S

which the Sabbath is isolated from all other sacred seasons (Decalogue, 2 K 11:5ff., 16:18) goes far to show that even in the pre-exilic period it was a festival sui generis, and had already acquired something of the prominence which belonged to it in later times. How little force there is in the argument from the connexion of ‘new moon’ and ‘Sabbath’ may be seen from Is 66:23, Col 2:18f. The most reasonable conclusion is that the weekly Sabbath is everywhere presupposed in the OT, and that, if it be connected historically with Babylonian institutions, the development lies behind the range of Israelite tradition, and in all probability was a feature of Canaanitish civilization when the Hebrews settled in the country. It must be remembered, however, that the hypothesis of a Babylonian origin does not exhaust the possibilities of the case. Although a regularly recurring day of rest is neither necessary nor possible for pastoral nomads, it is quite conceivable that some form of Sabbath observance, depending on the phases of the moon, was practised by the Hebrews in the desert, and that the transformation of this primitive lunar festival into the Sabbath as we find it in the OT was due to the suppression of its superstitious associations under the influence of the national religion of Israel.

2. Religious significance of the Sabbath.—The distinctive characteristics of the Hebrew Sabbath were mainly these two: it was, first, a day sacred to Jahweh, and second, a day of rest. In the earlier period cessation from labour may have been merely a consequence of the festal character of the day; although the reinforcement of the ceremonial sanction by humanitarian motives in the legislation (Ex 23:12, Dt 5:14) shows that already the religious mind of the nation had grasped the final justification of the Sabbath as an institution made for man, and not one for which man was made. This conception of the Sabbath underwent a radical modification in the age of the Exile. It is hardly accurate to say that the change was entirely due to the fact that the Sabbath was one of the few religious ordinances by which the Israelite in a foreign land could mark his separation from heathenism. The idea of the Sabbath as a covenant between Jahweh and Israel, which is elaborated in Ezekiel and the code called the Law of Holiness, is foreshadowed in Dt 5:15; and even the more imposing conception of it as a memorial of the Creation finds expression in Ex 20:11, which is quite possibly of older date than the Priestly account of Creation in Gn 1. The truth is that in this, as in many other cases, the real turning-point was not the deportation of the people but the suppression of the popular ritual by Josiah’s reformation. None the less it is important to observe that, for whatever reason, a profound transformation of the character of the Sabbath emerges in writings of the Exilic and post-exilic period. The obligation of rest, from being a necessary concomitant of acts of worship, or a means to a higher end, becomes an end in itself, a form of self-denial, pleasing to the Deity as an act of implicit obedience to His positive command. The whole of the subsequent legislation proceeds from this point of view. In Ezekiel and the Law of Holiness the Sabbath (as has just been observed) is conceived as an arbitrary sign of the covenant between Jahweh and Israel, and of the individual’s fidelity to that covenant. The Priestly Code not only exalts the Sabbath by basing its sanction on the example of the Creator (Gn 2:2–4, Ex 31:17), but seeks to enforce its observance by the imposition of the death penalty (Ex 31:14, Nu 15:32–36) , and sets the example of guarding its sanctity by prohibitive regulations (Ex 35:3). The memoirs of Nehemiah reveal at once the importance attached to the Sabbath as a mark of the distinction between the faithful Jews and their heathen neighbours (10:31, 13:15), and the stern determination which was necessary to compel obedience (13:17ff.). In post-exilic prophecies there are several allusions to Sabbath observance as a supreme religious duty, and a condition of the fulfilment of the Messianic expectations (Jer 17:19ff., Is 56:2ff., 58:13f., 66:23). At the commencement of the Maccabæan revolt, regard for the Sabbath was so ingrained in the mind of the people that strict Jews allowed themselves to be slaughtered by their enemies rather than use arms for their own defence (1 Mac

2:31 ff.); though after one incident of this kind the maxim was laid down that defensive operations in war were legitimate on the Sabbath (v. 41).

3. The Sabbath in the NT.—The Gospels show that by the time of Christ the casuistry of the scribes had hedged round the Sabbath with many of those petty and vexatious rules which are preserved in the Rabbinical literature, and which completely eviscerated the institution of any large principle of religion or humanity. Accordingly the Sabbath law was (next to His own Messianic claims) the chief subject of contention between our Lord and the Pharisees (see Mt 12:1ff., 10f., Lk 13:14ff., 14:1ff., Jn 5:5ff., 7:23, 9:14 ff., etc.). As regards our Lord’s own attitude, it is enough to say that it combined reverence for the ordinance, in so far as it served religious ends (Lk 4:16 etc.), with a resolute vindication of the principle that ‘the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath’ (Mk 2:27). Similarly, in the Pauline Epistles the Sabbath is relegated, either inferentially (Ro 14:5f., Gal 4:9ff.) or expressly (Col 2:16f.), to the category of things morally indifferent, with regard to which each man must follow the dictates of his conscience. It is significant also that the decree of the Council of Jerusalem does not impose the observance of the Sabbath on the Gentile Churches (Ac 15:29). On the later Christian observance of the first day of the week, and its assimilation to the Jewish Sabbath, see LORD’S

DAY.

J. SKINNER.

SABBATH DAY’S JOURNEY.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, I.

SABBATICAL YEAR (including year of Jubilee)

1. OT references.—In a consideration of the regulations connected with the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, it is of the greatest importance to keep distinct the various stages of the Jewish legislation on the subject. The various ordinances differ greatly in character and detail; and in order to comprehend this diversity it is necessary to assume as granted the main conclusions of

OT criticism, and to admit at any rate that a separation in time and difference in spirit characterize the several parts of the ‘Mosaic Law.’

Exodus. In 23:10, 11 an entire cessation of all field-work is ordered to take place in every 7th year. This is said to be dictated by a regard for the poor and the beasts of the field. In effect the gift of one year’s produce to the poor is prescribed, that the landless may receive the usufruct of the soil. In 21:2–6 it is laid down that a Hebrew slave can be kept in bondage only for six years. After this period he was automatically emancipated, though his wife and children must remain in servitude, if he had married after his term of service began. But provision was made for cases where a slave might desire to remain in this condition. A public ceremony took place which signified his acceptance of the position in perpetuity. Nothing is here said which leads us to suppose that there was one simultaneous period of emancipation all over the country, and no reference is made to redemption of land or remission of debts.

Deuteronomy. In 15:1–3 the 7th year is assigned as the period at which all the liabilities of a Jew were suspended (or possibly, as Josephus supposes, entirely cancelled); this provision was to be of universal operation. 15:12–18 repeats the ordinances of Ex 21 with regard to the emancipation of slaves; here again no simultaneity of redemption can be inferred. 31:10–13 prescribes that the Law is to be read every 7th year (the ‘year of release’) at the Feast of Tabernacles (cf. Neh 8:13–18) . Nothing is said in Deuteronomy about a possible redemption of land.

Leviticus. In 25:1–55 provision is made for a seventh-year fallow; but there is no mention of the poor. The reason assigned is that the land, being Jehovah’s land, must keep Sabbath, i.e. the Sabbath principle is extended to cover nature as well as man. We also find here the jubilee ordinances. After 49 years had elapsed, every 50th year was to be inaugurated as a jubilee by the blowing of the trumpet on the Day of Atonement. All slaves were to be emancipated (this may be a modified substitute for the earlier provisions with regard to emancipation after 7 years); no mention is made of the possibility of perpetual slavery, but it is ordained that the Hebrew slave of a foreigner may be redeemed by a relative, all Jews being essentially Jehovah’s servants. The land was to lie fallow, and providential aid is promised to ensure sufficiency of produce during the period of three years when no harvest could be gathered, viz. the 49th year, which would be a sabbatical fallow, the year of jubilee, and the following year, when tillage would be resumed. Here also we find elaborate directions for the redemption of land in the jubilee year. They may be thus summarized: (1) No landed property may be sold, but only the usufruct of its produce up to the next jubilee, and the price must be calculated by the distance from that period. (2) A kinsman may redeem land thus mortgaged, or (the meaning may possibly be) exercise a right of pre-emption upon it. (3) The mortgager may redeem at the selling price, less the yearly proportion for the time elapsed since the sale. (4) House property in walled towns (not in villages) may be sold outright, and is redeemable only during one year. Such property was presumably regarded as human and artificial, whilst all land was essentially the property of Jehovah. (5) The Levitical possessions were redeemable at any time, and did not come under the jubilee provisions. (6) Nothing is said in Lev. as to the remission of debts, but there is a general prohibition of usury. (7) In Lv 27:16–25 a field devoted to Jehovah must be valued at once at a fixed rate, and might be redeemed at this price, plus a fine of 20 per cent., up to the year of jubilee. If not redeemed by then it became sacred property: no redemption of it was thereafter possible.

2. Purposes of the Sabbatical rules.—The purposes underlying the ordinances above catalogued may be classified under 4 heads: but it is practically impossible to assign any certain priority of time to any one of the classes. (a) The periodical fallow. This is a very common provision in agriculture, and the seven years’ period is still observed in Syria. Since the fallow year was not at first everywhere simultaneous, the earlier historical books are silent about it: and indeed it cannot have been generally observed. For the 70 years’ captivity and desolation of the land was regarded as making up for the unobserved Sabbaths of the land (2 Ch 36:21, cf. Lv 26:34 , 43). The reference in Neh 10:31 may be to the periodical fallow or to the remission of debts. But 1 Mac 6:49, 63 shows that the fallow year was observed later. (b) The emancipation of slaves ( cf. Jer 34:8, 9). Such a provision must have been very difficult to enforce, and we find no other possible reference to it. (c) The remission or suspension of debts. The only reference is the dubious one in Neh 10:31. (d) The redemption of real property. The kind of tenure here implied is not uncommonly found in other countries, and Jer 32:6ff., Ru 4, Ezk 7:13 show that something akin to it did exist in Palestine (cf. also Ezk 46:17). But that it was in no sense universal may be inferred from Isaiah’s and Micah’s denunciations of land-grabbing; on the other hand, 1 K 21:3, 4 furnishes an instance of the inalienability of land. Cf. LEVITICUS, p. 543^b.

In general we have no sign that the sabbatical and jubilee provisions were ever strictly observed in Biblical times. Their principles of rest and redemption, though never practised as a piece of social politics, were preached as ideals, and may have had some effect in discouraging slave-owning, land-grabbing, and usury, and in encouraging a more merciful view of the relations between Jew and Jew. Thus Is 61:1–3 is steeped in the jubilee phraseology, and Christ adopted this passage to explain His own mission (Lk 4:18ff.).

A. W. F. BLUNT.

SABBEUS (1 Es 9:32) = Shemaiah, Ezr 10:31.

SABI (1 Es 5:28) = Shobai, Ezr 2:42, Neh 7:45.

SABIAS (1 Es 1:9) = Hashabiah, 2 Ch 35:9.

SABIE.—‘The children of Pochereth-hazzebaim,’ Ezr 2:57, Neh 7:59, appear as ‘the sons of Phacereth, the sons of Sabie’ in 1 Es 5:34.

SABTA, SABTAH.—In the genealogical list of Gn 10:7 a son of Cush, named between Havilah and other Arabian districts. It was probably a region on or near the east coast of Arabia, but in spite of several conjectures it has not been identified with any historical tribe or country. The relationship with Cush is to be accounted for on the ground that the Cushites were held to have extended across the Red Sea from Nubia north-eastward over the great peninsula.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SABTECA.—The youngest son of Cush according to Gn 10:7. The only identification at all plausible has been made with Samydake on the E. side of the Persian Gulf. But this is improbable, since that region did not come within the Cushite domain, as judged by the names of the other sons of Cush. Possibly Sabteca is a miswriting for Sabtah ( wh. see ).

J. F. MCCURDY.

SACAR.—1. The father of Ahiam (1 Ch 11:35 = 2 S 23:33 Sharar) . 2. A family of gatekeepers (1 Ch 26:4).

SACKBUT.—See MUSIC, etc., § 4 (c).

SACKCLOTH.—The sackcloth of OT was a coarse dark cloth made on the loom from the hair of goats and camels. In the extant literature it is almost always associated with mourning for the dead (Gn 37:34, 2 S 3:31 and oft.): and especially with the public expression of humiliation and penitence in view of some national misfortune, present or impending (1 K 21:27, Neh 9:1, Jon 3:5 etc.). For other tokens of grief and penitence, associated with the donning of sackcloth, such as ashes or dust on the head, and the rending of garments (this being a later substitute for their entire removal), see MOURNING CUSTOMS. In such cases the person or persons concerned are generally said to ‘gird’ themselves with sackcloth, or to have sackcloth about their loins, from which it is evident that the sackcloth was worn in the form of a loincloth or waistcloth, tied in the ancient manner in a knot in front (cf. Is 20:2 ‘loose the sackcloth,’ lit. ‘untie the knot’). It was worn by women as well as by men (Is 32:11, Jth 9:1). The putting of it upon cattle, however, as mentioned in Jon 3:8 and Jth 4:10, and even upon an altar (4:11), is, from the nature of the passages cited, rather a literary than a historical extravagance.

In this custom most modern scholars recognize an illustration of conservatism in religious practice. The waistcloth is known to have been the oldest article of dress among the Semites (see DRESS, § 2) , and as such it appears to have been retained in mourning customs and in humiliation before God, and perhaps in the exercise of the cultus, long after it had ceased to be the only garment of the people. The ihram or waistcloth still worn by the Moslem pilgrims during their devotions at the sacred shrine at Mecca, has often been cited as a modern parallel.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SACRAMENTS

1. The term.—Although applied by common consent to certain institutions of the NT, the word ‘sacrament’ (Lat. sacramentum) is not a Scriptural one. In classical Lat. sacramentum ( fr. sacrare, ‘to consecrate’) is used esp. in two senses: (a) passively, as a legal term, to denote a sum of money deposited by the parties to a suit, which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to sacred uses; (b) actively, as a military term, to denote the oath taken by newly enlisted soldiers. When it came to be applied to Christian uses, the word retained the suggestions of both of those earlier employments. A sacrament was something set apart for sacred purposes; it was also, in certain cases, of the nature of a vow of self-consecration, resembling the oath of the Roman soldier (cf. Tertullian: ‘We were called to the warfare of the living God in our very response to the sacramental words,’ ad Mart. iii.). But the application and history of the word in the Christian Church were determined chiefly by the fact that in the Old Lat. and Vulg. VSS it was repeatedly employed (mysterium, however, being employed more frequently) to render the Gr. mystērion, ‘a mystery.’ [Thus Vulg. tr. St. Paul’s ‘This mystery is great’ (Eph 5:32) by ‘Sacramentum hoc magnum est’;—a rendering that had not a little to do with the subsequent erection of marriage into a sacrament.] This identification of the idea of a sacrament with that of a mystery was carried still further by Tertullian, and was greatly fostered by the fact that about this time a tendency was rapidly growing in the Church to an assimilation of Christian worship to the Mystery-worship of the Græco-Roman world (see art. MYSTERY) . Tertullian (end of 2nd cent. and beginning of 3rd) is the first writer to apply the name ‘sacrament’ to Baptism, the Eucharist, and other rites of the Christian Church.

When Pliny (c. A.D. 112) , in his account of the worship of the Christians of Bithynia, describes them at their morning meetings as ‘binding themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime’ (Ep. x. 96) , it has been suggested by some that he was using the word in the Christian sense, and was referring either to the baptismal vow or to participation in the Eucharist. The fact, however, that we do not find such a use of the word, even in Christian writers, for nearly a century afterwards makes this extremely unlikely; and the probability is that Pliny intended it in the old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation.

2. Nature and number.—(1) Though used especially of Baptism and the Eucharist, the application of the term by Christian writers was at first exceedingly loose, for it was taken to describe not only all kinds of religious ceremonies, but even facts and doctrines of the Christian faith. The vagueness of prevailing notions is illustrated by Augustine’s remark that ‘signs pertaining to things Divine are called sacraments,’ and by his well-known definition of a sacrament as ‘the visible form of an invisible grace.’ It is otherwise illustrated by the fact that Hugo of St. Victor (12th cent.) enumerates about 30 sacraments that had been recognized in the Church. The Council of Trent defined the nature of a sacrament more closely, by laying it down that not all signs of sacred things have sacramental value, and that visible forms are sacraments only when they represent an invisible grace and become its channels. It further delimited the sacramental area by re-enacting in its 7th session (1547) a decision of the Council of Florence (1439) in which effect was for the first time authoritatively given to the suggestion of Peter

Lombard (12th cent.) and other Schoolmen that the number of the sacraments should be fixed at

7 , namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony—a suggestion that was evidently influenced by the belief that 7 was a sacred number.

(2) In the Reformed Churches criticism of this scheme was based on the fact that it proceeds on no settled principle. The number 7 is perfectly arbitrary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. While, therefore, the Reformers retained the term ‘sacrament’ as a convenient one to express the general idea that has to be drawn from the characteristics of the acts classed together under this name—a term, moreover, that is sanctioned by the usage of the Church from the days of Tertullian—they found the distinguishing mark of a sacrament in the fact of its being instituted by Christ Himself and enjoined by Him upon His followers. And as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only two rites for which this can be claimed, it follows that there are only two sacraments in the proper sense of the word. The uniqueness that belongs to these as resting upon Christ’s personal appointment and being bound up with His own words (Mt 28:19, Mk 16[16]; Mt 26:26, 29||, 1 Co 11:23–25) justifies us in separating them from all other rites and ceremonies whatsoever, however seemly and suggestive any of these may appear to be, and raises them to the dignity of forming an integral part of the historical revelation of God in Christ, and so of being not signs merely, but in very truth, in Augustine’s phrase, ‘the word made visible.’ A justification of this segregation of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper from all other rites, and their association together under a common name, is furnished in the NT by Ac 2:41, 42 and 1 Co 10:1–4 . A further justification may perhaps be found in the fact that St. Paul traces an analogy between

Circumcision and the Passover—the two most distinctive rites of the Old Covenant—on the one hand, and Baptism (Col 2:11) and the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Co 5:7 with 11:26) respectively, on the other.

3. Efficacy.—According to the Roman view, sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato,

i.e. by a power inherent in themselves as outward acts. The Reformed doctrine, on the other hand, maintains that though they are Divinely appointed channels of the heavenly grace, their benefits to the recipient are contingent upon subjective spiritual conditions, and above all upon the exercise of faith in Christ Himself. See, further, BAPTISM, CONFIRMATION, EUCHARIST,

LAYING ON OF HANDS.

J. C. LAMBERT.

SACRIFICE AND OFFERING

1. TERMINOLOGY OF SACRIFICE.—(a) General. Since every sacrifice was an offering, but all offerings were not sacrifices, this preliminary study of the usage of these two important terms in our EV may start from the more comprehensive ‘offering.’ It is true that in the majority of the occurrences of ‘offering,’ both in AV and in RV, it is simply a synonym of ‘sacrifice’ (cf. German Opfer) . This is the case more particularly in the extensive nomenclature of the various sacrifices, as ‘burnt offering,’ which also appears in AV as ‘burnt sacrifice,’ ‘meal (AV meat) offering,’ etc. (In AV and RV the names of the sacrifices are printed separately, in Amer. RV they are more correctly joined by a hyphen, burnt-offering, etc.) As will presently appear (§ 2) , the compound expression in such cases represents but a single word in the original, which is the technical term for the particular sacrifice.

In the remaining occurrences, however, ‘offering,’ or its synonym ‘oblation,’ is used in a more extended application to denote a gift offered to God, as opposed to a secular gift, in the form of a present, bribe, or the like, to a fellow-creature. Such ‘holy gifts’ (Ex 28:38) or offerings may be divided into three classes, namely, (1) altar-offerings, comprising all such offerings as were brought into contact with the altar (cf. Mt 23:19), mostly for the purpose of being consumed thereon; (2) the stated sacred dues, such as tithes, first-fruits, etc.; and (3) special votive offerings, e.g. those specified in Nu 7. In this comprehensive sense of the term, ‘offering,’ or—as almost uniformly in RV—‘oblation,’ corresponds to the Heb. qorbān, a word peculiar to Ezekiel and the priestly legislation. It is the corban of Mk 7:11, ‘that is to say, Given to God’ (RV; AV ‘a gift’), and means ‘something brought near,’ i.e. to the altar, or at least presented at the sanctuary, in other words, a present to God. The term, as has been said, appears late in the history of OT sacrifice (Ezk 20:28, 40:43 and the various strata of P passim) , the nearest corresponding term in the older literature being minchāh, for which see § 2.

The classification of OT offerings above suggested serves, further, to bring into relief the relation of ‘sacrifice’ to ‘offering.’ The former may be defined as an offering which is consumed, in whole or in part, upon the altar, or, more briefly, as an altar-offering. It is in this more restricted sense of altar-offering that ‘sacrifice’ and ‘offering’ are employed synonymously in our English nomenclature of sacrifice.

But there is still another use of these terms in which they are not synonymous but contrasted terms. In the sacrificial system of OT, altar-offerings—‘sacrifices,’ in the sense above defined— are of two kinds, animal offerings and cereal offerings, using the latter term a fortiori for all non-bloody altar-offerings, including not merely cereal oblations in the strict sense (flour, cakes, etc.), but also offerings of wine, oil, and the indispensable salt. Now the characteristic and significant Heb. designation of an animal, or, as it is often termed, a bloody, offering is zebach, lit. ‘slaughter,’ from the verb zābach, originally to slaughter generally, then specially to immolate the sacrificial victim, to sacrifice—hence also the word for ‘altar,’ mizbēach, lit. the place of slaughter (for sacrifice). The complement of zebach in this sense of animal sacrifice is minchāh, in the later specialized sense of cereal offering (see, further, for both terms, § 2) , so that ‘sacrifice and offering’ came to denote the whole category of altar offerings (Ps 40:6, 1 S 2:29, Am 5:25—also Is 19:21 ‘sacrifice and oblation’). In this sense, also, they are to be understood in the title of this article. The results now reached may be thus summed up: ‘sacrifice’ is used as a convenient term for both kinds of OT altar-offerings, but in the EV, and in strict usage, it corresponds to the Heb. zebach, which is always used of animal sacrifice, while ‘offering’ is used in three different senses—for all sacred gifts (qorbān) , for such gifts only as ‘came up’ upon the altar, and, finally, in the special sense of cereal offering.

2. TERMINOLOGY OF SACRIFICE.—(b) Special. To the foregoing study of the more general terms may now be added a brief review of the more specific renderings of the names of the principal altar-offerings, reserving for later sections the examination of their characteristic features. Following the order of the manual of sacrifice, Lv 1–5, we have (1) the burnt offering,—so RV uniformly, AV also ‘burnt sacrifice’—Heb. ‘ōlāh, lit. ‘that which goes up’ (on the altar). The name is supposed to point to the feature by which the ‘ōlāh was distinguished from all other sacrifices, viz., the burning of the whole victim as a holocaust upon the altar. This characteristic is more explicitly brought out by the rare designation (2) kālīl, the ‘whole burnt offering’ of Dt 33:10 RV (AV ‘whole burnt sacrifice’) and Ps 51:19. ‘Whole offering’ would be a more exact equivalent of (1) and (2).

(3) Meal offering (RV) and meat offering (AV) are the equivalents of minchāh in its restricted sense of cereal or vegetable offering, as already explained. The Heb. word ‘does not express the neutral idea of a gift, but denotes a present made to secure or retain goodwill’ (Driver, art. ‘Offering.’ in Hastings’ DB iii. 587), such as Jacob’s ‘present’ to Esau (Gn 32:13, 18) , and the ‘presents’ which subjects were expected to offer to their sovereigns (1 S 10:27). From the latter usage there is but a step to the further sense of an ‘offering’ to the Divine sovereign. In the older literature, minchāh, as a present or offering to J″, includes both animal and cereal offerings, as in the case of the ‘offering’ brought by Abel and Cain respectively (Gn 4:3ff.) In the later Priests’ Code, however, minchāh is restricted to the cereal offering. For this the ‘meal offering’ of RV is better than the older rendering, ‘meat’ being now obsolete in the sense intended, but is still not sufficiently comprehensive; hence cereal offering or cereal oblation is the rendering now generally preferred. With the cereal offering may be taken (4) the drink offering, first met with in Gn 35:14.

(5) Peace offering (RVm thank offering).—The meaning of the special name of this sacrifice (shelem Am 5:22, elsewhere always plural shĕlāmīm) is still uncertain,—a fact reflected in the alternatives of RV. Most scholars, following the LXX, connect the word with shālōm, ‘peace,’ as reflecting the harmonious relations of worshipper and worshipped brought about by the sacrifice. Others, with greater probability, would derive the name from another meaning of the same root—‘to recompense, repay, pay one’s vows’ (see Pr 7:14). On this view, recompense offering is perhaps as good a rendering as any, and leaves (6) thank offering (2 Ch 29:31, tōdhāh, lit. ‘thanksgiving,’ hence the expression ‘a sacrifice of thanksgiving,’ Am 4:5, Ps 50:14, 23 RV) for an important variety of the recompense offering (cf. Lv 7:13 RV ‘the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving’). Other two varieties, named together Lv 7:16, Nu 15:3 etc., are (7) the votive offering ( EV ‘vow’), defined in the latter passage as ‘a sacrifice to accomplish a vow,’ and (8) the freewill offering ( RV), which explains itself.

The probable meaning of the difficult terms rendered (9) sin offering, and (10) trespass (AV) or guilt (RV) offering will be more profitably discussed when the precise nature and object of these offerings are under consideration (§ 14 f.) All the various offerings (1) to (10) are explicitly or implicitly included in a favourite term of the Priestly legislation, namely (11) ’ishsheh, fire offering, in EV ‘the offering (or sacrifice) made by fire.’ The fire offering is also mentioned in Dt 18:1 and 1 S 2:28 (a Deuteronomic passage).

Two other significant terms may be taken together, namely, the heave offering and the wave offering. The former is the rendering, in this connexion, of (12) tĕrūmāh, which etymologically signifies not something ‘heaved up’ (so Ex 29:27), but rather ‘what is lifted off a larger mass, or separated from it for sacred purposes.’ The Heb. word is used in a variety of applications—gifts of agricultural produce, of the spoils of war, etc., and in these cases is rendered ‘offering’ or ‘oblation’ (see Driver, DB iii. 588, and Com. on Deut. 142, who considers ‘that “contribution” is perhaps the English word which … best suggests the ideas expressed by the Heb. tĕrūmāh’). In connexion with sacrifice, however, it denotes certain portions ‘taken or lifted off’ from the rest and assigned to the priests as their due, in particular the ‘heave thigh’ (Lv 7:34 RV), or ‘the thigh of the heave offering’ (Ex 29:27f.). ‘Heave offering’ accordingly in the sacrificial terminology is the equivalent of ‘priest’s portion’ (cf. Lv 6:17, where, however, a different word is used).

(13) With the tĕrūmāh is closely associated the tĕnūphāh or wave offering. The Heb. word denotes a movement to and fro, swinging, ‘waving,’ the priest lifting his share of the victim and moving it to and fro in the direction of the altar, thus symbolizing the presentation of the part of J″, and J″’s return of it to the priest. It is applied specially to the breast of the sacrificial victim, hence termed ‘the breast of the wave offering’ (Ex 29:26f.), or more tersely ‘the wave breast’ (Lv 7:34, 10:14f.). Further, like tĕrūmāh, tĕnūphāh is also used in the more general sense of ‘offering’ (Ex 35:22; cf. Nu 8:11, 13 of the Levites, where the change from ‘offering’ (AV) to ‘wave offering’ (RV) is not an improvement).

(14) The last entry in this vocabulary of OT sacrifice is reserved for the obscure term ’azkārāh, memorial offering, applied especially to the handful of the cereal offering burnt by the priest upon the altar (Lv 2:2, 9, 16 etc., EV ‘memorial’). According to the usual, but uncertain, derivation of the term (zākar ‘remember’), the ’azkārāh is understood as an offering designed to bring the offerer to J″’s remembrance.

3. SACRIFICE AND OFFERING IN THE PRE-EXILIC PERIOD.—The history of OT sacrifice, like the history of the religion of Israel of which it is the most characteristic expression, falls into two main divisions, the first embracing the period from Moses to the end of the monarchy (B.C. 586) , the second the period from the Babylonian exile to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 . For the latter period we have the advantage of the more or less systematic presentation of the subject in the various strata of the complex legislation of P (esp. Lv 1–7) ; for the former we must have recourse to the numerous references to sacrifice in the non-Priestly sources of the Pentateuch, in the early narratives of the historical books, and in the writings of the pre-exilic prophets.

Now, according to J, sacrifice as an institution is as old as the human race itself (Gn 4:2ff.). In this significant narrative, sacrifice appears as the spontaneous expression of man’s need of God, who ‘made of one every nation of men … that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him’ (Ac 17:26f. RV). Our study of the terminology of sacrifice has shown that the dominant conception of sacrifice in the OT from first to last is that of a gift, present, or offering. The object of the gift, reduced to its simplest terms, may be said to be threefold—to secure and retain the favour of J″, to remove His displeasure incurred, and to express gratitude for benefits received. In this, Hebrew sacrifice differed from sacrifice elsewhere, even in the lowest religions, only in respect of the deity to whom it was offered.

The sacrificial worship of the earlier differs from that of the later period mainly in the greater freedom as regards the occasion and in particular the place of sacrifice, in the greater simplicity of the ritual, and in the joyousness of the cult as compared with the more sombre atmosphere of the post-exilic worship, due to a deepened sense of sin and the accompanying conviction of the need of expiation.

As regards, first of all, the place of sacrifice, every village appears to have had its sanctuary or ‘high place’ with its altar and other appurtenances of the cult, on which the recent excavations have thrown so much new and unexpected light (see HIGH PLACE). Not that sacrifice could be offered at any spot the worshipper might choose; it must be one hallowed by the tradition of a theophany: ‘in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee’ (Ex 20:24 RV). With the abolition of the local sanctuaries by Josiah in B.C. 622–21 , the Temple at Jerusalem became, and henceforth remained, the only legitimate place of sacrifice, as required by the legislation of Deuteronomy (12:2ff.).

The occasions of sacrifice were manifold, and in the days of the local sanctuaries, which practically means the whole of the period under consideration, these occasions were naturally taken advantage of to an extent impossible when sacrifice was confined to the Temple of Jerusalem. Only a few of such occasions, whether stated or special, can be noted here. Of the regular or stated occasions may be named the daily sacrifices of the Temple—a burnt offering in the morning followed by a cereal offering in the afternoon (2 K 16:15, cf. 1 K 18:29, 36, which, however, may refer to one or more of the large sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom. e.g. Bethel or Samaria), the ‘yearly sacrifice’ of the various clans (1 S 20:6), those at the recurring festivals, such as the new moon and the three agricultural feasts (Ex 23:14ff., 34:22ff.), at which the oldest legislation laid down that ‘none shall appear before me empty’ (23:15, 34:20), that is, without an offering in token of gratitude and homage. Still more numerous were the special occasions of sacrifice—the installation of a king (1 S 11:15, the arrival of an honoured guest, family events such as the weaning of a child, a circumcision, a marriage, the dedication of a house (Dt 20:5):

no compact or agreement was completed until sealed by a sacrifice (Gn 31:54 etc.); at the opening of a campaign the warriors were ‘consecrated’ by a sacrifice (1 S 13:9ff., Is 13:3 RV). One of the most fruitful occasions of sacrifice was undoubtedly the discharging of a vow, of which those of Jacob (Gn 28:20–22), Jephthah (see 5) , Hannah (1 S 1:11), and Absalom (2 S 15:7) may be cited as typical specimens, just as in Syria to-day, among fellahin and bedouin alike, similar vows are made to the welys of the local shrines by or on behalf of sick persons, childless women, or to avert or remove plague or other threatened calamity.

4. THE VARIETIES AND MATERIAL OF SACRIFICE IN THIS PERIOD.—Three varieties of sacrifice are met with in the older Hebrew literature, viz. the burnt offering, the ‘peace’ offering, and the cereal or ‘meal’ offering. The two former, appearing sometimes as ‘burnt offerings and

sacrifices’ (Ex 18:12, Jer 7:22 etc.), sometimes as ‘burnt offerings and peace offerings’ (Ex 24:5, 1 S 13:9 etc.), exhaust the category of animal sacrifices, the special ‘sin’ and ‘guilt’ offerings being first definitely named by Ezekiel (see §§ 13–15). The typical animal offering in the preexilic period is that now termed ‘sacrifice’ (zebach) simply, now ‘peace offering’ (Am 5:22) to differentiate it more clearly from the burnt offering, now still more explicitly ‘sacrifice of peace offerings’ (perhaps rather ‘of recompense,’ shĕlāmīm, § 2) . Almost all the special offerings and most of the stated ones were of this type. Its distinguishing feature was the sacrificial meal, which followed the sacrifice proper. After the blood had been returned to the Giver of life (we have no details as to the manipulation of the blood in the earliest period, but see 1 S 14:32–34) , and the fat burned upon the altar (1 S 2:15; cf. Is 1:11), the flesh of the victim was eaten at the sanctuary by the sacrificer and his family (1 S 1:3–7) or, in the case of a communal sacrifice, by the representatives of the community (9:22–25). The last passage shows that a special ‘guestchamber’ was provided at the ‘high place’ for this purpose.

The underlying idea of this, by far the commonest, form of sacrifice was that of sharing a common meal with the deity. The worshippers were the ‘guests’ (Zeph 1:7) of God at His sanctuary, and as such secure of His favour. To this day among the Arabs ‘the act of eating together is regarded as something particularly solemn and sacred,’ and, as is well known, creates a solidarity of interest between guest and host, and imposes upon the latter the duty of protecting his guest so long as, in Arab phrase, ‘his salt is in his belly’ (see Jaussen, Coutumes des Arabes [1908], 86–88). This idea of table communion, as it is termed, is accordingly one which may be reckoned a common possession of the Semitic stock. Even to St. Paul the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to heathen deities appeared as an act of ‘communion (AV ‘fellowship’) with demons’ (1 Co 10:20 Amer. RV). References to this solemn—one might almost say sacramental—eating of the sacrifice are too frequent to require citation, but we may recall the favourite expression of Deuteronomy, ‘ye shall eat (and drink) before the Lord your God’ (12:7 etc.), often followed by the equally characteristic ‘ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God.’ Here we meet with the dominant note of Hebrew worship in this period, the note of joyousness above referred to—an element which not infrequently led to the excesses deplored by the prophets.

Much less frequent in the older documents is the mention of the burnt offering, more precisely the ‘whole’ offering (see above, § 2) . The fact that the whole was consumed upon the altar enhanced its value as a ‘holy gift,’ and accordingly we find it offered when the occasion was one of special solemnity (Gn 8:20, 1 K 3:4 etc.), or was otherwise extraordinary, as e.g. 1 S 6:14 . In most cases the burnt offering appears in conjunction with the ordinary ‘sacrifice’ above described (Ex 18:12 , 1 S 6:17, 2 S 6:17, 2 K 16:13, 15; cf. Is 1:11, Jer 7:22, 17:26).

Apart from the special offering of the first-fruits, the cereal or meal offering ( AV ‘meat offering’ § 2) is rarely mentioned as an independent offering in this period, but is frequently named along with the two more important offerings discussed above, as Jg 13:23, Am 5:22, Jer 14:12 ( with the burnt offering), 1 S 2:29, 3:14, Is 19:21 (EV ‘oblation’), and often. ‘When the Hebrew ate flesh, he ate bread with it and drank wine, and when he offered flesh on the table of his God, it was natural that he should add to it the same concomitants that were necessary to make up a comfortable and generous meal’ (RS²222) . The various forms which the meal offering might assume are attested for a later period by Lv 2, for which see § 11. One form occurring there is undoubtedly ancient, viz. parched ears of corn (2:14; cf. FOOD, § 2).

Another very ancient form of offering, although not an altar-offering in the strict sense (yet strangely reckoned among the fire offerings, Lv 24:9), is that named the presence bread ( EV ‘shewbread’), which perpetuates the primitive idea of an offering as a meal for the deity (1 S 21:4–6, 1 K 7:48). The mention in a later passage of ‘the flagons thereof and the bowls thereof to pour out withal’ (Ex 25:29, see, further, SHEWBREAD) shows that, as for an ordinary meal, the ‘holy bread’ was accompanied by a provision of wine, in other words by a drink offering. This species of offering occurs as an independent offering only in Gn 35:14. The skins of wine mentioned in 1 S 1:24, 10:3 doubtless served in part for a drink or ‘wine offering’ (Hos 9:4), in part, like the accompanying flour and loaves, for the sacrificial meal. More explicit reference to the wine of the drink offering as an accompaniment of animal sacrifice is found in Dt 32:38 (cf. the early reference, Jg 9:13, to wine ‘which cheereth God’). For the ritual of the later drink offering, see § 11. It is significant of the predominant part played by the drink offering in early Babylonian ritual, that the word for libation (niqu) has there become the usual term for sacrifice (KAT³595).

A brief reference must suffice for oil in early ritual (Gn 28:18, Jg 9:9, Mic 6:7—for the later ritual, see § 11). A water offering appears only in the isolated cases 1 S 7:6, 2 S 23:16, but emerges as an interesting survival in the rites of the Feast of Tabernacles (wh. see). Honey, although offered among the first-fruits (2 Ch 31:5), was excluded, along with milk, from the altar (Lv 2:11), on the ground that both were liable to fermentation (see also LEAVEN).

5. MATERIAL AND RITUAL OF SACRIFICE IN THIS PERIOD.—From the details just given it is evident that ‘among the Hebrew offerings drawn from the vegetable kingdom, meal, wine, and oil take the chief place, and these were also the chief vegetable constituents of man’s daily food’ (RS²219) . The same remark holds good of the animal sacrifices, which were drawn chiefly from ‘the herd,’ i.e. neat cattle, and from the ‘flock,’ i.e. sheep and goats. Excluded from the altar, on the other hand, were not only all unclean animals, but also game and fish, which, not being reared by man, were probably regarded as God’s special property, and therefore inadmissible as a present from man. This idea that only what was a man’s ‘very own’ constituted an appropriate sacrifice is reflected in David’s words to Araunah, 2 S 24:24 (offerings ‘which cost me nothing’ RV). Males of the various species,—a heifer is mentioned in connexion with ordinary sacrifice only 1 S 16:2 (Gn 15:9, Dt 21:3ff., 1 S 6:14 do not belong to this category),—and of these, yearlings, as in the later legislation, were doubtless the commonest victims, although we read of ‘a bullock of three years old’ (1 S 1:24, see RVm; Jg 6:25 is corrupt, ‘seven years old’).

The question of human sacrifice cannot be passed over, even in this brief sketch of a vast subject. The recent excavations at Gezer and elsewhere (see HIGH PLACE, § 3) have revealed the surprising extent to which this practice prevailed among the Canaanites (cf. 2 K 3:27), and wellattested instances are recorded even among the Hebrews (Jg 11:30–40 , 1 K 16:34 RV, for which see HOUSE. § 3), apart altogether from the child sacrifices to Molech. Indeed, the familiar story of Abraham’s frustrated sacrifice of Isaac is now regarded as a polemic against this inhuman custom, which certainly had no sanction in the religion of OT.

As regards the ritual of sacrifice in this period, we have little information, 1 S 2:13–16 being the only passage that touches definitely on this subject. This much is certain, that much greater latitude prevailed while the local sanctuaries existed than was afterwards the case; and also, that the priest played a much less conspicuous part in the rite than he does in the developed system of the Priests’ Code. The chief function of the priest in the earliest times was to give ‘direction’ (tōrāh) by means of the oracle, and to decide in matters pertaining to the sphere of ‘clean and unclean.’ The layman—as father of the family or head of the clan, still more the anointed king— offered his sacrifice without the intervention of the priest. The latter, however, as the custodian of the sanctuary, was entitled to his due (see 1 S l.c., Dt 18:3). At the more frequented sanctuaries—Jerusalem, Bethel, Beersheba, etc.—a more or less elaborate ritual was gradually evolved, for which the priest, as its depositary, became indispensable.

But even from the first the deity had to be approached with due precaution. The worshippers ‘sanctified’ themselves by ablutions (1 S 16:5), and by washing (Ex 19:10) or changing their garments (Gn 35:2); for only those who were ceremonially ‘clean’ could approach the altar of J″. The sacrificer then entered the high place and immolated the sacrificial victim, originally, it would appear, upon the altar itself (Gn 22:9, 1 S 14:33f.), so that the blood ran over it; later, near to the altar, care being taken that the blood was caught and poured out at its base. The victim was next cut up and the fat of the viscera removed. In the case of an ordinary sacrifice (zebach) , to judge from 1 S 2:16, the flesh was boiled for the sacrificial meal, and not until the latter was ready was the fat, J″’s special portion, burned upon the altar. By this simultaneous consumption of the sacrifice the table-fellowship of J″ and His guests was more strikingly realized, the latter ‘eating and drinking before the Lord,’ as the ‘sweet smoke’ (qĕtōreth) ascended from the altar, an ‘odour of soothing (EV ‘sweet savour’) unto the Lord.’

While the normal attitude of the worshippers on such occasions was one of rejoicings, as became those who, by thus renewing their covenant relation to J″ in the way appointed, felt themselves secure of His favour and protection, a more serious note, implying a sense of alienation and the need of propitiation, is not infrequently found even in pre-exilic sacrifice, as will appear in a later section (§ 13).

6. THE DEVELOPED SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM OF THE POST-EXILIC PERIOD—ITS GENERAL

FEATURES.—In an earlier section it was shown how intimately connected with the everyday life of the family were the free, joyous sacrifices at the local sanctuaries. The abolition of the latter by Josiah, in accordance with the demands of Deuteronomy (for the justification of this measure, see HIGH PLACE, § 6) , marks an epoch in the history of OT sacrifice. Hitherto every slaughter of a domestic animal for the entertainment of a guest, or to celebrate a family ‘event,’ was a form of sacrifice (for a remarkable list and description of such ‘immolations’ as practised by the Arabs of Moab at the present day, see Jaussen, Coutumes des Arabes au pays de Moab [1908], 337–363). Henceforward this was no longer so. The restriction of legitimate sacrifice to the one distant sanctuary at Jerusalem meant in practice the divorce from common life of the principal rite of religion. The Temple, from being only one, although certainly the most important, of the local sanctuaries of Judah, became the one national sanctuary; the cultus assumed an official character, while its dignity was enhanced by the presence of a numerous priesthood and a more elaborate ritual. Sacrifice, in short, lost its former spontaneity and became a statutory obligation. The Jewish nation had taken the first step towards becoming the Jewish Church.

A still more potent factor, making for change, soon appeared in the shape of the crushing calamity of the Exile. Then, at last, the words of the prophets came home to men’s hearts and minds, and it was recognized that the nation had received the due reward of its deeds. A deepened sense of sin and a heightened conception of the Divine holiness were two of the most precious fruits of the discipline of the Exile. The confident assurance of J″’s protection and good-will, which marked the relations of worshipper and worshipped in the days of Israel’s prosperity, had passed away. In its place arose a conviction of the need of expiation and propitiation—a conviction reflected in the whole sacrificial system, as gradually systematized and elaborated, on the basis of the usage of the Temple, by successive generations of Priestly writers from Ezekiel onwards. In its fully developed form, as we find it in the middle books of the Pentateuch, we see how the cultus as a whole has become the affair of the community: the old sacral units, the family and the clan, have disappeared.

Great—one is tempted to say, the main—stress is now laid on the technique of sacrifice, on the proper observance of the prescribed ritual: the slightest want of conformity thereto invalidates the sacrifice; the old latitude and freedom are gone for ever. The necessary corollary is the enhanced status and importance of the priest as the indispensable intermediary between the worshipper and the Deity. Beyond immolating the victims, the laity are no longer competent to perform the sacrificial rites. The relative importance of the two older animal sacrifices, the ’ōlāh and the zebach, is now reversed. The typical sacrifice is no longer the latter with its accompanying meal, but the ‘continual burnt offering,’ an act of worship performed every morning and evening in the Temple in the name of the community, whose presence is unnecessary for its due performance. Still more characteristic of the later period, however, is the emergence of special propitiatory sacrifices (piacula)—the allied sin offering and guilt offering. The older varieties of sacrifice, although still retaining their propitiatory efficacy, are no longer sufficient to express and adequately to satisfy the new consciousness of man’s sinfulness, or, more accurately expressed, of God’s exacting holiness.

7. THE FIVE KINDS OF ALTAR-OFFERINGS IN P.—The numerous altar-offerings mentioned in the various strata of the Priestly legislation are divided by Josephus into two classes: (i) those offered ‘for private persons,’ and (ii) those offered ‘for the people in general,’—a classification corresponding to the Roman sacra privata and sacra publica (Ant. III. ix. 1). The public sacrifices were either stated or occasional, the former and more important group comprising the daily burnt offering (see § 10) and the additional sacrifices at the stated festivals—Sabbath, New Moon, New Year, the three great feasts, and the Day of Atonement.

Since it is impossible within present limits to attempt to enumerate, much less to discuss, the multifarious varieties and occasions of public and private sacrifices, it will be more convenient to follow, as before, the order of the five distinct kinds as given in the systematic manual, Lv 1–7. These are (1) the burnt offering, (2) the cereal or meal (AV ‘meat’) offering, (3) the peace offering and the two propitiatory sacrifices, (4) the sin offering, and (5) the guilt (AV ‘trespass’) offering. Arranged according to the material of the offering, these fell into two groups represented by the terms’ sacrifice’ and ‘offering’ (§ 1) ; in other words, into animal and vegetable or cereal offerings (including the drink offering). The four animal or bloody offerings may be classified according to the destination of the flesh of the victim, thus (cf. the relative §§ below)—

(i) The flesh entirely consumed upon the altar—the burnt or whole offering.

(ii) The flesh not consumed upon the altar—the peace offerings and the two propitiatory offerings.

The second group may again he subdivided thus—

(a) The flesh apart from the priest’s dues, assigned to the offerer for a sacrificial meal—the peace offering.

(b) The flesh assigned to the priests to be eaten within the sanctuary—the guilt offerings and the less important of the sin offerings.

8. THE MATERIAL OF SACRIFICE IN P.—‘Holy’ and ‘most holy.’—The material of all these remains the same as in the pre-exilic period (§ 5), with the addition of pigeons and turtle-doves to meet the needs of the poor, but the victim for each special kind of sacrifice, and its qualifications, are now definitely prescribed. As regards neat and small cattle, the victims must be males for the most part, entire and without blemish (see Lv 22 for list of imperfections—an exception, however, was made for the freewill offering, v. 23). For the peace offering both sexes were equally admissible (3:1), and a female victim is specially prescribed for the less important sin offerings (4:28, 32). The animals were eligible for sacrifice from the eighth day onwards (22:27), but the typical sacrifice was the yearling. For the material of the cereal offering see below.

Here may be noted an interesting contrast between such offerings as were regarded as merely ‘holy’ and those reckoned ‘most holy.’ The limits of the former category are somewhat vague, but it certainly included firstlings and first-fruits, the tithe and the portions of the peace offerings falling to the priests, whereas the shew-bread (Lv 24:9), the sacred incense (Ex 30:36), the meal offering (Lv 2:3), and the sin and guilt offerings (6:25, 29, 7:1, 6) are all classed as ‘most holy.’ One practical effect of the distinction was that the ‘most holy things’ could be eaten only by the priests, and by them only within the Temple precincts (6:16, 26, Nu 18:10; cf. Ezk 42:13, 46:20). As charged with a special potency of holiness, which was highly contagious, the ‘most holy things’—there were many other entries in the category, such as the altar and the high priest’s dress—rendered all who came in contact with them ‘holy,’ in modern phrase ‘taboo’ (Lv

6:18, 27). The ‘holy things,’ on the other hand, might he eaten by the priests and their households, if ceremonially clean, in any ‘clean place,’ i.e. practically in Jerusalem (10:14, 22:3, 10–16 , Nu 18:11ff. ).

9. THE RITUAL OF POST-EXILIC SACRIFICE.—This is now, like all else, matter of careful regulation. The ritual, as a whole, doubtless continued and developed that of the pre-exilic Temple, where the priest had long taken the place of the lay offerer in the most significant parts of the rite. After the offerer had duly ‘sanctified’ himself as explained in § 5, and had his sacrifice examined and passed by the Temple officials, the procedure comprised the following ‘actions’:—

(1) The formal presentation of the victim to the priest officiating at the altar.

(2) The sěmīkhāh or laying on of hands; the offerer leaned his right hand—in the later praxis, both hands—upon the head of the victim, in token of its being withdrawn from the sphere of the ‘common’ and transferred to the sphere of ‘holy things’ (cf. for the two spheres, 1 S 21:4), and of his personal assignation of it to the Deity. There is no suggestion in this act of the victim being thereby made the substitute in a penal sense of its owner and donor (see the Comm., and, for recent discussions, the reff. in DB Ext. Vol. 720^b).

(3) The immolation of the victim, on the north side of the altar (Lv 1:11, 6:25), by severing the arteries of the neck. In private sacrifices this was always done by the person presenting them.

(4) The manipulation of the blood by the priest. This, the central action of the whole rite, varied considerably for the different sacrifices. After being caught by the priest in a large basin, the blood was in most cases tossed against the sides of the altar (‘sprinkle’ of EV, Lv 1:5, 3:2 etc., is misleading, being the proper rendering of a different term occurring 4:6, 16:14, and elsewhere). Generally it may be said that the more pronounced the propitiatory character of the sacrifice, the nearer the blood was brought to the presence of the deity (see § 14), the climax being reached in the blood-rite of the Day of Atonement (16:14, see ATONEMENT [DAY OF]).

(5) The skinning and dismemberment of the animal, including the removal of the internal fat, as specified 3:3, 4 and 4:8f. The hide fell to the officiating priest, except in the case of the sin offering, when it was burned with the flesh (Ex 29:14).

(6) The arrangement of all the pieces upon the altar in the case of the burnt offering, of the specified portions of ‘the inwards’ in the case of the others; and finally—

(7) The burning—lit. the turning into ‘sweet smoke’—of these upon the altar of burnt offering, the fire on which was kept continually burning (Lv 6:13).

Of these various elements of the ritual, those requiring contact with the altar as a ‘most holy thing,’ viz. (4), (6), and (7), represent the priest’s, the rest the layman’s, share in the rite of sacrifice.

10. The burnt offering (Lv 1:1–17, 6:8–13, Ex 29:15–18).—The first place in the manual of sacrifice, Lv 1–7, is occupied by the sacrifice which alone was entirely consumed upon the altar, hence the older and more correct designation ‘whole offering’ (§ 2)—a feature which constituted it the typical honorific sacrifice, the fullest expression of homage to J″ on the part alike of the community and of the individual. The victim from the flock and the herd was always a male— young bull, ram, or he-goat. The turtle-dove and the young pigeon of the poor had their special ritual (1:14–17). The most important of the stated sacrifices in the period under review was the ‘continual burnt offering’ (Ex 29:38–42, Nu 28:3–8) , so called because it was presented every morning and evening along with a cereal oblation by the particular ‘course’ of priests on duty in the Temple. The victim was a yearling lamb, which was offered on behalf of the whole community of Israel throughout the world. An interesting survival of the primitive anthropomorphic conception of sacrifice, as affording a complete meal to the deity, is seen in the provision that every burnt offering (as also every peace offering) must be accompanied by both a meal offering and a drink offering (see next §).

11. The meal (AV meat) offering (Lv 2, 6:14–23, Nu 15:1–16 etc.).—As pointed out in an early section, the term minchāh, which originally was applicable both to an animal and to a cereal offering, is in the later legislation limited to the latter species. As such it appears in a large variety of forms, and may be either an independent offering, as contemplated in Lv 2, or, as in most cases, an accompaniment of the burnt and peace offerings (Nu 15:1–16) . One of the oldest forms of the minchāh was, undoubtedly, the ‘meal offering of first-fruits,’ as described Lv 2:14–16; another antique form survived in the unique offering of barley meal in the jealousy offering (Nu 5:15). As an ordinary altar-offering the minchāh consisted of ‘fine flour,’ and was presented either cooked or uncooked, as prescribed in detail in Lv 2:1–7 . In the latter case the flour was placed in a vessel and mixed with oil, the equivalent of our butter in matters culinary. The dough was then covered with frankincense, when it was ready for presentation at the altar. The priest took off all the frankincense, then removed a handful of the dough, which he put into another vessel, added salt, the unfailing accompaniment of every species of altar-offering (2:13, Mk 9:44), and the frankincense, and proceeded to burn the whole upon the altar. The portion burned was termed the ’azkārāh (§ 2), or ‘memorial’ (so EV from Vulg. memoriale) . The remainder of the offering fell to the priests, by whom it was eaten as ‘a thing most holy’ (§ 8).

The priests’ own meal offerings, on the other hand, were wholly burned (Lv 6:23).

In Nu 15:1–16 and elsewhere, minute instructions are given as to the precise amounts of fine flour, oil, and wine which should accompany the burnt and peace offerings (cf. Ezk 46:5–14 and the tabular comparison of the quantities in the two passages in Gray, ‘Numbers’ [ICC] , 170).

These were regulated by the importance of the animal sacrificed, the drink or wine offering (Hos 9:4), for example, being uniformly ¹/₂hin for a bullock, ¹/₃hin for a ram, and ¹/₄hin for a lamb,—the hin may be taken approximately as 12 pints.

No instructions have been preserved as to how the wine was to be offered, but from later evidence it appears that, like the blood, it was ‘poured out at the foot of the altar’ (Sir 50:15; cf.

Jos. Ant. III. ix. 4). For the importance of incense in the later ritual, see INCENSE.

12. The peace or thank offering (Lv 3:1–16, 7:11–21, 28–34, 17:1–9, 22:21–33 etc.). The latter rendering, which is that of RVm. is nearer what we consider to be the meaning of the original term, ‘sacrifice of recompense’ (§ 2) . Its distinguishing feature continued to be the sacrificial meal which followed the actual sacrifice. Three varieties are named—(a) the thanksgiving offering (7:13, 15 tōdhāh, also rendered ‘thank offering’ in the narrower sense, 2 Ch 29:31), in recognition of some special mercy; (b) the votive offering (EV ‘vow,’ Lv 7:16), in discharge of a vow; and (c) the freewill offering, a spontaneous and unprescribed recognition of God’s goodness. The last was clearly of less importance than the others, since for it alone imperfect victims were admitted to the altar (22:23). As a fourth variety may be reckoned (d) the priests’ installation offering (Ex 29:19–26).

The modus operandi was essentially the same as for the burnt offering,—female victims, however, being admitted equally with males. Special instructions are given as to the removal of the fat adhering to the inwards (see the coloured illustrations in SBOT, ‘Levit.,’ in loc.) , along with the ‘caul of the liver,’ i.e. the caudate lobe (G. F. Moore; see EBi iv. col. 4206, and the ref. in Oxf. Heb. Lex. 1124^b), and the two kidneys. The parts falling to the priests, the breast and the right hind leg,—these varied at different times, cf. Dt 18:3 with Ex 29:26, Lv 7:31f.—were symbolically presented to and returned by J″, by being ‘waved’ towards the altar (see § 2 for this ceremony, and for the expressions ‘heave thigh’ and ‘wave breast’). The fat was then salted and burned, while the remainder of the flesh furnished the characteristic meal. Both sexes, if ceremonially clean, might partake of this meal, but only on the day of the sacrifice or the day following (Lv 7:16–18, 19:5–8). The flesh of the special thanksgiving offering (tōdhāh) , however, had to be eaten on the day it was offered (7:15, 22:29f.).

13. THE SPECIAL PROPITIATORY SACRIFICES

The sin offering and the guilt offering.—One of the characteristic features of the later period, as has already been pointed out, is the stress laid on the propitiatory aspect of sacrifice. It is not, of course, to be supposed that this element was absent in the earlier period. Such passages as 1 S 3:14, 26:19, 2 S 24:25, Mic 6:6, 7 and others prove the contrary, even were it not the fact that the idea of propitiating the unseen powers is one lying at the root of all sacrifice (see above, § 3). But, as shown by the passages now cited, expiatioo and propitiation were sought through the medium of the ordinary sacrifices. The special propitiatory sacrifices with which we have now to deal probably made their appearance in the dark days which preceded the fall of the Jewish monarchy, although, so far as our literary evidence goes, Ezekiel is the first to differentiate them by name, as the chattā’th (sin) and the ’āshām ( guilt), from the older types of offering (40:39, 42:13 etc.).

The study of these newer sacrifices is complicated, in the first place, by the divergent regulations found in the different sections of the completed Pentateuch, which seem to reflect the practice of different periods, or perhaps the views of different schools; and, in the second place, by the consequent difficulty of detecting a clear line of demarcation between the two allied offerings (see § 15) . From the point of view of ritual, the chief points of difference are these : (1)

In the guilt offering the manipulation of the blood agrees with that prescribed for the older sacrifices; in the sin offering, on the other hand, the blood ritual is more complicated and varies in intensity according to the theocratic and social position of the offerer. This feature alone is sufficient to distinguish the sin offering as par excellence the sacrifice of expiation and atonement. (2) For the guilt offering the victim is uniformly a ram (‘the ram of atonement,’ Nu 5:8) ; for the sin offering the victim varies according to the same principle as the blood ritual, the higher the position of the offerer in the theocratic community the more valuable the victim. On the other hand, both agree as compared with the older sacrifices: (1) in the disposal of the flesh of the sacrifice in so far as it was neither entirely burned on the altar as in the whole offering, nor assigned to the offerer for a sacred meal as in the peace offering, but was otherwise disposed of ( see next §§); and (2) in the absence of the cereal and wine offerings which were the regular accompaniments of the other animal sacrifices.

14. The sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13, 6:24–30, Ex 29:11–14, Nu 15:22–29 etc.).—Leaving aside the question of the relation of these sections to each other as to origin and date—allimportant as this is for the evolution of the sin offering—we find from a comparison of Lv 4, 5:7–13 , the most systematic as it is probably the latest exposition of the subject, with other sections of the code where this special sacrifice is required, that the latter was the prescribed medium of expiation for two main classes of offences. These are (1) sins committed in ignorance or by inadvertence (4:2, 13, 22, Nu 15:24–29) as opposed to sins committed ‘with an high hand’ (v. 30 RV), i.e. in conscious and wilful defiance of the Divine law, for which no sacrifice could atone; (2) cases of defilement or uncleanness, contracted in various ways and having no connexion with ‘sin’ in the modern sense of a breach of the moral law, such as the defilement of childbirth and of leprosy, the uncleanness of the altar and the like.

At this point it will repay us to examine the origin of the term chattā’th, omitted from § 2, as likely to afford a clue to the true significance of the sacrifice. Derived from the verb signifying ‘to sin’ in the sense of ‘to miss (the mark or the way),’ chattā’th denotes sin then a sacrifice for sin. It may be questioned, however, whether this transference of meaning was as direct as is usually implied. The intensive stems of the root-verb are repeatedly used in the ‘privative’ sense best expressed by ‘to unsin’ (Germ. entsündigen) by some rite of purification, as Lv 8:15, Ezk 43:20–23, of ‘unsinning.’ i.e. purifying or purging the altar; Nu 19:19, of ‘unsinning’ a person defiled by contact with a corpse; 8:21 ‘the Levites unsinned themselves (RV purified themselves from sin) and washed their clothes,’ where the ‘sin’ of RV refers only to ceremonial uncleanness. From this use of the verb, chattā’th itself acquired the secondary sense of ‘purification,’ e.g. Nu 8:7 (AV rightly ‘water of purifying’—RV ‘expiation’) and 19:9–17 , where the red heifer and her ashes are described as a chattā’th, that is, as the means of removing the uncleanness caused by the dead. It follows from the above that ‘purification offering’ better expresses to the modern mind the purposes of the chattā’th than does ‘sin offering.’ with its misleading associations.

These considerations lead us directly to the heart of the sacrificial doctrine, if the term may be allowed, of Ezekiel and the Priests’ Code. Sacrifice is the Divinely appointed means by which the ideal holiness of the theocratic community is to be maintained. God’s all-devouring holiness requires that the people shall keep themselves free not only from moral imperfection, but also from every ceremonial defilement that would interrupt the relations between them and God. In the sphere of morals only ‘unwitting faults’ are contemplated, for ‘these are the only faults of which the redeemed and restored people will be guilty’ (A. B. Davidson), and, in so far as the ritual of the sin offering provides for their expiation, these sins of inadvertence are conceived as defiling the sinner who, because of his uncleanness, becomes a source of danger to the community. From this point of view the gradation in the victims prescribed first becomes intelligible; for the higher the theocratic rank of the sinner, the greater, according to the antique view of the contagion both of holiness and of uncleanness, was his power of contamination. It is to be noted, finally, that the order is first the removal of the defilement by means of the sacrifice, and then the Divine forgiveness of his sin as a moral offence (see Lv 4:20, 26, 31, 35).

Returning to Lv 4:1–5:13 , we find that, apart from the gradation of the prescribed victims already referred to, the distinguishing feature in the ritual of the sin offering is the more intense application of the blood. In this respect two grades of sin offering are distinguished, a higher and a lower. In the higher grade, which comprises the offering of the high priest and that of the ‘whole congregation,’ the blood is carried by the officiating priest into the Holy Place of the Tent of Meeting—In practice the Temple. There some of it is sprinkled with the finger seven times before the veil, and some applied to the horns of the altar of incense, while the rest is poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering. The victim in both cases is a young bull, the flesh of which is so sacrosanct that it has to be burned without the camp.

In the lower grade, part of the blood was smeared upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, while the rest was poured out, as before, at its base. It is interesting to note, as bearing on the evolution of the ritual, that in a presumably older stratum of P (Ex 29:11–14) , the blood ritual, even for the high priest’s offering, does not exceed that of the lower grade of Lv 4. The flesh of the latter, which was also ‘most holy,’ was eaten by the priests within the sanctuary (6:24–30). To meet the requirements of the poor man, provision was made for the admission of ‘two turtle-doves or two young pigeons,’ and in cases of extreme poverty of ‘the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour’ (about 7 pints), offered without oil and without incense (5:11–13).

If the conclusion reached above be accepted, that the chattā’th is essentially a sacrifice of purification, it is evident that the victim cannot be regarded here, any more than in the other sacrifices, as the substitute for the offerer, presumed to have incurred the penalty of death (see, further, for the doctrine of the pœna vicaria, § 16).

15. The guilt or trespass offering (Lv 5:14–6:7, 7:1–7, Nu 5:5–8).—

The Heb. word ’āshām signifies generally a wrong done to another and the guilt thereby incurred, and specially the property of another wilfully withheld (Nu 5:7, 8). In the earlier period it came to denote also the gift (1 S 6:3f.) or money payment (2 K 12:16f.) by which, in addition to restitution, it was sought to make amends for the wrong; in the later period, finally, ’āshām is the sacrifice which accompanied the act of restitution.

The references in the Pentateuch to the guilt (RV) or trespass (AV, RVm) offering are not entirely consistent in their representation of its nature and purpose. The guilt offering of the leper, for example (Lv 14:12ff.), can scarcely be distinguished from the sin offering (cf. 5:17– 19). Taking the most explicit of the passages, however, Lv 6:1–7 , we see that the guilt offering deals with the misappropriation of the property of another. In 5:14–16 this misappropriation takes the form of unwittingly withholding part of the sacred dues, ‘the holy things of the Lord.’ In both cases the offender has to restore the property or due withheld, together with a fine amounting to one-fifth of its value as compensation for the loss sustained, and to offer a sacrifice as expiation of his breach of faith (5:15, EV ‘trespass’). Provision is also made for a public confession (Nu 5:7). The victim in these typical cases is invariably a ram, and the ritual is that of the ordinary sacrifices, except that the flesh can be eaten, like that of the lower grade of sin offerings, only by the priests ‘in a holy place.’

For the various occasions on which one or more of the five varieties of sacrifice above enumerated had to be offered, see, among others, the following articles:—ATONEMENT [DAY

OF], CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, COVENANT, FEASTS, NAZIRITE, TITHE, VOW, etc.

16. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SACRIFICE IN OT.—The origin and significance of sacrifice is a problem on which students of religion are still greatly divided. So far as the OT student is concerned, the question of origins does not necessarily arise, for the institution of sacrifice had already a long life behind it when the Hebrew tribes first entered upon the stage of history. One fact, at least, seems to be well established. The ancestors of the Hebrews, like the Arabs of the present day, had no ‘offerings made by fire,’ but were content to pour the blood over the sacred stone without burning any part of the flesh. (For the view that the Hebrews of the historic period still retained a recollection of this older custom, see Kittel, Studien zur heb. Archdologie [1908] , 96–108.) For the rest the wisest word recently spoken on this subject is that of the late Professor Stade (Bibl. Theol. d. AT, 156): ‘The sacrificial worship of ancient Israel is a very complicated phenomenon, which has grown up out of different conceptions and customs, and is by no means to be derived from a single fundamental idea (aus einem Grundgedanken) .’ Let us proceed to illustrate this word of wisdom.

(a) In the whole period covered by the OT literature, sacrifice, as the terminology proves (see § 1) , was thought of as a gift or present to God. The motives which prompted the gifts are nowhere stated in so many words, but may be clearly inferred. In the earliest period, at least, the gifts are offered, now as to an earthly ruler in token of homage, now as an expression of gratitude for benefits received; again, particularly in the very numerous cases of vows, with a view to obtain a coveted boon, for among the Hebrews as among the Greeks it was believed that ‘gifts persuade the gods, gifts the revered kings.’ We are not surprised, therefore, to find in the oldest Hebrew law-codes the command that none shall appear before J″ ‘empty,’ that is, without a gift ( Ex 23:15, 34:20). From first to last, the OT witnesses to this ‘conviction that the gift of piety really produces a gratifying, propitious, and in the end conciliatory effect on God’ (Schultz, ‘Significance of Sacrifice in OT,’ AJTh iv. 284).

The form which these ‘gifts of piety’ assumed was chiefly that of food. The Hebrew offered to God of the things with which his own table was furnished, and these only of the best. This naïve conception of sacrifice as ‘the food (EV ‘bread’) of God’ is still found as an interesting survival in the later literature (Ezk 44:7, Lv 3:11, 21:6 etc.). Cf. ‘my food’ (Nu 28:2) , ‘the table of the Lord’ (Mal 1:7, 12), and the institution of the shew-bread. In the historical period, as we have seen, this food of God was always ‘etherealized’ by being converted into ‘sweet smoke’ upon the altar; it thus became, in the recurring phrase, ‘a soothing odour (EV ‘a sweet savour’) unto the Lord.’ Cf. 1 S 26:19 ‘let him accept (lit. smell) an offering’ (as a propitiation).

(b) But this antique conception of sacrifice as the food of the deity by no means exhausts its significance to the Hebrew mind. The typical sacrifice in the pre-exilic period was the peace offering, of which the characteristic feature was the common meal which followed the actual sacrifice. The OT is silent regarding the significance to the Hebrew worshipper of this part of the sacrificial worship. Robertson Smith, as every student knows, would have us see in this ‘act of communion in which the god and his worshippers united by partaking of the flesh and blood of a sacred victim’ (RS²226 f., and passim), the unconscious survival of the sacramental eating of their god by the members of the totem clan of pre-historic days. This is not the place to enumerate the difficulties of this theory when applied to Semitic sacrifice, the absence of convincing proof of the existence of totemism in the Semitic field being not the least of these.

It is more natural, as suggested above (§ 4) , to recognize in the Hebrew sacrificial feast a transference to the sphere of religion of the Semitic idea of the friendship and fellowship which are formed and cemented by partaking of a common meal. By thus sharing, as the guests of God, the common meal of which the worshipped and the worshippers partook within the sanctuary, the latter renewed the bond which united them to their covenant God; they ‘ate and drank before the Lord’ in full assurance of the continuance of all the blessings which the covenant relation implied.

(e) In the later period of Jewish history, this conception of sacrifice as a table-communion with the deity receded in favour of another to which less prominence was given in the early period, and in which, as has been pointed out (§ 14) , sacrifice was regarded as the most important of the Divinely appointed means by which the ideal relation of a holy God to a holy people was to be maintained unimpaired. For inadvertent omissions and transgressions, and for all cases of serious ceremonial defilements, which interrupted this ideal relation, sacrifice in all its forms—not the special propitiatory offerings merely—is said to ‘make atonement.’

The Heb. is kipper, of which the original signification is still uncertain. But whether this but ‘to cover’ or ‘to wipe off,’ it gives little help in deciding the special meaning of the word in the terminology of sacrifice. There it is used in neither of the senses given above, but always in close connexion with the verbs signifying ‘to purify’ (tihar) and to ‘unsin’ (chittē’)—terms belonging specially to the terminology of purification (see § 14). Applied to material objects, such as the altar, kipper is little more than a synonym of tihar and chittē’; applied to persons, it is the summary expression of the rites by which the offender against the holiness of God is made fit to receive the Divine forgiveness and to be re-admitted to the fellowship and worship of the theocratic community. The agent is the priest, who performs the propitiatory rites on behalf of the offender. The words in italics, clumsy though they are, fairly express the meaning of this much discussed term of the Heb. ritual (see, further. Driver’s exhaustive study under

‘Propitiation’ in Hastings’ DB iv. esp. p. 131, on the difficulty of finding a satisfactory English rendering). See, further, the small print in § 14.

Now, although it is true, as G. F. Moore reminds us (EBi iv. 4220), that ‘the whole public cultus is a means of propitiating God and obtaining remission for sin and uncleanness’ (Ezk

45:15 , 17), it is equally true that the propitiatory efficacy of sacrifice is represented by the Priestly writers as especially bound up with the blood of the sacrificial victim. When we ask the question, in virtue of what property does the blood make atonement?, we find the answer incidentally in the oft-quoted passage Lv 17:11. We say incidentally, because v. 11 really contains the answer to an entirely different question—Why is blood taboo as an article of food? Now the verse runs in RV: ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life’ (that is in it). Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not the blood but the life that is

in it that is the medium of propitiation. Beyond this we cannot go in our search for the explanation of the ‘how’ of atonement on OT ground.

Along other and extra-Biblical lines students have diligently sought for the ultimate basis of this efficacy of blood. It is doubtless to be connected with ‘the almost universal belief that blood is a fluid in which inheres a mysterious potency, no less dangerous when misused than efficacious when properly employed’ (G. F. Moore, EBi iv. 4218; cf. Trumbull, The Blood Covenant, passim; and Farnell, The Evolution of Religion, 94 f.). Just because of its ‘mysterious potency,’ and its association with ‘the great primeval mysteries of life and death’ (Farnell), blood was felt to be too sacred, and indeed too dangerous (see 1 S 14:33f.), to be used otherwise than as the proper due of the Author of all life. It was at once the most persuasive of gifts at His altar, and the most potent cathartic by which the sinner was purged of uncleanness and sin.

