D

DALMATIA.—A mountainous district on the E. coast of the Adriatic Sea. More exactly used, it is the southern half of the Roman province Illyricum (wh. see). The writer of the Second Epistle to Timothy makes Titus journey there (2 Ti 4:10).

A. SOUTER.

DALPHON (Est 9:7).—The second son of Haman, put to death by the Jews.

DAMARIS.—A convert at Athens (Ac 17:34). As women of the upper classes were kept more in the background there than in Macedonia or Asia Minor, she was probably not of noble birth (cf. 17:4, 12). The name is perhaps a corruption of Damalis, ‘a heifer.’ The Bezan MS omits it.

A. J. MACLEAN.

DAMASCUS

1. Situation, etc.—The chief city of N. Syria, situated in lat. 33° 30' N. and long. 36° 18' E. It lies in a plain east of the Anti-Lebanon, famous for its beauty and fertility, and watered by the Barada River, the Abanah (wh. see) of the Bible. The luxuriance of its gardens has long been renowned: the English traveller W. G. Browne in 1797 noted that the fruit-trees were so numerous that those which died and were cut down were sufficient to supply the town with firewood. Its population is estimated at from 150,000 to 220,000. It derives its modern importance from local manufactures (woodwork, furniture, artistic metal and textile work), from its situation and convenience as a market for the desert tribes, and from its religious significance as the starting-point of the annual Syrian pilgrim caravan to Mecca. Railways run from Damascus to Haifa, Beyrout, and Mezerīb, and the important line to Mecca, begun in 1901, is expected to be finished in 1910. The writer of Canticles, in his appreciation of the sensuous beauty of scenery, has not forgotten Damascus: the nose of the Shulammite is compared to the ‘tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus’ (Ca 7:4).

The history of Damascus begins in remote antiquity: the time of its foundation is quite unknown; but that a settlement should have been founded in so desirable a locality was inevitable from the very beginning of human association. It was probably already an ancient city at the time of the Tell el-Amarna tablets, on which we meet with its name more than once. It also appears in the tribute lists of Thothmes III. as Demesku.

2. OT references.—In the Biblical history we first meet with the name of

Damascus as a territorial indication in defining the line of Abram’s pursuit of the five kings (Gn 14:15). In Gn 15:2 the name of Abram’s steward is given in the MT as Dammesek Eliezer (so RV)—a name probably corrupt. It is explained in the Aram., Targum, and Syr. as ‘Eliezer the Damascene,’ which gives sense, though it presupposes a most improbable corruption in the Hebrew text. We must therefore pass this passage by with the remark that it is not unlikely that Abram’s servant was a native of Damascus. We hear nothing more of Damascus till 2 S 8:5, 6, which describes David’s capture of the city as a reprisal for its assistance given to

Hadadezer, king of Zobah; David garrisoned it and reduced it to a tributary condition (cf. 1 Ch 18:5). The general of Hadadezer, however, Rezon by name, succeeded in establishing himself as king in Damascus in the time of Solomon, and made himself continuously a very troublesome neighbour (1 K 11:23, 24). In the wars between Asa and Baasha (1 K 15:17ff., 2 Ch 16:2ff.) the king of Judah invoked the aid of Benhadad, king of Syria, whose royal city was Damascus, against his Israelite enemy. By gifts he persuaded him to break the truce already existing between Ben-hadad and Israel, and to join partnership with Judah. Accordingly Ben-hadad proceeded to harass Baasha on his northern borders, and so induced him to desist from his plan of erecting border fortifications between the two Hebrew kingdoms. Hostilities continued between Syria and Israel till the days of Ahab: Ahab’s sparing of Ben-hadad after the battle of Aphek and his making a truce with him, were the cause of a prophetic denunciation (1 K 20:42). In the reign of Jehoram, the Syrian general Naaman came to be cleansed of leprosy (2 K 5), and Elisha’s directions led to his famous depreciating comparison of the muddy Jordan with the clear-flowing Abanah and Pharpar (v. 12). The Chronicler (2 Ch 24:23) reports a victorious invasion of Judah by Damascus in the days of Joash. The city of Damascus was re-taken by Jeroboam II. (2 K 14:28), though the circumstances are not related; but must have been lost again immediately, for we find the Syrian king Rezin there (2 K 16) oppressing Ahaz, so that he was led to the policy, which (as Isaiah foresaw, 7, 10:5–11) proved suicidal, of calling in the aid of Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, and submitting himself as a vassal of that great king. Prophetic denunciations of Damascus, as of the other enemies of the Hebrews, are found in Is 17, Jer 49:23, Am 1:3–5, and Zec 9:1. Damascus as a commercial centre was always of great importance, and Ezekiel (27:18) alludes to its trade in vines and wool. It is, of course, included in the imaginary restoration of the kingdom (Ezk 47:17).

3. NT references.—Damascus appears only in connexion with St. Paul. Here took place his miraculous conversion (Ac 9, 22, 26) with the well-known attendant circumstances, and his escape from Aretas (wh. see), the governor, by being lowered in a basket over the wall (Ac 9:25, 2 Co 11:32, 33), and hither he returned after his Arabian retirement (Gal 1:17).

4. Later history.—The late extra-Biblical history is very complicated. In 333

B.C., after the battle of Issus, the city was surrendered to Parmenio, the general of Alexander the Great, and during the subsequent Græco-Egyptian wars it fell more than once into the hands of the Ptolemys. In 111 B.C., on the partition of Syria between Antiochus Grypus and A. Cyzicenus, the latter obtained possession of the city. His successor, Demetrius Eucærus, invaded Palestine in 88 B.C. and defeated Alexander Jannæus at Shechem. His brother, who succeeded him, was driven out by the Arabian Haritha (Aretas). For a while it remained in Arab hands, then, after a temporary occupation by Tigranes, king of Armenia, it was conquered by Metellus, the Roman general. It was a city of the Decapolis. The great temple of the city was by one of the early Christian emperors—probably Theodosius—transformed into a church. It is now the principal mosque of the city, but was partly destroyed by fire in 1893. Since 635 Damascus has been a Muslim city, though governed from time to time by different tribes and dynasties of that faith. It was conquered by the Seljuks in 1075. The Crusaders never succeeded in making a strong position for themselves in the city. In 1860 about 6000 Christians were massacred by the Muslim population of the city. Few remains of antiquity are to be seen in the modern city, which is attractive principally for its undiluted Oriental life and its extensive markets and bazaars. The mosque just mentioned, a mediæval castle, and part of the ancient walls, are the principal relics. Of course, there are the usual traditional sites of historical events, but these are not more trustworthy at Damascus than anywhere else in Syria and Palestine. R. A. S. MACALISTER.

DAMNATION.—The words ‘damn,’ ‘damnable,’ and ‘damnation’ have, through their use in the literature of theology, come to express condemnation to everlasting punishment. But in the English Bible they mean no more than is now expressed by

‘condemn’ or ‘condemnation.’ In some places a better translation than

‘condemnation’ is ‘judgment,’ as in Jn 5:29 ‘the resurrection of damnation’ ( Gr. krisis, RV ‘judgment’). See JUDGMENT.

DAN.—According to the popular tradition, Dan was the fifth son of Jacob, and full brother of Naphtali, by Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid (Gn 30:6, 8). Rachel, who had no children, exclaimed ‘dananni’ (‘God hath judged me’), and, therefore, he was called Dan. As in the case of so many names, this is clearly a ‘popular etymology.’ It is probable that Dan was an appellative, or titular attribute, of some deity whose name has not come down to us in connexion with it, or it may even be the name of a god as Gad was (cf. the Assyr. proper names Ashur-dān [‘Ashur is judge’], Aku-dāna [ ‘the moon-god is judge’] of the period of Hammurabi). Its feminine counterpart is Dinah (Jacob’s daughter by Leah), which as the name of the half-sister of Dan is probably reminiscent of some related clan that early lost its identity.

Of this eponymous ancestor of the tribe tradition has preserved no details, but some of the most interesting stories of the Book of Judges tell of the exploits of the

Danite Samson, who, single-handed, wrought discomfiture in the ranks of the Philistines. These are heroic rather than historical tales, yet suggestive of the conditions that prevailed when the tribes were establishing themselves.

P makes Dan a large tribe. With his characteristic love of large numbers he gives the fighting strength of Dan in the Wilderness census as 62,700, more than that of any other except Judah (Nu 1:33; cf. 26:43, Moab census). All the other data point in the opposite direction. J (Jg 18:11) speaks of it as a ‘family’; elsewhere Dan is said to have had only one son, Hushim or Shuham (Gn 46:23, Nu 26:42). The tribe at first occupied the hill-country in the S.W. of Ephraim, and thence attempted to spread out into the valleys of Aijalon and Sorek. That it ever reached the sea, either here or in its later northern home, is unlikely, notwithstanding the usual interpretation of Jg 5:17, a passage which yields no wholly satisfactory meaning. (But see Moore, Judges, ad loc.). In this region the Danites were severely pressed by the ‘Amorites’ = (Canaanites). The major portion were compelled to emigrate northward, where they found at the foot of Mt. Hermon an isolated city, Laish or Leshem, situated in a fertile tract of country (Jos 19:47, Jg 18). This city with its unsuspecting inhabitants the Danites ruthlessly destroyed. A new city was built, to which they gave the name of Dan. In this colony there were only 600 armed men with their families. On their way thither they induced the domestic priest of an Ephraimite, Micah, to accompany them with his sacred paraphernalia, an ephod, a graven and a molten image, and the teraphim. These were duly installed in a permanent sanctuary, in which the descendants of Moses are said to have ministered until the Captivity (Jg 18:30). That the remnant of the family left in the South was either destroyed by its enemies, or, more likely, absorbed by the neighbouring tribes, is made probable by Jg 1:35, which ascribes the victory over their enemies to the ‘house of Joseph.’ Gn 49:17 says ‘Dan shall be a serpent in the way, an adder in the path’; and Dt 33:22, ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp,’ etc. These characterizations are more applicable to a small tribe of guerilla fighters, versed in cunning strategy, wont to strike a quick blow from ambush at a passing troop, than they are to the more sustained measures of warfare of a large and powerful body. See also TRIBES.

JAMES A. CRAIG.

DAN.—A city in northern Palestine, once called Laish (Jg 18:29) or Leshem ( Jos 19:47), though the ancient record of the battle of four kings against five gives the later name (Gn 14:14). It was a city remote from assistance, and therefore fell an easy prey to a band of marauding Danites, searching for a dwelling-place. It was in the north boundary of Palestine. The story of the Danites stealing the shrine of Micah is told to account for its sanctity, which Jeroboam I. recognized by setting up here one of his calf-shrines (1 K 12:29). It was perhaps the same as Dan-jaan, one of the borders of Joab’s census district (2 S 24:6). It was captured by Ben-hadad (1 K 15:20). It is identified with Tell el-Kadi on account of the similarity of meaning of the names (Arabic kadi = Hebrew dan = ‘judge’)—a very dangerous ground for such speculations. The site, however, would suit the geographical context of the narratives. R. A. S. MACALISTER.

DANCING.—See GAMES.

DANIEL.—1. Two passages in the Book of Ezekiel (14:14–20, 28:3), written respectively about B.C. 592 and 587, mention a certain Daniel as an extraordinarily righteous and wise man, belonging to the same class as Noah and Job, whose piety availed with God on behalf of their unworthy contemporaries. All three evidently belonged to the far-distant past: Ezekiel’s readers were familiar with their history and character. Daniel, occupying the middle place, cannot be conceived of as the latest of them. He certainly was not a younger man than the prophet who refers to him, as the hero of the Book of Daniel would have been. For Dn 1:1–3 makes the latter to have been carried into captivity in B.C. 606, a mere decade prior to Ezk 14. 2. See ABIGAIL. 3. A priest who accompanied Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezr 8:2 ,

Neh 10:6). He was head of his father’s house, and traced his descent from Ithamar. At

1 Es 8:29 the name is spelled Gamelus or Gamael, which probably rests on a corrupt

Heb. text. Driver (Daniel, p. xviii.) notes that amongst his contemporaries were ‘a Hananiah (Neh 10:23), a Mishael (8:4), and an Azariah (10:2); but the coincidence is probably accidental.’ It is, however, quite as likely that the author of Dn. borrowed the three names from Nehemiah.

J. TAYLOR.

DANIEL, BOOK OF

1. Authorship and Date.—The first six chapters of this book contain a series of narratives which tell of (a) the fidelity of Daniel and his friends to their religion, and (b) the incomparable superiority of their God to the deities of Babylon. The remaining six chapters relate four visions seen by Daniel and the interpretation of them. Chs. 1–6 speak of Daniel in the third person; in 7–12 he is the speaker (yet see 7:1, 10:1). But both parts are from the same pen, and the primâ facie impression is that of an autobiography. Porphyry argued against this in the 3rd cent. A.D., and it is now generally abandoned, for such reasons as the following: (1) In the Jewish Canon Dn. stands in the third division, ‘the Writings.’ Had it been the production of a prophet of the 6th cent. it would have been put in the second division, ‘the Prophets.’ (2) Neither the man nor the book is mentioned in the list of Sir 44–50 (c. B.C. 200): and Sir 49:15 seems to have been written by one who was not acquainted with the story. (3) There is no reason for believing that a collection of sacred writings, including Jer., had been formed in the reign of Darius, as is implied in Dn 9:2. (4) The Heb. of Dn. is of a later type than even that of Chronicles. The Aramaic is a West-Syrian dialect, not in use at the Bab. court in the 6th century. More Persian words are employed than a Heb. author would be familiar with at the close of the Bab. empire. In a document composed prior to the Macedonian conquest we should not have found the three Greek words which are here used. (5) There are inaccuracies which a contemporary would have avoided. It is doubtful whether Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in B.C. 606 (1:1, 2). The name ‘Chaldæans’ as designating the learned class is a later usage (2:2). Belshazzar was not ‘the king’ (5:1), nor was Neb. his ancestor (5:2, 11). Darius the Mede never ‘received the kingdom’ (5:31). Xerxes did not follow Artaxerxes (11:2) but preceded him. (6) The relations between Syria and Egypt, from the 4th to the 2nd cents. B.C., are described with a fulness of detail which differentiates Dn 7, 11 from all OT prophecy: see the precision with which the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes is related in ch. 11; the events from 323–175 occupy 16 verses; those from 175–164 take up 25; at v. 34 the lines become less definite,

because this is the point at which the book was written; at v. 40 prediction begins, and the language no longer corresponds with the facts of history. There can be little doubt that Dn. appeared about B.C. 166. Its object was to encourage the faithful Jews to adhere to their religion, in the assurance that God would intervene. The unknown writer was intensely sure of the truths in which he believed: to him and to his readers the historical setting was but a framework. Not that he invented the stories. We saw in the preceding article that the exiled Jews knew of a Daniel, famous for piety and wisdom. Round his name, in the course of the ages, stories illustrative of these qualities had gathered, and the author of our book worked up the material afresh with much skill.

2. Language, Unity, Theology.—(1) From 2:4b to 7:26 is in Aramaic. Four explanations have been offered: (a) This section was originally written in Aramaic, about B.C. 300, and incorporated, with additions, into the work of 166. (b) The corresponding portion of a Heb. original was lost and its place filled by an already current Aram. translation. (c) The author introduced the ‘Chaldees’ as speaking what he supposed was their language, and then continued to write it because it was more familiar than Heb. to himself and his readers. (d) The likeliest suggestion is that the entire book was Aramaic, but would not have found admission into the Canon if it had not been enclosed, so to speak, in a frame of Heb., the sacred language.

(2) The unity of the book has been impugned by many critics, but it is now generally agreed that the question is settled by the harmony of view and consistency of plan which bind the two halves together. The text has suffered more or less in 1:20 , 21, 6:20, 7:5, 9:4–20, 10:4, 8, 9, 10:20–11:2, 12:11 f.

(3) The theological features are what might be expected in the 2nd cent. B.C. Eschatology is prominent. The visions and their interpretations all culminate in the final establishment of the Kingdom of God. And in this connexion it should be mentioned that Dn. is the earliest example of a fully developed Apocalypse. The doctrine of the Resurrection is also distinctly asserted: individuals are to rise again; not all men, or even all Israelites, but the martyrs and the apostates. At no earlier period is there such an angelology. Watchers and holy ones determine the destinies of an arrogant king. Two angels have proper names, Gabriel and Michael. To each nation a heavenly patron has been assigned, and its fortunes here depend on the struggle waged by its representative above.

3. Text.—The early Church set aside the LXX in favour of the less paraphrastic version of Theodotion. In both translations are found the Additions to Daniel. (1) 67 verses are inserted after 3:22, consisting of (α) the Prayer of Azarias. (β) details concerning the heating of the furnace, (γ) the Benedicite. These teach the proper frame of mind for all confessors, and dilate on the miraculous element in the Divine deliverance. (2) The History of Susanna, which demonstrates God’s protection of the unjustly accused and illustrates the sagacity in judgment of the youth who is rightly named Daniel, ‘El is my judge.’ (3) Bel and the Dragon, two tracts which expose the imbecility of idolatry, and bring out Daniel’s cleverness and God’s care for His servant in peril. Swete (Introd. to OT in Greek, p. 260) rightly remarks that internal evidence appears to show that (1) and (2) originally had a separate circulation.

J. TAYLOR.

DAN-JAAN.—Joab and his officers in taking the census came ‘to Dan-jaan and round about to Zidon’ (2 S 24:6). No such place is mentioned anywhere else in OT, and it is generally assumed that the text is corrupt. It has indeed been proposed to locate Dan-jaan at a ruin N. of Achzib which is said to bear the name Khan Dāniān; but this identification, although accepted by Conder, has not made headway. The reference is more probably to the city of Dan which appears so frequently as the northern limit of the kingdom.

DANNAH (Jos 15:49).—A town of Judah mentioned next to Debir and Socoh. It was clearly in the mountains S.W. of Hebron, probably the present Idhnah.

DAPHNE.—A place mentioned in 2 Mac 4:33 to which Onias withdrew for refuge, but from which he was decoyed by Andronicus and treacherously slain. It is the mod. Beit el-Mâ (‘House of Waters’) about 5 miles from Antioch. Daphne was famous for its fountains, its temple in honour of Apollo and Diana, its oracle, and its right of asylum. (See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xxiii.) DARA (1 Ch 2:6).—See DARDA.

DARDA.—Mentioned with Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, and Calcol as a son of

Mahol, and a proverbial type of wisdom, but yet surpassed by Solomon (1 K 4:31). In 1 Ch 2:6 apparently the same four (Dara is probably an error for Darda) are mentioned with Zimri as sons of Zerah, the son of Judah by Tamar (Gn 38:30). See also MAHOL.

DARIC—See MONEY, § 3.

DARIUS.—1. Son of Hystaspes, king of Persia (B.C. 521–485), well known from the classical historian Herodotus, and, for the early part of his reign, from his own trilingual inscription on the rocks at Behistun. He allowed the Jews to rebuild the Temple. The prophets Haggai and Zechariah encouraged the people to go on with the work, and when Tattenai, the Persian governor of Syria, demanded their authority, they alleged a decree of Cyrus. On reference being made to Darius and the decree being found, the king confirmed it, and ordered facilities to be afforded for the building. It was completed in the 6th year of his reign (Ezr 4, 5, 6, Hag 1:1, 2:10, Zec 1:17). 2. Darius the Persian (Neh 12:22). Possibly Darius Codomannus, the last king of Persia (B.C. 336–330), 1 Mac 1:1. 3. ‘Darius’ in 1 Mac 12:7 (AV) is an error for the Spartan ‘Arius’ (wh. see). 4. ‘Darius the Mede’ (Dn 11:1), son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes (9:1), is said (5:31) to have succeeded to the kingdom of Babylon after Belshazzar’s death, and to have been sixty-two years old when he received the kingdom. This account does not answer to what we know of any king called Darius. Gobryas was he who actually received the kingdom for Cyrus, entering Babylon on the 16th of Tammuz, four months before Cyrus made his triumphal entry. He too appointed governors in Babylon (cf. Dn 6:1), and seems from the Babylonian Chronicle to have been in the attack which resulted in Belshazzar’s death. Whether Gobryas is intended, whether Darius was another name of his, or whether some mistake has crept into the text, cannot be decided without fresh evidence. It is certain that no king of Babylon called Darius succeeded Belshazzar or preceded Cyrus.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

DARKNESS.—See LIGHT.

DARKON.—His sons were among those who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:56 , Neh 7:58); called in 1 Es 5:33 Lozon.

DARK SAYING.—See PARABLE (in OT), § 1.

DARLING.—Ps 22:20 ‘Deliver my darling from the power of the dog’; 35:17

‘rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.’ The Heb. word (yāhīdh) means an only son. In the Psalms it is used poetically of the psalmist’s own life, as his unique and priceless possession.

DART.—See ARMOUR, ARMS, § 1 (b).

DATES.—See CHRONOLOGY.

DATHAN.—See KORAH.

DATHEMA (1 Mac 5:9).—A fortress in Bashan. It may perhaps be the modern Dāmeh on the S. border of the Lejā district, N. of Ashteroth-karnaim.

DAUGHTER.—See FAMILY.

DAVID (‘beloved’).—The second and greatest of the kings of Israel; the youngest of the eight sons of Jesse the Bethlehemite; he belonged to the tribe of Judah. The details of his life are gathered from 1 S 16:3–1 K 2:11, 1 Ch 11:1–29:30 ( besides some scattered notices in the earlier chapters of 1 Ch.), the Psalms which bear on this period, and Bk. VII of the Antiquities of Josephus, though this latter adds but little to our knowledge. It is necessary to bear in mind two points of importance in dealing with the records of the life of David: firstly, the Hebrew text is, in a number of cases, very corrupt (notably in the books of Samuel), and in not a few passages the Alexandrian (Greek) version is to be preferred; secondly, our records have been gathered together from a variety of sources, and therefore they do not present a connected whole; that they are for this reason sometimes at variance with each other stands in the natural order of things.

1. Early years.—David was a shepherd by calling, and he continued this occupation until he had reached full manhood; the courage and strength sometimes required for the protection of flocks make it clear that he was more than a mere youth when he first appeared upon the scene of public life (1 S 17:34, 35). There are altogether three different accounts of David’s entry upon the stage of life.

(i) 1 S 16:1–13. David is here represented as having been designated by Jahweh as Saul’s successor; Samuel is sent to Bethlehem to anoint him; all the seven sons of Jesse pass before the prophet, but the Spirit does not move him to anoint any of them; in perplexity he asks the father if he has any more children, whereupon the youngest is produced, and Samuel anoints him. Graphic as the story is, it strikes one as incomplete. Samuel does not even know of the existence of Jesse’s youngest son; the future king of Israel is introduced as a mere stripling whom nobody seems to know or care about, and he is left as abruptly as he is introduced. From all we know of Israel’s early heroes, a man was not raised to be a leader of the people unless or until he had first proved himself in some way to be the superior of his fellows. It was, of course, different when the monarchy had been securely established and the hereditary succession had come into vogue; though even then there were exceptions, e.g. in the case of Jehu. This was clearly so in the case of Saul, who had the reputation of being a ‘mighty man of valour’ (1 S 9:2); and in the parallel case of the anointing of one to be king while the throne was still occupied, viz. Jehu, it is not an unknown man who is anointed (see 1 K 19:16, 2 K 9:3ff.). The story, therefore, of David’s anointing by Samuel strikes one as being an incomplete fragment.

