W

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

WAGGON.—SEE CART, AGRICULTURE, § 3.

WAILING.—SEE MOURNING CUSTOMS.

WALLET.—SEE BAG.

WALLS.—In Palestine the principal cities were protected by surrounding walls, sometimes of great size. That of Gezer, for instance, was fourteen feet thick. These walls were built of stones, set in mud, or else of brick. The walls of houses were generally ill-built structures of the same materials. The choice of material varied with the locality: Lachish (Tell el-Hesy) , for example, was almost entirely a brick town; in Gezer brick is the exception. See also artt. CITY; FORTIFICATION, 1; HOUSE, 4. For the walls of Jerusalem, which may be taken as typical of a city wall, see JERUSALEM.

R. A. S. MACALISTER.

WAR.—1. In the days before the monarchy the wars of the Hebrew tribes must have resembled those of early Greece, when ‘the two armies started out, marched till they met, had a fight and went home.’ Rarely, as in the case of the campaign against Sisera (Jg 4), was it necessary to summon a larger army from several tribes. From the days of Saul and David, with their long struggle against the Philistines, war became the affair of the whole nation, leading, also, to the establishment of a standing army, or at least of the nucleus of one (see ARMY) . In the reign of Solomon we hear of a complete organization of the kingdom, which undoubtedly served a more serious purpose than the providing of ‘victuals for the king and his household’ (1 K 4:7).

Early spring, after the winter rains had ceased, was ‘the time when kings go out to battle’ (2 S 11:1). The war-horn (EV ‘trumpet’), sounded from village to village on their hilltops, was in all periods the call to arms (Jg 6:34, 1 S 13:3, 2 S 20:1). How far the exemptions from military service specified in Dt 20:5–8 were in force under the kings is unknown; the first express attestation is 1 Mac 3:55.

2. War, from the Hebrew point of view, was essentially a religious duty, begun and carried through under the highest sanctions of religion. Israel’s wars of old were ‘the wars of J″’ (Nu 21:14), and was not Jahweh Tsĕbā’ōth, especially ‘the God of Israel’s battle-array’ (1 S 17:45).?

His presence with the host was secured by ‘the ark of J″’ accompanying the army in the field (2 S 11:11, cf. 1 S 4:3ff.). As an indispensable preliminary, therefore, of every campaign, the soldiers ‘sanctified’ themselves (Jos 3:5) by ablutions and other observances preparatory to offering the usual sacrifices (1 S 7:9, 13:9). The men thus became God’s ‘consecrated ones’ (Is 13:2 RV), and to open a campaign is in Heb. phrase ‘to consecrate war’ (Jl 3:9, Jer 6:4 etc.). Is 21:5 ‘anoint the shield’ (cf. 2 S 1:21) is commonly taken to allude to a practice of smearing shields with oil, that hostile weapons might more readily glance off (see, for another explanation, Marti or Duhm, Jesaia, ad loc.).

To ascertain the propitious moment for the start, and indeed throughout the campaign, it was usual to ‘enquire of the Lord’ by means of the sacred lot (Jg 1:1, 1 S 23:2 and oft.), and in an age of more advanced religious thought, by the mouth of a prophet (1 K 22:6ff.). Still later a campaign was opened with prayer and fasting (1 Mac 3:47ff.).

As regards the commissariat, it was probably usual, as in Greece, to start with three days’ provisions, the soldiers, for the rest, helping themselves from friends (cf. however, the voluntary gifts, 2 S 17:27ff.) and foes. The arrangement by which ‘ten men out of every hundred’ were told off ‘to fetch victual for the people’ (Jg 20:10), is first met with in a late document.

3. As the army advanced, scouts were sent out to ascertain the enemy’s position and strength (Jg 1:24 [AV ‘spies,’ RV ‘watchers’], 1 S 26:4, 1 Mac 5:38). Where the element of secrecy enters, we may call them spies (so Jos 2:1 RV, 2 S 15:10, 1 Mac 12:28; cf. Gideon’s exploit, Jg 7:11 ff. ).

Little is known of the camps of the Heb. armies. The men were sheltered in tents and booths (2 S 11:11; this reference, however, is to a lengthy siege). The general commanding probably had a more elaborate pavilion’ (1 K 20:12, 16, see TENT) . The obscure term rendered by RV ‘place of the wagons’ (1 S 17:20, 26:5, 7) is derived from a root which justifies us in supposing that the Hebrew camps were round, rather than square. Of the 20 Assyrian camps represented on the bronze plates of the gates of Balawat, 4 are circular, 14 almost square, and 2 have their long sides straight and their short sides curved outwards. Two gates are represented at opposite ends, between which a broad road divides the camp into two almost equal parts (Billerbeck u. Delitzsch, Die Palasttore Salmanassars, II. [1908], 104). The Hebrews divided the night into three watches (Jg 7:19, 1 S 11:11).

4. The tactics of the Hebrew generals were as simple as their strategy. Usually the ‘battle was set in array’ by the opposing forces being drawn up in line facing each other. At a given signal, each side raised its battle-cry ( Jg 7:21, Am 1:14, Jer 4:19) as it rushed to the fray; for the wild slogan of former days, the Ironsides of the Jewish Cromwell, Judas the Maccabee, substituted prayer (1 Mac 5:33) and the singing of Psalms (2 Mac 12:37). It was a common practice for a general to divide his forces into three divisions (Jg 7:16, 1 S 11:11, 2 S 18:2, 1 Mac 5:33). A favourite piece of tactics was to pretend flight, and by leaving a body of men in ambush, to fall upon the unwary pursuers in front and rear (Jos 8:15, Jg 20:36). As examples of more elaborate tactics may be cited Joab’s handling of his troops before Rabbath-ammon (2 S 10:9–11) , and Benhadad’s massing of his chariots at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 K 22:31); the campaigns of Judas Maccabæus would repay a special study from this point of view. The recall was sounded on the war-horn (2 S 2:23, 18:16, 20:22).

5. The tender mercies of the victors in those days were cruel, although the treatment which the Hebrews meted out to their enemies was, with few exceptions (e.g. 2 K 15:16), not to be compared to what Benzinger only too aptly describes as ‘the Assyrian devilries.’ It is one of the greatest blots on our RV that 2 S 12:31 should still read as it does, instead of as in the margin (see Cent. Bible, in loc). The Hebrew wars, as has been said, were the wars of J″, and to J″ of right belonged the population of a conquered city (see BAN) . Even the humane Deuteronomic Code spares only the women and children (Dt 20:13f.). The captives were mostly sold as slaves.

A heavy war indemnity or a yearly tribute was imposed on the conquered people (2 K 3:4). The booty fell to the victorious soldiery, the leaders receiving a special share (Jg 8:24ff., 1 S 30:26ff.). The men ‘that tarried by the stuff’—in other words, who were left behind as a campguard—shared equally with their comrades ‘who went down to the battle’ (1 S 30:24f., a law first introduced by David, but afterwards characteristically assigned to Moses, Nu 31:27). The returning warriors were welcomed home by the women with dance and song (Ex 15:20ff., Jg 11:34 , 1 S 18:6 etc.). The piety of the Maccabæan age found a more fitting expression in a service of thanksgiving (1 Mac 4:24). See also ARMY, ARMOUR ARMS, FORTIFICATION AND

SIEGECRAFT.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

WARS OF THE LORD, BOOK OF THE.—A work quoted in Nu 21:14f. to settle a point with regard to the boundary of Moab and Ammon. The quotations in vv. 17, 18, 27–30 are probably from the same original. This is the only mention of the book in the OT. It is not likely that the work is identical with the Book of Jashar. It probably consisted of a collection of songs celebrating the victories of Israel over their neighbours. The song in Ex 15:1–19 describing the Lord as ‘a man of war’ has been thought to be derived from it. The date of the work is unknown. As it deals with the heroic age, it likely originated in the period immediately following, and it has been dated in the reign of Omri (Stade), and by others as early as the time of David or Solomon. If Nu 21:27–30 refer to the wars of Omri, we must regard the work as a product of the N. kingdom.

W. F. BOYD.

WASHPOT.—Only Ps 60:8 = 108:9, as a figure of contempt. The ‘pot’ (sīr) was also used for boiling (see HOUSE, 9).

WATCH.—See TIME.

WATCHMAN.—SEE CITY.

WATCH TOWER.—SEE VINE.

WATER.—The scarcity of water in the East lends it a special value. Its presence in some form is essential to life. The fruitfulness of the land depends on the quantity available for watering. The Jordan, with its great springs, is too low for the irrigation of anything but the valley. There are many fountains in Palestine, but most fail in summer. The average annual rainfall approaches 30 inches. But this is confined to the months from April till October; and the water would rush down the slopes to the sea, were it not caught and stored for future use. The limestone formation, with its many caves, made easy the construction of cisterns and reservoirs to collect the rain water: thence supplies were drawn as required during the dry months.

Wherever water is found, there is greenery and beauty all through the year.

In the Maritime Plain plentiful supplies of water are found on digging (Gn 26:13ff.). To fill up the wells would make the district uninhabitable. Invading armies were at times reduced to sore straits by the stopping of wells (2 K 3:19, 25), or diversion and concealment of the stream from a fountain (2 Ch 32:3f.).

The earliest use of water was doubtless to allay the thirst of man and beast. Refusal of drink to a thirsty man would be universally condemned (Gn 24:17 f., Jn 4:7). It is held a meritorious act to set a vessel of water by the wayside for the refreshment of the wayfarer. The same right does not extend to flocks (Gn 24:19f.), for which water must often be purchased. Use and wont have established certain regulations for the watering of animals, infringement of which frequently causes strife (Gn 29:2ff., Ex 2:16ff.; cf. Gn 26:20 etc.). The art of irrigation ( wh. see) was employed in ancient days (Ps 1:3, 65:10, Ezk 17:7 etc.), and reached its fullest development in the Roman period. To this time also belong many ruins of massive aqueducts, leading water to the cities from distant sources.

Cisterns and springs are not common property. Every considerable house has a cistern for rain water from roof and adjoining areas. Importance is attached to plunging in the buckets by which the water is drawn up, this preventing stagnation. The springs, and cisterns made in the open country, are the property of the local family or tribe, from whom water, if required in any quantity, must be bought. The mouth of the well is usually covered with a great stone. Drawing of water for domestic purposes is almost exclusively the work of women (Gn 24:11, Jn 4:7 etc.).

In crossing the desert, water is carried in ‘bottles’ of skin (Gn 21:14).

The ‘living,’ i.e. ‘flowing’ water of the spring is greatly preferred to the ‘dead’ water of the cistern, and it stands frequently for the vitalizing Influences of God’s grace (Jer 2:13, Zec 14:3, Jn 4:10 etc.). Many Scripture references show how the cool, refreshing, fertilizing qualities of water are prized in a thirsty land (Pr 25:26, Is 44:14, Jer 17:8, Lk 16:24 etc.). Water is furnished to wash the feet and hands of a guest (Lk 7:44). To pour water on the hands is the office of a servant (2 K 3:11) . The sudden spates of the rainy season are the symbol of danger (Ps 18:16, 32:6 , Is 28:17 etc.), and their swift passing symbolizes life’s transiency (Job 11:18, Ps 58:7). Water is also the symbol of weakness and Instability (Gn 49:4, Ezk 21:7 etc.). Cf. CITY; JERUSALEM, I. 4. For ‘Water-gate’ see NETHINIM, p. 654^a.

W. EWING.

WATER OF BITTERNESS.—See JEALOUSY.

WATER OF SEPARATION.—See RED HEIFER.

WATERPOTS.—See HOUSE, § 9.

WATERSPOUTS.—Only Ps 42:7 ‘Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts’ ( RVm ‘cataracts’). The reference is prob. to the numerous noisy waterfalls in a stream swollen by the melting of the snow.

WAVE-BREAST, WAVE-OFFERING.—See SACRIFICE, § 2 (13), 12.

WAX.—See EDUCATION, p. 205^a; WRITING, 6.

WAY

1. OT usage.—(a) Of a road or journey (1 S 6:9, 12, 2 K 3:20, Jer 2:18). (b) Figuratively, of a course of conduct or character (Job 17:9, Ps 91:11), either in a good sense as approved by God

(Dt 31:29, Ps 50:23, Is 30:21), or in a bad sense of man’s own choosing (Ps 139:24, Is 65:2, Jer

18:11). (c) Of the way of Jehovah, His creative power (Job 26:14), His moral rule and commandments (Job 21:14, Ps 18:30, Pr 8:32).

2. NT usage.—(a) In the literal sense (Mt 4:16, 10:5, Ac 8:25). (b) Figuratively, as in OT of human conduct, or God’s purpose for man (Mt 21:32, Ac 14:16, Ro 11:33, 1 Co 4:17, Ja 5:20). But the gospel greatly enriched the ethical and religious import of the word. Though Jesus was addressed as one who taught ‘the way of God in truth’ (Mt 22:16), He Himself claimed to show the way to the Father because He is ‘the Way, the Truth, and the Life’ (Jn 14:4, 5, 6). By Him ‘the two worlds were united’ (Westcott). This is equivalent to the Apostolic doctrine that Christ is the gospel ( Mk 1:1, Ro 15:18). In He 9:8, 10:20 there is the similar thought that Jesus by His life, death, and exaltation has opened a way whereby men may enter into the holy presence of God, and enables them also to walk therein. In Acts ‘the Way’ is used with the distinctive meaning of the Christian faith and manner of life, which is the only ‘way’ that leads to salvation (9:2 , 19:9, 23, 24:22). This is the ‘way of the Lord’ so often referred to in the OT, of which Jesus became the final and perfect revealer. The development of the conception may be traced in Ac 16:17 , 18:25, 26.

R. A. FALCONER.

WAYMARK.—In Jer 31:21 (20) ‘the virgin of Israel’ is called on to set up waymarks and make guide-posts to mark the way for the returning exiles. The Heb. word tr. ‘waymark’ apparently means a small stone pillar, similar to our milestones, with an indication of routes and distances.

WEALTH.—This word is used in Scripture occasionally in the Elizabethan and primary sense of ‘well-being’ (e.g. 1 S 2:32, Est 10:3 etc.), but generally in the more usual sense of affluent possessions (e.g. Gn 34:29, Dt 8:17, 18, Ac 19:25 etc.).

1. Palestine is described in Dt 8:7–8 as rich not only in cereal but also in mineral wealth; but this may be a description more poetic than literal. It is, however, frequently spoken of as ‘flowing with milk and honey’ (Ex 3:8, etc. etc.)—products which were in ancient times considered the marks of fertile lands. The wealth of Israel increased as the country developed; and under the monarchy it reached its height. The increased prosperity did not, however, lead to increased righteousness. If in the times of Isaiah the land was ‘full of silver and gold,’ it was also ‘full of idols’ (Is 2:7, 8): the ruling classes oppressed the poor (5:3, Mic 2:2), drunkenness (Is 5:11 , Mic 2:11) and audacity of sin (Is 5:13) were rampant. The national poverty that followed upon the Exile had been removed before the birth of our Lord, as exemplified by the magnificent buildings of Herod. Throughout the OT and NT many instances of wealthy individuals occur: e.g. Abram (Gn 13:2), Nabal (1 S 25:2), Barzillai (2 S 19:32), Zacchæus (Lk 19:2), Joseph of Arimathæa (Mt 27:57).

