GABRIAS.—The brother of the Gabael to whom Tobit entrusted 10 talents of silver (To 1:14; in 4:20 AV and RV wrongly tr. ‘Gabael the son of Gabrias’).

GABRIEL (‘man of God’).—In the first rank of the innumerable hosts of the heavenly hierarchy (Dn 7:10) there are seven who occupy the first place—the seven archangels; of these Gabriel is one. In Dn 8:15ff. Gabriel is sent to explain to Daniel the meaning of the vision of the ram and the he-goat; in 9:21ff. he tells Daniel of the seventy weeks which are ‘decreed’ upon the people and the holy city. This is the only mention of Gabriel in the OT. In post-Biblical literature the name occurs more frequently. He appears twice in the NT as God’s messenger. He is sent to announce to Zacharias that Elisabeth will bear a son; he also tells the name that the child is to bear (Lk 1:8–20). In Lk 1:26–38 he appears to the Virgin Mary and announces the birth of a son to her; here again he says what the name of the child is to be: ‘Thou shalt call his name Jesus.’

In the Babylonian and Persian angelologies there are analogies to the seven archangels of the Jews, and the possibility of Jewish belief having been influenced by these must not be lost sight of.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

GAD (‘fortunate’).—Gn 30:9ff. (J), 35:26 (P); the first son of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, by Jacob, and full brother of Asher (‘Happy’). This like other of the tribal names, e.g. Dan, Asher, is very probably, despite this popular etymology, the name of a deity (cf. Is 65:11, where AV renders ‘troop’ but RV ‘Fortune’). Another semi-etymology or, better, paronomasia (Gn 49:19) connects the name of the tribe with its warlike experiences and characteristics, taking note only of this feature of the tribal life:

gādh gedhūdh yeghūdhennu wehū’ yāghūdh ’āqēbh:

‘As for Gad, plunderers shall plunder him,

And he shall plunder in the rear’ (i.e. effect reprisals and plunder in return).

In the Blessing of Moses (Dt 33:20) Gad is compared to a lioness that teareth the arm and the crown of the head, and later (1 Ch 12:8, 14) the Gadites who joined David are described as leonine in appearance and incomparable in combat: ‘Their faces are as the faces of lions, the smallest is equal to a hundred and the greatest to a thousand.’

Upon the genetic relations of Gad and Asher the genealogy throws no light, for the fact that Gad and Asher, as it appears, were names of related divinities of Good Fortune would be sufficient ground for uniting them; but why they should have been brought together under the name of Zilpah is not to be conjectured with any certainty. Leah, unlike Rachel, who was barren until after her maid had brought forth to Jacob, had already borne four sons before Zilpah was called in to help her infirmity.

It appears that Gad, notwithstanding the genealogy, was a late tribe. In the Song of Deborah it is not even mentioned. Gilead there takes its place, but Mesha (9 th cent.) knows the inhabitants of Gilead as the ‘men of Gad.’

The families of Gad are given by P in Gn 46:16 and Nu 26:15ff., 1 Ch 5:11 ff. repeats them with variations. In the Sinai census P gives 46,650 men of war. By the time they had reached the Wilderness they had decreased to 40,500. Their position on the march through the desert is variously given in Numbers as 3rd, 6 th, 11 th.

Nu 32:34–36 (P) gives eight towns lying within the territory of Gad. The most southerly, Aroer, lay upon the Arnon; the most northerly, Jogbehah, not far from the Jabbok. Ataroth, another of these towns, is mentioned on the Moabite stone ( l.

10), and the ‘men of Gad’ are there said to have dwelt within it ‘from of old.’

Within this region, and clustering about Heshbon, P gives six cities to the Reubenites, But in Jos 13:15ff. Reuben has all to the south of Heshbon, and Gad all to the north of it. Owing to the divergent statements in the Hexateuch and the historical books, it is quite impossible to say what the northern boundary was. In any case it was not a stable one.

The reason assigned by the traditions for the settlement of Gad and Reuben in Gilead is that they were pastoral tribes, with large herds and flocks, and that they found the land pre-eminently adapted to their needs. They, therefore, obtained from Moses permission to settle on the east side of Jordan after they had first crossed the river and helped the other tribes in the work of conquest (see Nu 32 and Dt 3:18–20).

After the conquest, in the time of the Judges, the people of Gilead were overrun by the Ammonites until Jephthah finally wrought their deliverance. In David’s conflicts with Saul, the Gadites and other eastern tribes came to his assistance. As the Mesha stone shows, they had probably at that time absorbed the Reubenites, who had been more exposed previously to Moabite attacks, which at this time fell more directly upon Gad. When the northern tribes revolted, Jeroboam must have found the Gadites among his staunchest supporters, for it was to Penuel in Gadite territory that he moved the capital from Shechem in Ephraim (1 K 12:25).

In 734 the Gadites with their kinsmen of the East Jordan, Galilee and Naphtali, were carried captive by Tiglath-pileser III. when Ahaz in his perplexity ventured upon the bold alternative of appealing to him for assistance against the powerful confederation of Syrians, Israelites, and Edomites who had leagued together to dethrone him (1 K 15:29, 2 Ch 28:16ff.). It was clearly a case of Scylla and Charybdis for Ahaz. It was fatal for Gad. See also TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

JAMES A. CRAIG.

GAD.—A god whose name appears in Gn 30:11 (‘by the help of Gad’; so in v. 13 ‘by the help of Asherah’); in the place-names Baal-gad, and Migdal-gad ( Jos

11:17, 12:7, 13:5, 15:37); and in the personal name Azgad (Ezr 2:12, Neh 7:17 , 10:15). In Is 65:11 Gad (RV ‘Fortune’) and Meni are named as two demons with whom the Israelites held communion (see MENI). Gad was probably an appellative before it became a personal name for a divinity, and is of Aramæan, Arabian, and Syrian provenance, but not Babylonian. He was the god who gave good fortune (Gr. Tyche), and presided over a person, house, or mountain.

W. F. COBB.

GAD is entitled ‘the seer’ (1 Ch 29:29), ‘David’s’ or ‘the king’s seer’ (1 Ch 21:9, 2 Ch 29:25, 2 S 24:11), or ‘the prophet’ (1 S 22:5, 2 S 24:11), He is represented as having announced the Divine condemnation on the royal census, and as having advised the erection of an altar on Araunah’s threshing-floor (2 S 24:11ff. = 1 Ch 21:9ff.). The Chronicler again (1 Ch 29:29) names him as having written an account of some part of his master’s reign. A late conception associated him with the prophet Nathan (2 Ch 29:25) in the task of planning some of the king’s regulations with reference to the musical part of the service, while (1 S 22:5) he is also stated to have acted as David’s counsellor in peril during the period when the two dwelt together in ‘the hold.’

GAD (Valley of).—Mentioned only in 2 S 24:5, and there the text should read ‘in the midst of the valley towards Gad,’ the valley (wady) here being the Arnon (wh. see).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GADARA.—A town whose ruins (extensive, but in recent years much destroyed by the natives) bear the name of Umm Keis, about six miles S. E. of the Sea of Galilee. It was a town of the Decapolis, probably Greek in origin, and was the chief city of Peræa. The date of its foundation is unknown, its capture by Antiochus (B.C. 218) being the first event recorded of it. It was famous for its hot baths, the springs of which still exist. The narrative of the healing of the demoniac, according to Mt 8:28, is located in the ‘country of the Gadarenes,’ a reading repeated in some MSS of the corresponding passage of Lk. (8:26), where other MSS read Gergesenes. The probability is that neither of these is correct, and that we ought to adopt a third reading, Gerasenes, which is corroborated by Mk 5:1. This would refer the miracle not to Gadara, which, as noted above, was some distance from the Sea of Galilee, but to a more obscure place represented by the modern Kersa, on its Eastern shore.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GADARENES.—See GADARA.

GADDI.—The Manassite spy, Nu 13:11 ( P ).

GADDIEL.—The Zebulunite spy, Nu 13:10 ( P ).

GADDIS (1 Mac 2:2).—The surname of Johanan or John, the eldest brother of Judas Maccabæus. The name perhaps represents the Heb. Gaddi (Nu 13:11) , meaning ‘my fortune.’

GADI.—Father of Menahem king of Israel (2 K 15:14, 17).

GADITES.—See GAD ( tribe ).

GAHAM.—A son of Nahor by his concubine Reumah (Gn 22:24).

GAHAR.—A family of Nethinim who returned with Zerub. (Ezr. 2:47, Neh 7:49), called in 1 Es 5:30 Geddur.

GAI.—Given as a proper name in RV of 1 S 17:52 ‘until thou comest to Gai,’ where AV has ‘until thou comest to the valley.’ The LXX, as is noted in RVm, has Gath, and this would suit the context.

GAIUS.—This name is mentioned in five places of NT. One Gaius was St. Paul’s host at Corinth, converted and baptized by him (Ro 16:23, 1 Co 1:14). He was perhaps the same as ‘Gaius of Derbe’ who accompanied the Apostle from Greece to Asia (Ac 20:4); if so, he would be a native of Derbe, but a dweller at Corinth. The Gaius of Macedonia, St. Paul’s ‘companion in travel’ who was seized in the riot at Ephesus (Ac 19:29), and the Gaius addressed by St. John (3 Jn 1) , were probably different men.

A. J. MACLEAN.

GALAL.—The name of two Levites (1 Ch 9:15, 16, Neh 11:17).

GALATIA is a Greek word, derived from Galatœ, the Gr. name for the Gauls who invaded Asia Minor in the year B.C. 278–7 (Lat. Gallogræci [= ‘Greek Gauls’], to distinguish them from their kindred who lived in France and Northern

Italy). These Gauls had been ravaging the south-eastern parts of Europe, Greece,

Macedonia, and Thrace, and crossed into Asia Minor at the invitation of

Nicomedes, king of Bithynia. Part of the same southward tendency appears in their movements in Italy and their conflicts with the Romans in the early centuries of the Republic. Those who entered Asia Minor came as a nation with wives and families, not as mercenary soldiers. After some fifty years’ raiding and warring, they found a permanent settlement in north-eastern Phrygia, where the population was un-warlike. Their history down to the time of the Roman Empire is best studied in Ramsay’s Histor. Com. on Galatians, p. 45 ff. They continued throughout these two centuries to be the ruling caste of the district, greatly outnumbered by the native Phrygian population, who, though in many respects an inferior race, had a powerful influence on the religion, customs, and habits of the Gauls, as subject races often have over their conquerors. The earlier sense of the term Galatia is, then, the country occupied by the Gaulish immigrants, the former north-eastern part of Phrygia, and the term Galatœ is used after the occupation to include the subject Phrygians as well as the Galatœ strictly so called (e.g. 1 Mac

8:2).

About B.C. 160 the Gauls acquired a portion of Lycaonia on their southern frontier, taking in Iconium and Lystra. About the same time also they had taken in Pessinus in the N. W. These and other expansions they ultimately owed to the support of Rome. From B.C. 64 Galatia was a client state of Rome. At the beginning of that period it was under three rulers; from B.C. 44 it was under one only. Deiotarus, the greatest of the Galatian chiefs, received Armenia Minor from Pompey in B.C. 64. Mark Antony conferred the eastern part of Paphlagonia on Castor as sole Galatian king in B.C. 40, and at the same time gave Amyntas a kingdom comprising Pisidic Phrygia and Pisidia generally. In B.C. 36, Castor’s Galatian dominions and Pamphylia were added to Amyntas’ kingdom. He was also given Iconium and the old Lycaonian tetrarchy, which Antony had formerly given to Polemon. After the battle of Actium in B.C. 31, Octavian conferred on Amyntas the additional country of Cilicia Tracheia. He had thus to keep order for Rome on the south side of the plateau and on the Taurus mountains. He governed by Roman methods, and, when he died in B.C. 25, he left his kingdom in such a state that Augustus resolved to take the greater part of it into the Empire in the stricter sense of that term, and made it into a province which he called Galatia. This is the second sense in which the term Galatia is used in ancient documents, namely, the sphere of duty which included the ethnic districts, Papblagonia, Pontus Galaticus, Galatia (in the original narrower sense), Phrygia Galatica, and Lycaonia Galatica (with ‘the Added Land,’ part of the original Lycaonian tetrarchy). Galatia, as a province, means all these territories together, under one Roman governor, and the inhabitants of such a province, whatever their race, were, in conformity with invariable Roman custom, denominated by a name etymologically connected with the name of the province. Thus Galatœ (‘Galatians’) has a second sense, in conformity with the second sense of the term Galatia: it is used to include all the inhabitants of the province (see the first map in the above-mentioned work of Ramsay).

The word ‘Galatia’ occurs three times in the NT (1 Co 16:1, Gal 1:2, and 1 P 1:1). A possible fourth case (2 Ti 4:10) must be left out of account, as the reading there is doubtful. There is an alternative ‘Gallia,’ which, even if it be not the original, suggests that the word ‘Galatia’ there should be taken in the sense of ‘Gallia’ (that is, France). It is beyond doubt that in the passage of 1 Peter the word must be taken in the sense of the province. The bearer of the letter evidently landed at some port on the Black Sea, perhaps Sinope, and visited the provinces in the order in which they appear in the address of the letter:—Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, taking ship again at the Black Sea for Rome. The

Taurus range of mountains was always conceived of as dividing the peninsula of Asia Minor into two parts, and St. Peter here appears as supervising or advising the whole body of Christians north of the Taurus range. (The effect of taking ‘Galatia’ in the other sense would be to leave out certain Pauline churches, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, and perhaps these alone, in all that vast region: which is absurd.) With regard to the two passages in St. Paul, the case is settled by his unvarying usage. It has been noted that he, as a Roman citizen and a statesman, invariably uses geographical terms in the Roman sense, and that he even does violence to the Greek language by forcing the Latin names for ‘Philippians’ ( Ph 4:15) and ‘Illyricum’ (Ro 15:19) into Greek, and passes by the proper Greek term in each case. We are bound, therefore, to believe that he uses ‘Galatia’ in the Roman sense, namely in the meaning of the Roman province as above defined. (This province had, as we have seen, ‘Galatia’ in the narrower and earlier sense as one of its parts.) It follows, therefore, that he uses ‘Galatians’ (Gal 3:1) also in the wider sense of all (Christian) inhabitants of the province, irrespective of their race, as far as they were known to him.

In order to discover what communities in this vast province are especially addressed by the Apostle in his Epistle, it is necessary to make a critical examination of the only two passages in Acts which afford us a clue (16:6, 18:23). It is important to note that St. Luke never uses the term ‘Galatia’ or the term

‘Galatians,’ but only the adjective ‘Galatic’ (16:6, 18:23). In 16:6 the rules of the Greek language require us to translate:—‘the Phrygo-Galatic region’ or ‘the region which is both Phrygian and Galatian’; that is, ‘the region which according to one nomenclature is Phrygian, and according to another is Galatian.’ This can be none other than that section of the province Galatia which was known as Phrygia Galatica, and which contained Pisidian Antioch and Iconium, exactly the places we should expect St. Paul and his companions to go to after Derbe and Lystra. In 18:23 the Greek may be translated either ‘the Galatico-Phrygian region’ or ‘the Galatian region and Phrygia,’ preferably the latter, as it is difficult otherwise to account for the order in the Greek. ‘The Galatian region,’ then, will cover Derbe and Lystra; ‘Phrygia’ will include Iconium and Pisidian Antioch. We conclude then that, whether any other churches are comprised in the address of the Epistle to the Galatians or not,—and a negative answer is probably correct,—the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch are included. There is not a scrap of evidence that St. Paul had visited any other cities in that great province.

A. SOUTER.

GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

1. Occasion of the Epistle.—From internal evidence we gather that St. Paul had, when he wrote, paid two visits to the Galatians. On the first visit, which was due to an illness (4:13), he was welcomed in the most friendly way; on the second he warned them against Judaizers (1:9, 5:3 ‘again,’ cf. 4:13 ‘the former time,’ though this may be translated ‘formerly’). After the second visit Judaizers came among the Galatians, and, under the influence of a single individual (the ‘who’ of 3:1, 5:7 is singular, cf. 5:10) persuaded them that they must be circumcised, that St. Paul had changed his mind and was inconsistent, that he had refrained from preaching circumcision to them only from a desire to be ‘all things to all men,’ but that he had preached it (at any rate as the better way) to others. It is doubtful if the Judaizers upheld circumcision as necessary to salvation, or only as necessary to a complete Christianity. It depends on whether we fix the date before or after the Council of Ac 15, which of these views we adopt (see § 4). Further, the Judaizers disparaged St. Paul’s authority as compared with that of the Twelve. On hearing this the Apostle hastily wrote the Epistle to check the evil, and (probably) soon followed up the Epistle with a personal visit.

2. To whom written. The North Galatian and South Galatian theories.—It is disputed whether the inhabitants of N. Galatia are addressed (Lightfoot, Salmon, the older commentators, Schmiedel in Encyc. Bibl.), or the inhabitants of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which lay in the S. part of the Roman province Galatia (Ramsay, Sanday, Zahn, Renan, Pfleiderer, etc.). Those who hold the N. Galatian theory take Ac 16:6, 18:23 as indicating that St. Paul visited Galatia proper, making a long detour. They press the argument that he would not have called men of the four cities by the name ‘Galatians,’ as these lay outside Galatia proper, and that ‘Galatians’ must mean men who are Gauls by blood and descent; also that ‘by writers speaking familiarly of the scenes in which they had themselves taken part’ popular usage rather than official is probable, and therefore to call the Christian communities in the four cities ‘the churches of Galatia’ would be as unnatural as to speak of Pesth or (before the Italo-Austrian war) Venice as ‘the Austrian cities’ (Lightfoot, Gal. p. 19). Pesth is not a case in point, for no educated person would call it ‘Austrian’; but the Venice illustration is apt. These are the only weighty arguments. On the other hand, the N. Galatian theory creates Churches unheard of elsewhere in 1st cent. records; it is difficult on this hypothesis to understand the silence of Acts, which narrates all the critical points of St. Paul’s work. But Acts does tell us very fully of the foundation of the Church in S. Galatia. Then, again, on the N. Galatian theory, St. Paul nowhere in his Epistles mentions the four cities where such eventful things happened, except once for blame in 2 Ti 3:11—a silence made more remarkable by the fact that in the collection of the alms he does mention ‘the churches of Galatia’ (1 Co 16:1). If the four cities are not here referred to, why were they omitted? The main argument of the N. Galatian theory, given above, is sufficiently answered by taking into account St. Paul’s relation to the Roman Empire (see art. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, § 7.)

With regard to the nomenclature, we notice that St. Luke sometimes uses popular non-political names like ‘Phrygia’ or ‘Mysia’ (Ac 2:10, 16:3); but St. Paul, as a Roman citizen, uses place-names in their Roman sense throughout, e.g. ‘Achaia’ (which in Greek popular usage had a much narrower meaning than the

Roman province, and did not include Athens, while St. Paul contrasts it with Macedonia, the only other Roman province in Greece, and therefore clearly uses it in its Roman sense, Ro 15:25, 2 Co 9:2, 11:10, 1 Th 1:7f.; cf. 1 Co 16:5) , ‘Macedonia,’ ‘Illyricum’ (Ro 15:19 only; the Greeks did not use this name popularly as a substantive, and none but a Roman could so denote the province; in 2 Ti 4:10 St. Paul himself calls it ‘Dalmatia,’ as the name-usage was changing from the one to the other),‘Syria and Cilicia’ (one Roman province), and ‘Asia’ (the Roman province of that name, the W. part of Asia Minor, including Mysia). We may compare St. Peter’s nomenclature in 1 P 1:1, where he is so much influenced by Pauline ideas as to designate all Asia Minor north of the Taurus by enumerating the Roman provinces. St. Paul, then, calls all citizens of the province of Galatia by the honourable name ‘Galatians.’ To call the inhabitants of the four cities ‘Phrygians’ or ‘Lycaonians’ would be as discourteous as to call them ‘slaves’ or ‘barbarians.’ The Roman colonies like Pisidian Antioch were most jealous of their Roman connexion.

The South Galatian theory reconciles the Epistle and Acts without the somewhat violent hypotheses of the rival theory. The crucial passages are Ac 16:6 , 18:23, which are appealed to on both sides. In 16:6 St. Paul comes from SyroCilicia to Derbe and Lystra, no doubt by land, through the Cilician Gates [ Derbe being mentioned first as being reached first, while in 14:6 Lystra was reached first and mentioned first], and then ‘they went through (v.l. going through) the region of Phrygia and Galatia,’ lit. ‘the Phrygian and Galatic region’ [so all the best MSS read these last words]. This ‘region,’ then (probably a technical term for the subdivision of a province), was a single district to which the epithets ‘Phrygian’ and ‘Galatic’ could both be applied; that is, it was that district which was part of the old country of Phrygia, and also part of the Roman province of Galatia. But no part of the old Galatia overlapped Phrygia, and the only district satisfying the requirements is the region around Pisidian Antioch and Iconium; therefore in 16:6 a detour to N. Galatia is excluded. Moreover, no route from N. Galatia to Bithynia could bring the travellers ‘over against Mysia’ (16:7). They would have had to return almost to the spot from which they started on their hypothetic journey to N. Galatia. Attempts to translate this passage, even as read by the best MSS, as if it were ‘Phrygia and the Galatic region,’ as the AV text (following inferior MSS) has it, have been made by a citation of Lk 3:1, but this appears to be a mistake; the word translated there ‘Ituræa’ is really an adjective ‘Ituræan,’ and the meaning probably is ‘the Ituræan region which is also called Trachonitis.’

In the other passage, Ac 18:23, the grammar and therefore the meaning are different. St. Paul comes, probably, by the same land route as before, and to the same district; yet now Derbe and Lystra are not mentioned by name. St. Paul went in succession through ‘the Galatic region’ and through ‘Phrygia’ (or ‘[the] Phrygian [region]’). The grammar requires two different districts here. The first is the’ Galatic region’ [of Lycaonia]—that part of old Lycaonia which was in the province Galatia, i.e. the region round Derbe and Lystra. The second is the ‘Phrygian region’ [of Galatia], i.e. what was in 16:6 called the Phrygo-Galatic region, that around Antioch and Iconium. In using a different phrase St. Luke considers the travellers’ point of view; for in the latter case they leave Syrian Antioch, and enter, by way of non-Roman Lycaonia, into Galatic Lycaonia ( ‘the Galatic region’), while in the former case they start from Lystra and enter the Phrygo-Galatic region near Iconium.

All this is clear on the S. Galatian theory. But on the other theory it is very hard to reconcile the Epistle with Acts. The S. Galatian theory also fits in very well with incidental notices in the Epistle, such as the fact that the Galatians evidently knew Barnabas well, and were aware that he was the champion of the Gentiles (2:13

‘even Barnabas’); but Barnabas did not accompany Paul on the Second Missionary Journey, when, on the N. Galatian theory, the Galatians were first evangelized. Again, Gal 4:13 fits in very well with Ac 13:14 on the S. Galatian theory; for the very thing that one attacked with an illness in the low-lying lands of Pamphylia would do would be to go to the high uplands of Pisidian Antioch. This seems to have been an unexpected change of plan (one which perhaps caused Mark’s defection). On the other hand, if a visit to Galatia proper were part of the plan in Ac 16 to visit Bithynia, Gal 4:13 is unintelligible.

3. St. Paul’s autobiography.—In chs. 1, 2 the Apostle vindicates his authority by saying that he received it direct from God, and not through the older Apostles, with whom the Judaizers compared him unfavourably. For this purpose he tells of his conversion, of his relations with the Twelve, and of his visits to Jerusalem; and shows that he did not receive his commission from men. Prof. Ramsay urges with much force that it was essential to Paul’s argument that he should mention all visits paid by him to Jerusalem between his conversion and the time of his evangelizing the Galatians. In the Epistle we read of two visits (1:18, 2:1), the former 3 years after his conversion (or after his return to Damascus), to visit Cephas, when of the Apostles he saw only James the Lord’s brother besides, and the latter 14 years after his conversion (or after his first visit), when he went ‘by revelation’ with Barnabas and Titus and privately laid before the Twelve (this probably is the meaning of ‘them’ in 2:2: James, Cephas, and John are mentioned) the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. We have, then, to ask, To which, if any, of the visits recorded in Acts do these correspond? Most scholars agree that Gal 1:18 = Ac 9:26ff., and that the word ‘Apostles’ In the latter place means Peter and James only. But there is much diversity of opinion concerning Gal 2:1. Lightfoot and Sanday identify this visit with that of Ac 15:2 (the Jerusalem Council), saying that at the intermediate visit of Ac 11:30 there were no Apostles in Jerusalem, the storm of persecution having broken over the Church (only the ‘elders’ are mentioned), and the Apostles having retired; as, therefore, St. Paul’s object was to give his relation to the Twelve, he does not mention this visit, during which he did not see them. Ramsay identifies the visit with that of Ac 11:30, since otherwise St. Paul would be suppressing a point which would tell in favour of his opponents, it being essential to his argument to mention all his visits (see above); moreover, the hypothesis of the flight of the Apostles and of ‘every Christian of rank’ is scarcely creditable to them. They would hardly have left the Church to take care of itself, or have allowed the elders to bear the brunt of the storm; while the mention of elders only in 11:30 would be due to the fact that they, not the Apostles, would administer the aims (cf. Ac 6:2).

Other arguments on either side may perhaps balance each other, and are not crucial. Thus Prof. Ramsay adduces the discrepancies between Gal 2:2 and Ac 15:2; in the former case the visit was ‘by revelation,’ in the latter by appointment of the brethren (these are not altogether incompatible facts); in the former case the discussion was private, in the latter public (this is accounted for by the supposition of a preliminary private conference, but that greatly damages St. Paul’s argument). On the other band, Dr. Sanday thinks that the stage of controversy in Gal 2 suits Ac 15 rather than Ac 11. This argument does not appear to the present writer to be of much value, for the question of the Gentiles and the Mosaic Law had really arisen with the case of Cornelius (Ac 11:2ff.), and from the nature of things must have been present whenever a Gentile became a Christian. The Council in Ac 15 represents the climax when the matter came to public discussion and formal decision; we cannot suppose that the controversy sprang up suddenly with a mushroom growth. On the whole, in spite of the great weight of the names of Bp. Lightfoot and Dr. Sanday, the balance of the argument appears to lie on the side of Prof. Ramsay.

St. Peter at Antioch.—This incident in the autobiography (2:11ff.) is placed by Lightfoot immediately after Ac 15:36. Ramsay thinks that it was not necessarily later in time than that which precedes, though on his view of the second visit it is in its proper chronological order. He puts it about the time of Ac 15:1. The situation would then be as follows. At first many Jewish Christians began to associate with Gentile Christians. But when the logical position was put to them that God had opened another door to salvation outside the Law of Moses, and so had practically annulled the Law, they shrank from the consequences, Peter began to draw back (this is the force of the tenses in Gal 2:12), and even Barnabas was somewhat carried away. But Paul’s arguments were convincing, and both Peter and Barnabas became champions of the Gentiles at the Council. It is difficult to understand Peter’s action if it happened after the Council.

4. Date and place of writing.—Upholders of the N. Galatian theory, understanding Ac 16:6, 18:23 to represent the two visits to the Galatians implied in Gal 4:13, usually fix on Ephesus as the place of writing, and suppose that the Epistle dates from the long stay there recorded in Ac 19:8ff., probably early in the stay (cf. Gal 1:6 ‘ye are so quickly removing’); but Lightfoot postpones the date for some two years, and thinks that the Epistle was written from Macedonia (Ac 20:1) , rather earlier than Romans and after 2 Corinthians. He gives a comparison of these Epistles, showing the very close connexion between Romans and Galatians: the same use of OT, the same ideas and same arguments, founded on the same texts; in the doctrinal part of Galatians we can find a parallel for almost every thought and argument in Romans. It is generally agreed that the latter, a systematic treatise, is later than the former, a personal and fragmentary Epistle. The likeness is much less marked between Galatians and I and 2 Corinthians; but in 2 Corinthians the Apostle vindicates his authority much as in Galatians. The opposition to him evidently died away with the controversy about circumcision. Thus it is clear that these four Epistles hang together and are to be separated chronologically from the rest.

On the S. Galatian theory, the Epistle was written from Antioch. Ramsay puts it at the end of the Second Missionary Journey (Ac 18:22). Timothy, he thinks, had been sent to his home at Lystra from Corinth, and rejoined Paul at Syrian Antioch, bringing news of the Galatian defection. Paul wrote off hastily, despatched Timothy back with the letter, and as soon as possible followed himself (Ac 18:23). On this supposition the two visits to the Galatians implied by the Epistle would be those of Ac 13 f. and 16. The intended visit of Paul would be announced by Timothy, though it was not mentioned in the letter, which in any case was clearly written in great haste. It is certainly strange, on the Ephesus or Macedonia hypothesis, that Paul neither took any steps to visit the erring Galatians, nor, if he could not go to them, explained the reason of his inability. Ramsay’s view, however, has the disadvantage that it separates Galatians and Romans by some years. Yet if St. Paul kept a copy of his letters, he might well have elaborated his hastily sketched argument in Galatians into the treatise in Romans, at some little interval of time. Ramsay gives A.D. 53 for Galatians, the other three Epistles following in 56 and 57.

Another view is that of Weber, who also holds that Syrian Antioch was the place of writing, but dates the Epistle before the Council (see Ac 14:28). He agrees with Ramsay as to the two visits to Jerusalem; but he thinks that the manner of the Judaizers’ attack points to a time before the Apostolic decreee. Gal 6:12 ( ‘compel’ ) suggests that they insisted on circumcision as necessary for salvation (§ 1). If so, their action could hardly have taken place after the Council. A strong argument on this side is that St. Paul makes no allusion to the decision of the Council. The chronological difficulty of the 14 years (2:1) is met by placing the conversion of St. Paul in A.D. 32. Weber thinks that 5:2 could not have been written after the circumcision of Timothy; but this is doubtful. The two visits to the Galatians, on this view, would be those of Ac 13, on the outward and the homeward journey respectively. The strongest argument against Weber’s date is that it necessitates such a long interval between Galatians and Romans.

5. Abstract of the Epistle.—Chs. 1, 2. Answer to the Judaizers’ disparagement of Paul’s office and message. Narrative of his life from his conversion onwards, showing that he did not receive his Apostleship and his gospel through the medium of other Apostles, but direct from God.

3:1–5:12. Doctrinal exposition of the freedom of the gospel, as against the legalism of the Judaizers. Abraham was justified by faith, not by the Law, and so are the children of Abraham. The Law was an inferior dispensation, though good for the time, and useful as educating the world for freedom; the Galatians were bent on returning to a state of tutelage, and their present attitude was retrogressive. 5:13–6:10. Hortatory. ‘Hold fast by freedom, but do not mistake it for licence.

Be forbearing and liberal.’

6:11–18. Conclusion. Summing up of the whole in Paul’s own hand, written in large characters (6:11 RV) to show the importance of the subject of the autograph. 6. Genuineness of the Epistle.—Until lately Galatians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians were universally acknowledged to be by St. Paul, and the Tübingen school made their genuineness the basis of their attack on the other Epistles. Lately Prof. van Manen (Encyc. Bibl. s.v. ‘Paul’) and others have denied the genuineness of these four also, chiefly on the ground that they are said to quote late Jewish apocalypses, to assume the existence of written Gospels, and to quote Philo and Seneca, and because the external attestation is said to begin as late as A.D. 150.

These arguments are very unconvincing, the facts being improbable. And why should there not have been written Gospels in St. Paul’s time? (cf. Lk 1:1). As for the testimony, Clement of Rome explicitly mentions and quotes 1 Corinthians, and his date cannot be brought down later than A.D. 100. Our Epistle is probably alluded to or cited by Barnabas, Hermas, and Ignatius (5 times); certainly by Polycarp (4 times), the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and the Acts of Paul and Thecla. It is found in the Old Latin and Syrian versions and in the Muratorian Fragment (c. A.D. 180–200), used by 2nd cent. heretics, alluded to by adversaries like Celsus and the writer of the Clementine Homilies, and quoted by name and distinctly (as their fashion was) by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, at the end of the 2nd century. But, apart from this external testimony, the spontaneous nature of the Epistle is decisive in favour of its genuineness. There is no possible motive for forgery. An anti-Jewish Gnostic would not have used expressions of deference to the Apostles of the Circumcision; an Ebionite would not have used the arguments of the Epistle against the Mosaic Law (thus the Clementine Homilies, an Ebionite work, clearly hits at the Epistle in several passages); an orthodox forger would avoid all appearance of conflict between Peter and Paul. After A.D. 70 there never was the least danger of the Gentile Christians being made to submit to the Law. There is therefore no reason for surprise that the recent attack on the authenticity of the Epistle has been decisively rejected in this country by all the best critics.

A. J. MACLEAN.

GALBANUM.—One of the ingredients of the sacred incense (Ex 30:34). It is a brownish-yellow, pleasant-smelling resin from various species of Ferula; it is imported from Persia.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GALEED (‘cairn of witness’).—The name which, according to Gn 31:47, was given by Jacob to the cairn erected on the occasion of the compact between him and Laban. There is evidently a characteristic attempt also to account in this way for the name Gilead. The respective proceedings of Jacob and of Laban are uncertain, for the narrative is not only of composite origin, but has suffered through the introduction of glosses into the text. It is pretty certain that we should read ‘Laban’ instead of ‘Jacob’ in v. 45. The LXX seeks unsuccessfully to reduce the narrative to order by means of transpositions.

GALILEE

1. Position.—Galilee was the province of Palestine north of Samaria. It was bounded southward by the Carmel range and the southern border of the plain of Esdraelon, whence it stretched eastward by Bethshean (Scythopolis, Beisan) to the

Jordan. Eastward it was limited by the Jordan and the western bank of its expansions (the Sea of Galilee and Waters of Merom). Northward and to the northwest it was bounded by Syria and Phœnicia; it reached the sea only in the region round the bay of Acca, and immediately north of it. Its maximum extent therefore was somewhere about 60 miles north to south, and 30 east to west.

2. Name.—The name Galilee is of Hebrew origin, and signifies a ‘ring’ or ‘circuit.’ The name is a contraction of a fuller expression, preserved by Is 9:1 , namely, ‘Galilee of the [foreign] nations.’ This was originally the name of the district at the northern boundary of Israel, which was a frontier surrounded by foreigners on three sides. Thence it spread southward, till already by Isaiah’s time it included the region of the sea, i.e. the Sea of Galilee. Its further extension southward, to include the plain of Esdraelon, took place before the Maccabæan period. The attributive ‘of the nations’ was probably dropped about this time— partly for brevity, partly because it was brought into the Jewish State by its conquest by John Hyrcanus, about the end of the 2nd cent. B.C.

3. History.—In the tribal partition of the country the territory of Galilee was divided among the septs of Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun, and part of Issachar. In the OT history the tribal designations are generally used when subdivisions of the country are denoted; this is no doubt the reason why the name ‘Galilee,’ which is not a tribal name, occurs so rarely in the Hebrew Scriptures—though the passage in Isaiah already quoted, as well as the references to Kedesh and other cities ‘in Galilee’ (Jos 20:7, 21:32, 1 K 9:11, 2 K 15:29, 1 Ch 6:76), show that the name was familiar and employed upon occasion. But though some of the most important of the historical events of the early Hebrew history took place within the borders of Galilee, it cannot be said to have had a history of its own till later times.

After the return of the Jews from the Exile, the population was concentrated for the greater part in Judæa, and the northern parts of Palestine were left to the descendants of the settlers established by Assyria. It was not till its conquest, probably by Joho Hyrcanus, that it was once more included in Jewish territory and occupied by Jewish settlers. Under the pressure of Egyptian and Roman invaders the national patriotism developed rapidly, and it became as intensely a Jewish State as Jerusalem itself, notwithstanding the contempt with which the haughty inhabitants of Judæa regarded the northern provincials. Under the Roman domination Galilee was governed as a tetrarchate, held by members of the Herod family. Herod the Great was ruler of Galilee in B.C. 47, and was succeeded by his son Antipas, as tetrarch, in B.C. 4. After the fall of Jerusalem, Galilee became the centre of Rabhinic life. The only ancient remains of Jewish synagogues are to be seen among the ruins of Galilæan cities. Maimonides was buried at Tiberias. But it is as the principal theatre of Christ’s life and work that Galilee commands its greatest interest. Almost the whole of His life, from His settlement as an infant in Nazareth, was spent within its borders. The great majority of the twelve Apostles were also natives of this province.

4. Physical Characteristics.—Owing to moisture derived from the Lehanon mountains, Galilee is the best-watered district of Palestine, and abounds in streams and springs, though the actual rainfall is little greater than that of Judæa. The result of this enhanced water supply is seen in the fertility of the soil, which is far greater than anywhere in Southern Palestine. It was famous for oil, wheat, barley, and fruit, as well as cattle. The Sea of Galilee fisheries were also important. The formation of the country is limestone, broken by frequent dykes and outflows of trap and other volcanic rocks. Hot springs at Tiberias and elsewhere, and not infrequent earthquakes, indicate a continuance of volcanic and analogous energies.

5. Population.—Galilee in the time of Christ was inhabited by a mixed population. There was the native Jewish element, grafted no doubt on a substratum of the Assyrian settlers and other immigrants, whose intrusion dated from the Israelite Exile—with probably yet a lower stratum, stretching back to the days of the Canaanites. Besides these there was the cultivated European class—the inhabitants of the Greek cities that surrounded the Sea of Tiberias, and the military representatives of the dominant power of Rome. We have seen that in Judæa the Galilæans were looked down upon. ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ (Jn 1:46) was one proverb. ‘Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet’ (7:52) was another, in the face of the fact that Galilee was the home of Deborah, Barak, Ibzan, Tola, Elon, with the prophets Jonah, Elisha, and possibly Hosea. The Galilæans no doubt had provincialisms, such as the confusion of the gutturals in speech, which grated on the sensitive ears of the Judæans, and was one of the indications that betrayed Peter when he endeavoured to deny his discipleship (Mt 26:73).

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GALILEE, MOUNTAIN IN.—After our Lord’s resurrection, the eleven disciples went away from Jerusalem ‘into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them’ (Mt 28:16). No record or hint indicates to us what mountain is meant. There is no foundation for the theory that it is the Mt. of Olives, whose north point is said to have borne the name ‘Galilee.’

GALILEE, SEA OF

1. Situation, etc.—The Sea of Galilee is an expansion of the Jordan, 13 miles long, about 8 miles in maximum breadth; its surface is 680 feet below that of the Mediterranean; its maximum depth is about 150 feet. In shape it is like a pear, the narrow end pointing southward. Like the Dead Sea, it is set deep among hills, which rise on the east side to a height of about 2000 feet. At the emergence of the Jordan, however, the Lake impinges on the plain of the Ghōr.

2. Names.—The original name of the Sea seems to have been Chinnereth or

Chinneroth, which a hazardous etymology connects with the Heb. kinnōr, ‘harp.’ The name is supposed to be given to the Sea on account of its fancied resemblance to such an instrument. It more probably takes its name from an as yet unrecognized town or district in Naphtali (which bordered the Lake on the west side) referred to in Jos 11:2, 19:35, 1 K 15:20. By this name it is referred to in assigning the border of the Promised Land (Nu 34:11), in stating the boundary of the trans-Jordanic tribes (Dt 3:12, Jos 13:27), and in enumerating the kings conquered by Joshua ( Jos 12:3). The Lake is referred to also by the name Gennesar in Josephus (always), and in 1 Mac 11:67 (AV). This name also is of uncertain origin; strong grounds exist for questioning its derivation as a corruption of the earlier appellation. In the Gospels it is referred to under a variety of names: besides such general terms as ‘the lake’ (Lk 8:22 etc.), or ‘the sea’ (Jn 6:16), we find Lake of Gennesaret ( only in Lk 5:1), Sea of Tiberias (Jn 21:1, and also as an explanatory or alternative name in Jn 6:1), but most frequently Sea of Galilee, which seems to have been the normal name. The modern name is Bahr Tubarīya, which is often rendered in English as ‘Lake of Tiberias,’ by which name the Sea is now frequently described (as in Baedeker’s Syria and Palestine).

3. Importance in NT Times.—The Sea in the time of Christ was surrounded by a number of important cities, each of them the centre of a cultured population. Such were Tiberias, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Chorazin, Magdala, and others. The fishing industry was extensive, and where now but a few small boats are to be seen, there evidently were formerly large fleets of fishing vessels. The fishing trade of Galilee was of great importance, and was renowned throughout the world. Owing to the great height of the mountains surrounding the Lake, differences of temperature are produced which give rise to sudden and violent storms. Two such storms are mentioned in the Gospels—one in Mt 8:23, Mk 4:36, Lk 8:22, the other in Mt 14:22, Mk 6:46, Jn 6:16. The repetition of the event within the narrow historical limits of the Gospels indicates that such tempests, then as now, were matters of frequent occurrence.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GALL.—(1) rōsh, some very bitter plant, Dt 29:18, La 3:19; ‘water of gall,’ Jer 8:14, 9:16; tr. ‘hemlock,’ Hos 10:4; ‘poison,’ Job 20:16. Hemlock (Conium maculatum), colocynth (Citrullus colocynthis), and the poppy (Papaver somniferum) have all been suggested. The last is perhaps most probable. (2) merērah (Job 16:16) and merōrah (20:25) refer to the bile. The poison of serpents was supposed to lie in their bile (20:14). The gall (Gr. cholē) of Mt 27:34 evidently refers to the LXX version of Ps 69:21, where cholē is tr. of rōsh.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GALLERY.—1. AV in Ca 7:6 reads ‘The king is held in the galleries.’ The

Heb. is bārehātīm, which, there is no reasonable doubt, means ‘in the tresses’ ( so

RV). The king is captivated, that is to say, by the tresses of this ‘prince’s daughter.’ 2. AV and RV tr. of attīq, a word whose etymology and meaning are both obscure. It is found only in the description of Ezekiel’s temple (Ezk 41:18, 16, 42:8, 8).

GALLEY.—See SHIPS AND BOATS.

GALLIM (‘heaps’).—A place near Jerusalem (1 S 25:44). It is personified, along with Anathoth and other towns, in Is 10:30. It is generally placed to the N. of Jerusalem, but the exact site is unknown.

GALLIO.—The elder brother of Seneca. According to Acts (18:12–17), he was proconsul of Achala under the Emperor Claudius A.D. 53, when St. Paul was in Corinth. Seneca mentions that his brother contracted fever in Achaia, and thus corroborates Acts. The Jews of Corinth brought St. Paul before Gallio, charging him with persuading men ‘to worship God contrary to the law’ (v. 13). When, however, Gallio found that there was no charge of ‘villainy,’ but only of questions which the Jews as a self-administering community were competent to decide for themselves, he drove them from the judgment-seat (v. 14 f.). Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, was then dragged before him and beaten; but such ‘Lynch law’ had no effect upon the proconsul (v. 17).

Pliny tells us that Gallio after his consulship travelled from Rome to Egypt in consequence of an attack of hæmorrhage from the lungs. Eusebius quotes Jerome as saying that he committed suicide A.D. 65; it is also said that he as well as Seneca was put to death by Nero; but these reports are unsubstantiated. Seneca speaks of him as a man of extreme amiability of character.