The traditional view that the blood of the sacrifice atoned for the sins of the offerer, because the victim suffered the death which the sinner had incurred, is now rarely maintained. This theory of a pœna vicaria is untenable for these among other reasons: (1) The sins for which the OT sacrifices made atonement were not such as involved the penalty of death (§ 14) . (2) Had the guilt of the offerer been transferred to the victim by ‘the laying on of hands’—for the meaning of this rite, see § 9—the flesh of the sacrifice would have been in the highest degree unclean, and could not have been eaten by either priests or people. (3) The idea that the Divine forgiveness was procured by the blood of the victim as its owner’s substitute is excluded by the admission, for the propitiatory sacrifice par excellence, of a bloodless offering in the shape of an oblation of flour (§ 14, end). Nevertheless, although the doctrine that the death of the victim was a vicarious punishment for the sin of the offerer is not to be found in the legislation itself, the thought was one that could scarcely fail to suggest itself to the popular mind—a conclusion to which it was doubtless assisted by the representation of the vicarious sufferings of the Servant in Is 53.

Summing up the conclusions of this section on the significance of sacrifice in OT, we find it represented in all periods as a gift, mainly of homage to the Divine Sovereign, in the earlier period also as a rite of table communion with the covenant God of Israel, and finally in the later period as pre-eminently the appointed means of purification and expiation as the preliminary to forgiveness, in other words of atonement.

Of the ultima ratio of sacrifice no explicit statement is found in OT. The explanation of the Priestly writers would doubtless have been—‘God hath so appointed it.’ Beyond this we cannot go. The ‘conclusion of the whole matter’ may therefore be given in the words of Jesus ben-Sira: ‘See that thou appear not in the presence of the Lord empty; for all these things are to be done because of the commandment’ (35:4) The final ground of the sinner’s pardon and restoration is thus not the precedent sacrifice but the free grace of a merciful and loving God.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SADDUCEES.—Probably the name ‘Sadducee’ is derived from the name Zadok, a notable priest in the time of David and Solomon (2 S 8:17, 15:24, 1 K 1:34). His descendants long played the leading part among the priests, so that Ezekiel regarded them as the only legitimate priests (Ezk 40:46, 43:19, 44:15, 48:11). The name indicates the fact that is most decisive for the right understanding of the Sadducees. About the year 200 B.C., when party lines were beginning to be drawn, the name was chosen to point out the party of the priests. That is not saying that no priest could be a Pharisee or a Scribe. Neither is it saying that all the priests were Sadducees. In our Lord’s time many of the poor priests were Pharisees. But the higher priestly families and the priests as a body were Sadducees. With them were joined the majority of the aristocratic lay families of Judæa and Jerusalem. This fact gives us the key to their career. It is wrapped up in the history of the high priesthood. For two centuries after the Exile the high priesthood earned the right to the leadership of the Jewish nation. But in our Lord’s time its leadership lay far back in the past. Its moral greatness had been undermined on two sides. On one side it had lost touch with what was deepest in the being of the Jews. For the most part this was due to its aristocratic bias. The Levitical priesthood was a close corporation. No man not born a priest could become a priest. More and more, as the interests of the nation widened and deepened, the high priesthood failed to keep pace. Its alliance with the aristocratic families made things worse. The high priesthood and the people drifted apart. No great institution can do that and remain great.

From another side also—the political—the high priesthood was undermined. Owing to the mixture of Church and State the high priests were necessarily in politics all the time. Consequently the historical process, which ended by incorporating Palestine in the Roman Empire, sucked out of the high priesthood all the moralizing influences involved in the handling of large affairs. So, undermined on two sides, the high priesthood lost the right to lead. And the party built up around it—the Sadducees—became the party of those who cared more for their own well-being and for the maintenance of things as they were than for the Kingdom of God.

When we turn to the tenets of the Sadducees, it is still the contrast with the Pharisees that puts them in an Intelligible light. Pharisaism, with all its faults, was the heart and soul of the nation, the steward of its treasures—the Holy Scriptures—the trustee of its vitalizing hope. The Sadducees stood for the tenaciously conservative tendencies in the nation. They lay under the curse which rests upon all aristocracies, the inability to realize that the best things must grow.

They denied the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection of the body ( Mk 12:18, Mt 22:23, Lk

20:27, Ac 23:8). The NT is a better guide in this field than Josephus, who affirms (BJ II. viii. 14, Ant. XVIII. i. 4) that they denied the immortality of the soul. Josephus overstated things in his desire to make the Jewish parties look like the philosophical schools of Greece. The Sadducees did not deny the immortality of the soul. But they lingered in the past, the period when the belief in Immortality was vague, shadowy, and had not yet become a working motive for goodness. They did not accept the developed faith in immortality which was part and parcel of the Pharisaic teaching regarding the Kingdom of God. And this meant that their nation had outgrown them. The Sadducees also denied the Pharisaic doctrine regarding angels and ministering spirits (Ac 23:8) . Thereby they maintained a certain sobriety. They even emancipated themselves from a considerable amount of superstition hound up with Pharisaism. But they paid for it by a wholly disproportionate sacrifice of vital piety.

From this sketch we can see why our Lord had almost no dealings with the Sadducees during His ministry. His interests were with the common people. This brought Him into continual conflict with the Pharisees. It was not until His popularity seemed to threaten the peace of Jerusalem that the high priest, with the Sadducees at his back, was moved to decisive action. We can also see why the Apostolic Church, in her first years, had most to fear from the Sadducees (Ac 4 and 5). See also artt. PHARISEES, SCRIBES.

HENRY S. NASH.

SADDUK (1 Es 8:2) = Zadok, Ezr 7:2.

SADOC.—1. (2 Es 1:1) = Zadok, Ezr 7:2. 2. An ancestor of Jesus (Mt 1:14).

SAFFRON (Ca 4:14).—The Heb. karkōm is identical with the Arab, kurkum or za’farān) (whence is derived the Eng. ‘saffron’), the name of a variety of crocus (Crocus sativus) , of which the yellow styles and stigmas are used for dyeing and for flavouring food. A similar dye, also called saffron, is more commonly derived from the florets of the Carthamus tinctorius (Compositœ) cultivated everywhere in Palestine for this purpose.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SAHIDIC VERSION.—See GREEK VERSIONS OF OT, 11 (b), and TEXT OF NT, § 27.

SAILS.—See SHIPS AND BOATS, p. 850^b.

SAINTS.—See HOLINESS, II. 2, and SANCTIFICATION.

SALAMIEL.—An ancestor of Judith (Jth 8:1).

SALAMIS, which must not be confused with the scene of the great battle between Xerxes and the Greeks in B.C. 480 , was the first place visited by Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey (Ac 13:5). It existed as early as the 6th cent. B.C. as an important Greek town on the E. coast of Cyprus. In Roman times it remained a flourishing commercial city, and the eastern half of the island was governed from there. There were very many Jews in Cyprus. Christianity was early preached there (Ac 11:19, 20), and among early converts were Mnason ( Ac 21:16) and Barnabas (Ac 4:36).

A. SOUTER.

SALASADAI.—An ancestor of Judith (Jth 8:1).

SALATHIEL.—1. (1 Es 5:5, 48, 56, 6:2) = Shealtiel (wh. see). 2. Another name of Esdras (2 Es 3:1).

SALECAH ( Dt 3:10, Jos 13:11, 12:5, 1 Ch 5:11) was the most easterly of the towns claimed by Israel. It was assigned to the tribe of Gad, and is always described as being on the eastern frontier of Bashan. But it is better Indicated less theoretically as being in the extreme south-east of the Hauran. On account of its commanding position it has always been of strategic importance; but it was probably never permanently occupied by any of the Israelitish people. It was a Nahatæan and Roman stronghold, and a station on the great trade and military road from Gadara and Edrel eastward through the desert to the Persian Gulf. It is now inhabited by Druses, and bears the name Salkhad.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SALEM (1 Es 8:1) = Shallum, Ezr 7:2; called also Salemas ( ?), 2 Es 1:1.

SALEM.—1. A place mentioned only in Gn 14:16 as the kingdom of the mysterious

Melchizedek (wh. see). It is natural to identify it with Jerusalem ( wh. see), especially since the

Tell el-Amarna tablets show that Urusalīm existed as a name for that city even before the

Israelite Immigration. But the only real links between ‘Salem’ and Jerusalem’ are two in number: (1) the mention of the ‘King’s Vale,’ where, apparently, Melchizedek met Abram, which seems to be the place where Absalom reared his memorial (2 S 18:18): it would presumably be somewhere near Jerusalem, but, pace Josephus, this is not certain. (2) The allusion to Jerusalem by the name Salem in Ps 76:2. This poetical abbreviation, however, which occurs nowhere else, may have been suggested by Salem in the ancient record, just as was the name Moriah (wh. see), and the reference to Melchizedek in Ps 110:4. There is some similarity between the name of Melchizedek and that of the Jebusite king Adonizedek (Jos 10:1), but upon the whole the identification of Salem with Jerusalem is rather shadowy. Jerome records another tradition, connecting Salem with Salīm (Salumias) in the Jordan Valley, where there is a tell with the tomb of “Sheik Selīm.’ 2. The Valley of Salem (Jth 4:4), possibly the Jordan Valley, or a part of it. 3, The LXX reads Salem for Shiloh in Jer 41:5. This must be a Salem near Shechem, if this reading is to be followed. There is a place called Salīm, east of Nāblus.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

SALEMAS (2 Es 1:1) = Shallum, Ezr 7:2; called also Salem ( ?) in 1 Es 8:1.

SALIM, near to which was Ænon ( Jn 3:23), lay on the west of Jordan (cf. 1:28, 3:26,

10:40). Ænon is placed by the Onomasticon eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis (Beisān) ,

‘near to Salim and Jordan.’ This points to the neighbourhood of the ruin Umm el-‘Amdān, with Tell er-Ridhghah on the north, where the tomb of Sheik Selīm probably preserves the ancient name. Ænon, ‘place of springs,’ we may find in the seven copious fountains near by. In Christ’s time the district belonged probably to Scythopolis, not to Samaria. The difficulties of other suggested identifications can be got over only by doing violence to the text (Cheyne, EBi, s.v.) , or to the sense.

W. EWING.

SALIMOTH (1 Es 8:25) = Shelomith, Ezr 8:10.

SALLAI.—1. A Benjamite, Neh 11:8. 2. A priestly family, Neh 12:20; called in v. 7 Sallu.

SALLU.—1. A Benjamite family (1 Ch 9:7, Neh 11:7). 2. See SALLAI, 2.

SALLUMUS (1 Es 9:25) = Shallum, Ezr 10:24; called Salum, 1 Es 5:28.

SALMA.—See SALMON.

SALMAI.—A family of Nethinim, Neh 7:48; called in Ezr 2:46 Shamlai, in 1 Es 5:30 Subai.

SALMANASAR (2 Es 13:40) = Shalmaneser ( wh. see ).

SALMON, or SALMA.—The father of Boaz (Ru 4:20, 21), and therefore in the direct line of the ancestry of our Lord (Mt 1:4, 6, Lk 3:32). If the Salma of 1 Ch 2:51, 54 is the same person, he was the ‘father’ or founder of Bethlehem, but it is to be noticed that that Salma is reckoned as one of the sons of Caleb the son of Hur.

SALMONE.—A promontory at the N.E. end of Crete, now Cape Sidero. St. Paul’s ship, after reaching Cnidus with difficulty, was met by a powerful N.W. wind, which forced the captain to alter the course. Off Salmone (Ac 27:7) he decided to work his way westward under the lee of Crete.

A. SOUTER.

SALOAS (1 Es 9:22) = EIasah, Ezr 10:22.

SALOM.—Greek form of Shallum ( Bar 1:7).

SALOME.—1. The daughter (unnamed in NT) of Herodias. who danced before Herod and received as a reward the head of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3–11, Mk 6:17–20). 2. One of the women who were present at the crucifixion (Mk 15:40) and who afterwards visited the sepulchre (16:1) . By comparing Mk 15:40 and Mt 27:66 it has been almost certainly concluded that Salome was the wife of Zebedee, who also figures in the Incident Mt 20:20–23 . The conjecture that Salome was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus has no adequate support.

W. F. BOYD.

SALT,—Salt is rightly included by ben-Sira among ‘the chief of all things necessary for the life of man’ (Sir 39:26 RV). The Hebrews of the Southern Kingdom, at least, had access to inexhaustible stores of salt both in the waters of the Dead Sea,—hence named in OT ‘the Salt Sea’ (Dt 3:17 etc.)—whence it could easily be obtained by evaporation, and in the deposits of the Jebel Usdum at its south-western extremity. References to saltpits or saltpans, or to both, are found in Zeph 2:9, 1 Mac 11:25. One hundred pounds of water from the Dead Sea are said to yield 24¹/₂lbs. of salt, compared with 6 lbs. obtained from the same quantity of water from the Atlantic.

In addition to its daily use as a condiment in the preparation of food (cf. Job 6:6), and its important place in the sacrificial ritual, salt was employed by the Hebrews in an even greater variety of ways than it is among ourselves. New-born infants, for example, were rubbed with salt (Ezk 16:4)—a practice in which a religious, rather than a hygienic, motive may be detected. A grain of salt placed in the hollow of a decayed tooth was considered a cure for the universal evil of toothache (Mishna, Shabbath, vi. 5). In other treatises of the Mishna we find frequent references to the use of salt for salting fish, for pickling olives, vegetables, etc. The salting of meat for preservation is referred to in the ‘Epistle of Jeremy’ (Bar 6:28). The modern Jewish custom of laying all meat in salt for the purpose of more thoroughly draining it of the blood was doubtless observed in Bible times. In Palestine, under the Seleucids, salt formed a government monopoly (1 Mac 10:29, 11:35), as it did in Egypt under the Ptolemys.

As regards the presence of salt in the ritual of sacrifice, the words of Mk 9:40 AV, every sacrifice shall be salted with salt,’ although omitted by RV following the best authorities, are nevertheless true to fact. The legislation of the Priests’ Code, at least, expressly ordains: ‘with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt’ (Lv 2:13)—a passage which expressly specifies that the cereal or vegetable offerings (the ‘meal offerings’ of RV) had to be salted as well as the more important and more evident animal or flesh sacrifices (cf. Ezk 43:24). A special ‘salt chamber’ is mentioned among the chambers adjoining the Priests’ Court in the description of Herod’s Temple given in the Mishna. The sacred incense, also, had to be ‘seasoned with salt’ (Ex 30:35 RV), as was also the case with the shewbread, according to the better Gr. text of Lv 24:7. The original idea in this extended ritual use of salt was doubtless this—that just as salt was an indispensable accompaniment of man’s dally food, so it could not be absent from the ‘food of God,’ as the sacrifices are termed in Lv 21:6, 17.

In the developed priestly legislation, however, there can be little doubt that the presence of salt had a symbolical significance. From its use as a preservative, reflected in our Lord’s figure, ‘Ye are the salt of the earth’ (Mt 5:13), and as an antidote to decay, it is natural that salt should become a symbol of permanence, and even of life as opposed to decay and death. ‘Salt,’ it has been said, ‘seems to stand for life in many a form of primitive speech and in the world’s symbolism’ (Trumbull, Covenant of Salt) . From this symbolical standpoint we probably reach the true explanation of the striking expression ‘a convenant of salt’ (Nu 18:19, 2 Ch 13:5), which denotes a covenant that is inviolable and valid in perpetuity. The presence of salt, therefore, with every sacrifice may have come to symbolize the irrevocable character of J″’s covenant with Israel (cf. G. B. Gray’s Com. on Nu 18:19).

This seems preferable to the usual explanation which connects the expression in question with the well-known code of Arab hospitality, by which a traveller in the desert, and even an enemy, if he has once partaken of an Arab’s hospitality, has a right to his host’s protection; since this ‘ordinance of salt’ as it is termed, is valid only for a limited period (see Jaussen. Coutumes des Arabes [1908], 87 f.). On the other hand, the obligations which the partaking of one’s hospitality imposes on a guest are emphasized in the words of Ezr 4:14 ‘because we eat the salt of the palace’ (RV).

In marked contrast to the above-mentioned employment of salt as a symbol of life, stands its parallel occurrence as a symbol of barrenness, desolation, or death (Dt 29:23 and elsewhere). By this aspect of the symbolism of salt it has been usual to explain the treatment meted out by Abimelech to the city of Shechem in the early narrative, Jg 9:45: ‘He beat down the city and sowed it with salt.’ It is more in harmony, however, with the fundamental conception of the han (see BAN) to regard the strewing of the site of the city with salt as symbolizing its complete dedication to J″ (see the parallels adduced in EBi iv.

col. 4249 f.).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SALT, CITY OF.—A city of Judah (Jos 15:61, 62). It may be inferred to have occupied some position on the western shore of the Dead Sea, between En-gedi and Khashm Usdum ( the salt mountain).

SALT SEA.—See DEAD SEA.

SALT, VALLEY OF.—The scene of memorable victories of David over the Edomites (2 S

8:13 , 1 Ch 18:12), and, at a later period, of Amaziah over the same enemies (2 K 14:7, 2 Ch 25:11). It may be identified with the plain extending from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the foot of the cliffs which cross the valley from side to side and form the southern margin of the Ghor.

SALTWORT (Job 30:4 RV).—See MALLOWS.

SALU.—The father of Zimri (Nu 25:14, 1 Mac 2:26).

SALUM (1 Es 5:28) = Shallum, Ezr 2:42; called Sallumus, 1 Es 9:25.

SALUTATION ( or greeting) is a serious matter in the East; some knowledge of immemorial practice is necessary in dealing with Orientals. The subject salutes his king by prostration; the humble his superior by touching the ground with his hand, and then his lips and brow. The young salutes the aged, the rider the footman, etc. In crowded streets only men of age, rank, and dignity need be saluted (Mt 23:7 etc.). Common forms of salutation are, ‘Peace he upon you’; response, ‘And upon you’: ‘May your day be happy’; response, ‘May your day be happy and blessed’: and, in the highway, ‘Blessed be he that cometh’ (Jg 18:15, Mt 10:12, Lk 24:36, Ps 118:26, Mt 21:9 etc.). Salutations are frequently prolonged, and repeated inquiries after health and welfare extremely tedious (1 K 4:29, Lk 10:4). See also GESTURES, KISS.

W. EWING.

SALVATION, SAVIOUR.—‘Salvation’ is the generic term employed in Scripture to express the idea of any gracious deliverance of God, but specially of the spiritual redemption from sin and its consequences predicted by the OT prophets, and realized in the mission and work of the Saviour Jesus Christ.

1. In the OT.—The root meaning of the principal OT words for ‘save,’ ‘salvation,’ ‘saviour’ is, to be broad, spacious; salvation is enlargement. As illustrations of this OT meaning of salvation may be taken the words of Moses at the Red Sea, ‘Stand still, and see the salvation of Jehovah’ (Ex 14:13)—‘He is become my salvation’ (15:2); or the avowal of the psalmist, ‘This poor man cried, and Jehovah heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles’ (Ps 34:6). Jehovah is said to have given ‘saviours’ to Israel in the time of the Judges (Neh 9:27). Victory in battle is ‘salvation’ (Ex 14:14, 1 S 14:45, Ps 20 etc.). Salvation, or deliverance, of this kind is sometimes national, but sometimes also individual (cf., of David, 2 S 22, Ps 18). Such external deliverances, however, it is to he observed, are never divorced from spiritual conditions. It is the righteous or penitent alone who are entitled to look to God for His saving help; no others can claim Him as the rock of their salvation (Ps 18:1–3 , cf. 4:1). When, therefore, the people had turned their backs on Jehovah, and abandoned themselves to wickedness, salvation could come only through a change of heart, through repentance. The chief need was to be saved from the sin itself. In the prophets, accordingly, the perspective somewhat changes. External blessings, deliverance from enemies, return from exile, are still hoped for, but the main stress is laid on a changed heart, forgiveness, restoration to God’s favour, righteousness. In the pictures of the Messianic age, it is these things that come to be dwelt on (cf. Jer 31:31–34, Ezk 36:26–28 , Hos 14 etc.). As the idea of salvation becomes more spiritual, it likewise becomes more universal; the Gentiles are to share its blessings (Is 45:23, 24, 49:8–12, 60:1–12).

The teaching of the prophets bore fruit in the age preceding the advent of Jesus in deepening ideas of the future life, of resurrection and a future perfected state: of the connexion of prosperity with righteousness—though mostly in the sense of outward legal obedience, the very error against which the prophets declaimed—and in more concrete representations of the Messiah. But there never failed a godly kernel, who cherished more spiritual hopes, and waited in patience and prayer for ‘the consolation of Israel’ (Lk 2:25).

2. In the NT.—In the NT the word ‘salvation’ (sōtēria, from sōtēr, ‘saviour’) is sometimes applied to temporal benefits, like healings (e.g. Mt 9:22 ‘thy faith hath made thee whole,’ lit. ‘saved thee’), but most generally it is employed as a comprehensive term for the spiritual and eternal blessings brought to men by the appearance and redeeming work of Jesus Christ. The name Jesus was given Him because ‘it is he that shall save his people from their sins’ (Mt 1:21); He is distinctively the ‘Saviour’ (Lk 2:11); His work on earth was ‘to seek and to save that which was lost’ (Lk 19:10); His death and resurrection were a means to salvation (Ro 5:8, 10); He is exalted ‘to be a Prince and a Saviour’ to give repentance and remission of sins (Ac 5:31); ‘in none other is there salvation’ (4:12). In Apostolic usage, therefore, salvation is the all-embracing name for the blessings brought by the gospel (cf. ‘the gospel of your salvation,’ Eph 1:13; ‘the word of this salvation,’ Ac 13:26; ‘repentance unto salvation,’ 2 Co 7:10 etc.). To expound fully the contents of this term, accordingly, would be to expound the contents of the gospel. Enough here to say that it includes deliverance from all sin’s evils, and the bestowal of all spiritual blessings in Christ (Eph 1:3). It begins on earth in forgiveness, renewal, the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, enlightenment, guidance, strengthening, comfort; and is perfected in the blessedness and glory, in which body and soul share, of the life everlasting. The fact never to he forgotten about it is, that it has been obtained at the infinite cost of the redeeming death of God’s own Son (cf.

Rev. 5:8). For further elucidations, see artt. ATONEMENT, MEDIATOR, REDEMPTION. JAMES ORR.

SAMAIAS.—1. (1 Es 1:9) = Shemaiah, 2 Ch 35:9. 2. (1 Es 8:39) = Shemaiah, Ezr 8:13. 3. (1 Es 8:44) = Shemaiah, Ezr 8:15.

SAMARIA.—A city built on a hill purchased by Omri, king of Israel, from a certain

Shemer, and by him made the capital of the Israelite kingdom (1 K 16:24). We gather from 1 K 20:34 that Ben-hadad I., king of Syria, successfully attacked it soon afterwards, and had compelled Omri to grant him favourable trade facilities. Ahab here built a Baal temple (1 K 16:32) and a palace of ivory (22:39). Ben-hadad II. here besieged Ahab, but unsuccessfully, and was obliged to reverse the terms his father had exacted from Omri. Jehoram attempted a feeble and half-hearted reform, destroying Ahab’s Baal-pillar, though retaining the calf-worship (2 K 3:2) and the ashērah (13:5). The city was again besieged in his time by Ben-hadad II. (2 K 6, 7).

After this event the history of Samaria is bound up with the troublesome internal affairs of the

Northern Kingdom, and we need not follow it closely till we reach B.C. 724, when Shalmaneser

IV. besieged Samaria in punishment for king Hoshea’s disaffection. It fell three years later; and Sargon, who had meanwhile succeeded Shalmaneser on the Assyrian throne, deported its inhabitants, substituting a number of people drawn from other places (2 K 17). In B.C. 331 it was besieged and conquered by Alexander, and in B.C. 120 by John Hyrcanus. Herod carried out important building works here, large portions of which still remain. He changed the name to Sebaste in honour of Augustus. Philip preached here (Ac 8:5). The city, however, gradually decayed, fading before the growing importance of Neapolis (Shechem). The Crusaders established a bishopric here.

Extensive remains of ancient Samaria still exist at the mound known as Sebustīyeh ( Sebaste), a short distance from Nāblus. It is one of the largest and most important mounds in ancient Palestine. Excavations under the auspices of Harvard University were begun in 1908.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

SAMARITANS.—The descendants of the Cuthites, Avvites, Sepharvites, and Hamathites, established by Sargon in Samaria after he had put an end to the Israelite kingdom. They were instructed in a form of the Hebrew religion (which they grafted on to their own worships) in order to appease the ‘God of the land’ (2 K 17:24). To these colonists Ashurbanipal made considerable additions (Ezr 4:9, 10). The enmity between Jews and Samaritans began to make its appearance immediately after the return from the Captivity. The Samaritans endeavoured to prevent the re-building of Jerusalem (Ezr 4:7, Neh 4:7), and from time to time their subsequent aggressions and insults to the re-founded Jewish State are recorded by Josephus. After the battle of Issus the Samaritans offered assistance to Alexander, and were allowed to build a temple on Gerizim, where they sacrificed after the manner of the Jews—though they were quite ready to repudiate Jewish origin, rite, and prejudice whenever occasion arose (see Jos. Ant. XII. v. 5). This temple was destroyed by John Hyrcanus. The disputes between the Jews and the Samaritans were at last referred to Rome (BJ II. xii. 3–7). Throughout the Gospel history the ill-feeling is conspicuous: the Samaritans were ‘strangers, (Lk 17:18), and their admixture of heathen worship seems still to have persisted (Jn 4:22). Vespasian inflicted a crushing blow upon them by massacring 11,600 on Mt. Gerizim. From this and other sufferings later inflicted by Zeno and Justinian they never recovered. They still persist, to the number of about 150, in Nāblus. They acknowledge the Pentateuchal legislation only, and endeavour to preserve intact the Mosaic rites and ordinances.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

SAMATUS (1 Es 9:34) = Shallum, Ezr 10:42.

SAMECH.—The fifteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 15th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.

SAMELLIUS (1 Es 2:16, 17, 25, 30) = Shimshai, Ezr 4:8 etc.

SAMEUS (1 Es 9:21) = Shemaiah, Ezr 10:21.

SAMGAR-NEBO—One of the Babylonian princes who, at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, in the 11th year of Zedekiah, came and sat in the middle gate (Jer 39:3) . There has been much discussion concerning this name, due to the varying forms of the Greek version. The most probable explanation is that of Schrader, namely, Shumgir-Nabū, a name meaning ‘Be gracious, O Nebo.’ As, however, Rab-saris and Rab-mag are titles, the question arises whether Samgar-nebo may not be one also. If so, it may be a corruption of sangu Nebo, ‘the priest of Nebo,’—an office possibly held by Nergal-sharezer, who, if identical with king Neriglissar, was closely connected with E-zida, the temple of Nebo at Borsippa. His daughter married a priest of E-zida in the first year of his reign.

T. G. PINCHES.

SAMLAH.—An Edomite king (Gn 36:36f. = 1 Ch 1:47f.).

SAMMUS (1 Es 9:43) = Shema, Neh 8:4.

SAMOS was an important island in the Ægæan Sea off the coast of Ionia. It was a centre of luxury, art, and science. In B.C. 84 it was united to the province of Asia, and in B.C. 17 was made a free State by Augustus. This it was when St. Paul touched here (Ac 20:15) on his way home from his third journey. There were many Jewish residents on the island, and it was one of the places addressed by the Romans in favour of the Jews (1 Mac 15:23).

A. SOUTER.

SAMOTHRACE.—An island S. of Thrace and N.W. of Troas, from which place St. Paul had a straight run to it (Ac 16:11). The town of the same name was on the N. side of the island. The island is mountainous, and has a summit nearly a mile above the sea level. It owes its name perhaps to its resemblance to Samos (wh. see). Samothrace played little part in Greek history, but was famous as the seat of the mysterious cult of the divinities known as Cabeiri.

A. SOUTER.

SAMPSAMES.—One of the places to which the Romans wrote in favour of the Jews (1 Mac 15:23); usually identified with Samsun, a seaport town on the Black Sea. RVm, with Vulg., has Lampsacus.

SAMSON (LXX and Vulg.; Heb. Shimshōn; probably derived from shemesh, ‘sun,’ either as a diminutive, or better ‘sun-man’).—Mentioned in OT in Jg 13–16 , and in NT in He 11:32.

1. The story need not be recapitulated, but certain details require explanation. 13:25 seems to be the prelude to a first exploit, now lost. 14 is not clear as it stands; probably ‘his father and his mother’ in vv. 5, 6b, 10a are glosses introduced to avoid the appearance of disobedience. He goes down alone, meets the lion alone, returns to his home after his visit to his bride (v. 8 ‘to take her’ being another gloss); then after an interval he goes back to celebrate the marriage he has arranged; v. 10a is particularly absurd as it stands. The ‘thirty companions’ of v. 11 are the ‘friends of the bridegroom,’ chosen on this occasion from the bride’s people (see below, § 4); the companion of v. 20 is their leader, ‘the best man.’ The ‘linen garments’ of v. 12 are pieces of fine linen, costly and luxurious (Pr 31:24, Is 3:23); ‘the changes’ are gala dresses. The Philistines give up the riddle ‘after three days’ (v. 14), and appeal to the woman on the seventh (v. 15; LXX Syr. ‘fourth’); yet she weeps for the whole week, imploring Samson to tell her ( v. 17). Perhaps the figures of vv. 14, 15 are interpolations, the Philistines giving up at once. ‘Before the sun went down’ (v. 18) is ungrammatical in Heb., with a rare word for ‘sun‘; with best modern edd., read by a slight alteration ‘before he went into the bridal-chamber’ (cf. 15:1). In ch. 16, words, variously represented by LXX, have fallen out between v. 13 and v. 14; the sense is ‘… and beat them up with the pin, I shall become weak, So while he was asleep she took the seven locks and wove them into the web, and beat them tight with the pin,’ etc. We are to imagine an upright loom with a piece of unfinished stuff; Delilah weaves the hair into this, and heats it tight with the ‘pin.’ Samson pulls up the posts of the loom by his hair which is fastened to the web. For v. 21, cf. the blinding of captives as shown on Assyr. monuments; to be put to the mill was a frequent punishment of slaves. Nothing is known of the worship of Dagon (cf. 1 S 5); the etymology ‘fish-god’ and the connexion with the Assyr. god ‘Dagan’ are uncertain.

2. Origin and nature of the story.—(a) The narrative seems to belong entirely to J″, the Judæan source of the early history of Israel; there are no traces of a double source, as in other parts of Judges. It has been but slightly revised by the Deuteronomic editor. Ch. 16, though an integral part of the original cycle of stories, was apparently at one time omitted by the compiler; see the repeated note in 15:20, 16:31. Perhaps it gave too unfavourable a picture of the hero’s love-affairs. (b) Though it is said that Samson ‘judged Israel twenty years’ (15:20), and that he should ‘begin to deliver’ his nation from the Philistines (13:5), there is no hint of his ever having held any official position, nor does he appear as a leader of his people; on the contrary, he is disowned by his neighbours of Judah (15:11). His exploits have only a local significance, and are performed single-handed in revenge for his private quarrels. The story evidently belongs to the class of popular tales, common to every country-side. Every people has its hero of prodigious strength, to whom marvellous feats are ascribed, and it becomes a hopeless task to discover the precise historical basis of the legends, which in this case are undoubtedly of great antiquity. (c) It is not necessary to look for a further explanation in the theory of a ‘solar myth.’ The name ‘Samson,’ and the existence of a ‘Beth-shemesh’ (‘house of the sun’) near his home, offer an obvious temptation to such a theory, but it is entirely unnecessary and is now generally abandoned. (d) It is more probable that in ch. 15 we find the workings of folk-etymology (‘ætiological myth’), i.e. stories suggested by the fancied meaning of names. Ramath-Lehi ( ‘the height of Lehi’) is taken to mean ‘the casting away of the jawbone’; En-hakkore ( ‘Partridge spring’), ‘the spring of him who called’; and incidents are suggested to explain the supposed meanings. (e) The parallels with other popular stories, especially the exploits of Hercules, are obvious, e.g. the killing of the lion, the miraculous satisfying of the hero’s thirst, and his ruin at the hand of a woman. For the lion episode, cf., further, the stories of Polydamas, David (1 S 17:34), Benaiah (2 S 23:20); for the sacred hair or lock, cf. the story of Nisus. Ovid (Fasti, lv.

681–712) has a remarkable parallel to the burning of the corn by the foxes (or jackals?); at the Cereaila, foxes with lighted torches tied to their tails were let loose in the Circus; he explains the custom as originally due to the act of a mischievous boy, who burned his father’s corn in the same way. The conclusion to be drawn from such parallels is not necessarily identity of origin, but the similar working of the mind and imagination under similar conditions.

3. Historical value.—Regarded as a picture of early conditions and customs, the narrative is of the greatest significance. Politically it takes us to the time when Dan, perhaps weakened by the departure of its 600 men of war (Jg 1:34, 18) acquiesces in the rule of the Philistines; Timnah is in their hands. There is no state of war between the two peoples, but free intercourse and even intermarriage. As already pointed out, Samson is in no sense the leader of a revolt against the foreign dominion, and his neighbours of Judah show no desire to make his private quarrels an excuse for a rising (15:11); there is no union even between the tribes of the south. None the less, his exploits would be secretly welcomed as directed against the common foe, and remembering that Jg 17–21 is an appendix, we see how the narrative paves the way for the more defined efforts of Saul and David in 1 Samuel to shake off the foreign yoke. Sociatly the story gives us a picture of primitive marriage customs. Ch. 14 is the clearest OT example of a sadika marriage (see MARRIAGE, § 1). We get a good idea of the proceedings, essentially the same as in the East to-day. The feast lasts for a week, and is marked by lavish eating and drinking, songs, riddles, and not very refined merriment. The whole story gives us a valuable insight into the life of the people; we note the grim rough humour of its hero, so entirely natural (ch. 14, the three deceptions of ch. 16, 16:28 RVm).

4. Religious significance.—Samson is a popular hero, and we shall expect the directly religious interest of the story to be subordinate. It appears in the account of his birth, perhaps hardly a part of the original cycle, but added later to justify his inclusion among the Judges. As a child of promise, he is in a peculiar sense a gift of God, born to do a special work; an overruling providence governs his acts (14:4, 16:30). The source of his strength is supernatural; at times it is represented as due to a demonic frenzy, an invasion of the spirit of J″ (13:25, 14:6, 19, 15:14), but in 13, 16 it lies in his hair; he is a Nazirite of God. The rules for the Nazirite are given in Nu 6:1 ; those in Jg 13 are the same, with the general prohibition of ‘unclean’ food. The essence of the conception lay in a vow to sacrifice the hair at a sacred shrine, the life-long vow being probably a vow to do so at stated periods. The hair, like the blood, was regarded as a seat of life, and was a common offering not only among the Semites, but in all parts of the world. In Arabia the vow to leave the locks unshorn was particularly connected with wars of revenge (Dt 32:42 RVm, Ps 68:21). As soon as a vow was taken, the life of the votary became a continuous act of religion; particularly must the body, which nourishes the hair (now the property of the deity), be kept clean from all defilement; the taboo of the vine and its products is esp. common (cf. Am 2:11, 12). In the story itself no stress is laid on any such precautions on the part of Samson (e.g. in 14:8 he eats from a carcase), and hence no doubt the taboos were transferred to his mother (13:4) . There is unfortunately little basis for the religious feeling with which Milton has invested the character of Samson. He is a popular hero, and the permanent value of the story is to be sought in its ethical lessons. It is true, its morality is on a low level; revenge is Samson’s ruling idea, and his relations with women have been a stumbling-block to apologists. But once we recognize the origin of the story, we shall not feel bound to justify or explain away these traits, and the lessons stand out clearly. The story emphasizes the evils of foreign marriages (14:3), of laxity in sexual relations, and of toying with temptation. It teaches that bodily endowments, no less than spiritual, are a gift from God, however different may be our modern conception of the way in which they are bestowed, and that their retention depends on obedience to His laws. But if Samson stands as an example ‘of impotence of mind in body strong,’ he also stands, in Milton’s magnificent conception, as an example of patriotism and heroism in death, to all who

‘from his memory inflame their breast to matchless valour and adventures high.’

C. W. EMMET.

SAMUEL.—The life of Samuel is viewed from widely differing standpoints in different sections of the books that bear his name. In the oldest narrative, found in 1 S 9, he appears as a seer from the land of Zuph, to whom Saul and his servant, who are seeking the lost asses of Kish, Saul’s father, apply for help. Saul had hesitated about applying to the man of God, on the score of not having a gift to present, but the servant produced the fourth part of a shekel of silver with which to compensate the seer. Samuel, who had been Divinely apprised of their coming, met them while he was on his way to worship at the high place, and after they had partaken of his hospitality and passed the night with him, he nominated and anointed Saul as Israel’s coming king. He further gave Saul signs by which he should know that the promises would he fulfilled, and committed him to the Spirit of God. In another narrative (chs. 1–3) , which differs in point of view rather than in trustworthiness, are recited the incidents of Samuel’s early life and relations to the kingdom. Hannah, his mother, the wife of Elkanah, was barren. During the celebration of the yearly feast she vows that if God will give her a son she will give him to Jehovah. Samuel is therefore the son of answered prayer, and is in due time dedicated to the Temple service at Shiloh, where he assists Eli, is warned by Jehovah of the coming destruction of Eli’s house, and receives the call to the prophetic office.

After the death of Eli and the return of the ark from the Philistines, Samuel becomes ‘judge’ of Israel, calls the people to repentance at Mizpah, and saves them miraculously from the invading Philistines (ch. 7). He is succeeded in the judgeship by unworthy sons, and Israel, outraged at their sinfulness and worthlessness, demands a king—a proposition, in the estimation of Samuel, tantamount to a rejection of Jehovah, though no such suggestion was made when he voluntarily appointed Saul. Nevertheless he yields to their wish, hut describes in sombre colours the oppressions they must endure under the monarchy (ch. 8). Accordingly the people are assembled at Mizpah, again accused of forsaking Jehovah, and Saul is selected by lot (10:17– 24) . Samuel now makes his farewell address (ch. 12), defends his administration, warns the people, by references to their past history, of the danger of disobeying Jehovah, and compels nature to attest his words by a thunderstorm in harvest time.

The insignificant rôle played by Samuel in the first narrative cited is very noticeable when compared with the position accorded him in that which follows. In the first he is an obscure seer, and takes but a minor part in the establishment of the kingdom. In the latter he is a commanding and dominating figure. He is a judge of the people, adjudicating their affairs yearly at Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah. Saul, as well as the monarchy, is controlled and directed by him.

The narrative of Samuel’s prominence is succeeded by an account (ch. 13)—from a different source—of Saul’s attack on the Philistines. The story is interrupted at 13:8–15 by a complaint that Saul had disobeyed in offering sacrifice before the battle, although he had waited the required seven days as instructed by Samuel. It is difficult to see wherein Saul was guilty. Samuel had not appeared according to agreement. The Philistines were closing in upon Saul, his army was fast melting away, it was necessary to give battle, and it would have been considered irreligious to inaugurate the battle without sacrifice. For this rebellion Samuel informs him that his kingdom is forfeit, and that Jehovah has chosen another, a man after His own heart, to take his place.

Again Saul is instructed by Samuel (ch. 15) to destroy Amalek—men, women, children, and spoil—but he spares Agag and the best of the booty. All his excuses are rejected, and Samuel now attributes the loss of his kingdom to the new disobedience. This narrative does not seem conscious that the kingdom was already lost to Saul. The king confesses his fault, and after repeated persuasion Samuel agrees to honour him before his people by worshipping with him. Agag is then brought before Samuel, who hews him to pieces before the Lord. After this Samuel is sent to the home of Jesse to select and anoint a successor to Saul. One by one the sons of Jesse are rejected, till David, the youngest, is brought from the field, and proves to be the choice of Jehovah (ch. 16). With this significant act Samuel practically disappears. We find an account of his keeping a school of the prophets at Ramah, whither David flees to escape Saul (19:18–24). Later we have a short account of his death and burial at Ramah (25:1) . There is also a mention of his death in ch. 28, and the story of Saul’s application to the witch of Endor to call up Samuel from the dead.

J. H. STEVENSON.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

1. Title.—The two Books of Samuel are really parts of what was originally one book. This is shown not only by the fact that the narrative of Book I. is continued without the slightest interruption in Book II., and that the style, tone, point of view, and purpose are the same throughput, but also by their appearance as one book bearing the simple title ‘Samuel’ in the oldest known Hebrew MSS. The division of the Hebrew text into two books was first made in print by Daniel Bomberg in his Hebrew Bible (2nd ed. 1517). In doing so he was in part following the text of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, in which the Books of Samuel and Kings are described as the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Books of Kingdoms (LXX), or Kings ( Vulgate). The title ‘Samuel,’ less accurately descriptive of the contents than that of ‘Kingdoms’ or ‘Kings,’ owes its origin to the prominent place held by Samuel in 1 S 1–16 . A late Jewish interpretation regarded it as declaring Samuel’s authorship of the narrative; but this is impossible, in view of the fact that the history extends through the reign of David, long after the death of Samuel (1 S 25:1).

2. Contents.—The period covered by the Books of Samuel extends from the birth of Samuel to the close of David’s reign, i.e. approximately from B.C. 1070 to B.C. 970. The narrative falls into three main divisions:—I.: Samuel and Saul, 1 S 1–15; II.: The Rise of David, 1 S 16–2 S 5:3; III.: David as king of United Israel, 2 S 5:4–24 . Division I. is made up of three sections : (1)

The childhood and youth of Samuel, to the downfall of Eli’s house and the captivity of the Ark (1 S 1–7:1) ; (2) Samuel’s career as Judge, including his defeat of the Philistines, his anointing of Saul, and his farewell address (1 S 7:2–12); (3) Saul’s reign till his rejection (1 S 13–15).

Division II. likewise includes three sections: (1) David at Saul’s Court (1 S 16:1–21:1) ; (2)

David as a fugitive outlaw (1 S 21:2–2 S 1); (3) David as king in Hebron (2 S 2–5:3) . Division III. forms three more sections: (1) establishment of Jerusalem as the religious and national capital, and a brief summary of David’s reign (2 S 5:4–8) ; (2) supplementary narratives, setting forth particularly David’s great sin and subsequent troubles (2 S 9–20) ; (3) a series of appendixes (2 S 21–24). 1 K 1–2:11 really belongs to 2 Sam., since it relates the circumstances attending the death of David, and thus brings the narrative to its natural close.

3. Text and Versions.—The text of Samuel is the worst in the OT; only Ezekiel and Hosea can approach it in this respect. Many passages are unintelligible on the basis of the Massoretic text. The large amount of corruption may be due in part to the relatively great antiquity of the text, much of the narrative being among the oldest writings in the Hebrew Bible; and, in part, to the fact that these books were not used in the ordinary synagogue services, and so were not so carefully transmitted as they otherwise would have been. Unfortunately, the oldest existing Hebrew manuscript of Samuel dates its origin no farther back than the tenth century of our era. With each copying and recopying during the many preceding centuries fresh opportunity for error was afforded; and the wonder is not that there are so many errors, but that there are not more. In any effort to recover the original text large use must be made of the Septuagint, which is based upon a Hebrew text at least as old as the 3rd cent. B.C., and has preserved the original reading in many cases, while showing traces of it in others. The Syriac and Vulgate versions are also useful, but to a far less extent.

4. Sources and Date.—The Books of Samuel, like almost every other OT writing, are a compilation from various sources, rather than the result of a careful study of earlier sources presented in the form of a unified, logical, and philosophical statement of facts and conclusions. We are here given the sources themselves, and are in large part left to draw our own conclusions. The composite character of the books is evidenced (1) by the existence of differing literary styles within them; (2) by the presence of varying and conflicting theological standpoints; (3) by the fact that they exhibit radically different attitudes towards the founding of the monarchy (cf. e.g. 1 S 8:1–22 and 9:1–10 , 16); and (4) by the appearance of two or more narratives of one and the same event. In illustration of this last point we may cite (a) the three accounts of Saul’s choice as king given in 1 S 9–11; (b) the two accounts of David’s introduction to Saul in 1 S 16:17ff. and 17:55ff.; (c) the twofold announcement of the fate of Eli’s house in 1 S 2:27–36 and 3:11ff.; (d) the double rejection of Saul in 1 S 13:7–15 and 15:1–35; (e) the two accounts of David’s flight to

Achish in 1 S 21:10ff. and 27:1ff.; (f) the two narratives of David sparing Saul’s life in 1 S 23:19ff. and 26:1ff.—one of the most marked examples of a doublet; (g) the differing descriptions of the death of Saul given in 1 S 31 and 2 S 1; (h) the varying traditions of

Absalom’s family found in 2 S 14:25ff. and 18:18; (i) the inconsistency of 1 S 7:13f. with 13–14 ; and (j) the story that Goliath was slain by David in 1 S 17, but by Elhanan in 2 S 21:19.

Phenomena of this kind are much more easily accounted for on the supposition that we are dealing here with the works of different hands, than on the hypothesis of a single author upon whom alone all the responsibility for the contents of the books must be placed.

This fact of composite origin is granted by all students of the Books of Samuel. In the attempt, however, to resolve the narrative into its original elements, two different schools of analysts have been formed. To the one belong such scholars as Budde, Cornill, H. P. Smith, Driver, Nowack, Stenning, and Kent; to the other, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Löhr, Kittel, Stade, and Kennedy. Budde and his followers find two main sources running through the books and covering practically the same ground, though from differing points of view. These sources, which Budde himself assigns to the same school of prophetic writers that produced the J and E narratives of the Hexateuch, are supposed to have originated from the 9th to the 8th cents. B.C.; the J source being the older of the two. These two sources were then supplemented and united by editors somewhere in the early part of the 7th cent. B.C.; and finally the books were given their present form by a Deuteronomic editor who revised the existing materials and added materials of his own some time in the Exile. Budde’s distribution of the materials among the sources is as follows [figures within parentheses in J indicate later elements; in E they designate the older portions of the document]:—

J = 1 S 9:1–10:7, (10:8), 10:9–16a, 13:2–7a, (7b–15a.) 15b–18, (18–21) 22, 14:1–46 , 14:52,

16:14–23, 18:5–11, 18:20–30, 19:1, 4–6, 7b–18a, 20:1–3, 18–39, 22:1–4, 6–10a, 11–18, 22:20– 23:14a, 19a, 23:20–24:20, 25:2ff., 27:1–28:15, 28:19–31:13; 2 S 1:1–4, 11, 12, 17–23, 2:1–6:23 , 8:8–14a, 16–18, 9:1–21:22, 23:7bff., 24:1–25.

E = l S 1:1–5, 7–28, 2:11–26, 3:1–10, 15–21, (4:1–18a, 5:1–7:1), 7:2–8:22a, 12:1–25 , 15:1, (15:2–23), 15:24–31, (15:32f.), 15:34f.; 2 S (1:6–10, 13–16), 7:1–29.

PRE-EXILIC EDITORS = 1 S 1:6, 2:22b, 4:15, 22, 6:11b, 15, 17, 18a, 19, 8:22b, 9:2b, 9, 10:9a,

16b, 26–27, 11:7, 8b, 12–14, 13:19–22, 16:1–13, 17:12f., 18:21b, 19:2f., 7a, 18–24, 20:4–17 , 40–42, 21:11–15, 22:4, 10b, 23:19b, 24:21–23a, 24, 25:1, 28:3, 16–18 , 30:5, 18b; 2 S 1:5, 2:23b, 3:6a, 30, 8:6b, 11, 12, 11:21a, 13:18a, 38a, 14:25–27, 20:23–26 , 21:2b, 3a, 7, 23:14, 23a.

EXILIC EDITOR = 1 S 2:27–36, 3:11–14, 13:1, 14:47–51; 2 S 2:10a, 11, 5:4f., 7:13, 18:1–6 , 14b, 16; 2 S 12:7, 8, 10–12, 24:1a.

OF UNCERTAIN ORIOIN = 1 S 2:1–10 ; 2 S 22:1ff., 23:1ff.,

This, which we may call the two-source theory because of the predominant place of the two main sources, is in its general features the prevailing view at the present time. In the assignment of certain passages, however, there is considerable variety of opinion, and in the identification of the two main sources with J and E, Budde and Cornill are not followed by several adherents of the two-source view.

The analysis presented by the opposing school (Well-hausen, Stade, Kennedy, et al.) differs from the foregoing chiefly (a) in denying the unity of the two sources, J and E respectively; (b) in refusing to recognize any relationship of these sources to J and E; and (c) in proposing another chronological assignment of the sources. Kennedy, e.g., the latest representative of this school, resolves Budde’s J into three main elements, and dates these three documents from the middle of the 10th cent. B.C. Budde’s E likewise falls into three fragments under Kennedy’s examination; one of these is a life of Samuel dating from about B.C. 630; another and larger portion is from a Deuteronomic writer; and a small remainder consists of pre-exillc duplicates of some narratives appearing in Budde’s J.

The precise delimitation of the various sources and the exact way in which the Books of Samuel assumed their present form must remain for the future to determine. The unmistakable fact is that these books in their present form are due to the labours of late exilic editors who wrought them out of existing documents, some of which show Deuteronomic colouring, while others come from early pre-exilic times, somewhere about B.C. 900. As compared with the Books of Kings and Chronicles, or even the Book of Judges, Samuel shows far less evidence of editorial additions and modifications. The various sources are for the most part allowed to tell their stories in their own way. There is a total absence of any such theological strait-jacket as is found in the editorial framework of the Books of Kings. We thus have in the Books of Samuel some of the finest examples of the historical writings of the Hebrews in the various stages of their development.

5. Historical value.—In estimating the historical value of the Books of Samuel, care must be taken to discriminate sharply between the books themselves and the sources which constitute them. The books themselves are the product of a long literary history, the work of various men living in widely scattered periods. They thus form a source-book, rather than a history in the modern sense. It is for this reason that they are so extremely valuable to the modern historian of Israel. For a correct picture of the times of Samuel, Saul, and David, it goes without saying that the oldest sources are the most trustworthy. Failure to paint original scenes and characters with a proper perspective increases in direct proportion to the distance of the narrator from the things he describes. Hence the later elements in these books are primarily of value not as sources of information concerning the times of the early monarchy, but as reflecting the point of view and the background of their writers. The older sources, however, coming from a period within a century or two of the events they narrate, furnish us with accurate information and are among the best historical records in the OT. They are especially rich in biographical materials. They help us to see Saul and David and their contemporaries as they really were. They give us glimpses of Samuel as the local seer, known only within the narrow limits of his own immediate district; of

David as the fugitive, the freebooter, the outlaw, the idol of his men, the devoted servant of Jehovah, and yet capable of the most dastardly deeds; of Saul as the brave warrior, the patriot, the religious enthusiast, the moody chieftain of his clan. These men, with Joab, Absalom, and others, live and move before our eyes.

A still further service of the Books of Samuel is in the light they throw upon the development of religious practices and ideas in Israel. Kennedy rightly says: ‘The study of this book has contributed more than anything else to the more accurate views of the historical development of religious thought in OT times, which are characteristic of the present day.’ The books represent from first to last a period of about five hundred years, during which time the religion of Israel was advancing by leaps and bounds under the leadership of the prophets. They contain, therefore, the record of this progress. Instances of this may be seen in the wide difference between the attitude towards foreign gods ascribed to David in 1 S 26:19 (an early source), and that appearing in 12:21 (a late source); in the primitive conception of revelation presented in the story of Samuel’s call (3:1ff.); in the narratives dealing with the origin of prophecy (9:7ff.), and the sons of the prophets (e.g. 10:5ff.); in the use of the teraphim (19:13ff.) and the ephod (23:6– 12); and in the advanced conception of God appearing in such passages as 2 S 7:22. The Books of Samuel are thus invaluable to the historian of Israel’s religious, social, and political life.

6. Purpose.—But the purpose of these books is not to serve as a bare, cold record of events and their causes; such matters are of only secondary importance; they are but means to an end. Their great purpose is to teach religion; they give sermons, not annals; they are prophecy, not history. In the Hebrew canon they occupy a place alongside of the prophetic books, and the entire division to which they belong is entitled ‘the Prophets.’ Just as Amos and Isaiah deal with the facts of the present, interpreting them as expressions of Jehovah’s will and using them to drive home moral and spiritual truth to the hearts and consciences of their hearers, so these writers have dealt with the facts of the past. What they have given us, then, is history seen through the eyes of prophets. The horizon of the prophets, however, was filled with religion; they themselves were nothing if not religious; their whole being throbbed with the energy of religion. Consequently it is not surprising that everything in the narratives is presented from the point of view of religion, and in such a way as to count most for the furtherance of religious ideals. This is not saying that these writers consciously and deliberately changed the course of events, or shifted the emphasis from one point to another in order to accomplish their purpose; but rather that they wrote things as they themselves conceived of them, and that, being prophets, they could conceive of Israel’s history in no other way than as through and through religious, as the embodiment of Jehovah’s revelation of Himself and His will to His people. This is the prophets’ philosophy of history, and as such must commend itself to the mind and conscience of the Christian Church.

J. M. P. SMITH.

SANAAS (1 Es 5:23).—See SENAAH.

SANABASSAR, SANABASSARUS.—Variants in 1 Es 2:12, 6:18, 20 of the name Sheshbazzar ( wh. see ).

SANASIB.—A family that returned with Zerub. (1 Es 5:24; Ezr 2:36 omits).

SANBALLAT (Assyr. Sin-ballit = ‘Sin, save the life’).—The most inveterate of the opponents of Nehemiah. He was a native of Beth-horon, and apparently belonged to an old Bab. family holding office under the Persian government. When Nehemiah came to Jerusalem to repair the walls, he, with his allies (Tobiah the Ammonite and Geshem the Arabian), met him with derision; and after the work was well under way he stirred up the garrison of Samaria and planned an attack against the builders. This was prevented by the watchfulness of Nehemiah and the workmen. Several devices aimed against the life of Nehemiah were also thwarted by the sagacity of the latter. On Nehemiah’s second visit he banished from Jerusalem Manasseh (a sonin-law of Sanballat, and grandson of Eliashib) , who founded the Samaritan sect. See Neh 2:10, 19 , 4:1ff., 6, 13:28.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SANCTIFICATION, SANCTIFY.—‘Sanctify’ (Latin, from the Vulgate) = the native Eng. ‘hallow’ (i.e. make, count, keep holy) , the latter word being in use somewhat the loftier EV employs ‘hallow’ 35 times in OT and twice in NT (Mt 6:9 = Lk 11:2), ‘sanctify’ thrice as often in OT and 26 times in NT—for identical Hebrew and Greek terms. For the meaning of the root word ‘holy,’ see art. HOLINESS. The noun ‘sanctification’—denoting first the act or process of making holy (hallowing), then the resultant state (hallowedness)—appears in 5 NT passages in the AV, giving way to ‘holiness’ in others (Ro 6:19, 22, 1 Th 4:7, 1 Ti 2:15, He 12:14) though the Greek noun is the same, where RV makes the needed correction; everywhere, except in 1 P 1:2, the state rather than the process is implied. To Paul belong 8 out of the 10 examples of the noun, and 11 out of the 28 examples of the verb in NT (including Ac 20:32 and 26:18); 7 of the latter are found in Hebrews. AV employs the synonymous ‘consecrate’ for ‘sanctify’ in 7 OT passages, which the RV emends in three instances, leaving ‘consecrate’ for the regular Hebrew verb in 2 Ch 26:18, 29:33, 31:6, Ezr 3:5; the ‘consecrate’ of He 7:28 and of 10:20 is corrected by the RV to ‘perfect’ and ‘dedicate’ respectively.

1. In the Israelite, as in other ancient religions, that is ‘holy’ which is set apart for Divine use, so that the ‘sanctified’ is the opposite of the ‘common,’ secular, profane. Is 65:3ff., 66:17 illustrate the application of this term in heathenism. With this broad signification it is applicable to whatever is devoted to the public service of J″ to persons—priests, Nazirites, etc.; to sacrifices; to vessels, garments, buildings, days (especially the Sabbath). In Is 13:3, Jl 3:9, Jer 6:4 (see RVm), even a ‘war’ is ‘sanctified’ and the warriors are J″’s ‘sanctified ones,’ when it is put under J″’s auspices (cf. the Mohammedan Yihad or Holy War); accordingly, in Nu 21:14 we hear of a ‘book of the wars of J″.’ The numerous Levitical and other kindred uses of the verb bear this formal sense. But as ‘holy’ came to designate the specific character of J″—‘the Holy One of Israel’ (see Is. passim)—in distinction from heathen gods, ‘sanctify’ acquired a corresponding ethical connotation; holiness came to imply a character ( actual or ideal) in the holy people, accordant with its status. For Israel, being J″’s servant, is ‘brought near’ to Him (Ex 19:4ff., Dt 4:7, Jer 2:2, Ps 65:4, 73:27f., 148:14; contrast Ex 19:12–24 , Jer 2:13, Hos 9:1 etc.), and such proximity necessitates congeniality—that congruity of nature whereof circumcision and the ceremonial cleansings were symbolical (Ps 15, 24:3–6; cf. Is 1:4, 16f., 3:8, 6:3–8, Jer 4:1–4 , Hab 1:12f., Ezk 36:16–28, Ps 51 etc.). The refrain I AM JEHOVAH resounds through the Law of

Holiness in Lv 17–26; this code blends the ritual and the moral in the holiness it demands from Israel, which is the corollary of J″’s own holiness. Such is the OT doctrine of sanctification. The prophets, it is said, taught an ethical monotheism—which is to say, in effect, they ethicized holiness. The sanctification binding Israel to J″ was, in a sense, reciprocal: ‘Ye shall not profane my holy name (cf. Ex 20:7, Lv 19:12, 22:2, Am 2:7, Mal 1:11f.); but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am J″, which hallow you’ (Lv 22:32); ‘to sanctify’ J″ or His ‘name’ is to recognize and act towards Him as holy, to ‘make him holy’ in one’s thoughts and attitude (see Is

8:13 ; cf. 1 P 3:15). This expression is characteristic of Isaiah (5:16, 29:23) and Ezekiel (20:41, 28:22, 25, 36:23, 38:16, 39:27), who regard J″ as ‘sanctified’ when His awe-awakening judgments bring men to acknowledge His Deity and character; in this connexion ‘sanctify’ is parallel to ‘magnify,’ ‘glorify,’ ‘exalt,’ as in Ezk 36:23, 38:23. J″ is even said to ‘sanctify himself,’ or His ‘great name,’ when He vindicates His holiness and ‘makes’ Himself ‘known in the sight of many nations’ for what in truth He is.

2. In the NT we must distinguish the usage of our Lord, of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of the Apostle Paul.

(1) Adopting the language of Lv 22:32 and of the prophets, Jesus bids the disciples pray,

‘Our Father … hallowed be thy name … on earth’ (Mt 6:9f. = Lk 11:2)—the unique example of such use of ‘sanctify’ in the NT, apart from the citation in 1 P 3:15; elsewhere ‘glorify thy name’ (Jn 12:28 etc.). To bring about this ‘hallowing’ is the very work of Jesus, who for this end

‘makes known’ the Father‘s ‘name’ (Jn 1:14, 18, 14:7–9 ,’ 17:6, 25f., Mt 11:27; cf. Jn 17:8, 2 Co 4:6, also Jer 9:23f., 31:34). In (a) Jn 10:36 and (b) 17:17–19 our Lord makes Himself the object of the verb,—in the second instance the subject also. (a) The Father ‘consecrated’ Him for His world-mission (a pre-incarnate destination; see 1:18, 1 Jn 4:9, 14; cf. Jer 1:5); (b) at the Last Supper the Son endorses that consecration in view of its dread issue, and proposes to share it with His disciples, as He dedicates Himself to the sacrifice of the cross. Thus in the Person of Jesus Christ sanctification assumes a new and very definite character; as Christian holiness, general consecration to the service of God becomes a specific consecration to the mission of redemption. In Mt 23:17–19 Jesus speaks adhominem, appealing to the axiom that ‘the holy place’ sanctifies whatever is devoted to it.

(2) The Epistle to the Hebrews builds upon the OT conception of holiness. Its doctrine of sanctification is found in 2:11, 9:11–13, 10:10–14, 19–22, 12:14, 13:11–12 . Being ‘the captain of salvation’ and ‘high priest’ of mankind, it is the office of Jesus to ‘sanctify’ His brethren, i.e. to consecrate them to God’s service, for which as sinners they have been disabled (5:1, 10:22). This He effects God-ward by ‘making propitiation for’ their ‘sins’ (2:17), and man-ward by ‘cleansing their conscience’ with the virtue of ‘his blood’—by removing the sense of personal guilt before God—even as the animal sacrifices ‘sanctified’ the Israelites ‘unto the cleanness of the flesh’ (9:13f.) , and made their ritual worship possible. The chasm which sin has opened between man and God was bridged by the mediation of Jesus Christ; no longer is he kept aloof from the Divine presence, but is bidden to ‘come with boldness unto the throne of grace’ (4:16, 10:19–22) . ‘Once for all’ this access has been secured, this qualification bestowed on ‘the people’ whom ‘Jesus sanctified by means of his own blood’ (13:12): ‘we have been sanctified’ according to ‘the will of God,’ which Jesus embraced and whose demands He met on our behalf with perfect loyalty, in ‘the offering of his body’ (10:5–10). By that ‘one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified’—He has assured, for all who will accept it, till the world’s end, a full qualification for fellowship with God (10:14). Hebrews supplies the link between the ‘I sanctify myself’ of Jesus, and ‘that they also may be sanctified in truth’ (Jn 17:19). With the writer of Heb., ‘cleansing’ and

‘sanctification’ define, on the negative and positive sides, all that St. Paul means by

‘justification’ and ‘sanctification’; only, the second term is here made more prominent and wider in meaning than with the Apostle. St. Paul sees the sinner confronted by the Law of God, guilty and impotent; his fellow-teacher sees him standing outside the temple of God, defiled and banned. Sanctification means, for the former, engagement to God’s service (Ro 6:12–22) ; for the latter, empowerment for God’s worship. That this grace imports, however, in Hebrews more than a status once conferred, is evident from 12:14; it is a state to be increasingly realized, an ideal to be pursued to the end.

(3) St. Paul addresses his readers constantly as ‘saints’ (see art. HOLINESS) ; once as

‘sanctified in Christ Jesus’ (1 Co 1:2),—a phrase synonymous with ‘called saints,’ i.e. made holy by God’s call which they obeyed, when He summoned them into His Kingdom (cf. vv. 9, 26–30 , 1 Th 1:4, 2:12). The former expression points to the completed act of God by which they have become His saints (cf. 1 Co 6:11, Ac 20:32, 26:18). That sanctity, with St. Paul, is a term of relationship, not primarily of character, is evident from 1 Co 7:14, where ‘the unbelieving husband’ or ‘wife’ is said to ‘have been sanctified in’ the Christian wedded partner, so that their offspring are ‘holy’: the person of the unbeliever, under the marriage-bond, is holy in the believer’s eyes, as indeed every possession and instrument of life must be (see 1 Ti 4:3–5) . In the case of the believer himself, who ‘in Christ Jesus’ is brought into immediate personal contact with God (Col 3:3), destination and use imply moral condition—‘the vessels of the Lord’ must be ‘clean’ and ‘made ready for every good work’ (2 Ti 2:19–22 ; cf. 1 above, touching the OT Law of Holiness); so that, while ‘sanctity’ does not denote character, it normally connotes this; all virtue comes under the category of that which ‘becometh saints’ or ‘is fit in the Lord’ (Eph 5:31 , Col 3:12, 18 etc.). Accordingly, in 1 Th 4:4, 7 ‘sanctification’ is opposed specifically to ‘lust’ and sexual ‘uncleanness’—by contrast, probably, with the pagan ‘consecration’ to impure deities, as in the case of the hieroduloi of Corinth (cf. 1 Co 6:13–20).

Sanctification completes justification ( wh. see); together, these constitute the present work of salvation, the re-instatement of the sinful man before his Maker, his instatement into the Christian standing and condition (see 1 Co 6:11, and the connexion between chs. 5 and 6 of Ro.).

In principle the former depends on the latter, in experience they are concomitant (Ro 6:6f., 22).

They are alike acts of God, dealing with men in His grace through Christ (Ro 8:30, 33, 1 Th 5:23f., Jn 17:17; cf. Lv 22:32f.). The ‘anointing’ and ‘sealing’ of 2 Co 1:21 f., while referring formally to baptism, substantially describe sanctification, since God consecrates the believer for

His use and marks him in baptism with His ‘broad arrow.’

As the writer of Hebrews shows in his own way—see (2) above—Christ is the mediator of sanctification no less than of justification. He ‘bought’ men with the ‘price’ of His blood—the bodily ‘limbs’ along with the inner self—so that we are no longer ‘our own’ and may not ‘live for ourselves,’ but are, from the hour we know this, men ‘living for God in Christ Jesus’; and Christ ‘presents’ His redeemed ‘to God as holy’ and makes them God’s ‘sure possession,’ destined ‘for the praise of His glory’ (1 Co 6:19f., Ro 6:11–14 , 12:1, Col 1:22, Eph 1:14, 1 P 2:9,

Rev 1:6 etc.). Once, in relation to the Church His bride, Christ is Himself called the ‘sanctifier’ ( Eph 5:26; cf. He 13:12). Being our Head and Representative before God, dedicating ‘all his own’ (Jn 17:10) to the Father in the offering of Calvary, Jesus virtually accomplished the sanctification of His people, with their justification, once for all (1 Co 1:30): Paul’s saying, ‘I have been crucified with Christ’ (Gal 2:20, 6:14), implies that he has been, by anticipation, included in the perfect sacrifice; he thus unfolds the implicit doctrine of Jn 17:9f. and 17–19 (see (1) above; cf. He 10:14).

Collectively, believers were sanctified in the self-devotion of their redeeming Lord; individually, they are sanctified when they accept the Redeemer’s sacrifice and personally endorse His action. From the latter point of view, sanctification is the man’s own deed: he ‘presents himself to God as alive from the dead’ (Ro 6:13, 18); but the sinner is never, as in OT phrase, said to ‘sanctify himself,’—though 1 Ti 4:3–6 approaches this mode of statement. The Holy Spirit is, with much emphasis, identified with the work of sanctification; Christian believers are ‘sanctified in the Holy Spirit’ (Ro 15:16, 1 Co 6:11; also 1 Th 4:7f., Eph 4:30; cf. 1 P 1:2 etc.). To receive ‘the gift of the Spirit’ and to be sanctified are the same thing; when God takes possession of the believer, his ‘body’ becomes a ‘temple of the Holy Ghost’ (1 Co 6:19)— then he is a holy man; and to possess ‘the Spirit’ is, in effect, to have ‘Christ dwelling in the heart’ (Eph 3:16–19). This twofold identity (‘sanctified’ = ‘in the Spirit’ = ‘joined unto the Lord’) holds alike of the Church and of the individual Christian (1 Co 3:16f., Eph 2:21f.; cf. 1 P 2:9). Faith conditions this experience (Ac 26:18, Eph 1:13f.). Like the author of Hebrews, Paul recognizes a progressive holiness based upon the fundamental sanctification of the believer, the former being the growing and finally complete realization of the latter. Holiness is the startingpoint, perfect holiness the goal of the Christian course—the progress ‘is a growth in holiness rather than to holiness’ (Bartlet). Hence in Ro 6:19–22 the aim of one’s ‘service to God’ and ‘righteousness’ is found in ‘sanctification’; and in 1 Th 5:23f. the Apostle prays that God will ‘sanctify to full completeness’ his readers, who are still lacking in many respects (3:10), so that their ‘spirit, soul, and body in full integrity may be preserved,’ and thus found ‘blameless in holiness before God at the coming of our Lord Jesus’ (3:13). This supplication touches the ideal life in Christ; but it is an ideal to the present Christian state, and is not to be relegated to the visionary or the celestial: ‘Faithful is he who calleth you; who also will do it’ (1 Th 5:24).

St. John does not employ in his Epistles either ‘sanctify’ or ‘sanctification,’ but their whole substance is there. 1 Jn 1:8f. and 2:1f. recall-recall the teaching of Hebrews in speaking of ‘the propitiation’ made by our ‘Advocate,’ whose ‘blood cleanses from all sin’ and thus brings the sinner into ‘fellowship with the Father.’ Paul’s doctrine of holiness is resumed in such passages as 3:23f., 4:18f., 5:3f., 20, setting forth union with Christ through the indwelling Spirit as the spring of a new, eternal life for the man, in the strength of which God’s commandments are kept in love, sin and fear are cast out, and the world is overcome.

G. G. FINDLAY.

SANCTUARY.—See HIGH PLACE; TABERNACLE, 11 (b); TEMPLE.

SAND.—Minute particles of silex, mica, felspar, etc., easily rolled before the wind; hence, probably, its Heb. name, chōl. It lies in great stretches along the Palestinian and Egyptlan seaboard—an apt symbol of the incalculably vast or numerous (Gn 22:17, 41:49, Jer 33:22 etc.). For ‘sand,’ in Job 29:18, we should probably read, with RVm, ‘phœnix.’ However compact and firm, sand at once becomes soft at the touch of water (Mt 7:26 etc.).

W. EWING.

SANDAL.—See DRESS, 6.

SAND FLIES.—See LICE.

SAND LIZARD.—See LIZARD.

SANHEDRIN.—The Gr. word synedrion (EV council) became so familiar to the Jews that they adopted it in the form of Sanhedrin, which occurs very frequently both in Josephus and in the Talmud.

