TAANACH (Jos 12:21, 1 K 4:12, 1 Ch 7:29).—One of the royal Canaanite cities, mentioned in OT always along with Megiddo. Though in the territory of Issachar, it belonged to Manasseh; the native Canaanites were, however, not driven out (Jos 17:11–13, Jg 1:27) . It was allotted to the Levites of the children of Kohath (Jos 21:25). It was one of the four fortress cities on the ‘border of Manasseh’ (1 Ch 7:29). The fight of Deborah and Barak with the Canaanites is described (Jg 5:19) as ‘in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo.” The site is to-day Tell Ta‘annak, four miles S.E. from Tell el-Mutesellim ( Megiddo). The hill has been excavated by Prof. Sellin of Vienna. Many remains of Canaanite and Jewish civilization have been found, and also a considerable number of clay tablets with cuneiform inscriptions similar to those discovered at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt. See Sellin in Mem. Vienna Acad., 1. (1904), lii. (1905).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

TAANATH-SHILOH.—A town on the N.E. boundary of Ephraim (Jos 16:6). It is possibly the mod. Ta‘na, about 7 miles from Nāblus (Neapolis), and 2 miles N. of Yānūn ( Janoah ).

TABAOTH (1 Es 5:29 (60); and TABBAOTH (Ezr 2:43 = Neh 7:46).—A family of Nethinim who returned with Zerubbabel.

TABBATH.—An unknown locality mentioned in Jg 7:22.

TABEEL.—1. The father of the rival to Ahaz put forward by Rezin (wh. see) and Pekah (Is 7:6). 2. A Persian official (Ezr 4:7); called in 1 Es 2:16 Tabellius.

TABELLIUS.—See TABEEL, 2.

TABER.—Only in Nah 2:7 ‘her handmaids mourn as with the voice of doves, tabering ( Amer. RV ‘beating’) upon their breasts.’ Beating the breast was a familiar Oriental custom in mourning (cf. Is 32:12). The word here used means lit. ‘drumming’ (cf. Ps 68:26, its only other occurrence). The English word ‘taber’ means a small drum, usually accompanying a pipe, both instruments being played by the same performer. Other forms are ‘tabor,’ ‘tabour,’ and ‘tambour’; and dim. forms are ‘tabret’ and ‘tambourine.’

TABERAH.—An unidentified ‘station’ of the Israelites (Nu 11:3, Dt 9:22).

TABERNACLE.—1. By ‘the tabernacle’ without further qualification, as by the more expressive designation ‘tabernacle of the congregation’ (RV more correctly ‘tent of meeting,’ see below), is usually understood the elaborate portable sanctuary which Moses erected at Sinai, in accordance with Divine instructions, as the place of worship for the Hebrew tribes during and after the wilderness wanderings. But modern criticism has revealed the fact that this artistic and costly structure is confined to the Priestly sources of the Pentateuch, and is to be carefully distinguished from a much simpler tent bearing the same name and likewise associated with Moses. The relative historicity of the two ‘tents of meeting’ will be more fully examined at the close of this article (§ 9).

2.      The sections of the Priests’ Code (P) devoted to the details of the fabric and furniture of the Tabernacle, and to the arrangements for its transport from station to station in the wilderness, fall into two groups, viz. (a) Ex 25–27, 30, 31, which are couched in the form of instructions from J″ to Moses as to the erection of the Tabernacle and the making of its furniture according to the ‘pattern’ or model shown to the latter on the holy mount (25:9, 40); (b) Ex 35–40 , which tell inter alia of the carrying out of these instructions. Some additional details, particularly as to the arrangements on the march, are given in Nu 3:25ff., 4:4ff. and 7:1ff..

In these and other OT passages the wilderness sanctuary is denoted by at least a dozen different designations (see the list in Hastings’ DB iv. 655). The most frequently employed is that also borne, as we have seen, by the sacred tent of the Elohistic source (E), ‘the tent of meeting’ (so RV throughout). That this is the more correct rendering of the original ’ōhel mō‘ēd, as compared with AV’s ‘tabernacle of the congregation,’ is now universally acknowledged. The sense in which the Priestly writers, at least, understood the second term is evident from such passages as Ex 25:22, where, with reference to the mercy-seat (see 7 (b)), J″ is represented as saying: ‘there I will meet with thee and commune with thee’ (cf. Nu 7:89). This, however, does not exclude a possible early connexion of the name with that of the Babylonian ‘mount of meeting’ (Is 14:13, EV ‘congregation’), the mō‘ēd or assembly of the gods.

3.      In order to do justice to the Priestly writers in their attempts to give literary shape to their ideas of Divine worship, it must be remembered that they were following in the footsteps of Ezekiel (chs. 40–48), whose conception of a sanctuary is that of a dwelling-place of the Deity ( see Ezk 37:27). Now the attribute of Israel’s God, which for these theologians of the Exile overshadowed all others, was His ineffable and almost unapproachable holiness, and the problem for Ezekiel and his priestly successors was how man in his creaturely weakness and sinfulness could with safety approach a perfectly holy God. The solution is found in the restored Temple in the one case (Ezk 40 ff.), and in the Tabernacle in the other, together with the elaborate sacrificial and propitiatory system of which each is the centre. In the Tabernacle, in particular, we have an ideal of a Divine sanctuary, every detail of which is intended to symbolize the unity, majesty, and above all the holiness of J″, and to provide an earthly habitation in which a holy God may again dwell in the midst of a holy people. ‘Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them’ (Ex 25:8).

4.      Taking this general idea of the Tabernacle with us, and leaving a fuller discussion of its religious significance and symbolism to a later section (§ 8) , let us proceed to study the arrangement and component parts of P’s ideal sanctuary. Since the tents of the Hebrew tribes, those of the priests and Levites, and the three divisions of the sanctuary—court, holy place, and the holy of holies—represent ascending degrees of holiness in the scheme of the Priestly writer, the appropriate order of study will be from without inwards, from the perimeter of the sanctuary to its centre.

(a)    We begin, therefore, with ‘the court of the dwelling’ (Ex 27:9). This is described as a rectangular enclosure in the centre of the camp, measuring 100 cubits from east to west and half that amount from south to north. If the shorter cubit of, say, 18 inches (for convenience of reckoning) be taken as the unit of measurement, this represents an area of approximately 50 yards by 25, a ratio of 2:1. The entrance, which is on the eastern side, is closed by a screen (27:16 RV) of embroidered work in colours. The rest of the area is screened off by plain white curtains (EV ‘hangings’) of ‘fine twined linen’ 5 cubits in height, suspended, like the screen, at equal intervals of 5 cubits from pillars standing in sockets (EV) or bases of bronze. Since the perimeter of the court measured 300 cubits, 60 pillars in all were required for the curtains and the screen, and are reckoned in the text in groups of tens and twenties, 20 for each long side, and 10 for each short side. The pillars are evidently intended to be kept upright by means of cords or stays fastened to pins or pegs of bronze stuck in the ground.

(b)   In the centre of the court is placed the altar of burnt-offering (27:1–8), called also ‘the brazen altar’ and ‘the altar’ par excellence. When one considers the purpose it was intended to serve, one is surprised to find this altar of burnt-offering consisting of a hollow chest of acacia wood (so RV throughout, for AV ‘shittim’)—the only wood employed in the construction of the Tabernacle—5 cubits in length and breadth, and 3 in height, overlaid with what must, for reasons of transport, have been a comparatively thin sheathing of bronze. From the four corners spring the four horns of the altar, ‘of one piece’ with it, while half-way up the side there was fitted a projecting ledge, from which depended a network or grating (AV ‘grate’) of bronze (27:5, 38:4 RV). The meshes of the latter must have been sufficiently wide to permit of the sacrificial blood being dashed against the sides and base of the altar (cf. the sketch in Hastings’ DB iv. 658). Like most of the other articles of the Tabernacle furniture, the altar was provided with rings and poles for convenience of transport.

(c)    In proximity to the altar must be placed the bronze laver (30:17–21), containing water for the ablutions of the priests. According to 38:8, it was made from the ‘mirrors of the women which served at the door of the tent of meeting’ (RV)—a curious anachronism.

5. (a) It has already been emphasized that the dominant conception of the Tabernacle in these chapters is that of a portable sanctuary, which is to serve as the earthly dwelling-place of the heavenly King. In harmony therewith we find the essential part of the fabric of the Tabernacle, to which every other structural detail is subsidiary, described at the outset by the characteristic designation ‘dwelling.’ ‘Thou shalt make the dwelling (EV ‘tabernacle’) of ten curtains’ (26:1). It is a fundamental mistake to regard the wooden part of the Tabernacle as of the essence of the structure, and to begin the study of the whole therefrom, as is still being done.

The ten curtains of the dwelling (mishkān) , each 28 cubits by 4, are to be of the finest linen, adorned with inwoven tapestry figures of cherubim in violet, purple, and scarlet (see COLOURS). ‘the work of the cunning workman’ (26:1ff. RV). They are to be sewed together to form two sets of five, which again are to be ‘coupled together’ by means of clasps (RV; AV ‘taches’) and loops, so as to form one large surface 40 (10×4) cubits by 28 (7×4), ‘for the dwelling shall be one’ (26:8). Together the curtains are designed to form the earthly, and, with the aid of the attendant cherubim, to symbolize the heavenly, dwelling-place of the God of Israel.

(b)   The next section of the Divine directions (26:7–14)  provides for the thorough protection of these delicate artistic curtains by means of three separate coverings. The first consists of eleven curtains of goats’ hair ‘for a tent over the dwelling,’ and therefore of somewhat larger dimensions than the curtains of the latter, namely 30 cubits by 4, covering, when joined together, a surface of 44 cubits by 30. The two remaining coverings are to be made respectively of rams’ skins dyed red and of the skins of a Red Sea mammal, which is probably the dugong (v. 14, RV ‘sealskins,’ Heb. tachash).

(c)    At this point one would have expected to hear of the provision of a number of poles and stays by means of which the dwelling might be pitched like an ordinary tent. But the author of Ex 26:1–14 does not apply the term ‘tent’ to the curtains of the dwelling, but, as we have seen, to those of the goats’ hair covering, and instead of poles and stays we find a different and altogether unexpected arrangement in vv. 15–30. Unfortunately the crucial passage, vv. 15–17 , contains several obscure technical terms, with regard to which, in the present writer’s opinion, the true exegetical tradition has been lost. The explanation usually given, which finds in the word rendered ‘boards’ huge wooden beams of impossible dimensions, has been shown in a former study to be exegetically and intrinsically inadmissible; see art. ‘Tabernacle’ in Hastings’ DB, vol. iv. p. 563^b ff. To § 7 (b) of that article, with which Haupt’s note on 1 K 7:28 in SBOT should now be compared, the student is referred for the grounds on which the following translation of the leading passage is based. ‘And thou shalt make the frames for the dwelling of acacia wood, two uprights for each frame joined together by cross rails.’ The result is, briefly, the substitution of 48 light open frames (see diagrams, op. cit.), each 10 cubits in height by 1¹/₂ in width, for the traditional wooden beams of these dimensions, each, according to the usual theory, 1 cubit thick, equivalent to a weight of from 15 to 20 hundredweights!

The open frames—after being overlaid with gold according to our present but scarcely original text (v. 29)—are to be ‘reared up,’ side by side, along the south, west, and north sides of a rectangular enclosure measuring 30 cubits by 10 (3:1), the east side or front being left open. Twenty frames go to form each long side of the enclosure (1¹/₂x20 = 30 cubits); the western end requires only six frames (1¹/₂x6 = 9 cubs.); the remaining cubit of the total width is made up by the thickness of the frames and bars of the two long sides. The two remaining frames are placed at the two western corners, where, so far as can be gathered from the obscure text of v. 24, the framework is doubled for greater security. The lower ends of the two uprights of each frame are inserted into solid silver bases, which thus form a continuous foundation and give steadiness to the structure. This end is further attained by an arrangement of bars which together form three parallel sets running along all three sides, binding the whole framework together and giving it the necessary rigidity.

Over this rigid framework, and across the intervening space, are laid the tapestry curtains to form the dwelling, the symbolic figures of the cherubim now fully displayed on the sides as well as on the roof. Above these come the first of the protective coverings above described, the goats’ hair curtains of the ‘tent,’ as distinguished from the ‘dwelling.’ In virtue of their greater size, they overlap the curtains of the latter, their breadth of 30 cubits exactly sufficing for the height and width of the dwelling (10 + 10 + 10 cubits). As they thus reached to the base of the two long sides of the Tabernacle, they were probably fastened by pegs to the ground. At the eastern end the outermost curtain was probably folded in two so as to hang down for the space of two cubits over the entrance (26:9). In what manner the two remaining coverings are to be laid is not specified.

[This solution of the difficulties connected with the construction of the Tabernacle, first offered in DB iv., has been adopted, since the above was written, by the two latest commentators on Exodus, M‘Neile and Bennett; see esp. the former’s Book of Exodus [1908], lxxiii–xcii.]

(d)   The fabric of the Tabernacle, as described up to this point in Ex 26:1–30 , has been found to consist of three parts, carefully distinguished from each other. These are (1) the artistic linen curtains of the dwelling, the really essential part; (2) their supporting framework, the two together enclosing, except at the still open eastern front, a space 30 cubits long and 10 cubits wide from curtain to curtain, and 10 cubits in height; and (3) the protecting tent (so called) of goats’ hair, with the two subsidiary coverings.

The next step is to provide for the division of the dwelling into two parts, in the proportion of 2  to 1, by means of a beautiful portiere, termed the veil (vv. 31ff.), of the same material and artistic workmanship as the curtains of the dwelling. The veil is to be suspended from four gilded pillars, 20 cubits from the entrance and 10 from the western end of the structure. The larger of the two divisions of the dwelling is named the holy place, the smaller the holy of holies or most holy place. From the measurements given above, it will be seen that the most holy place—the true presence-chamber of the Most High, to which the holy place forms the antechamber—has the form of a perfect cube, 10 cubits (about 15 ft.) in length, breadth, and height, enclosed on all four sides and on the roof by the curtains and their cherubim.

(e)    No provision has yet been made for closing the entrance to the Tabernacle. This is now done (v. 36f.) by means of a hanging, embroidered in colours—a less artistic fabric than the tapestry of the ‘cunning workman’—measuring 10 cubits by 10, and suspended from five pillars with bases of bronze. Its special designation, ‘a screen for the door of the Tent’ (v. 36 RV), its inferior workmanship, and its bronze bases, all show that strangely enough it is not to be reckoned as a part of the dwelling, of which the woven fabric is tapestry, and the only metals silver and gold.

6. Coming now to the furniture of the dwelling, and proceeding as before from without inwards, we find the holy place provided with three articles of furniture: (a)  the table of shewbread, or, more precisely, presence-bread (25:23–30, 37:10–16); (b) the so-called golden candlestick, in reality a seven-branched lampstand (25:31–40, 37:17–24) (c)  the altar of incense (30:1–7, 37:25–28). Many of the details of the construction and ornamentation of these are obscure, and reference is here made, once for all, to the fuller discussion of these difficulties in the article already cited (DB iv. 662 ff.).

(a)    The table of shewbread, or presence-table (Nu 4:7), is a low table or wooden stand overlaid with pure gold, 1¹/₂ cubits in height. Its top measures 2 cubits by 1. The legs are connected by a narrow binding-rail, one hand-breadth wide, the ‘border’ of Ex 25:25, to which are attached four golden rings to receive the staves by which the table is to be carried on the march. For the service of the table are provided ‘the dishes, the spoons, the flagons, and the bowls thereof to pour withal’ (25:29 RV), all of pure gold. Of these the golden ‘dishes’ are the salvers on which the loaves of the presence-bread (see SHEWBREAD)  were displayed; the ‘spoons’ are rather cups for frankincense (Lv 24:7); the flagons’ (AV ‘covers’) are the larger, and the ‘bowls’ the smaller, vessels for the wine connected with this part of the ritual.

(b)   The golden candlestick or lampstand is to be constructed of ‘beaten work’ (repoussé)  of pure gold. Three pairs of arms branched off at different heights from the central shaft, and curved outwards and upwards until their extremities were on a level with the top of the shaft, the whole providing stands for seven golden lamps. Shaft and arms were alike adorned with ornamentation suggested by the flower of the almond tree (cf. diagram in DB iv. 663). The golden lampstand stood on the south side of the holy place, facing the table of shewbread on the north side. The ‘tongs’ of 25:38 are really ‘snuffers’ (so AV 37:23) for dressing the wicks of the lamps, the burnt portions being placed in the ‘snuff dishes.’ Both sets of articles were of gold.

(c)    The passage containing the directions for the altar of incense (Ex 30:1–7)  forms part of a section (chs. 30, 31) which, there is reason to believe is a later addition to the original contents of the Priests’ Code. The altar is described as square in section, one cubit each way, and two cubits in height, with projecting horns. Like the rest of the furniture, it was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, with the usual provision of rings and staves. Its place is in front of the veil separating the holy from the most holy place. Incense of sweet spices is to be offered upon it night and morning (30:7ff.).

7. In the most holy place are placed two distinct yet connected sacred objects, the ark and the propitiatory or mercy-seat (25:10–22, 37:1–9). (a) P’s characteristic name for the former is the ark of the testimony. The latter term is a synonym in P for the Decalogue (25:16), which was written on ‘the tables of testimony’ (31:18), deposited, according to an early tradition, within the ark. The ark itself occasionally receives the simple title of ‘the testimony,’ whence the Tabernacle as sheltering the ark is named in P both ‘the dwelling (EV ‘tabernacle’) of the testimony’ (Ex 38:21 etc.) and ‘the tent of the testimony’ (Nu 9:15 etc.). The ark of the Priests’

Code is an oblong chest of acacia wood, 2¹/₂ cubits in length and 1¹/₂ in breadth and height (5×3×3 half-cubits), overlaid within and without with pure gold. The sides are decorated with an obscure form of ornamentation, the ‘crown’ of Ex 25:11, probably a moulding (RVm ‘rim or moulding’). At the four corners (v. 12 AV; RV, less accurately, ‘feet’) the usual rings were attached to receive the bearing-poles. The precise point of attachment is uncertain, whether at the ends of the two long sides or of the two short sides. Since it would be more seemly that the throne of J″, presently to be described, should face in the direction of the march, it is more probable that the poles were meant to pass through rings attached to the short sides, but whether these were to be attached at the lowest point of the sides, or higher up, cannot be determined. That the Decalogue or ‘testimony’ was to find a place in the ark (25:16) has already been stated.

(b) Distinct from the ark, but resting upon and of the same superficial dimensions as its top, viz. 2¹/₂ by 1¹/₂ cubits, we find a slab of solid gold to which is given the name kappōreth. The best English rendering is the propitiatory (vv. 17ff.), of which the current mercy-seat, adopted by Tindale from Luther’s rendering, is a not inappropriate paraphrase. From opposite ends of the propitiatory, and ‘of one piece’ with it (v. 19 RV), rose a pair of cherubim figures of beaten work of pure gold. The faces of the cherubim were bent downwards in the direction of the propitiatory, while the wings with which each was furnished met overhead, so as to cover the propitiatory (vv. 18–20).

We have now penetrated to the Innermost shrine of the priestly sanctuary. Its very position is significant. The surrounding court is made up of two squares, 50 cubits each way, placed side by side (see above). The eastern square, with its central altar, is the worshippers’ place of meeting. The entrance to the Tabernacle proper lies along the edge of the western square, the exact centre of which is occupied by the most holy place. In the centre of the latter, again, at the point of intersection of the diagonals of the square, we may be sure, is the place intended for the ark and the propitiatory. Here in the very centre of the camp is the earthly throne of J″. Here, ‘from above the propitiatory, from between the cherubim,’ the most holy of all earth’s holy places, will God henceforth meet and commune with His servant Moses (25:22). But with Moses only; for even the high priest is permitted to enter the most holy place but once a year, on the great Day of Atonement, when he comes to sprinkle the blood of the national sin-offering ‘with his finger upon the mercy-seat’ (Lv 16:14) . The ordinary priests came only into the holy place, the lay worshipper only into ‘the court of the dwelling.’ In the course of the foregoing exposition, it will have been seen how these ascending degrees of sanctity are reflected in the materials employed in the construction of the court, holy place, most holy place, and propitiatory respectively. It is not without significance that the last named is the only article of solid gold in the whole sanctuary.

8.      These observations lead naturally to a brief exposition of the religious symbolism which so evidently pervades every part of the wilderness sanctuary. Its position in the centre of the camp of the Hebrew tribes has already been more than once referred to. By this the Priestly writer would emphasize the central place which the rightly ordered worship of Israel’s covenant God must occupy in the theocratic community of the future.

The most assured fruit of the discipline of the Babylonian Exile was the final triumph of monotheism. This triumph we find reflected in the presuppositions of the Priests’ Code. One God, one sanctuary, is the idea implicit throughout. But not only is there no God but Jahweh; Jahweh, Israel’s God, ‘is one’ (Dt 6:4 RVm), and because He is one, His earthly ‘dwelling’ must be one (Ex 26:6 RV, cf. § 5 (a)) . The Tabernacle thus symbolizes both the oneness and the unity of J″.

Nor is the perpetual striving after proportion and symmetry which characterizes all the measurements of the Tabernacle and its furniture without a deeper significance. By this means the author undoubtedly seeks to symbolize the perfection and harmony of the Divine character. Thus, to take but a single illustration, the perfect cube of the most holy place, of which ‘the length and breadth and height,’ like those of the New Jerusalem of the Apocalypse (21:16), ‘are equal,’ is clearly intended to symbolize the perfection of the Divine character, the harmony and equipoise of the Divine attributes.

Above all, however, the Tabernacle in its relation to the camp embodies and symbolizes the almost unapproachable holiness of God. This fundamental conception has been repeatedly emphasized in the foregoing sections, and need be re-stated in this connexion only for the sake of completeness. The symbolism of the Tabernacle is a subject in which pious imaginations in the past have run riot, but with regard to which one must endeavour to be faithful to the ideas in the mind of the Priestly author. The threefold division of the sanctuary, for example, into court, holy place, and holy of holies, may have originally symbolized the earth, heaven, and the heaven of heavens, but for the author of Ex 25 ff. it was an essential part of the Temple tradition (cf. TEMPLE, § 7). In this case, therefore, the division should rather be taken, as in § 7 above, as a reflexion of the three grades of the theocratic community, people, priests, and high priest.

9.      Reluctantly, but unavoidably, we must return, in conclusion, to the question mooted in § 2 as to the relation of the gorgeous sanctuary above described to the simple ‘tent of meeting’ of the older Pentateuch sources. In other words, is P’s Tabernacle historical? In the first place, there is no reason to question, but on the contrary every reason to accept, the data of the Elohistic source (E) regarding the Mosaic ‘tent of meeting.’ This earlier ‘tabernacle’ is first met with in Ex 33:7–11 ; ‘Now Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it [the tenses are frequentative] without the camp, afar off from the camp … and it came to pass that every one which sought the LORD went out unto the tent of meeting which was without the camp.’ To it, we are further Informed, Moses was wont to retire to commune with J″, who descended in the pillar of the cloud to talk with Moses at the door of the tent ‘as a man talketh with his friend’ (see also the references in Nu 11:16–30 , 12:1ff., 14:10). Only a mind strangely insensible to the laws of evidence, or still in the fetters of an antiquated doctrine of inspiration, could reconcile the picture of this simple tent, ‘afar off from the camp,’ with Joshua as its single non-Levitical attendant (33:11), with that of the Tabernacle of the Priests’ Code, situated in the centre of the camp, with its attendant army of priests and Levites. Moreover, neither tent nor Tabernacle is rightly intelligible except as the resting-place of the ark, the symbol of J″’s presence with His people. Now, the oldest of our extant historical sources have much to tell us of the fortunes of the ark from the time that it formed the glory of the Temple at Shiloh until it entered its final resting-place in that of Solomon

(see ARK) . But nowhere is there the slightest reference to anything in the least resembling the Tabernacle of §§ 4–8. It is only in the Books of Chronicles, in certain of the Psalms, and in passages of the pre-exilic writings which have passed through the hands of late post-exilic editors that such references are found. An illuminating example occurs in 2 Ch 1:3f. compared with 1 K 3:2ff..

Apart, therefore, from the numerous difficulties presented by the description of the Tabernacle and its furniture, such as the strangely inappropriate brazen altar (§ 4 (b)) , or suggested by the unexpected wealth of material and artistic skill necessary for its construction, modern students of the Pentateuch find the picture of the desert sanctuary and its worship irreconcilable with the historical development of religion and the cultus in Israel. In Ex 25 and following chapters we are dealing not with historical fact, but with ‘the product of religious idealism’; and surely these devout idealists of the Exile should command our admiration as they deserve our gratitude. If the Tabernacle is an ideal, it is truly an ideal worthy of Him for whose worship it seeks to provide (see the exposition of the general idea of the Tabernacle in § 3, and now in full detail by M‘Neile as cited, § 5 above). Nor must it be forgotten, that in reproducing in portable form, as they unquestionably do, the several parts and appointments of the Temple of Solomon, including even its brazen altar, the author or authors of the Tabernacle believed, in all good faith, that they were reproducing the essential features of the Mosaic sanctuary, of which the Temple was supposed to be the replica and the legitimate successor.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

TABERNACLES, FEAST OF

1.      OT references.—In Ex 23:16, 34:22 it is called the Feast of Ingathering, and its date is placed at the end of the year.

In Dt 16:13–15 its name is given as the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths ( possibly referring to the use of booths in the vineyard during the vintage). It is to last 7 days, to be observed at the central sanctuary, and to be an occasion of rejoicing. In the ‘year of release,’ i.e. the sabbatical year, the Law is to be publicly read (Dt 31:10–13). The dedication of Solomon’s Temple took place at this feast; in the account given in 1 K 8:66 the seven-day rule of Deut. is represented as being observed; but the parallel narrative of 2 Ch 7:8–10  assumes that the rule of Lev. was followed.

In Lv 23:34ff. and Nu 29:12–39  we find elaborate ordinances. The feast is to begin on 15th Tishri (October), and to last 8 days, the first and the last being days of holy convocation. The people are to live in booths improvised for the occasion. A very large number of offerings is ordained; on each of the first 7 days 2 rams and 14 Iambs, and a goat as a sin-offering; and successively on these days a diminishing number of bullocks: 13 on the 1st day, 12 on the 2nd, and so on till the 7th, when 7 were to be offered. On the 8th day the special offerings were 1 bullock, 1 ram, 7 lambs, and a goat as a sin-offering.

We hear in Ezr 3:4 of the observance of this feast, but are not told the method. The celebration in Neh 8:16 followed the regulations of Lev., but we are expressly informed that such had not been the case since Joshua’s days. Still, the feast was kept in some way, for Jeroboam instituted its equivalent for the Northern Kingdom in the 8th month (1 K 12:32, 33).

2.      Character of the feast.—It was the Jewish harvest-home, when all the year’s produce of corn, wine, and oil had been gathered in; though no special offering of the earth’s fruits was made, as was done at the Feasts of Unleavened Bread and Pentecost. (The reason was perhaps a desire to avoid the unseemly scenes of the Canaanite vintage-festival, by omitting such a significant point of resemblance; cf. Jg 9:27.) It was also regarded as commemorating the Israelites’ wanderings in the wilderness. It was an occasion for great joy and the giving of presents; It was perhaps the most popular of the national festivals, and consequently the most generally attended. Thus Zec 14:16 names as the future sign of Judah’s triumph the fact that all the world shall come up yearly to Jerusalem to keep this festival.

3.      Later customs.—In later times novel customs were attached to the observance. Such were the daily procession round the altar, with its sevenfold repetition on the 7th day; the singing of special Psalms; the procession on each of the first 7 days to Siloam to fetch water, which was mixed with wine in a golden pitcher, and poured at the foot of the altar while trumpets were blown (cf. Jn 7:37); and the illumination of the women’s court in the Temple by the lighting of the 4 golden candelabra (cf. Jn 8:12). The 8th day, though appearing originally as a supplementary addition to the feast, came to be regarded as an integral part of it, and is so treated in 2 Mac 10:6, as also by Josephus.

A. W. F. BLUNT.

TABITHA.—See DORCAS.

TABLE.—See HOUSE, § 8; MEALS, §§ 3, 4. For ‘Table of Shewbread’ see SHEWBREAD, TABERNACLE, § 6 (a), TEMPLE, §§ 5, 9, 12.

TABLE, TABLET.—1. Writing tablet is indicated by the Heb. lūach, which is also applied to wooden boards or planks (Ex 27:8, 38:7 in the altar of the Tabernacle, Ezk 27:5 in a ship, Ca 8:9 in a door) and to metal plates (in the bases of the lavers in Solomon’s Temple. 1 K 7:36). It is, however, most frequently applied to tables of stone on which the Decalogue was engraven (Ex 24:12, 31:18 etc.). It is used of a tablet on which a prophecy may be written (Is 30:8, Hab 2:2) , and in Pr 3:3, 7:3 and Jer 17:1 figuratively of the ‘tables of the heart.’ In all these passages, when used of stone, both AV and RV translate ‘table’ except in Is 30:8 where RV has ‘tablet.’ lūach generally appears in LXX and NT as plax (2  Co 3:3, He 9:4). The ‘writing table’ (RV ‘tablet’) of Lk 1:63 was probably of wax.

2. A female ornament is indicated by Heb. kūmāz, AV ‘tablets,’ RV ‘armlets,’ RVm ‘necklaces,’ Ex 35:22, Nu 31:50—probably a pendant worn on the neck.

The word ‘tablets’ is also the tr. of bottē hannephesh in AV Is 3:20 (RV ‘perfume boxes,’ lit. ‘houses of the soul’). It is doubtful if nephesh actually means ‘odour,’ but from meaning ‘breath’ it may have come to mean scent or smell. On the other hand, the idea of life may suggest that some life-giving elixir, scent, or ointment was contained in the vessels; but the meaning is doubtful.

The ‘tablet’ (gillāyōn) inscribed with a stylus to Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Is 8:1 (‘AV’ roll’), signifies a polished surface. The word occurs again in Is 3:23 where it probably refers to ‘tablets of polished metal’ used as mirrors (AV ‘glasses’).

W. F. BOYD.

TABOR.—1. A town in the tribe of Zebulun, given to Levites descended from Merari (1 Ch

6:77). Its site is unknown. Perhaps it is to be identified with Chislothtabor in the same tribe (Jos 19:12). 2. A place near Ophrah (Jg 8:18). 3. The Oak (AV ‘plain’) of Tabor was on the road from Ramah S. to Gibeah (1 S 10:3). 4. See next article.

H. L. WILLETT.

TABOR (MOUNT).—A mountain in the N.E. corner of the plain of Esdraelon, some 7 miles E. of Nazareth. Though only 1843 feet high, Tabor is, from its isolation and remarkable rounded shape, a most prominent object from great distances around; hence, though so very different in size from the great mountain mass of Hermon, it was yet associated with it (Ps 89:12). It was a king among the mountains (Jer 46:18). It is known to the Arabs as Jebel et-Tūr, lit. ‘the mountain of the mount,’ the same name as is applied to the Mount of Olives. From the summit of Tabor a magnificent outlook is obtained, especially to the W., over the great plain of Esdraelon to the mountains of Samaria and Carmel. It was on the borders of Zebulun and

Issachar (Jos 19:12, 22); It was certainly an early sanctuary, i and probably the reference in Dt

33:18 , 19 is to this mountain. Here the forces under Deborah and Barak rallied to fight Sisera (Jg 4:6, 12). Whether the reference in Jg 8:18 is to this mountain is doubtful. In later history Tabor appears chiefly as a fortress. In the 3rd cent. B.C., Antiochus the Great captured the city

Atabyrium which was upon Tabor, and afterwards fortified it. Between B.C. 105 and 78 the place was again in Jewish hands, but in B.C. 53  Gabinius here defeated Alexander, son of Aristobulus II., who was in revolt. A hundred and ten years later Josephus fortified the hill against Vespasian, but after the Jewish soldiers had been defeated by the general Placidus, the place surrendered. During the Crusades it was for long in the hands of the Christians, but fell to the Muslems after the battle of Hattin, and was fortified in 1212 by the successor of Saladin—a step which led to the inglorious and ineffectual 5th Crusade.

The tradition that Tabor was the scene of the Transfiguration goes back to the 3rd cent., but has little evidence in its favour. Although not directly recorded, the condition of the hill before and after would lead one to suppose that it was an inhabited site at the time of Christ, while the requirements of the Biblical narrative (Mk 8:27, 9:2–10, Lk 9:28–36)  suggest a site near Cæsarea Philippi, such, for example, as an isolated spur of Hermon.

Mount Tabor to-day is one of the best-wooded spots in W. Palestine, groves of oaks and terebinths not only covering the hillsides, but extending also over a considerable area of hill and valley to the N.; game abounds in the coverts. The Franciscans and the Greek Church have each erected a monastery-hospice on the summit, and extensive excavations have been made, particularly by members of the former order. The foundations of a great wall of circumvallation—probably that of Josephus (BJ IV. i. 8)—have been followed, many ancient tombs have been cleared, and the remains of several churches of the 4th and of the 12th centuries have been unearthed.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

TABRET (see art. TABER) is AV tr. of tōph in Gn 31:27, 1 S 10:5, 18:6, Is 5:12, 24:8, 30:32,

Jer 31:4, Ezk 28:13. The same Heb. word is tr. ‘timbrel’ in Ex 15:20, Jg 11:34, 2 S 6:5, 1 Ch

13:8 , Job 21:12, Ps 81:2, 149:3, 150:4. It might have been well to drop both ‘timbrel’ and ‘tabret,’ neither of which conveys any clear sense to a modern ear, and adopt some such rendering as ‘tambourine’ or ‘hand-drum’. The AV rendering of Job 17:6 ‘aforetime I was as a tabret,’ has arisen from a confusion of tōpheth ‘spitting’ with tōph ‘tambourine.’ The words mean ‘I am become one to be spit on in the face’ (RV ‘an open abhorring’).

TABRIMMON.—The father of Benhadad (1 K 15:18).

TACHES.—An old word of French origin used by AV to render the Heb. qĕrāsīm, which occurs only in P’s description of the Tabernacle (Ex 26:6, 11, 33, 35:11 etc.). The Gr. rendering denotes the rings set in eyelets at the edge of a sail for the ropes to pass through. The Heb. word evidently signifies some form of hook or clasp (so RV) like the Roman fibula.

TACKLING in Is 33:23 means simply a ship’s ropes; in Ac 27:19 it is used more generally of the whole gearing (RVm ‘furniture’).

TADMOR (Palmyra).—In 2 Ch 8:4 we read that Solomon built ‘Tadmor in the [Syrian] desert.’ It has long been recognized that Tadmor is here a mistake for ‘Tamar in the [Judæan] desert’ of the corresponding passage in 1 Kings (9:18). The Chronicler, or one of his predecessors, no doubt thought it necessary to emend in this fashion a name that was scarcely known to him. (That it is really the city of Tadmor so famous in after times that is meant, is confirmed by the equally unhistorical details given in 2 Ch 8:3, 4 regarding the Syrian cities of Hamath and Zobah.) Hence arose the necessity for the Jewish schools to change the Tamar of 1

K 9:18 in turn into Tadmor [ the Qerē in that passage], so as to agree with the text of the

Chronicler. The LXX translator of 1 K 9:13 appears to have already had this correction before him. Nevertheless it is quite certain that Tamar is the original reading. But the correction supplies a very important evidence that at the time when Chronicles was composed (c. B.C. 200) , Tadmor was already a place of note, around the founding of which a fabulous splendour had gathered, so that it appeared fitting to attribute it to Solomon. This fiction maintained itself, and received further embellishments. The pre-Islamic poet Nābigha (v. 22 ff., ed. Ahlwardt, c. A.D.

600) relates that, by Divine command, the demons built Solomon’s Tadmor by forced labour. This piece of information he may have picked up locally; what he had in view would he, of course, the remains, which must have been still very majestic, of the city whose climax of splendour was reached in the 2nd and 3rd cent. A.D.

Tadmor, of whose origin and earlier history we know nothing, lay upon a great natural road through the desert, not far from the Euphrates, and not very far from Damascus. It was thus between Syria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia proper. Since water, although not in great abundance, was also found on the spot, Tadmor supplied a peaceable and intelligent population with all the conditions necessary for a metropolis of the caravan trade. Such we find in the case of Palmyra, whose identity with Tadmor was all along maintained, and has recently been assured by numerous inscriptions. The first really historical mention of the place (B.C. 37  or  36) tells how the wealth of this centre of trade incited M. Antony to a pillaging campaign (Appian, Bell. Civ. v. 9).

The endings of the two names Tadmor and Palmyra are the same, but not the first syllable. It is not clear why the Westerns made such an alteration in the form. The name Palmyra can hardly have anything to do with palms. It would, indeed, be something very remarkable if in this Eastern district the Lat. palma was used at so early a date in the formation of names. The Oriental form Tadmor is to be kept quite apart from tāmār, ‘palm.’ Finally, it is unlikely that the palm was ever extensively cultivated on the spot.

Neither in the OT nor in the NT is there any other mention of Tadmor (Palmyra), and Josephus names it only when he reproduces the above passage of Chronicles (Ant. VIII. vi. 1). The place exercised, indeed, no considerable influence on the history either of ancient Israel or of early Christianity. There is therefore no occasion to go further into the history, once so glorious and finally so tragic, of the great city, or to deal with the fortunes of the later somewhat inconsiderable place, which now, in spite of its imposing ruins, is desolate in the extreme, but which still bears the ancient name Tadmor (Tedmur, Tudmur).

TH. NÖLDEKE.

TAHAN.—An Ephraimite clan (Nu 26:35 (39), 1 Ch 7:25); gentilic name Tahanites in Nu 26:35 (39).

TAHASH.—A son of Nahor (Gn 22:24).

TAHATH.—1. A Kohathite Levite (1 Ch 6:24). 2. 3. Two (unless the name has been accidentally repeated) Ephraimite families (1 Ch 7:20). 4. An unidentified ‘station’ of the Israelites (Nu 33:26f.).

TAHCHEMONITE (AV Tachmonite).—See HACHMONT.

TAHPANHES (Jer 2:16, 43:7ff., 44:1, 46:14, Ezk 30:18 (Tehaphnehes) , in Jth 1:9 AV Taphnes).—An Egyptian city, the same as the Greek Daphnæ, now Tett Defne. The Egyptian name is unknown. It lay on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, which is now silted up, and the whole region converted into a waste. Petrie’s excavations showed that Daphnæ was founded by Psammetichus I. on the 26th Dyn. (B.C. 664–610). According to Herodotus, it was the frontier fortress of Egypt on the Asiatic side, and was garrisoned by Greeks. In its ruins was found an abundance of Greek pottery, iron armour, and arrowheads of bronze and iron, while numerous small weights bore testimony to the trade that passed through it. The garrison was kept up by the Persians in the 5th cent., and the town existed to a much later period. After the murder of Gedaliah (B.C. 586) , Johanan took the remnant of the Jews from Jerusalem, including Jeremiah, to Tahpanhes.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

TAHPENES (1 K 11:19).—The name of Pharaoh’s wife, whose sister was given to Hadad the Edomite. It has the appearance of an Egyptian name, but has not yet been explained. The name of her son Genubath is not Egyptian. The Pharaoh should be of the weak 21st Dynasty. F. LL. GRIFFITH.

TAHREA.—A grandson of Mephibosheth (1 Ch 9:41); in 8:35 (prob. by a copyist’s error) Tarea.

TAHTIM HODSHI, THE LAND OF.—A place east of Jordan, which Joab and his officers visited when making the census for David (2 S 24:6). It is mentioned between Gilead and Danjaan. The MT, however, is certainly corrupt. In all probability we should read ha-HittimKādēshāh = ‘to the land of the Hittites, towards Kadesh [sc. Kadesh on the Orontes] .’

TALE.—‘Tale’ in AV generally means ‘number or sum,’ as Ex 5:18 ‘Yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks.’ And the verb ‘to tell’ sometimes means ‘to number,’ as Gn 15:5 ‘Tell the stars, if thou be able to number them,’ where the same Heb. verb is translated ‘tell’ and ‘number.’

TALEBEARING.—See SLANDER.

TALENT.—See MONEY, WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

TALITHA CUMI.—The command addressed by our Lord to the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5:41) , and interpreted by the Evangelist, ‘Maiden, I say unto thee, arise.’ The relating of the actual (Aramaic) words used by Jesus is characteristic of St. Mark’s graphic narrative; cf. 7:11, 34 ,  14:36, 15:34.

TALMAI.—1. A clan resident in Hebron at the time of the Hebrew conquest and driven thence by Caleb (Nu 13:22, Jos 15:14, Jg 1:10). 2. Son of Ammihur (or Ammihud), king of Geshur, and a contemporary of David, to whom he gave his daughter Maacah in marriage (2 S 3:3 , 13:37, 1 Ch  3:2).

TALMON.—The name of a family of Temple gate-keepers (1 Ch 9:17, Ezr 2:42, Neh 7:45, 11:19, 12:25); called in 1 Es 5:28 Tolman. See, also, TELEM.

TALMUD ( ‘learning’ )

1. Origin and character.—The Jews have always drawn a distinction between the ‘Oral

Law,’ which was handed down for centuries by word of mouth, and the ‘Written Law,’ i.e. the

Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses. Both, according to Rabbinical teaching, trace their origin to

Moses himself. It has been a fundamental principle of all times that by the side of the ‘Written

Law,’ regarded as a summary of the principles and general laws of the Hebrew people, there was this ‘Oral Law’ to complete and explain the ‘Written Law.’ It was an article of faith that in the Pentateuch there was no precept and no regulation, ceremonial, doctrinal, or legal, of which God had not given to Moses all explanations necessary for their application, together with the order to transmit them by word of mouth. The classical passage on this subject runs: ‘Moses received the (oral) law from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue’ (Pirqe Aboth, l. 1). This has long been known to be nothing more than a myth; the ‘Oral Law,’ although it no doubt contains elements which are of great antiquity—e.g. details of folklore—really dates from the time that the ‘Written Law’ was read and expounded in the synagogues. Thus we are told that Ezra introduced the custom of having the Torah (‘Law’) read in the synagogues at the morning service on Mondays and Thursdays (i.e. the days corresponding to these); for on these days the country people flocked to the towns from the neighbouring districts, as they were the market days. The people had thus an opportunity, which would otherwise have been lacking to them, of hearing the Law read and explained. These explanations of the Law, together with the results of the discussions of them on the part of the sōpherīm ( ‘scribes’), formed the actual ‘Oral Law.’ The first explanatory term applied by the Jews to the ‘Oral Law’ was midrash ( ‘investigation’), and the Bible itself witnesses to the way in which such investigations were made and expounded to the people: ‘Also Jeshua and Bani … and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law; and the people stood in their place. And they read in the book, in the law of God, with an interpretation; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading’ (Neh 8:7, 8). But it is clear that the ‘investigations’ must have led to different explanations; so that in order to fix authoritatively what in later days were considered the correct explanations, and thus to ensure continuity of teaching, it became necessary to reduce these to writing; there arose thus (soon after the time of Shammai and Hillel) the ‘Former Mishna’ (Mishna Rishonah), Mishna meaning ‘Second’ Law. This earliest Mishna, which, it is probable, owed its origin to pupils of Shammai and Hillel, was therefore compiled for the purpose of affording teachers both a norm for their decisions and a kind of book of reference for the explanation of difficult passages. But the immense amount of floating material could not be incorporated into one work, and when great teachers arose they sometimes found it necessary to compile their own Mishna; they excluded much which the official Mishna contained, and added other matter which they considered important. This was done by Rabbi Aqiba, Rabbi Meir, and others. But it was not long before the confusion created by this state of affairs again necessitated some authoritative, officially recognized action. It was then that Jehudah ha-Nasi undertook his great redaction of the Mishna, which has survived substantially to the present day. Jehudah ha-Nasi was born about A.D. 135 and died about A.D. 220 ; he was the first of Hillel’s successors to whose name was added the title ha-Nasi ( ‘the Prince’); this is the way in which he is usually referred to in Rabbinical writings; he is also spoken of as ‘Rabbi,’ i.e. master par excellence, and occasionally as ha-Qadosh, ‘the Holy,’ on account of his singularly pure and moral life. Owing to his authority and dignity, the Mishna of Jehudah ha-Nasi soon superseded all other collections, and became the only one used in the schools; the object that Jehudah had had in view, that, namely, of restoring uniform teaching, was thus achieved. The Mishna as we now have it is not, however, quite as it was when it left Jehudah’s hands; it has undergone modifications of various kinds: additions, emendations, and the like having been made even in Jehudah’s life-time, with his acquiescence, by some of his pupils. The language of the Mishna approximates to that of some of the latest books of the OT, and is known by the name of ‘Neo-Hebraic’; this was the language spoken in Palestine during

the second century A.D.; It has a considerable intermixture of foreign elements, especially Greek words Hebraized.

The Mishna is divided into six Sedarim (Aram. for ‘Orders’), and each Seder contains a number of treatises; each treatise is divided into chapters, and these again into paragraphs. The names of the six ‘Orders,’ which to some extent indicate their contents, are: Zera‘im ( ‘Seeds’), containing eleven treatises; Mo‘ed (‘Festival’), containing twelve treatises; Nashim (‘Women’), containing seven treatises; Nezikin ( ‘Injuries’), containing ten treatises [this ‘Order’ is called also Yeshu’oth (‘Deeds of help’)]; Qodashim ( ‘Holy things’), containing eleven treatises; and Tohāroth ( ‘Purifications’), containing twelve treatises.

Now the Mishna forms the basis of the Talmud; for just as the Mishna is a compilation of expositions, comments, etc., of the Written Law, and embodies in itself the Oral Law, so the Talmud is an expansion, by means of comment and explanation, of the Mishna; as the Mishna contains the Pentateuch, with all the additional explanatory matter, so the Talmud contains the Mishna with a great deal more additional matter. ‘The Talmud is practically a mere amplification of the Mishna by manifold comments and additions; so that even those portions of the Mishna which have no Talmud are regarded as component parts of it.… The history of the origin of the Talmud is the same as that of the Mishna—a tradition, transmitted orally for centuries, was finally cast into definite literary form, although from the moment in which the Talmud became the chief subject of study in the academies it had a double existence (see below), and was accordingly, in its final stage, redacted in two different forms’ (Bacher in JE xii. 3^b) . Before coming to speak of the actual Talmud itself, it may be well to explain some terms without an understanding of which our whole subject would be very inadequately understood:—

Halakhah.—Under this term the entire legal body of Jewish oral tradition is included; it comes from a verb meaning ‘to go,’ and expresses the way ‘of going’ or ‘acting,’ i.e. custom, usage, which ultimately issues in law. Originally it was used in the plural form Halakhoth, which had reference to the multifarious civil and ritual laws, customs, decrees etc., as handed down by tradition, which were not, however, of Scriptural authority. It was these Halakboth which were codified by Jehudah ha-Nasi, and to which the term Mishna became applied. Sometimes the word Halakhah is used for ‘tradition,’ which is binding, in contradistinction to Dīn, ‘argument’ ( lit. ‘judgment’), which is not necessarily binding.

Haggadah (from the root meaning ‘to narrate’).—This includes the whole of the non-legal matter of Rabbinical literature, such as homilies, stories about Biblical saints and heroes; besides this it touches upon such subjects as astronomy, astrology, medicine, magic, philosophy, and all that would come under the term ‘folklore.’ This word, too, was originally used in the plural Haggadoth. Haggadah is also used in a special sense of the ritual for Passover Eve.

Gemara.—This is an Aramaic word from the root meaning ‘to learn,’ and has the signification of ‘that which has been learned,’ i.e. learning that has been handed down by tradition (Bacher in JE, art. ‘Talmud’); it has also the meaning ‘completion’; in this sense it came to be used as a synonym of Talmud.

Baraitha.—This is an apocryphal Halakhah. When Jehudah ha-Nasi compiled his Mishna, there was a great deal of the Oral Tradition which he excluded from it (see above); other teachers, however, the most important of whom was Rabbi Chijja, gathered these excluded portions into a special collection; these Halakhoth, which are known as Baraithoth, were incorporated into the Talmud; the discussions on them in the Talmud occupy many folios.

Tannaim (‘Teachers’).—This was the technical name applied to the teachers of the Mishna; after the close of the Mishna period those who explained it were no more called ‘Teachers,’ but only ‘Commentators’ (Amoraïm); the dicta of the Tannaim could not be questioned excepting by a Tannaite, but an exception was made in the case of Jehudah ha-Nasi, who was permitted to question the truth of Tannaite pronouncements.

There are two Talmuds, the ‘Jerusalem’ or ‘Talmud of Palestine’ and the ‘Babylonian,’ known respectively by their abbreviated forms ‘Yerushalmi’ and ‘Babli.’ The material which went to make up the Yerushalmi had been preparing in the academies, the centres of Jewish learning, of Palestine, chief among which was Tiberias; it was from here that Rabbi Jochanan issued the Yerushalmi, in its earliest form, during the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. The first editor, or at all events the first compiler, of the Babli was Rabbi Ashi (d. A.D. 430) , who presided over the academy of Sura. Both these Talmuds were constantly being added to, and the Yerushalmi was not finally closed until the end of the 4th cent., the Babli not until the beginning of the 6th. The characteristics which differentiated the academies of Palestine from those of Babylonia have left their marks upon the two Talmuds: in Palestine the tendency was to preserve and stereotype tradition, without permitting it to develop itself along natural channels; the result was that the Yerushalmi became choked with traditionalism, circumscribed in its horizon, and in consequence was regarded with less veneration than the Babli, and has always occupied a position of subordinate importance in comparison with this latter. In the Babylonian academies, on the other band, there was a wider outlook, a freer mental atmosphere, and, while tradition was venerated, it was not permitted to impede development in all directions; the Babli therefore absorbed the thought and learning of all Israel’s teachers, and is richer in material, and of more importance generally, than the Yerushalmi. In order to give some idea of what the Talmud is, and of the enormous masses of material gathered together there, the following example may be cited, abbreviated from Bacher (op. cit. xii. 5). It will be remembered that the Talmud is a commentary on the Mishna. In the beginning of the latter occurs this paragraph: ‘During what time in the evening is the reading of the Shema‘ begun? From the time when the priests go in to eat their leaven (Lv 22:7) until the end of the first watch of the night, such being the words of R. Eliezer. The sages, however, say until midnight, though R. Gamaliel says until the coming of the dawn.’ This is the text upon which the Yerushalmi then comments in three sections; the first section contains the following: a citation from a bariatha with two sayings from R. Jose to elucidate it; remarks on the position of one who is in doubt whether he has read the Shema‘; another passage from a baraitha, designating the appearance of the stars as an indication of the time in question; further explanations and passages on the appearance of the stars as bearing on the ritual; other Rabbinical sayings; a baraitha on the division between day and night, and other passages bearing on the same subject; discussion of other baraithas, and further quotations from important Rabbis; a sentence of Tannaitic origin in no way related to the preceding matters, namely, ‘One who prays standing must bold his feet straight,’ and the controversy on this subject between Rabbis Levi and Simon, the one adding, ‘like the angels,’ the other, ‘like the priests’; comments on these two comparisons; further discussion concerning the beginning of the day; Haggadic statements concerning the dawn; a conversation between two Rabbis; cosmological comments; dimensions of the firmament, and more Haggadic comments in abundance; a discussion on the nightwatches; Haggadic material concerning David and his harp. Then comes the second section, namely, a Rabbinical quotation; a baraitha on the reading of the Shema‘ in the synagogue; other Rabbinical and Haggadic matter; further Haggadic sayings; lastly, section 3 gives R. Gamaliel’s view compared with that of another Rabbi, together with a question which remains unanswered.

This is, of course, the merest skeleton of an example of the mass of commentary which is devoted to the Mishna, section by section. Although the Haggadic element plays a much less Important rôle than the Halakhic, still the former is well represented, and is often employed for purposes of edification and rebuke, as well as for instruction. The following outline of a Haggadic passage from the Yerushalmi will serve as an example; It is intended as a rebuke to ‘Scandal-mongers,’ and a text (Dt 1:12) is taken as a starting-point, namely, ‘How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance and your burden and your strife?’ It then continues: ‘How did our forefathers worry Moses with their cumbrances? In that they were constantly slandering him, and imputing evil intentions to him in everything that he did. If he happened to come out of his house rather earlier than usual, it was said: “Why has he gone out so early to-day? There has no doubt been some quarrelling at home!” If, on the other hand, he went out a little later than usual, it was said: “What has been occupying him so long indoors? Assuredly he has been concocting plans to oppress the people yet morel” ’ (Bernfeld, Der Talmud, p. 46). Or, to give one other example: in pointing out the evils which come from a father’s favouring one son above the others, it is said: ‘This should not be done, for because of the coat of many colours which the patriarch Jacob gave his favourite son Joseph (Gn 37:1ff.), all Israel went down into Egypt’ (ib. p. 47).

Haggadoth flourish, as regards quality, more in the Yerushalmi than in the Babli; for in the Babylonian schools intellectual acumen reigned supreme: there was but little room for the play of the emotions or for the development of poetical imagination: these were rather the property of Palestinian soil. Therefore, although the Haggadic element is, so far as quantity is concerned, much fuller in the Babli than in the Yerushalmi, it is, generally speaking, of a far less attractive character in the former than in the latter. ‘The fact that the Haggadah is much more prominent in Babli, of which it forms, according to Weiss, more than one-third, while it constitutes only onesixth of Yerushalmi, was due, in a sense, to the course of the development of Hebrew literature. No independent mass of Haggadoth developed in Babylon, as was the case in Palestine; and the Haggadic writings were accordingly collected in the Talmud’ (JE xii. 12). But the Haggadah, whether in the Yerushalmi or in the Babli, occupies in reality a subordinate place, for in its origin, as we have seen, the Talmud was a commentary on the Mishna, which was a collection of

Halakhoth; and although the Haggadic portions are of much greater human interest, it is the Halakhic portions that form the bulk of the Talmud, and that constitute its importance as the fountain-head of Jewish belief and theology.

2.      Authority of the Talmud.—Inasmuch as the Oral Law, which with its comments and explanations is what constitutes the Talmud, is regarded as of equal authority with the Written Law, it will be clear that the Talmud is regarded, at all events by orthodox Jews, as the highest and final authority on all matters of faith. It is true that in the Talmud itself the letter of Scripture is always clearly differentiated from the rest; but, in the first place, the comments and explanations declare what Scripture means, and without this official explanation the Scriptural passage would lose much of its practical value for the Jew; and, in the second place, it is firmly believed that the oral laws preserved in the Talmud were delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the Talmud is of equal authority with Scripture. The eighth principle of the Jewish creed runs: ‘I firmly believe that the Law which we possess now is the same which has been given to Moses on Mount Sinai.’ In commenting on this in what may not unjustly be described as the official handbook for the orthodox Jewish Religion, the writer says: ‘Many explanations and details of the laws were supplemented by oral teaching; they were handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation, and only after the destruction of the second temple were they committed to writing. The latter are, nevertheless, called Oral Law, as distinguished from the Torah or Written Law, which from the first was committed to writing. Those oral laws which were revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai are called “Laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai” ’ (M. Friedländer, The Jewish Religion [ revised and enlarged ed., 1900], p. 136) . It is clear from this that the Written Law of the Bible, and the Oral Law as contained in the

Talmud, are of equal authority. The Talmud is again referred to as ‘the final authority in

Judaism’ by the writer of a later exposition of the Jewish faith (M. Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Life, 1903, p. vii.). One other authoritative teacher may be quoted: ‘As a document of religion the Talmud acquired that authority which was due to it as the written embodiment of the ancient tradition, and it fulfilled the task which the men of the Great Assembly set for the representatives of the tradition when they said, “Make a hedge for the Torah” (Aboth, i. 2). Those who professed Judaism felt no doubt that the Talmud was equal to the Bible as a source of instruction and decision in problems of religion, and every effort to set forth religious teachings and duties was based on it.’ And speaking of the present day, the same writer says: ‘For the majority of Jews it is still the supreme authority in religion’ (Bacher in JE xii. 26).

3.      The Talmud and Christianity.—Much that is written in the Talmud was originally spoken by men who were contemporaries of Christ; men who must have seen and heard Him. It is, moreover, well known what a conflict was waged in the infant Church regarding that question of the admittance of Gentiles, the result of which was an irreconcilable breach between Jew and Gentile, and an ever-increasing antagonism between Judaism and Christianity. These facts lead to the supposition that references to Christ and Christianity should be found in the Talmud. The question as to whether such references are to be found or not is one which cannot yet be said to have been decided one way or the other. The frequent mention of the Minim is held by many to refer to Christians; others maintain that by these are meant philosophizing Jews, who were regarded as heretics. This is not the place to discuss the question; we can only refer to two works, which approach it from different points of view, and which deal very adequately with it:

Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, by R. T. Herford (London, 1903), and Die religiösen

Bewegungen innerhalb des Judenthums im Zeitatter Jesu, by M. Friedländer (Berlin, 1905).

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

TAMAR.—1. A Canaanite woman, married to Er and then to his brother Onan (see

MARRIAGE, 4). Tamar became by her father-in-law himself the mother of twin sons, Perez and Zerah (Gn 38, Ru 4:12, 1 Ch 2:4, Mt 1:3). 2. The beautiful sister of Absalom, who was violated and brutally insulted by her half-brother, Amnon (2 S 13:1ff.). 3. A daughter of Absalom (2 S 14:27). 4. See next article.

TAMAR.—In Ezk 47:19, 48:28 the S.E. boundary-mark of the restored kingdom of Israel. No proposed identification has been successful, since no place of this name has been found in the region required, that is, near the S. end of the Dead Sea. It is possibly the same place that is mentioned in 1 K 9:18 as one of the S. fortresses built up by Solomon. Here a variant Heb.

reading has Tadmor (wh. see)—a manifest error, which is perhaps borrowed from the parallel passage 2 Ch 8:4.

J. F. MCCURDY.

TAMARISK (’ēshel).—This name occurs in RV (only) three times; Gn 21:33 AV ‘grove,’ mg. ‘tree’; 1 S 22:6 AV ‘tree,’ mg. ‘grove’; 1 S 31:13 AV ‘tree.’ The RV rendering is based upon an identification of the Heb. ’ēshel with the Arab. ’āthl. RVm gives ‘tamarisk’ for heath of EV in Jer 17:6 (cf. 48:6), but probably a species of juniper is intended here. There are some eight species of tamarisks in Palestine; they are most common in the Maritime Plain and the Jordan Valley. Though mostly but shrubs, some species attain to the size of large trees. They are characterized by their brittle feathery branches and minute scale-like leaves.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

TAMMUZ ( Ezk 8:14) was a Babylonian god whose worship spread into Phœnicia. The name appears to be Sumerian, Dumuzi, Tamuzu, and may mean ‘son of life.’ He was a form of the Sun-god and bridegroom of Ishtar. He was celebrated as a shepherd, cut off in early life or slain by the boar (winter). Ishtar descended to Hades to bring him back to life. He was mourned on the second of the month Tammuz (June). His Canaanite name Adonai gave rise to the Greek Adonis, and he was later identified with the Egyptian Osiris. In Am 8:10 and Zec 12:10 the mourning for ‘the only son’ may be a reference to this annual mourning, and the words of the refrain, ‘Ah me, ah me l’ (Jer 22:18) may be recalled.