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

GALLOWS.—This word occurs eight times in EV in the Book of Esther only (5:14 etc.) as the rendering of the ordinary Heb. word for ‘tree’ (see margins). It is very doubtful if death by strangulation is intended—‘tree’ in all probability having here its frequent sense of ‘pole,’ on which, as was customary in Persia, the criminal was impaled (see CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 10).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

GAMAEL.—1 Es 8:29 = Daniel, No. 3 (Ezr 8:2).

GAMALIEL.—1. The son of Pedahzur, and ‘prince of the children of

Manasseh’ (Nu 1:10, 2:20, etc.). 2. Gamaliel I., the grandson of Hillel, was a Pharisee, and regarded as one of the most distinguished doctors of the Law of his age. He was a member of the Sanhedrin during the years of our Lord’s ministry.

His views were tolerant and large-hearted; he emphasized the humaner side of the Law, relaxing somewhat the rigour of Sabbatical observance, regulating the customs of divorce so as the more to protect helpless woman, and inculcating kindness on the part of Jews towards surrounding heathen. The advice given by him to the chief priests (Ac 5:34–40) in reference to their dealing with the Apostles shows similar tolerance and wisdom. At his feet St. Paul was brought up (Ac 22:3).

The Clementine Recognitions absurdly state that by the advice of the Apostles he remained among the Jews as a secret believer in Christ. The Mishna deplores that ‘with the death of Gamaliel I. the reverence for Divine Law ceased, and the observance of purity and piety became extinct.’

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

GAMES

I. AMONG THE ISRAELITES.—The Jews were essentially a serious people. What in other nations developed into play and games of various kinds, had with them a seriously practical and often a religious character. Their dances were a common form of religious exercise, which might indeed degenerate into disorderly or unseemly behaviour, but were only exceptionally a source of healthy social amusement (Ps 150:4, Ex 32:6, 19, 2 S 6:14ff., Jer 31:4, Ec 3:4). Music, again was especially associated with sacred song. Its secular use was condemned by Isaiah as a sign of extravagant luxury (Is 5:12). Lots and the like were used as a means of ascertaining the Divine will, not for amusement or profit. Even what with children might be called games of ‘make believe’ became with some of the prophets vehicles of religious instruction. The symbolic object-lessons of Ezekiel were like children’s toys adapted to a religious purpose (see esp. ch. 4). Even this humour of the prophets, striking as it was, was intensely serious: witness the scathing ridicule of Phœnician idolatry by Elijah and Deutero-Isaiah (1 K 18:27, Is 44:12–20, 46:1 ,

2).

It is a matter of some dispute whether manly sports had any place in the social life of the Israelites. There was undoubtedly some sort of training in the use of weapons, particularly the sling (among the Benjamites especially) and the bow, for the purposes of warfare and the chase. We have a definite reference to the custom of practising at a mark in 1 S 20:20, 35ff., and there are several metaphorical allusions to the same practice (Job 16:12, 13, La 3:12). Again, it has also been thought that we have in the burdensome stone of Zec 12:2 an allusion to a custom of lifting a heavy stone either as a test of strength or as a means of strengthening the muscles; but there is no actual proof that there was any sort of competitive contest in such exercises. It may be suggested, however, on the other hand, that the practice of determining combats by selected champions, one or more, from either side, which we read of in 1 S 17:10, 2 S 2:13–16, and the expression used in the latter case, ‘let the young men … arise and play before us,’ makes it likely that friendly tournaments were not unknown.

Riddle-guessing is the one form of competition of which we have any certain proof. In Jg 14:12–14 the propounding and guessing of riddles as a wager appears as part of the entertainment of a marriage feast. The questions put by the queen of Sheba to Solomon probably belong to the same category (1 K 10:1, 3). Indeed, the propounding of ‘dark sayings’ was a common element in proverbial literature ( Ps 78:2, Pr 1:6).

Children’s Games.—Games of play are so invariable an element of child life among all peoples, that it hardly needs proof that the Israelites were no exception to the rule. The playing of the boys and girls in the streets of the glorified Jerusalem (Zec 8:6) might indeed mean nothing more than kitten play; but fortunately we have in Mt 11:15. || Lk 7:31f. a most interesting allusion to the games (mock-weddings and mock-funerals) played in the market-place in our Lord’s time, as they are played in Palestine at the present day.

We read in 2 Mac 4:9–17 how Jason the high priest and the head of the Hellenizing party, having bribed Antiochus Epiphanes with 150 talents of silver, set up ‘a place of exercise’ (gymnasium) for the training up of youths ‘in the practices of the heathen.’ The only game specifically mentioned is the discus. There is also mentioned in v. 18 ‘a game’ that was held every fifth year at Tyre— evidently an imitation of the Olympic games. Later, Herod the Great appears from Josephus (Ant. XV. viii. 1) to have provoked a conspiracy of the Jews by building a theatre and an amphitheatre at Jerusalem for the spectacular combats of wild beasts, and to have initiated very splendid games every five years in honour of Cæsar. These included wrestling and chariot races, and competitors were attracted from all countries by the very costly prizes.

II. GAMES OF GREECE AND ROME.—Athletic contests formed a very

important feature in the social life of the Greeks. They originated in pre-historic times, and were closely associated with religious worship. Thus the Olympic games were held in honour of Olympian Zeus in connexion with the magnificent temple in Olympia in Elis; the Isthmian games on the Isthmus of Corinth in honour of Poseidon; the Pythian were associated with the worship of the Pythian Apollo at Delphi; the Nemean were celebrated at Nemea, a valley of Argolis, to commemorate the Nemean Zeus. These four games were great Pan-Hellenic festivals, to which crowds came from all parts, not only free-born Greeks, but also foreigners, although the latter, except the Romans in later times, were not allowed to compete. The most important of these games were the Olympic. They were held every four years, and so great was the occasion that from the year B.C. 264 events as far back as 776 were computed by them. The period between one celebration and another was called an Olympiad, and an event was said to have occurred in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year of such an Olympiad. The Isthmian games, which took place biennially in the first and third year of each Olympiad, seem to have been modelled on very much the same lines as the Olympic. To the Biblical student they have a more direct interest, as it is highly probable that the frequent allusions to such contests by St. Paul (see esp. 1 Co 9:24–27) were due to his personal observation of these games, which must have taken place while he was at Corinth. As, however, our knowledge of the Olympic games, of which several ancient writers have left us particulars, is far more complete, it often happens that the language of St. Paul is more easily illustrated from them. It should be mentioned also in this connexion that besides these four great athletic contests, games of a local character, often in imitation of the Olympic, were held throughout Greece and her colonies in all towns of importance, which had both their stadium and their theatre. The most important of these, from the Biblical student’s point of view, were the games of Ephesus. With these St. Paul was certainly familiar, and, as will be seen below, allusions to games are remarkably frequent in writings connected with Ephesus.

The contests at Olympia included running, boxing, wrestling, chariot races, and other competitions both for men and for youths. The judges, who seem also to have acted as a sort of managing committee, with many dependents, were chosen by lot, one for each division of Elis. They held at once a highly honoured and a very difficult post, and were required to spend ten months in learning the duties of their office. For the last 30 days of this period they were required personally to superintend the training of the athletes who were preparing to compete. In addition to this, the athletes were required to swear before competing that they had spent ten months previously in training. We thus realize the force of such allusions as that of 1 Ti 4:7, 8, where St. Paul insists on the greater importance of the training unto godliness than that of the body. These facts also add point to the allusions in 2 Ti 2:5. An athlete is not crowned unless he contend ‘according to regulation.’ These regulations required the disqualification not only of the disfranchised and criminals, but of those who had not undergone the required training. It is the last to which the passage seems especially to point.

The prize, while it differed in different places, was always a crown of leaves. At Olympia it was made of wild olive; in the Isthmus, in St. Paul’s time, of pine leaves; at Delphi, of ‘laurel’; at Nemea, of parsley. In addition to this, at Olympia, Delphi, and probably elsewhere, the victor had handed to him a palm-branch as a token of victory. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the honour attached to winning the prize in these contests. The victor entered his native city in triumphal procession; he had conferred upon him many privileges and immunities, and his victory was frequently celebrated in verse. His statue might be, and often was, placed in the sacred grove of Elis, and he was looked upon as a public benefactor.

St. Paul in 1 Co 9:24–27 makes use of the spirit of these contests to illustrate to the Corinthians, to whom it must have specially appealed, the self-denial, the strenuousness, and the glorious issue of the Christian conflict, drawing his metaphorical allusions partly from the foot-race and partly from the boxing and wrestling matches. ‘They do it to receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air; but I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage,’ etc.

There is a very interesting allusion to the games of Ephesus in 2 Ti 4:7 ‘I have contended the good contest, I have completed the race … henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness,’ etc. This stands in striking contrast to Ph 3:12–16 ‘Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect: but I press on … forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.’ Here again it is the intense eagerness of the athlete that is specially in

St. Paul’s mind. We have many other allusions by St. Paul to the foot-race, as in Ro 9:16, Gal 2:2, 5:7, Ph 2:16, Ac 20:24. These generally refer to the ‘course’ of life and conduct. The last passage, it should be remembered, is addressed to the elders at Ephesus. The full significance of Ro 9:16 is missed unless we realize the intensity of effort required by the racer. The supreme effort of the will is worthless without the grace of God.

We have allusions to the wrestling match certainly in Eph 6:12, where St. Paul speaks of wrestling against spiritual forces, and probably to boxing in 4:27, where ‘giving place’ means giving vantage-ground to the spiritual foe. In connexion with Ephesus we may notice also the allusion in Ac 19:31 to the Asiarchs—the officers who superintended the games. The reference to fighting ‘with wild beasts at Ephesus’ in 1 Co 15:32 is probably a metaphorical allusion to such contests as were common afterwards in the Colosseum at Rome, and were, according to Schmitz (see ‘Isthmia’ in Smith’s Dict. of Gr.-Rom. Ant.), probably introduced into the Isthmian games about this time.

Outside St. Paul’s writings there is an important reference to athletic contests in He 12:1–2. Here the two points emphasized are: (1) the ‘cloud of witnesses’ ( Gr. martyres), whose past achievements are to encourage the Christian combatants for the faith; (2) the self-sacrifice and earnestness needed in running the Christian race. The Christian athlete must lay aside every ‘weight’—every hindrance to his work, just as the runner divested himself of his garments, having previously by hard training got rid of all superfluous flesh,—and look only to Christ. Again, in Rev 7:9 we have in the palms in the hands of the great company of martyrs a very probable reference to the palms given to the successful competitors in the games. Here, again, it should be borne in mind that it was to Ephesus and the surrounding towns, the district of the great Ephesian games, that St. John was writing.

F. H. WOODS.

GAMMADIM.—A term of very doubtful meaning, occurring in Ezk 27:11 ‘The Gammadim (AV -ims) were in thy towers.’ No place of the name of Gammad is known, but a proper name is what the context seems to demand. RVm ‘valorous men’ has not commended itself to the majority of scholars.

GAMUL (‘weaned’).—A chief of the Levites, and head of the 22nd course of priests (1 Ch 24:17).

GARDEN (Heb. gan [lit. ‘enclosure’], gannah, which, like the Persian [ mod. Armenian] pardēs [Neh 2:8 etc.], and the Arab jannah and bustān, may mean a garden of herbs [Dt 11:10, 1 K 21:2 etc.], a fruit orchard [Jer 29:5, 28, Am 4:9 etc.], or a park-like pleasure-ground [2 K 25:4, Est 1:5 etc.]).—Flowers were cultivated (Ca 6:2), and doubtless, as in modern times, crops of grain or vegetables were grown in the spaces between the trees. In the long dry summer of Palestine the fruitfulness of the garden depends upon abundant water supply (Nu 24:6). Perennial fountains fleck the landscape with the luxuriant green and delicious shade of gardens, as e.g. at Jenīn (Ca 4:15). Great cisterns and reservoirs collect the water during the rains, and from these, by numerous conduits, it is led at evening to refresh all parts of the garden. Failure of water is soon evident in withered leaves and wilted plants (Is 58:11, cf. 1:30). The orange and lemon groves of Jaffa and Sidon are famous; and the orchards around Damascus form one of the main attractions of that ‘earthly paradise.’ The cool shade of the trees, the music of the stream, and the delightful variety of fruits in their season, make the gardens a favourite place of resort (Est 7:7, Ca 4:16 etc.), especially towards evening; and in the summer months many spend the night there. In the sweet air, under the sheltering boughs, in the gardens of Olivet, Jesus no doubt passed many of the dark hours (Mk 11:19 RV, Lk 21:37). From His agony in a garden (Jn 18:1 , 26) He went to His doom.

The gardens, with their luxuriant foliage and soft obscurities, were greatly resorted to for purposes of idolatry (Is 56:3, Bar 6:70). There the Moslem may be seen to-day, spreading his cloth or garment under orange, fig, or mulberry, and performing his devotions. The garden furnishes the charms of his heaven (eljannah, or Firdaus): see artt. PARADISE, EDEN [GARDEN OF].

Tombs were often cut in the rock between the trees (2 K 21:18 etc.); in such a tomb the body of Jesus was laid (Jn 19:41).

W. EWING.

GARDEN HOUSE in 2 K 9:27 should prob. be Beth-haggan (leaving Heb.

untranslated), the name of an unknown place S of Jezreel.

GAREB.—1. One of David’s ‘Thirty’ (2 S 23:38, 1 Ch 11:40). 2. A hill near Jerusalem (Jer 31:39). Its situation is uncertain, being located by some to the S. W., while others place it to the N., of the capital. At the present day there is a Wady Gourab to the W. of Jerusalem.

GARLAND.—The ‘garlands’ (Gr. stemmata) of Ac 14:13 were probably intended to be put on the heads of the sacrificial victims. For the use of a garland (Gr. stephanos) as a prize to the victor in the games, see art. CROWN, § 2, and cf. GAMES.

GARLIC (Nu 11:5).—The familiar Allium sativum, still a very great favourite in Palestine, especially with the Jews. Originally a product of Central Asia, and once a delicacy of kings, it is only in the East that it retains its place in the affections of all classes.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GARMENT.—See DRESS.

GARMITE.—A gentilic name applied in a totally obscure sense to Keilah in 1 Ch 4:19.

GARNER.—‘Garner,’ which is now archaic if not obsolete, and ‘granary,’ the form now in use, both come from Lat. granaria, a storehouse for grain. RV retains the subst. in all its occurrences in AV, and introduces the verb in Is 62:9 ‘They that have garnered (AV ‘gathered’) it shall eat it.’

GAS (1 Es 5:34).—His sons were among the ‘temple servants’ (Ezr. and Neh. omit).

GASHMU (Neh 6:6).—A form of the name Geshem (wh. see), probably representing the pronunciation of N. Arabian dialect.

GATAM.—The son of Eliphaz (Gn 36:11 = 1 Ch 1:36), and ‘duke’ of an Edomite clan (Gn 36:16) which has not been identified.

GATE.—See CITY, FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT § 5, JERUSALEM, TEMPLE.

GATH.—A city of the Philistine Pentapolis. It is mentioned in Jos 11:22 as a place where the Anakim took refuge; but Joshua is significantly silent about the apportioning of the city to any of the tribes. The ark was brought here from Ashdod (1 S 5:8), and thence to Ekron (5:10). It was the home of Goliath (1 S 17:4, 2 S 21:19), and after the rout of the Philistines at Ephes-dammim it was the limit of their pursuit (1 S 17:52 [LXX]). David during his outlawry took refuge with its king. Achish (1 S 21:10). A bodyguard of Gittites was attached to David’s person under the leadership of a certain Ittai; these remained faithful to the king after the revolt of Absalom (2 S 15:18). Shimei’s servants ran to Gath, and were pursued thither by him contrary to the tabu laid upon him (1 K 2:40). Gath was captured by Hazael of Syria (2 K 12:17). An unsuccessful Ephraimite cattle-lifting expedition against Gath is recorded (1 Ch 7:21). The city was captured by David, according to the Chronicler (18:1). and fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:8). It was again captured by Uzziah (26:6). Amos refers to it in terms which imply that some great calamity has befallen it (6:2); the later prophets, though they mention other cities of the Pentapolis, are silent respecting Gath, which seems therefore to have dropped out of existence. The exact circumstances of its final fate are unknown. The topographical indications, both of the Scripture references and of the Onomasticon, point to the great mound Tell es-Safi as the most probable site for the identification of Gath. It stands at the mouth of the Valley of Elah, and clearly represents a large and important town. It was partially excavated by the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1899, but, unfortunately, the whole mound being much cumbered with a modern village and its graveyards and sacred shrines, only a limited area was found available for excavation, and the results were not so definite as they might have been.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GATH-HEPHER (Jos 19:13 [AV wrongly Gittah-hepher, which is simply the form of the name with He locale], 2 K 14:25, ‘wine press of the pit or well’).—The home of the prophet Jonah. It lay on the border of Zebulun, and is mentioned with Japhia and Rimmon—the modern Yāfā and Rummāneh. Jerome, in the preface to his Com. on Jonah, speaks of Geth quae est in Opher (cf. Vulg. 2 K 14:25), and places it 2 Roman miles from Sepphoris (Seffūrieh), on the road to Tiberias. This points to el-Meshhed, a village on a slight eminence N. of the Tiberias road, ¹/₂mile W. of Kefr Kenna, where one of Jonah’s many reputed tombs is still pointed out.

W. EWING.

GATH-RIMMON.—1. A city in Dan, near Jebud and Bene-herak (Jos 19:45) , assigned to the Kohathites (21:24), and reckoned (1 Ch 6:69) to Ephraim. It is unidentified. 2. A city of Manasseh, assigned to the Kohathites (Jos 21:25). LXX has Iebatha (B), or Baithsa (A), while 1 Ch 6:70 has Bileam = Ibleam (wh. see). The position of the town is not indicated, so in this confusion no identification is possible.

W. EWING.

GAULANITIS.—See GOLAN.

GAULS.—See GALATIA.

GAZA.—A city of the Philistine Pentapolis. It is referred to in Genesis (10:19) as a border city of the Canaanites, and in Jos 10:41 as a limit of the South country conquered by Joshua; a refuge of the Anakim (Jos 11:22), theoretically assigned to Judah (15:47). Samson was here shut in by the Philistines, and escaped by carrying away the gates (Jg 16:1–3); he was, however; brought back here in captivity after being betrayed by Delilah, and here he destroyed himself and the Philistines by pulling down the temple (16:21–30). Gaza was never for long in Israelite hands. It withstood Alexander for five months (B.C. 332). In B.C. 96 it was razed to the ground, and in B.C. 57 rebuilt on a new site, the previous site being distinguished as ‘Old’ or ‘Desert’ Gaza (cf. Ac 8:26). It was successively in Greek, Byzantine Christian (A.D. 402), Muslim (635), and Crusader hands; it was finally lost by the Franks in 1244. A Crusaders’ church remains in the town, now a mosque. It is now a city of about 16,000 inhabitants, and bears the name Ghuzzeh.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GAZARA.—An important stronghold often mentioned during the Maccabæan struggle (1 Mac 4:16, 7:45, 9:52, 13:53, 14:7, 34, 15:28, 16:1, 2 Mac 10:32. In Ant. XII. vii. 4, XIV. v. 4, BJ, I. viii. 5, it is called Gadara). There seems to be no doubt that it is the OT Gezer (wh. see).

GAZELLE (zebī, tr. 2 S 2:18, 1 Ch 12:8 etc. in AV ‘roe’; in Dt 14:5 etc. ‘roebuck,’ but in RV ‘gazelle’).—The gazelle (Arab. ghazal, also zabi) is one of the commonest of the larger animals of Palestine; it is one of the most beautiful and graceful of antelopes. It is fawn and white in colour; it is much hunted (Pr 6:5 , Is 13:14); it is noted for its speed (2 S 2:13, 1 Ch 12:8); its flesh is considered, at least in towns, a delicacy.

Ghazaleh (‘female gazelle’) is a favourite name for a girl among the Yemin Jews, as Dorcas and Tabitha, with the same meaning, were in NT times (Ac 9:36 ,

40).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GAZERA (1 Es 5:31).—His sons were among the ‘Temple servants.’ In Ezr 2:48 Gazzam.

GAZEZ.—1. A son of Ephah, Caleb’s concubine (1 Ch 2:46). 2. In same verse a second Gazez is mentioned as a son of Haram, who was another of Ephah’s sons.

GAZITES.—The inhabitants of Gaza (wh. see), Jos 13:3, Jg 16:2.

GAZZAM.—A family of Nethinim who returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2:48, Neh 7:51), called in 1 Es 5:31 Gazera.

GEBA (Heb. geba’, ‘a hill’).—A city of Benjamin, on the N.E. frontier ( Jos

18:24), assigned to the Levites (Jos 21:17, 1 Ch 6:60). It stands for the N. limit of the kingdom of Judah (2 K 23:8 ‘from Geba to Beersheba’). In 2 S 5:25 we should probably read ‘Gibeon’ as in 1 Ch 14:16. The position of Geba is fixed in 1 S 14:5 S. of the great Wādy Suweinīt, over against Michmash, the modern Mukhmās. This was the scene of Jonathan’s famous exploit against the Philistines. Everything points to its identity with Jeba‘, a village 6 miles N. of Jerusalem. It occupied an important position commanding the passage of the valley from the north. It was fortified by Asa (1 K 15:22). It appears in Isaiah’s picture of the approach of the Assyrian upon Jerusalem (10:28ff.). It is mentioned also as occupied after the Exile (Neh 11:31, Ezr 2:26 etc.). It seems to be confused with the neighbouring Gibeah in Jg 20:10, 33, 1 S 13:8, 16. In Jg 20:31 ‘Gibeah’ should be ‘Geba.’ 2. A stronghold in Samaria, between which and Scythopolis Holofernes pitched his camp (Jth 3:10). Perhaps Jeba‘a is intended, about 2 miles S. of Sanūr, on the road to Jenīn.

W. EWING.

GEBAL.—1. A place apparently S. of the Dead Sea, whose inhabitants made a league with Edomites, Moabites, and the Bedouin of the Arabah against Israel, on some unknown occasion (Ps 83:7), possibly the Gentile attack described in 1 Mac 5. It is the modern Jebal. 2. A town in Phœnicia, now Jebeil. It was theoretically (never actually) within the borders of the Promised Land (Jos 13:5). It provided builders for Solomon (1 K 5:18 RV Gebalites, AV ‘stone-squarers’) and ships’ caulkers for Tyre (Ezk 27:9).

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GEBER (1 K 4:19).—One of Solomon’s twelve commissariat officers, whose district lay to the E. of Jordan. At the end of v. 19 comes a sentence referred by AV and RV to this Geber, and rendered ‘and he was the only officer which was in the land.’ But it is possible that the text should be emended so as to read ‘and one officer was over all the officers who were in the land,’ the reference being, not to

Geber, but to Azariah, son of Nathan, mentioned in v. 6 as ‘over the officers.’

GEBIM.—A place N. of Jerusalem (Is 10:31 only). In Eusebius a Geba 5 Roman miles from Gophna, on the way to Neapolis (Shechem), is noticed. This is the modern Jebīa, which, being near the great northern road, is a possible site for Gebim.

GECKO.—See FERRET, LIZARD.

GEDALIAH.—1. Son of Ahikam, who had protected Jeremiah from the antiChaldæan party (Jer 26:24), and probably grandson of Shaphan, the pious scribe (2 K 22). Gedaliah naturally shared the views of Jeremiah. This commended him to Nebuchadnezzar, who made him governor over ‘the poor of the people that were left in the land.’ His two months’ rule and treacherous murder are detailed in Jer 40, 41 (2 K 25:22–25). The anniversary of Gedaliah’s murder—the third day of the seventh month, Tishri (Zec 7:5, 8:19)—has ever since been observed as one of the four Jewish fasts. 2. Eldest ‘son’ of Jeduthun (1 Ch 25:3, 9). 3. A priest ‘of the sons of Jeshua,’ who had married a ‘strange’ woman (Ezr 10:18); called in 1 Es 9:19 Joadanus. 4. Son of Pashhur, a prince in the reign of Zedekiah (Jer 38:1). 5. Grandfather of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph 1:1).

GEDDUR (1 Es 5:30).—In Ezr 2:47 and Neh 7:49 Gahar.

GEDER.—An unidentified Canaanitish town, whose king was amongst those conquered by Joshua (Jos 12:13 only). It is very probably identical with Bethgader of 1 Ch 2:51. In 1 Ch 27:28 Baal-hanan, who had charge of David’s olives and sycomores, is called the Gederite, which may be a gentilic name derived from Geder, although some prefer to derive it from Gederah (wh. see).

GEDERAH.—AV of 1 Ch 4:23b reads, ‘Those that dwell among plants ( RVm ‘plantations’) and hedges,’ but RV gives ‘the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah,’ and this is probably the correct rendering. In that case the Gederah referred to would probably be the city of that name located by Jos 15:36 in the Shephēlah, the modern Jedireh and the Gedour of Eusebius. The gentilic name Gederathite occurs in 1 Ch 12:4.

GEDEROTH.—A town of Judah in the Shephēlah (Jos 15:41, 2 Ch 28:18). It appears to be the modern Katrah near Yebna. Possibly it is also the Kidron of 1 Mac 15:39, 41, 16:8.

GEDEROTHAIM occurs in Jos 15:36 as one of the fourteen cities of Judah that lay in the Shephēlah. There are, however, fourteen cities without it, and it is probable that the name has arisen by dittography from the preceding Gederah. The subterfuge of the AVm ‘Gederah or Gederothaim’ is not permissible.

GEDOR.—A town of Judah (Jos 15:58; cf. 1 Ch 4:4, 18, 12:7). It is generally identified with the modern Jedūr north of Beit-sur. 2. The district from which the Simeonites are said to have expelled the Hamite settlers (1 Ch 4:39ff.). The LXX, however, reads Gerar, and this suits admirably as to direction. 3. A Benjamite, an ancestor of king Saul (1 Ch 8:31, 9:37). 4. 5. The eponym of two Judahite families (1 Ch 4:4, 18).

GE-HARASHIM (‘valley of craftsmen,’ 1 Ch 4:14, Neh 11:35).—In the latter passage it occurs with Lod and Ono. The location of this ‘valley’ is quite uncertain.

GEHAZI.—Of the antecedents of Gehazi, and of his call to be the attendant of Elisha, the sacred historian gives us no information. He appears to stand in the same intimate relation to his master that Elisha had done to Elijah, and was probably regarded as the successor of the former. Through lack of moral fibre he fell, and his heritage in the prophetic order passed into other hands. Gehazi is first introduced to us in connexion with the episode of the Shunammite woman. The prophet consults familiarly with him, in regard to some substantial way of showing their appreciation of the kindness of their hostess. Gebazi bears Elisha’s message to her: ‘Behold, thou hast been careful for us with all this care; what is to be done for thee? Wouldst thou be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of the host?’ On her refusal to be a candidate for such honours, Gehazi reminds his master that the woman is childless. Taking up his attendant’s suggestion, Elisha promises a son to their benefactress (2 K 4:8ff.). According to prediction, the child is born; but after he has grown to be a lad, he suffers from sunstroke and death ensues. The mother immediately betakes herself to the prophet, who sends Gehazi with his own staff to work a miracle. To the servant’s prayer there is neither voice nor hearing; but where he falls, the prophet succeeds (2 K 4:17–37). Gehazi, like his master, had access to the court, for we read of him narrating to the king the story of the prophet’s dealings with the Shunammite (2 K 8:4, 5). In contrast with the spirit of the other characters, his covetousness and lying stand out in black hideousness in the story of Naaman (wh. see). The prophet’s refusal to receive any payment from the Syrian general for the cure which had been effected, does not meet with the approval of Gehazi. He follows the cavalcade of Naaman, and, fabricating a message from his master, begs a talent of silver and two changes of raiment for two young men of the sons of the prophets, who are supposed to be on a visit to Elisha. Having received and hidden his ill-gotten possessions, he stands before his master to do his bidding as if nothing had occurred, quite unaware that Elisha with prophetic eye has watched him on his foul mission of deception. Dumbfounded he must have been to hear his punishment from the lips of the prophet: ‘The leprosy, therefore, of Naaman shall cleave unto thee and unto thy seed for ever’ (2 K 5:20ff.). With this dread sentence, Gehazi is ushered off the stage of sacred history, never to reappear.

JAMES A. KELSO.

GEHENNA.—A word derived from Ge-Hinnom, the valley on the west of

Jerusalem. In this valley it is possible that Molech and Tammuz were worshipped (2 K 23:18, 2 Ch 28:3, 33:6, Jer 7:31, 32:35). The recollection of this terrible worship gave to the valley a sinister character, and led to its being defiled by Josiah (2 K 23:6, 10), for the purpose of preventing these rites. Thereafter it became the place for the burning of the refuse of the city, along with dead animals and the bodies of criminals. It was natural, therefore, that the name should become a synonym of hell (cf. Mt 5:29, 10:28). In its eschatological force Gehenna was the place of punishment. It generally was conceived of as being under the earth, but it was very much vaster in extent than the earth. It was believed to be filled with fire intended for the punishment of sinners, who apparently went there immediately after death. Late Rabbinic thought would seem to imply that men who are neither great saints nor great sinners might be purified by the fire of Gehenna. Only those who had committed adultery or shamed or slandered their neighbours were believed to be hopelessly condemned to its fires, while the Jews were not to be permanently injured by them. According to the later belief, Gehenna was to be destroyed at the final consummation of the age. There is no clear evidence that Gehenna was regarded as a place for the annihilation of the wicked, although there are some passages which give a certain support to this opinion. No systematic eschatological statement has, however, been preserved for us from Jewish times, much less one which may be said to represent a general consensus of opinion. The NT writers employ the word in its general force as a synonym for the idea of endless punishment for sinners, as over against ‘heaven’—the synonym of endless bliss for those who have enjoyed the resurrection. They attempt, however, no description of suffering within its limits further than that implied in the figures of fire and worms.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

GELILOTH (‘stone circles,’ Jos 18:17).—Identical with the Gilgal of Jos 15:7, and possibly with the Bath-gilgal of Neh 12:29. It was a place on the border of Benjamin and Judah near the Ascent of Adummim. This last was probably in the neighbourhood of Tal‘ at ed-dum, a hill near the so-called ‘Inn of the Good Samaritan’ on the carriage road to Jericho. The word gelīlōth occurs also in the

Heb. in Jos 13:2, 22:10, 11 and Jl 3:4, and is tr. in AV either ‘borders’ or ‘coasts,’ RV ‘regions.’

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GEM.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.

GEMALLI.—Father of the Danite spy, Nu 13:12 ( P ).

GEMARA.—See TALMUD.

GEMARIAH.—1. A son of Shaphan the scribe. He vainly sought to deter king Jehoiakim from burning the roll (Jer 36:10, 11, 12, 25). 2. A son of Hilkiah who carried a letter from Jeremiah to the captives at Babylon (Jer 29:3).

GENEALOGY.—The genealogies of the OT fall into two classes, national and individual, though the two are sometimes combined, the genealogy of the Individual passing into that of the nation.

1. National genealogies.—These belong to a well-recognized type, by which the relationship of nations, tribes, and families is explained as due to descent from a common ancestor, who is often an ‘eponymous hero,’ invented to account for the name of the nation. The principle was prevalent in Greece (see Grote, Hist. vol. i. ch. iv. etc. and p. 416); e.g. Hellen is the ‘father’ of Dorus, Æolus, and Xuthus, who is in turn the ‘father’ of Ion and Achæus, the existence of the various branches of the Greek races being thus explained. M‘Lennan (Studies in Ancient History, 2nd series, ix.) gives further examples from Rome (genealogies traced to Numa), Scotland, India, Arabia, and Africa; the Berbers (‘barbarians’) of N. Africa invented an ancestor Berr, and connected him with Noah. The Arabs derived all their subdivisions from Nebaioth or Joktan. The genealogies of Genesis are of the same type. The groundwork of the Priestly narrative (P) is a series of interconnected genealogies, each beginning with the formula, ‘These are the generations (toledōth) of …’ (2:4, 5:1, 6:9 etc.). The gap between Adam and Noah is filled by a genealogy of 10 generations (Gn 5), and in Gn 10 the nations of the world, as known to the writer, are traced in a genealogical tree to Noah’s three sons. We find in the list plural or dual names (e.g. Mizraim, Ludim, Anamim), names of places (Tarshish, Zidon, Ophir) or of nations (the Jebusite, Amorite, etc.). An ‘Eber’ appears as the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews. Sometimes the names might in form represent either individuals or nations (Asshur, Moab, Edom), but there can in most cases be little doubt that the ancestor has been invented to account for the nation. In later chapters the same method is followed with regard to tribes more or less closely related to Israel; the connexion is explained by deriving them from an ancestor related to Abraham. In Gn 22:20 the twelve Aramæan tribes are derived from Nahor his brother; in 25:12 twelve N. Arabian tribes, nearer akin, are traced to Ishmael and Hagar; six others, a step farther removed, to Keturah, his second wife, or concubine (25:1). The Edomites, as most nearly related, are derived from Esau (36). The frequent recurrence of the number 12 in these lists is a sign of artificiality. The same principle is applied to Israel itself. The existence of all the twelve sons of Jacob as individuals is on various grounds improbable; they represent tribes, and in many cases their ‘descendants’ are simply individual names coined to account for cities, clans, and subdivisions of the tribes (Gn 46:8, Nu 26). A good illustration is found in the case of Gilead. In Dt 3:15 we are told that Moses gave Gilead to Machir, son of Manasseh. In Nu 26:29 etc. Gilead has become the ‘son’ of Manasseh, and in Jg

11:1 ‘begets’ Jephthah. So among the ‘sons’ of Caleb we find cities of Judah

(Hebron, Tappuah, Ziph, Gibea, etc., 1 Ch 2:42ff.), and Kiriath-jearim and Bethlehem are descendants of Hur (2:51). It is indeed obvious that, whether consciously or not, terms of relationship are used in an artificial sense. ‘Father’ often means founder of a city; in Gn 4:20 it stands for the originator of occupations and professions; members of a guild or clan are its ‘sons.’ The towns of a district are its ‘daughters’ (Jg 1:27 RVm).

With regard to the historical value of these genealogies, two remarks may be made. (a) The records, though in most cases worthless if regarded as referring to individuals, are of the highest importance as evidence of the movements and history of peoples and clans, and of the beliefs entertained about them. Gn 10 gives geographical and ethnographical information of great value. A good example is found in what we learn of Caleb and the Calebites. In the earliest tradition ( Nu 32:12, Jos 14:6, 14) he is descended from Kenaz, a tribe of Edom, and ‘grandson’ of Esau (Gn 36:11, 42); in 1 S 25:3, 30:14 the Calebite territory is still distinct from Judah. But in 1 Ch 2:4ff. Caleb has become a descendant of Judah. We gather that the Calebites (‘dog-tribe’) were a related but alien clan, which entered into friendly relations with Judah at the time of the conquest of Canaan, and perhaps took the lead in the invasion. Ultimately they coalesced with Judah, and were regarded as pure Israelites. So generally, though no uniform interpretation of the genealogies is possible, a marriage will often point to the incorporation of new elements into the tribe, a birth to a fresh subdivision or migration, or an unfruitful marriage to the disappearance of a clan. Contradictory accounts of an individual in documents of different date may tell us of the history of a tribe at successive periods, as in the case of the Calebites.

(b) Though the genealogical names usually represent nations, there is, no doubt, in certain cases a personal element as well. The patriarchs and more prominent figures, such as Ishmael and Esau and Caleb, were no doubt individuals, and their history is not entirely figurative. On this point see Driver, Genesis, pp. liv. ff.; also artt. ABRAHAM, and TRIBES. We should note that the distinctive feature of the Greek genealogies, which traced national descent from the gods, is absent from the OT. A trace remains in Gn 6:4 (cf. Lk 3:38).

2. Genealogies of individuals.—Whatever view be taken of the genealogies of our Lord (see next article), their incorporation in the Gospels proves the importance attached to descent in the NT period; they also show that at that time records were kept which made the construction of such tables a possibility. St. Paul was conscious of his pure pedigree (Ph 3:5), and in several cases in the NT the name of a person’s tribe is preserved. The hope of being the ancestor of the Messiah, and the natural pride of royal descent, probably caused the records of the house of David to be preserved with great care. In the same way Josephus, in the opening chapter of his Life, sets out his genealogy as vouched for by the public records, though only as far hack as his grandfather Simon. In c. Apion. i. 7, he speaks of the careful preservation of the Priestly genealogies; and the story of Africanus (ap. Eus. HE i. 7, 13), that Herod the Great destroyed the genealogical records of the Jews in order to conceal his own origin, is at least an indication of the existence of such records and of the value attached to them. The Talmud speaks of professional genealogists, and in the present day many Jews, especially among the priests, treasure long and detailed family trees, showing their pure descent ( cf., for an earlier period, 1 Mac 2:1, Bar 1:1, To 1:1).

There can be no doubt that this careful recording of genealogies received its main impetus in the time of Ezra. It was then that the line between the Jews and other nations became sharply drawn, and stress was laid on purity of descent, whether real or fictitious. After the return from Babylon, it was more important to be able to trace descent from the exiles than to be a native of Judah (Ezr 9). Certain families were excluded from the priesthood for lack of the requisite genealogical records (2:61, Neh 7:63). And in fact practically all the detailed genealogies of individuals as preserved in P, Chronicles, and kindred writings, date from this or a later period. No doubt the injunctions of Dt 23:3 and the arrangements for a census (2 S 24) imply that there was some sort of registration of families before this, and the stage of civilization reached under the monarchy makes it probable that records were kept of royal and important houses. But the genealogical notes which really date from the earlier period rarely go further back than two or three generations, and the later genealogies bear many traces of their artificiality. The names are in many cases late and post-exilic, and there is no evidence outside the genealogies that they were in use at an earlier period. Of the twenty-four courses of the sons of Aaron in 1 Ch 24:1ff., sixteen names are post-exilic. Names of places and clans appear as individuals (2:18–24, 7:30–40). Gaps are filled up by the repetition of the same name in several generations (e.g. 6:4–14). At a later time it was usual for a child to be named after his father or kinsman (Lk 1:59, 61), but there are probably no cases where this is recorded for the pre-exilic period, except in the Chronicler’s lists (see Gray, HPN). There are numerous discrepancies in the various lists, and there is a strongly marked tendency to ascribe a Levitical descent to all engaged in the service of the sanctuary, e.g. the guilds of singers and porters. So Samuel is made a Levite by the Chronicler (6:22, 33), almost certainly wrongly, as his story shows. In the same way the position of clans, such as Caleb and Jerahmeel, which in the early history appear as alien, is legitimized by artificial genealogies (1 Ch 2).

In 25:4 the names of the sons of Heman seem to be simply fragments of a hymn or psalm. In 6:4 there are, including Aaron, 23 priests from the Exodus to the Captivity—an evidently artificial reconstruction; forty years is a generation, and 40×12 = 480 years to the building of the Temple (1 K 6:1), the other 11 priests filling up the period till the Exile, which took place in the eleventh generation after Solomon. Such marks of artificiality, combined with lateness of date, forbid us to regard the lists as entirely historical. No doubt in certain cases the genealogist had family records to work upon, but the form in which our material has reached us makes it almost impossible to disentangle these with any degree of certainty. W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 6) gives an interesting parallel to this development of genealogizing activity at a particular period. The Arabian genealogies all date from the reign of Caliph Omar, when circumstances made purity of descent of great importance.

C. W. EMMET.

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST

1. The two genealogies.—Both the First and Third Evangelists (here for brevity referred to as Mt. and Lk.) give our Lord’s ancestry, but they differ from one another very largely. Lk. traces back the genealogy to Adam, Mt. to Abraham only.

Both lists agree from Abraham to David, except that Aram or Ram in Mt 1:3 = Arm in Lk 3:33 (best text); but between David and Joseph the lists have only Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, and possibly two other names (see below), in common.

(a) The Matthæan list from Perez to David is taken almost verbatim from Ru 4:18b–22 LXX (inserting Rahab and Ruth, and calling David ‘the king’), and agrees with 1 Ch 2:1–16; it then gives the names of the kings to Jechoniah, from 1 Ch 3:10–15, but inserts ‘the [wife] of Uriah’ and omits kings Abaziah, Joash, and Amaziah between Joram and Uzziah (= Azariah), and also Jehoiakim son of Josiah and father of Jechoniah (Coniah, Jer 22:24) or Jehoiachin (2 Ch 36:8). This last omission may be merely a mistake, for the list is made up of three artificial divisions of fourteen generations each, and Jechoniah appears both at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third division, being counted twice. Perhaps, then, originally Jehoiakim ended the second division, and Jehoiachin began the third, and they became confused owing to the similarity of spelling and were written alike (as in 1 Ch 3:15, Jer 52:31 LXX); then the synonym Jechoniah was substituted for both. In the third division the names Shealtiel, Zerubbabel (both in Lk. also) are from Ezr 3:2, 1 Ch 3:17, 19 but we notice that in Mt. and Ezra

Zerubbabel is called son of Shealtiel, whereas in 1 Ch (except in some MSS of the LXX) he is his nephew. Both in Mt. and 1 Ch. Shealtiel is called son of Jechoniah. Between Zerubbabel and Joseph the names are perhaps from some traditional list of the heirs of the kings, but some names here also have been omitted, for in Mt.

ten generations are spread over nearly 500 years, while Lk. gives nineteen generations for the same period. The Mt. genealogy ends with Matthan, Jacob, Joseph.

(b) The Lukan list, which inverts the order, beginning at Jesus and ending at

Adam, takes the line from Adam to Abraham, from Gn 5, 10:21–25 (to Peleg), 1

Ch 1:1–27, but inserts Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah, as does the LXX in Gn. and 1 Ch.; it practically agrees with Mt. (see above) from Abraham to David, but then gives the line to Shealtiel through David’s son Nathan, making Shealtiel the son of Neri, not of king Jechoniah (see 2 below). The names between Nathan and Shealtiel are not derived from the OT, and those between Zerubbabel and Joseph are otherwise unknown to us, unless, as Plummer supposes (ICC, ‘St. Luke,’ p. 104,) Joanan (Lk 3:27 RV) = Hananiah son of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3:19)— the name Rhesa being really a title (‘Zerubbabel Rhesa’ = ‘Z. the prince’), misunderstood by some copyist before Lk.—and Joda (Lk 3:26 RV) = Abind ( Mt 1:18) = Hodaviab (1 Ch 3:24 RV, a descendant of Zerubbabel, not son of Hananiah). Some think that Matthat (Lk 3:24) = Matthan (Mt 1:15).