1. According to Rabbinical tradition, the Sanhedrin was originally created by Moses in obedience to Divine command (cf. Nu 11:16), and it is taught that this assembly existed, and exercised judicial functions, throughout the whole period of Biblical history right up to Talmudic times. That this cannot have been the case is seen already in the fact that, according to Biblical authority itself, king Jehoshaphat is mentioned as having instituted the supreme court at Jerusalem (2 Ch 19:8); but that this court cannot have been identical with the Sanhedrin of later times is clear from the fact that, whereas the latter had governing powers as well as judicial functions, the former was a court of justice and nothing else. It is possible that the ‘elders’ mentioned in the Book of Ezra (5:5, 9, 6:7, 14, 10:8) and ‘rulers’ in the Book of Nehemiah (2:18,

4:8: (14) , 18 (19) 5:7, 7:5) constituted a body which to some extent corresponded to the

Sanhedrin properly so called. But seeing that the Sanhedrin is often referred to as a Gerousia (i.e. an aristocratic, as distinct from a democratic, body), and that as such it is not mentioned before the time of Antiochus the Great (B.C. 223–187) , it is reasonably certain that, in its more developed form at ail events, it did not exist before the Greek period. The Sanhedrin is referred to under the name Gerousia (EV senate) In 2 Mac 1:10, 4:44, Jth 4:8, 11:14, 15:8 and elsewhere in the Apocr., in Ac 5:21, and frequently in Josephus, e.g. Ant. IV. viii. 41.

The Sanhedrin was conceived of mainly as a court of justice, the equivalent Heb. term being

Beth Dīn, and it is in this sense that it is usually referred to in the NT (see, e.g., Mt 5:22, 26:59,

Mk 15:1, Lk 22:66, Jn 11:47, Ac 4:15, 5:21, 6:12, 22:30 etc.). Sometimes in the NT the terms Presbyterion and Gerousia are used in reference to the Sanhedrin (Ac 5:21, 22:5). A member of this court was called a bouteutes ( ‘councillor’). Joseph of Arimathæa was one (Mk 15:43, Lk 23:50). The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

2. As regards the composition of the Sanhedrin, the hereditary high priest stood at the head of it, and in its fundamental character it formed a sacerdotal aristocracy, and represented the nobility, i.e. predominantly the Sadducæan interest; but under Herod, who favoured the Pharisaic party in his desire to restrict the power and influence of the old nobility, the Sadducæan element in the Sanhedrin became less prominent, while that of the Pharisees increased. So that during the Roman period the Sanhedrin contained representatives of two opposed parties, the priestly nobility with its Sadducæan sympathies, and the learned Pharisees. According to the Mishna, the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members (Sanhed. i. 6); when a vacancy occurred the members co-opted some one ‘from the congregation’ to fill the place (Sanhed. iv. 4), and he was admitted by the ceremony of the laying on of hands.

3. The extent of the Sanhedrin’s jurisdiction varied at different times in its history; while, in a certain sense, it exercised civil jurisdiction over all Jewish communities, wherever they existed, during the time of Christ this was restricted to Judæa proper; it was for this reason that it had no judicial authority over Him so long as He remained in Galilee. Its orders were, however, very soon after the time of Christ, regarded as binding by orthodox Jews ail over the world. Thus we see that it could issue warrants for the apprehension of Christians in Damascus to the synagogue there (Ac 9:2, 22:5, 26:12); but the extent to which Jewish communities outside of Judæa were willing to submit to such orders depended entirely on how far they were favourably disposed towards the central authority; it was only within the limits of Judæa proper that real authority could he exercised by the Sanhedrin. It was thus the supreme native court, as contrasted with the foreign authority of Rome; to it belonged all such judicial matters as the local provincial courts were incompetent to deal with, or as the Roman procurator did not attend to himself. Above all, it was the final court of appeal for questions connected with the Mosaic Law; its decision having once been given, the judges of the lower courts were, on pain of death, bound to acquiesce in it. The NT offers some interesting examples of the kind of matters that were brought before it: Christ appeared before it on a charge of blasphemy (Mt 26:57, Jn 19:7), Peter and John were accused before it of being false prophets and deceivers of the people (Ac 4:5ff.), Stephen was condemned by it because of blasphemy (Ac 7:57, 58), and Paul was charged with transgression of the Mosaic Law (Ac 22:30). It had independent authority and right to arrest people by its own officers (Mt 26:47, Mk 14:48, Ac 4:3, 5:17, 18); it had also the power of finally disposing, on its own authority, of such cases as did not involve sentence of death (Ac 4:5–23, 5:21–40) . It was only in cases when the sentence of death was pronounced that the latter had to be ratified by the Roman authorities (Jn 18:31); the case of the stoning of Stephen must be regarded as an instance of mob-justice.

While the Sanhedrin could not hold a court of supreme jurisdiction in the absence, or, at all events, without the consent, of the Roman procurator, it enjoyed, nevertheless, wide powers within the sphere of its extensive jurisdiction. At the same time, it had sometimes to submit to the painful experience of realizing its dependent position in face of the Roman power, even in matters which might be regarded as peculiarly within the scope of its own jurisdiction; for the Roman authorities could at any time take the initiative themselves, and proceed independently of the Jewish court, as the NT testifies, e.g. in the case of Paul’s arrest (see also Ac 23:15, 20, 28).

4. The Sanhedrin met in the Temple, in what was called the Lishkath ha-Gazith ( the ‘Hall of hewn-stones’) as a general rule, though an exception is recorded in Mt 26:57ff., Mk 14:53ff. The members sat in a semicircle in order to be able to see each other; in front stood clerks of the court, and behind these, three rows of the disciples of the ‘learned men.’ The prisoner had always to be dressed in mourning. When any one had spoken once in favour of the accused, he could not afterwards speak against him. In case of acquittal the decision might be announced the same day, but a sentence of condemnation was always pronounced on the day following, or later; in the former a simple majority sufficed, in the latter a majority of two-thirds was required.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

SANSANNAH.—An unidentified town in the Negeb (RV ‘the South’) allotted to Judah (Jos 15:31).

SAPH.—One of four Philistine champions slain by David’s heroes (2 S 21:18, 1 Ch 20:4 [Sippai]).

SAPHAT (1 Es 5:34).—His ‘sons’ returned with Zerub. [Ezr. and Neh. omit]. 2. 1 Es 5:9 = Shephatiah, Ezr 2:4.

SAPHATIAS (1 Es 8:34) = Shephatiah, Ezr 8:8; called Saphat in 5:9.

SAPHUTHI (1 Es 5:33) = Shephatiah, Ezr 2:57.

SAPPHIRA.—See ANANIAS, No. 1.

SAPPHIRE.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.

SARABIAS (1 Es 9:48) = Sherebiah, Neh 8:7.

SARAH or SARAI.—1. ‘Sarai’ is the form used previous to Gn 17:15, and ‘Sarah’ afterwards, in harmony with the change of name there narrated (by P). It is probable that there is no real significance in the change, -ai being an old feminine ending found in Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, while -ah is the common feminine ending. Sarah means ‘princess.’ The occurrence of the name Sa-ra-a-a in an Assyrian letter (K 1274) adds no definite information. Sarah was the wife of Abraham, and also his half-sister (Gn 12:13, 20:12); her parentage is not given further. She was taken as wife by the king of Egypt and also by Abimelech king of Gerar, and afterwards restored to Abraham (12:10–20 , 20). The former incident is in J, the latter in E; they may be different versions of the same story. The statement that she was at least 65 years old at this time ( Gn 12:4, cf. 17:17) seems inconsistent with these incidents, and especially with the statement concerning her beauty (12:11). It is to be remembered, however, that the dates belong to P. Sarah was long barren, but finally Isaac was born after supernatural intervention, when she was 90 years old (21:1–7 [P]). Through jealousy Sarah illtreated Hagar, her handmaid, the concubine of Abraham, and finally drove her away with her son Ishmael (16, 21:8–21) . The incident is in harmony with the regulations of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (§§ 144–147) . Sarah died at the age of 127 (P), and was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gn 23). In the NT she is mentioned in Ro 4:19, 9:9, He 11:11, 1 P 3:6, Gal 4:21–5:1.

2. Sarah, daughter of Raguel and wife of Tobias (To 3:7, 17 and elsewhere).

GEORGE R. BERRY.

SARAIAS.—See SERAIAH, 2.

SARAMEL (RV Asaramel).—An expression, ‘in Asaramel,’ in 1 Mac 14:28 in the inscription upon the memorial pillar of Simon Maccabæus. A place-name is indicated by the Greek text. This reading, however, is unsuitable, and it is best to assume, as has been proposed, that there was originally written a Heb. title of Simon, additional to ‘the high-priest,’ meaning ‘prince of the people of God’ (Sar-‘am-’ēl). See, for other explanations, ExpT Aug. 1900, p. 523 ff.

J. F. MCCURNY.

SARAPH.—A descendant of Shelah (1 Ch 4:22).

SARCHEDONUS (To 1:21f.) = Esarhaddon ( wh. see ).

SARDIS was the capital of the ancient kingdom of Lydia on the western coast of Asia Minor, and in the 6th cent. B.C. one of the most powerful cities of the world. It stood on one of the alluvial hills between Mount Tmolus and the sea, about 1500 feet above and south of the great plain of the river Hermus, and was inaccessible except by a neck of land on the south. The date of its foundation must be about B.C. 1200 , and the situation was ideal for an early fortified capital of a kingdom. As time advanced, extension was necessary, and a lower city was built on the west and north sides of the original city, near the little river Pactolus, and probably also on the east side. The older city now acted as acropolis, or citadel, for the later. This rich Oriental city, whose wealth depended on well-cultivated land and incessant commerce, was for centuries to the Greek the type of an Oriental despotism, under which all must sooner or later bend. Its absorption was not without its effects on the conquerors, and Sardis became the home of a newer Hellenism, different from the old.

Crœsus was king of Lydia in the second half of the 6th cent. B.C., and planned a campaign against Cyrus, the Persian king. He proceeded with the greatest caution, and crossed the river Halys. There he was completely defeated. He returned to prepare a second army, but Cyrus pursued him in haste, and besieged him in Sardis before he could get it ready. The citadel was captured by means of a climber who worked his way up by an oblique crevice in the perpendicular rock. The city was similarly captured by Antiochus the Great from Achæus late in the third century B.C. The patron deity of the city was Cybele, but she is conceived as possessing different attributes from those usually associated with the name. A special characteristic was the power of restoring life to the dead. The city suffered greatly from an earthquake in A.D. 17 , and received a large donation as well as a remission of five years’ taxation from the Emperor Tiberius. The greatness of the city under the Roman empire was due entirely to its past reputation. The acropolis ceased to be inhabited, being no longer necessary for purposes of defence. Its use was revived in the earlier Turkish days, but for long there has been no settlement at Sardis. Its place is taken by Salikli, above 5 miles to the east.

According to the view of Sir W. M. Ramsay, Sardis is alluded to in the Apocalypse, as are all the other six churches, as a centre of influence in its district. One of the cities within its sphere was Magnesia. The letter addressed by the writer of the Apocalypse to Sardis, with which, as with the other six cities named there, he was obviously well acquainted, shows that the church at Sardis was practically dead. It had degenerated and decayed from its early promise to an extent equalled by no other city. There were in it only a few faithful souls. That there is a remarkable analogy between the history of the city and the history of the church may be seen even from the bald account of the former just given. The instability of the city in history finds its parallel in the immorality of the church members. Most of the Christians had fallen back to the pagan level of life. The few noble ones shall have their names enrolled in the list of the citizens of heaven. The letter doubtless had a good effect. Christianity survived at Sardis. It was the capital of the province Lydia, instituted about A.D. 295 . The bishop of Sardis was metropolitan of Lydia, and sixth in order of precedence of all the bishops subject to the patriarch of Constantinople. Not far from Sardis there dwells in the present day a people whose customs differ so much from those of Mohammedanism that it is probable they would become Christian if they dared.

A. SOUTER.

SARDIUS.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.

SARDONYX.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.

SAREA.—One of Ezra’s swift scribes (2 Es 14:24).

SAREPTA.—See ZAREPHATH.

SARGON (Is 20:1).—The father of Sennacherib and successor of Shalmaneser IV., king of Assyria (B.C. 722–705) . Samaria was captured early in his reign, and Sargon carried away 27,200 of the chief inhabitants, the city being placed under Assyrian governors Sargon’s advent to the throne marked a change of dynasty, and he had to subdue Insurrection right and left. Merodachbaladan, once king of the Chaldæan State of Bīt-Yakīn, seized Babylon, and was supported by the Elamites. Sargon defeated the latter, but was obliged to leave Merodach-baladan undisturbed for twelve years, while he subdued the northern rivals of Assyria, Armenia and its neighbours. In

B.C. 720 he faced a combination of the W. States under Ilu-bihdi, who drew Hamath, Arpad,

Damascus, and Palestine into revolt. This was soon put down, Hamath was colonized by Assyrians, and the Philistines and Egyptians were defeated at Raphia. Then Carchemish was captured and absorbed into the empire (B.C. 717) . But Sargon’s greatest difficulty was with Armenia, and the rebellions it perpetually stirred up. He was, however, successful in the end, and subdued all the region S. of the Caucasus and parts of Cilicia, as well as parts of Media. In B.C. 711 an Assyrian army was sent against Palestine, where Merodach-baladan had been intriguing and had drawn Hezekiah into the conspiracy. Ashdod was captured, and Judah, Moab, and Edom submitted. Merodach-baladan was expelled from Babylon (B.C. 709), and then chased from Bīt-

Yakīn, whither he had retreated. Sargon was welcomed as the deliverer of the native

Babylonians, and became king of Babylon. He sent his statue to be erected at Idalion, in Cyprus. In B.C. 708 Commagene was annexed. Sargon was killed B.C. 705,—how or where is not yet clear. He founded a magnificent city at Dūr-Sargon, the modern Khorsabad.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

SARID.—A border town of Zebulun (Jos 19:10, 12) Probably Sarid is a copyist’s error for Sadid, which may be identified with Tell Shadūd, to the N. of the plain of Esdraelon.

SAROTHIE.—A family of’ Solomon’s servants’ (1 Es 5:34).

SARSECHIM seems to be the name of a Bab. official (Jer 39:3), but the versions— Nabousachar, Nabousarach, Sarsacheim—suggest that the text was early corrupt. There is no known Bab. name which exactly corresponds to any of these variants, and it is impossible to identify the person intended.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

SATAN

1. In the OT.—The term Satan is Hebrew and means ‘adversary.’ In the earlier usage of the language it is employed in the general sense of ‘adversary,’ personal or national: (cf. e.g. Nu 22:22, 2 S 19:22, 1 K 5:4, 11:25 etc.). In such passages no trace of a distinct being designated ‘Satan’ is to be seen. Such a being meets us for the first time in the OT in the prologue (chs. 1 and 2) of the Bk. of Job, in the person of one of ‘the sons of God’ who bears the title of ‘the Satan.’ Here Satan appears as a member of the celestial council of angelic beings who have access to the presence of God. His special function is to watch over human affairs and beings with the object of searching out men’s sins and accusing them in the celestial court. He is thus invested with a certain malevolent and malignant character; but it is to be observed that he has no power to act without the Divine permission being first obtained, and cannot, therefore, be regarded as the embodiment of the power that opposes the Deity. In Zec 3:2 essentially the same view of ‘the Satan’ is presented. But in 1 Ch 21:1 (‘And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel’) the personality of this being is more distinct: he appears now as ‘Satan’ (a proper name without the article), the tempter who is able to provoke David to number Israel. This is the Chronicler’s (4th or 3rd cent. B.C.) reading of the incident which in the earlier narrative (2 S 24:1) is ascribed to the direct action of God Himself. Here (in Chron.) the work of Satan is apparently conceived of as more or less independent of, and opposed to, the Divine action.

2. In the extra-canonical literature of the OT.—In the later (apocryphal) literature of preChristian Judaism the dualistic tendency becomes more pronounced—a tendency powerfully affected by Persian influence, it would seem, which is also apparent in the development of an elaborate Jewish angelology and demonology. This is most clearly visible in the apocalyptic literature. In the oldest part of the Bk. of Enoch (chs. 1–36), dating, perhaps, from about B.C. 180 , the origin of the demons is traced to the fall of the angelic watchers, the ‘sons of God’ who corrupted themselves with the ‘daughters of men’ (Gn 6:1f.). It was from the offspring of these sinful unions—the ‘giants’ or nephīlīm—that the demons were sprung. Of these demons the Asmodæus of the Bk. of Tobit (3:8, 17) seems to have been regarded as the king (Bab. Pes. 110a). The name Asmodœus (or in Heb. Ashmedai) has plausibly been connected with the ancient Persian Aeshma daeva, i.e. ‘the covetous or lustful demon’; in its Hebrew form it suggests the meaning ‘destroyer’ or ‘bringer of destruction,’ and this demon may be intended by ‘the destroyer’ of Wisdom 18:25 and by the Apollyon (= ‘Destroyer’) of Rev 9:11. In the latest part of the Bk. of Enoch, however, the so-called ‘Similitudes’ (chs. xxxvii–lxxi), which perhaps dates from about B.C. 64 , ‘the fallen watchers’ (and their descendants) are carefully distinguished from the Satans, who apparently belong to ‘a counter kingdom of evil’ which existed before the fall of the watchers recorded in Gn 6:1, the latter, in consequence of their fall, becoming subject to the former. Apparently these ‘Satans’ are ruled by a single chief, who is styled ‘Satan’ in one passage (Enoch 54.6). ‘Their functions were threefold: they tempted to evil (69.4, 6); they accused the dwellers upon earth (40.7); they punished the condemned. In this last character they are technically called “angels of punishment” (53.3, 56.1, 62.11, 63.1)’ (Charles).

In the Bk. of Wisdom (2:24: ‘by the envy of the devil death entered into the world’) we already meet with the identification of the Serpent of Gn 3 with Satan, which afterwards became a fixed element in belief, and an allusion to the same idea may be detected in the Psalms of Solomon 4:11, where the prosperous wicked man is said to be ‘like a serpent, to pervert wisdom, speaking with the words of transgressors.’ The same identification also meets us in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (? 1st cent. A.D.), where, moreover, satanology shows a rich development (the pride, revolt, and fall of Satan are dwelt upon). Cf. art. FALL.

The secondary Jewish (Rabbinical) Literature which is connected with the text of the OT (esp. the Targums and the Midrashim) naturally reflects beliefs that were current at a later time.

But they are obviously connected closely with those that have already been mentioned. The Serpent of Gn 3 becomes ‘the old serpent’ who seduced Adam and Eve. The chief of the Satans is Sammael, who is often referred to as ‘the angel of death’: and in the Secrets of Enoch he is prince of the demons and a magician. It is interesting to note that in the later Midrash one of the works of Messiah ben-Joseph is the slaying of Sammael, who is ‘the Satan, the prime mover of all evil.’ In the earlier literature his great opponent is the archangel Michael. The Rabbinic doctrine of the ‘evil impulse’ (yetser ra’), which works within man like a leaven (Berak. 17a), looks like a theological refinement, which has sometimes been combined with the popular view of Satan (Satan works his evil purpose by the instrumentality of the ‘evil impulse’).

3. In the NT.—In the NT, Satan and his kingdom are frequently referred to. Sometimes the

Hebrew name ‘Satan’ is used (e.g. Mk 3:26, 4:15 etc.), sometimes its Greek equivalent

(diabolos: cf. our word ‘diabolical’), which is translated ‘devil,’ and which means ‘accuser’ or

‘calumniator.’ In Mt 12:26, 27 (cf. 10:25) Satan is apparently identified with Beelzebub ( or Beelzebul), and is occasionally designated ‘the evil one’ (Mt 13:19, 38 etc.; so, perhaps, also in the Lord’s Prayer: ‘deliver us from the evil one’). Some scholars are of opinion that the name Beelzebub means not ‘fly-god’ but ‘enemy’ (i.e. the enemy of God). He is called the ‘prince of the devils (or demons)’ in Mt 12:24, just as Sammael, ‘the great prince in heaven,’ is designated the ‘chief of Satans’ in the Midrash.

The demonology that confronts us in the NT has striking points of contact with that which is developed in the Enochic literature. The main features of the latter, in fact, reappear. The ‘angels which kept not their first estate’ (Jude 6, 2 P 2:4) are the angelic watchers whose fall through lust is described in Enoch 6–16. Their punishment is to be kept imprisoned in perpetual darkness. In Enoch the demons, who are represented as the evil spirits which went forth from the souls of the giant offspring of the fallen watchers, exercise an evil activity, working moral ruin on the earth till the final judgment. In exactly the same way the demons are described in the NT as disembodied spirits (Mt 12:43–45, Lk 11:24–26) . The time of their punishment is to be the final judgment (cf. Mt 8:29: ‘Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?’). They belong to and are subject to Satan. As in the Book of Enoch, Satan is represented in the NT as the ruler of a counter-kingdom of evil (cf. Mt 12:26, Lk 11:13 ‘if Satan cast out Satan, how shall his kingdom stand?’); he led astray angels (Rev 12:4) and men (2 Co 11:3); his functions are to tempt (Mt 4:1–12 , Lk 22:31), to accuse (Rev 12:10), and to punish (1 Co 5:5: impenitent sinners delivered over to Satan for destruction of the flesh). It should be added that in the Fourth Gospel and Johannine Epp. the lesser demonic agencies disappear. Opposition is concentrated in the persons of Christ and the devil. The latter is the ruler of this world (Jn 16:11), and enslaves men to himself through sin. The Son of God is manifested for the express purpose of destroying the devil’s works (1 Jn 3:8).

Both in St. Paul (cf. Ro 16:20, 2 Co 11:2, 3) and in the Apocalypse Satan is identified with the Serpent of Gn 3. It is also noteworthy that St. Paul shared the contemporary belief that angelic beings inhabited the higher (heavenly) regions, and that Satan also with his retinue dwelt not beneath the earth, but in the lower atmospheric region; cf. Eph 2:2, where ‘the prince of the power of the air’ = Satan (cf. also Eph 6:12 and Lk 10:13 ‘I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven’). For Satan’s rôle in the Apocalypse see art. ESCHATOLOGY. Cf. also art. DEVIL.

4. The attitude of our Lord towards the Satan-belief.—Our Lord, as is clearly apparent in the Synoptic tradition, recognized the existence and power of a kingdom of evil, with organized demonic agencies under the control of a supreme personality, Satan or Beelzebub. These demonic agencies are the source of every variety of physical and moral evil. One principal function of the Messiah is to destroy the works of Satan and his subordinates (Mk 1:24, 34, 3:11, 12 , 15 etc.). Maladies traced to demonic possession play a large part in the Synoptic narratives

(see DEVIL, POSSESSION) . In the expulsion of demons by His disciples, Jesus sees the overthrow of Satan’s power (Lk 10:13). The evil effected by Satanic agency is intellectual and moral as well as physical (Mk 4:15, Mt 13:19, 33; cf. 2 Co 4:4). That our Lord accepted the reality of such personal agencies of evil cannot seriously be questioned; nor is it necessary to endeavour to explain this fact away. The problem is to some extent a psychological one. Under certain conditions and in certain localities the sense of the presence and potency of evil personalities has been painfully and oppressively felt by more than one modern European, who was not prone to superstition. It is also literally true that the light of the gospel and the power of Christ operate still in such cases to ‘destroy the works of darkness’ and expel the demons.

G. H. BOX.

SATCHEL.—See BAG.

SATHRABUZANES (1 Es 6:2, 7, 27, 7:1) = Shetharbozenai, Ezr 5:3, 6, 6:6, 13.

SATRAPS.—RV tr. of ’ăchashdarpĕnīm, Ezr 8:35, Est 3:12, 8:9, 9:3 (AV lieutenants) , Dn 3:2, 3, 27, 6:1ff. (AV princes). The term stands for the Pers. khshatrapāvan (= ‘protectors of the realm’). The satrap was the governor of a whole province, and be held the position of a vassal king. His power, however, was checked by the presence of a royal scribe, whose duty it was to report to the ‘great king’ on the administration of the province.

SATYR.—The Heb. word sā‘īr means primarily ‘he-goat,’ but the plur. sĕ‘īrīm is tr. in Lv 17:7 and 2 Ch 11:15, AV ‘devils,’ RV ‘he-goats’; in Is 13:21, 34:14 EV ‘satyrs,’ RVm ‘hegoats.’ Probably too in 2 K 23:3 shě‘ārīm (‘gates’) should be sĕ‘īrīm, and tr. as in Lv 17:7 . In these passages some ‘hairy’ demon is to be Inferred to whom ‘sacrifices’ were made (Lv 17:7), ‘high places’ erected (2 K 23:8), and ‘priests’ set apart (2 Ch 11:15). The association of these creatures with the mythological Lilith (wh. see) in Is 34:14 is specially noticeable.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SAUL.—1. Son of Kish, a Benjamite, the first king of Israel. We first meet him about to abandon the search for his father’s asses, when his servant suggested consulting Samuel. As it was customary to bring a present to a seer, and the wallet was empty, Saul hesitated till the servant produced the fourth part of a shekel of silver to give to the man of God. The seer, Divinely prepared for their arrival, met them as he was on his way to the high place to sacrifice. A banquet was made ready, and special honour paid to Saul by Samuel. The seer told the seekers that the asses had been found, and broached the matter of the kingdom to Saul, and anointed him as he was leaving. Saul was given certain signs in attestation of Samuel’s message, and after leaving the seer’s house, where he and his servant spent the night, he met a band of prophets, and soon was prophesying among them, to the marvel of his acquaintances (1 S 10:10). This narrative gives no hint that the people asked for a king, or that his selection would be displeasing to either Samuel or Jehovah.

The account is interrupted at 10:17 by one of a different temper. The people demand a king, which Samuel interprets to be a rejection of Jehovah, their true king, and Saul, after protest, is elected by lot at Mizpah. He remained quietly at home till Nahash’s cruel demand that the men of Jabesh-gilead should surrender to him, and each one lose the right eye, roused him. He was ploughing in the field when the news reached him, and immediately sacrificed the oxen, sending out parts of the sacrifice to his brethren with the command that they should follow him. When the army was mustered he marched to Jabesh-gilead and administered a crushing defeat to Nahash, after which his grateful countrymen made him king at Gilgal ( ch. 11). A still greater necessity for a king appears in the encroachments of the Philistines. Saul and Jonathan, his son, were encamped in Michmash and Gibeah (Geba), when Jonathan smote the ‘garrison’ (?) of the Philistines in Geba, thus precipitating the struggle. The plan of the Philistines was to send out plundering parties, and Jonathan threw the whole camp into confusion by surprising one of its guerilla headquarters (13:1–3, 14:1f.). When Saul heard of the flight of the enemy he inquired of the oracle what to do, but the rout was so apparent that he joined pursuit without the answer. The destruction of the enemy would have been greater had not Saul put a taboo on food. In the evening the famished warriors fell upon the cattle, and ate without sacrificing till the reported impiety reached the ears of Saul, who legitimated the meal by sacrificing at a great stone. As he failed to receive an answer from the oracle, when he Inquired whether he should pursue the Philistines farther, Saul concluded that some one had sinned. An inquiry was taken to the oracle, and the fault was found to lie with Jonathan, who confessed to having tasted honey. He was, however, delivered by the people from the penalty, for Saul had sworn that he should die (14:17– 45).

This narrative (chs. 13, 14) is interrupted at 13:8–15 by an account which represents Samuel as taking issue with Saul for sacrificing at the end of an appointed period of seven days, and announcing his rejection (See art. SAMUEL, p. 823ⁿ) . We have from another source (ch. 15) a story of the encounter with Amalek, against whom Samuel sent Saul with instructions to destroy men, women, children, and spoil. Saul, however, spares Agag, and part of the booty. This is now assigned as the reason for his rejection. Saul acknowledged his fault, but begged Samuel to honour him before the people by sacrificing with him. In his importunity he lays hold of Samuel’s garment, which is rent, and becomes the symbol of the kingdom wrested from Saul.

Samuel relents and worships with him.

The second stage of Saul’s life concerns his relations with David. Saul is advised to employ music as a relief from a deep-seated mental trouble, called ‘an evil spirit from the Lord.’ David, a skilled harper and celebrated soldier, is engaged. Saul loves him, and makes him his armourbearer (16:14–23) . The Philistines again assemble, this time at Socoh; Goliath issues his challenge, but no one responds. The lad David, who had come to the camp to visit his brethren, learns of the proffered reward, meets the boaster in single combat, and kills him. In this story Saul seems weak, irresolute, and unacquainted with David (ch. 17). David’s growing popularity and prowess lead Saul to attempt his life. Michal, Saul’s daughter, is offered to him in marriage in return for one hundred Philistines. The hazard involved failed to accomplish his death. Then David’s house is surrounded, but Michal manages David’s escape through a window (18:6–9 , 20:29, 19:11–17) . Merab, Saul’s elder daughter, was also offered to David, but withdrawn when he should have had her. This seems to be an effort to explain why David did not receive Saul’s daughter after he had slain the giant. David flees to Ramah, and Saul, seeking him there, is seized with the prophetic frenzy and rendered powerless (19:18–24) . David again flees, and receives help from the priests at Nob. So enraged was Saul that he ordered the slaughter of the entire priesthood there (chs. 20–21) . Saul had David all but captured in the hills of Ziph, when a raid of the Philistines called him away (23:14–29) . Twice Saul was in the power of David, who refused to harm the Lord’s anointed (chs. 24, 26).

The circumstances connected with Saul’s death are told in a dramatic way. The Philistines had gathered together at Aphek, while Saul held the fateful plains of Megiddo at Jezreel. Answer came from neither prophet nor priest. Then in despair he applied to the necromancer at Endor, but received only a hopeless message. The battle joins; Saul’s sons are slain; sore pressed, he calls on his armour—bearer to slay him, but being refused he falls upon his sword and dies. The following day the Philistines severed the heads of Saul and his sons, and exposed the bodies on the walls of Beth-shan, whence the grateful Jabesh-gileadites brought them away by night (chs. 28 , 31). An Amalekite, who brought the story of Saul’s death to David, claimed that he himself slew him, and was promptly executed by David (2 S 1:1–16).

2. Saul of Tarsus. See PAUL.

J. H. STEVENSON.

SAVIAS (1 Es 8:2) = Uzzi, Ezr 7:4.

SAVIOUR.—See SALVATION.

SAVOUR.—The word ‘savour’ is used in AV literally for taste, as Mt 5:19 ‘If the salt have lost his savour,’ and for smell, as 2 Es 2:12 ‘an ointment of sweet savour.’ It is also used figuratively in the sense of reputation, Ex 5:21 ‘Ye have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh’ (lit. ‘our smell to stink’ as AVm).

The verb ‘to savour’ is either ‘to taste or smell of,’ as in Pref. to AV ‘to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom’; or ‘to seek out or to search by tasting or smelling,’ used fig. in Mk 8:33 ‘Thou savourest not the things that be of God.’

SAW.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, § 1.

SCAB.—See MEDICINE, p. 599^b.

SCALING LADDER.—See FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT, § 6.

SCALL.—See MEDICINE, p. 600^a.

SCAPE-GOAT.—See AZAZEL, ATONEMENT [DAY OF].

SCARLET.—See COLOURS, § 4.

SCEPTRE, as tr. of shēbel, may stand either for a short ornamental sceptre such as appears in some representations of the Assyrian king, or for a long staff reaching to the ground, which characterizes some portrayals of the Persian monarchs. The long sceptre is simply an ornamented staff, the short one is a development of the Club or mace. On Gn 49:10 See LAWGIVER and SHILOH. On the difficulty of approaching the presence of the Persian kings referred to in Est 4:11 , cf. also Herod. iii. 118, 140.

SCEVA.—At Ephesus, where St. Paul worked ‘special powers’ (Ac 19:11ff.), certain itinerant Jews (RV ‘strolling’ perhaps conveys too much the idea of ‘vagabond’) endeavoured to exorcise evil spirits by naming over them the name of Jesus. Among them were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish ‘chief priest’ (probably one of the high-priestly family). In v. 16 the demoniac overcomes ‘both of them’ (RV). Sceva himself is not said to have been present. The incident led to many conversions, and several brought and destroyed their books of magic.

There is a difficulty in the text. Seven sons are mentioned in v. 14, and these are reduced to two in v. 16. Perhaps St. Luke is here abbreviating a written source which detailed the incident more fully, and explained that two out of the seven sons tried to exorcise this particular demon. Inferior MSS (followed by AV) substitute ‘them’ for ‘both of them,’ and the Bezan Codex ( D) omits the word ‘seven’ altogether, calls Sceva merely ‘a priest,’ and adds other phrases which are expansions of our text. But these seem to be but explanations of a difficult original text; and the RV is probably correct. The word ‘seven’ could never have been inserted if it were not St. Luke’s.

Prof. Ramsay thinks that the whole passage is unworthy of Luke (St. Paul the Traveller⁶, p. 272f.). But it is unsafe to judge first-century thought by that of our own day. The Apostolic age firmly believed in possession by evil spirits; and there is really nothing in this chapter unlike what we read elsewhere in NT.

A. J. MACLEAN.

SCHISM.—See HERESY.

SCHOOL, SCHOOLMASTER.—‘School’ occurs in EV only in Ac 19:9 for the lectureroom of an Ephesian rhetorician (cf. EDUCATION, p. 204^a) ; ‘schoolmaster’ only in Gal 3:24, 25 AV, for which RV has ‘tutor.’ The original is paidagōgos, lit. ‘child-conductor,’ ‘pedagogue’— an old and trusty slave, who accompanied the Greek child to and from school and ‘was bound never to lose sight of him, to carry his lyre and tablets, and to keep him out of mischief’ (Gardner and Jevons, Manual of Gr. Antiq. 303). He had nothing to do with the teaching, as is suggested by both the English renderings. The same word is rendered ‘instructors’ in 1 Co 4:15 AV (RV, as before, ‘tutors’). In AV the latter word is found only in Gal 4:2 as the tr. of an entirely different word, correctly rendered ‘guardians’ by RV. For the duties of guardians in Gr. law see op. cit. 552 f.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SCHOOLS.—See EDUCATION.

SCIENCE.—The word ‘science’ occurs in AV only twice (Dn 1:4, 1 Ti 6:20), and in both places it simply means ‘knowledge’; as in Barlowe’s Dialoge, p. 109, ‘There is no truthe, no mercye, nor scyence of god in the yerth.’

SCIMITAR.—See FAUCHION.

SCORPION (‘aqrāb [Arab. same name], Dt 8:15, Ezk 2:6; skorpios, Lk 10:19, 11:12, Rev 9:3, 10).—The scorpion belongs to the Arachnidœ or spider family. It occurs plentifully in Palestine, ten species being known; it is nocturnal in its habits, and kills small insects, spiders, etc., for food by means of the poisonous sting at the end of its tail. The effect of the poison on human beings is severe pain, and sometimes collapse and even death, thelatter in young children only. The ‘scorpions’ of 1 K 12:11, 14, 2 Ch 10:11, 14 are clearly used only figuratively. It is possible, but hardly likely (see Hastings’ DCG, art. ‘Scorpion’), that the language of our Lord in Lk 11:12 is suggested by the egg-like form of the ‘scorpion’ when at rest. More probably He has in mind some such form of proverb as was current among the Greeks: ‘Instead of a perch, a scorpion.’

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SCOURGING.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, 9, and CRUCIFIXION, 4.

SCREECH OWL.—See OWL.

SCRIBE.—See KING, p. 516^b.

SCRIBES.—Sometimes a phrase gives the key to a great history. Such is the case here. ‘The scribes of the Pharisees’ (Mk 2:16) points us to the inseparable connexion between the Pharisees and the Scribes. In other places in the Gospels they are also grouped together (Mt 12:38, Lk 6:7, Mk 7:5). If we would understand the Scribe or Lawyer, we must set him against the background of Pharisaism (See art. PHARISEES).

For every community that carves out for itself a great career the supreme problem is law and its administration. Now, after the Exile, the task being to hold together the parts of a nation widely scattered and lacking the unifying power of a common and sacred fatherland, the Mosaic Torah, the Divine Law for Israel, became, in course of time, the moral and spiritual constitution of Israel, its code of duty, the fabric of its right. The Torah is the informing principle of the community. To grasp this principle and apply it to the changing conditions and questions of the nation’s life was the supreme need of the time. This need was analogous to the similar need of any great State. And it always necessitates, as at Rome, a great body of lawyers. A fundamental need gives rise to an authoritative function, and the function creates for itself the agents to exercise it. So, in course of time, appears in Judaism a new type, the Scribe. There is, however, a peculiarity in the case of the Scribe that sets him apart from the Roman lawyer or the modern judge. The Torah which he interpreted and applied was a good many things in one. It was the text-book of a society which was both Church and State; it was at once the constitution and the catechism of the Jews. So the mastery and administration of it developed in the Scribe a variety of functions which with us are parcelled out among preacher, scholar, lawyer, and magistrate. It is easy to see that history owed him a fortune. He came to occupy a great position in the Jewish community. By the 1st cent. he had forced his way into that aristocratic body, the Sanhedrin ( Gamaliel in Ac 5; Nicodemus in Jn 3 and 7). He sat in ‘Moses’ seat’ (Mt 23:1). He had the power of ‘binding and loosing,’ i.e. of publishing authoritative judgments upon the legality and illegality of actions.

We see here a situation which had the making of great men in it. To grasp and administer the Mosaic Law, to ‘sit in Moses’ seat’ and become the trustee of the supreme interests of a great people,—there can be no better school. Naturally, there were many noble Scribes, men whose character and learning were commensurate with their task. Such were Hillel and Shammai, elder contemporaries of our Lord. Such also was the Gamaliel at whose feet St. Paul sat (Ac 22:3), and who spoke, with noble feeling, against the persecuting zeal of the Sadducees (5:34ff.). As a class, too, they had their noble side. Their work, both educational and judicial, was gratuitous. They were to receive no pay. Probably this rule grew out of the idea of an impartial judge (Ex 23:8, Dt 16:19) . Of course, there must have been many exceptions. Yet the mere idea was ennobling, and must have served to enkindle devotion. But, on the other hand, their position encouraged vast pride and vanity. They stood on their prerogatives as ‘Teachers.’ They loved the title of ‘Rabbi.’ So our Lord, when He bids His disciples refuse such title (Mt 23:7f.), has the Scribes in mind.

This leads us to the deeper defect of the Scribes as a class. All their training went to unfit them for understanding our Lord. As we have seen, the situation of the Jews in the centuries after the Exile called for a new type of man. The prophet passed off the stage. The Scribe or Lawyer took his place. In the 1st cent. of our era be had become antipathetic to Prophetism. So be had no sympathy with John the Baptist, and to the meaning of the creative force in spiritual things brought into history by the Saviour he was totally blind. Hence our Lord’s fearful denunciation of the Scribes (Mt 23). See also artt. PHARISEES and SADDUCEES.

HENRY S. NASH.

SCRIP.—See BAG.

SCRIPTURE.—1. The word ‘Scripture’ (Lat. scriptura, ‘a writing,’ ‘something written’) is used for the Bible as a whole, more often in the plural form ‘Scriptures,’ and also more properly for a passage of the Bible. It appears as tr. of the Greek graphē, which is used in the singular for a portion of the OT (e.g. Mk 12:10), and also for the whole OT (Gal 3:22), and more frequently in the plural (haigraphai) . The specific idea of Scripture contains an element of sanctity and authority. Thus it becomes usual to refer to Holy Scripture, or the Holy Scriptures (en graphais hagiais, Ro 1:2).

2. This specific conception of Scripture as distinguished from ordinary writing is due to the reception of it as a record of the word of God, and is therefore associated with inspiration. The earliest reference to any such record is in the narrative of the finding of the Book of the Law by Hilkiah the scribe in the time of Josiah (2 K 22:3ff.). Since this book is now known to have been Deuteronomy or part of it, we must reckon that this was the first book treated as Scripture. Still greater sanctity was given to the enlarged and more developed Law in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and from that time the whole Pentateuch, regarded as the Law given by God to Moses, is treated as especially sacred and authoritative. The special function of the scribes in guarding and teaching the Law rested on this Scriptural character attached to it, and in turn rendered it the more venerable as Scripture. Later the reception of the Hagiographa and the Prophets into the Canon led to those collections being regarded also as Scripture, though never with quite the authority attached to the Law.

The Rabbis cherished great veneration for Scripture, and ascribed to it a mechanical inspiration which extended to every word and letter. Philo also accepted plenary inspiration, finding his freedom from the bondage of the letter in allegorical interpretations.

Unlike the Jerusalem Rabbis, in this respect followed by most of the NT writers, who quote the various OT authors by name, Philo quotes Scripture as the immediate word of God, and in so doing is followed by the author of Hebrews. Thus, while St. Mark says, ‘as it is written in Isaiah, the prophet’ (Mk 1:2), and St. Paul ‘David saith’ (Ro 11:9), in Hebrews we read, ‘He (i.e. God) saith’ (He 1:7), ‘the Holy Ghost saith’ (3:7), or, more indefinitely, ‘it is said’ (3:15), which is quite in the manner of Philo. Still, the technical expression ‘It is written’ (gegraptai) is very common both in the Gospels and in St. Paul’s Epistles. As a Greek perfect, it has the peculiar force of a present state resulting from a past action. Thus it always conveys the thought that Scripture, although it was written long ago, does not belong to the past, but is in existence to-day, and its inherent present authority is thus emphasized as that of a law now in force. The impersonal character of the passive verb also adds dignity to the citation thus introduced, as something weighty on its own account.

3. No NT writings during the Apostolic age are treated as Scripture—a title, with its associated authority, always reserved by the Apostles for the OT. There is an apparent exception in 2 P 3:15, 16, where the Epistles of ‘our beloved brother Paul’ are associated with ‘the other scriptures’; but this is a strong argument in favour of assigning 2 Pet. to a late period in the second century. Apart from this, we first meet with the technical phrase ‘It is written’ attached to a NT passage in Barn. iv. 4; but here it is a Gospel citation of a saying of Christ: ‘As it is written. Many are called but few chosen.’ Thus the authority of Christ’s words leads to the record of them being cited as Scripture. In Polycarp (Phil. xii. 1) we have the title ‘Scripture’ applied to the source of a NT quotation, but only in the Latin tr. (his scripturis) . In 2 Clem. ii. 4 a saying of Christ is cited as Scripture. But, apart from these rare instances, no writer previous to the second half of the second century appeals to the NT as technically Scripture. Clement of Rome, Barnahas (with the one exception referred to), Hermas, and even Justin Martyr use the title for the OT only. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180) cites passages from St. Paul as ‘the Divine word’ (ad Autol. iii. 14). Irenæus (180), on the other hand, constantly treats NT passages as the word of God and authoritative Scripture. For an explanation of this remarkable development, see CANON

OF NT.

W. F. ADENEY.

SCULPTURE.—See ART.

SCURVY.—See MEDICINE, p. 599^b.

SCYTHIANS.—A wandering race of the Indo-European stock who lived between the Danube and the Don, and spread over the territory between the Caucasus and the Caspian. They were a cruel and savage people, of huge build. The Athenians employed them as police. In Col 3:11 they are mentioned as a degree worse than barbarians. The latter word simply connoted those who spoke neither Greek nor Latin.

A. SOUTER.

SCYTHOPOLIS.—See BETH-SHEAN.

SEA in Scripture generally means the Mediterranean, when the context introduces no distinction by which the particular sea is defined, e.g. in Nu 33:8, Jos 24:6f. etc. ‘The Great Sea’ is the Mediterranean (Nu 34:6, Ezk 47:10 etc.). ‘The Sea of the Arabah’ is the Dead Sea (2 K 14:25 etc.). The ‘Sea of Chinnereth’ is the Sea of Galilee (Nu 34:11 etc.). The ‘Sea of the

Philistines’ is the Mediterranean off the Philistine coast (Ex 23:31). Yām Sūph, ‘Sea of Weeds’ (Ex 10:19 etc.), is identical with ‘the Red Sea’ of He 11:29, Jth 5:12 etc., and is always so translated. The Nile, as in modern Arabic (el Bahr) , is called ‘the sea’ (Is 18:2 etc.), so also the Euphrates (Is 21:1, Jer 51:36). ‘The sea’ of Jazer is a scribal error (Jer 48:32; cf. Is 16:8). yām,

‘sea,’ Is the usual word for ‘West’; the Mediterranean forming the W. boundary of Palestine (Gn 12:6 etc.) . The phrase ‘from sea to sea’ (Am 8:12 etc.) probably signified the ends of the earth. The Influence of the Babylonian myth of the conflict of the gods with the primeval sea may be traced in certain Scripture representations of the sea (Job 7:12 etc. See art. ‘Cosmogony’ in Hastings’ DB). Tĕhōm (EV ‘deep’) of Gn 1:2 etc. resembles the Bab. Tiāmat. By the dismemberment of this monster the ordered world is produced (Gn 1:6). The turbulent and dangerous character of the sea is often referred to in Scripture ( Ps 46:2, 89:9, Is 17:12, Jer 49:23 etc.). From the sea came up the monsters of Daniel’s vision (7:2ff.); so also in the Apocalypse (13:1) . If in the literature of the Hebrews there is manifest a certain horror of, and shrinking from, the sea, which seem strange to a seafaring people, we must remember that, as a nation, Israel never knew the sea; nor need we wonder if, viewed from their mountain heights, stretching vast and mysterious into the far horizons, it seemed to them the very home of storms and vague terrors. So when the Jewish seer depicts the future home of the blessed there is ‘no more sea’ (Rev 21:1). Cf. DUALISM, 1, RAHAB, 2.

W. EWING.

SEA (BRAZEN).—See TEMPLE, § 6 (c).

SEA OF GALILEE.—See GALILEE [SEA OF].

SEA OF GLASS.—One of the features of the heavenly landscape described in Rev 4:6, 15:2 . By its side stood those who had been victorious in the struggle with the beast, singing to the glory of God. Its location was apparently before the throne of God. Just what the symbolism here intended is, it is difficult to state. The probability is, however, that there is no distinct symbolism whatever, but that the reference is rather to the brilliancy of the waters as one element in the supremely beautiful land of heaven.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

SEAH.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, II.

SEAL, SIGNET.—The existence of seals is attested for the early dynasties of Egypt, and for an equally remote period in the history of Babylonia. The first mention of a seal in the OT is in connexion with the patriarch Judah, who fared forth with his staff in his hand and his seal hung round his neck by a cord (Gn 38:18 RV), precisely as was the custom of every Babylonian gentleman in the days of Herodotus (i. 195). The seals hitherto found in Palestine show little initiative on the part of the Hebrews in this branch of the fine arts, the great majority plainly showing the predominant influence of Egypt, or to a less extent of Babylonia.

As regards material, almost every variety of precious stone was used for this purpose, although ordinary limestone, and even baked clay, were used by those who could afford nothing better. An almost equal wealth of form is attested by the extant seals. Thus the scarab and the scaraboid forms were distinctive of Egypt, as the cylinder was of Babylonia. Other seals, again, were conical in shape, while the square form is not unknown.

Most of the extant seals bearing evidence of a Hebrew origin, however, are oval in outline. This was also the usual form for seals intended to be set in the bezel of a ring. In this case it was customary to wear the ring on one of the fingers of the right hand (Jer 22:24; cf. Gn 41:42). The distinctively Jewish type of seal is marked by two features: (a) the absence of figures, Divine or human, in the field, and (b) the presence of two parallel lines, set close together, which cross the field longitudinally, and divide the inscription into two parts. The legend, as a rule, contains the name of the owner, preceded by the preposition signifying ‘belonging to’—thus ‘[the property] of X, the son of Y,’ or ‘of M, the daughter of N,’ for women also had their seals. Many seals, however, whose owners, to judge from their names, were Hebrews, bear figures and symbols in the field, one of them showing the earliest example of the so-called ‘shield of David.’

Another of this class is the finest known specimen of a Hebrew seal. It is of jasper, and oval in shape; the greater part of the field is occupied by a lion, of the most delicate workmanship in the Babylonian style, while above and below is the legend: ‘[The property] of Shema, the servant [i.e. court official] of Jeroboam.’ This seal was discovered in 1904 during the German excavations on the site of the ancient Megiddo, and is fully described by Kautzsch in MNDPV 1904, 1–14, 81–83; cf. Lidzbarski. Ephemeris f.

Sem. Epigraphik, ii. 140 ff., where other seals are also discussed; and PEFSt 1904 , 287 ff., with reproductions of the eize of the original and enlarged. It is impossible to decide whether or not the Shema of the Megiddo seal is identical with the I original owner of another seal of the more severe type above described, the legend of which runs: ‘[the property] of Shema, the servant of the king.’

A series of excellent reproductions of typical seals found in Palestine is given by Benzinger in his Heb. Arch. ²[1907], 82, 179 f., 225–230, while a collection of twenty seal inscriptions, dating from 9th– 6th cent. B.C., with ample references, will be found in Lidzbarski’s Attsemit. Texte, part i., 10 f.

The engraving of seals was done by means of a graver with a diamond point (Jer 17:1). BenSira (c. B.C. 180–175) makes honourable mention of them ‘that cut gravings of signets’ (Sir 38:27 RV ).

As regards the varied uses of the seal in antiquity, one of the most important was to authenticate written documents (1 K 21:8, Jer 32:19f.), after the manner of a modern signature (cf. Neh 10:1). A roll or other document intended for preservation was sealed up before it was parted with (Dn 12:4); the seals, accordingly, had to be broken before it could be read (Rev 6:3 etc.). In the ordinary business of life sealing was continually employed as a precaution against a deposit of any sort being tampered with by unauthorized persons. Wine jars, for example, invariably had their stoppers covered with soft clay, on which the owner impressed his seal. Such impressions are referred to in Job 38:14.

Newberry in his Scarabs illustrates the Egyptian (and doubtless Hebrew) practice of sealing doors by means of a piece of string attaching the door to the jamb, and sealed with a clay seal. Darius’ ‘den of lions’ (Dn 6:17) and the sepulchre of our Lord (Mt 27:66) were both in all probability sealed in this way by means of a cord which passed over the stone covering the entrance, and was sealed at either end by a lump of clay impressed with one or more seals (cf.

Dn. l.c.).

From the universal use of the seal in ratifying and authenticating documents, and safeguarding deposits, the writers both of the OT and of the NT have derived a rich variety of figures. Thus, in Dn 9:24, sealing is a figure for the ratification of prophecy; in Jn 6:27 the figure is based on the public acknowledgment of the seal as one nowadays acknowledges one’s signature. St. Paul’s converts, again, are the ‘seal’ of his Apostleship (1 Co 9:2), in other words, they authenticate his status and mission as a true Apostle. As a document or vessel, finally, is sealed up until the time for opening it arrives, so the Christian believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit ‘unto the day of redemption’ (Eph 4:30; cf. 1:13, 2 Co 1:22).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SEAMEW.—See CUCKOW.

SEA-MONSTER.—See DRAGON, LEVIATHAN, RAHAB, SEA.

SEBA.—The eldest son of Cush in Gn 10:7 (1 Ch 1:9), named along with Sheba in Ps 72:10, and with Egypt and Cush in Is 43:8, 45:14. In the latter passage its people are referred to as of high stature. A comparison with Is 18:2 points to a supposed connexion with the tall Cushites or Nubians, though there is no evidence which directly associates either the people or the country with Nubia proper, in the region of the Nile. More specific seem to be the references by Strabo and Ptolemy to a seaport Saba and Sabat, near the modern Massowa on the west of the Red Sea. This location, nearly opposite the ancient Sheba, gives some colour to the hypothesis that Seba is an African differentiation of Sheba ( wh. see), the latter being naturally the parent community.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SEBAM.—A place in the east-Jordan territory of Reuben (Nu 32:3) . In all the other passages (Nu 32:38, Jos 13:11, Is 16:8, 9, Jer 48:32) the name appears in the fem, form Sibmah. The ‘vine of Sibmah’ is mentioned by Isaiah and Jeremiah as one of the possessions of Moab on which destruction was to fall. The place has been located near Heshbon.

H. L. WILLETT.

SECACAH.—A town mentioned (Jos 15:61) among the possessions of Judah ‘in the wilderness’ (midbār) . It was probably in the rocky district above the W. shore of the Dead Sea. H. L. WILLETT.

SECHENIAS.—1. 1 Es 8:29 = Shecaniah, Ezr 8:3 2. 1 Es 8:32 = Shecaniah, Ezr 8:6.

SECOND COMING.—See PAROUSIA.

SECT.—See HERESY.

SECU.—A place name which appears only in the late narrative of 1 S 19:22 in connexion with Ramah, Samuel’s home, and especially with the ‘great cistern’ or ‘well of the threshingfloor.’ Perhaps the name represents a word in the original best rendered ‘the height,’ referring to the highest part of the town of Ramah.

H. L. WILLETT.

SECUNDUS.—A man of Thessalonica who accompanied St. Paul on his journey to Jerusalem (Ac 20:4), perhaps as a delegate to carry alms from his city. The Greek of the verse is obscure, but the meaning probably is that Aristarchus and Secundus and those mentioned afterwards went direct to Troas from Corinth and waited there for the Apostle, who came with Sopater by way of Macedonia. See SOPATER.

A. J. MACLEAN.

SECURE.—To be secure, in the language of AV, does not mean to be free from danger; it means not to anticipate danger. Thus, Jg 8:11 ‘Gideon smote the host, for the host was secure.’ The vb. ‘to secure’ occurs in Mt 28:14 ‘And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you,’ where the Greek means literally make you free from care, i.e. make it all right for you.

SEDEKIAS.—1. An ancestor of Baruch (Bar 1:1). 2. 1 Es 1:46, Bar 1:8 = Zedekiah ( wh.

see), king of Judah.

SEDUCTION.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3.

SEED, SEEDTIME (Heb. zera‘; Gr. sperma, sporos, spora).—1. Literal.—(a) Vegetable

(Gn 1:11, 8:22 etc.). See AGRICULTURE, § 1. (b) Animal (Lv 15:16–18 etc.). 2. Metaphorical.— (a) Offspring, race, family ( Gn 3:15, 9:9, 12:7 etc.; Mk 12:19ff., Lk 1:55, Jn 7:42 etc.). In NT it is especially frequent in the phrase ‘the seed of Abraham’—a favourite Pauline equivalent for ‘Israel’ ( cf. Ro 11:1, 2 Co 11:22). In Gal 3:16 St. Paul argues from the use of the sing. ‘seed’ instead of the plur. ‘seeds’ in Gn 13:15, 17:8, that the Messiah in person is denoted and not Abraham’s progeny in general. As a proof the argument has no force, for the same word zera’ occurs in the sing, form in every passage in the OT where it expresses the idea of offspring. It is a verbal subtlety due to the Apostle’s Rabbinical training. But the argument as a whole is independent of this grammatical refinement. St. Paul’s meaning is that the Messiah was clearly in view in the promises made to Abraham. Israel was the type of Christ, and in Him the seed of Abraham was summed up. From this follows that further extension of the fig. ‘seed of Abraham’ to denote those united to Christ by faith (Gal 3:7, 28), the spiritual Israel or ‘Israel of God’ (Ro 2:29, Gal 6:16). (b) Vital energy. In 1 Jn 3:9 ‘seed’ denotes the indwelling principle of the Divine life by which the Christian is kept from sin.

J. C. LAMBERT.

SEER.—See pp. 413^a, 757^b.

SEETHE.—This verb, which means to boil, occurs occasionally in AV, especially in the command (Ex 23:18 etc.), ‘Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.’ The past tense was sod, as Gn 25:29 ‘Jacob sod pottage’; and the past part. sodden, as La 4:10 ‘The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children.’

SEGUB.—1. The youngest son of Hiel who re-built Jericho (1 K 16:34). He died, or was possibly sacrificed by his father, when the gates were set up. See HOUSE, p. 369^a. 2. Son of Hezron (1 Ch 2:21f.).

SEIR.—1. The name of a mountainous district east of the ‘Arabah, peopled by the Edomites. It was originally occupied by Horites or ‘cave-dwellers’ (Gn 14:6). Mt. Seir is practically synonymous with Edom (cf. Gn 32:3 ‘the land of Seir, the field of Edom’). 2. ‘Mt. Seir’ mentioned in Jos 15:10 among the points defining the boundaries of Judah. The name may still be preserved in that of the ruins at Sārīs, S.W. of Kiriath-jearim.

SEIRAH.—The place to which Ehud escaped after killing Eglon, king of Moab (Jg 3:26); unidentified.

SELA means ‘rock,’ ‘cliff,’ or ‘crag,’ and as a common noun is of frequent occurrence in Hebrew. In three or four passages (Jg 1:36, 2 K 14:7, Is 16:l, and, according to some, Is 42:11) the word appears to be a proper name. In Jg 1:36 a site near the southern end of the Dead Sea is required by the context. Such a site would also satisfy the requirements of 2 K 14:7 and Is 16:1. But it is not improbable that more than one place was known as ‘the Cliff (or Crag).’ It is therefore not Impossible, though far from certain, that the Sela of 2 K 14:7 (cf. JOKTHEEL) and Is 16:1 is, as RVm in the latter passage suggests, and as many have held, the place known later as Petra (which also means ‘rock’). Petra lay about 50 miles nearly due south of the Dead Sea, in a valley ‘enclosed on every side by nearly perpendicular rocks of considerable height’ and

‘composed of sand-stone of many different colours.’ It was the capital of the Nahatæans from the close of the 4th cent. B.C. to the heginning of the 2nd cent. A.D. ( when it became a Roman province), and during that period a busy commercial centre. For some description of the buildings of Petra and the rock architecture which have given the city great fame, see Bædeker’s Palestine, p. 206, and the literature there cited. ‘The general character of the buildings at Petra is that of the debased Roman style of the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D.’ Apart from the Biblical statements enumerated above, the history of Petra before the Nahatæan period is unknown.

G. B. GRAY.

SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH.—A rock or cliff in the wilderness of Maon, at which Saul ‘returned from pursuing after David’ (1 S 23:28). The site is uncertain.

SELAH.—A Heb. liturgical-musical term of uncertain meaning. It occurs (a) in the OT, (b) in the Psalms of Solomon, and (c) in the Jewish (Synagogue) Liturgy.

In the OT the term occurs 74 times altogether in the Heb. text, viz. 71 times in the Psalter, and 3 in the Prayer of Habakkuk (Hab 3). In the Gr. tr. of the OT (the LXX) the Gr. equivalent (diapsalma) does not always appear in the same places as in the Heb. text; the number of occurrences is also rather larger in the LXX. Possibly in some cases ‘Selah’ has fallen out of the Massoretic text accidentally. In the Psalms of Solomon ‘Selah’ occurs twice (17:31 and 18:10), and in the oldest parts of the Jewish Liturgy (apart from the canonical Psalms, which are incorporated in it) 5 times (3 in the ‘Eighteen Blessings’ and 2 in the morning Benedictions preceding the Shema‘).

Various explanations have been proposed as to the etymology and meaning of the term. Perhaps the least improbable of these is that which regards it as a liturgical direction intended to indicate the place for lifting up the voices in a doxology at the close of a section; such a doxology might have been sung at the end of a psalm or section of a psalm which liturgically was separated from the following (cf. the use of the ‘Gloria’ at the end of Psalms or [in the case of the 119th] at the end of sections of the Psalm in Christian worship). Or it may have been a direction to the orchestra—‘Lift up! loud!’—to strike in with loud music (after the soft accompaniment to the singers’ voices) during a pause in the singing. Other theories, such as that it represents a Heb. transliteration of a Greek word (e.g. psalle) or an abbreviation of three words, have little probability. The meaning of the LXX rendering (diapsalma) is as uncertain as that of the Heb. word itself.

G. H. BOX.

SELED.—A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2:30).

SELEMIA.—One of Ezra’s swift scribes (2 Es 14:24).

SELEMIAS (1 Es 9:34) = Shelemiah, Ezr 10:39.

SELEUCIA. on the coast of Syria, at the mouth of the river Orontes, was the port of the great Antioch. It was strongly fortified. Situated on the S. side of Mt. Pieria, and on thelevel ground at its foot, it was protected on three sides both naturally and by fortifications. It was captured by Ptolemy Euergetes (1 Mac 11:8), and afterwards recovered (in B.C. 219) by

Antiochus the Great. Its greatness increased in Roman times. Then it was a ‘free city.’

Commercially its importance in the Levantine trade was of the highest. Extensive remains of the ancient city exist.

A. SOUTER.

SELEUCUS.—1. Seleucus I, (Nikator) , originally a cavalry officer of Alexander the Great, became satrap of Babylon on the death of the king. After some vicissitudes his position there was securely established in B.C. 312 , from which date the Seleucid era was reckoned (1 Mac 1:18). The battle of Ipsus, B.C. 301, made him master of Syria and great part of the East. He founded Antioch and its fortified port Seleucia (1 Mac 11:8), and is said by Josephus (Ant. XII. iii. 1) to have conferred on the Jews the privileges of citizenship. He is the ‘one of his [i.e. the king of Egypt’s] princes’ (Dn 11:5). He died B.C. 280.—2. Seleucus II. (Callinicus, B.C. 246–226) , son of Antiochus Soter, is entitled the ‘king of the north’ in the passage (Dn 11:7–9) which alludes to the utter discomfiture of the Syrian king and the capture of Seleucia.—3. Seleucus III. (Ceraunus, B.C. 226–223), ‘one of his [Seleucus II.’s] sons’ (Dn 11:10), was murdered during a campaign in Asia Minor: the struggle with Egypt was continued by his brother Antiochus (Dn 11:10–16).—4. Seleucus IV. (Philopator; but Jos., Ant. XII. iv. 10, calls him Soter) , son of

Antiochus The Great, reigned B.C. 187–176 . He it was who despatched Heliodorus to plunder the Temple (2 Mac 3:1–40, cf. Dn 11:20).—5. Seleucus V. (B.C. 125–124) and VI. (B.C. 95–93) are not of importance to the Biblical student. The four first-named belong to the ‘ten horns’ of Dn 7:24.

J. TAYLOR.

SELF-CONTROL.—See TEMPERANCE.

SELF-SURRENDER.—1. The military metaphor underlying the idea of ‘surrendering oneself’ is suggestive. The keys of the citadel of self are handed over to the rightful Lord, whose most powerful weapons of attack have been the entreaties of His love. The surrender is not for demolition, but for restoration in beauty and strength. It is a voluntary act, implying the ‘presenting’ of ourselves unto God, and involving the ‘presenting’ of our ‘members as instruments of righteousness unto God’ (Ro 6:13, cf. 12:1). A similar conception finds expression in the Gr. word (hypotassesthai) which RV tr. ‘to be subject to,’ lit. ‘to set oneself under.’ The proof that in ‘the mind’ the ruling element is not ‘flesh’ but ‘spirit’ is the absence of hostility to God; this state of ‘life and peace’ is the result of ‘subjecting oneself to the law of God’ (Ro 8:8f.; cf. 10:3, Ja 4:7). In He 12:9 this unreserved surrender of ourselves to God is represented as the only worthy recognition of His absolute claims, and as, therefore, thoroughly consistent with a due regard to the development of our own personality. To ‘be in subjection to the Father of spirits’ is indeed to ‘live.’ ‘Such absolute subjection is crowned by the highest blessing. True life comes from complete self-surrender’ (Westcott, Com., in loc.).

2. It depends upon the point of view whether the Christian ideal of life is described as the life of self-surrender or as the life of self-development. Repentance and faith are alike acts in which, at one and the same time, will-will is surrendered and the higher self is realized.

‘Our wills are ours, we know not how,

Our wills are ours to make them Thine.’

Our self-surrender is the condition of the Divine co-operation; His working in us ‘both to will and to do’ enables us to respond to the exhortation: ‘work out your own salvation’ (Ph 2:12f.). ‘Every real sacrifice is at the same time self-preservation, namely, preservation of the ideal self’ (Paulsen, System of Ethics, p. 248). ‘To yield oneself up as the organ of a higher spirit which disposes of us as may be fit constitutes the mystic ideal of perfect life’ (Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory, ii. 273). The open secret of that life is revealed in St. Paul’s profound words: ‘I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me’ (Gal 2:20). J. G. TASKER.

SEMACHIAH.—A Korahite family of gatekeepers (1 Ch 26:7). Perhaps the same name should be substituted for Ismachiah in 2 Ch 31:13.

SEMEI (1 Es 9:33) = Shimei, Ezr 10:33.

SEMEIAS (Ad. Est 11:2) = Shimei, Est 2:5.

SEMEIN.—The father of Mattathias (Lk 3:26).

SEMEIS (1 Es 9:23) = Shimei, Ezr 10:23.

SENAAH.—The children of Senaah, or more correctly Hassenaah, were a clan or family who, according to Ezr 2:35, Neh 7:38, 1 Es 5:23 [Sanaas] , were among the exiles of the first Restoration under Zerub., and had a share in re-building the walls (Neh 3:3). They are elsewhere unknown, unless they should be identified with Hassenuah of Benjamin (1 Ch 9:7, Neh 11:9). The latter would then be the correct reading. Other conjectures are less probable.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SENATE is the tr. of Gr. gerousia in Ac 5:21, where ‘all the senate of the children of Israel’ is intended to explain the preceding ‘council’ (synedrion). See SANHEDRIN. It is the Jewish ‘senate’ that is meant likewise in 2 Mac 1:10, 4:44. The Roman senate is alluded to in 1 Mac 8:17 ff.

SENEH.—One of the steep cliffs forming the walls of the gorge of Michmash, where Jonathan’s exploit occurred (1 S 14:4f.). The name may signify ‘tooth,’ though this is uncertain. The precise cliffs, called respectively Seneh and Bozez, are not identified.

H. L. WILLETT.

SENIR.—The name of Hermon among the Amorites, according to Dt 3:9, but in Ca 4:8 and

1 Ch 5:23 distinguished from Hermon. It was famous for its large fir-trees (Ezk 27:5). This Amoritic name was, naturally enough, the one in vogue among the Babylonians and Assyrians.

In Deut. it appears, like Hermon and Sirion, to designate the whole of Anti-Lebanon. When

taken more strictly, it stood, we may assume, for the northern portion. The Arab geographers gave the name to that part of the range lying between Baalbek and Homs.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SENNACHERIB (Assyr. Sin-akhē-erba, i.e. ‘Sin [the Moon-god] has increased the brothers’), son of Sargon, succeeded him on the throne of Assyria, on the 12th of Ab, B.C. 705. He was at once faced by troubles in Babylon, where Merodach-baladan had re-established himself. Sennacherib expelled him and placed Bēlibni of the Babylonian seed royal on the throne as a vassal king. After wars against the Kassites and Elamites in B.C. 701 , Sennacherib set out to reduce the West to order. The king of Tyre fied to Cyprus, Sidon and the rest of Phœnicia were taken or submitted, and placed under a king Ethbaal. Ashdod, Ammon, Moab, Edom sent tribute. Ashkelon and Ekron were captured, and Hezekiah had to restore Padi to the throne of Ekron after keeping him some time in prison. The Egyptians and their allies who had moved to support Hezekiah were defeated at Eltekeh. Then Sennacherib devastated Judæa, capturing 46 cities and 200,150 prisoners. Hezekiah seems to have attempted to bribe him to retreat, sending immense tribute to Sennacherib while he was besieging Lachish. Lachish fell, and the Tartan, the Rabsbakeh and Rab-saris were sent to demand the surrender of Jerusalem (2 K 19:8ff.). The miraculous dispersion of his army compelled Sennacherib to retreat without accomplishing the capture of Jerusalem. There is some reason to think that the Biblical accounts refer partly to a second campaign of Sennacherib after B.C. 690 . His annals, however, do not extend so far. Troubles in Babylonia led him to recall Bēl-ibni and set his own son Ashur-nādin-shum on the throne. He then had once more to expel Merodach-baladan from Lower Babylonia. Building a fleet on the Tigris and Euphrates, he pursued the Chaldæan to the mouth of the Eulæus, and there captured and destroyed the Chaldæan stronghold, thus invading Lower Elam. He was too far from his base, and the Elamites fell on his rear and captured Babylon, carried off Ashur-nādinshum to Elam, making a Chaldæan Nergal-ushēzib king in his stead; B.C. 694 . The Assyrians soon re-asserted their supremacy, but a fresh rebellion placed a Babylonian on the throne of Babylon. In B.C. 691 Sennacherib brought both Elamites and Babylonians to bay at Khalule. Two years later he invaded Elam. In B.C. 689 Babylon was captured and razed to the ground. From that time till B.C. 681 , when Sennacherib was murdered (2 K 19:37), we have no history of his reign. His great achievement was the creation of Nineveh as a metropolis of the Empire. He built the great palace of Kouyunjik and the great wall of Nineveh. Cf. ADRAMMELECH.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

SEORIM.—The name of the fourth priestly course (1 Ch 24:8).

SEPARATION, WATER OF.—See RED HEIFER.

SEPHAR.—Mentioned as a boundary of the descendants of Joktan in Gn 10:30. The most probable identification is that with Zafar, the ancient capital of the Himyarites, which is probably the seaport of Hadramaut of the same name (See HAZARMAVETH).

J. F. MCCURDY.

SEPHARAD.—A country in which was a community of exiles from Judah in the days of the prophet Obadiah (Ob 20). It is probably to be understood as Sparda (Çparda) , a Persian province of Asia Minor, not definitely treated in its earliest use, but in the time of the Seleucidæ employed for Asia Minor as a whole. Cf. OBADIAH, p. 664^b.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SEPHARVAIM.—1. A city mentioned in 2 K 18:34 (Is 36:19) and 19:13 (Is 37:13) as among those captured by the Assyrians, all apparently in Syria. Probably it answers to the Shabara’in named in the Babylonian Chronicle as taken just before the fall of Samaria. Sibraim of Ezk 47:8 may then be the same city. 2. A word of exactly the same form as the above occurs in 2 K 17:24–31 as the name of a place whose inhabitants were deported to Samaria. The context favours the supposition that the famous city Sippar in North Babylonia is intended. Probably the similarity between the words led some early copyist to write Sepharvaim by mistake.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SEPTUAGINT.—See GREEK VERSIONS OF OT, § 1.

SEPULCHRE.—See TOMB.

SERAH.—A daughter of Asher (Gn 46:17, Nu 26:48 (30), 1 Ch 7:30).

SERAIAH.—1. (2 S 8:17) See SHAVSHA. 2. High priest in the reign of Zedekiah. He was put to death, with other distinguished captives, by order of Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, 2 K 25:18, 21, Jer 52:24, 27. He is mentioned in the list of high priests, 1 Ch 6:14. Ezra claimed descent from him, Ezr 7:1 (1 Es 8:1 Azarias, 2 Es 1:1 Saraias). His name occurs also in 1 Es 5:6 Saraias. 3. One of ‘the captains of the forces’ who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah (2 K 25:23, Jer 40:8). 4.