2. In the OT the possession of wealth is generally regarded as evidence of God’s blessing, and so of righteousness ( Ps 1:3, 4 etc.). But the stubborn facts of the godly being called upon sometimes to suffer, and of the wicked sometimes flourishing, led to a deeper view; and the limited power and transitoriness of wealth were realized (Ps 49; cf. 37, 73. Job 21, Jer 12 etc.). In the NT the problem does not present itself so keenly; as, in the full belief of a future life, the difficulty resolved itself. But the general conduciveness of virtue to earthly prosperity is inculcated; and we are taught that godliness is profitable for this life as well as for that which is to come (1 Ti 4:8; cf. Mt 6:33, Mk 10:30).

3. Our Lord’s position regarding wealth must be deduced from His practice and teaching. As regards His practice, it is clear that, until He commenced His ministry, He obtained His livelihood by labour, toiling as a carpenter in Nazareth (Mk 6:3). During His ministry, He and the Twelve formed a family with a common purse. This store, composed, no doubt, of the personal property of those of their number who originally had wealth, was replenished by gifts of attached disciples (Lk 8:3). From it necessary food was purchased and the poor were relieved (Jn 4:8 , 13:28). Christ and His Apostles as a band, therefore, owned private property. When our Lord dispatched the Twelve on a special tour for preaching and healing, and when He sent the Seventy on a similar errand, He commanded them to take with them neither money nor food (Mt 10:10, Lk 10:4); but these were special instructions on special occasions, and doubtless on their return to Him the former system of a common purse was reverted to (cf. Lk 22:36).

As regards Christ’s teaching, it is important to balance those sayings which appear to be hostile to any possession of wealth, with those which point in the other direction. On the one hand, we find Him bidding a rich young man sell his all and give to the poor (Mk 10:21), and then telling His disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. He pictures a possessor of increasing wealth hearing God say, ‘Thou foolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee’ (Lk 12:20); He follows beyond the grave the histories of a rich man and a beggar, placing the rich man in a ‘place of torment’ and the poor man in Abraham’s bosom (Lk 16:19f.). But there is the other side; for we find that He sympathized deeply with those enduring poverty, assuring them of their Father’s care (Mt 6:32), preaching especially to them the gospel (Mt 11:5), and pronouncing upon them in their sorrows a special benediction (Lk 6:20). He showed that He desired that all should have a sufficiency, by bidding all, rich and poor alike, pray for ‘daily bread.’ If He taught that riches were indeed an obstacle to entrance into the Kingdom of God, He also taught that it was the ‘few’ (whether rich or poor) that succeeded in entering it (Mt 7:14). If He told one young man to sell all that he had, clearly He did not intend this counsel to be applicable to all, for He assured of ‘salvation’ Zacchæus, who gave but the half of his goods to the poor (Lk 19:8, 9). If the builder of larger barns is termed the ‘foolish one,’ his folly is shown not to have been mere acquisition of wealth, but that acquisition apart from riches ‘toward God’ ( Lk 12:21); and if Dives is in Hades, it is evident that be is not there merely because of his riches, for Lazarus lies in the bosom of Abraham, the typical rich Jew. Further, in the parables of the Pounds and the Talents (Lk 19:12, Mt 25:14) He teaches, under the symbolism of money, that men are not owners but stewards of all they possess; while in the parable of the Unjust Steward He points out one of the true uses of wealth—namely, to relieve the poor, and so to insure a welcome from them when the eternal tabernacles are entered (Lk 16:9).

From the foregoing we may conclude that, while our Lord realized that poverty brought sorrow, He also realized that wealth contained an Intense peril to spiritual life. He came to raise the world from the material to the spiritual; and wealth, as the very token of the material and temporal, was blinding men to the spiritual and eternal. He therefore urged those to whom it was a special hindrance, to resign it altogether; and charged all to regard it as something for the use of which they would be held accountable.

4. In the Apostolic Church, in its earliest days, we find her members having ‘all things common,’ and the richer selling their possessions to supply the wants of their poorer brethren (Ac 2:44, 45, 4:34–37). But this active enthusiasm does not necessarily show that the Church thought the personal possession of wealth, in itself, unlawful or undesirable; for the case of Ananias clearly indicates that the right to the possession of private property was not questioned ( Ac 5:4). Later in the history of the Church we find St. James inveighing against the proud and heartless rich (Ja 2:1–8, 5:1–5) , and St. Paul warning men of the spiritual dangers incident to the procuring or possessing of wealth (1 Ti 6:9. 10, 17–19; cf. Rev 3:17).

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

WEAPONS.—See ARMOUR ARMS.

WEASEL (chōled, Lv 11:29).—An ‘unclean’ animal. Since the Heb. root chālad means ‘to dig,’ and the Arab, khuld is the ‘mole-rat,’ it is practically certain that this latter is the correct translation of chōled. Cf. MOLE.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

WEAVING.—See SPINNING AND WEAVING.

WEDDING.—See MARRIAGE.

WEDGE (of gold).—See MONEY, p. 628^b.

WEEDS.—1. sūph, Jon 2:6, referring to sea-weeds (cf. the designation yam sūph ‘sea of weeds,’ applied to the Red Sea [wh. see]). 2. Gr. chortos, Sir 40:16, used in the same indefinite sense as Eng. ‘weeds.’

WEEK.—See TIME.

WEEKS, FEAST OF.—See PENTECOST.

WEEPING.—See MOURNING CUSTOMS.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—Since the most important of all ancient Oriental systems of weights and measures, the Babylonian, seems to have been based on a unit of length (the measures of capacity and weight being scientifically derived there from), it is reasonable to deal with the measures of length before proceeding to measures of capacity and weight. At the same time it seems probable that the measures of length in use in Palestine were based on a more primitive, and (so far as we know) unscientific system, which is to be connected with Egypt. The Babylonian system associated with Gudea (c. B.C. 3000), on statues of whom a scale, indicating a cubit of 30 digits or 19⅝ inches, has been found engraved, was not adopted by the Hebrews.

I. MEASURES OF LENGTH

The Hebrew unit was a cubit ¹/₆of a reed, Ezk 40:5), containing 2 spans or 6 palms or 24 finger’s breadths. The early system did not recognize the foot or the fathom. Measurements were taken both by the 6-cubit rod or reed and the line or ‘fillet’ (Ezk 40:3, Jer 31:39, 52:21, 1 K 7:15).

The ancient Hebrew literary authorities for the early Hebrew cubit are as follows. The ‘cubit of a man’ (Dt 3:11) was the unit by which the ‘bedstead’ of Og, king of Bashan, was measured ( cf. Rev 21:17). This implies that at the time to which the passage belongs (apparently not long before the time of Ezekiel) the Hebrews were familiar with more than one cubit, of which that in question was the ordinary working cubit. Solomon’s Temple was laid out on the basis of a cubit ‘after the first (or ancient) measure’ (2 Ch 3:3). Now Ezekiel (40:5, 43:13) prophesies the building of a Temple on a unit which he describes as a cubit and a band’s breadth, i.e. 7 /5 of the ordinary cubit. As in his vision he is practically reproducing Solomon’s Temple, we may infer that Solomon’s cubit, i.e. the ancient cubit, was also ⁷/₅of the ordinary cubit of Ezekiel’s time. We thus have an ordinary cubit of 6, and what we may call (by analogy with the Egyptian system) the royal cubit of 7 hand’s breadths. For this double system is curiously parallel to the Egyptian, in which there was a common cubit of 0.450 m. or 17.72 in., which was ⁶/₇of the royal cubit of 0.525 m. or 20.67 in. (these data are derived from actual measuring rods). A similar distinction between a common and a royal norm existed in the Babylonian weight-system. Its object there was probably to give the government an advantage in the case of taxation; probably also in the case of measures of length the excess of the royal over the common measure had a similar object.

We have at present no means of ascertaining the exact dimensions of the Hebrew ordinary and royal cubits. The balance of evidence is certainly in favour of a fairly close approximation to the Egyptian system. The estimates vary from 16 to 25.2 inches. They are based on: (1) the Siloam inscription, which says: ‘The waters flowed from the outlet to the Pool 1200 cubits,’ or, according to another reading, ‘1000 cubits.’ The length of the canal is estimated at 537.6 m., which yields a cubit of 0.525 to 0.527 m. (20.67 to 20.75 in.) or 0.538 m. (21.18 in.) according to the reading adopted. Further uncertainty is occasioned by the possibility of the number 1200 or 1000 being only a round number. The evidence of the Siloam inscription is thus of a most unsatisfactory kind. (2) The measurements of tombs. Some of these appear to be constructed on the basis of the Egyptian cubit; others seem to yield cubits of 0.575 m. (about 22.6 in.) or 0.641

m. (about 25.2 in.). The last two cubits seem to be improbable. The measurements of another tomb (known as the Tomb of Joshua) seem to confirm the deduction of the cubit of about 0.525

m. (3) The measurement of grains of barley. This has been objected to for more than one reason. But the Rabbinical tradition allowed 144 barley-corns of medium size, laid side by side, to the cubit; and it is remarkable that a recent careful attempt made on these lioes resulted in a cubit of 17.77 in. (0.451 m.), which is the Egyptian common cubit. (4) Recently it has been pointed out that Josephus, when using Jewish measures of capacity, etc., which differ from the Greek or Roman, is usually careful to give an equation explaining the measures to his Greek or Roman readers, while in the case of the cubit he does not do so, but seems to regard the Hebrew and the Roman-Attic as practically the same. The Roman-Attic cubit (1¹/₂ft.) is fixed at 0.444 m. or

17.57 in., so that we have here a close approximation to the Egyptian common cubit. Probably in

Josephus’ time the Hebrew common cubit was, as ascertained by the methods mentioned above,

0.450 m.; and the difference between this and the Attic-Roman was regarded by him as negligible for ordinary purposes. (5) The Mishna. No data of any value for the exact determination of the cubit are to be obtained from this source. Four cubits is given as the length of a loculus in a rock-cut tomb; it has been pointed out that, allowing some 2 inches for the bier, and taking 5 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. 8 in. as the average height of the Jewish body, this gives 4 cubits = 5 ft. 10 in., or 17¹/₂in. to the cubit. On the cubit in Herod’s Temple, see A. R. S. Kennedy in art.

Temple (p. 902^b), and in artt. in ExpT xx. [1908], p. 24 ff.

The general inference from the above five sources of information is that the Jews had two cubits, a shorter and a longer, corresponding closely to the Egyptian common and royal cubit.

The equivalents are expressed in the following table:—

	Royal System.		Common System.
	Metres.	Inches.	Metres.	Inches.
Finger’s breadth	0.022	0.86	0.019	0.74
Palm = 4 fingers	0.088	3.44	0.075	2.95
Span = 3 palms	0.262	10.33	0.225	8.86
Cubit = 2 spans	0.525	20.67	0.450	17.72
Reed = 6 cubits	3.150	124.02	2.700	106.32

Parts and multiples of the unit.—The ordinary parts of the cubit have already been mentioned. They occur as follows: the finger’s breadth or digit (Jer 52:21, the daktyl of Josephus); the palm or hand’s breadth (1 K 7:26, Ezk 40:5, 43, 43:13 etc.); the span (Ex 28:16, 39:9 etc.). A special measure is the gōmed, which was the length of the sword of Ehud (Jg 3:16), and is not mentioned elsewhere. It was explained by the commentators as a short cubit (hence EV ‘cubit’), and it has been suggested that it was the cubit of 5 palms, which is mentioned by Rabbi Judah. The Greeks also had a short cubit, known as the pygōn, of 5 palms, the distance from the elbow to the first joint of the fingers. The reed (= 6 cubits) is the only definite OT multiple of the cubit (Ezk 40:5). This is the akaina of the Greek writers. The pace of 2 S 6:13 is probably not meant to be a definite measure. A ‘little way’ (Gn 35:16, 48:7, 2 K 5:19) is also indefinite. Syr. and Arab, translators compared it with the parasang, but it cannot merely for that reason be regarded as fixed. A day’s journey ( Nu 11:31, 1 K 19:4, Jon 3:4, Lk 2:44) and its multiples (Gn 30:36, Nu 10:33) are of course also variable.

The Sabbath day’s journey ( Ac 1:12) was usually computed at 2000 cubits. This was the distance by which the ark preceded the host of the Israelites, and it was consequently presumed that this distance might be covered on the Sabbath, since the host must be allowed to attend worship at the ark. The distance was doubled by a legal fiction: on the eve of the Sabbath, food was placed at a spot 2000 cubits on, and this new place thus became the traveler’s place within the meaning of the prescription of Ex 16:29; there were also other means of increasing the distance. The Mt. of Olives was distant a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem, and the same distance is given by Josephus as 5 stadia, thus confirming the 2000 cubits computation. But in the Talmud the Sabbath day’s journey is equated to the mil of 3000 cubits or 7¹/₂furlongs; and the measure ‘threescore furlongs’ of Lk 24:13, being an exact multiple of this distance, seems to indicate that this may have been one form (the earlier?) of the Sabbath day’s journey.

In later times, a Byzantine writer of uncertain date, Julian of Ascalon, furnishes information as to the measures in use in Palestine (Provincial measures, derived from the work of the architect Julian of Ascalon, from the laws or customs prevailing in Palestine,’ is the title of the table). From this we obtain (omitting doubtful points) the following table:—

1. The finger’s breadth.

2. The palm = 4 finger’s breadths.

3. The cubit = 1¹/₂feet = 6 palms.

4. The pace = 2 cubits = 3 feet = 12 palms.

5. The fathom = 2 paces = 4 cubits = 6 feet.

6. The reed = 1¹/₂fathoms = 6 cubits = 9 feet = 36 palms.

7. The plethron = 10 reeds = 15 fathoms = 30 paces = 60 cubits = 90 feet.

8. The stadium or furlong = 6 plethora = 60 reeds = 100 fathoms = 200 paces = 400 cubits = 600 feet.

9. (a) The million or mile, ‘according to Eratosthenes and Strabo’ = 8 ¹/₃stadia = 833¹/₃fathoms.

(b) The million ‘according to the present use’ = 7¹/₂stadia = 750 fathoms = 1500 paces = 3000 cubits.

10. The present million of 7¹/₂stadia = 750 ‘geometric’ fathoms = 833¹/₃‘simple’ fathoms; for 9 geometric fathoms = 10 simple fathoms.

We may justifiably assume that the 3000 cubits of 9 (b) are the royal cubits of 0. 525 m. The geometric and simple measures according to Julian thus work out as follows:—

Geometric. Simple.

Metres. Inches. Metres. Inches.