2. Reason of the differences.—It is not enough merely to say that theories which endeavour to harmonize the four Gospels are failures, and that, as is shown in art. GOSPELS, 2 (b), Mt. and Lk. wrote each without knowing the work of the other. We have to consider why two independent writers, both professing to give our Lord’s genealogy, produced such different lists. Jewish genealogies were frequently artificial; that of Mt. is obviously so; for example, its omissions were apparently made only so as to produce an equality between the three divisions. Burkitt (Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. 260f.) and Allen (ICC, ‘St. Matthew,’ p. 2 ff.) think that Mt. compiled his genealogy for the purpose of his Gospel. The details about Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, not to be expected in a genealogy, but suitable for that purpose (see below), and the artificial divisions, seem to point to this view. The object of the Mt. genealogy would be to refute an early Jewish slander that Jesus was born out of wedlock—a slander certainly known to Celsus in the 2nd cent. (Origen, c. Cels. i. 28 etc.). In this connexion Burkitt (l.c.) shows that Mt. 1:2 are by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel (see also Hawkins, Horæ Synopticæ, p. 4ff.). This view may, however, perhaps be modified a little by the hypothesis that the Mt. list is due to a Christian predecessor of the First Evangelist, perhaps to one of his sources; this modification would allow for the corruption of Jeboiakim and Jeboiachin (above, 1).

In any case, in spite of the argument to the contrary by Bacon in Hastings’ DB ii. 139, we must probably agree with Westcott (NT in Greek², ii. 141), Barnard (Hastings’ DCG i. 638), Allen, and Burkitt, that the word ‘begat’ in this list expresses legal heirship and not physical descent. The same is true in some cases in 1 Chronicles. Mt. clearly believed in the Virgin Birth, and puts the genealogy immediately before the assertion of it; if physical descent is intended, the

genealogy through Joseph is unmeaning. He wishes to prove that Jesus is legally descended from David, and therefore gives the ‘throne succession,’ the list of regal heirs. On the other hand, it may be supposed that Lk. states Jesus’ heirship by giving Joseph’s actual physical descent according to some genealogy preserved in the family. According to this view, Joseph was really the son of Heli (Lk 3:23) but the legal heir of Jacob (Mt 1:16). It is not difficult to understand why Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear in both lists. Jechoniah was childless, or at least his heirs died out (Jer 22:24, 30), and Shealtiel, though called his ‘son’ in 1 Ch 3:17, was probably only his legal heir, being son of Neri (Lk 3:27). This theory is elaborated by Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells (The Genealogies of our Lord, 1853 , and in Smith’s DB²).

The reason of the insertion of the names of the four women in the Mt. list is not quite obvious. It has been suggested that the object was to show that God accepts penitents and strangers. Burkitt, with more probability, supposes that the mention of the heirs being born out of the direct line or irregularly is intended to prepare us for the still greater irregularity at the last stage, for the Virgin Birth of Jesus (l.c. p. 260). We note that in the OT Rahab is not said to have been the wife of Salmon as in Mt. 1:5.

3. Other solutions.—(a) Africanus, perhaps the earliest writer to discuss Biblical questions in a critical manner (c. A.D. 220), treats of these genealogies in his Letter to Aristides (Euseb. HE i. 7, vi. 31). He harmonizes them ( expressly, however, not as a matter of tradition) on the theory of levirate marriages, supposing that two half-brothers, sons of different fathers, married the same woman, and that the issue of the second marriage was therefore legally accounted to the elder, but physically to the younger brother. It is a difficulty that two, or even three, such marriages must be supposed in the list; and this theory is almost universally rejected by moderns. Africanus bad no doubt that both genealogies were Joseph’s.

Africanus says that Herod the Great destroyed all the Jewish genealogies kept in the archives, so as to hide his own ignoble descent, but that not a few had private records of their own (Euseb. HE i. 7). Here clearly Africanus exaggerates. Josephus says that his own genealogy was given in the public records, and that the priests’ pedigrees, even among Jews of the Dispersion, were carefully preserved (Life, 1, c. Ap. i. 7). There is no reason why LK. should not have found a genealogy in Joseph’s family. Africanus says that our Lord’s relatives, called desposyni, prided themselves on preserving the memory of their noble descent.

(b) A more modern theory, expounded by Weiss, but first by Annius of Viterbo

(c. A.D. 1490), is that Mt. gives Joseph’s pedigree, Lk. Mary’s. It is necessary on this theory to render Lk 3:23 thus: ‘being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph [ but really the grandson] of Heli.’ This translations rightly pronounced by Plummer to be incredible (l.c. p. 103); and a birthright derived through the mother would be ‘quite out of harmony with either Jewish ideas or Gentile ideas.’ The important thing was to state Jesus’ birthright, and the only possible way to do this would be through Joseph.

It must, however, be added that Joseph and Mary were probably near relations. We cannot, indeed, say with Eusebius (HE i. 7) that they must have been of the same tribe, because ‘intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted.’ He is evidently referring to Nu 36:6f., but this relates only to heiresses, who, if they married out of their tribe, would forfeit their inheritance. Mary and Elisabeth were kinswomen, though the latter was descended from Aaron (Lk 1:5, 36). But it was undoubtedly the belief of the early Christians that Jesus was descended, according to the flesh, from David, and was of the tribe of Judah (Ac 2:30, 13:23 , Ro 1:3, 2 Ti 2:8, He 7:14, Rev 5:5, 22:16; cf. Mk 10:47, 11:10). At the same time it is noteworthy that our Lord did not base His claims on His Davidic descent. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, an apocryphal work written in its present form c. A.D. 120, we find (Sym. 7, Gad, 8) the idea that the Lord should ‘raise (one) from Levi as priest and from Judah as king. God and man,—an Inference, as Sanday-Headlam remark (ICC, ‘Romans,’ p. 7), from Lk 1:36.

4. The Matthæan text.—In Mt 1:16 the reading of almost all Greek MSS, attested by Tertullian, is that of EV, ‘Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,’ etc. The lately discovered Sinaitic-Syriac palimpsest has ‘Jacob begat Joseph: Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus.’ This reading is carefully discussed by Prof. Burkitt (l.c. p. 262 ff.), who thinks that it is not original, but derived from a variant of the ordinary text: ‘Jacob begat Joseph, to whom being betrothed the Virgin Mary bare [lit. begat, as often] Jesus’ [this is questioned by Allen, l.c. p. 8]. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the Sinaitic palimpsest has the original reading of a source of our Mt. which did not believe in the Virgin Birth. If so, it is strange that the First

Evangelist should place it in such close juxtaposition to his assertion of that belief. In view, however, of what has been said above, that the word ‘begat’ in Mt. implies only legal heirship, the question has no real doctrinal significance. On purely literary grounds, Prof. Burkitt seems to the present writer to have established his point.

A. J. MACLEAN.

GENERAL.—This adj. means in AV ‘universal,’ as Latimer, Sermons, 182 ,

‘The promises of God our Saviour are general; they pertain to all mankind.’ So in He 12:23, ‘the general assembly’ means the gathering of all without exception. Generally in like manner means ‘universally,’ 2 S 17:11 ‘I counsel that all Israel be generally gathered unto thee.’ The subst. ‘general’ is once (1 Ch 27:34) used for Heb. sar, of which the more usual rendering is ‘captain’ (wh. see; cf. ARMY, § 2).

GENERATION.—‘Generation’ is used in AV to tr. 1. Heb. dōr, which is used (a) generally for a period, especially in the phrases dōr wādhōr, etc., of limitless duration; past, Is 51:8; future, Ps 10:6; past and future, Ps 102:24; (b) of all men living at any given time (Gn 6:9); (c) of a class of men with some special characteristic, Pr 30:11–14 of four generations of bad men; (d) in Is 38:12 and Ps 49:19 dōr is sometimes taken as ‘dwelling-place.’ 2. Heb. tōlĕdhōth (from yāladh, ‘beget’ or ‘bear children’), which is used in the sense of (a) genealogies Gn 5:1 , figuratively of the account of creation, Gn 2:4; also (b) divisions of a tribe, as based on genealogy; tōlĕdhōth occurs only in the Priestly Code, in Ru 4:18, and in 1 Ch. 3. Gr. genea in same sense as 1 (a), Col 1:26; as 1 (b), Mt 24:34. 4. genesis =

2 (a), Mt 1:1, an imitation of LXX use of genesis for tōlĕdhōth. 5. Gennēma, ‘offspring’ = 1 (c): so Mt 3:7|| (‘generation, i.e. offspring, of vipers’). 6. genos, ‘race’ = 1 (c): so 1 P 2:9 (AV ‘chosen generation,’ RV ‘elect race’).

GENESIS

1. Name, Contents, and Plan.—The name ‘Genesis,’ as applied to the first book of the Bible, is derived from the LXX, in one or two MSS of which the book is entitled Genesis kosmou (‘origin of the world’). A more appropriate designation, represented by the heading of one Greek MS, is ‘The Book of Origins’; for Genesis is pre-eminently the Book of Hebrew Origins. It is a collection of the earliest traditions of the Israelites regarding the beginnings of things, and particularly of their national history; these traditions being woven into a continuous narrative, commencing with the creation of the world and ending with the death of Joseph. The story is continued in the book of Exodus, and indeed forms the introduction to a historical work which may be said to terminate either with the conquest of Palestine (Hexateuch) or with the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings). The narrative comprised in Genesis falls naturally into two main divisions—(i) The history of primeval mankind (chs. 1–11), including the creation of the world, the origin of evil, the beginnings of civilization, the Flood, and the dispersion of peoples. ( ii. ) The history of the patriarchs (ch. 12–50), which is again divided into three sections, corresponding to the lives of Abraham (12–25:18), Isaac (25:19–36), and Jacob (37–50); although in the last two periods the story is really occupied with the fortunes of Jacob and Joseph respectively. The transition from one period to another is marked by a series of genealogies, some of which (e.g. chs. 5, 11:10 ff. ) serve a chronological purpose and bridge over intervals of time with regard to which tradition was silent, while others (chs. 10, 36, etc.) exhibit the nearer or remoter relation to Israel of the various races and peoples of mankind. These genealogies constitute a sort of framework for the history, and at the same time reveal the plan on which the book is constructed. As the different branches of the human family are successively enumerated and dismissed, and the history converges more and more on the chosen line, we are meant to trace the unfolding of the Divine purpose by which Israel was separated from all the nations of the earth to be the people of the true God.

2. Literary sources.—The unity of plan which characterizes the Book of Genesis does not necessarily exclude the supposition that it is composed of separate documents; and a careful study of the structure of the book proves beyond all doubt that this is actually the case. The clue to the analysis was obtained when (in 1753) attention was directed to the significant alternation of two names for God, Jahweh and Elohim. This at once suggested a compilation from two preexisting sources; although it is obvious that a preference for one or other Divine name might be common to many independent writers, and does not by itself establish the unity of all the passages in which it appears. It was speedily discovered, however, that this characteristic does not occur alone, but is associated with a number of other features, linguistic, literary, and religious, which were found to correspond in general with the division based on the use of the Divine names. Hence the conviction gradually gained ground that in Genesis we have to do not with an indefinite number of disconnected fragments, but with a few homogeneous compositions, each with a literary character of its own. The attempts to determine the relation of the several components to one another proved more or less abortive, until it was finally established in 1853 that the use of Elohim is a peculiarity common to two quite dissimilar groups of passages; and that one of these has much closer affinities with the sections where Jahweh is used than with the other Elohistic sections. Since then, criticism has rapidly advanced to the positions now held by the great majority of OT scholars, which may be briefly summarized as follows:

(1) Practically the whole of Genesis is resolved into three originally separate documents, each containing a complete and consecutive narrative: (a) the Jahwistic (J), characterized by the use of ‘Jahweh,’ commencing with the Creation (2:4b ff.) and continued to the end of the book; (b) the Elohistic (E), using ‘Elohim,’ beginning at ch. 20; (c) the Priestly Code (P), also using ‘Elohim,’ which opens with the first account of the Creation (1–2:4a). (2) In the compilation from these sources of our present Book of Genesis, two main stages are recognized: first, the fusion of J and E into a single work (JE); and second, the amalgamation of the combined work JE with P (an intermediate stage; the combination of JE with the Book of Deuteronomy, is here passed over because it has no appreciable influence on the composition of Genesis). (3) The oldest documents are J and E, which represent slightly varying recensions of a common body of patriarchal tradition, to which J has prefixed traditions from the early history of mankind. Both belong to the best age of Hebrew writing, and must have been composed before the middle of the 8th cent. B.C. The composite work JE is the basis of the Genesis narrative; to it belong all the graphic, picturesque, and racy stories which give life and charm to the book. Differences of standpoint between the two components are clearly marked; but both bear the stamp of popular literature, full of local colour and human interest, yet deeply pervaded by the religious spirit. Their view of God and His converse with men is primitive and childlike; but the bold anthropomorphic representations which abound in J are strikingly absent from E, where the element of theological reflexion is come-what more pronounced than in J. (4) The third source, P, reproduces the traditional scheme of history laid down in JE; but the writer’s unequal treatment of ‘the material at his disposal reveals a prevailing interest in the history of the sacred institutions which were to be the basis of the Sinaitic legislation. As a rule he enlarges only on those epochs of the history at which some new religious observance was introduced, viz., the Creation, when the Sabbath was instituted; the Flood, followed by the prohibition of eating the blood; and the Abrahamic Covenant, of which circumcision was the perpetual seal. For the rest, the narrative is mostly a meagre and colourless epitome, based on JE, and scarcely intelligible apart from it. While there is evidence that P used other sources than JE, it is significant that, with the exception of ch. 23, there is no single episode to which a parallel is not found in the older and fuller narrative. To P, however, we owe the chronological scheme, and the series of genealogies already referred to as constituting the framework of the book as a whole. The Code belongs to a comparatively late period of Hebrew literature, and is generally assigned by critics to the early post-exilic age.

3. Nature of the material.—That the contents of Genesis are not historical in the technical sense, is implied in the fact that even the oldest of its written documents are far from being contemporary with the events related. They consist for the most part of traditions which for an indefinite period had circulated orally amongst the Israelites, and which (as divergences in the written records testify) had undergone modification in the course of transmission. No one denies that oral tradition may embody authentic recollection of actual occurrences; but the extent to which this is the case is uncertain, and will naturally vary in different parts of the narrative. Thus a broad distinction may be drawn between the primitive traditions of chs. 1–11 on the one hand, and those relating to the patriarchs on the other. The accounts of the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Dispersion, all exhibit more or less clearly the influence of Babylonian mythology; and with regard to these the question is one not of trustworthy historical memory, but of the avenue through which certain mythical representations came to the knowledge of Israel. For the patriarchal period the conditions are different: here the tradition is ostensibly national; the presumed interval of oral transmission is perhaps not beyond the compass of the retentive Oriental memory; and it would be surprising if some real knowledge of its own antecedents had not persisted in the national recollection of Israel. These considerations may be held to justify the belief that a substratum of historic fact underlies the patriarchal narratives of Genesis; but it must be added that to distinguish that substratum from legendary accretions is hardly possible in the present state of our knowledge. The process by which the two elements came to be blended can, however, partly be explained. The patriarchs, for instance, are conceived as ancestors of tribes and nations; and it is certain that in some narratives the characteristics, the mutual relations, and even the history, of tribes are reflected in what is told as the personal biography of the ancestors. Again, the patriarchs are founders of sanctuaries; and it is natural to suppose that legends explanatory of customs observed at these sanctuaries are attached to the names of their reputed founders and go to enrich the traditional narrative. Once more, they are types of character; and in the inevitable simplification which accompanies popular narration the features of the type tended to be emphasized, and the figures of the patriarchs were gradually idealized as patterns of Hebrew piety and virtue. No greater mistake could be made than to think that these non-historical, legendary or imaginative, parts of the tradition are valueless for the ends of revelation. They are inseparably woven into that ideal background of history which bounded the horizon of ancient Israel, and was perhaps more influential in the moulding of national character than a knowledge of the naked reality would have been. The inspiration of the Biblical narrators is seen in the fashioning of the floating mass of legend and folklore and historical reminiscences into an expression of their Divinely given apprehension of religious truth, and so transforming what would otherwise have been a constant source of religious error and moral corruption as to make it a vehicle of instruction in the knowledge and fear of God. Once the principle is admitted that every genuine and worthy mode of literary expression is a suitable medium of God’s word to men, it is impossible to suppose that the mythic faculty, which plays so important a part in the thinking of all early peoples, was alone ignored in the Divine education of

Israel.

J. SKINNER. GENEVA BIBLE.—See ENGLISH VERSIONS, § 26.

GENNÆUS.—The father of Apollonius, a Syrian commander of a district in Palestine (2 Mac 12:2).

GENNESARET, LAKE OF.—See GALILEE [SEA OF]

GENNESARET, LAND OF.—Mentioned only in the parallel passages Mt 14:34, Mk 6:53, as the place whither the disciples sailed after the stilling of the second storm on the Lake. It was somewhere on the W. bank of the Lake of Galilee, as the feeding of the five thousand had taken place, just before the crossing, on the E. side; it was also near habitations, as sick people were brought for healing to Christ on His landing. It is usually, and with reason, identified with the low land at the N. W. corner of the Lake.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GENTILES.—See NATIONS. For ‘Court of the Gentiles,’ see TEMPLE.

GENTLENESS.—The word ‘gentle’ occurs five times in NT (AV). In 1 Th 2:7 and 2 Ti 2:24 it corresponds to Gr. ēpios; it is the character proper to a nurse among trying children, or a teacher with refractory pupils. In Tit 3:2, Ja 3:17, 1 P 2:18 ‘gentle’ is the AV tr. of epieikēs, which is uniformly so rendered in RV. The general idea of the Gr. word is that which is suggested by equity as opposed to strict legal justice; it expresses the quality of considerateness, of readiness to look humanely and reasonably at the facts of a case. There is a good discussion of it in Trench, Syn. § xliii.; he thinks there are no words in English which answer exactly to it, the ideas of equity and fairness, which are essential to its import, usually getting less than justice in the proposed equivalents.

In 2 S 22:36 = Ps 18:35 (‘Thy gentleness hath made me great’) RV keeps ‘gentleness’ in the text, but gives ‘condescension’ in the margin, which is much better. The key to the meaning is found in comparing such passages as Ps 113:5 f., Is 57:15, Zec 9:9, Mt 11:29.

GENUBATH.—Son of Hadad, the fugitive Edomite prince, by the sister of queen Tahpenes (1 K 11:19, 20).

GEOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE.—See PALESTINE.

GEOLOGY OF PALESTINE

I. NATURAL DIVISIONS.—The land of Palestine (using the name in its widest sense to include the trans-Jordanic plateau and the Sinai Peninsula) is divided by its configuration and by natural boundary lines into five strongly contrasted divisions. These are (1) the Coast Plain, (2) the Western Table-land, (3) the Ghōr, (4) the Eastern Table-land, (5) the Sinai Peninsula.

1. The Coast Plain extends from the mouth of the Nile to Carmel (the political boundary line, the valley known as Wady el-’Arīsh, or the River of Egypt, is of no importance geologically). North of Carmel, Esdraelon and the narrow strip that extends as far as Beyrout is the continuation of the same division. It is characterized by sandhills along the coast, and by undulating ground inland.

2. The Western Table-land extends from Lebanon to the northern border of Sinai: the headland of Carmel is an intrusion from this division on to the preceding. It consists of a ridge of limestone with deep valleys running into it on each side, and at Hebron it attains a height of 3040 feet above the sea-level; it broadens out into the desert of the Tib (or of the ‘wanderings’)—an almost barren expanse of an average level of 4000 feet.

3. The Ghōr is the line of a fault wherein the strata on the Eastern side have been raised, or on the western side depressed. It runs from the base of Lebanon to the Dead Sea, where it is 1292 feet below the level of the Mediterranean; thence it rises to 640 feet above the same plane at er-Rishi, whence it descends by a gentle slope to the Gulf of ‘Akabah.

4. The Eastern Table-land runs along the W. side of the Arabian desert from Hermon to the Gulf of ‘Akabah. It is chiefly volcanic in the character of its rocks.

5. The Sinai Peninsula is composed of Archæan rocks, which form bare mountains of very striking outline.

Each of these divisions has special characters of its own. The Coast Plain is composed of sand, gravel, or calcareous sandstone, overlaid in many places with rich fertile loam. The Western Table-land has streams rising in copious springs of water stored in the limestone strata; these streams on the Eastern side have a very rapid fall, owing to the great depth of the Ghōr. The hills are generally bare, but the valleys, where the soil has accumulated, are very fertile. The surface of the Ghōr is for its greater part alluvial. The Eastern Table-land is composed of granite and other igneous rocks, overlaid towards the North by sandstones which are themselves covered by calcareous strata. To the South, however, it is entirely covered with basaltic lava sheets, through which the cones of extinct volcanoes rise. The Sinai Peninsula is characterized by its barrenness, vegetation being found only in the valleys.

II. GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS.—The geological formations of which the above regions are composed are the following.—(1) Archæan (granitic gneiss, hornblende, diorite, etc.): the oldest rocks in this region, found only among the mountains of Sinai and Edom.—(2) Volcanic (lavas, ash-beds, etc.): found in the Wady Harūn and Jebal esh-Shomar, east of the Dead Sea.—(3) Lower

Carboniferous (sandstone, blue limestone): found in Wady Nasb, and Lebruj, E. of the Dead Sea: sandstones below, and limestones containing shells and corals of carboniferous limestone species.—(4) Cretaceous: lower beds of Nubian sandstone, which is found all along the Tib escarpment and along the Western escarpment from ‘Akabah to beyond the Dead Sea. It was probably a lake-deposit. It is overlaid by a great thickness of cretaceous limestone, amounting to nearly 1000 feet. This is the most important constituent of the rocks of Palestine. Good building stones are taken from it in the quarries of Jerusalem.—(5) Lower Eocene: nummulite limestone, found overlying the cretaceous beds in elevated situations, such as Carmel, Nāblus, and Jerusalem.—(6) Upper Eocene: a formation of calcareous sandstone on the surface between Beersheba and Jaffa. Its true position is uncertain. Prof. Hull assigns it to the Upper Eocene, but Dr. Blanckenhorn to a post-tertiary or diluvial origin.—(7) Miocene Period. No rocks are assignable to this period, but it is important as being that in which the country rose from the bed of the sea and assumed its present form. This was the time when the great fault in the Jordan valley took place.—(8) Pliocene to Pluvial Period. During this period a subsidence of about 220 feet took place round the Mediterranean and Red Sea basins, afterwards compensated by a re-elevation. The evidence for this remains in a number of raised beaches, especially in the valley of Sheriah, east of Gaza. A similar phenomenon has been found at Mokattam, above Cairo.—(9) Pluvial to Recent Period. In the glacial epoch there were extensive glaciers in Lebanon, which have left traces in a number of moraines. At that time the temperature was colder, and the rainfall higher; hence the valleys, now dry, were channels of running water. Alluvial terraces in the Jordan valley-lake prove that the Dead Sea was formerly hundreds of feet higher than its present level. With the passing of the Pleistocene period the lakes and streams were reduced to their present limits.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GEPHYRUN.—A city captured by Judas Maccabæus (2 Mac 12:13; AV ‘he went also about to make a bridge to a certain city,’ RV ‘he also fell upon a certain city Gephyrun’). It is possible that the Greek text is corrupt (see RVm).

GER.—See STRANGER.

GERA.—One of Benjamin’s sons (Gn 46:21, omitted in Nu 26:38–40). Acc. to 1 Ch 8:3, 8, 7 he was a son of Bela and a grandson of Benjamin. Gera was evidently a well-known Benjamite clan, to which belonged Ehud (Jg 3:15) and Shimel (2 S 16:5, 19:16, 18, 1 K 2:3).

GERAH, the twentieth part of the shekel (Ex 30:13, Lv 27:25 etc.). See MONEY, 3; WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, III.

GERAR.—A place mentioned in Gn 10:19 in the boundary of the Canaanite territory near Gaza, wheres Abraham sojourned and came in contact with a certain ‘Abimelech king of Gerar’ (20:1). A similar experience is recorded of Isaac (26:1) , but the stories are evidently not independent. Gerar reappears only in 2 Ch 14:13 , 14, in the description of the rout of the Ethiopians by Asa, in which Gerar was the limit of the pursuit. Eusebius makes Gerar 25 Roman miles S. of Eleutheropolis; hence it has been sought at Umm el-Jerār, 6 miles S. of Gaza. This, however, seems a comparatively modern site and name. Possibly there were two Gerars: the Abrahamic Gerar has also been identified with Wady Jerār, 13 miles W. S. W. from Kadesh. The problem, like that of the mention of Philistines in connexion with this place in the time of Abraham, has not yet been solved.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GERASA.—A city of the Decapolis of unknown origin, the first known event in its history being its capture by Alexander Jannæus, about B.C. 83. It was rebuilt by the Romans in A.D. 65, and destroyed in the Jewish revolt. Vespasian’s general, Lucius Annius, again took and destroyed the city. In the 2nd cent. A.D. it was a flourishing city, adorned with monuments of art; it was at this time a centre of the worship of Artemis. It afterwards became the seat of a bishop, but seems to have been finally destroyed in the Byzantine age. An uncertain tradition of some Jewish scholars, favoured by some modern writers, identifies it with Ramoth-gilead. The ruins of the city still exist under the modern name Jerāsh; they lie among the mountains of Gilead, about 20 miles from the Jordan. These are very extensive, and testify to the importance and magnificence of the city, but they are unfortunately being rapidly destroyed by a colony of Circassians who have been established here. The chief remains are those of the town walls, the street of columns, several temples, a triumphal arch, a hippodrome, a theatre, etc.

Gerasa is not mentioned in the Bible, unless the identification with Ramothgilead hold. The Gerasenes referred to in Mk 5:1 (RV) cannot belong to this place, which is too far away from the Sea of Galilee to suit the story. This name probably refers to a place named Kersa, on the shore of the Lake, which fulfils the requirements. See GADARA.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GERASENES, GERGESENES.—See GADARA and GERASA.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GERIZIM.—A mountain which with Ebal encloses the valley in which is built the town of Nāblus (Shechem). The Samaritan sect regard it as holy, it being to them what Jerusalem and Mount Zion are to the Jew. According to Samaritan tradition, the sacrifice of Isaac took place here. From Gerizim were pronounced the blessings attached to observance of the Law (Jos 8:33), when the Israelites formally took possession of the country. It was probably chosen as the fortunate mountain (as contrasted with Ebal, the mount of cursings), because it would be on the right hand of a spectator facing east. Here Jotham spoke his parable to the elders of Shechem (Jg 9:7).

The acoustic properties of the valley are said to be remarkable, and experiment has shown that from some parts of the mountain it is possible with very little effort to make the voice carry over a very considerable area. A ledge of rock half-way up the hill is still often called ‘Jotham’s pulpit.’

On this mountain was erected, about 432 B.C., a Samaritan temple, which was destroyed about 300 years afterwards by Hyrcanus. Its site is pointed out on a small level plateau, under the hill-top. The Passover is annually celebrated here. Other ruins of less interest are to be seen on the mountain-top, such as the remains of a castle and a Byzantine church. The summit of the mountain commands a view embracing nearly the whole of Palestine. Contrary to the statement of Josephus, it is not the highest of the mountains of Samaria, Ebal and Tell ‘Azur being rather higher.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GERON should possibly appear as a proper name in 2 Mac 6:1 (AV and RV ‘an old man of Athens’; RVm ‘Geron an Athenian’).

GERRENIANS (2 Mac 13:24).—The true reading and the people intended are both uncertain. The analogy of 1 Mac 11:59 suggests some place near the border of Egypt; but Gerrha, between Pelusium and Rhinocolura, was in Egyptian territory.

It has been suggested that the reference is to Gerar, an ancient Phil. city S. E. of Gaza. On the other hand, Syr. reads Gazar, i.e. Gezer or Gazara, not far from Lydda (cf. 1 Mac 15:28, 35).

GERSHOM.—1. The elder of the two sons borne to Moses by Zipporah ( Ex 2:22, 18:2–6; the explanation of the name given in these two passages is folketymology). According to Ex 14:25, 25, the origin of circumcision among the Israelites was connected with that of Gershom; the rite was performed by his mother; this was contrary to later usage, according to which this was always done by a man. The son of Gershom, Jonathan, and his descendants were priests to the tribe of the Danites; but the fact that these latter set up for themselves a graven image, and that therefore the descendants of Gershom were connected with worship of this kind, was regarded as a grave evil by later generations, for which reason the word ‘Moses’ in Jg 18:30 was read ‘Manasseh’ by the insertion of an n above the text; it was thought derogatory to the memory of Moses that descendants of his should have been guilty of the worship of graven images. In Jg 17:7 there is a possible reference to Gershom, for the words ‘and he sojourned there’ can also be read ‘and he (was) Gershom’ (W. H. Bennett). In 1 Ch 23:16, 26:24 the sons of Gershom are mentioned, Shebuel or Shubael being their chief. 2. A son of Levi (1

Ch 6:16 [v. 1 in Heb.]); see GERSHON. 3. A descendant of Phinehas, one of the ‘heads of houses’ who went up with Ezra from Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezr 8:2).

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

GERSHON, GERSHONITES.—The name Gershon is given to the eldest son of Levi, to whom a division of the Levites traced their descent (Gn 46:11, Ex 6:16 , Nu 3:17, 1 Ch 6:1, 16 [Gershom] 23:6). The title ‘Gershonites’ is found in Nu 3:21, 23f., 4:24, 27f., 26:57, Jos 21:33, 1 Ch 23:7, 26:21, 2 Ch 29:12; and of an individual, 1 Ch 26:21, 29:8; the ‘sons of Gershon’ (Ex 6:17, Nu 3:18, 25, 4:22 , 36, 41, 7:7, 10:17, Jos 21:6, 27), or ‘of Gershom’ (1 Ch 6:17, 62, 71, 15:7). They were subdivided into two groups, the Libnites and the Shimeites (Nu 3:21, 26:58) , each being traced to a ‘son’ of Gershon (Ex 6:17, Nu 3:18, 1 Ch 6:17, 20 [42 , Shimei is omitted from the genealogy]). ‘Ladan’ stands for Libni in 1 Ch 23:7 ff., 26:21. From these families fragments of genealogies remain (see 1 Ch 23:8–11). Comparatively little is related of the Gershonites after the Exile. Certain of them are mentioned in 1 Ch 9:15 and Neh 11:17a, 22 as dwelling in Jerusalem immediately after the Return. Of the ‘sons of Asaph’ (Gershonites), 128 (Ezr 2:41) or 148 (Neh 7:44) returned with Ezra to the city in B.C. 454. Asaphites led the music at the foundation of the Temple (Ezr 3:10); and certain of them blew trumpets in the procession at the dedication of the city walls (Neh 12:25).

P and the Chronicler introduce the family into the earlier history. (1) During the desert wanderings the Gershonites were on the west side of the Tent (Nu 3:23) ; their duty was to carry all the hangings which composed the Tent proper, and the outer coverings and the hangings of the court, with their cords (3:25f., 4:24 ff., 10:17), for which they were given two wagons and four oxen (7:7); and they were superintended by Ithamar, the youngest son of Aaron (4:33, 7:8). (2) After the settlement in Palestine, thirteen cities were assigned to them (Jos 21:6, 27–33 = 1 Ch 6:62, 71–76). (3) In David’s reign the Chronicler relates that the Temple music was managed partly by Asaph, a Gershonite, and his family (1 Ch 6:39–43, 25:1 f., 6, 8a, 10, 12, 14; and see 15:7, 17–19). David divided the Levites into courses ‘according to the sons of Levi’ (23:6; Gershonites, vv. 7–11); and particular offices of Gershonites are stated in 26:21f. (4) Jahaziel, an Asaphite, prophesied to Jehoshaphat before the battle of En-gedi (2 Ch 20:14–17). (5) They took part in the cleansing of the Temple under Hezekiah (29:12f.). Cf. also KOHATH.

A. H. M‘NEILE. GERSON (1 Es 8:29) = Ezr 8:2 Gershom.

GERUTH-CHIMHAM (Jer 41:17).—A khan (?) which possibly derived its name from Chimham, the son of Barzillal the Gileadite (2 S 19:37 f.). Instead of gērūth we should perhaps read gidrōth ‘hurdles.’

GESHAN.—A descendant of Caleb, 1 Ch 2:47. Mod. editions of AV have Gesham, although the correct form of the name appears in ed. of 1611.

GESHEM (Neh 2:18, 6:1, 2; in 6:6 the form Gashmu occurs).—An Arabian who is named, along with Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite, as an opponent of Nehemiah during the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 2:16 , 6:1ff.). He may have belonged to an Arab community which, as we learn from the monuments, was settled by Sargon in Samaria c. B.C. 715—this would explain his close connexion with the Samaritans; or he may have been the chief of an Arab tribe dwelling in the S. of Judah, in which case his presence would point to a coalition of all the neighbouring peoples against Jerusalem.

GESHUR, GESHURITES.—A small Aramæan tribe, whose territory, together with that of Maacah (wh. see), formed the W. border of Bashan (Dt 3:14 , Jos 12:6, 13:11). The Geshurites were not expelled by the half-tribe of Manasseh, to whom their land had been allotted (Jos 13:13), and were still ruled by an independent king in the reign of David, who married the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (2 S 3:3). After the murder of his half-brother Amnon, Absalom took refuge with his maternal grandfather in ‘Geshur of Aram’ (2 S 13:37, 15:8). Geshur and Maacah were probably situated in the modern Jaulān, if they are not to be identified with it. In 1 Ch 2:23 Geshur and Aram are said to have taken the ‘tent-villages’ of Jair from the Israelites. On the strength of Jos 13:2 and 1 S 27:8 , it has been maintained that there was another tribe of this name in the neighbourhood of the Philistines; but the evidence in support of this view is very precarious.

GESTURES.—The Oriental is a natural expert in appropriate and expressive gesture. To his impulsive and emotional temperament, attitude and action form a more apt vehicle for thought and feeling than even speech. Movement of feature, shrug of shoulder, turn of hand, express much, and suggest delicate shades of meaning which cannot be put in words. Conversation is accompanied by a sort of running commentary of gestures. Easterns conduct argument and altercation at the pitch of their voices; emphasis is supplied almost wholly by gestures. These are often so violent that an unskilled witness might naturally expect to see bloodshed follow.

The word does not occur in Scripture, but the thing, in various forms, is constantly appearing. Bowing the head or body marks reverence, homage, or worship (Gn 18:2, Ex 20:5, 1 Ch 21:21, Ps 95:6, Is 60:14). The same is true of kneeling (1 K 19:18, 2 K 1:13, Ps 95:6, Mk 1:40). This sign of homage the tempter sought from Jesus (Mt 4:9). Kneeling was a common attitude in prayer (1 K 8:54 ,

Ezr 9:6, Dn 6:10, Lk 22:41, Eph 3:14 etc.). The glance of the eye may mean appeal, as the upward look in prayer (Job 22:26, Mk 6:41 etc.), anger (Mk 3:5), or reproach (Lk 22:61). A shake of the head may express scorn or derision (2 K 19:21, Ps 109:25, Mk 15:29 etc.). A grimace of the lip is a sign of contempt ( Ps 22:7). Shaking the dust off the feet, or shaking, however gently, one’s raiment, indicates complete severance (Mt 10:14 etc.), denial of responsibility (Ac 18:16) , and often now, total ignorance of any matter referred to. Rending the garments betokens consternation, real (Gn 37:29, Jos 7:6, Ac 14:14 etc.) or assumed (2 Ch 23:13, Mt 26:65), and grief (Jg 11:35, 2 S 1:11 etc.). Joy was expressed by dancing (Ex 15:20, 1 S 30:16, Jer 31:4 etc.) and clapping the hands (Ps 47:1, Is 55:12 etc.). Spitting upon, or in the face, indicated deep despite (Nu 12:14, Is 50:6, Mt 26:67 , etc.). See HAND, MOURNING CUSTOMS, SALUTATION.

Some gestures in common use are probably ancient. One who narrowly escapes danger, describing his experience, will crack his thumb nail off the edge of his front teeth, suggesting Job’s ‘with the skin of my teeth’ (19:20). One charged with a fault will put his elbows to his sides, turn his palms outward, and shrug his shoulders, with a slight side inclination of the head, repudiating responsibility for an act which, in his judgment, was plainly inevitable.

W. EWING.

GETHER.—Named in Gn 10:23, along with Uz, Hul, and Mash, as one of the ‘sons of Aram’ (in 1 Ch 1:17 simply ‘sons of Shem’). The clan of which he is the eponymous founder has not been identified.

GETHSEMANE.—A place to which Christ retired with His disciples ( Mt 26:35, Mk 14:32), and where Judas betrayed Him. It was probably a favourite resort of our Lord, as Judas knew where He was likely to be found. There are two traditional sites, side by side, one under the Greeks, the other under the Latins. It may be admitted that they are somewhere near the proper site, on the W. slope of the Mount of Olives above the Kidron; but there is no justification for the exact localization of the site.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GEUEL.—The Gadite spy, Nu 13:15 ( P ).

GEZER.—A very ancient city of the Shephēlah, on the borders of the Philistine Plain; inhabited c. B.C. 3000 by a race probably kin to the Horites, who were succeeded by the Semitic Canaanites about B.C. 2500. These were not driven out by the invading Israelites (Jg 1:29). In David’s time the city was in Philistine hands (1 Ch 20:4). The king of Egypt captured it, and gave it as a dowry to his daughter, Solomon’s wife (1 K 9:16). Simon Maccabæus besieged and captured it, and built for himself a dwelling-place (1 Mac 13:43–53 Gazara RV). The city has been partly excavated by the Palestine Exploration Fund, and Simon’s dwellingplace discovered, as well as a great Canaanite high place, and innumerable other remains of early Palestinian civilization.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GHOST.—A ghost = Germ. Geist (the h has crept into the word through what Earle calls an Italian affectation of spelling) is a spirit. The word is also used in Old English of the breath, the soul or spirit of a living person, and even a dead body. In AV it occurs only in the phrase ‘give up or yield up the ghost’ and in the name ‘the Holy Ghost.’ Wherever in AV hagion ‘holy’ occurs with pneuma ‘spirit,’ the tr. is ‘Holy Ghost’; but when pneuma occurs alone, it is always rendered ‘Spirit’ or ‘spirit,’ according as it is supposed to refer to God or to man. See HOLY SPIRIT and SPIRIT.

GIAH.—Named in the account of Joab’s pursuit of Abner (2 S 2:24). Its situation is quite unknown; it is even doubtful whether the mention of Giah is not due to textual corruption.

GIANT

I. IN THE O.T.—1. As tr. of Heb. nephīlīm. In Gn 6:4 the Nephilim appear as a race of demi-gods, distinguished by their power and renown, but without any mention of gigantic stature. The context Itself suggests that they were the antediluvians, or among the antediluvians, destroyed by the Flood. The story of their origin is, however, common in more or less degree to many ancient races; and it is thought by some to have no original connexion with the Flood story. At any rate the name appears again in Nu 13:33, where they appear to be identified with the Anakim. It seems probable, therefore, that the story in Gen. is an ancient myth which arose to account for the origin of this race, and perhaps of other ancient races of a similar type.

2. As tr. of Heb. rephā’īm. This word, frequently left untranslated, esp. in RV, is used of several probably different aboriginal peoples of Palestine, and probably meant ‘giants.’ The Rephaim included the Anakim, the aborigines of Philistia and the southern districts of Judah (Dt 2:11); the Emim, the aborigines of the Moabite country (Dt 2:10); the Zamzummim, the aborigines of the Ammonite country ( Dt 2:20), who are perhaps to be identified with the Zuzim of Gn 14:5; and the old inhabitants of Bashan (Dt 3:11). The statement that Og, whose gigantic bedstead (or perhaps sarcophagus; see Driver, in loco) was still to be seen at Rabbah, was one of the Rephaim (though the last surviving member of the race in that district) is confirmed by Gn 14:5, where the Rephaim are the first of the peoples smitten by the four kings on their journey south. These were followed by the Zuzim and Emim. We thus have evidence of a widely-spread people or peoples called

Rephaim from ancient times. In addition to the Rephaim of Bashan, the Zuzim or Zamzummim, and the Emim, on the east of Jordan, the Anakim in the southwest and south—for Arba, the traditional founder of Hebron, is described as the progenitor of the Anakim (Jos 15:13)—we find traces of Rephaim in the wellknown valley of that name near Jerusalem (Jos 15:8, 9), and apparently also in the territory of Ephraim (Jos 17:16). Taken together, this evidence seems to suggest that the name Rephaim was applied to the pre-Canaanite races of Palestine.

There is a well-known tendency among ancient peoples to regard their aborigines either as giants or as dwarfs, according as they were a taller or a shorter race than themselves. Thus the Aoakim were so tall that the Israelitish spies were in comparison as grasshoppers (Nu 13:33). The ‘bedstead’ of Og cannot possibly have been less than 11ft. in length [the more probable estimate of the cubit would give 13 ft. 6 in.]; but this is not very surprising if a sarcophagus is really meant, as it was a compliment to a dead hero to give him a large tomb (Dt 3:11). The Zamzummim are described as a people ‘great and tall like the Anakim’ (Dt 2:21). Again, Goliath was a man of fabulous height.

The Rephaim were, no doubt, very largely annihilated by their conquerors, but partly also absorbed. We naturally find the most evident traces of them in those districts of Palestine and its borders more recently occupied by past invaders, as in the East of Jordan and Philistia. In the latter country especially, that most recently occupied before the Israelitish settlement, we seem to find traces of them in the encounter with Goliath and his kind. Whereas Og was the last of the Rephaim of Bashaa at the time of the Conquest, these seem to have continued to the time of David.

3. As tr. of the sing. word rāphāh or rāphā’. This is evidently akin to the plur.

rephā’īm. In 2 S 21:15–22, part of which recurs in 1 Ch 20:4–8, four mighty

Philistines—Ishbi-benob, Saph (Chron. ‘Sippai’), Goliath the Gittite ( Chron. ‘Lahmi, the brother of Goliath,’ etc.), and a monster with 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot—are called ‘sons of the giant.’ As, however, the four are said in v. 22 to have fallen by the hand of David and his servants, and not one of them is described as slain by David, the passage is evidently incomplete, and the original probably contained the story of some encounter by David, with which the story of Goliath came to be confused. This, which ascribes his death to Elhanan, is probably the earliest form of that story, and it is probable that the reading of Chronicles is a gloss intended to reconcile this passage with 1 S 17. ‘The giant’ is probably used generically, meaning that they were all ‘giants.’ The passage is probably an extract from an old account of David and his faithful companions while he was an outlaw, from which also we get the greater part of 2 S 23. Though Goliath in the well-known story is not called a giant, he was certainly the typical giant of the OT. His height, 6 cubits and a span (1 S 17:4), not necessarily more than 7 ft. 4 in., but more probably 9 ft. 10 in., may well be regarded, with the enormous size and weight of his armour, as the natural exaggeration to be expected in a popular story. Even if the story is not historical in its present form, it arose out of the conflicts which David and his men were frequently having with those Philistine giants. There is no mention of the Rephaim or of a single giant after David’s time.

4. As tr. of Heb. gibbōr = ‘a mighty man,’ as in Job 16:14; cf. Ps 19:5 (Pr.-Bk. version). This is hardly a correct tr. of the word.

II. IN THE APOCRYPHA.—We find here some interesting allusions: (1) to the supposed destruction of the Nephīlīm by the Flood (Wis 14:6, Sir 16:7, Bar 3:26– 28); (2) to the slaughter of the ‘giant’ by David (Sir 47:4).