Second son of Kenaz father of Joab, and brother of Othniel (1 Ch 4:13, 14) 5. Grandfather of Jehu, a prince of Simeon (1 Ch 4:35) 6. One of the twelve leaders who returned with Zerub babel, Ezr 2:2 = Neh 7:7 Azariah, l Es 5:8 Zaraias 7. A priestly clan (Neh 10:2, 11:11, 12:2, 12,

1 Es 5:8 = 1 Ch 9:11 Azariah). 8. One of those sent to apprehend Jeremiah and Baruch (Jer 36:26). 9. Son of Neriah and brother of Baruch (Jer 51:59–64). He held the office of sar menūchāh (AV ‘a quiet prince,’ mg. ‘or prince of Menucha or chief chamberlain’; RV ‘chief chamberlain,’ mg. ‘or quartermaster’).

SERAPHIM.—The seraphim are mentioned only in a single passage of Scripture (Is 6:2ff.). In his inaugural vision, Isaiah sees these supernatural creatures grouped about Jehovah’s throne in His heavenly palace. The prophet furnishes no elaborate description of the form of these beings, and apparently assumes that his readers will be able to fill in what he omits; but he does make clear that they are six-winged creatures. With one pair of wings they hover around Jehovah’s throne; and with the other two they cover their faces and their feet,—actions symbolical of humility and adoration. The seraphim are arranged in an antiphonal choir, singing the Trisagion, and their chorus is of such volume that the sound shakes the foundations of the palace. In the prophet’s vision they have human voices and hands (v. 6), but it cannot be asserted with equal certainty that they possess human bodies. The prophet leaves us in no doubt about the function of these creatures. They are ministers of Jehovah, occupied in singing the praises of their Sovereign, and in protecting Him from the approach of sin and evil. The seraphim may be traced in the Imagery and symbolism of the NT Apocalypse, where the four living creatures, in both their function and their form, are a combination of the seraphim with the cherubim of Ezekiel’s vision (cf. Is 6:2ff., Ezk 1, 2, and Rev 4:8).

It was customary with the prophets to transform and purify popular conceptions, by bringing them into relation with their ethical idea of God. The seraphim are an illustration of this process. The popular mythical seraphim were a personification of the serpent-like flash of lightning. The usage and meaning of the singular sārāph (= ‘fiery serpent,’ Nu 21:6, Is 14:29), as well as the etymology of the word, suggest this view of the origin of the seraphim. The later Jewish tradition, according to which they are serpents, points in the same direction (Enoch 20. 7, 61. 10 et al.). The brazen serpent, Nehushtan, which was removed from the Temple by Hezekiah, was a relic probably connected with the popular mythical conception, and it may have suggested the seraphim of the heavenly palace to Isaiah’s mind.

Two other theories of the origin of the prophetic conception have been advanced, but there is little that can be said in their favour. Some would derive the name from the Babylonian Sharrapu, a name for Nergal the fire-god, and consequently would regard the seraphim as the flames that enveloped this deity. Others have endeavoured to associate them with the Egyptian griffins (seref), half-lion and half-eagle, which are represented as guardians of graves. According to the latter view, the duty of guarding the threshold of the Temple would be the function that must be assigned to the seraphim of Isaiah’s vision. In criticism, it may be remarked that the Egyptian griffin is more akin to the Hebrew cherub, and the latter should be sharply distinguished from the seraph (cf. art. CHERUB).

JAMES A. KELSO.

SERAR (1 Es 5:32) = Sisera, Ezr 2:53, Neh 7:55.

SERED.—A son of Zebulun (Gn 46:14, Nu 26:26 (22) [gentilic name Seredites]).

SERGIUS PAULUS.—See PAULUS (SERGIUS).

SERJEANTS.—EV tr. in Ac 16:35, 38 of Gr. rhabdouchoi (= ‘rod-bearers’), which represents the Lat. lictores (RVm lictors) , officials whose duty it was to attend the Roman magistrates, to execute their orders, and especially to administer the punishments of scourging or beheading. For this purpose they carried, as their mark of office, the fasces, a bundle of rods with an axe inserted. Cf. art. PHILIPPI.

SERON.—A Syrian commander defeated by Judas Maccabæus at Beth-horon (1 Mac 3:18,

23f.).

SERPENT.—

1. nāchāsh, generic name (cf. Arab. chanash) , Gn 3:1, 3 etc.; the most commonly used word, occurs frequently.

2. ‘eph’eh (root to ‘groan’ or ‘hise,’ cf. Arab, af‘a) is applied to the viper (Job 20:16, Is 30:6, 59:6).

3. ‘akshūb, Ps 140:3 ‘adder.’ The root meaning (cf. Arab. ‘akasa) seems to be ‘bending back,’ as a serpent does before striking.

4. pethen, tr. ‘asp,’ Dt 32:33, Job 20:14, Is 11:8; tr. ‘adder,’ Ps 58:4, where it is referred to as the favourite of the serpent-charmer.

5. shĕphīphōn Gn 49:17, tr. ‘adder,’ AVm ‘arrowsnake,’ RVm ‘horned snake’ (cf. Arab.

sheffūn).

6. tsepha‘, Is 14:29, AV ‘cockatrice,’ RV ‘basilisk,’ EVm ‘adder.’

7. tsiphō‘nī, Pr 23:32 ‘adder’; Is 11:8, 59:6, Jer 8:17, ‘cockatrice,’ RV ‘hasllisk,’ mg. ‘ar adder.’

8. qippōz. Is 34:15, AV ‘great owl,’ RV ‘arrowsnake.’ See OWL.

9. sārāph. Is 14:29, 30:6 ‘fiery serpent,’ coupled with nāchāsh in Nu 21:6, Dt 8:15.

10. zōchălē ’āphār, Dt 32:24; zōchălē’ erets, Mic 7:17; some creature that glides on or into the earth, probably therefore a serpent. Cf. WORM, 5.

11. tannīn, tr. ‘serpent,’ Ex 7:9, 10, 12, RVm ‘any large reptile’; Ps 91:13, AV and RV ‘dragon.’ See DRAGON.

12. (Gr.) echidna—any poisonous serpent (Mt 3:7, 12:34, 23:33, Lk 3:7, Ac 28:3).

Serpents are very common in the Holy Land and in the wilderness to the south. Over 30 species are known. Though the great majority are really harmless, all are dreaded by the natives, and several kinds are most deadly. Fatal snake bites are by no means uncommon; the writer knows of seven cases at first hand. The Egyptian cobra (Naja haji) is found, but fortunately is not common. It is the favourite with snake-charmers, and is very probably the pethen, tr. ‘asp’ in OT. It was held in much veneration by the ancient Egyptians, and a little bronze serpent recently found in the excavations of ancient Gezer—probably an object of worship in pre-Israelite times—was of this form. Another very dangerous snake is the horned sandsnake (Cerastes hasselguistii) , supposed to be the ‘asp of Cleopatra.’ It lies in ambush (Gn 49:17) in depressions of the road and bites the passer-by. It is called by the Arabs shiffūn, which corresponds to the Heb. shĕphīphōn. Other poisonous Palestine snakes belonging, like the last mentioned, to the viper family are Vipera euphratica, V. ammodytes, Daboia xanthina—a large, nocturnal species—and the small Echis arenicola which haunts sandy deserts. These vipers are all included under the Heb. ’eph‘eh (Arab. af’a). The viper of Ac 28:3 was probably Vipera aspis, which is common on most of the larger isles of the Mediterranean, though extinct in Malta. The expression ‘fiery serpent’ probably refers to the burning sensation produced by the bite; in Ps 140:3 their poison is supposed to reside in their tongues.

Some of the references to serpents do not apparently refer to any natural object. This view is taken in the translation in Is 14:29 of tsepha‘, and in Is 11:3, 59:5, Jer 8:17 of tsiph’ ōnī, where ‘cockatrice’ occurs in AV and ‘basilisk’ in RV. The former was, among early English writers, a creature with a head and body like a cock, but the tail of a serpent, with a sting at its extremity. The basiliskos of the LXX was probably the golden urœus, the ornament of the royal headdress among the Egyptians. There is no clear reason why in the passages quoted the references should not be to an actual species of snake. The reference in Am 9:3 to the serpent (nāchāsh) at the bottom of the sea may have some reference to the Babylonian myth of Tiāmat. See also DRAGON and LEVIATHAN. For the serpent of Gn 3 See FALL (4), and SATAN, p. 829^bf.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SERPENT, BRAZEN.—Nu 21:4–9 relates that Moses was commanded by God to make a

serpent of brass (or rather, of bronze) and to set it upon a standard (RV), that those who had been bitten by the serpents might look on it and be healed. This was in harmony with a wide-spread belief that the image of a hurtful thing drives the evil away. In the absence of a direct statement we cannot say whether it was Jahweh who was worshipped under the form of the bronze serpent of 2 K 18:4—the Nehushtan, or piece of bronze, as it was called. Some think it represented the Celestial Dragon, others the spirit of an ancestor, others a chthonic deity: Robertson Smith believed that it was the totem of David’s house. There are traces of serpent-worship in Israel (1 K 1:9 Zoheleth = ‘snake’; Neh 2:13). The two points of comparison present to our Lord’s mind in Jn 3:14 are—(1) the lifting up of the serpent on the pole and Himself on the Cross, and (2) the voluntary looking of the Hebrews to the serpent—for the verb employed means more than simply seeing—and the faith of believers (see Sir 16:5–7).

J. TAYLOR.

SERUG.—Son of Reu (Gn 11:20, 22, 23, Lk 3:35).

SERVANT.—See next art. and SLAVE.

SERVANT OF THE LORD.—In this phrase, as repeatedly in the EV of the OT, ‘LORD’ is substituted for ‘Jahweh,’ the proper name of the God of Israel, which stands in the Hebrew text.

1. Originally the term ‘servant’ in this phrase is simply correlative to such terms as ‘lord,’ ‘master,’ which the ancient Hebrews, in common with their Semitic kinsmen, applied to their god. In the first instance, the phrase ‘the servant of Jahweh’ merely defines a man as one who acknowledges Jahweh as his god; it corresponds closely to what we might rather call a worshipper of Jahweh. Naturally, therefore, it may stand in antithesis to a similar phrase in which the name of another deity takes the place of that of Jahweh. Thus the ‘servants of Jahweh’ and ‘the servants of the (Tyrian) Baal’ are contrasted in 2 K 10:23, though the fact that the same word is used in both phrases is obscured by the RV, which exaggerates a distinction capriciously introduced by the punctuators into the Hebrew text.

2. Thus it will be readily understood that any Israelite might be called ‘the servant of

Jahweh,’ and as a matter of fact a large number of individuals received this phrase as their name; it is familiar to English readers in the form Obadiah, which was originally pronounced, as the LXX indicates, Abdiyah (cf. the parallel name Abdiel—‘servant of God’). Adherents of other gods received similar proper names, such as Ebed-melech (wh. see) = ‘servant of the god Melech,’ or Abd-Melkarth, Abd-Eshmun, and Abd-Manāt, typical Phœnician and Nabatæan names meaning respectively servant of the gods Melkarth, Eshmun, and Manāt.

3. But just as modern terms denoting religions attachment, like ‘Christian’ or ‘believer,’ may, according to the connexion in which they occur, differ greatly in the fulness of their meaning, so ‘the servant of Jahweh’ might imply a higher degree, or more special form, of service than is necessarily involved in the proper name Obadiah, or in the distinction between ‘servants of Jahweh’ and ‘servants of Baal.’ Such fuller significance attaches to the phrase when prophets ( Am 3:7, 2 K 9:7, Jer 7:25, and often) or priests and Levites (Ps 134:1) are specified as ‘the servant of Jahweh’; so also when particular individuals are thus described. Among the individuals specifically termed ‘the servant of Jahweh’ (which in speeches of Jahweh of course becomes ‘my servant’) are Abraham (Gn 26:24), Moses (Ex 14:31, Nu 12:7f., and often), Joshua

(Jos 24:29), Caleb (Nu 14:24), Job (Job 1:8), David (2 S 3:18 and often), Eliakim (Is 22:20), Zerubbabel (Hag 2:23), and the person who is termed ‘the Shoot’ (EV text ‘the Branch,’ Zec 3:8).

4. The use of the term in Deutero-Isaiah (Is 40–55) is peculiar. In certain passages this writer clearly uses the term to describe the nation: the entire people is personified, spoken of as an individual, and called by Jahweh ‘my servant,’ or, by the prophet speaking in his own name, ‘the servant of Jahweh.’ These passages are 41:8 f., 44:21, 49:3, 44:1f., 45:4. The same use of the term is found in Ps 136:22, which was written much later; but it does not occur in any extant literature that is unquestionably earlier than the Deutero-Isaiah, for Jer 30:10 (not found in the Greek text) = 46:27f. is probably not a saying of the prophet Jeremiah’s, and in Ezk 37:25, 28:25, sometimes cited as parallel, the phrase is used of an individual of the past, the patriarch Jacob, not of the nation of the present.

5. But though the particular character of ‘the servant of Jahweh’ in which the nation is personified may be peculiar to the Deutero-Isaiah, and one or two writers influenced by him, similar personifications are common enough with Hebrew writers, and are sometimes so remote from our habits of thought and expression that the RV has sacrificed the figure to gain intelligibility, as, e.g., in Jos 9:7, which, literally rendered, runs, ‘and the man of Israel said unto the Hivite, perhaps thou art dwelling in my midst’ (for further examples see G. B. Gray, Divine

Discipline of Israel, 79 f., or ‘Numbers,’ in ICC p. 265 f.). Other notable instances of personification retained even in RV are Hos 11:1 ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt’ (where son = the Hebrew nation), and Ps 129:1ff., where Israel is to say, ‘Many a time have they afflicted me from my youth up, yet have they not prevailed against me. The plowers plowed upon my back; they made long their furrows.’

6. But while the personification of the nation as the ‘servant of Jahweh’ is certain in the passages cited in § 4, there are other passages in which most scholars in the past, and many of the present, have concluded that the title has another application—that it refers prophetically to Jesus Christ, or to some individual known historically to the writer, such as Jeremiah, Jehoiachin, Zerubbabel, or the Eleazar of 2 Mac 6:18–31 , or to the pious section of Israel. In so far as this conclusion rests on the individualizing traits in the description of the servant in such passages as Is 50:4–9, 52:13–53:12 , it is unconvincing; for the facts can be equally well, and, so far as the death, burial, and resurrection (cf. Ezk 37) of the servant are concerned, far better, explained by the analogy of the personifications referred to in the last paragraph, as figuralive descriptions of the history of the nation in the past, and of the prophet’s hopes for it in the future.

7. In one passage (Is 50:10f.), indeed, ‘the servant of Jahweh’ is probably not the nation Israel; for the audience addressed appears to consist of Jews; if so, the servant here is either an individual or a comparatively small class—not the whole of the pious Israelites, for he is distinguished from ‘those that fear Jahweh.’ This passage is commonly considered to be the work of a later writer than the Deutero-Isaiah.

8. The most important differences of interpretation are concerned with four passages, 42:1–4 , 49:1–8, 50:4–9, 52:13–53:12. These are commonly, though not unanimously, held to be the work of one writer, but several scholars hold that this writer was not the Deutero-Isaiah. The critical question is largely an exegetical one; if there really is the wide difference, which some claim to discover, between the use of the term ‘servant of Jahweh’ in, and the religious standpoints of, these passages and the Deutero-Isaiah, differences of authorship may not unnaturally be inferred; otherwise the grounds for disintegration are slight. Unfortunately the interpretation of the passages is rendered difficult and ambiguous by the state of the text; that the text is to some extent corrupt, especially in 52:13–53:12 , is now generally admitted; but as to the exact extent, and the nature of the corruption, differences of judgment prevail. No consistent interpretation of ‘the servant of Jahweh’ given in these four passages is possible on the basis of the present text; for in 49:3 the servant is identified with the nation, but in 53:8 he is distinguished from the nation, for ‘my people’ (if the text be sound) cannot be made to mean anything but Israel except by very forced exegesis. Consequently, in the interests of consistency some scholars have struck out the word ‘Israel’ in 49:3, others have corrected ‘the transgression of my people’ in 53:8 to ‘our transgressions,’ or ‘their transgression,’ or ‘the transgression of peoples’ (all comparatively slight changes in the Hebrew text). It may be observed that 53:8 is in other respects admittedly obscure, if not also corrupt.

It must suffice to refer briefly here to one or two of the chief points for or against the two main alternatives—that in these passages, as elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah, the servant is Israel, or something less than Israel (whether a section of the nation or an individual). We shall consider the latter alternative first.

(1) Two passages have been considered to demand a distinction between the servant and Israel. One of these, 53:8, as already stated, certainly does demand it, if the text be sound; but this is doubtful. The other passage is 49:5, 6, which follows the statement in the present text that the servant is Israel (49:3). These verses as translated in RV imply that the servant and Israel are distinct. But though the translation of RV in v. 5 is grammatically correct, it is not necessary; other grammatically correct translations are: ‘and now Jahweh that formed me to be his servant hath determined to bring back Jacob again to himself, and that Israel should be gathered to him,’ or ‘and now saith Jahweh that formed me from the womb to be his servant in that he brought Jacob again to him, and drew Israel unto him.’ Either of these translations allows of the identity of Israel and the servant. In v. 5 RV is incorrect. The Hebrew is extremely awkward and questionable, but literally translated v. 6 runs: ‘(a) lighter (thing) than thy being my servant is the raising up of the tribes of Jacob and the restoring of the preserved of Israel, and I will give thee for a light of the nations,’ etc. The ‘also’ in ‘I will also give’ of RV, which suggests that the illumination of the nations is a second function of the servant, in addition to one already described, is absolutely unrepresented in and unsuggested by the Hebrew text. Thus v. 8 is ambiguous as to the point at issue; it may mean (if it means anything) either, You do not exhaust your service by restoring Israel, you have also to illumine the nations; or, The fact that you are my servant means more than that I shall rescue you, it means that I shall make use of you for carrying out my purpose of illumining the nations.

(2) Apart from the passages just discussed, which are either textually open to suspicion or ambiguous in meaning, there is nothing that directly forbids identifying the servant with Israel in

42:1–4, 49:1–6, 50:4–9, 52:13–53:12 , as he is unmistakably identified with Israel by the Deutero-Isaiah in many passages (see § 4). In the present text of 49:3 the identification is actually made. But the strongest argument for the correctness of this identification is to be found in the fact that it does fuller justice to the general tenor of the passages: this is perfectly clear in

42:1–4; here the Divine speech and the writer’s mind are alike filled with two subjects—the

Servant and the Nations of the world; the servant is to instruct the nations in the religion of Jahweh: granted that the servant is Israel, we have here a constantly recurring contrast, Israel and the nations; otherwise Israel is totally disregarded. In 49:1–6 the servant addresses the nations of the world, and the function of the servant, which on some interpretations (see above) alone is mentioned, and on any interpretation alone receives prominence, is that of spiritually illumining the nations; in 52:13–15 Jahweh states that, as the past humiliation of the servant by its very extent attracted far-spread attention, so his coming exaltation will impress nations and kings. Here again, nothing is said of Israel, unless the servant is Israel. In 53:1ff. certain speakers make a confession that they had misjudged the servant of Jahweh, terming him not the righteous one but a sinner, and regarding the unparalleled sufferings which they now perceive had been horne for them, as due to the fact that he was abandoned by Jahweh. Again, the least difficult view as to the speakers who make this confession is that they are the nations referred to in 52:15, and that the servant is the Hebrew nation. That Israel suffered for the nations is certainly a remarkable idea, but that all the sufferings of Israel were not due to its own sins appears to be the thought of Deutero-Isaiah in 40:2. Again, the relative righteousness of Israel, which is all that need be implied if we see in ch. 53 a confession of the nations, is implied elsewhere, e.g. in 40:27.

It is impossible even to indicate here all the difficulties that beset, or the points that favour, the several theories of interpretation. The case for identifying the servant with Israel throughout Is 40–55 has been ably presented in English by K. Budde in AJTh, iii. pp. 499 ff., and by A. S. Peake in the Problem of Suffering in the OT, pp. 34–72 and 180–193, who gives on pp. 44–59 a valuable critical translation of the chief passages. With equal ability the identification of the servant with the ideal Israel is maintained by J. Skinner in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, ‘Isaiah 40–66,’ pp. 30–37 and 233–238 , together with the notes on the relevant passages. The case for interpreting the servant in some passages as an individual has not been fully re-stated in English over against the recent thorough arguments for other interpretations; the student may best turn to Delitzsch’s Com. (Eng. tr. 1890), or G. A. Smith’s ‘Isaiah,’ vol. ii.

(Expositor’s Bible). T. K. Cheyne, in EBi 4398–4410 , offers a very valuable and penetrating criticism of all these theories, as a prelude to his own Jerahmeelite theory, for which he has hitherto found no supporters.

9. In NT some of the passages in the Deutero-Isaiah are frequently cited or referred to: and in most cases, though not in all (see Ac 13:47, cf. 2 Ti 2:24), the servant is identified with Jesus (e.g. Mt 8:17, 12:18–21, Lk 22:37, Ac 8:32f.). This, of course, proves nothing with regard to the original meaning; for Christian, like Jewish, exegesis was capable of individualizing terms that originally had a wider application; for an instance of this, see He 2:6–8 , where what is stated in Ps 8 of man in general is referred specifically to our Lord.

G. B. GRAY.

SESIS (1 Es 9:34) = Shashai, Ezr 10:40.

SESTHEL (1 Es 9:31) = Bezalel, Ezr 10:30.

SET.—‘Set at’ is valued at, as 2 K 12:4 ‘The money that every man is set at.’ ‘Set at nought’ means treat with contempt, as Lk 23:11 ‘Herod with his men of war set him at nought.’ ‘Set by’ is to value, esteem, as 1 S 18:30 ‘His name was much set by.’ ‘Set to’ means to affix, as Jn 3:33 ‘He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.’

SETH.—The third son of Adam, Gn 4:25 (J) 5:3 (P), 1 Ch 1:1, Lk 3:38. In the first of these passages J assigns a characteristic etymology for the name, Eve being made to say, ‘God hath set (shāth) for me another seed instead of Abel,’ for which reason she called him Shēth (i.e. ‘setting’ or ‘slip’). In Sir 49:16 Seth is coupled with Shem as ‘glorified among men.’

SETHUR.—The Asherite spy (Nu 13:13, (14).

SETTLE (RVm ‘ledge’).—Ezk 43:14 (only) as tr. of ‘ăzārāh, which is used of the two ledges between the base and the hearth of the altar.

SEVEN.—See NUMBER, § 7.

SEVENEH (Syene).—A town at the First Cataract, the southern extremity of Egypt proper: Egyp. Swn, now Assuan ( Aswan). It lies on the east bank, opposite the island of Elephantine, where lay the capital of the first nome of Upper Egypt, and behind it are the celebrated granite quarries. ‘From Migdol to Syene’ is the correct tr. in Ezk 29:10, 30:5, as LXX and RVm. At Syene-Elephantine there was a colony of Jews with a sumptuous temple of Yahu (Jehovah; cf. Is 19:19) earlier than Cambyses’ conquest in B.C. 525 , and throughout the Persian occupation. For this we have the evidence of papyri written there in the Aramaiclanguage. The dates of the documents hitherto found range from 471 to 410, in the reigns of Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Darius II. One of these is a petition to Bagoas, the governor of Judæa, for the re-building of the temple, which had been destroyed by the nations in 411. To this a favourable reply was given. But the temple was probably swept away in the final revolt of Egypt against the Persians about 405. Since the seventh century the frontier garrison against the Ethiopians had been posted there, and the military element predominated.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

SEVENTY.—See NUMBER, § 7.

SHAALABBIN.—See next article.

SHAALBIM.—A town mentioned with Mt. Heres and Aijalon as being occupied by the Amorites (Jg 1:35). It was, with Makaz and Beth-shemesh, in the district of one of Solomon’s commissariat officers (1 K 4:9); and if it be the same place as Shaalabbin, it is mentioned with Aijalon and Beth-shemesh in Jos 19:42. It is probably identical with Shaalbon, the home of one of David’s heroes, who is called ‘the Shaalbonite’ (2 S 23:32, 1 Ch 11:33). It may perhaps be identified with Selbīt, about 8 miles N. of Beth-shemesh. Possibly Shaalbim should be read for Shaalim in 1 S 9:4.

SHAALBON, SHAALBONITE.—See SHAALBIM.

SHAALIM, LAND OF.—See SHAALBIM.

SHAAPH.—1. The son of Jahdai (1 Ch 2:47). 2. A son of Caleb by his concubine Maacah (1 Ch 2:49).

SHAARAIM.—1. A town of Jadah, in the Shephēlah, mentioned in Jos 15:36. Some identify it with Khurbet S‘aīreh, west of Beit ‘Atāb; others with Zakarīya. Shaaraim is perhaps mentioned again in the pursuit of the Philistines after the death of Goliath (1 S 17:52, RVm ‘the two gates’).

2. A town of Simeon (1 Ch 4:31); called Sharuhen in Jos 19:5, and Shilhim in Jos 15:32.

SHAASHGAZ.—A chamberlain of Ahasuerus (Est 2:14).

SHABBETHAI.—A Levite who opposed Ezra in the matter of the foreign marriages (Ezr 10:15) = Sabbateus of 1 Es 9:14. Cf. Neh 8:7 [1 Es 9:43 Sabateus] 11:16.

SHACHIA.—A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:10).

SHADDAI.—See art. GOD, 2 (c).

SHADRACH.—The name given to Hananiah ( Dn 1:7).

SHAFTS.—See ARMOUR ARMS, 1 (d).

SHAGE.—See SHAMMAH, 3.

SHAHARAIM.—A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:8).

SHAHAZUMAH.—A town allotted to Issachar (Jos 19:22). Its site has not been identified.

SHALEM.—In Gn 33:13 we read ‘Jacob (on his return from Haran) came to Shalem a city of Shechem’ (RV reads ‘in peace to the city of Shechem’; so Luther in his German translation). The word shalem means ‘peace,’ and the preposition b ‘in’ may have fallen out owing to the

final letter of Jacob. Otherwise we must suppose Shalem to be a small town (in the neighbourhood of Shechem), which has been identified with a village called Salim.

W. F. BOYD.

SHALISHAH.—A region through which Saul travelled with his servant in search of the lost asses (1 S 9:4). The route as given probably describes a circuitous journey, to the N.W., the E., and finally S. through Benjamin. This would place the ‘land of Shalishah’ somewhere on the hills W. of Shiloh. Baal-shalishah (2 K 4:42) was doubtless a place in the same district.

H. L. WILLETT.

SHALLECHETH.—See JERUSALEM, II. 4.

SHALLUM, an inhabitant of Jabesh, was nominally king of Israel for one month in the period of anarchy which preceded the extinction of the nation. As he assassinated his predecessor Zechariah, so in turn he was ‘removed’ by his successor Menahem (2 K 15:10ff. ).

H. P. SMITH.

SHALLUM.—1. See preced. article, 2. See JEHOAHAZ, 2. 3. The husband (or son, LXX in 2 Kings) of Huldah (2 K 22:14, 2 Ch 34:22). 4. A Judahite (1 Ch 2:40f.). 5. A descendant of

Simeon (1 Ch 4:25). 6. A high priest (1 Ch 6:12, 13; Ezr 7:2 = Salem of 1 Es 8:1 and Salemas of 2 Es 1:1). 7. A son of Naphtali (1 Ch 7:13), called in Gn 46:24 and Nu 26:49 Shillem, with the gentilic name Shillemites (Nu 26:49). 8. The eponym of a family of gatekeepers (1 Ch 9:17 bis, Ezr 2:42 = Neh 7:45); called in 1 Es 5:23 Salum, and (possibly) in Neh 12:25 Meshullam. 9. A Korahite gatekeeper (1 Ch 9:19, 31), called in 26:1, 2, 3. Meshelemiah, and in 26:14 Shelemiah.

It is not at all unlikely that this name should be identified with the preceding. 10. Father of Jehizkiah, an Ephraimite chief (2 Ch 28:12). 11. One of the porters who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:24 [1 Es 9:25 Sallumus]). 12. One of the sons of Bani who had committed the same offence (Ezr 10:42 [1 Es 9:24 Samatus]). 13. The son of Hallohesh (Neh 3:12). 14. The uncle of Jeremiah (Jer 32:7). 15. Father of Maaseiah (Jer 35:4).

SHALLUN.—The son of Col-hozeh (Neh 3:15).

SHALMAN.—This name occurs only in the clause ‘as Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle’ (Hos 10:14). The person and place referred to are both unknown. Shalman may be a contraction for Shalmaneser, but it is impossible to say which, if any, of the four kings of Assyria bearing that name suits the connexion. It has been suggested that the Moabite king Salmanu (mentioned in Tiglath-pileser’s triumphal inscription, II Rawl. 67, line 60) may be the person referred to by the prophet. The Vulg. version seems to think of the slaughter of Zalmunna by Gideon (Jg 9). See also art. BETH-ARBEL.

W. F. BOYD.

SHALMANESER (Assyr. Shulman-asharīdu, i.e. ‘Shulmanu [a god] is chief’).—In 2 K

17:3, 18:9–11 the Shalmaneser is obviously a king of Assyria who succeeded Tiglath-pileser

(wh. see) and preceded Sargon. This was Shalmaneser IV., who reigned over Assyria B.C. 727– 722 . He ruled Babylonia as Ululai. No monuments of his are preserved. The Eponym Canons give campaigns for his last three years. The siege of Samaria was probably begun in his reign and finished under Sargon. The name Shalmaneser appears in 2 Es 13:40 as Salmanasar.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

SHAMA.—One of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:44).

SHAMBLES.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, § 7; FOOD, § 11.

SHAME.—1. In the first Biblical reference to this emotion (Gn 2:25, cf. 3:7) ‘shame’ appears as ‘the correlative of sin and guilt’; it is ‘the overpowering feeling that inward harmony and satisfaction with oneself are disturbed’ (Delitzsch, Com., in loc.) . From the OT point of view the crowning shame is idolatry: ‘As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they say to a stock, Thou art my father’ (Jer 2:26; cf. Is 41:11, 42:17). The allinclusive promise to those who trust in God is ‘none that wait on thee shall be ashamed’ (Ps 25:3 RV; cf. 119:8, 30, Is 45:16f., 49:23, 54:4f., Jer 17:13, Jl 2:25f., Ro 5:5, 9:33 , 10:11). The absence of shame is always regarded as an aggravation of sinful conduct: Job (19:3) reproaches his friends because they are ‘not ashamed’ of dealing hardly with him; the climax of Jeremiah’s complaint (6:15) against those who had ‘committed abomination’ is that ‘they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush’ (cf. 8:12, Zeph 3:5, 11). The culmination of shamelessness is seen in those ‘whose glory is in their shame’ (Ph 3:19); but in this passage, as elsewhere (Is 50:3; cf. Pr 10:5, 25:3) , ‘shame’ is, by a natural transference of ideas, applied not to the inward feeling, but to its outward cause. The degradation of those ‘whose god is their belly’ is seen in their boasting of conduct which ought to have made them ashamed of their perversion of gospel liberty into sinful licence. The return of shame is a sign of true repentance: ‘then shalt thou remember thy ways and be ashamed’ (Ezk 16:61, cf. Ezr 9:6).

2. The consciousness of shame varies with the conventional standards adopted in any society. For example, poverty (Pr 13:18), leprosy (Nu 12:14), widowhood (Is 54:4) may be viewed as involving ‘shame,’ though there is no blame. In the sense of violation of propriety St. Paul applies the word to men who wear their hair long and to women who wear it short (1 Co 11:6, 14 , cf. 6:5, 14:35); by an analogous adaptation of its meaning he describes God’s ideal ‘workman’ as one ‘that needeth not to be ashamed’ (2 Ti 2:15).

3. In the NT sin is pre-eminently the shameful thing (Ro 6:21, Ph 3:19, Eph 5:12 , Jude 13, 1 Jn 2:28; cf. 3:6). But the distinguishing characteristic of the early ‘Christian use of the word is’ the trans valuation of values.’ ‘Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, … endured the cross, despising shame’ (He 12:2). When St. Paul says ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel’ (Ro 1:16), by a well-known figure of speech his negative statement emphatically asserts his positive glorying ( Gal 6:14). To ‘suffer as a Christian’ and ‘not (to) be ashamed’ Is to ‘glorify God’ (1 P 4:16; cf.

2 Ti 1:8f., 12, 16). The same heightening of the contrast is Implied when, on the one hand, the Son of Man declares that in the day of judgment He will he ashamed of all who are now ashamed of Him and of His words (Mk 8:38, Lk 9:26); and on the other hand, St. John’s assurance is that those who abide in Christ ‘may have boldness and not be ashamed before him at his coming’ (1 Jn 2:28). Of them who desire a heavenly country ‘God is not ashamed … to be called their God’; for the city He has prepared, they are being prepared by the sanctifying grace of Him ‘who is not ashamed to call them brethren’ (He 11:16, 2:11).

J. G. TASKER.

SHAMGAR smote 600 Philistines with an ox-goad (Jg 3:31). There is no mention of his judging Israel, or of the duration of his influence. The exploit belongs to the latest redaction of the book; 4:1 continues the story of 3:30. Nothing is known of any Philistine dominion at so early a period, and in some Gr. MSS the verse follows 16:31. His exploit resembles that of Shammah in 2 S 23:11 (cf. 21:16–22) , and may have been attached to him as an expansion of the reference in the song of Deborah (Jg 5:6). There, however, he appears to be a foreign oppressor, and the connexion of the two passages is obscure, the song having to do with Canaanite oppression in the North. The name is foreign, Hittite or Assyrian. He is the ‘son of Anath.’ Anati occurs in the Tell el-Amarna tablets, and Anatu is an Assyr. goddess, traces of whose worship are found in Egypt, Phœnicia, and Syria (cf. place-names Beth-anath [Jg 1:33], Beth-anoth [Jos 15:59]). The names are important as showing Babylonian influence after the period of the Tellel-Amarna tablets.

C. W. EMMET.

SHAMHUTH.—See SHAMMAH, 4.

SHAMIR.—1. A Kohathite (1 Ch 24:24). 2. A town in the hill-country of Judah (Jos 15:48). It is perhaps Khurbet Sōmerah, west of Debīr. 3. The home and burial-place of Tola (Jg 10:1, 2). The site is uncertain.

SHAMLAI.—See SALMAI.

SHAMMA.—An Asherite (1 Ch 7:37).

SHAMMAH.—1. Son of Reuel, son of Esau, a tribal chief (Gn 36:13). 2. Third son of Jesse, present when Samuel sought a successor to Saul (1 S 16:9); with Saul in the battlefield when David visited the camp (17:13). He is the same as Shimeah, father of Jonadab (2 S 13:3), the

Shimea of 1 Ch 2:16, and the Shimei, father of Jonathan who slew the giant (2 S 21:21). In 1 Ch

20:7 Jonathan is called son of Shimea. 3. Son of Agee, a Hararite, one of the three mighty men of

David. Alone he held the field against the Philistines (2 S 23:11). The parallel passage, 1 Ch

11:10 f., wrongly attributes the feat to Eleazar. He is probably identical with ‘Shammah, the

Harodite’ (Hararite) of 2 S 23:25. V. 38 should read ‘Jonathan son of Shammah, the Hararite.’ In

1 Ch 11:34, ‘son of Shage’ is probably confused with ‘son of Agee.’ Read, with Lucian, ‘son of Jonathan.’ Shimei, son of Ela (1 K 4:18), should also appear here if we accept Lucian’s reading of ‘Ela’ for ‘Agee’ (2 S 23:11). 4. An officer in David’s employ, called Shammoth in 1 Ch 11:27, and Shamhuth in 1 Ch 27:8. Probably the same as No. 3.

J. H. STEVENSON.

SHAMMAI.—1. A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2:28). 2. The ‘son’ of Rekem and ‘father’ of Maon (1 Ch 2:44f.). 3. A Judahite (1 Ch 4:17).

SHAMMOTH.—See SHAMMAH, 4.

SHAMMUA.—1. The Reubenite spy (Nu 13:4). 2. One of David’s sons (2 S 5:14 , 1 Ch 14:4; called in 1 Ch 3:6 Shimea). 3. A Levite (Neh 11:17) = Shemaiah of 1 Ch 9:16. 4. The head of a priestly family (Neh 12:18).

SHAMSHERAI.—A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:26).

SHAPHAM.—A Gadite (1 Ch 5:12).

SHAPHAN (‘coney’ or ‘rock-badger’; an old totem clan-name—so W. R. Smith).—1. ‘The scribe’ (secretary of state) of Josiah in 621 B.C., ‘son of Azaliah,’ who laid before the king the law-book discovered by Hilkiah (wh. see) in the Temple (2 K 22:3–11 = 2 Ch 34:8–18) . Shaphan appears to have been the chief lay leader in the execution of Josiah’s reforms. His family for two following generations played a worthy part as servants of Jehovah, and friends of the prophet Jeremiah: the Ahikam of 2 K 22:12–14 (= 2 Ch 34:20–22) and Jer 26:24, the Gemariah of Jer

36:12 , 25, and Elasah (Jer 29:3) were Shaphan’s sons; the Micaiah of Jer 36:11, 12, and Gedaliah (wh. see), whom the Chaldæans made governor of Judæa after the Captivity of 586 B.C., his grandsons. 2. The ‘Jaazaniah, son of Shaphan,’ denounced in Ezk 8:11 as ringleader in idolatry, was possibly, but not certainly, a son of the same Shaphan.

G. G. FINDLAY.

SHAPHAT.—1. The Simeonite spy (Nu 13:6). 2. The father of Elisha (1 K 19:16, 18, 2 K 3:11, 6:31). 3. A name in the royal genealogy of Judah (1 Ch 3:22). 4. A Gadite (1 Ch 5:12). 5. One of David’s herdmen (1 Ch 27:29).

SHAPHIR.—A city, probably on the Philistine plain (Mic 1:11). It has been located by some a few miles S.E. of Ashdod. Attempts have been made to identify it with the Shamir of Jos 15:48.

H. L. WILLETT.

SHARAI.—One of those who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:40).

SHARAR.—See SACAR.

SHAREZER would answer to the Assyr. Shar-usur, ‘preserve the king,’ but that is only part of a name. 1. It is given 2 K 19:37 = Is 37:38 as the name of a son of Sennacherib who with

Adrammelech (which see) murdered his father. Shar-etir-Ashur was the name of a son of

Sennacherib, who in a fragmentary letter is addressed as monarch, about the time of

Esarhaddon’s reign. The name might give rise to Sharezer. At present, however, the Assyrian accounts mention only one murderer, and do not name him. A satisfactory explanation of the Hebrew narrative is yet to be found. 2. Sharezer (the name is prob. incomplete) appears in Zec 7:2 as one of a deputation sent to consult the spiritual heads of the Jewish community.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

SHARON.—1. ha-shārōn, lit. ‘the plain,’ 1 Ch 27:29, Ca 2:1, Is 33:9, 35:2, 65:10; Gr. ho Sarōn, whence AV Saron, Ac 9:35. This is the great Maritime Plain extending from Jaffa, or a little south of it, to Mount Carmel in the north. Though called a plain, it is of an undulating character, and was in parts, particularly towards the N., a forest of oaks (Is 35:2). Although hut poorly cultivated, it has a great depth of rich soil and is capable of much development; left now largely to weeds, it yields annually a magnificent crop of beautiful wild flowers. It has always been a pasturage of flocks (1 Ch 27:29, Is 65:10). Around Ramleh and Ludd are forests of olives, and the orange gardens of Jaffa are too well known to need more than a passing reference; wherever the hand of man has been diligent, there the soil has bounteously responded. Over a great part of the plain, especially near the sea, water may be tapped at no great depth. Its rivers are the marshy Nahr Zerka or Crocodile River, just below Carmel, Nahr el-Mufjir, Nahr Iskanderuneh, and Nahr el-Aujeh, the last mentioned close to Jaffa. The chief town of Sharon was in ancient days Dor (Jos 11:2, 12:23, 1 K 4:11), in NT times Cæsarea, and in later Crusading times (1218–1291) the fortified port of Athlīt. In Jos 12:13 Lassharon is mentioned as one of the royal cities of Canaan; as ‘the king of’ is omitted in the original, the passage may read ‘king of Aphek in the Sharon.’ For ‘rose of Sharon’ See ROSE.

2. A second Sharon (Saronas) is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome as between Mt. Tahor and Tiberias, and this is to-day represented by the village of Sārōna in the Ard el-Hamma N.E. of Tabor. This may he the place mentioned in Jos 12:13 (see above).

3. The suburbs (RVm ‘pasture lands’) of Sharon (1 Ch 5:16) are mentioned as among the possessions of Gad along with Gilead and Bashan.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SHARUHEN.—See SHAARAIM, 2.

SHASHAI.—One of the sons of Bani who had married a foreign wife, Ezr 10:40 = Sesis of 1 Es 9:34.

SHASHAK.—A Benjamite family (1 Ch 8:14).

SHAUL.—1. A king of Edom, Gn 36:37f. = 1 Ch 1:43f. 2. A son of Simeon (Gn 46:10, Ex 6:15, Nu 26:13, 1 Ch 4:24). The clan of which he is the eponym was of mixed Isr. and Can. descent, hence Shaul is called in Gn 46:10 and Ex 6:15 ‘the son of the Canaanitess.’ In Nu 26:13 the patronymic Shaulites occurs. 3. An ancestor of Samuel (1 Ch 6:24 (9), called in v. 36 (21) Joel).

SHAVEH, VALE OF.—A broad valley (‘ēmeq), known also as ‘the king’s vale’ (Gn 14:17), which was near Salem. It is apparently the same place as ‘the king’s dale’ (2 S 18:18), in which Absalom set up a pillar or monument. Shaven was possibly the broad open head of the valley of Hinnom which, lower down, contracts to a ravine.

SHAVEH-KIRIATHAIM (‘the plain of Kiriathaim’).—The place where the Emim were smitten by the allied kings from the East (Gn 14:5). It probably derived its name from the Moabite Kiriathaim (Nu 32:37, Jos 13:19).

H. L. WILLETT.

SHAVSHA occurs in the list of David’s officers in 1 Ch 18:15 as ‘scribe’ (RVm ‘secretary’), an office made necessary by the growth of the court and relations with other states. His name, and the fact of his father’s not being mentioned, make it probable that he was a foreigner chosen to deal with foreign correspondence. His name was evidently unfamiliar; in the list of 2 S 20:25 it appears as Sheva; in that of 8:15–18 (otherwise identical with Ch.) Seraiah has been substituted; LXX varies greatly in all passages. It is generally held that Shavsha is correct. Apparently in Solomon’s time he was succeeded by his sons (1 K 4:3 Shisha being probably only another variation of the name).

C. W. EMMET.

SHEAL (Ezr 10:29).—One of those who had married a ‘strange’ wife; called Jasaelus in 1 Es 9:30.

SHEALTIEL (Salathiel of 1 Es 5:5, 48, 56, 6:2, AV of Mt 1:12 and Lk 3:27).—The father of Zerubbabel ( Ezr 3:2, 6, 5:2, Neh 12:1, Hag 1:1, 12, 14, 2:2, 23). According to 1 Ch 3:17, Shealtiel was the eldest son of king Jeconiah. In v. 10 the MT makes Pedaiah ( a brother of Shealtiel) the father of Zerubbabel.

SHEARIAH.—A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8:33, 9:44).

SHEARING-HOUSE, THE.—A place at which Jehu, on his way from Jezreel to Samaria, met and slew the brethren of Ahaziah, king of Judah (2 K 10:12, 14). Possibly the original should be left untranslated and appear as a place-name Beth-eked, which has not been identified.

SHEAR-JASHUB (‘a remnant shall return,’ Is 7:3).—A symbolical name given to a son of Isaiah to signify the return of the remnant to God after the punishment at the hands of the Assyrians. See 8:18, 10:20, 21. and cf. 7:14, 8:1–4, and art. ISAIAH, p. 387^b.

SHEATH.—See ARMOUR ARMS, 1 (c).

SHEBA.—1. The OT name for the people and country of the Sabæans in S.W. Arabia, the modern Yemen. In Gen. and Chron. the racial relationships of the people are diversely given. Gn

10:7 ( P) and 1 Ch 1:9 make them Hamites, Gn 10:28 (J) Semites. Again, whilst Gn 10:28 has

Joktan as the immediate ancestor of Sheba, Gn 25:3 has Jokshan. These discrepancies are sufficiently accounted for by the extensive commerce of the Sabæans, the number of their settlements in distant regions, and the connexions which they were thus led to form. The language and script of Abyssinia, for instance, prove that a Sabæan colony was established there; hence the genealogy in Gn 10:7.

The following are the salient points in the information which the OT gives us. The country was rich in gold (Ps 72:15) and incense (Jer 6:20); the people were great traders (Ezk 27:22 f.), dealing in costly wares (Ezk 38:13); their caravans were well known throughout the East (Job 6:19) ; they were given to raiding (Job 1:15), possibly uniting trade and robbery, when convenient (cf. Odyss. xv. 415 ff.); and they were not averse to the slave-trade (Jl 3:8); eventually, it was hoped, they would become tributaries of Israel (Is 60:6, Ps 72:10).

The notices in Greek and Latin authors correspond with the Biblical statements. Strabo, e.g., mentions myrrh, incense, cinnamon, balsam, amongst the products of the land, and states that their commerce made them exceedingly wealthy; that they had abundant furniture of gold and silver, beds, tables, bowls, cups, in costly houses. The panels, walls, and ceilings were adorned with ivory, gold, silver, mosaics. He affirms that they frequently laid waste the Syrian desert.

The Sabæans are also mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions. Tiglath-pileser III. (B.C. 745–727) enumerates the articles which he received from them in tribute: ‘gold, silver, camels, female camels, spices of all sorts.’ In an inscription of B.C. 707 , Sargon declares that he ‘received the tribute of Pir’u, king of the land of Musuru (Egypt), Samsē, queen of the land of Aribu (Arabia), It’amara, king of the land of the Saba’aa (Sabæans), gold, products of the mountains, horses, camels.’

During the 19th century a few European travellers succeeded in penetrating Yemen and bringing back a moderately full account of its natural features, and a large amount of material for reconstructing its history. It is incomparably superior to the rest of Arabia, both in climate and in soil. The central district is a highland region, with mountains some 8000 ft. above the sea level. Fertile valleys branch out from the hills, ‘well timbered in places, and threaded by silvery streams of dancing waters; sloping fields, gay with crops and wild flowers; terraced or junglecovered slopes.’ Here are grown the hest vines that Arabia produces. The air is pure and comparatively cool. The present capital is Sana, a town of about 20,000 inhabitants, on the southernmost of three great plateaux. The ancient capital, Marib, N.E. of Sana, lies between the rich valleys of the west and the ‘wadys of Hadramant, which were the sources of Arabian gum.’ Inscriptions relating to the Sabæan kingdom have been found in various parts of the Arabian peninsula. They are written in a dialect which closely resembles Ethiopic, but there are no vowel letters, or modifications of the consonants, to indicate vowel sounds. Many come from the vicinity of Marib, where the ruins are of astonishing extent. The remains of its great dam, in particular, are very striking: a gigantic wall, two miles long and 175 paces wide, was built to connect two hills, and the water was run off for irrigation purposes by dykes which were cut at different levels. The construction of this work lies back in remote antiquity, B.C. 1700 being the date given by one authority, and B.C. 700 by another. About A.D. 100 it seems to have burst, and the streams which it once served to retain are now wasted in the sands. The Koran (Sura 34) adduces this event as an instance of the punishment of disobedient ingratitude. In addition to the inscriptions, coins have been found and the names of the kings whose monograms they bear have been determined. From these two sources forty-five royal names have become known, six kings having been called It’amara ( see Sargon’s list of tributaries). From some of the records it appears that two kings reigned contemporaneously (cf. Ps 72:10), and this has been explained by the fact that the prince next in age to the king was designated as his successor, sometimes to the temporary exclusion of the king’s son.

Experts have differed with respect to the number of periods into which the history of the Sabæan kingdom falls. All recognize three such divisions: (1) That of the mākarib or priest-kings; (2) that of the kings of Sheba; (3) that of the kings of Sheba and Dhû-Raidân. Glaser (Skizze der Gesch. Arabiens) prefixes to the first of these a Minæan empire, and adds a fifth period, during which the dated inscriptions supply a more exact chronology. These five ages cover the time from about B.C. 2000 to the conquest by Abyssinia in the 6th cent. A.D. Many of the statements which have been copied from the rocks and slabs relate to war and agriculture. They bring before us a set of traders disposing of the products of their own country, and also carrying goods from India and Africa to the great emporium Tyre and the powerful empires of Mesopotamia. They give us a glimpse of the life led by a class of powerful nobles who dwelt on their estates in castles and towers. And they furnish a considerable amount of information respecting the Sabæan religion, its offerings of incense and animals, its pilgrimages to certain shrines, its special month for pilgrimage, Dhu Hijjatān. The heavenly bodies were worshipped, the sun as a female, the moon as a male, deity. Many other divinities were recognized: a male Athtar (cf. the female Ashtoreth), Almakah, Ta’lab, Sami‘, Kawim, Bashir, Haubas. The precise significance of some of these titles is open to doubt. But the cognate Heb. words justify us in saying that Sami‘ is ‘the Hearer,’ Kawim, ‘the

Sustainer,’ Bashir, ‘the Tidings-bringer’; and the Arabic word of the same form indicates that Ta’lab is a spirit of the trees. Three other names, Wadd (‘Love’), Jaghuth (‘He helps’), and Nasr ( ‘Vulture’ or ‘Eagle’), are spoken of in the Koran (Sura 72) as though they were antedilnvian idols. On inscriptions which date from the 4th and 5th centuries of our era, Rahman ( ‘the Merciful’) appears. This is due to Jewish influence, and it is interesting to observe that the Jews now living in Yemen have a tradition that their ancestors left Palestine before the Christian era. Cf. also art. SEBA.

2. A worthless adventurer, who snatched at what he thought was a chance of winning the sovereignty of Northern Israel (2 S 20:1ff.). His appeal was addressed to the deep-seated intertribal jealousy. David took a serious view of the situation thus created (v. 4ff.), but his rival lacked the personal qualities which might have rendered him formidable. He traversed the entire centre of the country seeking adherents in vain. Knowing that Joab and Abishai were on his heels, he shut himself up in Abel-beth-maacah (modern Abil) , a town in the extreme north. There, according to a probable emendation of the text (v. 14), he was supported by his clansmen the Bichriles (not Berites, cf. ‘son of Bichri,’ v. 1). The place would speedily have been carried by assault had not a woman, whose judgment was highly esteemed by the inhabitants, persuaded them to throw Sheba’s head over the wall to Joab (vv. 16–22). 3. A Gadite, (1 Ch 5:13). 4. The Sheba of Jos 19:2 is out of place after Beer-sheba. V. 6 shows that we ought to find thirteen, not fourteen, names. The LXX retains that number by omitting Sharuhen from the list. Sharuhen, however, should not be dropped, for it is identical with the Shilhim of 15:32. Some Heb. MSS leave out Sheba, as does also the parallel passage 1 Ch 4:28. The Shema of the LXX is from the list of 15:26. There can be little doubt that Shema, inserted by mistake in the Heb. text and transliterated by the LXX, was subsequently changed to Sheba.

J. TAYLOR.

SHEBA, QUEEN OF.—1 K 10:1–13 narrates a visit of the contemporary queen of Sheba to king Solomon. At the present day there is a strong tendency to regard this as a legendary addition made by the later editor for the purpose of emphasizing Solomon’s wealth and wisdom. The reasons adduced are not quite conclusive. It is no doubt true that the Inscriptions hitherto discovered fail to mention any queen of the Sabæans. But the names are given of queens who reigned over other Arabian countries, and, curiously enough, in Sargon’s inscription, quoted on p. 842^b, Samsē, queen of Aribu, immediately precedes It’amara, king of Sheba. It must be admitted, however, that the narrative in 1 K 10 is not free from difficulties. We cannot satisfactorily explain the words ‘concerning the name of the Lord’ (v. 1): the LXX ‘and’ etc. being an obvious attempt to evade the difficulty, and the Chronicler (2 Ch 9:1) omitting all the words. It is hard to believe that the monarch of a highly civilized and exceedingly wealthy State would be dumbfounded by the luxury of the court of Jerusalem (v. 5); that reads as though the chieftain of a petty tribe of Arabs was in question. Moreover, it is likely enough that the motive of the visit was other than our author supposed. Riddles, proverbs, apologues, and stories supply much of the material for the leisured conversation of the Arabs, but the queen of Sheba would visit her brother monarch with a more practical object than these. Commercial intercourse between the two countries was of extreme importance for the prosperity of both: Kittel (Die Bücher der Könige, p. 89) is justified in suggesting that she wished to promote this.

The fantastic legends which gathered round this journey may be conveniently read in Sura 27 of the Koran, and the notes on that chapter from Mohammedan sources which Sale has collected. Mohammed himself no doubt derived his account from Jewish sources. A lengthy history of queen Bilkis, from Ta‘labi’s Lives of the Prophets, may be found in Brünnow’s Arabic Chrestomathy. Solomon marries the queen, and the Abyssinians, to whom the story passed from the Arabs, call her Makeda, and trace from this marriage the lineage of all their kings. In this connexion two facts should be noted. First, that Abyssinia was undoubtedly colonized by the Sabæans. Second, that Jos. (Ant. II. x. 2) speaks of ‘Saba, a royal city of Ethiopia,’ and (VIII. vi. 5 f.), without naming Sheba, gives an account of the visit to Solomon of a woman who was queen of Egypt and Ethiopia.’ He is mistaken as to the locality, but it is interesting to observe the tradition which he reports, ‘that we possess the root of that balsam which our country still bears by this woman’s gift.

J. TAYLOR.

SHEBANIAH.—1. A Levitical family (Neh 9:4, 10:10). 2. A priest or Levite who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:4, 12:14 [See SHECANIAH]). 3. Another Levite who sealed the covenant (Neh 10:12). 4. A priest (1 Ch 15:24).

SHEBARIM.—A place mentioned (Jos 7:5) in the description of the pursuit of the Israelites by the men of Ai. RVm gives ‘the quarries,’ but the text is probably corrupt.

SHEBAT.—See TIME.

SHEBER.—A son of Caleb (1 Ch 2:48).

SHEBNA (in 2 K 18:18, 26 SHEBNAH).—A major-domo or palace-governor of king Hezekiah, against whom is directed one of the recorded utterances of Isaiah (Is 22:15–25) . The prophetic denunciation appears to have found its fulfilment in Shebna’s degradation to the office of ‘scribe’ or secretary, and the elevation of Eliakim (wh. see) to the post of palace-governor (2 K 18:18, 26, 27, 19:2 = Is 36:3, 11, 23, 37:2) . Shebna was in all probability a foreigner.

SHEBUEL.—1. A son of Gershom (1 Ch 23:16, 26:24), called in 24:20 Shubael, which is prob. the original form of the name. 2. A son of Heman (1 Ch 25:4 [v. 20 Shubael]).

SHECANIAH.—1. A descendant of Zeruh. (1 Ch 3:21, 22, cf. Ezr 8:3 [1 Es 8:29 Sechenias]). 2. Au exile who returned (Ezr 8:5 [1 Es 8:32 Sechenias]). 3. Chief of the tenth course of priests (1 Ch 24:11). 4. A priest (2 Ch 31:15). 5. A contemporary of Ezra (Ezr 10:2 [1 Es 8:92 Jechonias]). 6. The father of Shemaiah (Neh 3:29). It is possible that he and No. 1 are identical. 7. The father-in-law of Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh 6:18). 8. The eponym of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (Neh 12:3). It is the same name which, by interchange of b and k, appears as Shebaniah in Neh 10:4, 12:14.

SHECHEM.—1. Gn 33:19, 34:2, 4 etc. See JACOB, HAMOR. 2. A Manassite clan, Nu 26:31

(35), (the Shechemites), Jos 17:2, 1 Ch 7:19. 3. See next article.

SHECHEM.—The place in which Jacob for a while established himself (Gn 33:18, Jn 4:12). Here he is said to have dug the well coosecrated by Christ’s conversation with the Samaritan woman, and still shown to travellers, with a claim to authenticity which is lacking in the vast majority of the so-called ‘holy places.’ It was evidently a place of sanctity: there was a great oak (or terebinth) here—no doubt a sacred tree—where Jacob hid his teraphim (Gn 35:4), and under which Joshua gave his parting address to the elders ( Jos 24). A great stone under the tree was traditionally connected with the latter event (24:26). This is no doubt the reason why Shechem was a Levitical city, and also a city of refuge (20:7). The city, however, remained Canaanite after the conquest, serving the local god Baal-herith (Jg 9:4): Gideon’s concubine, mother of Abimelech, was a Canaanitess from Shechem, and her relatives set up her son as a king, to his and their own destruction (Jg 9). Here Rehoboam alienated the Northern Kingdom by his overhearing speech (1 K 12:1), and Jeroboam for a time was established here (12:25). It was not a place of importance before the Exile, though continuously inhabited down to and after that event (Jer 41:5). The development of the Samaritan nation led to its rise. It was known at this period to the natives by the name Mabortha (Jos. BJ IV. viii. 1), but the name by which it was generally known, after its re-building by Titus Flavins Vespasianus, was Flavia Neapolis, or, more briefly, Neapolis—a name which still persists in the modern Arabic form Nāblus, though usually Roman or Greek names imposed on Palestinian sites have disappeared, the older names persisting.

In the Byzantine period there was a bishopric at Neapolis, of which we know little—save that the Samaritans in A.D. 474 wounded the bishop, and were in consequence severely punished by the emperor Zeno. The city fell to the Crusaders in 1099, and several churches were there built by them—one of which still survives in part as a mosque. In 1184 it was re-conquered by Saladin. The inhabitants have always been noted for turbulence and lawlessness. Towards the end of the 18th century it was a storm-centre of the inter-tribal wars of the fellahīn, the leader of the district being the notorious Kasim el-Ahmad.

It is now a town of some 24,000 inhabitants, all Moslems except about 150 Samaritans and 700 Christians. They are concerned in extensive soap manufacture, and in trade in wool and cotton with Eastern Palestine. There are Protestant and Roman Catholic missions, and an important English hospital directed by the Church Missionary Society.

In or near the town are shown ‘Jacob’s well,’ which, as already said, is not improbably authentic; and a shrine covering the traditional ‘tomb of Joseph,’ the genuineness of which is perhaps less unassailable.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

SHEDEUR.—The father of Elizur (Nu 1:5, 2:10, 7:30, 10:18).

SHEEP.—

1. tsōn, ‘small cattle,’ such as sheep and goats, Gn 4:2 etc.; a single sheep or goat, Ex 22:1. 2.

seh, Dt 14:4 etc., a sheep or goat; collectively, like 1, in Is 7:25 etc. 3. ’ayil, Gn 15:9 ‘ram.’ 4. rāchēl, Gn 31:38, 32:14, Ca 6:6 etc., ‘ewe.’ See prop. name RACHEL. 5. kar, Dt 32:14 etc., ‘young lamb.’ 6. kebes, Nu 7:15, Is 5:17, and keseb, Lv 3:7, a lamb from one to three years old; the lamb of sacrifice. 7. taleh (Arab. tully) , 1 S 7:9, Is 40:11, 65:25, a lamb, older than the preceding. 8. ’immar (Aram.), Ezr 6:9 ‘lamb.’ 9. In Gn 33:19 AVm has ‘lambs’ as tr. of qĕsītāh. See KESITAH. 10. (Gr.) amnos, Jn 1:29 etc., ‘lamb.’ 11. arēn, Lk 10:3 etc., ‘lamb.’ 12. arnion Rev 5:6 etc., the equivalent of Heb. keseb. 13. Probaton, Jn 10:1, 2, 3, 4 etc., a general term like

Nos. 1 and 2.

The common sheep of Palestine is the fat-tailed sheep (Ovis aries, var. laticaudata) . The mass of tail-fat is sometimes enormous; it is the ‘whole rump’ (Heb. and Arab. ’alyāh) of Ex 29:22 , Lv 3:9 etc. Sheep are usually pastured with goats except when the land is too rocky and harren for the former. The flock is led by the shepherd, though the shepherd’s boy may bring up the rear; on a journey a shepherd of experience must drive the flock (Gn 33:13), while another leads. When away from villages, the sheep are herded at night in folds, which are roughly made enclosures of piled-up stones; the shepherd lives in a cave or hut adjoining, and is in very intimate touch with his sheep, each of which he knows unfailingly at a glance. The skin of a sheep, roughly tanned with all the wool on, is the common wioter jacket (furweh) of a shepherd or peasant. To kill a sheep or lamh for a stranger’s meal is one of the first acts of Bedouin hospitality. In the country, sheep are killed only in such circumstances or in honour of some festive occasion (cf. 1 S 25:18, 1 K 1:19).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SHEEP GATE.—See JERUSALEM, II. 4.

SHEERAH.—A ‘daughter’ of Ephraim, ‘who, according to the MT of 1 Ch 7:24, built the two Beth-horons and a place of doubtful identity called Uzzenshesrah = ‘portion [? lit. something weighed] of Sheerah.’

SHEHARIAH.—A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:26).

SHEET.—See DRESS, 4 (d).

SHEKEL.—See MONEY, WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, III.

SHEKINAH (from Heb. shākan—‘to dwell,’ meaning ‘dwelling’ [abstract], or ‘that which dwells’).—The word is not found in OT, but occurs often in other Jewish literature, always of God. The OT, particularly in certain of its writings, uses ‘anthropomorphisms’ freely, e.g. it speaks of God dwelling in a place or being seen. Later thought objected to this, as materializing the Divine nature; hence in the Targums (Aram. paraphrases of the OT used, though not in their present form, by the 1st cent. A.D.) various devices were adopted to prevent popular

misunderstandings. Periphrases were used for the Divine name, ‘the Word’ (Memra) , ‘Spirit,’ or’ ‘Wisdom’ being substituted. One of the most important of these was the ‘Shekinah.’ ‘God dwells’ usually became ‘the Shekinah rests’; ‘the temple of God’ became ‘the house of the S.’ (note the Tabernacle was the mishkān, from the same root). Gn 28:18 becomes ‘the glory of the

S. of J″ is in this place’; Is 6:5 ‘my eyes have seen the glory of the S. of the King of the world.’ God’s hiding His face is the removal of the S. Now the presence of God (especially in P and related writings) was often manifested by a fiery appearance, or a light in a cloud. It was so in nature (Ps 18:10), on Sinai (Ex 24:16), in the wilderness and in the Tabernacle (16:7, 29:43, 40:34 , Nu 14:10), in the Temple (1 K 8:11); cf. Ezk 1:28 etc. This glory was not God, but an effluence from Him, or from His Shekinah. For the S. was not ‘the glory,’ as is usually imagined, but the source and centre of it. It is a stage nearer to God Himself, and, though often used in connexion with the physical manifestation, represents an invisible and universal presence. E.g. it is the source of inspiration. Eli failed to recognize Hannah’s condition, because it had left him. It was present where three were gathered to administer justice. According to some. it was inseparable from Israel, still hovering over the west wall of the Temple. But it was commonly taught that it had always been absent from the second Temple, as had been ‘the glory’ (cf. Ezk 11:23 , 43:2); or again, that on the successive sins of Adam and his descendants it had been withdrawn from earth to the first heaven, and finally to the seventh. The conception, in fact, varied. It was disputed whether it was an entity distinct from God, or only the essence of God as manifested. Though at first regarded as impersonal and passive, as distinct from the Memra, the agent of creation, in the Talmud it becomes active and takes the place of the latter. The tendency to personification is significant. Insisting one-sidedly on the transcendence or aloofness of God, the Jew had to bring Him to earth again by such mediatorial agencies, which were semi-personal and Divine, but not God, and by the development of an elaborate angelology. In the NT the word

‘glory’ seems often to refer to the Shekinah (cf. Eth. Enoch ‘Lord of glory,’ and ‘the Great Glory,’ as titles of God). Ro 9:4 speaks of ‘the glory’ as a Jewish privilege; He 9:5 of ‘the cherubim of glory.’ It was believed that the Shekinah would return with the Messiah; ‘the glory of the Lord shall he seen and the cloud’ (2 Mac 2:8). (a) It is connected with Christ (Lk 2:9, Mt 17:5; cf. 2 P 1:17 RVm, where the Shekinah is personified). In 1 P 4:14 ‘the spirit of glory’ rests upon Christ, as upon the Tabernacle; in He is He is ‘the effulgence of the glory’; in Ja 1:3 He is apparently called ‘the Shekinah.’ Of special significance is Jn 1:14, which combines the expressions ‘glory’ and ‘tabernacle’ (Gr. skēnoun, probably intentionally chosen to represent ‘Shekinah,’ as in Rev 21:3). It connects the personal presence of God in Christ with the earlier presence in the Tabernacle; what was formerly symbol is now manifest ‘in flesh.’ The vagueness of the Jewish conception gives place to the definite presence of the personal Christ. Cf. with Mt 18:20 and 1 Co 11:11, sayings such as ‘when two sit together and are occupied with the words of the Law, the Shekinah is with them,’ or ‘the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man, nor both of them without the Shekinah.’ (b) It is connected with the Christian. The first of the six things lost by Adam was ‘the glory,’ i.e. the reflexion upon him of the Divine glory, or perfection. Of this we fall short (Ro 3:23), but it is in process of being recovered by the Christian (5:2, 8:18, 30, 2 Co 3:18, 4:6; cf. 2 Es 7:97, 98).

C. W. EMMET.

SHELAH.—1. The youngest son of Judah by Shua (Gn 38:5, 11, 14, 26, 46:12, Nu 26:20

(16), 1 Ch 2:3, 4:21). He gave his name to the family of the Shelanites ( Nu 26:20 (16)).

Probably ‘the Shelanite’ should be read also for ‘the Shilonite’ of Neh 11:5 and 1 Ch 9:5. 2. The son of Arpachshad (Gn 10:24 bis 11:13 (12), 14, 15, 1 Ch 1:18, 24, Lk 3:35). 3. Neh 3:15. See SILOAM.

SHELEMIAH.—1. 2. Two of the sons of Bani, who married a ‘strange’ wife (Ezr 10:39, 41 [Selemias in 1 Es 9:34 (41)]). 3. Father of Hananiah (Neh 3:30). 4. A priest (Neh 13:18). 5. The father of Jehucal or Jucal (Jer 37:3). 6. The father of Irijah (Jer 37:13). 7. 1 Ch 26:14. See MESHELEMIAH. 8. Ancestor of Jehudi (Jer 36:14). 9. Son of Abdeel ( Jer 36:26).

SHELEPH.—A son of Joktan (Gn 10:26) and therefore a tribe in Southern Arabia. It is not yet identified.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SHELESH.—An Asherite (1 Ch 7:36).

SHELOMI—Father of an Asherite prince (Nu 34:27).

SHELOMITH.—1. The mother of the man who was stoned to death for having blasphemed

‘the Name’ (Lv 24:11). 2. Daughter of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3:19). 3. One of the ‘sons of Izhar’ (1 Ch 23:18, called in 24:22 Shelomoth). 4. A son of Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:20). 5. A family which returned with Ezra (Ezr 8:10 [1 Es 8:36 Salimoth]).

SHELOMOTH.—1. (1 Ch 24:22) = Shelomith of 23:18. 2. A descendant of Moses (1 Ch 26:25). 3. A Gershonite (1 Ch 23:9).

SHELUMIEL.—Prince of the tribe of Simeon, Nu 1:6, 2:12, 7:36, 41, 10:19 (cf. Jth 8:1). See also SHEMUEL.

SHEM.—The word signifies ‘name,’ which can also denote ‘fame,’ ‘renown’ (cf. ‘the men of name,’ Gn 6:4). Possibly it is an abbreviation; cf. Shemuel ( Samuel), ‘name of God.’ In one of the two traditions combined in J (Gn 6:18f., 10:21–31) Shem, the ‘son’ of Noah, is the eponymous ancestor of several peoples, occupying, roughly speaking, the central portions of the known world. P has a parallel list in 11:10–26 . It is clear that Shem (from which is formed the frequently used title Shemites or Semites) stands merely for a geographical division, for some of the nations traced to him—e.g. Elam, and Lud (probably Lydians)—are certainly not Semitic. In the other tradition (9:20–27) ‘Shem’ stands for a people in Palestine—the Hebrews, or some portion of them—with whom ‘Japheth’ lived in close conjunction, and to whom ‘Canaan’ was subjugated. See HAM.

A. H. M‘NEILE.

SHEMA.—1. A Reubenite, 1 Ch 5:8. See SHIMEI, No. 5. 2. One of those who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath (1 Ch 8:13, called in v. 21 Shimei).3. One of those who stood at Ezra’s right hand, at the reading of the Law (Neh 8:4, called in 1 Es 9:43 Sammus). 4. A town of Judah, situated in the Negeb. The site is unknown. It is probably this Shema that appears in 1 Ch 2:43 as a ‘son’ of Hebron. Cf. also SHEBA, 4.

SHEMAAH.—A Benjamite (1 Ch 12:3).

SHEMAIAH (‘Jahweh has heard’).—1. The prophet who with Ahijah encouraged the revolution of the ten tribes from Jeroboam. In MT he appears after the revolution has begun (1 K 12:22–24, 2 Ch 11:2–4). In the second LXX account, however, he appears at the beginning, at the assembly in Shechem (1 K 12:24). He is mentioned further in 2 Ch 12:5–8 , and his history in 12:16. 2. Son of Shecaniah, descendant of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3:22). 3. Son of Shecaniah, ‘keeper of the east gate,’ and assistant to Nehemiah in repairing the wall (Neh 3:29). 4. A Simeonite (1 Ch 4:37), perhaps Shimei of vv. 26, 27. 5. A Reubenite (1 Ch 5:4), apparently called Shema in v. 8. 6. A Merarite Levite dwelling in Jerusalem (1 Ch 9:14, Neh 11:15). 7. A Levite of the family of Jeduthun (1 Ch 9:16), called Shammua in Neh 11:17. 8. Head of the levitical Kohathite clan of Elizaphan in the time of David (1 Ch 15:8, 11). 9. The scribe who registered the names of the priestly courses in the time of David, son of Nethanel (1 Ch 24:6). 10. A Korahite Levite, oldest son of Obed-edom (1 Ch 26:4, 6, 7). 11. A Levite, teacher of the Law in Judah under Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 17:8). 12. A Levite of the family of Jeduthun, engaged in purifying the Temple under Hezekiah (2 Ch 29:14). 13. A Levite ‘over the freewill offerings of God’ (2 Ch 31:16). 14. A chief of the Levites (2 Ch 35:9), called Samaias in LXX and in 1 Es 1:9. 15. A chief man under Ezra (Ezr 8:16), called Maasmas and Samaias in 1 Es 8:43, 46. 16.