Finger’s breadth 0.022 0.86 0.020 0.79

Palm 0.088 3.44 0.080 3.11

Cubit 0.525 20.67 0.473 18.62

Fathom 2.100 82.68 1.890 74.49

Measures of area.—For smaller measures of area there seem to have been no special names, the dimensions of the sides of a square being usually stated. For land measures, two methods of computation were in use. (1) The first, as in most countries, was to state area in terms of the amount that a yoke of oxen could plough in a day (cf. the Latin jugerum) . Thus in Is 5:10 (possibly also in the corrupt 1 S 14:14) we have ‘10 yoke’ (tsemed) of vineyard. Although definite authority is lacking, we may perhaps equate the Hebrew yoke of land to the Egyptian unit of land measure, which was 100 royal cubits square (0.2756 hectares or 0.6810 acre). The Greeks called this measure the aroura. (2) The second measure was the amount of seed required to sow an area. Thus ‘the sowing of a homer of barley’ was computed at the price of 50 shekels of silver (Lv 27:16). The dimensions of the trench which Elijah dug about his altar (1 K 18:32) have also recently been explained on the same principle; the trench (i.e. the area enclosed by it) is described as being ‘like a house of two seahs of seed’ (AV and RV wrongly ‘as great as would contain two measures of seed’). This measure ‘house of two seahs’ is the standard of measurement in the Mishna, and is defined as the area of the court of the Tabernacle, or 100×50 cubits (c. 1648 sq. yds. or 0.1379 hectares). Other measures of capacity were used in the same way, and the system was Babylonian in origin; there are also traces of the same system in the West, under the Roman Empire.

II. MEASURES OF CAPACITY

The terms ‘handful’ (Lv 2:2) and the like do not represent any part of a system of measures in Hebrew, any more than in English. The Hebrew ‘measure’ par excellence was the seah, Gr. saton. From the Greek version of Is 5:10 and other sources we know that the ephah contained 3 such measures. Epiphanius describes the seāh or Hebrew modius as a modius of extra size, and as equal to 1¹/₄Roman modius = 20 sextarii. Josephus, however, equates it with 1¹/₂Roman modius = 24 sextarii. An anonymous Greek fragment agrees with this, and so also does Jerome in his commentary on Mt 13:33. Epiphanius elsewhere, and other writers, equate it with 22 sextarii (the Bab. ephah is computed at 66 sextarii). The seāh was used for both liquid and dry measure.

The ephah (the word is suspected of Egyp. origin) of 3 seāhs was used for dry measure only; the equivalent liquid measure was the bath (Gr. bados, batos, keramion, choinix) . They are equated in Ezk 45:11, each containing ¹/₁₀of a homer. The ephah corresponds to the Gr. artabe

(although in Is 5:10 six artabai go to a homer) or metrētes. Josephus equates it to 72 sextarii. The bath was divided into tenths (Ezk 45:14), the name of which is unknown; the ephah likewise into tenths, which were called ‘ōmer or ‘issaron (distinguish from homer = 10 ephahs). Again the ephah and bath were both divided into sixths (Ezk 45:13); the ¹/₆bath was the hin, but the name of the ¹/₆ephah is unknown.

The homer (Ezk 45:11, Hos 3:2) or cor (Ezk 45:14, Lk 16:7; Gr. koros) contained 10 ephahs or baths, or 30 seāhs. (The term ‘cōr’ is used more especially for liquids.) It corresponded to 10 Attic metrētai (so Jos. Ant. XV. ix. 2, though he says medimni by a slip). The word cōr may be connected with the Bab. gur or guru.

The reading lethek which occurs in Hos 3:2, and by Vulgate and EV is rendered by ‘half a homer,’ is doubtful. Epiphanius says the lethek is a large ‘ōmer (gomer) of 15 modii.

The hin (Gr. hein) was a liquid measure = ¹/₂seāh. In Lv 19:36 the LXX renders it chous. But Josephus and Jerome and the Talmud equate it to 2 Attic choes = 12 sextarii. The hin was divided into halves, thirds (= cab), quarters, sixths, and twelfths (= log). In later times there were a ‘sacred hin’ = ¾ of the ordinary hin, and a large hin = 2 sacred hins = ³/₂ordinary hin. The Egyp. hen, of much smaller capacity (0. 455 1.) is to be distinguished.

The ‘omer (Gr gomor) is confined to dry measure. It is ¹/₁₀ephah and is therefore called assaron or ‘issaron (AV ‘tenth deal’). Epiphanius equates it accordingly to ⁷¹/₅sextarii, Eusebius less accurately to 7 sextarii. Eusebius also calls it the ‘little gomor’; but there was another ‘little gomor’ of 12 modii, so called in distinction from the ‘large gomor’ of 15 modii (the lethek of Epiphanius). Josephus wrongly equates the gomor to 7 Attic kotylai.

The cab (2 K 6:25, Gr. kabos) was both a liquid and a dry measure. From Josephus and the Talmud it appears that it was equal to 4 sextarii, or ¹/₂hin. In other places it is equated to 6 sextarii, 5 sextarii (‘great cab’ = 1 ¹/₄cab), and ¹/₄modius (Epiphanius, who, according to the meaning he attaches to modius here, may mean 4, 5, 5¹/₂, or 6 sextarii l).

The log (Lv 14:10, 12) is a measure of oil; the Talmud equates it to ¹/₁₂hin or ¹/₂₄seāh, i.e.

1 1

/₄cab. Josephus renders the /₄cab of 2 K 6:25 by the Greek xestes or Roman sextarius, and there is other evidence to the same effect.

A measure of doubtful capacity is the nebet of wine (Gr. version of Hos 3:2, instead of lethek of barley). It was 150 sextarii, by which may be meant ordinary sextarii or the larger

Syrian sextarii which would make it = 3 baths. The word means ‘wine-skin.’

We thus obtain the following table (showing a mixed decimal and sexagesimal system) of dry and liquid measures. Where the name of the liquid differs from that of the dry measure, the former is added in italics. Where there is no corresponding liquid measure, the dry measure is asterisked.

The older portion of this system seems to have been the sexagesimal, the ‘ōmer and ¹/₁₀bath and the lethek ( if it ever occurred) being intrusions.

Home 1

r or cor

* 2 1

Lethek

Ephah 10 5 1

, bath

Seāh 30 15 3 1

/6 60 30 6 2 1 ephah, hin

‘Omer 100 50 10 3¹/₃1²/₃1 or ‘issaro n, 1/10 bath.

1 ¹

/₂hin 120 60 12 4 2 1 /₅1

Cab 180 90 18 6 3 1⁴/₅1¹/₂1

1 /₄hin	240	120	24	8	4	23/8	2	11 /3	1
1 /2 cab, 1 /₈hin	360	180	36	12	6	33/5	3	2	11 /2	1
1 /4 cab, log	720	360	72	24	12	71 /5	6	4	3	2	1
* 1/8	1440	720	144	48	24	142/5	12	8	6	4	2	1

cab

When we come to investigate the actual contents of the various measures, we are, in the first instance, thrown back on the (apparently only approximate) equations with the Roman sextarius (Gr. xestes) and its multiples already mentioned. The tog would then be the equivalent of the sextarius, the bath of the metrētes, the cab (of 6 logs) of the Ptolemaic chous. If log and sextarius were exact equivalents, the ephah of 72 logs would = 39.39 litres, = nearly 8 ²/₃gallons. This is on the usual assumption that the sextarius was 0.545 1. or 0–96 Imperial pints. But the exact capacity of the sextarius is disputed, and a capacity as high as 0.562 l. or 0.99 imperial pint is given for the sextarius by an actually extant measure. This would give as the capacity of the ephah-bath 40.46 l. or 71.28 pints. But it is highly improbable that the equation of log to sextarius was more than approximate. It is more easy to confound closely resembling measures of capacity than of length, area, or weight.

Name of (1) Lōg = 0.505			(2) Ephah = 65 Pints.		(3) Lōg = 0.99 Rough
Measure.		1.	(2) Ephah = 65 Pints.		Pint.	Approximation on Basis of (3).
	Litres.	Gallons.	Litres.	Gallons.	Litres.	Gallons.
Homer ( cor )	363.7	80.053	369.2	81.25	405	89.28	11 bushels
Lethek	181.85	40.026	184.6	40.62	202	44.64	51/2 bushels
Ephahbath	36.37	8.005	36.92	8.125	40.5	8.928	9 gallons
Seāh	12.120	2.668	12.3	2.708	13.5	2.976	1¹/₂pecks
Great hin	9.090	2.001	9.18	2.234	10.08	2.232	21/4 gallons
Hin	6.060	1.334	6.12	1.356	6.72	1.488	11/2

gallons

Sacred hin	4.545	1.000	4.59	1.117	5.04	1.116	9 pints
‘Omer	3.657	0.800	3.67	0.813	4.05	8.893	7¹/₅pints
1 /₂hin	3.030	0.667	3.06	0.678	3.36	0.744	6 pints
Cab	2.020	0.445	2.05	0.451	2.25	0.496	4 pints
1 /₂hin	1.515	0.333	1.53	0.339	1.68	0.372	3 pints
1 /₂cab	1.010	0.222	1.02	0.226	1.12	0.248	2 pints
Log	0.505	0.111	0.51	0.113	0.56	0.124	1 pint
1 /₂cab	0.252	0.055	0.26	0.056	0.28	0.062	1 /₂pint

Other methods of ascertaining the capacity of the ephah are the following. We may assume that it was the same as the Babylonian unit of 0.505 l. (0.89 pint). This would give an ephah of 36.37 l., or nearly 8 gallons or 66.5 sextarii of the usually assumed weight, and more or less squares with Epiphanius’ equation of the seāh or ¹/₃ephah with 22 sextarii. Or we may connect it with the Egyptian system, thus: both the ephah-hath and the Egyptian-Ptolemaic artabe are equated to the Attic metrētes of 72 sextarii. Now, in the case of the artabe this is only an approximation, for it is known from native Egyptian sources

(which give the capacity in terms of a volume of water of a certain weight) that the artabe was about 36.45 l., or a little more than 64 pints. Other calculations, as from a passage of Josephus, where the cor is equated to 41 Attic (Græco-Roman) modii (i.e. 656 sextarii), give the same result. In this passage modii is an almost certain emendation of medimni, the confusion between the two being natural in a Greek MS.

There are plenty of other vague approximations, ranging from 60 to 72 sextarii. Though the passage of Josephus is not quite certain in its text, we may accept it as having the appearance of precise determination, especially since it gives a result not materially differing from other sources of information.

In the above table, the values of the measures are given according to three estimates, viz. (1) log = Babylonian unit of 0.505 l.; (2) ephah = 65 pints; (3) log = sextarius of 0.99 pint.

Foreign measures of capacity mentioned in NT.—Setting aside words which strictly denote a measure of capacity, but are used loosely to mean simply a vessel (e.g. ‘cup’ in Mk 7:4), the following, among others, have been noted. Bushel (Mt 5:15) is the tr. of modius, which represents seāh. Firkin is used (Jn 2:6) to represent the Greek metrētes, the rough equivalent of the bath. Measure in Rev 6:6 represents the Gr. choinix of about 2 pints.

III. MEASURES OF WEIGHT

The system of weights used in Palestine was derived from Babylonia. Egypt does not seem to have exerted any influence in this respect. The chief denominations in the system were the talent (Gr. talanton, Heb. kikkar meaning, apparently, a round cake-like object), the mina (Gr. mna, Heb. maneh; tr. ‘pound’ in 1 K 10:17 and elsewhere, though ‘pound’ in Jn 12:3, 19:39 means the Roman pound of 327.45 grammes or 5053.3 grstroy), and the shekel (Gr. siklos or siglos, Heb. sheqel, from shāqat, ‘to weigh’). The shekel further was divided into 20 gerahs (gerah apparently = the Babylonian giru, a small weight of silver). [References to shekels or other denominations of precious metal in pre-exilic times must be to uncoined metal, not to coins, which are of later origin.] For ordinary purposes 60 shekels made a mina, and 60 minæ a talent; but for the precious metals a mina of 50 shekels was employed, although the talent contained 60 minæ, as in the other case. There were two systems, the heavy and the light, the former being double of the latter. The evidence of certain extant Bab. weights proves that there was a very complex system, involving at least two norms, one of which, the royal, used for purposes of taxation, was higher than the other, the common. For our purposes, we may here confine ourselves to the common norm in the heavy and light systems. It may, however, be mentioned that the ‘king’s weight,’ according to which Absalom’s hair weighed 200 shekels (2 S 14:26), is probably to be referred to this royal norm. Combining the evidence of the extant Bab. weights with the evidence of later coins of various countries of the ancient world, and with the knowledge, derived from a statement in Herodotus, that the ratio of gold to silver was as 13¹/₃to

1, we obtain the following results:—
		Heavy.		Light.
	Grains Troy.	Grammes.	Grains Troy.	Grammes.
Talent	757,380	49,077	378,690	24,539
Mina	12,623	818	6,311.5	409
Shekel	252.5	16.36	126.23	8.18
Value of the gold shekel in silver	3,366.6	218.1	1,684.3	109.1
i.e., ten pieces of silver of	336.6	21.81	168.4	10.91
Or fifteen pieces	224.4	14.54	112.2	7.27

of silver of

N. B.—One heavy talent = 98.154 lbs. avoirdupois; one heavy mina = 1.636 lb. avoirdupois.

Now the pieces of ¹/₁₀and ¹/₁₅of the value of the gold shekel in silver were the units on which were based systems known as the Babylonian or Persic and the Phœnician respectively; the reason for the names being that these two standards seem to have been associated by the Greeks, the first with Persia, whose coins were struck on this standard, the second with the great

Phœnician trading cities, Sidon, Tyre, etc. For convenience’ sake the names ‘Babylonian’ and ‘Phœnician’ may be retained, although it must be remembered that they are conventional. The above table gives the equivalents in weights on the two systems, both for the precious metals (in which the mina weighed 50 shekels) and for trade (in which it weighed 60 shekels).

Babylonian. Phœnician.

	Heavy.	Light. Heavy.			Light.
Grains.	Grammes.	Grains. Grammes Grains. Grammes Grains.			Grammes.
Grains.	Grammes.	.	.		Grammes.
Shekel 336.6	21.81	168.4 10.91	224.4 14.54	112.2	7.27
Mina of 50 16,830 shekels	1090.5	8,420 545.25	11,220 727	5,610	363.5
Mina of 60 20,196 shekels	1308.68	10,098 654.34	13,464 872.45	6,732	436.23
Talent of 3000 1,009,80 shekels 0	65,430	504,900 32,715	673,200 43,620	336,600	21,810
Talent of 3600 1,211,76 shekels 0	78,520.77	605,880 39,260.3 8	807,840 52,347.1 8	403,920	26,173.59

The evidence of actual weights found in Palestine is as follows: 1. 2. 3. Three stone weights from Tell Zakarīyā, inscribed apparently netseph, and weighing—

10.21	grammes =	157.564	grains troy.
9.5	grammes =	146.687	grains troy.
9.0	grammes =	138.891	grains troy.