C. H. W. JOHNS.

TANHUMETH.—The father (?) of Seraiah, one of the Heb. captains who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah (2 K 25:23, Jer 40:8).

TANIS (Jth 1:10).—See ZOAN.

TANNER.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, 5.

TAPHATH.—Daughter of Solomon and wife of Ben-abinadab (1 K 4:11).

TAPPUAH.—1. A ‘son’ of Hebron (1 Ch 2:43). Probably the name is that of a town in the Shephēlah (Jos 15:34. It was probably to the N. of Wādy es-Sunt, but the site has not been recovered. 2. See EN-TAPPUAH. 3. One of the towns W. of Jordan whose kings Joshua smote (Jos 12:17). It was perhaps the same place as No. 2 above; but this is by no means certain. See also TIPHSAH and TEPHON.

TARALAH.—An unknown town of Benjamin (Jos 18:27).

TAREA.—See TAHREA.

TARES (Gr. zizania, Arab. zuwān) are certain kinds of darnel growing plentifully in cornfields. The bearded darnel (Lolium temulentum)  most resembles wheat. The seeds, though often poisonous to human beings on account of parasitic growths in them, are sold as chicken’s food. When harvest approaches and the tares can be distinguished, they are carefully weeded out by hand by women and children (cf. Mt 13:24–30).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

TARGET.—See ARMOUR ARMS, 2.

TARGUMS.—Originally the word targum meant ‘translation’ in reference to any language; but it acquired a restricted meaning, and came to be used only of translation from Hebrew into Aramaic. As early as the time of Ezra we find the verb used in reference to a document written in Aramaic (Ezr 4:7), though in this passage the addition ‘in Aramaic’ is made, showing that the restricted meaning had not yet come into vogue. As early as the time of the Second Temple the language of the Holy Scriptures, Hebrew, was not understood by the bulk of the Jewish people, for it had been supplanted by Aramaic. When, therefore, the Scriptures were read in synagogues, it became necessary to translate them, in order that they might be understood by the congregation. The official translator who performed this duty was called the methurgeman or targeman, which is equivalent to the modern dragoman ( ‘interpreter’). The way in which it was done was as follows:—In the case of the Pentateuch (the ‘Law’) a verse was read in Hebrew, and then translated into Aramaic, and so on to the end of the appointed portion; but in the case of the prophetical writings three verses were read and then translated. Whether this system was the custom originally may be doubted; it was probably done in a less formal way at first. By degrees the translation became stereotyped, and was ultimately reduced to writing; and thus the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, came into existence. The various Targums which are still extant will be enumerated below. As literary products they are of late date, but they occupy a highly important place in post-Biblical Jewish religious literature, because they embody the traditional exegesis of the Scriptures. They have for many centuries ceased to be used in the synagogue; from the 9th cent. onwards their use has been discontinued. It is, however, interesting to note an exception in the case of Southern Arabia, where the custom still survives; and in Bokhara the Persian Jews read the Targum, with the Persian paraphrase of it, to the lesson from the Prophets for the last day of the Passover Feast, namely, Is 10:32–12 . There are Targums to all the books of the Bible, with the exception of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah; as these are to a large extent written in Aramaic, one can understand why Targums to these books should be wanting. Most of the Targums are mainly paraphrases; the only one which is in the form of a translation in the modern sense of the word is the Targum of Onkelos to the,

Pentateuch; this is, on the whole, a fairly literal translation. Isolated passages in the Bible which are written in Aramaic, as in Genesis and Jeremiah, are also called Targums. The following is a list of the Targums which are in existence:

1.                   Targum of Onkelos to the Pentateuch, called also Targum Babli, i.e. the Babylonian Targum.

2.                   The Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, called also Targum Jerushalmi, i.e. the Jerusalem Targum.

3.                   The ‘Fragment Targum’ to the Pentateuch.

4.                   The Targum of Jonathan to the prophetical books (these include what we call the historical books ).

5.                   The Targum Jerushalmi to the prophetical books.

6.                   The Targum to the Psalms.

7.                   The Targum to Job.

8.                   The Targum to Proverbs.

9–13. The Targums to the Five Megilloth ( ‘Rolls’), namely: Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther; the Book of Esther has three Targums to it.

14 . The Targum to Chronicles.

For printed editions of these, reference may be made to the bibliographies given in Schürer, HJP I. i.

pp. 160–163, and in the JE xii. 63.

To come now to a brief description of these Targums:

The Targum of Onkelos is the oldest of all the Targums that have come down to us; it is for the most part a literal translation of the Pentateuch, only here and there assuming the form of a paraphrase. The name of this Targum owes its origin to a passage in the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah, 3a), in which it is said: ‘The Targum to the Pentateuch was composed by the proselyte Onkelos at the dictation of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua’; and in the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah, 71c)  it is said: ‘Aquila the proselyte translated the Pentateuch in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua. That Aquila is the same as Onkelos can scarcely admit of doubt. In the tractate Abodah zara, 11a, we are told that this Onkelos was the pupil of Rabbi Gamaliel the Elder, who lived in the second half of the 1st cent. A.D. Seeing that this Targum rests on tradition, it will be clear that we have in it an ancient witness to Jewish exegesis; indeed, it is the earliest example of Midrashic tradition that we possess; and not only so, but as this Targum is mainly a translation, it is a most important authority for the pre-Massoretic text of the Pentateuch. This shows of what high value the Targum of Onkelos is, and that it is not without reason that it has always been regarded with great veneration. It is characteristic of the Targum of Onkelos that, unlike the other Targums, the Midrashic element is greatly subordinated to simple translation; when it does appear it is mainly in poetic passages, though not exclusively (cf. Gn 49, Nu 24, Dt 32, 33, which are prophetic in character. The idea apparently was that greater licence was permitted in dealing with passages of this kind than with those in which the legal element predominated. As with the Targums generally, so with that of Onkelos, there is a marked tendency to avoid anthropomorphisms and expressions which might appear derogatory to the dignity of God; this may be seen, for example, in Gn 11:4, where the words ‘The Lord came down,’ which seemed anthropomorphic, are rendered in this Targum, ‘the Lord revealed Himself.’ Then again, the transcendent character of the Almighty is emphasized by substituting for the Divine Person intermediate agencies like the Memra, or ‘Word’ of God, the Shekinah, or ‘Glory’ of God, to which a more or less distinct personality is imputed; in this way it was sought to avoid ascribing to God Himself actions or words which were deemed unfitting to the inexpressible majesty and transcendence of the Almighty. A good example of this, and one which will also illustrate the general character of this Targum, is the following; it is the rendering of Gn 3:8ff. ‘And they heard the voice of the Word (Memra)  of the Lord God walking in the garden in the evening of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord God among the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called to Adam and said: “Where art thou?” And he said: “The voice of Thy Word (Memra)  I heard in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I would hide.” ’

The other Targum to the Pentateuch, the Targum Jerushalmi, has come down to us in two forms: one in a complete form, the other only in fragments, hence the name of the latter which is generally used, the ‘Fragment Targum.’ The fragments have been gathered from a variety of sources, from manuscripts and from quotations found in the writings of ancient authors. But owing to its fragmentary character this Targum is of much less value than the ‘Targum

Jerushalmi.’ This latter is sometimes erroneously called the ‘Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch’; but though this Jonathan was believed to be the author of the Targum to the Prophets which bears his name (see below), there was not the slightest ground for ascribing to him the authorship of the Targum to the Pentateuch (‘Targum Jerushalmi’). The mistake arose in an interesting way. In its abbreviated form this Targum was referred to as ‘Targum J’; this ‘J,’ which of course stood for ‘Jerushalmi,’ was taken to refer to ‘Jonathan,’ the generally

acknowledged author of the Targum to the Prophets; thus it came about that this Targum to the Pentateuch, as well as the Targum to the Prophets, was called the Targum of Jonathan. So tenaciously has the wrong name clung to this Targum, that a kind of compromise is made as to its title, and it is now usually known as the ‘Targum of pseudo-Jonatban.’ In one important respect this Targum is quite similar to that of Onkelos, namely, in its avoidance of anthropomorphisms, and in its desire not to bring God into too close contact with man; for example, in Ex 34:6 we have these words: ‘And the Lord descended in a cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.’ But this Targum paraphrases the verse in a roundabout way, and says that ‘Jehovah revealed Himself in the clouds of the glory of His Shekinah,’ thus avoiding what in the original text appeared to detract from the dignity of the Almighty. This kind of thing occurs with great frequency, and it is both interesting and important, as showing the evolution of the idea of God among the Jews (see Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, ch. viii. [1907]). But in other respects the ‘Targum Jerushalmi’ (or ‘Targum of pseudo-Jonathan’) differs from that of Onkelos, especially in its being far less a translation than a free paraphrase. The following extract will give a good idea of the character of this Targum; It is the paraphrase of Gn 18:1ff. ‘And the glory of the Lord was revealed to him in the valley of Mamre; and he, being ill from the pain of circumcision, sat at the door of the tabernacle in the beat of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three angels in the resemblance of men were standing before him; angels who had been sent from the necessity of three things—because it is not possible for a ministering angel to be sent for more than one purpose at a time—one, then, had come to make known to him that Sarah should bear a man-child; one had come to deliver Lot; and one to overthrow Sodom and Gomorrah. And when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of the tent, and bowed himself to the earth.’

The Targum of Jonathan to the Prophets owes its name to an ancient tradition, according to which Jonathan ben Uzziel composed it ‘from the mouths of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi’ (Megillah, 3a); this is merely a figurative way of saying that the traditional interpretation, as supposed to have been handed down by these prophets, was embodied in written form by Jonathan. The latter was a pupil of Hillel, and wrote a Targum (according to the passage just referred to) for the purpose of removing ‘all impediments to the understanding of the Scriptures’ (JE viii. 238). It is said of this Jonathan that when he sat down and occupied himself with the study of the Law, every bird that happened to fly over his head was burned; the reason of this was that so many angels gathered around him in order to hear the words of the Law from his mouth (Succah, 28a [Weber, Jud. Theol.², p. xviii.]). That Jonathan had the Targum of Onkelos before him when he wrote is proved by the fact that whole passages from Onkelos are incorporated verbatim in his Targum. As a pupil of Hillel, Jonathan lived during the middle and end of the 1st cent. A.D., so that the date of his Targum may safely be stated to be the end of the first century. An interesting example of this Targum is the following paraphrase of Is 52:13–15: ‘Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper, he shall be exalted and extolled, and he shall be very strong. Like as the house of Israel anxiously hoped for him many days, (the house of Israel) which was poor among the nations, their appearance and their brightness being worse than that of the sons of men, thus shall he scatter many nations; before him kings shall keep silence; they shall put their hands upon their mouths, for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard they shall consider.’ In the whole of the following chapter 53 ‘it is curious to notice that the passages which refer to the humiliation of the Servant are interpreted of the people of Israel, while those which speak of the glory of the Servant are referred to the Messiah’ (Oesterley and Box, op. cit. p. 49).

Of much later date, and also of less importance than the Targums of Onkelos, pseudoJonathan, or Jonathan, is the Targum Jerushalmi to the Prophets. According to JE xii. 61, ‘Most of the quotations given in the Targum Jerushalmi are Haggadic additions, frequently traceable to the Babylonian Talmud, so that this Palestinian Targum to the Prophets belongs to a later period, when the Babylonian Talmud had begun to exert an influence upon Palestinian literature.’ There are not many remains extant of this Targum; most of the extracts in existence are citations in the writings of Rashi and David Kimchi; the largest number of extracts found together are those in the eleventh century Codex Reuchlinianus, edited by Lagarde, Prophetœ Chaldaice.

Of the remaining Targums not much need be said; those to the Psalms, Proverbs, and Job show a close relationship and are usually assigned to the same author; they belong to the latter half of the seventh century. They are to a large extent translations, though a considerable Haggadic element is to be found in them, especially in the Targum to Job. The Targums to the five Megillolh are likewise post-Talmudic; in all five translation plays a subordinate part, the prevailing element being Midrashic; this reaches its height in the Song of Songs. Of the three Targums to Esther, the second, known as Targum Sheni, has always been extremely popular. The latest of all the Targums is that to Chronicles; it is strongly Haggadic, and is of but little importance.

‘The Targums are important not only for the light they throw on Jewish theology, but also, especially, as a thesaurus of ancient Jewish exegesis; in this way they often throw much interesting light on the use of the OT by the NT writers; in particular, it can be shown that the NT often agrees with the ancient Synagogue in interpreting certain passages Messianically which later were expounded differently in orthodox Jewish circles’ (Oesterley and Box, op. cit. p. 50).

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

TARPELITES.—One of the peoples settled in the cities of Samaria (Ezr 4:9); text doubtful.

TARSHISH.—1. See following article. 2. A Benjamite family (1 Ch 7:10). 3. One of the seven princes who had the right of access to the royal presence (Est 1:14). 4. The name of a precious stone (Ex 28:20, 39:13, Ezk 1:10, 10:9, 28:16, Ca 5:14, Dn 10:6). See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.

TARSHISH is frequently mentioned in the OT, but its position is never definitely indicated. From Jon 1:3, 4:2  we may infer that it was far from Palestine, probably in the extreme west of the Mediterranean. If Sheba and Dedan stand for the commerce of the East, Tarshish may stand for that of the West (Ezk 38:13). The Greeks were in touch with Tartessus in the 7 th and 6th cents. B.C. ( Herod. i. 163, iv. 152). The inclusion of Tarshish among the ‘sons’ of Javan (Gn 10:4, 1 Ch 1:7) may refer to this. The Onomasticon speaks of Tharseis hē Baitikē. Bochart

(Phaleg, iii. 7) identifies this with the Andalusian plain in S.W. Spain, watered by the Baetis (mod. Guadalquivir). The Greek name Tartēssos may possibly come through an Aram, form

Tartīsh, from the Phœn. Tarshīsh. It may have denoted a city (Straho, iii. 147 ff.). The name Tarsēion occurs in a commercial treaty (Polyb. iii. 24) referring to a city of the Carthaginians in Spain.

Max Müller (Hastings’ DB, s.v.)  favours a suggestion of Cheyne, that Tarshish may be identical with Tiras (Gn 10:2). Vocalizing Turshush with Josephus (Ant. I. vi. 1; he identifies with Cilician Tarsus, which to the present writer appears impossible), we get the Tyrsenians, Tyrrenians, or Etruscans—intrepid, piratical people, called Tursha by the ancient Egyptians.

In either case Tarshish would be fitly named with ‘the isles,’ a term covering not only islands in our sense, but also land bordering on the sea (Ps 72:10, Is 60:9, 66:19). The wealth of Tarshish consisted of silver, iron, tin, and lead (Jer 10:9 , Ezk  27:12).

‘Ships of Tarshish’ did not necessarily belong to or trade with Tarshish. The name is used of the ships of Jehoshaphat and Abaziah, which sailed for Ophir from Ezion-geber (1 K 22:48, 2 Ch 20:36). The Chronicler’s explanatory phrase (v. 37) is erroneous. The cargo brought by

Solomon’s ‘navy of Tarshish’ shows that its voyages must have been eastward, not westward (1 K 10:22, 2 Ch 9:21). The name probably denoted specially large merchant vessels, designed for distant voyages (Ps 48:7, Is 2:16, 23:1, Ezk 27:25).

W. EWING.

TARSUS, the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia (Ac 22:6) in the S.E. of Asia Minor, and the birthplace of St. Paul, is a place about which much more might be known than is known if only the necessary money were forthcoming to excavate the ancient city in the way that Pompeii, Olympia, Pergamum, and other cities have been excavated. It would be impossible to exaggerate the value which would accrue to the study of St. Paul’s life and writings and of Christian origins, if such a work were satisfactorily carried out. It may be commended to the whole Christian Church as a pressing duty of the utmost importance. Tarsus, as a city whose institutions combined Oriental and Western characteristics, was signally fitted to be the birthplace and training ground of him who was to make known to the Gentile world the ripest development of Hebrew religion.

Tarsus (modern Tersous)  is situated in the plain of Cilicia, about 70 to 80 feet above sea level, and about 10 miles from the S. coast. The level plain stretches to the north of it for about 2 miles, and then begins to rise gradually till it merges in the lofty Taurus range, about 30 miles north. The climate of the low-lying city must always have been oppressive and unfavourable to energetic action, but the undulating country to the north was utilized to counteract its effects. About 9 to 12 miles north of the city propel there was a second Tarsus, within the territory of the main Tarsus, in theory a summer residence merely, but in reality a fortified town of importance, permanently inhabited. It was to periodical residence in this second city among the hills that the population owed their vigour. In Roman times the combined cities of Tarsus contained a large population, probably not much less than a million.

The history of the Maritime Plain of Cillcia was determined by the mutual rivalries of the three cities, Mallus on the Pyramus, Adana on the Sarus, and Tarsus on the Cydnus. The plain is mainly a deposit of the second of those rivers, and contains about 800 square miles of arable land, with a strip of useless land along the coast varying from 2 to 3 miles in breadth. The site of Mallus is now unknown, as it has ceased to have any importance; but the other two cities retain their names and some of their importance to the present day. In ancient times Mallus was a serious rival of Tarsus, and was at first the great harbour and the principal Greek colony in Cilicia. The struggle for superiority lasted till after the time of Christ, but the supremacy was eventually resigned to Tarsus. The river Cydnus flowed through the middle of the city. This river, of which the inhabitants were very proud, was liable to rise very considerably when there had been heavy rains in the mountains, but inundation in the city was in the best period very carefully guarded against. Between A.D. 527  and 563 a new channel was cut to relieve the principal bed, which had for some time previously been insufficiently dredged, and it is in this new channel that the Cydnus now flows, the original channel having become completely choked. About five or six miles below the modern town the Cydnus flowed into a lake; this lake was the ancient harbour of Tarsus, where were the docks and arsenal. At the harbour town, which was called Aulai, all the larger ships discharged, and in ancient times buildings were continuous between the north of this lake and the city of Tarsus. Much engineering skill must have been employed in ancient times to make a harbour out of what had been a lagoon, and to improve the channel of the river. A great deal was done to conquer nature for the common benefit, and it was not only in this direction that the inhabitants showed their perseverance. This city also cut one of the greatest passes of ancient times, the ‘Cilician Gates.’ Cilicia is divided from Cappadocia and Lycaonia by the Taurus range of mountains, which is pierced from N.W. to S.E. by a glen along which flows the Tcbakut Su. This glen offers a natural road for much of its course, but there are serious difficulties to overcome in its southern part. The Tarsians built a waggon road over the hills there, and cut with the chisel a level path out of the solid rock on the western bank of the stream. The probable date of this engineering feat was some time between B.C. 1000  and  500.

It is possible (but see TARSHISH) that Tarsus is meant by the Tarshish of Gn 10:4, and that it is there indicated c. B.C. 2000  as a place where Greeks settled. The difference in the form of the name need cause no difficulty in accepting this identification. The name is originally Anatolian, and would quite easily be transliterated differently in Greek and Hebrew. All the evidence is in harmony with the view that at an early date Greeks settled there among an originally Oriental community. Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, captured Tarsus about the middle of the 9th cent. B.C.; afterwards kings ruled over Cilicia, with the Persian kings as overlords. In B.C. 401  there was still a king, but not in B.C. 334, when Alexander the Great entered the country. He found a Persian officer directly governing the country. Of the character of the kingdom we know nothing. Thus for about five centuries Tarsus was really an Oriental city. Greek influence began again with Alexander the Great, but made very slow progress. During the fourth century Tarsus was subject to the Greek kings of Syria of the Seleucid dynasty. It continued during the third century in abject submission to them. The peace of B.C. 189  changed the position of Cilicia. Previous to that date it had been in the middle of the Seleucid territory. Now it became a frontier country.

About B.C. 175–164 Tarsus was re-organized by Antiochus IV Epiphanes as an autonomous city under the name Antioch-on-the-Cydnus (cf. 2 Mac 4:30f., 36). It is extremely probable that the exact date of this re-foundation was B.C. 171–170 ; the new name lasted only a few years. Not only Tarsus, but a number of other Cilician cities also were re-organized at this time, but Tarsus received the most honourable treatment.

The population of this re-constituted Tarsus, in addition to what remained of the earlier population, consisted of Dorian Greeks from Argos. That the Greek element in the population was mainly Dorian is proved by the fact that the chief magistrates bore the Dorian title damiourgos. A mythology was invented to prove that this Dorian element was much earlier. It is almost certain that, in accordance with the regular Seleucid practice, a large body of Jews also was added to the population by Antiochus. These would be incorporated as citizens in a new tribe by themselves, to enable them to practise their own religion unhindered. There may have been some Jews resident in Tarsus as strangers, but the majority must have been citizens with full burghers’ rights. St. Paul, and probably the ‘kinsmen’ of Ro 16:7, 11, 21, were citizens of Tarsus enrolled in the Jewish tribe. The later hostility of Antiochus to the ultra-Jewish party in Palestine cannot be alleged as an adequate reason against the view that he constituted, in B.C. 171–170 , a large body of Jews citizens of Tarsus in a tribe by themselves. At that earlier date he regarded himself as the best friend of the Jews, and was so regarded by the more educated among themselves. As the Seleucid empire decayed, the Greek element in Tarsus became weaker, and the Asiatic spirit revived. About B.C. 83  its influence swept over Cilicia with the armies of Tigranes, king of Armenia, under whose power Tarsus fell. For about twenty years it continued under Oriental domination, till the re-organization of the East by Pompey the Great in B.C. 65–4. The Roman province Cilicia had been instituted about B.C. 104  or 102, but Tarsus was not then included in it. It was established mainly to control piracy in the Levant, and included the south and east of Asia Minor, but was not sharply defined in extent. In B.C. 25 the province GALATIA ( wh. see) was established by Augustus, and Cilicia in the narrow sense became a mere adjunct of Syria. Tarsus was the capital even of the large province Cilicia, and remained that of the smaller under the Empire, which brought many blessings to the provinces and their cities. Experience of the barbarian Tigranes caused a revulsion in favour of Hellenism, and the Tarsians were enthusiastic for the Empire, which carried on the work of Hellenism. Cassius forced them, in B.C. 43 , to take his and Brutus’ side against Octavian and Antony, but they returned to their former loyalty on the earliest opportunity. Tarsus was made a free city (that is, it was governed by its own laws) by Antony, who met Cleopatra here. This privilege was confirmed by Octavian in or after B.C. 31 . It is likely that Pompey, Julius Cæsar, Antony, and Augustus all conferred Roman citizenship on some Tarsians, and these would take new names from their benefactors: Gnæus Pompeius from Pompey, Gaius Iulius from Julius Cæsar or Augustus, Marcus Antonius from Antony. The Roman administration probably trusted more to the Jewish than to the Greek element. The latter was capricious, and was restrained by the Stoic Athenodorus, a Tarsian, who had the influence of Augustus behind him. The Oriental element seems to have thus become more assertive, and about A.D. 100 it was predominant. This Athenodorus lived from about B.C. 74 till A.D. 7. He was a Stoic philosopher, distinguished for his lectures and writings. He gained a great and noble influence over Augustus, who was his pupil, and he remained in Rome from B.C. 45 till B.C. 15  as his adviser; in the latter year he retired to Tarsus. There he attempted by persuasion to reform local politics; but, being unsuccessful, he used the authority granted him by Augustus, and banished the more corrupt of the politicians. A property qualification was now required for possession of the citizenship. (Among these citizens the Roman citizens formed an aristocracy.) Athenodorus was succeeded by Nestor, an Academic philosopher (still living A.D. 19) . These men had influence also in the university, which was more closely connected with the city than in modern times. A new lecturer had to be recognized by some competent body. There was a great enthusiasm in Tarsus and neighbourhood for learning and philosophy, and in this respect the city was unequalled in Greece. It was here that St. Paul learned sympathy with athletics, and tolerance for the good elements in pagan religion. The principal deity of Tarsus corresponded to the Greek Zeus: he is the old Anatolian deity, giver of corn and wine. There was also a working Anatolian divinity, who was identified with Heracles, subordinate to the other. The former is represented as sitting on a chair, with left hand resting on a sceptre, and the right holding corn or grapes. The other stands on a lion, wears bow-case and sword, and holds a branch or flower in his right hand, a battleaxe in his left. Sometimes he is represented within a portable shrine.

A. SOUTER.

TARTAK.—An idol introduced by the Avvites into Samaria when Sargon of Assyria transported them thither (2 K 17:31). This deity is mentioned along with another called Nibhaz, and, according to the Babylonian Talmud, was worshipped in the form of an ass. In AssyroBabylonian mythology no such deity is at present provable; moreover, the geographical position of the Avvites is uncertain, and their city may have been in one of the western States of Asia.

The Greek text ‘A’ replaces Tartak by Naibas, but this may be merely a corruption of Nibhaz. T. G. PINCHES.

TARTAN.—The title borne by two Assyr. officers, one of whom was sent by Sargon to Ashdod (Is 20:1), while the other, with the Rab-saris and the Rab-shakeh, was sent by Sennacherib to demand from Hezekiah the surrender of Jerusalem (2 K 18:17). The word is a transcription in Heb. of the Assyr. tartānu or turtānu, the title borne by the commander-in-chief of the army.

L. W. KING.

TASSEL.—See FRINGES.

TATTENAI.—The name of the governor of Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia under Darius

Hystaspis (Ezr 5:3, 6, 6:6, 13). He is called in 1 Es 6:3, 7, 27 (26) 7:1 Sisinnes, which is simply a reproduction in Greek of a Persian name Thithinaia (orig. Thathanaia?), with aspirated t.

TAVERNER’S BIBLE.—See ENGLISH VERSIONS, § 21.

TAVERNS, THREE (Latin Tres Tabernœ).—A name of uncertain origin, which might be translated ‘three shops’ or ‘three huts.’ It was a station on the Appian Road (built B.C. 321) which went from Rome to the S. along the west coast. This was the principal road for all travellers to or from the S. and E., except those who embarked at Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber. The village was about 33 Roman miles from Rome, and to this point many Christians walked, or drove, to meet St. Paul on his arrival in Italy from the E. (Ac 28:15).

A. SOUTER.

TAW.—The twenty-second letter of the Heb. alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 22nd part, each verse of which begins with this letter.

TAXES, TAXING,—See KING, 2 (5), PUBLICAN, TRIBUTE, QUIRINIUS; cf. also p. 559^b.

TEACHER, TEACHING,—See EDUCATION.

TEBAH.—A ‘son’ of Nahor (Gn 22:24). See TIBHATH.

TEBALIAH.—A Merarite gatekeeper (1 Ch 26:11).

TEBETH,—See TIME.

TEHAPHNEHES (Ezk 30:18).—See TAHPANIIES.

TEHINNAH.—The ‘father’ of Ir-nahash (1 Ch 4:12).

TEILTREE.—Is 6:13, AV mistranslation of ‘terebinth’ (wh. see, and cf. art. OAK (1)).

TEKEL.—See MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN.

TEKOA (2 Ch 11:6 etc.); Tekoah, 2 S 14:2, 4, 9 [AV], 1 Mac 9:33 [RV; AV Thecoe]).—A fortress city on the edge of the wilderness to which it gave its name (2 Ch 20:20). From here came the ‘wise woman’ sent by Joab to plead for Absalom (2 S 14:2, 4, 8); Rehoboam fortified it

(2 Ch 11:6), and apparently it continued to be a fortress (Jer 6:1); Amos ‘was among the herdmen of Tekoa’ (Am 1:1). Tekoa is mentioned also in LXX in Jos 15:59, and in the genealogies in 1 Ch 4:5–8. The site is now Khurbet Teqū‘a, an extended but shapeless mass of ruins crowning the summit of a hill (2790 ft. above sea level), 5 miles S. of Bethlehem. It is on the extreme edge of the cultivated lands. Bethlehem, the Mt. of Olives, and Nebi Samwīl (Mizpah) are all visible from it.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

TEL-ABIB (perh. ‘hill of corn’).—A place on the Chebar (Ezk 3:15); site unknown.

TELAH.—An Ephraimite (1 Ch 7:25).

TELAIM (‘the lambs’).—The place at which Saul concentrated his forces, and numbered his fighting men before his campaign against the Amalekites (1 S 15:4). The LXX reads Gilgal for Telaim, and Josephus (Ant. VI. vii. 2) also makes Gilgal the place of assembly. A more suitable locality for the place of assembly would, however, be in the Negeb, or South; and here lay Telem ( Jos 15:24), with which Telaim is probably identical.

TELASSAR (‘Asshur’s hill or mound’).—This city is mentioned with Gozan, Haran, and Rezeph, and is spoken of as a place inhabited by ‘the children of Eden’ (2 K 19:12, Is 37:12).

The Assyrian inscriptions apparently mention two places so called, one being Til-ashshuri, mentioned by Tiglath-pileser III., which had a renowned temple dedicated to Merodach, and is stated to have been a Babylonian foundation. The other, written Til-ashurri, is referred to by Esarhaddon as having been conquered by him (the people of Mihrānu, he seems to say, called it Pitānu). It was inhabited by the people of Barnaku or Parnaku—a name which Delitzsch points out as similar to the Parnach of Nu 34:25. This Till-ashurri is supposed to have lain near the land of Mitanni (Upper Mesopotamia), which would find support if Mihrānu be connected with the Mehru mentioned by Tukulti-Ninib (-Nirig) 1.

T. G. PINCHES.

TELEM.—1. A gatekeeper who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10:24); called in 1 Es 9:25 Tolbanes; perhaps the same as Talmon of Neh 12:25. 2. See TELAIM.

TEL-HARSHA.—A Babylonian town of unknown site (Ezr 2:59, Neh 7:61); called in 1 Es 5:36 Thelersas.

TELL.—See TALE.

TELMELAH (‘hill of salt’).—A Babylonian town of unknown site (Ezr 2:59, Neh 7:61); called in 1 Es 5:36 Thermeleth.

TEMA.—In Gn 25:15 (1 Ch 1:30), a son of Ishmael. The country and people meant are still represented by the same name—the modern Taima, a large oasis about 200 miles S.E. of the head of the Gulf of ‘Akabah, and the same distance due N. of Medina in W. Arabia. It was an important community in ancient times, mentioned in Assyr. annals of the 8th cent. B.C., and later inhabited in part by Aramæans, who have left inscriptions. It was noted for its caravan traffic ( Job 6:19, Is 21:14), as might be expected from its position on the great trade routes.

J. F. MCCURDY.

TEMAH.—A family of Nethinim (Ezr 2:53, Neh 7:55) = 1 Es 5:32 Thomei.

TEMAN.—A tribe (and district) of Edom, whose importance is indicated by its eponym being the eldest son of the eldest son (Eliphaz) of Esau (Gn 36:11, 15; cf. v. 42), and by its being taken along with Bozrah (wh. see) to represent the whole land of Edom (Am 1:12; cf. Ob 9). Ezk 25:13 implies that Edom stretches from Teman to Dedan, from which we infer that the former lay in the north-east of the territory claimed by Edom, that is, to the S.E. of Moab. Its inhabitants were renowned for wisdom (Jer 49:7), and the chief of Job’s counsellors was Eliphaz ‘the Temanite’ (Job 2:11).

J. F. MCCURDY.

TEMENI.—The ‘son’ of Ashhur (1 Ch 4:6).

TEMPERANCE.—1. In the RV ‘temperance’ is the tr. of the Gr. word enkrateia, the rootmeaning of which is ‘power over oneself,’ ‘self-mastery.’ It is a comprehensive virtue, and on this account ‘self-control,’ the tr. of RVm, is to be preferred (Ac 24:25, Gal 5:23, 2 P 1:5). The corresponding adjective is found only in Tit 1:8, and the verb only in 1 Co 7:9, 9:25. The negative form of the adjective is translated ‘without self-control’ (2 Ti 3:3), and of the noun ‘excess’ (Mt 23:25), and ‘incontinency’ (1 Co 7:5). The RV tr. another Gr. word (nēphalios) ‘temperate’ in 1 Ti 3:2, 11, Tit 2:2; its root-meaning points to the avoidance of intemperance in the form of drunkenness, but in actual usage it condemns all forms of self-indulgence. This extension of its significance must be remembered in expounding the passages in which the corresponding verb is found, for the RV always tr. it (nēphein) ‘to be sober’ (1 Th 5:6, 8, 2 Ti 4:5 , 1 P 1:18, 4:7,  5:8).

2.      From the philosophical point of view, ‘self-control’ is mastery over the passions; it is the virtue which holds the appetites in check; the rational will has power to regulate conduct without being unduly swayed by sensuous appetites. From the NT point of view the grace of ‘selfcontrol’ is the result of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling; it is the Spirit-controlled personality alone that is ‘strengthened with power’ (Eph 3:18, cf. 5:18) to control rebellious desires and to resist the allurements of tempting pleasures.

3.      The NT passages in which reference is made to this virtue form an instructive study. To Felix, with an adulteress by his side, St. Paul discoursed of ‘self-control,’ directing his stern condemnation against the vice of unchastity (cf. 1 Co 7:5, 9). But to every form of ‘excess’ (Mt 23:25) it is directly opposed. In 1 Ti 3:3 ‘not given over to wine’ (paroinos, AV ‘brawler,’ cf. RVm) balances ‘temperate’ (v. 2, cf. v. 8), and from this chapter it is plain that the Apostle regards violent quarrelling (v. 3), false and reckless speech (v. 8), self-conceit (v. 6), greed of filthy lucre (v. 8), as well as fondness for much wine (v. 8), as manifold forms of Intemperance by whose means men ‘fall into reproach and the snare of the devil’ (v. 7).

4.      ‘Self-control,’ in its widest sense, as including mastery over all tempers, appetites, and passions, has a prominent place in two NT lists of the Christian graces. In 2 P 1:6, faith is regarded as the germ of every virtue; it lays hold of the ‘divine power’ which makes possible the life of godliness (v. 3). The evolution of faith in ‘manliness, knowledge, self-control’ is the reward of its ‘diligent’ culture (v. 8). This ‘self-control,’ as Principal Iverach says, ‘grows out of knowledge, it is using Christian knowledge for the guidance of life’ (The Other Side of

Greatness, p. 110). In Gal 5:23, ‘self-control’ closes the list of the graces which are all ‘the fruit of the Spirit,’ just as ‘drunkenness and revellings’ close the list of ‘the works of the flesh’ (v. 21). The flesh and the Spirit!—these, indeed, are ‘contrary the one to the other’ (v. 17). The flesh triumphs when the Spirit is quenched; but the Spirit’s victory is gained, not by suppressing, but by controlling, the flesh. Those who are ‘led by the Spirit’ (v. 18), who ‘live by the Spirit’ and ‘by the Spirit also walk’ (v. 25) attain, in its perfection, the grace of complete ‘self-control.’

J. G. TASKER. TEMPEST.—See GALILEE [SEA OF], 3; WHIRLWIND.

TEMPLE.—1. The first Temple mentioned in connexion with the worship of J″ is that of Shiloh (1  S 1:9), ‘where the ark of God was’ (3:3) in the period of the Judges, under the guardianship of Eli and his sons. It was evidently destroyed by the Philistines after their decisive victory which resulted in the capture of the ark, as recorded in 4:10ff.; for the descendants of Eli are found, a generation afterwards, acting as priests of a temple at Nob (21:1 ff., 22:9ff.). With the capture of Jerusalem by David, and the transference thither of the ark, a new political and religious centre was provided for the tribes of Israel.

2.      SOLOMON’S TEMPLE.—The site.—The successive Temples of Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod were buildings of moderate dimensions, and were built, by every token, on one and the same site. Now, there is only one place in Jerusalem where this site is to be looked for, namely, on that part of the eastern hill which is now occupied by the large platform, extending to some 35 acres, known as the Haram esh-Sharif or ‘Noble Sanctuary’ (see JERUSALEM, and below, § 11). There has, however, been considerable difference of opinion in the past as to the precise spot within the Haram area on which the ‘holy house’ itself was reared. Thus a few British writers, among whom Fergusson the distinguished architect, and W. Robertson Smith, in his article ‘Temple’ in the EBr⁹, are the most influential, have maintained that the Temple and its courts occupied an area about 600 ft. square in the south-western portion of the Haram. But the great majority of scholars, both at home and abroad, are agreed in placing the Temple in close connexion with the sacred rock (es-Sakhra)  which is now enclosed in the mosque named after it

‘the Dome of the Rock,’ also, less appropriately, ‘the Mosque of Omar.’

The remarkable persistence of sacred sites in the East is a phenomenon familiar to all students of religion, and there can be little doubt that the Chronicler is right in identifying the site of ‘the altar of burnt-offering for Israel’ (1 Ch 22:1) with the spot ‘by the threshing-floor of Oman [in 2 S 24:16 Araunah] the Jehusite,’ where the angel of the plague stayed his hand, and on which David by Divine command erected his altar of commemoration (see, further, § 6 (b)). This being so, the location of the Temple immediately to the west of the rock follows as a matter of course. The only possible alternative is to regard the rock as marking the site, not of the altar of burnt-offering, but of ‘the holy of holies’ of the successive Temples—a view beset with insuperable difficulties.

3.      The Temple building—Its arrangement and dimensions.—The Temple and its furniture are described in 1 K 6:1–38, 7:13–51—two passages which are, unfortunately, among the most difficult in the OT, by reason of the perplexing technical terms employed and the unsatisfactory nature of the received text.

All recent study of these passages in commentaries and elsewhere is based on Stade’s brilliant essay in his ZATW iii. 129 ff., with which cf. Stade and Schwally’s edition of ‘Kings’ in Haupt’s SBOT. Other aids, in addition to the standard commentaries, and works on archæology by Nowack, Benzinger, etc., are Kittel’s Bibl. Hebraica, Burney’s Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings, and Father Vincent’s exegetical notes in RB, Oct. 1907. To these must now be added G. A. Smith, Jerusalem (1908) , vol. ii. (with plans), which deals fully with all the Temples (see Index, s.v. ‘Temple’).

The Temple proper was an oblong building, 60 cubits in length by 20 in breadth (1 K 6:2) , with a porch in front, facing eastwards, of the same width as the main building and 10 cubits in depth. These, however, are inside measurements, as is evident from vv. 20, 24, 27. The corresponding outside measurements depend, of course, upon the thickness of the walls, which is nowhere stated. But inasmuch as Ezekiel, the Temple of whose vision is in all essential points a replica of that of Solomon, gives 6 cubits as the thickness of its walls (Ezk 41:5), except the walls of the porch, which were 5 cubits thick (40:48), those of the first Temple are usually assumed to have been of the same dimensions. Less they could scarcely have been, if, as will presently appear, rebatements of three cubits in all have to be allowed in the lower half, since a thickness of three cubits in the upper half seems necessary, in view of the thrust of a heavy roof of 20 cubits’ span.

The interior was divided into two chambers by a transverse partition, implied in 6:31, but disregarded in the inside measurements given in v. 2. The anterior chamher, termed the hēkāl, and corresponding to the holy place in the Tabernacle, measured 40 cubits by 20, being twice as large as the inner chamber, the dĕbīr (EV ‘oracle’) or most holy place, which was only 20 cubits by 20 (v. 20). The latter in fact formed a perfect cube, since its height was also 20 cubits, as compared with that of ‘the holy place,’ which was 30 cubits (6:2). Assuming that this was also the height of the porch, the whole building, we may conjecture, was covered by a flat roof of uniform height throughout, leaving an empty space 10 cubits in height over the inner chamber.

On all sides, except the front which was occupied by the porch, the Temple proper was surrounded by a lateral building of three storeys, the whole 15 cubits high (so the emended text of v. 11) , each storey containing a number of small chambers for storage purposes. The beams forming the floors and ceilings of these side chambers were not let into the Temple wall, but were supported by making three successive rebatements of a cubit each in the wall (v. 6). The chambers accordingly increased a cubit in width in each storey, from 5 in the lowermost storey to 6 and 7 in those above. The entrance to the side chambers was on the south side of the building. The nature and position of the windows which were made ‘for the house’ are alike uncertain. Openings fitted with lattice work are probably intended (v. 4). Their position was most likely in the side walls above the roof of the lateral building.

The question of the area covered by the complete building now described has usually been answered hitherto by a reference to Ezekiel’s Temple, which was exactly 100 cubits by 50. But a careful comparison of the measurements of the two Temples makes it extremely probable that the numbers just given are due to Ezekiel’s fondness for operating with 50 and its multiples. The present writer is convinced that the prophet has not only increased the depth of the porch from 10 to 12 cubits (Ezk 40:49 LXX), but has likewise added to the thickness of the walls of the side-chambers and of the interior partition wall. For if the former are taken as 3 cubits in thickness, as compared with Ezekiel’s 5, i.e. of the same dimensions as the upper half of the Temple walls, and the partition as 1 cubit thick in place of 2 (Ezk 41:3) , we find the area of the whole building to be 96 cubits by 48, the same relative proportion (2:1), it will be noted, as is found in Ezekiel. Similarly, the outside width of the naos or sanctuary proper (32  cubits) stood to the total width as  2:3.

In the existing uncertainty as to the length of the cubit employed by Solomon’s architects, it is impossible to translate these dimensions into feet and inches with mathematical exactness. If the long cubit of c. 20¹/₂ inches employed by Ezekiel (see Ezk 40:5 and cf. 2 Ch 3:3) is preferred, the total area covered will be 164 ft. by 82 ft., while the dimensions of ‘the holy place’ will be approximately 70 by 35 by 50 ft. in height, and those of ‘the most holy place’ 35 by 35 by 35 ft. A serious objection to this adoption of the longer cubit, which was not foreseen when the art. ‘Weights and Measures’ in Hastings’ DB iv. (see p. 907 f.) was written, is presented by the detailed measurements of the interior of Herod’s

Temple in Josephus and the Mishna (see below, § 12) . These are numerically the same as those of the first Temple, but the cubit employed in the 1st cent was the short cubit of 17.6 inches, as the present writer has shown by an inductive study of the Herodian masonry (ExpT xx. [1908], p. 24 ff.). Now, it is certain that the actual dimensions of Herod’s Temple were not less than those of Solomon’s, as they would be if the cubits were in the ratio of 6 to 7. It is more than probable, therefore, that the dimensions above given should be reduced by one-sixth—the Chronicler notwithstanding; in other words, 140 by 70 ft. will be the approximate area of the building, 60 by 30 ft., and 30 by 30 ft.—that of the ‘holy’ and ‘most holy place’ respectively.

4.      The interior of the Temple.—The entrance to the Temple was through the open porch or vestibule on the eastern front. ‘For the entering of the temple’ was provided a large folding-door of cypress wood (6:34), each leaf divided vertically into two leaves, one of which folded back upon the other. According to v. 35 in its present form, the leaves were ornamented with carved figures of cherubim, palms, and flowers, all overlaid with gold (but see below). The stone floor was covered with planks of cypress wood. That the latter should have been plated with gold (v. 30) is scarcely credible. The walls of both chambers were lined with boards (literally ‘ribs’) of cedar wood, ‘from the floor of the house to the rafters of the ceiling’ (so read v. 15). There is no mention in this verse, it will he noted, of any ornamentation of the cedar panels, which is first found in vv. 18 and 29; but the former verse is absent from LXX, and vv. 28–30  are recognized by all as a later addition. The ceilings, as we should expect, were formed of beams of cedar (v. 9, 15). Over all was probably laid an outer covering of marble slabs.

The inner chamber of the Temple was separated from ‘the holy place,’ as has already been shown, by a partition wall, presumably of stone, which we have assumed above to have been a cubit in thickness. In it was set a door of olive wood, described obscurely in v. 31, which seems to say that its shape was not rectangular like the entrance door (see the Comm. on vv. 31, 33), but pentagonal; in other words, the lintel of the door, instead of being a single cross-beam, consisted of two beams meeting at an angle. In the centre of the chamber, facing the entrance (2 Ch 3:13), stood two cherubim figures of olive wood, each 10 cubits high, with outstretched wings. The latter measured 10 cubits from tip to tip, so that the two sets of wings reached from the north to the south wall of ‘the most holy place’ (1 K 6:23–28) . It is entirely in accordance with ancient practice that these symbolic figures should be overlaid with gold (v. 28).

But with regard to the excessive introduction of gold plating by the received text throughout, including even the Temple floor, as we have seen, there is much to be said in favour of the view, first advanced by Stade, that it is due to a desire on the part of later scribes to enhance the magnificence of the first Temple. In the original text the gold plating was perhaps confined to the cherubim, as has just been suggested, or to these and the doors, which appear to have had a gold sheathing in the time of Hezekiah (2 K 18:16).

5.      The furniture of the Temple.—If 1 K 7:48–51  is set aside as a later addition (see the Comm.), the only article of Temple furniture is the altar of cedar introduced in the composite text of vv. 20–22. As there are good grounds for believing that a special altar of incense was first introduced into the second Temple (see § 9) , the former is now identified by most writers with the table of shewbread (see SHEWBREAD; and TABERNACLE, § 6 (a)) . Its position is evidently intended to be in the outer chamber in front of the entrance to the inner shrine. The same position ‘before the oracle’ (dĕbīr 7:49) is assigned to the ten ‘candlesticks,’ properly lampstands

(TABERNACLE, § 6 (b)) , five probably being meant to stand on either side of the entrance. Although, from the date of the passage cited, we may hesitate to ascribe these to Solomon, they doubtless at a later time formed a conspicuous part of the Temple furniture (cf. Jer 52:19).

On the completion of the Temple, the sacred memorial of earlier days, the already venerable ark of J″, was brought from the tent in which David had housed it and placed within ‘the most holy place,’ where it stood overshadowed by the wings of the cherubim (1 K 8:5ff.). Another sacred object of like antiquity, the brazen serpent (see SERPENT [BRAZEN]) , found a place somewhere within the Temple.

6.      The court of the Temple and its furniture—(a) The court and gates.—The Temple of Solomon formed part of a large complex of buildings, comprising an arsenal, a judgment-hall, the palace with its harem, and finally the royal chapel, the whole surrounded by ‘the great court’ of 1 K 7:9, 12. Within this enclosure, at its upper or northern end, was ‘the inner court’ of 6:36, 7:12 within which, again, stood the Temple (8:34). It is of importance to note that this single court of the Temple was open to the laity as well as to the priests (8:62), as is specially evident from Jer 35:1ff., 36:10 etc.

PLAN OF ROYAL BUILDINGS

( after Stade and Benzinger ).

1. The great court. 2. The ‘other’ or middle court. 3. The inner (or Temple) court. 4. House of Lebanon. 5. Porch of pillars. 6. Throne porch. 7. Royal palace. 8. Harem. 9. Temple. 10. Altar.

Several gates of this court are mentioned by later writers, but their precise position is uncertain. The main entrance was doubtless in the east wall, and may be indicated by ‘the king’s entry without’ of 2 K 16:13, and ‘the king’s gate eastward’ of 1 Ch 9:18. The ‘gate of the guard’ (2 K 11:19), on the other hand, may be looked for in the south wall separating the Temple court from ‘the other court’ (1 K 7:8) in which the royal palace was situated (cf. Ezk 43:7f.). There were also one or more gates on the north side (Ezk 8:3, 9:2, Jer 20:2 ‘gate of Benjamin,’ etc.). Cf. art. JERUSALEM, II. 4.

(b)   The altar of burnt-offering.—It is surprising that no reference is made in the early narrative of 1 K 7 to the making of so indispensable a part of the apparatus of the cult. In the opinion of most critics, this omission is due to the excision from the original narrative of the relative section by a much later editor, who assumed that, the brazen altar of the Tabernacle accompanied the ark to the new sanctuary (but see Burney, Notes on Heb. Text, etc., 102 f.). The Chronicler, whether informed by his text of 1 K. or otherwise, tells us that Solomon’s altar of burnt-offering (1  K 9:25) was of brass (cf. the ‘brazen altar’ 8:64), 20 cubits in length and breadth and 10 in height (2 Ch 4:1). Its position was on the site of the earlier altar of David (2 Ch 3:1), which, it may be asserted with confidence, stood somewhere on the sacred rock still to be seen within the Mosque of Omar (see § 2 above). The precise position which the altars of the first and second Temples occupied on the surface of the rock, which measures at least some 50 ft. by 40 ft., must remain a matter of conjecture. Herod’s altar was large enough almost to cover the rock (§ 11 (c)) . This question has recently been made the subject of an elaborate investigation by Kittel in his Studien zur heb. Archäologie (1908, 1–85) . Solomon’s altar was superseded in the reign of Ahaz by a larger altar of more artistic construction, which this sovereign caused to be made after the model of one seen by him at Damascus (2 K 16:10–16).

(c)    The brazen sea.—In the court, to the south of the line between the altar and the Temple (1 K 7:39), stood one of the most striking of the creations of Solomon’s Phœnician artist, Huramabi of Tyre. This was the brazen sea (7:23–26, 2 Ch 4:2–5) , a large circular basin or tank of bronze, 10  cubits ‘from brim to brim’ and 5 in depth, with the enormous capacity of 2000 baths, or more than 16,000 gallons. Even should this prove an exaggerated estimate, the basin must have bulged very considerably in the middle, and the medial diameter must have been at least twice that of the mouth. The brim curved outwards like the calyx of a flower, and underneath it the body of the ‘sea’ was decorated with two rows of gourd-shaped ornaments. The basin rested on the backs of twelve bronze oxen, which, in groups of three, faced the four cardinal points. Notwithstanding 2 Ch 4:6, written centuries after it had disappeared (Jer 52:17, 20), recent writers are inclined to give the brazen sea a purely symbolical signification. But whether it is to be interpreted as a symbol of the primeval abyss (Gn 1:2) and of J″’s power as Creator, or in the terms of the Babylonian mythology as symbolizing the upper or heavenly sea, bounded by the zodiac with its twelve signs (the 12 oxen), or otherwise, must be left to the future to decide (cf. G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 65 f.).

(d)   The brazen lavcrs.—A similar symbolical significance is probably to be assigned to the ten lavers of bronze (1 K 7:27–39) . These were smaller editions of the brazen sea, being only four cubits in diameter, holding only 40 baths (c. 325 galls.), and resting on wheeled carriers, or bases. The peculiarly difficult description of the latter has been the subject of special study by Stade (ZATW, 1901, 145 ff., with which cf. Haupt’s SBOT), and more recently by Kittel (op. cit. 189–242) . It must suffice here to say that each carrier was 4 cubits in length and breadth and  3 cubits in height. The sides were open frames composed of uprights of bronze joined together by transverse bars or rails of the same material, the whole richly ornamented with palm trees, lions, oxen, and cherubim in relief. Underneath were four wheels of bronze, 1¹/₂ cubits in diameter, while on the top of each stand was fitted a ring or cylinder on which the laver directly rested.

(e)    The pillars Jachin and Boaz.—Nowhere is the symbolical element in these creations of Huram-abi’s art more apparent than in the twin pillars with the mysterious names Jachin and Boaz, which were set up on either side of the entrance to the Temple porch. They have been discussed in the art. JACHIN AND BOAZ (where ‘chapiter’ is explained) (see also Kittel’s art.

‘Temple’ in PRE³ xix. [1907] 493 f.).

7.      General idea and plan of Solomon’s Temple.—The building of the Temple occupied seven years and six months (1 K 6:37f.). After standing for three centuries and a half it was burned to the ground by the soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar in B.C. 587–6 , having first been stripped of everything of value that could be carried away. Before passing to a study of its successor, it may be well to note more precisely the purpose for which it was erected, and the general idea underlying its plan. As expressly implied by the term ‘the house’ (bayith)  applied to it by the early historian, the Temple was intended to be, before all else, the dwelling-place of Israel’s God, especially as represented by the ark of J″ (see, for this, 2 S 7:2, 5ff.). At the same time it was also the royal chapel, and adjoined the palace of Solomon, precisely as ‘the king’s chapel’ at Bethel was part of the residence of the kings of Israel (Am 7:13). There is no reason for supposing that Solomon had the least intention of supplanting the older sanctuaries of the land— a result first achieved by the reformation of Josiah (2 K 23).

As regards the plan of the new sanctuary as a whole, with its threefold division of court, holy place, and holy of holies (to adopt, as before, the later terminology), its origin is to be sought in the ideas of temple architecture then current not only in Phœnicia, the home of Solomon’s architects and craftsmen, but throughout Western Asia. Syria, as we now know, was influenced in matters of religious art not only by Babylonia and Egypt, but also by the so-called Mycenæan civilization of the Eastern Mediterranean basin. The walled court, the porch, fore-room, and innermost cella are all characteristic features of early Syrian temple architecture. Whether or not there lies behind these the embodiment of ideas from the still older Babylonian cosmology, by which the threefold division of the sanctuary reflects the threefold division of the heavenly universe (so Benzinger, Heb. Arch.,² 330 , following Winckler and A. Jeremias), must be left an open question. In certain details of the furniture, such as the wheeled carriers of the lavers and their ornamentation, may also be traced the influence of the early art of Crete and Cyprus through the Phœnicians as intermediaries.

8.      THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL’S VISION (Ezk 40–43).—Although the Temple of Ezekiel remained a dream, a word may be said in passing regarding one of its most characteristic features, on account of its influence on the plan of the actual Temples of the future. This is the emphasis laid throughout on the sacrosanct character of the sanctuary—a reflexion of the deepening of the conception of the Divine holiness which marked the period of the Exile. The whole sacred area covered by the Temple and its courts is to be protected from contact with secular buildings. One far-reaching result of this rigid separation of sacred and secular is the introduction of a second Temple court, to which the priests alone, strictly speaking, are entitled to access (Ezk 40:28ff.). For the details of Ezekiel’s sketch, with its passion for symmetry and number, see the Comm. and Witton Davies’ art. ‘Temple’ in Hastings’ DB iv. 704 ff.

9.      THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL.—The second Temple, as it is frequently named, was built, at the instigation of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, under the leadership of Zerubbabel. According to the explicit testimony of a contemporary (Hag 2:18) , the foundation was laid in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (B.C. 520)—a date now generally preferred to that of the much later author of Ezr 3:8ff. The building was finished and the Temple dedicated in B.C. 516 . We have unfortunately no description of the plan and arrangements of the latter, and are dependent for information regarding it mainly on scattered references in the later canonical and extracanonical books. It may be assumed, however, that the altar of burnt-offering, previously restored by the exiles on their return (Ezr 3:3), occupied the former site, now consecrated by centuries of worship, and that the ground plan of the Temple followed as nearly as possible that of its predecessor (cf. G. A. Smith, op. cit. ii. ch. xii.).

As regards the furnishing of Zerubbabel’s Temple, we have not only several notices from the period when it was still standing, but evidence from the better known Temple of Herod, in which the sacred furniture remained as before. Now, however scantily the former may have been furnished at the first, we should expect that after the introduction of the Priests’ Code under Ezra, the prescriptions therein contained for the furniture of the Tabernacle would be carried out to the letter. And this is indeed to a large extent what we find. Thus only one golden lampstand illuminated ‘the holy place’ (1 Mac 1:21) instead of ten in the former Temple. The table of shewbread succeeded ‘the altar of cedar’ of 1 K 6:20 (for which see § 5 above). The golden altar of incense, which belongs to a later stratum of P (TABERNACLE, § 6 (c)) , was most probably introduced at a somewhat late date, since pseudo-Hecatæus in the 3rd cent. B.C., quoted by Josephus (C. Apion. [ed. Niese] I. 198 f.), knows only of ‘an altar and a candlestick both of gold, and in weight two talents’—the former presumably the altar or table of shewbread. There is no reason, however, to question the presence of the incense altar by the second century, as attested by 1 Mac 1:21ff. (cf. 4:49), according to which Antiochus Epiphanes robbed the Temple of ‘the golden altar and the candlestick of light … and the table of shewbread,’ where the first of these must be identified with the altar in question (see, against the scepticism of Wellhausen and others, the evidence collected by Schürer, GJV⁴ ii. [1907] 342 f. [= ³ 285f.]).

In one point of cardinal importance the glory of the second house was less than that of the first. No attempt was made to construct another ark; ‘the most holy place’ was empty. A splendid curtain or veil replaced the partition wall between the two divisions of the sanctuary, and is mentioned among the spoils carried off by Antiochus (1 Mac 1:22). In another way the second Temple was distinguished from the first; it had two courts in place of one, an inner and an outer (4:38, 49, 9:54), as demanded by Ezekiel. This prophet’s further demand, that the laity should be entirely excluded from the inner court, was not carried out, as is evident from the experience of Alexander Jannæus. Having given offence to the people while officiating at the altar on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles, he was pelted with the citrons which they carried. Alexander in consequence had the altar and Temple railed off to keep the worshippers henceforth at a more respectful distance (Jos. Ant. XIII. xiii. 5).

The altar was no longer of brass but of unbewn stone (1 Mac 4:47), as required by Ex 20:25, and attested by the earlier writer above cited (ap. Jos. c. Apion., l.c.) , who further assigns to it the same dimensions as the Chronicler gives to the brazen altar of Solomon (§ 6 (b)). In B.C. 168 , Antiochus IV., as already stated, spoiled and desecrated the Temple, and by a crowning act of sacrilege set up a small altar to Zeus Olympius on the altar of burnt-offering. Three years later, Judas the Maccabee, after re-capturing Jerusalem, made new sacred furniture—altar of incense, table of shewbread, the seven-branched candlestick, and other ‘new holy vessels.’ The stones of the polluted altar were removed and others substituted, and the Temple dedicated anew (1 Mac 4:41 ff.). With minor alterations and additions, chiefly in the direction of making the Temple hill stronger against attack, the Temple remained as the Maccabees left it until replaced by the more ambitious edifice of Herod.

10.  If only for the sake of completeness, a brief reference must be made at this point to two other temples for the worship of J″ erected by Jewish settlers in Egypt during the period covered by the previous section. The earlier of these has only recently come to light, through the discovery of certain Aramaic papyri on the island of Elephantine. The three last, published by Sachau in Drei aramäische Papyrusurkunden (2 nd ed. 1908), describe this temple to Yāhū (Jabweh) which existed at Elephantine before Cambyses invaded Egypt in B.C. 525 , and had been destroyed at the instigation of Egyptian priests in B.C. 411. It was probably re-built soon after 408. The story of the other, erected at Leontopolis in the Delta by Onias, son of the Jewish high priest of the same name, in the reign of Antiochus IV., has been told by Josephus, who describes it as a replica, ‘but smaller and poorer,’ of the Temple of Zerubbabel (BJ VII. x. 2 ff., Ant. XIII. iii. 1 ff.). This description has recently been confirmed by the excavation of the site, the modern Tel el-Yehudiyeh, by Flinders Petrie (Petrie and Duncan, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 1906, 19–27, with plans and models, plates xxiii–xxv.); not the least interesting feature of this temple in partibus infidelium is the fact that it seems to have been built according to the measurements of the Tabernacle. This is altogether more probable than the view expressed by Petrie, that Onias copied the dimensions of the Temple of Jerusalem (op. cit. 24).