One of the family of Adonikam (Ezr 8:18), in 1 Es 8:39 Samaias. 17. A priest of the family of Harim who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:21), in 1 Es 9:21 Sameus. 18. A layman of the family of Harim who did the same (Ezr 10:31), in 1 Es 9:32 Sabbeus. 19. A prophet, son of Delaiah, hired by Sanballat and Tobiah to terrify Nehemiah (Neh 6:10–14). 20. One of the 24 courses of priests (Neh 10:8, 12:6, 18). 21. A man present at the dedication of the wall (Neh 12:34). 22. A priest, descendant of Asaph (Neh 12:35). 23. A singer (or clan) having part in the dedication of the wall (Neh 12:36). 24. Another, or perhaps the same (Neh 12:42). 25. Father of Uriah the prophet (Jer 26 [Gr. 33] 20). 26. A prophet, called ‘the Nehelamite,’ carried into captivity at Babylon with Jehoiachin, actively engaged in opposing Jeremiah (Jer 29:24–32) . Jeremiah predicted the complete cutting off of his family. 27. Father of Delaiah, who was a prince in the reign of Zedekiah (Jer 36 [Gr. 43]:12). 28. ‘The great,’ kinsman of Tobias (To 5:13). In several cases two of these may be the same individual. The identification has the most probability in reference to 2 and 3, 8 and 9, and 12 and 13.

GEORGE R. BERRY.

SHEMARIAH.—1. A Beojamite who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:5). 2. A son of Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:19). 3, 4. Two men who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:32, 41).

SHEMEBER.—King of Zeboiim (Gn 14:2).

SHEMED.—See SHEMER, No. 4.

SHEMER.—1. The owner of the hill purchased by Omri (1 K 16:24). 2. A Merarite (1 Ch

6:31 (46)). 3. An Asherite (1 Ch 7:34, called in v. 32 Shomer). 4. A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:12). The

Heb. MSS show here some confusion between r and d as the final letter of the name. The AV (Shamed) and RV (Shemed) retain the reading of the Geneva version, which is based on the Vulg. Samad.

SHEMIDA.—A ‘son’ of Gilead, according to Nu 26:32 [P]; called in Jos 17:2 [JE] a ‘son’ of Manasseh; his descendants are enumerated in 1 Ch 7:19. The gentilic name Shemidaites occurs in Nu 26:32.

SHEMINITH.—See art. PSALMS, p. 772^a.

SHEMIRAMOTH.—A Levitical family (1 Ch 15:18, 20, 16:5, 2 Ch 17:8).

SHEMUEL.—1. The Simeonite appointed to assist in the dividing of the land (Nu 34:20). It is not improbable that the MT should be corrected to Shelumiel, the form in 1:6, 2:12, 7:36, 41, 10:19. 2. Grandson of lssachar (1 Ch 7:2).

SHEN (‘the tooth or crag’).—A well-known place ‘the Shen,’ named with Mizpah to indicate the position of the stone which was set up by Samuel to commemorate the defeat of the Philistines (1 S 7:12). The site is unknown.

SHENAZZAR.—See SHESHBAZZAR.

SHEOL.—The Semitic equivalent of the classical conception of Hades. The word has been derived from a number of roots. The two main probable origins seem to be those from the Assyr. root sha’al (‘to consult an oracle’), and shilu (‘chamber’). The latter derivation seems somewhat more in accordance with the synonym of pit. In any case, according to this derivation of the word, Sheol was regarded as an underworld of the dead in which the shades lived. Hebrew eschatology, although somewhat obscure in its early phase, probably tended to perpetuate the animistic conception. The habit of burying the family in communal tombs may also have lent some meaning to the word. In Sheol the dead continued to live as on earth. It seems to have been a somewhat common belief that they could be summoned by some process of necromancy (1 S 2:6) . In the absence of any consistent Hebrew eschatology, however, it is impossible to determine whether the dead were believed to be conscious or active. Apparently different opinions existed on this point (cf. Ps 88:13, 94:17, 30:10, Job 14:3, with Ezk 32:27). From the latter it would appear that the non-activity of the dead was the more current opinion.

According to Eth. Enoch 22.1–14 , Sheol was divided into four sections, intended respectively for the martyrs, the righteous who were not martyrs, sinners who had lived prosperously, and sinners who had been to some degree punished. The situation of those in these four sections varied from extreme bliss in the first case to loss of all hope of the resurrection in the fourth. The souls in the third division were to be ‘slain’ In the day of judgment; but the meaning of this is obscure. Nor is it at all clear that this fourfold division was commonly held. The twofold division into the abode of the blessed and the abode of those suffering punishment seems the more generally held. At the resurrection, which preceded the judgment, it was believed, at least by those under the influence of Pharisaism, that the righteous shades would rise from Sheol, and, after receiving new bodies, ascend to heaven.

The NT conception of Sheol is not fundamentally other than that of Judaism, if we may judge from the few references. The most important is that of Lk 16:23, the parable of Dives and Lazarus. Hades (AV hell) in the NT is either the synonym of death, or of complete loss and misery, although the idea of punishment is usually expressed by Gehenna. It would appear that the idea of purgatorial cleansing, which Rabbinical Judaism introduced into the conception, was altogether absent from NT thought. Christ is said (Rev 1:18) to have ‘the keys of death and Hades,’ and in 1 P 3:18 He is said to have preached to ‘spirits in prison,’ i.e. in Sheol (cf. Apoc. Baruch 23.4, 2 Es 7:85, 95). Generally speaking, however, the NT does not develop any new doctrine of Sheol, and is as far as possible from favouring the extreme speculation of either Rabbinic Judaism or of Patristic Christianity.

SHAILER MATHEWS.

SHEPHAM.—A place on the eastern boundary of the Promised Land (Nu 34:10, 11). The site has not been identified. Perhaps Zabdi, the Shiphmite (1 Ch 27:27). was a native of Shepham.

SHEPHATIAH (‘Jah has judged’).—1. One of David’s sons (2 S 3:4 = 1 Ch 3:3). 2. A family which returned with Zerub. (Ezr 2:4 = Neh 7:9) and Ezra (Ezr 8:8). The name appears in 1 Es 5:9 as Saphat and in 8:34 as Saphatias. 3. A family of the ‘sons’ of Solomon’s servants (Ezr 2:57 = Neh 7:59) = 1 Es 5:33 Saphuthi. 4. A Judahite family (Neh 11:4). 5. A Benjamite family (1 Ch 9:8). Either this or the preceding should perhaps be identified with No. 2 above. 6. A contemporary of Jeremiah (Jer 38:1). 7. A Benjamite warrior who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:5). 8. A Simeonite prince (1 Ch 27:16). 9. A son of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch 21:2).

SHEPHELAH.—See PLAIN (5).

SHEPHER.—A ‘station’ of the children of Israel (Nu 33:23, 24). Nothing is known about its position.

SHEPHERD.—See SHEEP.

SHEPHI (1 Ch 1:40) or SHEPHO (Gn 36:23).—A Horlte chief.

SHEPHUPHAM (Nu 26:39 (48)) or SHEPHUPHAN (1 Ch 8:5).—A Benjamite family = Gn 46:21 Muppim and 1 Ch 7:12, 15, 26:15 Shuppim; gentilic Shuphamites in Nu 26:39 (43).

SHEREBIAH.—One of the Levites who joined Ezra (Ezr 8:18, 24, Neh 8:7, 9:4, 10:12 (13) 12:8, 24). The name appears in 1 Es 8:47 as Asebebias, v. 54 Eserebias, and 9:48 Sarahias. Cf. MAHLI.

SHERESH.—A Manassite clan (1 Ch 7:16).

SHERIFF.—In Dn 3:2, 8 ‘sheriffs’ Is the EV tr. of Aram. liphlāyē’, a word of quite uncertain meaning.

SHESHACH.—A cryptic name of Babel, found in the received text of Jer 25:26, 51:41. It is formed by the method called Atbash, that is a substitution of lau for aleph, shin for beth, and so on. The word is, however, no part of the original text of Jeremiah, being a conceit of later editors. In both passages it is lacking in LXX. Cf. LEB-KAMAI.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SHESHAI.—A clan resident in Hebron, driven thence by Caleb (Nu 13:22, Jos 15:14, Jg 1:10).

SHESHAN.—A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2:31, 34, 35).

SHESHBAZZAR.—This name is of Bab. origin, and appears in LXX in several forms, some of which point to the sun-god Samas, others (e.g. Sanabassar) to the moon-god Sin as the derivation, the meaning being ‘O sun-god [or moon-god], protect the lord [or the son].’ The person Sheshbazzar is described as ‘the prince of Judah,’ and is said to have received from Cyrus the sacred Temple vessels and to have taken them to Jerusalem (Ezr 1:8, 11, cf. 1 Es 2:12, 16). The same fact is stated in Ezr 5:14, 16, where Sheshbazzar is designated ‘the governor’ (pechāh) , and is also said to have laid the foundations of the Temple (cf. 1 Es 6:18, 20). It is probable that the Persian title ‘Tirshatha’ in Ezr 2:63, Neh 7:65, 70 refers to Sheshbazzar.

Some have identified Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel on the ground that the laying of the foundation of the Temple is in Ezr 3:8 ascribed to Zerubbabel and in 5:16 to Sheshbazzar, while instances of men bearing two different names occur not infrequently (e.g. 2 K 23:34, 24:17, Dn 1:7) . But, when we compare Ezr 3:8 and 5:16, it does not seem necessary to assume that the two men are identical. Both may have returned from Babylon at the same time, and while Sheshbazzar was the ruling official, Zerubbabel may in all likelihood have been the moving spirit in building the Temple. Ezr 3:8 gives the Chronicler’s own account of the work, while Ezr

5 purports to be an official report, and would naturally mention the official head of the community as the person responsible for what occurred during his term of office. Then the possibility of the one person bearing two names, while not impossible, seems unlikely here, because (1) both names are of foreign origin, unlike the double names Daniel and Belteshazzar, where the one is Hebrew and the other foreign; and (2) as a rule the Chronicler is careful to note the identification—e.g. ‘Daniel whose name was Belteshazzar.’

If, then, Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were two different men, was Sheshbazzar a Jew or a foreigner? In all probability he was a Jew. It was quite in accordance with the policy of the Persians to appoint a Jew to act as governor in Jerusalem, while the name Sheshbazzar, being of Bab. origin, would not likely be borne by a Persian. It has been conjectured that Sheshbazzar is identical with the Shenazzar of 1 Ch 3:18, a son of Jehoiachin and uncle of Zerubbabel; and this would justify the title ‘prince of Judah’ given to him in Ezr 1:8. Then, further, it is not unlikely that the younger man, Zerubbabel, took the leading part in the work of restoration, and as a result his uncle’s memory would fall into the background. This theory is made more probable by the fact that Zerubbabel succeeded to the governorship as early as the reign of Darius Hystaspis, B.C. 520 ( cf. Hag 1:1, 14, 2:2).

W. F. BOYD.

SHETH.—In Nu 24:17 (only) AV and RVm tr. bĕnē shēth ‘children (sons) of Sheth,’ but there can be little doubt that the correct tr. is that of RV, ‘sons of tumult.’

SHETHAR.—One of the seven princes who had the right of access to the royal presence ( Est 1:14).

SHETHAR-BOZENAI.—One of those who corresponded with Darius about the re-building of the Temple (Ezr 5:3, 6, 6:5, 13). Called in 1 Es 6:3, 7, 27, 7:1 Sathrabuzanes.

SHEVA.—1. A son of Caleb (1 Ch 2:49). 2. See Shavsha.

SHEWBREAD.—In one of the oldest historical documents preserved in the OT we find, in a passage telling of David’s flight from Saul, the first mention of an offering in the shape of ‘holy bread,’ which was presented to J″ in the sanctuary at Nob (1 S 21:1–6) . Here this holy bread is also termed ‘the bread of the presence’ (v. 6), i.e. of J″, which appears in EV as ‘shewbread’— a rendering due to Tindale, who adds the note, ‘shewbrede, because it was alway in the presence and sight of the Lorde’ (cf. v. 6, which ends literally thus: ‘the presence-bread, that was taken from the presence of J″’). ‘Presence-bread’ is also the name for this special offering generally used in the Priests’ Code—but ‘continual bread’ in Nu 4:7, contracted from the fuller expression 2 Ch 2:4. The Chronicler, however, prefers another designation, which may be rendered ‘pilebread’ (1 Ch 9:32, 23:29 etc., EV ‘shewbread’) and is to be explained by the arrangement of the loaves in two piles (see below and cf. Lv 24:8 RVm).

After its first historical mention in connexion with the sanctuary of Nob, where it was periodically renewed—at what intervals is not stated—the presence-bread is next met with in the Temple of Solomon. Here was an ‘altar of cedar’ (1 K 6:20), which modern scholars regard as an altar for the presentation of the offering of the shewbread. It stood, according to the restored text, in front of the dĕbīr, or Most Holy Place, and it is to be identified with ‘the table whereupon the shewbread was,’ mentioned in 7:48 in a section of later date (see, for the composite text of these chapters, the authorities cited in art. Temple, and cf. ib. § 5) . The same interchange of ‘altar’ and ‘table’ is found in Ezk 41:22, cf. 44:16.

The table of shewbread to be provided for the Tabernacle of P is discussed in the art.

TABERNACLE, § 6 (a) (cf. TEMPLE, § 9). The preparation of the shewbread itself, which in the time of the Chronicler was the privilege of a division of the Levites (1 Ch 9:32), is prescribed in another section of P (Lv 24:5–9) . The offering consisted of twelve unleavened cakes of considerable size, since each cake contained a fifth of an ephah—an ephah held more than a bushel—of fine flour. The cakes or loaves were arranged on the table in two piles; on the top of each pile was placed an oblation of frankincense. The cakes were renewed ‘every Sabbath day’ (v. 8 RV); those removed were eaten by the priests alone within the sanctuary precincts, the shewbread being among ‘the most holy of the offerings of the Lord’ (v. 9).

As regards the original significance of the shewbread offering there can be no doubt. This antique form of oblation had its origin in pre-historic times in the naïve desire to propitiate the deity by providing him with a meal (See SACRIFICE AND OFFERING, § 16) . This view is confirmed by the fact that it was accompanied, even in the later period, by a provision of wine, as is clear from the mention of ‘the flagons thereof, and the bowls thereof, to pour out withal’ (Ex 25:29 RV, Nu 4:7). The analogy of the classical lectisternia will at once suggest itself. Less familiar is the similar offering among the Babylonians, who laid cakes of ‘sweet,’ i.e. unleavened, bread on the altars of various deities (see Zimmern’s list in KAT³600) . The analogy between the Babylonian and Hebrew ritual is rendered still more striking by the identity of the name ‘bread of the presence’ (loc. cit.), and of the number of cakes offered—twelve or a multiple of twelve. This number had probably an astrological origin, having reference originally to the twelve months of the year, or the twelve signs of the Zodiac. For the later Hebrews, at least, the twelve loaves of the presence-bread doubtless represented the twelve tribes of Israel, and were interpreted as a symbolical expression of the nation’s gratitude to God as the continual source of every material blessing.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SHIBAH.—A name given to a well dug by Isaac (Gn 26:33), which gave its name to the town Beersheba (wh. see). The word means, according to the writer, ‘an oath’; and Beersheba is ‘the well of the oath,’ so named from the swearing of the oath of friendship between Isaac and Abimelech (Gn 26:31). In Gn 21:22–31 we have another account, according to which the well was dug by Abraham and received its name from the oath between Abraham and Abimelech. There is also a play on the word shĕbū‘ah, ‘oath’ and sheba‘, ‘seven,’ as a sacrifice of seven lambs was offered. Perhaps the name, however, was already in existence before Abraham’s time, and the writer simply gives a more or less plausible explanation of its derivation.

W. F. BOYD.

SHIBBOLETH (means both ‘ear of corn’ and ‘stream’).—In the strife that arose between the Gileadites, under Jephthah, and the Ephraimites, an episode occurred which is recounted in Jg 12:1–6 . According to this, the Gileadites were holding the fords of Jordan in order to cut off the fugitive Ephraimites; but the only way of differentiating between friend and foe was to test a fugitive as to his pronunciation of such a word as ‘Shibboleth,’ in which the Ephraimite peculiarity of pronouncing sh as s would immediately be noticed. If, on uttering this word, the fugitive pronounced it ‘Sibboleth,’ he was known to be an Ephraimite, and was forthwith slain. In this way there fell, according to the obviously exaggerated account in J, ‘forty and two thousand.’

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

SHIELD.—See ARMOUR ARMS, § 2 (a).

SHIGGAION.—See PSALMS, p. 772^a.

SHIHOR in Is 23:3, Jer 2:18 seems to mean Egypt (?), the Nile (?), or the waters of Egypt: in 1 Ch 13:5, Jos 13:3, it is the S. W. frontier of Canaan. If the name is Hebrew it may mean ‘the Black,’ in allusion to the dark waters or even to the black alluvial land itself: the Egyp. name of Egypt is Kemi, meaning ‘black.’ But, as Brugsch pointed out, Shi-Hōr is the Egyp. name of a stream or canal, possibly the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, on or near the eastern border of Egypt (see SHUR). The black alluvium might well be counted as the boundary of Canaan: but elsewhere the boundary is the ‘Brook’ (or ‘River’) of Egypt, i.e. the Wady el-Arish (see SHUR).

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

SHIHOR-LIBNATH.—One of the boundaries of Asher (Jos 19:26). It stands apparently for a river, most probably the Nahr ez-Zerka, the Crocodile River.

SHIKKERON.—A place on the northern boundary of Judah (Jos 15:11). The site is unknown.

SHILHI.—Father of Asa’s wife (1 K 22:42, 2 Ch 20:31).

SHILHIM.—A town of Judah (Jos 15:32). Cf. SHAARAIM, 2.

SHILLEM, SHILLEMITES.—See SHALLUM, No. 7.

SHILOAH.—See SILOAM.

SHILOH.—1. Here the Israelites assembled at the completion of the conquest, and erected the Tent of Meeting; portions were assigned to the still landless tribes, and cities to the Levites ( Jos 18:1 etc. 21:1 etc.). At Shiloh the congregation deliberated regarding the altar built by the men of the eastern tribes in the Jordan Valley (22:12ff.). During the period of the Judges, it was the central sanctuary (Jg 18:31), the scene of great religious festivals and pilgrimages (21:19, 1 S 1:2) . On one of these occasions the Benjamites captured as wives the women who danced among the vineyards (21:18ff.). Here the youth of Samuel was spent, and from this narrative we gather that the ‘tent’ had given place to a permanent structure, a ‘temple’ (hēkāl) , under the care of the high priest Eli and his family. The loss of the ark and the disaster to his sons proved fatal to Eli (1 S 4:12ff.), and Shiloh apparently ceased to rank as a sanctuary. The destruction of its temple, possibly by the Philistines, is alluded to in Jer 7:12, 14, 26:6, 9 (cf. Ps 78:60). Eli’s descendants are afterwards found at Nob (1 S 14:3, 22:11). The prophet Ahijah was a native of Shiloh (1 K 11:29 , 14:2, 4).

The original name, as shown by the gentilic Shilonite, was Shiōn. This form survives in the mod. Seilūn, a ruined site on a hill E. of the road to Shechem, about 9 miles N. of Bethel, and 3 miles S.W. of Khān el-Lubbān (Lebonah, Jg 21:19). A terrace on the N. of the hill, with a rockhewn quadrangle, c. 400 ft. × 80 ft., may have been the site of the ancient temple. There is an excellent spring in the valley to the east. There are also numerous rock-hewn tombs. The terraced slopes tell of vineyards, long since disappeared.

2. The real meaning of the clause ‘until Shiloh come’ (Gn 49:10 EV) is doubtful. If ‘Shiloh’ were a name applied to the Messiah, it would have a special significance; but this cannot be discovered. No ancient version so reads it. The Targg. (Onk., Jerus., and pseud.-Jon.) all interpret it of the Messiah. The Peshitta, on the other hand, reads ‘until he shall come whose it [i.e. the kingdom] is.’ Three possible readings are given in RVm. (1) ‘Till he come to Shiloh’; grammatically correct, and supported by many scholars. Elsewhere in Scripture, Shiloh means the Ephraimite town. This is taken to refer to Judah’s laying down the leadership he had exercised, when, the conquest finished, Israel assembled at Shiloh. Apart from other objections, however, shēbet, ‘sceptre,’ seems to denote something more than a mere tribal supremacy, and it is not certain that Judah possessed even that pre-eminence. (2) ‘Until that which is his shall come’; so LXX ‘till the things reserved for him come.’ (3) ‘Until he shall come whose it is’ ( Pesh., Targg. as above). While no certain decision as to the exact meaning is possible, the Messianic character of the verse is clear. It contemplates the ultimate passing of the power of Judah into the bands of an ideal ruler.

Shilonite = ‘native of Shiloh’ is used of—1. Ahijah (1 K 11:29 etc.). 2. A family dwelling in Jerusalem (1 Ch 9:5 etc.). In the latter passage the true reading is prob. ‘the Shelanite’ (cf. Nu 26:20).

W. EWING.

SHILONITE.—1. See SHILOH, 2. 2. See SHELAH, 1.

SHILSHAH.—An Asherite (1 Ch 7:37).

SHIMEA.—1. See SHAMMUA, No. 2. 2. A Merarite (1 Ch 6:30 (15)). 3. A Gershonite (1 Ch 6:39 (24)). 4. See SHAMMAH, No. 2.

SHIMEAH.—1. A descendant of Jehiel (1 Ch 8:32, called in 9:38 Shimeam). 2. See SHAMMAH, No. 2.

SHIMEAM.—See SHIMEAH, No. 1.

SHIMEATH.—A name given to the father or mother of one of the murderers of Joash (2 K 12:21, 2 Ch 24:26). The murderer himself is called Zabad in 2 Ch. and Jozacar in 2 Kings. Probably for Zabad in 2 Ch. we ought to read Jehozabad, and undoubtedly Jozacar and

Jehozabad are identical, and by scribal repetition (dittography) we have the two really identical names and the varying forms Shimeath, Shimrith, and Shomer. The descriptions ‘Ammonitess’ and ‘Moabitess’ in 2 Ch. are certainly later embellishments of the story, and Shimeath was probably the father of the one murderer, Jehozabad, and an Israelite. The Shimeathites were a family or division of the tribe of Caleb (1 Ch 2:55). They may be included in the description ‘the families of the scribes, which dwelt at Jabez,’ but the whole passage leaves us uncertain. The Vulg. regards the name as referring to the function of a section of the scribes (resonantes) after the Exile.

W. F. BOYD.

SHIMEI, SHIMEITES.—Shimei was a popular name among the Hebrews, being especially common in Levitical circles. Of most of the persons bearing it, absolutely nothing except the name is known. 1. The personage of this designation, of whom the historian has given us some details, is a Benjamite of the clan of Saul. On account of his tribal and family connexions, it is quite natural for him to be David’s bitter enemy. As the latter is fleeing before Absalom, Shimei meets him and heaps curses and insults on the fugitive monarch. David’s triumphant return, however, brings him in abject penitence to the feet of his sovereign, who pardons him (2 S 16:5 ff., 19:17ff.). Nevertheless, David in his dying charge is represented as enjoining Solomon to ‘bring his hoar head to Sheol with blood.’ After this Shimei is not permitted to go beyond the walls of Jerusalem on pain of death; but presuming three years later to go to Gath in quest of fugitive slaves, he is executed by Benaiah at the command of the king (1 K 2:8ff., 36ff.). 2. In the court intrigues connected with the royal succession, a courtier, Shimei (cf. art. REI) by name, espoused the cause of Solomon (1 K 1:8). The official at the head of one of the prefectures which were erected by this monarch, is probably identical with him (1 K 4:18). 3. A master of the vineyards under David (1 Ch 27:27). 4. A prince of the Judæan royal house, a brother of

Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3:18). 5. The name occurs in the tribal genealogies of both Simeon and Reuben

(1 Ch 4:26, 27, 5:4 [in v. 8 Shema]). 6. The grandson of Levi (Ex 6:17, Nu 3:18, 21, 1 Ch 6:17, 23:7, 9). 7. A son of Merari (1 Ch 6:29). 8. In the genealogy of Asaph (1 Ch 6:42). 9. The tenth course of Levitical singers who were appointed by David (1 Ch 25:17). 10. A Levite who took part in the cleansing of the Temple under Hezekiah, probably identical with one mentioned later as having charge of the tithes and oblations (2 Ch 29:14, 31:12, 13). 11. In post-exilic times the name appears among those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10:23 [1 Es 9:23 Semeis] 33. [1 Es 9:33 Semei] 38 [1 Es 9:34 Someis]) . The individuals referred to in vv. 33 and 38 belong to the laity. In Zec 12:13 the family of the Shimeites are mentioned as participants in the mourning for national guilt; they appear in this connexion as representatives of the Levites. 12. The name occurs in the genealogy of Mordecai (Est 2:5 [Ad. Est 11:2 Semeias]). 13. Shammah, the brother of David, appears as Shimei in 2 S 21:21. 14. 1 Ch 8:21 = Shema of v. 18.

JAMES A. KELSO.

SHIMEON. One of the sons of Harim, who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:31 [1 Es 9:32 Simon Chosameus]).

SHIMON.—A Judahite family (1 Ch 4:20).

SHIMRATH.—A Benjamite (1 Ch 8:21).

SHEMRI.—1. A Simeonite (1 Ch 4:37). 2. The father of one of David’s heroes (1 Ch 11:45). 3. A family of gatekeepers (1 Ch 26:19). 4. A Levite (2 Ch 29:13).

SHIMRITH.—See SHIMEATH.

SHIMRON.—1. The fourth son of Issachar (Gn 46:18, Nu 26:24 (20), 1 Ch 7:1); gentilic Shimronites in Nu 26:24 (20). 2. One of the towns whose kings Jabin called to his assistance ( Jos 11:1). It was afterwards allotted to the tribe of Zebulun (Jos 19:15). Its site is unknown. Cf. next article.

SHIMRON-MERON.—A Canaanite town, west of Jordan, whose king was among those whom Joshua smote (Jos 12:20). Comparing its position in the list with that of Shimron in the list given in Jos 11:1, we may infer that the two places are identical.

SHIMSHAI.—The scribe or secretary of Rehum (Ezr 4:8, 9, 17, 23), called in 1 Es 2:16 Samellius.

SHIN and SIN.—The twenty-first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in the 119 th Psalm to designate the 21st part, each verse of which in Heb. begins with this letter in one or other of its two forms.

SHINAB.—The king of Admah (Gn 14:2).

SHINAR.—A term employed in the OT for the greater part, if not the whole, of Babylonia ( Gn 10:19, 11:2, 14:1, 9, Jos 7:21, Is 11:11, Zec 5:11, Dn 1:2). Its former identification with Sumer, or Southern Babylonia, never regarded as very satisfactory, is now given up. Equally untenable is the view that it is to be identified with Shankhar, a land or district the king of which is mentioned in a letter from Tell el-Amarna along with the king of Khatti. There is little doubt that Shinar is to be identified with the land of Babylonia, but the origin of the name has not been determined.

L. W. KING.

SHION.—A town of Issachar (Jos 19:19), prob. ‘Ayūn esh-Sha‘īn, about 3 miles east of Nazareth.

SHIPHI.—A Simeonite prince (1 Ch 4:37 (36)).

SHIPHMITE.—See SHEPHAM.

SHIPHRAH.—One of the two Hebrew midwives (Ex 1:15).

SHIPHTAN.—An Ephraimite prince (Nu 34:24).

SHIPS AND BOATS

1 . In OT and Apocrypha

(1) Among the Israelites.—In spite of the long line of coast by which Palestine is bordered, the Israelites were an agricultural rather than a maritime people. In fact a large part of the coast was occupied by the Phœnicians in the North and the Philistines in the South. That in the earliest times the people as a whole were ignorant of navigation is shewn by their version of the Flood, in which an unnavigable box takes the place of the navigated ship of the ancient Accadian story. Exceptions more or less to the rule in relatively ancient times were the tribes of Asher on the north, and Dan, before its emigration, on the south.

‘And Dan, why did he remain in ships? Asher sat still at the haven of the sea, And abode by his creeks’ (Jg 5:17).

It is very doubtful whether boats were originally used, even by the Phœnicians and the Philistines, except for fishing, and perhaps for purely local traffic and communication. Zidon, the earliest Phœnician settlement, was, like its synonym, Beth-saida, derived from a root meaning to catch prey, and was doubtless first noted as a fishing town. Again, Dagon, the chief god of the Philistines, is derived from the word dag, meaning a fish.

At a somewhat later period we find Zebulun described as a ‘haven of ships’ (Gn 49:18), and later still, probably after the division of the kingdom, Issachar is mentioned with Zebulun as deriving wealth from naval commerce (Dt 33:19).

In any case, it is not till the time of Solomon that we hear definitely of any important development of commercial enterprise. Under the direction, and with the co-operation, of the Phœnicians, cedar and cypress timbers from Lebanon were cut and floated down the rivers to the coast and formed into rafts (AV floats) , which carried the sawn stones to Joppa. Here they were broken up, and both were conveyed to Jerusalem for the building of the Temple (1 K 5:9, 2 Ch 2:3–18). Solomon had also a navy of ships navigated by Phœnician sailors. They were stationed at Ezion-geber, at the head of the Gulf of Akabah, and traded with Ophir, probably in the southeast of Arabia, in gold and precious stones (1 K 9:26–28) . The ‘ivory and apes and peacocks’ of 1 K 10:22 may have been imported into this region from India and more distant Eastern lands, or the ships of Hiram and Solomon may themselves have made more distant voyages. In addition to this, there was a regular trade maintained with Egypt, whence Solomon Imported chariots and horses (10:28, 29).

The conflict between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms after Solomon’s death put a stop to the commercial activities of the Jews, and there does not appear to have been any attempt to revive them till the time of Jehoshaphat, whose fleet of ships made for trading for gold to Ophir was wrecked at Ezion-geber. An offer of Ahaziah to join in a renewal of the enterprise was afterwards rejected (1 K 22:43, 49). The mention in Is 2:16 of ‘ships of Tarshish’ among the objects against which J″’s judgment would be directed, makes it likely that there was again a revival of naval commerce in the prosperous reigns of Jotham and Uzziah. Finally, in the time of the Maccabees we read that Simon, the brother of Judas, made Joppa a seaport (1 Mac 14:5). It was probably at this period that the Jews first began to have experience of ships of war (1 Mac 1:17, 15:3; cf. Dn 11:30), though they must have been in use at a much earlier period. There are figures of such ships, with sharp beaks for ramming, in Layard’s History of Nineveh, and Sennacherib in his expedition against Merodach-baladan had ships manned by Tyrians. In Is 33:21 the allusion is certainly to hostile ships, but the reference may he to ships of transport, rather than warships. In any case the distinction between a merchantman and a warship in early times was obviously not so definite as it afterwards became.

(2) Among neighbouring nations.—Unlike the Israelites, the Phœnicians were the great navigators of the ancient world. Their country was particularly favourable for such a development. Dwelling on a narrow piece of sea-board, unsuited for agriculture (they imported corn from Palestine, 1 K 5:11, Ac 12:20), they had behind them the Lebanon range, famed for its great cedars, and a coast with good natural harbours. By the time of Solomon they would seem already to have had an extensive trade. The phrase ‘ships of Tarshish’ which probably meant originally ships accustomed to trade with Tartessus in Spain, had come to be used in a secondary sense, like our ‘East-Indiaman,’ of large vessels suited for such a trade. It is believed that by this time they had penetrated as far as Cornwall, and had even found their way to the Canaries. Their numerous colonies, at any rate the most distant, of which Carthage is the best known, probably began to be founded soon after. The form of their ships was, it would appear, a gradual development from the hollowed trunk of a tree to the vessel of three banks of oars, known among the Greeks as a trireme (see Hastings’ DB, art. ‘Ships’). With the Assyrians navigation seems to have been confined to the Tigris and Euphrates, where small timber boats, supported by inflated skins (keleks), and coracles of plaited willow (kufas), were largely in use (see EBi, art. ‘Ships’). On the other hand, the Babylonians seem quite to have justified the phrase ‘ships of their rejoicing’ i.e. in which they take pride (Is 43:14), having extended their voyages to the Persian Gulf, and even engaged in commerce with India since the 7th cent. B.C. The Egyptians used ‘vessels of papyrus’ for the navigation of the Nile (Is 18:2, cf. Job 9:26), but it is not quite certain whether they were boats constructed out of papyrus, or rafts composed of bundles of these reeds bound together. We learn from Egyptian monuments that they had also ships of considerable size. We have very little to guide us in determining the form or size of ships during these early periods, but it is probable that while at first they appear to have varied greatly, they gradually approximated to the type of vessel used in the Levant in NT times. It is not possible to say at what time sails were first introduced. We find them, or more correctly the sail, in the one great sail mentioned in Ezk 27:7 in addition to the oars. In Is 33:23 the sail only is mentioned. In v. 21 the ‘galley with oars’ is mentioned distinctively, and in contrast to the ‘gallant ship,’ which probably means the larger vessel provided with a sail.

(3) In literature.—That the Israelites, though, generally speaking, unused to navigation, had some acquaintance with and took an interest in shipping, is clear from the constant reference to ships in their literature. Is 33:23, in which Israel is compared to a disabled vessel, has been already alluded to. Ezekiel’s famous comparison of Tyre to a ship in 27:4–11 gives a fair general idea of the different parts of a ship of that period, though some of them—the deck-planks of ivory, the sail of fine bordered linen, the awnings of blue and purple—are evidently idealized. The graphic picture in Ps 107:23–27 of the terrors experienced by those ‘who go down to the sea in ships’ was almost certainly written by one who had experienced a storm at sea. In Ps 104:25 the ships are, as much as leviathan, the natural denizens of the deep. Of special beauty is the simile of the ship that passes over the waves and leaves no pathway of its keel behind (Wis

5:10), to express the transitoriness of human life and human hope. The danger of ship-faring is pointed out in Wis 14:5. That people should commit their lives to a small piece of wood would be absurd but for Divine Providence.

2. In the NT.—We are concerned chiefly with our Lord’s Galilæan ministry and St. Paul’s voyages.

(1) On the Sea of Galilee.—The Galilæan boats were used primarily for fishing, and also for communication between the villages on the Lake, and probably for local trade. At least four of our Lord’s disciples were fishermen, and were called while engaged in their work. He frequently crossed the Lake with His disciples, and sometimes preached from a boat to the people on the shore (Lk 5:2, Mk 4:1) . Among the most picturesque incidents of His life as recorded in the Gospels are the miracle of stilling the tempest and the miraculous draughts of fishes. The boats were small enough to be in danger of sinking from a very large catch of fish, and yet large enough to contain our Lord and at least the majority of His twelve Apostles, and to weather the storms which are still frequent on the Lake. It appears from the frequent use of the definite article, ‘the boat,’ that one particular boat, probably St. Peter’s, was usually employed.

(2) In the Levant.—Ships played an important part in St. Paul’s missionary journeys. It was frequently necessary for him to cross the Ægæan, and sometimes to make longer voyages to and from Syria. That he was frequently exposed to great danger we learn not only from the detailed account of his shipwreck in Ac 27, but from an express statement in 2 Co 11:25, in which, writing before this event, he says ‘thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep,’ which certainly seems to mean that he drifted for this space of time upon the spar or some part of a wrecked ship. But our interest is centred chiefly in the account of his voyage from Cæsarea to Puteoli in Ac 27, 28. From this we learn that the larger vessels were of a considerable size, that of the shipwreck containing, according to what is probably the correct text, 276 persons (27:37; according to B, 76). It was impelled only by sail, the only oars mentioned being the paddles used as rudders, which were braced up, probably in order to allow the ship to be more easily anchored at the stern (vv. 29, 40). This, a custom not infrequently resorted to when some special purpose was served by it, was to enable them to thrust the vessel into a favourable place on shore without the necessity of turning her round. In addition to the mainsail, the vessel had a foresail (artemōn) , which was used for the same purpose, as more easily adapted for altering the ship’s course (v. 40). The vessel had one small boat, which was usually towed behind, but was taken up for greater security during the storm (v. 16). Another remarkable practice is that described in v. 17 as ‘using helps, undergirding the ship.’ These helps or ‘under girders’ were chains passed under and across the ship, and tightened to prevent the boards from springing. It was a common practice of ancient times, and is not unknown even in modern navigation. Soundings were taken to test the near approach to land, much as they would be at the present day. Though ships had to depend mainly on one great square sail, by bracing this they were enabled to sail within seven points of the wind. In this case, allowing another six points for leeway, the vessel under a northeaster (Euraquilo, v. 14) made way from Cauda to Malta, a direction considerably north of west. As, however, the vessel could not safely carry the mainsail, or even the yard-arm, these were first lowered on deck, and then the vessel must have been heaved to and been carried along and steadied by a small storm-sail of some kind. Had she drifted before the wind she would inevitably have been driven on to the Syrtis, the very thing they wished to avoid (v. 17). This has been shown very clearly by Smith in his classical work, The Voyage of St. Paul, ch. iii. The same writer draws attention to the thoroughly nautical character of St. Luke’s language, and the evidence of its accuracy by a comparison with what is known of ancient naval practice; and, what is perhaps even more striking, the evidence of skilful navigation to which the narrative points. He justly observes that the chief reason why sailing in the winter was dangerous (27:9, 28:11) was not so much the storms, as the constant obscuring of the heavens, by which, before the discovery of the compass, mariners had chiefly to direct their course.

The fact that two of the ships in which St. Paul sailed were ships of Alexandria engaged in the wheat trade with Italy (27:6, 38, 28:11, 13; Puteoli was the great emporium of wheat), is especially interesting, as we happen to know more about them than any other ancient class of ship. In the time of Commodus a series of coins with figures of Alexandrian corn-ships was struck to commemorate an exceptional importation of wheat from Alexandria at a time of scarcity. One of these ships, moreover, was driven into the Piræus by stress of weather. Lucian lays the scene of one of his dialogues (The Ship or Wishes) on board of her. From the coins and the dialogue together we get a very good idea of the ships of that time (2nd cent. A.D.) and their navigation. Lucian’s ship was 180 ft. by 45 ft., with a calculated tonnage of about 1200. It is not surprising, then, that the Castor and Pottux was large enough to contain, in addition to her cargo and crew, the 276 persons of the shipwrecked vessel (Ac 28:11). Josephus was wrecked in a ship containing 600. The ships had one huge square sail attached to an upright mast about the centre of the vessel, with a very long yard-arm. There was also a second small mast, set diagonally near the bow, and looking not unlike a modern bowsprit, which carried the foresail. On the principal mast there was also sometimes a small triangular topsail. Both ends of the vessel curved upwards and were pointed horizontally, and terminated, the former especially, in some sort of decoration, very frequently a swan. The two rudder paddles, the universal method of steering till about the 12th cent., were usually in the larger vessels passed through port-holes, which could also serve as hawse holes when the vessel was anchored by the stern.

(3) In literature.—In the books of the NT, shipping provided the writers with some striking similes. In the Ep. to the Heb. (6:19), Christian hope is called ‘the anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and entering into that which is within the veil.’ Again, St. James compares the tongue, in the control which its constraint exercises on the character, to the very small rudders by which ships, though they be so great, are turned about (3:4).

F. H. WOODS. SHISHA.—See SHAVSHA.

SHISHAK (Egyp. Shoshenk or Sheshonk I.).—Founder of the 22nd Dyn. (c. B.C. 950) . He reigned at least 21 years. Jeroboam fled to him (1 K 11:40), and he plundered Jerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam (14:25, 2 Ch 12:2). A long list of Palestinian towns of Israel, as well as of Judah, was engraved by Sheshonk on the south wall of the temple of Karnak, but Jerusalem has not been recognized among the surviving names in the list. Max Müller suggests that these towns may not have been conquered but that they merely paid tribute, hence the appearance of Israelitish towns among them.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

SHITRAI.—A Sharonite who was over king David’s herds that fed in Sharon (1 Ch 27:29).

SHITTAH TREE (shittāh, Is 41:19 RV ‘acacia tree’; shittim wood [‘ătsē-shīttīm] Ex 25:5, 10, 13, 26:15, 26, 27:1, 6, Dt 10:3, RV ‘acacia wood’).—shittāh was originally shintāh, and is equivalent to Arab. sunt, which is the Acacia nilotica; but the word no doubt included other desert acacias. The seyāt of the Arabs, which includes the gum-arabic tree (A. seyat), and A. tortilis would both furnish suitable wood. Both these trees are plentiful around the Dead Sea, particularly at ‘Ain Jidy.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SHITTIM.—1. The name of the last encampment of the Israelites, on the east of the Jordan opposite Jericho. There the Israelites began to intermarry with Moabites (Nu 25:1ff.), and from there Joshua sent out the spies to Jericho (Jos 2:1, 3:1). The name means ‘acacias,’ and the place is called in Nu 33:49 Abel-shittim, or ‘Meadow of acacias.’ Josephus (Ant. IV. viii. 1, v. i. 1) identifies the place with Abila, which he says is 7¹/₂Roman miles east of the Jordan, and which Jerome says was 6 miles east of it. Several modern scholars identify Abila with Khirbet Kefrên at the entrance of the Wady Kefrên, at the base of the mountains of Moab.

2. Joel’s reference to the ‘Valley of Shittim’ (3:18) must refer to some valley leading from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea (cf. Ezk 47:1ff.)—perhaps the ‘Valley of the brook Kidron,’ the modern Wady en-Nār. It is certainly not the same as No. 1, although confused with it by Ochser (JE xi. 297 f.). The reference to Shittim in Mic 6:5—‘from Shittim to Gilgal’—is geographically unintelligible, and is rightly thought by many scholars to be a gloss.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

SHIZA.—Father of a Reubenite chief (1 Ch 11:42).

SHOA.—A race named in Ezk 23:23 along with Babylonians, Chaldæans, Pekod, Koa, and Assyrians. The Sutū were nomads, frequently named in the same company by Assyrian and Babylonian writers, and among other seats inhabited the E. of the Tigris.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

SHOBAB.—1. One of David’s sons (2 S 5:14, 1 Ch 3:5, 14:4). 2. A Calebite (1 Ch 2:18).

SHOBACH.—The captain of the host of Hadarezer, the Aramæan king of Zobah ( wh. see), who commanded the forces of that king when he aided the Ammonites in their war with king David. David defeated him, and Shobach lost his life (2 S 10:13–18) . In 1 Ch 19:16 the name is spelled Shophach.

Perhaps because so little was known of Shobach, he played an important part in later imaginative tradition. The Mishna (Sotah, viii. 1) makes him a giant of the Ammonites equal to Goliath, while the Samaritan Chronicle, sometimes called ‘the book of Joshua.’ tells a long tale concerning him (chs. 26– 38), making him the son of Haman, a king of Persia whom Joshua had killed, and who stirred up a great coalition to avenge the death of his father I All authentic information concerning Shobach is contained in 2 S 10:16–18 , which 1 Ch 19:16 repeats.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

SHOBAI.—A family of porters (Ezr 2:42, Neh 7:45 [1 Es 5:28 Sabi]).

SHOBAL.—1. A ‘son’ of Seir the Horite, and one of the ‘dukes’ of the Horites (Gn 36:20,

23, 29 = 1 Ch 1:38, 40). 2. A Calebite family in the tribe of Judah. This Shobal is called in 1 Ch 4:1, 2 a ‘son’ of Judah, and in 2:50 ‘son’ of Caleb and ‘father’ of Kiriath-jearim. The name is probably to be connected, if not identified, with No. 1.

SHOBEK.—A signatory to the covenant (Neh 10:24 (25).

SHOBI.—According to 2 S 17:27, a son of Nahash the king of Ammon, who, with Machir of Lo-debar, showed kindness to David when he fled to Mahanaim at the time of Absalom’s rebellion. There is some doubt about the name, however, as in 1 Ch 19:1f. the son of Nahash who succeeded him was Hanun. S. A. Cook (AJSL xvi. 164) suggests that the text of 2 S 17:27 is corrupt, and that it originally read ‘and Nahash came,’ instead of ‘Shobi, son of Nahash.’ The very existence of Shobi seems, therefore, uncertain. If, however, the present text of Samuel is sound, it is a better historical authority than Chronicles.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

SHOCK, STACK.—In Jg 15:5 the former, and in Ex 22:5 the latter, is in AV the rendering of the same word—RV uniformly ‘shocks,’—which in both places is opposed to the ‘standing corn’ or ‘standing grain’ (so Amer. RV for ‘corn’ throughout). The former, at least, is misleading, since the Hebrews did not set up their sheaves in shocks (Scoticé ‘stooks’), but piled them in heaps for conveyance to the threshing-floor (AGRICULTURE, § 3). So in the beautiful figure, Job 5:25, render ‘like as a heap of corn cometh up (to the threshing-floor) in its season.’

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SHOE.—See DRESS, § 6, where also reference is made to the custom, widely prevalent in antiquity, of removing the shoes before entering a temple, or other sacred precinct, in order to save the latter from ceremonial defilement. (For the original motive see RS²453.)

The shoe played a part, further, in certain symbolical actions in Hebrew law. Thus in Ru 4:7 we are informed that it was an ancient custom in Israel, on completing a purchase, for the seller to draw off his shoe and hand it to the buyer, as a symbol of the transference of the property sold. A parallel symbolism is disclosed by the frequent occurrence, in early Babylonian deeds of sale dealing with house property, of the phrase, ‘the pestle [of the mortar] has been transferred’ (Meissner, Aus dem attbab. Recht, 6). In times when writing was the accomplishment of the few, such a symbolic act in the presence of witnesses was doubtless held equivalent to the later formal deeds (Jer 32:9ff.).

The same passage of Ruth and Dt 25:9ff. shows that this symbolism, somewhat differently performed, with another still more expressive, was also adopted in the case of one renouncing his right to his deceased brother’s wife (See MARRIAGE, § 4).

In the expression ‘upon [or over] Edom will I cast my shoe’ (Ps 60:8, 108:9) many authorities find a reference to an extension of this shoe symbolism, the actual taking possession of the property being symbolized by throwing a shoe over or upon it. Others, however, rendering as RVm ‘unto Edom,’ see in the words an assertion of Edom’s servitude, it being the part of a slave to carry his master’s shoes. The context and the singular ‘shoe’ (not ‘shoes’) favour the former interpretation.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SHOHAM.—A Merarite (1 Ch 24:27).

SHOMER.—1. 1 Ch 7:32. See SHEMER, No. 3, 2. 2 K 12:21. See SHIMEATH.

SHOPHACH.—See SHOBACH.

SHOSHANNIM, SHOSHANNIM-EDUTH.—See PSALMS, p. 772^a.

SHOVEL.—1. Ex 27:3, 38:3, Nu 4:14, 1 K 7:40, 45, 2 K 25:14, 2 Ch 4:11, 16, Jer 52:18, of a utensil for removing the ashes from the altar. 2. Is 30:24, for the broad, shallow, winnowing shovel with which corn after threshing was thrown up against the wind to clear it of the chaff.

SHRINE.—See DIANA.

SHROUD.—This word is used in Ezk 31:3 in the general sense of ‘shelter’ ‘covering,’ as in

Milton’s Comus, 147—‘Run to your shrouds, within these brakes and trees.’

SHUA.—1. The father of Judah’s Canaanite wife (Gn 38:2, 12) , who appears in 1 Ch 2:3 (RV) as Bath-shua. 2. A daughter of Heber (1 Ch 7:32).

SHUAH.—A son of Abraham and Keturah, Gn 25:2, 1 Ch 1:32. The tribe represented by this name may perhaps be the Suchu of the cuneiform inscriptions, on the right bank of the Euphrates. Bildad the Shuhite ( Job 2:11, 8:1, 18:1, 25:1, 42:9) is prob. intended to be thought of as belonging to this tribe.

SHUAL.—An Asherite (1 Ch 7:36).

SHUAL, LAND OF.—A region referred to in 1 S 13:17 as the destination of one of the three bands of Philistine raiders. The close connexion of Ophrah with the district named indicates that this was one of its towns.

H. L. WILLETT.

SHUBAEL.—See SHEBUEL.

SHUHAH.—A brother of Chelub (1 Ch 4:11).

SHUHAM.—A son of Dan (Nu 26:42), called in Gn 46:23 Hushim; gentilic Shuhamites in Nu 26:42.

SHUHITE.—See SHUAH.

SHULAMMITE.—See SHUNEM, SONG OF SONGS.

SHUMATHITES.—A family of Kiriath-jearim (1 Ch 2:53).

SHUNAMMITE.—See next article.

SHUNEM.—A border town of Issachar (Jos 19:18), and the camping-ground of the

Philistines before Saul’s last battle (1 S 28:4). It has been identified from early times with Sōlam, a village five miles south of Tabor, on the south slope of Little Hermon. It is on the north of the Valley of Jezreel, and opposite to Gilboa, where Saul was encamped; the situation suits the scene of the battle well. A Shunem is also the scene of Elisha’s miracle in 2 K 4:8ff., where the identification is more doubtful. The narrative suggests a place on the road from Samaria, his home (v. 1), to Carmel, and not too far from the latter (v. 25ff.); Solam satisfies neither of these conditions. Shunammite is applied (1) to Abishag (1 K 1:2), who is perhaps the original of the Shulammite of Ca 6:13, the interchange of t and n being exemplified in the modern Solam =

Shunem; (2) to the unnamed friend of Elisha in 2 K 4:8ff., 8:1–6 . The narrative gives us a picture of Heb. home-life at its best, and shows how the legal and theoretical subjection of the wife was often modified in practice. She is ‘a great woman,’ perhaps an heiress, and takes the lead in both stories; by the time of the latter she may have been a widow. For the miracle, cf. 1 K 17:8ff..

C. W. EMMET.

SHUNI.—A son of Gad (Gn 46:16, Nu 26:15 (24) [gentilic Shunites]).

SHUPHAM, SHUPHAMITES, SHUPPIM.—See MUPPIM and SHEPHUPHAM.

SHUR.—A place or district on the N.E. border of Egypt (Gn 16:7, 20:1, 25:18, Ex 15:22, 1 S 15:7, 27:8). The name in Aramaic means ‘wall,’ and, as Egyp. th is regularly rendered by sh in

Aramaic, Shur is probably the Egyp. city Thor ( the vocalization is uncertain), a fortress near the N.E. frontier, and capital of the 14th nome of Lower Egypt. This Thor lay on a stream or canal named Shi-Hōr (See SHIHOR) , and malefactors were sent thither after having their noses cut off. It is tempting to identify it with Rhinocorura (See EGYPT [RIVER OF]) , but it was on the banks of a fresh-water canal and 10 days’ march from Gaza. Perhaps it is the later Sele, near el-Kantara, on the Suez Canal.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

SHUSHAN (Dn 8:2, Neh 1:1 etc.).—The Susa (Ad. Est 11:3) of the Greeks, now Sus or Shush in S. W. Persia, between the Shapur and the river of Dizful (the ancient Koprates). It was for many centuries the capital of Elam, and afterwards one of the three capitals of the Persian empire. Cf. also ELAM.

SHUSHANCHITES, i.e. inhabitants of Shushan (Susa), are mentioned in Ezr 4:9 among the colonists settled by Osnappar (Ashurbanipal) in Samaria.

SHUSHAN-EDUTH.—See PSALMS, p. 772^a.

SHUTHELAH.—One of the three clans of the tribe of Ephraim (Nu 26:35, [gentilic Shuthelahite] 36). In the parallel passage, 1 Ch 7:20, 21, the foundation text has been expanded and mis-written.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SHUTTLE.—Only Job 7:6, where it is doubtful whether the reference is to the shuttle-rod of the loom or to the loom itself. The Heb. word has the latter meaning in its only other occurrence, Jg 16:14. See SPINNING AND WEAVING, §§ 3 and 4 (b).

SIA (Neh 7:47) or SIAHA (Ezr 2:44).—A family of Nethinim (1 Es 5:29 Sua) who returned with Zerubbabel.

SIBBECAI.—See MEBUNNAI.

SIBBOLETH.—See SHIBBOLETH.

SIBMAH.—See SEBAM.

SIBRAIM.—A point on the ideal northern boundary of the Holy Land (Ezk 47:16); site uncertain.

Cf. ZIPHNON.

SICCUTH.—A word which is found in parallelism with Chiun in Am 5:26. The present form is probably due to the Massoretic combination of the consonants of Sakkuth with the vowels of shiqquts (‘abomination’)—the same vocalization which we find in Chiun. Sakkut is another name for the Assyr. god Ninib, god of the planet Saturn. Kaiwanu (Chiun) is also a name of Ninib. This would make Chiun and Siccuth synonymous—or at least different manifestations of the same deity. As evidence that this is the correct reading of the names, Rogers points out that the Babylonians themselves invoked Sakkut and Kaiwanu together, just as they appear in

Amos. (See CHIUN and REPHAN.)

W. M. NESBIT.

SICK, SICKNESS.—See MEDICINE.

SICKLE.—The Hebrew sickles (Dt 16:9, 23:25 etc.) or reaping-hooks were successively of flint, bronze, and iron, and set in handles of bone or wood. In Palestine the flint sickle goes back to the later Stone age (Vincent, Canaan d’après t’exploration récente, 388 ff. with illust.); a specimen was found by Bliss at Lachish. Similar flint sickles, with bone hafts, have been found in Egypt. The ancient sickles were of two kinds, according as the cutting edge was plain or toothed; the modern Palestinian reaping-hook is of the latter kind and somewhat elaborately curved (illust. Benzinger, Heb. Arch.²141) . In Jer 50:16 the reaper is described as ‘he that handleth the sickle’ (maggāl, AVm ‘scythe,’ which is also wrongly given as an alternative in AVm of Is 2:4, Mic 4:3 for ‘pruning hooks’). The same word is rendered ‘sickle’ in Jl 3:18 ‘put ye in the sickle, for the vintage is ripe’ (RVm), where the context, the LXX rendering, and the same figure in Rev 14:19, 20 all show that the reference is to the smaller but similarly shaped grape-knife, expressly named maggāl in the Mishna, with which the grape-gatherer cut off the bunches of ripe grapes.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SICYON.—This was one of the numerous places written to by the Romans on behalf of the Jews in B.C. 139 (1 Mac 15:23). It was situated on the Gulf of Corinth, about 18 miles W. of Corinth. It was distinguished in plastic art, and was in early times very important and wealthy, but sank to insignificance early in the Christian era.

A. SOUTER.

SIDDIM, VALE OF.—The scene of the defeat of the five Canaaoite kings by Amraphel and his three allies (Gn 14:8ff.). It is described as full of ‘slime pits’ or bitumen wells, i.e. holes in the ground from which there issued petroleum, which, when exposed to the air, hardened into solid bitumen. In the rout of the five kings by the four, these holes proved disastrous to the forces of the former, hampering them in their efforts to escape (Gn 14:10). The battlefield is doubtless thought of as being in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea, where bitumen is still abundant, masses of it, which have been detached from the bottom, being often found floating on the surface after shocks of earthquake; and the Vale of Siddim is expressly identified in Gn 14:3 with the Dead Sea by the explanatory insertion, ‘the same is the Salt Sea.’ If by this is meant that the vale was co-extensive with the Dead Sea, the statement must be erroneous, for the greater part of the Dead Sea (the N. half of which has in places a depth of 1300 feet) is the remains of an inland sea which existed ‘long before the appearance of man on the earth,’ and consequently long before the age of Abraham. But it is possible that the Vale of Siddim is intended to be identified with only a portion of the Dead Sea; and those who consider Sodom and the other four ‘cities of the plain’ to have been situated at the S. end of the Dead Sea (where the morass of esSebkha now is) have taken the site of Siddim to be the southern portion of the Sea itself, which is very shallow and may once have been dry ground that has been covered by water through subsidence (cf. art. ‘Siddim’ in Hastings’ DB) . By other observers, however, the shallows at the southern extremity of the lake are thought to be the result of elevation rather than of submersion; and if Sodom and the other four cities associated with it were situated at its N. end, a barren plain, in its N.W. corner, may have been the scene of the engagement recorded in Gn 14.

G. W. WADE.

SIDE, a Greek colony, was situated on the coast of Pamphylia, on a low promontory about 10 miles E. of the river Eurymedon. It had two harbours and was well fortified. The remains are extensive and interesting (Eski Adalia). It was one of the cities addressed on behalf of the Jews by the Romans in B.C. 139 (1 Mac 15:23).

A. SOUTER.

SIDON.—See ZIDON.

SIEGE.—See FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT.

SIEVE.—See AGRICULTURE, 3.

SIGN.—Any outward fact which serves as a pledge of a Divine word or a proof of a Divine deed is a sign, whether it be natural or supernatural in its character. The rainbow served as the sign of the Noahic, as the rite of circumcision of the Abrahamic, covenant (Gn 9:12, 17:11 ‘token,’ Ro 4:11). That God was with, and worked for, the Israelites was shown in the plagues of

Egypt (Ex 10:2). Gideon asks for and receives a sign that it is Jehovah who speaks with him (Jg 6:17) , and Saul also receives signs to confirm the words of Samuel (1 S 10:7). The prophetic word is thus proved from God (Is 7:14, 38:7, Jer 44:29, Ezk 14:8). The sign need not be supernatural (1 S 2:34, Is 8:18, 20:3); but the Jews in the time of Christ desired miracles as proofs of Divine power (Mt 12:38, 16:1, Jn 4:48, 1 Co 1:22), a request which Jesus refused and condemned. The message of the Baptist, though not confirmed by any sign, was seen to be true ( Jn 10:41). It is Jonah’s preaching that is probably referred to when Jesus speaks of him as a sign to his generation (Mt 12:39). The ‘babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger,’ is the simple and humble sign to the shepherds of the birth of a Saviour, Christ the Lord (Lk 2:12); and He is welcomed by Simeon as ‘a sign which is spoken against’ (v. 34). The Fourth Gospel frequently describes the miracles of Jesus as signs (3:2 , 4:44), and attributes to them an evidential value which is not prominent in Jesus’ own intention. This confirmation of the gospel was found in the Apostolic Church (Mk 16:20, Ac 4:16, 6:3, 8:6, 13, 15:12, 2 Co 12:12). The last things will be ushered in by extraordinary signs (Mt 24:30, Lk 21:25, 2 Th 2:9—the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, Rev 12:1, 13:13 etc.). The faith that depends on signs, if not altogether condemned (Jn 6:26), is by Jesus deprecated (4:48, cf. 1 Co 1:22) . Cf.

also p. 568^b.

ALFRED E. GARVIE.

SIGNET.—See SEAL.

SIHON.—A king of the Amorites at the time of the conquest of Canaan. His dominion lay beyond the Jordan, between Jabbok on the N. and Arnon on the S., extending eastward to the desert (Jg 11:22). He refused to allow Israel to pass through his land, and was defeated at Jahaz (Nu 21:21–24, Dt 2:26–36, Jg 11:19–22). Heshbon, his capital, was taken; and his land, along with that of Og king of Bashan, became the possession of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. Frequent reference is made to his defeat (Nu 32:33, Dt 1:4, 3:2, 6, 4:46, 47, 29:7, 31:4 , Jos 2:10, 9:10, 12:2, 13:10, 21, 27, 1 K 4:19, Neh 9:22, Ps 135:11, 136:19). Sihon in Jer 48:45 stands for Heshbon, the city of Sihon.

W. F. BOYD.

SILAS (Acts) and SILVANUS (Epistles).—There can be little doubt that the Silvanus of the Pauline Epistles (2 Co 1:19, 1 Th 1:1, 2 Th 1:1) is the same as the Silas of Acts.

Probably Silas is an abbreviation, like Lucas (Luke), Hermas, Amplias, Epaphras, Nymphas. etc. In

Acts we find many such familiar names (cf. esp. Priscilla in Acts = Prisca Ro 16:3 RV, Sopater Ac 20:4 = Sosipater Ro 16:21). We might indeed have expected ‘Silvas’ not ‘Silas,’ but these abbreviations are very irregular. It has been suggested that Silas was the real name, and of Semitic origin, while Silvanus was adopted for a Roman name as being similar in sound; but then we should have expected for the latter ‘Silanus,’ not Silvanus.

Silas was a Christian prophet (Ac 15:32), one of the ‘chief men among the brethren’ ( therefore doubtless of Jewish birth), who with ‘Judas called Barsabbas’ was sent as a delegate from the Apostolic Council with Paul and Barnabas, to convey the decision of the Council (15:22ff.) . He was also probably a Roman citizen (16:37), though this inference is denied by some. It is uncertain if he returned from Antioch to Jerusalem (15:34 is of doubtful authenticity), but in any case he was soon after chosen by Paul to go with him on the Second Journey, taking Barnabas’ place, while Timothy afterwards took John Mark’s. For this work Silas’ double qualification as a leading Jewish Christian and a Roman citizen would eminently fit him. He accompanied Paul through S. Galatia to Troas, Philippi (where he was imprisoned), Thessalonica, and Berœa. When Paul went to Athens, Silas and Timothy were left behind, perhaps to bring the latest news from Thessalonica (in case it was possible for the Apostle to return thither), with injunctions to follow at once; and this they probably did. But they seem to have been sent back on a mission to Macedonia (1 Th 3:1: Paul was ‘left behind at Athens alone’), Timothy to Thessalonica, Silas perhaps to Philippi; they rejoined Paul at Corinth, and are associated with him in the letters, probably written thence, to the Thessalonians. Here Silas disappears from the Pauline history. But there is no reason for suspecting a defection like that of Mark; the cordial reference to his former preaching in 2 Co 1:19 (written on the Third Journey) contradicts this. We afterwards find him attending on St. Peter, acting as bearer and perhaps scribe of his First Epistle (1 P 5:12); for there is no reason to suppose that the Petrine Mark and Silvanus were other than those connected with St. Paul. Whether this attendance was before or after the death of St. Paul depends on the date we give to 1 Peter; see a full Excursus in Dr. Bigg’s edition of that Epistle.

A. J. MACLEAN.

SILK.—See DRESS, 1.

SILLA.—The servants of king Joash smote him ‘at the house of Millo [read rather ‘at BethMillo’] on the way that goeth down to Silla’ (2 K 12:20). Where or what Silla may have been there is nothing to show. The LXX reads Gaalla or Gaallad.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

SILOAM (‘waters of Shiloah,’ Is 8:6; ‘pool of Siloah’ [RV Shelah] , Neh 3:15; ‘tower in

Siloam,’ Lk 13:4; ‘pool of Siloam,’ Jn 9:7; probably identical with the ‘king’s pool’ of Neh 2:14).—The name survives to-day in Silwān, the name of the village which occupies the steep E. slopes of the valley of the Kidron from opposite the ‘Virgin’s Fount’ (Gihon) to near Bīr Eyyub (En-rogel). The village consists of a northern, older section inhabited by Moslem fellahīn, and a small, southern quarter belonging to immigrant Yemenite Jews from Arabia, while still farther down the valley is an isolated row of huts allotted to the lepers. All the site now occupied by the fellahīn has been built upon in ancient times, and the whole area is riddled with cave dwellings, cisterns, rock-cut steps, and ancient tombs. Some of the caves have apparently served the purposes successively of tombs and chapels, while to-day they are dwellings or store-houses. It may be considered as certain that in NT times, and probably for some centuries earlier, there was a considerable village in this situation. The ‘tower’ which fell (Lk 13:4) may have been a building similar to many to-day perched on the edge of the precipitous rocks above the Kidron. Immediately across the valley, to the N. of Siloam, in the very bed of the Kidron, is the Virgin’s Fount (See GIHON) , the original spring of Jerusalem. In early times the water of this spring, after probably filling a pool here, ran down the valley; at a later period the surplus supply was conducted by an aqueduct built along the N. side of the valley (partially excavated near its W. end), to a spot where is situated to-day a dry pool known as Birket el-Hamra. Remains of this aqueduct have been traced. As the water supply was, under this arrangement, vulnerable to attack, king Hezekiah ‘stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David’ (2 Ch 32:30; cf. 32:4, 2 K 20:20). The work thus described is the famous Siloam tunnel, 1700 feet long. This runs in an extraordinarily serpentine course from the Virgin’s Fount, and opens in the Tyropœon Valley under the name ‘Ain Silwān, or the ‘Spring of Siloam,’ to pour its waters into the pool known as Birket es-Silwān, or the ‘Pool of Siloam.’ These may have been ‘the waters of Shiloah that go softly,’ a great contrast to the mighty Euphrates (Is 8:6, 7). Close to the lower opening of the tunnel was found, in 1880, a Heb.

inscription giving an account of the completion of the work. Although undated, there is every reason to believe that this is a contemporary account of Hezekiah’s work, and if so, it is the oldest Heb. inscription known.

The original Pool of Siloam, of which the present Birket occupies but a part, was excavated by Dr. F. Bliss, and was shown to have been a rock-cut reservoir 71 feet N. to S. by 75 feet E. to W.; and just outside its W. edge was found a flight of ancient rock-cut steps, probably those mentioned in Neh 3:15. A covered arcade, 12 feet wide, had been built, probably about NT times, round the four sides of the pool, and a division ran across the centre to separate the sexes when bathing. Such was probably the condition of the pool at the time of the events of Jn 9:7. The surplus water of the pool leaves by a sluice at its S. end, and traverses a rock-cut channel to reach the gardens of the Siloam villagers. S. of the Birket es-Silwān is a walled-in area which in recent times was a kind of cesspool for the city, the sewage coming down the Tyropœon Valley (now diverted to its proper sewer again) being there stopped by a great dam across the valley. On this dam, at one period, ran the city wall, and Dr. Bliss proved by excavations that it was supported by buttresses of great strength. The area shut off by this dam is the so-called ‘lower Pool of Siloam’ or Birket el-Hamra, and may have been used at one time to store surplus waters from the upper pool. Probably it was the ‘reservoir’ (RV) or ‘ditch’ (AV) ‘between the two walls, for the water of the old pool’ ( Is 22:11), that is, the reservoir to which the water from the ‘old pool’ at Gihon was conducted by the earlier aqueduct referred to above, while the dam itself is with some probability considered to be the ‘wall of the pool of Siloah by the ‘king’s garden’ (Neh 3:15). The water of the ‘Ain Silwān is naturally, like that of its source (Gihon), brackish and impregnated with sewage; it also runs intermittently.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SILVANUS.—See SILAS.

SILVER.—See MINING AND METALS.

SILVERLING.—Only Is 7:23, where the original reads ‘a thousand of silver,’ the denomination to be supplied being ‘shekels’ (See MONEY, p. 628^b).

SIMEON (Lk 3:30, Ac 13:1, 15:14 Symeon).—1. The second son of Jacob and Leah (Gn

29:33 [J]). By R he, together with Levi, is closely related to Dinah, she being a full sister (cf. 34). From Gn 30:20 (E) we learn that he had five full brothers, but we are not told how many other sisters or half-sisters he had. J (Gn 37:35) speaks of ‘all’ Jacob’s ‘daughters,’ but their names are nowhere recorded (cf. 46:7 [P]). J, who is specially inclined to etymologizing (see RVm of Gn 3:20 , 4:1, 25, 5:29, 11:9, 16:11, 14 etc.), connects the name, as in the case of Reuben, with Jacob’s ‘hatred’ of Leah: ‘Because Jahweh hath heard (shāma‘) that I am hated, etc., and she called his name Shim ‘ōn’ (29:33). The meaning of the name is unknown, but it has been connected by many scholars with the Arabic sim‘, the hybrid offspring of the hyæna and the female wolf. This word sim‘ appears as a tribal name among the Arabs, and it is well known that numerous tribal names are those of animals; Leah and Rachel probably belong to this class. In such cases the names probably point to the totem worship of the ancestors. If the name appears, as is supposed by some scholars, in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, it may be of importance in connexion with the history of the tribe, but no light is derived from the form as to its meaning.

In the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 49) Simeon is coupled with Levi ( wh. see) as sharing in the curse of Jacob and in the consequent dispersion of the tribe among the other tribes of Israel. This is an indication that at the time the ‘Blessing’ was composed, the tribe was practically dissolved. P’s census of the tribes ascribes 59,300 fighting men to Simeon at Sinai (Nu 1:23). At Moab there were only 22,200 (26:14)—another indication of the future fortune of the tribe. Jg 1:3, 17 makes Simeon join with Judah, at the latter’s request, in making the first attack upon the Canaanites, over whom they won a decisive victory at Bezek. Judah in return was to aid Simeon in gaining his possession. Together they attacked and defeated the inhabitants of Zephathhormah. Hormah is connected with Arad (Nu 21:1–6) about 17 miles to the S.E. of Hebron. Hormah in Jos 15:30 is assigned to the tribe of Judah, but re-appears in 19:4 as a city of Simeon.

We are not told in Judges of the settlement of Simeon, but it is implied in the Dinah story (Gn 34) that both he and Levi secured a temporary foothold about Shechem. On account of their treachery, however, they were dispossessed and well-nigh annihilated by the revenge taken upon them by the Canaanites. Levi was permanently shattered; Simeon, however, managed to recover sufficiently to establish itself on the southern border of Judah. There, however; they came into contact with nomad tribes of Edomites and Arabs—a circumstance which doubtless contributed to their failure to rehabilitate themselves and win a permanent abode among the original occupants of the land. They are not mentioned in the Song of Deborah (Jg 5), but this may be accounted for by their position. Judah also had no part in that important struggle, and is passed over in silence. In historical times nothing is heard of them, and the conclusion is justified that they eventually became merged with the neighbouring tribes, and were later, with them, absorbed by Judah, as Reuben was afterwards by Gad. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the cities which are assigned to Simeon in the list given in Jos 19:1–9 re-appear elsewhere as cities of Judah (cf. Jos 15:26–32, 42, 1 K 19:3, Neh 11:26–29 , 1 S 27:6, 30:30). In connexion with David’s ventures to win over the Edomites and other tribes to the south, the name of

Simeon does not appear, as might have been expected if the tribe had preserved its solidarity.