4. A weight with the same inscription, from near Jerusalem, weighing 8.61 grammes = 134.891 grains troy.

5. A weight from Samaria inscribed apparently ¹/₄netseph and ¹/₂shekel, weighing 2.54 grammes = 39.2 grains troy; yielding a netseph of 9.16 grammes = 156.8 grains troy. This has been dated in the 8th cent. B.C.; and all the weights are apparently of pre-exilic date. There are other weights from Gezer, which have, without due cause, been connected with the netseph standard; and a second set of weights from Gezer, Jerusalem, Zakarīyā, and Tell el-Judeideh may be ignored, as they seem to bear Cypriote inscriptions, and represent a standard weight of 93 grammes maximum. Some addition must be allowed to Nos. 2 and 3 of the above-mentioned netseph weights, for fracture, and probably to No. 4, which is pierced. The highest of these weights is some 10 grains or 0.7 grammes less than the light Bab. shekel. It probably, therefore, represents an independent standard, or at least a deliberate modification, not an accidental degradation, of the Bab. standard. Weights from Naucratis point to a standard of about 80 grains, the double of which would be 160 grains, which is near enough to the actual weight of our specimens (maximum 157¹/₂grains). We need not here concern ourselves with the origin of this standard, or with the meaning of netseph; there can be no doubt of the existence of such a standard, and there is much probability that it is connected with the standard which was in use at Naucratis. Three weights from Lachish (Tell el-Hesy) also indicate the existence of the same 80grain standard in Palestine. The standard in use at the city of Aradus (Arvad) for the coinage is generally identified with the Babylonian; but as the shekel there only exceptionally exceeds 165 grains, it, too, may have been an approximation to the standard we are considering. But in Hebrew territory there can be no doubt that this early standard was displaced after the Exile by a form of the Phœnician shekel of 14.54 grammes, or 224.4 grains. It has, indeed, been thought that this shekel can be derived by a certain process from the shekel of 160 grains; but on the whole the derivation from the gold shekel of 126.23 grains suggested above is preferable.

The evidence as to the actual use of this weight in Palestine is as follows: From Ex 38:25f. it appears that the Hebrew talent contained 3000 shekels. Now, Josephus equates the mina used for gold to 2¹/₂Roman pounds, which is 12,633.3 grains troy, or 818.625 grammes; this is only 10 grains heavier than the heavy mina given above. From Josephus also we know that the kikkar or talent contained 100 minæ. The talent for precious metals, as we have seen, contained 3000 shekels; therefore the shekel should be 100 ×12633/3000 grains = 421 grains. We thus have a heavy shekel of 421 grains, and a light one of 210.5 grains. There is other evidence equating the Hebrew shekel to weights varying from 210.48 to 210.55 grains. This is generally supposed to be the Phœnician shekel of 224.4 grains in a slightly reduced form. Exactly the same kind of reduction took place at Sidon in the course of the 4th cent. B.C., where, probably owing to a fall in the price of gold, the weight of the standard silver shekel fell from about 28.60 grammes (441.36 grains) to 26.30 grammes (405.9 grains). A change in the ratio between gold and silver from 13¹/₃:1 to 12¹/₂:1 would practically, in a country with a coinage, necessitate a change in the weight of the shekel such as seems to have taken place here; and although the Jews had no coinage of their own before the time of the Maccabees, they would naturally be influenced by the weights in use in Phœnicia. The full weight shekel of the old standard probably remained in use as the ‘shekel of the sanctuary,’ for that weight was 20 gerahs ( Ezk 45:12, Ex 30:13), which is translated in the LXX by ‘20 obols,’ meaning, presumably, 20 Attic obols of the time; and this works out at 224.2 grains. This shekel was used not only for the silver paid for the ‘ransom of souls,’ but also for gold, copper, and spices (Ex 30:23, 24, 38:24ff.); in fact, the Priests’ Code regarded it as the proper system for all estimations (Lv 27:25). The beka = ¹/₂shekel is mentioned in Gn 24:22, Ex 38:26.

Foreign weights in the NT.—The ‘pound’ of spikenard (Jn 12:3) or of myrrh and aloes

(19:39) is best explained as the Roman libra (Gr. litra) of 327.45 grammes. The ‘pound’ in Lk 19:13f. is the money-mina or ¹/₆₀of the Roman-Attic talent (see art. MONEY, 7 (j)) . The ‘talent’ mentioned in Rev 16:21 also probably belongs to the same system.

For further information see esp. A. R. S. Kennedy, art. ‘Weights and Measures’ in Hastings’ DB, with bibliography there given. Recent speculations on the Heb. systems, and publications of weights will be found in PEFSt, 1902, p. 80 (three forms of cubit, 18 in., 14.4 in., and 10.8 in.); 1902 , p. 175 (Conder on general system of Hebrew weights and measures); 1904, p. 209 (weights from Gezer, etc.); 1906, pp. 182 f., 259 f. (Warren on the ancient system of weights in general); Comptes Rendus de l’Acad. des Inscr. 1906, p. 237 f. (Clermont-Ganneau on the capacity of the hin).

G. F. HILL.

WELL.—See CISTERN, FOUNTAIN, WATER.

WEN.—See MEDICINE, p. 600^a.

WENCH.—This word, once good English, was used by the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, and was transferred to AV at 2 S 17:17. So Wyclif at Mt 9:24 ‘Go ye away, for the wenche is not dead, but slepith.’

WHALE.—1. tannīn. See DRAGON (4). 2. dāg gādōl, the ‘great fish’ of Jon 1:17, is in the LXX and in Mt 12:40 rendered in Gr. by kētos and tr. ‘whale,’ though the Gr. word has a much wider significance. It is impossible to say what kind of fish is intended in the narrative. See, further, art. JONAH.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

WHEAT (chittāh, Gn 30:14, Ex 34:22 etc.; sitos, Mt 3:12, 13:25, 29, 30, Lk 3:17, 16:7, 22:31 etc.).—The wheat of Palestine is mostly of the bearded varieties; it is not only eaten as bread, but also boiled, unground, to make the peasant’s dish burghul, which is in turn pounded with meat in a mortar (cf. Pr 27:22) to make the festive delicacy kibbeh. Wheat is grown all over the valleys and plains of W. Palestine, though to a less extent than barley, but it is cultivated in the largest quantities in the Nuqra or plain of the Hauran, one of the finest grain-growing countries in the world. The wheat harvest occurs from April to June; its time was looked upon as one of the divisions of the year (Ex 34:22, Jg 15:1, 1 S 12:17). The expressions ‘fat of wheat’ (Ps 81:16 mg., 147:14 mg.) and ‘the fat of kidneys of wheat’ (Dt 32:14) refer to the finest flour of wheat.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

WHEEL.—The various parts of a cart or chariot wheel are enumerated in connexion with the bronze wheels of Solomon’s lavers (1 K 7:30, 32f.). In RV v. 33 reads: ‘And the work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel: their axletrees, and their felloes, and their spokes, and their naves were all molten’ (cf. AV). In carts and chariots the essential parts were, of course, of wood. The felloes were made in segments dowelled together. For illustt. see Wilkinson. Anc. Egy. i, 234 ff. The finest specimen of a Roman chariot wheel as yet found has the felloe, ‘which is formed of a single piece of wood bent,’ and the nave shod with iron, the latter being also ‘bushed with iron’ (Scott, Hist. Rev., Oct. 1905, p. 123, with illust.). For the potter’s wheel, see POTTER. Wells and cisterns were also furnished with wheels, over which the rope passed for drawing up the water-bucket (Ec 12:6). See also CART, CHARIOT.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

WHIRLWIND represents two Heb. words—sūphāh (Job 37:9, Pr 1:27 etc., also tr. ‘storm’ in Job 21:13, Ps 83:15, Is 29:6 etc.), and sa‘ar or sĕ‘ārāh (2 K 2:1, Job 38:1, Jer 23:19 etc., also tr. ‘tempest,’ and ‘stormy wind,’ Ps 55:8 , 83:15, 107:25, Ezk 13:13 etc.) The words do not necessarily mean ‘whirlwind,’ and are applied to any furious storm. From the context, however, in certain passages, we gather that whirlwind is intended—a violent wind moving in a circle round its axis (2 K 2:1, 11, Job 38:1 etc.). It often works great havoc in its path, as it sweeps across the country. Drawing up sand, dust, straw, and other light articles as it gyrates, it presents the appearance of a great pillar—an object of fear to travellers and dwellers in the desert. Passing over the sea, it draws up the water, and the bursting of the column causes the water-spout. God spake to Job from the whirlwind (Job 40:6); the modern Arabian regards it with superstitious dread, as the residence of demons.

W. EWING.

WHITE.—See COLOURS, § 1.

WHITE OF AN EGG (EV Job 6:6, RVm ‘juice of purslain’).—The allusion should perhaps be understood to be the juice of some insipid plant, probably Portulaca oleracea, L., the common purslane. ‘White of an egg’ (lit., on this view, ‘slime of the yoke’) is still, however, accepted by many interpreters.

WHORE.—This term is generally replaced in RV by harlot (wh. see).

WIDOW.—Widows from their poverty and unprotectedness, are regarded in OT as under the special guardianship of God (Ps 68:6, 146:9, Pr 15:25, Dt 10:18, Jer 49:11); and consequently due regard for their wants was looked upon as a mark of true religion, ensuring a blessing on those who showed it (Job 29:13, 31:16, Is 1:17, Jer 7:6, 7, 22:3, 4); while neglect of, cruelty or injustice towards them were considered marks of wickedness meriting punishment from God (Job 22:9, 10, 24:20, 21, Ps 94:6, Is 1:23, 10:2, Zec 7:10, 14, Mal 3:5). The Book of Deut. is especially rich in such counsels, insisting that widows be granted full justice (24:17, 27:19) , that they be received as guests at sacrificial meals (14:29, 16:11, 14, 26:12f.), and that they be suffered to glean unmolested in field, oliveyard, and vineyard (24:19f.). See, further,

INHERITANCE, i. 2 (c); MARRIAGE, 6.

The earliest mention of widows in the history of the Christian Church is found in Ac 6:1, where the Grecian Jews murmured ‘against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected’ in the daily distribution of alms or food. In course of time these pensioners became an excessive burden on the finances of the Church. We thus find St. Paul dealing with the matter in 1 Ti 5:3– 16 , where he charges relatives and Christian friends to relieve those widows with whom they are personally connected (vv. 4, 8, 15), so that the Church might be the more able to relieve those who were ‘widows indeed’ (i.e. widows in actual poverty and without anyone responsible for their support) (vv. 3, 5, 16). He further directs that ‘none be enrolled as widows’ except those who were sixty years of age, of unimpeachable character, and full of good works; and he adds that ‘the younger widows’ should be ‘refused’ (i.e. not enrolled); for experience had shown that they ‘waxed wanton against Christ’ and, re-marrying, ‘rejected their first faith.’ Since it could not have been the Apostle’s wish that only widows over sixty should receive pecuniary help from the Church (for many young widows might be in great poverty), and since he could not describe the re-marriage of such a widow-pensioner as a rejection of her faith, it follows that the list of widows, from which the younger widows were to be excluded, was not the list of those who were in receipt of Church relief, but rather a list of those, from among the pensionerwidows, who were considered suitable by age and character to engage officially in Church work.

Therefore we may see in this passage a proof of the existence thus early in the history of the Church of that ecclesiastical order of ‘Widows’ which we find mentioned frequently in postApostolic times.

CHARLES T. P. GRIERSON.

WIFE.—See FAMILY, 2; MARRIAGE.

WILDERNESS, DESERT.—These terms stand for several Heb. and Gr. words, with different shades of meaning.

1. midbār (from dābar, ‘to drive’) means properly the land to which the cattle were driven, and is used of dry pasture land where scanty grazing was to be found. It occurs about 280 times in OT and is usually tr. ‘wilderness,’ though we have ‘desert’ about a dozen times. It is the place where wild animals roam: pelicans (Ps 102:6), wild asses ( Job 24:5, Jer 2:24), ostriches (La 4:3), jackals (Mal 1:3); and is without settled inhabitants, though towns or settlements of nomadic tribes may be found (Jos 15:61, 62, Is 42:11). This term is usually applied to the Wilderness of the Wanderings or the Arabian desert, but may refer to any other waste. Special waste tracts are distinguished: wilderness of Shur, Zin, Paran, Kadesh, Maon, Ziph, Tekoa, Moab, Edom, etc.

2. ‘ārābāh (probably from a word meaning ‘dry’) signifies a dry, desolate, unfertile tract of land, ‘steppe,’ or ‘desert plain.’ As a proper name, it is applied to the great plain including the Jordan Valley and extending S. to the Gulf of Akabah, ‘the Arabah.’ but it is applied also to steppes in general, and translated ‘wilderness,’ ‘desert,’ and sometimes in pl. ‘plains,’ e.g. of Moab, of Jericho.

3. chorbāh (from a root ‘to be waste or desolate’) is properly applied to cities or districts once inhabited now lying waste, and is translated ‘wastes,’ ‘deserts,’ ‘desolations,’ though it is once used of the Wilderness of the Wanderings (Is 48:21).

4. tsiyyāh meaning ‘dry ground’ is twice translated ‘wilderness’ in AV: Job 30:3 (RV ‘dry ground’), Ps 78:17 (RV ‘desert,’ RVm ‘a dry land’).

5. tōhū has the special meaning of a ‘wild desolate expanse.’ In Job 6:18 it is the waste where the caravans perish, it is applied to the primeval chaos (Gn 1:2), also to the Wilderness of the Wanderings (Dt 32:10 ‘waste howling wilderness’).

6. The NT terms are erēmos and erēmia, the former being used either as noun or as adjective, with ‘place’ or ‘country’ understood. Generally the noun is tr. ‘wilderness,’ the adjective ‘desert’ in the English versions.

On deserts named in NT see artt. on respective names.

W. F. BOYD.

WILD OLIVE.—See GRAFTING, OLIVE.

WILD OX.—See UNICORN.

WILL.—‘Will’ and ‘would’ are often independent verbs in AV, and being now merely auxiliaries, their force is liable to be missed by the English reader. Thus Mt 11:14 ‘if ye will receive it’ (RV ‘if ye are willing to receive it’); Jn 1:43 ‘Jesus would go forth into Galilee’ (RV ‘was minded to go forth’).

WILL.—See PAUL, p. 692^a; TESTAMENT.

WILLOW (‘ărābīm, Lv 23:40, Job 40:22, Ps 137:2, Is 15:7, 44:4 [cf. Arab. gharab ‘willow’ or ‘poplar’]; tsaph-tsāphāh, Ezk 17:5 [cf. Arab, safsaf ‘the willow’]).—Most of the references are to a tree growing beside water, and apply well to the willow, of which two varieties, Salix fragilis and S. alba, occur plentifully by watercourses in the Holy Land. Some travellers consider the poplar, especially the willow-like Populus euphratica, of the same Nat. Ord. (Salicaceœ) as the willows, more probable. Tristram, without much evidence, considered that tsaphtsāphāh might be the oleander, which covers the banks of so many streams.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

WIMPLE.—Only Is 3:22 AV; RV shawls. The precise article of dress intended is unknown.

WIND.—The winds in Heb. are designated by the four cardinal points of the compass. ‘South wind,’ e.g., may be either S., S.W., or S.E.; and so with the others. Cool winds come from the N., moist winds from the western sea, warm winds from the S., and dry winds, often laden with fine sand, from the eastern deserts. Warmth and moisture, therefore, depend much upon the direction of the winds. During the dry season, from May till October, the prevailing winds are from the N. and N.W.; they do much to temper the heat of summer (Ca 4:16, Job 37:9). In Sept. and Oct., E. and S.E. winds are frequent; blowing from the deserts, their dry heat causes the furniture to crack, and makes life a burden (Hos 13:15). Later, the winds from the S. prolong the warmth of summer (Lk 12:55); then the W. and S.W. winds bring the rain (1 K 18:44, Lk 12:54). East winds earlier in the year often work great destruction on vegetation (Ezk 17:10) . Under their influence strong plants droop, and flowers quickly wither (Ps 103:19).