11.  THE TEMPLE OF HERON.—It was in the eighteenth year of his reign that Herod obtained the permission of his suspicious subjects to re-build the Temple of Zerubbabel. The Temple proper was re-built by a thousand specially trained priests within the space of eighteen months; the rest of the buildings took years to finish, indeed the last touches were given only six or seven years before the final catastrophe in A.D. 70 , when the whole was destroyed by the soldiers of Titus. For a fuller study of several of the points discussed in this section, see the present writer’s articles on ‘Some Problems of Herod’s Temple’ in ExpT XX. [1908], 24 ff.

(a) The outer court, its size, cloisters, and gates.—It is advisable in this case to reverse the order of study adopted for the first Temple, and to proceed from the courts to the Temple proper.

In this way we start from the existing remains of Herod’s enterprise, for all are agreed that the Haram area (see above § 2) and its retaining walls are in the main the work of Herod, who doubled the area of Zerubbabel’s courts by means of enormous substructure (Jos. BJ I. xxi. 1). There are good grounds, however, for believing that, as left by Herod, the platform stopped at a point a little beyond the Golden Gate in the eastern wall, its northern boundary probably running in proximity to the north wall of the present inner platform of the Haram. (The latter has been considerably extended in this direction since Herod’s day, and is indicated by double dotted lines on the accompanying plan.) This gives an area of approximately 26 acres compared with the 35 acres, or thereby, of the present Haram. The measurements were, in round numbers, 390 yards from N. to S. by 330 yards from E. to W. on the north, and 310 yards E. to W. on the south. If the figures just given represent, with approximate accuracy, the extended area enclosed by Herod, the outer court, called in the Mishna ‘the mountain of the house,’ and by later writers, ‘the court of the Gentiles,’ will have appeared to the eye as almost a square, as it is stated to be, although with divergent measurements, by our two chief authorities, the Mishna treatise Middoth ( lit.

‘measurements,’ tr. in Barclay’s Talmud, and in PEFSt, 1886–87), and Josephus (BJ v. v., Ant.

XV. xi. and elsewhere).

The climax of Herod’s architectural triumphs was reached in the magnificent colonnades which surrounded the four sides of this court. The colonnade along the south wall, in particular, known as ‘the Royal Porch’ (or portico, stoa) , was ‘exceeding magnifical’ (1 Ch 22:5). It consisted of four rows of monolithic marble columns of the Corinthian order, forming three aisles; the two side aisles were 30 ft. in breadth and 50 ft. in height, while the central aisle was half as broad again as the other two and twice as high (Jos. Ant. XV. xi. 5, but see ExpT, l.c.). The ceilings of the roofs were adorned with sculptured panels of cedar wood. On the other three sides of the court the colonnades had only two aisles, that along the east wall bearing the name of Solomon’s Porch (Jn 10:23, Ac 3:11, 5:12), probably from a tradition that it occupied the site of one built by that monarch.

The main approaches to the court were naturally on the west and south. The principal entrance from the west was by the gate of Kiponos (Midd. i. 3), the approach to which was by a bridge over the Tyropœon, now represented by Wilson’s arch. On the south were the two gates represented by the present ‘double’ and ‘triple’ gates, and named the Huldah ( or ‘mole’) gates, because the visitor passed into the court by sloping tunnels beneath the royal porch. These ramps opened upon the Court of the Gentiles about 190 ft. from the south wall (see plan and, for details, ExpT, l.c.).

(b)   The inner courts and their gates.—The great court was open to Jew and Gentile alike, and, as we learn from the Gospels, was the centre of a busy life, and of transactions little in accord with its sacred purpose. The sanctuary in the strict sense began when one reached the series of walls, buildings, and courts which rose on successive terraces in the northern half of the great enclosure. Its limits were marked out by a low balustrade, the sōrēg, which ran round the whole, and was provided at intervals with notices warning all Gentiles against entering the sacred enclosure on pain of death (cf. St. Paul’s experience, Ac 21:26ff.). From the sōrēg, flights of steps at different points led up to a narrow terrace, termed the chēl ( XYZ in plan), 10 cubits wide, beyond which rose a lofty retaining wall enclosing the whole sanctuary, to which Jews alone had access.

The great wall by which the sanctuary was converted into a fortress, was pierced by nine gateways—H 1–9 on the plan—over which were built massive two-storeyed gate-houses ‘like towers’ (Jos. BJ V. v. 3), four in the N., four in the S., and one in the E. wall. The most splendid of all the gates was the last mentioned, the eastern gate, which was the principal entrance to the Temple. From the fact that it was composed entirely of Corinthian brass, and had been the gift of a certain Nicanor of Alexandria, it was known as ‘the Corinthian gate’ (Jos.), and the gate of Nicanor’ (Mish.). There is little doubt that it is also ‘the Beautiful Gate of the temple’ (Ac 3:2, 10), as shown by Schürer in his exhaustive study (ZNTW, 1906, 51–58). The other eight gates were ‘covered over with gold and silver, as were the jambs and lintels’ (Jos. BJ V. v. 3), at the expense of Alexander, the Jewish alabarch of Alexandria (c. A.D. 20–40) . All the gates were  20 cubits high by 10 wide, according to the Mishna (Josephus says 30 by 15).

Entering by the ‘Beautiful Gate,’ H 5, one found oneself in the colonnaded court of the women—so called because accessible to women as well as men. This was the regular place of assembly for public worship (cf. Lk 1:10). The women were accommodated in a gallery which ran round the court (Midd. ii. 5), probably above the colonnades as suggested in the plan. Along by the pillars of the colonnades were placed thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes to receive the offerings and dues of the faithful. These boxes are ‘the treasury’ into which the widow’s mites were cast (Mk 12:42).

The west side of this court was bounded by a wall, which divided the sanctuary into two parts, an eastern and a western. As the level of the latter was considerably higher than that of the eastern court, a magnificent semicircular flight of fifteen steps led up from the one to the other. At the top of the steps was an enormous gateway, 50 cubits by 40, allowing the worshippers an uninterrupted view of the altar and the Temple. The leaves of its gate were even more richly plated with silver and gold by Alexander than the others, and hence many have identified this gate with ‘the gate that was called Beautiful’ (but see Schürer, loc. cit. and ExpT, XX. [1908]).

(c)    The court of the priests and the great altar.—There is some uncertainty as to the arrangements of the western court, which we have now reached, owing to the divergent data of our two authorities, Josephus and the Mishna. The simplest solution is perhaps to regard the whole western court as in one sense the court of the priests, ‘the court’ par excellence of the Mishna (Midd. v. 1, etc.). Alexander Jannæus, we learned (§ 9) , railed off the Temple and altar, and restricted the male Israelites to the outer edge of the then inner court. This arrangement was retained when the courts were laid out anew by Herod. In Middoth ii. 6 a narrow strip by the entrance—only 11 cubits in width, but extending the whole breadth of the court from N. to S.— is named the court of Israel. Josephus, however, is probably right in representing the latter as running round three sides of the western court (as on plan BBB) . Its small size was a reminder that the laity—apart from those actually taking part in the sacrifices, who had, of course, to be allowed even within the still more sacred precincts of the priests’ court—were admitted on suffrance to the western court; the eastern court, or court of the women, was, as has been indicated, the proper place of worship for the laity. Along the N. and S. walls of the enclosure were built chambers for various purposes connected with the Temple ritual (Midd. v. 3, 4), chambers and gatehouses being connected by an ornamental colonnade. Those whose location can he determined with some degree of certainty are entered on the plan and named in the key thereto.

The inner court is represented in the Mishna as a rectangle, 187 cubits by 135, the outer or women’s court as an exact square, 135 cubits by 135 (and so on most plans, e.g. DB iv. 713). But the rock levels of the Haram, the oblique line of the E. side of the platform—due probably to the lie of the rock required for the foundation of the massive E. wall—and the repeated appearance of 11 and its multiplies (note that 187 = 11×17) in the details of the totals in Middoth v. 1, all combine to justify a suspicion as to the accuracy of the figures. On the accompanying plan the whole inner court, B and C, is entered as 170 cubits long from E. to W., and 160 broad. The outer court, A, has a free space between the colonnades of 135 by an average of about 110. The total dimensions of the sanctuary, including the surrounding buildings and the terrace (chēl)  are as follows: (1) length from W to E. across the rock, 315 cubits or 462 ft.; (2) width from N. to S. 250 cubits or 367 ft. The data on which these measurements are based will be found in the essays in the Exp. Times, already frequently referred to.

In the latest, and in some respects the best, plan of Herod’s Temple by Waterhouse in Sanday’s Sacred Sites of the Gospels, the data of the Mishna are set aside, and a large ‘court of men of Israel’ is inserted in the western court in addition to those above described. Against this view it may be urged, (1) that it requires its author to remove the eastern court, which was an essential part of the sanctuary, from a place on the present inner platform of the Haram; (2) the consequence of this is to narrow unduly the space between the Beautiful Gate and Solomon’s Porch. If there is one statement of the Mishna that is worthy of credit, it is that ‘the largest free space was on the south, the second largest on the east, the third on the north, and the smallest on the west’ (Midd. ii. 1). But, as the plan referred to shows, this is not the case if the court of the women is removed so far to the east by the insertion of a large ‘court of Israel.’ The plan is also open to criticism on other grounds (cf. G. A. Smith, op. cit. ii. 508 ff.).

The altar of burnt-offering, D, was, like that restored by Judas the Maccabee, of unhewn stone, and measured at the base 32 cubits by 32 (47 feet square, thus covering almost the whole of the sacred rock, see § 6 (b)), decreasing by three stages till the altar-hearth was only 24 cubits square. The priests went up by an inclined approach on the south side in accordance with Ex 20:25 . To the north of the altar was the place where the sacrificial victims were slaughtered and prepared for the altar. It was provided with rings, pillars, hooks, and tables. A laver, O, for the priests’ ablutions stood to the west of the approach to the altar.

12. The Temple building.—A few yards beyond the great altar rose the Temple itself, a glittering mass of white marble and gold. Twelve steps, corresponding to the height (12 halfcubits) of the massive and probably gold-covered stereobate on which the building stood, led up to the porch.

The porch was probably 96 cubits in height and of the same breadth at the base. The Mishna gives its height, including the 6 cubits of the podium or stereobate, as 100 cubits. The real depth was doubtless, as in Solomon’s Temple (§ 3), 10 cubits in the centre, but now increased to 20 cubits at the wings (so Josephus). As the plan shows, the porch outflanked the main body of the Temple, which was 60—the Mishna has 70—cubits in breadth, by 18 cubits at either wing. These dimensions show that Herod’s porch resembled the pylons of an Egyptian temple. It probably tapered towards the top, and was surmounted by an Egyptian cornice with the familiar cavetto moulding (cf. sketch below). The entrance to the porch measured 40 cubits by 20 (Middoth, iii. 7), corresponding to the dimensions of ‘the holy place., There was no door.

KEY TO PLAN OF HEROD’S TEMPLE AND COURTS.

a b c d, the surrounding balustrade (sōrēg). X Y Z, the terrace (chēl).

A, Court of the Women. B B B, Court of Israel. C C C, Court of the Priests.

D, altar of burnt-offering. E F G, porch, holy place, and holy of holies. O, the laver.

H, 1–9, Gates of the Sanctuary (Middoth, i. 4, 5), viz.: 1, gate of the House Moked; 2, Corban gate; 3, gate Nitsus; 5, the gate of Nicanor, or the Beautiful Gate; 7, the water gate; 8, gate of the firstborn; 9, the fuel gate; 10, the ‘upper gate,’ wrongly called the gate of Nicanor.

K, the guardhouse Moked (= hearth). L, the ‘northern edifice that was between the two gates’ (see BJ VI. ii 7 [Niese, § 150]). Here, it is suggested, the sacrificial victims were examined by the priests, having been brought in either by the underground passage shown on the plan, or by the ramp also shown. The upper storey may have contained the important ‘chamber of the councillors’ (parhedrin) (Yōmā, i. 1).

M, the chamber Gazith, in which the priests on duty assembled for prayer (Tamīd, iv. end). There are not sufficient data for fixing the location of the other chambers mentioned in the Mishna. Their distribution on the plan is purely conjectural.

The ‘great door of the house’ (20 cubits by 10) was ‘all over covered with gold,’ in front of which hung a richly embroidered Babylonian veil, while above the lintel was figured a huge golden vine (Jos. Ant. XV. xi. 3, BJ V. v. 4). The interior area of Herod’s Temple was, for obvious reasons, the same as that of its predecessors. A hall, 61 cubits long by 20 wide, was divided between the holy place (40 by 20, but with the height increased to 40 cubits [Middoth, iv. 6]) and the most holy place (20  by 20 by 20 high). The extra cubit was occupied by a double curtain embroidered in colours, which screened off ‘the holy of holies’ (cf. Midd. iv. 7 with Yōmā, v. 2). This is the veil of the Temple referred to in Mt 27:51 and || (cf. He 6:19 etc.).

DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION OF TEMPLE AND PORCH.

As in Solomon’s Temple, three storeys of side-chambers, prob. 30 cubits in height, ran round three sides of the main building. But by the provision of a passage-way giving access to the different storeys, and making a third outside wall necessary, the surface covered by the whole was now 96 cubits in length by 60 in breadth, not reckoning the two wings of the porch. Over the whole length of the two holy places a second storey was raised, entirely, as it seems, for architectural effect.

The total height of the naos is uncertain. The entries by which the Mishna makes up a total of 100 cubits are not such as inspire confidence; the laws of architectural proportion suggest that the 100, although also given by Josephus, should be reduced to 60 cubits or 88 feet, equal to the breadth of the naos and lateral chambers. On the plan the lowest side chambers are intended to be 5 cubits wide and their wall 3 (both as in § 3), the passage-way 3, and the outside wall 3, giving a total width of 14 + 6 + 20 + 6 +14 = 60 cubits (Jos. V. v. 4; cf. DB iv. 715 for the corresponding figures of Midd. iv. 7). The result of taking the principles of proportion between the various parts as the decisive factor when Josephus and the Mishna are at variance, is exhibited in the above diagram, which combines sections through the porch and holy place.

The furniture of ‘the holy place’ remained as in former days. Before the veil stood the altar of incense; against the south wall the seven-branched golden lampstand, and opposite to it the table of shewbread (Jos. BJ V. v. 5). A special interest attaches to the two latter from the fact, known to every one, that they were among the Temple spoils carried to Rome by Titus to adorn his triumph, and are still to be seen among the sculptures of the Arch of Titus.

‘The most holy place’ was empty as before (Jos. ib.) , save for a stone on which the high priest, who alone had access to this innermost shrine, deposited the censer of incense on the Day of Atonement (Yōmā, v. 2).

All in all, Herod’s Temple was well worthy of a place among the architectural wonders of the world. One has but to think of the extraordinary height and strength of the outer retaining walls, parts of which still claim our admiration, and of the wealth of art and ornament lavished upon the porticoes and buildings. The artistic effect was further heightened by the succession of marblepaved terraces and courts, rising each above and within the other, from the outer court to the Temple floor. For once we may entirely credit the Jewish historian when he tells us that from a distance the whole resembled a snow-covered mountain, and that the light reflected from the gilded porch dazzled the spectator like ‘the sun’s own rays’ (Jos. BJ V. v. 6).

13. The daily Temple service in NT times.—This article may fitly close with a brief account of the principal act of Jewish worship in the days of our Lord, which centred round the daily or ‘continual’ (Heb. lamīd. Ex 29:42) burnt-offering, presented every morning and every evening, or rather mid-afternoon, throughout the year, in the name, and on behalf, of the whole community of Israel (see Ex 29:38–42, Nu 28:3–8) . A detailed account of this service, evidently based on reliable tradition, is given in the Mishna treatise Tamīd, of which English translations will be found in Barclay’s Talmud, and in PEFSt 1885 , 119 ff. (cf. also the full exposition given by Schürer, GJV³ ii. 288–299 = ⁴345–357 [HJP II. i. 273–299]).

The detachment of priests on duty in the rotation of their ‘courses’ (Lk 1:8) slept in the ‘house Moked’ (K on plan). About cock-crow the priests who wished to be drawn for the morning service bathed and robed, and thereafter repaired to the chamber Gazith (M) in order to determine by lot those of their number who should ‘officiate.’ By the first lot a priest was selected to remove the ashes from the altar of burnt-offering, and prepare the wood, etc., for the morning sacrifice. This done, ‘the presiding official said to them, Come and draw (to decide) (1) who shall slay, (2) who shall toss (the blood against the altar), (3) who shall remove the ashes from the incense altar, (4) who shall clean the lampstand, (5)–(10)  who shall carry the parts of the victim to the foot of the altar [six parts are specified], (11) who shall prepare the (mealoffering) of fine flour, (12) the baked offering (of the high priest), and (13) the wine of the drinkoffering’ (Mishna, Tamīd, iii. 1).

At the hour of dawn the preparations here set forth were begun, and the Temple gates thrown open. After the victim, a yearling lamb, had been slain, the incense altar prepared and the lamps trimmed, the officiating priests assembled in the chamber Gazith for a short religious service, after which there commenced the solemn acts of worship in which the tamīd culminated—the offering of incense and the burning of the sacrificial victim. The priest, chosen as before by lot (Lk 1:9), entered the Temple with a censer of incense, and, while the smoke was ascending from the altar within the Holy Place, the worshippers without prostrated themselves in adoration and silent prayer. After the priestly benediction had been pronounced from the steps of the porch (Tamīd, vii. 2), the several parts of the sacrifice were thrown upon the altar and consumed. The pouring of the drink-offering was now the signal for the choir of Levites to begin the chanting of the Psalm for the day. At intervals two priests blew on silver trumpets, at whose sound the people again prostrated themselves. With the close of the Psalm the public service was at an end, and the private sacrifices were then offered.

The order of the mid-afternoon service differed from the above only in that the incense was offered after the burning of the victim instead of before. The lamps, also, on the ‘golden candlestick,’ were lighted at the ‘evening’ service.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

TEMPTATION.—The English words ‘tempt’ and ‘temptation’ are in the OT—with the exception of Mal 3:15, where a synonym bāchan is used,—the tr. of various forms of the root nissāh, which is most frequently rendered ‘prove.’ In Gn 22:1 RV tr. ‘God did prove Abraham.’ But RV retains ‘temptation’ for (a) God’s testing of Pharaoh’s character and disposition (Dt 4:34, RVm ‘trials’ or ‘evidences’; cf. 7:19, 29:3); (b)  Israel’s distrustful putting of God Himself to the proof (Dt 6:16; cf. Ex 17:2, 7, Nu 14:22, Ps 78:18, 41, 56). In Ps 95:8 RV rightly keeps ‘Massah’ as a proper name, the reference being to the historic murmuring at Rephidim (Ex 17:1 ff.; cf. Dt 33:8, Ps  81:7).

Driver (ICC, on Dt 6:15) points out, in a valuable note, that ‘nissāh is a neutral word, and means to test or prove a person, to see whether he will act in a particular way (Ex 16:4, Jg 2:22, 3:4), or whether the character he bears is well established (1 K 10:1). God thus proves a person, or puts him to the test, to see if his fidelity of affection is sincere (Gn 22:1, Ex 20:20, Dt 8:2, 13:3; cf. Ps 26:2); and men test, or prove Jehovah when they act as if doubting whether His promise be true, or whether He is faithful to His revealed character (Ex 17:2, 7, Nu 14:22, Ps 106:14; cf. Is 7:12).’

2.      The Gr. word peirasmos is the usual LXX rendering of massāh. It is also ‘a neutral word,’ though in the NT it sometimes means enticement to sin (Mt 4:1, 1 Co 7:5, Rev 2:10 etc.; cf. ‘the tempter,’ Mt 4:3, 1 Th 3:5). In the RV it is almost always tr. ‘temptation,’ with the occasional marginal alternative ‘trial’ (Ja 1:2), 1 P 1:6) ; the exceptions are Ac 20:19, Rev 3:10, where ‘trial’ is found in the text. The Amer. RV substitutes ‘try’ or ‘make trial of’ (‘trial’) for ‘tempt’ ( ‘temptation’) ‘wherever enticement to what is wrong is not evidently spoken of’ (see Appendix to RV, note vi.); but ‘temptation’ is retained in Mt 6:13 = Lk 11:4, where the range of the petition cannot be thus limited; cf. Ja 1:2.

3.      In expounding the prayer ‘Bring us not into temptation,’ and other passages in which the word has a wider meaning than enticement to sin, the difficulty is partially, but only partially, to be ascribed to the narrowing of the significance of the English word since 1611. If, as Driver thinks, ‘to tempt has, in modern English, acquired the sense of provoking or enticing a person in order that he may act in a particular way (= Heb. hissīth) ,’ there is no doubt that ‘tempt’ is often ‘a misleading rendering.’ Into such temptation the heavenly Father cannot bring His children; our knowledge of His character prevents us from tracing to Him any allurement to evil. The profound argument of St. James (1:13) is that God is ‘Himself absolutely unsusceptible to evil,’ and therefore He is ‘incapable of tempting others to evil’ (Mayor, Com., in loc.) . But the difficulty is not removed when the petition is regarded as meaning ‘bring us not into trial.’ Can a Christian pray to he exempted from the testing without which sheltered innocence cannot become approved virtue? Can he ask that he may never be exposed to those trials upon the endurance of which his blessedness depends (Ja 1:12)? The sufficient answer is that He who was ‘in all points tempted like as we are’ (He 4:15) has taught us to pray ‘after this manner.’ His own prayer in Gethsemane (Mt 26:42), and His exhortation to His disciples (v. 41) , prove, by example and by precept, that when offered in subjection to the central, all-dominating desire ‘Thy will be done,’ the petition ‘Bring us not into temptation’ is always fitting on the lips of those who know that ‘the flesh is weak.’ Having thus prayed, those who find themselves ringed round (Ja 1:2, peri)  by temptations will be strengthened to endure joyfully. Their experience is not joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, Divine wisdom enables them to ‘count it all joy’ as being a part of the discipline which is designed to make them ‘perfect and entire, lacking in nothing.’ On the Temptation of our Lord see JESUS CHRIST, P. 447^a.

J. G. TASKER.

TEN.—See NUMBER, § 7.

TEN COMMANDMENTS

1.      The traditional history of the Decalogue.—The ‘ten words’ were, according to Ex 20, proclaimed vocally by God on Mt. Sinai, and written by Him on two stones, and given to Moses (24:12, 31:13 , 32:15, 16; cf. Dt 5:22, 9:10, 11). When these were broken by Moses on his descent from the mount (Ex 32:19, Dt 9:17), he was commanded to prepare two fresh stones like the first, on which God re-wrote the ‘ten words’ (Ex 34:4, 28, Dt 10:2, 4). This is clearly the meaning of Ex. as the text now stands. But many critics think that v. 28b originally referred not to the ‘ten words’ of Ex 20, but to the laws of 34:11–26 , and that these laws were J’s version of the Decalogue. It must suffice to say here that if, as on the whole seems likely, v. 28b refers to our Decalogue, we must distinguish the command to write the covenant laws in v. 27, and the words ‘he wrote’ in v. 28b, in which case the subject of the latter will be God, as required by 34:1 . The two stones were immediately placed in the ark, which had been prepared by Moses specially for that purpose (Dt 10:1–5 [probably based on JE]). There they were believed to have permanently remained (1 K 8:9, Dt 10:5) until the ark was, according to Rabbinical tradition, hidden by Jeremiah, when Jerusalem was finally taken by Nehuchadrezzar.

2.      The documentary history of the Decalogue.—A comparison of the Decalogue in Ex 20 with that of Dt 5 renders it probable that both are later recensions of a much shorter original. The phrases peculiar to Dt 5 are in most cases obviously characteristic of D, and must be regarded as later expansions. Such are ‘as the Lord thy God commanded thee’ in the 4th and 5th ‘word,’ and ‘that it may go well with thee’ in the 5th. In the last commandment the first two clauses are transposed, and a more appropriate word (‘desire’) is used for coveting a neighbour’s wife. Here evidently we have also a later correction. Curiously enough Ex 20, while thus generally more primitive than Deut., shows signs of an even later recension. The reason for keeping the Sabbath, God’s rest after creation, is clearly based on Gn 2:1–3, which belongs to the post-exilic Priestly Code (P). The question is further complicated by the fact that several phrases in what is common to Ex 20 and Deut. are of a distinctly Deuteronomic character, as ‘that is within thy gates’ in the 4th commandment, ‘that thy days may be long’ ‘upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee’ in the 5th. We see, then, that the Decalogue of Ex. is in all probability the result of a double revision (a Deuteronomic and a Priestly) of a much more simple original. It has been suggested that originally all the commandments consisted of a single clause, and that the name ‘word’ could be more naturally applied to such. In favour of this view, beyond what has been already said, it is argued that this short form would he more suitable for inscription on stone.

3.      How were the ‘ten words’ divided?—The question turns on the beginning and the end of the Decalogue. Are what we know as the First and Second, and again what we know as the Tenth, one or two commandments? The arrangement which treats the First and Second as one, and the Tenth as two, is that of the Massoretic Hebrew text both in Ex. and Dt., and was that of the whole Western Church from the time of St. Augustine to the Reformation, and is still that of the Roman and Lutheran Churches. Moreover, it may seem to have some support from the Deuteronomic version of the Tenth Commandment. Our present arrangement, however, is that of the early Jewish and early Christian Churches, and seems on the whole more probable in itself. A wife, being regarded as a chattel, would naturally come under the general prohibition against coveting a neighbour’s goods. If, as already suggested, the original form of the commandment was a single clause, it would have run, ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house’ (see 8 (x.)).

4.      The contents of each table.—If, as suggested, the original commandments were single clauses, it is most natural to suppose that they were evenly divided between the two tables—five in each. This view is adopted without hesitation by Philo, and it is not contradicted by our Lord’s division of the Law into the love of God and the love of one’s neighbour. It would be difficult to class parents in the category of neighbour, whereas the reverence due to them was by the ancients regarded as a specially sacred obligation, and was included, by both Greeks and Romans at any rate, under the notion of piety.

5.      Order of the Decalogue.—The Hebrew texts of Ex 20 and Dt 5 agree in the order— murder, adultery, theft—as the subjects of the 6 th, 7th, and 8th Commandments. The LXX (best MSS) in Ex. have the order—adultery, theft, murder; in Dt.—adultery, murder, theft. This last is borne out by Ro 13:9 and by Philo, and may possibly have been original.

6.      Mosaic origin of the Decalogue.—The chief difficulty arises out of the Second Commandment. There can be little doubt that from primitive times the Israelites were monolatrous, worshipping J″ as their national God. But it is argued that this does not appear to have prevented them from recognizing to some extent inferior divine beings, such as those represented by teraphim, or even from representing their God under visible symbols. Thus in Jg 17:3  we find Micah making an image of Jahweh, without any disapproval by the writer. David himself had teraphim in his house (1 S 19:13–16) ; Isaiah speaks of a pillar as a natural and suitable symbol of worship (Is 19:19); Hosea classes pillar, ephod, and teraphim with sacrifices as means of worship, of which Israel would be deprived for a while as a punishment (Hos 3:4). The frequent condemnation of ashēroth (sacred tree-images, AV ‘groves’) suggests that they too were common features of Semitic worship, and not confined to the worship of heathen gods. But it may reasonably be doubted whether these religious symbols were always regarded as themselves objects of worship, though tending to become so. Again, it may well have been the case that under the deteriorating Influences of surrounding Semitic worship, the people, without generally worshipping heathen gods, failed to reach the high ideal of their traditional religion and worship. We may fairly say, then, that the Decalogue in its earliest form, if not actually Mosaic, represents in all probability the earliest religious tradition of Israel.

7.      Object of the Decalogue.—Looking from a Christian point of view, we are apt to regard the Decalogue as at any rate an incomplete code of religion and morality. More probably the ‘ten words’ should be regarded as a few easily remembered rules necessary for a half-civilized agricultural people, who owed allegiance to a national God, and were required to live at peace with each other. They stand evidently in close relation to the Book of the Covenant (Ex 21–23) , of which they may be regarded as either a summary or the kernel. With one exception (the Fifth, see below, 8 (v.)) they are, like most rules given to children, of a negative character—‘thou shalt not,’ etc.

8.      Interpretation of the Decalogue.—There are a few obscure phrases, or other matters which call for comment.

( i.) ‘before me’ may mean either ‘in my presence,’ condemning the eclectic worship of many gods, or ‘in preference to me.’ Neither interpretation would necessarily exclude the belief that other gods were suitable objects of worship for other peoples (cf. Jg 11:24).

( ii.) ‘the water under the earth.’ The Israelites conceived of the sea as extending under the whole land ( hence the springs). This, being in their view the larger part, might be used to express the whole. Fish and other marine animals are, of course, intended.

‘unto thousands,’ better ‘a thousand generations,’ as in RVm. The punishment by God of children for the faults of parents was felt to be a moral difficulty, and was denied by Ezekiel (ch. 18). Similar action by judicial authorities was forbidden by Deut. (24:16; cf. 2 K 14:6). But the words show that if evil actions influence for evil the descendants of the evil-doer either by heredity or by imitation, the influence of good actions for good is far more potent.

(iii.) ‘Thou … in vain,’ i.e. ‘for falsehood.’ This may mean ‘Thou shalt not perjure thyself’ or ‘Thou shalt not swear and then not keep thy oath.’ The latter seems to be the current Jewish interpretation (see Mt 5:33). Philo takes it in both senses.

(iv.) ‘within thy gates,’ i.e. ‘thy cities’ (see 2).

‘for in six days,’ etc. We find in OT three distinct reasons for the observance of the Sabbath. (1) The oldest is that of the Book of the Covenant in Ex 23:12, ‘that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thine handmaid and the stranger may be refreshed.’ In Ex 20 and Dt 5 the rest of the domestic animals and servants appears as part of the injunction itself. (2) In Dt 5 there is added as a secondary purpose, ‘that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou’; whereas the chief purpose of the observaoce is as a commemoration of the Exodus. (3) Ex 20, revised after the Exile at or after the time

that the Priestly Code was published, bases the observance on the Sabbatical rest of God after the Creation (Gn 2:1–3 P).

( v.) ‘Honour thy Father,’ etc. It is not improbable that this commandment has been modified in form, and was originally negative like all the rest, and referred like them to a prohibited action rather than to a correct feeling, as, very possibly,’ Thou shalt not smite,’ etc. (cf. Ex 21:15, 17). At a later time such an outrage would have been hardly contemplated, and would naturally have given way to the present commandment. The word ‘honour’ seems, according to current Jewish teaching (see Lightfoot on Mt 15:5) , to have specially included feeding and clothing, and Christ assumes rather than inculcates as new this application of the commandment. The Rabbinical teachers had encouraged men in evading a recognized law by their quibbles.

(x.) ‘Thou shalt not … house.’ Deut. transposes the first two clauses, and reads ‘desire’ with wife. The teaching of Ex 20 is, beyond question, relatively the earliest. The wife was originally regarded as one of the chattels, though undoubtedly the most important chattel, of the house, or general establishment.

On the Decalogue in the NT see art. LAW (IN NT).

F. H. WOODS.

TENT.—Apart from the traditions of the patriarchs as ‘quiet’ men, ‘dwelling in tents’ (Gn 25:27 RVm), the settled Hebrews preserved a reminder of their nomad ancestry in such phrases as ‘going to one’s tent’ for to ‘go home’ (Jg 19:9), and in the recurring call, ‘to thy tents (i.e. to your homes), O Israel’ (1 K 12:16 etc.). For an interesting case of adherence to the ‘nomadic

Ideal’ on religious grounds, see RECHABITES.

The Hebrew tent, even in later days, cannot have differed much from the simple Bedouin tent of to-day, made by sewing together strips of the native goats’ hair cloth (cf.Ca 1:5 ‘I am black as the tents of Kedar’). These ‘curtains’ (Jer 4:20, Ex 26:2 and oft.) are held up by poles, generally 9 in number, arranged in three rows of three, and 6–7  ft. high, which are kept in position by ropes—the ‘cords’ of EV, and the ‘tent-cord’ of Job 4:21 RV—attached to ‘stakes’ or ‘tentpins’ driven into the ground by a mallet (Jg 4:21). The larger the tent, the longer the cords and the stronger the stakes, according to the figure. Is 54:2. The tent, then as now, was probably divided into two parts by hanging a curtain from the three middle poles along the length of the tent—the front division open and free to all, the back closed and reserved for the women and the privacy of domestic life (Jg 15:1, Ca 3:4; cf. Gn 18:9f.).

In time of war we read both of booths (2 S 11:11, so RV rightly for AV ‘tents’) and of tents (2  K 7:7, Jer 37:10). The Assyrian sculptures represent the soldiers’ tents as conical in shape, supported by a central pole with two arms. On the famous bronze Sheathing of the palace gates at Balawat, representing every detail of the conduct of war, the royal pavilion (1  K 20:12, 16) is frequently represented. It was rectangular in shape, with ornamental wooden pillars with floral capitals at the four corners. The walls were probably of linen, and the roof evidently of tapestry

or other rich material edged with tassels (see the plates in Billerbeck’s Die Palasttore Satmanassars II., 1908).

In early times a special tent was pitched for a newly wedded pair (Ps 19:6, Jl 2:15; cf. 2 S 16:22), as is still the custom among the Arahs. The canopy under which Jewish couples are married at the present day still retains the name, as it is a survival of the ancient chuppah or bridal tent.

Priscilla and Aquila, as well as the Apostle Paul, were tentmakers (Ac 18:2f.). See SPINNING AND, WEAVING, §§1, 4 (c). For the tent of meeting (RV) see TABERNACLE.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

TEPHON.—One of the towns in Judæa fortified by Bacchides (1 Mac 9:50). Tephon was probably an old Tappuah; but whether it was Tappuah 1 or 2, or Bethtappuah, is uncertain.

TERAH.—The father of Abraham, Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11:24–32 , 1 Ch 1:25, Lk  3:34). Along with his three sons he is said to have migrated from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran, where he died. In Jos 24:2 it is said that he ‘served other gods’—a statement which gave rise to some fanciful Jewish haggādōth about Terah as a maker of idols. 2. A station of the Israelites (Nu 33:27 ,  28).

TERAPHIM.—See IMAGES; ISRAEL., p. 412^b; also p. 569^a.

TEREBINTH does not occur at all in AV, and only thrice in RV, being substituted in Is 6:13 for ‘tail tree,’ in Hos 4:13 for ‘elm,’ and in Sir 24:16 for ‘turpentine tree.’ Strong reasons, however, can be urged for rendering by ‘terebinth’ in a great many instances where EV has ‘oak’

(see OAK). The terebinth or turpentine tree (Sir 24:16)—Pistacia terebinthus, the butm of the Arabs—is one of the most imposing trees in Palestine. In almost every locality where it is allowed to attain its full growth—30 to 40 feet high—it is associated with a sacred tomb or grove: many such groves are still deeply venerated in Galilee. Dwarfed trees occur everywhere among the oak brushwood. The tree has pinnate, lancet-shaped leaves and small reddish clusters like immature grape clusters; it is also often covered with curious red galls—like pieces of coral. The dark overhanging foliage affords a grateful shade in summer, but in autumn the leaves change colour and fall off. Cf. MAMRE.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

TERESH.—A chamberlain of Ahasuerus (Est 2:21); called in Ad. Est. 12:1 Tharra.

TERTIUS.—St. Paul’s amanuensis who wrote Romans and added a personal salutation (16:22) . It was the Apostle’s custom to employ a scribe (no doubt dictating shorthand notes, a common practice), but to add a short autograph himself. The autographs probably are: Ro 16:25– 27, 1 Co 16:21–24 (expressly), 2 Co 13:13f., Gal 6:11–18 (expressly), Eph 6:23f., Ph 4:21–23 , Col 4:18 (expressly), 1 Th 5:25–28 , 2 Th 3:17f., (expressly). In the Pastoral Epistles and

Philemon, which are personal letters, the presence of autograph passages is more uncertain.

A. J. MACLEAN.

TERTULLUS.—This name (a diminutive of Tertius)  is that of the advocate hired by the Jews to speak for them against St. Paul before Felix (Ac 24:1). From his name we should judge him to be a Roman; probably he was not a Jew. It has been conjectured (Dean Milman) that his speech is a translation from the Latin, though Greek was allowed in the law courts. It is a gross piece of flattery, for the Jews were in constant opposition to Felix. It accuses St. Paul of stirring up disturbances, of being the ringleader of an unlawful sect, and of profaning the Temple (cf. the reply in 25:8).

A. J. MACLEAN.

TESTAMENT.—The word is not found in the OT. In the text of the RV of the NT it occurs only twice (He 9:16f.) and is used to translate the Gr. word diathēkē, elsewhere rendered ‘covenant’ (with ‘testament’ in the margin). In He 9:15–20 diathēkē is three times translated ‘covenant,’ and twice ‘testament.’ An indication of the difficulty involved in its interpretation is given in the marginal note: ‘The Greek word here used signifies both covenant and testament.’ In classical Greek diathēkē means ‘a testamentary disposition,’ and synthēkē ‘a covenant.’ The latter word connotes an agreement between two persons regarded as being on an equal footing (syn-) ; hence it is unsuitable as a designation of God’s gracious covenants with men. The LXX therefore use diathēkē as the equivalent of the Heb. word for ‘covenant’ (bĕrīth) , its most frequent application being to the Divine covenants, which are not matters of mutual arrangement between God and His people, but are rather ‘analogous to the disposition of property by testament.’ In the LXX diathēkē was extended to covenants between man and man, but Westcott says: ‘There is not the least trace of the meaning “testament” in the Greek Old Test. Scriptures, and the idea of a “testament” was indeed foreign to the Jews till the time of the Herods’ (Com. on Hebrews, Additional Note on 9:15).

In the NT ‘covenant’ is unquestionably the correct translation of diathēkē when it occurs ‘in strictly Biblical and Hebraic surroundings’ [see COVENANT] . But, as Ramsay has pointed out, there was a development in the meaning of the word after the publication of the LXX. This development was ‘partly in the line of natural growth in Greek will-making, … partly in the way of assimilation of Roman ideas on wills’ (Hist. Com. on Galatians, p. 360). Therefore the question which the interpreter must ask is, ‘What ideas did the word convey to the first readers of the NT writings?’

The Revisers’ preference for ‘testament’ in He 9:16f. is strongly confirmed by the fact that ‘the Roman will … appeared in the East as a document which had no standing and no meaning until after the testator’s death, and was revocable by him at pleasure.’ But whilst the Epistle to the Hebrews was written to those who knew only the Roman will, the Epistle to the Galatians was written at a time when in Hellenized Asia Minor ‘irrevocability was a characteristic feature’ of Greek will-making. The Galatian will had to do primarily with the appointment of an heir; no second will could invalidate it or ‘add essentially novel conditions.’ Such a will furnished St. Paul (3:15) with an analogy; like God’s word, it was ‘irrevocable.’ It might be supplemented in details, but ‘in essence the second will must confirm the original will’ (Ramsay, op. cit. p. 349 ff.).

In the NT, testamentum is the uniform Lat. tr. of diathēkē. Frequently, therefore, it means ‘covenant’ (Lk 1:72, Ac 7:3, Ro 11:27 etc.). This use of the Latin word is the explanation of the fact that, as early as the second cent of our era, the books of the Old and New Covenants were spoken of as the Old and New Testaments.

J. G. TASKER.

TESTAMENTS OF TWELVE PATRIARCHS.—See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, 5.

TESTIMONY.—See ARK, 1; TABERNACLE, 7 (a); WITNESS; and, for 2 K 11:12, ORNAMENTS, 4.

TETH.—The ninth letter of the Heb. alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 9th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.

TETRARCH.—The transliteration of a Gr. word (tetrarchēs)  whose literal meaning is ‘the ruler of a fourth part.’ As a title it lost its strict etymological force, and was used of ‘a petty prince,’ or ‘the ruler of a district.’ In the NT ‘Herod the tetrarch’ is Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great; he ruled over Galilee and Peræa (Mt 14:1, Lk 3:1, 19, 9:7, Ac 13:1), and is popularly styled ‘king’ (Mk 6:14ff., Mt 14:9). Two other tetrarchs are mentioned in Lk 3:1; viz., Herod Philip, the brother of Antipas, who ruled over the Ituræan and Trachonitic territory; and

Lysanias, who was Tetrarch of Abilene ‘in the fifteenth year of Tiberius’ (see Schürer, HJP I. ii., App. 1).

J. G. TASKER.

TETTER.—See MEDICINE, p. 600^a.

TEXT, VERSIONS, AND LANGUAGES OF OT

1.      LANGUAGES OF THE OT.—The OT, except certain small sections, was written in Hebrew, and it has been preserved in its original language. But Jer 10:11, Dn 2:4–7:28, Ezr 4:8–6:18 , 7:12–26 are in Aramaic, though it is disputed in the case of Dn 2:4–7:28  whether this was the original language, or that of an Aramaic version which has replaced a Hebrew original. Hebrew and Aramaic alike belong to the group of languages known as Semitic, of which Assyrian (or the language of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians) and Arabic are also important members.

2.      The Hebrew language: Character and History.—Hebrew is closely allied to Phœnician, to the language of the Moabites represented by Mesha’s inscription (c. B.C. 800) , and to the language spoken in Canaan before (as well as after) the Hebrew invasion, known in part from the Canaanite glosses in the Tell el-Amarna tablets (c. B.C. 1400) , in part from Canaanitish names contained in ancient monuments, as, for example, the list of places in Canaan recorded as among his conquests by Thothmes III. (c. B.C. 1600) . It is held by some scholars that the conquering Israelites adopted the language of Canaan, having previously spoken a language more nearly akin to Arabic (so, e.g., Hommel, AHT 120 , 218). From the time at least when they were once well settled in the country, Hebrew was alike the colloquial and the literary language, of the Israelites. Some difference, such as is usual, no doubt always existed between the colloquial and the literary language though our knowledge of the colloquial is only such as we can draw by inference from the literature. But there came a time when Hebrew ceased to be the colloquial language, being replaced by Aramaic, and survived only as a literary language. The disuse of Hebrew in favour of Aramaic cannot be precisely dated, and was probably enough gradual; according to 2 K 18:26, in the time of Isaiah (8th cent. B.C.) , Aramaic was unintelligible to the Jewish populace, but as a language of diplomacy was spoken by Assyrian and Jewish officials alike. Apparently as late as Nehemiah (5th cent. B.C.)  the colloquial language of the Jews in Palestine was still Hebrew, called ‘Jewish’ (Neh 13:24 as in 2 K 18:26). In the first century A.D., as the few sayings of the popular language preserved in the NT (such as Talitha cumi)  prove, it was Aramaic. Between these two dates, and, as we may infer from the increasing influence of Aramaic on the later books of the OT, considerably nearer the earlier than the later date, the change was made. Long before Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the spoken language, it exercised an influence through the spoken on the written language such as is commonly exercised by the language of one neighbouring people on another,—that is to say, Hebrew borrowed words from Aramaic, as English borrows words from French and French from English. The Northern

Kingdom was first brought into closer proximity with Aramaic-speaking peoples, and later the Southern Kingdom; and Aramaisms have consequently been regarded as pointing to a northern, or to a relatively late, origin of the writings in which they occur. Certainly any large presence of Aramaisms, and in particular any conspicuous Aramaizing of the syntax, due to the influence on their writings of the language which the later writers commonly spoke, such as we find, for example, in Daniel and Ecclesiastes, points to a late date.

Other languages besides Aramaic contributed to the vocabulary of Hebrew: Assyrian, indirectly through the Canaanites from the earliest times to an extent not easily to be defined, and later directly; Persian, after the Persian conquest of Babylon in 538; Greek, after the time of Alexander (332 B.C.); and Latin, after the establishment of Roman suzerainty over Judæa in the first century B.C. Latin words are found in the Hebrew of the Mishna, but not in the OT; a few Greek words in the latest writings of the OT (particularly Daniel, about B.C. 167)  and very many in the Mishna; Persian words in some of the post-exilic literature (Esther, Canticles, Tobit).

3.      The Hebrew alphabet vowelless.—The Hebrew alphabet used by the OT writers consisted of twenty-two consonants: it contained no vowels, in this resembling Phœnician, Moabitic, and the ancient Arabic and Syriac alphabets. Our knowledge of the pronunciation of Hebrew words, as far as the vowels are concerned, depends on three main sources: (1) Jewish tradition, which is embodied in vowel signs invented between the 4th and 9th centuries A.D., and written under, over, or in the consonants of the ancient text; (2) the Greek versions, which transliterate a large number of Hebrew words, especially, but by no means only, the proper names; (3) the Assyrian texts: these, being written in a language which expressed in writing vowel sounds as well as consonantal, give us the vowels of such Hebrew names as they cite.

Though in the oldest Hebrew MSS of the Bible the consonants of the original text are accompanied by the vowels which express at once the traditional pronunciation and the traditional interpretation of the text, it is now as generally accepted that the vowels formed no part of the original text as that the earth revolves round the sun. Down to the 17th century it was otherwise; and that century was marked by a final and keen discussion of this point.

4.      Transliteration of Hebrew adopted in this article.—Since considerable importance attaches to this Jewish tradition as to the pronunciation, it will be necessary to represent the vowels in our discussion of the text, but it is important also to indicate their secondary origin and subordinate position. Throughout this article, then, the Hebrew consonants will be represented by equivalent or approximately equivalent English capitals, except the 1st and 16th letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which, being gutturals with no approximate equivalent in English, will be retained in their Hebrew form (א ,ע) , and may be passed over unpronounced by the English reader. The vowels will be represented by English small letters printed under the consonant after which they are to be pronounced; thus D_aB_aR, pronounced dabar. The Jewish scholars distinguished by different signs between long and short vowels; no attempt will be made here to mark these distinctions, and the peculiar half-vowels, the shĕva’s, as they are termed, will be left unrepresented. Letters doubled in pronunciation, but without a vowel between them, were represented by the letter written once, not twice. The Hebrew vocalists distinguished these doubled letters by inserting a dot in the middle of them. This dot or daghesh will be represented here by the sign | above the letter: thus D_iB_eR, pronounced dibber.

5.      Date of the addition of vowels to the OT text.—The date at which the vowels were attached to the consonants of the Hebrew text can be determined only within broad limits. It was after the beginning of the 5th cent. A.D., for the way in which Jerome speaks leaves no room for doubt that the Hebrew Scriptures in his day were un-vocalized; it must have been before the 10th cent., for the fully developed system is employed in the earliest Hebrew Biblical MSS, which date from the beginning of the 10th cent. (or, according to some, from the 9th cent.).

6.      Earlier attempts to represent vowel sounds.—Long before the invention of vowel points certain consonants had been used, though neither systematically nor consistently, to indicate the vowel sounds: thus H was used to indicate a, and sometimes e; W to indicate o or u, Y to indicate i. This practice in some measure goes back to the times, and doubtless also to the actual usage, of some of the writers of the OT; but in many cases these consonants used to indicate vowels were added by scribes or editors. This we learn from the fact that passages which happen to occur twice in the OT differ in the extent to which, and the particular instances in which, these letters are employed. Ps 18 occurs not only in the Psalter, but also in 2 S 22; the Psalm expresses these consonants used vocalically 17 times where 2 Sam. does not, e.g. 2 Sam. writes ḲDMNY (v. 6) and HḤŞYM (v. 31), where the Ps. writes ḲDMWNY and HḤWṢYM. In some cases

Rabbinic discussions prove that words now written with these vowel letters were once without them; so, e.g., it appears from a discussion attributed to two Rabbis of the 2nd cent. A.D. that in Is 51:4 the word LאWMY (‘my nation’ RV) was at that time written without the W, thus

LאMY. The importance of this fact for the textual criticism will appear later.

7.      Character of evidence for the text of OT.—The text of the OT has been transmitted to us through circumstances singularly different from those which mark the transmission of the NT text; and the results are a difference in the relative value attaching to different classes of evidence, and a much less close and sure approach to the original text when the best use has been made of the material at our disposal. Quotations play a much less immediate and conspicuous part in the criticism of the OT than in the criticism of the NT; and here we may confine our attention to the nature of the evidence for the text of the OT furnished by (1) Hebrew MSS, (2) ancient Versions.

8.      (1) Hebrew MSS.—One well-established result of the examination of Hebrew MSS is that all existing MSS are derived from a single edition prepared by Jewish scholars in accordance with a textual tradition which goes back substantially to the 2nd cent. A.D., but became increasingly minute. This is proved by the existence in all MSS of the same peculiarities, such as the occurrence at certain places of letters smaller or larger than the normal, of dots over certain letters, or broken or inverted letters. For example, the H in the word BHBRאM (Gn 2:4) is written small in all Hebrew MSS; it was doubtless written originally so by accident or owing to pressure of room; but under the influence of a school of Jewish scholars, of whom R. Aqiba in the 2nd cent. B.C. was a leading spirit, all such minutiae of the Scripture acquired a mystic significance. Thus the word just cited really means ‘when they were created,’ but the small H was taken to mean that the words were to be translated ‘in the letter H he (i.e. God) created them’ (the heavens and the earth), and this in turn led to much curious speculation. As another illustration of this method of Interpretation, which was so important in securing from the 1st or 2nd cent. A.D. onwards a remarkably accurate transmission of the text, the case of the word WYYẒR In Gn 2:7 may be cited. The word means ‘And he formed’; an alternative orthography for the word is WYẒR (with one Y). Why, it was asked, was it here written with two Y’s? Because, it was answered, God created man with two YẒRS (i.e. two natures), the good nature and the bad. In order to secure the perpetuation of the text exactly as it existed, a mass of elaborate rules and calculations was gradually established; for example, the number of occurrences of cases of peculiar orthography, the number of words in the several books, the middle word in each book, and so forth, were calculated and ultimately embodied in notes on the margins of the MSS containing the Scriptures. This textual tradition is known as the Massorah, and those who perpetuated it as Massoretes. The Massorah also Includes a certain number of variant or conjectural readings; In this case the one reading (Kethibh ‘written’) stands in the text, but provided with vowels that do not belong to the consonants in the text, but to the consonants of the alternative reading (Qerē ‘read’) given in the margin. E.g., in Job 9:30 the word BMW, which means ‘with,’ should, if vocalized, have the vowel o over the W; but in the Hebrew text the vowel actually supplied to the word is e under the M, which is the vowel that really belongs to the marginal reading BMY, and this means ‘in the water of.’ These Massoretic variants are for the most part relatively uninteresting. The value of the Massorah in perpetuating a form of the Hebrew text for many centuries has doubtless been great; but it has also long served to obscure the fact that the text which it has perpetuated with such slight variation or mutilation was already removed by many centuries from the original text and had suffered considerably.

In spite of the Massorah, certain minute variations have crept into the Hebrew MSS and even into the consonantal text. The vowels, it must be repeated, are merely an interpretation of the original text of Scripture, and not part of it, and different Hebrew MSS show as a matter of fact two distinct systems of vocalization, with different symbols.

9.      The earliest MSS.—Among the earliest Hebrew Biblical MSS are the Prophetarum posteriorum codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, dated A.D. 916 ; a codex of the Former and Latter Prophets now in the Karaite synagogue at Cairo, and written, if correctly dated, in A.D. 895 ; a codex of the entire Bible, written by Samuel ben Jacob, now at St. Petersburg, and written, if the dating be genuine, in A.D. 1009.

10.  Critical editions of the Massoretic text.—The most accurate reproductions of the

Massoretic text are the edition of the Hebrew Bible by S. Baer and Fr. Delitzsch and that by C.

D. Ginsburg. These are critical editions of the Massoretic text, but make no attempt to be critical editions of the OT text, i.e. they make no use whatever of the Versions or of any other evidence than the Massoretic tradition.

11.  The Samaritan Pentateuch.—Before passing from the evidence of Hebrew MSS we have to note that for the Pentateuch, though unfortunately for the Pentateuch only, we have the invaluable assistance of a Hebrew text representing an entirely different recension. This is the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Samaritan Pentateuch is a form of the Hebrew text which has been perpetuated by the Samaritans. It is written in the Samaritan character, which far more closely resembles the ancient Hebrew characters than the square Hebrew characters in which the Massoretic MSS are written, and is without vowels. The available MSS of the Samaritan Pentateuch are considerably later than the earliest Massoretic MSS; nor is it probable that the copy at Nāblus, though perhaps the earliest Samaritan MS in existence, is earlier than the 12th or 13th cent. A.D. But the value of the recension lies in the fact that it has descended since the 4th cent. B.C. in a different circle, and under different circumstances, from those which have influenced the Massoretic MSS. Though in some respects, as for example through expansion by insertion of matter from parallel passages, the Samaritan is more remote than the Jewish from the original text, it has also preserved better readings, often in agreement with the LXX. An instance is Gn 4:8; here in the ordinary Hebrew MSS some words spoken by Cain have certainly dropped out; the fact is obscured in the RV (text), which mistranslates; the Hebrew text really reads, ‘And Cain said to Abel his brother’; the Samaritan text and the LXX have the additional words, ‘Let us go into the field’; this is probably right (see next clause).

12.  The Samaritan Targum.—No thoroughly critical edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch at present exists. The material for establishing a critical text consists of the several MSS and also of the Samaritan Targum—a translation of the Samaritan recension into an Aramaic dialect. The colloquial language of the Samaritans, like that of the later Jews, was different from that in which the Scripture was written.

13.  Papyrus fragment of OT text.—Thanks to a recent discovery, we have a further witness to a fragment of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. This is the Nash papyrus. The papyrus is apparently not later than the 2nd cent. A.D.; and it contains the Ten Commandments and Dt 6:4f. in Hebrew. The text, which is of course unvocalized, is several times in agreement with the LXX against the Massoretic text. This fragment was edited by Mr. S. A. Cook in PSBA ( Jan.  1903).

14.  (2) Versions: Earliest MSS.—We come now to the second main branch of evidence for the text of the OT. The evidence of Versions is of exceptional importance in the case of the OT. In the first place, the actual MSS of the Versions are much older than the earliest Hebrew MSS; the earliest Hebrew MSS date from the 10th cent. A.D. but there are Greek MSS of the OT of the 4th cent. A.D. and there is a Syriac MS of the greater part of the Pentateuch of the date A.D. 464. But secondly, and of even greater importance, the Versions, and especially the LXX, represent different lines of tradition; in so far as the original text of the LXX itself can be established, it is a witness to the state of the text some two to four centuries before the date at which the stereotyping of the Hebrew text by the Massoretes took place.

The Versions of the OT are either primary, i.e. made direct from the Hebrew text, or secondary, i.e. made from a Version. Secondary Versions are of immediate importance in establishing the true text of the primary version from which they are made; and only indirectly witness to the Hebrew text. Among them the Old Latin Version is of exceptional importance in determining the text of the LXX. On this and other versions of the LXX, see GREEK VERSIONS of OT, § 11.

15.  Brief account of the Primary Versions.—The Primary Versions of the OT, arranged in

(approximately) chronological order, are as follows:—

(1)   The earliest Greek Version, commonly known as the Septuagint. The earliest part of this version, namely, the translation of the Pentateuch, goes back to the 3rd century B.C. The remaining parts of the OT were translated at different later periods; but the version was probably, in the main at least, complete before the end of the 2nd cent. B.C. See GR. VERSIONS OF OT.

(2)   The Targums. These Aramaic versions may be considered next, inasmuch as they rest on a tradition earlier than the date of the versions yet to be mentioned; it is probable, however, that no Targum was actually committed to writing till some centuries later, after the later Greek versions, perhaps, too, after the Syriac Version, had been made.

The quotation from Ps 22:1 in Mt 27:46 || Mk 15:34 is in Aramaic; and Eph 4:8 agrees more closely with the Targum than with the Hebrew text of Ps 68:4. From these facts we may perhaps infer that an Aramaic version bad to some extent become orally fixed by the 1st cent. A.D.

The Targumsarein large part very free, and even diffuse, paraphrases rather than translations of the Hebrew text. They owe their origin to the custom of explaining the Hebrew passages of Scripture read in the synagogues in the language spoken by the people, which was Aramaic. The earliest (as is most generally believed) and least paraphrastic of these versions is the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch; it does not appear to have been committed to writing before the 5th cent. A.D., and is first mentioned by name by Saadiah Gaon in the 9th century. Far more paraphrastic is the Targum of the Pentateuch known as the Targum of Jonathan, or the Jerusalem Targum. Fragments of yet a third Targum of the Pentateuch survive, and are known as the 2nd Jerusalem Targum. Quite distinct from these is the Samaritan Targum, which is a translation of the Samaritan recension of the Hebrew text (see § 11) . The chief Targum of the Prophets is that known as the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel:  it is not much younger than the Targum of Onkelos, and is by some considered to be even earlier. There are also fragments of another Targum of the Prophets. Targums of the Hagiographa (with the exception of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel) exist, and there are two of the Book of Esther. Cf. art. TARGUME.

The text of the Targums will be found in Walton’s (and other) polyglots, with a Latin translation. Onkelos has been separately edited by Berliner (1884), and the Prophets and Hagiographa by Lagarde (1872, 1874). See, further, Hastings’ DB, art. ‘Targum.’ There is an English translation of the Targums of the Pentateuch by Etheridge (2 vols., London, 1862–1865).

(3), (4), and (5) The Greek Versions ( which have survived in fragments only) of Aquila,

Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of the 2nd cent. A.D. See GREEK VERSIONS OF OT, §§ 15–18.

(6)   The Syriac Version, commonly called the Peshitta. The date at which this version was made is unknown. The earliest extant MS of part of this version is, as stated above, of the year 464 A.D.; and the quotations of Aphraates (4th cent. A.D.) from all parts of the OT agree with the Peshitta. The character of the version differs in different books, being literal in the Pentateuch and Job, paraphrastic for example in Chronicles and Ruth. The text in the main agrees closely with the Massoretic Hebrew text, though in parts (e.g. in Genesis, Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, and Psalms) it has been influenced by the LXX.

(7)   The Vulgate.—The Old Latin Version was a translation of the LXX. To Christian scholars acquainted with Hebrew the wide differences between the LXX and versions derived from it and the Hebrew text then current became obvious. As it seemed suitable to Origen to correct the current LXX text so that it should agree more closely with the Hebrew, so at the close of the 4th century Jerome, after first revising the Old Latin, making alterations only when the sense absolutely demanded it, prepared an entirely fresh translation direct from the Hebrew text. The Vulgate is derived from this direct translation of Jerome’s from the Hebrew in the case of all the canonical books of the OT except the Psalms; the Psalms appear commonly in editions of the Vulgate in the form of the so-called Gallican Psalter; this was a second version of the Old Latin, in which, however, after the manner of Origen’s Hexaplaric text, the translation was brought nearer to the current Hebrew text by including matter contained in the later Greek versions but absent from the LXX, and obellzing matter in the LXX which was absent from the later versions. Jerome’s Latin version of the Psalms, made direct from the Hebrew, has been edited by Lagarde (Psalterium juxta Hebrœos Hieronymi, 1874). On the extent to which editions of the Vulgate differ from Jerome’s translation, see VULGATE. In some cases additional matter (e.g. 1  S 14:41, on which passage see § 24) has been incorporated from the Old Latin.

The effect of the substitution of Jerome’s version from the Hebrew text for the Old Latin version of the LXX was to give the Church a Bible which was more elegant and intelligible and in much closer agreement with the Hebrew text current in the 4th cent. A.D., but which at the same time was in many passages more remote from the original text of the OT.