(ii) 1 S 16:14–23. In this second account, the servants of Saul recommend that the king should send for someone who is a ‘cunning player on the harp,’ in order that by means of music the mental disorder from which he is suffering may be allayed. The son of Jesse is proposed, and forthwith sent for; when Saul is again attacked by the malady—said to be occasioned by ‘an evil spirit from the Lord’—David plays upon the harp, and Saul ‘is refreshed’ in spirit. In this account David is represented as a grown man, for it is said that Saul made him his armour-bearer.

(iii) 1 S 17. The Greek version omits a large part of this account (vv. 12–31, 55– 58), which seems itself to have been put together from different sources. According to it, David’s first appearance was on the eve of a battle between the Israelites and the Philistines. His father is in the habit of sending him to the Israelite camp with provisions for his three eldest brothers, who are among the warriors of the Israelite army; on one such occasion he finds the camp in consternation on account of the defiance of a Philistine hero, the giant Goliath. This man offers to fight in single combat with any Israelite who will come out and face him, but in spite of the high reward offered by the king to any one who will slay him—namely, great riches and the king’s daughter in marriage—nobody appears to answer the challenge. David gathers these details from different people in the camp, and, feeling sure of the help of Jahweh, determines to fight the giant. He communicates his purpose to Saul, who at first discourages him, but on seeing his firmness and confidence arms him and bids him go forth in the name of Jahweh. David, however, finds the armour too cumbersome, and discards it, taking instead nothing but five smooth stones and a sling. After mutual defiance, David slings one of his stones; the giant is hit, and falls down dead; David rushes up, draws the sword of the dead warrior, and cuts off his head. Thereupon panic takes hold of the Philistine host, and they flee, pursued by the Israelites, who thus gain a complete victory (see ELHANAN).

It is worthy of note that each of these three accounts which introduce David to history connects with him just those three characteristics which subsequent ages loved to dwell upon. The first presents him as the beloved of Jahweh (cf. his name, ‘beloved’), who was specially chosen, the man after God’s own heart, the son of

Jesse; the second presents him as the harpist, who was known in later ages as the ‘sweet psalmist of Israel’; while the third, which is probably the nearest to actual history, presents him as the warrior-hero, just as, in days to come, men would have pictured him whose whole reign from beginning to end was characterized by war.

David’s victory over Goliath had a twofold result; firstly, the heroic deed called forth the admiration, which soon became love, of the king’s son Jonathan; a covenant of friendship was made between the two, in token of which, and in ratification of which, Jonathan took off his apparel and armour and presented David with them. This friendship lasted till the death of Jonathan, and David’s pathetic lamentation over him (2 S 1:25–27) points to the reality of their love. But secondly, it had the effect of arousing Saul’s envy; a not wholly unnatural feeling, considering the estimation in which David was held by the people in consequence of his victory; the adage— assuredly one of the most ancient authentic fragments of the history of the time—

‘Saul hath slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands’

was not flattering to one who had, in days gone by, been Israel’s foremost warrior. For the present, however, Saul conceals his real feelings (1 S 18:10, 11 are evidently out of place), intending to rid himself of David in such a way that no blame would seem to attach itself to him. In fulfilment of his promise to the slayer of Goliath, he expresses his intention of giving his daughter Michal to David for his wife; but as David brings no dowry,—according to Hebrew custom,—Saul lays upon him conditions of a scandalous character (1 S 18:25, 26), hoping that, in attempting to fulfil them, David may lose his life. The scheme fails, and David receives Michal to wife. A further attempt to be rid of David is frustrated by Jonathan (19:1–7), and at last Saul himself tries to kill him by throwing a javelin at him whilst playing on his harp; again he fails, for David nimbly avoids the javelin, and escapes to his own house. Thither Saul sends men to kill him, but with the help of his wife he again escapes, and flees to Ramah to seek counsel from Samuel. On Samuel’s advice, apparently, he goes to Jonathan by stealth to see if there is any possibility of a reconciliation with the king; Jonathan does his best, but in vain (20:1–42), and David realizes that his life will be in danger so long as he is anywhere within reach of Saul or his emissaries.

2. David as an outlaw.—As in the case of the earlier period of David’s life, the records of this second period consist of a number of fragments from different sources, not very skilfully put together. We can do no more here than enumerate briefly the various localities in which David sought refuge from Saul’s vindictiveness, pointing out at the same time the more important episodes of his outlaw life.

David flies first of all to Nob, the priestly city; his stay here is, however, of short duration, for he is seen by Doeg, one of Saul’s followers. Taking the sword of his late antagonist, Goliath, which was wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod, he makes for Gath, hoping to find refuge on foreign soil; but he is recognized by the Philistines, and fearing that they would take vengeance on him for killing their hero Goliath, he simulates madness (cf. Ps 34 title),—a disease which by the Oriental (even to-day by the Bedouin) is looked upon as something sacrosanct. By this means he finds it easy enough to make his escape, and comes to the ‘cave of Adullam.’ Here his relations come to him, and he gathers together a band of desperadoes, who make him their captain. Finding that this kind of life is unfitted for his parents, he takes them to Mizpeh and confides them to the care of the king of Moab. On his return he is advised by the prophet Gad (doubtless because he had found out that Saul had received information of David’s whereabouts) to leave the stronghold; he therefore takes refuge in the forest of Hereth. While hiding here, news is brought to him that the Philistines are fighting against Keilah; he hastens to succour the inhabitants by attacking the Philistines; these he overcomes with great slaughter, and thereupon he takes up his abode in Keilah. In the meantime Saul’s spies discover the whereabouts of the fugitive, and David, fearing that the men of Keilah will deliver him up to his enemy, escapes with his followers to the hill-country in the wilderness of Ziph. A very vigorous pursuit is now undertaken by Saul, who seems determined to catch the elusive fugitive, and the chase is carried on among the wilds of Ziph, Maon, and Engedi. [Some portions of the narrative here seem to be told twice over with varying detail (cf. 1 S 23:19ff. with 26:1ff., and 24:1ff. with 26:4ff.).] It is during these wanderings that Saul falls into the power of David, but is magnanimously spared. The episode connected with David’s dealings with Nabal, and his taking Abigail and Ahinoam for his wives, also falls within this period (1 S 24, 25, 26). At one time there seemed to be some hope of reconciliation between Saul and David (26:24, 25), but evidently this was short-lived, for soon afterwards David escapes once more, and comes with six hundred followers to the court of Achish, king of Gath. This time Achish welcomes him as an ally and gives him the city of Ziklag. David settles in

Ziklag, and stays there for a year and four months (27:7), occupying the time by fighting against the enemies of his country, the Geshurites, Amalekites, etc. At the end of this time, war again breaks out between the Israelites and the Philistines. The question arises whether David shall join with the forces of Achish against the Israelites; David himself seems willing to fight on the side of the Philistines (29:8) , but the princes of the Philistines, rightly or wrongly, suspect treachery on his part, and at the request of Achish he returns to Ziklag. On his arrival here he finds that the place has been sacked by the Amalekites, and forthwith he sets out to take revenge. This is ample and complete; part of the spoil which he acquires he sends as a present to the elders of Judah and to his friends (30:26–31), a fact which shows that there was a party favourable to him in Judah; and this was possibly the reason and justification of the mistrust of the Philistine princes just mentioned. In the meantime the war between Israel and the Philistines ends disastrously for the former, and Saul and Jonathan are slain. David receives news of this during his sojourn in Ziklag. With this ends the outlaw life of David, for, leaving Ziklag, he comes to Hebron, where the men of Judah anoint him king (2 S 2:4).

3. David as king

(a) Internal affairs.—For the first seven years of his reign David made Hebron his capital. In spite of his evident desire to make peace with the followers of Saul (2 S 9) , it was but natural that a vigorous attempt should be made to uphold the dynasty of the late king, at all events in Israel, as distinct from Judah (see ISHBOSHETH). It is therefore just what we should expect when we read that ‘there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David’ (3:1). The final victory lay with David, and in due time the elders of Israel came to him in Hebron and anointed him their king. As ruler over the whole land David realized the need of a more central capital; he fixed on Jerusalem, which he conquered from the Jebusites, and founded the royal city on Mt. Zion, ‘the city of David’ (5:7). Thither he brought up the ark with great ceremony (6:1ff.), intending to build a permanent temple for it (7:2), but the prophet Nathan declares to him that this is not Jahweh’s will. David’s disappointment is, however, soothed, for the prophet goes on to tell him that though he may not build this house, Jahweh will establish the house of David (i.e. in the sense of lineage) for ever (v. 11).

David then enters in before Jahweh and offers up his thanksgiving (vv. 18–29).

One of the darker traits of David’s character is illustrated by the detailed account of the Bathsheba episode (11:2, 12:25); so far from seeking to curb his passion for her on hearing that she is married, he finds ways and means of ridding himself of the husband, after whose death Bathsheba becomes his queen. The marriage was destined to influence materially the history of Israel (see ADONIJAH). But the most serious event in the history of the reign of David, so far as the internal affairs of the kingdom were concerned, was the rebellion of his son Absalom. Of an ambitious nature, Absalom sought the succession, even at the expense of dethroning his father. How he set about preparing the ground for the final coup is graphically described in 2 S 15:1– 6. After four [forty in the EV should be read ‘four’] years of suchlike crafty preparation, the rebellion broke out; a feast at Hebron, the old capital, given by Absalom to the conspirators, was the signal for the outbreak. At first Absalom was successful; he attacked Jerusalem, from which David bad to flee; here, following the advice of Ahithophel, he took possession of the royal harem, a sign (in the eyes of the people of those days) of the right of heritage. The most obvious thing to do now would have been for Absalom to pursue David before he had time to gather an army; but, against the advice of Ahithophel, he follows that of Hushai—a secret friend of David—who succeeds in inducing Absalom to waste time by lingering in Jerusalem. Ahithophel, enraged at the failure of his plans, and probably foreseeing what the final result must be, leaves Absalom and goes to his home in Giloh and hangs himself (2 S 17:23). In the meantime David, hearing what is going on in Jerusalem, withdraws across the Jordan, and halts at Mahanaim; here he gathers his forces together under the leadership of Joab. The decisive battle follows not long after, in the ‘forest of Ephraim’; Absalom is completely defeated, and loses his life by being caught in a tree by the head whilst fleeing. Whilst thus hanging he is pierced by Joab, in spite of David’s urgent command that he should not be harmed. The touching account of David’s sorrow, on hearing of Absalom’s death, is given in 2 S 18:23–33. A second rebellion, of a much less serious character, was that of Sheba, who sought to draw the northern tribes from their allegiance; it was, however, easily quelled by Joab (ch. 20). The rebellion (if such it can be called) of Adonijah occurred at the very end of David’s reign. This episode is dealt with elsewhere (see ADONIJAH), and need not, therefore, be described here.

(b) External affairs.—Unlike most of his dealings with foreigners, David’s first contact, as king, with those outside of his kingdom, viz. with the Syrians, was of a peaceful character. Hiram, king of Tyre, sent (according to 2 S 5:11, 1 Ch 14:1) artificers of different kinds to assist David in building. But this was the exception. One of the characteristics of David’s reign was its large number of foreign wars. It is, however, necessary to bear in mind that in the case of a newly-established dynasty this is only to be expected. The following is, very briefly, a list of David’s foreign wars; they are put in the order found in 2 Sam., but this order is not strictly chronological; moreover, it seems probable that in one or two cases duplicate, but varying, accounts appear: Philistines (5:17–25), Moabites (8:2), Zobah (8:3, 4) , Syrians (8:5–13), Edomites (8:14), Ammonites, Syrians (10:1, 11:1, 12:26–31), and Philistines (21:15–22). David was victorious over all these peoples, the result being a great extension of his kingdom, which reached right up to the Euphrates (cf. Ex 23:31–33, Dt 11:23–25). Wars of this kind presuppose the existence of a, comparatively speaking, large army; that David had a constant supply of troops may be gathered from the details given in 1 Ch 27.

While it is impossible to deny that the rôle of musician in which we are accustomed to picture David is largely the product of later ages, there can be no doubt that this rôle assigned to him is based on fact (cf. e.g. 1 S 1:17–27, 2 S 22:2–51= Ps 18, Am 6:5), and he must evidently be regarded as one of the main sources of inspiration which guided the nation’s musicians of succeeding generations (see art.

PSALMS).

The character of David offers an intensely interesting complex of good and bad, in which the former largely predominates. As a ruler, warrior, and organizer, he stands pre-eminent among the heroes of Israel. His importance in the domain of the national religion lies mainly in his founding of the sanctuary of Zion, with all that that denotes. While his virtues of open-heartedness, generosity, and valour, besides those already referred to, stand out as clear as the day, his faults are to a large extent due to the age in which be lived, and must be discounted accordingly.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

DAVID, CITY OF.—See JERUSALEM.

DAY.—See TIME.

DAY OF ATONEMENT.—See ATONEMENT [DAY OF].

DAY OF THE LORD.—The day in which Jehovah was expected to punish sinful Hebrews and the enemies of Israel, and to establish at least the righteous remnant of

His people in political supremacy. The Hebrews believed implicitly that their God Jehovah was certain to defeat all rivals. Before Amos this view had not reached a definite eschatology, and probably involved only a general expectation of the triumph of Israel and Israel’s God. With Amos, however, the conception of punishment became less ethnic and more moral. The sins of Israel itself deserved punishment, and Amos declared that the luxury of the nation, with all its economic oppression, had grown hateful to Jehovah, and unless abandoned would bring fearful punishment ( Am 2:6–8, 3:9–15, 5:10–13, 6:4–8). The righteousness of Jehovah demanded that the sins of His people as well as those of the heathen should be punished. After Amos the thought of an awful day of Divine punishment was extended from Israel to a world of sinners. According to Zephaniah (1:2–18, 2:4–15), punishment was now to come upon all wicked persons, both Jews and Gentiles, because of wrong. So, too, the unknown prophet who wrote under the name of Malachi. Ezekiel (30:2f., 34:12, 39:8f.) , however, reverted to the same national thought of a ‘day of battle,’ in which Jehovah would conquer all Israel’s foes; and to some extent this same national idea is represented by Joel (2:18–27). With the later prophets there is to be seen an element of reconstruction as well as punishment in Jehovah’s action. Sinners, whether Jews or Gentiles, are to be punished, but a pious remnant is to be saved, the beginnings of a new Israel.

It is clear that this conception of a great Day of Jehovah underlies much of the Messianic expectation of apocryphal literature. The establishment of a remnant of a pious Israel was the germ of the hope of the Messianic kingdom; and the Day of Jehovah itself became the Day of Judgment, which figures so largely in both Jewish and Christian Messianism. It fact, it is not too much to say that the eschatology of Judaism is really a development of the implications of the prophetic teaching as to the Day of Jehovah.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

DAY’S JOURNEY.—A ‘day’s journey’ (Nu 11:31f, 1 K 19:4, Jon 3:4, Lk 2:44 ; cf. three days’ journey, Gn 30:36, Ex 3:18 etc.; seven days, Gn 31:23) was not, like the ‘sabbath day’s journey’ (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES), a definite measure of length, but, like our ‘stone’s throw,’ ‘bow-shot,’ etc., a popular and somewhat indefinite indication of distance. This would naturally vary with the urgency and impedimenta of the traveller or the caravan. Laban in hot pursuit of Jacob, and the Hebrew host in the wilderness, may be taken to represent the extremes in this matter of a ‘day’s journey’ (reff. above), although it is scarcely possible to take literally the ‘seven days’ journey’ of the former (Gn 31:23)—from Haran to Gilead, circa 350 miles in 7 days. From 20 to 30 miles is probably a fair estimate of an average day’s journey with baggage animals.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

DAYSMAN.—A daysman is an arbiter. The compound arose from the use of the word ‘day’ in a technical sense, to signify a day for dispensing justice. The same use is found in Gr.; thus 1 Co 4:3 ‘man’s judgment’ is literally ‘man’s day.’ The word occurs in Job 9:33 ‘Neither is there any daysman betwixt us’ (AV and RV margin ‘umpire’). Tindale translates Ex 21:22, ‘he shall paye as the dayesmen appoynte him’ (AV ‘as the judges determine’).

DAYSPRING.—An old English expression denoting the dawn (‘the day sprynge or dawnynge of the daye gyveth a certeyne lyght before the rysinge of the sonne,’ Eden, Decades, 1555, p. 264). It occurs in Job 38:12 ‘Hast thou … caused the dayspring to know his place?’; Wis 16:28 ‘at the dayspring pray unto thee’ (RV ‘at the dawning of the day’). Virtually the same expression occurs in Jg 19:25 and 1 S 9:26; cf. also Gn 32:24 and Ps 65:8 (east and west called ‘the outgoings of the morning and evening’). In Lk 1:78 the expression ‘dayspring from on high’ probably goes back to a Heb. original which was a well-understood personal designation of the Messiah (combining the ideas of ‘light’ and ‘sprout’); it would then be a poetical equivalent for ‘Messiah from heaven.’

G. H. BOX.

DAY STAR.—See LUCIFER.

DEACON.—The Gr. word diakonos, as well as the corresponding verb and abstract noun, is of very frequent occurrence in the text of the NT, but in EV is always translated ‘servant’ or ‘minister’ except in Ph 1:1, 1 Ti 3:8–13, where it is rendered ‘deacon,’ these being the only two passages where it is evidently used in a technical sense.

In the Gospels the word has the general meaning of ‘servant’ (cf. Mt 20:26 || 23:11, Jn 2:5, 9). St. Paul employs it constantly of one who is engaged in Christian service, the service of God or Christ or the Church (e.g. 2 Co 6:4, 11:23, Col 1:23– 25), but without any trace as yet of an official signification. Once in Romans we find him distinguishing diakonia (‘ministry’) from prophecy and teaching and exhortation (12:6–8); but it seems evident that he is speaking here of differences in function, not in office, so that the passage does not do more than foreshadow the coming of the diaconate as a regular order.

In Acts the word diakonos is never once employed, but 6:1–6, where we read of the appointment of the Seven, sheds a ray of light on its history, and probably serves to explain how from the general sense of one who renders Christian service it came to be applied to a special officer of the Church. The Seven are nowhere called deacons, nor is there any real justification in the NT for the traditional description of them by that title. The qualifications demanded of them (v. 8, cf. v. 5) are higher than those laid down in 1 Timothy for the office of the deacon; and Stephen and Philip, the only two of their number of whom we know anything, exercise functions far above those of the later diaconate (6:8ff., 8:5–13, 26ff.). But the fact that the special duty to which they were appointed is called a diakonia or ministration (v. 1) and that this ministration was a definite part of the work of the Church in Jerusalem, so that ‘the diakonia’ came to be used as a specific term in this reference (cf. Ac. 11:29, 12:25, Ro 15:25, 31, 2 Co 8:4, 9:1, 12, 13), makes it natural to find in their appointment the germ of the institution of the diaconate as it meets us at Philippi and Ephesus, in two Epp. that belong to the closing years of St. Paul’s life.

It is in these Greek cities, then, that we first find the deacon as a regular official, called to office after probation (1 Ti 3:10), and standing alongside the bishop in the ministry of the Church (Ph 1:1, 1 Ti 3:1–13). As to his functions nothing is said precisely. We can only infer that the diakonia of the deacons in Philippi and Ephesus, like the diakonia of the Seven in Jerusalem, was in the first place a ministry to the poor. The forms of this ministry would of course be different in the two cases, as the social conditions were (see art. COMMUNION), but in the Gentile as in the Jewish world it would naturally be a service of a responsible, delicate, and often private kind—an inference that is borne out by what is said in 1 Tim. as to the deacon’s qualifications.

Comparing these qualifications with those of the bishop, we observe that the difference is just what would be suggested by the names bishop or ‘overseer’ and deacon or ‘servant’ respectively. Bishops were to rule and take charge of the Church (1 Ti 3:5); deacons were to ‘serve well’ (v. 13). Bishops must be ‘apt to teach’ (v. 2) ; deacons were only called to ‘hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience’ (v. 9). That the work of the deacon and his fellow-servant the deaconess (wh. see) was of a house-to-house kind is suggested by the warnings given against talebearing (v. 8) and backbiting (v. 11). That it had to do with the distribution of Church moneys, and so brought temptations to pilfering, is further suggested by the demand that the deacon should not be greedy of filthy lucre (v. 8) and that his female counterpart should be ‘faithful (i.e. trustworthy) in all things’ (v. 11).

J. C. LAMBERT.

DEACONESS.—The word does not occur in EV except as a RVm reading in Ro 16:1. In this verse Phœbe is described as ‘a diakonos of the church that is at

Cenchreæ.’ AV and RV render ‘servant,’ RVm ‘deaconess.’ Against the latter must be noted: (1) There is no evidence of the deacon (wh. see) in the NT till we come to the Ep. to the Philippians, and it is most unlikely that when Romans was written there would be an official deaconess. (2) Cenchreæ was one of the ports of Corinth; and in St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthian Church there is a notable absence of any signs of a definite ecclesiastical organization in that city. The conclusion is that the diakonia of Phœbe in Cenchreæ, like the diakonia (‘ministry’) of Stephanas and his household in Corinth (1 Co 16:15), was a gracious but unofficial ministry to the saints (cf. Ro 16:2b).

In 1 Ti 3:11, however, although the word ‘deaconess’ is not used, it is almost certain that female deacons are referred to. AV misleads us by making it appear that the wives of deacons are spoken of; RV corrects this by rendering ‘Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.’ And when the whole passage (vv. 8–13) is read, it seems evident that the women referred to in v. 11 are diakonoi ‘in like manner’ as the men described both before and after. We know from Pliny, writing early in the 2nd cent., that by that time there were deaconesses in the Christian Churches of Bithynia (Ep. X. 96). And in the ancient world the need must have been early felt for a class of women who could perform some at least of the duties of the diaconate for their own sex in particular.

J. C. LAMBERT. DEAD.—See DEATH.

DEAD SEA.—An inland lake 47 miles long and from 2¾ to 9 miles in breadth, which receives the waters of the Jordan. Its level is 1293 ft. below that of the Mediterranean, being the lowest body of water on the surface of the earth. It has no outlet, and the water received by it is all carried off by evaporation. In consequence, the waters of the Lake are impregnated with mineral substances to a remarkable degree; they yield 25 per cent. of salt, whereas the ocean yields but 4 to 6 per cent.

The modern name is of late origin (first used apparently by Pausanias) and refers to the total absence of life in its waters. It has no Scripture warrant; Hebrew writers speak of it as the ‘Salt Sea’ (Gn 14:8, Nu 34:3, Jos 15:5 etc.), the ‘sea of the Arabah’ (Dt 3:17, 4:49), the ‘east or eastern sea’ (Ezk 47:18, JL 2:20). In Arabic it is known as

Bahr Lut, ‘the sea of Lot,’ a name which, however, is more probably due to the direct influence of the history as related in the Koran than to a survival of local tradition. Somewhere near the sea were Sodom and Gomorrah, but whether north or south of it is not settled; the one certain fact about their sites is that the popular belief that they are covered by the waters of the Lake is quite inadmissible.

The Dead Sea owes its origin to a fault or fracture produced in the surface of the region by the earth-movements whereby the land was here raised above the sea-level. This fault took place towards the end of the Eocene period; it extends along the whole Jordan valley from the Gulf of Akabah to Hermon; and it may be taken as fairly certain that the general appearance of the Lake has not radically altered during the whole time that the human race has existed in the world.