Of the greatest value for all living things is the perpetual interchange of land and sea breezes. At sunrise a gentle air stirs from the sea, crosses the plain, and creeps up the mountains. At sunset the cooling air begins to slip down seaward again, while the upper strata move landward from the sea. The moisture thus carried ashore is precipitated in refreshing dew.

The ‘tempestuous wind’ (Ac 27:14), called Euroclydon or Euraquilo ( wh. see), was the E.N.E. wind so prevalent in the eastern Mediterranean, called by sailors to-day ‘the Levanter.’

W. EWING. WINDOW.—See HOUSE, § 7.

WINE AND STRONG DRINK.—Taken together in this order, the two terms ‘wine’ and ‘strong drink’ are continually used by OT writers as an exhaustive classification of the fermented beverages then in use (Lv 10:9, 1 S 1:15, Pr 20:1, and oft.). The all but universal usage in OT— in NT ‘strong drink’ is mentioned only Lk 1:15—is to restrict ‘wine’ (yayin) to the beverage prepared from the juice of the grape, and to denote by ‘strong drink’ (shēkār) every other sort of intoxicating liquor.

1. Before proceeding to describe the methods by which wine in particular was made in the period covered by the canonical writings, it will be advisable to examine briefly the more frequently used terms for wine and strong drink. This examination may begin with the term shēkār, which in virtue of its root-meaning always denotes ‘intoxicating drink.’ In a former study of this subject (‘Wine and Strong Drink’ in EBi lv. col. 5309 f.), the present writer has given reasons for believing that among the early Semites a name similar to shēkār and the Babylonian shikaru was first given to the fermented juice of the date, and that from signifying date-wine the name passed to all other fermented liquors. At a later period, when the ancestors of the Hebrews became acquainted with the vine and its culture, the Indo-Germanic term represented by the Greek oinos (with the digamma, woinos) and the Latin vinum was borrowed, under the form yáyin, to denote the fermented juice of the grape. The older term shēkār then became restricted, as we have seen, to intoxicants other than grape wine.

Another important term, of uncertain etymology, ‘on which,’ in Driver’s words, ‘much has been written—not always wisely,’ is tῑrōsh, in our EV sometimes rendered ‘wine’, sometimes ‘new wine,’ but in Amer. RV consistently ‘new wine.’ Strictly speaking, tῑrōsh is the freshly expressed grape juice, before and during fermentation, technically known as ‘must’ (from Lat. mustum) . In this sense it is frequently named as a valued product of the soil with ‘fresh oil’ (Dt 7:13, 11:14 etc.),—that is, the raw, unclarified oil as it flows from the oil-press, to which it exactly corresponds. In some OT passages, however, and notably Hos 4:11, where tīrōsh is named with yayin and whoredom, as taking away the understanding (RV), it evidently denotes the product of fermentation. Hence it may be said that tīrōsh is applied not only to the ‘must’ in the wine-fat (see § 3), but to ‘new wine’ before it has fully matured and become yayin, or, as Driver suggests in his careful study of the OT occurrences (Joel and Amos, 79 f.), ‘to a light kind of wine such as we know, from the classical writers, that the ancients were in the habit of making by checking the fermentation of the grape juice before it had run its full course’ (see also the discussion in EBi iv. 5307 f.).

Of the rarer words for ‘wine’ mention may be made of chemer (Dt 32:14, and, in a cognate form, Ezr 6:9, Dn 5:1ff.), which denotes wine as the result of fermentation, from a root signifying ‘to ferment,’ and ‘āsīs, a poetical synonym of tīrōsh, and like it used both of the fresh juice and of the fermented liquor (see Jl 1:5, Is 49:26); in Am 9:13 it is rendered ‘sweet wine,’ which suggests the gleukos ( EV ‘new wine’) of Ac 2:18. Reference may also be made to the poetical expression ‘the blood of the grape’ (Gn 49:11, Dt 32:14) and to the later ‘fruit of the vine’ (Mt 26:29 and ||) of the Gospels and the Mishna.

2. The Promised Land was pre-eminently a ‘land of wine … and vineyards’ (2 K 18:32), as is attested by the widely scattered remains of the ancient presses. A normal winepress consisted of three parts, two rock-hewn troughs at different levels with a connecting channel between them. The upper trough or press-vat (gath—the ‘winefat’ of Is 63:2, elsewhere generally ‘winepress’) had a larger superficial area, but was much shallower than the lower trough or wine-vat (yeqeb, Is 5:2, cf. RVm). The relative sizes may be seen from a typical press described by Robinson, of which the upper trough measured 8 feet square and was 15 inches deep, while the lower was 4 feet square and 3 feet deep. The distinction between the two is entirely obscured in EV, and is not always preserved in the original.

The grapes were brought from the adjoining vineyard in baskets, and were either spread out for a few days, with a view to increase the amount of sugar and diminish the amount of water in the grapes, or were at once thrown into the press-vat. There they were thoroughly trodden with the bare feet, the juice flowing through the conducting channel into the lower wine-vat. The next process consisted in piling the husks and stalks into a heap in the middle of the vat, and subjecting the mass to mechanical pressure by means of a wooden press-beam, one end of which was fixed into a socket in the wall of the vat or of the adjacent rock, while the other end was weighted with stones.

While the above may be considered the normal construction of a Hebrew winepress, it is evident, both from the extant specimens and from the detailed references to wine-making in the Mishna, that the number of troughs or vats might be as high as four (see the press described and illustrated in PEFSt, 1899, 41 ff.), or as low as one. The object of a third vat was to allow the ‘must’ to settle and clarify in the second before running it off into the third. Where only one vat is found, it may have served either as a press-vat, in which case the ‘must’ was at once transferred to earthen jars (see next section), or as a wine-vat to receive the ‘must,’ the grapes having been pressed in a large wooden trough, such as the Egyptians used (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. i. 385 with illust.). This arrangement would obviously be required where a suitable rock surface was not available. In such a case, indeed, a rock-hewn trough of any sort was dispensed with, a vat for the wooden press being supplied by a large stone hollowed out for the purpose, an excellent specimen of which was found at Tell es-Safi, and is figured in Bliss and Macalister’s Excavations, etc., p. 24 (see, for further details, the index of that work, under ‘Vats’).

3. Returning to the normal press-system, we find that the ‘must’ was usually left in the winevat to undergo the first or ‘tumultuous’ fermentation, after which it was drawn off (Hag 2:16, lit. ‘baled out’), or, where the vat had a spout, simply run off, into large jars or into wine-skins (Mt 9:17 and ||) for the ‘after-fermentation.’ The modern Syrian wines are said to complete their first fermentation in from four to seven days, and to be ready for use at the end of two to four months. In the Mishna it is ordained that ‘new wine’ cannot be presented at the sanctuary for the drink-offering until it has stood for at least forty days in the fermenting jars.

When the fermentation had run its full course, the wine was racked off into smaller jars and skins, the latter for obvious reasons being preferred by travellers (Jos 9:4 , 13). At the same time, the liquor was strained (Mt 23:24; cf. Is 25:6 ‘wines on the lees well refined,’ i.e. strained) through a metal or eathenware strainer, or through a linen cloth. In the further course of maturing, in order to prevent the wine from thickening on the lees (Zeph 1:12 RVm), it was from time to time decanted from one vessel to another. The even tenor of Moabite history is compared to wine to which this process has not been applied (Jer 48:11f.). When sufficiently refined, the wine was poured into jars lined with pitch, which were carefully closed and sealed and stored in the wine cellars (1 Ch 27:27). The Lebanon (Hos 14:7) and Helbon (Ezk 27:18), to the N.W. of Damascus, were two localities specially celebrated for their wines.

It may be stated at this point that no trace can be found, among the hundreds of references to the preparation and use of wine in the Mishna, of any means employed to preserve wine in the unfermented state. It is even improbable that with the means at their disposal the Jews could have so preserved it had they wished (cf. Professor Macalister’s statement as to the ‘impossibility’ of unfermented wine at this period, in Hastings’ DB ii. 34^b).

4. Of all the fermented liquors, other than wine, with which the Hebrews are likely to have been familiar, the oldest historically was almost certainly that made from dates (cf. § 1). These, according to Pliny, were steeped in water before being sent to the press, where they were probably treated as the olives were treated in the oil-press (see OIL). Date wine was greatly prized by the Babylonians, and is said by Herodotus to have been the principal article of Assyrian commerce.

In the Mishna there is frequent mention also of cider or ‘apple’ wine, made from the quince or whatever other fruit the ‘apple’ of the Hebrews may signify. The only wine, other than ‘the fruit of the vine,’ mentioned by name in OT is the ‘sweet wine’ of pomegranates ( Ca 8:2 RVm ). Like the dates, these fruits were first crushed in the oil-mill, after which the juice was allowed to ferment. In the Mishna, further, we find references to various fermented liquors imported from abroad, among them the beer for which Egypt was famed. A striking and unexpected witness to the extent to which the wines of the West were imported has recently been furnished by the handles of wine jars, especially of amphorœ from Rhodes, which have been found in such numbers in the cities excavated in Southern Palestine (see Bliss and Macalister, op. cit. 131 ff., and more fully PEFSt, 1901).

5. The Hebrew wines were light, and in early times were probably taken neat. At all events, the first clear reference to diluting with water is contained in 2 Mac 15:39: ‘It is hurtful to drink wine or water alone,’ but ‘wine mingled with water is pleasant,’ and in NT times this may be taken as the habitual practice. The wine of Sharon, it is said, was mixed with two parts of water, being a lighter wine than most. With other wines, according to the Talmud, the proportion was one part of wine to three parts of water.

The ‘mingling’ or mixing of strong drink denounced by Isaiah (5:22) has reference to the ancient practice of adding aromatic herbs and spices to the wine in order to add to its flavour and strength. Such was the ‘spiced wine’ of Ca 8:2. Our Saviour on the cross, it will be remembered, was offered ‘wine mingled with myrrh’ (Mk 15:23, cf. Mt 27:34 RV).

6. The use of wine was universal among all classes (see MEALS, § 6) , with the exception of those who had taken a vow of abstinence, such as the Nazirites and Rechabites. The priests also had to abstain, but only when on duty in the sanctuary (Lv 10:9). A libation of wine formed the necessary accompaniment of the daily burnt-offering and of numerous other offerings (cf. Sir 50:15 RV: ‘He stretched out his hand to the cup, and poured of the blood of the grape … at the foot of the altar’).

The attitude of the prophets and other teachers of Israel, including our Lord Himself, to the ordinary use of wine as a beverage is no doubt accurately reflected in the saying of Jesus benSira: ‘wine drunk in measure and to satisfy is joy of heart and gladness of soul’ (Sir 31:29 RV). At the same time, they were fully alive to the danger, and unsparingly denounced the sin, of excessive indulgence (see, e.g., Is 5:11ff., 22ff., 28:1–8, Hos 4:11, Pr 20:1, 23:29–32 etc.). In the altered social conditions of our own day, however, it must be admitted that the rule of conduct formulated by St. Paul in 1 Co 8:3–12 (cf. Ro 14:13–21) appeals to the individual conscience with greater urgency and insistence than ever before in the experience of Jew or Christian.

A. R. S. KENNEDY.

WINEFAT, WINEPRESS, WINE-VAT.—See WINE AND STRONG DRINK, § 2.

WINK.—To ‘wink at,’ i. e. pass over, is used of God in Ac 17:30 ‘The times of this ignorance God winked at,’ and Wis 11:23 ‘Thou … winkest at the sins of men.’ It is a good example of the colloquial language of the English Versions.

WINNOW.—See AGRICULTURE, § 3.

WISDOM.—The great literary landmarks of the ‘wisdom’ teaching are the Books of Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon. This literature, in its present form at least, belongs to the latter half of the Persian period and to the Greek period of Jewish history. But behind this latest and finest product of the Hebrew mind there lay a long process of germination. In the pre-exilic history there are traces of the presence of the ‘wisdom’ element from early times. This primitive ‘wisdom’ was not regarded as an exclusively Israelitish possession, but was shared with other nations (1 K 4:30, 31, Gn 41:8, Jg 5:29, Jer 10:7, Ezk 27:8) . In Israel it was confined neither to rank (1 K 10:28, Dt 16:19, Job 32:9) nor to sex (2 S 14:1ff., 20:22); but it was particularly characteristic of ‘the elders’ (Dt 1:16, Job 12:12, 32:7), and in course of time seems to have given rise to a special class of teachers known as ‘the Wise’ ( Jer 18:18).

Early ‘Wisdom’ was varied in character and of as wide a scope as the range of human activities. It thus included the most heterogeneous elements: e.g. mechanical skill (1 K 7:14), statecraft (5:12), financial and commercial ability (Ezk 28), political trickery (1 K 2:6), common sense and tact (2 S 14, 20:14–22), learning (1 K 3:16–28) , military skill and administrative ability (Is 10:13), piety (Dt 4:6), and the creative energy of God (Jer 10:12). In short, any capacity possessed in an exceptional degree was recognized as ‘wisdom,’ and was regarded as the gift of God. But there was already manifest a marked tendency to magnify the ethical and religious elements of ‘wisdom,’ which later came to their full recognition.

In pre-exilic Israel, however, ‘wisdom’ played a relatively small part in religion. The vital, progressive religious spirit exhausted itself in prophecy. Here was laid the foundation of all the later ‘wisdom.’ Not only laid the prophets hand down the literary forms through which the sages expressed themselves, e.g. riddle (Jg 14:14–18), fable (9:3–15), parable (2 S 12:1–3, Is 5:1–5) , proverb (1 S 10:12, Jer 31:29), essay (Is 28:23–29) , lyric, address, etc., but they also wrought out certain great ideas that were presupposed in all the later ‘wisdom.’ These were: (a) monotheism, which found free course in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Deutero-Isaiah; (b) individualism, or the responsibility of the individual before God for his own sins and for the sins of no one else—the great message of Ezekiel; and (c) the insistence of God upon right character as the only passport to His favour—a truth proclaimed by all the great prophets. With the fall of Jerusalem, however, and the destruction of the Jewish State, the knell of prophecy was sounded; the responsibility for shaping the religious destiny of Israel now fell into the hands of the priests and sages.

The priest responded to the call first, but sought to heal the wounds of Israel lightly, by purification and elaboration of the ritual. The true heir of the prophet was the sage. He found himself confronted with a new world; it was his to interpret it religiously. The old world-view of the prophet was no longer tenable. New problems were calling for solution and old problems becoming ever more pressing. The task of the sage was to adjust the truths left to him by the prophets to the new situation. It was his to find the place of religion in that situation and to make it the dominant element therein. The greatest sources of danger to true religion were:” (a) an orthodoxy which held the ancient traditions inviolable and refused to see the facts of the present (b) the scepticism and discouragement arising out of the miseries of the time which seemed to deny the justice and goodness of God; and (c) the inroads of Greek civilization which seemed to threaten the whole fabric of Judaism. Indeed, the sages themselves did not wholly escape being influenced by these tendencies: witness the orthodoxy of the bulk of the Book of Proverbs, the scepticism of Ecclesiastes, and the Greek elements in the Wisdom of Solomon. To these conditions the sages, each in his own way, addressed their message.

The writers of Proverbs, for the most part, stand firmly upon the old paths; in the midst of mental and moral chaos and flux they insist upon adherence to the old standards of truth and goodness, and they promise success to all who heed their instruction. For them prosperity is the proof of piety. This is the old prophetic recipe for national success made operative in the lives of individuals. Through it the sages inform all the ordinary processes of common everyday life with religious meaning. Their philosophy of life is simple, but shallow. They fail to realize that the reward of piety is not in the market-place, but in the soul.