16. Two groups of versions. Pre-eminence of the Septuagint.—Judged from the standpoint of their importance for recovering the original text of the OT, and for the kind of service which they render to OT textual criticism, the primary versions fall into two groups: (1) the LXX, (2) the rest. The LXX differs, and often differs widely, from the Massoretic text; the remaining versions closely agree with it: the LXX dates from before the Christian era and, what is more significant, from before the rise of the Massoretic schools; the remaining versions date from after the Christian era, and, with the possible exception of the Syriac, from after the close of 1st cent. A.D.

The agreement of these versions made direct from the Hebrew text at various dates subsequent to 100 B.C. confirms the conclusion suggested above, that since that date the Hebrew text has suffered relatively little in course of transmission. Such variations as do occur in these versions from the Hebrew consist largely (though not exclusively) of variations in the Interpretation of the consonants, i.e. while presupposing the same consonants as the present Hebrew text, they presuppose also that these consonants were pronounced with other vowels than those which were added to the text after the 5th cent. A.D. These variations therefore do not, strictly speaking, represent variants in the text of the OT, but merely in the commentary on that text, which at the time the versions were made was still oral, and only later was committed to writing in the form of vowels attached to the consonants, of which alone the Scripture proper consisted.

A fuller discussion of the versions of the OT other than the LXX would carry us into minutiœ of the subject which do not belong to a brief sketch such as the present. On the other hand, the LXX claims further attention even here.

17.  The early history of the Hebrew text.—The history of the Hebrew text since the 2nd cent. A.D. is uneventful; it is a history of careful transmission which has preserved the text from any serious deterioration since that date. But the fortunes of the text before that date had been more varied and far less happy. They cannot be followed completely, nor always with certainty. But the main fact is abundantly clear, that between the ages of their several authors and the 2nd cent. A.D. the Hebrew Scriptures had suffered corruption, and not Infrequently very serious corruption. Nor is this surprising when it is remembered that the text in that period consisted of consonants only, that in the course of it the character of the writing was changed from the Old Hebrew to the square character still in use (the difference between the two being greater than that between old black letter type and the Roman type now commonly used), that in the earlier part of the period copies of the books cannot have been numerous, and that in times of persecution copies were hunted for and destroyed (1 Mac 1:56f.) We are here concerned, of course, merely with such changes as crept into the text accidentally, or such minor changes as the introduction of the expressed for the implicit subject, which belong to the province of textual criticism. The larger changes due to the editing and redacting or union of material belong to the province of higher criticism, though in the case of the OT it is particularly true that at times the line between the two is not sharply defined. Our chief clues to the earlier history of the Hebrew text, and to the solution of the problems connected with it, will be found in a comparison of the Hebrew text with the Septuagint version, and in certain features of the Hebrew text itself. The remainder of this article will be devoted to elucidating and illustrating these two points.

18.  The Hebrew Text between c. B.C. 250 and c. A.D. 100. The LXX and the Massoretic Text.—The materials for forming a judgment on the general character of the changes undergone during this period by the Hebrew text, and for the existence of early variant readings in particular passages, are to be drawn mainly from a comparison of the LXX with the Hebrew texts. A much smaller amount of material is to be derived from the quotations in the NT and other early Jewish works, such as the Book of Jubilees, written, according to Dr. Charles, at the close of the 2nd century B.C.; but so far as it goes this material bears witness of the same general character as that of the LXX.

19.  A correct solution of the main problem here raised depends on three things: (1) the establishment of the original text of the LXX; (2) the detection of the Hebrew text which lay before the translators; and (3) In cases where the Hebrew text there recorded differs from the present Hebrew text, the determination of the more original of the variants. A complete solution of the problems will never be reached, for it will be no more possible to establish beyond dispute the original text of the LXX than the text of the NT; the detection of the underlying Hebrew text must inevitably often remain doubtful; and when variants are established, there will be in many cases room for differences of opinion as to their relative value. But though no complete solution is to be hoped for, a far greater approximation to such a solution than has yet been reached is possible. A good beginning (though no more) towards the recovery of the original text of the LXX has been made (see GREEK VERSIONS OF OT, § 13), but of really systematic work on the recovery of the underlying Hebrew text there has been far too little. What commonly happens is that in particular passages where the sense of the LXX and of the Hebrew text differs, the Greek is re-translated without exhaustive reference to the methods of the translators, and the retranslation thus obtained is cited as the variant. In many cases the true variant even thus has undoubtedly been obtained, but in many others a closer and more systematic investigation of the methods and idiosyncrasies of the translators has shown or will show that, through misinterpretation, the support of the LXX has been cited for variants which there is no reason for believing ever had any existence.

20.  Distinction between real and apparent variants.—A difference in sense between the Greek version and the Hebrew text as subsequently interpreted by no means necessarily points to a variation in the Hebrew text that underlay the version.

For example, parts of the three Hebrew verbs ŠBH (to lead captive), and YŠB (to dwell)  and of ŠWB (to return)  are indistinguishable in the Hebrew consonantal text; the letters WYSB may have among others the following meanings, and he dwelt, and he returned, and he brought back, and he took captive.

The substitution of one of these meanings for the other occasionally reduces the Greek version to nonsense; inconvenient as this must have been for those who used that version, or versions, like the Old Latin, made from it, it presents no difficulty to those who are attempting to recover the Hebrew original of the Greek version. It may sound paradoxical, yet it is to a large extent true, that for textual criticism the LXX is most useful when it makes least sense; for when a passage makes no sense in the Greek, but can be explained as a translation from the Hebrew, we have the best of reasons for believing that we have before us the original text of the Greek, and through it can recover a Hebrew text of early date. Copyists and translators do not deliberately turn sense into nonsense, and sense does not frequently, through mere accidents of transmission, become the particular form of nonsense that can be accounted for by a misunderstanding of a Hebrew original.

As a further illustration we may refer to the Greek translation of the letters BY; these very commonly occur with the meaning in me, but they also represent a particle of entreaty Oh! or I pray!; this particle occurs but rarely, about a dozen times altogether, and its existence was unknown to some of the Greek translators. In the Pentateuch and Joshua it is correctly rendered; but else where it is rendered ‘in me’ with ridiculous results, as the English reader will see if he substitutes these words for ‘Oh’ in Jg 6:13, 1 S 1:26. But again, there is no difficulty in seeing beneath the nonsense of the Greek the true sense and the actual reading of the Hebrew. The ignorance of the translators is as useful to the textual critic as their knowledge.

21.  Euphemistic translations.—But there are many variations in sense which point to no real textual variants, though both Hebrew and Greek in themselves yield a good sense.

The last clause of the 19th Psalm in the AV, ‘O Lord, my strength and my redeemer, ‘reads admirably; but though the translators give us no clue to the fact, it is not a translation of the Hebrew, it is a translation of the LXX. The Hebrew reads ‘My rock and my redeemer’ (so RV). In this case the LXX rendering is due not to ignorance, but to religious scruple; their rendering is a euphemism. So in Gn 5:24 the Greek version substitutes ‘Enoch was well-pleasing to God’ (hence He 11:5) for the anthropomorphic walked with God’ of the Hebrew text; in these cases, if we had not also the Hebrew text we could not discover the original from the LXX with certainty, or, perhaps, even be sure that the translators were paraphrasing and not translating.

22.  Relative values of Greek version and Hebrew text.—These illustrations may suffice to show both that much care is required in using the LXX for the recovery of the Hebrew underlying it, and also that it is wide of the mark to depreciate the textual value of the version by emphasizing the ignorance of the translators. Before either the fullest or the securest use of the version can be made, an immense amount of work remains to be done; but the importance of doing this work is clear, for even the most cautious deductions have already proved that the text underlying the LXX and the present Hebrew text differ widely, and that in many Instances the LXX text is superior. The relative values differ in the case of different books; and to avoid misunderstanding it should be added that in no case would a simple translation of the LXX bring us as near to the sense of the original document as a translation from the Hebrew text; nor would it be possible, unless the Hebrew text had survived, to detect by means of the LXX the correct text and the sense of the original. Issues are sometimes confused, and the distinctive characteristics and virtues of our two chief witnesses to the text of the OT obscured, in discussions as to the relative values of the LXX and the Massoretic text. Perhaps the most important general point to remember is that neither the one nor the other would be nearly as valuable by itself as it is when used in combination with the other.

23.  Examples of important readings preserved by the Greek Version only.—We may now pass to some illustrations of important variations in which the LXX has clearly preserved an earlier text than the Hebrew. These are much less numerous in the Pentateuch than elsewhere; probably the Law, as the most important Scripture, received at an early period something approaching to that great care in transmission which was later extended to the entire OT. It is the more remarkable, therefore, that in one section of the Pentateuch (Ex 35–39)  we find striking differences in the arrangement of sections in the Hebrew and Greek texts. Other instances of different arrangement or of marked differences in the extent of the material occur in the Books of Job and Jeremiah (see, further, Swete, Introd. to the OT in Greek, 221 ff.). This type of difference connects the textual with the higher criticism of these books, and cannot be pursued further here.

24.  In some cases matter subsequently lost (through homoioteleuton or otherwise), and now absent from the Hebrew text, survives in the Greek.

A striking illustration of this occurs in 1 S 14:41. The Hebrew text underlying the Greek version reads,’ Saul said unto Jahweh, the God of Israel [wherefore hast thou not answered thy servant to-day? If this iniquity be in me, or in Jonathan my son, O God of Israel, give Urim, but if this iniquity be in thy servant Israel], give Thummim.’ The words in square brackets are absent from the Hebrew text, but certainly belonged to the original, and the origin of the error is clear: the scribe’s eye accidentally passed from the first occurrence of ‘Israel’ to the third, and the intervening words were lost. With the loss of these the sense of the last two words ‘give Thummim’ became obscure, and the punctuators, followed by RV, gave them an indefensible interpretation.

25.  In other cases the Greek version is nearer to the original by its relative brevity; the additional matter now present in the Hebrew text was subsequently interpolated.

As an instance of this we may cite 1 K 6:20, 21, which RV, following the Hebrew text, renders, ‘And he covered the altar [with cedar. So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he drew chains of gold across] before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold.’ The bracketed words are absent from the Greek; it is probable that of these words ‘with cedar’ stood in the original text, but that the rest were absent. The Greek text has also for the first four words above (before the bracket) the (superior) reading, ‘And he made an altar.’

26.  At times, when either the sense or the text of both the Hebrew and the Greek is remote from the original, it is possible, from a comparison between the two, to recover the original.

An interesting example of this is furnished by Is 37:27f. = 2 K 19:26f. RV, following the Heb. text, renders, ‘They were as the grass of the field, and as corn (Is. ‘a field of corn’) blasted before it be grown up. But I know thy sitting down and thy going out and thy coming in.’ The Hebrew text of the underlined words is LPNY QMH WSBTK; the Hebrew equivalent of ‘I know’ stands much lower in the sentence, and though it may with difficulty be taken as in the RV, more naturally demands a different object. A reading of the Greek text preserved only in a Syriac version of it, but nevertheless probably the original reading of the Greek text, has, for the same underlined words, ‘before thy rising up, and thy sitting down’; this presupposes the Hebrew LPNY QMK WSBTK, which differs from the present Hebrew text by one letter only. The Hebrew text here presupposed is probably original, but has been misunderstood by the translators. The first word, if vocalized as in the Hebrew text and by the Greek translators L_iPN_eY, means before, but if vocalized L_aPN_aY it means before me. Adopting the latter vocalization, we recover (at least so far as the three words are concerned) the original sense,’ They were as grass of the field … and as corn that is blasted. Before me is thine uprising and thy down sitting (cf. Ps 139:2); and thy going out and thy coming in I know.’ So great is the difference in sense that the corruption of a single letter may make in a text which contained only consonants, and no marks of punctuation whatever. The true reading of the Hebrew in this case was first divined by Wellhausen; it remained for Mr. Burkitt to point out that it was the reading of the Greek translators.

27.  The Hebrew text before the date of the Greek version.—If the Hebrew text suffered to a very considerable extent in the ways just illustrated, during the three or four centuries that intervened between the time when the LXX version was made and the time when the Hebrew text was stereotyped and the later Greek versions were made, by nothing short of a stupendous miracle could the text have been preserved free from errors of transmission, during the centuries that separate the original autographs from the date of the Greek version. This intervening period differs, of course, widely in length; between the age of Isaiah and the Greek translation of the Book of Isaiah lay some six centuries; between the age of Deborah (Jg 5) and the translation of Judges little short of a thousand years; between the age of David (2 S 1:19ff.) and the translation of Samuel 800 or 900 years. On the other hand, between the compilation of the Hexateuch, or the first composition of books such as Ecclesiastes or Daniel, and the translations in the several cases, not more than a couple of centuries elapsed.

28.  Means of detecting early corruption of Hebrew text.—Though the general fact that the present Hebrew text contains corruptions that date from these earlier centuries cannot reasonably be questioned, the detection of the actual cases of early corruption is necessarily difficult, and only within limits is it possible. We are obviously far worse situated in attempting to determine corruptions of this date than corruptions of later date; the LXX often indicates the presence of the later corruptions, but we have no external clue to the earlier corruptions. We have to rely entirely on indications in the Hebrew text itself. One of these indications will of course be the occurrence of nonsense, for the original autographs were intended to convey an intelligible meaning. Another indication will be the occurrence of bad grammar—unless in the case of a particular writer there is reason for supposing that he was not master of the language which he wrote. An interesting illustration of the way is which the latter indication may serve is furnished by some of the references to the ark.

The ark is called in Hebrew HאRN the ark, where the first letter is the Hebrew article; or א RN BRYT YHWH the ark of the covenant of the Lord; where a word in Hebrew is defined by a following genitive it cannot be preceded by the article, so in this second phrase we have אRN, not HאRN. Now, in certain passages (e.g. Jos 3:17), our present Hebrew text has the grammatically impossible combination HאRN BRYT YHWH; some corruption theo is present here; and it is probable that the original text had only HאRN the ark, and that the two following words are due to the intrusion ioto the text of an annotator’s explanation.

29.  Negative and positive judgments: the justification of conjectural emendation and its limitations.—The ultimate task of textual criticism is to recover as far as possible the actual words of the original; an intermediate task of the textual criticism of the OT is to establish all the real variants of the Hebrew text underlying the Greek version, and in each case to determine the relative value of the variants. In this way the text which was the common source of the Greek translators and that of the Jewish scholars of the 2nd cent. A.D. is as far as possible recovered. So far negative and positive judgments must necessarily accompany one another; we say, Here the Hebrew text is right, and the Greek text Wrong, or vice versa. But when we have recovered that common source of the Hebrew and Greek texts, it is wise to distinguish sharply between negative and positive critical judgments. The general fact that there are early errors in the Hebrew text must, as we have seen, be admitted; and, further, no sound criticism of the Hebrew text can proceed far without being compelled to say, This or that is corrupt, even though the Greek version agrees with the Hebrew text or cannot be shown to have differed from it. In some cases where this negative judgment can be passed with confidence, it may be possible with scarcely less confidence to pass to the positive statement. These words are a corruption of these other words; that is to say, the text in such cases can be restored by conjecture; but in many cases where the first judgment—These words are not the original text—must be passed, the second judgment ought only to take the form—It is possible that such and such words or something like them were in the original text. In brief, we can more often detect early corruption than restore the text which has been corrupted. The reason should be obvious. Nonsense (to take the extreme case) must be due to corruption, but the sense which it has obscured may altogether elude us, or, at best, we may be able to discern the general sense without determining the actual words.

There can be no question that it is nonsense to say, as the Hebrew text does, that Saul, who was anointed king to meet a national emergency, was a year old when he began to reign (1 S 13:1); but it is impossible to say whether the original text attributed to him twenty, thirty, forty, or any other particular number of years. Nonsense is unfortunately more serious in the original language than in a version: we may pass easily from nonsense in the LXX to the actual original consonants of the Hebrew text, which merely require, when thus recovered, to be correctly interpreted; but if the Hebrew letters themselves yield nonsense, we are reduced to guessing, and frequently with little hope of guessing right.

30.  The preceding paragraphs should have suggested the justification for conjectural emendation in the textual criticism of the OT, and at the same time they should have indicated its limitations. As against a conjectural emendation, it is in no way to the point to urge that the Hebrew text and all the versions are against it; for the agreement of the Hebrew text and the versions merely establishes the text as it was current about, let us say, B.C. 300 . The principle of conjecture is justified by the centuries of transmission that the Hebrew text had passed through before that date. It may be worth while to notice also the degree of truth and the measure of misunderstanding involved in another common objection to conjectural emendations. Tacitly or openly it takes this form: Critics offer different emendations of the same passage; not all of these can be right; therefore the Hebrew text is not to be questioned. The real conclusion is rather this, The fact that several scholars have questioned the text renders the presence of corruption probable, that they differ in their emendations shows that the restoration of the original text is uncertain. The idiosyncrasy of a single scholar may lead him to emend the text unnecessarily: the larger the number who feel compelled to pronounce it unsound, the greater the probability that it is unsound, however difficult or uncertain it may be to pass beyond the negative judgment to positive reconstruction of the text.

31.  Evidence of parallel texts within the OT.—We have now to consider in what ways beyond those indicated in § 28 the Hebrew text, taken by itself, gives indication of the presence of corruptions, or, on the other hand, of having been accurately preserved, and how it is to be used in order to approximate most closely to the original text, and through it to the original intention of the authors of the several books.

Of most importance, so far as it is available, is the evidence of double texts within the OT.

There are certain passages that occur twice over in the OT: e.g. Ps 18 is found also in 2 S 22; Ps 14 recurs as Ps 53; 2 K 18:13–20:19 is (for the most part) repeated in Is 36–39; 2 K 24:18–25:21 and 25:27–30  in Jer 52, and large parts of Samuel and Kings are incorporated in Chronicles. The variations between these parallel texts are of two kinds: some are due to the editor who incorporates in his own the matter common to his work and the earlier work from which he derives it; for example, in drawing on the Books of Samuel and Kings, the Chronicler often abbreviates, expands, or modifies the passages he borrows, with a view to adapting them to his special purpose; or, again, the editor who included the 14th Psalm in the collection in which Ps 53 stands, substituted ‘God’ for ‘Jahweh’ (PSALMS, § 2 (2)) . With these changes, which it is the province of higher criticism to consider and explain, we are not here concerned. But the second type of variations is due to accidents of transmission, and not infrequently what is evidently the earlier reading is preserved in the later work; ‘and the explanation is very simple: the earlier books were more read and copied: and the more a book is used, the worse is its text’ (Benzinger). In certain cases there is room for doubt as to the type to which particular variations belong, so, for example, in several variations as between 2 K 18–21 and Is 36–39 . As an illustration of the nature and extent of variations between two parallel texts of the OT, we may rather more fully analyze the variations in Ps 18 and 2 S 22. In a few cases the Greek version of both passages agrees with the Hebrew of one, and here the presumption is that the Hebrew text of the other passage has suffered corruption after the date of the Greek version; but in the majority of cases in which the Hebrew variations can be represented in Greek, the Greek version of Ps 18 agrees with the Hebrew text of the Psalm, and the Greek version of 2 S 22 with the Hebrew text of that passage. In these instances the presumption is that the variation had arisen before the date of the Greek version. There are in all more than 80 variations. Of these just over 20 are cases of vowel letters (§ 6)  present in the one text, and absent from the other; in the great majority of instances it is the Psalm that has the vowel letters, and 2 S 22 that lacks them.

Among the remaining variations are cases of the following kinds:—(1)  Omissions or additions: Ps 18:1 is absent from 2 S., so also is v. 35b; on the other hand, 2 S 22:8c is absent from the Psalm. In about a dozen other instances single words present in one text are absent from the other; (2) in two or three cases a word has been lost through the substitution for it of a word-repeated in a parallel or neighbouring line: so ‘billows’ in Ps 18:4 has accidentally given place to ‘cords’ from v. 5 (cf. 2 S.); (3) the variations from Ps 18:11b, 42b in 2 S 22:12, 43 are due to the confusion of similar letters; (4) Ps 18:28, 31 differs from 2 S. in respect of the Divine name used (in v. 31 the Ps. has Eloah, 2 S. El); (5) inversion of words ( not shewn in EV), Ps 18:49; there are also cases of inversion of letters; (6) use of different synonyms, Ps 18:48. The variation of Ps 18:14b from 2 S 22:15b is more complicated, and the significance of several of the variations is clear only in the Hebrew.

32.  Evidence of mutilated literary forms.—(1). Acrostics.—Thus the comparison of parallel texts furnishes one line of evidence of the way in which the Hebrew text had suffered in transmission before the date of the Greek version. Another proof may be found in the mutilated form in which certain fixed literary forms survive in the present Hebrew text. Most conclusive is the case of the acrostic poems (see ACROSTIC). At times two considerations converge to prove a particular passage corrupt. For example, the early part of Nah I consists of a mutilated acrostic: in the middle of v. 4 a word beginning with D should occur; instead, the word אMLL beginning with א is found; but this word אMLL occurs again in the parallel line; in the light of Ps 18:4 (see previous §, instance 2) it is probable that אMLL in the first has been accidentally substituted for a parallel word which began with D.

33.  (2) Rhythm and strophe.—It is possible that further study of the laws of Hebrew rhythm or metre may give us a valuable instrument for the detection of corruption; much has already been attempted in this way, and in some cases already with results of considerable probability. Similarly, in some cases the strophic division of poems admits of conclusions that are again, if not certain, yet probable. Thus in Is 9:8–10:4 and 5:26–29  we have a poem in five strophes marked off from one another by a refrain (ISAIAH [BOOK OF], p. 390^a):  in the present text the first strophe consists of 13, the second of 14, the third of 14, the fourth of 14, and the fifth of 15 lines; the probability is that originally each strophe was exactly equal, and that the first strophe has lost a line, and that the fifth has been enlarged by the interpolation of a line.

34.  Limited extent of corruption of text of OT.—The considerations adduced in the two preceding paragraphs have a double edge. They show, it is true, that the Hebrew text has in places suffered considerably; but they also indicate certain limits within which corruption has taken place, or, to state it otherwise, the degree of integrity which the transmitted text has preserved. If in the ways just indicated we can detect the loss or intrusion of lines or words, or the substitution of one word for another, we can elsewhere claim a strong presumption in favour of a poem having preserved its original length and structure. For example, the majority of the acrostics have come down to us with little or no mutilation that affects their length or the recurrence at the right place of the acrostic letters. Similarly the very possibility of determining rhythm must rest on a considerable amount of the text having reached us free from far-reaching corruption. A further consideration of a different kind may be found in the fact that a large number of proper names (which are peculiarly exposed to transmissional corruption) as handed down in the Hebrew text have been paralleled in ancient material brought to light by modern discovery. In many cases it is beyond question that names have suffered in the course of transmission; but the correct transmission of rare, and in some cases strange, names is significant.

35.  Secondary nature of vowel letters: bearing on textual criticism.—So long as we deal with parallel texts, we are not brought face to face with the question of how to deal with a Hebrew text resting on a single authority. Yet the great bulk of the OT is of this class. How, then, is it to be dealt with, especially when there is no control over it to be obtained from fixed literary forms? The first duty of sound criticism is to disregard, or at least to suspect, all vowel letters (see § 6). We cannot, indeed, assert positively that the original writers made no use of these letters, for we find them employed in certain cases in early inscriptions (Moabite stone, Siloam inscription); but in view of the evidence of the parallel texts of the Hebrew Bible, of the LXX, and of Rabbinic references, it is certain that in a large number of cases these vowel letters have been added in the course of transmission. The consequence is that we cannot claim any particular vowel letter for the original author; he may have used it, he may not: particularly in the case of earlier writers, the latter alternative is as a rule the more probable. In other important respects the form of the present Hebrew consonantal text differs from what there is reason to believe was its earlier form.

36.  Similarity of certain letters a source of confusion.—We have seen above (§ 17)  that the alphabet in which existing Hebrew MSS are written differs widely from that in use at the time when the OT was written; the letter yod, proverbially the smallest (Mt 5:15) in the alphabet in use since the Christian era, was one of the larger letters of the earlier script. It is necessary in doubtful passages to picture the text as written in this earlier script, and to consider the probability of a text differing from the received text merely by letters closely resembling one another in this earlier script.

Thus the letters D and R are similar in most Semitic alphabets, in some they are indistinguishable; for example, in the Assouan papyri, Jewish documents of the 5th cent. B.C. recently discovered and published (1907) , D and R cannot be clearly distinguished, and it is disputed, and is likely to be disputed, whether a particular word which occurs several times is DGL or RGL. It becomes important, therefore, in dealing with the Hebrew text of the OT to consider the variants which arise by substituting D’s for R’s. The Heb. words for Syria and Edom are אRM and אDM respectively; the context alone is really the only safe clue to the original reading in any particular passage, and the mere fact that the present Hebrew text reads the one or the other is relatively unimportant; thus, for example, the Heb. text is obviously wrong in 2 S 8:13, and probably in 2 Ch 20:2.

37.  Division of text into words secondary.—Finally, it must be remembered that there is good reason for believing that the division of the consonants of one word from those of another has not been a constant feature of the text. Consequently we cannot safely assume that the present division corresponds to that of the original writers.

38.  The starting-point of criticism in attempting to detect the earliest errors in the text.— From all this it follows that sound criticism requires us to start from this position: the original writers wrote in a different script from the present, used no vowel signs, no marks of punctuation, and even vowel letters but sparingly; either they themselves or copyists wrote the texts continuously without dividing one word from another, or at least without systematically marking the divisions. Consequently the canon that the history of the text justifies is that that division of consonants and that punctuation of clauses and sentences must in all cases be adopted which, everything considered, yields the most suitable sense; obvious as this canon may appear, it by no means always obtains recognition in practice; the weight of Jewish tradition is allowed to override it. And yet there are most obvious cases where the Hebrew text gives a division of consonants or clauses which are not the original, but have arisen from accident or particular theories of exegesis. Further, where no division of the existing consonants yields any sense, or but an improbable sense, it must be considered whether the substitution of similar consonants will. Whether the text thus obtained has any or much probability of being the original will depend on many considerations.

39.  Illustrations of such errors.—We shall conclude with some illustrations of the variations in text or sense that arise when the foregoing considerations are allowed due weight. It is not to be understood that in all cases the variations from the traditional interpretation (1–3)  or text  (4) are certainly the true interpretation or text, but they all have a claim to be seriously regarded.

(1)    In some cases simply a fresh punctuation of the sentences without any alteration of the consonants whatever gives an important variation in sense. A good instance is Is 1:12–14 ; even in the present text the denunciation of ritual worship is severe; probably it was once more severe. Thus, without any change in the text, we may render—

‘When ye come to see my face, Who hath required this at your hand?

No more shall ye trample my courts.

The bringing of oblations is a vain thing;

Incense is an abomination to me;

New moon and sabbath, the calling of assembly, I cannot away with.

Iniquity and the solemn meeting, your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth.’

For אWN iniquity the Greek version has ẒWM fast(s) . We probably have in the history of this passage a series of attempts to soften down the severity and absoluteness of the prophetic denunciation of the externalities of religion.

(2)    In the Hebrew Bible the word for man אYS is distinguished from the word for fire אS by the insertion of the vowel letter Y; but in the Moabite stone, the Siloam inscription (written in Jerusalem in the age, as is commonly supposed, of Isaiah), and in Phœnician inscriptions, it is regularly written without the Y, and is thus indistinguishable from the word for ‘fire.’ Where either of these words occurs, therefore, we must decide by the context only which was intended.

In Is 9:19 did Isaiah mean, ‘and the people are as the food (so literally, not ‘fuel,’ RV) of fire,’ or ‘as the food of man’? By the change of a single letter in the word rendered ‘food,’ we obtain for the whole phrase ‘like those that devour men,’ i.e. like cannibals—a reading suggested by Duhm, and, for reasons which cannot here be discussed, worthy of consideration. An even clearer instance of confusion of the two words א(Y)Š and אŠ is Ezk 8:2; for ‘fire’ (first occurrence in

RV) read ‘a man.’

(3)    Mutilation of the sense of the original is sometimes occasioned by incorrect division of words in the present Hebrew text. In some cases the Revisers, who generally preferred to retain the obviously incorrect sense in the text, give the correct sense in the margin: see, e.g., Gn 49:20, Ps 25:17, 42:5, Hos 6:5, Jer 23:33 (RV second marginal note on the ver.); at other times they give only a rendering of the present Hebrew, and, to ease off a certain roughness or actual inaccuracy in the mutilated original, they sometimes translate with more or less disregard of Hebrew grammar or idiom. In Ps 73:4 a mere re-division of words gives a reading more original than the present text: ‘For they have no torments: sound and plump is their body.’ A striking variant appears as soon as the second and third words of Is 10:4 are re-divided (KRעT HT instead of KRע THT): the first clause of the ver. then reads, ‘Beltis croucheth, Osiris is dismayed,’ and this is adopted by many as the sense intended by Isaiah. This is not certain, though the Hebrew as at present divided scarcely admits of translation, and the renderings of RV are illegitimate. Another variant of some importance appears when we divide the words in Is 8:8 differently (viz. אRZ K עMNW אL instead of אRZK עMNW אL): the verse closes not with a

proper name in the vocative, but with a statement—‘The outstretching of his wings shall fill the breadth of the land, for God is with us’ (cf. v. 10)

(4)    Parallelism or the context often gives great probability to conjectural readings that differ from the Hebrew text by a letter or two, even though the change is not (clearly) supported by the Greek version. For example, in Dt 33:2, the word MRBBT is probably an error for MMRBT (M having accidentally been written once instead of twice, and B twice instead of once); then the line reads ‘from Meribah Kadesh,’ which is a good parallel to ‘Paran.’

40. The English versions and the Hebrew text.—The earliest of English versions proper (Wyclif’s) was made from the Vulgate. Between the time of Wyclif and of the numerous English versions of the 16th cent. (see ENGLISH VERSIONS)  the study of Hebrew, which, since the age of Jerome, bad practically vanished from the Christian Church, was re-introduced. The AV, in which the series of Reformation translations culminated, is a primary version of the Hebrew text with occasional unacknowledged substitution of the sense of the LXX for that of the Hebrew (see for an example § 21 and below). It was only natural that at first translation from the original language should seem the last word in Biblical translation; but several scholars of the 17th cent. already appreciated the value of the versions and the faultiness of the Hebrew text, and perceived that any translation that attempted to approximate to the sense of the original writers was doomed to fall unnecessarily far short of its aim if it slavishly followed the existing Hebrew text. Unfortunately the appreciation of these facts had not become general even towards the end of the 19th cent., with the result that the Revisers of the OT felt themselves justified in practically renouncing the use of the versions (not to speak of critical conjecture), so far as the text of their translation is concerned. Some of the evidence of the versions is given by them, yet very unsystematically, in the margins. The Revisers have explained their standpoint in their preface: ‘As the state of knowledge on the subject is not at present such as to justify any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the authority of the versions, the Revisers have thought it most prudent, to adopt the Massoretic Text as the basis of their work, and to depart from it, as the authorized Translators had done, only in exceptional cases.… In some few instances of extreme difficulty a reading has been adopted on the authority of the Ancient Versions, and the departure from the Massoretic Text recorded in the margin.’ In spite of this determination to be prudent, the Revisers have in one instance admitted an exceedingly questionable conjecture: in 1 S 13:1 they insert—in italics and between square brackets, it is true—the word ‘thirty’; yet this word, though found in a few Greek MSS (not, however, in the earlier text of the LXX, rather unfortunately described by the Revisers as ‘the unrevised LXX’), is really due to a pure guess; as a reading the word ‘thirty’ possesses exactly the same value as would any other number not obviously unsuitable. In addition to this peculiarly unhappy excursion into what is, if not technically yet in reality, conjectural emendation of the most hazardous character the Revisers make few acknowledged departures from the Hebrew text even when it is most obviously corrupt. Instances will, however, be found in Ruth 4:4, 1 S 6:18, 27:10, 2 S 18:3, Ps 8:1, 59:9, Mic 4:13; in some of these cases the AV had prevously (without acknowledgment) abandoned, the Hebrew text; in all, the Revisers were well advised in doing so. But the more general effect of the attitude adopted by the Revisers to the question of the Hebrew text may be illustrated by their treatment of the passages cited in their preface as cases in which the AV abandoned the Hebrew text.

In 2 S 16:12, AV has ‘It may be the Lord will look on mine affliction,’ which may represent the original text, the last word of the original Hebrew in that case having been BעNYY; but the present

Hebrew text has BעWNY, which means ‘on my iniquity,’ and the Hebrew (as also the RV) margin has

BעYNY on my eye ( interpreted as meaning ‘on my tears’; so AVm). Here the RV relegates the rendering

‘on my affliction’ to the margin, and gives in the text the scarcely defensible rendering of the Hebrew text ‘on the wrong done unto me.’ In 2 Ch 3:1 the Hebrew text, at some time after the date of the Greek version, has been reduced to nonsense by the accidental misplacement of a word. AV follows the LXX, and is intelligible; RV in rendering the crucial words half follows the Hebrew text, and, shrinking from the full effect of this, half mistranslates, yet with the total result of being nearly as unintelligible as the Hebrew (‘in the place that David had appointed’ is not a legitimate rendering of the words correctly rendered in RV marg.). Both AV and RV insert (in italics) ‘the LORD’: this probably stood in the original text, still stands in the Greek version, but is not even suggested in the Hebrew text. In 2 Ch 22:6 RV ( rightly) adopts in its text the reading of the parallel passage in Kings for the first part of the ver.; but retains in the second part of the ver the obviously wrong reading of the Hebrew text—Azariah ( Greek version and 2 K.—Ahaziah). In Job 37:7 AV gives what probably approximates to the original sense, though it is not a translation of the Hebrew text. RV correctly renders the Hebrew text as now divided; otherwise divided (cf. above, § 37), it would mean ‘that all men may know he hath done it.’ In Ezk 46:10

AV tacitly adopts a slight emendation (YẒא for YẒאW); RV retains the Hebrew text so far as the verb is concerned, but in order to make some sense illegitimately inserts (in italics) ‘together’—illegitimately because ‘together’ is as little suggested by the Hebrew as it would be by the English. In Am 5:26 AV has been led astray by the LXX; RV (text) is nearer the original sense. In Hag 1:2, as in Ezk 46:10, the Revisers, to avoid placing is their text the exceedingly probable reading which stands on their margin, have inserted words (in italics) which are not even remotely suggested in the Hebrew, and have in another respect translated questionably.

From the foregoing examples it will appear that in some cases the AV in effect approximates more closely to the original text and sense than the RV text, though the RV generally, perhaps always, in its margin gives the rendering of AV (or an equivalent rendering). It is interesting to add that in some cases Wyclif’s, though (and indeed because) a secondary version, follows a more satisfactory text than either AV or RV (so, e.g., in 1 S 14:41, where it has the words that have accidentally fallen out of the present Hebrew text: see § 24). The Instances in which the RV gives a translation that is either entirely indefensible or questionable or improbable, to save the appearance of abandoning the Hebrew text, might be greatly multiplied. Such mistranslation, or questionable translation, was indeed necessarily involved in the carrying out of the principles adopted. For, owing to the state in which the Hebrew text has come down to us, a translator is not infrequently shut up to one of these four options: (1) he may leave the doubtful words of the Hebrew text untranslated; (2) he may translate from the Hebrew text as emended by the help of the versions or conjecture; (3) he may render unintelligible words in Hebrew by equally unintelligible words in English; or (4) he may mistranslate the Hebrew. If he adopts the third option he obviously will not reproduce the original writer’s meaning; if the fourth, he will probably not do so, and if he does, it will be by accident; if he adopts the second, he no doubt runs a risk, and sometimes a considerable risk, of still failing to recover the original sense; the first option alone is safe, and in certain cases would best promote the fullest possible understanding of an entire passage. The Revisers have occasionally adopted the third, but generally the fourth, of these options.

Between the age of the AV and that of the RV, Biblical scholarship advanced particularly in two directions: (1) in the critical study of the Hebrew text; (2) in the understanding of the principles and vocabulary of the Hebrew language. For example, in the light of the comparative study of language, meanings of many words which Hebrew tradition had lost became clear. The RV made full use (in its margins, if not in its text) of the results due to the second line of advance, and is in consequence greatly superior to the AV. At the same time, in order to utilize this first knowledge, it was compelled to abandon Hebrew tradition, and in some cases even that tradition as embodied in the Hebrew vowels. In consequence the RV is a version of rather mixed character; it is a less faithful rendering into English of the Hebrew traditional understanding of the OT than the AV; on the other hand, for reasons already explained, it represents the original meaning of the OT writers only very partially and much less completely than is possible. In sum, then, the English reader, if he wishes to read in the OT the meaning attached to it by Jewish tradition, should use the AV and not the RV; if he wishes to understand the meaning of the original writers of the OT, the RV will bring him much nearer his desire than the AV, especially if he makes wise use of the margins (cf. Driver, Book of Job, Introduction, p. xxiv. ff.); but it is only by making use of such translations as have been referred to at end of certain articles of this

work (see PSALMS; ISAIAH [BK. OF]; HOSEA [BK. OF]; MICAH [BK. OF])  that he will be able to avail himself of such means as exist for the English reader of passing, so far as is possible, beyond tradition to the word of Scripture itself.

Any full treatment of the subject of this article naturally involves a knowledge of Hebrew. Of works on the text, in addition to the relevant articles in the larger dictionaries, it may suffice to refer here to

Buhl, Canon and Text of the OT (T. & T. Clark); Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, Introduction. Critical editions of the Massoretic text have been mentioned above, § 10. A critical edition of the Hebrew text of the entire OT remains a desideratum. So far as published it is met by Haupt’s Sacred Books of the OT. Meantime, the best Hebrew Bible for use is Kittel’s, which prints the

Massoretic text, but within small compass presents in the footnotes a large mass of well-selected variants suggested by the versions or conjecture. Some of the points briefly dealt with in the foregoing article are more fully discussed in other articles in the present work; see in particular GREEK VERSIONS, VULGATE,

ENGLISH VERSIONS, WRITING.

G. B. GRAY.

TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.—1. The text of the NT as read in ordinary copies of

the Gr. Testament, and as translated in the AV of 1611, is substantially identical with that printed by Stephanus (Robert Estienne) in 1550, and by the Elzevirs in their popular edition of 1624. To this text the Elzevirs in their next edition (1633) applied the phrase ‘Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum’; and by the name of Textus Receptus ( TR) or Received Text, it has since been generally known. The edition of Stephanus was based upon the two earliest printed texts of the NT, that of Erasmus (published in 1516), and that of the Complutensian Polyglot (printed in 1514, but not published until 1522); and he also made use of 15 MSS, mostly at Paris. Two of these (Codd. D and L, see below, § 7)  were of early date, but not much use was made of them; the others were minuscules (see § 5)  of relatively late date. The principal editor of the

Complutensian Polyglot, Lopez de Stunica, used MSS borrowed from the Vatican; they have not been identified, but appear to have been late, and ordinary in character. Erasmus, working to a publisher’s order, with the object of anticipating the Complutensian, depended principally upon a single 12th cent. MS for the Gospels, upon one of the 13th or 14th for the Epistles, and upon one of the 12th for the Apocalypse. All of these were at Basle, and were merely those which chanced to be most accessible.

The TR is consequently derived from (at most) some 20 or 25 MSS, dating from the last few centuries before the invention of printing, and not selected on any estimate of merit, but merely as being ready to the editor’s hands. They may be taken as fairly representative of the great mass of Gr. Test. MSS of the late Middle Ages, but no more. At the present time we have over 3000 Greek MSS of the NT, or of parts of it, and they range back in age to the 4th cent., or even, in the case of a few small fragments, to the 3rd. The history of Textual Criticism during the past two centuries and a half has been the history of the accumulation of all this material (and of the further masses of evidence provided by ancient translations), and of its application to the discovery of the true text of the NT; and it is not surprising that such huge accessions of evidence, going back in age a thousand years or more behind the date of Erasmus’ principal witnesses, should have necessitated a considerable number of alterations in the details of the TR. The plan of the present article is, first to set forth a summary of the materials now available, and then to indicate the drift of criticism with regard to the results obtained from them.

2.      The materials available for ascertaining the true text of the NT (and, in their measure, of all other ancient works of literature) fall into three classes: (1) Manuscripts, or copies of the NT in the original Greek; (2) Versions, or ancient translations of it into other languages, which were themselves, of course, originally derived from very early Greek MSS, now lost; (3) Quotations in ancient writers, which show what readings these writers found in the copies accessible to them. Of these three classes it will be necessary to treat separately in the first instance, and afterwards to combine the results of their testimony.

3.      Manuscripts.—It is practically certain that the originals of the NT books were written on rolls of papyrus, that being the material in universal use for literary purposes in the Greek- and Latin-speaking world. Each book would he written separately, and would at first circulate separately; and so long as papyrus continued to be employed, it was impossible to include more than a single Gospel or a group of short Epistles in one volume. Consequently there could be no collected ‘New Testament’ at this early stage, and no question (so far as the conditions of literary transmission were concerned) of fixing a Canon of books to be included in such a collection. Papyrus is a material (made from the pith of the stem of the Egyptian water-plant of that name) which becomes brittle with age, and quite unable to resist damp; consequently papyrus MSS have almost wholly perished,—from friction and use if they remained above ground, from moisture if they were buried beneath it. Only in Middle and Upper Egypt, where the soil is extraordinarily dry, have buried papyri survived. Literary works and business documents have been dug up of late years in Egypt in very large numbers, ranging from about B.C. 500 to A.D. 700 , so that the styles of writing in use at the time when the NT books were written are well known to us; but Christianity and its literature are not likely to have penetrated much beyond Lower Egypt in the first two centuries of their existence, and consequently it is perfectly natural that no manuscripts of the NT of this period are now extant. From the latter part of the 3rd cent. A.D. a few small fragments have been recovered, which show that some of the NT books were known in Middle Egypt at that date; but the only papyrus MS as yet discovered which can be said to have substantial textual importance, is one (Oxyrhynchus Pap. 657, 3rd–4 th cent. ) containing about a third of Hebrews, which is the more valuable because Cod. B is defective in that book. Besides the natural causes just mentioned for the disappearance of early Biblical MSS, it should be remembered that Christian books (especially the official copies in the possession of Churches) were liable to destruction in times of persecution.

4.      These conditions, which amply account for the disappearance of the earliest MSS of the

NT, were fundamentally altered in the 4 th century. The acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire gave a great impulse to the circulation of the Scriptures; and simultaneously papyrus began to be superseded by vellum as the predominant literary material. Papyrus continued to be used in Egypt until the 8th cent. for Greek documents, and, to a leaser and decreasing extent, for Greek literature, and for Coptic writings to a still later date; but the best copies of books were henceforth written upon vellum. Vellum had two great advantages: It was much more durable, and (being made up in codex or book-form, instead of rolls) it was possible to include a much greater quantity of matter in a single manuscript. Hence from the 4th cent. it became possible to have complete copies of the NT, or even of the whole Bible; and it is to the 4th cent. that the earliest extant Biblical MSS of any substantial size belong.

5.      Vellum MSS are divided into two classes, according to the style of their writing. From the 4th cent. to the 10th they are written in uncials, i.e. in capital letters, of relatively large size, each being formed separately. In the 9th cent. a new style of writing was introduced, by the adaptation to literary purposes of the ordinary running hand of the day; this, consisting as it did of smaller characters, is called minuscule, and since these smaller letters could be easily linked together into a running hand, it is also commonly called cursive. In the 9th cent. the uncial and minuscule styles are found co-existing, the former perhaps still predominating; in the 10th the minuscules have decidedly triumphed, and the uncial style dies out. Minuscules continue in use, with progressive modifications of form, until the supersession of manuscripts by print in the 15th cent.; at first always upon vellum, but from the 13th cent. onwards sometimes upon paper.

6.      Uncial MSS being, as a class, considerably older than the minuscules, it is natural to expect that the purest and least corrupted texts will be found among them; though it is always necessary to reckon with the possibility that a minuscule MS may be a direct and faithful representative of a MS very much older than itself. Over 160 uncial MSS (including fragments) of the NT or of parts of it are known to exist, of which more than 110 contain the Gospels or some portion of them. In the apparatus criticus of the NT they are indicated by the capital letters, first of the Latin alphabet, then of the Greek, and finally of the Hebrew, for which it is now proposed to substitute numerals preceded by O. Further, since comparatively few MSS contain the whole of the NT, it is found convenient to divide it into four groups: (1) Gospels, (2) Acts and Catholic Epistles, (3) Pauline Epistles, (4) Apocalypse; and each group has its own numeration of MSS. The uncial MSS which contain all of these groups, such as those known as A and C, retain these designations in each group; but when a MS does not contain them all, its letter is given to another MS in those groups which it does not contain. But here again it is now proposed to adopt a simpler system, by which nearly every MS will have one letter or number to itself, and one only.

7.      A selection of the most important uncial MSS will now be briefly described, so as to indicate their importance in the textual criticism of the NT:

א. Codex Sinaiticus, originally a complete codex of the Greek Bible. Forty-three leaves of the OT

were discovered by Tischendorf in the monastery of St. Catherine at Sinai in 1844, and acquired by him for the University Library at Leipzig; while the remainder (156 leaves of the OT, and the entire NT, with the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the ‘Shepherd’ of Hermas, on 148 leaves) were found by him in the same place in 1859, and eventually secured for the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. The Bible text is written with four columns to the page (the narrow columns being a survival from the papyrus period); and palæographers are now generally agreed in referring the MS to the 4th cent., so that it is one of the two oldest MSS of the Bible in existence. Tischendorf attributes the original text of the MS to four scribes, one of whom he believes (though, in the opinion of many, this is very questionable) to have been also the scribe of the Codex Vaticanus (B); and the corrections to six different hands, of whom the most important are א^a (about contemporary with the original scribe), and א^ca and א^cb ( of the 7th cent.). The corrections of א^ca were derived (according to a note affixed to the Book of Esther) from a MS corrected by the martyr

Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen and founder of the library of Cæsarea. It has been held that א itself was written at Cæsarea, but this cannot be regarded as certain. The character of its text will be considered in § 40  ff. below.

A.     Codex Alexandrinus, probably written at Alexandria in the 5th cent., and now in the British Museum. From an uncertain, but early, date it belonged to the Patriarchs of Alexandria; it was brought thence by Cyril Lucar in 1621, when he became Patriarch of Constantinople, and was presented by him to Charles I. in 1627, and so passed, with the rest of the Royal Library, to the British Museum in 1757. It contains the whole Greek Bible, with the exception of 40 lost leaves (containing Mt 1:1–25:6, Jn 6:50– 8:52, 2 Co 4:13–12:6); it also originally contained the two Epistles of Clement and the Psalms of Solomon, but the Psalms and the conclusion of the Second Epistle have disappeared, together with one leaf from the First Epistle. The text of the NT is written by three scribes, with two columns to the page: there are many corrections by the original scribes and by an almost contemporary reviser (A^a).

B.      Codex Vaticanus, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome, where it has been since about 1481. It is probably the oldest and the best extant MS of the Greek NT, and its evidence is largely responsible for the changes of text embodied in the English RV. It is written in a small, neat uncial, probably of the 4th cent., with three columns to the page. It originally contained the whole Bible (except the Books of

Maccabees), possibly with additional books, like א and A; but it has lost from He 9:14 to the end of the

NT, including the Pastoral Epistles (but not the Catholic Epistles, which follow the Acts and hence have escaped) and Apocalypse.

C.     Codex Ephraemi, in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. This is a palimpsest, i.e. a manuscript of which the original writing has been partially washed or scraped off the vellum in order to use it again to receive other writing. In this case the original writing was the text of the Greek Bible, written in the 5th cent., in one broad column to the page; and this was sacrificed in the 12th cent. in order to inscribe on the same vellum some treatises by St. Ephraem of Syria. Only 64 leaves of the OT now survive, and 145 of the NT (out of 238); and often it is impossible to decipher the original writing. The MS is therefore only fitfully and intermittently of service.

D.     Codex Bezae, in the University Library at Cambridge, to which it was presented in 1581 by

Theodore Beza, who obtained it in 1562 from the monastery of St. Irenæus at Lyons. It contains the Gospels and Acts, in Greek and Latin, the former occupying the left-hand pages and the latter the right. It is mutilated, Ac 22:29 to end being lost, together with all, except a few words of the Catholic Epistles, which followed. It is generally assigned to the 6th cent., though some would place it in the 5th. Its place of origin has been variously supposed to besouthern France, southern or western Italy, or Sardinia, but the evidence is not decisive in favour of any of these. Its text is very remarkable, containing a large number of additions and some notable omissions as compared with the TR; in some places the Latin version seems to have been accommodated to the Greek, and in others the Greek to the Latin. As will be shown below, its type of text belongs to a family of which the other principal representatives are the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions.

D₂. Codex Claromontanus, in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. Contains the Pauline Epistles in Greek and Latin, written probably in the 6th century. The Latin text is practically independent of the Greek. Before the Epistle to the Hebrews is a list of the books of the NT, with the number of stichoi ( or normal lines of 16 syllables each) in each of them, which must be descended from a very early archetype, since it places the books in an unusual order, and includes in the list several uncanonical books (cf.

descriptions of א and A) ; the order is Mt., Jn., Mk., Lk., Ro., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., 1 and 2 Tim., Tit.,

Col., Philem., 1 and 2 Pet., Ja., 1, 2, 3 Jn., Jude, Barnabas, Apoc, Acts, Hennas, Acts of Paul, Apoc. of Peter (Th., He., and Phil, being omitted). The MS was in the monastery of Clermont, whence it was acquired by Beza, who was also owner of D. It may probably have been written in Italy. Other GræcoLatin MSS of the Pauline Epistles are E₃ F₂ G₃, which all go back to the same archetype as D₂.

E₂. Codex Laudianus, in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Contains the Acts, in Greek and Latin, the latter holding the place of precedence on the left. Probably 7th cent.; was in Sardinia at an early date, and may have been written there; thence came to England (probably with Theodore of Tarsus in 669), and was used by Bede. The Greek text is somewhat akin to that of D; the Latin has been accommodated to the Greek, and is of little independent value. It is the earliest MS extant that contains Ac 8:37, though the verse was in existence in the time of Irenæus (late 2nd century).

H₃. Codex Coislinianus 202 . Fragmentary remains of a copy of the Pauline Epistles, written in the 6th (or perhaps the 7th) century. Originally at Mt. Athos, in the Laura monastery, where 8 leaves still remain. The rest was used as material for binding MSS, which became scattered in various quarters; 22 leaves are at Paris; 3 each at St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Kieff; and 2 at Turin. The text of 22 more pages has been more or less completely recovered from the ‘set-off’ which they have left on the surviving leaves. The MS represents the text of the Pauline Epistles as edited by Euthalius of Sulca in the 4th century.

L. Codex Regius, in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. Contains the Gospels; of the 8th century. It is remarkable as containing the shorter conclusion of Mk. (see RVm) as well as the usual longer one (16:9– 20); and its readings often agree with those of B against TR.

N. Codex Petropolitanus. Contains the Gospels, written in large silver letters on purple vellum, in the 6th century. Forty-five leaves have long been known (33 at Patmos, 6 in the “Vatican, 4 in the British Museum, and 2 at Vienna); and 182 more leaves came to light in 1896 in Asia Minor, and are now at St. Petersburg. Rather less than half the original MS is now extant, including portions of all Gospels. The MS forms part of a group with three other purple MSS, Σ, Σ^b, and Φ, all probably having been originally produced at Constantinople, and descended from a single not remote ancestor.

R. Codex Nitriensis, in the British Museum. A palimpsest copy of Lk. of the 6th cent., imperfect. The text differs frequently from the TR.

T. A number of fragments from Egypt, mostly bilingual, in Greek and Coptic (Sahidic). The most important (T or T^a in the library of the Propaganda at Rome) consists of 17 leaves from Lk. and Jn., of the

5th cent., with a text closely akin to that of B and א. T¹ (otherwise 099)  has the double ending to Mark.

Z. Codex Dublinensis, at Trinity College, Dublin. A palimpsest, containing 295 verses of Mt., of the

6th cent., probably from Egypt, with a text akin to א.

Λ. Codex Tischendorfianus III., in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Contains Lk. and Jn., of the 9th cent.; Mt. and Mk., written in minuscules, are at St. Peters burg (Evan. 566). This MS is chiefly notable for a subscription stating that its text was derived ‘from the ancient copies at Jerusalem.’ Similar subscriptions are found in about 12 minuscule MSS.

Σ. Codex Rossanensis, at Rossano in Calabria, 6th century. Contains Mt. and Mk., written in silver letters on purple vellum, with illustrations. Its text is closely akin to that of N, both being probably copies of the same original.

Σ_b (in future to be known as O). Codex Sinopensis, in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris; of the 6th cent.; 43 leaves from Mt 7–24 , written in gold letters on purple vellum, with 5 illustrations similar in style to those in Σ. It was picked up for a few francs by a French naval officer at Sinope in 1899. Its text is akin to that of Ν and Σ.

Φ. Codex Beratinus, at Belgrade in Albania: the fourth of the purple MSS, and belonging to the same school as the others, and probably of the same date. Contains Mt. and Mk., in a text akin to N and Σ, but not so closely related to them as they are to one another.

These are all the uncials of which it is necessary to give separate descriptions. A new MS of the

Gospels, apparently of the 5th cent., and containing a text of considerable interest, was found in Egypt in 1907 , and is now in America, but is still unpublished. Large fragments of a 6th cent. MS of the Pauline Epistles were found at the same time.

8.      Passing to the minuscules, we find the number of witnesses overwhelming. The last inventory of NT MSS (that of von Soden) contains 1716 copies of the Gospels, 531 of Acts, 628 of Pauline Epp., and 219 of Apoc; and of this total, as stated above, less than 160 are uncials. The minuscule MSS are usually indicated by Arabic numerals,* separate series being formed for the four divisions of the NT. The result of this is that when a MS contains all four parts (which is the case, only with about 40 MSS) it is known by four different numbers; thus a certain MS at Leicester bears the numbers Evan. 69, Act. 31, Paul. 37, Apoc. 14. It is, of course, impossible to give any individual account of so great a mass of MSS; indeed, many of them have never been fully examined. But it is the less necessary, because by far the greater number of the minuscule MSS contain the same type of text, that, namely, of the TR. The fact that at least 95 out of every 100  minuscule MSS contain substantially the TR may be taken as universally admitted, whatever may he the Inferences drawn from it; and it is only necessary to indicate some of those which depart most notably from this normal standard, and ally themselves more or less with the early uncials.

Thus in the Gospels 33* is akin to the text found in Bא; so, to a lesser extent, is the group of the four related MSS, 1–118–131–209 ; also 59, 157, 431, 496, 892; while the type of text found in D and in the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions has left its mark notably upon 473, and more or less on 235, 431, 700, 1071, and on a group of related MSS (known from the scholar who first called attention to it as the ‘Ferrar group’) consisting of 13, 69, 124, 346, 348, 543, 713, 788, 826, 828. In Acts and Cath. Epp., 61 and 31 are the most notable adherents of B, while 31, with 137 , 180, 216, 224, also shows kinship with D. A group consisting of Act. 15, 40, 83, 205, 317, 328, 329, 393 seems to represent an edition of Acts prepared by Euthalius of Sulca in the 4th century. In Paul, the most noteworthy minuscules are 1, 17, 31, 47 , 108, 238; the Euthalian edition is found in 81, 83, 93, 379, 381. In Apoc. (where uncials are scarce and minuscules consequently more important) the best are 1, 7, 28, 35, 38, 68, 79, 87, 95, 96. No doubt, as the minuscule MSS are more fully examined, more will be discovered which possess individual characteristics of interest; but with the large number of uncials of earlier date on the one hand, and the general uniformity of the great mass of minuscules on the other, it is not very likely that much important textual material will be derived from them. It may be possible to establish relationships between certain MSS (as in the case of the Ferrar group), and to connect them with certain localities (as the Ferrar group appears to be connected with Calabria) ; but not much progress has yet been made in this direction.

9.      One other class of MSS remains to be mentioned, namely the Service-Books or

Lectionaries, in which the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles were divided into portions to be read on each day throughout the ecclesiastical year. These books fall into two classes, according as they contain the lessons from the Gospels (Evangelia or Evangeliaria†) or from the Acts and Epistles (Praxapostoli). Nearly 1100 MSS of the former class are known, and 300 of the latter. Over 100 of these are uncials, but with hardly an exception they are of relatively late date (9th cent. or later), the uncial style being retained later for these liturgical books than elsewhere. Of the value of their evidence little can definitely be said, since few of them have been properly examined. A priori they might be of considerable value, since service-books are likely to he conservative, and also to preserve local peculiarities. They might be expected, therefore, to be of great value in localizing the various types of text which appear in the MSS, and in preserving early variants from a period before the establishment of a general uniformity. As a matter of fact, however, these claims have not yet been substantiated by any actual examination of lectionaries, and it may be questioned whether, as a whole, any of them goes back to a period before the extinction of the local and divergent texts.

The standard lists of NT MSS are those of C. R. Gregory (Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s NT Græce, ed. 8, 1894, reproduced in German, with additions, in his Textkritik des NT, 1900), and F. H. A. Scrivener

(Introduction to the Criticism of the NT, 4th ed. by E. Miller, 1894). The new list of H. von Soden (Die Schriften des NT, vol. i. pt. i. 1902) contains rectifications and additions to Gregory’s list, with a new numeration. For Gregory’s revised list, which, it may be hoped, will be accepted as the standard, see Die griechischen Handschriften des NT ( Leipzig,  1908).

10.  Versions.—The second class of authorities, as indicated in § 2, is that of Versions, or translations of the NT into languages other than Greek. It is only the earlier versions that can be of service in recovering the original text of the NT; modern translations are of importance for the history of the Bible in the countries to which they belong, but contribute nothing to textual criticism. The early Versions may be divided into Eastern (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Arabic, Ethiopic, etc.) and Western (Latin and Gothic), but the distinction is of little importance. Age is a more important factor than locality, and the two oldest and, on the whole, most important ( though not necessarily the most trustworthy) are the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions, which, moreover, are in many respects akin to one another. Next in importance are the Coptic versions and the Latin Vulgate; and the Armenian and the later Syriac versions are also of considerable value. It will be convenient to describe the several versions under their respective countries in the first instance, and to defer the discussion of their characters and affinities until the tale of our authorities is complete.

A.  SYRIAC VERSIONS.—

11.  The Old Syriac Version (OS).—The evidence for the character, and even the existence, of the primitive version of the NT in Syriac is of comparatively recent discovery. Before 1842 the earliest extant Syriac version was the Peshiṭta (see below), to which, however, a much higher antiquity was assigned than is now generally admitted. In that year, however, Dr. W. Cureton discovered, among the manuscripts brought to the British Museum from the convent of S. Maria Deipara in the Nitrian desert in Egypt, an imperfect Gospel text very different from the Peshiṭta.