F. H. WOODS.

GIBBAR.—A family which returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2:20). The name is probably an error for Gibeon of Neh 7:25.

GIBBETHON (‘mound,’ ‘height’).—A town belonging to the tribe of Dan, and a Levitical city (Jos 19:44, 21:23). Nadab, king of Israel, was besieging it when he was slain by Baasha; and Omri was similarly engaged when he was made king by the army (1 K 15:27, 16:16–17). It is possibly the modern Kibbiah, to the N.E. of Lydda.

GIBEA.—A grandson of Caleb (1 Ch 2:49). The list of the descendants of Judah through Caleb given in 1 Ch 2:42ff. is geographical rather than genealogical, and comprises all the towns lying in the Negeb of Judah to the S. of Hebron. Gibea is probably only a variation in spelling of the more common Gibeah. See GIBEAH, 1.

GIBEAH (Heb. gib’āh, ‘a hill’).—The name, similar in form and meaning to Geba, attached to a place not far from that city. The two have sometimes been confused. It is necessary to note carefully where the word means ‘hill’ and where it is the name of a city. At least two places were so called. 1. A city in the mountains of Judah (Jos 15:57, perhaps also 2 Ch 13:2), near Carmel and Ziph, to the S. E. of Hebron, and therefore not to be identified with the modern Jeba‘, 9 miles W. of Bethlehem (Onomast.); site unknown. 2. Gibeah of Benjamin (Jg 19:12 etc.), the scene of the awful outrage upon the Levite’s concubine, and of the conflict in which the assembled tribes executed such terrible vengeance upon Benjamin. It was the home of Israel’s first king (1 S 10:26), and was known as ‘Gibeah of Saul’ (1 S 11:4, Is 10:29); probably identical with ‘Gibeah of God’ (1 S 10:5 RVm). From the narrative regarding the Levite we learn that Gibeah lay near the N. road from Bethlehem, between Jerusalem and Ramah. It was near the point where the road from Geba joined the highway towards Bethel (Jg 20:31). Jg 20:33 affords no guidance: Maareh-geba (RV) is only a transliteration of the words as they stand in MT. A slight emendation of the text makes it read ‘from the west of Gibeah,’ which is probably correct (Moore, Judges, in loc.). Josephus, who calls it ‘Gabaothsaul’ (BJ V. ii. 1), places it 30 stadia N. of Jerusalem. The site most closely agreeing with these conditions is Tuleil el-Fūl, an artificial mound, E. of the road to the N., about 4 miles from Jerusalem. The road to Jeba‘ leads off the main road immediately to the north of the site. Certain remains of ancient buildings there are, but nothing of importance has yet been discovered. As a place of strategic importance, Gibeah formed the base of Saul’s operations against the Philistines (1 S 13, 14). There was enacted the tragedy in which seven of Saul’s sons perished, giving occasion for the pathetic vigil of Rizpah. It appears in the description of Sennacherib’s advance from the north (Is 10:28–32).

W. EWING.

GIBEATH (Heb. gib‘ath, st. constr. of gib‘āh), ‘hill of,’ enters into the composition of place names, and is occasionally retained untranslated by RVm. Such instances are: (a) Gibeath hā-‘arālōth, ‘hill of the foreskins,’ where the Israelites were circumcised (Jos 5:3). (b) Gibeath-Phinehas, in Mount Ephraim, where Eleazar was buried (Jos 24:33); site unknown. (c) Gibeath ham-mōreh ( Jg 7:1 etc.; see MOREH, 2). (d) Gibeath hā-Elohīm (1 S 10:5) = Gibeah, 2. (e) Gibeath hā-Hachīlah (1 S 23:19 etc.). See HACHILAH. (f) Gibeath Ammah (2 S 2:24). See AMMAH. (g) Gibeath Gareb (Jer 31:39). See GAREB, 2.

W. EWING.

GIBEON.—A town in Palestine north of Jerusalem. Its inhabitants seem to have been Hivites (Jos 9:7), though spoken of in 2 S 21:2 by the more general term ‘Amorites.’ It was a city of considerable size. Its inhabitants, by means of a trick, succeeded in making a truce with Joshua, but were reduced to servitude (Jos 9); a coalition of other Canaanite kings against it was destroyed by him (ch. 10). It became a Levitical city (21:17) in the tribe of Benjamin (18:25). The circumstances of the destruction of part of the Gibeonites by Saul (2 S 21:1) are unknown. Here the champions of David fought those of the rival king Ish-bosheth (2 S 2:18–32), and defeated them; and here Joab murdered Amasa (20:9). The ‘great stone’ In Gibeon was probably some part of the important high place which we know from 1 K 3:4 was situated here. The statement of the parallel passage, 2 Ch 1:3, that the ark was placed here at the time, is probably due merely to the desire of the Chronicler to explain Solomon’s sacrificing there in the light of the Deuteronomic legislation. Here Solomon was vouchsafed a theophany at the beginning of his reign. In Jer 41:12 we again hear of Gibeon, in connexion with Johanan’s expedition against Ishmael to avenge the murder of Gedaliah.

The city has constantly been identified with el-Jib, and there can be little or no doubt that the identification is correct. This is a small village standing on an isolated hill about 5 miles from Jerusalem. The hill is rocky and regularly terraced. It is remarkable chiefly for its copious springs—a reputation it evidently had in antiquity (2 S 2:13, Jer 41:12). Ninety-five Gibeonites returned from Babylon under Zerubbabel (Neh 7:25), and Gibeonites were employed in repairing part of the wall of Jerusalem (3:7). At Gibeon, Cestius Gallus encamped in his march from Antipatris to Jerusalem.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GIDDALTI (‘I magnify [God]’).—A son of Heman (1 Ch 25:4, 29).

GIDDEL (‘very great’).—1. The eponym of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2:47 = Neh 7:49); called in 1 Es 5:30 Cathua. 2. The eponym of a family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 2:56 = Neh 7:58); called in 1 Es 5:33 Isdael.

GIDEON.—The son of Joash, a Manassite; he dwelt in Ophrah, a place hitherto unidentified, which belonged to the clan of the Abiezrites. Gideon has also the names of Jerubbaal (Jg 6:32) and Jerubbesheth (2 S 11:21). After the victory of the Israelites, under the guidance of Deborah, over the Canaanites, the land had rest for forty years (an indefinite period). Apostasy from Jahweh again resulted in their being oppressed, this time by the neighbouring Bedouin tribes, the Midianites and Amalekites. The underlying idea is that, since the Israelites did not exclusively worship their national God, He withdrew His protection, with the result that another nation, aided by its national god, was enabled to overcome the unprotected Israelites. A return to obedience, and recognition of Jahweh the national God, ensures His renewed protection; relief from the oppressor is brought about by some chosen instrument, of whom it is always said that Jahweh is ‘with him’; this is also the case with Gideon (Jg 6:18).

The sources of the story of Gideon, preserved in Jg 6:1–8:35, offer some difficult problems, upon which scholars differ considerably; all that can be said with certainty is that the narrative is composite, that the hand of the redactor is visible in certain verses (e.g. 6:20, 7:6, 8:22, 23), and that the sources have not always been skilfully combined; this comes out most clearly in 7:24–8:3, which breaks the continuity of the narrative. Disregarding details, the general outline of the history of Gideon is as follows:

Introduction, 6:1–10: For seven years the Israelites suffered under the Midianite oppression; but on their ‘crying unto the Lord’ a prophet is sent, who declares unto them the reason of their present state, viz. that it was the result of their having forsaken Jahweh and served the gods of the Amorites.*

The call of Gideon, 6:11–32: The ‘Angel of the Lord’ appears to Gideon and tells him that the Lord is with him, and that he is to free Israel from the Midianite invasion. Gideon requires a sign: he brings an offering of a kid and unleavened cakes, the Angel touches these with his staff, whereupon fire issues from the rock on which the offering lies and consumes it. Gideon is now convinced that it was the ‘Angel of the Lord’ who had been speaking to him, and at Jahweh’s command he destroys the altar of Baal in Ophrah and builds one to Jahweh, to whom he also offers sacrifice. This act embitters Gideon’s fellow-townsmen against him; they are, however, quieted down by the boldness and shrewdness of Gideon’s father.

Gideon’s victory, 6:33–7:23, 8:4–21: Allegiance to Jahweh being thus publicly acknowledged, the Israelites are once more in a position to assert their political independence; so that when the Midianites again invade their land, Gideon raises an army against them, being moreover assured by the miracle of the dew on the fleece that he will be victorious. At the command of Jahweh his army is twice reduced, first to ten thousand men, and then to three hundred. At the command of Jahweh again, he goes with his servant, Purah, down to the camp of the Midianites, where he is encouraged by overhearing a Midianite recounting a dream, which is interpreted by another Midianite as foreshadowing the victory of Gideon. On his return to his own camp Gideon divides his men into three companies; each man receives a torch, an earthen jar, and a horn; at a given sign, the horns are blown, the jars broken, and the burning torches exposed to view, with the result that the Midianites flee in terror. Gideon pursues them across the Jordan; he halts during the pursuit, both at Succoth and at Penuel, in order to refresh his three hundred followers; in each case food is refused him by the inhabitants; after threatening them with vengeance on his return, he presses on, overtakes the Midianite host, and is again victorious; he then first punishes the inhabitants of Succoth and Penuel, and next turns his attention to the Midianite chiefs, Zebah and Zalmunna.

From this part of the narrative it would seem that Gideon’s attack upon the Midianites was, in part, undertaken owing to a blood-feud; for, on his finding out that the murderers of his brethren at Tabor were these two Midianite chiefs, he slays them in order to avenge his brethren.

The offer of the kingship, 8:22–28: On the Israelites offering to Gideon and his descendants the kingship, Gideon declines it on theocratic grounds, but asks instead for part of the gold from the spoil taken from the Midianites; of this he makes an image (ephod), which he sets up at Ophrah, and which becomes the cause of apostasy from Jahweh. The narrative of Gideon’s leadership is brought to a close by a reference to his offspring, and special mention of his son Abimelech; after his death, we are told, the Israelites ‘went a whoring after the Baalim.’

In the section 8:22–35 there is clearly a mixing-up of the sources; on the one hand Israel’s apostasy is traced to the action of Gideon, on the other this does not take place until after his death. Again, the refusal of the kingship on theocratic grounds is an idea which belongs to a much later time; moreover, Gideon’s son, Abimelech, became king after slaying his father’s legitimate sons; it is taken for granted (9:2) that there is to be a ruler after Gideon’s death. This, together with other indications, leads to the belief that in its original form the earliest source gave an account of Gideon as king.

The section 7:24–8:3 is undoubtedly ancient; it tells of how the Ephraimites, at Gideon’s command, cut off part of the fugitive Midianite host under two of their chiefs, Oreb and Zeeb, whom the Ephraimites slew. When the victorious band with Gideon joins hands with the Ephraimites, the latter complain to Gideon because he did not call them to attack the main body of the enemy; Gideon quiets them by means of shrewd flattery. This section is evidently a fragment of the original source, which presumably went on to detail what further action the Ephraimites took during the Midianite campaign; for that the Midianite oppression was brought to an end by this one battle it is impossible to believe.*

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

GIDEONI.—Father of Abidan, prince of Benjamin (Nu 1:11, 2:22, 7:60, 66 , 10:24 (P)).

GIDOM.—The limit of the pursuit of Benjamin by the other tribes (Jg 21:15). Possibly the word is not a proper name, but may be read as an infinitive, ‘till they cut them off.’ No place of the name of Gidom is mentioned elsewhere.

GIER EAGLE (‘gier’ is the same as the German Geier, ‘vulture,’ ‘hawk,’) is tr. in AV of rāchām in Lv 11:16 and Dt 14:17, in both of which passages RV has ‘vulture.’ RV gives ‘gier eagle’ also as tr. of peres in Dt 14:12, where AV has

‘ossifrage’ (lit. ‘bone-breaker’). The peres is the bearded vulture or Lämmergeier, ‘the largest and most magnificent of the vulture tribe.’ The adult rāchām has the front of the head and the upper part of the throat and cere naked, and of a bright lemon-yellow. The plumage is of a dirty white, except the quill feathers, which are of a greyish black. Its appearance when soaring is very striking and beautiful. It is the universal scavenger of Egyptian cities. It is found in great abundance also in Palestine and Syria.

GIFT, GIVING

I. In the OT.—1. In the East what is described as a ‘gift’ is often hardly worthy of the name. ‘Gift’ may be a courtesy title for much that is of the nature of barter or exchange, tribute or compulsory homage, or even of bribery. It is well understood that a gift accepted lays the recipient under the obligation of returning a quid pro quo in some form or other. The queen of Sheba’s gifts to Solomon were a sort of royal commerce. The charming picture of Ephron’s generosity to Abraham with regard to the cave of Machpelah (Gn 23) must be interpreted in the light of Oriental custom; it is a mere piece of politeness, not intended to be accepted. An Arab will give anything to an intending buyer, and appeal to witnesses that he does so, but it is understood to be only a form, to help him to raise the price (see Driver, Genesis, ad. loc.). Cf. the transaction between David and Araunah (2 S 24:22). In other cases the return is of a less material character, consisting of the granting of a request or the restoring of favour. Hence Jacob’s anxiety as to Esau’s acceptance of his gifts (Gn 32:20, 33:10); cf. the present to Joseph (43:11) and 1 S 25:27 , 30:28. The principle is stated in Pr 18:16 ‘A man’s gift maketh room for him, and bringeth him before great men’ (cf. 19:8). It is obvious that a gift in this sense easily becomes a bribe; hence the frequent commands to receive no gift, ‘for a gift blindeth the eyes of the wise’ (Ex 23:8, Dt 16:19, 27:25, Pr 17:8, 23, Ps 15:5, Is 1:23, 5:23 etc.). It should be noticed that in this connexion a special Heb. word

(shōchad) is used, meaning a ‘bribe’; AV and RV often tr. ‘gift’ or ‘reward.’ In 1 K 15:19, 2 K 16:8 it is used of a bribe from king to king. Even the Roman Felix expects a gift (Ac 24:26).

2. In a more legitimate sense we find gifts offered to kings, etc., by way of homage (1 S 10:27, Ps 45:12), or tribute (Jg 3:15, 2 S 8:2, 6, 1 K 4:21, Ps 72:10) ; the presents to Assyria, etc., are clearly not spontaneous, and the receiving of such homage from subject kings is a favourite subject of sculptures and paintings. 1 S 25 illustrates the ground on which such a gift was sometimes claimed; it was a payment for protection. Gifts were expected in consulting a prophet or oracle ( Nu 22, 1 S 9:7, 2 K 5:5, 2 K 8:9, Dn 5:17). Whether regulated or unregulated, they formed the chief support of priests and Levites, and were the necessary accompaniment of worship. ‘None shall appear before me empty’ (Ex 23:15 , 34:20). One side of sacrifice is giving to God. The spiritual religion realized that Jehovah’s favour did not depend on these things (Is 1, Ps 50), still more that He was not to be bribed. In Dt 10:17 it is said that He is One ‘who taketh not reward’ [the word for ‘bribe’; see above]. But there can be no doubt that in the popular view a gift to God was supposed to operate in precisely the same manner as a gift to a judge or earthly monarch (Mal 1:8). Its acceptance was the sign of favour and of the granting of the request (Jg 13:23, 2 Ch 7:1); its rejection, of disfavour ( Gn 4:4, Mal 1:10). 1 S 26:10 shows that a gift was regarded as propitiatory, and the machinery of the vow takes the same point of view. It should be noted that the word minchah, which is continually used of gifts and homage to men, is also specially used of offerings to God, and in P technically of the ‘meal-offering.’ For the meaning of ‘gift’ or Corban in Mk 7:11 etc., see art. SACRIFICE AND OFFERING. Almsgiving became one of the three things by which merit was earned before God, the other two being prayer and fasting; and magnificent gifts to the Temple were a means of personal display (Lk 21:5, Jos. Ant. XV. xi. 3).

3. Passing from cases where the gift is neither spontaneous nor disinterested, but is only a polite Oriental periphrasis for other things, we turn to instances where the word is used in a truer sense. If the king looked for ‘gifts’ from his subjects, he was also expected to return them in the shape of largess, especially on festive occasions (Est 2:18). This often took the form of an allowance from the royal table (Gn 43:34, 2 S 11:8, Jer 40:5). We read more generally of gifts to the needy in Neh 8:10, Est 9:22, Ec 11:2, Ps 112:9 (see ALMSGIVING). The gift of a rohe, or other article from the person, was of special significance (1 S 18:4). Interchanges of gifts between equals are mentioned in Est 9:19, Rev 11:10. On the occasion of a wedding, presents are sent by friends to the bridegroom’s house. Gifts, as distinct from the ‘dowry,’ were sometimes given by the bridegroom to the bride (Gn 24:63 , 34:12); sometimes by the bride’s father (Jg 1:14, 1 K 9:18).

II. In the NT.—It is characteristic of the NT that many of its usages of the word ‘gift’ are connected with God’s gifts to men—His Son, life, the Holy Spirit, etc. ‘Grace’ is the free gift of God. ‘Gifts’ is specially used of the manifestations of the Spirit (see SPIRITUAL GIFTS). Eph 4:8 illustrates well the change of attitude. St. Paul quotes from Ps 68:19, where the point is the homage which Jehovah receives from vanquished foes, and applies the words to the gifts which the victorious Christ has won for His Church. It is more Divine, more characteristic of God, to give than to receive. This is, in fact, the teaching of the NT on the subject. As the Father and His Son freely give all things, so must the Christian. Almsgiving is restored to its proper place; the true gift is not given to win merit from God, or to gain the praise of men, but proceeds from love, hoping for nothing again (Mt 6:1 , Lk 6:32; see ALMSGIVING). Our Lord Himself accepted gifts, and taught that it is our highest privilege to give to Him and His ‘little ones’ (Lk 5:29, 7:37, 8:2, Jn 12:2). And giving remains an integral part of Christian worship, as a willing homage to God, the wrong ideas of compulsion or persuasion being cast aside (1 Ch 29:14, Mt 2:11, 5:25, 2 Co 9:7ff., Rev 21:24). The gifts to St. Paul from his converts (Ph 4:16), and from the Gentile Churches to Jerusalem (Ac 11:29, Ro 15:20, 1 Co 16:1, 2 Co 8, 9), play a very important part in the history of the early Church.

C. W. EMMET.

GIHON (from root ‘to burst forth,’ 1 K 1:33, 35, 45, 2 Ch 32:30, 33:14).—1. A spring near Jerusalem, evidently sacred and therefore selected as the scene of Solomon’s coronation (1 K 1:32). Hezekiah made an aqueduct from it (2 Ch

32:30). Undoubtedly the modern ‘Ain umm ed-deraj or ‘Virgin’s Fount.’ See SILOAM. 2. One of the four rivers of Paradise. See EDEN [GARDEN OF].

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GILALAI.—A Levitical musician (Neh 12:36).

GILBOA (1 S 28:4, 31:1, 8, 2 S 1:6, 21, 21:12, 1 Ch 10:1, 8).—A range of hills, now called Jebel Fakū‘a, on the E. boundary of the Plain of Esdraelon. They run from Zer‘in (Jezreel) due S. E., and from the eastern extremity a prolongation runs S. towards the hills of Samaria. They are most imposing from the Vale of Jezreel and Jordan Valley, but nowhere reach a height of more than 1700 feet above sea level. The little village of Jelbun on the slopes of Jebel Fakū’a is thought to retain an echo of the name Gilboa. The slopes of these hills are steep, rugged, and bare. At the N. foot lies ’Ain Jalud, almost certainly the spring of Harod (wh. see).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GILEAD.—1. A person (or personified sept), son of the Manassite Machir ( Nu

26:29, 1 Ch 2:21), and grandfather of Zelophehad (Nu 27:1). See No. 4 below. 2. A Gadite, son of Michael (1 Ch 5:14). 3. A mountain mentioned in Jg 7:3 in an order of Gideon’s to his followers, ‘Whosoever is fearful … let him return and depart from [mg. ‘go round about’] Mount Gilead.’ The passage is very difficult, and probably corrupt. The trans-Jordanic Gilead will not suit the context, and no other is known. Various attempts have been made at emendation, none of which has commanded acceptance.

4. The name of the territory bounded on the north by Bashan, on the west by the Jordan between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea, on the east by the desert, and on the south by the territory of Moab. It is a lofty fertile plateau, about 2000 feet above the sea-level; its western edge is the precipitous eastern wall of the Jordan Valley. It is an upland country, wooded in places, with productive fields intersected by valleys and streams. It is mentioned first in connexion with Jacob’s flight from Laban; it was the goal at which he aimed, the place where the pursuer overtook him, and where the ‘heap of witness’ was raised (Gn 31). Even in the patriarchal period it was famous for its spices, myrrh, and medicinal ‘balm,’ whatever that may have been (cf. Jer 8:22, 46:11). The Ishmaelite trading caravan which bought Joseph was carrying these substances from Gilead to Egypt ( Gn 37:25). The Amorites were in possession of Gilead under their king Sihon when the Israelites were led to the Land of Promise. When that king was defeated, his territory aroused the desires of the pastoral tribes of Reuben and Gad. Its fitness for pasture is celebrated in the Song of Songs: the Shulammite’s hair is twice compared to ‘goats that lie along the side of Mount Gilead’ (Ca 4:6, 6:5). On the partition of the land, Gilead was divided into two, the southern half being given to Reuben and Gad, the northern half to the trans-Jordanic half of Manasseh. The

Manassite part is distinguished by the name Havvoth-jair, apparently meaning the ‘Settlements of Jair.’ Jair was a son of Manasseh, according to Nu 32:41, but he seems in Jg 10:5 to be confused with one of the minor Judges of the same name. Another Judge, Jephthah (Jg 11), was a Gileadite, whose prowess delivered Israel from Ammon. His subsequent sacrifice of his daughter is indicated as the origin of a festival of Israelite women (Jg 11:40). In a previous stress of the Israelites, Gilead did not hear its part, and is upbraided for its remissness by Deborah ( Jg 5:17). In Jg 20:1 Gilead is used as a general term for trans-Jordanic Israel. Here some of the Hebrews took refuge from the Philistines (1 S 13:7); and over Gilead and other parts of the country Ish-bosheth was made king (2 S 2:9). Hither David fled from before Absalom, and was succoured, among others, by Barzillai (2 S 17:27, 19:31, 1 K 2:7), whose descendants are referred to in post-exilic records (Ezr 2:61, Neh 7:63). To Gilead David’s census agents came (2 S 24:6). It was administered by Ben-geber for Solomon (1 K 4:13). It was the land of Elijah’s origin (1 K 17:1). For cruelties to Gileadites, Damascus and Ammon are denounced by Amos (1:3, 13), while on the other hand Hosea (6:8, 12:11) speaks bitterly of the sins of Gilead. Pekah had a following of fifty Gileadites when he slew Pekahiah (2 K 15:25). The country was smitten by Hazael (10:33), and its inhabitants carried away captive by Tiglath-pileser (15:29).

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GILGAL.—A name meaning ‘stone circle’ applied to several places mentioned in the OT. 1. A place on the east border of Jericho (Jos 4:19), where the Israelites first encamped after crossing Jordan, and which remained the headquarters of the congregation till after the rout of the northern kings at Merom (14:6). The stone circle from which it certainly took its name (in spite of the impossible etymology given in Jos 5:9), was no doubt that to which the tradition embodied in Jos 4:20 refers, and the same as the ‘images’ by Gilgal in the story of Ehud (Jg 3:19 RVm). The name is still preserved in the modern Jiljūlieh. This is probably the same Gilgal as that included in the annual circuit of Samuel (1 S 7:16). This shrine is mentioned by Hosea (4:16, 9:16, 12:11) and by Amos (4:4, 5:6). 2. A place of the same name near Dor mentioned in a list of conquered kings (Jos 12:23). It may be Jiljūlieh, about 4 miles N. of Antipatris (Ras el-’Ain). 3. A place in the Samaritan mountains (2 K 4:38), somewhere near Bethel (2:1). It may possibly be Jiljīlia, 8 miles N. W. of Bethel. 4. The Gilgal of Dt 11:30 is unknown. It may be identical with No. 1; but it seems closely connected with Ebal and Gerizim. There is a Juleijil 2¹/₂miles S. E. of Nāhlus that may represent this place. 5. A place of uncertain locality, also possibly the same as No. 1, in the border of the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:7).

At none of these places have any remains of early antiquity been as yet observed. There was in A.D. 700 a large church that covered what were said to be the twelve commemoration stones of Joshua: this is reported by Arculf. The church and stones have both disappeared. The only relic of antiquity now to be seen is a large pool, probably of mediæval workmanship, 100 ft. by 84 ft. A tradition evidently suggested by the Biblical story of the fall of Jericho is recorded by Conder as having been related to him here.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GILOH.—A city in the southern hills of Judah (Jos 15:61), the birthplace of Ahithophel the Gilonite, the famous counsellor of David (2 S 15:12, 23:34). Its site is uncertain.

GIMEL.—The third letter of the Heb. alphabet, and as such used in the 119 th Psalm to designate the 3rd part, each verse of which begins with this letter.

GIMZO.—A town on the border of Philistia (2 Ch 28:18). It is the modern Jimzū near Aijalon.

GIN.—See SNARES.

GINATH.—Father of Tibni, who unsuccessfully laid claim against Omri to the throne of Israel (1 K 16:21, 22).

GINNETHOI.—A priest among the returned exiles (Neh 12:4); called in Neh 12:16, 10:6 Ginnethon.

GIRDING THE LOINS, GIRDLE.—See DRESS, §§ 2, 3.

GIRGASHITES (in Heb. always sing. ‘the Girgashite,’ and rightly so rendered in RV).—Very little is known of this people, whose name, though occurring several times in OT in the list of Can. tribes (Gn 10:16, 15:21, Dt 7:1 [and 20:17 in Sam. and LXX], Jos 3:10, 24:11, 1 Ch 1:14, Neh 9:8), affords no indication of their position, or to what branch of the Canaanites they belonged, except in two instances, namely, Gn 10:16, where the ‘Girgashite’ is given as the name of the fifth son of Canaan; and Jos 24:11, where the Girgashites would seem to have inhabited the tract on the west of Jordan, the Israelites having been obliged to cross over that river in order to fight the men of Jericho, among whom were the

Girgashites.

GIRZITES.—Acc. to 1 S 27:8, David and his men’ while living at the court of Achish king of Gath, ‘made a raid upon the Geshurites and the Girzites ( RVm

Gizrites) and the Amalekites: for those nations were the inhabitants of the land, which were of old, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt.’ The LXX (B) is probably correct in reading only one name ‘Gizrites’ for ‘Geshurites and Girzites,’ viz. the Canaanite inhabitants of Gezer (wh. see), a town on the S.W. border of Ephraim (Jos 10:33, 16:3, 10, Jg 1:29).

GISHPA.—An overseer of the Nethinim (Neh 11:21), but text is probably corrupt.

GITTAIM.—A town of Benjamin (?), 2 S 4:3, noticed with Hazor and Ramah (Neh 11:33). The site is unknown.

GITTITES.—See GATH.

GITTITH.—See PSALMS ( titles ).

GIZONITE.—A gentilic name which occurs in 1 Ch 11:34 in the colloc. ‘Hashem the Gizonite.’ In all probability this should be corrected to ‘Jashen ( cf. the parallel passage 2 S 23:32) the Gunite.’ See JASHEN.

GIZRITES.—See GIRZITES.

GLASS, LOOKING-GLASS, MIRROR.—This indispensable article of a lady’s toilet is first met with in Ex 38:8, where the ‘laver of brass’ and its base are said to have been made of the ‘mirrors (AV ‘looking-glasses’) of the serving women which served at the door of the tent of meeting’ (RV). This passage shows that the mirrors of the Hebrews, like those of the other peoples of antiquity, were made of polished bronze, as is implied in the comparison, Job 37:18, of the sky to a ‘molten mirror’ (RV and AV ‘looking-glass’). A different Hebrew word is rendered ‘hand mirror’ by RV in the list of toilet articles, Is 3:23. The fact that this word denotes a writing ‘tablet’ in 8:1 (RV) perhaps indicates that in the former passage we have an oblong mirror in a wooden frame. The usual shape, however, of the Egyptian (see Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. ii. 350 f. with illust.), as of the Greek, hand-mirrors was round or slightly oval. As a rule they were furnished with a tang, which fitted into a handle of wood or metal, often delicately carved. Two specimens of circular mirrors of bronze, one 5 inches, the other 4¹/₂, in diameter, have recently been discovered in Philistine (?) graves at Gezer (PEFSt, 1905, 321 ; 1907, 199 with illusts.).

In the Apocrypha there is a reference, Sir 12:11, to the rust that gathered on these metal mirrors, and in Wis 7:26 the Divine wisdom is described as ‘the unspotted mirror of the power of God,’ the only occurrence in AV of ‘mirror,’ which RV substitutes for ‘glass’ throughout. The NT references, finally, are those by Paul (1 Co 13:12, 2 Co 3:18) and by James (1:23). For the ‘sea of glass’ ( RV ‘glassy sea’) of Rev 4:6, 15:2 see art. SEA OF GLASS.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

GLEANING.—For the humanitarian provisions of the Pentateuchal codes, by which the gleanings of the cornfield, vineyard, and oliveyard were the perquisites of the poor, the fatherless, the widow, and the gēr outlander, see Lv 19:9f., 23:22 (both H), Dt 24:19–21; cf. AGRICULTURE, § 3; POVERTY.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

GLEDE.—See KITE.

GLORY (in OT).—The first use of this word is to express the exalted honour or praise paid either to things, or to man, or to God. From that it passes to denote the dignity or wealth, whether material or spiritual, that calls forth such honour. Thence it has come to mean, in the OT especially, the majesty and splendour that attend the revelation of the power or character of God. The principal Heb. word (kābōd) for ‘glory’ is derived from a root denoting heaviness. The root may be seen in Is 1:4, ‘a people heavy with the burden of iniquity.’ For its derived use, cf. ‘loaded with honours,’ ‘weight of glory.’ A few illustrations of each of these uses may be given.

1. It is only necessary to mention the constantly recurring phrase ‘glory to God’ (Jos 7:16, Ps 29:1 etc.). As applying to man may be quoted, ‘the wise shall inherit glory’ (Pr 3:35).

2. Phrases such as ‘the glory of Lebanon’ (Is 35:2), i.e. the cedars; ‘of his house’ (Ps 49:16), i.e. his material possessions; ‘the glory and honour of the nations’ (Rev 21:26), parallel with ‘the wealth of the nations’ in Is 60:11, may be quoted here. ‘My glory’ (Gn 49:6, Ps 16:9, 30:12, 57:8 etc.) is used as synonymous with ‘soul,’ and denotes the noblest part of man; cf. also Ps 8:5. Jehovah is called ‘the glory’ of Israel as the proudest possession of His people (Jer 2:11; cf. 1 S 4:21 , 22, Lk 2:32). With reference to God may be named Ps 19:1, His wisdom and strength; and Ps 63:2, the worthiness of His moral government.

3. Two uses of the expression ‘the glory of Jehovah’ are to be noted. (a) The manifestation of His glory in the self-revelation of His character and being, e.g. Is 6:3. Here ‘glory’ is the showing forth of God’s holiness. For God’s glory manifested in history and in the control of the nations, see Nu 14:22, Ezk 39:21; in nature, Ps 29:3, 6, 104:31. (b) A physical manifestation of the Divine Presence. This is especially notable in Ezekiel, e.g. 1:28, where the glory is bright like the rainbow. In the P sections of the Pentateuch such representations are frequent ( see Ex 24:16–18, Lv 9:8 etc.). A passage combining these two conceptions is the story of the theophany to Moses (Ex 33:17–23, 34:6, 7). Here the visible glory, the brightness of Jehovah’s face, may not be seen. The spiritual glory is revealed in the proclamation of the name of Jehovah, full of compassion and gracious.

WILFRID J. MOULTON.

GLORY (in Apocr. and NT).—Except in 1 P 2:20 (where it means renown), ‘glory,’ as a noun, is always the translation of Gr. doxa. This word, coming from a root meaning ‘to seem,’ might signify outward appearance only, or, in a secondary sense, opinion. This use is not found in the Biblical writings, but the derived classical use—favourable opinion or reputation, and hence exalted honour—or, as applied to things, splendour, is very common (Wis 8:10, Ro 2:7–10, Bar 2:17, Jn 9:24, Sir 43:1, 50:7). The special LXX use of ‘glory’ for the physical or ethical manifestation of the greatness of God is also frequent. In AV of NT doxa is occasionally translated ‘honour’ (e.g. Jn 5:41, 2 Co 6:8 etc.); in Apocrypha sometimes ‘honour’ 1 Es 8:4 etc.), and a few times ‘pomp’ (1 Mac 10:86, 11:6 etc.), or ‘majesty’ (Ad. Est 15:7); otherwise it is uniformly rendered ‘glory.’ As a verb, ‘glory’ in the sense of boast (Gr. kauchaomai) is frequently found (Sir 11:4, 1 Co 1:29).

A few examples of the use of ‘glory’ to denote the brightness of goodness may be given. In Bar 5:4 is the striking phrase ‘the glory of godliness,’ whilst wisdom is called ‘a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty’ (Wis 7:26). In Jn 1:14 the ‘glory’ of the Only-begotten consists in grace and truth (cf. Jn 2:11, 17:5, 22). In Ro 3:23 the ‘glory’ of God, of which men have fallen short, is His manifested excellence, revealed at first in man made in God’s image (cf. 1 Co 11:7a), lost through sin, but meant to be recovered as he is transfigured ‘from glory to glory’ (2 Co 3:18). For ‘glory’ as used to express the visible brightness, cf. To 12:15, where

Raphael goes in before the glory of the Holy One (cf. 2 Mac 3:26, of angels). In NT, cf. Lk 2:9 ‘The glory of the Lord shone round about them.’ In 2 Co 3:7–11 the double use of ‘glory’ is clearly seen; the fading brightness on the face of Moses is contrasted with the abiding spiritual glory of the new covenant. Passages which combine both the ethical and the physical meanings are those which speak of the glory of the Son of Man (Mt 16:27 etc.), and the glory, both of brightness and of purity, which gives light to the heavenly city (Rev 21:23). ‘Glory,’ as applied to the saints, culminates in a state where both body and spirit are fully changed into the likeness of the glorified Lord (Ph 3:21, Col 3:4).

In Wis 18:24 a special use appears, where ‘the glories of the fathers’ is a phrase for the names of the twelve tribes, written on the precious stones of the highpriestly breastplate. Doubtless this is suggested by the flashing gems. An interesting parallel is given in Murray, Eng. Dict. s.v.: ‘They presented to his

Electoral Highness … the Two Stars or Glories, and Two Pieces of Ribbon of the Order [of the Garter]’; cf. Kalisch on Ex 28 ‘The jewels are the emblems of the stars, which they rival in splendour.’

WILFRID J. MOULTON.

GNAT (Mt 23:24).—Various members of the Culicidœ, mosquitoes and true gnats, are found in Palestine; of the former, four species are known which are fever-bearing. These and such small insects are very apt to fall into food or liquid, and require to be ‘strained out’ (RV), especially in connexion with Lv 11:22, 24. An Arab proverb well illustrates the ideas of Mt 23:24: ‘He eats an elephant and is suffocated by a gnat.’ In the RVm of Is 51:6 ‘like gnats’ is suggested for ‘in like manner.’

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GNOSTICISM

1. Gnosticism proper.—The term, which comes from the Gr. gnōsis, ‘knowledge,’ is now technically used to describe an eclectic philosophy of the 2 nd cent. A.D. which was represented by a number of sects or divisions of people. The philosophy was constructed out of Jewish, Pagan, and Christian elements, and was due mainly to the inevitable contact and conflict between these various modes of thought. It was an attempt to Incorporate Christian with Jewish and Pagan ideas in solving the problems of life. The more important of these problems were—(1) How to reconcile the creation of the world by a perfectly good God with the presence of evil; (2) how the human spirit came to be imprisoned in matter, and how it was to be emancipated. The first problem was solved by predicating a series of emanations starting from a perfectly good and supreme God, and coming down step by step to an imperfect being who created the world with its evils. Thus there was an essential dualism of good and evil. The second problem was solved by advocating either an ascetic life, wherein everything material was as far as possible avoided, or else a licentious life, in which everything that was material was used without discrimination. Associated with these speculations was a view of Christ which resolved Him into a phantom, denied the reality of His earthly manifestation, and made Him only a temporary non-material emanation of Deity. Gnosticism culminated, as the name suggests, in the glorification of knowledge and in a tendency to set knowledge against faith, regarding the former as superior and as the special possession of a select spiritual few, and associating the latter with the great mass of average people who could not rise to the higher level. Salvation was therefore by knowledge, not by faith. The will was subordinated to the intellect, and everything was made to consist of an esoteric knowledge which was the privilege of an intellectual aristocracy.

2. Gnosticism in relation to the NT.—It is obvious that it is only in the slightest and most partial way that we can associate Gnosticism of a fully developed kind with the NT.

There is a constant danger, which has not always been avoided, of reading back into isolated NT expressions the Gnostic ideas of the 2nd century. While we may see in the NT certain germs which afterwards came to maturity in Gnosticism, we must be on our guard lest we read too much into NT phraseology, and there by draw wrong conclusions. One example of this danger may be given. Simon Magus occupies a prominent place in the thoughts of many 2nd and 3rd cent. writers, and by some he is regarded as one of the founders of Gnosticism. This may or may not have been true, but at any rate there is absolutely nothing in Ac 8 to suggest even the germ of the idea.

It is necessary to consider carefully the main idea of gnosis, ‘knowledge,’ in the NT. (a) It is an essential element of true Christianity, and is associated with the knowledge of God in Christ (2 Co 2:14, 4:6), with the knowledge of Christ Himself (Ph 3:8, 2 P 3:18), and with the personal experience of what is involved in the Christian life (Ro 2:20, 15:14, 1 Co 1:5, 3:19, Col 2:3). In the term epignosis we have the further idea of ‘full knowledge’ which marks the ripe, mature Christian. This word is particularly characteristic of the Pauline Epistles of the First Captivity (Phil., Col., Eph.), and indicates the Apostle’s view of the spiritually-advanced believer. But gnosis and epignosis always imply something more and deeper than intellectual understanding. They refer to a personal experience at once intellectual and spiritual, and include intellectual apprehension and moral perception. As distinct from wisdom, knowledge is spiritual experience considered in itself, while wisdom is knowledge in its practical application and use. In Colossians it is generally thought that the errors combated were associated with certain forms of Gnosticism. Lightfoot, on the one hand, sees in the references in ch. 2 Jewish elements of scrupulousness in the observance of days, and of asceticism in the distinction of meats, together with Greek or other purely Gnostic elements in theosophic speculation, shadowy mysticism, and the interposition of angels between God and man. He thinks the references are to one heresy in which these two separate elements are used, and that St. Paul deals with both aspects at once in 2:8–23. With Gnostic intellectual exclusiveness he deals in 1:18 and 2:11 , with speculative tendencies in 1:15–20, 2:9–15, with practical tendencies to asceticism or licence in 2:16–23. Hort (Judaistic Christianity), on the other hand, sees nothing but Judaistic elements in the Epistle, and will not allow that there are two independent sets of ideas blended. He considers that, apart from the phrase ‘philosophy and vain deceit’ (2:8), there is nothing of speculative doctrine in the

Epistle. He says that angel-worship was already prevalent quite apart from philosophy, and that there is no need to look beyond Judaism for what is found here. This difference between these two great scholars shows the extreme difficulty of attempting to find anything technically called Gnosticism in Colossians. (b) The Pastoral Epistles are usually next put under review. In 1 Ti 1:4, 4:8, we are hidden by Lightfoot to see further developments of what had been rife in Colossæ. Hort again differs from this view, and concludes that there is no clear evidence of speculative or Gnosticizing tendencies, but only of a dangerous fondness for Jewish trifling, both of the legendary and casuistical kind. (c) In the First Epistle of

John (4:1, 3) we are reminded of later Gnostic tendencies as represented by Cerinthus and others, who regarded our Lord as not really man, but only a phantom and a temporary emanation from the Godhead. The prominence given to

‘knowledge’ as an essential element of true Christian life is very striking in this

Epistle, part of whose purpose is that those who possess eternal life in Christ may ‘know’ it (5:13). The verb ‘to know’ occurs in the Epistle no less than thirty-five times. (d) In Revelation (2:6, 15, 20, 24 and 3:14, 21) it is thought that further tendencies of a Gnostic kind are observable, and Lightfoot sees in the latter passage proof that the heresy of Colossæ was continuing in that district of Asia Minor. The precariousness of this position is, however, evident, when it is realized that the errors referred to are clearly antinomian, and may well have arisen apart from any Gnostic speculations.

From the above review, together with the differences between great scholars, it is evident that the attempt to connect the NT with the later Gnosticism of the 2 nd cent. must remain at best but partially successful. All that we can properly say is that in the NT there are signs of certain tendencies which were afterwards seen in the 2nd cent. Gnosticism, but whether there was any real connexion between the 1st cent. germs and the 2nd cent. developments is another question. In the clash of Judaistic, Hellenic, and Christian thought, it would not be surprising if already there were attempts at eclecticism, but the precise links of connexion between the germs of the NT and the developments of the 2nd cent. are yet to seek.

One thing we must keep clearly before us: gnosis in the NT is a truly honourable and important term, and stands for an essential part of the Christian life. Of course there is always the liability to the danger of mere speculation, and the consequent need of emphasizing love as contrasted with mere knowledge (1 Co 8:1, 13:2), but when gnosis is regarded as both intellectual and moral, we see at once how necessary it is to a true, growing Christian life. The stress laid upon epignosis in later books of the NT, Pauline and Petrine, and the marked prominence given to the cognate terms in 1 John, clearly indicate the importance placed on the idea by Apostolic writers as a safeguard of the Christian life. While it is the essential feature of the young Christian to have (forgiveness); and of the growing Christian to be (strong); it is that of the ripe Christian to know (1 Jn 2:12– 14). Knowledge and faith are never contrasted in the NT. It is a false and impossible antithesis. ‘Through faith we understand’ (He 11:3). Faith and sight, not faith and reason, are antithetical. We know in order to believe, credence leading to confidence; and then we believe in order to know more. Knowledge and trust act and react on each other. Truth and trust are correlatives, not contradictories. It is only mere speculative knowledge that is ‘falsely so called’ (1 Ti 6:20), because it does not take its rise and find its life and sustenance in God’s revelation in Christ; but Christian gnosis received into the heart, mind, conscience and will, is that by which we are enabled to see the true as opposed to the false ‘to distinguish things that differ’ (Ph 1:10), and to adhere closely to the way of truth and life. The Apostle describes the natural earth-bound man as lacking this spiritual discernment; he has no such faculty (1 Co 2:14, 15). The spiritual man (2:15, 3:1), or the perfect or ripe man (2:8), is the man who knows; and this knowledge which is at once intellectual, moral and spiritual, is one of the greatest safeguards against every form of error, and one of the choicest secrets of the enjoyment of the revelation of God in Christ.