The weakness of this traditional position is exposed by the Book of Job, which points out the fact that the righteous man is often the most sorely afflicted, and seeks to reconcile this fact with belief in the justice and goodness of God. But no solution of the age-long problem of suffering is provided: the sufferer is rather bidden to take refuge in his faith in God’s goodness and wisdom, and to realize that, just as the mysteries of God’s visible universe elude his knowledge, so also is it futile for him to attempt to penetrate the greater mysteries of God’s providence. Let him be content with God Himself as his portion.

Song of Songs illustrates the humanity of the sages. It concerns itself with the greatest of all human passions—love. Whether to be interpreted as a drama or as a collection of lyrics such as were sung at weddings in Syria, it extols the nobility and loyalty of true love. In a period when the licentious customs of the pagan world were finding eager acceptance in Judah, such a powerful and beautiful vindication of the character of unselfish love was urgently needed, and was calculated to play an important part in the preservation of true religion.

Ecclesiastes is the product of many minds, with more or less conflicting views. But they are all concerned with the problem of practical scepticism: Does God care for truth and goodness? Is there any religious meaning in the universe? The heart of the book meets this question fairly and squarely. The iron has entered the author’s own soul. He desires to help those in the same situation with himself. He would give doubting, faltering souls a basis for faith. Recognizing and giving full weight to the many difficulties that beset the religious point of view and tend to drive men to despair, he holds fast to his belief in God’s loving care, and therefore counsels his fellows to put on a cheerful courage and perform their allotted tasks with joy. This is the only way to make life worth living, and worth living to the full.

Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon are both products of the life and death struggle between Judaism and Greek thought. The author of the former is hospitable to Greek social life, but rigid in his adherence to the old Hebrew ideals of morals and religion. He seeks to arouse loyalty to and enthusiasm for these in the hearts of the Jews, who are in constant danger of yielding to the seductive and powerful influences of Greece. The same purpose animates the author of the Wisdom of Solomon. But he is more liberal in his attitude to foreign influences. He welcomes truth from any direction, and therefore does not hesitate to incorporate Greek elements in his fundamentally Hebraic view of life and duty. He thus enriches the conception of ‘wisdom’ from every source, and seeks to show that this Hebrew ideal is immeasurably superior to the boasted Greek sophia.

Hebrew ‘wisdom’ by its very nature could have no fellowship with philosophy. The aims and methods of the two were fundamentally different. In the words of Bishop Westcott, ‘the axioms of the one are the conclusions of the other.’ For philosophy, God is the conclusion; for ‘wisdom,’ He is the major premise. Philosophers have ever been seeking after God ‘if haply they might find him.’ The mind of the sage was saturated with the thought of God. Philosophy starts with the world as it is, and seeks to find room for God in it; ‘wisdom’ started with God and sought to explain the world in terms of God. ‘Wisdom, ‘furthermore, was practical and moral; philosophy was speculative and metaphysical. The interests of ‘wisdom’ were intensely human. They were concerned with living questions and concrete issues. The problems of the sage were surcharged with emotion; they were the outcome of troubled feelings and perturbed will; only in slight measure were they the product of the intellect. It is not surprising, therefore, that ‘wisdom’ presents no carefully developed system of thought. The heart knows no logic. ‘Wisdom’ cares little for a plan of the universe; It leaves all such matters to God. It seeks only to enable men to love and trust God and to walk in His ways.

The Hebrew conception of ‘wisdom’ developed along two lines. ‘Wisdom’ had its human and its Divine aspects. In so far as it was human, it devoted itself to the consideration of the great problems of life. It was identified with knowledge of the laws and principles, observance of which leads to the successful life. These were all summarized in the formula, ‘the fear of the Lord.’ Later in the history of the idea, this subjective experience was externalized and objectified and, under the growing influence of the priestly ritual, ‘wisdom’ came to be defined as observance of the Mosaic Law (Sir 19:20–24, 24:23).

On its Divine side, ‘wisdom’ was at first conceived of as an attribute of God which He generously shared with men. Then, as the conception of God grew broader and deeper, large areas of ‘wisdom’ were marked off as inaccessible to man, and known only to God (Job 28). Still further, ‘wisdom’ was personified and represented as the companion of God in all His creative activities (Pr 8:22–31) ; and was, at last, under the influence of Greek thought, personalized, or hypostatized, and made to function as an intermediary between man and God, carrying out His beneficent purposes towards the righteous (Wis 8:1, 3, 4, 9:4, 9, 11, 18, 10:1, 4).

Upon the whole, the ‘wisdom’ element must be considered the noblest expression of the Hebrew spirit. It was in large part the response of Judaism to the influx of Western civilization. It demonstrated irrefutably the vitality of the Hebrew religion. When the forms and institutions in which Hebrew idealism had clothed itself were shattered beyond restoration, ‘wisdom’ furnished new channels for the expression of the ideal, and kept the passion for righteousness and truth burning. When Judaism was brought face to face with the Gentile world on every hand, ‘wisdom’ furnished it with a cosmopolitan message. Nationalistic, particularistic, transitory elements were discarded, and emphasis was laid upon the great fundamental concepts of religion adapted to the needs of all men everywhere. ‘Wisdom’ thus became of the greatest importance in the preparation for Christianity, the universal religion.

JOHN MERLIN POWIS SMITH.

WISDOM, BOOK OF.—See preceding art. and APOCRYPHA, § 14.

WISE MEN.—See MAGI; and, for ‘the Wise,’ WISDOM.

WIST.—See WIT.

WIT.—The vb. ‘to wit,’ which means ‘to know,’ is used in AV in most of its parts. The present tense is I wot, thou wottest, he wot or wotteth, we wot; the past tense, I wist, he wist, ye wist; the infinitive, ‘to wit.’ In 2 Co 8:1 occurs the phrase do to wit, i.e. make to know—we do you to wit of the grace of God.’ The subst. ‘wit’ means in AV ‘knowledge’; it occurs only in Ps 107:27 ‘at their wit’s end.’ ‘Witty,’ which is found in Pr 8:12, Jth 11:23, Wis 8:19, has the sense of ‘knowing,’ ‘skilful’; and ‘wittingly’ (Gn 48:14) is ‘knowingly.’

WITCH, WITCHCRAFT.—See MAGIC DIVINATION AND SORCERY.

WITHERED HAND.—See MEDICINE, p. 599^a.

WITH(E)S in Jg 16:17 represents a term which probably means bow-strings of ‘green’ gut. The Eng. word means a supple twig from a willow (see also CORD).

WITNESS.—This is the rendering of Heb. ‘ēd and ‘ēdah and of the Gr. martys, martyria, and martyreō, and compounds of this root. The primitive idea of the Heb. root is to repeat, reassert, and we find the word used in the following connexions:—(1) Witness meaning evidence, testimony, sign ( of things): a heap of stones (Gn 31:44), the Song of Moses (Dt 31:26), Job’s disease (Job 16:8), the stone set up by Joshua at Shechem (Jos 24:27). So in the NT the dust on the feet of the disciples was to be a witness against the Jews (Mk 6:11). (2) Witness signifying the person who witnesses or can testify or vouch for the parties in debate; e.g. God is witness between Jacob and Laban (Gn 31:50); so Job says, ‘My witness is in heaven’ (Job 16:19, cf. also 1 S 12:5ff., Jer 29:23, 42:5). In the NT God is called on by St. Paul to witness to his truth and the purity of his motives (Ro 1:9, 2 Co 1:23 etc.). Akin to this meaning we have (3) Witness in a legal sense. Thus we find witnesses to an act of conveyancing (Jer 32:10), to a betrothal (Ru 4:9) , while in all civil and criminal cases there were witnesses to give evidence, and references to false witnesses are frequent (cf. Pr 12:17, 19:5–9, 21:28, 25:18 etc.). See also JUSTICE (II.), 2; OATHS. In the NT the Apostles frequently appear as witnesses (martyres) of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (Lk 24:48, Ac 1:8, 2:32, 3:15 etc.). The heroes of the faith are called the ‘cloud of witnesses’ (He 12:1), and Jesus Himself is ‘the faithful witness (martyr) ’ in Rev 1:6, 3:14 (cf. 1 Ti 6:13). Cf. also artt. ARK, § 1; TABERNACLE, § 7 (a).

W. F. BOYD.

WITTY.—See WIT.

WIZARD.—See MAGIC DIVINATION AND SORCERY.

WOLF.—

In AV ‘wolf’ is always tr. of ze’ēb (cf. Arab, zeeb ‘wolf’), Gn 49:27, Is 11:6, 65:25, Jer 5:6,

Ezk 22:27, Hab 1:8, Zeph 3:8. Cf. also proper name Zeeb, Jg 7:25. For ‘iyyīm ( tr. ‘wolves’ in Is 13:22 RV) and tannīm see JACKAL. The NT term is lykos ( Mt 7:15, 10:16, Lk 10:3, Jn 10:12, Ac 20:29).

The wolf of Palestine is a variety of Canis tupus, somewhat lighter in colour and larger than that of N. Europe. It is seldom seen to-day, and never goes in packs, though commonly in couples; it commits its ravages at night, hence the expression ‘wolf of the evening’ (Jer 5:6, Zeph 3:3) ; it was one of the greatest terrors of the lonely shepherd (Jn 10:12); persecutors are compared to wolves in Mt 10:18, Ac 20:29.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

WOMAN

1. In OT (’ishshāh, ‘woman,’ ‘wife’; nĕqēbāh [Lv 15:33, Nu 31:15, Jer 31:22], ‘female’) woman’s position is one of inferiority and subjection to man (Gn 3:13); and yet, in keeping with the view that ideally she is his companion and ‘help meet’ (2:18–24) , she never sinks into a mere drudge or plaything. In patriarchal times, Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel stand side by side with their husbands. In the era of the deliverance from Egypt, Miriam is ranked with Moses and Aaron (cf. Mic 6:4). In the days of the judges, Deborah is not only a prophetess (wh. see), as other women in Israel were, but is herself a judge (Jg 4:4). Under the monarchy, Jezebel in the Northern Kingdom and Athaliah in the Southern, afford illustrations of the political power and influence that a woman might wield. In religious matters, we find women attending the Feasts along with men (1 S 1:1ff. etc.), taking part with them in acts of sacrifice (Jg 13:20, 23 etc.), combined with them in the choral service of the Temple (Ezr 2:65 etc.). And though in the Deut. code woman’s position is one of complete subordination, her rights are recognized and safeguarded in a way that prepares the soil for the growth of those higher conceptions which find utterance in Malachi’s declaration that divorce is hateful to Jehovah (2:16), and in the picture of the virtuous wife with which the Book of Proverbs concludes (ch. 31). See, further, FAMILY,

MARRIAGE.

2. In NT (gynē, ‘woman,’ ‘wife’; thēleia [Ro 1:26, 27], ‘female’; gynaikarion [ dimin. fr. gynē, 2 Ti 3:6], EV ‘silly women’).—Owing to the influence of Rabbinism, Jewish women had lost some of their earlier freedom (ct. with the scene at the well of Haran [Gn 24:10ff.] the surprise of the disciples by the well of Sychar when they found Jesus ‘speaking with a woman’ [Jn 4:27]). But Jesus wrought a wonderful change. He did this not only by His teaching about adultery (Mt 5:27f.) and marriage and divorce (vv. 31f., 19:3ff.), but still more by His personal attitude to women, whether good and pure like His own mother (there is nothing harsh or discourteous in the ‘Woman’ of Jn 2:4; cf. 19:26) and the sisters of Bethany, or sinful and outcast as some women of the Gospels were (Lk 7:37ff., 8:2, Jn 4). The work of emancipation was continued in the Apostolic Church. Women formed an integral part of the earliest Christian community (Ac 1:14) , shared in the gifts of Pentecost (2:1ff., cf. v. 17), engaged in tasks of unofficial ministry (Ro 16:1f., Ph 4:2f.), and by and by appear (1 Ti 3:11) as holding the office of the deaconess (wh. see), and possibly (5:3) that of the ‘widow’ (wh. see, and cf. TIMOTHY [EPP. TO], § 5) . St. Paul’s conception of woman and of man’s relation to her is difficult (1 Co 7), but may be explained partly by his expectation of the Parousia (vv. 29–31) , and partly by the exigencies of an era of persecution (v. 26). In a later Pauline Epistle marriage becomes a type of the union between Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22–33) . And if by his injunction as to the silence of women in the Church (1 Co 14:34ff.) the Apostle appears to limit the prophetic freedom of the first Christian days (Ac 2:4, 17), we must remember that he is writing to a Church set in the midst of a dissolute Greek city, where Christian women had special reasons for caution in the exercise of their new privileges. Elsewhere he announces the far-reaching principle that in Christ Jesus ‘there can be no male and female’ (Gal 3:28).

J. C. LAMBERT.

WONDERS. (Heb. mōphēth, Gr. teras; usually in OT and always in NT associated with

Heb. ’ōth, Gr. sēmeion, Eng. ‘sign’).—In OT the term ordinarily occurs with reference to the miracles at the time of the deliverance from Egypt (Ex 7:3 etc.)—Jehovah’s ‘wonders in the land of Ham’ (Ps 105:27). In NT it is used of the miracles wrought by Jesus (Ac 2:22 etc.), those demanded of Him by the people (Jn 4:48); those of the Apostles and the early Church (Ac 2:43 etc.); those which should be wrought by false Christs (Mt 24:24 = Mk 13:22). It refers primarily to the astonishment produced by a miraculous event, and so it is significant that, as applied to the miracles of Jesus, it is always conjoined with some other term. His miracles were not mere prodigies exciting astonishment, but ‘signs and wonders,’ that appealed at the same time, through their evidential value, to the reason and spirit. And yet Jesus preferred the intuitive faith that is independent alike of wonders and of signs (Jn 4:48). See, further, MIRACLES, SIGN.

J. C. LAMBERT.

WOOD.—See FOREST, also WRITING, 6.

WOOL.—Woollen stuffs were much used for clothes (LV 13:47 ff., Pr 31:13 etc.); mainly, however, for outer garments. For underwear, linen was preferred, as being cooler and cleaner. Wool, falling swiftly a prey to moths and larvæ (Is 51:8 etc.), was not used for wrapping the dead. A garment of mingled wool and linen might not he worn (Lv 19:19, Dt 22:11). Josephus says this was reserved exclusively for the priests (Ant. IV. viii. 11). Dyed wool is referred to (He 9:12, cf. Lv 14:4f.), but its natural colour, white, makes it the criterion of whiteness and purity ( Ps 147:16, Is 1:18, Dn 7:9, Rev 1:14). Wool was a valuable article of commerce (Ezk 27:18), and it figures in the tribute paid by king Mesha (2 K 3:4).