This (which was not finally published by Cureton until 1858) was known for 50 years as the ‘Curetonian Syriac,’ and the relative age of it and the Peshiṭta was a matter of controversy among scholars. In 1892 two Cambridge ladies, Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, discovered in the monastery of St. Catherine at Sinai a palimpsest MS, which was subsequently recognized from their photographs as containing a text closely akin to the Curetonian. Comparison of the two showed that they represented different recensions of the same version, the Lewis or Sinaitic MS (Syr.-Sin.) containing the earlier form of it. Neither is complete. The Curetonian (Syr.-Cur.) contains nothing of Mk. except 16:17–20 , just sufficient to show that the last twelve verses were present in this form of the version, though they are absent from Sin.; of Jn. it has only about five chapters, and there are large gaps in Mt. and Luke. Sin. contains a large part of all four Gospels, but none is intact. Both MSS are assigned to the 5th cent., Sin. being probably the earlier; but the version which they represent must go back to a much more remote age. In text they are akin to the Codex Bezae and its allies, and are among the most important witnesses to this type of text.

12.  The Diatessaron.—The question of the age of this version is complicated by that of its relations to another very early embodiment of the Gospels in Syriac. Tatian, an Assyrian Christian and a disciple of Justin Martyr, compiled (probably about A.D. 170)  a Harmony of the four Gospels, known by the name of the Diatessaron. Whether it was originally composed in Greek or in Syriac is uncertain. The Greek name which it bore, and the fact that a Latin version of it was in existence, are arguments in favour of a Greek origin; on the other hand, Tatian’s activity was mainly in the East, the Diatessaron circulated most extensively in Syria, where it was almost the sole form of the Gospels in use until the 5th cent., and a commentary on it was written by the Syrian Father Ephraem. It was certainly in Syria that it was most influential, and it is in its evidence as to the Syriac version that its textual importance now consists. It is only of late years that its evidence has been available at all. Until 1880 it existed only in name, and the very fact that it was a compilation from our four canonical Gospels was a matter of controversy. In that year, however, Dr. E. Abbot called attention to the fact that in 1876 Dr. G. Moesinger had published a Latin translation of an Armenian treatise which had been printed so long ago as 1836, and which was in fact St. Ephraem’s commentary on the Diatessaron. Subsequently two copies of an Arabic version of the Diatessaron itself were discovered, in Rome and in Egypt, and from these the text was published in 1888,—in a form modified, it is true, by transmission through many centuries and an Arabic version, but still making it possible to draw some conclusions as to the text and character of Tatian’s work.

It is now certain, as a result of the recovery of the Diatessaron, that the Gospels existed in a Syriac dress in the second half of the 2nd cent.; but whether the Diatessaron was the earliest form of the Syriac Gospels, or whether the version represented by Syr.-Sin. and Syr.-Cur. was previously in existence and formed the basis of Tatian’s compilation, is still uncertain. The opinion of Syriac scholars at the present day appears to be in favour of the priority of the Diatessaron. Even so the origin of the Old Syriac version can hardly be placed later than A.D. 200, and all its characteristics stamp it as representing a very early type of the Gospel text. For some two centuries it existed side by side with the Diatessaron, the former being known as Evangelion-da-Mepharreshê (‘the Gospel of the Separated’) and the latter as Evangelion-daMehalletê (‘the Gospel of the Mixed’); and then both alike were superseded by the Peshiṭta.

There is some slight evidence (chiefly in the Armenian version, which was derived from the Syriac, and in references in Syrian authors) of the existence of an Old Syriac version of Acts and Paul (Cath. and Apoc. formed no part of the original Syriac NT); but for textual purposes they no longer exist.

13.  The Peshiṭta.—Previous to the discovery of Syr.-Cur., the Peshiṭta was believed to be the oldest Syriac version, and was sometimes regarded as the queen of all the versions. Its date was supposed to be referable to the 2nd century. Even when the superior claims of Syr.-Cur., and still more of Syr.-Sin., came to be generally (though not quite universally) admitted, the Peshiṭta was assigned to the 4th cent. at latest, on the ground that traces of it were supposed to be found in the Biblical quotations of St. Ephraem, who died in A.D. 378 . Since, however, it has been shown (by Prof. Burkitt, S. Ephraem’s Quotations from, the Gospel, 1901) that the treatises in which the use of the Peshiṭta is observable are not the genuine work of Ephraem, this evidence falls to the ground, and there is now nothing to prove the existence of the Peshiṭta before the 5th century. Its origin may now be assigned with some confidence to Rabbūla, bishop of Edessa 411–435 , who is recorded to have made a translation of the NT from Greek into Syriac, and to have been active in suppressing the use of the Diatessaron. This new translation, which was to some extent based on the Old Syriac, but was assimilated to the type of Greek text then current, completely superseded its predecessors, and from this point onwards its use in Syriac literature is universal. It appears in both branches of the Syrian Church (Nestorian and Monophysite), whose quarrel dates back to 431. The name Peshiṭta means ‘the simple,’ but whether it was used to distinguish it from its predecessors or its successors is uncertain.

MSS of the Peshiṭta go back to the century of its origin. The earliest with an actual date (which is also the earliest dated Biblical MS in existence) is a copy of some books of the Pentateuch, written in 464 (now in the British Museum; and the two earliest NT MSS may be assigned to about the same date. Of the Gospels, 125 copies in this version are on record; of Acts and Cath. 58, and of Paul. 67; Apoc. (with the four minor Catholic Epp.) was not included in the Syriac canon. The later MSS reproduce the earlier very faithfully, so that the latest edition (by G. H. Gwilliam, 1901) does not substantially differ from the first ( A. Widmanstadt,  1555).

14.  The Philoxenian Syriac.—Unlike the Latin Vulgate, the Peshiṭta was not entirely unchallenged in its supremacy. In 508, Philoxenus, Jacobite bishop of Mabug in eastern Syria, caused a new translation of the NT to be made by one Poly carp; but of this nothing has come down to us except the four minor Catholic Epp., which were incorporated into the Peshiṭta to fill the gap caused by their original omission there, and a single MS of the Apoc. (at Trinity College, Dublin; identified by Dr. Gwynn, and published in 1897). The style of Philox. was free and idiomatic, and the Greek text on which it was based was that of the majority of late MSS.

15.  The Harklean Syriac.—In 616 a complete revision of Philox. was made by Thomas of Harkel, who converted its idiomatic freedom into extreme literalness, and added various readings in critical notes, which show an acquaintance with a Greek MS or MSS having a text akin to that of Cod. Bezae and its allies. About 35 MSS of Harkl. are known, dating from the 7th and 8th cent. onwards. The Apoc. which is now incorporated with the Peshiṭta is probably derived from this version.

16.  The Palestinian Syriac.—Yet another Syriac version exists, but in a different dialect from those hitherto described; for, whereas they all belong to E. Syria, with its centre at Edessa, this is in the Western Aramaic characteristic of Palestine and its neighbourhood. The extant MSS of it (which are few and generally fragmentary, and mostly discovered within the last 15 years) are mainly lectionaries, and its textual importance is slight. Prof. Burkitt has argued, apparently with good reason, that it owes its origin to the efforts of Justinian and Heraclius to abolish Judaism in Palestine in the 6th cent., and that it came again into prominence in the 11th century. The three principal MSS of it are dated in 1030, 1104, and 1118.

On the Syriac versions see especially articles by Woods and Gwilliam in Studia Biblica, vols. i. and iii.; A. S. Lewis, The Four Gospels translated from the Sinaitic Palimpsest, 1894; Gwynn, Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version, 1897; F. C. Burkitt, op. cit. and Evangelion da Mepharreshê, 1904, and art.

on ‘Text and Versions’ in Encyc. Biblica.

17.  The Armenian Version.—In connexion with the Syriac NT it will be convenient to mention also the Armenian, which was largely dependent upon it. The earliest translation of which we have definite knowledge seems to have been made by Sahak and Mesrop about A.D. 400 , from a Syriac text of the Old Syriac family. After 431 this version was revised by the help of Greek MSS received from Constantinople, which were apparently akin to Bא, and thereby the original features of the version were much obscured. The earliest extant MSS belong to the 9th and 10th cent. (from A.D. 887) . These usually omit the last 12 verses of Mk.; but one, which has them, has a marginal note assigning them to ‘the Elder Ariston,’ i.e., presumably Aristion, a disciple of our Lord known to us by a mention in Papias.

On the Armenian version see F. C. Conybeare, art. in Hastings’ DB, and J. Armitage Robinson, Euthaliana, 1895.

B.  LATIN VERSIONS.—

18.  The Old Latin Version (OL).—As Christianity spread westward, it inevitably came into contact with the Latin-speaking population of the Roman Empire; and a translation of the NT into Latin might naturally be looked for at an early date. Indeed, since the gospel was preached in Rome by St. Paul himself, it might seem reasonable to suppose that Latin versions of the Christian literature would have been required almost as soon as it came into being, But this would be to overlook the bilingual character of the Roman Empire, even in Italy. The educated classes spoke and wrote Greek freely; the uneducated classes were largely recruited from the East, and spoke Greek more naturally than Latin. The evidence of the predominantly Greek character of the primitive Roman Church is clear. St. Paul wrote to it in Greek. The names of those whom he salutes are mainly Greek. The first twelve bishops in the list of the Roman episcopate (down to A.D. 189)  are Greek. Clement, the third in the list after St. Peter, writing in the name of the Roman Church to their brethren in Corinth, wrote in Greek. All the early literature of the Roman Church is Greek. The same may be said, so far as our knowledge goes, of the Church in Gaul. The report on the martyrdoms at Vienne, which the Christians of that province sent to their brethren in other countries, was written in Greek. Irenæus (c. 135–202) , the most famous representative of the Gallican Church in the 2nd cent., came from Asia Minor, and wrote his works in Greek. All the traditions of Gallia Narbonensis were Greek, not Latin.

19.  The need for a Latin version of the Christian books was consequently not so pressing as might be supposed. Nevertheless there was one large and important province in which Greek had no place, and where Latin was alike the literary and the spoken language. This was Africa, where the Mediterranean coast, and especially the district which is now Tunis, was inhabited by a large Latin-speaking population. When Christianity was first introduced into the province is uncertain; but in the 2nd cent. it was strong and flourishing there, and had for its spokesman the most eloquent of early Christian writers, Tertullian (c. 150–220) . Two lines of argument combine to show that the earliest Latin version of the NT known to us had its home in Africa. The first mention of the existence of a Latin version occurs in Tertullian; and that type of text which, of

all those represented by our extant OL MSS, appears on internal grounds to be the earliest, is identical with the Biblical quotations in the writings of Tertullian’s junior contemporary and compatriot, Cyprian (c. 200–258) . Whether the version was actually made in Africa cannot he determined with certainty. It is true that its Latinity agrees with that of certain African writers of the 2nd cent. (Apuleius, Arnobius, Lactantius, besides Tertullian and Cyprian); but it so happens that there is very little non-African Latin of that period in existence for comparison with it. The kinship which the text of the OL has with the Old Syriac bas caused Antioch to be suggested (by Sanday) as the original home of the version, that being a metropolis where Syrian and Latin elements met, and whence versions of the Scriptures in either tongue might radiate from a common centre. But with a strong general resemblance between the two versions, there is also a considerable amount of divergence in details, so that one cannot be certain that the connexion is not more remote. What is certain is that the earliest form of Latin version known to us was circulating in Africa in the first half of the 3rd century.

20.  The extant MSS of the OL are mainly fragments; for after the supersession of this version by the Vulgate its MSS naturally fell into neglect, and survived only fortuitously. The number of them is a little over 40 , and they are habitually indicated by the small letters of the Latin alphabet. The following are the most Important:

a.  Codex Vercellensis, at Vercelli, containing the Gospels (Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk., the usual Latin order),

somewhat mutilated, assigned to the 4th century.

b.  Codex Veronensis, at Verona, containing the Gospels on purple vellum; 5th century.

d.       The Latin text of Codex Bezae in the Gospels and Acts, and of Cod. Claromontanus in the Pauline Epistles.

e.       Codex Palatinus, at Vienna, containing the Gospels, considerably mutilated; 5th century. One leaf

is at Dublin. In the Acts, e is the Latin text of Cod. Laudianus; in Paul., that of Cod. Sangermanensis.

f.        Codex Brixianus, at Brescia, of the Gospels, on purple vellum; 6th century. ff². Codex Corbeiensis, at Paris, containing the Gospels, but imperfect. Generally assigned to the 6th

cent., but by its latest editor (E. S. Buchanan, Journ. of Theol. Studies, 1905–6)  to the 6th.

g.       Codex Gigas, at Stockholm; a complete Bible, of the 13th cent., with Acts and Apoc. in an OL text. Written in Bohemia, and a remarkable example of a late survival of OL.

h.       Palimpsestus Floriacensis, at Paris; palimpsest fragments, formerly at Fleury, of Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc., in an African text.

k. Codex Bobiensis, at Turin, where it fortunately escaped from the recent fire with slight injury. Contains Mk 8–16 (ending at 16:8), Mt 1–15 ; probably 5th cent. (according to Burkitt, 4th cent.), Contains the OL version in its earliest form, closely akin to that found in the writings of Cyprian.

m. The Speculum of pseudo-Augustine, which contains copious quotations from the NT. It is probably

of Spanish origin, and should be reckoned rather with the Fathers than with the MSS.

q. Codex Monacensis, at Munich, containing the Gospels; 6th or 7th century.

The remaining MSS are, for the moat part, only small fragments, of a few leaves each. The Apoc. is also found, almost complete, in the commentary of Primasius, written in Africa in the 6th century.

21. With these MSS must be reckoned the quotations of the early Latin Fathers, notably Tertullian (who, however, appears often to have made his own translations, and is also too inexact to be of much service in this respect), Cyprian, Hilary, Lucifer of Cagliari, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Tyconius, Priscillian, and (as just noted) Primasius. It is usual to classify all these authorities (MSS and Fathers) under the three heads of (1) African, (2) European, (3) Italian; the African type of text being the earliest and also the roughest in style and vocabulary, the European being so far modified in both these respects as to be supposed by some scholars to be due to a fresh translation, and the Italian being a revision of the European, and itself providing the basis for Jerome’s Vulgate.

The question is complicated by the fact that no two MSS represent quite the same type of text. All (except perhaps k)  have undergone modification in some respect, either by the corrections introduced by scribes in early times, or by contamination with the Vulgate. Cyprian and k, so far as they go, represent the African text of the Gospels in what appears to be a fairly pure form; e and m come next to them; h is a good African authority in Acts and Apoc., and Prisillian, Tyconius, and Primasius in the Epp. and Apoc. a and b are the leading representatives of the European family in the Gospels, with the Latin version of Ireoæus; in Acts, g and Lucifer. Of the Italian group, f is the most pronounced, and has been taken by Wordsworth and White as the best representative of the OL text which Jerome had before him when he undertook his revision of the Latin NT; next to f in this character comes q. The Latin texts in the bilingual MSS have to be used with caution, as they show signs of assimilation to the Greek. The remaining MSS are either too fragmentary to be of much service, or too mixed in their text to be classified definitely with any family.

In general character, as already indicated, the OL version (especially in its earliest form) belongs to the same class of authorities as the Old Syriac and Codex Bezae, the class, namely, which is distinguished by rather striking divergences from both the TR and the text represented by Bא. The character and claims of this type of text will be considered later; here it will be sufficient to point out the high antiquity which can be established for it through the OL (and still more through the consensus, so far as it exists, between OL and OS), and the great amount of divergence which exists between the several MSS which contain it. It is not possible, even approximately, to reconstruct the original OL text; it is even a matter of dispute whether it had one original or more. What is certain is that it underwent constant revision and alteration, and that the few and fragmentary MSS which have come down to us, and of which no two agree even approximately with one another, do but reflect a state of textual confusion which was rampant in the Latin Bibles of the 4th century.

22 The Vulgale.—This state of confusion is described in emphatic terms by the great Latin Fathers of the 4th cent., Jerome (c. 345–420) and Augustine (354–430) , and it was to the former that the task fell of attempting to reduce the chaos to order. The credit of inspiring the work which was to become the Bible of the West for a thousand years is due to Pope Damasus (pope, 366–84) . At his request, Jerome, the leading Biblical scholar of the day, who had devoted many years to the study of the Scriptures in the East in their original tongues, undertook, as he says in his preface to the NT, to ‘make a new work out of an old one’ by revising the existing Latin texts with reference to the original languages. He began with the Gospels, about the year 382; and at first his revision was on conservative lines. Where the existing text fairly represented the sense of the original, he let it stand, without enforcing complete accuracy; only where errors affected the sense did he feel bound to make alterations. The Greek manuscripts which he employed as his guides appear to have been similar in character to Bא. The revision of the Gospels was completed in 383; that of the Epistles followed, but was conducted more superficially than the previous work, partly, no doubt, because the divergences in the extant texts were less pronounced in these books. At about the same time he was commencing his work on the OT by a revision of the Psalter; but for the history of this see TEXT OF THE OT, 15 (7).

23. The later history of the Vulgate (as Jerome’s version eventually came to be called) is the subject of a separate article. Here it is only necessary to mention that the received text of it, which is found in all ordinary Latin Bibles, is that which was officially sanctioned by Pope Clement VIII. in 1592; and that the one critical edition of it is that now being produced by Bishop Wordsworth of Salisbury and Prof. H. J. White, in which the Gospels and Acts have already been published (1889–1905). Their estimate of the principal MSS of the Vulgate is the necessary basis of the following description of a selection from among them:

A. Codex Amiatinus, in the Laurentian Library at Florence, containing the whole Bible. Its history

(which was only established in 1887) is unusually well known. It was written in the north of England, at Wearmouth or Jarrow, by order of Ceolfrid, abbot of these monasteries, early in the 8th cent., and was taken by him in 716 as a present to Pope Gregory. Ceolfrid died on the way, but his companions completed the gift, and in Italy the MS has since remained; for some time it was at Monte Amiata, whence its name. Its text was probably derived from one or more MSS brought to England from Italy; and it is generally regarded as the best extant MS of the Vulgate.

C. Codex Cavensis, at La Cava, near Naples; 9th century. Contains the whole Bible, written in Spain, and is the best representative of the Spanish family of Vulgate MSS.

Δ Codex Dunelmensis, in Durham Cathedral Library; 7th or 8th century. Contains the Gospels, with a text akin to that of A.

F. Codex Fuldensis, at Fulda in Germany; between 541 and 546. Written by order of Bishop Victor of

Capua. Contains the whole NT, the Gospels being arranged in the same manner as in Tatian’s

Diatessaron, on the basis of a copy of a Latin version of that work accidentally found by Bishop Victor.

H. Codex Hubertianus, and Θ, Codex Theodulfianus, contain the edition of the Vulgate produced by

Bishop Theodulf of Orleans, for which see art. VULGATE.

K. Codex Karolinus, and V, Codex Vallicellianus, similarly represent the edition of Alcuin. (See ib.)

O. Codex Oxoniensis, in the Bodleian (formerly at St. Augustine’s, Canterbury); 7th century. Contains the Gospels, in a text affected by Irish influences.

Q. Codex Kenanensis, the Book of Kells, at Trinity College, Dublin; prob. 8th century. Contains the Gospels, lavishly decorated in the Celtic style. Its text, naturally, is of the Irish type.

S. Codex Stonyhurstensis, at Stonyhurst College; 7th century. Contains Jn. alone, in a text akin to that of A. Formerly at Durham, and probably written in that neighbourhood. V. See K, above.

Y.     Codex Lindisfarnensis, in the British Museum; contains the Gospels; written at the end of the 7th cent., in honour of St. Cuthbert (d. 687), with beautiful Anglo-Celtic ornamentation. Some liturgical directions inserted in it show that it was copied from a MS written in Naples, no doubt one brought to England by Hadrian, abbot of a monastery near Naples, who came to England with Archbishop Theodore in 669. Closely akin in text to A.

Z.      Codex Harleianus, in the British Museum; 6th or 7th century. A well-written copy of a good text, but of a different family from A.

These are the principal MSS of the Vulgate in the Gospels. A, C, F, Θ, K, T, V are also used by

Wordsworth and White in the Acts. To them may be added—

G. Codex Sangermanensis, at Paris; 9th century. Contains the whole Bible, but is particularly good in Acts, so that Wordsworth and White state that their text agrees with it oftener than with any other MS.

O. Codex Oxoniensis, in the Bodleian Library; 8th century. Known as the ‘Selden Acts.’ The text is of the Irish type.

The MSS of the Pauline Epistles and Apocalypse have not yet been classified, but the MSS described above as containing the whole NT will no doubt re-appear among the principal authorities for these books also.

24. As indicated above, the Codex Amiatinus (A) is regarded as the best MS of the Gospels, and with it go the other Northumbrian MSS, ΔSY, with F in attendance. A second group of MSS, which, generally speaking, is of inferior merit, is headed by Z, and includes several MSS not described above. CT represent the Spanish type of text, which had an important influence on the history of the Vulgate, and Q the not less important Irish type. In Acts, Wordsworth and White give the first place to G, with CA and F in close attendance. These three last-named MSS represent different groups, the A group being generally preferable to the F group; but no one MS or group has a monopoly of merit. In general character, as stated above, the Vulgate tends to agree with the type of Greek text represented by Bא. It is clear that the Greek authorities which

Jerome regarded as the most trustworthy were of this type; but since (in the NT) his revision retained a considerable quantity of the OL version, which is largely of a different type, the result, as it now stands, is of a composite character. By reason of this composite character, and also of its relatively late date, the Vulgate is not of the same textual importance as OS or OL; nevertheless it is to be remembered that Jerome must have made use of Greek MSS at least as old as the oldest which we now possess. The historical importance of the Vulgate will be dealt with in a separate article.

Of the OL version the most comprehensive account is that given by H. A. A. Kennedy in

Hastings’ DB. See also Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala ( Cambridge, 1896), the prefaces by

Wordsworth, Sanday, and White to their editions of Old Latin Biblical Texts (parts i–iv., Oxford, 1883–97), and articles by Gebhardt (in PRE³, 1897) and Corssen (in Bursian’s Jahresbericht über die Fortschritt der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, bd. 101, 1899). On the Vulgate see Westcott’s art. in Smith’s DB, White’s chapter in Scrivener’s Introduction, ed. 4 (which deals with both versions), and the prefaces to Wordsworth and White’s edition of the Vulgate, now in progress (Oxford, 1889 ff.).

C. COPTIC VERSIONS.—

25.  Coptic is the literary form of the vernacular language of Egypt, the descendant of the ancient tongue which we know first in its hieroglyphic, and later in its demotic form, but differing from them in adopting the Greek alphabet, with the addition of certain letters to represent sounds not employed in Greek. Coptic is the outcome of the Greek settlement in Egypt, which took place under the empire of the Ptolemys and continued under that of Rome; and along with the Greek characters the native tongue adopted also a considerable number of Greek words. When this form of writing came into being is uncertain. It appears in a primitive form in a certain horoscope, now in the British Museum, the date of which is probably A.D. 95 ; and it is reasonable to suppose that it became established as a literary medium in the course of the 2nd century. It is quite possible that its growth was promoted by the need of its services in making the gospel known to native converts. Christianity was no doubt introduced into Egypt even in Apostolic times, but it would have come in the first instance to the Jews of Alexandria and the Greek-speaking population generally. Even when it penetrated farther, and addressed the native population in its own tongue, its message would at first have been oral, and the earliest Coptic versions of the NT may well have been merely oral paraphraaes, such as were the earliest Anglo-

Saxon versions in our own country. The first mention of Coptic Scriptures occurs in the Life of St. Antony, who is said to have heard the Gospel read in church as a boy about A.D. 270 ; and since be was not acquainted with Greek, this must have been a Coptic version, whether oral or written. Early in the 4th cent. the monks of the order established by Pachomina were required by their rule to study the Scriptures; and this, at any rate, implies the existence of a written Coptic version. In the 3rd cent., therefore, at latest, and possibly by the end of the 2nd (since the Coptic versions unquestionably have some very early characteristics), a Coptic translation of the NT ( except the Apocalypse) was in circulation.

26.  The Egyptian language was not uniform throughout the country, but possessed various local dialects. Two of these are well marked, and possess a respectable quantity of literature, almost wholly theological. These are the Bohairic, or dialect of Lower Egypt, and the Sahidic, or dialect of Upper Egypt. The former derives its title (first conferred on it by Athanasius, bishop of Cos in Upper Egypt in the 11th cent.) from the Arabic name of a district near Alexandria, the latter from the Arabic name for Upper Egypt. Between the two lie several dialects collectively known as Middle Egyptian, with local varieties in the Fayyum, at Akhmim, and elsewhere, which certainly possessed a translation (or translations) of the Bible, but of which very little is known at present, for lack of materials.

27.  The Sahidic Version (Sah., formerly Thebaic).—It was formerly held that the Bohairic version (Boh.) was the first in point of age, since it was the version of Lower Egypt, which would have been the first to receive Christianity; but Coptic scholars are now generally agreed that the order of precedence must be inverted. Lower Egypt was very largely Greek-speaking, and the language in which the Septuagint was already familiar would have been sufficient for a considerable time. In Upper Egypt, though there were considerable Greek communities there also, and in the principal towns Greek must have been generally understood, the population as a whole must have been more Egyptian, and an Egyptian version of the NT would have been required there sooner than in the neighbourhood of Alexandria. The characteristics of the Sahidic version also suit this hypothesis of an earlier date. It is rougher and less literary in style than the Bohairic, and its text is of a very early type, akin in many details (though not as a whole) to the OL and OS; in the OT its text is in some books pre-Origenian. Unfortunately it is known to us only in fragments. It was ultimately superseded by Boh. and dropped out of use; and, with the exception of some small but complete volumes recently acquired by the British Museum, all that we now have of it are isolated leaves of vellum or papyrus which have been rescued from the buried towns and monasteries of Egypt. The Apocalypse is the only book of the NT that exists complete in a single MS, though some books approach completeneas. But the number of extant fragments is large and increasing, and from these it will be possible soon to put together an almost continuous Sahidic NT. The earliest MSS appear to go back to the 5th cent., but none is of sufficient size and importance to merit individual description. Some are bilingual, containing Greek and Sahidic texts in parallel columns; the most important of these has been described above (§ 7)  under the heading T.

28.  The Bohairic Version.—This, which ultimately became the accepted Bible of the Coptic Church, is much better known than Sah., and is preserved in a considerable number of MSS. The date of its origin, however, is quite uncertain. In favour of an early date is the fact that the Apocalypse was apparently not originally contained in it; this book seems to have been generally accepted after the end of the 3rd cent., but was regarded with some doubt before. In the OT, Boh. contains the insertions made by Origen, which implies a date not earlier than the latter part of the

3rd century. In general, the text represented by it is of the same character as that found in Bא; and this again points to a date not substantially later than the first half of the 4th century. The cent. from A.D. 250  to 350 seems, therefore, the most probable period for its origin; though some writers (notably Guidi) think that Coptic Christianity (as distinct from Greek) did not develop in Lower Egypt until the middle of the 6th cent., and consequently that all Bohairic literature is subsequent to this date.

The Bohairic version follows the Greek very closely, being more faithful and less free than

Sah.; hence it is trustworthy evidence of the readings of the Greek MSS from which it was made.

These MSS, as indicated above, were of the same general character as Bא, and especially B.

Divergent readings of the type represented by OL and OS, which are found not infrequently in

Sah., are practically absent from Boh. The earliest Boh. MS of the Gospels is the Curzon Catena (an intermixture of text and commentary) in the Parham Library, which is dated A.D. 889 ; the oldest and best continuous MS of the Gospels is Huntington MS 17, in the Bodleian, dated 1174. Several others are of the 12th and 13th cents.; but none goes back to anything like the age of the fragments of Sah. Many of them have Arabic versions in the margins. An excellent edition of Boh. has recently been completed by the Rev. G. Horner (Oxford, 1898 and 1905), who is now engaged on Sah.

29.  The Middle Egyptian Versions.—Of these very little is yet known, though ‘enough to establish their existence. Our knowledge rests upon a few fragments of vellum and papyrus which have come to light of late years, notably in the Fayyum, in the neighbourhood of Akhmim, and in that of Memphis. These differ in dialect from both Boh. and Sah., and also to some extent among themselves; but they are more akin to Sah. than to Boh. Also the NT text found in them differs from both Boh. and Sah.; and evidence has been found of the existence of more than one Middle Egyptian version. The largest NT fragment as yet extant is a 6th cent. palimpsest in the British Museum (Or. MS. 5707), containing parts of Jn 3 and 4 in Greek and Middle Egyptian, with a good text.

30.  Other versions exist—Georgian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Persian, Gothic; but on these it is not necessary to dwell. The first two have been too little studied to be practically available, and the others are too late in origin, and too secondary, or even tertiary, in their character, to be of much use. The versions that are of first-rate importance are those that have been described above,—the Syriac, Latin, and Coptic versions. Of these the Old Latin and Old Syriac take the first place, both on account of their age, and because they are the chief extant representatives of a very early and important type of text, as will be seen below. Next in textual importance are Sah. and Boh., which give us the evidence of Egypt, the country which has perhaps played the largest part in the history of the Greek Bible. Then follow the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta, each just too late and too composite in character to be of first-rate importance as evidence of the primitive Greek text, but each the authorized Bible of a great Church. Finally, evidence of some value is to be obtained from the later Syriac and the Armenian versions.

See articles by Forbes Robinson in Hastings’ DB, and Burkitt in Encyc. Bibl. (s.v. ‘Text and

Versions’); [G. Horner], The Coptic Version of the NT in the northern dialect (Oxford, 1898–1905) ; W. E. Crum, Catalogue of Coptic MSS in the British Museum ( London, 1905); Hyvernat, ‘Etude sur les versions coptes de la Bible’ in RB 1896–97.

31.  Patristic Quotations.—The third class of evidence available for textual purposes is that which is derived from the quotations from the NT in the writings of the early Fathers. If we can be sure that a writer is quoting from a MS lying before him, then his quotation gives us the reading of a MS which in many cases must have been earlier than any which we now possess. Sometimes we can be fairly sure of this, as when the quotation occurs in a continuous commentary on a single book; or when the writer expressly emphasizes a certain reading as against other variants; or when he quotes the same passage several times in the same way. In other cases it is impossible to be certain that he is not quoting from memory; and this makes quotations from the Synoptic Gospels especially fallacious, since it is so easy to confuse the wordings of the different Evangelists. There is always the danger also that a copyist may have assimilated the wording of a quotation to the form with which he was himself familiar.

Consequently evidence of this class, though highly valuable when its surroundings guarantee it from suspicion, has to be handled with great caution. In one respect Patristic quotations have a special value, because they can be both dated and placed. The dates of the earliest MSS and versions are uncertain, within half a century or more, while the date of any given Patristric work can generally be fixed within a few years. The advantage of being assignable to a certain country is one which Patristic quotations share with versions, but it is of great importance in fixing the origin and range of certain types of text. In both respects it will be found that the evidence of the Fathers is of great value in elucidating the textual history of the NT. It is impossible to treat the subject at length here, but the names and dates of some of the most important Fathers may be mentioned, and subsequent sections will show what sort of part they play in the operations of textual criticism.

32.  The earliest Patristic writings, such as the Epistles of Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, and the ‘Shepherd’ of Hermas, contain very few quotations from the NT, and those few are inexact (see NT in Apost. Fathers [ Oxf. Soc. of Hist. Theol.]). In the third quarter of the 2nd cent. we have the writings of Justin Martyr and Tatian, and we know something of the Gospel text used by the heretic Marcion. From about 180 onwards the evidence becomes much fuller. Irenæus (whose principal work was written between 181 and 189) worked mainly at Lyons, though his home was in Asia Minor. Western texts are also represented by Tertullian (about 150–220), Cyprian (about 200–258) , and Hippolytus (flourished about 220); the two former being African writers, and the last-named of Rome. In Egypt there are the two very important theologians, Clement of Alexandria (about 160–220) and Origen (185–253) , and the two scholars who succeeded to the latter’s literary inheritance, and founded the library of Cæsarea largely upon the basis of his works, Pamphilus (d. 309) and Eusebius (about 270–340).

In Syria the most notable names are those of Aphraates (flourished about 340) and especially

Ephraem (rt. 378); in Asia Minor, Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 265), Basil of Cæsarea (329–79) ,

Gregory of Nyssa (flor. about 370), and Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389); in Palestine, Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop, 351–86), and especially Chrysostom (347–407) . Returning to the West, the important writers, from a textual point of view as well as from others, are Hilary of Poitiers (bishop, 354–68), Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 371), Ambrose of Milan (bishop, 374–97) , Tyconius (an African writer of the end of the 4th cent.), Priscillian (a Spaniard, d. 385); and, finally, the two great Fathers of the Western Church, Jerome (about 345–420) and Augustine (354–430) . Later than the first quarter of the 5th cent. it is not necessary to go; for the settlement of the great issues in the textual history of the NT had taken place before this date.

A list of ecclesiastical writers and their principal works is given by Gregory (Prolegomena and

Textkritik) . An index of Patristic quotations was compiled by Dean Burgon and is now in the British Museum. Critical texts of the Latin and Greek Fathers are being issued under the direction of the Vienna and Berlin Academies respectively.

33.  Such are the materials—MSS, Versions, Patristic Quotations—with which the textual critic has to deal; but it is only within comparatively recent years that his resources have become so extensive. Two centuries of diligent work were spent in the collection of the evidence of Greek MSS; the most important of all, the Codex Vaticanus (B), bas become fully known only within the last forty years, and the next most important (א)  was discovered only in 1859 and published in 1862. Of the two most important versions, the Old Syriac was wholly unknown before 1848, and quite inadequately known until 1894; while the Old Latin, though known and studied in the 18th cent. (when Sabatier published his Bibtiorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, Rheims, 1743), cannot be said to have been rightly understood and classified before the publications of several scholars who are still living. For many of the Fathers, we still are without editions which can be trusted with regard to their Scripture quotations. The textual criticism of the NT, as now understood, is consequently a science of comparatively modern growth. As was shown above (§ 1) , the earliest editions of the Greek NT were in no sense critical texts. It is true that MSS were collated for them, but only such MSS as chanced to be easily at the disposal of the editor. No search was made for specially good or old MSS, and (except for a very slight use of Cod. Bezae by Stephanus) the TR was made and established before any of the great uncial MSS had been examined. This is the more remarkable because B was used as the main basis of the text which became the standard text of the Septuagint, that, namely, which was printed at Rome in 1587; but it chanced that no Roman edition of the NT was Issued, and consequently the great Vatican MS was little known and less used until the 19th cent. was far advanced.

34.  At stated in § 1, the TR of the NT took final shape in the editions of Stephanus in 1550 and the Elzevirs in 1624. It was not until after the latter date that the scientific collection of evidence began. The Codex Alexandrinus (A) was brought to England in 1627, and a collation of it (with D D₂, and several minuscules) first appeared in the great Polyglot Bible edited by Brian Walton in 1657. Walton’s Polyglot (modelled, so far as its plan and scope were concerned, on the Antwerp Polyglot of 1571–72, and the Paris Polyglot of 1630–33 , but greatly superior to both in its textual material) may be said to be the fountain-head of the textual criticism of the NT. It was followed during the next century and a half by a series of editions in which, while no attempt was made to modify the actual text, an increasing number of MSS was laid under contribution to supply materials for the apparatus criticus. The first of these was that of Dean Fell in 1675; the greatest was that of John Mill in 1707, which was remarkable not only for the number of Greek MSS quoted in it, but for its use of the versions, Its collection (for the first time) of Patristic quotations, and its valuable prolegomena. In the 18th cent. Bentley (whose first appearance in the field of Biblical criticism was stimulated by Mill’s great work) made large collections for a new edition, but was unable to make use of them. J. J. Wetstein, a Swiss assistant of Bentley, produced in 1751–52  an edition in which our present notation of the MSS was first Introduced; and the list was considerably extended by C. F. Matthæi (1782–88) , F. K. Alter (1786–87), A. Birch (1788–1801), and, finally, J. M. A. Scholz (1830–36) , with whom the first stage of NT textual criticism may be said to have come to a close.

35.  During this first, and most necessary, stage of the collection of evidence, which extends from 1657 to 1830, little was done in the way of classifying the materials thus obtained, or laying down the principles upon which they should be employed and interpreted. There are, however, some notable exceptions. Mill, in his Prolegomena, discussed the true reading of many passages. J. A. Bengel, in 1734, divided the MSS and Versions into two families, which he called African and Asiatic, and asserted the superiority of the former, consisting of the few most ancient witnesses, over the latter, which included the great mass of later authorities. In this we find the germ of the principle of the classification of authorities, which is now the guiding principle of textual criticism, whether Biblical or classical. It was opposed by Wetstein, who anticipated the advocacy of the TR in our own time by Dean Burgon and others, maintaining that all the most ancient MSS had been contaminated from the Latin, and that only the later authorities were worthy of attention. J. S. Semler (1767) developed Bengel’s theory, making a triple classification of authorities, as Alexandrian, Eastern (i.e. Antiochian and Constantinopolitan), and Western; and this was elaborated by his pupil J.J. Griesbach (1774–75) , who adopted the same classification, but carried much further the assignment of the then extant MSS and Versions to their several classes. Both in his classification and in his estimate of the characteristics of the various families Griesbach went far to anticipate the theory of Westcott and Hort, which is the foundation of contemporary criticism.

36.  None of the scholars hitherto named, however, put his principles to the test by producing a reformed Greek text of the NT. This step, which marked the opening of a new era in textual criticism, was taken in 1831 by K. Lachmann, a distinguished classical scholar, who, like Bentley before him, but with greater success, resolved to apply to the text of the NT the principles which were admitted as sound in the case of the Greek and Latin classics. This method consisted of selecting some of the oldest authorities (MSS, Versions, and Fathers), and forming his text solely from them, while ignoring the great mass of later witnesses. In putting faith mainly in the most ancient witnesses, in spite of their numerical inferiority, Lachmann only did what every editor of a classical text would do; but he departed from sound principle, first, by absolutely ignoring all evidence outside his selected group; and, secondly, by adopting in all cases the reading given by the majority of his selected authorities, without regard to the internal probabilities of the various readings, or applying any of the tests which textual science provides for discriminating between alternatives the external evidence for which is approximately equal. Moreover, the knowledge of the earlier authorities at Lachmann’s disposal was by no means so complete as that which we have at the present day. For these reasons Lachmann’s text could not long hold its ground precisely as it stood; nevertheless it did very great service in breaking the monopoly of the TR, and in preparing the way for further progress.

37.  The next stage in this progress is marked by the names of Constantine Tischendorf and S. P. Tregelles. As the discoverer of the Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf achieved the most sensational success in textual history; but he also did admirable service by his collation of almost all the uncial MSS of any importance (except that he was allowed only very limited access to B), and his collection of evidence in his successive editions of the NT (culminating in the 8th, published in 1869–72) remains the fullest apparatus criticus to the present day. His own printed text of the NT fluctuated considerably from one edition to another, and his judgment between various readings was hardly equal to his industry in collecting them; still in the main he followed the best authorities, and his edition remains one of the principal examples of a text constructed on critical lines. The prolegomena to his 8th edition was compiled after his death by Dr. C. R. Gregory, and is a perfect storehouse of bibliographical information; in its latest form ( published as an independent work, in German, under the title of Textkritik des neuen Testamentes, Leipzig, 1900)  it is the standard book of reference on the subject.

38.  Tischendorf’s Industry as a collator was rivalled by that of his English contemporary, Tregelles, who collated all the extant uncial MSS and some of the chief minuscules, so that his results serve to check and test those of Tischendorf. In his text (published in 1857–72)  he confined himself almost wholly to the uncials, with the Versions and Fathers, completely ignoring the TR. In fact, he followed very much the same principles as Tischendorf, and his edition is serviceable chiefly as a means of testing Tischendorf’s judgment, and of showing how far two scholars, working independently on the same evidence, arrive at the same results.

Unfortunately his text of the Gospels was published before the discovery of א, and his knowledge of B was even less than that of Tischendorf.

39.  The evidence accumulated by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, aided by the public interest excited by such discoveries as those of the Codex Sinaiticus and the Curetonian Syriac, produced a general sense of dissatisfaction with the TR, and in England led to an increasing desire for a revision of the AV in the light of modern knowledge, culminating in 1870 in the appointment of the Committees which produced the RV (for which see art. ENGLISH VERSIONS, §§ 35–37) . Meanwhile two English scholars were at work on the text of the NT, whose results were destined not only to affect very greatly the revision of the English Bible, but also to lay the foundations of all the textual work of the succeeding generation, and whose influence remains paramount to this day. These were B. F. Westcott (afterwards Bishop of Durham) and F. J. A. Hort. Their joint work began as far back as 1853, when they were colleagues at Cambridge; and it bore fruit in 1881, when their text of the NT appeared on May 12th (five days before the publication of the RV of the NT), and the Introduction, embodying the principles upon which their text was based, in the following September. This volume (written by Hort, but representing the views of both scholars) is the text-book of modern textual criticism as applied to the Greek Bible.

40.  The principles of WH are an extension of those of Semler and Griesbach, as described above (§ 35) , and rest upon a classification of our authorities into families, and a discrimination between the merits of these families. It is in the Gospels and Acts that the textual phenomena are most plainly marked, and it is to them that the characteristics to be described apply most fully; but they are likewise true, in a lesser degree, of the other books of the NT. If the apparatus criticus of the Gospels be studied, it will be found that certain MSS and Versions tend to agree with one another, and to form groups distinguishable from other groups. Four such groups are in fact distinguished by WH, as follows; the reasons for the names assigned to them will appear shortly. (α) The Syrian family, often headed in the Gospels by the manuscripts A and C, but more fully and characteristically represented by the later uncials, such as EFKMS, etc., and by the great mass of the minuscules, by the Peshiṭta version, and by most of the Fathers from Chrysostom downwards; from this family, in its fully developed form, is descended the TR. (β)

The Neutral family, of which the main representative is B, often supported by א, by LRTZ, by the minuscule Evan. 33, and some other minuscules in a lesser degree, by Boh. and sometimes Sah. and frequently by the quotations of Origen; in Acts, Epp., and Apoc., A and C generally join this group. (γ) The Alexandrian family, a sort of sub-species of β, not continuously found in any one MS, but represented by the readings of some MSS of the β group when they differ among themselves, and especially when they differ from B; LT, and AC when they are not Syrian, may be taken as the leading members of the family. (δ) The Western family, headed by D among the uncials (with E² in Acts and D₂ in Paul.) and Evan. 473 among a small group of minuscules, but most authentically represented by the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions, and especially by κ and Syr.-Sin.; it also largely colours Sah., and is found in almost all the early Fathers, notably Justin, Irenæus, Cyprian, and Clement.

41.  These being the main divisions which are found to exist among our authorities, the next step is to discriminate between them, so as to determine which is the most generally trustworthy. Here it is (in addition to the greater minuteness of the examination and analysis of the individual authorities) that the original and epoch-making character of the work of WH is most conspicuous. The first proposition—and one which strikes at the root of the claims of the TR—is this, that no specifically ‘Syrian’ reading occurs in the NT quotations of any Father before Chrysostom. In other words, wherever the Syrian family marks itself off from the others by a reading of its own, that reading cannot be shown to have been in existence before the latter part of the 4th century. The importance of this proposition is obvious, and it is noteworthy, as showing the value of Patristic evidence, that the proof of it rests wholly on the quotations found in the Fathers. The inevitable conclusion is that the Syrian text is a secondary text, formed ( according to WH in Syria, and especially in Antioch) in the course of the 4th century. This secondary character is also established by an examination of representative Syrian readings (for these, see especially J. O. F. Murray’s art. ‘Textual Criticism of the NT’ in Hastings’ DB, Ext. Vol.). As compared with the rival readings of other groups, they show the ordinary signs of editorial revision, such as the modification of harsh or strange phrases, assimilation of one version of an incident with another, greater literary smoothness, and the like. A special proof of secondariness is found in what WH call conflate readings, when one group of authorities has one reading and another has a second, and the Syrian text combines the two. The shortest and simplest example is Lk 24:53, where א BCL Boh. read eulogountes ton theon, D, OL, and

Augustine ainountes ton theon, while A and the general mass of late uncials and minuscules have ainountes kai eulogountes ton theon. (For other examples of this type see Hort’s Introduction, and Murray, loc. cit.)  The conclusion, therefore, is that the witnesses belonging to the Syrian family, although they predominate enormously in numbers, possess little intrinsic weight when opposed to witnesses of the other groups.

42.  As between the remaining groups the discrimination is not so easy, and must be made by other methods. The Patristic evidence can show us that the Western text (originally so named because the principal representatives of it were the OL version, the Latin Fathers, and the bilingual MSS) was spread over all the principal provinces to which Christianity penetrated,— Syria, Egypt, Rome, Gaul, Africa,—and that it goes back as far as we have any evidence, namely to the middle of the 2nd century. On the other hand, it points to Egypt as the special stronghold of the Neutral text, and the sole home of the Alexandrian. All, however, are of such antiquity that the preference can be given to none on this ground alone. It is necessary, therefore, to look at the internal character of the several texts. Of the Western text WH say (Introd. § 170): ‘Any prepossessions in its favour that might be created by its imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous study of its internal character.’ The chief characteristics with which they charge it are a love of paraphrase; a tendency to inter polate words, sentences, and even paragraphs; free changes or insertions of conjunctions, pronouns, and prepositional phrases; and generally an extreme licence in handling the original text. Alexandrian readings, on the other hand, consist mainly of slight linguistic changes, made in the interest of literary style; they are thus comparatively unimportant, and give rise to little controversy. Over against these various divergences stands the text which WH call Neutral, because it shows few or none of the signs of aberration which characterize the other groups. This text is found predominantly in B, the character of which is so superior that its evidence always deserves the most careful consideration, even when it stands alone.

43.  Such is, in briefest summary, the theory with regard to the textual history of the NT propounded by WH. On its first promulgation it was bitterly assailed by the advocates of the TR; but against these its triumph, in the opinion of nearly all students of the subject, has been decisive. More recently the tendency has been to depreciate the pre-eminence of the β or Neutral Text, as being merely the local text of Egypt, and to exalt the δ or Western family, on the ground of its wide and early diffusion and the apparently primitive character of some of its special readings. A further topic of criticism has been the terminology of WH. The term ‘Syrian’ has been condemned as liable to be confused with ‘Syriac’; ‘Western’ as wholly misleading, since that type of text was widely prevalent in the East also, and probably took its rise thence; ‘Neutral’ as begging the question of the superior character of the family so described. These criticisms may be briefly dismissed; there is good foundation for them, but they are matters of form rather than of substance. ‘Antiochian’ might be substituted for ‘Syrian’ with advantage, and the Egyptian status of the ‘Neutral’ text might be admitted without abandoning its claims to superiority; but no good substitute for ‘Western’ has yet been proposed. In some ways it would he better to abandon epithets altogether, and to call the several families by the names of the αtext, the β-text, the γ-text, and the δ-text, as indicated in § 40; or the nomenclature of WH may be retained, but regarded simply as so many labels, devoid of any significant connotation.

44.  It is more important to say something with regard to the comparative claims of the β and α texts in the first instance, and the β and γ texts subsequently. With regard to the former controversy, which raged with great warmth after the publication of the RV of the NT, the advocates of the α or Syrian or TR (chief among whom were Dean Burgon, his disciple and literary heir the Rev. E. Miller, and the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, the editor of the Peshiṭta) rest their case mainly on the numerical preponderance of the manuscripts of this type, which they take as indicating the choice, deliberate or instinctive, of the early Church, and as implying the sanction and authority of Divine Providence. But to argue thus is to maintain that the textual history of the Bible is fundamentally different from that of all other books of ancient literature, and that the reasoning faculties given to us by God, which are generally recognized as guiding us to the truth with regard to the textual history of classical literature, are not to be employed with regard to the textual history of the NT. There is nothing strange or abnormal in the rejection of a relatively large number of late authorities in favour of a relatively small number of ancient authorities; on the contrary, it is a phenomenon common to nearly all works of ancient literature that have come down to us, the sole difference being that the NT manuscripts, early and late, are far more numerous than those of any classical work, so that the ordinary phenomena are exhibited on a much larger scale. If once it be admitted that the ordinary principles of literary criticism are to be applied to the NT, then the rejection of the TR in favour of one of the earlier families follows as a matter of necessity. It may be added that the course of discovery since the publication of WH’s theory has furnished the best possible test of such a theory, that of wholly new and unforeseen witnesses, and that it has received therefrom much confirmation and no refutation. The discovery of the Sinaitic Syriac, the fuller scrutiny of the versions, the testing of the Patristic quotations (e.g. in the case of Ephraem Syrus, who was formerly supposed to have used the Peshiṭta), the papyrus and vellum fragments from Egypt and Sinai, the examination of more of the minuscule MSS, all these have brought additional support to readings of the β, γ, and δ families, for which the evidence previously available was sometimes very scanty, while they have done nothing to carry back the date of the distinctively Syrian readings beyond the period assigned to them by WH, namely, the age of Chrysostom.

45.  One point remains to be dealt with in this connexion, namely, the question of the origin of this ‘Syrian’ text, which thus dominated the NT tradition for considerably over a thousand years. The view of WH is that it was due to deliberate editorial revision, operating probably in two stages, the first revision taking place early in the 4th cent., the second at some time after the middle of that century. Against this hypothesis it has been objected that, if such revisions took place, we should have expected to find some record of them in early Christian literature. We know the names of several editors of the Greek OT during this very century [see GR. VERSIONS OF OT]; is it likely that two revisions of the NT could have been executed and yet have left no trace in history? It has been urged that there is no record of how another great textual change was carried out, namely, the substitution in the Greek OT of Theodotion’s version of Daniel for that of the LXX; and it is no doubt true that where the whole available literature likely to deal with such a subject is so scanty, the argument from silence is very precarious. Still it must be allowed to carry some weight, and not a few critics would substitute for Hort’s double revision a process of gradual change spread over a considerable period. Such a gradual change would be due to a general consensus of opinion as to the right way to deal with divergent texts, namely, to combine them when possible, and otherwise to soften down harshnesses, to harmonize contradictions, and to give greater smoothness to the literary style. In favour of this hypothesis it may be noted that the MSS themselves show signs of a gradual and progressive development of the α text. The earliest MSS which (in the Gospels) can be classed with this family, A and C, exhibit its characteristics sporadically, not continuously, and not infrequently side with MSS of the β and δ families against readings found in the overwhelming mass of later witnesses. The 6th cent. MSS, ΝΣΦ, show the α text in a somewhat more advanced stage; but it is not until we reach the later uncials, such as EFKMS^II, that we find it fully developed in the form which we know as the TR. But whether we adopt the hypothesis of a definite revision or that of a gradual process of change in order to account for the existence of the α text, the fact of the existence of such a text remains, and its character as a secondary text of relatively late origin must be taken to be one of the established results of criticism.

46.  The ordinary English student of the Bible is able readily to appreciate the points at issue in the controversy between the α and β texts, because they are substantially represented to him by the differences (so far as they are differences in text, and not merely in rendering) between the AV and the RV; for though the RV does not go the whole way with the ‘Neutral’ text, nevertheless its textual departures from the AV are in that direction, and give an adequate general idea of its character. In dealing with the δ text, however, there is no such ready means of realizing its character, since it is not embodied in any English version, or even in any edition of the Greek text.* Its features must be gathered by an inspection of the apparatus criticus of such works as the ‘Variorum’ edition of the English Bible, or the Oxford edition (with Sanday’s appendixes) of the Greek. Even here it is not all plain sailing, since no one MS gives a full and consistent representation of the δ text, and the authorities which are predominantly of this character not infrequently disagree with regard to particular readings. Generally it may be said that the Old Syriac (especially Syr.-Sin.) and Old Latin (especially k, e, and Cyprian) represent the oldest form of the δ text, while Codex Bezae (D), its chief champion among Greek MSS, has it in a more advanced (and more extravagant) form.

From these some idea of its divergences from the α and β texts may be gathered (though it must be remembered that sometimes α and δ are found in agreement against β, owing to the eclectic compilers of a having adopted a δ reading from the alternatives presented to them; and sometimes, on the other hand, β and δ concur in the preservation of some early reading which has been dropped or altered in α) . Thus OL and OS (with אB) omit firstborn’ in Mt 1:25, and the words ‘bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you’ and ‘despitefully use you’ in Mt 5:44, while D in both cases has the omitted words; Syr.Cur. has the doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, while D and most OL MSS omit it; OS omits Mt 16:2, 3 and

17:21 (with אB), while OL and D retain both; in Mt 18:11, D, OL, and Syr.-Cur. agree with the a group in retaining the verse, while Syr.-Sin. sides with the β group in omitting it; after Mt 20:28 a long additional passage (akin to Lk 14:8–11) is inserted in DΘ, OL, and Syr.-Cur. (Syr.-Sin. is defective). Mk 16:9–20 is omitted by κ and Syr.-Sin., inserted by D, Syr.-Cur., and most MSS of the OL. At Lk 6:6 D inserts the incident of the man working on the Sabbath day, but OS is defective here, and OL has no trace of it; in Lk 9:55 the TR is derived from the δ text (D, OL, Syr.-Cur.), but Syr.-Sin. agrees with the β group in omitting the words ‘and said, Ye know not what spirit ye are of,’ etc.; D and some OL MSS omit Lk 22:20, while other OL MSS and OS transpose vv. 17, 18 to this place; Syr.-Sin. omits Lk 22:43 , 44, but D, OL, and Syr.-Cur. retain them; in Lk 23:48 some words are added to the end by OS and g¹; in Lk 24:6, 12, 36, where D and OL have remarkable omissions (which WH are inclined to accept, even against the testimony of B), both MSS of OS contain the omitted passages; but they concur with D and OL in omitting 24:40. These examples serve to show both the character of the δ text and the way in which its authorities are divided among themselves,—a point of considerable importance; while in Acts the divergences of the S text (here mainly represented by D and OL, the OS not being extant) are even greater, so much so as to have given rise to the hypothesis that it represents a different edition of the book, due to the author himself.† The vagaries of individual members of the δ group are occasionally still more striking than those which have been quoted; as when two OL MSS (a and g¹)  insert in Mt 1:15 the legend (apparently from the Ebionite Gospel) of the great light which flashed from Jordan at the baptism of Jesus, or when D c and Sah. state (at Lk 23:53) that the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre was ‘such as scarce twenty men could roll.’ In addition to these substantial additions to or alterations of the text, the verbal divergences are very numerous, proving that an excessive licence was taken, by scribes or editors, in dealing with the Gospel text.

47.  Until quite recently, the special variants of the δ text were almost universally regarded as aberrations, which no one would think of accepting as readings of the original text. It is true that WH were disposed to believe that the passages omitted by the ‘Western’ authorities in the later chapters of Lk. are no authentic part of the Evangelist’s original work, but are additions made at a very early date; but this is the only case in which they accepted testimony of this class as superior to that of B and א its allies, and few other scholars would at that time have gone even so far as they did. For some time after the promulgation of WH’s theory, the conflict raged over the comparative merits of the α and β types of text; and it was only as the superiority of the latter was more and more established that scholars began to investigate more fully the characteristics and claims of the remaining family (ignoring γ, as merely a sub-species of β) , for which a very high antiquity could be demonstrated. The claims of the δ text received a considerable stimulus from the publication of more of the OL MSS (especially k) , and above all from the discovery of Syr.-Sin., which is perhaps the most important single member of the group. Further attention was attracted to it by Blass’ attempt to show that the δ text in Lk. and that in Acts represent different editions of those books, issued by Luke himself at different dates. At the present day, not a few scholars are inclined to attach considerable weight to the evidence of this family, and to hold that the β text, no less than the α, is due to editorial revision, and that the original form of the NT text is to be looked for in the OL and OS to a much greater extent than was previously supposed possible.

48.  The main argument in favour of the δ text is its great age and wide circulation, as demonstrated by the Patristic evidence of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It has to be borne in mind, however, that purity of text is due not so much to great age as to care in transmission, and that where such care has been wanting, corruption is both rapid and far-reaching. The papyrus MSS of the Greek classics, written in the first two centuries of the Christian era, which have recently come to light in large numbers, are almost always less accurate than the vellum MSS of the 10th and 11th cents.; the reason no doubt being that the papyri are generally cheap copies, circulating among private individuals in the upper provinces of Egypt, while the vellum MSS represent the tradition of the great libraries, in which transcripts would be made more accurately and revised more carefully. So with regard to the early Christian literature: we can well imagine that during the century and a half following the composition of the books, when Christianity was an unauthorized religion, liable to persecution and the destruction of its books, and when Christians themselves looked for a speedy Second Coming of the Lord, there would be little care and little opportunity for the precise collation of manuscripts, and a great possibility of verbal and even material variation in transcription. It is quite intelligible, therefore, that through the greater part of the Christian world inaccurate copies would circulate, and that the more careful preservation of the true text would run in a comparatively narrow channel. And if there was one part of the world in which such care might more than elsewhere be expected, it was Egypt, and especially Alexandria, the home of Greek textual criticism, and the home also of the Greek version of the OT. Hence, if the internal evidence points to the β text as the most accurate and authentic in character, the inference to be drawn therefrom is not materially shaken when we find signs that its birthplace was in Egypt, and that its early circulation was in that country, while texts of various shades of the δ type were prevalent elsewhere. That such was the character of the β text was the deliberate opinion of WH, who were perfectly aware of the early and wide attestation of the δ text; and their conclusion is supported by the quite independent investigations of B. Weiss, whose elaborate study (on very different lines) of the texts of the principal uncials led him to the conclusion that, whereas all the rest show marked indications of editorial revision in varying degrees, the text of B, though by no means free from scribal blunders, has the strongest signs of authenticity and originality. It is also to be remembered that it is impossible to form a coherent text of the δ type. The witnesses differ so much among themselves that it is easier to find a majority of them against any reading of that type than in favour of it. This appears even in Blass’ attempt to form a δ text of Lk. and Acts, and in the other books the task is still more hopeless. Readings of the δ type, in short, have much more the character of results of a common tendency, working more or less independently in different places under similar circumstances, than of the descendants from a common original.

49.  The natural conclusion, therefore, would seem to be that the β text still holds the position of superiority which was secured for it by the searching criticism of WH; and this, on the whole, is probably the prevalent view to-day. At the same time it must be admitted that individual readings of the δ lass deserve more respectful consideration than heretofore. Reverting once more to the results obtained in the analogous field of classical literature, the evidence of early papyri, while it generally confirms the superiority of the MS or MSS which modern criticism has selected as the best of any given author, nevertheless tends to show that the truth is not always to be found in any one witness or group of witnesses. The best MSS sometimes make mistakes, and in such cases the true reading may be preserved in MSS which as a rule are inferior. To this possibility the critic must always be alive, and all the more so when the alternative reading is certainly a very early one, as those of the δ family often must be. Consequently an editor of the NT, though he would do well to pin his faith generally to the β family, is bound also to consider readings of the δ type on their merits; and that especially when support is found for them from more than one branch of the δ family. The Latin and Syriac branches of the family often differ; but when they agree, the reading which they support must certainly go back to a very early date. The Codex Bezae, the principal Greek member of the family, represents its characteristics in a somewhat extreme form, and readings supported by it alone must be regarded with much suspicion; but in combination with OL and OS it becomes a very important witness. If, in the future, earlier copies of the Gospels than are at present known to us should come to light, they may very probably represent the characteristics of this group to some extent; but it will still remain to be considered whether they seriously affect the pre-eminence of the small but select body of authorities to which WH gave, and gave justifiably, as it would seem, the name of ‘Neutral.’