W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS.

GOAD.—See AGRICULTURE, § 1.

GOAH.—An unknown locality near Jerusalem (Jer 31:39).

GOAT.—(1) ‘ēz, used generically, both sexes, Gn 30:35, Ex 12:5, Ezr 6:17 etc. (2) tsāphīr (root ‘to leap’), ‘he-goat,’ 2 Ch 29:21, Ezr 8:35, Dn 8:5, 8. (3) sā‘īr (root ‘hairy’), usually a he-goat, e.g. Dn 8:21 ‘rough goat’; se‘īrah, Lv 5:6 ‘shegoat’; se‘īrīm, tr. ‘devils’ 2 Ch 11:15, ‘satyrs’ Is 13:21, 34:14. See SATYR. (4) ‘attūd, only in pl. ‘attūdīm, ‘he-goats’ Gn 31:10, 12, AVm and RV ‘chief ones’ Is 14:8, but RVm ‘he-goats.’ (5) tayīsh, ‘he-goat,’ Pr 30:31 etc. In NT eriphos, eriphion, Mt 25:32, 33; tragos, He 9:12, 13, 19, 10:4. Goats are among the most valued possessions of the people of Palestine. Nabal had a thousand goats (1 S 25:2; see also Gn 30:33, 35, 32:14 etc.). They are led to pasture with the sheep, but are from time to time separated from them for milking, herding, and even feeding

(Mt 25:32). Goats thrive on extraordinarily bare pasturage, but they do immeasurable destruction to young trees and shrubs, and are responsible for much of the barrenness of the hills. Goats supply most of the milk used in Palestine ( Pr 27:27); they are also killed for food, especially the young kids (Gn 27:9, Jg 6:19 , 13:15 etc.). The Syrian goat (Capra mambrica) is black or grey, exceptionally white, and has shaggy hair and remarkably long ears. Goat’s hair is extensively woven into cloaks and material for tents (Ex 26:7, 36:14), and their skins are tanned entire to make water-bottles. See BOTTLE.

Wild goat.—(1) yā‘ēl (cf. proper name Jael), used in pl. ye’ēlīm, 1 S 24:2, Ps 104:18, and Job 39:1. (2) ’akkō, Dt 14:5. Probably both these terms refer to the wild goat or ibex, Capra beden, the beden or ‘goats of Moses’ of the Arabs. It is common on the inaccessible cliffs round the Dead Sea, some of which are known as jebel el-beden, the ‘mountains of the wild goats’ (cf. 1 S 24:2). The ibex is very shy, and difficult to shoot. Though about the size of an ordinary goat, its great curved horns, often 3 feet long, give it a much more imposing appearance.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GOB.—A place mentioned only in 2 S 21:18 as the scene of an exploit of one of David’s warriors. In the parallel passage 1 Ch 20:4 Gob appears as Gezer; many texts read it as Nob. The Gr. and Syr. versions have Gath. Nothing is known of

Gob as a separate place. The word means ‘cistern.’

W. F. COBB.

GOD.—The object of this article is to give a brief sketch of the history of belief in God as gathered from the Bible. The existence of God is everywhere assumed in the sacred volume; it will not therefore be necessary here to consider the arguments adduced to show that the belief in God’s existence is reasonable. It is true that in Ps 14:1, 53:1 the ‘fool’ (i.e. the ungodly man) says that there is no God; but the meaning doubtless is, not that the existence of God is denied, but that the ‘fool’ alleges that God does not concern Himself with man (see Ps 10:4).

1. Divine revelation gradual.—God ‘spake,’ i.e. revealed Himself, ‘by divers portions and in divers manners’ (He 1:1). The world only gradually acquired the knowledge of God which we now possess; and it is therefore a gross mistake to look for our ideas and standards of responsibility in the early ages of mankind. The world was educated ‘precept upon precept, line upon line’ (Is 28:10); and it is noteworthy that even when the gospel age arrived, our Lord did not in a moment reveal all truth, but accommodated His teaching to the capacity of the people ( Mk 4:33); the chosen disciples themselves did not grasp the fulness of that teaching until Pentecost (Jn 16:12f.). The fact of the very slow growth of conceptions of God is made much clearer by our increased knowledge with respect to the composition of the OT; now that we have learnt, for example, that the Mosaic code is to be dated, as a whole, centuries later than Moses, and that the patriarchal narratives were written down, as we have them, in the time of the Kings, and are coloured by the ideas of that time, we see that the idea that Israel had much the same conception of God in the age of the Patriarchs as in that of the Prophets is quite untenable, and that the fuller conception was a matter of slow growth. The fact of the composite character of the Pentateuch, however, makes it very difficult for us to find out exactly what were the conceptions about God in patriarchal and in Mosaic times; and it is impossible to be dogmatic in speaking of them. We can deal only with probabilities gathered from various indications in the literature, especially from the survival of old customs.

2. Names of God in OT.—It will be convenient to gather together the principal OT names of God before considering the conceptions of successive ages. The names will to some extent be a guide to us.

(a) Elohim; the ordinary Hebrew name for God, a plural word of doubtful origin and meaning. It is used, as an ordinary plural, of heathen gods, or of supernatural beings (1 S 28:13), or even of earthly judges (Ps 82:1, 5, cf. Jn 10:34) ; but when used of the One God, it takes a singular verb. As so used, it has been thought to be a relic of pre-historic polytheism, but more probably it is a ‘plural of majesty,’ such as is common in Hebrew, or else it denotes the fulness of God. The singular Eloah is rare except in Job; it is found in poetry and in late prose.

(b) El, common to Semitic tribes, a name of doubtful meaning, but usually interpreted as ‘the Strong One’ or as ‘the Ruler.’ It is probably not connected philologically with Elohim (Driver, Genesis, p. 404). It is used often in poetry and in proper names; in prose rarely, except as part of a compound title like El Shaddai, or with an epithet or descriptive word attached; as ‘God of Bethel,’ ElBethel (Gn 31:13); ‘a jealous God,’ El qannā’ (Ex 20:5).

(c) El Shaddai.—The meaning of Shaddai is uncertain; the name has been derived from a root meaning ‘to overthrow,’ and would then mean ‘the Destroyer’; or from a root meaning ‘to pour,’ and would then mean ‘the Rain-giver’; or it has been interpreted as ‘my Mountain’ or ‘my Lord.’ Traditionally it is rendered ‘God Almighty,’ and there is perhaps a reference to this sense of the name in the words ‘He that is mighty’ of Lk 1:49. According to the Priestly writer (P), the name was characteristic of the patriarchal age (Ex 6:3, cf. Gn 17:1, 28:3). ‘Shaddai’ alone is used often in OT as a poetical name of God (Nu 24:4 etc.), and is rendered ‘the Almighty.’

(d) El Elyon, ‘God Most High,’ found in Gn 14:18ff. (a passage derived from a

‘special source’ of the Pentateuch, i.e. not from J, E, or P), and thought by Driver (Genesis, p. 165) perhaps to have been originally the name of a Canaanite deity, but applied to the true God. ‘Elyon’ is also found alone, as in Ps 82:5 (so tr. into Greek, Lk 1:32, 35, 76, 6:35), and with ‘Elohim’ in Ps 57:2, in close connexion with ‘El’ and with ‘Shaddai’ in Nu 24:15, and with ‘Jahweh’ in Ps 7:17, 18:13 etc. That ‘El Elyon’ was a commonly used name is made probable by the fact that it is found in an Aramaic translation in Dn 3:26, 4:2, 5:18–21 and in a Greek translation in 1 Es 6:31 etc., Mk 5:7, Ac 16:17, and so in He 7:1, where it is taken direct from Gn 14:18 LXX.

(e) Adonai (= ‘Lord’), a title, common in the prophets, expressing dependence, as of a servant on his master, or of a wife on her husband (Ottley, BL²p. 192 f.).

(f) Jehovah, properly Yahweh (usually written Jahweh), perhaps a pre-historic name. Prof. H. Guthe (EBi ii. art. ‘Israel,’ § 4) thinks that it is of primitive antiquity and cannot be explained; that it tells us nothing about the nature of the Godhead. This is probably true of the name in pre-Mosaic times; that it was then in existence was certainly the opinion of the Jahwist writer (Gn 4:25, J), and is proved by its occurrence in proper names, e.g. in ‘Jochebed,’ the name of Moses’ mother (Ex 6:20, P). What it originally signified is uncertain; the root from which it is derived might mean ‘to blow’ or ‘to breathe,’ or ‘to fall,’ or ‘to be.’ Further, the name might have been derived from the causative ‘to make to be,’ and in that case might signify ‘Creator.’ But, as Driver remarks (Genesis, p. 409), the important thing for us to know is not what the name meant originally, but what it came actually to denote to the Israelites. And there can be no doubt that from Moses’ time onwards it was derived from the ‘imperfect’ tense of the verb ‘to be,’ and was understood to mean ‘He who is wont to be,’ or else ‘He who will be.’ This is the explanation given in Ex 3:10ff.; when God Himself speaks, He uses the first person, and the name becomes ‘I am’ or ‘I will be.’ It denotes, then, Existence; yet it is understood as expressing active and self-manifesting Existence (Driver, p. 408). It is almost equivalent to ‘He who has life in Himself’ (cf. Jn 5:26). It became the common name of God in post-Mosaic times, and was the specially personal designation.

We have to consider whether the name was used by the patriarchs. The Jahwist writer (J) uses it constantly in his narrative of the early ages; and Gn 4:26 ( see above) clearly exhibits more than a mere anachronistic use of a name common in the writer’s age. On the other hand, the Priestly writer (P) was of opinion that the patriarchs had not used the name, but had known God as ‘El Shaddai’ (Ex 6:2f.) ; for it is putting force upon language to suppose that P meant only that the patriarchs did not understand the full meaning of the name ‘Jahweh,’ although they used it. P is consistent in not using the name ‘Jahweh until the Exodus. So the author of Job, who lays his scene in the patriarchal age, makes the characters of the dialogue use Shaddai,’ etc., and only once (12:9) ‘Jahweh’ (Driver, p. 185). We have thus contradictory authorities. Driver (p. xix.) suggests that though the name was not absolutely new in Moses’ time, it was current only in a limited circle, as is seen from its absence in the composition of patriarchal proper names.

‘Jehovah’ is a modern and hybrid form, dating only from A.D. 1518. The name ‘Jahweh’ was so sacred that it was not, in later Jewish times, pronounced at all, perhaps owing to an over-literal interpretation of the Third Commandment. In reading ‘Adonai’ was substituted for it; hence the vowels of that name were in MSS attached to the consonants of ‘Jahweh’ for a guide to the reader, and the result, when the MSS are read as written (as they were never meant by Jewish scribes to be read), is ‘Jehovah.’ Thus this modern form has the consonants of one word and the vowels of another. The Hellenistic Jews, in Greek, cubstituted ‘Kyrios’ (Lord) for the sacred name, and it is thus rendered in LXX and NT. This explains why in EV ‘the LORD’ is the usual rendering of ‘Jahweh.’ The expression ‘Tetragrammaton’ is used for the four consonants of the sacred name, YHWH, which appears in Greek capital letters as Pipi, owing to the similarity of the Greek capital p to the Hebrew h, and the Greek capital i to the Hebrew y and w [thus, Heb. הוהי = Gr. ה׀ח׀].

(g) Jah is an apocopated form of Jahweh, and appears in poetry (e.g. Ps 68:4 , Ex 15:2) in the word ‘Hallelujah’ and in proper names. For Jah Jahweh see Is 11:2 , 26:4.

(h) Jahweh Tsĕbāōth (‘Sabaoth’ of Ro 9:29 and Ja 5:4), in EV ‘LORD of

hosts’ (wh. see), appears frequently in the prophetical and post-exilic literature ( Is 1:9, 6:3, Ps 84:1 etc.). This name seems originally to have referred to God’s presence with the armies of Israel in the times of the monarchy; as fuller conceptions of God became prevalent, the name received an ampler meaning. Jahweh was known as God, not only of the armies of Israel, but of all the hosts of heaven and of the forces of nature (Cheyne, Aids to Devout Study of Criticism, p.

284).

We notice, lastly, that ‘Jahweh’ and ‘Elohim’ are joined together in Gn 2:4– 3:22, 9:26, Ex 9:30, and elsewhere. Jahweh is identified with the Creator of the Universe (Ottley, BL²p. 195). We have the same conjunction, with ‘Sabaoth’ added (‘Lord God of hosts’), in Am 5:27. ‘Adonai’ with ‘Sabaoth’ is not uncommon.

3. Pre-Mosaic conceptions of God.—We are now in a position to consider the growth of the revelation of God in successive ages; and special reference may here be made to Kautzsch’s elaborate monograph on the ‘Religion of Israel’ in Hastings’ DB, Ext. vol. pp. 612–734, for a careful discussion of OT conceptions of God. With regard to those of pre-Mosaic times there is much room for doubt. The descriptions written so many centuries later are necessarily coloured by the ideas of the author’s age, and we have to depend largely on the survival of old customs in historical times—customs which had often acquired a new meaning, or of which the original meaning was forgotten. Certainly pre-Mosaic Israel conceived of God as attached to certain places or pillars or trees or springs, as we see in Gn 12:6 , 13:18, 14:7, 35:7, Jos 24:26 etc. It has been conjectured that the stone circle, Gilgal (Jos 4:2–8, 20ff.), was a heathen sanctuary converted to the religion of Jahweh. A. B. Davidson (Hastings’ DB ii. 201) truly remarks on the difficulty in primitive times of realizing deity apart from a local abode; later on, the Ark relieved the difficulty without representing Jahweh under any form, for His presence was attached to it (but see below, § 4).—Traces of ‘Totemism,’ or belief in the blood relationship of a tribe and a natural object, such as an animal, treated as the protector of the tribe, have been found in the worship of Jahweh under the form of a molten bull (1 K 12:28; but this was doubtless derived from the Canaanites), and in the avoidance of unclean animals. Traces of ‘Animism,’ or belief in the activity of the spirits of one’s dead relations, and its consequence ‘Ancestor-worship,’ have been found in the mourning customs of Israel, such as cutting the hair, wounding the flesh, wearing sackcloth, funeral feasts, reverence for tombs, and the levirate marriage, and in the name elohim (i.e. supernatural beings) given to Samuel’s spirit and (probably) other spirits seen by the witch of Endor (1 S 28:13). Kautzsch thinks that these results are not proved, and that the belief in demoniacal powers explains the mourning customs without its being necessary to suppose that Animism had developed into Ancestor-worship.—Polytheism has been traced in the plural ‘Elohim’ (see 2 above), in the teraphim or household gods (Gn 31:30, 1 S 19:13, 16: found in temples, Jg 17:5, 18:14; cf. Hos 3:4); and patriarchal names, such as Abraham, Sarah, have been taken for the titles of pre-historic divinities. Undoubtedly Israel was in danger of worshipping foreign gods, but there is no trace of a Hebrew polytheism (Kautzsch). It will be seen that the results are almost entirely negative; and we must remain in doubt as to the patriarchal conception of God. It seems clear, however, that communion of the worshipper with God was considered to be effected by sacrifice.

4. Post-Mosaic conceptions of God.—The age of the Exodus was undoubtedly a great crisis in the theological education of Israel. Moses proclaimed Jahweh as the God of Israel, supreme among gods, alone to be worshipped by the people whom He had made His own, and with whom He had entered into covenant. But the realization of the truth that there is none other God but Jahweh came by slow degrees only; henotheism, which taught that Jahweh alone was to be worshipped by Israel, while the heathen deities were real but inferior gods, gave place only slowly to a true monotheism in the popular religion. The old name Micah (= ‘Who is like Jahweh?’, Jg 17:1) is one indication of this line of thought. The religion of the Canaanites was a nature-worship; their deities were personified forces of nature, though called ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady’ (Baal, Baalah) of the place where they were venerated (Guthe, EBi ii. art. ‘Israel,’ § 6); and when left to themselves the Israelites gravitated towards nature-worship. The great need of the early postMosaic age, then, was to develop the idea of personality. The defective idea of individuality is seen, for example, in the putting of Achan’s household to death (Jos 7:24f.), and in the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites. (The defect appears much later, in an Oriental nation, in Dn 6:24, and is constantly observed by travellers in the East to this day.) Jahweh, therefore, is proclaimed as a personal God; and for this reason all the older writers freely use anthropomorphisms. They speak of God’s arm, mouth, lips, eyes; He is said to move (Gn 3:8, 11:6, 18:1f.), to wrestle (32:24ff.). Similarly He is said to ‘repent’ of an action (Gn 6:6, Ex 32:14 ; but see 1 S 15:29.), to be grieved, angry, jealous, and gracious, to love and to hate; in these ways the intelligence, activity, and power of God are emphasized. As a personal God He enters into covenant with Israel, protecting, ruling, guiding them, giving them victory. The wars and victories of Israel are those of Jahweh ( Nu 21:14, Jg 5:23).

The question of images in the early post-Mosaic period is a difficult one. Did Moses tolerate images of Jahweh? On the one hand, it seems certain that the Decalogue in some form or other comes from Moses; the conquest of Canaan is inexplicable unless Israel had some primary laws of moral conduct (Ottley, BL²p. 172 f.). But, on the other hand, the Second Commandment need not have formed part of the original Decalogue; and there is a very general opinion that the making of images of Jahweh was thought unobjectionable up to the 8th cent. B.C., though Kautzsch believes that images of wood and stone were preferred to metal ones because of the Canaanitish associations of the latter (Ex 34:17, but see Jg 17:3); he thinks also that the fact of the Ark being the shrine of Jahweh and representing His presence points to its having contained an image of Jahweh (but see § 3 above), and that the ephod was originally an image of Jahweh (Jg 8:26f.), though the word was afterwards used for a gold or silver casing of an image, and so in later times for a sort of waistcoat. In our uncertainty as to the date of the various sources of the Hexateuch it is impossible to come to a definite conclusion about this matter; and Moses, like the later prophets, may have preached a high doctrine which popular opinion did not endorse. To this view Barnes (Hastings’ DB, art. ‘Israel,’ ii. 509) seems to incline. At least the fact remains that images of Jahweh were actually used for many generations after Moses.

5. The conceptions of the Prophetic age.—This age is marked by a growth, perhaps a very gradual growth, towards a true monotheism. More spiritual conceptions of God are taught; images of Jahweh are denounced; God is unrestricted in space and time (e.g. 1 K 8:27), and is enthroned in heaven. He is holy (Is 6:3)—separate from sinners (cf. He 7:26), for this seems to be the sense of the Hebrew word; the idea is as old as 1 S 6:20. He is the ‘Holy One of Israel’ ( Is 1:4 and often). He is Almighty, present everywhere (Jer 23:24), and full of love.— The prophets, though they taught more spiritual ideas about God, still used anthropomorphisms: thus, Isaiah saw Jahweh on His throne (Is 6:1), though this was only in a vision.—The growth of true monotheistic ideas may be traced in such passages as Dt 4:35, 39, 6:4, 10:14, 1 K 8:60, Is 37:16, Jl 2:27; it culminates in Deutero-Isaiah (Is 43:10 ‘Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me’; 44:6 ‘I am the first and I am the last, and beside me there is no God’; so 45:5). The same idea is expressed by the teaching that Jahweh rules not only His people but all nations, as in the numerous passages in Deutero-Isaiah about the Gentiles, in Jer 10:7, often in Ezekiel (e.g. 35:4, 9, 15 of Edom), Mal 1:5 , 11, 14, and elsewhere. The earlier prophets had recognized Jahweh as Creator

(though Kautzsch thinks that several passages like Am 4:13 are later glosses); but Deutero-Isaiah emphasizes this attribute more than any of his brethren (Is 40:12 , 22, 28, 41:4, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 18, 48:13).

We may here make a short digression to discuss whether the heathen deities, though believed by the later Jews, and afterwards by the Christians, to be no gods, were yet thought to have a real existence, or whether they were considered to be simply non-existent, creatures of the imagination only. In Is 14:12 (the Babylonian king likened to false divinities?) and 24:21 the heathen gods seem to be identified with the fallen angels (see Whitehouse, in Hastings’ DB i. 592); so perhaps in Deutero-Isaiah (46:1f.). In later times they are often identified with demons. In Eth. Enoch (19:1) Uriel speaks of the evil angels leading men astray into sacrificing to demons as to gods (see Charles’s note; and also xcix. 7). And the idea was common in Christian times; it has been attributed to St. Paul (1 Co 10:20 ; though 8:5f. points the other way, whether these verses are the Apostle’s own words or are a quotation from the letter of the Corinthians). Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 9, 64, etc.), Tatian (Add. to the Greeks, 8), and Irenæus (Hær. iii. 6:3), while denying that the heathen deities are really gods, make them to have a real existence and to be demons; Athenagoras (Apol. 18, 28), Clement of Alexandria (Exh. to the Greeks, 2f.), and Tertullian (Apol. 10) make them to be mere men or beasts deified by superstition, or combine both ideas.

6. Post-exilic conceptions of God.—In the period from the Exile to Christ, a certain deterioration in the spiritual conception of God is visible. It is true that there was no longer any danger of idolatry, and that this age was marked by an uncompromising monotheism. Yet there was a tendency greatly to exaggerate God’s transcendence, to make Him self-centred and self-absorbed, and to widen the gulf between Him and the world (Sanday, in Hastings’ DB ii. 206). This tendency began even at the Exile, and accounts for the discontinuance of anthropomorphic language. In the Priest’s Code (P) this language is avoided as much as possible. And later, when the LXX was translated, the alterations made to avoid anthropomorphisms are very significant. Thus in Ex 15:3 LXX the name ‘Man of war’ (of Jahweh) disappears; in Ex 19:3 LXX Moses went up not ‘to

Elohim,’ but ‘to the mount of God’; in Ex 24:10 the words ‘they saw Elohim of

Israel’ become ‘they saw the place where the God of Israel stood.’ So in the Targums man is described as being created in the image of the angels, and many other anthropomorphisms are removed.—The same tendency is seen in the almost constant use of ‘Elohim’ rather than of ‘Jahweh’ in the later books of OT. The tendency, only faintly marked in the later canonical books, is much more evident as time went on. Side by side with it is to be noticed the exaltation of the Law, and the inconsistent conception of God as subject to His own Law. In the Talmud He is represented as a great Rabbi, studying the Law, and keeping the Sabbath ( Gilbert, in Hastings’ DCG i. 582).

Yet there were preparations for the full teaching of the gospel with regard to distinctions in the Godhead. The old narratives of the Theophanies, of the mysterious ‘Angel of the Lord’ who appeared at one time to be God and at another to be distinct from Him, would prepare men’s minds in some degree for the Incarnation, by suggesting a personal unveiling of God (see Liddon, BL II. i. β) ; even the common use of the plural name ‘Elohim,’ whatever its original significance (see § 2 above), would necessarily prepare them for the doctrine of distinctions in the Godhead, as would the quasi-personification of ‘the Word’ and ‘Wisdom’, as in Proverbs, Job, Wisdom, Sirach, and in the later Jewish writers, who not only personified but deified them (Scott, in Hastings’ DB, Ext. vol. p. 308). Above all, the quasi-personification of the ‘Spirit of God’ in the prophetical books (esp. Is 48:16, 63:10) and in the Psalms (esp. 51:11), and the expectation of a superhuman King Messiah, would tend in the same direction.

7. Christian development of the doctrine of God.—We may first deal with the development in the conception of God’s fatherhood. As contrasted with the OT, the NT emphasizes the universal fatherhood and love of God. The previous ages had scarcely risen above a conception of God as Father of Israel, and in a special sense of Messiah (Ps 2:7); they had thought of God only as ruling the Gentiles and bringing them into subjection. Our Lord taught, on the other hand, that God is Father of all and loving to all; He is kind even ‘toward the unthankful and evil’ (Lk 6:35, cf. Mt 5:45). Jesus therefore used the name ‘Father’ more frequently than any other. Yet He Himself bears to the Father a unique relationship; the Voice at the Baptism and at the Transfiguration would otherwise have no meaning (Mk 1:11, 9:7 and || Mt. Lk.). Jesus never speaks to His disciples of the Father as ‘our Father’; He calls Him absolutely ‘the Father’ (seldom in Synoptics, Mt 11:27, 24:36 [RV] 28:19 [see §8], Mk 13:32, Lk 10:22, passim in Jn.), or ‘my Father’ (very frequently in all the Gospels, also in Rev 2:27, 3:5), or else ‘my Father and your Father’ (Jn 20:17). The use of ‘his Father’ in Mk 8:38 and || Mt. Lk. is similar. This unique relationship is the point of the saying that God sent His only-begotten Son to save the world (Jn 3:16f., 1 Jn 4:9)—a saying which shows also the universal fatherhood of God, for salvation is offered to all men ( so Jn 12:32). The passage Mt 11:27 (= Lk 10:22) is important as being ‘among the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists,’ and as containing ‘the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel’ (Plummer, ICC, ‘St Luke,’ p. 282; for the latest criticism on it see Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gosp. p. 223 f.). It marks the unique relation in which Jesus stands to the Father.—We have, then, in the NT three senses in which God is Father. (a) He is the Father of Jesus Christ. (b) He is the Father of all His creatures (cf. Ac 17:28, Ja 1:17f., He 12:9), of Gentiles as well as of Jews; Mk 7:27 implies that, though the Jews were to be fed first, the Gentiles were also to be fed. He is the Father of all the Jews, as well as of the disciples of Jesus; the words ‘One is your Father’ were spoken to the multitudes also (Mt 23:1, 9). (c) But in a very special sense He is Father of the disciples, who are taught to pray ‘Our Father’ (Mt 6:9; in the shorter version of Lk 11:2 RV, ‘Father’), and who call on Him as Father (1 P 1:17 RV). For Pauline passages which teach this triple fatherhood see art, PAUL THE APOSTLE, iii. 1. The meaning of the doctrine of the universal fatherhood is that God is love (1 Jn 4:6) , and that He manifests His love by sending His Son into the world to save it ( see above).

8. Distinctions in the Godhead.—We should not expect to find the nomenclature of Christian theology in the NT. The writings contained therein are not a manual of theology; and the object of the technical terms invented or adopted by the Church was to explain the doctrine of the Bible in a form intelligible to the Christian learner. They do not mark a development of doctrine in times subsequent to the Gospel age. The use of the words ‘Persons’ and ‘Trinity’ affords an example of this. They were adopted in order to express the teaching of the NT that there are distinctions in the Godhead; that Jesus is no mere man, but that He came down from heaven to take our nature upon Him; that He and the Father are one thing ( Jn 10:30, see below), and yet are distinct (Mk 13:32); that the Spirit is God, and yet distinct from the Father and the Son (Ro 8:9, see below). At the same time Christian theology takes care that we should not conceive of the Three Persons as of three individuals. The meaning of the word ‘Trinity’ is, in the language of the

Quicunque vult, that ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is

God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.’

The present writer must profoundly dissent from the view that Jesus’ teaching about God showed but little advance on that of the prophets, and that the ‘Trinitarian’ idea as found in the Fourth Gospel and in Mt 28:19 was a development of a later age, say of the very end of the 1st century. Confessedly a great and marvellous development took place. To whom are we to assign it, if not to our Lord? Had a great teacher, or a school of teachers, arisen, who could of themselves produce such an absolute revolution in thought, how is it that contemporary writers and posterity alike put them completely in the background, and gave to Jesus the place of the Great Teacher of the world? This can be accounted for only by the revolution of thought being the work of Jesus Himself.

An examination of the literature will lead us to the same conclusion.

(a) We begin with St. Paul, as our earliest authority. The ‘Apostolic benediction’ (2 Co 13:14) which, as Dr. Sanday remarks (Hastings’ DB ii. 213) , has no dogmatic object and expounds no new doctrine—indeed expounds no doctrine at all—unequivocally groups together Jesus Christ, God [the Father], and the Holy Ghost as the source of blessing, and in that remarkable order. It is inconceivable that St. Paul would have done this had he looked on Jesus Christ as a mere man, or even as a created angel, and on the Holy Ghost only as an influence of the Father. But how did he arrive at this triple grouping, which is strictly consistent with his doctrine elsewhere? We cannot think that he invented it; and it is only natural to suppose that he founded it upon some words of our Lord.

(b) The command to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Mt 28:19), if spoken by our Lord,—whatever the exact meaning of the words, whether as a formula to be used, or as expressing the result of Christian baptism—would amply account for St. Paul’s benediction in 2 Co 13:14. But it has been strenuously denied that these words are authentic, or, if they are authentic, that they are our Lord’s own utterance. We must carefully distinguish these two allegations. First, it is denied that they are part of the First Gospel. It has been maintained by Mr. Conybeare that they are an interpolation of the 2nd cent., and that the original text had: ‘Make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them,’ etc. All extant manuscripts and versions have our present text ( the Old Syriac is wanting here); but in several passages of Eusebius (c. A.D. 260–340) which refer to the verse, the words about baptism are not mentioned, and in some of them the words ‘in my name’ are added. The allegation is carefully and impartially examined by Bp. Chase in JThSt vi. 483 ff., and is judged by him to be baseless. As a matter of fact, nothing is more common in ancient writers than to omit, in referring to a Scripture passage, any words which are not relevant to their argument. Dean Robinson (JThSt vii. 186), who controverts Bp. Chase’s interpretation of the baptismal command, is yet entirely satisfied with his defence of its authenticity. Secondly, it is denied that the words in question were spoken by our Lord; it is said that they belong to that later stage of thought to which the Fourth Gospel is ascribed. As a matter of fact, it is urged, the earliest baptisms were not into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in the name of Jesus Christ, or into the name of the Lord Jesus, or into Christ Jesus, or into Christ (Ac 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Ro 6:3, Gal 3:27). Now it is not necessary to maintain that in any of these places a formula of baptism is prescribed or mentioned. The reverse is perhaps more probable (see Chase, l.c.). The phrases in Acts need mean only that converts were united to Jesus or that they became Christians (cf. 1 Co 10:2); the phrase in Mt 28:19 may mean that disciples were to be united to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by baptism, without any formula being enjoined; or if we take what seems to be the less probable interpretation (that of Dean Robinson), that ‘in the name’ means ‘by the authority of,’ a similar result holds good. We need not even hold that Mt 28:19 represents our Lord’s ipsissima verba. But that it faithfully represents our Lord’s teaching seems to follow from the use of the benediction in 2 Co 13:14 (above), and from the fact that immediately after the Apostolic age the sole form of baptizing that we read of was that of Mt 28:19, as in Didache 7 ( the words quoted exactly, though in § 9 Christians are said to have been baptized into the name of the Lord), in Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 61 (he does not quote the actual words, but paraphrases, and at the end of the same chapter says that ‘he who is illuminated is washed in the name of Jesus Christ’), and in Tertullian, adv. Prax. 26 (paraphrase), de Bapt. 13 (exactly), de Prœscr. Hær. 20 (paraphrase). Thus the second generation of Christians must have understood the words to be our Lord’s. But the same doctrine is found also in numerous other passages of the NT, and we may now proceed briefly to compare some of them with Mt 28:19, prefacing the investigation with the remark that the suspected words in that verse occur in the most Jewish of the Gospels, where such teaching is improbable unless it comes from our Lord (so Scott in Hastings’ DB, Ext. vol. p. 313).

(c) That the Fourth Gospel is full of the doctrine of ‘Father, Son, and Spirit’ is allowed by all (see esp. Jn 14–16). The Son and the Spirit are both Paracletes, sent by the Father; the Spirit is sent by the Father and also by Jesus; Jesus has all things whatsoever the Father has; the Spirit takes the things of Jesus and declares them unto us. In Jn 10:30 our Lord says: ‘I and the Father are one thing’ (the numeral is neuter), i.e. one essence—the words cannot fall short of this (Westcott, in loc.). But the same doctrine is found in all parts of the NT. Our Lord is the only-begotten Son (see § 7 above), who was pre-existent, and was David’s Lord in heaven before He came to earth (Mt 22:45: this is the force of the argument). He claims to judge the world and to bestow glory (Mt 25:34, Lk 22:69; cf. 2 Co 5:10), to forgive sins and to bestow the power of binding and loosing (Mk 2:5, 10, Mt 28:18 and 18:18; cf. Jn 20:23); He invites sinners to come to Him (Mt 11:28; cf. 10:37, Lk 14:26); He is the teacher of the world (Mt 11:29); He casts out devils as Son of God, and gives authority to His disciples to cast them out (Mk 3:11f., 15). The claims of Jesus are as tremendous, and (In the great example of humility) at first sight as surprising, in the Synoptics as in Jn. (Liddon, BL v. iv.). Similarly, in the Pauline Epistles the Apostle clearly teaches that Jesus is God (see art. PAUL THE APOSTLE, iii. 3, 4).

In them God the Father and Jesus Christ are constantly joined together (just as

Father, Son, and Spirit are joined in the Apostolic benediction), e.g. in 1 Co 1:3 ,

8:6. So in 1 P 1:2 we have the triple conjunction—‘the foreknowledge of God the Father,’ ‘the sanctification of the Spirit,’ ‘the blood of Jesus Christ.’ The same conjunction is found in Jude 20f. ‘Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life’; cf. also 1 Co 12:3–6, Ro 8:14–17 etc.

The Holy Spirit is represented in the NT as a Person, not as a mere Divine influence. The close resemblance between the Lukan and the Johannine accounts of the promise of the Spirit is very noteworthy. St. Luke tells us of ‘the promise of my Father,’ and of the command to tarry in the city until the Apostles were ‘clothed with power from on high’ (Lk 24:49); this is interpreted in Ac 1:5 as a baptism with the Holy Ghost, and one of the chief themes of Acts is the bestowal of the Holy Ghost to give life to the Church (Ac 2:4, 33, 8:15ff., 19:2ff. etc.). This is closely parallel to the promise of the Paraclete in Jn 14–16. Both the First and the Third Evangelists ascribe the conception of Jesus to the action of the Holy Ghost (Mt 1:18, 20, Lk 1:35, where ‘the Most High’ is the Father, cf. Lk 6:35f.). At the baptism of Jesus, the Father and the Spirit are both manifested, the appearance of the dove being an indication that the Spirit is distinct from the Father. The Spirit can be sinned against (Mk 3:29 and || Mt. Lk.); through Him Jesus is filled with Divine grace for the ministry (Lk 4:1, 14, 18), and casts out devils (Mt 12:28; cf. Lk 11:20 ‘the finger of God’). The Spirit inspired David ( Mk 12:36). So in St. Paul’s Epistles He intercedes, is grieved, is given to us, gives life (see art. PAUL THE APOSTLE, iii. 6). And the distinctions in the Godhead are emphasized by His being called the ‘Spirit of God’ and the ‘Spirit of Christ’ in the same verse (Ro 8:9). That He is the Spirit of Jesus appears also from Ac 16:7 RV, 2 Co 3:17, Gal 4:6, Ph 1:19, 1 P 1:11.

This very brief epitome must here suffice. It is perhaps enough to show that the revelation which Jesus Christ made caused an immeasurable enlargement of the world’s conception of God. Our Lord teaches that God is One, and at the same time that He is no mere Monad, but Triune. Cf. art. TRINITY.

A. J. MACLEAN.

GOEL.—See AVENGER OF BLOOD, and KIN [NEXT OF].

GOG.—1. The ‘prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal,’ from the land of Magog (Ezk 38:2, and often in chs. 38, 39), whom Ezk. pictures as leading a great host of nations from the far North against the restored Israel, and as being ignominiously defeated, by J″’s intervention, upon the mountains of Canaan. Whence the name ‘Gog’ was derived we do not certainly know: the name reminds us of that of Gyges (Gr. Guges, Assyr. Gugu), the famous king of Lydia, of whom Hdt. (i. 8–14) tells us, and who, Ashurbanipal states (KIB ii. 173–5), when his country was invaded by the Gimirrâ (Cimmerians), expelled them with Assyrian help (c. B.C. 665); and it has been conjectured (Sayce) that this name might have reached Palestine as that of a distant and successful king, who might be made a typical leader of a horde of invaders from the North. That Gomer (= the Cimmerian), who was really his foe, appears in Ezk. among his allies, might be explained either from the vagueness of the knowledge which reached Pal., or because Ezk. had in view, not the historical

‘Gog’ but merely an ideal figure suggested by the historical ‘Gog.’

Upon the basis of Ezk 38, 39, ‘Gog’ and ‘Magog’ appear often in the later

Jewish eschatology as leading the final, but abortive, assault of the powers of the world upon the Kingdom of God. Cf. Rev. 20:7–9; in the Mishna, Eduyoth 2. 10 ; Sib. Orac. iii. 319–322; and see further reff. in Schürer, § 29. III. 4; Weher, Altsynag. Theol. (Index); Volz, Jüd. Eschat. p. 176 (and index).

2. The eponym of a Reubenite family (1 Ch 5:4).

S. R. DRIVER.

GOIIM is the Heb. word which in EV is variously rendered ‘Gentiles,’

‘nations,’ ‘heathen’ (see Preface to RV of OT). In the obscure expression in Gn 14:1, where AV has ‘king of nations,’ RV retains Goiim (possibly a corruption from Gutī [a people living to the E. of the little Zab]) as a proper name, although RVm offers the alternative rendering ‘nations.’ The same difference in rendering between AV and RV is found also in Jos 12:23. Possibly in Gn 14:1 the reference may be to the Umman-manda, or ‘hordes’ of northern peoples, who from time to time invaded Assyria (so Sayce).

GOLAN.—One of the three cities of refuge E. of the Jordan (Dt 4:43, Jos 20:8), assigned to the sons of Gershon (Jos 21:27, 1 Ch 6:71), in the territory belonging to the half-tribe of Manasseh in Bashan. Both the town, Golan, and a district, Gaulanitis, were known to Josephus (Ant. XIII. xv. 3, XVII, viii. 1). The latter is called by the Arabs Jaulān. The name seems to have been applied first to a city, and then to the district round about; etymologically, however, the root, meaning ‘circuit,’ would point to the opposite conclusion. The exact site of the city is very uncertain. Schumacher (Across the Jordan, 92) somewhat hesitatingly identifies it with the ruins of Sahem el-Jaulān, 17 miles E. of the Sea of Galilee.

GEORGE L. ROBINSON.

GOLD.—See MINING AND METALS.

GOLGOTHA (Mt 27:33, Mk 15:22, Jn 19:17, from the Aram. Gulgalta. In Lk 23:33 the place is called Kranion (RV ‘the skull,’ AV ‘Calvary’)).—The situation was evidently outside the city (He 13:12), but near it (Jn 19:20); it was a site visible afar off (Mk 15:40, Lk 23:49), and was probably near a high road ( Mt 27:29).

Four reasons have been suggested for the name. (1) That it was a place where skulls were to be found, perhaps a place of public execution. This is improbable.

(2) That the ‘hill’ was skull-shaped. This is a popular modern view. Against it may be urged that there is no evidence that Golgotha was a hill at all. See also below.

(3) That the name is due to an ancient, and probably pre-Christian, tradition that the skull of Adam was found there. This tradition is quoted by Origen, Athanasius, Epiphanius, etc., and its survival to-day is marked by the skull shown in the Chapel of Adam under the ‘Calvary’ in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. (4) There is the highly improbable theory that the legend of the skull of Adam, and even the name Golgotha, really have their origin in the capitolium of Ælia Capitolina, which stood on the site now covered by the Church of the Sepulchre.

Of the many proposed sites for Golgotha it may be briefly said that there is no side of the city which has not been suggested by some authority for ‘the place of a skull’; but, practically speaking, there are only two worth considering, the traditional site and the ‘green hill’ or ‘Gordon’s Calvary.’ The traditional site included in the Church of the Sepulchre and in close proximity to the tomb itself has a continuous tradition attaching to it from the days of Constantine. In favour of this site it may be argued with great plausibility that it is very unlikely that all tradition of a spot so important in the eyes of Christians should have been lost, even allowing all consideration for the vicissitudes that the city passed through between the Crucifixion and the days of Constantine. The topographical difficulties are dealt with in the discussion of the site of the second wall [see JERUSALEM] , but it may safely be said that investigations have certainly tended in recent years to reduce them. With regard to the ‘green hill’ outside the Damascus gate, which has secured so much support in some quarters, its claims are based upon the four presuppositions that Golgotha was shaped like a skull, that the present skull-shaped hill had such an appearance at the time of the Crucifixion, that the ancient road and wall ran as they do to-day, and that the Crucifixion was near the Jewish ‘place of stoning’ (which is said by an unreliable local Jewish tradition to be situated here).

All these hypotheses are extremely doubtful.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GOLIATH.—A giant, said to have been a descendant of the early race of Anakim. He was slain, in single combat, by David (or, according to another tradition, by Elhanan) at Ephes-dammim, before an impending battle between the Philistines and the Israelites. That this ‘duel’ was of a religious character comes out clearly in 1 S 17:43, 45, where we are told that the Philistine cursed David by his gods, while David replies: ‘And I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts.’ The fact that David brings the giant’s sword as an offering into the sanctuary at Nob points in the same direction. Goliath is described as being ‘six cubits and a span’ in height, i.e. over nine feet, at the likeliest reckoning; his armour and weapons were proportionate to his great height. Human skeletons have been found of equal height, so that there is nothing improbable in the Biblical account of his stature. The flight of the Philistines on the death of their champion could be accounted for by their belief that the Israelite God had shown Himself superior to their god (but see 2 S 23:9–12, 1 Ch 11:12ff.); see, further, DAVID, ELHANAN.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

GOMER.—1. One of the sons of Japheth and the father of Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah (Gn 10:2f., 1 Ch 1:5f.), who along with Togarmah is included by Ezekiel in the army of Gog (Ezk 38:6). Gomer represents the people termed Gimirrâ by the Assyrians, and Cimmerians by the Greeks. Their original home appears to have been north of the Euxine, but by the 7th cent. B.C. they had completely conquered Cappadocia and settled there.

2. Daughter of Diblaim, wife of the prophet Hosea (wh. see).

L. W. KING.

GOMORRAH.—See PLAIN [CITIES OF THE].

GOODMAN.—The only occurrence of this Eng. word in the OT is Pr 7:19 ‘the goodman is not at home.’ The Heb. is simply ‘the man’; but as the reference is to the woman’s husband, ‘goodman,’ still used in Scotland for ‘husband,’ was in 1611 an accurate rendering. In the NT the word occurs 12 times (always in the Synop. Gospels) as the trans. of oikodespotēs, ‘master of the house.’ The same Gr. word is translated ‘householder’ in Mt 13:27, 52, 20:1, 21:33, and ‘master of the house’ in Mt 10:25, Lk 13:25.

GOPHER WOOD (Gn 6:14), of which the ark was constructed, was by tradition cypress wood, and this, or else the cedar, may be inferred as probable.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GORGIAS.—A general of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is described as ‘a mighty man of the king’s friends’ (1 Mac 3:38), and a captain who ‘had experience in matters of war’ (2 Mac 8:9). When Antiochus set out on his Parthian campaign (B.C. 166 or 165), his chancellor, Lysias, who was charged with the suppression of the revolt in Pal., despatched a large army to Judæa, under the command of Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias. The fortunes of the war are described in 1 Mac 3:40, 4:25, 5:16ff., 55ff., 2 Mac 8:12–29, 10:14ff., 12:32ff.; Jos. Ant. XII. vii. 4 , viii. 6.