According to 1 Ch 4:39ff., Simeonites advanced against Gedor and Mt. Seir, in the time of

Hezekiah apparently, and there secured permanent possessions. Instead of Gedor, the LXX reads Gerar, the name of the Philistine city of Abimelech. It must be admitted that our sources are too uncertain and, too indefinite to enable us to speak decisively on almost any point of interest in connexion with this tribe. On the one hand, too much credence is given to statements of late writers, as though they furnished indubitable evidence; on the other hand, far-reaching conclusions are often drawn from fragmentary and isolated expressions, both Biblical and extraBiblical, which are little warranted. See also TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

2. The great-grandfather of Judas Maccabæus (1 Mac 2:1). 3. The ‘righteous and devout’ (dikaios kai eulabēs) man who took the infant Jesus in his arms and blessed Him, on the occasion of the presentation in the Temple (Lk 2:25ff.). The notion that this Simeon is to be Identified with a Rabbi who was the son of Hillel and the father of Gamaliel I. is very precarious.

JAMES A. CRAIG.

SIMON (a Greek form of Simeon).—1. Simon Chosameus, who was found to have a ‘strange’ wife (1 Es 9:32 = Ezr 10:31 Simeon). 2. The subject of the encomium in Sir 50:1ff., ‘son of Onias, the great (or high) priest.’ It is doubtful if Simon I. or Simon II. (both 3rd cent.

B.C.) is meant. 3. The Maccabæan high priest and ethnarch, son of Mattathias, slain by his sonin-law Ptolemy, B.C. 135 (1 Mac 16:16; See MACCABEES, 4). 4. A Benjamite, guardian of the Temple in the time of Onias III., who suggested to Apollonius, the governor, to plunder it (2 Mac

3:4). 5. See PETER. 6. See SIMON MAGUS. 7. Simon the Cananæan, one of the Twelve (Mt 10:4,

Mk 3:13). The surname is an Aramaic equivalent of ‘Zealot’ (Lk 6:15, Ac 1:13). 8. See

BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 9. Simon the Leper, our Lord’s host at Bethany (Mt 26:6, Mk 14:3 ; cf. Jn 12:2), possibly husband or father of Martha, doubtless cured of his leprosy at some time before the anointing by Mary (cf. MARY, 2). 10. The Pharisee who was our Lord’s host when the sinful woman anointed Him (Lk 7:40). The contradictions between these two stories are so great that it is difficult to suppose that they relate the same event in different versions. Two such incidents may well have happened, and one may have suggested the other (cf. MARY, 2). 11. Father, or brother, of Judas Iscariot, himself surnamed Iscariot (Jn 6:71, 13:26 ‘Judas of Simon

Iscariot,’ 13:2 ‘Judas Iscariot of Simon’). 12. The Cyrenian who bore our Lord’s cross (Mt

27:32, Mk 15:21, Lk 23:26); See ALEXANDER and RUFUS. The followers of Basilides in the 2nd cent. said that Simon was crucified instead of Jesus. 13. The tanner, Peter’s host at Joppa (Ac 9:43).

A. J. MACLEAN

SIMON MAGUS.—Mentioned in Ac 8:9–24 , and described as using sorcery in Samaria and thereby amazing the people. He claimed to be ‘some great one,’ and was regarded by all as ‘that power of God which is called Great.’ When Philip reached Samaria, and, preaching the gospel, gathered many into the Church, Simon also fell under the influence of his message. We are told that he ‘believed,’ which cannot mean less than that he recognized that the Evangelist exerted, in the name of Jesus Christ, powers the reality of which he could not deny, and the efficacy of which ‘amazed’ him. He therefore sought baptism, and, being baptized, continued with Philip. The Apostles Peter and John came down to Samaria to establish the work begun by Philip, and by the laying on of their hands gave the Holy Ghost to the converts. This was no doubt evidenced by the miraculous gifts which were vouchsafed by God to His Church during its early years. The shallowness of Simon’s belief was now shown, for he offered to buy from the Apostles the power of conferring the Holy Ghost. Peter rebuked him in language of such sternness as to lead him to beg of the Apostle to pray that the judgment of God might not fall upon him for his sin.

Simon holds the unenviable position of being the one outstanding heretic in the NT: and from then until now his character has been held in particular odium. Ignatius, the earliest of the Fathers, calls him ‘the firstborn of Satan’: Irenæus marks him out as the first of all heretics: and later centuries have shown their sense of the greatness of his sin by using the word simony to indicate the crime of procuring a spiritual office by purchase. Justin Martyr mentions three times in his Apology, and once in his Dialogue, a Simon as a leader of an heretical sect. He states that Gitta, a village in Samaria, was his birthplace, and speaks of him as visiting Rome, and being so successful in his magical impostures as to have secured worship for himself as God, and to have been honoured with a statue, which bore the inscription SIMONI DEO SANCTO ( ‘to Simon the Holy God’). He further mentions that ‘almost all the Samaritans, and even a few of other nations,’ worshipped him as ‘first God’ (cf. Ac 8:10 ‘this man is that power of God which is called Great’). He also adds that Helena, a fallen woman who accompanied him, was ‘the first idea generated by him.’ Justin does not specifically identify this Simon with the Simon of the Acts, but there can be no reasonable doubt that he held them to be one and the same.

There was discovered in Rome in 1574 the base of a statue bearing the inscription ‘Semoni Sanco Deo fidio sacrum Sex. Pompejus … donum dedit.’ It is therefore generally assumed’ and no doubt correctly, that Justin, being shown by the Simonians at Rome this statue of the Sabine deity Semo Sancus, was led to believe erroneously that it had been erected in honour of Simon. But this error of his regarding what had occurred in Rome need not invalidate his statements regarding Simon himself in Samaria and the progress and tenets of his sect, for he himself was a Samaritan and thus cognizant of the facts. Irenæus deals more fully with Simon and his followers, though there is good reason for assuming that he is really indebted to a lost work of Justin for his information. He directly identifies him with the Simon of Ac 8, places him first in his list of heretics, and makes him the father of Gnosticism. From the account he gives of the doctrines of the Simonians, it is clear that by his time they had developed into a system of

Gnosticism; but it is very doubtful whether he is right in making the Simon of the NT the first setter forth of Gnostic myths. The beginning of Gnosticism is very obscure, but we may be fairly certain that it had not arisen as early as the scenes described in Ac 8. The Simonian doctrines as given by Irenæus are therefore doubtless developments of the heretical teaching of Simon, which, even from the short account in the Acts, would seem to have lent itself readily to Gnostic accretions. As time went on many fanciful additions were made to his history, until in the 4th cent. the legend reached its completeness. Throughout these romances Simon is found travelling about from place to place in constant opposition to Peter, uttering calumnies against the Apostle; but being pursued by Peter he is ultimately vanquished and discredited. The earlier forms of the story lay the scene of the travels chiefly in Asia Minor, and describe the final conflict as taking place at Antioch. The later forms, however, make Rome, in the days of Nero, the ultimate goal of the journeyings. Here Simon is said to have met his death through his conflict with Peter or with Peter and Paul. By one tradition the magician, seeing his influence waning, desired his followers to bury him in a grave, promising to rise again the third day. They obeyed, and he perished, for, as Hippolytus adds,’ he was not the Christ.’ By another tradition Simon is depicted as deciding to give to the Emperor a crowning proof of his magical powers by attempting to fly off to God. He is reported to have flown for a certain distance over Rome, but, through Peter’s prayers, to have fallen and broken his leg, and to have been ultimately stoned to death by the populace. Another form of the tradition represented Paul as a companion of Peter in the contest, and as praying while Peter adjured the demons that supported Simon in his flight, in the name of God and of Jesus Christ, to uphold him no longer. Simon thereupon fell to the earth and perished.

Renewed interest in the history of Simon was aroused in modern times by Baur’s maintaining that in the Clementine literature, where the most developed form of the legend occurs, Simon is intended to represent not the actual Simon of the Acts, but rather Paul, whom he (Baur) conceived to have been fiercely opposed theologically to Peter. Full information on this theory may be found in Hastings’ DB iv.

523f., where its unsoundness is shown. It may be said to be now generally rejected.

It should be added that Hippolytus ascribes a work entitled ‘The Great Revelation’ to Simon, and quotes largely from it; and that the sect of the Simonians did not long survive, for Origeo states that he did not believe that there were in his day thirty of them in existence.

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

SIMPLICITY

1. In the OT ‘simple’ is, with one exception, the translation of a word (pĕthī), whose rootidea is ‘openness.’ Openness of mind is praiseworthy when it implies willingness to receive instruction; it becomes blameworthy when it connotes a disposition equally receptive of good and of evil, or an incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong. In Proverbs ‘the simple’ are represented as needing ‘prudence’ (1:4 RVm), and they are exhorted to ‘understand prudence’ (8:5 RVm). In 14:15, 18 ‘the prudent’ are favourably contrasted with ‘the simple’ who ‘believe every word,’ and therefore ‘inherit folly.’ It is ‘the testimony of the Lord’ that makes the simple wise (Ps 19:7; cf. 119:130). In 2 S 15:11 ‘simplicity’ means ‘integrity’ (tōm) . In the LXX the Heb. word (yōsher) for ‘straightness’ or ‘uprightness’ is translated by the NT equivalent of ‘simplicity’ (haplotēs).

2. In the NT ‘simple’ (akeraios = Lat. integer) is used twice (Mt 10:16 RVm, Ro 16:19) to describe the character in which there is ‘no foreign admixture’; the RV retains ‘simplicity’ as the rendering of haplotēs only in 2 Co 11:3, where it denotes those in whose character there are ‘no folds,’ who are whole-hearted in their devotion to Christ (Trench, NT Synonyms, § lvi.). The Christian ideal is ‘simplicity toward Christ’ (2 Co 11:3). In the life of His loyal disciples dovelike simplicity is blended with the wisdom of the serpent (Mt 10:16). Their ‘eye’ being ‘single’ (haplous) , their ‘whole body’ is ‘full of light’ (Mt 6:22). Christ Jesus being made unto them ‘wisdom from God’ (1 Co 1:30), they are no longer beguiled like Eve, but are ‘wise unto that which is good, and simple unto that which is evil’ (Ro 16:19).

J. G. TASKER.

SIN.—The teaching of the Bible with regard to the doctrine of sin may be said to involve a desire, on the part of the leaders of Jewish thought, to give a rational account of the fact, the consciousness, and the results of human error. Whatever be the conclusion arrived at respecting the compilation of the early chapters of Genesis, one thought, at least, clearly emerges: the narratives are saturated through and through with religious conceptions. Omnipotence, sovereignty, condescending active love, and perfect moral harmony, all find their place in the narratives there preserved, as attributes of the Divine character. The sublime conception of human dignity and worth is such that, in spite of all temptation to the contrary belief, it remains to-day as a firmly rooted, universally received verity, that man is made ‘in the image of God’ ( Gn 1:27).

I. THE OLD TESTAMENT

1. The early narratives.—It is remarkable that in the story of the Fall the writer (J) attributes the sin to a positive act of conscious disobedience to God, and not only so, but he regards it as an entity standing over against ‘good’ (2:17), This is more clearly brought out in the same writer’s narrative of the murder of Abel, where sin is represented as ‘couching at the door,’ lying in wait for the overthrow of the sullen homicide (4:7). The profound psychological truth that the power of sin grows in the character of him who yields to its dictates is also noticed in this story. Falsehood and selfishness and defiance of God are heard in Cain’s answer to the Divine voice. These stories are the beginning of the history of a long process of development which resulted in the Flood. From individual acts of wrong-doing we are brought face to face with the condition, ‘every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually’ (6:5). Hitherto God is represented as commanding, punishing, pleading with man, and even encouraging him with hopes of future restoration (3:15). The growth and arrogance of sin in the human race became so pronounced and universal that He is said to have rejected man completely, and in His wrath to have destroyed His creation, which was infected by man’s corruption. He is ‘grieved at his heart,’ and is repentant for having ‘made man on the earth’ (6:6f.). The same narrator, in giving the current explanation of the diversity of human language, notes another racial rebellion against God, which was punished by the overthrow of Babel (11:1–9).

A change in the Divine method of dealing with sinful man is now noticeable. The writers lead gradually up to this, beginning with Noah, whose righteousness (walk with God, cf. 6:9) stands in solitary contrast to the universal decadence. The educative elective principle enters into the relationships of God and man. A covenant is established by which these relationships are defined, and by consequence human consciousness is gradually deepened. As a result, temptation to sin becomes more formidable and many-sided. In Individual cases outside the covenant we see, indeed, evidences of a higher standard of moral obligation than that reached by the

Patriarchs (cf. Gn 12:18f., 20:9f.). At the same time, the history of Esau furnishes us with proof that already glimmerings of a more profound ethical basis upon which to build human character, than that recognized elsewhere, had begun to obtrude themselves. If in the case of Abraham ‘faith was reckoned for righteousness’ (Ro 4:9), and belief in the fidelity of God’s promises, in the face of the most untoward conditions, constituted the foundation-stone of the patriarch’s noble character, so in Esau’s case it was the lack of this belief, with the consequent inability to appreciate the dignity to which he was born, that lay at the root of his great and pathetic failure. The secret of Joseph’s power to resist temptation lay, not merely in his natural inability to be guilty of a breach of trust towards his master, but still more in his intense realization that to yield would be a ‘great wickedness and sin against God’ (Gn 39:9). Thus, while it is true to say that the dominant conception of sin in the OT is that it is the great disturbing element in the personal relations of God and man, it seems to have been realized very early that the chief scope for its exercise lay in the domain of human intercourse. The force of Abimelech’s complaint against Abraham lay in the fact that the former was guiltless of wronging the latter, whereas he was in serious danger of sinning against God in consequence of the patriarch’s duplicity.

2. The Sinaitic Law.—The next great critical point in the evolution of human consciousness of sin is reached in the promulgation of the Law from Sinai. Here the determinative process of Divine election is seen in its widest and most elaborate working. The central purpose of the Law may be considered as of a twofold character. Not only are the restrictions tabulated in order to the erection of barriers against the commission of sin (‘God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before you, that ye sin not,’ Ex 20:20), but positive enactments regulating the personal communion of God and Israel provide frequently recurring opportunities of loving and joyful service (Ex 23:14ff.). The law of restitution, as given in Ex 21–22, may be regarded as harsh in some of its enactments, hut it may be easily conceived as an immense stride forward on the road to ‘the royal law. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Ja 2:8). Nor can it be said that restitution and mutual service between God and His people are left out of sight in those chapters of Exodus which are universally recognized as containing the oldest part of the Mosaic Code. These anthropopathic conceptions of God abound, and are seen in the idea of His jealousy being roused by idolatrous practices (Ex 20:5), in the promises made to Israel that, in return for services to Jehovah, He will save His people in the face of their enemies (Ex 23:25ff.). Thus it will be easily understood that, as the Levitical and Priestly Codes were gradually elaborated into a somewhat intricate system of legal and ceremonial obligations, the nomenclature of sin in its various aspects came to he accordingly enlarged. For example, in one verse three distinct words occur in connexion with Divine forgiveness (‘forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,’ Ex 34:7) , and though there is a certain vagueness in the precise meaning to be attached to each of these words, whether it be guilt or punishment, rebellion or sin-offering, wickedness considered as a condition, or trespass, which is in the writers’ minds, the thoughts underlying each have to do with the relations between God and His people. It must not be forgotten, moreover, that the ceremonial enactments provided a circle of ideas of permanent importance in the Hebrew conception of Jehovah’s character. The law of clean and unclean animals and things paved the way for truer and nobler thoughts of God’s holiness, and of the uncleanness of sin as being its contradiction. The ‘trespass’ of Achan, involving as it did the whole of Israel in his guilt and punishment, did not consist so much in his stealing of the common spoil taken from the enemy, as in his appropriating what was ‘holy,’ or ‘devoted’ unto the service of God (Jos 7:1, 11ff.). The presence of ‘the devoted thing’ with the common property of the army dragged the whole people into a position of guilt, which could be expiated only by the death of the offender. In this way alone could they be restored to Divine favour, and their army receive Divine succour.

3. Deuteronomy and the Historical Books.—In the Deuteronomic summary of the Law, whatever be the date at which it was edited, a loftier ground of obedience is attained. Love, of God and of their fellow-men, is more explicitly dwelt on as the motive power of human life (Dt 6:5 , 10:12 etc.), and the heart is again and again referred to as the seat of that love, both passively and actively (11:18, 6:6, 10:16). The basis upon which it is rested is the fact of God’s love for them and their fathers evidenced in many vicissitudes and in spite of much to hinder its activity (4:37, 7:7f., 10:15). Though there are numerous echoes of the older conception that the keeping of God’s commandments is one side of a bargain which conditions men’s happiness and prosperity (4:24, 40, 6:15), yet we observe a lofty range of thought bringing in its train truer ideas of sin and guilt. The sternness of God is insisted on, but as having for its objective the good of His people (10:13, 6:24). It is a necessary phase of His love, compelling them to recognize that sin against God is destructive of the sinner. The ultimate aim of the Deuteronomist is the leading of men to hate sin as God hates it, and to love mercy and righteousness as and because God loves them (cf. Dt 10:18f., Lv 19:33f.) , by establishing the closest relationship and communion between Him and His people (cf. Dt 14:1f., 7:6, 26:18f., 27:9, 28:9 etc.).

One sin is specially insisted on by the Deuteronomist, namely, the sin of idolatry. No doubt this is largely due to the experience of the nation under the judges, and during the history of Israel subsequent to the great schism. The national disasters which recur so frequently during the former of these periods are always attributed to this sin; while the return of the people, under the guidance of a great representative hero, is always marked by the blessings of peace and prosperity. So in the story of the Northern Kingdom the constant refrain meets us in each succeeding reign: ‘He cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, wherewith he made Israel to sin’ (2 K 3:3, 10:29, 13:2 etc.). During the vigorous and successful reign of Ahab and Jezebel, the seeds of national decay were sown, and the historian neglects not to point out the source to which the later mournful decline may be traced (1 K 16:31). On the other hand, there is little reference to this sin during the reigns of Saul and David, and, in spite of the weaknesses of character displayed by the former, the historian pictures for us a great advance in national vigour and growth under these kings and their successors in the Southern Kingdom. The great rebellion against the Davidic dynasty is itself attributed to the declension of Solomon in his old age from the pure Jehovah-worship so zealously and consistently advocated by his father. We must remember also that, side by side with the introduction of foreign religious ideas, vice peculiar to Oriental despotism invaded the royal court and the nation of Israel. We are not, however, altogether limited to what is here inferentially taught as to national sin, with its consequent national punishment. David himself is represented as guilty of a sin which marred his character as an individual, and of an act of indiscretion which seems to have been regarded as a breach of that trust held by him as God’s vicegerent on earth. Both these cases are of interest for the light which they throw on the doctrine of sin and its consequences. In the case of Bathsheba, which was a purely personal transgression, the prophet Nathan comes not only as the hearer of a message of Divine pardon to the repentant sinner, but also as the stern judge pronouncing sentence of severe and protracted punishment. The death of the newly born child and the subsequent distractions arising out of the affair of Absalom are looked on as expressions of God’s wrath and of retributive justice (see 2 S 12:10–18) . Whatever the contemporary reasons may have been for regarding his public act as sinful, and even the reckless Joah considered it an act of wanton folly, we find the same features of repentance and forgiveness, and the same inclusion of others in the suffering consequent on its commission. The prophet Gad comes to the king as the revealer of God’s wrath and the messenger of God’s pardon (2 S 24:1–25). Into this narrative, however, another element is introduced, telling of the difficulty which was felt, even at this early stage of human history, as to the origin of sin. God is said by the early historian of David’s reign to have been the author of the king’s act, because ‘His anger was kindled against Israel’ (2 S 24:1). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at one stage of Hebrew thought God was looked on as, in some respects at least, the author of evil (cf. Ex 4:21, 7:3, 14:8, Jg 9:23, 1 S 16:14, 18:10 , 19:9). Nor ought we to be surprised at this, for the problem is one which was sure to present itself very early to the minds of thoughtful men; while the numerous instances where the commission of a sin seemed to have been made subservient by God to the exhibiting of His power and love afforded presumptive prima facie evidence that He Himself willed the act as the minister of His glory (see the history of Joseph with the writer’s comments thereon, Gn 45:5, 50:20, Ps 105:17; cf. Job 1:6–12, 2:1–7, Hos 2) . It is interesting to note the advance made in speculative thought with regard to this still unsolved, and perhaps insoluble, problem, between the time of the above-mentioned historian and that of the later Chronicler (1 Ch 21:1). Here the name of Satan or ‘Adversary’ is boldly inserted as the author of the sin, a fact which reminds us of the categorical denial of the Son of Sirach, ‘He hath not commanded any man to be ungodly; and he hath not given any man licence to sin’ (15:20). That the origin of sin continued to be debated and speculated upon down to a very late period is evidenced by the vehement warning of St. James against imputing to God the temptation to evil (Ja 1:13), and by the counter assertion that God is the Author of nothing but good (v. 17).

4. The Prophets.—By far the most important stage in the history of the OT doctrine of sin is that which is marked by the teaching of the Prophets. The four practically contemporary prophets of the 8th cent. are Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah. The first named reveals a wide outlook on the world at large, and a recognition of the prevalence and power of sin in other nations than Israel. Damascus, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab, as well as Judah and Israel, all come under the displeasure of the prophet Amos. Each had been guilty of cruelty and wrong to the people of Jehovah. The characteristic faults of these heathen peoples—lust and tyranny of the strong over the weak—had invaded Israel too. The love of money, with its attendant evils of injustice, and robbery of the poor by the wealthy, is inveighed against by both Amos and Hosea as deserving of the wrath of God (cf. Hos 12:7f., Am 4:1, 8:4ff.). This degeneracy of the people of the Northern Kingdom during the reign of Jeroboam II. was as much in evidence in the ranks of prophets and priests as among the other ruling classes, and to it, as the cause, is assigned the downfall which so speedily followed (Am 3:11, 6:1–7 , 2:7, 9:1ff., Hos 4:9, 9:7f., 5:1, Mic 3:5, 11 etc.). Both Isaiah and Micah mourn over the same moral deciension (Is 5:8, 1:18f., Mic 2:2 etc.), and it may be said that it is owing to the preaching of these four prophets that the centre of gravity, as it were, of sin is changed, and the principles of universal justice and love, as the fundamental attributes of Jehovah’s character and rule, are established. It was the prophetic function to deepen the consciousness of sin by revealing a God of moral righteousness to a people whose peculiar relationship to Jehovah involved both immense privileges and grave responsibilities (Am 3:2, Hos 3:5ff., Mic 3:1ff. etc.). Terrible, however, as were the denunciations, and emphatic as were the declarations of the prophets against the vices of greed, oppression, and lust, they were no less clear in their call to repentance, and in promises of restoration and pardon (Is 1:18f., Mic 7:18, Hos 6:1, Am 9:11ff.). The story of Jonah of Gathhepher is the revelation of a growing feeling that the righteous dominion of Jehovah was not, in the exercise of its moral influence, confined exclusively to Israel. The consciousness of sin and the power of repentance have now their place in the lives of nations outside the Abrahamic covenant.

Hitherto the prophetic teaching was largely confined to national sin and national repentance. It is not till the days of Jeremiah that the importance, in this respect, of the individual begins to manifest itself. The lament of Jeremiah, it is true, frequently expresses itself in terms of national infidelity (Jer 2:5–37, 8:7, 35:14–17, 31:28 , 32:32ff. etc.). At the same time an element of individualistic thought enters largely into his teaching (cf. 17:10, 32:19). On its darker side he notes how universally present sin is seen to be: ‘from the least even unto the greatest,’ ‘from the prophet even unto the priest’ all are infected (8:10, cf. v. 8). It is impossible to find a man either just or truth-loving (5:1); and the explanation is not far to seek, for sin is a disease which affects the individual heart, and therefore poisons the whole life of each man (cf. 13:7, 5:23, 7:24 etc.). The nature of the disease he characterizes as desperate in the awful deceit which supervenes (17:9) . A hopeless pessimism seems at times to have pervaded the prophet’s teaching, and such of the people as were aroused by his appeals were smitten by a blank despair (10:23, 2:25, 18:12, 13:23 etc.). As the prophet grows older, however, and gains a wider knowledge from his own bitter experiences, he discovers a way of escape from the overpowering influences of sin. As the heart is the seat of evil, it is found that the creative act of God can provide a remedy (31:33, 32:39 , 24:7). A new heart straight from the hand of God, beating with new and holy impulses, is the sure, as it is the only, hope for men (32:40). Every individual, from the least to the greatest, in whom the Divine activity has been at work shall have the felicity of hearing the blessed sentence, ‘I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more’ (31:34).

Following up and developing this tendency, Ezekiel is express in his declaration of the moral independence of each man. Repudiating, as Jeremiah did, the doctrine that the sin and moral guilt of the fathers are imputed to the children, he elaborates clearly and emphatically the truth, which to us seems axiomatic, that the soul of the father is personally independent of the soul of the son, with the terrible but inevitable corollary,’ the soul that sinneth, it shall die’ (Ezk 18:4, 20, cf. vv. 10–20). The profound truth which lies at the basis of the ancient belief in the close interaction of individual and racial guilt is, of course, valid for all time, and has been sanctified by the

historical fact of the Incarnation. The life, work, and death of Christ have their value in the reestablishment of this truth, and in the re-creation, as it were, of the concurrent truth of the solidarity of the whole human race (cf. the expression ‘we are all become as one that is unclean,’ Is 64:6).

5. Psalms.—We turn now to the Psalms, and there find, as might be expected, the deepest consciousness of personal guilt on the part of the sinner. Of course, it is to be remembered that the Jewish Psalter is the product of different epochs in the national history, ranging probably from the heyday of prophetic religion to the age immediately succeeding the Captivity, if not much later. It may be said, indeed, that this volume of sacred poetry constitutes a kind of antiphonal response to the preaching of the Prophets. Confession of and repentance for sin, both personal and national, constitute the prominent features of the authors’ attitude. A deep love for God breathes through each poem, and a profound hope that at some future date Israel may once again be restored to the favour of Jehovab.

The religious instinct of the compilers displays itself in their choice of those Psalms which form a preface or introduction to each of the five sections or books constituting the entire volume, setting the music, so to speak, of each part. The First Book (Pss 1–41) opens with a Psalm which is simply an expression of the power of sin and of the awful danger to which men are exposed by dallying with it. It is thus well fitted to be the prelude to such outbursts as occurin Pss 6:8f., 10:1ff., 17:8ff., 22:1ff. etc. The Second Book (Pss 42–72) commences with a poem which is the language of a soul desperately longing for full communion with its God, and, in spite of an oppressive fear heightened by the mockery of sinners, triumphing in the hope that the lovingkindness of Jehovah will yet call forth praise and joy. It is in this section that we have teaching of the deepest import touching the consciousness of personal and racial guilt; and at the same time a detestation of sin accompanied by a spiritual longing after inward righteousness hard to be paralleled in the OT. Here, too, hope conquers; forgiveness and restoration are looked forward to with sublime confidence. Perhaps in 50:7–15 we have an echo of the Prophetic denunciation of legalism in its degenerate days (cf. Is 1:11–15, Jer 7:21 ff., Am 5:21, Mal 1:10). The Third Book opens with a poem (Ps 73) in which the holiness of God is opposed to the folly and pride of sinners. The difficulty attaching to the problem of the relation between sin and suffering, so dramatically discussed and worked up in the Book of Job, is here dwelt on. For its answer we are referred to the certain fact that God is the strength and refuge of all those who are pure in heart. In Ps 90. which opens the Fourth section of the volume, the author puts the eternal and omniscient God over against man, with his iniquities and secret sins, as they call forth His terrible but just wrath (v. 11). The beauty of holiness and the confident trust that God is the ultimate refuge of all who come to Him are again and again dwelt on in the Psalms of this book (cf. 103:11ff.). In the Fifth division. beginning with Ps 107, the note of praise is struck, and is kept up almost without intermission to the end. The final exaltation of Zion, corresponding to the lasting overthrow of iniquity (Ps 107:42), is proclaimed with a certainty which can express itself only in songs of loudest praise. With an insight which can only be termed inspiration. we find one of the poets co-ordinating the forgiveness of Jah and the fear of Him as cause and effect (130:3f., cf. ‘The Psalms’ in The Cambridge Bible, by Kirkpatrick).

6. Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes.—The confidence thus expressed is all the more remarkable because of the general belief in the universality of sin and of its effects (cf. Ps 14:2f., 51:5) , a belief which was shared by the authors of the Book of Job (14:4, 15:14ff., 4:17), Proverbs (20:9), and Ecclesiastes (7:20, cf. 1 K 8:46). In the Proverbs we have what might be described as an attempt to place the moral life on an intellectual basis. The antithesis of wisdom and folly is that which marks the life of the righteous man and the sinner. Ethical maxims, the compiled results of human experience, follow each other in quick succession, but the book is devoid of the bright, warm hopefulness so characteristic of the Psalms. The sinner is left to his fate, and the wise man is he who, ordering his own life aright, leaves the fool to pursue his folly and deserve his fate.

The author of the Book of Job sets himself to solve the problem of the connexion between sin and human suffering, and though he fails, as he was bound to fail, to clear up the difficulty, he makes it evident that the one cannot always be measured in terms of the other. The conviction of his own innocence—Job’s most treasured personal possession—upholds his belief against the prevalent conception that sin is always punished here and now, and that righteousness is always rewarded in like manner. The end of this dramatic treatise, however, emphasizes the popular creed, though the experience of Job must have shaken its universal validity. The conception of sin is, of course, entirely ethical, but is very wide in its scope. In defending himself against the thinly veiled accusations of his friends, Job reveals his ideas of the range and depth of the ravages of sin in human life and conduct, and gives evidence of remarkable spiritual penetration (e.g. ch. 31, see R. A. Watson’s commentary on this book in The Expositor’s Bible) . Mention may, perhaps, be usefully made here of Elihu’s contribution to the discussion, in which he intervenes by a lengthened argument to prove that suffering may he looked on not merely as punishment for sin, but also as a means of discipline, and as designed by God as a warning against sin (cf. chs 33 ff.).

II. APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon.—The intellectualism which is characteristic of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes finds a prominent place in Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. There are here two sharply defined classes of men (‘two and two, one against another,’ Sir 33:15), a dualistic conception which permeates all creation (cf. 42:24). The sinner is to be dealt with unmercifully (‘help not the sinner,’ 12:4) , for no good can come from him who refuses instruction. It is possible, however, for the sinner to return unto the Lord and forsake his sins (17:25f.). The only way in which righteousness may be pursued is by the cultivation of wisdom and instruction, and by paying heed to the experiences of daily life (34:9, 39:1–8 , 14:20ff.). Let reason be the guide of human action and all will be well (37:16, cf. 32:19). It is possible for the educated man to acquire such a command over his inclinations that he is able of himself to make the great choice between life and death (15:17), but for the fool there is little hope (15:7). Looking back on the centuries of human history the writer discovers that sin has brought in its train all the great physical calamities which mark its progress (39:28ff.). The relation is, however, external, and is a mark of Divine vengeance and wrath against sinners (cf. 40:9f.). There is no trace of the profound conception of spiritual sympathy between the different orders of creation, characteristic of the teaching of St. Paul (cf. Ro 8:19–22).

The author of the Book of Wisdom displays the same fundamental thought that wisdom and sin are totally incompatible (Wis 1:4f.). Ignorance and folly are identified with sin (2:21f., 4:15, 5:4 etc.). and not merely the causes of sin. The only way to attain to righteousness is by the careful, unremitting discipline of the reason (cf. 2:1, 17:1, 6:15f.). Running like a thread of gold through the whole book, however, is the conception of the immortality of righteousness and of those who cultivate wisdom (1:15, 2:23, 3:4, 6:18f., 8:16, 17 etc). In the beautiful personification of Wisdom (6:12–8:21) we find the writer not only speaking of the Spirit of God as being its Author and Diffuser, but practically identifying them with each other (cf. 9:17, 12:1, cf. 2 Es

14:22) . The universality of sin does not enter largely into his teaching (cf., however, 3:12, 12:10, 13:1) , and at times we feel as if he believed that some were born to be righteous and some to sin, the power of moral choice being really confined to the former (cf. 8:19ff., 7:15f.).

III. THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. Synoptists.—The practical outcome of the teaching of the OT is seen in the emphasis laid by the first of the Synoptists upon the function which it was the destiny of Jesus to discharge in connexion with sin. The angelic communication to Joseph (Mt 1:21) may, without illegitimate criticism of origins, be considered as one of those illuminating flashes of Divine revelation which obtain their interpretative value in the light of subsequent history. At any rate, this is the feature of Jesus’ work upon which the Apostles laid particular stress, in their earliest as in their latest teaching. It is true that the preparatory work of the Baptist aroused in the breasts of the multitudes who thronged to hear him an active consciousness of sin, together with the necessity for repentance and the possibility of consequent forgiveness (Mk 1:4). The preaching of John was, however, necessarily lacking in one element which makes the life and work of Jesus what it pre-eminently is—a new power introduced into the world, giving unto men the gift of repentance ( Ac 5:31, cf. 11:18), and enabling them ‘to turn away every one from their iniquities’ (cf. Ac 3:26). It is significant in this connexion that the recorded teaching of Jesus bears comparatively few traces of direct abstract instruction regarding sin. At the same time, we must not forget the scathing denunciation hurled by Him at the legalistic, and worse, conceptions of sin abounding in the Rabbinical schools of His time (cf. Mt 23:4–28 , Mk 7:9ff.), or the positive, authoritative declarations by which He drew from the ancient laws of Sinai the essential ethical ideas therein enshrined (cf. Mt 5:21–48, where the teaching may be described as an intension rather than an extension of the area of sin). For Him ‘the law and the prophets’ had an abiding significance (Mt 7:12), but their regulative values needed re-adjustment. Sin, against which the Law was a deterrent, and the preaching of the Prophets a persistently solemn protest, has its domain not in the physical but in the spiritual region of man’s life (cf. Lk 11:33–44) . It is by poisoning the life at its roots that it destroys the whole upward growth, and it is here that the language of Jesus assumes its most formidable prophetic severity. There are certain classes of sins, however, against which He uttered His most solemn warnings. Their common characteristic is that of wilfulness or deliberateness. Remarkable amongst these is that described as ‘blasphemy against the Holy Ghost’ ( cf. Mk 3:29 = Lk 12:10 = Mt 12:31f.), which St. Mark designates ‘an eternal sin.’ Taking into consideration the circumstances in which the words were spoken, it is clear that Jesus was pointing to a condition of the soul when it loses all power to retrace its steps, when it reaches a place where even God’s forgiveness cannot follow. The sin of unreality was one to which the Pharisees were specially addicted, and to it, therefore, He drew their attention constantly (Mt 23:5–7, Mk 12:38f., Lk 20:45f., 11:43; cf. Mt 6:1–16, 5:20).

Every sin is bound to exercise influence, not only on the life and character of those immediately guilty, but also on a circle outside. There is, however, a species having for its special object the dragging down of those who would otherwise be innocent. The terms of the emphatic warning against leading others astray, either by positive interference or by the force of example (cf. Mk 9:42, Mt 18:5, Lk 17:2), remind us of the sad presage by which Jesus foreshadowed the traitor’s end (Mt 26:24). The word used to denote this sin is also employed in speaking of sin in its relation to the guilty individual. The fact that Jesus deals with both aspects at the same time shows how strongly He felt the impossibility of any sin remaining, in its working, a purely personal offence. There is always here in activity a force which may be described as centrifugal, inevitably bringing harm to those within the circle of its movement (cf. Ro 14:7 f.). Nor did Jesus hold Himself to be free from this danger of contamination (‘thou art a stumbling-block unto me,’ Mt 16:23), while He points to the ideal Kingdom of the Son of Man where nothing causing men to stumble shall be allowed a place (Mt 13:41). It is interesting to remember here that St. Paul uses the same word to express the result of the preaching of ‘Christ crucified’ to the Jews (1 Co 1:23; cf. Gal 5:11, Ro 9:32f., 1 P 2:8). This was, indeed, a contingency foreseen by Jesus Himself, as will be seen in His answer to the messengers of the imprisoned Baptist (Mt 11:6). Doubtless these words were intended to convey a gentle warning to the prisoner against permitting the untoward circumstances of his life to overcome his once firm faith in the Messiahship of One whom he had publicly proclaimed as ‘the Lamb of God’ (Jn 1:29) . A direct reference to an OT example of this sin occurs in Rev 2:14, where the conduct of Balaam is held up to reprobation.

In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, Jesus taught the necessity for the realization of personal guilt on the part of the sinner in order to forgiveness and justification in the sight of God (Lk 18:13). In the same way, it was the lack of this sense by the Pharisees, so far as they were themselves personally concerned, that constituted the great obstacle to their conversion (Jn 9:41).

A prominent feature of Jesus’ teaching has to do not so much with active, deliberate sins as with what may be termed ‘sins of omission.’ It seems as if He wished to inculcate, by repeated emphasis, the truth that the best way to combat temptation with success is to be active in the pursuit of good. The spiritual side of this doctrine He enshrined in the form of a parable, in which He pointed out the danger to the soul arising from neglect to invoke the active agency of the Holy Spirit, even though the ‘unclean spirit’ had been exorcized and banished ‘out of the man’ (see Mt 12:43–45 = Lk 11:24–26) . In the discourse descriptive of the General Judgment, Jesus marks the crucial test by which men shall be tried: ‘Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me’ (Mt 25:45). The same thought is conveyed frequently in parabolic form, as for example in the parables of the Ten Virgins (Mt 25:1–13), the Talents (25:14–30) in which is emphasized the profound lesson, ‘from him that bath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away’ (cf. Mt 13:12), Dives and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31) ; while much of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is based on the same principle (cf. Mt 5:38–44).

2. St. Paul.—The presentment of the gospel message to the world outside the Jewish nation led St. Paul to review in detail the origin, cause, scope, and result of sin. Starting from his own individual experience, which was that of a sinner profoundly conscious of his position (cf. 1 Co 15:9 , 9:27, Ro 7:18ff., 1 Ti 1:15), and conscious also of the remedy inherent in Christ’s gospel (2 Co 12:9), he insists on the universality of the presence and power of sin, in order to establish the co-ordinate universality of the presence and power of ‘the manifested righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ (Ro 3:21f.; cf. the expression ‘where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly,’ 5:20). The central feature of St. Paul’s teaching is the activity of God’s grace in forgiving, restoring, and justifying the sinner; and for the purpose of establishing the reasonableness and the necessity (cf. 1 Co 9:16) of bringing the gospel before the world, it was needful first to establish the guilt of all for whom it was intended, and to create, so to speak, in men a consciousness of moral failure and helplessness. This he does in the opening chapters of his Epistle to the Romans. Here, although he deals separately with Jews and Gentiles, he maintains the proposition that all alike are sinners (Ro 5:12, cf. Eph 2:3). It is true that the Jew was the recipient of the Law; and as such he occupied the position of the moral teacher of mankind. But instead of proving the means whereby a true ‘knowledge of sin’ (Ro 3:20, cf. 5:13) is gained, it became, through abuse, a hindrance rather than a help to his spiritual advancement ( see 2:17ff.). And just as the Jews stultified the Divinely given Law, by the exaltation of its merely transitory elements at the expense of its essential moral ideals, so the Gentiles defied ‘the law written in their bearts, testified to by their conscience’ (Ro 2:15).

This reduction of all mankind to the same level in the sight of God is further incidentally pressed by the establishment of a definite relationship between the sin of Adam and racial guilt

(5:12 , 18). What precisely were St. Paul’s opinions as to this connexion it is impossible to discover. It is doubtful whether, in face of the intensely practical work in which he was engaged, he stopped to work out the problem of ‘original sin.’ It is enough for him that ‘sin entered into the world through one man’ and that ‘through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners’ (see Sanday-Headlam, ‘Romans’ 5 in ICC, p. 136 ff. ).

Different interpretations have been given of the words translated ‘for that all sinned’ (5:12), some seeing in them an explicitstatement that the whole human race was involved generically in the sin of Adam (cf. Bengel. ad loc., and Liddon Epistle to the Romans, p. 103). Others affirm that St. Paul is here asserting the freedom of the will, and is stating the plain proposition that all men have sinned as a matter of fact, and of their own choice. The Apostle, however, seems to have left room for a synthesis of these two ideas. It matters not whether he has done so consciously or not. As the result of Adam’s transgression sin obtained an entrance and a sphere of action in the world, and not only so, but a predisposition to sin was inherited, giving it its present power over the human will. At the same time, the simple statement all sinned,’ explanatory as it is of the universality of death, includes the element of choice and freedom. Even those whose consciousness of sin was weakened, if not obliterated, by the absence of positive or objective law, were subjected to death. Here we have the assumption of generic guilt arising directly out of St. Paul’s belief in the relation between sin and physical death, as that of cause and effect (cf. 1 Co 15:22). Not only is the connexion here mentioned insisted on, but, passing from physical death to that of which it is but a type, spiritual or moral death, he shows the awful depth to which sin has sent its roots in man’s nature (Ro 6:21ff., cf. v. 8ff., 2:7ff.).

Mention has been made above of the power of choice, where sin is concerned, inherent in human personality. Into the very seat of this power, however, sin has made an entrance, and has found a powerful ally in ‘the flesh’ (7:18). The will to resist is there, but its activity is paralyzed. Though St. Paul makes ‘the flesh’ or ‘the members’ of the body the seat of sin, he is far from teaching that human nature is essentially evil. The flesh may be crucified with its ‘passions and lusts’ (Gal 5:4; cf. 1 Co 9:27, Ro 6:19), and the bodily members instead of being ‘servants to uncleanness’ may become ‘servants to righteousness unto sanctification’ (cf. art. ‘Flesh’ in Hastings’ DCG) . An important feature of St. Paul’s doctrine of sin consists in his exposition of the function of law in revealing and arousing the consciousness of sin. A curious expression, ‘the mind of the flesh’ (Ro 8:7), emerges in this connexion, and the impossibility of its being ‘subject to the law of God’ is insisted on. ‘Apart from the law sin is dead,’ but, once the Law came, sin sprang into life, its presence and power were revealed (cf. 1 Co 15:56), and by it man was confronted with his own moral weakness.

In spite of his belief in the all-pervading character and strength of sin, St. Paul’s gospel is the reverse of a gospel of despair. If, on the one hand, there is a death which connotes moral corruption and slavery to sin, on the other hand there is a death unto sin which is not only a realization of, but a participation in the death of Christ. The fact of his employing the same word and idea in senses so completely contrasted lends a marvellous force and finality to his teaching on the remedial and restorative effects of Christ’s work (cf. Ro 6:2–14, Eph 2:1–10) . A favourite idea, relative to this, is that of crucifixion. The member of Christ as such has crucified his ‘old man’ (Ro 6:6), ‘the flesh with the passions and lusts thereof’ (Gal 5:24, cf. 2:20). This is the ultimate ideal result of the redemptive work of Christ. The experience of St. Paul forbade him to believe that the state of ‘death unto sin’ is fully realized here and now (1 Co 9:27, cf. Sir 37:18). His continuous references to the Christian life as one of warfare, in which it behoves the follower of Christ to be armed with weapons offensive and defensive, shows that his conception of the struggle against sin is that of one unceasing age-long conflict, issuing in victory for the individual, as for the race, only when the Kingdom of Christ is established in a peace that is everlasting (Eph 6:11–17 , 2 Co 10:4ff., 6:7, Ro 13:12, 1 Ti 1:18; cf. Ph 2:25, Philem 2 etc. ).

3 . St. John

(a) In order to understand St. John’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching on sin, it will be useful to see his own individual doctrine as given in his Epistles. Here the mission of Christ is dwelt on as having for its objective the taking away of sins (1 Jn 3:4, 8; cf. Jn 16:11, 1:29), and ‘abiding in him’ is dwelt on as constituting the guarantee of safety against sin (1 Jn 3:6; cf. Jn 15:4ff.), as it also affords power to live the active fruitful life of righteousness. Further, there is a law ‘which expresses the Divine ideal of man’s constitution and growth,’ and whoever violates it, by wilfully putting himself in opposition to this law, is guilty of sin, for ‘sin is lawlessness’ (3:4). Another aspect of this law has to do with the mutual relationship of Christians who should be bound together by a love which is the reflexion of the eternal love of God for men (1 Jn 4:7–21). If the law of love is neglected or broken, even in the matter of intercessory prayer for brethren who have sinned, unrighteousness is present, and ‘all unrighteousness is sin’ (5:13–17) . From this we see how intensely real was St. John’s belief in the presence and power of sin amongst men. Indeed, one of the tests by which a man’s sincerity may be discovered is his power of realizing this fact. He, moreover, gives as his reason for writing this Epistle, ‘that ye may not sin’ (2:1). The need of ‘an Advocate’ who is also ‘the propitiation for our sins’ is insisted on as being the special creation of Christ in Christian consciousness (1 Jn 2:1f.; cf. Jn 14:16). All this brings into clearer relief and greater prominence his doctrine of the sinlessness of the professing follower of Jesus Christ. The Christian as such ‘cannot sin, because he is begotten of God’ (1 Jn 3:8 ; cf. 5:18, 3 Jn 11), and, on the other hand, ‘he that doeth sin is of the devil’ (1 Jn 3:8). The Christian abides in Christ (cf. Jn 15:4ff.), and because he does so he sinneth not (3:8), whereas the committal of sin is the sure guarantee that he has neither seen nor known Him. The secret of his safety lies in the promise of Jesus that He ‘keeps’ (cf. Jn 17:12) His own so that ‘the evil one toucheth him not’ (1 Jn 5:18). The paradox in which St. John thus clothes his doctrine of sin reveals his profound conception of its character. Any sinful act by the Christian interrupts, and mars so far, his fellowship with God. If, however, the act he not the outcome of the man’s habit or character, he cannot be said to do ‘sin’ in the sense of ‘realizing sin in its completeness’ (see Westcott, Epistles of St. John, on 1 Jn 3:4). The fruit of Divine fellowship is developed in the Christian’s inner or central life from which sin is banished; and this reminds us somewhat of St.

Paul’s view of the crucifixion of the flesh with its ‘passions and lusts.’

A peculiar reference is made by St. John to ‘a sin unto death.’ This might be translated with perhaps a closer adherence to the writer’s thought if the article were omitted. It is not any specific act or acts that he so characterizes. The saying must rather refer to sinful deeds of a character ‘which wholly separates from Christ,’ and thus tends to death (see Westcott, op. cit., on 5:16). In so far as it springs from a heart which wilfully and with contumely rejects Christ, in so far may it he identified with the sin against the Holy Ghost (cf. Mk 3:29, Mt 12:3f., Lk 2:10). The writer’s refusal to insist on intercessory prayer for one thus guilty calls to mind the warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews against the sin of apostasy or wilful sin after the reception of ‘the knowledge of truth’ (cf. He 6:4–6 , 10:26). It is probable that St. John has in his mind a class of sins which combines within itself the characteristics of both those mentioned (see art. ‘Sin’ in Hastings’ DB iv. p. 535^b) . One feature of 1 John connects this Epistle very closely with the Fourth Gospel, revealing itself in those passages which identify sin with falsehood, and righteousness with truth.

It seems as if the writer traced all sin back to the spirit which leads men to deny ‘that Jesus is the Christ’ (1 Jn 2:22, 4:3). On the other hand, the acceptance of this belief carries with it the assurance of God’s abiding presence, wherein is the sure guarantee of the realization of His purpose in us—‘that we might live through him’ (1 Jn 4:9, cf. 4:2, 5:1).

(b) Fourth Gospel.—It is this last aspect of sin that is the dominant note of the teaching of St. John’s Gospel. Indeed, this writing may he said to be a record of the sad rejection foreshadowed in the general terms, ‘He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not’ (1:11). This was more particularly true of the Jews of Jerusalem and Judæa, where the story of Jesus’ ministry as told in this Gospel is for the most part laid. It is thus significant that in His last great discourse with His disciples, occurring as it did in Jerusalem, the centre of the activity hostile to His claims, Jesus lays special stress on the sin of unbelief in Him (‘The Holy Ghost will convict the world of sin … because they believe not on me,’ Jn 16:8f.). The revelation of the Divine life, with its manifold evidences of love and mercy in and by Jesus, took away whatever excuse men might have in the presence of God’s judgment. The real reason for the rejection of Jesus by the Jews lay in their hatred of ‘the Father’ (Jn 15:24, cf. v. 22). Indeed, it is this very revelation, designed by God as the eternal remedy against sin (Jn 1:29), which in its process and achievement affords further possibilities to sin and its consequences (Jn 9:41; cf. Lk 12:47f.).

Nor must we omit to note that in this Gospel sin is regarded as a species of slavery. The reference to this aspect occurs but once (Jn 8:34) , but that it occupied an important place in early Christian teaching is evident from the incidental notices found scattered throughout the NT (cf.

Ro 6:16–20 , Tit 3:3, 2 P 2:19, Mt 6:24 = Lk 16:13 etc. ).

The popular belief in the connexion between sin and physical suffering is noticed also in the Fourth Gospel, where Jesus is represented as denying its universal applicability (Jn 9:3). At the same time He recognized that in certain cases the belief was justified (Jn 5:14). It was, perhaps, His profound knowledge of a similar but a deeper relationship than this—the relationship of sin to the whole life—that gave to the words and actions of Jesus that exquisite tenderness in His treatment of individual sinners so noticeable in this Gospel (cf. Jn 4:17f., 8:11 , 15); a tenderness which He would fain impart to His followers in their dealings with fellow-sinners (cf. Jn 7:24, Mt 7:1ff., Ja 2:13).

We are thus enabled to see that the view of sin held and taught by Jesus is profounder and graver than any as yet existing, for it is an offence against One who is at the same time a righteous and loving Father and a just and holy God (Lk 15:18; cf. Mt 5:48, Jn 3:16ff. etc.). The life of Christ is the object-lesson which Christians are invited to imitate in their daily relationships and life (Mt 11:28, Jn 13:15, 1 Jn 2:6, Ph 2:5; cf. 1 P 2:21 etc.), and St. John has pointed out to us, in the words of Jesus Himself, the standard to which His followers are asked to aspire, when He defied His bitter life-long enemies to convict Him of sin (Jn 8:46).

4. St. James.—The author of this circular letter views sin in its practical bearings on the daily life of men. Nevertheless, his conception of its character and results is as far-reaching as we have seen it to be in both the Pauline and the Johannine teaching. Its origin he traces to the surrender of the individual’s will to ‘desire’ (Ja 1:14f.). ‘In itself the desire may be natural and innocent: it is when the man resolves to gratify it against what be feels to be the higher law of duty, that he becomes guilty of sin even before he carries out his resolve in act’ (J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, note on 1:15). The writer combats the idea that God is the author of evil, by insisting on the fact that each man may make a good or a bad use of temptation. As a morally free agent he stands or he falls, and the result of this freedom may be the promised ‘crown of life’ (1:12) or hopeless ‘death’ (1:15). We are here reminded of the ‘sin unto death’ (1

Jn 5:16) referred to already, for ‘sin when full-grown, when it has become a fixed habit determining the character of the man, brings forth death’ (J. B. Mayor, op. cit. p. 53; cf. R. J. Knowling, Epistle of St. James, ad loc.) . This Epistle betrays its Jewish origin in the attitude of the writer to the Law; for him the result of the Incarnation has been the transmuting of the Mosaic Law into ‘the perfect law, the law of liberty’ (1:25, cf. 2:12), ‘the royal law’ (2:8). It may be said that he sometimes merely echoes the well-known opinion of contemporary Jewish Rabbins about transgressing the minutest behest of the Law (see the extracts from Rabbinical writings quoted by R. J. Knowling, op. cit., note on Ja 2:10). At the same time it must be admitted that his conception of sin, even when it finds expression in the seemingly trivial case of ‘respect of persons’ (2:9), ‘is founded on a true spiritual view of the relation of man to God’ (Hastings’ DB, vol. iv. p. 533^b) . The law of love is the essential guiding principle of all Christian life, and where this law is transgressed in the social relations of that life, the expression in our Epistle ‘ye commit sin’ (lit. ‘ye work sin,’ 2:9) is not too strong or emphatic.

A further point in connexion with St. James’ teaching occupies the closing passages of his Epistle. In this, as in the whole of his writing, he deals with it from the point of view of the daily life. In his exhortation to mutual confession of sins and intercessory prayer for forgiveness he is incidentally dwelling on the truth that all real Christian life is conditioned by its adherence, both in word and in deed, to the principle of love (cf. 2:15f.). The same may he said of his advice with regard to the corporate prayer of the Church on behalf of one who is physically sick (5:14f.). It is probable that our author held the common Jewish belief that sin and disease were connected as cause and effect, and his conviction that ‘the prayer of faith’ reaches out in its power to the whole man, extending even to the forgiveness of his sins by God, is based on his belief in the solidarity of human life as well as of the law to which it owes its allegiance. As in the case of the member of the community whose bodily and spiritual needs are ministered to by the active intervention of the Church, so he urges each individual member to prayer on behalf of his erring brother. The twofold blessing promised to this act of brotherly love may well be taken as an expression of his conviction that the individual lives of the members of the Christian community are knit so closely together that no single act of sin can be committed without so far bringing death within range of all, and that no act of love can be exercised without so far bringing mercy and forgiveness to all, and thus ‘covering a multitude of sins’ (cf. 1 P 4:8).

5. Hebrews.—It cannot be said that there is any special doctrine of sin in this Epistle. Its readers were well acquainted with OT conceptions and teaching, and the writer deals mainly with the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old in supplying means whereby there shall be ‘no more conscience of sins’ (He 10:2; cf. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Add. Note on 9:9). The central feature of this writing is the stress laid on the discovery by Christianity ‘of a new and living way’ (10:20) by which we have direct access to God. It is by the removal of guilt in the forgiveness of sins by the sacrifice of Jesus that this way is opened ‘once for all’ (10:10; cf. v. 19, 9:12 etc.). Special emphasis is therefore laid on the failure of the Mosaic institutions to ‘take away sins’ (10:11, cf. 9:9), and on the awful character of the danger of harbouring ‘an evil beart of unbelief’ (3:12).

The temptation to which the ‘Hebrews’ were exposed was that, under stress of persecution, they would reject the final revelation of God in Christ, or revert, under the influence of the Hellenistic Judaizers, to the somewhat eclectic faith of the latter. This wilful sin the writer characterizes as ‘crucifying the Son of God afresh’ (6:6) and as treading Him under foot (cf. 10:29) . In warning them against the dangers to which they would be exposed during the time of suffering and trial now imminent, he points out to them that these trials may become in their own hands the means of their spiritual advancement. Instead of being the sole outcome of sin, suffering is often the chastisement of a loving Father ‘that we may be partakers of his holiness’ (12:10). The great Example, whose solution of an age-long problem we are asked to study, was

Jesus, ‘who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame’ (12:2), and who though ‘in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin’ (4:15), was nevertheless made ‘perfect through sufferings’ (2:10).

See also artt. ATONEMENT, FORGIVENESS, GUILT, PROPITIATION, REDEMPTION, etc.

J. R. WILLIS.

SIN.—‘The stronghold (fortress) of Egypt,’ Ezk 30:15, 16, must be Pelusium, the Egyp. name of which is not clearly known, or some fortress in its neighbourhood. In the list of governors appointed by Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, while native princes were retained elsewhere, Sin is the only city put in charge of an Assyrian: no doubt he was placed at Pelusium to keep open the gate of Egypt for the Assyrian king.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

SIN, WILDERNESS OF (name probably derived from the moon-god Sin).—A region on

the route of the Hebrews from Egypt to Mt. Sinai. It is usually identified with the plain lying S. of the Ras Abu Zenimeh. Upon the view held in many quarters that Mt. Sinai must be located somewhere in the Negeb, the wilderness of Sin was on the more direct route from Egypt to Kadesh, near to if not identical with the desert of Zin ( Nu 13:21, 20:1, 27:14, 33:36, 34:3, Dt 32:51, Jos 15:1–3). Cf. ZIN.

H. L. WILLETT.

SINAI (Mountain).—A holy mountain in the Sinaitic peninsula (whose name is said to be derived from that of Sin, the moon-god). It is called Horeb by E and D, whereas J and P employ the name ‘Sinai.’ Here Moses was granted the vision of the burning bush (Ex 3:1), whereby he first received a call to lead the Israelites to adopt Jahweh as their covenanted God; and here took place the tremendous theophany which is the central event of the Pentateuch, wherein the covenant was ratified.

The identification of Mt. Sinai is a matter of some difficulty, and various attempts to discover it have been made from time to time. The traditional site is Jebel Mūsa, ‘the mountain of Moses,’ almost in the centre of the triangle; here there has been a convent ever since at least A.D. 385 , about which date it was visited by St. Silvia of Aquitaine—whose account of her pilgrimage still survives in part. This identification has therefore the warrant of antiquity. It is not, however, wholly free from difficulty, principally connected with questions of the route of the Exodus; but it is possible that with further study and discovery these difficulties may be found to he evanescent.

In recent years the tradition has been questioned, and two suggestions have been made calling for notice. The first is that originally suggested by Lepsius, who would place Sinai at Mount Serbal, some distance northwest of Jebel Mūsa. This theory has been championed, with a good deal of force, by the latest investigator, Professor Petrie’s assistant, Mr. C. T. Currelly (see Petrle, Researches in Sinai, ch. xvii.). The region appears more suitable for the occupation of a large host than the neighbourhood of Jebel Mūsa, and it accords better with the probable site of Rephidim.

The second view would place the mountain out of the peninsula altogether, unless it can be proved that the Land of Midian included that region. And, indeed, the close connexion evident between Sinai or Horeb and Midian, which appears, for example, in Ex 3, makes this a theory worth consideration. But we are still in the dark as to the limits of Midian: all we can say is that it is not known whether Midian extended west of the Gulf of ‘Akabah, and that therefore it is not known whether Sinai was west of ‘Akabah. It must, however, be freely granted that to place Sinai east or north of ‘Akabah would entirely disjoint all identifications of places along the line of the itinerary of the Exodus.

For the allegorical use of ‘Sinai’ in Gal 4:25, see art. HAGAR.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

SINAI (Peninsula).—The triangular tongue of land intercepted between the limestone plateau of the Tih desert in the north, and the Gulfs of Suez and ‘Akabah, at the head of the Red Sea, on the south-west and south-east. It is a rugged and waste region, little watered, and full of wild and impressive mountain scenery. Except at some places on the coast, such as Tor, there is but little of a settled population.

This region was always, and still is, under Egyptian Influence, if not actually in Egyptian territory. From a very early period it was visited by emissaries from Egyptian kings in search of turquoise, which is yielded by the mines of the Wady Magharah. There sculptured steles were left, and scenes engraved in the rock, from the time of Semerkhet of the first dynasty, and Sneferu of the third—dated by Professor Petrie in the fifth and sixth millennia B.C. These sculptures remained almost intact till recent years; till a party of English speculators, who came to attempt to re-work the old mines, wantonly destroyed many of them (see Petrie, Researches in Sinai, p. 46). What these vandais left was cut from the rock and removed for safety, under Professor Petrie’s direction, to the Cairo Museum. A remarkable temple, dedicated to Hathor, but adapted, it would appear, rather to Semitic forms of worship, exists at Serabīl el-Khadem, not far from these mines. It was probably erected partly for the benefit of the parties who visited the mines from time to time.

Geologically, Sinai is composed of rocks of the oldest (Archæan) period. These rocks are granite of a red and grey colour, and gneiss, with schists of various kinds—hornbiende, talcose, and chioritic—overlying them. Many later, but still ancient, dykes of diorite, basalt, etc., penetrate these primeval rocks. Vegetation is practically confined to the valleys, especially in the neighbourhood of water-springs.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

SINCERE.—The Eng. word ‘sincere,’ as it occurs in 1 P 2:2 ‘the sincere milk of the word,’ is used in its old sense of ‘unmixed,’ ‘pure’ (RV ‘without guile’).

SINEW (that shrank).—See Gn 32:32 for the traditional origin of a special food-taboo (cf.

FOOD, § 10), the result of which was that the Hebrews abstained from eating the sciatic muscle ( RV ‘the sinew of the hip’) of animals otherwise clean. The prohibition is not mentioned in any of the legislative codes of the Pentateuch.

A. R. S. KENNEDY. SINGERS.—See PRIESTS AND LEVITES, III. 1. 2.

SINIM.—The ‘land of Sinim’ ( Is 49:12) must, from the context, have been in the extreme south or east of the known world. In the south, Sin (Pelusium, Ezk 30:15f.) and Syene (Ezk 29:10 , 30:6) have been suggested. The latter is favoured by recent discoveries of papyri (cf. SEVENEH). The LXX favours the view that a country in the east was intended, and some modern commentators have identified Sinim with China, the land of the Sinæ.

SINITES.—A Canaanite people (Gn 10:17 = 1 Ch 1:15). Their identification is quite uncertain.

SIN-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE AND OFFERING, § 14.

SION.—1. A name of Hermon, Dt 4:48. Sion is taken by some to be a textual error for Sirion (wh. see). 2. See Zion in art. JERUSALEM, II. 1.

SIPHMOTH.—One of the places to which a portion of the spoil of the Amalekites was sent after David’s return to Ziklag (1 S 30:28). The site has not been recovered.

SIPPAI.—See SAPH.

SIRACH.—See APOCRYPHA, 13.

SIRAH, THE WELL OF.—The place at which Joab’s messengers overtook Abner (2 S 3:26). It lay on the road from Hebron to Jerusalem, and is now probably ‘Ain Sārah, near Hebron.

SIRION.—The name said to he given by the Zidonians to Mt. Hermon, Dt 3:9. Like Senir, it may originally have been the designation of a particular part of the mountain. Cf. SION, 1.

SISERA.—1. In Jg 4:2ff. Sisera is represented as captain of the host of Jabin, a Canaanite king; his army is overcome by the Israelites under Barak. In his flight after the battle, Sisera, overcome by fatigue, seeks refuge in the tent of Jael, who treacherously kills him while asleep. In another account (Jg 5, the older account) Sisera appears as an independent ruler, and Jabin is not even mentioned; the two accounts differ in a number of subsidiary details, but in two salient points they agree, namely, as to the defeat of Sisera and as to the manner of his death. It is clear that two traditions, one concerning Jabin and another concerning Sisera, have been mixed up together; in order to harmonize them Sisera has been made Jabin’s captain (see BARAK, DEBORAH, etc.). 2. A family of Nethinim (Ezr 2:53 = 1 Es 5:32 Serar).

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

SISINNES.—The governor of Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia under Darius (1 Es 6:3, 7, 27, 7:1).

In Ezr 5:3 etc., be is called Tattenai (wh. see).

SISMAI.—A Jerahmeelite (1 Ch 2:40).

SITH.—‘Sith,’ that is ‘since,’ occurs in Jer 15:7 and other places; while ‘sithence’ occurs in 2 Es 10:14.

SITHRI.—A grandson of Kohath (Ex 6:22).

SITNAH (‘strife’).—The name given to a well dug by the herdmen of Isaac in the region of Gerar (Gn 26:21). The site is uncertain.

H. L. WILLETT.

SIVAN.—See TIME.

SKIRT.—See DRESS 4 (b).

SKULL, PLACE OF A.—See GOLGOTHA.

SLANDER, TALEBEARING.—Both noun and verb ‘slander’ are used of malicious gossip of varying degrees of heinousness. The references are all to the slandering of persons, except Nu 14:36 AV, where RV has ‘an evil report against the land.’ The expression ‘walking with slanders’ (Jer 6:28, cf. 9:4) is in the original identical with ‘going about as a talebearer’ (Lv 19:16, Pr 11:13, 20:19; cf. Ezk 22:9 in AV and RV). The element of falsehood in the gossip is seen in 2 S 19:27, where ‘slandered’ is synonymous with ‘falsely accused.’ ‘Of no sin and wickedness are there so many complaints in OT as of slander and false accusation—whereof the Psalms are witness’ (Cornill, Jeremia, 89). See, further, CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 5.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SLAVE, SLAVERY.—The Heb. ‘ebhedh, usually tr. ‘servant,’ has a variety of meanings, between which it is not always easy to distinguish. E.g. in 2 S 9:2 ‘servant’ = retainer, in v. 10b = bondman, in v. 11 = a polite expression of self-depreciation (cf. 2 K 4:1 and 1 K 9:22). In a discussion of Hebrew slavery only those passages will be dealt with in which the word probably has the sense of bondage.

1. Legally the slave was a chattel. In the earliest code (Book of the Covenant [= BC]) he is called his master’s money (Ex 21:21). In the Decalogue he is grouped with the cattle (Ex 20:17), and so regularly in the patriarchal narratives (Gn 12:16 etc.). Even those laws which sought to protect the slave witness to his degraded position. In the BC the master is not punished for inflicting even a fatal flogging upon his slave, unless death follows immediately. If the slave lingers a day or two before dying, the master is given the benefit of the doubt as to the cause of his death, and the loss of the slave is regarded as a sufficient punishment (Ex 21:21). The jus talionis was not applicable to the slave as it was to the freeman (cf. 21:26ff. with 22ff.); and it is the master of the slave, not the slave himself, who is recompensed if the slave is gored by an ox (Ex 21:32). In these last two instances BC follows the Code of Hammurabi [= CH] (§§ 196–199 , 252).

In practice the slave as a chattel was often subject to ill usage. He was flogged (Ex 21:20 , Pr 29:19) , and at times heartlessly deserted (1 S 30:11ff.). Though the master is here an Amorite, the cases of runaway slaves in Israel bear testimony to their sufferings even at the hands of their fellow-countrymen; cf. the experiences of the churl Nabal (1 S 25:10), of the passionate Shimei (1 K 2:39), and of Sarah (Gn 16:6); the implications as to the frequency of such cases in the law of Dt 23:15ff. and in later times (Sir 33:24–31). The position of the maid-servant was in general the same as that of the manservant. In the BC it is assumed that the maid-servant is at the same time a concubine (Ex 21:7ff.; cf. Hagar, Zilpah, and Bilhah in the patriarchal narratives). Even in P the idea of the slave-girl as property is still retained (Lv 19:20). Here the punishment ‘for the violation of a slave-girl was almost certainly a fine to be paid to the master, if we may judge from the analogous law in Ex 22:16 = Dt 22:28; i.e. it is an indemnity for injury to property. In practice the maid-servant, though the concubine of the master, is often the special property of the mistress (Gn 16:6a, 9, 25:12, 30:3), at times having been given to her at marriage (Gn 24:56, 29:24, 29). She is subject to field labour (Ru 2:8ff.) and to the lowest menial labour (1 S 25:41 , figurative, but reflecting actual conditions).

Slaves were recruited (1) principally from war, at least in earliest times. Captives or subject populations were often employed not only as personal attendants, but also as public slaves at the Temple (Jos 9:23, 27 [21 a gloss], Neh 7:57–60, and see art. NETHINIM) or on public works in the corvēe (Jos 16:10, Jg 1:28ff., 1 K 9:20–22 = 2 Ch 8:7–9) , while captive women were especially sought as concubines or wives (Dt 21:10–14). (2) From the slave-trade, of which the Israelites undoubtedly a vailed themselves (cf. the implications in Gn 37:26, 17:12, Lv 25:44).

This trade was mainly in the hands of the Phœnicians and Edomites (Am 1:6, 9, Ezk 27:13, Jl

3:6). (3) From native Israelites who bad become enslaved as a punishment for theft (Ex 22:1–4) , whether for other crimes also is not stated; Josephus (Ant. XVI. i. 1) knows of no other. (4) From native Israelites who, through poverty and debt, had been forced to sell themselves (Ex 21:2, Am 2:6, 8:6, Dt 15:12, Lv 25:39 , Pr 11:29 [?] 22:7 [?]) or their children (Ex 21:7, 2 K 4:1, Neh 5:6, 8 , Is 50:1, Job 24:9) into servitude.

Whether the creditor had the right to force the debtor into slavery against his will is not clear. Ex 21:2 and 2 K 4:1 (cf. Mt 18:25) rather favour this view. The reflexive verb in Lv 25:39a and in Dt 15:12, where the same verbal form should probably be again translated by the reflexive, not by the passive as in RV, favours voluntary servitude. But possibly the later codes are modifications of the earlier practice. Neh 5:5 is ambiguous.

As to the number of slaves we have no adequate data. Gn 14:14 cannot be used as evidence. The numbers in the corvēe (1 K 5:13, 15) are discrepant, and in any case probably do not refer to slaves proper. The prosperous retainer of Saul has 20 servants (2 S 9:10). The proportion of slaves to freemen in Neh 7:66ff. is 1 to 6. The price of slaves naturally varied. The BC (Ex 21:32) fixes the average price at 30 shekels (about £4). CH in the same law allows but 17 shekels ( § 252, cf. 214). Joseph is sold for 20 shekels (Gn 37:26). In later times the price in Exodus seems to have been maintained (2 Mac 8:11; Ant. XII. ii. 3).

2. But while the slave was a chattel, nevertheless certain religious and civil rights and privileges were accorded him. In law the slave was regarded as an integral part of the master’s household (Ex 20:17), and, as such, an adherent of the family cult (cf. the instructive early narratives in Gn 24 and 16). Accordingly the BC (Ex 23:12) and the Decalogue (Ex 20:10) guarantee to him the Sabbath rest. Deuteronomy allows him a share in the religious feasts (12:12, 18 , 16:11, 14), the humanitarian viewpoint being chiefly emphasized. In P the more primitive idea of the slave as a member of the family, conceived as a religious unit, is still retained and utilized in the interest of religious exclusiveness. Thus, while the gēr ( sojourner) cannot partake of the Passover unless circumcised, the slave must be circumcised and so is entitled to partake (Ex 12:44; cf. the narrative Gn 17:12ff.). Again, while the gēr in a priest’s family, or even the daughter of a priest who has married into a non-priestly family, may not eat of the holy things, the priest’s slave is allowed to do so (Lv 22:10ff.).

As to civil rights: In the BC, murder of the slave as well as of the freeman is punishable with death (Ex 21:12 = Lv 24:17; the law is Inclusive). If death results from flogging, the master is also punished, conjecturally by a fine (Ex 21:20ff.). If the slave is seriously maimed by his master, he is given his freedom (Ex 21:26ff.). At this point the BC contrasts very favourably with the CH. The latter does not attempt to protect the slave’s person from the master, but only provides for an indemnity to the master if the slave is injured by another (199, 213, 214). While a man could be sold into slavery for debt (see above), man-stealing is prohibited on pain of death ( Ex 21:16 = Dt 24:7). Deuteronomy interprets the Exodus law correctly as a prohibition against stealing a fellow-countryman. Deut. also forbids returning a slave who has escaped from a foreign master (Dt 23:15ff.). If the slave in this case were a non-Israelite (which, however, is not certain), the law would be a remarkable example of the humane tendencies in Deut. and would again contrast favourably with CH, which prescribes severe penalties for harbouring fugitive slaves (16, 19). The humane law for the protection of captive wives (Dt 21:10–14) is also noticeable.