Round the border of the Lake are numerous small springs, some bursting actually under its waters, others forming lagoons of comparatively brackish water (as at ‘Ain Feshkhah on the western side). In these lagoons various specimens of small fish are to be found; but in the main body of the water itself life of any kind is impossible.

Recent observations tend to show that the surface of the Lake is slowly rising. An island that was a conspicuous feature at the N. end disappeared under the surface in 1892, and has never been seen since.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

DEAFNESS.—See MEDICINE.

DEAL.—A deal is a part or share. It is still in use in the phrase ‘a great deal’ or ‘a good deal.’ In AV occurs ‘tenth deal’ (RV ‘tenth part’), the Heb. ‘issārōn being a measure used in meal-offerings. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, II.

DEATH

I. IN THE OT.—1. The Heb. term māweth and our corresponding word ‘death’ alike spring from primitive roots belonging to the very beginnings of speech. One of man’s first needs was a word to denote that stark fact of experience—the final cessation of life to which he and the whole animated creation, and the very trees and plants, were all subject. It is, of course, in this ordinary sense of the term as denoting a physical fact that the expressions ‘death’ and ‘die’ are mostly used in the Scriptures.

2. The Scriptures have nothing directly to say as to the place of death in the economy of nature. St. Paul’s words in Ro 5:12ff. as to the connexion between sin and death must be explained in harmony with this fact; and, for that matter, in harmony also with his own words in Ro 6:23, where death, the ‘wages of sin,’ cannot be simply physical death. The Creation narratives are silent on this point, yet in Gn 2:17 man is expected to know what it is to die. We are not to look for exact information on matters such as this from writings of this kind. If the belief enshrined in the story of the Fall in Gn 3 regarded death in the ordinary sense as the penalty of Adam and Eve’s transgression, they at any rate did not die ‘in the day’ of their transgression; v. 22 suggests that even then, could he but also eat of ‘the tree of life,’ man might escape mortality. All we can say is that in the dawn of human history man appears as one already familiar with the correlative mysteries of life and death.

3. From the contemplation of the act of dying it is an easy step to the thought of death as a state or condition. This is a distinct stage towards believing in existence of some kind beyond the grave. And to the vast mass of mankind to say ‘he is dead’ has never meant ‘he is non-existent.’

4. Divergent beliefs as to what the state of death is show themselves in the OT.— (a) In numerous instances death is represented as a condition of considerable activity and consciousness. The dead are regarded as ‘knowing ones,’ able to impart information and counsel to the living. Note, the term translated ‘wizards’ in EV in Lv 19:31; 20:6, Is 8:19, 19:3 really denotes departed spirits who are sought unto or inquired of ‘on behalf of the living.’ A vivid instance of this belief is furnished in the story of the Witch of En-dor (1 S 28). So also in Is 14:9, 10, where we have a graphic description of the commotion caused in Sheol by the arrival of the king of Babylon, a description with which we may compare the dream of ‘false Clarence’ in Shakespeare’s Rich. III., i. 4. The reference to the dead under the term ‘gods’

(elōhim), as in 1 S 28:13, is noticeable. Whether in all this we have a relic of ancient

Semitic ancestor-worship (as e.g. Charles maintains in his Jowett Lectures on Eschatology) or no, it seems to represent very primitive beliefs which survived in one form and another, even after the stern Jahwistic prohibition of necromancy was promulgated. They may also have affected the treatment of the dead, just as even yet there are usages in existence amongst us in regard to behaviour towards the dead which are probably traceable to very primitive pre-Christian ideas and beliefs.

(b) Jahwism might well forbid resort to necromancers with their weird appeals to the dead for guidance and information, for in its view the state of death was one of unconsciousness, forgetfulness, and silence (see Ps 88:12, 94:17, 115:17 etc.). The present world is emphatically ‘the land of the living’ (Ps 27:13, 116:9 etc.). Those that are in Sheol have no communion with Jahweh; see the Song of Hezekiah in Is 38, and elsewhere. Sheol appears inviting to a soul in distress because it is a realm of unconscious rest (Job 3:17ff.); and there is nothing to be known or to be done there (Ec 9:10). It is true that here and there glimpses of a different prospect for the individual soul show themselves (e.g. Job 19:25ff. and probably Ps 16:10f.); but the foregoing was evidently the prevalent view in a period when the individual was altogether subservient to the nation, and the religious concerns of the latter were rigorously limited to the present life.

(c) Other ideas of death as not terminating man’s existence and interests were, however, reached in later prophetic teaching, mainly through the thought of the worth of the individual, the significance of his conscious union with God, and of the covenant relations established by God with His people (Jer 31; cf. Ezk 18). ‘Thou wilt not leave us in the dust.’

5. Death as standing in penal relation to man’s sin and unrighteousness is frequently insisted on. That this is something more than natural death is clear from such an antithesis as we have in Dt 30:15, 19 (‘life and good: death and evil’), and this set in strict relation to conduct. Cf. the burden of Ezk 18, ‘the soul that sinneth it shall die,’ with the correlative promise of life: similarly Pr 15:10. All this points to some experience in the man himself and to conditions outlasting the present life. On the other hand, the thought of dying ‘the death of the righteous’ (Nu 23:10) as a desirable thing looks in the same direction. And why has the righteous ‘hope in his death’ ( Pr 14:32) ?

6. As minor matters, OT poetical uses of references to death may be merely pointed out. ‘Chambers of death,’ Pr 7:27; ‘gates,’ Ps 9:13 (= state); ‘bitterness of death,’ 1 S 15:32, Ec 7:26; ‘terrors,’ Ps 55:4; ‘sorrows,’ Ps 116:3 (= man’s natural dread); ‘shadow of death,’ Job, Ps., the Prophets, passim (= any experience of horror and gloom, as well as with reference to death itself); ‘the sleep of death,’ Ps 13:3 ( to be distinguished from later Christian usage); ‘snares of death,’ Prov. passim, etc. (= things leading to destruction); the phrase ‘to death,’ as ‘vexed unto death,’ Jg 13:7 ; ‘sick,’ 2 K 20:1 (= to an extreme degree).

II. IN THE APOCRYPHA.—The value of the Apocrypha in connexion with the study of Scriptural teaching and usage here is not to be overlooked. Notice e.g. Wisdom chs. 1–5, with its treatment of the attitude of the ungodly towards death ( ‘Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die’), of the problem of the early, untimely death of the good, and of immortality in relation to the ungodly and the righteous; Sirach, in which no clear conception of immortality appears, the best that can be said, to alleviate sorrow for the dead, being that ‘the dead is at rest’ (38:23): in which also the fear of death is spoken of as besetting all ranks of men (40), and we are told who they are to whom death comes as a dread foe, and again who may welcome death as a friend (41).

III. IN THE NT

1. The teaching of Jesus.

(a). It is noticeable that our Lord has nothing to say directly concerning death as a physical phenomenon. He offers no explanation touching those matters in the experience of death which have always excited the curiosity of men, and in this respect His attitude is in strong contrast with that found in Rabbinical writings. He makes no use of the conception of ‘the angel of death,’ so characteristic of the latter, and traceable perhaps in language such as that of 1 Co 15:26, He 2:14, and Rev 20:13 , 14.

(b) No stress is laid on death as an evil in itself. In the few stories which we have in the Gospels of His raising the dead to life, the raising is never represented as a deliverance and a good for the person brought back. Compassion for the sorrows of those bereaved is the prime motive: in the case of Lazarus, it is expressly added that the restoration was ‘for the glory of God’ (Jn 11:4, 40). Still, those aspects of death which make the living and active shrink from it are incidentally recognized. Jesus in Rabbinic phrase speaks of tasting death (Mk 9:1||) and of seeing death (Jn 8:51, 52): and the feeling underlying such expressions is the very antithesis of that attaching to ‘seeing life’ and ‘seeing many days.’ Death is to common human feeling an unwelcome, though inevitable, draught. This gives point also to our Lord’s promise that the believer shall never die (Jn 11:26). At the same time, there is no reference in His teaching to natural death as the solemn end of life’s experiences and opportunities, unless an exception be found in the saying about working ‘while it is day’ (Jn 9:4): but contrast with this as to tone a passage like Ec 9:10.

(c) Jesus speaks of death as a sleep (Mk 5:39, Jn 11:11–13); but the same euphemistic use is found in OT and in extra-Biblical writers. It did not of itself necessarily lessen the terrors of death (see Ps 13:3); but we owe it to Christ and the Christian faith mainly that such a representation of death has come to mitigate its bitterness,—such a use as is also found elsewhere in NT (e.g. 1 Th 4:13ff.). This conception of death is, of course, to be limited to its relation to the activities and interests of this world. It is a falling asleep after life’s day—and ‘we sleep to wake’: but there is nothing here to shed light on such questions as to whether that sleep is a prolonged period of unconsciousness or no.

(d) Natural death is lost sight of in the much larger and more solemn conception of the condition of man resulting from sin, which in the Fourth Gospel is particularly described as ‘death’ (see Jn 5:24, 6:50, 8:21, 24). The exemption and deliverance promised in Jn 11:25f. relate to this spiritual death, and by that deliverance natural death is shorn of its real terrors. This condition, resulting from sin and separation from God, may he regarded as incipient here and tending to a manifest consummation hereafter, with physical death intervening as a moment of transition and deriving a solemn significance from its association with the course and state of sin ( see Beyschlag, NT Theol., Eng. tr. ii. p. 56 f.). The corresponding language of 1 Ep. of John is not to be overlooked (3:14) as exemplifying Johannine phraseology. The conception, however, is not found exclusively in the Johannine writings. Note the saying in Lk 9:60 as bearing on this point. In Mt 7:13f. ‘destruction’ is the antithesis of ‘life’ (and cf. Mt 5:29f., 18:11, Mk 8:35, Jn 3:16 etc.); but the conception of ‘perishing’ covers the deep experience of spiritual death, the loss of all that really makes the man.

(The phrase ‘die the death’ in EV, in Mk 7:10 and parallel, may be noticed as being not a literal translation of the Greek, but a mid-English emphatic expression,’ now archaic.)

2. The rest of the NT.—We may notice the following points: (a) The Pauline doctrine that natural death is the primitive consequence of sin, already referred to, is to be explained as the common Jewish interpretation of the OT account of the Fall, and finds no direct support in the Gospels. The feeling that ‘the sting of death is sin’ is, however, widely existent in NT. (b) The use of the term ‘death’ as denoting a certain spiritual state in which men may live and he still destitute of all that is worth calling ‘life,’ is quite common (Eph 2:1, 5, 5:14, Col 2:13, 1 Ti 5:6, Ja 1:15, Jude 12 , Rev 3:1). (c) A mystical and figurative use of the notion of death as denoting the change from a sinful to a new life is noticeable. The believer, the man spiritually alive, is also ‘dead to sin’ (Ro 6:2, 1 P 2:24), is ‘dead with Christ’ (Ro 6:8, Col 2:20 etc.). (d) The expression ‘eternal death’ is found nowhere in NT, common as its use is in religious and theological language. It is the correlative, easily suggested by the expression ‘eternal life’ which is so conspicuous a topic of NT teaching, and it serves loosely as an equivalent for the antitheses to ‘life’ or ‘eternal life’ that actually occur, such as ‘destruction’ (Mt 7:13), ‘the eternal fire’ (Mt 18:8), ‘eternal punishment’ ( Mt 25:46). Cf. also ‘the second death’ in Rev 21:8. If we substitute for ‘eternal’ some other rendering such as ‘of the ages’ or ‘æonian,’ it but serves to remind us of the profound difficulties attaching to the predication of eternity in relation to the subject of man’s destiny or doom.

J. S. CLEMENS.

DEBATE.—This word had formerly the meaning of ‘strife,’ as in the Geneva tr.

of Gn 13:7, ‘there was debate between the heardmen of Abrams cattell, and the heardmen of Lots cattell.’

DEBIR.—The king of Eglon, who acc. to Jos 10:3 joined other four kings against Joshua, but was defeated and put to death along with his allies at Makkedah.

DEBIR.—1. A town first known as Kiriath-sepher (Jos 15:15, Jg 1:11) in the neighbourhood of Hebron, and inhabited by Anakim (Jos 11:21), conquered by Joshua (10:38, 11:21, 12:13), or more specifically by Othniel (15:15), assigned as a Levitical city (21:15, 1 Ch 6:58) in the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:49). An alternative name Kiriathsannah, once recorded (15:49), is probably a corruption of Kiriath-sepher, due primarily to the similarity of p and n in the old Hebrew alphabet. It has been doubtfully identified with edh-Dhaheriyeh near Hebron; till the site can be identified and examined, the attractive speculations based on the apparent meaning of the older name (‘City of Books’ or ‘Scribes’) must be left in the region of theory.

2. A place named in the northern boundary of Judah, near the valley of Achor ( Jos 15:7). The name still survives as the appellation of a place in this neighbourhood.

3. A place, not identified, in the border of the trans-Jordanic territory of Gad ( Jos 13:26). An alternative reading is Lidebir (cf. LO-DEBAR).

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

DEBORAH (‘bee’).—1. Rebekah’s nurse, who accompanied her mistress to her new home on her marrying Isaac (Gn 24:59). She was evidently held in great reverence, as the name of the site of her grave in Bethel shows, Allon-bacuth, the ‘terehinth of weeping’ (Gn 35:8).

2. The fourth of the leaders, or ‘Judges,’ of Israel; called also a ‘prophetess,’ i.e. an inspired woman—one of the four mentioned in the OT—of the tribe of Issachar ( Jg 5:15), wife of Lappidoth (4:4). Her home was between Bethel and Ramah in the hillcountry of Ephraim; here the Israelites came to her for judgment and guidance. She was the real deliverer of the Israelites, who had sunk into a state of feebleness and impotence, through the oppression of Jabin, king of Hazor (see BARAK). A personality of great power and outstanding character, she was looked up to as a ‘mother in Israel’ (5:7), and was instant both in word and in deed in fulfilling her calling of’ Judge.’ Her rôle is the more remarkable in that the general position of women in those days was of a distinctly subordinate character.

Deborah’s Song (Jg 5:2–31) is one of the most ancient and magnificent remains of early Hebrew literature. It is a song of victory, sung in memory of Israel’s triumph (under the leadership of Deborah and Barak) over Sisera and the kings of Canaan. The vivid pictures which the poem brings up before the mind’s eye make it certain that the writer (whether Deborah or another) lived at the time of the events described. The parallel, and somewhat later, account (in prose) of the same battle (Jg 4:4–24) agrees in the main with the poem, though there are many differences in the details. The Song is divided into four distinct sections:

Praise to Jahweh, and the terror of His approach, vv. 2–5.

Condition of Israel prior to Deborah’s activity, vv. 6–11.

Gathering of the tribes of Israel, vv. 12–18.

Victory of Israel and death of Sisera, vv. 19–23.

The chief importance of the Song lies in the historical data it contains, and in the light it throws on some of early Israel’s conceptions of Jahweh. Of the former, the main points are that at this time the Israelites had securely settled themselves in the mountainous districts, but had not as yet obtained any hold on the fertile lands of the Plain; that unity had not yet been established among the tribes of Israel; and that the ‘twelve tribes’ of later times had not yet all come into existence.

Of the latter, the main points are: that Jahweh has Hi a dwelling-place on the mountains in the South; that, therefore, He has not yet come to dwell among His people, though He is regarded as specifically the God of Israel; that He comes forth from His dwelling-place to lead His people to battle; and that His might and strength are so great that the very elements are shaken at His approach.

The Hebrew text is in some places (notably in vv. 8, 10–15) very corrupt; but the general sense is clear.

3. The mother of Tobit’s father; she seems to have taught her grandchild the duty of almsgiving (To 1:8).

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

DEBT

1. In OT.—Loans in the OT period were not of a commercial nature. They were not granted to enable a man to start or extend his business, but to meet the pressure of poverty. To the borrower they were a misfortune (Dt 28:12, 44); to the lender a form of charity. Hence the tone of legislation on the subject.

Usury is forbidden in all three codes (Ex 22:25 [JE], Dt 23:19, Lv 25:36 [H]); it was making a profit out of a brother’s distress. In Dt. it may be taken from a foreigner. Pledges were allowed, but under strict limitations (Dt 24:10, Job 24:3). In Dt 15 is a remarkable law providing for the ‘letting drop’ of loans every seventh year ( see Driver, ad loc.). Its relation to the law of the Sabbatical year in Ex 23:10 (JE), Lv 25:1 (H) is not clear, but the cessation of agriculture would obviously lead to serious financial difficulties, and debtors might reasonably look for some relief. This consideration makes for the modern view, that the passage implies only the suspension for a year of the creditor’s right to demand payment. It must be admitted, however, that apart from a priori considerations the obvious interpretation is a total remission of debts (so the older, and Jewish commentators). Foreigners do not come under the law. The other codes have no parallel, except where the debt may have led to the bondage of the debtor’s person.

Historically the legislation seems to have been largely ignored. In 2 K 4:1–7 a small debt involves the bondage of a widow’s two sons (cf. Is 50:1, Mt 18:23), and Elisha helps her not by invoking the law, but by a miracle. In Neh 5 mortgaged lands and interest are restored under the pressure of an economic crisis. Nehemiah himself has been a creditor and taken usury. There is an apparent reference to Dt 15 in Neh 10:31. In later times the strictness of the law was evaded by various legal fictions: Hillel introduced a system of ‘contracting out.’ That loans played a large part in social life is shown by frequent references in the Prophets, Psalms, and Proverbs (Is 24:2, Ps 15:5, 37:21, Pr 19:17, 28:8). Jer 15:10 shows that the relation between debtor and creditor was proverbially an unpleasant one. In Ps 37:21 it is part of the misfortune of the wicked that he shall be unable to pay his debts; there is no reference to dishonesty. Pr. 22:7, Sir 18:33 warn against borrowing, and Sir 29 has some delightful commonsense advice on the whole subject.

2. In NT.—Loans are assumed by our Lord as a normal factor in social life ( Mt 25:27, Lk 16:5, 19:23). Lk 6:34, 35 suggests that the Christian will not always stand on his rights in this respect. Debt is used as a synonym for sin in Mt 6:12 (cf. the two parables Mt 18:23, Lk 7:41; and Col 2:14). The context of these passages is a sufficient warning against the external and legalistic view of sin which might be suggested by the word itself. Christ does not imply that it is a debt which can be paid by any amount of good deeds or retributive suffering. The word is chosen to emphasize our duty of forgiveness, and it has a wide meaning, including all we owe to God. The metaphor of the money payment has ceased to be prominent, except where it is implied by the context.

C. W. EMMET.

DECALOGUE.—See TEN COMMANDMENTS.

DECAPOLIS.—Originally a league of ten cities, Greek in population and constitution, for mutual defence against the Semitic tribes around them. It must have come into existence about the beginning of the Christian era. The original ten cities, as enumerated by Pliny, were Scythopolis, Pella, Dion, Gerasa, Philadelphia, Gadara, Raphana, Kanatha, Hippos, and Damascus. Other cities joined the league from time to time. The region of Decapolis (Mt 4:25, Mk 5:20, 7:31) was the territory in which these cities were situated; that is (excluding Damascus), roughly speaking, the country S.E. of the Sea of Galilee.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

DECEASE.—The Gr. word exodos (‘exodus,’ ‘outgoing’) is translated ‘decease’ in Lk 9:31 and 2 P 1:15, the meaning being departure out of the world. In this sense the Gr. word is used also in Wis 3:2, 7:6, Sir 38:23. The opposite, eisodos, is used of the ‘coming’ of Christ. The only other occurrence of the Gr. exodos in NT is in He 11:22, of the Exodus from Egypt (AV and RV ‘departure’).

DECENTLY.—1 Co 14:40, ‘Let all things be done decently and in order,’ that is, in a comely, handsome manner; for that is the old meaning of ‘decent,’ and it is the meaning of the Gr. word used.

DECISION.—Duly constituted and recognized authorities have the power of decision granted to them in all questions of right in the Bible. Moses (Ex 18:13), the judges (1 S 7:16), and the kings (1 K 3:16ff.) exercise this power upon occasion. Questions of right between Christian brethren are to be decided by Church courts and not by civil authorities (Mt 18:17, 1 Co 6:1–8). The only method of decision sanctioned in the NT is the exercise of godly judgment on the part of the individual to whom authority has been granted. The casting of lots by heathen soldiers (Mk 15:24) and the sortilege of Ac 1:21–26 cannot be cited as examples for the Christian Church. No instance of the casting of lots can be found after Pentecost. The Spirit of a sound mind now decides what is right and what is true.

D. A. HAYES.

DECISION, VALLEY OF.—The phrase is found only in JL 3:14 ‘Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision; for the day of Jehovah is near in the valley of decision.’ This valley is evidently the valley of Jehoshaphat mentioned in the preceding context (vv. 2, 12). The decision is that of Jehovah Himself, His final judgment upon the heathen assembled. The scene of this judgment has been fixed by Jews, Roman Catholics, and Mohammedans in the Valley of the Kidron. The valley of

Jehoshaphat has been identified with the Valley of the Kidron since the time of

Eusebius. Orelli, Michaelis, Robinson, and others think the valley of this prophecy is purely a symbolic one, the valley of ‘Jehovah’s judgment,’ as the Heb. name Jehoshaphat (‘Jehovah hath judged’) suggests.

D. A. HAYES.

DECREE.—What theologians speak of as the ‘decrees of God,’ and describe as one, immutable, eternal, all-embracing, free, etc., do not receive this designation in Scripture. The equivalents are to be sought for under such headings as ELECTION, PREDESTINATION, PROVIDENCE, REPROBATE. In the EV the term is

frequently used in Esther, Ezra, Daniel, with different Heb. and Aram. words, for royal decrees (in Dn 6 RV ‘interdict’; in 2:9 RV ‘law,’ elsewhere ‘decree’). In the NT also the Gr. word dogmata is employed of decrees of Cæsar (Lk 2:1, Ac 17:7); in Ac 16:4 it is used of decrees of the Church; elsewhere (Eph 2:15, Col. 2:20) it is tr. ‘ordinances.’ The nearest approach to the theological sense of the term is, in OT, in the Heb. word hōk, ordinarily tr. ‘statute,’ which is used in various places of God’s sovereign appointments in nature and providence (Job 28:26, Ps 148:6, Pr 8:29, Jer 5:22, Zeph 2:2). The Hebrews had not the modern conception of ‘laws of nature,’ but they had a good equivalent in the idea of the world as ordered and founded by God’s decrees; as regulated by His ordinances (cf. Ps 104:5, 9, 119:88–91, Jer 10:12ff.). The same word is used in Ps 2:7 of God’s ‘decree’ regarding His king; in Dn 4:17, 24

(Aram.) we have ‘decree’ of ‘the watchers’ and ‘the most High.’

JAMES ORR.

DEDAN.—A north Arabian people, according to Gn 10:7 descended from Cush, and according to 25:3 from Abraham through Keturah. The combination is not difficult to understand when we remember the Arabian affiliations of the Cushites ( cf. Is 21:13). In Ezk 25:13 Dedan is placed almost within the Edomite territory, which it must have bordered on the southeast (cf. Jer 25:23, 49:8). The Dedanites were among the Arabian peoples who sent their native wares to the markets of Tyre (Ezk 27:20). In

Ezk 27:15 read ‘Rodan’ (Rhodians) for ‘Dedan.’