50.  For literature bearing on the earlier sections of this article see notes at the end of §§ 9, 16, 24, 30,

32. The history and bibliography of textual criticism are best set out in Tregelles’ Account of the Printed Text of the NT (1854); Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the NT (4 th ed. 1894); and

Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s edition (1894), and Textkritik des NT (1900) . Shortersummaries of the historical matter, with fuller discussions of the textual problem as it stands since Westcott and Hort, will be found in Kenyon’s Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the NT (1901), and Nestle’s Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek NT ( Eng. tr. from the 2nd German ed. 1901); the latter is particularly good for bibliographical information. Hort’s Introduction (forming vol. ii. of The NT in the Original Creek, by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, 1881) is, of course, invaluable for its statement of the principles of textual criticism, and for its exposition of the epoch-making theory of these two scholars. Murray’s article in the Ext. Vol. of Hastings’ DB is an elaborate vindication of WH’s position, based largely upon the materials left behind by Hort. For an introduction to the subject on the smallest possible scale, Prof. K. Lake’s Text of the NT (1900)  can be strongly recommended.

The fullest apparatus criticus at present available is that in Tischendorf’s NT Græce⁸, 1869–72 . A very serviceable select apparatus is given in Sanday’s appendixes to the Oxford Greek Testament (1889), which also includes a full collation of WH. For English readers a select apparatus is provided in Eyre & Spottiswoode’s Variorum Bible ( NT by Sanday, Clarke, and Goodwin, revised in 1888). Of revised texts the most important are (1) Westcott and Hort (vol. i. of the work cited above, also printed separately); (2) The Greek Testament with the readings adopted by the Revisers of the A V ( Oxford 1881, edited, by E. Palmer); (3) Weymouth’s Resultant Greek Testament (1886) , based upon a comparison of all the principal editions from Lachmann to the RV; (4) Nestle’s edition, based originally (Stuttgart, 1898) on a comparison of Tischendorf, WH, and Weymouth, on the principle of following always the reading of the majority, and giving select variants (without the authorities for them) at the foot; in later editions (1901, etc.) Weiss has been substituted for Weymouth. Nestle’s text has since 1904 been adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society, with a different apparatus, giving every variation of any importance from the TR and the text underlying the RV. It is now, therefore, easy to obtain a text of the NT based upon the best available witnesses, as arrived at by a consensus of the most competent critics, and unquestionably superior in accuracy and authenticity to the TR. A new edition of the NT, on a large scale, which promises to be of great importance, is being prepared by Prof. H. von Soden.

F. G. KENYON.

THADDÆUS.—This is the name of one of the Twelve Apostles as given in Mt 10:3, Mk 3:18. He is doubtless to be identified with the ‘Judas [ son] of James,’ who appears in the Lukan lists (Lk 6:18, Ac 1:13; so RV, but AV renders ‘brother of James’), and with the ‘Judas, not Iscariot,’ of Jn 14:22, though some Syrian writers have made this last Judas to be the same as the Apostle Thomas (syr^sin reads here ‘Thomas,’ syr^cur reads ‘Judas Thomas’), Thomas being confessedly only a surname, ‘the Twin.’

In all four lists Thaddæus (or Judas) comes next to Simon the Cananæan or Zealot, and may not improbably have been his brother or intimate friend (cf. the variant ‘Judas Zelotes’ in Mt 10:3 , noted below). It is the opinion of almost all modern scholars that neither is to be identified with any of the Brethren of our Lord, though Dom Chapman has lately published an elaborate argument to the contrary (JThSt vii. 412).

Instead of, or in addition to, ‘Thaddæus,’ we find the variant Lebbæus. In Mk 3:13, Codex

Bezae (D) and some Old Latin MSS have ‘Lebbæus’; but all the best authorities, including syr^sin

(Syr^cur is wanting here), have ‘Thaddæus,’ and this is doubtless right. In Mt 10:3 the oldest Greek

MSS (א B), the Vulgate, the Coptic, and some Old Latin MSS have ‘Thaddæus,’ while D, supported by the valuable Old Latin k and some other MSS, has ‘Lebbæus.’ Some other Old Latin MSS have ‘Judas Zelotes,’ and syr^sin has ‘Judas son (sic) of James’ (syr^cur is wanting here).

Some inferior MSS and several Versions combine ‘Lebbæus’ and ‘Thaddæus,’ as AV (‘L. whose surname was Th.’); but this is clearly a later explanation, and must be rejected. We see, then, that in Mt. ‘Thaddæus’ has the best attestation, and this alone is read in RV, from which ‘Lebbæus’ has completely disappeared. But how could ‘Lebbæus’ have been invented? It has been suggested (a) that some early scribe, taking ‘Thaddæus’ and ‘Lebbæus’ to be names of kindred meaning, the former from an Aramaic word denoting ‘breast,’ the latter from another denoting ‘heart,’ confused the two; or (b), with greater probability, that ‘Lebbæus’ is a form of ‘Levi,’ introduced by some scribe who did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person. It does not affect these explanations if, with Dalman, we hold that these derivations are in fact wrong, for the scribes were not necessarily qualified to be good philologers.

After NT times Thaddeus (Syr. Taddai)  was of ten confused with Addai, who was said to be one of the Seventy disciples, and who, being seat to Edessa, healed Abgarus (see Smith-Wace, Dict. Chr. Biog. iv. 875). In a list of Apostles given in Lagarde’s Appendix to the Apostolic Constitutions ( p. 283), Thaddæus, ‘who is Lebbæus and Judas,’ is distinguished from ‘Judas of James,’ and is said to have preached at Edessa, to have been buried in Egypt, and to have been crucified.

A. J. MACLEAN.

THANK-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE, § 12.

THARRA.—See TERESH.

THASSI.—The surname of Simon the Maccabes (1 Mac 2:3). The meaning of the word is quite uncertain. As likely an interpretation as any is ‘the zealous.’

THEATRE.—The name is Greek (lit. ‘a place for viewing’ [a spectacle]), and the thing appears to be of Greek origin also. From the cities of Greece proper, theatres spread all over the Greek and Roman world. The auditorium consisted regularly of a semicircular cavity cut on the side of a hill, much broader at the upper end than the lower. The seats were placed concentrically, being commonly carved out of the rock. The part level with the ground, the orchestra, was occupied by the choir. The stage and scene were on the diameter, and were of artificial construction, being very often like the front of a temple. The theatres were used for public meetings, as being generally the largest buildings in the cities (Ac 19:29, 31; cf. also art.

EPHESUS).

A. SOUTER.

THEBAIC VERSION.—See TEXT OF NT, § 27.

THEBES.—See No.

THEBEZ.—A fortified city, in the reduction of which Abimelech met his death (Jg 9:50, 2 S 11:21) . It is described by Eusebius and Jerome as 13 miles from Neapolis, on the road to Scythopolis. This is almost certainly the present Tūbās, a prosperous village in a fruitful open valley, 10 miles N.E. of Nāblus, on the ancient highroad to Beisān.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

THEFT.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 6.

THELERSAS.—See TEL-HARSHA.

THEODOTION.—See GREEK VERSIONS OF OT, p. 319^b.

THEODOTUS.—1. One of the messengers sent by Nicanor to Judas Maccabæus (2 Mac 14:19). 2. The author of a plot to assassinate king Ptolemy Philopator, which was frustrated by Dositheus (3 Mac 1:2).

THEOPHILUS (lit. ‘beloved of God’).—The person to whom St. Luke’s two works are addressed (Lk 1:3, Ac 1:1). That Theophilus stands for a real person and is not a general name for the Christian reader is made probable by the title ‘most excellent,’ which, when strictly used, implies equestrian rank (Ramsay, St. Paul p. 388) . It is used also of Felix (Ac 23:26, 24:3) and of Festus (26:25). But some take the title as a mere complimentary address, and therefore as telling us nothing of Theophilus himself. If it is used strictly, we may agree with Ramsay that

Theophilus was a Roman official, and the favourable attitude of St. Luke to the institutions of the Empire is in keeping with this idea. If so, Theophilus would be the Christian, not the Roman, name of the person addressed.

A. J. MACLEAN.

THERAS (1 Es 8:41) = Ahava (wh. see), Ezr 8:21, 31.

THERMELETH.—See TELMELAH.

THESSALONIANS, FIRST EPISTLE TO THE

1.Occasion and date.—According to the narrative of Ac 17, St. Paul, in the course of his second missionary journey, went from Philippi to Thessalonica, and reasoned there in the synagogue for three Sabbaths, with the result that ‘some of them were persuaded, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few’ (v. 4) There follows a tumult of the Jews, and accusation against Jason, St. Paul’s host, who is bound over to keep the peace. St. Paul is sent away by the brethren to Berœa, and thence again to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy in Berœa. From Athens he sent for them, waiting till they should arrive (17:15, 16), but apparently they did not rejoin him till he had passed on to Corinth (18:5) . At the time of his writing 1 Th. they are with him (1:1), Timothy having just arrived (3:6), not, however, from Berœa, but from Thessalonica, whither he had been despatched by St. Paul from Athens (3:1, 2). It is clear, then, that the Epistle was written from Corinth, but in the compressed narrative of Acts, St. Luke has overlooked the fact that Timothy at least did join St. Paul in Athens, and was sent back to Thessalonica under impulse of the Apostle’s deep concern for his converts, whom he could not re-visit personally, for ‘Satan hindered us’ (1 Th 3:1, 2, 2:17, 18). (Very possibly Jason’s bond involved a pledge that St. Paul should not re-enter the city,—an absolute barrier, described as hindrance by Satan.) Further, the impression is conveyed by Acts that St. Paul’s expulsion from Thessalonica followed immediately upon a three weeks’ ministry in the synagogue, and a doubt naturally arises whether the church as described in 1 Th. could have been established in so short a time. Apart, however, from indications in the Epistle itself of a longer stay (e.g. 2:7–12), there are others:—(1)  While in Thessalonica St. Paul received gifts more than once from his converts at Philippi (Ph 4:16). (2)  The synagogue ministry does not account for his astonishing success among the Gentiles (Ac 17:4, 1 Th 1:9). It is probable, therefore, that the Acts narrative is to be interpreted as implying a brief and almost fruitless appeal to the Jews, followed by a longer and more successful ministry to the Gentile population (cf. Ac 13:44–46) . It may be added that at Ac 17:4 there is considerable ‘Western’ authority for inserting ‘and of’ before ‘Greeks,’ thus giving three classes of converts besides the women—Jews, devout persons (i.e. proselytes), and Greeks (i.e. heathen). See also Ramsay, who constructs an ‘eclectic’ text (St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 226 note, 235 note 2).

The occasion of the letter, then, was the return of Timothy from his mission: its date falls within the eighteen months’ sojourn in Corinth, as late as possible, to allow time for the history of the church as sketched in the Ep., and yet early enough to leave room for the circumstances of 2  Th., also written from Corinth. The varying schemes of Pauline chronology assign for the departure from Corinth the spring of some year between 50 and 54; perhaps 52 is the most probable date for 1 Thessalonians. With the possible exception of Galatians (which, if addressed to the churches of South Galatia, may have been written earlier), it is the earliest of extant Pauline writings.

2.                   Contents.—The Epistle does not lend itself to formal analysis. The least doctrinal and most personal of all St. Paul’s letters to the churches, it is simply prompted by affectionate concern for the ‘faith and love’ of his recent converts, and for their ‘good remembrance’ of himself.

The tidings brought by Timothy that they ‘stand fast’ (3:5–8) leads the Apostle to begin with an outburst of thankful memories of his mission, in which every reminder of his ministry among the Thessalonians and of their enthusiastic response is both an appeal and an admonition. This, together with reference to his intense longing to see them and to the visit and return of Timothy, forms the first and main section of the Epistle (chs. 1–3), the final words gathering up all its desires into a prayer (3:11–13). Very simple yet profound expression is given to the Christian faith and hope (1:9, 10); there is reference to Jewish hostility (2:14–16), but no controversial insistence on an anti-Judaic Christianity—a confirmation of early date. In ch. 4 there is warning against the besetting impurity of the Gentile world (4:1–8), and against a fanatical detachment from the ordinary duties and responsibilities of life (vv. 9–12).

This is followed by a comforting assurance, rendered necessary by the belief in the speedy ‘coming of the Lord’ which St. Paul shared with his converts (v. 15), that those of the brethren who have already died will have part in that event equally with those who are yet alive (vv. 13–18) . This theme is carried on to a warning to be watchful against the sudden coming of ‘the day of the Lord,’ as beseems ‘sons of light and sons of the day’ (5:1–11) . A general admonition to the church to respect its leaders and to cultivate peace ( vv. 12, 13) leads out into a beautiful series of short exhortations, like a ‘string of glittering diamonds’ (vv. 14–22), prayer and salutation (vv. 23–26) , an injunction that the letter be read to all the brethren (v.

27) , and final benediction (v.  28).

3.                   Authenticity

(1)   External testimony.—Echoes of 1 Th. have been traced in Barnabas, Clement of Rome,

Ignatius, and Polycarp,—none of them, however, certain. It is contained in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions, and named in the Muratorian Fragment. The earliest quotation is in Irenæus, who attributes the Ep. to St. Paul, and specifies it as the ‘First’ to the Thessalonians: it is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, and frequently by Tertullian. If regard be had to the personal and nontheological character of the letter, this testimony is ample.

(2)   Internal evidence.—The simplicity of the letter, the prevalence of the personal note over the doctrinal, its accord with the history in Acts (apart from the slight discrepancies already noted, which a ‘forgery’ would surely have avoided), and the agreement with Philipp. and 2 Cor., in the writer’s attitude of affectionate confidence towards these Macedonian Christians, all make strongly for genuineness, and the Ep. is, in fact, generally accepted by critics of all schools.

The assertion of an un-Pauline doctrinal standpoint (by Baur) takes for the standard of comparison the later Epp.—Gal., Cor., and Rom.—and ignores the gradual shaping of Pauline Christianity under stress of problems and controversies as yet hardly in sight. The Jewish opposition is not to St. Paul’s distinctive teaching, but to his whole mission (2:14–16): the declaration that because of persistent rejection of Christ

‘the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost’ (2:16), by no means implies that Jerusalem is already destroyed (A.D. 70) . The rapid progress of the Church at Thessalonica reflects the first enthusiasm of the new faith, and such primitive organization as it exhibits (5:12) is consistent with the still earlier date of Ac 14:23. It is true, and in no way remarkable, that the expectation of an imminent Parousia (4:15–17)  is not repeated m St. Paul’s later letters (2 Co 5:1, Ph 1:21–24 , 3:11, 20, 21, 4:5, Col 1:5, 12, 13). Would, then, a ‘forger’ of a later generation have attributed this to St. Paul?

There is really no reason to doubt that the Epistle gives a genuine and invaluable selfrevelation of St. Paul the man. All the great Christian truths appear—the Divinity of Christ, His death for men, and resurrection, the Christian’s union with Him, the gift of the Holy Spirit,—but less as doctrines than as vital elements of personal religion, the moving forces of St. Paul’s own life and ministry.

S. W. GREEN.

THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO THE

1.  Occasion and date.—Scattered indications fix the letter (if genuine) as written from

Corinth, not long after the First Epistle. For Timothy and Silas (Silvanus) are still with the

Apostle (1:1 , cf. 1 Th 1:1), whereas in Acts there is no further mention of Silas after St. Paul left Corinth. The former letter seems to be referred to (2:15), and the allusions to St. Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica suggest that this was almost as recent as when 1 Th. was written. Very possibly 3:2  is to be explained by the opposition encountered at Corinth, recorded in Ac 18. The reasons for a second letter are hardly evident in any considerable difference of subject-matter; they appear to consist in tidings which had reached St. Paul as to (1) some misunderstanding of his teaching about the Parousia (2:1–3); (2) increase of persecution (1:4–10) ; (3) disorderly conduct in some members of the Church (3:11); (4) letters forged in the Apostle’s name (2:2, 3:17).

2.  Contents.—

Salutation (1:1, 2); thanksgiving (with prayer) for their growth in faith and love in the midst of affliction patiently endured, with assurance of God’s vengeance upon their persecutors (vv. 3– 12); warning that the ‘day of the Lord’ is not yet, but must be heralded by certain signs (2:1–12) ; renewed thanksgiving, exhortation, and prayer (vv. 13–17) . St. Paul asks for their prayers (3:1, 2), expresses his confidence in them (vv. 3–5), warns them against the ‘disorderly’ (vv. 6–15) ; and between repeated benedictions authenticates the letter by his signature (vv. 16–18).

3.  Authenticity

(1)   External testimony. The evidence already cited for 1 Th. Is reinforced by quotations in Polycarp, and possibly in Justin Martyr; that is, of the two Epistles the Second is the more strongly attested.

(2)   Internal evidence. Circumstances have already been assigned to the letter, in themselves consistent and not improbable. To these may be added the close resemblance to 1 Th. in subjectmatter and phrasing, so obvious that it need not here be detailed. A literary dependence of 2 Th. on 1 Th. is practically certain, for the interval necessary to justify a second letter at all forbids the supposition of unconscious repetition. if 2 Th. is by St. Paul, he must have re-read his former letter before writing this, and the question naturally arises whether it is likely that he would so reproduce himself. (The case of Colossians and Ephesians is not parallel: these were contemporary Epistles, and not addressed to the same Church.) Hence the resemblance to 1 Th. is made an argument against the Pauline authorship of 2 Th. Moreover, along with the resemblance are found other features which are regarded as un-Pauline and post-Pauline, with the result that the Second Epistle is widely rejected by those who admit the First. The grounds of this rejection must be briefly examined.

(a)    Style. It is freely admitted that this argument is hazardous and indecisive: those who rely upon it would not perhaps quarrel with Jowett’s dictum that ‘objections of this kind are, for the most part, matters of taste or feeling, about which it is useless to dispute’ (Com. on Th. i. 147). The argument must also reckon with those evident features of Pauline style and vocabulary which the close resemblance of some two-thirds of the Ep. to 1 Th. carries with it, while in the remainder what is exceptional may be due to the new subject-matter. Still, it may be argued that some of the passages which are most closely parallel to 1 Th. show a loss of ease and simplicity which suggests that they have been worked over by another hand. There is a difference, hard to account for m the same writer saying the same thing after so short an interval; nor is the change such as marks advance towards the style of St. Paul’s later letters.

(b)    Subject-matter (apart from 2:1–12) . As compared with 1 Th., very little appears in 2 Th. that is new or convincingly Pauline: something, too, of the warmth and glow of personal feeling has gone. The severity of tone in 1:6–9 cannot perhaps be objected to, in view of 1 Th 2:15, 16, while 3:6–15  is sufficiently accounted for by an aggravation of the offence already rebuked (1 Th 4:11, 5:14). The reference to an ‘epistle as from us’ (2:2) suggests an earlier correspondence of St. Paul with his Churches, of which we have no knowledge, frequent enough to have already given rise to fraudulent imitation. This is not impossible, though the precaution of a certifying signature (3:17) may seem, perhaps, a little inadequate.

(c)    The passage 2:1–12. The objection that this contradicts the eschatology of 1 Th 5:2, 3 cannot be sustained. The earlier passage speaks of a coming of ‘the day of the Lord,’ sudden and unexpected: if this had been misinterpreted of a coming so imminent as to cause the ordinary duties of life to lose interest or claim, the Apostle might well, without in consistency, remind the Thessalonians that he had warned them of signs which must first be fulfilled (2:3–5).

A more serious doubt is raised by the apocalyptic character of the passage, unique in Paul, and held to show both dependence on later writings and allusion to post-Pauline history. So far, however, as the thought is exceptional, the section may fairly be regarded as a pendant to the equally exceptional section 1 Th 4:15–17 (cf. also Ro 7:1–6, Gal 4:21–31) , and as more likely to be original than attributed to Paul by a later imitator. The question rather is whether it can be accounted for by contemporary ideas, or betrays the facts and conceptions of a later time. The general thought is that the coming of Christ is to be heralded by an outburst of iniquity, described as the ‘apostasy’ (‘falling away,’ 2:3), either headed by or personified as ‘the man of sin’ ( RVm ‘the man of lawlessness’), ‘the son of perdition,’ ‘the lawless one’ (vv. 3, 8) whose character and coming are more fully described in vv. 4, 9–12 . Already ‘the mystery of lawlessness’ is at work (v. 7), but the crisis is delayed, as the Thessalonians know, by ‘that which restraineth’ (v. 6), ‘one who restrains’ (v. 7). In due season this restraint will be removed, that the lawless one may be revealed, to be slain by the Lord Jesus (vv. 6–8).

Now, of the elements of this conception, that of an ‘apostasy’ is not un-Pauline: it appears 2 Co 11:13–15, Ro 16:17–20 (as well as Ac 20:29–30 , and throughout the Pastoral Epp.), and is attributed to false teachers. The same idea occurs in Mt 24:5, 11, 12, 24||, 2 Pet. and Jude, 1 Jn 2:18, 22, 4:3, 2 Jn 7. This wide prevalence of the thought in the NT writings, and the constant prediction of ‘many’ false teachers, false prophets, false Christs, antichrists (1 Jn 2:18), may suggest as regards our passage (1) that it draws upon a common stock of eschatological ideas; (2)  that ‘the man of sin’ is not necessarily a person but rather a type (cf. 1 Jn 2:18, ‘many antichrists,’ but v. 22 and elsewhere ‘the antichrist’), symbolizing tendencies and movements, and therefore only at grave hazard to be identified with any definite historical personage. Hence the alleged reference to the legend of ‘Nero redivivus’ (Tac. Hist. ii. 8), with its implication of A.D. 68–70  as the earliest possible date for 2 Th., is quite without warrant.

It is true that our passage has close affinities with Revelation (especially 13:11–18 , 19:20, 21, 20:10), but this does not necessarily mean dependence. For Ezk 38, 39, Dn 7–9, 11, 12, and later extra-canonical Jewish apocalyptic literature present, under varied historic colouring, the same conception of a final rally of the powers of evil before the last days, and of the triumph of Messiah over ‘antichrist.’ In Test. xii. Patr. this anti-christ’ is ‘Belial’ or ‘Beliar’ (cf. 2 Co 6:15), in Rev. ‘the beast’ ( symbol of the Roman

Empire rather than exclusively of Nero), and it is not necessary to regard ‘the man of sin’ and equivalent expressions as more personal than these. What is really peculiar to 2 Th. is the assertion of a restraining power, holding in check the mystery of lawlessness already at work. Can this be explained as historical colour given by St. Paul to current apocalyptic tradition under the circumstances of A.D. 53 or thereabouts?

Now, at that date the Apostle of the Gentiles had lately experienced the determined enmity of the

Jews to his whole Christian mission, at Thessalonica, Berœa, and Corinth. Though the Parousia is not yet (2  Th 2:2), St. Paul expects it within his own lifetime (1 Th 4:17). The traditional ‘antichrist’ is therefore already to be looked for (2 Th 2:7), and might well be discovered in Jewish hatred, bent on the very destruction of Christianity (1 Th 2:15, 16), fortified by its secure hold of the national sanctuary (2 Th 2:4), and held in restraint only by the forces of order seated in the Roman power, or, possibly, in the better elements of Judaism itself (2:6, 7). Thus interpreted, the passage would be a development on apocalyptic lines of the outburst of 1:7–10, and no necessity would remain for the suggestion, quite unsupported by evidence, that 2:1–12  either is an interpolation, or is itself a genuine Pauline fragment worked up in to a spurious Epistle.

So far, then, as doubts concerning 2 Th. are reduced to argument, they can hardly prevail against the tradition of Pauline authorship. Whether misgivings as to style can be relieved by the suggestion that Timothy or Silas wrote in the Apostle’s name is doubtful; at least, the repeated ‘we’ points to no such co-operation (cf. 1 Th 2:17–3:1). The trend of present critical opinion is perhaps indicated in Jülicher’s judgment, that the difficulties ‘can after all be most easily solved’ under the view that the Epistle was written by St. Paul.

S. W. GREEN.

THESSALONICA (modern Saloniki).—An important city of the Roman province

Macedonia, situated on the Via Egnatia, the overland route from Italy to the E., and at the northeastern corner of the Thermaic Gulf. Its buildings rose above one another in tiers on the slopes of the hills. The situation is in every respect admirable, and must have been early occupied. This city was founded about B.C. 315 , and named after a stepsister of Alexander the Great. Its greatness under Macedonian rule was even extended under Roman rule. It became the capital of the Roman province Macedonia, constituted B.C. 146. It was made a ‘free city’ in B.C. 42  (Ac 17:5  knows this fact), and was ruled by its own magistrates under the rather rare title ‘politarchs,’ who were 5 or 6 in number. There were many Jews here, as the possession of a synagogue shows (Ac 17:1) , and a number of proselytes (Ac 17:4). The enemies of St. Paul raised a cry of treason, and a serious riot resulted. Some of Paul’s friends had to give security that this would not be repeated. This forced Paul to leave the city. Members of the church here were Jason, Gaius, Secundus, Aristarchus. See THESSALONIANS.

A. SOUTER.

THEUDAS.—Mentioned by Gamaliel (Ac 5:36) as the leader of an unsuccessful rebellion of 400 men. Josephus (Ant. XX. v. 1) speaks of a Theudas who misled the people and gave himself out for a prophet, at least ten years after Gamaliel’s speech; and also a little afterwards (§ 2) speaks of the sons of Judas the Galilæao, the instigator of a rebellion in the time of Quirinius. Now St. Luke (Ac 5:37) speaks successively of Theudas and Judas, and it is alleged that he erroneously put their names into Gamaliel’s mouth owing to a misreading of Josephus. But the difference between the writers is so great that it is impossible to suppose that the one account depends on the other. If St. Luke depends on Josephus, where did he get his number ‘400 men’ from? There may have been more than one Theudas, and Lightfoot suggests that the name might be used as the Greek equivalent of several different Hebrew ones. There certainly were, as Josephus tells us, many rebellions at this period. Or the name may be an interpolation in Josephus, taken from Acts by some Christian scribe (Blass); or one of the writers may have made a mistake in the name. But they could hardly be quoting, either from the other.

A. J. MACLEAN.

THIGH (Heb. yārēk, Gr. mēros).—The hollow of Jacob’s thigh was strained as he wrestled at Peniel (Gn 32:25), and to this is attributed the Jewish custom (enjoined in the Mishna) of not eating ‘the sinew of the hip’ (v. 32). On the thigh the sword was girded (Ex 32:27, Ps 45:3, Ca 3:8); Ehud’s on the right thigh because he was left-handed (Jg 3:16, 21). Under the jealousy ordeal the woman’s thigh falls away if she has been guilty of adultery (Nu 5:21ff.). To smite ‘hip and thigh’ (lit. ‘leg upon thigh’) is a phrase denoting utter discomfiture accompanied by great slaughter (Jg 15:8). Its origin is unknown, and its meaning much disputed. Is Jer 31:19 and Ezk 21:12 smiting upon one’s thigh is a gesture of sorrow or terror. In Heb. (cf. AVm) of Gn 46:25 , Ex 1:5, Jg 8:30 a man’s children are described as coming out of his thigh. This explains the oath taken by placing the hand under the thigh (Gn 24:2, 9, 47:29), a special sacredness being ascribed to the organs of generation. In NT ‘thigh’ occurs only in Rev 19:16, where perhaps the meaning is that the name was written on that part of the garment which covered the thigh.

J. C. LAMBERT.

THISBE.—The place from which Tobit was carried away captive by the Assyrians (To 1:2). Its position is described as being on the right hand (south) of Kedesh-naphtali in Galilee above Asher. No trace of the name has yet been found. Some commentators maintain that This be was the home of Elijah ‘the Tishbite,’ but this is very doubtful.

THISTLES.—See THORNS.

THOCANUS (1 Es 9:14) = Tikvah, Ezr 10:15.

THOMAS.—One of the twelve Apostles. The earlier Evangelists mention only his name (Mt

10:3 =  Mk 3:18 = Lk 6:15), but St. John has rescued him from oblivion. His question in the Upper Room (Jn 14:5) proves him somewhat slow of understanding. He was querulous and gloomy, always disposed to look at the dark side. Thus, when Jesus on the evening of the Resurrection-day appeared to the Apostles in the room at Jerusalem where they were assembled with closed doors, Thomas was absent, buried in despair; and when he heard that they had seen the Lord, he would not believe it. He would not, he declared, be persuaded unless he saw and handled His pierced hands and side (Jn 20:19–25) . The next Sunday evening Jesus appeared as before, and gave Thomas the evidence he had craved. ‘My Lord and my God!’ cried the doubter,

leaping from the depth of despair to the summit of faith (Jn 20:26, 29). His doubts were removed, and he was one of the seven who journeyed north to meet the Lord at the Lake of Galilee (21:2). Despondent though he was, Thomas was no coward, and he had a great devotion to Jesus. It was he who, when tidings of Lazarus’ sickness were brought to Bethany beyond Jordan, and the rest, fearing the rage of the rulers, were disposed to let the Master venture alone into Judæa, put their cowardice to shame: ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him!’ (Jn 11:16.) Thomas is not really a name but an epithet, meaning, like its Greek equivalent Didymus ( Jn 11:16, 20:24, 21:2), ‘the Twin.’ If, as Eusebius states, the Apostle’s name was Judas, he would be styled ‘the Twin’ to distinguish him from Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot. Tradition credits him with the authorship of a Gospel (see GOSPELS [APOCRYPHAL], 6).

DAVID SMITH.

THOMEI.—See TEMAH.

THORNS, THISTLES, ETC.—So many words are used in the Heb. for thorny plants, and they are so variously translated, that it will be convenient to consider them all in one group. In the great majority of cases it is impossible to identify the special species referred to.

1.                   ’ātād, Jg 9:14f. AV, ‘bramble,’ mg. ‘thistle,’ RVm ‘thorn’; Ps 58:9 AV and RV ‘thorns.’ In Gn 50:10, 11, Atad occurs as a proper name. The ’ātād is probably the buckthorn (Rhamnus palestina) , a lowly bush.

2.                   barqānīm (Jg 8:7, 10 ‘briers’), some kind of thorn. Arab. berqān is the Centaurea scoparia, a thorny-headed composite common in Palestine.

3.                   dardar (Gn 3:18, Hos 10:8), some thistly or thorny plant. In modern Arab. shauket el-dardar is applied to the star thistles or knapweeds of which Centaurea calcitrapa and C. verutum are common Palestine forms.

4.                   chēdeq (Pr 15:19 ‘thorn,’ Mic 7:4 ‘brier’; cf. Arab. chadaq ‘to enclose’), some prickly plant used as a hedge (Pr 15:19).

5.                   chōach (2 K 14:9, 2 Ch 25:18, and Job 31:40 ‘thistle’; 2 Ch 33:11, Ca 2:2, and Hos 9:6 ‘thorns’; Is 34:13 AV ‘brambles’; 1 S 13:6 ‘thickets’; Job 41:2 ‘thorn,’ where ‘book,’ as in RV, would be better), some shrub, species unknown, with very strong spines.

6.                   mĕsūkāh, a thorn hedge (Mic 7:4).

7.                   na‘utsūts (Is 7:19 ‘thorns,’ 55:13 ‘thorn’), from Aram. na’ats ‘to prick’), a general term for a thorn.

8.                   sīrīm ( Ec 7:6, Is 34:13, Hos 2:6, Nah 1:10 ‘thorn’). The reference to the ‘crackling of thorns’ suggests the thorny burnet, which is burned all over Palestine in lime-kilns. sīrōth, Am 4:2, means ‘books.’

9.                   sillōn (Ezk 28:24 ‘brier’; sallōnīm, Ezk 2:6 ‘thorns’).

10.               sārābīm (Ezk 2:6 ‘briers,’ lit. ‘rebels,’ as in mg., but text doubtful).

11.               sirpād (Is 55:13 ‘brier,’ lit. the ‘burner,’ hence perhaps ‘nettle’).

12.               tsinnīm (Job 5:5, Pr 22:5 ‘thorns’); tsĕnīnīm ( Nu 33:55, Jos 23:13 ‘thorns’ ).

13.               qōts ( Gn 3:18, Ex 22:6, Jg 8:7, 18 etc.), the commonest and most general word for ‘thorns.’

14.               qimmōs (Pr 24:31 ‘thorns’), elsewhere ‘nettles.’ See NETTLE.

15.               sikkīm (Nu 33:55 ‘pricks’), cf. Arab. shauk ‘thorn.’

16.               shayith, only in Is. (5:8, 7:23f., 9:17, 10:17, 27:4), always with shāmīr ( ‘brier’), and tr. ‘thorns.’ 17. shāmīr, in Is. (see above) always tr. ‘brier’; cf. Arab. samur ‘a thorny tree.’ 18. rhamnos (Gr.), Bar 6:71 (AV and RV ‘thorn’).

19.  skolops (Gr.), 2 Co 12:7 ‘thorn’ (RVm ‘stake’). See MEDICINE, p. 600^b; PAUL, p. 688^a.

20.  akanthai (Gr.) = Heb. qōts, Mt 7:16, 13:7, 22, 27:29 etc. ‘thorns.’

21.  tribolos (Gr.), Mt 7:16 ‘thistle,’ He 6:8 ‘brier.’

The variety of words used to describe these prickly plants is not surprising, when it is remembered that such plants are ubiquitous throughout Palestine, and for many months of the year are almost the only living uncultivated vegetation. They form the common food of goats and camels; they are burned (Ec 7:6), specially the thorny burnet (Arab. billān), in ovens and limekilns, large areas of land being diligently cleared every autumn for this purpose. Gigantic thistles, sometimes as high as a horse’s head, cover whole acres of fallow land and have to be cleared by fire before ploughing can begin. ‘Thorns’ of various kinds, e.g. brambles, oleasters, etc., are commonly used as hedges; and tangled masses of dead thorny branches from the Zizyphus and similar trees are used, particularly in the Jordan Valley, as defences round fields, flocks, or tents (Pr 15:11, Mic 7:4 etc.).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

THOUGHT.—In 1 S 9:5, in Mt 6:26 (as well as in the foll. vv. 27, 28, 31, 34), in 10:19, in

Mk 13:11, and in Lk 12:11, 22, 25, 26 the Eng. word ‘thought’ Is used in AV in the old sense of ‘grief or anxiety.’ Thus Mk 13:11 ‘Take no thought beforehand’ does not mean do not think or plan. but be not burdened with anxiety beforehand.

THOUSAND.—See ARMY, 2; NUMBER. 5.

THRACE.—Some have proposed to Identify Tiras ( Gn 10:2) with Thrace, but this identification is uncertain. A Thracian horseman is mentioned in 2 Mac 12:35 (about B.C. 163)  as saving Gorgias, the governor of Idumæa under Antiochus Epiphanes, from capture. The name Thrace—It was not till A.D. 46 the name of a Roman province—was applied to all the country lying between the rivers Strymon and Danube. After the death of Lyslmachus (B.C. 281—see THYATIRA), with whom the prospect of civilization for the country died, it continued barbarous, and was famous only for its severe climate and its soldiers. Of the latter there was a plentiful supply, and as soldiers of fortune they were to be found in the armies of the richer States. They were chiefly cavalry and light-armed Infantry. (The name ‘Thracian’ was hence applied to gladiators armed in a particular way.) Kings who employed them in war frequently settled them in colonies after peace was declared.

A. SOUTER.

THRASÆUS.—The father of Apollonius (2 Mac 3:5).

THREE.—See NUMBER, § 7.

THREE CHILDREN [SONG OF].—See APOCRYPHA, 6.

THRESHING, THRESHING-FLOOR.—See AGRICULTURE, 3.

THRESHOLD.—See House, 6.

THRONE.—The OT tr. of Heb. kissē’ or kissēh. It is used of any seat of honour: e.g. of the high priest (1 S 1:9, 4:13, 18), of a judge (Ps 94:20), of a military officer (Jer 1:15); but most frequently of a king (e.g. Pharaoh Ex 11:6, David and Solomon 1 K 2:12 etc.), and thus of God Himself (Ps 9:7, 11:4, 45:6, Is 6:1). For a description of Solomon’s throne see 1 K 10:18–20 ,  2 Ch 9:17–19. Frequently ‘throne’ is used metaphorically for dignity, royal honour, and power. Thus ‘the throne of David’ often stands for the royal honour of David’s house (2 S 7:16). So God’s ‘throne’ is His sovereign power (cf. Ps 45:6, 93:2).

The NT term thronos [once (Ac 12:21) bēma, ‘judgment-seat.’ Is tr. ‘throne’] is similarly used. It is applied in Rev 20:4 to the thrones of the assessors of the heavenly judge (cf. Mt 19:28||, Lk 22:30); but is most frequently used of the throne of God or Christ (Mt 5:34||, 19:28 ||, Lk 1:32, Ac 2:30, 7:49, He 1:8, 4:16, 8:1, 12:2, Rev 1:4, 3:21 etc.), For thrones’ as a rank of angels, see art. DOMINION, and cf. POWER.

W. F. BOYD.

THROUGHLY.—This is the older spelling of ‘thoroughly.’ In mod. editions of AV we find both forms used, ‘thoroughly’ in Ex 21:18, 2 K 11:18, and ‘throughly’ elsewhere; but in the original edition of 1611 the spelling is ‘throughly’ everywhere. There was no distinction in earlier Eng. between ‘through’ and ‘thorough,’ ‘throughly’ and ‘thoroughly.’ In the first ed. of

AV Ex 14:16 reads ‘the children of Israel shall goe on dry ground thorow the mids of the Sea.’

THRUM.—See SPINNING AND WEAVING, §§ 3, 5.

THUMB.—The thumb is associated with the great toe, and occurs in two different connexions. 1. We are told that Adonibezek’s thumbs and great toes were cut off (Jg 1:8), and that he himself had practised this mutilation on seventy kings (v. 7). The object seems to have been to render the vanquished monarchs unfit for war and thus for reigning in a warlike age. 2. In the ritual of the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Ex 29:20, Lv 8:23, 24) blood was sprinkled on ‘the tip of the right ear, upon the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right foot.’ The cleansed leper was similarly sprinkled with blood and oil (Lv 14:14, 17, 25, 28). The action seems to have symbolized the consecration (or purification) of the whole man, the extremities only being touched, just as only the horns of the altar were sprinkled with the blood.

W. F. BOYD.

THUMMIM.—See URIM AND THUMMIM.

THUNDER.—There is no finer description of a thunderstorm than that of Ps 29. In a land of high mountains and deep gorges, split throughout its length by the great cleft of the Jordan, the effect of thunder is peculiarly terrible. In Palestine it is confined almost entirely to winter (1 S 12:17f.), but the writer once witnessed a terrific storm late in April, among the Gilead uplands. It is invariably accompanied by rain. According to poetic and popular Ideas, thunder was the voice of God ( Ps 104:7, Job 37:4 etc.), which a soul gifted with insight might understand and interpret (Jn 12:28f.; cf. Mk 1:11 , Mt 3:17 etc.). It is the expression of His resistless power (1 S 2:10, Ps

18:13  etc.), and of His inexorable vengeance (Is 30:30 etc.). Thunder plays a part in afflicting the

Egyptians (Ex 9:23ff.), at the delivery of the Law (19:16, 20:18), and in discomfiting the Philistines (1 S 7:10). It is not guided by caprice, but by the will of God (Job 28:26, 38:25). It appears largely in the more terrible imagery of the Apocalypse. For ‘Sons of Thunder,’ see

BOANERGES.

W. EWING.

THYATIRA.—There is a long valley extending northward and southward and connecting the valleys of the Hermus and Caicus. Down this valley a stream flows southwards, and on the left bank of this stream was Thyatira. An important road also ran along this valley, the direct route between Constantinople and Smyrna, and the railway takes this route now. Thyatira was also in the 1st cent. A.D. a station on the Imperial Post Road (overland route) from Brundislum and Dyrrhachium by Thessalonica, Neapolis (for Philippi), Troas, Pergamum, Philadelphia … to Tarsus, Syrian Antioch, Cæsarea of Palestine, and Alexandria. In its connexion with Pergamum this road had always a great importance. Thyatira was built (in the middle of the valley, with a slight rising ground for an acropolis) by Seleucus, the founder of the Seleucid dynasty, whose vast kingdom extended from W. Asia Minor to the Himalayas. The city was founded between B.C. 300  and 282 as a defence against Lysimachus, whose kingdom bordered that of Seleucus on the N. and W., and the colonists were Macedonian soldiers. In 282, Philetærus revolted from Lysimachus and founded the kingdom of Pergamum. After the death of Lysimachus, Thyatira was a useful garrison to hold the road, in the interests first of the Seleucids and afterwards of the Pergamenians. The latter were safe from the former if they were in possession of Thyatira. The relation between Pergamum and Thyatira was thus of the closest. The city, though weak in position, was a garrison city, and had to be carefully fortified, and everything was done to foster the military spirit. The character of the city’s religion is illustrated by the hero Tyrimnos, who is figured on its coins. He is on horseback and has a battle-axe on his shoulder. This hero is closely related to the protecting god of the city, whose temple was in front of the city. He was considered the divine ancestor of the city and its leading families, and was identified with the sun-god. He also had the title Pythian Apollo, thus illustrating the strange mixture of Anatolian and Greek ideas and names which is so common a feature in the ancient religions of Asia Minor. In conformity with this, he was represented as wearing a cloak fastened by a brooch, carrying a battle-axe, and with a laurel branch in his right hand, symbolizing his purifying power. (It is certain that the place was inhabited before the time of Seleucus, but merely as a village with a temple.) The city had Pythian games on the model of those in Greece proper, and in the 3rd cent. A.D. the Emperor Elagabalus was associated with the god in the worship connected with them, showing the closer relation which had been effected between the popular and the Imperial religion. It is probable that Seleucus I. had settled Jews in Thyatira, as he certainly did in some of the cities of Asia. Lydia of Thyatira (Ac 16:14) had come within the circle of the synagogue, possibly in her native place.

Little is known of the history of the city. It surrendered to the Romans in B.C. 190 . It was occupied by Aristonicus during his revolt in B.C. 133–2 . It must have suffered severely and repeatedly during the fighting between Arabs and Christians, and Turks and Christians, in the Middle Ages. Its situation demands that it be captured and re-fortified by every ruling power. In Roman times it had been a great trading city, dating its greatest period of prosperity from about the time when the Seven Letters were written. There is evidence of more trade-guilds there than in any other Asian city: wool-workers, linen-workers, makers of outer garments, dyers, leatherworkers, tanners, bronze-smiths, etc. Lydia probably belonged to one of those guilds. The purple in which Lydia dealt must have been a product of the region of Thyatira, and the well-known Turkey-red must therefore be meant. It is obtained from madder-root, which grows abundantly in that region. The name ‘purple’ had a much wider meaning among the ancients than among us.

The bronze work of Thyatira was also remarkably fine (cf. Rev 2:18).

The letter addressed to the Church at Thyatira (Rev 2:18–29)  is the most obscure and difficult of all the seven, as we know so little of local conditions. It is remarkable that the city, which was the least of all the seven (with perhaps the exception of Philadelphia), should be promised strength and power. The exact nature of the Nicolaitans with their prophetess cannot be precisely determined. The principles they represented were regarded by the author as subversive of true Christianity.

A. SOUTER.

THYINE WOOD (Rev 18:12) is the citrus wood of the Romans, used for the manufacture of costly furniture. The tree Thuia articulata, in appearance like a cypress, about 25 feet high, was the source of this wood.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

TIBERIAS.—A town built by Herod (A.D. 16–22)  on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee (called the ‘Sea of Tiberias’ in Jn 6:1, 21:1, and in modern Arabic), and named in honour of the Roman Emperor. That it was erected over the site of an ancient graveyard (Jos. Ant. XVIII. ii. 3) in itself proves that no city had previously existed here. This circumstance made it an unclean place to the Jews, and Herod was obliged to use force in order to people it with any but the lowest of the nation. It was designed entirely on Greek models, and the fact that it was in spirit and civilization entirely foreign is perhaps the reason why it is hardly alluded to in the Gospels— the sole reference being Jn 6:23. There is no evidence that it was ever visited by Christ. The city surrendered to Vespasian and by him was restored to Agrippa. After the fall of Jerusalem many of the Jews took up their abode in Tiberias, and by a strange reversal of fate this unclean city became a most important centre of Rabbinic teaching. Here lived Judah the Holy, editor of the Mishna. Here the ‘Jerusalem Talmud’ was compiled. In the neighbourhood are the tombs of ‘Aqiba and of Maimonides.

Constantine built a church and established a bishopric at Tiberias, but Christianity never flourished there. The Arabs seized it in A.D. 637 ; the Crusaders lost it to Saladin in 1187. The city was almost destroyed by a great earthquake in 1837. The principal objects of interest are the ruins of a large castle (possibly Herodian), a very ancient synagogue, and—half an hour’s journey to the south—the hot springs of Emmaus ( the Hammath of Jos 19:35), mentioned by Josephus and Pliny. The city is dirty, and proverbial for its vermin. There is a population of about 4000, more than half of whom are Jews, principally refugees from Poland. There is here an important mission of the United Free Church of Scotland.

For the ‘Sea of Tiberias,’ see GALILEE [SEA OF].

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

TIBERIUS, whose designation as Emperor was Tiberius Cæsar Augustus, was the son of

Tiberius Claudius Nero (a Roman noble) and Livia, whose second husband was the Emperor Augustus. He was born B.C. 42 and died A.D. 37 . Augustus, as he grew old, appointed in succession four of his relatives as co-regents, or marked them out as his intended successors. It was clear that he did not desire the succession of his stepson Tiberius, who was reserved, morose, and unlovable. The successive deaths of his nominees compelled him to fall back upon Tiberius, who in A.D. 11 was made co-emperor. Three years later he succeeded to the purple. It is probable that the ‘thirteenth year’ in Lk 3:1 runs from the first of these dates, and thus means A.D. 25–26 . Tiberius was an able general and a competent Emperor, but the unhappy experiences of his early life made him suspicious and timorous, and he put many of his rivals or supposed rivals to death. In his later years he was much under the influence of a villainous schemer Sejanus. He spent these years in retirement at Capri.

A. SOUTER.

TIBHATH.—A city of Hadarezer, king of Zobah (1 Ch 18:8). In 2 S 8:8  the name of the town is Betah, but the original reading was probably Tebah, as in the Syriac version, and as a tribal name in Gn 22:24. The site of Tibhath is unknown, but it was possibly on the eastern slopes of Anti-Lebanon.

TIBNI.—A rival who disputed the throne for four years (compare 1 K 16:15 with v. 23) with Omri.

TIDAL.—A king of Goiim, or ‘the nations,’ who accompanied Amraphel of Shinar and Arioch of Ellasar in the expedition made by Chedorlaomer of Elam against Sodom and the cities of the plain (Gn 14:1). This name is probably the Tudhul or Tudhula of a British Museum tablet of late date, which mentions also Kudur-lahmal (?) (Chedorlaomer?) and Durmah-īlāni son of Eri-Eaku (Arioch?). Tudbul is stated to have been son of Gazza[ni?]. Whether it was he who smote (shattered) his father’s head ‘with the weapon of his hands,’ the mutilation of the text leaves uncertain.

T. G. PINCHES.

TIGLATH-PILESER [in 1 Ch 5:6, 26 and 2 Ch 28:20 corrupted to the form TilgathPilneser].—This Assyrian ruler, the Tukulti-apil-ēsharra of the monuments, was the third of the name. He began to reign about B.C. 745 (13 th of Iyyar), and is supposed to have been a usurper. In the Babylonian chronological list he is called Pulu, the Pul of 2 K 15:19, and the Poros of the Canon of Ptolemy. His reign was a very active and important one. Five months after his accession he marched into Babylonia to overthrow the power of the Aramæan tribes. In B.C. 744 he went to Namri to punish the tribes who harassed the Assyrian border. In B.C. 743  he defeated the forces of Sarduris II. of Ararat at Arpad. Among those who gave tribute on this occasion were Rezin of Damascus, Hiram of Tyre, and Pisiris of Carchemish. Arpad, however, revolted again, and was for three years the objective of Tiglath-pileser’s expeditions (B.C. 742–740) . In 739 he went to Ulluba in Mesopotamia, and the presence of his armies there enabled him, in B.C. 738 , to make head against Syrian and Phœnician resistance. On this occasion he subjected Kullani, supposed to be the Calno of Is 10:9. Rost suggests that Azrian or Izrian (Azariah) of Judah played some part in this expedition, and among those who gave tribute was Menahem of Samaria (2 K 15:19). In B.C. 737 his objective was the Medes, in many of whose cities he set up basreliefs with the royal image. After this (B.C. 736)  his forces were again directed against Mesopotamia, and reached the mountain of Nal. This led the way to the conquest of Ararat in

B.C. 735. In B.C. 734 the Assyrian army invaded Pilishta (Philistia)—according to Rost, the

Mediterranean coastland S. of Joppa. Gaza was captured, and Hanun, the king, having fled, Tiglath-pileser mounted the throne and set up his image in the palace there. In B.C. 733  came the turn of Damascus and also of Israel, the immediate cause being affairs in Judah. Azariah had died, and after the short reign of his son Jotham, Jehoahaz or Ahaz came to the throne. Taking advantage of the change, Pekah of Israel made an alliance with Rezln of Damascus to attack Judah, and captured Elath (2  K 16:5ff.). Feeling that Judah would be compelled to submit to the allied powers in the end, Ahaz turned to Assyria, sending the best of his own treasures and those of the Temple at Jerusalem to make a worthy present to the Assyrian king (2 K 16:8), who therefore came to his aid. Pekah and Rezln withdrew their forces from Judah, but, instead of uniting against the common foe, awaited the Assyrian king’s attack each in his own territory. Marching by the coast-route, Tiglath-pileser assured himself of the submission of his vassals in

N. Phœnicia, and attacked N. Israel, capturing Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee, and all the land of Naphtali (2 K 15:29). These names are not preserved in the annals, though ‘the broad (land of) … -li’ may be, as Hommei suggests, the last named. Pekah saved his land from further harm by paying tribute, but things went harder with Rezin, his ally, who shut himself up in Damascus. The siege which followed ended, in 732, in the capture of the city; 591 towns, including Hadara, Rezin’s own city, were razed to the ground. An attack upon Samsi, queen of the Arabians, followed, the result being that a number of tribes—Sabæans, Mas’æans, etc.,—hastened to propitiate the Assyrian king with gifts. Idi-bi’il, a N. Arabian prince, was made governor on the Musrian border. Meanwhile a number of Israelitish nobles, with Hoshea as leader, revolted, and Pekah fled, but seems to have been murdered. Hoshea thereupon mounted the throne, and bought the recognition of the Assyrian king, who had continued to ravage Syria. Mitinti of Ashkelon, seeing the fate of Rezin of Damascus, seems to have gone mad. He was succeeded by his son Rūkipti, who tried to atone for his father’s disaffection by sending tribute and gifts. Metenna of Tyre likewise became tributary. After the fall of the capital, Damascus became an Assyrian province. According to 2 K 16:9, the people were taken captive to Kir, and Rezln was slain. It was in Damascus that Ahaz made homage to the conqueror, and seeing there an altar which took his fancy, had one made like it. Tiglathpileser, confident, seemingly, of his hold upon Palestine, did not again invade the country. Its States remained for many years more or less tributary to Assyria, according as that power seemed strong or weak. In B.C. 731 Tiglath-pileser was attracted by events in Babylonia. Ukinzēr, a Chaldæan prince, having seized the Babylonian throne, the Assyrian king besieged him in his capital Sapia, which he captured in B.C. 729, taking Ukin-zēr prisoner. In B.C. 728 Tiglathpileser became king of Babylon, but beyond ‘grasping the hand of Bel’ (Merodach) as its ruler, took part in no further Important event. He probably died when making an expedition against a city whose name is lost; and Shalmaneser IV. mounted the throne (25th of Tebeth, B.C. 727). When at home, Tiglath-pileser resided in Nineveh or in Caiah, where he restored the central palace in Hittite style, decorating it with bas-reliefs and the annals of his reign. This building was partly destroyed by Esarhaddon.

T. G. PINCHES.

TIGRIS.—Only in RVm of Gn 2:14 and Dn 10:4, where both AV and RV have Hiddekel ( wh. see). The Tigris rises a little S. of Lake Göljik and flows southward to Diarbekr. After passing Diarbekr it receives the eastern Tigris (which rises in the Niphates mountains) at Osman Kleui. Then it flows through narrow gorges into the plateau of Mesopotamia, where it receives from the east the Greater and Lesser Zab, the Adhem or Radanu, and the Diyaleh or Tornadotus. On the E. bank, opposite Mosui, were Nineveh and Calah, a little N. of the junction of the Tigris and Greater Zab; and on the W. bank, N. of the Lesser Zab, was Assur (now Kalah Sherghat), the primitive capital of Assyria. The Tigris is about 1150 miles in length, and rises rapidly in March and April owing to the melting of the snows, falling again after the middle of May. Cf. also EDEN [GARDEN OF].

TIKVAH.—1. The father-in-law of Huldah (2 K 22:14); called in 2 Ch 34:22 Tokhath. 2. The father of Jahzeiah (Ezr 10:15); called in 1 Es 9:14 Thocanus.

TILE, TILING.—The former occurs only in Ezk 4:1 for ‘brick’—the usual rendering of the original. For plans of a city drawn on ‘bricks’ or ‘tablets’ of soft clay, which were afterwards baked hard, see ‘Ezekiel,’ in SBOT, in loc. ‘Tiling’ is found only in Lk 5:19 AV, for which RV has ‘through the tiles.’ St. Luke seems here to have adapted the narrative of Mk. (for which see HOUSE, § 5) to the style of roof covered with tiles (see ‘Teguia’ in Rich’s Dict. of Antiq.) , with which his Western readers were more familiar; or ‘through the tiles’ is here simply synonymous with ‘through the roof’ (cf. our expression ‘on the tiles’).

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

TILGATH-PILNESER.—See TIGLATH-PILESER.

TILON.—A son of Shimon (1 Ch 4:20).

TIMÆUS.—Father of Bartimæus (Mk 10:46).

TIMBREL.—See TABRET, and MUSIC, etc., 4 (3) (a).

TIME.—The conception that we seem to gather of time from the Holy Scriptures is of a small block, as it were, cut out of boundless eternity. Of past eternity, if we may use such an expression, God is the only inhabitant; in future eternity angels and men are to share. And this ‘block’ of time is infinitesimally small. In God’s sight, in the Divine mind, ‘a thousand years are but as yesterday’ (Ps 90:4 ; cf. 2 P 3:8 ‘one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’). Time has a beginning; it has also, if we accept the usual translation of Rev 10:6 ‘there shall be time no longer,’ a stated end. The word ‘time’ in Biblical apocalyptic literature has another meaning—‘time’ stands for ‘a year’ both in Daniel (4:16, 23, 25, 32, 7:25, where the plural ‘times’ seems to stand for two years) and in Rev 12:14 (derived from Dn 7:25).

When once the idea of time formed itself in the human mind, subdivisions of it would follow as a matter of course. The division between light and darkness, the rising, the zenith, and the setting of the sun and the moon, together with the phases of the latter, and the varying position of the most notable stars in the firmament, would all suggest modes of reckoning time, to say nothing of the circuit of the seasons as indicated by the growth and development of the fruits of the field and agricultural operations. Hence we find in Gn 1 day and night as the first division of time, and, because light was believed to be a later creation than matter, one whole day is said to be made up of evening and morning; and the day is reckoned, as it still is by the Jews and, in principle, by the Church in her ecclesiastical feasts, from one disappearance of the sun to the next, the divisions between day and night being formed by that appearance and disappearance. In this same cosmogony we meet with a further use of the lights in the firmament of heaven; they are to be ‘for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years’ (Gn 1:14). The day would thus be an obvious division of time for intelligent beings to make from the very earliest ages. As time went on, subdivisions of this day would be made, derived from an observance of the sun in the heavens—morning, noonday or midday, and evening; and, by analogy, there would be a midnight. The only other expression we meet with is ‘between the two evenings’ (Ex 12:6), used most probably for the time between sunset and dark, though others take it as equivalent to ‘the time of the going down of the sun,’ i.e. any time in the afternoon: any shorter subdivisions of time were not known to the Jews till they were brought into contact with Western civilization and the Roman military arrangements. The only exception to this is the ‘steps’ on the dial of Ahaz (2 K 20:9–11). In the passages in Daniel where the word hour occurs in the EV, the term is quite an indefinite one, the ‘one hour’ of Dn 4:19 in AV becoming ‘a while’ in RV. The Aram, word used in that book was used in the New Hebrew for the word ‘hour.’ In the Apocrypha the word ‘hour’ is quite indefinite. But in the NT we find the Western division of the day into twelve hours, reckoning from sunrise to sunset, quite established. ‘Are there not twelve hours in the day?’ said our Lord, in an appeal to the Jews (Jn 11:9). Westcott holds that in St. John’s Gospel (1:39 , 4:6, 52, 19:14) the modern mode of reckoning the hours from midnight to midnight is followed. The strongest passage in support of this view is 19:14. These twelve hours were divided into the four military watches of three hours each (cf. Mt 14:25 ‘the fourth watch of the night’), as distinguished from the three watches which seem to have prevailed among the Jews (‘if he shall come in the second watch, and if in the third,’ Lk 12:38). The only other measure of time, quite indefinite and infinitesimal, is the ‘moment,’ common to OT, Apocr., and NT (‘we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,’ 1 Co 15:52). To-morrow (Ex 8:23) and yesterday (Ex 5:14), and even yesternight (Gn 31:29), would soon take their place on either side of to-day. The Hebrew word meaning literally ‘the day before yesterday,’ is generally used vaguely of previous time, ‘heretofore.’

The next obvious division of time would be the month. The phases of the moon would be watched, and it would soon be noticed that these recurred at regular intervals. Each appearance of the new moon would be noted as the beginning of a new period. The first mention of the new moon in Biblical history is in 1 S 20:5, though ‘the beginnings of the months’ are mentioned in the ritual laws of Nu 10:10, 28:11. Of the two Heb. words for ‘month,’ one is identical with the word for ‘moon,’ the other means ‘newness.’ Though the actual period of each moon is rather more than 29 days, the actual time of its visibility could scarcely be more than 28 days. The first appearance of the new moon would be eagerly watched for and made a matter of rejoicing. We find, in fact, that a keen lookout was kept for it, and the ‘new moon’ feast was kept with great rejoicings, as well as, apparently in later times, a ‘full moon’ feast (‘Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, At the full moon, on our solemn feast day,’ Ps 81:3).

Given this period of 28 days, together with the recurrent phases of the moon, it would naturally be subdivided, like the day itself, into four divisions or weeks of seven days each. The first occurrence of a week is in Gn 29:27, though the Creation is represented as having been completed, including the rest of the Almighty, in a period of seven days, and periods of seven days occur in the history of the Flood. Of the two Heb. names for ‘week’ one is derived from the number seven, and the other is identical with ‘Sabbath,’ the day which completes the Jewish week. The NT takes over the latter word, and makes a Greek noun of it, whilst to the Christian and to the Christian Church, the first day of the week becomes the important day, instead of the seventh, and is for Christians the day of gathering together ‘to break bread’ (Ac 20:7), and of making collections for the needs of the faithful (1 Co 16:2), and also wins for itself the name of ‘the Lord’s day’ (Rev 1:10). The word ‘week’ was given other applications. The seventh year completed a week of years and was a sabbath; seven times seven years formed seven sabbaths of years, i.e. forty-nine years, and was followed by the jubilee. From the constant occurrence of the tenth day of the month in the dating of events, it has been supposed that the month of 30 days was also subdivided into periods of ten days each (see, e.g., Ex 12:3, Lv 16:29, Jos 4:19, 2 K 25:1  etc. ).