But practice often went far beyond law in mitigating the severity of servitude. Indeed, slavery in the ancient East generally was a comparatively easy lot. The slave is grouped with wife and child as part of the master’s household (Ex 20:17). Children are property and can be sold as well as slaves ( Ex 21:7; cf. 22:16 = Dt 22:28 where the daughter is regarded as the father’s property). Children are flogged as well as slaves (Pr 13:24). Wives were originally bought from the parents, and wives and concubines are often almost indistinguishable. Hence the lot of the slave was probably not much harder than that of wife or child (cf. Gal 4:1), and the law implies the possibility of a genuine affection existing between master and man (Ex 21:5 = Dt 15:16). Accordingly we find many illustrations of the man-servant rising to a position of importance. He may he intrusted with the most delicate responsibilities (Gn 24), may be the heir of his master (Gn 15:1–4) , is often on intimate terms with and advises the master (Jg 19:3ff., 1 S 9:5ff.), the custom of having body-servants (Heb. na‘ar, Nu 22:22, 1 K 18:43, 2 K 4:12, Neh 4:22 etc.) favouring such intimacies, and he may even marry his master’s daughter (1 Ch 2:34ff.; cf. similar cases in CH § 175 ff.). Especially servants of important men enjoy a reflected dignity (1 S 9:22, 2 K 8:4). The rise of servants into positions of prominence was so frequent as to be the subject of making-making (Pr 14:35, 17:2, 19:10, 30:22a).

Whether a servant could own property while remaining a servant is not clear. The passages adduced in favour of it (1 S 9:8 [a gratuity], 2 S 9:2ff., 16:1ff. [Ziba is a retainer], Lv 25:49b [not a real servant]) are not pertinent. Dt 15:13 makes against it, but not necessarily, and the fact that in Arabia and Babylonia (CH § 176) the slave could own property awakens a presumption in favour of the same custom in Israel.

Under a good house-wife the maid-servant would be well taken care of (Pr 31:15). At times she also seems to be the heir of her mistress (Pr 30:23b [?]). The son of the slave-concubine might inherit the property and the father’s blessing (Gn 16:1ff., 21:13, 49:1ff.), but this depended on the father’s will (Gn 25:5), as in Babylonia (CH § 170ff.). The effect of occupying such positions of trust was often bad. Proverbs fears it (19:10, 30:21–23) , and such passages as 2 K 5:20 ff., Neh 5:15, Gn 16:4 justify the fear. Servants also tended to become agents of their master’s sins (1 S 2:13–15 , 2 S 13:17).

3. Thus far no distinction between native and foreign slaves has been observed either in law or in practice, except possibly by implication at Ex 21:16 = Dt 24:7, and Dt 23:15ff. The view that the protective laws in Ex 21:20ff., 26ff., 32 apply only to the native slave is without exegetical justification, and Gn 17:12, Ex 12:44, Gn 15:2 [if the text can be trusted] 39:1ff. [ probably equally applicable to conditions in Israel], 1 Ch 2:34ff. and Gn 16:1ff. show that the foreign man-or maid-servant may enjoy all the advantages of the native Israelite.

The distinction drawn between the subject Canaanites and the Israelites at 1 K 9:20ff. = 2 Ch 8:7ff. is clearly incorrect (cf. 1 K 5:13) and belongs to a later development in the ideas of slavery (see below). The distinction drawn in P between the ‘home-born’ slave and the one ‘purchased with money’ (Gn 14:14 , 17:12 etc.) does not refer to the two classes of foreign and native slaves.

In apparently but one particular, though this is of vital Importance, the native slave is legally better off than the foreign-born, namely, in the right to release. Already in CH (§ 117) provision was made for the release, after three years, of a wife or children who had been sold for debt. In the BC (Ex 21:1–6) this idea was associated with the Sabbath idea, and a release was prescribed after 6 years of servitude, but the law was extended to cover every Israelite man-servant. Yet in the specifications of the law (vv. 3, 4) the rights of the master still noticeably precede the rights of the husband and father. Provision is also made for the slave to remain in servitude if he prefers to do so. In this case the servant is to be brought to the door of the master’s house, not of the sanctuary (the rite would then lose its significance), and have his ear pierced with an awl (a wide-spread symbol of servitude in the East), when he would become a slave for life.

The phrase ‘unto God’ (v. 6a) can scarcely refer in this connexion to the local sanctuary, as has usually been held. It signifies the adoption of the slave into the family as a religious unit, and probably referred originally to the household gods (or ancestors?).

In the case of the maid-servant (Ex 21:7–11) no release was permitted under ordinary circumstances (v. 7), for it is assumed that the slave-girl is at the same time a concubine, and hence release would be against the best interests both of herself and of the home. Yet she is not left without protection. Her master has no right to sell her to a family or clan not her own (‘foreign people,’ v. 8b, probably has this restricted significance, sale of an Israelite to a nonIsraelite being out of the question), but must allow her to be redeemed, presumably by one of her own family. Failing this, he may give her to his son, in which case she is to be treated as a daughter (v. 9). If neither of these methods is adopted, a third way is provided. He may take another (concubine or wife), but must then retain the first, provide for her maintenance and respect her marital rights (v. 10). If the master refuses to adopt any one of these three methods (‘these three,’ v. 11, refers to the three methods in vv. 8–10, not to the three provisions in v. 10), then, and then only, the maid-servant has a right to release.

The above is but one of several possible interpretations of this passage. Further, the meaning of v. 8a is doubtful. The text is corrupt. Instead of the phrase ‘who hath espoused her to himself,’ we should read either ‘so that he hath not known her,’ or’ ‘who hath known her.’ On the first reading the two methods of procedure in vv. 8, 9 are allowable if she be still a virgin (in v. 10 she is no longer such). On the second reading one of the three methods in vv. 8–10 must be followed when she is de facto a concubine. The latter reading is exegetically preferable. The resultant possibility of a father giving his concubine to a son was probably not offensive, at a time when wife and concubine were regarded as property which a son could inherit. Among the Arabs marriage with a stepmother was common till the rise of Islam. In later times these marriages were forbidden both in the Koran and in the Hebrew law (Dt 22:30, 27:20, Lv 18:8, 20:11).

The Deuteronomic re-formulation of the Law of Release (Dt 15:12–18) is noteworthy. (1) Release is extended to the maid-servant. Consequently the specifications in Ex 21:8, 4, 7–11 are allowed to lapse, and in the rite-rite only the possibility of the slave continuing in servitude through love of his master is considered. This change is due to the increasing respect for the marriage relation. The slave-husband’s rights over the wife are now superior to the master’s rights, and it is apparently no longer assumed that the maid-servant as such is the concubine of her master. Where concubinage does not exist, the maid-servant can be released without prejudice to the marital relation. (2) In Deut. the rite-rite is clearly only a domestic rite. This confirms the interpretation of the rite given above. The Deuteronomist, who localizes all religious observances at the central sanctuary, consequently drops the ‘unto God’ of Ex 21:6a.

(3) The characteristic humanitarian exhortation (vv. 13, 14) is added, and the reasonableness of the law defended (vv. 15, 18).

Jer 34:8–17 describes an abortive attempt to observe the law in its Deuteronomic formulation. The law had evidently not been observed in spite of its reasonableness, and was subsequently again allowed to become a dead letter.

A third version of the Law of Release is found at Lv 25:39–55 . Three cases are considered :

(1) that of the Israelite who has sold himself, because of poverty, to his fellow-countryman (vv. 39–43). Such an one is not to be regarded as a real slave but as a hireling, and is to be released in the year of Jubilee. (2) Actual slaves are to be obtained only from non-Israelite peoples (cf. 1 K 9:20). For them there is no release (vv. 44–46). (3) If an Israelite sells himself to a gēr, he may be redeemed at any time by his next of kin or by himself (power to acquire property assumed), but in any case he must be freed at the year of Jubilee (vv. 47–54). The redemption-price is proportioned to the number of years he had yet to serve from the time of his redemption to the Jubilee year, in other words, to the pay he would receive as an hireling during that period. Thus the possibility of an Israelite becoming an actual slave is again obliterated. The differences between this law and the earlier legislation are marked. (a) It formulates the growing protest against the idea that an Israelite could be a slave (cf. Neh 5:5, 8). (b) Through the institution of the Jubilee year it provides that even the quasi-servitude which is admitted should not be for life, and consequently it ignores the awl-rite.

A difficulty emerges at this point. The Levitical law, which postpones release till the 50th year, seems to work a greater hardship at times than the earlier laws, which prescribe release in the 7th year. Here three things are to be remembered: (a) the earlier law had probably become a dead letter long before the present law was formulated (cf. Jer 34, above); (b) the Jubilee law is the result of a theological theory (cf. vv. 23, 42, 55), and never belonged to the sphere of practical legislation; (c) as such it is to be construed, not in antithesis to the 7th year of the earlier laws, but to the lifelong period of servitude often actually experienced. It will not lengthen the time until the year of release, but will theoretically abolish all lifelong servitude. This theoretical point of view so predominates that the prolongation of the time of servitude, if the law had ever become actually operative, is left out of account. The fact that the Israelite in servitude to another Israelite is really worse off than an Israelite attached to a gēr, who could be redeemed at any time, also shows that we are not dealing with practical legislation.

4. In these three laws of release we have three clearly marked stages in the recognition of the slave’s personality. The BC provides for the release of the Israelite man-servant. Deut., with its humanitarian tendencies, extends this privilege to the maid-servant. Lev., on the basis of its theological conceptions, denies that any Israelite can be an actual slave. But all these laws remain within nationalistic limitations. One step more must be taken. The rights of the slave as a man, and not simply as a fellow-countryman, must be recognized. The growing individualism which accompanied the development of the doctrine of monotheism prepared the way for this final step, which was taken by Job in the noble passage 31:13–15 . In the same spirit Joel universalizes the primitive conception of the necessary attachment of the slave to the family cult, and makes him share equally with all flesh in the baptism of the Spirit of God (2:29).

Note.—The relationship of servant to master is a favourite figure in the OT for the relationship of man to God (esp. in the Psalms). The nation, Israel, is also often thought of as the servant of Jehovah (cf. Is 41:8ff.)—a thought which finds its most profound expression in Is 42:1–4, 49:1–6, 50:4–10, 52:13– 53:12. Cf. art. SERVANT OF THE LORD.

5. In the NT it is only the attitude of Jesus and St. Paul towards slavery that demands attention. Jesus was not a political agitator, or even a social reformer. In nothing is this fact more strikingly illustrated than in His allusions to slavery. He refers to it only for purposes of illustration (e.g. Mk 12:2, 4, Mt 24:45, Jn 8:35 etc.). He never criticizes it, even when it violates, as He must have realized, His own principles of love and brotherhood (Mt 18:25, Lk 17:7ff.; contrast the figurative picture in Lk 12:37). But, as Christianity reached into the world and developed into a social force, it became increasingly necessary to consider what its attitude towards slavery should be, especially as many slaves became Christians (in Ro 16:10, 11, 1 Co 1:11, Ph 4:22 ‘them of the household’ are the slave-retainers). In this connexion St. Paul enunciates just one great principle—In Christ all the distinctions of this world disappear; the religion of Jesus knows neither bond nor free (1 Co 12:13, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11). But he did not use this principle to overthrow the institution of slavery. On the contrary, at 1 Co 7:21–23 he counsels one who has been called (into the Christian life) while a slave not to mourn his lot. He even advises him, if the opportunity to become free is offered, to remain in servitude (v. 21, but the interpretation is doubtful), the near approach of the Parousia (v. 29) apparently throwing these external conditions of life into a perspective of insignificance for St. Paul. The Apostle does not seek ‘to make free men out of slaves, but good slaves out of bad slaves’ (Eph 6:5–9 , Col 3:22–4:1; cf. 1 P 2:18). In these passages the corresponding duties of master to man are also insisted upon, as there is no respect of persons with Christ. It is significant that in the later Pastoral Epistles (1 Ti 6:1ff., Tit 2:9–11) the exhortations to the masters are omitted. It would seem as if some slaves had taken advantage of the Christian principle of brotherhood to become insurbordinate. In Philemon we have the classical illustration of St. Paul’s attitude towards slavery exemplified in a concrete case. Here again he does not ask Philemon to free Onesimus; and it is clear from 1 Ti 6:1ff. and the subsequent history of the Church that Christians in good standing owned slaves. But in Philem 16 the slave is transfigured into a brother in Christ. For further discussion of this point see art. PHILEMON.

Though the Church recognized slavery, it is a remarkable fact that in the epitaphs of the catacombs the deceased is never spoken of as having been a (human master’s) slave, though often described as a slave of God. In death, at least, the Christian ideal was fully realized. The slave becomes with the master only the slave of God. Contrast the gloomy equality in Job 3:19.

KEMPER FULLERTON.

SLEEVES.—See DRESS, 2 (d).

SLEIGHT.—The word tr. ‘sleight’ in Eph 4:14, ‘by the sleight of men,’ means literally diceplaying. Tindale uses ‘wylynes,’ which is more intelligible now than ‘sleight.’

SLIME.—See BITUMEN, SIDDIM [VALE OF].

SLING.—See ARMOUR ARMS, § 1 (e).

SMITH.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, § 2.

SMYRNA (also and more strictly Zmyrna) was founded as a colony from Greece earlier than B.C. 1000, but the early foundation, which had been Æolian, was captured by its southern neighbours the Ionian Greeks and made an Ionian colony. This second foundation became a powerful State, possessing territory far to the E., and as late as the 7th cent. B.C. fought on equal terms against the great Lydian power (see SARDIS) . It gradually gave way, however, and was captured and destroyed about B.C. 600 by Alyattes, king of Lydia. It now ceased to be a Greek city, and it was not till the 3rd cent. B.C. that it became so again. There was a State called Smyrna between 600 and 290, but it was mainly a loose congeries of villages scattered about the plain and the surrounding hills, and not in the Greek sense a polis (city-State). Alexander the Great intended to re-found the city, but did not carry out his plan. It was left for one of his successors, Lysimachus, who accomplished it in B.C. 290 . The old city had been on a steep high hill on the N. side of the extreme eastern recess of the gulf; the new was planted on the S.E. shore of the gulf, about 2 miles away. The object of the change was to obtain a good harbour and a suitable point for the starting of a land trade-route to the E. There were in reality two ports—a small inner one with a narrow entrance, and a mooring ground; the former has gradually filled up through neglect. Its maritime connexion brought it into contact with the Romans, who made an alliance with Smyrna against the Seleucid power. In B.C. 195 Smyrna built a temple to Rome, and ever afterwards remained faithful to that State through good fortune and bad. Rome showed a thorough appreciation of this friendship and loyalty, and in A.D. 26 this city was preferred before all others in Asia as the seat of the new temple to be dedicated by the confederacy of that province to Tiberius.

The city was of remarkable beauty. Its claim to be the chief city of Asia was contested by Ephesus and Pergamum, but in beauty it was easily first. In addition to its picturesque situation it was commended by its handsome and excellently paved streets, which were fringed by the groves in the suburbs. The city was well wailed, and in the pagos above possessed an ideal acropolis, which, with its splendid buildings in orderly arrangement, was known as the crown or garland of Smyrna. The protecting divinity of the city was a local variety of Cybele, known as the Sipylene Mother, and the towers and battlements of her head-dress bore an obvious resemblance to the appearance of the city. (The Greeks identified her with Nemesis, who here alone in the Greek world was worshipped, and not as one but as a pair of goddesses.) There was one street known as the Street of Gold. It went from W. to E., curving round the sloping hill, and had a temple on a hill at each end. For its length and fine buildings it was compared to a necklace of jewels round the neck of a statue. The life of the city was and is much benefited in the hottest period of the day by a west wind which blows on it with great regularity, dying down at sunset. This was counterbalanced by a disadvantage, the difficulty of draining the lowest parts of the city, a difficulty accentuated by this very wind. Smyrna boasted that it was the birthplace of Homer, who had been born and brought up beside the river Meles. This stream is identified by local patriotism with the Caravan Bridge River, which flows northwards till it comes below the pagos, then flows round its eastern base and enters the sea to the N.E. of it. But this is a mistaken view. The Meles is undoubtedly to be identified with the stream coming from the Baths of Diana and called Chalka-bounar, as it alone satisfies the minute description of the Smyrnæan orator Aristides (flourished 2nd cent. A.D.) and other ancient writers. It rises in the very suburbs of the city, and is fed by a large number of springs, which rise close to one another. Its course is shaped-shaped at first, and afterwards it flows gently to the sea like a canal. Its temperature is equable all the year round, and it never either overflows or dries up. The city has suffered from frequent earthquakes (for instance, in A.D. 180) , but has always risen superior to its misfortunes. It did not become a Turkish city till Tamerlane captured it in A.D. 1402 . Even now the Christian element is three times as large as the Mohammedan, and the Turks call the city Infidel Smyrna. It has always been an important place ecclesiastically.

The letter to the Church at Smyrna (Rev 2:8–11) is the most favourable of all. The writer puts its members on a higher plane than any of the others. They have endured persecution and poverty, but they are rich in real wealth. They are the victims of calumny, but are not to be afraid. Some are even to be sent to prison as a prelude to execution, and to have suffering for a time. If they are faithful they shall receive real life. The church was dead and yet lived, like the city in former days. The Jews in Smyrna had been specially hostile to the Christians, and had informed against them before the Roman officials. Most of them were probably citizens of Smyrna, but became merged in the general population and were not confined to a certain tribe, since the Romans ceased to recognize the Jews as a nation after A.D. 70 . The hatred of the Jews there can be explained only by the supposition that many of the Christians were converted Jews. Similarly they helped in the martyrdom of Polycarp (A.D. 155) . The city and its Christianity have survived all attacks.

A. SOUTER.

SNAIL.—l. chōmet, Lv 11:30. See LIZARD. 2. shabbĕlul, Ps 58:8 ‘Let them he as a snail which melteth and passeth away.’ The reference here appears to be to the slimy track which a snail leaves behind it, which gives the appearance of ‘melting away.’

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SNARES.—A cord with running noose (mōqēsh, Am 3:5 etc.; cf. yāqōsh ‘one who lays snares,’ ‘fowler’ Hos 9:8) was used to catch ground game and birds. The fowler also used a net (resheth, Pr 1:17, Hos 5:1 etc.), under which he tempted birds by means of food, and then, concealed near by, pulled it down upon them. The pach ( Ps 124:7, Pr 7:23, Ec 9:12 etc. ) probably corresponded to the Arab. fakhkh, a trap made of hone and gut, with tongue and jaws on the principle of the common rat-trap. It is light, and the bird caught by the foot easily springs up with it from the ground in its vain efforts to escape. Of this Amos gives a vivid picture (3:5). In later times the fowler used decoys to lure birds into his cage (Sir 11:30). Both mōqēsh and pach are several times rendered in EV by gin. The NT pagis (Ro 11:9 etc.), and brochos (1 Co 7:35), may mean ‘snare,’ ‘net,’ or ‘trap’; whatever seizes one unawares.

W. EWING.

SNOW.—Every winter snow falls occasionally in the mountainous districts of Palestine, but seldom lies for more than a few hours—at most for a day or two. The greater part of the year, however, snow, glistening on the shoulders of Great Hermon, is easily seen from most of the higher hills in the country. It is frequently used as a symbol of whiteness and purity (Ex 4:6, Ps 51:7, Is 1:18, Mt 28:3 etc.). It stands for the cold against which the good housewife provides ( Pr 31:21) . From Mt. Hermon snow has been carried since olden times to great distances, to refresh the thirsty in the burning heat of summer (Pr 26:1). Water mithl eth-thilj ( ‘like the snow’) for coolness, is the modern Arab’s ideal drink.

W. EWING.

SNUFFERS, SNUFF DISHES.—The former of these are the ‘tongs’ of Ex 37:23, the latter the vessels in which the burnt portions of the wicks were deposited. See TABERNACLE, 6 (b) . Cf. FIREPAN.

SO.—The king of Egypt (Mizraim), Hoshea’s correspondence with whom led shortly to the captivity of Israel (2 K 17:4). In B.C. 725 the kingdom of Egypt was probably in confusion (end of Dyn. 23), the land being divided among petty princes, and threatened or held by the Ethiopians. It is difficult to find an Egyptian name of this period that would be spelt So in Hebrew. Assyrian annals, however, inform us that in 722, shortly after the fall of Samaria, a certain Sib’i, ‘tartan’ (commander-in-chief) of Musri, was sent by Pir’u, king of Musri (i.e.

probably Pharaob, king of Egypt), to the help of Gaza against Sargon. This Sib’i may be our So (or Seve), not king, but commander-in-chief. It has been thought that the Heb. So, Seve, and the Assyr. Sib’i might stand for the name of the Ethiopian Shabako of the 25th Dyn., as crown prince and then king, but they would be singularly imperfect renderings of that name. Shabako gained the throne of Egypt about B.C. 713.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

SOAP (bōrīth) occurs in EV (AV ‘sope’) only in Jer 2:22 (washing of the person) and Mal 3:2 (operations of the fuller). Properly bōrīth denotes simply ‘that which cleanses.’ The cognate word bōr is commonly rendered ‘cleanness,’ but in Job 9:30, Is 1:25 RVm gives ‘lye.’ Soap in the modern sense of the word was unknown in OT times, and we do not know what precisely is referred to by bōrīth. As in Jer 2:22 nether ( AV ‘nitre’ [wh. see]), a mineral alkali, is set in antithesis to bōrīth, it is supposed that the latter was some kind of vegetable alkali which, mixed with oil, would serve the purposes of soap. This may be confirmed by the fact that in Jer 2:22 and Mal 3:2 LXX renders bōrīth by poia = ‘grass.’

J. C. LAMBERT.

SOBRIETY.—See TEMPERANCE, 1.

SOCO, SOCOH (RV has Socoh everywhere, except in 1 Ch 4:18 and 2 Ch 28:18, where it has Soco).—1. A fortified town in the Shephēlah of Judah, mentioned in Jos 15:35 along with Adullam and Azekah; the Philistines (1 S 17:1) ‘pitched between Socoh and Azekah’: Benhesed, one of Solomon’s twelve officers, had charge of it (1 K 4:10); it was re-fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:7) ; during the reign of Ahaz it was taken, along with other prominent fortress cities of the Shephēlah, by the Philistines. Its site was known to Eusebius and Jerome. It is now Khurbet Shuweikeh (dim. of Arab. Shaukeh) , a ruin on a remarkable isolated hill in the Wady es-Sunt ( Vale of Elah) near where it turns west. The hill is surrounded on three sides by deep valleys, while on the remaining, the E. end, a narrow, low neck, easily defended, connects it with the higher ground. Although there are few remains on the surface, the ancient city wall may be traced round most of the circumference: there is a plentiful spring to the S.W. Such a defensible site, lying close to main roads from Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, etc., to the great Philistine plain, must always have been of first-class importance. The Suchathites of 1 Ch 2:55 are perhaps inhabitants of Socoh.

2. Another Socoh (apparently) is mentioned in Jos 15:48, along with Jattir and Debir. The site of this may be esh-Shuweikeh, 10 miles S.W. of Hebron. 3. Soco in 1 Ch 4:18 is probably one or other of these two towns.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SOD, SODDEN.—See SEETHE.

SODI.—The father of the Zebulunite spy (Nu 13:10).

SODOM.—See DEAD SEA, PLAIN [CITIES OF THE].

SODOMITISH SEA, 2 Es 5:7 = the Dead Sea (wh. see).

SOJOURNER.—See STRANGER.

SOLDIER.—See ARMY, LEGION, WAR.

SOLEMN, SOLEMNITY.—The adj. ‘solemn’ frequently occurs in AV, always with assembly or meeting or some such word, and always in its early sense of ‘regular’ or ‘public’ Thus ‘a solemn feast’ means simply ‘a stated feast’; there is no corresponding word in the Hebrew. In the same way ‘solemnity’ means ‘public occasion.’ How much this word, as used in AV, differs from its modern meaning, may be seen from Shaks., Midsummer Night’s Dream, v. i. 376:

‘A fortnight hold we this solemnity, In nightly revels and new jollity.’

SOLEMN ASSEMBLY.—See CONOREGATION

SOLOMON

1. Sources.—1 K 1–11 (cf. 11:41), with parallels in 2 Ch 1–9 (add references in closing chs. of 1 Ch.). In Chronicles the character of Solomon, as of the period as a whole, is idealized; e.g. nothing is said of the intrigues attending his accession, his foreign marriages and idolatry, or his final troubles, even with Jeroboam. Details are added or altered in accordance with post-exilic priestly conceptions (5:12, 13, 7:5, 8:11–15) ; 1:3 (cf. 1 K 3:4) makes the sacrifice at Gibeon more orthodox; the dream becomes a theophany; in 7:1, 3 fire comes down from heaven. In 9:29

reference is made to authorities, possibly sections of 1 K.; there is no evidence that the Chronicler was able to go behind 1, 2 K. for his materials. The books of OT and Apocrypha ascribed to Solomon are of value only as giving later conceptions of his career. Josephus (Ant. VIII. i–viii.) cannot be relied on where be differs from OT; the same holds good of the fragments quoted by Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus. Later legends, Jewish and Mohammedan, are interesting, but historically valueless; the fact that they have in no way influenced the OT narrative is an evidence of its general reliability; only two dreams and no marvels are recorded of Solomon. Archæology has so far contributed very little to our knowledge of his reign.

2. Chronology.—His accession is dated c. B.C. 969, i.e. about 50 years later than the traditional chronology. We have unfortunately no exact data, the dates of Hiram and Shishak (1 K 11:40) not having been precisely determined. The origin and interpretation of the 480 years in

6:1 are very doubtful. The ‘little child’ of 3:7 ( cf. Jer 1:6) does not require the tradition that Solomon was only twelve at his accession (Josephus); the probabilities point to his being about twenty. The 40 years of his reign, as of David’s (cf. Jg 3:11, 30, 5:31, 8:28 etc.), would seem to represent a generation.

3. Early years.—Solomon was the son of David and Bathsheba (2 S 12:24, 25), presumably their eldest surviving child; his position in the lists of 5:14, 1 Ch 3:5, 14:4 is strange, perhaps due to emphasis. The name means ‘peaceful’ (Heb. Shetōmoh; cf. Irenœus, Friedrich) , indicating the longing of the old king (1 Ch 22:9); cf. Absatom ( ‘father is peace’). The name given him by Nathan (2 S 12:25), Jedidiah (‘beloved of J″,’ the same root as David) , is not again referred to, perhaps as being too sacred. It was the pledge of his father’s restoration to Divine favour. We have no account of his training. ‘The Lord loved him’ (2 S 12:24) implies great gifts; and v. 25 and 1 K 1 suggest the influence of Nathan. His mother evidently had a strong hold over him (1 K 1 , 2).

4. Accession.—The appointment of a successor in Eastern monarchies depended on the king’s choice, which in Israel needed to be ratified by the people (1 K 12); where polygamy prevails, primogeniture cannot be assumed. 1:13 implies a previous promise to Bathsheba, perhaps a ‘court secret’; the public proclamation of 1 Ch 22:2–19 , if at all historical, must be misplaced. Adonijah, ‘a very goodly man’ (1 K 1:6), relying on the favour of the people (2:15) [ it is doubtful whether he was the eldest surviving son], made a bid for the throne, imitating the method of Absalom and taking advantage of David’s senility. He was easily foiled by the prompt action of Nathan and Bathsheba; Solomon himself was evidently young, though soon able to assert himself. The careful and impressive ritual of the coronation was calculated to leave no doubt in the people’s mind as to who was the rightful heir. The young king learned quickly to distinguish between his friends and enemies, as well as to rely on the loyalty of the Cherethites, his father’s foreign bodyguard. The sparing of Adonijah (1 K 1:53) suggests that he was not a very formidable competitor; his plot was evidently badly planned. His request to Bathsheba (2:13) may have been part of a renewed attempt on the kingdom (as heir he claims his father’s wives), or may have been due to real affection. At any rate the king’s suspicion or jealousy was aroused, and his rival was removed; Canticles suggests that Solomon himself was believed to have been the lover of Abishag. The deposition of Abiathar, and the execution of Joab and Shimei, were natural consequences; and in the case of the two last, Solomon was only following the advice of his father (2:5, 8). He thus early emphasized his power to act, and as a result ‘his kingdom was established greatly’ at a cheap cost. We shall hardly criticise the removal of dangerous rivals when we remember the fate which he himself would have met if Adonijah had succeeded (1:21), and the incidents common at the beginning of a new reign (2 K 11:1; cf. Pr 25:5).

5. Policy.—The work of Solomon was to develop the ideas of his father. He consolidated the kingdom, welding its disorganized tribal divisions together into a short-lived unity, by the power of an Oriental despotism. The subjugation of the Canaanites was completed (9:20). The position of Jerusalem as the capital was secured by the building of the Temple and palaces and by the fortification of Millo (9:24, 11:27). A chain of garrison and store cities was established (9:15), together with a standing army which included 12,000 horsemen and 1400 chariots (4:26, 10:26). The extent of his dominions (4:21, 24) may represent the idea of a later age, and Eastern monarchs were ready to claim suzerainty where there was but little effective control. But inscriptions show us how kaleidoscopic were the politics of the period; kingdoms rose and fell very quickly, and the surrounding States were all at the time in a state of weakness. It was this that enabled his reign to be a generation of peace. His troubles (11:9–40) were very few for so long a life. The hostility of Hadad (v. 14ff.) was a legacy from David, but there is no evidence that he became king of Edom. Rezon (v. 23) conquered Damascus and founded a dynasty, but we hear nothing of any serious war. Nothing is known of the Hamath-zobah which Solomon subdued (2 Ch 8:3). More than any other Jewish king, he realized the importance of foreign alliances, which were closely connected with his commercial policy. (a) Early in his reign he married Pharaoh’s daughter (1 K 3:1), who brought as her marriage portion Gezer (9:16). This Pharaoh was apparently the last of the Tanite (21st) dynasty—a confused period of which little is known; we have no other notice of the connexion between Egypt and Palestine at this period. Solomon was able to control, and no doubt profited by, the caravan trade between the Euphrates and the Nile. The caravanserai of Chimham (Jer 41:17; cf. 2 S 19:37, 1 K 2:7) may have been established at this period in connexion with that trade. From Egypt (unless a N. Syrian Musri is intended) came horses and chariots for Solomon’s own use, and for the purposes of a Syrian trade (10:28, 29). The alliance was apparently not disapproved at the time (cf. Ps 45), but it was not continued; Shishak protects Jeroboam (1 K 11:40). (b) The alliance with Hiram of Tyre ( according to Clem. Alex., Solomon also married his daughter, cf. 11:1, 5) was a continuation of the policy of David [but unless this Hiram was the son of David’s ally the building of the palace in 2 S 5:11 is put too early]. This was in connexion with his building operations (5:1–12). Timber from Lebanon was brought by sea to Joppa, together with skilled workmen from Tyre, especially the Gebalites (v. 18, cf. Ezk 27:8); Hiram, a worker in brass, is particularly mentioned (1 K 7:13). The yearly payment consisted of agricultural commodities (5:11; note exaggerations in 2 Ch 2:10). A grant of twenty cities in Galilee was unsatisfactory to Hiram, though he apparently paid for them (1 K 9:10–14). A more substantial return was the security which Solomon was able to offer to Phœnician trade with the E., and, above all, access to the port of

Ezion-geber on the Red Sea, made possible by his suzerainty over Edom. Tamar (1 K 9:18 RV [AV ‘Tadmor’]) in S. Judah apparently protected the route to the port. A lucrative trade was carried on by the two kings in partnership, in gold, spices, sandalwood, apes, peacocks, etc. (9:26 , 10:11, 22). The extent of their voyages is a mystery, the situation of both Ophir and Tarshish being unknown. Assuming that there was only one Tarshish, and that in the West, it is still very doubtful whether Solomon can have been allowed any share in the Mediterranean trade; ‘ships of Tarshish’ may be only a name for a particular type of vessel. The Ophir trade must have been connected with S. Arabia; hence no doubt the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1); the ‘presents’ exchanged would be really of the nature of barter, as illustrated by the Tell el-Amarna

tablets. The Jews never took kindly to the sea, and, except for the abortive attempt of Jehoshaphat (22:48), Solomon’s policy found no imitators.

6. Internal condition of his kingdom.—The impression is given us of great wealth. Though the sums left by David (1 Ch 22:14) are incredible (equal to a thousand million pounds), Solomon’s own revenue (four millions, 1 K 10:14) is possible for an exceptional year. But the gold was used chiefly in unproductive forms of display (v. 16ff.), and probably but little was in circulation among the people; he had a difficulty in paying Hiram (9:11). His passion for buildings was extravagant; the Temple was seven years in building (6:38); his own house thirteen (7:1); there was also the palace for his wife (v. 8). He had an enormous court (note list of officers in 4:2) and harem (11:1), necessitating a luxurious daily provision (4:22). The country was divided into twelve parts, under twelve officers, each responsible for a month’s supplies (v. 7) ; these did not coincide with the tribal divisions, and Judah was exempt. For the building operations a mas or forced levy was organized under Adoram (5:13, cf. 2 S 20:24) with numerous subordinates (5:16, 9:23); 30,000 men were sent to Lebanon, 10,000 a month; there were carriers and hewers (5:15), and the aborigines were used as helots (9:20, Ezr 2:55 mentions their descendants). The mas was the very word used of the labour in Egypt, and beneath the apparent prosperity (4:20, 25) was a growing discontent and jealousy of Judah, which broke out in the rebellion of Jeroboam. By his personal popularity and extravagant display Solomon won a great ‘name’ (4:31, 10:1, 7), and gave Israel a position among the nations. His reign came to be idealized, but his policy was clearly economically and socially unsound, and could only lead to ruin. From the religious point of view the outstanding feature is the building of the Temple. It is an anachronism to represent it as the centralization of the worship of J″ according to the standard of Deut., to the exclusion of the ‘high places,’ and its effect was largely neutralized by the honour paid to other gods (11); none the less its elaborate magnificence was a visible proof of the triumph of J″ over the Baal worship of Canaan, and of His exaltation as supreme God of the nation. It cannot be maintained that the material and local conception of the Deity which it suggested made entirely for spiritual religion (Is 1:13, Jer 7:4, Ac 7:48); it meant a concentration of power in the hands of the Jerusalem priesthood at the cost of the prophets, who had no influence during Solomon’s reign (Nathan in 4:6 is probably his brother), and the attitude of Nathan, Ahijah, and Shemaiah makes it probable that they looked with suspicion on the new developments. It was, however, a necessary step in the religious history of the nation, and the Psalms prove that it made Zion the centre of its enthusiastic patriotism.

7. His wisdom was the special gift of God (3:5). His ‘judgment’ (v. 18ff.) is the typical instance. It presumably took place early in his reign (cf. the contemptuous laughter of the people in Jos. Ant. VIII. ii. 2), and simply shows a shrewd knowledge of human nature; many parallels are quoted. It proves his fitness for judicial functions, and 4:29–34 gives the general idea of his attainments. He was regarded as the father of Jewish proverbial (or gnomic) wisdom; ‘wisdom books’ existed in Egypt long before, but it seems impossible to distinguish in our present ‘Proverbs’ (c. B.C. 250) what elements may be due to him. Sirach and Wis. have no title to his name. 1 K 4:20, 33 suggest general and poetical culture, parables drawn from nature, rather than the beginnings of science. Ps 72 may possibly belong to his age, but not Ps 127 or Canticles.

Later tradition added much; the solving of ‘riddles’ held a large place in the wisdom of the East, and we hear of the ‘hard questions’ of the queen of Sheba (10:1), and of a contest between Solomon and Hiram (Jos. Ant. VIII. v. 3). Josephus also speaks of his power over demons; Rabbinical legend of his control over beasts and birds, of his ‘magic carpet,’ and knowledge of the Divine name. Examples of the legendary material are accessible in Farrar’s Solomon.

8. Character.—Solomon evidently began his reign with high ideals, of which his dream (3:5) was a natural expression. His sacrifice at Gibeon (v. 4) gives another aspect; his religion was associated with external display. So the magnificence of the Temple, the pageantry and holocausts of its dedication (8), certainly ministered to his own glory, no less than to God’s. His prayer, however, if it he in any sense authentic, is lull of true piety, and he seems to have had a real delight in religious observances (9:25). His fall is connected with his polygamy and foreign wives (11, cf. Neh 13:26). He not only allowed them their own worship, a necessary concession, but shared in it; the memory of his ‘high places,’ within sight of his own Temple, was preserved in the name ‘Mount of Offence.’ This idolatry was, in fact, the natural syncretism resulting from his habitual foreign intercourse. Self-indulgence and the pride of wealth evidently played their part in his deterioration. Of his actual end nothing is known; he was an ‘old man’ (1 K 11:4) at sixty years, but Jeroboam’s flight suggests that he could still make his authority felt. Ecclesiastes gives a good impression of the ‘moral’ of his life; but whether he actually repented and was ‘saved’ was warmly debated by the Fathers. Dt 17:16f. criticises his Egyptian alliance and harem, his love of horses and of wealth, and Sir 47:12–21 is a fair summary of the career of one whose ‘heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father’ (1 K 11:4). His wisdom could not teach him self-control, and the only legacy of a violated home-life was a son ‘ample in foolishness and lacking in understanding.’

C. W. EMMET.

SOLOMON’S PORCH.—See TEMPLE, § 11 (a).

SOLOMON’S SERVANTS.—See NETHINIM.

SOMEIS (1 Es 9:34) = Shimei, Ezr 10:38.

SOMETIME, SOMETIMES.—There is no difference in the use of these two forms in AV, and except in Sir 37:14 (‘For a man’s mind is sometime wont to tell him,’ etc.), where the meaning is ‘occasionally,’ as now, both forms are used in the sense of ‘once upon a time.’

SON.—See CHILD, FAMILY.

SON OF GOD, SON OF MAN.—See PERSON OF CHRIST, I. §§ 3. 4.

SONG OF SONGS (or CANTICLES)

1. Place in the Canon, interpretation, structure.—(a) The Song of Songs is one of the Kethūbīm, Hagiographa, or Writings, the third of the three classes into which the Jewish Canon was divided. Printed copies of the Heb. OT follow the arrangement of the German and French MSS in placing it at the head of the five Megillōth or Rolls—the short books which are read at the great annual solemnities of Passover, Pentecost, the 9th Ab, Feast of Booths, Purim. Probably it owes its premier position to the fact that Passover is the earliest festival of the year. But there is reason for believing that a more ancient order survives in the LXX, where it stands by the side of Prov. and Eccles., the two other works to which Solomon’s name was attached.

Grave doubts were long entertained by the Rabbis respecting the canonicity of Canticles ( a common name of the book, from Vulg. Canticum Canticorum).

The Synod of Jamnia (A.D. 90–100) , after some discussion, decided in favour of its reception, and Rabbi Akiba († A.D. 135) lent to this conclusion the weight of his great influence: ‘All the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Songs is the most holy, and the whole world is not of such importance as the day in which it was given.’ The opening words of the Targum are equally strong: ‘Songs and praises which Solomon the prophet, the king of Israel, spake by the Holy Spirit before Jahweh, the Lord of the whole world. Ten songs were sung in that day, but this song was more to be praised than they all.’ The Midrash asserts that ‘Canticles is the most excellent of songs, dedicated to Him who one day will cause the Holy

Ghost to rest on us; it is that song in which God praises us and we Him.’

(b) It was evidently admitted into the OT because it was supposed to treat of a religious theme. This is implied by its title in the Syriac Version: ‘Wisdom of Wisdoms, which is Solomon’s: the book which is called in Hebrew Shirath Shirim (i.e. “Song of Songs”).’ The theme was supposed to be the reciprocal love of Jahweh and Israel, and the story of that love in the history of the Chosen People. This was here enshrined in an allegory somewhat analogous to Hos 1–3 and Ezk 16. The Church adopted this line of interpretation from the Synagogue: Christ is the bridegroom, the Church or the soul is the bride.

The rubrics prefixed to many verses in Cod. Amiatinus of the Vulgate illustrate the manner in which this was worked out:’ ‘Voice of the Synagogue,’ ‘Voice of the Church,’ ‘Voice of Christ,’ ‘Voice of Mary Magdalene to the Church,’ ‘Christ calls together the nations.’ To some writers the Virgin Mary was the bride, and Canticles told the story of the incarnation. Luther read here Solomon’s thanksgivings for the blessings bestowed on his kingdom. The school of allegorists has lost ground considerably in modern times, but is not yet extinct. There were, however, almost from the beginning, exegetes who saw that the subject really treated of in Ca. is the mutual love of man and woman. In the early Church the great name of Theodore of Mopsuestia stands out on this side, and among the Jews that of Ibn Ezra. Castellio was driven out of Geneva by Calvin for asserting it, and Luis de Leon was thrown into prison by the Inquisition for the same cause.

(c) The question of form is closely connected with that of subject. Origen was the first to point out its affinity to the drama, but the earliest attempt to work this out thoroughly was made as late as 1722 by a German, G. Wachter. He has found many followers. Solomon and a country maiden were supposed to be the two leading characters. He married her, and his love for her led him to adopt a simpler mode of life. But is there not a third important character in the play? Later students answered in the affirmative. The revised explanation was that Solomon carried off ‘the Shulammite’ to his harem, and, abetted by the women already there, the ‘daughters of Jerusalem,’ sought to divert her affections from her shepherd-lover: failing in this, he at last magnanimously resigned her to the shepherd. Leaving aside all detailed objections, the consideration which is fatal to these and all conceivable forms of the theory is that the drama has no place in Semitic literature. If Ca. had been an exception to the rule, how is it that there is not a single stage-direction, not a note of any kind to identify the speaker or regulate the action?

Certain important MSS of the LXX show how keenly this defect was felt; to each longer or shorter section they prefix ‘The Bridegroom,’ ‘The Bride,’ ‘A second time the Bride adjures the maidens,’ or the like, and one MS (23) runs to the following length, before 5:7, ‘Not having found the bridegroom, the bride went out, and, as one found by the city-watchmen in the night, she is wounded and the keepers of the wall take her veil.’

And how is it that there is, within the poem itself, no movement towards a climax, no knot united or cut, no dénouement? Matters are as far advanced at 1:4, 2:4 as at 8:5.

Even during the period when the drama-theory was most vigorously maintained, some distinguished scholars held that Ca. is made up of a number of originally detached pieces, which were eventually brought together because they all treat of Love. Wetzstein’s Die Syrische Dreschtafet (1873) furnished a strong reinforcement of this opinion. He had observed, whilst resident in Syria, that the peasant bridegroom and bride are entitled king and queen for the first week of married life [a contemporary Arabic epithalamium has since then been cited (ZATW xxiv. p. 42) in which the man actually bears the name of the reigning Sultan, Abd il-Hamīd]; they are attended by a vizier, have their throne on the threshing-floor, and receive the homage of the whole countryside. Songs and dances are executed by the ‘friends of the bridegroom,’ the bystanders, and the newly married pair. Some of these ditties, especially those which enumerate the charms of the bride, ate of exactly the same character as certain sections of Canticles, and 7:1ff. corresponds precisely with the wasf ( ‘description’) which the bride sings as she goes through the sword-dance on the wedding night. These facts have induced a large number of expositors to believe that Ca. is a collection of love-songs, composed expressly for, or at any rate suitable for use at, marriage festivals.

Budde, who strongly advocates this view, admits that the book is not without marks of unity, but holds that these are sufficiently accounted for on the supposition that all these folk-songs originated in a single district and period. Haupt entirely rejects the idea of a unity, and, looking on the book in its present state as a disorganized mass, re-arranges it into twelve poems. The extent to which he carries the liberty of re-casting may be seen in his No. 3, ‘Brothers of the Bride,’ which is made up of 6:3, 7:11, 2:1, 1:5–6 , 8:8–10, 8:1–2. Even Budde’s less drastic treatment ecarcely does justice to the tokens of plan and unity which the book presents. The recurrence of certain phrases (2:7, 3:6, 8:4; 2:17, 4:6, 8:14) is meant to indicate connexions and transitions of thought, and there is no overwhelming reason against our ascribing them to the original writer.

The sentiments and the style are so similar throughout as to justify our thinking of a single author who composed erotic and nuptial pieces for several occasions, and afterwards wove them into a garland of verse (cf. 2:5, 5:8; 1:16, 4:1; 4:2, 6:6; 2:16, 6:3; 6:4, 6:10; 2:9, 8:14). A few of the smaller parts have probably been removed from their intended place, and it hardly admits of doubt that 4:8 is a belated fragment, unintelligible where it now stands. But when we remember the apparent irrelevance of the occasional verses sung in Palestine to-day, we shall be slow to deny that the singers and auditors of Ca. grasped allusions and perceived a fitness which we fail to apprehend. And in studying the song from this point of view it is well to bear in mind the facts collected by Dalman (Paläst. Divan, p. xii.). He points out that the wasf is not limited to wedding festivities, but is sung by the tent-fire, in the village inn, in the coffee-house where townsmen gather at night; that it is usually brief when descriptive of the beauty of bride or bridegroom; that in Palestine itself—however true Wetzstein’s account of Damascus and the Hauran—there are but scanty traces of the temporary royalty of the bridal pair, and none of the threshing-sledge throne.

2. Contents.—These fall into what we may call seven cantos. I. (1:2–2:7): in 1:2–4 the bride declares her affection; In v. 6f. deprecates unfavourable criticism; in v. 7f. inquires for her beloved. In 1:9–2:8 we have their praise of each other; in 2:4–7 her experience of love. II. (2:8– 2:17): vv. 8–14 a spring visit, v. 16 the foxes, v. 16f. close of the canto. III. (3:1–3:11): vv. 1–5 a dream, vv. 6–11 interlude. IV. (4:1–5:1): in 4:1–7 he sets forth her charms; v. 8 a fragment, vv. 9–11 his ecstasy of love, 4:12–5:1 a ‘garden.’ V. (5:2–6:9): 5:2–8 a dream, 5:8–6:8 wasf sung by bride; vv. 4–9 his praise of her. VI. (6:10–8:4): 6:10 inquiry by women, v. 11f. her rapture, 6:13– 7:10 wasf sung during sword-dance (‘dance of camps,’ 7:1), 7:11–8:4 songs of the bride. VII.

(8:5–14): v. 6 a reminiscence, v. 6f. the power of love, vv. 8–10 the solicitude of the brothers, v.

11 f. an apologue, v. 13f. conclusion.

We cannot regret that these canticles of human love have been preserved for us in the OT.

The mutual attraction of the sexes is Divinely ordained. The love which finds expression in Ca. Is regulated by marriage. The imagery is too luscious and the detail too complete for our taste, but they were produced by an Oriental for Orientals. More reticence does not necessarily mean more genuine purity. We should indeed have been glad to find some recognition of the loftier side of marriage, or something to remind us of Pr. 31. But the occasions for which these verses were composed and a comparison of the effusions which are still current on like occasions effectually disarm criticism. Dalman (Pal. Divan, p. xiii.) remarks justly concerning the folksongs which he has brought together: ‘The fact that the poems dwell only on the physical excellences of the beloved corresponds with the degree of civilization to which the Palestinian populace has attained. It does not follow that the Oriental ascribes no value to a woman’s excellences of disposition and character.’

3. Authorship and date.—The title (1:1), according to which Solomon was the poet, is entirely destitute of authority. Its late and artificial origin is betrayed by the absence of the full form of the relative pronoun, which occurs nowhere in the poems themselves. The ascription of the authorship to the famous king is due partly to his being mentioned in 1:5, 8:12 (3:7, 11 are doubtful), and partly to his reputation as the typically wise man, the composer of songs a thousand and five (1 K 4:32). But the canonicity of the book would not have remained an open question until the 1st cent. of the Christian era if it had then been extant a thousand years as an acknowledged product of his hand. Moreover, the language in which it is written belongs to the very latest stratum of Biblical Hebrew. The exclusive use of the abbreviated pronoun occurs in no early document, and cannot be explained as a peculiarity of the northern dialect. And there is no proof that the writer was specially connected with the North; if he mentions Lebanon, Amana,

Shenir, Hermon, Tirzah, he also knows En-gedi, Heshbon, the wilderness (of Judah), the ‘daughters of Jerusalem.’ Considering the brevity of the book, there is a very considerable number of words which are seldom or never found elsewhere, or are employed here in place of more common ones, or are to be seen only in late writings. One of them pardēs, is Zend; another, ’ĕgōz, is Persian; ’appiryōn may be the Gr. phoreion; several are Aramaic. We should not look for these phenomena earlier than the period when Hebrew was yielding place to Aramaic, and if the exact age cannot be determined, the 3rd cent. B.C. is at least approximately correct.

4. Style.—It would be a dull eye that should miss the beauty of these poems. The verse moves lightly and gracefully, the imagery is charming. Our poet was deeply susceptible to the loveliness of nature, and fully capable of appreciating the art of his time. He carries us with him into the open air, to the vineyards, the villages, the mountains. He is awake at daybreak, to inhale the scent of the forest trees, to gather the apples and the pomegranates, to listen to the tinkle of the rills. Flocks of wild pigeons, timid and swift gazelles, fields embroidered with lilies, the breath of spring—all appeal to him. On the other hand, he is stirred by the pomp of a court, the magnificence of a royal litter, the glittering whiteness of an ivory tower, martial trophies, the rich attire of women, their jewels and perfumes. As a poem there is nothing else in the Bible to compare with this. Had it indeed been Solomon’s, it would have been, as the title asserts, his Song of Songs, the fine fleur of his poetry.

5. Text.—This is not in a satisfactory state, but the critic should proceed with much caution. There are many passages where our view of the interpretation suggests alterations (1:2, 4, 8, 9, 2:9, 3:10, 4:14, 16, 5:1, 6, 6:2, 6, 8, 7:8, 8, 13), but it is obviously easy to allow ourselves too much licence. Bearing in mind what might be advanced on both sides, who shall determine whether Nergal is to be substituted for nidhgaloth (‘banners’) at 6:10? The Versions, especially LXX and Syr., supply a few better readings (1:3 , 4, 7, 10, 2:17, 3:1, 6, 10, 4:8, 12, 5:11, 13, 6:6, 7:1, 8:2). There are obvious errors of transcription: nard should not follow nards (4:13f.) . Emendations suggested by the metre deserve attention (1:15, 3:9, 11, 7:8), but this has been carried much too far, not only by Bickell, but also in Kittel’s edition of the Heb. Bible. Littmann (ZATW xxiv. p. 43) pertinently remarks that in many of the popular Arabic poems which he has collected there is an absence of definite verse-measure, and considers that ‘in the OT also, verses of that kind, without definite metre, are at least possible.’ There has been also a little too much readiness to delete verses, sentences, or words, on the ground that they occur in other parts of the poem in more suitable contexts. Martineau would omit 3:1–5 because of its resemblance to 5:2ff. We must not forget that catchwords and refrains are characteristic of this class of poetry.

J. TAYLOR.

SONG OF THE THREE HOLY CHILDREN.—See APOCRYPHA, § 6.

SONS OF GOD.—See CHILDREN OF GOD.

SONS OF THE PROPHETS.—See PROPHECY, p. 758^a.

SOOTHSAYER.—See MAGIC DIVINATION AND SORCERY.

SOP.—See MEALS, 5.

SOPATER, SOSIPATER.—These are two forms of the same name; St. Luke, as usual, adopts the more colloquial. 1. In Ac 20:4 we read that Sopater, son of Pyrrhus ( RV), of Berœa, accompanied St. Paul on his journey towards Jerusalem as far as Asia (if these last words are part of the true text), i.e. Troas [see SECUNDUS]. The mention of the father’s name, unusual in NT, is thought by Blass to denote that Sopater was of noble birth; by Alford, to be intended to distinguish him from—2. A ‘kinsman,’ i.e. fellow-countryman [see JASON] , of St. Paul, who sends greetings in Ro 16:21. It seems unlikely, but not impossible, that these are the same person.

A. J. MACLEAN.

SOPE.—See SOAP.

SOPHERETH.—A family of Nethinim, Neh 7:67 = Ezr 2:55 Hassophereth, 1 Es 5:33 Assaphioth.

SOPHONIAS (2 Es 1:40) = Zephaniah the prophet.

SORCERY.—See MAGIC DIVINATION AND SORCERY.

SOREG.—See TEMPLE, 11 (b).

SOREK, VALLEY OF (perh. = ‘valley of the soreq vine’ [cf. art. VINE]).—The valley or wādy in which Delilah lived (Jg 16:4). Eusebius and Jerome connect the valley with

Capharsorec, a village to the north of Eleutheropolis and near Saraa, that is, Zorah, the home of Samson’s father. Capharsorec is now Khurbet Surīk, to the north of Wādy es-Surār, which is identified with ‘the valley of Sorek,’ and not far from Sur’ah. See also ZORAH.

SORREL.—See COLOURS, 3.

SOSIPATER.—See SOPATER.

SOSTHENES.—1. Ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, whom ‘they all’ (RV) laid hold on and beat when Gallio dismissed the case against St. Paul (Ac 18:17). He probably succeeded Crispus as ruler when the latter became a Christian (v. 3), and the hostility of the rabble to the Jews showed itself when they were worsted in the courts. 2. ‘The brother’ associated with St. Paul in addressing the Corinthians (1 Co 1:1), and therefore probably a native of Corinth who had special relations with the Church there. If both references are to the same man, he must have been converted after the Gallio incident.

A. J. MACLEAN.

SOSTRATUS.—The governor of the citadel at Jerusalem under Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mac 4:27 (28), 29).

SOTAI.—A family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 2:55 = Neh 7:67).

SOUL.—The use of the term in the OT (Heb. nephesh) for any animated being, whether human or animal (Gn 1:20 ‘life,’ 2:7), must be distinguished from the Greek philosophical use for the immaterial substance which gives life to the body, and from the use in the NT (Gr. psyche) where more stress is laid on individuality (Mt 16:26 RVm). As the Bible does not contain a scientific psychology, it is vain to dispute whether it teaches that man’s nature is bipartite ( body and soul or spirit) or tripartite (body and soul and spirit): yet a contrast between soul and spirit (Heb. rūach, Gr. pneuma) may be recognized; while the latter is the universal principle imparting life from the Creator, the former is the individual organism possessed of life in the creature (Gn 2:7—‘breath of life’ and ‘living soul’).—In some passages the terms are used as equivalent (Is 26:9, Lk 1:46, 47, Ph 1:27 RV), in others a distinction is made (He 4:12, 1 Th 5:23). The distinction is this: ‘soul’ expresses man as apart from God, a separate individual; ‘spirit’ expresses man as drawing his life from God (cf. Jn 10:11, ‘life’ = ‘soul,’ and 19:30). This separate individuality may renounce its dependence and refuse its submission to God. Hence the adjective ‘psychical’ may be rendered sensual (Ja 3:15, Jude 19 [RVm ‘Or, natural. Or, animal’]), or natural (1 Co 2:14, 15:44–46). Probably sensual in the two passages conveys more moral meaning than the term ‘psychical’ justifies, and natural is the better rendering, as expressing what belongs to the old unregenerate life in contrast with the characteristic of the new life in Christ, the spiritual (pneumatic) . A parallel change in the use of the term ‘flesh’ and its corresponding adjective may be noted.

ALFRED E. GARVIE.

SOUTH.—See NEGEB.

SOWER, SOWING.—See AGRICULTURE, § 1.

SPAIN.—The extent of country to which in NT times the name Spain, or more strictly ‘the Spains,’ was given, was practically identical with modern Spain. In the earliest times of which we have any knowledge it was inhabited, at least in part, by a race supposed to be a mixture of the aboriginal Iberian population with immigrant Celts. In B.C. 236 , Hamilcar, father of the great Hannibal, invaded the country from Carthage, and after nine years of conquest was succeeded by his son-in-law Hasdrubal, who in turn was succeeded by Hannibal, under whom about B.C. 219 the conquest of the country was practically completed. Hannibal used it as his base in the Second Punic War against Rome. The Romans first invaded Spain in 218, and after various successes and reverses constituted two provinces there in 197, known for centuries afterwards as Hispania

Citerior (Tarraconensis) and Hispania Ulterior ( Bætica), separated from one another by the

Ebro. The mountainous districts in the NW. were not actually subdued till the time of the Emperor Augustus (B.C. 20) . The country was valued for its agricultural products, as well as its precious metals. It became the most thoroughly Romanized of all the Roman provinces, and in nothing is St. Paul’s Roman attitude more evident than in his determination to proceed from Rome to Spain, rather than to Africa or to Gaul (Ro 15:24). It is not known whether he carried out his plan. Spain claims more honoured names in Roman literature than any other country in the 1st cent. A.D., having been the birthplace of the two Senecas, Columella, Mela, Lucan, Martial, and Quintilian.

A. SOUTER.

SPAN.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

SPARROW (tsippōr, Ps 84:3, 102:7). The Heb. word is probably equivalent of Arab. ‘asfūr, and includes any ‘twittering’ birds; generally tr. ‘bird’ or ‘fowl’. See BIRD. In the NT references (Mt 10:29, Lk 12:6, 7) strouthion evidently refers to the sparrow, which to-day is sold for food as cheaply as in NT times.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SPARTA, SPARTANS.—See LACED ÆMONIANS.

SPEAKING, EVIL.—See EVIL SPEAKING.

SPEAR.—See ARMOUR ARMS, § 1.

SPECKLED BIRD.—Jer 12:9 (only). If the MT of this passage is correct, the tr. can hardly be other than ‘Is mine heritage unto me (i.e. to my sorrow [a dativus ethicus, Cheyne, ad toc.]) ( as) a speckled bird of prey? Are (the) birds of prey against her round about?’ (so, substantially,

RV). The people of Israel is compared to a bird of prey, just as, on account of its hostility to Jehovah, it is compared in v. 3 to a lion. But, as a speckled bird attracts the hostile attention of other birds, Israel becomes a prey to the heathen. The rendering proposed by some, ‘mine heritage is unto me the ravenous hyæna,’ cannot be obtained from the present text, which, however, is possibly incorrect.

SPELT.—See FITCHES, RIE.

SPICE, SPICES.—1. bāsām, Ca 5:2, RVm ‘balsam’; bōsem [once, Ex 30:23, besem] , plur. bĕsāmīm. In Ex 30:23 is a list of various aromatic substances Included under the name bĕsāmīm. These were stored in the Temple (1 Ch 9:29), and in Hezekiah’s treasure-house (2 K 20:13); they were used for anointing the dead (2 Ch 16:14), and also as perfumes for the living (Ca 4:10 etc.). 2. sammim, Ex 30:34 ‘sweet spices’; and, along with ‘incense,’ Ex 30:7, 40:27, Lv 4:7, Nu 4:16 etc. In the first passage the ‘sweet spices’ are enumerated as stacte, onycha, and galbanum (all of which see). 3. nĕkō’th, Gn 37:25 ‘spicery’ (RVm ‘gum tragacanth or storax’), 43:11 (RV ‘spicery’). The gum tragacanth is the product of the Astragalus gummifer, of which several species are known in Syria. The storax (Styrax officinalis) , a shrub with beautiful white flowers, also affords an aromatic gum valued by the ancients. Whether nĕkō’th corresponded definitely to one of these, or was a generic term for ‘perfumes,’ is an open question. 4. 5. Gr. arōmata ( Mk 16:1, EV ‘spices’) and amōmon (Rev 18:13, RVm ‘amomum,’ RV ‘spice,’ AV omits) are probably both generic.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SPIDER.—1. sĕmāmīth; See LIZARD (7). 2. ‘akkābīsh (cf. Arab. ‘ankabūt) , Job 8:14, Is 59:5, 6 . Both references are to the frailness of the spider’s web.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SPIKENARD (nērd, Ca 1:12, 4:13, 14; also Gr. nardos pistike, Mk 14:3, Jn 12:3).—The fragrant oil of an Indian plant, Nardostachys jatamansi, which grows with a ‘spike.’ The Arab, name sunbul hindi, Indian spike, preserves the same idea. The perfume when pure was very valuable (Jn 12:3).

About the meaning of the Gr. epithet pistikē there has been much speulation. See note in RVm at Mk 14:3, and cf. art. ‘Spikenard’ in Hastings’ DCG.

E. W. MASTERMAN.

SPINDLE.—See SPINNING AND WEAVING, § 3.

SPINNING AND WEAVING

1. The raw material.—In all periods of Hebrew history the chief textile materials were wool and flax, and to a less extent goats’ hair. As for the last named, it will be remembered that St. Paul was proud of being ‘chargeable to no man’ (2 Co 11:9) in virtue of his trade as a weaver of tent curtains (Ac 18:3), doubtless from the goats’ hair (cilicium) for which his native province was famed. The preparation of the various materials for the loom differed according to the nature of each. Wool, before being spun, was thoroughly scoured and carded, probably, as now in the East, by means of a bow-string. In the case of flax, the stalks were rippled and exposed to the sun till thoroughly dry (Jos 2:6); thereafter by repeated processes of steeping, drying, and beating, the fibres were ready for the ‘heckling’ or combing. Representations of these processes are preserved in the tombs of Egypt. Is 19:9 also refers to the flax industry on the banks of the Nile; the emended text runs: ‘And confounded shall be the workers in linen; the combing-women and weavers shall grow pale, and they that lay the warp shall be broken in spirit; (even) all that work for hire shall be grieved in soul.’

2. Spinning.—The spinning was done, as all the world over, by means of the distaff and spindle, and was pre-eminently women’s work (Ex 35:25f., 2 K 23:7, Pr. 31:19). Both men and women, on the other hand, plied the loom. The distaff probably consisted, as elsewhere, of a piece of cane slit at the top to hold the wool. The spindle everywhere consists of a round shank of wood, 9–12 inches in length, furnished with a book at the top for catching the wool or flax, and having its lower end inserted into a circular or spherical whorl of clay, stone, or other heavy material to steady the rotary motion of the spindle (see Rich, Dict. of Rom. and Gr. Ant. s.v. ‘Fusus’; cf. ‘Colus’). Many spindle-whorls have been found in the course of the recent excavations in Palestine (for illust. see Bliss and Macalister, Excavations, etc., pi. LXX. viii.; PEFST 1902, 39; 1904, 324 and oft.). Sometimes a piece of broken pottery served as a whorl (id. 1902 , 338). Distaff and spindle are named together in Pr 31:19, RV, however, rightly reversing the renderings of AV. In 2 S 3:29 for ‘one that leaneth on a staff’ recent scholars render ‘one that holdeth a spindle,’ expressive of the wish that Joab’s descendants may be womanish and effeminate.

3. The three varieties of loom.—‘Loom’ does not occur in AV; in RV it wrongly appears (Is 38:12) for ‘thrum’ ( so RVm). It is almost certain, however, that Delilah’s loom is meant by the word rendered ‘beam’ in Jg 16:14 (see 4 (c)) . Three varieties of loom were in use around the Mediterranean in ancient times—the horizontal loom and two varieties of the upright loom, distinguished by the Romans as the tela pendula and the tela jugalis.

(a) The horizontal loom is at least as old as the twelfth Egyptian dynasty, and probably goes back to pre-historic times. That the Hebrews were early familiar with it is evident from the incident of Samson and Delilah above referred to, the true interpretation of which will be given in a later section, 4 (c). It is still, with some modifications, the loom in use to-day from Morocco to the Ganges and the farther East.

(b) The oldest variety of the upright loom is that familiar to classical students from the wellknown representation, on a Greek vase, of Penelope’s loom. It consisted of two uprights joined at the top by a crossbeam, from which, or from a second beam below it, depended the threads of the warp. These were kept taut by having small stone weights attached to their lower ends, hence the name tela pendula. In view of the numerous ‘weavers’ weights’ recently unearthed at Gezer and elsewhere (illust. PEFSt 1903, 311, plate iv.; cf. 1904, 324), it can no longer be doubted that this form of the upright loom was also in use in Palestine, even as far back as the later Stone Age (Vincent, Canaan d’après l’exploration récente, 405).

(c) The second and later variety of the upright loom had for its distinguishing feature a second cross-beam at the foot of the uprights, which served as a yarn-beam or as a cloth-beam, according as the web was begun at the top or at the bottom of the loom. By providing a third cross-beam capable of revolving, a web of much greater length could be woven than if the latter were confined to the height of the loom. The loom in ordinary use in NT times was of this type, as is evident from many passages in the Mishna.

4. OT references to the processes of weaving.—In its simplest form the art of weaving consists in interlacing a series of parallel threads, called the warp, with another series called the weft or woof, in such a way that each thread of the weft passes alternately over and under each thread of the warp. In the beginnings of the art this interlacing was laboriously done by the fingers of the spinner as in plaiting, of which weaving is only a more complicated variety. Now the first process is to stretch the threads of the warp (Lv 13:48ff.) evenly between the upper and lower beams of the loom. This process of warping is mentioned in the literal sense only, Is 19:9 (§1) , but is elsewhere used in a metaphorical sense, as Job 10:11 (RV ‘knit together’), Ps 139:13 RVm, and the difficult passage Is 30:1. Of the four alternatives here given by the Revisers the only admissible rendering is the first of RVm ‘weave a web,’ or, still better, ‘warp a warp,’ an apposite figure for commencing a new ‘web’ of political intrigue (cf. the similar metaphor 59:8). The Heb. law forbade the use of wool and linen, the one as warp, the other as woof, in the same web.

In the process of uniting warp and woof there are ‘the three primary movements,’ as they are called, to be considered. These are (1) shedding, i.e. dividing the warp into two sets of odd and even threads for the passage of the weft; (2) passing the weft through the ‘shed’ by means of a rod or a shuttle; and (3) beating up the weft to form with the warp a web of uniform consistency. These three processes, so far as applicable to the Egyptian and Hebrew looms, are the subject of a special study by the present writer in the article ‘Weaving’ in EBi iv. 5282–87 (with illustt.), to which the curious student is referred. It must suffice here to mention only such of the details as bear on certain OT references, most of them misunderstood hitherto.

(a) The formation of the shed was effected by at least two leash-rods or shafts, the Roman liciatoria, suspended from the upper cross-beam (see illust. Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. ii. 171) or otherwise, connected by loops or leashes with each of the odd and even warp-threads respectively. The two sets of threads were alternately brought forward (or raised in the horizontal loom) by pulling the leash-rods, thus forming a shed for the passage of the shuttle-rod carrying the weft. Now, with a heavy warp, the rods must have been of considerable thickness,—a stout branch of a tree serves as a leash-rod, for example, in a modern Anatolian loom figured in Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Anl. 3 ii. 179. Accordingly, when the shaft of Goliath’s spear is compared to a weaver’s mānōr (1 S 17:7, 2 S 21:19, 1 Ch 20:5; cf. 11:23), it is not to either of the ‘beams’ of the loom but to ‘a weaver’s shaft’ or leash-rod that the comparison applies. The original term above given, it may be added, is from the same root as nīr, one of the Mishna terms for the leash-rod (cf. Jerome’s true rendering, quasi liciatorium texentium).

(b) The weft or woof ( Lv 13:48ff.) was passed through the shed by means of a staff or rod on which the yarn was wound. Homer, however, was already familiar with a shuttle-rod at one end of which was a revolving spool from which the weft-thread unrolled itself in its passage. It is uncertain whether Job 7:6, the only EV occurrence of shuttle, refers to a shuttle-rod, or to the loom as a whole.

In Egypt, however, under the Middle Empire, it would appear that the more efficient ‘reed,’ still used in modern weaving, had already been invented for this purpose (Garstang, Burial Customs of Anc. Egyp.

[1907], 133 ff. with illust.); the two reeds there figured are 27 and 29 inches in length, showing approximately the width of the web. The Bedouin women of Moab to-day weave their tent curtains in strips about 5 yards long and from 16 to 20 inches wide, according to Jaussen (Coutumes des Arabes, etc.

[1908], 74).

The Hebrews in early times used a batten simply to beat up the weft withal, as we learn from the true text of Jg 16:13f. which reads thus: ‘If thon weavest the seven plaits of my head with the warp land beatest them up with the batten, then shall I become weak and be as other men; and she made him sleep, and wove the seven plaits of his head with the warp], and beat them up with the batten (EV ‘pin’), and said (as in EV) … and he awaked out of his sleep and pulled up the loom together with the warp.’ For Delilah, seated on the ground beside her horizontal loom with Samson’s head upon her knees (v. 19), it was an easy matter to use his flowing locks as weft and weave them into the warp of her loom. When Samson awoke he pulled up the loom, which was fastened to the ground with pegs.

With Penelope’s type of loom, the web could be woven only from the top downwards. This was also the Jewish custom in NT times with the other form of upright loom. Our Lord’s tunic, it will be remembered, ‘was without seam, woven from the top throughout’ (Jn 19:23). For the weaving of such seamless robes, which were in vogue in Egypt under the later dynasties at least, it was necessary to mount a double warp and to weave each face of the warp with a continuous weft (see EBi iv. 5289).

5. When the web was finished, the weaver cut the ends of the warp threads, those left hanging being the thrum of Is 38:12 RVm, and rolled up the web. These two processes are the source of the figures for premature death in the passage cited. The ‘new’ cloth of Mt 9:16, Mk 2:21 AV was unfulled (RV ‘undressed’), that is, cloth fresh from the loom. The milling or fulling was the work of the fuller (ARTS AND CRAFTS, § 6).

6. Special kinds of fabrics.—By appropriate arrangement of the warp, woof, and leash-rods, striped, checked, and other varieties of cloth were produced. The cloth intended by the ‘chequer work’ of Ex 28:4 is quite uncertain. The Revisers probably mean by the phrase a species of check, produced by alternating different coloured bands in the warp, or in the woof, or in both, The ‘work of the cunning workman’ (Ex 26:1 etc.), of which the inner curtains of the Tabernacle were composed, was probably a species of tapestry (EV Pr 7:16, 31:22 but here doubtful), in which a design was traced by inserting short coloured threads behind a varying number of warp threads.

A weft of gold thread was employed for the high priest’s robes (Ex 28:6f., 39:2ff.; cf. Jth 10:21, 2 Mac 5:2 ‘cloth of gold’). Herod Agrippa’s ‘royal apparel’ (Ac 12:21) is said by Josephus to have been woven throughout of silver thread.

In OT times the finer textile fabrics were imported from Babylonia (Jos 7:21), Phœnicia (Ezk 27:16f.), Egypt, and in NT times even from India for the high priest’s dress (Mishna, Yōma, iii. 7) . In the days of the Chronicler the weavers formed a trade guild (1 Ch 4:21), and so continued in later times. As a class they were held in disrepute by the mass of the people, so much so that the Talmud declares weaving to be ‘the lowest of crafts.’