J. F. MCCURDY.

DEDICATION.—See HOUSE, § 3.

DEDICATION, FEAST OF THE.—After the desecration of the Temple and altar by Antiochus Epiphanes, Judas Maccabæus re-consecrated them in B.C. 165 on the 25th day of Chislev (December); cf. 1 Mac 4:52–59, 2 Mac 10:6. This event was henceforward celebrated by a feast all over the country (Jn 10:22). It lasted 8 days. There was no suspension of business or labour, and but few additions were made to the ordinary synagogue services. The special feature of the festival was the illumination of private houses, whence came its alternative name—‘the Feast of Lights.’ (There were divergent rules for these illuminations in the various schools of traditionalists.) It was an occasion for feasting and jollity: the people assembled at the synagogues, carrying branches of palms and other trees; the services were jubilant, no fast or mourning could begin during the period, and the Hallel (Pss 113–118) was chanted. The resemblances of this celebration to the Feast of Tabernacles were perhaps intentional.

A. W. F. BLUNT.

DEEP.—See ABYSS.

DEER.—See FALLOW-DEER, HART.

DEFENCED.—In AV ‘defenced’ means ‘provided with fences,’ ‘protected,’

‘fortified.’ It is used in AV of fortified cities, and once (Zec 11:2 marg.) of a forest.

DEFILEMENT.—See CLEAN AND UNCLEAN.

DEGREES, SONGS OF.—See Psalms.

DEHAITES (AV Dehavites, Ezr 4:9).—The Dehaites were among the peoples settled in Samaria by Osnappar, i.e. probably the Assyr. king Ashurbanipal. The name has been connected with that of a nomadic Persian tribe, the Daoi, mentioned in Herod. i. 125, or with the name of the city Du’-ūa, mentioned on Assyr. contracttablets; but these identifications are very doubtful.

DELAIAH.—1. One of the sons of Elioenai (1 Ch 3:24, AV Dalaiah). 2. A priest and leader of the 23rd course of priests (1 Ch 24:18). 3. The son of Shemaiah ( Jer 36:12, 25). 4. The son of Mehetabel, and father of Shemaiah (Neh 6:10). 5. The head of a family that returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:60 = Neh 7:62). The name in 1 Es 5:37 is Dalan.

DELILAH.—The Philistine woman who betrayed Samson into the hands of the Philistines. See SAMSON.

DELOS.—A small rocky island in the Ægæan Sea, which has played an extraordinary part in history. It was the seat of a wide-spread worship of Apollo, who, with his sister Artemis, was said to have been born there. In B.C. 478 it was chosen as the meeting-place of the confederacy of Greek States united against their common enemy the Persians, and became a rival of Athens. In the 2nd and 1st cents. B.C. it became a great harbour, and was under Roman protection from B.C. 197 to 167. It was later a portion of the Roman province Achaia. It is mentioned in the famous letter of the Romans in favour of the Jews (B.C. 139–138, 1 Mac 15:16–23). It was a great exchange, where slaves and other products of the E. were nought for the Italian market. It was the scene in B.C. 87 of a horrible massacre carried out by Mithradates, king of Pontus, who slaughtered 80,000 Italians there and in neighbouring islands. It never fully recovered, and in the Empire became insignificant.

A. SOUTER.

DELUGE

1. The Biblical story, Gn 6:5–9:17 [6:1–4 is probably a separate tradition, unconnected with the Deluge (see Driver, Genesis, p. 82)]. The two narratives of J and P have been combined; the verses are assigned by Driver as follows: J 6:5–8, 7:1–5 ,

7–10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22, 23, 8:2b–3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22; P 6:9–22, 7:6, 11, 13–16 a, 17a, 18–21, 24, 8:1, 2a, 3b–5, 13a, 14–19, 9:1–17. J alone relates the sending out of the birds, and the sacrifice with which J″ is so pleased that He determines never again to curse the ground. P alone gives the directions with regard to the size and construction of the ark, the blessing of Noah, the commands against murder and the eating of blood, and the covenant with the sign of the rainbow. In the portions in which the two narratives overlap, they are at variance in the following points. (a) In P one pair of every kind of animal (6:18–20) in J one pair of the unclean and seven of the clean (7:2, 3), are to be taken into the ark. (In 7:9 a redactor has added the words ‘two and two’ to make J’s representation conform to that of P.) The reason for the difference is that, according to P, animals were not eaten at all till after the Deluge (9:3), so that there was no distinction required between clean and unclean. (b) In P the cause of the Deluge is not only rain, but also the bursting forth of the subterranean abyss (6:11); J mentions rain only (v. 12). (c) In P the water begins to abate after 150 days (8:3), the mountain tops are visible after 8 months and 13 days (7:11, 8:5), and the earth is dry after a year and 10 days (8:14); in J the Flood lasts only 40 days (7:12 , 8:6), and the water had begun to abate before that.

2. The Historicity of the story.—The modern study of geology and comparative mythology has made it impossible to see in the story of the Deluge the literal record of an historical event. (The fact that marine fossils are found on the tops of hills cannot be used as an argument, for (i.) the same argument could be used—and is actually used by native tribes—to prove other flood-stories in various parts of the globe; and (ii.) though it proves that some spots which are now at the tops of hills were at one time submerged, that is not equivalent to asserting that a flood ever occurred which covered the whole planet—apart from the extreme improbability that the submergence of mountains was within the period of man’s existence.) The difficulties in the story as it stands are immense. (a) All the water in the world, together with all the vapour if reduced to water, would not cover the whole earth to the height of Mt. Ararat. And if it had, it is impossible to imagine how it could have dried up in a year and 10 days (not to speak of 40 days), or whither it could have flowed away. (b) If only a single family survived, it is impossible to account for the wide variety of races and languages. (c) The means of safety is not a ship, but simply a huge chest, which would instantly capsize in a storm. It is popularly assumed that it had a hull, shaped like that of a ship; but of this nothing is said in the Heb. narrative. (d) The collection by Noah of a pair of every kind of animal, bird, and creeping thing, which would include species peculiar to different countries from the arctic regions to the tropics, is inconceivable. And no less so the housing of them all in a single chest, the feeding

and care of them by eight persons, the arrangements to prevent their devouring one another, and the provision of the widely diverse conditions of life necessary for creatures from different countries and climates. From every point of view it is clear that the story is legendary, and similar in character to the legends which are found in the folk-lore of all peoples.

3. The Cause of the Deluge.—This is stated to be rain (7:11b, 12), and the bursting forth of the subterranean abyss. It must be studied in connexion with other flood-stories. Such stories are found principally in America, but also in India, Cashmir, Tibet, China, Kamschatka, Australia, some of the Polynesian Islands, Lithuania, and Greece. In the great majority of cases the flood is caused by some startling natural phenomenon, which often has a special connexion with the locality to which it belongs; e.g. the melting of the ice or snow, in the extreme N. of America; earthquakes, on the American coastlands where they frequently occur; the submergence or emergence of islands, in districts liable to volcanic eruptions; among inland peoples the cause is frequently the bursting of the banks of rivers which have been swollen by rains. Sometimes the stories have grown up to account for various facts of observation; e.g. the dispersion of peoples, and differences of language; the red colour, or the pale colour, of certain tribes; the discovery of marine fossils inland, and so on. In some cases these stories have been coloured by the Bible story, owing to the teaching of Christian missionaries in modern times, and often mixed up with other Bible stories, and reproduced with grotesque details by local adaptation. But there are very many which are quite unconnected with the story of Noah. (For a much fuller discussion of the various flood-stories see the valuable art. ‘Flood’ in Hastings’ DB ii.) It is reasonable, therefore, to treat the Hebrew story as one of these old-world legends, and to look for the cause of it in the natural features of the land which gave it birth. And we are fortunate in the possession of an earlier form of the legend, which belongs to Babylonia, and makes it probable that its origin is to be ascribed to the inundation of the large Babylonian plain by the bursting forth of one of the rivers by which it is intersected, and perhaps also, as some think, to the incursion of a tidal wave due to an earthquake somewhere in the South. This, among a people whose world was bounded by very narrow limits, would easily be magnified in oral tradition into a universal Deluge.

4. The Babylonian story.—(a) One form of the story has long been known from the fragments of Berosus, an Egyptian priest of the 3rd cent. B.C. It differs in certain details from the other form known to us; e.g. when the birds return the second time, clay is seen to be attaching to their legs (a point which finds parallels in some N. American flood-legends); and not only the hero of the story, Xisuthros, and his wife, but also his daughter and the pilot of the ship are carried away by the gods.

(b) The other and more important form is contained in Akkadian cuneiform tablets m the British Museum, first deciphered in 1872. It is part of an epic in 12 parts, each connected with a sign of the Zodiac; the Flood story is the 11th, and is connected with Aquarius, the ‘water-bearer.’ Gilgamesh of Uruk (Erech, Gn 10:10), the hero of the epic, contrived to visit his ancestor Ut-napishtim, who had received the gift of immortality. The latter is in one passage called Adra-hasis, which being inverted as Hasis-adra appears in Greek as Xisuthros. He relates to Gilgamesh how, for his piety, he had been preserved from a great flood. When Bel and three other gods determined to destroy Shurippak, a city ‘lying on the Euphrates,’ Ea warned him to build a ship. He built it 120 cubits in height and breadth, with six decks, divided into 7 storeys, each with 9 compartments; it had a mast, and was smeared with bitumen. He took on board all his possessions, ‘the seed of life of every kind that I possessed,’ cattle and beasts of the field, his family, servants, and craftsmen. He entered the ship and shut the door. Then Ramman the storm-god thundered, and the spirits of heaven brought lightnings; the gods were terrified; they fled to heaven, and cowered in a heap like a dog in his kennel. On the 7th day the rain ceased, and all mankind were turned to clay. The ship grounded on Mt. Nisir, E. of the Tigris, where it remained 6 days. Then Utnapishtim sent forth a dove, a swallow, and a raven, and the last did not return. He then sent the animals to the four winds, and offered sacrifice on an altar at the top of the mountain. The gods smelled the savour and gathered like flies. The great goddess Ishtar lighted up the rainbow. She reproached Bel for destroying all mankind instead of one city only. Bel, on the other hand, was angry at the escape of Ut-napishtim, and refused to come to the sacrifice. But he was pacified by Ea, and at length entered the ship, and made a covenant with Ut-napishtim, and translated him and his wife to ‘the mouth of the rivers,’ and made them immortal.

The similarities to the Heb. story, and the differences from it, are alike obvious. It dates from at least B.C. 3000, and it would pass through a long course of oral repetition before it reached the Hebrew form. And herein is seen the religious value of the latter. The genius of the Hebrew race under Divine inspiration gradually stripped it of all its crude polytheism, and made it the vehicle of spiritual truth. It teaches the unity and omnipotence of J″; His hatred of sin and His punishment of sinners; but at the same time His merciful kindness to them that obey Him, which is shown in rescuing them from destruction, and in entering into a covenant with them.

5. It is strange that, apart from Gn 9:28, 10:1, 32, 11:10, there are only two allusions in the OT to the Flood, Is 54:9 and Ps 29:10 (the latter uncertain; see commentaries). In the Apocr.: 2 Es 3:9f., Wis 10:4, Sir 44:17f. (40:10 in LXX, but not in Heb.). In the NT: Mt 24:38f., Lk 17:27, He 11:7, 1 P 3:20, 2 P 2:5.

A. H. M‘NEILE.

DEMAS (= Demetrius?).—A companion of St. Paul in his first Roman imprisonment (Col 4:14, Philem 24). There is some indication (cf. Ph 2:20f.) that even then Demas was not altogether trusted; and later he forsook the Apostle, ‘having loved this present world’ (2 Ti 4:10). He was apparently a native of Thessalonica.

A. J. MACLEAN.

DEMETRIUS.—1. Soter, the son of Seleucus Philopator. In his boyhood he was sent (B.C. 175) to Rome as a hostage, but made his escape after the death of his uncie, Antiochus Epiphanes. Landing at Tripolis, he was joined by large bodies of the people, and even by the bodyguard of his cousin, Antiochus Eupator. Eupator was soon defeated and put to death, and in B.C. 162, Demetrius was proclaimed king (1 Mac 7:1–4, 2 Mac 14:1, 2; Jos. Ant. XII. x. 1). After seven years, Alexander Balas

(wh. see) was set up as a claimant to the crown of Syria (B.C. 153); and he and

Demetrius competed for the support of Jonathan (1 Mac 10:1–21; Jos. Ant. XIII. ii. 1–

3). Balas prevailed in spite of the attempts of his rival to outbid him (1 Mac 10:25– 45). In B.C. 150 a decisive engagement took place, in which Demetrius was defeated and slain (1 Mac 10:48–50; Jos. Ant. XIII. ii. 4).

2. Nikator, sent by his father, D. Soter, for safety to Chidus after the success of Balas seemed probable. After several years of exile he landed (B.C. 147) with an army of Cretan mercenaries on the Cilician coast, and finally inflicted a fatal defeat upon Balas (B.C. 145) on the banks of the Œnoparas, from which event Demetrius derived his surname (1 Mac 11:14–19; Jos. Ant. XIII. iv. 8). He bought off the opposition of Jonathan by the addition of three Samaritan provinces to Judæa, and the exemption from tribute of the country thus enlarged (1 Mac 11:20–37; Jos. Ant. XIII. iv. 9). After varying fortunes in the war with Tryphon (wh. see), Demetrius invaded the dominions of the king of Parthia, by whom, in B.C. 138, he was taken prisoner (1 Mac 14:1–3). Upon regaining his liberty at the end of ten years, he undertook a war against Ptolemy Physkon of Egypt. Having been defeated by Zabinas at Damascus, he fled to Ptolemais, and thence to Tyre, where in B.C. 125 he was murdered (Jos. Ant. XIII. ix. 3), possibly at the instigation of his wife Cleopatra (App. Syr. 68; Liv. Epit. lx.).

3. Eukairos, grandson of D. Nikator. On the death of his father he established himself in Cœle-Syria, with Damascus as his capital (Jos. Ant. XIII. xiii. 4). When civil war broke out between Alexander Jannæus and his Pharisee subjects, the latter invited the assistance of Demetrius (Jos. Ant. XIII. xiii. 5, BJ I. iv. 4), who defeated Jannæus in a pitched battle near Shecbem (Jos. Ant. XIII. xiv. 1, BJ I. iv. 5). After a chequered career, Demetrius fell into the hands of the Parthians, by whom he was detained in captivity until his death (Jos. Ant. XIII. xiv. 3).

4, 5. Two persons of the name are mentioned in NT—the ringleader in the riot at Ephesus (Ac 19:24), and a disciple commended by St. John (3 Jn 12). Probably the same name occurs in a contracted form as Demas.

DEMON.—The word does not occur in AV. In RV it is substituted for ‘devil’ in the margin of many passages, and the American Committee was in favour of its adoption in the text. Twice it stands in the text (Dt 32:17, Ps 106:37), representing a root found in both Assyr. and Arab., and denoting a species of genli or demi-gods, who were conceived as invested with power for good or evil, and to whom even human sacrifices were offered. So in Bar 4:7; and in the same sense probably ‘devils’ is used in 1 Co 10:20 and Rev 9:20. For the conception of demon as an influence or spirit, exclusively evil, see DEVIL; and for the phenomena, see POSSESSION and EXORCISM.

R. W. MOSS.

DEMOPHON (2 Mac 12:2).—A Syrian commandant in Palestine under Antiochus Eupator.

DEN.—The five Heb. words represented by ‘den’ signify respectively ‘hollow place’ (Is 32:14), ‘thicket’ (Ps 10:9), ‘place of ambush’ (Job 37:8), ‘dwelling’ ( Job 38:40), ‘light hole’ or ‘eyeball’ (Is 11:8); but the last passage, may be corrupt.

J. TAYLOR.

DENARIUS.—See MONEY, §§ 6, 7.

DEPUTY.—1. AV of Est 8:9, 9:3 (RV ‘governor’) as tr. of pechāh. See GOVERNOR. 2. AV of Ac 13:7, 8, 12, 18:12, 19:38 (RV ‘proconsul’) as tr. of Gr. anthupatos. See PROCONSUL. 3. RV of Jer 51:23, 28 (AV ‘ruler’), Dn 3:2, 3, 6:7 (AV ‘governor’) as tr. of sāgān or its Aram. equivalent. The term denotes in these passages a superior official or prefect of the Babylonian Empire. It is applied elsewhere (Ezr 9:2, Neh 2:16, 4:14, 19 etc.) to petty officials in Judah (EV ‘rulers,’ RVm ‘deputies’). 4. AV and RV of 1 K 22:47 as tr. of nizzāb (lit. ‘one set up or appointed’), used of the vassal-king of Edom.

DERBE.—A city in the ethnic district Lycaonia, and in the region LycaoniaGalatica of the Roman province Galatia, on the main road from Iconium (or Lystra) S.E. to Laranda. The modern villages Losta and Gudelissin are built on the ruins of the city or its territory. Amyntas, king of Galatia, had conquered it, and in B.C. 25 it passed with the rest of his territory into the hands of the Romans. From A.D. 41 to 72 it was the frontier city of the province, and was honoured with the prefix Claudio. It was in this period that St. Paul visited it (Ac 14:6), and then retraced his steps to Lystra, etc. On his second journey, coming from Cilicia, he reached it first and then went on to Lystra, as he did also on the third journey. Gaius of Derbe was one of the representatives of Galatia in the deputation which carried the collection for the poor Christians in Jerusalem (Ac 20:4). Derbe was on the whole one of the least important places visited by St. Paul, and appears little in history.

A. SOUTER.

DESCENT INTO HADES.—The general meaning of the word ‘hell’ (Hades) in the OT is the unseen, hidden place. It is the shadowy dwelling-place of the spirits of the dead. At first there was no idea of a distinction between good and bad. But such an idea grew up, and in the NT our Lord sanctioned the belief. In the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31), while the soul of Dives was said to be in torment the soul of Lazarus was taken to the society of Abraham. The promise to the penitent robber (Lk 23:43) ‘To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,’ points in the same direction.

The Apostles seem to have taught from the first that the soul of Christ Himself passed into Hades at His death. This appears in the first sermon of St. Peter (Ac 2:24– 31), when he quotes Ps 16:10, ‘Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,’ as a prophecy of the Resurrection. St. Paul also, adapting some words from Dt 30:13, wrote to the Romans (10:7) that it is not necessary to search the depth, since Christ is risen from the dead. His reference to ‘the lower parts of the earth’ in Eph 4:9 has been interpreted to mean ‘came down to earth in the Incarnation’: ‘Now this, he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?’ But the phrase had been used in Ps 63:9 with reference to Hades, and has probably that meaning in this passage also. Through obedience even unto death, Christ became Lord of the under world also, and in His descent asserted His Lordship (Ph 2:10).

Thus we find the way prepared for explanation of the difficult passage 1 P 3:18– 20: ‘Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing’; cf. 4:6 ‘For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.’

Until the time of St. Augustine this passage was interpreted to mean that Christ preached to the spirits of men and women who were drowned in the Flood. The Apostle bids his readers take courage from the fact that Christ’s death was followed by a quickening in the spirit. If persecution should bring them to death also, similar increase of spiritual energy would follow. There is a reference to the Ascension in v. 22, which marks the time that Christ preached and excludes the idea that Christ in Noah preached to the men of Noah’s time, which was first suggested by St.

Augustine. This view, however, though supported in modern times by the great names of Hammond, Pearson, and Barrow, is generally regarded as impossible.

There is one other interpretation, which must be mentioned as a possible alternative. Some critics suggest that the preaching was to the fallen angels mentioned in 2 P 2:4, Jude 6, either after Christ’s death or before the Incarnation. The word ‘spirits’ is used of angels in the NT (Ac 23:8), but is used also of spirits of the dead (He 12:23, cf. Lk 24:37–39), and 1 P 4:6 seems to prove that this is the sense here.

We may pass by fanciful theories such as that the passage refers to the preaching of Enoch regarded as an incarnation of the Messiah. The apocryphal Book of Enoch records preaching of punishment to fallen angels, but says nothing of a preaching of salvation to the souls of men. And the word ‘preached’ in 1 P 3:19 implies preached the gospel.

If it is asked why should only one set of sinners be mentioned, we may reply that they were typical sinners, whose fate, as Dr. Bigg shows (Com., ad loc.), was much questioned at the time when St. Peter wrote. There is some evidence that a belief was current in the Jewish schools to the effect that a time of repentance would be allowed to the sinners who perished in the Flood before the final judgment. We may hope for fresh light on the point from further research, and for the present may rest content with the interpretation which enables us to quote these passages in 1 P. as proving that moral distinctions exist in Hades, and that moral change is possible for moral beings there as here, unless they sin against light.

A. E. BURN.

DESERT.—See WILDERNESS.

DESTROY (utterly).—See BAN.

DEUEL.—Father of Eliasaph, prince of Gad (Nu 1:14, 7:42, 47, 10:20) = Reuel, Nu 2:14 (perhaps the original name).

DEUTERONOMY

1. Structure, Origin, Influence.—The book consists of three speeches (1:6–4:40 , 5–26, 28, 29:2–30:20) and two poems (chs. 32, 33), all of which are represented as having been uttered by Moses on the plains of Moab before the crossing of Jordan.

The slight narrative (chs. 27, 31, 34) is concerned mainly with the last days of Moses.

Chapters 1–3, however, contain an historical sketch cast into the form of a speech.

Chs. 5–26, 28:1–46 are a unity with a formal opening (4:44–49) and close (29:1) ; and this section, apart from some later additions, is homogeneous. Thus chs. 5–11 elaborate those principles concerning Jahweh and His relation to His people which give a peculiar character to the Hebrew polity; chs. 12–26 develop these into a code of law; 28:1–46 pronounces blessings on obedience, curses on disobedience. This section, it is now agreed, was the Law-book found in the Temple in the 18th year of Josiah (B.C. 622–621), which formed the basis of the reform described in 2 K 22 f. Thus Josiah abolished the high places in Judah and Jerusalem (22:8, 13), and confined legitimate worship to the sanctuary at Jerusalem; and this centralization of the cult is the dominating idea of Dt 5–26. Again, Josiah purified the Jahweh-worship from baser elements, destroying the Asherah (2 K 23:6, cf. Dt 16:21f.) and the houses of sodomy (2 K 23:7, cf. Dt 23:17f.). His opposition to idolatry was directed against the same forms as those denounced in Deut. (cf. the sun-worship, 2 K 23:5, 11, Dt 17:3 ; and the worship of Milcom, 23:10, 13, Dt 12:31). The Passover, celebrated in his day at Jerusalem, is stated to have been unique (2 K 23:21ff.); and Deut. forbids the celebration of the Passover elsewhere than in Jerusalem (16:5f.). The king abolished the superstitious means of learning the Divine will (2 K 23:24), which Deut. forbids

(18:10ff.). The demands of the Law-book and the performance of the king are parallel.