There are no names in the OT for the days of the week except for the seventh—the Sabbath. In the Apocrypha (Jth 8:6) there is a name for Friday which is translated ‘the eve of the Sabbath’; so in Mk 15:42 ‘the day before the Sabbath.’ This day is also called the Preparation (Mt 27:62,

Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:31). In Roman Catholic service-books Good Friday is still called ‘Feria Sexta in Parasceue’ (i.e. the Preparation), and the following Saturday ‘Sabbatum Sanctum.’

Whilst these various divisions of time were being arrived at, there would be, concurrently with them, the obvious recurrence of the seasons in their due order. One of the promises represented as having been made by God to Noah immediately after the Flood was that seedtime (i.e. spring), summer, harvest (i.e. autumn), and winter should not cease (Gn 8:22). This is the earliest time in the world’s history to which a knowledge of the seasons is attributed in the Bible. Afterwards summer and winter are frequently mentioned. In AV the word ‘spring,’ to mean that season, occurs only in Wis 2:7, and ‘autumn’ not at all, though the word translated ‘winter’ in Am 3:15, Jer 36:22, might equally be rendered ‘autumn,’ as the time referred to is the border time between autumn and winter. It would in due course be noticed that the seasons recurred practically after a series of twelve moons or months; hence would come in the division of time into years of twelve lunar months. A year of 360 days is implied in the history of the Flood (Gn 6–8) , but no satisfactory explanation has yet been given of the scheme of years and chronology in the genealogical account of antediluvian times (Gn 5).

The twelve months of the year would be given names. The Biblical names we find for them are:

1.                   Abib (Ex 13:4), the month of the green ears of corn, about the same as our April, called in postexilic times, in correspondence with its Bab. name, Nisan (Neh 2:1). This was the month in which the Passover came.

2.                   Ziv (1 K 6:1), seemingly the bright month, called later Iyyar.

3.                   Sivan (Est 8:9), another Bab. name, occurring only in this one passage in the OT.

4.                   This month has no Biblical name, but was called in later times Tammuz, after the god of that name, in whose honour a fast was kept during the month, which is mentioned in Zec 8:19 as ‘the fast of the fourth month.’

5.                   This month also has no Biblical name, but was called later Ab.

6.                   Elul (Neh 6:15, 1 Mac 14:27). The etymology of this name is unknown; it occurs in Assyrian.

7.                   Ethanim (1 K 8:2), the month of constant flowings, in later times called Tishri. This was the first month of the civil year.

8.                   Bul (1 K 6:38), a word of doubtful etymology, called later Marcheshvan.

9.                   Chislev (Neh 1:1, Zec 7:1, 1 Mac 1:54 etc.), a Bab. word of uncertain derivation.

10.               Tebeth (Est 2:18), taken over from the Assyrian. It has been conjectured to mean ‘the month of sinking in,’ i.e. the muddy month.

11.               Shebat (Zec 1:7, 1 Mac 16:14), taken from the Babylonian; of doubtful meaning, but, according to some, the month of destroying rain.

12.               Adar (Ezr 6:15, Est 3:7 etc.), a Bab. word, perhaps meaning darkened. In 2 Mac 15:36 we are informed that the twelfth month ‘is called Adar in the Syrian tongue.’

The names given are, it will be seen, of rare occurrence, and only four of them are pre-exilic. Biblical writers are generally content to give the number of the month. Some of the months were notable for their ecclesiastical feasts. In the first came the Passover, on the 14th day; in the third, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost); in the seventh, the Feast of Trumpets and the Feast of

Tabernacles, as also the Fast of the Day of Atonement; in the ninth, the Feast of Dedication; and in the twelfth, the Feast of Purim.

Though at first all the months seem to have been reckoned of equal length, in later times they contained 30 and 29 days alternately. This rendered an intercalation in the Calendar necessary, to keep the Passover in the right season of the year; and this intercalary period was called the second Adar, and was inserted as required to bring Abib to its proper place in the year.

It remains to mention that in the Apocrypha we have traces of the Macedonian Calendar. In 2 Mac 11:21, a month is named Dioscorinthius, a name which does not occur elsewhere, and which is either a corruption of the text for Dystrus, a name for the twelfth month, which occurs in the Sinaitic text of To 2:12, or the name of an intercalary month inserted at the end of the year. In 2 Mac 11:30 Xanthicus, the name for the first month of the Macedonian year, occurs. It answers to the month Abib. These names, with other Macedonian names, are used by Josephus. In 3 Mac 6:38 two Egyptian months, Pachon and Epiphi, occur, the former being omitted in some texts. They are the ninth and eleventh months of the Egyptian year.

Of epochs or eras there is but little trace. There were the periods of seven years and fifty years already mentioned, but they never occur in any chronological statement. 430 years is the time assigned to the sojourning in Egypt, both in OT and NT (Ex 12:40, Gal 3:17), and the commencement of the building of Solomon’s Temple is dated 480 years after the Exodus. The chronology of the two kingdoms is reckoned by regnal years, though in some cases a regency period is counted as part of the length of the reign. Twice in Isaiah (6:1, 14:28) the date noted is that of the year of the death of a king, in another case the date is the invasion by the Tartan (20:1) ; whilst in Amos (1:1) a date is given as ‘two years before the earthquake,’ apparently a particularly severe one which happened during the reign of Uzziah, king of Judah (Zec 14:5). The ‘seventy years’ of the Captivity is also a well-known period, as is the thousand years of the Apocalypse (Rev 20), with all the speculations it has given rise to. In later times the years were reckoned by the names of those who filled the office of high priest; in Lk 3:1f., we have a careful combination of names of various offices held by various persons at the time of the commencement of the preaching of John the Baptist, to indicate the date.

Of instruments to measure time we hear of only one, the sun-dial of Ahaz (2 K 20:9–11 , Is 38:8) , but what shape or form this took we do not know.

H. A. REDPATH.

TIMNA.—1. A concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau (Gn 36:12). 2. A woman of the Esau clan of Horites (Gn 36:22, 1 Ch 1:39). 3. A ‘duke’ of Edom (1 Ch 1:51, Gn 36:40 [where RV has, by a slip, Timnah]).

H. L. WILLETT.

TIMNAH.—1. A town in the high region of S. Judah, S. E. of Hebron (Jos 15:57). It is possible that this was the Timnah visited by Judah at the time of sheep-shearing (Gn 38:12) . Or it may have been—2. A place on the N. frontier of the tribe of Judah between Beth-shemesh and Ekron (Jos 15:10). At one time it was counted in the territory of Dan (Jos 19:43), but at another it was in Philistine possession (Jg 14:1). Here Samson celebrated his marriage. His father-in-law is called the Timnite ( Jg 15:6). The town was held by the Hebrews in the reign of Uzziah, but was lost to the Philistines by Ahaz (2 Ch 28:13). It is now identified with Tibneh, on the S. side of the Wady Sarar, 2 miles W. of Beth-shemesh. 3. For Gn 36:40 see TIMNA, 3.

H. L. WILLETT.

TIMNATH.—A strong city built by Bacchides (1 Mac 9:50). It is possibly the Thamna of Jos. BJ III. iii. 5, the mod. Tibneh, some 10 miles N.W. of Bethel. Cf. TIMNATH-SERAH.

TIMNATH-HERES (in Jos 19:50, 24:30 written Timnath-serah).—A place assigned to Joshua as an inheritance and burying-place (Jg 2:9). It is described as being ‘In Mt. Ephraim, on the N. side of the Mountain of Gaash.’ See next article.

H. L. WILLETT.

TIMNATH-SERAH.—The city in Mount Ephraim given to Joshua (19:50), where he was buried (Jos 24:30), lying on the N. of the Mountain of Gaash (Jg 2:9 Timnath-heres) . Josephus calls the burial-place of Joshua Thamna, and this probably corresponds to Timnath of 1 Mac 9:50, although there it is reckoned to Judæa. It was head of a Jewish toparchy, and is named with Lydda and Emmaus (BJ III. iii. 5, etc.). The Onomasticon identifies it with Tibneh, where there are remains of an important place, with a spring and ancient tombs, on the Roman road from Cæsarea to Jerusalem, about 14 miles N.E. of Ludd ( Lydda). The tombs are on the S. of the road.

One, distinguished by size and workmanship, may be that pointed out as Joshua’s in the time of Eusebius and Jerome. The Samaritans place the burial of Joshua at Kefr Hāris, a village some 10 miles S. of Nāblus, with two sanctuaries to the E., one of which, Neby Kift ( ‘the prophet of the portion or lot’), may be identified with Joshua. In this case, only the second element in the name has survived. Heres, it will be observed, simply reverses the order of the letters in Serah.

W. EWING.

TIMON.—One of ‘the Seven’ (Ac 6:5).

TIMOTHEUS.—1. A leader of the Ammonites who was defeated in many battles by Judas Maccabæus (1 Mac 5:6ff., 34ff., 2 Mac 8:30, 9:3, 10:24–37). 2. The AV form of the name Timothy everywhere in NT except 2 Co 1:1, 1 Ti 1:2, 2 Ti 1:2, Philem 1, He 13:23.

TIMOTHY.—A young disciple, a native of Lystra, chosen as companion and assistant by

Paul when, during his second missionary journey, he visited that city for the second time. He was the child of a mixed marriage, his father (probably dead at the time of his selection by Paul) being a Greek and his mother a Jewess (Ac 16:1). From earliest childhood (‘babe’ RV) he had received religious training, being taught the Jewish Scriptures by his mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois (2 Ti 1:5, 3:15). Probably both he and his mother were converted during Paul’s first sojourn at Lystra, for on the Apostle’s second visit he was already ‘a disciple’ of some standing, ‘well reported of by the brethren’ (Ac 16:1, 2). Indeed, Paul seems to claim him as a personal convert in 1 Co 4:17, describing him as his ‘beloved and faithful child in the Lord.’

The selection of Timothy was due not only to the wish of Paul (Ac 16:3), but also to the opinion of the Church at Lystra. In his case, as in the case of Paul and Barnabas (Ac 13:2), the local prophets ‘led the way’ (1 Ti 1:18 RVm) to him; and he was then set apart by imposition of hands by Paul (2 Ti 1:6) in conjunction with the local presbyters (1 Ti 4:14). Possibly it was on this occasion that he ‘confessed the good confession’ (1 Ti 6:12). Paul caused him to be circumcised (Ac 16:3), judging that, as his mother was a Jewess, his not having submitted to the rite would prove an obstacle to his ministry among Jews, and, further, that from his semi-Jewish parentage, he did not come within the scope of the Church’s decree which released Gentiles from circumcision.

Timothy at once accompanied Paul through Asia to Troas, and thence into Macedonia. He was left behind at Berœa when the Apostle moved on to Athens, but was summoned to rejoin him (Ac 17:14, 15). He was thence despatched back again to Macedonia to confirm the Church at Thessalonica, and to bring news of its state to Paul. He rejoined the Apostle in Corinth and cheered him by a favourable report (1 Th 3:1–3 , Ac 18:5). While in Corinth, Paul wrote his Epistles to the Thessalonians, and included Timothy in the greetings (1 Th 1:1, 2 Th 1:1). He is next mentioned at Ephesus with Paul on his third missionary journey, and thence is sent with Erastus to Macedonia in advance of the Apostle (Ac 19:22). Shortly after Timothy’s departure,

Paul despatched by direct sea route his First Epistle to the Corinthians. In this he mentions that Timothy (travelling via Macedonia) would shortly reach them (1 Co 4:17); he bespeaks a kindly welcome for him, and adds that he wishes him to return with ‘the brethren’ (i.e. probably those who had borne the Epistle) to Ephesus (16:10, 11 and 8). Timothy may not have reached Corinth on this occasion, being detained in Macedonia; and the absence in the Second Epistle of all mention of his being there points in this direction. But in any case he is found with Paul again when 2 Cor. was written, in Macedonia (2 Co 1:1). Paul in due course reached Corinth, and Timothy with him, for his name occurs among the greetings in the Epistle to the Romans which was then written (1 Ro 16:21; cf. Ac 20:2). Paul and he, after a three months’ sojourn, returned by land to Troas (Ac 20:4, 5). Timothy is not again mentioned in the Acts. It is clear from the Epistles of the Captivity that he was a companion of Paul during his imprisonment (Col 1:1,

Philem 1, Ph 1:1), and that the Apostle meditated sending him on a special mission to Philippi ( Ph 2:19). From the Pastoral Epistles we learn that when Paul, after his release, came into Asia, he left Timothy as his delegate in Ephesus, giving him full instructions as to how he was to rule the Church during his absence, which he realized might be longer than he anticipated (1 Ti 1:3, 3:14 , 15). When Paul was a second time imprisoned, and felt his death to be imminent, he summoned Timothy to his side (2 Ti 4:9, 21). If Timothy ever reached the Apostle, he may have been then himself imprisoned, for we read (He 13:23) of his being ‘set at liberty.’ Of his subsequent history nothing is known with certainty.

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO.—These Epistles, together with that to Titus, form a special group among the Pauline letters,—the Pastoral Epistles,—being united by common objects in view, and by a common literary style. Each Epistle claims in its opening words to have St. Paul for its author—a claim which the Church has consistently allowed ‘ever since the idea of a Canon of the NT came into clear consciousness.’ During the last century, however, their genuineness has been vigorously assailed. Baur relegated them to late in the 2nd century; but modern hostile criticism very generally holds that, while they contain genuine fragments of the Apostle’s writing, their present form is the work of pseudonymous writers.

There is no doubt that these Epistles present very special difficulties to scholarship; but these are on the way to solution, and the general tendency of criticism may be said to be towards establishing their genuineness.

1.      The situation disclosed by 1 and 2 Tim. is as follows. Paul, having to go into Macedonia, left Timothy in charge of the Church at Ephesus (1 Ti 1:3); and, fearing he might be detained longer than he anticipated, he wrote telling him how to act during his absence (1 Ti 3:14, 15). From other allusions in the Epistles we gather that the Apostle visited not only Ephesus and Macedonia, but also Troas (2 Ti 4:13), Corinth and Miletus (4:20), and Crete (Tit 1:5), and that he purposed wintering in Nicopolis (3:12).

Now it is impossible to fit these visits into the period covered by the Acts. No doubt in Acts we find the Apostle remaining two years in Ephesus (Ac 19:10), but on that occasion he did not leave Timothy behind when he went into Macedonia; on the contrary, he sent him into that country while he remained at Ephesus (Ac 19:22); nor was there time during his two years in that city for such lengthened journeys as the above visits require. Therefore, as the Acts closes with St. Paul in Rome in prison (A.D. 61) , we must conclude, if we accept the Pastorals as genuine, that the Apostle visited Ephesus, Macedonia, and Crete after a release from imprisonment.

Those who oppose the Pauline authorship refuse to believe in this release, taking as their ground the fact of the silence of the Acts on the point, and charge those who accept it with making an unwarranted assumption; but surely theirs is the unwarranted assumption, for they assume that St. Paul was not released, merely because the Acts does not continue its history farther than it does. Indeed, even if we had not the distinct statements of the Pastorals, we should consider it extremely likely that he was thus released; for it is clear that he anticipated being set at liberty when, from his imprisonment, he wrote to the Philippians that he hoped shortly to come to them (Ph 2:24), and when he bid Onesimus prepare him a lodging at Colossæ (Philem 22). When, therefore, we add the further facts, that the Muratorian Fragment states that the Apostle fulfilled his expressed wish of visiting Spain (Ro 15:24, 28),—a journey which certainly necessitates his release from his Roman imprisonment—and that Clement of Rome tells of his reaching ‘the bounds of the West,’—a phrase which, used by one resident, as Clement, in Rome, can only mean Spain—we may hold without misgiving that St. Paul was released in A.D. 61 , that he was again arrested, and suffered martyrdom in Rome (A.D. 64?), that between these dates he visited Spain in the West, and various Churches in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that during this period he wrote the Pastoral Epistles.

2.      The external evidence in favour of the Epistles is remarkably strong. Irenæus, Clement, Tertullian, the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, were all clearly acquainted with them. A singularly convincing quotation is found in the writings of Polycarp (the disciple of the Apostle John, and who died A.D. 167), who says:  ‘The love of money is the beginning of all trouble, knowing … that we brought nothing into the world, neither can carry anything out’ (cf. 1 Ti 6:7, 10).

On the other hand, not a word is raised by earlier writers against their genuineness, save by the heretics Marcion and Basilides; and their rejection was due not to any stated doubts as to the Pauline authorship, but apparently to dislike to the teaching of the Epistles. Very much stronger evidence against their authenticity must be supplied before this weight of evidence can be overturned.

3.      Much discussion has arisen concerning the nature of the heresies attacked by Paul in these

Epistles. Some see in them an incipient Gnosticism, theories from which the developed

Gnosticism of Marcion ultimately sprang. Strength was lent to this view by the supposition that ‘the endless genealogies’ mentioned in 1 Ti 1:4 and Tit 3:9 were the long lists of emanations of æons and angels which formed part of the Gnostic systems. But, as Philo and others use the word ‘genealogy’ of the primitive history of the Pentateuch, it is now generally allowed that the reference is not to Gnostic speculations but to the legendary history of the Jewish patriarchs. Others regard the heresies opposed as essentially Jewish in origin, and undoubtedly many passages point in this direction. We read of would-be ‘teachers of the law’ (1 Ti 1:7), of ‘they of the circumcision’ (Tit 1:10), of ‘Jewish fables’ (1:14) of ‘fightings about the law’ (3:9). Yet, while there are these distinct evidences of Jewish influences, it seems doubtful if it is right to mark all the heresies opposed as coming from this source. The errors leaning towards asceticism, with its prohibition of marriage, and of certain foods, and perhaps of wine also (1 Ti 4:1–4 , 8, 5:23), may indeed have sprung from forms of Judaism which had become ascetic; but just as likely—indeed more likely—they may have come from Gentile sources. These ascetic doctrines may have been founded on the un-Jewish belief of the essential evil of matter—an error which the Apostle probably aimed at when he wrote that God gave all things richly to be enjoyed (6:17). In a city like Ephesus, Oriental mysticism, Greek thought, Judaism, and Christianity would meet; and the Church there, if lapsing from truth, would show signs of heresy derived from all these sources. In 2 Ti 2:18 one heresy is distinctly named—the belief that the resurrection was already past; this opinion may have been the same as that held by those within the Gentile Corinthian Church who said there was no resurrection (1 Co 15:12).

4.      Within these Epistles St. Paul’s use of certain theological terms is somewhat different from that in his earlier writings. Thus faith is used more of the objective belief which the individual holds, than of the warm affection that unites the personal soul to Christ. Similarly righteousness is used rather of a virtue to be reached by personal struggle than in the technical sense found in the Epistle to the Romans. But it must be remembered that faith in the earlier writings is not always subjective (e.g. Gal 1:23, 3:23), nor is it always objective in the Pastorals (1 Ti 1:16, Tit 3:8), and that righteousness is often spoken of elsewhere as a virtue to be acquired

(e.g. 2  Co 9:10, Ro 6:13, 8:10), while justification by faith is emphasized in the Pastoral Epistles (2  Ti 1:9, Tit 3:5). Another distinguishing mark is found in the traces of a formulated creed, which show themselves in frequent quotations, such as the five ‘faithful sayings,’ and the rhythmic stanza commencing ‘He who was manifested in the flesh’ (1 Ti 3:16). The latter is clearly part of a hymn embodying a confession of the Christian faith. Such are undoubtedly marks of a Church with a history behind it; but, assuming that St. Paul wrote the Epistles shortly before his death in A.D. 64 , ample time would have passed since he first evangelized Ephesus in A.D. 52. It takes but a few years for a living and active community to crystallize its common convictions.

5.      It is important to note the development reached in Church organization as presented in the

Epistles. They show us the Apostle himself holding the reins of supreme control (1 Ti 1:20, 2:1, 2:8) , while Timothy and Titus are his delegates. Some years before, they had acted in this capacity on special commissions (1 Co 4:17, Ph 2:19, 2 Co 8:13–18) ; and, as on those occasions, so on these, they seem to have been appointed temporarily to carry out the functions entrusted to them until the Apostle’s return (1 Ti 1:3, 3:14, 4:13, Tit 3:12). But as his delegates, even though temporarily, they had full jurisdiction over the various officers of the Church, and full instructions are given to them to guide them as to the qualifications necessary to be found in those to be appointed to the offices of bishop (or elder) and deacon. The bishop and elder are spoken of as identical (Tit 1:6–7) , showing that at the date of the Epistles these two titles had not yet been given to distinct offices (cf. Ph 1:1, Ac 20:17, 28). This is strong confirmation of the accepted date of the Epistles, for, had they been written at the time assumed by radical criticism, the monarchical position of the bishop, then reached in Asia Minor, would have shown itself. Instructions are also given regarding ‘women’ (1 Ti 3:11) and ‘widows’ (5:3ff.). As the former are mentioned in the midst of regulations concerning deacons, they probably are not the deacons’ ‘wives’ (as AV), but official women or deaconesses, holding such an office as Phœbe held (Ro 16:1 RVm). This is a distinct advance on the ecclesiastical organizations disclosed in earlier NT writings, but need not surprise us. ‘The secluded life of women must at the very beginning have caused a felt want for women to perform for women what deacons did for men.’ The care of widows engaged the Church from the first (Ac 6:1, Ja 1:27).

The absence of all instructions regarding prophets is remarkable. Probably prophecy, which is an abnormal gift and not a stated function, was not very active in the Ephesian or Cretan Churches at the time, or, if active, was under due control, and so did not call for special treatment as formerly at Corinth (1 Co 14:29ff.).

6.      The individuality of St. Paul is strongly present in all his writings, a distinguishing style marking them as his. At the same time his Epistles form themselves into different groups, which vary considerably in style in accordance with the particular period of his life in which they were written. So strongly do the Pastoral Epistles show the general Pauline style, that even those who oppose their genuineness admit that they contain genuine fragments of his writing. But, while this is so, there is no doubt that there is present in them a considerably larger proportion of words peculiar to themselves than we find in any other of the groups into which his Epistles are divided. This is the strongest argument against their Pauline authorship. The argument from ‘style,’ however, is a most precarious one, especially in the writing of one who shows such great variety of phraseology in his other groups of Epistles. Indeed, if we followed it to its logical issues, it would lead us to conclude that even the three Pastoral Epistles are themselves the work of different authors, for each of these Epistles contains a large number of words absent from the other two.

7.      The true explanation of the marked difference of style of the Pastorals from the other Pauline writings appears to be that, while the earlier Epistles were written to Churches at an early stage of their development, and thus dealt mainly with fundamental discussions of doctrine, these were written to individuals who presided over well-established Christian communities, and therefore they deal chiefly with practical virtues and ecclesiastical organizations. Such newness of subject would compel even a much less versatile writer than St. Paul to enlarge and modify his phraseology.

The following judgment of the late Dr. Hort will, we believe, be increasingly accepted: ‘In spite of by no means trivial difficulties arising from comparison of the diction of these with other

Epistles, I believe them to be his, and to be his as they now stand.’

The First Epistle to Timothy and that to Titus are devoted chiefly to instructions as to the governance of the Church. The Second Epistle to Timothy is the outpourings of the Apostle’s heart, when he felt his death to be imminent (2 Ti 4:8), to one who had been his faithful companion and assistant for many years; it shows tender anxiety for his ‘beloved child’ (1:2), whose strength and weaknesses he well knew, and upon whose piety and wisdom so much of the Church’s future, after his own decease, would depend.

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

TIN.—See MINING AND METALS.

TINDALE’S VERSION.—See ENGLISH VERSIONS, 12ff.

TIPHSAH (‘crossing’).—1. The classical Thapsacus, the chief crossing-place on the middle Euphrates for caravans and armies, after the decline of Carchemish in the Persian period. It lay on the eastward bend of the river where it leaves its southerly course. It is named as the northeast limit of the dominions of Solomon (1 K 4:24). 2. Tiphsah should be corrected to Tappuah, with the Lucian LXX, in 2 K 15:18.

J. F. MCCURDY.

TIRAS.—A son of Japheth (Gn 10:2), formerly identified with Thrace, but of late much more plausibly with the Turusha, a piratical people who invaded Syria and Egypt in the 13th cent. B.C. But Tiras has also been identified with Tarsus (= E. Cilicia) and even Tarshish ( wh. see).

J. F. MCCURDY.

TIRATHITES.—A family of scribes (1 Ch 2:55).

TIRE.—See HEADTIRE, and DRESS, 5.

TIRHAKAH, king of Cush (2 K 19:9, Is 37:9), marched out from Egypt against Sennacherib shortly before the mysterious destruction of the Assyrian army│(? B.C. 701) . Herodotus preserves a version of the same event. Tirhakah was the third of the Ethiopian (25th) Dyn., and reigned as king of Ethiopia and Egypt from about B.C. 691–665 ; towards the end of his reign (670–665)  until his death he was engaged in constant struggles with the Assyrians, who endeavoured to establish their power in Egypt by means of the native princes as against the Ethiopian. Tirhakah was quite unable to resist the attacks of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal; even Thebes was sacked, but the Assyrians were equally unable to hold the country they bad won. The chronology of the reign is not clear: Tirhakah was not king at the time of Sennacherib’s expedition, but he may have commanded the army opposing it. Winckler places the later Assyrian attacks in 675–668.

F. LL. GRIFFITH.

TIRHANAH.—A son of Caleb (1 Ch 2:48).

TIRIA.—A son of Jehallelel (1 Ch 4:16).

TIRSHATHA.—A Persian word = ‘His Excellency,’ or more probably ‘His Reverence,’ mentioned Ezr 2:63 (= Neh 7:65), Neh 7:70, 8:9, 10:1. In the first three passages he is unnamed, but is apparently Zerubbabel; in the last two he is Nehemiah. The title is used interchangeably with the Assyr. pechah or ‘governor,’ of which it may be the Persian equivalent, and apparently represents a plenipotentiary appointed for a special mission.

C. W. EMMET.

TIRZAH.—1. One of the 31 cities captured by Joshua (Jos 12:24). It was the residence of Jeroboam I. (1 K 14:17) and his successors down to Omri (1 K 15:21, 16:6, 8, 15, 17, 23). The doubtful reference in Ca 6:4 compares the Shulammite to Tirzah in beauty. The site is uncertain. Three different identifications have met with favour: Talluza, a village E. of Samaria and N. of Mt. Ebal; et-Tireh, a village close to Mt. Gerizim; and Teyasir, 11 m. N. of Nāblus (Shechem) and 12 m. E. of Sebastiyeh (Samaria). 2. One of the five daughters of Zelophehad (Nu 26:33, 27:1, 36:11, Jos 17:3).

H. L. WILLETT.

TISHBITE.—Elijah is repeatedly designated ‘the Tishbite’ (1 K 17:1, 21:17, 28 etc.)—i.e.

native of Tishbeh (? Thisbe) in Gilead.

TISHRI (month).—See TIME, p. 936^b.

TITANS.—In Greek mythology the Titans were divine or semi-divine beings who, endowed with supernatural powers, were overcome only with the greatest difficulty. In later times they were identified with primitive giants.

In the LXX version of Samuel the ‘Vale of Rephaim’ (2 S 5:16, 22) is called the ‘Vale of the Titans.’ Here it is used in the sense of ‘giants,’ for the same version of Chronicles translates this name in 1 Ch 11:15, 14:9 ‘Vale of the Giants.’ Thus, in interpreting early Hebrew thought for Greek readers, the old shadowy Rephaim were identified with Titans and giants. Similarly in the song of victory in Jth 16:7 we read:

‘For the mighty one did not fall by the young men,

Neither did the sons of Titans smite him,

Nor did tall giants set upon him,

But Judith, the daughter of Merari …’

In this late work Greek mythology has been absorbed by Jewish thought.

GEORGE A. BARTON.

TITHES.—According to both North Israelite (Gn 28:22) and Judæan (Gn 14:20) tradition, Israel’s patriarchs paid tithes; the custom, therefore, among the Israelites was evidently very ancient. But the institution of offering tithes of the fruits of the field and of the flocks is one which dates back to a period greatly anterior to Israelite history. A tenth of the flocks, fruits, and possessions of all kinds, as well as of the spoils of war, was given to their gods by many peoples, not only of Semitic, but also of Indo-Germanic race.

In the OT two ideas lie at the root of the custom; the more antique—apart from its position in the Bible—is that which regards the offering of a tenth to the Deity as His due, owing to His being the Supreme owner of the land and all that it brings forth, or that feeds upon it (Lv 27:30– 33); here the underlying thought is that of propitiation,—if the Supreme owner does not receive His due, His blessing will be wanting another year. The other idea, which is obviously a later one, is that of thankfulness for the blessings received (Gn 28:20–22) ; the tithes were given in recognition of what the Giver of all things had accorded to His worshippers.

Among the Israelites this ancient custom was taken advantage of by the Levitical priesthood, who, as those employed in the sanctuary of Jahweh, claimed for themselves, on behalf of Him, a tithe of all. According to Nu 18:21–24  the Levites were to receive this in lieu of the inheritance of land which fell to all the other tribes; but they received the tithe on behalf of Jahweh; stress is laid on this point in v. 24: ‘For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heaveoffering unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance’;—the ‘heaving’ of an offering towards the altar was the substitute for the actual consuming of it upon the altar. Although tithes were, of course, intended to be offered once a year (Dt 14:22), it would appear from Am 4:4—though the words are ironical—that in their anxiety to more than fulfil the requirements of the Law, many worshippers brought them more frequently (the original Hebrew, however, is ambiguous). Though, generally speaking, tithes were offered only to God, yet it is clear that they were sometimes given also to the king (cf. Gn 14:20, 1 S 8:17, He 7:2, 4)]

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

TITLE (Jn 19:19, 20).—The ordinary term for the ‘superscription, consisting usually of the name of the criminal and the crime with which he was charged (Mk 15:26), written on a board, which, according to Roman practice, was carried in front, or hung from the neck of a prisoner as he was led through the streets of the city to execution, or exposed for punishment. In cases of crucifixion the inscription was often fastened above the head of the criminal (Mt 27:37). This public announcement was intended to serve as a warning to evil-doers.

The four inscriptions on the cross of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels are different, though the words ‘the King of the Jews’ (Mk 15:26) are common to all, and truly set forth the charge on which Jesus was formally condemned. Mt. (27:37) adds, ‘this is Jesus’; Lk. (23:38), ‘this (is)’; and Jn. (19:19) ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ The variations may be partly explained by the statement of

Jn. that the inscription (like Roman edicts which also were often published in both Latin and

Greek) was written in Hebrew, i.e. Aramaic (which was spoken ordinarily by the people of Jerusalem and the pilgrims from Palestine), Latin (the official language), and Greek (the lingua franca of the world). The Evangelist sees, in this announcement in the three languages of the Roman Empire, a symbol of the proclamation to the world of the Messiahship of Jesus, notwithstanding the efforts of the Jews to cover Him with ignominy. Jn. alone implies that Pilate took revenge on the Jews in preparing the inscription; Mt. and Mk. seem to suggest that the soldiers themselves placed the inscription on the cross, and crucified Jesus between two robbers in order to heighten the insult.

R. A. FALCONER.

TITTLE.—See JOT.

TITUS.—A convert from heathenism (Gal 2:3), probably won by St. Paul himself (Tit 1:4).

He is not directly mentioned in Acts, and all that is known of him comes from the Epp. to Gal., 2 Cor., and the Pastorals. Neither his age nor his place of birth is told us. We first hear of him when he accompanies St. Paul on his journey from Antioch to Jerusalem—a journey undertaken in connexion with the question of the circumcision of Gentile Christians (Gal 2:1). He is thus included in the ‘certain others’ mentioned in Ac 15:2. The Judaistic party within the Church wished to have Titus circumcised (Gal 2:3); but the Apostle and those representing Gentile Christianity strenuously resisted (v. 5), and the decision of the Church was in their favour (Ac 15:23, 29). The case of Titus thus seems to have been the test case in this controversy. From this time we may suppose that Titus continued with St. Paul as one of his missionary companions and assistants, but we have no distinct reference to him until some 10 years after the Council at Jerusalem, namely, when the Apostle wrote 2 Corinthians. In this Epistle Titus is mentioned nine times, and from it we gather that he visited Corinth as the Apostle’s delegate—probably three times. On the first occasion, which was a year before 2 Cor. was written (2 Co 8:10), he came with an unnamed ‘brother’ (12:18), and on his arrival set on foot the necessary organization to secure the local contributions towards the collection for the poor Christians of Judæa which the Apostle had inaugurated (1 Co 16:1, 2). After his departure from Corinth serious trouble vexed the Church there, and he was a second time sent to reduce matters to order. Probably on this occasion he was the bearer of the letter referred to in 2 Co 2:3ff., 7:8ff. St. Paul anxiously awaited at Troas the return of Titus (2 Co 2:12); but the journey took longer than was expected; and so the Apostle moved on into Macedonia, with a view to meeting him the sooner on his road.

Here Titus ultimately reached him, and bringing good news from Corinth refreshed his spirit (v. 14). Titus was then despatched a third time to Corinth, bearing the 2nd Epistle (8:15–24) , and was charged to complete ‘the collection’—the organization for which he had commenced the year before (8:10).

After these events we do not hear of Titus until St. Paul addressed to him the Pastoral Epistle. From it we gather that he had accompanied the Apostle, after his release from his Roman imprisonment, on a visit to Crete, and had been left there by him ‘to set in order things that were wanting’ and to ‘ordain elders in every city’ (Tit 1:5). He is charged to maintain sound doctrine (2:1), to avoid unprofitable discussions (3:9), and duly to assert his authority (2:15). The Apostle tells him of his intention to send Artemas or Tychicus to him, and bids him, when this occurs, to Join him in Nicopolis, where he hopes to winter (3:12). Whether these plans were ever realized we know not. St. Paul may have been re-arrested before reaching Nicopolis; but we learn from 2 Ti 4:10 that Titus was with the Apostle during part of his second imprisonment in Rome, though at the time of the writing of that Epistle he had left for Dalmatia.

Titus and Timothy share the honour of being the most trusted and efficient helpers of St. Paul, and the fact that the former was chosen to deal with so sharp a crisis as presented itself at Corinth shows that prudence, tact, and firmness marked his Christian character.

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

TITUS, EPISTLE TO.—This Epistle was written by St. Paul (1:1) to Titus while the latter was acting as his delegate in Crete (1:5). It may have been a reply to a request from Titus for guidance, or may have been written by the Apostle on his own initiative, to assist his delegate in the difficulties that faced him. St. Paul had come to Crete in company with Titus (1:5), but, having to leave before he could complete his work there, he left Titus behind to ‘set in order things that were wanting.’

As far as our records tell us, this was the first missionary visit of St. Paul to the island. No doubt on his journey as prisoner from Cæsarea to Rome he was windbound under its lee, sheltering from unfavourable winds at Fair Havens (Ac 27:7, 8); but we are not told that he landed on this occasion, and it is probable that, as a change of wind was being anxiously waited for, he was unable to leave the ship. In any case there was no opportunity then granted him of prosecuting any effective evangelization.

It has been thought possible that the visit alluded to in our Epistle might have taken place during the Apostle’s lengthened sojourn at Corinth (Ac 18:11) or at Ephesus (19:10). Such a visit is possible, but we have no record of it; while the general literary style of the Epistle marks it distinctly as belonging to the same group as 1 and 2 Timothy, which group on strong grounds must be held to belong to that period of St. Paul’s life which intervened between his two Roman imprisonments (see TIMOTHY [EPISTLES TO]).

From the Epistle it is evident that, though the Cretan Church was lacking in organization, yet it was of some years’ standing. We read of several cities having congregations in need of supervision (1:5) , and of elders to be chosen from among those who were fathers of ‘believing’ (i.e. Christian) families (v. 5); while the heresies dealt with are those that are in opposition to true doctrine, rather than such as might occur in a young Church through ignorance of truth.

The Cretan character was not high. Ancient writers describe their avarice, ferocity, fraud, and mendacity, and the Apostle himself quotes (1:12) Epimenides, one of their own poets, as saying ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.’ Christianity, without the discipline of a firm organization, springing up in such soil, would naturally be weakened and corrupted by the national vices. We are not surprised, then, to find the Apostle in this Epistle laying the chief emphasis on the importance of personal holiness of character, and insisting that right belief must issue in useful, fruitful life (1:15, 16, 2 passim 3:8 , 14). The chief errorists mentioned by him are unruly men, vain talkers, and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who led men astray for filthy lucre’s sake (1:10, 11), men who professed that they knew God but denied Him in their lives (1:16), and men who were ‘heretical’ (RVm ‘factious,’ 3:10). The type of error to be resisted is also seen in the caution given to Titus to avoid foolish questions, genealogies (i.e. Jewish legendary history), and strifes and fightings about the Law, as unprofitable and vain (3:9).

These dangers to the Christian faith are very similar to those opposed in 1 Timothy; with, however, this difference, that none of those mentioned here seems to have its origin in the incipient Gnosticism which in a measure affected the Church in Ephesus, where Timothy was in charge. The false doctrines in Crete are predominantly, if not exclusively, Jewish in origin, and it is known that Jews abounded in Crete.

The ecclesiastical organization, entrusted to Titus for establishment, is of the simplest kind, merely the ordination of elders (1:5; spoken of as ‘bishops’ v. 7)—officers which it had been the custom of the Apostle from the first to appoint in the Churches he established (Ac 14:23). The appointment of presbyters was left entirely in the hands of Titus; but while this was so, it is evident that it would he necessary for him to consult the congregations over whom the elders were to be appointed, for he is charged to select only those whose reputation should be ‘blameless’ in the eyes of their fellow-Christians. Further, the presbyter is spoken of as ‘God’s steward,’ so that the authority committed to him by Titus was ultimately derived from God and not from man. No mention is made in this Epistle of deacons, deaconesses, or widows—a fact which so far distinguishes it from 1 Timothy.

The Epistle claims to be written by St. Paul (1:1); and its authenticity is established by the same considerations as establish that of 1 and 2 Timothy, with which Epistles it is closely allied in general situation, external attestation, and literary style. For a discussion of the questions involved in this connexion the reader is referred to art. TIMOTHY [EPISTLES TO].

The Epistle was probably brought to Titus by the hands of Zenas and Apollos (3:13).

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

TITUS JUSTUS.—See JUSTUS, No. 2. TITUS MANIUS.—See MANIUS.

TIZITE.—A designation, whose origin is unknown, applied to Joha, one of David’s heroes (1  Ch  11:45).

TOAH.—See NAHATH.

TOB.—One of the small Aramæan principalities founded to the south of Mt. Hermon and Damascus in the 12th cent. B.C., the others being Hamath (the less), Zobah, Beth-rehob, Maacah or Geshur. It was in Tob that Jephthah lived as an outlaw (Jg 11:3, 5). Tob joined the rest of the Aramæans, except those of Hamath (2 S 8:9f.), in helping the Ammonites in their war against king David (2 S 10:6ff.). The exact position of these little States is uncertain. Tob was perhaps the most easterly of them. Possibly Tob is meant in the region alluded to in 1 Mac 5:13 [Tubias] , 2 Mac 12:17 [Tubieni].

J. F. MCCURDY.

TOB-ADONIJAH.—One of the Levites sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah (2  Ch  17:8).

TOBIAH.—1. A family which returned from exile, but could not trace their genealogy (Ezr 2:60 = Neh 7:62); corrupted in 1 Es 5:37 to Ban. 2. The Ammonite who, in conjunction with

Sanballat and others, persistently opposed the work of Nehemiah (Neh 2:10, 19, 4:3, 7, 6:17, 13:4, 8). Cf. art. NEHEMIAH.

TOBIAS.—1. The son of Tobit (To 1:9 and often). 2. The father of Hyrcanus (2 Mac 3:11). TOBIEL.—The father of Tobit (To 1:1).

TOBIJAH.—1. One of the Levites sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah (2 Ch 17:8). 2. One of a deputation that came from Babylon to Jerusalem with contributions of gold and silver (Zec 6:10, 14).

TOBIT, BOOK OF.—See APOCRYPHA, § 8.

TOCHEN.—An unidentified town of Simeon (1 Ch 4:32).

TOGARMAH.—The third son of Gomer, his brothers being Ashkenaz and Riphath (Gn 10:3) . In Ezekiel mention is made of ‘the house of Togarmah,’ the members of which traded for the wares of Tyre with horses and mules. Fried. Delitzsch suggests that Togarmah is the Tilgarimmu of the Assyrian inscriptions, described by Sargon of Assyria as the capital of Melitene, which he captured and re-colonized. Sennacherib, who again captured Til-garimmu and destroyed it, speaks of it as being on the borders of Tabal (Tubal [see MESHECH]) . The difference in the first element (tō = til)  makes a slight difficulty. Kiepert and Dillmann regard Togarmah as being S.W. Armenia.

T. G. PINCHES.

TOHU.—See NAHATH.

TOI.—See TOU.

TOKHATH.—See TIKVAH, 1.

TOLA.—The first of the five minor Judges (10:1, 2). In Gn 46:13, Nu 26:23, 1 Ch 7:1 he appears as the son of Issachar; Tola was apparently the name of the leading clan of the tribe. It means ‘a worm,’ from which came a crimson dye (Ex 16:20, Is 1:18); and was perhaps an animal name due to totemism. Shamir, his home and birthplace, is unidentified.

C. W. EMMET.

TOLAD.—See ELTOLAD.

TOLBANES.—See TELEM, 1.

TOLL.—See TRIBUTE.

TOLMAN.—See TALMON.

TOMB, GRAVE, SEPULCHRE.—The disposal of the dead among the Israelites was always by burial. While spices were sometimes sprinkled among the grave-clothes, there was no religious motive for the embalming of the dead as in Egypt. 1. The common grave must have been the usual opening in the ground with protective stones laid on the surface; or one prepared slab of stone either quite fiat, or with the ridge of a sarcophagus lid, might be used. To judge by the custom of to-day, the grave would often be cut partly or altogether in rock, not because that was preferred, but because the village elders usually marked off for the cemetery a section of ground that was too rocky for purposes of cultivation. 2. Tombs of a more important kind were made by excavating in the face of a rock to form a chamber about 8 or 9 feet on each side. At the opposite end and on the two sides were three narrow recesses, Heb. kokim, 6 or 7 feet long and about 2 feet wide, cut into the rock at right angles to each wall. Into one of these the dead body was inserted with the feet towards the entrance, which was then covered with a slab sealed around the edges with plaster. 3. During the two centuries of Greek influence before the

Christian era, a somewhat larger form of tomb came into use. The common chamber had on each of its three sides two, and occasionally three, shallow arched recesses, and in each recess a sarcophagus was laid along the line of the wall. From the fact that the two angels could be seen, one at the head and the other at the foot of the receptacle for Christ’s body (Jn 20:12), it is evident that the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathæa was of this later character. The opening to the central chamber was guarded by a large and heavy disc of rock which could roll along a groove slightly depressed at the centre, in front of the tomb entrance. Both the primitive Israelite sepulchre and its Greek successor might be of a compound form, having a passage leading from one chamber to another, each with its kokim or loculi. The most extensive example of such tombs is found in the catacombs of Rome.

From time immemorial a tomb was a sacred place which it was an act of profanation to violate, and of ceremonial pollution to use for other purposes, such as the erection of a house upon the site. The tomb of a saint became a shrine, and that of a Christian martyr was venerated as the memorial and altar of a living sacrifice. Religious meetings were held there, and pilgrimages were made to it as to a heathen oracle, and votive offerings gradually adorned the walls of the building erected over it. At the present day the peasants of Palestine can leave clothing and agricultural implements, with perfect safety, beside the tomb, under the temporary guardianship of the saint. In course of time this power of protection became transferred to the Church as the common institution of the saints.

G. M. MACKIE.

TONGS.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, 2; TABERNACLE, 6 (b).

TONGUES, CONFUSION OF.—The belief that the world, after the Flood, was repopulated by the progeny of a single family, speaking one language, is reconciled in the Bible with the existing diversity of tongues by a story which relates how the descendants of Noah, in the course of their wanderings, settled in the plain of Shinar, or Babylonia, and there built of brick a city, and a tower high enough to reach heaven, as a monument to preserve their fame, and as a centre of social cohesion and union. But the Lord discerned their ambitious purposes, and, after consulting with the Divine beings who constituted His council and court (cf. Gn 1:26, 3:22) , frustrated their design by confounding their speech, so that concerted action was no longer possible for them. In consequence, the name of the city was called Babel ( see below), and its builders were compelled to disperse over the face of the earth (Gn 11:1–9).

The story belongs to a class of narratives (of which there are several in the Bible) intended to explain the origin of various institutions, or usages, the existence of which excited the curiosity of a primitive race. Among these was the prevalence in the world of different languages, which contributed so greatly to produce between the various peoples, who were thus unintelligible to one another, feelings of mutual suspicion and fear (cf. Dt 28:49, Is 28:11, 33:19, Jer 5:15). The particular explanation furnished was doubtless suggested partly by the name of the city of Babel, or Babylon (which, though really meaning ‘gate of God,’ was by a popular etymology connected with the Heb. word bālal, ‘to confuse’), and partly by the presence, at or near Babylon, of the ruins of some great tower, which looked as though it had originally been designed as a means to scale heaven. Two such towers, or ziqqurats, were the temple of Merodach (or Marduk) in Babylon (supposed to be beneath the mound of Babil) , and the temple of Nebo in Borsippa (the ruins of which form the mound of Birs Nimroud) ; and knowledge of one or other of these may have helped to shape the narrative. The character of the narrative makes it impossible to consider it as real history: it bears on its surface manifest evidence that it is a creation of primitive fancy. The question whether the various languages of mankind have really been derived from one common tongue cannot be separated from the question (into which it is unnecessary to enter here) whether the various races of men have sprung from a single stock, i.e. ‘whether man appeared originally on the globe at one centre or at many centres.’ It may be said, however, that philological research has proved that the numerous existing languages are members of a comparatively small number of families of speech (such as the Indo-European, the Semitic, etc.); but that between these families of speech there is so great a difference of structure, that their descent from one original tongue seems highly improbable. At the same time, all languages must have arisen from certain faculties and instincts common to human nature; and the presence, in languages belonging to distinct families, of onomatopoetic, or imitative, words serves to illustrate the essential similarity of human tendencies in the sphere of speech all the world over.

G. W. WADE.

TONGUES, GIFT OF

1.      In NT we read of ‘speaking with tongues’ or ‘in a tongue’ as a remarkable sign of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; but the exact meaning of the phenomenon described has been much disputed. We may take the passages in the chronological order of writing.—(a) The Epistles. In 1 Co 12–14, among the charismata or (spiritual) gifts are ‘divers kinds of tongues’ and ‘the interpretation of tongues’ (12:10, 30). Yet St. Paul, who possessed the gift himself (14:18), considers it to be of little importance as compared with prophecy. In itself it is addressed to God, and unless interpreted it is useless to those assembled; it is a sign to believers, but will not edify, but rather excite the ridicule of, unlearned persons or heathens (14:23). Whatever the gift was, speaking with tongues was at Corinth ordinarily unintelligible to the hearers, and sometimes even to the speaker (14:14), though the English reader must note that the word ‘unknown’ in AV is an interpolation. The gift was not to be forbidden, but everything was to be done decently and in order (14:40).—Indications of the gift are thought to be found in 1 Th 5:19, Ro 8:15, 26, Gal 4:6, Eph 5:19, but not at all in the Pastoral, Petrine, or Johannine Epistles. It seems to have belonged to the infancy of the Church (1 Co 13:8. ‘Tongues … shall cease’). [ Irenæus, apparently speaking at second hand, says that the gift existed in the 2nd cent.; but this is very doubtful. Chrysostom says that it was non-existent in the 4th century.]—(b) Acts. At Pentecost, in addition to the ‘mighty wind’ and the ‘tongues parting asunder like as of fire,’ we read that the assembled disciples spoke ‘with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance’ (2:4) . The multitudes from many countries, coming together, heard them speak in their tongues the mighty works of God (2:11) , while some thought that they were drunken (2:13; cf. 1 Co 14:23). We read again of the gift in the conversion of Cornelius and his household (10:46)—St. Peter expressly says that it was the same as at Pentecost (11:15)—and at Ephesus (19:8); and probably the same is intended in the story of the Samaritan converts (8:17f.: ‘Simon saw that … the Holy Ghost was given’).—(c) In the Appendix to Mark ( which, even if Markan, is comparatively late) we have the promise that the disciples ‘shall speak with [new] tongues’ (16:17:  ‘new’ is probably not of the best text ).

2.      Meaning of the gift.—Relying chiefly on the passages of Acts, most of the Fathers (as Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus) understand the gift as being for purposes of evangelization, as if the disciples received a miraculous endowment of foreign languages to enable them to preach; Gregory of Nyssa and others take the gift as a miracle of hearing, the disciples speaking in their own language, but the people understanding their speech each in his own tongue. This view starts with the doubtless true idea that ‘tongue’ means ‘language’ here. But Acts says nothing, about preaching; the gift is never found in NT in connexion with evangelization; the passages in 1 Cor., where the utterances are often unintelligible even to the utterer, are clearly repugnant to this interpretation, and we have no proof that the Apostles ever preached in any language but Greek and Aramaic, even to the ‘barbarous’ heathen, such as the Lycaonians or Maltese. Indeed, Paul and Barnabas clearly did not know Lycaonian (Ac 14:11, 14). Peter probably did not know Greek well enough to preach in it, for Mark was his ‘interpreter’ (Papias, Irenæus). We cannot, then, follow the majority of the Fathers in their interpretation. Had it been the true one, St. Paul would have encouraged the Corinthians to use the gift to the utmost.

Unfortunately, we do not know how the earlier 2nd cent. Fathers understood the matter; but Tertullian apparently judged the gift to be an ecstatic utterance of praise (adv. Marc. v. 8). This is much more probable than the other view. At Pentecost the disciples spoke the ‘mighty works of God.’ All the NT passages either suggest or agree with the idea of worship. This does not, indeed, exhaust all our difficulties; but perhaps the following considerations may solve at least some of them.—(a)  The disciples, at a critical period of the Church, were in a state of intense excitement. But St. Paul’s words do not mean that their utterances were mere gibberish; on the contrary, they were capable of interpretation if one who had that gift were present. And at Pentecost they were, as a matter of fact, understood.—(b)  It has been suggested that we are to understand ‘tongues,’ not as ‘languages,’ but as ‘poetic or symbolic speech,’ not readily understood by the unlearned. But this view does not satisfy Ac 2, though in itself it may be true; in a word, this is an insufficient explanation.—(c)  The languages required by Ac 2 are actually only two—Greek and Aramaic. For those present at Pentecost were Jews; the list in v. 9ff. is of countries, not of languages. All the Jews of these countries spoke either Greek or Aramaic. This is a difficulty in interpreting the narrative, which gives us the impression of a large number of different languages. But probably what is intended is a large number of dialects of Greek and Aramaic, especially of the latter; it would be as though a Somerset man heard one who habitually spoke broad Scots praising God in the Somerset dialect. And what would strike the pilgrim Jews present was that the speakers at Pentecost were mainly those who themselves spoke an uncouth Aramaic dialect, that of Galilee (Mt 26:73).—(d)  This consideration may lead us a step further. We may recognize in the Pentecostal wonder a stirring of memory, a recalling of utterances previously heard by the disciples at former feasts when a polyglot multitude of Jews (polyglot at least in dialects) was assembled, the speakers uttering what they had unconsciously already taken into their memories. This would account for their words being so readily understood; some of the speakers would be praising God in one dialect, some in another.—(e)  Something of this sort may have happened at Corinth, one of the most cosmopolitan of cities. Here the possession of the gift was not confined to those of Jewish birth. But naturally the resident Christian community at Corinth would ordinarily not understand the strange dialects given utterance to. The case is not the same as that of Pentecost, when many different peoples were gathered together.

To sum up, it seems probable that the gift of tongues was an ecstatic utterance of praise, not only in poetic and symbolic speech, but also in languages or dialects not ordinarily spoken by those who had the gift; a power given at a time of great enthusiasm and excitement, at a critical period of the world’s history, but not meant to be a permanent gift for the Church, and not ranking so high as other charismata, especially not so high as prophecy. That it survived the Apostolic age is hardly probable.

A. J. MACLEAN.

TOOLS.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS.

TOPARCHY.—A compound word from Greek topos (place) and archē ( rule), found only in 1 Mac 11:28 (cf. 1 Mac 10:30, 38, 11–34)  among the sacred books, but very many times in the papyri of Egypt (with reference to that country). It means a very small administrative division of territory. Three toparchies were detached from Samaria and added to Judæa in Maccabæan times.

A. SOUTER.

TOPAZ.—See JEWELS AND PRECIOUS STONES.

TOPHEL.—See DIZAHAB.

TOPHETH.—A term of uncertain etymology, designating some locality in one of the valleys near Jerusalem, very possibly in the Valley of Hinnom (2  K 23:10), or near the point of juncture of the three valleys of Jerusalem. It was there that the Jews under Ahab and Manasseh performed the rites of human sacrifice (Jer 7:31–32) , offering children to Baal, Molech, and other heathen gods. It was defiled by Josiah as a part of his religious reformation, and so came to be an abominable place where the refuse was destroyed, and thus a synonym of Gehenna ( wh. see).

SHAILER MATHEWS.

TORAH.—See LAW (IN OT), §§ 2 ,  3.

TORCH.—See LAMP, § 1; LANTERN.

TORMAH.—In the margin of Jg 9:31 ‘in Tormah’ is given as an alternative rendering of the Hebrew word translated ‘craftily’ (AV ‘privily’). Some commentators have suggested that Tormah is a corruption of Arumah ( v.  41).

TORTOISE (tsāb, Lv 11:29 RV ‘great lizard’).—Several kinds of land and water tortoises are common in the Holy Land, but here the reference is probably to some kind of lizard. See

LIZARD.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

TOU.—King of Hamath on the Orontes, who sent an embassy to congratulate David on his defeat of Hadadezer (1 Ch 18:9f.). In the parallel passage, 2 S 8:9f., the name appears as Toi, which, however, is less probable philologically.

TOWER.—See FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT, §§ 2, 4. For ‘Tower of Babel’ see TONGUES [CONFUSION OF].

TOWN.—See CITY, VILLAGE.

TOWN CLERK.—In Græco-Asiatic cities under the Roman Empire the grammateus ( tr. ‘town clerk’) was responsible for the form of decrees presented to the popular assembly. They were first approved by the senate and then sent to the assembly, which formally passed them. At Ephesus (Ac 19:35) the clerk feared that he would have to account to the Roman governor for the irregularly constituted assembly.

A. SOUTER.

TRACHONITIS.—Mentioned in Lk 3:1 as the name of the tetrarchy of Philip. It is to be identified with the lava region S.E. of Damascus, known to the Greeks as Trachon, and to modern Arabs as the Lejā. An inscription discovered by Burckhardt in 1810 at Mismiyeh dispels all doubt as to the identity of this region with Trachon. It has ever been regarded as a refuge from invaders. Josephus frequently speaks of the inhabitants of these parts as predatory (Ant. XVI. ix. 1, x. 1). Philip’s rule, on the other hand, he describes as just and gentle (Ib. XVIII. iv. 6). Trajan in A.D. 106  transformed Trachonitis into a new province, which he called ‘Arabia,’ making Bosra its capital.

GEORGE L. ROBINSON.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.—The processes by which international trade is carried on consist in the interchange of commodities or of services, and these latter may be positive or negative in character: they may be represented by actual performance or by the withdrawal of opposition. Such procedure as the occupation of passes or other natural channels for traffic, with the view of demanding tolls of the traders who use them, is the subject of few allusions in the OT; yet the location of the Israelitish kingdoms was such as to favour the production of revenue in this way. The most practicable routes both from the North and from the East to the Red Sea lay through their country; and the land route from Egypt to Asia either traversed or skirted it. United under a powerful sovereign, Palestine could levy large contributions on the traffic of the surrounding nations; and this appears to have been done in Solomon’s time.

1.      The products of Canaan were in the main agricultural, horticultural, and pastoral, and some of these could be exported. Oil was sent to Egypt (Hos 12:1) and Phœnicia (Ezk 27:17); wine to the latter country (2 Ch 2:10), as well as wheat (Ezk. l.c., 2 Ch. l.c.), barley (2 Ch. l.c.) , oak timber (Ezk 27:6) from Bashan, honey (or dibs) and balsam (Ezk 27:17), and an unknown substance called pannag (Ezk. l.c.). Other possible objects for exportation were sand for glass manufacture, bitumen, the purple-fish, wool, and leather; and certain fruits and spices (Gn 43:11).

2.      Of national industries we hear very little; nor does it appear that any articles of Israelitish workmanship acquired fame in foreign lands. A few notices can, however, be collected, which indicate the existence of manufactures, and of a sort that may have been exported. The housewife of Pr 31 not only makes her own clothes, but sells some to the ‘Canaanite’ or pedlar; and in 1 Ch 4:21 there is mention of a Jewish family that owned a byssus-factory. Further, there are not a few references to potteries, and to work done in brass, the precious metals, stone and wood. The iconoclastic attitude which prevails in the OT causes the plastic arts to be ordinarily referred to with scorn and indignation; but of their existence in Palestine there is no doubt, and the considerable market that existed for images probably led to no small development. That any of these manufactures was exported is not attested by any evidence that has as yet come to light; but there is apparently no a priori reason against such a supposition.

Prior to the settlement of the country by the exertions of the kings, trade can have been carried on by Israelites only to an insignificant extent. In Saul’s days, according to 1 S 13:18, there were no Israelitish smiths—a fact there explained as due to the tyrannical precautions of the Philistines; but perhaps we should infer that the Israelites had as yet learned no crafts, since even in Solomon’s time we find that artificers had to be imported for the building of the royal edifices. The place of industry had to be supplied by raiding, and Saul himself is praised for having stripped the finery of his enemies’ women to put it on his own (2 S 1:24). The heroic David fights with rustic weapons and without armour. The possibility of the peaceful progress which is the preliminary condition of trade would seem to have been provided by the first two kings.

3.      We have unfortunately no account of the financial system which must have been introduced with the foundation of the kingdom, though the prophecy of Samuel (1 S 8:11–17) suggests that the king claimed a tithe of all produce, but in theory had a right to both the persons and possessions of his subjects. Before the end of David’s reign we hear of permanent officials appointed by the king; and the need for steady sources of revenue whence the stipends of such officials could be supplied, is sufficient to cause the erection of an elaborate financial system, with surveys and assessments, tax-gatherers and clerks. The ‘numbering of the people,’ which lived on in popular tradition as an iniquity earning condign punishment, doubtless belonged to the commencements of orderly government. For Solomon’s time we have something like the fragment of a budget (1 K 10:14, 15), according to which it would appear that the king had three sources of revenue—one not further specified, but probably a land-tax; another, tribute from subject States, governed by satraps; and a third connected with commerce, and probably equivalent to excise and customs. The text implies that these various forms of revenue were paid in gold, which was then stored by the king in the form of shields and vessels.