GORTYNA.—The most important city in Crete, after Gnossus, situated about midway between the two ends of the island. It is named (1 Mac 15:23) among the autonomous States and communes to which were sent copies of the decree of the Roman Senate in favour of the Jews.

GOSHEN.—1. An unknown city in Judah (Jos 15:51) 2. An unknown territory in S. Palestine, probably the environs of No. 1 (Jos 10:41). 3. A division of Egypt in which the children of Israel were settled between Jacob’s entry and the Exodus. It was a place of good pasture, on or near the frontier of Palestine, and plentiful in vegetables and fish (Nu 11:5). It cannot with exactness be defined. Jth 1:9, 10 is probably wrong in including the nomes of Tanis and Memphis in Goshen. The LXX reads ‘Gesem of Arabia’ in Gn 45:10, 46:34, elsewhere ‘Gesem.’ Now Arabia is defined by Ptolemy, the geographer, as an Egyptian nome on the East border of the Delta of the Nile, and this seems to be the locality most probably contemplated by the narrator. It runs eastwards from opposite the modern Zagazig (Bubastis) to the Bitter Lakes. There seems to be no Egyptian origin for the name, unless it represented Kesem, the Egyptian equivalent of Phacussa (the chief town of the nome of Arabia according to Ptolemy). It may be of Semitic origin, as is suggested by the occurrence of the name, as noticed above, outside Egyptian territory.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

GOSPEL.—This word (lit. ‘God-story’) represents Greek euangelion, which reappears in one form or another in ecclesiastical Latin and in most modern languages. In classical Greek the word means the reward given to a bearer of good tidings (so 2 S 4:10 LXX in pl.), but afterwards it came to mean the message itself, and so in 2 S 18:20, 22, 25 [LXX] a derived word is used in this sense. In NT the word means ‘good tidings’ about the salvation of the world by the coming of Jesus Christ. It is not there used of the written record. A genitive case or a possessive pronoun accompanying it denotes: (a) the person or the thing preached (the gospel of Christ, or of peace, or of salvation, or of the grace of God, or of God, or of the Kingdom, Mt 4:23, 9:35, 24:14, Mk 1:14, Ac 20:24, Ro 15:19, Eph 1:13, 6:15 etc.); or sometimes (b) the preacher (Mk 1:1 (?), Ro 2:16, 16:25, 2 Co 4:3 etc.); or rarely (c) the persons preached to (Gal 2:7). ‘The gospel’ is often used in NT absolutely, as in Mk 1:15, 8:35, 14:9 RV, 16:15, Ac 15:7, Ro 11:28, 2 Co 8:16 (where the idea must not be entertained that the reference is to Luke as an Evangelist), and so ‘this gospel,’ Mt. 26:13; but English readers should bear in mind that usually (though not in Mk 16:15) the EV phrase ‘to preach the gospel’ represents a simple verb of the Greek. The noun is not found in Lk., Heb., or the Catholic Epistles, and only once in the Johannine writings (Rev 14:6, ‘an eternal gospel’—an angelic message). In Ro 10:16 ‘the gospel’ is used absolutely of the message of the OT prophets.

The written record was not called ‘the Gospel’ till a later age. By the earliest generation of Christians the oral teaching was the main thing regarded; men told what they had heard and seen, or what they had received from eye-witnesses. As these died out and the written record alone remained, the perspective altered. The earliest certain use of the word in this sense is in Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 150: ‘The Apostles in the Memoirs written by themselves, which are called Gospels,’ Apol. 1. 66; cf. ‘the Memoirs which were drawn up by His Apostles and those who followed them,’ Dial. 103), though some find it in Ignatius and the Didache. The earliest known titles of the Evangelic records (which, however, we cannot assert to be contemporary with the records themselves) are simply ‘According to Matthew,’ etc.

A. J. MACLEAN.

GOSPELS.—Under this heading we may consider the four Gospels as a whole, and their relations to one another, leaving detailed questions of date and authorship to the separate articles.

1. The aims of the Evangelists.—On this point we have contemporary evidence in the Lukan preface (1:1–4), which shows that no Evangelist felt himself absolved from taking all possible pains in securing accuracy, that many had already written Gospel records, and that their object was to give a contemporary account of our Lord’s life on earth. As yet, when St. Luke wrote, these records had not been written by eye-witnesses. But they depended for their authority on eyewitnesses (1:2); and this is the important point, the names of the authors being comparatively immaterial. The records have a religious aim (Jn 20:31). Unlike the modern biography, which seeks to relate all the principal events of the life described, the Gospel aims at producing faith by describing a few significant incidents taken out of a much larger whole. Hence the Evangelists are all silent about many things which we should certainly expect to read about if the Gospels were biographies. This consideration takes away all point from the suggestion that silence about an event means that the writer was ignorant of it (see Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, p. 71). Again, although, before St. Luke wrote, there were numerous Gospels, only one of these survived till Irenæus’ time (see § 4). But have the rest entirely vanished? It may perhaps be conjectured that some fragments which seem not to belong to our canonical Gospels (such as Lk 22:43 f., Jn 7:53–8:11, Mk 16:9–20) are survivals of these documents. But this is a mere guess.

2. The Synoptic problem.—The first three Gospels in many respects agree closely with one another, and differ from the Fourth. Their topics are the same; they deal chiefly with the Galilæan ministry, not explicitly mentioning visits to Jerusalem after Jesus’ baptism until the last one; while the Fourth Gospel deals largely with those visits. In a word, the first three Gospels give the same general survey, the same ‘synopsis,’ and are therefore called the ‘Synoptic Gospels,’ and their writers the ‘Synoptists.’ But further, they agree very closely in words, arrangement of sentences, and in many other details. They have a large number of passages in common, and in many cases all three relate the same incidents in nearly the same words; in others, two out of the three have common matter. The likeness goes far beyond what might be expected from three writers independently relating the same series of facts. In that case we should look for likenesses in details of the narratives, but not in the actual words. A striking example is in Mt 9:6 = Mk 2:10 = Lk 5:24. The parenthesis (‘Then saith he to the sick of the palsy’) is common to all three—an impossible coincidence if all were independent. Or again, in Mt. and Mk. the Baptist’s imprisonment is related parenthetically, out of its place (Mt 14:35., Mk 6:17ff.), though in Lk. it comes in its true chronological order (Lk 3:19). The coincidence in Mt. and Mk. shows some dependence. On the other hand, there are striking variations, even in words, in the common passages. Thus the Synoptists must have dealt very freely with their sources; they did not treat them as unalterable. What, then, is the nature of the undoubted literary connexion between them?

(a) The Oral Theory.—It is clear from NT (e.g. Lk 1:2) and early ecclesiastical writers (e.g. Papias, who tells us that he laid special stress on ‘the utterances of a living and abiding voice,’ see Eusebius, HE iii. 39), that the narrative teaching of the Apostles was handed on by word of mouth in a very systematic manner. Eastern memories are very retentive, and this fact favours such a mode of tradition. We know that the Jews kept up their traditions orally (Mt 15:2ff. etc.). It is thought, then, that both the resemblances and the differences between the Synoptists may be accounted for by each of them having written down the oral tradition to which he was accustomed.

This is the ‘Oral Theory,’ which met with a great degree of support, especially in England, a generation or so ago. It was first systematically propounded in Germany by Gieseler, in 1818, and was maintained by Alford and Westcott, and lately by A. Wright. It is suggested that this theory would account for unusual words or expressions being found in all the Synoptics, as these would retain their hold on the memory. It is thought that the catechetical instruction was carried out very systematically, and that there were different schools of catechists; and that this would account for all the phenomena. The main strength of the theory lies in the objections rained to its rival, the Documentary Theory (see below), especially that on the latter view the freedom with which the later Evangelists used the earlier, or the common sources, contradicts any idea of inspiration or even of authority attaching to their predecessors. It is even said (Wright) that a man copying from a document could not produce such multitudinous variations in wording. The great objection to the Oral Theory is that it could not produce the extraordinarily close resemblances in language, such as the parentheses mentioned above, unless indeed the oral teaching were so firmly stereotyped and so exactly learnt by heart that it had become practically the same thing as a written Gospel. Hence the Oral Theory has fallen into disfavour, though there is certainly this element of truth in it, that oral teaching went on for some time side by side with written Gospels, and provided independent traditions (e.g. that Jesus was born in a cave, as Justin Martyr says), and indeed influenced the later Evangelists in their treatment of the earlier Gospels. It was only towards the end of the lives of the Apostles that our Gospels were written.

(b) The Documentary Theory, in one form, now obsolete, supposed that the latest of the Synoptists knew and borrowed from the other two, and the middle Synoptist from the earliest.

This theory, if true, would be a sufficient cause for the resemblances; but in spite of Zahn’s argument to the contrary (Einleitung, ii. 400), it is extremely unlikely that Matthew knew Luke’s Gospel or vice versa. To mention only one instance, the Birth-narratives clearly argue the independence of both, especially in the matter of the genealogies. Augustine’s theory that Mark followed, and was the abbreviator of, Matthew is now seen to be impossible, both because of the graphic and autoptic nature of Mk., which precludes the idea of an abbreviator, and because in parallel passages Mk. is fuller than Mt., the latter having had to abbreviate in order to introduce additional matter.

The form of this theory which may now be said to hold the field, is that the source of the common portions of the Synoptics is a Greek written narrative, called (for reasons stated in art. MARK [GOSPEL ACC. TO]) the ‘Petrine tradition’—the preaching of St. Peter reduced to the form of a Gospel. The favourite idea is that our Mk. is itself the document which the other Synoptists independently used; but if this is not the case, at least our Mk. represents that document most closely. This theory would at once account for the close resemblances.

Here it may be as well to give at once a sufficient answer to the chief objection to all documentary theories (see above). The objection transfers modern ideas with regard to literary borrowing to the 1st century. As a matter of fact, we snow that old writers did the very thing objected to; e.g. Genesis freely embodies older documents; the Didache (c. A.D. 120) probably incorporates an old Jewish tract on the ‘Way of Life and the Way of Death,’ and was itself afterwards incorporated and freely treated in later documents such as the Apostolic Constitutions (c. A.D. 375), which also absorbed and altered the Didascalia; and so the later ‘Church Orders’ or manuals were produced from the earlier. We have no right to make a priori theories as to inspiration, and to take it for granted that God inspired people in the way that commends itself to us. And we know that as a matter of fact written documents were in existence when St. Luke wrote (Lk 1:1). It is not then unreasonable to suppose that Mk. or something very like it was before the First and Third Evangelists when they wrote. A strong argument for the priority of Mk. will be seen if three parallel passages of the Synoptics be written out in Greek side by side, and the words and phrases in Mk. which are found in || Mt. or || Lk. be underlined; it will be found almost always that nearly the whole of Mk. is reproduced in one or both of the other Synoptics, though taken singly Mk. is usually the fullest in parallel passages. Mk. has very little which is peculiar to itself; its great value lying in another direction (see art. MARK [GOSPEL ACC. TO] for other arguments). The conclusion is that it, or another Gospel closely resembling it, is a common source of Mt. and Lk. This accounts for the resemblances of the Synoptists; their differences come from St. Matthew and St. Luke feeling perfectly free to alter their sources and narrate incidents differently as seemed best to them. They had other sources besides Mk. Here it may be desirable to remark by way of caution that in so far as they use a common source, the Synoptists are not independent witnesses to the facts of the Gospels; in so far as they supplement that source, they give additional attestation to the facts. Yet an event spoken of by all three Synoptists in the same way is often treated as being more trustworthy than one spoken of by only one or by two. A real example of double attestation, on the other hand, is the reference in 1 Co 13:2 to the ‘faith that removes mountains,’ as compared with Mt 17:20, 21:21.

Another form of the Documentary Theory may be briefly mentioned, namely, that the common source was an Aramaic document, differently translated by the three Evangelists. This, it is thought, might account for the differences; and much ingenuity has been expended on showing how an Aramaic word might, by different pointing (for points take the place of vowels in Aramaic), or by a slight error, produce the differences in Greek which we find. But it is enough to say that this theory could not possibly account for the close verbal resemblances or even for most of the differences. A Greek document must be the common source.

(c) The non-Markan sources of Mt. and Lk.—We have now to consider those parts of Mt. and Lk. which are common to both, but are not found in Mk., and also those parts which are found only in Mt. or only in Lk. In the former the same phenomena of verbal resemblances and differences occur; but, on the other hand, the common matter is, to a great extent, treated in quite a different order by Mt. and Lk. This peculiarity is thought by some to be due to the source used being oral, even though the ‘Petrine tradition,’ the common source of the three, was a document. But the same objections as before apply here (e.g. cf. Mt 6:24, 27 = Lk 16:13, 12:25, or Mt 23:37–39 = Lk 13:34f., which are almost word for word the same). We must postulate a written Greek common source; and the differences of order are most easily accounted for by observing the characteristics of the Evangelists. St. Matthew aimed rather at narrative according to subject, grouping incidents and teachings together for this reason, while St. Luke rather preserved chronological order (cf. the treatment of the Baptist’s imprisonment, as above). Thus in Mt. we have groups of sayings (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount) and groups of parables, not necessarily spoken at one time, but closely connected by subject. We may infer that St. Luke treated the document common to him and St. Matthew in a stricter chronological order, because he treats Mk. in that way. He introduces a large part of Mk. in one place, keeping almost always to its order; then he interpolates a long section from some other authority (Lk 9:51–18:14), and then goes back and picks up Mk. nearly where he had left it. Probably, therefore, Lk. is nearer in order to the non-Markan document than Mt.

Of what nature was this document? Some, following a clue of Papias (see art. MATTHEW [GOSPEL ACC. TO]), call it the ‘Logia,’ and treat it as a collection of teachings rather than as a connected history; it has been suggested that each teaching was introduced by ‘Jesus said,’ and that the occasion of each was not specified. This would account for differences of order. But it would involve a very unnecessary multiplication of documents, for considerations of verbal resemblances show that in the narrative, as well as in the discourses, a common non-Markan document must underlie Mt. and Lk.; and, whatever meaning be ascribed to the word logia, it is quite improbable that Papias refers to a record of sayings only. While, then, it is probable that discourses formed the greater part of the non-Markan document, we may by comparing Mt. and Lk. conclude that it described at least some historical scenes.—The document must have included the preaching of the Baptist, the Temptation, the Sermon on the Mount, the healing of the centurion’s servant, the coming of John’s messengers to Jesus, the instructions to the disciples, the Lord’s Prayer, the controversy about Beelzebub, the denunciation of the Pharisees, and precepts about over-anxiety. It is very likely that it contained also an account of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and many other things which are in Mk.; for in some of the passages common to all three

Synoptists, Mt. and Lk. agree together against Mk. This would be accounted for by their having, in these instances, followed the non-Markan document in preference to the ‘Petrine tradition.’

In addition there must have been other sources, oral or documentary, of Mt. and Lk. separately, for in some passages they show complete independence.

3. Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics.—The differences which strike us at once when we compare Jn. with the Synoptics were obvious also to the Fathers. Clement of Alexandria accounts for the fact of the differences by a solution which he says he derived from ‘the ancient elders,’ namely, that John, seeing that the external (lit. ‘bodily’) facts had already been sufficiently set forth in the other Gospels, composed, at the request of his disciples and with the inspiration of the Spirit, a ‘spiritual’ Gospel (quoted by Eusebius, HE vi. 14). By this phrase Clement clearly means a Gospel which emphasizes the Godhead of our Lord. The human side of the Gospel story had already been adequately treated. Elsewhere Eusebius (HE iii. 24) gives an old tradition that John had the Synoptics before him, and that he supplemented them. In all essential particulars this solution may be treated as correct. The main differences between John and the Synoptics are as follows:

(a) Geographical and Chronological.—The Synoptists lay the scene of the ministry almost entirely in Galilee and Peræa; St. John dwells on the ministry in Judæa. The Synoptists hardly note the flight of time at all; from a cursory reading of their accounts the ministry might have been thought to have lasted only one year, as some early Fathers believed, thus interpreting ‘the acceptable year of the Lord’ (Is 61:2, Lk 4:19); though, if we carefully study the Synoptics, especially Lk., we do faintly trace three stages—in the wilderness of Galilee (a brief record), in Galilee (full description), and in Central Palestine as far as Jerusalem and on the other side of Jordan. During this last stage Jesus ‘set his face’ to go to Jerusalem (Lk 9:51; cf. 2 K 12:17, Ezk 21:2). But in Jn. time is marked by the mention of several Jewish feasts, notably the Passover, and we gather from Jn. that the ministry lasted either 2¹/₂or 3¹/₂years, according as we read in 5:1 ‘a feast’ ( which could hardly be a Passover) or ‘the feast’ (which perhaps was the Passover). These differences are what we should expect when we consider that the Synoptic story is chiefly a Galilæan one, and is not concerned with visits to Jerusalem and Judæa until the last one just before the Crucifixion. Yet from incidental notices in the

Synoptics themselves we should have guessed that Jesus did pay visits to

Jerusalem. Every religious Jew would do so, if possible, at least for the Passover. If Jesus had not conformed to this custom, but had paid the first visit of His ministry just before the Crucifixion, we could not account for the sudden enmity of the Jerusalem Jews to Him at that time, or for the existence of disciples in Judæa, e.g.,

Judas Iscariot and his father Simon Iscariot (Jn 6:71 RV), probably natives of Kerioth in Judæa; Joseph of Arimathæa, ‘a city of the Jews’ (Lk 23:51); the household at Bethany; and Simon the leper (Mk 14:3). The owner of the ass and colt at Bethphage, and the owner of the room where the Last Supper was eaten, evidently knew Jesus when the disciples came with the messages. And if the Apostles had just arrived in Jerusalem for the first time only a few weeks before, it would be unlikely that they would make their headquarters there immediately after the Ascension. Thus the account in Jn. of a Judæan ministry is indirectly confirmed by the Synoptics (cf. also Mt 23:37 ‘how often’).

(b) Proclamation of Jesus’ Messiahship.—In the Synoptics, especially in Mk., this is a very gradual process. The evil spirits who announce it inopportunely are silenced (Mk 1:2f.). Even after Peter’s confession at Cæsarea Philippi at the end of the Galilæan ministry, the disciples are charged to tell no man (Mk 8:30). But in Jn., the Baptist begins by calling Jesus ‘the Lamb of God’ and ‘the Son of God’

(1:29, 34); Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael at once recognize him as Messiah (1:41 , 45, 49). Can both accounts be true? Now, as we have seen, a Judæan ministry must have been carried on simultaneously with a Galilæan one; these would be kept absolutely separate by the hostile district of Samaria which lay between them ( Jn 4:9). Probably two methods were used for two quite different peoples. The rural population of Galilee had to be taught by very slow degrees; but Jerusalem was the home of religious controversy, and its inhabitants were acute reasoners. With them the question who Jesus was could not be postponed; this is shown by the way in which the Pharisees questioned the Baptist. To them, therefore, the Messiahship was proclaimed earlier. It is true that there would be a difficulty if the Twelve first learned about the Messiahship of Jesus at Cæsarea Philippi. But this does not appear from the Synoptics. The Apostles had no doubt heard the questions asked in Judæa, and did know our Lord’s claim to be Christ; but they did not fully realize all that it meant till the incident of Peter’s confession.

(c) The claims of our Lord are said to be greater in Jn. than in the Synoptics (e.g. Jn. 10:30), and it is suggested that they are an exaggeration due to a later age. Certainly Jn. is a ‘theological’ Gospel. But in reality the claims of our Lord are as great in the Synoptics, though they may not be so explicitly mentioned. The claim of Jesus to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), to re-state the Law (Mt 5:17, 21 f., RV, etc.), to be about to come in glory (Mk 8:38, 14:62), to be the Judge of the world (Mt 25:31ff. etc.), the invitation ‘Come unto me’ (Mt 11:28ff.), the assertion of the atoning efficacy of His death (Mk 10:45, 14:24)—cannot be surpassed ( see also MARK [GOSPEL ACC. TO], § 3). The self-assertion of the great Example of humility is equally great in all the Gospels, and is the great stumbling-block of all the thoughtful upholders of a purely humanitarian Christ.

(d) Other differences, which can here be only alluded to, are the emphasis in Jn.

on the work of the Spirit, the Comforter; the absence in Jn. of set parables, allegories taking their place; and the character of the miracles, there being no casting out of devils in Jn., and, on the other hand, the miracle at Cana being unlike anything in the Synoptics. The only miracle common to the four Gospels is the feeding of the five thousand, which in Jn. is mentioned probably only to introduce the discourse at Capernaum, of which it forms the text (Jn 6). All these phenomena may be accounted for on Clement’s hypothesis. The Fourth Evangelist had the Synoptics before him, and supplemented them from his own knowledge. And it may be remarked that, had Jn. been a late work written after the death of all the Apostles, the author would never have ventured to introduce so many differences from Gospels already long in circulation; whereas one who had been an eyewitness, writing at the end of his life, might well be in such a position of authority (perhaps the last survivor of the Apostolic company, whoever he was) that he could supplement from his own knowledge the accounts already in use.

The supplementary character of Jn. is seen also from its omission of matters to which the writer nevertheless alludes, assuming that his readers know them; e.g., Jesus’ baptism (without the knowledge of which Jn 1:32 would be unintelligible), the commission to baptize (cf. the Nicodemus narrative, Jn 3), the Eucharist (cf. Jn 6, which it is hardly possible to explain without any reference to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, for which it is a preparation, taking away their apparent abruptness), the Transfiguration (cf. 1:14), the Birth of our Lord (it is assumed that the answer to the objection that Christ could not come from Nazareth is well known, 1:46, 7:41, 52), the Ascension (cf. 6:62, 20:17), etc. So also it is often recorded in Jn. that Jesus left questions unanswered, and the Evangelist gives no explanation, assuming that the answer is well known (3:4, 4:11, 15, 6:52, 7:35).

There are some well-known apparent differences in details between Jn. and the Synoptics. They seem to differ as to whether the death of our Lord or the Last Supper synchronized with the sacrificing of the Paschal lambs, and as to the hour of the Crucifixion (cf. Mk 15:25 with Jn 19:14). Various solutions of these discrepancies have been suggested; but there is one solution which is impossible,—namely, that Jn. is a 2nd cent. ‘pseudepigraphic’ work. For if so, the first care that the writer would have would be to remove any obvious differences between his work and that of his predecessors. It clearly professes to be by an eyewitness (Jn 1:14, 19:35). Either, then, Jn. was the work of one who wrote so early that he had never seen the Synoptic record,—but this is contradicted by the internal evidence just detailed,—or else it was written by one who occupied such a prominent position that he could give his own experiences without stopping to explain an apparent contradiction of former Gospels. In fact the differences, puzzling though they are to us, are an indication of the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel.

4. Are the Gospels contemporary records?—We have hitherto considered them from internal evidence. We may, in conclusion, briefly combine the latter with the external attestation, in order to fix their date, referring, however, for details to the separate headings. It is generally agreed that the Fourth Gospel is the latest. Internal evidence shows that its author was an eyewitness, a Palestinian Jew of the 1st cent., whose interests were entirely of that age, and who was not concerned with the controversies and interests of that which followed it. If so, we cannot place it later than A.D. 100, and therefore the Synoptics must be earlier. Irenæus (c. A.D. 180) had already formulated the necessity of there being four, and only four, canonical Gospels; and he knew of no doubt existing on the subject. It is incredible that he could have spoken thus if Jn. had been written in the middle of the 2nd century. Tatian (c. A.D. 160) made, as we know from recent discoveries, a Harmony of our four Gospels (the Diatessaron), and this began with the Prologue of Jn. Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 150) is now generally allowed to have known Jn., though some hold that he did not put it on a level with the Synoptics. Again, it is hard to deny that 1 Jn. and the Fourth Gospel were written by the same author, and 1 Jn. is quoted by Papias (c. 140 or earlier), as we learn from Eusebius (HE iii. 39) , and by Polycarp (Phil. 7, written c. A.D. 111). If so, they must have known the Fourth Gospel. Other allusions in early 2nd cent. writers to the Fourth Gospel and 1 Jn. are at least highly probable. Then the external evidence, like the internal, would lead us to date the Fourth Gospel not later than A.D. 100. This Gospel seems to give the results of long reflexion on, and experience of the effect of, the teaching of our Lord, written down in old age by one who had seen what he narrates. The Synoptics, to which Jn. is supplementary, must then be of earlier date; and this is the conclusion to which they themselves point. The Third Gospel, being written by a travelling companion of St. Paul (see art. LUKE [GOSPEL ACC. TO]), can hardly have been written after A.D. 80; and the Second, whether it be exactly the Gospel which St. Luke used, or the same edited by St. Mark the ‘interpreter’ of St. Peter (see art. MARK [GOSPEL ACC. TO]), must be either somewhat earlier than Lk. (as is probable), or at least, even if it be an edited form, very little later. Its ‘autoptic’ character, giving evidence of depending on an eyewitness, makes a later date difficult to conceive. Similar arguments apply to Mt. (see art. MATTHEW [GOSPEL ACC. TO]). Thus, then, while there is room for difference of opinion as to the names and personalities of the writers of the Gospels (for, like the historical books of OT, they are anonymous), critical studies lead us more and more to find in them trustworthy records whose writers had firsthand authority for what they state.

It may be well here to state a difficulty that arises in reviewing the 2nd cent. attestation to our Gospels. In the first place, the Christian literature of the period A.D. 100–175 is extremely scanty, so that we should not a priori expect that every Apostolic writing would be quoted in its extant remains. And, further, the fashion of quotation changed as the 2nd cent. went on. Towards the end of the century, we find direct quotations by name. But earlier this was not so. In Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, and other early 2nd cent. writers, we find many quotations and references, but without names given; so that doubt is sometimes raised whether they are indebted to our canonical Gospels or to some other source, oral or written, for our Lord’s words. It is clear that our canonical Gospels were not the only sources of information that these writers had; oral tradition had not yet died out, and they may have used other written records. To take an example, it is obvious that Justin knew the Sermon on the Mount; but when we examine his quotations from it we cannot be certain if he is citing Mt. or Lk. or both, or (possibly) an early Harmony of the two. It may be pointed out that if, as is quite possible, the quotations point to the existence of Harmonies before Tatian’s, that fact in reality pushes back the external evidence still earlier. Many, or most, of the differences of quotation, however, may probably be accounted for by the difficulty of citing memoriter. When to quote accurately meant to undo a roll without stops or paragraphs, early writers may be pardoned for trusting too much to their memories. And it is noteworthy that as a rule the longer the quotation in these early writers, the more they conform to our canonical Gospels, for in long passages they could not trust their memories. The same peculiarity is observed in their quotations from the LXX.

Bearing these things in mind, we may, without going beyond Tatian, conclude with the highest degree of probability, from evidence which has undergone the closest scrutiny: (a) that our Mt. was known to, or was incorporated in a Harmony known to, Justin and the writer of the Didache (c. A.D. 120) and ‘Barnabas’; and similarly (b) that our Mk. was known to Papias, Justin, Polycarp, and ( perhaps ) pseudo-Clement (‘2 Clem. ad Cor.’), Hermas, and the author of the Gospel of pseudo-Peter and the Clementine Homilies, and Heracleon and Valentinus; (c) that our Lk. was known to Justin (very obviously), the Didache writer, Marcion ( who based his Gospel on it), Celsus, Heracleon, and the author of the Clementine Homilies; and (d) that our Jn. was known to Justin, Papias, and Polycarp.

A. J. MACLEAN.

GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL.—According to Lk. 1:1–4, there were a number of accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus in circulation among the Christians of the 1st century. Among these were not only the sources of our canonical Gospels, but also a number of other writings purporting to come from various companions of Jesus and to record His life and words. In process of time these were lost, or but partially preserved. The Gospels were supplemented by others, until there resulted a literature that stands related to the NT Canon much as the OT Apocrypha stand related to the OT Canon. As a whole, however, it never attained the importance of the OT Apocrypha. Individual Gospels seem to have been used as authoritative, but none of them was ever accepted generally.

I. THE ORIGIN OF THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.—So voluminous is this

literature, so local was the circulation of most of it, and so obscure are the circumstances attending its appearance, that it is impossible to make any general statement as to its origin. Few apocryphal Gospels reach us entire, and many are known to us only as names in the Church Fathers. It would seem, however, as if the literature as we know it might have originated: (a) From the common Evangelic tradition preserved in its best form in our Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel of the Egyptians). (b) From the homiletic tendency which has always given rise to stories like the Haggadah of Judaism. The Gospels of this sort undertake to complete the account of Jesus’ life by supplying fictitious incidents, often by way of accounting for sayings in the canonical Gospels. At this point the legend-making processes were given free scope (e.g. Gospel of Nicodemus, Protevangelium of James, Gospel according to Thomas, Arabic Gospel of Infancy, Arabic Gospel of Joseph, Passing of Mary). (c) From the need of Gospel narratives to support various heresies, particularly Gnostic and ascetic (e.g. Gospels according to Peter, Philip, pseudo-Matthew, the Twelve Apostles, Basilides).

In this collection may be included further a number of other Gospels about which we know little or nothing, being in ignorance even as to whether they were merely mutilated editions of canonical Gospels or those belonging to the third class. The present article will consider only the more important and best known of these apocryphal Gospels.

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE GOSPELS.—Even the most superficial

reader of these Gospels recognizes their inferiority to the canonical, not merely in point of literary style, but also in general soberness of view. In practically all of them are to be found illustrations of the legend-making process which early overtook the Christian Church. They abound in accounts of alleged miracles, the purpose of which is often trivial, and sometimes even malicious. With the exception of a few sayings, mostly from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the teaching they contain is obviously a working up of that of the canonical Gospels, or clearly imagined. In the entire literature there are few sayings attributed to Jesus that are at the same time authentic and extra-canonical (see UNWRITTEN SAYINGS). These Gospels possess value for the Church historian in that they represent tendencies at work in the Church of the first four or five centuries. From the point of view of criticism, however, they are of small importance beyond heightening our estimation of the soberness and simplicity of the canonical narratives.

These Gospels, when employing canonical material, usually modify it in the interest of some peculiar doctrinal view. This is particularly true of that class of Gospels written for the purpose of supporting some of the earlier heresies. So fantastical are some of them, that it is almost incredible that they should ever have been received as authoritative. Particularly is this true of those that deal with the early life of Mary and of the infant Christ. In some cases it is not impossible that current pagan legends and folk-stories were attached to Mary and Jesus.

Notwithstanding this fact, however, many of these stories, particularly those of the birth, girlhood, and death of Mary, have found their way into the literature and even the doctrine of the Roman Church. Of late there has been some attempt by the Curia to check the use of these works, and in 1884 Leo XIII. declared the

Protevangelium of James and other works dealing with the Nativity of Jesus to be

‘impure sources of tradition.’

III. THE MOST IMPORTANT GOSPELS

1. The Gospel according to the Hebrews.—(1) The earliest Patristic statements regarding our NT literature contain references to events in the life of Jesus which are not to be found in our canonical Gospels. Eusebius declares that one of these stories came from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Clement of Alexandria and Origen, particularly the latter, apparently knew such a Gospel well. Origen quotes it at least three times, and Clement twice. Eusebius (HE iii. 25) mentions the Gospel as belonging to that class which, like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, were accepted in some portions of the Empire and rejected in others. Jerome obtained from the Syrian Christians a copy of this Gospel, which was written in Aramaic, and was used among the sects of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, by which two classes he probably meant the Palestinian Christians of the non-Pauline churches. Jerome either translated this book from Heb. or Aram. into both Greek and Latin, or revised and translated a current Greek version.

(2) The authorship of the Gospel according to the Hebrews is in complete obscurity. It appears that in the 4th cent. some held it to be the work of the Apostle Matthew. Jerome, however, evidently knew that this was not the case, for it was not circulating in the West, and he found it necessary to translate it into Greek. Epiphanius, Jerome’s contemporary, describes it as beginning with an account of John the Baptist, and commencing without any genealogy or sections dealing with the infancy of Christ. This would make it like our Gospel according to Mark, with which, however, it cannot be identified if it is to be judged by such extracts as have come down to us.

(3) The time of composition of the Gospel according to the Hebrews is evidently very early. It may even have been one form of the original Gospel of Jesus, co-ordinate with the Logia of Matthew and the earliest section of the Book of Luke. Caution, however, is needed in taking this position, as the quotations which have been preserved from it differ markedly from those of any of the sources of our canonical Gospels which can be gained by criticism. At all events, the Gospel is to be distinguished from the Hebrew original of the canonical Gospel of Matthew mentioned by Papias (Euseb. HE iii. 39. 16, vi. 25. 4; Irenæus, l. 1). On the whole, the safest conclusion is probably that the Gospel was well known in the eastern part of the Roman Empire in the latter half of the 2nd cent., and that in general it was composed of material similar to that of the canonical Gospels, but contained also sayings of Jesus which our canonical Gospels have not preserved for us.

The most important quotations from the Gospel are as follows:—

‘If thy brother sin in word and give thee satisfaction, receive him seven times in the day. Simon, His disciple, said to Him, “Seven times in the day?” The Lord answered and said to him, “Yea, I say unto thee, until seventy times even; for with the prophets also, after they were anointed with the Holy Spirit, there was found sinful speech” ’ (Jerome, adv. Pelag. iii. 2).

‘Also the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen, too, often uses, relates after the resurrection of the Saviour: “But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the priest’s servant, He went to James and appeared to him. For James had taken an oath that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord, until he should see Him rising from that sleep.” ’

‘And again, a little farther on: “Bring me, saith the Lord, a table and bread.” And there follows immediately: “He took the bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to James the Just, and said to him. My brother, eat thy bread, inasmuch as the Son of Man hath risen from them that sleep” ’ (Jerome, de Vir. Illus. ii.).

‘In the Gospel according to the Hebrews … is the following story: “Behold, the Lord’s mother and His brethren were saying to Him, John the Baptist baptizes unto the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said unto them, What sin have I done, that I should go and be baptized by him? unless perchance this very thing which I have said is an ignorance” ’ (Jerome, adv. Pelag. iii. 2).

‘In the Gospel which the Nazarenes are accustomed to read, that according to the Hebrews, there is put among the greatest crimes, he who shall have grieved the spirit of his brother’ (Jerome, in Ezech. 18:7).

‘In the Hebrew Gospel, too, we read of the Lord saying to the disciples, “And never,” said He, “rejoice, except when you have looked upon your brother in love.” ’ (Jerome, in Ephes. 5:3f.).

‘For those words have the same meaning with those others, “He that seeketh shall not stop until he find, and when he hath found he shall wonder, and when he hath wondered he shall reign, and when he hath reigned he shall rest” ’ (Clem. of Alex. Strom, ii. 9. 45).

‘And if any one goes to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, there the Saviour Himself saith: “Just now my mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great mountain Tabor” ’ (Origen, in Joan. vol. ii. 6).

‘It is written in a certain Gospel, the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, if any one likes to take it up not as having any authority but to shed light on the matter in hand: “The other,” it says, “of the rich men said unto Him, Master, by doing what good thing shall I have life? He said to him, Man, do the Law and the Prophets. He answered unto him, I have. He said to him, Go, eell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor, and come, follow Me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him, How sayest thou, I have done the Law and the Prophets, since it is written in the Law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; and behold many brethren of thine, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying of hunger, and thy house is full of good things, and nothing at all goes out from it to them. And He turned and said to Simon His disciple, who was sitting by Him: Simon, son of John, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven” ’ ( Origen, in Mat. 15:14).

‘The Gospel which has come down to us in Hebrew characters gave the threat as made not against him who hid (his talent), but against him who lived riotously; for (the parable) told of three servants, one who devoured his lord’s substance with harlots and flute-girls, one who gained profit many fold, and one who hid his talent; and how in the issue one was accepted, one merely blamed, and one shut up in prison’ (Euseb. Theoph. xxii.).

2. The Gospel of the Egyptians.—This Gospel is mentioned in the last quarter of the 2nd cent. by Clement of Alexandria, by whom it was regarded as apparently of some historical worth, but not of the same grade as our four Gospels. Origen in his Commentary on Luke mentions it among those to which the Evangelist referred, but does not regard it as inspired. Hippolytus says that it was used by an otherwise unknown Gnostic sect known as Naassenes. It was also apparently known to the writer of 2 Clement (ch. xii.).

The origin of the Gospel is altogether a matter of conjecture. Its name would seem to indicate that it circulated in Egypt, possibly among the Egyptian as distinguished from the Hebrew Christians. The probability that it represents the original Evangelic tradition is not as strong as in the case of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. At least by the end of the 2nd cent. it was regarded as possessed of heretical tendencies, particularly those of the Encratites, who were opposed to marriage. It is not impossible, however, that the Gospel of the Egyptians contained the original tradition, but in form sufficiently variant to admit of manipulation by groups of heretics.

The most important sayings of Jesus which have come down from this Gospel are from the conversation of Jesus with Salome, given by Clement of Alexandria.

‘When Salome asked how long death should have power, the Lord ( not meaning that life is evil and the creation bad) said. “As long as you women bear” ’(Strom. iii. 64. 5).

‘And those who opposed the creation of God through shameful abstinence allege also those words spoken to Salome whereof we made mention above. And they are contained, I think, in the Gospel according to the Egyptians. For they said that the Saviour Himself said, “I came to destroy the works of the female,”—the female being lust, and the works birth and corruption’ (Strom, iii. 9. 63).

‘And why do not they who walk any way rather than by the Gospel rule of truth adduce the rest also of the words spoken to Salome? For when she said, “Therefore have I done well in that I have not brought forth,” as if it were not fitting to accept motherhood, the Lord replies, saying, “Eat every herb, but that which hath bitterness eat not” ’ (ib.).

‘Therefore Casaian says: “When Salome inquired when those things should be concerning which she asked, the Lord said, When ye trample on the garment of shame, and when the two shall be one, and the male with the female, neither male nor female” ’ (Strom. iii. 13. 92).

3. The Gospel according to Peter.—This Gospel is mentioned by Eusebius (HE vi. 12) as having been rejected by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in the last decade of the 2nd century. He found it in circulation among the Syrian Christians, and at first did not oppose it, but after having studied it further, condemned it as Docetic. Origen in his Commentary on Matthew (Book x. 17, and occasionally elsewhere) mentions it, or at least shows an acquaintance with it. Eusebius (HE iii.

3, 25) rejects it as heretical, as does Jerome (de Vir. Illus. i.).

In 1886 a fragment of this Gospel was discovered by M. Bouriant, and published with a trans. in 1892. It relates in some detail the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. It is particularly interesting as indicating how canonical material could be elaborated and changed in the interests of the Docetic heresy. Thus the words of Jesus on the cross, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ are made to read, ‘My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me.’ At the time of the resurrection the soldiers are said to have seen how ‘three men cams forth from the tomb, and two of them supported one, and the cross followed them; and of the two the head reached unto the heavens, but the head of him that was led by them overpassed the heavens; and they heard a voice from the heavens saying, “Thou hast preached unto them that sleep.” And a response was heard from the cross, “Yea.” ’

4. The Gospel of Nicodemus.—This Gospel embodies the so-called Acts of Pilate, an alleged official report of the procurator to Tiberius concerning Jesus. Tertullian (Apol. v. 2) was apparently acquainted with such a report, and some similar document was known to Eusebius (HE ii. 2) and to Epiphanius (Hær. i. 1) ; but the Acts of Pilate known to Eusebius was probably still another and heathen writing. Tischendorf held that the Acts of Pilate was known to Justin; but that is doubtful.

Our present Gospel of Nicodemus, embodying this alleged report of Pilate, was not itself written until the 5th cent., and therefore is of small historical importance except as it may be regarded as embodying older (but untrustworthy) material. As it now stands it gives an elaborate account of the trial of Jesus, His descent to Hades, resurrection, and ascension. Altogether it contains twenty-seven chapters, each one of which is marked by the general tendency to elaborate the Gospel accounts for homiletic purposes. Beyond its exposition of Jesus’ descent into Hades it contains little of doctrinal importance. It is not improbable, however, that chs. 17–27, which narrate this alleged event, are later than chs. 1–16. The Gospel may none the less fairly be said to represent the belief in this visit of Jesus to departed spirits which marked the early and mediæval Church. It is also in harmony with the ante-Auselmic doctrine of the Atonement, in accordance with which Jesus gave Himself a ransom to Satan.

The first sixteen chapters abound in anecdotes concerning Jesus and His trial, in which the question of the legitimacy of Jesus’ birth is established by twelve witnesses of the marriage of Mary and Joseph. It relates also that at the trial of Jesus a number of persons, including Nicodemus and Veronica, appeared to testify in His behalf. The accounts of the crucifixion are clearly based upon Lk 23. The story of the burial is further elaborated by the introduction of a number of Biblical characters, who undertake to prove the genuineness of the resurrection.

Although the Gospel of Nicodemus was of a nature to acquire great popularity, and has had a profound influence upon the various poetical and homiletic presentations of the events supposed to have taken place between the death and resurrection of Jesus, and although the Acts of Pilate has been treated more seriously than the evidence in its favour warrants, the Gospel is obviously of the class of Jewish Haggadah or legend. It is thus one form of the literature dealing with martyrs, and apparently never was used as possessing serious historical or doctrinal authority until the 13th century.

5. The Protevangelium of James.—This book in its present form was used by Epiphanius in the latter part of the 4th cent., if not by others of the Church Fathers.

It is not improbable that it was referred to by Origen under the name of the Book of James. As Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr both referred to incidents connected with the birth of Jesus which are related in the Protevangelium, it is not impossible that the writing circulated in the middle of the 2nd century.

The Protevangelium purports to be an account of the birth of Mary and of her early life in the Temple, whither she was brought by her parents when she was three years of age, and where at twelve years of age she was married to Joseph, then an old man with children. It includes also an account of the Annunciation and the visit of Mary to Elisabeth, of the trial by ordeal of Joseph and Mary on the charge of having been secretly married, of the birth of Jesus in a cave, and accompanying miracles of the most extravagant sort. The writing closes with an account of the martyrdom of Zacharias and the death of Herod.

It is probable that the chapters dealing with the birth of Jesus are of independent origin from the others, although it is not improbable that even the remainder of the Protevangelium is a composite work, probably of the Jewish Christians, which has been edited in the interests of Gnosticism. The original cannot well be later than the middle of the 2nd cent., while the Gnostic revision was probably a century later.

From the critical point of view the Protevangelium is important as testifying to insistence in the middle of the 2nd cent. upon the miraculous birth of Jesus. It is also of interest as lying behind the two Latin Gospels of pseudo-Matthew and the Nativity of Jesus; although it may be fairly questioned whether these two later Gospels are derived directly from the Protevangelium or from its source.

6. The Gospel according to Thomas.—Hippolytus quotes from a Gospel according to Thomas which was being used by the Naassenes. The Gospel was also known to Origen and to Eusebius, who classes it with the heretical writings. It was subsequently held in high regard by the Manichæans. It exists to-day in Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions, which, however, do not altogether agree, and all of which are apparently abbreviated recensions of the original Gospel.