It is, however, a more difficult question how far the reforms which Josiah instituted in obedience to Deut. were new, and how far they were a return to older practices from which the nation had degenerated during the early monarchy. Three other codes can be distinguished in the Pentateuch, and a comparison of these with Deut. helps to determine its place in the development of Israel’s religion. An examination of the social legislation in Deut. leads to the conclusion that it is later than the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20–23:33). Though we are not justified in calling Deut. a deliberate expansion of this legislation, it certainly represents a more developed state of society, as is seen, e.g., in its numerous laws about contracts. And in one particular it controls the cult at a cardinal point which Exod. left vague: the ‘every place where Jahweh records his name’ (Ex 20:24) has become ‘the place which Jahweh shall choose to put his name there’ (Deut. passim). When Deut. is compared with the Law of Holiness (Lv 17–26), the codes are seen to be framed for different purposes—Leviticus as a handbook for priests, Deut. as a layman’s manual. But their legislation is parallel. Compared with P, Deut. is earlier, for questions left uncertain in Deut. are decided in P. See further, art. HEXATEUCH.

The few references in Deut. to events in Israel’s history bear out the conclusion thus reached, for they are dependent on JE, but show no acquaintance with P’s history. It is difficult, e.g., to explain the absence of Korah in Dt 11:6, if the author read Nu 16 in its present form, where Korah from P has been woven into the early story. When chs. 1–3 (see below) are included in this scrutiny, they support the inference that Deut. was an independent book, before P was incorporated with JE.

There are further indications of the date at which this code was introduced. Thus Deut. insists throughout on one sanctuary, at which legitimate worship can be offered to Jahweh.

The extent to which this dominates the code is not to be measured merely by the number of times the command is repeated. Older customs are recast in consequence of this change. The Passover alters its character from a family to a national festival

(16:5f.). A central tribunal is set up to replace the decisions at the local shrines (17:8f.). Asylums for the manslayer are needed (19:1ff.), since the village altars where he once found safety (Ex 21:14) are abolished, etc.

Now this was an innovation in Israel. Elijah, far from condemning the high places, is indignant at the sacrilege which has thrown down the altars of Jahweh (1 K 19:10). When he leaves the polluted land to seek Jahweh, he makes his way not to Jerusalem, but to Horeb (contrast Is 2:2f.). Hosea and Amos find much to condemn in the worship which was practised at Bethel and Dan, but never suggest that any worship offered at these shrines was ipso facto illegitimate. Yet these were the religious teachers of the nation. Deut., again, forbids the erection of pillars beside Jahweh’s altars (12:3f.); it is difficult to understand how Isaiah (19:19) could have associated a pillar with Jahweh-worship, had this law been accepted in his day. The worship of the host of heaven—one of the few forms of idolatry specified in Deut.—is not mentioned till it receives severe blame from the prophets of the 7th cent. (Jer 8:2, 19:13, 32:29 , Zeph 1:3). But this Assyrian cult became a real danger to Israel’s religion, when Manasseh came under Eastern influences.

Hezekiah is the first king of whom we learn that he attempted to remove the high places (2 K 18:14). Evidently, however, this was an unpopular step, for the Rabshakeh was able to appeal to the conservative instincts of the nation against a king who practised such questionable innovations (18:22). What impelled Hezekiah was a religious, not a political, motive. The splendid monotheistic teaching of Isaiah carried with it the Inference ‘One God, one sanctuary.’ Besides, the abuses which were associated with the local shrines compelled the religious leaders of the nation, who had been influenced by the teaching of Hosea and Amos, to go to the root and abolish such worship altogether. The one means of purifying their worship was to sever it from the high places with their Canaanite associations. Political events helped them. The fall of N. Israel (B.C. 722) carried with it the condemnation of the worship which was practised there, and swept away the worshippers who were attached to it. The deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib threw a glory round the sanctuary of which Jahweh had so signally vindicated the inviolability. Probably a body of reformers framed their code in Hezekiah’s later years. They did not create a new legislation, they recast and put a new spirit into an older code. It would have been impossible to secure the acceptance of a brand-new code from a whole people.

Efforts have been made to break up Dt 5–26 into several sections, and to trace their origin. These have not been very convincing: they have relied too much on a proof of difference of origin derived from the use of the singular or the plural number in forms of address to the people. But they have proved that older elements and varied elements have been fused together into this Law-book.

Under Manasseh there followed a strong reaction, which resorted even to persecution. The reformers’ Law-book was forgotten, the reformers themselves may have been martyred. But the code itself survived to be discovered under Josiah, and to become the basis of a pregnant reform.

Opinion is divided as to whether chs. 1–3 are by the hand which wrote the main work. The fact that in 11:2ff. Moses is represented as speaking to men who had witnessed the Exodus, while in 2:14ff. that generation is represented as dead, seems decisive that they are not. The chapters may have been added as an historical introduction to a separate edition of the code. The fact that their history is based on JE proves that this must have been early.

Chapters 4:1–40, 29 f. belong together, and are a later addition in view of new circumstances, viz., the prospect or the reality of exile.

The Song (32:1–43), with its double introduction (31:16–22, 30) and close (32:44) , is a didactic poem, giving an interpretation of Israel’s entire history, and bearing

traces of influence from the Wisdom literature. It may date from the 7th cent. or the Exile.

The Blessing (ch. 33) dates from a time when N. Israel in the flush of its vigour could anticipate further conquests (v. 17), since Eastern Israel had regained part of its lost territory (v. 20). It may belong to the reign of Jeroboam II. (B.C. 782–43), by whom the Syrians of Damascus were defeated.

Ch. 27 is difficult to assign. It evidently breaks the connexion of 26 and 28, and as evidently is composite. The Levites in v. 14ff. carry out what in v. 12ff. the tribes are commissioned to do, and there are no blessings uttered at all. There may be early elements in v. 4ff., but it is best to confess that the chapter is still a crux.

2. Main principles.—(a) The fundamental principle of the book is the unity of

Jahweh, who is God of the whole earth (10:14), and who is more than the God of

Israel, since He has relations to other nations apart from their relations to Israel (9:5 ,

12:31). This carries with it the consequence that idolatry is the supreme sin (6:14 , 17:2ff. etc.). To avoid even the possibility of such a crime, intercourse with other nations is severely restrained (7:1ff. etc.), and older customs of worship are forbidden (16:21 etc.).—(b) As He is God of the whole earth, Jahweh’s will is the moral law, and in connexion with its requirements He rewards and punishes (cf. the teaching of Amos). As God of Israel, the fundamental principles of His relation to His people are also ethical.—(c) Yet Jahweh is not merely a lifeless moral principle or glorified code. His love to His people was shown, before they could prove any desert (9:4f. etc.). He gave them their land—a gift they must not imagine themselves to have merited (8:7ff.). Hence love is the supreme return for His love (6:4f. etc., and cf. Hosea). Hence also there is room for worship and for prayer. Their cult, an expression of their loving gratitude, is to be joyous in character, not like the darker superstitions to which national disaster and foreign rites were making them incline (12:18 etc.).—(d) A religion, the heart of which is loving gratitude, naturally expresses itself in humanity towards all with whom men live, and even towards the lower animals (22:1f. etc. 6 f. etc.). A religion also with so strong a sense of the Divine personality brings with it respect for human personality (24:10f.).—(e) As personal and loving, Jahweh can and does reveal Himself. Through His self-revelation He is the historic God of Israel. This is emphasized in contrast with the baalim, who, as gods of Canaan, had no historic connexion with Israel. Jahweh has made known Himself and His will by the deeds He has wrought for and among His people. (Hence it was a right instinct which led to the addition of chs. 1–3 with their record of Jahweh’s past guidance.)—(f) This element enters now into the cult. It gives fresh historic associations to the national festivals and weds them to the great events of their past. See especially ch. 26, where all Israel’s past is made to enter into the worship of the individual Israelite, and where also emphasis is laid on the truth that the fruits of the land are not from the baalim, but from Jahweh’s bounty (cf. Hos 2:8).—(g) Such a religion, with its strong sense of the historic unity of God’s dealings with His nation, and its conviction of the reasonableness of God’s demands, can and ought to be taught. Children are to have it explained to them (6:6f., 11:19); and means are to be used to bring it to men’s thoughts daily (6:9, 11:20). Most of the outward observances are thus brought into connexion with great vivifying principles, so that this code becomes the finest illustration of an effort made to bring religious principles home to a nation in its entire work and life.

A. C. WELCH.

DEVIL.—The word came into English from Greek either directly or through its Latin transliteration. Used with the definite article, its original meaning was that of the accuser or traducer of men (see SATAN), whence it soon came to denote the supreme spirit of evil, the personal tempter of man and enemy of God. With the indefinite article it stands for a malignant being of superhuman nature and powers, and represents the conception expressed by the Greeks in the original of our term ‘demon.’ At first the idea of malignancy was not necessarily associated with these beings, some being regarded as harmless and others as wielding even benign influence; but gradually they were considered as operating exclusively in the sphere of mischief, and as needing to be guarded against by magic rites or religious observances.

1. Earlier conceptions.—Jewish demonology must be traced back to primitive and pre-Mosaic times, when both a form of animism was present in a belief in the illdisposed activity of the spirits of the dead, and a variety of places and objects were supposed to be rendered sacred by the occupation, permanent or temporary, of some superhuman power. Of these views only traces are to be found in the earliest parts of Scripture, and the riper development of later ages may fairly be ascribed to foreign, and especially Bab. and Greek, influences. That certain animals were believed to be endowed with demonic power appears from Gn 3:1–15, though here the serpent itself is represented as demonic, and not yet as possessed by an evil spirit (Wis 2:24, Ro 16:20). So with the ‘he-goats’ or satyrs (Lv 17:7, 2 Ch 11:15, Is 13:21, 34:14), which were evidently regarded as a kind of demon, though without the rich accompaniments of the Greek conception. Their home was the open field or wilderness, where Azazel was supposed to dwell (Lv 16:8f.), and whither one of the birds used in cleansing cases of leprosy was let go to carry back the disease (Lv 14:7, 53). On the contrary, the roes and the hinds of the field (Ca 2:7, 3:5) seem to have been thought of as faunlike spirits, for whose aid a lover might hopefully plead. Under Bab. influence the spirit was conceived as abstracted from any visible form, and as still capable of inflicting injury; hence the need of protection against ‘the destroyer’ of Ex 12:23. In

Greek thought there took place a development partly parallel. The word used by Hesiod for the blessed soul of a hero becomes with Plato an abstract influence sometimes beneficent and helpful, but emerges in the orators and tragedians as descriptive of baleful genii, who bring misfortune and even revel in cruelty.

2. Later Judaism.—Under these various influences the demonology of later Judaism became somewhat elaborate. The conception of demon or devil was used to embrace three species of existences. (1) It included the national deities, conceived as fallen, but not always as stripped of all power (Ex 12:12, Is 19:1, 24:21, cf. 14:12). (2) It covered such of the angels as were thought to have been once attendants upon the true God, but to have fallen (2 P 2:4, Jude 6, Ethiop. Enoch chs. 6, 7). For a variety of personal spirits were interposed between God as mediating agencies according to Bab. and Persian views, or, according to the strict Jewish view, as ministers of His will. (3) To these were added—a survival with modification of the primitive animism—the spirits of the wicked dead (Josephus, Ant. VIII. ii. 5, BJ VII. vi. 3), who were supposed to haunt the tombs, or at least to cause the men they possessed to do so ( Mt 8:28). The devils of later Judaism accordingly are thought of as invisible spirits, to whom every ill, physical or moral, was attributed. Their relation to God was one of quasi-independence. At times they do His bidding and are the ministers of His wrath, but in this sense are not classed in Scripture as devils; e.g., the demon of pestilence is the destroying angel or even ‘the angel of the Lord’ (2 S 24:16, 2 K 19:35, Is 37:36 , Ps 78:49). Yet they were thought to reside in the lower world in an organized kingdom of their own (Job 18:14; cf. Rev 9:11, Ethiop. Enoch 54:6, Mt 12:24–27) ; though the kingdom is not entirely outside the sovereign rule of Jehovah, who is the Lord of all spirits and of the abyss in which they dwell (Enoch 40, Dt 32:22, Job 11:8 , Ps 139:8, Lk 16:24).

3. In the NT.—In the period of the NT the belief in devils as spirits, evil and innumerable, was general amongst the nations, whether Jewish or Gentile; but in Jesus and His disciples the cruder features of the belief, such as the grotesqueness of the functions assigned to these spirits in the literature of the second century, do not appear. The writers of the Gospels were in this respect not much in advance of their contemporaries, and for Jesus Himself no theory of accommodation to current beliefs can be sustained. The Fourth Gospel is comparatively free from the demonic element. Possession is thrice alluded to (7:20, 8:40, 10:28) as a suggested explanation of Christ’s work and influence; but evil generally is traced back rather to the activity of the devil (6:70, where ‘a devil’ is not a demon, but the word is used metaphorically much as ‘Satan’ in Mt 16:23, Jn 13:2, 27), whose subordinates fall into the background. The Synoptics, especially Lk., abound in references to demons, who are conceived, not as evil influences resting upon or working within a man, but as personal spirits besetting or even possessing him. The demon was said to enter into a man (Lk 8:30) or certain animals (Mt 8:32), and to pass out (Mt 17:18, Lk 11:14) or be cast out (Mt 9:34). This demoniacal possession is referred to as the cause of various diseases, the cases being preponderantly such as exhibit symptoms of psychical disease in association with physical (see POSSESSION). St. Paul and the other writers in the NT evidently shared the views underlying the Synoptics. Possession so called is a familiar phenomenon to them, as it continued to be in the early years of the Church, though there is a marked disposition towards the Johannine view of a central source of evil. St. Paul speaks of doctrines emanating from devils (1 Ti 4:1, where the word should not be taken metaphorically). The devils of 1 Co 10:20 were demigods or deposed idols. St. James recognizes the existence of a number of devils (2:19), whose independence fit God is not complete. The Apocalypse (9:20 , 16:14, 18:2) similarly speaks of a diverse and manifold activity, though again its derivation from a common source is frequent. In all these books the conception of devils seems to be giving way to that of the devil; the former gradually lose any power of initiative or free action, and become the agents of a great spirit of evil behind them.

In the OT this process has advanced so far that the personal name Satan (wh. see) is used in the later books with some freedom, Asmodæus occurring in the same sense in To 3:8, 17. But in the NT the process is complete, and in every part the devil appears as a personal and almost sovereign spirit of evil, capable of such actions as cannot be explained away by the application of any theory of poetic or dramatic personification. It is he who tempted Christ (Mt 4:1ff., Lk 4:2ff.), and in the parables sowed the tares (Mt 13:39) or snatched up the good seed (Lk 8:12; cf. ‘the evil one’ of Mt 13:19); and for him and his angels an appropriate destiny is prepared (Mt 25:41). According to Jn., the devil prompted the treason of Judas (13:2), and is vicious in his lusts, a liar and a murderer (8:44), a sinner in both nature and act (1 Jn 3:8, 10). He prolongs the tribulation of the faithful who do not yield to him (Rev 2:18); after his great fall (12:9) he is goaded by defeat into more venomous activity (v. 12), but eventually meets his doom (20:10). Jude 9 preserves the tradition of a personal encounter with Michael; and St. Peter represents the devil as prowling about in search of prey (1 P 5:8), the standing adversary of man, baffled by Jesus (Ac 10:38). To St. James (4:7) the devil is an antagonist who upon resistance takes to flight. If ‘son of the devil’ (Ac 13:10) is metaphorical, St. Paul considers his snare (1 Ti 3:7, 2 Ti 2:26) and his wiles (Eph 6:11) real enough. To give opportunity to the devil (Eph 4:27) may lead to a share in his condemnation (1 Ti 3:6). Death is his realm (He 2:14, Wis 2:24) , and not a part of the original Divine order; though not inflicted at his pleasure, he makes it subservient to his purposes, and in its spiritual sense it becomes the fate of those who accept his rule. Such language, common to all the writers, and pervading the whole NT, allows no other conclusion than that the forces and spirits of evil were conceived as gathered up into a personal bead and centre, whose authority they recognized and at whose bidding they moved.

This opinion is confirmed by the representation of the devil’s relation to men and to God, and by many phrases in which he is referred to under other names. He is the moral adversary of man (Mt 13:39, Lk 10:19, Eph 4:27, 1 P 5:8), acting, according to the OT, with the permission of God (cf. Job 1:9–12), though with an assiduity that shows the function to be congenial; but in the NT with a power of origination that is recognized, if watched and restrained. Hence he is called the ‘tempter’ (Mt 4:3, 1 Th. 3:5), and the ‘accuser’ of those who listen to his solicitation (Rev 12:10). In hindering and harming men he stands in antithesis to Christ (2 Co 6:15), and hence is fittingly termed the evil and injurious one (Mt 6:13, 13:18, Jn 17:15, Eph 6:16, 2 Th 3:3, 1 Jn 2:13f., 3:12, 5:18f.—but in some of these passages it is open to contend that the word is not personal). Bent upon maintaining and spreading evil, he begins with the seduction of Eve (2 Co 11:3) and the luring of men to doom (Jn 8:44). Death being thus brought by him into the world (Ro 5:12, Wis 2:24), by the fear of it he keeps men in bondage (He 2:14). He entices men to sin (1 Co 7:5), as he enticed Jesus, though with better success, places every woful obstacle in the way of their trust in Christ (2 Co 4:4), and thus seeks to multiply ‘the sons of disobedience’ (Eph 2:2), who may be

rightly called his children (1 Jn 3:10). In the final apostasy his methods are unchanged, and his hostility to everything good in man becomes embittered and Insatiable (2 Th 2:9f., Rev 20:7f.).

In regard to the devil’s relation to God, the degree of independence and personal initiative is less in the OT than in the NT, but nowhere is there anything like the exact co-ordination of the two. The representation is not that of a dualism, but of the revolt of a subordinate though superhuman power, patiently permitted for a time for wise purposes and then peremptorily put down. In Job 1:6 the devil associates himself with ‘the sons of God,’ and yet is represented as not strictly classed with them; he has the right of access to heaven, but his activity is subject to Divine consent. Another stage is marked in 1 Ch 21:1, where the statement of 2 S 24:1 is modified as though the devil worked in complete and unshackled opposition to God. In the Book of Enoch he is the ruler of a kingdom of evil, over which kingdom, however, the Divine sovereignty, or at least suzerainty, stands. The NT preserves the conception in most of its parts. God and the devil are placed in antithesis (Ja 4:7); so ‘the power of darkness’ and ‘the kingdom of the Son of his love’ (Col 1:13), as though the two were entirely distinct. The devil is the prince and personal head of the demons (Mk 3:22). According to Jn., he is ‘the prince of this world’ (12:31), and Jesus is contrasted with him (8:42, 44 , 18:36), and outside the sphere of his influence (14:30). St. Paul expresses similar views; the devil is ‘the god of this world’ or age (2 Co 4:4), ‘the prince of the power of the air’ (Eph 2:2), ruling over the evil spirits who are located in the sky or air ( Lk 10:18, Rev 12:9; cf. ‘heavenly places,’ Eph 6:12), and who are graded in orders and communities much like the spirits of good (Eph 1:21). The dualism is so imperfect that Christ has but to speak and the demons recognize His superior authority. He is the stronger (Lk 11:22), and can even now, under the limitations of the moral probation of men, frustrate the devil’s designs (Lk 22:32), and destroy his works (1 Jn 3:8), and will eventually bring him to nought (He 2:14). Already the triumph is assured and partially achieved (Jn 16:11, 1 Jn 4:4), and Christians share in it (Ro 16:20). It becomes complete and final at the Parousia (1 Co 15:26, Ps 110:1).

The personality of the devil must consequently be regarded as taught by Scripture. He is not conceived as the original or only source of evil, but as its supreme personal representative. His existence, like that of evil itself, may be ascribed to the permissive will of God, with analogous limitations in each case. The psychical researches of recent years have tended to confirm the belief in spiritual existences, good and bad, and thereby to reduce a fundamental difficulty, which would otherwise attach also in a degree to the belief in the Holy Spirit. And the tradition of a revolt and fall of angels has this in its favour, that it fits in with the belief in devils and the devil, and provides a partially intelligible account of circumstances under which such a belief might take shape. It supplies the preceding chapters in the history, and enables the career to be traced from the first stage of moral choice through the process of hardening of purpose and increasing separation from God to the appropriate abyss at the close. The devil thus becomes a type of every confirmed evil-doer: and the patience and the righteousness of God are alike exemplified.

R. W. MOSS.

DEVOTED.—See BAN.

DEW.—The process whereby dew is formed is enhanced in Eastern countries like Palestine, where the surface of the ground and the air in contact therewith are highly heated during the daytime, but where at night, and particularly under a cloudless sky, the heat of the ground is radiated into space and the air becomes rapidly cooled down. The excess of moisture in the air then gently ‘falls as dew on the tender herb,’ and sometimes so copiously as to sustain the life of many plants which would otherwise perish during the rainless season; or even, as in the case of Gideon, to saturate a fleece of wool (Jg 6:38). Deprivation of dew, as well as of rain, becomes a terrible calamity in the East. On this account ‘dew and rain’ are associated in the imprecation called down by David on the mountains of Gilboa (2 S 1:21); and in the curse pronounced on Ahab and his kingdom by Elijah (1 K 17:1), as also by the prophet Haggai on the Jews after the Restoration (Hag 1:10) owing to their unwillingness to rebuild the Temple. In the Book of Job the formation of dew is pointed to as one of the mysteries of nature insoluble by man (Job 38:28); but in Pr. it is ascribed to the omniscience and power of the Lord (Pr 3:20). Dew is a favourite emblem in Scripture: (a) richness and fertility (Gn 27:28, Dt 33:13); (b) refreshing and vivifying effects (Dt 32:2, Is 18:4); (c) stealth (2 S 17:12); (d) inconstancy (Hos 6:4, 13:3); (e) the young warriors of the Messianic king (Ps 110:3).

DIADEM.—See CROWN, and DRESS, § 5.

DIAL (2 K 20:11, Is 38:8).—The Heb. word commonly denotes ‘steps’ (see Ex

20:26, 1 K 10:20), and is so rendered elsewhere in this narrative (2 K 20:9–11, Is 38:8; AV ‘degrees’). The ‘steps’ referred to doubtless formed part of some kind of sun-clock. According to Herod, ii. 109, the Babylonians were the inventors of the polos or concave dial, the gnomon, and the division of the day into 12 hours. The introduction by Ahaz of a device for measuring the time may be regarded as a result of his intercourse with the Assyrians (2 K 16:10ff.), but it is uncertain what kind of clock is intended. See also art. TIME.

DIAMOND.—See ADAMANT, and JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.