W. EWING.

WORD.—Apart from the personal use of ‘Word’ as a title of Christ (see LOGOS) , its Biblical interpretation presents few difficulties. Both in the OT and in the NT the original terms employed may pass from the meaning ‘speech’ to signify ‘the subject matter of speech.’ In some passages there is uncertainty as to whether the tr. should be ‘word’ or ‘thing.’ For example, 1 K 11:41 RVm has ‘or words, or matters’ as alternatives to ‘the acts of Solomon.’ In Ac 8:21 ‘thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter’ probably means’ in the matter in dispute,’ which was the coveted power of imparting the gifts of the Holy Spirit; but the RVm ‘word’ is preferred by some expositors, who think that the reference is to the word preached by the Apostles and its attendant blessings (cf. Mk 1:45, Lk 1:2). The EV retains ‘word’ in Mt 18:16 and 2 Co 13:1, although Dt 19:15 reads: ‘At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall every matter be established.’

J. G. TASKER.

WORLD

1. In OT.—In general it may be said that the normal expression for such conception of the

Universe as the Hebrews had reached is ‘the heavens and the earth’ (Gn 1:1, Ps 89:11, 1 Ch 16:31), and that ‘world’ is an equivalent expression for ‘earth.’ So far as there is a difference, the ‘world’ is rather the fruitful, habitable earth, e.g., ‘the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein’ (Ps 24:1; cf. 50:12, 90:2, Is 34:1). The religious sentiments awakened by the contemplation of Nature appear also in references to the heavens and the sea (e.g. Ps 8, 19, Job 38, 39). But of the ethical depreciation of the world, so prominent in some NT writings, there are in the OT few traces. The ‘world’ is to be judged in righteousness ( Ps 9:8, 96:13, 98:9), and punished for its evil (Is 13:11). The transient character of its riches and pleasures, with the consequent folly of absorption in them, is perhaps indicated by another Hebrew word (meaning ‘duration‘; cf. ‘æon’ below) rendered ‘world’ at Ps 17:14 (‘men of the world, whose portion is in this life,’ cf. RVm); also by the same word at Ps 49:1 (see the whole Psalm). A word of similar meaning is rendered ‘world’ in AV at Ps 73:12, Ec 3:11, but RV retains ‘world’ only in the latter passage, and gives quite another turn to the sense.

The ethical aspect of the ‘world’ does not receive any fresh emphasis in the Apocrypha, though in the Book of Wisdom both the scientific interest in regard to the world and the impulses of natural religion are notably quickened (7:17–22, 9:9, 11:17, 22, 13:1–9 , cf. Sir 17, 18). There is ample contrast between the stability of the righteous and the vanity of ungodly prosperity (e.g. Wis 1–5) , but the latter is not identified with the ‘world.’ It is, noticeable that in the Apocrypha the word kosmos, which in the LXX means ‘adornment,’ has reached its sense of ‘world,’ conceived as a beautiful order; in the NT this becomes the prevalent word.

2. In NT.—(1) aiōn (æon), ‘age,’ is used of the world in its time-aspect: human history is conceived as made up of ages, successive and contemporaneous, converging to and consummated in the Christ. These in their sum constitute the ‘world’: God is their Maker (He 1:2 , 11:3 [AV and RV ‘worlds,’ but ‘world’ better represents the thought]) and their King (1 Ti

1:17 RVm, Rev 15:3 RV). Hence the phrases ‘since the world began,’ lit. ‘from the age’ (Lk

1:70, Jn 9:32, Ac 15:18); and ‘the end of the world,’ lit. the ‘consummation of the age’ (Mt 13:39 , 40, 49, 24:3, 28:20) or ‘of the ages’ (He 9:26). All the ‘ends of the world’ so conceived meet in the Christian era (1 Co 10:11 [RV ‘ages’], cf. He 11:39, 40). Under this time-aspect, also, the NT writers identify their own age with the ‘world,’ and this, as not merely actual but as typical, is set in new lights. As ‘this world,’ ‘this present world,’ it is contrasted explicitly or implicitly with ‘the world to come’ (Mt 12:32, Mk 10:30, Lk 18:30, 20:34, 35, Eph 1:21, 2:7, 2 Ti 4:10, Tit 2:12, He 6:5).

In some of these passages there is implied a moral condemnation of this world; elsewhere this receives deeper emphasis. ‘The cares of the world choke the word’ (Mt 13:22, Mk 4:19): the ‘sons of this world’ are contrasted with the ‘sons of light’ (Lk 16:8; cf. Ro 12:2, Eph 2:2

‘according to the transient fashion [æon] of this material world [kosmos] ’). This world is evil (Gal 1:4), its wisdom is naught (1 Co 1:20, 2:6, 3:18), its rulers crucified the Lord of glory (1 Co 2:8) ; finally, it is the ‘god of this world’ that has blinded the minds of the unhelieving (2 Co 4:4).

This ethical use of æon = ‘world’ is not found in the Johannine writings.

(2) But the most frequent term for ‘world’ is kosmos, which is sometimes extended in meaning to the material universe, as in the phrases ‘from the beginning (‘foundation,’ ‘creation’) of the world’ (e.g. Mt 24:21, 25:34, He 4:6, Ro 1:20; for the implied thought of Divine creation cf. Ac 14:17, 17:24). More commonly, however, the word is used of the earth, and especially the earth as the abode of man. To ‘gain the whole world’ is to become possessed of all possible material wealth and earthly power (Mt 16:26, Mk 8:36, Lk 9:25) . Because ‘sin entered into the world’ (Ro 5:12), it is become the scene of the Incarnation and the object of Redemption (2 Co 5:19 , 1 Ti 1:15, He 10:5, Jn 1:9, 10, 29, 3:16, 17, 12:47), the scene also, alien but inevitable, of the Christian disciple’s life and discipline, mission and victory (Mt 5:14, 13:38, 26:13, Jn 17:16, Ro 1:8, 1 Co 3:22, 4:9, 5:10, 7:31, 2 Co 1:12, Ph 2:16, Col 1:8, 1 P 5:9, Rev 11:15). From this virtual identification of the ‘world’ with mankind, and mankind as separated from and hostile to God, there comes the ethical signification of the word specially developed in the writings of St.

Paul and St. John.

(a) The Epp. of St. Paul. To the Galatians St. Paul describes the pre-Christian life as slavery to ‘the rudiments of the world’ (4:3, cf. v. 9); through Christ the world is crucified to him and he to the world (6:14). Both thoughts recur in Colossians (2:8, 20). In writing to the Corinthians he condemns the wisdom, the passing fashion, the care, the sorrow of the world (1 Co 1:20, 21, 3:19, 7:31, 33, 34, 2 Co 7:10; cf. aiōn above), and declares the Divine choice to rest upon all that the world least esteems (1 Co 1:27, 28, cf. Ja 2:5). This perception of the true worth of things is granted to those who ‘received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God’ (1 Co 2:12) ; hence ‘the saints shall judge the world’ (1 Co 6:2, cf. 11:32). In the argument of Romans the thought of the Divine judgment of the ‘world’ has incidental place, but in the climax St. Paul conceives of the ‘fall’ of Israel as leading to ‘the riches of the world,’ and of the ‘casting away’ of them as the ‘reconciling of the world’ (11:12, 16; cf. v. 32 and 5:12–21) . What. St. Paul condemns, then, is hardly the world as essentially evil, but the world-spirit which leads to evil by its neglect of the unseen and eternal, and by its blindness to the true scale of values revealed in the gospel of Christ crucified.

(b) The Gospel and First Ep. of St. John. In these two writings occur more than half the NT instances of the word we are considering. That is, the term kosmos is characteristic of St. John, and, setting aside his frequent use of it in the non-ethical sense, especially as the sphere of the incarnation and saving work of Christ, we find an ethical conception of the ‘world’ deeper in its shadows than that of St. Paul. It is true that Jesus is the Light of the world (Jn 1:9, 3:19, 8:12, 9:5, 12:46), its Life-giver (6:33, 51), its Saviour (3:17, 4:42, 12:47); yet ‘the world knew him not’ (1:10), and the Fourth Gospel sets out its story of His persistent rejection by the world, in language which at times seems to pass beyond a mere record of contemporary unbelief, and almost to assert an essential dualism of good and evil (7:7, 8:23 , 9:39, 12:31, 14:17, 30, 16:11, 20) . Here the ‘world’ is not simply the worldly spirit, but the great mass of mankind in deadly hostility to Christ and His teaching. In contrast stand His disciples, his own which were in the world’ (13:1), chosen out of the world (15:18, cf. 17:6), but not of it, and therefore hated as He was hated (15:18, 19, 17:14, 16). For them He intercedes as He does not for the world (17:8). In the 1st Ep. of St. John the same sharp contrasts meet us. The world lies within the scope of God’s redemptive purpose in Jesus Christ (2:2, 4:14), yet it stands opposed to His followers as a thing wholly evil, with which they may hold no traffic (2:15–17 , cf. Ja 4:4), knowing them not and hating them (3:1, 13). It is conceived as under the sway of a power essentially hostile to God,— the antichrist (2:18, 22, 4:3; cf. ‘the prince of this world’ Jn 12:31, 14:30, 16:11)—and is therefore not to be entreated and persuaded, but fought and overcome by the ‘greater one’ who is in the disciple of Christ (4:4 , 5:4, 5). Faith ‘overcometh the world,’ but St. John reserves for his closing words his darkest expression of a persistent dualism of good and evil, light and darkness: ‘We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one’ (5:19).

The idiomatic uses of the term ‘world’ in Jn 7:4, 12:19, 1 Jn 3:17 are sufficiently obvious. For the difficult expression ‘the world of iniquity’ applied to the tongue (Ja 3:6), see the Commentaries.

S. W. GREEN.

WORM.—1. sās, Is 51:6 (cf. Arab, sūs, a moth or a worm), the larva of a clothes-moth. See MOTH. 2. rimmāh (Ex 16:24, Job 25:6, Is 14:11). 3. tōlā‘, tōlē‘āh’ or tōla‘ath ( Ex 16:20, Job 25:6, Is 14:11, 66:24, Jon 4:7 etc.). Both 2 and 3 are used to describe the same kind of worms (cf. Ex 16:20, 24), and most references are to maggots and other insect larvæ which breed on putrid organic matter. These are very common in Palestine, occurring even on neglected sores and, of course, on dead bodies (Job 19:26, 21:26, 24:20). Jonah’s worm (tōlē‘āh) was probably some larva which attacks the roots, or perhaps a centipede. The ‘worms’ of Dt 28:39 were probably caterpillars. 4. rāqāb ( Hos 5:12 AVm). In Pr 12:4 where the same word is also tr. ‘rottenness,’ it is rendered in LXX skōlēx, ‘wood-worm,’ which seems appropriate to the context. 5. zōchălē‘ārets, ‘worms of the earth’ (Mic 7:17), may possibly refer to true earthworms (which are comparatively rare in Palestine), but more probably to serpents. See SERPENT (10). 6. skōlēx, Mk

9:44 etc. The expression ‘eaten of worms,’ used (Ac 12:23) in describing the death of Herod Agrippa I., would seem to refer to a death accompanied by violent abdominal pains, such symptoms being commonly ascribed in the Holy Land to-day to abdominal worms

(Lumbricoides)—a belief often revived by the evacuation of such worms near the time of death (cf. p. 600^a).

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

WORMWOOD (la‘ănāh, Dt 29:18, Pr 5:4, Jer 9:16, 23:16, La 3:15, 16, Am 5:7, 6:12 [in the last AV tr. ‘hemlock’]; Gr. apsinthos, Rev 8:11).—la‘ănāh was some bitter substance usually associated with gall ( wh. see); it is used metaphorically for calamity and sorrow. Tradition favours some species of Artemisia ( wormwood), of which several kinds are found in Palestine.

E. W. G. MASTERMAN.

WORSHIP.—See ADORATION, PRAISE, PRAYER, PREACHING, SYNAGOGUE, TEMPLE. In Lk 14:10 AV ‘worship’ means reverence (RV ‘glory’) from man to man.

WOT.—See WIT.

WOULD.—See WILL.

WRATH.—See ANGER, p. 34^a.

WRESTLING.—See GAMES, p. 282^b.

WRITING

1. Pre-historic—The origin of writing is not recorded in Genesis, where we should expect to find some account of it, but this omission may be intentional. Since God is represented as writing on two Tables of stone (Ex 32:16f.), it might seem improper that He should employ a human invention, while, on the other hand, there may have been no tradition that the art was first used on that occasion; the inference is therefore left to be drawn by the reader. Perhaps we may infer from the phrase in Is 8:1 that there was a style known as ‘Divine writing,’ being the character used in these Tables. The Tables themselves scarcely figure in the historical parts of the OT, neither can we from the Pentateuch learn their contents with precision; yet the tradition that such Tables at one time existed is likely to be trustworthy, and the narratives given in Ex. and Deut. imply that there were whole Tables and fragments of Tables which had to be accounted for. From the statement that they were written on both sides—afterwards grotesquely misunderstood—we may infer that they resembled stelœ in form, and perhaps the original should be rendered by that word.

2. Origin of writing among the Israelites.—It is improbable that the OT contains any documents which in their written form are earlier than the time of David, when we first hear of an official scribe (2 S 8:17). The question of the date at which writing was first in use in Palestine is absolutely distinct from that of its earliest employment by Israelites, though the two are often confused. There is no evidence of Israel ever having employed the cuneiform script or any form of hieroglyphic writing, though both may have been familiar in Palestine before the rise of the Israelitish State. Probably, then, their earliest writing was alphabetic, but whence the Israelites got the art is a question of great difficulty, never likely to be cleared up. It is certain that Hebrew orthography is etymological, i.e. fixed in many cases by the history of the word as well as by its pronunciation, and this being so, it must have come down by tradition from an earlier stage of the language; yet of this earlier language we have no monuments. The possibilities are: (1) that the Israelitish tribes contained men with whom knowledge of writing was hereditary; (2) that when they settled in Canaan—however we interpret this phrase—they took over the language, and with it the writing and orthography, of the earlier inhabitants; (3) that when the immigrants were settled, teachers of this art, among others, were sent for to Phœnicia. The second of these hypotheses has most in its favour, as it accounts best for the differences between Hebrew and Phœnician spelling.