This gold must all have been imported, as there are no mines in Palestine; and indeed we are told that it came, with other produce as well as silver, from the mysterious Ophir and Tarshish; and that the enterprise was a joint venture of Solomon and the king of Tyre, the latter probably supplying the vessels, the former the produce which was exchanged for these goods, unless indeed the gold was procured by raiding. If it was obtained in exchange for commodities, we must suppose either that the latter were identical with those of which we afterwards read in Ezekiel, or that the commodities to be exchanged were all supplied by the Phœnicians, the service by which the Israelites earned their share being that of giving the former access to the harbour of Ezion-geber. In favour of the latter supposition, it has been pointed out that the commodities known to have been exported from Palestine at one time, or another were ill-suited for conveyance on lengthy voyages, and unlikely to be required in the countries where the gold was procured. There is in the OT no allusion to the practice of coining metal, and where sums of money are mentioned they are given in silver; the effect, however, of the quantities of gold brought into Palestine in Solomon’s time was not, according to the historian, to appreciate silver, as might have been expected, but to depreciate it, and render it unfashionable. Yet the notice of prices in the time of Solomon (1 K 10:29) suggests that silver was by no means valueless, whatever weight we assign to the shekel of the time. While it is clear that all silver in use must have come in by importation, the notices in the OT of transactions in which it would probably be employed are too scanty to permit of even a guess as to the amount in use; and though it is likely that (as in Eastern countries to this day) foreign coins were largely in circulation, there is little authority for this supposition.

4.      If little is known of Israelitish exports, many objects are mentioned in the OT which were certainly imported from foreign countries. These were largely objects of luxury, especially in the way of clothes or stuffs; the material called ’ētūn (Pr 7:15 RV ‘yarn’) was imported from Egypt; the ivory, to which reference is frequently made during the period of the kingdom, from Ethiopia, through Egypt or Arabia; and the gems from one or other of these countries. Various objects are mentioned in connexion with Solomon’s enterprises, as newly introduced into Palestine. For later (Talmudic) times a list of 118 articles has been drawn up which came from foreign countries into the Palestinian market; this list contains many foods and food-stuffs, materials for wearing apparel, and domestic utensils. We should rather gather that in pre-exilic times food was not ordinarily imported, except in times of famine. Imports of raw materials must have been considerable as soon as the people began to settle in towns; for there is no native iron, and little native wood, and these as well as other materials would be required for even the simplest manufactures. Probably, in the case of instruments, the more valuable and elaborate sort came from abroad, while the poorer classes had to content themselves with home-made articles. The finds that have hitherto been made of Israelitish utensils are insufficient to determine this point. Among the more important imports in Biblical times were horses, which seem to have been procured regularly from Egypt. Of the slave-trade there are very few notices in the OT, and it may be that the reduction of the aboriginal population by the Israelites to serfs, and the almost continuous warfare leading to the constant capture of prisoners, rendered the importation of slaves ordinarily unnecessary. According to Joel (3:4–7) , the Phœnicians acted as dealers, purchasing prisoners of war (in this case Jews), and exporting them to foreign countries. The same may have been the fate of those persons who, for non-payment of debt, were assigned to their creditors (2 K 4:1).

5.      Persons engaged in commerce.—The words used in the OT for merchants are such as signify primarily ‘traveller’ (1 K 10:15 RV ‘chapmen,’ ‘merchants,’ ‘traffic’), and convey the ideas of spying and making circuits. The use of the word ‘Canaanite’ for pedlar has been noticed. In Jer 37:15 there is an allusion to a place in Jerusalem called ‘the booths,’ but references to shop-keeping are rare before the Exile. In Nehemiah’s time different classes of dealers had their locations in Jerusalem—goldsmiths and grocers (3:32), fishmongers (13:16); but most articles of general consumption seem to have been brought in day by day by foreigners and others (10:32 and 13:20). and sold in the streets. The distinction between wholesale and retail dealers perhaps first occurs in the Apocrypha (Sir 26:20). It is worth observing that in the prophetic denunciations of luxury we miss allusions to the shops or stores in which such objects might be supposed to be offered for sale (Is 3:18–24) . Moreover, the verse of Ezk. (7:12) ‘let not the buyer rejoice nor the seller mourn’ suggests that the latter operation was not ordinarily thought of as it is in communities a large portion of which lives by trade, but rather as a humiliation required at times by stern necessity; and there are few allusions to trade in the codes embodied in the Pentateuch, though such are not absolutely wanting. Perhaps, then, we are justified in concluding that the practice of trade was in pre-exilic times largely in the hands of itinerant foreigners; and it is only in NT times that merchandise is regarded as an occupation as normal as agriculture (Mt 22:5) . To the cumbrous process of bargaining there is an allusion in Pr  20:14.

Allusions to the corn-trade are rather more common than to any other business, and to certain iniquities connected with it—probably, in the main, forms of the practice by which corn was withdrawn from the market in the hope of selling it at famine prices: this at least seems to be the reference in Pr 11:26, though Sirach (34:23, 24) seems to have interpreted the passage merely of liberality and stinginess. In Am 9:4–8  the reference is more distinct, and implies both the offence mentioned above and the use of deceitful measures, a wrong also condemned by Micah in a similar context (6:10). The interpretation of these passages must remain obscure until more light is thrown on land-tenure in Israel, and the process by which the king’s share in the produce was collected.

The foreign commerce conducted in king Solomon’s time is represented in his biography as a venture of his own, whence the goods brought home were his own possessions; and the same holds good of commerce in the time of Jehoshaphat (1 K 22:49, 50). There is no evidence that Israelitish commerce was conducted on any other principle before the Exile, after which isolated individuals doubtless endeavoured to earn their livelihood by trade ventures. The foreign commerce of which we occasionally hear in the OT was also conducted by communities (e.g. Gn 37:25, 28), to be compared with the tribes whom we find at the commencement of Islam engaged in joint enterprises of a similar kind. In 1 K 20:34 there appears to be a reference to a practice by which sovereigns obtained the right to the possession of bazaars in each other’s capitals—the nearest approach to a commercial treaty that we find in this literature. But at such times as the condition of the Israelitish cities allowed of the purchase of luxuries—i.e. after successful campaigns or long spells of peace, permitting of accumulations of produce—it is probable that the arrival and residence of foreign merchants were facilitated by the practice of ‘protection,’ a citizen rendering himself responsible for the foreign visitors, and making their interests his own—doubtless in most cases for a consideration. The spirit of the Mosaic legislation (like that of Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories) is against such intermixing with foreigners; and except for forces such as only powerful chieftains could collect, journeys whether on sea or land were dangerous. Of an expedient for commerce like the Arabian months of sacred truce the OT contains no hint.

6.      The chief passage in the OT dealing with commerce is Ezekiel’s prophecy against Tyre, in which the chief Tyrian wares are enumerated, and the countries whence the Tyrians imported them (ch. 27). That chapter would seem to be based on some statistical account of Tyre, similar to those which at a somewhat later date were made out concerning the Greek States. In a prophecy inserted in the Book of Isaiah (ch. 23) Tyre is also described as the great mart of the time, serving, it would seem, as the chief exchange and centre of distribution for goods of all kinds. Ezk 26:2 is sometimes interpreted as implying that Jerusalem was a competitor with Tyre for the trade of the world, but perhaps it means only that the taking of any great city led to the Tyrian merchants obtaining the spoil at low prices.

7.      Trade-routes.—Palestine has no internal waterways, and goods brought to it from other countries had to reach it either by sea or across desert. A system of roads leading from Arabia, Egypt, and Mesopotamia appears to have converged at Sela or Petra, whence two branches spread northwards, to Gaza and to the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, continuing northwards on the left bank of the Jordan. From Gaza and Acre roads met in the plain of Esdraelon, the former going through the depressions of Judæa and Samaria. From the plain of Esdraelon a road led to Damascus, touching the N.W. bank of the Sea of Galilee. When Jerusalem became the capital of the country, goods were brought thither, probably by the same routes as were in use till the construction of the railways; but it is uncertain when Joppa first became the port of Jerusalem, for the statement in 2 Ch 2:15 that Joppa was so used in Solomon’s time is not found in the authentic chronicle of 1 K 5:9, where ignorance is clearly acknowledged on this subject. On the other hand, the earlier chronicle states that Elath served as the port of Jerusalem on the Red Sea, and, after Solomon’s time, was repeatedly taken out of the possession of the Jewish kings, and re-captured. Josephus (Ant. VIII. vii. 4) asserts that Solomon had the roads leading to Jerusalem paved with black stone, but his authority for this statement is unknown. The process of roadmaking is described in the familiar passage Is 40:4, with allusions to the operations of mounding and excavating, possibly of paving; but these operations may have been learned from Babylonian or Persian rather than Israelitish examples. Moreover, such roads were necessary for military rather than commercial expeditions, in which wheeled vehicles were not ordinarily used.

8.      Transport.—Before the construction of railways in Palestine, transport was ordinarily on the backs of men or animals, and of the latter camels are mentioned in connexion with goods brought from Arabia (1 K 10:2, Is 60:6 etc.), and even with such as were carried in Syria and Palestine (2 K 8:9, 1 Ch 12:40). In the last reference these animals are mentioned together with asses, oxen, and mules; and probably the first and last of these were more ordinarily employed for internal traffic. At a later time they first appear to have been employed almost exclusively in the corn-trade, in which they figure as early as Gn 42:26. The allusions to the employment of human transport are more often metaphorical than literal; yet such passages as Is 58:6 seem distinctly to refer to it and to the instruments employed in fixing the burdens on the slaves’ persons. ‘Caravans’ are mentioned in Job 6:18f., Is 21:13, Ezk 27:25 [all RV], and Jg 5:6 ( RVm ).

9.      Commercial instruments.—The money-lender appears at the very commencement of the history of the Israelitish kingdom, where we are told that David’s followers were to some extent insolvent debtors; and the Jewish law allowed the taking of pledges, but not (it would seem) the taking of interest, except from foreigners. The result of similar legislation in Moslem countries is to make the rate of interest enormously high, and in Palestine it may have had the same effect. Deeds of loan appear not to be mentioned in the OT, though there is frequent reference to the danger of giving security. To the institution of banking there is a familiar reference in the NT (Mt 25:27); the persons there referred to—like the bankers of modern times—undertook the charge of deposits for the use of which they paid some interest; the money-changers (Mt 21:12 etc.) were, as now, in a smaller way of business. Those who hoarded money more often put it ‘under the stone’ (Sir 29:10) than entrusted it to bankers; and this is still probably the favourite practice all over the nearer East. Another common practice was to deposit money with trustworthy persons, to which there is a reference in Tobit (4:20  etc.). In most ancient cities the temples served as places of security, where treasure could be stored, and this is likely to have been the case in Israelitish cities also.

10.  Development of the Israelites into a commercial people.—The prophets appear to have anticipated that the exiles would carry on in their new home the same agricultural pursuits as had occupied them in Palestine (Jer 29:5); and it would appear that till the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, and perhaps even later, agriculture remained the normal occupation of the Israelites, whereas in modern times this pursuit has passed entirely out of their hands. The Jews of the Turkish empire (e.g.)  are said to furnish no cultivators of the soil, whereas the Christian population, whose political status is the same, are largely agricultural. The separation of great numbers of the people from the Palestinian soil, in successive captivities, must doubtless have led many of them to take to commerce, to which perhaps those who had no settled home would feel least repugnance; while the settlement of groups in a number of different regions would furnish them with the advantage that companies now secure by the establishment of agencies in various places. After the conquests of Alexander, ghettos began to be formed in the great Hellenic cities, and the Roman conquests soon led to colonies of Jews settling yet farther west.

D. S. MARGOLIOUTH.

TRADES.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS.

TRADITION.—See LAW (IN NT), § 1.

TRAGACANTH.—See SPICE.

TRANCE.—A condition in which the mental powers are partly or wholly unresponsive to external impressions while dominated by subjective excitement, or left fres to contemplate mysteries incapable of apprehension by the usual rational processes. The word occurs in EV only in Nu 24:4, 15 [but cf. RV], Ac 10:10, 11:5, 22:17. See, further, artt. DREAMS, VISION.

H. L. WILLETT.

TRANSFIGURATION.—The Transfiguration is a mysterious occurrence in the life of our Lord, which must be seen and felt, rather than understood. It produced a sense of awe in the hearts of the disciples (Mt 17:6). Its value is symbolic. Silence regarding it is enjoined by Jesus, and practised by the disciples until the Resurrection, with which it is closely connected in significance. The problem of the transfigured body of Jesus and of the Resurrection body is the same. The event is referred to by Jesus Himself as a vision (horāma, Mt 17:9); it is vouched for by the three Synoptists (Lk 9:28–38, Mk 9:2–13, Mt 17:1–13) . Elsewhere in the NT it is referred to only in 2 P 1:16–18 . The Fourth Evangelist, after his own manner, undoubtedly expresses its inner significance for faith in Jn 12:23–36 . The mountain on which it took place was probably Hermon. The time was night (Lk 9:32). It was as ‘he was praying’ that the transfiguration of face and raiment appeared.

As regards the inner significance of the occurrence, one expression in St. Luke’s narrative is of great importance—leukos exastraptōn ( v. 29), ‘was white and glistering’ (AV). The sense is really ‘gieamed out white.’ The glory is not that of reflected light; its source is inward. It is the manifestation of a mental process. The note of time ( ‘six days after’ [Mt. Mk.]; ‘about eight days after’ [Lk.]) affords the key to His thoughts and the subject of His prayers. After what? After Peter’s confession (Lk 9:18–27) , and the prediction of Christ’s death (v. 22). Recognized as Messiah by the disciples, He must now prepare them to meet the stumbling-block of the cross. Thus the Transfiguration had (1) a deep significance for Jesus Himself. He was strengthened by the appearance of Moses and Elias, who spoke of His decease (Lk 9:31). They represented the saints in heaven, who understood. Again the Voice stood for the acceptance of His work by God, and He was enabied to yield up His heart and life anew to the will of God. (2) The great lesson for the disciples was that the dreadful shame of His cross was really glory, and that all suffering is ultimately radiant with heavenly beauty, being perfected in Christ. Peter’s suggestion of the three tents is an attempt to materialize and make permanent the vision, to win the crown without the cross. The vision vanished, and they saw ‘Jesus only.’ It was real, but only a glimpse and foretaste. By loyaity once more to the Master, in the common ways of life to which they returned, the disciples would come to share the eternal glory of the Risen Lord.

R. H. STRACHAN.

TRANSGRESSION.—See SIN.

TRAVAIL.—The Fr. travail, meaning ‘labour or trouble,’ was taken into Eng. without alteration of meaning or spelling. This spelling is found in AV, and it is still sometimes used, especially for the labour of child-birth. But the spelling ‘travel’ afterwards became common, and the word was then confined to journeying, that being a recognized form of toii and trouble in those days. In Nu 20:14 ‘Thou knowest all the travel that hath befallen us,’ the meaning is more than journeying, and so RV spells the word ‘travail,’ which was the original spelling of AV also.

TREASURE, TREASURY, TREASURER

1.      In OT ‘treasure’ and ‘treasury’ stand for various Heb. terms, but both words usually render ’ōtsār. This shows that ‘treasure’ and ‘treasury’ are not carefully distinguished in EV, or else that ’ōtsār itself may stand for either. As a matter of fact the truth lies with both alternatives. Strictly, a treasure is a store of wealth, while a treasury is a storehouse, a place where treasure is kept. Sometimes, however, ‘treasure’ occurs in AV where ‘treasury’ is meant, as Job 38:22  ‘Hast thou entered into the treasures (RV ‘treasuries’) of the snow?’; and, on the other hand, ‘treasury’ is sometimes found where ‘treasure’ would be the more correct rendering, as Jos 6:19, 24 and RV of Ezr 2:69. The indeterminateness of ’ōtsār is shown by its constant employment for ‘treasure’ and ‘treasury’ alike. The ‘treasure (RV ‘store’) cities’ of Ex 1:11 (cf. 1 K 9:19, 2 Ch 8:4)  are cities in which provisions were stored up (cf. Gn 41:48,  56).

2.      In NT we find a like ambiguousness in the use of ‘treasure,’ and also of the Gr. thēsauros for which it stands. The treasures of the Magi (Mt 2:11) and the treasure in heaven (Mt 19:21) refer to precious stores; but it is out of his treasury rather than his treasure that the good man brings forth good things (Mt 12:35), and the householder things new and old (13:52). In Ac 8:27 ‘treasure’ renders gaza, a word of Persian origin. In Mt 27:6 ‘treasury’ represents korbanās ( the depository of the ‘corban,’ see SACRIFICE AND OFFERING, § 1 (a)), the sacred treasury into which the chief priests would not put Judas’ 30 pieces of silver. For the treasury of the Temple (gazophylakion)  into which Jewish worshippers cast their offerings (Mk 12:41, 43, Lk 21:1) see TEMPLE, § 11 (b). When Jesus is said to have spoken ‘in the treasury’ (Jn 8:20), the meaning probably is that He was teaching in the colonnade of the Temple where stood the treasure-boxes into which the offerings were cast.

Treasurer occurs in OT in Neh 12:13, Ezr 1:8, 7:21, Is 22:15, Dn 3:2, 3, representing a different term in each writer. The word is found in NT only in RV of Ro 16:23 as substitute for AV ‘chamberlain’ (Gr. oikonomos) , but the Ethiopian eunuch is said to have had charge of all the treasure of queen Candace.

J. C. LAMBERT.

TREE.—‘Tree’ is used as a poetic name for the Cross in Ac 5:30, 10:39, 13:29, 1 P 2:24; cf. Gal 3:12. For sacred trees see HIGH PLACE, 1; and ISRAEL, II. 1 (5); and, for the various trees of the Bible, the artt. under their respective names.

TRESPASS-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE, § 15.

TRIAL.—See TEMPTATION.

TRIBES OF ISRAEL.—The number of the tribes of Israel varied at different periods. The number 12 is an artificial one, as is seen from its application to the descendants of Ishmael (Gn 17:20, 25:13–15), of Nahor (Gn 22:20–24), and of Esau (Gn 36:15–19, 40–43) . Simeon and Levi were ‘divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel’ (Gn 49:7) when the tribe of Benjamin arose, so that at that time there would be not 12 but only 11 tribes. Reuben, likewise, in the period of the kings, was an insignificant remnant, and, though mentioned in 1 Ch 5:26 as still existing in 734, had apparently become disintegrated long before. As Stade (GVI I. 146) correctly remarks, several of the largest tribes—Judah, Ephraim, Manasseh, Gad—contained many minor tribes which surpassed in number, possessions, and political significance several of those counted in the twelve tribes.

The number of the tribes, according to JE’s genealogy (Gn 29–30) , is not 12 but 13, and in the following order:

Leah tribes—Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah	4
Bilhah (Rachel) tribes—Dan, Naphtali	2
Zilpah (Leah) tribes—Gad, Asher	2
Leah tribes—Issachar, Zebulun	2
Rachel tribes—Joseph = (Manasseh, Ephraim)	2
Benjamin (born in Palestine), Gn 35:18	1

13

To obtain the number 12 from this scheme it is necessary to omit Levi, or to count Manasseh and Ephraim as one.

Why the number twelve was chosen cannot be answered with certainty. Whether it is astronomical or mythological, i.e. connected with the 12 signs of the Zodiac and the 12 months in the year—in which case it would be traceable to Babylonia, as Gunkei suggests in his Genesis (p. 300), and Winckier holds (Gesch. Israels, ii. p. 57, where he connects the ‘Zwölf Söhne’

(Jacob’s) ‘with the Zwölf Monaten’) , or whether it rests upon Solomon’s partition of the land into

12  divisions so that each might provision the royal household one month in the year (1 K 4:7), as Luther thinks (ZATW xxi. 34), or whether the true explanation has yet to be discovered, cannot be affirmed. The mythological explanation has to the present writer the greater probability in its favour.

The interpretation of the genealogical scheme of JE, which appeals to be most acceptable to scholars, may be briefly summarized from Guthe, GVI, p. 49^b. Benjamin appears as the last of the sons because this tribe came into existence last of all, and in Palestine (Gn 35:16–20) . Joseph is younger than the others because it entered and settled in Canaan later than Simeon, Levi, and Judah, etc. Evidence of this is found in Jg 1:1ff., 22ff., and Gn 34, which shows Joseph in possession of the region of Shechem, formerly occupied by Simeon and Levi. The order of arrangement, it would therefore seem, depended upon the author’s view of the time of a tribe’s respective settlement or origin in Canaan. Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher—the Canaanite tribes of the concubines who were admitted to union with the other tribes— owe their position also to these principles. Excluding Benjamin, who was born in Canaan, and the four tribes descended from the concubines, there remain only seven as extra-Canaanitish. The mothers, Leah and Rachel, represent different tribal groups at the head of which stand respectively Reuben and Joseph (1 Ch 5:1, 2). History, however, gives us no record of Reuben’s priority in leadership, but assigns that rôle to Joseph, so that the primacy of the Reuben tribe must go back to an earlier time and to the East Jordan. It is possible that the tribes which entered Canaan under Reuben’s leadership, or during his supremacy, were classed under Leah, while those which followed under the lead of Joseph were classed under Rachel. The position of Issachar and Zebulun indicates that they were later in acquiring a foothold than the four earlier Leah tribes, yet earlier than Joseph. The position assigned to the Bilhah and Zilpah tribes, Guthe thinks, may be explained by their having come into closer relations to Joseph, and to Reuben or the last of the two Leah tribes respectively, and hence their mothers were given as handmaids to Rachel and Leah. This is all suggestive, but no certainty is reached. Reuben’s position (in view of the inferior rô1e of the tribe in historical times) remains as a problem to be solved, and the groupings, e.g. Asher with Gad as Zilpah tribes, despite their wide separation, Issachar and Zebulun with Judah as Leah tribes, are of doubtful import.

JAMES A. CRAIO.

TRIBUTE, TOLL, TAXING

1.      In OT the subject is obscure. The word most frequently rendered ‘tribute’ is mas, which denotes a body of forced labourers (2 S 20:24, 1 K 9:21 etc.; see RV), and then later ‘forced service’—the feudal corvée. Solomon had a regular system of levying provisions for the maintenance of the royal establishment (1 K 4:7–19), and labourers for the execution of his vast building schemes (5:13ff., 9:15), and also exacted toll from the caravans of merchants that passed through his kingdom (10:15). After the fail of the Jewish State, tribute was imposed on the land by its foreign masters (2 K 23:33, Ezr 4:13 etc.). In the last-mentioned passage (cf. v. 20 , 7:24) we read of ‘tribute, custom, or toll,’ but have no information as to the precise meanings of the terms and the distinctions between them. Cf. TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 3.

2.      In NT ‘tribute’ represents 3 Gr. words. (1) phoros is properly a land tax; (2) kēnsos ( originally a property register), a capitation or poll tax. Both were direct Imperial taxes payable by the Jews as Roman subjects; the former in kind, the latter in Roman money. In NT, however, the distinction is not carefully observed (cf. Mt 22:17, Lk 20:22). For the ‘tribute money’ of Mt 22:19 see MONEY, § 7 (b). (3) didrachmon (Mt 17:24, RV ‘the half-shekel’) was the sum paid by every male Israelite to meet the cost of the daily services in the Temple. See MONEY, § 7 (d). Toil (telos, AV ‘custom’; telōnion ‘place of toll,’ AV ‘receipt of custom’) must be carefully distinguished from tribute (cf. Mt 17:25, Ro 13:7). It was not a direct tax like (1) and (2), but an impost on the value of exported goods. For details see artt. CUSTOM (S), PUBLICAN. Taxing (apographē, RV ‘enrolment,’ Lk 2:2, Ac 5:37) denotes a registration with a view to taxation for Imperial purposes. See QUIRINIUS.

J. C. LAMBERT.

TRINITY

1.      The doctrine approached.—It is sometimes asked why we are not given a definite statement that there are three Persons in the Godhead. One reason for the absence of any such categorical and dogmatic teaching is probably to be found in the fact that the earliest hearers of the gospel were Jews, and that any such pronouncement might (and probably would) have seemed a contradiction of their own great truth of the unity of the Godhead. Consequently, instead of giving an intellectual statement of doctrine, which might have led to theological and philosophic discussion, and ended only in more Intense opposition to Christianity, the Apostles preached Jesus of Nazareth as a personal Redeemer from sin, and urged on every one the acceptance of Him and His claims. Then, in due course, would come the inevitable process of thought and meditation upon this personal experience, and this would in turn lead to the inference that Jesus, from whom, and in whom, these experiences were being enjoyed, must be more than man, must be none other than Divine, ‘for who can forgive sins but God only?’ Through such a personal impression and inference based on experience, a distinction in the Godhead would at once be realized. Then, in the course of their Christian life, and through fuller instruction, would be added the personal knowledge and experience of the Holy Spirit, and once again a similar inference would in due course follow, making another distinction in their thought of the Godhead. The intellectual conception and expression of these distinctions probably concerned only comparatively few of the early believers, but nevertheless all of them had in their lives an experience of definite action and blessing which could only have been from above, and which no difficulty of intellectual correlation or of theological co-ordination with former teachings could invalidate and destroy.

2.      The doctrine derived.—The doctrine of the Trinity is an expansion of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and emerges out of the personal claim of our Lord. We believe this position can be made good from the NT. We take first the Gospels, and note that our Lord’s method of revealing Himself to His disciples was by means of personal impression and influence. His character, teaching, and claim formed the centre and core of everything, and His one object was, as it were, to stamp Himself on His disciples, knowing that in the light of fuller experience His true nature and relations would become clear to them. We see the culmination of this impression and experience in the confession of the Apostle, ‘My Lord and my God.’ Then, as we turn to the Acts of the Apostles, we find St. Peter preaching to Jews, and emphasizing two associated truths: (1) the Sonship and Messiahship of Jesus, as proved by the Resurrection, and (2) the consequent relation of the hearers to Him as to a Saviour and Master. The emphasis is laid on the personal experience of forgiveness and grace, without any attempt to state our Lord’s position in relation to God. Indeed, the references to Jesus Christ as the ‘Servant [wrongly rendered in AV ‘Son’] of God’ in Ac 3:13, 26 and 4:27, seem to show that the Christian thought regarding our Lord was still immature, so far as there was any purely Intellectual consideration of it. It is worthy of note that this phrase, which is doubtless the NT counterpart of Isaiah’s teaching on the ‘Servant of the

Lord,’ is not found in the NT later than these earlier chapters of the Acts. Yet in the preaching of

St. Peter the claim made for Jesus of Nazareth as the Source of healing (3:6, 16), the PrinceLeader of Life (3:15), the Head Stone of the corner (4:11), and the one and only Way of Salvation (4:12), was an unmistakable assumption of the position and power of Godhead. In the same way the doctrine of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit arises directly out of our Lord’s revelation. Once grant a real personal distinction between the Father and the Son, and it is easy to believe it also of the Spirit as revealed by the Son. As long as Christ was present on earth there was no room and no need for the specific work of the Holy Spirit, but as Christ was departing from the world He revealed a doctrine which clearly associated the Holy Spirit with Himself and the Father in a new and unique way (Jn 14:16, 17, 26, 15:26, 16:7–15) . Arising immediately out of this, and consonant with it, is the place given to the Holy Spirit in the Book of the Acts. From ch. 5, where lying against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to lying against God (5:3 , 4, 9), we see throughout the book the essential Deity of the Holy Spirit in the work attributed to Him of superintending and controlling the life of the Apostolic Church (2:4, 8:29, 10:19 , 13:2, 4, 16:6,  7, 20:25).

Then, as we pass to the Epistles, we find references to our Lord Jesus and to the Holy Spirit which imply unmistakably the functions of Godhead. In the opening salutations our Lord is associated with God as the Source of grace and peace (1 Th 1:1f., 1 P 1:2), and in the closing benedictions as the Divine Source of blessing (Ro 15:30, 2 Th 3:16, 18). In the doctrinal statements He is referred to in practical relation to us and to our spiritual life in terms that can be predicated of God only, and in the revelations concerning things to come He is stated to be about to occupy a position which can refer to God only. In like manner, the correlation of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son in matters essentially Divine is clear (1 Co 2:4–6 , 2 Co 13:14, 1  P  1:2).

In all these assertions and implications of the Godhead of Jesus Christ, it is to be noted very carefully that St. Paul has not the faintest idea of contradicting his Jewish monotheism. Though he and others thus proclaimed the Godhead of Christ, it is of great moment to remember that Christianity was never accused of polytheism. The NT doctrine of God is essentially a form of monotheism, and stands in no relation to polytheism. There can be no doubt that, however and whenever the Trinitarian idea was formulated, it arose in immediateconnexion with the monotheism of Judæa; and the Apostles, Jews though they were, in stating so unmistakably the Godhead of Jesus Christ, are never once conscious of teaching anything inconsistent with their most cherished ideas about the unity of God.

3. The doctrine confirmed.—When we have approached the doctrine by means of the personal experience of redemption, we are prepared to give full consideration to the two lines of teaching found in the NT. (a) One line of teaching insists on the unity of the Godhead (1  Co 8:4, Ja 2:19); and (b) the other line reveals distinctions within the Godhead ( Mt 3:16, 17 and 28:19,  2

Co 13:14). We see clearly that (1) the Father is God (Mt 11:25, Ro 15:6, Eph 4:6); (2) the Son is

God (Jn 1:1, 18, 20:28 , Ac 20:26, Ro 9:5, He 1:8, Col 2:9, Ph 2:6, 2 P 1:1); (3) the Holy Spirit is God (Ac 5:3, 4, 1 Co 2:10, 11, Eph 2:22); (4) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another, sending and being sent, honouring and being honoured. The Father honours the Son, the Son honours the Father, and the Holy Spirit honours the Son (Jn 15:26, 16:13, 14, 17:1, 8, 18, 23). (5)  Nevertheless, whatever relations of subordination there may be between the Persons in working out redemption, the three are alike regarded as God. The doctrine of the Trinity is the correlation, co-ordination, and synthesis of the teaching of these passages. In the Unity of the Godhead there is a Trinity of Persons working out redemption. God the Father is the Creator and

Ruler of man and the Provider of redemption through His love (Jn 3:16). God the Son is the

Redeemer, who became man for the purpose of our redemption. God the Holy Spirit is the ‘Executive of the Godhead,’ who applies to each believing soul the benefits of redemption. The elements of the plan of redemption thus find their root, foundation, and spring in the nature of the Godhead; and the obvious reason why these distinctions which we express by the terms ‘Person’ and ‘Trinity’ were not revealed earlier than NT times is that not until then was redemption accomplished.

4.      The doctrine stated.—By the Trinity, therefore, we mean the specific and unique

Christian idea of the Godhead. The foundation of the Christian idea of the Godhead is that of the One Supreme Almighty Spirit whom we worship, to whom we pray, from whom we receive grace, and whom we serve. But the specific Christian thought of God is that of a Spirit, in the unity of whose being is revealed a distinction of Persons whom we call Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the God from whom, through whom, and by whom all things come—the Father as the primal Source, the Son as the redemptive Mediator, and the Holy Spirit as the personal Applier of life and grace. The Christian idea of the Trinity may be summed up in the familiar words: ‘The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. And in this Trinity none is afore or after other: none is greater or less than another, but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.’

The term ‘Trinity’ dates from the second century, being found in Greek in Theophilus of Antioch

(A.D. 181); and the actual Latin word, from which we derive our English term, in Tertullian (A.D. 200). Its use is sometimes criticised because it is not found in the Bible, but this is no valid objection to it. Like other words. e.g. ‘Incarnation,’ it expresses in technical language the truth about the Godhead which is found implicitly in the NT. The real question is whether it is true, and whether it is fairly expressive of the Bible truth. It is intended to express and safeguard that real and essential unity of the Godhead which is at the root of the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The term ‘Person’ is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism. While we use the term to denote distinctions in the Godhead, we do not imply distinctions which amount to separateness, but distinctions which are associated with essential mutual coinherence or inclusiveness. We intend by the term ‘Person’ to express those real distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which are found amid the oneness of the Godhead, distinctions which are no mere temporary manifestations of Deity, but essential and permanent elements within the Divine unity.

5.      The doctrine supported.—When all this is granted and so far settled, we may find a second line of teaching to support the foregoing in the revelation of God as Love. Following the suggestion of St. Augustine, most modern theologians have rightly seen in this a safe ground for our belief. It transcends, and perhaps renders unnecessary, all arguments drawn from human and natural analogies of the doctrine. ‘God is love’ means, as some one has well said, ‘God as the Infinite home of all moral emotions, the fullest and most highly differentiated life.’ Love must imply relationships, and, as He is eternally perfect in Himself, He can realize Himself as Love only through relationships within His own Being. We may go so far as to say that this is the only way of obtaining a living thought about God. Belief in Theism postulates a self-existent God, and yet it is impossible to think of a God without relationships. These relationships must be eternal and prior to His temporal relationships to the universe of His own creation. He must have relationships eternally adequate, and worthy, and when once we realize that love must have an object in God as well as in ourselves, we have the germ of that distinction in the Godhead which is theologically known as the Trinity.

6.      The doctrine anticipated.—At this stage, and only here, we may seek another support for the doctrine. In the light of the facts of the NT we cannot refrain from asking whether there may not have been some adumbrations of it in the OT. As the doctrine arises directly out of the facts of the NT, we do not for an instant look for any full discovery of it in the OT. But if the doctrine be true, we might expect that Christian Jews, at any rate, would seek for some anticipation of it in the OT. We believe we find it there. (a) The references to the ‘Angel of Jehovah’ prepare the way for the Christian doctrine of a distinction in the Godhead (Gn 18:2, 16, 17:22 with 19:1, Jos 5:13–15 with 6:1, Jg 13:8–21, Zec 13:7). (b) Allusions to the ‘Spirit of Jehovah’ form another line of OT teaching. In Gn 1:2 the Spirit is an energy only, but in subsequent books an agent (Is 40:13, 48:16, 59:19, 63:10f.). (c) The personification of Divine Wisdom is also to be observed, for the connexion between the personification of Wisdom in Pr 8, the Logos of Jn 1:1–18 , and the ‘wisdom’ of 1 Co 1:24 can hardly be accidental. (d)  There are also other hints, such as the triplicity of the Divine Names (Nu 6:24–27, Ps 29:3–5 , Is 6:3), which may not be pressed, but can hardly be overlooked. Hints are all that were to be expected or desired until the fulness of time should have come. The function of Israel was to guard God’s transcendence and omnipresence; it was for Christianity to develop the doctrine of the Godhead into the fulness, depth, and richness that we find in the revelation of the Incarnate Son of God.

7.      The doctrine justified.—(a) From the facts of Scripture. It emerges clearly from the claim of Christ; it is an extension of the doctrine of the Incarnation. If the Incarnation was real, the Trinity is true. (b) From the facts of Christian experience. It is a simple fact that Christians of all periods of history claim to have personal direct fellowship with Christ. This claim must be accounted for. It is possible only by predicating Deity of our Lord, for such fellowship would be impossible with one who is not God. (c) From the facts of history. Compared with other religions, Christianity makes God a reality in a way in which no other system does. The doctrine of the Trinity has several positive theological and philosophical advantages over the Unitarian conception of God, but especially is this so in reference to the relation of God to the world. There are two conceivable relations of God to the world—as transcendent (in Mohammedanism), or as immanent (in Buddhism). The first alone means Deism, the second alone Pantheism. But the Christian idea is of God as at once transcendent and immanent. It is therefore the true protection of a living Theism, which otherwise oscillates uncertainly between these two extremes of Deism and Pantheism, either of which is false to It. It is only in Christianity that the Semitic and Aryan conceptions of God are united, blended, correlated, balanced, and preserved. (d) From reason. It is simple truth to say that, if Jesus be not God, Christians are idolaters, for they worship One who is not God. There is no other alternative. But when once the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity is regarded as arising out of Christ’s claim to Godhead as Divine Redeemer, reason soon finds its warrant for the doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity comes to us by revelation and not by nature, though it is soon seen to have points of contact with thought and reason.

The doctrine ‘started in the concrete, with the baptismal formula … emanating from Jesus Christ. And throughout the history of its dogmatic formulation, we are confronted with this fact. It was regarded as a revelation by the men who shaped its intellectual expression; and it was only in the process … of that expression that its congruity with human psychology came out; that psychology in fact being distinctly developed in the effort to give it utterance.… They did not accommodate Christian religion to their philosophy, but philosophy to their Christian religion.’ This doctrine appealed ‘first to unsophisticated men, far removed from Alexandria or Athens; yet the very words in which it does so, turn out, upon analysis, to involve a view of personality which the world had not attained, but which, once stated, is seen to be profoundly, philosophically true’ (Illingworth, Personality, p. 212f.).

W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS.

TRIPOLIS.—An important town in northern Phœnicla, where Demetrius Soter landed when he made his successful attack against Antiochus v. (2 Mac 14:1). It was divided into three parts, originating in colonies from Tyre, Sidon, and Arvad—hence the name. The modern Tarābulūs is two miles inland, its fort occupying the site of the ancient city on the coast.

J. F. MCCURDY.

TROAS.—A city of Mysia on the N.W. coast of Asia Minor. It was in the Roman province Asia. It was founded by Antigonus, and re-founded in B.C. 300  by Lysimachus, who named it Alexandria Troas. For a time under the Seleucid kings of Syria, it gained its freedom, and began to strike its own coins (examples exist from B.C. 164  to 65). Its freedom continued under Pergamenian and afterwards, from B.C. 133 , under Roman rule. Augustus made it a Roman colony, and it became one of the greatest cities of N.W. Asia. The Roman preference was partly explained by their belief in the early connexion between Troy and their own capital. This place was a regular port of call on coasting voyages between Macedonia and Asia (cf. Ac 16:8, 20:5, 2 Co 2:12). St. Paul, with Silas and Timothy, approached Troas from the Asian-Bithynian frontier near Dorylæum or Cotiæum (Ac 16:6–8) . He did not preach in Mysia on the first visit, though the Western text at Ac 16:5 makes him do so.

A. SOUTER.

TROGYLLIUM.—According to the AV (Ac 20:15), which here follows the Western text,

St. Paul’s ship, after touching at Samos, and before putting in at Miletus, ‘tarried at Trogyllium.’ This statement is no part of the NT text as now commonly read, but it is not impossible, and perhaps embodies a real tradition. Trogyllium is a promontory which projects from the mainland and overlaps the eastern extremity of Samos, so as to form a strait less than a mile wide. There is an anchorage near, still called ‘St. Paul’s Port.’

A. SOUTER.

TROPHIMUS.—A Gentile Christian, a native of Ephesus (Ac 21:29), who, with Tychicus, also of the province Asia (20:4), and others, accompanied St. Paul to Jerusalem. The Jews, seeing Trophimus with the Apostle in the city, hastily concluded that St. Paul had brought him into the inner court of the Temple, separated from the outer ‘Court of the Gentiles’ by a barrier on which were inscriptions in Greek and Latin forbidding any non-Jew to enter on pain of death. This occasioned the riot which led to St. Paul’s arrest. Some years later Trophimus was left at Miletus sick (2 Ti 4:20).

A. J. MACLEAN.

TROW.—‘To trow’ was originally ‘to trust,’ with which it is connected in origin; but it came to mean no more than ‘think or suppose.’ This is the meaning in Lk 17:9, its only occurrence in AV.

TRUMPET.—See MUSIC, 4 (2) (e).

TRUMPETS, FEAST OF.—The 1st day of Tishri (October), the 7th month of the sacred year, was signalized by a ‘memorial of blowing trumpets,’ to call both God and the people to remembrance of their reciprocal positions. It was a day of holy convocation, on which no servile work might be done. The trumpets blown were probably of a different kind from those used at the ordinary new-moon festivals. At the Feast of Trumpets special offerings were made: a burntoffering of a bullock, a ram, and 7 lambs, and a sin-offering of a kid of the goats; these in addition to the ordinary daily and monthly offerings (cf. Nu 29:1–6 , Lv 23:24, 25). This was one of the lunar festivals of the Jewish calendar, and was the most important of the new-moon celebrations.

A. W. F. BLUNT.

TRUST.—See FAITH.

TRUTH

1. In OT (’ĕmeth, ’ĕmūnāh).—Firmness or stability is the fundamental idea of the root, and to this radical thought most of the uses of the Heb. nouns may be traced. Often they signify truth in the common meaning of the word, the correspondence, viz., between speech and fact (Dt 13:14 , Pr 12:17). At first the standards of veracity were low (Gn 12:11ff., 20:2ff., 26:7ff.,

27:18ff. etc.); but truthfulness in witness-bearing is a commandment of the Decalogue (Ex

20:18), and from the prophetic age onwards falsehood of every kind is recognized as a grave sin

(Hos 4:2, Ps 59:12, Pr 12:22). See, further, LIE. Sometimes ‘truth’ denotes justice as administered by a ruler or a judge (Ex 18:21, Pr 20:28), and, in particular, by the Messianic King

( Ps 45:4, Is 42:3). Frequently it denotes faithfulness, especially the faithfulness of a man to God (2  K 20:3) and of God to men (Gn 32:10). When God is described as a ‘God of truth,’ His faithfulness to His promises may be especially in view (Ps 31:5). But not far away is the sense of ‘living reality’ in distinction from the ‘lying vanities’ in which those trust to whom Jahweh is unknown (v. 6; cf. Dt 32:4). In some later canonical writings there appears a use of ‘truth’ or ‘the truth’ as equivalent to Divine revelation (Dn 8:12, 9:13), or as a synonym for the ‘wisdom’ in which the true philosophy of life consists (Pr 23:23). In the Apocr. books this use becomes frequent (1 Es 4:33ff., Wis 3:9, Sir 4:28 etc.).

2. In NT (alētheia).—The Gr. word (which is employed in LXX to render both ’ĕmeth and ’ĕmūnāh) has the fundamental meaning of reality, as opposed to mere appearance or false pretence. From this the sense of veracity comes quite naturally; and veracity finds a high place among the NT virtues. The OT law forbade the bearing of false witness against one’s neighbour; the law of Christ enjoins truth-speaking in all social intercourse (Eph 4:25), and further demands that this truth-speaking shall be animated by love (v. 15; cf. v. 25 ‘for we are members one of another’).

Special attention must be paid to some distinctive employments of the word. (a)  In the Pauline writings there is a constant use of ‘the truth’ to describe God’s will as revealed— primarily to the reason and conscience of the natural man (Ro 1:18, 25), but especially in the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Co 4:2, Gal 3:1 etc.). ‘The truth’ thus becomes synonymous with ‘the gospel’ (Eph 1:13; cf. Gal 2:5, 14 etc., where ‘the truth of the gospel’ evidently means the truth declared in the gospel). In the Pastoral Epistles the gospel as ‘the truth’ or ‘the word of truth’ appears to be passing into the sense of a settled body of Christian doctrine (1 Ti 3:15, 2 Ti 2:16 etc.). It is to be noted that, though the above usages are most characteristic of the Pauline cycle of writings, they are occasionally to be found elsewhere, e.g. He 10:26, Ja 1:18, 1 P 1:22, 2 P 1:12.

(b) In the Johannine books (with the exception of Rev.) alētheia is a leading and significant term in a sense that is quite distinctive (cf. ‘light’ and ‘life’). To Pilate’s question, ‘What is truth?’ (Jn 18:38), Jesus gave no answer. But He had just declared that He came into the world to bear witness unto the truth (v. 37), and the Fourth Gospel might be described as an elaborate exposition of the nature of the truth as revealed by Jesus, and of the way in which He revealed it. In John ‘the truth’ stands for the absolute Divine reality as distinguished from all existence that is false or merely seeming (cf. 8:40ff., where Jesus contrasts His Father, from whom He had heard the truth, with ‘your father the devil,’ who ‘stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him’). Jesus came from the bosom of the Father (Jn 1:18), and truth came by Him (v. 17) because as the Word of God He was full of it (v. 14). The truth is incarnated and personalized in Jesus, and so He is Himself the Truth (14:6). The truth which resides in His own Person He imparts to His disciples (8:31f.); and on His departure He bestows the Spirit of truth to abide with them and be in them for ever (14:17). Hence the truth is in the Christian as the very groundwork and essence of his spiritual being (1 Jn 1:8, 2:4, 2 Jn 1:2). It is there both as a moral and as an intellectual quality—standing midway, as it were, between ‘life’ and ‘light,’ two other ruling Johannine ideas with which it is closely associated. Primarily it is a moral power. It makes Christ’s disciples free (Jn 8:32)—free i.e., as the context shows, from the bondage of sin (vv.

33ff.). It has a sanctifying force (Jn 17:17–19) ; it ensures the keeping of the commandments  (1 Jn 2:4) and the life of Christian love (3:18f.). And, while subjectively it is a moral influence, objectively it is a moral vocation—something not only to be known (Jn 8:32) and believed (vv. 45 f.), but requiring to be done (Jn 3:21, 1 Jn 1:6). From this moral quality of the truth, however, there springs a power of spiritual Illumination. The truth that is life passes into the truth that is light (Jn 3:21). Every one that is of the truth heareth Christ’s voice (18:37); if any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine (7:17); the Spirit of truth, when He is come, shall guide the disciples into all the truth (16:13).

J. C. LAMBERT.

TRYPHÆNA.—Greeted along with Tryphosa by St. Paul in Ro 16:12, and described by him as labouring in the Lord. They were probably sisters or near relations, ‘for it was usual to designate members of the same family by derivatives of the same root.’ The common root makes their names signify ‘delicate,’ ‘luxurious’—a meaning which contrasts with their active Christian toil. Inscriptions in a cemetery used chiefly for the Emperor’s servants, contain both names; if we identify them with these, then they would be among ‘the saints of Cæsar’s household’ (Ph 4:22).

A Tryphæna plays a prominent part in the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla.

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

TRYPHON.—An officer of Alexander Balas, who, after the death of the latter, took advantage of the unpopularity of Demetrius to put forward Antiochus, the son of Balas, as a claimant to the throne (1 Mac 11:39). His real aim, however, was to gain the crown for himself, and this he accomplished after he had murdered in succession Jonathan the Maccabee (12:39–50) and Antiochus (13:31f.). His rapacity led Simon to appeal to Demetrius (13:34). The latter was organizing an expedition against Tryphon when he was himself made prisoner by Arsaces (14:1– 3) . In the end, Antiochus Sidetes, the brother of Demetrius, attacked Tryphon, besieged him in Dor, and pursued him when he escaped thence to Orthesia (15:10–14, 37–39) . Tryphon was finally shut up in Apamea, where he committed suicide (Strabo, p. 668; Jos. Ant. XIII. vii. 2; App. Syr. 68).

TRYPHOSA.—See TRYPHÆNA.

TUBAL.—A country and people in Asia Minor mentioned only in association with Meshech ( wh. see ).

J. F. MCCURDY.

TUBAL-CAIN.—In Gn 4:22 ‘the father of every forger of copper and iron’ (so read, with slight textual correction), i.e. the founder of the guild or profession of metal-workers. The name seems to be made up of Tubal ( or the Tibareni, noted for production of bronze articles (Ezk

27:13)) and Cain ( ‘smith’), as the ancestor of the Kenites or ‘Smiths.’

J. F. MCCURDY.

TUBIAS, TUBIENI.—See TOB.

TUNIC.—See DRESS, 2 (d).

TURBAN.—See DRESS, 5, BONNET, MITRE.

TURPENTINE TREE.—See TEREBINTH.

TURTLE DOVE.—See DOVE.

TUTOR.—See SCHOOL.

TWELVE.—See NUMBER, § 7.

TWELVE APOSTLES, GOSPEL OF.—See GOSPELS [APOCR.], 10.

TWIN BROTHERS.—See DIOSCURI.

TWO.—See NUMBER, § 7.

TYCHICUS.—A native of the province Asia, like Trophimus, and a companion of St. Paul on the journey to Jerusalem (Ac 20:4). He was the bearer of the circular letter to Asia which we call ‘Ephesians’ (Eph 6:21f.), and of Colossians (Col 4:7f.). In later years either he or Artemas was to have been sent to Crete, apparently to take Titus’ place (Tit 3:12); but he was sent to Ephesus, probably instead of to Crete (2 Ti 4:12).

A. J. MACLEAN.

TYRANNUS.—This man is mentioned only in Ac 19:9. St. Paul in Ephesus preached before the Jews and proselytes in the synagogue for three months. Finding them determinedly hostile, he resorted to the ‘school of Tyrannus,’ where he reasoned every day. The expression is somewhat enigmatical to us, as we have no other reference to this institution by which to illustrate it. The Greek word may be translated either ‘school’ or ‘lecture room,’ and Tyrannus may have been either a schoolmaster or what we call a professor. There is the further difficulty that Tyrannus may have been dead at the time, and that the building may have been merely known as ‘Tyrannus’s school,’ in memory of a once famous teacher who taught there. All the probabilities are in favour of this having been the name of a noted public building in Ephesus. Permission to use this building was given to Paul; perhaps it was hired by him or his friends. All this may be inferred from what is the generally accepted text of the passage in the present day. The Western and other texts have touched up this simpler text, and changed the situation considerably. They have inserted the word ‘a certain’ before ‘Tyrannus,’ and this at once converts the public building into a private one. The person Tyrannus would then be unknown to the readers, and would be one not unfavourable to St. Paul, who lent him his own building with or without fee. The most notable MS of the Western text adds the words: ‘from the fifth hour till the tenth.’ This addition is all of a piece with the idea that Tyrannus was a schoolmaster or professor, whose work, according to the ancient custom, would be over early in the day, thus leaving the building free for the rest of the day. Juvenal describes to us how the boys read their lessons to the master even before dawn. Augustine, himself a professor, tells us that his lecturing work was over early in the day. The experience of moderns in southern countries confirms this: the early morning is the time for brain work in the South, as the young Julius Charles Hare and his brother found when resident as boys in Italy. The hall was free to Paul at the hottest period of the day, when it must have been hard for people to listen, and yet harder for him to preach. All this is conveyed by the reading of the chief representative of the Western text, but the present writer has no doubt that here, as elsewhere, the reviser has been endeavouring to remove obscurity from the narrative. Almost all the Western variants can be explained by a greater or less effort to smooth difficulties of various sorts. The shorter reading discussed in the earlier paragraph is the genuine one.

A. SOUTER.

TYRE (Tsōr—‘rock,’ Jos 19:29) was situated on the coast of Palestine about half-way between Carmel and Beyrout. The narrow strip of land between the sea and the background of mountains was almost inaccessible owing to massive rocky promontories (the most famous being ‘the Ladder of Tyre’), which barred the approach of invaders. The date of the foundation of Tyre is unknown. That given by Herodotus is B.C. 2740, by Josephus about B.C. 1217 . Isaiah  (23:7) calls her ‘the joyous city whose antiquity is of ancient days’; Strabo, ‘the most ancient of all Phœnicla.’ Her original inhabitants probably came from the Semitic homeland near the Persian

Gulf. But Tyre was not ‘the most ancient.’ Isaiah (23:2, 12) calls her ‘daughter of Sidon’ (cf. Gn 10:15) ; Homer mentions ‘Sidonian wares,’ but ignores Tyre. Justin says Sidon suffered so severely at the hands of Ascalon that her trade passed to her daughter Tyre. The Tell el-Amarna letters (c. B.C. 1430) reveal Abi-milki, king of Tyre, sending appeals to his lord Amenhotep IV. for assistance against the swarms of Khabiri, who were ravaging the land, while the citizens were dying of want on the islets off the coast. At the conquest of Canaan, Joshua assigned the Tyrian territory to Asher, though it was perhaps never occupied (Jos 19:29, but cf. 2 S 24:7).

For the next 430 years the city’s history is a blank. It was Hiram, David’s contemporary, who raised Tyre to fame. Old Tyre (Palætyrus), on the mainland, he strongly fortified, its walls being 15 miles in circumference. Hiram now built New Tyre by uniting the scattered islands, half a mile out to sea, till they enclosed an area 2¹/₂ miles in circumference. At the N. end, two stone piers, about 100 ft. apart, extended E. and W. for 700 ft. These with the shore line embraced an area (the ‘Zidon Harbour’) of 70,000 sq. yds. At the S. end a similar harbour (the ‘Egyptian’), 80,000 sq. yds. In area, was enclosed by a vast pier 200 yds. long, and a breakwater 35 ft. wide and nearly 2 miles in length. The two harbours were united by a canal across the island. The city rose up in tiers of houses, gardens, orchards, and vineyards, and was embellished by a new and splendid temple of Melkarth, a royal palace, and a great piazza (the ‘Eurychorus’) for national assemblies. The city’s wealth was furnished largely from the trade in purple dye, the secret of the extraction of which from two species of murex the Tyrians possessed. The gradual failure of the supply of these shellfish on their own shores led the citizens to become great explorers. Every island and coastline were searched for these precious molluscs. Trade naturally followed. They trafficked up the Nile as far as Memphis; worked copper mines in Cyprus and Crete (cf. Phenice, Ac 27:12); erected stations on the Bosporus, the Euxine, and the Crimea; established colonies on the N. African shores, Malta, Sicily, Sardinia, Marseilles, etc., and exploited the gold, silver, lead, and other mines of Spain from their emporium Tartessus (prob. the Tarshish of Gn 10:4, Ps 72:10 , Is 66:19). Even the Atlantic was braved, and they worked the tin deposits of Cornwall, and had depôts in the Scilly Isles and the Isle of Wight. Hiram co-operated with David in the erection of the latter’s palace in Jerusalem, sending cedars from Lebanon (1 Ch 14:1). Under Solomon, Tyrian artizans built the Temple on Phœnician models (2 Ch 2). Hiram and Solomon had joint maritime adventures, Jewish ships with Tyrian seamen trading to Ophlr every three years (1 K 9:26, 10:22). ‘Hiram’s Tomb,’ a massive limestone sarcophagus, is still shown on the shore 6 miles S. of Tyre.

The years following Hiram’s death were very troubled, changes of dynasty occurring through repeated assassinations. At length Eth-baal, by the murder of his brother, seized the throne, and married his daughter Jezebel to Ahab (1 K 16:31). Some time after the death of Eth-baal a domestic rebellion led to the emigration of the Tyrian princess Elissa, who is said to have fled from Tyre with her murdered husband’s riches and to have founded Carthage, thereby winning fame for herself as the Dido of Virgil’s Æneid. About B.C. 880  Assyria began to interfere with Western politics. Tyre purchased her liberty from Assur-nazir-pal by a heavy indemnity. In D.C. 726 Shalmaneser IV. came against the city, but, having no ships, could not reach the island fortress till he had bribed Sidon to furnish 60 vessels. These the Tyrians, with only 12 ships, easily routed. Shalmaneser retired, leaving a garrison in Old Tyre, which kept up a fruitless blockade for five years. At the next attack, under Sennacherib, Elulæus, the king, fled in despair to Cyprus, the Assyrians appointing a tributary king, Tubaal, in his stead (B.C. 705) . Under Esarhaddon, Tyre rebelled. The Assyrians held the shore, and captured Sidon, but Tyre again escaped. In B.C. 664  it submitted to Ashurbanipal on honourable terms. On the decline of Nineveh, Tyre again proclaimed her independence (B.C. 630), and after Nineveh fell (B.C. 606) she reached the zenith of her glory. Ezekiel (27–28)  gives a marvellously vivid picture of the island city at this period, yet prophesies her fall on account of her colossal sins.

In the early unsettled days of the New Babylonian Empire the Tyrians entered into a league with Pharaohnecho of Egypt. They were invited to make a canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, and even to circumnavigate Africa. The latter feat they accomplished in three years, the voyagers sailing down the E. coast, and reaching the Pillars of Hercules after a feat of unheard-of daring. Nebuchadnezzar II. attacked Tyre, and besieged it for 13 years. Old Tyre was destroyed

(Ezk 26:7–12), but the Babylonian army in vain wearied itself in trying to subdue the island (29:18) . It is probable that the city finally capitulated on favourable terms. The long siege, however, had ruined her commerce, and for 50 years Tyre was a poverty-stricken town. An attempt at a republic did not improve her fortunes. She was involved in the struggle between Nebuchadnezzar II. and Pharaoh-hophra (Jer 44:30). was for a time under Egypt, but finally fell to Babylon, and remained a dependency until the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire. Her humbled state did not change her people’s temper. Their pride (Ezk 28:2), their contempt for the rights of man (Am 1:9), their slave-trading propensities (Jl 3:4–8)  are denounced by the Hebrew prophets. In B.C. 538 Cyrus II., the founder of the Persian Empire, ordered Tyrian workmen to assist with Lebanon cedars in the re-building of the Jewish Temple (Ezk 3:7). Cambyses II.

engaged the Tyrians to supply a fleet for his invasion of Egypt. On his proposing to send them to subdue Carthage they refused, on the score of their blood relationship with the daughter colony of Tyre. Under Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 430) we read of Tyrian fish-merchants at the gates of Jerusalem (Neh 13:16). In the Persian-Greek wars Tyrian fleets fought on the Persian side, till, after the Peace of Antalkidas (B.C. 387) , Tyre transferred her allegiance to Persia’s enemies. Artaxerxes III. (Ochus) took fearful vengeance. Sidon disappeared in flame and torrents of blood. Tyre in horror opened her gates, and was spared. In B.C. 332 Alexander the Great appeared in front of the city. The Tyrians declined to allow him to sacrifice personally to Melkarth in their fortress. The memorable siege began. Alexander built a mole 200 ft. wide out towards the island. It was repeatedly destroyed. The defence was desperate and successful, till Alexander invested the city with a fleet of 224 ships. Tyre was stormed, 8000 of her inhabitants massacred, 2000 crucified on the shore, and 30,000 sold into slavery. Tyre ceased to be an island, and henceforth was permanently joined to the mainland. Only a blunt headland to-day suggests the existence of the former island fortress. The mole is now ¹/₂ mile broad.

Tyre was again re-peopled. She figured in the wars of the Ptolemys and Seleucldæ. In B.C.

314 Antigonus besieged her for 15 months. After 70 years’ subjection to Egypt she was under Antioch till B.C. 65 , when the Romans made her a free city. Some of her citizens came to hear the preaching of Jesus (Mk 3:8). Christ visited the neighbourhood (Mk 7:24–31), and got a favourable reception (Lk 10:13). Tyre figured in connexion with St. Paul in Apostolic times (Ac 12:20, 21:3–7) . Was the Church in Tyre not a fulfilment of Ps 87:4? A Christian church was built on the site of the Melkarth temple. Origen found refuge in Tyre, and died there. Jerome (4th cent.) speaks of it as the ‘most noble and beautiful city of Phœnicia.’ Captured by the Saracens (A.D. 638), it was recovered (A.D. 1124), and William of Tyre celebrates its fame under the Crusaders. Here was burled Frederick Barbarossa. Saladin was repelled in 1187, but the spot was abandoned in 1291, and the Moslems took possession of it. Tyre has since sunk to a miserable stagnant village, where the waves mournfully crash amid the ruins of her former magnificence.

G. A. FRANK KNIGHT.

TZADE.—The eighteenth letter of the Heb. alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 18th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.