DIANA OF THE EPHESIANS.—This name is really erroneous, and it is

unfortunate that it has become popularized beyond possibility of correction. The goddess meant is Artemis. There were two conceptions of Artemis in ancient times:

(1) the Greek maiden huntress, sister of Apollo; to this conception corresponds the Italian Diana; (2) the mother-goddess, the emblem of fertility, the fountain of nourishment, an Anatolian divinity, who was Grecized under the name of Artemis: this is the goddess referred to in Acts, and she has nothing to do with Diana, representing in fact a contrary idea. While Artemis (Diana) was represented in art attired as a huntress, with the bow and arrows, the Anatolian Artemis was represented with many breasts (multimammia), and sometimes in company with two stags. In this form she was worshipped over the whole of Lydia, before Greeks ever settled there, and the same divine power of reproduction was worshipped under other names over most of the peninsula of Asia Minor. The rude idol preserved in her chief temple at Ephesus was said to have fallen from heaven (this is the real meaning of Ac 19:35), a not uncommon idea in ancient times, which suggests that such images were sometimes meteoric stones. The chief priest, who bore a Persian title, had under him a large company of priestesses. There was also a large body of priests, each appointed for a year, who seem to have been city officials at the same time, and other bodies of ministers. The ritual was of the abominable character which it might be expected to have. The epithet ‘great’ (Ac 19:34) is proved by inscriptions to have been characteristically applied to the goddess, and the exclamation in Acts may have been really an invocation. The silver shrines (Ac 19:24) were small representations of the goddess within her shrine purchased by the rich. The poor bought them in terra-cotta or marble. Both classes dedicated them as offerings to the goddess, in whose temple they would be hung up. When the accumulation became too great, the priests cleared them away, throwing the terra-cotta or marble ones onto the rubbish heap, or into a hole, but securing the others for the melting-pot. All those which survive are naturally in terra-cotta or marble. The goddess had so many worshippers (Ac 19:27) that the manufacture of such silver shrines was very profitable.

A. SOUTER.

DIASPORA.—See DISPERSION.

DIBLAH.—An unknown place mentioned by Ezekiel (6:14). A variant ( prob.

correct) reading is Riblah (wh. see).

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

DIBLAIM.—The father of Gomer, Hosea’s wife (Hos 1:3). See HOSEA.

DIBON.—1. A city east of the Dead Sea and north of the Arnon, in the land which, before the coming of the Israelites, Sihon, king of the Amorites, had taken from a former king of Moab (Nu 21:26, 30). The Israelites dispossessed Sihon, and the territory was assigned to Reuben (Jos 13:9, 17), but the city Dibon is mentioned among those built (or rebuilt) by Gad (Nu 32:3, 34), hence the name Dibon-gab by which it is once called (Nu 33:45). The children of Israel were not able to retain possession of the land, and in the time of Isaiah Dibon is reckoned among the cities of Moab (Is 15). In Is 15:9 Dimon is supposed to he a modified form of Dibon, adopted in order to resemble more closely the Heb. word for blood (dam), and support the play on words in that verse. The modern name of the town is Dhiban, about half an hour N. of ‘Ara‘ir, which is on the edge of the Arnon Valley. It is a dreary and featureless ruin on two adjacent knolls, but has acquired notoriety in consequence of the discovery there of the Moabite Stone.

2. A town in Judah inhabited in Nehemiah’s time by some of the children of Judah (Neh 11:25). Perhaps it is the same as Dimonah (Jos 15:22) among the southernmost cities of Judah.

DIBRI.—A Danite, grandfather of the blasphemer who was stoned to death ( Lv

24:11).

DICTIONARIES

1. Of the Bible.—Francis Roberts, Clavis Bibliorum (1675); Kitto, Cyclopœdia of Biblical Literature³(3 vols. 1862); Fairhairn, Imperial Bible Dictionary (1864–66 ; new ed. 1888); Smith, Dict. of Bible (3 vols., 1860–63), 2nd ed. of vol. i. only (1899) , also Concise Bible Dict. and Smaller Bible Dict.; R. Hunter, Concise Bible Dict. (Cassell, 1894); M. G. Easton, Bible Dict. (Nelson, 1894); J. Eadie, Biblical

Cyclopœdia (new ed. by Sayce, 1901); C. R. Barnes, People’s Bible Encyc. ( New

York and Lond. 1900); J. D. Davis, Dict. of the Bible (Philad. 1898); Schaff, Religious Encyclopœdia, or Dictionary of Biblical History, etc., based on Herzog’s PRE (3 vols., T. & T. Clark, 1883); M’Clintock-Strong, Cyclopœdia of Biblical, Theological, and Eccles. Literature (10 vols. and 2 vols. suppl., New York, 1871–1887); Herzog, Realencyklopädie f. protest. Theol. und Kirche (18 vols., 1877–88; new ed. by Hauck, 1896 ff.); Zeller, Bibl. Handwörterbuch illustriert (1893); Riehm, Handwörterbuch des bibl. Altertums²(2 vols., 1893); Vigorous, Dict. de la Bible (1895 ff.); Hamburger, Realencyklopädie f. Bibel und Talmud (2 vols. and 3 supplements, 1875, 1892) ;

Guthe, Kurzes Bibelwörterbuch (1903); Jewish Encyclopedia (12 vols., 1901–06) ; Cheyne & Black, Encyclopœdia Biblica (4 vols., 1899–1903); Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols. with extra vol. and indexes, T. & T. Clark, 1898–1904), also Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (2 vols., 1906–08).

2. Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac.—(a) Gesenius, Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus

Linguœ Heb. et Chald. Vet. Test. (1829–42), also Lexicon Manuale, tr. by E. Robinson

(1836) and subsequently, with additions and corrections from the author’s Thesaurus and other works, by S. P. Tregelles (Bagster), Gesenius’ Handwörterbuch, in Verbindung mit A. Socin und H. Zimmern, bearbeitet von F. Buhl, 13th ed. 1899; B. Davidson, Analytical Heb. Lexicon (do.); Fuerst, Heb. and Chald. Lex. to the OT, tr. by S. Davidson (Williams & Norgate); Siegfried-Stade, Heb. Wörterbuch zum AT (Leipzig, 1893); Brown-Driver-Briggs, Heb. Lex. to OT (Oxford, 1906). (b) Levy,

Neuheb. und Chald. Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim (4 vols., 1875–

89); G. Dalman, Aram.-Neuheb. Wörterbuch zu, Targum, Talmud und Midrasch

(1901). (c) Roediger, Chrestomathia Syriaca (1868); R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus (continued by Margoliouth, 1879–1901); also A Compendious Syriac Dict., by J. Payne Smith [Mrs. Margoliouth] (Oxf. 1903); C. Brockelmann, Lex. Syriacum (T. & T. Clark, 1895).

3. Greek (esp. NT).—Liddell-Scott, Greek-English Lexicon; Robinson, Greek and English Lexicon of the NT; Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lex. of NT Greek²(T. & T.

Clark), 3rd Germ. ed. 1881–1883; Analytical Gr. Lex. to NT (Bagster); GrimmThayer, Greek-English Lex. of the NT, being Grimm-Wilke’s Clavis NT revised and enlarged by Thayer (T. & T. Clark, 1888). Deissmann has a Lex. in hand.

Of the Dictionaries named above, the foli. are most accurate and up to date—(a) BIBLE: Cheyne and Black, Encyc. Biblica; Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, Dict. of Christ and the Gospels, and the present work. (b) HEBREW, etc.: Brown-DriverBriggs, Heb. Lex.; Dalman, Aram.-Neuheb. Wörterbuch; Margoliouth, Compend. Syr. Dict., or Brockelmann, Lex. Syr. (c) GREEK: Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lex. of NT.; Thayer, Greek-Eng. Lex. of NT.

W. F. ADENEY and J. S. BANKS.

DIDRACHMA, Mt 17:24 in marg. of EV; AV has ‘tribute money,’ RV correctly ‘half-shekel.’ See MONEY, § 7.

DIDYMUS.—See THOMAS.

DIET.—In AV, apart from Sir 30:25, where it signifies ‘food,’ this word occurs only in Jer 52:34, where RV has the more correct ‘allowance,’ i.e. of food, as AV in the parallel passage 2 K 25:30. In Jer 40:5 the same word is rendered ‘victuals,’ but

RVm ‘allowance.’

DIKLAH.—The name of a son of Joktan (Gn 10:27, 1 Ch 1:21), probably representing a nation or community. The names immediately preceding and following Diklah give no clue to its identification.

DILAN (Jos 15:38).—A town of Judah, in the same group with Lachish and Eglon. The site is unknown.

DILL.—See ANISE.

DIMNAH.—A Levitical city in Zebulun (Jos 21:35). The name is possibly a copyist’s error for Rimmon (cf. 1 Ch 6:22, Jos 19:13).

DIMON, DIMONAH.—See DIBON.

DINAH.—The daughter of Jacob by Leah, and sister of Simeon and Levi, according to Gn 30:21.

This verse appears to have been inserted by a late redactor perhaps the one who added the section Gn 46:8–27 (cf. v. 15). Nothing is said in 29:31–30:24, 35:16 ff., where the birth stories of Jacob’s children are given, of other daughters of Jacob; but 37:35 (J) and 46:7 (P) speak of ‘all his daughters.’ P, moreover, clearly distinguishes between his ‘daughters’ and his ‘daughters-in-law.’

In Gn 34 we have a composite narrative of the seizure of Dinah by the Hivite prince, Shechem, the son of Hamor. The probable remnants of J’s story make it appear that the tale, as it was first told, was a very simple one. Shechem took Dinah to his house and cohabited with her, and her father and brothers resented the defilement. Shechem, acting on his own behalf, proposed marriage, promising to accept any conditions of dower her father and brothers might impose. The marriage took place, and afterwards her full brothers, Simeon and Levi, slew Shechem and took Dinah out of his house. Jacob rebuked them for this, because of the vengeance it was liable to bring upon his house. Jacob thinks only of consequences here. If, as is generally supposed, Gn 49:5ff. refers to this act, the reprimand administered was based by him not upon the dread of consequences, but upon the turpitude of a cruel revenge.

The remaining verses of ch. 34 make Hamor spokesman for his son. He not only offered generously to make honourable amends for Shechem’s misconduct, but also proposed a mutual covenant of general intercourse, including the connubium. Jacob and his sons see their opportunity for revenge, and refuse, except upon the one condition that all the males of the city be circumcised. When, as a result, the latter were unable to defend themselves, all the sons of Jacob fell upon them with the sword, sparing only the women and children, whom they took captive with the spoil of the city. The words ‘two of’ and ‘Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren’ in v. 25 are interpolated (cf. v. 13). This story is clearly an elaboration of the earlier form, despite its one or two more antique touches, and suggests, moreover, the spirit at work in Ezra’s marriage reforms.

The story, like many others, introduced as episodes in the family history of Jacob, should probably receive a tribal interpretation. Simeon and Levi are tribes. Dinah was perhaps a small Israelite clan, according to the traditions closely related to Simeon and Levi; according to the name, possibly more closely to Dan. Schechem, the prince, is the eponymous hero of the city of that name. Hamor is the name of the Hivite clan in possession of the city. The weak Israelite clan, having become detached from the related tribes, was overpowered by the Canaanite inhabitants of Shechem and incorporated. Simeon and Levi, by a wilily plotted and unexpected attack, hoped to effect its deliverance. They were momentarily successful, and inflicted a severe blow upon the Shechemites; but their temerity cost them their tribal existence. A counterattack of the Canaanites resulted immediately in the decimation of the tribe, and finally in the absorption of their remnants into the neighbouring tribes. The Dinah clan disappeared at the same time.

JAMES A. CRAIG.

DINAITES (Ezr 4:9).—A people settled in Samaria by Osnappar (i.e. probably Ashurbanipal). They have been variously identified with the Da-ja-ēni, a tribe of western Armenia, mentioned in inscriptions of Tiglathpileser I.; and with the inhabitants of Deinaver, a Median city, or of Din-Sharru near Susa. The last view seems the most probable.

DINHABAH.—The capital city of king Bela in Edom (Gn 36:32 = 1 Ch 1:43). There is some doubt as to its identification. Possibly it is Thenib, E.N.E. from Heshbon.

DINNER.—See MEALS, § 2.

DIONYSIA.—A feast in honour of Dionysus, another name of the god Bacchus (2 Mac 6:7). He was the god of tree-life, but especially of the life of the vine and its produce. The festival celebrated the revival of the drink-giving vine after the deadness of winter. It was accompanied by orgiastic excesses, themselves at once emblematic of, and caused by, the renewed fertility of the soil. The most famous festivals of Dionysus, four in all, were held in Attica at various periods of the year, corresponding to the stages in the life of the vine, the Anthesteria, the Lenœa, the Lesser and the Greater Dionysia. The Lesser Dionysia was a vintage festival held in the country in December; the Greater Dionysia was held in the city, and it was in connexion with this that the tragedies and comedies were produced in the theatre of Dionysus. Attendance at these plays was an act of worship. In 2 Mac 6:7 we are told that Antiochus compelled the Jews to attend a festival of Dionysus, wearing wreaths of ivy, a plant sacred to the god.

A. SOUTER.

DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE.—A member of the University Court of the

Areopagus at Athens (Ac 17:34), converted by St. Paul. The writings ascribed to Dionysius are of a much later date. He is by some identified with St. Denys of France. A. J. MACLEAN.

DIONYSUS.—One of the various names applied to the god who is most commonly called Bacchus. It is probable that, to begin with, he was a god of vegetation in general, but as time went on he became identified with the vine exclusively. It is supposed that this specialization originated in Thrace. Later still, the worship, under Assyrian and Babylonian influence, took the form of mysteries, like that of Demeter, the goddess of bread. Mythology speaks of a triumphal journey taken by the god in India. His worship was widely disseminated over Greek lands, and it was assumed that the Jews would have no objection to it (2 Mac 6:7, 14:33). Ptolemy Philopator also attempted to force the worship of Dionysus, the god of his family, upon the Jews (3 Mac 2:29).

A. SOUTER.

DIOSCORINTHIUS.—See TIME.

DIOSCURI (RVm), or The Twin Brothers (RV), or Castor and Pollux (AV).— The sign or figurehead of the Alexandrian ship in which St. Paul sailed from Malta

(Ac 28:11), perhaps one of those employed to bring corn to Rome. The Twins (Gemini) were the protectors of sailors; in mythology they were sons of Zeus and Leda, and were placed in the sky as a constellation for their brotherly love.

A. J. MACLEAN.

DIOTREPHES.—A person, otherwise unknown, who is introduced in 3 John ( vv. 9, 10) as ambitious, resisting the writer’s authority, and standing in the way of the hospitable reception of brethren who visited the Church.

DIPHATH occurs in RV and AVm of 1 Ch 1:6, but it is practically certain that AV Riphath (wh. see) is the correct reading.

DISALLOW.—1 P 2:4, ‘a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God’; 2:7, ‘the stone which the builders disallowed.’ The Eng. word means emphatically disowned, as in the AV heading to 1 S 29, ‘David, marching with the Philistines, is disallowed by their princes.’ RV gives ‘rejected,’ as the same Gr. verb is rendered in Mt 21:42, Mk 8:31, Lk 17:25. But in Nu 30:5, 8, 11 ‘disallow’ means no more than disapprove, as in Barlowe’s Dialogue, p. 83, ‘ye can not fynde that they be dysalowed of God, but rather approved.’

DISCIPLES.—In the ancient world every teacher had his company of disciples or learners. The Greek philosophers and the Jewish Rabbis had theirs, and John the Baptist had his (Mk 2:18 ‘the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees’; cf. Jn 1:35, Mt 14:12). In like manner Jesus had His disciples. The term had two applications, a wider and a narrower. It denoted (1) all who believed in Him, though they remained where He had found them, pursuing their former avocations, yet rendering no small service to His cause by confessing their allegiance and testifying to His grace (cf. Lk 6:13, 19:37, Jn 4:1, 6:60, 66, 67). (2) The inner circle of the Twelve, whom He called ‘Apostles,’ and whom He required to forsake their old lives and follow Him whithersoever He went, not merely that they might strengthen Him by their sympathy (cf. Lk 22:28), but that they might aid Him in His ministry (Mt 9:37 , 10:1, 5), and, above all, that they might be trained by dally intercourse and discipline to carry forward the work after He was gone. These were ‘the disciples’ par excellence (Mt 10:1, 12:1, 49, 15:23, 32, Mk 8:27, Lk 8:9, Jn 11:7, 12:4, 16:17, 29).

See also APOSTLES.

DAVID SMITH.

DISCOVER.—In AV ‘discover’ is used in some obsolete meanings. 1. To uncover, make to be seen, as Knox, Hist. p. 250, ‘who rashly discovering himself in the Trenches, was shot in the head.’ So Ps 29:9, ‘The voice of the Lord … discovereth the forests,’ and other passages. 2. To disclose, as Shakespeare, Merry Wives, II. ii. 190, ‘I shall discover a thing to you.’ So Pr 25:9, ‘discover not a secret to another,’ etc. 3. To descry, get sight of, as Ac 21:3, ‘When we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand’; 27:39 ‘they discovered a certain creek.’

DISCUS.—See GAMES.

DISEASE.—See MEDICINE.

DISH.—See CHARGER; HOUSE, § 9; MEALS, § 5; and TABERNACLE, § 5

(a).

DISHAN.—A son of Seir, Gn 36:21, 28, 30 = 1 Ch 1:38, 42.

DISHON.—1. A son of Seir (Gn 36:21 = 1 Ch 1:38). 2. A son of Anah and grandson of Seir (Gn 36:25, cf. v. 30 = 1 Ch 1:41; Dishon should also be read for MT Dishan in Gn 36:26). Dishan and Dishon are, of course, not individual names, but the eponyms of Horite clans. Their exact location is a matter of uncertainty.

DISPERSION.—The name (Gr. Diaspora) given to the Jewish communities outside Palestine (2 Mac 1:27, Jn 7:35, Ja 1:1, 1 P 1:1). It is uncertain when the establishment of these non-Palestinian communities began. It appears from 1 K 20:34 that an Israelltish colony was established in Damascus in the reign of Ahab. Possibly the similar alliances of David and Solomon with Phœnicia had established similar colonies there. In the 8th cent. Tiglath-pileser III. carried many Israelites captive to Assyria (2 K 15:29), and Sargon transported from Samaria 27,290 Hebrews (cf. KIB ii. 55), and settled them in Mesopotamia and Media (2 K 17:6). As the Deuteronomic law had not at this date differentiated the religion of Israel sharply from other Semitic religions (cf. ISRAEL), it is doubtful whether these communities maintained their identity. Probably they were absorbed and thus lost to Israel.

The real Dispersion began with the Babylonian Exile. Nebuchadnezzar transplanted to Babylonia the choicest of the Judæan population (2 K 24:12–16 , 25:11, Jer 52:15). Probably 50,000 were transported, and Jewish communities were formed in Babylonia at many points, as at Tel-abib (Ezk 3:15) and Casiphia ( Ezr 8:17). Here the Jewish religion was maintained; prophets like Ezekiel and priests like Ezra sprang up, the old laws were studied and worked over, the Pentateuch elaborated, and from this centre Jews radiated to many parts of the East (Neh 1:1ff., To 1:9–22, Is 11:11). Thus the Jews reached Media, Persia, Cappadocia, Armenia, and the Black

Sea. Only a few of these Babylonian Jews returned to Palestine. They maintained the Jewish communities in Babylonia till about A.D. 1000. Here, after the beginning of the Christian era, the Babylonian Talmud was compiled.

In B.C. 608, Necho took king Jehoahaz and probably others to Egypt. In this general period colonies of Jews were living at Memphis, Migdol, Tahpanhes, and Pathros in Egypt (Jer 44:1). Papyri recently discovered prove the existence of a large Jewish colony and a Jewish temple at the First Cataract, in the 5th cent. B.C. Other Jews seem to have followed Alexander the Great to Egypt (Jos. BJ II. xviii. 8; c. Apion. ii. 4). Many others migrated to Egypt under the Ptolemys (Ant. XII. 1. 1, ii. 1 ff.). Philo estimated the number of Jews in Egypt in the reign of Caligula (A.D. 38– 41) at a million.

Josephus states that Seleucus I. (312–280) gave the Jews rights in all the cities founded by him in Syria and Asia (Ant. XII. iii. 1). This has been doubted by some, who suppose that the spread of Jews over Syria occurred after the Maccabæan uprising (168–143). At all events by the 1st cent. B.C. Jews were in all this region, as well as in Greece and Rome, in the most important centres about the Mediterranean, and had also penetrated to Arabia (Ac 2:11).

At Leontopolis in Egypt, Onias III., the legitimate Aaronic high priest, who had left Palestine because he hated Antiochus IV., founded, about B.C. 170, a temple which was for a century a mild rival of the Temple in Jerusalem. With few exceptions the Dispersion were loyal to the religion of the home land. Far removed from the Temple, they developed in the synagogue a spiritual religion without sacrifice, which, after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, kept Judaism alive. All Jews paid the annual half-shekel tax for the support of the Temple-worship, and at the great feasts made pilgrimages to Jerusalem from all parts of the world (Ac 2:10, 11). They soon lost the use of Hebrew, and had the Greek translation—the Septuagint—made for their use. Contact with the world gave them a broader outlook and a wider thought than the Palestinian Jews, and they conceived the idea of converting the world to Judaism. For use in this propaganda the Sibylline Oracles and other forms of literature likely to interest Græco-Roman readers were produced.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

DISTAFF.—See SPINNING AND WEAVING.

DIVES.—See LAZARUS, 2.

DIVINATION.—See MAGIC, DIVINATION, AND SORCERY.

DIVORCE.—See MARRIAGE.

DIZAHAB.—The writer of Dt. 1:1 thought of this as a town on the further side of the Jordan, in the ‘Arabah, on the border of Moab, ‘over against Suph,’ and as belonging to a group of places which he names. Unfortunately the mention of them does not make the matter clear. The site of Suph is unknown. So is that of Paran. The proposed identification of Tophel with et-Tafile, S.S.E. of the Dead Sea, fails on phonetic grounds. If ‘Ain el-Huderah, between Jebel Musa and ‘Akabah, represents a Hazeroth, and if Laban = Libnah (Nu 33:20), not far from ‘Ain el-Huderah, these are at too great a distance from the ‘Arabah. The same is to be said of Burckhardt’s suggestion that Mina ed-Dhahab, between the Ras Muhammad and ‘Akabah, is the place of which we are in search. Most probably the text is corrupt. At Nu 21:14 we find Suphah (Dt 1:1 Suph) in conjunction with Vaheb (see RV); and Vaheb, in the original, is almost the same as Zahab, which, indeed, the LXX reads. There seems to be some relationship between the two passages, but neither of them has so far been satisfactorily explained. At Gn 36:39 we have Mezahab (= ‘waters of gold’): this gives a better sense than Dizahab, and may be the proper form of the name.

The Versions do not help us. The LXX has Katachrysea (= ‘rich in gold’). The Vulg. (ubi auri est plurimum) takes the word as descriptive of the district, ‘where is gold in abundance.’ The Targums see in it an allusion to the golden calf. And we may add that Ibn Ezra thought it was an unusual designation of a place which commonly went by another name.

J. TAYLOR.

DOCTOR.—In Lk 2:46 it is said that the boy Jesus was found in the Temple, ‘sitting in the midst of the doctors.’ The doctors were Jewish Rabbis. The Eng. word, like the Greek (didaskalos), means simply ‘teacher.’ So Lk 5:17 and Ac 5:34, where the Gr. for ‘doctor of the law’ is one word (nomodidaskalos). Bacon calls St. Paul ‘the Doctor of the Gentiles.’

DOCTRINE.—The only word in the OT that RV as well as AV renders ‘doctrine’ is leqah = ‘instruction,’ lit. ‘what is received’ (Dt 32:2, Job 11:4, Pr 4:2, Is 29:24). In the NT ‘doctrine’ stands once for logos (He 6:1 AV; but cf. RV), otherwise for didachē and didaskalia, of which the former denotes esp. the act of teaching, the latter the thing that is taught. For didaskalia RV has usually retained ‘doctrine’ of AV, but in the case of didachē has almost invariably substituted ‘teaching.’ It is noteworthy that didaskalia is never used of the teaching of Jesus, always didachē; also that didaskalia is found chiefly in the Pastoral Epp., and outside of these, with two exceptions (Ro 12:7, 15:4), is used in a disparaging sense (Mt 15:9, Mk 7:7, Eph 4:14 , Col 2:22). This is in keeping with the distinction between didachē as ‘teaching’ and didaskalia as ‘doctrine.’ It reminds us that at first there were no formulations of Christian belief. The immediate disciples of Jesus had the Living Word Himself; the earliest generation of Christians, the inspired utterances of Apostles and other Spiritfilled men.