3. Character of writing.—The alphabet employed by the Israelites consists of 22 letters, written from right to left, serving for 28 or more sounds, not including vowels, which some of the consonants assist in representing. The OT, which bas no grammatical terms, never alludes to these signs by name; yet we learn a few letter-names, not from their being employed to denote letters, but from their use as names of objects resembling those letters: these are Wāw and Tāw, meaning ‘hook’ and ‘cross’ (like our T-square, etc.), and it seems possible that two more such names may lurk in Is 28:10. From the story in Jg 12:6 it might be inferred that the letter-names were not yet known at the time; still those which figure in the Hebrew grammars must be of great antiquity, as is evinced by the Greeks having borrowed them. The Greek names are evidently taken from an Aramaic dialect, and of this language some of the names used by the Jews (Nūn, Rēsh) show traces. These names have often been thought to be taken from the appearance of the letters—or perhaps it should be said that the letters were originally pictures of the objects which their names denote—but it is difficult to draw up a consistent scheme based on this theory. The familiar order is found in the alphabetic Psalms and in Lamentations, and in the cypher of Jeremiah (25:26 etc., if the traditional explanation of those passages be trustworthy). Of the existence of any graphic signs other than the letters there is no evidence, though it is likely that the signs used by the neighbouring peoples to express units, decades, scores, and centuries were known to the Israelites, and they may also have had the dividing line between words, though the mistakes in the text of the OT due to wrong division show that it was not regularly used; a dividing point is used in the Siloam inscription. Isaiah, as has been seen, distinguishes ‘human writing’ or ‘the writing of ‘ĕnōsh’ from some other; and it would be in accordance with analogy that the spread of the art should lead to the formation of a variety of scripts. The style current, as exhibited in the inscription mentioned, and in a weight and a few gems, differs very slightly from that in use in the Phœnician settlements, of which the history is traceable from the 8th or 9th cent. B.C. down to Roman times. The papyri recently discovered at Elephantine show that in the 5th cent. B.C. a different and more cursive hand was used for Aramaic by the Jewish exiles; we should probably be correct in assuming that a similar hand was employed for Hebrew papyri also, in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

The square character, according to the Jewish tradition, was substituted for the older writing ( of which a variety is preserved in the Samaritan script) in copies of the Law by Ezra, but this can be regarded only as a conjecture. The modern character first appears in Hebrew inscriptions of the 1st cent. A.D., and a somewhat similar type in Palmyrene texts of nearly the same date; yet for certain purposes the older style was retained by the Jews, e.g. for coins, which show the ancient character even in Bar Cochba’s time. Still the numerous errors in the LXX version which owe their explanation to the confusion of similar letters, show that an alphabet similar to that now in use must have been employed for writing the Law as early as the 2nd or perhaps the 3rd cent. B.C.; and the allusion in Mt 5:18 to Yod as the smallest letter of the alphabet, shows that the employment of this alphabet was familiar at that time. The change by which it had superseded the older scripts is likely to have been gradually rather than suddenly accomplished. The square character differs from the older, among other things, in the possession of five final forms, four of which are in fact nearer the older script than the initial forms; this innovation seems to be connected with the practice, adopted from the Greeks, of employing the letters for numeration, when five extra letters were required to provide signs for 500–900 . That this practice was borrowed from the Greeks is confirmed by the Rabbinical use of the Gr. word gematria, ‘geometry,’ to denote it. The exact sense of the word rendered ‘tittle’ In Mt 5:18 is unknown; attempts have at times been made to interpret the word from the strokes called in the later Jewish calligraphy tāgīn.

4. Later history of Hebrew writing.—Of other signs added to the letters the only kind which can claim any considerable antiquity are the puncta extraordinaria, dots placed over certain letters or words (e.g. ‘and he kissed him’ in Gn 33:4) to indicate that they should be

‘expunged,’ a term which literally means ‘to point out.’ This practice was common to both Western and Eastern scribes in the early centuries of our era, and even before; and it has rightly been inferred from the occurrence of these dots that all our copies of the Hebrew OT go back to one, of no great accuracy. In Bible times the process of erasure is indicated by a word signifying ‘to wipe out’ (Ex 32:32), apparently with water (Nu 5:23), whereas in Rabbinical times a word which probably signifies ‘to scratch out’ is ordinarily employed. The NT equivalent is ‘to smear out,’ e.g. Col 2:14 etc. During the period that elapsed between the fall of Jerusalem and the completion of the Tradition, various rules were invented for the writing of the Law. which are collected in the Tract called Sōpherīm; these involved the perpetuation of what were often accidental peculiarities of the archetype, and the insertion in the text of signs, the meaning of which had in certain cases been forgotten. A much more important addition to the text is later than the completion of the Talmuds, viz. the introduction of a system of signs indicating the vocalization and musical pitch or chant. Of the former, two systems are preserved, an Eastern and a Western, but the familiar Western system won general acceptance. The invention and elaboration of these systems stand in some relation to the efforts made by Syrian Christians and Moslems to perpetuate the correct vocalization and intonation of their sacred books and facilitate their acquisition; and indeed the Jewish inventions seem based on those already employed by Syrians and Arabs, and both in form and in nomenclature bear evidence of this origin. It would seem, however, that the first employment of vowel-signs for a Semitic language is to he found in the monuments of pagan Abyssinia. We should expect the introduction of extraneous signs into the sacred page to meet with violent opposition, yet of this we have no record; there is, however, evidence that the employment of the same signs for the punctuation of non-Biblical texts was disapproved by a party. The Karaite Jews appear to have saved the text from these additions by the expedient of transliterating it into Arabic characters, but this practice was soon abandoned, and the MSS which illustrate it belong to a limited period.

Some record of the process by which the text was vocalized would be welcome, for without this it has to he re-constructed by analogies drawn from the history of the Koran, which itself is imperfectly known. There are clearly many cases in which the vocalization has been affected by dogmatic considerations; it is not, however, certain that the punctuators were responsible for this, as there is evidence that before the invention of vowel-signs there were cases where fault was found with the traditional vocalization. The familiar series of variants known as Qerē, opposed to Kethībh, appears to embody suggestions for the improvement of the text, dating from various ages. So elaborate a task as the vocalization must have been accomplished by a large and authoritative committee, labouring for at least some years; but whether there was any reason for secrecy or not, there is ground for thinking that even in the 9th cent. the memory of the event was exceedingly hazy.

5. Character of writers.—The OT gives little information on such subjects as schools and methods of instruction. In Isaiah’s time (29:11, 12) an ordinary Israelite might or might not be able to read; apparently, however, such knowledge was usual in the higher classes (8:2), and the same seems to he implied by a scene in Jeremiah (ch. 36), whereas the precepts of Deuteronomy from their wording (6:9) rather suggest that the process of writing would be familiar to every

Israelite, and in one case (24:1) distinctly imply it. Of association of the art of writing with the priestly caste there is perhaps no trace except in Nu 5:23, where a priest has to write a magical formula; and the fact that in later times the order of scribes was quite distinct from that of priests shows that there was no such association. Unless we are to infer from Jg 5:14 that the art of writing was cultivated at an early time in the tribe of Zebulun, it would appear that the foreign policy of David first led to the employment of a scribe (2 S 8:17), such a person doubtless corresponding with the kātib or munshi’ of Mohammedan States, whose business it is to write letters for the sovereign, himself often unacquainted with the art; these persons set the fashion and invent the technicalities which other writers adopt. Less distinguished scribes attach themselves to particular individuals, at whose dictation they write (as Baruch for Jeremiah), or earn their living by writing and reading letters for those who require the service. Closely connected with this profession ls that of copyist, but the development of the latter in Israel seems to have been peculiar. In Deuteronomy Moses writes the Law himself (31:24), and the kings are to make their own copies (17:18); of a professional copyist of the Law we do not hear till the time of Ezra, who is clearly regarded as editor as well as copyist; and though the word ‘scribe’ technically means one who copies the Law, its sense in Sirach (10:5 etc.) approaches that of savant, while in the NT it might be rendered by ‘theologian.’

Publication in ancient times was usually effected by recitation, whence one copy would serve for a large community; but the employment of writing altogether for the composition and perpetuation of books appears to have commenced late in Israelitish history. Thus Solomon’s ‘wisdom’ was spoken, not written (1 K 4:32–34), and those who wished to profit by it had to come and hear the king, who may be thought of as holding séances for the recitation of his works. In Isaiah’s time the amount of a prophecy written appears to have been confined to just sufficient to remind the hearer of its content (8:1); and this might he attested by witnesses. When the prophecies of Jeremiah were written at length, the process appears to have been regarded as an innovation of which some account was required (36:17); but after this time it seems to have become familiar, and in Hab 2:1 the prophet is commanded to write his prophecy clearly, to enable it to be read easily. Of a written Law, apart from the tradition of the Two Tables, there seems to be little or no trace prior to the discovery of Deuteronomy; how the older code embodied in Exodus was preserved is not known. Official chronicles—perhaps engraved on stone, but this is uncertain—seem to have commenced in the time of David, when we first hear of an official called ‘the recorder’ (2 S 8:16); and to his age or that of his successor it is possible that certain collections of tribal lays go back, which afterwards furnished the basis of prose histories whose substance is preserved in the Pentateuch and following books; but the older theory of the documents contained in the Pentateuch (e.g. Ex. 13:8) is that the memory of events would be preserved by ceremonies, accompanied with explanatory formulæ, rather than by written monuments. The founding of libraries ( cf. 2 Mac 2:13) and circulation of literature in masses probably belong to post-exilic times, when Ecclesiastes can complain that too many books are written (12:12), and Daniel thinks of the OT as a library (9:2). But for legal and commercial purposes (as well as epistolography) the use of writing was common in pre-exilic times. So Jezebel sends a circular note in many copies (1 K 21:8), which bear the king’s seal, probably in clay (Job 38:14); Job (13:26 and 31:35) thinks of his indictment as written, and Isaiah (10:1) appears to condemn the practice of drawing up documents fraudulently. Contracts of divorce and purchase of land are mentioned by Jeremiah (3:8, 32:14 etc.), the latter requiring attestation by witnesses. The images of Is 34:16, Ps 139:16 etc. appear to be taken from the practice of bookkeeping, which ben-Sira in the 2nd cent. B.C. so strongly recommends (42:7). Of genealogical rolls we hear first in post-exilic times, but the comparison of 1 Ch 9 with Neh 11 shows that such documents were sometimes old enough to make it difficult for the archæologists to locate them with certainty. In the Persian period a few new terms for writings and copies were introduced into Hebrew, and we hear of translations (Ezr 4:7 ‘written in Aramaic and translated into Aramaic,’ where the first ‘Aramaic’ is surely corrupt), and of foreign scripts being learned by Jews (Dn 1:4). In Esther we read of an elaborate system in use in the Persian empire for the postage of royal communications.

On the whole, we are probably justified in asserting that the notion connected with writing in the classical period of Hebrew literature was rather that of rendering matter permanent than that of enabling it to reach a wide circle. Hence the objection that some have found to the Two Tables of stone being hidden away in the ark (unlike the Greek and Roman decrees engraved on public stelœ) is not really a valid one; the contents are supposed to be graven on the memory (Jer 31:33) , the written copy serving merely as an authentic text for possible reference in case of doubt—like the standard measures of our time. This theory is very clearly expressed in Dt 31:26 and 1 S 10:25, and renders it quite intelligible that the Law should have been forgotten, and recovered after centuries of oblivion. Such instruction as was given to the young was in all probability without the use of any written manuals, and in the form of traditions to be committed to memory. ‘We have heard with our ears and our fathers have told us’ (Ps 44:1) is the formula by which the process of acquiring knowledge of ancient history is described. The conception of the Law as a book to be read, whereas other literary matter was to be learned and recited without note, is due to the growth of synagogal services, such as commenced long after the first Exile. Even in the time of Josephus it would appear that a community rather than an individual was ordinarily the possessor of a copy of the Law, whence the term ‘to read,’ as in Lk 10:26, is the formula employed in quoting texts of Scripture only, whereas ‘to repeat’ would be used when the Tradition was cited. Both were doubtless habitually committed to memory and so cited, whence it comes that quotations are so often inaccurate.

6. Writing materials.—The ordinary verb used in Hebrew for ‘writing’ has in Arabic as its primary sense that of sewing or stitching, whence it might be inferred that the earliest form of writing known to the peoples who employ that word consisted in embroidery or the perforation of stuffs and leaves. More probably the sense of ‘writing’ comes through an intermediate signification to put together, make a list, compose, of which we have examples in Jg 8:14, Is 10:19, and perhaps Hos 8:12 and Pr 22:20; this sense is preserved in Arabic in the word katībah, ‘regiment or list of men enrolled.’ From the Heb. word kāthabh, then, we learn nothing as to the nature of the material; more is indicated by a rarer word chāqaq, lit. ‘to scratch,’ which implies a hard surface, such as that of stone or wood; and of ‘books’ of this sort, calculated to last for ever, we read in Is 30:8 and Job 19:23, 24. Wooden staves are specified as material for writing in Nu 17:2 and Ezk 37:16; and a ‘polished surface,’ probably of metal, in Is 8:1. The instrument (AV pen) employed in this fast case has a peculiar name: that which was employed on stone was called ‘ēt, and was of iron, with a point at times of some harder substance, such as diamond (Jer 17:1). There appears to be a reference in Job (l.c.) to the practice of filling up the scratches with lead for the sake of greater permanence, but some suppose the reference to be rather to leaden tablets. At some time near the end of the Jewish kingdom, the employment of less cumbrous materials came into fashion, and the word for ‘book’ (sēpher) came to suggest something which could be rolled or unrolled, as in Is 34:4, where a simile is drawn from the latter process, and Is 37:14, where a letter from the king of Assyria—which we should expect to be on clay—is ‘spread out’; in the parallel narrative of 2 Kings this detail is omitted. Allusions to rolls become common in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and though their material is not specified, it was probably papyrus; but skins may also have been employed. For writing on these lighter substances, reeds and pigments were required; references to the latter are to be found in Jer 36:18, Ezk 23:14, but of the former (3 Jn 13 (‘pen’)) there is no mention in the OT, though it has been conjectured that the name of the graving tool was used for the lighter Instrument (Ps 45:1); the later Jews adopted the Greek name, still in use in the East, and various Greek inventions connected with the preparation of skins. To an instrument containing ink and probably pens, worn at the waist, there is a reference in Ezk 9:2 (EV inkhorn), and to a penknife in Jer 36:23.

In Roman times parchment appears to have been largely used for rough copies and notes, and to this there is a reference in 2 Ti 4:13. The Apostolic letters were written with ink on papyrus (2 Co 3:3, 2 Jn 5, 12 etc.). Zacharias (Lk 1:63) uses a tablet, probably of wood filled in with wax.

Literary works, when rolls were employed, were divided into portions which would fill a roll of convenient size for holding in the hand: on this principle the division of continuous works into ‘books’ is based, while in other cases a collection of small pieces by a variety of authors was crowded into a single roll. The roll form for copies of the Hebrew Scriptures was maintained long after that form had been abandoned (perhaps as early as the 2nd cent.) for the quire by Christians in the case of Greek and Syriac copies. The quire was employed, it would appear, only when the material was parchment, the roll form being still retained for papyrus. Paper was brought from the far East by Moslems in the 7th cent. A.D., when factories were founded at Ispahan and elsewhere, and owing to its great cheapness it soon superseded both papyrus and parchment for ordinary purposes. The Jews, however, who were in possession of a system of rules for writing the Law on the latter material, did not readily adopt the new invention for multiplying copies of the Sacred Books.

7. Writing as affecting the text.—It has often been shown that accuracy in the modern sense was scarcely known in ancient times, and the cases in which we have parallel texts of the same narrative in the Bible show that the copyists took very great liberties. Besides arbitrary alterations, there were others produced accidentally by the nature of the rolls. The writing in these was in columns of breadth suited to the convenience of the eye; in some cases lines were repeated through the eye of the scribe wandering from one column to another. Such a case probably occurs in Gn 4:7, repeated from 3:16. Omissions were ordinarily supplied on the margin, whence sometimes they were afterwards inserted in a wrong place. There is a notable case of this in Is 38:21, 22, whose true place is learned from 2 K 20:7, 8. Probably some various readings were written on the margin also, and such a marginal note has got into the text of Ps 40:7b. Ancient readers, like modern ones, at times inserted their judgment of the propositions of the text in marginal comments. Such an observation has got into the text in 2 Mac 12:45 ‘it is a holy and godly thought,’ and there are probably many more in which the criticism of an unknown reader has accidentally got embodied with the original: Ec 10:14 appears to contain a case of this sort. A less troublesome form of insertion was the colophon, or statement that a book