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SPIRIT.—The term is applied to God as defining His nature generally (Jn 4:24), and also as describing one element in that nature, His self-consciousness (1 Co 2:11). It expresses not only God’s immateriality, but also His transcendence of limitations of time and space. In the phrases ‘Spirit of God,’ the ‘Spirit of the Lord,’ the ‘Spirit of Jesus Christ,’ the ‘Holy Spirit,’ the ‘Spirit of Truth,’ the third Person in the Godhead is described (see HOLY SPIRIT) . The term is applied to personal powers of evil other than man (Mt 10:1, 12:45, Lk 4:33, 7:21, 1 Ti 4:1; cf. Eph 6:12), as well as personal powers of good (He 1:14), and to human beings after death, either damned (1 P 3:19) or blessed (He 12:23). It is used also as personifying an influence (1 Jn 4:6, Eph 2:2, Ro

8:15) . Its most distinctive use is in the psychology of the Christian life. The contrast between ‘soul’ and ‘spirit,’ and between ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit,’ has already been noted in the articles on these terms. While soul and spirit are not to be regarded as separate faculties, yet ‘spirit’ expresses the direct dependence of the life in man on God, first in creation (Gn 2:7), but especially, according to the Pauline doctrine, in regeneration. The life in man, isolating itself from, and opposing itself to, God, is soul; that life, cleansed and renewed by the Spirit of God, is spirit; intimate as is the relation of God and man in the new life, the Spirit of God is distinguished from the spirit of man ( Ro 8:16), although it is not always possible to make the distinction. In Acts the phrase ‘holy spirit’ sometimes means the subjective human state produced (‘holy enthusiasm’), and sometimes the objective Divine cause producing (see ‘Acts’ in the Century Bible, p. 386). As the Spirit is the source of this new life, whatever belongs to it is ‘spiritual’ (pneumatikon) , as house, sacrifices (1 P 2:5), understanding (Col 1:9), songs (3:16), food, drink, rock (1 Co 10:3, 4); and the ‘spiritual’ and ‘soulish’ ( rendered ‘carnal’ or ‘natural’) are contrasted (1 Co 2:14, 15:44, 46). Spirit as an ecstatic state is also distinguished from mind (1 Co 14:14, 16), as inwardness from letter (Ro 2:29, 7:6, 2 Co 3:6). The old creation—the derivation of man’s spirit from God (Gn 2:7, Is 42:5), offers the basis for the new (Ro 8:1–17 , 1 Co 2:11, 12), in which man is united to

God (see INSPIRATION).

ALFRED E. GARVIE.

SPIRITS IN PRISON.—See DESCENT INTO HADES.

SPIRITUAL GIFTS

1. The term.—A special Gr. word, charismata, is used in NT for spiritual gifts. It usually stands alone, but in Ro 1:11 It is coupled with the adjective pneumatikon ( ‘spiritual’). It means concrete manifestations of the grace of God (charis) , and is almost a technical term, though in Ro 6:23 etc. It is used generally of the gift of God, without reference to its visible result in the life of the believer. The principal passages which deal with spiritual gifts are Ro 12:6ff., 1 Co 12, 13, 14, Eph 4:7ff., 1 P 4:10. The gifts may be divided into the apparently miraculous and the non-miraculous, (a) The miraculous include speaking with tongues (probably ecstatic utterances, usually unintelligible to the speaker; see TONGUES [GIFT OF]) , and their interpretation; gifts of healing, and the working of miracles or ‘powers’; of these we may instance the power of exorcism ([Mk] 16:17, Ac 16:18, 19:12), and the punishment of offenders (Ac 5:1–11 , 13:9, 1 Co 4:21, 5:5). On the border-line come prophecy, discerning of spirits, and the receiving of revelations, where the miraculous element is less strongly marked. (b) From these we pass to the non-miraculous gifts, gifts of character, and mental and spiritual endowments of various kinds. We find mentioned the power of exhortation and of speech (closely akin to prophecy); wisdom, knowledge, and faith; helps and governments (i.e. powers of administration); mercy and almsgiving; money, as affording opportunity for service and hospitality; 1 Co 7:7 adds the gift of continence, and Gal 5:22 gives a list of the fruits of the Spirit, as shown in the Christian character. Ro 12:6 and 1 P 4:10 mention only non-miraculous gifts, and in the Epp. the chief evidence for the miraculous is connected with Corinth.

2. Their nature.—Most of these gifts may be regarded as the raising of natural endowments to a higher level. Without going at length into the question of miracles, we may note that the evidence of their reality in this connexion is very strong; they are referred to in the Epistles (contemporary documents) as matters of common knowledge; St. Paul speaks of his own powers in this respect as well known (1 Co 2:4, 14:18, 2 Co 12:2); and He 2:4 mentions them as a recognized characteristic of the first age of Christianity. Further, these miraculous gifts of the Spirit belong to the class which may most easily be reduced to psychological law, and are to some extent paralleled in modern times, being mainly the well-attested manifestations which accompany times of revival, and are found in connexion with peculiarly gifted individuals.

‘What we read about miracles—especially about the charismata—in the Epistles of St. Paul is of the nature of things unusual, obedient to laws that are somewhat recondite, distinctly implying Divine impulse and Divine guidance and yet at most non contra naturam sed contra quam est nota natura’ (Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 219).

A striking feature of these gifts is their apparently wide-spread and democratic nature. The new life, with its hopes and powers, had been offered to all classes of society, and the humblest

Christian felt the thrill of being ‘filled with the Spirit.’ Hence—

‘the first age of the Christian Church was characterized by a vivid enthusiasm which found expression in ways which recall the simplicity of childhood. It was a period of wonder and delight. The flood-gates of emotion were opened: a supernatural dread alternated with an unspeakable joy’ (Robinson, Ephesians, p. 121).

The results of this enthusiasm, as described in 1 Cor., were startling and visible to all; that it could not be without its dangers is obvious. Slaves or women, people of no account before, found themselves in possession of mysterious powers, which gave them a position of importance among their fellow-Christians. There arose the temptation to covet and strive by artificial and illegitimate methods for the more striking gifts, and to look on them as marks of superior sanctity, or the means of personal advancement. Others, on the contrary, felt themselves forgotten, and yielded to jealousy or despair. Rivalry led to disorder where the gifts were used in the public services of the Church.

3. Hence the tone of St. Paul’s teaching as to their use

(a) He insists on their regulation. The gifts may be sporadic and intermittent; none the less their use must be orderly (1 Co 14:40); ecstasy is no excuse for loss of self-control (v. 32). Each Christian must recognize the limitations of his powers and not attempt to transcend them (Ro 12:6).

There arises the question of the relation of the charismata to the ministry. Some have maintained that there was originally no fixed ministry, but only unorganized charismata; others again have tried to assign a definite office to most of the charismata. The truer view would seem to be that the charismata and the official ministry existed side by side, but were by no means identical (see Sanday-Headlam, Romans, p. 358) . All Christians had their share in the gifts of the Spirit, though there were special endowments which would he looked for in the case of officers of the Church; in 1 Ti 4:14, 2 Ti 1:6 a charisma is connected with ‘the laying on of hands.

(b) The purpose of the gifts is the edification and the service of the whole body. Chrysostom, in his remarkable homily on 1 Co 12, calls attention to the change of word in vv. 4, 5. The ‘gifts’ are also ‘ministrations’ (diakoniai), i.e. opportunities of service; hence the greater the gift the greater the responsibility, and the harder the work to he done. And so St. Paul passes on to the doctrine of the one body, served in different ways by all its members. Similarly in Eph 4:11 the possessors of the endowments are themselves gifts ‘given’ to the Church. The same truth is emphasized in Ro 12, 1 Co 14, 1 P 4, in fact in every place where the charismata are mentioned at any length; St. Paul’s own object is always to ‘impart’ to others (Ro 1:11, 1 Co 14:19; cf. Jn 7:38). It is obvious that this way of looking at the gifts would check ambition, pride, and selfishness in their use.

(c) Relative importance of the gifts. The more startling and apparently miraculous gifts are consistently treated as subordinate to gifts of character and edification. The former, indeed, are not decisive as to their origin; they are not peculiar to Christianity, and may be the accompaniment of evil and falsehood (Mt 7:22, 24:24, 2 Th 2:9, 1 Co 12:3, Rev 13:13, 14). Indeed, in an age when exorcisms and miracles were associated with magic, and the heathen mantis, or frenzied prophet, was a familiar phenomenon, it was impossible to ascribe all ‘powers’ and ecstasy to the Holy Spirit. The test is on the one side doctrinal (1 Co 12:2, 8, 1 Jn 4:1–8); on the other the moral life (Mt 7:15ff., Ro 8:9, 1 Co 13) and the practical tendency to edification (1 Co 14). The ‘discerning of spirits’ is itself an important gift (1 Co 12:10, 1 Th 5:21 , 1 Jn 4:1). It is, indeed, remarkable how steadily the NT concentrates attention on the inner and less startling gifts of character, which the popular mind would ignore; and if it does not disparage, it certainly does not exaggerate, those which at first sight seemed to give more direct evidence of the presence of the Spirit. As a fact of history these tended to degenerate and finally to disappear. Justin and Irenæus mention them, and they played a large part in the Gnostic and Montanist movements, but after the 2nd cent. they practically died out as normal endowments of the believer, to be revived only sporadically in times of religious excitement.

C. W. EMMET. SPITTING.—See GESTURES.

SPONGE (Gr. spongos, Mt 27:48, Mk 15:36, Jn 19:29, used in the Crucifixion scene).— Sponges have been used from early times, and are common along the Syrian coasts of the Mediterranean.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SPOONS (Ex 25:29).—See TABERNACLE, 6 (a).

SPRINGS.—See FOUNTAIN, ISRAEL, II. 1 (5).

SPY.—See WAR, § 3.

STACHYS.—A Christian greeted by St. Paul in Ro 16:8.

STACTE (nātāph, Ex 30:34 [cf. Sir 24:15], lit. ‘drop,’ cf. Job 36:27).—Some fragrant gum collected in drops, either storax, or, more probably, myrrh.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

STAFF.—See ROD, SCEPTRE.

STAIR.—See HOUSE, 5.

STALL.—See MANGER.

STANDARD.—See BANNER.

STARS.—The stars form part of the Divine creation in Gn 1. They are invisible in the sunlight, but begin to appear about sunset (Neh 4:21). In poetical passages hyperbolical expressions are used concerning them. At the creation ‘the morning stars sang together’ (Job 38:7) ; at the battle between Barak and Sisera ‘the stars in their courses fought against Sisera’ (Jg 5:20): in the former passage it may be that the angels are described as stars (cf. Rev 1:20 ‘the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches’). The difference of magnitude in the stars is recognized by St. Paul: ‘one star differeth from another star in glory’ (1 Co 15:41). The stars were looked upon as innumerable: ‘tell the stars, if thou be able to tell them’ (Gn 15:5). The appearance of a bright particular star was supposed to portend some great event. Thus Balaam prophesied ‘There shall come forth a star out of Jacob’ (Nu 24:17), and this was afterwards interpreted as applying to the Epiphany star (Mt 2:2; see STAR OF THE MAGI); and so in 2 P 1:19 we read of the day-star arising in men’s hearts. Caution is given against the worship of the stars, in the legislation of Deuteronomy (4:19), and the punishment of death assigned for the convicted worshipper (see HOST OF HEAVEN). In Apocalyptic literature (Rev 22:16) our Lord describes Himself as ‘the bright, the morning star’; whilst ‘they that turn many to righteousness’ are to shine ‘as the stars for ever and ever’ (Dn 12:3). The day of the Lord is to be heralded by signs in the stars as well as in the sun and moon (Lk 21:25). The appearance of shooting stars, which come out of the darkness and go back into it, is alluded to in Jude 13 ‘wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved for ever.’ Special numbers of stars are mentioned; in Rev (1:16, 12:1), the seven stars and twelve stars illustrate a conventional use of those numbers common in apocalyptic literature. In the OT the seven stars of the AV of Am 5:8 are the Pleiades; and the ‘eleven stars’ which made obeisance to Joseph in his dream are simply a conventional number to correspond with that of his brethren.

Of individual stars or constellations, the Bear (AV Arcturus), Orion, and the Pleiades occur; all three in Job 9:9, 38:31, 32, the last two also in Am 5:8. The mazzaroth ( Job 38:32) are most probably the signs of the Zodiac (RVm; cf. 2 K 23:5. margin). In 2 K 23:5 the Heb. form of the word mazzaloth is different, and RV (text) renders it ‘the planets.’ The chambers of the south (Job 9:9) are probably the stars of the southern hemisphere.

Of worship connected with the stars we have two notable instances. That of ‘the queen of heaven’ was popular in Jerusalem (Jer 7:18) immediately before the Captivity, and to the neglect of it the captives in Egypt ascribed their disasters, in an address to Jeremiah (44:15–23) at Pathros. This worship consisted of the offering of incense and drink-offerings, and the making of cakes, with her figure, apparently, upon them. This Queen of Heaven seems to have been without doubt Venus, or Istar, whose star was considered the most beautiful in the heavens. This goddess is identical with Ashtoreth or Astarte. The second instance of star-worship is one that presents some difficulty. In Amos (5:26) we meet with an image of Chiun, if the word be a proper name, who is called ‘the star of your god.’ This passage is quoted by St. Stephen (Ac 7:43), where the expression is rendered ‘the star of the god Rephan.’ There seems little reason to doubt that Chiun is the same as the Assyrian Kaiwān, identical with the planet Saturn, to whom divine worship was paid. The form of name ‘Rephan’ seems to have arisen from a corrupt reading of the Hebrew, which is as old as the Septuagint. There are very few allusions to astrology in the OT, but in Isaiah (47:13) we have mention of ‘the astrologers (Heb. ‘dividers of the heavens’) the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators’; all these persons drew their utterances and professed knowledge of the future from the heavens. The magicians and soothsayers of the Book of Daniel were a similar class, to which belonged the Magi or wise men who had seen the star which heralded the birth of the King of the Jews (Mt 2:1, 2). See next article.

H. A. REDPATH.

STAR OF THE MAGI.—The character of the star which was seen by the Magi has been the source of many conjectures. While some consider it to have been an absolutely miraculous appearance, others have tried to connect it with some recognized form of celestial phenomenon. Some have held that it was a comet [the Greek word for the ‘star’ is applied to comets], and if such a comet as Donati’s of 1858, which the present writer remembers well, had been visible at the time of the Nativity, it would have fulfilled the conditions of the narrative, and the difficulties about the star standing over ‘where the young child was’ (Mt 2:9) would have been lessened. None such, however, seems to have been recorded. Others, noting that there were conjunctions of two of the brighter planets, Jupiter and Saturn (B.C. 7), and Jupiter and Venus (B.C. 6) , have tried to connect this appearance with one of these. Others, again, have explained the appearance as that of what is known as a stella nova, i.e. a star which suddenly flashes out with great brightness in the firmament and then either dies out again altogether, or diminishes in the magnitude of its brightness, so as to be scarcely, if at all, visible to the naked eye. The difficulty connected with all these interpretations is due to the necessity that has been felt for giving a literal interpretation to the account that ‘the star … went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.’ But we may take it that the language here is of the same character as that which we constantly use about the sun or moon rising and setting. If, then, we assume that the star, whatever it was, was near the horizon in front of the wise men when they started on their journey, its relative position to them, so long as they kept a direct course, would vary but little. The place in the heavens of any fixed star varies only about one degree, or four minutes, each succeeding day.

A somewhat more difficult question than that about the appearance of the star is, Why did the wise men connect it with the birth of a king of the Jews? The traditional answer to this question is that there had been handed down from generation to generation among the wise men of Babylon a knowledge of Balaam’s prophecy, ‘There shall come forth a star out of Jacob’ (Nu 24:17), and that, when this notable star appeared, it was considered to be the herald of the appearance of a great person. There certainly was a Jewish population in Babylonia in our Lord’s day, and if this prophecy was recognized as coming from a Hebrew document, and reference was made to the Jews, it would be most natural for the wise men, if they were Babylonians, to set their faces towards Jerusalem. There is this difficulty, however, about referring the ‘star’ of Balaam’s prophecy to a phenomenon in the heavens, that from the parallelism of the Hebrew poetry we gather that the ‘star’ is intended to refer not to a star in the sky, but to some great prince or ruler (cf., for this use, Dn 8:10). Still, the explanation of the journey may be much the same. There was a great ferment in the East and a wide-spread anticipation, even in the Roman world, of some great Saviour or deliverer to arise, as the poets Virgil and Horace testify, just about the time when the Saviour was born. If some such brilliant star appeared, this would be taken as portending that the moment for the appearance of such an one had arrived, and search would be made for the Great One. So, in the Apocalypse (Rev 22:16), our Lord is represented as claiming for Himself that He is not only ‘the root and the offspring of David,’ but also ‘the bright, the morning star.’

H. A. REDPATH.

STATE OF THE DEAD.—See ESCHATOLOGY, PARADISE, SHEOL.

STATER.—See MONEY, § 7.

STEALING.—See CRIMES, § 6 ‘Theft.’

STEEL.—See MINING AND METALS.

STEPHANAS.—A Corinthian, apparently of some importance, whose household were baptized by St. Paul personally (1 Co 1:16), and are called ‘the first-fruits of Achaia’ (16:15). Stephanas himself had joined the Apostle at Ephesus when he wrote, and was of great assistance to him there.

A. J. MACLEAN.

STEPHEN.—Early in the history of the Christian Church it was found necessary for the Apostles to devolve some of their duties on others. There is no reason for supposing (with Prof. Ramsay) that presbyters had yet been appointed, though they soon followed; but in Ac 6 seven persons, commonly (but not in NT) called ‘deacons,’ all but one probably Hellenistic or Greekspeaking Jews (see art. NICOLAS) , were appointed to manage the distribution of alms to the Hellenist widows. Of the Seven, Stephen was the most prominent. Their duties were not eleemosynary only; Stephen at once undertook evangelistic work and won great success, persuading many, and working miracles. His success resulted in the first persecution of the Church, and false witnesses were brought who accused him of blasphemy, and of speaking against the Temple and the Law. He made a long defence (Ac 7:2–53) , which is not easy of interpretation. He summarizes OT history from the call of Abraham to the building of Solomon’s Temple (cf. St. Paul’s sermon in Ac 13) , in a manner which shows that he depended partly on tradition, for there are many discrepancies between his speech and OT. He speaks with great respect of the Mosaic Law (vv. 35–38 , 53). Some think that he disparages the Temple as having been built against God’s will (v. 48ff.). But this is very improbable. Perhaps the defence was not completed; yet what was delivered gives its drift. The Jews had misunderstood their own Law. God had not confined His presence to the Tabernacle and the Temple; He had appeared to Abraham and others before the Law was given; Isaiah (66:1f.) had preached that God’s worship was not confined to one place. But the people had persecuted the prophets as they now had killed Jesus. This defence provoked the Jews so much that they cast Stephen out of the city and stoned him—undoubtedly an illegal murder, not sanctioned by the Roman law. Stephen, whose dying prayer for his murderers (v. 60) recalls that of his Master, thus became the first Christian martyr.

His death led to a persecution, and to a dispersal of the disciples from Jerusalem. This caused the spread of the gospel to many lands. But the most prominent fruit of the martyrdom, doubtless, was the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who was present (7:58, 8:1), and of whom, as is generally acknowledged, Stephen was in his preaching the forerunner.

A. J. MACLEAN.

STEWARD.—This term is found six times in AV of OT. It is applied to Eliezer in Gn 15:2, where RV rightly tr. ‘he that shall he possessor of my house.’ In Gn 43:19, 44:1–4 Joseph’s ‘steward’ (AV and RV) is lit. ‘he who was over his house’ (cf. 43:16, 1 K 16:19 in RV). In 1 Ch 28:1 AV ‘stewards’ is tr. of Heb. sārīm ( lit. ‘princes,’ RV ‘rulers’). For the ‘steward’ of Dn 1:11,

18 (RV), see MELZAR.

The NT terms are (1) epitropos, ‘steward’ in Mt 20:8, Lk 8:3; also translated in Gal 4:2 AV ‘tutors,’ RV ‘guardians.’ (2) oikonomos, the usual term, found both literally and metaphorically, as is also the cognate noun oikonomia ‘stewardship.’ The latter is used literally in Lk 16:2, 8, 4, and metaphorically in 1 Co 9:17, Eph 3:2, Col 1:25, 1 Ti 1:4 [in last three ‘dispensation,’ RVm ‘stewardship’].

W. F. BOYD.

STOCKS.—See CRIMES, 9; PRISON, p. 756^b.

STOICS.—When St. Paul met representatives of the Stoic philosophy at Athens (Ac 17:18), that school had been in existence for about three centuries and a half. The name came from the Stoa or Porch where Zeno (about B.C. 340–265) , the founder of the school, taught at Athens.

The leading Stoic maxim is, ‘Live according to nature.’ Nature both in the world and in man is to be interpreted by its highest manifestation—Reason—which appears in the world as the allpervading ethereal essence or spirit, forming and animating the whole; and in man as the soul. This World-spirit occupies the place of God in the Stoic system. Thus we find St. Paul quoting the words of a Stoic writer, ‘We are also his offspring’ (Ac 17:28). The approximation, however, is in language rather than in reality. The theology of the Stoics is pure pantheism. Their so-called God has no independent or personal existence.

The supremacy of reason in man is pushed to such an extreme that virtuous conduct demands the entire suppression of the emotional side of man’s nature. This rigorous moral standard became, for practical reasons, considerably modified; but Stoic morality was always marked by its rigidity and coldness.

The great quality of Stoicism, which set it above Epicureanism, and brought it into line with Christianity, was its moral earnestness. In his dissertation on ‘St. Paul and Seneca’ Bp. Lightfoot has said, ‘Stoicism was the only philosophy which could even pretend to rival Christianity in the earlier ages of the Church.’ Perhaps there was in St. Paul’s mind at Athens the high hope of bringing to the side of Christ such a noble rival of the gospel. Yet Stoicism and Christianity ran parallel rather than came into contact with one another, until through the weakness inherent in its theology and its ethics the current of Stoic philosophy was dissipated and lost.

W. M. M‘DONALD.

STOMACH.—This English word occurs in 2 Mac 7:21 with the meaning of ‘courage,’

‘Stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach.’

STOMACHER is the EV tr. of pĕthīgīl, whose meaning (Is 3:24 only) is very uncertain. The

Eng. word ‘stomacher’ was applied to that part of a woman’s dress which covered the breast and the pit of the stomach. It was usually much ornamented, and was looked upon as an evidence of wealth.

STONE

I. In OT.—1. Several different words are rendered ‘stone,’ but the one of by far the most frequent occurrence is ’ebhen, which has the same wide range of application as its English equivalent. Palestine is a stony country, arid the uses to which stone was put were numerous and varied. In its natural state a stone served for a pillow (Gn 28:18) or a seat (Ex 17:12), for covering the mouth of a well (Gn 29:2ff.) or closing the entrance to a cave (Jos 10:18; cf. Mt 27:30 etc.). Out of it, again, might be constructed a knife (Ex 4:25, Heb. tsūr. RV ‘flint’), a vessel (7:19; cf. Jn 2:6), a mill (Dt 24:8). Above all, stone was employed in architecture. Houses ( Lv 14:42 etc.), walls (Neh 4:8, Hab 2:11), towers (by implication in Gn 11:3), and especially the

Temple (1 K 5:17f. etc.), are referred to as built of stone. We read of foundation-stones (1 K 5:17), of a corner-stone (Ps 118:22), of a head-stone or finial (Zec 4:7); and in 2 K 16:17 mention is made of a pavement of stone. Masonry was a regular trade (2 S 5:11 etc.), and stonehewing is frequently referred to (2 K 12:12 etc.). Belonging to the aesthetic and luxurious side of life are precious stones and the arts of cutting and graving and setting them (Ex 28:9, 11, 31:5 etc.); see, further, JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES. The profusion of stones made it natural to use them as missiles. Stone-throwing might be a mark of hatred and contempt (2 S 16:6, 13), or the expedient of murderous intentions against which provision had to be made in legislation (Ex 21:18 , Nu 35:17). In war, stones were regular weapons of offence. Usually they were hurled with slings (1 S 17:49, 1 Ch 12:2), but, later, great stones were discharged by means of ‘engines’ (2 Ch 26:15, 1 Mac 6:51). Stoning to death was a natural and convenient method of execution. At first an expression of popular fury (Jos 7:25), it was afterwards regulated by law as an appointed means of capital punishment (Dt 17:5–7; cf. Ac 7:58f.). See, further, CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 10. The use of stones as memorials was common. Sometimes a single large stone, at other times a heap of stones, was raised (Gn 31:45 f., Jos 8:29, 24:26). Akin to this was their employment to mark a boundary (Jos 15:6 etc.). Stones would be the ordinary landmarks between the fields of one person and another, the removal of which was strictly forbidden (Dt 19:14 etc.). In religious worship stones were employed in the forms of the pillar (Gn 28:18, 22, 31:45 , 35:14) and the altar. The latter was at first a single great stone (1 S 6:14f.), but afterwards was built of several stones, which must be unhewn (Ex 20:25, Dt 27:5, 6). See, further. PILLAR and ALTAR. The use of stone for literary purposes (cf. the Moabite Stone) is illustrated by the tables of stone on which the Decalogue was written (Ex 24:12 etc.) and the inscribed stones of the altar on Mt. Ebal (Dt 27:2ff., Jos 8:30ff.).

2. Stones = testicles (Lv 21:20, Dt 23:1, Job 40:17).

II. In NT.—Here tithos is the ordinary word, and is found in most of the connexions already referred to. Noteworthy is the fact that Jesus, after quoting Ps 118:22, took the rejected and exalted stone as a symbol of Himself (Mt 21:42ff., Lk 20:17f.). St. Peter adopts the symbol in his address to the Sanhedrin (Ac 4:11), and enlarges it, with further reference to Is 8:14, 28:13, in his figure of the ‘living stone,’ which is at once the foundation of God’s spiritual house and a stone of stumbling to the disobedient (1 P 2:4–8). The stone (petros) of Jn 1:42 should be ‘rock,’ or still better ‘Peter’ (RV); ‘stony’ (petrōdēs) in Mt 13:5, Mk 4:5, 16 should be ‘rocky.’ The ‘white stone’ of Rev 2:17 represents Gr. psēphos, ‘a pebble,’ and the ref. perhaps is to the tessara gladiatoria bestowed on the victorious young gladiator.

J. C. LAMBERT.

STONE-SQUARERS.—Only 1 K 5:18 AV; RV has Gebalites as Jos 13:5 RV, that is, men of the Phœnician city of Gebal, mentioned Ezk 27:9, where the ancients and wise men of Gebal are referred to as calkers of ships. It has recently been suggested that the gentilic name had become an appellative in the sense of ‘stonecutter’ (S BOT, ‘Kings,’ 83 f.), which is the meaning of AV. Others would emend to read ‘did hew them and border them,’ i.e. provide the stones with marginal drafts or with bevels. Cf. ARTS AND CRAFTS, § 3.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

STONES, PRECIOUS.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.

STOOL.—‘In older English (including AV) “stool” was used freely for any kind of seat’ (DB iv. 621); similarly the Heb. kissē’ includes both chairs and stools, see HOUSE, § 8. In the difficult passage Ex 1:16 the word rendered ‘stools’ in the sense of birth-stools (sella parturientis) must be pointed to read ‘stones’ (’abnáyim for ’obnáyim, both dual number), the reference being to the two stones or bricks on which a woman sat during her accouchement. This widely spread custom has been conclusively shown to have existed in ancient Egypt by

Spiegelberg (Ægypt. Randglossen, 19–25) , from the realistic representation preserved in an early hieroglyphic sign for birth, confirmed by literary references.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

STORAX.—See SPICE, STACTE.

STORK (chăsīdāh, Lv 11:19, Dt 14:18, Job 39:13, Ps 104:17, Jer 8:7, Zec 5:9).—The stork (Arab, abu said ‘father of good luck’) is a bird much loved in Palestine, where in its migration northwards it arrives in the spring (Jer 8:7); it does great good by clearing the crops of caterpillars and locusts: when the storks arrive plentifully, it is anticipated that the harvests will be unusually good. These birds may be seen walking through the grain or circling round and round in groups high in the heavens. No doubt this powerful flight caused its wings to be noted (Job 39:13, Zec 5:8). No native would dream of harming it; its sacred character may have caused it to be an ‘unclean’ bird (Lv 11:19, Dt 14:18). Its Heb. name, implying ‘lovingkindness,’ was given because of its tender care of its young. The above remarks apply specially to the white stork (Ciconia alba); a black stork (C. nigra) has also been identified in the Holy Land.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

STORM.—See GALILEE [SEA OF], 3; WHIRLWIND.

STORY (EV for ‘storey’).—See HOUSE, § 5.

STRAIT.—This Eng. word is used in AV in the literal sense of ‘narrow,’ and in the figurative sense of ‘strict’ (of which it is simply another form). Once the verb ‘strait’ occurs, Sus 22 ‘I am straited on every side.’

STRANGE FIRE.—See NADAB.

STRANGER.—This seems, on the whole, the most suitable English word by which to render the Heb. zār, which is a participle denoting primarily one who turns aside, one who goes out of the way, i.e. for the purpose of visiting or dwelling in another country. It has frequently the meaning foreigner, in contrast to ‘Israelite,’ especially with the added notion of hostility (cf. ‘estranged’), and in antithesis to ‘Israel’ (e.g. Hos 7:9, 8:7, Is 1:7, Ezk 7:21, 11:9, Jl 3:17, Ob 11,

Ps 54:3 etc.). In P the word takes on a technical meaning found nowhere outside the Hexateuch, and exclusively post-exilic. It means ‘layman’ (which might with advantage be substituted for EV ‘stranger’), as opposed to a Levite (see Nu 1:51, 18:7), or to a priest proper, or Aaronite (see Ex 29:33, 30:33 , Nu 3:10, 38, 18:2, Lv 22:10, 12f. (H)).

The ‘strange woman’ of Pr 2:16 etc. has the same technical sense as ‘foreign woman’ with which it stands in parallelism, viz. harlot.

Sojourner (sometimes tr. of tōshāb, ‘settler’ [see below]) is frequently substituted by RV for the AV ‘stranger,’ as tr. of gēr. The ger was originally a man who transferred himself from one tribe or people to another, seeking, and usually obtaining, some of the rights of natives. A whole clan or tribe might be gērīm in Israel, as e.g. the Gibeonites (Jos 9), the Beerothites (2 S 4:2). The Israelites are themselves often spoken of as ‘sojourners’ in the land of Egypt (see Gn 15:13, Ex 22:21, 23:9, Lv 19:24 (H), Dt 10:19, 23:7 etc.). In the oldest Israelitish code (the Book of the Covenant, Ex 21:1 to 23:13), the gēr is protected against injustice and violence (21:20, 23:9). The D code (c. B.C. 620) goes much further, for, besides making more explicit and urgent the duty of defending, helping, and even loving the ‘sojourner’ (Dt 10:18 , 14:29, 24:14, 19), and also securing to him his rights (24:17, 27:1–9), the gēr was to be allowed to participate in the three great annual feasts (Dt 16:11ff.; cf. 5:14 and Ex 23:12). He is not, however, compelled, though allowed, to follow his protector’s religion (Dt 14:29, 1 K 11:7). That he occupies a status inferior to that of the born Israelite is indicated by the fact that he is classed with the widow and orphan as needing special consideration (10:18, 14:29, 29:14, 19), and that the right of intermarrying is denied him (7:1ff., 23:4). When, however, we come to P and to other parts of the OT which belong to the same stage of history and religion, we find the ‘sojourner’ almost on an equal footing with the native Israelite,—he is fast becoming, and is almost become, the proselyte of NT and Rabbinical times. His position has now religious rather than political significance. He is expected to keep the Sabbath and to observe the Day of Atonement, as well as the three great feasts (Lv 16:29). He is to eat unleavened bread during Passover week (Ex 12:19; Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are now blended), and, if circumcised (not otherwise), to keep the full Passover itself. But the gēr is not even yet the full equal of the Israelite, for he is not compelled to be circumcised, and no one can belong to the congregation who has not submitted to that rite (Ex 12:47ff., Nu 9:14); he has not yet received the right of intermarriage (Gn 34:14), and is prohibited from keeping Jewish slaves (Lv 25:47ff.).

The closing of the ranks of Judaism, helped by the Exile, by the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, by the Samaritan schism, and consummated by the Maccabæan wars, led to the complete absorption of the ‘sojourner.’ The word prosēlytos (representing the Heb. gēr) , common in classical Greek for one who has come to a place (Lat. advena) , acquired in Hellenistic Greek the meaning which meets us often in the NT (Mt 23:15, Ac 2:6 etc.). See

PROSELYTE.

The indiscriminate use of ‘stranger’ with the meaning of ‘sojourner,’ and of ‘alien’ and

‘foreigner’ is very confusing. ‘Foreigner’ is the proper rendering of Heb. nokri. The Heb. tōshāb (lit. ‘dweller’) is a post-exilic substitute for gēr (‘sojourner’) in the original non-religeous sense of the latter. For the sake of distinction it might be uniformly rendered ‘settler’ (EV ‘sojourner,’ ‘stranger,’ ‘foreigner’). See, for the relations of Israel to foreigners proper, art. NATIONS.

T. WITTON DAVIES.

STRANGLING.—This is suggested as a mode of death, Job 7:15. The cognate verb describes the manner of Ahithophel’s self-inflicted death (2 S 17:23, EV ‘hanged himself’; cf. Mt 27:5 of Judas). The idea conveyed is death by suffocation, not necessarily produced by suspension. Elsewhere, where hanging is mentioned in EV as a mode of punishment, some form of impalement is intended (see CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 10).

In the pastoral letter sent down by the Council of Jerusalem to the early converts from heathenism, these are instructed to abstain inter alia ‘from blood and from things strangled’ (Ac 15:29, cf. v. 20, 21:25). Both belong to the category of Jewish food taboo (FOOD, § 10) . The former refers to the prohibition against eating meat which had not been thoroughly drained of the blood, the second to the similar taboo affecting the flesh of animals not slaughtered according to the very minute Rabbinical rules then in force. Thus in the Talmudic treatise Chullin, specially devoted to this subject, it is laid down (i. 2) that ‘any one may slaughter … with any instrument except a harvest-sickle, a saw, etc., because these strangle,’ in other words, they do not make the clean incision required for proper slaughter. ‘What is strangled’ (Ac 15:20 RV) or strangled meat is thus seen to be a current technical term of the Jewish shēkhītā or ritual of slaughter. In modern phrase the Gentile converts were to eat only kōsher meat.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

STRAW, STUBBLE.—In Heb. the former is teben, the latter qash, and to Western ideas the one is as much ‘straw’ as the other. The distinction between the two is as follows: teben, the modern tibn, is the mixture of chopped straw and chaff, produced by the action of the threshingdrag and winnowed out by the fan (AGRICULTURE, § 3), as distinguished from the grains of wheat (so Jer 23:28 where ‘straw’ RV, and ‘chaff’ AV are both inadequate). It is mentioned as the food of horses, asses, and camels. In reaping, as is still the custom, the stalks were cut kneehigh or over; the length of stalk left standing is qash. Accordingly, when the Hebrews in Egypt ‘gathered stubble for straw’ (Ex 5:12), what they did was to pull up the stalks of wheat left standing in the fields and cut them up into short pieces suitable for brick-making, instead of being allowed to procure the tibn ready to their hand from the local threshing-floors. Since the cornstalks were usually burned as manure, ‘stubble’ is frequently found in metaphors suggested by this practice (Is 5:24, 47:14 etc.). In other passages containing reference explicit or implied to ‘driven stubble’ (41:3), the smaller fragments of chopped straw which the wind blew away with the chaff from the threshing-floor may be intended.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

STREET.—See CITY.

STRENGTH OF ISRAEL.—The EV tr. of the Divine title nētsach Yisrā’ēl in 1 S 15:29. Probably a more accurate rendering would be ‘Glory of Israel.’

STRIPES.—See CRIMES, etc. (‘Beating’), 9.

STRONG DRINK.—See WINE AND STRONG DRINK.

STRONGHOLD.—See CITY, FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT.

STUBBLE.—See STRAW.

STUFF.—In Lk 17:31 and elsewhere in AV ‘stuff’ means ‘furniture’; cf. Udall’s tr. of Erasmus’ Paraphrase, i. 7, ‘All that ever they had about them of stuffe or furniture.’

STUMBLING-BLOCK (Gr. skandalon; AV ‘offence,’ ‘occasion to fall,’ ‘stumblingblock’; RV ‘stumbling-block,’ ‘thing that causes stumbling,’ ‘occasion of stumbling’).— Properly the spring of a trap (cf. Ro 11:9); hence something that ensnares or trips up. The verb is skandatizein; AV ‘offend,’ RV ‘cause to stumble.’

DAVID SMITH.

SUA (1 Es 5:29) = Ezr 2:44 Siaha, Neh 7:47 Sia.

SUAH.—An Asherite (1 Ch 7:36).

SUBAI (1 Es 5:30) = Ezr 2:46 Shamlai, Neh 7:48 Salmai.

SUBAS.—A family of ‘Solomon’s servantse (1 Es 5:34)

SUBURB.—This word is used in AV in two quite distinct senses. (1) In 2 K 23:11 a certain chamber, really within the Temple precincts, is said to have been ‘in the suburbs’ (Heb. parvar, RV ‘precincts’). Practically the same original is retained as a proper name—Parbar, 1 Ch 26:18 (RVm ‘the Precinct’), where the reference is probably to the same spot as in the former passage. Modern scholars find in this mysterious parbar or parvar a designation of the western colonnade

(or part thereof) of the Temple (see PARBAR).

(2) In all other instances ‘suburbs’ occurs only in connexion with the so-called Levitical cities, as the rendering—derived from the Vulg. suburbana (fields, etc., close to a city)—of a Heb. word meaning ‘pasture-grounds.’ Each of the 48 cities, according to Nu 35:2ff., is to be provided with a square tract of land measuring 2000 cubits—roughly 1000 yards—each way, which is to serve the Levites as a common pasture ground ‘for their cattle and for their substance and for all their beasts’ (v. 3 RV, cf. the lists in Jos 21:2–42, 1 Ch 6:55–81).

A. R. S. KENNEDY. SUCATHITES.—See SOCO, 1.

SUCCOTH.—A place first mentioned in Gn 33:17, where it is said to have been so called because Jacob, on his return from Haran to Canaan, halting at it after his wrestling with the angel at Penuel, built there ‘booths’ (Heb. succōth) for his cattle. Gideon also, after crossing the Jordan in his pursuit of the Midianites, passed Succoth, and afterwards ‘went up’ to Penuel ( Jg 8:5, 8). The name has not been preserved; and the site is thus matter of conjecture. From the passages quoted and other notices it is clear that it was E. of the Jordan; and it may further be inferred that, while Penuel was close to the Jabbok (Gn 32:22, 30f.), on higher ground than Succoth, and to the E. or S.E. (Jg 8:5, 8, cf. v. 11), Succoth was on the route between Penuel and Shechem, which would pass most naturally over the ford ed-Dāmiyeh (a little S. of the point at which the Jabbok enters the Jordan), in the territory of Gad, in a ‘vale’ (Jos 13:27, Ps 60:5),—presumably, therefore, in that part of the Jordan valley through which the Jabbok flows into the Jordan, and which is very fertile. Jacob came from Mizpah (see No. 1 in art. s.v.) , which is most naturally to be sought somewhere on the N. or N.E. of the Jebel ‘Ajlun; and any one journeying thence to the ford ed-Dāmiyeh would naturally descend as soon as possible into the Ghōr (or Jordan valley), and join the track which passes along it from N. to S. The rest of Jacob’s route would be consistent and intelligible, if Mahanaim (his last halting-place before Penuel, Gn 32:2) were ( say) at Deir ‘Allā, 4 miles N. of the ford by which the track down the Ghōr crosses the Jabbok, Penuel near where the same track crosses the route from es-Salt to ed-Dāmiyeh (see the map), and Succoth on one of the lower terraces of the Jordan valley (which here sinks from -500 ft. to 1000 ft.), W. of the point just suggested for Penuel, S. of the Jabbok, and in the territory of Gad ( Jos 13:27). Whether towns actually stood at or near the sites thus indicated can, of course, be determined only by excavation.

Succoth is said in the Talmud to have been called in later times Tar‘alah or Dar‘alah; and hence it has often been identified with Deir ‘Allā mentioned above. But it is very doubtful whether Deir ‘Allā has any connexion with this Talm. name; for Deir is a Syriac and Arabic word (common in names of places) meaning ‘monastery,’ which there is no reason whatever for seeing in the Tar or Dar (without the yod) of the Talm. name. Nor does the geographical position of Deir ‘Allā seem to agree with the narrative of either Jacob or Gideon. See, further, Driver in ExpT xiii. (1902), p. 457 ff., more briefly in Gen. p. 300 ff.

S. R. DRIVER.

SUCCOTH (meaning in Heb. ‘booths’).—The name of the first encampment in the Exodus, which started from Rameses (Ex 12:37, 13:20, Nu 33:5, 6). It is probably the Egyptian Thuke, the same as or near to Pithom ( wh. see), capital of the 8th nome, and situated in the Wady Tumilat.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

SUCCOTH-BENOTH (2 K 17:30).—A deity whose image was made and set up in Samaria by the colonists from Babylon. ‘Benoth’ (LXX Banith) suggests ‘Banitu’ as it appears in the name Zarpanītu—in the inscriptions Zer-banitu—the wife of Marduk, patron god of Babylon. But there is no certainty. Sayce (in Hastings’ DB) suggests that ‘Succoth’ may denote the ‘processional shrines’ in which the images were carried, ‘Benoth’ being corrupted from Belith or Betit, the classical Beltis, a common title and synonym of Zer-banītu.

W. EWING.

SUD.—The name of a river or canal of Babylon named in Bar 1:4. This name has not yet been found in the literature of Babylonia, and it seems probable that there is a mistake in the text, the true reading being Sur. A Babylonian text mentions a river or canal in the neighbourhood of Babylon called Nār Suru, and this may be the stream intended. Its position is unknown.

T. G. PINCHES.

SUDIAS (1 Es 5:26) = Ezr 2:40 Hodaviah, Neh 7:43 Hodevah.

SUKKIIM.—The name of a tribe led by Shishak against Judæa (2 Ch 12:3). The identification of the Sukkiim with the inhabitants of Suakin is very uncertain.

SUMER, SUMERIANS.—See p. 69^b.

SUN.—The first mention of the sun in the Bible is in Gn 1:16, as ‘the greater light to rule the day.’ It was looked upon as the greatest and most important of the heavenly bodies, and motion was attributed to it, as is still done in ordinary parlance. We read of the going down of the sun, and of its rising; of the increasing force of its heat as the day went on (Ex 16:21), of its influence in the production of the crops of the ground (‘the precious things of the fruits of the sun,’ Dt 33:14) . The sun ‘goeth forth in his might’ (Jg 5:31). The situation of a place is spoken of as ‘toward the sunrising,’ i.e. to the east (e.g. Nu 34:15). Things that were notorious and done openly were said to be ‘before or in the sight of the sun.’ But while the sun is strong, the power of God is greater still. This is expressed in Job’s assertion (9:7) that God ‘commandeth the sun and it riseth not.’ The power of the sun affects the complexion (‘I go blackened, but not by the sun,’ Job 30:28 RVm; cf. Ca 1:6), and even causes death. A case of death by sunstroke occurs in 2 K 4:18–19 , and this power is alluded to in Ps 121:6 ‘The sun shall not smite thee by day.’ The light of the sun is cheering: ‘a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun’ (Ec 11:7). Contrivances for measuring the length of the day by the shadow cast by the sun were invented: we have some kind of dial, of which steps formed a part, indicated in 2 K 20:9, 11, Is 38:8. Though there is no actual mention of an eclipse in the Bible, part of the language used in describing the terrors of the day of the Lord both in OT and NT is derived from such an event: ‘the sun shall be turned into darkness’ (Jl 2:31), ‘the sun became black as sackcloth of hair’ (Rev 6:12) . On the other hand, the brilliance and glory of the future life is portrayed by comparison with the sun. ‘Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun’ (Mt 13:43); ‘The light of the sun shall be sevenfold’ (Is 30:26); and even the sun will not be required, for, as in Ps 84:11 ‘the Lord God is a sun,’ so in Rev 21:23 (cf. 22:5) ‘the city hath no need of the sun … for the glory of God did lighten it.’ The wonders of the day of Joshua’s victory over the Amorites, when at his command the sun and moon are said to have stood still (Jos 10:12–14) , were long remembered by the Israelites (Hab 3:11, Sir 46:4).

The power and influence of the sun over the natural world would soon lead to its being personified and worshipped, inasmuch as what was done upon earth was done ‘under the sun.’ In

one of Joseph’s dreams there is a personification of the sun (Gn 37:9). In the Book of Deuteronomy (4:19) there is a caution against sun-worship, and the punishment of death by stoning is assigned to the convicted worshipper of the sun (17:3), whilst in Job (31:26) there is an allusion to a superstitious salutation of the sun by the kissing of the hand. Sun-pillars, or obelisks used in the worship of the sun, are mentioned frequently in the OT, e.g. Ex 23:24, Lv 26:30, 2 Ch 14:3, Is 17:8, Ezk 6:4; and in Phœnicia, a solar Baal, Baal-Hammon, was worshipped. Sunworship itself was, in the later days of the kingdom of Judah at any rate, one of the permitted forms of worship in Jerusalem. Sun-images are mentioned in 2 Ch. (14:5) as existing in all the cities of Judah as early as the reign of Asa. In Josiah’s reformation those who burnt incense to the sun were put down (2 K 23:5), while the chariots of the sun were burned with fire (after being hewn down according to 2 Ch 34:4, 7), and ‘the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun’ were taken away (2 K 23:11). There was a great chariot of the sun at Sippar in

Babylonia. We gather from Ezk 8:16 that this sun-worship actually took place in the inner court at the door of the Temple, between the porch and the altar; the worshippers turned their backs upon the Temple itself, and worshipped the sun towards the east. Certain places where this worship appears to have been most popular took the name Beth-shemesh ( wh. see), ‘house of the sun,’ from the fact.

We must not forget, in conclusion, that, in one Messianic passage (Mal 4:2), the coming deliverer is spoken of as ‘the sun of righteousness.’

H. A. REDPATH.

SUNSTROKE.—See preced. art. and MEDICINE, p. 599^a.

SUPERSCRIPTION.—See TITLE, and MONEY, § 6.

SUPH.—A place-name in Dt 1:1 ‘In the Arabah over against Suph’; AV reads ‘over against the Red Sea,’ in which case it has been assumed that the word for ‘Sea’ had fallen out in the received Hebrew text. Suph means ‘weeds,’ and the ‘Sea of Weeds’ was the Hebrew name of the

Red Sea. The AV is almost certainly correct; the expression was so understood also by LXX and Vulgate. It is evident that by the ‘Red Sea’ the Gulf of ‘Akabah is meant, as in Nu 21:4 and elsewhere.

J. F. MCCURDY.

SUPHAH.—An unknown locality E. of Jordan (Nu 21:14).

SUPPER.—See MEALS, 2; and for the ‘Last Supper’ see EUCHARIST.

SUR.—1. A gate (2 K 11:6). See JERUSALEM (II. 4). 2. A town on the seacoast of Palestine (Jth 2:28). The site, if a different place from Tyre, is unknown.

SUSA.—See SHUSHAN.

SUSANNA.—See APOCRYPHA, § 5.

SUSI.—A Manassite (Nu 13:12 (11)).

SWALLOW.—1. dĕrōr ( Ps 84:3, Pr 26:2). The allusion to the nesting of this bird in the sanctuary and its swift (unalighting) flight fits the swallow. 2. ‘āgūr ( Is 38:14, Jer 8:7). See CRANE. 3. sūs, sīs, should be tr. as in RV (Is 38:14, Jer 8:7), ‘swallow’ instead of ‘crane’ (AV). See CRANE. Some ten species of swallows and swifts or martins are common in the Holy Land.

SWAN (tinshemeth, Lv 11:18, Dt 14:16).—Swans have been found in Palestine, but are very rare. The tr. of AV cannot be defended. See OWL, 5.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SWEARING.—See OATHS.

SWEET CANE.—See REED.

SWINE (chazīr).—Domesticated swine were probably kept in the East in the earliest historic times, when they appear to have been regarded as sacred. In a cave associated with the earliest place of sacrifice at ancient Gezer, in use certainly before B.C. 2000 , large quantities of pigs’ bones were found. It was the sacrosanct character of swine that lay at the root of the prohibition in Lv 11:7 and Dt 14:8; and the eating of swine’s flesh and offering of swine’s blood (Is 65:4, 66:3 , 17) are clearly regarded as a sign of lapse into paganism. The heathen frequently tried to compel the Jews to eat swine’s flesh (e.g. 2 Mac 6:18, 7:1) and thus renounce their religion. The contempt felt for swine is shown by the proverbs quoted in Pr. 11:22, Mt 7:6, and 2 P 2:22. In the Talmudic writings the pig appears as the emblem of uncleanness, and those who keep swine are regarded with aversion. The same ideas colour the parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:15), where he is depicted as reaching the lowest depth of infamy in being sent to feed swine, and actually being reduced to covet their food; and also the narrative of the demoniacs, where the Gentile inhabitants of Gerasa lose their great herd of swine (Mt 8:30, Mk 5:13, Lk 8:32).

In modern Palestine very much the same feeling survives. Chanzīr ‘pig’ is a common but very opprobrious appellation. Swine’s flesh is loathed by Jews and Moslems; the latter, who otherwise eat the same food as Christians, are always very suspicious that any unknown food may be contaminated with it. Pigs are not common in Palestine; they are kept by German colonists and in a few places by native Christians. In Rameh in Galilee, for example, considerable herds are kept and pastured in the surrounding fields. Horses, unfamiliar with their smell are much perturbed on approaching the village, and it is said that the cattle will not touch the water of the stream below where the swine are accustomed to resort.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SWORD.—See ARMOUR, ARMS, § 1 (c).

SYCAMINE (Lk 17:6).—sykaminos is, strictly speaking, the black mulberry (Morus nigra the tūt shāmī of the Syrians), and it is probably this tree that is referred to in Lk 17:6 and in 1 Mac 6:34. But sykaminos is also used in LXX in many passages as the equivalent of the shiqmīm or sycomore ( wh. see ).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SYCHAR.—‘A city of Samaria,’ near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son

Joseph (Jn 4:5). Jerome in Onomast. distinguishes Sychar from Shechem, but in Ep. Paul. and Quæst. Gen. he identifies them, saying that the form Sychar is due to a scribal error. Much ingenuity has been exercised to show that the names are really identical, or at least apply to the same city. On the face of it this is unlikely. In A.D. 333 the Itinerary of Jerusalem places Sychar one mile E. of Shechem—in this agreeing with other ancient authorities. Canon Williams first suggested Identification with ‘Askar, a village on the skirt of Ebal, about two miles E. of Nāblus. The main objection to this is the presence of a copious spring, more than sufficient to supply the village; while from Jn 4:15 we learn that the woman of Sychar was accustomed to go ‘all the way’ (RV) to Jacob’s Well for domestic supplies. Further, there is nothing to indicate a pre-Arab settlement at ‘Askar. Mr. Macalister (PEFSt, 1907, p. 92 ff.) draws attention to the mound Tulūl Balātā, a little nearer to Nāblus, just N. of the hamlet Balātā, which bears evidence of occupation from the period of the Hebrew monarchy to Roman times.

Jacob’s Well, according to unanimous and unbroken tradition, lies about half a mile to the E. of Tulūl Balātā, on the S. edge of the plain, at the foot of Gerizim. Formerly of great depth (Jn 4:11), it is now much filled with rubbish, and is not more than 76 ft. deep. Depending on the percolation of surface water, with the greater depth the supply would be constant; but now it is dry before the summer is far advanced. The sacred associations of the Well, and the ‘lightness’ of the water, compared with the hardness of that from the spring, would form attractions in early, as in modern times. With no other ancient settlement near the Well, we may with some confidence place Sychar at Tulūl Balātā. With the ruin of the village the name may have migrated to ‘Askar.

W. EWING.

SYCOMORE (shiqmīm. 1 K 10:27, 1 Ch 27:28, 2 Ch 1:15, 9:27, Is 9:10, Am 7:14; shiqmōth, Ps 78:47; (Gr.) sykomorea, Lk 19:4).—This is the sycomore fig (Ficūs sycamorus) , a tree often 50 feet high, with an enormous trunk. It bears poor figs (Am 7:14), but furnishes good timber. It is not to-day ‘In abundance’ as of old (1 K 10:27), but considerable numbers flourish still in the plain around Jaffa. This tree must not be confused with the ‘sycamore’ (Acer pseudoplatanus) of our home lands, which is a species of maple. See also SYCAMINE.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

SYENE.—See SEVENEH.

SYMBOL.—The prevalence of figurative language in the Bible is due partly to the antiquity and Oriental origin of the book and to the fact that its subject, religion, deals with the most difficult problems of life and the deepest emotions of the soul. The English word ‘type,’ as the equivalent of ‘symbol’ or ‘emblem,’ is sometimes confusing, as it has been used both for the fulfilment of the prototype and as that which points forward to the antitype. Like the proverb and parable, the symbol implies a connexion between two things of which one is concrete and physical, the other abstract and referring to intellectual, moral, and spiritual matters. The former, of course, is the symbol.

1. Symbols of similarity.—Here the connecting principle is one of recognized likeness between the material object and its counterpart. Thus ‘a watered garden’ is made the emblem of a satisfied soul (Jer 31:12). The similarity is that of supplied wants. In the same way the white garments of the priests and of the redeemed were emblematic of holiness (Ex 39:27–29 , Rev 19:8) . Marriage, as an Oriental relationship of purchased possession, was an emblem of Palestine in covenant with God, and of the Church as the bride of Christ. Thus also the Christian life was a race (He 12:1) and a warfare (Eph 6:11–17). An element of similarity entered into the dreamvisions recorded in the Bible and into the symbolism of prophetic warnings (Is 5:1–7, Jer 13:1– 12, Ezk 37:1–11) . In the Epistles we meet with a rich variety of emblems created by the desire to interpret the Person and mission of Christ, and the relationship of the Christian believer to Him. The writers, being of Jewish origin and addressing communities which usually contained a number of Jewish Christians, naturally turned to the biographies, national history, and sacred institutions of the OT. Whatever was drawn from such a source would not only be familiar, but would seem to be part of an organic whole, and to possess a value of Divine preparation. Examples of these are the Second Adam, the Firstborn, the Chief Shepherd, the Chief Cornerstone. The journey to Canaan supplied Passover, manna, rock, redemption, better country, rest. From the Tabernacle and Temple were taken high priest, altar, sacrifice, veil, peace-offering, lamb, atonement.

2. Symbols of representative selection or Synecdoche.—The symbol is in this case the agent or implement, or some conspicuous accompaniment selected from a group of concrete particulars, so that the part represents the whole. Thus the insignia of office and authority are crown, sword, sceptre, seal, coin, robe, rod, staff. Various actions and relationships are symbolically indicated, such as the giving of the hand (compact), foot on the neck (conquest), bored ear (perpetual servitude), washing of the hands (innocence), bared or outstretched arm ( energy), gnashing of teeth (disappointment and remorse), shaking the head (contempt and disapproval), averted face (angry repudiation) , bread (hospitality), cross (suffering of Christ, and suffering for Him).

3. Memorial and mystical symbols.—These might belong to either of the above forms or be artificially selected, but the purpose was not so much to instruct and emphasize as to recall and perpetuate circumstances and feelings, or to suggest a meaning that must remain concealed. Such were the rainbow at the Flood, the stone Ebenezer, the symbolical names often given to children, as Moses, Ichabod, and the names in Jacob’s family, the Urim and Thummim, the white stone, and the number of the beast, etc. Of this class were the sculptured emblems of the early Christians in the catacombs of Rome, such as the palm, dove, anchor, ship, fish, Alpha and Omega. Water, bread and wine, as the material elements in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are the symbols of those Sacraments. The name ‘symbol’ is applied to the selection of generally accepted truths forming the Christian creed, or canon of belief. Certain characters in the Bible, such as Jonah, Mary Magdalene, Herod, Judas, have come to be identified with special types of character and conduct, and are said to be symbolical of those classes.

4. Dangers of symbolism.—(1) The act of transmitting spiritual and eternal truth through material and perishable media always involves limitation and loss. (2) The injudicious carrying out of symbolism into inferences not originally intended, leads into the opposite error of irrelevant addition. (3) The scrupulous avoidance of symbolism may itself become a symbol. (4) The external form which illuminates, emphasizes, and recalls is no guarantee of inward reality. The ceremony of purification is not purity. Sheep’s clothing may not be a robe of innocence or rent garments indicate distress of soul. The cry ‘Lord, Lord!’ is not always raised by true discipleship. Hence Christ’s message to the Samaritan woman concerning true worship, and His frequent protests against the ceremonial insincerities of the Pharisees. The condemnation of image-worship turned upon the total inadequacy of symbol to represent God. It might Indicate man’s thought of God, but it left untouched the constituent element of true religion, God’s thought of man. ‘Eyes have they, but they see not.’

G. M. MACKIE.

SYMEON (cf. SIMEON, ad init.).—1. An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). 2. A prophet and teacher at Antioch (Ac 13:1). 3. Ac 15:14 = Simon Peter (see PETER).

SYMMACHUS’ VERSION.—See GR. VERSIONS OF OT, 18

SYNAGOGUE

1. Meaning and history.—Like its original synagōgē (lit. a gathering, assembly—for its use in LXX see CONGREGATION) , ‘synagogue’ is used in NT in a double signification: (1) in the sense of a community organized for religious purposes, as Ac 6:9, 9:2 (cf. Rev 2:9, 3:9 ‘the synagogue of Satan’); and (2) to denote the building in which the community met for worship— so some 50 times in the Gospels and Acts from Mt 4:23 onwards. The strict Heb. equivalent in the latter sense is ‘the house of assembly.’ Of other names for the synagogue as a place of worship may be mentioned the older term proseuchē (Ac 16:13 RV ‘place of worship’; Jos. Life, § 54, of the synagogue of Tiberias)

The origin of the synagogue as a characteristic institution of Judaism is hidden in obscurity. Most probably it took its rise in the circumstances of the Hebrew exiles in Babylonia. Hitherto worship had practically meant sacrifice, but sacrifice was now impossible in a land unclean (cf. Hos 3:4, 9:3f.). There was still left to the exiles, however, the living word of the prophet, and the writings of God’s interpreters from a former age. In those gatherings in the house of Ezekiel of which we read (Ezk 8:1, 20:1–3) we may perhaps detect the germs of the future synagogue. We are on more solid ground when we reach the religious reform of Ezra and Nehemiah (B.C. 444– 443) . With the introduction of the ‘Law of Moses’ as the norm of faith and life, the need for systematic instruction in its complex requirements was evident to the leaders of the reform, as is clear from Neh 8:7f. The closing century of the Persian rule, B.C. 430–330 , may therefore be regarded as the period of the rise and development of the synagogue. From this period, more precisely from the reign of Artaxerxes III. Ocbus (358–337) , may be dated the only mention of the synagogue in OT, viz. Ps 74:8 ‘they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.’ The papyrus finds of recent years have contained not a few references to the synagogues of the Jewish communities in Egypt, from the time of the third Ptolemy, Euergetes, B.C. 247–221 , onwards (details in Schürer, GJV⁴ii. 499 f.).

By the first century of our era the synagogue was regarded as an institution of almost immemorial antiquity. In referring it back to Moses himself, Josephus (c. Apion. ii. 17) is only echoing the contemporary belief, which is also reflected in the words of the Apostle James, ‘for Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath’ (Ac 15:21 RV). For the wide extent and historical importance of the synagogues of ‘the Dispersion,’ see below, § 5.

2. The synagogue building and its furniture.—Remains, more or less extensive, of Jewish synagogues still survive from the second and third, more doubtfully from the first, centuries of our era, chiefly in Galilee. The examination of these remains, first undertaken by the Palestine Exploration Fund (see Survey of West Pal. i. 224 ff. with plans), has recently been carried out more fully by the German Orient Society, and the results published in the Society’s Mittheilungen ( Nos. 23, 27, 29 [1904, 1905]). In plan and details of ornamentation these Galilæan synagogues display a general similarity. The buildings are rectangular in shape, and divided into three or five aisles by two or three rows of pillars. The entrance is almost always in the south front, and often consists of a large main, and two smaller side, entrances. The most elaborate was the synagogue of Capernaum, where, as elsewhere, traces were found of galleries running round three sides of the central aisle. These were probably assigned to the women (for a similar arrangement in Herod’s Temple, see TEMPLE § 11 (b)), although the question of the separation of the sexes in NT times is one on which the best authorities disagree.

As regards the furniture of the synagogue, the most important item was the chest or cupboard

(tēbā, the ‘ark’), in which the sacred rolls of the Law and the Prophets were kept. The synagogues of NT times were also doubtless provided with a raised platform (bēmā) , on which stood the reading-desk from which the Scriptures were read. The larger portion of the area was occupied by benches for the congregation, the worshippers facing southwards, in Galilee at least, towards the holy city. A few special seats in front of the bēmā, and facing the congregation, were occupied by the heads of the community. These are the ‘chief seats in the synagogues’ coveted by the Pharisees (Mt 23:5 and ||). In front of the ‘ark’ a lamp burned day and night.

3. The officials of the Synagogue.—The general management of the synagogue of a Jewish town, where it served also as a court of justice and—in the smaller towns and villages at least— as a school, was in the hands of the elders of the community. It had no special priest or

‘minister,’ as will appear presently. It was usual however, to appoint an official called ‘the ruler of the synagogue’ (Mk 5:22, Lk 8:41, and oft.), to whom the authorities of the community committed the care of the building as well as the more important duty of seeing that everything connected with the public services was done ‘decently and in order.’ Hence the indignation of the ruler of Lk 13:14 at the supposed breach of the decorum of worship related in the preceding verses (vv. 10–13) . It lay with the ruler also to select the readers for the day, and to determine the order in which they were to be called up to the reading-desk. Occasionally, it would seem, a synagogue might have two or more rulers, as at Antioch of Pisidia (Ac 13:15).

The only other permanent official was the chazzān, ‘the ‘attendant’ of Lk 4:20 RV (A V

‘minister’ in the same, but now obsolete, sense; cf. Ac 13:5). The duties of the synagogue ‘officer’ ( as we say in Scotland) were somewhat varied. He was responsible for the cleaning and lighting of the building; and during service it was his special duty to convey the sacred rolls from the ark to the readers at the desk, and to restore them when the reading was over, as recorded in Lk 4:17–20 . To him fell also the duty of scourging criminals condemned by the court (Mt 10:17, 23:34 etc.), but not, as is usually represented, the teaching of the school children (art. ‘Education’ in DB i. 650^a).

4. The synagogue service in NT times.—For this part of our subject we are dependent mainly on the fuller information preserved in the Mishna, which reflects the later usage of the 2nd century. According to Megillah, iv. 3, the service consisted of four parts, and with this the scattered hints in the Gospels and Acts agree. These parts are: (a) the recitation of the Shema’, (b) the lifting up of hands, i.e. the prayers, (c) the lessons from the Law and the Prophets, and (d) the priestly benediction. Two elements of the full service, however, are here omitted as not strictly belonging to the essentials of worship, viz. the translation of the lessons into the vernacular, and the sermon.

(a) The recitation of the Shema’.—The shema’ is the standing designation of three short sections of the Pentateuch, Dt 6:4–9 (which opens with the word Shema’ = ‘Hear,’ whence the name) 11:13–21, Nu 15:37–41 . Their recitation by the congregation was preceded and followed by one or two short benedictions, such as that beginning, ‘Blessed be thou, Adonai, our God,

King of the universe, who didst form the light and create darkness.’

(b) The lifting up of hands.—In contrast to the first item of the service, in which all took part, the prayers were said by a single individual chosen for the purpose, named ‘the deputy of the congregation,’ the worshippers’ however, repeating the Amen at the close of each collect. This mode of prayer in the public services was taken over by the early Church, as is attested by 1 Co 14:16 ( where the word rendered ‘the giving of thanks’ is the Gr. equivalent of that rendered ‘benediction’ below). By the middle of the 2nd cent. A.D. a formal liturgy had been developed— the famous ‘eighteen benedictions,’ which may be read in any Jewish prayer-book. It is impossible, however, to say with certainty how many of these were in use in our Lord’s day. Dalman is of opinion that at least twelve of the eighteen collects are older than A.D. 70 . These he arranges in three groups, consisting of three opening benedictions, six petitions, and three closing benedictions (see his art. ‘Gottesdienst [synagogaler]’ in Hauck’s PRE³vii.).

(c) The OT lessons.—The liturgy was followed by a lesson from the Law. The five books were divided into 154 ( or more) Sabbath pericopes or sections, so that the whole Pentateuch was read through in three years (or 3¹/₂years, half of a Sabbatic period). The custom of calling up seven readers in succession—a priest, a Levite, and five others—may be as old as the 1st century. After the Law came, at the Sabbath morning service only a lesson from the Prophets, read by one person and left to his choice. It was the haphtarā, as the prophetic lesson was termed, that our Lord read in the synagogue of Nazareth (Lk 4:16 ff.). ‘The Hagiographa except Esther, were not at this period read at Divine service. Even the Psalms had no place in the usual service’ (Dalman).

In order that the common people might follow the lessons with Intelligence, these were translated into Aramaic, the vernacular of Palestine, by an interpreter (methurgemān—our ‘dragoman’ is from the same root). The unique position of the Law in the estimation of the time is shown by the fact that the Pentateuch lessons had to be translated a verse at a time, while the Prophets might he rendered three verses at a time. Reader and interpreter stood while at the reading-desk.

At this point in the service at the principal diets of worship, the sermon was introduced. The preacher sat while giving his exposition, which is so often described in NT as ‘teaching’ (Mt 4:23 , Mk 1:21, 6:2 etc.). In the synagogue there was full liberty of prophesying.’ Any member of the community was free to exercise his gift. When a likely stranger was present, he was invited by the ruler of the synagogue to address the congregation (Ac 13:15). (d) The service was closed by a priest pronouncing the priestly benediction, Nu 6:24–26 ; if no priest was present, it is said that a layman gave the blessing in the form of a prayer.

On some occasions, at least, it was usual to ask the alms of the congregation (Mt 6:2) on behalf of the poor. The full service, as sketched above, was confined to the principal service of the week, which was held on the forenoon of the Sabbath. At the other services, such as those held daily in the larger towns, where ten ‘men of leisure’ were available to form the minimum legal congregation, and the Monday and Thursday services, some of the items were omitted.

5. The influence of the Synagogue.—This article would be incomplete without a reference, however brief, to the influence of the synagogue and its worship not only upon the Jews themselves, but upon the world of heathenism. As to the latter, the synagogue played a conspicuous part in the preparatio evangelica. From the outworn creeds of paganism many earnest souls turned to the synagogue and its teaching for the satisfaction of their highest needs.

The synagogues of ‘the Dispersion’ (Jn 7:35, Ja 1:1, 1 P 1:1, all RV) became in consequence the seed-plots of Christianity, as every student of the Book of Acts is aware.

The work which the synagogue did for Judaism itself is best seen in the ease with which the breach with the past involved in the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 , and the cessation of sacrificial worship, was healed. The highest religious life of Judaism had already transferred its channels from the grosser and more material forms of the Temple to the spiritual worship of the synagogue.

Nor must a reference be wanting to the fact that the synagogue, and not the Temple, supplied the mould and model for the worship of the Christian Church.

6. The Great Synagogue.—In late Jewish tradition Ezra is alleged to have been the founder and first president of a college of learned scribes, which is supposed to have existed in Jerusalem until the early part of the Gr. period (c. B.C. 300). To ‘the men of the Great Synagogue,’ or rather ‘of the Great Assembly,’ were ascribed the composition of some of the later OT books, the close of the Canon, and a general care for the development of religion under the Law. Recent writers, however, have in the main accepted the results of Kuenen’s careful investigation in his Gesamm. Abhandlungen (Germ. tr. 125–160) , and now regard the Great Synagogue as unhistorical, the tradition of its existence having arisen from a distorted view of the nature and purpose of the great popular assembly, of which we read in Neh 8–10.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

SYNOPTICS, SYNOPTISTS.—See GOSPELS, 2.

SYNTYCHE.—A Christian, perhaps a deaconess, at Philippi (Ph 4:2); see art. EUODIA.

A. J. MACLEAN.

SYNZYGUS (lit. ‘yoke-fellow’).—This is taken by some as a proper name in Ph 4:3 ( ‘Synzygus truly so called’), but it is nowhere else found as such. It is more probably a way of describing the chief minister of the church at Philippi. Lightfoot (Com., in loc.) suggests Epaphroditus; Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 358), Luke; others, Barnabas or Silas or Timothy. An old tradition of the 2nd cent. (Lightfoot, ib.) makes the ‘yoke-fellow’ to be the Apostle’s wife; Renan supposes that Lydia is meant, and that she had become his wife; but see 1 Co 7:8.

A. J. MACLEAN.

SYRACUSE, on the east coast of Sicily, was the principal city in the island. It was originally a Greek colony of ancient date, which was powerful enough to defeat the famous Athenian Sicilian expedition (B.C. 415–412) . Its kings were often men of distinction, even in literature, of which they were noted patrons. The city had a varied career, being sometimes a kingdom, sometimes a democracy. In B.C. 241 the Romans took the western half of Sicily from the Carthaginians, but remained in alliance with the kings of Syracuse. The last king of Syracuse coquetted with the Carthaginians; the city was besieged and captured by Marcellus in 212, and the whole island was henceforth under a prætor, who had two quæstors, one situated at Lilybæum in the W., the other at Syracuse. The city continued prosperous down till about the end of the 2nd cent. B.C. After that date it declined in importance, though it remained the capital of the eastern half of the island. In NT times a large number of the inhabitants were Roman citizens.

St. Paul’s ship lay at anchor in the harbour for three days, when he was on his way from Malta to Rome (Ac 28:12). He did not preach there. Christian memorials at Syracuse are not specially early.