The Gospel of Thomas is an account of the childhood of Jesus, and consists largely of stories of His miraculous power and knowledge, the most interesting of the latter being the account of Jesus’ visit to school, and of the former, the wellknown story of His causing twelve sparrows of clay to fly.

The book is undoubtedly of Gnostic origin, and its chief motive seems to be to show that Jesus was possessed of Divine power before His baptism. The original Gospel of Thomas, the nature of which is, however, very much in dispute, may have been in existence in the middle of the 2nd century. Its present form is later than the 6th century.

7. The Arabic Gospel of the Childhood of Jesus.—The Arabic Gospel is a translation of a Syriac compilation of stories concerning the child Jesus. Its earlier sections are apparently derived from the Protevangelium, and its later from the Gospel of Thomas.

This Gospel supplies still further stories concerning the infancy of Jesus, and begins by declaring that Jesus, as He was lying in His cradle, said to Mary, ‘I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth.’ The miracles which it narrates are probably the most fantastic of all in the Gospels of the infancy of Jesus. From the fact that it uses other apocryphal Gospels, it can hardly have been written prior to the 7th or 8th century.

8. The Gospel of Philip.—The only clear allusion to the existence of such a book is a reference in Pistis Sophia. From this it might be inferred that from the 3rd cent. such a Gospel circulated among the Gnostics in Egypt. It is of even less historical value than the Protevangelium.

9. The Arabic History of Joseph the Carpenter.—This Gospel undertakes to explain the non-appearance of Joseph in the account of the canonical Gospels. It describes in detail Joseph’s death and burial, as well as the lamentation and eulogy spoken over him by Jesus. It is at some points parallel with the Protevangelium, but carries the miraculous element of the birth a step farther, in that it makes Jesus say of Mary, ‘I chose her of my own will, with the concurrence of my Father and the counsel of the Holy Spirit.’ Such a formulary points to the 4th cent. as the time of composition, but it could hardly have been written later than the 5th cent., as Jesus is said to have promised Mary the same sort of death as other mortals suffer. The work is probably a re-working of Jewish-Christian material, and is not strongly marked by Gnostic qualities.

10. The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.—This Gospel is identified by Jerome with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. This, however, is probably a mistake on his part. The Gospel comes down to us only in quotations in Epiphanius ( Hær. XXX. 13–16, 22). To judge from these quotations, it was a re-writing of the canonical Gospels in the interest of some sect of Christians opposed to sacrifice. Jesus is represented as saying, ‘I come to put an end to sacrifices, and unless ye cease from sacrificing, anger will not cease from you.’ The same motive appears in its re-writing of Lk 22:15, where the saying of Jesus is turned into a question requiring a negative answer. If these fragments given by Epiphanius are from a Gospel also mentioned by Origen, it is probable that it dates from the early part of the 3rd century.

11. The Passing of Mary.—This Gospel has come to us in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, and Ethiopic versions. It contains a highly imaginative account of the death of Mary, to whose deathbed the Holy Spirit miraculously brings various Apostles from different parts of the world, as well as some of them from their tombs. The account abounds in miracles of the most irrational sort, and it finally culminates in the removal of Mary’s ‘spotless and precious body’ to Paradise. The work is evidently based on various apocryphal writings, including the Protevangelium, and could not well have come into existence before the rise of the worship of the Virgin in the latter part of the 4th century. It has had a large influence on Roman Catholic thought and art.

12. In addition to these Gospels there is a considerable number known to us practically only by name:—

(a) The Gospel according to Matthias (or pseudo-Matthew).—Mentioned by Origen as a heretical writing, and possibly quoted by Clement of Alexandria, who speaks of the ‘traditions of Matthias.’ If these are the same as the ‘Gospel according to Matthias,’ we could conclude that it was known in the latter part of the 2nd cent., and was, on the whole, of a Gnostic cast.

(b) The Gospel according to Basilides.—Basilides was a Gnostic who lived about the middle of the 2nd cent., and is said by Origen to have had the audacity to write a Gospel. The Gospel is mentioned by Ambrose and Jerome, probably on the authority of Origen. Little is known of the writing, and it is possible that Origen mistook the commentary of Basilides on ‘the Gospel’ for a Gospel. It is, however, not in the least improbable that Basilides, as the founder of a school, re-worked the canonical Gospels, something after the fashion of Tatian, into a continuous narrative containing sayings of the canonical Gospels favourable to Gnostic tenets.

(d) The Gospel of Apelles.—Probably a re-writing of some canonical Gospel. According to Epiphanius, the work contained the saying of Jesus, ‘Be approved money-changers.’

(e) The Gospel of Barnabas.—Mentioned in the Gelasian Decree. A mediæval (or Renaissance) work of same title has lately been published (see Exp. T. xix. [1908], p. 263 ff.).

(f) The Gospel of Bartholomew.—Mentioned in the Gelasian Decree and in Jerome, but otherwise unknown.

(g) The Gospel of Cerinthus.—Mentioned by Epiphanius.

(h) The Gospel of Eve.—Also mentioned by Epiphanius asin use among the Borborites, an Ophite sect of the Gnostics.

(i) The Gospel of Judas Iscariot, used by a sect of the Gnostics—the Cainites.

(j) The Gospel of Thaddæus.—Mentioned in the Gelasian Decree, but otherwise unknown.

(k) The Gospel of Valentinus.—Used among the followers of that arch-heretic, and mentioned by Tertullian.

(l) The Fayyum Gospel Fragment.—It contains the words of Christ to Peter at the Last Supper, but in a different form from that of the canonical Gospels.

(m) The Logia, found by Grenfell and Hunt at Oxyrhynchus, contains a few sayings, some like and some unlike the canonical Gospels. Possibly derived from the Gospel of the Egyptians.

(n) The Descent of Mary.—Quoted by Epiphanius, and of the nature of a Gnostic anti-Jewish romance.

(o) The Gospel of Zacharias.—Subsequently incorporated into the Protevangelium.

Other Gospels were doubtless in existence between the 2nd and 6th centuries, as it seems to have been customary for all the heretical sects, particularly Gnostics, to write Gospels as a support for their peculiar views. The oldest and most interesting of these was—

(p) The so-called Gospel of Marcion, which, although lost, we know as a probable re-working of Luke by the omission of the Infancy section and other material that in any way favoured the Jewish-Christian conceptions which Marcion opposed. This Gospel can be largely reconstructed from quotations given by Tertullian and others. The importance of the Gospel of Marcion as thus reconstructed is considerable for the criticism of our Third Gospel.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

GOTHOLIAS (1 Es 8:33).—Father of Jesalas, who returned with Ezra; called in Ezr 8:7 Athaliah, which was thus both a male and a female name (2 K 11:1).

GOTHONIEL.—The father of Chabris, one of the rulers of Bethulia ( Jth

6:15).

GOURD (kīkāyōn, Jon 4:5).—The similarity of the Heb. to the Egyp. kiki, the castor-oil plant, suggests this as Jonah’s gourd. This plant, Ricinus communis, often attains in the East the dimensions of a considerable tree. The bottle-gourd, Cucurbita lagenaria, which is often trained over hastily constructed booths, seems to satisfy the conditions of the narrative much better.

Wild gourds (pakkū‘ōth, 2 K 4:39) were either the common squirtingcucumber (Ecballium elalerium), one of the most drastic of known cathartics, or, more probably, the colocynth (Citrullus colocynlhis), a trailing vine-like plant with rounded gourds, intensely bitter to the taste and an irritant poison.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GOVERNMENT.—The purpose of this article will be to sketch in outline the forms of government among the Hebrews at successive periods of their history. The indications are in many cases vague, and it is impossible to reconstruct the complete system; at no period was there a definitely conceived, still less a written, constitution in the modern sense. For fuller details reference should be made throughout to the separate articles on the officials, etc., mentioned.

We may at once set aside Legislation, one of the most important departments of government as now understood. In ancient communities, law rested on Divine command and immemorial custom, and could as a rule be altered only by ‘fictions.’ The idea of avowedly new legislation to meet fresh circumstances was foreign to early modes of thought. At no period do we find a legislative body in the Bible. Grote’s dictum that ‘The human king on earth is not a lawmaker, but a judge,’ applies to all the Biblical forms of government. The main functions of government were judicial, military, and at later periods financial, and to a limited extent administrative.

1. During the nomadic or patriarchal age the unit is the family or clan, and, for certain purposes, the tribe. The head of the house, owing to his position and experience, was the supreme ruler and judge, in fact the only permanent official. He had undisputed authority within his family group (Gn 22, 38:24, Dt 21:13, Jg 11:34). Heads of families make agreements with one another and settle quarrels among their dependents (Gn 21:22, 31:45); the only sanction to which they can appeal is the Divine justice which ‘watches’ between them (31:49, 53, 49:7). Their hold over the individual lay in the fact that to disobey was to become an outlaw; and to be an outcast from the tribe was to be without protector or avenger. The heads of families combined form, in a somewhat more advanced stage, the ‘elders’ (Ex 3:15, 18:21, Nu 22:7); and sometimes, particularly in time of war, there is a single chief for the whole tribe. Moses is an extreme instance of this, and we can see that his position was felt to be unusual (Ex 2:14, 4:1, Nu 16). It was undefined, and rested on his personal influence, backed by the Divine sanction, which, as his followers realized, had marked him out. This enables him to nominate Joshua as his successor.

2. The period of the ‘Judges’ marks a higher stage; at the same time, as a period of transition it appeared rightly to later generations as a time of lawlessness. The name ‘Judges,’ though including the notion of champion or deliverer, points to the fact that their chief function was judicial. The position was not hereditary, thus differing from that of king (Jg 9 ff. Gideon and Abimelech), though Samuel is able to delegate his authority to his sons (1 S 8:1). Their status was gained by personal exploits, implying Divine sanction, which was sometimes expressed in other ways; e.g. gift of prophecy (Deborah, Samuel). Their power rested on the moral authority of the strong man, and, though sometimes extending over several tribes, was probably never national. During this period the nomadic tribe gives way to the local; ties of place are more important than ties of birth. A town holds together its neighbouring villages (‘daughters’), as able to give them protection (Nu 21:25, 32 , Jos 17:11). The elders become the ‘elders of the city’; Jg 8:6, 14, 18 mentions officials (sārīm) and elders of Succoth, i.e. heads of the leading families, responsible for its government. In 11:5 the elders of Gilead have power in an emergency to appoint a leader from outside.

3. The Monarchy came into being mainly under the pressure of Philistine invasion. The king was a centre of unity, the leader of the nation in war, and a judge (1 S 8:20). His power rested largely on a personal basis. As long as he was successful and strong, and retained the allegiance of his immediate followers, his will was absolute (David, Ahab, Jehu; cf. Jer 36, 37). At the same time there were elements which prevented the Jewish monarchy from developing the worst features of an Oriental despotism. At least at first the people bad a voice in his election (David, Rehoboam). In Judah the hereditary principle prevailed (there were no rival tribes to cause jealousy, and David’s line was the centre of the national hopes), but the people still had influence (2 K 14:21, 21:24). In the Northern Kingdom the position of the reigning house was always insecure, and the ultimate penalty of misgovernment was the rise of a new dynasty. A more important check was found in the religious control, democratic in its best sense, exercised by the prophets (Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, etc.). The Jewish king had at least to hear the truth, and was never allowed to believe that he was indeed a god on earth. At the same time there is no constitutional check on misrule; the ‘law of the kingdom’ in Dt 17:14 deals rather with moral and religious requirements, as no doubt did Jehoiada’s covenant (2 K 11:17). With the kingdom came the establishment of a standing army, David’s ‘mighty men’ quickly developing into the more organized forces of Solomon’s and later times. The command of the forces was essential to the king’s power; cf. insurrection of Jehu ‘the captain’ (2 K 9), and Jehoiada’s care to get control of the army (11:4). Side by side with the power of the sword came the growth of a court, with its harem and luxurious entourage, its palace and its throne. These were visible symbols of the royal

power, impressing the popular mind. The lists of officers (2 S 8:16, 1 K 4) are significant; they indicate the growth of the king’s authority, and the development of relations with other States. The real power of government has passed into the hands of the king’s clientète. His servants hold office at his pleasure, and, provided they retain his favour, there is little to limit their power. They may at times show independence of spirit (1 S 22:17, Jer 36:25), but are usually his ready tools (2 S 11:14; cf. the old and the young counsellors of Rehoboam, 1 K 12:6ff.). The prophetic pictures of the court and its administration are not favourable (Am 3:8 , 4:1, 6, Is 5 etc.). The methods of raising revenue were undefined, and being undefined were oppressive. We hear of gifts and tribute (1 S 10:27, 2 S 8:10, 1 K 4:7, 21–28, 10:11–25), of tolls and royal monopolies (10:15, 28, 29), of forced labour (5:13) and of the ‘king’s mowings’ (Am 7:1), of confiscation (1 K 21), and. in an emergency, of stripping the Temple (2 K 18:15). In time of peace the main function of the king is the administration of justice (2 S 15:2, 2 K 15:5); his subjects have the right of direct access (2 K 8:8). This must have lessened the power of the local elders, who no doubt had also to yield to the central court officials. ‘The elders of the city’ appear during this period as a local authority, sometimes respected and consulted (2 S 19:11, 1 K 20:7, 2 K 23:1), sometimes the obedient agents of the king’s will (1 K 21:8, 11, 2 K 10:1, 5). 2 Ch 19:5–11 describes a judicial system organized by Jehoshaphat, which agrees in its main features with that implied by Dt 16:18, 17:8–13; there are local courts, with a central tribunal. In Dt. the elders appear mainly as judicial authorities, but have the power of executing their decisions (19:12, 21, 22:15 etc.). The influence of the priesthood in this connexion should be noticed. The administration of justice always included a Divine element (Ex 18:15, 19, 21:6, 22:8; cf. word ‘Torah’), and in the Deuteronomic code the priests appear side by side with the lay element in the central court (17:9, 19:17; cf. Is 28:7, Ezk 44:24 etc.). But the government is not yet theocratic. Jehoiada relies on his personal influence and acts in concert with the chiefs of the army (2 K 11, 12), and even after the Exile Joshua is only the fellow of Zerubbabel. The appointment of Levites as judges, ascribed to David in 1 Ch 23:4, 26:29, is no doubt an anachronism. Cf. also art. JUSTICE (II.).

4. Post-exilic period.—Under the Persians Judah was a subdistrict of the great province west of the Euphrates and subject to its governor (Ezr 5:3). It had also its local governor (Neh 5:14), with a measure of local independence (Ezr 10:14); we read, too, of a special official ‘at the king’s hand in all matters concerning the people’ (Neh 11:24). The elders are prominent during this period both in exile ( Ezk 8:1, 14:1, 20:1) and in Judah (Ezr 5:9, 6:7, 10:8, Neh 2:16). The chief feature of the subsequent period was the development of the priestly power, and the rise to importance of the office of the high priest. Under Greek rule (after B.C. 333) the Jews were to a great extent allowed the privileges of self-government. The ‘elders’ develop into a gerousia or senate—an aristocracy comprising the secular nobility and the priesthood (1 Mac 12:6, 14:20); it is not known when the name ‘Sanhedrin’ was first used. The high priest became the head of the State, and its official representative, his political power receiving a great development under the Hasmonæans. Owing to the growing importance of the office, the Seleucids always claimed the power of appointment. In B.C. 142, Simon is declared to be ‘high priest, captain, and governor for ever’ (1 Mac 14:27–47). The title ‘ethnarch’ ( see GOVERNOR) is used of him and other high priests. Aristobulus becomes king

(B.C. 105), and Alexander Jannæus uses the title on coins (B.C. 104–78). Under Roman rule (B.C. 63) the situation becomes complicated by the rise to power of the Herodian dynasty. Palestine passed through the varying forms of government known to the Roman Imperial constitution. Herod the Great was its titular king, with considerable independence subject to good behaviour (rex socius). Archelaus forfeited his position (A.D. 6). Thenceforward Judæa was under the direct rule of a procurator (see next article), except from A.D. 41 to 44, when Agrippa I. was king. Antipas was ‘tetrarch’ of Galilee and Peræa; Mark’s title of ‘king’ (6:14) is corrected by Matthew and Luke. The position was less honourable and less independent than that of king. The high priest (now appointed by the Romans) and the Sanhedrin regained the power which they had lost under Herod; the government became once more an aristocracy (Jos. Ant. XX. x.). Except for the power of life and death the Sanhedrin held the supreme judicial authority; there were also local courts connected with the Synagogue (Mt 5:22). Its moral authority extended to Jews outside Palestine. In the Diaspora, the Jews, tenacious of their national peculiarities, were in many cases allowed a large measure of selfgovernment, particularly in judicial matters. In Alexandria, in particular, they had special privileges and an ‘ethnarch’ of their own (Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2). For the cities of Asia Minor, see Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, chs. xi. xii.

For ‘governments’ (1 Co 12:28) see HELPS.

C. W. EMMET.

GOVERNOR.—This word represents various Heb. and Gr. words, technical and non-technical. In Gn 42:6 (Joseph, cf. 41:40) it is probably the Ta-te, the second after the king in the court of the palace; cf. 1 K 18:3, Dn 2:48 for similar offices. It frequently represents an Assyr. word, pechah, used of Persian satraps in general (Est 3:12, 8:8), and of Assyrian generals (2 K 18:24, cf. 1 K 20:24). It is applied particularly to Tattenai, the governor of the large Persian province of which Judæa was a sub-district (Ezr 5:3, 6:6 etc., cf. Neh 2:7). It is also, like tirshatha (wh. see), applied to the subordinate governor of Judæa (Ezr 5:14 [Sheshbazzar] 6:7 [Nehemiah], Hag 1:1, 14 [Zerubbabel]). The first passage shows that the subordinate pechah was directly appointed by the king.

In the NT the word usually represents Gr. hēgemōn, and is used of Pontius Pilate (Lk 3:1 etc.), of Felix (Ac 23:26), and of Festus (26:30). The proper title of these governors was ‘procurator’ (Tac. Ann. xv. 44), of which originally eparchos and then epitropos were the Gr. equivalents. Josephus, however, uses hēgemōn, as well as these words, for the governor of Judæa, so that there is no inaccuracy in its employment by NT writers. But, being a general word, it does not help us to decide the nature of the ‘governorship’ of Quirinius (Lk 2:2). The procurator, originally a financial official, was appointed directly by the Emperor to govern provinces, such as Thrace, Cappadocia, and Judæa, which were in a transitional state, being no longer ruled by subject kings, but not yet fully Romanized, and requiring special treatment. The procurator was in a sense subordinate to the legate of the neighbouring ‘province,’ e.g. Cappadocia to Galatia, Judæa to Syria; but except in emergencies he had full authority, military, judicial, and financial. In 1 P 2:14 the word is specially appropriate to any provincial governor, as ‘sent’ by the Emperor. In 2 Co 11:32 it represents ‘ethnarch,’ a word apparently used originally of the ruler of a nation (ethnos) living with laws of its own in a foreign community; but as applied to Aretas it may mean no more than petty king. In Gal 4:2 it means

‘steward’ (RV), the ‘tutor’ controlling the ward’s person, the steward his property (Lightfoot, ad loc.). In Ja 3:4 RV has ‘steersman.’ The ‘governor of the feast’ ( Jn 2:8, RV ‘ruler’) was probably a guest, not a servant, chosen to control and arrange for the feast; It is doubtful whether he is to be identified with the ‘friend of the bridegroom’ or best man.

C. W. EMMET.

GOZAN.—One of the places to which Israelites were deported by the king of

Assyria on the capture of Samaria (2 K 17:6, 18:11, 1 Ch 5:26; mentioned also in 2 K 19:12, Is 37:12). Gozan was the district termed Guzanu by the Assyrians and Gauzanitis by Ptolemy, and it was situated on the Khābūr.

L. W. KING.

GRACE (from Lat. gratia [= favour,—either received from or shown to another], through the Fr. grace).—Of the three meanings assigned to this word in the Eng. Dict.—(1) ‘pleasingness,’ (2) ‘favour,’ (3) ‘thanks’ (the sense of favour received)—(1) and (2) belong to the Eng. Bible; (3) attaches to the equivalent Gr. charis, where it is rendered ‘thank(s)’ or ‘thankfulness’ (He 12:28 RVm.). The specific Biblical use of ‘grace’ comes under the second of the above significations; it is prominent in the NT. The OT usage requires no separate treatment. (2) is the primary meaning of the Hebrew original, rendered ‘favour’ almost as often as ‘grace’; but (1) of the Greek charis, which at its root signified the gladdening, joybringing. Hence the correspondence between the common Greek salutation chaire (te) or chairein (‘Joy to you!’) and the Christian charis (‘Grace to you!’) is more than a verbal coincidence.

1. Of the sense charm, winsomeness (of person, bearing, speech, etc.)—a usage conspicuous in common Greek, and personified in the Charites, the three Graces of mythology—the prominent instances in the OT are Ps 45:2 (‘Grace is poured on thy lips’) and probably Zec 4:7; add to these Pr 1:9, 3:22, 4:9, 22:11, 31:30 (‘favour’). The same noun occurs in the Heb. of Pr 5:10, 11:16, and Ec 10:12, Pr

17:8, under the adjectival renderings ‘pleasant,’ ‘gracious,’ ‘precious,’ and in Nah

3:4 (‘well-favoured’). For the NT, ‘grace’ is charm in Lk 4:22, Col 4:8; in Eph 4:28 there may be a play on the double sense of the word. Charm of speech is designated by charis in Sir 20:18, 21:10, 37:21, in the Apocrypha. in Ja 1:11 ‘grace of the fashion’ renders a single Greek word signifying ‘fair-seemingness,’ quite distinct from charis.

2. The OT passages coming under (2) above, employ ‘grace’ chiefly in the idiom ‘to find grace (or favour),’ which is used indifferently of favour in the eyes of J″ (Gn 6:8) or of one’s fellow-men (39:4), and whether the finder bring good (39:4) or ill (19:19) desert to the quest. With this broad application, ‘grace’ means good-will, favourable inclination towards another—of the superior ( king, benefactor, etc.) or one treated as such by courtesy, to the inferior—shown on whatever ground. In the Eng. NT, ‘favour’ is reserved for this wide sense of charis; see Lk 1:30, 2:52, Ac 2:47, 7:10, 46, 25:3: ‘grace’ has the same meaning in Lk 2:40, Ac 4:33, Zec 12:10 is the one instance in which ‘grace’ in the OT approximates to its prevalent NT import; but the Heb. adj. for gracious, and the equivalent vb., are together used of J″, in His attitude towards the sinful, more than twenty times, associated often with ‘merciful,’ etc.; see. e.g., Ex 33:19, 34:6, Ps 77:9, 103:8, Jl 2:13, Jon 4:2. The character in God which the OT prefers to express by mercy, signifying His pitiful disposition towards man as weak and wretched, the NT in effect translates into ‘grace,’ as signifying His forgiving disposition towards man as guilty and lost.

3. Christianity first made grace a leading term in the vocabulary of religion. The prominence and emphasis of its use are due to St. Paul, in whose Epp. the word figures twice as often as in all the NT besides. ‘Grace’ is the first word of greeting and the last of farewell in St. Paul’s letters; for him it includes the sum of all blessing that comes from God through Christ: ‘grace’ the source, ‘peace’ the stream. In the Gospels, the Johannine Prologue (vv. 14–17: contrasted with ‘law,’ and co-extensive with ‘truth’) supplies the only example of ‘grace’ used with the Pauline fulness of meaning. This passage, and the Lukan examples in Acts (6:3 ,

11:23, 13:43, 14:8, 15:11, 20:24, 32), with the kindred uses in Hebrews, 1 and 2 Pet., Jude, 2 Jn., Rev., may be set down to the influence of Paulinism on Apostolic speech. There is little in earlier phraseology to explain the supremacy in the NT of this specific term; a new experience demanded a new name. ‘Grace’ designates the principle in God of man’s salvation through Jesus Christ. It is God’s unmerited, unconstrained love towards sinners, revealed and operative in Christ. Tit 2:11–14 , interpreted by Ro 5:1–6:23, is the text which approaches nearest to a definition; this passage shows how St. Paul derived from God’s grace not only the soul’s reconciliation and new hopes in Christ (Ro 5:1–11), but the whole moral uplifting and rehabilitation of human life through Christianity. St. Paul’s experience in conversion gave him this watchword; the Divine goodness revealed itself to the ‘chief of sinners’ under the aspect of ‘grace’ (1 Co 15:9f., 1 Ti 1:13–16). The spontaneity and generosity of God’s love felt in the act of his salvation, the complete setting aside therein of everything legal and conventional (with, possibly, the added connotation of charm of which charis is redolent), marked out this word as describing what St. Paul had proved of Christ’s redemption; under this name he could commend it to the world of sinful men; his ministry ‘testifies the gospel of the grace of God’ (Ac 20:24). Essentially, grace stands opposed to sin; it is God’s way of meeting and conquering man’s sin (Ro 5:20f., 6:1ff., 15ff.): He thus effects ‘the impossible task of the Law’ (Ro 7:7–8:4). The legal discipline had taught St. Paul to understand, by contrast, the value and the operation of the principle of grace; he was able to handle it with effect in the legalist controversy. Grace supplies, in his theology, the one and sufficient means of deliverance from sin, holding objectively the place which faith holds subjectively in man’s salvation (Eph 2:8, Tit 2:11). Formally, and in point of method, grace stands opposed to ‘the law,’ ‘which worketh wrath’ (Ro 3:19–26, 4:15, Gal 2:15–21, 5:4); it supersedes the futile ‘works’ by which the Jew had hoped, in fulfilling the Law, to merit salvation (Ro 4:2–8, 11:6, Gal 2:16–20, Eph 2:8f.). Grace excludes, therefore, all notion of ‘debt’ as owing from God to men, all thought of earning the Messianic blessings (Ro 4:4) by establishing ‘a righteousness of one’s own’ (Ro 10:3) ; through it men are ‘justified gratis’ (Ro 3:24) and ‘receive the gift of righteousness’ (5:17). In twenty-two instances St. Paul writes of ‘the grace of God’ (or ‘his grace’); In fifteen, of ‘the grace of Christ’ (‘the Lord Jesus Christ,’ etc.). Ten of the latter examples belong to salutation-formulæ (so in Rev 22:21), the fullest of these being 2 Co 13:14, where ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ’ is referred to ‘the love of God’ as its fountain-head; In the remaining five detached instances the context dictates the combination ‘grace of Christ’ (‘our Lord,’ etc.),—Ro 5:15, 2 Co 8:9, 12:9, Gal 1:6, 1 Ti 1:14 (also in 2 P 3:16). In other NT writings the complement is predominantly ‘of God’; 1 P 5:10 inverts the expression—‘the God of all grace.’ Once—in 2 Th 1:12—grace is referred conjointly to God and Christ. Christ is the expression and vehicle of the grace of the Father, and is completely identified with it (see Jn 1:14, 17), so that God’s grace can equally be called Christ’s; but its reference to the latter is strictly personal in such a passage as 2 Co 8:9. A real distinction is implied in the remarkable language of Ro 5:15, where, after positing ‘the grace of God’ as the fundamental ground of redemption, St. Paul adds to this ‘the gift in grace, viz. the grace of the one man Jesus Christ,’ who is the counterpart of the sinful and baleful Adam: the generous bounty of the Man towards men, shown by Jesus Christ, served an essential part in human redemption.

Cognate to charis, and charged in various ways with its meaning, is the vb. rendered (RV) to grant in Ac 27:24, Gal 3:18, Ph 1:29, Philem 22, give in Ph 2:9 , freely give in Ro 8:32, 1 Co 2:12, and (with ‘wrong’ or ‘debt’ for object, expressed or implied) forgive in Lk 7:42f., 2 Co 2:7, 10, 12:13, Eph 4:32, Col 2:13, 3:18.

There are two occasional secondary uses of ‘grace,’ derived from the above, in the Pauline Epp.: it may denote (a) a gracious endowment or bestowment, God’s grace to men taking shape in some concrete ministry (so Eph 4:7, in view of the following context, and perhaps Gal 2:9; cf. Ac 7:10)—for charis in this sense charisma (charism) is St. Paul’s regular term, as in 1 Co 12:4 etc.; and (b) a state of grace, God’s grace realized by the recipient (Ro 5:2, 2 Ti 2:1).

G. G. FINDLAY.

GRACIOUS.—This Eng. adj. is now used only in an active sense = ‘bestowing grace,’ ‘showing favour.’ And this is its most frequent use in AV, as Ex 33:19 ‘And [I] will be gracious to whom I will be gracious.’ But it was formerly used passively also = ‘favoured,’ ‘accepted,’ as 1 Es 8:20 ‘Yea, when we were in bondage, we were not forsaken of our Lord; but he made us gracious before the kings of Persia, so that they gave us food.’ And from this it came to signify ‘attractive,’ as Pr 11:16 ‘a gracious woman retaineth honour,’ lit. ‘a woman of grace,’ that is, of attractive appearance and manner; Lk 4:22 ‘the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth,’ lit., as RV, ‘words of grace,’ that is, says Plummer, ‘winning words’; he adds, ‘the very first meaning of charis is comeliness, winsomeness.’

GRAFTING.—In olive-culture grafting is universal. When the sapling is about seven years old it is cut down to the stem, and a shoot from a good tree is grafted upon it. Three years later it begins to bear fruit, its produce gradually increasing until about the fourteenth year. No tree under cultivation is allowed to grow ungrafted; the fruit in such case being inferior. Grafting is alluded to only once in Scripture (Ro 11:17 etc.). St. Paul compares the coming in of the Gentiles to the grafting of a wild olive branch upon a good olive tree: a process ‘contrary to nature.’ Nowack (Heb. Arch. i. 238) says that Columelia’s statement that olive trees are rejuvenated and strengthened in this way (see Comm. on Romans, by Principal Brown and Godet, ad loc.), is not confirmed. Sanday-Headlam say (ICC on ‘Romans,’ p. 328): ‘Grafts must necessarily be branches from a cultivated olive inserted into a wild stock, the reverse process being one which would be valueless, and is never performed.’ ‘The ungrafted tree,’ they say, ‘is the natural or wild olive,’ following Tristram, Nat. Hist. of the Bible, 371–377. Prof. Theobald Fischer inclines to view the olive and the wild olive as distinct species; in this agreeing with some modern botanists (Der Ölbaum, 4 f.), a contrary opinion being held by others (p. 5). Sir William Ramsay, Expositor, VI. ix. [1905], 154 ff., states grounds on which the oleaster (Eleagnus angustifotia) may be regarded as the plant intended. This is the type to which the cultivated olive tends to revert through centuries of neglect, as seen, e.g., in Cyrenaica. (Prof. Fischer does not admit this [Der Ölbaum, 69].) When grafted with a shoot of the nobler tree it gives rise to the true olive. But the two are clearly distinguished by size, shape, and colour of leaves and character of fruit.

No one could mistake the oleaster for the olive; but the case is not clear enough to justify Ramsay in calling the oleaster the wild olive (Expositor, ut supra, 152). Dr. W. M. Thomson, whose accuracy Ramsay commends, citing him in favour of his own view (ib. 154), is really a witness on the other side, quite plainly holding that the wild olive is the ungrafted tree (LB iii. 33 ff.); and this is the universal view among olive growers in modern Palestine. The fruit of the wild olive is acrid and harsh, containing little oil.

Prof. Fischer states that in Palestine it is still ‘customary to re-invigorate an olive tree which is ceasing to bear fruit, by grafting it with a shoot of wild olive, so that the sap of the tree ennobles this wild shoot, and the tree now again begins to bear fruit’ (Der Ölbaum, 9). He gives no authority. Ramsay accepts the statement without question (Expositor, ut supra, 19), and the value of his subsequent discussion rests upon the assumption of its truth. The assumption is precarious. The present writer can find no evidence that such an operation is ever performed. In response to inquiries made in the main olive-growing districts of Palestine, he is assured that it is never done; and that, for the purpose indicated, it would be perfectly futile.

Sanday-Headlam seem rightly to apprehend the Apostle’s meaning. It is not their view that St. Paul proves a spiritual process credible ‘because it resembles a process impossible in and contrary to external nature’ (Ramsay, ib. 26 f.). He exhorts the Gentiles to humility, because God in His goodness has done for them in the spiritual sphere a thing which they had no reason to expect, since it, according to Sanday-Headlam, never, according to Ramsay, very seldom, is done in the natural. The language of St. Paul is justified in either case: it might be all the more effective if the former were true. Mr. Baring Gould’s inference as to the Apostle’s ignorance only illustrates his own blindness (Study of St. Paul, p. 275). See also art. OLIVE.

W. EWING.

GRAPES.—See WINE AND STRONG DRINK.

GRASS.—(1) chatsīr—equivalent of Arab. khudra, which includes green vegetables; many references, e.g. 1 K 18:6, 2 K 19:26; tr. ‘hay’ in Pr 27:25, Is 15:6, and in Nu 11:5 ‘leeks’; refers to herbage in general. (2) deshe’ (Aram. dethe) , Jer 14:5, Pr 27:25, Job 38:27, Is 66:14 (‘pasture land’), Dn 4:15, 23 ( ‘tender grass’). (3) yereq, tr. ‘grass,’ Nu 22:4; see HERB. (4) ēseb, Dt 11:15, 32:2 etc., but tr. ‘herb’ in other places; see HERB. (5) chortos, Mt 6:30, Mk 6:39 etc. Pasturage, as it occurs in Western lands, is unknown in Palestine. Such green herbage appears only for a few weeks, and when the rains cease soon perishes. Hence grass is in the OT a frequent symbol of the shortness of human life (Ps 90:5–7, 103:15, Is 40:6 ; cf. 1 P 1:24). Even more brief is the existence of ‘the grass upon the [mud-made] housetops, which withereth afore it groweth up’ (Ps 129:6).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

GRASSHOPPER.—See LOCUST.

GRATE, GRATING.—See TABERNACLE, § 4 (a).

GRAVE.—See MOURNING CUSTOMS, TOMB.

GRAVEN IMAGE.—See IMAGES.

GRAY.—See COLOURS, § 1.

GREAT BIBLE.—See ENGLISH VERSIONS, § 22.

GREAT SEA.—See SEA.

GREAT SYNAGOGUE.—See SYNAGOGUE.

GREAVES.—See ARMOUR, § 2. (d).

GREECE represents in English the Latin word Græscia, which is derived from Grœci. This name Græci properly belonged only to a small tribe of Greeks, who lived in the north-west of Greece; but as this tribe was apparently the first to attract the attention of Rome, dwelling as it did on the other side of the Adriatic from Italy, the name came to be applied by the Romans to the whole race. The term Græcia, when used by Romans, is equivalent to the Greek name Hellas, which is still used by the Greeks to describe their own country. In ancient times Hellas was frequently used in a wide sense to include not only Greece proper, but every settlement of Greeks outside their own country as well. Thus a portion of the Crimea, much of the west coast of Asia Minor, settlements in Cyrene, Sicily, Gaul, and Spain, and above all the southern half of Italy, were parts of Hellas in this wide sense. Southern Italy was so studded with Greek settlements that it became known as Magna Græcia. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, who died 323 B.C., all the territory annexed by him, such as the greater part of Asia Minor, as well as Syria and Egypt, could he regarded as in a sense Hellas. Alexander was the chief agent in the spread of the Greek civilization, manners, language, and culture over these countries. The dynasties founded by his generals, the Seleucids and Ptolemys for example, continued his work, and when Rome began to interfere in Eastern politics about the beginning of the 2nd cent. B.C., the Greek language was already firmly established in the East. When, about three centuries after Alexander’s death, practically all his former dominions had become Roman provinces, Greek was the one language which could carry the traveller from the Euphrates to Spain. The Empire had two official languages, Latin for Italy and all provinces north, south-west, and west of it; Greek for all east and south-east of Italy. The Romans wisely made no attempt to force Latin on the Eastern peoples, and were content to let Greek remain in undisputed sway there. All their officials understood and spoke it. Thus it came about that Christianity was preached in Greek, that our NT books were written in Greek, and that the language of the Church, according to all the available evidence, remained Greek till about the middle of the 2nd cent. A.D.

As Galilee was thickly planted with Greek towns, there can be little doubt that Jesus knew the language, and spoke it when necessary, though it is probable that He commonly used Aramaic, as He came first to ‘the lost tribes of Israel.’ With St. Paul the case was different. Most of the Jews of the Dispersion were probably unable to speak Aramaic, and used the OT in the Greek translation. These would naturally be addressed in Greek. It is true that he spoke Aramaic on one occasion (Ac 21:40) at least, but this occasion was exceptional. It was a piece of tact on his part, to secure the respectful attention of his audience. Probably only the inhabitants of the villages in the Eastern Roman provinces were unable to speak Greek, and even they could doubtless understand it when spoken. The Jews were amongst the chief spreaders of the language. Some of the successors of Alexander esteemed them highly as colonists, and they were to be found in large numbers over the Roman Empire, speaking in the first instance Greek (cf. Ac 2:9). When they wrote books, they wrote them in Greek: Philo and Josephus are examples. It is not meant that Greek killed the native languages of the provinces: these had their purpose and subsisted.

The name Hellas occurs only once in the NT (Ac 20:2). There it is used in a narrow sense of the Greek peninsula, exclusive even of Macedonia: it is in fact used in the sense of Achaia (wh. see).

A. SOUTER.

GREEKS, GRECIANS.—Both these terms are used indifferently in AV of OT Apocr. to designate persons of Gr. extraction (1 Mac 1:10, 6:2, 8:9, 2 Mac 4:36 etc.). In NT the linguistic usage of EV makes a distinction between the terms ‘Greeks’ and ‘Grecians.’ ‘Greeks’ uniformly represents the word Hellēnēs, which may denote persons of Gr. descent in the narrowest sense (Ac 16:1, 18:4, Ro 1:14) , or may be a general designation for all who are not of Jewish extraction (Jn 12:20 , Ro 1:16, 10:12, Gal 3:28). ‘Grecians,’ on the other hand (Ac 6:1, 9:29), is AV tr. of Hellēnistai, which means Gr.-speaking Jews (RV ‘Grecian Jews’). See preced. art. and DISPERSION. An interesting question is that of the correct reading of Ac 11:20. Were those to whom the men of Cyprus and Cyrene preached, Grecians or Greeks? In other words, were they Jews or Gentiles? The weight of MS authority is in favour of ‘Grecians,’ but it is held by many that internal evidence necessitates ‘Greeks.’

GREEK VERSIONS OF OT

I. The Septuagint (LXX).—1. The Septuagint, or Version of the Seventy, has special characteristics which differentiate it strongly from all other versions of the Scriptures. Not only are its relations to the original Hebrew of the OT more difficult and obscure than those of any other version to its original, but, as the Greek OT of the Christian community from its earliest days, it has a special historical importance which no other version can claim, and only the Vulgate can approach. Its history, moreover, is very obscure, and its criticism bristles with difficulties, for the removal of which much work is still needed. The present article can aim only at stating the principal questions which arise in relation to it, and the provisional conclusions at which the leading students of the subject have arrived. 2. There is no doubt that the LXX originated in Alexandria, in the time of the Macedonian dynasty in Egypt. Greeks had been sporadically present in Egypt even before the conquest of the country by Alexander, and under the Ptolemys they increased and multiplied greatly. Hundreds of documents discovered in Egypt within the last few years testify to the presence of Greeks and the wide-spread knowledge of the Greek language from the days of Ptolemy Soter onwards. Among them, especially in Alexandria, were many Jews, to whom Greek became the language of daily life, while the knowledge of Aramaic, and still more of literary Hebrew, decayed among them. It was among such surroundings that the LXX came into existence. The principal authority on the subject of its origin is the Letter of Aristeas (edited by H. St. J. Thackeray in Swete’s Introduction to the OT in Greek [1900], and by P. Wendland in the Teubner series [1900]). This document, which purports to be written by a Greek official of high rank in the court of Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus, B.C. 285–247), describes how the king, at the suggestion of his librarian, Demetrius of Phalerum, resolved to obtain a Greek translation of the laws of the Jews for the library of Alexandria; how, at the instigation of Aristeas, he released the Jewish captives in his kingdom, to the number of some 100,000, paying the (absurdly small) sum of 20 drachmas apiece for them to their masters; how he then sent presents to Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem, and begged him to send six elders out of each tribe to translate the Law; how the 72 elders were sent, and magnificently entertained by Ptolemy, and were then set down to their work in the island of Pharos; and how in 72 days they completed the task assigned to them. The story is repeated by Josephus (Ant. XII. ii.) from Aristeas in a condensed form. In later times it received various accretions, increasing the miraculous character of the work; but these additions have no authority.

3. That the Letter of Aristeas is substantially right in assigning the original translation of the Law to the time of one of the early Ptolemys there is no reason to doubt; but the story has the air of having been considerably written up, and it is impossible to say precisely where history stops and fiction begins. Demetrius of Phalerum was librarian to Ptolemy I., but was in disgrace under his successor, and died about 283; hence he can hardly have been the prime mover in the affair. But if not, the writer of the Letter cannot have been the person of rank in Ptolemy’s court that he represents himself to be, and the credit of the document is severely shaken. It cannot be depended on for accuracy in details, and it is necessary to turn to the internal evidence for further information. It will be observed that Aristeas speaks only of ‘the Law,’ i.e. the Pentateuch; and there is no reason to doubt that this was the first part of the OT to be translated, and that the other books followed at different times and from the hands of different translators. A lower limit for the completion of the work, or of the main part of it, is given in the prologue to Sirach (written probably in B.C. 132), where the writer speaks of ‘the law itself and the prophets and the rest of the books’ (sc. the Hagiographa) as having been already translated. It may therefore be taken as fairly certain that the LXX as a whole was produced between B.C. 285 and 150.

4. Its character cannot be described in a word. It is written in Greek, which in vocabulary and accidence is substantially that koinē dialektos, or Hellenistic Greek, which was in common use throughout the empire of Alexander, and of which our knowledge, in its non-literary form, has been greatly extended by the recent discoveries of Greek papyri in Egypt. In its syntax, however, it is strongly tinged with Hebraisms, which give it a distinct character of its own. The general tendency of the LXX translators was to be very literal, and they have repeatedly followed Hebrew usage (notably in the use of pronouns, prepositions, and participial constructions) to an extent which runs entirely counter to the genius of the Greek language. [For examples, and for the grammar of the LXX generally, see the Introduction to Selections from the Septuagint, by F. C. Conybeare and St. George Stock (1905).] The quality of the translation differs in different books. It is at its best in the Pentateuch, which was probably both the first and the most deliberately prepared portion of the translation. It is at its worst in the Prophets, which presented the greatest difficulties in the way of interpretation. Neither the Greek nor the Hebrew scholarship of the translators was of a high order, and they not infrequently wrote down words which convey no rational meaning whatever. Something has been done of late to distinguish the work of different translators. [See the articles of H. St. J. Thackeray in JThSt iv. 245, 398, 578, viii. 262, the results of which are here summarized.] It has been shown that Jer. is probably the work of two translators, who respectively translated chs. 1–28 and 29–51 (in the Greek order of the chapters), the latter, who was an inferior scholar, being responsible also for Baruch. Ezek. likewise shows traces of two translators, one taking chs. 1–27 and 40–48, the other 28–39. The Minor Prophets form a single group, which has considerable affinities with the first translators of both Jer. and Ezekiel. Isaiah stands markedly apart from all these, exhibiting a more classical style, but less fidelity to the Hebrew. 1 Kings (= 1 Sam.) similarly stands apart from 2–4 Kings, the latter having features in common with Judges.