J. C. LAMBERT.

DODANIM.—Named in the MT of Gn 10:4 among the descendants of Javan, or Ionians. The LXX and Sam. versions and the parallel passage 1 Ch 1:7 read Rodanim, i.e. Rhodians. Cf. the true reading of Ezk 27:15 under DEDAN.

J. F. MCCURDY.

DODAVAHU (‘beloved of J″,’ AV Dodavah).—Father of Eliezer of Mareshah, the prophet who censured Jehoshaphat for entering into alliance with Ahaziah (2 Ch 20:37).

DODO (so the Qerē, Kethibh Dodai).—1. The father of Eleazar, the second of the three captains who were over ‘the thirty’ (2 S 23:9). In the parallel list (1 Ch 11:12) the name is given as Dodo and also ‘the Ahohite’ for the erroneous ‘son of Ahohi.’ In the third list (1 Ch 27:4) Dodai is described as general of the second division of the army, but the words ‘Eleazar the son of’ appear to have been accidentally omitted. The traditional spelling (Dodo) is most probably right: the name Dudu has been found on the Tell el-Amarna tablets, apparently as that of an Amorite official at the Egyp. court. 2. A Bethlehemite, father of Elhanan, one of ‘the thirty’ (2 S 23:24, 1 Ch 11:26). 3. A man of Issachar, the forefather of Tola the judge (Jg 10:1).

DOE.—RV (Pr 5:19), AV ‘roe,’ is in Heb. ya‘alāh, the female ibex. See ‘Wild goat, s.v. GOAT.

DOEG.—An Edomite, and chief of the herdmen [or better, ‘runners,’ reading hārātsīm for hā-rō‘īm] of king Saul. When David fled to Nob to Ahimelech (or Ahijah) the priest, Doeg was there ‘detained before the Lord.’ Upon his report Saul ordered Ahimelech and his companions to be slain. The order was carried out by Doeg, when the rest of the king’s guard shrank from obeying it (1 S 21:7, 22:9–19). Doeg is mentioned in the title of Ps. 52.

DOG.—All the Bible references to dogs breathe the modern Oriental feeling with regard to them; they refer to the common pariah dogs. These creatures are in all their ways repulsive, and in the majority of cases they have not even outward attractiveness. They live in and around the streets, and act as scavengers. In the environs of Jerusalem, e.g. the Valley of Hinnom, where carcases are cast out, they may be seen prowling around and consuming horrible, putrid bodies, or lying stretched near the remains of their meal, satiated with their loathsome repast. Whole companies of dogs consume the offal of the slaughter-house. There is not the slightest doubt that they would consume human bodies to-day had they the opportunity; indeed, cases do occur from time to time (cf. 1 K 14:11, 16:4, 21:19, 23, 22:38, 2 K 9:10, 36, Jer 15:3, Ps 68:23). All night they parade the streets (Ps 59:6, 14–15), each company jealously guarding that district which they have annexed, and fighting with noisy onslaught any canine stranger who ventures to invade their territory. Such a quarrel may start all the dogs in the city into a hideous chorus of furious barks. In many parts these creatures are a real danger, and the wise man leaves them alone ( Pr

26:17). When they attach themselves, quite uninvited, to certain houses or encampments, they defend them from all intruders (Is 56:10). To call a man a ‘dog’ is a dire insult, but by no means an uncommon one from an arrogant superior to one much below him, and to apply such an epithet to himself on the part of an inferior is an expression of humility (2 K 8:13 etc.). A ‘dead dog’ is an even lower stage; it is an all too common object, an unclean animal in a condition of putridity left unconsumed even by his companions (1 S 24:14 etc.). The feeling against casting bread to a dog is a strong one; bread is sacred, and to cast it to dogs is even to-day strongly condemned in Palestine (Mk 7:27).

The shepherd dog (Job 30:1) is, as a rule, a very superior animal; many of these are handsome beasts of a Kurdish breed, and have the intelligent ways and habits of our best shepherds’ dogs at home.

Greyhounds are still bred by some Bedouin in S. Palestine, and are used for hunting the gazelle; they are treated very differently from the pariah dogs. Pr 30:31 is a very doubtful reference to the greyhound; RVm has ‘war horse,’ LXX ‘cock.’

The ‘price of a dog’ (Dt 23:18) evidently has reference to degraded practices of the qedēshīm (‘male prostitutes’) connected with the worship at ‘Baal’ temples.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

DOK.—A fortress near Jericho, where Simon the Maccabee, along with two of his sons, was murdered by his son-in-law Ptolemy, 1 Mac 16:15. The name survives in the modern ‘Ain Dûk, 4 miles N.W. of Jericho.

DOLEFUL CREATURE.—See JACKAL.

DOMINION.—Lordship, or the possession and exercise of the power to rule. In Col 1:16 the word is used in the plural, along with ‘thrones, principalities, and powers,’ to denote supernatural beings possessed of the power of lordship, and ranking as so many kings, princes, and potentates of the heavenly regions. The same word in the singular, and inessentially the same meaning, appears in Eph 1:21, where allusion is made to the exaltation of Christ ‘far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.’ There is no necessary reference in either of these texts to evil angels, but a comparison of what is written in Eph 2:2, 6:12 shows that ‘the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places’ need not be excluded. Similar indefiniteness is apparent in the other two passages, 2 P 2:10, Jude 8, where the same word is found. It is understood by some to refer here to the lordship of civil rulers, or to any concrete representative of such lordship. Others believe that the reference is to angels, either good or evil, as representing some form of supernatural power and dominion, and the reference in the context to Michael, the archangel, not bringing a railing judgment even against the devil, may be thought to favour this view. A third explanation is also possible, and is favoured by the mention in Jude 4 of ‘our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.’ Those ungodly men, who deny the Lord Jesus, would not hesitate to despise, set at nought, and rail at all manner of glorious lordships and dignities. See AUTHORITY, POWER.

M. S. TERRY.

DOOR, DOORKEEPER, DOORPOST.—See HOUSE, § 6. For ‘doorkeeper’ in the Temple, see PRIESTS AND LEVITES.

DOPHKAH.—A station in the itinerary of the children of Israel (Nu 33:12f.). This station and the next one, Alush, which lie between the ‘encampment by the sea’ and Rephidim, have not been identified, and they are not alluded to in Exodus. It is possible that Dophkah is an erroneous transcription of Mafkah, the name of an Egyp. district near the Wady Maghara.

DOR.—One of the cities which joined Jabin against Joshua (Jos 11:2), and whose king was killed (12:23). It lay apparently on or near the border between Manasseh and Asher, so that its possession was ambiguous (17:11). The aborigines were not driven out (Jg 1:27). It was administered by Ben-abinadab for Solomon (1 K 4:11). Though Josephus refers to it as on the sea-coast, and it is traditionally equated to Tantura, north of Cæsarea, the reference to the ‘heights of Dor’ rather suggests that it was in some hilly district such as the slope of the range of Carmel. The name seems quite forgotten.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

DORCAS (Gr. form of Aram. Tabitha, lit. ‘gazelle,’ Ac 9:36ff.).—The name of a Christian woman at Joppa, ‘full of good works and almsdeeds,’ who, having died, was raised by St. Peter’s prayer and the words ‘Tabitha, arise.’ The description recalls the ‘Talitha cumi, scene in Jairus’ house (Mk 5:41).

A. J. MACLEAN.

DORYMENES.—The father of Ptolemy Macron, who was a trusted friend of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mac 4:45), and was chosen by Lysias to command the Syrian army in Pal. in conjunction with Nicanor and Gorgias (1 Mac 3:38).

DOSITHEUS.—1. The priest who, according to a note in one of the Greek recensions of Esther, brought the book to Alexandria in the 4th year of Ptolemy Philometor (?) and Cleopatra, c. B.C. 178 (Ad. Est 11:1). 2. A soldier of Judas Maccabæus, who made a vain attempt to take Gorgias prisoner (2 Mac 12:35). 3. A renegade Jew who frustrated the plot of Theodotus to assassinate king Ptolemy Philopator (3 Mac 1:3). 4. An officer of Judas Maccabæus (2 Mac 12:19, 24).

DOTÆA (Jth 3:9).—Another form of Dothan (wh. see). AV has incorrectly Judœa.

DOTHAN (Gn 37:17, 2 K 6:13–18; Dotæa, Jth 3:9; Dothaim, Jth 4:6 etc.).—Today, Tell Dothan, a remarkable isolated hill at the S.E. corner of a great plain Sahl ’Arrābeh; surrounded on three sides by hills (2 K 6:17). Clearly a place suitable for defence, it must have been of importance when the neighbouring high-road, still much used, was a main thoroughfare from Damascus to Egypt. The situation is, too, a choice one on account of its abundant fountain, now used to work a mill and irrigate fruit gardens; two ancient wells and a number of empty cisterns (Gn 37:24) are also found near the foot of the tell. Great herds of cattle, sheep, and goats from the neighbouring abundant pastures, may always be found gathered there in the afternoon drinking from the water and browsing in the shade. Although there are no ancient remains on the surface, traces of walls may be seen all around the hill top.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

DOUBT (from Lat. dubitare, ‘to hold two (opinions),’ ‘hesitate’).—1. In AV ‘doubt’ (vb. and noun) six times renders a Gr. vb. meaning ‘to be at a loss’ or ‘quite at a loss’; in all these instances except Jn 13:22 RV substitutes ‘perplexity,’ following the AV rendering of Lk 9:7, 24:4, 2 Co 4:8. In this sense ‘doubt’ is now nearly obsolete; as it is in the meaning riddle, knotty question, which it bears in Dn 5:12, 16. Not dissimilar is its use in the AV of Jn 10:24 (‘make us to doubt’), where RV, more literally, reads ‘hold us in suspense.’ Quite archaic also is the use of ‘doubt’ for ‘suspect,’ instanced in Sir 6:13 (AV). 2. Elsewhere ‘doubt’ has a religious signification, standing in express or tacit antithesis to ‘faith’ (wh. see). (a) In Mt 21:21, Mk 11:23, Ac 10:20, 11:12, Ro 14:23, Ja 1:6 (RV), Jude 22 (RV), it stands for a vb. signifying ‘to be divided in mind (judgment)’—the same Gr. word is rendered ‘staggered’ in AV, ‘wavered’ in RV, of Ro 4:20; (b) in Mt 14:31, 28:17 ‘to be of two opinions,’ ‘to waver,’ is the force of the original: the vb. above indicates (1) more subjectively, (2) more objectively, a state of qualified faith, of faith mixed with misgiving, something between whole-hearted faith and decided unbelief. Thus wavering, faith is robbed of its power; hence such hesitation, in regard to Christ and the promises and commands of God, is strongly deprecated and reproved. In the above examples the doubt, affecting the mind of a believer, arises from contradictory circumstances or conscientious scruples; unless this be the case in Mt 28:17 (cf. Lk 24:38, noticed below), it has none of the quality of rationalistic doubt or scepticism. (c) Akin to the above is the expression of Lk 12:29, where ‘of doubtful mind’ ( AV, RV) is the rendering of an obscure Gr. word that seems to mean being lifted into the air, and so agitated, held in suspense or driven by gusts (cf. Eph 4:14, Ja 1:4–6). (d)

Another group of expressions remains: Ro 14:1 ‘doubtful disputations’ (AV) ,

‘decisions of doubts’ (RVm); 1 Ti 2:8 ‘disputing’ (RV) or ‘doubting’ (AV) = ‘reasoning’ (Lk 24:38 RV); ‘disputings’ (Ph 2:14). In these passages arguing, questioning is intended, and (in Ro.) matter of argument, debatable questions. This usage lies on the border between 1 and 2; for the questions referred to, except in Lk 24:38, did not directly belong to faith, but their agitation disturbed and tended to weaken it.

G. G. FINDLAY.

DOVE.—The words translated ‘dove’ apply equally to doves and pigeons. In Palestine seven varieties of the Columbœ are found. The most noticeable are: the wood pigeons or ring-doves (Columba palumbus), which fly in great flocks all over the land; the turtle-dove (Turtur communis), a harbinger of spring, arriving in the land in April (Jer 8:7, Ca 2:12); and the palm turtle-dove (Turtur senegalensis), which is common in a semi-domesticated state in the streets and courts of Jerusalem. ‘Dove’ is a favourite name of affection (Ca 1:15, 4:1, 5:2, 12, 6:9), and to-day it is one of the commonest names given to girls by Eastern Jewish parents. It is typical of harmlessness (Mt 10:16), helplessness (Ps 74:19), and innocence. The last quality doubtless makes it typical of the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:16 etc.). Doves were used in sacrifice (Lv 5:7, 12:6 etc.), and have been kept as pets for long ages.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

DOVES’ DUNG.—‘A fourth part of a cab’ of this material was sold at a high price in Samaria during the siege (2 K 6:25). The words harī yōnīm, as they stand, are plain, and no suggested alternative has cleared up the difficulty. It is an example of the actual extremity of the siege comparable with the threats of the approaching siege of 2 K 18:27. Whether, as Josephus suggests, the dung was a source of salt, or was used as medicine or as food, it is impossible to say.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

DOWRY.—See MARRIAGE.

DRACHM.—See DRAM; MONEY, §§ 4, 7.

DRAGON.—(1) tannīm (pl.), AV ‘dragons,’ but RV ‘jackals,’ Is 13:22, 34:13 ,

35:7, Job 30:29, Ps 44:19, Jer 10:22, 49:33. (2) tannōth, AV ‘dragons,’ but RV ‘jackals,’ Mal 1:3. See JACKAL. (3) tannīm (sing.), ‘dragon,’ Ezk 29:3, 32:2, refers to Egypt, and probably means specially the crocodile (wh. see). (4) tannīn ( pl. tannīnim), tr. in RV of Gn 1:21 and Job 7:12 ‘sea monster(s)’ (AV ‘whale(s)’); Aaron’s rod became a tannīn (Ex 7:9–12, EV serpent [wh. see, §11]). The same term, tannīn, is also applied metaphorically to Pharaoh (Ps 74:13, Is 51:9; and thus perhaps refers to the crocodile), and to Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 51:34). Doubtless many references here and elsewhere are tinged by current mythological tales of ‘dragons,’ such as that preserved in the Assyrian creation-epic of the contest between Marduk and Tiamat. The reference in Rev 12:3ff. is certainly of this nature.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

DRAM, from the Gr. drachma, is used in AV to render two words which RV, with questionable accuracy, has rendered ‘darics’ (see more fully under MONEY, § 4). The ‘ten pieces of silver’ of Lk 15:8f., however, were real drachmas, as marg. of AV and RV, for which see MONEY, § 7.

DRAUGHT (Mt 15:17, Mk 7:19) and DRAUGHT HOUSE (Amer. RV ‘draughthouse,’ 2 K 10:27) both signify a privy or closet, which in the Mishna is ‘waterhouse.’ Jehu, according to the last-cited passage, turned the temple of Baal in Samaria into public latrines.

DREAMS.—Sleep impressed primitive savages as a great mystery; and they consequently attributed a peculiar significance to the dreams of sleepers, as phenomena which they could not control by their will or explain by their reason. In the lowest stage of culture all dreams were regarded as objectively real experiences; the god or spirit actually visited the dreamer, the events dreamed actually occurred. Hence any one who was subject to frequent dreaming was looked on as a special medium of Divine energy, and many sought to produce the state by artificial means,

e.g. fasting or the use of drugs. In process of time dreams came to be treated rather as Divine warnings than as actual occurrences. Such admonitions could be deliberately sought, e.g. by sleeping in a sacred spot, such as the temples of Asklepios or Serapis or the grotto of Trophonius; or they could come unsought, when the gods wished either to reveal or to deceive. (Plato, however, while allowing that the gods may send dreams, denies that they can wish to deceive men). Thus, for instance, among the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Arabs, the Egyptians, a profound importance was attached to dreams; there were professional interpreters of them (cf. Gn 40:5, 8, 41:1 ,

Dn 2:5), and manuals were compiled to aid the work of elucidation (cf. the Oneirocritica of Artemidorus of Ephesus). Wiser theorists might discriminate between dreams, but popular superstition tended to regard them all as omens, to be explained, as far as possible, in accordance with definite rules.

1. Among the Jews.—In both Testaments we find significance attached to dreams (Gn 37:6, 9, 41:25, Jg 7:13, Dn 2:28, 7:1ff., Mt 1:20, 2:13, 20, Ac 23:11, 27:23), and in OT times it seems that a great deal of vulgar superstition existed with regard to such phenomena; similarly necromancy and sorcery, though discouraged by the higher thought of the nation (cf. Dt 18:10, 11), were undoubtedly practised. We find hardly any traces, however, of dreams being regularly sought; 1 S 28:15 may be one; and in Gn 28:12–19 and 1 K 3:5 it is possible to suppose a reference to the practice of sleeping in a sacred locality in order to receive a Divine communication. On the whole, the general trend of OT teaching is as follows:—Dreams may in some cases be genuine communications from God (Job 33:15, Jer 23:28), and as such are reverenced (Gn 20:3, 31:10ff.), though Nu 12:6–8 treats them as an inferior medium; but there are false dreams and lying dreamers, against whom precautions are necessary; and the idea that habitual dreaming is a certain sign of Divine inspiration is stoutly combated (cf. Jer 23:25, 32, 27:9, 29:8, Zec 10:2, Ec 5:7), and it is definitely recognized that the interpretation of dreams belongs to God, and is not a matter of human codification ( cf.

Gn 40:8).

2. General.—The consideration of dreams is partly a subject for the sciences which treat of the general relations between body and spirit, and partly a matter of common sense. It seems clear that dreams are connected with physical states, and that their psychological origin lies mainly in the region beneath the ‘threshold of consciousness.’ But all dreams and all waking states are states of consciousness, whether it be partial or complete, and as such are subject to law; if any are to be regarded as ‘supernatural,’ it must be owing not to their methods but to their messages. Some dreams convey no message, and can be explained as valuable only by a resort to superstition. Others may be real revelations, and as such Divine; in abnormal cases the power of spiritual perception may be intensified and heightened in the dream-state, and thus an insight into Divine truth may be obtained which had been denied to the waking consciousness. Similarly Condorcet is said to have solved in a dream a mathematical problem which had baffled his waking powers, and Coleridge to have dreamt the poem of Kubla Khan. But under any circumstances the interpretation of a dream ‘belongs to God’; the question whether its message is a Divine communication or not must ultimately be answered by an appeal to the religious consciousness, or in other words to the higher reason. The awakened intelligence must be called in to criticise and appraise the deliverances received in dreams, and its verdict must decide what measure of attention is to be paid to them. Dreams, in short, may be the source of suggestions, but scarcely of authoritative directions.

A. W. F. BLUNT.

DRESS.—The numerous synonyms for ‘dress’ to be found in our EV—‘apparel,’ ‘attire,’ ‘clothes,’ ‘raiment,’ ‘garments,’ etc.—fairly reflect a similar wealth of terminology in the original Hebrew and Greek, more especially the former. As regards the particular articles of dress, the identification of these is in many cases rendered almost impossible for the English reader by the curious lack of consistency in the renderings of the translators, illustrations of which will be met with again and again in this article. For this and other reasons it will be necessary to have recourse to transliteration as the only certain means of distinguishing the various garments to be discussed.

1. Materials.—Scripture and anthropology are in agreement as to the great antiquity of the skins of animals, wild and domesticated, as dress material (Gn 3:21 ‘coats of skin’; cf. for later times, He 11:37). The favourite materials in Palestine, however, were wool and flax (Pr 31:13). The finest quality of linen was probably an importation from Egypt (see LINEN). Goats’ hair and camels’ hair supplied the materials for coarser fabrics. The first certain mention of silk is in Rev 18:12, for the meaning of the word so rendered in Ezk 16:10, 13 is doubtful, and the silk of Pr 31:22 (AV) is really ‘fine linen’ as in RV.

2. Under Garments.—(a) The oldest and most widely distributed of all the articles of human apparel is the loin-cloth (Heb. ’ēzōr), originally a strip of skin or cloth wrapped round the loins and fastened with a knot. Among the Hebrews in historical times it had been displaced in ordinary life by the shirt or tunic (see below). The loincloth or waist-cloth, however, is found in a number of interesting survivals in OT, where it is unfortunately hidden from the English reader by the translation ‘girdle,’ a term which should be reserved for an entirely different article of dress (see § 3). The universal sign of mourning, for example, was the ‘girding’ of the waist with an ’ēzōr of hair-cloth (EV ‘sackcloth’). Certain of the prophets, again, as exponents of the simple life, wore the waist-cloth as their only under garment, such as Elijah, who ‘was girt about with a loin-cloth (EV ‘girdle’) of leather’ (2 K 1:8), and John the Baptist (Mt 3:4, Mk 1:6). Isaiah on one occasion wore an ’ēzōr of hair-cloth (Is 20:2), and Jeremiah on another occasion one of linen (Jer 13:1 ff. ).

The noun and the cognate verb are frequently used in figurative senses, the point of which is lost unless it is remembered that the waist-cloth was always worn next the skin, as e.g. Jer 13:11, Is 11:5, the figure in the latter case signifying that righteousness and faithfulness are essential and inseparable elements in the character of the Messianic ‘Shoot.’

(b) The aprons of Ac 19:12 were the Roman semicinctium, a short waist-cloth worn specially by slaves and workmen (see illust. in Rich, Dict. of Rom. and Gr.

Antiq., s.v.).

(c) In early times the priests wore a waist-cloth of linen, which bore the special name of the ephod (1 S 2:18), and which the incident recorded in 2 S 6:14ff.—David, as priest, dancing before the ark—shows to have been of the nature of a short kilt. By the Priests’ Code, however, the priests were required to wear the under garment described under BREECHES. See, further, HOSEN.

(d) In OT, as has been said, the everyday under garment of all classes—save for certain individuals or on special occasions—is the shirt or tunic (kuttoneth, a term which reappears in Greek as chitōn, and probably in Latin as tunica). The uniform rendering of EV is coat, only Jn 19:23 RVm ‘tunic’ A familiar Assyrian sculpture, representing the siege and capture of Lachish by Sennacherib, shows the Jewish captives, male and female alike, dressed in a moderately tight garment fitting close to the neck (cf. Job 30:18) and reaching almost to the ankles, which must represent the kuttoneth of the period as worn in towns. That of the peasantry and of most workmen was probably both looser and shorter, resembling in these respects its modern representative, the kamees (Lat. camisia, our ‘chemise’) of the Syrian fellahin.

