Greek settlements, the last being named from the island off the coast of Attica. But the Greeks soon combined with the Phœnicians. They adopted what was probably in origin a Hittite alphabet, in which every syllable is represented by a separate sign, and this lasted till the 4th century.
Cyprus did not develop as an independent power. Before b.c. 1450 it was made tributary to Egypt. About b.c. 1000 it was subject to Tyre, and with Phœnicia it passed into the hands of Sargon, the Assyrian, about b.c. 700. Sargon left an inscription at Kition, and later Assyrian kings record tribute received from Cyprus. About b.c. 560 Amasis of Egypt reduced the island, and it passed with Egypt to Cambyses of Persia in b.c. 525. It took part in the Ionian revolt of b.c. 501, but was quickly reduced, and supplied Xerxes with a fleet in b.c. 480. Athens made repeated attempts to secure the island, but the mixed population prevented any strong Hellenic movement, and it only passed definitely into Greek hands by submission to Alexander the Great after the battle of Issus in b.c. 333. On the division of his empire it fell to the Ptolemys of Egypt, until it was annexed by Rome in b.c. 57. It was made a separate province after the battle of Actium in b.c. 31, becoming at first an ‘imperial’ province, but being afterwards transferred to ‘senatorial’ government, so that in Ac 13:7 St. Luke rightly describes the governor as a proconsul.
Jews first settled in Cyprus under the Ptolemys, and their numbers there were considerable before the time of the Apostles. Barnabas is described as a Cypriot Jew, and when he and St. Paul started from Antioch on the First Missionary
Journey, they first of all passed through Cyprus (Ac 13:4–12). They landed at Salamis, then a Greek port flourishing with Syrian trade, now deserted—with its harbour silted up—three miles from Famagusta. Here they preached in the synagogue, where their message was probably not entirely new (Ac 11:19), and then journeyed through ‘the whole island’ (RV) to New Paphos in the W.—a three or four days’ journey, even if they preached nowhere on the way. New Paphos, like Old Paphos, was the seat of the worship of Aphrodite (see Paphos), and was at this time the Roman capital. (For the incidents connected with the proconsul and the magus, see artt. Sergius Paulus and Bar-jesus.)
Besides Barnabas we have mention of Mnason, an ‘original convert,’ as coming from Cyprus (Ac 21:16), but we have no knowledge of how the Church grew in the island until it included 15 bishoprics. The Jews of Cyprus took part in the great rising of their race which took place in a.d. 117 (when Trajan was busy with Parthia), and they are said to have massacred 240,000 of the Gentile population. The revolt was suppressed without mercy, and all Jews were expelled from the island.
Under the Byzantine emperors Cyprus suffered much from their misrule, and from the Saracens. Seized in 1191 by Richard Cœur de Lion, it was sold to the Knights Templars. From 1479 to 1570 it was held by the Venetians. After three centuries of Turkish rule it passed under British rule in 1878, by a convention which still requires it to pay tribute to the Sultan. But it has scarcely recovered prosperity. Various causes have lessened the rainfall, it is troubled with malaria, its mineral resources were long ago worked out and its forests destroyed. There are no good roads, and communication is kept up by bullock-carts and mules. Its best ports (Larnaka and Limasol) are open roadsteads.
A. E. Hillard.
CYRENE.—Capital of Libya (Tripoli) in N. Africa (Ac 2:10), the home of numerous Jews who with the ‘Libertines’ (freedmen from Rome?) and
Alexandrians had a synagogue of their own at Jerusalem (Ac 6:9). Many of these became Christians, as Simon and his sons (doubtless), Mk 15:21; Lucius, Ac 13:1 ; and those in Ac 11:20 who preached to the ‘Greeks’ (v.l. ‘Hellenists’).
A. J. Maclean.
CYRENIUS.—See Quirinius.
CYRUS.—Referred to as ‘king of the Persians,’ 2 Ch 36:22, Ezr 1:1, Dn 10:1 , and often; ‘the Persian,’ Dn 6:28; ‘king of Babylon,’ Ezr 5:13. He is regarded in Is 40–48 as specially destined by Jahweh to redeem Israel and execute Divine judgment upon Babylon, to set free the captives and restore Jerusalem and its Temple. He had not known Jahweh before his call, but carried out his mission in
Jahweh’s name, and is styled ‘the friend of Jahweh’ and ‘Jahweh’s anointed.’ The Cyrus of whom these high expectations were formed was the founder of the
Persian Empire. His grandfather was also called Cyrus (Kurush, Bab. Kurash, Heb. Koresh). He was an Aryan and descended from Achæmenes (Hakhamanish). At first he was king of Persia and Anshan or Anzan, an Elamite province, capital at Susa (Shushan), and vassal of Media. The contemporary cuneiform inscriptions are—(1) a cylinder inscription of Nabonidus, last king of Babylonia, from Sippara; (2) an annalistic tablet of Cyrus written shortly after his conquest of Babylonia; (3) a proclamation of Cyrus of the same date. Nabonidus’ account was written soon after Cyrus, ‘a petty vassal’ of Astyages (Istuvegu), king of the Manda, with his small army had conquered Astyages (b.c. 549). This led to the withdrawal of the Manda from Harran, and left Nabonidus free to restore the temple of Sin there. Cyrus soon made himself master of the whole Median empire, but was faced by an alliance of Crœsus, king of Lydia, Nabonidus of Babylon, and Amasis of Egypt. On the fall of Crœsus, Cyrus turned to Babylonia, where Nabonidus had long
estranged the inhabitants of the capital by his neglect of the sacred feasts and worship of Marduk. Belshazzar, his son, defended the land, but was defeated at Opis, and on 14th Tammuz, Sippara fell ‘without fighting.’ On the 16th, Gobryas
(Gubaru, Ugbaru) entered Babylon without resistance, and Cyrus followed on the 3rd of Marcheshvan, b.c. 539–8, and was received, according to his own account, by all classes, especially by priests and nobles, as a liberator. He claims to have restored to their homes the exiles from Babylonia and their gods, and prays that these gods may daily intercede for him with Marduk and Nabu, whose worshipper he professes to be. Cyrus reigned about nine years from this time, and in the last year banded over the sovereignty of Babylon to his son Cambyses.
The career of Cyrus so impressed the popular imagination, that the classical writers adorn his story with a variety of legendary incidents for which no confirmation can be produced. The policy which Cyrus pursued towards the Jews is variously estimated, but all accounts agree in stating that the restoration of the Temple was started by him, and in claiming him as a worshipper of Jahweh.
C. H. W. Johns.