5. Some other features of the LXX must be mentioned which show that each book, or group of books, requires separate study. In Judges the two principal MSS (Codd. A and B, see below, § 10) differ so extensively as to show that they represent different recensions. In some books (notably the latter chapters of Ex., 3 K 4–11, Pr 24–29, Jer 25–51) the order of the LXX differs completely from that of the Hebrew, testifying to an arrangement of the text quite different from that of the Massoretes. Elsewhere the differences are not in arrangement but in contents. This is especially the case in the latter chapters of Jos., 1 Kings (= 1 Sam.) 17–18 , where the LXX omits (or the Heb. adds) several verses; 3 K 8 and 12, where the LXX incorporates material from some fresh source; Ps 151, which is added in the

LXX; Job, the original LXX text of which was much shorter than that of the Massoretic Hebrew; Esther, where the Greek has large additions, which now appear separately in our Apocrypha, but which are an integral part of the LXX; Jer., where small omissions and additions are frequent; and Daniel, where the LXX includes the episodes of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Song of the Three Children, which have now been relegated (in obedience to Jerome’s example) to the Apocrypha.

6. The mention of the Apocrypha suggests the largest and most striking difference between the LXX and the Hebrew OT, namely, in the books included in their respective canons; for the Apocrypha, as it stands to-day in our Bibles, consists (with the exception of 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh) of books which form an integral part of the LXX canon, but were excluded from the Hebrew canon when that was finally determined about the end of the 1st century [ see CANON OF OT]. Nor did these books stand apart from the others in the LXX as a separate group. The historical books (1 Esdras, Tob., Judith, and sometimes Mac.) have their place with Chron., Ezr., Neh.; the poetical books (Wisd., Sir.) stand beside Prov., Eccles., and Cant.; and Baruch is attached to Jeremiah. The whole arrangement of the OT books differs, indeed, from the stereotyped order of the Massoretic Hebrew. The latter has its three fixed divisions—(i) the Law, i.e. the

Pentateuch; (ii) the Prophets, consisting of the Former Prophets (Jos., Judg., 1–4

Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets);

(iii) the Hagiographa, including Chron., Ps., Job, Prov., Ruth, Cant., Eccles., Lam.,

Esth., Dan., Ezr., Nehemiah. But the LXX attaches Ruth to Judges, Chron. and

Ezr.-Neh. to Kings, Baruch and Lam. to Jer., and Dan. to the three Greater Prophets. Its principle of arrangement is, in fact, different. In place of divisions which substantially represent three different stages of canonization, it classifies the books in groups according to the character of their subject-matter—Law, History, Poetry, and Prophecy. The details of the order of the books differ in different MSS and authoritative lists, but substantially the principle is as here stated; and the divergence has had considerable historical importance. In spite of the dissent of several of the leading Fathers, such as Origen and Athanasius, the LXX canon was generally accepted by the early Christian Church. Through the medium of the Old Latin Version it passed into the West, and in spite of Jerome’s adoption of the

Hebrew canon in his Vulgate, the impugned books made their way back into all Latin Bibles, and have remained there from that day to this. [For an explanation of the curious misapprehension whereby 1 Esdras (on which see § 17) was excepted from this favourable reception in the Latin printed Bibles and relegated to an appendix, see an article by Sir H. Howorth in JThSt vii. 343 (1906).] In the Reformed Churches their fate has been different; for the German and English translators followed Jerome in adopting the Hebrew canon, and relegated the remaining books to the limbo of the Apocrypha. The authority attaching to the LXX and Massoretic canons respectively is a matter of controversy which cannot be settled offhand; but the fact of their divergence is certain and historically important.

7. If the LXX had come down to us in the state in which it was at the time when its canon was complete (say in the 1st cent. B.C.), it would still have presented to the critic problems more than enough, by reason of its differences from the Hebrew in contents and arrangement, and the doubt attaching to its fidelity as a translation; but these difficulties are multiplied tenfold by the modifications which it underwent between this time and the date to which our earliest MSS belong (4 th cent. A.D.). It has been shown above that the LXX was the Bible of the Greekspeaking world at the time when Christianity spread over it. It was in that form that the Gentile Christians received the OT; and they were under no temptation to desert it for the Hebrew Bible (which was the property of their enemies, the Jews), even if they had been able to read it. The LXX consequently became the Bible of the early Christian Church, to which the books of the NT were added in course of time. But the more the Christians were attached to the LXX, the less willing became the Jews to admit its authority; and from the time of the activity of the Rabbinical school of Jamnia, about the end of the 1st cent., to which period the fixing of the Massoretic canon and text may be assigned with fair certainty, they definitely repudiated it. This repudiation did not, however, do away with the need which non-Palestinian Jews felt for a Greek OT; and the result was the production, in the course of the 2nd cent., of no less than three new translations. These translations, which are known under the names of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, are described below (§§ 15–18); here it is sufficient to say that they were all translated from the Massoretic OT, and represent it with different degrees of fidelity, from the pedantic verbal imitation of Aquila to the literary freedom of Symmachus. By the beginning of the 3rd cent. there were, therefore, four Greek versions of the OT in the field, besides portions of others which will be mentioned below.

8. Such was the state of things when Origen (A.D. 185–253), the greatest scholar produced by the early Church, entered the field of textual criticism. His labours therein had the most far-reaching effect on the fortunes of the LXX, and are the cause of a large part of our difficulties in respect of its text to-day. Struck by the discrepancies between the LXX and the Heb., he conceived the idea of a vast work which should set the facts plainly before the student. This was the Hexapla, or sixfold version of the OT, in which six versions were set forth in six parallel columns. The six versions were as follows—(1) the Hebrew text; (2) the same transliterated in Greek characters; (3) the version of Aquila, which of all the versions was the nearest to the Hebrew; (4) the version of Symmachus; (5) his own edition of the LXX; (6) the version of Theodotion. In the case of the Psalms, no less than three additional Greek versions were included, of which very little is known; they are called simply Quinta, Sexta, and Septima. Elsewhere also there is occasional evidence of an additional version having been included; but these are unimportant. A separate copy of the four main Greek versions was also made, and was known as the Tetrapla. The principal extant fragment of a MS of the Hexapla (a 10th cent. palimpsest at Milan, containing about 11 Psalms) omits the Hebrew column, but makes up the total of six by a column containing various isolated readings. The only other fragment is a 7th cent. leaf discovered at Cairo in a genizah (or receptacle for damaged and disused synagogue MSS), and now at Cambridge. It contains Ps 22:15–18, 20–28, and has been edited by Dr. C. Taylor (Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, 1900). Origen’s Hebrew text was substantially identical with the Massoretic; and Aq., Symm., and Theod., as has been stated above, were translations from it; but the LXX, in view of its wide and frequent discrepancies, received special treatment. Passages present in the LXX, but wanting in the Heb., were marked with an obelus (—or ÷); passages wanting in the LXX, but present in the Heb., were supplied from Aq. or Theod., and marked with an asterisk (*); the close of the passage to which the signs applied being marked by a metobelus (: or %. or ×). In cases of divergences in arrangement, the order of the Heb. was followed (except in Prov.), and the text of the LXX was considerably corrected so as to bring it into better conformity with the Heb. The establishment of such a conformity was in fact Origen’s main object, though his conscience as a scholar and his reverence for the LXX did not allow him altogether to cast out passages which occurred in it, even though they had no sanction in the Hebrew text as he knew it.

9. The great MSS of the Hexapla and Tetrapla were preserved for a long time in the library established by Origen’s disciple, Pamphilus, at Cæsarea, and references are made to them in the scholia and subscriptions of some of the extant MSS of the LXX (notably א and Q). So long as they were in existence, with their apparatus of critical signs, the work of Origen in confusing the Gr. and Heb. texts of the OT could always be undone, and the original texts of the LXX substantially restored. But MSS so huge could not easily be copied, and the natural tendency was to excerpt the LXX column by itself, as representing a Greek text improved by restoration to more authentic form. Such an edition, containing Origen’s fifth column, with its apparatus of critical signs, was produced early in the 4th cent. by Pamphilus, the founder of the library at Cæsarea, and his disciple Eusebius; and almost simultaneously two fresh editions of the LXX were published in the two principal provinces of Greek Christianity, by Hesychius at Alexandria, and by Lucian at Antioch. It is from these three editions that the majority of the extant MSS of the LXX have descended; but the intricacies of the descent are indescribably great. In the case of Hexaplaric MSS, the inevitable tendency of scribes was to omit, more or less completely, the critical signs which distinguished the true LXX text from the passages imported from Aq. or Theod.; the versions of Aq., Theod., and Symm. have disappeared, and exist now only in fragments, so that we cannot distinguish all such interpolations with certainty; Hexaplaric, Hesychian, and Lucianic MSS acted and reacted on one another, so that it is very difficult to identify MSS as containing one or other of these editions; and although some MSS can be assigned to one or other of them with fair confidence, the majority contain mixed and undetermined texts. The task of the textual critic who would get behind all this confusion of versions and recensions is consequently very hard, and the problem has as yet by no means been completely solved.

10. The materials for its solution are, as in the NT, threefold—Manuscripts,

Versions, Patristic Quotations; and these must be briefly described. The earliest

MSS are fragments on papyrus, some of which go back to the 3rd century. About

16 in all are at present known, the most important being (i) Oxyrhynchus Pap. 656

(early 3rd cent.), containing parts of Gn 14–27, where most of the great vellum MSS are defective; (ii) Brit. Mus. Pap. 37 (7th cent.), sometimes known as U, containing the greater part of Ps 10–34 [it is by a mere misunderstanding that Heinrici, followed by Rahlfs, quotes the authority of Wilcken for assigning this

MS to the 4th cent.; Wilcken’s opinion related to another Psalter-fragment in the

British Museum (Pap. 230)]; (iii) a Leipzig papyrus (4th cent.), containing Ps 30– 55, the first five being considerably mutilated; (iv) a papyrus at Heidelberg (7 th cent.), containing Zec 4:6–Mal 4:5. A papyrus at Berlin, containing about twothirds of Gen., and said to be of the 4th or 5th cent., is not yet published.

The principal vellum uncial MSS, which are of course the main foundation of our textual knowledge, are as follows. See also TEXT OF NT.

א or S. Codex Sinaiticus, 4th cent., 43 leaves at Leipzig, 156 (besides the whole

NT) at St. Petersburg, containing fragments of Geo. and Num., 1 Ch 9:27–19:17, 2

Es 9:9 to end, Esth., Tob., Judith, 1 and 4 Mac., Is., Jer., La 1:1–2:20, Joel, Obad., Jon., Nah.—Mal., and the poetical books. Its text is of a very mixed character. It has a strong element in common with B, and yet is often independent of it. In Tob. it has a quite different text from that of A and B, and is perhaps nearer to the original Heb. Its origin is probably composite, so that it is not possible to assign it to any one school. Its most important correctors are C^aand C^b, both of the 7 th cent., the former of whom states, in a note appended to Esth., that he collated the MS with a very early copy, which itself had been corrected by the hand of Pamphilus.

A. Codex Alexandrinus, 5th cent., in the British Museum; complete except in Ps 49:19–79:10 and smaller lacunæ, chiefly in Gen.; 3 and 4 Mac. are included. The Psalter is liturgical, and is preceded by the Epistle of Athanasius on the Psalter, and the Hypotheseis of Eusebius; the Canticles are appended to it. The text is written by at least two scribes; the principal corrections are by the original scribes and a reviser of not much later date. It is almost certainly of Egyptian origin, and has sometimes been supposed to represent the edition of Hesychius, but this is by no means certain yet. In Judges it has a text wholly different from that of B, and in general the two MSS represent different types of text; the quotations from the LXX in the NT tend to support A rather than B.

B. Codex Vaticanus, 4th cent., in the Vatican; complete, except for the loss of

Gn 1:1–46:28, 2 K 2:5–7, 10–13, Ps 105:27–137:6, and the omission of 1–4 Maccabees. Its character appears to differ in different books, but in general Hort’s description seems sound, that it is closely akin to the text which Origen had before him when he set about his Hexapla. It is thus of Egyptian origin, and is very frequently in accord with the Bohairic version. Recently Rahlfs has argued that in Ps. it represents the edition of Hesychius, but his proof is very incomplete; for since he admits that Hesychius must have made but few alterations in the preOrigenian Psalter, and that the text of B is not quite identical with that which he takes as the standard of Hesychius (namely, the quotations in Cyril of Alexandria), his hypothesis does not seem to cover the phenomena so well as Hort’s. The true character of B, however, still requires investigation, and each of the principal groups of books must be examined separately.

C. Codex Ephræmi rescriptus, 5th cent., at Paris; 64 leaves palimpsest, containing parts of the poetical books.

D. The Cotton Genesis, 5th cent., in the British Museum; an illustrated copy of Gen., almost wholly destroyed by fire in 1731, but partially known from collations made previously.

G. Codex Sarravianus, 5th cent., 130 leaves at Leyden, 22 at Paris, and one at St. Petersburg; contains portions of the Octateuch in a Hexaplar text, with Origen’s apparatus (incompletely reproduced, however) of asterisks and obeli.

L. The Vienna Genesis, 6th cent., in silver letters on purple vellum, with illustrations; contains Gen. incomplete.

N-V. Codex Basiliano-Venetus, 8th or 9th cent., partly in the Vatican and partly at Venice; contains portions of the OT, from Lv 13:59—4 Mac. Of importance chiefly as having been used (in conjunction with B) for the standard edition of the LXX printed at Rome in 1587.

Q. Codex Marchalianus, 6th cent., in the Vatican; contains the Prophets, complete. Written in Egypt; its text is believed to be Hesychian, and it contains a large number of Hexaplaric signs and readings from the Hexapla in its margins, which are of great importance.

R. Codex Veronensis, 6th cent., at Verona; contains Psalter, in Greek and Latin, with Canticles.

T. Zürich Psalter, 7th cent., written in silver letters, with gold initials, on purple vellum; the Canticles are included. R and T represent the Western text of the Psalms, as the Leipzigand London papyrus Psalters do the Upper Egyptian text, and B the Lower Egyptian.

A MS of Deut. and Jos., of the 6th cent., found in Egypt and now at the University of Michigan, is to be published shortly.

The other uncial MSS are fragmentary and of lesser importance. Of minuscule MSS over 300 are known, and some of them are of considerable importance in establishing the texts of the various recensions of the LXX. Most of them are known mainly from the collations of Holmes and Parsons, which are often imperfect; the Cambridge Septuagint, now in progress, will give more exact information with regard to selected representatives of them.

11. The Versions of the LXX do not occupy so prominent a position in its textual criticism as is the case in the NT, but still are of considerable importance for identifying the various local texts. The following are the most important—

(a) The Bohairic version of Lower Egypt, the latest of the Coptic versions, and the only one which is complete. The analysis of its character is still imperfect. It is natural to look to it for the Hesychian text, but it is doubtful how far this can be assumed, and in the case of the Minor Prophets it has been denied by Deissmann as the result of his examination of the Heidelberg papyrus. In the Psalms it agrees closely with B, in the Major Prophets rather with AQ.

(b) The Sahidic version of Upper Egypt; Job and Ps. are extant complete, and there are considerable fragments of other books. In Ps. the text agrees substantially with that of the papyrus Psalters, and is said to be pre-Origenian, but considerably corrupted. In Job also it is pre-Origenian, and its text is shorter by one-sixth than the received text; scholars still differ as to which is the truer representation of the original book. The fragments of the other books need fuller examination. A MS of Prov. in a third Coptic dialect (Middle Egyptian) has quite recently been discovered, and is now in Berlin; but no details as to its character have been published.

(c) The Syriac versions. The Old Syriac, so important for the NT, is not known to have existed for the OT. The Peshitta appears to have been made from the Hebrew, but to have been subsequently affected by the influence of the LXX, and consequently is not wholly trustworthy for either. The most important Syriac version of the OT is the translation made from the LXX column of the Hexapla by Paul of Tella in A.D. 616–617, in which Origen’s critical signs were carefully preserved; an 8th cent. MS at Milan contains the Prophets and the poetical books, while Ex. and Ruth are extant complete in other MSS, with parts of Gen., Numb., Josh., Judg., and 3 and 4 Kings. The other historical books were edited in the 16 th cent. from a MS which has since disappeared. This is one of the most important sources of our knowledge of Origen’s work.

(d) The Latin versions. These were two in number, the Old Latin and the

Vulgate. On the origin of the OL, see TEXT OF THE NT. The greater part of the Heptateuch (Gn 16:9–Jg 20:31, but with mutilations) is extant in a MS at Lyons of the 5th—6th cent. The non-Massoretic books (our Apocr.), except Judith and Tob., were not translated by Jerome, and consequently were incorporated in the Vulg. from the OL; Ruth survives in one MS, the Psalms in two, and Esther in several; and considerable fragments of most of the other books are extant in palimpsests and other incomplete MSS. In addition we have the quotations of Cyprian and other early Latin Fathers. The importance of the OL lies in the fact that its origin goes back to the 2nd cent., and it is consequently pre-Hexaplar. Also, since its affinities are rather with Antioch than with Alexandria, it preserves readings from a type of text prevalent in Syria, that, namely, on which Lucian subsequently based his edition. This type of text may not be superior to the Alexandrian, but at least it deserves consideration. On the OL, see Kennedy in Hastings’ DB, and Burkitt’s The Old Latin and the Itala (1896). On the Vulgate, see art. s.v. Since it was, in the main, a re-translation from the Hebrew, it does not (except in the Psalter) come into consideration in connexion with the LXX.

The remaining versions—Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, Gothic, Slavonic—are of minor importance, and need not be described here.

12. The evidence of the Fathers has been less fully used for the LXX than for the NT, but its importance in distinguishing and localizing types of text is increasingly recognized.

Origen is of particular importance for his express statements on textual matters, though his declared acceptance of the Hebrew as the standard of truth has to be remembered in weighing his evidence. Much the same may be said of Jerome. Fathers who had no interest in textual criticism are often more valuable as witnesses to the type of text in use in their age and country. Thus Cyril of Alexandria gives us an Egyptian text, which may probably be that of Hesychius. Theodoret and Chrysostom, who belong to Antioch, represent the Syrian text, i.e. the edition of Lucian. Cyprian is a principal witness for the African Old Latin. The Apostolic Fathers, notably Clement of Rome and Barnabas, carry us farther back, and contribute some evidence towards a decision between the rival texts represented by A and B, their tendency on the whole being in favour of the former; and the same is the case with Irenæus, Justin, and Clement of Alexandria, though their results are by no means uniform. This field of inquiry is not worked out yet.

13. With these materials the critic has to approach the problem of the restoration of the text of the LXX. Ideally, what is desirable is that it should be possible to point out the three main editions, those of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius, and thence to go back to the text which lies behind them all, that of the pre-Origenian LXX. Some progress has been made in this direction. Some MSS are generally recognized as being predominantly Lucianic; some readings are certainly known to be Hexaplar; but we are still far from an agreement on all points. Especially is this the case with the edition of Hesychius. Some scholars have identified it (notably in the Prophets) with the text of A, which, however, seems certainly to have been modified by the influence of Origen. More recently the tendency has been to find it in B; but here it is still open to question whether B is not mainly both pre-Hesychian and pre-Origenian. It would be unjustifiable to pretend at present that certainty has been arrived at on these points. And with regard to the great bulk of MSS, it is clear that their texts are of a mixed character. In the Psalms it would appear that the edition of Lucian was, in the main, adopted at Constantinople, and so became the common text of the Church; but in regard to the other books, the common text, which appears in the bulk of the later MSS, cannot be identified with any of the three primary editions. The influence of the Hebrew, especially after the example of Origen, was constantly a disturbing factor; and it is certain that criticism has still much to do before it can give us even an approximately sound text of the LXX.

14. And when that is done, the question of the relation of the LXX to the

Hebrew still remains. No other version differs so widely from its presumed original as the LXX does from the Massoretic Hebrew; but it is by no means easy to say how far this is due to the mistakes and liberties of the translators, and how far to the fact that the text before them differed from the Massoretic. That the latter was the case to some not inconsiderable extent is certain. Readings in which the LXX is supported against the Massoretic by the Samaritan version must almost certainly represent a divergent Hebrew original; but unfortunately the Samaritan exists only for the Pentateuch, in which the variants are least. Elsewhere we have generally to depend on internal evidence; and the more the LXX is studied in detail, the less willing, as a rule, is the student to maintain its authority against the Hebrew, and the less certain that its variants really represent differences in the original text. The palpable mistakes made by the translators, the inadequacy of their knowledge of Hebrew, the freedom with which some of them treated their original,—all these go far to explain a large margin of divergence; and to these must be added divergences arising, not from a different Hebrew text, but from supplying different vowel points to a text which originally had none. All these factors have to be taken into account before we can safely say that the Hebrew which lay before the LXX translators must have been different from the Massoretic text; and each passage must be judged on its own merits. An instructive lesson may be learnt from the recent discovery of the original Hebrew of Sirach, which has revealed a quite unsuspected amount of blundering, and even wilful alteration, on the part of the Greek translator. The testimony of the LXX must therefore be received with extreme caution; and although there is no reason to doubt that it contains much good grain, yet it is also certain that much skill and labour have still to be exercised in order to separate the grain from the chaff. In passing, it may be said that there appears to be no sound basis for the charge, often brought by early Christian writers, that the Jews made large alterations in the Heb. text for doctrinal and controversial reasons.

II. Aquila (Aq.).—15. Of the rival Greek versions which, as mentioned in § 7 , came into being in the 2nd cent., the first was that of Aquila, a Gentile of Sinope, in Pontus, who was converted first to Christianity and then to Judaism. He is said to have been a pupil of Rabbi Akiba, and to have flourished in the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117–138). His translation of the OT was made in the interests of Jewish orthodoxy. The text which subsequently received the name of Massoretic had practically been fixed by the Jewish scholars at the end of the 1st cent., and Aquila followed it with slavish fidelity. All thought for the genius and usage of the Greek language was thrown aside, and the Greek was forced to follow the idiosyncrasies of the Hebrew in defiance of sense and grammar. Aq. would consequently be an excellent witness to the Hebrew text of the 2nd cent., if only it existed intact; but we possess only small fragments of it. These consist for the most part ( until recently, wholly) of fragments of Origen’s third column preserved in the margins of Hexaplar MSS (such as Q); but they have been supplemented by modern discoveries. The Milan palimpsest of the Hexapla (see § 8) contains the text of Aq. for 11 Psalms; but though discovered by Mercati in 1896, only a small specimen of it has yet been published. The Cambridge fragment published by Dr. Taylor gives the text of Ps 22:20–28. In 1897 Mr. F. C. Burkitt discovered three palimpsest leaves of a MS of Aq. (5th–6th cent.) among a large quantity of tattered MSS brought, like the last-mentioned fragment, from Cairo; and these, which contain 3 K 20:7–17 and 4 K 23:11–27, were published in 1897. Further fragments, from the same source and of the same date, published by Dr. C. Taylor (1900), contain Ps 90:17–92:10, 96:7–97:12, 98:2, 102:16–103:18; and in 1900 Messrs. Grenfell and

Hunt published Gn 1:1–8 in the versions of the LXX and Aq. from a papyrus of the 4th cent. in the collection of Lord Amherst. These discoveries confirm our previous knowledge of the characteristics of Aq.; and it is noteworthy that in the Cambridge MSS of Aq. the Divine Tetragrammaton is written in the old Hebrew characters.

III. Theodotion (Theod.).—16. The origin of this version must be ascribed to a desire (similar to that which actuated Origen) on the part of the Christians to have a Greek version of the OT which should correspond better than the LXX with the current Hebrew text, and yet not be so closely identified with their Jewish opponents and so disregardful of the genius of the Greek language as Aquila. Theodotion, though sometimes described as a Jewish proselyte, appears rather to have been an Ebionitic Christian, who lived at Ephesus about the middle of the 2 nd cent.; and his version found favour with the Christians, much as Aq. did with the Jews. This version follows in the main the authorized Hebrew, but is much more free than Aq., and agrees more with the LXX. Hence when Origen, in the execution of his plan for bringing the LXX into accord with the Hebrew, had to supply omissions in the LXX, he had recourse to Theod. for the purpose. Further, the LXX version of Dan. being regarded as unsatisfactory, the version of Theod. was taken into use instead, and so effectually that the LXX of this book has survived in but one single MS. It is probable, however, that Theod. was not wholly original in this book, for there are strong traces of Theodotionic readings in the NT (Hebrews and Apocalypse), Hermas, Clement, and Justin; whence it seems necessary to conclude that Theod. based his version on one which had been previously in existence side by side with the LXX.

17. Besides this complete book and the extracts from the Hexapla and the Milan palimpsest (the Theodotion column in the Cambridge MS is lost), there is some reason to believe that still more of Theod. has survived than was formerly supposed. It is well known that the book which appears in our Apocrypha as 1 Esdras, and in the Greek Bible as Ἔσδρας Αʹ, is simply a different recension of the canonical book of Ezra (with parts of 2 Chron. and Nehemiah), which in the Greek Bible appears (with Neh.) as Ἔσδρας Βʹ. Ἔσδρας Βʹ faithfully represents the Massoretic Hebrew; ‘Ἔσδρας Αʹ is freely paraphrastic, and contains some additional matter (1 Es 3:1–5:6). Josephus, who knew the LXX, but not, of course,

Theod., plainly follows ‘Ἐσδ. Αʼ; and it has been argued by Whiston (in 1722) and Sir H. Howorth (Soc. Bibl. Arch., May 1901–Nov. 1902) that ‘Ἐσδ. Α’ is the original LXX version, and ‘Ἐσδ. Β’ the version of Theod., which, as in Dan., has ousted its predecessor from general use. The theory is not at all improbable ( and there is some evidence that in the Hexapla, where Theod. of course had its own column, the text in the LXX column was ‘Ἐσδ. Α’), but it still needs confirmation by a linguistic comparison between ‘Ἐσδ. Α’ and Theodotion’s Dan., which it is hoped will shortly be made. Sir H. Howorth further suggests that the version of Chron. which now appears in the LXX is really that of Theod., the original LXX having in this case completely disappeared. Chron. is certainly closely connected with ‘Ἐσδ. Β’, and the suggestion deserves full examination; but in the absence of an alternative version, or of any reference to one, it will be more difficult to establish.

IV. Symmachus (Symm.).—18. Of Symm. there is less to say. Like

Theodotion, he has been called an Ebionite, and, like both Theodotion and Aquila, he has been said to be a proselyte to Judaism; the former statement is probably true. His work was known to Origen by about A.D. 228, and was probably produced quite at the end of the 2nd century. From the literary point of view, it was the best of all the Greek versions of the OT. It was based, like Aq. and Theod., on the Massoretic Hebrew, but it aimed at rendering it into idiomatic Greek. Consequently, it neither had the reputation which Aq. acquired among the Jews, nor was it so well fitted as Theod. to make good the defects, real or supposed, of the LXX among the Christians; and its historical importance is therefore less than that of its rivals. The extant materials for its study are practically the same as in the case of Aq., namely, the two fragments of MSS of the Hexapla [the Cambridge fragment contains the Symm. column for Ps 22:15–18, 20–24; the precise extent of the Milan MS is not known], and the copious extracts from the Hexapla in the margins of certain MSS and the quotations of the Fathers.

LITERATURE.—By far the best work on the LXX in any language is Dr. H. B. Swete’s Introd. to the OT in Greek (1900), which includes full references to all the literature of the subject before that date. See also Nestle’s article in Hastings’ DB, and his Septuagintastudien (1886–1907). A popular account with a description of all the uncial MSS is given in Kenyon’s Our Bible and the Ancient MSS, pp. 48–92

(1895; revised ed., 1898). The most important recent works are Rahlfs’

Septuaginta-Studien (I., 1904, on the text of Kings; II., 1907, on Ps.), and R. L.

Ottley’s Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (2 vols., 1904–6). The remains of the Hexapla are collected in F. Field’s Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt (Oxford, 1875). Ceriani’s study of the Codex Marchalianus and Deissmann’s of the Heidelberg Prophets-papyrus make important contributions to the classification of the MSS. An English translation of the LXX was printed by C. Thomson at Philadelphia (1808), and has recently been reprinted by S. F. Pells; another by Sir L. Brenton was published in 1844.

Editions.—The LXX was first printed in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–17 , published 1521), but first published by Aldus (1519). The standard edition is that issued at Rome by Pope Sixtus v. in 1587. This, by excellent fortune, was based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus (B), with the help of the Venice MS (V), and others. Hence the TR of the Greek OT, unlike that of the NT, has always rested on the authority of good MSS, though these were not very critically employed. An edition based on the Codex Alexandrinus (A) was published at Oxford by Grabe in 1707–20. The textual criticism of the LXX rests upon the great edition of R. Holmes and J. Parsons (Oxford, 1798–1827), who printed the Sixtine text with an apparatus drawn from 20 uncial and 277 minuscule MSS, besides versions. Unfortunately several of the collations made by their assistants were not up to modern standards of accuracy. Tischendorf published a revised text, with various readings from a few of the leading uncials (1850; 7th ed., 1887); but the foundation of recent textual study of the LXX was laid by the Cambridge manual edition in 3 vols. by Swete (1887–94; revised, 1895–99). In this the text is printed from B, when available, otherwise from A or א, and the textual apparatus gives all the variants in the principal uncial MSS. A larger edition giving the same text, but with the addition of the evidence of all the uncials, a considerable number of carefully selected and representative minuscules, and the principal versions and patristic quotations, is being prepared by A. E. Brooke and N. Maclean, and Genesis has already appeared (1906).

F. G. KENYON.

GREEN, GREENISH.—See COLOURS, § 1.

GREETING.—See SALUTATION.

GREYHOUND.—See Dog.

GRINDER.—The ‘grinders’ of Ec 12:3 are women grinding at the mill. But in Job 29:17m the ‘grinders’ are the molar teeth. Holland, Pliny, xi. 37, says, ‘The great grinders which stand beyond the eye-teeth, in no creature whatsoever do fall out of themselves.’

GRISLED.—See COLOURS, § 1.

GROUND.—See EARTH.

GROVE.—Apart from Gn 21:33, to be presently mentioned, ‘grove’ is everywhere in AV a mistaken tr., which goes back through the Vulgate to the LXX, of the name of the Canaanite goddess Asherah. The ‘groves,’ so often said to have been, or to be deserving to be, ‘cut down,’ were the wooden poles set up as symbols of Asherah. See further the art. ASHERAH.

In Gn 21:33 the grove which AV makes Abraham plant in Beer-sheba was really ‘a tamarisk tree’ (so RV), a tree which also figures in the story of Saul, 1 S 22:6, 31:13 (both RV).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

GRUDGE.—Ps 59:15 ‘Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied.’ The word ‘grudge’ formerly stood for dissatisfaction expressed aloud, i.e. murmur, grumble; but by 1611 it was becoming confined to the feeling rather than the open expression, so that it occurs in AV less frequently than in the older versions. Besides Ps 59:15 it has the older meaning in Wis 12:27 , Sir 10:25, and Ja 5:9 ‘grudge not one against another’ (RV ‘murmur not’).

GUARD BODY-GUARD.—The former is used in EV almost exclusively for the body-guard of royal and other high-placed personages, such as Nehemiah ( Neh 4:22f.) and Holofernes (Jth 12:7). ‘Body-guard’ occurs only 1 Es 3:4 RV of the

‘guard’ (AV) of Darius. The members of the body-guard of the Pharaoh of Gn

37:35 and of Nebuchadnezzar (2 K 25:8 etc.) are, in the original style,

‘slaughterers (of animals for food),’ not as RVm ‘executioners.’ Those composing the body-guard of the Hebrew kings, on the other hand, are styled ‘runners’ (1 S 22:17 RV and marg., 2 K 10:25, 11:4 etc.), one of their duties being to run in front of the royal state-chariot (cf. 2 S 15:1, 1 K 1:5). In 1 K 14:28 we hear of a guardchamber. The office of ‘the captain of the guard’ was at all times one of great dignity and responsibility. David’s body-guard consisted of foreign mercenaries, the Cherethites and Pelethites (see p. 122^b), commanded by Benaiah (2 S 20:23 compared with 23:23). The famous Prætorian guard of the Roman emperors is mentioned in Ph 1:13 RV; also Ac 28:16 AV in a passage absent from the best texts and RV.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

GUDGODAH.—A station in the journeyings of the Israelites (Dt 10:7) , whence they proceeded to Jotbathah. There can be little doubt that Hor-haggidgad in the itinerary of Nu 33:33 indicates the same place.

GUEST, GUEST-CHAMBER.—See HOSPITALITY.

GUILT.—1. Guilt may be defined in terms of relativity. It is rather the abiding result of sin than sin itself (see Pearson’s Exposition of the Creed, ed. James Nichols, p. 514 f.). It is not punishment, or even liability to punishment, for this presupposes personal consciousness of wrong-doing and leaves out of account the attitude of God to sin unwittingly committed (Lv 5:1ff.; cf. Lk 12:48, Ro 5:13; see Sanday-Headlam, Romans, p. 144). On the other hand, we may describe it as a condition, a state, or a relation; the resultant of two forces drawing different ways (Ro 7:14ff.). It includes two essential factors, without which it would be unmeaning as an objective reality or entity. At one point stands personal holiness, including whatever is holy in man; at another, personal corruption, including what is evil in man. Man’s relation to God, as it is affected by sin, is what constitutes guilt in the widest sense of the word. The human struggle after righteousness is the surest evidence of man’s consciousness of racial and personal guilt, and an acknowledgment that his position in this respect is not normal.

We are thus enabled to see that when moral obliquity arising from or reinforced by natural causes, adventitious circumstances, or personal environment, issues in persistent, wilful wrong-doing, it becomes or is resolved into guilt, and involves punishment which is guilt’s inseparable accompaniment. In the OT the ideas of sin, guilt, and punishment are so inextricably interwoven that it is impossible to treat of one without in some way dealing with the other two, and the word for each is used interchangeably for the others (see Schultz, OT Theol. ii. p. 306). An example of this is found in Cain’s despairing complaint, where the word ‘punishment’ ( Gn 4:13 EV) includes both the sin committed and the guilt attaching thereto (cf. Lv 26:41).

2. In speaking of the guilt of the race or of the individual, some knowledge of a law governing moral actions must be presupposed (cf. Jn 9:41, 15:22, 24). It is when the human will enters into conscious antagonism to the Divine will that guilt emerges into objective existence and crystallizes (see Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, Eng. tr. p. 203 ff.). An educative process is thus required in order to bring home to the human race that sense of guilt without which progress is impossible (cf. Ro 3:20, 7:7). As soon, however, as this consciousness is established, the first step on the road to rebellion against sin is taken, and the sinner’s relation to God commences to become fundamentally altered from what it was. A case in point, illustrative of this inchoate stage, is afforded by Joseph’s brothers in their tardy recognition of a guilt which seems to have been latent in a degree, so far as their consciousness was concerned, up to the period of threatened consequences (Gn 42:21; cf. for a similar example of strange moral blindness, on the part of David, 2 S 12:1ff.). Their subsequent conduct was characterized by clumsy attempts to undo the mischief of which they had been the authors. A like feature is observable in the attitude of the Philistines when restoring the sacred ‘ark of the covenant’ to the offended Jehovah. A ‘guilt-offering’ had to be sent as a restitution for the wrong done (1 S 6:3, cf. 2 K 12:16). This natural instinct was developed and guided in the Levitical institutions by formal ceremony and religious rite, which were calculated to deepen still further the feeling of guilt and fear of Divine wrath. Even when the offence was committed in ignorance, as soon as its character was revealed to the offender, he became thereupon liable to punishment, and had to expiate his guilt by restitution and sacrifice, or by a ‘guiltoffering’ (AV ‘trespass offering,’ Lv 5:15ff., 6:1ff.). To this a fine, amounting to one-fifth of the value of the wrong done in the case of a neighbour, was added and given to the injured party (6:5, Nu 5:6f.). How widely diffused this special rite had become is evidenced by the numerous incidental references of Ezekiel (40:39 , 42:13, 44:29, 46:20); while perhaps the most remarkable allusion to this service of restitution occurs in the later Isaiah, where the ideal Servant of Jehovah is described as a ‘guilt-offering’ (53:10).

3. As might be expected, the universality of human guilt is nowhere more insistently dwelt on or more fully realized than in the Psalms (cf. Ps 14:2 and 53:2 , where the expression ‘the sons of men’ reveals the scope of the poet’s thought; see also Ps 36 with its antithesis—the universal long-suffering of God and the universal corruption of men). In whatever way we interpret certain passages (e.g. Ps 69:28, 109:7ff.) in the so-called imprecatory Psalms, one thought at least clearly emerges, that wilful and persistent sin can never be separated from guiltiness in the sight of God, or from consequent punishment. They reveal in the writers a sense ‘of moral earnestness, of righteous indignation, of burning zeal for the cause of God’ (see Kirkpatrick, ‘Psalms’ in Cambr. Bible for Schools and Colleges, p. lxxv.). The same spirit is to be observed in Jeremiah’s repeated prayers for vengeance on those who spent their time in devising means to destroy him and his work (cf. 11:18ff., 18:19ff., 20:11ff. etc.). Indeed, the prophetic books of the OT testify generally to the force of this feeling amongst the most powerful religious thinkers of ancient times, and are a permanent witness to the validity of the educative functions which it fell to the lot of these moral teachers to discharge ( cf. e.g. Hos 10:2ff., Jl 1:4ff., Am 4:9ff., Mic 3:4ff., Hag 2:21f., Zec 5:2ff. etc.).

4. The final act in this great formative process is historically connected with the life and work of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Atonement, however interpreted or systematized, involves belief in, and the realization of, the guilt of the entire human race. The symbolic Levitical rite in which ‘the goat for Azazel’ bore the guilt (EV ‘iniquities,’ Lv 16:22) and the punishment of the nation, shadows forth clearly and unmistakably the nature of the burden laid on Jesus, as the Son of Man. Involved, as a result of the Incarnation, in the limitations and fate of the human race, He in a profoundly real way entered into the conditions of its present life ( see Is 53:12, where the suffering Servant is said to bear the consequences of man’s present position in regard to God; cf. 1 P 2:24). Taking the nature of Adam’s race, He became involved, so to speak, in a mystic but none the less real sense, in its guilt, while Gethsemane and Calvary are eternal witnesses to the tremendous load willingly borne by Jesus (Jn 10:18) as the price of the world’s guilt, at the hands of a just and holy but a loving and merciful God (Jn 3:16f., Ro 5:8, Eph 2:3f., 1 Th 1:10, Rev 15:1; cf. Ex 34:7).

‘By submitting to the awful experience which forced from Him the cry, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” and by the Death which followed, He made our real relation to God His own, while retaining—and, in the very act of submitting to the penalty of sin, revealing in the highest form—the absolute perfection of His moral life and the steadfastness of His eternal union with the Father’ (Dale, The Atonement, p. 425).

It is only in the life of Jesus that we are able to measure the guilt of the human race as it exists in the sight of God, and at the same time to learn somewhat, from the means by which He willed to bring it home to the consciousness of men, of the full meaning of its character as an awful but objective reality. Man’s position in regard to God, looked on as the result of sin, is the extent and the measure of his guilt.

‘Only He, who knew in Himself the measure of the holiness of God, could realize also, in the human nature which He had made His own, the full depth of the alienation of sin from God, the real character of the penal averting of God’s face. Only He, who sounded the depths of human consciousness in regard to sin, could, in the power of His own inherent righteousness, condemn and crush sin in the flesh. The suffering involved in this is not, in Him, punishment or the terror of punishment; but it is the full realizing, in the personal consciousness, of the truth of sin, and the disciplinary pain of the conquest of sin; it is that full self-identification of human nature, within range of sin’s challenge and sin’s scourge, with holiness as the Divine condemnation of sin, which was at once the necessity—and the impossibility—of human penitence. The nearest—and yet how distant!—an approach to it in our experience we recognize, not in the wild sin-terrified cry of the guilty, but rather in those whose profound self-identification with the guilty overshadows them with a darkness and a shame, vital indeed to their being, yet at heart tranquil, because it is not confused with the blurring consciousness of a personal sin’ (Moberly, Atonement and Personality, p. 130).

5. The clearest and most emphatic exposition of the fruits of the Incarnation, with respect to human guilt, is to be found in the partly systematized Christology of St. Paul, where life ‘in the Spirit’ is asserted to be the norm of Christian activity (Ro 8:9ff.). ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ

Jesus’ (8:1) is a reversal of the verdict of ‘Guilty’ against the race (cf. Col 3:6f., 1

Th 2:16), in so far as man accepts the conditions of the Christian life (cf. Gal 5:17f.). Where the conditions are not fulfilled, he is not included in the new order, for ‘if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.’ His guilt is aggravated by ‘neglecting so great salvation’ (He 2:3; cf. Jn 15:22, 24, Mt 11:20ff.), and the sentence pronounced against the disobedience of the enlightened is, humanly speaking at least, irreversible (He 6:4ff., 10:29 ff. ).

J. R. WILLIS. GUILT-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE AND OFFERING.

GULF.—The only instance of the use of this word in the Bible occurs in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Lk 16:26; cf. Nu 16:30 where the word ‘pit’ is the translation of Hades or Sheol). Some commentators have discovered in Jesus’ employment of this term (‘chasm’), as well as in His assertion of the possibility of conversation, an approval in general terms of a current Rabbinical belief that the souls of the righteous and of the wicked exist after death in different compartments of the same under world (see J. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. iii. p. 175). It is not possible, however, to construct a theory of Jesus’ belief as to the intermediate state from evidence so scanty. Indeed, signs are not lacking that on this occasion He employs the language of metaphor in order to guard against placing His imprimatur on useless and materialistic speculations. The expressions ‘from afar’ (v. 23) and ‘a great gulf’ (v. 26) do not harmonize with the idea of holding a conversation; and it seems plain that they form but subsidiary portions of a parable by which He means to teach a lesson of purely ethical import. There is, moreover, an evident implication in the context that the gulf is not confined to the world beyond the grave. Having reminded the Rich Man of the contrast between his condition and that of Lazarus in their earthly lives, and of its reversal in their respective conditions at present, Abraham is made to say, ‘In all these things (see RVm) there has been and remains fixed a great chasm’ (cf. Plummer ‘St. Luke’ in ICC, ad loc.). The chasm is not only between the conditions of the two men’s lives; it has its foundation in their characters, modified, no doubt, and influenced by the circumstances in which each lived. The impassable nature of the chasm can be explained only on the ground that it is the great moral division separating two fundamentally different classes of men.

J. R. WILLIS.

GUNI.—1. The eponym of a Naphtalite family, Gn 46:24 = 1 Ch 7:13 (cf. Nu

26:48 where the gentilic Gunites occurs). 2. A Gadite chief (1 Ch 5:15). Probably