As regards sleeves, which are not expressly mentioned in OT—but see RVm at Gn 37:3 (Joseph) and 2 S 13:18 (Tamar)—three modes are found. An early Egyptian representation of a group of Semitic traders (c. B.C. 2000) shows a coloured sleeveless tunic, which fastens on the left shoulder, leaving the right shoulder bare. The Lachish tunics, above mentioned, have short sleeves reaching half-way to the elbows. This probably represents the prevailing type of tunic among the Hebrews of the earlier period at least, since a third variety, fitted with long and wide sleeves and reaching to the ground, was evidently restricted to the upper and wealthier classes. This is the ‘tunic of (i.e. reaching to) palms and soles’ worn by Joseph and the royal princess Tamar (see above), more familiar as the ‘coat of many (or diverse) colours,’ a rendering which represents a now generally abandoned tradition. In Josephus’ day the long white linen tunic, which was the chief garment of the ordinary priesthood, had sleeves which for practical reasons were tied to the arms (Jos. Ant. III. vii. 2). By this time, also, it had become usual even among the lower ranks of the people to wear an under tunic or real shirt (ib. XVII. v. 7; Mishna, passim, where this garment is named chālūk). In this case the upper tunic, the kuttoneth proper, would be taken off at night (Ca 5:3).

The ordinary tunic was made in at least three ways. (1) It might consist of two similar pieces of woollen or linen cloth cut from a larger web, which were sewed together along the sides and top. (2) The material for a single tunic might be woven on the loom, and afterwards put together without cutting, in the manner of the Egyptian tunics described and figured in Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antiq. 3 s.v. ‘Tunica’ (ii. 904). (3) As we know from the description of the chitōn worn by our Lord at the time of His Passion (Jn 19:23), and from other sources, a third variety was woven ‘without seam’ on a special loom (see SPINNING AND WEAVING) and required no further adjustment.

The garment intended by the ‘coats’ of Dn 3:21, 27 (AV) is uncertain. Most recent authorities favour mantles (so AVm; RV has ‘hosen,’ wh. see). For the ‘coat of mail’ see ARMOUR, 2 ( c ).

3. The Girdle.—Almost as indispensable as the tunic was the girdle, which varied in material and workmanship from a simple rope (Is 3:24 RV) to the rich and elaborate waist-belt of the priests, and the ‘golden girdles’ of Rev 1:13, 15:6. Usually it consisted of a long strip of cloth, folded several times and wound round the waist above the tunic, with or without the ends hanging down in front. When work or a journey was in contemplation, the girdle was put on, and part of the tunic drawn up till it hung over in folds. Hence this operation of ‘girding the loins’ became a figure for energetic action. The girdle served also as a sword-belt (2 S 20:8); through it was stuck the writer’s inkhorn (Ezk 9:3, 11), while its folds served as a purse (Mt 10:9 RVm). The special priests’ girdle, termed ’abnēt (Ex 28:4 and oft.), was a richly embroidered sash wound several times round the waist, according to Josephus, and tied in front, the ends falling to the ankles.

4. Upper Garments.—While the kuttoneth or tunic was the garment in which the work of the day was done (see Mt 24:18 RV, Mk 13:16 RV), men and women alike possessed a second garment, which served as a protection against inclement weather by day and as a covering by night (Ex 22:26f.). The two are sharply distinguished in the familiar saying of Jesus: ‘If any man sue thee at the law and take away thy coat (chitōn), let him have thy cloke (himation) also’ (Mt 5:40).

(a) The commonest name for this upper garment in OT is simlah or salmah. The simlah was almost certainly a large rectangular piece of cloth, in most cases of wool, in more special cases of linen. It was thus the exact counterpart of the himation of the Greeks, which we have seen to be its NT name, and the pallium of the Romans. Like them, it belonged not to the class of endumata or garments ‘put on,’ as the tunic, but to the periblemata or garments ‘wrapped round’ the body.

Since this view is at variance with that of acknowledged authorities on the subject (Nowack, Benzinger, Mackie in art. ‘Dress’ in Hastings’ DB i. 625), who identify the simlah with the modern ‘aba, the coarse loose overcoat of the modern Syrian peasantry, the grounds on which it is based may be here briefly set forth. (1) If the parallel passages, Ex 22:26f. and Dt 24:13, 17 on the one hand, and Nu 15:38 and Dt 22:12 on the other, are compared in the original, it will be found that three terms are used indiscriminately for the ordinary upper garment of the Hebrews, and, further, that this garment had four corners, to each of which a tassel had to be attached ( see more fully FRINGES)—a detail which suggests a plain four-cornered plaid like the himation, not a made-up garment like the chitōn or the ‘aba. (2) The incident of the sick woman in Mt 9:20ff. and parallel passages, who reached forward in the crowd to touch the tassel of Jesus’ himation from behind, shows that the Jewish upper garment was still worn by being wrapped round the body, over the back from left to right, with one corner and its tassel falling over the left shoulder. (3) The shape of the simple oblong tallith or prayer-shawl of the modern Jews, with its four tassels, which is the direct descendant of the simlah and the more recent tallith of the Mishna, is in favour of the former having the shape now advocated. (4) The clear distinction in NT already referred to, between the two principal garments of the Jews, confirms the conclusion that the typical Jewish upper garment closely resembled, if it was not identical with, the garment known as the himation throughout the Greek-speaking world.

In our EV the simlah is concealed from the English reader under a variety of renderings. Thus, to give but a few illustrations, it is the ‘garment’ with which Noah’s nakedness was covered in Gn 9:23, and the ‘clothes’ in which the Hebrews bound up their kneading-troughs (Ex 12:34); it is the ‘garment’ of Gideon in Jg 8:25 , and the ‘raiment’ of Ruth (3:3); just as the himation of NT is not only the ‘cloke’ of Mt 5:40, but the ‘clothes’ of Mt 24:18 (but RV ‘cloke’); the ‘garment’ of Mk 13:16 , and so on.

(b) Another variety of upper garment, known as the me‘īl, is mentioned only in connexion with men of high social position or of the priestly order. It is the robe of Saul—the skirt (lit. ‘corner’) of which was cut off by David (1 S 24:4f.)—of Jonathan (18:4), and of Ezra (Ezr 9:3, 5), the little ‘coat’ of the boy-priest Samuel (1 S 2:19) , and his ‘mantle’ at a later stage (15:27). RV has ‘robe’ for me‘īl throughout. Wherein did the me‘īl differ from the simlah? From its constant association with men of rank, we should expect it to be of a more elaborate and ornate description. The violet ‘robe of the ephod’ prescribed for the high priest (Ex 28:31ff., 39:22ff.) had ‘a hole for the head in the midst thereof, as it were the bole of a coat of mail,’ and was trimmed with an elaborate ball-and-bell fringe. Now on the black obelisk of Shalmaneser, the bearers of Jehu’s tribute, nobles of Samaria doubtless, are represented wearing over their tunics a similar fringed and sleeveless garment, open at the sides, and resembling, if not identical with, the upper garment of Assyrian kings and dignitaries of state, which may with some confidence be identified with the me‘īl. The latter, then, seems to have been a piece of cloth of superior material and workmanship, in the shape of a magnified chest-protector, worn over the tunic like a priest’s chasuble, and reaching almost to the ankles. It probably came to the Hebrews from Babylonia through the medium of the Canaanites, and survives to-day in the ‘little tallith’ or arba kanphoth of the Jews (see FRINGES). By the time of Josephus, the high priest’s me‘īl had become a sleeveless and seamless upper tunic (Jos. Ant. III. vii. 4).

(c) A third variety of upper garment, the ’addereth, appears to have been the distinctive garment of the prophets (see Zec 13:4 RV ‘hairy mantle’). Elijah’s mantle, in particular, is always so named. The latter, according to the Gr. version of Kings, was made of sheepskin, with the wool outside (cf. 2 K 1:8 RVm and Gn 25:25 ‘hairy garment’). It may, however, have been of goats’ or camels’ hair, as in the case of John the Baptist (Mt 3:4, Mk 1:6).

(d) Among the products of the domestic loom was a fourth garment, the sādīn ( Pr 31:24). From the Mishna we learn that it was a plain sheet of fine linen with tassels, which could be used as a light upper garment, as a curtain, and as a shroud. In this last respect it resembled the NT sindōn, the ‘linen cloth’ of Mt 27:59, Mk 15:46 RV. It is probably as an upper garment of fine white linen for gala use (cf. Ec 9:8) that the sādīn is introduced in Jg 14:12f. (AV ‘sheets,’ RV ‘linen garments’) and Is 3:23.

(e) Mention must also be made of the ‘scarlet robe’ (chlamys) in which Jesus was arrayed by the Roman soldiers (Mt 27:28, 31). It is the paludamentum or military cloak worn over their armour by the superior officers of the Roman army. The ‘cloke’ finally, which St. Paul left at Troas (2 Ti 4:13) was the Roman pœnula, a circular travelling cape. For the brooch or buckle by which an upper garment was sometimes fastened, see ORNAMENTS, § 5.

5. Headdress.—(a) The Hebrews appear at first to have had no covering for the head, except on special occasions, such as war, when a leather helmet was worn ( see ARMOUR, 2 (b)). At most a rope or cord served as a fillet, as may be inferred from 1

K 20:31f., and as may be seen in the representations of Syrians on the monuments of Egypt. In cases of prolonged exposure to the sun, it is most probable that recourse would be had to a covering in the style of the modern keffiyeh, which protects not only the head but also the neck and shoulders. Jehu’s tribute-carriers, above mentioned, are depicted in a headgear resembling the familiar Phrygian cap. The best attested covering, however—at least for the upper ranks of both sexes—is the tsānīph (from a root signifying to ‘wind round’) or turban. It is the royal ‘diadem’ of Is 62:3, the ladies’ ‘hood’ of Is 3:23 (RV ‘turban’), and the ‘mitre’ of Zec 3:5 (RVm ‘turban or diadem’). A kindred word is used for the high priest’s turban, the ‘mitre’ of Ex 28:4 , etc., for which see MITRE. A turban is also implied in Ezekiel’s description of a lady’s headdress: ‘I have bound thee with a tire of fine linen’ (Ezk 16:10 RVm). The egg-shaped turban of the ordinary priests has been discussed under BONNET ( RV ‘head-tires’). The ‘hats’ of Dn 3:21 were probably a variety of the conical Babylonian headdress, although RV gives ‘mantles.’ Antiochus Epiphanes, it is recorded, compelled the young Jewish nobles to wear the petasus, the low, broad-brimmed hat associated with Hermes (2 Mac 4:12, RV ‘the Greek cap’).

In NT times, as may be learned from the Mishna, many forms of headdress were in use. One was named the sūdār, from the Lat. sudarium (a cloth for wiping off perspiration, sudor), which is the napkin of Jn 11:44, 20:7, although there it appears as a kerchief or head-covering for the dead (cf. below, 8).

(b) As regards the headdress of the female sex, we have seen that both sexes of the wealthier classes wore the tsānīph or turban. The female captives from Lachish wear over their tunics an upper garment, which covers the forehead and hair and falls down over the shoulders as far as the ankles. Whether this is the garment intended by any of the words rendered vail in AV, as that of Ruth, for example (3:15, RV ‘mantle’), or by the ‘kerchiefs for the head’ of Ezk 13:18 RV, it is impossible to say. The veil, however, with which Rebekah and Tamar covered themselves (Gn 24:65, 38:14), was more probably a large mantle in which the whole body could be wrapped, like the sādīn of 4 (d) above. Indeed, it is impossible to draw a clear distinction in OT between the mantle and the veil. The only express mention of a face-veil is in the case of Moses (Ex 34:33).

6. Shoes and sandals.—Within doors the Hebrews went barefoot. Out of doors it was customary to wear either sandals or shoes, mostly the former. The simplest form of sandal consisted of a plain sole of leather, bound to the feet by a leather thong, the ‘shoelatchet’ of Gn 14:23 and the ‘latchet’ of Mk 1:7 etc. The Assyrians preferred a sandal fitted with a heel-cap, by which they are distinguished from Jehu’s attendants on the obelisk of Shalmaneser, who wear shoes completely covering the feet. In Ezekiel’s day ladies wore shoes of ‘sealskin’ (Ezk 16:10 RV; but see BADGERS’ SKINS). The laced boot of the soldier may be referred to in Is 9:5 (see RVm). The sandals were removed not only in cases of mourning (2 S 15:30) and of a visit to a friend, but also on entering a sacred precinct (Ex 3:5, Jos 5:15); the Jewish priests, accordingly, performed all their offices in the Temple barefoot.

7. It need hardly be said that the taste for ‘purple and fine linen’ was not peculiar to the days of Dives, as may be seen from the remarkable dress-list in Is 3:18ff. Richly embroidered garments are mentioned as early as the time of the Judges (Jg 5:30 RV). King Josiah had an official who bore the title of ‘the keeper of the wardrobe’ (2 K 22:14). The ‘change of raiment,’ however, several times mentioned in OT, were not so many complete outfits, but special gala robes, for which one’s ordinary garments were ‘changed.’ In the East, such robes have continued a favourite form of gift and expression of esteem from sovereigns and other persons of high rank to the present day.

For what may be termed accessories of dress, see ORNAMENTS, SEAL, STAFF.

8. A special interest must always attach to the question of the outward appearance of the Man of Nazareth, so far as it is associated with the dress He wore. This must have consisted of at least six separate articles, not five, as Edersheim states (Life and Times of Jesus, i. 625). By the 1st cent. it had become usual to wear a linen shirt (chālūk) beneath the tunic (see 2 (d) above). In our Lord’s case this seems required by the mention of the upper garments (himatia, i.e. mantle and tunic) which He laid aside before washing the disciples’ feet (Jn 13:4). The tunic proper, we know, was ‘woven without seam’ throughout, and therefore fitted closely at the neck, with the usual short sleeves as above described. White linen was the favourite material for both shirt and tunic. Above the tunic was the linen girdle wound several times round the waist. On His feet were leather sandals (Mt 3:11). His upper garment, as has been shown, was of the customary oblong shape—probably of white woollen cloth, as is suggested by the details of the Transfiguration narrative in Mk 9:3—with the four prescribed tassels at the corners (see above, 4 (a)). To the form of His headdress we have no clue, but it may be regarded as certain—the traditional artistic convention notwithstanding—that no Jewish teacher of that period would appear in public with head uncovered. Probably a white linen ‘napkin’ (sudarium) was tied round the head as a simple turban, the ends falling down over the neck.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

DRINK.—See MEALS, § 6, WINE AND STRONG DRINK.

DRINK-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE AND OFFERING.

DROMEDARY.—See CAMEL.

DROPSY.—See MEDICINE.

DRUNKENNESS.—See WINE AND STRONG DRINK.

DRUSILLA.—The third wife of the procurator Felix (Ac 24:24). She was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I., and is said to have been persuaded by one Simon (? Simon Magus) to desert her first husband, Azizus king of Emesa, for Felix. She cannot have been more than 16 years of age when she listened to St. Paul reasoning on ‘righteousness and temperance and the judgment to come’ (Ac 24:25).

DUALISM.—The belief in, or doctrine of, two ultimate conflicting principles, powers, or tendencies in the universe. Haeckel describes as dualism the distinction between God and the world, and between matter and mind, and opposes to it his monism, which identifies both (Riddle of the Universe, ch. 1, p. 8). In this sense of the word the Bible teaches dualism. It does distinguish God as Creator from the world as created (Gn 1:1, Is 40:26, Jn 1:3), and describes God as Spirit in contrast with matter (Jn 4:24). In man it distinguishes the body taken from the dust, and the spirit given by God (Gn 2:7, Ec 12:7). This conclusion need not be proved further, as this view is implied in all the teaching of the Bible about God, world, man. But, setting aside this new sense of the term, we must consider whether the Bible gives evidence of dualism in the older sense, as opposing to God any antagonist or hindrance in His creating, preserving, and ruling the world. It is held that dualism in three forms can be traced in the Bible—(1) the mythical, (2) the metaphysical, (3) the ethical. Each must be separately examined.

1. Mythical dualism.—In the Babylonian cosmology, Marduk, the champion of the upper deities, wages war against Tiamat, who leads the lower deities; at last he slays her, divides her body, and makes part a covering for the heavens to hold back the upper waters. There is little doubt that the account of the Creation in Gn 1 reproduces some of the features of this myth, but it is transformed by the monotheism of the author (see Bennett’s Genesis, pp. 67–72). Tiamat appears under the name Rahab in several passages (Job 9:13 [RV] 26:12, 13 [see Davidson’s Job, p. 54], Is 51:9, cf. 27:1 ‘leviathan the swift serpent,’ ‘leviathan the crooked serpent,’ ‘the dragon that is in the sea’). See Cheyne’s notes on these passages in the Prophecies of

Isaiah, i. 158, ii. 31. In illustration of Is 51:9 he quotes the address to Ra in the Egyptian Book of the Dead: ‘Hail! thou who hast cut in pieces the Scorner and strangled the Apophis’ [i.e. the evil serpent, Ps 89:10, cf. Ps 74:13, 14 ‘the dragons,’ ‘leviathan’]. This name is used as a symbolic name of Egypt (Ps 87:4, Is 30:7) , probably on account of its position on the Nile, and its hostility to the people of God. The sea is regarded as God’s foe (Dn 7:3 ‘four great beasts came up from the sea’; Rev 13:1 ‘a beast coming up out of the sea,’ 21:1 ‘the sea is no more,’ that is, the power hostile to God has ceased), a conception in which the myth survives. The influence of the myth is seen only in the poetical language, but not in the religious beliefs of the Holy Scriptures.

2. Metaphysical dualism.—Greek thought was dualistic. Anaxagoras assumed hylē, ‘matter,’ as well as nous, ‘mind,’ as the ultimate principles. Plato does not harmonize the world of ideas and the world of sense. Aristotle begins with matter and form. Neo-Platonism seeks to fill up the gulf between God and the world by a series of emanations. In Gnosticism the plērōma and the logos mediate between the essential and the phenomenal existence. St. John (1:1, 14) meets this Greek thought of his environment by asserting that Christ is the Word who is with God and is God, and who has become flesh. Against Gnostic heretics St. Paul in Colossians (1:19, 2:9) asserts that the plērōma, the fulness of the Godhead, dwells bodily in Christ; to this dualism is opposed the union of Creator and creation, reason and matter in Christ.

From this metaphysical there resulted a practical dualism in Greek thought, between sense and reason. While Aristotle thought that reason might use sense as an artist his material, Neo-Platonism taught that only by an ascetic discipline could reason be emancipated from the bondage of sense; and Stoicism treated sense as a usurper in man’s nature, to be crushed and cast out by reason. Holsten has tried to show that this dualism is involved in St. Paul’s doctrine of the flesh, and Pfleiderer also holds this position. It is held that St. Paul, starting from the common Hebraic notion of flesh (sarx), ‘according to which it signifies material substance, which is void indeed of the spirit, but not contrary to it, which is certainly weak and perishable, and so far unclean, but not positively evil,’ advances to the conception of the flesh as ‘an agency opposed to the spirit,’ having ‘an active tendency towards death.’ ‘From the opposition of physically different substances results the dualism of antagonistic moral principles’ (Pfleiderer’s Paulinism, i. 52 ff.). This conclusion is, however, generally challenged with good reason, and cannot be regarded as proved. The question will be more fully discussed in art. FLESH.

3. Ethical dualism.—In Persian thought there are opposed to one another, as in conflict with one another, Ormuzd and Ahriman, the personal principles of good and evil. While the OT recognizes the power of sin in the world, yet God’s ultimate causality and sole supremacy are affirmed. In post-exilic Judaism, however, there was a twofold tendency so to assert the transcendence of God that angels must be recognized as mediating between Him and the world, and to preserve His moral perfection by assigning the evil in the world to the agency of evil spirits under the leadership of Satan, the adversary. While these tendencies may be regarded as inherent in the development of Hebrew monotheism, both were doubtless stimulated by the influence of Persian thought with its elaborate angelology and demonology. In the Apocalyptic literature the present world is represented as under Satan’s dominion, and as wrested from him only by a supernatural manifestation of God’s power to establish His Kingdom. This dualism pervades the Apocalypse. In the NT generally the doctrine of the devil current in Judaism is taken over, but the Divine supremacy is never denied, and the Divine victory over all evil is always confidently anticipated.

(See artt. APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, DEVIL, ESCHATOLOGY.)

While in the Bible there are these traces of the threefold dualism, it is never developed; and monotheism is throughout maintained, God’s sole eternity, ultimate causality, and final victory being asserted, while God is distinguished from the world, and in the world a distinction between matter and mind is recognized.

ALFRED E. GARVIE.

DUKE.—The title of ‘duke’ in the AV has a very general meaning. It is an inheritance from the Eng. of earlier versions, in which (after Vulg. dux) ‘duke’ meant any leader or chief. Latimer calls Gideon a duke, and Wyclif uses this title of Christ, as in his Works (iii. 137), ‘Jesus Christ, duke of oure batel.’ The title of ‘duke’ is confined in AV to the chiefs of Edom, with the exception of Jos 13:21 ‘dukes of Sihon,’ and 1 Mac 10:65 (applied to Jonathan Maccabæus).

DULCIMER.—This term, which denotes a stringed instrument (? the mediæval ‘psaltery’; see MUSIC, § 4 (1) (b)), is given incorrectly by EV in Dn 3:5, 15 as tr. of sumpōnya (Gr. loan-word), which prob. = ‘bagpipe’; see MUSIC, § 4 (2) (d).

DUMAH.—1. Cited in Gn 25:14 (1 Ch 1:30) as among the twelve tribes of

Ishmael. The region thus indicated is supposed to be the oasis formerly called by the

Arabs Dūmat el-Jendel and now known as el-Jōf, about three-fourths of the way from

Damascus to Medina. The same place may be referred to in the obscure oracle Is 21:11, but the LXX has ‘Idumæa,’ and it is possible that Edom is meant. 2. The name of a town in the highlands of Judah (Jos 15:52). The reading is not certain. The LXX and Vulg. indicate Rumah, and not all editions of the Hebrew agree. If the received text is correct, an identification may be plausibly made with ed-Daumeh 10 miles S.W. of Hebron.

J. F. MCCURDY.

DUMBNESS.—See MEDICINE.

DUNG.—1. Used in the East as manure (Lk 13:8) and for fuel; especially that of cattle, where wood and charcoal are scarce or unattainable. Directions for personal cleanliness are given in Dt 23:10–14; and in the case of sacrifices the dung of the animals was burnt outside the camp (Ex 29:14, Lv 4:11, 12, 8:17, Nu 19:5). 2. The word is used (a) to express contempt and abhorrence, as in the case of the carcase of Jezebel (2 K 9:37); and in that of the Jews (Jer 9:22, Zeph 1:17). (b) To spread dung upon the face was a sign of humiliation (Mal 2:3). (c) As representing worthlessness, Paul counted all things but dung that he might win Christ (Ph 3:8).

DURA, PLAIN OF.—The precise locality is uncertain, but it must have been in the vicinity of Babylon. Perhaps the name is derived from the Bab. duru = ‘wall,’ which is frequently used as a town name. Oppert (Expéd. en Mésop. I. 238) found a small river so named, falling into the Euphrates 6 or 7 miles S.E. of Babylon, the neighbouring mounds being also named Tolul Dura. A curious Talmudic legend makes this plain the scene of Ezekiel’s vision (37:1–14), which it regards as an actual event (Sanh. 92 b).

J. TAYLOR.

DWARF is the rendering in AV and RV of daq, a word (Lv 21:20) denoting one of the physical disqualifications by which a priest was unfitted for service. The word means thin, lean, small. The conjecture that it here means a dwarf is plausible. But others regard it as meaning an unnaturally thin man—a consumptive, perhaps.